Prepared For
THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
MATHEMATICAL MODELS FOR WATER QUALITY
FOR THE
HUDSON CHAMPLAIN AND METROPOLITAN
COASTAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROIECT
HYDROSCIENCE, INC.
Leonia, New Jersey
-------
The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
MATHEMATICAL MODELS FOR WATER QUALITY
FOR THE
HUDSON-CHAM PLAIN AND METROPOLITAN
COASTAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECT
Prepared By
HYDROSCIENCE, INC.
(Sotuulianl* in QjPaUr &ollution (Sonirol
316 BROAD AVENUE
LEONIA. NEW JERSEY 07609
April 1968
-------
HYDROSCIENCE, INC.
(Consultants in QjPaler &ollulion (Control
316 BROAD AVENUE
LEONIA, NEW JERSEY 07609
201-Wl 4-9330
DONALD J. O'CONNOR Associates
EDWIN L BARNHART THOMAS J. MULLIGAN
JOHN L. MANCINI JOHN P. ST. JOHN
April 1968
Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration
Rcritan Arsenal
Metuchen, New Jersey
Attention Mr. Paul De Falco
Gentlemen:
In accordance with our Contract No. Ph—86—65—125, we are
submitting herewith our final report entitled "Mathematical Models for
Water Quality for the Hudson-Champlain and Metropolitan Coastal
Water Pollution Control Project. " This report presents the development
procedures and specific water quality models for the waterways extending
from the lock at Troy, New York to the Atlantic Ocean including the
Raritan River and New York Harbor Complex.
The mathematical models may provide response functions relating
receiving water quality to various inputs of waste water under steady-
state conditions. In addition, the models can be employed to evaluate
the influence of existing waste discharges on present water quality and to
provide a method of testing the effectiveness of alternative pollution
abatement and control facilities.
We would like to express our appreciation for the assistance and
cooperation of the members of your staff who participated in this project,
and in particular to Messrs. Parke, Gritzuk, and Shotwell.
Very truly yours, Very truly yours,
t \
John L. Mancini Donald J. O'Connor
-------
ERRATA
Mathematical Models for Water Quality
for the Hudson-Champlain and Metropolitan Coastal
Water Pollution Control Project
Prepared for
The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
by
Hydroscience Inc.
Leonia, N.J.
April 1968
Page 24 In Equation ( 8 ), Q should be -Q
Page 26 In the equation above Equation ( 12 ), it should read -+RK
Page 31 In Equation ( 15 ), W should be multiplied by F
Page 35 In Table 2, under application of Uniform BOD Discharge
W, under Deficit Equation, the first DK should be multi-
plied by F
Page 80 In Equation ( 46b ), YB ( I ) should be changed to read
YD (I)
Page 89 Under Class 11 Boundary Condition, DFORC(J), B ( KK )
should be multiplied by VOL ( KK )
Under Class 12 Boundary Condition, DFORC(J), AK ( KK )
should be DK ( KK ) and B ( KK ) should be multiplied by
VOL(KK )
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Summary 3
Conclusions 16
Recommendati ons 19
Theory 21
Methods of Analysis 66
Method for Evaluation and Presentation of Boundary
Conditions for Complex Estuaries 73
Study Area - Component Waterways and Segmentation 99
Loads and System Inputs 154
Preliminary Values of System Parameters 168
Available Data on Water Quality and System Inputs 176
Sensitivity 183
Discussion 201
Lakes 216
Discussion - Lakes 234
Nomenclature - Stream and Estuary 241
Nomenclature - Lake Models 245
Appendix A
Appendix B
-------
le I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Page
15
35
43
79
86
91
95
96
97
119
120
121
139
140
145
146
LIST OF TABLES
State of Development of Mathematical Models
Summary of Equations for Steady State Stream Analysis
Summary of Equations for Steady State Estuary Analysis
Functional Forms
Derivative of Functional Forms
Application of Boundary Classification
Functional Form for Example Problem
Boundary Classifications for Example Problem
Matrix for Example Problem
Boundary Conditions for Raritan River Model
Equations for Raritan River Model
Definition of Symbols for the Raritan River Model
Functional Forms for New York Harbor Complex Model
Boundary Condition for New York Harbor Complex Model
Functional Forms Hudson Estuary Model
Boundary Classifications Hudson Estuary Model
-------
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24a
24b
24c
25
26
27
Page
150
153
155
156
157
158
159
164
165
166
170
171
172
LIST OF TABLES
Boundary Classification for Water Quality Model
Extending from Troy, New York to the
Atlantic Ocean
Functional Forms for Water Quality Model from
Troy, New York to the Atlantic Ocean
New York Harbor Loads
Arthur Kill Domestic Loads
Arthur Kill Industrial Loads
Municipal Loads Middle Hudson
Loads Raritan River
Population and Load New York City - .1920
Population and Load New York City - 1950
Population and Load New York City - 1960
New York Harbor Preliminary Estimates of Parameters
Hudson Estuary Preliminary Estimates of Parameters
Raritan River Preliminary Estimates of Parameters
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7<
71
7<
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Example for Applying the General Boundary Conditions
94
Study Area
100
Sketch of New York Harbor Complex
101
Schematic of East River System
103
Area and AK vs Distance Lower East River
104
Area and AK vs Distance Upper East River
105
Schematic of North River System - Load in
North River
107
Schematic of North River System - Load in
East River
108
Schematic of North River System - Load in
Upper Harbor
109
Area vs Distance North River
110
AK vs Distance North River
111
Area and AK vs Distance Harlem River
112
Area Plot Arthur Kill
114
Schematic of Raritan River System
116
Area and AK - Raritan River
117
Area Plot Middle Hudson River
126
AK Plot Middle Hudson River
126
-------
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Page
127
131
132
137
143
144
149
163
177
179
180
187
188
189
190
191
LIST OF FIGURES
Schematic Middle Hudson Model
Schematic of Upper Hudson
Area and AK of Upper Hudson
Schematic of New York Harbor Complex
Schematic Hudson Estuary
Area Plot Hudson Estuary
Schematic Study Area Model
Load and Population Estimates New York City
Location Map of New York City Department
of Public Works Stations
Seasonal Influence on New York City Department
of Public Works Data
Seasonal Influence on New York City Department
of Public Works Data
Sensitivity Planes
Sensitivity Planes
Sensitivity Planes
Sensitivity Planes
Sensitivity Planes
-------
j re
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Page
193
194
196
198
204
205
206
207
208
209
230
LIST OF FIGURES
Zero Flow Anal/sis Sensitivity
Zero Flow Analysis Sensitivity
Sensitivity Plane DK vs AK
System Sensitivity to Exchange
North River Calculated Profiles and Observed Data
North River Calculated Profiles and Observed Data
North River Calculated Profiles and Observed Data
East River Calculated Profiles and Observed Data
East River Calculated Profiles and Observed Data
East River Calculated Profiles and Observed Data
Lake Profile and Sampling Location
-------
INTRODUCTION
Water discharges from urban population centers, industries,
rural runoff, and storm overflows carry significant quantities of nutri-
ents, organic and inorganic pollution to our waterways. Programs to
control water quality invariably require large capital and operating
expenditures. Among the specific procedures which have been con-
sidered for pollution and water quality control are treatment plant
construction, low flow augmentation, transportation of wastes and
dispersion in oceans.
It is both desirable and essential that a realistic assessment
be obtained of the degree of water quality improvement and control
which will actually result from pollution control activities. In addi-
tion, economies in capital and operating expenditures can be associ-
ated with a systematic evaluation of alternative control procedures
considering water quality management on a drainage basin and/or
regional basis. It is the purpose of this report to present the mathemati-
cal models which will permit an assessment of water quality conditions
and the improvements associated with various control procedures.
- 1 -
-------
The mathematical models for water quality presented in this
report may provide the basic tools for developing a rational systematic
approach to water quality management in the region of concern to the
Hudson-Champlain Metropolitan Coastal Project. Specifically, the
models may be applied to evaluate the influence of existing sources
of pollution on present water quality. In addition, the models will
provide a means of evaluating the effectiveness of alternative water
quality control procedures. The mathematical models for water qual-
ity can be employed to predict the system response in conjunction
with optimization techniques, thus delineating the least costly solu-
tions for obtaining desired water quality objectives.
-2 -
-------
SUMMARY
Mathematical models of water quality and pollution for the
various bodies of water encompassed by the study area have been de-
veloped and are presented in this report. They include the various
phenomena and inputs which affect the quality of the water. The models
may be used to evaluate present quality conditions and to predict future
conditions. They are particularly useful in assessing alternate methods
of improving water quality.
The models for water quality relate the phenomena of advec-
tion, reaction, and dispersion in a manner which permits the calculation
of concentration profiles for substances which are significant in water
quality or pollution studies:
1. Advection is characterized by the fresh water
velocity which transports pollutants and other
material out of the estuary or stream.
2. Reaction is characterized by the reaction rate
which is characteristic of the decay of organic
matter, bacteria death rates, and decay of
radioactive material. Reactions may act as
sources or sinks of material.
-3 -
-------
3. Dispersion is characterized by the parameter "E11.
This phenomenon is present, to a significant ex-
tent, in tidal bodies of water and represents a
spreading of material upstream and downstream
from the source of pollution.
The three phenomena are taken into account by developing
a material balance around a differential element of the stream or estuary.
The resultant differential equations for conservative substances, such as
chlorides and reactive substances, such as BOD, bacteria die-off, and
dissolved oxygen deficit are:
Conservative
Reactive
3 C _ r <9 C _ J. J C
^ t 9x2 o)x
2
^ = E 44- - U 4^ - RK . L + Y,
<3 * <^x2 «^x b
Dissolved Oxygen Deficit
= ' E4"T+ u^ + ak. D + Y
t o» 2 c) x d
-------
Where:
t = Time
x = Distance
C, L, and D = Concentration of the substances under study
E
= Dispersion parameter
U
= Fresh water velocity
RK
= Removal coefficient
AK
= Atmospheric reaeration coefficient
Yb
= Sources and sinks of BOD
Yd
= Sources and sinks of deficit
Assuming steady-state conditions:
Equations ( 1 ) to (3 ) can be integrated to yield:
Conservative
Reactive
S • x V • x
L = Be + Ce X + YB
Dissolved Oxygen Deficit
D = GeS° ' X + HeVD ' X + YD
-------
where:
A, A, B, C, G, and H are constant to be evaluated by
consideration of the boundary conditions.
S and V Contain the parameters U, E, RK
SD and VD Contain the parameters U, E, AK
YB = The particular integral of the BOD
source and sink terms
YD = The particular integral of the deficit
source and sink terms and always in-
cludes the BOD solution equation ( 6 )
Equations (4 ), (5 ), and (6 ) are developed on the assump-
tion of constant values of the parameters U, E, RK, and AK. These
equations are applicable to any section of an estuary where the assump-
tion of constant parameter values is valid. The estuary must be seg-
mented at locations where the value of a parameter changes, at loca-
tions of point waste inputs and at locations of changes in the sources or
sinks of material. The appropriate equation ( Equation (4 ), (5 ), or
( 6 ), depending on the substance being studied) is then applied to
each of the sections formed by the segmentation process. The unknown
coefficients are evaluated by considering the boundary conditions at
- 6 -
-------
the junction points of adjacent segments. In effect, the boundary con-
ditions at each junction of sections couples the several segments into a
single system interrelated through the values of the appropriate unknown
coefficients. Considering the BOD solution as an example, the sections
formed by segmentation are coupled into a single system by evaluation
of boundary conditions at the junction points between sections. The
values of the unknown coefficients B and C in any section will reflect
the phenomena occurring in all other sections of the system.
The total number of boundary conditions that must be evalu-
ated in any system is equal to twice the number of segments in the sys-
tem. There are three classes of boundary condition equations which
can be specified. These are:
1. Infinity conditions:
At locations remote from a waste source, the
anticipated BOD and dissolved oxygen deficit
attributable to the waste source should approach
or be equal to zero. This can be stated mathe-
matically by evaluating the BOD or dissolved
oxygen deficit equation, at positive or negative
infinity.
- 7 -
-------
2. Concentration equality;
At the junction of two segments, the BOD and
dissolved oxygen deficit calculated by the
equation in either segment must be the same.
Thus, the profile equation in the upstream seg-
ment must equal the profile equation in the
downstream segment at the junction of the two
segments.
3. Mass balance:
It is possible to develop a material balance
around an element at the junction of two
sections. The quantity of BOD and dissolved
oxygen deficit entering the element must equal
the quantity of BOD and deficit leaving the
element.
Proper application of the three general classes of boundary
conditions indicated above will generate sufficient equations to evalu-
ate all unknown coefficients.
At every junction of "n" segments ( n must be greater than
one ), a single mass balance equation, and ( n - 1 ) concentration
- 8 -
-------
equations can be specified. If one end of a section is not bounded by
adjacent segments, the infinity boundary condition may be applied.
Evaluation of the boundary condition equations linking ad-
jacent segments results in a series of simultaneous equations equal to
the number of unknown coefficients. It is convenient to arrange
these unknown equations into a matrix and employ standard techniques
to evaluate each of the unknown coefficients. In order to facilitate
setting up the matrix of unknown coefficients, a series of general
boundary condition equations have been developed and tabulated in
this report. The boundary equations are presented in terms of the
elements of the matrix and the forcing functions. All specific bound-
ary condition equations required to mathematize the study area have
been included in the tabulation.
Two techniques of presenting the matrix have been em-
ployed in this report. In the first instance, the actual elements of
the matrix have been presented in standard matrix form. For large
systems the matrix is presented in tabular form, defining the general
boundary equation which is applicable and the specific section num-
bers to be employed in the equation.
- 9 -
-------
Three scales of models have been developed for the study
area. In the first instance, the component waterways have been
divided into subsystems and mathematical models developed for the
component water ways. These models contain the maximum number
of simplifying assumptions and are relatively small and easy to use.
The models for the component waterways which have been developed
and transmitted as a part of this study are:
1. North River Model
a. North River in the vicinity of New York City
b. East River
c. Upper New York Harbor
d. Harlem River
2. East River Model
a. Lower East River, extending from the battery
to the Harlem River
b. Upper New York Harbor
c. Upper East River, extending from the Harlem
River into Long Island Sound
3. Arthur Kill Model
a. Arthur Kill extending into Raritan Bay
b. Newark Bay
c. Tidal exchange through Kill Van Kull
- 10 -
-------
4. Raritan River Model
a. Raritan River from the Fieldville Dam to
the confluence of the South River
b. The South River to the Duhernal Dam
c. Raritan River to the mouth at Raritan Bay
5. Middle Hudson Estuary Model
a. Extending from Saugerties, New York
to Yonkers, New York
6. Upper Hudson Estuary Model
a. Extending from the Troy lock to Saugerties,
New York
7. Lakes
a. Local pollution model
b. Stratified body model
( 1 ) Continuous in the time dimension
(2 ) Segmented in the time dimension
c. Body of water in geological time sense
The second scale of models developed and presented in
this report are for large groupings of component waterways and
specifically are for:
- 11 -
-------
1. New York Harbor Complex Model
a. Upper East River
b. Lower East River
c. Harlem River
d. Upper New York Harbor
e. North River
f. Kill Van Kull
g. Newark Bay
h. Arthur Kill
2. Raritan River Model
3. Hudson Estuary Model
Extending from Troy lock to Yonkers,
New York in a single continuous model
The second scale of models should be adequate to evaluate
the areas under study for the present. It is, however, anticipated that
future growth in the area will result in the requirement for a single
water quality model extending from Troy, New York to the Atlantic
Ocean, including all of the New York Harbor Complex and the Raritan
River. To fill this long-range need of the Hudson-Champlain and
Metropolitan Coastal Comprehensive Water Pollution Control Project,
a single water quality model is presented in this report.
- 12 -
-------
The various parameters and area relationships for each of
the component waterways and segments within the component water-
ways are tabulated- In addition, the information available on waste
loads are presented. All these data must be considered as preliminary
estimates which require future verification.
The mathematical models must be developed, programmed,
tested, and verified before they can be used to develop water quality
projections. These steps include and are defined as:
1. Developed
a. Segmentation of system
b. Establishment of the specific BOD and
deficit matrix of unknown coefficients
c„ Designation of the functional form of
the equation for each specific section
2. Programmed
a. Written computer program
b. Debugged computer program
3. Tested
a. Realistic model response to external
inputs such as waste loadings
- 13 -
-------
4. Verified
a. Sensitivity evaluation of the system to
changes in the values of parameters,
area, et a I
b. Establishment of a consistent set of
parameters
c. Obtaining agreement between observed
and calculated profiles for a satisfactory
number of flow and temperature conditions
Table 1 is presented to indicate the state of each model
and to specify those procedures required before the mathematical
models can be used for predicting water quality.
- 14 -
-------
STATE OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE MATHEMATICAL MODELS
TABLE 1
Model Descriptions Developed Programmed Tested Verified
Models with simplifying assurrptions
1. North River X XX-
2„ East River X XX-
3. Arthur Kill X XX-
4. Raritan River X XX-
5. Middle Hudson X XX-
6. Upper Hudson X XXX
7. Lakes X ** **
Large Component Models
1. New York Harbor
Complex X (X) (X)
2. Raritan River X XX-
3. Hudson Estuary X ( X )
Entire System X X
** No Programs Required
(X )ln Progress ( FWPCA Pro|ect Personnel )
- 15 -
-------
CONCLUSIONS
I. Methods have been presented for developing mathemati-
cal models for water quality in complex estuaries and streams. The
resultant models can be employed to predict water quality profiles for
conservative substances, such as salts and other chemicals, non-conser-
vative substances ( when first order reaction kinetics are considered ),
such as BOD, bacterial dieoff, radio active wastes and thermal pollu-
tion, and consecutive reactions, such as dissolved oxygen deficit and
the nitrification sequence.
II. Specific water quality models have been developed for
the component waterways of the study area:
1. North River
2. East River
3. Arthur Kill
4. Raritan River
5. Middle Hudson Estuary
6. Upper Hudson Estuary
7. New York Harbor Complex
- 16 -
-------
8. Hudson Estuary
9. Entire System
A. Hudson Estuary
B. New York Harbor Complex
C. Raritan River
III. Preliminary estimates of system geometry, parameter
values, and waste loads have been developed and are tabulated in
this report.
IV. The models have been tested employing the parameter
estimates.
V. Mathematical models for lakes have been developed
considering lakes as:
1. Corrpletely mixed bodies in a large time
scale, measured in years.
2. A two-layer system of bottom sediment and
liquid surface volume in a large time scale in years.
3. As a thermally stratified body with stratifi-
cation alternating with time of year, measured in months.
- 17 -
-------
4. A two-layered system defined by a thermo-
cline where the top and bottom liquid volumes change on
a time scale of days, weeks, or months.
5. Local lake pollution from outfalls or rivers.
- 18 -
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
I. A program should be developed which allows interplay
between the development of the mathematical models and data col-
lected in field surveys. The objective of the program is to develop
a consistent set of system parameters for the mathematical model.
This will lead to a verified mathematical model for water quality
which can be employed to generate realistic predictions of water
quality and evaluate alternative methods of obtaining desired quality
objectives.
II. Specific areas requiring additional evaluation are in-
if'
dicated with emphasis placed on the quantity and characteristicyof
waste water discharges and data on the various components of the
total nitrogen in waste discharges and receiving waters.
III. Several specific methods have been suggested for up-
grading the usefulness of existing observed water quality data. This
includes averaging observations obtained under the same temperature
conditions and locating historical observed water quality data with
respect to the.tidal cycle.
- 19 -
-------
IV. Types of measurements in the lake environment are
suggested which will provide a first step to meaningful evaluation
of water quality trends and cause and effect relationships.
- 20 -
-------
THEORY
Mathematical models for water quality relate the phenomena
of advection, reaction, and dispersion in a manner which permits the
calculation of concentration profiles for substances which are measures
of pollution or are themselves pollutants.
!. Advection is characterized by the fresh water
velocity, "U" which tends to transport pollutants
and other material out of the estuary or stream.
2. Reaction is characterized by the reaction rate, "K"
which is characteristic of the decay of organic
matter, bacteria death rates, and decay of radio-
active material. Normally, first order reaction
kinetics are assumed-.
3. Dispersion is characterized by the parameter "E".
This phenomenon is present, to a significant ex-
tent, in tidal bodies of water and represents a
spreading of material upstream and downstream,
tending to diffuse the material uniformly in the
vicinity of the source.
-21 -
-------
The three phenomena are combined by developing a
material balance around a differential element of the stream or
estuary. In addition, sources and sinks of the material are
included.
Two sets of nomenclature have been employed in this
report. One notation system is for streams and estuaries and a
separate system has been developed for lakes. A nomenclature
listing for both sets of symbols is presented at the end of this
report.
-22 -
-------
Development of Water Quality Equations
Streams
The phenomenon occurring in a stream can be related by
considering a mass balance around a differential element.
BOD with upstream load:
Positive x
Flow -Q
A mass balance is obtained over the time interval Ah The
buildup in the element is evaluated from a consideration of the material
entering and leaving through advective transport. The contributions of
sources and sinks of material within the element are also included in the
inventory.
Mass Balance:
Entering element = Q^i
dL
Leaving element = ( Lj + Ax )
Sink = V • L • RK
-23 -
-------
Equation:
If =Q1L1-Q2
at steady-state _^_L = 0
d t
0 = - §- ^ - RK • L
A dx
Q/A = U
0 = - - RK • L (9)
dx
The general solution is :
L = Ce ( - £j ) x ( 10 )
C = constant to be evaluated
-24 -
-------
BOD when a uniform discharge is in region of the element
<$>//
/ /
f /
W ( ^/mile )
Positive
Flow
Mass Balance :
. , dL
Li + srAx
Entering element =
Leaving element = ('-]+ ^ Ax ) + V • L " RK
Source = W^x
Equation :
= Q1L1+WAx-Q2(L1 + ~-Ax ) - RK'L'V ( 11 )
9
3 L _
St
= 0 ( steady-state )
0=0^=02 and A1 = A2
- 25 -
-------
Equation ( 11 ) reduces to
0 = -Q SjkAx - RK • L- V + Wax
ax
Divide by volume = V = fax • A
0 = "2. fjk - (RK ) * L + ^
A A
-RK.L
A
The general solution is :
L = Ce ( ~ — ) x
U
(12)
C = constant to be evaluated
The particular integral which must be added to Equation ( 12 )
is obtained by assuming the form of the particular integral :
yp = z
U
RK
£ = 0
dx
L = + RKz
- 26 -
-------
U i+ RKL = RK- Z - —
^ = A
W
z = A • RK
W
yp = A • RK
( 13 )
Equation ( 13 ) is the general solution for the BOD profile in
a stream in the vicinity of a uniform waste input of " W " ( pounds / mile ) •
In the above development, the rate of BOD removal was defined
by the parameter " RK " . In a natural body of water, the rate of BOD remo-
val does not necessarily equal the rate at which oxygen is utilized to satisfy
the BOD. If organic matter, having a BOD, is removed by sedimentation,
stripping, or other physical means, oxygen is not consumed in this removal of
BOD. Since these phenomena can occur, it is necessary to employ a para-
meter in the dissolved oxygen material balance which indicates the rate at
which oxygen is utilized to satisfy BOD. This parameter is defined as " DK ".
The parameter " DK " can be equal to, or less than the parameter " RK ".
The rate at which oxygen is utilized is equal to the product of
the parameter " DK " and the ultimate BOD present. For convenience of
computation, the ratio of the ultimate BOD to the five-day BOD is defined
L = Ce ( - ) x + W
U A • RK
-27-
-------
by the factor "F", subscripted for the particular waste.
Dissolved Oxygen
Oxygen is soluble in water to a limited extent, being directly
related to the partial pressure of oxygen in the atmosphere. The saturation
value of oxygen is primarily a function of salinity and temperature. The
difference between the saturation concentration and the actual concentra-
tions of oxygen is defined as the dissolved oxygen deficit.
Dissolved oxygen in natural waters can be employed to satisfy
the oxygen demand of pollutants, as measured by the BOD. As the oxygen
concentration is reduced below the saturation level, the deficit is made up
by atmospheric oxygen going into solution. This phenomenon is termed
atmospheric reaeration. It occurs at a rate equal to the product of the dis-
solved oxygen deficit and the reaeration coefficient, "AK".
The differential equation defining dissolved oxygen deficit
may be developed by constructing a material balance around a differential
element and including the various sources and sinks of dissolved oxygen
within the volume.
The material balance is developed incorporating the assumptions
that velocity and concentration are uniform across the cross-sectional area of
the stream.
- 28 -
-------
The dissolved oxygen deficit balance is constructed in a simi-
lar fashion to the BOD . A balance is made between the amounts entering,
leaving, and any sources or sinks within the element.
Mass Balance :
Entering element = Q D
1 1
Leaving element = Q ( D + ^ Ax )
2 1 ax
Sink = DK • Lx • V
Source = AK • D] • V
Equation at steady-state:
0 = -Q^AX + DK-Lx'V - AK-Dt-V
dx I
- 29 -
-------
DK • Lx • V = Q^Ax +AK-D-V
dx
Divide by volume = V = A • Ax
DK-Lx = 9- 4^ + AK-D
A dx
DK-Lx = l)dD + AK-D
dx
The quantity " Lx " is the ultimate BOD concentration at any
point, and is obtained from the BOD solution.
( -RK/U ) x
Lx = F-Ce
General solution :
0 = U3T + AKD
( - AK/U ) x
D = Ge
Particular solution :
(- **)
VD = DK • F _ ' U
yp Ce
Therefore :
( -AK/U ) x ( -RK/U ) x
D = Ge + T^W Ce < 14 >
Note that the general form of the deficit solution in streams is :
-30 -
-------
D = Ge
( -AK/U ) x
+ —- ( BOD solution )
AK-RK
sidered is :
The solution for the deficit profile when uniform loads are con-
( - AK/U ) x (-RK/U) (,5>
D = Ge + DK • F (Co ) + DK { W v
AK-RK AK RK • A
Bottom deposits in streams
//////
Positive
Flow
TTT
B #/M|2/ day
D, + iP.Ax
1 dx
Mass Balance :
Entering element = ^
Leaving element = Q I D + fJP Ax
2 1 dx J
- 31 -
-------
Source = B ¦ A* * Wl
Sink = AK ' D ' V
Equation at steady-state :
0 - -Q^ Ax - AK • D • V + B • Ax • Wl
Dividing by volume : NOTE :
Ax • Wl
Ax • A
= HT ( where HT = water depth )
0=f--AK-D+i-
dD B
0 = " AK • D + ^
General Complementary solution :
/ _ AK
t tt /x
Y = Ge U
c
It may be shown that the particular solution is
B
Yp ~ HTAK
Therefore:
(-AK/U ) x
D = Ge + B
HtAK ( 16 )
Algae can influence the dissolved oxygen deficit profile. A
daily cycle of algae respiration and oxygen production can be approximated
by a constant respiration rate, " R and an average daily photosynthesis
-32 -
-------
rate of oxygen production, " P " . The units of " R " and " P " are the
mass of oxygen used or produced per day per unit volume. Considering the
phenomena of algae utilization and production of oxygen the following ana
lysis may be made again, employing a mass balance around a differential el
ment.
N^ass Balance :
Entering element = QD
Leaving element = Q ( D Ax )
Source = R"V
Sink = AK-D-V + P-V
Equation for steady-state :
° = " AK'D*V + R*V " P*V
Dividing by volume :
, dD
o = -u™ - AK-D + (R - P )
Y = Ge
c
(-AK/U ) x
Yn = (
- / R - P
AK
(-AK/U ) x p p
D = Ge +
AK
- 33 -
-------
Table 2 presents a summary of the general equations for
streams to determine the profiles of reactive substances such as BOD
and dissolved oxygen deficit.
-34 -
-------
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF EQUATIONS FOR STEADY - STATE STREAM ANALYSIS
Application BOD Equation Deficit Equation
Upstream Load
( -RK/U ) x
L = Ce
( -AK/U ) x DK • F
D — Ge +
AK - RK
Bottom oxygen demand
A
in section (^/ft /day)
( -AK/U ) x B
D = Ge + Hy • AK
Uniform BOD discharge
W ( ^ / day / mile ) in
the section
( -RK/U ) x
L = Ce
+ w
A-RK
(
D = Ge
+ dk
AK
-AK/U )
W-F
RK-A
x DK ( -RK/U ) x
+ AK-RK 1°® J
Algae in section
( -AK/U ) x / p p x
D = Ge + ( K " '
AK
-35 -
-------
Estuaries:
The equations for evaluation of water quality in estuary sys-
tems can be developed in a manner comparable to that which is employed for
streams. A differential element is considered and a mass balance is developed.
The mass balance includes the phenomena of advection, reaction, reaeration,
and in the case of the estuary, diffusion is also included in the inventory.
Negative x
Flow
OX
Positive x
Flow
Mass Balance :
V = Tidal velocity
t 1
Entering element
C(Q +v, • A)-EA^L (^)+ ak -[cs-c] -V
Leaving element :
c[q + Va] [=~£*] -ea^[^+|ax] + Dk.lx.v
NOTE: On pages 36 and 37 C is temporarily defined as the dissolved oxygen
concentration.
-36 -
-------
Source : DK • L • V
x
Sink : AK • [Cs - C] • V
Equation at steady-state :
2
0 = (-Q+Vt*A^£Ax+EAAx±c DK-LX-V+AK[Cs-C] -V
dx dx
Divide by volume :
2
0 = -(u+vt) +e^£ - DK -LX+AK [Cs - c]
The dissolved oxygen deficit is defined as :
d =[a-c]
C =[Cs-0
and :
dc -dD
<3x =
d2c = d2D
dx2 dx2
Substituting:
2
0= (U+V,)22-Ei^-DK-LV + AK-D
t'ar dx2
At slack, or if the tidal veloc ity is averaged over a tidal cycle,
- 37 -
-------
Vj. = 0. Therefore :
DK-L = -E^+U^+AK-D
dx2 37
D = Yc + Yp
_ SDX VDX
Yc — Ge + He
From the quadratic soluHon :
1 +
[¦•t]
1/2
VD = —
2E
1/2
Using the techniques and reasoning comparable to that employed
in the stream development, it may be demonstrated that :
Yp =
DK • F
AK- RK
£ BOD solution^]
Therefore, the general equation for the dissolved oxygen deficit
profile in an estuary is :
SDX VDX DK.F
D = Ge +He + AK_RK [ BOD solution] ( 18 )
The identical development and reasoning applies to the method
of developing differential equations for conservative substances such as chlorides
-38 -
-------
and reactive substances such as BOD .
In the case of the reactive substances such as BOD, the
value of AK is zero. Thus the differential equation reduces to :
which integrates to
where:
d2L
dL
0=Edx2 ' u a? " R*L
L = B.SX+CVX
2E
1 + 1 +
4RKE
1/2
U2 J
(19)
r 4RKEI
¦H7
1/2
For conservative substances such as chloride the reaction
rate is zero and the differential equation reduces to :
d2S
dS
0 = E "sr - uaj
Root 1 = 0
Root 2 = U/E
-39"
-------
The resultant equation is :
= = (U/E)x _
C = Ae + A (20)
The coefficients "S and A can be evaluated from a con-
sideration of the boundary conditions.
Considering the presence of a uniform BOD input entering
the section of the estuary system under consideration, the differential equa-
tion defining the BOD profile at steady-state becomes :
0 = - U^k - RK-L + W
dx2 dx A
-W = eA _ ydL. RK.L
A dx2 dx
L = Yc + Yp
Yc = BeSX + CeVX
Yp is evaluated employing the identical techniques as dem-
onstrated in the section dealing with streams.
W
Yp =
A - RK
Therefore:
L = Be^ + CeW + W
A ' RK
-40-
-------
The influence of algae and bottom deposits on the dissolved
oxygen deficit can be evaluated by repeating the techniques employed in the
development of the deficit equations for streams. The resultant differential
equation is :
2
0 = -e±-£+u42+ak-d-5^-(R " P )
dx2 ^ HT
iy + (R-P)= -E^+ U— + AK • D
HT dx ck
D = Yc + Yp
SDX VDX
Yc = Ge + He
It may be demonstrated that Yp must be equal :
Yp = BU +
-------
differential equation is:
0 = + U^+AK- D -™- (R-P) - DK ¦ L
, ^ ax HT x
ax
whe re:
L =
x
SX VX
Be + Ce +
W
RK • A
D = Yc + Yp
Yc - GeSD'X ~ HeVD'X
Yp =
substituting :
DK • F
AK- RK
SX VX
Be + Ce
+ DK ' W • F ^
B R-P
+
AK-RK-A HT. AK AK
^_^SDXUVDX BU , (R—P)DK• W» F ^ DK»F
He Ht.ak ak AK.RK-A AK-RK
(23)
S-X V-
Be +Ce
Table 3 presents a summary of the applicable equations for
constant cross-sectional area estuaries for several loading conditions and phen-
omena which normally influence water quality in an estuary.
- 42 -
-------
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF EQUATIONS FOR STEADY - STATE SECTION ESTUARY ANALYSIS
First Order
Application Reacting Substances Dissolved Oxygen Deficit
Upstream or
downstream
load
SX VX
L = Be +Ce
SDX VDX SX VX
D = Ge + He + [ I [ Be +Ce ]
Upstream or
downstream
load with
bottom oxy-
gen demand,
algae
. ,.sox.hvdx. bu .ra-p
D_Ge +He +HT^+-sr
Uniform BOD
load W (^/day/mi)
in section
SX VX
L = B* +C« +A • RK
SDX VDX ' _ SX VX _ ... _
n ~ . u , , DK-Fjf. , DK • W •F
D-Ge He + f AK-RK ' [ Be +Ce AK • RK • A
Upstream or
downstream
load with uni-
form BOD
load, algae &
bottom deposit
in the section
SX vx w
L = Be +Ce +7TrR
SDX VDX ... p a n %*/ c rw c SX VX
n fs , u , BU RA-P DK • W • F , DK • F r D , _ .
o-ce +sr-an< + inr +ak -rk • a + siare [ Be +Ce 1
-------
Estuaries With Variable Cross-Sectional Areas
The material balances obtained around a differential element-
in a non-stratified estuary have been employed to develop the differential
equations describing the concentration profile of polluting substances in es-
tuaries. The estuary configuration assumed in the previous developments
was that of a constant cross-sectional area in the direction of flow. Many
estuaries are characterized by an expanding area in the downstream direc-
tion. Three (3) formulas which have found application as approximations
for the rate of increase in cross-sectional areas as a function of distance
are:
Qx
A = Aoe ( 24 )
A = Ao ( Ro ) ( ^ )
A = Ao ( ¦£- ) or Ao(i) ( 26 )
Ro Ro
The distances R and Ro are from a hypothetical origin at
which the cross-sectional area is zero. As examples of the application of
expanding area estuaries, one can consider the upper East River and the
Raritan River. The upper East River is characterized by the area function,
Equation ( 26 ) , and portions of the Raritan River are characterized by
the area function, Equation ( 25 ) .
-44 -
-------
Application of the principles of continuity and mass balance
results in equations which describe the concentration profiles for both con-
servative and non-conservative substances.
The upper East River which is characterized by the area func-
tion in Equation ( 26 ) has no significant fresh water flow. The differential
equation which results from a material balance at steady-state conditions is :
BOD :
2
0 = E^ + | i - RK • L
dR2
DEFICIT
0=E§+ If" AK'D+DKLx
dR
Integration of these equations results in
BOD :
B SR C VR
L - Re + Te
DEFICIT :
G cnp H \/no DK • F
AK-RK
D = T-eSDR+ lieVDR +
R
& SR+ £L VR
R R
-45 -
-------
The Raritan River in the tidal sections is characterized by the
expanding area function in Equation ( 25 ) and by a significant fresh wa-
fer flow. A material balance around a differential element and integration
results in :
BOD :
L = Blr(R) + CKr(R)
DEFICIT :
DK • F
D=G.a(R) + HKa(R)+AK_RK
Where :
lr = RV lv(GrR)
Kr = RVKv ( GrR )
la = RVlv ( GaR )
Ka = RVKv ( GaR )
R = Distance from hypothetical origin
Q Ro
Blf(R) +CKf(R)
V =
2Erto
1/2
Gr = (RK / E )
- 46 -
-------
1/2
Gq = (AK/E )
oo 2K-V
I ( GR ) = V (GR/2)
v z_i k : n( k+v+1 )
K = 0 1
"77" I (GR)-I (GR)
K (GR ) = — _=y v
2 Sin V II
j-1 = Gamma function
B; C, G, H = Constants
The equations which describe BOD and dissolved oxygen deficit
profiles for estuaries with expanding areas are applicable as general equations
for each section of the estuary where the area may be considered to expand ac-
cording to the.characteristic formulation. The unknown constants B, C, G,
and H, are evaluated by appropriate boundary conditions.
-47 -
-------
Segmentation of Streams and Estuary Systems
Equations have been developed in the preceding sections for
streams and estuaries having constant and variable areas and for constant
values of the parameters. Specifically, it was assumed in each of the de-
velopments that the parameters AK, RK, DK, E, A, and Q were constant
or were defined by a formulation considered in the development of the
equation. The solutions thus derived are valid for any length of estuary
or stream in which the values of the individual parameters do not change.
At the location of changes in the value of individual parameters, it is
necessary to segment the system and apply the appropriate general solu-
tion to each section.
