DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT AND STATEMENT
TREATED WASTEWATER DISPOSAL PROGRAM
APPENDIX A C
September 1978
if Soiitb l^n>ei>tcil Protection A£eijcy
-------
EPA-9-CA-S
v-
001/Y
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SOUTH BAY DISCHARGERS AUTHORITY
TREATED WASTEWATER DISPOSAL PROGRAM
November, 1978
3
-~S>
*
tPf)9o?/7> fir
EPA-9-CA-South Bay Dischargers Authority - 78
Environmental
Protection Agency
Rep'on 9
MAR 30 197i
library
Prepared by: and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency South Bay Dischargers Authority
Region IX 801 North First Street
215 Fremont Street San Jose, California 95110
San Francisco, California 94105
With technical assistance from: In association with:
q Bechtel Inc. E. H. Smith and Associates
50 Beale Street Archaeological Consulting and Research Services, Inc.
^ San Francisco, California 94119 Mr. Michael Melanson
R. C. Harlan and Associates
Pacific Environmental Laboratory
Hydroscience, Inc.
Grant No. CA-06-1135
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS:
l' XI SI // ,
H i/ fi-S'
LJ Paul De Falco, Jr. Franklin D. Knofler
Regional Administrator Acting Chief Executive Officer
Environmental Protection Agency South Bay Dischargers Authority
Region IX ^ ^
Headquarters and Chemical Libraries
EPA West Bldg Room 3340
Mailcode 3404T
1301 Constitution Ave NW
Washington DC 20004
202-566-0556
Reppsitory Material
-------
NOV 2 9 1978
To All Interested Agencies, Public Groups, and Concerned
Individuals:
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the South Bay
Dischargers Authority Treated Wastewater Disposal Pro-
gram is complete and is being distributed at this time
for your review and comment. This program would pro-
vide a wastewater disposal system for the San Jose/Santa
Clara, Sunnyvale, and Palo Alto wastewater treatment
plants, located in the Santa Clara County Baylands
along the southeastern edge of San Francisco Bay. The
Draft EIR/EIS has been prepared to conform with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 and the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970, as amended.
The project alternative has not been selected. However,
the Environmental Protection. Agency (EPA) and the South
Bay Dischargers Authority (SBDA), at this time, recom-
mend a "no project alternative" for the following
reasons:
1. The degree to which increased dilution result-
ing from a discharge north of the Dumbarton
Bridge will mitigate the adverse impacts of
toxicants on the biota of the South Bay cannot
be predicted.
2. Modeling studies have not shown that a substan-
tial improvement in dissolved oxygen concen-
trations would result if the discharges were
moved north of the Dumbarton Bridge.
3. The viability of future full reclamation is
being investigated in the Regional Wastewater
Reclamation Study. Should such an alternative
prove to be feasible, it would meet the plan-
ning requirements of the San Francisco Bay
Basin Plan.
The EPA and the SBDA recognize that comprehensive
receiving water monitoring will be needed to document
the impacts of wastewater discharges in the South Bay
after treatment facilities, now under construction,
are placed in full operation. In addition, each dis-
charging agency is committed to local and regional
wastewater reclamation investigations.
This decision is being recommended by EPA and SBDA,
based upon present knowledge. However, if the final
selection is a "no project alternative," we will con-
tinue to evaluate results of the monitoring program
and will reconsider our selection, if appropriate.
The Final EIR/EIS will identify the project alternative
selected after consideration of the public comments.
Comments on the Draft EIR/EIS should be sent to this
office within 45 days of the date of this letter. All
comments received will be considered in preparation of
the Final EIR/EIS for this action. If you fail to com-
ment within the specified time, it shall be assumed,
absent a request for a specific extension of time, that
you have no comment to make.
In order to receive testimony from the public, EPA
will hold a public hearing on the Draft. It is pres-
ently anticipated that the hearing will be held in
January or early February 1979. Public notice will be
given in the local newspapers at least thirty days in
advance of the public hearing.
The hearing may be continued from time to time, or to
a different place, after its commencement, to accommo-
date the need of witnesses or the EPA.
All interested parties are invited to express their
views at this hearing. Persons wishing to make comments
may submit them in writing and/or appear at the hearing.
Written comments should be submitted Ln triplicate to:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
Attn: Hearing Office (HE-141)
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
-------
Oral statements will be received and considered, but,
for accuracy of the record, all important testimony
should be submitted in writing. Oral statements should
summarize extensive written materials so that there
will be time foe all interested persons to be heard.
Enough copies of the written materials should be pro-
duced so that other interested persons may receive a
copy and there will be no necessity for written mater-
ials to be read at length.
The following documents constitute the Draft EIR/EIS:
Summary
Main Text
Appendices (2 volumes)
The Draft may be reviewed at the following locations:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
Library
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Public Reference Unit (P.M. 213)
401 M Street, S.W., Room 2922
Washington, D.C. 20460
Documents Librarian
Santa Clara County Library
Research Center
10400 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
San Jose Public Library
180 W. San Carlos St.
San Jose, CA 95110
Palo Alto Public Library
1213 Newell Rd.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Santa Clara County Library
7387 Rosanna St.
Gilroy, CA 95020
Santa Clara County Library
78 South Dempsey Rd
Milpitas, CA 95035
Mountain View Public Library
585 Franklin Street
Mountain View, CA 94040
Library
Water Resources Center
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720
Santa Clara Public Library
2635 Homestead Road
Santa Clara, CA 95051
Sunnyvale Public Library
Attn: Documents Librarian
665 W. Olive Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Santa Clara County Library
1095 North 7th Street
San Jose, CA 95112
NASA Ames Research Center
Technical Library
Moffett Field
Sunnyvale, CA 94040
City of San Jose
Planning Department
801 North First Street
San Jose, California 95110
City of Santa Clara
Planning Department
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
City of Mountain View
Planning Department
540 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA 94040
-------
City of Sunnyvale
Planning Department
P.O Box 607
456 W. Olive Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94088
City of Los Altos
Planning Department
1 N. San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA. 94022
City of Palo Alto
Planning Department
250. Hamilton Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Milpitas
Planning Department
455 E. Calaveras Blvd.
Milpitas, CA 95035
Please bring this notice to the attention of all persons
who would be Interested in this matter.
U.S. Environmental Protect!^ Agenc}| Region IX
by De Falco, Jr.
(j Regional Administrator
City of Cupertino
Planning Department
City Hall, 10300 Torre Ave
Cupertino, CA 95014
Town of Los Altos Hills
Planning Department
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
City of Los Gatos
Planning Department
P.O. Box 949
Los Gatos, CA 95030
City of Monte Sereno
Planning Department
18041 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road
Monte Sereno, CA 95030
South Bay Dischargers Authority
by
ranklin D. foioflei
Acting Chief Executive Officer
-------
Oral statements will be received and considered, but,
for accuracy of the record, all important testimony
should be submitted in writing. Oral statements should
summarize extensive written materials so that there
will be time for all interested persons to be heard.
Enough copies of the written materials should be pro-
duced so that other interested persons may receive a
copy and there will be no necessity for written mater-
ials to be read at length.
The following documents constitute the Draft E1R/EIS:
Summary
Main Text
Appendices (2 volumes)
The Draft may be reviewed at the following locations:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
Library
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Public Reference Unit (P.M. 213)
401 M Street, S.W., Room 2922
Washington, D.C. 20460
Documents Librarian
Santa Clara County Library
Research Center
L0400 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
San Jose Public Library
180 W. San Carlos St.
San Jose, CA 95110
Palo Alto Public Library
1213 Newell Rd.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Santa Clara County Library
7387 Rosanna St.
Gilroy, CA 95020
Santa Clara County Library
78 South Dempsey Rd
Milpitas, CA 95035
Mountain View Public Library
585 Franklin Street
Mountain View, CA 94040
Library
Water Resources Center
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720
Santa Clara Public Library
2635 Homestead Road
Santa Clara, CA 95051
Sunnyvale Public Library
Attn: Documents Librarian
665 W. Olive Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Santa Clara County Library
1095 North 7th Street
San Jose, CA 95112
NASA Ames Research Center
Technical Library
Moffett Field
Sunnyvale, CA 94040
City of San Jose
Planning Department
801 North First Street
San Jose, California 95110
City of Santa Clara
Planning Department
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
City of Mountain View
Planning Department
540 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA 94040
-------
City of Sunnyvale
Planning Department
P.O Box 607
456 W. Olive Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94088
City of Los Altos
Planning Department
1 N. San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA. 94022
City of Palo Alto
Planning Department
2J50. Hamilton Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Milpitas
Planning Department
455 E. Calaveras Blvd.
Milpitas, CA 95035
Please bring this notice to the attention of all persons
who would be interested in this matter.
U.S. Environmental Protectyfft Agencyl Region IX
by LSfail De Falco, Jr. ()
\_/ Regional Administrator
City of Cupertino
Planning Department
City Hall, 10300 Torre Ave
Cupertino, CA 95014
Town of Los Altos Hills
Planning Department
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
City of Los Gatos
Planning Department
P.O. Box 949
Los Gatos, CA 95030
City of Monte Sereno
Planning Department
18041 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road
Monte Sereno, CA 95030
South Bay Dischargers Authority
by /Franklin D. Rnoflei
Acting Chief Executive Officer
-------
Appendix A
RESULTS OF 1973 SOUTH BAY SEDIMENT SAMPLING PROGRAM -
CHEMICAL PARAMETERS
Reported by Applied Soil Mechanics and Harlan Engineers 1973
-------
CONTENTS
Appendix Page
A Results of 1973 South Bay Sediment
Sampling Program — Chemical
Parameters A-l
B Report of Exploration and Testing
Marine Soil and Sediment, South Bay
Dischargers Authority B-l
C Mathematical Model of South San
Francisco Bay C-l
D San Francisco Bay Receiving Water
Quality Data for San Mateo, Sunnyvale,
and Union Sanitary Districts D-l
E Water Quality Data Collected by the
City of San Jose Department of Public
Works, Water Pollution Control
Division E-l
F Ambient Noise Survey F-l
G Biological Inventory of South San
Francisco Bay G-l
H Benthic Biological Survey and Water
Quality Programs H-l
I Terrestrial and Wetlands Biological
Survey, 1975 1-1
J An Assessment of the Archaeological
and Paleontological Resources as may
be Impacted by the South Bay Dischargers
Authority's Proposed Joint Outfall
Pipeline J-l
K Excerpts from BASSA (1975) Report on
Water Quality K-l
L Federal, State, and Regional Laws,
Regulations, and Plans L-l
-------
Appendix A
RESULTS OF 1973 SOUTH BAY SEDIMENT SAMPLING PROGRAM -
CHEMICAL PARAMETERS
Reported by Applied Soil Mechanics and Harlan Engineers 1973
-------
CONTENTS
Appendix Page
A Results of 1973 South Bay Sediment
Sampling Program — Chemical
Parameters A-I
B Report of Exploration and Testing
Marine Soil and Sediment, South Bay
Dischargers Authority B-l
C Mathematical Model of South San
Francisco Bay C-l
D San Francisco Bay Receiving Water
Quality Data for San Mateo, Sunnyvale,
and Union Sanitary Districts D-l
E Water Quality Data Collected by the
City of San Jose Department of Public
Works, Water Pollution Control
Division E-l
F Ambient Noise Survey F-l
G Biological Inventory of South San
Francisco Bay G-l
H Benthic Biological Survey and Water
Quality Programs H-l
I Terrestrial and Wetlands Biological
Survey, 1975 1-1
J An Assessment of the Archaeological-
and Paleontological Resources as may
be Impacted by the South Bay Dischargers
Authority's Proposed Joint Outfall
Pipeline J-l
K Excerpts from BASSA (1975) Report on
Water Quality K-1
L Federal, State, and Regional Laws,
Regulations, and Plans L-l
-------
Figure A-1
SEDIMENT SURVEY - 1973
A-1
-------
SOUTH BA
(App! i
SOURCE OF SAMPLE:
South Hay Di rli;i r-.i r.s Authority
Joint Outfall Project
Analysis U_i
V ola tile Solid s
Chemical Oxygon Demand (CQD)
Total Kjt.'idahl Nitrogen (N) _
Oii and Urease
: SJ'. I >! Ml'.!
•
-------
TABU-: \-l
SOUTH KAY SI.*:I )1MKNT ANALYSES
(Applied Soil Mechanics, 1773)
SOURCE OF SAMPLE:
4W-1E
4W-2E
4W- 3E
South Bay Dischargers Authority
d = 0 ft.
d - 5 ft
d - 10ft.
Joint Outfall Project
Analysis Units
ANALYTICAL
RESULTS
Volatile Solids % (1)
7. 94
7. 36
10. 00
Chemical Oxvuen Demand (COD) % (1)
3. 49
4. 35
6. 03
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (N) % (1)
0. 139
0. 126
0. 154
Oil and Grease % (1)
0. 058
0. 077
0. 108
Mercury (HR) (2) % (1)
0. 01 5x 10~4
0. 016x 10~4
0, 0l5xl64
Lead (Pb| (3) % (L)
0.0036
0.0017
0.0008
Zinc (Zn) (3) % (1)
0.0139
0.0091
0.0075
Copper (Cu)(31 % (1)
0.0043
0. 0025
0. 0023
Cadmium (cd) (3) % (1)
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
TOTAL IDENTIFIABLE CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS
1 Polychlorinated
Binhenvls (PBS) Mg/Kg*
0. 19
0. 10
0.04
Clilor mated Pe sti-
2. cities (DDK, DDD, DDT, Mr/Kr*
0. 01
0. 01
0. 01
Aldrin, BHC, Chlordane,
Endrin. Lindane
and Dieldrin)
COMMENTS: (1) Oven Dry Weight Basis
(<£) Analysis by Flameless Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer
(3) Analysis by Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer
COMMENTS:
-Milligrams per kilogram. Oven Dry Weight Basis
Detection by Gas-Liquid Chromatography
TA 111.1-: A - I
SOUTH I.1AY SLIUMENT ANALYSES
(Applied Soil Mechanics, 1973)
SOURCE OF SAMPLE:
5W-1E
5W-2E
5W-3E
South Bay Dischargers Authority
d = 0 ft.
d = 5 ft.
d= 10 ft.
Joint Outfall Project
Analysis Units
ANALYTICAL
RESULTS
Volatile Solids
%
in
7. 45
12. 76
7. 57
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
%
(i)
3. 80
4. 50
5. 06
Total K}eldahl Nitrogen (N)
%
(i)
0. 102
0. 113
0. 132
Oil and Grease
%
cu
0. 050
0. 107
0.0094
Mercury (Hti) (2)
%
(it
0.015x 10"4
0. 015x10"
0.015xl04
Lead (Ph) (3)
%
(i)
0.0035
0.0015
0.0012
Zinc (Zn) (3)
%
(i)
0.0135
0.0067
0. 0088
Copper (Cu) (J)
%
(i)
0.0028
0.0029
0.0019
Cadmium (cd) (3)
%
(i)
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
TOTAL IDENTIFIABLE CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS
3 Polychlorinated
_J Bionenvls fPBSl Mg/Kg*
Chlorinated Pesti-
cides (DDE, DDD, DDT, Mg/Kg* 0.01 0.01 0.01
Aldrin, BHC, Chlordane,
Endrin, Lindane
and Dieldrin)
COMMENTS: (1) Oven Dry Weight Basis
(2) Analysis by Flameless Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer
(3) Analysis by Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer
COMMENTS: ^Milligrams per kilogram, Oven Dry Weight Basis
Detection by Gas-Liquid Chromatography
A-3
-------
i Ai !,[•; a - I
SOUTH LAY SLUiME
(Appl.i,- f r i-
Joint Outfall Project
Analysis
(Applii-d ,S
Authority
U nits
Volatile Solid s
Chemical Oxyj-n-n Demand (COD)
Total Kjoklahl Nitrugun (N)
Oil arid Grease
Mercury {Hg) (2)
h
X-cad (Pb) (3)
Zinc [/-n.)
Copper (Cu) (3)
(1)
JLLi_
1 773;
7W-1E
it,
6.91
4. 96
JJ..1U.
0. 106
0.0018
0.0095
0,0023
Cadmium (cd? (3)
TOTAL IDENTIFIABLE CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS
7W-ZE
1 -3E
d = 5 ft. __c[~
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
8.52 7.87
4.25
0. 003
6. 17
0. 028
-4 -4
0. 015x10 0,015x10
0.0009
0.0078
0» 0028
0.0005
0.0019
0.0111
0.0019
0.0005
Poly chlorinated
Bipnenvls (P_B»S)
Mr/Kg*
0. 02 0.02
Chlorinated Pesti- *"*
cides (DDE, ODD, DDT,
Aidrin, BHC, Chlordane,
.Endrin^ Lindajie __
and Dieldrin?
Mg/Ke*
0. 01 0.01
COMMENTS: (1) Oven Dry Weight Basis
(2) Analysis by Flameless Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer
(3) Analysis by Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer
COMMENTS:
^•'Milligrams p
-------
TAH!,!'.: A-I
SOUTH 1'A Y SEDIMENT ANALYSES
(Applied Soil Mechanics, 1973)
SOURCE OF SAMPLE:
South I5ay Dischargers Authority
Joint Outfall Project
Analysis Ua
Volatile Solids
Load (Pb) (3)
Zinc (Zn) (3)
Copper (Cu) (3)
Cadmium (ccJ) (3)
> o
Chemical Oxygen Demand ^COD)
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (N)
Oil and Grease
Mfrcin-y (Fig) (2)
-OL
AIL.
(l)
(i)
(1)
(1)
8W-1E
7» 16
0. 094
0. 060
0. 015x10
0. 0034
0. 0089
0. 0028
0.0005
TOTAL IDENTIFIABLE CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS
8W-2E
8W-3E
d= 1 0 ft.
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
5.19 5.28
2.66
0. 019
0. 086
0.015xl0"4 Q.Q15xl0"4
0.0009
0.0045
0.0056
0.0017
0.0005
.Poly chlorinated
Biphenvls (PBS) Mg/Kg*
Chlorinate^ Posti-
2. cides (DP E, DDD.DDT, Mg/Kg*
Aldrin, BHC, Chlordanc,
Endrin. Lindane
and Dieldrin)
0.02 0.01 0.01
0,01 0.01 0.01
COMMENTS: (1) Oven Dry Weight Basis
(2) Analysis by Flamcless Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer
(3) Analysis by Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer
COMMENTS: ^Milligrams per kilogram, Oven Dry Weight Basis
Detection by Gas-Liquid Chromatography
A-5
-------
Appendix B
REPORT OF EXPLORATION AND TESTING MARINE SOIL AND SEDIMENT,
SOUTH BAY DISCHARGERS AUTHORITY
Prepared by R.C. Harlan and Associates
-------
r •.
R»v#r»* wood
Point
«¦. s », *7V r-oim
dwood City:r \Air X'
Miuio.n jiti
Peak
,>•' 0
SOURCE
R.C. HARLAN & ASSOCIATES
SOUTHBAY OUTFALL
JUNE, 1975
LEGEND:
E V Boring Location
Figure B-1
SEDIMENT BORING LOCATIONS
B-1
-------
REPORT
OF
EXPLORATION AND TESTING
MARINE SOIL AMD SEDIMENT
SOUTH BAY DISCHARGERS AUTHORITY
Prepared for
Bechtel Incorporated
P.O. Box 3965
San Francisco, California 94X19
Bechtel Job Number 10035
Janjt N. Carver
Civil Engineer 23772
Civil Engineer 11598
R. C. Harlan and Associates
55 New Montgomery Street, Suite 401
San Francisco, California 94105
August 14, 1975
Project 118.1
Project 118.1
August 14, 1975
INTRODUCTION
The South Bay Joint Dischargers Authority is planning the con-
struction of a major outfall for sewage treatment plants in Santa
Clara County, California. A soil engineering feasibility study
was carried out in September 1973 to provide soils information
for selection of the outfall alignment. Selection of the Option
2 alignment was made by Bechtel, Inc. in 1974. After review of th
Environmental Impact Report, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) indicated that further studies were
required to determine chemical content of dredged materials.
A program of sampling and testing was formulated between personnel
of E.P.A., Bechtel, Inc., R. C. Harlan and Associates, and Pacific
Environmental Laboratory. Nine areas spaced approximately equally
along the offshore portion of the proposed alignment were to be
sampled from the surface of the sediments to 18 feet. The samples
were then to be cooled, sealed and tested. The chemical testing
program was performed in accordance with
"Preliminary Sampling and Analytical Procedures for
Evaluating the Disposal of Dredged Materials", April
1974, Region IX, Environmental Protection with the
Following Exception:
(A Soxhlet extraction of "oil and grease"
was performed using 'Freon 113' as the
solvent, as recommended by the "Manual
of Methods for Chemical Analysis of
Water and Wastes", 1974 of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency,j
To increase the soil engineering data available for this poitioi;
of the realignment, arrangements were made with Bechtet and th?
EPA to use portions of the samples for geotechnical testing. Test
were run in the field and in the laboratory to determine shear
strengths, jn-situ dry density and moisture content and Attevbery
Limits. Authori zat ion for the project. and the scope of this
-------
Project 1IH. I
August 14, 1975
program were contained in Bechr.el's Agreement I'ur Technical
Service.-, lufr$5 011 :> - S i- - (> dated dune 2, 19 7 5.
Sampling nprmt ions began on lune 6, 1975 using a barge mounted
drill rig. The sampling procedures wore directed by the field
e n y i i u • l1 t ,i who also i.:a i nt a i ned logs, carried out f ) e 1 d testing,
and directed positioning of the barge. Samples obtained for
environmental testing were r e f r i go r a t ee< j ' cc hn i c a I testing began on June 16 and was complete by
August 1, \ 97 S .
This report. presents the findings of the sampling and testing
progranu, along with detailed descriptions of the procedures
followed. figure 1, a mosaic of four U.S. Ceologic Survey 7.5
minute quadrangles, shows the locations of the nine sampling
are,is. Position of the barge and final boring location were
determined by our engineer in the field. Boring logs arc
presented ni\ figures ?. through It) with results ol the gootechni -
cal testing. T;ihle I gives the results of the chemical testing.
Appendix A \ . tie.' report on chemical test in;', prepared by Pacif ic
l-.nv i I'oniiien ! a I l.a bo i a t u r y .
Project 118. 1
August 14, 1975
SUMMARY
In general the sediments encountered are typical, of San Francisco
Bay deposits. The predominant soil was the grey silty clay of
high plasticity locally known as Bay Mud. This material is de-
scribed by the Unified Sen I Classification symbol of (Cll) . Shear
strengths of the silty clay ranged from less than 200 pounds per
square foot to 10,0t)U pounds per square foot, usually increasing
with depth. Dry densities were low, as is common for Bay Mud,
approximately 50 pounds per cubic foot and moisture contents
ranged to over 100%. Atterberg Limits determined on softer Pay Mud
samples had Liquid Limits (LL) in the range of 75 t.o 118 and
Plasticity Tndices (P.I.) of 4 5 to 97.
Shells, sand and peat were found mixed with the Bay Mud in some
borings, and as relatively thin lenses or layers in the Bay Mud.
Sand, and sand and gravel were encountered underlying the I»ay
Mud in borings I:.l and 1:6.
The laboratory analysis of the cotg samples to determine amounts
of metals arid of "oil and grease" was generally carried out in
accordance with "Preliminary Sampling and Analytical Procedures
lor hva I uat i ng the Disposal of Dredged Material", April 1974,
Region IX, Environmental Protection Agency. The exception to
this was a Soxhlet extraction of "oil and grease", performed
using Preon 113 as the solvent as recommended by the "Manual
of Methods Por Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes", 1974 of
the Pnvironmenta 1 Protection Agency. The testing provided the
.''mounts ol the metals Mercury (Jig), Cadm iiun fCd), Lead (Pb),
Zinc (Zn), anil of "oil and grease" piesent in the core samples,
Test', were also run to determine the percentage" by dry weigh'
of the cove samples \;hich were greater than "silts or clays".
B-3
-------
Project 118.1
August M , 19 7 5
'13ns w;j.s done by determining amounts of the sample retained on a
Standard U.S. Sieve, Size No. 200.
The results of the testing have been compared to the criteria
of the "Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Dred»e Spoil
Disposal Criteria"} These criteria for disposal in fresh water
and shallow marine and esturine water are"
Fresh water
Maximum Spoil
Pollutant Concentration, ppm
Mercury 1.0
Cadmium 2.0
Lead 120
Zinc 2.10
Oil and grease 1,500
Marine (shallow) and estuarine water
Maximum Spoil
Pollutant Concentration, ppm
Mercury 1. 5
Cadmium 3.0
Lead 180
Zinc 300
Oil and grease 4,000
Results showing the particle size and the presence of Mercury,
Cadmium, Lead, Zinc, and oil and grease, are summarized on the
table below. Percentages of dry weight of the tested sample
which were greater than the U.S. Sieve, Si2e 200, are given. T\
figures in the other columns are parts per million (PPM) of the
pollutant found in the sample.
1. Dredge Spoil Disposal Criteria - Revision I (I)SDC -Rl)
dated October 21, 1974.
I tlfi.i
August lit, 19Y5
Pari i. • 1 n i'. L v.c
Pepth
% PoL;<. 1 nel
Hg
Sample
Feet
on #200 r>icvo
(PPM)
El-1
0-3
111. It
0.328
E3 -2
3-6
Th.O
0.06l
Ei-3
6-9
72. 3
0.053
El-14
9-1?
78.8
0.082
El-5
12-15
73.7
0.071
El-6
15-18
80. Y
0.065
E2-1
0-3
3-3
0.71U
E2-2
3-6
1.0
0.589
E2-3
6-9
l.U
0.56^
E2-h
9-12
5->»
0.591
E2-5
12-15
33.3
0.180
ES-G
15-18
3-^
0.136
EV1
0-3
l.k
O.MiO
E3-2
3-6
3.9
0.556
E3-3
6-9
6.2
0.651
E3-U
9-1?
12.9
0.136
E3-5
12-15
32.8
0.III4
E3-6
15-18
15.5
0.12?
Eli-1
0-3
1.5
0.529
Kh-2
3-6
1.2
0.589
Elt-3
6-9
1.6
0.5^1
EU-!i
9-12
1.6
0.505
EU-5
12-15
6.U
0.380
EU-6
15-18
1.5
0.671
E5-1
0-3
<1.0
0.618
E5-2
3-6
<1.0
0.665
15-3
6-9
75.6
0.029
E5-U
9-12
90.2
0.0U5
E5-5
12-15
83.1
0.033
E5-6
15-18
5.1
0.0914
E6-1
0-3
l.k
0-558
16-2
3-6
6.7
0. 559
E6-3
6-9
Y1.5
0.112
F.6-'i
9-12
Z9.U
0.068
E6-5
12-15
rS-9
0.088
E6-6
15-38
?5.1
0.068
E7-.1
0-3
<1.0
0.6M
E7-2
3-6
<1.0
0,61*3
ky-:i
6-9
<1.0
0.6U
E7-'j
9-12
<1.0
0. y)i
Cfl
Pb
Zn
01] 'i (ire-US'-'
(PPM)
(PPM)
{PPM)
(ppx)
<1.2
l'i. 6
75.8
180
'0.9
7.0
38.7
19^
<0. 9
6.6
2^. 3
jQ'.'
<1.0
U-5
33.ii
3U8
<0.9
h.'S
32. 1
} ]
<0.9
l».3
29.8
I'il
<1.7
20.8
66. It
10 3O
<1.0
17-7
69.2
1060
<1.7
16.1*
72. U
Y62
<1.7
10.5
59-'*
7k6
<1.6
7.8
1.9-8
600
<1.2
7.9
62.8
135
<1.7
29-5
118
VS
<1.8
26.3
] 0 3
850
<1.6
l6.lt
81 .1
(//:•
<1.5
11.0
7 3.6
:<)'•
!.
<1.0
l.U
. 1,
<1.1
n.o
• \. 1
' "
<1.6
2'(¦ Y
w't . w
<1.6
;_•)<. u
y-. <>
¦?
<1.7
if.1,
0.8
<1.8
'3.
'ft <¦.
-------
IV-I, lL'i. 1
AuLi., 1975
Depth
% Fk'tui
H,"
Cd
Pb
Zn
!v.i.rr.p 1 e
- 1^-}.
(PPM)
irM
(PPM)
£w-5
12-J5
<1.0
0. 5^0
<1.8
8.8
93- '1
E7-6
Vj-18
<1.0
0.351*
<1.5
7-7
01.8
Kfl-L
0--?
'•1.0
0.550
<1 .It
pa. 8
lOf!
Kb-2
3-6
«-1. n
0.551
*1. 5
17.3
87. Ii
K8-3
6-9
2.
0.286
<1.7
12.5
71. C
klM-l*
9 -12
<1.0
0.107
<1.7
8. U
78.!
E3-5
12-15
<1.0
0.101
<1.9
9-0
Yli.1
E3-6
15-18
2.2
0.099
<1.6
8.1.
73. Ii
E9-1
0-3
30.7
0.357
<1. 5
Hi. 7
69.8
K9-2
3-6
<1. 0
0.3^9
<1.1*
?0.7
75.8
E9-3
6-9
<1.0
0. 'Atl
<1.7
6.6
6U.3
O-l;1
<1 .0
<0.100
<2.0
10. 2
F9-
1 r'- 1
<1.0
0.091
<1.6
8.2
80.5
E 9-6
<1.0
0.093
< l. 8
9.2
82.0
Oil h Or
(IT'M)
1050
614 5
31*
?M
353
199
170
U00
393
105
UOO
10 Uo
POO
Hyo
The greatest amounts of the various pollutants found in any of the
samples are presented below:
Po^luJ^ant Sample Number Amount (PPM)
Mercury F.2-1 0.714
Cadmium E9-4 less than (<) 2.0
Lead H4-1 31.0
Zinc K3-1 118
Oil (IriMse 1-4-1 1290
These maximum amounts are all less than the F..P.A. Dredge Spoil
Disposal Criteria for Fresh Water or Marine (shallow) and esturinc
wa ter.
Tcst_ Bo rim; _Suinmary
Boring 111 - Located west of the proposed outl.'ill ou r I t. . This too r in
Proj ect 118.1
August 14, 1975
is in approximately 30 feet of water on the southwest edge of the
deep water channel and approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the
Dumbnrton Bridge.
The upper strata of sediments was soft grey silty clay (Bay Mud)
and shells. The shells were approximately 50% of the volume
sampled. Because of the high percentage of shells, samples suit-
able for geotechnical testing were not obtained from this boring.
Underlying the Bay Mud at 9 feet, clean grey medium sand was
encountered and continued to the bottom of the boring, 18 feet
below the surface of the sediments. No samples of the sarid
suitable for strength testing were obtained but in-situ test
results indicate that the sand has relative densities ranging from
60 to 80*. Moisture contents of the sand were about 23a and dry
densities were 103.1 to 105.5 pounds per cubic foot.
Boring H2 - Located at the proposed outfall outlet in approximately
40 feet of water, some 1.3 miles northwest of the Dumbarton Bridge.
The upper 9 feet of sediments were soft Bay Mud with no shells or
sand. Shear strengths were 500 pounds per square foot or lower.
From 9 to 15 feet, stiff to very stiff Bay Mud with shelLs and sand
lenses were encountered. Shear strengths were up to 1300 pounds
per square foot. Attcrberg limits were high with liquid limits
(LL) of 92 and 118 and plasticity indices of 66 and 97 respectively
Underlying the Bay Mud at 15 to 18 feet a very stiff to hard tan
and brown silty clay was encountered. Field tests indicated a
shear strength of 10,000 pounds per square foot; laboratory testing
showed a shear strength of 5800 pounds per square foot. A liquid
limit of 45 and plasticity index of 25 were determined on this
hard silty c1 ay.
Boring F3 - Located along the alignment, about 800 feet, noi'fruso.-t
of the Dumbarton Bridge in approximately ft feet of water. Bay
Mud was encountered in this boring from the surface oi the -iedinc-nt
-------
Project 1 18.1
August 14, 1975
to about 13 feet. Shells were found only in sample E3-3 from
6 to 9 feet. At 13 feet stiff tan and grey silty clay was
encountered. Shear strength increased from 200 pounds per
square foot in sample E3-1 (0-3') up to 3000 pounds per square
foot determined in the field and 1200 pounds per square foot
determined in the laboratory on sample E3-6. Atterberg limits
on sample E3-2 were a liquid limit of 75 and a plasticity index
of 47. In the stiff to very stiff silty clay below 13 feet a
liquid limit of 29 and a plasticity index of 8 were determined.
Boring E4 - Located along the proposed alignment, approximately
2400 feet southeast of the Dumbarton Bridge in about 10 feet
of water. The grey silty clay Bay Mud was encountered in Boring
E4 for the total depth. No significant amount of shells, sand
or other sediments were found. Shear strength increased with
depth from less than 200 pounds per square foot in sample E4-1
to about 1300 pounds per square foot in sample E4-4, and then
decreased to about 500 pounds per square foot in sample E4-6.
Atterberg limits were high throughout the samples with liquid
limits of 81 and 94 and plasticity indices of 4S and S6 for
samples E4-2 and E4-6 respectively.
Boring E5 - Located at the edge of the mud flats on the west edge
of the mouth of Mayfield Slough, approximately 1.1 mile south
of the Dumbarton Bridge and in less than 6 feet of water. The
location of this boring required access during a period of high
tide. Bay Mud was encountered from 0 to 9 feet and was generally
very soft to soft, exhibiting shear strength of about 200 pounds
per square foot. Atterberg limits were high: LL~92 and P,{.-57
for sample E5-2. The Bay Mud began to contain sand at about b
feet. Medium dense medium siaed sand with no fines was encounter
from 9 to 12.5 feet and from 13.5 to 15 feet, with a layer of
stiff Bay Mud from 12.5 to 13.5 feet. Underlying the sand at \ :>
Project 118,1
August 14, 197 5
feet, very stiff Hay Mud was encountered. The shear strength
of this material was 3500 pounds per square foot as determined
by the torvane and 1750 pounds per square foot by laboratory
tests. The Atterberg limits were typical of Bay Mud with a
liquid limit of 89 and a plasticity index of 56.
Boring E6 - Located on the west edge of. Mayficld Slough approxi-
mately 1.6 miles south of the Dumbarton Bridge and about 1500 feet
northeast of Cooley Landing. Although this boring was not planned
to be located on the mud flats, the area was accessible only at
high tide. Very soft to soft Day Mud with shear strengths of
500 pounds per square foot and less, was encountered from 0 to 7
feet. Bay Mud and shells were then encountered to a depth of 12
feet. The high percentage of shells present precluded strength
and classification testing. From 12 to 18 feet, dense to very
dense sand and gravel was encountered. This material was sampled
by driving the sampler continously. The blows required per foot
of sample were recorded and are an indication of relative density.
No Atterberg limits were determined on samples from boring E6.
Boring E7 - Located in the mud flats 500 feet to the west of
Mayfield Slough and about 1200 feet southeast of Cooley Landing.
This location is accessible only during high tides and is exposed
mud during low tide periods. Bay Mud was encountered from the
surface to 15 feet. Some shells, approximately 20} by volume,
were encountered from about 3 to 7 feet. The shear strength
of the Bay Mud increased slightly with depth, from below 4(10 pound:,
per square foot near the surface to as high .-is 800 pound:, per
square foot in sample E7-3. Stiff brown and f;rey mottled silty
clay was encountered at 15 feet and extended beyond tin- 18 foot
sampling depth. The torvane indicated a shear strength >>< I lion
pounds per square foot. Laboratory tests showed a shear strength
of 16 50 pounds per square foot. Liquid limits of !M and 100, :,nd
plasticity indices of r>S were determined on satfiples f / - >1 ,':iul 1" .
-------
Project 118.1
August 14, 1975
roring l:.!» Loc aid along the al igni;;fnt in liie iiiud tint s between
Mayl'ield Slouch and the western shore line about 20U0 feet south-
east of Cooloy Landing. This boring was located about 1 1S0 feet
inside the 6 foot water depth and was exposed mud during low tide
Bay Mud was found throughout the whole sampling depth. Although
Bay Mud generally has an organic odor, sample 1:8-3 exhibited an
unusually strong odor compared to other samples. The shear
strength of the Bay Mud increased with depth from 600 pounds per
square foot to 2000 pounds per square foot as determined in the
laboratory. Liquid limits of 82, 102, and 105 along with plasti-
city indices of 56, 64, and 71 were determined on samples H8-1,
1:8-3, and H3-G.
Boring 1:9 - Located along the alignment, approximately 500 feet
north of the mouth of San Francisquito Creek. This location is
about 2000 feet beyond the land portion of the alignment and
was accessible only at high tide. At the surface of the sediment
approximately 2 feet of peat mixed with soft Bay Mud and sand was
encountered. This material had a dry density of 13 pounds per
cubic foot. Bay Mud with layers of sand was encountered below
the peat and extended to 9 feet. Betow 9 feet and extending
to 12 feet, Bay Mud with peat layers less than 6 inches thick
was encountered. Stiff ftay Mud was encountered from 12 feet to
the bottom of the boring. Shear strength increased with depth
to 9 feet where it was between 2000 and 3000 pounds per square
foot, and then dropped to about 1200 pounds per square foot and
remained about the same to the bottom of the boring. Atterberg
limits on sample E9-6 indicated a liquid limit of 87 and a
plasticity index of 48.
Proj ec t 118.1
August 14, 1973
LXP1.0RAT ION AND SAMPLINC
Since all 9 areas to be sampled were offshore, a barge mounted
drill rig was required to reach the locations. A "Failing" 450
truck mounted rotary drill rig was mounted on a sectional diesel
powered barge. During exploration the barge was left at anchor
and the crew used a small power boat for access to shore. The
field engineer directed the positioning of the barge on the
boring location by visual sighting. Angles between various
vsible landmarks were measured with a sextent and used to plot
position. The barge was then maneuvered until the planned
location of the boring was reached. Pour anchors were set to
prevent drifting and to stabilize the barge.
After anchoring and a final determination of location, the
sampling operation began. Tn non-granular soils an Osterberg
piston sampler was used. This sampler used a 36 inch long, 3
inch outside diameter teflon coated thin wall tube to recover
samples. Thirty-six inch long samples were obtained at three
foot intervals resulting in continuous samples to 18 feet below
the surface of the sediments. Samples in granular soils or soils
too hard for the Osterberg sampler wore recovered using a modified
California sampler which is a split barrel drive sampler. Three
6 inch long, 2.37 inch inside diameter brass liners were placed
in the sampler. The sampler was then driven 18 inches into
undisturbed material and withdrawn. After the sampler was with-
drawn, the hole was reamed with an auger to the next sampling depth.
By sampling every 18 inches, a continuous sample of granular and
hard soils was obtained.
Osterberg samples were hydraulical1y extruded from the teflon
coated thin wall tubes. The second 6 inch portion of the sample
B-7
-------
Project 118.1
Augus t 14, 1975
was extruded into a thin wall brass liner for geotechnical
testing. The first 6 inches along with the remainder were
extruded into plastic sacks for chemical analysis.
Samples obtained with the drive sampler with the exception of
the second 6 inches were extruded into plastic sacks. The
second 6 inches were left intact for geotechnical testing. As
the samples were being extruded, shear strengths were determined
using a Torvane. All samples were visually classified, labeled,
and sealed. The samples to be used for chemical analysis were
then stored in a cooled ice chest to retard bacteria growth.
Each evening after sampling the samples were stored in a
refrigerator until being transported to the laboratory the
following morning. Samples for geotechnical testing were stored
on the barge in an air tight condition until the completion of
sampling. The field engineer observed all sampling and field
testing and maintained logs of each boring. Information on the
field logs maintained daring sampling was transferred to formal
log forms along with geotechnical testing results.
Project 118.1
August 14, 1975
LABOHATOKY ANALYSIS 01: CHEMICAL POLLUTANTS
An analysis of the 54 core samples obtained was run to determine
amounts of pollutants present. The proposed project would
generate dredge spoils which would have to be properly disposed
of. The testing program determined the amounts of Mercury, Cadmium,
Lead, Zinc, and "oil and grease" in samples of the materials which
would compose the dredge spoils. Additionally, the percentage of
the material retained on a U.S. Sieve No. 200 was also determined.
The day following sampling the core samples were delivered to the
laboratory in polyethylene bags. On the day the core samples were
received, each sample was logged-in and assigned a laboratory
sample number. The core samples were then transferred into wide
mouth polyethylene jars and were stored in an iced box, except for
the period when an aliquot of core sample was removed for analysis
during the analytical period. The methods used in testing were:
Particle Size
The analytical method used for the particle size determination was
as outlined in Appendix C of the "Water Quality Control Plan Ocean
Waters of California", State Resources Control Board, 1972, except
only one sieve, U.S. Sieve No. 200, was used,
Metals, Oil and Grease
The analytical methods used for the dry solids, metals (cadmium,
lead, zinc, and mercury) and "oil and grease" "were in accordance
with the "Preliminary Sampling and Analytical Procedures for
Evaluating the Disposal of Dredged Materials", April, 1974, Region
IX, Environmental Protection Agency with the following exception:
(A Soxhlet extraction of "oil and grease" was p..-r f nrneJ
using Ireon 113 as the solvent, recommended by the
"Manual of Methods for Chemical Analysis of N.ifrr ;im!
Wastes", 1974 of the Environmental Vroteciion Agency.;
-------
P )-o j oct 118.1
August i •?, jy;s
The c he 1 a t i n • ex t rac t i n:> solvent uf cadmium, lead and zinc was
ammonium pyrrolidine dithiocarbamato (APDC) and methyl isohutyl
ketone (MCHK). This extract of the metal compounds way then
analyzed by an atomic absorption spectrophotometer. The mercury
analysis was by the cold vapor nameless atomic absorption
spect ro photonicter method.
The following was tlie quality control program carried out to
determine precision and accuracy. A minimum of ten (10) percent
or more of the core samples were randomly selected
-------
Project M 8.1
August 14, 1975
DEFINITIONS
Atterberg Limits
Atterberg Limits are used in classifying fine grained soils. The
Liquid Limit (LL) is the moisture content (percent of dry weight)
of the soil at which the soil is between the states of liquid
behavior and plastic behavior. At greater moisture contents it
is liquid; at lower moisture contents it is plastic. The Plastic
Limit (PL) is the moisture content of the soil at which the soil
is between the state of plastic behavior and senti-solid behavior.
At higheT moisture content it is plastic; at lower moisture contents
it is semi-solid. The Plasticity Index (PI) is the Liquid Limit
minus the Plastic Limit (LL-PL) also expressed as moisture content
in percent of dry weight.
Shear Strength
The maximum shear stress that a soil can carry without undergoing
substantial deformation. Determined by unconfined compression
tests and Torvane tests.
Torvane
A small hand operated vane shear device for field or laboratory
use determining shear strength by torsion.
Relative Density
A measure of the compactness of the material in-situ. Expressed
as a percentage based on measured voids ratio between the minimum
and maximum voids ratios of the soil.
B-10
MAJC* DIVISIONS
TYPICAL
51
°\
U! £
52 3
"i
3*
83
6RAV£L9
mO« than »*it
C3m>i rtucnCi
is uacu THAN
no. < ww 1 tzi
null cw
NO UNI 1
aw
•
£ Will (UA'Jl0 .'UVIlJ, CU-.f, . iA«*£>
9
OP
,n 'Oc*ly ciamocii.vIi.1. c-vu - jauo
7 1 *ixr.m
OAAVtU WlTM
ovu 11m hnh
0M|t
jj Hl.Y OlAVfll, Gl^-Cto {My.'l - -
1 jatMixr^u
CLAriV GlAVlLi, »OOUV GiAtKO C«AV»l . 1AN5 •
Yy cwv uixTWf.
9AND3
MOtt >>Al»
It IMAUE* T»AN
NO. 4 JitVI ill!
a IAN SANM
win* umi 0*
NO- HMi
3W
• WfU &WWO WWH, CtAVU.y ifcNOf
SP \
, POOOLY G'AMD >AN0i, ClAVliiY HN«
SANM #'.T»
OVU f.NII
SM '
*jj 1UTY SANM, fOO«lYG*>5fS V»N& - JUT
•n
4
/J ci*y!y sands, roo»u &*>6io y.^0 - cvay
yj Mixrwus
3?
zi 8
o.s
to z
a I
UJ 3
i
J
I1
9JLTS AND CLAYS
liomo 1IM»> LtU THAN Si
4
CL V
y
| iNOlCAMtC ln.lt AN3 Vi«Y 'iM uxot. »ocx
( no**, mrro* cuvjy t\ni iAN?», a
| ClAVJY ll'.TJ WITH y.l?.«o>NiC ciaa o''OrLA».icir», i
'/ 6v.vtur•;. \r.rr cun. 1
/ IUN ClAYI
OL j|
ci ORGANIC <0»rt ANBCXG^NIC i(irrCl>r} 0/ 1
; 1 lO« HASTlClfY <
SILTS ANO CLAYS
LIQUID IIMI1 Oiuni THkN M
UH
iNO»OANic jun. HjCACiom ot QiAio**ci&jt i
fiNi sand/ o« iiiJY JOtu, i-AiT.i jut*
CH ^
/t INWCANlC ClAYJ O' KlGH fi/.'jCrr, '
// fat Ciayj ;
OH |
//? >
'A\ CHGANIC ClAYJ Of MtDIUM IO hiOH flMIICITY.
£ c*&*.Niciiin ;
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
PI ^
^ HAI ANOOTHH M1CHIY C«GANIC JO>U j
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Sample recovered in
Osterberg Sampler
Sample recovered In
Mod I (led Co I i forn i<3
Sampler
(^) Laboratory Test Results
(Shear ing strength determined by
unconfined compression Co^ts,
moisture contents, and dry densities.
£Vj Shear ing strength* determine;
the field with a Torvono.
KEY TO SAMPLES
R.C. Harlan andassotiates
Explorer i^n .,n<
f«>'.: i n<,
FlC'Jr.E
San I;rancisc»>. ('ulit'oniiii
Marine S» r f t,nc
5c>(i t fi Kjy Dif chn 11
. f Au: !. :r /
f
Proi.No. 118.1 Appr. Jl Date 8-75
-------
FILE NO- 118.1
DATE June 1. iq7ri
PRO.IFCT Soul-h Bay Out fall
Samp ling
BORING NO El
W.iier depth - 3'
lo'| nl" nnrirwj f. 1
n:\y
(Bay Mud) - CH
LL = 92 PI = 66
Grading medium stiff with
shells and sand layers - CH
LL = 118 PI - 97
Stiff tan and brown
s iIty clay - CL
45 PI » 25
Water Depth - *»C Feet
Log of Qor ing E2
F i gur.-i
B-ll
-------
FILE NO-
118.1
PATE J.urle
PROJECT ^outh b*Y Outfa I
Samp Ii ng
BORiN'G NO._L2
Water Depth - '*0 Feet
Loy of Tost Boring C3
Firjuj'c 5
B-12
FILE MO 1)8.1 PBD.IFrTSouth Bay Out in I I
Sarin) i rig
riATF June 10, 1975 BORING NO E't
DLSCft^Ti^.s
Very soft grey sHty da/
(Boy Mud) - CH
Grading soft
LL -8? PI = 45
Grading medium stiff
Water Depth - 15 Feet
Log of Bor ing E't
-------
FILE NO 1l8.1 PROJFf. T South Bay Outfall
Scjnipl 1 nt)
DATE—Uuie_liU™L91S . BORING NO,_Ji
Lotj of norin
-------
FILE NO_LUL-L
nATF June 12. 1975
PROJECT Bsy Out fa I I
SafflpT i nQ
BORING NO. LZ
Woter Depth - 4 feet
Log of Bof iny F7
Figure nq
BORING NO._iS
V/;i 1 or Depth - k Fe
-------
FILE NO 118.1 PRO.IFCT South Bay Outfall
S.-.mpl )r.fj
DATE.. June 12, BORING
Log of Bori ny L 9 1 (,ur 1 '
PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL
LAQORATORV
8 August 1975
k. C. Harlan & Associates
Suite 401, 55 New Montgomery Street
San Francisco, Ca. 94105
Attention: Mr. R. C. Harlan
Subject: Laboratory Analysis of Core Sample for South Bay Dischargers
Authority - Water Quality Management Program (5048)
Centlemen:
As authorized, the laboratory analysis of the core samples from the
South liay Dischargers Authority's proposed pipeline route have been com-
pleted and the results transmitted as attached. A description of the
laboratory methodology of analyses and quality control procedures are Je;;-
scribed as follows:
ANALYTICAL QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM
An Analytical Quality Control Program rra3 conducted during the
laboratory processing of the core samples. i'i:e primary objective of the
program was to determine the reliability and accuracy of the methods used
and the assurance of the quality analysis performed. The Analytical
Quality Control Program Statement is presented herein.
1. CORE SAMPLE PROCESSING
All of the core samples were delivered to the laboratory in poly-
ethylene bags by Harlan and Associates personnel. On the date the core
samples were received, each sample was logged-in and assigned a laboratory
sample number. The core samples were then transferred into wide mouth
polyethylene jara and were stored in an iced box, except for the period
when an aliquot of core sample was removed for analysis during the ana-
lytical period.
2. ANALYTICAL METHODS
a. Particle Size
Tho analytical method used for the particle size classification
was as outlined in Appendix C of Che "Water Quality Control Plan Ocean
Waters of California", States Resources Control Board, 1972, except only
one sievo, U.S. Sieve No. 200, was used,
b. Oil and Grease
The analytical method;; used for the dry yollds, tnetJls (cad':ii uv. v
lead, zinc and mercury) and "oil. and grease" were in accordance with tii.-
B-15
-------
f'AC_lt-iC E N VI KONMt.r, ( A!. L A : iOfV A7 OR Y
R. C. HnrIan S* Associates
S Au;>u^.t 19 7j
Page 2
"Preliminary Sampling and Analytical Procedures for Evaluating the; Disposal
of Dredged Materials", April, 1974, Region IX, Environmental Protection
with the following exception:
(A Soxhlec extraction of "oil and grease" vas perforced using
'preon 113'as the solvent, as recommended by the "Manual of
Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes", 1974 of
the Environmental Protection Agency.]
The chelating-extracting solvent of cadmium, lead and zinc was aroonium
pyrrolidine dithioearbamate (APDC) and methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK). This
extract of the metal compounds vas then analyzed by an atonic absorption spec-
trophotometer. The mercury analysis was "by the cold vapor flameless atomic
absorption spectrophotometer method.
3. PRECISION ASP ACCURACY
A minimum of ten (10) percent or more of the core samples were
randomly selected and processed as routine samples and the precision and
accuracy o£ the method determined.
The precision and the accuracy are defined as follows:
a) Precision represents thu reproducibility of the aethod among
replicate analyses and expressed in standard deviation, s.
b) Accuracy of the analytical method was determined by adding
a known amount of a particular constituent to an actual sample
and determining the proportion recovered of this particular
constituent. These results are expressed in % Recovery (R).
The level of the constituents referred to herein are on an
oven dry weight basis.
(1) Dry Solids
The analytical results of the core samples are based on
the oven dry basis. The dry solids content of the core samples
rangad from 38.OX to 82.7%. The precision of the method was
determined and is shown on Table I.
B-16
-------
ACIFiC ENVIRONMENTAL L A EDOR A TOPt V
R. C. Harlan & Associates
8 Augusc 19 75
Page 4
TABLE III
ACCURACY DATA FOR MERCURY ANALYSIS
Hg
Hg Added
Hg Recovery
Mg/Kgm
Mfc/K^m
%
0.714
0.181
98
0.714
0.163
100
0.714
0.176
102
0.651
0.149
93
0.651
0.151
97
0.651
0.153
88
0.665
0.173
99
0.665
0.154
100
0.665
0.157
106
0.665
0.178
101
0.665
0.156
102
0.068
0.106
91
0.068
0.095
122
0.068
0.105
107
0.551
0.150
100
0.551
0.159
103
0.551
0.177
104
0.091
0.157
101
0.091
0.158
114
0.091
0.159
123
(3) Cadmi um
Cadmium was not detected in any of the core samples analyzed.
The accuracy data was developed by adding a known amount of a standard
cadmLum compound and determining the proportionate recovery. The results
are shown on Tnhlc IV.
PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL LAHORATORY
R. C. Harlan & Associates
8 August 1975
Page 5
TABLE IV
ACCURACY DATA FOR CADMIUM ANALYSIS
Cd Cd Added Cd Recovery
Mg/Kgm Mg/Kgm %
<1.0 5.0 100
<1.0 5.0 100
<1.0 5.0 100
<1.2 5.3 89
<1.2 5.3 91
<1.2 2.6 100
<1.7 8.3 100
<1.7 8.2 100
<1.7 4.1 100
<1.6 8.2 100
<1.6 8.0 110
<1.6 3.9 121
<1.5 16.1 95
<1.5 14.6 80
<1.5 7.7 100
<1,5 7.9 100
<1.5 3.9 100
<1.7 18.0 85
<1.7 18.0 85
<1.7 9.1 90
(4) Lead
The accuracy data for lead was determined by the proportionate
recovery of the known amount of a standard lead compound added to the
actual core samples. The precision and the accuracy data are as shown
on Table V.
B-17
-------
Pb
4.5
4.5
4.5
7.9
7.9
7.9
PRi^CI SJ ON AND ACCURACY DATA FOR LEAD ANALYSIS
Precision Pb Added I'b Recovery
Mf/Kflia Ms/KRra Mr,/Kp;ni
<0.5 3.0 105
5.0 ^6
2.0 118
±1.6 5.3 M
5.3 HO
2.6 75
8.3 94
8.2 94
9.4 ±1.0
9.4
9.4 - 4.1 92
15.5 i6-5
15.5
15.5
17.3 ±1.3 16.1 96
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.3
14.6 92
7.7 92
7.9 125
3.9 92
8.6 tO.3 18.0 101
8.6
8.6
18.0 302
9.1 129
(5) Zinc
The precision and the accuracy data developed for Zinc are
shown on Table VI«
R. C. 1 i;jr I :i!i « A'.mr-i atfS
8 August 19/5
Pay/' '/
TAHLK VI
PRECISION AND_ ACCURACY DATA FOR '/IMC ANALYSIS
Z,i Precision Zn Added Zinc Recovery
Mi;/K_£ra
33.4 J 2.3 5.0 99
33.4 ~ 5.0 127
33^4 - 2.0 101
62.8 - ^ • 5 5.3 7 (J
62.8 -
62.8 - 2.6 79
6A 3 ±4.2 8.3 119
64.3 - 8.2 103
64.3 - 4.1 103
87.4 >7.5 16.1 103
87.4 - 14.6 86
87.4 - 7.7 87
87.4 - 7.9 87
87.4 - 3.9 89
64.3 ±4.0 18.0
-------
I'A (. i f IC EN VI WON M K.'J IAL LA J I'D MA I OHY
R. C. Harlan & Associates
8 August 19/5
Page 8
TABLE VII
PRECISION AND ACCURACY DATA FOR OIL AN I) GREASE ANALYSIS
Oil Recovery
%
78
68
81
61
59
58
56
58
81
87
73
58
50
70
67
60
48
(?) Particle Size
The particle size distribution reported arc based on single
analysis. The precision analyst* were not conducted.
We atu aval IntaVe to discuss any matters relating to these laboratory
analyse.*; in further detail.
Very truly youra,
PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL LAUORATORY
RAi i: f b Robert. A. Ryder
Diriuitor
Oil/Cre.iae Precision Oil Added
Mg/Kgm Mg/Kgrn _ Mg/Kgm
850 * 200 4,400
850 - 6,030
850 - 5,300
850 - 4,800
850 - 4,680
1290 ±280 3,280
1290 - 3,940
1290 - 4,310
605 ±40 3,960
605 - 3,290
605 - 3,150
350 ±60 3,160
350 - 3,000
350 - 2,270
500 ±35 3,110
500 - 3,780
500 - 3,510
Fin. r>wa
PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY
657 Howard Street, San Francisco 94103
Phoiii. (41!>) 362-6065
Receive >1 6/10/75
Rc po vted 8/7/7 5
lU^Oiq- 0!- COrJK.gA*'2LL A1IAT.YSKS
Page 1
REPORT TO MR. R. C. HARLAN
f0R K. C. HARLAN AND ASSOCIATES __
ADDKK5S SUTTK 401, r>5 HEW MONTGOMERY STREET, SAM FRANCISCO, CA. 9410S
LA!J MO. 752494 752495
SOURCE OF SAMPLE:
South Bay Dischargers Authority
TREATMENT *.
\TK COLLECTED:
TIME COLLECTED:
Collected by: R. C. Harlan and Associates
El-1
El-2
752496
El-3
752497
El-4
Units
ANALYTICAL
RESULTS
Particle Size Greater
chan U.S. Sieve Size No. 200
% (1)
ill U
74.n
7 9.3
78.8
Mercuiy (Ug) (2)
Mg/Kcm (1)
0.328
0.061
0.053
0.082
Cadmiun (Cd) (3)
Mg/Kgiu (1)
<1.2
<0.9
<0.9
<1.0
Lead (Pb) <3)
Mg/Kgm (1)
14.6
7.0
6.6
4.5
Ztnc (7.n) (3)
Mg/Kf;m (1)
75.8
38.7
29.3
33.4
Oil and Crease
(1)
485
194
187
148
COMMENTS: (1) Oven Dry Weight HasU
(?) An.ilyi;j by Flnmolcnu Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer
(3) Analysis by Atomic Absorption Spec t rophotoine ter
(4) I'or analytical tutithoda, j;r>.e Analytical Quality Control Statement
An 11 y r; if; by: "PreHini n.n y Sampling and Analytical
Pi"-iM.Uirf'u for Evaluating I Uf liii;po:;al oi Dredged
I! i' !• r i, 11April, 19/4, Region IX, Env i.roiri'-nt al
Pi "I <•<1 ion Ap.i'ooy.
TN, SDR, NEt, CT.
-An
J>'r c-tB_19
-------
ri:i. ,vj4?
pacific environmental lauoratory
657 Howard Street, Gnu Francisco 94105
Phono (413) 362-0065
rt;!'op.t oi- cosample analyses
FOK R. C. HARLAN AMD ASSOCIATES
i s c c X v c (t_6/10/? 5
Reported fi/7/75
Page 2
REPORT TO MR. R. C. HARLAN
ADDRESS SUITE 401, 55 NEW MONTGOMERY STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA. 94105
LAB NO.
SOURCE OF SAMPLE:
South Bay Dischargers Authority
TREATMENT:
DATE COLLECTED: - .
TIME COLLECTED:
Collected by: R. C. Harlan and Associates
752498
El-5
752499
El-6
Units
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Particle Size Greater
than U.S.. Sieve Size No. 200
% CD
73.7
80.7
Mercury (Hg) (2)
Mg/Kgm (1)
0.071
0.065
Cadmium (Cd) (3)
Mg/Kgm (1)
<0.9
<0,9
L.ead (Pb) (3)
Mg/Kgm (1)
4.3
4.3
Zinc (Zn) (3)
Mg/Kgm (1)
32.1
29.8
Oil and Crease
Mg/Kgm (1)
114
131
COMMENTS: (1) Oven Dry Weight Dasis
(?) Analysis by Flaroeless Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer
(3) Analysis by Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer
(4) For analytical methods, see Analytical Quality Control Statement
Analysis by: "Preliminary Sampling and Analytical
Procedure:; Tor Evaluating the Disposal of Dredged
Material?;" April, 1974, Region IX, Environmental
Protection Agency.
TN, SDR, N!!, CI;
B-20
A. HyM
1 AruiTy-';!"-
DI r'-'-tor
PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY
637 Howard Street, San Francisco 9^10S
Phouo (41^) 362-6065
REPORT OF CORK SAMPLE analyses.
Received C/ll/75
IV ported 8/1! 7r>
FOR R. C. HAUI-AN AMD ASSOCIATES
REPORT TO
MR. R. C
Faj'.u 3
. HARLAN
MiDRl'SS SUITE 401, 'lib riKU MONTGOMERY STREET,
SAN FRANCTSCO
, CA. 9410
LAB WO.
SOURCE OF SAMPLE:
South Bay Dischargers Authority
7 *>250]
7 S2ri02
7f>2503
752504
L2-1
E2-2
H2-3
E2-4
TREATMENT:
r \TE COLLECTED: < .
'
--
__
"TIKE COLLECTED:
Collected by: R. C. Harlan and Associates
Units
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Particle Size Greater
„.ian U.S. Sieve Size No. 200 % (1)
3.3
1.0
1 .4
'j . u
Mercury (Hg) (2) Mg/Kgm (1)
0.714
0.589
0.564
0.5^1
Cadmium (Cd) (3) Mg/K.gm (1)
<1,7
'<1.8
<1.7
<1.7
Lead (Pb) (3) Mg/Kgm (1)
20.8
17.7
16.4
10.5
Zinc (Zn) (3) Mg/Kgrn (1)
66.4
69.2
72.4
59.4
Oil and Grease Mg/Kgm (1)
1.030 '
1,060
762
TUh
COMMENTS: (D Oven Dry Weight Basis
(2) Analy^i?; by I'Lamales;; Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer
(3) Analysis by Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer
(4) For analytical methods, see Analytical Quality Control .'Uatot.-vnc
Analysis by: "Pro.l i:ninary Sairpliop, and Analytical
Procedure.'; for Hvalnat in/i the Disposal of Drcd^d
Jl'itn rial s" April, 1974, Region IX, Environmental
Piolcct ion Ap/'iu-y.
-------
pacii'lc i:nviko:;::i;utal laboratory
CS7 IIiv.mi'iI Struct,, San FrancLsco 9M03
Phone (41:,) 362-6005
PEL Wt
Pecclvr-dj,/ r .1/ 7
Ui-povr.ccWj/7_/_7:)
for
R. C. HARLAN AND ASSOCIATE
o:' r:oi:s.'.m?le analyses
- -- PaKu A
REPORT TO MR* K- c- HAULAN
ADDKESli ''11 n'E />0i » 55 NEW -;n:
ijdi no.
ii-comery street, san francssco, ca. 94105
SOURCE OF SAMPLE:
South Hay Dischargers Authority
TREATMENT:
DATE COLLECTED: ' •
t'lKE COLLECTED:
Collected by: R. C. Har_lan and Associates
7 32505 752506
E2-5 F.2-6
Particle. Size Creater
' hau U.S. Sieve Size No. 200
Units
* C1) 33.3
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
3^
Mercury (tig) (2)_
Mg/Kgm (1) 0.180 0.136
Cadmium (Cd) (3)
Mg/Kgm (1) <1.6
i,«ael (Pb) (3)
Mg/Kgm (1) 7.8
Zinc (Zr») (3)
Mg/Kgm (1) 49.8
62.8
Oil and Crease
Mg/Kgm (1) 600
139
COMMENTS: (1) Oven Dry Weight R;isis
(2) Analysis by FlnrneLeaa Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer
(3) Analysis by Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer
(A) For analytical methods, sou Analytical Quality Control Statement
An.ilysi'i by: "Prel i:nl nary Sampling ami Analytical
Procedu rcr-j for Evaluating {'no Di -;po'.al ot Dredged
w'itf-rial:;" April, 10/4, Region T Y., Euv I r ontui-utal
I'rotecliou Agency*
PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY
657 llovard Street, San Francisco 103
Phone (415) 362-6065
Pi:L 5042
Received 6/1 1/7.5
Reported 8/7/75
RU'O'.'.'t' OI' €01' I' SAMPLE AJLM/fSF.S
Page 5
FOR P. C. HAPEAN AND ASSOCfATES REPORT TO MR. R. C. HARLAN
ADURF.SS SUITE 401, 5 5 HEW J'OHTCONKRY STREET, SAM FRANCISCO, CA. 94105
LAB NO.
SOURCE OF SAMPLE:
South Hay Dischargers Authority
TREATMENT:
DATE COLLECTED: « .
TIME COLLECTED:
Collected by^ R. C. Harlan and Associates
7S7S07
E3-1
Particle Size Greater
than U.S. Sieve Size No. 200
Units
X (1)
7.S2SD8
K3-2
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
3.9 6.2
752509 752510
E3-3 E3-4
12.9
Mercury (fig) (2)
Ng/Kgm (1) 0.440
0.556
Cadmium (Cd) (3)
Mg/Kgm (1) <1.7
<1.8
Lend (Pb) (3)
Mg/Kgm (1) 29*5
26.3 16.4
11.0
Zinc (Zq) (3)
Mg/Kgm (1) us
103
81.1 73.6
Oil and Crease
Mg/Kgm (1) 756
850
692 20S
COM.MEIiTS: 0) Oven Dry Weight Basis
(2) Analysis by Flamelent. Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer
(3) Analysis by Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer
(4) l-or analytical methods, sec Analytical Quality Control Statement:
Ana 1 yy, fby: "Pvo.ll in{nary Satnp 1 i np, and Aoaly t leal
Procedure:; for Eva In at inp, the Disposal ol Dredged
<¦ i i.ils" April, 19/4, Region IX, Environmental
Ri'" I re I i on Agency.
TN, SDR, Nil, CP. \ i_v
B-21
-------
l'ACr.vic i:;.vi ::i»::::r.;;TAi> laboratory
057 Jlo-.Mi'd Street, S.m I'v.uu: inco %10j
Phone ('>15) 362-6065
RKi'OiVf o;-~ en;:;- s."E?r,?-: a;:at.ysks
F0-, k. c. a:;d associates report to kr. c. harlan
ADD*U-"SS HUITE -'.01 , '55 !."KW KOKTCOMf;i!V STRf-X'i', SAN FKAKCISCQ, CA. 94 1.05
LAB UO. 752^11. J32M2
SOURCE 01- SAMPLE: E3-5 £3-6
South Bay Dischargers AuLhority _
TREATMENT: ____ __
^ATE COLLECTED;
Till" COLLECTED:
Collected by: R. C. Harlan and Associates
Units ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Particle Size Greater
hen U.S. Sieve Siao Mo. 200 % (J-) 32.8 15.5 f
Receive ! -./ 1.;_ /7_-j
Imported_8/7/_7 I- _
Pace 6
Mercury (lip,) (2) Hg/Kgm (1) 0.114 0.122
Cadmium (Cd) (3) Mg/Kgn (1) <1.4 <1.1
lead (Ftp (3) Hg/Kgm (1) 10.4 8.1
Zinc (Zn) (3) Mg/Kgm (1) 58.0 51.7
Oil and Creole Mg/Kgm (1) 405 ' 220
(1) Oven Dry Wright Ear,is
{'/) Aualys ir, by Fir.nicies;; Atouii c. Absorp t ion Spec.t rophof.onetcr
(3) Analysis by Atonic Absorption Spoct 1 ophoi o;::ricr
(4) For anal yt Leal nedmd*;, r.'.-e. Analy tie.-i 1 Qu.iljfy Control State
iLy.is by: rr. l.i ::>i n ¦; ry fi.i: ;p 1. i up, and ,\v.r-. ly t le ,il
w. ;¦( !>.¦:: for Eva Ur-.r ! wy, tbr D i a 1 of Di<:dj;ed
Ap r?.l, 10/-'», Region I X , Environ. x-alal
B-22
77;, so;;, r;:i, i;/,
:C l i r>u A.?e:icy. bLr'.-t:
rACj 1'ic i;:;vjtal laboratory
657 Vio'-.-n r d Sli-.h-I, S..11 i'f.nu: ')M0 j
I'ho/u! (A 1 i') .J!j2 '6065
mj:t ()r or: analyses
i'l.l.
K- -ufl.ed
•(];:
! ATI'
KEP0KT TO !;V'!..\N
tA-L
YA~2
H4- 3
.';i)iTE 401, v> new ::o;;i(;o:;i:kv stiu'lt, jam it.ancisco, ca. 9'• 105
.aa NO. A:'-5I3 752J.^ ?5?5I5
.W[XE 01- SAMPLE?
Si.'jLl) Ji.iy Dischargers Authority
•REATMENT:
V "K COLLECTED;
'IKE COLLECTED:
Collected byi R. C. Harlan >
I'rotoctinn AC.-ncy. P. Ci,.\Arlc^
-------
pacific laboratory
057 Street, S.m Francisco 9410j
L'honc (415) 362-606S
Kcc" /_/_¦¦ 1 / 7S
Reported 8/7/ lb
Page 8
MR. R. C. HARLAN
KK»'('V/c oi- cort-; f»v/V(at.ysl:s
j.-QH C . HARLAN AND ASSlJLM ATFS REPORT TO
adurkss sum: 401, Y> montcohkry st;m;kt, sah francisco, ca. 9-V1Q5
I.Afl MO,
SOURCE OF SAMPLE:
South r.ay Dischargees Authority
TREATMENT:
HATE COLUCTt-O;
TIME COLLECTED;
Collected by: R. C. Harlan and Associates
Particle Size Creator
'inn U.S. Siovc Size No. 200
Units
X (1)
752518
E4-6
a^alytica?* results
1.5
Mercury Oh',) (2)
(1)
C>.(!m iu:;i (Cd) (3)
Hfi/Kgm (1) <1.4 <1.7
I':nc! (Pb) (3)
Mg/Kgm (1) 7.2 9.4
Zinc (Zn) (3)
Mg/Kp,m (1) *9.9 64.3
Oil and Giv.isc
Mg/Kgm (1) 439 - 401
COMMENTS: (1) Oven Dry Ueip.ht Nasls
(?) Analysis ly Flant'lc:;?; Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer
O) Analy:;is hy Atonic: Ahso rp t' on fpuut rophotometor
(4) For analytical methods, sec Analytical Quality Control Statement
An il •/:; i>- l>y : "Pre 1 In-i na ry Sampling and Analytical.
Proi ¦.•-liifv, f(,r ! 1 v .111 i ii i;i!' tl"' H i 'ipo*:."* I of Dredj-ocl rjl;, ^ f
M 11. <• i i.-i |April, 19M, R.'p.ioa IX, law i r oirin-;i La I — — ...... _.I
I'l'oU-.c t icm Agency. V?, ^ ri Director
if!~ A. Vv'f.it4 7 1 "'W' """
pacific i-:nvirun:-!!-:utal laboratory
G.r>7 Ntv.:ar'„veeL, Sr.n Francisco 94105
Phone (''ill') '367.-6065
Ueccivcd 6/11/73
Reported 8/7/75
pj;>'(WT OI-^OI'K ANALYSES
"" Vafttt 9
REPORT TO • C. HARLAN
F0R R. C. HARLAN AND ASSOC f ATKS
ADPKj,5S ^ihtk m , v, :;;:u v.o:;to)m;ry strv.ucl sam francisco, ca. 941.05
752519
LAB NO.
SOtfftCK OF SAMPLE;
South Hay Dischargers Authority
TREATMENT:
DA'tX COLLIXTLU:
iIMC COLLECTED:
752520
752521 752522
E5-1
E5-2
-
Units
ANALYTICAL
RESULTS
Particle Size Groater
-hull U.S. Sieve Sii:e No. 200
% (1)
<1.0
<1.0
75.6
90.2
Mercury (Hg> (^)
Nf;/Kg«i (1)
0.618
0.665
0.029
0.045
Cadraivj« (Cd) (3)
Mfi/Ksm (1)
<1.7
<1.8
<1.0
<1.C
L,ead (Pb) (3)
Mg/Kgm (1)
8.6
8.8
14.8
14.4
Zinc (Zn) (3)
Kg/Kgra (1)
75.3
83.0
71.6
64.9
Oil and Crease
Mg/Kgm (1)
573 '
592
86
126
COMMENTS: (1) Oven Dry Ui'Lj'.ht ltasls
{?¦) Analyst:, by Flamolesr; Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer
(3) Analysis hy Atomic Abr.o vp 11 on Spec t lophotomotcr
(4) tor analytical methods, sec Analytical Quality Control Staturnout
Ati.i1 yst r: by: HP reUuii. ivi i y fl/i tup 1 i nfj mid Analytical
1' i iwr-ilu i i«;; for I'.va 1 h;i 1. i nj; the h i tipo;; a I of Dredged
11 o •: i ,i ]April, 19'/4, I'.i.:}; i on IX, VaiviroiiDH'iU a.L
1' i 'j i I'd: i on Agency.
tn, sdr, en lyst
b-23
-------
PCr! R._ C_. i!A!;i.A'! AND ASSOC I ATKS
address sura: 401. S3 mqnfco'ikkv sr^-i.
LAB NO.
SOURCE OF SAMPLE:
South Bay Dischargers Authority
TREATMENT:
DATE COLLECTED:
ilMC COLLECTED:
Collected by; R. C. Harlan and Associates
pacific usokatury
657 Howard Street, Sao 1'r.u.clr.co 94105
I'hono 362-C06")
RKi'ORT TO I*'- ]'¦ '¦
lived yi-J hj^_ ¦ '
jioi ll'(1 9/7/ /
Pag- 10
SAN FRANCISCO, C.V. •Ml'jS
752523 752524
F.5-6
Units
Particle Size Greater
-han U.S. Sieve Size No. 200
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
% (1) 83.1
Kcrcury (Mg) (2)
Me/KRn (1) 0.033
0.094
Cadmium (Cd) (3)
Mg/Kftm (1) <1.0
<1.5
i.ead (Pb) (3)
Mg/Kgm (1) 21.0 18.3
Zinc (Zn) (3)
Mg/Kgm (1) 69.9
87.7
Oil. and Grease
Mg/Kgm (1) 162
COJ-C-OTS: (O Oven Dry Weight Bar;is
(?) Anal.y.sir, by Han^lcis Alo:nic Absorp:ion Itju'Cl ri;iv,,j!.o:..-.'U,r
(3) Analysis by Atomic; Absorption Sport ruphotometer
(4) For analytical methods, see- Analytical Quality Cop.lrnl !"L;u.e..:i-r
Aii-ily.i:; by: "Prelnni n lry Sa:;:pHnj', and Analytical
ri'OC'.'d'irr':; for Eva I n.'if J n;', Lhf* f ;£:¦;><<, t ? of Di'c<)jyd
M-itfrial'," April, 19//i, Keg ion IX, Env i ren; 'onlal
iTOlcvL j Oil Agency.
B-24
~X> rx 'O .
PAcn'ic r:;vi ku:::ii:i;TAi. eav.ukato:^
6j7 Howard :.tn-et, San lY.mc 1 !.co Wlri
1'iioin.' (•'.1!¦) 167
1
uto.i
nv rni'K j:.\M!jl_t-:_ amalytes
""' li
f, c. vwj.a:: :::d atj::; __ kwort to c.jjas'L'VJ
ti¦ tR'11 s '»oi, '>5 new retina s'ikeet, s.v; i-ka^gisco, ca. iE COLLECTED:
Collected by: R. C. Harlan and Associates
Particle Size Greater
>-han U.S. Sieve Si^o No. 200
Units
% (1) 7.4
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Mercury (f!g) (2)
Mg/Kgm (J> _ 0.558 Q.53& 0-11? O.Ufrk
Cnd'imiM (Crt) (3)
Mg/Kgm CD <1.6 ^1.7
<1.7 '1.'.
^ead (Pb) (3)
Mg/Kgm (1) 15.5 16.9
Zinc (Zn) (3)
Mg/Kgm (1) 84.6 Ik.i,
Oil. and Crease
Mg/Kgm (i) 35tf
C05
CO.'IMtt.T.S : (?) Oven Dry KWght li.ifitu
(?.) An. 11. y ;i i , by ! 1 :v:io 1 0 Alouif Ab'l'vr [H j on S |V • l" L 11 • |< :u
CO A:i.i I y ^ j.by Alcmic Absorption bpert lophot on"Lcr
(M Kur analyt.iciil nethorl:,, jk-c Anal.yt.1ral Q.uljtv Cc
/.'111 i '• by: "P l f 111:11 i:.u-y S.'ii'.pl) U)' ;uH A:l I 1 y l i iM ].
!' r «>. ¦1 hi • I"., for !'.\.!\p..11 i II,; (he !)i\po:.:i! (jf [J ,(•(!
I'ii i i i 11 Api"tl, f«.>n IK, EnvHonn-nt.nl
Pi-M.-l i on ,* i •_ i •: i'' y .
-------
I'ACific j;:;vilaboratory
CS7 lu/janl .'iLiL'-.'L, San Franc 1 r.co
12
MR. K. C. IIAkfaVI
FO lt_ _ •
\bDitKSS i'n-: 'iOi, co 1 mu:,tjjov;:ry stp;:ki, sa;: n-AJXisco, ca. U- COLLKCTKD:
Collected by: R. C. Harlan and Associates
752530
Units
Particle- Sir-.o Greater
' u'ia lj. S. Sieve Size No. 200
% u>
54,9
ANALYTICAL RKSULTS
25.1
!>roury (Hg) (2) Mft/Kgm (L) 0.088 0.068
C.ii!i:uu!.i (Cd) (3) Mf./K£"i (L) <1.0 <1.1
l.u.k1 (Pb) (3) Ms/Kgm (I) 7.4 8.0
Zinc (Zn) (3)
He/Kp,™ (1) 38-6 <1.1
Dil and Crease
Hn/Kgui (I) 126
;0:;:iK!;TS: O) Ovim Dry V.-iBht B:n:ls
(2) Analy::ir. by r] a-ialo-:;; Atomic Ab:.orplIon Spoc I lopho Lo^: H.er
(3) Analysis by uroiair- ion 'Ipcr t i cphot omc Uu"
(4) for analytical e-.-ltunls, see Analytical IJuality Cunliol StAlcaimt
Alinly.'.is l>y ¦ " f re II !l i n.N y Sa; i;t 1 I n }•. and Analytical
I'rofur I'valual in;; [ in¦ i)i:;[Hi':al of itri'dfNjd ,. „
1'ifi i a ! April, V) I h , i <¦';! IX, la; v i 11 a Lai -J - ' A' ..I - .'1 . _ 1 ¦
Frou-it ion Ac.nnvy. O r\ [.[,¦
v* *a' , ~~
p;:l f>{)¦',2
rAi:iric knvironmp.itai. labouakuy
657 !!>/.;.ir.t Streot, U .111 Franc la,co (JA105
Vhnna (
S/.y
7:>2 350
E7-'i
752551
•E7-4
ANALYTICAL RKSULTS
0.643 0.&44 0.551
Pai'ticlis Size Creator
« ian U.S. Slfve Size No. 200
Mercury (Hp,) (2)
Cachuuri (Cd) (3)
Lend (Pb) (3)
Units
% W 370 200
COMMK: i'T:> ; O) Oven Dry Weight !5a:;.L:i
(:;) An.) I yr~ Lr. by l-'J a mo I cm; ALotnic Abr.orptioii f)poclvo])liot't»;r.ot;er
(0 An;ily:;ls by Atomic Absorption Sp('C t. L'opho C 'jrv.' I. o
(A) for as-v.Al.yi ical n^Uv,(A:;, r,fc Analytical QuaUcy Tunrrol Slaten^ut
Airily;!'; 1-y: "l'i c I i -i i na r y finmp 1 i r>n aiu! Analytical
1' i'o c •": a i c. i'i)f Kva t uaf i nj; t!i»- l>i :;p«»;;a I of .
! 1 u e i ial;" April, lO/A, R.-^Lon IX, Knvi roncionr.il
l'rol4-i-t i.iii A(/-r.ey. Hv .t -A * ,
• - ¦ : vr. V: :.v ! ' B-25
-------
i'AC trie larohatohy
657 S.n. rr.i:iclscu 'J'i]05
I'inm..' (/.15) 362-GOG5
Krcetvf:l *!' i!
iVpar t c*I ^j
RD'fflT i'" emu; 'i".:"'!,'-: a::,m.y::i::; ^
y0R r. C. har.l.'.u ami) AfunyuATi;;; KKi-ORT to hh. R. C. i;aki.a3
suitk *>'tt , 53 i;r:w :-:ol;tcom:-;hv utpxet^sas rewis'.'), ca. 9'A0r>
752352 75555-j , _
SOURCE OF SAMPLE: E7-5 _E7Z6
ADDRESS
LAB NO.
South Bny Discharcers Authority
TREATMENT:
^VTE COLLECTED:
TIME COLLECTED:
Collected by; R. C. Harlan and Associates
Units ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Particle* Size Greater
. ,;an U. S . Sieve Siae No ¦ 200 % (1) ;.l. 0 <1.0
Mercury (Hp,) (2) (1) 0.5B0 0.354
Ca-lmiuLi (Cd) (3)
Mg/Kgm
(1)
, c\. 94inf/
rj.i'Ol'.'L' 0!'__(il)ri': j'i-v'Jil: ANALYSES
r0:; K . C. HAEI.A" Af.'D ASSi
An.11 y.. i ¦; ]>¦/: " (11 r> ] i: ¦ i s : i. l i y Sampling ,md Analytical.
I'f' rl" i i'r - lot- I.vahi.ii lit;: I he l)i :.pn:.al. of
-' 1: 1" l April, I'J /' I f Kim; i on 1 , I. r; v J J ni i":i *ti L a 1 !_ L .1' . .1 - ' •'
-------
I'M.
PACIFIC i-.JIVlKONMLUTAI. LAHOUAW.Y
6 57 Hov.iii! f>.ui Fl.r.\c l;;co 'ViIOj
I'houo ('.15) 362-6065
Ki.ro:-'.r of in,v.:'i,K ahat-Xsks
Page 16
km: k. ha:u.as and assocutks report to mr. R. c. hari.ah
:;!•! rk AOL, 55 ^ontcumfky sikfkt, s.vi fkancisco, ca. 9^L03
L^'Jv NO.
752 558
752559
CF SAMPLE;
E8-5
E8-6
-onl.h i'ay Discliargnr'; Authority
TREATMENT:
r TJ: COLLECTED:
—
__ ¦
COLLECTED:
<>o!.J.acted by: R. C. Harlan and As;;ociates
Units
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Paiiicl.R Size Creator
t ,,iii V.r>. Sieve Sixe No. 200 7, (1)
<1.0
2.2
Mercury (lip.) (2) Mfi/Kgm (1)
0.101
0.099
0.d:;Ku;.i (Cd) (3) Mfi/Kp> (1)
<1.9
<1.6
Lend (Pb) (3) Mg/Kgm (1)
9.8
S. it
Zinc. (7m) (3) Mf»/Kfjin (I)
74.1
J
0_i_l and Grease (1)
170 '
400
Received 0/ i.'/ /_j
Reported H / 7 / If
30:r; : (1) Ovon Dry Ur>i;;ht Ilasl3
(2) Analysis by FlamoU;*;'; Atonic Absorption Specl' rnphotometar
(3) Analysis by Atomic Absorption f,pcct.tophoioueter
(4) nir analytical method:;, see Analytical Quality Control. Statement
/ n. 11 y r, i rj by: "Preliminary Sampling i:ul Analyt. leal
I1 r.;'<'«! ...... .... \
IJ-ilocials1' April, 19/',. 1^,-ion ix', Rnvlronntoial - ±lLl--A««ly»t
r' °";rrAr-'"^- ZZ&5LjAkvj'
FAr;J I-1C KNVir.OJiMKliTAL LABORATORY
637 Howard Street, San Iranclsco 94105
I'lwtto ('.15) 362-6065
KccclvciJ 6/ L2/75
Ue porto J 8/7/7 5
Page 17
RKPORT TO MR- R- C. HARLAN
R.L',o,..,,r oi' cor.i-: r,A:rnr.M analysts
/0K u. c. 11 a i * i - a ?: a:m> A:;sot: i atks __
/jdu"fss :;uitk /.o?, **>5 new MavvooMERY stkkkt, sah _franc isco ,_ca. 94105
LAJi NO.
752560
752561
752562
SOURCE Or SAMPLE:
So;it h Bay IH.'icliiirycrs Authority
TREATMENT:
0'TF. COLLECTED:
TIME COLLECTED:
Collected by*. c. Harlan and Ar.soc^ates
E9-1
E9-2
?articlc Si?:(i Greater
• an U.S. Sieve Situ; Mo. 200
Units
X (1)
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Mercury (Hp.) (2)
Hl'./Kem (1) 0.357 0.389 0.241 <0.100
^ncJiiiiuji (Cci) (3)
(1) <1.5 <1.4 <1.7 <2.0
^ead (Pb) (3)
?A.nc (/.n) (3)
')il and flrt.'.'isn
Mfc/Kgn\ (I) 14.7 20.7
Mf./Kgm (1)
(L) 393
8.6 1Q.2
69.8 75.8 64.3
62."
105
AGO
1,040
-OMMivtrr:;: CO Ovon Dry Wci&hr. Ibis's
(?) Aivil ys i s by VI«'!::)(.• 1 c:Ar onLc Absorpt ion Spc-r r rophol oiiini '• c
O) An.i)y:;i^ by Afustiic A\>:.<>; ption t. ropliot'QMC! t i.'?;
(A) hoi .u;.! lytlea I. method.';, see Analytical Quality Control L>La t o:" «f=; i; I.
A;):. I
r:.i( ¦
I'>"1
' i .i IA,»i'i I ,
r.ty Sai.;;> Un^ ami Ana lytle.al.
n;; tin- I) i;:p'.i::a t o.p l.'ivdj'/.Ml
R»:j; i on ! X, Et. v i.ri>i!uta 1
tm, !:!i,
• -V-'
B-27
-------
pacific E:;viKo:;::!.'.iTAi. lalojiatory
637 Howard Street., S.tii I'ra:.-.:iscu 94105
I'houc 307-6005
r,<*coi v-'J / J.2/ 7 :j
Ij'-J
Kr;i-o;.-C Oi- COW. kVTPLK Al.'ATA'SKS
' '
f0x R. c. ilAi:I.AN AND ASSOCIATES REPORT TO *• C. IIAKIA'I
ADDRESS SUITE API, 55 KEW KOSTCOMKKY STREEf. SAM FRANCISCO, CA. 9-'.X05
LAB !10. 752564
SOURCE OF SAMPLE: _E9=5 M"6
South Bay Dischargers Authority
TREATMENT:
DATE COLLECTED:
HKE COLLKCTED:
Collected by: R. C. Harlan and Associates
Units
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Particle Size Greater
l' an U.S. Sieve Sizo No. 200
% (1)
<1.0
<1.0
Mercury (Ifg) (2)
Mg/Kgm (1)
0.091
0.093
Cadmium (Cd) (3)
Mg/Kgm (1)
<1.6
<1.8
f.ead (Pb) (3)
Mg/Kgm (1)
8.2
9.2
Zinc (Zn) (3)
Mn/Kgm (1)
80.5
82.0 .
Oil <-!nd Croose
Mg/Kym (1)
200 ¦
490
'OJME^TS: (0 Oven Dry VAu^hc 15n«;ir.
(2) Aii.-iV y !i ir, by i'J ALo:.Ac Ab ".0 ip I i o:\ ^y-"¦ c •_ r >p1. i--C LC! r
(3) An.ilyLir, by Atomic Ab?;orpL ion Sprct
(4) For analytical n.efhnd.^, sc-e nalyii i:;:I ^ualiiv Control
Anal y:; iby: 'M'rel i i-t i im ry f>n:: p 1J :i|; .m
-------
Appendix C
MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY
From HYDROSCIENCE, Inc.
-------
-.VALUATION Or DISCHARGE ALTERNATIVES
FOR SOUTH BAY DISCHARGERS AUTHORITY
IIvdfoscience , Tnc .
December 1975
HYDROSCIENCE, INC.
^oM(t/lanl< tit 0$)al*r ulluhtm (Sortlrol
Jtol OLD HOCK fiOAD
VtSTWCOO, JfiftSCY 07675
201 M4-2600
ooNAto j occiMNOft January 19, 1976 ^"w,a'"
EDWIN L BABNHART JOHN P. ST. JOHN
JOHN L. MANONI ftOMflT V. TWOMANN
J MULLIGAN CuGCNE 0 Oft 14 COLL
Mr. John Peterson
Bechtel Corporation
P.O. Box 3 96 f>
San Francisco, California 94119
Re: Evaluation of Discharge Alternatives - South Day
Dischargers Authority
Dear Mr. Peterson:
We are pleased to submit herewith our report entitled,
"Evaluation of Discharge Alternatives for South Bay Dischargers
Authority*.
This report summarizes work which was accomplished to
evaluate the impacts of alternative wastewater effluent
discharge plans on water quality in South San Francisco Bay
and the contiguous waters of small tidal creeks and sloughs.
The principal conclusion of this study is summarized as
follows:
1. Dissolved oxygen water quality in South San Francisco
Bay and the contiguous sloughs is presently below
standards. The areas most affected by this condition
are the small tidal sloughs where the combined effects
of municipal treatment plant loads and largely
uncontrollable background loads dominate water quality.
2. Reductions of wastewater loadings through increased
treatment# will improve water quality in the South San
Francisco Bay region for all of the discharge alternatives
considered in this study. These include the No Action
alternative, the Nearest Deep Water Discharge alternative
and the Disposal Point 31 alternative.
A DivUion of Hy4vo»ci«nc« A«»ociot«>. Inc.
C-l
-------
January 19, 1976
Page 2
3. Further improvements in dissolved oxygen and relative
toxicity water quality will be realized by relocation
of the South Bay dischargers to the Nearest Deep Water
Discharge or to Disposal Point 31. However, water
quality in the immediate vicinity of such relocated
dischargers will be marginal in terms of compliance
with water quality standards for dissolved oxygen.
4. The potentially beneficial effects of removing major
wastewater dischargers from Artesian and Guadalupe
sloughs are minimized by the removal of substantial
flushing flow (i.e., effluent flow) from these sloughs.
The water quality in the sloughs is apparently dominated
by background loads within those sloughs and for this
reason is not expected to improve markedly under alternative
management plans.
5. Since no single discharge alternate provides total
compliance with either the dissolved oxygen standards
or the relative toxicity guideline, the merits of
alternative programs can be related to water use enhancement
associated with each alternate. The analysis presented
in this report provides the groundwork for such water
quality management decisions.
May we express our appreciation to you and Ms. Carol
Harper of your staff for your cooperation and assistance.
The contributions of Mrs. Patricia Xehrberger and Mr. Mitchell
Small of our engineering staff and Miss Kathleen Whartenby
are also gratefully acknowledged.
Respectfully submitted. Respectfully submitted,
H¥9$C^SCIENCEINjZ/.' , HYDROSCIENCE, INC.; (
/ | v -4- '
pyt
Daniel S. Sztfmski, P.E. John P. St. John, P.E.
DSS/JPSJ/kfw
Attachment
C-2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Number
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. Study Objectives 1
B. Description of Alternatives 1
C. Previous Studies 2
II. WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES 4
1. Dissolved Oxygen 4
2. Toxicity 6
1. Evaluation of Water Quality
Control Features 6
2. Evaluation of Wastewater
Characteristics 7
3. Determination of Dominant
Toxicant 7
III. MODEL EXTENSION AND VERIFICATION 9
A. Basis of Mathematical Model 9
B. Description of San Francisco Bay
Model - 1972 10
1. Geometry 10
2. Transport Mechanisms 10
3. Kinetic Systems 12
4. Verification 12
C. Extension and Update of the 1972 Model
for the Present Study 12
1. Recent Data 12
2. Model Refinements for the Present
Study 13
D. Model Re-Verification 14
1. Verification Analysis - Conservative
Substances 30
2. Verification Analysis - Reactive
Substance 36
E. Dissolved Oxygen Deficit 43
IV. MODEL PROJECTIONS 61
A. Dissolved Oxygen Analysis 61
1. Management Alternatives 61
2. Unit Response Analysis 66
3. Other Factors Influencing Dissolved
Oxygen Concentration 67
4. Dissolved Oxygen Saturation 69
5. Projected Mean Dissolved Oxygen
Concentration 69
6. Lower Ninety Percentile Dissolved
Oxygen Concentration 70
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
IV. MODEL PROJECTIONS
B. Relative Toxicity Analysis
1. Basis of Analyses
2. Toxicity from South Bay Discharges
V. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
A. Dissolved Oxygen Concentration
Projections 78
B. Relative Toxicity Concentration
Projections 107
C. Chloride Concentration Projections 125
CONCLUSIONS 132
1. General 132
2. Relative Toxicity Concentration 135
3. Chloride Concentrations 136
Page
Number
74
74
76
APPENDICES
A. RESULTS OF JUNE 1967
VERIFICATION ANALYSIS
B. TABULAR RESULTS OF UNIT RESPONSE
ANALYSIS
C. TABULAR RESULTS OF DISSOLVED
OXYGEN PROJECTION ANALYSIS
D. SUMMARY FIGURES OF DISSOLVED
OXYGEN PROJECTION ANALYSIS
REFERENCES
I. INTRODUCTION
A_. Study Objective
Proposed plans of the South Bay Discharger Authority call
for the construction of pipeline and a subaqueous outfall to
convey treated municipal wastewater effluents from their
present locations to a deep water discharge location in
lower San Francisco Bay, In this regard, Bechtel Corporation
is preparing an environmental impact statement to assess the
environmental effects of alternative wastewater management
plans. The present study is a supporting document to the
environmental impact statement, and is directed toward
definition of the water quality impacts of alternative
programs considered in the environmental impact analysis.
Toward this end, this study utilizes water quality modeling
analyses to compare the water quality responses for each
alternate, to water quality standards and other guidelines.
The South Bay Dischargers which are the subject of the
present study consist of three municipal treatment facilities
San Jose/Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and Palo Alto. The present
Milpitas flow will be diverted to the San Jose/Santa Clara
plant. Three other dischargers who were formerly part of
the South Bay Dischargers Authority have left the group,
since the last study of the region's needs was completed in
1972. The Union Sanitary District and Livermore have joined
the Easy Bay Dischargers, while Menlo Park has joined the
South Bayside Dischargers. These dischargers are included
in the present study in the category of "other dischargers,"
B. Description of Alternatives
The four management alternatives considered in this study
are:
1. No project. The South Bay Group discharge at their
present disposal locations: San Jose/Santa Clara into
Artesian Slough; Sunnyvale into Guadalupe Slough; and
Palo Alto into Mayfield Slough. "No project" refers to
no new conveyances for treated wastewater.
-------
2. Nearest deepwater disposal. Sunnyvale and San Jose/Santa
Clara combine and discharge in the channel off Calaveras
Point; Palo Alto discharges into the main channel
approximately halfway between Calaveras Point and
Dumbarton Bridge.
3. Disposal Point 31 (DP 31) - The combined San Jose/Santa
Clara, Sunnyvale, and Palo Alto effluents are discharged
at DP 31. This refers to a discharge location north of
the Dumbarton Bridge, which was recommended as the
disposal site for all south Bay Dischargers wastewater
in the Consoer-Bechtel 1972 report.
4. No project, with San Jose/Santa Clara upgraded. This
alternative is the same as number 1, except that San
Jose/Santa Clara provides additional treatment to
reduce its effluent ultimate oxygen demand.
Figure 1 is a map of the study area that shows the present
discharger locations south of Dumbarton Bridge.
C. Previous Studies
Studies that were performed by Hydroscience. Inc., for
Consoer, Townsend. and Associates in 1968 , and for Consoer-
Bechtel in 1972 , served as the basis for the present
study. Both of those studies concluded that calculated
assimilation capacities decreased significantly south of
Dumbarton Bridge. A recent change in water quality objectives
(since 1972), and the need to consider disposal at present
discharge locations for some of the alternatives in the
present study necessitated a refinement of the South Bay
Water Quality Model that was developed during the Consoer-
Bechtel study. Additional analyses of observed water quality
data and wastewater treatment plant data, provided information
pertinent to updating and reverification of this model.
C-4
SAN MATEO
m
NOTE
^-discharge location
SAN JOSE
SANTA ClARAT
FIGURE !
LOCATION PLAN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY
-------
II. WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES
The Regional Water Quality Control Board has established
water quality objectives for San Francisco Bay Basin 2, The
receiving waters for the wastewater management alternatives
examined in this report are within Basin 2, and as such must
conform to the following water quality standards:
"Surface Water Quality Objectives for all waters inland from
the Golden Gate -
1. Dissolved Oxygen
For ail tidal waters, the following objectives shall
apply:
In the Bay downstream of Carquines Bridge 5.0 mg/1
minimum
Upstream from Carquinez Bridge 7.0 mg/1
minimum
For nontidal waters, the following objectives shall
apply:
Waters designated as cold water habitat 7.0 mg/1
minimum
Waters designated as warm water habitat 5.0 mg/1
minimum
Areas of Special Biological Significance shall be maintained
at a level of protection consistent with natural undegraded
conditions uninfluenced by any controllable water quality
factor. Where natural factors cause lower concentrations,
controllable water quality factors shall not cause further
reduction."
"All waters designated as aquatic life habitat shall be
maintained at Maintenance Level B, unless otherwise designated.
In addition to these limiting numerical objectives, the
lower ten percentile dissolved oxygen concentration value
shall be determined as a function of dissolved oxygen content
at saturation, in accordance with Figure 2 ."
The absolute minimum D.O. for the study area is 5.0 mg/1 and
the objective is Level B as shown on Figure 2 .
MAINTENANCE LEVELS
NATURAL UNDEGRADED CONDITION, A
PROPOSED LEVEL OF PROTECTION, B
INTERIM CONDITION, C
MINIMUM DISSOLVED OXYGEN
CONCENTRATION UPSTREAM
FROM CARQUINEZ BRIDGEs
A8S0LUTE MINIMUM DISSOLVED
OXYGEN CONCENTRATION 5mg/i "
O
o
1 0 2 <\ 6 8 10 12 14
SATURATED DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATION t MG/L
Figure 2 Lower Ninety Percentile Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
C-5
-------
2. Toxicity
"No substance attributable to controllable water quality
factors shall be present in waters in concentrations or
combinations which are toxic to or which produce detrimental
physiological responses in humans, plants, animals or indigenous
aquatic life or which create undesirable tastes or odors in
organisms utilized for human consumption."
The RWQCB presents a methodology by which toxicity can be
used in plan evaluation while, "not considered appropriate
as a water quality objective having legal stature and narrow
numerical definition."
"The planning approach utilized the concept of toxicity
emission rates as defined by the project of effluent flow
(mgd) and the effluent toxicity in terms of toxic units
(tu). Effluent characteristics including toxic emissions
from all discharges to the receiving water segment were used
to compute receiving water concentrations. The toxicity
concentration (Tc) may be computed as:
Tc " TL50 (96 hr)t
and expressed in toxic units. Where the effluent fails to
exhibit a TL5Q (i.e., 96-hour survival of test organisms
exceeds 50 percent in the effluent) the effluent was assumed
to have a Tc of one toxic unit unless there existed a rational
basis for further reduction. Reductions were considered for
wastes where the type and concentration of the toxicant can
be readily identified and measured. The procedure for
reduction of assumed effluent toxicity concentration below
one toxic unit was based on the following three step evaluation
procedure:
1. Evaluation of Water Quality Control Features
Indications that the discharger could effect a source
control and monitoring program relative to toxicants
and could construct treatment processes which would
remove toxicants expected in that particular wastewater.
C-6
2. Evaluation of Wastewater Characteristics
Demonstration that the effluent consistently results in
a bioassay survival greater than 50 percent (i.e., TLc0
100 percent) and that the wastewater components substantiate
a Tc value lower than unit based on the following
relationships:
Where survival (S) of large numbers of test fish
was less than 95 percent in a 96-hour bioassay, the
following empirical relationship was assumed to apply:
log (100-S)
iC " 1,7
Where survival of large numbers of test fish was
greater than 95 percent, the above expression was not
deemed valid, and the following relationship appeared
useful:
(Ca
Tc =
50a TL50h TL50
b n
where C , c, , and C are the concentrations of water
qualityafactors kno$n to exhibit toxic responses in
receiving waters such as lead, copper, zinc, cadmium,
chromium, mercury, cyanide, ammonia, phenol, MBAS,
chlorine and pesticides. TLcq values were established
for each potential toxicant Identified in composite
samples of the wastewater effluent. This expression,
however, neglects the effects of synergism and threshold
detoxification capability of organisms, and can be
significantly in error in some cases.
3. Determination of Dominant Toxicant
Identification of dominant toxicants based on step 2
above and determination of the nature of these materials
in the receiving waters; where degradable materials
such as ammonia/ phenol or cyanide are dominant the
assignment of reduced T was more liberal than for
wastewaters exhibiting dominant toxicants having
biomagnification properties such as mercury, cadmium or
pesticides."
-------
Table 1 gives the maximum allowable toxicity concentrations
for alternative levels of water quality maintenance, and
three biotic sensitivity classes. The estuarine waters in
the study area are considered to be of average sensitivity
and subject to Class B Maintainance Level.
TABLE 1
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR PESTICIDES AND
INSECTICIDES IN FRESH AND SALT WATER HABITATS
Sensitivity Class
Maintenance
Level High Average Low
A * * *
B 0.03 0.04 0.05
C 0.06 0.08 0.10
*No discharge permitted to areas designated A.
III. MODEL EXTENSION AND VERIFICATION
A mathematical model was applied to determine the environmental
effects of alternative effluent disposal practices that have
been proposed for the South Bay dischargers. The mathematical
model employed to describe water quality effects in the
study area expresses the concentration of quality variables
in terms of their steady state distribution. Steady state
describes a condition in which the system has achieved
equilibrium with its surroundings. Under this circumstance,
the water quality characteristics in a region are considered
to be constant.
A true steady state is seldom observed in tidal estuaries
such as San Francisco Bay, because of constant changes in
tidal and non-tidal transport. Steady state conditions
which are demonstrated in the model are, therefore, average
conditions that represent either inter-tidal or long-term
mean distributions, depending upon the time required for the
transport system under consideration to achieve equilibrium.
A. Basis of the Mathematical Model
The steady state model is constructed by expressing the
concentration of a substance# c, in terms of a two-
dimensional mass balance equation, which is given as:
|c(x,y, „ 0 = - .A(cDx) - iftsy + [JtEjf) ] +[^(Ey|f) ] - KC ± Cw (III-
U ,U = the advective flow in the x and y coordinate
y
directions
E ,E s the two-dimensional dispersion characteristics
x ^ of the system
K as first order decay rate, associated with
substance, c
C = external sources and sinks of material, c
-------
The equation is constrained by boundary conditions at the
limits of the study area.
An appropriate method of solving Equation <111—1> is a
finite segment approximation. With this solution technique,
the study area is divided into a system of n interconnected
volumes. The size and distribution of the volumes, as well
as the transport mechanism between them, reflect the data
collected on the physical characteristics of the study area.
Equation (III-l) is then expressed as a series of n mass
balance equations, describing the mass transfer kinetics
around each of the volumes in terms of loading, reaction
kinetics, and advective and dispersive transport. In total,
these equations can be used to describe the response of the
system to the introduction of materials from external sources,
such as treated wastewater effluent. A more complete
description of the theoretical development of the steady
state model is contained in Reference (2) .
8. Description of San Francisco Bay Model - 1972
1. Geometry
Figure 3 shows the 1972 segmentation of the Bay system. The
ninety-seven segments extend from the confluence of Coyote
Creek and Artesian Slough northward to the Golden Gate and
Point Richmond. The geometry of the segments represents
mean tide conditions. Sloughs and discharge channels were
not included in this model.
2. Transport Mechanisms
Mass transport in the model occurs through advective transport
and dispersion. The presence of a significant inter-tidal
circulation pattern, observed/ and predicted by other
investigators, in the area between Dumbarton Bridge and
Oakland Bay Bridge was further supported in the 1972 report,
and is included in the model.
South of Dumbarton Bridge, the major advective transport is
the wastewater discharge. Dispersive transport in this area
was assigned from analysis of conservative variables.
f'9-c 1. \9?7 Morfef
-------
Other transport factors included in the model wore .Sacramonto-
San Joaquin Delta outflows, and evaporation and precipitation
estimates, where appropriate.
3- Kinetic Systems
The model is appropriate for both conservative and first
order reactive water quality parameters. Conservative
variables are those which are chemically and biologically
non-reactive, such as chlorides, or slowly reactive, such as
silica and relative toxicity. Examples of single system
reactive variables are coliform organisms, BOD, and ammonia
nitrogen. Dissolved oxygen is a coupled system variable,
that is; in addition to responding to direct sources and
sinks of oxygen, it also responds to oxidation of carbonaceous
and nitrogenous BOD.
All reaction rate coefficients are temperature corrected
within the model.
4. Verification
The mathematical model developed in 1972 was successfully
verified with March 1968 chloride data, Summer 1960-64
silica data, Summer 1960-64 coliform organisms, and dissolved
oxygen data for the following periods: Summer 1960-64, March
1968, June 1967, and August 1967. Detailed presentations of
the verification procedure and comparisons of calculated
distributions with observed data are contained in Appendix B
of the Consoer-Bechtel Report, Reference (2).
C. Extension and Update of the 1972 Model For The Present Study
1) Recent Data
Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations require
that each discharger to San Francisco Bay maintain treatment
plant records and monitor receiving water quality in the
vicinity of its discharge. The following is a summary of
the self-monitoring data that was reviewed by Mydroscience,
Inc., during this study:
(tj) san Jose/Santa Clara
San Jose monitors receiving water at nine stations
between its discharge and Calaveras Point. The stations
are sampled (during high and low tides) once per week
from July 1st through October 3lst, and twice per month
from November 1st through June 30th. The measurements
include temperature, dissolved oxygen, dissolved sulfide,
pH, and secchi disc. Also available are daily plant
records of flow, BOD, and suspended solids, and the
results of bioassay tests conducted weekly from January
1973 through September 1975, on pre-chlorinated and
post-chlorinated effluent.
(b) Sunnyvale
Sunnyvale monitors two receiving water stations.
Annual reports give monthly maximum, average, and
minimum values of dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature,
ammonia nitrogen, nitrate nitogen, total organic
nitrogen, phosphate, and B0Dr loadings. Some bioassay
results are also available. J
(c) Palo Alto
Measurements of the treatment plant flow, BOD, suspended
matter, grease, and some bioassay data are available.
2) Model Refinements for the Present Study
The water quality model shown in Figure 3 was expanded in
the area south of Dumbarton Bridge to include the major
sloughs. A summary of these modifications follows:
(a) Coyote Creek from the Milpitas outfall to the confluence
with Artesian Slough; approximately four miles, Segments
98-102;
(b) Artesian Slough from the San Jose discharge to its
confluence with Coyote Creek; approximately 2.5 miles,
Segments 103-112?
(c) Mud Slough upstream from the Union Irvington Plant
discharge to its confluence with Coyote Creek; approximately
2.5 miles, Segments 113-117;
C-9
-------
(d) Alviso Slough from the city of Alviso to its confluence
with Coyote Creek; approximately four miles, Segments
118-120;
(e) Guadalupe Slough from a gaging station about 1.5 miles
upstream of the Sunnyvale discharge to Coyote Creek;
approximately seven miles, Segments 121-125;
(f) Mowry Slough from Mowry Landing to its mouth; approximately
seven miles, Segments 126-128;
(g) Newark Slough from Mayhews Landing, 4.5 miles upstream
of the Union Newark Plant discharge to its mouth;
approximately six miles, Segments 129-134;
(h) Mayfield Slough from the Palo Alto discharge to the
main water body; approximately 2.5 miles, Segments 135-
139;
(i) Un-named Slough near Mayfield Slough; approximately 1.5
miles upstream from its mouth, Segments 140-141.
These modifications were necessary to analyze the effects of
wastewater discharges and their relocation on water quality
in the sloughs. The geometry of the tributary sloughs and
creeks was obtained from U.S.G.S. maps of the area and data
which was provided by Bechtel Corp. The sloughs were segmented
in accordance with observed water quality gradients and
discharge locations. Figure 4 shows the refined model
segmentation and the presents and proposed effluent disposal
locations. Tables 2 through 4 present the system geometry
and dispersion characteristics of the South Bay Model.
Table 2 indicates the dispersion coefficients and cross-
sectional areas for each segment interface. The mixing
lengths for each interface are measured perpendicular to
the interface. Table 3 presents the mean tide volume of
each segment. Table 4 presents the mean tide depths.
D. Model Re-Verification
The extended, steady state model of South San Francisco Bay
was verified against water quality data collected during
three periods. Two of these periods, the summer of 1960-
C-io
UJ
o
UJ
o
o
2
>-
<
CD
o
O
CO
uj ce
a, u-
=> 2
O <
UJ
a.
-------
table 2 -
XODEL CHARACTERISTICS
CROSS
DISPERSION SECTIONAL
COEFFICIENT
AREA
length
LENGTH
INTERFACE
(S3 MI/OAT)
<101)00 S3 FT)
(100 FT)
(100 FT)
1.
2.
0.50
0.05500
39.0
32.0
2".
3.
0.50
0.07500
32.0
30.0
3.
4.
0.50
n.14489
30.0
36.0
4.
5.
0.50
0.17495
36.0
33.0
5.
6.
0.50
0,23610
33.0
37.0
6 •
7,
0.75
0.22120
37.0
29.0
7.
0.
0.75
0.46458
29.0
21.0
8.
10.
1.00
0.14135
21.0
36.0
9,
10.
0.50
0.70934
33.0
36.0
9.
11.
1.00
0.29883
33.0
30.0
10.
12.
1.00
0,27705
36.0
36.0
U.
12.
0.50
1,09089
30.0
36.0
11.
14.
1.00
0.31299
30.0
50.0
12.
15.
1.00
0,59596
36.0
60.0
13.
14.
0.50
0.97262
48.0
50.0
13.
16.
1.75
0.56557
48.0
28.0
14.
15.
0.50
0.73809
50.0
60.0
14.
17.
1.75
0.53635
50.0
19,0
15.
18.
1.75
0,53954
60.0
13.0
16.
17.
0.50
0,40943
28.0
19.0
16.
19.
1.75
0.47739
28.0
32.0
17.
20.
1.75
0,47544
19.0
31.0
17.
IS.
0.50
0.23278
19.0
13.0
IB.
21.
1.75
3,Q44B7
13.0
23.0
19.
20.
0.50
0 * 772*14
32.0
31.0
19.
22.
1.75
0,55785
32.0
33 « 0
20.
21.
0.50
0.5900ft
31.0
23.0
20.
23.
1.75
0,45298
31.0
33.0
PI.
24.
1.75
0.29335
23.0
33,0
22.
23.
0.50
0,34338
33.0
33,0
23.
24.
0.50
0.871*5
33.0
33.0
23.
26.
1.75
0.63246
33.0
31.0
*4.
27.
1.75
0,10055
33.0
31.0
25.
26.
0.50
1.40080
31.0
31.0
26.
27.
0.50
0 ~ 90350
31,0
31,0
26.
28.
1.75
1,14200
31.0
25.0
28,
29,
1.75
1,05000
25.0
50,0
29.
31,
1,75
0,89063
50,0
54.0
30.
31,
1,00
1,21775
54.0
54.0
30,
33,
0,16
0.24636
54,0
50.0
TABLE 2 .
"IOOEL CHARACTERISTICS
CROSS
DISPERSION
sectional
COEFFICIENT
AREA
length
LENGTH
'NTFSFACE
(S3 *I/DAT)
(10000 S3 FT)
(100 FT)
(100 FT)
30.
34.
1.30
0.18242
54.0
48.0
31.
32.
o. m
1,04475
54.0
40.0
31.
35.
1.00
1.06175
54.0
48.0
32.
36.
0.36
0.39170
40.0
45.0
33.
37.
0.17
0.25337
50.0
51,0
33.
34.
0.17
0.44630
50.0
48,0
34.
38.
0.17
0.31915
48.0
50.0
34.
35.
0.21
1.26452
48.0
48.0
35.
39.
0.48
1.09527
48.0
51.0
35.
36.
0.10
1,25677
48.0
45.0
36.
40.
0.47
0.60166
45.0
53.0
37.
41.
0.17
0.30117
51.0
41.0
37.
38.
0.10
0.50045
51.0
50.0
38.
39.
0.10
0.99885
50.0
51.0
38.
42.
0.17
0.50670
50.0
50.0
39.
40.
0.10
1.21558
51.0
53.0
39.
43.
0.4B
1.03786
51.0
54.0
40.
44.
0.47
0.51404
53.0
52,0
41.
42.
0.10
0.39075
41.0
50.0
*1.
45.
0.17
0.34255
50.0
47.0
42.
43.
0.10
1,21520
50.0
54.0
42.
46.
0.17
0.66545
50.0
53,0
43.
44.
0.10
1,23112
54,0
52,0
*3.
47.
0.48
1.19612
54,0
56,0
44.
46.
0.47
0,39703
52.0
54,0
45.
46.
0.12
0.46912
47,0
53,0
45.
49.
0.25
0.41338
47,0
42, P
46.
47.
0.09
1.36319
53,0
56,0
49.
53.
0.21
0.57967
42,0
58,0
47.
48.
0*10
1.26795
56,0
54,0
47.
51.
0.45
1.72788
56,0
60,0
48.
52,
0.44
0.33285
54.0
60,0
49.
50.
0.10
0.37568
42.0
50,0
46.
50.
0.23
0,73583
53,0
50,0
50.
51.
0.09
1.35997
50.0
60,0
50.
54.
0.22
0.91610
50,0
63 • 0
51,
52,
0.09
1.26499
60,0
60,0
51,
55,
0.44
1.88217
60,0
79,0
52.
56,
0,44
0.40777
60,0
83,0
53.
54.
0.36
0,54258
58,0
63,0
c-u
-------
TA3LE 2 - MODEL CHARACTERISTICS
CROSS
dispersion
sectional
COEFFICIENT
AREA
LENGTH
LENGTH
interface
ISO HI/DAV)
UOOOO S3 FT)
flOO FT)
(100 FT)
53.
^7.
0.27
0.72000
58.0
90.0
54.
55.
0.10
1.92488
65*0
79.0
54.
58.
0.27
1.07500
63.0
69.0
55.
56.
0.10
2.40865
79.0
83.0
55.
59.
0.45
2*12055
79.0
66.0
56.
60.
0.44
0 «33075
83. 0
69.0
57.
58.
0.27
0.61044
90.0
69.0
57.
61.
0. 34
1*13010
90. 0
88.0
58.
59.
0.02
1.25734
69.0
66.0
SB.
62.
0,36
0.94687
69.0
66.0
59.
60.
o.m
1.34030
66*0
69.0
59.
63.
0. 4H
1.83698
66,0
63.0
60.
64.
0, 44
0.42197
69.0
69.0
61.
62.
0.25
0.56311
88.0
66.0
61.
63 *
0.26
0.B7227
30.0
74.0
6?.
63.
0.02
1.37942
66.0
63.0
62.
66.
0.45
1.20051
66.0
B7.0
63.
64.
0.14
1 .49499
63.0
69.0
63.
67.
0.45
1.77288
63.0
103.0
• 64.
68.
0.31
0.75391
69.0
112.0
65.
66.
0.37
0.90202
7H.0
87.0
65.
69.
0.3ft
2.38311
74. 0
54.0
66.
67.
0.03
2.11901
87.0
103.0
66.
70.
0.36
1.33474
87.0
61.0
67.
68.
0.01
2.60477
103.0
112*0
67.
71.
0.48
2.53638
103.0
69.0
63.
72.
0.18
1.62475
112.0
135.0
69.
73.
0. 38
2.70766
54.0
114.0
69.
70.
0.34
0.78694
54.0
61.0
70.
71*
0.04
1.33529
61.0
69.0
70.
74.
0.46
0.73860
61.0
133*0
71.
. 72.
0.42
1.64491
69.0
135.0
71.
75.
0.45
3.72774
69.0
135.0
72.
75.
0.41
2.90699
135.0
135.0
73.
f4.
0.40
2.42868
114.0
133.0
73.