Additional segments are required for any of the following
conditions:
1. Oxidation of nitrogenous compounds may
not occur at the point of waste introduc-
tion, or may require substantial oxidation
of carbon sources and the presence of high
dissolved oxygen concentrations. The
system is segmented at the point of the
beginning of nitrogenous oxidation.
-48 -
-------
2. The magnitude of the dispersion phenomena
may be substantially reduced upstream of the
point of maximum salt intrusion.
3. The rate of BOD removal RK may include
the effects of settling, stripping, etc., near
the location of a raw discharge. In this in-
stance, the rate of BOD removal may be
greater than the rate of oxygen utilization,
DK. Following the completion of settling or
stripping, the rate of BOD removal may be
equal to the rate of oxygen utilization. Seg-
mentation is necessary when the rate of BOD
removal RK changes value.
4. Fresh water flow may enter a system thus al-
tering the advective velocity and the dilution
factor.
5. Segmentation is required at the beginning and
end of uniform BOD loads or bottom oxygen
demands.
-49-
-------
6. Toxic effects may begin or end resulting in
changes in the rate of BOD or nitrogenous
oxidation. Segmentation is required when
changes in rate occur.
7. The cross-sectional area of the body of wa-
ter may change, thus altering the fresh wa-
ter velocity and system volume.
8. The depth and/or velocity in an estuary may
change, thus altering the value of AK, the
reaeration coefficient.
9. Segmentation is required at the confluence
of two or more bodies of water.
10. Systems are segmented at the beginning and
end of sections where oxygen is produced by
algae or rooted aquatic plants.
In addition, estuary and stream systems must be sectioned at the
location of all waste inputs which are to be considered. There are two (2) me-
thods available to evaluate the influence of multiple waste inputs. It is poss-
ible to construct a model which includes all waste inputs thus requiring system
-50 -
-------
segmentation at each input location.
A second method of evaluating multiple waste loads employs the
superposition technique which is valid for the linear equations describing BOD
and dissolved oxygen profiles. In the superposition method, the effect of indi-
vidual waste loads can be evaluated separately. The cumulative effect of loads
can be determined by adding the individual BOD and dissolved oxygen deficit
profiles.
-51 ~
-------
Evaluation of Boundary Conditions
General equations have been presented describing the BOD
and dissolved oxygen deficit profiles in streams and estuary systems. The
appropriate equations are applicable to each section of the segmented
system. Since the differential equations which were developed in the
preceding sections are second degree, their solutions contain two arbi-
trary constants. The unknown coefficients B and C in the BOD equation
and G and H in the deficit equation are evaluated by means of initial
or boundary conditions. Evaluations of these conditions also provide a
method of linking adjacent system sections which were segmented in
accordance with the criteria discussed in the previous section. Since
the solution in each segment contains two unknown coefficients, the
total number of boundary conditions that must be evaluated in any sys-
tem is therefore equal to twice the number of segments in the system.
There are three classes of boundary conditions which are
appropriate:
1. Infinity conditions - At locations remote from a waste source,
the anticipated BOD and dissolved oxygen deficit attributable to the waste
source should approach or be equal to zero. This can be stated mathematically
by evaluating the BOD or dissolved oxygen deficit equation, at positive or
-52 -
-------
negative infinity.
2. Concentration equality - At the junction of two segments,
the BOD and dissolved oxygen deficit calculated by the equation in either
segment must be the same. Thus, the profile equation in the upstream segment
must equal the profile equation in the downstream segment at the location of
the |unction.
3. Mass Balance - It is possible to develop a material balance around
an element at the junction of two sections. The quantity of BOD and dissolved
oxygen deficit entering the element must equal the quantity of BOD leaving the
element.
Proper application of the three general classes of boundary condi-
tions will generate sufficient equations to evaluate all unknown coefficients.
In the following pages, examples of evaluation of boundary conditions will be
presented for estuary systems. The techniques are identical for fresh water
streams when the value of zero is assigned to the dispersion coefficient "E"
In order to illustrate the specific application of boundary condi-
tions, a simplified estuary will be considered with a single waste source located
at x = 0. The estuary will be considered infinitely long in both directions and
having constant cross-sectional area, flow and parameters AK, RK, DK and E.
-53 -
-------
The estuary must be divided into two segments at the point of waste input.
Section one extends upstream from the point of waste input and section two
extends downstream from the point of waste discharge. The BOD equations
applicable to each section are:
Note that each unknown coefficient and roots S and V are sub-
scripted by section. In like manner the area, flow, reaction and dispersion
are subscripted by section. The sectioning procedure results in four (4 ) un-
known coefficients, thus requiring four (4 ) boundary conditions. The boun-
dary conditions applicable to the example system are:
BOD: Section 1 ( Upstream )
( 29 )
BOD: Section 2 ( Downstream )
( 30 )
Boundary Condition
Description and Location
#1
§2
*3
@ X = -» L1 = 0
@ X = +°° l_2 = 0
@ X = 0 L1 = L2
@ X = 0 mass balance
-54 -
-------
Boundary Condition ^1
At large distances upstream from the waste source, the BOD
present in the estuary due to the waste discharges becomes small. Therefore,
as X approaches negative infinity ( - co), the BOD in section one approaches
zero.
* 0 as X—~ - co
Lj = 0 at X = - oo
. — r SiX 4. r VlX
Lj - B^e 1 + C^e 1
= positive number
Vj = negative number
e + ^1 ( "°°' = ,
e + (+oo )
¦>0
e _ ^] ( 00 ^ = e^l ¥ large number
If Lj = 0 at X = - oo must = 0
Equation ( 29 ) for section one reduces to:
L " R eSlX
i - V 1
- 55 ~
-------
Boundary Condition ^2
Using the same reasoning:
l>2—~ 0 as X —~ + oo
l_2 = 0 at X = +co
L2 = B2eS2X + C2eV2X
S ( +co ) S oo
e + 2 = e 2 1 large number
r V„ (+«> ) _ 1 ^
b2 = 0
Equation ( 30) for section two reduces to:
. - r VoX
2 2® 2
Boundary Condition ^3
At X = 0, the BOD concentration calculated by the equation
for the BOD profile in section one must equal the concentration as calculated
using the BOD profile equation in section two.
L] - 1_2 at X - 0
B^eSlX = C2eV2X
@ X = 0 eSlX - eV2X - 1
and
B-j = C2 (31 )
- 56 -
-------
Boundary Condition ^4
Considering a cross-sectional plane at X
balance can be obtained.
= 0, a flux or material
(-X)
X = 0
Material entering the section:
<¥, - E.A. 3* + w
Material leaving the section:
dL2
Q2L2 " E2A2 dX"
Balance
dL i dL2
Q1L1-E1A1 dX~ + W = S4 " E2A2 35T
or
dLl dL2
Q2L2 ~ Q1L1 + E1A1 dX" ' E2A2 dX~ + W
(32)
Since and at X = 0
E A ^l-E A ^2
dX dX
w
(33)
"57 "
-------
dLl dL2
Evaluatingandat X = 0:
dA dX
Hi
dX ¦
dL S.X
d)T = BlV
dLl
@ X = 0;^L = 8,5,
dL2
dX *
dL2 V2X
d)T = C2V2e
AX = 0;^2
dX 2 2
Substituting into Equation ( 33 )
ElAl¥, " E2A2C2V2 " W
Grouping terms:
c2 ( - E2a2V2 ) + B, (E,A,S,) = w (34)
Summary of Boundary Equations;
Bj - C2 = 0 ( concentration equality ) ( 31 )
B, (EfAjS,) + C2 ( - E2A2V2 ) = W (34)
- 58-
-------
There are two boundary condition equations and two unknown
coefficients remaining, thus it is possible to solve for the unknown co-
efficients.
E1 = - E and = A
Combining equations:
Bj (Sj EA) - B^EA) = W
W
B1 ~ EA ( S1 - V2)
Cn = w
2 EA (S1 - V2)
and
h = EA
-------
There are three ( 3 ) special case boundary conditions which wil
be illustrated. These are for a system bounded by a dam, a body of water
which is completely mixed and an estuary entering a body of water with a
fixed concentration.
Mass Balance at a Dam
Ld Qd~
X = 0
Material entering the element:
Qd'Ld
Material leaving the element:
°i' Li "EiAi
h
dX
Balance: ( in = out )
VLd= QiLrEiAi
dX
(37 )
The boundary condition can then be fully evaluated by substituting
dL
the appropriate equations for L, and 1_ into Equation (37 ).
dX~
- 60 -
-------
Estuary entering a body having a constant concentration L^:
Concentration Equation @ X = XY
L1 = L
1 o
n S,XY . _ V0XY .
B,e I + C,e 2 = L
1 1 o
Mass Balance: @ X = XY
Q,
L
o
1
X = XY
¦Qn
Entering section:
Q,L,-EiA, dLl
dX
Leaving section:
L Q.
o 1
Note: dL
o
dX"
= 0
Since L =
o
constant
-61 -
-------
Balance:
Q L
1 1
dLl
E A __1
1 1 U>T
L Q
o 1
( 38 )
dL
Substituting the values of and _j_L into Equation ( 38 )
yields the boundary equation.
Completely Mixed Bay with Exchange
Concentration Equality:
Li ¦ L»
Mass Balance:
In this instance, the mass balance is obtained around the en-
W
Exchange
Note: Qg - Q1 +Qgg
Vol = Volume
-62 -
-------
Entering Bay :
q,li-e,a,5 +w
Leaving Bay :
Balance
QBLB+R.LB+Vol • Lb • RK
QiLi"EiAi^r+w= WVol(R + RK>
Evaluating L. and 1 as functions of distance and the unknown
dx
coefficients results in the required boundary equation.
An additional concept and phenomena has been introduced in the
consideration of the completely mixed bay. The tidal exchange " R " pro-
vides a method of evaluating the transport of material out of the bay into
the ocean by the tidal volume.
Tidal exchange " R " is defined by :
_ tidal volume
K —
mean volume of the bay
In the simplified estuary problem used as a detailed example of
boundary condition evaluation, it was possible to solve for the unknown
coefficients B and C manually. As the estuary becomes more complex,
it is impractical to evaluate the coefficients manually. In this latter case,
- 63 -
-------
it is convenient to arrange the unknown coefficients and boundary con-
dition equations into a matrix and employ computational techniques for
numerical evaluation of the unknown coefficients. The boundary condi-
tion equation ( 31 ) and ( 34 ) from our simplified example can be
arranged into a matrix:
MATRIX OF UNKNOWN COEFFICIENTS
B.C. No.
B1
C2
Forcing Function
3
1
-1
= 0
4
EAS,
-eav2
= w
The basic method of establishing a matrix of unknown co-
efficients can be employed regardless of the complexity of the system.
There are several general considerations which are useful
in evaluating the unknown coefficients and establishing matrices.
1. Evaluation of boundary conditions always re-
sults in a square matrix which means that uni-
que solutions for the values of the unknown co-
efficients are available.
- 64 -
-------
At the junction of " n " segments, there are
always generated one mass balance equation
and ( n - 1 ) concentration equality equations.
The boundary conditions for the BOD and dis-
solved oxygen solutions are identical. Thus,
the matrix of unknown coefficients are iden-
tical if the roots of the BOD solution, S and
V are replaced by SD and VD, the roots for
the deficit solution.
The right hand matrix of forcing functions are
different for the BOD and dissolved oxygen de-
ficit solution.
- 65 -
-------
METHODS OF ANALYSIS
The preceding sections have presented techniques For
developing equations which define the concentration profile of con-
servative substances, reactive substances, and dissolved oxygen de-
ficit. In addition, a discussion of segmentation and methods of eval-
uating boundary conditions and unknown coefficients have been pre-
sented. It is the purpose of this section to provide guide lines for the
method of approach to segmentation and evaluation of the parameters.
The following comments will apply to both stream and estuary systems.
In the stream systems, the dispersion coefficient " E " is assumed to
be zero.
The initial step in developing an analysis of water qual-
ity is a critical review of the available information on the body of wa-
ter under study. Specifically, the following physical, geophysical,
and hydrological information must be obtained and evaluated.
1. The mean water depth of the various bodies
of water should be determined.
2. The cross-sectional area of the various wa-
ter bodies should be plotted as a function of
location.
- 66 -
-------
The drainage area should be evaluated as
a Function of distance, which provides an
insight into fresh water flow quantities.
As an example, if a small drainage area is
associated with a section of stream or es-
tuary, it is unrealistic to anticipate large
Fresh water Flows From run-oFF and normal
ground water.
A qualitative evaluation should be made
oF the hydrograph oF the system. This will
assist in determining when Field sampling
programs might be carried out.
IF the Fresh water Flow rate does not sig-
nificantly change with distance, then the
advective velocity of the system can be
calculated. On the other hand, if area
changes anc^/or fresh water flow inputs are
such that the system advective velocity
varies, plots of velocity with distance should
be developed.
- 67 -
-------
6. Knowing the tidal velocity in estuaries
and the flow velocity in streams a plot
of " AK the reaeration coefficient
vs. distance, using equation (42 ) to
calculate " AK is constructed.
7. The confluence of major water bodies
should be noted on the distance plots.
8. The BOD removal and oxidation co-
efficients RK and DK should be eval-
uated from appropriate information.
9. The dispersion coefficient in estuaries
should be assigned, or evaluated.
10. Waste sources should be located and in-
dications of the magnitude of loads ob-
tained.
11. Chloride or other conservative substance
profiles should be constructed. BOD and
dissolved oxygen deficit profiles as a func-
tion of distance should be developed from
any existing data.
It is usually advisable as a first step to construct a model in-
corporating as many simplifying assumptions as practical.
- 68 -
-------
Having assessed the reliability of the available information
on the physical, hydrodynamic and input data, the various distance plots
are compared in an attempt to minimize the number of segments required.
Changes in area and flow may be assumed to occur at the confluence of
two bodies of water, thus reducing the number of segments required. Ad-
jacent waste inputs can be combined at their center of gravity to reduce
the number of segments. All of these steps are contingent upon the avail-
ability of data and the degree of complexity of the model justified by the
available information.
It is possible to evaluate the various parameters, U, E, RK,
DK, R, and AK from physical, hydrodynamic and observed data.
Advective Velocity ( U )
The flow velocity which transports material out of the es-
tuary can be evaluated:
U = 2. (39)
A
Dispersion ( E )
A plot of the log of the concentration of a conservative
substance ( usually chlorides ) vs. distance results in a straight line. The
- 69 -
-------
slope of the line is equal to:
Slope = U/E
therefore;
E = U/ slope
(40)
BOD Removal and/or Deoxygenation ( RK and/or DK )
A plot of the log of the BOD vs. distance results in a straight
line. The slope of the line is defined by:
The value of RK can be obtained from the solution of the a-
bove equation.
If the rate of BOD removal changes, the semi-log plot of BOD
vs. distance will yield two (2) straight lines having different slopes. The
slope of the line adjacent to the waste input will provide a measure of RK.
The slope of the line farthest from the waste input is generally employed to
calcu late DK. The calculated value of DK must be equal to or less than
RK. This analysis for calculating the values of RK and DK is valid only
for BOD data which results from a single waste input. If the BOD profile
is influenced by several waste inputs which can not be grouped into a single
source of BOD, the above analysis is not valid. A reasonable first assump-
Slope = 1 + M + E >
2E " V . 2 '
(41)
- 70 -
-------
tion for the range of values of RK and DK is 0.20 - 0.50 to the base,
" e with the two parameters assumed to be equal.
Reaeration Coefficient
This parameter can be calculated as follows:
H 3/2 ( 42 )
D = diffusivity in Equation ( 42 )
The velocity is the average velocity over a tidal cycle in estuaries and
the advective velocity in streams.
Temperature Effects
Temperature influences the parameters AK, RK, and DK.
Generally accepted temperature corrections for these parameters are:
AK = AK 1.02 < f - 20 )
(T) (20° C)
RK = RK 1.04 ^ ~ 20 *
(T) (20 C)
DK, = DK o 1.04 ( f ' 20 )
(T) (20 C)
RKN(T) = RKN(20°C),-08(,"20)
- 71 "
-------
In addition, temperature will also significantly influence the
saturation value of dissolved oxygen which in turn will change the dissolved
oxygen deficit. Tables are available indicating temperature and dissolved
solids effects on the saturation value of oxygen in water.
- 72 -
-------
METHOD FOR EVALUATION AND PRESENTATION OF BOUNDARY
CONDITIONS FOR COMPLEX ESTUARIES
In all sections provision can be made for the input of a point
load, a uniform load, bottom sediment oxygen demand, and algae. To pro-
vide maximum flexibility, the following loading procedures can be employed:
LOADING PROCEDURE EXAMPLE
XA(8,10) XA(10,12) W(10,12) XA(12,64)
/////////////
8
10
12
64
(AA) (BB)
Sectioning points AA and BB are assumed required by para-
meter or area changes. A load W(10,12) at a variable distance XA(10,12)
is located between sections 10 and 12 as shown. The equation for the BOD
and dissolved oxygen deficit in sections 10 and 12 contains provision for
uniform load input, bottom deposits, and algae. If it is desired to load the
system with a point load W(10,12) at location XA(10,12), then the remaining
-73 -
-------
inputs are made equal to zero. That is, WU(10)/ WU(12), 60(10), BD(12),
P(10), P(12), R(10) and R(12)# are all zero. If, on the other hand, a uni-
form load is the only input to be employed from Section 8 to point XA(10,12)
then W(10, 12) becomes zero. All other inputs are also zero, with the excep-
tion of WU(10) which has a value. The length of the uniform load may be
changed by increasing the value of XA(10, 12) to approach the limit XA(12,64)
or decreasing the value of XA(10, 12) to approach XA(8, 10) as a limit. This
procedure can be repeated for other inputs or for uniform waste loads in section
12.
The spherical coordinate system does not allow for ready introduc-
tion of uniform loads. Where these coordinate systems are employed WU must
be zero.
Some additional points on loadings and boundary conditions should
be noted with regard to the expanding area sections. When expanding areas are
involved in a boundary condition, the value of area at the location of the bound-
ary must be calculated and employed in the mass balance boundary evaluations.
In addition, the value of area used in uniform load introduction for expanding
area segments employing cylindrical coordinates is the average cross-sectional
area over the length of the uniform waste input.
The matrix of unknown coefficients generated for complex water
quality models can become large. Presentation of the specific values of the
elements of the matrix for BOD and deficit solutions would be obscure. In
-74-
-------
view of the above, and the fact the complex systems must be evaluated on a
computer, the Following procedure can be adopted for presentation of the wa-
ter quality models.
1. The BOD and dissolved oxygen deficit
equations can be presented in general
form.
2. The various segments can be assigned al-
ternate numbers, (i.e., 2, 4, 6, and 8)
in recognition that each segment generates
two unknown coefficients. Exceptions,
which are completely mixed volumes or
sections bounded by infinity conditions,
must be specifically indicated.
3. A table can be developed defining the
specific functional forms of the general
equations for the BOD and dissolved
oxygen deficit solutions as determined
by the area-distance relationships en-
countered.
4. The concentration boundary condition
may be generalized in four ( 4 ) classes
which cover all of the concentration
-75 -
-------
equality equations encountered in the
present system. The Four classes of con-
centration equality boundary equations
can be presented in a Form which is amen-
able to matrix solution.
The First derivative oF the generalized BOD
and dissolved oxygen deFicit concentration
proFile equations can be deFined in tabular
Form.
Eight ( 8 ) generalized solutions to the
mass balance boundary condition equations
can be presented. These equations cover
all oF the mass balance conditions required
in the present systems. The mass balance
equations have been presented in a Form
amenable to matrix solution oF the simul-
taneous equations developed.
The boundary conditions may be classiFied
and tabulated.
The speciFic boundary conditions From the
general classiFication listing can be pre-
sented in tabular Form For each junction.
- 76 -
-------
9.
Where:
The appropriate designation of upstream and
downstream must also be indicated.
A model can then be constructed by joining
segments.
The formulas describing water
quality in any specific segment (I) can be
written in the general form:
L(l) = B(l)fr(X,l) + C(l)fr(X,l) + YB(I) (43)
D(l) = G(l)f (X,l) + HO)?" (X,l) + YD(X,I) (44)
a a
(I) = Section number
(X,l) = Indicates that the expressions
are a function of both section
and location " X " in the sec-
tion.
L(l) = BOD in Section I.
D(l) = Dissolved oxygen deficit in
Section I.
B(l) and
C(l) = Unknown coefficients for the
BOD equation.
- 77 -
-------
G(l) and
H(l)
fr(X,l)
and
fr(X,l) =
YB(I)
YD(X,I) =
f (X,D, f "(X,l), f (X,l), and f (X,l) are functions of distances X or R and seg-
r r a a
ment number "I". YB(I) is a function only of the segment number "I" and YD(X,I)
is a function of segment and location. The specific functions vary, depending
upon the geometry of the segment under consideration. Table 4 presents the
form of the functions for the area variations with distance encountered in the
subject waterways.
There are three (3) possible special cases which do not have the
form indicated above. They are:
1. Negative infinity boundary conditions where the
only unknown coefficient is the B or G coefficient.
Unknown coefficients for the
deficit equations.
Functional forms for the BOD
equation. The specific forms
are defined in Table 4.
Particular integral for the BOD
solution as defined in Table 4.
Particular integral for the deficit
solution as defined in Table
- 78 -
-------
TABLE 4
FUNCTIONAL VALUES FOR
SEVERAL AREA VS. DISTANCE
AREA RELATIONSHIPS
RELATIONSHIPS
FUNCTIONS
Constant Area
A=A°
R 2
A = A°
fr(x,i)
eS(l)X
1 (R)
r(0
eS(l)R
R
rr(x,o
eV(.)X
K (R)
(0
V(I)R
e
R
fa(X/|)
eSD(l)X
1 (R)
a(D
eSD(l)R
R
rocj)
eVD(l)X
K (R)
(0
eVD(l)R
R
YB(I)
WU(I)
A(l)* R K (1)
WU(I)
AA(I)-RK(I)
zero
YD(X/I)
BD(I) , R(l)-P(l)
HT(I)-AK(I) AK(I)
B D (1) R(l)-P(l)
HT(I)-AK(I) AK(I)
BD(I)
HT(I).AK(I)
^ DK(I)-WU(I).F(I)
AK(I).RK(I).A(I)
DK(I).WU(I).F(I)
AK(I).RK(I)-AA(I)
, R(I)-P(D
AK(I)
DK(I).F(I) f .
ak(i)-rk(i)
DK(I),F(I) [ Dmrf- n
AK(l)-RK(l)
, DKO).F(I)
AK(I)-RK(I)
+ C(I)7(X,I)]
+ C(l)fr(Xfl) ]
• [B(l)f(X/l) + C(l)f(X/l)]
r r
-------
L(l) = B(l)f (X, I) + YB(I) ( 45a )
r
D(l) = G(l)fa(X, I) + YD(I) ( 45b )
2. Positive infinity boundary conditions where the
only unknown coefficient is the C or H coefficient.
L(D = C(l)Fr(X,l) + YB(I) (46a )
D(l) = H(l)ra(X,l) + YB(I) (46b )
3. Completely mixed volumes.
L(D = B(l) ( 47a )
D(D = G(l) ( 47b )
For completely mixed volumes the BOD and deficit does not
vary with distance and can therefore be defined by constants B(l) and G(l)
respectively.
At the junction point of adjacent segments there are ( n - 1 )
concentration equality equations and one mass balance equation. It is poss-
ible to generalize the concentration equality boundary equation number, re-
ferred to as "J" for any two adjacent segments, "I" and "K" to indicate
the elements of the matrix of unknown coefficients, " AM " and the elements
of the forcing function matrices," BFORC " for the BOD, and " DFORC " for
the deficit.
- 80 -
-------
BOD Concentration Equality Equation :
B(l)fr(X, l)+C(l)rr(X, l)-B(K)fr(X, K)-C(K)T"r(X, K) = YB(K)-YBd) ( 48 )
Equation (48 ) is presented such that all terms which include the
unknown coefficients "B" and "C" are on the left hand side and all terms that can
be completely evaluated compose the right hand member. The left hand member of
Equation (48 ) is presented in matrix AM below:
Boundary Condition
B(l)
C(l)
B(K)
C(K)
(J)
fr(X, 1)
fr(x, I)
-fr(X, K)
-fr(X, K)
NOTE: "J" is the equation num ber and row number of the AM matrix.
The functions fr(X, I) and T^(X, I) , fr(X, K) and fr(X, K) are
evaluated for sections "I" and "K" respectively at the appropriate value of
X or R for each segment.
- 81 -
-------
EQUATION FOR CONCENTRATION EQUALITY
J = 1
Evaluating functions:
Section I:
I = 2
X = XA(2,4)
fr(X,l) - eS<2» * XA<2'4>
MX, I) - eV<2» * XA<2'4>
Section K:
K = 4
X = R(4,2)
fr(X,l) = lr(4(R(4,2))
fr(X, I) = Kr(4(R(4,2))
From Table 4
From Table 4
Arranging the left member of the equation in matrix form yields:
MATRIX AM
Boundary Condition ^
B(2)
C(2)
B(4)
C(4)
1
S(2) • XA(2,4)
e
eV(2)XA(2,4)
-lr(4(R(4/2) )
-Kr(4(R(4,2) )
- 82 -
-------
The right-hand side of the concentration equation are the forcing functions :
BFORC(J) = YB(4) - YB(2)
DFORC(J) = YD(4) - YD(2)
Note that the signs for the forcing functions for any segment,
( I or K ) are the reverse of the sign of the elements in the AM matrix.
Presenting this boundary condition in a general form, which
can be readily employed to generate a matrix :
( 49 )
( 50 )
Class 1 Boundary Condition
( Concentration Equality )
Elements of AM Matrix for Sections
I and K and Boundary Condition J
B(l) AM(I-1,J) = fr(X,l)
C(l) AM(I, J) = rr(X,l)
B(K) AM(K-1, J) = -fr(X,K)
C(K) AM(K, J) = -7r(X,K)
BFORC(J) = YB(K) - YB(I)
DFORC(J) = YD(X, K) - YD(X, I)
For deficit Matrix AM, replace f and F by f and T ,
' r r r ' a a
respectively.
"83 "
-------
Class 2 Boundary Condition ( Concentration Equality,
Negative Infinity Boundary for Section I, with C(l)=0)
Same as Class 1 Boundary Condition, with
C(l) AM(I,J) = 0
Forcing functions are the same as for Class 1
Boundary Condition.
Class 3 Boundary Condition ( Concentration Equality,
Positive Infinity Boundary for Section K, with B(K)=0 )
Same as Class 1 Boundary Condition, with
B(K)
AM(K-1,J) = 0
Class 4 Boundary Condition ( Concentration Equality,
in a Completely Mixed Volume )
B(l) AM(I-1,J) = fr(X,l)
C(l) AM (I, J) =7(X,I)
B(KK) AM(KK,J) = -1
BFORC(J) = —YB(I)
DFORC(J) = -YD(X,I)
Additional classes of boundary conditions are required for the
mass balances. Before evaluation of mass balance boundary conditions, it
is necessary to define the first derivatives of the concentration profile equa-
-84-
-------
tions:
3^(1) = B(l)f'(X,l) + C(I)T(X,I) + YB(I)
j£(l) = G(l)fo'(X,l) + H(I)T(x,I) + YD(X,I)
Table presents the definitions of the functions f f
/ -' ' /
f , f , YB, and YD for the several area-distance relationships used
a a
in the present models.
Generalized solutions are available for the mass balances
when sections I, K, and KK are considered and the boundary equation
number is defined by J. It must be noted that Section I is defined as up-
stream, or more negative than SectionK. ( That is, flow from Section I
enters Section K. ) The direction of Section KK must be indicated.
Class 5 Boundary Condition ( Mass Balance,
Two Adjacent Sections )
B(l)
AM(I-1,J) = E(l).A(l).fr1x,l) - Q(l)fr(X,l)
C(l)
AM(I,J) = E(l).A(l).Tfx,l) - Q(I)T(X,I)
B(K)
AM(K-1,J) = Q(K)f (X,K) - E(K)-A(K)*frfx,K)
C(K)
AM(K,J) = Q(K)f"(X,K) - E(K)-A(K)-ftx,K)
BFORC(J) = W(n) ( load entering at junction ) +
Q(I)YB(I) - Q(K)YB(K)
DFORC(J) = Q(I)YD(X,I) - E(l)-A(l)-YD(X,I) +
E(K).A(K).YD(X,K) - Q(K)YD(X,K)
-85 -
-------
TABLE 5
DERIVATIVES OF FUNCTIONAL VALUES FOR SEVERAL AREA-DISTANCE RELATIONSHIPS
AREA RELATIONSHIPS
Function
Constant Area
A=Ao<£)
A =
S(I)X
S(l)e
lr'(D(R)
1 eS(l)R
(Sd)^ )|
V(I)X
V(l)e
k'(I)(R)
V(I)R
(V(O^)t
fa(X,0
SD(I)X
SD(l)e
la'd)(R)
, SD(I)R
(SD(l)-i)|
T'(x,i)
VD(I)X
VD(l)e
K^(I)(R)
¦ VD(I)R
(VDO-^f
yb'i)
zero
zero
z e ro •
YI^(X'I) ak(!)-*rk(!) [ + ca)frtxfi)] ~
-------
Class 6 Boundary Condition (Mass Balance with
Negative Infinity Boundary for Section I makes
C(I) = o)
Same as Class 5 boundary condition with
CO)
AM(I, J) = 0
Class 7 Boundary Condition (Mass Balance with
Positive Infinity Boundary for Section K makes
B(K) = 0
Same as for Class 5 boundary condition with
B(K)
AM(K-1,J) = 0
Class 8 Boundary Condition ( Mass Balance with
Flow Entering Sections K and KK from Section I)
AM(I-1, J), AM(I, J), AM(K-1, J)
and AM(K, J) , are the same as for
Class 5 Boundary Condition
B(KK)
C(KK)
AM(KK-1, J) = Q(KK)fr(X, KK)-E(KK)* A(KK)-frtx, KK)
AM(KK, J) = Q(KK)Fr(X, KK)- E(KK)- AOCKjTtx, KK)
BFORC(J) = W(N)-tQ(l)YB(l)-Q(K)YB(K)-Q (KK)YB(KK)
DFORC(J) = DFORC(J) in class 5 boundary, plus:
E(KK). A(KK)*YD(X, KK)-Q(KK)YD(X7 KK)
-87-
-------
Class 9 Boundary Condition ( Mass Balance with
flow Entering Section K from Sections I and KK )
AM(I-1, J), AM(I, J), AM(K-1, J) and
AM(K, J) are the same as for Class 5 bound-
ary condition.
B(KK) AM(KK-1, J) = E(KK)-A(KK)'^(X, KK)-Q(KKW(X, KK)
C(KK) AM(KK,J)= E(KK).A(KK).rr(x,KK)-Q(KK)Tr(X, KK)
BFORC(J) = W(N)+Q (l)YB(l)+Q (KK)YB(KK)-Q (K)YB(K)
DFORC(J) = DFORC(J) as in Class 5 boundary
condition, plus :
Q(KK)-YD(X, KK) - E(KK)* A(KK)-YD(X, KK)
Class 10 Boundary Condition (Mass Balance at Section
With Advective Flux, Only )
AM(K-1, J) = Q(K)'fr(X,K) - E(K)-A(K)-fr(X,K)
AM(K, J) = Q(K).r(X, K) - EOO-AOO-Tlx, K)
BFORC(J) = L(DAM) - Q(K)YB(K)
DFORC(J) = E(K)-A(K).YD(X,K)-Q(K)-YD(X, K) +
DEF(DAM)
L(DAM) and DEF(DAM) equal the concentration of BOD and dissolved
oxygen deficit in the flow over a dam at the base of the dam.
- 88 -
-------
Class 11 Boundary Condition (Mass Balance with
Section I Leaving Completely Mixed Volume, KK )
AM(I-1,J) =Q(l).fr(X/l) - E(l)-A(l).fr1x,l)
AM (I, J) = Q(l).f"r(X,l) - E(l)-A(l)-ffx,l)
AM(KK,J) = VOL(KK)' RK(KK)
BFORC(J) = W ( bay load ) - Q(I)YB(I)
DFORC(J) = E(l).A(l).YD(Xfl)-Q(I)-YD(X,I) +
F(KK)-DK(KK)B(KK)
For two Sections I and K leaving a completely
mixed volume, add AM(K-1,J) and AM(K,J)
which are identical in form to AM(I-1,J) and
AM(I,J). To the forcing functions, add:
BFORC(J) plus - Q(K)'YB(I)
DFORC(J) plus E(K)-A(K).YD(X,K) - Q(I)YD(X,K)
Class 12 Boundary Condition (Mass Balance, Section I
Entering a Completely Mixed Volume, KK, with a tidal
Exchange and Flow from the Volume to the Infinite Medium )
AM(I-1,J) = E(l).A(l)f(/(X,l) - Q(l)fr(X,l)
AM (I, J) = E(l).A(l)f/(X,l) - Q(l)fr(X,l)
AM(KK,J) = (Q(KK) + R(KK)VOL(KK))+VOL(KK)-RK(KK))
BFORC(J) = W(KK) + Q(I)YB(I)
DFORC(J) = Q(I)YD(X,I) - E(I)-A(I)-YD(X,I) +
F(KK) • AK(KK)B(KK)
-89 -
-------
For two sections, I and K, entering a completely mixed
volume, add AM(K-1,J) and AM(K,J); which are
identical in form to AM(I-1, J) and AM(I, J) : to the
forcing functions, add:
BFORC(J) plus +Q(K)YB(K)
DFORC(J) plus Q(K)YD(X, K)-E(K)A(K)YD(X, K)
Table 6 presents a summary of the instances of application for the
various boundary condition classifications. If boundary classifications 2 and 6
are used, the section equation is given by Equation ( 45 ) and if boundary class-
ifications 3 and 7 are used, Equation ( 46 ) is applicable. Equation ( 47 )
is used for boundary conditions 11 and 12. The proper equations are employed
in the boundary classifications. These comments are offered to assist in using the
proper equation to calculate intermediate concentration values.
The boundary condition classifications applicable to each section
are described in Table 6.
The elements for the matrix of unknown coefficients for the dissol-
ved oxygen deficit are generated by replacing the functions fr(X, I) and Ty(X, I)
by fQ(X, I) and T^(X, I), respectively. The parameter RK is replaced by the
parameter AK in the mass balance boundary conditions for completely mixed
volumes.
-90 -
-------
TABLE 6
APPLICATION FOR BOUNDARY CLASSIFICATIONS
Boundary
Classification
Types of Applications
1
Concentration equality when both sections have
two (2) unknown coefficients and are bounded at
both ends.
2
Concentration equality when one section has two
(2) unknown coefficients and the second section has
only B or G coefficient, ( negative infinity ).
3
As number two, with second section having a C or
H coefficient, ( positive infinity ).
4
Concentration equality in a completely mixed volume.
5
Mass balance between two sections, both sections
having two (2) unknown coefficients.
6
Mass balance when one section has two (2) unknown
coefficients and the second section has only B or G
coefficients ( negative infinity ).
7
Same as six, with second section having a C or H
coefficient, (positive infinity ).
8
Mass balance for three (3) sections with flow from one
section dividing into the two sections.
9
Mass balance for three (3) sections with flow from two
sections combining into the third section.
10
Mass balance at a section of advective flux only ( dam ).
11
Mass balance at a section with completely mixed volume.
Flow leaves the bay through the section.
12
Mass balance at completely mixed volume when flow en-
ters bay through the section.
-91 -
-------
The subscripted area term A(l) in the mass balance boundary
condition is the cross-sectional area for segments having constant cross-sec-
tional area. The cross-sectional area at location (XA(K,I) ) must be used
for segments having variable cross-sectional areas. The particular integral
in the BOD solution for uniform loads contains an area term. For segments
having a variable cross-sectional area, the average area over the length of
the uniform load is to be employed as the area term, AA(I).
- 92 -
-------
Example Using Boundary Classifications :
In order to facilitate use of the general boundary classifications
the estuary system illustrated in Figure 1 will be considered as an example
Table 7 presents the functional forms for the various sections, and Table 8
tion and junction.
From Table 4 it is determined that the equations for the various
sections are :
Table 4 was employed to define the functional forms of sections
4 and 6 as Bessel functions and exponential functions, respectively. The spe-
cific forms of YB are also shown in this table.
It is observed that there are four (4) unknown coefficients and that
evaluation of the boundary conditions yields four (4) boundary equations. The
matrix formed is illustrated in Table 9.
The deficit matrix is formed by replacing f , 7J., and RK by
f , T , and AK. The right-hand matrix DFORC(J) is formed, using the
standard boundary conditions and Tables 4 and 5.
From the above example, it may be observed that section sub -
indicates the general boundary classifications applicable to each specific sec-
L(2)
L(4)
L(6)
B(2)
B(4)l (4)(R) + C(4)K (4)(R) + YB(4)
r r
B(6)eS(6)X + YB(6)
( 51 )
( 52 )
( 53 )
- 93 -
-------
EXAMPLE FDR APPLYING THE GENERAL BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
FIGURE I
-------
TABLE 7
FUNCTIONAL FORMS IN EXAMPLE
ESTUARY
( Sections illustrated on Figure 1 )
Constant Area:
Section 6 ( Use Equation 45 )
Variable Area A = Ao —
Ro
Section 4
Mixed Volume :
Section 2 ( Use Equation 47 )
- 95 -
-------
TABLE 8
BOUNDARY CLASSIFICATIONS - EXAMPLE ESTUARY
( Sections illustrated on Figure 1 )
Boundary Classification
1
K
KK
J( Boundary Number )
2-6
( See Table 6 )
6
4
—
2
4-12
( See Table 6 )
4
2
—
4
- 96 -
-------
TABLE 9
MATRIX FOR EXAMPLE PROBLEM
B (2 )
B (4)
c (4)
B (6)
Coefficients
Equation
No.