?6.
0.40
1.35027
114.0
105.0
71.
75.
0.09
3.59447
133.0
135.0
74.
77.
0.52
3.24074
133.0
150.0
75.
78.
0.33
5.08949
135.0
192.0
76.
77.
1.87
3*03922
105.0
150.0
C-12
TA3LC 2
- MDDEL CHARACTERISTICS
DISPERSION
SECTIONAL
COEFFICIENT
a«ea
length
LENGTH
interface
(S3 MI/TAY)
(10000 S3 FT)
<100 FT)
C100 FT)
76.
80.
2.33
1.80157
105.0
120.0
77.
78.
0.41
5.76787
150.0
192.0
77.
81.
3.1?
2.08106
150.0
110.0
7S.
79.
0 .30
5.153&4
192.0
51.0
78.
32.
2.31
3.9Q529
192.0
120.0
AO.
81.
1.B3
3.6&8B4
120.0
110.0
81 .
82.
0.85
6.15144
110.0
120.0
fll.
83.
2.59
2. 70826
110.0
50.0
82.
84.
4,23
4.95600
120.0
50.0
83.
84.
0 ,84
2,71100
50.0
50.0
B3.
85,
2,58
2.00000
50.0
50.0
B4 .
»6.
5,00
4, 0 0 0 0 0
50.0
so. n
65.
86.
3.60
2.71100
50.0
50.0
A5.
86.
2,29
3.36340
50.0
66.6
86.
89.
5,00
3.19400
50.0
86.8
87.
8R.
0,50
1,65000
176.0
66.8
*7.
90.
0.25
1,17000
176.0
167.0
88.
91.
5.00
0,91200
66*8
80.4
89.
92.
5.00
6.02000
86.8
113.0
90.
91.
0.15
0.67100
167.0
BO.4
90.
95.
0.13
1.24000
167.0
147.0
91.
92.
5.00
1.99000
80.4
113.0
91.
95.
5.00
1.11000
90.4
147.0
92.
93.
5,00
113.0
160.0
92.
95.
5,00
4.35000
113.0
147,0
93,
94,
5,00
160.0
46.7
93.
96.
5.00
3.78000
160.0
113.0
93.
97.
0,13
9.35000
160.0
174.0
94 .
0.
5,00
46.7
<*6.7
95.
96.
5,00
2.78000
147.0
113.(1
95.
0.
5.00
4.02000
147.0
147.0
96.
0.
5.00
3.48000
113.0
113.0
3.
9.
0.50
0.14135
21.0
33.0
22.
25.
1,00
0. 10055
33.0
31.0
99.
99.
0.20
o.onoso
42.0
42.0
•¦?9.
1 00.
0.30
0.00124
42.0
42.0
l no.
1 01.
0.30
0.00657
42.0
42.0
101.
1 02.
0.40
0.00894
42.0
42.0
10?.
1.
0.50
0.01400
42.0
39,0
103 .
1 04.
0.20
0, 00075
14.5
14,5
-------
TABLE 2 -
"IOOEL CHMUCTESIST1CS
DISPERSION SECTIONAL
COEFFICIENT
AREA
LENGTH
LENGTH
IMTFT^FACE
(S3 MI/DAV)
(10000 S3 FT)
(100 FT)
<100 FT)
104.
105.
0.20
0.D0069
14.5
14.5
3 0 5.
106,
0.30
0.0024 9
14*5
14.5
10 6..
107,
0 .30
0.00700
14.5
14.5
107.
106.
0.40
o.oiooo
14.5
14.5
3 13,
109.
0.40
0.01125
14.5
14.5
109.
110.
0.40
0.01250
14.5
14.5
110,
111.
0.40
0.01375
14.5
14.5
111,
112.
0.40
0.02113
14.5
14.5
U?.
1,
0,50
0.02600
14*5
15.0
113.
114.
0*40
0.00275
25.0
25.0
114.
115.
0, 4f
0.00825
25.0
25.0
3 1?.
116.
0.50
0.01950
25.0
25.0
11&.
117.
0*50
0.02975
25.0
25.0
117.
3.
0.50
0.03150
25.0
30.0
lie.
119.
0.25
0.02000
70.0
70.0
119.
120.
0.35
0•0403ft
70.0
70.0
130.
6.
0.50
0.05500
70.0
28.0
121.
122.
0.20
0.01200
76.0
60.0
122.
123.
0 • 30
0.01875
60.0
68.0
1 ?3.
124.
0.30
0.02750
68.0
68.0
124.
125.
o.4o
0»01*063
68.0
68.0
125.
0.
0.50
0.04400
68.0
29.0
126.
127.
0.40
0.00550
120.0
120.0
1 ?7.
12B.
0.70
0.02335
120.0
120*0
128.
16.
l.on
0.04000
120.0
36.0
129.
130.
0.20
0.00149
60.0
60*0
130.
13l.
0.40
0.003B0
60,0
60.0
131.
132.
0.40
0.00640
60.0
60.0
13?.
133.
0.60
0.01069
60«0
35.0
134,
0.00
0.02113
35.0
30.0
134.
22.
1.00
0.03000
30.0
33.0
135.
136.
0.70
0.06500
25*0
25.0
136*
137.
0.70
0.07763
25.0
25.0
137.
130.
0.80
0.10075
25.0
25.0
138.
139.
0.90
0.13500
25.0
25*0
7 39.
27.
1.00
0.15750
25.0
10.0
1U0.
m.
0.50
0.04250
4 0.0
40.0
141,
15 *
1.00
0.06500
40*0
40.0
T^Lf 3 - StT.MFMl VOLUMES ( "ILLIONJ :J^TC F tlE T )
^EGMrNT
V3LU^E
1,
21.50
?.
24. 00
3.
25.93
4.
42.69
5.
73.73
fi.
91.06
7.
64.94
133.91
9.
111.26
10.
77.17
11.
81. 33
1?.
200.52
1?.
177.83
1*.
170.52
15.
197.96
16.
30.97
17.
20.67
18.
36.08
1*.
70.05
20.
114.95
21.
41.OB
22.
144.05
23.
119.36
24.
83.55
?5.
*6.53
26.
172.94
?7.
15.37
28.
247.35
29.
363.93
30.
109.54
31.
348.49
32.
32.09
33.
SO. 3?
34.
94.24
35.
417.23
36.
168.60
37.
129.16
3*.
116.41
39.
335.5?
C-13
-------
T(VRLr 3 - <:rr,-«r\ir vdliiwes ( hilli""' r-mc fee:t )
srr,.rMT
',u'
nw
sn.^
II'
ll' "7
Jp' 170.46
I* l*"-"
" • ?49. 57
1B7.19
*>• 1»6.07
"* SSS.19
130.?X
„• 1137.59
"• J67.97
„* 5(10.77
' 539.79
714-6.97
* • US.56.
"• 919.6S
I1' 211.i7
"• 8«t.J5
174.5)
590.on
902.09
"• 179ft.95
*'• 559.?8
1096.55
™ 515.5«
™- 1799.07
222^.96
2305.03
'?• 1953.06
'I* 4176.22
1496.B7
7B; "76-«
C-14
taRL=- 3 -
«rR«r\|T VDLU«C*
( *ILLI3M :J^IC PECT J
Srf,VrMT
7q.
*0.
*1 .
*3.
Alf.
AK|.
96.
A7.
*fl.
.
90.
91.
92.
9«i.
96,
97,
9B,
Q9.
100.
101.
10?.
103.
1 09 .
i 05,
106,
107,
10*.
109.
110.
111.
312.
IIS.
11«».
115.
lift.
117.
VDL'J^t
r+ii.94
30P0.S3
3021. *9
52BM,?9
1560.00
2990.CO
1560.00
2 » 9 0 ~ 3 0
1090,00
2130.or
5550.00
2790.00
1*30.00
5930.00
lfUOO.OO
6700*00
*500.00
4010.00
970.00
0.17
0.25
0.&1
1.99
6. 50
o.oo
0.13
0.07
0.58
1.t»5
1.45
1. 91
1.B1
2.IB
f .06
0.31
1.13
3.00
7.00
7.9ft
-------
TAHLr 3- srr,yR-\)T VDLLJMrr, ( ^IlLIDN] CJBTC Pf;ET
SPG^rMT VOLUME
B.40
19.60
39.50
5.70
10.50
15.€>0
23.BO
29.90
2.40
12.60
*9.00
0.27
1.68
2.90
4.20
4.91
9. 00
14. S3
17.9P
21. on
2%, 50
39.39
9.90
26,00
table 4 - *fan tide: depths
WEAM
DEPTH
G«rNT
(FT. )
1.
7.70
2.
10.70
3.
0.20
8.7B
?.
11.55
6.
12.20
7.
11.40
A.
13,70
9.
19.20
10.
13.96
U.
29.36
1?.
27.70
13.
13.92
1*.
16.90
15.
12. 70
16.
25.70
17.
19. 70
IB.
6.20
19.
15.70
?0,
30.15
21.
5.36
22.
39.70
23.
34.70
24.
14.91
25.
52.20
26.
39.36
27.
11.70
04.96
?9.
37.50
30.
10.46
31.
32.30
32.
5.44
33.
6.30
34.
12,97
35.
37.58
36.
13.45
37.
6.55
39.
11.51
39.
27.52
uo.
20.70
C-15
-------
4 -
vrAN TIDE DEATHS
41 .
4?.
4*.
41.
45.
46.
17.
4B .
19 .
sn.
51.
52.
53.
54.
56.
60.
61.
62.
f»3 .
61.
66.
£9.
7 0.
76.
77.
70.
79.
ftp.
M£A\J
OtPTH
(FT. )
5.30
11.30
31*17
13. 00
5.38
12.16
33.06
B. 0*
5.68
10 .16
35.76
12.56
7.2*
10.50
m.zt
"* 16.18
5.93
^1* s'35
*5R.
59.
30.02
11.07
6. 80
B. 1»
36.26
8.65
8.57
65. 12.42
33 • 50
"• 11.5"*
6D. 11.21
16.00
27.01
I1- 15,48
11• 11.36
73. ?2<59
"• 23.37
Vs' 11.31
29.11
36.76
7.79
16.12
C-16
4 -
vifAN TIDE DEPTHS
*u.
*2.
P3.
A1.
A5.
ft*.
67.
Aft.
*9.
qO.
*1.
9?.
93.
94.
95.
^6.
97.
9ft.
99.
100.
101.
10?.
1 OS.
1 01.
105.
106.
107.
loe.
101.
no.
111.
112.
11*.
111.
115.
llf.
117.
11*.
119,
1 20,
MCVV
DEPTH
(FT. )
30.33
51.6?
32,39
57.74
^2.39
57.71
10.00
30.00
75.00
10.00
20.00
50.00
70.00
200.00
10.00
120.00
10.00
1.00
1.00
5 . 0 0
6.0 0
7.00
7.on
6.30
5.00
1.00
1.00
I.00
5.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
5.00
6.00
6. 00
7.00
7.00
B. 00
8. 00
II.00
-------
T A 3L£ 4 - >»EAN TIOE DEPTHS
NT
121.
12?.
123.
l?4.
125.
126.
127.
12ft.
129.
130.
131.
13?.
13*.
H4.
13^.
1 3f>.
137.
13?.
1^,
140.
141 .
mean
DE°TH
(FT. }
5. on
7.00
6.00
14.00
11.00
4.00
7.00
10.30
3.0O
4.00
4.00
4.00
5. 00
e.oo
9.00
11.00
12.00
19.00
21.00
7.00
10.00
1964 and .March 1968, were included in the previous verification
analysis . They contain data limited to the main transect
of South San Francisco Bay, from Coyote Creek to the Golden
Gate Bridge. A third period, June 1967, presents a wide
range of data in the area south of the Dumbarton Bridge,
both along the main transect and in many of the sloughs.
1. Verification Analysis - Conservative Substances
The tranport phenomena of the system were verified with
three sets of conservative substance data, one from each of
the periods analyzed.
a) Chloride, March 1968
Data were collected for the Kaiser Bay-Delta study. The
advective flow pattern was generated by combining the basic
circulation pattern with wastewater flows and urban runoff
flows which were routed through the system. The wastewater
flows are listed in Table 5.
The urban runoff flows were estimated from u.S.G.S. data at
gaging stations along Coyote Creek and the Guadalupe River.
The withdrawal and release of water for water supply and
groundwater percolation makes the selection of flows difficult,
but a best estimate was made based on the available flow
records. The urban runoff flows used for this verification
are shown in Table 6.
Evaporation and precipitation on the Bay surface during
March 1968 were essentially equal. The Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta outflow was about 36,000 cfs.
Boundary concentrations of chlorides were established at the
Golden Gate and Point Richmond boundaries. Figure 5 shows
a comparison of the observed chloride data along the main
transect and the calculated chloride distribution. The
agreement between the observations and the expanded model's
response is noted to be good.
C-17
-------
is
<
X
u
I
£
C-18
TABLE 6
URBAN RUNOFF FLOW
March 1948
S9gment Location Flow (cfs)
98
Coyote Creek
9
103
Artesian Slough
9
113
Mud Slough
4.5
1)8
Alviso Slough
9
121
Guadalupe Slough
9
126
Mowry Slough
4.5
129
Newark Slough
4.5
135
Mcyfield Slough
9
140
Unnamed Slough
9
(near Moyfleld Slough)
-------
3" •-«
C o TO
C. 3 »
co c
C. K
c CC
• <
c (/i cr ^
ou »> •
c. ^ c.
« »— >- *
C T C I-
>:
<
z
<
z
5l
^ U
® [T x
5s S
£> I
e.e.cj©ce:fc-cc-©cc;c.c. e.occ.r:rei®o©eeoec:c.e
OOOOCOOOOCi&C-UiOOOCC.C.OC.OCC.C'OC.OCC^.
CCC.COCGOCC,C.CC.C-C.C. C C. O C cc. CCC.CIC/CC «*". c.
CJ O r_ C, C.QC. h C Cl C OCi&tiOC<©eciOCTGCiC'C>COOOG
'J ."5 3 j 3 n 3 3 3 3 1 ^ D 300
n r> z" in = {¦< n r => r> 5 jn z. 4- » .r c /; i r. => J"> 3 r> s r. = r- r. /.
i. 3 * \ ;v n n u C. IT- 3' a, ^ N N ii i /. J"l J J NT> ft, Pu m rt
xjvj
b) Chloride, June 1967
The data utilized for the June 1967 verification were collected
during special studies for the San Jose-Santa Clara Water
Pollution Control Plant.
Wastewater flows were determined from plant records and are
listed in Table 7. Urban runoff flow and precipitation on
the Bay surface was assumed to be zero. An average net
evaporation of seven inches during the month of June was
superimposed on the basic flow pattern. The Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta outflow during this period was 52,800 cfs.
Boundary concentrations of chlorides were estimated at the
Golden Gate and Point Richmond boundaries. Data in the
sloughs indicated that the wastewater was somewhat saline,
and the treatment plant effluent was assumed to have a
chloride concentration of 100 mg/1. The boundary conditions,
however, are the main source of chlorides to the system.
Figures A.1-A.10 in Appendix A show a comparison of the
calculated chloride distribution for the main tansect and
the nine sloughs, with the observed chloride data. Data in
the main transect and in Artesian Slough have been translated
to mean tide position in accordance with the San Jose-Santa
Clara Water Pollution Control Plant Study11'. Data in the
other eight sloughs are shown at the point of sampling. The
indicated translations are developed from tidal state and
channel geometry.
The calculated chloride profile is in good agreement with
the observed data. Transport phenomena in South San Francisco
Bay appears to be well verified for the June 1967 analysis.
Note that the chloride data for Alviso Slough indicate that
some additional flows may have been present.
c) Silica, Summer 1960-1964
The data used were collected during the University of California
Bay Study of 1960-1964. The flow pattern included the basic
circulation, wastewater flows, an average net summer evaporation
of eight inches per month, and a Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta outflow of 5,000 cfs.
-------
<
X
u
g &
| CM ¦— — I
<
£
NplCOO-COOrtlOCO^N » {N~/l{0 0 1 o
O* •— — .
| J
^¦SSS-iEi
>-< §*? JT1: to
£"*? £ *¦' — « *? So"® c 5 ;r c >> o c
o^c 0 o ^ « o 5 ^ o o A o
ui 2
C-20
fastewater flows and silica loads input into the steady
state model were obtained from the University of California
lata and are shown in Tables 8 and 9, respectively. Figure
i provides a comparison of the observed data and the calculated
iistribution on the main transect of South San Francisco
Say.
2. Verification Analysis - Reactive Substance
BOD_, ammonia nitrogen and dissolved oxygen concentrations
werS verified with four sets of data from two periods of
analysis.
a) BQD^, Ammonia, and Dissolved Oxygen Deficit, June 1967
Data collected in the June 1967 special studies for the San
Jose-Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant included
five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD,.) , ammonia {NH--N) ,
and dissolved oxygen concentrations.
BODc and ammonia nitrogen loads were taken from plant records
and are shown in Table 10. The carbonaceous BOD reaction
rate {Kr) and deoxygenation rate (Kd) were assumed to be
0.20 per day at 20*C, and were adjusted for temperature
throughout the system. In the areas adjacent to the San
Jose-Santa Clara, Union Irvington, Sunnyvale# and Union
Newark outfalls, the Kr was increased to account for some
settling of particulate organics.
(1) Effects of Marsh Loads
Preliminary analyses indicated that a source of BOD,, was
not being accounted for by the steady state model inputs,
particularly in a number of the sloughs. The diecrepency is
demonstrated by comparing the originally calculated BOD^
profiles in Alviso Slough and Mowry Slough with the observed
data. This comparison is shown in Figures 7 and 8. In both
cases the observed B0Ds concentrations, ranging from 2 to 5
mg/1, are not adequately represented by the model. Furthermore,
observed levels of ammonia and dissolved oxygen deficit in
these and other areas were not adequately accounted for in
the modeling analysis.
-------
£ 2>
<
X
U
I
OCN 1 O^iO — t NO-OMONNNOOm
rs. — — — - - - co o
-if
o
J
•
z
Lt S
o
gl'
S 8C <2trI.I fi
T^I-i
¦ iu
£ «P $ 4 .1 .1 * i .H A o ^ ££>
^Lv4rjrjPcv,®°NOkCC10'-rv
rNhs|S.|N,K00C0«3000Oi¦" fv
S2°250<^<^c^oorj
S5?S«S^a52-
f T- o
ill
< s
2 ° Ci
_S ^ Q
C UJ S
o « ca
l/l V) UJ
"2 O
O ."t
E 7=
_c rt
u J
l/t (/t l/t
¦H
I *
Q co
J x
° -H
is
1/1 =
111
g ? 8 S 8 S
« o ^ o> t n
£ 8
< * 'c
o "8 .2
o 8 =
- S 8
u
§
£
u
¦8
I |
^ i I
| 3 |
S- o c
5 <5 Ji
C-21
-------
moinmo^oo
o3flN/\ «H <
4-> (S QU
—( U
< v4 O
-h c c
M -O C 3 ee
<3 h q « V)
Q VUliJ Q
3 • O
C >. • C W X
3 (t O 4 * tO
VIZUlVlIAIi!
-22
H-f
iP-
S iJ -
cue
o: t/> »
e o <
o © <
o e i
n1**
o
v.
< -
or a-
©
u
^ *
c.
ru
~-i
>- •
»-» ~*>»
o
*
cr
o o o o o o
CD
O
B O
©
© o © o © ©
o
o o
©
2 K
© o o © e> o
o
© ©
o
M *
• •••••
4 y
a> m
vi -« .j -• u <
r ^ v j
-------
T , . . . T . . . . T . . . . T . . . . T . . . . I. . . . I. . . . I . . . . I
?s.oon
T
I
i't.ono
r
I
?3.noo
7
I
??. no"
T
I
tt
?1.no"
T
I
0
¦¦n.Toti
T
CBSEft/ED (MEAN AND RANGE) I
~
T
iT I
*
i*. non
T
y I£W WA3ER MEASUREMENT j
17,non
T
|I{ HIGH WATER MEASUREMENT \
l fc. n o .i
T
r i
l^.OOO
T
~ MEAN TIDE - TRANSLATED DATA I
tt
1 1 , P c "
T
I
/
15.00"
1
a CAICUIATED j
L
1?.000
T
I
li.oon
I
I
10,000
T
I
9.onn
T
I
P . 0 o o
T
I
7. nnn
I
I
Snni
T
I
s.ono
T
+4 I I
H , f) 0 n
J
i—^ r
*¦ • n 0 n
T
i
?. n o r
T
H »# I
1. noo
T
~ I
n.nnn
T
no I
n.nnn i.nrn ?,nnn s.nnn <».ooo
'«ii f">'< r./\r.T>is ^TaTiom
f.H'IcT stour.4
Kt&W\|tC 11«« 11 1?{I
Flgur* 7
VERIFICATION ANALYSIS
Juim 1967, Without Swamp Loadings
;'5.oon i
*t.0D0 I
?^.oon i
? s. o o o i
.000 I
?o.oon i
19.OC0 1 OBSERVED (MEAN AND RANGE)
I'Unoo i ,T
17.000 I i UOW WATER MEASUREMENT
J^,n0n T J, HIGH WZUER MEASUREMENT
's,ooo i J
">.(10n I MEAN TIDE - TKANSIATED DATA
15.900 1
1 ?. n 0 0 1 a CALCUIATED
11.000 I
10.000 1
"».ooo I
!i.OOO 1
7.000 I
6.000 r
S.009 I
t.000 I L
s.nos i ~« l
S.OOO I H
i.noo i
0i000 I ~ ~ a
I....I....I....I....I....I....I....I....1....I....I....I....I
0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 *.000 5.000 6,000 7.000
Wli ETS r^OW «0^RY LftMTlNfi
"tiiiur snuGn
tt "TMTS l?e.l?7.1?«
Flgur# 8
VERIFICATION ANALYSIS
Jura 1967, Without Swamp Loadings
-------
The places where higher than anticipated levels of BOD_,
ammonia, and DO deficit concentrations were observed are
adjacent to marsh areas. Other studies have indicated that
marshes may contribute a major source of BOD to adjacent
waterways. However, no quantitative descriptions of the
effect have been published for the San Francisco Bay Area.
The present evidence indicates that the swamps contribute to
water quality problems in South San Francisco Bay. Marsh
areas indicated on U.S.G»S. maps were# therefore, assumed to
provide a BOD- and ammonia load to the adjacent waters, on
an areal basis. These marsh areas and loads are shown in
Table 11. Further study of this subject is needed to better
quantify the magnitude of these loads.
The final BOD5 verification was performed using the wastewater
effluent loads, marsh loads, and Golden Gate and Port Richmond
boundary conditions. The calculated profile and observed
data are shown in Figures A.11 and A.20 in Appendix A. Note
that the calculated profile agrees well with the observed
data in most regions of the system. Areas of marginal
agreement are portions of the main transect where the BODc
is somewhat underestimated, and upper Artesian and Mud
Sloughs, where it is somewhat overestimated.
b. Ammonia Nitrogen
The nitrogenous reaction rate (Kn) and the associated
nitrogenous deoxygenation rate was assumed to be 0.20 per
day at 20®C and was adjusted for temperature. In those
areas where the dissolved oxygen deficit approaches the
saturation level of dissolved oxygen, the reaction rate was
reduced appropriately. The values of Kn are shown in Table
12. The results of the verification are shown in Figures
A.21-A.30 in Appendix A. Note a generally good fit between
the calculated ammonia profile and the observed data.
Ammonia levels are somewhat underestimated in the main
transect and overestimated in Upper Coyote Creek and Guadalupe
Slough.
r. Dissolved Oxygen Deficit
The reaeration rates, Ka, for the main transect of the Bay
system were taken from the previous study . The reaeration
TABLE 11
HARSH
AREA LOADINGS
Marsh
Loading
Area
BODS
Ammon:
LocatIon
Segment
mi 2
lbs/day
lbs / di
Main
2
0 . 12
180
180
Transect
3
0 . 30
450
450
4
0,06
90
90
5
0.12
180
180
6
0. 12
180
180
7
0. 20
300
300
8
0.10
150
150
9
0.06
90
90
10
0.20
300
300
11
0.06
90
90
12
0. 20
300
300
13
0. 06
90
90
16
0.12
180
180
22
0.20
300
300
28
0. 10
150
150
29
0. 10
150
150
32
0. 35
525
525
33
0. 25
375
375
36
0.60
900
900
40
0.60
900
900
41
2.50
3750
3 750
44
1.00
1500
1500
48
0.25
375
375
54
0.25
375
375
U. Coyote
101
0.25
375
375
Creek
102
0. 50
750
750
At teelan
103
0.05
75
75
Slough
104
0.05
75
75
105
0.02
30
30
106
0.02
30
30
Mud
113
0.06
90
90
Slough
117
0. 12
180
180
Guadalupe
121
0.03
45
45
Slough
122
0.12
180
180
Mowry
126
0.25
375
375
Slough
126
0. 80
1200
1200
Newark
129
0.06
90
90
Slough
130
0.12
180
180
131
0.08
120
120
132
0.25
375
375
133
0,22
330
330
134
0. 30
450
450
Mayfield
135
0.13
195
195
Slough
136
0.13
195
195
137
0. 13
195
195
Unnamed Slough
140
o
fi |
o
1
j
450
450
Alviao Slough
118
1. 25
1875
1875
119
0. 20
300
300
120
0.60
90
90
-------
Tarl Z
1?. JLIME 19c.7 REACTID\j *AfFS
(TE^°ERATURr ADJUSTEO)
(1/3AY J
TrvorR/\T"J3-
^r5vr\jT
KM
ka
1
1«.00
0.19
0,17
1.27
P
1«.0?
o. in
0. IS
0.89
3
i7.«.n
0.1"
0.1ft
1.15
4
17. nn
0.1?
0.1^
1.06
*5
1 7.*50
O.l0
0.19
0.91
17.50
0,1*
0 , IS
0.77
7
17.^0
0.1?
0.1*
O.ftl
A
I7.no
0. ln
o.lft
0.67
9
17.00
0.1S
0.1ft
0 • 4 3
10
17.*0
0.1?
0.1*
0.67
tl
I7.no
0.1*
0.1*
0.31
1?
17.no
O.io
0.1*
0.33
13
i7.no
0.1*
0 .1*
0.67
14
I7.no
0.19
o.lfl
0.55
1?
17. n n
0,1?
0.1*
0.73
16
17.n0
0.13
0.10
0.35
17
17, rO
n. 1 S
0 .IP
0.47
1ft
17.nn
n.is
o.l*
1.49
19
17.00
0.1?
0.19
0.59
?n
17.no
0.19
0.18
0.31
?i
17,no
0 .IS
o.ie
1.57
??
17.nn
0.15
0 .19
0.23
17. CO
0.13
0.1*
0.0*
>4
17, nn
n.l*
0.19
0.6?
?S
16.^O
0.17
0.17
0.17
?6
1C..50
0.17
0.17
0.07
?7
1ft. "SO
0.17
0.17
0.7ft
?*
ie,.5n
0.17
0.17
0.06
?9
l c, „ nn
0,17
0,17
0.07
SO
l^.^n
0,17
0.17
0.1*
31
1 *. n n
0.17
0.17
0,09
3?
lfi.nn
0.17
0.17
0.79
*3
l^.no
0.17
0.17
0.43
16. no
0.17
0.17
0,15
*5
lc.no
0.17
0.17
0.07
36
l«..n5
0.17
0.17
0.21
* 7
I6.no
0,17
0.17
0.41
taw r
1?. JJmE 1 9*7 Re:a:tio\j kites (l/DA*)
< t? ni«r adjjstf:o>
3 9
39
4 0
m
'f3
^4
¦1 s
46
47
UP
<+9
5 n
¦51
S3
*4
J*
56
57
5«
so
61
S3
64
65
66
67
6fl
c.9
70
71
7?
7*
74
TrMPrNATJ9E
(CEMTjr,RA*)E
K?
KN
Ka
i*..no
0,17
0.17
0.17
lA.ro
0.17
0.17
0.1?
16.00
0,17
0,17
0.12
16.00
0.17
0.17
0.56
!6.no
0,17
0.17
0.13
16.00
0.17
0,17
0.10
1^.nn
0.17
0.17
0.25
16.10
0,17
0.17
0.59
16,00
0.17
0,17
0.18
16. no
0.17
0.17
0.09
I6.no
0,1 7
0.17
0.4?
16,00
0,17
0.17
0.60
16,00
0.17
0.17
0.23
16.00
0,17
0,17
0.09
16.no
0.17
0.17
0.25
16, no
0.17
0.17
0,43
16.00
0,17
0.17
0. ?5
16,00
0.17
0.17
0 .06
16,00
0.17
0,17
0,17
15,00
0.16
0,16
0.57
H.nl
0.16
0.16
0,36
l*.no
0.16
0,16
0.10
15,09
0.16
0.16
0,29
n.oo
0.16
0.16
0.51
l*.no
0.16
0.16
0.37
l«,O0
0.16
0.16
0.09
15,00
0.16
0.16
0.30
1*»00
0.16
0.16
0.37
15.00
0.16
0.16
0.23
15.00
0.16
0.16
0,09
n.no
0.16
0.16
0.17
15.00
0.5.6
0.16
0.27
1 *, n 0
0.16
0.16
0,16
15,00
0.16
0.16
0,12
1 * . n 0
0.16
0,16
0.13
l«t, n o
0.16
0.16
0,25
15.n:
0.16
0.16
0,15
25
-------
lfK7 RPfiOTl^'l Tf?
(TL^r ?rtT;ISr mjjstcji
< i/D*y)
Tr»i>c%l\T
KR
KM
KA
lo.nn
n. n
0.05
o.9
-------
coefficients in the sloughs were calculated as a function of
depth using the relationship:
kl
Ka20<>C = Depth
Where was assumed equal to be seven.
The reaeration rates were then adjusted to the ambient water
temperature using,the method described in the original model
development study .
The total DO deficit was calculated by summing the deficit
resulting from carbonaceous BOD, loads and oxidizable ammonia
loads from treatment plant effluents to South San Francisco
Bay, initial deficits in the treatment plant effluent, other
discharges in the system, bottom demand, boundary conditions,
and assumed loadings from marsh areas. The initial deficit
in the wasteater effluent was assigned at 4 mg/1. The
bottom demand in the main.transect of the system was taken
from the previous study '. The bottom demand in the sloughs
was developed during the verification analysis to be one
gram/square meter/day, except in those areas adjacent to
outfalls where settling was assumed to increase benthic
deposits. The bottom demands for the system are listed in
Table 13.
The components of the total dissolved oxygen deficit are
shown in Table 14. A comparison of the calculated dissolved
oxygen deficit profile and the observed data for the June,
1967 verification are shown in Figures A.31-A.40 in Appendix
A. The observed dissolved oxygen deficit is developed by
subtracting the measured dissolved oxygen concentration from
the oxygen saturation concentration calculated from temperature
and chloride concentration. In general, the verification is
very good. The deficit is slightly underestimated on portions
of the main transect and Mowry Slough, and a slightly
overestimated in portions of Alviso Slough.
2. Dissolved Oxygen Deficit, Summer 1960-1964
Dissolved Oxygen measurements collected during the University
of California Bay Study of 1960-1964 were used in this
verification.
Trt3LET 13-
BENTHAL DEMAND
3EMT4AL DfviftMa
SfGUFNT (GR»*S 02/SQ
1.
1.00
2.
1.00
3.
1.00
4.
1.00
5.
1.00
6.
l.OO-
7.
1.00
8.
1.Q0
9,
l.OO
10.
l.OO
11.
1.00
1?.
1.00
1*.
l.OO
14.
1.00
15.
1.00
16,
1.00
17.
1.00
IB.
0.50
19,
1.00
20.
0.50
21.
0.50
??.
0.50
23.
0.50
24.
0.50
2*>.
0.50
0.50
2?.
0.50
26.
0.50
29.
0.50
30.
0.50
31.
0*50
32.
0,50
33.
0.50
34.
0.50
35.
0.50
36.
0.50
37,
0.50
39.
0.50
39.
0.50
C-27
-------
tauc13 -
3CNTMAL DCviAMO
«;rfi«rNT
-------
TA3LC13- 3FNTHAL DFMAND
IIP.
119.
120.
1?1.
1??.
12 3,
1?4.
1J5.
126.
127.
12R.
129.
130.
131.
13?.
133.
13*.
135.
136.
137.
13fl,
139,
1*0.
1*1.
8ENTHAL DT^AMO
(GRAMS D2/BQ "/DAY)
0. on
0.50
1.00
2.00
<4.00
2. OP
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
O.flO
0*00
0.00
0.50
2.00
2.00
0.5P
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
l.on
C-29
-------
00 DEFICIT C^PONCNTS CALCULATED (MS/U)
JUNE 1967 VERIFICATION
SCgMFM
CAR30MACE0US
NITROGCHOUS
IVIT DEF.BOT.O
BODS SWftMP
MHJ-N SWAMP
TOTAL
STP LOADS
STP loads
3TH STPS.30UN,
LOADS
loads
DEFICIT
1
2.10
1.65
o.»s
0.22
0.61
8.06
s
l.St
».17
0.39
0.21
0.68
7.11
3
1.16
2.#5
0.38
0.17
0.58
3.16
1
0.62
2.05
0.36
0.15
0.51
3.92
5
0.39
l.t*
0.36
0.14
0.48
3.02
6
0.12
0.95
0.36
0.13
0.45
2.31
7
0.35
0.67
0.36
0.11
0.37
1.88
e
0.3t
0.59
0.37
0.10
0.35
1.76
9
0,35
o.t*
0.37
0.H>
0.33
1.61
10
0.35
o.»«
0.37
0.09
0.33
1.60
11
0.37
0,39
0.36
0.10
0.33
1.59
12
0.37
0.39
0.38
0.10
0.32
1.58
13
0.38
0.S1
0.39
0.10
0.32
1.52
It
0.3B
0,33
0.39
0.09
0.32
1.53
15
0.S7
0.33
0.38
0.09
0.30
1.49
16
0.40
0.32
0.1*0
0.10
0.35
1.58
17
o.to
0.33
o.to
0.10
0.33
1.57
1»
0.38
0.31
0.36
n.09
0.30
1.4B
19
0.H2
0.33
0.41
0,11
0.36
l,6>t
20
0."»2
0.33
0.41
0.10
0.31*
1.62
31
0.38
0.31
0.38
0.09
0.30
1.49
22
0.f5
0.3*
0.41
0.11
0.38
1.72
23
o.ts
0.3»
0.4*
0.11
0.36
1.73
2*
0.f2
0.33
0.40
0.1"
0.33
1.60
25
o.ta
0.35
0.47
0.12
0.39
1.83
26
o.ts
0,35
0.49
0.11
0.38
1.83
27
0.55
0,39
0.46
0,11
0.36
1.89
28
o.ts
0.31
0.32
0.12
0.38
i.sn
29
0,»3
0.30
0.56
0.11
0,38
1.80
SO
0.32
0.22
0.64
0.10
0.33
1.64
SI
0.34
0,23
0.63
0.10
0.3t
1.66
32
0.25
0.16
0.64
0.1*
0.34
1.51
33
0,22
0.15
0.68
0.08
0.28
1.13
3*
0.23
0.16
0.69
0.09
0.29
1,48
35
0.21
0.1H
0 .69
O.OB
0.28
1.43
36
0.20
0.13
0.71
0.12
0.39
1.56
C-30
-------
37
3B
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
4B
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
^9
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
TABLE 14
(Continued)
DO DEFICIT CONPONENTS CALCULATED (MS/L) PAGE
JUNE 1967 VERIFICATION
CARBONACEOUS nitrogenous imit def.bot.d BODS swamp MH3-M swamp TOTAL
STP LOADS STP LOADS OTH STPS.30UN. LOADS LOADS DEFICIT
0.08 0.26 1.37
0.08 0.28 1.15
0.06 0.20 1.19
0.13 0.10 1.56
0.09 0.26 1.31
0.08 0.27 1.1(1
0.05 0.16 1,09
0.11 0.31 1.39
0.07 0.23 1.22
0.06 0,20 1.23
0,01 0,12 1.00
0.07 0.21 1.18
0.07 0.22 1.16
0,06 0.19 1.19
0.03 0.10 0.96
0.01 O.lt 1.03
0.07 0.22 1.11
0.0& 0.20 1,15
0,03 0,09 0,93
0.03 0.10 0.91
0.06 0.20 l.m
0.07 0,21 l.lo
0.02 0.08 0.89
0.02 0.06 0,87
0.05 0.15 0.99
0.03 0.09 0.63
0.02 0.07 0,88
0,01 0.03 0.91
0.01 0.13 0,93
0.03 0,10 0.80
0.02 0.06 0.88
0.01 0.03 0,99
0.03 0.10 0.90
0.02 0.09 0.88
0.00 0.02 0.91
0.00 0.01 1.06
0,20
0.13
0.68
0.22
0.11
0.70
0.11
0.06
0,73
0.16
0.10
0.75
0.18
0.12
0.67
0.20
0.13
0.72
0.08
0.01
0.71
0.10
0.06
0.77
0.11
0.09
0.68
0.13
0.08
0.71
0.06
0.02
0.71
0.06
0.03
0.79
0.12
0.08
0,65
0.12
0.07
0.73
0.06
0.02
0,73
0.05
0.02
0.77
0.10
0.06
0,61
0.10
0.06
0.71
0.05
0.02
0.72
0.01
0.01
0.71
0.09
0.05
0.72
0.12
0.07
0.88
0.05
0.01
0,71
0.01
0.01
0.73
0,06
0.01
0.67
0.01
0.02
0.13
0.05
0.01
0.71
0.03
0.00
0.81
0.05
0.03
0,67
0.01
0.02
0.59
0.06
0.01
0.72
0.01
0.00
0,89
0.01
0.02
0,70
0.05
0.01
0.69
O.OB
0.00
0.79
0.06
0.00
0.97
C-31
-------
PftGi 3
TABLE 14
(Continued)
DO DEFICIT CDNPONENTS CALCULATED (MS/L)
JUNE 1967 VERIFICATION
sre^EMT
carbonaceous
NITROGENOUS
IMIT 3EF.B0T.0
B005 SWAMP
NH3-N SWAMP
total
STP LOADS
STP loads
OTH STPS.30UN.
LOaDS
LOADS
deficit
73
0.05
o.ol
0.76
0 . 0 2
0.06
0.91
TH
0.10
0.00
0.76
0.01
0.0*
0.95
75
a.li
o.oo
0.B1
o.oo
0.01
0.9*
7b
0.15
0.00
0.66
0.00
0.02
1.07
77
0.19
0.00
0.93
0,00
0.01
1.16
78
0.25
0.00
0.99
0.00
0,00
1.26
79
0.10
0.00
0.67
0.00
0.00
0,79
»0
0>19
0.00
0.97
0.00
0.01
1.19
61
0.25
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.01
1.27
S2
0.31
0.00
1.05
0.00
0.00
1.36
83
0.29
0.00
1.03
0.00
0.00
1.33
»*
0.31
0.00
1.0*
0.00
0.00
1,37
S5
0.50
0.00
1.03
0.00
0.00
1.33
86
0.51
0.00
t .03
0.00
o.oo
1.36
» 7
o.ie
0.00
0.*0
0.00
0.00
0.59
SB
0.50
0.00
1.01
0.00
0,00
1.32
89
0.31
0,00
1.00
0.00
0.00
1.32
90
0.21
0.00
0.H5
0.00
o.oo
0.66
91
0.26
o.oo
0.96
0.0
0.00
1.23
92
0.26
0.00
0.97
0.00
0.00
1.2*
93
0.22
0.00
0.96
0.00
0.00
1.19
9*
0,09
0.00
0.98
0.00
0,00
l.OS
95
0.19
0.00
0.95
0.00
n.no
1.15
96
0.17
o.oo
0.97
0.00
0.00
1.1*
97
0.24
0.00
0.*9
0.00
0.00
0.7*
98
1.02
3.11
1.9*
0.01
0.03
6,14
99
1.29
3.93
0.7*
0.17
0.35
6.51
100
l.*l
3.*9
0.36
0,6a
1.27
7.22
101
1.61
3.*2
0.35
0,8*
l.*5
7.70
102
1.92
3.36
0.V5
0,63
0.92
7.35
103
0.08
0,22
2.07
o.oo
0.00
2.38
lot
0.21
0.56
2.05
o.oo
0.00
2.65
105
0.53
0.86
2.02
o.oo
0.01
3.23
106
0.9a
2.36
1.85
0.01
0.03
5.18
107
1 .68
t.17
1.59
0.02
0.07
7,55
108
2,21
*.33
1,33
0.03
0.08
8.00
C-32
-------
00 DEFICIT
JUNE 1967
segment carbonaceous nitrogenous
STP 10A0S STP LOADS
109
2,65
4,09
110
2.85
3.94
111
2.80
3.96
11?
2.52
4.19
113
*~,17
1.57
lit
3.71
3.00
115
2,60
3,44
116
2.08
3.38
117
1.65
3.17
119
0.07
0.15
119
0.15
0.37
120
0.31
0.73
121
0.98
3.80
122
2.34
3.67
123
1.2*
4.25
124
0.69
2.52
125
0.3a
1.10
126
0.02
0.02
127
0.09
0.07
128
0.21
0.17
129
0.42
0.16
150
0.70
0.25
131
1.01
0.35
132
1.43
0.70
133
1.37
0.71
134
0.89
0.52
135
?.17
1.22
136
1.90
1.06
137
1.45
0.85
135
1.07
0.65
139
0.75
0.49
1 0
1.37
0.95
141
0.72
0.54
TABLE 14
(Continued)
components calculated img/d
verification
INIT OEFjBOT.D B0D5 SWAMP NH3-N SWAMP
OTH STPSt30UW.
LOADS
loads
i.ia
0,05
0.09
0.95
0,07
0.13
0.76
0.12
0.25
0.59
0.18
0.42
2.19
0,11
0.22
1.12
0.1&
0*43
0.66
0.17
0.59
0,54
0,18
0*64
0,47
0.18
0.64
0.05
2,65
5,56
0.27
0,89
2,99
0.42
0.31+
1.21
1.10
0,07
0,49
1.90
0.06
0,39
1,07
0,04
0.37
0.59
0,05
0.32
0,^7
0,07
0,29
0.03
1.0*
3.22
0.29
0.34
1.04
0,46
0.31
0,95
0,00
2.22
4,91
0,01
2,23
4,93
0,07
2,10
4,46
0.38
0,83
2,77
0,73
0,35
1.23
0.60
0.21
0.75
0.61
0.11
0.37
0,56
0,12
0,38
0,52
0,12
0,38
0,i*9
0,11
0,38
0.48
0,11
0,37
0.57 •
0.1*
0.41
0.45
0.10
0,33
PABE 4
TOTAi,
DEFICIT
B.OS
7.96
7.91
7.92
8.29
8.45
7.49
6.63
6.12
8.50
"».70
3.03
6.47
8.S8
6.98
4.19
2.34
4.37
1.85
2.12
7.73
8.14
8.01
6.14
•~.41
2.99
*.Sl
4.05
3.34
2.72
2.21
3.45
2.15
C-33
-------
The BODc and ammonia nitrogen treatment plant effluent loads
are shown in Table 15. Reaction rates were those employed
in the June, 1967 verification adjusted for temperature.
Due to large loadings it was necessary to suppress both
carbonaceous and nitrogenous reaction rates in certain areas
to insure that calculated deficits did not exceed the available
oxygen concentration (C ). Initial wastewater deficits,
bottom demand, and marsfi effects were those employed in the
June, 1967 verification. The calculated dissolved oxygen
deficit and the observed data on the main transect of the
Bay are shown in Figure 9.
The foregoing analysis presents a moderate degree of model
verification on the main bay transect and in the sloughs.
The effects of seasonal temperature and hydrograph variations
are satisfactorily included in the analysis. The inclusion
of known point and non-point source loadings to the system
suggests that significant background loadings of carbonaceous
and nitrogenous BOD leach from marsh areas adjacent to some
of the sloughs. The present model is verified with loadings
from these marsh areas, which were assigned on the basis of
observed BOD and dissolved oxygen concentrations in the
effected areas. In this regard, a principal loading to
the model is not based on measured loading rates, and as
such is subject to refinement as additional data becomes
available. These verifcation analyses, and the projection
analysis presented in this report, Buggest that additional
information on the magnitude of this non-point source be
more accurately quantified.
C-34
<
X
o
t/»
a
a
0
CO
s
o
z
a
Z
<
u
<
<
3
2
"S
0
II
E
4>
O
Is.
c
1
x
$
^ o
O
0
y 1
l>
C >»
5 -g
_o
ls
u=e
£ *
c £
E.S
SwNpinncvifflcp—
•O « Ov <») N W V N «0 V N W ^
1888 8 8!
• r> o eo k O-
-------
1-=-
oo\»«>»o»(hoeo>o^oeooeoooi
O9iMTftO0t|rQlhO^0tO8«OOOOOOOOi
on- *
4 e
X
«e h
CO
>
(/)
>
Z »-
j
M 2
< UJ
>
* *
£
z I
< Oo
z T
O o
"ys
«u. s
= 5 i
.®u 3
U_ >
3 O 2 4J II. "• J h.
I u> v. j
IV. MODEL PROJECTIONS
A. Dissolved Oxygen Analysis
The verified water quality model was applied to evaluate
water quality responses in South San Francisco Bay for each
alternative wastewater management program for the Sotuth Bay
Dischargers Authority. The verification analyses presented
in the previous chapter showed that dissolved oxygen levels
in South San Francisco Bay are principally affected by the
oxidation of carbonaceous and nitrogenous materials from
point source municipal treatment plant laods, benthal oxygen
demand, and organic materials from marsh areas. Previous
studies have indicated the importance of seasonal effects
such as increased treatment plant loads during the August
and September canning season, and urban and other storm
related runoff during the wet season from October through
May. These factors are also included in the water quality
analysis described in this chapter.
1. Management Alternatives
Each of the management alternatives described in Chapter l.
was evaluated under average dry period conditions, canning
season conditions and average wet period conditions for 1985
and 1995. Table 16 displays anticipated South Bay Dischargers
effluent characteristics for these periods. This data and
projected treatment plant flow estimates were used to calculate
seasonal ultimate oxygen demand loads from each discharger
in 1985 and 1995. These loads are summarized in Table 17.
The four management alternatives are described further in
Table 18. The No Project Alternative and the No Project
Alternative with San Jose providing upgraded treatment
require that the South Bay Dischargers utilize their present
outfall sites, San Jose/Santa Clara in model segment 103,
Sunnyvale in segment 122, and Palo Alto in segment 135. For
the Nearest Deepwater Alternative, where each discharge is
required to discharge at the nearest deep water location,
San Jose/£anta Clara and Sunnyvale combine effluent flows
and discharge at segment 9, while Palo Alto discharges to
segment 14. Under the final alternate three dischargers
C-35
-------
TABLE 16
SOUTH BAY DISCHARGERS
Anticipated Plant Operating Data*
Effluent Son Jose/Santo Cloro
Parameter Conning' Non-Conning Sunnyvale Polo Alto
BODj, mg/l
10
10
5
12
NH3-N, mg/l
1.5
1.5
2.5
5.5
SS, mg/l
5
5
8
10
*data supplied by Bechfel for nitrified, filtered effluent
C-36
TABLE 17
PROJECTED ULTIMATE OXYGEN DEMAND LOADS
South Boy Dischargers
Ultimate Oxygen Demand lbs/day
South Bay Vear and Flow* Carbonaceous Nitrogenous
Discharger Season mgd Demand Demand Totol UOD
San Joie
1985
Dry
Canning
Wet
112
143
112
14,000
17,300
14,000
6,400
8,150
6,400
20,400
25,950
20,400
1995
Dry
Canning
Wet
134
165
134
16,800
20,600
16,800
7,650
9,400
7,650
24,450
30,000
24,450
S unnyvate
1985
Dry
Canning
Wet
15.7
26.5
15.7
985
1,660
985
1,500
2,520
1,500
2,485
4,180
2,485
1995
CTJT
Canning
Wet
23.0
30.0
23.0
1,440
1,880
1,440
2,200
2,860
2,200
3,640
4,740
3,640
Palo Alto
1985
Dry
Canning
Wet
29.8
29.8
29.8
4,480
4,480
¦ 4,480
6,250
6,250
6,250
10,730
10,730
10,730
1995
w
Canning
Wet
30.4
30.4
30.4
4,570
4,570
4,570
6,400
6,400
6,400
10,970
10,970
10,970
•projected waste flows supplied by Bechtel
-------
TABLE 18
MODEL INPUT FOR MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
MODEL INPUT
DISPOSAL
WASTE
UOD LOAD
DEFICIT
LOAD
ALTERNATIVES YEAR SEASON
SEGMENT
FLOW mgd
lbs/day
lb s/day
1. NO PROJECT 1985 DRY
103
112
20,400
3730
122
15. 7
2,485
523
135
29.8
10.730
990
CANNING 103
143
25,950
4770
122
26.5
4,180
885
135
29.8
10.730
990
WET
103
112
20,400
3730
122
15.7
2,485
523
135
29.8
10.730
990
1995 DRY
103
134
24,450
4470
122
23
3,640
765
135
30.4
10.970
1010
CANNING 103
165
30,000
5500
122
30
4,740
1000
135
30.4
10.970
1010
WET
103
134
24,450
4470
122
23
3,640
765
135
30.4
10.970
1010
2. NEAREST 1985 DRY
9
127.7
22 ,885
4253
14
29. 8
10.730
990
CANNING 9
169.5
30,130
5655
14
29.8
10.730
990
WET
9
127 . 7
22,885
4253
14
29.8
10.730
990
1995 DRY
9
157
28,090
5235
14
30.4
10.970
1010
CANNING 9
195
34,740
6500
14
30.4
10,970
1010
WET
9
157
28,090
5235
14
30.4
10,970
1010
3. DP 31 1985 DRY
31
157.5
33,615
5243
CANNING 31
199.3
40.860
6645
WET
31
157.5
33,615
5243
1995 DRY
31
187.4
39,060
6245
CANNING 31
225.4
45.710
7510
WET 31 187,4 39.060 6245
TABLE 18 (cont.)
MODEL INPUT FOR MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVES I YEAR SEASON
DISPOSAL
SEGMENT
MODEL INPUT
WASTE | t/OD LOAD
FLOW mad 1 lWdav
DEFICIT
LOAD
lba/dav
4. NO PROJECT, 1985
SAM
DRY
103
122
135
103
122
135
103
122
135
1995
103
122
135
103
122
135
WET
103
122
135
112
15.7
29.8
143
26. 5
29.8
112
15.7
29,S
134
23
30. 4
165
30
30.4
134
23
30.4
11,000
2,485
10,730
11,000
4,180
10.730
11,000
2.485
10.730'
11,000
3,640
10,970
11,000
4,740
10,970
11,000
3,640
10.970
3730
523
990
4770
885
990
3730
523
990
4470
765
1010
5500
1000
1010
4470
765
1010
C-37
-------
discharge through at combined outfall terminating at disposal
point 31 (segment 31).
Table 17 was used to develop the wastewater effluent flow
and UOD loading values presented in Table 18. The UOD
loading from San Jose/Santa Clara for the No Project alternative
with San Jose/Santa Clara upgraded is 11,000 lbs/day.
Alternatives 1 and 4, are, therfore, identical except for
the San Jose/Santa Clara loading. The deficit load is
obtained by assuming that the effluent flow has a deficit of
4 mg/1.
2. Unit Response Analysis
Each alternative has one, two, or three disposal sites. A
unit UOD load of 10,000 lbs/day and a unit deficit load of
1,000 lbs/day were input at each disposal site to develop
unit responses for each loading to the model. The appropriate
system transport for each projection year and season was
imposed on the model and the deficit response of San Francisco
Bay was calculated for each principal loading or group of
loadings to the system. This is called a unit response
analysis.
Unit response analysis permits the analyst to gain valuable
insight into the response of a water body to individual
loadings. By this means the major factors contributing to
the observed or projected water quality response can be
isolated and studied. Often the information developed in
such an analysis points to one or two factors which dominate
the water quality response, and must therefore be controled
to effect water quality improvements.
As an example, a BOD related Dissolved Oxygen deficit unit
response for the San Jose/Santa Clara treatment facility
consists of three parts. The first is the BOD response in
the Bay Waters, which is simply the concentrations of BOD
throughout the bay system due to that single loading. The
second portion of the unit response is the dissolved oxygen
deficit due to oxidation of the BOD from the plant (i.e.
from the BOD unit response). The third portion is the
distributionuof disoslved oxygen deficit contributed by the
deficit in the treatment plant effluent.
C-38
Unit responses are additive. The sum of all the unit responses
of a water quality variable to a water system is equal to
the total water quality response. As such, one can use the
unit responses to compare the relative contribution of a
single load or group of loads to other loads or to the
overall water quality response. In a similar manner the
effects of removing portions of loads can be evaluated by
multiplying the appropriate unit response by the expected
percent removal and subtracting the effect of that portion
of the loading from the overall response.
A convenient method of presenting unit responses is to
develop the unit responses for a load of constant magnitude
in each alternative disposal location.
In this study each of the disposal segments listed in Table
18 was subjected in a loading of 10,000 pounds/day of
ultimate BOD, 1,000 pounds/day of effluent dissolved oxygen
deficit, and 10,000 pounds/day of conservative material.
Unit responses were generated for all combinations of disposal
segment, seasonal runoff, and bay circulation. The unit
response computed in this analysis are for:
1) concentration
2) Dissolved oxygen deficit concentration
3) Conservative substance concentration
The BOD and dissolved oxygen deficit unit responses are
contained in Appendix B.
3. Other Factors Influencing Dissolved Oxygen Concentration
Other factors identified during the verification analysis as
principal contributors to dissolved oxygen concentration
variations were included in the projections. Estimates of
the loadsvfrom other discharges were obtained from previous
studies* or were updated by Bechtel. Table 19 summarizes
these loads. Bottom demand values developed in the model
verification were applied. Marsh loads were based on those
developed in the verification analysis and were adjusted for
seasonal temperature. Future urban and other runoff flows
were obtained from estimates contained in Kaiser Engineers
-------
1968 report^ and from analysis of USGS flow records.
Urban and other runoff occurs only during the wet season.
Th deficit response of the system to these inputs was calculated
for dry (June - September) and wet (October - May) seasons.
The deficit response for these non-point source loads is
contained in Appendix B, Table 10.
4. Dissolved Oxygen Saturation
Dissolved oxygen saturation is a function of temperature and
chloride concentration. Temperature values for the projections
were based on observed temperatures during wet and dry
seasons. Chloride levels in the Bay, especially in the area
south of Dumbarton Bridge, will be effected significantly by
the discharge alternative. Therefore, the model was used to
predict chloride concentrations for the No Project, Nearest
Deep Water and Disposal Point 31 alternatives for dry and
wet conditions. Appendix B, Table 11, displays the projected
chloride concentrations.
The calculated chloride concentrations and assigned temperature
values were used to determine Dissolved Oxygen saturation
levels throughout the model. Dissolved Oxygen saturation for
the No Project, the Nearest Deep Water and the Disposal
Point 31 Alternatives, for dry and wet seasons, is included
in the tables in Appendix C.
5. Projected Mean Dissolved Oxygen Concentration
The mean projected dissolved oxygen distribution for a
particular discharge alternative, season, and project year is
developed by adding the unit deficit responses due to the South
Bay Discharger's UOD loading and effluent deficit loading
(multiplied by appropriate scale factors) to the deficit
responses of the other dischargers, bottom demand, marsh load
and urban and other runoff, to obtain the total deficit response.
The total deficit for each segment is then subtracted from the
segment dissolved oxygen saturation concentration.
The scale factors by which the various unit responses are
multiplied is the ratio of the projected load to the corres-
ponding loadings used in the unit response analysis. In all
the projection analyses the bottom demand and marsh loadings
are assumed to be unchanged under alternative discharge conditions.
C-39
-------
Calculated components of the dissolved oxygen deficit,
saturation level, and the resultant mean dissolved oxygen
concentrations throughout the Bay are tabulated in the first
eight columns of the Projection Results which appear in
Appendix C, Tables 1 through 24.
6. Lower Ninety Percentile Dissolved Oxygen Concentration
The Dissolved Oxygen Concentration objective for South Bay
waters, at Level B protection is presented in Figure 2.
Level B protection is described in terms of a lower 90
percentile dissolved oxygen concentration. Ninety percent
of the observed concentrations must be equal to or greater
than that value.
The San Francisco Bay Model performs steady state analysis.
The projection DO distributions presented in Appendix C
tables 1 through 24 are mean dissolved oxygen concentrations.
As such a direct comparison with the 90 percentile standard
is inappropriate. In addition the "absolute minimum'1
concentration, required by the standard is 5.0 mg/1.
in order to evaluate the discharge alternatives relative to
these standards it was necessary tos
Establish a functional form relating the 90 percentile
dissolved oxygen concentration for Level B protection
to dissolved oxygen saturation (Chapter II)
Develop a method for computing the variations from
the mean dissolved oxygen concentration which is
associated with the lower 90 percentile concentration.
Compute the corresponding 90 percentile dissolved
oxygen concentration from the computed steady
state mean concentrations.
Compare the adjusted model results to the Level B
Protection standard and the minimum dissolved
oxygen standard of 5.0 mg/1.
a. Level B Dissolved Oxygen objectives
Dissolved oxygen saturation concentrations given in Appendix
C, are in the range; 7.5 to 10.5 mg/1. The Level B objective
curve (Figure 2) was approximated by a straight line function
for this range of projected saturation concentrations so
C-40
that the Level B objectives could be computed from consideration
of dissolved oxygen saturation. The functional form is
stated:
90 percentile objective D.O, ® .475 Cg + 2.3 (V-l)
where Cs = dissolved oxygen saturation at prevailing
temperature and chloride concentration
b. Dissolved Oxygen Data Variability
To determine the difference between the average dissolved
oxygen concentration and the lower 90 percentile concentration
a statistical analysis of observed dissolved oxygen deficit
data was performed. Dry season (June-Sept.) and wet season
(October-May) data available from the self-monitoring program
were used. Measured water temperature and chlorosity data
were used to calculate dissolved oxygen saturation. Subtracting
the observed dissolved oxygen from the calculated saturation
yields the dissolved oxygen deficit. Analyzing deficit data
eliminates variability due to changes in saturation. Frequency
plots of the deficit data for several stations during dry
and wet periods were developed. These data were found to be
normally distributed. The average deficit and standard
deviation of the deficit data were obtained from the frequency
distribution of deficit at each station. Figure 10 summarizes
the observed deficit variability. The figure is a cross
plot of the mean observed deficits versus the observed
standard deviation. Note that as the mean deficit increases,
the variability of the observations generally increases.
The relationship between the mean and standard deviation was
represented by the straight line shown in Figure 10. The
equation of the line is:
°DEF " 0,4 + *25
mean dissolved oxygen deficit concentration
(mg/1)
where:
DEF =
°DEF "
standard deviation of dissolved oxygen
deficit concentration (mg/1)
-------
2.2
¦
2.0
y
¦ /
1.8
/
J-
/
O
/
U_ 1.6
/ •
O
/ • •
o
/
& '-4
/
2 |.2
/
fe
¦ /
§ 1.0
l_
- / •
<
5
/ •
UJ
Q 0.6
- / •
s
/ LEGEND,'
a
0 / • DRY PERIOD DATA
¦ | 0.6
— ¦ WET PERIOD DATA
CO
/• equation:
a4
8* C.4-h25(M6AN
DEFICIT)
0.2
note:
— 0,Q DATA FROM NORTH
OF DUMBARTON
BRIDGE (1972 REPORT)
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
(
) LO ZO 3.0 4,0 5.0 60 7.0 ao
MEAN DEFICIT (mg/1)
FIGURE 10
MEAN DEFICIT VS STANDARD DEVIATION OF MEASURED DEFICIT
Using Cumulative Normal Frequency Distribution Tables, which
express the percentage points of the normal distribution as
a function of deviations from the mean, the data can be
described in terms of the mean and lower 90 percent value as
follows:
lower 90 percentile deficit = .512 + .32 (55) (V-3)
The mean Dissolved oxygen deficit computed by the steady
state model can, therefore, be used to compute the Lower 90
percentile values using equation (V-3) which is based on the
observed variability of deficit in the region. This analysis
is subject to qualifications which are stated as follows;
1. The variability computation is based on present
conditions. This variability may change somewhat
under alternative discharge conditions.
2. Equation (V-2) has a large probable error range.
Both of these factors have been considered in the development
of the projection methodology. While there may be inaccuracy
in the use of equations (V-2,3), the inaccuracy is believed
to be within an acceptable range, and in any event, conservative
from the standpoint of evaluating alternatives relative to
the standard. The ninth column in Appendix C, Tables 1
through 24 is the projected lower 90 percentile dissolved
oxygen concentrations calculated from the mean deficit
(sixth column) and the dissolved oxygen computed saturation
concentration (seventh column). The tenth (last) column of
these Tables is the Level B objective based on the saturation
concentration in each segment.
Comparison of the projected lower 90 percentile dissolved
oxygen concentration (ninth column) and Level B objective
(tenth column) indicates achievement of, or non-compliance
with, the Level B objective. Figure 1 through 24 show
projected lower 90% dissolved oxygen concentrations for the
main Bay Transect, Artesian Slough, and Guadalupe Slough for
the various discharge alternatives, seasons and target
years. Also shown on the displays are dissolved oxygen
saturation, Level B objective, and the minimum dissolved
oxygen concentration standard of 5.0 mg/1.
C-41
-------
c. Absolute Minimum Dissolved Oxygen-5»0 mg/1
The statistical analysis of the deficit data can also be
used to determine the frequency of accurance of dissolved
oxygen concentations less than 5.0 mg/1. Each projected
mean deficit, as calculated by the water quality model,
represents the 50 percentile value. The variation about the
mean to define the 90 percentile value can be calculated„
Similarly the frequency of other variations about the mean
to produce a given dissolved oxygen concentration can be
calculated. These variations, for a particular mean deficit,
lie on a straight line when plotted on normal probability
paper« Figure 11 displays the probable variations about the
mean for selected mean calculated deficit values. For each
management alternative, season, and target year, the mean
total deficit is calculated and used in computing the mean
dissolved oxygen concentration. The difference between the
computed mean dissolved oxygen and 5.0 mg/1 represents the
variation in the mean deficit which would cause the dissolved
oxygen concentration to be less than 5.0 mg/1. Using Figure
11, the probability of that variation occurring for the
particular mean deficit can be estimated.
Example 1 - if the mean deficit concentration is 1.5 mg/1,
ten percent of the time random variability in the dissolved
oxygen deficit concentration will cause the deficit to be
greater than 2.5 mg/1. (10 percentile deviation from the
mean deficit is 1.0 mg/1)
Example 2 - if saturation is 9.9 mg/1 and the computed mean
deficit is 3.0 mg/1, Figure 11 indicates that 5% of the time
background variations in deficit concentration will cause
dissolved concentrations to drop below 5.0 mg/1.
B. Relative Toxicity Analysis
1. Basis of Analyses
The water quality model was used to calculate the unit
response of the Bay waters to a unit load of 10,000 lbs/day
of a conservative material. The load was introduced at each
alternate disposal segment under appropriate flow conditions
These unit responses are presented in Tables 1 through 3 in
-------
Appendix A. The response to a load of different magnitude
is obtained by multiplying the segment concentrations by an
appropriate (load dependent) scale factor.
The water quality response due to all South Bay Dischargers
for a particular alternative, can be obtained by summing the
scaled responses calculated from each individual disposal
site. The conservative material unit responses are appropriate
in describing the distribution of materials such as silica,
total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and relative toxicity.
Although relative toxicity concentration is not subject to
water quality standards (see Chapter II Water Quality
Objectives) toxicity is used as a criterion in plan evaluation.
Toxicity discharges are usually expressed in terms of flow,
normally MGD. A de-tailed discussion of relative toxicity
and its usefullness in water quality analysis studies is
contained in reference (2).
2. Toxicity from South Bay Discharges
Relative toxicity concentrations resulting from toxicity
loads of the South Bay Discharges were calculated for dry
and wet seasons for No Project, Nearest Deep Water, and
Disposal Point 31 Alternatives. The toxicity loads were
calculated based on the assumption that 95% of the test
organisms survive a bioassay test in undiluted effluent.
The toxicity concentration is then calculated to be 0.4
toxic units and the toxicity loading, in MGD, is the waste
flow multiplied by 0.4. The toxicity loadings for 1995 for
the various alternatives are given in Table 20.
TABLE 20
RELATIVE TOXICITY LOADINGS -1985
Relative Toxicity Loading Rote
Alternative Secwon Segment MGD Ibs/doy
No Project
Dry
103
55.3
460,000
122
9.5
79,000
135
12.5
104,000
Wet
103
55.3
460,000
122
9.5
79,000
135
12.5
104,000
Nearest Deep
Water
Dry
9
64.8
540,000
U
12.5
104,000
Wet
9
64.8
540,000
14
12.5
104,000
DP 31
Dry
31
77.3
643,000
Wet
31
77.3
643,000
-------
V. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
A. Dissolved Oxygen Concentration Project-ions
Summary displays of projected dissolved oxygen concentrations
on the Main Bay transect and in Artesian and Guadalupe
Sloughs, for each discharge alternative, season, and design
year are presented in the Appendix D. The Dissolved Oxygen
saturation, the Level B dissolved oxygen concentration
objective and absolute minimum dissolved oxygen standard of
5.0 mg/1 are also shown* The calculated mean dissolved
oxygen concentration profiles <50 percentile values) and
computed lower 30% percentile dissolved oxygen concentration
profiles are shown in the figures for comparison to the
standards. These Figures are supplements to the results
presented in Appendix C.
No Project, 1985, Dry Season results, Figures 12-21, show
that Level B objectives are not achieved in any of the
sloughs. Coyote Creek, or in the main bay transect upstream
of mile point 6.0. After achieving Level B for a short,
distance 90 percentile values fall below Level B in the
vicinity of Dumbarton Bridge. A dissolved oxygen concentration
of 5.0 rag/1 is achieved 90% in portions of Mud, Guadalupe,
and Mayfield Sloughs, and downstream of milepoint 2.0 in the
main transect. Canning season results are similar to Dry
Season with slightly lower calculated DO levels. Level B
compliance is not realized in the main bay transect upstream of
milepoint 6.0 (Appendix D, Figure 2).
Higher dissolved oxygen levels and overall improvements in
achieving dissolved oxygen objectives are observed during
the Wet Season. Level B is met downstream of milepoint 3.0
in the main transect and in portions of Guadalupe and Mayfield
Sloughs, and portions of Coyote Creek. A dissolved oxygen
concentration of 5.0 mg/1 is achieved 90% of the time everywhere
in the main bay transect and in additional portions of all
sloughs except Artesian. Dissolved Oxygen improvements during
the wet season occur because of higher saturation values, and
the advective flow resulting from storm related runoff in
sloughs where there are no waste discharges. 1995 results are
essentially the same as the 1985 results. The detailed displays
of 1995 conditions are contained in Appendix D.
3
D
a
<
u
o
o
• o
*•4 *
• o
5 5 g
U4 UJ U
* ^ 5
LU LU S
a. a. St
* £ ^
s i s
o
CM
• IV
40
m
fw
* e
m
• o
T*
• ©
PI 0
• o
o
•
• *4
to
• X
* © ut
• O 3
• o o
«0
** • mJ
• <
• a
* o _l
-------
«S*&«Sf^eote0k^0900°eeeeeeee
»n» m
o o
LU Ui
o. a-
_e _c
s g
z
o
i-
S
3
"8
3 X
H >»
5 £
2 I
e ^
o z*«
e tt •
u. 3 *
Oo
> to J *4
> UI (A *
© •» Ok (
e &> o* <
o m h i
>OM<
I
> e «*i h
OlMMGffi CD N N
«K> ©¦
• • •
Ml *
« « «
0* » |
M H c
• •
to r> i
>o e
> © o
IMC
k • •
> n ai
o © i
o o <
* O *
• •
NNi
ic»e
• • « •
I o o o
3 3 I J> V _l
C-45
-------
5
D
y
<
o
o
Q
z z
« ^ 5
S S 1
i i <
o
i j
» <.
»e u.
( »
• z •
~ o o sP
e»ft»»eo>f>ere«»et>eeeeoeooo(
OdMMr»O»9NO»Off>0VOf>QOOOOOOQO<
e(idNnoiOHCK)orrtCii)e4ftC'e«NCi
»*»••••••••*«••«»•••••••
or t»MionNNHHO(
*auz •
• o -J «
M «H3H
« OS Om
•J
» tn H
» oz
~ z> w
* 9 --r 1. J JC -> -J Z — -I .
3 3 C J>'V J
C-46
5
O
a
<
u
o
o
o
Z
c
a:
"®
•g
1
o
e x
e e
O H
*-<
H
O (T
O *
*4
I/13W
(JO •
.J «J ®
N f HUH
OX «4
9>
ifl
m »>
> z
cDeN^44«iniA#tf*«)n(VNfliHf4eee
* » - r l jxjij;
¦ -• J jJ 3 3
-------
o
* s
<
Ck
z
< S
U
5
D
u
O
o
a a
z
0
p
£
3
£
2
QC
0
Z
U» *4
Z »
> N #
* in
O Ifi *4
oe 9 •
k on
JM
O W Mart
Mfr«MM»-4MMtoMMfr4»4M*4MMMfr4Mfr4*4to»4»4*4M OC3v4
• * •* r *«
Iff HMQl
>HC0Mk
e«oii 3> — T iJX JjZ-tJJ 3D c J> v _l
b
o
o
2
3
U
< ?
u K
O
Q
3
z
uj
5 z
£ o
£
S
3
«
&
s
0£
f
I
s
fr
1
0
%
1
e
0 (0
e *
• H
(V 0
*
«
-1
>»
e c
e x
eo
• *
*4
CB
*
CM
0
rt
tc
IL
K
e t/i «
ou :
e j <
M M M M M IH »•» M »H M •* W M »4 M M M M M M M M M M M O X (
Sff(f??fe^e^'e^ofideeeeeeee a
25 5f!12i*5ft*^^®,to®B®ooeoooo c
cvi^M4QinrtBne^MttnoiOMci»e«flNc*e 5
* * * • ••••••••***~••~•••»•~# <
O(MM)0aKNi«4^^^t#»nn *jt «• 4 j j
C-47
-------
u u
U1 UJ
o- o-
i i
vtifftei
(Moot
>rre9>eeoeeeoooee
)9fke»eeoo0eeooo«
ifffifinetf n«#etiNa»o
o m *•»
o o
«-
• 2
K>
s
*4
Ikl
e z
N
e v
m
e <
• *
»
*4
fi
X
to
©
*4
** •
M tL *4
• •
• oo •
»ez n
» a < •<
M • 10 •
• t n
• O X 9*
• Ctt «
N b.
• om
• <»4
w •
n
OA
-J «h
U
•-« (A
7> 3 - X 33 C^V-I
-------
a
S
z>
u
< £
U to
o
a
3 3
•- -7
z z n
Lkj LLJ U
^ Si ;
uj uj S
a. a. §
-c -c p
^ ^ ^
£
3
s
s
0
1
s
• ¥- 3
• r o
• • j
t-t O0
• o • u
H • ft. *1
• e jze
M *M t
4 OtOf4
e»ftft«sfk*oft6^^e*eeeeeoeei
e^r»»eti^e«te»reroooeooeoi
ointtM)ei(i*4aneef4Bi«e4N«#0
-------
C-50
Figure 23 Woter Quality Mode) Results
-------
Deep Wciter Discharge - 1985 - Dry Season
J < •* (f 7 fi 9 jc // tl /J /* /*
rtrton Aftres/AiJ Slouch q/J ma/k) txaoscCT
tt.
0 i i. J
fines ftfrrl s*/sc Wr/u
J <
fiitfs f/?JSl AAZ/aJC, £7*lT'JsJ
Figure 24 Water Quality Model Results
%
8
~
a
a
*
o
£
8-
»
Q
I *
i *
*0
m
C O1 C1
C T- C
Clf H
(MTOC
if cr> o c
N«nei
1 O 0> C c
e ff. q (
ICCIOC1
SONQCO^OOeoOOO
3 •
t m c, y <
e^^oocNhvflvOtfinirffjffioiownjWrtHeeo
r a — x urj4i?--ijj a 5 ras-j
C-51
-------
8
8
?
8-
«
o
c <
O Lu
o f-
c (/ k o
uc o
>- • •- c cc
, _ »- C 5 U ff
O (T' C IT e. o • C O C> O C. C. CJ o o c
otr-offtroo-'oooocc-ocjc.c.o
c (O c irtnfl:i«"cij,ivtr » c J f. a. sr- c.
»«»»»••~••*•••••*«•••••••~
c case f- r-- j o, <%, ^ o
c IT ' ff (T O ff
O 0 (T tT1 » a. j c ^ ^ f a c
• ••••»*•*•••«•••••••«•¦•••
OfMrfi:ca;NNJ^il/,K;?JJIOrOMVt\|H«OOa
> s —
3 O * J) N. -J
-------
8 8
8
8
£•
0
• e a
»c <
*- • o
• c u :
• C. L.i t
• <: — i
5
CD
e cr« Ba*eeee.ac.csQccc<
C ff OtP UoJ'CO 0"O0 OCCC3OOOC-.C,C.C,
c tT h tt r, c if i» «, ir, ovC(v»T
C-53
-------
I •
8
oc
O Z
O f-
c e,
QIMMfff>Off'(J,O(roS,ff'Oirc60000D00CO
oa'^{r^o«rff»off»off^cro(roc>ooooooooo
»«#••••••••••••••»•~*~••••
) LI O »
r _j —i o
I U) C*
or c/i
< t-
1 7"
UJ Ui
z *
o
UJ
^ o - r uiujs-Hjj
C-54
t-
O
8 8
s
a
£
o e
c 7
c c
c »o
' -J
I V. •
Cfflff«ff'fl,OJ'ff1Of>6(rff>O^OOOODOUOOClO
©ffs<^o<7»©o©©e.ooc.©oc.
on HN»OCIflHC«C If h4 KlCJl\R.JC^(VirsO
o^irsccoNhvfitfii&iririififOificjivniHHOoo
•-
u. +-
> 7
< w
* *
C'
1 JtUJ? — ¦
-------
V ^
B
£
a a
3
i
• C. <\
ir a- ir
o- t o
, — r- w
o o tr c.
C.CT1 e 'J S-! K f*
3 (T> C (T " CI ff C C t' C C C P. O ooo&
ff k c ir r ff K! r fv c, tf c n<; c. o ^ k, ;
.CwftiCVr-fr^OCC.
C I/1 CM
C UJ " »
<¦ — r »
• »— _ r„
c. T v ~
•%. ~
C Uj
y jf
C-55
-------
?• = - r x
C-56
of 5.0 mg/1 is achieved greater than 90% of the time in
Artesian, Mud, Guadalupe, and Mowry Sloughs, Coyote Creek,
and in portions of Newark and Alviso Sloughs. Results for 1995
are essentially the same as 1985 for all seasons.
The Disposal Point 31 alternative, 1985, Dry Season results
(Figure 35 and Figures 36-45) show only minor differences
when compared to those of Nearest Deep-Water discharge,
1985, Dry Season. These differences are in the vicinity of
Disposal Point 31 where calculated dissolved oxygen concentrations
are 0.1-0.4 mg/1 less than those calculated for the Nearest
Deep-Water Discharge Alternative. Comparisons of computed
concentrations with dissolved oxygen objectives are essentially
the same for the Nearest Deep-Water Discharge alternative
and the Disposal Point 31 Alternative in all of the sloughs
for the seasonal conditions investigated.
B. Relative Toxicity Concentration Projections
Projected toxicity concentrations on the main bay transect
for the various discharge alternatives are presented in
Figures 46 through 51 for 1995.
No Project, Dry Season and Wet Season results show that
approximately 400 ml/1 of relative toxicity will result in
the southern most sloughs. This result assumes 95% survival
of test oganisms in the prescribed bioassay test such that
the toxic concentration of the waste is 0.4 toxic units.
The toxicity decreases rapidly in the main bay transect to
approximately 70 ml/1 at Dumbarton Bridge. During the Dry
Season, sloughs which are not subject to effluent discharge
will have relative toxicity levels throughout their length
equal to those on the main bay transect near the mouths of
the sloughs. The urban and other runoff flow during the wet
season is sufficient to reduce toxicity concentrations to
nearly zero at the upstream sections in Coyote Creek and
Newark Slough. Upstream concentrations are reduced in all
the other sloughs by approximately 50% under wet weather
conditions.
Under the Nearest Deep Water discharge alternative, Dry and
West Season concentrations in the main bay transect in the
-------
DP 31 - 1985 - Dry
a*T£S/Aa/ ClOJG*
—r~hr
iiti csi rvurt \nr'/tc
Figure 35 Water Quality Model Results
::
iKEsRissisIssIsiliiiliglsi
Off>ON OOISIK S tf)l
-------
DP 31 Discharge - 1985 - Dry Season
10*000
9,599
9.199
8.799
8.399
0.000
7.599
7.199
6.800
6.399
6.000
5.599
5.199
4.800
*.399
4.000
3.600
3.200
2.800
2.400
2.000
1.600
1.200
0.800
0.100
0.000
UPPER
StliMEiYTS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1...
0.000
WILES
COYOTE
90,99,
90TH PERCENTILE DO CAI£ULATED
90TH PERCENTILE DO STANDARD
SATURATION
.I..,,I,..,I....I.
1,000 2,000
FROM NIi.PlTAS OUTFftLL
CREEK
100*101*102
,.!mm
3,000
• •1
4,000
Figure 37 Water Quality Modeling Results
DP 31 Discharge - 1985 - Dry Season
10,000
I
9.599
I
9,199
I
8.799
1
8.399
I
8.000
I
7.599
I
7.199
I
6.900
I
6,399
I
6,000
I
5.599
I
5.199
I
4,800
1
4,399
I
4,000
I
3,600
I
3,200
I
2.600
I
2,400
I
2,000
I
1,600
I
1.200
I
0.800
1
0.400
I
0.000
I
90TH PERCE2tni£ DO CAJjCUIAIH)
90TH PERCENTILE DO SffiNEftRD
SATURATION
0,000 0.500 1,000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000
miles F«0* Sj-Sc OUTfALL
ARTESIAN SLOUGH
StGMEMTS 103,101.105.106,107.100,109,110. in. 112
Figure 38 Water Quality Modeling Results
-------
DP 31 Dischorge - 1985 - Dry Season
*
10.000
I
u
9.599
I
1
9.199
I
H
0.799
I
8. 399
1
K
B. 000
I
t
7.599
I
K
7. 199
I
L
6. BOO
1
L
6.399
I
N
6.000
I
1
5.599
I
i
5.199
I
L
4.000
I
t
*.399
I
4.000
I
U
3.600
I
U
3.200
I
2.000
I
*
2.400
I
b
2.000
I
/
1.600
I
L
1*200
I
0.800
X
0*400
I
0*000
1
90TH PERCENrH£ DO CALCUIA35D
90*IH PEHONrrIE DO STANDARD
SATORMTCN
0*000 1*000 2*000
MlLtS FROM UNJON-IRV OUTFALL
MUD SLOUGH
Sfc6*ENTS 113«114«U5*116,117
Figure 39 Water Quality Modeling Results
DP 31 Discharge - 1985 - Dry Season
10,000
I
u
9.599
I
i
9.199
I
H
8*799
I
8.399
I
H
B.000
I
t
7*599
I
K
7*199
I
L
6*800
I
t
6.399
I
*
6.000
I
1
5*599
I
1
5*199
I
L
4*800
I
t
4*399
I
4.000
I
LI
3*600
I
U
3*200
I
2*800
I
m
2*400
I
b
2*000
I
/
1*600
I
L
1.200
I
0.800
I
0*400
I
0.000
I
* 90*151 PERCENTILE DO CAICULATED
• 901H wnwi'iin DO STMCftFD
- SATURATION
I.*..I....I..*.I***.I*«**
0*000 1*000 2.000
MILCS FROM 6A6IN6 STATION
ALVIS0 SL0USH
SLGMENTS ll9«119«120
..I....
3.000
• .I
(>.000
Figure 40 Water Quality Modeling Results
0
1
-------
0
1
©
DP 31 Discharge - 1985 - Dry Season
I.
» 10,000 I
u 9.599 I
I ».JM I
H 8.799 I
B. 399 I
•* e.ooo i
t 7.599 I
M 7.199 I
<- 6.800 I
«¦ 6.399 I
n 6.000 I
• 5.599 I
i 5.199 I
<- *.«00 I
t *.399 I
•».000 I
LI 3.600 I
u 3,200 I
2.800 I
8.1,09 J * 901H PEBCENrUE DO CAICUIATBD
2.000 I • 90TH PEBCENTHE DO STANDARD
1.600 I
1.800 I " SATURATION
0.B00 I
O.tOO I
0.000 I
I.... I....I....I....I....I....I....I....I.... I....I.... I.... I....
0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 1.000 5.000 6.000
MILES FRO* 6A6INS STATION
GUADALUPE SLOUGH
SLGKENTS 121.122.123.12*.125
Figure 41 Water Quality Modeling Results
DP 31 Discharge - 1985 - Dry Season
*
10.000
I
u
9.599
I
i
9.199
I
H
6.799
i
6.399
i
6.000
i
t
7,599
i
K
7.199
l
L
6.800
i
t
6.399
i
N
6.000
i
I
5.599
i
1
5.199
i
L
4.600
i
L
*•399
i
4.000
i
L>
3.600
i
U
*•200
i
2. 600
i
m
2.400
i
to
2.000
i
/
1.600
i
L
1.200
i
0.600
i
O.itOO
i
0.000
r
* 9OTH PEBCENTIU: DO CALCU1MTD
• 90TH PERCEOTM: DO STANDARD
- SAIURATICN
0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 H.000 5.000 6.000 7.000
HlLtS FRO* MOyRY landing
KOWRr slough
StGIENTS 126.127.12S
Figure 42 Water Quality Modeling Results
-------
DP 31 Discharge - 1985 - Dry Season
-i
10.000
I
U
9.599
I
t
9.199
I
H
8*799
I
8.399
I
y*
8.000
I
L
7.599
I
N
7.199
I
U
6.800
I
t
6*399
1
N
6.000
I
J
5.599
I
1
5.199
I
L
"~.B00
I
t
<>•399
I
4.000
I
U
3*600
I
U
3*200
I
2*800
I
ft
2.1100
I
\9
2.000
I
/
1.600
I
L
1*200
I
0*800
I
0.400
I
0*000
I
* 901H PEFCEjnnZ DO OLCU1AITD
• 90TB PERCENITIi DO STMEAFE)
- SATORATICN
l.***I*...I..*.X*.*.I»**.I.**.I.**.I....l....I....I***.I....I
0.000 1*000 2.000 3.000 *.000 5.000 6.000
WILES F*0K MAYHEWS LANDING
NEWARK SL0U6H
St6MENTS 129.130.131,132,133.13»*
Figure 43 Water Quality Modeling Results
DP 31 Discharge - 1985 - Dry Season
*
10*000
I
u
9*599
I
1
9*199
I
M
8*799
I
8*399
I
H
8*000
I
t
7*599
I
K
7*199
I
L
6*800
I
L
6*399
I
N
6*000
I
1
5*599
I
1
5*199
I
L
«*800
I
L
4*399
I
4*000
I
U
3*600
I
U
3*200
I
2*800
I
M.
2*400
I
b
2*000
I
/
1*600
I
L
1*200
I
0*800
I
0*900
I
0*000
I
I.***I»**.I**..I*«.«I*...I
0*000 1*000 2*000
miles from sand point
"AYFIELD SLOUGH
SLGNCNTS 135,136,137,130,139
* 90th PERCEMTILE DO CALCULATED
. 90th PERCENTILE DO STANDARD
- SATURATION
Figure 44 Water Quality Modeling Resu|,s
o
05
-------
DP 31 Discharge - 1985 - Dry Season
*
10.000
I
u
9.599
I
1
9.199
I
H
8.799
I
0*399
I
P
8.000
I
t
7.599
I
K
7.199
1
t
6. 000
I
&
6.399
I
N
6.000
I
1
5.599
I
1
5.199
I
L
4.000
I
t
*.399
I
*.000
I
U
3.600
I
U
3.200
I
2.000
I
m
2. *00
I
b
2.000
I
/
1.600
I
L
1*200
I
0.000
1
0.100
1
o.ooo
I
90TH PERCENTER DO CAICUIATO
90TH PER3NTHE DO STANDARD
SA3URATICN
0*000 1*000 2.000
XlLES pROU P.aLTO-MT view boundary
UNNAMED NEAR NAYFIELD SLOUGH
StS^ENTS H0»H1
Figure 45 »Vater Quality Modeling Results
TABLE 21
Relative toxicity calculated
1995
NO PROJECT DEEP WATER DISCHARGE Dp 3t DISCHARGE
^?G«*ENT
3RY season
WET SEftSON
ORY SEASON
WET SEASON
DRY SEASDN
WET SEftSOM
1
•115.26
382.09
125.10
09.93
52.65
34.43
2
370.95
313.5ft
121.20
96.70
52.27
37.02
3
319.15
295.52
123.57
101.29
52.01
38.77
270.57
259,19
122.85
101.57
51 .70
40.03
5
232.53
217.39
122.01
107.50
51.36
41.15
6
190.17
170.11
121.21
109.75
51 .03
42.01
7
157.35
117.66
120.57
111.86
50 .74
42.83
0
111.49
135.67
120.28
112.67
50.62
13.13
9
111.06
107.37
121.55
119.06
50 , M
43.90
10
116.12
109.17
117.02
111.81
50,33
13.83
11
101.50
95.53
100.03
103.53
50 57
41.19
1?
100.59
91.50
105,11
100.50
50 .16
*1.20
13
81.19
70.90
00,95
81.61
50 ,01
11.58
87.57
02.21
93,10
89.00
50 ,02
14.51
15
09.64
01.01
93.93
09.44
5o rj5
44.43
16
82.90
77.64
07.25
02.91
50.01
44.61
17
83.96
70.79
09,51
01.29
49.96
44.6ft
18
01.81
79.59
09,60
01.32
49.96
44.50
19
80.99
76.07
04.00
80.83
49.93
44.66
?0
81.12
76.11
04.81
80.74
4C 99
44.68
31
84.44
79.22
00.13
83.87
49.96
44.59
22
79. if 6
7*1,58
02.98
78.95
49 ,«2
44.69
23
75.76
71.11
79.29
71.39
49.79
44.04
24
00.01
75.00
02.61
78.53
49.o7
44.72
i>5
70.32
66.15
7?. 56
60.03
49,70
44.99
26
69.62
65.32
71.12
67.42
4Q . S9
45.03
?7
75.43
70.81
74.56
70.62
49.76
44.87
20
65.16
61.08
66.50
62.95
49.*1
45.16
2 9
58.60
51.82
59.73
56.38
49,51
45.35
30
16.21
12.91
47.00
13.97
47 , ft 1
44.23
M
17.62
11.25
10.15
15.38
4Q.Sl
45.67
32
38.05
35.65
39.19
36.51
10 .17
36.73
*3
37.98
31,77
39.57
35.5*i
39.J9
35.74
37.25
31.10
37.02
31.06
30,41
35.04
35
31.95
31.71
35.41
32.14
35.99
32.62
3*
3?.97
29. 99
33.40
30.57
3'i .02
30.74
-------
TABLE 21
RELATIVE
toxicity
calculated
<*L/L>
1995
NO
PROJECT
DEE& dATER DISCHARGE
Op 31 DISCHARGE
:nt
DRY SEASON
*ET SEASON
DRT
SEASON *ET
SEASON QRY
SEASON
rfET SEASON
37
37.93
31.51
33.11
35.31
39.02
35.50
38
35.96
32*83
36.50
33.53
37.05
33.70
39
25. 63
22.70
25.99
23.15
26.35
23.26
*0
29.21
26.22
29.61
26.76
30.10
26.9?
11
37. ?5
33.91
37.82
31.69
3e.4i
31.07
"~2
34.08
30.99
31.57
31.61
35.06
31.76
<~3
2?.73
19.90
23.03
20.26
23.33
?0.35
41
25.68
22.79
26.01
23.25
2f .42
23.36
15
32.54
29.38
33.00
29.97
33.<*6
30.10
16
?B. *9
25.31
29.95
25.75
29.?1
?5.84
i*7
21.00
18.23
21.27
18.56
21.53
18.63
48
23.02
20.21
23.33
20.60
23.61
20.69
19
32.51
29.18
32.96
29.75
33.12
29.89
so
27.99
21.ei
29.35
25.21
28.69
25.31
51
20. *3
17.72
20.69
18.03
20.95
18.10
52
21.19
18. *7
21.15
18.80
21.73
18.88
53
32.37
28. 91
32.82
29.51
33.28
29.65
5*
29.63
26.19
30.03
26.69
30.13
26.90
55
19.S6
17.21
20.11
17.51
20.36
17.57
56
19.96
17.21
20.11
17.55
2C.36
17.61
57
37.13
32.17
37.68
33.13
38.21
33.29
58
39.02
33.93
39.62
31.65
10.21
31.83
59
19.10
16.51
19.31
16.82
19.57
16.89
60
18.12
15.69
19.31
15.96
18.56
16.02
61
36. 9*
32.09
37. 3fl
32.75
37.93
32.90
62
19.99
17.38
20.28
17.71
20.56
17.82
63
1A.81
16.33
19.07
16.61
19.30
16.67
61
15.98
13.72
16.06
13.91
16.23
13.98
65
31.91
30.67
35.10
31.21
35.95
31.37
66
25.59
22.31
25.91
22.77
26.28
22.86
67
17.6*
15.31
17.85
15.59
18.06
15.61
68
11.76
12.78
11.92
12.97
15.07
13.00
69
31.19
27.58
31.56
28.03
31.91
28.13
70
25.05
22.08
25.35
22.16
25.65
22.51
71
12.37
10.85
12.18
10.99
12.59
11.01
72
11.33
9.91
11.13
10.06
11.52
10.08
TABLE 21
RELATIVE
toxicity
CALCULATED
(ML/L)
1995
NO
project
DEEP rfATER
DISCHARGE
DP 31 DISCMARGE
^rG^ENT
DRY SEaSDN
met SEASON
DRY SEASON
WET SEASON
DRY SEASON
*ET SEASON
73
26.10
23.11
26.36
23.11
26.61
23.51
71
16.88
15.15
17.03
15.61
17.17
15.6«
75
9.71
8.73
9.82
8.82
9.98
9.03
76
12.50
12.05
12.51
12.12
12.56
12.12
77
9.86
9. f5
9.90
9.50
9.92
9.50
78
5.75
5.51
5.77
5.51
5.78
5.53
79
5,75
5.51
5.77
5.51
5.78
5.53
80
9.62
9.38
9.61
9.12
9.61
9.41
81
7.11
6.97
7.16
7.00
7.16
6.99
82
1.61
1.52
1.66
1.51
1.66
4.53
R3
1,95
1.86
1.96
1.88
1.96
4.R7
*4
3.90
3.81
3.91
3.82
3.90
3.82
95
3.51
3.19
3.55
3.19
3.55
3.19
86
3.32
3.26
3.32
3,27
3.32
3,26
87
1.78
1.68
1.78
1.69
1.78
1.69
98
2.SO
2.71
2.80
2.75
2.90
2.75
89
?.u
2.09
2.12
2.09
2.12
2.09
90
1.18
1.12
1.18
1.12
1.18
1,12
91
1.18
1.11
1.18
1.15
1,18
1.11
92
1.11
1.13
1.11
1.13
l.H
1.13
93
0.53
0.56
0.53
0.56
0,53
0.56
91
0.18
0.19
0.18
0.19
0.18
0.19
95
0.63
0.56
0.63
0.56
0,53
0.56
96
0.35
0.31
0.35
0.31
0.35
0.31
97
0.53
0.56
0.53
0.56
0.53
0.56
98
116.76
0.70
125.56
0.16
52.91
0.06
99
116.76
17.18
125.56
1.01
52.81
1.51
100
116.76
125.85
125.56
29,62
52.91
11.31
101
116.76
232.93
125.56
51.82
52.91
20.98
102
116.76
321.65
125.56
76.11
52.91
29.25
103
115.18
125.11
125.31
0.62
52.71
0.23
101
115.18
125.11
125.31
1.01
52.71
1,53
105
115.26
125.21
125.31
27.66
52.71
10.59
106
117.06
126.86
125.31
18,11
52.71
18.54
107
115.18
125.11
125.31
58.81
52.74
22.51
108
115.1fl
125.15
125.31
65.10
52.71
24.92
a
-------
TABLE 21
RELATIVE TOXICITY CALCULATE!) (ML/L)
1995
NO
PROJECT
DECp WATER
DISCHARGE
Dp 31 DISCHAR6E
segment
DRY SEASON
MET SEASON
DRV SEASON
WET SEASON
DRT SEASON
WET SEASON
10'
115.27
125.19
125.31
71.25
52.71
27.28
110
*16.*0
126.19
125.31
77.29
52.71
29.59
111
110.21
118.18
125.31
83,21
52.71
31.86
112
*30.03
103.25
1*5.31
87.31
52.71
33.12
115
319,11
181.29
123.57
63.16
52.01
21.18
11*
319.11
215.03
123,37
83,98
52.01
32.15
lis
319.15
272.18
123.57
93.39
52.01
35.75
116
319.15
282.15
123.57
96.81
52.01
37.06
117
319.15
289.17
123.57
99.11
52.01
37.91
118
190.17
*9.07
121.21
61.01
51.03
23.36
119
190.17
117.10
121.21
90.81
51.03
31.76
120
190.17
169.S7
121.21
101.35
51.03
39.95
121
379.52
128,11
121.1*
22.38
51.01
8.56
122
379.52
310.89
121.19
51.29
51.01
20.78
123
352,52
298,81
121.19
71.61
51.01
28.57
12*
276.18
2*5,71
121.19
91.12
51.01
36,o3
125
203.99
187,39
121.19
105.81
51.01
40.52
126
82.90
35.60
87.25
35,88
50.01
19,31
127
82.90
68.16
87.25
72.78
50.01
39.16
128
82.90
75.51
87.25
80.66
sn.ol
43,40
129
79.71
1.57
83.28
1.62
50.00
2.62
130
79.71
26.29
83.28
27.83
50.00
15.75
131
79.71
16.37
83.28
19.09
50.00
27.79
132
79.71
61.59
83.28
68.37
50.00
38.70
133
79.71
71.TS
83.28
75.96
50.00
43.00
131
79.71
75.19
83.28
77.80
50.00
44.O*
133
116.96
138.89
71.62
67.16
19.79
42.66
136
121.82
118.11
71.62
68.51
19.79
43.52
137
101.87
99.19
71.62
69.39
19.79
44.09
138
90.68
85.55
71.62
70.00
19.79
44.*7
139
80.90
76.10
71.62
70.11
19.79
44.73
110
90.12
78.36
91.13
83.39
50.32
41.43
111
90.12
82.61
91.13
87.91
50.32
43.68
No Project - 1995 - Dry Season
3UO.OOO T •••*•••• a....*.
*po.nno i
**^n.ono t
Ul*o.ooo i
*?o.ooo i *
^O.OOfl T * EELATIVE TOXICITY CRICUIA3ED
4*0.000 t *
3&0.000 T " RELATIVE TOXICITY GUIDELINE
-^n.noo i
*20.000 T
5UO.OOO I
^so.noo r *
^feo.non t
'*0.000 t
<*2 0.00 0 T
''UU.000 T
i"n.ooo t
IfrO.OPO I *
ltu.000 T «
1^0.000 I *
luO.OOO T
"0.000 7 *~*
fcn.noo t #
40.000 T
?o.ooo i • • •
o.noo t
Hf\TN RAY TRANSECT
:K«ENTS 1?n,?p,3l,39,4 7,5n.55,60.7l,79,9 2,89,92,93,9<*
Figure 46 Water Quality Modeling Results
-------
No Project - 1995 - Wet Season
K
^UO.flOD
T
t
4AO.OOO
I
C
•+60.P0D
I
,
*«0.000
r
«*2o,nnn
I
1
•~uo.ooc
I
u
5H0.O00
I
X
560.POO
I
I
5HO.POC
I
t
*20.000
I
I
due.000
I
1
*.*0.000
I
T
^feO.OOO
T
«?«»0.000
I
M
*>20.000
I
L
i'OO.OOO
I
/
1RO.OOO
I
L
160.000
I
ltv.000
t
120.OOO
T
lUD.OOO
I
n0.000
t
60.000
T
*0.000
I
20.000
I
0.000
I
REIAUVE TOXICITY CMCUIAIED
RELATIVE TCKICnY GUIDELINE
I....T....7....I....I....I..«.I....I....I....I....I.... I.... I....I....I.,..I....I....
o.^on «>.nnn 10,000 15.000 20.000 25.ooo 30,000 35,000 «*o.ooo
*!(_€* rROX aqtEsian slough
TN =lftY TRANSACT
SLG*ENTS 1 7, 9,^,15,1 7, 20,28, 31,39, *7, 50,55,60, 71, 73,8 2,89,92,93,91
Figure 47 Water Quality Modeling Results
Deep Water Discharge - 1995 - Dry Season
K
125.000
I
L
120.000
I
L
115*000
I
.
110.000
I
105.000
I
r
100.000
I
0
95.000
I
X
90.000
I
I
85.000
I
c
80.000
I
1
75.000
I
1
70.000
I
T
65.000
T
60.000
I
*
55.000
I
L
50.000
1
/
<5.000
I
L
*0.000
X
35.000
I
30.000
I
25.000
I
20.000
I
15.000
I
10.000
I
5.000
I
u.ooo
I
BKIATIVE TCDaCnV CMflM)
RELATIVE TOXICITY GUHELIKE
I....T...I...I....I....I..I....I....I..,.I.... I
O.flOO 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 S5.000 *0,000
miles from artesian sloush
MAIN BAY TRANSECT
<3*
01
Figure 48 Water Quality Modeling Results
-------
Oi
Deep Water Discharge - 1995 - Wet Season
1....T..
K
125,000
I
t
220.000
I
«
L
U5.000
I
*
•
uo.ooo
I
*
* RELATIVE TOXICITY CAICUIATED
1U5.000
I •
1
1U0.000
I
* RELATIVE TOXICITY GUIDELINE
U
95.000
I •
X
90,000
1 »
*
I
65.000
I
•
(.
*0.000
1
•
1
75.000
I
t
70.000
I
T
65.000
I
*
60.000
I
n
55.000
I
L
50.000
I
/
*3.000
I
*
L
HO.000
I . • •
... ... ..
• . • »
.
• • . . •
• •
55.000
I
3Q.000
t
25.000
I
* *
20.000
I
* *
15.000
I
•
10.000
I
«
5.000
I
* *
0.000
I
• •
* •
0.000
5.000 10.000
15.000
20.000
25.000 30,000 55.000
40.000
MILES FROM ARTESIAN SLOUGH
MAIN BAT TRANSECT
StGMENTS l«2»*.7«n,9.i5*l7*20,2e,3l.39»>»7t50t55«60»7i,79iB 2.89.92,93,9'*
Figure 49 Water Quality Modeling Results
DP 31 Discharge - 1995 - Dry Season
K
125.000
I
t
120.000
I
L
115.000
I
•
110.000
I
1U5.000
I
r
1UO.OOQ
I
i>
95.000
I
X
^0.000
I
1
05.000
I
U
PO.OOO
t
i
75.000
I
i
70.000
I
Y
65.000
I
*0.000
r
«4
55.000
r
L
50.000
X
/
*5.0U0
i
L
*0.000
i
•35.000
i
30.000
i
25.000
i
«7l,7<)«9 ?»89» 92,93,9«»
Figure 50 Water Quality Modeling Results
-------
o id m
03 •
00 ®
cue
tt. if) <
nzr
o o <
o o <
o o <
>eooeoooo00000000
>0000000000000000
>0000000000000000
t it j •
— — * * _» V J
vicinity of the disposal sites are approximately 125 ml/1.
Concentrations downstream of segment 14 in the main bay
transect are similar to those of the No Project cases as are
levels in Newark and Mowry Sloughs. Upstream of the disposal
sites in the main bay transect, concentrations are approximately
125 ml/1. During the Dry Season a relative toxicity
concentration of 125 ml/1 is calculated throughout Guadalupe,
Alviso, Artesian, and Mud Sloughs, and Coyote Creek. Wet
Season concentrations are reduced in Coyote Creek, Newark,
Mud, Mowry and Alviso Sloughs similar to Wet Season reductions
for the No Project, Wet Season alternative. The effects of
urban runoff flow and tidal dispersion reduce upstream
concentrations and are responsible for the shape of the
toxicity profiles in Artesian, Guadalupe, and Mayfield
Sloughs.
The Disposal Point 31 Alternative, Dry Season, toxicity
concentrations are approximately 50 ml/1 in the main bay
transect south of Dumbarton Bridge and in all the sloughs.
During the Wet Season the main bay transect concentrations
are approximately 45 ml/1. Concentrations in the sloughs
are lower than Dry Season concentrations due to wet weather
influences described above.
C. Chloride Concentration Projections
Projected chloride concentrations in the main bay transect
for three cases representing No Project, Nearest Deep Water
Discharge, and Disposal Point 31 management alternatives and
of Dry and West Seasons are presented in Figures 52 and 53
and on Table 22.
No Project, Dry Season chloride concentrations are approximately
2,000 mg/1 at the juncture of Coyote Creek and Artesian
Slough, and increase to 14,000 mg/1 at milepoint 6.0.
Chlorides continue to increase to 16,000 mg/1 at milepoint
14.0. Wet Season chlorides vary from 1,000 in Coyote Creek
increasing to 10,000 mg/1 at mile 6.0, and 12,000 mg/1 at
milepoint 14.0.
Nearest Deep Water, Dry Season chlorides are approximately
14,000 mg/1 between milepoint 0.1 and 6.0 and increase to
16,000 mg/1 at milepoint 14.0. Wet Season values are 8,000
mg/1 at milepoint 0.0 increasing to 10,000 at milepoint 6.0
and 12,000 at milepoint 14.0.
C-67
-------
\
o -
^ 'Byi"-
l(,ooo\-
» '
ft ' I = .!"•'
o
-? (0. CWOrl-
n
Mti
*
M
ACOC
y
WW-
MM
!7V> a.J
t '-h
"i.r1'
..u.
¦r;
w5T'^". %i ¦¦ hi
IT
tyai n E oyj Tr
i. k:
fiftHi
0 1 2
4 5 6
rtitc'J
7 8 9 10 U 12 13 14 15
r/tOM fl(KT£S(4+) SCO
No Project or Upgraded
Deep Water Discharge
DP 31 Discharge
Figure 52 Computer Chloride Concentration - Dry Season
C-68
Chlorides: Wet Season
_____ No Project or Upgraded
Deep Water Discharge
DP 31 Dischorge
Figure 53 Computed Chloride Concentration - Wet Season
-------
TABLE 22
CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS (mg/1)
- 1985 and 1995 -
Dry and
Canning
Seasons
No Project
Wet Season
Deep Water Discharge
Dry and
Canning
Seasons Wet Seas
1
2
3
"4
*
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
l*
16
17
15
19
20
31
2?
23
24
25
26
27
2ft
29
30
31
3?
33
34
35
36
1779.01
37*2 .
5«?5.46
73*4.47
9079.t*7
10571 .*'~
11702.37
121*3.9*
13119.91
130U7.07
13509.5*
135*8.ou
140*7,04
13944.71
13AAQ.AA
140«9.«5
14047.A7
14016.*A
14107.3*
1IHP2.AH
140?7.44
i4i**.:>7
14274.?0
UH9,?^
14412.«i
144u8.4o
l42*5.*0
145*1.5*
I4777.no
151*6.*0
15101.**
153*9.76
154*5.66
154*7.4*
155*0.50
155«?,6*
933.36
2l64.76
3580.0*
4711,32
5999.17
7178.01
81HA.45
8529.52
9436,05
9375,35
9*10,43
9*39.35
10335,17
10232.66
1016*,46
10374.24
103H3.42
10315.59
10426,94
10431,88
10328,03
10474.34
10603.25
10466,88
10761.29
10*01,20
10602,37
10948.64
11166,15
11*77,93
11532.07
11*29.37
11859,66
11882,85
11964,85
12028,55
13862.19
13762,33
13691,70
13612,32
13522,40
13434.08
13359.45
13327.57
13083,66
13335,88
13586,26
13678.15
14166.10
14029.17
14012.61
14218.28
14162.30
14156,36
14235.54
14255,B6
14168.77
14291.90
14431,75
14317,26
14593.31
14623.84
14537,43
14746.73
14927,13
15277.92
15225.91
15492,91
15557,10
15557.10
15624,17
15671.79
7808.75
8396,82
8795,19
9079.86
9334,28
9529.9B
9714.85
9783.46
9856.82
9994.09
10251,23
10313.20
10727,76
10620,69
10593,42
10768.57
10739.66
10732.33
10822.35
10831,02
10744.29
10869.25
11000.40
10885,63
11149,4*
11188.41
11081.32
11313,50
11497,60
11845,22
11805,74
12054.69
12080,97
12100.37
12168.06
12221.48
DP 31 Disposal
Dry and
Cann .ng
Seasons Wet Season
16747.99
16627. 3«»
16542.01
16446.10
16337.46
16230.75
16140.59
16102,08
16002,57
16008,41
15957.64
15955,85
15907,43
15911.67
15920.87
15905.82
15891.26
15892.29
15851.20
15869.38
15899.82
15847.43
15838.04
15862.01
15809.53
15804.27
15826.80
15781,48
157<»8.3<*
15733,00
15692.68
15880.38
15937.52
15930.81
15975.64
16006.14
9009.60
9688.09
10147.73
10476.17
10769.72
10995,52
11208,82
11287,98
11488,16
11471.15
11563.97
11566,47
11667,89
11649,40
11628,86
11674,93
11673,30
11666,08
11687,35
11693.98
11669.16
11696,76
11736.18
11703.95
11773.65
11784.34
11742,55
11618,98
11669,5®
11988.63
11952,80
12175,47
12199.37
12216.71
12276.80
12324.66
C-69
-------
Segment
Dry and
Canning
Seasons
3? 15998,09
38 15511.>>1
39 15Sp7.5»
to I57n?.ni
11 15510.0?
»2 I55»0.?n
*5 159(l5.n7
»t I58i>e.n«.
»5 15M?,B7
*6 1579B.«<1
** 15913.6?
"VB 15B»?."15
19 157n6.67
50 15851,"9
51 15911.21
52 1591B.no
53 15793.711
59 16105.«0
55 15910.11
56 15999.09
57 19S«o.5;>
5B
59 15»»1,«t
60 161 AS,16
61 19711,67
62
63 i5Bno,n
6* 16628,17
65 19531,?3
56 11769.11
67 lt.l'S.l*
68 16809.7s
69 117*1,on
70 165»9.17
71 57062.:>1
72 17317.6*
C-70
TABLE 22
CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS (mg/1)
(Continued)
- 1985 and 1395 -
Wet Season
Deep Water Discharge
Dry and
Canning
Seasons Wet Season
Dry and
Canr ing
Seasons
OP 31 Disposal
11*67.7?
U«26.84
12?75.42
12l55.95
11*88.55
11992.32
12371.91
12276,28
120*7.0?
12i8*.24
12428.67
12370.*5
12n56.35
12?25.02
124*5.60
124*7.2*
1?q87.19
12429.13
12460.55
1?527.04
15a45.89
12459.97
12734,86
14*97.3*
12407.27
13166,74
14592.21
11161.49
12764,00
13^83,9*
14?29,99
12729.28
13*57,25
I4n*6.*8
15599,22
15608.73
15899.25
15782.26
15629,93
15674.36
15969,84
15*79,T7
15700.90
15826.83
1599*,04
15947.79
15795.08
1590*.69
15993.24
15999.48
15881.99
16268,48
15907.69
16057,12
19968.67
15947,20
16240.46
19852.S9
15854.86
16673,92
19430.84
14843,99
16205.86
16851.77
19370.78
16661.32
17097.01
17349.22
12087.75
12137.47
12*27.96
12328.21
12105,31
12193,09
12508.60
12*29.16
12238.48
12357,11
12555,0*
12508,71
12246,71
12391,38
12569.86
12575.40
12276.51
12606.2*
12581.76
12647.86
15275.45
12577.08
12845.*6
15123.43
12522.90
13263.35
14803.91
11318.61
12891.93
13473.87
14419.1*
12882.88
13933.47
14116.37
15970.35
15971.14
16167,3?
16082.57
l6n03.92
16020.07
16211.65
161*6.10
16032.40
16121.93
16220.00
16191.83
16126.58
16196.4?
16214.00
16226.47
1*213.01
16591.24
16203.12
16271,39
20379,14
16155.13
16*36.17
20258.84
16059,88
16843,81
19805,83
15123.94
16395.74
17000.75
19201.53
16930.21
17226.72
17*67.21
12205.45
12249.99
12509.16
12420.1*
12221.13
12299.29
1 25 P 1, 19
12510.59
12340.29
12446.42
12623.37
12582.25
12347,91
12*79,*0
12635.64
12643.51
12377.15
12700.?4
12646,15
12712.05
15396.25
12639.30
1290*.19
15244.03
12584.33
13314,58
14915.99
11402.13
12949.19
13521,50
14519,98
12964.58
13973.79
14153.31
-------
TABLE 22
CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS (mg/1)
(Continued)
- 1985 and 1995 -
Segment
Dry and
Canning
Seasons
Proje
Wet Season
Deep Water Discharge
Dry and
Canning
Seasons
Wet Season
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
Bn
31
92
93
04
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
9?
93
9*
95
96
97
9ft
99
ion
101
10?
103
10<»
105
106
107
108
106*9.76
174*1.n*
173*7.AO
177*9,07
175*q,op
173*8.01
173*8,nn
17593,6?
173^7.43
172rtB,50
17209,67
17187,**
1708?.R?
170B4.4?
17311.?4
16979,*5
16989,57
I6807.8P
167*0.7*1
16913. J<*
172*6.I 7
1774 7.74
16087.7U
16n«9.««»
17?K6.17
1705.4?
1785.1*?
17*5,4?
17*5.4?
1785.4?
O.nn
o.nn
0.r»o
O.nr
0 .ft*
0,*7
i4?i5.ot*
14098,35
14 309.01
14503.*9
14560.10
1471?.95
14712,95
14588.07
14665,76
14764.51
14738.48
14795.66
14776.01
1**21,24
14672,63
14743.02
14905.75
14655.13
14608.25
1497^,87
1561?.97
16513.05
13902.62
14105.65
1561?.97
1.71
41.97
307.44
*69.on
793.05
0.00
o.oo
n.oo
n.oo
n.o?
o.i?
10713.30
17500,10
17394.74
17802.37
17576,40
17353.29
17353.28
17619.05
17406,33
17220.74
17222.01
17140,10
17092,03
17093.09
17315.91
16906,83
16995,14
16901.70
16754,64
16916.18
17257,63
17748,23
16009.43
16060.05
17257.6?
13912,20
1391?.?0
13912.20
15912.20
13912,20
13904.92
13804,92
13804,92
13884,9?
13884,92
13804,9?
14373.04
14205.63
14371,17
14587.85
14626.40
14751.97
14751,97
14654,00
14715,02
14796.69
14773,06
14022.90
14000.96
14044,61
14664,90
14762,75
14920.90
14665.54
14690,82
14963.32
15617,42
16514,66
13966.81
14100,31
15617.41
14,31
351,15
?57?,14
4760,45
6634,86
54,30
340,67
2402.42
4206.26
5106,86
565^.1?
DP 31 Disposal
Dry and
Cann ing
Seasons
Wet Season
10986.96
17683,27
17494,81
17924,05
17673,60
17409,68
17409.68
17712.39
17475.69
17265.93
17270,71
17185.94
17126,36
17125,29
17333,27
17013.97
1*015,71
16916.12
16769,10
16927,43
17263,04
17750.09
16095,67
16064,41
17263,03
16808.40
16806.41
16808.41
16806,41
16808.41
16775.43
16775.43
16775.44
16775,44
16775,44
16775,44
14450.27
1426?.49
14403.56
1463?.?5
14661.27
14772.44
14772.44
14689.54
14740.84
14813.5
14791.10
14837,15
14814.06
14056,04
14691.35
14773.12
14928,90
14671.02
14704.30
14957* 70
15619,74
16515,49
13989.0:
14109.70
15619,74
16,51
405.15
2967,69
5492,52
7655,18
62.74
402,52
2771,06
4853,10
5892,20
65?2.47
C-71
-------
Segment
109
110
HI
112
113
111
115
116
117
116
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
136
139
140
141
No Project
Dry and
Canning
Seasons Wet Season
7,
*3.76
3*9,UP
9o9. M
58?5.46
5B25.1K
56?5,U5
56?5,4*
10571,64
10571.
10571,M
1502,27
15o2.?«
3936,54
74*7.9*
10275,07
140°9,65
14Q®9,65
14099,66
14207.24
I42n7,2*
142n7,
I42n7,2^
14207.25
14207,2«S
112A0.43
12206,19
130*7,51
136^0,91
14039,33
139*5,*1
139*5,51
2.59
26,03
176,20
507,10
2232,39
2964.35
3300,9i»
3421.64
3503*14
3992.10
5939,39
6624,80
194,09
470.90
1737.66
4286,26
6689,97
4490.36
9106.89
10092.69
614.00
3692.04
6512.65
9070.44
10077.15
10321.49
6007.43
6799,2?
9520.5*
10040.80
10401.45
9476.45
9991.73
Table 22
CONCENTRATIONS (mg/1)
(Continued)
- 1985 and 1995 -
Deep Water Discharge
Dry and
Canning
Seasons Wet Season
DP 31 Disposal
Dry and
Canning
Seasons Wet Season
13984.92
13384.93
13884.93
13684.94
13691.68
13691.69
13691,69
13691.69
13691.70
13434.07
13434.08
13434,08
13426,37
13428.37
13428.38
13426,38
13426,38
14218,28
14218,28
14218,26
14343.35
14343.36
14343,36
14343,36
14343,36
14343,36
14547.99
14547.99
14547,99
14547,99
14547,99
14067,96
14087.96
6187,46
6711.34
7225,94
7581,72
5484,87
7292.42
6109,49
6406,03
£606,25
5300.16
7885.51
9061.03
1943.35
4714,75
6481,21
8172.62
9190.28
4661.04
9453.05
10476,32
637,15
3631,24
6758.41
9412.42
10457,06
10710.64
10564.79
10748,96
10865.37
10983.38
11046,67
9677,48
10412,38
16775.44
16775.45
16775.46
16775.47
16541.97
16541.98
16541.98
16541.99
16542,00
16230.75
16230.75
16230.75
16223,86
16223.86
16223.87
16223.87
16223.67
15905,82
15905,82
15905.62
15904.49
15904,49
15904.49
15904.50
15904,50
13904.50
15838,29
15838.29
15836.30
15838,30
15638,30
16006,47
16006,47
7136.99
7743.42
8337.16
B747.65
6326.34
8413,67
9356,59
9698.73
9929.74
6115,23
9096.15
10454.45
2242,20
5439,80
7477,90
9429,65
10603,58
5053.35
10246,69
1135*,09
6B5,6&
4122.93
7272,95
10129.02
11253.22
11526,08
11216.38
11390,35
11536,0%
11638,7*
11706.03
10642,95
11430.13
-------
DP 31 Dry Season Chlorides are 15,000-17,000 mg/1 throughout
the main bay transect. Wet Season concentrations are projected
to be 9,000 mg/1 at milepoint 0 increasing to 11,000 mg/1 at
milepoint 6.0 and 13,000 mg/1 at milepoint 14.