1
2
3
4
1
0
X
X
X
Concentration Equality
Classification No. 2
2
0
X
X
X
Mass Balance
Classification No. 6
3
X
X
X
0
Concentration Equality
Classification No. 4
4
X
X
X
0
Mass Balance
Classification No. 12
NOTE: "X" signifies non-zero elements of the matrix defined by
the element of the general boundary classifications.
- 97 -
-------
scripting has a profound influence on the complexity of the computer program
which is required to solve the matrix and calculate the BOD and dissolved
oxygen profiles. This example has employed an arbitrary section subscripting
system. It is strongly suggested that before final section subscripts are assigned,
the individual who is going to write the computer program be consulted. Sub-
scripting of sections to facilitate programming is beyond the scope of the pre-
sent study.
Having established the right and left-hand matrices for the BOD
and dissolved oxygen deficit solutions, it is possible to solve for the values of
the unknown coefficients and water quality profiles can then be calculated in
each section.
- 98 -
-------
STUDY AREA - COMPONENT WATERWAYS AND SEGMENTATION
The basic study area shown in Figure 2 can be subdivided
into five major systems. These major systems are:
1. New York Harbor Complex
2. Hudson River Estuary in the Albany Troy area
3. Middle Hudson River ( between Hudson River
Estuary and New York Harbor )
4. Tidal section of the Raritan River
5. Lake Champ lain
Each major system can subsequently be segmented or sub-
divided into components which can be evaluated based on the amount
and quantity of information available.
New York Harbor Complex
Figure 3 is a sketch of the New York Harbor Complex.
This system of waterways was further subdivided in the following manner:
1. East River System
2. North River System
3. Arthur Kill System
- 99 -
-------
100
-------
NEW YORK HARBOR-LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 3
-------
East River System
The East River System which consists of the lower East River
bounded by the upper New York Harbor and the upper East River is sche-
matically shown on Figure 4.
Basic assumptions made were that the harbor is a completely
mixed body and that the advective flow in the upper and lower East River
is zero. Figures 5 and 6 are plots of the area and AK as a function of
distance. The area of the lower East River was considered to be constant,
2
and equal to 80,000/ft , while the area of the upper East River varied as
a function of distance as shown in Equation 54:
A=Ao(f)2 (54)
o
A = 80,000
o
R = 15.2 miles
o
The East River system was initially subdivided into three
models with a load in each component waterway for the manual develop-
ment of water quality equations. A computer program for calculation of
the dissolved oxygen deficit and BOD profiles in the East River system
was developed at the New York University computer center.
- 102 -
-------
SCHEMATIC OF EAST RIVER SYSTEM MODEL
WH
DH
AXIS
X = (+)
QB
x = o
UPPER HARBOR
-xz
W
¦XX
LOWER EAST RIVER
FLOW = 0
UPPER
EAST RIVER
FLOW = 0
FIGURE 4
-------
<
Id
-------
UPPER EAST RIVER AREA
AND W VS. DISTANCE
350
W 3oo
<- Ll.
UJ
criu
etc 2so
ih
gco2oo
p ll
uo
UJ 150
CO 05
Q
C/)2
co< loo
Oa)
0:3
uo _
i 5o
i-
• • —; • •
__ — •
• • /"MILES
A= 89,000 (JUf
V6?7 MILES-v
7 8 9
/ 2 * Ro -- 15 2 MILES 5 €
1 I l l 1 I 1 1 1 1
1 ll 1 1 1 1
0 4 8
103 ny
12 16 20 24 28 32
DISTANCE FROM WARDS ISL.
RAIL ROAD BRIDGE
3a 40 44 48
3^4
I03 FT
k
a
*
r_«2°
2
LlJ
O.I5
Ll
b
8 Jo
§05
<
(T
y .0
UJ 1
cd
-
.. •••
• • •• m
• • •
• • a
# • • r MILES q m
• / 3 451
till
# MILES-? »
5 7 • 9
1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 J 1 1 1
4 a 12 16 20 24 28 32 3 6 40 44 48
-J DISTANCE ^
I03 FT
I03 FT
FIGURE 6
105
-------
North River System
The North River system is schematically shown on Figure 7
and consists of the East River, upper New York Harbor, and the Hudson
River. Figures 8 and 9 present the area and reaeration coefficient, AK,
as a function of distance for upper New York Harbor and the Hudson
River in the vicinity of New York City. Figure 10 presents the compa-
rable data for the Harlem River. The North River model is constructed
considering the Hudson River to be a flowing body. This concept of a
flowing body applies to the upper Harbor, which in the North River
model is not considered a completely mixed bay. The East River seg-
ment of the model is for a constant cross-sectional area as a function
of distance.
Manual evaluation of the mathematical water quality
models required three models with a load in each section. The com-
puter program defining the North River system has been developed at
New York University.
Arthur Kill System
a) Lower Arthur Kill
b) Upper Arthur Kill
c) Newark Bay
-106 -
-------
FIGURE 7
107
-------
HUDSON RIVER AND UPPER NEW YORK HARBOR
AREA VS. DISTANCE
< LU
CC li_
UJ
< LU
-------
HUDSON RIVER AND UPPER NEW YORK HARBOR
REAERATION COEFFICIENT HAK"VS. DISTANCE
1
UJ
o
U-
b
o
o
fe
S
<
LU
a;
.40
.35
.30
.25
.20
.15
.10
.05
- UPPER NEW YORK
HARBOR
HUDSON RIVER
• •
#6
36
¦I'l' i 11 i 11 li
28 20
HO3 FT^
MILES
4 3 2
3 4 5 6
ll I I I I * ' 1 » I'
9 10 11 12 13 14 I!
I 1 ll I I 'I il i I'
12 4 0 4 12 20 28 36 44 52 60 ^8 76
DISTANCE FROM BATTERY 4o3 FT^
FIGURE 9
-------
140
t?20
SK
^iJOO
<(r
_I<
i§so
&o60
Gj ^
c0(0
cng40
s<
nr 0)
5=20 k
'5'
I
I-
0
HARLEM RIVER
AREA AND "AK"VS. DISTANCE
4
A:
I
±
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
DISTANCE FROM HELLGATE
I03 FT
36 40 44
5 -5
UJ
o
E .4
o|.3
q:-<
lu
<
UJ
tr
.1
- •
V.2
• •
JJL
1
I
1
1
1
8 12 16 20 24 28 32
DISTANCE FROM HELLGATE
I03 FT
36 40 44
FIGURE 10
112
-------
Figure 11 presents area vs distance for the system. An
analysis of the Arthur Kill system indicates that the mathematical
model is identical in form to the East River system. The models pre-
sented for the East River system are therefore directly applicable to
the Arthur Kill system. The basic physical alterations in the models
is in the length of the constant area section of the model which for
the Arthur Kill system is 1.0 miles, as compared to 9.2 miles in the
East River system. The expanding area portion of the Arthur Kill is
characterized by the area function:
A = A ( — ) 2
A o R
o
wh
ere:
R = 26 miles
o
A = 24,250 ft2
o
In a similar manner, fresh water flow into the Arthur
Kill system would come from the Passaic and Hackensack Rivers
into Newark Bay. Flow and tidal exchange is assumed to exist
between Newark Bay and upper New York Harbor.
- 113 -
-------
AUTHUR KILL ft KILL VAN KULL
CROSS SECTIONAL AREAS VS. DISTANCE
DISTANCE MEASURE FROM LAT 40°-30'
*
o
X
-------
Raritan River Tidal Section
The Raritan River tidal section model incorporates the
Raritan River from the Fieldville Dam to Raritan Bay, and includes the
South River to the Duhernal Dam. Figure 12 is a schematic represen-
tation of the Raritan River model. The system is characterized by two
(2) points of flow introduction over dams and BOD and dissolved oxygen
deficit concentrations in Raritan Bay which are influenced by loads that
are external to the Raritan River model. It is therefore necessary to as-
sign constant concentration values to three locations. The BOD and dis-
solved oxygen deficit entering the system over the Fieldville and Duhernal
Dams must be assigned as inputs. The BOD and dissolved oxygen deficit
in Raritan Bay must also be assigned a numerical value.
The Raritan River in the tidal section has been charac-
terized by an expanding area having the form: ( See Figure 13 )
A = A 1T
o R
o
A Bessel function solution to the BOD and dissolved oxy-
gen deficit profile equations results. Table 10 presents a list of the boun-
dary conditions employed to develop the model. Table 11 presents a list
- 115 -
-------
SCHEMATIC OF RARITAN RIVER TIDAL S
HO-
SIGN CONVENTIONS
(-)
(+)
-(-)
*B
SEC
VI
SEC
Y
ECTION MODEL FIGURE
DAM
Ws
(f)
(d)
DAM
|(xR + 9)
XR=0
(Ro3+ e)
R03+ R
AXIS EACH SECTION
R02 + R
1
sec 12 | sec m | sEcn | sec 3zn
Xr
SEC I
-------
TIDAL SECTION Of RARflAN RIVER
AREA AND *AK" VS. DISTANCE
P60p
Li) 50
5§40
zo
oc/)
4 6 8 10 12 14 16
MILES FROM FIELDVILLE DAM
18 20
6.0
H 5.0
UJ
C 4.0
L.
8|3.0
2^2.0
<5*
S 10
LU
0C
0
"
-• • •
J L
1
• •
L
¦
J.
• •
±
±
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
MILES FROM FIELDVILLE-DAM
16 18 20
FIGURE 13
117
-------
of the appropriate equations for each of the seven sections into which
the Raritan River has been divided. Table 12 presents a definition of
symbols for these equations. It should be noted that a mean algae
effect has been included in the Raritan model.
A matrix solution was employed to develop the computer
program for water quality in the Raritan River. The dissolved oxygen
deficit matrix of unknown coefficients is generated from the BOD
matrix by replacing the values of:
S by SD
V by VD
Ir by la
Kr by Ka
Gr by Ga
A computer program has been developed at New York
University for the tidal portion of Raritan River.
- 118 -
-------
TABLE 10
RARITAN RIVER
TIDAL SECTION
Boundary Conditions
1. Flux at XR = 0
2. Concentration equality at XR = a = R
°2
3. Flux at XR = a = R
°2
4. Concentration at R = R + b
°3 °2
5. Flux atR = R + b = X
°3 °2
6. Concentration R = X
°3 °
7. Concentration at R = R + c
°4 °3
8. Flux at R = R + c
°3
9. Concentration at R + e
°3
10. Concentration at X = f
11. Flux at X = f
12. Flux at X = d
13. Concentration at R + h
°2
14. Flux at R + h
°2
NOTE: 14 unknown coefficients and 14 equations.
- 119 -
-------
TABLE 11
RARITAN RIVER TIDAL SECTION
Section Number
BOD EQUATION
DEFICIT EQUATION
1
S1XR V1XR
BOD(l) = Bje K + Cje 1 K
nFF r SD'XR + h VD'X« +
(1) = le le ypl
2
BOD(2) = B 1 (R) + C_K (R)
r2 2
DEF(2) " G2la2(R) + H2Ka2(R)+yp2
3
BOD(3) = B_l (R) + C,K (R)
J r3 3
defp) -
4
BOD(4) = B. 1 (R) + C,K (R)
4 r4 4 r4
DEF(4) " G4la45
6
SAX V
BOD(6) = B.e 0 + Cze 0
o o
SD X VD X
DEF(6) = G6e + H6e + ^6
7
BOD(7) = B,l (R) + CK (R)
7 r7 7 r7
DEF(7) = G7la7(R) + H7Ka7(R)+yp7
-------
TABLE 12
RARITAN RIVER
TIDAL SECTION
yp-j = FAC(1)
VP, = FAC(l)
yp2 = FAC(2)
y?2 = FAC(2)
yp3 - FAC(3)
yPo = FAC(3)
yp4 = FAC(4)
yp^ = FAC(4)
yp£
= FAC(5)
=
^6
/
^6
FAC(5)
FAC(6)
FAC(6)
S X V X
B.e + C.e ] + Dp,
SX V
B1 le +C!V.e
BJ + C0K ] + Dp.
r2 2 r2 2
B,I/+C,K/ ]
2 '2 2 '2
B,l + C.K 1 + Dp,
r3 3 r3 3
B.I/ + C.K/ ]
r3 3 r3
B.I + C.K ] + Dp .
4r, 4 r. 4
4 4
B.I/ + C.K/ ]
r4 4 r4
SX V X
V +C5e 1 + °P5
SX V X
B,S,e 5 + CRV-e ]
5 0 DO
S X V X
V +c6e ] + DP^
SX V X
B6S6e + C6V 1
- 121 -
-------
TABLE 12
( Continued )
RARITAN RIVER
TIDAL SECTION
To evaluate YP^OO and yp^(X) , substitute the desired
value of X into the equation for yp(i) or yp(i) :
yp7 = FAC(7) [ iy + C?K ] + DPy
yp7 = FAC (7) [ B_l / + C_K / ]
7 7 Vj 7 Ty
- 122 -
-------
TABLE 12
( Continued )
Where:
(i) = Section number:
W/.v
I i-\ = R ' I (9 r)
r(i) v r (i)
vvn
K . = R WK (gR),..
r(i) vv r (i)
vvm
I /.v = R (gR)-v
g(') vv a (i)
vvn
K n _ R K (g R)n
g(i) - vv a (i)
I (gR) = V '
vv °r Z-1
co (g.R/2)2K + VV
k=o k: p (k + v + l)
, IT '-v< 9r" Hw
Kvv'9r" ) -
Sin vv II
- 123 -
-------
TABLE 12
( Continued )
I (g R) and K (g R) ^ replace g by g
v a v a r a
gr = (RK/E) 1/2
9a = (AK/E) 1/2
QR
V = °
2EA
o
I 1 = Gamma function
R = Distance from origin in each section
X = Distance from X = 0 in South River
XD = Distance from dam in Raritan River
K
s
V
SD
VD
= Standard Roots
R - P
D = -2 2
p AK
yp = ^k-rk ^ so'ut'on 1 + ^
- 124 -
-------
Middle Hudson Estuary
The middle Hudson Estuary extends from roughly Catskill,
New York, to Yonkers, New York. In essence, it joins the upper
Hudson Estuary with the North River.
Figures 14 and 15 present the cross-sectional area and
reaeration coefficient as functions of distance. It may be observed
that the middle Hudson Estuary is characterized by a varying cross-
sectional area as a function of distance between mile points 86 and
118 . Downstream of mile point 86 it is possible to consider the Es-
tuary composed of a number of constant cross-sectional area segments.
Water quality data, and information on waste inputs and
dispersion in this area are relatively lacking. This void suggests that
a model of the middle Hudson Estuary incorporating simplifying assump-
tions is the most appropriate for an immediate first cut analysis of wa-
ter quality.
A schematic illustration of a simplified model for water
quality in the middle Hudson is presented on Figure 16 . It consists
of four (4) constant cross-sectional area segments with provision for waste
- 125 -
-------
K
Li.
W200
MIDOLE HUDSON RIVER
AREA AND 'hK" VS DISTANCE
cn
Q
<150
3
0
1
2100
<
® • • •
• # •
<
2
o
h—
O
u
CO
CO
0)
o
cr
o
I
*
.<
UJ
o
Ll.
b
o
o
o
£
cc
u
<
LlI
cr
50
J L
J I L
20
35
30
25
20
15
10
05
40 60 80 100
MILES ABOVE BATTERY
120
_ •
• i
• •
9 9
••
— 99 —r«
9 pr^ • • •
o
a
I 1
20
40 60 80 100
MILES ABOVE BATTERY
120
FIGURE 14 815
126
-------
SCHEMATIC OF MIDDLE HUDSON RIVER ESTUARY
MODEL
(+) x = o (-)
4 I
-Q
X z
WA
X Y
WB
WC
note: see text for extent a application
FIGURE 16
-------
inputs at three (3) locations.
A matrix system of evaluating the non-zero unknown coefficients
has been employed in the middle Hudson Estuary model. The specific boundary
conditions are:
Boundary Condition ^ Location
1 X = XY
X = XY
X = 0
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
X
X
X
X
X =
= 0
= XZ
= XZ
= +
Iffil
h ¦ L2
Mass Balance
4 " L3
Mass Balance
L3 = L4
Mass Balance
L4 * °
L, - 0
A complete program for the middle Hudson Estuary is presented
in the appendix of this report.
As indicated, the simplified middle Hudson Estuary model will
provide an excellent tool for obtaining an initial evaluation of water quality
parameters and inputs for the entire region between Catskill, New York and
Yonkers, New York. As additional water quality data becomes available,
- 128 -
-------
and as more information on waste loads entering the system are obtained, it
is desireable to employ more refined mathematical models.
- 129 -
-------
Upper Hudson River System
The upper Hudson River system may be considered to extend
from the Federal lock and dam at Troy approximately 50 miles downstream
to the vicinity of Saugerties, New York. This reach is characterized by
tidal oscillation and reversal but is primarily fresh water in nature. Ana-
lysis of available water quality data indicate that the tidal dispersion ef-
fect, the magnitude of which is represented by the coefficient, " E is
minimal in the region. As a result, the mathematical model is somewhat
simplified by eliminating the dispersion coefficient from the development.
Figure ( 17 ) is a schematic diagram of the upper Hudson
River system. Figure ( 18 ) presents the cross-sectional area and mean
depth distributions. The area variation may be defined by cylindrical co-
ordinates of the form:
In which A is the cross-sectional orea at any distance, R, and AQ is the
area at R^ measured from an imaginary origin. The system was divided in-
to two ( 2 ) segments to account for the variation in mean depth as indicated
in Figure ( 18 ). The average depth in each segment was taken as the con-
stant value indicated on the diagram for computation of the atmospheric re-
aeration coefficient, " AK" . The average tidal velocity was used to cal-
culate this coefficient.
- 130 -
-------
A=A0 (£)
X = 0
j—Xo - 11.0 MILES -j 8.4 MILES "-J- 41.6 MILES
ALBANY
UPPER HUDSON RIVER ESTUARY
FIGURE 17
-------
cn
§40
S35
(T
<
_»
<
30
o 25
h-
O
c/>20
C/)
CO
o 15
a:
o
§ 10
HUDSON RIVER
MAY THRU OCTOBER
±
10
0
10 20 30
MILES FROM ALBANY
40
30
u_
jE 20
Q.
UJ
a
• %*«• •%
"V
• •
• •
• •
<
u 10
J.
10
10 20 30
MILES FROM ALBANY
40
FIGURE 18
132
-------
As tidal dispersion was not a significant factor in the mathe-
matical development, the basic differential equations were integrated
directly to final solution. The unknown arbitrary constants, "B" and "C"
for BOD relationships and "G" and "H" for deficit functions, were readily
determined from boundary and initial conditions. Matrix solution for this
system was not required. The final solutions were programmed for digital
computation by Hydroscience, Inc. and the program listing is presented
in the appendix.
Waste waters enter the upper Hudson River system at numerous
locations between Troy and the lower boundary of Albany County. How-
ever, the discharges are roughly concentrated and were considered to enter
the main stream at two primary locations; the Federal Lock at Troy and the.
Dunn Memorial Bridge at Albany. The domestic waste loadings are carbo-
naceous and nitrogenous in nature. The deficit distribution associated with
both the carbonaceous and nitrogenous fraction of the total BOD was indi-
vidually computed for each of the two primary loading locations. The
BOD reaction coefficients, "RK" and "DK" were assigned carbonaceous
and nitrogenous values as appropriate. In addition to the major loadings,
allowance was made for BOD and oxygen deficit entering the system with
waters from above the dam. The method of superposition can be applied
and the individual deficit profiles accumulated to yield a total distribution.
- 133 -
-------
Regional Water Quality Models
The water quality models thus far presented are for relatively
small subsystems of the waterways under study. These small models are ex-
cellent tools for evaluating parameters and loading data, as well as providing
a basis upon which a rational field program can be developed.
In addition to the small subsystem models, three large water
quality models have been developed which can be employed to characterize
water quality in the following major regions:
1. New York Harbor Complex
a) East River ( upper and lower )
b) Harlem River
c) North River
d) Upper New York Harbor
e) Kill Van Kull
f) Newark Bay
g) Arthur Kill
2. Hudson Estuary Model
a) Hudson River from the Troy Lock to Yonkers
3. Complete Study Area
a) Hudson Estuary Model
b) New York Harbor Complex
c) Raritan River
- 134 -
-------
The techniques employed to develop the mathematical models
for water quality are described under the section entitled, " Method for
Evaluation and Presentation of Boundary Conditions for Complex Estuaries. "
The specific approach employed to developing a computer program leads
to a single program which can be employed to generate all three of the large
water quality models. In essence, the water quality systems to be studied
can be mapped in the computer program.
- 135 -
-------
New York Harbor Complex
Figure 19 is a schematic representation of the mathematical
model for water quality in the New York Harbor Complex. The section num-
bers that have been assigned are arbitrary. Table 13 indicates the func-
tional form of the equations for BOD and dissolved oxygen deficit in each
section. In addition, the sections which are exceptions to the general equa-
tions are specifically defined.
The coordinate systems used in this model are :
Number Origin Section
1 XA = 0 at Battery 2 to 16, 22 to 32
2 XB = 0 at Arthur Kill
and Newark Bay 40 and 42
3 XC = Oat Kill Van Kull
and Newark Bay 36 and 34
4 R = Ro ( 18 ) at Upper
East River 18 and 20
5 R = Ro ( 44 \ at Arthur
Kill 44 and 46
Table 14 presents a specific listing of the appropriate boundary
classification applicable to each section. The sections I upstream and K
downstream have been identified. The boundary equations are sequentially
numbered. The system generates 41 unknown coefficients and 41 boundary
- 136 -
-------
ARTHUR KILL
NEWARK BAY
SCHEMATIC OF NEW YORK HARBOR
MODEL
KILL VAN
KULL 1
(+) X = 0 (-)
HUDSON RIVER
UPPER NEW YORK HARBOR
r
T
Y
©
©
©
HARLEM RIVER
—
FIGURE 19
-------
equations.
Employing Tables 13 and 14 in conjunction with Tables
4,5, and 6 , and the example estuary problem, a computer
program can be written for evaluating the unknown coefficients and cal -
culating the required profiles for BOD and dissolved oxygen deficit for
the New York Harbor Complex.
- 138 -
-------
TABLE 13
FUNCTIONAL FORMS FOR NEW YORK HARBOR COMPLEX WATER QUALITY MODEL
( Sections illustrated on Figure 19 )
Constant Area
Sections 2 to 16
22 to 36
40 to 42
Variable Area A = Ao ( ^
Sections 44, 46, and 18 and 20
M ixed Volumes:
Section 38 ( Equation 47 )
Note: Equation 45 ( Section 20 and 1.2.)
Equation 46 ( Section 32 and 46 )
- 139 -
-------
TABLE 14
BOUNDARY CLASSIFICATIONS NEW YORK HARBOR COMPLEX
( Sections
Illustrated on
Figure 19)
Boundary
Classification
1
K
KK
J ( Boundary No )
1 -5
4
2
„
2
-
6
4
—
4
8
6
—
6
14
16
—
8
22
24
—
10
26
28
—
12
36
34
—
14
42
44
—
16
40
42
—
18
2-6
12
10
20
20
18
22
3-7
30
32
24
44
46
26
8
10
14
8
27
9
24
26
8
28
16
22
18
29
28
30
34
30
- 140 -
-------
TABLE 14
( Continued )
Boundary
Classification 1 K KK J ( Boundary No )
11
38
36
40
31
4
38
36
__
32
38
40
—
33
1
10
14
34
10
8
—
35
16
18
—
36
16
22
—
37
24
26
—
38
26
2
—
39
28
30
—
40
34
30
—
41
- 141 -
-------
Hudson Estuary Model
Figure 20 contains a schematic illustration of the water
quality model for the Hudson Estuary extending from the New York
Harbor model to the Troy lock.
The section of the model extending from the Troy lock
to Saugerties, New York is characterized by an expanding area.
A change in thd reaeration coefficient is also observed in this por-
tion of the estuary. The rate of area expansion changes down-
stream from Saugerties, as shown on Figure 21. Beginning at mile
point 85 three constant area sections have been employed. The
location of known parameter change have also been indicated on
Figure 21.
Table 15 presents the appropriate area functions for the
various sections in the middle Hudson estuary and Table 16 lists
the specific boundary conditions to be applied between sections.
The sections I upstream and K downstream have been identified.
- 142 -
-------
A
CM
NOTE.
P-PARAMETER CHANGE
A= AREA FUNCTION CHANGE
W= POINT WASTE INPUT
ALL SECTIONS HAVE PROVISION
FOR UNIFORM LOAD, BOTTOM
DEPOSITS AND ALGAE.
SCHEMATIC OF HUDSON ESTUARY MODEL. TROY, N.Y TO YONKERS
FIGURE
FIGURE 20
-------
400
350 "
f 3001-
UJ
o
*}
> o 250
o c:
oc < 200
£ <
HUDSON ESTUARY FROM TROY TO OCEAN
AREA PLOT
• i
A CALCULATED AREA PI
<
U
O
O
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK AK
AK
AK
<
I
O
(f)
o
150 -
100 -
50 -
i :
P *
I«< »
Ao = 52,000 FT
Ro = 17 . 85 Ml
CVI
LlI
(E
3
O
u.
20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
MILES ABOVE BATTERY
-------
TABLE 15
FUNCTIONAL FORMS TO BE USED IN
WATER QUALITY MODEL OF HUDSON ESTUARY
( Sections Illustrated on Figure 20 )
Expanding Area A = Ao ( — )
Sections 2 to 20
Constant Area
Sections 22 to 36
Note: Section 36 ( Use Equation 46)
- 145 -
-------
TABLE 16
BOUNDARY CLASSIFICATIONS FOR HUDSON ESTUARY
( Sections Illustrated on Figure 20 )
Boundary
Classification ( K KK J ( Boundary No )
1 - 5
2
4
2
4
6
4
6
8
6
8
10
8
10
12
10
12
14
12
14
16
14
16
18
16
18
20
18
20
22
20
22
24
22
24
26
24
26
28
26
28
30
28
30
32
30
32
34
32
3-7
34
36
34
10
2
35
- 146 -
-------
Hudson Estuary, Harbor Complex, and Raritan River Model
Figure 22 is a schematic diagram of a single mathematical
model for water quality in the Hudson Estuary from Troy, New York
to the Atlantic Ocean including the waters of New York Harbor and
the Raritan River. This single water qualify model will describe the
influence of an input in any segment on the water quality in any
other section t>f the system.
The system diagrammed in Figure 22 has been segmented
into fifty-one sections. Some allowance has been made in the mid-
dle Hudson Estuary for sections which can be employed to include
changes in parameters. Information on the values of parameters in
this portion of the study area appeared weak, thus provision was
made for additional sections to provide flexibility.
The location of section boundaries are in all cases measured
from the point of origin of the applicable coordinate system. Eleven
coordinate systems were employed in the model. They are defined at:
- 147 -
-------
Number
Origin
Sections
1
XA
=
O @ Battery
2 to 16
26 to 30
64 to 82
2
XB
=
0 @ Arthur Kill and Newark Bay
40 &42
3
XC
-
O @ Kill Van Kull and Newark Bay
36 &34
4
XD
=
O @ Fieldville Dam
58
5
XE
=
O @ Duhernal Dam
60 & 62
6
R
=
Ro (56) @ Raritan River
56 &54
7
R
=
Ro (52 ) @ Raritan and South River
52 & 50
8
R
=
Ro ( 94 ) @ Saugerties
84 to 94
9
R
=
Ro ( 102 ) @ Troy
96 to 102
10
R
=
Ro ( 18 ) @ Upper East River
18 &20
11
R
=
Ro ( 44 ) @ Arthur Kill
44 &46
The direction of axis for the various bodies of water has been
indicated on Figure 22. Table 17 presents the specific boundary conditions
and classifications for the water quality model schematically illustrated in
Figure 22. Table 18 indicates the appropriate functional form for each
section.
- 148 -
-------
XD - 0
Ro(56)
<0
<75
C
m
l\>
po
SCHEMATIC OF HUDSON RIVER -
NEW YORK HARBOR - RARflAN
RIVER MODEL
XA (-)
©
-H
XC=0
XA=0
Q XA(4) ^
j~Ro(94Tj
Ro 102
-lxDxQt
0
©
©
0
©
-------
TABLE 17
SPECIFIC BOUNDARY CLASSIFICATIONS
FOR WATER QUALITY MODEL FROM
TROY, NEW YORK TO THE ATLANTIC OCEAN
( Sections Illustrated on Figure 22 )
Boundary
Classification
1
K
KK
J ( Boundary
4
2
..
2
6
4
—
4
8
6
—
6
12
10
—
8
64
12
—
10
66
64
—
12
68
66
—
14
70
68
—
16
72
70
—
18
74
72
—
20
76
74
—
22
78
76
—
24
80
78
—
26
82
80
—
28
84
82
—
30
86
84
—
32
88
86
—
34
90
88
—
36
92
90
—
38
94
92
—
40
96
94
—
42
98
94
—
44
100
98
—
46
102
100
—
48
14
16
—
50
22
24
—
52
1 and 5
- 150 -
-------
TABLE 17
( Continued )
Boundary
Classification
1
K
KK
J ( Boundary No )
1 and 5
26
28
__
54
36
34
56
40
42
—
58
42
44
—
60
44
46
—
62
58
56
—
64
56
54
—
66
52
50
—
68
62
60
—
70
10
—
102
71
—
58
—
72
—
62
—
73
5
36
38
—
74
40
38
75
46
48
—
76
50
48
77
11
36
40
38
78
12
46
50
48
79
- 151 -
-------
TABLE 17
( Continued )
Boundary
Clossification I K KK J ( Boundary No )
1
2
26
—
80
28
30
—
81
28
34
—
82
24
26
—
83
10
8
—
84
10
14
—
85
16
22
—
86
18
22
—
87
60
52
—
88
54
52
—
89
2 and 6
20
18
—
91
3 and 7
30
32
—
93
9
10
8
14
94
2
26
24
95
18
22
16
96
28
30
34
99
60
52
54
98
- 152 -
-------
TABLE 18
SPECIFIC FUNCTIONAL FORMS TO BE USED IN
WATER QUALITY MODEL FROM
TROY, NEW YORK TO THE OCEAN
( Sections Illustrated on Figure 22 )
Constant Area
Sections 2 to 16
64 to 82
22 to 36
40, 42, 62, and 58
Expanding Area A = Ao -g—
Ko
Sections 84 to 102
50 to 56
R 2
Expanding Area A = Ao ( — )
Ko
Sections 18, 20, 44, and 46
Bays
Sections 38 and 42 ( Use Equation 47 )
Note: Section 20 ( Use Equation 45 )
Section 32 ( Use Equation 46 )
- 153 -
-------
LOADS AND SYSTEM INPUTS
Mathematical models have been developed which can be em-
ployed to describe water quality in the various waterways and components of
the system under study. Where practical, these models have been developed
to permit evaluation of water quality from a consideration of external system
input without recourse to the use of observed water quality data. In order to
effectively employ the mathematical models, it is necessary to evaluate ex-
ternal system loads, such as waste water discharges.
Efforts have been made by the participants in this phase of
the study to collect and evaluate data on wastes entering the system. A sum-
mary of the available information is presented in Tables 19 to 23 . The
specific information on waste inputs and locations have been grouped to pro-
vide inputs for the mathematical models. The waste input information avail-
able for the system is at best an approximation. A significant effort is re-
quired to develop reliable estimates of inputs into the system.
The problem of location and evaluation of waste discharge mag-
nitude is extremely complex in the area under study. Problems generally en-
countered in evaluating storm overflow, urban runoff, and natural pollutional
loads is further complicated by the extremely high population density of por-
tions of the study area, the variability of land uses in the study area, and the
relative absence of collection and treatment facilities for wastes.
- 154 -
-------
TABLE 19
NEW YORK HARBOR
North River Loads
Component1 or System Location from Battery Magnitude of Load
(miles ) ( / day )
C ( BOD ) (DEF)i
East River
1.8
88,000
2,200
East River
4.3
136,400
5,000
East River
9.4
44,200
6,000
East River
11.7
72,000
9,000
Upper Bay
3.1
140, 000
15,000
Upper Bay
4.2
100,000
10,000
Upper Bay
1.5
52, 000
5,500
North River
1.1
42,500
7,300
North River
7.0
14,600
3,900
North River
15.5
72, 000
11,600
North River
20.0
19,000
4,300
North River
4.0
93, 000
3,000
North River
6.0
93,000
3,000
North River
8.0
93, 000
3,000
North River
10.0
93,000
3,000
- 155 -
-------
TABLE 20
ARTHUR KILL
Location ( Miles )
1.166
2.528
7.758
8.048
11.828
DOMESTIC PLANTS
Pounds BOD per day
69, 500
25,810
30, 900
2,818
3,000
- 156 -
-------
TABLE 21
ARTHUR KILL SYSTEM
Industrial Loads
Source Load ** Average Distance (miles )
Hess
Chevron
7, 190
9.59
Kopps Wood
U. S. Metals
F. M. C.
770
6.75
American Cyna-
mid, Linden
Citgo
General Aniline
DuPont
Grassell i
42, 207
3.45
Humble Oil
72, 400
1.38
Archer Daniels
Procter & Gamble
12,200
.625
Zero ( 0 ) located 1800 yards due East of Shooter's Island
( All locations related to zero ( 0 ) )
** LOAD = BOD x 1.5+4.5 NH3
-------
TABLE 22
Load
Yonkers
Pearl River
Ossinning
Peekskil I
Beacon-Newburgh
Poughkeepsie
Kingston
Saugerties
Catski 11
MUNICIPAL LOADS
Middle Hudson River
Location from Battery Five-day BOD
(miles ) pounds / day
Albany - Troy area
Federal Lock at Troy
Dunn Memorial Bridge
Albany, New York
BOD over lock
52,400
1,300
6, 700
6, 200
8, 050
6, 020
8, 300
700
1,300
35, 100
63,800
(1)
(1)
35, 000
(2)
NOTE: (1) 80% of these values can be used for nitrogenous oxygen demand
(2) Limited BOD data indicated 1.5 ppm BOD in flow over lock
- 158 -
-------
TABLE 23
LOAD LOCATIONS
Tidal Section of Raritan River
Component or System
Location
Fieldvill
( Miles ) From
e or Duhernal
Dams
Magnitude
( pounds/day )
Raritan River
13.3
550
Raritan River
14.3
3,000
Raritan River
15.2
36, 600
Raritan River
15.6
550
Raritan River
16.4
7,900
South River
.1
300
South River
3.2
6,900
- 159 -
-------
There are essentially two (2) methods available to investigators
for evaluating system inputs. The most reliable method consists of a field program
which actually measures the waste entering the system. The second approach is a
paper study of the population and equivalent population which discharges wastes
into the system. In using either approach for evaluation of waste loadings, it is
necessary to determine the location of waste discharges, and the magnitude of
the various discharged substances which influence water quality.
Dissolved oxygen has been employed as one criterion of water
quality. The mathematical models developed in the present study can be directly
applied to evaluation of dissolved oxygen profiles if the major sources of oxygen
demand are included in the analysis. There are three (3) known major sources of
dissolved oxygen demand. These are carbonaceous organic matter, nitrogenous
oxygen demand, and the oxygen demand associated with bottom sediments.
To establish the relative significance of the several sources of
oxygen demand, it is possible to consider the per-capita contributions. It is
o 0)
generally agreed that 0.17 pounds of five-day 20 BOD is contributed per-
capita. This is equivalent to approximately 0.265 pounds per day of ultimate
oxygen demand. An acceptable daily per-capita nitrogen contribution (as N )
is 0.022 pounds per day. Each pound of nitrogen requires in the order of 4.5
to 5.14 pounds of oxygen for oxidation to NO and water. Thus the oxygen
o
demand associated with carbonaceous BOD is 0.265 pounds per-capita per day,
(1) Fair & Geyer, Water Supply and Waste-Water Disposal, John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., 1954.
- 160 -
-------
and the nitrogenous oxygen demand may be as high as 0.11 pounds per-capita
per day. The ratio of nitrogenous oxygen demand to ultimate carbonaceous oxy-
gen demand is in the order of 40 percent.
It is evident that data on the nitrogen content of wastes are re-
quired to realistically assess the oxygen demand of waste discharges. In this re-
gard, it should be noted that with minor exceptions, even the waste input data
available from treatment plants in the study area do not provide information which
can be employed to evaluate the nitrogenous oxygen demand.
The location, mapping and evaluation of the oxygen demand as-
sociated with bottom sediments should be carried out in the study area. In this
regard, it is possible to assess which specific regions of the study area would be
significantly influenced by bottom oxygen demands. Water quality as measured
by dissolved oxygen in areas with water depths in excess of thirty (30) feet are
not likely to be significantly influenced by oxygen demand associated with bot-
tom sediments. Sampling, mapping and measuring these areas could be delayed.
Experimental evaluation of loads to the system could be carried
out by selecting specific raw waste discharges and obtaining measurements of flow,
and other necessary parameters ( including the nitrogen series. ) The raw waste
discharge could be the influent to a treatment plant or a raw discharge to the sys-
tem. Efforts should be made to define the character of the contributing popula-
tion. In particular, estimates of the relative contribution of the transient popu-
lation and industrial discharge relative to the resident population are of particular
- 161 -
-------
significance in the New York Harbor complex. This experimental
approach could be further applied to areas other than New York
Harbor, if required.