Conclusi ons
A. General
Dissolved Oxygen water quality in South San Francisco Bay
and the contiguous sloughs is presently below standards.
This water quality condition is evidenced by frequent violations
of the State of California's minimum dissolved oxygen standard
of 5,0 mg/1, and the State ' s Level 'B' 90 percentile dissolved
oxygen standard. The regions most susceptible to these
violations are generally limited to the tidal sloughs, and
Coyote Creek upstream of Calaveras point. The present water
quality condition is dominated by the combined effect of
municipal treatment plant loads and major uncontrollable
non-point source loadings.
A detailed water quality modeling analysis indicates that
four factors contribute to the existing problem. These are:
1. Existing municipal waste water treatment plant
loads to the sloughs,
2. Apparent benthic deposits,
3. Apparent organic loading from marsh areas,
and
4. Poor flushing characteristics of the tidal sloughs.
The present study is principally concerned with evaluating
alternative wastewater loading senarios; that is, alternatives
directly related to treatment plants and their discharges.
In this regard, one principal conclusion of the study is
that reductions of wastewater loadings to those magnitudes
indicated in this report, through increased treatment, will
improve water quality in the region for all of the discharge
alternatives considered in this study. These include the No
Action alternative, the Nearest Deep Water Discharge alternative
and the Disposal Point 31 alternative.
Further improvements in dissolved oxygen and relative toxicity
water quality will be realized by relocation of the South
Bay dischargers to the Nearest Deep Water Discharge or to
Disposal Point 31. However, water quality in the immediate
vicinity of such relocated discharges will be marginal in
terms of compliance with water quality standards for dissolved
oxygen. The results show that the 5.0 mg/1 standard should
be maintained, but there is a probability that the level
'B' - 90% standard will be violated periodically. These
revised standards are more restrictive than those used in
the original 1972 study, and on this basis there is not much
difference between the Nearest Deep Water Discharge and the
Disposal Point 31 discharge alternatives.
While the results of this study indicate that marginal
compliance with respect to standards is achieved in the
vicinity of relocated discharges, water quality problems
will probably remain in the sloughs. The potentially positive
impacts associated with removing major wastewater discharges
from Artesian, Guadalupe and Mayfield sloughs will be minimized
by the removal of substantial flushing flow (i.e. effluent
flow) from these sloughs. Since It is suspected, on the
basis of this analysis, that the future water quality of the
sloughs will be dominated by background loads within those
sloughs, dissolved oxygen water quality may not improve
markedly under alternative management plans. This conclusion
is based in large part on the apparent existance of marsh
loads, the magnitude of which is only weakly verified and
based on a single data set collected in the tidal sloughs.
In this regard there is some uncertainity in the magnitude
of these loadings, and the model can only be considered
calibrated rather than fully verified. In any event, the
marsh loadings are best estimates based on the available
data.
On the basis of the available data, the analysis, as presented,
can be used to guide decisions with regard to the selection
of a disposal alternative. However, in view of the relatively
limited data base, some uncertainities remain regarding
water quality effects, particularly in the slough areas.
-------
Additional data aquisition could be used to refine estimates
of the consquences of the various alternatives. Further,
the desireability of strict compliance with all aspects of
the revised water quality standards, in terms of the beneficial
uses attributable to incremental improvements in Water
Quality among the alternatives investigated, should be
considered together with cost in the decision making process.
B. Specific
Based on the results of the study the following detailed
conclusions are presented.
1. Dissolved Oxygen Concentration
The discharge alternatives considered in this report are
expected to produce water quality in the major portion of
South San Francisco Bay which is in marginal complaince with
the State of California's minimum dissolved oxygen standard
of 5.0 mg/1, the Level 'B* 90 percentile dissolved oxygen
objective, and the relative toxicity concentration guideline
of 40 ml/1. This conclusion considers wet, dry and canning
season conditions in 1985 and 1995. The water quality
limited areas vary in their spatial dimensions, and in the
expected frequency of violations depending upon discharge
alternative and season.
Water quality improvements in parts of the study area will,
be realized in moving the San Jose/Santa Clara, Sunnyvale
and Palo Alto discharges to either the Nearest Deep Water
Discharge or Disposal Point 31. These improvements are
principally improvements in dissolved oxygen concentrations
in the region between Calaveras Point and Artesian Slough,
and projected decreases in relative toxicity concentrations
throughout the study area.
The greatest incremental improvement in dissolved oxygen
water quality in the study area is realized for the alternative
which considers the discharges of San Jose/Santa Clara,
Sunnyvale and Palo Alto effluents at the Nearest Deep Water
Discharge Point. This improvement is principally an increase
in dissolved oxygen concentration in lower Artesian Slough
and lower Coyote Creek. However, even under this discharge
condition water quality standards are not met fully within
C-74
that area. In a similar fashion the largest decrease in
regional relative toxicity concentrations results from the
Nearest Deep Water Discharge Alternative. The Disposal
Point 31 discharge alternative, however, will yield relative
toxicity concentrations in marginal compliance with the
state guideline.
A model calibration analysis indicates that the greatest
single factor apparently contributing to violations of
dissolved oxygen water quality objectives under projected
conditions is background distributed loadings of dissolved
oxygen demand from apparent marsh loads and benthic oxygen
demand. The magnitude of the loading is only weakly verified
because it is based on data collected during a single survey
in June, 1967. However, the analysis indicates the existance
of such loads, and subsequently provided a best estimate of
the daily loading rate. The removal of effluent flows,
which presently enhance the flushing capacity of sloughs to
which they discharge, is expected to increase the effects of
these background loads in Artesian and Guadalupe sloughs.
The dry weather and canning season periods are critical with
respect to water quality. During these periods water quality
violations are expected to be most frequent in effected
areas, and the size of the effected area is expected to be
greatest.
In view of these conclusions, confidence in the projected
profiles for dissolved oxygen, is related to the accuracy
with which background flow and loading information used in
the calculations is defined. Storm water runoff flows are
believed to be adequately defined within the accuracy of the
analysis. The oxygen demand loading from marsh areas are
estimated from consideration of observed BOD, ammonia nitrogen,
and dissolved oxygen data in sloughs which have treatment-
plant loads as well as those which do not. It is believed
that the marsh load estimates are reasonable estimates for
use in this study.
As a test of the study conclusions to the magnitude of
background loads, two sensitivity analysis simulations were
conducted, In the first all bottom demand loads were reduced
by 50% throughout the study area, while in the second a 50%
reduction in marsh loads was analysed. The results of these
-------
analyses show that the basic study conclusions with regard
to violations of water quality standards are unaltered by
these reductions. The principal effect is to reduce the
extent of the effected areas slightly.
Additional confidence in these loadings, and consequently in
the study conclusions could be gained through a systematic
field program designed to measure marsh related loadings in
South San Francisco Bay.
A summary of this study's results, which support in part
these conclusions, is presented in the accompanying table.
Detailed results and other supporting analyses are contained
elsewhere in the report.
The table refers only to 1985 dry weather conditions. The
first column of the table presents the four alternatives
described in Chapter 1. The second column shows the number
of miles on the main transect over which the 5.0 mg/1 standard
is violated and the minimum 90% concentration occuring in
the effected area. The 5.0 mg/1 standard in this case is
interpreted as "not less than 5.0 mg/1 more than 10% of the
time."
The third column presents the number of miles in which the
90 percentile/standard is violated on the main transect.
The fourth column is a tabulation of the minimum 90 percentile
dissolved oxygen concentration downstream of Calavaris
Point. Column five is the peak computed relative toxicity
concentration in the study area under the four alternatives
while column six is the range of chlorides in South Bay for
each alternate.
2. Relative Toxicity Concentration
These study results show that there is no significant
differences, from the Btand point of dissolved oxygen water
quality, between the Nearest Deep Water Discharge alternate
and the Disposal Point 31 alternative. The major difference
between these alternatives is a computed reduction in the
potential for chronic bioinhibitory effects to sensitive
biological species for discharge at Disposal Point 31. In
this regard peak relative toxicity concentrations in the
C-75
-------
study area are reduced from 125 ml/1 to 55 ml/1 by moving
the discharge location to north of Dunbarton Bridge.
No management alternatives considered in this study will
reduce relative toxicity concentrations such that they
comply with the toxicity guideline of 40 ml/1 throughout the
study area during dry or wet season. The largest incremental
improvement in terms of lowering relative toxicity concentration
is realized by going from the No Project alternate to Nearest
Deep Water Discharge alternate. Table A summarizes relative
toxicity concentrations in South Bay under each of the four
alternatives.
3. Chloride Concentrations
The largest incremental increase in chloride concentration
would be achieved by implementation of the Nearest Deep
Water Discharge Alternative over the No Project alternative.
Chloride concentrations in South Bay for the four alternatives
are presented in Table A.
C-76
REFERENCES
^Consoer, Townsend, and Associates, "A Comprehensive Study
of the Waste Treatment Requirements for the Cities of San
Jose and Santa Clara and Tributary Agencies, Phase I,
Assimilative Capacity of South San Francisco Bay," December,
1968.
(2)
la] Consoer-Bechtel Engineers, "Water Quality Management
Plan for South San Francisco Bay, Final Report,"
Prepared for South Bay Dischargers, March, 1972,
(2)
[b] Appendices to above.
-------
ux_ioV-"D*i yi rjx-i
APPENDIX A
RESULTS OF JUNE 1967
VERIFICATION ANALYSIS
Suuo.ooo I
I
¦»b86.66S I
c tiuo.oon r
H 1135.333 T T CBSERVH3 (MEAN AND RANGE)
416 6 . 666 I J.
U 1000.000 T
LOW HATER MEASUREMENT
K 3333.333 T L HIGH WftSER MEASUREMENT
1 3666.665 I T
U 3900,000 I ~ MEAN TIDE - TBfiNSUUED DATA
E 3333.333 I
S 3166.666 I ° CALCULATED
30011.000 I
1 2SJ3.333 I n
B 2666.665, I T
/ 2500.000 I M >~ 0
L 2333.333 I J-
2166.g66 I a
2UO0.000 I
1833.333 I
1666.665 r
1500.000 I
1333.333 I
1166.666 I
1OO0.000 I ~< L
833.333 I
^66.666 I n
"00.000 I ~< L.
333.333 I
166.666 I n
0.000 I
o.noo l.nno 2.000 3.000 t.ooo
MILES FROM MILPTT&S OUTFALL
'JPPE3 COYOTE CREEK
SLGMENTS 98,99,100.101,102
Ftgur* A.2.
VERIFICATION ANALYSIS
Jurw 1967
C-77
-------
on. poo
T
•^33.333
T
T
c
''^u o.o on
I
H
*553.335
r
L
66 . 66*.
T
/
^un.ooo
T
L
? 3 3 3•33 3
I
?166.666
I
?<>U 0.000
T
1^*3.333
1
1->*>6.66A
I
l^u'J.OOO
I
1533.333
I
1 lfe6.66S
I
ii'uo.oon
I
-<43. 333
T
fe66.&6£
I
">JO.OOO
r
L
L
533.333
i
T
a
n n
n a
H n
o. n o ^
T
T
0.
nOO
O.^nO
l.non
1.5
v> I
i fuo.ooo
B^uo.ooo
M
^uo.nno
b
1 . n 0 n
L
/uuo.noo
b^up.npo
f>'iun.f)00
s^OO,POD
Mijp.pon
" ->UP, nop
MUUO.000
3 J 0. p 0 0
3uup,oon
^UO.OOO
J'uuO.npp
1 ^ u i.'. n o 0
1'iuo.nop
, nop
o. r p n
OBSERVED (MEAN AND RANGE)
t LCW WAIER MEASUREMENT
(J HIGH MATER MEASUREMENT
~ MEAN TIDE - 2RANSIA1H) DATA
a CALCULATED
o • n o n 1 , p. n P ? . o n o
MJlE"^ r'*nu UNT^M-I^v OUTFALL
-------
lhuoo.oofl r
iustio.oori t
m"un,nrn !
l^uo.oon t
l?iiud.nnp i
Ji^uri.nop 7
l?JUO,f)OP T
11 r> u n # p n n t
Htuin.noo t
inr>oo.noo T
lootio.noo i
^sun.nop r
^uuo.noo I
^^un.nnrt t
••'.wjo.nr»n j
fuo.noo i
MOO,POP T
f^uc.non T
fejuc.noo r
Mr>un.nnr j
^njn.nno i
^un.ooo t
^uuo.non j
? *> u O, r> p r> t
3000,000 T
^UO.OOP T
^uuf.000 T
l^u'j.ncc T
iuun,non 7
^UO.POP T
o.noo
I.
OBSERVED (MEAN AND RANGE)
r_
L ION WA3ER MEASUREMENT
H HI® WATER MEASUREMENT
T
~ MEAN TIDE - TRANSLATED DATA
o CALCULATED
S-
~4-
n.nnn 1
MTi e;«:
ALVTso sI o'jr.h
st.rvir\jj^ u°«iio*i?fi
T. .. .T.. ..I.
.nnf) ?.oqo 3.000 1.000
nAr,r*J3 STftTTO^
Figur« A.5.
VERIFICATION ANALYSIS
Jun« 1967
15'JJC, non
I <* "3 J 0 . 0 0 0
l^'iUP.POO
l-^oo.^on
ISuuo.noo
l^^uo.ooo
I2uuo,noo
II vj p. n o
11U 0 • 0 0 n
lf"»uO#noD
li'Dun.ooo
9jua.non
*^00.POO
vuuo.oon
7*3u0.000
7000.000
f^JO.OOO
^jjn.ooo
* * - ? . n 0 0
ftuju.non
u^jp.pop
itfuu.'joo
A^uo.ocn
^ouo.ono
? * j n. n c o
? w j c. r) o n
l^uo.nnn
U'on.nno
^uu.oop
O.OPO
o.onn i.nr»o ?.nnn 3,noo <*.ooo S.noo fi.nno
P*0V G*Gl*'S STf\TtOM
GUADALUPE SLOUPH
S5.C-^r\)TS l?i a??«l23tl2H.l25
Figure A. 6
VERIFICATION ANALYSIS
JUNE 1967
OBSERVED (MEAN AND RANGE)
i LOW WATER MEASUREMENT
tjl HIGH WATER MEASUREMENT
~ MEAN TIDE - TRANSLATED DMA
O CALCUIATED
-------
0
1
00
O
isuuo.nop
T
i^bun.ooo
I
iu ti u o. o n o
T
c
l^uo.nno
1
H
i3«op.noo
T
L
i?J>uo.non
T
0
i?uuu.oon
I
H
li^uo.noo
T
I
l) iiuo.non
I
0
H^'JO.pOO
I
t
1PUUO.000
I
t>
^uo.noo
T
^uuo.ooo
I
M
^ t n. o o n
T
1?
15 u o o. n o a
T
/
7huP.noo
T
L
7iiuo. noo
T
b^UO.POO
T
puoo.noo
I
^i?n,npo
I
^"up.noo
I
"^uo.noo
T
¦+i»oo. ooo
r
.^~0.000
i
iuuo.ooo
r
?m»p.ooo
i
? U U 0 . 0 0 o
T
l sur. n,on
i
luUfl.DtlD
i
501' .000
i
o.ooo
T
->~
OBSERVED (MEAN AND RANGE)
t
I LOW WATER MEASUREMENT
b HIGH WATER MEASUREMENT
~ MEAN TIDE - TRANSIA3TD DATA
a CALCULATED
o.ffin 1.000 ?.onn
MT| ES nOM WQwRY L/^^DIMG
WDWRr ^LnUf?M
SEr-vr\)TS
.•I....
3.000
..I....
<*.000
5.OOP
..I.*.
6.nOO
7, noo
Figure A.7.
VERIFICATION ANALYSIS
June 1967
T .
1*'»UO.OOO T
l^UO.OOO !
Juo,000 T
1*^00.000 1
liuuu.ooo I
l^uo.ooo i
1200 L'.000 T
ll'MJO.prn T
HklUM.ftOO I
ln^eo.noo i
1 Pit uu. 00 0 X
^00.000 T
yuoo.noo i
'"^oo.coo i
u u D. 0 0 0 T
7"^n.ooc> i
7UU0.000 i
^OG.OOQ I
f- U U 0 . 0 0 0 J
•">ULr,000 I
Ml UP.POO I
^up.poo i
^tjuu.oon i
S^UO.OOO T
3"00.0 0 0 T
?13 o o. p c n i
c'liuf.non r
l^on^noo I
lfoo.oon t
*>uD.O0D T
o.nop i
T .
**-
J
OBSERVED (MEAN At® RANGE)
LOW WATER MEASUREMENT
p Hlffl vmer MEASUREMENT
+ MEAN THE - T3RANSIATID DATA
~ CALCULATED
.T .
.1 -
• 1 .
o. ~ipo i.nno
VTi rc rppvi vayHf^S LaNOIMG
MrwA^K slouch
SLPWfvTS !?*• l*r tt3j 1132» 1 3?« 1 3«»
J.ono
• • I • • • «
^.000
5.000
• I.
..I
6.000
Figure A.8
VERIFICATION ANALYSIS
June 1967
-------
i*;'uo.oon r i
T I
r t
C l^G.rC* 1 1
h ' I
Lii,wrr,«cnT i
u 1 t'i'u*.), 10n t I
h 1 ] .nop t I
1 lli.uo.rp?! I
1
t lP'ioo.noa T I
S ""'J'-I.cont n O 0 I
^oun.non r n I
ut T ri I
u ' .'uo.rinn r I
/ '/-.on.rroT I
L 7UUO.OOO T 1
f> VJ. n 0 0 I I
'-juo.non t i
fc~,oP,riCnT I
"Uj^ppp T J
uiw0,ftf.^ t G CALCULMH) I
^•un.noo I 1
^cO.OGO T I
.siiuo.rtflrt i I
<"¦<00.1100 I I
?»joo,nop T J
l^UO.^O^T I
U'uo.oon y I
"> o c ~ n o o t I
Q.r>Cfi T I
...T....7.... I
r ,n n 1." n 0 ? • 0 P n
T t CcRO* 5*m0 3OTNT
wArFTfLn slpmSh
V'-.NMf \|T«; 1 5e , 1 , 137» 1 *9.139
Figure A .9.
VERIFICATION ANALYSIS
June 1967
l^UOO.OPO T
i^un.noo r
iu"L'0.nri
l^tJUO.OOO
i j u o. n o o
l^uo.noo
i?uuo,oon
11 "> 'J o. n c o
liuuo.noo
ir">uo.ooo
ll'UUU.OOO
9500.000
?»oo.ooo
f^uo.noo
u u u C , * C ^
T^uo.ooo
7UOO.OOO
fc^uo.noo
f'UUO.OOO
s'mD.non
^uun.noo
"iuo.opp I
"L'UO.OOO
'SU0.900
suun.ooo
"ui'.ooo
i"j u o. n r> n
l^JO.BCT
luuo.ooo
^oo.oiio
0.000
ai/jJitanD
I....T....T....I....I
n.non i.ono ?.noo
mii.es FPr>» P.nLTo-uT vir«i 3CijndaRy
UNNAWED NEAR MaYFTELD SLOUGH
sti;»rMT« lto.im
Figure A. 10
VERIFICATION ANALYSIS
JurM 1967
C-81
-------
t
25.001?
I
21.000
I
23.000
I
22.000
I
21.000
I
20.000
I
19.100
I
OBSERVED (MEAN AND RANGE)
19.100
I
I
17.000
16.000
I
LOW WAITER MEASUREMENT
I
i
1RANSIATED TO MEAN TIDE
15.ron
T
T
HIGH WRIER MEASUREMENT
It.ooo
T
T
TOBMH) TO MEAN TIDE
13 . r\ p o
T
12,000
T
D
CALCUIAIED
H.OOO
T
10.OOO
T
L L
T n
p.ooo
I
7. no?
I
L
S.000
T l
*.000
I
m.ioc
T
L
3.?ra
T
n h H
ML
2.000
I
l.OOO
1
ntia
naa M nH H H
a
0.000
T
I..
n ~ naa
a a
a i a a a a
n.nnn 5.ono in. ooo 15.noo ?o.ono ?5.ooo 3Q.nno 35.000 to.ooo
«IlC=: n^TilctftKi sLO'JjH
«iw»i =>Mr i^AMSrcr
¦ C- «r \re 1 , ¦>, 4, 1^,17, 50,? n,Ji, 39,17,50, 55,60,71,7?, 9 2,S9,95,93,9i|
Figure A. 11
VERIFICATION ANALYSIS
JUNE 1967
25.000 T
.noo I
I.
« 22.000 I
o
J R.000
17.000 t
" lb.ooo r
fc» 15.noo I
/ it.noo I
V. 13.noo T
is.noo I
11.000 I
lo.noo i
9.000 I
*.">on i
7.noo I
6.000 I
5.000 I
1.000 I
3.000 T
2.000 I
1.1M 1
o.noo i
I
CBSEHVHJ (MEAN AM} RAN®)
^S*n0° 1 £ WH VBIER MEASUREMENT
.1
»,99,l0r,,l0lt10?
Figure A. 12.
VERIFICATION ANAIYJIS
June 1967
-------
T.... T.... I.... I... .T. I.... I.... II.... I.... I
25.noo 1
a
I
24,0 00 T
a
I
23.000 I
0
I
22,000 I
1 t)
0
21.000 r
a
r o
u
20.000 T
I u
tJ
H. 000 I
IB.000 I
17.000 I
a
L
I s
z
i
M
16.000 T
L
B
i *
to
15.000 I
i t*
/
14,nOO I
i /
L
13.OOP I
12.000 I
11.000 I
10.000 I
9.000 T
8.000 T
a
OBSERVED (MEAN AND RANGE)
I L
r
i
i
i
i
7.000 I
I
LOW WAIER MEASUREMENT
i
6.000 I
5.000 I
T
i
TRANSLATED TO MEAN TIDE
1
I
4.000 I
I
HIGH WAITER MEASUREMENT
I
3.000 T
L
raANSIATED TO MEAN TIDE
I
2.00 D I
I
1.000 I
~
CALCUIAHE
z
0.000 T
I
o.noo o.soo l.ooo l.soo 2,000 2,500 3.000
*tl.E* Sj-^C O.ITFALL
/VTESTaM SurvuGH
StGMFVjTS 10^,Irtu,l0^»l06,107*10fl,109*110 till.112
Flgur* A. 13.
VERIFICATION ANALYSIS
June 1967
25.non
24.000
23.000
22.000
21 ,non
20.000
19.000
IB.000
17.000
16.000
15.000
14.000
13.000
12.000
11.000
10.000
9.000
~. 000
7.000
~.000
5.000
4.000
3.000
2. 000
1.000
0.000
OBSERVED (MEAN M© RANGE)
J" ICW WATER MEASUREMENT
& HIGH WATER MEASUREMENT
<*> MEAN TIDE - TEANSIATED DATA
~ CALCUIAHD
o.non 1.000 2.000
MILE*? F«OM UNYON-IRY OUTFALL
WUD SLOUSH
SEGMEMTS 11*• 11
-------
25.000
I
24.000
I
23.000
I
a
22.000
I
0
21.000
I
u
20.000
I
s
19.000
I
18.000
I
17.000
I
M
16.000
I
e
15.000
I
/
14.non
I
L
13.000
I
12.000
I
11.000
I
10,000
I
9.000
T
8.000
I
7.000
I
6.000
I
5.000
I
4.000
I
3,000
X
2.000
I
1.000
I
0,000
I
OBSERVED (MEAN AND RANGE)
LOW WA3ER MEASUREMENT
HIGH WATER MEASUREMENT
MEAN TIDE - TRANSLATED DATA.
CAI£UIATED
I....T....I....I,
0.000 1.000
F*OM GArINS
Alt/IsO SLOiJ^H
?.ooo 3.000 4,000
STATION
Figure A. 15
VERIFICATION ANALYSIS
June 1967
C-84
25.^00
24.noo
23.001
?2.npT
21. n c n
20.nno
°.',00
7 . *-)*•
.no ri
,?nn
. ¦'01
?.nnn
11.101
lo.non
«, f)[li
n.nm
7. n n *•
S.OO*
^. o o n
u. nn n
2.000
l.'iC.?
o.
na n a l
Gvr-.iy?;
I
I
I
I
T
T
I
T
I
I
I
T
I
r...<
n. non
Mlj E«s
;iPr
l?i.1?
_ OBSERVED (MEAN AND RANGE)
L_ '
J IXW WATER MEASUREMENT
£ HIGH WATER MEASUREMENT
~ MEAN TIDE - TRANSLATED DATA
o CALCULATED
. T .
. I.... I.
J.nnn ?.noo ^.00(j
trovi r»/\r,Im3 station
nu^H
1?* «1?u.12C
Figure A. 16
VERIFICATION ANALYSIS
JUNE 1967
. I.
*» • 0 0 0
5,000
6.000
-------
??.oon
»non
?3, r>no
onn
?i.001
?o,pnn
1°. port
1 a. nor*
17.onn
lb.nop
ls.nnp
1 •» • 0 «i r»
13 • n (1 n
1 ?. P 0 .*>
11. ft p p
1 n. pop
9.POO
?. pop
7.top
6.nnr»
5.noo
4.000
3.000
?.CM
l.oon
o.nnp
^ OBSERVED (MEAN AM) RANGE)
V ION WflER MEASUREM01T
H HI® WOER tEASUtSMEMT
1
«. (can the - toansia™ BUR
a QUZXJIAffiD
T....T....T....I....I....I....I....T.
o.noo 1.000 ?.ooo 3.000
miles f*o* howRy lading
slhugw
..I....
4.000
..I....
5.000
6.000
..I
7.000
StP^CNTS l?ft«l?7»l2«
Figure A .17.
VERIFICATION ANALYSIS
June 1967
??.000 I
*¦~•000 I
*3.000 I
« ??.000 I
0 ?1.000 I a
u ?0.000 T a
n i9.non r
18.POO I a
17.000 T
« 16.000 I
ti 15.000 X 0
/ lt.noo 1 a
1 13.inn r
12.000 T
11.000 T
lO.nOO I
9.000 I
3.000 I
7.^00 I ~ CAICUIAEEE
6.000 I
5.POO I a
4. non 1
3.000 T
2.000 T
1 . POO T
O.non 1
0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000
MTlES F^O# *AYH£rfS LANDIM6
^fWA^K StOtlpH
SEGMENTS 1?<*«130•l3l*13?»133*134
Figure A. 18
VERIFICATION ANALYSIS
June 1967
o
6o
cn
-------
25.000
I
2«*,000
I
23.000
I
ti
22.000
I
0
21.000
T
u
20.000
I
3
19.OOP
I
lfl.000
r
17.000
t
M
16.000
i
(5
15.000
i
/
14.000
i
L
13.000
i
12.000
r
11.000
i
10.000
i
9.000
i
8.noo
i
7.000
i
6.000
i
5.000
i
4 .100
T
3,000
I
2.000
I
1.000
1
0.000
I
u amCtflAIED
o.non 1.000 2.000
MILES FROM P.aLTO-hT VIEW 50JND&RY
UNITED MEA9 MaYFIELD SLOJSH
SEPvenjTs 1 ^0 • 1 1
Figure A. 19
VERIFICATION ANALYSIS
June 1967
C-86
t....t....i..«.i....j...
25.000 I
2t».000 I
23.000 I
22.000 I
21.000 I
^n.tioo i
19.non T u CT&OJIATED
lft.000 I
17.000 1
16,nop i
ls.ron t
ii.oon i
13.000 T
12.000 T
11.000 I a
l'J.000 T
9.000 I
8.000 T
7.000 1 ci
6.000 I
5.000 t
<+.000 r a
3.000 I D
2.000 I D
1.000 I
0.000 I
a.noo t.ooo 2.000
MILES FROM SAND point
^AYFTEXn SLfHJGH
SEGMENTS i3*,,13K,137«HB,139
Figure A.20
VERIFICATION ANALYSIS
June 1967
-------
25,000
I
24.000
I
23,000
I
22.000
T
A
21 ,000
I
M
20.000
T
«
19,nor
T
u'
1ft.POi
T
N
17.001
~
I
lfe.001
A
15,
T
L
11| . "0
-
"i 3 . 0 0 *
7
*
*
&
M.000
"
L
/
13.000
a
L
Q ^
-
ft.for
•
7.000
z
g
s.oco
z
L H
5.000
-
'4.00?
z
L
* -»«
z
a H
?.o?c
z
H
1.000
z
on H H
e.oco
z
a nan no
"i
0.
000
5.000 10.000
niLES
FRO* ARTESIAN SLOUGH
«ATN 8A*
TRANSECT
SEGHEMT?
• «
?«4
7«*»9*l5»l7»20t28«3l
a a o
..I....I.
15.000
CBSEWED (MEAN AND RANGE)
LCW WATER MEASUREMENT
TEANSIAUD TO >EAN TIES:
HIGH WATER MEASUREMENT
TOANSIAUD TO MEAN TIDE
20.000
25.000
...I....I.
30.000
35.000
if 0.000
Figure A. 21
VERIFICftTICN ANALYSIS
JUNE 1967
25.000
I
24.000
I
23.000
I
22.000
I
A
21.000
I
14
20.900
r
n
19.000
I
u
lft.OOf
I
N
17.003
I
1
16.00?
T
A
15.0C0
x
14.000
z
13.0C0
z
n
12.0C0
z
6
ii.ceo
z
/
10.000
z
L
9.000
z
9.000
z
7.?eo
z
6.?oe
z
5.000
z
4 .900
z
3.0C0
z
2.eeo
z
l.?C?
z
0.900
z
OBSERVED (MEAN AND RANGE)
J
^ LOW WA3ER tGASUREMECT
tf HI® WA3ER MEASUREMENT
I
~ MEAN TZEE - 3RANSIA3ED DATA
a CALCUIAHH)
0,000 1,000 2.000 3,000
HILES pRO* hxlPttas outfall
UPPE» COYOTE CREEK
SEGMENTS 9«,99»l00»l0l,102
Figure A.22.
VERIFICATION ANALYSIS
June 1967
• I
*.000
0
1
OD
-------
25.000
I
2H.000
1
L
23.000
X a a s
L
22*000
1
0
a
A
21.000
1
a
M
20.000
I
a
n
19.000
I
a
y
18.000
1
N
17.000
I
I
16.000
1
0
A
15.000
II.000
13.000
I
I
I
a
m
12,000
I
a
11.000
I
/
10.000
I
CBSERVED (MEAN AND PAN®)
l
9.000
I
I
ft.000
I
LOW WAIER MEASUREMENT
7.000
I
I
TRANSLATED TO MEAN TIDE
6.000
I
%
5.000
I
HIGH WATER MEASUREMENT
4.000
I
TRANSIATED TO MEAN TIDE
3.000
I
2.000
I
~
CALCUIA3ID
1.000
I
0.000
I
0.000 0.500
1,
,000 1.500 2.000
2.900 I
miles FROM SJ-Sc
outfall
artesian slough
S&6KENTS IQS* 10<»«105« 106*lQ7«tOe* 109*110*111 *112
Figure A.23.
VERIFICATION ANALYSIS
June 1967
1
3.000
C-88
I...
25.000
I
2>*115*116«:
2,000
CBSERVED (MEAN AND RANGE)
'j- LOW WATER MEASUREMENT
^ HIGH MUER MEASUREMENT
MEAN TIDE - TRANSMIT! DATA
~ cnajinsw
Figure A.24.
VERIFICATION ANALYSIS
Juna 1967
-------
I ,
25.000
I
I
24.000
I
I
23.000
I
1
22.000
1
I
A
21.000
I
I
A
M
20.000
I
I
M
M
19.000
I
OBSERVED (MEAN AND RANGE) I
*
U
N
18.000
IT.000
I
I
T
L.
1
LOW WATER MEASUREMENT j
0
N
X
16.000
1
in
KISi WATER MEASUREMENT {
1
A
15.000
I
i
A
14.000
I
MEAN TIDE - TOANS1ATED DATA Z
13.000
I
o
I
*
6
12.000
11.000
I
X
CJ
CALCULATED I
1
*1
(s
t
10.000
1
1
/
L
9.000
8.000
7.000
I
I
1
I
1
1
L
6.000
1
II >0 I
5.000
1
I
H.000
I
L
0 X
3.000
I
I
2.000
1
I
1.000
I
a I
0.000
I
t
I.... T....I....I....I....I....I....I....I
0.000 1.000 2.000 3,000 1.000
miles f*om gagIns station
ALVIsO SLOugH
SEGMENTS 118.119.120
Flour* A.25.
VERIFICATION ANALYSIS
Jura 1967
I....T....I....I....I....I....I....I....I....I....I....I....I...
25.000 I
2t.OOO I
23.000 I
22.000 I
21.000 I
20.000 t
19.000 I
le.ooo I
17.one I - CB6ERVED (MEAN AND RANGE)
16.000 I ll
15.000 T -1 WAiek MEASUPEMEICT
J!*'000 1 fi HIGH WATER MEASUraMEMT
U.noo i d J-
12.000 I ~ MEAN TIDE - TRANSLATED DATA
11.000 I
10.000 I
9.000 I
6.000 I
7.000 I
6.000 I
5.000 1
4,000 I
5.000 I
2.000 1
1.000 I
0.000 I L
CALCUIATED
i....i....i....i....i....i.,..i....i,...i.,..i....i,...i...,i;...
o.noo l.ooo a.ooo s.ooo <1.000 s.ooo 6.000
miles from gaging station
guadalupe slough
SEGMENTS I2l
-------
0
1
o
i....I....i....i....i....i....i....i....i....i...,i....i....i....i..
25.000 I
2*.000 I
23.000 I
» 2X^000 I OBSERVES (MEftN MO BM*$)
M 20.000 I I- IflW WMER MEftSBRSMENT
¦ 19.000 I X
0 IS.000 I A HIGH WHER MEftSUHEMENT
N IT.000 I 1 _
1 is.000 I ~ MESN TIDe - raaNSUOH) CMA
* IS.000 I
u.ooo i
13.000 I
M 12.000 I
6 11.000 I
/ 10.000 I
L 9.000 I
o CKLOJIXKD
S.000 I
7.000 I B
6.000 I
9.000 I
*.000 I +4. L
3.000 I H **¦
2.000 I
1.000 I Bo
0.000 I
I....T....I....I....I....1..,.I....I....1....I....I,..,I....I....I....I
0.000 1.000 2.000 3,000 *,000 5,000 6.000 7.000
miles fro* *Otmr unoing
*0¥Rr SLOUGH
SESUCNTS 126.127.1J9
Figure A.27.
VERIFICATION ANALYSIS
June 1967
I....I....I....I....I....I....I....I....I....I....I....I...
25.000 1
24,000 I
23.000 1 0
22.000 I
* 21.000 I B
* 20.000 I B
« 19.000 J
» 18.000 1
" 17.000 I
I 16.000 I
* 19.000 I
1*1.000 i
13.000 1
" 12.000 I
» 11.000 I
' 10.000 1
L 9.000 I
0.000 I ¦
7.000 I
6.000 I
9.000 I
¦>.000 I B
3.000 I
2.000 I n
1.000 I
0.000 I
0.000 1.000 i.OOO 3,000 *,000 9.000 6.000
mles fro* **yhchs unoi«6
NEMARK SL0U6H
SEGMENTS 129.130.l3i.132.l33.l3*
Figure A.28
VERIFICATION ANALYSIS
Jura 1967
-------
25.000
I
24.000
I
23.000
I
22.000
I
A
21.000
I
M
20.000
I
m
19,000
I
0
la.ooo
1
N
17.000
t
1
16.000
I
A
15*000
I
14.000
I
13.000
I
M
12.000
I
b
11.000
z
/
10.000
I
u
9,000
I
a.ooo
I
7.000
I
6.000
t
5.000
I
4.000
t
3.000
z
2.000
I
1.000
I
0.000
I
D fflLCULMIE
o.noo l.ooo 2.000
miles fro* sanO boint
Bayfield sloush
SEGhenTS 13s,1SS,1ST,138,13*
Figure A.29.
VERIFICATION ANALYSIS
Jun* 1967
25.000
1
24.000
I
23.000
I
22.000
I
A
21.000
I
n
20.000
1
M
19.000
I
0
IB.000
1
N
17.000
I
1
16.000
I
A
15.000
I
14.000
I
13.000
z
M
12.000
z
a
11*000
z
/
10.000
z
L
9.000
z
*•000
z
7,000
z
6.000
z
5.000
z
4,000
z
3,000
z
2,000
z
1.000
z
0,000
z
0.000 1.000 2.000
MILES FROM P.aLTO-*T viem boundary
UNNAMED NEAR NaYFIELO SLOUGH
SE6HENTS lHOtlM
FIgura A.30.
VERIFICATION ANALYSIS
Jun* 1967
C-91
-------
0
1
to
10.000
I
9.599
I
9.199
I
J
0.799
X
U
9.399
I
3.000
I n
I)
7.599
I -
t
7.199
1 I
F-
6. SOP
I ^
1
6.399
I
C
6. 000
I
1
5.599
I
1
5.199
I
<~.800
I
**.399
I
b
4.000
I
/
3.600
I
L
3.200
I
2.900
I
2. <400
I
2.000
I
1.600
I
1.200
I
0.900
I
0.1400
t
0.000
1
OBSERVED (MEAN AND RANGE)
L LOW WATER MFASURE^SENT
* TRANSLATED TO MEAN TIDE
H HIGH WATER MEASUREMENT
i TRANSIATED TO MEAN TIDE
a CALCULATED
' L
1
I.
...I....I.
ls.noo
• I.
20.000
.1.
25.000
30.000
o.noo 5.000 lo.noo
^ILES FRnv ARTESIAN SL0U3H
main bay transect
SEGMENTS l»?»,+ «7*0.9,l5,17,?0,?9.3l.39.U7»50»55«60»7i,79*9 2. B9« 92 • 93 .9«*
...I....
35.000
to.000
Figure A.31
VERIFICATION ANALYSIS
JUNE 1967
10.000 I
9.599 I
9.199 I
0 fl.799 T
u 8.399 I
«?.000 T
-> 7.599 I
L 7.199 t
~ fc.noo t
1 6.399 T
L 6.000 I
1 5.59^ J
' 5.199 I
2.ft00 !
2.*C
-------
10.000
I
9,399
I
9.199
I
u
8.799
I
u
8.399
I
8.000
X
I)
7.599
I
7.199
I
6.800
I
6.399
I
6.000
I
5.599
I
5.199
I
1.800
1
n
if.399
T
li
*.000
I
/
3.600
I
L
3.200
I
2.800
I
2.100
I
2*000
I
1*600
I
1.200
I
0.800
I
0.100
I
0.000
1
T
L
1
T
H
i
OBSERVED (MEAN AND RANGE)
LOW WflER MEASUREMENT
TRANSLATED TO MEAN TIDE
HIGH WB3ER MEASUREMENT
TRANSIATED TO MEAN TIDE
CAICULAIEE
0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500
miles FROM SJ-Sc outfall
ARTESIAN SLOUGH .. ...
SEGMENTS 10S.10»«105'106.107.10e«10S.HO»lll»l»2
Figure A .33.
VERIFICATION ANALYSIS
June 1967
i.I«*..I.***J****I****I
2.000 2.SCO 3.000
10.000
9.599
9.199
8.799
8.399
8.000
7.399
7.199
6.800
6.399 I
6.000
5.399
5.199
*.800
*•399
1.000
3.600
3.200
2.800
2.>100
2.000
1.600
1.200
0.800
0.H00
0.000
A
OBSERVED (MEAN AND RANGE)
7
J LOW WATER MEASUKE>!Et,rr
A HIGH WATER MEASUREMENT
^ MEW TMF - 3BANSLATE33 DATA
~ CAICULAIED
0,000 1.000 2,000
miles union*irv outfall
NUO SLOUGH
SE6NEMT5 113•114«115•116,117
Figure A.34.
VERIFICATION ANALYSIS
June 1967
C-93
-------
10.000
I
9.599
I
9.199
1
3. 79*
T
8.399
T
n
^.oon
I
7.599
I
7.199
t
6.800
I
6.399
I
6.000
I
5.599
I
T
5.199
T
H.B00
I
t
¦H
*.399
I
"~•000
I
1
3.600
I
3.200
I
2 .*QO
T
2.1*00
J
?.oon
T
1.600
I
1.200
I
0.500
T
0.400
I
0.000
I
OBSERVED (MEAN AND PA>JGE)
LOW WATER JEASURENET-.T
HIGH WATER MEASUREMENT
• MEAN TIDE - TRANSLATED DATA
CALCULATED
II.. I.... I
o.rnn l.non 2,onn 3.non 4.000
M11., l ^ rRn»* Gar.lWS ^ T ft T10 M
ftLVlSO SLOllpH
f:W-~\jTC; 11 0 • 11 ® » j ?fl
Figure A.35.
VERIFICATION ANALYSIS
June 1967
I.
10.000 I
9.599 I
9.199 I
5.799 I
8.399 I
8*000 I
7.599 I
7.199 T
&.«oo r
6.3*9 I
6.noo i
5.599 I
5.199 I
4.300 I
<*.399 I
"».non I
3.600 I
3.200 T
2.800 I
obsept.td (mea;; AND RA3GE)
2.4 do r la-M^.TrR rEASLUTErr
2.00 0 I •
1.60 0 I f~ HIGH KA1ER MEAS'JREMCrr
1 • ? 0 0 I
0.800 I ~ TII:'F- " TR^SIATED DATA
0.400 r •_ CALCULATED
o.ooo I
. I.... I....I.... I....I....I....T....I....I....I....
o.non l.ono 2.000 3.ooo '*.ooo 5.noo 6.000
FPT# STATIONJ
GUAOALUPr
-------
10.000
I
9.*99
I
9.1QQ
I
u
9.7«»9
I
>
ft . J
Cn
-------
I.I....I...
10 .000 I
9.599 T
9,199 I
R.799 T
P.399 y
ft.oon I
7,59=» y u CALCUIATED
7.199 I
6.K0P I
6.399 I
6.000 T
*,«S99 I
5.19° T
^^ o n t
^.?99 I o
¦~.000 t n
3.600 I
3.200 I o
2.SOD I o
'.400 I B
2.000 I
l.ftOC I
l.?00 I
o.aon i
o.aoo i
o.ooo i
I. ...T. ...I. ...I. ...I.. ..I
o.non l.ono ?.ooo
MII.EC SAmH 30INT
^AyriCLD SLOUGH
r^CMTS i3* , 1 xe,, 1 37 ,1 3R , 139
Figure A.39.
VERIFICATION ANALYSIS
June 1967
T ,
lo.oon t
9.599 i
9.199 I
B.799 I
8.399 I
P. 000 I
7.«S99 I
7.199 T
6.*00 T
6.399 I
6.000 I
5.599 T
5.199 I
4.000 I
4.399 I
4.000 I
3„fe00 I
3.200 I
2.BOO T
2.400 I
2.000 I
1.600 I
l.?00 I
0.900 I
O.UOO I
0.000 I
CALCULATED
. 7 -
. I
o.non l.ono ?. OOP
MJLES r90M P.aLTO-vT 30jNDtRr
UMNJA^flVFlCLO ^LD'JTtH
CLPV^NJT^
Figure A .40.
VERIFICATION ANALYSIS
June 1967
-------
APPENDIX B
TABULAR RESULTS OF UNIT RESPONSE ANALYSIS
TABLE 1
CONCENTRATION OF CONSERVATIVE MATERIAL (mq/1) FROM UNIT LOAD OF CONSERVATIVE MATE
- NO PROJECT -
Dry Season
Response in Discharges San Jose
Segment
Segment: (103)
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
San Jose
(103)
Canning Season
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
1
9
on
n.6?
0.14
fl.no
0,24
0,09
?
p
M
1.0«
0.29
7.22
0,60
0.22
3
7
1 r
1 .5?
0.46
6.21
1,03
0,30
u
<»
no
1 .9?
0.39
5.39
1,36
0,50
4
n rt
0.72
4.HO
1,75
0.64
i
7 *
2.39
0.04
3,40
2,10
0.77
7
P
Q ft
2,5s"
0,93
2,74
2.37
0,07
P
tt fi
2.6*
0.97
2,45
2,40
0,91
g
1
3C
2.01
1,05
1,09
1,90
1,01
in
2
11
?,o*
1.04
1,92
1,94
1.00
n
1
79
1 .75
l.OB
1.65
1,67
1,04
l?
1
7n
1.7-5
1,0P
1,63
1,65
1.05
13
1
7
i ,4n
1.11
1,33
1,34
1.09
1 4
1
4 4
1.4&
1.11
1.39
1,40
1,00
1 *
1
u O
i .51
1.11
1,43
1,44
1,09
If.
1
* r
1.3*
1.11
l.M
1,32
1.09
17
* 7
1 .39
1.11
1.33
1,34
1.09
IP
1
1 O
1.41
1.13
1,34
1,35
1,10
10
I
* 1
1 ,33
1.11
l.*7
1,20
1.09
<">0
1
^ 1
1.3u
1.12
1.27
1.2?
1.09
?1
1
* O
1. *~ 0
1.13
1,33
1,34
1.11
1
9 O
1 , 31
1,11
1 . 94
1,25
1.09
1 ?
1
"> 1
1
1.11
1.19
1,10
1.09
?4
1
9 C
1 .30
1.17
1.24
1.2?
1.14
1
1 ?
1 • lu
1.09
1.09
1,10
1,0B
?6
1
1 n
1 .11
1,09
1.07
1,07
1.07
7.1
I
1 S
1 .17
1 .'~2
1.11
1.1?
1,40
??
1
^ ¦»
i ,ou
1.02
1.00
1,01
1.01
fl
1 0
0.9?
0.92
0,90
0,90
30
o
7r>
0.71
0.72
0.71
0,71
0.71
3]
0
?e
0,7*
0.74
0.73
0,73
0,73
n
c 1
n .61
n,6i
0.60
0,60
0,60
5*
«, o
1.60
17 t 59
1.^0
0,50
0,5'*
44
n
« n
n,5"?
0.50
0,57
0,57
0.57
n
& 'i
1,55
0.54
0,«3
0,54
0.54
0
e, 9
n. 5?
1.51
0.50
0,51
0.51
(10,000 POUNDS/DAY)
Wet Season
San Jose Sunnyvale Palo Alto
(103) (122) (135)
8."6 0.13 0.09
7.76 0.63 0.21
6.18 1.2H 0.36
5.53 1.55 0.17
1.15 1.39 0.60
3.17 2.17 0,72
?.71 2.10 0.82
2.11 2.19 0.86
1.81 1.89 0.95
1.88 1.93 0,94
1.61 1.61 0.98
1.59 1.62 0.99
1.S8 1.31 1.0J
1.31 1,37 1.02
1.38 1.11 1.03
1.25 1.28 1.03
l.?8 1.30 1.03
1.29 1.3? 1.05
1.22 1.25 1.03
l.?2 1.25 1.01
1.28 1.31 1.05
l.?0 1.22 1.03
1.13 1.15 l.oi
1.19 1.22 1.09
1.01 1,06 1.02
l."2 1,01 1.02
1.06 1.09 1.31
0,95 0.97 0.95
1.16 0.87 0.86
0.67 0.68 0.67
0.69 0,70 0,69
0•*5 0,56 0.55
3.51 0.55 0.51
0.53 0,51 0.53
0.19 0.50 0.19
0.16 0.17 0.16
C-97
-------
TABLE 1
(conlinuod)
CONCENTRATION OF CONSERVATIVE MATERIAL (mg/1) FROM UNIT LOAD OF CONSERVATIVE MATERIAL (10,000 POUNDS/DAY)
- NO PROJECT -
1085
Response1 in Discharge: San Jose
Segment Segment: (103)
Dry Season
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
Canning Season
San Jose
(103)
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
Wet Season
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
37
n, *9
o.so
0.59
0.56
0.5B
0.54
0 . *4
0.54
0,54
30
0.5*
0.57
0,56
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.51
0.52
0.51
59
n.un
o, 4 o
0.40
0.39
0,39
0. 39
0,35
0.35
0,35
4 0
0 . ut
n, 4&
3 . 45
0.45
0,45
0.45
0.41
0.41
0.41
41
0 ,
0,59
0. 5fl
0.57
0.57
0.57
0,c 5
0.53
0 .53
4 2
0 .5*
n, 54
0.53
0,52
0.52
0,52
0,48
0.49
0,49
4 3
n, **
0.36
0.35
0.35
0,35
0, 35
0,31
0,31
0,31
'+U
o.«4"
o,40
0.40
0,39
0,39
0,39
0,35
0,36
0.35
4 5
0.*1
0,51
0.51
0,50
0,50
0,50
0.46
o, '4 6
0 , '4 &
C . '4
n,45
0.44
0,44
0,44
0.4'-*
0.39
0,39
0.39
<47
0.33
0,33
0.3?
0,32
0,32
0,3?
0.29
0,2*
0.28
'4fl
0.3*
0,36
0,36
0, 35
0,35
0,35
0,31
0,51
0.31
4 9
n.*i
n ,5i
0.50
0.50
0,50
0,50
0.45
0 .46
0.45
50
0. u 4
n,44
0.43
0,43
0.43
0,43
0, 39
0,39
0,30
51
C . *2
n. 3?
0.3?
0,31
0,31
0.31
0.27
o. 2e.
0,27
*>?
n. **
0.33
0,33
0,32
0,3?
0.32
0,28
0.29
0,28
S3
n. Kn
0.51
0,50
0.50
0,50
0.50
0.45
0.45
0.45
54
0 . 4A
0.47
0,46
0.45
0,45
0.45
0.40
0,41
0,40
55
0.31
0.31
0,31
0.30
0. 30
0.30
0,26
0.27
0,26
56
0.*1
0.31
0.31
0. 30
0,30
0. 30
0. 26
0,27
0,26
57
0 , 5P
0,59
0.58
0 .57
0.57
0.57
0 .50
0.51
0.50
SR
0.*1
0.6?
0.61
0,60
0,60
0.60
0.53
0.53
0,53
5?
r.*o
n. 30
3.29
0.29
0.29
0.?9
0.25
C.26
0.25
0 . ?P
0.?"
0.29
0. 28
0.29
0,29
0,24
0.24
0.24
M
n,"
n.5«»
0,57
0.56
0.57
0.57
0,50
0.50
0.50
$?
n.-*i
0,31
0.31
0,30
0.31
0.31
0.27
0.27
0.27
63
ft
0,29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.25
0.25
0.25
f,'4
C . 9 44
n,25
0.24
0.24
0.2 4
0.24
0.21
3.21
0,21
0 . *4
0.55
0 . 54
0. 54
0.54
0.5 4
0.48
0.49
0.43
.6 A
ntun
0,40
0 . 40
0.39
0.3 9
n. 3 9
0 . 34
0.35
0.34
ft7
0.^7
r,?7
0.27
0,27
0,27
C , 2 7
0.23
0,24
0,?3
0.9*
0. 23
0.23
0. ??
0,2?
0 , ? 2
0.19
0,20
0,19
^.9
C ,U°
0,4 9
0.4P
0.4*
0,4^
0,'»9
0.45
0,43
0,43
70
n.
0.39
0.39
0. 36
0.39
0.38
0 . 34
0,34
0,34
71
o. t«
n.l*
0.1Q
0.19
0.19
0.19
0,1*
0,17
0,16
7?
n. i 7
*.17
r*. 1 7
C.17
3,1 7
0.17
0.1 5
0.15
0,15
C-98
-------
TABLE 1
(continued)
CONCENTRATION OF CONSERVATIVE MATERIAL (mq/1) FROM UNIT LOAD OF CONSERVATIVE MATERIAL (10,000 POUNDS/DAY)
- NO PROJECT -
1995
Dry Season Canning Season Season
Response in Discharges San Jose Sunnyvale Palo Alto San Jose Sunnyvale Palo Alto San Jose Sunnyvale Palo Alto
Segment Segment: (IC3) (122) (135) (103) (122) (135) (103) (122) (135)
0.40 0.40 0,40
0.26 0.26 0.26 0,26
n.is o.m 0.1? o.i5
0.1q 0.19 0.19 0.19
n.l* 0.15 0.15 0.15
o.op o.oa o.ofl
n.09 0.0B 0.0B 0,06
n.14 0.14 o.tn o.i«f
p.o.ll 0.11 0,11
".07 0,07 0.07 0,07
0.07 0.07 0.07 0,07
0.06 0.06 0,06 0,06
n.0* 0.05 0.05 0,05
0.05 0.05 0,05 0,05
n.0? 0.02 0,02 0,02
0.04 0.04 0.04 0,04
P.9* 0.03 0,03 0,03
0.0? 0.02 0,02 0,02
0,0? 0.02 0.02 0,02
0.01 0,01 0,01 0,01
0,00 0.00 0,00 0,00
*.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
fl.oo o.oo 0,00 0,00
n.00 0.00 0.00 0,00
0,00 0,00 n,oo 0,00
0,6? 0,14 8,03 0,24
0.63 0.14 9,03 0,24
0,6? 0.14 ft.03 0.24
n.6? 0.14 0,03 0,24
".62 0,14 A.03 0,24
0,00 0.00 A.39 0,00
0,01 0,00 a,39 0,00
O.00 0,00 8,39 0.00
0.00 0,00 9,39 0,00
*,00 Q.00 a,39 0,00
0.01 0.00 A,19 0,00
7*
0 . u n
7«*
0,96
7 ^
c.l*
76
0.1®
77
0.1*
7A
0 # 0
79
0. or.
90
0, 1 u
M
0.11
9?
0 ."7
9 J
0 . 07
*<4
0 .Of,
0
96
0,0*
07
0. n?
R6
O.ou
S9
0,o*
90
0,09
11
0. 09
0.O1
*n
O.on
94
C,
0 . 0 0
'if-.
O.on
£ 7
o.on
99
10,09
"JO
\no
1 O.on
1 r-t
10,O'»
12?
'O."?
103
11.1®
104
11,1*
115
11,1°
106
M , 1 0
1 07
11,15
109
1 1,1®
0,40
0.36
0,36
0,36
0,26
0.2H
0.24
0,24
0,15
0.13
0,13
0,13
0,19
0.18
0.18
0,18
0,15
0.14
0,14
0,14
0,0
0.09
0,06
0,08
0,08
0*08
0.08
0,08
0,14
0.14
0,14
0,14
0,11
0.10
0,10
0,10
0,07
0.07
0,07
0,07
0.07
0.07
0,07
0,07
0,06
0.05
0,05
0,05
0,05
0.05
0,05
0,05
0,05
0.05
0,05
0,05
0,02
0.02
0,02
0,02
0.04
0.04
0,04
0,04
0.03
0.03
0,03
0,03
0,02
0.02
0,02
0,02
0,02
0.02
0,02
0,02
0,01
0.01
0,01
0,01
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
o.no
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,09
0.01
0,00
0,00
0,09
0.39
0,01
0,00
0.09
2.92
0,14
0,03
0,09
5.40
0,26
0,05
0,09
7,53
0,37
0,09
0,00
10.14
0,00
0,00
0,00
10.18
0,00
0,00
0.00
10.18
0,00
0,00
0.00
10. »0
0,00
0,00
o.oc
10.1%
0,00
0,00
0.00
10.18
0,00
0,00
C-99
-------
TABLE 1
(continued)
CONCENTRATION OF CONSERVATIVE MATERIAL (mg/1) FROM UNIT LOAD OF CONSERVATIVE MATERIAL (10,000 POUNDS/DAY)
- NO PROJECT -
Dry Season
Response in Discharge: San Jose
Segment Segment: (103)
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
Canning Season
San Jose
(103)
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
San Jose
(103)
Wet Season
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
109
11,1®
0.01
0,00
ft.39
0,00
0.00
lln
1 . 1 4
0.0?
0.00
*.39
0,00
0.00
111
•* n.q*
n. 1 <3
0.0?
0.34
0.03
0.0
11?
! 0 . K 1
0.40
n.o5
9,?1
0.1?
0,04
lis
7.1"*
1.5?
0.46
6.21
1,03
0.39
114
7.1 T
1.5?
0.46
6.21
1.03
0. 39
11?
7.1 *
1.5?
0.46
6.21
1,03
0.39
lis
7.1?
1.5?
0 . 4 £
6.21
1.03
0.38
117
7.13
1.5?
0.46
6.21
1.03
0.38
Ufl
3.73
?,39
0.04
3.48
2,10
0.77
1 1«»
3.*>3
? ,
0 . 94
3.40
2.10
0,77
1?0
3.7*
P . 39
0.94
3.48
2.10
0,77
1 ?1
o.?n
66.1®
0.1?
0.09
47,46
0.03
1??
o.?n
66,19
0.12
0.06
47.46
0,03
l?3
0 ,
5?,7?
0.31
0.40
41,99
0.15
l?'l
.41
31 .15
0.59
1.13
?7,61
0,4?
1?*
?.r\9
11.35
0.92
1.97
13,69
0.70
126
l. 35
1 ,37
1 .11
1.31
1.3?
1.09
1. ? 7
l. **
1,37
1.11
1.31
1,32
1.09
1 2 R
. 3*
1.37
1.11
1.31
1,32
1.09
l?q
1 . ?9
1 .31
1.11
1.25
1.26
1.09
1 30
, 93
1,31
1.11
1.25
1.26
1.09
155
1
1.31
1.11
1.25
1,26
1.09
IS?
1 . ?o
1.31
1,11
l.?5
1. ?6
1.09
13?
1 , J>*
1.31
1.11
1.25
I, ? 6
1.09
1 su
1 . ^
1 .31
1.11
1.25
1.26
1.09
1 55
0 .
1.00
9.51
0.98
0,99
9.50
1 36
. nu
1..05
7.00
0.95
0.96
6.99
1 57
1. n q
1,13
4.75
1.02
1.02
4.73
1 5°
1.1?
1 ,13
1.06
1,07
3.12
l.n
1 . le
2.03
I.in
1.10
2.01
1 '4 0
1 .UO
1 .5!
1 .1?
1.44
1.45
1.09
1 "M
1 .<10
1 .51
1 .1?
1.44
1,45
1.09
10,19
0 ,00
0.00
10.16
0.03
0.00
9.93
0.12
0.01
9.46
0.27
0.05
4.0 4
0.77
0.22
5. 37
1.03
0.29
5.97
1.1"»
0.33
6.19
1.19
0.34
6.34
1.22
0. 35
1.93
1.20
0.40
2.97
1.79
0.59
3.30
2,06
0,69
0.05
21.59
0.01
0,13
52. 35
0.04
0.49
44,B9
0,17
1 .?1
?«.62
0.43
1 ,°9
13.91
0.67
0.*4
0.55
0 .44
1,10
1 .12
0.90
1.22
1 .25
1.00
0.07
0.07
0,06
0.42
n .43
0.36
0.74
0.76
0,64
1.04
1 .06
0,99
1.15
1.17
0,99
1,18
1.20
1.02
0,«0
0.99
9.22
0 . 99
n. 95
6.92
0.95
1,01
4,63
I.01
1.05
3.05
1.04
1.07
1,95
l.?fl
1.31
0. 96
1.35
1.39
1.01
C-100
-------
TABLE 2
CONCENTRATION OF CONSERVATIVE MATERIAL (mg/1) FROM UNIT LOAD OF CONSERVATIVE MA
- NO PROJECT -
Response in Discharge: San Jose
Segment Segment: (103)
Dry Season
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
San Jose
(103)
Canning Season
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
1
0.24
2
7.91
0.60
*
6 . P. 7
1.05
4
5.70
1. 36
«;
4 .
1.75
6
3. *n
2.in
7
2 , 1
2.37
0
?.*n
2.40
9
1 .9?
1 .90
i n
1 .9*
1.94
n
l.K*
1 .67
i?
1 . *>(.
f .65
15
l.*5
1.34
14
1.41
1 .<*0
1 5
1.45
1 .44
1*
1.^9
1.32
17
1 , *4
1 . 34
1*
1.
1 .35
19
1 .29
1 .28
?n
1.29
1 . 2B
?i
1.3*
1.34
9?
1.2*
1 .25
?3
1 . 1 9
1 . 1«
? 4
1.9A
1.25
?5
l.m
1.10
?6
1.0°
1.07
27
1.1?
1.1?
?R
1.01
1 .01
? 9
0 . 9t
0.90
so
n. 79
0.71
0 . 74
0.73
3?
O.ftO
n.6n
33
n.«9
0,5*
34
35
# « T
0.57
n.
0.54
36
0,«i
0.51
0.09
0.22
0,38
0.50
0.64
0.77
0.87
0.91
1.01
1.00
1.04
1.05
1.09
1.08
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.10
1.09
1.09
1.11
1.09
1.09
1 .14
0.90
0,71
0.73
0.60
0.59
0.57
0,54
0.51
7,0B
6*54
5.74
5.05
4.18
3.34
2.64
1.60
1.31
1.37
1.40
1.22
1.16
1.22
1.07
1.05
1,09
0,99
0.89
0,70
0.72
0,59
0.58
0.56
0.53
0,50
0.12
0.40
0.79
1.12
1,53
1.92
2.24
2.37
1,84
1.87
1,62
1,60
1.31
1.37
1,40
1.26
1.30
1.31
1.25
1,25
1,31
1,22
1.16
1,22
1,07
1,05
1.09
0,99
0.ft9
0,70
0,72
0,59
0,58
0,56
0,53
0,50
0.04
0.14
0.28
0.40
0.55
0.69
0.80
0.85
0,96
0,95
1.00
1.01
1,05
1.05
1.05
1.06
1.06
1.07
1.06
1.06
1.07
1.06
1.07
1.12
1.05
1.05
1.37
0.9
0.89
0.70
0,72
0.59
0.58
0,56
0.53
0,50
(10,000 POUNDS/DAY)
San Jose Sunnyvale Palo Alto
(103) (122) (135)
8.25
7.33
6.19
5.33
4.32
3,38
2,64
2.35
1.81
1.84
1.58
1.56
1.26
1.33
1.36
1.24
1.26
1.27
1.21
1.21
1.26
1.18
1.12
1.18
1.03
1.01
1.05
0.94
0.R5
0,66
0.66
0.55
0,54
0,53
0.49
0.46
0,20
0.52
0.91
1.23
1.60
1.95
2. 24
2.35
1.81
1.84
1.58
1.56
1.26
1,33
1.36
1.24
1.26
1.27
1.21
1.21
1.26
1.19
1.12
1.18
1.03
1,01
1.05
0.94
0.85
0.66
0.68
0,55
0,54
0.53
0.49
0.46
0,07
0.18
0.31
0.43
0.56
0,68
0.78
0.82
0.92
0.92
0. 96
0.97
1.01
1.00
1.01
1,01
1.01
1.03
1.02
1.02
1.03
1.02
1.02
1.07
1.01
1.01
1.33
0.94
0,85
0.66
0.68
0.55
0.54
0.53
0,49
0.46
C-101
-------
TABLE 2
(continued)
CONCENTRATION OF CONSERVATIVE MATERIAL (mg/1) FROM UNIT LOAD OF CONSERVATIVE MATERIAL {10,000 POUNDS/DAY)
- NO PROJECT -
Dry Season
Response in Discharge: San Jose
Segment ^ Segment: (103)
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
Canning season
San Jose
(103)
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
San Jose
(103)
Wet Season
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
37
o.*«
0.58
0.58
0.57
0.57
0,57
0.53
0.53
0.53
30
0.**
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.51
0.51
0.51
39
0.^9
0.39
0,39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.35
0.35
0. 35
<~0
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.44
0,44
0.44
0.40
0.4 0
0.40
'4 1
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.56
0.56
0,56
0,52
0.52
0.52
42
0.K3
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.40
0.49
0.48
43
0.35
0.35
0 » 31*
0.34
0. 34
0.30
0.30
0.30
44
o.^«
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.35
0.35
0.35
45
0."^
0.50
0.50
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.45
0.45
0.45
46
0.4U
0,44
0.44
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.39
0. 39
0.39
47
0.3?
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.28
0.28
0.28
43
0.3*
0.35
0,35
0.35
0,35
0,35
0.31
0.31
0.31
o.5n
0.50
0,50
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.45
0.45
0,45
50
0 .*3
0.43
0.43
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.38
0.38
0.38
51
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0,31
0.31
0.27
0.27
0.27
52
0.3?
0.3?
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.28
0.28
0.28
53
o.^o
n.so
0.50
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.45
0.45
0.45
54
0.46
0.45
0.45
0.45
0,45
0,45
0.40
0.40
0.40
55
0 . "*ft
n.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0. 30
0 . 26
0 . Zb
0.26
56
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.3fl
0.26
0.26
0.26
57
0.*7
0.57
0.57
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.50
0.50
0,50
5B
O.fcfl
0.60
0.60
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.52
0.52
0.52
59
o.?<»
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0,25
0.25
0,25
6n
O.po
0,28
0 . 28
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.24
0.24
0.24
si
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.49
0.49
0,49
62
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.?7
0.27
0.27
63
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.25
0.25
0.25
64
0,24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.21
0.21
0.21
65
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.47
0.47
0.47
66
0.39
0. 39
0,39
0.39
0,39
0.39
0. 34
0 . 34
0.34
67
0.97
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0,27
0.23
0,23
0.23
68
0.92
0.2?
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.19
0.19
0.19
69
0.4A
0 • s
0.48
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.42
0.42
0.42
70
0.*P
0.3?
0.38
0,38
0.38
0.38
0.34
0. 34
0.34
71
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0,19
0.19
0.16
0.16
0.16
7?
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0,17
0.17
0.15
0.15
0.15
C-102
-------
jmen i.
73
74
75
76
77
7P
79
<5 0
B1
B?
33
B4
95
B6
^ 7
S9
90
91
9?
93
9U
95
96
97
98
99
l no
101
10?
103
1 04
10*)
116
1 07
l n«
TABLE 2
(continued)
CONCENTRATION OF CONSERVATIVE MATERIAL (mg/1) FROM UNIT LOAD OF CONSERVATIVE MATERIAL (10,000 POUNDS/DAY)
San Jose
(103)
Dry Season
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
- NO PROJECT -
1995
Canning Season
Wet Season
San Jose
(103)
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
San Jose
(103)
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
o.un o.4o o.fo
0.?* 0.2* 0.26
n.i* p.is o, 15
0.19 0,19 0.19
0,1^ 0.15 0.1*
0.PP 0.08 0.08
n.ne 0.0B 0.08
o.m 0.14 o.m
0.11 0.11 0.11
0.P7 n,07 0.07
0.o 7 0.07 0.07
o.nft n.O* 0.06
0,0" 0.05 0.05
0,o* 0.05 0.05
0. ft? 0.0? 0.02
o.o^ 0.04 0.04
0,0* 0.03 0.03
O.o? 0.02 0.02
O.n? 0.02 9.0?
0,01 0.01 0,01
0, oo o.OO 0.00
C,ft0 0,00 0,00
0,00 0,00 0,00
0,00 0.00 0.00
o.oo o.oo o.oo
B.P1* 0.24 0.09
P.°9 0.24 0,09
o.oo 0, ?4 0.09
9,°9 0.24 0.09
fl,** 0.24 0,09
9.*7 0.00 0,00
9.*7 0.00 0.00
9.*7 o.OO 0.00
9,71 0,00 0,00
9.*7 0 ,00 0,00
*.<¦7 0.00 0,00
0.40 0.40 0,40
0.26 0.26 0.2&
0.15 0.15 0.15
0.19 0.19 0.19
0.15 0.15 0.15
0.08 0.08 0.08
0.08 0.00 O.Dfl
0.14 0.14 0.14
0.11 0.11 0.11
0.07 0.07 0.07
0.07 0.07 0.07
0.06 0.06 0.06
0.05 0.05 0.05
0.05 0.05 0.05
0.02 0.02 0.02
0.04 0.04 0.04
0.03 0.03 0.03
0.02 0.02 0.02
0.02 0.02 0,02
0.01 0.01 0.01
0,00 0.00 0,00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
7.11 0.12 0.04
7.11 0.12 0,04
7.11 0.12 0.04
7.11 0.12 0.04
7.11 0.1? 0.04
7,27 0,00 0.00
7.27 0.00 o.OO
7.27 0.00 0.00
7, ?7 0.00 0.00
7.27 o.oo n.rr
7.27 o.OO O.OO
0.35
0.35
0.35
0 , ?4
0,24
0.24
0,13
0,13
0.13
0.18
0,18
0.10
0.14
0,14
0.14
0.08
0,08
0.08
0,08
0,08
0.08
0,14
0.14
0.14
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0,05
0.05
0.02
0,02
0.02
0,04
0,04
0.04
0,03
0.03
0.03
0,02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0,01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.37
0.00
0.00
2.71
0.06
0.02
5.03
0.12
0.04
7.01
0.17
0.06
9.24
0.00
0.00
9.24
0.00
0.00
9.24
0.00
0.00
9.27
0.00
0.00
9.24
0,00
0.00
9, ?4
0,00
0.00
C-103
-------
TABLE 2
(cont inued)
CONCENTRATION OF CONSERVATIVE MATERIAL (mg/1) FROM UNIT LOAD OF CONSERVATIVE MATERIAL (10,00C POUNDS/DAY)
- NO PROJECT -
Response in .Discharge: San Jose
Segment
Segment:
(103)
Dry Season
Sunnyvale
(1221
Palo Alto
(135)
1995
Canning Season
San Jose
(103)
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
San Joso
(103)
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
109
9.P.7
O.OO
0.00
7.27
0,00
0,00
9, ?4
no
9.7"
0.00
0.00
7.27
0.00
0.00
9,?6
111
9.^6
0«03
0.01
7.26
0.00
0.00
9,ne
11?
9. 31
0.1?
0.04
7. 20
0.05
0.01
8.74
113
6, P. 7
1.03
0.39
5.74
0.79
0.29
3.96
114
6,*7
1,03
0.39
5.74
0.79
0.29
5,13
u?
6.67
1.03
0.36
5.74
0.79
0.29
5,71
116
6.C7
1.03
0.39
5.74
0.79
0 . ?9
5,92
117
6.*7
1.03
0.39
5.74
0.79
0,29
6,06
ue
3.*n
2.10
0.77
3.34
1.92
0.69
1.86
119
3.K0
2.10
0.77
3.34
1.92
0.69
2,79
1?0
3. AO
2.10
0.77
3.34
1.92
0.69
3,21
121
0.H9
47.46
0.03
0.02
39.61
o.oi
0.01
122
o.n*
47.4*
0.03
0.02
39.61
0.01
O.n?
1 ?3
0. 4 t
41 . 9"
0.15
0,23
36.42
0.09
0.22
L?4
1.1*
27.61
0.42
0.91
25,66
0.3''
o.e9
125
1.9?
13.69
0,70
1.70
13.30
0.61
1.66
126
1.??
1.32
1.09
1.29
1.29
1.06
0.53
127
l.S?
1.3?
1.09
1.29
1.29
1,06
1.09
128
1.79
1.32
1.09
1.29
1.29
1.06
1.21
129
1.?*
1.26
1.09
1. ?3
1.23
1.06
0.06
13P
l.?ft
1.26
1.09
1.23
1.23
1.06
0,41
1 31
1.26
1.09
1.23
1.23
1,06
0.73
132
l.?fi
1 .26
1.09
1.23
1.23
1.06
l.n?
1 33
1.?*
1.26
1 .09
1.23
1.23
1 .06
1.1H
134
lm?6
1.26
1.09
1.23
1.23
1.06
1.16
135
0.99
0.69
9.50
0.97
0.97
9,49
0.79
136
0.9A
n.9*
6,99
0.94
0.94
6,97
0.P7
137
1.0*
1.0?
4,73
1.00
1,00
4,71
0.94
13B
1.0®
1.07
3.12
1.05
1.05
3.10
1.00
139
1.11
1 .10
2.01
1.09
1.09
1 ,99
1.03
14fl
1 , 4 £
1.45
1.09
I-Hl
l.*t
1 .06
1. ?7
141
1.46
1 .45
1.09
1.H1
1.41
1.06
1.34
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.10
0.56
0.75
0.94
0.37
0.89
I ,0fl
1.61
1.85
16.14
39.19
36.3B
25.51
13.23
0.53
I .09
1.21
(1.06
o.n
0.73
1. 0?
1.14
1.16
0.79
0.97
0. 94
I.00
1.03
1 .27
1.34
O.OO
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.19
0.26
0.29
0.30
0 .31
0.38
0.56
0.65
0.00
0.00
0. 09
0.31
0.59
C .44
0 . B 9
0.99
0.05
0.36
0.63
0,99
0.99
1.00
9.21
6.91
*~.62
3.04
1.
0.94
0.99
C-104
-------
TABLE 3
CONCENTRATION OF CONSERVATIVE MATERIAL (mg/1) FROM UNIT LOAD OF CONSERVATIVE MATERIAL (10,000 POUNDS/DAY)
- 1985 and 1995 -
Rfijpori;--
Li <; cjitu • r j t
r yj
Deep Water
Discharqo
Dry and Canning
Seasons
Wet
Season
San Jose/
San Jose/
i ri^Di sc?liarge:
Segment:
Sunnyvale Palo Alto
Sunnyvalo
Palo Alt
(9)
(14)
(9)
J_U)
1
1.41
1.^7
1.00
?
?. 0?
1.40
1.58
1.07
3
?,oi
1.39
1.65
1.12
u
?,on
1,3ft
1.71
1,16
5
l •
1.37
1.76
1.19
6
i
1.37
1.79
1.22
7
1.97
1.36
1.83
1.24
A
l.q*
1.35
1.8H
1.25
9
2.04
1.35
1.97
1.26
10
i.*n
1.35
1.82
1.28
u
1.7*
1.39
1.66
1.32
1?
l.fift
1.3ft
1,60
1.31
13
l.*7
l.Hl
1.30
1,3»
1*
1 .4^
1.50
1,37
1.4
-------
CONCENTRATION OF
Response in Discharge:
Segment Segment:
37
3ft
39
40
41
43
44
45
46
47
4ft
49
50
51
5?
53
54
55
56
57
5fl
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
C-106
TABLE 3
(continued)
Dry and Canning Seasons
San Jose/
Sunnyvale Palo Alto
(9) (14)
0.59 0,59
0.«|6 0.56
0.40 0,40
0.46 0,46
0.5» 0.51
0,*3 0,53
0.35 0.35
0,40 0,40
0,51 0,51
0.4U 0,44
0.H 0,33
0,16 0,36
0.M 0,51
0,44 0,44
0,3? 0.32
0#*3 0,33
0.S0 0,50
0,46 0,46
0,11 0,31
0.M 0,31
0.«iR 0,5ft
0.61 0,61
0.*0 0,30
0.9« 0,2ft
0,*« 0,59
0.11 0.31
0,?<» 0,29
0,24 0,24
0,*4 0,54
0,40 0.40
0.27 0.27
0.21 0,23
0,49 0,49
0.1° 0,39
0,19 0.19
0,17 0.17
UNIT LOAD OF CONSERVATIVE
MATERIAL (10,000 POUNDS/DAY)
- 1985 and
1995 -
UP 31 Discharge
Discharge
Dry & Canning
Vet Season
fan Jose/
Wet
Season
Seasons
San Jose/
San Jose/
Sunnyvale
Palo Alto
Sunnyvale/
Sunnyvale/
(9)
(14)
Palo Alto
(31)
Palo Alto
(31)
0 .54
0.54
0,60
0,55
0,52
0,52
0,57
0,52
0.35
0,35
0,40
0,36
0.41
0.41
0,46
0,41
0.53
0.53
0,59
0,54
0,49
0,49
0.54
0,49
0.31
0,31
0,36
0,31
0.36
0.36
0,41
0,36
0,46
0,46
0,52
0,46
0,39
0,39
0,45
0 . 40
0,28
0,20
0,33
0,28
0,31
0,31
0,36
0,32
0,46
0,46
0,51
0,4^
0,39
0,39
0,44
0.39
0.28
0,28
0,32
0,28
0.29
0,29
0,33
0.29
0,45
0,45
0,51
0.46
0.41
0,41
0,47
0,41
0,27
0,27
0,31
0.27
0.27
0,27
0,31
0,2^
0,51
0,51
0,59
0.51
0,53
0,53
0,62
0,54
0,26
0,26
0,30
0,26
0,24
0,24
0,28
0,24
0,50
0,50
0.58
0.5"
0,27
0,27
0,32
0,27
0,25
0,25
0,30
0,25
0,21
0,21
0,25
0.21
0,48
0.48
0,55
0.48
0.35
0.35
0,40
0.35
0.24
0.24
0,28
0,24
0.20
0,20
0,23
0,20
0,43
0,43
0,49
0,43
0,34
0,34
0,39
0.35
0,17
0,17
0,19
0,17
0.15
0.15
0,17
0.1*
-------
TABLE 3
CONCENTRATION OF CONSERVATIVE MATERIAL (mg/1) PROM UNIT LOAD OP CONSERVATIVE MATERIAL (10,000 POUNDS/DAY)
- 1985 and 1995 -
Response in Discharge:
Segment Segment:
Dry and Canning Seasons
San Jose/
Deep Water Discharge
Sunnyvale
(9)
Palo Alto
(14)
Wet Season
San Jose/
Sunnyvale
(9)
Palo Alto
(14)
DP 31 Discharge
Dry & Canning
Seasons
San Jose/
Sunnyvale/
Palo Alto
(31)
Wet Season
San Jose/
Sunnyvale/
Palo Alto
(31)
73
o.un
74
0.?fi
75
0.1*
7f,
0.19
77
0,1*
7fl
o.nfi
79
o.nn
90
0.14
91
0.11
82
0.07
*3
0,07
34
0,06
85
0.05
36
0.0*
87
0.0?
3ft
0.04
99
0, 03
9ft
0.0?
91
0.0?
92
0.H1
93
0.00
94
o, nn
95
0. *o
96
0, nn
97
O.on
98
2.0*
99
2,05
ino
2.n*
101
?.n*
10?
2.0*
103
2.04
104
2.04
105
2,OM
106
2,04
107
?.04
10P
2. ou
0.40
0.26
0.15
0,19
0.15
0.0®
r>,o«
0.14
0.11
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.0?
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.09
0.01
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
1.41
1.41
1.11
1.41
1.41
1.41
1.11
1.41
1.41
1.41
1 .*1
0.36
0.21
0.13
0.1ft
0.14
0.09
0.09
0.14
0.10
0.07
0,07
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0,48
0.89
1.25
0.01
0.06
0.45
0,79
0.96
1.06
0.36
0.24
0.13
0.18
0.14
0.08
0,06
0.14
0.10
0,07
0.07
0,05
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,04
0.33
0.61
0.85
0,00
0.04
0.30
0.53
0.65
0,72
0.41
0.26
0,15
0.19
0,15
O.OB
o.ns
0.15
0.11
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.02
0,04
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
0,00
0.82
0.92
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.62
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.36
0.24
0.13
0.18
0.14
0.03
0.08
0,14
0.10
0.07
0,07
0,05
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.02
0.17
0.32
0,45
0.00
0.02
0.16
0,28
0.35
0,30
C-107
-------
TABLE 3
(continued)
CONCENTRATION OF CONSERVATIVE MATERIAL (mg/1) FROM UNIT LOAD OF CONSERVATIVE MATERIAL (10,000 POUNDS/DAY)
- 1985 and 1995 -
Dry and Canning Seasons
San Jose/
Deep Water Discharge
Response in Discharge:
Segment Segment:
Sunnyvale
(9)
Palo Alto
(14)
Wet Season
San Jose/
Sunnyvale
(9)
Palo Alto
(14)
DP 31 Discharge
Dry & Canning
Seasons
San Jose/
Sunnyvale/
Palo Alto
(31)
Wet Season
San Jose/
Sunnyvale/
Palo Alto
(31)
109
2.(1"
1 . «*1
1.16
0,79
0,82
n.42
110
2.H4
l.H
1.26
0.86
0.82
0.46
in
2.04
1.11
1.36
0.92
0.82
0.49
ii?
2,nu
l.«H
1 .42
0.97
0,82
0.51
113
1.39
1.03
0.70
0.80
0.37
IIP
2.01
1.39
1.37
0. 93
0.80
0.50
115
2,11
1.39
1.52
1.04
0.80
0,55
116
2.01
1.39
1,58
1.07
0.80
0.57
117
2.01
1.39
1.62
1.10
0.80
0.59
lift
1.9ft
1.37
0.99
0.68
0,79
0.36
119
l.Pft
1.37
1 .<*8
1.01
0.79
0.54
120
1.9*
1.37
1,70
1.16
0.79
0.62
121
1.9*
1.36
0.36
0.24
0.79
0.13
122
1.9P
1.36
0.88
0.60
0,79
0.32
123
1 . **
1.36
1,22
0.83
0.79
0 .44
12*
1.9*
1 .36
1.54
1.0*
0,79
0.56
125
1.9®
1.36
1.73
1.17
0.79
0.63
126
1.3*
1.3*
0.55
0,56
0,77
0.30
127
1.3*
1.39
1.12
1.15
0,77
0.60
12B
1.3*
1.39
1.24
1.27
0.77
0.67
129
l.?9
1 .30
0,07
0.07
0,77
0.04
130
1.29
1.30
0.43
0.43
0,77
0.24
131
1.9®
1.30
0.76
0.77
0.77
0 .43
132
1.P9
1.30
1.05
1.07
0.77
0.60
133
1.29
1.30
1.17
1.19
0.77
0.66
134
1,29
1.30
1.20
1.22
0.77
0.68
135
1.1*
1.15
1.04
1.04
0,77
0.66
136
1.1*
1.1*
1,06
1.05
0.77
0.67
137
1.1*
1.15
1.07
1.07
0,77
0.68
1 3*
1.1*
1.15
1.0«
1.08
0.77
0.69
139
1.1*
1.15
1 .09
1.08
0.77
0.69
l"+ n
1.4*
1.38
1,30
1.22
0,78
0.64
141
1
1.3ft
1,38
1.28
0.78
0,67
-------
J Di:
/ S«
1
?
3
4
*,
6
7
A
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
If-
17
16
19
20
?1
??
?3
?4
?*
26
27
2R
29
30
31
3?
33
34
3?
3 Pi
, ,< TABLE 4
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT (mg/1) FROM LOAD OF ULTIMATE OXYGEN DEMAND (10,000 POUNDS/DAY)
- NO PROJECT -
1985
San Jose
(103)
0 , flu
0 . *7
0 .4?
0 .
0 .
0.1?
0.n7
0.0ft
0,0*
o,n*
n.o?
o.o?
n.m
0.01
0.O1
0.O1
O.ni
0,01
n.m
o .01
0.01
o.oi
o .01
o. o 1
o.oi
0.01
0.M
0.01
0 .01
o .no
0.00
0 ,00
0 . ™
0 . 00
o.on
o. o«
Dry Season
Sunnyvale
(122)
o.oo
0.00
o.on
0,00
0,01
o.o?
0.03
0.03
0.0?
0.0?
0.01
0,01
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
O.OO
0,00
n,00
0,00
Palo Alto
(135)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,01
0,01
0,02
0.03
0.03
0,04
0.04
0,05
0.05
0,05
0,06
0.06
0,06
0,06
0.07
0.06
0,07
0,08
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.14
0,09
O.Ofl
0.06
0.06
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.0?
San Jose
(103)
0.71
0.63
0.42
0.31
0,21
0.13
0.0B
0.07
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0,01
0.01
0,01
0,01
0,01
0,01
0.01
0.01
0,01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
o.oo
Canning Season
Sunnyvale
(122)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.01
0.0?
0.0*
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0,01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0,01
0.01
0,01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
0,00
o.oo
0,00
0,00
0,00
Palo Alto
San Jose
Sunnyvale
Palo Alto
(135)
(102)
(122)
(135)
0,00
0.74
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.65
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.45
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.34
0,01
0.00
0.00
0, ?4
0,0?
0,01
0.01
0,16
0.03
0.01
0,01
0.10
0.05
0,02
0.02
0«0B
0.06
0,03
0.03
0,05
0.04
0,04
0.03
0,05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0,04
0.03
0.05
0.04
0.P4
0.0?
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.06
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.06
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.06
0,06
0.02
0,01
0.07
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.07
0.06
0,02
0.01
0.07
0.06
0,02
0.01
0.07
0.07
0.02
0.01
0,06
0,06
0,02
0.01
0,07
0.07
0,02
0.01
0.08
O.OB
0.02
0.01
0.09
0.0B
0.02
0.01
o.oe
0.09
0.02
0.01
0,10
0.09
0.02
0.01
0,10
0.14
0.02
0.01
0.14
0.09
0.02
0.01
0,10
0.08
0.02
0.01
0,09
0.06
0.01
0.00
0,06
0.06
0.01
0.00
0,07
0,03
0.00
0.00
0,04
0.03
0.00
0.00
0,04
0.04
0.01
0.00
0.04
0.03
0.00
0.00
0,04
0,02
O.OO
0.00
0,03
C-109
-------
TABLE 4
(continued)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT (mg/1) FROM LOAD OF ULTIMATE OXYGEN DEMAND (10,000 POUNDS/DAY)
Response .Discharge:
Segment Segment:
San Jose
(103)
Dry Season
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
- NO PROJECT -
1985
San Jose
(103)
Canning Season
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
San Jose
(102)
Wet Season
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
37
O.nn
0,00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0,03
0.00
0.00
0,04
3fl
O.nn
n.on
0.03
0.00
0.00
0,03
O.OQ
0.00
0.04
39
0.0P
0.00
0,01
0.00
0.00
0. 01
0,00
0.00
0.01
40
0.0ft
n.oo
0.01
0,00
0,00
o,ni
o.no
0,00
0,02
41
O.nn
n.oo
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.03
0,00
0.00
0.03
4?
o, nn
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.03
43
o.nn
n.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.01
44
O.nn
n.oo
0.01
0.00
0,00
0,01
0,00
0,00
0,01
45
0. on
0.00
0.0?
0.00
0,00
0.02
0*00
0,00
0,02
46
O.nn
n.oo
0.02
0.00
0.00
0,02
0,00
0,00
n,o2
47
O.nn
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
48
o.nn
n.oo
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
o.no
0.00
0.00
49
o.no
0,00
0.01
0,00
0,00
0,01
0,00
0.00
0,02
50
o.nn
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0,01
0,00
0,00
0,02
51
o.nn
n.oo
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
52
o.nn
n.oo
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
o.no
0.00
0.00
53
O.nn
0.00
0.01
0.00
0,00
0,nl
o.no
0.00
0.02
54
O.nn
0,00
0.01
0,00
0,00
0,01
o. no
0.00
0.02
55
o. nn
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
O.PO
0,00
0.00
56
o.on
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
57
o.nn
0.00
0.01
0.00
0,00
0,01
0.00
0,00
o.oi
58
o.nn
n.oo
0.01
0.00
0,00
0, 01
0.00
0.00
0,02
59
O.nn
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
60
o.nn
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
61
o.nn
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.01
6 2
o.nn
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
63
o.nn
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
O.PO
o.oo
0.00
64
o.on
n.oo
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
65
o.on
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
o.ol
66
o.nn
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
o.no
0.00
0.00
67
o.nn
n.oo
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
o.no
0.00
0.00
6B
o»on
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
O.OQ
69
o.nn
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
70
o.nn
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
o.no
0,00
O.OQ
71
o.nn
n.oo
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
O.PO
0,00
0.00
72
O.nn
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
o .no
0,00
0.00
C-110
-------
e Dii
' S<
73
7f
75
76
77
78
79
SO
81
8?
S3
S
-------
TABLE 4
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT fmg/I) FROM LOAD OF ULTIMATE OXYGEN DEMAND {10,000 POUNDS/DAY)
- NO PROJECT -
1985
Response Discharge:
Segment Segment:
San Jose
(103)
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
Canning Season
San Jose
(103)
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
San Jose
(102)
Wet Season
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
10?
110
111
11?
IIS
n«f
115
116
117
116
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
120
129
150
131
132
155
15*
15fi
13f
137
-3S
159
1*»0
141
Q.c.c,
0 .73
Q.A9
0.9?
0.2<»
0,97
0.30
0,35
n.^7
o.n?
o.r»t*
Q.09
0. np
O.nn
O.nn
O.oi
G .03
ft.nn
O.OO
0 .*0
O.*0
r> nn
14 nfl
C. o.ft
0.01
o. on
ft, f>n
C .M
0 . r>1
t, M
" .'"1
n.rn
o.oo
0,00
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0,00
0.01
2.15
If,
%ll
1 .75
0.57
0.00
0.00
0.00
0. 00
0.0 0
^.00
^. 1 z
o.oc
0.0?
o.oo
«.C5
o,:o
".0 0
«.nn
n.oo
"•.CC
o.oo
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
*.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.02
C.00
?.oo
o.oo
C .CI
0.C3
0.C3
0.9*
•.•u
".2*
C.03
0.39
0 , *»9
0.61
0.71
0.25
0.2A
0.31
0.3*
0.37
0.02
0.05
0.10
O.OO
0.00
0.00
0.01
C.V*
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
c.co
0.00
o.oi
o.oo
0.00
9.M
0.01
o.oi
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
9,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.01
1.66
3.70
3.06
1.92
0.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 .05
o.oo
o.oc
0.00
o.oo
c.03
o.oo
o.oo
o,:i
0.00
0.00
0,00
o.oo
(3.00
0, 00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.02
0,00
^.00
0 , 00
0.01
0 .03
0.05
0.94
0. A3
C .61
o,m
n.PM
c.03
0 .0"*
0.55
0.67
0,75
0.19
0.?fl
0.33
0.37
0,41
0.02
0.06
0.12
0 .00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.05
0.00
0.00
0,01
o.oc
0.00
o.oo
o.*o
0.01
0,02
C . 01
0.01
0.01
D.01
0.*2
0 . r> 1
C.?2
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0,00
0.01
o.o?
1.09
<~,09
3,50
?. 30
0,97
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
C.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0. 00
0.01
j.:i
O.oi
0.01
:.oi
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
o.oo
0.01
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,01
0 „ 0 "i
0,01
0.03
0.00
3,on
0,00
0.C2
0,04
C, 06
0.82
0.73
0,55
:.sa
0,23
0.03
0.05
C-112
-------
-• D i:
/ S<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
A
9
10
11
1?
13
m
15
16
17
IB
19
20
21
2?
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
3
-------
TABLE 5
(continued)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT tmg/1) FROM UNIT LOAD OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT (1,000 POUNDS/DAY)
- NO PROJECT -
Response .Discharge:
Segment Segment:
San Jose
(103)
Dry Season
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
San Jose
(103)
Canning Season
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
San Jose
(102)
Wet Season
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
37
36
39
HO
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
5B
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
66
69
70
71
72
O.nn
O.nn
0,00
O.nn
o.nn
o.on
o.nn
o.no
o.on
o.no
o.nn
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.nn
0.00
o.nn
o.on
o.no
o.on
0,00
o.on
0.00
o.on
0.00
O.ftft
0.00
o.on
o.oo
o.nn
o.on
o.nn
0.00
o.nn
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
o.oo
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
n.oo
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.no
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.no
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 .00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0. 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.0 0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
C-114
-------
e Di:
' S<
73
74
75
76
77
7ft
79
60
61
a?
63
fit*
65
66
37
ee
69
90
91
92
93
9*4
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
10?
103
104
105
106
107
10B
TABLE 5
(continued)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DLFJCrT (mq/1) FROM UNIT LOAD OP DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT (1,000 POUNDS/DAY)
- NO PROJECT -
1985
San Jose
(103)
Dry Season
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
Canning Season
San Jose
(103)
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
San Jose
(102)
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
<135)
PAGE
0. nn
0. no
0. on
O.OO
O.nn
o.nn
o.nn
o.nn
O.nn
o.nn
O.nn
O.nn
O.nn
o.on
o.nn
0,00
o.nn
o.nn
o.nn
o.nn
o.nn
o.nn
O.nn
o.nn
o.oo
o.nn
o.nn
o.nn
0.01
0.n*
1.11
1.nq
l.n*
0.Q9
0.«U
0.70
0.00
n.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0,00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
n.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
OfOO
0.00
0.01
0,02
0.0*
0.83
0.62
0.62
0.76
0.66
0.58
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
o.oo
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
o.oo
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
o.oo
0,00
0.00
O.oO
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
o.no
0.00
0*00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0«00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0*02
0.05
1.ni
1.00
0.99
0.92
0. AO
0.71
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
C-115
-------
TABLE 5
(continued)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT (rog/1) FROM UNIT LOAD OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT (1,000 POUNDS/DAY)
- NO PROJECT -
1985
Response .Discharge:
Segment Segment:
San jose
(103)
Dry Season
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
San Jose
(103)
Canning Season
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
<135)
San Jose
(102)
Wet Season
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
109
0.5B
0.00
0,00
0.52
0,00
0,00
0.62
0,00
0,00
U0
0.4*
0.00
0.00
0,43
0,00
0,00
0,53
0.00
o.oo
111
0.35
0,00
0.00
0,36
0.00
0,00
0.41
0.00
0.00
112
0.?1
0.00
0.00
0,24
0,00
0.0
0,27
0.00
o.oo
119
o.nn
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
1U
o.no
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
115
o.nn
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.0 0
o.oo
116
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
117
0.00
0.00
0,00
o.oi
0,00
0,00
o.oi
0,00
0.00
118
o.nn
0,00
o,oo
0,00
0,00
0,00
o.oo
0,00
0,00
119
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
120
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
121
0.00
0.11
0.00
0,00
0,11
0,00
0.00
o.os
0.00
122
0.00
1,07
0.00
0,00
I,02
0.00
0,00
1.21
0.00
123
o.on
0.21
0.00
0,00
0,2*
0.00
0.00
0.30
0,00
124
0.00
0.04
0.00
0,00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.00
125
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0,00
0,01
0,00
0,00
0,01
0,00
126
o.nn
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
127
0,0ft
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
128
0.0ft
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
129
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
130
o.no
0.00
o.oo
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
131
o.on
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
132
o.no
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
133
ft,eft
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
134
0,0ft
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
135
o.no
0,00
0.44
0,00
0,00
0.^4
0,00
0,00
0. *7
136
0,00
0,00
0,25
0,00
0,00
0,25
0.00
0,00
0.28
137
o.nn
0,00
0.13
0.00
0,00
o.li
0,00
0.00
0.15
13*
o.no
0.00
0.07
0,00
0,00
0,07
0*00
o.oo
O.OB
139
0.00
0,00
0.03
0,00
0,00
0,03
0.00
0.00
0,04
140
o.no
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
0.00
1*1
o.no
n.oo
0.00
0,00
0,00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0,00
-------
J.Dii
Si
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
ft
9
10
11
22
13
m
15
16
1?
IB
19
20
21
2?
23
21
25
26
27
28
29
50
31
32
33
34
35
36
TABLE 6
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DFFICIT (tng/1) FROM UNIT LOAD OF ULTIMATE OXYGEN DEMAND (10,000 POUNDS/DAY)
- NO PROJECT -
1995
San jose
(103)
Dry Season
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
San Jose
(103)
Canning Season
Wet Season
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
San Jose
(102)
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
0.7ft
0.00
0.00
0.64
0,00
0,00
0,70
0,00
0,00
0.f5
0.00
0,00
0,60
0,00
0.00
0,63
0,00
0,00
0.4?
0.00
0.00
0,41
0,00
o.o-
0,44
0,01
0,00
o.sn
0.00
0.00
0,31
0,00
0,00
0,34
0.01
0,00
o.?o
0.01
0.00
0,22
0,01
0,00
0.2H
0,02
0,00
0.13
0*02
0.01
0,1*
0,02
o,o?.
0,16
0,04
0,01
O.ftft
0.04
0,01
0,09
0,04
0,01
0,11
0,06
0,02
0
0,04
0.02
0,07
0,05
0,02
0,09
0,07
0,02
0 » 04
0*02
0.03
0,0*
0.03
0,03
0.05
0,04
0,0*
0,04
0*02
0,03
0,04
0.03
0,03
0,06
0,04
0,0*
0.03
0.02
0,0*
0,03
0,02
0,0*
0.04
0,03
0,05
0.0?
0.01
0,04
0.03
0.02
0.04
0,04
0,03
0,05
o.ot
0,01
0,05
0,01
0.01
0,05
0,02
0,02
0,06
0.01
0*01
0,05
0,02
0.01
0,05
0,03
0,02
0,06
o.m
0.01
0,05
0,02
0.01
0,05
0.03
0,02
0,06
0.01
0.01
0,06
0,01
0.01
0,0*
0,02
0,02
0,07
0.01
0.01
0,06
0,02
0,01
0,06
0,02
0,02
0,07
0.01
0.01
0,06
0,01
0.01
0,06
0,02
0,02
0.07
0.01
0*01
0,06
0,01
0.01
0,06
0,02
0,02
0,07
0.01
0.01
0,07
0,01
0.01
0,07
0.02
0.02
0.0B
0.01
0.01
0,06
0,01
0,01
0,06
0,02
0,02
0.07
0*01
0,00
0.07
0,01
0.01
0,07
0.02
0,02
0,06
0.01
0,00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0%06
0,02
0,01
0,09
0.01
0,00
0,08
0*01
0.01
0,08
0,02
0,01
0.08
0.01
0,00
0,09
0,01
0.01
0,09
0,02
0,01
0,10
0.A1
0.00
0,09
0.01
0.01
0,09
0,02
0,01
0,10
0.01
0*00
0,14
0,01
0.01
0,14
0.02
0,01
0,14
0.0J
0,00
0,09
0,01
0.01
0,09
0,02
0.01
0.10
o.m
0,00
0,08
0,01
0,00
0,08
0,02
0.01
0,09
o.nn
0,00
0,06
0,01
0.00
0.06
0,01
0,01
0.06
O.flO
0,00
0,06
0,01
0.00
0.06
0.01
0.01
0,07
o.oo
0.00
0,03
0,00
0,00
0,03
0,00
0,00
0,0*
0. no
0,00
0,03
0,00
0.00
0,0**
0.01
0,00
0,04
o.nn
0,00
0,04
0,00
O.QO
0,04
0,01
0,00
0,04
o.on
0,00
0,03
0,00
0.00
0,03
0,00
0,00
0,04
o.nn
0,00
0,02
0,00
0.00
0,0*
0,00
0,00
0,03
C-117
-------
TABLE 6
(continued)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT lmg/1) FROM UNIT LOAD OF ULTIMATE OXYGEN DEMAND (10,000 POUNDS/DAY)
- NO PROJECT -
1995
Dry Season Canning Season Wet Season
Response Discharge: San Jose Sunnyvale Palo Alto San Jose Sunnyvale Palo Alto San Jose Sunnyvale Palo Alto
Segment ' Segment: [103) (122) (135) (103) (122) (135) (102) (122) (135)
37 O.on 0,00 0,03 0,00 0,00 0.0S 0,00 0,00 0.0*
3* 0.00 (1,00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 olot
5» 0.00 0,00 0.0J 0.00 0.00 0.01 0,00 0.00 0.01
*0 o.no 0,00 0,01 0.00 O.OO 0,01 0.00 O.OO 0.02
141 o.on o.oo o.oj o.oo o.oo o.os o.oo o.oo o[oj
*2 0.00 0.00 0,03 0.00 0,00 0.03 0.00 0,00 0.05
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 olol
'~,l 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0 01
M o.no o.oo 0,02 o.oo o.oo 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02
" " "" * " " "" " "" " "* " " " 0I02
0,00
0,00
0,02
o.nn o.oo 0,02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00
1,8 o.on 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
** o.on 0.00 0.01 o.ao 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00
*° 0.00 0,00 0.01 0,00 0.00 0.01 0,00 0.00 0 02
51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o'oo
58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0,00 o'oo
ss o.nn 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0,00 0.00 o'oz
9* o.nn 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 o.oo 0.00 0*02
" O.on 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o'oo
ll o.on 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 o'oo
«! o.nn 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0 01
®! o.nn 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 o.ol 0.00 0.00 o'n2
" O.nn 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o'oo
?? o.oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000
" °.°n 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.ao a.00 n'ni
" °.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0!00 0 00
" o.on 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 oloo o'oo
!! o."" 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 S'm
" 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00°
" O.nn o.oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 o'oo
II O.on 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o!oo o'oo
" O.nn 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0^0 Soo
" °.9° 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 g g i'XX
I? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 000
11 ?.«n 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 000
7S °.«n 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0 00 5*00
C-118
-------
;,Dii
J Se
73
7H
73
76
77
7fl
79
80
81
62
83
84
83
86
87
86
89
90
91
92
95
94
95
96
97
96
99
100
101
102
103
lot*
105
106
107
108
TABLE 6
(continued)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT (mg/1) FROM UNIT LOAD OF ULTIMATE OXYGEN DEMAND (10,000 POUNDS/DAY)
- NO PROJECT -
1995
pry Season Canning Season
San Jose Sunnyvale Palo Alto San Jose Sunnyvale Palo Alto San Jose Sunnyvale Palo Alto
(103) (122) (135) (103) (122) (135) (102) (122) <135)
o.on 0.00 0.00
o.nn o,oo o.oo
0.00 0,00 0,00
0,00 0,00 0,00
o.ftf) 0.00 0.00
o.on o.oo o.oo
0.00 0,00 0,00
0,00 0,00 0,00
o.on o.oo o.oo
o.on o.oo o.oo
o.nn o.oo o.oo
o.on o.oo o.oo
o.on o.oo o.oo
o.on 0,00 0,00
0,00 0,00 0,00
o.no o.oo o.oo
o.on o.oo o.oo
o.nn o.oo o.oo
o.oo o.oo o.oo
o.on o.oo o.oo
o.nn o.oo o.oo
o.on o.oo o.oo
o.nn o.oo o.oo
o.nn o.oo o.oo
O.on 0.00 0.00
0.17 0,00 0.00
0.S0 0,00 0.00
0.H7 0,00 0,00
o.&n o.oo o.oo
0,71 0,00 0.00
0.01 0.00 0.00
o.o' o.oo o.oo
o.no o.oo o.oo
n.i? o.oo o.oo
o.?7 o.oo o.oo
O.ST 0,00 0.00
0,00 0.00 0,00
0.00 0,00 0,00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0,00 0.00
o.oo o.oo o.oo
0.00 0.00 0,00
o.oo o.oo o.oo
0,00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0,00 0.00
0.00 0,00 0.00
0,00 0,00 0.00
O.OO 0,00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0,00 0,00 0.00
o.oo o.oo o.oo
0,00 0.00 0,00
0,00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0,00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0,00 0.00
o.oo o.oo o.oo
0.00 0.00 0,00
0.00 0.00 0.00
O.OO 0.00 0.00
0.15 0,00 0,00
0.27 0,00 0.00
0.t2 0,00 0.00
0.53 0.00 0.00
0,6* 0,00 0.00
o.oo o.oo o.oo
0,01 0,00 0.00
0.02 0,00 0.00
0.07 0.00 0.00
0.16 0.00 0.00
0.2* 0,00 0.00
o.oo o.oo o.oo
0.00 0,00 0.00
o.oo o.oo o.oo
0.00 0.00 0.00
0,00 0.00 0.00
o.oo o.oo o.oo
0,00 0.00 0.00
0,00 0.00 0.00
0,00 0,00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0,00 0.00 0,00
0.00 0,00 0,00
o.oo o.oo o.oo
0.00 0.00 0,00
o.oo o.oo o.oo
o.oo o.oo o.oo
0.00 0.00 0,00
0,00 0.00 0.00
o.oo o.oo o.oo
0,00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0,00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0,00
0.00 0,00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0,00
0,02 0,00 0.00
0.19 0.00 0.00
O.tl 0,00 0.00
0.63 0.00 0.00
0,00 0,00 0.00
o.n2 o.oo o.oo
0,03 0.00 0,00
0,09 0.00 0,00
0.19 0.00 0,00
0.28 0.00 0.00
C-119
-------
TABLE 6
(continued)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT (mq/1) FROM UNIT LOAD OF ULTIMATE OXYGEN DEMAND {10,000 POUNDS/DAY)
- NO PROJECT -
19^5
Canning Season
Response Discharges
Segment Segment:
109
San Jose
(103)
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
San Jose
(103}
Sunnyvale
(122)
0,*1
0,00
0,00
0,32
0,00
110
0,fS
0,00
0,00
0,*0
0,00
111
0.75
0,00
0,00
0.*8
0,00
112
0,*1
0,00
0,00
0,60
0.00
113
n.?s
0.00
0,00
0,25
0,00
11*
0.??
0,00
0,00
0,28
0,00
115
0,30
0,00
0,00
0,31
0,00
116
0,3*
0,00
0,00
0,3*
0,00
117
0,37
0,00
0.00
0,37
0,00
118
0,0?
0,00
0, 00
0,02
0.00
119
0,0*
0,00
0.00
0,05
0,00
120
0.09
0,01
0,00
0.10
0.01
121
0,00
1,86
0,00
0.00
1,70
122
0.00
3,70
0,00
0.00
3.28
123
0,00
3,06
0.00
0,00
2.96
12*
0.0!
1,9?
0,00
0,01
2.03
125
0.03
0,70
0,01
0,0*
0,79
126
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
127
0,00
0,00
0,01
0,00
0,00
128
0,00
0,00
0,02
0,00
0,00
129
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
130
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
131
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
132
0,00
0.00
0,01
0,00
0,00
133
0.00
0.00
0,03
0,00
0,00
13*
0,01
0,00
0,05
0,01
0,00
135
0,00
0,00
0.9*
0,00
0,00
136
o.oo
0,00
0.83
0,00
0,00
137
0.00
0,00
0,61
0.01
0,00
13ft
0.01
0,00
o.*i
0,01
0,00
139
0.01
0,00
0,2*
0,01
0,00
1*0
0.01
0.00
0,03
0,01
0,00
1*1
0.01
0.01
0,0*
0,01
0,01
Palo Alto
(135)
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,0
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,01
0,00
0.01
0,02
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,01
0.03
0,05
0.9*
0,83
0,62
0,*1
0.2*
0,03
0.0*
San Jose
(102)
0,37
0,*?
0,58
0,68
0,19
o,aa
0,33
0.37
0,10
0.02
0.06
0,13
0,00
o.oo
o.oo
0,02
0,05
0,00
0.00
0,01
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,01
0,02
0,01
0,01
0,01
0,02
0,02
0.02
0,02
Sunnyvale
(122)
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,01
0,03
o,9a
3.26
3,26
2,12
1,00
0,00
0.00
0,01
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,01
0.01
0.00
0,01
0,01
0,01
0.01
0,01
0.01
Palo Alto
1135)
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,01
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,01
0,00
0,01
0,03
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,02
o.o*
0,06
0,82
0.73
0.55
0,38
0.23
0,03
0,05
C-120
-------
TABLE ?
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT inq/l) FROM UNIT LOAD OF EFFLUENT DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT (1,000 JJDunds/day)
- NO PROJECT -
1985
Ra tsj-onscyD ischa s q < •
Segment Segment:
San Jose
<103}
Pry Sea^
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Aieo
ms>
Canning Season
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
<135)
San Joe©
(102)
Wet Season
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
PAS£
1
2
S
H
5
6
?
S
9
10
11
i?
13
1H
15
16
IT
IS
19
20
21
??
?3
24
25
96
27
28
29
3fl
31
52
33
3«*
35
36
0, 11
O.Ott
0.01
O.ftft
0, f*f*
0.0ft
Q.nn
O.fifl
0.01
O.ftfl
0,00
0,0*
o.«r>
o,f>o
o.oo
o,nn
o.i*
o.»o
O.^n
0.0ft
O.Ofl
0.ftf»
O.ftO
0.00
o.o"
o.fi*
0.00
o.ftft
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
o,oo
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
o.eo
fl.oo
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
o.oo
0,00
0,00
8,00
o.oo
o.oo
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
o.oo
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,01
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
9. IS
0.05
0,02
0,01
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.01
9.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0*00
o.oo
0,80
0,00
0,00
0,14
0.06
0.02
0.01
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0*00
o.oo
0.00
0,00
0,00
o.oo
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0,00
o.oo
o.oo
0»00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0,80
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
Q. 00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
6.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.01
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
C-121
-------
TABLE 7
(continued)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT (mg/1) FROM UNIT LOAD OF EFFLUENT DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT (1, 000 pounds/day)
- NO PROJECT -
1985
Response .Discharge:
Segment Segment:
Dry Season
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
Canning Season
San Jose
(103)
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
San Jose
(102)
Wet Season
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
37
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
36
o.nn
0,00
0.00
0,00
o.oo
0,00
0.00
39
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
*~0
o,no
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
11
o.on
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
12
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
*3
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
11
o.no
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
15
o.on
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
16
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
17
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0*00
18
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
19
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
50
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
51
o.on
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
52
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
53
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
o.oo
0.00
0,00
51
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
55
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
56
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0*00
57
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
56
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
59
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
60
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
61
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
62
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
63
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
61
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
65
o.on
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
66
o.on
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
o.no
67
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
68
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
69
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
70
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
71
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
72
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
o.no
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
C-122
-------
TABLE 7
(continued)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT (mg/1) FROM UNIT LOAD OF EFFLUENT DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT (1,000 pOUtl4s/dfly)
- NO PROJECT -
1985
Response Discharge:
Segment Segment:
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
BO
91
82
83
84
95
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
10*
103
104
105
106
107
108
Dry Season
San Jose
(103)
o.on
o.nn
o.nn
o.on
o.on
o.oo
o .on
o.on
o.on
o.on
o.nn
o.on
o.no
o.oo
o.nn
o.on
o.oo
0,00
o.on
o.on
o.oo
o .on
O.no
O.on
o.oo
o.on
0.00
o.no
0,01
0.04
0.9*
0.9"|
0. 94
0 , « 7
0.74
O.K*
Sunnyvale
(122)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.09
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
o.oo
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
Palo Alto
(135)
0,00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
San Jose
(103)
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,01
0,02
0.0*
0,7?
0,71
0.71
0,67
0.59
0.52
Canning Season
Sunnyvale
Palo Alto
San Jose
Sunnyvale
Palo Alto
(122)
(135)
(102)
(122)
(135)
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
o.oo
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0*00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,0
0*00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0*00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
o.oo
0,00
0,00
0*00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
o.oo
0,00
0,02
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,05
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,91
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.91
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.90
0.00
o.oo
0,00
0.00
0,85
0.00
0.00
0,00
o.oo
0#74
0.00
0,00
o.oo
0.00
0.65
0.00
0,00
PA&r
C-123
-------
TABLE 7
(continued)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT (mg/1) FROM UNIT LOAD OF EFFLUENT DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT (1,000 poundrf-/4ay )
- NO PROJECT -
1985
Response Discharge:
Segment Segment:
San Jose
(103)
Dry Season
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
Canning Season
San Jose
(103)
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
San Jose
(102)
Wet Season
Sunnyvale
(122)
Palo Alto
(135)
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
116
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
136
139
140
141
0.">5
0,47
0,36
0 ,
o.nn
o.nn
o.nn
o.nn
o.nn
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.on
o.nn
o.nn
0.00
0.00
o.no
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.on
o.on
o.on
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.no
o.no
o.oo
o.on
n.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.11
1.02
0.24
0.05
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.44
0.25
0.13
0.07
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.41
0.36
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.99
0.23
0.06
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.44
0.25
0.13
0,07
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.59
0.52
0.41
0.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.no
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
1.15
0.33
0.09
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,47
0.28
0.15
0,08
0.04
0.00
0.00
C-124
-------
TABLE 8
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT (mg/1) FROM UNIT LOAD OF ULTIMATE OXYGEN DEMAND (10,000 POUNDS/DAY)
- 1985 and 1995 -
Response in.Discharge:
Segment
Segment:
Dry and Canning Seasons
San Jose/
Deep Water Discharge
Sunnyvale
(9)
Palo Alto
(14)
Wet Season
San Jose/
Sunnyvale
(9)
Palo Alto
(14)
DP 31 Discharge
Dry And
Canning
Seasons
San Jose/
Sunnyvale/
Palo Alto
(31)
Wet Season
San Jose/
Sunnyvale/
Palo Alto
(31)
1
0.01
0*00
o.ol
0.00
2
O.ft?
0.00
0.02
0.01
3
0.0?
0.01
O.OS
0.01
4
0.03
0.01
0.04
0.01
5
0.05
o.o?
0.06
0.02
6
0.07
0.03
0.08
0.03
7
0,09
0.04
0.09
0.05
B
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.05
9
0.11
0.07
0.12
0.07
10
0.11
0.07
0.11
0.07
11
0.10
0.08
0.11
0.08
12
0.10
0.08
0.11
0.08
13
0.07
0.0ft
O.OS
0.09
14
0.0B
0.09
o.os
0.09
15
0.07
0.09
O.OS
0.08
16
0.07
0.09
0.08
0.09
17
0.07
O.Ofl
O.OS
0.09
IS
0.07
0.0ft
O.OS
O.OS
19
0.07
0 • 09
O.OS
0.09
20
0.07
0.0B
0.08
0.09
21
0.07
0.03
0.06
0.08
22
0.07
0.09
o.oe
0.09
23
0.07
0.09
0.08
0,09
24
0.07
0.0ft
0.07
0.09
25
0.07
0.09
0.06
0,09
26
0.06
0.0B
0.07
0.09
27
0.06
0.00
0.07
0.09
29
0.06
0.09
0.07
0.09
29
0.05
0.07
0.06
0,08
30
0 .04
0.05
0.04
0.06
31
o.ou
0.05
0.05
0.06
32
0.0?
0.03
0.03
0.03
33
0.0?
0.03
0.03
0 . 0«*
34
0.0?
0.03
0.03
0.04
35
o.n?
0.03
0.03
0.03
36
0,01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.00
0*00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
O.ol
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.O2
0.03
0.03
0.03
o.o*
0.0*
0.03
0.0*
0.0*
0.03
o.o*
0.05
0.0*
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.03
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.0*
0.00
0,00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
o.ol
0.02
0,02
0.03
0.03
0.0*
0.0*
0.03
0.0*
0.0*
0.0*
0.0*
0.0*
0.0*
0.03
0,03
0.0*
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.0*
C-125
-------
TABLE 8
(continued)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT (jng/1) FROM UNIT LOAD OF ULTIMATE OXYGEN DEMAND (10,000 POUNDS/DAY)
- 1985 and 1995
Dry and Canning Seasons
San Jose/
Deep Water Discharge
Response in Discharge:
Segment Segment;
Sunnyvale
(9)
Palo Alto
(14)
Wet Season
San Jose/
Sunnyvale
(9)
Palo Alto
(14)
DP 31 Discharge
Dry And
Canning
Seasons
San Jose/
Sunnyvale/
Palo Alto
(31)
Wet Season
San Jose/
Sunnyvale/
Palo Alto
(31)
37
o.o?
0.03
0.03
0.03
36
0.0?
0.03
0.03
0.0*
39
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
*0
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
<~1
0.0?
0.02
0.02
0.03
-------
TABLE 8
(continued)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT (mg/1) FROM UNIT LOAD OP ULTIMATE OXYGEN DEMAND (10,000 POUNDS/DAY)
- 1985 and 1995 -
Segment
Segment:
Dry and Canning Seasons
San Jose/
Deep Water Discharge
Response in Discharge:
Sunnyvale
(9)
Palo Alto
(14)
San Jose/
Sunnyvale
(9)
Palo Alto
(14)
DP 31 Discharge
Dry And
Canning
Seasons
San Jose/
Sunnyvale/
Palo Alto
(31)
Wet Season
San Jose/
Sunnyvale/
Palo Alto
(31)
73
0.00
0.00
0.00
74
0.00
0.00
0.00
75
0.00
o.oo
0.00
76
0.00
0,00
0.00
77
o.on
0,00
0.00
78
o.on
0.00
0.00
79
0.00
0.00
0.00
so
0.00
0,00
0.00
ai
0.00
o.oo
0.00
32
o.oo
0.00
0.00
83
0.00
0,00
0.00
84
0.00
0,00
0.00
85
0,00
0,00
0.00
86
0.00
0,00
0.00
87
0,00
0,00
0.00
88
o.oo
0,00
0.00
89
0.00
0.00
0.00
90
0.00
0,00
0.00
91
0.00
0.00
0.00
92
0,00
0.00
0.00
93
0, 00
0,00
0.00
94
0.00
0*00
0.00
95
o.on
0.00
0.00
96
0.00
0,00
0.00
97
0.00
0,00
0.00
98
0.00
0,00
0.00
99
0.00
0.00
0,00
100
0.00
0.00
0.00
101
0.00
o.oo
0.00
102
0,01
0.00
0.01
103
0.00
0,00
0.00
104
0.0(1
0.00
0.00
105
0,00
0.00
0,00
106
0.00
o.oo
0.00
107
o.on
0.00
0.00
108
o.on
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0,00
o.oo
0.00
0,00
o.oo
0,00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
0,00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.no
0,00
0,01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.oo
0*00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
-------
TABLE 8
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT (mg/1) FROM UNIT LOAD OF ULTIMATE OXYGEN DEMAND (10,000 POUNDS/DAY)
- 1985 and 1995 -
Dry and Canning Seasons
San Jose/
Deep water Discharge
Response in .Discharges
Segment Segment:
Sunnyvale
(9)
Palo Alto
(14)
Wet Season
San Jose/
Sunnyvale
(9)
Palo Alto
(14)
DP 31 Discharge
Dry And
Canning
Seasons
San Jose/
Sunnyvale/
Palo Alto
(31)
Wet season
San Jose/
Sunnyvale/
Palo Alto
(31)
109
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
no
0.00
0*00
0.01
0.00
0,00
0,00
111
o.m
0.00
0,01
0,00
0.00
0,00
112
0,01
0.00
0.01
0,00
0,00
0.00
113
0.01
0.00
o.oi
0.00
0.00
0,00
1H
0.01
0.00
0.01
0,00
0,00
0,00
115
0.01
0.00
0.02
0,00
0,00
0,00
116
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.01
0,00
0,00
117
0.0?
0.00
0.02
0,01
0.00
0.00
11B
0.01
0.00
0.01
0,00
0,00
0,00
119
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.01
0,00
0,00
120
0.05
0*02
0.06
0,02
0,00
0,00
121
o.no
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
122
o.on
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
125
0,01
0.00
0.02
0.00
0,00
0,00
12
-------
TABLE 9
Dry and Canning Seasons
San Jose/
Response in Discharge: Sunnyvale Palo Alto
Segment Segment: (9} (14)
1
o.nr»
o.oo
2
o.no
0.00
3
0.00
o.oo
i*
o.nrt
0,00
5
o,nc>
0,00
ft
o,n(t
0,00
7
0,01
0,00
8
0.01
0,00
9
O.flU
0,00
10
o.n?
0,00
11
0,0?
0.01
12
0,01
0.01
IS
o.on
0,01
m
0,0fl
0*02
15
o.no
0.01
16
0,00
0.01
17
0,00
0,01
18
0,00
0,01
19
o.on
0,01
20
0,00
0,01
21
0,00
0,01
22
0,00
0,01
23
0,00
0,01
2U
0,00
0.00
25
0,00
0.00
26
0,00
0.00
27
0,00
0.00
28
o,oo
0,00
29
0.00
0,00
30
0.00
0.00
31
0.00
o.oo
3?
0,00
0.00
33
0.00
o.oo
34
0.00
0,00
3*
o.oo
o.oo
36
O.on
0,00
UNIT LOAD OP EFFLUENT
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT'"
- 1985 and
1995 -
(lf000 pounds/day)
DP 31
Discharqe
Dry And
Discharqe
Canning
"Wet
Season
Seasons
Wet Season
San Jose/
San Jose/
San Jose/
Sunnyv-ale
Palo Alto
Sunnyvale/
Sunnyvale/
(9)
(14)
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
(31)
(31)
o.oa
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,01
o.oo
0.00
0,00
O.Of
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0,03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0,01
0.00
0,00
0.02
0.01
0.00
o.oo
o.oa
0.01
0,00
0.0
0,01
0.02
0,00
0.00
0,01
0,01
0,00
0.00
0,0 o
0,01
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
0,01
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,01
0,00
0.00
o.oo
0,01
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,01
0,00
0.00
o.oo
0.01
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,01
0.00
0.00
O.QQ
0,01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
o.oi
0.01
0.00
0,00
0,01
O.oi
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.01
0.00
0,00
0.01
o.oi
o.oo
0,00
o.oi
o.oi
0.00
0,00
0,02
0.02
0,00
0,90
0.02
0.02
0 .00
0,00
o.oi
O.oi
0,00
0,00
O.oi
0.01
0.00
0,00
o.oi
o.oi
0.00
0,00
o.oi
o.o1
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
C-129
-------
TABLE 9
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT (mg/1) FROM UNIT LOAD OF EFFLUENT DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT
- 1985 and 1995 - (1,000 pounds/day)
DP 31_Discharge
Dry And
Deep Water Discharge Canning
Dry and Canning Seasons Wet Season Seasons Wet Season
San Jose/ San Jose/ San Jose/ San Jose/
Response in .Discharge: Sunnyvale Palo Alto Sunnyvale Palo Alto Sunnyvale/ Sunnyvale/
Seqment ' Seqment: (9) (14) (9) (14) Palo Alto Palo Alto
(3D (31)
0*00 0.00 0.00 0.01 o.ol
0.00 0.00 0.00 o.ol o.ol
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0*00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0*00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0*00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0*00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 O.OO 0.00 0,00
37
0.00
38
o.on
39
0.00
*0
o.no
<~1
o.on
42
o.on
43
0.00
44
0.00
45
o.on
46
0.00
47
0.00
48
0.00
49
0.00
50
o.nn
51
o.no
52
o.no
53
o.on
5«»
o.no
55
o.nn
56
o.nn
57
o.on
56
o.on
59
o.no
60
o.nn
61
o.on
62
o.on
63
o.nn
64
o.nn
65
o.nn
66
o.on
67
o.nn
68
o.no
69
o.nn
70
o.no
71
0.00
7?
o.on
C-130
-------
TABLE 9
(continued)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT
(mg/l) PROM
UNIT LOAD OP
EFFLUENT DI
- 1985 and 1995 -
Deep Hater
Discharge
Drv and Canning
Seasons
wet
Season
San Jose/
San Jose/
Response in.
Discharge: Sunnyvale Palo Alto
Sunnyvale
Palo Alto
Segment
Segment: (9)
(14)
(9)
(14)
73
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
74
O.OO
0.00
o.oo
0.00
75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
76
O.OO
0.00
0.00
0.00
77
0,00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
78
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
79
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
BO
o.no
0.00
0.00
0,00
61
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
8?
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
83
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Bi+
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
85
o.on
0.00
0.00
0,00
ns
o.on
0.00
0,00
0,00
87
o.on
0.00
0.00
0.00
BB
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
89
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
90
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
91
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
92
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
95
o.on
0.00
o.oo
0.00
94
o.on
0.00
0.00
0.00
95
o.no
0.00
0.00
0,00
96
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
97
o.no
0.00
0.00
0.00
9B
o.on
0.00
0.00
0.00
99
o.on
0.00
0.00
0.00
100
o.on
o.oo
0,00
0.00
101
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
10?
o.on
0.00
0.00
0.00
103
o.on
0.00
0.00
0.00
104
O.on
o.oo
0.00
0.00
105
o.on
0.00
0.00
0.00
106
o.on
0.00
0.00
0.00
107
o.on
0.00
0.00
0.00
10B
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
(1,000 pounds/day)
DP 31 Discharge
Dry And
Canning
Seasons Wet Season
San Jose/ San Jose/
Sunnyvale/ Sunnyvale/
Palo Alto Palo Alto
(31) (31)
0,00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0,00
0.00 0.00
ll.oo 0.00
0.00 o.oo
0,00 0,00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0,00 0.00
0,00 0,00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
o.oo 0.00
0.00 0,00
0.00 O.oo
o.oo 0.00
0.00 0.00
o.oo o.oo
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
o.oo 0.00
o.oo o.oo
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
o.oo o.oo
0.00 o.oo
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0,00
0,00 0.00
C-131
-------
TABLE 9
(continued)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT (mg/1) FROM UNIT LOAD OF EFFLUENT DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT
(1,000 pounds/day)
Response in Discharge:
Segment Segment:
- 1985 and 1995 -
Dry and Canning Seasons
San Jose/
Deep Water Discharge
Sunnyvale
(9)
Palo Alto
(14)
San Jose/
Sunnyvale
(9)
Wet Season
Palo Alto
(14)
(1,000 pounds/day)
DP 31 Discharge
Dry And
Canning
Seasons
San Jose/
Sunnyvale/
Palo Alto
(31)
Wet Season
San Jose/
Sunnyvale/
Palo Alto
(31)
109
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
110
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
111
o.on
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
112
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
113
O.OO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
114
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
115
o.on
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
116
o.on
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
117
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
118
o.on
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
119
o.on
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
120
o.on
0,00
0.00
O.OD
0.00
0.00
121
o.po
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
12 2
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
123
o.on
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
124
o.no
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
125
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
126
o.on
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
127
o.nn
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
128
o.on
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
129
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
130
o.on
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
131
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
132
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
133
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
134
o.on
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
135
o.on
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
136
o.on
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
137
o.on
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
138
o.no
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
139
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
140
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
141
0.00
0*00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
C-132
-------
xjnn<
rmen
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
1?
13
n
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2?
23
2*
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
314
35
36
TABLE 10
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT (mg/1) FROM OTHER SOURCES OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT
- 1985 and 1995 -
Other Dischargers
All Disposal Alternatives
Dry and
Canning
Seasons
Wet Season
Dry and
Canning
Seasons
No Project
Wet Season
Bottom Demand
Deep Water Discharge
Dry and
Canning
Seasons Wet Season
Dry and
Canning
Seasons
DP 31 Discharge
Wet Season
0.00
0.00
0,33
0,39
0.31
0.11
0.31
0.0P
o.oo
0.33
0.39
0.33
0.39
0.33
o.nn
0.00
0.33
0.39
0.33
0.10
0.33
o.nn
o.oo
0.32
0,39
0.32
0.39
0.32
o.nn
0.00
0.32
0.38
0.32
0.38
0.32
o.no
0,01
0,33
0.39
0.32
0.38
0.32
0,01
n.o?
0.32
0.39
0.32
0.38
0.32
o.ni
0.02
0.33
0.39
0.32
0.38
0.32
o.o*
0.0I+
0.32
0.39
0.31
0.37
0.32
O.ft*
n.oi
0.32
0.39
0.31
0.38
0.32
0.0(4
0.05
0.32
0.39
0.32
0.38
0.32
o.m
0.05
0.32
0.39
0.32
0.38
0.32
O.nf
0.07
0,33
0.39
0.33
0.39
0.33
Q,n5
0.07
0.33
0.39
0.32
0.39
0.33
0. n«
0.06
0.32
0.38
0.32
0.3B
0.32
o.nfi
o.os
0,33
0.10
0.33
0.39
0,33
0.D7
O.OB
0,33
0.39
0.32
0.39
0.33
o.nfi
o.on
0.31
0.38
0.31
0.37
0,31
o.ri7
0*09
0,33
0.10
0.33
0.10
0.33
o,rm
0.09
0.33
0.10
0,33
0.39
0,33
o,n*
0,00
0.31
0.38
0.31
0.37
0,31
o.n«
0.10
0.31
0.10
0.33
0.10
0.31
0.11
0.13
0.35
0.12
0.35
0.11
0,35
0.0ft
0,10
0.32
0.39
0.32
0.39
0.32
0.13
0.15
0,37
0.13
0.36
0.13
0.36
o.n
o.H
0.38
0.11
0.37
0.11
0.37
0.1?
0,13
0.36
0.13
0.36
0.13
0.36
0 # 1 7
0,19
0.39
0.16
0,39
0.16
0.39
o.?o
0.22
0.42
0.19
0.11
0.19
0.11
o.?n
0.27
0.16
0.51
0.16
0.51
0.16
0.SH
0.27
0.15
0.52
0.15
0.52
0.11
0,9?
0.25
0,15
0.53
0,15
0.53
0,15
0.?7
0,29
0.19
0,57
0.19
0.57
0.19
o,sn
0.31
0.18
0,56
0,18
0.5*
0.18
o. ji
0,33
0.48
0.56
O.lB
0,56
0.16
o.?*
0.29
0.19
0.57
0,19
0.57
0.19
O.H
0.39
0.4o
0.39
0.38
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.38
0.40
0.39
0,38
0.40
0.39
0.3ft
0.40
0.1)2
0.39
0.43
0.44
0.13
0.46
0.48
0.53
0.52
0.53
0.56
0.55
0.55
0.57
C-133
-------
TABLE 10
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT (mg/1) FROM OTHER SOURCES OF DIS
- 1985 and 1995 -
Other Dischargers
All Disposal Alternatives
Dry and
Response in
Segment
Canning
Seasons
Wet Season
Dry and
Canning
Seasons
No Project
Wet Season
37
38
39
*0
41
42
<*3
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
6fi
69
70
71
72
0.24
0.26
0.50
0.58
0.30
0.32
0.50
0,57
0.34
0.36
0.50
0,57
0.?ft
0.31
0.50
0,58
0.??
0.24
0.51
0.59
0.31
0.32
0,52
0.59
0.34
0.36
0,50
0.58
0.26
0.28
0.49
0.57
0,24
0.26
0.51
0.59
0.31
0.33
0.52
0.60
0.^2
0.34
0.50
0.57
0.24
0.26
0,48
0.57
0.21
0.24
0.50
0.58
0.30
0.32
0.53
0.61
0.2P
0.31
0.50
0.57
0.23
0.26
0.49
0.58
0.19
0.22
0.50
0.58
0.2*
0.28
0.53
0.61
0.26
0.28
0.49
0.57
0.22
0.25
0.51
0.59
0.20
0,24
0.56
0.66
0.29
0.33
0.66
0.77
0.20
0.24
0,48
0,55
0.17
0.20
0,51
0,59
o.m
0.18
0.50
0,60
0.10
0.12
0.33
0, 38
0,19
0*23
0,48
0,55
0.15
0.19
0.57
0 , 66
0.12
0.15
0.49
0.59
0.10
0.13
0,44
0,51
0.22
0.26
0.47
0.53
0.1ft
0.22
0,61
0,69
0.10
0.14
0.50
0.58
0.13
0.17
0.49
0,55
0.30
0.33
0.47
0.53
0.27
0.31
0.58
0.6H
C-134
OXYGEN DEFICIT
Bottom Demand
Deep Water Discharge
Dry and
Canning
Seasons W«t Season
DP 31 Discharge
Dry and
Canning
Seasons Wet Season
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.51
0.52
0.50
0.49
0.51
0.52
0.50
0.48
0.50
0.53
0.50
0.49
0.50
0.53
0.49
0.51
0.56
0.66
0.48
0.51
0.50
0.33
0,46
0.57
0.49
0.44
0.47
0.61
0.50
0.49
0.47
0.58
0.58
0,57
0.57
0.58
0,59
0.59
0.58
0.57
0.59
0.60
0.57
0.57
0.58
0.61
0.57
0.58
0.58
0.61
0.57
0.59
0.66
0.77
0.55
0.59
0,60
0.38
0.55
0.66
0.58
0,51
0.53
0.69
0,58
0.55
0.53
0.64
0.50
0,49
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.51
0.50
0.49
0.51
0.52
0.50
0.48
0,50
0,53
0.50
0.49
0.50
0.53
0.49
0.51
0.56
0.66
0.48
0.51
0.50
0.33
0« 48
0.57
0.49
0,44
0.47
0.61
0,50
0.49
0,47
0.58
0.58
0.57
0.57
0,58
0,58
0.59
0.58
0.57
0.59
0.60
0.57
0.57
0.58
0.60
0.57
0.58
0.58
0.61
0.57
0.59
0.66
0.76
0.55
0.59
0.60
0.38
0.55
0.66
0.58
0.51
0.53
0.69
0.58
0.55
0.53
0.64
-------
TABLE 10
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT (mg/1) FROM OTHER SOURCES OF DIS
- 1985 and 1995 -
Other Dischargers
All Disposal Alternatives
Dry and
Response in
Segment
Canninq
Seasons
Wet
Dry and
Canning
Seasons
No Project
Wet Season
73
0,1?
0.15
0.51
0.58
74
Q,?5
0.28
0,45
0.51
75
0.37
0.40
0.44
0.49
76
0.^5
0.36
0.45
0.50
77
0.44
0.45
0.41
0.45
70
0.50
0.51
0.34
0.37
79
0.?1
0,23
0,40
0,45
80
0,44
0.44
0,44
0,48
ftl
0.51
0.50
0,34
0,38
32
0.54
0,53
0,25
0,28
S3
0.*?
0.51
0.24
0,27
34
0.5?
0.50
0,20
0.22
85
0. ^0
0.46
0.16
0,19
86
0,4*
0.46
0.16
0,18
37
0. ?4
0,25
0.02
0,02
98
0.4P
0.45
0.12
0,13
99
0.36
0.35
0,10
0,11
90
0,?1
0,22
0,02
0,02
91
0.?*
0.27
0,06
0,07
92
0. ??
0 • 2l
0,05
0,05
93
0.1?
0.1?
0.02
0,02
91
0. 04
0.04
0.00
0.01
95
0 , 14
0,12
0,02
0,02
96
o,n«
0,08
0.01
0,01
97
0,n*
0,09
0.01
0,01
98
0. no
0,00
0.20
0,06
99
o.no
0.00
0.09
0,06
100
o.no
0.00
0,24
0,21
101
o, no
o.oo
0,29
0.31
102
o.nn
0,00
0.38
0.44
103
o. on
o.oo
0.00
0,00
104
o.nn
0.00
0.02
0,02
m?
o.nn
o.oo
0,03
0.03
106
0. on
0,00
0,10
0,12
107
o.no
0.00
0,21
0,25
108
o.no
0.00
0.24
0.29
OXYGEN DEFICIT
Bottom Demand
Deep Water Discharge
Dry and
Canning
Seasons Wet Season
DP 31 Discharge
Dry and
Canning
Seasons Wet Season
0,51
0.45
0,44
0,45
0.41
0,34
0,40
0.31
0,25
0.24
0,20
0,16
0,16
0,02
0.12
0,10
0,02
0,06
0,05
0,02
0,00
0,02
0,01
0,01
0,20
0,09
0.2*
0,29
0,39
1,04
0,90
0,75
0,70
0,64
0,51
0,58
0.51
0,19
0,50
0,15
0,37
0.15
0,18
0,38
0,28
0,27
0.22
0,19
0,18
0,02
0,13
0,11
0.02
0,07
0,05
0.02
0,01
0.02
0,01
0,01
0,06
0,06
0,22
0,31
0,1
-------
TABLE 10
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT (mg/1) FROM OTHER SOURCES OF DISSOL
- 1985 and 1995 -
Response in
Segment
Other Dischargers
All Disposal Alternatives
Dry and
Canning
Seasons
Wet Season
Dry and
Canning
Seasons
No Project
Wet Season
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
13?
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
mo
141
o.no
0,00
0.28
0.33
0.00
0.00
0,30
0.36
o.on
0,00
0,33
0.39
O.OP
0.00
0.34
0.40
o.on
0.00
0, B3
0.75
O.OO
0,00
0.64
0.70
o, nn
0,00
0.48
0.56
0.00
o.oo
0.43
0.51
0.00
0,00
0.40
0.47
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.05
0,00
0.00
0,24
0.28
0.00
0,00
0.38
0.45
0.00
0,00
0,96
1.02
o.no
0,00
1.40
1.64
o.nn
0,00
0.97
1.17
o.oo
0,00
0.56
0.68
o.no
0.01
0.44
0.53
o.no
0.00
0.02
0.02
o.on
0.01
0.26
0.30
0.0?
0.03
0.41
0.48
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.01
0.00
o.nn
0,00
0.05
0,06
0.01
0,01
0.32
0.37
0.03
0.05
0.59
0.67
0.05
0,07
0.50
0.58
0.04
0,05
0.32
0.37
0.05
0,06
0.36
0.42
0.07
0,08
0.37
0.44
0.09
0.10
0.37
0.44
0.10
0,12
0.37
0.43
0.0?
0,03
0.40
0.45
0,03
O.05
0.37
0.43
C-136
OXYGEN DEFICI'i
Bottom Demand
Deep Water Discharge
Dry and
Canning
Seasons Wet Season
DP 31 Discharge
Dry and
Canning
Seasons Wet Season
0.48
0.44
0,40
0.37
0.03
0,64
0,48
0,43
0.40
0.05
0.24
0.38
0.99
1.61
0.93
0.51
0.42
0.02
0.26
0.40
0.00
0.01
0.05
0.32
0,59
0.50
0.34
0.37
0.3B
0.38
0.37
0.40
0.37
0,57
0,53
0,48
0,44
0.75
0.70
0.56
0.51
0.47
0.05
0.28
0.45
1,03
1,87
1.**
0.64
0,50
0,02
0,30
0.48
0,00
0.00
0,06
0,37
0.67
0,58
0,40
0,44
0,45
0,44
0,43
0,45
0,43
0*46
0.44
0,40
0.37
0.93
0.64
0.48
0.43
0.40
0 • 05
0.?4
0.38
0.99
1.61
0.93
0.52
0.42
0,02
0.26
0.41
0.00
0.01
0*05
0.32
0.59
0.50
0 ~ 34
0.37
0*38
0.38
0.37
0.40
0.37
0.57
0.53
0.48
0,44
0.75
0.70
0.56
0.51
0.47
0.05
0.26
0.45
1,03
1.87
1.U
0.64
0.51
0.02
0.30
0.48
o.oo
0.00
0.06
0.37
0,67
0.58
0.40
0.44
0.45
0.44
0.43
0.45
0.43
-------
1
?
3
t*
5
Si
7
*
9
10
1 1
1?
13
1 4
15
If.
1 7
IB
19
?o
21
2?
24
->5
26
?7
28
29
30
51
32
33
54
A 5
3 6
TABLE 11
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT FROM OTHER SOURCES OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT
- 1985 and 1995 -
Dry and
Canning
Seasons
0.90
n
e ,t*9
0 ,7*
0 . 70
n.fto
o.**
0,5?
o ,*n
0,49
o,
0,5r
0,«1
o.^n
0.4*
o.*«
nmm>9
0.47
o. **
o .*u
n .47
0 .ftft
o, *7
0 .M
Q.A1
o.*o
0,^7
0,*1
0 .C.n
0.«*
0,*4
0,*f
O.iu
0. 4*
0. 4U
n.*4
No Project
Wet Season
0,58
0,60
0.53
n. 49
0*47
n„4&
o.38
0.36
n.35
0,34
0.35
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.3?
0,36
0,35
0,32
0,38
0.36
0.3?
0.40
0.3ft
0.35
0.40
0.40
0.33
0 . 4 0
0.39
0.34
0.35
0.35
0.29
0.30
0.23
0.31
Swamp
Deep Water
Loads
Discharqe
DP 31
Discharqe
Urban Runoff
Dry and
Dry and
No Project
Deep Water
DP 31
Canning
Canning
Discharqe
Discharqe
Seasons
Met Season
Seasons
Wet season
Wet Season
Wet Season
Wet Season
1.43
0,92
1.43
0.92
0.15
0,20
0,18
1,14
0,76
1,14
0.76
0,13
0.14
0.12
0.66
0.59
0.86
0.59
0.10
0,09
0.08
0,72
0,50
0,72
0,50
0.08
0,06
0.06
0.66
0,46
0,66
0.46
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.63
0.43
0.63
0.44
O.ns
0,04
0.04
0,50
0,35
0,50
0.36
0,04
0.03
0,03
0,47
0.33
0,47
0.35
0,0 4
0.03
0.03
0,44
P.31
a.44
0.33
0.03
0,03
0.03
0, 44
0,31
0.44
0.33
0,03
0.03
0,03
0,46
0.32
0,46
0.34
0,03
0.03
0.03
0.46
0,32
0,46
0.33
0,03
0,03
0.03
0.48
0, 33
0,48
0.33
0.03
0,03
0.03
0.47
0.32
0,47
0.33
0.03
0.03
0.03
0, *f 3
0,30
0,43
0.31
0,03
0.03
0,03
0,52
0.35
0.52
0,35
0.04
0,03
0.03
0 ,49
0.33
0.49
0.34
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.45
0,31
0.45
0.31
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.54
0,36
0,54
0, 36
0.04
0.03
0,03
0,51
0,35
0.51
0.35
0.04
0.04
0.03
0,45
0,31
0.45
0.31
0,03
0.03
0.03
0.5fl
0.38
0,50
0.38
0 , 04
0.04
0,03
0.55
0.37
0.55
0.37
0.04
0,04
0.04
0,49
0,33
0.49
0.34
0.04
0.04
0.03
0,59
0,39
0.59
0.39
0.05
0.04
0,04
0,58
0,38
0,58
0.38
0.05
0.04
0.04
0,55
0,37
0.55
0.37
0.05
0,05
0.04
0.59
0.39
0.59
0.39
0.05
0,05
0,04
0.53
0.38
0.5ft
0 . 3"*
0,05
0,05
0.04
0,52
0.34
0,52
0.33
0.05
0.04
0.04
0,53
0,34
0,53
0.33
0.05
0,04
0,04
0,55
0,34
0.55
0. 34
0.04
0,04
0,04
0.43
0.28
0.43
0.27
0.04
0,04
0.03
0.46
0.29
0.46
0.29
0,04
0,04
0,03
0.44
0,?8
0.44
0,27
0,04
0,04
0,03
0.64
0,38
0,64
0, 39
0,05
0,05
0.04
C-137
-------
TABLE II
(Continued)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT FROM OTHER SOURCES OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT
- 1985 and 1995 -
Response in
Segment
Dry and
Canning
Seasons
Wet Season
Swamp Loads
Deep Water Discharge
Dry and
Canning
Seasons
Wot Season
DP 31 Discharge
Dry and
Canning
Seasons
Urban Runoff
Wot Season
Deep Water
Discha ge
DP 31
Discharge
Wet Season Wet Season Wet Season
3?
0.41
0,27
0.41
0.26
0.41
0.2*
0.04
0.04
0.03
3B
0.44
0.29
0.44
0,28
0,44
0.28
0.04
0.04
0.03
39
0,3?
0.21
0,32
0.20
0.32
0.20
0.03
0.03
0.03
40
0.67
0.40
0.67
0.39
0.67
0.39
0.05
0.05
0.04
41
0 . 4«
0.25
0 . 45
0.28
0.45
0.27
0.04
0.03
0.03
42
O.u?
0.27
0,42
0.27
0.42
0.26
0.04
0.04
0.03
<~3
0.?*
0.16
0.25
0.16
0.25
0.16
0.03
0.03
0.02
44
0 . 56
0.33
0.56
0.33
0.56
0.33
0.04
0.04
0.03
<~5
0.37
0.24
0.37
0.23
0.37
0.23
0.03
0.03
0.03
46
0.3?
0.21
0.32
0.20
0.32
0.20
0.03
0.03
0.03
47
0.19
0,12
0.19
0.12
0.19
0.12
0.02
0.02
0,02
40
0.35
0,2l
0.35
0.21
0,35
0.21
0,03
0.03
0.03
49
0. *6
0.23
0, 36
0.22
0.36
0.22
0.03
0.03
0.02
50
0.30
0.19
0.30
0.19
0.30
0.19
0,03
0.03
0.02
51
0.16
0.11
0.16
0,11
0.16
O.U
0.02
0.02
0.02
52
0.?P
0.14
0.22
0.14
0.22
0.14
0.03
0,03
0.03
53
0.36
0,22
0.35
0.22
0.35
0.22
0.03
0.03
0.02
54
0.3?
0.20
0.32
0.20
0,32
0.20
0.03
0.03
0.02
55
0.14
0.10
0.14
0.10
0.1*
o.io
0.02
0.02
0.02
56
0.15
0,10
0.15
0.10
0,15
0.10
0 . 03
0.03
0.03
57
0.31
0.20
0.31
0.20
0.31
0.20
0.03
0.03
0.02
58
0,39
0.25
0.38
0,24
0,3B
0.24
0.03
0.03
0.03
59
n.ii
0,0B
o.u
0.08
0.11
0.08
0.01
0.01
0,01
60
0.09
0,06
0.09
0,06
0.09
0.0 s'
0,02
0.02
0,02
61
0.24
0.16
0.24
0.16
0.24
0.16
0,02
0.02
0.02
6?
0.15
0.10
0.14
0.10
0.14
0.10
0.01
0.01
0.01
63
0.11
0,08
0.11
0.08
o.u
0.08
0.01
0.01
0,01
64
0.05
0,04
0.05
0.04
0,05
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.01
65
0.19
0.14
0.19
0.14
0.19
0.14
0.02
0.02
0,02
66
0.1*
0.11
0.15
0.11
0.15
O.U
0.01
0.01
0,01
67
0.09
0.06
0.09
0.06
0.09
0.06
0.01
0.01
0.01
68
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.03
0,04
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
69
0.1*
0.11
0.15
0.11
0.15
0.11
0.02
0.02
0.02
70
0.13
0.10
0.13
0.10
0.13
0.10
0.01
0.01
0.01
71
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0 . 0 3
0.00
0.00
0.00
72
0.0?
n.oi
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0,00
C-138
-------
TABLE 1.1
(Continued)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT FROM OTHER SOURCES OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT
- 1985 and 1995 -
Response in
Segment
Dry and
Canning
Season*
Wot Season
Swamp Loads
Deep Mater Discharge
Dry and
Canning
Seasons
Wot Roason
DP 31 Discharge
Dry and
Canning
Seasons Wet Season
Urban Runoff
No Project
Wet Season
Deep Water
Discharge
DP 31
Discharge
Wet Season
7 3
7i»
7S
7fi
77
71
79
^0
M
np
14
*Q
so
'M
9?
^4
97
qq
i no
K)1
ID?
1 (J 3
i
i n ^
l n*
107
1
o. o*
o.oi
n. m
f). n?
n.oi
0, on
0 ,19
n,m
ft, »TT
o.ni
0 ,nn
0, nn
O.rtn
n , n«
O.rr
0. nn
n. nn
0 .on
n, on
o.nn
o. on
P, no
fl.nn
0,pn
1.
\nft
•4 ,">»
4 ,«s*
n, on
n, on
0. nn
n. 05
n.flR
1,17
0,09
0.05
0.0!
o.os
0.0?
0.01
0.00
0.0?
o.oi
n.ot
o.oi
0.00
0,00
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
n.oo
o.oo
n,on
o.oo
n.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0,00
o.oo
n.14
1 .OR
1.9?
1#7*
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0,01
0.0 *
0.04
0.09
0.05
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.02
0,01
o.ot
0.01
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0. 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.03
$.24
4.52
4,87
3.79
5.71
4,62
2.41
1 .91
1 .6 5
1.50
0.0B
0.09
0.07
0,01
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.01
o.oi
0,01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0*00
0.00
0,00
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.0?
0.02
0.0?
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
o.oi
0.01
O.oo
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0*00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.0?
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
o.oi
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0*00
0.0 0
0,00
o.oo
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
O.oo
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
o.oo
O.OO
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.0*
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
o.oo
0.00
0,00
0.00
2.03
0,00
o.*o
0.50
0.45
0.14
3,24
0,14
0.91
0.91
0.62
1.13
4,52
1,15
1.03
1.04
0.94
2.07
4,67
2,07
0.77
0.79
0,71
2.04
3.79
2,04
0.42
0.45
0,40
0.19
5,73
0,19
0.00
0,41
0,36
0.49
4,6?
0.49
0,00
0.76
0.60
0.71
2.4ft
0.71
0.00
0.74
0,67
o.ei
1.91
O.ftl
0.01
0.65
0.50
0.11
1,63
0,M
0.03
0.55
0.50
0.^1
1,50
0.11
0.04
0 . 4*
0.43
C-139
-------
109
110
111
11?
113
1 1 <4
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
1 27
123
124
125
126
127
1 28
129
130
131
132
133
13M-
135
136
137
1 3 A
139
140
141
TABLE 11
(Continued)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT FROM OTHER SOURCES OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN Dl-JFICIT
- 1985 and 1995 -
No Project
Dry and
Canning
Seasons
Swamp Loads
Deep Water Discharge
Wet Season
Dry and
Canning
Seasons
Wet Season
DP 31 Discharge
Dry and
Canning
Seasons Wet Season
Urban Runoff
No Project
Wet Season
Deep Water
Discharge
Wet Season
DP 31
Discharge
Wet Season
0.10
n.07
1.45
0.93
1,45
0.03
0.06
0.42
0,38
0.1^
o.ll
1 »42
0,95
1.42
0.65
0.08
0.35
0.32
0.*1
n.2?
1.43
0.99
1.43
0.89
0.10
0.29
0.26
0 . ftft
0.41
1.45
0. 92
1.45
0.92
0.13
0.24
0.21
1 . U fl
0.59
1 . 50
0.61
1,50
0.61
0,39
0.38
0.34
1.1°
0.63
1 . 20
0.65
1,20
0.65
0,30
0.30
0.26
1.0?
0.61
1 . 04
0.64
1.04
0.65
0,21
0.20
0 .18
0.9P
0.61
1.01
0.65
1.01
0.65
0.17
0.16
0.15
0 . 94
0.59
0.97
0.64
0.97
0 . 6!+
0.1*
0.13
0.12
7.
6.SB
7.87
6.97
7.87
6.08
0.75
0.75
0.67
4.Q9
2.85
4. 97
2.94
4.97
2.84
0.27
0,27
0 .24
l.<»4
1,19
1.90
1.16
1.90
l.l6
0,11
0.10
0,09
n. *4
n.26
0.77
0.30
0.77
0.30
0.91
0.94
0,76
0.*fi
0,39
1.01
0.61
1,01
0.61
0,30
0.44
0.39
0.50
0.35
0.51
0.39
0.51
0.39
0,22
0.22
0.20
0.«*3
0.3?
0.3B
0.32
0.38
0.32
0.14-
0.12
0.10
0.40
0.30
0.37
0.29
0.37
0.29
0.07
0.05
0.05
5,?A
2,46
5.28
2.46
5.28
2.46
0,67
0.67
0,60
l.f»*
1.09
1.62
1 .07
1.62
1.07
0.16
0.16
0,14
1.57
0.97
1.56
0.96
1.56
0.96
0.05
0.05
0.05
6.59
1.23
6.59
1.23
6.59
1.23
0,94
0.B4
0,75
6.f 4
4.36
6.64
4.36
6.64
4.36
0.70
0.70
0,63
6.OP
5.94
6.08
5.84
6.08
5.84
0.35
0.35
0.32
4.PU
2.76
4.83
2.76
4.93
2.76
0.12
0.12
0.10
?.?n
1,24
2.19
1.23
2.19
1.24
0,05
0.05
0.05
1.29
0.75
1.28
0.74
1.29
0.74
0.04
0.04
0.04
n,*9
0.35
0.65
0.39
0,65
0,39
0.10
0.11
0.10
o.fel
0. 37
0.64
0,40
0,64
0.40
0,09
0.10
0.09
0,60
0,3ft
0.62
0,39
0,62
0.39
0.08
0,08
0.07
n. *o
n.39
0.60
0.39
0,60
0.39
0,06
0.06
0.06
0 . 5A
0.30
0.57
0.39
0.57
0.38
0.05
0,05
0.05
0.7?
0.41
0.70
0.40
0,70
0.40
0,12
0.11
0.10
0.H
0.34
0.51
0.33
0.51
0.33
0,06
0.06
0.05
-------
^1
1
2
3
H
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1?
13
m
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
214
29
26
27
2B
29
30
31
32
33
34
3*5
36
APPENDIX C
TABULAR RESULTS OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN
PROJECTION ANALYSIS
DISSOLVED
NO PROJECT
DO DEFICIT COMPONENTS
SOUTH 9AY 0T4ER BOTTOM SWft*|P
DISCHARGERS DISCHARGERS DEMAND LOADS
2,09
0.00
0.33
0.90
1.??
0.00
0.3 J
0.93
0.9?
0.00
0.33
0.82
0.63
0.00
0.32
0.73
0.43
0.00
0.32
0.70
0 . ?7
0.00
0.33
0,68
0. 18
0,01
0.32
0.55
0.16
0*01
0.33
0,52
0.1?
0.03
0.32
0,50
0.1?
0,03
0,32
0,49
0.11
0.04
0,32
0.50
0.11
090>f
0,32
0,50
0.09
0.06
0.33
0.51
0,10
0.05
0.33
0,50
0.10
0.05
0.32
0.46
o.io
0*06
0.33
0.5
jrqa^
total
SATURATION
RUNOFF
DEFICIT
level
DO
0,00
3.34
6.71
5,3?
0,00
2.79
8,53
3,73
0,00
2.00
a,33
6,25
0,00
1.70
8,20
6.49
0.00
1.46
8.05
6. 50
0,00
1,30
7,93
6,63
0.00
1.09
7.84
6.75
o.oo
1,03
7,80
6,76
0.00
0.99
7,86
6,87
0,00
0,98
7,87
6,88
0,00
0«99
7,63
6,83
0.00
0,98
7,83
6,84
0.00
1.00
7,79
6.70
0,00
0.99
7,79
6.80
0,00
0.94
7,80
6.86
0,00
1,05
7,78
6.73
0,00
1.03
7.79
6.75
0,00
0,96
7.79
6.83
0,00
1,08
7,78
6,69
0,00
1,07
7,78
6,71
0,00
0.96
7,79
6.82
0,00
1.14
7,78
6.63
0,00
1.17
7,77
6,59
0,00
1.05
7,78
6,72
0,00
1.2*
7,76
6.49
0.00
1.27
7,76
6.48
0,00
1.26
7,77
6.51
0,00
1.32
7,75
6.42
0,00
1,35
7,86
6.51
0,00
1,35
7,83
6.40
0,00
1.34
7,84
6,49
0,00
1,30
7,82
6,52
0,00
1.27
7,81
6.54
0.00
1.31
7,81
6.49
0,00
1,30
7,80
6,50
0.00
1 .44
7,BO
6.36
PAGE 1
< MG/t. I
90TH PERCENTILE
00
DO STANDARD
3.79
6.44
*.33
6,33
5,07
6.26
5.44
6,19
5.60
6.12
5,70
6,06
3.88
6.02
5,92
6,00
6,04
6,03
6,05
6,03
6,00
6,02
6,01
6,02
5,95
6.00
3.97
6,00
6,04
6,00
5,88
5,99
3,91
6,00
6,01
6, 00
5,83
5.99
5,05
5.99
6.00
6.00
5,75
5.99
5.70
5.99
3.87
5.99
5.58
5.98
5.56
5.98
5.60
3.99
5.49
5.98
3.37
6.03
5,54
6.02
3.55
6.02
5,59
6.01
5,62
6,01
3.56
6.01
5,38
6,00
5.38
6.00
C-141
-------
TABLE 1
page ;
DISSOLVED
OXYGEN I
:alc
DO
< MG/L)
south bay
OTHER
BOTTOM
SWAMP
urban
TOTAL
saturation
90TH
PERCENTILE
SE-GmEnT
dischargers
dischargers
DEMAND
LOADS
runoff
DEFICIT
LEVEL
DO
DO
DO STANDARD
37
0.04
0.24
0.50
0,41
0.00
1.22
7.81
6.58
5.68
6,01
38
0.05
0,30
0.50
0,44
0.00
1.30
7.81
6,50
5.57
6,01
39
o.o?
0.3d
0.50
0,32
0.00
1,19
7.78
6,58
5.69
5,99
<~0
0,0?
0.26
0.50
0.67
0.00
1.H9
7.79
6.29
5,30
6.00
41
0.04
0.22
0.51
0.45
0,00
1.23
7,00
6.57
5.66
6,00
4?
0.04
0,31
0.52
0.43
0.00
1,30
7,80
6,19
5,56
6.00
<~3
0,01
0.34
0.50
0.25
0.00
1.12
7.78
6.65
5.78
5.99
0,01
0,26
0.49
0,56
0,00
1,33
7,78
6,44
5,50
5.99
•~5
0,03
0.24
0.51
0,37
0,00
1,16
7,60
6.63
5,75
6.00
16
0.02
0,31
0,52
0.32
0,00
1,20
7.79
6,59
5.69
6.00
47
0,00
0,32
0.50
0.19
0,00
1.03
7,77
6,74
5.90
5,99
48
0.00
0,2*
0.48
0,35
0.00
1.09
7.78
6,69
5,82
5.99
49
0,02
0,21
0,50
0,36
0.00
1,11
7,79
6.68
5.81
6.00
50
0.02
0,30
0.53
0,30
0.00
1.16
7.78
6.61
5.73
5,99
51
0.00
0,28
0,50
0.16
0,00
0.96
7.77
6.81
5.99
5.99
52
0,00
0.25
0.49
0.22
0,00
0,96
7,77
6,81
5.99
5.99
53
0,02
0.19
0.50
0,36
0,00
1.08
7,78
6.70
5,84
5.99
54
0.02
0,25
0,53
0,32
0.00
1,13
7.75
6.62
5,74
5,98
55
0.00
0,26
0.49
0,14
0.00
0,91
7.77
6,86
6,06
5.99
56
0.00
0,22
0.51
0,15
0.00
0.89
7.77
6,87
6.07
5.99
57
0.01
0,20
0.56
0,31
0.00
1,10
7.48
6,38
5,52
5.85
58
0.02
0,29
0.66
0.39
0,00
1,37
7,36
6,00
5,04
5.80
59
0.00
0,20
0.H8
0,11
0,00
0,81
7.78
6.96
6,18
5.99
bO
o.oo
0,17
0.51
0.09
0,00
0.78
7,75
6.97
&.21
5.98
61
0.01
0.14
0,50
0.24
0.00
0.90
7.*9
6.58
5.78
5,86
62
0.00
0,10
0.33
0.15
0,00
0,59
8,18
7,59
6.89
6,18
63
0.00
0,19
0.48
0.11
0.00
0,79
7,78
6.98
6.22
5.99
64
0.00
0.15
0.57
0.05
0.00
0,79
7.72
6.92
6.16
5.96
e»5
0.00
0.12
0.49
0,19
0,00
0.82
7.52
6.70
5.92
5.87
66
0.00
0.10
0 . *~*~
0.15
0,00
0.71
7.87
7.15
6.41
6,03
67
0.00
0.22
0.47
0.09
0,00
0.79
7,76
6.96
6.20
5.98
68
0.00
0,16
0,61
0.04
0.00
0,84
7.71
6.86
6.07
5.96
69
0,00
0.10
0,50
0.15
0.00
0.77
7.82
7,05
6.29
6.01
70
0,00
0.13
0,49
0.13
0,00
0.76
8.00
7, 24
6.48
6.10
71
0.00
0.30
0.47
0.03
0.00
0.81
7.96
7,14
6,37
6.08
72
0.00
0.27
0.58
0.02
0.00
0.87
7.94
7.06
6.27
6.07
C-142
-------
TABLE I
DISSOLVED axrSEN calculated
NO PROJECT - 19BS - DRY SEASON
00 deficit COMPONENTS cmg/li
btSMENt
SOUTH BAY
OTHER
BOTTOM
swamp
URbaN
TOTaL
oischarsers
dischargers
demand
LOAOS
runoff
DEFICIT
73
o.oo
0.12
0.51
0.09
0.00
0.79
7*
0,00
0.25
0 . *5
0.05
0.00
0.77
75
0.00
0.37
0.**
0.01
o.oo
0,8*
76
o.nn
0,35
0.95
0,03
0,00
0,6*
77
0.00
0.**
0,*1
0,02
0.00
0,67
78
o.oo
0.50
0.3*
0.01
0,00
0,86
79
0,00
0,21
o.*o
0,00
0.00
0,62
HO
0.00
0.4*
0.**
0,02
0,00
0,91
81
0.00
0.51
0.3*
0,01
0.00
0,87
62
0.00
0.5*
0.25
0.01
0,00
0,81
63
o.oo
0.52
0.24
0.01
0,00
0,7#
QH
0,00
0,52
0,20
0.00
0,00
0,73
S5
o.oo
0.50
0,16
0,00
0,00
0,66
36
0.00
0.*8
0.16
0,00
0.00
0,65
87
o.oo
0.2*
0,02
0.00
0,00
0.2&
86
0.00
0.48
0,12
0.00
0,00
0,61
69
o.oo
0.36
0.10
0.00
0,00
0,*6
90
0.00
0.21
0,02
0.00
0,00
0,23
91
0.00
0 , 28
0,06
0.00
o.oo
0.35
92
0.00
0,22
0,05
0.00
0,00
0,26
vi
o.oo
0*12
0.02
0.00
0*00
0*14
9*
o.oo
0.0*
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,05
95
0.00
0.1*
0.02
0.00
0,00
0.17
96
0.00
O.OB
0.01
0,00
0,00
0,10
97
0.00
O.OB
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.09
98
0.37
0.00
0.20
1.99
0,00
2,52
99
0.6%
o.oo
0.09
3.06
0,00
3.6*
1U0
1.0*
0.00
0.24
*.28
0.00
5,57
101
1.3*
o.oo
0.29
*.55
0,00
6,19
102
1.7*
0.00
0.38
3.36
0.00
5,*9
103
*,16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
<~,10
104
*.18
0.00
0.02
0.00
0,00
*,20
105
*.16
o.oo
0,03
0,00
0.00
*.20
106
*.0*
0.00
0,10
0.02
0,00
*,16
107
3.63
o.oo
0.21
0.05
0,00
*,10
106
3.62
o.oo
0,2*
0.07
0,00
3,95
PA6E 3
00
(MG/L)
ORATION
90TH
PERCENTILE
LEVEL
00
DO
00 STAN3AN
7.63
7,09
6.35
6.02
7,93
7.16
6,90
6.06
7.99
7,10
6,32
6.07
7,91
7,06
6,28
6.05
T.92
7.0*»
4.15
6.06
7.99
7,06
6.29
6.07
"7.99
7.32
6.61
6, 0 7
7.92
7.01
6.21
6.06
7.99
7,06
6.27
6.07
7.95
7.19
».JT
6.07
7,95
7.17
6.»1
6.07
7,96
7,23
6.4S
6.SB
7,96
7.28
6,59
6.08
7.96
7.31
6.SB
6.08
6,09
7,82
7.IS
6.1*
6,12
7.51
..SO
6.16
*.12
7,63
6.99
6.16
6.13
7,69
7.30
6.16
8,1*
7.79
7.16
6.17
6,13
7.85
7.2*
6.16
6,10
7.95
7, 59
6.1»
6.22
8,16
7.6*
6.20
8,20
a.03
7.»7
6.19
6,20
8,10
7.56
6.19
6.10
8,00
7.*6
6.10
8,71
6,19
H.B7
6,«
-------
St&MtNT
109
110
111
112
113
lit
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
12*
125
126
127
128
129
150
151
152
135
134
155
156
137
158
139
1*0
1*1
TABLE 1
south bay other
dischargers dischargers
DISSOLVED
NO PROJECT
DO DEFICIT COMPONENTS
BOTTOM
DEMAND
SWAMP
LOADS
OXYGEN
1985
(MG/L)
URBAN
RUNOFF
calculated
ORY SEASON
TOTAL
DEFICIT
saturation
level
do
DO
PAGE
(MG/L)
90TH PERCENTILE
DO
DO STANDARD
3.53
0,00
3.41
0,00
3.16
0,00
2.70
0,00
0.51
0,00
0,57
0,00
0,63
0,00
0,70
0,00
0,79
0,00
0,05
0.00
0,09
0,00
0,20
0,00
0,59
0,00
1,67
0,00
0.89
0,00
0,49
0,00
0,23
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,01
0,00
0,04
0,02
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.02
0,01
0,05
0,03
0,08
0,05
1,46
0,04
1,15
0,05
0.81
0,07
0,54
0,09
0,32
0.10
0.06
0.02
0,08
0,03
0,28
0,10
0.30
0.15
0.33
0.31
0.34
0.60
0,83
1.48
0,64
1,18
0,48
1,02
0,43
0,98
0,40
0,94
0.05
7.88
0,24
4.99
0,38
1,94
0.96
0,64
1.40
0,66
0.97
0.50
0.36
0,43
0,44
0,40
0.02
5.28
0,26
1,63
0,41
1,57
0.00
6.59
0,01
6,64
0,05
6,08
0,32
4,84
0,59
2,20
0.30
1.29
0.32
0,39
0.36
0.61
0.37
0,60
0.37
0,60
0.37
0.58
0.40
0.72
0,37
0,53
0.00 3,92
0%00 3,87
0.00 3,81
0,00 3,65
0,00 2.84
0,00 2,40
0,00 2,14
0,00 2,13
0,00 2,19
0,00 7,98
0.00 5,9%
0,00 2,59
0,00 2,20
0,00 3,79
0,00 2,97
0,00 1,49
0,00 1,09
0,00 5,91
0,00 1,92
0,00 2,06
0,00 6,60
0,00 6,66
0,00 6,13
0,00 5,20
0,00 2,8)
0,00 1,95
0,00 2,42
0.00 2,18
0,00 1,87
0,00 1,61
0,00 1,39
0,00 1,21
0,00 1,02
8.55 4.63
8.55 4,67
8.68 4.87
8,62 4.97
8,33 5,49
6,33 5.93
8,33 6.19
0,33 6,20
8,33 6,20
7,93 -0,05
7*99 2,38
7,99 5,39
8,73 6,53
«.73 4,99
8,51 6,13
3,19 6,70
7,95 6,35
7,65 2,33
7,65 5,73
7,65 5,59
7,65 1.04
7,65 0,93
7,65 1.49
7,65 2,44
7,65 4,75
7.65 5,69
7,87 5,44
7.80 5.61
7,73 5.86
7.69 6,08
7.66 6,26
7.67 6,45
7,67 6,64
2,86
6.36
2,92
6,36
3.13
6,4?
3,29
6,39
4.07
6,26
4,65
6.26
4,99
6,26
3,00
6.26
5,00
6,26
0,00
6,06
0.3ft
6,06
4.07
6,06
5,31
6.45
3,28
6,45
4.S3
6,34
5.71
6.19
5,99
6,07
0,12
5,93
4,60
5,93
4,42
5.93
0.00
5,93
0,00
5,93
0,00
5,93
0,26
5,93
3,31
5.93
4,56
5.93
4,16
6.04
4,40
6,00
4,75
5.97
5,03
5.95
5,30
5.94
5,55
5,94
5,80
3,94
-------
6NEI
1
2
3
H
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
i2
15
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
25
2H
it
2b
27
26
29
50
41
52
55
5H
35
5b
TABLE 2
PA&E
DISSQIVEO OXYGEN CALCULATED
NO PROJECT - 1985 - CANNING SEASON
00 OEFICIT COHPONENTS <*G/L> 00 IK6/LJ
cmiTu BAY OTHER BOTTOM SW&MP URBAN TOTAL SATURATION 90TH PERCENTILE
dischargers dischargers dem*no LOaDS runoff deficit IEVEL 00 00 00 8T*HD*RD
2.KS
0.00
1.89
0.00
1*20
0.00
0.85
0.00
0.59
0.00
0.39
0.00
0.26
o.oi
0.23
0.01
0.16
0.03
0.16
0.03
0.1«
0.01*
0,14
o.o<+
0.11
0.06
0.12
0.05
0.12
0.05
0.12
0*06
0.12
0.07
0.12
0.06
0.12
0.07
0.13
0.06
0.12
0.06
0.13
0.08
O.tH
0,11
0.1*
0.08
0.15
0.13
0.15
0.1<*
0.21
0.12
0.15
0.17
0.13
0.20
0.09
0.25
0.10
0.25
0.05
0.22
0.06
0.27
0.06
0.30
o.on
0.31
O.O1*
0.26
0.33 0.90 0.00 3.68 8.71 S.OJ 3.35 J.»»
0.33 0.93 0.00 3.15 8.53 5.3T S.B5 6.35
0.33 0.6a 0.00 a.36 8.55 5.97 *.71 6.26
0.32 0.73 0,00 1.92 8.20 6.27 5.15 6.19
0.32 0,70 0.00 1.62 8.05 6.*2 5.39 6.12
O.SS 0.68 0.00 1.91 7.93 6.51 5.55 6.0b
0.32 0,55 0,00 1.17 7.81 6,67 5,78 6,02
0.33 0.52 0.00 1,10 7.80 6.70 5.83 6.00
0.32 0.50 0.00 1.03 7.86 6.82 5.98 6.03
0.32 0.19 0,00 1.02 7.87 6.89 6.00 6.03
0.32 O.SO 0,00 1.02 7,83 6,80 5.96 6,02
0.32 0,50 0,00 1,01 7,83 6.81 5,97 6,02
0.33 0.51 0.00 1.02 7.79 6.77 5.93 6.00
0.33 0.50 0.00 1.01 7,79 6.78 5,99 6.00
0,32 0,96 0.00 0.96 7,80 6,8* 6,02 6,00
0,33 0,59 0.00 1.07 7,78 6,71 5.86 5.99
0.33 0,52 0.00 1.05 7.79 6,79 5.89 6.00
0.31 0,97 0.00 0.97 7.79 6.81 5.98 6.00
0.33 0.56 0.00 1.10 7.78 6.68 5.81 5.99
0.33 0,5* 0,00 1.09 7,78 6,69 5,83 5.99
0,31 0.17 0.00 0.98 7.79 6.81 5.98 6.00
0.S9 0.60 0.00 1.16 7.78 6.62 5.7J 5.99
0.35 0.57 0.00 1,19 7.77 6,98 5,68 5.99
O.ia 0.51 0,00 1.07 7.76 6.71 5.85 5.99
0.37 O.Sl 0.00 1.28 7.76 6.98 5.55 5.98
0.38 0.60 0.00 1.29 7.76 6.96 5.53 5.98
0.36 0.57 0.00 1.87 7.77 6,90 5.58 5,99
0.39 0,61 0,00 1,33 7,75 6,91 5,*7 5,98
0.92 0.60 0,00 1.36 7,86 6.90 5.55 6.03
0.96 0.53 0.00 1.35 7.83 6.97 5.53 6.02
0.H5 0.5"t 0,00 1.35 7,89 6,98 5,53 6.02
0.95 0.56 0.00 1.30 7.82 6.51 5.58 6.01
0.99 0.1* 0.00 1.27 7.B1 6,93 5,61 6.01
0.i*B 0.96 0.00 1.32 7.81 6.99 5.55 6.01
0.98 0.99 0.00 1.30 7.80 6.90 5.57 6.00
0.i(9 0,69 0.00 1,9* 7,80 6,35 5,38 6,00
C-145
-------
DISSOLVED
MO PROJECT
DO DEFICIT COMPONENTS
SOUTH bay
OTHER
BOTTOM
swamp
SEGMENT
dischargers
DISCHARGERS
DEMAND
LOADS
37
0,05
0,24
0,50
0,41
58
0,05
0.30
0,90
0,44
39
0,02
0,54
0,50
0,32
*0
0,02
0,26
0,50
0.67
41
0,04
0,22
0,51
0.49
42
0,05
0,31
0,52
0,43
43
0,01
0,34
0,50
0,29
44
0,01
0,26
0.49
0.96
*5
0,03
0.24
0,51
0,37
46
0,03
0.31
0.52
0.32
47
0,00
0,32
0.50
0.19
4 8
0,00
0,24
0,48
0,35
49
0,03
0,21
0,90
0.36
90
0,02
0,30
0,53
0.30
51
0,00
0.20
0,90
0.16
92
0,00
0,23
0,49
0.22
93
0,02
0*19
0.90
0.36
54
0,02
0,25
0,53
0.32
59
0,00
0*26
0.49
0,14
56
0,00
0,22
0,91
0,15
97
0,01
0.20
0,96
0.31
50
0,0?
0,29
0.66
0,39
59
0,00
0.20
0,48
0,11
60
0,00
0,17
0.91
0.09
61
0,01
0,14
0.90
0.24
62
0,00
0,10
0.33
0,15
63
0,00
0,19
0 , 4B
0.11
64
0,00
0,15
0.97
0.05
65
0,00
0,12
0.49
0.19
66
0,00
0.10
0,44
0,15
67
0,00
0.22
0.47
0.09
68
0,00
0*18
0,61
0.04
69
0,00
0,10
0,90
0.15
ro
0,00
0*13
0,49
0.13
T1
0,00
0,30
0,47
0.03
72
0,00
0.27
0,98
0.02
TABLE 2
RASE 2
OXYGEN CALCULATED
J85
CANNING SEASON
5/L)
DO
(MG/L)
URBAN
total
SATURATION
90TH
PERCENTILE
RUNOFF
DEFICIT
LEVEL
DO
00
00 STANDARD
0,00
1.22
7,81
6,58
5,67
6,01
0.00
1.31
7,81
6,49
9,96
6,01
0.00
1.20
7,78
6,58
5,68
9,99
0,00
1,49
7,79
6.29
5.30
6.00
0,00
1,24
7,80
6,56
5,66
6,00
0.00
1,31
7,80
6,49
5,55
6,00
0,00
1.12
7,78
8.69
5.78
5,99
0.00
1.33
7,70
6,44
5,90
9,99
o.oo
1.1*
7,80
8.63
9,74
6,00
0.00
1,20
7.79
8,98
5,69
6,00
0,00
1,03
7,77
6,74
9,90
9,99
0.00
1,09
7.78
6,68
9,82
5,99
0.00
1.11
7.79
6,67
9,80
6,00
0,00
1.17
7,78
6,61
5,72
9,99
0.00
0,96
7.77
6,81
9,99
9,99
0,00
0,96
7.77
6,81
5.99
9,99
0,00
1,08
7.78
8,70
9,84
9,99
0,00
1.1H
7.75
6,61
5,74
9,98
0,00
0,91
7.77
6,86
6,06
9,99
0,00
0,89
7.77
6,87
6,07
5,99
0,00
1.10
7.48
6,38
9,91
5,89
0,00
1,3d
7,38
9,99
9,04
5,90
0.00
0,81
7,78
6.96
6.18
9,99
0,00
0.78
7,79
6,97
6,20
9,98
0,00
0,90
7.49
6,58
9,78
9,86
0,00
0.99
8.10
7,99
6,89
6,18
0,00
0,79
7.70
6.98
6,22
9,99
0.00
0,79
7.72
8.92
6,16
5.96
0.00
0,82
7.92
6.69
9,92
9,67
0,00
0,71
7,87
7.15
6,41
6,03
0.00
0,79
7.76
6.96
6,20
9,98
0,00
0,84
7.71
6.66
6,07
5,96
0.00
0,77
7.82
7,05
6,29
6,01
0,00
0,76
8.00
7,24
6,48
6,10
0.00
0,81
7.96
7.14
6,37
6.08
0,00
0,87
7.94
7,06
6,27
6,07
-------
TABLE 2
DISSOLVED 0XT6EN CALCULATED
NO
PROJECT
1905
CANNING SE
DO DEFICIT
components
MG/L)
SOUTH BAT
OTHER
BOTTOM
swamp
urban
total
StGHEN 1
DISCHARGERS
DISCHARGERS
demand
LOADS
RUNOFF
DEFICIT
7S
0.00
0.12
0.51
0.09
0.00
0.74
74
0.00
0.25
0.
-------
TABLE 2
PAGE 4
DISSOLVED OXYGEN CALCULATED
NO
PROJECT
1985
CANNING SEASON
DO DEFICIT
COMPONENTS
(MG/L)
DO
IMG/LI
SOUTH BAY
OTHER
BOTTOM
SWAMP
urban
total
SATURATION
90TH
PERCENTILE
StGMENl
dischargers
dischargers
OEMAND
loads
runoff
DEFICIT
level
DO
DO
00 STANDARD
109
3.52
o.oo
0.28
0.10
0,00
3.91
8,55
4.64
2,87
6,36
110
3. *5
0.00
0.30
0.15
0.00
3.91
8.55
4.63
2.86
6,36
111
3,S3
0.00
0.33
0.31
0,00
3.98
8.68
•~.70
2.91
6.42
112
3.00
0.00
0.34
0.60
0,00
3.95
6.62
4.67
2.89
6.39
113
0.67
0.00
0.63
1.48
0,00
2.99
6.33
5.34
3.86
6.26
im
0.74
0,00
0.64
1.1B
0,00
2.58
8,33
5.75
4.42
6.26
115
0.82
0*00
0.48
1.02
0,00
2.34
8.33
5.99
4.73
6.26
116
0,92
0*00
0.43
0.98
0,00
2.35
8.33
5.98
4.72
6,26
117
1.03
0.00
0.40
0.94
0,00
2.37
6. 33
5,96
4.69
6,26
118
0.07
0*00
0.05
7.88
0,00
8.00
7.93
-0.07
0.00
6.06
119
0.13
0.00
0.24
4.99
0.00
5,38
7.93
2.3*
0,30
6.06
120
0.?8
0.00
0.30
1.94
0,00
2.62
7.93
5.31
3,96
6.0&
121
0.87
0.00
0.96
0.64
0,00
2.48
8.73
6.25
4.94
6.45
122
2.46
0,00
1.40
0.66
0.00
4.52
8.73
4.21
2.25
6,45
123
1,50
0*00
0.97
0.50
0.00
2.96
8.51
5.52
4,05
6.34
124
0.90
0.00
0.56
0.43
0,00
1.90
8,19
6,28
5,16
6,19
125
0.42
0,00
0.44
0.40
0.00
1.28
7,95
6,67
5.75
6.07
126
0.00
0,00
0.02
5.28
0.00
5.32
7.65
2.33
0.12
5.93
127
0.02
0.00
0.26
1.63
0.00
1.92
7.65
5.73
4.60
5.93
128
0.05
0.02
0.41
1.57
0.00
2.06
7.65
5.59
4.41
5,93
129
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.59
0,00
6.60
7,65
1,04
0.00
5.93
130
0.00
0,00
0.01
6.64
0.00
6.66
7.65
0,98
0.00
5,93
131
0.01
0*00
0.05
6.08
0.00
6.15
7.65
1.49
0.00
5.93
132
0.02
0.01
0.32
4.84
0.00
5.21
7,65
2.44
0,26
5,93
133
0.06
0.03
0.59
2.20
0,00
2.90
7.65
4.74
3.30
5,93
134
0.09
0.05
0.50
1.29
0,00
1.96
7.65
5.68
4.54
5.93
135
l.»7
0.04
0.32
0.59
0,00
2.43
7,87
5,44
4.15
6.0<»
136
1.16
0.05
0.36
0.61
0,00
2.19
7,80
5.60
4.39
6.00
137
0.82
0.07
0.37
0.60
0.00
1.88
7,73
5,85
4.74
5,97
138
0.55
0.09
0.37
0.60
0.00
1.62
7.69
6,06
5.03
5.95
139
0.34
0.10
0.37
0.58
0.00
i.«»x
7.66
6,25
5,29
5.94
mo
0.07
0*02
0.40
0.72
0,00
1,22
7.67
6.44
5.53
5.94
141
0.09
0.03
0.37
0.59
0.00
1.04
7.67
6.62
5.78
5.94
C-148
-------
TABLE 3
St&^ENl
1
2
5
4
ft
6
7
B
9
10
11
i?
IS
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
i?
33
34
35
36
SOUTH 8AY OTHER
dischargers dischargers
OISSOLVEO
NO PROJECT
DO DEFICIT COMPONENTS
BOTTOM SWAMP
DERANO loads
OXYGEN CALCULATED
1933 - WET SEASON
CMG/L)
urban total
RUNOFF DEFICIT
2. 0*
1.57
1,02
0,7%
0,53
0,36
0,26
0,23
0.17
0,18
0,16
0,16
0,13
0,2V
0,13
0.1
-------
TABLE 3
DISSOLVED
NO PROJECT
DO DEFICIT COMPONENTS
SOUTH BAY
OTHER
BOTTOM
SWAMP
DISCHARGERS
oischargers
DEMAND
LOADS
37
0.06
0,26
0.50
0,27
30
0.06
0.32
0,57
0.29
39
0,03
0.36
0.57
0.21
40
0*03
0,31
0.50
0,40
*1
0,05
0.24
0.59
0.28
<~2
0.06
0.32
0.59
0.27
43
0,01
0,36
0.5B
0.16
44
0,02
0.20
0.57
0.33
*5
0.04
0*26
0,59
0,24
• 6
0,03
0.33
0.60
0,21
47
0.01
0.3(1
0.57
0.12
40
0,01
0.26
0.57
0.21
49
0,03
0.2*
0.50
0.23
dO
0,03
0,32
0.61
0.19
51
0.01
0.31
0.57
0.11
52
0.01
0.26
0.50
0,14
93
0*03
0.22
0,58
0.22
5*
0*03
0.20
0.61
0,20
55
0.01
0.20
0.57
0.10
56
0,00
0,25
0.59
0.10
57
0.02
0.24
0,66
0.20
58
0,03
0.33
0.77
0.25
59
0,00
0.24
0,55
0.08
60
0.00
0,20
0,59
0.06
61
0,02
0,18
0.60
0.16
62
0,01
0.12
0.38
0.10
63
0.00
0.23
0,55
0.08
64
0.00
0.19
0,66
0.04
65
0.01
0,13
0.56
0,14
66
0,01
0.13
0.51
0.11
67
0,00
0.26
0,53
0.06
60
0.00
0.22
0,69
0.03
69
0,01
0.14
0.98
0.11
70
0,01
0.17
0.55
0.10
71
0,00
0.33
0.53
0.03
72
0.00
0.31
0.64
0.01
C-150
PAGE 2
OXfSEN calculated
1965 - WET SEASON
DO <*G/L>
urban
total
saturation
90TH
PERCENTILE
RUNOFF
DEFICIT
level
00
00
DO STANDARD
0,04
1.24
9.38
8.14
7.23
6.75
0,04
1.30
9.37
8.07
7,14
6.75
0.03
1.21
9,33
8.11
7.21
6.73
0.05
1.3B
9.34
7,95
7.00
6.74
0.04
1.22
9.37
8,15
7.24
6.75
0.04
1.31
9.36
8,05
7.12
6.74
0.03
1.16
9,32
8,16
7.28
6.72
0,04
1,26
9,33
8,06
7,14
6.73
0,03
1.18
9,36
8.10
7,29
6.74
0,03
1.22
9,34
«.ll
7.21
6.73
0,02
1.09
9,31
8,22
7,36
6.72
0,03
1,10
9.32
8.21
7.35
6.72
0,03
1,13
9,36
8.22
7.35
6.74
0.03
1,20
9,34
8,13
7.23
6.73
0,02
1,04
9.31
8,27
7.42
6.72
0.03
1.03
9,31
8.27
7.43
6.72
0.09
1.10
9, 35
8,28
7.*8
6,74
0,03
1 .IT
9,31
8,14
7,25
6,72
0,02
0,99
9,31
8.31
7.48
6,72
0,03
1,00
9.30
8,30
7.47
6.72
0,03
1.17
9.03
7.85
6.96
6.59
0,03
1.42
8.91
7,48
6,51
6,53
0,01
0.91
9,31
8,39
7.58
6,72
0.02
0,90
9.28
8,37
7,57
6.71
0.02
1,00
9.04
8,04
7,20
6.59
0,01
0,64
9.80
9,16
8.44
6.95
0.01
0,89
9.32
8,42
7.62
6.72
0,01
0.92
9,23
8.30
7,50
6.60
0,02
0,93
9,08
8.14
7.33
6.61
0,01
0,79
9,46
8,66
7.90
6.79
0,01
0.89
9,27
8.38
7.58
6.70
0.01
0,97
9.21
8.23
7.41
6.67
0.02
0.88
9.11
8.23
7,44
6.63
0,01
0.86
9.28
8.42
7.63
6.71
0,00
0.91
9.16
8,24
7,43
6,65
0.00
0.98
9.13
8.15
7.32
6.64
-------
TABLE 3
5tCi*ENT
73
TH
75
7k
77
78
79
BO
91
62
83
9
saturation
LEVEL
DO
9.12
8.27
9.13
8.26
9.11
8.18
9.09
8.17
9.08
a.13
9.06
8.15
9.06
8.36
9.08
8,10
9.07
8.15
9.06
8,22
9.06
8,25
9.09
8,31
9.06
8.36
9.05
8.39
9.27
8.99
9.27
8.66
9.25
8.77
9. 28
9.02
9.27
8.92
9,24
8.96
9.17
9.01
9.07
9.02
9.35
9.20
9,3*
9.2*
9.17
9.06
10.36
9.79
10.36
9.18
10.32
7.53
10.29
6.31
10.26
6.04
9,08
5.26
9.27
3,
9. *7
3.63
9.68
3.61
9.90
6.10
9.90
6.16
90TH
PERCENTILE
00
DO STAN3AR
7,*9
6.63
7.*6
6.63
7.37
6.62
7.36
6.61
7.32
6.61
7.35
6.60
7.63
6.60
T.l#
6.61
7,35
6.(0
7.»9
6,60
7. «8
6.(0
7.56
6.60
7.63
6,60
7,66
6.60
8.39
6,70
7,95
6,70
6,69
8,13
6.70
8.30
6.70
8,35
6,69
®.»5
6.15
8.*9
6.61
8.6*
6,7*
».69
6,73
8.51
6,65
9.09
7,22
8.29
7.22
6.12
7,20
*,53
7.IB
*.18
7.17
5.53
6. 61
3,70
6.70
3.89
6.79
1.09
6.89
*.37
7.00
*.*6
7.0O
C-151
-------
DISSOLVED
NO PROJECT
00 DEFICIT COMPONENTS
SLSmEnT
109
1X0
111
112
113
Hi)
115
116
117
IIS
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
13*
135
136
137
138
139
mo
mi
jth bat
OTHER
BOTTOM
swamp
IHARSERS
dischargers
DEMAND
loads
3.23
0.00
0,33
0,07
3.13
0,00
0.36
0.11
2.93
0.00
0.39
0.22
2.56
0.00
0.40
0.41
0,41
0,00
0.75
0.59
0.59
0.00
0.70
0.63
0,71
0.00
0,56
0,61
0*80
0.00
0.51
0,61
0.69
0,00
0.47
0,59
0,05
0.00
0,05
6,80
0,13
0,00
0,20
2,05
0.20
0.00
0.45
1,10
0.31
0,00
1.02
0,26
1.65
0.00
1.64
0,39
1.0*
0*00
1.17
0,35
0.67
0,00
0,60
0,32
0.35
0.01
0.53
0,30
0,00
0.00
0.02
2,46
0.03
0.01
0.30
1,00
0,07
0,03
0.46
0,97
0,00
0,00
0.00
1.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
4,36
0,01
0.00
0,06
5,84
0,03
0,01
0.37
2,76
0,08
0,05
0.67
1.24
0,11
0.07
0,58
0,75
1.37
0,05
0,37
0,35
1*10
0,06
0,42
0,37
0,78
0.08
0,44
0,38
0,54
0,10
0,44
0,39
0,34
0,12
0,43
0,38
o.oe
0.03
0,45
0,41
0,11
0,05
0,43
0,34
C-152
TABLE 3
OXYGEN CALCULATED
1985 - WET SEASON
HG/L)
URBAN TOTAL
runoff DEFICIT
0,06 3.70
0.09 3.69
0.10 3.66
0.13 3.51
0.39 2.16
0.30 2.23
0.21 2.11
0.17 2.11
0.14 2.11
0.75 7.75
0,27 3.55
0,11 2.03
0,81 2.<»1
0.30 4.00
0.22 2.79
0.1* 1,04
0.07 1.27
0.67 3.16
0.16 1.59
0.05 1.61
0.84 2.08
0.70 5.09
0,35 6.27
0.12 3.31
0.05 2,11
0.#» 1,97
0.10 2.26
0.0» 2.0'
0.08 1.78
0.06 1.55
0.05 1.35
0.12 1.11
0.06 1.01
00 (HG/L)
saturation
level
DO
10.12
6« 11
10.12
6,43
10.10
6,44
10.06
6.55
10.00
7.92
9,99
7.75
9,95
7.83
9.93
7,82
9,92
7.81
9,86
2.H
9,63
6,07
9,53
7.*9
10.34
7. 92
10,30
6,30
10,14
7,35
9,83
7,98
9,54
6.26
9,00
6,63
9,27
7,67
9,16
7,54
10,28
8,20
9,90
4, 81
9,56
3,28
9,27
5,96
9,16
7.05
9,13
7.56
9,39
7.12
9,30
7.24
9,22
7.43
9,17
7.61
9,13
7.77
9,23
0.11
9,17
8,16
PAGE <
90TH
percentile
DO
DO STANDARD
9.72
7.11
4,73
7,10
4,75
7.10
4.91
7.08
6,71
7.08
6,52
7,0*
6,64
7,02
6.63
7,01
6,62
7.01
0.00
6,98
4,42
6,07
6,33
6. 02
6,63
7.21
4,51
7.19
5,94
7.11
6,88
6,96
7,34
6,03
5.11
6,95
6,65
6.70
6,51
6.65
7,02
7.10
2,67
7,00
0,76
6.04
4,38
6.70
5,06
6.65
6,54
6.64
5,89
6.76
6,06
6.72
6,35
6.68
6,60
6.65
6,82
6.63
7.25
6.68
7.32
6,65
-------
TAB LE 4
DISSOLVED OXYGEN CALCULATED
NO PROJECT - 1995 - DRY SEASON
00 DEFICIT COMPONENTS (XG/L)
btliMEN I
SOUTH 0AY
OTHER
BOTTOM
SWA *P
urban
TOTAL
DISCHARGERS
dischargers
oemano
LOfiDS
RUNOFF
DEFICIT
1
2,HI
0.00
0.33
0,90
0.00
3.65
?
1.61
0.00
0,33
0,93
0.00
3.07
3
1.1?
0.00
0.33
0.62
0.00
2.2B
4
0.7S
0.00
0,32
0,73
0.00
1.85
5
0.54
0.00
0.32
0.70
o.oo
1,57
6
0.3-5
0.00
0.33
0.60
0.00
1.37
7
0,24
0,01
0,32
0,55
0.00
1.1H
8
o.?o
0.01
0,33
0,32
0.00
1.0S
9
0.15
0.03
0.32
0,50
0.00
1.02
10
0.15
0.03
0.32
0,49
0.00
1,01
11
0.13
0,04
0.32
0,50
0.00
1,01
1?
0.13
0.04
0,32
0,50
0.00
1.00
13
o.in
0.06
0,33
0,51
o.oo
1.01
14
o.u
0.05
0.33
0,50
0.00
1.00
15
o.ll
0.05
0.32
0,46
0.00
0.95
1 &
0.11
0.06
0,33
0,54
0.00
1,06
17
o.l?
0.07
0,33
0,52
0,00
1.0"
1 B
o.ll
0*06
0,31
0,47
0.00
0,97
19
0.1?
0,07
0,33
0,56
0.00
1.10
20
0.1?
0.09
0.33
0,54
0.00
1,06
21
0.11
0.06
0,31
0.H7
0.00
0.97
22
0.1?
0.09
0,34
0,60
o.oo
1.15
2 3
o.m
0.11
0,35
0.57
0.00
1,18
24
0,13
0,08
0.32
0,91
0.00
1.06
25
0.15
0.13
0.37
0,61
0.00
1.27
if 6
0.15
0.14
0,38
0,60
0.00
1.29
21
0.?1
0,12
0.36
0,57
0.00
1.27
2H
0,1*
0,17
0,39
0,61
0.00
1.33
29
0.13
0,20
0,42
0,60
0.00
1.36
30
0.09
0.25
0,i»6
0,53
0.00
1.35
31
0.09
0.25
0,^5
0.54
0.00
1.35
52
0.05
0.22
0,45
0.56
0.00
1,30
5 5
0.06
0,27
0.49
0,44
0.00
1.27
34
0.0ft
0,30
0,46
0,46
0.00
1.32
3 5
0.05
0,31
0.40
0.44
0.00
1.30
3 S
O.ny
0.2ft
0.49
0.64
0.00
1.**
PAGE 1
00
-------
TABLE 4
PAGE 2
DISSOLVED OXYSEN CALCULATED
NO PROJECT - 1995 - DRY SEASON
DO DEFICIT COMPONENTS DO M6/LI
SOUTH BAY
OTHER
bottom
swa»p
urban
total
saturation
90TH
PERCENTILE
slgmen r
DISCHARGERS
DISCHARGERS
demand
LOADS
RUNOFF
DEFICIT
level
DO
DO
DO STANDARD
37
0.03
0.2*
0.30
0,»1
o.oo
1.22
7.81
6,36
3.67
6,01
58
0.05
0.30
0.50
0.*H
0.00
1.31
7.81
6. *9
3.36
6.01
39
0.09
0.3*
0.50
0.32
0.00
1.20
7.78
6.SB
3.68
3,99
*o
0.02
0.28
0.30
0.67
0.00
1, *9
7.79
6.29
5.30
6.00
tl
0.0*
0.22
0.S1
0.*5
0.00
1.23
7.80
6.57
5.66
6.00
H2
0.05
0.31
0.52
0 .*3
0.00
1.31
7.BO
6.*9
S.33
6.00
H3
0.01
0.3*
0,50
0.23
0.00
1.12
7.7#
6.(5
3.76
3.9»
1*
0.01
0.26
0.*9
0.36
0, 00
1.33
7.78
6, **
3.50
3.99
*3
0.03
0.2*
0.31
0.37
0.00
1.16
7.60
3.73
6,00
*6
0.03
0.31
0.32
0.32
0.00
1.20
7.79
6.58
3.69
6.00
*7
0.00
0.32
0.50
0.19
0.00
1.03
7.77
6.T*
5.90
3.99
*8
0.00
0.2*
o.*s
0.35
0.00
1.09
7.TO
6.68
S.B2
3,99
»9
0.02
0.21
0.50
0.36
0.00
l.U
7.79
6.67
5.60
6.00
SO
0.02
0.30
0,33
0.30
0.00
1.17
7.T8
6.61
3.72
3.99
51
0.00
0.20
0.30
0.16
o.oo
0.96
7.77
6,«t
3.99
3,99
52
0.00
0.23
o.*»
0.22
0.00
0.96
T.77
6.61
3.99
3.99
53
0.02
0.19
o.so
9.M
o.oo
l.OB
7.76
6.70
3.8*
3,99
5*
0.02
0.23
0.33
0.32
0.00
1.1*
7.75
6.61
3.7*
3,98
55
0.00
0.26
o.*»
0.1*
0.00
0.91
7.77
6.66
6.06
3.99
56
o.oo
0.22
0.51
0.15
0.00
0.89
7.77
6.87
6.07
3.99
57
0.01
0.20
0.56
0.31
o.oo
1.10
7.*8
6.36
3.31
5.83
55
0.02
0.29
0.66
0.39
0,00
1.36
7.38
3.9»
3.0*
3,80
59
0.00
0.20
0,*6
0.11
o.oo
0.81
7.78
6,96
6.16
3.99
60
0.00
0.17
0.51
0.09
0.00
0. 76
7.73
6.97
6,20
3,96
61
0.01
0.1*
0.30
0.2*
0.00
0.90
7.*9
6.36
3.78
3,86
62
0.00
0.10
0.33
0.13
0.00
0.39
8.18
7,39
6.69
6,16
63
0.00
0.19
0,*B
0.11
0.00
0.79
7.TB
6.96
" 6.22
3.99
6*
0.00
0.13
0.37
0.05
0,00
0,79
7.72
6,92
6,16
3,96
65
0.00
0.12
0,*9
0.19
0.00
0,82
7.52
6.70
3.92
3,67
66
0.00
0.10
0.**
0.15
0.00
0.71
7.87
7.15
6.*1
6,03
67
0.00
0.22
0. *7
0.09
0.00
0.79
7.76
6.96
6.20
3.96
SB
0.00
0 • IB
0.61
0.0*
0.00
0.8*
7.71
6.86
6.07
3.96
69
0.00
0.10
0.50
0.15
0.00
0.77
7.62
7.03
6.29
6.01
70
0.00
0.1S
0,*9
0.13
0.00
0.76
8,00
7.2*
6.*6
6.10
71
0.00
0.30
0. *7
0.03
o.oo
0.81
7,96
7.1*
6,37
6,OB
72
0.00
0.27
0,56
0.02
0.00
0.87
7,9*
7.06
6.27
6.07
C-154
-------
73
7*
73
76
77
78
79
80
B1
92
83
B4
as
86
87
98
89
90
91
92
93
9«»
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
la?
10B
TAB IE 4
DISSOLVED OXYGEN CALCULATED
NO PROJECT - 1995 - DRY SEASON
00 DEFICIT COMPONENTS (MG/L) nn (MG/LI
SOUTH BAY OTHER BOTTOM SWAMP urban TOTAL SATURATION 90TH BrftrrurfLr
DISCHARGERS DISCHARGERS demand loads runoff DEFICIT LeOel 00 S5 DO STANDARD
0.00 0.7* 7.BJ 7.09 6.J* 6.02
0.77 7.95 T.U 6,40 4,06
°*°® 0.8* 7.9* 7.10 6.J2 6.07
. o." 7.91 7.06 6.28 &.05
2*22 °«87 7.92 7,0* 6,15 6.06
0.86 7,9* 7.08 6.29 6.07
'•?? «•« 7,9* 7,92 6,61 6,07
2*22 °«®i r«*2 7,91 6,21 6.06
®«JJ 7.9% 7.06 6,27 6.07
• 2 0.®1 7,95 7.1* 6.ST 6.07
a'no n'i? 7,9S 7,17 6**1 &«°7
n'Kn I'l 7**6 T»" *«0»
?•?' 7,96 7.2# 6,55 6.0#
n'no X't* 7,96 7,51 6«°8
?•?? ®.f« «.0» 7,82 7,23 6.1»
n'on S'Si #,li 7*51
2*22 2*55 T." «>.»» 6,16
S:" l-M t:\i 77;» ;•»
JrSJ J*?! !*i! !•!? »•'(*
6« 2 0
6.19
0.00
0.12
0.51
0.09
0.00
0.25
0,*5
0.05
0.00
0.3?
O.lt
a. oi
0.00
0.35
0.*5
0,03
0.00
0.**
0.*1
0.02
0.00
0.50
0.3*
0.01
0.00
0,21
0.*0
0.00
o.oo
0.**
0.**
0,02
0.00
0.51
0.3*
0.01
0,00
0.5*
0.25
0.01
0.00
0,52
0.2*
0.01
o.oo
0.52
0.20
0.00
0,00
0.50
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.*8
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.2*
0.02
0.00
0,00
0.*8
0.12
0.00
0,00
0.36
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.21
0.02
0,00
0,00
0.28
0.06
0.00
0,00
0.22
0.05
0.00
0,00
0.12
0.02
0,00
0,00
0.0*
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.1*
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.01
o.oo
0.13
0.00
0.20
1.9*
0,75
0.00
0.09
3.08
1,20
0.00
0.2*
*.28
1,55
0,00
0.29
*,55
2.00
0.00
0.38
3.36
*,33
0.00
0.00
0.00
*.33
0.00
0,02
0.00
* • 32
0.00
0.03
0.00
«.22
o.oo
0.10
0.02
3.98
0.00
0,21
0.05
3.S3
0.00
0.2*
0.07
?•?? 2*11 8,10 7'®9 T>«
0.00 0.05 8.22 « |S 7.6*
S:S5 S:i; S:S I'M
O.oo 0.09 #.,0 #.00 7.*6
°-00 ».» 5:" sioo
j." i'H «.ti 2.,8 ::5;
J'nn S'l? '71 *'3i «••• *•**
S'Sn !*It 8,71 2*®5 °»5®
2»2? ?•" 8,85 5«M 2*01
2*22 8,!5 s«"> 1." 6.22
2*22 *•?? ».«» 6.29
?•?' *•'* ».w ».0S 2.15 6.29
0.00 i(.25 8.*0 *.l* 2,27 6.29
0.00 *.16 8.55 1.39 2.55 6.56
C-155
-------
LS*E
109
110
111
112
113
ll>t
115
116
117
116
119
120
121
122
129
12*
12%
126
127
126
129
130
131
132
153
13*
135
136
137
138
139
mo
1*1
TABLE 4
SOUTH BAY OTHER
oischargers oischarscrs
3.7*
0,00
3.66
0*00
3**6
0,00
3.04
0*00
0.62
0,00
0.69
0,00
0,77
0.00
0.85
0.00
0.96
0*00
0,06
0*00
0,12
0,00
0.25
0*00
0.76
0*00
2.13
0,00
1.30
0*00
0.79
0,00
0.57
0,00
o.oo
0,00
0,02
0.00
0.05
0*02
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,01
0*00
0.02
0.01
0,06
0*03
0,09
0,05
1*50
0,0*
1.10
0.05
0.83
0* 07
0.55
0.09
0.3*
0*10
0.07
0*02
0.09
0.03
DISSOLVED
MO PROJECT
DEFICIT COMPONENTS
QOTTOW
SWA**
QEMANO
LOADS
0,28
0.10
0.30
0.15
0.33
0.3X
0.3t
0.60
0.83
i.*e
0.64
1.1*
o.*6
1.02
0.*3
0.96
o.*o
0.9*
0.05
7.08
0.2*
*,99
0.33
1.9*
0.96
0.6*
l.*0
0.66
0.97
0.50
0.56
0.*3
0.**
o,*o
0.02
5.28
0.26
1,63
0,*1
1.57
0.00
6*99
0.01
6.6*
0.05
6.08
0.32
*.8*
0.59
2.20
0.50
1.29
0.92
0.99
0.36
0.61
0.37
0.60
0.37
0.60
0.37
0.58
0.*0
0.72
0.37
0.53
OXYGEN CALCULATED
1995 - DRY SEASON
*B/L>
urban
TOTftU
ruyoff
DEFICIT
0.00
*.13
0.00
*•12
0.00
*.11
0.00
3.98
0.00
2.95
0.00
2.33
0.00
2.26
0.00
2.28
0.00
2.30
0.00
8.00
0.00
5.37
0,0 0
2.59
0,00
2.37
0,00
*.19
0.00
2.79
0,00
1.79
0.00
l.M
0,00
5,52
0,00
1.92
0.00
2.06
0,00
6,60
0,00
6.66
0.00
6. IS
0,00
5.21
0,00
2,90
0,00
1,96
0,00
2.»*
0,00
2.21
0,00
1.89
0,00
1.63
0,00
l.*l
0,00
1,22
0,00
1.03
00
-------
SHI
1
2
3
*
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
15
14
15
16
17
IS
19
£0
21
22
23
24
2S
26
27
20
29
30
31
«
ii
JM
39
it
TABLE 5
SOUTH bay other
DISCHARGERS DISCMAR6ERS
DISSOLVED
NO PROJECT
DO DEFICIT COMPONENTS
BOTTOM
demand
swamp
LOftOS
2.64
O.OO
0.33
0.90
2.13
0.00
0.33
0.93
1.39
0.00
0.33
0.82
1.01
0.00
0.32
0.73
0.71
0.00
0.32
0.70
0,47
0.00
0,33
0.68
0,32
0.01
0.32
0.55
0.27
0.01
0.33
0.52
0.19
0.03
0.32
0.50
0.20
o.os
0,32
0.49
0.17
0,04
0,32
0.50
0,16
0.04
0.32
0.50
0,12
0.06
0,33
0.51
0,14
0.05
0.33
0.50
0.13
0.05
0.32
0.46
0.13
0.06
0.33
0.54
0.1*
0.07
0.33
0,52
0,13
0.06
0,31
0,47
o.m
0.07
0,33
0,56
0.14
0.08
0.33
0,5*
0,13
0.06
0.31
0.47
0.14
0.08
0.34
0.60
0.16
0.11
0.35
0.57
0.15
0.08
0,32
0.51
0.17
0.13
0.37
0.61
0.17
0.14
0,38
0.60
0.22
0.12
0,36
0.57
0.16
0,17
0.39
0.61
0,14
0.20
0,42
0.60
0.10
0,25
0,46
0.53
0.11
0.25
0,45
0.54
0.06
0.22
0,15
0,56
0.06
0.27
0.»9
0.44
0.07
0,30
0.i»8
0.46
0.06
0.31
0,48
0.44
0.04
0.26
0.49
0.64
OXrSEN
1995
|M6/L>
urban
RUNOFF
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
a.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0,00
0,00
o.oo
0,00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
calculated
CANNING SEASON
DO (MS/LI
TOTAL SATURATION
DEFICIT LEVEL
PA6E
torn percentile
3,89
3,39
J.55
s.ot
1.74
1.19
1.22
I.IS
1.06
1.06
1.05
1.0*
1.03
1.0»
0.98
i.os
1.06
0,99
1.12
1,10
0.99
1.1T
1.20
1.08
1.29
1.30
1.29
1.39
l.ST
1.36
1.36
1.91
1.2S
1.32
1.31
1.45
8.71
8.53
8.33
8.20
8.05
7,93
7.81.
7.80
7.86
7.87
7.85
7.83
T. 79
7.79
7.80
7.78
T.T»
7.79
7,78
7.78
7.79
T.78
7.77
7.78
7.76
7.76
7.77
T.TS
7.86
T.83
7.84
7,82
7.81
7.81
7.80
7.60
DO
00
DO STANDARD
9.82
3.87
6.44
5.15
3.53
6.55
5.78
4,45
6.26
6.12
~.»*
6.19
6.30
S.23
6.12
6,43
5.44
6.06
6,61
s.n
6.02
6.65
5.77
6.00
6.79
S.M
6.03
6,81
5,»S
6.03
6.78
5,93
6,02
6.79
5.94
6.02
6.75
«.»1
6,00
6.76
5.92
6.00
6.82
5."
6,00
6.70
5.84
5.99
6.TJ
!.«
6.80
6.80
5,97
6.00
6.66
5,79
5.99
6.67
5,81
5,99
6.79
5,96
6.00
6.60
3.T1
5.99
6.56
5,66
5.99
6.69
5,83
5.99
6,46
3.54
5.98
6,»5
5,52
5.98
6.48
5,56
5.99
6.40
5.45
5.98
6,»9
5.53
6.03
6.*7
5,52
6,02
6.47
5.52
6.02
6.50
5,57
6.01
6,53
5,60
6.01
6,48
5.54
6,01
6.49
5.56
6.00
6.35
5.37
6.00
C-157
-------
TABLE 5
DISSOLVED OXYGEN CALCULATED
NO
PROJECT
1995
CANNING SE
DO DEFICIT
components
(M&/L)
StfciMEN T
south bay
0T4ER
bottom
swamp
URBAN
TOTAL
dischargers
DISCHARGERS
DEMAND
loads
runoff
DEFICIT
37
0.05
0,21
0.50
0.11
0.00
1.23
58
0.06
0.30
0.50
0.11
0.00
1.32
39
0.0?
0,31
0.50
0,32
0.00
1.20
10
0.03
0,28
0.50
0,67
0.00
1.50
11
0.05
0.22
0.51
0.15
0.00
1.21
12
0.05
0.31
0.52
0.13
0.00
1.32
13
0.01
0.31
0.50
0.25
0,00
1.12
11
0.01
0.26
0.19
0.56
0.00
1.31
15
0.03
0.21
0.51
0.37
0.00
1,17
16
0,03
0,31
0.52
0.32
0.00
1.20
17
0.01
0.32
0,50
0.19
0.00
1.03
18
0.01
0.21
0,18
0.35
0,00
1.09
19
0.03
0,21
0,50
0.36
0.00
1.12
50
0.03
0.30
0.53
0.30
0,00
1.17
51
0.00
0.28
0.50
0.16
0.00
0.96
52
0,00
0.23
0.19
0.22
0,00
0.96
53
0.02
0.19
0,50
0,36
0,00
1,0&
51
0.02
0.25
0,53
0,32
0,00
1.1»
55
0.00
0.26
0.19
O.tl
0.00
0.91
56
0.00
0.22
0,51
0,15
0,00
0.89
57
0.02
0.20
0,56
0.31
0,00
1.10
58
0.02
0,29
0.66
0.39
0.00
1.38
S9
0.00
0.20
0,18
0.11
0.00
0.82
60
0,00
0,17
0.51
0.09
0.00
0.78
61
0.01
0.11
0,50
0.21
0.00
0.91
62
0.00
0.10
0,33
0.15
0.00
0.59
b 3
0.00
0.19
0,18
0.11
0.00
0.79
61
0.00
0.15
0.57
0.05
0.00
0.79
65
0.01
0.12
0,19
0.19
0.00
0.82
66
0.00
0.10
0.11
0.15
0,00
0.71
67
0.00
0.22
0.17
0.09
0.00
0.79
68
0.00
0.18
0.61
0.01
0.00
0.81
69
0.00
0.10
0.50
0.15
0.00
0.77
?0
0.00
0.13
0,19
0.13
0.00
0.76
71
0.00
0.30
0.17
0.03
0.00
0.81
72
0.00
0.27
0.58
0.02
0,00
0.87
C-158
®AGr 2
DO
SATURATION
LEVEL
7.81
7.81
7.78
7.79
7.80
7.80
7.78
7.78
7.80
7.79
7.77
7.78
7.79
7.78
7.77
7.77
7.78
7.75
7.77
7.77
7.10
7.38
7.78
7.75
7.*9
8.18
7.78
7.72
7.52
7.87
7.76
7.71
7.82
8.00
7.96
7.94
DO
6.57
6.19
6.58
6.29
6.56
6.18
6.65
6.11
6.63
6.58
6. 7*
6.68
6.67
6.61
6,81
6.81
6.69
6.61
6.86
6.87
6.38
5.99
6.96
6.97
6.58
7.59
6.98
6.92
6.69
7.15
6.96
6.86
7.05
7.2*
7.11
7.06
9DTH
DO
5.67
5.55
5.68
5.30
5.65
5.55
5.78
5.50
5.71
5.68
5.90
5.82
5.80
5.72
5.98
5.98
5,8$
5.73
6.06
6.07
5.51
5.OH
6.18
6.20
5.78
6.89
6.22
6.16
5.92
6.11
6.20
6.07
6,29
6.18
6.37
6.27
PERCENTILE
00 STANDARD
6.01
6*01
5.99
6.00
6.00
6.00
5.99
5.99
6,00
6.00
5.99
5.99
6.00
5.99
5.99
5.99
5.99
5.98
5.99
5.99
5.95
5.80
5.99
5.98
5.96
6.1ft
5.99
5.96
5.87
6.03
5.98
5.96
6.01
6,10
6.08
6.07
-------
TABLE 5
DISSOLVED OXYGEN CALCULATES
NO
PROJECT
1995
canning se
00 DEFICIT
components
< MS/l)
bt bwE'V f
SOUTH SAY
OTHER
BOTTOM
SWftMp
jRban
total
dischargers
OISChARSERS
DEMAND
loads
RUNOFF
deficit
15
o.oo
0.15
0.51
0.09
0,00
0 ,71
7H
0.00
0.25
0.*5
0.05
0,00
0.77
75
0.00
0.37
0.1*
0.01
0,00
0,6*
7 6
0.00
0,35
0.15
0.03
0.00
0.61
77
0.00
0.1*
0.11
0.02
0,00
0,86
f8
o.oo
0.50
0.51
0.01
0.00
0.86
79
0.00
0.21
0.10
0.00
0,00
0.6?
90
0.00
0.^4
0.1*
0.02
0.00
0.91
»1
0.0 0
0.51
0, Si
0,01
0,00
0.87
92
0.00
0.51
0.25
0,01
0.00
0,61
33
o.oo
0,52
0«2*
0,01
0.00
0.78
»<~
0.00
0.52
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.73
85
O.flO
0.50
0.16
0,00
0,00
0.68
96
0,00
0,*8
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.6*
87
0.00
0.2*
0.02
0,00
0,00
0.26
88
0.00
0.18
0.12
0,00
0,00
0.61
69
0.00
0,36
0,10
0.00
0,00
0.16
40
0.00
0,21
0.02
0,00
0,00
0.23
n
0.00
0.28
0*06
0,00
0,00
0.35
9?
c.oo
0,22
0.05
0.00
0,00
0 ,26
9 J
0.00
0.12
0.02
o.oo
0.00
0.11
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,05
96
0.00
0. If
0.02
0.00
0,00
0,17
*6
0.00
O.OB
0,01
0.00
0.00
0,10
*7
o.on
0.03
0.01
0.00
0,00
0,09
SB
0.*7
0.00
0.20
1.9*
0,00
2.62
V9
0.83
0.00
0.09
3.00
0,00
*.01
100
1.3?
0.00
0.2*
1.28
0,00
5,85
101
i,7i
0.00
0.29
*.55
0.00
6,56
1U2
2,21
0.00
0.38
3.36
0,00
5.96
103
•~.on
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
*,01
10*
i.oo
0.00
0.02
0,00
0.00
1,02
1U5
3, 99
0.00
0.03
0.00
0,00
*,03
106
3, 91
o.oo
0,10
0.02
0.00
1,01
107
3.7ft
0.00
0.21
0.05
0.00
*.02
1UB
3.63
0.00
0.21
0.07
0.00
3,95
DO t«S/L)
saturation
LEVEL
DD
7,63
7,09
7,93
7.16
7.91
7,10
7.91
7,08
7.92
7,0*
7,9*
7,08
7.9*
7.32
7,92
7,01
7.9*
7,06
7.95
7.1*
7.95
7.17
7.96
7.23
7.96
7,28
7,96
7.31
6.09
7,82
8.12
7.51
8.12
7.65
8*13
7.A9
8.11
7.79
8.13
7.85
8.10
7.95
8.22
8.16
8.20
8.03
8.20
8,10
8.10
8.00
8.71
6,09
8,71
*,70
8,71
2,86
8.71
2,15
0.71
2,75
8.25
1.2*
8,25
1,22
8,*0
*.36
8,*0
*,35
a,io
*.37
8,55
*,60
PA&E
90TH
PERCENTILE
DO
DO STANDARD
6,3*
6.02
6, *0
6,06
6.32
6.07
6.28
6.05
6.25
6.06
6.29
6.07
6,61
6. 0 7
6.21
6.06
6.27
6.07
6.37
6,07
6.10
6,07
6. *8
6,08
6.55
6.1)8
6,58
6.08
7.23
6,1*
6,80
6.16
6.99
6,16
7,30
6,16
7,16
6.17
7,21
6,16
7.39
6.1*
7,6*
6,?0
7,*7
6.19
7,56
6.19
7.1b
6.1*
*,73
6. **
2.90
6.i»*
0.17
6.41
0.00
6.t»1
0.33
6.41
2.**
6.22
2.*2
6,22
2.56
6,29
2.55
6.29
2.57
6.29
2.82
6. 36
C-159
-------
nrssoLk/fD
NO PROJECT
DO DEFICIT COMPONENTS
SOUTH BftV
OTHER
bottom
SWA*P
SL'iMC-( t
0ISCHAPPC3S
DISCHARGERS
demand
LOADS
109
3,56
0,00
0.28
0,10
110
5,50
0,00
0.30
0.15
111
3, ft*
0,00
0.33
0.51
112
3 . t 9
0.00
0.34
0.60
115
0,7*
o.oo
0.03
1.48
114
0,86
o.oo
0,64
1.16
115
0,96
0.00
0.48
1.02
116
1.06
0.00
0.43
0.98
117
1.19
o.oo
0.40
0.94
118
0,0*
0.00
0.05
7.88
119
0,16
0.00
0.24
4.99
120
Q.J«
0.00
0.38
1.94
1^1
0.«M
P.00
0.96
0.64
li?
2.55
0 • DO
1.40
0.66
125
1.67
0.00
0.97
0,50
l.OA
0.00
0.56
0.43
ms
0.5?
0.00
0,44
0,40
126
0.00
0.00
0.02
5,28
1*7
0.02
0.00
0.26
1,63
l?fi
0.06
0.02
0.41
1.57
129
0,00
0.00
0.00
6.59
1 50
o,no
0.00
0.01
6,64
151
0,01
0.00
0.05
6,08
1 3?
0.03
0.01
0.32
4.84
153
0.07
0.03
0.59
2,20
134
0.10
0.05
0.50
1.29
135
i.sn
0,04
0,32
0,59
136
i.i*
0*05
0.36
0.61
IS7
0,*4
0.07
0,37
0.60
158
0.57
0.09
0.37
0,60
159
0.35
0 ,IQ
0.37
0,58
0 .0*»
0.0?
0.40
0.72
1*1
0.11
0,03
0,37
0,53
C-160
TABLE 5
PA OZ 4
oxygen calculated
>95
CAVNIVG SEASON
./L)
DO
< W6/L >
URBAN
total
saturation
90TH
PERCENTILE
RJ^OFF
deficit
level
DO
00
DO STAMPS
0,00
3,95
8,55
4, 60
2.82
6. 36
0,00
3.96
8,55
4.38
2.80
6,3&
o.oo
4,09
8.68
4,59
2.76
6,42
0.00
4.13
B.62
4,49
2.65
6.39
0.00
5.10
8.33
5.23
3.72
6. 26
0*00
2.70
8,33
5.63
4.26
6,26
0.00
2.47
8. 33
5.56
4 ,56
6. 26
0.00
2.49
8.33
5. 94
4.52
6,26
o.oa
2,53
8,33
5,79
4,47
6,26
o.oo
8,02
7.93
0 . 09
0,00
6.06
0,00
5.41
7.93
2,51
0.26
6.06
0.00
2.68
7.93
5.25
3,89
6.06
0.00
?, 52
8.73
6.21
4.89
6, 45
0,00
4.61
8.73
4.12
2.13
6,^5
0,00
3,15
8,51
5.35
3,83
6, 34
0.00
2.08
8.19
6.11
4.93
6,19
o,ao
1,38
7,95
6.57
5,62
6 , 0 7
0,00
5.32
7.65
2.33
0.12
5,93
0.00
1.93
7.65
5.7?
4,59
5,33
0.00
2.07
7.65
5.58
4.40
5, 93
0.00
6,60
7.65
1.04
0,00
5,93
o.oo
6,66
7.65
0,98
0,00
5.93
0,00
6,15
7,65
1,49
0.00
5.93
0.00
5.21
7.65
2.43
0.25
5.93
0.00
2,91
7,65
4.73
3.29
5.93
0,00
1.97
7.65
5.67
4.53
5,93
0,00
2,46
7,87
5,40
4,10
6,04
0.00
2,22
7,80
5.57
4,34
6, 00
0,00
1,90
7,73
5,83
4.70
5,97
0.00
1,64
7.69
6,04
5,00
5,95
0,00
1,42
7,66
6,23
5.26
5, 94
0.00
1.23
7.67
6.43
5,52
5. 94
0,00
1.05
7,67
6.61
5,76
5,94
-------
TABLE 6
3
<4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
1?
15
1<*
15
16
17
IS
19
2U
«?1
i"?
i>«4
total
saturation
DEFICIT
level
03
3,50
10.ZH
6,73
2,99
10.09
7,09
2,27
9, 91
7.6H
1,87
9,7ft
7.90
1.59
9,62
8,03
1.37
9,H9
8,11
1.17
9,38
8,20
1,11
9,33
8,21
1.0*
9,HH
9.39
l.OH
9,¥5
B.HI
l.Oi
9,HO
8,36
1.02
9.39
8,37
1.01
9.3H
8.32
l.ol
9,35
a,33
0,97
9,36
8.38
1.05
9,33
e.20
1.0*
9.34
8.29
0,99
9,3H
8,35
1.06
9,33
9.2H
1.08
9,33
8.25
0,99
9,3H
8,35
1.12
9,32
6,20
1.17
9.31
ft.lH
1,07
9.32
S.25
1.2H
9.29
8. 0*#
1,26
9,29
8,02
1,25
9.31
8.06
1,30
9,27
7,97
1,33
9,H6
8.13
1.3H
9,^1
8.07
1,33
9.H2
8,08
1.26
9.38
8.11
1,28
9,38
8.10
1,31
9,58
a.ob
1 ,29
9,37
8,07
1.36
9.36
8.00
PAG £
90TH
PERCENTILE
03
DO STAWJA^D
5,10
7,16
5.62
7.09
6,HO
7.01
€>.79
6.9H
7.01
6. B7
7.16
6.80
7.32
6,75
7,35
6. 73
7,55
6,78
7,56
6,78
7,52
6,76
7.53
6,76
7,H9
6,73
7,H9
6 , 7H
7.55
6. 7H
7,<*3
6.73
7.HH
6,73
7,52
6,73
7,39
6,73
7.39
6,73
7,52
6,73
7,33
6,73
7.25
6,72
7,HO
6, 73
7.13
6,71
7,11
6,71
7.1H
6,72
7.OH
6, 70
7,19
6,79
7,13
6,77
7,1H
6,77
7,20
6.75
7.17
6.75
7.15
6,75
7 »1H
6,75
7,05
6. 7*
C-161
-------
TABLE 6
dissolved
OXTGEV 1
rflLCULATTD
NO
project
1995
WET SEASON
00 OEFICIT
COMPONENTS
(VG/L)
SOUTH 3/\Y
OTHER
BOTTOM
SWftWP
jRban
total
5>t,SM£W 1
DISCHARGERS
DISCUSSERS
DEMAND
loads
RJNOFF
DEFICIT
57
0,07
0,26
0.58
0.27
0.04
1.24
30
0.07
0.3?
0.57
0.29
0.04
1.31
59
0.03
0 . 36
0.57
0.21
0,03
1.21
40
0.04
0.31
0 .58
0.40
0,05
1.39
41
0.06
0.24
0.59
0.20
0.04
1.23
'4?
0 , 06
0.3?
0 .59
0.27
0.04
1.31
>~3
0.0?
0.36
0 . SB
0.16
0.03
1.16
44
o.o?
0.29
0 .57
0.33
0,04
1.27
4b
0.04
0.26
0 .59
0,24
0.03
1.18
>+6
0. Of
0.33
0.60
0.21
0.03
1.23
*7
0,01
0.34
0.57
0,12
0.02
1.09
40
0.01
0.25
0.57
0.21
0.03
1.10
49
0 , 04
0.24
0,50
0,23
0.03
1.13
5(]
0.03
0.3?
0.61
0.19
0,03
1.20
51
0.01
0.31
0.57
0,11
0.02
1.04
52
0,01
0.26
0 .58
0,14
0.03
1.0 '•
•33
0.03
0.22
0,50
0,22
0.03
1.10
5f
0.03
0.29
0,61
0 ,20
0.03
1.17
¦55
0.01
0.29
0.57
0,10
0.02
0, 99
56
0.00
0.25
0.59
0 ,10
0.03
1.00
57
0.03
0.24
0,66
0 .20
0.03
1.18
1) 0
0.04
0.33
0.77
0.25
0.0?
1.43
59
o.no
0.24
0,55
0,00
0.01
0.92
*>0
O.no
0.20
0.59
0,06
0 .02
0.90
b 1
0.0?
o.ie
0.60
0,16
0.02
1.00
62
0.01
0.1?
0.30
0.10
0.01
0.64
b 3
O.OO
0.23
0.55
0.08
0.01
0.89
64
0.00
0.19
0.66
0.04
0,01
0.92
^5
0,01
0.15
0.58
0,14
0.02
0.93
66
O./u
0.13
0, 51
0.11
0.01
0.79
6 7
0,00
0,26
0,53
0.06
0,01
0.89
aH
0.00
0.22
0.69
0.03
0,01
0.97
69
0.01
0.14
0.56
0.11
0,02
0.88
70
0.01
0.17
0.55
0,10
0,01
0.86
71
o.on
0.33
0.53
0.03
0.00
0.91
r?
o.on
0.31
0.64
0.01
0,00
0.98
C-162
»AGr 2
DO (MG/L)
SATURATION
level
DO
9.38
8.13
9.37
8.06
9.3 3
8.11
9.34
7.95
9.37
s.m
9.36
3.05
9.32
8,16
9.33
8,06
9.36
8.17
9. 34
8.11
9,31
8.2?
9,32
0,21
9.36
8.22
9.34
ft.13
9.31
fi.27
9.31
8.27
9.35
8,24
9.31
0.14
9,31
8.31
9.30
8.30
9.03
7.85
6.91
7,49
9.31
9.39
9. ?8
8.37
9.04
8.03
9, 80
9.15
9.32
ft.4?
9, ?3
8. 30
9,0ft
8. 14
9, 46
8,66
9 , ? 7
8, 38
9,?1
8,23
9.11
8,23
9.28
8,42
9. 16
9. 24
9.13
8.15
90TH
percentile
00
00 STANDARD
7.22
6.75
7,13
6, 75
7.21
6.73
6.99
6. 74
7.23
6.75
7.11
6.74
7,27
6.72
7.14
6. 73
7.28
6.74
7.20
6,73
7.36
6.72
7,34
6. 72
7.34
6.74
7, ? 3
6.73
7.42
6. 72
7.43
6.72
7,38
6. 74
7.25
6.72
7.48
6.72
7.47
6.72
6,96
6.59
6.50
6.53
7.58
6.72
7.57
6. 71
7.20
6.59
8.44
6. 95
7,62
6.72
7.50
6.68
7,33
6.61
7,89
6.79
7.58
6.70
7,40
6.67
7.«»3
6.63
7.63
6.71
7.43
6.6*
7.32
6.S4
-------
TABLE 6
TISSOLVED OXYGEN
NO PROJECT - 1995
no DEFICIT COMPONENTS MG/L>
SOilTH RAY
OTHE-*
30T TCH
Swa«P
J^BAN
iL 1
01 ST HAO jTRS
OISCMftRSC^S
demand
LOADS
RUNOFF
15
0,00
0.15
0.50
0,08
0,01
o.oo
0.29
0.51
0,05
0.01
/5
0.00
n.4o
0 .49
o.ni
O.OO
7k
o.on
0.36
0.50
0.03
0.01
n
o.oo
o.4s
0.45
0.02
0.00
rn
o.^n
n. si
0.37
0.01
o.oo
79
0.00
0.23
0.45
0,00
o.oo
MC
0.00
n. 44
0.48
0.02
0,00
HI
0.00
0,50
0,38
0.01
0.00
*2
0,00
0. 53
0.28
0.01
o.oo
83
o .no
0.51
0.27
0.01
0.00
My
o.nn
0.50
0.22
0.00
0.00
»•>
O.no
0.43
0.19
0.00
0,00
Hfc
O.nn
0.4*
0.1ft
0.00
0.00
b 7
0.00
0.2®>
0.02
0.00
0.00
3H
n.on
0.4?
0.13
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.35
0,11
0.00
0,00
^0
0.00
0.2?
0.02
0,00
0,00
*1
o.no
0,27
0,07
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.21
0.05
0.00
0,00
•#3
o .no
0.1?
0.02
o.oo
0,00
St*
0.00
0,04
0.01
0.00
o.oo
*5
0 .on
P.12
0.02
0,00
0.00
ye
0, 0 0
o.oe
0.01
0.00
o.oo
97
O.fto
0.09
0.01
0.00
0,00
9H
o.no
O.OP
0.06
0.00
0,50
99
0.06
n.oo
0.06
0.14
0.91
100
0.51
0.00
0,21
1,08
1.03
11)1
1.11
0,00
0.31
1,92
0,77
10?
i.in
0.00
0,44
1.79
0,42
1 •> 3
*.n
0,00
0.00
n .oo
0,00
1UH
•~.15
0.00
0,02
0,00
0,00
IU">
U.I?
0.00
0.03
0.00
0,00
\ Ofe
^ . 0 »
0 . 00
0.1?
0.01
0.01
I J 7
3.M
0.00
0.25
0.03
0.03
10H
3.c«^
0.00
0. 29
0.04
0.04
OAS: 3
ALCULATED
WET SEASON
DO (MG/L)
TOTAL
SATURATION
9QTH
PERCENTILE
DEFICIT
level
DO
00
do standard
0.84
9.12
8.27
7.19
6.63
0.B7
9.13
8.26
7.46
6.63
0.92
9.11
8.18
7.37
6.62
0,91
9.09
8.17
7.36
6.61
0. 91
9.08
8*13
7,32
6.61
0.91
9,06
8.15
7,35
6.60
0.69
9.06
8,36
7,63
6.60
0.97
9,08
8.10
7.28
6.61
0.91
9.07
8.15
7,35
6.60
0.83
9.06
8.22
7.44
6.6 0
o.eu
9.06
8.25
7.48
6.60
0.71
9.05
8.31
7.56
6.60
0.69
9.06
8.36
7.63
6, SO
0.66
9.05
6.39
7.66
6,60
0.29
9.27
8,99
6,39
6,70
0.61
9,27
8,66
7,95
6. 70
0,47
9,25
8,77
e, li
6,69
0.25
9, ?8
9.02
8.43
6. 70
0.34
9,27
8.92
8.30
6.70
0.28
9, 24
8.96
a.35
6.69
0.15
9, 17
9.01
8.45
6.65
0.05
9,07
9.02
8. 49
6.61
0,15
9,35
9.20
8.64
6.74
0.09
9. 34
9.24
8.69
6.73
0.11
9,17
9,06
8,51
6,65
0,57
10,36
9.79
9,09
7.22
1.18
10,36
9.17
8.26
7.22
2,86
10,32
7,46
6,03
7,20
4.12
10.29
6,16
4.33
7,19
4.46
10,26
5,80
3.85
7.17
4.14
9,08
4,93
3.09
6.61
4.16
9.27
5,10
3.26
6.70
4,16
9,47
5,30
3.45
6. 79
4.IB
9.68
5.49
3.64
6.B9
4.13
9.90
5.76
3.93
7.00
4.04
9.90
*>.95
4.04
7.00
C-163
-------
TABLE 6
PAGE
dissolved
oxygen (
:alculated
NO
project
1995
WET SEASON
03 DEFICIT
COMPONENTS
<¥G/L>
DO
(MG/L)
SOUTH 9AT
OTHER
3DTT0M
StfA*P
urban
total
saturation
90TH
PERCENTILE
5>LCj«EnI
DISCHARGERS
DISCHARGERS
DEMAND
loads
RJNOFF
DEFICIT
level
00
00
00 standard
109
3.57
0.00
0.33
0.07
0.06
4.04
10.12
6.00
4.27
7.11
no
3.4*
0.00
0.36
0.11
0.08
4.04
10.12
6.00
4.27
7.10
111
3.29
0.00
0.35
0.22
0.10
4.02
10.10
6.07
4.27
7.10
11?
2.R?