In addition, it would be desirable to evaluate the nitrog-
enous ox/gen demand associated with the effluents from the several
types of treatment systems operated in the study area.
It is possible to approach the problem of evaluating waste
inputs into the system by conducting a population study. Figure 23
presents an indication of the resident population in New York City
for the census year 1960. Also indicated on this figure are load loca-
tions.
Table 24 was developed from a conversion of the resident
population figures to pounds of ultimate BOD and total oxygen demand
for each of the load locations indicated. An estimate of the indus-
trial contribution and of the transient population must be added to the
loading figures presented in the table. In this regard, one method of
estimation of the transient population could be obtained by an analy-
sis of the New York City income tax which collects revenue from
transient non-resident workers in the city.
- 162 -
-------
FIGURE 23
163
-------
TABLE 24a
1920
WASTE LOADS
Discharge
Point
Population
(resident)
Ultimate BOD
pounds / day
Nitrogenous
Demand (&/day)
Total Demand
( pounds / day )
Equivalent
5 - day BOD
2A ( 1930 )
169, 000
44,800
18, 600
63, 400
42, 300
2B ( 1930 )
169, 000
44,800
18, 600
63, 400
42, 300
2C ( 1930 )
169, 000
44, 800
18,600
63,400
42,300
2D ( 1930 )
169, 000
44,800
18,600
63,400
42, 300
5B ( 1930 )
535, 000
142,000
58,800
200, 800
134,000
5A
1
328,500
87, 100
36, 100
123, 200
82, 300
5A
3 2
328,500
85, 100
36, 100
123, 200
82, 300
12A
106,000
28, 100
11,700
39,800
26,600
12B
106,000
28, 100
11, 700
39,800
26,600
8
283, 000
75, 000
31, 100
106, 100
70, 700
9
374, 000
99,200
41, 200
140,400
93,700
- 164 -
-------
TABLE 24b
1950
WASTE LOADS
Discharge
Point
Population
(resident)
Ultimate BOD
pounds / day
Nitrogenous
Demand ('/day)
Total Demand
( pounds / day )
Equivalent
5-day BOD
2A
180,000
47, 700
19,800
67, 500
45,000
2B
180,000
47, 700
19,800
67,500
45,000
2C
180,000
47,700
19,800
67,500
45,000
2D
180,000
47, 700
19,800
67,500
45,000
5B
523,000
138,500
57,500
196,000
131,000
5A,
411,500
109,000
45, 200
154, 200
103,000
5A2
411,500
109,000
45, 200
154,200
103,000
12A
300,000
79,500
33,000
112,500
75,000
12B
300,000
79,500
33,000
112,500
75, 000
8
300,000
79,500
33,000
112,500
75, 000
9
716,000
190,000
78,700
268, 700
178,500
- 165 -
-------
TABLE 24c
1960
WASTE LOADS
Discharge
Point
Population
(resident)
Ultimate BOD
pounds / day
Nitrogenous
Demand ('/ day)
Total Demand
( pounds / day )
Equivalent
5-day BOD
2A
205, 500
54, 400
22, 600
77, 000
51,400
2B
205,500
54, 400
22,600
77, 000
51,400
2C
205, 500
54, 400
22, 600
77, 000
51,400
2D
205, 500
54, 400
22, 600
77, 000
51,400
5B
456, 000
121,000
50,100
171, 100
114,000
5A,
544, 500
144, 100
59,800
203, 900
136,000
5A2
544, 500
144, 100
59, 800
203, 900
136, 000
12A
314,500
83, 500
34, 600
118,100
78, 600
12B
314,500
83, 500
34,600
118,100
78, 600
8
237, 000
62, 800
26, 100
88, 900
59, 200
9
596, 000
158, 000
65,500
223,500 .
149, 000
- 166 -
-------
The city of New York also has an industrial sewer charge
ordinance. It would appear that the records of the City of New York
on the number and character of industrial discharges within the system
could be employed to provide an estimate of non-domestic waste con-
tributions. The paper study to evaluate waste loads entering the New
York Harbor complex is recognized as an approximation of the loads,
but the results of a properly conducted study could provide the accu-
racy of information required for proper use of the mathematical model.
The estimates of input waste quantities from a detailed study of an
experimental or population nature would significantly improve the
reliability of efforts to determine consistent sets of parameters for the
waterways of the study area. It is therefore recommended that this
very important phase of developing waste inputs be pursued as rapidly
as practical. In the interim, the waste input location and magnitudes
presented in this report can be employed to evaluate system parameters.
Latitude to increase or decrease these inputs adds an undesirable yet
realistic degree of freedom to the process of evaluating system parameters.
- 167 -
-------
PRELIMINARY VALUES OF SYSTEM PARAMETERS
The mathematical models presented in this report require as in-
put data the value of the several parameters of each segment of the system.
Input also is required to define the physical, geophysical and hydraulic con-
ditions.
The specific information required for each section of the water
quality models are :
1. Waste discharge location.
2. Quantity of carbonaceous oxygen demand.
3. Quantity of nitrogenous oxygen demand.
4. Uniform waste loads (quantity and locations ) .
5. Bottom oxygen demand (quantity and locations ) .
6. Algae oxygen production and respiration rates and
locations.
7. Cross-sectional area of the system as a function of
distance. For constant area sections, the value of
the cross-sectional area is required. For expanding
area sections, the values of Aq and RQ are required.
8. The fresh water flow.
9. Dispersion coefficient " E " .
10. The reaeration coefficient " AK " .
11. BOD removal and BOD oxidation coefficients " RK "
and " DK " respectively must be evaluated for the
various types of waste inputs.
- 168 -
-------
12. The physical length of the several sections and
the region of application of the model.
13. The volume of completely mixed bodies.
Tables 25 to 27 present a summary of the available information
on systems parameters and inputs defining geometry.
- 169 -
-------
TABLE 25
NEW YORK HARBOR - PRELIMINARY
VALUES
OF PARAMETERS
Parameter and Units
Upper New
Lower East
Upper East
North
Newark Lower Arthur
Upper Arthur
Ki 11 Van
York Bay
River
River
River
Bay
Kill
Kill
Kull
Dispersion coefficient
"E" ( mi2 / day )
24
10
10
20
10
10
10
10
BOD removal coefficient
" RK " ( 1 / day )
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.26
0.25
0.25
0.25
BOD oxidation coefficient
" DK " ( 1 / day )
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.26
0.25
0.25
0 .25
Reaeration coefficient
" AK " ( 1 / day )
0.07
0.09
0.12
0.1
0.30
0.15
0.15
0.125
2
Cross-sectional area (ft )
340,000
80,000
Ao=80,000
135,000
—
35,000
Ao=24,250
50,000
Area variation
None
None
R 2
AfAoA
Ro
None
None
None
R 2
A=Ao(^)
Tidal Exchange ( 1 / day )
0. 1 - 0.43
—
—
0
1
o
•
CO
—
Ro = 26 mi.
—
3
Volume ft
1.2 x 1010
—
—
—
1.2 x 109
—
—
—
-------
HUDSON ESTUARY
PRELIMINARY PARAMETER VALUES
2 2
Miles Area (ft ) AK ( 1/day ) RK ( 1/day ) DK ( 1/day ) E ( mi /day ) Ro ( miles ) Area Variation
14
200,000
0.23
0.25
0.25
io1
_ _
Constant
40
155,000
0.04
0.25
0.25
101
- -
Constant
55
155,000
0.125
0.25
0.25
io1
- -
Constant
65
125,000
0.06
0.25
0.25
51
- -
Constant
85
52,0003
0. 15
0.25
0.25
5 to 1
17.853
A ( —)
{ Ro ;
97
52,0003
0.275
0.25
0.25
5 to 1
17.853
114
13,0004
0.165
0.25
0.25
,2
13.54
D
11
4
0.25
0.25
, 2
4
13,000
0.125
1
13.5
Troy Lock
Notes:
1. || E " requires verification
2. " E 11 requires verification - profiles suggest low " E " values
3. Ro Located at 114 miles
4. Ro Located at Troy Lock
-------
TABLE 27
RARITAN RIVER
Section No. 1
X = O to X = 2.0miles: area = 450 ft^
E = 1.0 miles ^/ day
AK = 4.87 1 / day
RK = DK = 0.25 1 / day
P = 10 mg / 1 / day
R = 2.0 mg / I / day
F = 1.5
Section No. 7
X = 2.0 R02 = .55 miles Iimit HH = 9 miles
Section No. 2
R02 = .55 miles limit BB = 9 miles
NOTE: Solution must include a
Section No. 7 and a Section No.
2. Therefore, for no load in this
region, it is suggested that :
R02 = Ro^ = .55 miles
HH = 1.0 miles R at end of section No. 7 - 1.55 miles
Ao = Ao = 450 ft^
2 7
All parameters are equal ¥
E = 5.0
- 172 -
-------
TABLE 27
( Continued)
AK = 0.80 P = 10.0
RK = DK = 0.25 R = 2.0
F = 1.5
Sections Nos. 3 and 4
R03 = R02 + BB (in space )
Rog = 1.77 miles
Ao = 7970 ft2
3
CC = 8.6 miles (limit)
EE = 8.6 miles (limit)
NOTE: Solution must include
Sections 3 and 4. Therefore,
for no load, it is suggested that:
CC= 1.0
EE = 8.6
All parameters are equal
E = 5.0
AK = .40
RK = DK = .25
P = 10
R = 2.0
F = 1.5
- 173 -
-------
TABLE 27
( Continued )
Sections Nos. 5 and 6
Area = 2000 ft2
X - O at Ro at Ro + BB
3 2
X = -5.8 miles limit
FF = -5.8 limit
DD = -5.8 limit
E = 5.0
AK = 0.43
RK = DK = 0.25
P = 10.0
R = 2.0
F = 1.5
USE FOR NO LOAD CONDITIONS :
FF = 2.6 miles
DD = -5.8 miles
NOTE : All distances, AA, HH,
BB, CC, EE, FF, and DD are mea-
sured from origin of respective sys-
tems. That is, from :
AA from XR = O
HH and BB from R02
CC and EE from Ro^
FF and DD from XS = O
- 174 -
-------
TABLE 27
( Continued )
NOTE: Flow over dam on Raritan is
" Q " in Sections Nos. 1, 7, and 2.
Flow over dam in South is " Q " in
Sections 6. Section 5 has added flow
at mile -2.6. Flow in Sections 3 and
4 equals sum of flows in Sections 2+5.
- 175 -
-------
AVAILABLE DATA ON WATER QUALITY AND SYSTEM INPUTS
Relatively extensive data and information on water quality
are available for the major waterways in the study area. The vast majority
of water quality data in the study area was not obtained with a view towards
use in evaluating water quality in the subject waterways as a factor which
results from system characteristics and waste inputs. The available informa-
tion has been averaged on a monthly basis and is considered to represent
mean tidal water quality. This procedure is necessary since the data is not
obtained with respect to a known or fixed point in the tidal cycle. The
majority of available data provides at least some water quality information
for particular points in space and time. In view of the above, the bulk of
water quality data available for the system can be used as a preliminary
basis of comparison with the mathematical models developed in this work.
The New York Harbor complex is sampled regularly by the
New York Department of Public Works. The location of specific sampling
stations used by the Department are shown on Figure 24. Surface and bot-
tom samples are collected and analyzed for temperature, dissolved oxygen,
chlorides, biochemical oxygen demand, and coliform bacteria. Samples
are obtained on a regular basis once or twice a week during the period from
June to September of each year.
The data thus collected is representative of water quality
- 176 -
-------
N
© PRESENT SAMPLING STATIONS-NYCDPW
• PROPOSED ADDITIONAL SAMPLING
STATIONS
FIGURE 24
PROPOSED SAMPLING STATIONS FOR METROPOLITAN NEW YORK HARBOR COMPLEX
177
-------
at the location sampled for the particular point in the tidal cycle present at
the station at the time the sample was obtained. Figures 25 and 26 are
presented for two East River stations and for different sampling years. The
variation in the observed data for chlorides, and dissolved oxygen are in
large part a result of sampling the same location at differing points in the
tidal cycle. The biochemical oxygen demand concentration profile in the
East River is relatively uniform. Thus, as would be anticipated, data ob-
tained at a fixed location for varying points in the tidal cycle would ap-
pear to be uniform, and relatively insensitive to tidal translation. The
same reasoning on uniformity may be applied to the water temperature data.
In the case of temperature, one observes from Figures 25 and 26 that the
temperature at a station varies significantly during the months sampled.
Two basic requirements for comparison of water quality
data with calculated profiles from the mathematical models are :
1. The data from the various stations must
represent water quality at those stations
for the same instant in time and point of
the tidal cycle. The point in the tidal
cycle must be known.
2. The system must be at or near steady-
state conditions with respect to those
- 178 -
-------
90
1955
23rd ST a EAST RIVER (E-2)
ttT
| 80
70
i
^0
60
80
76
-e- ¦©•
m ^ &
TT
- |
J I I I I L
TZ6"
J L
s
o>
E
I
g
£ 72
68
64
60
4
3
2
1
0
4
3
2
1
0
i
LEGEND
TOP
AVERAGE
BOTTOM
n -®-
J I I I I L
J L
o>
E
CD
I£ it
J I -1
' ¦ ¦ I I I L
JUNE
JULY
AUGUST
SEPT
FIGURE 25
-
-©¦
•e-
i *
A
: a.s
2©
TT
N
o
o
I l i i i
I l
I i 1
I0 2030I02030I020 30I02030
179
-------
100
90
uj 80
cn
70
0
Q.
5
UJ
I-
\
o»
6
i
S
£
X
o
7
6
5
4
3
2
4
!> 2
i
m
O
O
CD
I
0
1
I
J252
HART'S ISLAND (E-10)
-
H -0.
T
~sr
i i
•J -e- H TT
1 1 1
1 1
H -d
:5"
1 1 1
J.
ttU
76
-
1 n
* .
72
-
-
-EL
o
68
—
:EL
64
-
jL
_ni
60
1
i
1 1 1 1
1 1
I i i
I
I
TOP
AVERAGE
BOTTOM
I
iT?
Ti
A
J L
JL
1
J.
J.
1
L_
¦*- ¦ i
10 20 30
JUNE
10 20 30 10 20
JULY AUGUST
FIGURE 26
30 10 20 30
SEPT
180
-------
Factors which influence water quality.
In New York Harbor, the primary time
variable Factors which influence water
quality are Flow and water temperature.
In the general case waste discharges,
algae, and nitrogenous oxidation, may
be added to the list of possible time
varying phenomena.
A review oF the water temperature data on Figures 25 and 26
indicates that steady-state temperature conditions are probably approached
during the months oF July and August. A convenient period For grouping New
York City Department of Public Works water quality data is on a monthly basis.
This method was selected for the present analysis, and is recommended For hand-
ling this type oF data.
One oF the major tasks which the sponsors of this study, The
Federal Water Pollution Control Adminstration, have retained in contracting
For the present developments is the manipulation oF the water quality models
to develop a set oF consistent parameters which when used in the mathematical
models will reproduce observed water quality proFiles. To Facilitate these ac-
tivities, the New York City Department of Public Works data has been aver-
aged by period for a number of years. The averages are tabulated and presented
- 181 -
-------
in the appendix of this report. Additional sources of data on water quality
in the New York Harbor complex are From the Interstate Sanitation Com-
mission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration's own data.
Water quality information on the areas outside the New
York Harbor area are more limited in quantity, but generally were obtained
on a random basis insofar as the tidal cycle is concerned. Various sets of ob-
served water quality data are presented as part of this report to illustrate the
method of utilizing water quality models and evaluating the required para-
meters. Since the purpose of the report was to develop mathematical models
of the area, no effort has been made to tabulate all the available water qual-
ity data in the study area.
- 182 -
-------
SENSITIVITY
V
System sensitivity may be defined as the relative change in
water quality associated with changes in the parameters or the geometry of
the system. There are three (3) significant areas where system sensitivity
has a bearing on the use and application of mathematical models for water
quality.
In the first instance, the relative sensitivity of the system to
changes in the value of a parameter can be employed to determine the ac-
curacy with which this parameter should be measured. The accuracy with
which a parameter should be measured will in turn dictate the amount of
money and effort to be spent in conducting field tests. As an example, a
system may be relatively insensitive to fresh water flow and dispersion.
Efforts to develop refined estimates of these parameters can be minimized.
If, on the other hand, the system is sensitive to the nature and magnitude
of waste inputs and to the value of the reaeration coefficient, expenditures
to develop realistic and well-defined estimates of these parameters and
inputs are justified. In summary, information on the value of all system
parameters, inputs and geometry are required. Expenditures for devel-
oping highly refined estimates of the various items should be viewed in
terms of^their influence on the water quality profiles; that is, the systems'
sensitivity.
- 183 -
-------
A second area where knowledge of the system sensitivity
is important is in developing a realistic set of consistent parameter val-
ues. It is necessary to obtain calculated water quality profiles which
are in agreement with observed data in order to validate the model.
Knowledge of the influence of changes in parameters on calculated pro-
files will assist in establishing the direction and magnitude of changes
in the assigned value of parameters and inputs. This will speed up the
process of determining a consistent set of parameters which will pro-
vide agreement between calculated and observed profiles at various
temperature and flow conditions.
The third area where knowledge of system sensitivity is
significant is in selection and evaluation of the methods for improving wa-
ter quality. As an example, if water quality is insensitive to changes
in fresh water flow, this would indicate that low flow augmentation may
not be a realistic method of improving water quality. On the other
hand, the system may be sensitive to tidal exchange and changes in
system volume. This indicates that consideration should be given to
methods of increasing tidal exchange and increasing the system volume
as a means of improving water quality.
It should be noted that the sensitivity of the system to a
change in the value of a single parameter will vary depending on the
specific value of all parameters; several general indications of system
- 184 -
-------
sensitivity can be defined. These are:
1. The linear nature of the mathematical
models results in changes in the cal -
culated BOD and dissolved oxygen de-
ficit profiles in direct proportion to
changes in waste inputs. That is, a
10 percent reduction in a waste dis-
charge load will result in a 10 per-
cent reduction in the calculated BOD
and dissolved oxygen deficit profiles
associated with the load.
Steep concentration gradients will
tend to be destroyed by relatively
small increases in the value of the
dispersion coefficient. It should be
noted that the influence of changes in
the dispersion coefficient " E " are
reduced when relatively flat profiles
(low concentration gradients) are
present.
The net influence on water quality
resulting from changes in the value
2.
3.
- 185 -
-------
of specific parameters will vary
depending upon the location of
the point in the system being con-
sidered.
To illustrate this point, Figures 27 to 31 are presented.
The Figures contain plots oF a plane formed by the variable fresh water vel-
ocity " U " , the dispersion coefficient " E " , and the calculated dissolved
oxygen deficit, " D " . The values of RK and AK are constant and each
Figure illustrates the variation of the calculated dissolved oxygen deficit at
a specific location for various combinations of values of " U " and " E " .
In Figures 27 to 31 , for locations upstream of the point of the waste dis-
\
charge, one notes that the maximum deficit always occurs at low values of
" U " and " E " . The shape and magnitude of the changes in curvature of
the planes describe the influence of changing the parameters " U " and " E 11.
Figures 27 to 31 are the comparable planes for locations downstream from
the point of waste introduction. It will be noted from these Figures that for
a constant value of the dispersion coefficient, " E " , the fresh water velo-
city " U " at which the maximum deficit occurs increases as the location
studied becomes more remote from the waste input location. That is, at a
station located 10 miles from the point of waste introduction, the dissolved
oxygen deficit increases as the fresh water velocity increases, with the max-
imum deficit occurring at the station when the flow velocity is in the order of
- 186 -
-------
SENSITIVITY PLANES
FIGURE 27
187
-------
D X = 4.0 MILES
U
O.I
FIGURE 28
188
-------
X= 6.0 MILES
D
0.1
X = 4.0 MILES
FIGURE 29
189
-------
FIGURE 30
190
-------
FIGURE 31
191
-------
two (2) miles per day.
The specific planes presented in this report were developed
from consideration of an infinite estuary. The geometry of the estuary may
have significant effects on the shape of the planes and in general, on the sen-
sitivity and behavior of the system.
An example of the influence of geometry on system sensitivity
and behavior is illustrated in Figures 32 and 33 . In these Figures, a four (4)
section system is considered with no fresh water flow. In Figure 32 , the
point of waste introduction is located between the two middle sections at X =
O. Case ^1 on this Figure illustrates the calculated dissolved oxygen deficit
curve when each of the four sections has the same cross-sectional area. In
Case ^2 of this Fi gure, the cross-sectional area of the extreme section has been
increased by a factor of four ( 4). It can be observed that for Case ^2, the en-
tire deficit profile is significantly reduced in magnitude and the maximum de-
ficit occurs behind the point of waste introduction, and away from the section
with the large cross-sectional area. Figure 33 presents profiles for compar-
able system geometries. In this instance, the waste input location is bounded
by an infinity section. It should be noted that for Case ^1, in both Figures 32
and 33 when the estuary geometry is comparable in all sections, the location
of the waste input does not influence the magnitude of the maximum deficit,
which is 5 ppm and occurs at the point of waste input. In Case ^2 for both
Figures 32 and 33 , the maximum deficit occurs behind the waste input, away
- 192 -
-------
ZERO FLOW ANALYSIS
MILES
FIGURE 32
193
-------
ZERO FLOW ANALYSIS
E
Q.
cx
t:
o
y
LJ
§
o
a
UJ
3
o
cn
o
7
6
5
4
3
2
I
0
" CASE I7
w
- ®
©
0 FLOW = 0
CASE
•««
1..... i...
, H
s
s
s
s
/
. . 1 ,
CASE I7
ZCASE 2
111 1
10 8
2 0 2
MILES
8 10
FIGURE 33
194
-------
from the section with the large cross-sectional area. Note that the magnitude
of the maximum deficit is lower in Case $2, as the waste load location approaches
the section with the large cross-sectional area.
Several points of information on sensitivity can be made from an
analysis of the information presented in Figures 32 and 33 .
1. The maximum dissolved oxygen deficit
occurs at the point of waste discharge
for symetrical systems with zero fresh
water flew .
2. The maximum deficit need not occur at
the point of waste discharge for unsymmet-
rical systems with zero flow.
3. The calculated dissolved oxygen deficit
from a constant waste input decreases as
the liquid volume of the system increases.
Figure 34 presents a plot of the plane relating the deficit to the
deoxygenation " DK " and reaeration " AK " coefficient. Note the marked re-
duction in deficit associated with increasing reaeration coefficient. L'Hospital's
rule is applicable to the range where AK = RK as the particular integral in the
deficit solution contains the difference in the two coefficients ( DK/AK-RK ) .
The increase in deficit due to an increase in the deoxygenation coefficient is also
- 195 -
-------
DEOXYGENATION
COEFFICIENT
Vs.
REOXYGENATION
COEFFICIENT
12
E
Q.
i
t
o
a
UJ
>
X
o
Q
UJ
3
O
CD
CO
Q
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
INCREASE
INCREASING
E = 10 Mi2/DAY
U = .8 Mi/DAY
X = 0 Mi
DK( AXIS)(1/DAY)
0
0.05
ZONE
F La HOSPI
TALS RULE
APPLICATION
0.5
AK-d/DAY)
FIGURE 34
196
-------
indicated on the Figure. The range of the deoxygenation coefficient DK
on Figure 34^-is from 0.05 to 0.5 per day.
The deficit calculations in Figure 35 were obtained em-
ploying the East River section of the North River model. In this model, the
North River and upper Harbor are considered flowing bodies. Tidal exchange
may be included in this type of model by considering the BOD removal and
the reaeration coefficient as composed of the respective coefficients plus the
exchange coefficient:
RK = RK +R
AK = AK + R
In the particular example illustrated in Figure 35 , R =0.43
per day. The influence of tidal exchange may be observed to reduce the cal-
culated deficit by as much as 0.3 ppm in 0.5 ppm at the junction of the East
River and Harbor. The influence of tidal exchange is reflected in the dissol-
ved oxygen deficit curves, 18 miles above the location of the section where
tidal exchange has been added. This points out one of the basic properties of
the dispersive phenomena in estuaries as defined by the dispersion coefficient,
" E " . In the present example " E " was equal to 10.
The previous discussions have indicated, in a limited manner,
the response of estuary systems to changes in parameters, inputs and geometry.
The area of system sensitivity is relatively complex and requires additional ef-
fort before adequate definitions are available to define the anticipated behav-
- 197 -
-------
INFLUENCE OF TIDAL EXCHANGE
ON CALCULATED PROFILES OF
DEFICIT
FLOW = ZERO
NORTH RIVER MODEL EAST RIVER SECTION
1.4
1.2
1.0
| 0.8
S 0.6
£
3 0.4
o
_l
<
O 0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
MILES ABOVE BATTERY
IN EAST RIVER
FIGURE 35
198
-------
ior of the waterways which are being studied in the present program.
It is suggested that as part of the anal/sis and use of the mathe-
matical models For water quality a systemic effort be made to develop an under-
standing of the behavior and sensitivity of the system. Specifically, it is suggested
that for each of the models the following program be developed:
1. Obtain first, best estimates of all
system parameters, inputs and geo-
metry.
2. Using a unit load in all sections,
develop profiles employing the best
estimates obtained in No. 1 above.
3. Repeat the procedure in item No.2
for ranges of all the system parameters.
The best estimates may initially be
halved and doubled. ( As an example,
E = 10 best estimate, also evaluate
E = 20 and E = 5. )
A major challange remains in developing a convenient graphical
method of presenting and displaying this information on system behavior and sen -
sitivity. This report has employed individual profiles and three-dimensional
graphs. In all cases, room for improvement in techniques for displaying system
- 199 -
-------
sensitivity remain. The program for evaluating system sensitivity should in-
clude provisions to provide information in all three of the significant areas
of appl ication. Namely:
1. Determination of the variables and para-
meters which require refined field mea-
surements because the system is sensitive
to these items. This will provide inform-
ation on what must be measured, and the
required accuracy.
2. Determination of changes in calculated
profiles to assist in developing a consistent
set of parameters defining all of the phen-
omena having a major influence on water
quality.
3. Determination of the feasibility of alter-
nate methods of improving water quality
based upon the systems' response to changes
in parameters, inputs, and geometry.
- 200 -
-------
DISCUSSION
This report has presented a method of developing mathe-
matical models for water quality which can be employed to assess
the effectiveness of treatment and other alternative methods of im-
proving water quality.
The model techniques presented in the section of this re-
port entitled "Method for Evaluation and Presentation of Boundary
Conditions for Complex Estuaries" can be utilized to evaluate water
quality in the entire system'understudy and can provide the models
for all the smaller components of the system. The capability of the
techniques presented is broad. The computer program which should
be an outgrowth of the technique can replace all programs which
were aimed at providing models for each of the smaller component
waterways. It is suggested that the program utilizing the complex
estuary technique be used in preference to the smaller programs for
the system under study. This approach will allow for consideration
of various combinations of loading and segmentation, regardless of
the system being studies. In addition, excercise of the more general
program will enable the users to become familiar with the capability
of the technique.
-201 -
-------
Mathematical models for water quality provide a necessary
tool for developing a coherent and consistent plan for wafer quality
improvement. The models can also supply a needed input into an opti-
mization program which can consider alternative methods of achieving
several water quality goals. The model, however, is basically a re-
sponse function for the system. The effectiveness and accuracy of
predictive exercises employing this tool are directly influenced by the
degree of verification of the model. The verification sequence essen-
tially consists of evaluation of parameters through comparison of ob-
served and calculated water quality profiles. The comparison results
in the isolation of areas of unknown which can often be evaluated
through field and or laboratory study. A comparison of observed and
calculated profiles are obtained employing the additional information.
This can result in the subsequent isolation of additional areas requiring
definition. The procedure is repeated, exercising the model, devel-
oping comparisons of observed and calculated profiles, and returning
to the field to collect additional data required to strengthen the anal-
ysis. It is highly desirable to have the interplay between a field pro-
gram and model verification to strengthen the analysis.
- 202 -
-------
A North River model was employed as an illustration of the
I
comparison between calculated and observed oxygen deficit profiles
for the Hudson River and upper New York Harbor. Figure 7 is a
schematic diagram of the North River system and Table ,19 contains a
listing of estimates of input loads used.
The specific values of the various parameters are indicated
in the section of the report on preliminary values of parameters.
Figures 36 to 38 present the calculated cumulative dissolved
oxygen deficit profiles for,three flow and temperature conditions. The
observed data for the flow and temperature conditions are also pre-
sented on the figures. There is reasonably good agreement between
observed and calculated profiles in the Hudson River and upper New
York Harbor. Figures 39 to 41 present the calculated dissolved
oxygen deficit profiles and observed data in the East River for the
same periods. The N°rth River model was employed in these calcula-
tions and the profiles presented indicate the effect of all loadings in
the model on the East River. Reasonably good agreement is obtained
between observed and calculated information. It should be noted,
however, that the expanding area portion of the East River is not
- 203 -
-------
8
UPPER BAY 6 NORTH RIVER
DATA-JUNE - 1957
FLOW-7300 CFS
UJ
<3
Q
UJ
a
o
(O
CD
O
o»
E
5 6
0,8
-NORTH RIVER
NORTH RIVER MODEL
l I I
UPPER BAY-
• •
-16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2
MILES FROM BATTERY
O
8
FIGURE 36
-------
UPPER BAY a NORTH RIVER
DATA-AUG. 1957
FLOW- 6700 CFS.
8
o>
£
£ 6
o
UJ
%
o
o
UJ
o
-------
8
CT>
E
t
o 6
UJ
5; ^
o
liJ
3
o
(0
(/)
~
°-l8
UPPER BAY 8 NORTH RIVER
DATA-AUG 1959
FLOW*5160 CFS
NORTH RIVER
NORTH RIVER MOOEL
I I I I
UPPER BAY-
H6 -14 -12 -10 -8-6-4-2
MILES FROM BATTERY
8
10
FIGURE 38
-------
o>
E
t
o
z
UJ
CD
Q
UJ
3
o
cn
CO
EAST RIVER
DATA JUNE 1957
FLOW 7300 CFS
EAST RIVER
NORTH RIVER MODEL
I I I
-18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6
MILES FROM BATTERY
-4
FIGURE 39
-------
o>
J
i
t
o
2
'jJ
O
Q
UJ
3
o
U)
CO
o
EAST RIVER
DATA AUG. 1957
FLOW 6700 CFS
8
EAST RIVER
±
±
±
NORTH RIVER MODEL
±
-18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6
MILES FROM BATTERY
-4 -2
FIGURE 40
-------
ro
O
<0
EAST RIVER
DATA. AUG-1959
FLOW 5160 CFS
Q
\ EAST RIVER
E
Q
UJ
I 2-
0)
(J)
Q NORTH RIVER MOOEL
0 ¦ I I I I I I I
-18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 -0
MILES FROM BATTERY
FIGURE 41
-------
included in the North River water quality model. The verification of
the model employed to obtain the calculated profiles in the East River
portion of the North River model is therefore questionable. Use of the
analysis technique for complex estuaries would strengthen the analysis.
This report presents estimates of waste loadings and para-
meters which can be employed to obtain a first-cut approximation of
the water quality within the system. There are several specific steps
which can be employed to advance the analysis and strengthen the
available understanding of the phenomena influencing water quality.
These procedures are:
1. Observed water quality data available on the New
York Harbor Complex has been, for the most part, collected without
consideration of the tidal influence. The initial suggested step is to
reduce this background of observed water quality data to locate all
data in terms of a common point in the tidal cycle. This procedure
will increase the usefulness of these data in two respects. In the first
instance data which is located with respect to a common point in the
tidal cycle will provide much more reliable water quality profiles to
be employed in verification of the mathematical models. A second
-210 -
-------
benefit occurring from having data located with respect to a common
position in the tidal cycle is obtained from an analysis of these data
regarding the anticipated variation of water quality at each station.
That is, data could be subjected to a regression type analysis which
would result in indications of water quality trends as related to time
and an indication of the random variation of observed water quality.
This analysis would provide an indication of the relative effective-
ness of the treatment facilities which have been installed. Further,
the random variations would quantitize the water quality levels which
are required to insure meeting of water quality objectives on a statis-
tical basis.
2. There is a significant lack of information on the nitroge-
nous material in the receiving bodies throughout the entire study area.
It is suggested that data be collected on nitrogenous matter and on oxi-
dation of nitrogenous material. With the removal of BOD by conven-
tional treatment plant designs, the relative oxygen demand associated
with nitrogenous matter can become the phenomenon which limits the
ability to achieve water quality goals. An illustration of the potential
significance of nitrogenous oxidation on dissolved oxygen profiles is
-211 -
-------
obtained by a comparison of the ultimate oxygen demand of a secondary
effluent. Assuming an effluent BOD of 20 mg/l for carbonaceous mate-
rial and an NH^ concentration of 20 mg/l, the approximate ultimate
oxygen demands are 30 mg/l and 90 mg/l for carbonaceous and nitroge-
nous oxidation respectively.
Information on the nitrogenous content of waste inputs and
on the oxidation of nitrogenous material in the receiving waters will
provide a basis on which predictions of water quality after treatment
can be developed. An additional phenomenon which has a significant
impact on predicted water quality after installation of treatment facili-
ties is the sensitivity of nitrogenous oxidation rates to dissolved oxygen
level. Dissolved oxygen concentrations below 2 to 3 mg/l appear to
inhibit the rate of nitrogenous oxidation.^ Thus, when carbonaceous
BOD is removed by treatment, and water quality improves, the nitroge-
nous oxidation is accelerated, tending to return water quality to the
level before treatment. An added complication, which can be signifi-
cant, is found in consideration of estuary geometry. In estuaries which
have rapidly changing cross-sectional areas, the larger area portions of
the system can have water quality profiles which are insensitive to treat-
ment when associated with acceleration of nitrogenous oxidation. By
1 "Effects of Polluting Discharge on the Thames Estuary, " Water
Pollution Research Laboratory, Technical Report No. 11,HMSO,1964.
-212 -
-------
way of illustration, consider the removal of a quantity of BOD from
an estuary section having a cross-sectional area of 4500 square feet,
and the discharge of this BOD in an estuary section having a cross-
sectional area of 1500 square feet (this is in effect what can result
when nitrogenous oxidation is accelerated ). If the improvement in
Water quality in the larger estuary section is 0.2 mg/l, the resultant
decrease in water quality in the smaller estuary section will be 0.6
mg/l. This is precisely the type of phenomenon which may occur in
large estuarine complexes like New York Harbor. Treatment allows
the nitrogen oxygen demand to be exerted in the smaller cross-
sectional area portions of the estuary, which in effect reduces the
quantity of oxygen demand being exerted in the larger cross sec-
tional area portion of the estuary. The net result is a small improve-
ment in the water quality of the large cross-sectional areas of the
estuary, and minimal improvement near the discharge location.
3. A third area of investigation which would
strengthen the verification procedure for water quality models is in
the assessment of waste input loads and better evaluation of specific
sources and sinks of polluting substances and oxygen deficit as follows:
-213 -
-------
a. Raw Discharges of both treated and untreated
waste waters.
b. Storm overflow from combined and separate
sewer systems ( urban runoff ).
c. Bottom deposits as sinks of dissolved oxygen
and as sources of BOD and nitrogenous matter.
d. Non-urban runoff contribution of pollutional
substances and nutrients.
e. Long term oxygen utilization of samples of
the various waste waters and estuarine waters.
The significance of reliable and complete identification of
sources and sinks of pollution can be illustrated by crudely considering
that predictions of future water quality are made in the following
manner:
Consider a situation in which two 100 pound sources of con-
tinuous waste discharge provide a deficit of 8 mg/l and are the only
pollution thought to be entering the body of water. Let us consider
further that in reality each source is only 90 pounds and 20 pounds is
from a third source which is unknown. In developing predictions let
us assign a 90 percent removal to our two known sources. A dissolved
-214 -
-------
oxygen deficit of 0.8 mg/l would be predicted while, in reality,
90 percent treatment of the two known sources would result in a
deficit of 1.12 mg/l. This is an error in prediction of some 40 per-
cent ( .32/ .8 ) from a 10 percent error in load assignment. It is
possible to consider that the third source was actually non-urban
runoff, bottom deposits, nitrogen oxidation or other sources.
The magnification of errors in assignment of system in-
puts, when prediction is considered, strongly recommends the ex-
penditure of funds to define present and future sources.
The example describing the magnification of error has
equal bearing on the general ability to achieve water quality ob-
jectives regardless of whether modeling of water quality is employed.
Incomplete assessment of present loading and the phenomenon con-
trolling existing water quality can, because of magnification
effects and the nitrogen phenomenon, result in minimal improvement
in quality actually resulting after large expenditure for control
facilities.
-215 -
-------
LAKES
Water quality in lakes can be viewed in three distinct per-
spectives. In the First instance, one can consider a lake in the sense of
geological time. A mass balance around the lake considering a specific
substance which can influence water quality is developed . The rate of
accumulation of these substances can be evaluated to assess long-range
trends in water quality. The second perspective for water quality con -
siders local pollution in the vicinity of streams or outfalls entering a lake.
This analysis is similar in concept to those presented for streams and es-
tuaries in that proper evaluation of the phenomena of advection, decay
and dispersion results in equations which can be employed to define con-
centration profiles of substances influencing water quality or usage. The
third perspective of water quality in lakes considers the body of water as
a vertically stratified system. In this latter case, the vertical profiles of
water temperature and pollutional substances are defined thus providing
an initial step in evaluating water quality.