0.00
0.*0
0.41
0.13
3.87
10.06
6.19
4,44
7.00
113
0.49
0.00
0.75
0.59
0.39
2.2*
10.00
7.34
6,61
7.08
114
0.71
0.00
0.70
0.63
0.30
2.35
9.99
7.63
6,36
7.0*
115
0.**
0.00
0.56
0.61
0.21
2.2-
9.95
7.69
6,46
7.02
116
0.9*
0.00
0.51
0,61
0.17
2.27
9.93
7.66
6. *2
7.01
117
1.07
0.00
0.*7
0.59
0.1*
2.20
9.92
7.63
6,39
7.01
113
0.07
0.00
0.05
6.36
0.75
7.76
9.66
2.10
0.00
6.90
119
0.17
0.00
0.20
2,05
0.27
3.59
9.63
6.04
*,30
6.87
120
0 » ?4
0.00
0.45
1.18
0.11
2.10
9,53
7.43
6.24
6.92
121
0.39
0.00
1.02
0.26
0.01
2.49
10.34
7.04
6.53
7.21
1 22
2.06
0.00
1.64
0.39
0.30
4.41
10.30
5.09
3,96
7.19
123
1,45
0,00
1.17
0.35
0.22
3.20
10.1*
6.94
5,40
7.11
124
1 .01
0.00
0.66
0.32
0.1*
2.16
9.63
7.64
6,43
6.96
125
0,5?
0.01
0.53
0.30
0.07
1.45
9.5*
0.09
7.12
6.93
126
0.00
0.00
0.02
2.46
0.67
3.17
9.00
6.63
5.11
6. 95
127
0,03
0.01
0.30
1,06
0.16
1.60
9,27
7.67
6.64
6,70
1 2 B
0,0*
0.03
0.48
0.97
0,05
1.62
9.16
7.53
6,50
6.65
129
0.00
o.oo
0,00
1.23
0.84
2.06
10.20
0.20
7.02
7.10
150
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.36
0.70
5.09
9,90
4.01
2.67
7.00
131
0.01
0.00
0.06
5.04
0.35
6.26
9.56
3.2a
0,76
6.04
14?
0.04
0.01
0.37
2.76
0.12
3.31
9.27
5.95
4,36
6.70
133
o.cs
0.05
0.67
1.24
0.05
2.12
9.16
7.0*
5,85
6.65
134
0,1?
0.07
0.58
0.75
0.0*
1.59
9.13
7.54
6,52
6.64
135
1.*!
0.05
0.37
0.35
0.10
2.30
9.39
7.09
5.04
6.76
2 36
2.33
0,0k
0.*2
0.37
0.09
2.09
9.30
7.20
6.02
6.72
137
O.M
0.09
0,44
0.30
0.00
1.01
9.22
7,41
6.31
6.60
138
0.*«.
0.10
0,44
0.39
0.06
1.57
9.17
7,59
6. 57
6.65
139
0. ?6
0.1?
0.43
0.36
0.05
1.37
9.13
7.75
6.00
6.63
140
o.n^
0.03
0.45
0.41
0.12
1.12
9.23
0.10
7.23
6.60
141
0.13
0.05
0.*3
0.34
0.06
1.03
9.17
8.14
7.30
6.65
0-164
-------
TAB LE 7
DISSOLVED DXYGEM CALCULATED
upgrade san jose - 1935 - o"v season
DO DEFICIT COMPONENTS (HG/Li
M. 1
SOllT-f BAY
OT-*E*
BOTTOM
SWAMP
j«ban
TOTAL
DISrHAPRTRS
DISCHARGERS
demand
LOADS
rjvoff
DEFICIT
I
1.30
0,00
0.33
0,90
0,00
2.54
2
0.«9
0,00
0.33
0,93
0,00
2.16
3
0.5?
0,00
0.33
0,62
0,00
1 .66
4
0.35
0,00
0,32
0.73
0,00
1.42
*r
o.?'<
<7,00
0,32
0, 70
0,00
1.27
b
0.16
0,00
0.33
0,68
0,00
1.1s
7
o.u
0.01
0.32
0,55
0,00
1.01
8
0.10
0,01
0.33
0.52
0,00
0.98
o,n»
0.03
0.32
0.50
0,00
0,95
10
o.n*
0,03
0.32
0.49
0,00
0.94
11
0.0ft
0.04
0.32
0,50
0,00
0.96
12
o.op
0,04
0.32
0.50
0,00
0.96
13
o.o«
0,06
0,33
0.51
0,00
0.98
1 4
0,0#
0,05
0,33
0.50
0,00
0.97
lf>
0,0»
0.05
0,32
0,46
0,00
0.92
lb
0,09
0.06
0.33
0.54
0,00
1.0*
17
0,09
0,07
0. 33
0.52
0,00
1.01
lfi
0,09
0.0*
0,31
0.4?
0,00
0.94
IS
0,09
0,07
0,33
0.56
0,00
1.07
«?c>
0,10
0.09
0,33
0.54
0,00
1.05
0,n9
0.06
0,31
0.47
0,00
0.95
I?
0,1 n
o.o<*
0.34
0.60
0,00
1.13
i>3
0.11
0.11
0.35
0.57
0,00
1.16
£ 4
0,11
0.08
0,32
0.51
0,00
1.0*
4
0.31
0.48
0.44
0,00
1.29
3ft
O.rts
0.26
0.49
0.64
0,00
1.43
5AGt 1
DO
(MG/L)
fURATION
90TH
PERCENTILE
LEVEL
DO
DO
00 standard
8.71
6,17
¦~,84
6.44
8.53
6,37
5,16
6.35
8.33
6,65
5.60
6.26
6.20
6,77
5.80
6.19
8.05
6.77
5,05
6.12
7.93
6,74
5,85
6.06
7.84
6,82
5,98
6.02
7.80
6,82
6.00
6.00
7,86
6,90
6,08
6 , g 3
7,87
6,92
6,10
6.03
7.83
6,86
6.04
6,02
7.63
6,37
6,05
6.02
7.79
6,80
5.97
6.00
7.79
6,92
5.99
6,00
7.80
6,87
6,07
6,00
7.7B
6,74
5,90
5.99
7.79
6,77
5.93
6,00
7.79
6,94
6,03
6.00
7.78
6.71
5,85
5.99
7.78
6.72
5,87
5.99
7.79
6,84
6,02
6.00
7.78
6.65
5,77
5.99
7.77
6.61
5,72
5.99
7.78
6.74
5.69
5.99
7.76
6.51
5.59
5.98
7.76
6,49
5.57
5.98
7.77
6.52
5,61
5.99
7.75
6,44
5,51
5.98
7.66
6.52
5,58
6.03
7.83
6.49
5.55
6. 02
7.84
6.50
5.56
6.02
7.62
6.52
5.59
6.01
7 . fll
6.54
5.63
6.01
7.81
6.50
5,57
6.01
7,80
6,51
5,58
6.00
7.6G
6. 36
5,39
6.00
C-165
-------
TABLE 7
DISSOLVED 3*VGC< CALCULATED
JPGRADE SAN JOSE - 1995 - 0«Y SEASON
00 DEFICIT COMPONENTS l*S/L)
SOUTH BAY
0THE9
BOTTOM
SWftMP
J*BAM
total
itjmEN1
dischargers
OISCHARSfqS
DEyiVND
LOftOS
RJNOPp
DEFICIT
57
o,o«»
0.24
0, 50
0,1*1
0,00
1.21
58
0,0«4
0.30
0,50
0,44
0,00
1.30
59
0,01
0 . 34
0.50
0,32
0,00
1.1*5
•~0
0,0?
0,23
0,50
0.67
0,00
1. 49
*1
0.O3
0.22
0.51
0,45
0.00
1.23
+ 2
0.04
ft, 31
0.52
0.43
0.00
1.30
4 $
0,01
n.34
0,50
0.25
0,00
1,12
n.oi
0.26
0,49
0.56
D.OO
1,33
^ b
0,02
0.24
0.51
0.37
0,00
1,16
16
Q .02
0,31
0.52
0,32
0,00
l.l»
<« r
0 ,00
0,32
0,50
0.19
0.00
1,03
4a
0,00
0.24
o,48
0,35
0,00
1.09
49
0,0?
0,21
0.50
0.36
0,00
1,11
DO
0 .02
0.30
0,53
0 .30
0,00
1,16
t>l
0.00
0,2^
0,50
0,16
0,00
0,96
52
0. 00
0.23
0.49
0,22
0,0 0
0. 96
S3
0,02
0,19
0.50
0.36
0,00
1.0B
0,01
0,25
0.53
0,32
0.00
1,13
0.00
0.26
0,49
0,14
0,00
0.91
bfe
o.oo
0.22
0.51
0.15
0.00
0,89
57
0.01
0.20
n,5&
0.31
0.00
1,09
be
0.02
0.29
0.66
0.39
0.00
1.37
-^9
o.oo
n.20
0,49
0,11
0,00
0.81
•>P
o.nn
0.17
0.51
0.09
0,00
0.70
S1
0,01
o.i1*
0.50
0, 24
0.00
0.9U
6>2
0.00
0.10
0.33
0.15
o.oo
0.59
a 5
0,00
0.19
0 .4B
O.U
0.00
0.79
64
0,00
0.15
0.5?
0.05
0.00
0.79
bS
o.no
0.12
0.49
0.19
0,00
0.82
bfi
0.00
0,10
0 .<~<~
o.is
0,00
0.71
b7
0.00
0.22
0.47
0,09
0.00
0.79
o.nn
9,61
0,04
0.00
0.84
b9
0,00
o.io
0.50
0.15
0,00
0,77
/o
0,00
0.13
0,49
0.13
0.00
0.76
71
o.nn
0.30
0,4?
0,03
c.oo
0.81
1?
0.01
0.27
0.5S
0,0?
0.00
0 .87
C-166
PAG" 2
DO
(*G/L}
rURATION
90 T H
PERCENTILE
Leva
00
DO
DO STAN3AR
7.81
6,59
5.69
6.01
7.81
6,50
5.57
6,01
7.78
6.58
5,69
5.99
7,79
6,30
5, 31
6.00
7.80
6.57
5.67
6.00
7,60
6.49
5,57
6.00
7,78
6.65
5, 78
5.99
7,78
6. 45
5,51
5.99
7.80
6, 64
5,75
6.00
7.79
6.59
5,59
6.00
7,77
6,74
5.90
5,99
7 .78
6, &9
5,82
5.99
7,79
6. &0
5,81
6,00
7.78
6,61
5.73
3.99
7,77
6,61
5,99
5.99
7. 77
6, 91
5.99
5.99
7.78
6.70
5.84
5, 99
7,75
6,62
5.7*
5,98
7.77
6, 86
6.06
5, 99
7.77
6.57
6.07
5.99
7. 48
6. 38
5.52
5.55
7.38
6.00
5,05
5,60
7.78
6.96
6,18
5,99
7.75
6.97
6.21
5.98
7,49
6.56
5,78
5.96
a.18
7.59
6,69
6.18
7.7ft
6.99
6.22
5.99
7.72
6,93
6,16
5. 96
7.52
6.7Q
5,92
5,ft7
7, 87
7.15
fc.m
6,05
7,76
6.9b
6,20
5, 9ft
7.71
b.Sb
6.07
5. ?6
7.82
7.05
6,29
6,01
6.00
7.3^
6.48
6,10
7. 96
7.1*
ft. 37
6.0®
7.94
7.06
6.27
6.0?
-------
TABLE 7
DISSOLVED 0XT6EN
JCGRADE SUM JOSE - 1985
no oeticit components (*g/l)
SOUTh c^AY
OT-iER
BOTTOM
M S + Z'i 1
dischargers
discharges
DEMAND
LOADS
rjsjpff
f3
0,00
0.1?
0.51
0.09
o.oo
f4
O.flC
n.zs
0.45
0.05
0.00
t*>
o.oo
0.3?
0.44
0.01
0.00
lb
o.on
0. 35
0.45
0,03
o.oo
T 7
o.oo
0,44
0.4a
fl.02
0.00
o.oo
0.50
0.34
0.01
0,00
ri
0.00
0.21
0.40
0.00
0.00
540
o.oo
0.44
0.44
0.02
0.00
HI
o.on
0.51
0.34
0.01
0.00
*\y
o .no
0.54
0.25
0.01
0.00
S3
o.on
0.5?
0.24
0,01
o.oo
Mt*
o.on
0.52
0.20
0.00
o.oo
15
O.flO
0.50
0.16
0,00
0.00
16
0,nr>
0.4*
0.16
0,00
0.00
H7
o.no
n. 24
0.02
0,00
o.oo
H B
0.00
0. 4*
0.22
0.00
o.oo
*9
0.00
0.36
0.10
0.00
0.00
o.on
0.21
0,05
Q ,00
0,00
0.00
0.2*
0.06
0,00
o.oo
o.on
0,??
0.05
0.00
0.00
-J 5
o.oo
0.1?
0.02
o.oo
0.00
*4
o.on
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.on
0,14
0.02
0.00
o.oo
16
0.00
0,0«
0.01
0.00
0.00
17
0.00
0,0ft
0.01
0.00
0.00
•*H
0.?ft
a, co
0.20
1,94
o.oo
<*9
0.3*
0.00
0.09
3.08
0,00
lUO
0.«7
0,00
0.24
4.28
0.00
1 Ul
0,7*
0,00
0.29
4,55
0,00
I u?
i.flo
0,00
0,38
3,36
0,00
I'i f>
0.00
0.00
o.no
0.00
1 u»*
4,14
n.oo
0*02
0.00
0.00
l un
'<.11
0. 00
0.0 3
0,00
o.oo
1 ')b
3.««
O.OG
0.10
3.02
0.00
l>\7
3.M
0,00
0.21
0.05
0,00
\ 'Jw
3. U
o. 03
o.?4
o.n?
0.00
PAGr J
ALCULflTEO
3RT SEASON
DO <*S/L>
total
saturation
90TH
percentile
DEFICIT
levcl
03
00
DO STANDS
0.?4
7.83
7.09
6.35
6.02
0.77
7.93
7.26
6. ¥0
6. ^6
0.84
7.94
7.10
6.32
6.07
0.04
7.91
7.06
6,28
6.05
0.67
7.92
7.04
6.25
6.06
0.66
7,9«*
7.08
6.29
6.07
0.62
7,94
7.32
6,61
6.0?
0.91
7,92
7.01
6.21
6.96
0.87
7,94
7.06
6*27
6.07
0.81
7.95
7.14
6.37
6,0?
0.78
7.95
7.17
6.«U
6.07
0.73
7,96
7.23
6.48
6.00
0.68
7,96
7,2fl
6.55
6.08
0.65
7.96
7.31
6,59
6.06
0.26
8.09
7,82
7.23
6,14
0.61
8.12
7.51
6.00
6.16
0.46
8,12
7.65
6,99
6.16
0.23
8.13
7.59
7.30
6.16
0.35
8.14
7.79
7.16
6,1?
0.28
8.13
7.85
7.24
6.16
0.14
8.10
7,95
7.39
6.14
0.05
8,?2
8.16
7.64
6,?0
0.17
8.?0
8.03
7.47
6,19
0.10
8.20
8.10
7.56
6,19
0.09
8,10
8,00
7,46
6,14
2.35
8.71
6. 36
5.10
6.44
3.54
&.71
5.17
3.53
6,44
5.10
8,71
3.61
1,46
6.44
5,60
8.71
3.11
O.ftO
6.44
4,76
8.71
3.95
1.92
6.44
4.17
8,25
4.08
2.23
6.22
4.17
8, ?5
4.00
2,2 4
6.22
4.15
8,10
4.24
2.40
6.29
4.01
8,uO
4. 39
6. ?9
3.78
8.40
4.62
2.69
6.29
3.49
0.5S
5.06
3.43
6.36
C-167
-------
109
110
111
11?
115
114
lib
116
117
11 B
119
120
1*1
IV?
123
12<*
125
12&
127
1*6
1*9
150
131
132
133
154
135
156
1 57
1 3H
159
mo
mi
TABLE 7
SOUTH RAY OTHER
DISCHARGERS DISCHARSFRS
dissolved
JP5RADC SAN JOSE:
00 DEFICIT COMPONENTS
BOTTOM
demand
SWftMP
LOADS
OXYGEN
1985
(MG/L)
urban
RJNOFP
calculated
DRY SEASON
total
DEFICIT
saturation
LEVEL
2.91
0.00
0.28
0.10
0.00
3.30
8.55
2.66
o.oo
0,30
0.15
o.oo
3,13
8.55
2.32
0.00
0.33
0,31
0,00
2.97
8.68
1 . «3
0.00
0,3<*
0.60
0,00
2,78
8.62
0.28
o.oo
0.83
1,48
o.oo
2,60
8.33
0. M
0.00
0,64
1,18
0,00
2,14
8.33
0.35
0.00
0,48
1.02
o.oo
1,86
8.33
0.39
0.00
0.43
0,98
0,00
1,82
8,33
0,44
o.oo
0,40
0.94
0.00
1,78
8,33
0.02
o.oo
0.05
7,88
0,00
7,96
7,93
0,05
o.oo
0,24
4,99
0,00
5,30
7,93
0.11
o.oo
0,38
1,94
0,00
2.44
7,93
0.59
o.oo
0.96
0,64
0,00
2,20
8,73
1.67
0.00
1.40
0,66
0,00
3,73
8.73
0.89
o.oo
0.97
0.50
0,00
2,37
8.51
0.47
o.oo
0,56
0,43
o.oo
l.*»7
8,19
0.20
0.00
0.44
0.40
0.00
1,06
7,95
0.00
0,00
0.02
5,28
o.oo
5.31
7.65
0,01
o.oo
0.26
1.63
0,00
1.92
7,65
0. 0<*
0.02
0.41
1,57
o.oo
?. 05
7,65
0.00
0.00
0.00
6,59
0.00
6.60
7.65
o.no
0.00
0.01
6,6<*
0.00
6.66
7,65
o.nn
o.oo
0,05
6,08
o.oo
6.15
7,65
0.0?
0.01
0.32
4,84
0.00
5.20
7,65
o.ns
0.03
0.59
2.20
0.00
2.88
7,65
0.07
0.05
0.50
1.29
o.oo
1.94
7,65
1.45
0.0c*
0.32
0,59
0.00
2.42
7.B7
1,15
0.05
0,36
0,61
0.00
2.10
7,80
O.flO
0,07
0,37
0,60
o.oo
1.86
7,73
0.^3
0.09
0,37
0,60
0.00
1.60
7,69
0,31
0.10
0.37
0,58
0,00
1.38
7,66
0,0*
0.0?
0.40
0,72
0,00
1.20
7,67
0.06
0.03
0.37
0,53
o.oo
1.01
7.67
DO (MG/U
90TH PERCENTILE
~0 DO DO STAND&RO
5.25
5,41
5.71
5.B4
5.73
6,19
6,47
6.51
6.55
-0.03
2.62
5,46
6.53
<4.99
6.13
6.71
6. 89
2.34
5.73
5.60
1.01
0. 90
1.49
2.44
4,7&
5. 70
5.45
5.62
5.87
6.09
6.27
-.46
*: .65
3.68
3,90
<~,25
4,44
4,38
4,99
5.37
5,1*2
5,i*6
O.OO
0,41
*.18
5.31
3,29
<*.86
5.73
6,0**
0,12
<~.61
<*,43
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,27
3.32
4, 57
*.16
4, 40
<~.76
5.06
5.32
5.56
5,82
6.36
6. 36
6,42
6.3^
6, ?6
6,26
6.?6
6.26
6,2&
6.06
&.0&
6.06
6.1*5
6. t*5
6.3"
6.19
6.07
5.93
5.93
5.93
5. 93
5.93
5.93
5.93
5.93
5.93
6.04
6. 00
5.97
5.95
5.94
5.9"*
5,91
-------
TABLE 8
DISSOLVED OXrGETV
JPSRADE SAN JOSE - 1905
DO DEFICIT COVPOMENTS (MG/L)
SOUTH SAY
OTHER
30TT0^
SWA^P
jrbam
1
DISCHARGERS
DISCHARGERS
DEMAND
LOftOS
RUNOFF
1
1*36
0.00
0.33
0.90
0.00
?
0.94
0.00
0.33
0.93
0.00
3
0.56
0,00
0.33
0,82
0.00
4
0,39
0.00
0.32
0.73
0.00
5
0.?7
0.00
0.32
0.70
0.00
6
0,1*
o.oo
0,33
0,68
0.00
0.13
0.01
0,32
0,55
0.00
»
0.1?
0.01
0,33
0.52
0.00
9
0.10
0.03
0.52
0,50
0.00
in
o.in
0.03
0,32
0,49
0.00
n
0,09
0*04
0,32
0,50
0,00
12
0,09
0.04
0,32
0,50
0.00
13
O.np
0.06
0,33
0.51
0.00
1*
0.09
0.05
0,33
0,50
0.00
IS
0.0P
0.05
0.32
0,46
0.00
16
0,09
0.06
0,33
0,54
0.00
17
0,09
0.07
0.33
0,52
0.00
ia
0.09
0.06
0.31
0,47
0.00
19
o.in
0,07
0,33
0.56
0,00
i? 0
0.10
0.09
0,33
0.54
0,00
-------
TABLE 8
oflG" ?
DISSOLVED OXYGEN CALCULATED
UPGRADE SAN JOSE
1985
CANNING SEASON
do deficit
COMPONENTS
(MG/L)
00
(MG/L)
SOllTH RAY
OT H£3
30TT0M
SWftWP
TOTAL
SATURATION
9QTH
°ercentil-:
bt l
discharger*
DTSCHARGFRS
DEMAND
LOADS
RUNOFF
DEFICIT
level
DO
DD
DO STANDARD
57
0.0"
0.24
0,50
0.41
0,00
1.22
7.81
6,59
5.68
6.01
SB
0.05
0.30
0. 50
0.44
0.00
1.30
7,01
6.50
5.57
6,01
59
0.02
0.34
0,50
0,32
0,00
1.19
7,78
6.58
5.69
5, 99
40
0,0?
n. 29
0,50
0 . 67
0.00
1.49
7.79
6. 30
5. 30
6.00
41
o,o«
0.2?
0,51
0.45
0,00
1.23
7.P0
6,57
5.66
6,00
42
0.04
0.31
0,52
0.43
0.00
1.30
7,80
6,49
5.56
6,00
^ 5
o.ni
0.34
0,50
0.25
0.00
1.12
7,78
6,65
5, 78
5, 99
<+i4
0.01
0.26
0,49
0.56
0.00
1.33
7,78
6.45
5,51
5.99
45
0.0?
0.24
0,51
0.37
0.00
1.16
7,80
6,64
5,75
6.00
<+6
0,02
0.31
0,52
0.32
0,00
1.19
7,79
6,59
5.69
6,00
<47
o.no
0.3?
0.50
0.19
0,00
1,03
7,77
6,74
5.90
5,99
<+B
o.oo
0.24
0,48
0.35
0,00
1,09
7,78
6.69
5.82
5,99
0.0?
0.21
0 ,50
0.36
0,00
1.11
7.79
6.68
5,81
6,00
•30
o.o?
0,30
0.53
0.30
0.00
1.16
7,78
6.61
5,73
5.99
51
0.00
0.2*
0,50
0.16
0.00
0.96
7.77
6,81
5.99
5.99
b?
0,00
0.23
0,49
0.22
0.00
0.96
7.77
€>.81
5.99
5.99
b5
0,0?
0.19
0.50
0.36
0.00
1.08
7.78
6. 70
5.84
5. 99
S4
0.0?
0.25
0.53
0.32
0.00
1.13
7.75
6.62
5.74
5. 98
bb
0,00
0.26
0,49
0.14
0,00
0.91
7.77
6.86
6,06
5.99
"if.
o.nc
0.2?
0,51
0,15
0.00
0.69
7.77
6,87
6.07
5. 9a
b 7
0.01
0.20
0.56
0,31
0,00
1,10
7,48
6,3B
5.52
5.95
bb
o.o?
0.29
0.66
0.39
0.00
1.37
7,38
o.OO
5, 04
5. °0
59
0.00
0.20
0.48
0.11
0.00
0.81
7.78
6.96
6,18
5. ^9
&c
0.00
0.17
0,51
0.09
0.00
0.78
7,75
6.97
6.21
5.98
fel
0.01
0.14
0.50
0.24
0.00
0.90
7,49
6,50
5,78
5.86
6?
0,00
0.10
0,33
0.15
o.oo
0,59
8,18
7,59
6,89
6. IS
63
o.oo
0.19
0,48
0.11
o.oo
0.79
7,78
6. 99
6.22
5. 99
dM
0,00
0.15
0.57
0.05
0.00
0.79
7. 72
6.92
6.16
5, 96
65
o.no
0.12
0,49
0.19
o.oo
0,82
7.52
6.70
5,92
5,87
S&
o ,00
0.10
0.44
0.15
o.oo
0,71
7.87
7.15
6,41
6,03
6 7
0 .00
0.22
0.47
0.09
0.00
0,79
7.76
6.9b
6,20
5. 98
68
o.no
0.18
0.61
0.04
0.00
0,84
7,71
6.96
6,07
5,96
69
o.on
0.10
0.50
0.15
0.00
0,77
7,82
7.05
6,29
6,01
70
0,00
0.13
0.49
0,13
o.oo
0.76
8.00
7,24
6,48
6.10
71
0.00
0.30
0.47
0.03
o.oo
0.B1
7.96
7.14
6,37
6, 08
1?
J . fl
n. 27
0 . 5 0
0,0?
0,00
0.67
7.94
7.06
6,2 7
6.37
C-170
-------
TABLE 8
DISSOLVED DXYGEM
JP3RADE SAN JOSE - 1905
D? DEFICIT COMPONENTS
SOUTH E}AT
0THE3
BOTTOM
SWA^P
u*bam
it
OTSrHflRGF^S
discharsf^s
DEmAMD
LOADS
RUMOFF
73
o .no
0.12
0,51
0.09
0,00
o.on
0,25
0.45
0,05
Q,00
rb
o.on
0.37
0.44
0,01
o.oo
ih
0,00
0.35
0,45
0,03
0.00
f 7
o.on
0.44
0,41
0,02
0,00
;h
o, no
0. 50
0,34
0,01
0,00
rn
o.on
0,21
0,40
0,00
0,00
90
0,00
0.44
0,4-4
0,02
0.00
bl
o.on
0,51
0,34
0,01
0,00
B2
o.on
0,54
0.25
0,01
0.00
yj
O.fiP
0,5?
0,24
0.01
0.00
34
0.00
0,5?
0,20
0,00
0.00
Si
0.00
0,50
0,16
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.4*
0.16
0,00
o.oo
a7
0,00
0.24
0.02
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.40
0,12
0,00
0*00
as
0.00
0.36
0,10
0.00
0.00
*0
0,00
0,21
0,02
0.00
0,00
41
0.00
0.2ft
0,06
0.00
0,00
42
0.00
0.22
0,05
0,00
0,00
45
0.00
0,12
0,02
0,00
0,00
4*
o.nn
0 • 04
0,00
0,00
0,00
45
0, OP
0. If
0,02
0,00
o#oo
46
o.on
O.OB
0,01
0,00
0,00
47
0.00
0.09
0,01
0,00
0.00
4fl
0.1«
0.00
0,20
1,94
0,00
49
0,33
0.00
0,09
3,OS
o.oo
100
0, 54
0.00
0,24
4,28
0.00
1U1
0.7?
0,00
0,29
4.55
0.00
102
0.9*
0.00
0,38
3,36
0,00
105
3.99
n.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
1 »4
3.0?
o. 0 0
0.02
0,00
0,00
IMS
3.9*
0,00
0,03
0,00
0.00
106.
3.7ft
0,00
0,10
0,02
0,00
1 U7
0.00
P.?l
0. 05
0,00
I '.IB
3.1?
o.on
0.24
0,07
0,00
PAG" 3
ALCULATEO
CAMMING SEASON
00
(M6/L)
total
saturation
90TH
PERCENTILE
DEFICIT
LEVEL
DO
00
DO STANDARD
0.74
7.83
7,09
6.35
6.02
0,77
7,93
7.16
6.40
6.06
0,84
7,94
7.10
6.32
6.07
0,84
7,91
7.06
6,20
6,95
0,87
7,92
7,04
6.25
6,06
0.06
7.9*
7,00
6,29
6.07
0,62
7,9*
7,32
6,61
6.07
0.91
7,92
7,01
6.21
6,06
0.87
7,9*
7.06
6,27
6,07
0.81
7,95
7.14
6,37
6.07
0.70
7.95
7,17
6,41
6,07
0,73
7,96
7,23
6,48
6,00
0.66
7,96
7,28
6.55
6,00
0,65
7.96
7.31
6.58
6,0®
0,26
8,09
7.82
7,23
6,14
0,61
0.12
7,51
6,80
6,16
0,46
8,12
7,65
6,99
6.16
0,23
8.13
7,89
7,30
6,16
0,35
8,14
7.79
7,16
6,17
0,28
8.13
7.85
7,24
6.16
0,14
8,10
7,95
7,39
6.14
0,05
8.22
0,16
7.64
6.20
0.17
0.20
8.03
7.47
6.19
0,10
8.20
0,10
7.56
6,19
0,09
8,10
8,00
7,46
6.1 *+
2,33
8,71
6,30
5.12
6,44
3,51
ft.71
5,20
3.56
6,44
5.07
8,71
3,64
1.51
6,44
5,57
8,71
3,14
0,05
6,44
4,74
8.71
3.97
1.94
6,44
4,00
8.25
4,25
2.46
6,22
3,99
8,25
4.25
2.46
6,22
3.98
0.40
4 . 41
2,62
6,29
3,59
0,40
4,50
2,75
6,29
3.67
8.40
4,73
3.04
6.29
3.45
8.55
5.10
3,49
6.36
-------
TABLE 8
pag: 4
DISSOLVED OXYGEN CALCULATED
JO&RADE SAN JOSE
1985
CANNING SEASON
DO DEFICIT
COMPONENTS
< mg/d
DO
(MG/L)
SOUTH F3AY
OTHER
BOTTOM
SWAMP
jrban
TOT ft,L
Sf\T ur at ion
90TH
PERCENT I LI
St rJ 1
dischargers
DISCHARGERS
demand
LOADS
RUNOFF
DEFICIT
LEVEL
DO
00
DO STANDARD
luy
2.93
0.00
0.28
0.10
0.00
3.32
8.55
5.23
3.66
6.56
110
2.71
0.00
0.30
0.15
0.00
3.17
8.55
5.37
3.84
6. 36
m
?.41
0,00
0.33
0.31
0.00
3.06
8.68
5.62
4.13
6.42
ii?
1.9<*
0.00
0.34
0.60
0.00
2,08
8.62
5.73
4.30
6,39
i l i
0 . ?=»
0.00
0.83
1,48
0.00
2,61
8.33
5.72
4.37
6.26
114
0.3?
0.00
0.64
1.18
0,00
2.16
8, 33
6.17
4,97
6.?6
ll6)
0,00
0. 48
1.02
0,00
1,87
8. 33
6,46
5.34
&.?6
116
o.4i
P.00
0.43
0,98
0,00
1,84
8,33
6.49
5.39
6.26
117
0.46
0.00
0.40
0.94
0,00
1,81
8,33
6.52
5.43
6.26
118
0.03
0.00
0,05
7.88
0,00
7,97
7,93
•0,03
0.00
6.06
119
0.06
0.00
0.24
4.99
0,00
5.31
7.93
2.61
0.40
6. 36
1?0
0.13
0.00
0.38
1.94
0,00
2,46
7.93
5,46
*~.1*
6.06
1^1
0.«7
0.00
0,96
0.64
0,00
2,48
8.73
6.25
4.94
&.'¦»*
1*2
2,46
0.00
1. HO
0.66
0.00
4.52
8,73
4.21
2.25
6. 45
1 if 3
1.49
0.00
0.97
0.50
0,00
2,98
8.51
5,53
4.06
6.34
1*<*
0.8*
0.00
0.56
0.43
0.00
1.87
8.19
6.31
5.20
6.19
125
0,36
0.00
0.44
0,40
0.00
1.22
7.95
6.73
5,83
6.07
126
0,00
o,oo
0.02
5.28
0.00
5.31
7.65
2.34
0,12
5,33
1*7
0.01
0.00
0.26
1.63
o.oo
1.92
7.65
5.73
4.60
5,93
128
0.04
0.02
0,41
1,57
0,00
2.05
7.65
5.60
4.H3
5.93
129
0.00
0.00
0.00
6,59
0.00
6.60
7,65
1.04
0,00
5.93
150
O.oo
0.00
0.01
6,64
0,00
6.66
7,65
0.98
0.00
5.93
1 31
o.oo
0.00
0,05
6,08
0,00
6.15
7.65
1 .49
0.00
5,93
13?
c.n?
0.01
0.32
4,84
0,00
5.20
7,65
2.44
0.26
5.93
155
0,05
0,03
0.59
2.20
0.00
2.69
7,65
4.76
3.32
5,93
lit
0.07
0.05
0.50
1,29
0.00
1.94
7.65
5.70
4.57
5. 93
155
1.(46
0.04
0.32
0.59
0.00
2.42
7.07
5.45
4.16
6. 04
1 5b
1,15
0.05
0.36
0.61
0.00
2.IB
7.80
5.61
4.40
6.00
1 57
0,80
0.07
0.37
0.60
0,00
1.86
7.73
5.37
4,76
5.97
15B
0.*3
0.09
0.37
0.60
0,00
1.60
7.69
6.08
5,06
5.95
1 39
0.31
0.10
0.37
0.58
0.00
1.38
7.66
6.27
5.31
5.94
1 '4 0
0.0*
0.02
0,40
0.72
0.00
1,20
7.67
6.46
5,56
5.94
141
0.07
0.03
0.37
0.53
0.00
1.01
7.67
6.65
5,81
5. 94
C-172
-------
TABU 9
|
1
?
3
<4
b
6
7
e
9
10
1 1
I?
1 3
1 4
15
16
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2 B
29
30
31
32
33
SU
35
36
SOUTH PAY 0THE*
DISCHARGERS DISCHARGERS
dissolved
JPGRADE SAM JOSE
no DEFICIT CO^PON^NTS
BOTTOM SWA^P
DEMAND LOADS
OXYGEN CALCULATED
1985 - WET SEASON
<*S/L)
JRBAM TOTAL
RJMOFF DEFICIT
1.33
0. 96
0.59
0. 4?
0.30
0,?1
0,16
0.15
0,1?
0.1?
0.1?
0.11
0.10
0,11
o.u
0.11
0.11
o.ll
0.1?
0.1?
0.11
0.1?
o.m
0.13
0.1*
0,15
o. ?o
0. 14
o.n
0.09
0.09
0.0*
0. 0*
o.n*
o.o*
0 .04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
n.o?
0.0?
0,04
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.07
0,07
0.06
0.08
0.09
0.08
0,09
0.0«
0. 08
0,10
0.13
0,10
0.15
0,16
0. 1 J
0.19
0,22
0.27
0. ?7
0.25
0.29
0.31
0.33
n. ?9
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0,38
0.39
0,39
0.39
0,39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0,39
0.38
0.40
0.39
0.38
0.40
0.40
0.38
0.40
0.42
0.39
0.43
0,44
0.43
0.46
0.49
0.54
0,52
0.53
0.57
0.56
0.56
0.57
0. 58
0.60
0,53
0.49
0.47
0,46
0,38
0,36
0,35
0.34
0,35
0.34
0,34
0,34
0.32
0,36
0.35
0.32
0,38
0.36
0,32
0.40
0,38
0,35
0.40
0,40
0.38
0,40
0,39
0,34
0.35
0,35
0.29
0.30
0.28
0.3ft
0.15
0.13
0,10
0.08
0,06
0,05
0,04
0,04
0,03
0.03
0,03
0,03
0.03
0,03
0,03
0,04
0,04
0,03
0,04
0,04
0.03
0,0^
0,04
0,04
0.05
0,05
0,05
0,05
0,05
0.05
0,05
0,04
0.04
0,04
0,04
0,05
2.48
2,09
1.64
1.39
1.24
1.1*
1.00
0,97
0,95
0.94
0.9*
0.95
0,97
0,96
0.92
1.01
1,00
0,94
1,04
1,03
0,95
1,06
1.12
1.02
1.20
1,22
1.21
1.26
1.29
1.31
1.30
1.25
1.26
1.29
1,28
1.35
PAGC 1
DO (MB/L)
SATURATION
level
DO
10,24
7.7&
10.09
7.99
9,91
8,27
9,78
9.38
9,62
8,38
9,49
8.35
9,38
8.37
9,33
8,35
9,44
8,49
9,45
8.50
9,40
8.44
9.39
8,44
9,3*f
8,37
9,35
8,38
9,36
8,43
9,33
8,32
9.3U
8,34
9.3*
8,39
9,33
8,29
9.33
8,29
9,34
8,39
9,32
8.24
9.31
8,18
9,32
8.29
9.29
8,08
9,29
8,06
9,31
8,10
9, ?7
8.01
9,46
8,16
9.41
8,09
9.42
8.11
9.38
8.13
9.38
8,11
9.38
8,08
9,37
8.08
9,36
8,01
90TH
PERCENTILE
DO
00 standard
6.45
7.16
6,81
7.09
7,23
7.01
7,4?
6,94
7.47
6,87
7.47
6,90
7.53
6,75
7.53
6,73
7.67
6,78
7.68
6.78
7.62
6,76
7.62
6.76
7,54
6.73
7,56
6.74
7.62
6.74
7.49
6,73
7.51
6.73
7.58
6,73
7.44
6,73
7.45
6,73
7.57
6,73
7.38
6,73
7,31
6,72
7.45
6,73
7.19
6,71
7,16
6.71
7.20
6,72
7.09
6,70
7,23
6,79
7.16
6,77
7,18
6,77
7.22
6,75
7.20
6.75
7,15
6,75
7.16
6,75
7,0b
6,74
C-173
-------
TABLE 9
past :
DISSOLVED
oxygen c
ALCULATED
JP&RADC SAM JOSE
1955
WET SEASON
00 DEFICIT
COMPONENTS
tMG/l)
00
(MG/L)
south ^flr
OTHER
BOTTOM
SWAMP
urban
total
SATURATION
9QTH
percentile
it jMLN1
dischargers
DISCHARSFRS
DEMAND
LOADS
rjnoff
DEFICIT
LEVEL
~ 3
00
30 STANDARD
57
0.0*
0.26
0,56
0.27
0,04
1,23
9.38
8.14
7.24
6.75
3H
0.06
0.32
0,57
0,29
0.04
1.29
9,37
8.07
7.15
6.75
59
0.0?
0.36
0.57
0.21
0.03
1.21
9,33
8,12
7,22
6. 73
4U
0.03
0.31
0.56
0.40
0.05
1.38
9.34
7.96
7.00
6.74
<~1
0.05
0,24
0.59
0.28
0,04
1.22
9.37
8.15
7.25
6. 75
42
0.0*
0.3?
0.59
0.27
0,04
1.30
9.36
8,06
7.13
6.74
43
0.01
0,3s.
0.5B
0.16
0,03
1,15
9.32
8.16
7,28
6,72
<~4
0.0?
0.29
0.57
0.33
o,o4
1,26
9,33
8,06
7.15
6, 73
<~5
0.03
0.2b
0.59
0.24
0.03
1.17
9.36
8.16
7.29
6,74
>+6
0.03
0.33
0.60
0.21
0.03
1.22
9,34
8,12
7.22
6,73
47
0.01
0.34
0.57
0.12
0.02
1,09
9,31
8,22
7.36
6,72
4«
0,01
0.26
0.57
0.21
0.03
1,10
9.32
8.21
7,35
6,72
<+9
0.0 3
0.24
0.50
0.23
0,03
1,12
9,36
8.23
7.35
6.74
50
0.0?
0.32
0.61
0.19
0,03
1,20
9,34
8,14
7.24
6.73
51
o.m
0.31
0.57
0,11
0.02
1,04
9.31
8. 27
7.43
6,72
52
0.00
0.26
0.58
0.14
0,03
1.03
9,31
8,27
7.43
6. 72
53
0.0?
0.2?
0.58
0.22
0,03
1,09
9.35
8,25
7.39
6.74
54
0.0?
0.26
O.M
0.20
0.03
1,16
9.31
8,14
7.26
6.72
55
0.00
0.29
0.57
0.10
0.02
0.99
9,31
8.31
7.48
6, 72
56
0.00
0.25
0.59
0.10
0.03
1.00
9.30
8, 30
7.47
6. 72
¦57
0.0?
0.24
0.66
0,20
0.03
1,17
9,03
7.85
6,96
6.59
5B
0.03
0.33
0.77
0.25
0.03
1,42
8,91
7,40
6,52
6.53
59
0.00
0.24
0.55
0,08
0,01
0,91
9,31
8.39
7.59
6.72
bO
o.oo
0.20
0.59
0,06
0,02
0,90
9,28
8,37
7,57
6.71
SI
0. 01
0.15
0.60
0,16
0,02
1,00
9.04
8,04
7,21
6.59
b2
0.01
0.12
0.38
0.10
0,01
0.63
9.80
9.16
8,44
6.95
63
O.Ofl
0.23
0.55
O.OB
0,01
0.89
9.32
8.42
7.62
6.7?
54
0.00
0.19
0.66
0,04
0,01
0.92
9,23
8,31
7,50
6,68
%*
0,01
O.l-i
0,58
0.1H
0.02
0.93
9,08
8,14
7.33
6.61
ob
0,01
0.13
0,51
o.ll
0.01
0.79
9.46
6,66
7.90
6.79
b 7
0.00
0.26
0.53
0.06
0.01
0.89
9.27
8.38
7.58
6,70
feH
o.or
0.2?
0.69
0.03
0.01
0.97
9.21
8.23
7.41
6.67
69
0.01
0.14
0.50
o.ll
0.02
0.88
9.11
8.23
7.44
6.63
70
o.on
0.17
0.55
0,10
0.01
0.06
9.28
8,42
7*63
6.71
71
O.on
0.33
0.53
0.03
0.00
0.91
9.16
8.24
7.43
6.65
12
o.on
0.31
0.64
0.01
0.00
0.98
9.13
9.15
7.32
6.64
C-174
-------
TABLE 9
DISSOLVED OXYGEN CALCULATED
UP3RADE SAN JOSE - 19&5 - d£T SEASON
DD DEFICIT COMPONENTS (MG/L)
SOUTH 3AY
OTHER
BOTTOM
swa«p
JRP3AN
TOTAL
SLGmENI
DISCHARGERS
DISCHARGERS
demand
loads
RJNOFF
DEFICIT
13
o.on
0.15
0.58
O.OB
0.01
0.84
/4
0,00
0.2B
0.51
0.05
0.01
0.87
rs
o.on
n.4o
0.49
0.01
0.00
0.92
fb
o.nn
0.36
0.50
0,03
0.01
0.91
n
O.no
n.45
0 . 45
0.02
0.00
0.94
m
0.00
0.51
0.37
0.01
0.00
0.91
79
0.00
0.23
0 .45
0.00
0.00
0.69
so
o.nn
0. 44
0.48
0.02
0.00
0.97
91
O.on
0.50
0.38
0.01
0,00
0,91
»?
O.Of
0.53
0.28
0.01
0,00
0.83
as
0.00
0.51
0.27
O.Ol
0.00
0.80
y«+
0.00
0.50
0.22
0.00
0.00
0.74
o.oo
0. •»*
0.19
0.00
0,00
0.69
S6
o.on
0.46
0.18
0.00
0.00
0,66
tt 7
0,00
0.25
0.02
0.00
o.oo
0.28
0.00
0.4->
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.61
H9
o.on
0.35
0.11
0,00
0.00
0.47
*0
0.00
0.22
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.25
¦U
O.na
3.27
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.34
42
O.On
0.21
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.28
4 5
O.PO
0.1?
0.0?
0.00
0.00
0.15
*4
o.on
0.04
0,01
0,00
o.oo
0.05
95
o.nn
0.1?
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.15
46
o.nn
0 .08
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.09
9 7
0,00
0.09
0,01
0.00
0.00
0.11
4H
o.nn
n.oo
0.06
0,00
0.50
0.57
49
0.0?
c.oo
0,06
0 , 14
0,91
1,15
iun
0,?5
o.oo
0.21
1,08
1.03
2.59
l'J 1
O.'S6-
0.00
0.31
1.92
0.77
3.57
1U2
0.P3
0.00
0.44
1,79
0.42
3.59
103
3.7Q
n.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.BO
io4
?. 77
0.00
0.02
0.00
0,00
3, 80
1U5
3.7^
0.00
0.03
o.oo
0,00
3.80
iu%
3.
0.0 0
0.12
0.01
0.01
3.73
107
3.?*
0.00
0.25
0.03
0.03
3.57
1UB
3#n'
n .on
n.?9
n.04
0,04
3.42
°ASE 3
00 (M5/L)
saturation
level
DO
9.12
8,27
9.13
8.26
9.11
8.18
9.09
a.17
9.08
8.14
9,06
8,15
9.06
8,36
9.09
a,11
9.07
8.15
9.06
8.22
9.06
8.25
9.05
8.31
9.06
8.36
9,05
8,39
9.27
8.99
9,27
8.66
9.25
8.77
9.28
9.02
9.27
8.92
9.2*
8.96
9.17
9.01
9.07
9.02
9.35
9,20
9.34
9,24
9.17
9,06
10.36
9,79
10.36
9,20
10.32
7,72
10.29
6,72
10.26
6,67
9.08
5,27
9,?7
5,46
9.47
5,67
9.68
5.94
9.90
6,32
9,90
6.47
90 TH
PERCENTILE
00
DO STANDARD
7,49
6,63
7.47
6.63
7,37
6.62
7,37
6.61
7,32
6.61
7,35
6.60
7.63
6,60
7,28
6,61
7.35
6.60
7.44
6.SO
7.48
6,60
7.56
6,60
7.63
6.SO
7.66
6.60
8.39
6.70
7.95
6.70
8.11
6.69
8.43
6.70
8.30
6.70
8.35
6.69
8,45
6,S5
8.49
6.61
8.64
6.74
8,69
6,73
8.51
6. 55
9,09
7.22
8.32
7.22
6.38
7.20
5,06
7,1B
5.00
7.17
3.54
6.61
3,73
6.70
3.94
6,79
4,23
6.99
4 ,66
7.00
4.96
7.00
C-175
-------
TABLE 9
DISSOLVED OXTSEN CALCULATED
jeGRADE SAN JOSE - 19B5 - *ET SEASON
DO DEFICIT COMPONENTS (MG/L)
S0UT4 "AY
OT-fER
BOTTOM
SMMP
JRBAN
total
DISCHARGERS
dischargers
demand
LOADS
R'JMOFF
DEFICIT
109
2.01
0.00
0,33
0.07
0.06
3.28
110
2.61
0.00
0.36
0,11
0,0B
3.17
111
2.3fl
0.00
0.39
0,22
0.10
3.03
U?
1.05
n.oo
0.40
0,41
0.13
2.00
113
0.2?
0.00
0.75
0.59
0.39
1.97
i m
0 . ^3
0.00
0,70
0.63
0,30
1.97
11=1
0.39
0.00
0.56
0.61
0,?1
1.79
lib
0.45
0.00
0. 51
0.61
0,17
1.76
117
0.50
0,00
0,47
0.59
0,14
1.72
118
o.ns
0,00
0.05
6.88
0.75
7.72
119
0.07
0.00
0.2B
2.B5
0.27
3.49
12U
0.16
0,00
0.45
i.te
0.11
1.91
1?1
C.31
0.00
1 .02
0 , ? 6
0.B1
? . 4 1
12?
1.65
0.00
1.64
0.39
0,30
4.00
1 if 5
i.04
0.00
1.17
0.35
0,22
2.78
1Z4
0.6*
0.00
0.6B
0,32
0.14
1.02
125
0.30
0.01
0,53
0,30
0.07
1.22
1*6
o.nn
0.00
0.0?
2,46
0.67
3.16
127
0.0?
0.01
0.30
1,00
0.16
1.59
1^8
0.05
0,03
0.40
0,97
0.05
1.60
129
0. no
0.00
0.00
1.23
0.04
?.O0
HQ
0.00
o.oo
0.00
4,36
0.70
5,09
151
o.ni
0.00
0.06
5.04
0.35
6.27
15?
o.o*
o.oi
0.37
2.76
0.1?
3.30
135
0.06
0.05
0.67
1.24
0.05
2.09
1
0 .09
0.07
0.58
0.75
0.04
1.55
155
1.36
0.05
0.37
0.35
0.10
2.25
1 56
1.0°
0 .06
0 .42
0.57
0.0^
?.05
157
0,77
0,00
0.44
0,30
0.00
1.77
150
0.5?
o.lo
0.44
0.39
0.06
1.53
159
0.3?
0.12
0.43
0.30
0.05
1.33
14[)
0.06
0.03
0.45
0.41
0.12
1.09
1 «~ 1
0.09
0.05
0.43
0.34
0.06
0.90
C-176
3AG- 4
DO (MG/L)
SATURATION
level
DO
10.12
6,04
10.12
6,95
10.10
7,07
10.06
7,26
10.00
A, 10
9.99
0.01
9.95
0.15
9.93
0.17
9.92
8.19
9.06
2,14
9,63
6,13
9.55
7,61
10,34
7.92
10.30
6.30
10.14
7.35
9.B3
8,01
9.54
0.31
9.BO
6,63
9,27
7,67
9,16
7,56
10.?8
0.20
9.90
4.81
9.56
3.29
9.27
5. 96
9.16
7,06
9.13
7.58
9.39
7,13
9.30
7.25
9, ?2
7.45
9.17
7.63
9.13
7. 79
9.23
0.13
9.17
0.10
90 TH
PERCENTILE
DO
00 STANDARD
5.27
7.11
5.42
7,10
5,59
7,10
5,05
7.00
6.96
7,00
6.87
7.04
7.06
7.02
7.09
7.01
7.13
7,01
0.00
6,90
4.50
6,57
6.48
6,32
6.65
7,?1
4.51
7, J 9
5.95
7.11
6,91
6.96
7.41
6. S3
5,11
6.95
6,65
6.70
6.53
6.65
7,02
7.18
2.67
7.00
0.76
6. 04
4.39
6.70
5,00
6.65
6,57
6.54
5.90
6. 76
6,OB
6.72
6.37
6.60
6.63
6.65
6.95
6. S3
7.27
6.63
7.35
6.65
-------
TABLE 10
SOUTH HAT
0THE9
9DTT0M
SWft«P
I
DlSrHARPFSS
DISCHARGERS
DEMAND
LOADS
1
1.35
0.00
0.33
0.90
?
0.93
0.00
0.33
0,93
3
0.55
0.00
0.33
0.82
4
0.37
0.00
0.32
0.73
*
0 .25
0,00
0.32
0,70
0.17
0.00
0.33
0.68
7
0.1?
0.01
0.32
0,55
9
0.11
0.01
0.33
0.52
9
0.09
0.03
0.32
0.5 0
10
0.09
0.03
0.32
0.49
11
0.09
0.04
0.32
0.50
12
0. 09
9.04
0.32
0.50
13
O.Ofl
0.06
0.33
0,51
m
0.09
0.05
0.33
0.50
15
0,0«
0.05
0.32
0.46
1 6
0.09
0.06
0.33
0.54
17
0.09
0.07
0.33
0.52
lfl
0.09
0.06
0.31
0.47
IS
0.09
0 . 0 7
0.33
0.56
<>Q
0.10
0.09
0.33
0.54
*1
0.09
0.06
0.31
0.47
C.10
n . 0«
0.34
0,60
*3
0.1?
0.11
0.35
0.57
?<4
0.11
o.flfl
0.32
0,51
*5
0.13
0.13
0.37
0.61
*6
0.13
o. 14
0,3a
0,60
i 7
0.19
0.1?
0.36
0.57
*8
O.l?
0.17
0.39
0,61
29
0.11
0.20
0.42
0.60
30
0.0*
0.25
0.
0.53
31
O.OA
0.25
0,45
0.54
3?
O.OM
0.2?
0,45
0.56
3 3
0.0*
0.27
0.49
0,44
3H
0.0*
0,30
0.48
0,46
3 b
O.0!4
0.31
0.4B
0.4»i
3fc
0.03
0.26
0,49
0.64
DISSOLVED OXYGEN CALCULATED
JPGRADE SAN JOSE - 1995 - DRY SEASON
pa DEFICIT COMPONENTS (MG/L)
j«ban TOTAL
RUVOFF DEFICIT
0.00 2,60
0.00 S.l9
0,00 1.71
o,oo i,im
0.00 1,29
0.00 1.19
0.00 1.03
0.00 0.99
0.00 0.96
0.00 0.95
0.00 0.97
0.00 0.96
0.00 0.99
0,00 0.9B
0.00 0.93
0.00 1.OH
0.00 1.02
0.00 0.95
0.00 l,o7
0,00 1.06
0.00 0.95
0.00 i.u
0.00 1.16
0.00 1.01
0,00 1.25
0,00 1.J7
".00 1.25
0.00 1.31
O.OO 1.31,
0.00 i.ji»
0,00 i.3«
O.OO 1.29
0.00 1,26
0,00 l.Jl
0.00 1,29
0.00 l.
-------
dissolved
JPGRADE SAN JOSE
DO DEFICIT COMPONENTS
south bay other bottom S*A«P
5>L E N 1
DISCHARGERS
DISCHARGERS
demand
LOADS
5 7
0.04
0.24
0.50
0.41
3b
0 . 05
0.30
0.50
0.44
J9
0.0?
0,3«+
0.50
0.32
4Q
0.0?
0,2ft
0,50
0.67
<41
0.04
0,2?
0.51
0.45
42
0 mOU
0,31
0. 52
0.43
4 3
0.01
0.3i+
0.50
0.25
44
0.01
0.26
0.49
0.56
4 5
0.0?
0,24
0.51
0,37
46
0.0?
0,31
0.52
0,32
47
o.no
0.32
0.50
0,19
48
0.00
0.2 if
0.48
0.35
*49
0 .0?
0.21
0.50
0,36
bO
0.0?
0. 30
0.53
0,30
SI
0. 00
0.28
0.50
0.16
52
0.00
0.23
0.49
0.22
53
O.n?
0.19
0.50
0.36
54
0.0?
0.25
0,53
0.32
55
0.00
0.26
0.49
O.l1*
S6
0.00
0.2?
0,51
0.15
57
0.01
0.20
0.56
0.31
0.0?
0.29
0.66
0.39
59
o.oo
0.20
0.48
C.ll
60
0.00
0.17
0.51
0,09
61
0.01
o.m
0.50
0.24
62
fl.nn
n.io
0.33
0.15
63
0.00
0.19
0.48
0.11
64
O.on
0.15
0.57
0.05
65
o, no
0.12
0.49
0.19
6f>
o.no
0.10
0.44
0.15
67
o.eo
0.2?
0.47
0.09
68
0.00
0.1?
0.61
0.0*
69
0.00
0.10
0.50
0.15
70
0,00
0.13
0.49
0.13
n
0. nn
0.30
0.4 7
0.03
f?
0 . cn
* . ?7
f .58
0 .0?
C-178
TABLE 30
OKY&EN CALCULATED
1995
(MG/L)
jrban
RUNOFF
ORT SEASON
total
DEFICIT
DO (MS/L)
saturation
level DO
PAGE
90TH PERCENTILE
00 DO STANDARD
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.0 c
1.22
1.30
1.19
1.1+9
1.25
1.30
1.12
1.33
1.16
1.20
1.03
1.09
1.11
1.16
0.96
0,96
l.OB
1.13
0.91
0.89
1.10
1.37
0.81
0.78
0.90
n.59
0.79
0.79
0.62
0,71
0.79
0,84
0,77
0,76
0.81
0.87
7.81
7.81
7.78
7.79
7.80
7,80
7.79
7.78
7.80
7.79
7.77
7.7S
7.79
7.78
7,77
7.77
7.78
7,75
7,77
7.77
7,48
7.38
7.78
7.75
7.1+9
8.16
7.78
7.72
7.52
7.87
7.76
7.71
7.82
8.00
7. 96
7 . 94
6.59
6.50
6.58
6,30
6.57
6.49
6.65
6,<+5
6.63
6.59
6.7I+
6.69
6.68
6.61
6. 91
6.81
6.70
6. 62
6. 86
6.B7
6.38
6.00
6.96
6.97
6.58
7.59
6.99
6.92
6. 70
7.15
6.96
6. 86
7.05
7.24
7. I*
7.06
5.68
5.57
5.69
5.30
5,66
5,56
5.78
5.51
5, 75
5,69
5,90
5,82
5,81
5,73
5.99
5,99
5, 8*+
5,7*
6.06
6.07
5.52
5.04
6.18
6.21
5,78
6.89
6.22
6.16
5,92
6.1+1
6.20
6.07
6.29
6,<+8
6.37
6.27
6.01
6.01
5.99
6.00
6.0 0
6.00
5. 99
5.99
6.00
6.00
5.99
5.99
6.00
5.99
5. ?9
5,99
5.99
5.98
5.99
5,99
5.85
5,90
5.99
5.98
5.96
6.18
5.99
5.96
5.97
6.03
5.98
5.96
6.01
6.10
6.08
6.07
-------
table 10
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
J°3RA0£: SAN JOSE - 1995
DO DEFICIT COMPONENTS (MS/L)
SOUT-1 BAY
0T-4ER
93TT0M
SWA«P
JRBAM
bto*E>!1
DISCHARGERS
DISCHA^SFRS
ocmanq
loads
rjnoff
It
o.nn
0.12
0.51
0,09
0,00
J4
o.nn
0.25
0.45
0,05
0.00
7t>
0.00
0.37
0,44
0,01
0.00
7 6
O.PO
0 . 3"i
0.4"i
0,03
0,00
71
o.oc
0.44
0.
o.on
0.2^
0.07
0.00
ALCULATED
DRY SEASON
DO
-------
TABLE 10
®AG E
OISSOLVCD OXTGE^ CALCULATED
JPGRADE SAN JOSE - 1995 - DRY SEASON
05 DEFICIT COMPONEMTS (MS/L) 00 (MG/L)
SOUTH °ay
OTHER
BOTTOM
SWA^P
j*ban
total
SATURATION
90TH
PERCENTILE
SL£j*»£W 1
OrSCKaRRERS
OISCHA96E9S
DEMAND
loads
R'JSIqFF
DEFICIT
LEVEL
03
00
DO STANDARD
109
s.o')
0 .00
0.28
0.10
0.00
3.44
8.55
5.U
3,49
6. 36
no
2.M
o.oo
0.30
0.15
0.00
3.27
8.55
5.27
3.71
6. j£
111
2.45
0.00
0.33
0.31
0.00
3.10
8.68
5,58
4.08
6.4?
112
l.*4
0,00
0.34
0.60
0.00
2.80
8.62
5.74
4,30
6. 39
113
0.2*
0. 00
0.83
1. V8
0.00
2.61
8.33
5. 72
4.37
6. 26
111
0.3?
C.00
0.64
1.18
0.00
2.15
8.33
6.18
4,98
6.26
115
0.35
o.oo
0. 48
1.02
0.00
1.87
8.33
6. 46
5.35
6. ?6
lib
0,1*0
O.QO
0.43
0.96
0.00
1.B3
e.35
6.50
5,40
6.?6
117
0, 4">
0.00
0.40
0. 94
0,00
1.80
8.33
6.53
5,44
6. ?6
118
0.03
o.oo
0.05
7.A0
0.00
7.96
7.93
-0.03
0.00
6.0&
119
0.05
0.00
0.24
4.99
0.00
5.30
7.93
2.62
0.41
S. 06
120
0.12
0,00
0,38
1,94
0.00
2.«*5
7.95
5,47
H.17
6.06
1*1
0,76
0.00
0.96
0.64
0,00
2.37
8.73
6,36
5.09
6.*5
12?
2.13
0.00
1.40
0.66
0.00
4.19
8.73
4.53
2.68
6,45
123
i.3n
o.oo
0.97
0.50
0.00
2.78
8.51
5. 72
4.32
6. 3*
li?i*
0.76
0.00
0.56
0,43
0.00
1.76
8,19
6.42
5.35
6,19
125
0,3?
0.00
0.44
0.40
0,00
1.18
7.95
6. 77
5,88
6.07
126
0.00
0.00
0.02
5.28
0,00
5.31
7.65
2.34
0,12
5.93
127
0.01
o.oo
0.26
1.63
0.00
1.9?
7.65
5. 73
4.60
5. 93
1 2 B
0.04
0.02
0.41
1.57
0.00
2,05
7.65
5.60
4.43
5.93
129
0.00
o.oo
0.00
6.59
0.00
6,60
7,65
1.04
0.00
5.93
150
0.00
0,00
0.01
6.64
0.00
6.66
7.65
0.98
0.00
5.93
131
0.00
0.00
0.05
6,08
0.00
6.15
7.65
1 .49
0.00
5.93
1 1?
0,0?
P.01
0.32
4,84
0,00
5.20
7.65
2,44
0.26
5.93
133
0.0^
0.03
0.59
2.20
0.00
2.89
7.65
V. 76
3,32
3.93
1 3 *~
0.07
0,05
0.50
1.29
0.00
1.94
7.65
5.70
4,57
5.93
135
1.4«
0.0*
0.32
0.59
0.00
2.45
7.87
5.42
4,12
6.0*
136
1.17
0.05
0.36
0,61
0,00
2,20
7.60
5,59
4,37
6.00
137
o.fl?
0.07
0,37
0.60
0.00
1,88
7.73
5.85
4,74
5.97
1 3 B
0.54
0.09
0.37
0.60
0.00
1.61
7.69
6,07
5.04
5.95
1 i9
0.3?
0.10
0.37
0.58
0.00
1.39
7.66
6.27
5,31
5.9*
mo
0.05
0.0?
0.40
0.72
o.oo
1.20
7.67
6.46
5.56
5.94
141
0.07
0.03
0.37
0.53
0.00
1.01
7.67
6.65
5,81
5. 94
C-180
-------
TABLE 11
OISSOLVEO OXTGEVJ
JPSRaDE SAM JOSE • 1995
no deficit comments (MG/d
SOljTM ray
OT^ER
S3TT0M
SWAMP
JR BAV
DISCHARGERS
dischargers
OE^aNO
loads
RJMOFF
1
1. KJ
0.00
0.33
0.90
0.0 0
2
o.qp
0.00
0.33
0,93
0.00
3
0. *9
0.00
0.33
0,82
0.00
if
0,«1
0.00
0.35
0.73
0.00
5
0.?P
0.00
0.32
0,70
0.00
6
O.l4*
0.00
0.33
0.68
0.00
7
0.3 «
fl.Ol
0.32
0.55
0.00
8
0.13
n.oi
0.33
0,5?
0,00
9
0.1 fl
0.03
0.32
0.50
0,00
10
0.1 P
0.03
0.32
0.*9
0*00
11
0,10
0.0*4
0.32
0.50
0,00
t?
0.10
0.0*
0,32
0.50
0.00
13
o.n*
0.0*
0.33
0.51
0.00
I*
O.n*
0.05
0.33
0.50
0,00
15
0.09
0.05
0.52
n,*6
0.00
16
0,0**
0.06
0.33
0,5*
0,00
I 7
0.10
0.07
0.33
0,52
0.00
IB
0.06
0.31
0,*7
o.oo
19
o.m
0.07
0.33
0.56
0.00
?0
0.10
O.OB
0.33
0.5*
0.00
*1
o.lft
0.0 6
0.31
0.»7
0,00
a?
0.1 \
O.OB
0.34
0.60
0.00
es
0.1?
0.11
0. 35
0.57
0.00
?*
0.1?
0.09
0.32
0,51
0,00
?5
0.13
n.13
0.37
0,61
0.00
26
0.15
0.1*
0.30
0.60
0.00
er
0. 19
0.1?
0.36
0.57
0,00
0.13
0.17
0.39
0.61
0,00
29
0.11
0.20
0,«*2
0,60
0,00
40
O.OP
0.25
0.*6
0.53
0,00
51
O.OA
0.25
0. «+5
0.5*
0,00
52
0.0*
0.2?
0,*5
0.56
0,00
A5
o.n*
0.27
0.19
o.m
0,00
3M
0.05
0.30
0, IB
0.*6
0,00
55
o.c*
ft.31
o.*a
o.m
0.00
56
0. n *
0.2*
0 , i*9
0.6^
0 .00
ALCULATE3
CANNING SEASON
DO (MG/L)
TOfrti s*juration
DEFICIT
LEVEL
DO
2.65
3,71
6,06
2.25
6.53
6.27
1.75
6.33
6.58
l.*7
&4?.0
6.7 2
1.32
8.05
6.73
1.21
7,93
6.7l
1.55
7.8*
6.79
1.01
7.80
6,79
0.97
7,86
6,88
0.96
7.87
6.90
0,96
7,83
6,3*
0. 97
7.A3
6.85
0.99
7.79
6.79
0,98
7,79
6,ai
0.93
7.80
6. 66
1.05
7.78
6,73
1.02
7,79
6.76
0.95
7.79
6.83
l.OS
7.78
6.70
1,06
7.78
6.71
0,96
7.79
6.83
1.1*
7,78
6.6*
1.17
7.77
6.60
1.05
7,78
6.73
1.26
7,76
6.50
1.27
7, 76
6.*8
1.25
7*77
6.51
1.31
7,75
6, *3
1.3*
7,86
6.52
1.3*
7,63
6. *6
1.3*
7,8*
6.*9
1.30
7,82
6.52
1.27
7,61
6,5*
1.31
7,81
6.*9
1.29
7,80
6,50
1 .**
7 . P 0
*.36
GT
90TH
PERCENTILE
DO
DO STANZA*
*,69
6.**
5.0*
6.35
5,51
6.26
5.73
6,19
5,80
6.12
5,81
6.06
5,9*
6,02
5.96
6,00
6,06
6.03
6.07
6.03
6,02
6,0?
6,03
6.02
5.96
6.00
5.98
6.00
6,05
6.00
5.86
5.99
5,92
6.00
6.01
6.00
5,8*
5.99
5.66
5.99
6.01
6,00
5.76
5.99
5.71
5.99
5,88
5.99
5.58
5.98
5.56
5.98
5,60
5,99
5,*9
5.98
5.57
6« 03
5.5*
6.02
5.55
6,02
5.59
6,01
5.62
6.01
5.56
6.01
5.58
6,00
5.38
6, on
-------
DISSOLVED
jpsraoe san jose
n5 DEFICIT COMPONENTS
SO,JfH f*AY
OTHER
90TT0^
swamp
St !i«Lw 1
DISCHAPpERS
DISCHAS3E3S
DEMAND
loads
57
0,04
0.24
0.50
0.41
o. n*
n.30
0.50
0.44
59
0.0?
0.34
0,50
0.32
40
o. n?
0,28
0.50
0.67
41
0.O4
0.22
0.51
0.45
¦*2
0,p«j
0,31
0.5?
0.43
43
0.01
0,34
0.50
0.25
>44
0.01
0, 26
0.49
0,56
4 5
0.03
0,24
0.51
0.37
4&
0.0?
0,31
0.52
0.32
47
0.00
0.32
0.50
0.19
48
0.00
0.24
0.48
0.35
:+9
o.n?
0.21
0.50
0.36
bo
o.o?
0 , 3 0
0.53
0.30
SI
0 .00
n.2g
0.50
0.16
s?
0,00
0.23
0.49
0.22
S3
o.n?
0.19
0.50
0,36
i>4
0,0?
0.25
0.53
0,32
0.00
0.26
0.49
0.14
56
0,00
0.22
0,51
0.15
r>7
0.01
0 . 2 0
0.56
0.31
b»
0,0?
0.29
0.66
0.39
^9
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.11
b n
o. no
0.17
0.51
0.09
61
0,01
0.14
0,50
0.24
F»2
0,00
0,10
0. 33
0.15
63
O.no
0.19
0.48
0.11
b 4
0,00
0,15
0.57
0.05
65
0,00
0,1?
0.49
0.1*
66
0.00
0.10
0.44
0. 15
67
0,00
0,2?
0.47
0,09
c.o*
0.1?
0.61
0.04
fa9
0.00
0.10
0.50
0.15
TO
o.on
O.U
0.49
0,13
71
0,00
0,30
0,47
0,03
17
c. Oft
n.?7
0.58
0,02
C-182
3XYGE
1995
(*3/L)
J^BAN
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
CALCULATED
CANNING SEASON
DO (IS/L)
TOTflL saturation
DEFICIT LEVEL
1.22
1.30
1.19
1,49
1.23
1.30
1.12
1,33
1.16
1.20
1.03
1.09
1.11
1.16
0,96
0.96
1.08
1.13
0.91
0.09
1.10
1.37
0.01
0.78
0,90
0.59
0.79
0.79
0.82
0.71
0.79
0.84
0,77
0.76
O.fll
P.R7
7,81
7.81
7.78
7.79
7.60
7.60
7.78
7.78
7.80
7.79
7.77
7.78
7. 79
7.78
7.77
7.77
7.78
7.75
7,77
7.77
7,48
7.38
7.78
7.75
7 ,49
8.18
7.76
7.7 2
7.52
7,87
7.76
7,71
7.82
6.00
7.96
7.S4
03
6.58
6.50
6.56
6,29
6.57
6,49
6. 65
6, 44
6,63
6.59
6.74
6 , 69
b.
6,61
6,91
&, 81
6, 70
h.62
6.86
6.87
6, 38
6.00
6.96
6.97
6.58
7.59
6.98
6, 92
6. 70
7.15
6,96
6,56
7.05
7,24
7. m
7.06
»AGe
90TH PERCENTILE
00 00 standard
5.68
5,57
5.69
5,30
5,66
5,56
5,78
5,50
5.75
5.69
5,90
5.82
5.81
5.73
5. 99
5, 99
5,84
5.74
6.06
6.07
5,52
5.04
6,18
6.21
5.76
6,89
6.22
6,16
5.92
6,41
6.20
6.07
6,29
6.48
6,37
6.27
6.01
6.01
5.99
6.00
6, DO
6.00
5,99
5, 49
6,05
6.00
5.99
5.99
00
5.99
5.99
5.99
5. 99
5.98
5.99
^.99
5. 35
5. ?D
5, 99
5, 93
5,86
6,18
5, 99
5, 96
5, B7
6,03
5. 98
5,96
6.01
6.10
6.09
6.07
-------
TARLE U
dissolved D*YSEN
Jp3RADE SAN JOSE - 1995
03 DEFICIT COMPONENTS 1*S/L*
SO LIT r| pftY
OT^ER
30TT0*
SWA^P
JftSAM
OISfHftRfiERS
OISCHARSfT^S
OCMANO
loads
RUNOFF
f i
o.oo
0.12
0,51
0,09
0.00
fU
0.00
0.2*)
0,i*5
0.05
0.00
o,oo
0.37
0,**
0,01
0.00
lb
O.PP
0.35
0.<*5
0.03
0.00
n
o.oa
0,H4
O.Hi
0,02
0,00
/&
0, pn
0,50
0,34
0,01
0.00
(*i
0,00
0,21
0,*C
0,00
0.00
HO
0,0ft
0 •*~«»
O,**
0,02
0.00
91
0,00
0.51
0,34
0,01
0.00
H2
0,00
0.54
0,25
0,01
0.00
H5
0,00
0,52
0,24
0,01
0,00
»4
0,00
0.5?
0,20
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,50
0,16
0,00
0,00
y*
0,00
0,16
0,00
0,0 o
y 7
0,00
0,2*
0,02
0,00
0.00
0,nn
d.^9
0,12
0,00
0,00
*•»
0,00
0,36
0,10
0,00
0,00
*0
0,00
0,21
0.02
0,00
0,00
*1
0,00
0.2«
0,06
0,00
0.00
*?
0,00
0,22
0,05
0,00
0,00
is
0,00
0.12
0,02
0,00
0,00
*4
0,00
n.04
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,on
0,14
0,02
0.00
0,00
*6
o.rm
n.oft
0,01
0,00
0,00
^ 7
O.OP
o.o*
0,01
0,00
0.00
9B
0,17
0.00
0,20
1.9*
0,00
0,^1
0,00
0,09
3,oa
O.QO
100
0,*?
0,00
0,24
4.28
0.00
1U1
0.70
0,00
0,29
9.S5
0,00
11)2
0,*fc
0,00
0,38
3.36
0,00
103
3.°S
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
I'JH
3,97
^,00
0,0?
0.00
0.00
1
3.**
n.oo
0,03
O.flO
0,00
lUfe
3.7*
0,00
0,i0
0.02
0.00
\'JT
3,44
0,00
0,21
0,05
0,00
1CJ6
3,17
0,00
0,24
0,07
0,00
t»AGE 3
alculated
CAMMING SEftSOM
00
< MG/LI
TOTAL
SATURATION
90TM
percentile
DEFICIT
LEVEL
DO
DO
00 STANDARD
0.74
7.83
7.09
6.35
6.02
0.7?
7.93
?.16
6.40
6.06
O.B*
7.94
7.iO
6,32
6.07
0.84
7.91
7.06
6.28
6.05
0.«7
7.92
7,04
6.25
6.06
0,86
7.9*
7,08
6.29
6.r>7
0 • 62
7, 94
7.32
6,61
6,07
0.91
7,92
7,01
6.2*
6.06
0,87
7.9*
7.06
6,27
6.07
0.61
7,95
7,14
6,i?
6.07
0.7ft
7,95
7,17
6,41
6.07
0,73
7 %96
7,23
6,48
6,0ft
0.66
7,96
7,26
6,55
6,08
0.65
7,96
7.31
6,58
6.08
0.26
8,09
7,8 2
7.23
6.1*
0.6i
8,12
7,51
6,80
6,16
0.«V6
9,12
7,65
6,99
6,16
0.23
3,13
7.89
7,30
6,16
0,35
8,14
7,79
7,16
6,17
0.26
A,13
7,85
7.2H
6,16
0.1«»
8,10
7.95
7,39
6,1*
0,03
8.22
Q.16
7,6*
6,20
0.17
8.20
8.03
7, 47
6.19
0,10
8,?0
8,10
7.56
6,19
0,09
8,10
A.OO
7,*6
6,14
2.32
3,71
6.39
5.13
6,4«
3,50
S,7J
5,21
3,58
6.4*
5,05
e.7i
3,66
1,53
6,41
5,55
8,71
3,16
0,87
6,44
4,73
8.71
3,98
1,95
6,44
3,99
».*9
4.25
2,46
6,22
3.99
8,25
«*,25
2,46
6.22
3,99
8.40
M.91
2,62
6,79
3,91
8,40
4,49
2,72
6,29
3,71
a,«*o
«,60
?,98
6,?9
3,50
8,55
5.05
3.42
6.36
-------
dissolved
JPGRaDE SAN JOSE
no DEFICIT COMPONENTS
SH' jT A QAY
0T4E^
BOTTO*
Swa«P
St-(i»lEM I
DISCHARGERS
DI SCh<\RGFR S
DEMAND
LOADS
lU'*
2 .
0.00
0.28
0.10
ilO
2.73
0.00
0. 30
0.15
111
2.5?
0.00
0.33
0.31
112
2.04
0.00
0.34
0.60
115
0,29
n.oo
0,83
1.40
HM
0.3?
0.00
0.64
1.18
115
0.37
0,00
0.46
1.02
116
0,41
0.00
0.43
0.96
117
0.48
0.00
0.40
0 .94
IIP
0.03
0.00
0.05
7.88
119
0.0 ft
0.00
0.24
4.99
12 0
0,14
0,00
0.38
1 .94
1*1
0 .91
0.00
0,96
0.64
lii?
2,5*
0,00
1 ,40
0.66
i a 3
1,6 6
C.00
0.97
0 .50
124
i,a*
0.00
0.56
0.43
A25
0.4U
0,00
0.44
0 .40
126
0,00
0,00
0.02
5.2B
1 ? 7
0.01
0.00
0.26
1 ,63
0 . P4
0.02
0.41
1,57
129
0 ,00
0.00
0.00
6.59
130
0 . an
0.00
0.01
6,64
131
o. r»c
:.oc
0.05
^.08
1*2
0.0?
0.01
0.32
4.84
133
0.05
0.03
0.59
2.20
134
O.Ofl
0.05
0.50
1.29
135
1 .<*9
0.04
0.32
0.59
life
1.1®
0.05
0.36
0 ,61
137
O.a?
ft.07
0.37
0,60
136
0.*4
0.09
0.37
0 ,60
13 9
0.3?
0.10
0,37
0.58
140
0.05
0,02
0.40
0.72
0 . a7
0.03
0,37
0.53
C-184
TABLE U
c»AG Z •<
oxygen calculated
'95
canning SEASON
VL>
DO
(MG/L)
j^ban
total
SATURATION
90TH
PERCENTILE
ajnofc
DEFICIT
level
DO
DO
DO STANDA
0.00
3.33
8.55
5.22
3,64
6,36
0.00
3.20
8.55
5,35
3.81
6.36
0.00
3.17
8.68
5.51
3,99
6,42
0,00
2.98
8,62
5.63
4.16
6.39
o.no
2.6?
8.33
5.71
4.36
6,26
0.00
2.16
8.33
6.17
4.96
6,26
o.oc
1.88
B, 33
&.*5
5.34
6,26
0.00
1.84
8.33
6.48
5,38
6.26
0,00
1.82
8.33
6,51
5.41
6, 26
0.00
7.97
7.93
0.03
0.00
6.06
0.00
5.31
7,93
2.61
0.40
6.06
0,00
2,47
7.93
5.45
4.15
6,06
0.00
2,52
8.73
6.21
4.89
6,45
0,00
4.61
a.73
4.12
2,13
6,45
0.00
3,14
&.51
5.36
3.84
5,34
o.oo
2,05
8.19
6.14
4,97
6. 19
0,00
1.30
7.95
6.65
5.72
6.07
0.00
5.31
7.6s!
2.34
0.12
5.93
0,00
1.92
7.65
5.73
4.60
5,93
0.00
2.05
7.65
5.60
4.43
5. 93
0.00
6.60
7.65
1,04
0.00
5.93
0.00
6.66
7.65
0,98
0.00
5.95
o.oc
6.15
7.65
1.49
0.00
5.93
0.00
5.20
7 ,65
2.44
0.26
5.93
o.oo
2.89
7,65
4.75
3,32
5.93
0.00
1.94
7,65
5.70
4.56
5.93
0.00
2.45
7.87
5.42
4.12
6.04
0.00
2.2 t
7,80
5.59
4.37
6.00
0.00
1.88
7,73
5.85
4,73
V97
0.00
1.62
7,69
6.07
5.04
5. 95
o.oo
1.39
7.66
6.26
5.30
5,94
0.00
1.21
7.67
6.45
5.55
5,94
o.oo
1.0*
7.67
6,65
5.61
^.94
-------
.a*
1
2
3
4
*
f.
7
H
9
10
11
1 2
13
14
15
16
17
in
is*
io
i 1
i?
23
«»4
25
26
il
2B
29
50
51
i?
33
34
55
36
TABLE 1?
SOUTH 3AT
1.41
Of)
6?
U4
??
2?
17
16
11
IS
1?
19
U
0.1?
0,11
0.1?
0.11
o.m
0,11
O.H
0,1"
0.?1
o.n
0.J3
0.ft«
n.io
0,ft6
o.nft
o.o*
T.Of-
0.04
DISSOLVED
OXYGEN i
CALCULATED
JP3RADE SAN JOSE
1995
*tT SEASON
00 DEFICIT
COMPONENTS
(«IS/L)
DO
(MG/L)
0T-ie*
RDTTO*
SWA«P
jrban
total
saturation
dischargers
OEMaNQ
loads
RUNOFF
DEFICIT
level
DO
0.00
0.39
0.58
0.15
2.56
10,2*
7,68
0.00
0.39
0.60
0.13
2,1*
10.09
7.95
0.00
0.39
0.53
0.10
1.66
9.91
ft.24
n.oo
0.39
0.<*9
0,08
l.*l
9.78
8.36
0.00
0.3&
0,<*7
0.06
1.25
9.62
0,37
0.01
0.39
0.46
0.05
1.15
9.49
8,33
0,02
0.39
0.38
0.0*
1,02
9,38
6.35
0.0?
0.39
0.36
o.o*
0,99
9.33
8.34
0.04
0.39
0.35
0.03
0.96
9.4*
8.*7
0.04
0.39
0.34
0,03
0.95
9.45
8,i»9
0.05
0.39
0.35
0,03
0.97
9.40
8.43
0.05
0.39
0.34
0,03
0,96
9.39
8.43
0.07
0.39
0.34
0.03
0.97
9.3*
6.36
0.07
0.39
0.34
0.03
0.97
9.35
8.37
0.06
0.38
0.32
0.03
0.93
9.36
8,*2
0.09
0,40
0.36
o.o*
1.01
9.33
8.32
0.0*
0.39
0.35
0.0*
1.00
9.3*
8,33
0.0?
0.30
0.32
0.03
0.95
9.3*
8.39
n. 0 9
0,40
0.3*
0.0*
1.0*
9.33
8.26
0.09
0,40
0.36
0,0*
1,0*
9.33
8.29
o.on
0.38
0.32
0.03
0.95
9,34
8,58
0.10
0.40
0.40
0.0*
1.0*
9.32
8.23
0.13
0.42
0.38
0.0*
1,13
9.31
8.17
0.10
0.39
0,35
0,0*
1,03
9.32
8.29
0.15
0,43
0,40
0,05
1.21
9.29
8.08
0.1$
0.44
0.40
0,05
1.22
9.29
a,06
0.13
0.43
0,38
0,05
1,21
9.31
8.09
0.19
0,46
0.40
0,05
1.26
9,27
8,00
0.22
0.49
0,39
0,05
1,30
9.46
8.15
0.27
0.54
0.3*
0.05
1.32
9.41
ft. 09
n.27
0.52
0.35
0.05
1.31
9.42
8.10
0,25
0,53
0,35
o.o*
1.P5
9. SB
&.13
0.29
0.57
0,29
0,0*
1,26
9.38
8.11
0.31
0.56
0.30
0,0*
1.29
9,38
H.08
0.31
0.56
0.2*
o.o*
1,2?
9. 57
8.03
0.2*
0.57
0.38
0,05
1.35
9.36
B.01
90TH PERCENTILE
DO DO STANDARD
6.35
6.75
7.20
7.40
7.*5
7.45
7.51
7.51
7.65
7.67
7.60
7.61
7.53
7.55
7.61
7.48
7.50
7,57
7.*5
7,4*
7.56
7.37
7.30
7.44
7.18
7,15
7.19
7.06
7.23
7.15
7,17
7.21
7,19
7.15
7.16
7.06
7.16
7.09
7.01
6.94
6,97
6,00
6.75
6.73
6.7«
6.78
6.76
6.76
6.73
6.7*
6.7*
6.73
6.73
6.73
6.73
6,73
6.73
6.73
6.72
6.73
6.71
6.71
6.72
6.70
6.79
6.77
6,77
6,75
6.75
6.75
6.75
6,7*
C-185
-------
TABLE 12
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
UPGRADE SAN JOSE - 1995
DO DEFICIT COMPONENTS
CALCULATED
WET SEASON
DO ( MI3/L >
south sat
OTHER
BOTTOM
SWAMP
J*9*N
TOTAL
saturation
90TH
PERCENTILE
itbMEN1
DISCHARpFRS
dischargers
qemamd
LOADS
RUNOFF
DEFICIT
LEVEL
DD
00
DO STANDARD
57
0,0f»
0.26
0.58
0.27
0,0*
1.23
9.30
A. 1*
7.23
6.75
38
0.0*
0.3?
0.57
0.29
0,0*
1.29
9.37
0.07
7,1*
6.75
39
o.e?
0.36
0.57
0.21
0.03
1.21
9.33
8.12
7,22
6,73
<40
0.0?
0«31
0,50
0.40
0 # 05
1.30
9,3*
7,96
7,00
6.7*
+ 1
0,05
0,24
0,59
0.2*
O.O1*
1.2?
9,37
0.15
7.25
6.75
42
0.05
0.3?
0.59
0.27
0.0*
1.30
9.36
8.06
7.13
6.7*
43
0.01
0.36
0.50
0.16
0.03
1.15
9.32
0.16
7,28
6.72
o.o?
0.20
0.57
0.33
0.0*
i.26
9.33
0.06
7.15
6. 73
4 5
0,03
0.26
0,59
0,2*
0.03
1.17
9.36
0.10
7,29
6.7*
46
0.03
0.33
0.60
0.21
0,03
1.22
9.3*
8.12
7.21
6.73
47
O.fM
0.34
0,57
0.12
0.02
1.09
9.31
0,22
7,36
6,72
«4 a
0.01
0.26
0.57
0.21
0.03
1.10
9,32
0.21
7.35
6.72
4 9
0,03
0.24
0.58
0.23
0,03
1.1*
9, 36
P.23
7.35
6.74
^0
o, n 3
0.3?
0.61
0.19
0,03
1.20
9,3*
0.13
7.2*
6.73
Si
0.01
0.31
0.57
0.11
0,02
1.0*
9.31
0.27
7,*2
6,72
52
0.90
0.2&
0.58
0.14
0.03
1.03
9.31
0.27
7,*3
6.72
^3
0,03
0.22
0,58
0,22
0,03
1.10
9.35
0.25
7.39
6.7*
o.o?
0.20
0.61
0 . 20
0.03
1.17
9.31
0.U
7.26
6.72
•55
0.00
0.23
0.57
0.10
0,02
0.99
9.31
9.31
7, *6
6.72
56
0.0P
0.25
0.59
0.10
0,03
1.00
9.30
0.30
7,*7
6,72
•37
o.o?
0.21
0.66
0.20
0,03
1.17
9.03
7.05
6. 9b
6.59
58
0,03
0.33
0.77
0.25
0,03
1. *2
8,91
7 , *0
6,51
6.53
*39
o.pn
0.24
0.55
0*08
o.oi
0.91
9.31
0.39
7.59
6. 72
SO
0,f?n
0.20
0.59
0.06
0,0?
0.90
9,?0
0,37
7.57
6,71
fa 1
O.ni
0*19
0,60
0.16
0,02
1.00
9,0*
0,O»*
7,20
6.59
b?
0.01
0.12
0.38
0.10
0.01
0.63
9.80
9.16
0.**
6.95
63
o.on
0.23
0.55
0.08
0,01
0.89
9.32
0. *2
7.62
6.72
S*
0.00
0.19
0.66
0.04
0,01
0.92
9,23
0.31
7.50
6.68
65
0.01
0.15
0.50
0.1*
0,02
0.93
9,08
0.1*
7, 33
6.61
Sfc
0,01
0.13
0,51
0.11
0,01
0.79
9,146
0.66
7,90
6.79
b 7
o.no
0.26
0.53
0.06
0.01
0.89
9,27
0,38
7,50
6. 70
SB
o.no
0.2?
0.69
n.os
0,01
0.97
9.21
0,23
7,41
6.67
89
0,01
0.14
0.58
0.11
0.02
0.80
9.11
8,23
7,4*
6.63
70
0,00
0.17
0.55
0.10
0.01
0,86
9,20
0.*?
7,63
6.71
71
o.on
0.33
0,53
0,03
0.00
0,91
9,16
8,2*
7.43
6.65
f?
o.nn
0.31
0.6*
0.01
0,00
0 .98
9,13
0.15
7.32
6.64
C-186
-------
TABLE 12
*ta«Er-j I
75
75
fh
n
fPt
r 9
90
91
9?
93
bs
«6
37
96
99
*0
*1
*2
*6
~*7
*9
1 U U
101
10?
10 3
11)1*
1U5
106
10 7
10 9
OISSOLVCD
DXrGEM c
ALCULATED
JOSRADE
SAN JOSE
1995
WET SEASON
DO DETK
IT CO^POMENTS
(*G/L)
IT 1 3AY
omer
BOTTOM
swamp
URBA^
TOTflL
SaTURaTIC
'HART, FRS
ti^Charsers
OEmAVD
loads
RJ^OFF
OCFICIT
LEVEL
o, on
0.15
0.50
0. 06
0.01
0.84
9.12
0.00
0.29
0.51
0,05
0,01
0,87
9.13
0.00
n.4o
0,49
0.01
0.00
0.92
9.11
o,nn
0. 36
0,50
0.03
O.ol
0.91
9.09
o.nn
0.45
0.45
0.02
0,00
0.94
9.08
0,00
0.51
0.37
0,01
0,00
0,91
9,06
0,00
0.23
0.45
0,00
0.00
0.69
9.06
o.nn
0.44
0.48
0.02
0.00
0.97
9,08
o.nn
0.50
0,38
0,01
0.00
0.91
9.07
0.00
0.53
0.28
0.01
0,00
0.83
9.06
o.nn
0.51
0,27
0,01
0,00
0,80
9.06
o.nn
o.5n
0.2 2
0. 00
0.00
0.74
9.05
o.nn
0.4R
0.19
0.00
0.00
0.69
9.06
o.nn
0.46
0,18
0,00
0,00
0.66
9.05
0.00
0.25
0.02
0.00
0.00
0,28
9.27
o.on
0.45
0.13
0.00
0,00
0,61
9.27
o.nn
0.35
0.11
0.00
0,00
0.47
9.25
o.nn
0.22
0,02
0,00
0,00
0.25
9.28
o.nn
0,27
0,07
0.00
0,00
0,34
9,27
o.nn
0.21
0,05
0,00
0,00
0,?3
9.24
o.nn
0.12
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.15
9.17
o.on
0.04
0.01
0.00
0.00
0,05
9.07
0,00
o.l?
0.02
0,00
0,00
0.15
9.35
o.nn
n.09
0.01
0.00
0,00
0.09
9.3«*
O.no
0.09
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.11
9.17
o.no
n.oo
0.06
0.00
0.50
0.57
10.36
o.o?
0.00
0.06
0,14
0.91
1.15
10.36
0,?^
0.00
0.21
1,08
1,03
2.59
10.32
0.^5
0,00
0,31
1.92
0,77
3.56
10.29
0 ,9«t
0.00
0.44
1.79
0.42
3.60
10.26
4,1?
n.oo
0.00
0,00
o.no
4.13
9.08
*~.10
n.oo
0.02
0.00
0.00
4,13
9,?7
¦~.n?
n.oo
0.03
o.nn
0.00
4.12
9.<*7
3.91
0,00
0.12
0.01
0.01
4 , 06
9.68
3.«4
0.00
0.25
0.03
0,03
3,86
9.90
3, ?*.
o ,oo
0,29
0, 04
C , 0 4
3.65
9.90
00
DO
PAGE
90TH PERCENTILE
00 DO STANDARD
8.27
6,26
8,18
S.17
e.u
8.15
8,36
8,10
8.15
8.2?
8,25
8.31
8,36
8.39
8,99
8.66
8.77
9.02
e,92
8. 96
9.01
9.0?
9.20
9, 2«f
9.06
9.79
9.20
7.73
6.72
6,65
4.94
5.13
5.3*
5,61
6.03
6.?4
7.119
7.46
7.37
7.36
7.32
7.35
7.63
7.28
7.35
7.44
7#<»e
7.56
7.63
7.66
8.39
7.95
8,11
fl.43
8.30
8.35
6,i»5
6,49
8.64
0.69
8.51
9,09
8.32
6.38
5.06
4.98
5.11
3.30
3,51
3.60
<*,28
4.55
6.63
6. S3
6.62
6,61
6.61
6.60
6.60
6.61
6,60
6.60
6,60
6.60
6.60
6.60
6,70
6,70
6.69
6.70
6,70
6.69
6 . 65
6.61
6.7<»
6.73
6.63
7.22
7.22
7.20
7.18
7.17
6.61
6.70
6.79
6.99
7.00
7.50
C-187
-------
5>LCiM,
109
110
1 11
112
113
UU
115
116
117
116
119
120
121
14'2
123
12*»
125
126
127
129
12 9
150
131
I J?
153
134
155
156
157
158
159
1 <*0
1<+1
TABLE 12
SOUTH qy\Y OTHER
niSCHASeFTRS DISCHARGERS
3.07
0,00
2,**
0.00
2.M
0.00
2, nn
0.00
0,23
0.00
0,M
0.00
0,40
0.00
0 ,4«>
0.00
0.1?
0.00
0,03
0.00
0.0P
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.39
0.00
2,06
0.00
1,44
0.00
0.9®
0,00
0,«**
0.01
0,00
0.00
0,0'
0.01
0,06
0.03
0,00
0,00
c.cr
0.00
o.oi
0.00
0.03
0.01
0,07
0,05
0.10
0.07
1. 3*
0.05
1.11
0.06
0,79
0.0*
0 ,5?
0.10
0,33
0.12
0,07
n,03
0,09
0,1)5
DISSOLVED
JPGRADC JOSE
DO DEFICIT CO"PO\IENTS
30 t row
SirfftMP
OE#AND
loads
0.33
0.07
0,36
0.11
0.39
0.22
0,40
0.41
0.75
0,59
0,70
0,63
0.56
0,61
0,51
0,61
0,4?
0,59
0.05
6,88
0.28
2,85
0.45
1,18
1,02
0,26
1.64
0. 39
1.17
0.35
0.60
0,32
0.53
0,30
0.02
2,46
0,30
1 ,08
0.4ft
0,97
0.00
1.23
0.00
4 ,36
0,06
5,84
0,37
2,76
0.67
1 ,24
0,50
0,75
0,37
0,35
0,42
0,37
0.4»*
0,36
0.44
0.39
0,43
0.38
0,
-------
TABLE 13
st I
in
11
IP
13
1U
n
i*
17
lfl
19
?r
?1
??
?3
?u
?p.
? 7
i>H
?9
30
51
A?
55
34
<*
dissolved
OXYGEN
CALCULATED
DEEP
HATER DISCHARGE
1965
DRY SEASON
00
DEFICIT
components
<*G/L>
DO
' T • i PAY
OTHER
30TT0«
SWftMP
JRBAM
TOTAL
saturation
• h /\ o p, r r s
DISCHARGERS
DEMAND
LOADS
RUNOFF
DEFICIT
level
0 . 0<4
n.oo
0.34
1,43
0,00
1,62
7,67
o.oa
0,00
0,33
1,14
0,00
1,54
7,60
n.np
n.oo
0.23
0.86
0,00
1 ,20
7,69
n.i i
o.no
0,1?
0,72
0,00
1,16
7.69
P.I*
n.no
0,32
0,66
0,00
1.15
7,70
n.no
0.32
0,63
0,00
1,20
7,70
0.
0.01
0,32
0,50
0,00
1.16
7.71
0,3*
n,oi
0.32
0, *~ 7
0,00
1,10
7,71
o.
0,03
0,31
0,44
0,00
1,34
7.06
O.I**
0,03
0,31
0.44
0,00
1,25
7,04
o.uu
0,04
0,32
0.46
0,00
1.27
7,02
°,u 1
0.04
0.32
0,46
0,00
1,24
7,02
0.
0,0ft
0,33
0,40
0.00
1,10
7,70
o.
0.0*
0,32
0,47
0,00
1,20
7.79
P,*1
0,05
0,32
0,43
0,00
1,13
7,79
o, so
0.06
0.33
0,52
0,00
1,22
7.77
0,^1
n.07
0,32
0,49
0,00
1.21
7.70
0.
0,06
0.31
0,45
0,00
1.12
7,70
0, !>9
n,07
0.33
0,54
0,00
1,25
7,77
n. xn
0.0*
0,33
0,51
0,00
1,23
7,77
0 ,?«
n,06
0,31
0,45
0,00
1,12
7.70
o.*n
0,0ft
0,33
0,58
0,00
1,30
7.77
0,?9
0,11
0,35
0,55
0,00
1,31
7,76
0.
o.on
0,32
0,49
0,00
1.19
7,77
0,Pft
0,13
0.36
0,59
0,00
1,38
7.75
0,*7
0,14
0,37
0,50
o.oo
1,39
7.74
0 .
0.1?
0,36
0,55
0,00
1,31
7.75
0.?*
0,17
0,39
0,59
0,00
1,43
7.73
0.?*
0.20
0.41
0,50
0,00
1,45
7.05
0.1A
0,25
0,46
0,52
0,00
1,42
7.02
r. i
n.2*
0,45
0,53
0,00
1 ,42
7,03
0,1"
n.2?
0,45
0,55
0,00
1,34
7.01
0,1 r
ft.27
0,49
0,43
0,00
1 ,31
7.00
0,11
n, 3n
O.40
0,46
0,00
1,36
7,00
0 ,1 n
o,3i
0,48
0,44
0,00
1,34
7.00
n . 0 f
n.2ft
0, 49
0,64
0,00
1 .<*7
7,79
(M6/L)
DO
PAGE
90TH PERCENTILE
00 00 STANDARD
5,05
6.14
6,40
6.53
6.54
6,50
6.54
6,53
6,52
6.56
6.55
6.57
6,60
6,59
6,66
6,55
6,57
6,66
6.52
6.53
6,65
6,46
6.4H
6,57
6,36
6,35
6,13
6,30
6,i»0
6,40
6,»*1
6,i»6
6,»*0
6.44
6.45
6.3?
4.75
5,13
S.»7
5.6t
5,66
5.40
5.66
5.6*
5.58
5.67
5.63
5.66
5.71
5.69
5.79
5.60
5."
5.79
5.60
5.62
5.78
5.53
5.51
5.68
5 .<»0
5.39
5.50
5.33
5.*2
5.1H
5,»<»
5.52
5.55
5.»9
5.51
5.31
5.9»
5.95
5.95
5.95
5.95
5.96
5.96
5.96
6.03
6.02
6.01
6.01
5.99
6.00
6.00
5.99
5.99
5.99
5.99
5.99
5.99
5.99
5.98
5.99
5. 98
5.97
5.98
5.97
6.03
6.01
6.02
6.01
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
C-189
-------
3w i
A 7
59
40
45
4?
4 3
44
45
46
47
U.R
>4?
50
51
52
55
*14
55
56
57
bfl
59
hn
61
62
63
64
t.5
<>6
6 7
f. M
6 9
7p
71
7?
TABLE 13
dissolved
Dfrp WATER DISCHARGE
DO deficit components
SOl'T | T A Y OTHER
msrM^r>r,rR^ DTsChARSCrs
RJTTOM
DEMAND
SWAMP
LOADS
OXYGEN
1985
M3/D
UR^A^
rj^off
calculated
DRY SEASON
total
DEFICIT
PAGE
0 , PQ
n.2 4
0.50
0,41
0.00
1.26
o. i n
0,30
0.50
0.44
0,00
1.35
0.04
n.34
0.50
0.32
0.00
1.21
O.n*
0.2^
0.5C
0.67
0.00
1,51
o.p*
n.2?
0.51
0.H5
0.00
1.27
o. no
o.3i
0.5?
0.42
0.00
1.3*
0. n?
0.34
0 .50
0.25
0.00
1,13
0. n?
n.2s
0.49
0.56
0.00
1.35
o.n*
0. 24
0.51
0.37
0.00
1.19
Q.O*
n.31
0.52
0.32
0.00
1.22
0.01
0.32
0 . 50
0.19
0.00
1,03
0 .PI
0.24
0.4B
0.35
0.00
1.09
p. p*
n.?i
0.50
0.36
0,00
1.13
0
0.30
0.53
0.30
0,00
1,18
0. CM
0.29
0.50
0.16
0.00
0.97
0.01
0.23
0.49
0.22
0.00
0, 97
0.04
0.19
0.50
0.35
0.00
1.10
0.04
0,2*
0.53
0.32
0.00
1.15
0. 01
0.26
0.49
0.14
0.00
0,91
O.nn
P.2?
0.51
0.15
0.00
0.90
0,0*
0 . 2 0
0.56
0.31
0,00
l.H
0, P4
0.29
P. 66
0.38
0.00
1,39
0.
0.20
0.48
0.11
0.00
0,02
0. PP
0.17
0.51
0.09
0,00
0.78
o.r?
0.14
0.50
0.24
0.00
0,91
0.P1
0.10
0.33
0.14
0,00
0,59
O.nn
P.19
0.4R
0.11
0.00
O.ftO
0. PP
P.15
0.57
0,05
0.00
0.79
0.01
0.1?
0.49
0.19
0.00
0,63
0. n i
P.10
0.44
0.15
0.00
0.71
o.nn
P .2?
0.47
0.09
0.00
0.79
0 .no
P . 1 9
0.S1
0.04
0.00
0.84
o.ni
0.10
0.50
0.15
o.oo
0,77
o.m
0.13
0.49
0.13
0.00
0,77
0, nn
P. 30
0.47
0.03
0.00
0.82
O.n*
n.2 7
0.5*
0 .0?
o.on
0,87
DO
SATURATION
tmg/l )
level
DO
DO
30 STfifOftRD
7.SO
6.53
5.62
6.00
7.BO
6.4 5
5.50
6,00
7.78
6.56
5.66
5,99
7.78
6.27
5.27
6.00
7.80
6.53
5.61
6,00
7.79
6.44
5.50
6,00
7,77
6.64
5.76
5,99
7.78
6.43
3.<*8
5.99
7,79
6.60
5,71
6,00
7.78
6.56
5.65
3.99
7.77
6.73
5.89
5,99
7.77
6,67
5.61
5,99
7,78
6.65
5,77
5,99
7,78
6.59
5.69
5.99
7,77
6.80
5.97
5.99
7,77
6.80
5.98
5,99
7,78
6.67
5,61
5,99
7,75
6.59
5.71
5.90
7.77
6. 85
6.05
5.99
7,76
6.86
6.06
5.99
7.47
6, 36
5.49
3.83
7.37
5.97
5,01
5*80
7.77
6.95
6,17
5,99
7.75
6.96
6,20
5.98
7,48
6.57
5.76
*.85
8.18
7.58
6.68
6.18
7.78
6. 9fl
6.21
5.99
7.72
6.92
6.15
5.96
7.51
6.68
5.90
5.97
7,86
7.14
6,40
6.03
7.75
6.96
6.19
5.98
7.70
6. 85
6,07
5.96
7.82
7.04
6.28
6. 01
8.00
7.23
6,47
6,10
7.96
7. 14
6.37
6,00
7. 94
7.06
6.27
6.07
-------
TABLE 13
dissolved oxygem calculated
lECP water DISCHARGE - 1905 - DRY SEASON
DO DEFICIT COMPONENTS MG/L>
SO"«Th ^ay
OHE*
BOTTOM
SWA*P
URBAN
total
G Mfl 11
-------
¦p.'GmC
109
110
m
11?
i1?
114
115
116
117
llfl
119
120
1?1
12?
123
124-
125
1?S
12 7
1 ? B
1 ?9
130
131
13?
133
134
1 35
13*
137
1 IP
1 39
140
1 *4 1
TABLE 13
PAGE 4
-)ISSULVED OXYGEN CALCULATED
HE:F° rtflTER OISCH^RGE - 19B5 - DRY SEASON
do deficit components <*s/l> do img/d
SO"T-< A*y
ornc^
1DTT0M
SWA«F>
URBAM
TOTAL
saturation
90TH
PERCENTILE
DTSrHAOitfRS
DJ^CHARSERS
DEMAND
loads
RUNOFF
DEFICIT
level
DO
00
00 STANDARD
O.P?
n.oo
0.4B
1.45
0.00
1.95
7.44
5. 48
4,35
5.93
O.n?
0.03
0.44
1 . 42
0.00
1,88
7,44
5,55
4,44
5.93
n. os
n. qo
0.40
1.43
0.00
1,87
7.55
5, 68
4.57
5.A8
0 . *7
n.oo
0.37
1.45
0,00
1,86
7.55
5,69
4.58
5,AS
0 . nn
n.oo
0.83
1,50
0,00
?,38
7.69
5,30
4,03
5,95
O.nu
0.00
Q.64
1.20
0,00
1.89
7.69
5,79
4,67
5,95
C.P*
n, 00
0.4S
1 .04
0,00
l.Sfl
7,69
6,10
5,08
5,95
0 . ns
n.oo
0.43
1.01
0,00
1.51
7,69
6.17
5,17
5,95
O.n*
0.00
0.40
0.97
0,00
1 ,44
7,69
6.24
5.27
5,95
0.0?
0.00
0.05
7,87
0.00
7.96
7,70
-0.25
0.00
5,96
0.07
n.oo
0,24
4.97
o.oo
5.30
7,70
2,40
0,19
5.96
O.l*
n.oo
0.30
1 .90
0.00
2.45
7,70
5.25
3.95
5,96
n.no
n.oo
0.99
0. 77
o.no
1,76
7.70
5,94
4,86
5.96
0,01
0.00
1 .61
1,01
0,00
2,65
7.70
5.05
3.69
5.96
O.ft*
n.oo
0,93
0.51
0.00
1,50
7.70
6.20
5.21
5,96
0.14
n#00
0.51
0.38
0,00
1.05
7.70
6,65
5.79
5.96
0, ?t*
0.00
0.4?
0.37
0,00
1.05
7,70
6,65
5,80
5.96
0.01
0.00
0.02
5.J>8
0.00
5,35
7.65
2.31
0,10
5.93
o. n*
0.00
0.26
1,62
0,00
1,96
7.65
5.68
4.54
3.93
0.1«
0.0?
0.40
1.56
0.00
2.15
7.65
5.49
4,29
5.93
o.nn
n.oo
0.00
6.59
0.00
6,61
7,64
1,03
0.00
5,92
0,01
n.oo
0.01
6.64
0,00
6,67
7,64
0,96
0,00
5,92
C. nT
n.oo
0.05
6.OB
0,00
6.17
7.64
1,46
0,00
5,92
n.n7
n.oi
0.3?
4,33
0,00
5.25
7.64
2.39
0,19
5,92
0.1*
0.05
0,59
2.19
0.00
2.98
7,64
4,65
3.18
5,92
0.9?
n,o*
0. 50
1.28
0,00
2.07
7,64
5,56
4.39
5.92
0.1*
0.04
0.34
0 . 65
0,00
1.20
7,62
6.42
5.52
5.92
0.17
0.05
0.37
0.64
0,00
1.25
7.62
6.37
5.46
5.92
n . ?n
0.07
0.39
0.62
0,00
1.28
7.62
6,34
5.42
5.92
0.?"*
n ,n
-------
TABLE 14
nlSSIUUET .1XYGEM calculated
3FFP nlATElH DISCHARGE - 19ft5 . CANNING SEI
D3 DEFICIT COMPONENTS <*G/L>
<;n 111< R(\r 3T-i£i fjarrou swawp j*bam total
- runoff deficit
0.00 1.93
0.00 1.55
0.00 1.30
0.00 1.19
0.00 l.?0
0.00 1.J6
0,00 1,25
0.00 1,28
0.00 1.1(9
0.00 1,37
0,00 1,38
0.00 1.3H
0,00 1,J>!(
o.no 1.27
0,00 1,20
0.00 1.2B
0.01) 1.27
O.OO 1,18
0.00 1.31
0.00 1.30
O.OO 1,18
0.00 1.36
0.00 1,37
0.00 1.2*
0.00 1.HH
0,00 1,45
0.00 1.36
0.00 l.i»8
0.00 1.H9
0.00 1.1)5
0,00 i,M5
0.00 1,36
0.00 1.S3
o.oo i.js
0.00 1,S&
o.oo i.ti
st. • t
OT^rH/iorrRS
^rscn/vRrxrss
hevamd
LOADS
i
n, nr-
n. 00
0.34
1.43
p
0.17
n.o o
0, 33
a, if
3
o*tr
n. (? o
0.33
0,«6
«*
n. 1«
o.no
0.32
0.72
n, ? i
n.oo
0.3?
0.66
t.
r.
n.oo
0.3?
0.63
7
n.un
n.oi
0.32
0,50
n. u t
n,oi
0.32
0.47
9
n, ^
0.03
0.31
0, 44
1 P
0.^7
0.03
0.31
0.44
11
p.0»*
0.32
0.46
I?
o.«i
n,o<*
0,32
O.H6
1 5
n. **
0. fK
0,33
0.4B
1M
n. m
n.n*
0.32
0.47
1 *
r. in
0.05
0.32
0.43
If.
0, ȣ
n, o*
0.33
0.52
17
n,
n.o?
0.3?
0.49
1 P
n.06
0.31
0.45
t«»
0.07
0.3*
0.54
PO
o. *#,
n,o«
0.33
0,51
n. **
n.o*
0,31
0.45
p.-**
ri,n*
0.33
o.sa
r, **
ft.U
0.3?
0.55
->t4
1# Vi
n.o*
0,32
0.49
P6)
0. xu
0.13
0.36
0.59
f' f\
r> t i *
n,l4
0.^7
0.5ft
?7
0. ^
0.1?
0,36
0.55
0,^
0.17
0,3^
0.59
;»q
n.
n,5>0
o.«n
0.5B
0 , 9n
n.?5
e.46
0.5?
M
0.,-)
n.?*
0,4*
0,53
*>?
S.I *>
*,2?
0,45
0,53
*>7t
0.1»
n.2 7
0,49
0,43
t. t *
f), 31
P.4**
0,46
n, 1 •?
t>. 5l
n.44
0,44
< f,
'',1n
¦J.4 )
0 .64
on (hs/li
sSflTURATIOV
LEVEL
03
7,67
5,84
7. 68
*.12
7. f 9
6,38
7,69
6,50
7,70
6,49
7.70
6,43
7.71
6,46
7.71
6.43
7.86
6,37
7.P4
6.46
7.82
6.4H
7.82
6,47
7,7 ft
6.54
7.79
6.52
7.79
6,59
7.77
6.48
7.76
6,50
7.78
6,60
7.77
6,46
7.77
6,47
7.78
6,59
7.77
6.40
7.7fe
6,30
7,77
6.52
7,75
6.30
7.74
6.29
7.75
6.30
7,73
6.25
7.A5
6.35
7,82
6.37
7.83
6.37
7.81
6.4t»
T.ftO
6,46
7,fl0
6,42
7.80
6.43
7,79
6,31
page i
90TH
PERCENTILE
DO
00 STANDARD
4.74
5.94
5,11
5.95
5.44
5.95
5,60
5.95
5,60
5.95
5,52
5.96
*.54
5.96
5.51
5.96
5,38
6.03
5,51
6.0?
5.48
6.01
5.53
6.01
5.&3
5.99
5,60
6.00
5,69
6.00
5,56
5.99
5.58
5.99
5,70
5,99
5.32
5.99
5,54
5.99
5,70
5.99
5,<*5
5.99
5,43
5.9ft
5.60
5.99
5,32
5.98
5,31
5.97
5.43
5.96
5,26
5.97
5.36
6.03
5,39
6.01
5,39
6.02
5.50
6.01
5,52
6.00
5,46
6.00
5,49
6.00
5.32
6.00
C-193
-------
TABLE ?4
OISSOLVEO
DEXP HATER DISCHARGE
OD DEFICIT COMPONENTS
SOUTH BAY
OTHER
bottom
swamp
SEGMENT
OrSrHrtRRER^
i
o.io
0.44
0,15
*7
0,00
0.2?
0.47
0,09
68
o.oo
0,1*
0.61
0,04
69
0,01
0.10
0.50
0.15
70
O.IM
0.13
0.49
0.13
73
0,nn
0,30
0.47
• 0,03
7?
0. n n
0.?7
n. 56
0.02
C-194
PACE 2
axrsEN calculated
965
CANNING SEASON
;/l>
DO
(MG/L1
JSBaN
total
saturation
90TH
PERCENTILE
runoff
DEFICIT
level
00
00
00 STAN3ARD
0,00
1.26
7.80
6,52
5,59
6.00
0,00
1.37
7,80
6.43
5,47
6.00
0,00
1.22
7,78
6,55
5,65
5 , 99
0.00
1.52
7,70
6.26
5,23
6.00
0,00
1.26
7.80
6,51
5.59
6.00
0,00
1.36
7,79
6,43
5,<18
6.00
o.oo
1.13
7,77
6,63
5,75
5.99
0,00
1.35
7,7©
6,42
5,17
5,99
0.00
1,20
7 ,79
6,59
5,69
6.00
0,00
1.23
7.78
6.54
5.6*
5.99
0.00
1,04
7.77
6.73
5,68
5.99
o.oo
1.10
7.77
6,67
5,60
5.99
0.00
l.l*
7.78
6.64
5,76
5.99
0,00
1.19
7.78
6.58
5,68
5.99
0.00
0.97
7.77
6,79
5.97
5.99
0.00
0.97
7.77
6,80
5."
5.99
0,00
1.11
7.78
6,67
5.«0
5.99
0.00
1.16
7,75
6,50
5.70
5.98
0,00
0.91
7.77
6,85
6.0*
9.99
0,00
0.90
7.76
6,86
6.06
5.99
0.00
1.12
7.47
6,35
5. *8
5.95
0.00
1.40
7,37
5,96
5,00
5.BO
0.00
0 . 62
7.77
6,95
6.17
5.99
0.00
0.78
7.75
6,96
6.20
5.9#
0.00
0.92
7.48
6,56
5.75
5.55
0.00
0.60
8.18
7.56
6.67
6.16
0.00
0.80
7,78
6,97
6.21
5.99
0,00
0,79
7.72
6.92
6.15
5.96
0.00
0.63
7.51
6.68
5.90
5.87
0.00
0.72
7.86
7.14
6.DO
6.03
0.00
0.79
7.75
6.96
6.19
5.98
0.00
0.85
7.70
6,85
6.07
5.96
0,00
0,78
7.82
7.03
6.27
6.01
o.oo
0.77
6,00
7,23
6.K7
6.10
0,00
0,82
7.96
7,14
6.57
6.08
0,00
0.87
7.94
7,06
6.27
6.07
-------
TABLE 14
DISSOLVED QXYREM CALCULATED
?eep
WATER DISCHARGE
1 985
CANNING SE
DO
DEFICIT
components
SOnTM
OTHE*
BOTTOM
swamp
UR0AN
total
SFGMtNT
HI^rHftP^rRS
DISCHARGERS
OEMANO
loads
RUNOFF
DEFICIT
73
o.nn
o.l?
0.51
0.09
0.00
0,7*
74
O.oo
0.25
0.*5
0.05
0.00
0,77
75
o.nr
0.37
0.*4
0.01
0.00
0.04
7S
C .pn
0.55
o.*5
0.03
0.00
0,84
77
o.on
O.H*
0,*1
0.02
0,00
0,88
Tt\
o.nr
0.50
0.34
0.01
0.00
0.86
79
o.nn
0.21
0.40
0.00
0,00
0,62
BP
O.no
0.44
0.**
0.02
0,00
0,91
HI
o.nn
n.51
0.34
0.01
0,00
0.87
"2
o.nn
0.54
0.25
0.01
0,00
0.81
3 .
o.nn
0.52
0,24
0.01
0,00
0.78
ny
o,ft
0.5?
0.20
0.00
0.00
0,73
O.nn
0.50
0.16
0.00
0,00
0.68
O.nn
0.4*
0.16
0.00
0,00
0.65
M?
0. nn
0.24
0.02
0.00
0,00
0,26
0. nn
0.4fl
0.1?
0.00
0,00
0.61
89
O.nn
0.36
0.10
o.oo
0.00
0.46
*n
O.Ort
0.21
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.23
D.nn
0.2*
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.35
y?
0. nn
0.??
0.05
o.no
0,00
0.26
0. 0*
0.1?
0.02
0.00
0,00
0.1*
0,0 n
0.04
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.05
*•*
O.nn
0.1*
0.02
0.00
0,00
0.17
*6
O.nn
o.o*
0.01
0.00
0,00
0.10
^7
O.^r
o.o*
0.01
0.00
0,00
0.09
¦iM
o.nn
0.00
0.20
2.03
0,00
2.24
0,01
0.00
0.09
3.2*
0,00
3.35
J 0 0
o.n?
0.00
0.24
4,52
0.00
4.80
101
G.o?
0.00
0.29
*.87
o.oo
5.20
10?
O.o^
0.00
0.39
3.79
0,00
4.22
10 s
0.01
o.oo
1.0*
5.73
0.00
6.79
i im
0. n i
n.oo
0.98
*.62
0,00
5.62
10?
O.m
0.00
0.75
2.*8
0,00
3,26
I'i6
O.ni
0.00
0.70
1.91
0.00
2.63
1 " 7
n. ft?
o.oo
0.64
1 .63
0,00
2.29
inn
0. n?
o.oo
0.54
1.50
0,00
2.06
PA&E 3
00 (M6/L)
saturation
90 TH
PERCENTILE
level
00
DO
DO STANDAF
7,83
7.08
6.33
6.02
7.93
7.15
6.39
6.06
7,9*
7,09
6,31
6,07
7.90
7,06
6.28
6.99
7.92
7,04
6.25
6,06
7,9*
7,08
6.29
6,07
7.9*
7.32
6.60
6.07
7.92
7.01
6,20
6,06
7,94
7.06
6.27
6,07
7.95
7.14
6.36
6.07
7.95
7.17
6.40
6.07
7,96
7.23
6,48
6,08
7,96
7,28
6.55
6,08
7,96
7.31
6.58
6.08
8.09
7.82
7.23
6.1
-------
TABLE 14
POSE »
dissolveo oxygen calculated
DEEP
water discharge
19B5
CANNING SEASON
DO
DEFICIT
COMPONENTS
(MG/L)
DO
(M6/L)
SOUTH RAY
OTHER
bottom
SWftMP
urban
total
SATURATION
90TH
PERCENTILE
S t G M Z N T
niSPHAOGESS
HI^CHARGE^S
demand
loads
runoff
DEFICIT
LEVEL
DO
00
DO STANDARD
1 P9
o.n?
n.oo
O.HB
1.45
0,00
1*96
7,44
5.48
4,34
5.83
llf)
0.03
0.00
o .44
1,42
0,00
1.89
7,44
5,54
4.43
5,83
111
o. nu
0.00
0 . <+ 0
1.43
0,00
1,88
7.55
5,67
4.55
5,58
11?
O.ftn
0.00
0.37
1.45
0,00
1.87
7,55
5.68
4.56
5,88
11 3
0.0*
0.00
0.63
1,50
0,00
2.39
7.69
5,29
4,01
5,95
11<*
0.0*
0,00
0.64
1.20
0,00
1.91
7,69
5.77
4,65
5,95
115
0 .0*
0.00
0 . *~ 8
1,04
0,00
1.59
7,69
6,09
5,06
5,95
116
o»n 7
0,00
0.43
1,01
0,00
1.52
7,69
6,16
3,15
5,95
13 7
o.o«
0.00
O..40
0,97
0,00
1,46
7,69
6,22
5,24
5,95
UB
0.04
0.00
0,05
7,87
0,00
7.97
7,70
-0,26
0.00
5,96
119
0.0"
0.00
0.24
4.97
0,00
5.32
7,70
2.38
0.16
5,96
120
o.?o
0.00
0 ,38
1,90
0,00
2.49
7,70
*,21
3.90
5,96
121
o.oo
0.00
0.99
'0.77
0,00
1,77
7,70
5,93
4186
5,96
122
o.n?
0.00
1,61
1,01
0,00
2.65
7,70
5.05
3.69
5.96
123
0.06
0.00
0.93
0.51
0,00
1.51
7,70
6,19
5.19
5.96
12H
0,1«
0.00
0.51
0,38
0,00
1.09
7,70
6,61
5.74
5.96
125
0.11
0.00
0.42
0,37
0,00
1.12
7,70
6.58
5.71
5,96
126
o.n?
0.00
0.02
5,28
0,00
5.33
7,65
2.31
0.09
5,93
127
O.op
0.00
0 .28
1.62
0,00
1.98
7,65
5,66
4.52
5,93
12*
0.1*
0.0?
0.40
1,56
0,00
2.10
7,65
5,46
4.25
5,93
129
0.01
0.00
0.00
6.59
0,00
6,61
7,64
1,03
0.00
5,92
150
n.n?
0.00
0.01
6,64
0,00
6.67
7,64
0,96
0,00
5,92
131
0.03
0.00
0.05
6,08
0,00
6.17
7,64
1,46
0.00
5,92
13?
0 . no
0.01
0.32
4. 03
0,00
5.26
7,64
2,37
0.17
5.92
135
0.1 9
0. 03
0.59
2,19
0,00
3.01
7,64
4.62
3.1*
5,92
134
0 . ?7
0.05
0.50
1,28
0,00
2.12
7,64
5,51
4,32
5.92
15?
0.1«
0,04
0.3*
0,65
0.00
1.23
7,62
6,39
5.48
5,92
136
0.?f)
0.05
0.37
0,64
0,00
1.28
7,62
6,34
5.41
5,92
157
0.94
0.07
0,38
0,62
0,00
1,32
7,62
6,30
5.37
5,92
15P
0 , ?7
0.09
0.38
0,60
0,00
1.35
7,62
6,27
5,32
5.92
139
0,*n
0.10
0,37
0,57
0,00
1. 36
7,62
6,26
5.31
5,92
itp
o.?«
0.0?
0.40
0,70
0.00
1.39
7,66
6,26
5.30
5,93
i
-------
8«
1
?
3
U
s
6
7
B
9
10
11
IP
13
n
is
16
17
IB
l5?
HO
?\
??
2 3
24
?5
26
?7
? 8
29
30
31
3?
33
35
5ft
TABLE 15
DISSOLVED
0CEP WATER DISCHARGE
00 DEFICIT COMPONENTS
SOl.'TH "AT 0T4ER BOTTOM SW*MP
niSrHARfiFRS DISCHARGERS demand loads
0. nt
n.oo
0,34
1,43
0.H7
o.oo
0,33
l.H
0,0*
0,00
0.33
0.36
o.n
n.oo
0,32
0.72
0.?n
0,00
0.32
0,66
0 ,?*
0,00
0,32
0,63
0.3P
n.oi
0.32
0,50
0,43
0,01
0,32
0,47
0,6*
0.03
0,31
0,11
0,*4
0.03
0,31
0,44
o,oi
0,32
0.46
0,49
n.oi
0,32
0,46
0,3"
0,06
0.33
0.40
0.59
0,05
0,32
0,47
0,37
0.05
0,32
0.43
0,34
0 » 06
0,33
0,52
0,56
0.07
0,32
0.49
0.33
0.06
0.31
0.45
0,34
n .07
0.33
0.54
0,^5
0.0*
0.33
0.51
0.33
0.06
0.31
0,45
0,34
O.OB
0,33
0.58
0,33
O.U
0.35
0,55
0 .*?
0.09
0,32
0.49
0,3?
0.13
0,36
0.59
0,3?
O.ll
0.37
0,5ft
0.31
0.12
0,36
0.55
o.sn
0.17
0,39
0,59
0,?7
0.20
0, «f 1
0,59
0,1*
0.25
0,46
0.52
o,?o
0.25
0,15
0.53
0.11
0,22
0,45
0.55
n.i?
0.27
0,1 9
0,13
0.13
0.30
0.4ft
0,46
0.11
0.31
0.18
0,41
o.n*
0.2^
0.49
0,64
oxygen calculated
1995 - ORT SEASON
(MG/L) do (MG/L)
urban
TOTAL
saturation
RUNOFF
deficit
level
DO
0,00
1.83
7,67
5,81
0,00
1,55
7,66
6,13
0,00
1,30
7,69
6,38
0,00
1,18
7,69
6,50
0,00
1.19
7,70
6,51
0,00
1.25
7,7 0
6,15
0,00
1,23
7,71
6,1B
0,00
1.25
7.71
6,16
0,00
1.15
7,86
6,11
0,00
1,31
7,81
6,50
0,00
1.35
7,82
6,17
0,00
1.31
7,82
6,50
0,00
1.22
7,78
6,55
0,00
1.25
7.79
6,53
0,00
1.18
7,79
6,61
0,00
1.27
7,77
6,50
0,00
1.26
7,78
6.52
0,00
1.16
7,78
6,61
0,00
1.30
7.77
6,17
0*00
1,28
7,77
6,19
0,00
1,16
7,78
6.61
0,00
1.35
7.77
6.11
0,00
2.36
7,76
6,39
0,00
1.23
7.77
6.53
0,00
1.43
7,75
6,31
0,00 •
1.43
7.71
6,30
0,00
1.35
7,75
6,39
0,00
1.17
7,73
6,26
0,00
1.18
7,85
6,37
a,oo
1.14
7,82
6.36
0,00
1.11
7.83
6,36
0,00
1.35
7.81
6,45
0,00
2.33
7,50
6,17
0,00
1.38
7,80
6,12
0,00
1,35
7,ftO
6,14
0,00
1,18
7.79
6.31
page
90TH
percentile
00
DO StANDAR
1,71
5.91
3.12
5,93
5,15
5,95
5,61
5.95
3,61
5.95
5,31
3,96
5.57
5,96
5,51
5,96
3,11
6,03
5,55
6.02
3,32
6.01
3,56
6.01
5.65
5.99
5,62
6.00
5.*2
6.00
5,38
3,0
5,60
5,99
3,72
5,99
3,51
5.99
5,56
3,99
5,72
5,99
5,17
5.99
5,13
5.96
3,62
5,99
5,31
5,98
5,33
5,97
5,13
5,9B
5,28
3,97
5,38
6.03
5,10
6,01
5,10
6.02
5.30
6.01
3,33
6.00
3,17
6,00
5,19
6.00
5,32
6,00
C-197
-------
TABLE 15
PAGE 2
DISSOLVED oxygev calculated
OEFP rtATER DISCHARGE - 1995 - DRY SEASON
00 DEFICIT COMPONENTS (MG/L> DO (MS/LI
SOuH PAY
OTHE*
83TT0M
swamp
drbam
TOTflL
saturation
90TH
PERCENTILE
SEGMENT
DI SCHATER^
DISCHARGERS
DEMAND
LOADS
RUNOFF
DEFICIT
LEVEL
DO
DO
DO STANDARD
37
0,11
0,24
0.50
0.41
O.OO
1.27
7.00
6.52
5.60
6.00
3S
0,11
n,3o
0,50
0.44
0.00
1.36
7.80
6,43
5.48
6,00
39
0,04
0.34
0.50
0.32
0.00
1.22
7.78
6.35
5,65
3.99
40
0,P*
o.29
0.50
0.67
0.00
1,52
7.78
6.26
5,26
6.00
41
0.0*
0.22
0.51
0.45
0.00
1.28
7.80
6.51
5,59
6.00
4?
0.1 n
0.31
0.52
0.42
0.00
1.36
7.79
6.43
5,48
6.00
*3
O.n?
0.34
0.50
0.25
0.00
1.13
7.77
6.63
5.76
5.99
44
o.m
0.2S
0,49
0.56
0.00
1.35
7.78
6.42
5,48
5,99
*5
0.0*
0.24
0.51
0.37
0.00
1.19
7,79
6.59
5,70
6,00
46
o.r>4
0. 31
0.52
0.32
0.00
1.23
7,78
6.55
5,64
5.99
4 7
o.ni
0.32
0.50
0.19
0.00
1.04
7.77
6.73
5,88
5,99
48
0.0?
0.24
0.48
0.35
0.00
1.10
7.77
6.67
5.61
5.99
49
o.n*
0.21
0.50
0.36
0.00
1.14
7.78
6,64
5,76
5,99
50
o. o*
0. 30
0.53
0.30
0.00
1.19
7,70
6.56
5,68
5,99
51
o.ni
0.20
0.50
0.16
o.oo
0.97
7.77
6,79
5.97
5,99
5?
0,M
0.23
0.H9
0.22
o.oo
0.97
7.77
6,80
5.97
5,99
53
0,0«S
0,19
0,50
0.35
0.00
1.10
7.78
6.67
3,00
5,99
5t+
o .nu
0. 2">
0.53
0.32
0.00
1.16
7,75
6,56
5,70
5.98
o ,ni
0.26
0.49
0.14
o.oo
0.91
7.77
6,85
6, 04
5.99
¦5"?.
0 ,ni
0.2?
0.51
0.15
o.oo
0.90
7.76
6,86
6,06
5,99
57
0.03
0.20
0.56
0,31
o.oo
1.12
7.47
6,35
5.4S
5,95
5P
0.0*
0.29
0.66
0.30
0.00
1.40
7.37
5,96
5,00
5,80
59
fi, n i
0.20
0.48
0.11
0,00
0.62
7.77
6,93
6,17
5,99
An
O.fln
0.17
0.51
0.09
0.00
0,70
7.75
6,96
6.20
5.98
M
0,0?
0.14
0.50
0.24
0,00
0.92
7.48
6,56
5,76
5,85
&?
o.ni
0.10
0,33
0.14
o.oo
0.60
a.la
7,38
6,87
6.28
63
0,01
0.19
0.46
0.11
0.00
0.80
7.78
6,98
6,21
5,99
64
0,0 n
o.n
0,5?
0,05
0.00
0.79
7.72
6,92
6.15
5.96
&5
0,01
0*12
0.49
0.19
0.00
0.83
7.51
6,68
5.90
5.07
6
O.ni
n.io
0.44
0,15
o.oo
0.71
7.86
7,14
6.40
6.03
67
0,00
0,22
0.47
0.09
0.00
0.79
7.75
6,96
6,19
5,98
bfl
o.nc
0.1*
0.61
0.04
0.00
0. 85
7,70
6,85
6.07
5.96
0 ,01
0.10
0.50
0.15
0.00
0.78
7.62
7.04
6.27
6.01
7n
0.01
n.13
0.49
0.13
0,00
0.77
8.00
7,23
6.4?
6.10
7T
O.no
0,30
0. 47
. 0.03
0.00
0.82
7,96
7,14
6.37
6.00
7?
fi(np
0.27
0.58
0.02
0.00
0.B7
7.94
7,06
6.27
6, 07
C-198
-------
TABLE 15
DISSOLVES 3XYGEN CALCULATED
OEFP WATER DISCHARGE - 1995 - OR* SEASON
DO DEFICIT COMPONENTS (VIG/L)
CO'fTM 3 AY
0 r^E«?
BOTTOM
SWftWP
¦jrran
TOT&l
v. -ivZ'i r
^TS^HAPTTRS
di^cma^g^rs
oemand
loads
runoff
DEFICIT
7*
0, nn
n. 12
0.51
0.09
0.00
0,74
7(4
0 . !* n
0.2*
0.45
0.05
0.00
0.T7
7S
n.nr
n.37
0.44
0,01
0.00
0.84
7 f>
o.t
o. 3*
0.15
0,03
0.00
0.64
77
O.pn
n.Hu
0.41
0.02
0.00
0,88
7«
0
0.50
?.34
0.01
0.00
0.66
7«
o.rn
0,21
0,40
O.QQ
0.00
0,62
ft.nn
n,44
0.44
o.oa
0.00
0.91
o.nn
0.51
0.34
0,01
0,00
0,87
up
O.io
0, 34
0.25
0.01
0.00
0,81
'M
O.^P
n.5?
0.24
0.01
0,00
0 # 78
M(+
o. no
n.3?
0.20
0.00 ,
0,00
0,73
p.or
0.50
0.16
0.00
0,00
0,66
«e>
C.fln
0.4«
0.16
0.00
0.00
0,65
^ 7
O.nn
n.24
0.02
0.00
0,00
0,26
P. nr«
a.4*
0,12
0.00
0,00
0.61
<*9
O.pn
0,36
0.10
0.00
0,00
0,46
0.'"'
ft.21
0,02
o.oo
0.00
0.23
O.nn
0 . 2*
0.06
0.00
0,00
0,35
<*?
o.n«
0.2?
0.05
0.00
0,00
0,28
O.nn
0.12
0.02
0.00
0.00
0,14
«u
0 ,nn
n,04
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,05
O.nn
0,14
0,02
0,00
0,00
0,17
It
O.P"
n,o«
o.oi
0.00
0.00
0,10
*7
O.nn
n.on
0.01
0.00
0,00
0,09
yft
0,r n
O.ft?
0.00
0,24
4.52
o.oo
4,79
if'l
o.n?
0.00
0.29
4,87
0,00
5,20
1 n?
ft.ft*
0.00
0.39
3.79
0.00
4,21
105
r)#nl
n.O*
1,04
5.73
0,00
6,79
l nu
O.nt
",00
0.96
4.62
0.00
5,62
1 0*
f».m
n.00
0.75
2,48
0,00
3,25
\ ot,
O.nt
o.OO
0.70
1.91
0.00
2,63
107
n.m
n.00
0.64
1.63
0,00
2,29
IP".
n, r>o
n.oo
0.3V
1.50
0.00
2,06
PASE 3
DO (M8/L)
SATURATION
level
DO
7,83
7.08
7.93
7,15
7.94
7.09
7.90
7,06
7,92
7.04
7.94
7.08
7.94
7.32
7.92
7.01
7,94
7,06
7.95
7,14
7.95
7,17
7.96
7.23
7,96
7.28
7.96
7.31
8,09
7.82
6.12
7.51
8.12
7,63
8.13
7.89
8.14
7.79
6.13
7,85
8,10
7,95
8,22
8.16
8,20
8,03
6,20
8.10
8,10
8.00
7.67
5.42
7,67
4,32
7,67
2,87
7,67
2,47
7,67
3.43
7,25
0,45
7,25
1.62
7,34
4.08
7.34
4.70
7,34
5.04
7.44
5.3?
90TH
PERCENTILE
DO
00 STAMDAP
6,33
6.02
6.39
6,06
6.31
6,07
6.28
6.05
6.25
6.06
6.29
6.07
6.60
6,07
6,20
6,06
6,27
6,07
6.36
6.07
6,40
6.07
6.48
6.08
6,53
6.08
6,38
6.0®
7.23
6.14
6,80
6,16
6,99
6.16
7,30
6.16
7,16
6,17
7,24
6.16
7,39
6.14
7.64
6.20
7,*7
6*19
7,36
6.19
7,46
6.1*
4,19
5.94
2,73
5.94
0,02
5.94
0,29
5.94
1.39
5.94
0.00
5,74
0,00
5.74
2.32
3,78
3,35
5.78
3,60
5.78
4.20
5.83
C-199
-------
TABLE 15
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
12?
123
124
125
126
127
12B
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
14 0
141
PA6£
DISSOLVED
OXYGEN
CALCULATED
deep
water discharge
1995
D*y SEASON
00
DEFICIT
COMPONENTS
(«G/L>
DO
(MG/L)
SOMTH 3Ar
0T4C9
BOTTOM
SWAMP
JRban
total
SATURATION
90TH
PERCENTILE
DISCHAPPtFRS
DISCHARSFPS
DEMAND
LOADS
RUNOFF
DEFICIT
LEVEL
DO
DO
DO STANDAR
o.o?
0.00
0.46
1,45
0.00
1,95
7,44
5,48
4 ,34
5.83
0. o*
0.0 0
0.44
1,42
0.00
1,89
7.44
5,55
4,43
5.83
O.ft*
0.00
0.40
1,43
0,00
1,87
7,55
5,67
4.56
5,8 8
0.04
0.00
0.37
1,45
0,00
1.87
7,55
5,68
4,57
5,88
o.nu
o.oo
0.03
1,50
0,00
2,39
7,69
5,29
4.02
5,95
o,o«
0.00
0,64
1,20
0,00
1,90
7,69
5,78
4,65
5,95
o.riA
0.00
0.48
1,04
0.00
1.59
7,69
6,09
5.07
5,95
o, n*
n.oo
0.43
1.01
0,00
1.52
7,69
6,16
5,16
5,95
O.OA
0.00
0,40
0,97
0,00
1,45
7,69
6,23
5.25
5,95
0.04
o.oo
0,05
7,87
0,00
7,97
7,70
-0,26
0,00
5,96
0.09
o.oo
0,24
4,97
0,00
5,31
7,70
2,38
0,17
5.96
0.1«
o.oo
0,38
1,90
0.00
2,48
7,70
5,22
3.91
5,96
o.oo
0.00
0,99
0,77
0.00
1.76
7,70
5,94
4,86
5,96
o.o?
0.00
1.61
1,01
0,00
2,65
7,70
5,05
3,69
5,96
O.OA
o.oo
0,93
0.51
0,00
1,51
7,70
6,19
5,20
5,96
0.17
0.00
0,51
0.38
0,00
1,08
7,70
6,62
5,76
5,96
0,2*
0.00
0.42
0.37
0,00
1,10
7,70
6.60
5,74
5,96
0.0?
0.00
0.02
5,28
0.00
5,33
7,65
2,31
0,09
5,93
0.(17
o.oo
0,26
1,62
0,00
1.97
7,65
5,67
4,52
5,93
O.in
0.02
0,40
1,56
0,00
2,18
7.65
5,46
4,25
3,93
o#m
0.00
0,00
6,59
0,00
6,6l
7,64
1,03
0,00
5,92
0,01
0,00
0,01
6,64
0,00
6,67
7,64
0,96
0.00
5,92
o.n*
0.00
0,05
6,08
0,00
6.17
7,64
1.46
0,00
5,92
O.OP
0.01
0,32
4,83
0,00
5,26
7,64
2,36
0,16
5,92
0. JP
0.03
0.59
2.19
0*00
3,01
7,64
*~,63
3.15
3,92
0.?f
0.05
0,50
1,28
0,00
2,11
7,64
5,52
4,33
5.92
0.1 7
0.04
0,34
0,65
0,00
1,22
7,62
6,39
5,49
5,92
0.19
0.05
0,37
0,64
0,00
1.27
7.62
6,34
5,42
5,92
0.23
0.07
0,36
0,62
0,00
1,31
7,62
6,31
5,38
5,92
0.26
o.o*
0,36
0.60
0,00
1,34
7,62
6,28
5,34
5,92
0.29
0.10
0,37
0.57
0.00
1,35
7,62
6.27
5,32
5,92
0.?4
0.02
0,40
0.70
0,00
1,38
7,66
6.27
5,32
5,93
0.31
0.03
0,37
0,51
o.oo
1,23
7,66
6.*2
5,51
5,93
C-200
-------
1
?
3
6
7
fl
9
in
II
12
13
1<+
l'i
16
17
1 fl
19
?n
?1
2?
73
i?4
25
?6-
?7
?ft
29
30
M
A?
TABLE 16
DISSOLVED OXYGEN CALCULATED
seep
tfATEH DISCHARGE
1995
canning season
00
DEFICIT
COMPONENTS
00
IMS/L>
1T--I "AY
OTHER
BOTTOM
swamp
URBAN
TOTAL
SATURATION
90TH
PERCENTILE
• H A P r F! R S
DISCHARGERS
DEMAND
loads
runoff
DEFICIT
LEVEL
DO
DO
00 STANDARD
o.ns
0.00
0. 34
1.43
0.00
1.84
7,67
5.83
4,73
5,94
0 , ne»
0.00
0.33
1.1*
0.00
1.56
7,68
6.11
5,10
5,95
0.11
0.00
0.33
0.86
0.00
1.32
7,69
6.36
5,43
5,95
n, i *
0.00
0.32
0.72
0.00
1.21
7,69
6.48
5,58
5,95
n.oo
0.32
0.66
0.00
1.23
7,70
6.46
5.56
5,95
O.^y
n.oo
0.32
0.63
0.00
1.31
7,70
6.39
5.46
5.96
0 ~ ft
0.01
0.32
0.50
0.00
1,30
7,71
6.40
».»7
5.96
0.**
0.01
0,32
0.47
0.00
1.34
7.71
6.37
5,42
5.96
0.7°
O.OA
0.31
0.4*
0.00
1.58
7,86
6.28
S.26
6.03
0.£«
0.03
0.31
0.44
0.00
1.45
7,84
6.39
5.41
6.02
O.A?
n.on
0.32
0.46
0,00
1# 45
7.82
6.37
5.39
6.02
0,*«
0.04
0.32
0.46
0,00
1,41
7,82
6,40
5,44
6.01
0.U0
0.06
0.33
0.48
0,00
1,28
7,78
6,50
5,57
5.99
O.ffi
o.os
0.32
0,47
0,00
1.31
7.79
6.47
5,53
6.00
O.H
o.os
0.32
0.43
0.00
1,24
7,79
6.54
5.63
6.00
O.nn
0.06
0.33
0.52
0,00
1,32
7,77
6,44
5,51
5.99
0.4?
0.07
0.32
0.49
0,00
1,32
7.78
6.46
5.52
5.99
0.
o.ofi
0.31
0,45
0,00
1.22
7.78
6,55
5.65
5,99
O.uft
fl. 07
0.33
0,54
0,00
1,35
7.77
6,42
5,47
5.99
o.«n
0. 0*
0.33
0.51
0.00
1,34
7.77
6.43
5.49
5.99
O.^o
n.Ofe
0.31
0,45
0,00
1,22
7.78
6,55
5,65
5,99
o.«*n
n.o*
0.33
0.58
0,00
1,40
7,77
6.36
5,40
5.99
0.
0.11
0.35
0,55
0.00
1.41
7,76
6,34
5.36
5,98
r>. *7
o.oa
0.32
0,49
0,00
1,28
7,77
6,48
5.55
5,99
0.^*
0.13
0.36
0.59
0.00
1,48
7.75
6,26
5,27
5.98
0.^7
o.m
0,37
0.58
0.00
1.48
7.74
6,25
5,27
5.97
0.1?
0.36
0.55
0.00
1.40
7,75
6,34
5,38
5.98
0. **
0.17
0.39
0.59
0,00
1,52
7.73
6.21
5.21
5.97
0.51
0.20
O.fl
0.56
0.00
1,53
7.85
6.32
5.32
6*03
0.9?
0.25
0.16
0.52
0,00
1,47
7,82
6,35
5,36
6.01
0.?*
n.25
o.4«s
0.53
0.00
1.48
7,83
6,35
5,36
6,02
0.1 *
0.22
0,45
0.55
0,00
1.37
7,61
6,43
5,48
6,01
o. 1 *
0.27
0,49
0.43
0,00
1.35
7,80
6,45
5,50
6.00
0.1*
0.30
0.4B
0.46
0. 00
1.40
7,80
6,40
5,44
6.00
fl.t*
0.31
o.ua
0.44
0.00
1.37
7.80
6.42
5.47
6.00
n. n*
ft. ?f>
0.49
0.64
0,00
1.49
7.79
6,30
5.31
6,00
C-201
-------
DISSOLVED
teep water discharge
DO DEFICIT COMPONENTS
SOi-TH RAY
OTHER
90TT0M
SWA*P
SmE^T
DisrHAf»f;rR<;
DISCHARGERS
demand
loads
57
O.t?
0.24
0.50
0.41
58
G.H
0 . 3 0
0,50
0.**
59
o.nc
n,34
0.50
0.32
<*n
o.o?.
0.29
0.50
0.67
41
0.11
0.2?
0.51
0,45
<~2
0,1?
0.31
0.52
0.42
'4 3
o.n*
0.34
0.50
0.25
o. o^
0.26
0.49
0.56
45
0, op
0.2f
0.51
0.37
46
0.P7
0.31
0.52
0,32
"~7
0,0?
0.32
0.50
0,19
'4 B
0, n?
0.24
0.48
0.35
0 . "17
0.21
0.50
0.36
50
n, nt
0 . 30
0.53
0,30
51
0,01
n.2ft
0 .50
0.16
52
0.01
0.23
0 .49
0.22
53
0, 0*
0.19
0.50
0.35
54
0, o*
n.25
0.53
0.32
55
o. m
n.26
0.f9
0,11
5ft
o.oi
0.22
0,51
0,15
57
o, 04
0.20
0.56
0.31
58
0, 0*
0.29
0.66
0,38
59
0, OJ
0.20
0.«*8
0,11
60
o.on
0.17
0.51
0,09
M
0,05
0.14
0,50
0,21
6?
0.0?
0.10
0.33
0,14
63
O.OJ
0.19
0.48
0.11
£><4
o.on
0.15
0.57
0.05
65
o.o?
0.12
0.49
0,19
6.F.
0,01
0.10
0,4**
0.15
&7
o.on
0.22
0.47
0,09
6«
O.OO
0.19
0.61
0,04
69
O.oi
n.io
0.50
0.15
70
o.oi
0.13
0.49
0,13
71
0, on
0.30
0,47
0,03
7?
n. o (i
n.27
0.58
0,02
C-202
TABLE 16
PA6E 2
OXYGEN CALCULATED
'95
CftNNIMG SEASON
>/l)
00
JRBAN
TOTAL
SATURATION
90TH
PERCENTILE
RUNOFF
DEFICIT
level
00
DO
DO STANDARD
0,00
1.29
7,80
6.50
5,58
6.00
0.00
1.38
7,80
6.11
5.16
6.00
0.00
1.23
7,78
6.51
5,64
5.99
0,00
1.53
7,78
6,25
5.25
6.00
0,00
1,29
7,80
6.50
5,57
6.00
0,00
1.37
7.79
6,41
5,46
6.00
0,00
1.11
7.77
6,63
5,75
5.99
0.00
1.36
7,78
6.42
5,17
5.99
0,00
1,21
7,79
6, 58
5,68
6.00
0,00
1.2*
7,78
6.54
5,63
5.99
0.00
1.04
7,77
6.72
5,88
5.99
0.00
1.10
7,77
6.67
5,80
5.99
0.00
1.15
7,78
6.63
5,75
5,99
0,00
1,20
7,78
6,57
5,67
5.99
0,00
0.97
7,77
6.79
5,97
5.99
0,00
0,97
7,77
6.79
5.97
5.99
0,00
1.11
7,78
6.66
5.79
5.99
0,00
1.17
7,75
6.58
5,69
5.98
0,00
0,92
7,77
6,85
6.01
5.99
0,00
0.90
7,76
6.86
6.06
5.99
0,00
1.14
7,47
6.35
5.»7
5.85
0,00
1.11
7.37
5.95
».99
5.80
0,00
0.82
7.77
6.95
6.17
5.99
0,00
0.78
7.75
6.96
6.1'
5,98
0,00
0,92
7.48
6.56
5.75
5.85
0,00
0,60
6,18
7.57
6.67
6.18
0.00
0.80
7.78
6,97
6.20
5.99
0,00
0.79
7.72
6.92
6.15
5.96
0,00
0,63
7,51
6.60
5.90
5.97
0.00
0,72
7,66
7.14
6.39
6.03
0.00
0,79
7,75
6.95
6.19
5.98
0,00
0.85
7,70
6.S5
6.07
5.96
0,00
0.78
7,82
7.03
6.27
6.01
0,00
0,77
8.00
7.22
6.*6
6.10
0,00
0.82
7,96
7.14
6.36
6.08
0,00
0.87
7,94
7,06
6.27
6.07
-------
TABLE 16
DISSOLVED OXYGEN CALCULATED
deep
water discharge
1995
CANNING SEi
DO
i DEFICIT
components
SOUTH 9AT
OHER
bottom
SWAMP
urban
total
SEGMENT
niSfHARGERS
niSCHARSFRS
DEMAND
LOAOS
RUNOFF
DEFICIT
73
o.oo
0,12
0.51
0.09
0.00
0,79
74
O.on
0.25
0.95
0.05
0,00
0.77
75
o.nn
0,37
0.99
0.01
o.oo
0.89
76
0.00
0.35
0.95
0.03
0,00
0,84
77
o.oo
0.«*4
0.91
0.02
0,00
0,8d
7*
o.nn
0.50
0,39
0.01
0,00
0.86
79
0.0/?
0.21
0.90
0.00
0,00
0,62
BO
o.nn
0.94
0.99
0.02
0,00
0,91
M
o.on
0.51
0.39
0.01
0,00
0*87
O.nn
0.5t*
0.25
0.01
0,00
0,81
P3
o.nn
0.52
0.29
0.01
0,00
0,78
o.on
0.5?
0.20
0.00
0.00
0,73
o.on
0.50
0.16
0.00
0,00
0,68
*6
o.on
o.te
0.16
0.00
0,00
0.65
97
O.nn
0.2*
0.02
0,00
0,00
0,26
0.00
0.t9
0.12
0,00
0,00
0,61
*9
0,00
0,36
0.10
0,00
0,00
0.96
90
O.nn
0.21
0.02
0,00
0,00
0,23
•u
o.nn
0.28
0.06
0,00
0,00
0,35
O.nn
0.22
0.05
0,00
0,00
0,26
93
o.on
0.12
0.02
0,00
0,00
0,19
94
0, oo
0.09
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,05
95
0.00
0.19
0.02
0,00
0,00
0,17
96
0,00
0.09
0.01
0,00
0,00
0,10
97
0,00
0.08
0.01
0,00
0,00
0,09
*e
0.00
o.oo
0.20
2.03
0,00
2,29
99
o.ot
0*00
0.09
3,29
0,00
3,35
inn
0.0>
0,00
0,29
9,52
0,00
9,80
101
o.o-s
0*00
0.29
9,87
0,00
5,20
102
O.OM
0.00
0.39
3,79
0,00
9,22
105
0.00
1.09
5,73
0,00
6,80
109
0.0?
0.00
0,98
9,62
0,00
5,63
105
0*0?
0.00
0,75
2,98
0,00
3,26
lOf
0, n?
o.oo
0,70
1.91
0,00
2,69
107
0.P9
0.00
0.69
1.63
0,00
2,30
ma
P.09
n.00
0.59
1.50
0.00
2,07
PABE 3
1SON
DO 1MS/L)
SATURATION 90TH PERCENTILE
LEVEL DO DO DO STANDARD
7.83
7.93
7.9*
7,90
7.92
7.9*
7.9*
7.92
7.9*
7.95
7.95
7.96
7.96
7.96
8.09
8.12
8.12
e.is
8.1*f
8.13
8.10
8.22
8.20
8.20
8.10
7.67
7.67
7.67
7.67
7.67
7.25
7.25
7.3*
7.3*
7.3*
7.**
7.08
7.15
7.09
7.06
7.0*
7.08
7.32
7.01
7.06
7.1*
7.17
7.23
7.28
7.31
7.82
7.51
7.63
7.89
7.79
7.83
7.95
8.16
8.03
8.10
8.00
5.*2
*.31
2.87
2.*6
3.**
0.**
1.62
*.06
*.70
5.0*
5.37
6.33
6.39
6.31
6.27
6,25
6.29
6.60
6.20
6.27
6.36
6.*0
6.*8
6.55
6,58
7.23
6,SO
6.99
7.30
7.16
7.2*
7,39
7.6*
7.*7
7.96
7. *6
*.19
2.73
0.82
0.28
1.56
0,00
0,00
2.52
3.3*
3,79
*.20
6.02
6.06
6.07
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.07
6.06
6.07
6.07
6.07
6.08
6.08
6.08
6.1*
6,16
6.16
6.16
6.17
6,16
6.1*
6.20
6.19
6.19
6.1*
3.9*
5.9*
5.9*
5.»*
3.9*
5.7*
5.7*
5.78
5.78
5.78
3.B3
C-203
-------
1 r- n t
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
US
117
116
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
12R
129
130
131
1*2
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
1*1
TABLE 16
PAGE *
DISSOLVED Dxr&ETM CALCULATED
DEEP
WATER discharge
1995
CANNING SEASON
DO
DEFICIT
COMPONENTS
DO
(MG/L)
SOUTH BAY
OTHER
BOTTOM
SUaMP
urban
TOTAL
SATURATION
90TH
PERCENTILE
dischargers
DISCHARGERS
DEMAND
LOADS
RUNOFF
DEFICIT
level
00
00
00 STANDARD
0.03
0.00
o.*a
1.45
0.00
1.96
7.**
5,48
*,33
5.03
o#o*
o.oo
0.44
1,42
0.00
1.90
7.44
5.54
*,*2
5,83
0,04
0.00
0.40
l.*3
0.00
1.88
7.55
5,66
*.55
5,88
0.0*
0.00
0.37
i.*s
o.oo
1.88
7.55
5.67
*.56
5.88
0,05
0.00
0.83
1,50
0.00
2,40
7,69
5,28
*,00
5.95
0,06
0.00
0.64
1,20
0.00
1.91
7.69
5,77
4.6*
5,95
0.07
0.00
0.48
1.0*
0.00
1.60
7.69
6,08
5.05
5,95
0,0ft
0.00
0.43
1,01
0.00
1,53
7.69
6,15
5.1*
5,95
0.09
0.00
0.40
0.97
0.00
l.*7
7,69
6.21
5,23
5,95
0.05
0.00
0.05
7.87
0,00
7,98
7,70
•0,27
0.00
5,96
0,10
0.00
0.24
4.97
0.00
5.33
7.70
2.37
0.15
5.96
0,?*
0.00
0.38
1,90
0.00
2,52
7.70
5,18
3,86
5.96
0.00
0.00
0.99
0,77
0.00
1.77
7,70
5.M
*,85
5.96
0.0?
o.oo
1,61
1,01
o.oo
2,66
7,70
5,04
3,68
5.96
0,07
0.00
0.93
0.51
o.oo
1,52
7,70
6,18
5,18
5.96
o.n
0.00
0.51
0,38
0,00
1.12
7,70
6,58
5,71
5.96
0.35
0.00
0,42
0.37
0.00
1,16
7,70
6,5*
5,66
5,96
0.0?
0.00
0,02
5,28
0,00
5,33
7,65
2.51
0,09
5,93
0.0*
n.oo
0.26
1,62
0,00
1.99
7,65
5,66
•~.51
5,93
0,?O
0.02
0,40
1.56
0*00
2,20
7,65
5.*4
*,22
5,93
0,01
0.00
0,00
6,59
0.00
6,61
7.64
1.02
0,00
5,92
0,0?
0.00
0.01
6.64
0.00
6,68
7,64
0.96
0,00
5,92
0. 04
0,00
0.05
6,08
0.00
6.18
7,64
l.*5
0,00
5.92
O.oo
o.oi
0.32
4.83
0.00
5.27
7.64
2,36
0,16
5,92
0.21
0.03
0.59
2.19
0.00
3,03
7.64
*.60
3,11
5.92
0. 30
0.05
0.50
1.28
0,00
2.15
7.64
5,*8
*,28
5.92
o.?o
0.04
0.34
0,65
0,00
1.25
7.62
6.37
5,45
5.92
0,??
0.05
0.37
0,64
0,00
1,30
7.62
6,31
5,38
5.92
0, ?6
0,07
0,38
0.62
0.00
1.3*
7,62
6,27
5,33
5,92
0.*1
0.09
0,38
0,60
0.00
1,38
7.62
6.24
5,28
5,92
0.34
0.10
0,37
0,57
0,00
1.40
7,62
6.22
5,26
5,92
0.?«
0.02
0.40
0,70
0.00
1.42
7.66
6.23
5,26
5,93
0.S6
0.03
0,37
0,51
0,00
1.28
7,66
6,37
5,44
5.93
-------
1
2
3
5
6
7
R
9
in
11
12
13
It
15
16
17
10
19
20
21
2?
23
2*
2S
26
27
28
29
30
31
3?
33
J*
35
36
DISSOLVED
DEEP WATER DISCHORSE
SOUTH BAY OTHER
OlSfHARPERS DISCHARGERS
0.05
o.oo
0,07
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.13
o.oo
0.19
o.oo
0,?6
0.01
0.35
0.02
0.39
0.02
0,«7
0.0*
0.*A
0.0*
0,17
0.05
0,*«
0.05
0.33
0.07
0.S7
0.07
0.3«
0.06
0.33
O.OB
0, 35
0,08
0.3?
0.00
0.S3
0.09
0.3*
0.09
0.3?
O.OS
0.33
n.io
0.3?
0.13
0.31
0.10
0.3?
0.15
0.31
0.16
0,3(1
0.13
0.3(1
0.19
0,97
0,22
0.19
0.27
C.sn
0.27
0.1?
0.25
0.13
0.29
0.13
0.31
0.11
0.33
O.flo
0.29
BOTTOM
demand
0.*1
0,39
0.10
0.39
0.38
0,38
0.38
0.38
0.37
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.39
0.S9
0.38
0.39
0.39
0.37
0.*0
0.39
0.37
0,*0
0,*1
0.39
0,*3
0.**
0,*3
0,*6
0,*9
0.3*
0.92
0.S3
0,57
0,56
0.56
0.57
TABU 17
OXYGEN
1985
(MG/L)
CALCULATED
WET SEASON
SWaMP
urban
total
SATURATION
LOADS
RUNOFF
0EFICIT
level
00
0.92
0.20
1.39
9.*1
7.82
0.76
0.1*
1.38
9.35
7.97
0.59
0.09
1.18
9.30
B.U
0,50
0.06
1.09
9.27
8,17
0 , *6
O.OS
1.10
9.2*
8.1*
0 , *3
0.0*
1.15
9.22
8.07
0.33
0.03
1.13
9.20
8.03
0.33
0.03
1.18
9.19
8.01
0.31
0.09
1.3*
9.39
8.0*
0.31
0.03
1.26
9.38
8.11
0.32
0.03
1.27
9.33
8.07
0.32
0.03
1.2*
9.3*
8.09
0.33
0.03
1.17
9.29
8.12
0.32
0.03
1.20
9.31
8.10
0,30
0.03
1.1<»
9.31
8.16
0,35
0.03
1.21
9.29
8.08
0,33
0.03
1.20
9.29
8.08
0.31
0.03
1.13
9.29
8.16
0,36
0.03
1.23
9.28
8.05
0,35
0.0»
1.22
9.28
8.03
0,31
0.03
1.13
9.29
8.13
0.38
0.0*
1.27
9.28
8.01
0.37
0.0*
1.29
9.26
7.97
0,33
0.0*
1.19
9.28
8.08
0.39
0.0*
1.35
9.23
7.89
0,38
0.0*
1.36
9.2*
7.88
0,37
0.03
1.29
9.26
7.96
0.39
0.05
l.*0
9.23
7.83
0.38
0.03
l.*2
9.*2
8.00
0.3*
0.0*
l.*0
9.38
7.97
0.3*
0.0*
1,10
9.38
7.96
0,3*
0.0*
1.30
9.36
8.05
0.28
0.0*
1.32
9.33
8.03
0,29
0.0*
1,33
9.33
7.99
0.28
0.0*
1,33
9.3*
8.01
0,38
0,05
1.39
9.3*
7.9*
PAGE
00 IMS/L)
90TH PERCENTILE
00 DO STANDARD
S.79
7.01
7.22
7.31
7.27
7.19
7.17
7.12
7.10
7.20
7.IS
7.18
7.23
7.20
7.28
7,l»
7.18
7.2#
7.1*
7.15
7.28
7.09
7.0*
r. 19
6.9*
6.93
7.05
6.87
7.03
7.01
7.02
7.12
7.09
7.OS
7.07
6.99
6. 77
6.7*
8.72
6.70
6.89
6.(8
6. 67
6.66
6.76
6.75
6.7*
6.73
».71
6.72
6.72
6.71
6,71
6,71
8.71
6.71
6.71
6.70
6.70
6.70
6.6'
6,69
6.69
6.68
8.77
6.73
6.73
6.7*
6.7*
6.7*
6.7»
6.73
C-205
-------
37
36
39
<*0
4?
>~3
4U
-------
TABLE 17
DISSOLVED DXTGEM CALCULATED
nEEP WATER DISCHARGE - 1985 - WET SEASON
DO DEFICIT COMPONENTS
snnTM n/\Y OTHER BOTTOM
DEMAND
0.58
0.51
0.19
0.50
0.95
0.37
0.95
0.18
0.36
0.28
0.27
0.22
0.19
0.1B
0.02
0.13
0.11
0.02
0.07
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.06
0.06
0.22
0.51
0.99
0.16
0,36
0,57
0.72
0.73
0.63
SESnEAir
orst-HAnsER";
DISCHARGERS
73
0.01
O.H
7K
0, nn
0.29
75
o. nn
o.to
76
O.nn
0.36
77
0, on
n.*5
70
O.nn
0.51
79
0, no
0.23
no
O.nn
0.99
81
0. nn
0.50
B2
O.nn
0.53
13
O.nn
0.51
a,
O.nn
0.50
9",
O.nn
0.99
86
O.nn
0.96
"7
O.nn
0.25
Rfl
o.nn
0.95
89
O.nn
0.55
'0
O.nn
0.2?
91
O.nn
0.27
°?
O.nn
n,2l
93
O.nn
0.12
99
O.nn
0.09
¦>5
n.nn
n.12
">6
o.nn
0.0«
97
o.nn
0.09
99
n.nn
0.00
99
n.nn
0.00
100
O.nn
0.00
101
0.0'
0.00
102
0. n*
n.oo
101
O.nn
n.oo
lot
o.nn
0.00
101
O.nn
n.oo
lOf,
n.ni
n.oo
107
O.ni
n.oo
I an
n, n i
n.oo
SWAMP
urban
TOTAL
LOADS
runoff
DEFICIT
o.oe
0.01
0,89
0.05
0.01
0,87
0.01
o.oo
0.92
0.03
0.01
0.91
0.02
0.00
0.99
0,01
0.00
0.91
0,00
0.00
0.69
0.02
0.00
0.97
0.01
0.00
0.91
0.01
0,00
0.83
0.01
0.00
0.80
0.00
0.00
0.79
0.00
0,00
0.69
0.00
0.00
0.66
0.00
o.oo
0.20
0.00
0.00
0,61
o.oo
0.00
0.97
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.39
0,00
0.00
0.28
0.00
0.00
0,15
0.00
0.00
0.05
0,00
0,00
0,15
0,00
0,00
0,09
0,00
0.00
0.11
0.00
0.50
0.57
0.19
0.91
1.13
1.15
1.01
2.93
2.07
0.79
9,21
8.09
0,95
2. 98
0.19
0.91
0.76
0.99
0,76
1.62
0.71
0.79
2.09
o.ei
0.65
2.20
0.81
0.55
2.11
0.01
0,98
1.95
PAGE 3
DO IM6/L)
SATURATION 90TH PERCENTILE
LEVEL
DO
00
DO STANDARD
9.10
8.25
7.97
6,62
9.12
8,29
7.95
6.63
9.10
8.17
7.36
6.62
9.08
8.16
7.SS
C.61
9.07
8.13
7.31
6.61
9.06
8,15
7.39
6.60
9.06
8.36
7.62
6.60
9.07
8,10
7.27
6,61
9,06
8.15
7.39
6,60
9.05
8.22
7.99
6.60
9,06
8.25
7.98
6.60
9,05
8.30
7.55
6.60
9.05
8.36
7.63
6,60
9,05
8.38
7.66
6.60
9.27
8.99
8,39
6,70
9.26
8. 65
7.95
6.70
9.25
8.77
#.11
&.»9
9.27
9.02
8.93
6.70
9.27
8.92
8.30
6,70
9.29
8.96
8,35
6.69
9.17
9.01
®.«
6.65
9.07
9.02
8.99
6.61
9.35
9.20
8.69
6.79
9.39
9.29
8.69
6.73
9.17
9.06
8.51
6.65
10.36
9.79
9,09
7.22
10.32
9.18
B.31
7.20
10.09
7.60
6.31
7.06
9.77
6.56
9,02
6.99
9.55
6.56
5.09
6.83
9.07
8.30
7.59
6.61
9.23
7.60
6.57
6.68
9.20
7.16
5.99
6.67
9.20
7.00
3.78
6.67
9.30
7.19
6.00
6.72
9.29
7.29
6,15
6,69
C-207
-------
J.U7
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
12?
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
133
132
133
134
135
136
137
150
1 39
140
141
TABLE 17
DISSOLVED
DEEP HATER DISCHARGE
DO deficit components
SOUTH »AY OTHER
DISCHARGERS dischargers
BOTTOM
DEMAND
swamp
LOADS
OXTGEN
1985
(MG/L)
URBAN
runoff
CALCULATED
WET SEASON
TOTAL
DEFICIT
SATURATION
LEVEL
0.0?
0.03
o.n^
0.04
0.03
0.0*
0,(1*
0,07
Q.OA
0.03
O.Ofl
0.1P
o.no
0.0?
0.05
0.1A
0.27
o.ni
0.0®
0.19
0,00
0.01
0.
0.0«
0.19
o.lfi
o.?n
0.?3
0.2*
0.?«
0 . ? 3
0.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
n.oo
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.00
0.00
n.oo
0.01
0.05
0.07
0.05
0.06
0.03
0.10
n.12
0.03
0.05
0.57
0.53
0.48
0.44
0.75
0.70
0.56
0.51
0.47
0.05
0.28
0.45
1.03
1.87
1.14
0.64
0.50
0.02
0.30
0.48
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.37
0.67
0.58
0.40
0.44
0.45
0.44
0.43
0.45
0.43
0.63
0.85
0.89
0.92
0.61
0.65
0.64
0.65
0.64
6.87
2.84
1.16
0.30
0.61
0.39
0.32
0.29
2.46
1.07
0.96
1.23
4.36
5. 84
2.76
1.23
0. 74
0.39
0.40
0.39
0.39
0. 36
0.40
0.33
0.42
0.35
0,29
0.24
0.58
0.30
0.20
0.16
0.13
0.75
0.27
0.10
0.84
0,44
0.22
0.12
0.05
0.67
0.16
0.05
0.84
0.70
0.35
0.12
0.05
0.04
0.11
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.11
0.06
1.66
1.77
1.71
1.66
1.79
1.71
1.48
1.41
1.33
7.72
3.49
1.91
2.18
2.95
1.62
1.26
1.13
3.17
1.64
1.72
2.08
5.09
6.29
3,36
2.20
1.71
1.15
1.21
1.25
1.28
1.29
1.24
1.18
9,39
9.33
9.27
9.23
9,68
9.47
9.38
9.35
9.32
9.70
9.41
9.27
10.11
9.77
9.57
9.37
9.26
9.78
9.23
9,12
10.28
9.88
9.53
9,23
9.12
9.09
9.11
9.09
9,07
9.06
9.06
9.18
9.12
OAS t 1
DO
< MG/L)
90TH
PERCENTILE
DO
DO
DO STANDARO
7,53
6,42
6.76
7.55
6,47
6.73
7,56
6,50
6.70
7,57
6.52
6.68
7.89
6,80
6.90
7,76
6,70
6.80
7.90
6.91
6.75
7,94
6.97
6.74
7.99
7,05
6.73
1,98
0,00
6.91
5.91
4,28
6.76
7.36
6,23
6. 70
7.92
6,71
7.10
6.82
5,36
6.94
7.74
6,65
6,84
8.11
7.20
6,75
8.12
7.24
6.70
6.60
5.07
6.94
7,58
6,34
6.68
7,39
6,33
6,63
8.20
7,02
7.18
4,78
2,64
6.99
3.24
0.71
6.83
5,87
4,28
6.68
6,91
5,69
6.63
7.38
6.32
6.62
7.95
7,06
6.62
7.87
6.97
6.61
7.82
6,90
6,61
7.78
6,85
6,60
7.76
6,83
6.60
7,94
7,03
6.66
7,94
7,05
6,63
-------
TABLE 18
SO'fTM "AY
OTHER
E.SmEM
DISrHAPPERS
DISCHARSI
1
0,0*
0.00
p
0.0°
0.00
3
0.11
n.oo
0.16
0.00
*
0.??
n.oo
6
0,31
0.01
7
0.U1
n.o?
n
n,u?
n,02
9
0.69
0.0^
10
0#*«
n.on
11
0.^6
0.05
1?
0. *9
n.05
13
0. 3»
0.07
14
0.«»*
0.07
15
0. M
0.06
0.3*
0.08
17
0,4ft
n.08
1 R
0. *7
0.08
19
0.3*
0.09
?rt
0."*9
0.09
21
0.37
0,08
2?
0.3«
0.10
23
0.3a
0.13
?t*
0.^6
0.10
?¦>
0.37
0.15
26
0.36
n.16
?7
0.3*
n.l j
2«
0.3U
n .19
?q
0.31
1.!?
50
0.*?
n.2 7
.A)
0«?3
0.27
3?
0.1U
0.2*
33
0,1«
n.2^
5**
0,1*
n.3i
^5
n .1a
P.33
56
n # 1 n
r. ,2*t
DISSOLVED DXYGEN CALCULATED
OEEP WATER DISCHARGE - 1995 - WET SEASON
03 DEFICIT COMPONENTS
BOTTOM
:as demand
o.m
0.39
0.40
0.39
0.38
0.38
0.30
0.38
0.37
0.38
0.30
0.38
0.39
0,39
0.3S
0.39
0.39
0.37
0.^0
0.39
0.37
0.^0
0.^1
0.39
0.^3
0. W
0.^3
0.U6
0,*»9
0.5«*
0.52
0.53
0.57
0.56
0.56
0.57
SWAWP
urban
total
LOADS
RUNOFF
DEFICIT
0.92
0.20
1.60
0.76
0.11
1.39
0.59
0.09
1.20
0.50
0.06
1,12
0.16
0.05
1.1H
0.13
0.0*
1.20
0.35
0.03
1.22
0,33
0.03
1.25
0.31
0.03
1.16
0.31
0,03
1.35
0.32
0.03
1.36
0.32
0,03
1.32
0,33
0.03
1.23
0.32
0,03
1.26
0.30
0.03
1.20
0.35
0,03
1.26
0,33
0,03
1.26
0,31
0.03
1.18
0.36
0,03
1.28
0.35
o.oi
1.28
(1.31
0,03
1.19
0.3B
0,01
1.32
0.37
0.01
1.31
0.33
0.01
1.21
0.39
0.0*
1.10
0.38
o.oi
1.11
0.37
0.05
1.31
0.39
0.05
1.11
0.38
0.05
1.16
O.St
o.oi
1.13
0.31
0.04
1.13
o.si
0.01
1.32
0.28
0.01
1,31
0,29
0,01
1.37
0,2ft
0.01
1.35
0.3fl
0, 05
1.10
PA6E 1
saturation
level
03
9,11
7.81
9.35
7.95
9.30
8.09
9.27
8.15
9.21
8.10
9.22
8.02
9.20
7.98
9.19
7.93
9.39
7.93
9.36
a.02
9.35
7.99
9.31
8.01
9.29
8.06
9.31
8.01
9.31
8.10
9.29
8.02
9.29
8.03
9.29
8.11
9.28
8.00
9.28
8.00
9.29
8.10
9.28
7.95
9.26
7.92
9.28
8.03
9.25
7.SI
9.81
7.83
9.26
7.91
9.23
7.78
9.12
7.96
9.38
7.91
9.38
7.95
9.36
3,03
9.35
8.01
9.35
7.97
9.31
7.99
9.31
7.93
(MG/L)
90TH PERCENTILE
DO
00 STANDARD
6.78
6.77
6.99
6,71
7.19
6,72
7.27
6.70
7.23
6,69
7.12
6.66
7.08
6.67
7,02
6,66
6.95
6,76
7.07
6.73
7.01
6.71
7.08
6.73
7.16
6.71
7.13
6.72
7.21
6.72
7.11
6.71
7.11
6.71
7.21
6.71
7.07
6.71
7,08
6.71
7.21
6.71
7,02
6.70
6.97
6.70
7.12
6,70
6,66
6.69
6,86
6.69
6.97
6.69
6.61
6.66
6.98
6.77
6,97
6.75
6,98
6,75
7.09
6.71
7.06
6.71
7.02
6.71
7.01
6.71
6.97
6,73
C-209
-------
TABLE 18
DISSOLVED 3XTGEN CALCULATED
deep water discharge - 1995 - wet season
no DEFICIT COMPONENTS (MS/LI
SOUTH BAY
OTHER
RDTfOH
SWA^P
URBAN
total
t&wErjT
OT^rHAofirRs
DISCHARGES
demand
LOADS
RUNOFF
DEFICIT
37
0.1 *
n .26
0.59
0. 26
0.04
1.30
JP
0,14
0.3?
0.57
0.28
0.04
1,37
O.HP
0.36
0.57
0.20
0.03
1,24
•~0
0.07
n.3i
0.58
0,39
0,05
1.42
•~1
0,1?
0.24
0.59
0.2B
0.03
1.28
4?
0.1?
0.3?
0.59
0.27
0.04
1.37
4 3
O.nM
n. 36
0.59
0.16
0.03
1,18
'4 4
o.nu
0.2°
0.57
0.33
0,04
1,29
4S
0. Oft
0.26
0.59
0.23
0.03
1.22
**€>
0,0«
0.35
0.60
0.20
0.03
1.26
<47
O.n?
0.3H
0.57
0.12
0.02
1.10
48
0.0?
0.26
0.57
0.21
0.03
1.12
49
0.07
n.24
0.5ft
0.22
0.03
1.1*
5n
O.OT
0,32
0.61
0,19
0.03
1.23
51
0.0?
0.31
0.57
0.11
0.02
1.05
5?
o.n?
0.26
0.58
0.14
0.03
1.04
53
o.n*
0.22
0.56
0.22
0.03
1.15
54
o.o*
0 , 2 B
0.61
0.20
0.03
1,20
55
o.n?
0.2*
0.57
0.10
0.02
1.00
56
O.ni
0.25
0.59
0.10
0.03
1.01
57
o.os
n.24
0.66
0.20
0.03
1.20
5R
0.H7
0.33
0.77
0.24
0,03
1.46
59
0.01
0,24
0.55
0.06
0.01
0,92
SO
0.01
n.2o
0.59
0.06
0.02
0,91
61
o.m*
n.is
0.60
0. 16
0.02
1,02
6?
o.n?
0,12
0.3ft
0.10
0.01
0,65
63
o.ni
n.23
0.55
0.08
0.01
0.90
&4
o.no
0,19
0.66
0.04
0,01
0,93
65
o.n*
0.15
0.58
0.14
0.02
0,95
66
0.0?
0.13
0.51
0.11
0.01
0,80
67
O.ni
0.26
0.53
0.06
0.01
0.89
66
O.nn
0.2?
0.69
0.03
0.01
0.98
69
o.n?
0.14
0.5ft
0.11
0.02
0,89
70
o.n?
0.17
0.55
0.10
0,01
0,87
71
O.nn
0.33
0.53
0,03
0,00
0,92
7?
O.nn
n.3l
0.64
0,01
0.00
0.98
C-210
PAGE 2
saturation
LEVEL
DO
9.35
8.05
9,35
7*97
9,31
8,07
9.33
7.90
9.35
8.07
9.34
7.97
9.30
8.12
9,31
8.02
9.34
8.U
9.32
8.06
9.30
8.19
9,30
8.18
9,33
8.16
9.32
8.08
9,30
8,24
9.30
8.25
9,33
8.19
9,29
8,09
9.30
8.29
9.29
8.28
9.00
7,80
8,88
7.42
9,30
8,37
9.27
8,35
9.02
7.99
9,78
9.13
9.30
8.40
9,22
8,29
9,05
8,10
9.«*4
8.63
9,26
8,36
9,20
8.22
9,09
8.20
9,26
6,39
9,15
8,23
9,13
8.14
t HG/L)
90TH PERCENTILE
do DO STANDARD
12
6
74
02
6
74
16
6
72
93
6
73
14
6
74
02
6
73
24
6
72
10
6
72
21
6
73
14
6
73
33
6
71
31
6
72
28
6
73
17
6
72
39
6
71
40
6
71
32
6
73
19
6
71
45
6
71
44
6
71
90
6
57
44
6
5»
56
6
7ft
55
7#
15
6
i*
41
6
*
59
6
78
48
6
(i
29
6
it
86
78
56
6
70
39
6
67
40
6
62
to
6
70
42
6
t«
31
6
43
-------
DISSOLVEO
OFEP WATER DISCHARGE
DO DEFICIT COMPONENTS
SOUTH «Ar OTHER .S!*^
iLShcit oisrHARfsrRS
7? 0.01
7t o.nn
7"* 0.00
76 o.nn
77 0.00
78 o.nn
79 o.nn
so o.no
si o.no
92 o.nn
»3 o.nn
it* o.nn
8? o.nn
B6 o.nn
87 o.no
9R o.on
99 0.00
90 0.00
91 o.nn
if o.nn
93 0.00
9t o.no
99 o.nn
96 o.nn
99 o.nn
ion a.m
101 o.o?
10? 0,0#
103 o.on
inn o.nn
105 o.on
1(16 o.ni
107 o.ni
108 n.n?
OTHER
BOTTOM
,CHARGERS
OEKAND
0.15
0.5B
0.2"
0.51
n.#o
0.49
n.J6
0.50
0.t5
0.15
0.51
0.37
0.23
0.#5
o.##
0.#8
0.50
0.38
0.53
0.28
0.51
0,27
o.so
0.22
0.#*
0.19
n.#s
0.18
0.25
0.02
0.45
0.13
0.35
0.11
0.2?
0,02
0.27
0.07
0.21
0.05
0.12
0.02
0.0#
0,01
0.12
0.02
0.08
0.01
0.09
0.01
0.00
0.06
n.oo
0,06
0.00
0.22
0.00
0.31
0.00
0.4#
0.00
0.16
0.00
0.36
0,00
0,57
0.00
0.72
n.oo
0,73
n.oo
0.63
LOADS
0.08
0.05
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
O.OS
0.01
0.01
0.01
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
98 J]:?n o:io o;06 0.00
... n An 0.06 o.l*
0.
1.19
2.07
2,0*
0.19
0.#9
0.71
0.81
0.81
0.81
TABLE 18
axrsEN
1995
(XS/LI
urban
runoff
calculated
WET SEASON
total
OEFICIT
saturation
level
PAGE
00 C M9/LI
90TH PERCENTILE
00 00 STANOAftD
0.01
0,01
0.00
0,01
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.so
0.91
1.0*
0.79
0.49
0,#1
0.76
0.7*
0.65
0.55
0,»8
0.S5
0,87
0,92
0,91
0.9#
0,91
0,70
0,97
0.91
0,83
0.80
0.74
0,69
0.66
0.28
0.61
0.47
0,25
0.34
0.26
0.1S
0,05
0.19
0,09
0.11
0.57
1.13
2."
3.21
2.99
0.76
1.62
2.0*
2.20
2.11
1.96
9,10
9.12
9.10
9.08
9.07
9.06
9.06
9.07
9.06
9.05
9.06
9.05
9,05
9,05
9.27
9.26
9.2S
9.27
9.27
9,2#
9.17
9.07
9.39
9.3#
9.17
10.36
10.32
10.0#
9.77
9,55
9,07
9.23
9.20
9.20
9.30
9,2#
8.25
8.24
8.17
8.16
8.13
8.15
8,36
8.10
8.1#
8.22
8.25
8,30
8.36
8,38
8,99
8.65
8.77
9.02
8.92
8.96
9.01
9.02
9.20
9.2#
9.06
9.79
9.18
7.80
6.55
6.55
8.30
7.60
7.16
6.99
7.18
7.28
7.46
7.#5
7.36
7.35
7.31
7.3#
7.84
7.27
7.3*
7,4#
7.48
7.95
7.63
7.66
8.39
T.»*
8.11
8,43
8.30
8.33
8.45
8.49
8.64
8.69
8. SI
9.09
8. SI
6.31
9.01
9.09
7.34
8,97
9.99
5,78
9,99
*.1#
6.62
6.63
6.62
6.61
6.61
6.80
6.60
6.61
6.60
6.S0
6.60
6.60
6.60
6.60
6.70
6.70
6.69
6.70
6.70
6.69
6.65
6.61
6.7#
6,73
6.6S
7.22
7.20
T.06
6.94
6.83
6.61
6.68
6.67
6.67
6.72
6.69
C-211
-------
F-S*!
109
110
111
11?
113
11*4
115
11S
117
118
119
120
121
1??
123
124
125
126
127
l?fl
129
130
1 31
1 32
1 33
1 34
135
1 36
1 37
1 36
139
140
1*1
TABLE 18
DISSOLVES OXYGEN CALCULATED
0EFp *ATE9 DISCHARGE - 1993 - *ET SEASON
DO DEFICIT COMPONENTS C1S/L)
S0'iT4 RAY
OTHER
ROTTO*
SWAMP
URBAN
total
saturation
ntS^HAR^ERS
nicCMApstRS
Dl*ANO
loads
R JNOFF
DEFICIT
level
03
O.n?
0.00
0.57
0.83
0.42
1,86
9,39
7,52
0.0*
n.oo
0.53
0.05
0.35
1,78
9,33
7,55
o.ou
n.oo
0.4B
0.89
0.29
1.72
9.27
7.55
o.n*
0,00
0,49
0,92
0.24
1,67
9,23
7,56
o,n«
o.oo
0.75
0.61
0.38
1,80
9.68
7.88
o. nc,
0.00
0.70
0.65
0.30
1.72
9,47
7,75
0.(17
0.00
0.56
0.64
0.20
1.49
9, 38
7,88
o.n«
0.00
0.51
0.65
0.16
1,42
9,35
7,92
0,09
0,00
0,47
0,64
0.13
1,35
9.32
7.97
0.04
0.00
0.05
6.87
0.75
7,73
9.70
1,97
o,ir>
o.oo
0.28
2.84
0.27
3,51
9.41
5,89
0.3?
n.oo
0.45
1.16
0.10
1.95
9,27
7.32
O.nn
0.00
1.03
0.30
0.84
2.IS
10,11
7.92
o, p?
0.00
1,87
0,61
0.44
2,95
9.77
6,82
0.06
o.oo
1.14
0,39
0.22
1,83
9,57
7.73
0.20
o.oo
0.64
0,32
0.12
1.29
9.37
8.08
0.5?
0,01
0.50
0.29
0.05
1.19
9.26
8.07
0,01
0,00
0.02
2.96
0.67
3.18
9,78
6,60
o.o'
0,01
0.30
1,07
0.16
1,66
9,23
7.57
o.?i
0.03
0.48
0,96
0.05
1.75
9.12
7,36
o. no
c.oo
0.00
1.23
0.89
2.08
10.28
8,20
O.ftt
0.00
0,00
4,36
0.70
5.09
9,88
4,78
O.n*
0,00
0,06
5,84
0.35
6,30
9,53
3,23
n.jo
0.01
0.37
2,76
0,12
3,37
9,23
5,86
0.21
o.os
0.67
1.23
0.05
2.23
9,12
6,88
0.**
n .07
ft.5*
0 .74
0.04
1.75
9.09
7.34
0.21
0.05
0.40
0.39
0.11
1.18
9,11
7.92
0. 23
P.06
0,44
0,40
0.10
1,24
9,09
7,84
0.2?
0.09
0.45
0.39
0.08
1.29
9,07
7.78
n, 3i
0.10
0.44
0.39
0.06
lw32
9,06
7.74
o.^s
0,12
0.43
0,38
0.05
1.34
9,06
7.71
0.97
0.03
0.45
0.40
0.11
1.28
9,18
7.90
0.1*
0.05
0.43
0,33
0.06
1,23
9,12
7.89
PAGE
00 <*G/L»
90TH PERCENTILE
00 00 STANDARD
6.41
6.46
6.51
6.79
6,69
6.89
6.95
7.03
0,00
9.26
6.19
6,71
5,36
6,63
~.15
7.1#
5.07
6.32
6.29
7.02
2.6*
0.70
4.27
5.65
6.27
7.03
6.93
6.86
6.80
6.77
6.98
6.99
6.76
6.73
6.70
6.68
6.90
6.80
6.75
6.79
6.73
6.91
6.76
6.70
7,10
6.99
6. 89
6.75
6.70
6.99
6.68
6.63
7,18
6,99
6,33
6,68
6.63
6.62
6.62
6.61
6.61
6.60
6,60
6,66
6.63
-------
TABLE 19
StSHENI
SOUTH BAY OTHER
DI5CHAR6ERS DISCHARGERS
DISSOLVED
OR 31 DISCHAR6E
DO DEFICIT COMPONENTS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.02
o.os
0.0*
o.os
0.09
o.oa
0,11
0.11
0,1*
0.14
0.1S
0.16
0,16
0.19
0.17
0.18
0.19
0.19
0.23
0.19
0.20
0.2*
0.25
0.S2
0.39
O.ST
0.S8
0.2*
0.26
0.27
0.2*
0.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.og
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.0*
0.0*
o.ot
o.os
0.03
o.ot
0.07
o.ot
0.07
o.os
o.ot
0.00
0.11
o.os
0.13
0.1»
0.12
0.17
0.20
0.23
0.29
0.22
0.27
o.ao
0.31
0.26
bottom
demand
0.3*
0.53
0.33
0,32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.B2
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.93
0.33
0.92
0.93
0.93
0.91
0.93
0.33
0.31
0.3*
0.99
0.32
0.3t
0.37
0.3t
0.3»
0.»1
0.»t
0,»»
0,*9
0.*9
o.oa
o.»9
o.»*
SM*MP
loads
1.1*
o.at
0.72
o.tt
0.63
0,90
0.17
0.**
0.**
0.*6
0.*6
o,*o
0.*7
0.*3
0.92
O.M
0,*9
0.9*
0.91
o.*s
0.98
0.99
0,*9
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.9»
0.90
0.92
0.93
0.99
O.U
o.*t
O.M
O.tt
oxysen
198S
(*G/L>
CALCULATED
ORY SEASON
urban
runoff
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o,oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
o,«o
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
• ,•0
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
total
deficit
1.78
i.*a
1.21
1.06
1.01
l.OO
0.89
o.sa
0.90
0,99
0,99
0.9*
1.02
1,00
0.9*
1.»»
1,06
0,9*
1,13
1.12
0.99
1.10
1.2*
1,10
1.38
1.«0
1.29
l.M
1.9*
1.62
1.61
l.M
l.*T
1.92
l.*8
1.99
M«C 1
saturation
level
DO
7
*7
9.66
7
*7
9.99
7
»•
t.2f
7
*9
6. *2
7
*9
6.*9
7
90
6.90
7
91
6.61
7
91
6.69
7
6*
6.7*
7
6*
6.7*
7
6*
6.69
7
6*
6.69
7
69
t.tt
7
69
t.t*
7
6*
6.70
7
69
6.99
7
69
6.99
7
69
6.66
7
69
t.91
7
63
(.92
7
69
6.69
7
69
6.*9
7
69
6.99
7
69
6.9*
7
69
6.26
7
69
6.2*
7
69
6.96
7
69
6.17
7
79
6,>2
7
79
6.17
7
79
6.17
7
79
6.29
7
77
6.SO
7
77
6,29
7
77
6.29
7
77
6.17
I NO/LI
90TH PERCENTILE
DO
DO STANDARD
*.60
9.0*
9.00
9.99
S.ST
9.99
9.97
9. 89
9.6*
9.96
9.66
9.86
9.01
9.(6
9.9*
9.9T
9.9*
9.99
9.9*
9,99
9,97
9.99
9.06
9.93
S.TT
9.93
9.90
9.93
9.M
9.93
9.69
9,99
J.M
9.99
«.»»
9,99
s.t*
9,99
9.69
9.93
9.92
9,99
9.99
9,93
».«
9,99
9.60
9,93
9.91
9.93
».«•
9,99
9.*3
9,93
9,19
9.99
9.20
6.00
9.1*
6,00
9.1*
6.00
9, SI
9,»9
9,81
9,99
9.29
9,99
5.90
9.99
9.19
9.99
C-213
-------
37
38
39
*0
*1
*2
*3
-------
TABLE 19
south bay
OTHER
DISCHABGtftS
DISCHARGERS
r 3
0.0?
0.12
0.01
0.25
n
o.on
0.37
?b
0.00
0.35
ii
0.0^
o.tt
7»5
0.00
0.50
/9
0,00
0.21
BO
0.00
0.44
81
0.00
0.51
09
0.00
0.54
93
0.00
0.52
B k
0.00
0.52
«5
0.00
0.50
06
0.00
o.ta
HI
0.00
0.24
»e
0.00
O.t*
09
0.00
0.36
90
0.00
0,21
91
0.00
0.29
9?
0.00
0.22
95
0.00
0.12
9H
0.00
o.ou
95
o.oo
0.14
9fe
o.oo
0.00
97
0.00
0.09
98
o.oo
0.00
99
o.on
(1.00
lO'O
0.00
o.oo
1U1
0.00
0.00
10?
O.flO
0.00
1.04
0.00
n,oo
104
o.on
0,00
105
0.00
0.00
106
0. no
0.00
107
0.00
0.00
1UB
o.on
0.00
DISSOLVED 3XYGEM CALCULATED
qP 31 DISCHARGE - 1985 - DRY SEASON
0 DEFICIT COMPONENTS (MG/L)
BOTTOM
demand
0.51
0.45
0,44
0,44
0.41
0,31
0.10
0.44
0.3*
0.25
0.24
0.20
0.16
0.16
0.02
0,12
0.10
0.02
0.06
0.05
0.02
0,00
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.20
0.09
0.2"
0.29
0.39
1.04
0.98
0.75
0.70
0.61
0.54
SWAMP
urban
total
loads
RUNOFF
DEFICIT
0.09
0.00
0.76
0.05
o.oo
0.78
0.01
0.00
0.84
0.03
0.00
0.85
0.02
0,00
0.88
0,01
0,00
0.86
0,00
0,00
0.62
0.02
o.oo
0.91
o.oi
o.o o
0.87
0.01
0.00
0.81
0.01
0.00
0. 78
0.00
0.00
0,73
o.oo
0,00
0.68
0.00
0.00
0.6S
0.00
0.00
0.26
0.00
0.00
0.61
0.00
0.00
0,46
0.00
0,00
0,23
0.00
0.00
0.35
o.oo
0,00
0.28
o.oo
0.00
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.05
0,00
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0,00
0.09
2.03
0,00
2.23
3,2*
0,00
3.34
<1,52
0.00
4.77
4,»7
0.00
5.17
3.79
0.00
4.18
5.73
0.00
6,78
4.62
0.00
5.61
2.48
0,00
3.24
1.91
0,00
2.61
1.63
0,00
2.27
1.50
o.oo
2.04
"AGE J
DO IHS/L>
saturation
90TH
PERCENTILE
LEVEL
00
00
00 STANDARO
7.81
7.04
6.29
6.01
7.91
7.13
6.36
6.06
7,93
7,08
6.30
6,06
7,89
7,04
6,26
6.05
7.91
7.03
6.23
6.06
7.9S
7.07
6,28
6.07
7.93
7.31
£.60
6.07
7.91
6.99
6.19
6.05
7.93
7.05
6.26
6.06
7.95
7.IS
6.36
6.07
7,95
7,16
6.40
6.07
7.95
7.22
6.48
6.08
7.96
7.27
6.54
6.08
7.96
7.30
6.56
6.08
8.09
7.82
7.22
6.14
S.12
7,51
6,80
6,15
8,12
7,65
6,99
6.15
8.13
7.89
7.SO
6.16
8.14
7.79
7.16
6.16
8.13
7.85
7.24
6.16
6.10
7.95
7.39
6.14
8.21
8.16
7.6*
6,20
8,20
8,03
7,46
6.19
8,20
8,10
7,36
6,19
8,10
8,00
7.46
6.14
7.46
5.22
3.99
5.94
7.46
4.12
2.54
5.84
7.46
2.68
0.64
5.84
7.46
2.29
0.12
5.S4
7,46
3,28
1.43
5,94
7.08
0,30
0.00
5,66
7.08
1.47
0.00
5.66
7.17
3.92
2.37
5.70
7.17
4.55
3.20
5.70
7.17
4.69
3.65
5.70
7.2b
5.21
4.04
5.74
C-215
-------
Ill
112
US
11*
US
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
120
125
126
127
128
129
150
131
132
133
13*
135
136
137
138
139
1*0
1*1
TABLE 19
OISSOLVED OXYGEN CALCULATED
DP 31 OISCHARSE - 1985 - ORY SEASON
DO DEFICIT
components
(MS/L)
total
SOUTH BAY
OTHER
BOTTOM
swamp
urban
DISCHAR6ERS
dischargers
demand
loads
RUNOFF
DEFICIT
0,00
0.00
0»*B
l.*3
0.00
1.93
0.00
0.00
0.**
1,*2
0.00
1.86
0.00
0.00
0.*0
1."
0,00
1.6*
0.00
0,00
0.37
1,*3
0.00
1,63
0,00
0.00
0.83
1.50
o.oo
2.3*
0,00
0.00
0.6*
1.20
o.oo
1.83
0.00
0.00
o.*s
1.0*
0.00
1.33
0.00
0.00
0.*3
1,01
0,00
I.*6
0.00
0.00
o.*o
0,97
0.00
1.S8
0,00
0.00
0.03
7.87
0.00
7.93
0.00
0.00
0.2*
*.97
0.00
3.23
0.01
o.oo
0.38
1.90
0.00
2.SI
0,00
0.00
0.99
0.77
0,00
1.76
0.00
0,00
1.61
1.01
0.00
2.63
0.00
0.00
0.93
0.51
0.00
l.«
0.01
0.00
0.32
0.38
0.00
0.92
0.03
0.00
0,*2
0.37
0.00
0.8*
0.00
0.00
0.02
5.28
0.00
3.32
0.02
0.00
0.26
1.62
0,00
1.92
0.07
0.02
0.*1
1.36
0,00
2.07
o.oo
0.00
0.00
6.59
0,00
6.60
0.00
0.00
0.01
6.6*
0.00
6.66
0.01
0.00
0.03
6.08
0,00
6.15
o.o*
0.01
0.32
*.83
0,00
3.21
0.09
0.03
0.39
2.19
0,00
2.92
0.1*
0.03
0.30
1.28
0,00
1.99
0.13
0.0*
0.3*
0.63
o.oo
1.18
0.1*
0.03
0.37
0,6*
8.00
1.23
0.17
0.07
0.38
0.62
0.00
1.23
0.21
0.09
0.38
0.60
0.00
1.28
0.23
0,10
0.37
0.37
0,00
1.49
0.07
0.02
o.«o
0.70
0,00
1.21
0.10
0,03
0,37
0.31
0,00
1.02
PACE «
00
-------
btSMENI
1
2
5
1
52
55
54
»
56
TABLE 20
oissolvco axrscv calculated
op 31 DISCHARGE - 1985 - CANNING SEi
D3 DEFICIT COMPONENTS MS/LI
SOUTH BAY 0T4E0 BOTTOM SWA»P JRBAN TOTAL
dischargers oischarsers demand loads runoff deficit
o.oo 0,00 0.3* l.*3 0.00 1.76
o no 0 00 0.33 1.1H 0.00 1.18
0,00 o.oo
0,01
0,01
0,0?
0.00 0.33 0.86 0.00 1.21
o 00 0.32 0.72 0.00 1.06
0 00 0.32 0.66 0.00 1,01
S'oj oioo 0,32 0.63 0.00 1.01
0 S, 0 01 0.32 0.50 0.00 0.90
' 0 01 0.32 O-*7 °'00 °-89
o 03 0.32 0,** 0.00 0.92
n\n 0 OS o|32 O.t* 0.00 0.91
!*}J 0;0» 0.32 0,*6 0.00 0.97
Sin oio* o!j2 0,*6 0.0? 0.97
o!l(* 0.06
0,33 0,*8 0.00 1.06
0*i? 0! 05 0.33 0.*7 0.00 1.0*
• o os 0.32 0,*3 0.00 0.97
S'm 0 06 ol»3 0,52 0.00 1.12
°A0 SioT 0 33 0,*9 0,00 1.10
2"?2 0 06 0 M 0,*5 0.00 1.02
2*1? 0.07 0 S3 0.5* 0.00 1.17
o',\ 0 08 o|33 0.5» 0.00 1.16
S*« O S 0 31 0,*9 0.00 1.02
0-1! o OB OB* 0.98 0.00 i.a»
!*« 0 U 0 55 0.55 0.00 1.31
S*ss 0.08 0.32 0,*9 0.00 l.l*
0 " 0.13 0.36 o." 0.00 l.*5
0%5 0.1» 0,37 °»58 * 1*
0*?0 0 12 fl|s6 0.55 0.00 1.35
0*119 oil7 0.39 0,59 0.00 1,56
S*M 0 20 0.*1 0.58 0.00 1.65
MI 0 25 0 « 0.52 0.00 1.70
0*I» 0 25 o!** 0.53 0.00 1,70
' S*22 0 *5 0.55 0.00 1.5*
!*2! !•;? i *9 0,*3 0.00 1.53
I'll ; so 0 *8 0,*6 0.00 1.58
0'?0 0.31 0 *« O.M 0.00 1.53
J.*" 26 0 *9 0.6* 0.00 1.6*
saturation
LEVEL
DO
7.*7
5.68
7.17
5.99
7.*8
6.26
7.*9
6.*2
7,*9
6,*8
7.50
6, *9
7.51
6.60
7.51
6.62
7.6*
6.72
7.6*
6.72
7.6*
6.66
7.6*
6.67
7.69
6,58
7.65
6.60
7.6*
6.67
7.6%
6.52
7.69
6,5*
7.69
6.63
7.65
6.*7
7.65
6.*e
7.69
6.62
7.69
6. *0
7.69
6.33
7,69
6.50
7.45
6.20
7,69
6.18
7.69
6.30
7.65
6.09
7.79
6.1*
7.79
6.08
7.79
6.08
7.78
6.2*
7.77
6.2*
7.77
6.19
7.77
6.23
7.77
6.13
page i
CHG/L)
90TH PERCENTILE
00
DO STANDARD
*.60
5,8*
9.00
5.85
9,36
9.85
9.57
5,85
9,6*
5.86
9.66
5,86
5,80
5,86
5.82
9.87
5.91
5,93
5.92
5.93
9.8*
9.93
5.89
5.93
9.73
5.93
5.76
9.93
5.8*
5.93
5.6*
5.93
S.S8
9.93
5.79
5.93
9.99
5.93
9.60
5. 93
9.78
5.JS
9.*9
5.93
9.*0
5.93
9.62
5.93
5.22
5.93
9,19
5.93
9.39
5.93
9.08
9.93
9.10
6.00
9.02
6.00
9.02
6.00
9.23
5,99
9.23
5.99
9.17
9.99
9.23
5.99
9.09
5.99
C-217
-------
39
HO
n
*2
>~3
*«~
<~5
*6
•~7
¦~B
*9
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
*0
hi
62
63
64
65
66
67
60
69
70
n
12
TABLE 20
SOUTH BAY OTHER
DISCHARPERS DISCHARSERS
DISSOLVED
OP 31 DISCHARGE
bottow
DEMAND
OXYGEN
1985
MS/L>
calculated
CANNING SEASON
0.30
0.2*
0.50
0.31
0.30
0 ,*9
o.i*
0.31
0.50
0.1S
0.28
0,50
0.27
0,22
0.50
0.29
0.31
0.51
0.09
0.3*
0.50
O.lt
0.26
0 , *9
o.?o
0.2*
0.51
0.19
0.31
0.52
o.oe
0.32
0.50
0.07
0.2*
o.te
o.is
0.21
0,50
0,17
0.30
0.53
0.0ft
0.28
0.50
o.os
0.23
0.<(9
0.16
0.19
0.50
0.1?
0.25
0.53
o.os
0.26
0.*9
0.04
0.22
0.51
0.13
0.20
0.56
0.18
0.29
0.66
O.fl*
0.20
O.HS
0.02
0.17
0.51
0.09
0,1*
0.50
0.06
0.10
0.33
0.01
0.19
0.*8
0.01
0.15
0.57
0.07
0.12
0 , *9
0.05
0.10
0.**
O.OS
0.2?
0 . *7
0.01
0.18
0.61
O.OS
0.10
0.50
0.01
0.13
0 , *9
0.01
0,30
0,47
0.00
0.27
0.58
SW**P
urba"
TOTAL
SAfURATI£
LOADS
rumoff
deficit
level
0.*1
0.00
l.*7
7,77
0.**
0.00
1.56
7.77
0.32
0.00
1.52
7.75
0.67
0.00
1.65
7.76
0.*5
0.00
1.U5
7.77
0 . *2
0.00
1.5*
7.77
0.25
0.00
1.20
7.75
0,56
0.00
l.u
7.76
0.37
0.00
1.33
7.77
0.32
o.oo
1.36
7,76
0.19
0.00
1,09
7.75
0.35
0.00
1.15
7.75
0.36
0.00
1.26
7.76
0.30
0.00
1.31
7,75
0.16
0.00
1.01
7.75
0.22
0,00
1.00
7.75
0,35
0.00
1.22
7.75
0.32
o.oo
1.2*
7.72
0,1*
0.00
0.95
7.75
0,15
0.00
0.93
7.75
0.31
0.00
1.21
7.*5
0.38
0.00
1.53
7,3*
0.11
o.oo
0.65
7.76
0.09
0.00
0.81
7.73
0.2*
0.00
0.98
7,1*5
0.1*
0.00
0.6*
e.i6
0.11
o.oo
0.83
7.76
0.05
0.00
0.81
7.70
0.19
o.oo
0,88
7.*9
0.15
0.00
0.76
7.8*
0.09
0.00
0.82
7,7*
0.0*
0.00
0.86
7.69
0,15
o.oo
0.81
7.79
0.13
0.00
0.80
7,97
0,03
0.00
0.83
7.95
0.02
0.00
0.88
7.93
DO
6.30
6.20
6,13
6.11
6.31
6.22
6.55
6.32
6. *3
6,«0
6.66
6.60
6.*9
6,94
6.73
6.74
6.53
6,*5
6.79
6.91
6.23
5.80
6.90
6.92
6.16
7.51
6.93
6.99
6.60
7.09
6.92
6.83
6.97
7.17
7.12
7.05
PAGE
DO (MG/L)
90TH PERCENTILE
DO 00 STANDARD
5.32
5.19
5.50
5.06
5.33
5.21
5.65
5,35
5,49
5,45
5.80
5.72
5,57
5.51
5.90
5.91
5.63
5,5b
5.98
6,00
5,33
4,80
6.11
6,15
5.64
6.79
6.15
6.12
5.80
6.32
6.1*
6.0*
6.20
6.HO
6,31
6.25
5.99
5.99
5.98
5.99
5.99
5.99
5.96
5,99
5,99
5.98
5.98
5.99
5.98
5.99
5.98
5.98
5.90
5.97
5.98
5.98
5.85
5,78
5.98
5.97
5.94
6.17
5.98
5.96
5.95
6.02
5.97
5.95
6.00
6.09
6,07
6.06
-------
TABLE 20
south 9/\r
ot^cr
BOTTOM
S)L0«£n f
DISCHARGERS
DISCHARGERS
demand
73
0.03
0.12
0,51
7t
0.01
0,25
0.15
75
Q ,00
0.37
O.^
7 6
0,01
0,35
0,«u
77
0,00
o.^
0.*1
0,00
0.50
0,3
90TH
00
6,28
6,36
6.30
6.26
6.23
6.28
6.60
6.19
6.26
6.36
6,40
6.47
«.»4
6.58
7.22
6.80
*.»9
7.SO
7.16
7.24
7.39
7.64
7.46
7,56
7,46
2,54
0,64
0.12
1.42
0.00
0,00
2.37
3.20
3.65
1.04
PERCENTILE
00 STANDARD
6.01
6.06
6.06
6. 03
6.06
6.07
6.07
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.07
6.08
6.08
6.08
6.14
6.15
6.15
6.16
6.16
6.16
6.14
6.20
6,19
6.19
6.14
5.84
S.B4
3.84
5,84
5.84
5.66
5,66
5.70
5.70
5.70
5,74
C-219
-------
DISSOLVED
DP 31 DISCHARGE
DO DEFICIT COMPONENTS
SOiiTh ?ay
OTHER
BOTTOM
SWAMP
St&wENl
dischargers
dischargers
DEMAND
LOADS
109
0,00
0»0Q
0,46
1,45
HO
0.00
0.00
0.44
1,42
111
0.00
0.00
0.40
1,43
112
0.00
0.00
0.37
1,45
113
0,00
0,00
0.83
1,50
11H
0.00
0,00
0.64
1,20
115
0.00
0.00
0.48
1, 04
116
0.00
0.00
0.43
1.01
117
0.00
0,00
0.40
0.97
118
0.00
0,00
0.05
7.87
119
o.oo
0.00
0,2*
<~,97
120
o.o?
0.00
0,38
1,90
121
0.00
0.00
0. 99
0,77
122
0,00
0.00
1.61
1,01
123
0.00
o.oo
0,93
0,91
124
0.02
0.00
0.52
0.38
125
o.os
0.00
0,42
0,37
126
0.00
0.00
0.02
5.28
127
0,03
0*00
0,26
1.62
128
O.OB
0.02
0,41
1,56
129
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.59
130
0.00
0,00
0.01
6,64
131
0.01
0.00
0.05
6.00
132
0,0*
0,01
0.32
4,03
133
0,11
0,05
0,59
2,19
134
0.17
0.0^
0.50
1,28
135
0.16
0.04
0,34
0,65
136
0.1ft
0.05
0.37
0.64
137
0.21
0,07
0.3B
0,62
136
0.25
0.09
0,38
0,60
139
0.2*
0.10
0.37
0.57
itn
0.09
0.02
0.H0
0.70
141
0,12
o.os
0,37
0,51
C-220
TABLE 20
PAGE 1
OXTGEM CALCULATED
105
CANNING SEASON
/L)
DO
(MG/L)
urban
total
SATURATION
90TH
PERCENTILE
RUNOFF
DEFICIT
level
00
DO
DO STANDARD
0,00
1.93
7.26
5,32
•*,19
5,74
0,00
1,86
7,26
5.39
4.20
5.74
0.00
1,84
7,36
5,51
4.41
5,79
0,00
1,03
7,36
5,52
4,42
5,79
0,00
2,34
7,48
5,13
3,07
5.95
0,00
1,05
7,40
5,62
4,51
5.85
0,00
1,54
7,48
5.94
4,94
5.95
0.00
1,46
7.48
6,02
5,04
5.85
0,00
1,38
7,48
6,09
5.14
5,85
0,00
7,93
7.50
-0,42
o.oo
5,86
0.00
5,23
7,50
2,26
0,07
5.96
0,00
2,31
7,50
5,19
3.93
5.86
0,00
1,76
7, 50
5.74
4.66
5,96}
0,00
2,63
7,50
4,07
3.51
5.96-
0,00
1.45
7,50
6.05
5.07
5.96-
0,00
0,93
7,50
6.57
5.76
5.96,
0,00
0.85
7,50
6,65
5,07
5,86.
0,00
5,32
7,52
2.20
0,00
5.97
0,00
1.93
7,52
5.59
4,46
5.97
0,00
2,06
7,52
5,44
4.26
5.97
0,00
6,60
7,52
0.92
0.00
5.97
0,00
6,66
7,52
0,06
0,00
5.97
0,00
6.16
7.52
1,36
0,00
5,97
0,00
5,22
7,52
2,30
0,11
5.97
o.oo
2,9»
7,52
4,50
3,13
5.97
0,00
2,02
7,52
5.50
4.34
5.97
0,00
1.21
7,53
6,32
5,42
5.97
0.00
1,26
7,53
6.26
5.35
5.97
0,00
1.29
7.53
6.23
5.30
5.97
0,00
1,33
7,53
6.20
5.26
5,97
0,00
1.34
7,53
6,10
5,24
5,97
0,00
1.22
7,52
6,29
5,30
5.97
0.00
1,04
7,52
6,47
5,62
5,87
-------
.(?#
1
2
3
<4
5
b
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
*0
21
22
23
25
eb
27
2B
*9
50
51
52
33
34
35
36
TABLE 21
SOUTH BAY OTHER
dischargers dischargers
0,00
0.00
0.01
0,01
0,02
0*03
0,0*
0,06
0,10
0,10
0,13
0.13
0.17
0,16
0,15
0.19
0,19
0.17
0,20
0,??
0.1*
0,2?
0.J7
0.2?
0,33
0«3<*
0.?9
0,39
0.42
0.93
0,49
0.?*
0,31
0,3?
0.?P
0.23
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,01
0,01
0,03
0,03
0,09
0,09
0,06
0,05
0,05
0.06
0,07
0,06
0,07
O.OB
0,06
0,09
0*11
0,08
0,13
0,19
0,12
0.17
0*20
0,23
0.25
0,22
0,27
0.30
0,31
0,26
DISSOLVED
DP 31 DISCHARGE
BOTTOM
demand
0,39
0,33
0,33
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0,52
0.32
0,32
0.32
0,32
0,33
0,33
0,32
0,33
0,33
0,31
0,33
0.33
0,31
0.39
0.35
0,32
0,36
0,37
0.36
0.39
0.H1
0.96
0.99
0,*3
0.99
0 • 9fl
0,96
0,99
DXTSEM
1995
(MG/L)
CALCULATED
DRY SEASON
PAGE
DO (NG/D
SWft«P
jrban
total
SATURATION
90TH
PERCENTILE
loads
RUNOFF
DEFICIT
level
DO
00
DO STAN3AF
1.43
0.00
1.78
7.47
5.68
4.60
5.84
1.14
0.00
1.18
7.47
5.99
5.00
5.85
0.86
0.00
1.21
7.48
6.27
5.36
5,85
0.72
0.00
1.06
7.99
6.42
5,57
5.95
0.66
o.oo
1.01
7.49
6.48
5,64
5. 96
0.63
0.00
1.00
7.50
6.49
5,66
5.86
0.50
0.00
0.90
7.51
6.60
5,BO
5.86
0.47
0.00
0.89
7.51
6,62
5,82
5.87
0.44
0,00
0.91
7,64
6,72
9,92
5.93
0.44
0,00
0.91
7.64
6.73
5.92
5.93
0.46
0.00
0.97
7.6*
6.67
5.85
5.93
0.46
0.00
0.96
7.64
6.68
5.85
5.93
0.18
0.00
1.05
7.65
6.59
5.74
5.93
0.47
0.00
1.03
7,65
6,61
5.77
5.93
0.43
0.00
0.96
7,64
6.68
5.85
5.93
0.52
0.00
1.11
7.65
6.S3
5.66
5.93
0 .49
0.00
1.09
7.65
6.55
5.69
5.93
0.4s
0.00
1.01
7,65
6.63
5.BO
5.93
0.5*
0.00
1.16
7.65
6,48
5,60
5.93
0.51
0,00
1.1s
7,65
6.49
5,61
5,93
0.H5
o.oo
1.01
7.65
6.63
5.79
5.93
0.58
0.00
1.23
7.65
6.41
5.51
5.93
0.55
0.00
1.30
7.65
6.35
5.42
5.93
0.19
0.00
1.13
7.65
6.51
9.64
5.93
0.59
0,00
1,43
7.65
6.22
9.25
5.93
0.58
0.00
1.95
7,65
6.19
5.22
5.93
0.55
0,00
1.33
7.65
6,31
5.37
5.93
0.59
0.00
1.51
7.65
6.11
5.10
5.93
0.58
0.00
1.63
7.79
6,16
5.12
6.00
0.52
0,00
1.68
7.79
6.10
9,05
6,00
0.53
0.00
1.68
7.79
6.11
5.06
6.00
0.55
0.00
1.52
7.78
6.25
5.25
5.99
0.43
0.00
1.51
7.77
6,25
5.25
5.99
0.46
0.00
1.56
7.77
6.20
5.19
5,99
0.44
0,00
1.52
7.77
S.2*
5.24
5,99
0.64
o.oo
1.63
7.77
6.14
5.10
5.99
C-221
-------
57
30
39
*0
41
42
>43
<~5
16
*7
*8
*9
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
5B
59
60
bl
62
63
64
65
bfe
bl
bB
fc9
70
71
72
TABLE 21
dissolved
D? 31 DISCHARGE
SOUTH bay
0,29
0,30
o.m
0.18
0.26
0,28
0,09
0,10
0,19
0.18
0,06
0,06
0,17
0,16
0,05
0,0*
0,15
0,15
0,05
0,03
0,12
0,17
0.04
0,02
0,09
0,05
0,03
0,01
0,07
0,05
0.03
0,01
0,05
0,04
0,01
0,00
OKYGEM
1995
<*G/L)
CALCULATED
DRY SEASON
DO
-------
TABLE 21
SOUTH BAY
DISCHARGERS
0.03
0.01
0.00
0,01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
o.no
0,00
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
0,00
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.no
0,00
OTHER
DISCHARGERS
0.12
0,25
0.37
0.35
0.44
0.50
0.21
0.44
0.51
0.54
0.52
0.52
0,50
0.48
0.21
0.48
0.36
0.21
0.20
0.22
0.12
0.04
0.11
O.OB
0.09
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
DP 31 01
DO DEFICIT
bottom
demand
0.51
0.45
0.44
0.44
0.41
0.3*
0.40
0.44
0.34
0.25
0.2*
0.20
0.16
0.16
0.02
0.12
0.10
0.02
0.06
0.05
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.20
0,09
0.24
0.29
0.39
1.0*
0,98
0.75
0.70
0,64
0.54
dissolved
1CHARGE
components
SWftHP
loads
0.09
0,05
0.01
0,03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0,02
0,01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.03
3,24
*.52
4.87
3,79
5,73
4.62
2.40
1."
1.63
1.50
oxygen calculated
1995 - DRY SEASON
(MS/LI
urban
TOTAL
runoff
DEFICIT
0,00
0.76
0.00
0.78
0,00
0,84
o.oo
0.85
0.00
0,88
0.00
0,86
0.00
0,62
0.00
0,91
o.oo
0.87
o.oo
0.81
o.oo
0.78
0.00
0.73
0.00
0,68
0.00
0.65
0.00
0.26
0.00
0.61
0.00
0.47
0,00
0,23
o.oo
0,35
0.00
0.28
0.00
0.14
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.09
0.00
2.23
0.00
3.34
0.00
4.77
0.00
5.17
0.00
4.18
0.00
6.78
0.00
5.61
0.00
3.24
0.00
2.61
0.00
2.27
0,00
2.04
PA6£ 3
DO (HG/L)
SATURATION 90JH PERCENTILE
LEVEL DO DO DO STANDARD
7.81 7,04 6.28 6.01
7.'1 7.la 6.J6 6.06
7.93 7.08 6.30 6.06
7.89 7.04 6.26 6.05
7.91 7.03 6.23 6.06
7.93 7.07 6.28 6.07
7.93 7,31 6,60 6,07
7.91 6.99 6.19 6,05
7.93 7.05 6.26 6.06
7.95 7.13 6.36 6.07
7.95 7.16 6.40 6.07
7.95 7.22 6.47 6.08
7.96 7,27 6,54 6.08
7.96 7.30 6.58 6.08
8.09 7.82 7,22 6.1*
8.12 7,51 6.80 6,IS
8.12 7.65 6,99 6.15
8.13 7.89 7,30 6.16
f.l* 7.79 7.16 6.16
8.13 7,85 7.24 6.16
8.10 7.95 7.39 6,1*
8.21 8.16 7,64 6.JO
8.20 8.03 7.46 6.19
8.20 8,10 7.56 6.19
8.10 8,00 7,46 6.11
I'*6 5.22 3.99 5.84
7.46 4.12 2,54 5,84
7.46 2.88 0,64 5.84
7.« a. 29 0.12 5.84
7.«6 3.28 1.42 5.94
7,08 0.30 0,00 5.66
7.J8 1.47 0.00 5.66
M2 2,37 5,70
7.17 4,55 3,20 5.70
I'll J.89 3.65 5.70
7'*6 ^,0^ 5,7*'
C-223
-------
109
110
111
112
115
114
115
116
117
110
119
120
121
12?
123
124
125
126
127
120
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
13B
139
140
141
TABLE 21
SOUTH BAY OTHER
dischargers dischargers
DISSOLVED
DP 31 OlSCHftRGE
00 DEFICIT COMPONENTS
BOTTOM
DEMAND
SWAMP
LOAOS
OXYGEN
1995
URBAN
RU^Off
CALCULATED
QRT SEASON
TOTAL
DEFICIT
saturation
level
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
o.oo
0.02
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.04
o.ll
0.16
0.19
0.17
o.ao
0.24
0.27
0,0ft
0,11
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0*00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
Q.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0*00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,02
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.04
0,05
0.07
0.09
0,10
0.02
0.03
o,«»8
0,44
0.40
0.37
0.83
0.64
0.48
0.43
O.HO
0.05
0,24
0,38
0,99
1.61
0,93
0,52
0.42
0.02
0,26
0,41
0,00
0,01
0,05
0.32
0.59
0.50
0.34
0.37
0,38
0,36
0,37
0.40
0.37
i.w
1.42
1.43
l.»»
1.30
1.20
1.04
1.01
0.97
7,87
4,97
1.90
0.77
1.01
0,51
0,38
0.37
5.28
1.62
1,56
6.59
6.64
6.08
4,83
2,19
1.28
0.65
0,64
0,62
0,60
0,57
0,70
0,51
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
1.93
1.86
1.84
1.83
2.3*
1.05
1.33
l.»6
1.38
7.93
5,23
2.31
1.T6
2.63
1.0
0,93
0,84
5.32
1.93
2.08
6,60
6,66
6,15
5.22
2,93
2.01
1,20
1,25
1,28
1,31
1.33
1.22
1,04
7»26
7,26
7,36
7,36
7,48
7,48
7,48
7,48
7,48
7,50
7,50
7,50
7,50
7.50
7,50
7,50
7,50
7.52
7,52
7,52
7.52
7,52
7.52
7,52
7.52
7.52
7.53
7,53
7,53
7,53
7,53
7,52
7.52
PA6E
00
(MG/LI
90TH
PERCENTILE
DO
DO
DO STANDARD
5.S2
*.19
5.7*
5,39
*.26
5,7*-
5.51
4,41
5.79
5.52
4,43
5.79
5.13
3,67
5. 95
5.62
1.51
5. 85
5.9*
4.94
5.85
6.02
5. Of
5. 85
6.09
5.1*
5.85
•0,12
0,00
5.86
2.26
0.07
5.86
5.19
3,93
5.86
5.74
<1,66
5.86-
*.#7
3.51
5.86
6.05
5.07
5.86
6.57
5.76
5.86
6.65
5,67
5.86
2.20
0.00
5.87
5.59
4.46
5.87
5.4*
*.26
5.87
0,92
0.00
5.87
0,86
0,00
5.87
1.36
0.00
5.87
2.SO
0.12
5.87
*.59
3.13
5.87
5.51
*4,35
5.87
6.32
5.13
5.87
6.27
5.36
5.87
6.24
5.32
5,97
6.21
5.28
5.87
6,20
5.26
5.97
6.29
5.39
5.87
6.»e
5,63
5.87
-------
• !»«l
1
¦i
}
t
>
b
7
B
¦»
JO
11
1?
15
It
15
16
17
IB
19
KO
?1
2?
<¦3
20
25
lb
{ 7
26
29
50
51
5a
53
30
55
56
TABLE 22
SOUTH BAT OTHER
DISCHARGERS OISCHARSERS
DISSOLVED
DP Si DISCHARGE
00 OCFICIT COMPONENTS
0.00
0.00
0.01
o.oi
o.op
O.OO
0.06
0.07
0.1P
0.1?
0.1*
0.1S
O.JO
0.19
0.17
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.21
0.25
0.21
0.26
0.32
0,26
0.3ft
0.00
O.St
o.oo
0.09
0.
-------
TABLE 22
DISSOLVES OXYGEN
DP SI DISCHARGE - 1995
oo deficit cokponents («g/l>
CALCULATED
CANNING SEASON
SOUTH BAY
OTHER
BOTTOM
SW«MP
URBAN
TOTAL
bHiwENf
DISCHARGERS
DISCHARGERS
DEMAND
loads
runoff
DEFICIT
37
0.34
0.24
0.50
0.<»1
0.00
1.50
36
0,35
0.30
0.49
0.44
0.00
1.60
39
0.16
0.34
0.50
0.32
0.00
1.33
40
0.21
0.29
0.50
0.67
0.00
1.67
41
0.30
0.22
0.50
0.45
0,00
1.49
42
0.33
0.31
0.51
0.42
0.00
1,58
43
0.10
0.34
0.50
0.25
o.oo
1*21
44
0.1?
0.26
0.49
0.56
0.00
1.1*4
45
0.23
0.24
0.51
0.37
0.00
1.36
46
0.21
0.31
0.52
0.32
0.00
1.38
47
0.07
0.32
0.50
0.19
0.00
1.09
46
0.07
0.24
o.48
0.35
0,00
1,16
49
0.20
0.21
0.50
0.36
0,00
1,29
50
0.19
0.30
0.53
0.30
0.00
1,33
51
0.06
0.2S
0.50
0.16
0,00
1.02
52
0.05
0.23
0.49
0.22
0.00
1.01
53
0.19
0.19
0.50
0.35
0,00
1.24
54
0.17
0.25
0.53
0.32
0,00
1.28
55
0.05
0.26
0.49
0.14
0,00
0,96
56
0.04
0.22
0.51
0.15
0.00
0,93
57
0.13
0.20
0.56
0.31
0,00
1.23
56
0.20
0.29
0.66
0.36
0.00
1.55
59
0.(14
0,20
0.48
0.11
0,00
0,66
«>0
0.03
0.17
0.51
0.09
o.oo
0.61
bl
0.10
0.14
0.50
0.24
0.00
1,00
62
0.06
0.10
0.33
0.14
0,00
0,65
63
0.04
0.19
0.48
0.11
0.00
0.83
64
0.02
0.15
0.57
0.05
0,00
0,61
S5
0.08
0.12
0.49
0.19
0.00
0.89
66
0.06
0.10
0.44
0.15
0,00
0,76
&7
0.03
0.22
0.47
0.09
0,00
0,62
fe 8
0.01
0.19
O.&l
0.0*
0.00
0,86
b9
0.05
0.10
0.50
0.15
0,00
0,62
?0
0.05
0.13
0.49
0.13
0,00
0,81
7 1
0.01
0.30
0.47
0.03
0,00
0,83
Te
0.00
0.27
0.56
0.02
o.oo
0.68
SATURATION
00
PAGE
IMG/LI
90TH PERCENTILE
level
DO
00
DO STAN3A
7
77
6,26
5.27
5,99
7
77
6.17
5.1*
5.99
7
75
6.42
5.47
5.96
7
76
6,06
5,03
5.96
7
77
6,28
5.29
5.99
7
77
6,18
5.16
5.99
7
75
6,53
5,63
5.98
7
76
6.31
5,33
5.98
7
77
6,40
5,46
5.99
7
76
6,37
5.42
5.98
7
75
6,65
5.79
5.96
7
75
6.59
5.71
5.98
7
76
6,47
5,54
5.J9
7
75
6,42
5,48
5.98
7
75
6.73
5.89
5.98
7
75
6.74
5.90
5.99
7
75
6,51
5.60
5.98
7
72
6,43
5.51
5.97
7
75
6,79
5,97
5,96
7
75
6,81
5.99
5.96
7
*5
6.21
5.31
5.fi3
7
34
5.78
*.77
5.78
7
76
6,89
6.11
5.98
7
73
6,92
6.15
5.97
7
45
6.45
5.62
5.94
8
16
7.51
6,76
6.17
7
76
6,92
6.14
5.98
7
70
6.59
6,12
5.96
7
49
6.59
5,79
5.95
7
84
7,07
6,31
6.02
7
74
6,91
6.14
5.97
7
69
6,83
6,04
5.95
7
79
6.96
6,19
6.00
7
97
7.16
6.39
6.09
7
95
7.12
6.34
6.07
7
93
7.04
6.25
&. 16
C-226
-------
TABLE 22
st in Cn '
0ISCH49SI
73
0.03
f <~
0,0?
ri
0.00
rt>
0*01
t 7
0.00
0.00
/ 9
0.00
SO
0.00
*1
0.00
o.oo
B3
0.00
0.00
«5
0.00
yb
0*00
H7
0.00
BB
0.00
B9
0,00
90
o.oc
91
0.00
9?
0.00
93
0.00
9»*
0.00
95
0.00
96
0.00
97
0.00
98
0.*0
99
0.00
1U0
0.00
1U1
o.oo
102
0.00
1U3
0.00
1UM
0.00
105
0.00
106
0.00
107
O.flo
IU*
o.or
DISSOLVED DXYGEN CALCULATED
DP 31 DISCHARGE - 1995 - CANNING SEl
DO DEFICIT COMPONENTS HG/L)
•somTu a.v OTHER BOTTOM S*A«P URBAN TOTAL
DEMAND LOADS RIMOFF DEFICIT
0.12 0.51
0.25 " ""
0.37
0.09 0.00 0.77
n'i>5 0,05 0.00 0.79
Q^mi o.oi o.oo 0.6*1
0 35 o!*1 0.03 0.00 0.95
>1 0.02 0.00 0.88
„'In II 0.01 0.00 0.86
?'?? 0\o 0.00 0.00 0.62
HJ B.M 0.02 0.00 0.91
2*i, n 34 0.01 0.00 0.87
?23 0 01 OIOO 0.81
0.01 0.00 0.78
I'A o'.™ 5-25 !••!! M2
_ t> ft ZO U|UV -#V» "••-
OO o'.lt 0.00 0.00 0.68
o.ta o.it o.oo
!*f: 2:" o: o o s;5o y.ii
2'k 0 10 oloo O.oo 0.47
?*!? 0 02 0.00 0.00 0.23
2'»» (1*06 0,00 O.oo 0.35
MS S*" o 00 o.oo 0.28
hi «:« °:#o mis "•*:
nnu 0 00 0.00 °«00 0,°!
'?! ft 02 0.00 0.00 0.17
0>" 2ni 0.00 0.00 0.10
I'nl 2'oi 0.0° °*00 0,°?
S'Sn 0 20 2l°» °*00
?•" 2*o? 3.2* 0.00 3.34
0,00 Sou 4 *2 0.00 t.78
0.00 O.M ».« #'5„ 5.17
0.00 0.« J." o!oO ...18
0.00 0.39 J«7» 0 6 7B
0.00 *.«* I'll OIOO 5.61
0.00 0.'« l'$s 0,00 3.2*
5:28 h S:SS 5:8
I'M I'M i:S«
saturation
level
DO
7.SI
7.OH
7.91
7.12
7.93
7.08
7.89
7.OH
7.91
7.03
7.93
7.07
7.93
7.31
7.91
6.99
7.93
7,05
7.95
7.13
7.95
7.16
7. 95
7.22
7,96
7.27
7.96
7.30
8.09
7.82
8,12
7.51
8.12
7.65
8.13
7.89
b.i*
7.79
8.13
7,8*
8.10
7.95
8,21
8,16
8.20
8.03
8,20
8.10
8.10
8.00
7.16
5.22
7.*6
4.12
7.46
2,68
7 ,16
2.28
7.46
3.28
7.08
0.30
7.08
l.»T
7.17
3,92
7,17
*,55
7.17
4,89
7.76
5.21
page J
(MG/L)
90TH PERCENTILE
00
00 STANDARD
6.28
6.01
6.35
6.06
6.30
6.06
6.25
6.05
6,23
6.06
6.28
6.07
6.60
6.07
6.19
6.05
6,26
6.06
6,36
6.07
6,40
6.07
6.47
6.08
6.54
6.08
6.58
6.08
7.22
6.14
6,80
6.15
6,99
6.15
7.30
6.16
7.16
6.16
7.a»
6.16
7 .39
6.14
7,64
6.20
7,46
6.19
7.56
6.19
7,46
6.14
3,99
5.84
2.54
5,8*
0,64
5,8*
0.12
5.84
1.42
5.84
0.00
5.66
0.00
5,66
2.37
5,70
3,20
5,70
3.65
5,70
*.04
5.74
C-227
-------
tSMt
109
110
111
11?
113
114
115
lie
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
156
159
140
m
TABLE 22
PAGr <4
DISSOLVED OXYGEN CALCULATED
DP 31 DISCHARGE
1995
CANNING season
DO DEFICIT
COMPONENTS
<4G/L>
DO
C«G/L)
iTh BAr
OTHER
80TTO*
SWAMP
URBAN
TOTAL
SATURATION
90TH
percentile
hargers
dischargers
DEMAND
loads
runoff
DEFICIT
level
DO
00
DO STANDARD
0.00
o.oo
0*10
1.45
0.00
1.93
7.26
5*32
4.19
5,74
0.00
o.oo
0.44
1.42
0.00
1.86
7,26
5.39
4,28
5,74
0.00
0.00
0.40
1.43
0.00
1.84
7,36
5.51
4,41
5,79
0.00
o.oo
0.37
1.45
0.00
1.83
7.36
5,52
4,42
5.79
0.00
0.00
0.83
1.50
0.00
2. 34
7.48
5.13
3,87
3,85
0.00
0.00
0,64
1.20
0.00
1.85
7,48
5.62
4,51
5,95
0.00
o.oo
0.48
1.04
0,00
1.5*
7.48
5.94
4,93
5.55
0.00
o.oo
0.43
1.01
0,00
1.46
7.48
6,02
5,04
5,85
0.00
o.oo
0.40
0,97
0,00
1.38
7.48
6.09
5,14
5,95
0.00
0.00
0.05
7.87
0.00
7.93
7,50
-0,42
0,00
5.96
0.01
o.oo
0.2*
4.97
0.00
5.24
7.50
2.26
0,07
5,86
o.o?
o.oo
0*38
1.90
0.00
2,31
7.50
5,18
3,93
5,96
0.00
0.00
0.99
0.77
0,00
1.76
7,50
5.74
4.66
5,96
0.00
0.00
1,61
1,01
0,00
2,63
7.50
4.87
3.31
5.96
0.00
0.00
0.93
0.51
0.00
1.45
7.50
6,05
5.07
5.96
0.0?
o.oo
0,52
0.38
0,00
0.93
7.50
6,57
5.76
5,96
0.04
0.00
0.^2
0.37
0,00
0,85
7.50
6,65
5,86
5,96
0.00
0.00
0.02
5.26
0,00
5.32
7.52
2.20
0.00
5.97
0.03
o.oo
0.26
1.62
0.00
1.93
7.52
5.59
4,45
5,97
0.09
0.02
o.4i
1.56
0.00
2.09
7.52
5,43
4,24
5.87
0.00
o.oo
0 .00
6.59
0.00
6.60
7.52
0,92
0.00
5,87
0.01
0.00
0,01
6.64
0.00
6.66
7.52
0.86
0,00
5,97
0.0?
0.00
0.05
6,08
0,00
6.16
7.52
1.36
0.00
5.97
0.05
o.oi
0.32
4.83
0.00
5.23
7.52
2.29
0.11
5.97
0.13
0.03
0.59
2.19
0.00
2.95
7.52
4.57
3.11
5.97
0.19
0.05
0.50
1.28
0.00
2.OH
7.52
5,48
4,31
5,87
o.i e
0.04
0.34
0.65
0.00
1.23
7.53
6,30
5.39
5.97
0,20
0.05
0,37
0,64
0,00
1.28
7.53
6,24
5,32
5,97
0.?4
0.07
0.36
0.62
0.00
1.32
7.53
6.20
5.27
5,97
0.?ft
0.09
0.38
0,60
0.00
1.36
7.53
6.17
5,22
5.97
0,5?
0.10
0.37
0.57
0.00
1.38
7.53
6.15
5,19
5,97
0.10
0.02
o.to
0.70
0,00
1.23
7.52
6.28
5,37
5.87
0.15
0.03
0.37
0.51
0,00
1.06
7.52
6.46
5,60
5,87
-------
TABLE 23
SOUTH BAT
OTWER
SfctrMgN 1
DISCHARGERS
OISCHARSCRS
1
0.00
0,00
2
0.00
0,00
5
0.01
0,00
4
0,01
0,00
5
0,0?
0,00
fe
0.H4
0,01
7
0.05
0,02
0.07
0.02
•9
0.10
0,04
10
0.10
0,04
11
0.13
0,05
1?
0.12
0,05
15
0.1ft
0,07
14
0.16
0,07
15
0.14
0,06
Ifc
0.17
o,oa
17
0,1ft
O.OB
IB
0,1ft
o,oa
19
0.19
0,09
20
0,20
0.09
0.16
0.09
«»2
0,20
0,10
0,24
0,13
24
0,20
0,10
25
0,20
0,13
26
0.29
0.16
?7
0,29
0.13
20
0.5?