Long Term Water Quality in Lakes
A lake may be considered in the sense of a body of water
whose water quality alters in a geological time scale of years, decades
or centuries. Consider the body as completely mixed with the periods
of analysis extending from autumn or spring turnovers.
-216 -
-------
A mass balance around a lake can be developed considering
that at time " t " the concentration is " C 11 and at a finite time inter-
val, At, the concentration changed to " C + &C " . The mean con-
centration can be assigned as " C " for the finite time interval. The
change in mass over the time interval equals the amount entering minus that
leaving, plus sources minus sinks.
AC
L- VL - W • At -CL'VL-KL-At-Q-CL-A'
( 55 )
As At —P approaches zero, ^
dC, equation ( 55 ) becomes :
C, and AC approaches
V • dC = W dt - C -V • K • dt - C • Q • dt
L L L L L L L
( 56 )
All symbols used in this section of the report are defined in
the lake nomenclature.
Grouping Terms:
L r \
' vl " lvl + y
dC W,
dt
( 57 )
Integration with C^ = Cq (9 t = 0 yields:
-t
CL =Coe
9. +K.
VL L
+ W
q+vl kl
-t-
1 -e
+K,
VL L
( 58 )
-217 -
-------
Equation ( 58 ) is for a non-conservative substance. Employing
the same reasoning and mathematical techniques, and considering a non-con-
servative substance with an additional sink, for example, settling of material,
yields equation ( 59 ) .
-t
C, = C e
L o
^ + rl+kl
w.
q+vlkl4^lk1
-t
1-e
Q
VL+KL L
in which is the exchange rate listed in the lake nomenclature.
( 59 )
If in addition the bottom also is considered as a source of material,
then equation ( ) is obtained:
-t
CL=Coe
q/vl+kl4*l
* WL +CBRBVB
U+VlKl-H
-------
brium concentration is defined by :
dcL
ST = 0 ( 61 )
therefore, equation ( 60 ) becomes :
VVVWL - QWYVWCe ( 62 )
and
W, C .R .V
C - L+ 6 B B (63)
e Q+K^V + 1^* VL
The concentration tends to increase for an infinite time, thus
it is theoretically impossible employing equations ( 58 ) to ( 60 ) to
reach the equilibrium concentration. In practice, one can select any prac-
tical percentage of the equilibrium concentration for computational purposes.
In applying equations ( 58 ) to ( 60 ) to predict water
quality, it must be emphasized that the waste input " " and the para-
meters defining the phenomena occurring in the lake are all considered with
time invariant. Simple time variable functions may be included in the basic
equation and integrated directly. For highly variable and erratic changes in
time, it is possible to segment the time dimension in a manner comparable to
segmentation of the length dimension " X " in stream and estuary problems.
-219 -
-------
Of particular significance from a time varying point of view is the input " "
which would tend to increase as a function of time as a result of population in-
creases and industrial expansion.
It is possible to consider a lake as a two-layered body in the geo-
logical scale of years, decades and centuries. In this instance, a lake is com-
posed of an upper layer and a bottom layer which can act as a sink ancj/or source
of material.
Allowing the concentration of material to change as a function of
time in both layers results in the two differential equations :
Top Layer
dS ci Ri vi
' CB < RBVB + KBVB )
B
Bottom Layer
dC C R V
—r- 1 - C„ (RV +KV )
dt VD B B B B B
B
Separation of variables and integration results in
Top Lake
M(t) N(t)
C. = MLP +NL +YPL
L e e
- 220 -
-------
where:
conditions.
ML and NL are constant to be determined by the boundary
YPL
=wl[vkb] r
Q/Vj_ + R^ + Rg + Kj_ ~
( 67 )
Roots " M " and " N " equal
Q/V, +R, +K, +R„ + K '
L L L B B
n 1/2
['
Q/VWVSl-
[
Q/V +R +K
L L L
K +R
. B B
-R R
L B
Bottom
M(t) N(t)
CD = MB + NB + YPB
b e e'
( 68 )
where:
MB and NB are constants to be determined by the boundary
conditions.
- 221 -
-------
YPB =
W R
L * L
q/Vrl + kl+V kl-rlrb
( 69 )
Roots " M " and " N " are the same as for the top lake solu-
tion.
Equations ( 66 ) and ( 68 ) can be applied to evaluate the
concentration of a reactive substance in the liquid portion of the lake and
in the bottom sediments respectively. The bottom sediment must be defined
as that portion of the lake bottom which has an influence on water quality.
" " has been assumed constant with respect to time. It is again possible
to evaluate changes in " " and the other parameters by segmenting the
system in the time dimension. Equations ( 66 ) and ( 68 ) contain two un-
known coefficients each. The specific boundary conditions for evaluating
these unknowns are:
(S t = t C. = C and C = C
1 L Lo B Bo
and:
@t= t1
W V R dC
L + B B . C0-C, Q/V. +R, +K. = L
v[- -vr L L L L ir
Wl
- C
dCR
R + K = L
B B dt
- 222 -
-------
Lakes As Stratified Bodies
Temperature Gradients ( Continuous Functions )
The vertical distribution of temperature in lakes and oceans
can be represented by a form of Equation ( 70 ). The assumption is usually
made that the advection and source terms are negligible. The temperature
is not strictly a concentration, but since it is proportional to the heat con-
tent of a unit volume, the symbol "T" may represent the temperature. This
equation was developed by considering the amount of heat per unit time
which passes through a unit area. In this form, the equation for heat trans-
fer may be written:
££ - E il (70)
d* by
The term, "9" is the total heat which passes through a unit
area at depth, "y". Equation ( 70 ) has been applied directly to data on
temperature, particularly in the field of limnology ( Hutchinson, Treatise
on Limnology, Volume I ). The procedure consists in computing the rate
of increase in the heat content of a column between two depths over an
interval of time. This value is then divided by the mean thermal gradi-
* f\
ent to obtain the eddy conductivity. The values thus obtained for the
hypoliminon ranged from one to 200 or 300 sq. cm. per second, and are
evidently correlated to the depths and surface areas of the lakes considered.
- 223 -
-------
Although there are a number of assumptions involved in the computation, it
does indicate a realistic order of magnitude with the majority of the values
in range of 10.
If a balance about a differential element is performed, it has
been shown that Equation ( 70 ) is modified to :
a t _ 3 (f^t
0
T = To + Tm cos at X = O t O
Where " a " is the frequency = 21T for a period, " p 11 .
P
The solution of Equation ( 71 ) for these conditions consists
of two parts; one, a transient caused by initiation of the period temperature
at the surface, which decays as time increases, leaving the second part,
which is the periodic steady state. The latter part of the solution, which is
of practical significance, is :
r 2
T = T + T e - (°— .) cos|at-(^_)
o m 2E ?E
( 72 )
- 224 -
-------
In some cases, it is more appropriate to represent the tempera-
ture as a Fourier series. Analysis of the diurnal change in temperature in the
ocean indicates a constant eddy conductivity in the upper homogenous layer
of the ocean. The annual or seasonal change usually requires a variable co-
efficient both in depth and time. Its value is maximum at the surface and
during the spring. It is probable that comparable conditions occur in lakes.
The range is of the same magnitude as that reported for lakes,
1 - 300 sq.cm. per second, but the majority of the data are in the order of
50 for the oceans, as compared to 10 for the lakes.
Further application of Equation ( 72 ) has been made on tem-
perature data in lakes. It is observed that in the thermocline and the upper
part of the hypoliminar, the temperature decreases exponentially with depth.
The temperature in this case is that after the minimum isothermal temperature
has been subtracted, " TQ " . From this, it may be shown that the time var-
iation also decreases exponentially with depth.
< T - To > = Ce °y ( 73 )
C is either the surface temperature which would be observed if
the temperature curve were extrapolated to the surface or that temperature at
the bottom of the epiliminon. The axis, (y = o) is establ ished at whichever
datum is selected. If this expression is differentiated twice with respect to
depth and substituted into Equation ( 73 ) , the result is as follows :
- 225 -
-------
If these relationships are valid, then a linear relationship
exists between the depth and the logarithims of T and —^ . A plot of
such data would yield the value of conductivity as determined from the
slopes of the lines. Alternately, Equation ( 74 ) also indicates that
the temperature increases exponentially with time. Therefore, a plot of
the logarithim of temperature versus time should yield a linear relation,
2
whose slope is Eq C. The exponent, "a " is determined from depth,
temperature, and the value, " C ", from the data. Values computed by
this method are lower than those computed by Equation ( 72 )• The
range for a number of lakes and ponds'of relatively shallow depth is from
0.001 to 0.05 sq. cm. per second.
Two-Layered System
An interim approach to the problem of vertical stratification
in lakes considers a lake as a two-layered system with exchange and reac-
tion between a top and bottom layer. The time scale under consideration
in this particular situation is in the order of days, weeks or months. It is
possible to segment the stratification pattern of lakes in the time dimension
and apply the two-layered solutions to each time period. The specific equa-
tions which are applicable to this situation are as follows:
- 226 -
-------
Top Layer
ST(t) VT(t-)
C = Be + Ajs + YPT
t t t
( 75 )
and equal constants defined By boundary conditions.
VT
= - j~b + KB + RBj
_ _ + KB + RBj
+ M
- M
b = Q/Vt + RT + KT
M =
b +
[kb + rb]
b [kb + rbJ -rtrl]
1/2
WF [RB + KB] i
YPT = VT £b + [RB + KB] " RtRB|
Bottom Layer
SB(t) VB(t)
Cfi = Bge + Age
+ YPB
B and A equal constants defined by boundary conditions.
B B
SB = ST
VB = VT
( 76 )
- 227 -
-------
YPB - VT [b + [RB + Kg - RtRB]
Note that Equations ( 75 ) and ( 76 ) are identical in
form to Equations ( 66 ) and ( 68 ) . THe basic assumptions upon which
Equations ( 75 ) and ( 76 ) are developed are that the volumes of the
top and bottom layers are constant with respect to time. Segmentation in
the time dimension would result primarily from changes in the volume of
top and bottom layers and from variations in the reaction rates resulting
from seasonal temperature changes.
Local Pollution :
A significant characteristic of water quality in lakes and
similar bodies of waters is the distribution of any contaminant in the vic-
inity of a river discharge or a sewer outfall. The river water, with its
pollutional material load, is initially diluted by the turbulence of the
discharging stream into the surrounding water. After the initial jet mix-
ing, further dilution occurs due to the natural turbulence in the lake.
The concentration of bacteria at any point in the lake beyond the zone
of initial mixing is a function of turbulent diffusion and also of the nat-
ural die-away. Considering the surface plane or zone, the steady-state
distribution of the bacterial concentration may be described by the fol-
- 228 -
-------
lowing equation:
°-E*&+cy$--Kc (77)
The x and y axes are defined as shown in Figure 42. In Equation ( 77 )
constant coefficients in both the longitudinal and lateral directions are as-
sumed and the die-away rate of the bacteria is taken as a first-order reac -
tion. Operation of the axis is shown in Figure 42 . If it is further assumed
that the diffusion coefficients are equal in each direction, then Equation
( 77 ) becomes :
2 2
O = E ( 2 c + j c ) - Kc ( 78 )
Jl?
When there is a significant wind velocity and the associated water current,
an advective term resulting from this effect must be included in Equations
( 77 ) or ( 78 ) •
For convenience, the Equation ( 78 ) is transformed to polar
coordinates and yields:
2 2
£ c + J_ _a_c + 1 3 c Kc _ n ( 79 )
"57" r ? J
T
e
Under the assumption that " c " is constant for a given " r " .
^c and ^ ^c =0
This assumption does not strictly apply to the vicinity of the shore, where
- 229 -
-------
SAMPLING LOCATION
FIGURE 42
-------
the concentration patterns are overlapped by reflection and other sources of
pollution, but may apply to a zone radiating from the point of the river out-
let and defined by radii 45° on either side of the X-axis. For this zone,
the partial differential Equation ( 79 ) reduces to the following ordinary
differential equation :
2
d c , 1 dc K _ n
77 + 7 ar - -ec - 0
dr
which is a Bessel equation of order zero. The solution of Equation ( 80 ) is:
C= Al
\
Kr2
+ BK
\
Kr2!
O
_\
~F
0
E
in which I and K are modified Bessel functions of the first and second kinds
o o
and A and B are constants. Subject to the boundary conditions that
c = 0 r = 00
( 80 )
( 81 )
c = c
the final equation is:
C Ko
in which
r = r
2 1
A
Kr
\
~r
M = K
1-
Kr 21
\
0
LN
E
When the wind velocity is significant, an advective term must
be included in Equation (79 ) . In this case, the concentration pattern, as
( 82 )
- 231 -
-------
developed above, is distorted by a projection along the axis of the wind
velocity. Thus elements of fluid containing higher concentration of bac-
teria are translated to larger distances from the shore. In order to simplify
the basic differential equation, the assumption is sometimes made that dif-
fusion is negligible along the X-axis because of the convection in this
direction. Furthermore, it has been observed that the coefficient of lat-
eral diffusion does not remain constant with distance, but varies as the
scale of the diffusion phenomenon. This effect was first reported by Rich-
ardson, who empirically observed that the coefficient varied as the 4/3
power of the scale. A theoretical basis for this relationship has been pre-
sented in similarity hypothesis of Kolmogoroff. Under these conditions,
Equation ( 79 ) for the steady-state becomes :
o = j_(E ^c) -U^c - Kc (83)
dy y
By relating the variation of the lateral diffusion coefficient to the long-
itudinal dimension in accordance with the 4/3 power relationship, Brooks
integrated Equation ( 83 ) for the y = O axis.
C = C e Kxerf
° u
If the diffusion coefficient is assumed as a constant, then
Equation ( 83 ) integrates as follows:
\
3/2
( 1 + 8Eo* ) 3 . !
lkT"
( 84 )
- 232 -
-------
_ Kx
C = C e ^ erf
o
Uw2
( 85 )
- 233 -
-------
DISCUSSION - LAKES
The equations presented in this report on the distribution of
substances in lakes are neither necessarily definitive nor final descriptions
of the various phenomena, but are possible mathematical models which may
at least be employed to correlate laboratory and field data. The formula -
tions presented do indicate the significance and relative impact of the var-
ious phenomena of dispersion, reaction, convection, exchange and advec-
tion on water quality in lakes.
Various parameters, geometrical and water quality measure-
ments are required before the equations presented in this section of the re-
port can be used. Each of the three perspectives for lake water quality
require different field programs. The measurement programs are related
to the basic assumptions, definition of terms and parameters employed in
the developments of the several equations. The water quality data on Lake
Champlain could not be employed to meaningfully validate the models pre-
sented.
The following discussion will indicate the basic assumptions
employed in the developments and suggest in qualitative terms the field
measurement required to verify the mathematical models and evaluate a
consistent set of system parameters.
-234 -
-------
1. Long term water quality models are presented in
Equations ( 58 ) to ( 60 ). It will be noted
that Equation ( 60 ) contains all of the terms in
Equations ( 58 ) and ( 59 ), and in addition,
the lake bottom is considered a source term.
The concentrate within the lake
is defined as the average concentration. There
are several possible patterns of field measure-
ments which can be employed to define this con-
centration. The simpliest method is to relate
field measurements for specific points in the an-
nual cycle of the lake. In particular, the au-
tumn turnover might be appropriate. Inherent
in this approach is the inaccuracy resulting from
the assumption that the specific concentration
used as the basis of comparison is the average
concentration present in the lake.
In particular, the basic differential equation employs the reac-
tion term, CL*VL*K|_*dt, and the advective term Cj/O'dt • In both terms
the value of CL should be an average concentration value in space and time.
The concentration at a specific point in time need not be the average concen-
tration over the year. It is possible, however, to compensate for the use of a
-235 -
-------
single con centra Hon (such as that associated with the autumn turnover, ) by
considering KL the apparent reaction rate. Mention has been made in this
discussion of average concentrations in time and space and the apparent dis-
charge rate. The term as employed has the following interpretation :
1. The average concentration in space and time
within the lake is determined from continuous
or periodic measurements throughout the lake
which provide an accurate measure of concen-
tration for a known portion of the lake volume
over a known period of time. The specific con-
centrations can then be numerically integrated
by summing the produce of the concentration,
the associated volume and time period. The
resultant quantity is divided by the summation
of the product of the volume and time interval.
_ yc • v. At
CL 4—
2l. v • it . ¦
2. An equivalent procedure is applicable to estab-
lishing the average discharge from the lake. In
this instance, continuous or periodic measure-
ment of the concentration leaving the lake is
- 236 -
-------
determined for a known rate of flow and a known
period of time over which this flow rate persists.
The equivalent numerical integration technique
is defined by :
— .
Ci L Q
Z® ¦ 4'
The apparent average discharge from the lake is
then calculated by :
C
Q = > Q • At L
cL
From a practical standpoint, it is doubtful that the expense in-
volved in collecting the data required for calculating average concentrations
in space and time can be justified solely for use in the models to evaluate long-
term water quality trends. However, comparable data could be employed in
the other mathematical models. It must be emphasized that this represents a
significant sophistication and greater experience and understanding of the be-
havior of lakes would appear to be indicated before attempting to collect this
type of data on a large scale.
In Equations ( 66 ) and ( 68 ) exchange terms " R^ " and
" " are employed. These factors can describe the phenomena of accumu-
lation of material on the bottom of a lake and the potential reintroduction of
- 237 -
-------
this material, perhaps in altered form, into the liquid portion of the lake.
An oversimplified example of the use of this concept may be presented
using phosphate as an illustration. Phosphate may enter the lake system
in sewage, industrial waste discharge, and inorganic matter carried in by
surface and ground waters. A major portion of the phosphate entering the
lake may initially be complexed and settle to the bottom. This removal
phenomenon would be described by the "R^" parameter. Subsequent de-
composition of the complexes originally formed may enable the phosphate
to re-enter the system in an available form for use by algae. The re-entry
of phosphate into the lake environment may be enhanced by circulation
currents in the spring and fall of the year. The phenomenon of re-entry
may be defined by the parameter "RD".
D
Development of measures of these exchange phenomena pre-
sent extremely complex measurement problems. It is, however, doubtful
if a true evaluation of lake behavior and water quality can be obtained
without consideration of the lake bottom as both a potential source and
sink of material.
The quantity "C" in Equation ( 65 ) is subject to the same
b
considerations as the quantity "C^M. Some typical annual value should
be adequate in initial computations. A time and space average value
may prove desirable at some future time.
Volume terms "VL" and "VB" are employed in Equa-
- 238 -
-------
Hons (75 ) to ( 76 ). These volumes are defined as active volumes
which are involved in the changes of lake water quality. In general, "VL"
would include all major liquid portions of the lake. "VB" is assigned as
the active volume of bottom sediment. Errors in measuring or assigning "VB"
will alter the values of " RB " and " KB
The final parameter of concern in the subject equations is the
input term, 11 WL ", which represents the mass of material introduced into
the lake per unit time. In actuality, this term should contain estimates for
all sources of the constituent understudy. That is, material carried into the
lake by surface water, direct discharges, ground water and airborne, ( leaves,
etal., ) should be evaluated. In like manner airborne material carried out
of the lake should be subtracted from " WL ".
The comments offered with regard to the several parameters in
Equation ( 64 ) to ( 69 ) are directly applicable to the comparable para-
meters in Equations ( 75 ) and ( 76 ). In addition, one may consider the
reaction term " KB " for substances which are not truly reactive in a chemi-
cal or biological sense as a measure of material which enters the inactive por-
tion of the lake bottom.
The equations which describe temperature gradients in a lake
require field programs for evaluation of the vertical temperature gradients as
a function of time. It is desirable initially to evaluate the temperature gradi-
ents as a function of time in several representative lake locations. This will
-239 -
-------
provide the basic information required to integrate the several equations.
The degree of additional temperature information required
will only be defined after preliminary application of the temperature
equations.
The comments made with respect to average concentration
values in time and space are particularly applicable to Equations ( 75 )
and ( 76 ) where the time interval considered in the equations has been
shortened to days and weeks. Further, it is possible to qualitatively eval-
uate average rates of exchange during specified periods of the year. As
an example, the parameter " RB " should be a maximum during the spring
and fall turnover and should reduce to a minimum during the summer per-
iods when thermal stratification tends to prevent exchange in an upward
direction. " RL " would tend to follow the same pattern as " RB " dur-
ing the summer period and overturns. In the winter, " RL " would tend
to increase. For certain substances like PO, and organic matter, "RL"
4
would increase during the early fall and late summer. The specific pat-
tern of variation for the several parameters would vary depending on the
substance being studied.
In consideration of local pollution situations, information on
wind is of importance. In addition, it is necessary to evaluate the disper-
sion coefficient and its' variation with distance. The principal difference
in data collection when considering local pollution is in the radial loca-
tion of sampling stations required. These sampling locations are required
to provide verification for the models and a limited number are illustrated
on Figure 42.
- 240 -
-------
NOMENCLATURE - STREAM AND ESTUARY
Computer
Other
Definition
Units
A
•
Chloride constants
mg/l
A(l)
A
Cross-sectional area
f,2
AA(I)
Average area for uniform
loads in expanding area
sections
ft2
AK(I)
K K_
a 2
Reaeration coefficient
1/day
AO(l)
Ao
Initial cross-sectional area
for expanding area sections
f,2
B(l)
B
BOD constant ( B associated
with S)
mg/l
BOD(I)
L
BOD Concentration
mg/l
BU(I)
B
Bottom oxygen demand
grrv/M -
C
S
Concentration of conservative
substance
mg/l
C(l)
C
BOD constant ( C associated
with V )
mg/l
DEF (1)
D
Deficit
mg/l
DK(I)
Kd
BOD oxidation coefficient
1/day
E(D
E
Dispersion coefficient
mi^/day
-241 -
-------
Computer Other Definition
F(l)
G(l)
H (I)
HT (I)
I, K, KK
J
PA(I)
Q(0
R(I,J)
RA(I)
RK(I)
RO
RP(D
S(D
SD(I)
Units
f
G
H
P
Q
R
R
Kr
Ro
R - P
g+
Ultimate to 5-day BOD ratio
Deficit constant ( G associated
with SD )
Deficit constant ( H associated
with VD )
Water depth
Section N°
Boundary Equation N°
Algae oxygen production
Flow
Distance in spherical or
cylinderical coordinate
Algae respiration
BOD removal coefficient
Distance from origin for
expanding area sections
to location of Ao
Algae influence ( R - P )
1 +
_U
2E
, , 4 • RK • E i1/2
U2
mg/l
mg/l
M (meters )
Replacing RK by AK in above
mg/l - day
cfs
mi
mg/l - day
1/day
mi
mg/l - day
(+) 1/mi
(+) 1/mi
-242 -
-------
Computer
Other
Definition
Units
TEMP(I)
T
Temperature
°C
TIDE (1)
R
Exchange coefficient
1/day
U(l)
U
Velocity ( fresh water)
-------
Computer Other Definition
Units
Functions
fa(X, I) Expanding DEF
fa(X,l) Decreasing DEF
fr(X,l) Expanding BOD
fr(X,l) — Decreasing BOD
Note: ALL DERIVATIVES ARE INDICATED BY PRIME MARKS
Bessell functions
Iv(GaR) Expanding DEF
Iv(GrR) Expanding BOD
Kv(GaR) Decreasing DEF
Kv(GrR) Decreasing BOD
Note: MODIFIED BESSEL FUNCTIONS OF THE FIRST AND SECOND KIND
-244 -
-------
NOMENCLATURE - LAKE MODELS
Parameter
Symbol
Units
Lake volume
Bottom volume
Top layer volume
Bottom layer volume
Reaction rates
Exchange rates
Lake
Bottom
Top layer
Bottom layer
Lake
Bottom
Top layer
Bottom layer
Flow
Flow average
Waste inputs ( total of all sources )
Concentrations
Time - space average
Lake
Bottom
Top layer
Bottom layer
Lake
Bottom
Top Layer
Bottom layer
Average leaving lake
Constants evaluated by boundary conditions
VL
VB
VT
VB
KL
KB
KT
KB
RL
RB
RT
RB
Q
Q
WL
e'-
er
CB
—T
C
B
ML, NL,
MB, NB,
BB, AB,
BT, AT,
C, B, A,
M
ftv
fr
fr
fr
l/day
l/day
l/day
l/day
1/day
1/ day
1/day
l/day
ft3/day
'/ day OR
'/ year
mg/
mg/
mg/
mg/
mg/
mg/
mg/
mg/
mg
/
mg/
mg/
mg/
mg/
mg/
mg/
-245 -
-------
NOMENCLATURE - LAKE MODELS
Parameter Symbol Units
Initial concentration
Co
ppm
Dispersion coefficient
E
ft2 / day
Initial dispersion coefficient
Eo
ft2 /day
Distances
X
ft
Y
ft
Velocity
R
ft
U
ft
Initial width of field
W
ft
Error function
Erf
Heat transfer coefficient
9
BTU / day - ft2
Temperature
T
°C
Time
t
day
years
Frequency
a
Period
P
- - -
- 246 -
-------
APPENDIX A
A-247
-------
CF PROGRAM KAPPY
ODIMENS ION AM(l/l)/BFORC(l)/AREA(l)»t(l)/AK(l)/RK(l)/DK(l)/F(l)/Q(l
U)/Sd)/Vd>
ODIMEMS ION SD(1)/VD(1)/VEL(1)/DEF0(1)/TEMP(1)/FAC(1)/B(1)/C(1)/DEF(
Ul)/Xd)/BODDd),BODUd)
COMMON AM# ZS,ZSD/ZV/ZVD/ZFAC/I ROW;BFORC/B, C
MTIMES-1
CF READ O/MROW
153 CONTINUE
CF READ O/KROW
CF READ 0/(E(I)/AK(I)/RK(I),F(I)/DK(I)/TEMP(I),l=l/KROW)
CF READ 0/ IROW/WA/WB/WC/DA/DB'/DC'
CF READ 0/XY, XZ,FA,FB,FC
CF READ 0,(AREA(I),Q(I),I=1,KR0W)
DO 11 l=l/KROW
AREA(I)SAREA(I)/5280.**2
Q(I)=Q(I)*3600.*2U./5280.**3
VEL(I)=Q(I)/AREA(I)
11 CONTINUE
DO 10 I=1,KR0W
AK(I)=AK(I)*1.02**(TEMP( I)-20.)
DK(I)=DK(I)*1.OU**(TEMP(I)-20.)
RK( I )=RK( I )*1.0l»**(TEMP( I )-20.)
CALL HROT(E(I)/VEL(I),AK(I)#RK(I),F(I),DK(I))
SCI)=ZS
V(I)»ZV
SD(I)=ZSD
VD(I)=ZVD
10 FAC(I)=ZFAC
PRINT 20/(S( I )/SD( I )/V( I ),VD( I )/FAC( I)/ l=l/KROW)
20 F0RMAT(36H S SD V VD FAC,//(5F7.U))
DO 1 KK=1/ I ROW
BFORC(KK)=0.
DO 1 LL=1/IRCJW
1 Af1(KK/LL)=0.
ZW«10. **6/ (62.1**5280. **3)
WA=FA*WA*ZW
WB=FB*WB*ZW
WC=FC*WC*ZW
DA=DA*ZW
DB=DB*ZW
DC=DC*ZW
AMd,l)=EXP(Sd)*XY)
AM(2,l)»(Ed)*AREAd)*Sd)-Qd))*AMd,l)
AM(l/2)=-(EXP(S(2)*XY))
AM(2/2)=(Q(2)-E(2)*AREA(2)*S(2))*(-l.)*AM(l/2)
AM(3/2)=1.
AM(U/2)=E(2)*AREA(2)*S(2)-Q(2)
AMd/3)=-(EXP(V(2)*XY))
AM(2/3)=(Q(2)-E(2)*AREA(2)*V(2))*(-l.)*AM(l/3)
AM(3#3)=1.
A-248
-------
AMCt,3)=E(2)*AREA(2)*V(2)-Q(2)
AM(3,i»)—1.
AM(M>=Q<3)-E(3)*AREA(3)*S(3)
AM(6,lO=EXP(S(3)*XZ)
AM(5,lO=(E(3)*AREA(3)*S(3)-Q(3))*AM(6,U)
AM(3,5)=-1.
AM(^,5)=Q(3)-E(3)*AREA(3)*V(3)
AM(6,5)=EXP(V(3)*XZ)
AM(5,5)=AM(6,5)*(-(AM(4,5)))
am(6,6)=-(exp(V(«o*xz))
AM(5,6)=(Q(«»)-E
-------
AM(3,5>—1.
AM(4/5)=Q(3)-E(3)*AREA(3)*VD(3)
AM(5,5)=EXP(VD(3)*XZ)
AM(6,5)BAM(5/5)«('E(3)*ARFA(3)*VD(3)-Q(3))
AM(5/6)=-(EXP(VD(4)*XZ))
AM(6/6)»AM(5/6)*(Q(4)-E(4)*AREA(4)*VD(4))*(-1.)
Z2=C(2)*EXP(S(2)*XY)
Z3=C(3)*EXP(V(2)*XY)
Z1=C(1)*EXP(S(1)*XY)
Z6=C(6)*EXP(V(4)*XZ)
Z5=C(5)*EXP(V(3)*XZ)
Z4°C(4)*EXP(S(3)*XZ)
BFORC(1)=FAC(2)*(Z2+Z3)-FAC(1)*Z1
0BF0RC(2)=E(2)*AREA(2)*FAC(2)*(S(2)*Z2+V(2)*Z3)+FAC(1)*Z1*(Q(1)-E(1
4)*AREA(1)*S(1))-Q(2)*FAC(2)*Z3+DC
BFORC(2)=BFORC(2)-Q(2)*FAC(2)*Z2
BFORC(3)=FAC(3)*(C(4)+C(5))-FAC(2)*(C(2)+C(3))
FART1SSFAC(2)*Q(2)*(C(2)+C(3))
FART2=E(2)*AREA(2)*FAC(2)*(C(2)*S(2)+C(3)*V(2))
FART3=Q(3)*FAC(3)*(C(4)+C(5))
FART4=E(3)*AREA(3)*FAC(3)*(C(4)*S(3)+C(5)*V(3))+DB
BF0RC(4)=FART1-FART2-FART3+FART4
BFORC(5)=FAC(4)*Z6-FAC(3)*(Z4+Z5)
OBFORC(6)=FAC(3)*Q(3)*(Z4+Z5)-E(3)*AREA(3)*FAC(3)*(S(3)*Z4+V(3)*Z5)
4+FAC(4)*Z6*(E(4)*AREA(4)*C(6)-Q(4))+DA
BFORC(6)=BFORC(6)+FAC(4)*Z6*F(4)*AREA(4)*(V(4)-C(6))
Z=0
CALL SIMULTOROW/Z)
PRINT 199/ (B( 11) /11=1/1 ROW/)
DO 50 J=2/50/5
X(J)=2-J
IF(X(J)-XY)62/63/63
62 DEF(J)=B(1)*EXP(SD(1)*X(J))+FAC(1)*C(1)*EXP(S(1)*X(J))
GO TO 64
630DEF(J)°B(2)*EXP(SD(2)*X(J))+B(3)+FAC(2)*(C(2)*EXP(S(2)*X(J))+C(3)*
4EXP(V(2)*X(J)))+B(3)*(-l.+EXP(VD(2)*X(J)))
64 X(J)=-(X(J))
IF(X(J)-XZ)65/65/66
650DEFD(J)=B(4)*EXP(SD(3)*X(J))+B(5)+FAC(3)*(C(4)*EXP(S(3)*X(J))+C(5)
4*EXP(V(3)*X(J)))+B(5)*(-1.+EXP(VD(3)*X(J)))
GO TO 50
66 DEFD(J)=B(6)*EXP(VD(4)*X(J))+FAC(4)*C(6)*EXP(V(4)*X(J))
50 CONTINUE
PRINT 68/(DEFD(J)/DEF(J)/X(J)/J=2/50/5)
68 FORMAT(6H DEFD6H DEFU3H X/(2F6.2/F4.0))
!F(MTIMES-MROW)155/154/154
155 MTIMES=MTIMES+1
GO TO 153
154 STOP 1066
END
A-250
-------
SUBROUTINE SIMULTCM,Z)
DIMENSION AM(8/8),BFORC(8)/B(8)/C(8),AMM(8/9)
COMMON AM# ZS/ZSD/ZV/ZVD/ZFAC/ IROW/BFORC/B/C
DO 12 1=1/1
IF(AM(I>I))12^13^12
13 PRINT 14
1MFORMAT(82HTHFRE IS A ZERO ELEMENT ON THE MAIM DIAGONAL OF YOUR COE
IjFFICIFNT MATRIX. YOU LOSE.)
STOP 1065
12 CONTINUE
N=M+1
DO 6 |-1,M
DO 6 J=l/1
G AM1(I,J)=AM(I,J)
DO 7 1=1/1
7 AM1(l,N)=BFORC(l)
KPASS=0
DO 3 IHOT=l/1
KPASS=KPASS+1
TT=AMM(IHOT,IHOT)
DO 2 L-IHOT/N
2 Af t UI HOT, L) =AMM (I HOT/ L) /TT
DO 3 11-1/4
IFCIl-KPASS)U,3,U
T=AMM( 11 /KPASS)
DO 5 LL=1,N
5 AMM( 11 ,LL)=AMf1( IHOT/ IHOT)*AM(11, LL)-T*AMM(KPASS/ LL)
3 CONTINUE
IF(Z)10/11/10
10 DO 21 1=1/1
21 C(l)=0.
DO 20 I =1/M
20 C( I )=C( I )+AMM( 1 /N)
GO TO ttO
11 DO 23 1=1/1
23 B(I)=0.
DO 22 l=l/M
22 B(I)=B(I)+AMM(I,N)
UO RETURN
END
A-251
-------
PROGRAM UPlftJD
DIMENSION DEF(50),BOD(5Q),RR(50),F0FR<50)
REAL dA,JR,M
K°1
READ 0,DEFO,BODO,ITSEG
1 CONTINUE
R=0.
READ 0, AK,DK,RK, W/Q0/Q1/ROEL,RT0T#M#AO#F,TEMP
\HI/5.k
a=oo+ui
DEFla(00*DEFO)/Q
bodi=(oo*bodo+w)/q
AK=AK*1.02**(TEMP-20.)
DK«DK*l«0't**(TEMP-20,)
RK=RK*1,0U*«(TEMP-20.)
1=1
RO=AO/M
JA=-(AK*M/Q/1G~ U )
JR«- (RK#f 1/0/16.4)
2 FOFRd)b
-------
APPENDIX B
B-253
-------
1959 SUMMARY
NORTH RIVER
Date
Station
% Seawater
Temperature
Dissolved 0
2
% Sat.
5-day B<
June
36.7
69.5
5.05
60.7
1.32
July
N
41.5
72.8
5.00
61.3
1.28
August
1
48.1
75.1
3.37
47.5
1.15
Sept.
51.0
73.9
3.43
43.5
1.06
June
41.8
69.5
4.53
54.3
1.48
July
N
41.5
73.0
5.53
68.3
1.90
August
2
50.3
75.5
3.71
47.6
1.04
Sept.
55.8
73.9
3.10
39.8
1.25
June
45.2
68.8
4.02
47.7
1.62
July
N
48.0
72.5
4.58
57.8
1.23
August
3
53.6
74.6
3.10
40.0
0.93
Sept.
61.8
64.9
2.58
33.5
1.28
June
54.3
68.0
3.67
44.0
1.62
July
N
57.8
72.3
4.13
52.0
1.60
August
3a
60.0
74.5
2.70
35.0
1.30
Sept.
69.3
73.3
2.06
26.6
1.33
June
48.0
69.2
4.02
43.9
1.40
July
N
54.0
72.2
3.37
42.3
1.78
August
3b
57.8
74.8
3.11
40.3
1.10
Sept.
64.0
73.6
2.45
31.6
1.63
B-254
-------
1959 SUMMARY
NORTH RIVER
Date Station
% Seawater
Temperature
Dissolved 0
2
% Sat.
5-day B<
June
57.0
68.3
3.50
42.2
1.97
July
N
61.5
72.2
3.68
46.8
1.43
August
4
71.0
74.0
2.28
30.0
1.28
Sept.
71.0
68.4
2.25
29.4
1.56
June
71.8
66.7
3.57
43.5
1.90
July
N
74.0
70.5
3.55
45.5
1.23
August
5
75.3
73.0
2.05
26.6
1.07
Sept.
79.9
72.0
2.63
34.5
1.22
June
73.2
65.6
4.26
50.4
3.26
July
N
76.4
73.7
3.01
39.4
2.06
August
6
79.6
80.2
2.35
31.3
2.47
Sept.
80.7
68.2
2.83
3.63
3.16
June
72.8
64.8
4.44
51.7
2.59
July
N
77.2
72.4
2.85
37.4
1.38
August
7
80.1
72.4
2.49
32.9
1.24
Sept.
82.0
67.2
2.82
35.5
2.61
June
78.4
67.8
5.30
65.1
2.94
July
N
84.3
72.0
3.83
50.3
1.00
August
8
83.0
73.4
3.07
41.4
1.28
Sept.
84.5
66.8
3.87
48.8
1.38
June
92.0
63.5
7.48
92.8
3.42
July
N
93.0
68.3
6.67
86.5
0.98
August
9
93.3
70.8
5.00
67.1
0.78
Sept.
92.4
66.2
5.78
73.7
1.22
June
93.0
62.5
7.53
92.3
1.57
July
N
94.7
67.5
6.78
87.7
0.98
August
9a
92.4
72.2
5.70
77.3
1.17
Sept.
92.7
65.5
5.75
72.5
2.50
June
96.0
63.5
7.45
92.5
1.40
July
N
96.3
66.3
7.83
100.7
0.83
August
16
97.1
69.8
6.82
91.0
0.73
Sept.
98.5
63.7
6.05
91.4
0.91
B-255
-------
1960 SUMMARY
NORTH RIVER
Date Station % Sea water Temperature Dissolved Oj % Sat. 5-day BOD
June 31.0 69.0
July N 42.0 74.0
August 1 35.8 75.7
Sept.
June 36.0 66.5
July N 47.0 74.0
August 2 37.3 75.2
Sept.
June 40.0 68.3
July N 55.0 73.0
August 3 46.9 75.0
Sept.
June 53.9 67.4
July N 62.5 72.3
August 3a 52.3 74.6
Sept.
June 42.4 68.3
July N 59.3 73.0
August 3b 45.0 74.8
Sept.
4.41 50.4 0.94
3.95 49.6 1.18
4.04 50.7 1.66
3.68 43.0 0.84
3.90 49.2 1.39
3.68 47.2 1.24
3.78 44.3 1.28
2.98 37.8 1.34
2.95 37.3 1.88
3.28 39.1 2.00
2.78 35.6 1.90
2.75 36.4 2.09
3.55 41.5 1.30
3.28 41.8 1.46
3.44 41.5 1.31
B-256
-------
1960 SUMMARY
NORTH RIVER
Date Station % Sea water Temperature Dissolved O %Sat. 5-day BOD
2
June
53.4
67.4
2.95
35.4
2.15
July-
N
66.3
72.5
2.60
33.5
1.68
August
4
54.2
74.6
2.52
32.3
1.73
Sept.
--
—
—
—
June
68.8
66.4
3.45
41.8
1.26
July
N
78.0
70.5
2.98
38.4
1.38
August
5
68.8
73.1
2.50
31.6
1.18
Sept.
—
—
—
—
June
69.0
67.1
3.67
44.8
2.39
July
N
79.0
69.8
3.42
33.8
2.58
August
6
71.6
72.9
2.65
34.7
2.27
Sept.
79.3
72.6
2.83
37.0
2.60
June
71.0
66.7
3.65
47.4
1.62
July
N
79.0
69.4
3.28
42.2
1.68
August
7
71.2
72.6
2.84
45.2
1.58
Sept.
77.5
72.3
2.61
38.2
1.26
June
77.0
67.1
5.06
60.3
1.82
July
N
83.8
70.0
4.70
61.3
1.45
August
8
76.3
72.3
3.81
46.7
1.53
Sept.
80.1
83.4
4.06
54.2
1.16
B-257
-------
1960 SUMMARY
NORTH RIVER
Date Station % Sea water Temperature Dissolved Oj % Sat. 5-day BOD
J
June
87.4
65.3
7.10
87.4
1.24
July
N
98.0
68.6
7.23
95.4
1.13
August
9
93.8
71.0
6.04
80.9
1.68
Sept.
92.0
72.5
5.88
79.5
1.43
June
91.8
66.1
7.39
91.8
1.84
July
N
92.5
69.6
7.18
94.7
2.78
August
9a
90.1
71.6
6.51
87.2
2.18
Sept.
88.5
72.5
6.70
90.2
2.85
June
95.9
63.3
7.73
94.8
1.40
July
N
98.8
66.7
7.60
98.5
1.66
August
16
94.6
71.1
7.25
97.4
1.52
Sept.
93.3
70.5
6.60
88.2
1.20
B-258
-------
1961 SUMMARY
NORTH RIVER
Date Station % Seawater Temperature Dissolved % Sat. 5-day BOD
June 24.8 67.8
July N 38.0 73.7
August 1 39.4 78.0
Sept.
June 29.0 67.3
July N 36.4 67.8
August 2 46.2 77.5
Sept.
June 45.8 66.2
July N 43.5 73.0
August 3 57.7 76.8
Sept.
June 44.0 67.5
July N 53.7 72.5
August 3a 60.0 76.6
Sept.
June 39.8 66.3
July N 45.8 73.0
August 3b 53.4 77.1
Sept.
5.27 69.2 1.20
4.93 60.7 1.37
3.52 44.8 .67
5.18 68.5 0.60
4.20 52.0 1.23
3.32 45.1 .85
5.20 60.3 2.35
3.68 45.8 .75
2.56 59.0 .45
6.18 60.8 1.80
3.07 38.2 1.82
2.48 33.0 1.58
5.23 60.0 1.35
3.70 46.2 .93
2.62 34.7 1.73
B-259
-------
1961 SUMMARY
NORTH RIVER
Date Station % Seawater Temperature Dissolved 0_ % Sat. 5-day BOD
June
49.7
65.0
5.05
58.2
2.30
July
N4
55.3
71.8
3.03
38.2
1.78
August-
62.4
76.6
2.30
30.6
2.32
Sept.
June
63.2
63.0
4.57
52.3
1.95
July
N5
68.2
70.8
3.73
46.3
1.32
August
D
77.0
74.9
2.39
32.0
1.70
Sspt.
June
67.9
62.8
4.73
55.8
2.65
July
N6
74.4
70.7
4.27
54.9
1.45
August
73.1
74.1
2.66
35.3
1.89
Sept.
73.6
75.5
2.66
36.1
1.40
June
67.2
62.4
4.59
53.5
2.50
July
N7
70.6
70.4
3.92
50.2
1.68
August
/
70.6
73.9
2.52
25.9
1.33
Sept.
73.6
71.1
2.84
38.1
.98
June
73.4
73.4
5.24
62.0
2.42
July
N
7.70
81.1
5.32
69.2
.60
August
8
81.7
73.7
4.17
54.3
1.46
Sept.
79.1
76.5
3.58
48.5
.85
B-260
-------
1961 SUMMARY
NORTH RIVER
Date Station % Seawater Temperature Dissolved % Sat. 5-day BOD
June
89.4
60.3
7.71
92.0
1.50
July
N
93.2
68.5
7.12
91.2
2.38
August
9
95.3
71.0
6.10
82.4
2.23
Sept.
89.0
73.3
5.53
74.8
.50
June
92.8
59.1
8.36
98.9
2.08
July
N
98.5
67.0
8.12
104.3
1.08
August
16
98.9
70.1
8.29
93.3
.83
Sept.
97.0
72.3
5.68
76.8
.70
June
70.1
63.5
4.56
53.9
2.93
July
K
70.0
72.9
3.40
43.8
1.32
August
1
71.1
74.3
2.63
34.5
2.13
Sept.
76.0
75.3
2.68
36.3
2.20
June
58.6
67.3
4.41
53.1
3.50
July
K
63.4
75.3
3.25
42.0
2.08
August
2
62.8
76.3
2.25
33.4
1.67
Sept.
70.3
77.5
2.55
34.8
0.00
June
59.6
69.3
. 2.46
58.4
4.25
July
K
63.5
77.3
1.03
9.3
2.70
August
3
61.8
78.0
.80
5.1
3.35
Sept.
70.3
78.0
1.95
2.68
0.00
B-261
-------
1962 SUMMARY
NORTH RIVER
Date
Station
% Seawater
Temperature
Dissolved
% Sat.
5-day B<
June
40.5
71.7
3.88
47.1
0.65
July
N
52.0
73.7
4.05
51.0
1.60
August
1
58.7
75.0
3.77
48.6
1.95
Sept.
50.1
72.5
3.50
47.4
June
50.2
71.0
3.32
42.4
.53
July
N
52.8
73.7
3.60
45.4
1.40
August
2
59.1
75.3
3.31
43.9
1.07
Sept.
54.5
73.0
2.55
32.1
June
51.7
69.5
3.00
34.6
1.15
July
N
60.0
72.7
2.67
33.7
1.50
August
3
61.6
74.5
2.99
38.9
.88
Sept.
59.5
71.5
2.25
43.2
June
51.2
69.7
2.68
32.2
1.75
July
N
54.8
72.8
2.90
36.7
1.80
August
3b
65.0
74.8
2.72
34.5
1.45
Sept.
59.5
72.0
2.15
27.1
June
62.8
68.8
2.21
27.2
1.95
July
N
62.0
72.7
2.48
30.2
2.13
August
4
74.2
74.3
2.59
34.7
1.20
Sept.
70.0
72.0
1.45
21.3
B-262
-------
1962 SUMMARY
NORTH RIVER
Date
Station % Seawater
Temperature
Dissolved O
2
% Sat.
5-day B<
June
74.8
67.7
2.22
27.6
1.68
July
N
78.2
71.8
2.22
29.1
2.73
August
5
83.1
73.6
2.29
30.1
1.19
Sept.
80.5
73.0
1.45
19.3
June
76.5
65.9
3.01
37.6
1.58
July
79.3
71.7
3.09
39.8
1.96
August
o
82.9
77.3
2.69
34.9
1.78
Sept.
75.8
71.3
2.48
31.5
1.18
June
73.9
65.8
3.06
36.2
1.03
July
N
80.4
71.6
3.06
40.9
1.74
August
7
83.5
72.7
2.46
32.6
1.48
Sept.
76.0
70.5
1.95
25.1
1.15
June
82.7
65.4
4.46
54.1
1.39
July
N
83.4
71.8
4.39
57.9
2.08
August
8
85.2
72.4
3.64
48.8
1.77
Sept.
85.3
71.0
3.31
41.5
1.53
June
94.5
62.3
6.90
85.2
1.03
July
No
90.6
71.3
5.66
74.5
1.59
August
9
95.4
69.5
5.63
74.2
.78
Sept.
94.0
68.0
4.90
63.6
1.05
B-263
-------
1962 SUMMARY
NORTH RIVER
Date Station % Seawater Temperature Dissolved % Sat. 5-day BOD
June
92.5
62.8
July
N9a
90.9
72.4
-August
7a
95.9
70.9
Sept.
94.0
65.0
June
95.5
61.2
July
N
96.6
69.8
August
16
98.1
69.5
Sept.
98.0
67.0
June
82.8
68.7
July
K6
87.9
72.1
August
90.4
74.0
Sept.
89.0
73.5
June
59.5
69.2
July
N3a
57.2
72.3
August
69.9
74.5
Sept.
66.0
72.0
7.02
86.6
2.70
5.83
78.5
2.78
6.19
83.1
1.84
5.55
69.9
1.35
7.98
99.0
1.00
6.06
80.4
1.91
6.96
93.0
.58
5.70
73.7
1.30
7.52
61.7
4.20
7.83
80.7
3.34
6.06
83.2
1.84
4.25
57.8
2.10
2.40
29.4
1.33
2.60
32.9
1.50
2.43
33.7
.88
1.65
21.5
1.00
B-264
-------
1963 SUMMARY
NORTH RIVER
Date Station % Seawater Temperature Dissolved O2 % Sat. 5-day BOD
June
40.3
69.0
4.38
52.0
1.68
July
N1
51.1
75.8
4.44
58.4
1.78
August
I
52.5
75.1
4.01
51.6
1.46
Sept.
41.5
71.0
2.65
1.40
June
42.5
70.0
4.48
54.2
1.35
July
N?
53.5
75.6
4.33
56.1
1.76
August
z
57.3
74.8
3.80
48.5
1.44
Sept.
59.7
71.0
5.40
66.3
1.55
June
49.0
60.5
5.43
40.9
1.74
July
N3
55.9
74.6
4.04
52.1
2.30
August
60.9
74.0
3.38
43.2
1.49
Sept.
60.0
73.5
4.30
53.2
.85
June
56.0
68.8
3.03
40.0
1.95
July
N3a
64.0
73.6
3.64
47.3
1.71
August
vO
68.1
74.1
4.21
46.7
1.96
Sept.
63.0
70.5
2.85
35.8
1.25
June
46.8
68.8
4.18
48.2
2.20
July
^3b
53.8
74.1
3.60
46.5
1.61
August
OD
67.8
74.8
3.39
43.9
1.49
Sept.
59.0
70.5
3.70
1.45
B-265
-------
1963 SUMMARY
NORTH RIVER
Date Station % Seawater Temperature Dissolved O2 % Sat. 5-day BOD
June
58.3
69.3
2.78
34.6
2.12
July
n4
63.4
75.3
3.41
43.9
1.90
August
72.4
73.5
2.01
27.4
1.98
Sept.
66.5
70.5
2.00
25.6
1.00
June
70.5
67.3
2.23
27.8
1.98
July
80.8
80.4
2.95
39.0
1.96
August
j
78.4
71.9
2.94
35.2
1.78
Sept.
76.0
70.0
2.65
34.0
1.65
June
73.7
67.6
2.65
34.9
2.44
July
N6
81.7
71.6
3.13
41.3
1.98
August
82.9
70.1
3.20
41.9
1.71
Sept.
84.4
68.7
3.55
45.6
1.79
June
75.9
67.1
2.82
35.0
2.50
July
N7
79.9
70.7
3.33
44.2
2.93
August
/
82.8
70.3
3.16
41.0
2.02
Sept.
83.4
68.1
3.48
44.5
1.58
June
82.6
67.3
4.09
51.6
2.10
July
N8
86.4
71.4
4.62
61.4
2.04
August
O
85.9
71.1
4.22
56.7
1.97
Sept.
85.8
70.1
4.15
54.2
1.81
B-266
-------
1963 SUMMARY
NORTH RIVER
Date Station % Seawater Temperature Dissolved O2 % Sat. 5-day BOD
June
July N
August
Sept.
June
July N
August
Sept.
June
July N
August 10
Sept.
June
July K
August a
Sept.
June
July K6
August
Sept.
92.3
63.3
6.78
82.4
1.48
95.3
69.3
6.19
81.5
1.68
95.1
66.5
5.98
76.2
1.70
95.5
66.5
6.33
74.4
1.25
98.5
64.3
6.98
88.2
2.18
95.3
69.3 -
6.70
88.8
2.74
93.9
67.6
6.31
81.6
2.06
93.8
66.5
6.90
89.9
2.15
100.0
61.5
7.60
94.3
1.90
95.8
67.9
6.89
89.6
2.00
97.3
64.0
6.35
79.7
1.69
96.8
66.0
6.65
85.8
1.33
73.2
70.8
4.88
63.6
4.70
82.3
75.5
4.41
59.4
4.26
84.8
74.4
4.71
57.4
6.53
84.3
72.3
4.80
64.0
4.13
83.0
68.2
5.80
73.7
3.22
84.3
73.9
8.23
95.8
2.86
87.9
73.1
7.08
95.1
2.71
91.3
71.0
6.70
89.1
2.00
B-267
-------
1964 SUMMARY
NORTH RIVER
Date Station % Seawater Temperature Dissolved O- % Sat. 5-day BOD
June
46.2
66.2
4.73
55.0
3.85
July
N1
45.6
74.3
4.46
60.2
3.39
August
1
49.8
73.6
4.23
51.9
4.49
Sept.
46.5
72.5
4.15
51.5
June
54.5
66.7
3.95
46.1
4.63
July
N2
49.4
74.1
4.45
56.5
3.39
August
54.5
73.4
4.06
40.6
4.09
Sept.
57.5
72.5
3.65
55.9
June
55.2
65.6
3.65
42.8
3.35
July
54.4
73.6
3.94
50.2
3.14
August
0
61.3
73.1
2.98
38.1
3.89
Sept.
63.0
72.0
4.70
59.7
June
60.5
64.7
3.73
43.9
1.98
July
N3 a
60.5
73.0
3.40
43.5
3.60
August
00
66.3
72.6
3.18
40.6
4.34
Sept.
68.0
71.5
4.30
59.4
June
59.8
65.2
3.73
43.6
2.80
July
54.9
"74.0
3.85
49.4
2.90
August
0 D
56.1
72.8
2.88
37.0
4.02
Sept.
64.5
72.5
3.60
46.2
B-268
-------
1964 SUMMARY
NORTH RIVER
Date Station % Seawater Temperature Dissolved 0„ % Sat. 5-day BOD
June N
July
August
Sept.
June N£
July
August
Sept.
June N
July
August
Sept.
June N
July
August
Sept.
June H
July
August
Sept.
9a
16
64.5
67.0
4.78
60.7
2.72
64.3
72.3
2.71
34.8
3.06
69.0
73.2
2.47
32.1
4.43
70.5
71.5
3.15
40.5
76.8
65.2
8.75
109.6
2.27
74.3
70.8
2.49
31.7
3.51
76.0
71.8
2.73
35.7
3.93
80.0
71.5
4.80
62.8
91.8
62.3
7.68
94.0
3.64
89.5
70.1
6.85
90.2
4.43
93.1
68.3
6.76
87.6
3.24
90.0
71.5
6.20
82.9
2.95
98.3
59.5
7.35
89.0
2.96
94.1
68.0
7.51
97.1
3.35
94.9
66.6
6.86
88.0
3.71
97.0
70.0
7.25
96.5
3.25
44.7
66.5
4.21
49.1
2.38
54.2
66.0
3.27
41.5
3.18
54.4
72.7
3.47
43.5
3.81
52.8
73.0
4.03
50.9
2.48
B-269
-------
1965 SUMMARY
NORTH RIVER
Date Station % Seawater Temperature Dissolved % Sat. 5-day BOD
June
July
August
N
1
40.1
44.6
46.3
68.7
73.6
75.6
5.73
4.52
4.00
67.68
56.64
54.84
1.35
1.65
1.18
June
July
August
N2
44.0
49.7
49.5
68.3
73.6
76.8
5.37
3.98
3.25
63.81
50.31
41.73
1.82
1.64
1.01
June
July
August
N
3
50.3
55.5
57.1
67.5
72.9
74.8
4.25
3.18
2.50
50.45
39.80
31.78
1.58
1.67
1.15
June
July
August
N
3a
57.0
60.6
66.6
68.2
72.1
74.5
3.73
2.95
2.21
44.43
37.49
28.48
1.93
2.23
1.22
June
July
August
N3b
53.2
54.8
61.5
66.8
72.8
74.8
4.87
2.92
2.28
57.62
36.82
26.98
1.80
2.42
1.68
June
July
August
N
4
64.5
63.5
66.6
66.2
71.9
74.0
3.45
2.70
2.18
41.28
34.39
26.18
1.97
2.13
2.16
B-270
-------
1965 SUMMARY
NORTH RIVER
Date Station % Seawater Temperature Dissolved O % Sat. 5-day BOD
June
75.0
63.6
3.93
47.02
1.90
July
N
75.8
70.4
2.75
35.53
2.76
August
5
79.4
72.8
2.66
35.44
1.38
June
79.8
65.2
3.85
47.05
2.36
July
N
82.6
70.3
2.88
40.43
2.22
August
6
83.4
71.7
2.92
40.46
1.94
Sept.
75.7
69.8
3.80
48.63
1.92
June
78.5
65.2
3.81
48.10
1.47
July
N
83.5
70.2
3.44
44.55
1.58
August
7
79.4
73.1
2.94
37.81
1.89
Sept.
71.7
69.7
3.32
41.85
4.43
June
81.0
64.3
4.60
58.10
1.83
July
N
85.3
69.8
4.14
53.6
1.66
August
8
84.2
73.0
3.56
47.6
1.85
Sept.
82.7
69.5
4.60
59.4
1.72
June
90.5
60.3
6.39
76.23
1.23
July
N
88.2
67.0
6.61
83.88
1.35
August
9
90.9
71.2
5.88
78.24
1.60
June
N
90.1
63.1
6.37
78.03
2.20
July
9a
87.0
67.7
6.77
87.31
1.87
August
89.5
72.1
6.19
82.98
1.90
June
N
94.3
60.0
7.03
84.43
1.27
July
IN
16
90.6
65.8
6.62
85.58
1.30
August
82.5
71.2
6.61
88.54
1.39
B-271
-------
EAST RIVER
1954 SUMMARY SHEET
Station Period % Seawater
top bottom
Temperature
top & bottom
Dissolved O
top
2
bottom
BOD 5-day ppm
top bottom
Top and Bottom Averages
% Sea D. O.
BOD
E!
1
59
64
61
4.6
3.8
1.6
1.0
61.5
4.2
1.3
2
77
78
70
2.4
2.4
1.6
1.3
77.5
2.4
1.45
3
80
83
73
1.6
1.2
1.4
1.4
81.5
1.4
1.4
4
78
79
70
2.1
2.1
1.4
1.7
78.5
2.1
1.55
E2
1
66
70
63
3.5
3.8
2.4
1.6
68
3.65
2.0
2
74
77
69
2.1
2.2
1.9
1.5
75.5
2.15
1.7
3
80
82
72
1.2
1.2
1.8
1.5
81
1.2
1.65
4
77
77
70
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.6
77
1.75
1.7
E3
1
68
67
62
3.8
4.0
2.2
1.8
67.5
3.9
2.0
2
75
77
69
2.4
2.4
2.6
1.7
76.0
2.4
2.15
3
80
82
73
1.2
1.4
1.9
1.5
81
1.3
1.7
4
78
79
70
1.6
1.7
2.2
1.2
78.5
1.65
1.7
LU
1
69
69
62
2.8
2.8
1.8
2.4
69
2.8
2.1
2
77
78
69
2.0
2.0
1.8
1.3
77.5
2.0
1.55
3
83
84
72
0.8
1.0
1.5
1.2
83.5
0.9
1.35
4
73
73
68
2.2
2.1
1.2
1.6
73
2.15
1.4
E5
1
73
73
62
2.6
2.7
1.6
2.0
73
2.65
1.8
2
77
80
69
2.3
2.4
1.6
1.3
78.5
2.35
1.45
3
85
85
72
2.0
2.0
1.8
1.0
85
2.0
1.4
4
75
75
68
2.2
1.4
1.4
1.1
75
1.8
1.25
-------
EAST RIVER
1954 SUMMARY SHEET
Station Period % Seawater Temperature Dissolved BOD 5-day ppm Top and Bottom Averages
top bottom top & bottom top bottom top bottom % Sea D. O. BOD
E6
1
73
77
62
3.3
3.7
1.9
1.6
75
3.5
1.75
2
79
80
69
2.8
2.5
1.6
1.4
79.5
2.65
1.5
3
84
85
72
1.8
1.4
1.2
0.9
84.5
1.6
1.05
4
80
77
68
2.6
1.2
1.2
1.4
78.5
1.9
1.3
E7
1
75
76
60
4.9
4.9
2.0
1.5
75.5
4.9
1.75
2
81
82
68
3.7
3.7
1.4
1.0
81.5
3.7
1.2
3
85
87
72
3.1
3.1
1.0
0.8
86
3.1
0.9
4
77
79
68
3.2
0.8
0.8
0.8
78
2.0
0.8
E8
1
81
80
60
5.4
5.5
1.4
1.9
80.5
5.45
1.65
2
82
83
68
4.2
4.3
1.5
1.7
82.5
4.25
1.6
3
85
88
72
3.7
3.8
1.2
0.8
86.5
3.75
1.0
4
81
81
68
3.8
4.6
0.9
0.6
81
4.2
0.75
E9
1
80
78
60
7.0
7.0
2.0
1.6
79
7.0
1.8
2
82
83
68
4.2
4.3
1.5
1.7
82.5
4.25
1.6
3
85
88
72
3.7
3.9
1.2
0.8
86.5
3.75
1.0
4
81
81
68
3.8
4.6
0.9
0.6
81
4.2
0.75
o
LU
1
80
75
60
7.5
7.8
2.5
1.9
77.6
7.65
2.2
2
84
86
67
5.7
5.5
1.8
1.3
85
5.6
1.55
3
87
88
72
4.8
4.3
1.4
1.2
87.5
4.55
1.3
4
83
81
68
5.9
6.0
0.9
0.7
82
5.95
0.8
-------
EAST RIVER
1955 SUMMARY SHEET
Station Period % Seawater Temperature Dissolved BOD 5-day ppm
top bottom top & bottom top bottom top bottom
E!
1
75
78
65
2.4
2.5
2.0
1.7
2
79
81
72
2.1
2.2
2.0
1.3
3
69
73
75
1.6
1.4
2.5
1.8
4
73
74
71
2.2
2.7
1.8
1.6
E2
1
74
76
65
1.9
2.0
2.2
1.7
2
79
79
72
1.7
1.6
2.3
1.5
3
73
75
75
1.0
1.2
2.6
1.6
4
72
72
71
1.4
1.4
2.7
1.7
CO
LU
1
75
76
66
1.8
2.0
2.2
1.8
2
80
81
72
1.5
1.7
2.6
1.7
3
74
76
75
0.9
1.3
3.2
2.0
4
74
73
71
1.4
1.4
3.8
1.8
E4
1
80
82
66
2.8
3.0
2.3
1.3
2
77
80
73
1.6
1.7
3.3
3.1
3
75
76
76
1.1
1.3
2.7
2.0
4
81
76
70
1.2
1.4
2.7
1.8
E5
1
82
84
66
3.5
3.6
1.6
2.0
2
82
83
73
1.9
1.9
2.3
1.3
3
78
78
75
1.4
1.6
2.3
1.4
4
80
80
69
2.6
2.6
1.0
1.0
-------
EAST RIVER
1955 SUMMARY SHEET
Station Period
% Seawater
top bottom
Temperature
top & bottom
Dissolved Oj
top bottom
BOD 5-day ppm
top bottom
E6
1
79
85
66
3.2
4.6
1.8
1.0
2
82
83
72
1.6
1.8
2.3
1.5
3
78
79
74
1.8
2.0
2.2
1.5
4
78
80
69
2.6
3.0
1.2
0.8
E7
1
83
84
65
4.9
5.4
2.1
1.2
2
85
87
71
3.0
3.1
2.2
1.4
3
82
82
75
2.6
3.0
2.0
1.0
4
80
80
69
3.7
3.9
1.1
0.7
E8
1
80
86
65
5.2
5.6
3.4
1.8
2
84
85
69
3.7
3.8
1.9
1.2
3
83
83
74
4.0
3.7
2.6
1.1
4
80
80
69
3.9
3.9
0.7
0.2
E9
1
82
86
68
7.3
7.8
2.8
1.1
2
85
88
69
7.1
5.0
4.0
1.4
3
84
86
73
4.4
4.5
3.2
1.1
4
81
80
70
3.9
3.9
1.0
0.5
E10
1
82
88
66
7.6
5.6
3.4
1.3
2
85
88
69
6.4
4.9
2.8
1.4
3
84
84
73
4.8
4.9
1.8
1.2
4
81
80
70
4.3
4.2
1.0
0.5
-------
EAST RIVER
1956 SUMMARY SHEET
Station Period % Seawater Tsmperature Dissolved Oj BOD 5-day ppm
top bottom top & bottom top bottom top bottom-
E1
1
66
68
66
4.0
4.0
2.8
2.8
L 2
70
71
69
2.1
2.3
2.3
1.8
3
77
78
73
1.8
2.0
2.9
1.6
4
72
76
69
2.2
2.3
3.2
1.5
E2
1
68
79
65
4.4
3.8
5.4
3.2
2
71
71
69
1.6
1.8
3.2
1.9
3
76
77
73
1.2
1.8
3.3
1.7
4
73
74
69
1.7
1.8
3.8
1.6
E3
1
76
70
65
4.4
4.4
4.6
3.0
2
72
73
69
1.4
1.5
4.6
2.7
3
76
76
73
1.3
1.3
5.4
2.1
4
74
74
69
1.8
2.0
4.9
2.0
E4
1
71
72
66
3.6
3.9
3.8
4.5
2
72
72
69
2.1
2.1
2.1
1.7
3
78
80
72
1.4
1.6
4.4
3.7
4
75
75
74
1.0
1.4
5.0
3.9
E5
1
70
75
64
5.3
5.8
3.4
1.5
2
74
75
69
1.6
2.1
2.1
1.3
3
78
81
71
1.8
1.9
3.4
3.2
4
79
80
74
1.2
1.4
4.3
3.5
-------
EAST RIVER
1956 SUMMARY SHEET
Station Period % Seawater Temperature Dissolved BOD 5-day ppm
top bottom top & bottom top bottom top bottom
E6
1
72
77
62
4.5
6.4
2.6
1.8
2
75
76
68
2.0
2.5
1.9
1.4
3
79
82
71
1.5
2.0
3.8
3.3
4
83
82
73
1.9
2.0
4.5
5.1
E7
1
75
77
62
6.8
6.8
1.7
1.7
2
77
78
67
3.4
3.6
1.8
1.2
3
81
82
70
2.5
2.8
4.7
3.6
4
84
86
72
2.4
2.6
5.6
4.6
E8
1
70
77
62
8.1
8.2
2.6
2.1
2
78
81
67
4.0
4.3
1.6
1.2
3
82
83
70
2.7
3.1
3.9
3.2
4
84
86
72
2.5
2.7
4.9
4.0
E9
1
78
79
62
10.0
9.0
3.3
2.5
2
79
81
66
6.1
5.5
2.5
1.4
3
82
84
69
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.6
4
86
85
71
3.0
3.3
4.0
3.9
E10
1
79
81
62
11.0
7.7
2.0
1.5
2
80
82
66
6.4
5.7
2.7
1.1
3
83
84
69
CO
3.4
CO
3.2
4
86
88
72
3.2
4.5
5.1
4.3
-------
EAST RIVER
1957 SUMMARY SHEET
Station Period % Seawater Temperature Dissolved BOD 5-day ppm
top bottom top & bottom top bottom top bottom
E1
1
75
78
70
2.3
2.2
2.9
1.8
2
77
80
71
2.6
3.7
2.2
1.2
3
80
80
74
1.4
1.6
2.2
1.7
4
78
80
66
1.6
2.2
2.4
1.6
E2
1
74
76
70
2.1
2.5
2.8
1.6
2
78
80
71
1.8
2.3
2.9
2.0
3
80
81
74
1.1
1.6
3.0
2.1
4
79
80
66
1.5
.0
2.8
1.3
E3
1
75
75
70
2.0
2.2
. 4.8
2.0
2
79
81
72
1.5
2.4
4.0
2.1
3
82
81
74
0.7
1.3
4.4
2.5
4
78
80
67
1.9
2.0
5.8
2.2
E4
1
78
80
68
2.5
2.6
2.8
2.4
2
79
81
72
1.1
1.3
3.2
1.8
3
79
81
73
1.7
2.1
2.4
1.3
4
80
81
68
1.5
1.8
3.6
0.9
F5
1
80
80
67
2.8
2.8
2.0
1.4
2
82
84
71
1.4
2.2
2.2
1.4
3
82
83
72
2.2
2.2
1.6
1.5
4
81
83
68
2.3
2.9
2.5
1.4
-------
EAST RIVER
1957 SUMMARY SHEET
Station Period
% Seawater
top bottom
Temperature Dissolved
top & bottom top bottom
BOD 5-day ppm
top bottom
E6
1
80
82
66
2.8
4.0
2.0
1.2
2
82
84
72
2.0
2.3
2.2
0.8
3
81
84
72
2.3
2.7
2.1
1.6
4
83
83
68
1.8
2.2
3.5
2.2
E7
1
82
82
65
4.1
4.2
1.6
0.8
2
84
86
70
2.8
3.5
2.0
1.0
3
85
87
72
3.2
3.5
2.0
0.8
4
85
87
68
1.9
2.8
2.3
1.2
E8
1
82
83
65
5.4
4.8
2.0
0.8
2.
86
84
71
4.1
4.2
2.2
1.2
3
86
87
72
3.7
4.1
1.6
1.2
4
86
87
68
3.5
4.0
1.2
0.3
E9
- 1
82
83
65
6.2
6.0
2.7
1.0
2
86
84
71
5.1
4.4
2.0
1.0
3
86
87
71
3.1
4.6
1.7
1.0
4
85
87
68
3.8
3.9
1.0
1.1
E10
1
82
82
64
6.6
6.6
1.6
0.8
2
86
84
71
6.1
4.9
3.4
1.1
3
87
86
72
5.1
4.5
1.7
0.7
4
85
85
67
4.3
5.1
1.3
0.5
-------
EAST RIVER
1958 SUMMARY SHEET
Station Period
% Seawater
top bottom
Temperature
top & bottom
Dissolved O,
top bottom
BOD 5-day ppm
top bottom
E,
1
68
72
63
4.2
4.2
1.5
1.4
2
75
77
70
3.0
3.2
1.8
2.0
3 .
73
75
73
1.8
2.4
2.6
1.8
4
74
76
69
2.4
2.7
2.3
1.2
CM
LU
1
70
72
63
3.5
3.4
1.8
1.6
2
73 I 75
70
2.3
2.8
2.4
1.1
3
75 | 76
73
1.9
2.2
3.0
1.7
4
74
76
70
1.9
2.3
2.2
1.4
E3
1
71
72
64
4.5
5.2
2.2
2.0
2
73
74
71
2.4
2.8
4.0
2.1
3
76
77
72
1.6
1.8
3.6
2.4
4
75
76
70
1.5
2.2
CO
o
2.2
E4
1
69
70
62
4.1
4.1
2.4
1.7
2
76
78
68
3.1
3.3
1.7
1.0
3
75
77
73
2.3
2.7
2.5
1.3
4
75
77
70
1.9
2.6
2.5
1.6
E5
1
68
72
61
4.0
4.6
1.9
0.8
2
78
78
68
2.8
3.3
2.2
1.4
3
75
77
72
1.8
2.1
2.0
1.6
4
76
77
69
2.3
3.2
2.5
1.0
-------
EAST RIVER
1958 SUMMARY SHEET
Station Period % Seawater Temperature Dissolved Oj BOD 5-day ppm
top bottom top & bottom top bottom top bottom
E6
1
70
75
61
4.6
4.9
2.0
1.4
2
76
78
68
3.1
3.8
2.0
1.1
3
76
79
71
2.4
2.9
1.5
0.7
4
76
78
68
3.0
3.8
1.9
0.5
E7
1
73
75
61
5.1
6.4
1.0
1.1
2
76
77
68
4.0
4.5
1.7
0.9
3
77
81
70
2.8
3.1
1.1
0.7
4
78
80
68
3.4
4.2
1.8
0.6
E8
1
76
77
60
5.8
6.2
1.8
1.1
2
78
78
.66
4.8
5.0
1.1
0.8
3
81
82
69
2.9
3.4
1.4
0.6
4
82
83
68
4.0
4.2
1.1
0.3
E9
1
75
78
60
7.0
6.9
1.7
1.3
2
79
80
68
4.9
5.2
1.7
1.2
3
81
82
70
3.7
4.0
1.2
0.5
4
79
83
68
4.2
4.8
1.4
0.7
E10
1
76
78
60
7.5
7.5
1.5
1.1
2
79
80
67
6.0
6.7
2.0
1.3
3
82
82
70
3.4
3.7
1.3
0.2
4
81
83
68
4.7
5.0
1.2
0.2
-------
EAST RIVER
1959 SUMMARY SHEET
Station Period % Seawater Temperature Dissolved Oj BOD 5-day ppm
top bottom top & bottom top bottom top bottom
E,
1
71
73
68
2.8
3.5
2.0
1.7
2
75
78
71
2.5
2.6
1.5
0.9
3
80
81
76
1.1
1.3
1.7
1.6
4
80
8l
69
2.4
2.8
1.8
1.1
E2
1
72
73
67
2.4
2.3
3.1
2.1
2
75
75
71
1.8
1.2
2.5
3.2
3
78
80
75
0.9
1.2
2.2
1.4
4
79
80
69
1.9
2.2
2.8
1.7
E3
1
74
73
68
2.3
2.7
4.2
2.7
2
75
75
72
1.5
2.2
2.5
2.3
3
79
79
75
1.3
1.4
3.3
2.4
4
80
81
70
2.1
2.2
3.0
2.0
LU
1
73
74
67
2.0
2.7
2.2
2.5
2
77
76
72
1.0
1.9
1.8
1.8
3
79
81
76
1.1
1.3
2.2
2.2
4
81
82
72
2.2
2.6
2.0
2.0
E5
. 1
74
74
66
2.0
4.6
1.6
1.5
2
77
78
71
1.2
2.0
1.2
1.5
3
82
83
76
1.6
1.9
1.5
1.2
4
82
85
71
2.5
2.7
2.0
1.4
-------
EAST RIVER
1959 SUMMARY SHEET
Station Period % Seawater Temperature Dissolved BOD 5-day ppm
top bottom top & bottom top bottom top bottom
E6
1
78
80
65
3.4
3.4
1.7
1.3
2
78
80
70
1.4
2.5
1.4
1.0
3
82
85
76
1.7
2.4
1.8
1.4
4
84
84
71
2.3
3.1
1.8
1.3
E7
1
80
78
65
3.7
4.4
0.1
0.6
2
78
80
69
2.0
2.9
1.1
1.2
3
84
85
75
2.4
2.8
1.4
0.9
4
85
84
72
3.3
3.6
1.6
0.6
00
LU
1
82
81
64
5.4
5.7
1.6
1.2
2
80
80
68
3.3
3.8
1.9
1.3
3
86
88
75
2.9
3.2
1.2
1.5
4
86
86
71
4.6
4.9
1.0
0.8
E9
1
82
81
64
6.5
6.4
1.0
0.7
2
81
82
68
5.1
4.5
2.3
1.4
3
87
87
74
4.0
3.8
1.8
1.5
4
87
87
71
4.5
5.1
1.2
0.9
o
LU
1
80
81
64
5.7
6.1
1.7
1.2
2
81
83
67
4.6
4.2
2.0
1.0
3
88
88
74
4.2
3.9
1.5
1.0
4
86
87
70
5.2
5.5
1.0
0.9
-------
1959 SUMMARY
EAST RIVER
Date Station % Seawater Temperature Dissolved O %Sat. 5-day BOD
June
72.5
66.7
3.33
40.8
2.02
July
E
73.0
70.8
2.38
30.5
1.43
August
1
78.5
73.6
1.36
17.8
1.62
Sept.