0,19
*9
0,55
0,22
30
0,36
0,27
41
0,57
0,27
4?
0,25
0,25
53
0 ,26
0,29
34
0,27
0,31
.55
0,24
0,33
56
0,20
0,29
DISSOLVED OXYSE«i CALCULATED
OP 31 DISCHARGE - 1985 - rfET SEASON
DO DEFICIT COMPONENTS (*G/L>
bottom s»a»p
DEMAND I.OAOS
0.41 0.92
0.39 0.76
~ 0.40 0.59
0,39 O.SO
0.38 0.46
0.39 0.44
0.39 0.36
0.39 0.35
0.39 0.33
0.39 0.33
0.39 0.3*
0,39 0.33
0,39 0.33
0.39 0,33
0.38 0,31
0.40 0,35
0.39 0,34
0,36 0,31
0,40 0,3t
0,39 O.W
0,38 0,31
0.40 0.3B
0.42 0.37
0.39 O.St
0.43 0.39
0.1* 0.38
0.43 O.'7
0.46 0.39
0.48 0,37
0,53 0.33
0.52 0.33
0.53 0.34
0.56 0.27
0,55 0.29
0.55 0.27
0.57 0.58
U*BA*
total
RUVOPP
OEFICIT
0.16
1,53
0,12
1,30
0,08
1,09
0,06
0,98
0,04
0,94
0,04
0.93
0.03
0,67
0.03
0,87
0.03
0,91
0.03
0,90
0.03
0,93
0.03
0,9*
0.03
1,00
0.03
0,99
0.03
0,94
0.03
1,05
0.03
1,04
0.03
0,96
0.03
1,09
0.03
1,09
0.03
0,96
0.03
1,1*
0.04
1,21
0,03
i.oe
0.0*
1.31
0.04
1,34
0,04
1,24
0.04
1.<*1
0,04
1,49
0,0
-------
13 "II
47
48
49
*0
*1
*2
H5
H5
*6
H7
**6
H9
50
51
52
53
55
56
57
5B
59
60
61
62
65
6t
65
66
67
66
69
70
71
72
TABLE 23
OISSOLVED
OP 31 OISCHARGE
00 DEFICIT COMPONENTS
SOUTH BAY OTHER BOTTOM SWAMP
DISCHARGERS DISCHARGERS DEMAND LOADS
0*25
0*26
0.56
0,26
0*26
0*32
0,57
0,28
0.12
0.36
0.57
0,20
0.16
0.31
0.58
0,39
0.23
0.24
0,58
0.27
0.2*
0.32
0.59
0.26
0.08
0.36
0.58
0.16
0.10
0.28
0.57
0.33
0,17
0.26
0.59
0.23
0*16
0.33
0.60
0,20
0,06
0.34
0.57
0,12
0.06
0.26
0.57
0,21
0.16
0.2«*
0.58
0,22
0.1*
0.32
0.60
0,19
0.06
0.31
0.57
0,11
0.05
0.26
0.58
0,1*
0.1*
0.22
0.58
0,22
0.13
0.28
0.61
0.20
O.OB
0.28
0.57
0.10
o.ou
0.25
0.59
0.10
0.12
0,2*
0,66
0,20
0.16
0.33
0.76
0.2*
0.O4
0.24
0.55
0,08
0.03
0.20
0.59
0.06
0.09
0.18
0.60
0.16
0.06
0*12
0,98
0,10
o.o*
0.23
0.55
0.08
0.0?
0.19
0.66
0.04
0.08
0.15
0.58
0.1*
0.06
0.13
0.51
0.11
0.03
0,26
0,53
0,06
0.01
0,22
0,69
0,03
0.06
0.14
0.58
0,11
0.05
0,17
0.55
0,10
0.01
0.33
0,53
0,03
0.00
0.31
0.6*
0.01
OXYGEN CALCULATED
1985 - WET SEASON
(MG/L)
urban
total
RUNOFF
DEFICIT
0,03
1,*0
0,03
l.*7
0.03
1,30
0,0*
1.50
0,03
1,36
0.03
l.*7
0,02
1.22
0,03
1,3*
0.03
1,30
0,03
1,33
0,02
1.1*
0,03
1.15
0,02
1,2*
0,02
1,30
0,02
1.06
0,03
1.07
0,02
1,20
0,02
1.27
0,02
1.03
0.03
1.03
0,02
1.26
0,03
1.5*
0.01
0.95
0,02
0,92
0,02
1.07
0,01
0.66
0,01
0,93
0,01
0,9*
0,02
0.99
0,01
0,8*
0,01
0,91
0,01
0,99
0,02
0.92
0,01
0.90
0,00
0,92
0.00
0.99
SATURATION
level
DO
9.3*
7,93
9,33
7,86
9.30
8,00
9.31
7,81
9.3*
7,95
9,33
7,86
9.30
8,07
9.30
7,96
9.32
8,02
9.31
7,97
9.29
8,15
9.30
8,14
9.32
8,08
9.31
8,00
9.29
8,20
9,29
6,22
9,32
8,11
9.28
8,01
9.29
B.25
9.28
8,25
8,99
7,72
8.87
7,32
9.29
8,34
9.26
8,33
9.01
7,93
9,77
9,09
9,30
8,37
9.22
8.27
9,0*
8,05
9,43
8,59
9,26
8,34
9.19
8,20
9,08
8,15
9,25
8,35
9, m
8,21
9.12
6.13
PAGE ?
(MG/D
90TH PERCENTILE
DO
00 STANDARD
6,97
6.73
6,87
6,73
7,07
6,72
6,82
6.7?
7,00
6,73
6.67
6,73
7,17
6,71
7,02
6,72
7,09
6.73
7,03
6,72
7,27
6,71
7,26
6,71
7,17
6.73
7,07
6.72
7.3*
6.71
7,36
6.71
7,22
6,72
7,09
6,71
7, *1
6,71
7.*1
6.71
6,80
6.57
6,32
6,51
7,52
6,71
7,52
6,70
7,07
6,58
8,96
6.94
7,56
6.71
7, 46
6,67
7,22
6.59
7,81
6, 78
7,53
6,69
7,37
6,66
7,3*
6,61
7,55
6,69
7,40
6.6*
7.30
6.63
-------
TABLE 23
ILSntNr
DISCHAR6
ti
0.0*
14
0.02
r s
0.00
7 b
0.01
77
0.01
ra
o.oo
79
0.00
*0
0.01
91
0.00
93
0.00
95
O.OO
9*
0.00
SS
0.00
3b
0.00
87
O.OO
38
o.oo
89
0.00
90
0.00
»1
0.00
92
0.00
»3
0.00
94
0.00
»S
0.00
96
0.00
97
0.00
99
0.00
»9
0.00
100
0.00
101
0.00
107
0.00
103
0.00
101
0.00
105
o.oo
lot
0.00
107
0.00
1U8
0.00
DISSOLVEO OXYGEN CALCULATED
op ji oischarbe - i»es - *et season
O0 DEFICIT COMPONENTS (*G/L>
oniTO* S*A*P urBAN TOTaL
south BAT 0THE*-„. nrII«D LOADS RLWOFF DEFICIT
Kruncnt DISCHARGERS DEHANO Lu,u
00 a>81(
°.» »•" o.Ol 0.00 O.Bl
0.51 I'" 0 no 0.00 0.7*
0.50 0.22 • 0 0j00 0.6'
0.»B 0.19 o 0<0(| „>66
0.»6 ?•" o.OO 0.00 0.28
0.25 0.02 . 0<00 „>61
0.»5 ®*J? oloO 0.00 0.»7
0.»5 0.11 0>0# 0i25
0.22 o oo 0.00 0.35
0.27 0.07 o 0>00 „>28
0.2! o.OO 0.00 0.15
0.12 ®»®f 0 oo 0.00 0.05
0.04 0.01 .#0 „>00 0.15
0.12 ?•" 0 oo 0.00 0.09
0.08 0.01 .## 0|#0 0<1i
0.09 0.01 fl#H5 0.52
0.00 0.06 o|i* 0.82 1.05
O.OO 0.06 «• 0.91 2.32
o.OO J# 0;n
0.00 0.51 • #<„
0.00 ».« 0*19 0.56 0.72
0.00 0." 0. 1>5,
0.00 • ® „ 0.67 1.96
0.00 «•" o 81 0.5B 2.12
0.00 O.J| c;#1 0.50 2.0»
0.00 0.75 J. „#lfS j,g9
0.00 0«6S
PAGE 5
SATURATION
level
00
9.09
8.22
9.11
B.22
9.10
8,16
9.07
8.1*
9.07
8.12
9.06
a,14
9.06
B.55
9.07
6.09
9.06
8.1»
9.05
8.21
9.05
0.2*
9.05
6,30
9.05
B,36
9.05
B, 36
9.27
8,99
9.26
8,65
9.25
8,77
9.27
9,02
9.27
8,92
9.24
8.95
9.17
9.01
9.07
9.02
9.35
9.20
9.34
9.24
9.17
9.06
10.56
9, 84
10.31
9.27
9.99
7.66
9, 66
6,57
9. 03
6.52
9.07
8,54
9.22
7.68
9.16
7.20
9.15
7.00
9.22
7.17
9.15
7.26
(MS/LI
90TH PERCENTILE
DO
00 STAN3AR
7,42
6.62
7,42
6.63
7.55
6.62
7,54
6.61
7,30
6.60
7,34
6.60
7,62
6.60
7.26
6.60
7.33
6.60
7.43
6.60
7.47
6.60
7,35
6.60
7.62
6.60
7.65
6.59
8.38
6.70
7.94
6.70
8.10
6.69
«.«
6.TO
6.30
6.70
8.35
6.69
e.«
6.65
«.»9
6.61
8.64
6.74
8,69
6.75
6.51
6,65
9.16
7,22
8.45
7.19
6,11
7.0*
5,06
6.90
5.06
6.78
7.60
6.61
6.67
6.68
6.06
6.65
5.81
6.63
6,00
6.68
6.14
6.64
C-231
-------
OISSOLVEO
DP 31 DISCHARGE
DO DEFICIT COMPONENTS
SOUTH BAY
OTHER
BOTTOM
SWA*P
bLSwENF
DISCHARGERS
DISCHARGERS
demand
loads
109
0,00
0,00
0,57
0,83
HO
0,00
o.oo
0,53
0.85
111
0,00
o.oo
0.48
0.89
112
0.00
o.oo
O.HH
0,92
113
0,00
0.00
0,75
0,61
114
0.00
o.oo
0.70
0.65
115
0,00
0.00
0,56
0.65
116
0,00
o.oo
0,51
0.65
117
0,01
0.00
0,47
0.64
118
0,00
0.00
0,05
6.88
119
0.01
0.00
0,28
2.84
120
o.o?
o.oo
0,45
1.16
121
0,00
0.00
1,03
0.30
12?
0.00
o.oo
1,87
0,61
123
o.oo
0.00
1,14
0.39
124
0.02
o.oo
0,64
0.32
125
0.04
0.01
0.51
0.29
126
0,00
0.00
0,02
2,46
127
0.03
0.01
0,30
1,07
128
0,08
0.03
0.46
0.96
129
0,00
0.00
0.00
1.23
130
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.36
151
0,01
o.oo
0,06
5.84
152
0,04
0.01
0,37
2,76
153
0,10
0.05
0.67
1.24
134
0.15
0.07
0.58
0,74
155
0,14
0.05
o.to
0,39
156
0,16
0.06
0.H4
0,40
157
0,19
0.08
0,45
0,39
150
0,??
0.10
0,44
0.39
159
0,?4
0.12
0.43
0,38
mo
0,08
0.03
0.45
0,40
141
0,11
0.05
0.*3
0 • 33
C-232
TABLE 23
oxygen calculated
1905 - WET SEASON
JRBAN TOTAL
RUNOFF DEFICIT
saturation
level
DO
DO {*G/L>
90TH PERCENTILE
00 00 standard
0.38
0.32
0.2&
0,21
0,3*
0.2&
0,16
0.1*
0.1*
0,67
0.2*
0.0*
0,76
0.3?
0.20
0,10
0,05
0,60
O.l*
0.05
0.75
0.63
0,32
0,10
0,05
0.04
0,10
0.09
0,07
0.06
0,05
0.10
0.03
1,79
1.71
1.65
1.60
1.72
1,63
1.40
1,35
1.25
7.61
3,39
1,7*
2.10
2,69
1,75
1.10
0.91
3,09
1,58
1,61
1,99
5.0*.
6,24
3,30
2,12
1,60
1.11
1,16
1*20
1,23
1,21
1,09
0,99
9,28
9,21
9.15
9.11
9,56
9,35
9.24
9,20
9,18
9,61
9,27
9.12
10,08
9,69
9,45
9,23
9,10
9,73
9,14
9.02
10,27
9,85
9,47
9.16
9.03
9.01
9. 04
9.02
9,00
8,99
8,99
9,0ti
9.02
7,46
7,50
7.50
7.51
7.86
7.71
7,83
7.87
7.93
1.99
5.88
7,37
7.98
6.30
7,70
8,12
8,19
6,64
7,56
7.«U
8.28
4.83
3,23
5.85
6.91
7,40
7.93
7,85
7.90
7,76
7.74
7.99
8,02
6,40
6,44
6.46
6.48
6,80
6.67
6,87
6.93
7.01
0.00
4.28
6# 30
6.79
5.36
6,63
7.26
7,39
5.13
6.54
6,38
7,13
2.71
0,72
4,28
5.72
6,38
7,06
6,97
6,91
6,86
6,83
7,13
7,19
6,71
6,67
6.64
6.62
6,95
6.74
6.69
6.67
6.66
6, 86
6.70
6.63
7.0*
6. 90
6, 79
6,66
6,62
6,92
6.64
6.58
7,18
6.97
6, 90
6.65
6.59
6.57
6.59
6.58
6,57
6,57
6.57
6,61
6.58
-------
TABLE 24
StGXENI
DISCHARGI
1
0.00
2
0.01
J
0.01
4
0.02
5
0.03
b
0.0
-------
TABLE 24
DISSOLVED OXYGEN CALCULATED
DP 31 OISCHARGE - 1995 - WET SEASON
DO DEFICIT COMPONENTS
SOUTH SAY
OTrtE*
BOTTO*
swamp
urban
total
f
DISCHARGERS
DISCHARGERS
demand
loads
rinoff
DEFICIT
57
0.29
0.26
0.5B
0.26
0.03
l.O
48
0.30
0.32
0.57
0,28
0,03
1,51
59
0.14
0.36
0,57
0,20
0.03
1,32
40
0.19
0.31
0.5B
0,39
o.ot
1,53
"~1
0.26
0.24
0.58
0,27
0,03
1,42
42
0.2*
0.32
0,59
0.26
0.03
1,51
43
0.10
0.36
0.56
0.16
0,02
1,23
44
0.12
0.28
0.57
0,33
0,03
1.36
45
0.20
0.26
0.59
0.23
0.03
1.33
46
0,19
0.33
0.60
0.20
0.03
1.36
47
0.07
0.34
0,57
0.12
0.02
1.1*
48
O.Ofl
0.26
0.57
0.21
0,03
1,16
49
O.lfl
0.24
0.58
0.22
0.02
1.27
30
0.17
0.32
0.60
0,19
0,02
1,33
51
0.07
0.31
0.57
0.11
0,02
1.09
52
0.06
0.26
0.58
0.14
0,03
1.08
53
0.17
0.22
0,58
0.22
0,02
1.22
54
0.16
0.28
0.61
0.20
0.02
1.29
55
0.06
0.28
0.57
0.10
0,02
1.09
56
0.05
0.25
0.59
0.10
0.03
1.0*
57
0.14
0.24
0,66
0.20
0,02
1.29
58
0.19
0.33
0.76
0,24
0.03
1.57
59
0.05
0.24
0.55
0,08
0,01
0.96
bO
0.03
0.20
0,59
0.06
0.02
0.93
61
0.11
0.18
0.60
0.16
0,02
1.09
62
0.07
0.12
0,38
0.10
0,01
0.69
63
0.05
0.23
0.55
0.08
0.01
0.93
64
0.02
0.19
0.66
0.04
0.01
0.9U
b">
0.09
0.15
0.58
o .m
0,02
1.00
bf>
0,07
0.13
0.51
0.11
0.01
0.85
f>7
0.04
0.26
0,53
0.06
0,01
0,92
6B
0.0?
0.22
0,69
0.03
0.01
0.99
69
0.07
0.14
0.58
0,11
0.02
0.93
r o
0.06
0.17
0,55
0,10
0,01
0,91
n
0,01
0.33
0,53
0,03
0.00
0,93
72
0,01
0,31
0,64
0,01
0.00
0,99
C-234
PAGE a
SATURATION
level
9.33
9.30
9.31
9.3**
9.33
9.30
9.30
9.32
9.31
9.29
9.30
9.32
9.31
9.29
9.29
9.32
9.28
9.29
9.28
8,99
8,87
9.29
9.26
9.01
9.77
9.30
9.22
9, 04
9.<*3
9.26
9,19
9,08
9,25
9, If
9,12
DO (*G/L>
90TH PERCENTILE
DO DO DO STANDARD
7.89
7,31
7.98
7,78
7,92
7.02
8,06
7,9*
7.99
7.95
8.14
8.13
8,05
7.98
8.19
8.21
8.09
7.99
8,24
8.2*
7.70
7,30
8,33
8.33
7.91
9.08
8.36
8.27
8.03
6.58
8.33
8.20
6.14
8.34
9.21
6.13
6,91
6,82
7,OH
6.78
6,95
6,82
7,15
7.00
7.05
7.00
7.26
7.2H
7.13
7,OH
7.33
7.35
7,18
7.06
7.40
7.40
6,77
6.28
7,51
7.51
7.05
8,35
7,55
7,45
7.20
7.79
7.52
7,37
7,33
7,54
7,40
7,30
6.73
6.73
6,72
6.72
6.73
6,73
6.71
6.72
6.73
6.72
6.71
6,71
6.73
6. 72
6.71
6.71
6.72
6,71
6.71
6.71
6.57
6.51
6.71
6.70
6.58
6.94
6.71
6,67
6.59
6,78
6,69
6,66
6.61
6.S9
6,6«»
6,S3
-------
TABLE 24
1
DISCHARG!
ti
0.0"*
ru
0.0?
r 5
o.no
ft
0.01
n
0.01
78
0.00
79
0.00
30
0.01
31
0,01
02
0.00
»3
0.00
3<*
0.00
35
0.00
S6
0.00
37
0.00
S8
0.00
39
0.00
*0
0.00
91
0.00
42
0.00
43
0.00
4«»
0.00
45
0.00
4fc
0,00
47
0.00
48
0.00
4?
0,00
100
0,00
1U1
0.00
1(J?
o.on
103
0.00
1UH
0,00
IU5
o.oo
106
0.00
107
O.Ofl
108
P.flo
!.« „^s„. ;s:s »s
!:S S
O.»0 0.»9 ?•?!
0,36 0.50
0,»5 0." ®«®J
0,51 0.37 J'?*
0.23 0.»5 °*°2
oNt '•!?
0.50 0." 0.01
0.55 O.H 0.01
0 51 J'Si
O.SO 0.22 J."®
0 »8 0.19 0.00
" *6 °*18 2-?2
0.02 0.00
°«15 "-®®
0." °'U ®-"°
<>•** °*02 S*JJ
n 27 0.07 O.oo
S 21 0 05 0.00
S IS 0.02 0.00
001 0.01 o.oo
S 12 0 02 0.00
«:»• °-01 S"22
o.oi o.oo
0.06 O.oo
0.06 o.l*
0.22 1.15
0.31 2.07
0.44 2.0*
0.16 0.19
0.36 0,»9
0.37 0.71
S'SJ
0,73 0.81
0.65 °.81
dissolved oxygem calculated
DP 31 DISCHARGE - 1995 • HET SEASON
DO DEFICIT COMPONENTS (1S/L)
0.25
0.»5
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
urban
total
RUNOFF
OCFICIT
0,01
0.68
0,01
0.69
0,00
0.93
0,00
0.92
0,00
0,95
0,00
0.91
0,00
0,70
0.00
0.98
0*00
0.92
0,00
0.8*
0,00
0,81
0,00
0.7*
0,00
0,69
0,00
0,66
0,00
0.26
0,00
0*61
0,00
0.*7
0,00
0,23
0,00
0,35
0.00
0.26
0,00
0.1^
0,00
0.05
0,00
0.15
0,00
0,09
0,00
O.ll
0.*5
0,52
0,82
1,03
0,9*
2,32
0,71
3,11
o,*o
2,91
0,36
0,72
0.68
1.5*
0,67
1.96
0,38
2.12
0,50
2,0*
0,*3
1.8*
page J
SATURATION
LEVEL
DO
9.09
8.21
9.11
a.21
9.10
8.16
9.07
s.m
9.07
8.11
9.06
8.14
9.06
8,35
9,07
8,08
9,06
8.14
9.05
8.21
9.05
8.24
9.05
8.30
9.05
8,36
9,05
8.38
9.27
8.99
9,26
8,65
9.25
8,77
9.27
9,02
9.27
8.92
9,24
8.95
9.17
9.01
9.07
9.02
9.35
9.20
9.34
9.24
9.17
9.06
10,36
9, 84
10.31
9.27
9.99
7.66
9,68
6.57
9 , (f 3
6.52
9.07
8.34
9.22
7.68
9.16
7.20
9.13
7.00
9.22
M7
9.15
7.26
<"G/L>
90TH PERCENTILE
00
00 STANDARD
7,42
6.62
7.42
6.63
7,35
6.62
7.33
6.61
7.30
6.60
7.33
6.60
7,62
6.60
7,26
6,60
7.33
6,60
7.43
6,60
7.47
6.60
7.35
6, 60
7.62
6,60
7.65
6,59
8,38
6.70
7,94
6.70
8,10
6.69
8,42
6,70
8,50
6.70
8,35
6.69
8,45
6.65
8,49
6.61
8.64
6.74
8.69
6.73
8.51
6.65
9,16
7.22
8.43
7,19
6.41
7,04
5.06
6.90
5,08
6.78
7.60
6.61
6,67
6.68
6,06
6.65
5.81
6.63
6.00
6.6B
6.H
6.6H
C-235
-------
SL5«)i
109
110
111
112
115
11«»
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
121
125
126
127
12 B
129
130
131
13?
133
14*
135
136
137
13B
139
140
141
TABLE 24
DISSOLVED
DP 31 DISCHARGE
03 DEFICIT COMPONENTS
SOUTH bay OTHER
dischargers dischargers
BOTTO*
demand
SWA«P
loads
OXYGEN
1995
(M6/L)
urban
runoff
CALCULATED
WET SEASON
TOTAL
DEFICIT
saturation
LEVEL
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0,00
0.01
0.03
0.00
0,00
0,00
o.o?
O.ou
0.00
0,0*
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.01
0,05
0.12
0.18
0.16
0.19
0,?2
0.25
0.28
0.09
0.13
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
o.oo
o.oo
0,00
o.oo
0,01
0,00
0,01
0,03
0,00
0.00
o.oo
0,01
0,05
0*07
0,05
0*06
o.os
0.10
0.1$
0.03
0.05
0.57
0.53
0.48
0,44
0,75
0.70
0.56
0.51
0,47
0.05
0.26
0.45
1,03
1.87
1.1*
0.64
0,51
0,02
0,30
0,48
0,00
0.00
0,06
0.37
0,67
0,58
0.^0
0,4<*
0.45
0,44
0,43
0,^5
0,»3
0.83
0.85
0,89
0,92
0. 61
0.65
0.65
0,65
0.6*t
6,68
2. 84
1,16
0,30
0.61
0,39
0,32
0,29
2,96
1.07
0.96
1.23
4,36
5.84
2,76
1.24
0.74
0,39
0.40
0.39
0.39
0.38
0,40
0.33
0,38
0.32
0,26
0,21
0,34
0,26
0,18
0,15
0,12
0,67
0,24
0,09
0,76
0,39
0,20
0,10
0,05
0,60
0,14
0,05
0,75
0,63
0,32
0.10
0,05
0,04
o.io
0,09
0,07
0,06
0,05
0,10
0.05
1.79
1.71
1,65
1.60
1.72
1.63
1.41
1,33
1.25
7.61
3,39
1,75
2,10
2,89
1,75
1.1*
0,92
3.09
1.58
1.63
1,99
5.01
6.24
3.31
2,14
1.62
1.13
1.19
1.23
1.26
1,28
1.10
1.01
9,28
9.21
9.15
9.11
9.58
9,35
9
9.20
9.18
9.61
9,27
9.12
10.08
9.69
9,45
9.23
9.10
9.73
9.14
9.02
10.27
9.85
9,47
9.1b
9.03
9.01
9.04
9.02
9.00
8,99
8,99
9,06
9,02
o AGE 1
DO
(MG/LI
90TH
PERCENTILE
03
DO
DO standard
7,48
6,40
6,71
7.50
6.44
6.67
7.50
6.46
6.6t
7,50
6,46
6,6?
7,66
6,80
6,35
7,71
6,67
6.7
-------
No Project - 1985 - Dry Season
.""I' '! ; i r • i
nAitJ 2Av tfAAJsccr ] j
? J *t 0 O 7 ' '? /c V '0
nn.L'± ^a J res/A + ) Silui s lo fexcerinu
do. (conPi>(T&)
iQUctf 90 PcHctfT/L£
S~Tf\ridAR&
miiJinan a.f> sa/ijicsi
g i n [~. //— ^
~ ///2/J /* /J»
,. : . • 1
CiiaAOAlUPc ZlO'J&H
7 £
—t—j ? 3* r
Figure D.l Water Quality Model Results
No Project - 1985 - Canning Season
C-237
-------
Figure D.3 Water Quality Model Results
C-238
No Project - 1995 - Dry Season
figure D.4 Water Quality Model Results
-------
it.
10.
r.
Lfl '-
C
V s
o
^ 7.
c
o
3*.
•y
X A
-J
O
lo
*n
No Project - 1995 - Conning Seoson
¦6 II M 20
| MAtf/ jav T^Msrcri
| . a.o. .cflTj^noiV
ruTW D£>. (coriPurfO)
'///////. % PiRClt/rrl£
do (ccMPt-rf£J})
_ — — mU£tt 10 PcPtc/fr/l£
S7ArtPA#D
MiUitWn 0-0
*¦»,() n6 A
0
'/¦r
, t°-
VS '¦
V f.
u u
I,
V
3<
— - 5 3- .. , f ,e ,, :T ,J /•> to
r)u,c& fJof-t AtiTCS/At-J SiVUOV Maw t£/)*JSgC7
W X
'?< ijiw jix
JO.
"V r-~:
. H* !
•i T^lLL- T
Q .
(jj O'
l3<"
W
U) j.
a \i>X7es/AAi
o.
"T 6
\
.5:
o
^ 6
S4'
Q J.
»u
S ''
•2 i-
RuADAUlPe SL0UG# .
'Se^wft
'c? t L j
HtkSA t'i'frl iz/tf. < '.a/Sit
,, i /? J *? «*" ^ * R
r*..r.r '/•/ .£RCtNrtL£
DO. (ConPi,(Tc£ )
— — LOME# 90 Pc-PCf/tr/L£
STaNOAXD
Mjf/mun o.osr^J/i^l
- £0 ML//
f> f 10 // ,'c /J /y /0-
Scoc
-------
Upgrade Son Jose - 1985 - Dry Season
C-240
Figure D.7 Water Quality Model Results
Kb
Z
J
c
o
z
O
V
X
o
o
UJ
>
-j
o
Vo
*0
n
Upgrade Son Jose - 1985 - Conning Season
0-0. CATUXAliOti
rttAfJ DO. (CJrtPUTfQ)
tOu/cJ 90 PcRC(HtiL£
do lconPt,cr£D)
toa/c-e 9o PcfiLcrfr/te
STaNDAZD
Mit^nun D-0 C7MAM
sfl M'/t
d J * y 6 V fi 7 10 tt ii ,J /y /%5
riii.c& fJOtl ARTCS/A*-) Siojo // f>/J MA,/J tJAk)ZLc7
Figure D.8 Water Quality Model Results
-------
I0.
N
~
03
'•
Z
S.
KJ
0
v->
2
G
•u
o
V
X
o
4
0
Uj
>
-J
0
i.
M
«0
•
a
f—K.L
'* h 1,4 : *,?
n*-trtTT#Tftfrit
'III llll.
i Mfliiv/ 1A.V TAAfJsccr \
0.0. SA-tUSATIOfJ
rte.AN DO. (CorlPUTfD)
loiuzS 10 PcXemr/U
DO (ccnPt>rrcA)
I _ _ — — LUUtt 10 PcPCcftTlLS
SIaHOAUD
-Min/.rwn j.c stmmmI
'An n(,/l
.vn.-VC
10 H
ri n.trf, r,/ot/ A# MA/a) tJaaJSgCT
/J /V
/ £ %f
HaStl n.\ 't fj h
riit.es fjori ARTCS/4HJ Stou&i/ 0/J Ma//J TSfiOSt-c-T
li.T-
)AXT(StAs/ SlOUG,M
'i i <: j
Hues fVurl C
-------
Upgrade San Jose - 1995 - Canning Season
I ? J ~ J* Z ? ?' T" 10 // it /J /y
nn.CS PJoM A J? 7CS/j) a.) O/J ma//J tJa*J5£oT
y^mc/fc
C-242
Figure D.I1 Water Quality Model Results
Upgrade San Jose - 1995 - Wet Season
0.0. SATURATIONS
MCAM DO. (CVnPUTfQ}
lOu/L i? 10 r\'HCCNTlL£
DO (CDnPitTcO)
LOti/ee 90 Pc~Pc£/fr/L£
37>W DAPD
Mnj.nun d.o GTAiMnC
_ , .'40, Mi St.
J J ^ J 6 ? /> f 1C // t'i /J /y /&
nti-cs r,?DM AXTCS/4GlcjUC-u oj mai/J tJA'XZcT
"
-------
Deep Water Discharge - 1985 - Dry Season
» 10.
V C;
ii3 ''
r
V 6
,1J c
o <>¦
V
X A
o *
p J-
UJ
a2
| ' % 3 : -4 ^ \ "\c , ¦¦ :
i ; ¦ !•• I -
4+rH^
l./!.:.
T"l™
tlAir] 3Af TAAfJSCCr\
; ¦ j O.O. SATUfAT/Otf '
'j — -J— HCA/J Da ICOrtPUTfO)
J II ''IIh lowzS 10 PcRCCrtrriS ¦
DO. (conPtsr£0) j
— — louf/f 9o Pc~Pcc/fr/i£ i
S7#hlPAJO> I
'' — MtMiiiin 3.o sr»WMM
'SO n(,/L !
—1 ~J 1 j' t, 7 f" f " U '4
nn.Ci fJort AQTCSfA*J ScUi/C-v MA/fJ r^fliJSa&T
Kf
X
*7 A
y .
^ u
S,
V
go
V]
n I.
JSC I&t 'ifo /iX
Egr
:irfe
1 _ ¦
rj j. : .
..f\
}/'
./j/
///
1 1 . •' •
AfTtS/AA/ CLOUdh
0.
0 /*¦ O -I
flu £6 />'l7-/ £-7/$c ¦ \C7r/e.t
ii.
rt
vj
V
£
a.
Vi
*}.
>
L.
V
X
4.
O
Ci
J.
Ui
^
2.
o
•o
f
a
y.
' nh '' rii"'
j...|'J
""'tti
.:-\Lr
•:|-|
1 -
...;. | .;.:.
. ¦ i i : •
...j |.
'j. ' ;
. '
¦.; j.:.;..
-•;v:
.: :i_.
~45-
.rrfrr
T TT--
. j.-.
._r: ¦
1 Ms-
/}
TPf"
Jr i ¦
i
'Ah
if
: 1 M-
't-i-
: . , ...
'i'Ll'
t :
'A"
Ti"'"
...M ¦
.-j::.
i-..
! " i j ¦
.fi ¦
.
........
~i r 1 c ¦"
!
- SuADAiUPc
slough
„ .. J 4 S &
p-if.? L~P.ir' r- 1 1>.'- >g7yiT J.*S
Figure D.T3 Water Quality Model Results
Deep Water Discharge - 1985 - Canning Season
¦ O.O.CATMATIObl
¦ M C.AH DO. IC011PU7CD J
_____ LOlqiZ 10 PeRCCr/r/L£
do. (conPitrse)
U1UH to Pc-f>Cct/T,L£
S-ftNDARD
mm nun d.ci sfiwjdM
= SO nf,/L
! J < ¦»" 4 7 ,r f
rtlt.e£ FJoM AffTfS//,/.) StOt/6,t/
10 n a ,J „-
°*J Ma/*J tP/ikIScOT
0 t J
tine** fMrl 47/&C \(7f/u
- ¦ \ - ' i .:. J.. . ' I ' ¦
Sf; ; jii ¦ ii5:' 'i i^if"f " of"
f-H —j +j.«.
* J 4 S L 7
Figure D. 14 Water Quality Model Results
C-243
-------
Deep Water Discharge - 1985 - Wet Season
O &¦
V
x 4
Q o.
Uj
>
o 2
v? .
5
x %
M3'
•¦¦! ' ,¦•¦ 1 i ! ' [ ¦
'.!'!¦¦ 1 ! ' I ¦ ! ;
¦j'TTTl
\ i f . i 1
i—; ¦¦! ""
t I
. — I— r-f-it."
1 : : i !
1 ill !
......
:, ¦¦
; —- i
f-Ttt
:
_
MAltf T/J/SMSfcr
'lllllll
*1V:
Q.O. SATURATION
n t a ^ Da (can put Co)
LOuicS 10 PcilCCf/r/Lt
DO. (C0MPt>fTcQ J
— LOWfrf to PcPCctfrHE
SltiNDAKD
mitJinun d.o GfiWiMM
¦ jfl HI".//
ft i 2 J ^ -i & ? /) f />
-•J
i
V)
a
0.
(*1 ¦ ^ ' '
J i '
" | or^
j 1 ¦ r~, 'r *'r| ;
_j_ J ' _ J
' \ j 1 /
I ¦
i ":"j ~
if. Ll.:|
CiuADALUfic SLOUGH :
0
r*>Lr.r
J <
Figure D. 15 Water Quality Model Results
C-244
Deep Water Discharge - 1995 - Dry Season
Figure D.16 Water Quality Model Results
-------
Deep Water Hitriinrae - 1995 - Canning Sga;On_
vgv:
0.0. SA7UZA1 lOti
— r\LAM DO. (CvrtPUTfQ)
'/////// lOLUZd tyo pcrlCtriTlLz.
¦ "" oo. (conPt>rrJ
— LOME# 10 PcVCc/frK£
standard
Miinnun o.o stmmX^
"(-A
; -j- 1 o ~e, 7 r. i '<> " u 'j M
nu.c& ,eJort ARfCS/AhJ SiOifc*/ ma/aJ t#a*)SgCT
"i' '"'"1 ¦ :
main/ 2Af T#AA/3Cr.r\ 1
Sciny/ft
figure D.17 Water Quality Mode) Resufts
Deep Water Discharge - 1995 - Wet Season
->
10.
•o
X
-
z
V
6.
o
o
V)
U
»u
o
6.
V
X
O
4
O
UJ
>
•J
o
2
t">
I
a
| T i" K>.. :< ¦ I ;
I':
• j-;.
-[H
main/ sac t<7AtJsecr\-
"keV:
¦—i —
i.. |
y_
o.o. SAiazATtoN
. . , M£^im do. (cu/iPurfD)
III III/, lquilS % PcRCCriT/Lt
DO. (canPirrcH)
uiuien lo PePcotnte
S-aNOASD
MItjinun 0.0 STAU'dAKJ
¦II S 0 nC. A
/J /I
t *> I /v '/ I e. /J
I.C& PA&M ARTCS/AfiJ SLVrtCr // OjJ MA//J Tf/3/0Si~O T
Figure D.18 Water Quality- Model Results
C-245
-------
DP 31 Discharge - 1985 - Dry Season
Figure D.19 Water Quality Model Results
C-246
DP 31 OUchorae - 1985 - Cannir>9 Season
.LR^rffni'/p n't-;--;
^rr 1 1 ¦
-.I: "
'///////
0.0. SATURATION
ntAfl QO. aT£0)
loluzS 90 pcrlCCfJnL£
DO. (canPi,rT£0)
LOU/t# 10 PcfCc//r/L£
STrtN DAtfD
—» Mimnun o.c stmJjCM
'iPnk/i .
? iC H
r\h.f£> .CJ&M A ti f£S/A A-J $lOC<6> // Ha sfJ Tr?fltJ5£c' i lit : " " ;
'i '
¦ ! ! . . . :
" '" i— —-
: L-<-ri . 1 i : ..:.. j...! .
........ ,.r.^ .,...
qq:;T.:7
j.T~'
~ i'" i i
"1" GuADAIUPc &L0J&H ¦
Figure D.20 Wafer Quality Model Results
-------
DP 31 Discharge - 1985 - Wet Season
F!9ur« D. 21 Water Quality Model Results
DP 31 Discharge - 1995 - Dry Season
'i"l- ;
' hAitJ SAV TRAtiSCCT
L C)lui 3 90 PcAC£rJr/Lc
do. lconP(,cr£D)
L()U){rfi ff0 p/PcctfT/L£
SIANOAfiQ
Miumoin d.o ctmmmI
'SO nu/i
nu.es FJOH A#TlSfA/J
t
e {< ? 1Q (/ '"t /J /V io"
5tcc<6// oj Ha/aJ TJ/IaJScCT
\A#r£S/AA/ SlOU&A
'o I i J
I1IJ.C4 r'f'J/-! 63/6C i\(7/'/'U
Figure D.22 Water Quolity Mode! Results
C-247
-------
-J-'-j "Ylt
/ ? J * 4* "? 0 9 10 U ii /J /y fS
r)n.c& AHT6S//1)J SLoac*v Old MA,/J r2/itJS£c-T
"0 ( * J
lints r&jrt S7/6C '\rrr/-u
ScanWit
Figure D.23 Water Quality Mode! Results
C-248
{. > : l'l ¦ :
it
i !
r i i ¦:
1
¦ 1
-w—
4ih
Ijfi
: i! .•
¦ • •! •-
JpS
.. ...
—i—: '•
•
•¦ i '
. O.O. SATltZA-r lOfJ
M HAtJ DO. (tVrtPUTfD)
LOmlS Oc PiiZC(rtT/L£
DO- (conPi.mti'i
— Louee 1o Pc'Pif/Srfie
STANDARD
mimnuri q.o Simmm
, •>() "(-/I
I ^ J It 7 ft 9 10 ti !u /J /v fi>
fJ&H A J?//}/-J $LOU£r // O/J MA//0 TfAtJS^C- T
'oil ^
Hues rltert <\C7f'/U
« s c
t*'t.es storr &azs*jc. z7*t
Figure D .24 Water Quality Model Results
-------
H":
August 13, 1976
Mr. Charles Spink
Bechtel Corporation
Bldg* 345-4A10
P.O. Box 3965
San Francisco, California 94119
RE: Evaluation of Leslie Salt Company Discharge on Water
Quality in San Francisco Bay
Dear Mr. Spink;
We are pleased to submit this letter report describing
studies which were performed to evaluate the impact of a
proposed Leslie Salt Company discharge on water guality in
South San Francisco Bay. The report considers the combined
impacts of the proposed SBDA outfall at D.P. 31, and two
discharge alternatives for the Leslie Salt Company. The
report explores water quality impacts in four specific areas
of concern: dissolved oxygen water guality, changes in
chloride concentration, relative toxicity distribution, and
potential for alteration to benthic species diversity.
potential
A. Summary
The purpose of this report is to assess the water
quality impacts of a proposed discharge from the Leslie Salt
Company into South San Francisco Bay. The principal water
quality impacts which are addressed in the study are the
potential for chronic bioinhibition, reductions to dissolved
oxygen concentration, and changes in chloride concentration,
The objective of the proposed work is to provide Bechtel
Inc. with a quantitative assessment of water quality effects
relative to; 1) the combined discharge of Leslie Salt Compan
effluent and South Bay discharger effluent at "Disposal
Point 31", and 2) Leslie Salt Company effluent discharged
through a separate diffuser system at "Disposal Point 26"/
which is in the vicinity of Dumbarton Bri
-------
B. Analysis Results
1. Relative Toxicity
The effects of the Leslie Salt Company bitten discharge
on relative toxicity concentrations in South San Francisco
Bay are analyzed for two disposal conditions; 1) disposal
through a separate Leslie Salt Company outfall and diffuser
at DP-26, and 2) Leslie Salt Company's participation in the
proposed SBDA outfall discharge at DP-31. The 1985 and 1995
dry, wet and canning season conditions are considered. For
all conditions the South Bay Discharge Authority is assumed
to discharge to DP-31. Toxicity characterization of the
bittern as well as the computed toxicity eiranission rates for
the various loadings are presented in Appendix A.
The projected increases in relative toxicity concentration
due to the South Bay Dischargers and the Leslie Salt Company
discharge for 1995 are presented in Figures 2 through 7.
The figures show that the computed relative toxicity
concentration increase in South Bay (below Dumbarton Bridge)
is at all times greater than the California guideline of 40
ml/1. However, in all other regions of the bay, the relative
toxicity concentration increases due to the combined effects
of SBDA and the Leslie Salt Company discharge are less than
40 ml/1. The 1995 projections indicate that the Leslie Salt
Company discharge will increase the relative toxicity
concentrations in South Bay by 56% to 69% for disposal into
DP-26, and by 37% to 45% for disposal into DP-31 over
previously projected increases, depending upon the seasonal
condition. These results are presented in detail in Appendix
B.
The effects of the Leslie Salt bittern on South Bay are
summarized in Table 1.
C-250
TABLE 1
PROJECTED INCREASE IN RELATIVE TOXICITY CONCENTRATIONS
IN SOUTH BAY DUE TO THE LESLIE SALT COMPANY DISCHARGE
Relative Toxicity Concentration Increase
Projection Disposal (ml/1) (% Increase)
Year Location Dry Canning Wet
1985, 1995 26 33.5(67%)* 33.5(56%)* 31.0(69%)*
31 22.2(45%)* 22.2(37%)* 20.0(45%)*
* Maximum % increase over the relative toxicity concentrations
Projected for the South Bay Dischargers Alone in the Year 1995.
The combined impacts of the South Bay Dischargers and
the Leslie Salt Company in 1995 is shown to be between 6 5
and 95 ml/1 depending upon seasonal condition and discharge
location.
The maximum computed relative toxicity concentration
increase from the combined effects of the SBDA discharge
into DP-31 and a separate Leslie Salt Company discharge is
34 ml/1. This discharge condition has slightly greater
impacts than a combined discharge at D.P. 31.
2. Chlorides
The effects of the Leslie Salt Company bittern discharge
to DP-26 on the chloride concentration in the Bay were
analyzed for the 1985, 1995 dry and wet conditions. The
projections assume a bittern discharge rate of 0.55 MGD, and
a chloride concentration of 352,000 mg/1. The South Bay
Discharge Authority is assumed to discharge at DP-31.
Complete results of the analysis are shown in Appendix C.
-------
A maximum increase of 1.4% in the chloride concentration
of the South Bay is projected with the addition of the
Leslie Salt Company discharge. A smaller effect (less than
14) is computed under a condition which assumes the Leslie
Salt Company's participation in the SBDA discharge at DP-31.
The maximum effects on the bay due to the Leslie Salt
Company discharge are computed to occur in South Bay, south
of Dumbarten Bridge. Table 2 summarizes the average chloride
concentrations, along with the expected change in concentration
dn& to the bittern, for this area of the bay.
TABLE 2
AVERAGE CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN SOUTH BAY
LESLIE SALT COMPANY INTO DP 26, SBDA INTO DP 31
Previous Projection Leslie Salt Company Percent
Condition (mg/1) (mg/1) _ Increase
Wet 11,650
Dry
15,900
170 L*4
190 1,1
The maximum increase in chloride concentration due to
the Leslie Salt discharge under any proposed project will be
less than 200 mg/1. Somewhat higher concentrations can be
expected in a localized area immediately around the discharge
structure. Under any of the proposed project conditions,
these changes are considered to be small.
3. Dissolved Oxygen
Previous studies have verified BOD~, ammonia nitrogen
and dissolved oxygen concentrations witn four sets of da^^
collected during two survey periods. These studies have
shown that the major sources of oxygen demand in the Bay
appear to be: (1) the carbonaceous and nitrogenous BOD
loads from the major wastewater dischargers, (2) oxygen
uptake from the bottom muds, and (3) carbonaceous and ammonia
nitrogen contributions from the surrounding marsh lands.
Utilizing information from a previous study^ the
effect of the Leslie Salt Company bittern discharged into
DP-26 during 1995 dry weather conditions is estimated. For
projection purposes, the Leslie salt Company discharge is
assumed to exert a 700 ppm U.O.D.. The discharge rate is
0.55 MGD. Waste characterization of the bittern is shown in
Appendix A. As in previous studies, a BOD reaction rate
and, a deoxygenation rate of 0.2 per day at 20°C are utilized.
The dissolved oxygen deficits resulting from the major
sources of oxygen demand in the Bay for 1995-dry weather
conditions, including the Leslie Salt Company discharge are
shown in Appendix D. Maximum dissolved oxygen deficits
caused by the Leslie Salt Company discharge are projected to
be about 0.03 mg/1 in the vicinity of the disposal area.
This represents an increase of less than 3% over the previous
projection (for the same area).
Considering previous dissolved oxygen projections of
the mean and lower 90 percentile dissolved oxygen
concentrations, as demonstrated in Figure 8, a change of
0.03 mg/1 appears to be insignificant.
4. Benthic Species Diversity Index
In an attempt to quantify the relative toxicity impact
of the Leslie Salt Company discharge, consideration was
given to potential impacts on the benthic species diversity
index in the Bay. A previous study * has shown that a
statistical relationship exists betwen relative toxicity,
chlorosity and the benthic species diversity index. Given
those statistical relationships an estimate of the expected
change in BSDI due to the Leslie Salt Company discharge has
been developed. This analysis is not intended to be a
quantitative forecast, but rather an indicator of trends
that could develop if the Leslie Salt Company bittern is
discharged in the vicinity of Dumbarton Bridge.
C-251
-------
in a statistical evaluation of the relationship between
toxicity and species diversity index , the best controllable
variable equation relates log BSDI to log chlorides and log
conservative relative toxicity. The equation is stated as
follows:
BSDI = 0.671 chlorides (gm/1)'456 R.T (ml/1) °-189 (1)
It has been estimated that approximately 50 percent of the
variance in log BSDI# can be accounted for with this equation.
The remainder is assigned to random causes. The non-
controllable variable (chlorides) account for 35 percent of
the variation and relative toxicity accounts for 15 percent.
Using this equation, it is possible to compute the
percent change in BSDI to be expected from a percent change
in relative toxicity. The ratio of percent BSDI increase^to
relative toxicity decrease is estimated to be 0.2 + 0.05 .
Table 3 presents the expected percent change in BSDI due to
the relative toxicity loading from the Leslie Salt Company
discharge.
TABLE 3
EXPECTED PERCENT CHANGE OF BSDI IN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY
DUE TO LESLIE SALT COMPANY BITTERN DISCHARGE*
Disposal
Projection
*
I Chanqe of
BSDI**
Location
Year
Dry
Wet
Canning
DP-26
1985
-16.0
-16.5
-12.6
1995
-13.4
-13.8
-11.2
DP-31
1985
-10.6
-10.6
- 8.4
1995
- 8,9
- 8.9
- 7.4
* % A BSDI
% A Rel. Tox
** SBDA Discharge into DP-31
C-252
For the three seasonal patterns; dry, wet, and canning,
the change in computed BSDI due to the Leslie Salt discharge
is less than 20% in all cases ranging from 7% to 11% for
the Leslie Salt Company discharge at D.P. 31 from 11%,to 17%
for discharge at D.P. 26. Based on previous analyses , this
change would not be readily apparent in sampling programs
because of the large background variability in BSDI.
Approximately 25 percent of the total log BSDI variation ir?2)
sample data has been attributed to measurement error alone
An additional 25% is apparently due to other unknown factors.
These impacts of the Leslie Salt Company discharge
assume that the South Bay Discharge Authority disposal site
is DP-31.
Conclusions
On the basis of the foregoing analysis the following
conclusions are presented.
1) The toxic emmission rate of the proposed Leslie
Salt Company bittern discharge has been computed to be 34.4
MGD of relative toxicity. A mathematical modeling analysis
of San Francisco Bay indicates that the effluents relative
toxicity concentration is its most significant characteristic
from a water quality standpoint. If Leslie Salt Company
discharges at D.P. 31 through the proposed SBDA outfall
relative toxicity concentrations in South Bay are projected
for 1995 to increase about 45% over concentrations which
would prevail if only the South Bay Dischargers discharged
at D.P. 31. The anticipated seasonal increases vary between
20 and 23 ml/1. If, however, the Leslie Salt Company utilizes
a separate discharge at D.P. 26, seasonal relative toxicity
concentrations for 1995 are projected to increase by between
31 and 34 ml/1; a 56% to 69% increase. In any event, the
projected relative toxicity concentrations due to the South
Bay Dischargers Authority and the Leslie Salt Company are
anticipated to exceed the State of California's planning
guideline of 40 ml/1. The magnitude of the combined effect
for 1995 projections varies seasonally as well as with discharg
location# and is between 65 and 95 ml/1.
-------
2) The Leslie Salt discharge has a small impact on the
projected chloride concentration in the Bay. During dry
weather periods the maximum increase in chloride concentration
due to the Leslie Salt bittern is 1.1%. Wet weather flow
projections show a maximum increase of 1.4%. These increases
represent an increase of between 170 and 190 ppm in the area
south of the Dumbarton Bridge.
3) No detectable changes in the dissolved oxygen
concentration of the Day are expected to result from the
Leslie Salt Company discharge. Maximum increases in dissolved
oxygen deficit concentrations of .03 mg/1 are calculated in
the areas near the point of discharge.
4^ Although the Leslie Salt discharge will increase
relative toxicity concentrations in South Bay by 20 to 34
ml/1. The impact on benthic species diversity is anticipated
to be small to moderate. Benthic species diversity indices
could be depressed 10 to 15% below what they would have been
if only the SBDA discharged to D.P. 31 under proposed plans.
This conclusion is developed from a weak analytical base and
is intended to indicate trends rather than make forecasts.
We would like to express our appreciation to Ms. Carol
Harper for her cooperation and assistance. The contribution
of Mr. Charles Dujardin of our engineering staff and Ms.
Gayle Higgins are also gratefully acknowledge.
Respectfully submitted*
JtOSCIENCE
i p. St. Jj6hn
lj JPSJ
Respectfully submitted,
UiSciENfE
Daniel S. Szumski
JPSJ:DSS/gah
REFERENCES
^Hydroscience, Inc., "Evaluation of Discharge Alternatives
For South Bay Discharges Authority", December 1975.
(2)
'Hydroscience, Inc., "A Statistical Evaluation of the
Relationship Between Relative Toxicity And Species
Diversity Index", Vol. II of "A Study of Toxicity and
Biostimulation in San Francisco Bay - Delta Water",
prepared for The State Water Resources Control Board,
Nobember 1972*
^"Water Quality Control Plan Report", State Water Resources
Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region {2).
(4)
'Memorandum to Frank M. Belick from Edward R. Becker,
City of San Jose, February 9, 1976.
C-253
-------
0
1
to
FIGURE I
RESEGMENTION OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY MODEL (DETAIL)
E
>-
S-
u
X
O
J-
UJ
>
H
<
\il
a:
DISTANCE (MILES FROM ARTESIAN SLOUGH)
FIGURE 2
COMPUTED RELATIVE TOXICITY CONCENTRATIONS - MAIN BAY TRANSECT
1995, DRY CONDITIONS
-------
FIGURE 3
COMPUTED RELATIVE TOXICITY CONCENTRATIONS - MAIN BAY TRANSECT
1995, WET CONDITIONS
120
110
i est *o
V77X EFFECTS OF LESLIE SALT BITTERN DISCHAR6E
INTO DP-SI. (ft£u ATI VE TOXICITY LOAD « S4.4MCD)
I J EFFECTS OF S.B.D.A EFFLUENT DISCHARGED INTO
OP—31 (RELATIVE TOXICITY LOAD < 9S.0M60)
- — RELATIVE TOXICITY GUIDELINE .
I J- SOUTH BAY
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
20 |-
15 20 25 30
DISTANCE (MILES FROM ARTESIAN
FIGURE 4
COMPUTED RELATIVE TOXICITY CONCENTRATIONS-MAIN BAY TRANSECT
1995, CANNING CONDITIONS
-------
0
1
to
cn
05
FIGURE 5
COMPUTED RELATIVE TOXICITY CONCENTRATIONS - MAIN BAY TRANSECT
1995, DRY CONDITIONS
FIGURE 6
COMPUTED RELATIVE TOXICITY CONCENTRATIONS - MAIN BAY TRANSECT
1995, WET CONDITIONS
-------
£ ? ° °
<5 a % £
fi 4 i *
- y * *
-I ^ j
j LT u Q
* 2
s* as
IS ~
03 Il¥l )HH1,
§8g?8s?s
(I/IIU) XilOIXOi 3AliVT3a
a
tf)
z
<
a:
1
z
<
2
I w
« o
M
£ z
«J o
k £ o
Wz e»
Kuiz
3 Cj S
<•> Z Z
= 81
> .
t ^
23
v •—
UJ
>
H
<
J
UJ
K
a
UJ
1-
D
CL
2
O
o
1—r
4 3 SEGMENT
1—1—r
. D«*ftOkVC0 OXfOEH SATURATION
-MEAN OI3SOLVEO 0*TOEN
(COMMUTED)
MAIN BAY TRANSECT
I I r I I
— MINIMUM OISSOUVEO OXYOEN
STAN04R0 • 50 *9 / I
I I 1,1 ,,t
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1213
MILES FROM ARTESIAN SLOUGH ON MAIN TRANSECT
106 110
104 I 106 I 112 SEGMENT
,0-« 1 M M
<
a.
ARTESIAN SLOUGH
O
F
z
UJ
I 23
1
125 SEGMENT
0>234
MILES FROM SJ/SC OUTFALL
6UAQALUPE SLOUGH
1 L
I 2 3 4 5 6 7
MILES FROM GAGING STATION
FIGURE 8
WATER QUALITY MODEL RESULTS
DISPOSAL POINT 31, DRY WEATHER, 1985
C-257
-------
100
90
Oo o
50 —
0- 30
I
I AFTER HAW9KCY1
.5 1.0 1.5 2.Q Z5
PERCENT LESLIE SALT CO. BITTERN IN SOLUTION
FIGURE AI
DETERMINATION OF 96 HOUR-TL^ FOR LESLIE SALT CO. BITTERN
C-258
APPENDIX A
CHARACTERIZATION OF LESLIE SALT COMPANY BITTERN
-------
I. Oxygen Demanding Material
Characterization of the Leslie Salt bittern had been
performed by CDM Inc. in June, 197S and by the Ray W. Hawkskey
Company, Inc. in December 1975. CDM, Inc. had reported BOD
and U.O.D. concentrations of several dilutions of the bittern.
From these data apparent BOD and U.O.D. concentrations of
the bittern are calculated. The results are shown in Table
A-1.
Ray W. Hawksley Company, Inc. reports a BOD concentration
of 24 0 ppm and a total kjeldahl nitrogen concentration of
38.8 ppm in the bittern. Howeverf4the City of San Jose in
a memorandum to Mr. Frank Bellack' ' has suggested that
"The BOD of the bittern discharge should be set at 350 ppm
when analyzed by Hydroscience." Assuming a 1.5 ratio for
CB°d • BOD,, and a 4.57 conversion of oxidizable nitrogen
to nitrogenous oxygen demand/ the ultimate oxygen demand
calculates to be about 700 ppm. This is close to the
maximum U.O.D. concentration determined by CDM, Inc. For
modeling purposes, therefore, the Leslie Salt discharge was
assumed to exert a 700 ppm U.O.D. concentration.
II. Relative Toxicity
The toxicity emmission rate of the Leslie Salt discharge
is calculated according to the "Water Quality Control Plan
Report"1 which defines the toxicity emmission rate (T.E.R.)
as "the product of the effluent Toxicity concentration
-------
TABLE A-l
CHARACTERIZATION OF LESLIE SALT BITTERN
Apparent Apparent
BOD UOD
Sample
Sample
BOD
UOD
Bittern
Bittern
Dilution
Date
PP"
PPm
(ppm)
fppm)
Diluent
1/27/75
7
_
200:1
1/27/75
9
-
409
-
150:1
1/27/75
10
-
460
-
100:1
1/27/75
11
-
411
-
75:1
1/27/75
12
-
387
-
50:1
1/27/75
15
-
415
-
1000:1
2/21/75
5
-
-
"
Diluent
3/25/75
4
9
_
_
250:1
3/25/75
6
11
506
511
200:1
3/25/75
7
12
607
612
150:1
3/25/75
7
13
457
613
100:1
3/25/75
9
16
509
716
a) Samples
were bittern
from
Pond 13,
Plant No.
2 at
approximately 35°
b) Secondary effluent from Valley Community Services
District, PLeasantori, California
C-260
TABLE A-2
Projection
Year Season
1985 Dry
Wet
Canning
1995 Dry
Wet
Canning
Toxicity Emmission Rate
(t MGD)
SBDA Leslie Salt Company Total
65.0 34.4 99.4
65.0 34.4 99.4
82.2 34.4 116.6
77.3 34.4 111.7
77.3 34.4 111.7
93.0 34.4 127.4
-------
appendix b
COMPLETE MODEL RESULTS OF PROJECTED
MOTIVE TOXICITY CONCENTRATION
K)r>Nsl4inocDmioooi>>tfi(ON^h-^inu)tf9u j
lj «r
_l (A
<
D
trt «-<
fO
? IO
Ui
U *
o <
0 +*
^ n
o cr
(i
**
OOJ>
¦*
-1 to
>-*-«-
to -J
7
UI <
w »-
_J V)
>
H« Ui
»- Cfl
tfi
ex **
u a
h-
» w
0 •-
u tr
jr -J
cr O
O
u< *
U Ui
a »¦«
_J
oo-r-f^kOkCirtiO^fliri/ikO^inirt^ a- a? «¦» ro » o»n
*»»•••••••••••••••»••••••••••
IP K1 if Sf ST fliri')|fl*)tftKII')K|fOK)KJ*l»OK)KimiOK1fOHh
(fi'OlOIOWPOPOtOlOrt'OKJIfltCIOfOWKi'OIOKlWION'llOlOfOKIW
esOfOOsotvotcotruiNiiiooi^^ii*
IHOOptOOvOtOlD^NJ
K)MfOK)K)KllOK)m(
llfltO(OlOKMOlrtfMOICK)K)f«:
h N Ifl O *1 ifl ,
I \ hK K tow Hit Kl « # J
> tr< r- »r> tr ommd
^sAo>Nto\OtftiAioff*riHor,N.
(hr4ir>>Air>fO9i(vaA.^.r.NKi«~r»-cc
tf- c tr. -f> e a a cr cr ei tr, trirtftfirii
c*. » *+ r* fN. r-
^ e a ^r»-vCv^itf"if\£tf iTir ar \Ttf": 9 3 a r, ^ oir
e. «-icccc0O'afftT,ftcr^Ncrfk>v(
C-261
-------
Q
to
O
to
^PUTED RELATIVE TOXICITY COVCENTRAT I DNS
LESLIE DISCHARGF INTO On 2fe,S3Dft I^JTO DP3l
1985
*iet
CANNING
SERTMT SEOA
lesiit TOTflL pr*c.
SALT I M T R •
S3DA LESLIE TOTAL
SALT
30
31
3?
33
34
35
3 6
37
38
39
*0
"~1
4?
4 3
<*4
45
U
U 7
'4*
UP
•So
51
ft?
*3
*>6
57
58
UP. i
41. 4
33.?
32, °
3?. 2
30. ?
28.^
3?. 7
51.1
22. 1
?s, ?
32.2
29.4
19. ft
22, ">
28.1
24.*
1«,1
1 Q . *
28.0
.1
17.*
1 P »?
27.«
2*.*
17.1
17.1
32,1
3 3. A
21.x
?1 .p
17.°
17.4
17.1
lf>.0
1^.1
1 7 , 3
16.5
11.7
13.U
17.1
15.fi
l n /~
11*7
m .*
13.0
q.6
1P.S
14.9
12.7
Q.6
1".°
1*/
9.P
f».n
17.r
17. «
61 .
63.4
51. *.
50. 4
'49. 4
46. 2
43.7
50.1
47.6
33.9
38.7
49. 4
45,1
30. 0
33.9
43.n
37.5
? 7 . 7
30. 4
4?. 9
*.6,«
26.9
07 . Q
1? . R
39.1
'6.1
?P>. 3
49,1
51.7
5?.0
5 3.0
53.0
53, n
5 3.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.?
53. (1
53,0
53.0
53.0
53. n
53.0
53.0
5^.o
53.0
55.0
5 5.0
5*, o
53.0
5j. 0
5 ^. n
53. 0
53.0
5 *, n
53.0
53,0
37.1
30.3
30.B
30. 0
29.4
27.4
25.8
29,6
29.3
19.5
22 ,6
29.3
26.6
17.1
19.6
25.3
21.7
15.6
17.3
25.1
21.2
15.2
15.8
24.9
22.5
14.7
14.8
27.9
29.2
19.7
20.3
16.3
15.9
15.6
14.5
13.7
15.8
15.0
10.3
12.0
15,5
14.1
9.0
10.4
13.4
11.5
8.3
9.2
13.3
11.2
8.0
8.4
13.2
11. 9
7. B
7.8
14.6
15.5
56,9
58.7
47.2
45,9
45.0
41,9
39.5
45.5
43.3
29.9
34.6
44 . B
40.8
26.1
30. f»
38.7
33.?
23.9
26.6
38.4
32.5
23.2
24.2
38.1
34.4
22.6
22.6
42.8
4*.8
?ERC.
INC*.
53.0
53.0
53.0
53#0
53.0
53. 0
53,0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53. 0
53.0
53. 0
53. 0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53,0
53. 0
53.0
53,0
53.C
53.0
53,0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53,0
53.0
SgDA
50.6
52.*
42.7
41.6
*~0.6
38.2
36.1
41.5
39.4
28.0
32.0
'~o.e
37.2
24.8
20.1
35.6
31.0
22.9
25.1
35.5
30.5
22.2
23.1
35.4
32.3
21.6
21,6
HO .6
42.8
LESLIE TOTAL
salt
PERC.
I NCR.
21 . 3
21.9
17.
17.4
17.1
16.0
15.1
17.3
16.5
U.7
13.9
17.1
15.6
10.4
11.7
14.9
13.0
9.6
10.5
14.9
12.'
*.3
9.6
14.3
13.5
9.0
9.0
17.0
17.9
72.1
74 .4
60.6
59.1
57.9
54.3
51.3
58.9
55.9
39.7
45.4
57.9
52.9
3% 2
39.8
50.5
44 , 0
32.5
35.6
50. 4
43.3
31.6
32 . 8
50.2
45.9
30.7
30. 7
57.7
60. 7
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
4 1
41
41
41
4 1
41
U 1
<*1
U1
41
41
CD«°UTED RELATIVE TOXKlTr CONCENTRATIONS
-Eslie discharge into ?&»sbd4 into q?3i
1985
nRY
^ 3D A
TOTftL
=»E^C.
S3D&
salt
I N C 9 .
5«
1 & . 4
0.7
25.1
53.r
14. 1
60
lSf.
15 . 2
23. «
53.0
13,4
61
31.°
1&.9
4?. 7
53.0
27.6
6?
17."5
*.1
26 . 4
53."
14,9
6*
16.?
P .6
24 . *
53.0
1« . o
54
1 3, £
7.?
20. *
53. 0
11,7
55
3 0*1
1*.*
u6. 1
53.0
26.3
66
22.0
U.7
33.o
5^.0
19.2
67
15.1
°. P
23.?
53.r
13.1
58
12.*
6.7
1 9 . 3
53. 0
10.3
69
26.«
14.2
4 1, n
53.0
23.6
70
21.*
11.
33.1
53.0
18.9
71
10.61
c &
16,?
53.0
9.2
72
9.f
s'l
1 4 , q
53. *
8.4
7?
22. *
11.°
34.?
53. o
19.7
7 U
1 4 , U
7.f-
22.0
5*. n
13.1
7 *>
8 . 3
'a .4
12.7
55.:
7.4
7 f.
10.^
e ^ c
16.1
5>. p
10.1
77
a t
u . u
12.7
53, •>
7.9
7R
4 . «
e.
7.4
53. n
4.6
7Q
4 . 0
? . C
7 . u
53. 0
4.6
8n
0 . 1
„ »
12.<•
5 * -
7.9
*1
6 . n
3. 1
5?!^
5.8
* ?
3 . °
f . n
3.8
* 3
* . 1
"> "
6. *
5 * . n
*. o
3 i 2
\
P
5 * . n
3.2
*«,
2 .Q
1 ,4-
4 . 5
53 . "
2.9
8*
t y
1 . u
. ?
5 * , p
2.7
87
I .*>
".7
2,2
5 3,
1 . *
*ET
LESLIE TQT&l
salt
CANNING
7.5
7.1
14.6
7.9
7.4
6.2
13.9
10.1
6.9
5.8
12.5
10.0
4.9
u, 4
10.4
6.9
3.9
5. «~
u , 2
2.4
2.4
•*. 1
3.1
2.0
2.1
1.7
1.5
1
0,7
21.7
20, 6
42. 3
22. 9
21 ,4
17.?
40.3
29. 4
20.1
16.7
36.1
28,9
n.i
12.9
30.2
20.1
11.3
15. «>
12.2
7.1
7.1
12.1
9.0
5.8
6. ?
« , 9
4 . "~
4.2
2.1
®erc •
INCR.
53. (l
53.0
53.0
53.0
53,0
53.0
53. 0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53. o
53.0
53.0
53.C
53, 0
53,0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53. c
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.r
S92A
20.B
19.7
40.3
21.8
20.5
17.2
38.1
27.9
19.2
16.0
33.9
27.2
13.3
12.2
28, 3
18.2
10.5
13.3
in,5
6.1
6.1
10.2
7.6
4.9
5.2
4 . 1
3.7
3.5
1.*
LESLIE
TOTAL
PERC
salt
T^CR
8.7
29.5
41,9
9.2
28.0
41.9
16.9
57.2
41.9
9.1
31.0
<*1 , 9
9.6
29.1
«»1,9
7. 2
24.5
41.9
15.9
54.1
41.9
11.7
39.6
41.9
8.0
27.2
41. 9
6.7
22.7
41.9
14 .i?
4fl . 1
41 , 9
11
38.7
41.9
5.6
19.0
41.9
5.1
17.4
41 . 9
11.9
40.1
41,9
7.5
25. 9
41 .9
4.4
14.9
<*1.9
5 , &
lfl, 9
41 ,9
4 .4
14.9
41.9
2.5
3.7
41.9
2.5
0.7
41,9
4.3
l*.*
Hi.9
3.1
10.8
41.9
2.0
7.0
u 1 .9
?,2
7 , *
41 ,9
1.7
5.9
41.9
1.*
5.3
<*1.9
1 .*
5.0
4 1 , 9
0.7
2.6
41.9
-------
C!>»»'JTED ^ELtTlVE TOXICITY CONCENTRATIONS
DISCMA9SE IsTD D© 26»S9:)4 INTO D°5l
199 S
*»9r
^E£VC"N7
LT^lIf
TTTaL
S«L T
2 • *
1 . ?
3.6
*9
1.7
0.°
2.7
90
1.?
n.t
1 .*=»
*1
1.*
« . &
1 .9
9?
o.*
.?
0.6
99
44.4
35.4
79.9
99
44.4
35.4
79. 4
100
44.4
35.u
7° . 4
101
44 .u
35.*
79
10?
44. *
35.4
79. q
103
44.*
35.4
79.7
104
11.3
35.4
79.7
105
4 4.*
35.4
79.7
106
14.3
35.4
79.7
107
44.3
35.4
79,7
1 OA
4 4.3
35.4
79.7
109
44.3
35.4
79.7
110
14.3
35.4
79.7
111
44.?
35.u
79.7
11?
4*.3
35.4
79.7
113
43.7
34.«
78.6
111
43.7
31.9
78.6
115
13.7
34 .9
78. £
116
43.7
34.
7B„fc
Df 9~.
I N?9 .
5 * , f*
53.P
5*. ">
55.?
53.n
5 V
5«.n
53.C
55.o
53.n
79.*
7*.*
79. «
7^.e
7*.«
^.n
79.ft
7*.*
79.a
79. »
79.1
79.9
79.p
79.*
79.*
79.4
79,?,
79.*
79.*
S3DA
2.3
1.7
1 .2
1.2
0*9
0.1
0.1
0.**
LCSlIE TOTa.
salt
1.3
9.5
17.6
24.5
0.2
1.2
9.9
15.5
IB.9
20.9
22.9
24.e
26.7
28.0
20.3
27.0
30.0
31.1
1 .2
C. 9
r. &
C. &
o.s
0.?
0.0
0.?
0.1
0.2
0.0
3 . 0
7.9
14.5
20.2
0.1
1.0
7.3
12.9
15.5
17.?
ie.s
20.4
22.6
23.1
16.7
22.2
21.7
25.&
3.**
2.6
I.9
1.5
1 .1
0.7
0.2
0.7
0.1
0.7
0.0
2.3
17.3
32.1
11.9
0.3
2.3
16.2
28.4
3*.5
39.1
II.5
15.3
51.2
37.0
19.?
51.7
56.9
3t*C.
I .
53.0
53.d
53. n
53. ?
53.0
53.0
53.ft
53.0
53.0
53.0
32.5
92.3
92.3
92.3
®2.3
92.3
92.3
92.3
92.3
92.3
92.3
92.3
82.3
92.3
92.3
32.S
92.3
92.3
92.3
S3DA
LESLIE TOTAL
«;alt
i .
l.
l,
o.
o.
0.6
0.3
0.5
56.2
56.2
56.2
56.?
56.2
56.2
56.1
56.1
56,1
56.1
56.1
56.1
56.1
56.1
56.1
55.3
55.3
55.3
55.3
I,
0,
0 ,
0,
0,
0
0,
0
0
*5
35
35
35.1
35.1
35.1
3* . 1
35 .1
35.1
35.1
35.1
35,1
35.1
*5.1
35.4
34.9
31.9
31.9
31.9
«*.2
3.2
2,2
2.2
1.7
o.a
0.2
0.9
0.5
0.9
91.7
91.7
91.7
91.7
91.7
91.5
91.5
91.5
91.5
91.5
91.5
91.5
91.5
91.5
91.5
90.2
90.2
90.2
90.2
pE*C.
I'JC*.
11.
H.
11.
11.
11.
11»
11.
11.
11
11.9
63.1
63.1
63,1
63.1
63.1
63.1
63.1
63.1
63.1
63.1
63.1
63.1
63.1
63.1
63.1
63.M
63.1
63.1
63.1
C3*oUTtD RELATIVE TOXICITY CO^CtNTfUTlOVS
LESLIE DISCHARGE INTO OP 26.S30A IMTO 0D3i
1985
SE6*EYT <5eo*
*V»Y
lcslte TOTaL PE*C-
SALT I^C=>.
SBDA
*et
LESLIE TOTal
salt
CANNING
117
11A
11"
120
121
12?
1 25
121
125
126
127
12P
129
13fl
131
13?
133
13H
13*
136
137
13B
139
110
HI
13.1
1?.*
12.*
1?.*
1?.F
1?.fl
1?.fi
1?.«
1?.°
12.0
i?.n
12.0
i?.o
12.0
12.0
12.P
*?.ft
1?.0
11. *
4] .n
11.«
11
U.9
'*7.7
'-*2.?
3d
3*
31
31
31
31
31
34
34
33
33
33.
33.5
33.5
33.S
33.5
33.5
33. *
33.4
33.4
33.1
33.4
33.1
33.7
33.7
79.6
77.1
77.1
77.1
77.1
77.1
77.t
77.1
'7.1
75.6
75.6
75.6
75.C
75.6
75.6
'5.6
75.6
75.6
75.2
75.?
75.?
75.?
75.?
76.0
76.n
79. *
79. a
79. «
79.?
79. «
79.a
79.9
79. «
79. *
79.6
79. P
79.9
79.n
79.P
79.(1
79. *
79.3
79. 1
79.0
79.9
79.1
79, o
79. «
79. ¦)
79. 8
31
19
29
33
7
17
24
SO
34
16.2
3?.9
36.4
2.2
13.2
23.3
32.5
36.1
37.0
36.0
56,5
37.0
37.5
37.5
3*.8
36.7
26
16
24
?7
5
14
19
24
29
13
27
30,
1,
10,
19,
26.
29,
30.
29,
30.
30.
So.
30.
28.6
50.?
58.1
35
53
61
IS
31
45
55
62,
29.5
60.0
66.5
4.0
2*.l
42.5
59.3
65.9
67.5
65.6
66.7
67.5
68.1
68.5
S3.5
66.9
'E^C.
IVC3.
32.3
92.3
92.3
92.3
92.5
92.3
92.3
92.3
92.3
92.3
33.3
32.3
92.3
»2.3
92.3
92.3
32.3
&2.S
32.3
92.S
32.3
92.3
92.3
92.3
32.3
SBDA
55.3
54.2
54.2
5*.2
54.2
54.2
54.2
54.2
54.2
53.1
53.1
53.1
55.1
53.1
53.1
53.1
53.1
53.1
52.9
52.9
52.9
52.9
52.9
53.5
53.5
LESLIE
TOTAL
PCRC
salt
INC*
31.9
90.2
63.1
34.2
88.5
63.1
31,2
PR.5
63.1
31.2
88.5
63.1
31.2
88,5
63.1
34,2
88.5
63.1
31. *
88. 5
63.1
31.2
88.5
63.1
34.2
88,5
63.1
33.5
86.7
63.1
33.5
96,7
63.1
33.5
36. 7
63.1
33.5
96.7
63,1
33.5
86.7
63.1
33.5
86.7
63.1
33, 5
86.7
63.1
33.5
36.7
63.1
33.5
86.7
63,1
33.4
96.1
63.1
33,1
86.1
63.1
33.1
86.1
63.1
33.1
86.1
63.1
33.*'
86.1
63,1
33.7
87.3
63.1
33.7
87.3
63,1
0
1
to
as
03
-------
o
t
to
0*
c^uted Relative raxictty ^omce^t^tions
LESLIE" DISCHARGE1 I^To op 31»S3DA INjTn 033i
1 985
#
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53. n
53,0
5^.0
53.0
53.D
5 3.0
53,a
53.0
53.0
53.0
53. n
53. n
5*.t
53. r*
53.0
53.n
S3DA
37.1
36,3
50.8
30.0
29,H
27.H
25.S
29.9
28.3
19.5
22.6
29.3
26.6
17.1
19.6
25.3
21.7
15.6
17,3
25.1
21.2
15,2
15.0
24.9
22.5
14.7
1H.B
27,9
29.2
WET
LESLIE TOTAL
salt
19.
20.
16.
15.
15.
1H.
13.
15,
15.
10.
12,
15.
IH.
9.
10.
13.
II.
8.
9.
13.
11.
5,
e.
13.
11.
7.
7,
1H,
15,
56,9
5*.7
47. 2
45.9
45.0
HI.9
39.5
H5.&
•43.3
29.9
34.6
44. 0
H0.fi
26.1
30 ~ 0
39.7
33.2
23.9
26.6
30.H
32.5
23.2
2H.2
39. 1
34, H
22.6
22,6
42,9
HH.B
3ERC.
1MCR.
53,0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53,0
53. o
53,0
53.0
53,0
53,0
53,0
53,0
53,0
53,0
53,0
53.0
53, 0
53,0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.*
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
S3DA
50.0
52.H
H2.7
HI.6
HO. 8
38.2
36.1
HI.5
39.H
28,0
32.0
HO,6
37.2
24.8
29.1
35,6
31.0
22.9
25.1
35,5
30.5
22.2
23.1
35.H
32.3
21.6
21.&
HO.6
H2.B
:av1NINS
LESLIE TOTftL
SALT
21.3
21.9
17.9
17.4
17.1
16.0
15.1
17.3
16.5
11.7
13.H
17.1
15.6
10.H
11.7
1H%9
13.0
9.6
10,5
1H. '
12.7
9.3
9.6
1 4 . B
13.5
9,0
9.0
17.0
17.9
72,1
7H,H
60.5
59.1
57,9
54,3
51.3
5ft.9
55,9
39.7
45.H
57,9
52.9
35.2
39,S
50.5
44.0
32.5
3s),6
50.H
43.3
31.6
32.6
50.2
45.9
30.7
30.7
57.7
60,7
PERC.
INCR.
41.9
HI,9
41.9
ui.9
41,9
HI.9
HI.9
HI.9
HI,9
HI.9
41.9
HI.9
41.9
HI.9
HI ,9
Hi .9
HI.9
41.9
41,9
HI.9
HI,9
HI ,9
HI .9
HI.9
HI,9
Hi.9
41.9
41.9
41.9
-------
:*)*DUTn RELATIVE TONICITY CONCENTRATIONS
LESLIE DISCHARGE INTO 03 31»S3DA INTO 333l
1995
SEGMEN7
S33A
LE«U. T£
Salt
59
16.4
B.7
60
15,
61
M.ft
16.q
6?
17.?
63
16.?
o
64
13.6
7 ?
65
30.1
15*o
66
22.n
11.7
67
15,1
*.9
6ft
12.*
6,7
69
2*.«
11.2
70
21.5
11 .4
7l
10.*
*.6
7?
9.6
5.1
73
22.3
11.A
74
14.4
7 i
7S
4,4
76
10.5
5.6
77
8.3
4.4
7 A
4.
2.5
79
4.*
2.5
so
6.1
1.*
*1
6.ft
3.1
8?
3.*
2.0
93
1.1
94
3.2
1.7
85
2.«»
1.5
86
2.7
1.4
97
1.5
0.7
?5.3
?3.«
48.7
?6.U
24,*
20.«
•~6.1
33.q
25.?
19.3
41.n
33.n
16.?
14.A
S».?
?2.n
12.7
16.t
12,7
7.4
7.4
15.4
9.2
5,9
6. *
5.0
•».*
*.2
2.2
INC*.
53. o
S^.o
53. n
53.n
53. n
53.3
^3.0
53,0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.f)
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.Q
53. n
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
WET
533ft LESLIE TDTal
salt
CAWVINS
11.1
13.4
27.6
14,9
14.0
11.7
26.3
19.2
13.1
10.9
23.6
19.9
9.2
8.4
19.7
13.1
7.4
10.1
7.9
1.6
1.6
7.9
5.a
3.8
*.0
3.2
2.9
2.7
1.1
7.5
7.1
14.6
7.9
7.4
6.2
13.9
10.1
6.9
5.8
12.5
10.0
•+.9
1.4
10. 4
6.9
3.9
5.4
1.2
2.4
2.4
'¦~.1
3.1
2.0
2.1
1.7
1.5
1.1
0.7
21 .7
20.6
<~2.3
22,9
21.4
17.9
*0.3
29.4
20.1
16.7
36.1
23.9
l«*.l
12.9
30.2
20.1
11.3
15.5
12.2
7.1
7.1
12.1
9.0
5.8
6.2
4.9
1.1
*.2
2.1
°ERC •
INCR.
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53,0
53,0
53.0
53,0
53,0
53,o
53,0
53,0
53,0
53,0
53.0
Sbda
LESLIE
TOTAL
SALT
20. fl
3.7
29, 5
19.7
9.2
26,0
40,3
16.*
57.2
21,8
9.1
31,0
20.5
8.6
29,1
17.2
7.2
24.5
38.1
15.9
54.1
27.9
11 ,7
39,6
19. 2
8.0
27.2
16.0
6.7
?2 . 7
33.9
11.2
48.1
27.2
11,4
38. 7
13.3
5.6
19.0
12.2
5.1
17.4
28.3
11.8
40.1
18.2
7.6
25.9
10.5
4.4
14.9
13.3
5.6
18.9
10.5
4.4
14,9
6.1
2.5
8,7
6.1
2.=>
8.7
10.2
1.3
14.5
7.6
3.1
10,8
4.9
2.0
7.0
5.2
2.2
7.1
1.1
1.7
5.9
3.7
I.3
5.3
3.5
1.1
5.0
1.9
O.?
2.6
PERC
I NCR
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
H.
41.9
41.9
41.9
41,9
41.9
*1.9
41.9
41.9
41.9
41.9
41.9
41.9
41,9
41,9
41,9
41.9
41,9
41.9
41.9
¦H.9
41.9
COMPUTED relative toxicity concentrations
LESLIE DISCHARGE INTO OP 31.S30A INTO DP3J
19B5
OPT
SEGMENT
88
39
90
91
9?
93
94
96
97
9ft
99
ino
101
102
IP*
104
10*
106
107
10?
1 0"
110
111
11?
113
114
11*
116
S33A
LESLIE TOTaL
salt
I\IC9
1.2
3.5
55. (1
I.7
0.9
2.7
53.0
1.2
0.*
1.9
53.0
1.2
o.f
1 . 9
53.0
0.«
0.5
1.1
53.0
0.4
n.*
0.6
53.n
0.1
n.n
0.2
53.0
0.5
0.2
0.5
53.0
0. 3
0.1
0.1
53.0
0.1
0.2
0.4
53.0
44.4
23. *
67.9
53.n
44.4
23.5
67,9
53.0
4 4.4
23.*
67.Q
53.0
44.4
23. *
67.9
53.0
44,4
23.5
67,9
53.0
44.3
23.5
67,R
53.0
44,3
23,5
67.A
53.0
44.3
23, «
67,
53,P
44. 3
25.5
=.7.0
53. 0
44, *
23. 5
67.q
53. 0
44. 3
23.5
67.n
53. 0
44,^
23. *
67.i?
53.0
44,?
23.5
67.a
55. n
44.3
23.5
67.*
53.0
44,3
23.5
67. *
53.0
4 3,7
23. J
66.9
53. (1
43.7
23.1
66.9
53. n
43.7
23,1
66.9
53,0
43.7
23.1
66.9
53.1
SBDA
2.3
1.7
1.2
1.2
0.9
0.*
0.1
0,*
0.2
0,*
0,0
1.3
9.5
17.6
24,5
0.2
1.2
8,9
15.5
18.9
20,9
22,9
24.8
26.7
28,0
20.3
27.0
30.0
31.1
WET
LESLIE TOTAL
salt
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.5
0,2
0.0
0.2
0.1
0,2
0,0
0.6
5.0
9.3
12.0
0.1
' 0.6
4.7
3.2
10.0
11.1
12.1
13.1
14.2
14.9
10,7
14.3
15,9
16.5
3.5
2.*
1.8
1.0
1.*
0.7
0.2
0.7
0.1
0.7
0.0
1.9
14.5
26,9
37.6
0.3
1.9
13.6
23.6
2S.9
32.0
35.0
36.0
40.9
43.0
31.1
41.3
45.9
47.6
®ER C.
I NCR.
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
33.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53,0
53.0
53.0
53. 0
53.0
53.0
53,0
53.0
53,0
sbda
2.9
2.2
1.5
1.5
1.2
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.5
56.2
56.2
56,2
56.2
56.2
56.1
56.1
56.1
56.1
56.1
56,1
56.1
56,1
56.1
56.1
55.3
55.3
55.3
55.3
cum INQ
LESLIE TOTAL
Salt
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.
0.2
0.1
0.2
23.5
23.5
23.*
23.5
23.
23.5
23.5
23.5
23.5
23,5
23.5
23.5
23.5
23.5
23.5
23,1
23,1
23.1
23,1
<4.2
3.2
2.2
2.2
1.7
0,8
0.2
0,9
0.5
0.0
79.7
79.7
79,7
79.7
79.7
79.6
79,6
79.6
79.6
79.6
79.6
79.6
79,6
79.6
79.6
70,5
78,5
78.5
79,5
PERC.
INCR,
41.9
41.9
41,9
11.9
41.9
41,9
41.9
41.9
41,9
41,9
41.9
41.9
41.9
41.9
41.9
41,9
41.9
41.9
41.9
41,9
41.9
41.9
41,9
41,9
41.9
41.9
41,9
41,9
41.9
-------
0
1
to
05
o>
C^WPUTCD RELATIVE TOXICITY CONCENTRATIONS
LESLIE DISCHARGE WO 0» 31»S0Dft IVJTO DP31
1985
LESLIE TOTflL
SftLT
117
lift
119
I'^O
121
12?
123
l?u
1 2^
126
127
12R
12°
130
131
13?
133
I 3«*
135
136
3 37
13P
15s*
1 «* 0
1 «~!
43,7
42.«
4?.P
42.ft
42.ft
42.*
42.ft
42.«
42. «
t*2. n
4?.n
42.n
4 2, ci
42, n
42,0
42.n
4?.rt
•~2.0
41 .ft
41, «
41.ft
41.«
41 .ft
4 2.2
42,2
23.1
2?. 7
22.7
22.7
22.7
22.7
22.*
22.7
22. 7
2?.?
22.?
22.?
22.2
22.?
22, 2
22. "5
2?.?
22.^
22.2
22.?
2?.?
22.2
2?. ?
22.4
2?.*
46.9
6*5.6
65. s
65. 6
65,6
*5.5,
65.6
<•*5.6
65.S
64.3
64.3
6^.3
64.*
64.3
64.3
6^.3
64. 3
64.3
64. ft
64. n
64. o
64.f)
64. 0
64.7
64.7
pfRc.
IMCR.
5*.0
53,0
53.0
5 3, f)
*3.0
53.0
*3.0
5*.n
53.0
53.0
53.0
53,n
*3,0
53, n
53,Q
53, n
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53,0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.[>
WET
SBOA LESLIE TOTflL
salt
31.6
19.fe
29.2
33,5
7.2
17.4
24.0
30,2
34.0
16.2
32.9
36.4
2.2
13.2
23.3
32.5
36.1
37.0
36.0
36.5
37.0
37.3
37.5
34.fi
36.7
16.9
10.4
15.5
17.8
3.0
9.2
12.7
16.0
16.0
9.6
17.4
19.3
1.1
7.0
12.3
17.2
19.1
19.6
19.1
19.4
19.6
19.a
19.9
18.4
19.(4
48. S
50.0
44.7
51.3
XI. 0
26.7
36.7
46,3
52.1
24,9
50.3
55, ft
3,3
20.2
35.7
49.7
55.3
56.6
55.1
55.9
56.7
57.2
57.5
53.3
56.1
°ERC.
INC*.
53.0
53,0
53,0
53.0
53,0
53,0
53.0
53.0
53,0
53,0
53,0
53.0
53.0
53,0
53. 0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53.0
53,0
53.0
53,0
53,0
53,0
53.0
CANNING
S3OA LESLIE TOTAL PERC,
salt INC*.
55.3
54.2
54.2
54.2
54.2
54.2
54.2
54,2
54.2
53.1
53.1
53.1
53.1
53.1
53,1
53.1
53,1
53,1
52.9
52.9
52.9
52.9
52.9
53.5
53,5
23.1
22.7
22.7
22.7
22.7
22.7
22. 7
22.7
22.7
22.2
22.2
22.2
22.2
22.2
22,2
22,2
22,2
22,2
22.2
22,2
22.2
22.2
22.2
22.4
22,4
76.5
77.0
77.0
77.0
77.0
77.0
77.0
77.0
77.0
75.4
75.4
75.4
75.4
75,4
75.4
75,4
75,4
75.4
75.1
75.1
75,1
75.1
75.1
75.9
75,9
41.9
41.9
41,9
41.9
41,9
41.9
41.9
41.9
41.9
41,9
41,9
41,9
41,9
41^9
41,9
41,9
41.9
41.9
41.9
41,9
41.9
41.9
41.9
41.9
41.9
CDW^UTEO RELATIVE TOXICITY CONCENTRATIONS
LESLIE DISCHARGE INTO OP 2&»S306 INTO DP31
1995
SEGMENT
LESLIE TOT/vL
Sal t
PERC
INCR.
SB3A
rfET
LESLIE TOTAL
salt
3ERC.
IMCR.
sbda
LESLIE TOTAL
salt
°ERC.
I NCR,
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1 R
19
2(1
21
2?
23
24
25
26
27
2«
29
52.6
52.?
52. P
51.7
51.3
*1 .0
50.7
5fl, 6
5C. *>
50. 5
50.1
50.1
5n, n
50.0
50. n
50.^
49. «
!*q.o
49. 0
49. ft
'•*9 . «*
49,7
49. "
4*.7
4 9,6
*~*>.7
49 . (
4«*5
"7. *
56.9
56. '4
®5. ft
ft5. ?
ft4, ft
ft 4 , 6
°4, 0
ft4.1
R3, ft
«3, ft
*3.5
ft 3,6
93,6
*3,5
° 3 , 5
ft 3 , S
93.*
"3.3
33.5
ft3. ?
ft3.2
ft 3 . 3
«3. r>
ft3. r»
«0.6
77 , f>
67.
57.
67.
67.
67,
57,
67.
57.
57.
67.
67.
57,
67.
67 .
6 7.
&7.
67.
67.
67.
67.
67.
67.
67 ,
6 7,
67.
67.
67.
6? .
55.
34.4
37.0
38.7
40.0
41.1
42.0
42.8
43.1
43.9
43.8
44.1
44 ,2
44.5
44.5
44.4
44.6
44.6
44.5
44.6
44.6
44.5
44.6
44.9
44.7
44 .9
45.0
44.8
45.1
45,3
23.3
25.6
26.8
27.7
28.4
29.0
29.6
29.?
30.3
30.3
30.5
30.5
30.8
30.9
30.7
30.0
30.0
30. ^
30.9
30.9
30. fl
30.9
31
30
31
31
31
29
25.7
58,2
62.6
65.6
67.7
69.6
71.0
72,4
72.9
74.2
74.1
74.7
74.7
75,4
75.3
75.1
75.4
75,4
75.4
75.5
75.6
75,4
75.6
75.8
75.6
76.1
76.2
75.9
74.1
71.0
69,2
69.2
69.2
69.2
59.2
69,2
69,?
59.2
69,2
69.2
69.2
59.2
59.2
59.2
59.2
69.2
59.2
69.2
59.2
59.2
59.2
69.2
59.2
69.2
69.2
69,?
69. 7
54.0
56.6
63.3
5? , B
62.5
62.1
51.7
61.3
51.0
60.8
60.4
60.5
60.3
50.3
6n.l
60.1
60.1
50.1
60.0
60.O
59.9
59.9
60.0
59.9
59.8
59.9
59.7
59.7
59.8
59.6
59.5
35.3
35.1
34.9
34. t
34.4
34.2
34.0
33.9
33.7
33.7
33.6
33.6
33.5
33.5
33.6
33.5
33.5
33.5
33.4
33.5
33,5
33.4
33.4
33.4
33.3
33.3
33.4
31.0
27.^
9e,6
97.9
97, 4
96, 8
96.2
95.6
95.0
94.3
94.2
94, 3
94.0
93, 9
93.7
93.7
93.7
93,7
93,6
93.6
93.3
93.4
93.&
93,3
93.3
93.4
93.1
93.1
93.2
90.6
87.1
55.8
*5.8
55.8
55.8
55.9
55.8
55.8
55.8
55,8
55.8
55.8
55.8
55.8
55.8
55.8
55.8
?5. 8
55.8
55.8
55.8
55.8
55.8
55.8
55.8
55.8
55.8
55.8
51.9
46.3
-------
^ElUTIVE TOXICITY :d^c£mt^atidvs
LE<;Llf OISCHflRGE IMT3 DP 26.S3D* IMTO 3^31
1995
SESmEMT
LEVITT
T1TftL
5^tT
30
*7 .o
21.^
<¦*.1
94,5
31
!*9. *
21.9
71 .5
9'4.?
3?
90,1
17.9
*8.0
9!|.S
33
3°.l
17.9
56.6
9u. 5
39
39,u
17,1
*5.*
44,5
35
35,Q
16.0
*2.f>
99. 5
35
*9 .0
15.1
«*9.?
4U . ^
37
17.*
56.4
94,5
39
37. ft
16,5
53,5
94.=
39
?o , 3
11.7
*8.1
94.5
9 0
30.1
13.9
43.s
94.*
91
3°.u
17,1
55.*
9i, 5
92
55,0
15,6
*0.6
99.9
93
23 , *
10.9
33.7
99.5
94
26,4
11.7
3*.2
94, 5
95
?3,M
19.*
tt3,3
99,5
9fc
?«*.?
13.0
92.?
99.5
97
21. *
9.6
31.1
99,5
99
?3.*
In.*
39,t
99,5
99
33, f
19.9
49,5
99.5
50
?B,6
1^.7
91,9
99.5
51
20. °
9.3
30,?
914,5
5?
21 .7
*.6
31,9
99.5
53
33. *
19.9
98,1
99,5
54
30.'»
13.*
99,n
99.5
55
?P.3
9.0
29.4
94,5
56
20.?
9,0
*9,4
99,5
57
3B . ?
17.r
55.2
99,?
59
9n.o
17.9
59.J
99,*
S3DA
99,2
45.6
36,?
35.7
35.0
32.6
30.7
35.5
33.7
23.2
26,9
3%. 8
61.7
20.3
23,3
30.1
25.0
19.6
20,6
29.8
25,3
18.1
18.8
29.6
26.9
17.5
17.6
33.2
34,8
LESLIE TOTal
Salt
19.7
20.3
16,3
15,9
15.6
19,5
13.7
15.3
15,0
10,3
22.0
15.5
IV.1
9,0
10. 9
13.%
11.5
8.5
*.2
13.3
U,2
8.0
S.9
13.2
11.9
7.8
7.6
19.8
15,5
63.9
66.0
53.1
51. 6
50.6
*7,1
99,4
51.3
<19.7
33.6
58,9
So.i*
1*5.9
29,«
33.7
*3.5
37,3
26.9
29,9
93,?
36,fv
26.1
27.3
*2.6
38,7
25, 9
25,9
98,1
50,3
*EftC.
IVC*.
•4*.5
49.5
99.5
'41,5
"41.5
99,5
99, 5
***1.5
99,5
99, 5
*41.5
*4.5
HI,5
*9,5
99,5
<~4.5
•4*. 5
99,5
99. 5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
19.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
*9.5
SbDA
57,H
59,3
<~9,2
47.1
96.1
93.2
90.9
•~6,9
99.5
31.6
36.1
96,1
92.1
28.0
31.7
90.2
35.1
25.8
28.9
90,1
39.9
25.1
26.1
90*0
36.5
29.9
29.9
95.9
98.3
CANMj MG
TOTAL
LESLI«
SALT
?1.3
? 1 . 9
17.9
17.9
17.1
16.0
15.1
17.3
16.5
11.7
13,9
17.1
15.6
10.'*
11.7
19.9
13.0
9.->
10.5
19.9
12.7
9,3
9.6
19.8
13.5
9.0
9.0
17.0
17.y
7ft.7
*1.3
*>6.2
fit, 5
63. 3
59.3
56, 0
69. 3
63 .0
9 3. '4
9<>,6
62.3
57.7
38.4
93.5
55.1
99.1
35.9
38.9
55.0
97.2
39.5
35.8
59.8
50.1
33,5
33.5
63.0
66, 3
P£*C.
INCH.
37,0
37.0
57.0
37,0
37.0
37,0
37,0
37,0
37,0
37,0
?7.0
37,0
37.0
37.0
37.0
37.0
37,0
37,0
37,0
37.0
37,0
37.0
37.0
37.0
'7.0
37.0
37,0
37,0
37,0
computed relative toxicity cdvcentratidns
LESLIE W3 3P a&.SftDfc IHTO 3*31
1995
OPY IJET CANMINf.
StGwEVT
S3UA
LESLIE
tTTaL
PE9c.
SBDA
LESLIE
total
?ERC.
S3DA
LESLIE
TOTAL
PERC
Salt
1MC9.
salt
IMC9 .
salt
INCS
59
19.*
9.7
29.5
99.5
16.8
7.5
29.9
99.5
23.5
9.7
32,2
37, 0
6p
in,5
9.2
26,®
99,5
16.0
7.1
23.1
99,5
2?,3
8,2
30,5
37. 0
61
37,o
16.9
59.9
99, 5
32.9
19.6
97,5
99, 5
95,6
16.9
6?,5
37, 0
6?
?0.e
9,1
29,7
99, «
17,8
7,9
25.7
99,5
29,7
9.1
33.9
37,0
63
1^,3
9,6
27.9
99,5
16.6
7.9
29.1
99,5
23,2
8.6
31 ,8
37, 0
69
16.?
7.2
?3.9
99.5
13.9
6.2
20.2
99,5
19,5
7.2
26,7
37.0
65
3*.e
15.P
5i.a
9-4. *
31,3
13.9
95.3
49,5
93.1
15,9
59.0
37.0
66
26.
11.7
38.0
99,5
22,8
10.1
33.0
99,5
31.6
11.7
93,3
37.0
67
19.n
9.0
26.1
9*4.5
15,6
6.9
22.6
99.5
21.7
8,0
29.7
37.0
69
lK.f>
6.7
21.7
99.5
13.0
5.3
19.9
99.5
18,1
6.7
?9 . 9
37.0
69
31.*
19.?
*6.1
99,5
28.1
12.5
90.6
99,5
38,3
19,2
5?.6
37,0
70
2>5.6
11.9
37.0
94.5
22,5
10.0
32.5
99.5
30,8
ll.*
92.2
37,0
71
12.«
5.6
18.?
99.5
11,0
9.9
15.9
99.5
15,1
5.6
20.7
37.0
7?
11.5
5,1
16,6
9 '4 . R:
10,0
9.9
19,5
99.5
13.8
5,1
19.9
37.0
73
>6.*
11.*
3B.9
94,5
23.5
10.9
33,9
*9.5
31.9
11.8
43.3
37,0
79
17.1
7.6
99,9
99.5
15.6
6.9
22,6
99.5
20.6
7.6
2B.3
37.0
75
q.a
9.9
19,?
9 9.5
8.8
3,9
12.7
99.5
11.8
9.9
16.2
37.0
76
1?. *
5,6
18.1
99.5
12.1
5.9
17,5
99.5
15.1
5.6
? 0 . 7
37,0
77
9, 9
9.9
19,3
99.5
*.5
9.2
13,7
99.5
11.9
9,9
16,3
37.0
79
5.7
2.5
«. *
99.e
5.5
2,9
8,0
99.5
b.9
2,5
9.5
37.0
79
5.7
ft.3
99.5
5.5
2.9
8,0
99.5
6.9
2,5
9.5
37.0
90
9,6
9.3
13,9
99*5
9.9
9,1
13,6
99.5
11.6
9,3
15,9
37,0
91
7.1
3.1
10.*
99.5
6.9
3,1
10,1
99.5
8.6
3,1
11,3
37.0
8?
9.6
2.0
6.7
99.5
9.5
2.0
6.5
'49.5
5.6
2.0
7. S
37.0
93
9 ,°
2.2
7,1
99,6
9.8
2.1
7,0
99.5
5.9
2.2
8.1
37.0
99
3.*
1.7
5.6
99. 5
3.8
1.7
5.5
99.5
9.6
1.7
6.9
37.0
95
3. *
1.*
5.1
99. *
3.9
1.5
5.0
99.5
9,2
1.5
5.8
37.0
9*
3."
1. u
9.9
94.5
3.2
1.9
9,7
99,5
9.0
1.9
5.9
37,0
97
1.7
9.7
2.5
99.5
1.6
0.7
2.9
99,5
2.1
0.'
2.9
37. 0
0
1
<1
-------
o
o>
00
CWJTED ^ELfiTlVC TOXICITY concentrations
LESLIE DISCHARGE into 26.S3DA INTO D33l
1995
?RY WET CANNING
^Epw^NT
s ?da
l^lte:
TOT/vL
S3D A
LESLIE
total
per:.
S^DA
LESLIE
total
PERC
SrtLT
INCR.
salt
INC*.
salt
IMCR
BP
? # a
1.3
4, r*
44.«5
2.7
1.2
3.9
44. 5
3.3
1.2
4,6
37,0
99
?.*!
n,°
3. r>
44, 0
?.o
0.9
3.0
44.5
2.5
0.9
3.4
37.0
9fl
1."
ij.fi
2.1
44. 5
1.4
0.6
2.0
44 . 5
1.7
0,6
2.4
37,0
91
l.u
o.ft
?.l
44.5
1.4
0,6
?. o
44.5
1.7
0. *
2.4
37.0
9?
1 .1
n r
I.e.
44,5
1.1
0.5
1.&
44.5
1.3
0,5
l.B
37,0
93
0.5
n,?
0.7
44.5
0.5
0.2
0,9
44,5
0.6
0.2
0.8
37.0
94
0 . 1
1,0
0.2
44.=>
0.1
0.0
0.2
4 4,5
0.2
0.0
0.3
37,0
95
o.ft
n.?
0.9
4 4.5
0.5
0.2
0.9
44,5
0.7
0.2
1.0
37,0
96
0 . 3
0.1
0.5
4 4.5
0,3
0.1
0,5
44.5
0.4
0.1
0.5
37.0
97
o.c
0.2
0.7
'4 4 . *,
0.5
0.2
0,9
44.5
0.6
0.2
0.9
37.0
90
52.°
35.4
0 , ^
67.1
0.0
0,0
0. 1
69,2
53.5
35.4
99.0
55.0
99
52.°
35.4
a p . x
67.1
1.5
1.0
2.6
69.2
63, 5
35.4
99.0
55. R
inn
SP.r
35.i*
9 0, *
67,1
11,3
7,9
19,1
69.2
63,5
35.4
99. fl
55,8
101
5? . 6
35. H
99.3
67.1
20.9
14.5
35, 5
69,2
63.5
35.4
99. 0
55,8
in?
52.R
i*,4
«0. *
*7,1
29,2
20.?
49.5
69.2
63,5
35.14
99.0
55,8
103
52.7
35.1
80, 1
67,1
0.2
0.1
0.4
69.2
63.4
35.4
90.8
55,9
104
*?.7
35,4
90,1
67,1
1.5
1.0
2.6
69.2
63.4
35.4
90.9
55,9
135
0?. 7
55. a
«B. i
*7.1
10.5
7.3
17.9
69.2
63.4
35.4
9 0.0
55,9
10ft
5?, '
35,4
98.1
67,i
IP.5
12,9
31, 3
69.2
63.4
35.4
90.9
55,9
107
5?.7
35 ,(4
90.1
67.1
22.5
15.5
39.1
69.2
63.4
35.4
98, S
55,9
109
*?.7
35.1
1
67.1
24.9
17.2
42,1
69.2
63.4
35.4
90.3
55,8
10*
52. f
35,4
90. 1
67.1
27.2
18,8
46.3
59.2
63,4
35.+
90,9
55.0
no
5 ? . 7
3",4
*0.1
67.1
29.5
20.4
50.n
69.2
63.4
35.4
90. 8
55.9
111
52.7
35. 4
99.1
67.1
31.8
22,0
53.9
69.2
63,4
35.4
90.9
5 5,8
11?
*?„ ?
?* .4
ia.l
57.1
33. 4
23,1
56.5
69.2
63.4
35. 4
9ft. 9
*>5.8
113
52. p
34,*
8ft.Q
67.1
24.1
16,7
4 0.9
69.2
62,5
34,9
97.4
55.8
114
5?. n
34, Q
67.1
3?. 1
22,2
54 . 4
69.2
62.5
34.9
97.4
55.B
U5
52. *
?4 . =5
06.°
67.1
35,7
24.7
60,5
69, 2
62,5
34.9
97. 4
5 5.8
lift
52. f>
34. Q
67.1
37.0
25.6
62,7
69,2
62,5
34.9
97. 4
55.9
Cn*»UTEO RELATIVE TOXICITY COYCEMTRATlDNS
LESLIE DlSCHftRSE INTO DP 26,SBDA INTO D93l
1995
«IET
SE3TNT
S0D*
LT^LIE
TOTaL
0^C.
S3DA
LESLIE
TDTftw
°ERC.
S3DA
Salt
I MCR.
salt
INC*.
117
5?.n
3 4.3
«6 . s»
67.1
37.9
26.2
64.2
69,2
62.5
119
M ."
34.2
^5. ?
67.1
23.3
16.1
39,5
59, 2
51.3
119
51.n
34.9
95.?
67.1
34.7
24,0
59.0
59,2
61.3
12ft
51.0
34.2
®5 . ?
67.1
39.9
27,6
57.6
59.2
61.3
121
51.r
34.?
°5 . 2
57,1
8,5
5,9
14.4
59.2
61.3
12?
*1 .0
34, ?
95.2
67.1
20.7
14,3
35.1
59.2
61.3
1 23
51. F
34.2
95.?
67.1
20.5
19.7
48.3
59.2
61.3
124
51. n
34. ?
°5.?
57.1
36,0
24.9
50.9
69.2
61,3
12^
34.?
*5 . ?
67.1
40.5
20,0
50.5
59.2
61.3
126
50. P
33.S
83. 0
67.1
19.3
13,3
32.6
59.2
60,1
127
5P.n
33,5
03,5
57.1
39,1
27.1
66,2
69.?
60,1
129
50 . r
33. q
93.»>
67.1
43.4
30.0
73.4
59.2
60,1
129
^O.r
33.5
93.S
67.1
2.6
1.9
4.4
59.2
50,1
I3n
SC."
33."
®3.«.
67.1
15.7
10.9
?6.6
59.2
50.1
131
50.r
33.*
9 ? . *
67.1
27.7
19.2
47.0
59. 2
60.1
13?
50.n
33.5
93.0
67.1
3B.7
26.7
65.4
69. 2
60.1
133
50. n
33. *
«3.8
67.1
43.0
29. 7
7?.7
59.2
60.1
1 34
50. 0
33.5
93. *
67.1
44.0
30.4
74.5
55.2
60,1
135
4 ° , 7
33.4
93.?
&7.1
42.8
29.6
72,5
59.2
59,8
13*
49.7
33.4
93.?
67.1
4 3.5
30.1
73,6
59,2
59,8
137
49.*
33. U
«?.2
67.1
44.0
30.5
74.5
59. 2
59.8
139
t»o ¦»
3 ^ . u
°3. ?
67.1
44,4
30,7
75,2
69,2
59.8
139
7
3 3. u
a3. 2
67.1
4 4.7
30.9
75.6
69,?
59.e
1 4 0
*•0.3
33.7
04.1
57,1
41,4
20,6
70,1
69.2
60.5
1 <*1
*0. *
33.7
04.1
67.1
43.6
30.2
73,9
69,2
60.5
LESLIE TOTAL
salt
34.*
3«+. 2
34.2
34. 2
34.2
34.2
34.2
34. 2
34.2
33.5
33.5
33.5
33.5
33.5
33. 5
33,5
33.5
33. 3
33.4
33.4
33. *
33.
??. 4
33.7
33. 7
97.
95.
^5.
95.
95.
95.
95.
95.
95.
93.
93.
.6
.6
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
. 7
.7
93.7
93.6
93.&
93.&
93.&
93.6
93.6
93.3
93.3
93.3
*3.3
=»3.3
94.2
94.2
PESC.
TNCR.
55.3
55.9
55.3
55.8
55.8
55.6
55.9
55.a
55.6
55.9
55,8
55.8
55.9
55.8
55.9
55,9
55. 9
55. *
55. B
55,8
"5.8
55. B
55.8
55.«
55.«
-------
CDM3UTED Relative toxicity concentrations
lESLIt TISCHftRGE INTO 30 31,$33* INTO OaH
1995
SES»ENT
LESLIE TOTflL
Salt
1
52.<
2
52.?
3
52.0
4
51.7
5
51.3
6
51.0
7
50.7
A
50. *
9
50.3
in
50.3
11
50.1
l?
50.1
13
50.5
14
50.0
15
50.0
16
*0.n
17
19.9
in
49. *
19
*9.P
an
19.R
?i
19. 9
2?
19. *
23
19.7
21
I*.*
25
*9.7
26
19.6
27
*9.7
?R
19.ft
?e>
t*9.^
23. U
2%3
".0
22.9
22.7
2?.*
??.s
«.*
22.4
*?.3
".3
22.*
22.5
*'.*
22.?
2?.?
*2.?
*2.2
*2.2
22.?
?2.»
22.?
22.?
22.1
22.1
22.1
22.1
2>.n
76.1
75.5
75.?
71.7
71.2
>3.7
73.3
73.?
72.7
72.7
72.5
72.5
72.3
72.3
72. 3
72.5
7?.?
72.?
72.ft
72.1
72. >
72.0
72.0
72.1
71.8
71.P
71.9
71.7
71.S
pr«c.
INC^.
**,5
*1.5
11.5
11,5
*1.5
**.5
**,5
*4.5
, 5
*1.5
*1.*
11.5
11. •?
**~5
*1.5
*i.s
*1.5
**.5
*4.s
*4.S
**.5
**.5
**.5
**.5
*'+.5
**.5
44.^
SgDfl
34.4
37.0
33.7
*0.0
*1.1
*2.0
*2.a
*3.1
*3.9
*3.a
44.1
*1.2
*4,5
*4.5
*4,1
*4.6
**.6
*1.5
*4.6
*1.6
*1.5
**.6
**.6
*1.7
*1.9
*5.0
*1,3
*5.1
*5.3
dZT
LESLIE TOT*u
salt
15.3
16.5
17.2
17.8
16.3
IB,7
19.0
19.2
19.5
19.5
19.7
19.7
19.B
19.9
19.8
19.0
19. 8
19.8
19.9
19.9
19.B
19.9
19.9
19.9
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.1
20 .2
19.7
53.5
56.0
57.3
59,5
60.7
61.9
62.3
63.1
63.?
63.9
63. 9
Si. 4
61. 3
61.2
61.5
61.4
61.1
61.5
51.6
61.1
61.6
61.8
61.6
65.0
65.1
61.9
65.3
65.5
*ER C .
INC*.
*1.5
**.5
11.5
*1.5
*1.5
**.5
*1.5
**.5
11.5
*1.5
*1.5
*1.5
**.5
*1.5
11.5
*1.5
*1.5
*1.5
*1.5
*1.5
*1.5
*1.5
*1.5
*1.5
*1.5
*1.5
**.5
*1.5
**.5
CAWING
sBDA LESLIE TOTAL
salt
63.3
6?.8
62.5
62.1
61.7
61.3
61.0
60.8
60.*
&0.5
60.3
60.3
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.0
60.0
59.9
59.9
60.0
59.9
59.8
59.9
59,7
59.7
59.8
59.ft
59.5
23.4
23.3
23.1
23.0
22.9
22.7
22.6
22.5
22.*
22.4
22.3
22.3
22.3
22.3
22.3
22.2
22.2
22.2
22.2
22.2
22.2
22.2
22.2
22.2
22.1
22.1
22.1
22.1
22.0
86. 7
86. 1
85.7
85.2
81.6
81.1
83,6
83,1
8?. 9
B?.9
B2.6
82.6
82.4
82.1
ftp, 4
82.4
82.3
82.3
52.1
82.2
82.3
«2.l
82.0
82.1
81.9
81.8
82.0
81.7
81.6
PE*C
INC'
37.0
37,0
37.0
37.0
37.0
37.0
37,0
37.0
37,0
37.0
37.0
37,0
37,0
37,0
37,0
37.0
37.0
37.0
37.0
37,0
37,0
37,0
37,0
37.0
37.0
37.0
37,0
37,0
37.0
C^^PyTCa RELATIVE T3XICITT C3NCENT1? f\TI DNS
LESLIE DISCHARGE INTO DP 31.S8DA INTO D?3l
1995
SEGMENT *33a
30
17. p
31
49.3
32
*0.1
33
39.1
31
30.4
35
35, *
36
31.0
37
39.0
3d
37.n
39
26.3
1ft
30.1
11
38.1
12
35.0
13
23.3
11
?6.«
15
33.1
16
29.?
17
21.5
18
23.6
19
33.4
5ft
28.6
51
20.9
52
21.7
53
33.?
51
30.4
55
20.3
56
20.3
57
3ft.?
58
40.2
39T
LESLIE TOTflL
salt
21.3
21.9
17.9
17.1
17.1
16.0
15.1
17.3
16
11
13
17
15
10
11,
1*.
13,
9,
10,
1*.
12.
9.
9.
11
13
9,
9(
17]
17.
5
,7
,1
t
f-
.1
.7
.9
.n
,5
>9
,7
>3
.6
.B
s
0
0
ft
69.1
71.3
58.0
56.6
55
52
19
56
53,
38,
*3,
55,
50,
33.
38.
*«.
12.
31.t
31
48
11
30
31
in
41,
29«
29,
*5.
58.
*»E^C.
INCR.
*4
14
14
44
44
14,
*4,
*1,
41,
**,
44,
44,
*1.
11.
44.
44.
14.5
44
*4
*1
*4
*1,
*1,
**,
*4,
**.
*1.5
14.5
14.5
.5
,5
.5
.5
,5
,5
5
5
5
5
5
,5
~ 5
.5
,5
,5
.5
5
5
5
SSOA
11,2
*5.6
36.7
35.7
35.0
32.6
30.7
35.5
33.7
23.2
26.9
54.6
31.7
20.3
23.3
30.1
25.8
16.6
20.6
29.8
25.3
16.1
16.8
29.6
2&. a
17.5
17.6
33.2
31.8
«
-------
0
1
to
«UTE3 RELATIVE TOXICITY CONSENT =*AT I OMS
LESLIE DISCHARGE INTO 0? 31
4 • Q
5, *
3.*
3. 3
1 . ?
LESLIE
TOT^L
Dr^:.
S3JA
LESLIE
TOHl
°E9c.
SgOA
LESLIE
TOTAL
per:
5flLT
IMC*.
salt
INC*.
salt
INC*
*.7
?R.3
44.5
16.9
7,5
29, 9
99.5
23.5
9.7
32.2
37,0
*.?
26,<*
UK, 5
16.0
7.1
23, 1
99. 5
22.3
5.2
30. 5
37. 0
16.*
*4. 0
44. «.
32.9
14.6
97.5
99.5
95.6
16.9
6?.5
37.0
*.1
?9 . 7
IT
17.0
7.9
25.7
99,5
29.7
9,1
3.3,9
37.0
27.q
44.5
16.6
7.9
29,1
99. 5
23.2
B. 6
31. A
37,0
7.?
23.4
*'¦+. 5
13.9
6,2
20.2
99,5
19.5
7.2
26.7
37.fi
IS.9
M.A
ir
31.3
13. 9
95,3
99,5
93.1
15.9
59. 0
37.n
U.7
3«.n
44 , S
2?, 8
10.1
33.0
99,5
31.6
11.7
9 3.3
37,n
».n
26.1
99. 5
15.6
6.9
22.6
99,5
21.7
9.0
29.7
37.0
=•.7
?1.T
99, 5
13.0
5, B
10.R
99,5
18,1
6.7
24 , fl
37,0
It*.?
96,t
94,=i
2R.1
12.5
90.6
49,5
3ft, 3
19,?
5?. 6
37.0
11.4
37.0
9 9.5
22.5
10.0
32,?
99.5
3o. e
11.*
92.2
37,0
5.6
IB.?