82.5
72.4
2.19
29.0
1.49
June
72.6
66.5
2.55
30.8
2.82
July
E
71.8
. 70.5
2.45
31.3
2.23
August
2
78.8
72.7
1.10
14.3
1.65
Sept.
79.1
73.0
1.79
24.4
2.51
June
73.7
76.5
2.62
32.2
3.58
July
E
72.5
71.3
1.90
24.3
2.60
August
3
79.0
73.0
1.25
16.5
2.73
Sept.
79.8
73.0
2.10
2.69
2.76
June
74.0
67.0
2.40
29.0
2.40
July
E
76.4
71.6
1.49
19.3
1.80
August
4
78.5
76.5
.85
10.5
1.63
Sept.
81.6
73.9
2.01
28.6
1.96
June
74.0
66.0
3.30
41.0
1.60
July
E
77.4
70.8
1.63
20.6
1.39
August
5
81.5
75.8
1.43
19.5
1.28
Sept.
83.8
73.4
2.36
31.5
1.66
B-284
-------
1959 SUMMARY
EAST RIVER
Date Station % Sea water Temperature Dissolved % Sat. 5-day BOD
June
79.0
65.0
3.40
42.0
1.50
July
E
78.8
70.0
2.00
25.5
1.21
August
6
82.3
75.5
1.70
23.3
1.33
Sept.
84.0
73.5
2.60
34.0
1.71
June
79.0
65.0
4.10
49.0
0.40
July
E
78.5
69.1
2.50
31.4
1.15
August
7
84.0
75.5
2.30
31.3
1.20
Sept.
85.3
.83.0
3.20
42.8
1.56
June
82.0
64.0
5.60
68.0
1.40
July
E
79.6
68.4
3.55
45.0
1.59
August
8
80.5
75.3
2.85
39.3
1.10
Sept.
86.6
72.5
4.00
53.3
1.30
June
82.0
64.0
6.50
78.0
0.90
July
E
81.7
67.8
4.80
60.5
1.84
August
9
86.5
74.0
3.70
50.0
1.45
Sept.
87.6
72.5
4.50
59.9
2.30
June
81.0
64.0
5.90
72.0
1.50
July
E
82.3
67.4
4.45
55.3
1.53
August
10
87.3
73.8
4.00
54.5
1.25
Sept.
88.0
72.2
4.73
63.6
1.10
B-285
-------
EAST RIVER
1960 SUMMARY SHEET
Station Period % Seawater Temperature Dissolved Oj BOD 5-day ppm
E1
1
71
68
65
3.0
3.3
1.9
1.7
2
70
74
68
2.9
3.1
2.3
2.2
3
77
76
72
l.fc
2.3
1.7
1.3
4
72
71
74
1.5
1.7
2.0
1.3
CM
UJ
1
71
68
64
2.7
2.9
2.1
1.9
2
70
71
74
1.2
1.7
1.7
1.8
3
79
76
71
5.0
2.6
2.4
2.0
4
71
71
74
1.2
1.7
1.7
1.8
E3
1
71
75
65
3.0
3.5
2.3
2.2
2
70
70
68
2.0
3.5
3.4
3.0
3
77
76
72
1.6
1.9
3.5
3.5
4
73
?2
74
1.2
1.7
2.7
2.1
LLI
1
73
75
67
2.9
2.6
2.9
1.8
2
72
72
70
2.0
2.2
2.6
2.5
3
77
76
72
1.9
2.0
2.2
1.5
4
72
73
75
1.8
2.3
2.8
1.1
E5
1
74
75
66
2.9
3.5
1.8
1.8
2
73
75
69
2.1
2.1
2.2
1.4
3
80
81
71
1.8
2.4
1.2
1.0
4
74
11
74
1.$
2.2
3.3
1.7
-------
EAST RIVER
1960 SUMMARY SHEET
Station Period % Seawater Temperature Dissolved BOD 5-day ppm
top bottom top & bottom top bottom top bottom
e6 ! .
76
76
66
3.5
3.6
2.1
1.5
2
77
78
69
2.8
3.3
1.9
1.8
3
81
81
72
2.2
2.6
1.7
0.7
4
75
75
75
2.0
2.4
2.7
3.4
E7
1
79
80
65
4.7
4.9
1.5
1.5
2
78
79
68
3.8
4.2
2.0
1.1
3
81
80
81
3.2
3.3
1.3
1.9
4
79
79
74
3.0
3.1
3.3
1.7
E8
1
79
80
65
5.8
5.6
1.7
1.6
2
82
82
67
5.5
5.7
1.9
1.7
3
84
85
70
4.5
3.9
1.2
0.8
4
81
82
73
3.6
3.7
3.2
2.4
E9
1
79
81
65
c>
00
6.2
1.9
1.7
2
82
83
66
6.8
6.2
1.8
2.2
3
86
84
70
5.7
4.6
2.9
1.2
4
81
82
73
4.4
4.5
2.7
2.6
rn
O
1
80
81
63
6.9
6.5
1.8
1.1
2
82
82
66
7.6
6.2
3.0
0.9
3
86
86
70
5.8
4.3
4.4
0.7
4
82
85
73
4.6
4.6
1.4
0.8
-------
1960 SUMMARY
EAST RIVER
Date Station % Seawater Temperature Dissolved O %Sat. 5-day BOD
June
July
August
Sept.
E
1
70.0
76.5
71.6
66.0
69.2
74.2
June
July
August
Sept.
E
2
69.0
73.8
72.5
66.0
70.2
74.2
June
July
August
Sept.
E
3
71.0
75.2
72.2
67.0
70.5
74.3
June
July
August
Sept.
E
4
72.0
75.5
73.2
68.0
71.7
74.5
June
July
August
Sept.
E
5
74.0
78.8
76.4
68.0
70.6
73.8
3.10 38.4 1.50
2.42 30.6 2.23
1.62 22.0 1.39
2.50 29.7 1.90
2.43 31.1 2.65
1.41 18.7 1.56
2.60 32.1 2.30
1.63 23.4 2.85
1.42 18.8 2.34
2.40 29.4 1.80
1.93 25.4 2.16
2.09 27.8 1.95
2.60 32.1 1.20
2.03 29.2 1.43
2.16 28.7 2.23
B-288
-------
1960 SUMMARY
EAST RIVER
Date Station % Seawater Temperature Dissolved % Sat. 5-day BOD
June
July
August
Sept.
E
6
76.0
80.5
76.1
67.0
71.0
74.1
3.20
2.76
2.18
40.0
36.0
30.1
1.93
1.52
2.68
June
July
August
Sept.
E
7
78.5
80.3
79.5
66.0
70.8
73.4
5.24
3.73
2.97
53.1
48.5
39.6
1.57
1.50
1.89
June
July
August
Sept.
E
8
80.6
83.8
81.8
65.3
70.2
72.4
5.95
4.92
3.69
69.3
63.7
48.9
1.67
1.58
2.37
June
July
August
Sept.
E
9
80.5
85.8
81.3
65.0
69.0
72.3
6.68
5.46
4.62
80.4
70.5
60.9
1.62
2.23
2.52
June
July
August
Sept.
E
10
81.1
86.0
83.3
64.0
69.3
72.2
7.10
6.53
. 4.46
82.1
78.2
59.2
1.23
2.20
1.69
B-289
-------
EAST RIVER
1961 SUMMARY SHEET
Station Period % Seawater Temperature Dissolved BOD 5-day ppm
top bottom top & bottom top bottom top bottom
E1
1
67
69
64
3.2
2.9
2.3
2.2
2
70
69
67
3.4
3.4
2.0
2.3
3
73
76
74
1.9
2.1
1.2
1.8
4
73
72
77
1.3
1.1
0.0
0.7
E2
1
68
68
64
3.2
2.8
2.9
3.2
2
68
70
68
3.2
3.3
2.2
2.4
3
75
73
75
1.6
1.4
2.0
0.9
4
69
64
77
1.1
2.1
0.2
5.4
E3
1
70
77
64
4.0
. 3.2
3.8
3.1
2
68
67
69
3.4
3.5
3.4
2.4
3
74
73
75
1.3
1.2
2.7
1.8
4
69
72
76
1.0
0.6
1.3
1.7
E4
1
69
70
65
3.8
3.4
3.0
2.7
2
70
71
69
2.6
2.6
2.0
2.2
3
75
76
74
1.7
1.7
.2.1
1.6
4
78
67
77
1.3
1.5
1.4
0.6
E5
1
74
74
64
4.0
3.8
3.1
2.2
2
74
72
68
2.7
2.6
2.2
1.7
3
77
73
74
2.0
1.5
1.6
1.9
1.3'
4
77
77
77
1.4
2.3
1.4
-------
EAST RIVER
1961 SUMMARY SHEET
Station Period % Seawater Temperature Dissolved O^ BOD 5-day ppm
top bottom top & bottom top bottom top bottom
E6
1
76
75
64
4.8
4.5
2.5
2.1
2
73
74
69
3.9
4.3
3.6
2.1
3
77
77
73
2.0
1.8
1.4
1.8
4
81
78
77
2.2
2.0
0.8
1.6
E7
1
78
80
64
6.2
6.5
2.9
2.2
2
76
/6
67
4.8
5.4
4.3
2.8
3
78
81
72
2.9
2.8
1.2
1.0
4
86
87
76
2.8
2.8
1.5
2.4
E8
1
82
80
61
7.0
6.8
2.8
1.8
2
80
82
67
7.4
6.7
5.8
3.8
3
80
81
72
3.7
3.5
0.8
1.1
4
84
87
76
4.0
4.0
- -
- -
E9
1
82
82
61
8.0
7.6
2.4
1.5
2 1
80
82
68
7.2
6.4
6.7
3.3
3
82
82
72
5.8
3.8
2.5
1.6
4
86
86
77
5.8
4.3
1.7
1.6
E10
1
78
81
60
8.6
8.0
2.4
2.2
2
80
80
68
7.0
6.5
5.7
4.2
3
84
83
71
6.0
4.1
2.8
0.9
4
86
86
74
5.5
3.4
1.0
0.7
-------
1961 SUMMARY
EAST RIVER
Date Station % Seawater Temperature Dissolved % Sat. 5-day BOD
June
68.2
63.8
2.90
35.8
2.00
July
E
69.6
69.0
3.13
40.5
1.70
August
1
78.6
74.7
1.85
24.7
1.00
Sept.
—
—
—
—
—
June
64.7
66.8
3.02
35.5
3.10
July
E
70.0
68.6
2.73
33.1
1.65
August
2
76.2
75.5
1.62
21.8
1.85
Sept.
—
—
—
—
—
June
71.8
64.5
3.60
42.7
3.90
July
E
70.5
69.5
2.83
35.3
2.93
August
3
75 4
75.7
1.30
17.7
1.23
Sept.
—
—
—
—
—
June
69.5
65.0
3.62
43.3
2.85
July
E
70.8
71.5
2.09
26.6
1.98
August
4
72.4
74.1
1.69
40.5
1.59
Sept.
81.5
79.0
4.25
19.5
0.65
June
74.3
64.0
3.93
46.5
2.82
July
E
73.3
71.4
2.43
29.6
2.65
August
5
76.6
73.9
1.83
24.1
1.47
Sept.
75.0
78.0
1.65
23.0
1.80
B-292
-------
1961 SUMMARY
EAST RIVER
Date Station % Seawater Temperature Dissolved Oj % Sat. 5-day BOD
June
75.3
64.0
4.65
55.8
2.33
July
E
74.4
71.4
2.86
36.8
2 24
August
6
77.9
75.0
2.03
26.9
1.39
Sept.
8.75
78.0
2.40
35.5
.80
June
79.3
63.5
6.32
76.2
2.53
July
E
76.4
69.6
3.94
50.0
2.44
August
7
82.0
72.9
3.01
40.8
1.16
Sept.
89.0
76.5
2.75
38.5
1.80
June
80.7
61.2
6.88
80.3
2.27
July
E
80.1
69.5
5.29
82.9
2.36
August
8
. 83.3
72.5
3.85
46.9
.50
Sept.
86.5
78.0
5.00
71.0
.80
June
82.2
60.7
7.80
92.5
2.24
July
E
81.3
69.5
5.90
76.4
1.93
August
9
83.3
73.0
4.69
62.8
1.39
Sept.
88.0
76.5
5.60
78.5
.90
June
79.7
60.2
8.28
97.2
2.28
July
E
81.4
70.3
6 01
76.5
1.87
August
10
83.3
72.0
4.70
62.3
1.06
Sept.
88.5
75.5
4.85
67.5
o
00
B-293
-------
1962 SUMMARY
EAST RIVER
Date Station % Seawater Temperature Dissolved O2 % Sat. 5-day BOD
June
73.8
67.3
1.89
33.4
1.77
July
Ei
83.0
71.8
1.62
21.2
2.15
August
1
83.6
74.4
1.54
20.9
1.85
Sept.
86.0
72.0
1.55
20.7
June
75.6
66.9
1.93
30.9
1.85
July
Eo
80.3
71.7
1.57
21.0
2.07
August
z
83.6
73.7
1.45
21.0
1.60
Sept.
83.0
73.0
0.50
6.6
June
76.8
66.5
1.80
22.8
2.40
July
Eq
81.0
72.0
1.35
17.6
3.25
August
J
82.6
74.3
1.29
17.1
1.25
Sept.
83.0
73.0
1.50
20.1
June
76.1
67.8
2.53
31.2
3.21
July
e4
76.0
73.0
1.84
24.1
1.87
August
82.7
75.0
1.15
15.8
1.74
Sept.
June
79.8
67.4
2.66
33.3
3.09
July
E-
83.8
72.5
2.05
27.3
1.53
August
0
78.3
74.5
1.62
22.2
1.53
B-294
-------
1962 SUMMARY
EAST RIVER
Date Station % Seawater Temperature Dissolved % Sat. 5-day BOD
June 76.4 67.5 2.94 36.5 3.54
July E 82.5 71.6 2.31 31.1 2.26
August 6 86.7 74.5 1.75 23.9 1.09
Sept.
June 74.4 66.3 4.40 54.8 3.26
July E 86.4 70.1 3.21 42.9 1.56
August 7 88.3 74.7 2.65 36.4 .78
Sept.
June 84.5 64.8 5.75 70.2 3.09
July E 86.0 70.0 4.10 53.5 1.74
August 8 92.2 73.8 3.15 43.2 1.34
Sept.
June 86.6 64.6 6.79 84.1 3.10
July E 86.5 69.1 5.24 64.4 2.04
August 9 92.2 74.0 3.75 51.4 1.55
Sept.
June 83.5 64.3 6.75 82.5 2.64
July E 86.3 69.9 5.55 72.1 2.01
August 10 93.5 74.0 4.22 1.82
Sept.
B-295
-------
1963 SUMMARY
EAST RIVER
Date Station
% Seawater
Temperature
Dissolved
% Sat.
5-day B<
June
75.0
68.0
2.48
31.7
2.25
July
Ei
80.9
72.5
2.09
24.9
1.69
August
1
82.9
72.7
1.71
22.9
1.89
Sept.
81.0
71.0
1.50
18.9
2.15
June
81.5
67.8
1.73
22.6
3.13
July
e2
81.3
72.3
1.90
23.3
1.80
August
81.9
72.3
1.44
19.1
1.86
Sept.
82.5
70.5
1.55
20.3
2.40
June
82.3
68.3
1.63
21.1
2.85
July
E,
82.1
72.8
1.50
19.9
2.63
August
J
83.9
72.9
1.25
16.3
2.46
Sept.
85.0
71.0
1.75
23.2
1.90
June
76.0
67.7
2.02
25.0
2.57
July
e4
82.0
70.8
2.43
31.5
2.17
August
82.8
74.0
1.74
23.3
2.03
Sept.
83.8
72.0
1.90
23.9
2.35
June
76.2
66.5
2.22
27.4
2.00
July
e5
83.3
69.8
2.73
35.4
2.05
August
0
83.8
76.4
2.09
27.9
1.81
Sept.
83.8
72.3
1.95
23.2
2.85
B-296
-------
1963 SUMMARY
EAST RIVER
Date Station
% Seawater
Temperature
Dissolved
% Sat.
5-day B<
June
78.7
66.5
1.77
24.0
2.02
July
e6
78.0
73.0
2.80
35.7
2.38
August
O
83.8
72.3
2.44
32.6
1.85
Sept.
82.8
71.5
2.35
26.1
June
77.5
66.8
4.05
48.5
2.15
July
E7
84.3
67.3
4.43
55.7
2.10
August
/
83.1
71.9
3.35
45,1
1.60
Sept.
84.8
71.8
3.33
40.9
1.75
June
76.3
64.5
5.37
66.0
2.32
July
Eo
86.0
66.0
5.73
73.9
2.07
August
o
87.9
71.1
3.85
50.8
1.69
Sept.
85.0
71.0
4.53
59.5
1.48
June
82.8
66.3
7.20
89.3
2.93
July
E9
88.5
67.5
6.28
80.7
2.45
August
87.6
71.3
4.95
65.5
1.49
Sept.
89.0
71.0
5.15
68.0
1.05
June
84.5
65.5
7.15
89.2
2.33
July
E10
87.8
68.3
8.18
106.5
2.88
August
1U
88.3
70.4
5.06
66.2
1.65
Sept.
88.3
71.5
4.98
69.5
1.33
B-297
-------
1964 SUMMARY
EAST RIVER
Date Station
% Seawater
Temperature
Dissolved C>2
% Sat.
5-day B<
June
79.8
63.0
3.67
44.6
2.22
July
El
75.7
71.3
1.83
23.6
3.28
August
1
78.6
71.5
2.63
34.3
4.33
Sept.
76.5
72.0
4.55
64.1
June
75.0
63.3
3.05
36.4
2.80
July
e2
76.5
70.5
1.74
26.5
2.83
August
£.
76.4
72.0
2.20
28.7
4.53
Sept.
75.0
72.0
3.05
39.8
June
77.5
63.7
2.92
37.2
3.38
July
e3
76.5
70.4
2.24
36.6
4.10
August
77.8
72.5
2.03
26.5
4.00
Sept.
76.5
72.0
6.10
79.6
June
75.6
64.3
2.65
31.9
3.30
July
e4
76.8
70.3
1.93
24.6
5.58
August
75.1
72.6
2.64
34.7
3.60
Sept.
78.0
77.3
1.93
25.8
2.45
June
77.3
63.5
3.61
43.4
3.04
July
E5
77.5
73.5
1.30
17.3
6.90
August
0
81.0
71.6
2.90
38.1
5.08
Sept.
82.3
73.8
2.85
38.4
1.73
B-298
-------
1964 SUMMARY
EAST RIVER
Date Station % Seawater Temperature Dissolved % Sat. 5-day BOD
June
72.0
63.6
4.21
49.7
2.82
July
e6
79.5
73.0
1.80
23.9
5.45
August
O
81.9
71.6
3.23
42.4
4.25
Sept.
79.5
73.5
2.85
38.1
2.40
June
79.5
62.8
5.29
63.4
2.90
July
e7
79.5
72.0
2.55
33.5
6.30
August
/
84.1
70.8
4.16
19.8
4.25
Sept.
82.0
74.0
2.13
28.7
2.40
June
80.5
62.0
6.60
78.7
3.14
July
Eo
81.5
71.0
4.15
54.1
6.25
August
O
35.6
70.1
4.66
61.5
3.73
Sept.
88.3
72.5
3.93
52.8
1.73
June
80.8
62.1
7.94
96.0
4.58
July
83.0
72.0
5.70
75.4
5.35
August
y
84.9
70.3
4.95
63.5
2.77
Sept.
82.5
72.5
3.75
49.8
June
81.6
61.5
8.16
106.7
3.86
July
E10
83.0
70.0
6.40
83.0
5.85
August
1U
87.5
69.9
5.31
69.5
3.05
Sept.
88.0
71.8
4.33
57.5
1.80
B-299
-------
1965 SUMMARY
EAST RIVER
Date Station% Seawafer Temperature Dissolved O % Sat. 5-day BOD
June
F
74.6
6.40
2.43
28.81
1.85
July
L
1
79.4
71.0
1.73
22.66
2.27
August
1
81.1
73.2
1.63
21.87
1.37
June
E
77.5
64.6
1.86
24.60
2.55
July
2
79.7
70.5
1.55
20.40
1.75
August
82.6
73.3
1.30
17.28
2.28
June
E
77.1
65.6
1.86
22.73
3.36
July
3
80.2
70.9
1.50
20.52
1.85
August
81.8
73.8
1.70
22.82
2.00
June
F
77.8-
66.1
2.85
34.81
2.18
July
4
82.5
71.1
1.41
18.56
1.36
August
81.5
73.1
1.29
17.17
1.49
June
F
81.6
65.0
3.61
51.06
2.40
July
U
5
83.1
68.8
2.45
33.36
1.30
August
83.1
71.9
2.36
31.18
1.27
June
F
82.1
65.6
3.05
50.05
1.77
July
c
6
83.8
69.1
2.41
30.58
1.46
August
84.0
72.0
2.12
24.58
1.30
B-300
-------
1965 SUMMARY
EAST RIVER
Date Station % Seawater Temperature Dissolved O %Sat. 5-day BOD
June
July
August
E
7
83.0
82.0
83.6
64.7
68.1
71.5
4.01
2.78
2.53
46.61
35.30
33.43
2.04
1.06
1.13
June
July
August
E
8
82.6
82.5
85.0
63.5
67.8
70.7
5.11
. 4.50
3.51
61.91
57.13
45.92
1.45
1.71
1.22
June
July
August
E9
83.0
85.0
84.0
63.0
67.0
70.0
5.90
4.90
4.80
70.6
61.5
63.0
1.55
2.28
1.62
June
July
August
E
10
83.0
85.0
84.0
63.0
67.0
70.0
6.30
5.30
5.20
76.4
66.5
70.0
1.88
2.44
1.63
B-301
-------
1965 SUMMARY
EAST RIVER
Date Station % Seawater Temperature Dissolved O %Sat. 5-day BOD
June
July
August
E
1
74.6
79.4
81.1
64.0
71.0
73.2
2.43
1.73
1.63
28.81
22.66
21.87
1.85
2.27
1.37
June
July
August
E
2
77.5
79.7
82.6
64.6
70.5
73.3
1.86
1.55
1.30
24.60
20.40
17.28
2.55
1.75
2.28
June
July
August
E
3
77.1
80.2
81.8
65.6
70.9
73.8
1.86
1.50
1.70
22.73
20.52
22.82
3.36
1.85
2.00
June
July
August
E
4
77.8
82.5
81.5
66.1
71.1
73.1
2.85
1.41
1.29
34.81
18.56
17.17
2.18
1.36
1.49
June
July
August
E
5
81.6
83.1
83.1
65.0
68.8
71.9
3.61
2.45
2.36
51.06
33.36
31.18
2.40
1.30
1.27
June
July
August
E
6
82.1
83.8
84.0
65.6
69.1
72.0
3.05
2.41
2.12
50.05
30.58
24.58
1.77
1.46
1.30
B-302
-------
1965 SUMMARY
EAST RIVER
Date Station % Seawater Temperature Dissolved O % Sat. 5-day BOD
June
July
August
E7
83.0
82.0
83.6
64.7
68.1
71.5
4.01
2.78
2.53
46.61
35.30
33.43
2.04
1.06
1.13
June
July
August
E
8
82.6
82.5
85.0
64.5
67.8
70.7
5.11
4.50
3.51
61.91
57.13
45.92
1.45
1.71
1.22
June
July
August
E9
83.0
85.0
84.0
63.0
67.0
70.0
5.90
4.90
4.80
70.60
61.50
63.00
1.55
2.28
1.62
June
July
August
E,o
83.0
85.0
84.0
63.0
67.0
70.0
6.30
5.30
5.20
76.40
66.50
70.00
1.88
2.44
1.63
B-303
-------
1959 SUMMARY
JAMAICA BAY
Date Station % Seawater Temperature Dissolved O % Sat. 5-day BOD
June
85.8
65.3
7.88
97.5
2.33
July
J
88.3
70.0
6.60
86.7
1.52
August
1
91.3
73.7
5.20
71.5
1.03
Sept.
92.3
66.7
5.92
75.3
1.33
June
83.3
67.8
8.13
10.3
3.23
July
J
87.0
73.3
5.23
70.7
2.05
August
2
86.8
73.2
4.88
66.0
1.30
Sept.
91.0
67.0
6.03
77.2
1.48
June
85.3
69.8
6.90
90.0
2.50
July
J
86.2
73.8
4.70
63.8
1.01
August
3
86.8
74.7
3.98
54.6
1.03
Sept.
89.1
66.8
5.40
68.8
1.40
June
83.3
69.5
7.53
97.3
3.00
July
J
86.5
72.5
5.58
74.8
1.98
August
5
86.8
75.8
4.50
63.2
1.25
Sept.
89.1
67.8
5.78
74.1
1.95
June
81.8
71.0
5.60
73.5
2.58
July
J
82.0
74.5
4.45
72.5
3.03
August
7
83.5
76.2
3.38
47.2
2.37
Sept.
85.1
68.7
4.05
52.0
1.47
B-304
-------
JAMAICA BAY
1960 SUMMARY SHEET
Station Period Dissolved Oj BOD 5-day ppm
J -1
1
top
bottom
top
bottom
5.8
6.3
1.5
0.7
2
7.2
7.2
1.9
1.3
3
6.2
6.2
1.9
0.5
4
6.4
6.3
2.8
1.0
J -5
1
5.5
5.7
1.6
0.6
2
5.5
6.4
2.1
1.8
3
5.8
5.7
2.1
1.5.
4
5.0
5.8
2.8
1.6
J - 7
1
5.0
4.6
3.2
1.5
2
5.0
4.6
3.4
2.4
3
4.5
3.5
2.8
1.4
4
5.4
4.4
.4.2
1.2
J - 2
1
4.7
5.0
2.8
0.9
2
5. 8
6.2
2.8
1.4
3
5.4
5.3
2.6
1.2
4
6.1
6.0
2.2
1.8
J - 3
1
3.9
4.1
1.5
0.5
2
4.8
5.2
2.3
1.0
3
4.3
4.8
2.4
0.9
4
4.9
5.3
1.8
1.4
-------
1960 SUMMARY
JAMAICA BAY
Date Station % Seawater Temperature Dissolved O %Sat. 5-day BOD
June
88.0
67.5
6.78
85.8
1.15
July
J
92.6
71.8
7.00
94.4
1.95
August
1
88.9
72.4
6.20
83.3
1.45
Sept.
90.3
73.0
6.33
86.1
1.93
June
87.8
71.0
5.87
76.0
1.78
July
J
86.3
73.7
5.77
78.2
2.28
August
2
86.0
73.5
5.40
73.0
1.86
Sept.
84.5
75.0
6.05
83.5
1.83
June
85.2
72.5
4.43
59.7
1.03
July
J
83.0
75.5
5.23
70.6
2.08
August
3
84.6
74.5
4.58
4.58
1.76
Sept.
84.5
75.8
5.10
70.1
1.75
June
86.2
70.6
5.88
76.8
1.31
July
J
85.6
75.0
6.56
9.02
2.25
August
5
82.8
74.1
5.61
7.59
1.78
Sept.
82.3
75.0
5.18
7.06
2.25
June
86.1
72.4
4.70
62.6
2.83
July
J
84.0
75.2
4.90
66.8
1.98
August
7
78.3
74.5
4.13
55.7
2.01
Sept.
79.8
76.3
4.90
67.8
2.05
B-306
-------
JAMAICA BAY
1961 SUMMARY SHEET
Station Period Dissolved BOD 5-day ppm
J -1
1
top
bottom
top
bottom
7.7
7.1
3.9
2.8
2
7.0
6.8
2.1
1.3
3
5.8
5.7
1.2
0.5
4
5.2
5.1
1.5
0.7
J - 5
1
6.8
6.2
3.2
2.8
2
6.9
6.8
2.4
2.3
3
5.0
5.2
2.0
1.4
4
4.2
4.3
1.2
1.0
J - 7
1
4.4
4.2
4.2
2.4
2
5.5
4.8
5.6
1.7
3
4.2
3.0
5.2
1.9
4
6.1
3.8
2.9
1.5
J - 2
1
6.9
6.9
4.8
2.5
2
6.7
6.5
2.6
2.0
3
5.1
4.6
2.0
1.4
4
5.8
5.0
1.9
1.0
J - 3
1
6.3
6.3
4.1
2.7
2
6.0
5.9
2.6
2.6
3
4.4
4.2
1.3
1.4
4
4.1
4.7
1.8
0.8
-------
1961 SUMMARY
JAMAICA BAY
Date Station % Seawater Temperature Dissolved % Sat. 5-day BOD
June
86.1
63.5
7.30
88.8
1.90
July
J
89.3
72.8
6.48
87.0
.80
August
1
88.8
73.1
5.43
73.3
1.10
Sept.
90.0
74.8
5.58
76.8
.60
June
80.4
65.8
6.53
80.6
2.33
July
J
82.7
74.3
6.10
83.3
1.00
August
2
79.8
75.6
5.29
69.0
1.63
Sept.
86.0
77.0
5.55
77.8
1.80
June
82.1
65.9
5.89
73.3
2.43
July
J
82.2
74.8
5.62
75.8
1.40
August
3
80.3
75.6
4.16
67.0
1.17
Sept.
82.5
77.8
4.95
65.8
1.40
June
79.8
66.3
6.04
74.8
2.60
July
J
77.7
75.3
6.78
91.8
1.15
August
5
81.8
75.8
4.51
62.3
1.22
Sept.
82.0
77.8
4.80
67.5
.85
June
74.1
67.6
4.30
53.4
3.40
July
J
78.0
76.2
4.60
60.7
2.15
August
7
76.0
76.5
3.49
48.1
3.28
Sept.
78.3
79.3
5.73 .
81.0
3.00
B-308
-------
1962 SUMMARY
JAMAICA BAY
Date
Station
% Seawater
Temperature
Dissolved O2
% Sat.
5-day B<
June
89.8
64.7
6.50
81.3
1.72
July
J
90.1
72.0
6.16
79.2
1.43
August
1
95.0
71.0
6.61
88.7
1.45
Sept.
87.0
67.0
4.75
60.2
1.30
June
85.2
. 74.3
5.73
72.1
2.74
July
J
87.6
74.3
5.70
77.8
2.30
August
2
91.0
73.3
5.98
81.5
1.78
Sept.
85.0
68.0
4.90
62.5
1.10
June
86.3
68.0
5.02
64.9
2.06
July
J
86.6
75.3
4.90
67.2
3.05
August
3
90.0
73.9
5.20
71.3
2.50
Sept.
¦ 86.0
70.0
4.30
56.2
1.05
June
86.3
68.2
5.87
76.1
2.52
July
J
87.6
74.4
4.54
62.2
2.15
August
5
88.8
74.0
5.24
73.0
1.18
Sept.
83.0
67.0
4.15
52.2
1.15
June
84.2
70.7
3.67
48.4
2.08
July
J
83.6
75.6
4.01
55.0
2.66
August
7
87.5
74.8
4.59
62.5
2.25
Sept.
84.0
69.5
2.45
31.7
1.95
B-309
-------
1963 SUMMARY
JAMAICA BAY
Date Station % Seawater
Temperature
Dissolved Oj
% Sat.
5-day B<
June
92.0
64.5
7.08
88.5
2.00
July J,
August
92.0
71.9
6.20
86.4
1.99
93.8
68.8
6.22
81.6
2.09
Sept.
91.3
67.3
6.95
89.4
1.58
June
90.8
70.0
6.73
88.9
3.15
July J2
91.3
74.3
5.73
78.6
3.19
August
93.2
71.0
6.70
89.8
3.33
Sept.
92.0
68.8
6.88
89.3
2.58
June
92.5
70.5
6.78
91.9
2.98
July Jg
90.5
74.4
4.79
66.8
3.44
August
94.2
72.7
6.28
77.9
3.13
Sept.
89.5
68.0
6.28
81.4
2.85
June
89.8
70.8
7.50
101.0
2.53
July J5
89.5
74.1
5.53
76.3
2.39
August
92.3
72.2
6.68
90.6
2.82
S-ipt.
89.5
69.0
6.38
82.9
2.00
June
81.8
72.3
3.10
42.3
2.27
July Jy
86.9
75.4
2.33
33.1
4.53
August
87.8
73.8
6.13
74.8
4.03
Sept.
89.3
69.5
4.73
61.4
3.75
B-310
-------
1964 SUMMARY
JAMAICA BAY
Date Station %S?awater Temperature Dissolved % Sat. 5-day BOD
June
91.0
64.0
6.83
32.4
3.37
July
Ji
90.0
70.9
6.13
81.9
3.38
August
1
91.9
69.8
6.85
89.8
3.00
Sept.
87.0
72.0
6.60
87.9
3.60
June
87.7
65.3
6.82
85.1
3.15
July
J9
86.5
72.6
5.31
71.3
3.98
August
2
87.8
70.9
6.24
82.4
3.56
Sept.
87.5
72.5
6.60
88.7
4.40
June
85.0
65.8
4.78
60.0
3.58
July
85.0
72.8
7.28
58.7
3.95
August
0
86.1
71.5
5.29
70.1
3.59
Sept.
88.0
74.0
54.7
4.35
June
87.5
66.2
6.23
77.4
2.92
July
86.6
73.0
5.16
61.9
3.20
August
0
89.1
71.4
5.54
73.6
3.04
Sept.
87.5
73.5
6.40
86.9
3.90
June
81.7
66.5
4.73
43.8
2.96
July
J7
81.0
76.9
3.04
41.1
4.00
August
/
82.1
72.4
3.40
48.4
3.61
Sept.
85.0
74.0
4.40
59.5
2.60
B-311
-------
1965 SUMMARY
JAMAICA BAY
Date Station % Seawater Temperature Dissolved O % Sat 5-day BOD
June
1
92.0
64.3
6.63
82.10 •
3.12
July
J
1
88.0
69.5
6.26
81.22
2.05
August
88.8
73.4
5.81
78.88
1.94
June
I
89.2
67.0
7.33
92.95
4.03
July
J
2
85.8
72.5
5.87
78.28
3.11
August
86.3
74.1
5.83
80.92
2.65
June
i
88.7
68.3
6.53
85.58
4.40
July *
3
86.2
73.7
4.99
68.13
2.93
August
85.8
74.4
5.05
69.36
3.06
June
I
86.8
68.2
6.73
85.65
3.58
July
5
86.7
73.3
4.84
65.55
1.91
August
87.1
75.0
3.88
52.15
1.44
June
1
83.3
69.3
4.77
61.33
4.27
July
7
85.2
74.5
3.06
49.18
3.27
August
80.6
76.8
4.70
64.48
4.36
B-312
-------
HARLEM RIVER
1954 SUMMARY SHEET
Station Period % Seawater Temperature Dissolved BOD 5-day ppm Top and Bottom Averages
H,
1
top
bottom
top & bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
% Sea
D.O.
BOD
26
36
64
6.8
5.1
1.9
1.3
31
6.95
1.6
2
34
40
70
3.8
3.1
1.1
1.2
37
3.45
1.15
3
50
53
74
3.7
3.4
1.5
1.2
51.5
3.55
1.35
4
55
55
70
3.0
2.9
1.5
1.3
55
2.95
1.4
H2
1
31
34
65
6.0
6.2
1.7
1.7
32.5
6.1
1.7
2
42
43
70
3.5
3.4
1.0
0.9
42.5
3.45
0.95
3
57
58
74
3.0
3.0
1.5
1.3
57.5
3.0
1.4
4
55
54
71
3.1
3.1
1.6
1.2
54.5
3.1
1.4
H3
1
54
55
64
4.5
4.4
1.5
1.7
54.5
4.45
1.6
2
60
61
70
2.5
2.5
1.2
1.1
60.5
2.5
1.15
3
68
68
74
2. 1
2.1
1.5
1.5
68
2.1
1.5
4
55
56
72
3.3
3.2
1.5
1.6
55.5
3.25
1.55
H4
1
59
59
61
3.3
3.5
1.5
1.5
59.
3.4
1.5
2
66
69
69
1.9
1.9
1.4
1.2
67.5
1.9
1.3
3
76
77
73
1.4
1.5
1.8
1.8
76.5
1.45
1.8
4
66
69
71
2.5
2.2
1.5
1.0
6 7.5
2.35
1.25
H5
1
65
59
62
2.6
4.4
2.2
2.6
67
3.5
2.4
2
74
75
68
1.9
2.1
1.7
2.7
75
2.0
2.2
3
80
81
72
1.5
1.5
2.2
2.1
80.5
1.5
2.15
4
80
80
70
2.1
2.1
2.3
3.5
80
2.1
2.9
-------
HARLEM RIVER
1955 SUMMARY SHEET
Station Period % Seawater Temperature Dissolved O^ BOD 5-day ppm
top bottom top & bottom top bottom top bottom
H1
1
43
44
68
3.6
3.4
1.8
1.2
2
46
54
76
3.8
2.8
2.0
1.6
3
37
43
70
3.1
2.2
1.8
1.3
4
42
42
71
2.7
2.8
1.6
1.5
H2
1
51
54
68
2.6
2.4
1.6
1.3
2
55
55
76
3.1
3.0
2.2
1.3
3
46
48
78
2.9
2.8
2.0
1.3
4
56
58
72
2.7
2.8
1.7
1.3
H3
1
63
67
67
2.2
2.3
2.1
1.5
2
64
67
75
2.0
2.2
2.2
2.2
3
57
59
78
2.0
2.2
2.1
1.5
4
56
58
72
2.1
2.2
2.2
1.4
H4
1
75
76
66
2.0
2.1
2.2
1.8
2
76
76
73
1.4
1.6
1.8
1.2
3
68
69
77
1.3
1.4
2.2
1.6
4
70
71
72
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.9
H5
1
76
79
65
2.4
2.6
3.5
2.5
2
78
80
71
1,2
1.1
3.7
2.8
3
75
78
75
1.1
1.2
2.8
2.2
4
72
72
71
1.5
1.3
4.4
2.5
-------
HARLEM RIVER
1956 SUMMARY SHEET
Station Period
% Seawater
top bottom
Temperature Dissolved O^
top & bottom top bottom
BOD 5-day ppm
top bottom
H1
1
, 31
30
68
5.6
5.5
2.1
1.4
2
42
46
72
3.9
3.3
2.1
1.6
3
48
51
74
2.4
3.0
3.2
2.2
4
38
46
69
4.8
3.5
2.9
1.5
H2
1
29
29
68
5.5
5.2
1.8
1.9
2
46
45
72
3.4
3.6
2.2
1.4
3
52
55
75
2.5
2.8
3.5
2.4
4
44
47
69
3.6
3.7
2.4
1.4
H3
1
43
43
67
4.8;
4.7
2.7
1.9
2
48
48
72
3.2
3.3
1.9
1.6
3
61
62
74
1.8
2.0
3.6
2.3
4
63
64
70
2.2
2.3
3.0
1.3
H4
1
50
51
67
3.9
4.0
2.4
2.2
2
59
61
70
2.4
2.6
2.0
1.6
3
70
72
73
1.3
1.5
3.5
2.5
4
72
72
70
1.4
1.7
2.4
1.1
H5
1
60
65
66
4.7
3.9
4.4
4.4
2
70
73
69
i:o
2.0
3.3
1.9
3
73
75
73
1.1
1.5
3.5
2.4
4
71
74
69
1.6
1.8
2.2
1.3
-------
HARLEM RIVER
1957 SUMMARY SHEET
Station Period % Sea water Temperature Dissolved BOD 5-day ppm
top bottom top & bottom top bottom top bottom
H1
1
40
47
75
4.4
3.3
3.6
1.7
2
48
51
75
4.6
3.8
2.2
1.4
3
51
58
75
3.8
2.8
2.5
1.6
4
49
55
70
4.7
3.5
3.4
1.8
H2
1
47
51
73
3.6
3.2
3.2
2.0
2
54
57
75
3.2
3.2
1.9
0.9
3
62
63
75
2.5
2.6
2.2
1.3
4
63
64
71
2.8
3.4
3.1
1.8
H3
1
64
64
73
2.2
2.2
2.6
2.1
2
59
61
75
3.0
3.3
1.9
1.3
3
69
72
75
1.8
2. 1
1.9
1.5
4
72
74
71
2.1
2.2
2.7
1.9
H4
1
73
76
71
2.0
2.2
2.8
1.7
2
68
73
74
2.2
1.9
2.0
1.1
3
77
79
74
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.5
4
77
78
72
2.1
2.4
2.7
1.8
H5
1
70
76
71
1.9
2.1
5.3
2.1
2
75
80
73
1.-6
1.7
2.7
1.6
3
80
83
74
1.7
1.6
2.9
2.2
4
80
81
69
2.0
2.2
3.7
2.1
-------
HARLEM RIVER
1958 SUMMARY SHEET
Station Period % Seawater Temperature Dissolved BOD 5-day ppm
top bottom top & bottom top bottom top bottom
H1
1
31
36
65
4.7
4.8
2.1
1.7
2
42
49
74
4.3
3.7
1.9
1.7
3
40
45
75
4.2
3.7
2.0
1.5
4
45
48
71
3.9
4.0
1.8
1.2
H2
1
49
50
65
o
•
CO
4.3
3.2
1.7
2
51
54
74
3.5
3.4
2.3
1.2
3
40
42
74
4.0
4.2
2.5
1.4
4
50
52
72
3.6
4.2
1.8
1.1
H3
1
54
53
64
3.7
4.0
2.2
1.6
2
66
67
72
2.4
3.0
1.6
1.0
3
59
59
74
2.7
2.9
2.2
1.5
4
64
66
71
2.6
2.9
1.4
1.0
H4
1
61
64
63
3.4
3.6
3.0
1.5
2
71
73
70
2.4
2.7
1.9
1.1
3
72
73
73
1.6
2.1
2.8
1.6
4
72
75
70
2.3
2.3
1.3
0.8
H5
1
67
71
63
3.3
3.6
4.4
2.5
2
72
74
71
2.5
2.7
2.7
1.4
3
72
75
72
1.7
1.9
3.6
2.0
4
74
76
70
2.0
2.4
2.8
1.2
-------
HARLEM RIVER
1959 SUMMARY SHEET
Station Period % Seawater Temperature Dissolved BOD 5-day ppm
top bottom top & bottom top bottom top bottom
H1
1
42
42
69
4.4
4.4
1.7
1.6
2
44
46
74
3.4
3.5
1.4
1.2
3
52
55
66
3.2
2.6
1.8
1.4
4
54
56
71
3.3
2.9
1.8
1.3
H2
1
44
46
70
3.7
4.1
1.7
1.4
2
45
46
74
3.2
3.8
1.2
1.5
3
57
58
78
2.4
2.5
1.3
1.4
4
57
57
71
2.9
3.2
1.4
1.3
H3
1
56
56
69
3.0
3.3
1.9
2.0
2
55
56
77
2.4
3.0
1.3
1.5
3
67
68
77
1.8
2.0
1.7
1.6
4
62
61
70
2.8
2.9
1.5
1.7
H4
1
64
67
68
2.5
2.9
2.2
2.1
2
68
70
72
1.4
1.8
1.5
1.7
3
77
78
76
1.3
1.4
2.3
2.1
4
68
71
70
2.4
2.5
1.9
1.5
H5
1
73
74
67
2.1
2.5
2.1
2.1
2
72
76
72
1.3
1.5
1.6
2.0
3
79
82
76
1.5
1.7
2.7
2.3
4
80
81
70
2.0
1.8
2.5
2.6
i
-------
1959 SUMMARY
HARLEM RIVER
Date Station
% Seawater
Temperature
Dissolved
% Sat.
5-day B<
June
41.6
68.8
4.25
49.8
1.58
July
H
42.3
75.3
3.40
43.2
1.50
August
1
48.8
76.7
3.41
44.2
1.20
Sept.
56.6
74.1
2.77
35.4
1.28
June
41.6
69.4
4.40
52.2
1.64
July
H
46.5
75.3
3.00
38.3
1.60
August
2
57.6
77.1
2.21
29.5
1.32
Sept.
57.4
74.4
2.88
37.0
1.87
June
•
50.9
69.4
3.52
42.9
2.09
July
H
58.7
73.1
1.69
30.8
1.56
August
3
64.8
75.3
1.93
25.2
1.37
Sept.
62.7
73.0
2.51
31.1
1.72
June
63.5
67.3
2.93
35.5
2.35
July
H
70.1
72.5
1.63
21.0
1.81
August
4
75.6
74.5
1.01
13.4
1.33
Sept.
72.8
72.9
2.09
27.1
1.96
June
74.1
66.3
2.54
31.3
2.28
July
H
73.6
73.7
1.42
18.3
2.28
August
5
78.0
74.2
0.88
11.8
1.57
Sept.
81.0
73.0
1.83
24.3
2.58
B-319
-------
HARLEM RIVER
1960 SUMMARY SHEET
Station Period % Seawater Temperature Dissolved O^ BOD 5-day ppm
top bottom top & bottom top bottom top bottom
H1
1
29
33
69
4.9
4.8
1.3
1.3
2
33
37
72
3.7
3.5
1.5
1.0
3
47
45
74
3.2
CO
CO
1.6
1.2
4
39
43
76
3.5
3.2
2.1
1.0
H2
1
29
29
69
5.2
5.2
1.2
1.4
2
35
36
72
3.7
3.6
2.2
1.0
3
53
53
78
2.9
2.9
1.7
1.1
4
52
51
77
2.3
2.8
2.0
2.0
H3
1
57
59
67
2.9
00
•
CM
1.9
1.9
2
48
50
71
2.8
2.8
1.7
1.0
3
52
54
74
2.5
2.9
2.5
2.6
4
55
56
76
2.4
.2.7
2.5
1.9
H4
1
69
66
66
2.2
2.3
2.7
1.5
2
65
65
70
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.2
3
66
67
73
1.8
2.1
2.5
1.5
4
66
68
75
1.7
2.3
2.6
2.1
H5
1
69
71
67
2-7
2.8
3.3
2.1
2
70
72
69
2.1
2.1
3.3
2.5
3
74
75
72
1.7
1.7
3.9
2.3
4
70
73
75
1.3
1.7
2.8
2.4
-------
1960 SUMMARY
HARLEM RIVER
Date Station % Seawater Temperature Dissolved O2 % Sat. 5-day BOD
June
32.0 .
70.0
4.30
50.5
1.20
July
H
44.9
73.6
3.30
56.4
1.57
August
1
40.6
75.0
3.36
42.1
1.48
Sept.
40.5
75.7
3.27
40.2
—
June
29.0
70.0
4.60
48.2
2.30
July
H
49.9
74.1
3.20
40.7
1.41
August
2
53.1
75.9
2.28
29.0
1.92
Sept.
54.9
76.9
2.56
31.1
—
June
51.0
69.0
2.90
34.6
1.80
July
H*
52.8
73.4
2.79
35.4
2.40
August
3
54.8
74.5
2.61
32.9
2.17
Sept.
69.0
76.1
2.27
29.7
—
June
64.0
68.0
2.10
25.5
2.20
July
H
67.7
71.9
2.16
27.2
1.75
August
4
64.4
73.8
2.01
26.2
2.46
Sept.
70.6
74.6
1.85
24.5
—
June
69.0
68.0
2.40
29.9
3.40
July
H
74.6
71.2
1.91
24.6
2.87
August
5
72.2
74.0
1.43
19.0
3.04
Sept.
71.4
75.1
1.58
21.1
—
B-321
-------
HARLEM RIVER
1961 SUMMARY SHEET
Station Period •% Seawater Temperature Dissolved Oj BOD 5-day ppm
top bottom top & bottom top bottom top bottom
H1
1
22
29
69
6.9
5.1
1.9
2.0
2
35
37
73
4.3
3.7
2.0
1.6
3
44
46
77
3.4
3.0
1.3
1.5
4
46
43
79
3.1
3.0
0.5
0.7
H2
1
33
34
69
5.3
4.8
2.4
2.6
2
32
30
73
4.1
4.3
1.6
1.1
3
47
47
77
3.0
3.1
1.4
1.5
4
40 •
39
79
3.6
3.6
0.7
0.1
H3
1
49
50
68
3.8
3.4
3.5
2.4
2
53
54
71
2.9
2.6
2.4
1.9
3
57
58
76
2.4
2.3
2.1
2.0
4
39
38
79
3.6
3.7
0.9
0.7
H4
1
60
60
66
3.4
2.9
3.4
2.9
2
66
68
70
3.4
2.1
2.7
2.4
3
63
66
75
1.5
1.5
2.4
1.9
4
54
60
78
2.4
1.7
1.0
2.1
H5
1
66
69
66
3.3
2.7
3.2
3.4
2
70
69
69
2.6*
2.5
3.6
3.1
3
72
73
75
1.6
1.6
2.5
2.0
4
68
69
77
1.6
1.1
1.7
4.2
-------
1961 SUMMARY
HARLEM RIVER
Date Station % Seawater Temperature Dissolved O2 % Sat. 5-day BOD
June
July H
August 1
Sept.
June
July H
August 2
Sept.
June
July H
August ^
Sept.
June
July H
August
Sept.
June
July H_
August 3
Sept.
25.3
38.3
47.4
42.0
33.1
35.5
48.6
41.0
49.4
54.1
53.0
47.0
49.9
65.5
61.3
68.0
66.1
69.9
64.4
73.0
68.4
74.3
76.9
81.0
69.1
75.1
77.4
80.0
67.6
73.7
76.7
80.0
66.4
69.2
76.2
79.5
65.6
71.6
75.5
77.0
5.90
3.90
2.76
2.70
5.08
3.83
2.83
4.35
3.51
2.54
2.73
3.30
3.17
2.06
1.81
1.60
3.30
1.82
1.49
1.85
69.3
49.6
37.0
56.0
61.6
47.6
36.9
58.0
41.6
31.3
34.8
44.0
37.2
23.7
24.1
22.5
36.1
24.8
24.6
25.5
1.64
1.42
.83
0.0
2.05
1.12
.80
1.00
2.68
1.75
.78
0.00
3.12
2.30
1.58
0.35
3.52
2.83
2.33
1.60
B-323
-------
1962 SUMMARY
HARLEM RIVER
Date Station % Seawater Temperature Dissolved O2 % Sat. 5-day BOD
June
48.2
71.0
3.10
38.3
2.96
July
H1
52.8
74.1
3.49
44.5
1.69
August
1
53.8
75.7
3.67
47.6
1.11
Sept.
58.3
73.5
2.88
37.0
June
51.5
71.1
2.90
35.3
2.81
July
61.9
74.8
2.57
33.3
1.90
August
¦ 2
52.3
75.3
3.74
48.8
1.35
Sept.
53.0
73.5
3.30
42.0
June
53.9
70.4
3.10
37.7
2.41
July
H<>
63.9
73.3
2.45
31.4
1.55
August
3
66.6
75.3
2.18
28.9
1.47
Sept.
62.0
73.3
1.75
22.6
June
63.4
69.9
2.21
24.7
2.28
July
H4
71.7
72.9
1.72
22.5
2.05
August
*r
76.1
74.6
1.43
1.91
1.75
Sept.
73.8
74.0
1.35
1.80
June
71.1
69.1
1.90
23.8
2.16
July
H5
76.5
72.4
1.67
22.0
2.18
August
79.3
74.4
1.23
16.6
1.75
Sept.
77.8
73.8
1.03
13.7
B-324
-------
1963 SUMMARY
HARLEM RIVER
Date Station % Seawater Temperature Dissolved O2 %Sat. 5-day BOD
June
Jul/ H
August 1
Sept.
June
Ju!y H_
August ^
Sept.
June
July H
August 0
Sept.
June
July H
August 4
Sept.
H,
June
July ,.5
August
Sept.
43.8
69.8
3.63
43.5
1.84
51.3
75.3
3.60
49.3
1.73
58.7
74.8
3.60
47.0
1.74
54.5
71.3
2.93
40.3
1.50
51.8
69.7
3.39
43.0
1.78
56.7
75.6
3 09
40.1
1 72
55.0
74.9
3.24
41.3
1.51
63.3
71.3
2.75
36.1
1.50
54.1
69.3
2.93
35.2
2.38
61 0
74.8
3.03
39.9
1.64
60.7
74.4
2.71
21.6
1.88
65.0
70.8
3.00
37.6
1.88
67.2
68.5
1.72
25.5
2.08
68.4
73.7
2.31
32.0
1.89
7 3.7
73.3
1.64
20.5
2.20
71.8 *'
71.8
2.05
29.4
1.90
72.7
68.9
1.45
18.3
2.28
74.1
72.8
2.12
28.4
2.23
80.6
72.9
1.71
21.9
2.17
79.8
71.8
2.05
26.2
1.95
B-325
-------
1964 SUMMARY
HARLEM RIVER
Date Station
% Sea water
Temperature
Dissolved Oj
% Sat.
5-day B<
June
50.1
66.4
3.87
43.0
2.45
July
H2
53.9
72.8
3.45
43.9
3.83
August
L
55.4
73.1
3.26
41.3
3.31
Sept.
65.0
72.8
3.20
41.2
2.43
June
55.5
65.8
3.19
37.7
2.67
July
H3
60.7
72.5
3.01
38.3
3.86
August
0
67.2
73.0
3.28
41.8
3.38
Sept.
73.2
73.3
2.47
32.4
2.98
June
•
68.2
65.1
2.64
31.7
2.70
July
H4
67.1
71.8
2.07
25.4
3.93
August
72.5
72.3
2.31
30.9
2.75
Sept.
75.3-
73.0
2.15
28.3
3.33
June
71.1
65.4
2.70
32.6
2.95
July
H5
74.5
71.2
1.74
22.4
3.95
August
o
75.7
72.1
2.11
27.6
3.26
Sept.
76.3
73.2
2.87
37.9
3.60
June
94.0
62.0
6.47
82.4
2.43
July
N9
90.6
69.4
6.46
84.4
3.68
August
7
91.4
67.9
6.65
85.7
1.78
Sept.
94.0
70.5
6.30
84.0
2.95
B-326
-------
1965 SUMMARY
HARLEM RIVER
Date Station % Seawater Temperature Dissolved O % Sat. 5-day BOD
June
July
August
H
1
51.0
52.1
45.1
68.1
73.5
75.4
3.89
3.46
3.34
46.2
43.9
43.1
1.53
1.40
1.16
June
July
August
H
2
61.0
56.2
57.0
68.6
73.8
75.1
2.79
3.39
3.41
37.8
43.0
42.8
1.44
1.36
1.33
June
July
August
H
3
66.5
70.9
68.6
67.3
73.3
74.0
3.33
2.94
1.67
42.0
37.0
28.8
1.74
1.33
1.32
June
July
August
H4
68.7
74.4
75.3.
67.6
72.1
74.1
2.88
1.70
1.57
34.0
24.1
21.0
1.94
1.48
1.39
June
July
August
H5
73.9
77.4
79.1
66.3
72.3
73.7
2.01
1.59
1.26
23.9
21.1
15.8
2.17
1.79
1.63
B-327
-------
1954 SUMMARY
Kill Van Kull, Newark Bay, Arthur Kill and Lower New York Bay
Station Date Temperature Dissolved Oxygen BOD 5-day ppm % Seawater Chlorides
(°F) Sample % Sat.
ppm
K,
K„
K„
K,
K,
K,
K,
July
July
July
July
July
July
July
71
74
75
77
75
73
73
3.0
3.1
0.6
2.3
5.1
7.4
4.3
49
41
8
30
70
96
57
1.4
2.4
3.3
2.8
1.4
2.1
2.0
80
74
73
78
83
86
83
16070
14800
14600
15600
16670
17200
16670
oo
C\J
CO
ah
-------
1955 SUMMARY
Kill Van Kull, Newark Bay, Arthur Kill and Lower New York Bay
Station
K,
K,
K,
Date Temperature Dissolved Oxygen
(°F.) Sample % Sat.
ppm
K,
June
June
June
June
June
June
BOD 5-day ppm % Seawater Chlorides
62
65
65
66
66
61
4.4
3.8
1.8
0.8
3.2
6.2
52
46
22
9
40
74
1.8
1.8
3.6
4.4
2.0
1.6
72
68
67
68
76
82
14400
13500
13400
13600
15300
16500
o>
CM
CO
m
-------
1956 SUMMARY
Kill Van Kull, Newark Bay, Arthur Kill and Lower New York Bay
Station
K.
Date Temperature Dissolved Oxygen
(^F.) Sample % Sat.
ppm
BOD 5-day ppm % Seawater Chlorides
K,
August 70
August 72
August 74
August 74
August 73
August 73
3.0
2.4
1.6
1.9
4.2
5.0
38
31
20
17
54
67
2.1
3.5
4.4
3.6
2.6
3.5
78
70
69
74
80
85
15500
14100
13800
14800
15900
17000
o
CO
00
ah
-------
Station
K,
IC
5a
1957 SUMMARY
Kill Van Kull, Newark Bay, Arthur Kill, and Lower New York Bay
Date
Temperature
(°F.)
Dissolved Oxygen
Sample % Sat.
ppm
BOD 5-day ppm
% Seawater
Chlori'
June
70
3.7
47
3.4
74
14800
July
72
3.0
40
3.3
78
15530
August
72
2.7
36
1.8
82
16300
June
76
4.1
58
2.2-
68
13600
July
76
3.3
45
3.3
75
15070
August
76
1.7
22
1.2
76
15100
June
77
1.2
15
3.6
68
13600
July
77
1.0
13
4.7
76
17570
August
76
1.0
13
4.0
75
15000
June
77
2.1
29
4.3
72
14330
July
78
1.2
17
4.0
77
17000
August
77
1.9
26
4.0
80
15900
June
76
5.0
69
3.7
76
15200
July
76
4.4
61
2.6
85
15470
August
76
3.8
53
2.8
84
16800
June
76
6.0
82
3.4
74
14730
July
76
4.8
66
2.7
83
16600
August
76
5.2
72
2.8
84
16800
June
72
7.7
102
3.3
82
16400
July
74
6.2
84
2.9
87
17330
August
73
6.7
90
2.9
88
17500
ro
CO
CO
-------
1958 SUMMARY
Station
K,
K„
K.
Kr
K
'5 a
K,
Kill Van Kull, Newark Bay,
Arthur Kill,
and Lower New York Bay
Date
Temperature
Dissolved Ox/gen
BOD 5-day ppm
% Seawater
Chloride
(°F.)
Sample
% Sat.
PPm
June
62
5.0
58
2.3
67
13470
August
71
3.0
39
1.7
75
15180
June
66
4.8
57
3.7
58
11530
August
75
2.4
31
3.0
69
13850
June
67
3.0
36
5.0
58
11600
August
75
1.0
13
4.6
69
13800
June
69
1.7
21
4.7
60
12070
August
77
1.6
22
3.6
73
14550
June
68
4.8
59
2.5
67
13470
August
75
4.2
56
2.9
80
15900
June
68
5.1
61
2.0
65
13000
June
65
7.3
94
2.9-
76
15200
August
74
4.4
59
2.0
76
15250
August
72
5.8
78
2.7
83
16650
CNI
00
C?
CD
-------
1959 SUMMARY
Station
K,
K„
K.
Kr
K
5 a
K,
Kill Van Kull, Newark Bay,
Arthur Kill,
and Lower New York Bay
Date
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
BOD 5-day ppm
% Seawater
Chlorides
(°F.)
Sampl
e % Sat.
PP171
June
65
4.9
58
2.5
73
14530
August
73
2.1
28
4.1
78
15700
Sept.
74
2.1
28
2.2
80
16000
June
68
3.7
44
2.1
65
13000
August
76
1.7
23
1.6
66
13200
Sept.
76
2.9
39
1.5
70
14000
June
69
2.7
33
2.9
65
12930
August
77
0.7
9
3.5
69
13750
Sept.
77
2.2
30-
2.7
74
14800
June
71
3.2
41
2.5
70
14070
August
77
1.8
24
1.6
73
14600
Sept.
78
1.6
23
1.9
76
15200
June
69
3.9
64
2.5
76
15270
August
75
2.6
35
1.8
76
15100
Sept.
78
3.0
42
2.1
79
15800
June
68
5.5
66
4.4
75
14930
August
75
2.6
36
5.2
75
15050
Sept.
78
2.7
39
3.0
75
15000
June
66
7.2
91
2.8
80
15930
August
75
6.3
86
2.3
87
17400
Sept.
77
6.1
85
2.1
84
16800
CO
CO
CO
m
-------
1959 SUMMARY
Kill Van Kull, Newark Bay, Arthur Kill, and Lower New York Bay
Date Station
% Seawater
Temperature
Dissolved 0
2
% Sat.
5-day B<
June
72.8
64.0
4.88
58.2
2.42
July K
75.5
74.0
2.25
30.0
1.70
August ]
80.1
72.6
2.66
35.4
1.39
Sept.
80.0
74.0
2.50
28.0
2.20
June
65.0
68.2
3.72
45.8
2.13
July K
70.3
75.5
2.50
33.3
1.85
August 2
69.0
75.0
1.72
23.0
1.51
Sept.
70.0
76.0
2.90
39.0
1.55
June
64.7
68.7
2.68
32.8
2.87
July K
71.5
73.0
1.55
21.0
2.20
August 3
68.5
76.2
0.74
9.8
2.28
Sept.
73.5
77.0
2.15
29.5
2.70
June
70.5
70.8
3.20
40.7
2.52
July -K
73.0
74.5
1.00
14.0
2.10
August 4
74.0
76.5
1.88
26.0
1.58
Sept.
76.0
78.5
1.60
22.5
1.85
June
76.3'
68.7
5.03
63.8
2.50
July K
74.3
76.8
2.58
35.3
1.30
August 5
72.3
74.8
3.00
40.6
1.33
Sept.
79.0
77.5
3.05
42.0
2.15
June
74.8
67.5
5.28
66.0
4.38
July K
77.0
76.0
2.93
40.0
3.55
August 5a
78.8
75.0
3.11
42.3
3.43
Sept.
75.5
78.0
2.75
38.5
3.05
June
80.2
66.0
7.25
90.8
2.85
July K
85.5
73.3
5.83
98.0
2.28
August 6
87.5
74.3
5.93
81.3
2.01
Sept.
84.5
77.0
6.10
85.0
2.05
B-334
-------
1960 SUMMARY
Kill Van Kull, Newark Bay, Arthur Kill, arid Lower New York Bay
Station Date Temperature Dissolved Oxygen BOD 5-day ppm % Seawater Chlorides
(°F.) Sample % Sat.
ppm
a?
m
K1 July 70 3.2 40.4 1.7 73 14670
K2 July 74 3.8 49.4 2.4 68 13530 $
K3 July 76 1.7 22.2 2.9 70 13930
K4 July 78 1.8 24.8 3.0 70 13930
K5 July 76 3.8 52.0 2.8 75 15000
K5a July 75 4.1 52.8 4.6 76 15270
K6 July 71 6.9 95.0 4.3 84 16730
-------
1960 SUMMARY
Kill Van Kull, Newark Bay, Arthur Kill and Lower New York Bay
Date Station % Seawater Temperature Dissolved %Sat. 5-day BOD
June
70.0
66.0
3.80
45.4
1.20
July
K
75.5
69.5
3.30
41.9
1.45
August
1
66.5
74.2
2.55
33.5
1.33
Sept.
80.0
71.3
3.13
40.9
.93
June
64.0
68.0
3.50
37.3
1.49
July
K
69.8
72.8
3.65
47.3
2.83
August
2
55.3
75.6
1.28
28.8
1.95
Sept.
69.5
73.3
2.00
26.1
2.33
June
62.0
71.0
1.50
18.9
2.00
July
K
68.8
75.3
1.73
35.2
2.73
August
3
56.6
76.7
.86
11.5
2.93
Sept.
65.5
76.5
.38
5.2
3.53
June
66.0
72.0
1.50
20.3
2.40
July
k
70.5
71.0
1.62
22.6
2.95
August
4
60.8
79.9
.85
18.0
1.98
Sept.
70.0
76.0
1.18
16.0
2.10
June
74.0
71.0
4.70
58.0
2.10
July
K
76.5
74.8
3.78
51.1
2.08
August
5
74.8
77.8
2.80
38.3
1.45
Sept.
74.5
74.0
3.15
41.7
1.50
June
79.0
67.0
5.80
72.5
2.80
July
K
83.8
77.6
5.92
84.1
3.02
August
6
79.1
78.0
5.90
80.7
2.85
Sept.
83.3
72.8
5.92
78.9
2.93
June
72.0
71.0
4.80
58.5
3.50
July
K
77.5
74.3
3.85
51.3
3.78
August
5a
71.2
76.8
2.73
37.1
2.93
Sept.
72.3
75.0
2.83
35.4
4.40
B-336
-------
1961 SUMMARY
Kill Van Kull, Newark Bay, Arthur Kill and Lower New York Bay
Date Station % Seawater Temperature Dissolved O2 % Sat. 5-day BOD
June
July
August
Sept.
June
July
August
Sept.
June
July
August
Sept.
June
July
August
Sept.
June
July
August
Sept.
63.8
69.9
.98
12.6
4.73
K
66.0
76.8
1.45
19.3
2.20
4
61.5
80.1
.86
5.5
3.44
71.5
80.5
2.50
3.3
0.90
74.5
68.5
4.59
58.0
3.18
K
76.3
75.5
4.98
66.5
2.38
5
68.8
77.0
3.81
51.0
1.34
78.3
78.5
2.10
29.5
2.30
70.8
70.3
4.51
55.6
4.83
K
73.8
73.8
4.88
64.5
4.50
5a
69.5
76.0
3.26
43.6
1.34
74.5
77.8
2.68
36.8
4.75
78.8
65.3
6.96
85.4
3.20
K
77.8
74.0
7.63
101.5
3.13
6
83.1
76.0
5.59
77.4
1.34
83.5
83.5
6.48
90.5
2.60
90.5
61.4
7.78
94.5
2.23
N
91.2
70.5
7.13
93.8
0.90
9a
93.8
71.1
6.38
83.8
0.77
90.0
72.3
5.70
76.8
2.75
B-337
-------
1962 SUMMARY
Kill
Van Kull,
Newark Bay,
Arthur Kill,
and Lower New York Bay
Station
Date
Temperature Dissolved Oxygen
(°F.) Sample % Sat.
ppm
BOD 5-day ppm
% Seawafer
Chlorides
Ki
July
Sept.
72
73
3.4
1.8
43.8
23.6
1.8
1.9
79
74
15850
14800
K2
July
Sept.
74
75
3.3
1.7
44.2
22.7
3.8
0.9
76
7.2
15150
14400
K3
July
Sept.
76
79
1.0
0.2
14.0
2.8
3.8
4.3
73
74
14600
14800
K4
July
Sept.
76
78
2.1
1.0
26.7
13.8
4.2
3.5
72
72
14500
14400
K5
July
Sept.
74
75
4.7
3.7
63.8
50.2
3.3
1.6
80
79
15900
15800
K5a
July
Sept.
74
74
5.0
3.1
79.9
41.3
4.9
5.3
75
74
14950
14800
K6
July
Sept.
73
74
9.0
4.4
122.1
60.4
4.2
2.1
89
91
17850
18200
00
CO
CO
m
-------
1962 SUMMARY
Kill V n Kull, Newark Bay, Arthur Kill and Lower New York Bay
Date Station % Seawater Temperature Dissolved O2 % Sat. 5-day BOD
June
76.0
66.5
3.57
40.5
1.43
July
K.
81.4
70.6
4.75
49.0
1.80
August
1
84.1
73.5
2.74
37.0
3.13
Sept.
74.0
72.5
1.80
23.5
1.35
June
70.2
70.0
3.52
43.1
1.77
July
K9
75.3
73.1
4.35
39.6
3.16
August
2
77.9
75.1
2.06
32.1
2.79
Sept.
72.0
75.0
1.55
20.7
1.10
June
69.3
72.3
1.45
21.9
3.82
July
K3
73.8
75.6
2.88
32.4
3.61
August
0
75.1
75.5
1.16
15.7
3.28
Sept.
73.0
78.0
0.20
2.8
3.95
June
69.7
72.7
1.38
18.1
3.50
July
Ka
76.0
76.4
2.52
37.7
3.56
August
4
77.3
77.3
.96
13.3
3.14
Sept.
73.5
77.0
0.75
10.3
2.70
June
77.5
70.8
3.92
51.4
1.93
July
K.
80.0
74.5
5.54
65.8
3.05
August
5
84.5
75.5
1.37
51.8
2.61
Sept.
81.0
74.5
3.45
46.7
3.60
B-339
-------
1963 SUMMARY
Kill Van Kull, Newark Bay, Arthur Kill and Lower New York Bay
Station Date Temperature Dissolved Oxygen BOD 5-day ppm % Seawater Chlorides
(°F.) Sample % Sat.
ppm
K1 July 71 3.0 39.0 2.6 78 15550
K2 July 72 3.2 42.5 3.9 76 15150 §
CO
GO
K3 July 74 2.2 30.2 4.8 74 14700
K4 July 77 1.4 18.3 3.6 78 15050
K5 July 76 4.6 58.8 2.8 83 16600
K5a July 75 4.7 61.2 6.0 80 16100
K6 July 73 10.4 146.4 4.0 84 16700
-------
1963 SUMMARY
Kill Van Kull, Newark Bay, Arthur Kill and Lower New York Bay
Date Station % Seawater Temperature Dissolved % Sat. 5-day BOD
June
71.0
67.0
2.63
32.5
2.40
July
K1
81.3
70.0
3.33
41.4
2.31
August
I
82.9
71.0
3.55 ,
46.4
2.11
Sept.
83.3
69.3
3.33
45.3
1.78
June
67.8
69.8
2.38
30.3
3.20
July
s
76.5
71.9
2.79
36.5
2.97
August
z
77.6
73.6
3.19
41.8
2.61
Sept.
80.0
72.3
2.45
32.2
2.38
June'
69.2
71.3
1.33
17.3
5.00
July
K3
73.9
75.4
1.64
22.3
4.47
August
0
78.1
75.8
1.16
16.8
4.66
Sept.
76.5
73.5
1.18
15.4
4.00
June
71.8
74.3
.87
9.7
4.70
July
K4
75.6
76.8
1.26
15.5
3.23
August
78.6
77.5
1.18
15.8
2.98
Sept.
83.0
73.8
1.65
22.2
4.03
June
75.7
71.7
5.67
61.7
3.53
July
83.1
75.4
1.10
62.5
2.60
August
5
86.3
76.1
4.05
56.3
3.34
Sept.
86.8
72.8
4.20
56.5
2.53
B-341
-------
1964 SUMMARY
Kill Van Kull, Newark Bay, Arthur Kill and Lower New York Bay
Date Station % Seawater Temperature Dissolved % Sat. 5-day BOD
June
75.7
64.0
3.60
43.3
2.45
July
K1
78.2
72.3
3.50
46.4
2.67
August
1
78.3
71.1
2.39
29.8
3.44
Sept.
77.0
72.8
3.38
44.6
2.88
June
69.7
66.3
3.18
38.8
2.70
July
s
71.8
74.8
1.78
23.8
3.05
August
74.3
72.4
2.48
31.6
3.34
Sept.
74.8
74.0
2.70
40.9
3.00
June
68.8
67.7
2.27
28.0
3.47
July
70.3
76.5
.25
4.0
4.26
August
0
72.1
74.5
1.00
13.1
4.48
Sept.
75.3
76.5
.90
12.3
3.70
June
69.5
70.3
1.03
13.3
3.30
July
K,
72.8
77.3
1.25
17.1
3.15
August
4
75.1
76.3
1.03
14.0
4.34
Sept.
77.0
78.8
.80
11.3
5.80
June
79.2
68.8
4.17
54.0
2.33
July
K.
78.7
75.0
3.48
51.4
3.14
August
5
80.5
73.4
4.06
54.2
4.37
Sept.
82.5
76.3
3.53
48.2
2.93
B-342
-------
1964 SUMMARY
Kill Van Kull, Newark Bay, Arthur Kill and Lower New York Bay
Date Station % Seawater Temperature Dissolved Oj % Sat. 5-day BOD
June
K5n
83.3
67.0
4.78
60.7
3.10
July
Da
75.7
74.3
3.35
44.8
August
78.6
72.5
3.95
52.0
5.55
Sept.
79.0
75.0
3.03
38.9
4.63
June
K6
83.8
65.2
8.75
109.6
2.87
July
0
85.2
73.7
6.45
87.6
3.82
August
,
85.5
71.0
7.11
93.4
4.40
Sept. .
80.8
74.3
8.58
116.7
3.25
June
n6
79.5
63.0
4.27
51.0
2.75
July
o
79.7
71.6
3.32
43.7
2.28
August
•
80.0
70.6
3.45
44.6
2.83
Sept.
80.7
72.2
4.38
57.8
3.33
June
N7
79.0 •
63.0
4.26
51.1
3.10
July
/
78.5
66.7
2.92
38.0
2.99
August
77.4
70.6
2.81
36.4
3.39
Sept.
78.0
72.3
4.82
63.3
June
Nr
82.8
64.5
4.73
58.7
2.38
July
8
82.6
71.4
4.51
59.3
3.23
August
83.4
70.9
5.43
72.0
4.95
Sept.
83.5
73.0
5.10
68.3
3.03
B-343
-------
1965 SUMMARY
Kill Van Kull, Newark Bay, Arthur Kill, and Lower New York Bay
Date Station % Seawater Temperature Dissolved O % Sat. 5-day BOD
2
June
83
65
4.2
51.9
1.7
July
K
84
- 70
3.1
40.5
2.4
August
1
78
73
2.2
29.1
1.2
Sept.
78
69
4.2
53.0
2.1
June
79
68
3.2
37.2
1.6
July
K
82
74
1.9
34.7
2.6
August
2
79
76
1.3
13.7
3.8
Sept.
75
70
1.7
21.3
2.6
June
77
69
1.3
16.6
1.7
July.
K
82
77
0.7
13.5
4.2
August
3
77
77
0.2
3.7
5.2
Sept.
75
73
1.1
17.2
3.4
June
79
72
1.2
17.0
3.0
July
K
84
78
0.8
11.6
4.2
August
4
82
80
0.7
9.7
4.8
Sept.
78
73
0.9
7.2
4.6
June
88
67
7.1
89.6
2.9
July
K
87
72
6.0
86.3
2.3
August
6
89
74
7.2
98.3
3.9
Sept.
87
70
5.6
97.0
2.7
B-344
------- |