4 9.*
11.0
9.9
15,9
99,5
15.1
5, •
?0.7
37.0
5. 1
16.6
4 u. 5
10.0
9.9
19.5
99.5
13.8
5.1
IB. 9
37,0
11. A
3A , 4
>41* . *>
23. 5
10.9
33.9
99,5
31.9
11.9
93, R
37,0
7.*
J>9 .«
49 .5
1*5.6
*.9
22,6
99.5
20.6
7.6
20.3
37.0
<4 , 9
14,?
49,5
ft.?
3.9
12.7
99.5
11.«
9.4
16.2
37,0
5,6
1*.1
94.*
12.1
5.9
17,5
99. *
15.1
5.6
20.7
37. 0
4.4
14.3
9'i .e.
9.5
4.2
13,7
49.5
11.9
9 . 9
16.3
37#n
? . 5
8.3
94.5
5,5
2.9
a. r>
99.5
6,9
2.5
9.5
37, 0
?.*
°.3
94.*
5,5
2.9
0.0
99.5
6.9
2.5
9.5
37#f)
4, *
1 3. *
•* 9, 5
9,9
9.1
13.6
99.5
11.6
9.3
15.9
37,0
3.1
10.*
49.
6.9
3.1
10.1
99.5
0,6
3.1
11.B
37,n
>,0
6,7
4 9 . S
'*.5
2.0
6.5
99.5
5,6
2.0
7.6
37, 0
2.2
7.1
9^.5
9.3
2.1
7,0
99.5
5.9
?.2
P.l
37, n
1.7
5.6
44. 5
3.9
1.7
5.5
99.5
9.6
1.7
6. 9
3 7,0
1.*
5.1
94.5
3,9
1.5
5.0
99.5
9.?
1.5
5.8
37,0
1."
9.«
49.«,
3.2
1.9
9.7
99, 5
9.0
1.9
5,4
37, 0
ft.7
2,*
tu.s
1.6
0.7
?. u
99.5
2.1
0.7
2.9
37. ft
CLOUTED RELATIVE TOXICITY CDMCE^T^ATIDNS
LESLIE DISCHARGE 1NTD dp 31.S3DA mo DP31
1995
W *ET CANNING
0E S * E v! T
L-^LTE
Tc>T/a
p-^c.
SBDA
LESLIE
TOTfiL
=>ER;.
S3DA
LESLIE
TDTAL
pERC 1
*ALT
INIC9.
S<
1SC9.
5AlT
r^'
Pn
?.*
1.5
4. ft
4-4.5
2.7
1.2
3. 9
9 9,5
3.3
1. ?
4.6
37,0
9=»
?.1
n,3
3. ft
94.5
2.0
0.9
3.0
99,5
2,5
0.9
3.9
37,0
9p
1 .9
0.
2.1
4 4,5
1.9
n.s
2.0
49,*
1.7
0. r
2.9
37,?
93
1.9
2.1
4 9,5
1.9
0.6
2.0
9 9,5
I.7
D.o
2.9
^7,0
9?
1.1
i.R
1 . 6
9 9.5
1.1
0.5
1 .6
49,^
1.3
0.*
1 .6
37.n
93
0.5
-5.?
0.7
94.5
ft.5
p. 2
o.«
99,5
n.6
il.2
0,3
37, 0
99
0.1
n.o
0.2
99 , *
O.i
n,n
0,2
99,5
0,2
0.0
n. 3
37.0
95
P.6
n. ?
fl . 9
4 4.5
P.5
0,2
o.p
99 . 5
0.7
0.?
1.0
37.n
96
0.3
0.1
0.*
49,5
0.3
0.1
0.*
99.5
0.9
0.1
n,5
37,0
97
0.*
n, ?
0.7
94,5
0.5
0.2
0,o
99 .5
0.6
0.2
o.a
37,0
9a
5?.n
?3, ^
76,9
44.5
0.0
0.0
ft.O
94 . «
63,5
23.5
97.0
*7.0
99
5?.o
23. *
76.4
44.5
1.5
0.6
2.2
49,5
63,5
23,5
R7.0
37.0
100
5?,®
?3, 5
76. H
99 . *
11.3
5.0
16,3
99.5
S3.5
23,5
37.0
37.0
101
52."
23.5
76. b
94.5
20,9
9.3
30.3
9 9,5
53.5
23.5
87.0
37,0
10?
5?. n
23,5
76.9
99 ,S
29,2
13.0
92,?
99.5
63.5
23.5
97, 0
37,n
103
5?.7
'3. c
76.9
49,5
0.2
0.1
0,3
99.5
63,4
2*.5
*6.9
37.0
109
52.7
?5,*
76.?
99.5
1.5
0.6
2.?
49.5
63.9
23,5
86.9
37,0
Ifi6"
5? , 7
5 3.=.
76.?
44 ,5
1ft.5
4.7
15.3
99.5
63,4
23,5
e6.9
37,0
1.16
7
2 3. c
76.?
44 .5
18.5
9.2
26,8
44.5
63,9
23.5
*6.9
37.0
107
52.7
?3.5
76.9
94.5
22.5
10.ft
32.5
49.5
63,9
23.5
R6.9
37.n
top
5?.7
23.S
76 . 3
44.=
29,9
11.1
36,0
99.5
63.9
23.5
56.9
37.0
109
5? . 7
23.^
76.9
»'*.5
27,2
12.1
39.4
4 9.5
63.9
23.*
96.9
37.?
lift
5?.7
2^
76,?
4 9.^
29.5
13.1
42,7
9 9.5
63.9
23,5
06, 9
37.0
1)1
5?. 7
23, ^
?6.?
4 9 . 5
31 .«
14.2
46.0
4*.*
63,9
23.*
06.9
37.0
112
5? , 7
23. *
76,?
94.5
33.9
14.9
49.3
99 . *
63,9
23.5
86.9
37.0
113
5? , ft
23.1
75.5
44. 5
24 .1
10.7
34.9
4H.^
62.5
rs.i
85.7
37,0
114
52.0
23.5
7*.!>
94,5
32.1
14.3
96.9
99.5
62.5
23.1
05.7
37. 0
115
*?.n
?3.i
75.»
91* . S
35.7
15.9
51.6
99.5
62.5
23.1
05.7
37,0
116
52.n
23.1
75.>
49.^
37.0
16.5
53.5
99,5
62.5
23.1
7
37, ft
-------
ocoooocc&coocooct
OCCGOOCG
• •••••••*«••••••*•••»•«•
9 9 9 9 9 999 fvj<\if\i<\;(V(Vrw(\i(V(vcvJCv tr triortnnnir^iririr-^inmiririoiniririririr^tn
f u •••••••••••»••••••••••*•«
¦ aMOoirHii,i(r>cssN»(rpr. ir u if r a u- ir \t ur tr 9 9 9 * 9 ir ir
APPENDIX C
COMPLETE MODEL RESULTS OF PROJECTED
CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS
-------
o
t
to
to
CO^PUTIO C-»LORJOE CONCENTRATIONS M&/L)
LE«?l ie
HlSCHAR&F i^td
DP 26,S3DA IMTD D3 31
19&5.1995
- DRY
NJT
PnrytD!'^
LESLIE
projection incl.
PERCENT
P^OjrrT TOM
SrvLT CO.
Leslie Salt cd.
increase
3
1 r 7t+ 7 . ^
199.1
1&9i?,6
1.1
?
1^6?7.3
197.c,
1SS?0.6
1,1
3
1 A * 4 ? . 0
196. e,
1&^34.2
1.1
1
l^ltff.1
195. 5
16637.2
1.1
1*337.1
l9l.?
16527.3
1.1
f
lO30,?
l9?.9
16119.9
1.1
7
tfil»0,5
1*1.8
16329,1
1.1
P
i*ir»?.o
191 ,4
16299.2
1.1
9
1 <»oo?.5
190,?
1618*,5
1*1
IP
l£.0np.«
190,3
16191,9
1.1
11
1^957.6
1*9.7
16113.1
1,1
1?
1*95*.«
189.7
uim.s
1,1
15
15907.1
189.1
16092,3
1.1
14
l^u,6
189.1
16096.6
1.1
IS
l*9?n.fl
189.?
16105.9
1.1
If
l^ns.e
189.1
16090,6
1.1
IT
1">B91,2
J8B.9
16075,9
1.1
IP
1*892.3
168.9
16077,0
1.1
19
lsEM.2
189, if
16035,1
1.1
20
15ftf9.3
l8R.fi
16053,8
1.1
21
18fi . ?
16071.5
1.1
22
1*817.1*
l8«.1
16031.6
1.1
23
1^83*.n
188.3
16022,1
1,1
21
15*62.0
188,5
160*6.3
1.1
25
158o9,5
1&7.9
15993.2
1.1
?6
15&0«. 7
187.8
15987.9
1.1
?7
1 *826,3
188,1
16010,7
1.1
2ft
1*7*1,«»
1?1,6
15952,5
1,0
29
1 * 7 1 fl. -5
155,3
15900,9
0,9
:o*but-:d c-ildride cDMcENmTio^s (hs/li
LESLIE DISCHARGE INTO DO 26.SB3/1 1NTD D° 31
1985,1995 - DRY
SEGMENT
p^cvTn'js
LESLIE
PROJECTION l*iCL,
PERCENT
p^ojrcn™
Salt co.
LESLIE SM-T cO*
increase
3p
1*713.0
1?0,0
15851.9
0.7
31
1*693.6
123.9
15815,2
Q.7
3?
l*8*f>.3
ion.a
159S0.6
0,6
33
1*937.*
98.
16035,5
0,6
31
ls93r>.9
96.4
16027.2
0.6
35
1*97*.6
90.3
16066.3
0,5
3*
i*on<;,i
85.1
16091,%
0,5
37
l*97*f 3
97.9
16076,2
0,6
3&
1*971.1
93,0
16061,1
0.5
39
1P167,3
66. 1
16233,5
0,1
HO
16092.5
75.5
16158, fj
0,9
'+1
1*005,9
96.1
16100.3
0,6
<*2
1*020.0
8B.r>
16108.1
0,5
*3
1*211.6
58.6
16270,2
0.3
•44
l<;i1«.l
6*.3
16211.1
0.1
1603?.1
81.0
16116,3
0.5
<*6
If121,9
73.?
16195,2
0.*
17
l?-2?n.o
5i,n
15271,0
0,3
IP
lf-191 ,*
59.3
16251.1
0.3
19
1^126.^
83.9
16210,1
0,5
50
1M96.M
7?.0
16269.1
0,1
51
lf.?iu,n
52.6
16266.5
0,3
*>?
1&226.1
51.5
16291,0
0,3
53
lc.213,0
83.5
16296.5
0.5
51
lt5«l.2
76,1
16657.6
0,1
*5
1^-20*.1
*1,1
1&25<*,2
0.3
56
l«.?7j ,?
*1.1
163??,1
0,3
57
2r37o,1
96.0
?0175.1
0.1
5*
?i99*.l
101.0
22096.1
0.1
-------
C (LOR T CONCtNT^ftTlDVS M3/L)
ue^LTt MScMfvR&C IMlO D° 26,SB}* INT3 3i
19AS.1995 -
SE5*C>fT
*9
*0
*5
6?
*3
6m
*5
66
67
&9
7q
7 1
7?
73
7*
7*
76
77
79
7«»
«fl
91
9?
B?
9i»
*5
96
97
ParvTTjq
P">Ojr^T ff»*j
tflfiM
lh»3*. 1
?n25«.p
ii?6?. 5
1*0*9.a
1 3 . ^
i^Bos.e
1*1??.9
1*3**.7
17 on*,7
19201.5
1T226.7
17967.2
176*3.2
l7«*9H.e
1*929.8
17673.6
1790^.6
17*0®.6
l77i?.3
1797*.6
17265.*
1T27H.7
171«*.9
1*126.3
1712P.2
17333.?
Lr
LCstrr ^ischarse ints op 26«sboa into $x
19&5.1995 - DRY
SEGHE^T
PlEVIU'S
LESLIE
P3OJECTI0M 1N;L.
PERCENT
projection
Salt co.
LESLIE SHL1 CO.
in:^E»se
8ft
iron."»
7.0
17021.0
0.0
99
1701^.7
5.S
17021.0
0.0
90
1&91&.1
3.7
16919.6
0.0
'1
1S7&9.1
3.7
16773.s
0.0
"if
1&927.9
2.8
16930.5
0.0
93
1726.1.0
1.3
17269.3
0.0
91
177*0.0
0.9
17750.5
0.0
95
lf09*.6
1.5
16097.2
0.0
96
16069.9
O.B
16065.5
0.0
97
1726'.0
1.3
17269.3
0.0
9p
lfBnn.9
199.8
17003.7
i.i
99
lsB0«.9
199.3
17003.7
1.1
100
1*809.9
199. P
17003.7
1.1
101
lt80«.9
199.8
17003.7
1.1
102
1S808.9
199.8
17003.7
1.1
103
1*775.»
199.9
16970.9
1.1
109
U77S»
199.9
16970.9
1.1
105
1*775.9
199.9
16970.9
1.1
106
16775.9
l99.lt
16970.9
1.1
107
lf.775.tt
199.9
16970.9
1.1
10B
1*775.9
199.9
16970.9
1.1
109
If775.9
199.9
16970.9
1.1
110
16775.9
199.9
16970.9
1.1
111
16775.9
199.9
16970,9
1.1
112
16775.9
199.9
16970,9
1.1
115
1*5*1.1
196.6
16739.2
1.1
ll*
16591.9
196. 6
16739.2
i.i
115
16591.9
196.6
16739.2
1.1
116
1(5»1.9
l9fc.S
16739.2
1.1
0
1
N>
Co
-------
0
1
to
rtWJTETD C^tLOftlOE comcentratio^s < MG/S-1
LESLIE: DISCHARGE IMTD 3° 26.SB0« INTO Dd 31
1985»1995 - DRr
SEGMENT
PREVIOUS
LESLIE
PROJECTION IMCU
PERCENT
Pr?ojrcTiON
SALT CO.
LESLIE SftLT c3»
incase
117
1654;>.0
196.6
167S4.2
1.1
IIP
1&230.7
192.9
16*19,*
1.1
119
1*230.7
192,9
1 &*+l 9.«*
1.1
120
J S??n.7
192,9
16*19.*
1.1
121
1&223.R
192,9
16*12.*
1.1
12?
16223.8
192,8
16*12.*
1.1
123
1*223.8
1 92. 0
16*12,*
1.1
124
1*223.3
J92.B
16*12.*
1.1
125
1*223.8
192.S
16*12.*
1.1
126
1*905.8
189.1
16090.6
1.1
127
1*905.9
189,1
1609Q.6
1.1
X 28
l59n?,R
189.1
16090,6
1.1
129
189.0
16089.3
1*1
130
15904.*
189.0
16089.3
1.1
131
l*9ou,5
3 89,0
16089.3
1.1
13?
1*904,5
189.0
16089.3
1.1
133
1^904,5
189.0
16089.3
1.1
13*
15904.5
189.0
16089.3
1.1
135
1*638.2
188.3
16022.3
1.1
136
1*838,2
188.3
160??.3
1.1
137
1^>B3R,3
18fl. 3
16022.3
1.1
138
1585ft.*
188.3
16022.3
1.1
13*
1*858.3
188.3
16022.3
1.1
1 «f 0
1600*,*
190.3
16192.5
1,1
r+i
1&006.4
190.3
16192.5
1.1
COMPUTED C^LOPTOE COMCENTR&TlOMS C«IS/L»
LESLIE
nIS-HflRGC I^TO
D° 2&.SB3A INT3 D* 31
19*5,1995
- XET
SEGwE^T
picvnus
L^SLIC
PROJECTION ImCl.
PE*CEsjT
pr>fljrcTrriM
SaLT c^.
LESLIE SaLt c3.
INCASE
1
^0^9.6
134,1
9l*l.*
1.*
?
?68<».0
1*4 .?
9BJ9.8
1.*
3
mm?.7
151 .1
10296.?
1.4
*4
ln4-7e,.]
136.0
10629.5
1,4
q
Jn7f,<>.7
160.4
10927.3
1.*
C
ln99*.5
163.7
11156.*
1.*
7
ll?0A.P
166. 9
1137?.8
1.*
a
11
168.1
11*53.1
1,*
11*8*.1
171.1
11656.. 3
1.*
If)
11471.1
170.8
11639.0
1.*
11
11 5M.9
172.2
11735.?
1.*
1?
1156*.4
17?.?
11735.7
1.*
13
1 1 667,8
173.7
11039.6
1.*
14
1164^.4
175.5
11819.9
1.*
1*
11 6?9. 8
173.2
11799.0
1.*
16
11 6 74 .. 9
173.9
118*5.9
1.*
17
11 673, 3
173.9
118**.l
1.*
19
It66«!i»n
173.7
11836.8
1.*
19
11 S 0 7 . 3
171.0
11850.4
1.*
20
tl693.0
5 74,1
11955.1
1.4
2l
1166<>,1
173,°
11839.9
1.4
2?
H 6«»*.7
174 , ?
11867.9
1.4
23
11 7 3*. 1
174.8
11907.9
1.*
24
H70?.9
374.3
11875.?
1.*
25
11 77?,f,
375.^
1194S.9
1, *
26
117*4,3
175.5
11956.8
1,*
? 7
117*9.*
174.0
1191 * . *
1.*
?n
11919.9
163,0
11979.3
1, J
2"
1*4.7
1201?.3
1.2
-------
EG«EN
50
Si
32
33
3*
35
36
37
SB
39
*0
*1
*3
44
45
46
17
»e
-------
0
1
to
05
C-jLORlD^ c
oncent^ations IMG/L)
lESLIT
^1S^HaR^E INTO
Dp 26«S33A INTO D=» 31
1935,1995
- rtET
Bpri/i nil*?
LISLIF.
projc-ti™ in:l.
descent
Pp>0 JfpT j
Salt ca.
Leslie salr c:>.
increase
Bfl
U773.1
ft. 9
11730,0
0.0
39
1u9?o,9
?.2
11931.1
0.0
9n
Iuf71#D
3,5
11671.&
o.u
n
Iii7ri4,3
3.6
ii7ofl.a
0.0
9?
1u9«7.7
2,9
11990.6
0.0
9.3
1*619.7
1.1
15621.1
0. 0
94
lfcSn.l
0.4
1&5Y5.9
0.0
95
i***i*. n
1.4
1399n.4
0, .
9&
lylo®,?
0. ?
11110.5
0,0
37
1 . '4
15621.1
0.0
9«
16.*>
0.2
16.7
1.1
99
10^.1
6.0
nuo
1.1
100
P967.fi
14.2
3011.1
1.*
101
E49?#«S
*1.?
5572.9
1.1
\0?
765S.1
111.3
77^7.2
1.1
10?
6?.7
0.9
63.6
1.1
104
5.9
10 * . 1
1.1
105
?77t .«
11.2
2«1?.1
1,1
106
•~85?,1
72.2
1921.1
1.1
107
*09?,2
ft7.7
597ft.1
l.f
to?
ft 5 ? 9 , 1
97.1
6617.9
1.1
\0<*
7l?"»q
106.3
7243 .1
1.1
110
115.3
7A5&.7
1.1
111
P337.1
121.1
3159.1
1.1
11?
*747,6
130.2
9675.6
1.1
113
*32*.3
9«f.2
6120.9
1.1
in
Ml
] 25,3
8537.0
1.1
115
e3«SA,«S
139.3
9193.5
1.1
116
^695.7
111.1
9840.6
1.1
COMMUTED C4LO*tS£ CONCENTRATIONS <*&/D
LESLlFT
DISCHARGE IMT0
DP 26.S3SA INTO D5 3j
1
1995,1995
- WET
SECEMT
ptev/tous
L£SUE
pR3jEcTICJ^ in:l.
PERCENT
p?»ojrcT!OM
Salt co.
ue^lie salt cd.
T^EaSE
117
99?9,7
117.9
10Q75.fl
1.1
11?
*11?.?
91.0
6204.7
1.1
119
•in^a. ]
135.5
9231.3
1.1
1?0
1 <\lS24?#2
33.3
2275.0
1.1
12?
"y39.fl
*i.o
5*>19,1
1.1
1 2 3
7177,9
111.3
7557,3
1.1
121
1*0. 4
9567.6
1.1
125
1 ''60?. 5
*57.9
1075«.7
1.1
126.
*0*3.3
75.2
5127.3
1.1
127
1*24*.6
le>2,f
10390.7
1.1
1??
1135^.0
169,1
11521.3
1.1
129
6
in.2
695.7
1.1
I3n
ul??.9
61.4
1193.2
1.1
151
"r?7t>,9
1 OR. 3
7379,1
1.1
132
t nl 5<»,n
15D.P
10277.2
1.1
133
11253,2
167.$
11117.9
1.1
l3l
115?*»n
171.6
11691.7
1.1
13*5
li216.3
167.0
113S0.5
1.1
136
1139n.3
169.S
11557.0
1.1
137
U53P.D
171.S
U7n&,9
1.1
131
1^63*.7
173.?
11909.1
1.1
139
It 7(l«.,0
171.3
11877.3
1.1
Hn
1 n*1».*
161.1
11001.6
1.1
Hi
ll13n,1
170.2
11597.1
1.1
-------
APPENDIX d
Jo" KS concentrations
z <
UJ Ul
u ec
• ••••#•••••••••••••••••••••••
ooeoeoow*-t«H«-4i^»OK)K)(ni«>^!rt*»KHf|iC10K)iOlf)»
• •••••••¦•••••••••••••••••••a
ccc.ccoccococooococcocccecioc.co
r>HCCOQCC<
ccjccc-cccccr-cc. ccccccc
a o o o t
»••••••••
'COCCOOOOC
>ec:coeocooc.
'IfvONtfirCriMOfflftfM
C-277
-------
0
1
to
<1
00
r0wrvitr-) DISSOLVE?
oxysen DEFICIT C0MC-:
NT**TI3NS
< *G/L>
LESLIE DlsC
HftRGE INTO
OP 26.S3DA
IMTO 31
1995 -
ORY
pehc
SET,vrNT
S3?A
WA^SH
30TT0M
OTHER
LESLIE
total
lh<\3
-vE^A^O
STP
salt co.
deficit
increase
30
0. M
n.5?
0.^6
0.25
0.02
1.50
1.49
31
0. M
p. *5 J
0.41
0.25
0.02
1.57
1.55
3?
0. ??
0.55
0.45
0.22
0.01
1.47
1 ,01
5 ?
0,?4
r.. 4 ?
0,49
0.27
0.31
1.46
1.10
3u
0.?4
n. *»b
0.49
0.30
0.01
1.50
1.10
35
0.?1
0.44
0.49
0.31
0.01
1.47
1.00
36
o. i o
o.64
0.40
0.2fc
0.01
l.feo
0.71
37
0.23
n. 41
0.50
0.24
0.01
1.41
1.03
3!*
0.23
0.44
0.49
0,30
0.01
1.50
1.03
39
p.n
C.32
0.50
0. 34
0.00
1.30
0.52
4n
0 „ 1 "»
0.67
0.5(1
0.29
0.00
1.63
0.53
"~J
0.21
0.45
0.50
0.22
0.01
1.41
0.91
14?
0,??
0.42
0.51
0.31
0.01
1.49
0.94
4 *
0 . ft*
r.25
0.50
0. 3 4
0.00
1.19
0.36
*4 4
p. no
0.5ft
0.40
0.26
0.00
1.42
0.3ft
4^
0,16
0.37
0.51
0.24
0,00
1.50
0.74
46
0.15
0.3?
0.5?
0.31
0.00
1.33
0.69
4 7
O.oft
0.19
0.50
0.32
0.00
1.08
0.27
<~0
0. Oft
0.3*
0.4*
0.24
o.oo
1.14
0.26
u o
0.1*
0. 36
0.50
0.21
0.00
1.24
0.6"
5p
0.1"
n.30
0.53
0.30
0.00
1.2B
0,6?
51
0.0s-
p.16
0 . 5f
0.2B
0.00
1.01
0.25
*2
0. ni»
r.2?
0.^9
0. 23
0.00
1.00
0.21
53
0.13
0%3®j
0.5p
0.19
0.00
1.20
0,61
54
0.13
0.3?
O.M
0.25
n.oo
1.25
o.*ft
55
0 . P 4
n. 1 4
0. 40
0.26
0.0 0
0.95
0.23
5ft
o.n*
f| , 1 K
0.51
0.22
0.00
0.93
0 ,la
*i 7
p. u
0.31
0.56
o. ?o
0.00
1.20
0.49
SO
0.1*
0 . 3*
0.66
0.29
0.00
l.M
0.53
r0v».;Tr-5 OXYtjE'-J DEFICIT CONC E^TO 6 T 1 DNS t *G/L )
LESLIE DlSJMASGr INTO D° 26.S30A IXTO 31
1995
- ORY
^ESvfNJT
S3TA
BOTTOM
OTHr^
-E5LIE
TOTAL
^CE'
LnO
!)E«A\lD
ST»
SaLT CO.
deficit
INCR"<
59
0. n 3
ft. 11
0.45
0.20
0.00
0.B5
0.21
6P
0 . P 2
0.00
0.51
0.17
0.00
O.BO
0.15
61
n. ^ h
p.? 4
0.50
0.14
0.00
0.99
0.42
62
0.**
P . 1 4
0.33
0.10
0.30
0.64
0.42
6?
C. P 3
n.ii
0.49
0.19
o.oo
0.*3
0.20
s4
0 . n 1
ft . 0*
0.57
0.15
0.00
0.9 0
O.OO
65
C.r6
r.i9
0.4O
0.12
0.00
0.88
0.35
66
0 . ft®1
0.15
0.44
0.10
o.oo
0.75
0.32
67
O.n?
o. no
0.47
0.22
0.00
o.si
0.16
O.OJ
0.04
0. 61
0.19
0.00
0.&5>
0.07
69
n. •"»«
n. 1 5
o.5n
0.10
0.00
0.91
0.27
70
O.nu
P.13
0.49
0.13
0.00
0.90
0.24
71
0. 'U
P.03
0.47
0.30
o.oo
0.92
0.06
7?
C . r 0
1.02
0.59
0.27
0.30
0.99
0.03
73
0 .
ft.C9
0.51
0.12
0. *)0
0.76
0.17
74
C.*l
ft. 0*
n.4?
0.25
o.on
0.79
0.10
75
0. nn
P.01
0.44
0.37
0.00
0.84
0.03
76
0 » IT-
ft. 33
0.4i«
0.35
0.00
0.*5
0.0*
77
p.''
^.0?
P.<*1
0.44
r.oc
n.se
0.0?
7*
r# M
P. CI
n ,34
0.5ft
0.00
p.96
0.01
7*
O.*"1
n.0n
0. 4 P
0.21
o.oo
0.62
C.03
?n
r. --o
r.02
0.«»4
0 . n 4
0.03
0.91
0.03
SI
P.pn
n.oi
0. 34
P.M
o.oo
0.^7
0,0?
8?
o.nr-
P.01
0.25
0.54
o. on
0. PI
O.Pl
o, PP
p. c l
n.?4
0. *>2
0. po
0.7P
n.oi
?u
0.
ft. rft
r.2o
0.*?
P.00
0.73
0.01
95
ft . ft P
^ 0
o.ls.
n.*0
p. } *
0.^9
0.01
9ft
0.nr>
n. Oft
o.U
n. 4 *
o. on
0.65
0.01
*7
p.ftft
ft, p n
O.o?
0.24
0. c o
0.27
0.00
-------
Dxrsrv DEFICIT CONCi
^T^TJIWS lv&/k
)
' \z*iir
nicc-f/isfGr into
0* 2<,.S3:>*
INT? 31
1995 •
• DR f
NT
imn«
-ES.U
total
»E9C"NT
"jf *« v?
STP
SftLT Ct>.
DEFICIT
9»
P.^n
" • 0 a
n.i?
0 . * 9
P. 00
0.61
0 .PI
s*
p.*"
" ,0'
p.lf»
n.3s
P. DO
D. *7
0.01
90
o^n
P.OP
n.n?
C.?l
P.00
n.23
o.co
91
p.rtP
".on
H.Tfi,
P.?5
r». oo
0.35
0.C1
9?
p.*p
*.00
p .P5
0.**
0.00
0,28
0.01
9*
o.*r
P.OP
p.o?
p.l?
0.00
0.19
0.00
9*
O.^P
«.0f
P . P 3
n.n*
P.00
0. 05
0.00
9*
O.ftP
r>,OP
O.P?
p.l*
p.0t>
0.17
O.PO
9*
0.*^
*.0C
P.01
P.P3
P. DO
O.IG
0.00
97
a,<*p
r»,oa
3.11
0.0ft
0.00
0.09
o.oc
9*
0.*0
? .03
o.?o
O.no
o.oo
2.?3
0.00
**
c.rp
0.09
0.00
0.00
3.3*
0.00
100
o.np
0.2*
0.00
0.0 "J
*.79
0.0ft
101
o.ro
«.*7
0.29
o.oo
0.00
5.17
0.01
10>
o.oo
*,79
0.59
o.oo
0.30
* .18
0.01
103
0."fl
«.73
1.0*
0.00
0.00
6.78
0.00
10*
o.oo
u,6?
0.98
0.00
0.00
5.61
0.00
105
o.«o
J>.*8
0.75
o.oo
0.00
3.2*
0.00
106
o.no
1.91
0.7©
ft. 00
0.00
2.62
0.01
107
0.**P
1.63*
0.**
o.oo
0.00
2.27
0.01
10*
n.pn
1.50
0.5*
o.no
0.00
2.0*
0.0?
10'
0.*P
1.**
v C.*9
o.co
o.oo
1.93
0.02
Ho
o.*o
1.92
0.**
Q .00
0.00
1.86
0.03
ill
1>.«0
1 .*3
0.*0
0.00
0.00
1.8*
0.03
li?
0.^0
).*5
0.57
0.00
0.00
1.83
0.0*
lis
0««0
1.50
0.*3
0.00
Q.QQ
2.5*
0.03
111
0.«0
1.20
0.6*
o.oo
0.00
1.85
0.05
11^
> .OH
0.*p
0.00
o.oo
1.5*
0.07
lie.
0.^0
J .01
0»*3
0.00
0,00
1.96
0.09
rO»njTfr> OlsSILVSI OXTsEY SEFtClT CONCENT'UTia'JS <*G/L)
LESLIE DISCHARGE INTO OP 26,S3D<» INTO 31
1995
-OR r
^&*ENT
SRDfl
«A9SH
^0TT3*
OTHC*
LESLIE
total
PERCENT
tnfto
->E#A\lD
ST»
SfttT CO.
DEFICIT
iMCR=:*se
117
O.nn
0%«7
0.90
0.00
0.00
1.38
0,11
118
O.PO
7.87
0.05
0.00
0.00
7.93
o.oo
119
o.nn
<~.*7
0.?*
P.00
0.00
5.2*
0.03
] 2p
O.P?
3 .90
P.3«
0.00
0.00
2.31
0.1S
121
O.nO
n. 77
0.99
0.00
0.00
1.76
0.00
122
O.Pf*
1.01
1.61
o.co
0.00
2.63
o.oi
123
O.no
n.5i
0.93
o.no
0,00
1.95
0.08
12*
O.ol
0.3*
0.5?
0.00
0,00
0.93
0.38
12*
0.03
0.37
0.*2
0.00
0.00
0.85
0.73
126
o.no
S.28
0.0?
0.00
0.00
5,32
0,02
127
o.r?
l.K?
0.26
o.oo
3.00
1,93
0.27
12P
0.07
1.56
o.*i
0.02
0,01
2.08
0.59
129
o.oo
6.59
0.00
0.00
o.oo
6.60
0.01
130
o.nn
ft.6*
0.01
0.00
0.00
6.66
0.02
131
n.ci
«».oe
0.05
0.00
0.00
6.16
0.0*
13?
e.o*
*.83
0.3?
o.oi
0.00
5.22
0.13
153
0.09
?.J9
0.59
0.03
0.D1
2.9*
0.51
13*
0.1*
1 .2*
0.50
0* 05
0.02
2.01
1.05
155
0.13
0.65
0.3*
0.0*
0.32
1.21
1.75
13*
0.15
0 .6*
0.37
0,05
0.02
1.25
1.8'A
137
0.1«
n.f?
0.39
0,07
0.02
1.28
2.03
13*
0.?ft
n.6o
0.38
0.09
0,02
1.31
2, ?1
139
0.93
0.57
0.37
0.10
0.03
1.31
2,30
190
n.o7
3.70
C.*0
0.0?
0.01
1.2?
1.05
1*J
O.in
0.51
0.37
0.03
0.01
1.0*
1.60
o
-------
Bechtel Corporation
San Francisco, California
REVERIFICATION ANALYSIS OF THE
SAN FRANCISCO BAY
WATER QUALITY MODEL
By:
HYDROSCIENCE, INC.
363 Old Hook Road
Westwood, New Jersey 0767S
June 1978
mm
June 20, 1978
Ms. Carol Harper
Bechtel Corporation
P. 0. Box 3965
San Francisco, CA 94L19
Re: Reverification Analysis of the San Francisco Bay Water Quality
Model
Dear Ms. Harper:
We are pleased to transmit herewith a draft of our report entitled,
"Reverification Analysis of the San Francisco Bay Water Quality Model."
The report summarizes engineering studies which were conducted to re-
calibrate and verify the existing model of South San Francisco Bay and
the contiguous waters of small tidal creeks and sloughs. Data collected
by E.H. Smith g Associates during 1977 was analyzed to accomplish this
work.
The three principal results of this study are summarized as follows
1. An analysis of data collected by E.H. Smith 5 Associates as
part of the current study permitted significant improvements in
estimates of model coefficients which were employed in recalibrat-
ing and verifying the model. In particular, long term BOD data
provided measurements of carbonaceous and nitrogenous BOD reaction
kinetics and the carbonaceous BOD ultimate to 5-day ratio. The
diffuse load survey data verified the existence of significant
carbonaceous BOD marsh loads, and showed that nitrogen uptake in
the marshes is an important factor in the nitrogen balance in South
San Francisco Bay. The benthal oxygen demand measurements were
inconclusive. On the basis of this data, the indicated model
coefficients have been adjusted and applied in recalibration of the
model against the October, 1977 conditions.
2. The calibration work using the October, 1977 data and the
adjusted model coefficients necessitated further changes in the
1975 model: marsh related loading of ammonia nitrogen were reduced
to S% of their previous values; nutrient uptake of nitrite and
nitrate in marsh areas was added to the model, and minor changes to
the models dispersive transport regime were implemented.
Benthal oxygen demands and reaeration coefficients were both
reduced to more accurately represent limited bottom demand measure-
ments collected during 1967 and to satisfy other model calibration
requirements.
HVOflOSClENCE, INC. • 363 OLD HOOK ROAD • WESTWOOO, NEW JERSEY 07675 • 201-666-2600
EMERSON. N & . WALNUT CHEEK, CALIFORNIA • KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE • ARLINGTON TEXAS
-------
Ms. Carol Harper
-2-
June 20., 1978
3. Verification of the recalibrated model using November* 1977
and June, 1967 data sets demonstrates the adequacy of the model for
evaluating two independent data sets. The verification analysis
shows good agreement between observed and computed concentrations
in all sloughs for each water quality indicator.
An analysis of the model verifications and model sensitivity
analysis results lead to four principal study conclusions. These are
summarized as follows:
J. The diffuse load surveys and the recalibration analysis verify
the conclusion of the 197S study that significant background loads
enter South San Francisco Bay and certain of its tributary sloughs
from marsh areas. The carbonaceous BOO and ammonia nitrogen loads
are estimated to be 2250 and 75 pound* per day per square mile
respectively. These loads are a major factor contributing to
existing dissolved oxygen levels in Alvlso, Mowry, and Newark
Sloughs. The model results indicate that dissolved oxygen water
quality in all other regions of the study area is dominated by
point source impacts from dischargers to the South Bay.
2. The model sensitivity analysis suggests that the primary
uncertainty in the recalibrated model is the tradeoff between
bottom demand and atmospheric reaeration in the sloughs. The
absence of reliable benthal demand estimates for 1977 is considered
to be a shortcoming of the model recalibration study, but one which
is not expected to compromise the study conclusions regarding
project *ltern*tive3.
3. Dissolved oxygen improvements will result in South San
Francisco Bay frost any of the alternative discharge scenarios
considered. However, an analysis of planning alternatives for the
South Bay Discharger Authority for 199S coining season conditions
shows that water quality standards are not expected to be satisfied
under any of the alternatives in Artesian, Alviso, Mowry, and
Newark Sloughs, and in tipper Coyote Creek. The no project alter-
natives and upgrading treatment at San Jose/Santa Clara are shown
to cause additional violations of standards in Guadalupe Slough and
on the Main Transect, No significant water quality improvements
are computed in going from the Nearest Deep Water Discharge alter-
native to the DP 31 alternative,
4. Because of the risidtmi uncertainties in the model verifica-
tion due to estimating benthal oxygen demand rates in the tidal
sloughs, an "optimistic" projection case wa* analyzed for the
following conditions:
Discharge to DP 31
1995 Canning Season Conditions
NO BENTHAL OEMANO
Ms. Carol Harper
-3-
June 20, 1978
This analysis indicates that even under "optimistic" loading
conditions, water quality standards are expected to be violated in
Artesian, Alviso, Mowry and Newark Sloughs. The principal factor
contributing to these violations is background carbonaceous loads
from marsh areas.
In interpreting these results and conclusions, the reader should be
mindful of the high nutrient (nitrogen) uptake rates measured in the
marsh areas. If the current hypothesis, that decaying vegetation is largely
responsible for marsh loads, is a viable one (as it appears to be) point
source reductions and/or relocation of nutrient loads could alter future
marsh loadings to the sloughs. This issue is beyond the scope of this
study.
May we express our appreciation to you for your continued coopera-
tion and assistance. If we can be of further assistance in interpreting
or clarifying any of the material contained in this report, we would be
pleased to meet with you.
Respectfully Submitted,
HYDRQSCIENCE, INC.
eJLA-*-
Charles L. DuJardin
Respectfully submitted
Daniel S. Szumski, P.E.
C-281
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Number
Letter of Transmittal
List of Figures i-iii
List of Tables iv
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. REVERIFICATION OF THE MODEL 2
A. Transport Verification 3
B. Dissolved Oxygen Verification 3
1. Carbonaceous BOD Verification 3
2. Nitrogen Verification 8
a) Total Nitrogen Balance 8
b) Nitrogen Component Analysis 9
3. Bottom Demand 13
4. Dissolved Oxygen Calibration ^
III. ANALYSIS OF DIFFUSE LOADING SURVEY DATA
A, Carbonaceous BOD Marsh Loads ^
Total Nitrogen Uptake in Marsh Areas 16
IV. DISCUSSION OF MODEL RECALIBRATION AND VERIFICATION 21
V. MODEL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 22
VI. EVALUATION OF REVERIFICATION IMPACTS ON 32
PROJECTION ANALYSES
REFERENCES 35
C-282
LIST OF FIGURES
Description
Rcsegmentation of South San Francisco Bay Model and
Receiving Water Sample Locations
Comparison of Observed and Computed Salinity Concentration
Survey 3 - October, 1977
Observed and Computed Salinity Concentration
Survey 4 - November, 1977
Observed and Computed Salinity Concentration
June, 1967
Typical Long Term BOD Response
Comparison of Computed and Observed Ultimate
Carbonaceous BOD - October, 1977 Calibration -
No Marsh Loads of CBOD
Comparison of Computed and Observed Ultimate
Carbonaceous BOD - October, 1977 Calibration -
including Marsh Loads
Computed and Observed Ultimate Carbonaceous BOD
November, 1977 Verification
Computed and Observed Ultimate Carbonaceous BOD
June, 1967 Verification
Comparison of Computed and Observed Total Nitrogen
October, 1977 Calibration - Nitrogen As Conservative
Comparison of Observed and Computed Nitrite-Nitrate
(Conservative), October, 1977 Calibration -
No Marsh Loads of Nitrogen
Comparison of Observed and Computed Ammonia Nitrogen
(Conservative), October, 1977 Calibration -
No Marsh Loads of Nitrogen
Comparison of Computed and Observed Ammonia Nitrogen
(Kn = 0,1/day) October, 1977 Calibration -
No Marsh Loads of Nitrogen
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (cont'd)
Figure
Number Description
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Comparison of Observed and Computed Ammonia Nitrogen
October, 1977 Calibration - Includes Marsh Loads
Observed and Computed Aomonia Nitrogen
November, 1977 - Includes Marsh Loads
Comparison of Observed and Computed N02-N0_ Nitrogen
October, 1977 Calibration
Observed and Computed NO.-HO% Nitrogen
November, 1977
Comparison of Observed Computed Total Nitrogen
October, 1977 Calibration
Observed And Computed Total Nitrogen
November, 1977
Comparison of Observed and Computed Dissolved Oyxgen
October, 1977 Calibration
Observed and Computed Dissolved Oxygen Concentration
November, 1077
Observed and Computed Dissolved Oxygen Deficit
Concentration - June, 1967
Diffuse Load CBOD Measurements
October, 1977
Diffuse Load CBOD Measurements
November, 1977
Diffuse Load Total Nitrogen Measurements
October, 1977
Diffuse load Total Nitrogen Measurements
November, 1977
Dissolved Oxygen Deficit Component Responses
October, 1977 Calibration
Carbonaceous BOD Sensitivity to Marsh Loading Rate
ii
LIST OF FIGURES (cont'd)
Figure
Number Description
29 Dissolved Oxygen Sensitivity To CBOD Marsh Loading Rate
30 Carbonaceous BOD Sensitivity to Kr
31 Dissolved Oxygen Sensitivity to Kr
32 Ammonia Nitrogen Sensitivity To Marsh Loading Rate
33 Dissolved Oyxgen Sensitivity To NBOD Marsh Loading
Rate
34 Ammonia Nitrogen Sensitivity to Kn
35 Dissolved Oyxgen Sensitivity to Kn
36 Dissolved Oxygen Sensitivity to Bottom Demand
57 Dissolved Oxygen Sensitivity To Ka
38 Projected Dissolved Oxygen Conditions No Project -
199S Canning Season
39 Projected Dissolved Oyxgen Conditions Upgrade
at San Jose/Santa Clara - 1995 Canning Season
40 Projected Dissolved Oxygen Conditions Deep Water
Discharger Alternative - 1995 Canning Season
41 Projected Dissolved Oxygen Conditions DP 31 Discharge
Alternative - 1995 Canning Season
42 •Optimistic' Dissolved Oxygen Projection DP 31 Discharge
- 1995 Canning Season
iii
C-283
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table pa*e
Number Description Number
1 Computer Ultimate Carbonaceous BOD S
Concentrations and Reaction Rates For
Receiving Water Samples - October and
November, 1977
2 Computed CBOD /CBOI>5 Ratios From Diffuse 6
Loading Monitoring Data-October and
November, 1977
3 Computed Nitrogenous Reaction Rates 11
From Long Term BOD Receiving Water Data
4 Measured Ultimate Carbonaceous BOD Loads 17
From Marsh Areas-October 1977 Diffuse Load
Survey
5 Measured Ultimate Carbonaceous BOD Loads 18
From Marsh Areas - November 1977 Diffuse
Load Survey
6 Measured Total Nitrogen Uptake in Marsh 19
Areas-October 1977 Diffuse Load Survey
7 Measured Total Nitrogen Uptake in Marsh 20
Areas - November 1977 Diffuse Load Survey
8 Computer Dissolved Oxygen Components- 23
October 1977 Survey
C-284
I. INTRODUCTION
Two previous mathematical modeling investigations have been conducted
to evaluate the water quality impacts of discharge alternatives for the
South Bay Discharger Authority. Alternatives considered during these
studies included various combinations of treatment plant upgrades and
discharge relocation.
A modeling study conducted by Hydroscience during 1972 concluded
that water quality standards could be maintained in the main body of
South San Francisco Bay for a discharge alternative which included
additional point source treatment, and relocation of the South Bay
Dischargers load to a location North of Dumbarton Bridge. Later that
same year (1972) Water Quality Standards for dissolved oxygen in the
South Bay area were revised and made more restrictive.
A second study was conducted in 197S as part of an Environmental
Impact Statement for the South Bay Discharger Authority project. This
second study had two additional constraints which were not considered in
the 1972 investigation. First, it evaluated dissolved oxygen impacts
relative to the new standards, and secondly, it investigated water
quality impacts in the small tidal sloughs contiguous to the main body
of South San Francisco Bay. This study concluded chat dissolved oxygen
water quality in the main portion of South San Francisco Bay would be in
compliance with the minimum dissolved oxygen standard of 5.0 sng/1, and
would periodically violate the 90 percentile standard at most locations.
The study also concluded that dissolved oxygen concentration in many of
the tidal sloughs is dominated by non-controllable background loads, and
would not comply with water quality objectives for any of the discharge
alternatives which were evaluated. Water quality data supported the
conclusion that significant background loads existed in the tidal sloughs.
-------
The 1975 study conclusions ver« somewhat tentative since there vere
no recent measurements to support the magnitude of the assigned background
loading to the sioughs from bottom demands and marsh loadings. Resolution
of this data deficiency was recognized as being important* because the
modeling study conclusions for many regions of the South Bay were contin-
gent upon the existance of the background loads. The present study
rcanalyses the partially verified conclusions of the 1975 study regarding
background loads.
The purpose of this study is to increase the accuracy and insure
the reliability of the I97S model by rcverifying the model coefficients
and loads using a more complete data base than was available when the
model was verified in 197S. Toward this end four intensive water quality
surveys were conducted by E.H. Smith and Associate* between August and
November, J977 to provide additional information for evaluating model
coefficients and loads. Particular attention was directed toward quantify-
ing roarsh related loadings and reaction rate constants. Revised reaction
rates arid loads developed during this study are incorporated into the
model to test its sensitivity to the South Bay Dischargers Authority
planning alternatives. Surveys 3 and 4, conducted during October and
November of 1977, collected the most complete data for these purposes.
II. REVERIFICAUON OF THE MOOEl
The intensive water quality surveys conducted by E,H. Smith 5
Associates in October and November of 1977 ware used for recalibration
of the mathematical model. All data were tidtlly translated to mean-
tide conditions. After re-calibration with the October, 1977 data sat,
the mode] was reverified with the November, J977 (Winter) and June, 19ft'
(Summer) survey period data. Model segmentation along with receiving
*ater sample locations of the 1977 surveys are shown on Figure I*
the reader is referred to the 1975 study for a description of the modej
and the 1975 model verification.
A. Transport Verification
Some minor changes in the model transport coefficients were imple-
mented as a result of the reverification effort. These changes include
increasing the longitudinal dispersion coefficients between Calvaras
Point and Dumbarton Bridge, and connecting Mayfield Slough with the Main
Bay Transect through dispersive transport. Salinity verification work
was the major criteria for these changes which aTe supported by both the
1977 and the 1967 data sets. Although the overall effect on the model
accuracy is not significant, these changes tend to improve model verifi-
cation, particularly in Mayfield Slough. Final salinity verifications
for the 1976 and 1977 data sets are shown in Figures 2 through 4.
These salinity verifications once again demonstrate the models
ability tq_ account for the various transport mechanisms responsible for
observed water quality gradients in the study area. These transport
mechanisms are: tributary and point source flow discharges, tidal
mixing, and large scale circulation patterns. Transport verifications
of this kind are important because the same mechanisms responsible for
salinity gradients in the South Bay are also responsible for the transport
of water quality variables contributing to observed dissolved oxygen
concentrations gradients.
B. Dissolved Oxygen Verification
1. Carbonaceous BOD Verification
Review of the 1975 water quality analysis indicates that carbon-
aceous BOD is a major cause of dissolved oxygen deficit in the South Bay
system. Major sources of carbonaceous BOD in that analysis included the
point source discharges from the South Bay Dischargers, other discharges
to the South Bay, and an assigned marsh loading rate. This assigned
marsh loading rate of carbonaceous BOD accounted for a significant
.5-
C-285
-------
portion of both the observed dissolved oxygen deficit and carbonaceous
BOD concentration in the sloughs. The distributed loading rate of
carbonaceous BOD was, however, estimated on the basis of limited available
data, and was assigned a magnitude which reproduced observed receiving
water concentrations. Computation of the marsh loading rate on this
basis was dependent upon the carbonaceous BOD decay rate in the model
for which no data was available.
Analysis of the long-term BOD data collected during the surveys
from September to November 1977 provides estimates of the carbonaceous
BOD reaction rate as well as estimates of the ultimate carbonaceous BOD
at each receiving water station. Long term BOD data were analyzed for
all receiving water samples, diffuse loading station samples, and point
source samples. The analysis showed that receiving water carbonaceous
BOD reaction rates for the October and November surveys averaged about
0.07/day. A 0.2/day reaction rate was assumed in the 1975 analysis.
Table 1 summarizes the receiving water ultimate carbonaceous BOD
concentrations and reaction rates for the October and November surveys.
Figure 5 displays a typical receiving water long-term BOD response. In
this Figure, total BOD is the measured BOD of an unfiltered sample;
inhibited BOD is the measured BOD of an unfiltered sample to which a
chemical agent has been added to suppress nitrification. The &0D reaction
rate, Kr> and the ratio of the ultimate BOD to the 5 day BOD were calculated
for all samples collected by E.H. Smith and Associates. The ratio of
ultimate BOD to 5 day BOD is important from a technical standpoint in
the modeling effort and is related to the BOD reaction rate, Kr.
The ultimate carbonaceous BOD to five-day BOD ratio (CBOD^/CBOD^)
for the diffuse loading data averages approximately 3.6. However, the
CBOD /CBOD^ ratio for point sources indicated an average ratio of about
1.5. For these reasons the ultimate carbonaceous BOD concentration is
used in calibrating the October, 1977 survey period. Table 2 summarizes
the CBOD^/CBOD,- ratios at diffuse loading stations while Figure 6 displays
-4-
C-286
TABLE 1
COMPUTED ULTIMATE CARBONACEOUS BOD CONCENTRATIONS (mg/1)
AND REACTION RATES (DAY-1) FOR RECEIVING WATER SAMPLES -
OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER, 1977
(DATA COLLECTED BY E.H. SMITH AND ASSOCIATES)
STATION
OCTOBER. 1977 NOVEMBER. 1977
(1) CBOD K CBOD
31-1 S.8 .04 4.6 .11
31-11 4.6 .05 3.1 .18
31-m 33.0 .03 3.S .12
20-1 4.3 .06 8.6 .12
20-11 - - 6.5 .06
20-111 5.1 .04 7.0 .09
S-I 5.7 .06 7.5 .10
8-II 6.6 .03 8.5 .09
8-III 6.6 .03 11.0 .04
4-1 18.0 .06
4-II 6.9 .07 30.0 .08
4—1II 0.8 .09 38.0 .06
1 6.7 .06 84.0 .09
104 45.0 .04 58.0 .04
118 23.0 .05 23.0 .07
120 6.3 .05
123 - - 10.0 .07
126 29.0 .02 9.S .12
128 3.1 .09 4.5 .08
130 18.0 .03 18.0 .12
133 5.1 .05 7.6 .16
137-1 3,2 -10 10.0 .06
137-11 5.5 .03 7.8 .09
137-111 1.9 .11 7.7 .04
^Refer to Figure 1, I, II, III indicate sample number
-S-
-------
TABLE 2
COKPUTED CBOD /CBOD- RATIOS
u 5
FROM DIFFUSE LOADING MONITORING DAI A
OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER, 1977
(DATA COLLECTED EY E.H. SMITH AND ASSOCIATES)
STATION-SAMPLE
NE-1
2
3
4
5
6
MO-1
2
3
4
5
6
FT-1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
CBODu/CBOD5 RATIO CB0Du/'CB005 ratio
OCIOflER NOVEMBER
2.3
2.6
2.2
3.5
2.2
5.0
8.0
3.3
5.2
3.2
A.3
4.6
4.3
3.3
2.9
2.6
3.2
1*9
2.7
3.2
2.2
2.4
2.9
2.8
2.6
4.2
3.0
2.7
4.1
4.7
2.8
3.5
3.1
2.7
4.8
3.2
4.0
2.2
1.8
6.7
3.7
3.5
5.9
3.0
6.0
5.2
-6-
the results of an October, 1977 carbonaceous BOD calibration without
diffuse loadings.
The average carbonaceous BOD reaction rate, 0.07/day, is employed
in this analysis. The data observed shown in Figure 6 is the tidally
translated receiving water data, and the average concentrations at the
diffuse loading stations. The results show that the model underestimates
ultimate carbonaceous BOD concentrations in most regions of the model,
particularly in Alviso, Mowry, and Newark sloughs where large marsh
areas exist. Thus, there appears to be another major source of BOD in
these areas. This is particularly evident when one notes that there are
no major point sources on two of these sloughs (Alviso and Mowry). it
is significant to note that the measured carbonaceous BOD concentrations
in these sloughs for both the receiving water stations and diffuse
loading stations are higher in the upstream end of the sloughs. This
implies that a loading exists near the upstream end of the sloughs, in
the vicinity of the marshes. The term marsh load, as used in this
report, is the total net load to the receiving water from marsh areas
adjacent to those waters. It includes carbonaceous and nitrogenous
materials and makes no distinction as to the principal source of the
material.
Using the observed data from October, 1977, the distributed marsh
loading rate was estimated to be about 2250 lb CBODu/mi2/day. The
calibration for October, 1977 conditions, utilizing this load, is pre-
sented in Figure 7. This loading rate was tested by applying it in
verifying the November, 1977 and June, 1967 data sets. The results are
displayed in Figures 8 and 9. The Figures show good agreement between
the computed concentrations and those observed in the physical system.
Note the continued good verification in Alviso, Mowry, and Newark Sloughs.
The ultijiate to 5-day BOD ratio for the verifications is taken from the
October, 1977 calibration.
-7-
C-287
-------
The verification analysis indicates that a consistent set of model
loadings and other coefficients favorably describe carbonaceous BOD
concentrations in the receiving water for two independent verification
periods. The reader should note that the point source response (Figure
6) in the sloughs which have no point source discharges (Alviso, Mowry,
Mayfield, and Newark slough are not dominated by point sources) shows
minimal carbonaceous BOD response. The magnitude of the discrepancy
between observed concentrations and those computed by the model for this
case is laTge, and can only be attributed to diffuse loadings within the
sloughs themselves. Section III of the report discusses the diffuse
loading survey results which confirm the conclusions of the study regarding
marsh loads,
2. Nitrogen Verification
a) Total Nitrogen Balance
The 1975 analysis of South San Francisco Bay concludes that ammonia-
nitrogen is a significant source of oxygen uptake in the system, Thus,
nitrogen reactions are, by implication, an important component of the
dissolved oxygen balance. These conclusions, however, were based on an
estimate of ammonia-nitrogen marsh loadings which was supported only
by observed ammonia nitrogen concentrations.
The 1977 surveys provide the data necessary to analyze the nitrogen
system more thoroughly. The model is used as a tool to explore the
reaction kinetics of total nitrogen and its components. By these means
a more reliable estimate of oxidiiable nitrogen loads from marsh areas
is developed. Total nitrogen is the sum of organic nitrogen, ammonia
nitrogen, nitrite nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen. The inorganic nitrogen
components are ammonia, nitrite and nitrate.
Valuable insight into the mechanisms of the nitrogen system is
gained by assuming that total nitrogen is conservative, and enters the
South Bay system from major point sources and boundary loads only. The
concentration profiles in the sloughs and main stem of the bay were
computed for this condition. The receiving water response for the
October, 1977 survey period is shown in Figure 10. A comparison of the
computed total nitrogen concentrations to the observed data leads to the
conclusion that total nitrogen is nonconservative within the system, and
that there exists within the system a mechanism responsible for the
removal of total nitrogen. This removal cannot be attributed to plant
or bacterial biomass which remains suspended in the water column because
that biomass would be included in the total nitrogen measurement as part
of the organic nitrogen component. The non-conservative nature of total
nitrogen is discussed further in Section III of this report where a
diffuse loading analysis is presented. The non-conservative behavior of
total nitrogen necessitates an analysis of the inorganic nitrogen
components: ammonia nitrogen (NH^) and the nitrogen oxides nitrite
(NO^) and nitrate (NOj).
b) Nitrogen Component Analysis
Since the major purpose of evaluating nitrogen kinetics is to
determine their impacts on the dissolved oxygen concentration, the
emphasis of this analysis is placed on evaluating the ammonia-nitrite-
nitrate balance in the estuary. Once again, valuable insight into this
balance is gained by computing the receiving water response assuming
that the nitrogen components to be conservative, and that only point
source discharges of nitrogen are present. No nitrification is assumed
in this first analysis.
The results of these computations are shown on Figures 11 and 12
foT the October, 1977 survey period. Comparison of nitrite-nitrate
computed response shown in Figure 11 and the observed data indicates
-9-
-------
that nitrite-nitrate is non-conservative. This removal of nitrite-
nitrate nitrogen from the water column might possibly be attributed to
vegetation uptake within the bay. The marsh load areas of the bay
maintain vegetation populations that could be a source of nitrite-
nitrate uptake. However, this study does not draw any conclusions
regarding mechanisms responsible for NQ^ and/or uptake other than
that these nitrogen components behave as nonconservative variables.
Section III of this report discusses this point further.
Comparison of the computed ammonia-nitrogen concentration with the
observed data (Figure 12) suggests that ammonia-nitrogen is also non-
conservative. This observation is consistent with an analysis of the
measured long-term BOD data which indicates a nitrogenous oxygen demand
throughout the bay. The non-conservative characteristics of ammonia-
nitrogen is therefore attributed to nitrification, a transformation of
ammonia-nitrogen to nitrite-nitrate nitrogen.
The analysis of long-term BOD data for the October and November,
1977 survey periods was used to compute the nitrogenous BOD (NBOD)
reaction rate. The results show an average NBOD reaction rate of 0.1/day
for both the receiving water samples and diffuse loading stations, (a
0, 2/day reaction rate was assumed in the 1975 analysis). Table 3
summarizes the results of this long term BOD analysis.
The O.l/day reaction rate was applied to ammonia-nitrogen. The
computed ammonia concentrations are compared to the October, 1977 data
in Figure 13. The model indicates that a small diffuse loading of
ammonia to the system is required to account for the ammonia nitrogen
deficit in Figure 13. The computed concentration in sloughs which are
not affected by point sources such as Alviso and Mowry Sloughs are lower
than the observed data. Newark Slough shows a more favorable comparison.
However, Newark Slough has a smaller total marsh area than Alviso or
Mowry Sloughs, and the marsh area is concentrated near the mouth of the
slough.
-10-
TABLE 3
COMPUTED NITROGENOUS REACTION RATES
YROM LONG TERM BOD RECEIVING WATER DATA
(DATA COLLECTED BY E,H. SMITH AND ASSOCIATES)
receiving water
STATION
31-1
31-11
31-1II
20-1
20-11
20-1II
8-1
0-11
8-III
4-r
4-II
A-tTI
1
104
118
120
123
126
128
130
133
137-1
137-11
137-111
(U
OCTOBER SURVEY
K (1/DAY)
.08
,05
.12
.05
.08
.07
.06
.07
.14
.13
.07
.16
• U
.06
.13
,09
.10
.18
.11
NOVEMBER SURVEY
Kn(l/DAY)
.26
.08
.03
.04
.10
.07
.06
.07
Refer to Figure 1
.10
-11-
-------
The model was employed as a tool to determine that the ammonia
nitrogen marsh load is approximately 75 lb NH^-N/mi^/day. This loading
rate is 5% of the loading rate as^^imed in the 1975 study, and is based
on long term BOD data analysis and a more complete analysis of the
nitrogen reactions in South San Francisco Bay. The reason for the
favorable ammonia nitrogen calibration of the 1975 model is attributed
to the higher loads and reaction rate employed in that work (compare
Figures 12 and 13).
The marsh loading rates for ammonia-nitrogen may be checked further
from stoichiometric relationships between nitrogen and carbon in marine
plants. Previous studies have estimated that 0.7 to 4.0% of the total
dry weight of aquatic weeds is nitrogen ^ and that approximately 45%
(2)
of the total dry weight is carbonv . Assuming that carbonaceous BOD
oxidizes £o CO^, one can show that 2.67 grams of oxygen are consumed in
completely oxidizing 1.0 gram of plant carbon. Based on the above
assumptions, the CBOD^ to nitrogen ratio may range from 30:1 to 170:1.
These estimates are probably high because some of the carbon in the
biomass is not oxidizable. The comparable ratio developed from the
carbonaceous BOD and ammonia nitrogen diffuse loading rate (2250 #CBQD/
day-mi^, 75#NH3-N/day-mi^) is 30:1. Although this calculation is crude
and may vary depending upon the type of marine vegetation, it does give
credibility to the ammonia nitrogen diffuse loading rates calculated for
the Bay Area, and shows consistency between the nitrogen and carbon
loads from the marsh areas.
Figure 14 displays the ammonia nitrogen calibration for the October,
1977 survey period. This calibration employs the 0.1/day nitrification
rate and a diffuse marsh loading rate of 75 lb NH^-N/mi^/day. The
November, 1977 ammonia nitrogen verification is displayed in Figure 15.
Again, it indicates good agreement between computed and observed concen-
trations in all regions including areas which have large marsh areas.
-12-
C-290
Previous results indicated the existence of a removal mechanism for
nitrite-nitrate in the system (Figure 11). In performing final calibra-
tions of the nitrite/nitrate system, uptake kinetics had to be included
in the model to reproduce the observed concentrations from the October
survey period. The calibration also included nitrification and its
associated production of N02 and N0^. The rate constants for nitrite-
nitrate removal developed during the October calibration remained constant
in subsequent verifications, while the nitrification rate was temperature
corrected between survey periods. Calibration of the observed nitrite-
nitrate nitrogen concentrations for October, 1977 is shown on Figure 16.
The November verification for NO^NOj is displayed in Figure 17.
The total nitrogen (Total N * Organic + Ammonia + NO^ + N03}
calibration and verification which includes all loads and reaction
mechanisms discussed in this Section is shown on Figures 18 and 19. The
good agreement between the model computation and the observed data adds
to the credability of a model which contains these loads and reaction
mechanisms. It is especially noteworthy that each of the principal
nitrogen components has also been calibrated against the October data
set and verified against the November data set.
3. Bottom Demand
The field surveys proposed for this study were scheduled to analyze
approximately 30 bottom demand samples throughout the South Bay area.
However, only three locations were actually sampled. The results of
these analyses indicated benthal oxygen uptake x-ates of 0.1 gms/m2-day
or less. The accuracy of these measurements is questionable. Conse-
quently, no useful bottom uptake information was available to update the
information contained in the 1975 model. Therefore, a conservative
position has been assumed in the present model where the bottom demand
2
is estimated to be 1.0 gm/M -day in all sloughs. This assumption is
supported by the 1967 field survey data collected in South San Francisco
Bay.
-13-
-------
It should be pointed out that the 1975 study indicates the bottom
demand to be a relatively large portion of the total deficit response in
some areas, particularly the sloughs. Bottom demand could, therefore,
be a more important factor with regard to the total dissolved oxygen
balance than is indicated in this study. This point is discussed further
in th© sensitivity section (V) of this report.
4. Dissolved Oxygen Calibration
The total deficit profiles in the receiving waters of South San
Franciso Bay were computed for the October, 1977 survey periods using:
2
the computed distributed (marsh) loading rates of 2250 lb CBOD/mi /day
and 75 lb NH^N/mi^/day, a carbonaceous BOD reaction rate of 0,07/day; a
nitrification rate of 0.1/day and estimate bottom demands. Oxygen
saturation was determined from observed salinity and temperature
measurements^3'. The calculated dissolved oxygen was then checked
against observed data and was found to be higher than the measured
concentrations. Reaeration rates in the model were then reviewed to
determine whether they should be adjusted.
The review showed that surface transfer coefficients (K^) in the
1975 model were approximately 10 ft/d&y which is at the upper limit for
this coefficient in estuaries. Previous studies have evaluated transfer
coefficients in estuaries as a function of wind speed. These
studies have shown to range from about 2 to 15 ft/day with approximately
754 of the values below 10 ft/dsy^4K Thus a lower value of was
warranted.
The trsnsfeT coefficients were adjusted in order to reproduce the
1977 dissolved oxygen data for the October, 1977 survey. The
values vere reduced in the sloughs *nd the lower portions of the South
Bay to 6.0 ft/day and as low as 2,0 ft/day in tfewark and Mowry sloughs.
These oxygen transfer coefficients are consistent with rates in other
-14-
estuarine systems The model response for dissolved oxygen during
the October, 1977 survey period is shown in Figure 20. The reaeration
coefficients were subsequently tested in verification of other survey
periods.
All changes in loading rates and reaction rates discussed thus far
were then applied to the November, 1977 and June, 1967 survey conditions.
Verification of the dissolved oxygen model for these periods is displayed
in Figures 21 and 22. The model shows good agreement between the observed
data and the calculated response.
III. ANALYSIS OF DIFFUSE LOADING SURVEY DATA
The diffuse loading survey data was analyzed to determine if two
conclusions of this study could be substantiated by independent measure-
ments. These conclusions are: 1) that carbonaceous BOD loads originate
from diffuse sources within the sloughs tributary to South San Francisco
Bay, and 2) that the uptake of total nitrogen within marsh areas indicated
in Section II.B.2.a and II.B.2.b is justified. It should be noted that
the term "marsh load" is descriptive of the total load from marsh areas
including decaying vegetation and any other sources of CBOD and ammonia
nitrogen within the marshes.
The field work conducted as part of this study collected long term
BOD data and nitrogen data at two hour intervals over a tidal cycle on
three sloughs: Mowry, Newark, and Faber Tract. Each has marsh areas
upstream of the sampling location. The data were analyzed to determine
the net intratidal transport of BOD and total nitrogen into ot out of
the region upstream of the sampling site. The principal purpose of this
investigation was to determine if the existance of marsh loads to the
receiving water can be substantiated by field measurements.
-15-
C-291
-------
A. Carbonaceous BOD Marsh Loads
Data collected during surveys 3 and 4 at each of the diffuse loading
locations is summarized in Figure 23 and Figure 24. The figures show
the mass transfer rate at each sampling interval, computed as the product
of the measured ultimate BOD concentration and the measured flow. Ebb
indicates mass is leaving the upstream area. Flood indicates mass is
entering the area. Also shown in the figure is the computed total
pounds of ultimate BOD measured during the two phases of the tidal
cycle. Tables 4 arid 5 summarizes the results of the analysis.
The tables indicate that all three sloughs have a net positive
marsh loading rate. That is, carbonaceous loads leaving the marsh areas
are greater than those entering the area. The magnitude of the loading
2
rate is different than that employed in the model, 2250 lbs/mi /day of
carbonaceous BOD^, but this is not surprising given the difficulties in
accurately measuring flows at the diffuse loading sites. The analysis
does indicate trends and substantiates various conclusions of the 197S
study.
The important conclusion from this analysis is that the measured
data indicates a substantial areal loading rate of carbonaceous BOD^
from marsh areas adjacent to South San Francisco Bay.
8. Total Nitrogen Uptake in Marsh Areas
The diffuse loading data collected during surveys 3 and 4 at each
sampling location is summarized in Figures 25 and 26. Again, the mass
transfer rates are displayed in pounds per day. The results of the
nutrient uptake analysis on the data is presented in Tables 6 and 7.
The Tables indicate that Newark Slough and Faber Tract both have
high nutrient uptake rates and that there is essentially no uptake in
-16-
C-292
TABLE 4
MEASURED ULTIMATE CARBONACEOUS BOD LOADS
u
FROM MARSH AREAS
OCTOBER 1977 DIFFUSE LOAD SURVEY
LOCATION
ESTIMATED
MARSH AREA
UPSTREAM
(mi2)
TOTAL MASS
INTO MARSH
(pounds)
TOTAL MASS
LEAVING MARSH
(pounds)
NET MASS LOAD
(pounds/cvcle)
AREAL
LOADING RATE
Mowry Slough
0.3
1,527
1,790
263
1,800
Newark Slough
0.2
10,14 3
16,780
&,637
66,000
Faber Tract
0.1
2,226
3,570
1,344
27,000
-17-
-------
TABLE 5
MEASURED ULTIMATE CARBONACEOUS BOO LOADS
u
FROM MARSH AREAS
NOVEMBER 1977 DIFFUSE LOAD SURVEY
LOCATION
ESTIMATED
MARSH AREA
UPSTREAM
fmi2}
TOTAL MASS
INTO MARSH
("pounds]
TOTAL MASS
LEAVING MARSH NET MASS LOAD
founds) iEoundiZczclel
Mowry Slough
0*3
900
1,580 480
Newark Slough
0.2
4,600
4,940 540
Faber Tract
0.1
2,000
2,710 710
AREAL
iDING RA'
>s/mi2/di
1,600
1.700
7,100
-18-
TABLE 6
MEASURED TOTAL NITROGEN UPTAKE IN MARSH AREAS
OCTOBER 1977 DIFFUSE LOAD SURVEY
LOCATION
Mowry Slough
Newark Slough
F&ber Tract
ESTIMATED
MARSH AREA
UPSTREAM
(mi2)
0.3
0.2
0.1
TOTAL MASS
INTO MARSH
(pounds)
374
1.875
917
TOTAL MASS
LEAVING MARSH
{pounds)
424
1.166
625
NET MASS UPTAKE
(pounds/cvclc)
-50
709
292
AREAL
RATE UPTAKE
(lbs/mi2/day)
-300
7,100
5,800
-19-
C-293
-------
TABLB 7
MEASURED TOTAL NITROGEN UPTAKE IN MARSH AREAS
NOVEMBER 1977 DIFFUSE LOAD SURVEY
ESTIMATED
MARSH AREA
UPSTREAM
LOCATION
(mi2)
Mowry Slough
0.3
Newark Slough
0.2
Faber Tract
0.1
TOTAL MASS
INTO MARSH
(pounds)
320
690
47S
TOTAL MASS
LEAVING MARSH
(pounds)
180
580
430
NET MASS UPTAKE
(pounds/cycle)
140
110
45
AREAL
RATE UPTAKE
(lbs/mi2/day)
470
550
450
C-294
-20-
Mowry Slough during October. The November data shows nitrogen uptake in
all three sloughs. The absolute magnitudes of the numbers arc not as
important as the overall conclusion that nutrient uptake mechanisms in
marsh areas is justified in the model. As in the case of the BOD diffuse
loading analysis* the analysis is subject to uncertainty because of
measurement error and is only presented as an indicator of the adequacy
of model coefficients, and to substantiate conclusions presented m this
report.
IV. DISCUSSION OF MODEL RECALIBRATION AND VERIFICATION
The model recalibration analysis presented in Section 11 and the
analysis of diffuse loads discussed in Section III indicates that the
model verification is a good representation of conditions currently
existing ^in South San Francisco Bay. The model verification is based
upon measured data for all model coefficients except for bottom demand
and reaeration. Measured point source loads were applied for each of
the calibration and verification periods. Marsh loads were observed
during the diffuse load surveys and were adjusted to areal loads which
satisfied the October, 1977 calibration. Both the point source loads
and the marsh loads were then employed in obtaining satisfactory verifica-
tion of the model for November, 1977 and June, 1967 conditions.
A nitrogen balance on the system indicates a significant nutrient
uptake within the marsh areas. This was substantiated by an analysis of
the total nitrogen from the diffuse loading surveys Further calibra-
tion work on ammonia nitrogen concentrations indicated small diffuse
loads of ammonia which satisfy stoichiometric relationships for decaying
vegetative matter, the presumed source of the marsh loads.
Finally, receiving water reaction kinetics for carbonaceous BOD
(Kr) and nitrogenous BOD (K^) were calculated from long term BOD data.
These reaction rates and the calculated ultimate BOD to 5-day BOD ratios
-21-
-------
were applied in the model for calibration of October, 1977 conditions
and subsequent verification of the model against two other data sets.
In aggregate, the model verification is considered to be good.
v. model SENsrTiyrry analysis
A sensitivity analysis was performed in order to define the reliabil-
ity of the calibrations and projections contained in this study and the
1975 study. Possible ranges of variability in the reaction rates,
bottom demand, and diffuse loading rates are analyzed. The net effects
of uncertainties in these coefficients are discussed with regard to the
reliability of the verification and the analysis of planning alternatives.
The major components which affect the dissolved oxygen balance in
South San Francisco Bay are: 1) the South Bay Discharger Authority and
Union Sanitation District loads, 2) diffuse loadings of carbonaceous and
nitrogenous BOD from marsh areas, 3) benthal demands, and 4) other point
source treatment plant discharges of oxygen demanding material. The
computed dissolved oxygen deficit due to these components for the October,
1977 survey are shown on Figure 27 and Table 8. The figure shows the
effects on receiving water dissolved oxygen concentrations due to the
principal sources of oxygen demanding material and demonstrates the
relative importance of these sources.
Under the October, 1977 survey conditions, the major source of
deficit on the Main Bay transect, Mayfield Slough, Guadalupe Slough,
Artesian Slough, Upper Coyote Creek, Mud Slough, and Newark Slough are
the point sources of oxygen demanding material. The major source of
oxygen deficit in Alviso Slough, Mowry Slough and the upper portions of
Newark Slough are bottom demand and marsh related loads. These latter
sloughs are not dominated by point sources.
-22-
n -o fin n o m y n im s-ijnj.nn-iflo 5 nn o o tv n is, n ti A a
•-4«-trOaO.9-iftiD«nv6',0t£vJ3\A.ONOsa>J}U)v0,'3ii)>£>3£t6^>^i3
3
.3
O
I—
r c/>
Ji o
uJ
x <.
Z
< o
o
sc J
a
E
O
o
3» »-
U
•0
r. a
>• OS
© z
x: 3
~- «
O iA
1- t
o ui
a ¦».
a r>
Ul f*»
> -» 33
o
a o
0£ G£
h-
Id <
o u
X X
Ul o
t- a
1—
O V)
M
&
o
r.
o
u
»- (A
O H rt W M J J- I
>O0OOOOOOOo
=,0000000000000 o O o O a o a s r"
>OOOOOOOi
o o i\i *¦ a r» i»-
t- » a*
>OOOOOOOOOQQ.4«^ # * * • • • • • •
WWWOOOOOOOOOOOUOO©
tncMChp«\otf>(nin^>0vAai}<»Nr>«cooN-(O(nf»«>ocorom«Min(D(OM«
«H
-------
33
3H
35
36
37
36
39
HO
HI
H2
H3
HH
H5
H6
H7
we
H9
50
51
52
53
5i»
55
56
57
58
09
60
fel
*>2
63
6H
5E
&5
*6
*7
se
69
70
71
72
73
7H
75
76
77
7a
79
90
91
92
93
9H
95
96
97
96
99
90
31
92
*3
9H
TABLE 8
COMPUTED DISSOLVED
OCTOb£ft 1977
(Continued)
OfcY&EU COMPONENTS
SufiVEY
SOUTH BAY
dischar&e:s
0*31
C • 33
0.29
0.23
0.23
0.30
0.15
0.13
0 » 20
1.17
1.15
1.10
1.19
1.05
1.12
1.05
1.16
1.01
1.01
U .99
1.09
0 . 96
0.93
0.93
1.05
0 .96
0.90
0.86
0.96
.95
C.90
r.79
0.92
0.93
r.s6
r.7i
f .81
0.93
p.93
5ATUKAT10N
LEVLL
7.Hi
7.hi
7.HO
7.HO
7.HU
7.HO
7.36
7.39
7.ho
7.HO
7.36
7.36
7.HO
7.39
7.36
7.36
7,39
7.36
7.36
7.38
7.39
7.38
7.36
7.36
7.39
7.36
7.36
7.36
7.37
7.36
7.36
7.37
TABLE 8
;O^PUTED DISSOLVED
OCTOBER 1977
(Continued)
OXYGEN COMPONENTS
SURVEr
SOUTH BAT
DISCHARGES
0.06
0.07
0.05
G » 02
0.05
0.06
0.02
0.01
O.OH
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.i>0
0.00
0.00
0.00
OTHER
discharges
0.13
0.16
0.36
0,35
0.17
0.2H
0.H9
0.51
0.27
0.52
0.62
0.73
U # 93
1.21
0.H9
0.92
1.17
1.H5
1.37
1.50
1.H7
1.52
0.77
1.H6
1.57
0.86
1.H6
1.51
l.HH
1.2H
1.H3
1.38
BOTTOM
DEWANd
0.H7
0.50
0.H9
0.62
0. H9
0.51
0.H7
0.57
0.50
Q.Hb
0.H3
G.HH
0. HO
0 . 34
0.39
0 ~ H 3
0.3H
0.2&
0.24
o. iy
o. lb
0.16
0.02
0.12
0.0^
0 .02
O.Ob
0.05
0.02
G.OU
0.02
0.01
rtAKSrt
LOhUS
0.03
O.OH
o.pb
0.01
0. Oa
0. 03
0.01
o. 01
0.02
G.02
0. 00
0.01
0.01
O.OO
o. on
0 . Ou
0.00
0.00
0 .00
u.oo
0.00
0.00
O.OD
0.00
o. on
G. on
0 .00
0 . on
u.oo
0.00
0 . o.)
U.OO
total
OiFiClT
G.72
0.7 'J
0 .94
1,02
0 .70
Q ,86
1 .Qi
1.u
o, an.
1,02
1.00
1.20
1.36
1.57
0.ay
1.30
1.53
1.7i
1.43
1.71
1.*b
1.70
0. 79
1.59
1.6/
0.'-?U
1.53
1.5o
1 . <4o
1.25
1 » H 6
1 .HO
SAlUKATlON
LEVL.L
;,37
7.37
7 . 36
7 , 5b
7 . 36
7 . 37
7.39
7.3b
7.36
7 .HO
7 .HO
7 .HO
7.HI
7.H2
7 . H 2
7.HI
7.H2
7.H3
7.H3
7.H5
7 . HH
; .hh
/.HI
7 . HH
7 .HH
7 . H H
7 ,<+b
7 . Hb
'.<*b
7 .Hb
7.Hb
7 . H6
-------
97
96
99
100
101
102
103
lOt
105
106
107
108
105
110
111
112
113
lit
115
116
117
lid
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
126
SE(
129
130
131
1 32
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
1*1
TABLE 8 (Continued)
CO^PUTEO DISSOLVED OxrGEN COMPONENTS
OCTUUER 1977 SuKtfCT
C-
o>
i
o
SOUTH BAT OTHER
DISCHARGES DISCHARGES
0.00
0.06
0.70
2.66
4.08
S.33
1.28
1.40
1.51
2.12
3.12
4.02
4.97
5.73
6.38
6.62
7.95
6.32
5.05
t.59
4.30
1.41
1.92
2.26
~.44
5.78
~.52
3.29
1.68
0.28
0.62
0.77
0.99
3.7«t
2.23
1.30
0.53
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.05
0*10
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.0*
0.05
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.07
GOTTO*
demane>
0.01
0*26
0.43
0.53
0.55
0«55
o.ou
O.OJL
0.02
0.09
0.19
0.29
0.37
0.43
0.5U
0.54
0.31
0.47
0.53
0.55
0 • 56
1.35
1.30
0.96
0.45
0.40
0.46
0.46
0.47
1.42
1.30
0.95
*1ARSH
LOAUS
0.00
a.oi
0*12
O.Vb
0.55
0.46
U.OU
0.00
0.00
o.ou
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.04
0. 03
0.15
0.1U
0.15
0.17
0.19
0.20
4.51
2.13
U.66
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.10
0.10
1.85
0.79
0.50
TOTAL fcATUKATION OISSuuVEd
DEFICIT
UEVLL
3Xf
1.30
7.46
6*43
1.09
J .2 6
5,16
5.71
3.09
3.37
6.10
fl.Sl
2. /a
6.49
8.67
2.16
S.33
*•63
1.70
i.au
A.16
6.69
1.42
6.2 5
6.34>
1.53
32
6.74
2.2*
a.40
6.17
3.52
3.47
5.13
4.33
4.5t>
4.22
5. 37
3.62
3.2s
6.22
6.66
2.43
7.02
3.68
1.6a
7.42
6.65
1.22
8.39
8.82
0.42
6.99
6.46
1.49
5.82
8.26
2.43
"5.40
8.15
2.73
3.13
6.12
2.99
7.3-5
a.16
0.63
5. m
7.as
2.47
4« 1
7.7?
3. 3*
4.01
*.91
4.
6.30
*,62
2.3d
5.09
6.36
3.2»
3.90
7.99
4. OS.
2. ?9
7,72
5.43
3.59
7.*7
4.3b
2.77
7.64
4.8?
2,31
7.56
5.24
TABLE 8 (Continued)
COIPUTEO OISSOLVEO OXY3EN CO"PONrMTS
OCTOBER 1977 SURVEY
SOUTH 8AY
OTHER
BOTTO*
USCHA*GES
discharges
OCMftNQ
1.66
0.01
1.51
2.23
0.02
1 *53
2.51
a. 03
1.44
2.59
0.05
1*15
2.12
0.06
0,76
1.33
0.08
0.57
0.72
0.06
0.37
0.67
0.06
0.37
0.64
0.07
0*37
0.64
0.08
0.37
0.65
0.09
0.37
0.66
0.05
0.60
0.73
0.07
0.52
L$:« "Je";10"
tit 7/67i i-»-
lir! ?-s> *:« l:Y,
!:S 11 :t
0.0* M' 7.58 S.ji
a.lo \-%l l-V- 6-"*
°-l° lUa y'l®
0.10 \ ->* 7' 6#3»
«•» i:« i'li
°-is i." 1:11 '¦«
-------
It is important to note the relative effects on receiving water
dissolved oxygen concentrations due to benthal demands and marsh loads
at various locations. Significantly larger deficits are caused by
background loads in Alviso, Mowry, and Newark Sloughs. Since no treat-
ment plants exists on two of these sloughs, minimal flushing from advective
flow occurs in these areas. The retention time in these sloughs, therefore,
is much greater than in other areas where significant point source flow
additions occur, and their response is more sensitive to concentrations
of background oxygen demanding materials and bottom uptakes.
The receiving water response to each of these major components con-
tributing to dissolved oxygen deficit is dependent on one or more model
coefficients which were analyzed in subsequent sensitivity analyses.
These include the: X) reaeration coefficient, 2) carbonaceous deoxygena-
tion rate, 3) nitrification rate, 4) benthal uptake rate, and 4) diffuse
loading rate. The following is a discussion of the model sensitivity to
these parameters.
The computed concentrations of the ultimate carbonaceous BOD for
various diffuse loading rates is presented in Figure 28. The loading
rates used in the analysis are 0%t 50%, and 150% of the loading rate
used for verification. The October, 1977 survey condition is chosen for
this and subsequent sensitivity analyses. The results show little model
sensitivity in sloughs which are dominated by point source impacts, but
very large sensitivity in Alviso, Mowry, and Newark Sloughs which are
not affected by point source flows (flushing). Figure 29 shows a
similar sensitivity for computed dissolved oxygen impacts due to the
diffuse carbonaceous BOD loading rate. The areas affected most are
those areas which are not directly influenced by point sources.
Further insight into these sensitivity analyses is gained by analyzing
the model sensitivity to the carbonaceous BOD reaction rate. The computed
CB0DU concentrations, using a rate of SQ% and 150% of the measured
-28-
C-298
laboratory rate (0.07/day), are presented in Figure 30. In this case,
all areas but Artesian Slough show significant sensitivity to the reaction
rate. The sensitivity of dissolved oxygen concentration to this reaction
rate is shown on Figure 31.
Comparison of the model sensitivity analysis for carbonaceous B00u
marsh loadings (Figure 28) with the model sensitivity to the deoxygena-
tion rate (Figure 30) indicates some obvious conclusions which are noted
here. In critical areas such as Alviso, Mowry, and Newark Sloughs, one
might conclude that the ultimate carbonaceous BOD data could be calibrated
by changing both the loading rate and reaction rate. For example,
doubling the reaction rate and halving the marsh loading rate would
produce a similar computed carbonaceous B0Du concentration profile in
these sloughs. Comparison of the dissolved oxygen concentration sensi-
tivity to, the reaction rate (Kr), and the marsh loading rate show that
the dissolved oxygen profiles in these sloughs would be similarly affected.
This line of reasoning does not, however, take into account the
effect that these changes would have on the total model calibration.
Figures 28 and 30 demonstrate that the computed carbonaceous BOD^
concentrations on the main bay transect are sensitive to reaction rate
(Kr) but are not sensitive to the marsh loading rates» Thus, alteration
of these model coefficients would not calibrate against observed data.
An important conclusion drawn for the above sensitivities is that
significant changes in marsh loading rates and reaction coefficients
{K^, K ) will significantly alter the model calibration in sloughs which
are not affected by point sources as well as on the main transect.
A similar analysis is presented for the ammonia-diffuse loadings.
Figures 32 and 33 demonstrate that only Alviso, Mowry, and Newark Sloughs
are affected by marsh loadings to a minor degree, less than 1.0 mg/1 in
these sensitivity analyses. However, certain regions of the model, in
-29-
-------
particular, the main bay transect, Guadalupe Slough, Alviso Slough, and
Newark Slough are quite sensitive to the nitrification rate (K ) employed
in the model calibration. Figures 34 and 3S presents these model
sensitivity analysis for Kn« The conclusions discussed above regarding
trade-offs between marsh loading rates and Kr similarly apply to signi-
ficant changes in the nitrification rate developed from the October,
197? calibration and the long tern BOD data.
2
The benthal oxygen uptake was assumed to be 1.0 gm/m -day in the
sloughs and from 0,5 to 0.75 go/m^-d&y in the main bay. These estimates
are reasonable* and are conservative considering the values measured by
E.H. Smith and Associates. Those measurements are, however, considered
questionable. Since the assigned benthal uptake rates are only estimates,
it was necessary to study the dissolved oxygen sensitivity to the bottom
demand in a more rigorous manner to determine the importance of accurate
bottom demand measurements.
An analysis of dissolved oxygen sensitivity to bottom demand is
most conveniently interpreted when analyzed with a comparable dissolved
oxygen sensitivity analysis to the model reaeration coefficient. The
current model employed estimates of benthal demand and was assigned
reaeration coefficients necessary to reproduce dissolved oxygen data
observed in the Bay for the October, 1977 survey period. Figures 36
and 37 demonstrate the sensitivity of computed October, 1977 dissolved
oxygen concentration to bottom demand and reaeration coefficient. The
results show a very large sensitivity to the reaeration coefficient in
all areas of the model while a significant sensitivity to the bottom
demand exists in sloughs receiving no point sources of flow. This
latter point is significant from the standpoint of projecting water
quality under proposed planning alternatives which remove point source
flow from the slough. A discussion of the importance of this effect is
presented here to clarify issues surrounding the current estimates of
benthal demand.
-30-
The bottom demands employed in this study are unverified by field
measurements. This can have significant consequences in forecasting the
water quality impacts of alternative discharge scenarios for the South
Bay Discharger Authority. The reasons for this are as follows:
1. The model calibration itself is insensitive to bottom demands
because this demand is compensated for by the assignment of an atmospheric
reaeration rate in the calibration effort. For example, if after calibra-
tion, bottom demands are increased by 100 pounds/day of oxygen uptake
within a region of the model, the reaeration rate can be adjusted to
yield a net load of 100 pounds/day of dissolved oxygen in that same
region. The calibration would remain unchanged. The validity of the
change would be contingent upon whether the reaeration coefficients were
still within acceptable limits for the receiving water body.
2. When one makes forecasts which result in large load changes
(magnitude or location), the model cannot compensate for inaccurate
tradeoffs between bottom demand and reaeration coefficients. The accuracy
of an assigned reaeration coefficient is dependent upon the accuracy of
all the components which affect the dissolved oxygen balance. If one of
these components, such as bottom demand, has not been accurately defined,
the reaeration coefficient may be adjusted to an assigned value during
calibration which represents observed dissolved oxygen conditions but
does not accurately account for the relative impacts of all factors in
the dissolved oxygen balance. Therefore, uncertainties in the reaeration
coefficient can result in uncertainties in dissolved oxygen projections.
The degree to which the projections might he uncertain will depend upon
the degree to which the model calibration is uncertain. It is important,
therefore, to obtain estimates of all components of the dissolved oxygen
balance, especially in areas where major load reductions and/or relocations
are proposed. The current model includes best available estimates for
these model components.
-31-
C-299
-------
VI. EVALUATION OF REVERIFICATION IMPACTS ON PROJECTION ANALYSES
The reverification analysis of the San Francisco Bay model makes
numerous changes to the loads and reaction kinetics of the model based
on measurements collected during the 1977 water quality monitoring
program. The revised model differs from its predecessor in that more
reliable estimates of marsh loads, BOD decay rates, nitrification ratei
and nutrient uptake have been developed from direct and indirect measure-
ments. The net effect of these changes is to improve the model calibra
tion and verification for three independent data sets.
The section of the report dealing with model sensitivity does,
however, indicate that a potentially important loading component, benthii
oxygen demand, has not yet been adequately quantified. The consequence
of this is an uncertainty regarding the tradeoff between benthal oxygen
demand and atmospheric reaeration in the model verification and in
subsequent projection work. Nevertheless, the model has been used to
reanalyze selected projection conditions so that the sensitivity of the
water quality decision making process to the reverification effort could
be assessed.
In general, the projection analyses indicate that the four proposed
alternatives:
1. No Action
2. Upgrade Treatment at San Jose/Santa Clara
3. Nearest Deep Water Discharge Location
4. Discharge at DP 31
will not satisfy water quality objectives established for the study
area. However, the model results do indicate significant improvements
over current water quality conditions as well as improvements over
projected water quality conditions contained in the 1975 report. These
improvements are both improvements in the projected dissolved oxygen
concentrations, as well as imporvements in the spatial extent of compliant.
-32-
C-300
with water quality standards. It should be noted that these water
quality enhancements are due principally to reductions in ammonia marsh
loads and reductions in benthal oxygen demands in the sloughs. In the
first case, NBOD marsh load reductions, the 1977 data sets support load
changes. However, in the case of bottom demands, the basis for load
2
reductions to a uniform value of 1 gm/m /day in the slough is more
tenuous. The 1977 measurements were very low, and the 1967 measurements
On the main bay transect were generally around 1 gm/m^/day. It is not
unreasonable that bottom uptakes in the confined sloughs could be higher.
Higher bottom uptakes would necessitate revised reaeration rates in the
sloughs. There is no measurement basis at present for cither change.
In any event, water quality projections were recomputed using the
reverified model. The lower bottom demands used in these projections
suggest tl\at the water quality projections provide a higher estimate of
dissolved oxygen water quality than would be achieved under more severe
benthal oxygen demand assumptions.
Figures 36, 39, 40, and 41 display the revised water quality pro-
jections for the four alternative plans in a 190S canning season. This
is the most critical condition from a loading standpoint. The solid bar
at the bottom of each figure indicates the spatial extent of projected
dissolved oxygen water quality standard violations in the 19"S report.
The open bar indicates the extent of violations projected in the current
study.
For the No Project alternative, dissolved oxygen water quality
violations are expected to occur over 4 miles of the main bay transect
near Coyote Creek, and violations will continue to occur in all of the
South Bay Sloughs. Upgrading treatment at San Jose Santa Clara is expected
to reduce the extent of violations on the main bay transect to 2 Biles
and brings Mud slough into compliance with water quality standards.
-33-
-------
The Deep Water Discharge Alternative projection shows thai the
entire Main Bay transect, and Guadalupe and Mud sloughs are expected to
be in compliance with standards. In addition, minor improvements in the
extent of violations on Upper Coyote Creek occur.
The DP 31 discharge alternative yields no significant changes in
the spatial extent of water quality violations over those indicated for
the Deep Water Discharge Alternative.
A final projection condition was analyzed as a sensitivity on those
presented in Figures 38 through 41. In this projection which is displayed
in Figure 42, the bottom denand is set to zero. The projection shows
that even under this "optimistic" condition, violation of the 90 per-
centile standards are expected to occur in Artesian* Alviso, Mowry, and
Newark Sloughs. The reader should note that this last projection probably
overestimates atmospheric reaeration for the reasons discussed in Section V.
-34-
REFERENCES
^Gerloff, G.C. and Krombholz, P.H. , "Tissue Analysis as a Measure
of Nutrient Availability for the Growth of Angiosperm Aquatic Plants,1'
L S 0 11, 1966.
^McDonnell, A.J., and Wester, D.W., "Respiration of Aquatic
Macrophytes in Eutrophic Ecosystems," Institute for Research on Land
and Water Resources, Penn State Univ. Research Pub. November 1967.
^"New Tables for Oxygen Saturation of Seawater," E.J. Green and Carrot,
D.E., Journal of Marine Research; 25(2), 1967.
^"Effects of Polluting Discharges on the Thames Estuary," Department
of Scientific and Industrial Research, Water Pollution Research
Technical Paper Ho. 11, London: Her Majestries' Stationary Office,
1964.
^"Simplified Mathematical Modeling of Water Quality," Hydroscience,
Inc., prepared for EPA Water Quality Office, March 1971.
-35-
-------
0
1
oo
o
to
cy
FIGURE I
SEGMENTATION OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY MODEL ( DETAIL)
AND RECIEVING WATER SAMPLE LOCATIONS
-------
MAIN BAV TRANSECT
0-Tf3
Q/
°y
I (6EH0
OAfClCVINO WAffA ITAT16NS
1
i i 11
Aoi^u*! LO*eiN« ITATJOMI
1 1 1 1 1 ' ' II II ,1 I'',1.1'',
,0 -9 -e -•» -t 0 +2 +4 48 ~'<> +
MILES north of Dumbarton bridge
0 2 4
M ILES FROM
SJ-SC OUTFALL
ALVI SO
JUOUOM
201— a
lOl—
.1 I I
0 2 4
MILES FROM
gaging station
"0 i 4 • •
MILES FROM
gaging station
40
40
MAVflELD
SLOUOH
a 30
30
>
h- 20
—
20
2
a 10
_
1 0
to
1 1 1
0
0 2 4
MILES FROM
SANO POINT
0 2 4 *
MILES FROM
mowrv landing
miles from
MAYHEWS LANDING
FIGURE 2
COMPUTED AND OBSERVED SALINITY CONCENTRATION
(SURVEY 3-OCTOBEH, 1977)
MILES NORTH OF DUMBARTON BRIDGE
I ARTESIAN
SLOUGH
_1
<
-------
ARTESIAN
SLOUGH
OaZl
ALVISO
SLOUGH
J 1 1
M I LES FROM
SJ-SC OUTFALL
0 2 4
MILES FROM
GAGING STATION
UPPER
cYore cr
M I LES FROM
. MILPITAS OUTFALL
MUD
SLOUGH
1 1 I
0 2 4
MILES FROM
U-l RV OUTFALL
MILES FROM
MOWRY LANDING
MILES FROM
MAYHEWS LANDING
FIGURE 4
COMPUTED AND OBSERVED SALINITY CONCENTRATION
{JUNE, 1967)
FIGURE 5
TYPICAL LONG TERM BOD RESPONSES
-------
MAIN 8AV TRANSECT
0
20
10
trat id:
o ffCCieviNO WATER J f AT(0N9
ACMMUtC LOftOIHtt ITAT10W*
I I ' ' 1 '.I 1 1 1 1 ' '
I I I IL
.4 .2 0 *1 ** + B
MILES NORTH OF DUMBARTON BRIDGE
414 *ie
MILES FROM
SJ-SC OUTFALL
JO
ALVISO
SLOUCH
' 01—
jdX
"0 2*
miles from
CASING STATIOM
5 j 4 e «
MILES FROM
gaging station
40
HArneiO
40
SLOUOH
SO
_
30
v.
o>
E
- 20
—
20
D
Q
O
® 10
10
o
•
0
*n 1
0
MILES FROM
SAND POINT
2 4 •
MILES FROM
mowry landing
20
NEWARK »L0U9H
J I I I i ! -i-
, 2 4 * *
MILES FROM
MAYHEWS LANDING
FIGURE 6
COMPARISON OF COMPUTED AND OBSERVED
ULTIMATE CARBONACEOUS BUU
(OCTOBER. 1977 CALIBRATION - NO MARSH LOADS OF CBODu
MAIN BAT TRANSECT
¦J I I ft],,
o o
LiSfNO:
0#ECtEvl„C WATCR STATIONS
A diffuse loaoinq stations
*"1 ' ' 1 ' 1 1 1 1 ' ' t M .L
10 a -6 -4 -2 0 +J t4 fS ^ ^ ^
MILES NORTH OF DUMBARTON BRIDGE
o
o
J-1 1-
MILES FROM
SJ-SC OUTFALL
ALVISO
SLOUGH
0 2 4
MILES FROM
GAGING STATION
10
SUAOALUPE SLOUOtTI
-U I I | I 1.,
O 2 4 6 g
MILES FROM
GAG ING STATION
MATFIELD
SLOUGH
mil
0 2 4
MILES FROM
SAND POINT
40
30,
mowry slouqm
I I itHj.
2 4 6 8
MILES FROM
MOWRY landing
NEWARK SLOUGH
J-
0 z 4 a a
miles from
mayhews landing
FIGURE 7
COMPARISON OF COMPUTED AND OBSERVED
ULTIMATE CARBONACEOUS BOD
OCTOBER,1977 CALIBRATION-INCLUDING MARSH LOADS)
C-305
-------
MILES NORTH OF DUMBARTON BRIDGE
ARTESIAN
SLOUGH
0 2 4
M I LES FROM
SJ-SC OUTFALL
I I I
Ml LES FROM
GAG/NG STATION
0 2 4 6 6
MILES FROM
GAGING STATION
MAY FIELD
SLOUGH
HULL
0 2 4
MILES FROM
SAND POINT
NEWARK SL0U6H
I I " M I
4 6 6
MILES FROM
MOWRY LANDING
M I LES FROM
MAYHEWS LANDING
FIGURE 8
COMPUTED AND OBSERVED ULTIMATE CARBONACEOUS BOD
( NOVEMBER, 1977 VERIFICATION)
C-306
MILES NORTH OF DUMBARTON
ARTESIAN
SLOUGH
I I I
ALVISO
SLOUGH
>rr.
GUADALUPE SLOUGH
! 1 l°l ol 1 I
UPPER
CVOTE cn
MILES FROM
SJ-SC OUTFALL
MILES FROM
GAGING STAT ION
8 0 2^
MILES FROM
MILPI TAS OUTFALL
1 MUD
SLOUGH
I I I
0 2 4
MILES FROM
U-l RV OUTFALL
0 2 4
MlLES FROM
MOWRY LANDING
0 2 4
MILES from
MAYHEWS LANDING
FIGURE 9
COMPUTED AND OBSERVED CARBONACEOUS BODg
(JUNE,1967 VERIFICATION )
-------
FIGURE 10
COMPARISON Or COMPUTED AND OBSERVED TOTAL NITROGEN
(OCTOBER, 1977 CALI BRATION - NITROGEN AS CONSERVATIVE )
o
MAIN BAY TRANSECT
-10
i estmo:
Of»ecie*INfl WAfEff STATIONS
&DtFFU$E LOADIMfl STATIONS
I ' ' ' I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 tZ +4 (-6 48 -HO +12
MILES NORTH OF DUMBARTON BRIDGE
O
z
o
2
ARTESIAN
SLOUGH
1 I I.
miles from
SJ-SC OUTFALL
ALVISO
SLOUGH
0 2 4
MILES FROM
GAGING STATION
GUADALUPE SLOUSH
¦'II'
o 2 4 « e
MILES FROM
GAGING STATION
o
z
MAY FIELD
SLOUGH
4
3
MOWRY SLOUSH
4
3
—
2
0
2
« •
l i l
0
A
U_l 1 1
9
1 1
1
MILES FROM
SAND POINT
s * 4 a a
miles from
MOWRY LANDING
NEWARK SLOUGH
' 1 1 1 1 I I
° 2
-------
- ,
MAIM BAY
transect
\.
l 1GEHD
— ©
OflSClEvNG WATER STATIONS
— ©
^ DIFFUSE LOADING STATIONS
Q
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 ! 1 i .
1 1 1 1
( t© 1 1 [0 1 0 1
-5 -4 -2 0 + 2 +4 +6 +8 +10 + 12 -H 4 + 16
WILES NORTH Of DUMBARTON BRIDGE
0 2 4
MILES FROM
Sd-SC OUTFALL
ALV'SO
S LOUGH
I I..L
"0 2 4
MILES FROM
GAGING STATION
0 2
MILES FROM
GAGING STATION
j*aypield
SLOUGH
0 2 4
MILES FROM
SAND POINT
0 2 4 6
MILES FROM
MOWRY LANDING
NEWARK SLOUGH
__ A
0II i M I I ,1 ¦
0 2 4 6 8
MILES FROM
MAYHEWS lanoing
FIGURE 12
COMPARISON OF COMPUTED AND OBSERVED
AMMONIA NITROGEN {CONSERVATIVE)
(OCTOBER, 1977 CALIBRATION-NO MARSH LOADS OF NITROGEN)
C-308
MA! N SAY TRANSECT
Aoirrissi lOaqi*/q stat ions
-J- 111)11111)11
6-4-2 O +2 4-4 + 6 + B UO *'2 + 14 +16
MILES NORTH OF DUMBARTON BRIDGE
M ILES FROM
SO-SC OUTFALL
_ALVISQ
"slough
Ml LES FROM
GAGING STATION
0 2 4 6
MILES FROM
GAGING STATION
0 2 4
MtLES FROM
SAND POINT
2 4 6
MILE'S FROM
MOWRY LANDING
0 2
Ml LES FROM
MAYHEWS LANOING
FIGURE 13
COMPARISON OF COMPUTED AND OBSERVED
AMMONIA NITROGEN ( Kn= 0.1/day)
( OCTOBER, 1977 CALI BRATION-NO MARSH LOADS OP NITROGEN)
-------
FIGURE 14
COMPARISON OF COMPUTED AND OBSERVED AMMONIA NITROGEN
(OCTOBER,1977 CALIBRATION - INCLUDES MARSH LOADS)
C-309
-------
MILES NORTH OF DUMBARTON BRIDGE
M ILES FROM
SJ-SC OUTFALL
AtviSO
SLOUGH
0 2 4
MILES FROM
GAGING STATION
0 2 4
MILES FROM
GAGING STATION
0 2 4
M ILES FROM
SAND POINT
2 4
MlLES FROM
MOWRY LANDING
MILES FROM
MAYHEWS LANDING
FIGURE 16
COMPUTED AND OBSERVED N02 - N03 NITROGEN
( OCTOBER, 1977 CALIBRATION)
ARTESIAN
SLOUGH
0 2 4
MILES FROM
SJ-SC OUTFALL
ALVI SO
SLOUGH
I I )
0 2 4
MlLES FROM
GAGING STATION
MILES FROM
GAGING STATION
4
4
MAY FIELD
SLOUGH
* 3
-
3
C7"
6
~ 2
—
2
K)
o
2
+ 1
—
f
evj
&
O
2
nn i
0
1 ! 1
0
MOWRY SLOUGH
0 2 4
M ILES FROM
SAND POINT
M I I f" I JL
3 2 4 6
MILES FROM
MOWRY LANOING
MILES FROM
MAYHEWS LANDING
FIGURE 17
COMPUTED AND OBSERVED N02" N03 NITROGEN
{ NOVEMBER, 1977 VERIFICATION )
-------
z
UJ
CO
o ^
en _
ARTESIAN
SLOUGH
(49) 1
I I I
0 2 4
MILES FROM
SJ-SC OUTFALL
AUVlSO
"JLOUGH
f f 1
MILES FROM
GAGING STATION
2 4 6 8
MILES FROM
GAGING STATION
o
o —
cr -
#— v
£ *
MAY FIELD
5C0U0H
I I I
0 2 4
MILES FROM
SAND POINT
MOWRY SLOUGH
,E
I l I 1 I M
0 2 4 6
MILES FROM
MOWRY LANDING
NEWARK SLOUGH
I I I I f f 1
0 2 4 6 8
MILES FROM
MATHEWS LANOING
FIGURE 18
COMPARISON OF COMPUTED AND OBSERVED TOTAL NITROGEN
(OCTOBER, 1977 CALIBRATION 1
z
UJ
o
o _
-------
MAIN BAY TRANSECT
— o
-
-TP- o
_ © /
~ 0
L£5£ND:
/
OR E CI £ V1NG WATER STATIONS
— /
^ DIFFUSE LOADING STATIONS
/ o
1 ! 1 ! 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 !
MILES NORTH OF DUMBARTON BRIDGE
0 Z
M ILES FROM
SJ-SC outfall
ALV1SO
"S LOUGH
"X.V.
Mf LES FROM
GAGING STATION
MILES FROM
GACUNG STATION
I I 1
0 2 4
MILES FROM
SANO POINT
MILES FROM
MOWRY LANDING
M I LES FROM
MAYHEWS LANDING
FIGURE 20
COMPARISON OF COMPUTED AND OBSERVED DISSOLVED OXYGEN
(OCTOBER, 1977 CALIBRATION)
C-312
MAI N BAY TRANSECT
—°o ™
O 0
1 1 1
0
o \
©
L ZGIND.
OHfCiEvrN& WA1£» STATIONS
- /
^DIFFUSE LOADING STATIONS
I ! 1 ! 1
1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-4 -2 0 +2 +4 f 6 + 8 +10 +12 +14
MILES NORTH OF DUMBARTON BRIDGE
>
_i
O
ARTESJ.AN
^SlTOUGH
I I I
0 2 4
M ILES FROM
SJ-SC OUTFALL
ALVI so
"SCOUfrH
I 1 T
MlLES FROM
GAGING STATION
GUADALUPE- SLOUGM
4
0 2 4 6 8
MILES FROM
GAGING STATION
_MAY FI ELD
"«LQy<3H
±±±
0 2 4
MILES FROM
SAND POINT
-'7e
MOWRY SLOUGH
C.
'''''''
MILES FROM
MOWRY LANDING
z'z:
NEWARK SLOUGH
I I6' 1 I II
Ml LES FROM
MAYHEWS LANDING
FIGURE 21
COMPUTED AND OBSERVED DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATION
( NOVEMBER,1977 VERIFICATION)
-------
COMPUTED AND OBSERVED
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT CONCENTRATION
(JUNE,1967)
o
20
J O
o
I 0
20
MOWRy SLOUGH - SURVEY 3
y- '790 )ba
1 L 1 1 1 i |
^-IS27fbi
1 1 1
_ 1 1 1
time of day
o
00
o
50
40
30
20
10
o
ro
20
30
40
— FA8ER TRACT - SURVEY 3
/"* 3570 16.
tea
£L OOD^°~*
-------
0
I 0
30
20
I 0
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
^—460 lbs
ebb /'/Z77TrrprrT-^
900,b'>f/7////77///
FLOOD
MOWRY SLOUGH-SURVEY 4 |
¦^ii-90P','si i i i
0800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
TIME OF DAY
FABER TRACT-SURVEY 4
2400 ,b,—NsjT/y/
~ 310 lbs
!
W/M
FLOOD /f/U/{
2000 I b*
iiit
i i i i
5 0
40
o
30
"O
2 0
-O
1 O
o
u
1 0
n
?*n
CO
3 0
o
40
5 0
0800 1000 1200
1400 1600 1800
TIME OF DAY
2000
2200
-NEWARK SLOUGH-SURVEY 4
4400 i b»"\N/^y //J)
y— 540 lbi
~£M*>777TFrrn^
M//f//
FLOOD ////
1 1 1 1 1
4600 1 bs
1 1 1 1 1 1
i
0800 1000 1200
1400 1600 1000
TIME OF DAY
2000
2200
FIGURE 24
DIFFUSE LOAD CBODu MEASUREMENTS
(NOVEMBER, 1977 >
C-314
O o
ce ^
t— ^
o
H-
(0
o
«
h-
o
MOWRY SLOUGH - SURVEY 3
EBB m
I I I I
I L
0800 1000
1400 1600
TIME OF DAY
1200 1400 1600
TIME OF DAY
oeoo iooo 1200 1400 1600 1000 2000 2200
TIME OF DAY
—FA0ER TRACT-SURVEY 3
- erf^T
f— 6 25 lbs
~EB8 ///////
FLOOl^^^KJ///////////
~ Y//ys>--9l7 lb«
l I I i i i t i
1 l l I 1
1800 2000 2200
1 o
1 4
— NEWARK SLOUGH-SURVEY 3
1 2
—
10
/— 1 166 lbi
8
— s7/
>.
6
~~ c/7/< //
o
4
— j / // / /
T5
2
¦—* /} //////
-O
0
EBB /////////
//////f/7/V"? T ~ -
rt
O
2
n0^i///////////////
4
- \f///////f///
6
— \/////////F
8
— vy////yj/
1 0
„ x ////1678 lbi
1 2
- x///
1 4
— X //
1 6
i i Y I i J , i i ,
i i r i 1
1800 2000 2200
FIGURE 25
DIFFUSE LOAD SURVEY TOTAL NITROGEN MEASUREMENTS
(OCTOBER, 1977)
-------
FIGURE 26
DIFFUSE LOAD TOTAL NITR06EN MEASUREMENTS
(NOVEMBER, 1977)
C-315
-------
MAI N BAY TRANSECT
CBOD11 MARSH LOADS
-J I I I I 1
J L
-10 -8 -6
-4 -2 0 4 2 +4 +6 43 410 412 414 416
MILES NORTH OF DUMBARTON BRIDGE
"artesian
SL01JGH
' \
I I I
MILES FROM
SJ-SC OUTFALL
ALVI SO
SLOUGH
-I
\
h \
h\\
O 2 4
MILES FROM
GAGING STATION
GUADALUPE SLOUGH
¥
i i i i i i i
MILES FROM
GAGING STATION
MILES FROM
SAND POINT
0 2
MILES FROM
MOWRY LANDING
MILES FROM
MAYHEWS LANDING
FIGURE 28
CARBONACEOUS BOD SENSITIVITY TO MARSH LOAD RATES
C-316
MILES NORTH OF DUMBARTON BRIDGE
0 2 4
M I LES FROM
SJ-SC OUTFALL
alviSO
SLOUGH
X:
C.
/
/
0 2 4
Ml LES FROM
GAGI NG STATION
0 2 4 6 8
MILES FROM
GAGING STATION
MILES FROM
SANO POINT
2 4 6
MILES FROM
OWRY LANDING
NEWARK SLOUGH
f I I I i i i
MILES FROM
MAYHEWS LANDING
FIGURE 29
DISSOLVED OXYGEN SENSITIVITY TO CBOD MARSH LOADING RATES
-------
FIGURE 30
CARBONACEOUS BOD SENSITIVITY TO Kr
C-317
-------
-
MAI N BAY TRANSECT
NHj-N MARSH LOADS
o %
50 %
- \
1 50 %
"iiii
r-TT-+-1--t--4_l_l_L I— II
-4 -2 0 ~ 2 +4 +6 + 8 *10 412 414 416
MILES NORTH OF DUMBARTON BRIDGE
[ARTESIAN
—SLOUGH
0 2 4
M ILES FROM
SJ-SC OUTFALL
ALVISO
"slough
£21
MILES FROM
GAGING STATION
GUADALUPE SLOUGH
qI I I I I I I I
0 2 4 6 8
MILES FROM
GAGING STATION
MAY FIELD
SLOUGH
0 2 4
MILES FROM
SANO POINT
MOWRY SLOUGH
3 2 4 6
MILES FROM
MOWRY LANDING
NEWARK SLOUGH
M I I 1 1 1
0 2 4 6 8
MILES FROM
MAYHEWS LANDING
FIGURE 32
AMMONIA NITROGEN SENSITIVITY TO MARSH LOADING RATE
318
MAIN BAY TRANSECT
NH, MARSH LOADS
- /
- /
1 5 0 %
"l 1 1 1 ! ! 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-4 -2 0 4-2 +4 +6 +8 410 + J2
MILES NORTH OF DUMBARTON BRIDGE
E
Z
>
-J
o
0 2 4
M i LES FROM
SJ-SC OUTFALL
ALVI SO
SLOUGH
E"X;:
/
F/lL.
0 2 4
MILES FROM
GAGING STATION
GUAOALUPE SLOUGH
-V
0i i i i i i i i
0 2 4 6 o
MILES FROM
GAGJNG STATION
O
a
ui
>
o
J_L
0 2 4
MILES FROM
SANO POINT
MlLES FROM
MOWRY LANDING
0 2 4 6 8
M J LES FROM
MAYHEWS LANDING
FIGURE 33
DISSOLVED OXYGEN SENSITIVITY TO NBOD MARSH LOADING RATE
-------
AMMONIA NITROGEN SENSITIVITY TO Kn
C-319
-------
MAI N BAY TRANSECT
:
BOTTOM DEMAND
0 %
50%
15 0% —-• —
''Ml!!
1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-4 -2 0 12 +4 ~ 6 48 +10 +12 414 +16
MILES NORTH OF DUMBARTON BRIOGE
0 2 4
M I LES FROM
SJ-SC OUTFALL
ALViSO
"SLOUGH
C'X:
Yv /
'L
MlLES FROM
GAGI NG STATION
0 2 4 6 8
MILES FROM
GAG-ING STATION
MAY FIELD
SLOUGH
r
J-L
0 2 4
MILES FROM
SAND POINT
2 4 6
MILES FROM
MOWRY LANDING
NEWARK SLOUGH
^-ct
01 t ' I 1 I I I
0 2 4 6 a
MILES FROM
MAYHEWS LANDING
FIGURE 36
DISSOLVED OXYGEN SENSITIVITY TO BOTTOM DEMAND
C-320
MJLES NORTH OF DUMBARTON BRIDGE
MILES FROM
SJ-SC OUTFALL
ALVISO
"SLOUGH
"Vc:
i i i
MILES FROM
GAGING STATION
GUADALUPE SLOUGH
-c.
—\
\
i - \
M ¦ ' IS * ' I
0 2 4 6 8
MILES FROM
GAGING STATION
MAY FIELD
"SLOUGH
- ^ct
0 2 4
MILES FROM
SAND POINT
2 4 6
MlLES FROM
MOWRY LANDING
0 2
MlLES FROM
MAYHEWS LANDING
FIGURE 37
DISSOLVED OXYGEN SENSITIVITY TO Ka
-------
FIGURE 38
PROJECTED DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONDITIONS
NO PROJECT
( 1995 CANNING SEASON)
MAIN BAY TRANSECT
r L €G£ND:
^-STANDARD c, - dissolved oxygen saturation
22 -COMPUTED MEAN AMD LOWER
SO1® PERCE NT I IE CONCENTRATION
STANOARD-eolfipERCCNTlLE STANOARD
-L
' ' f 1 1 '' ' ' ' ' '
HO -a -6 -4 -2 0 +2 +4 +6 +8
MILES NORTH OF OUMBARTON
+ 10 +12 +|4 4(6
e
z
>
o
L&rtesian
fjetouffH
i At
[.GUADALUPE SLOUGH |
miles from
SJ-SC OUTFALL
STANOARO
0 2 4
MILES FROM
GAGING STATION
10
- UPPER
CW
£std.
5
0
8 0 2 4
MILES FROM
MILPITAS OUTFALL
6
z
UJ
tD
>•
X
o
o
- MUO
SLOUGH
-^e
szaa*
_^-STO,
10
s
-!—! i
0
|_ MOWflY SLOUGH
-c.
2 4
MILES FROM
U-IRV OUTFALL
0 2 4 6 8
MILES FROM
MOWRY LANOING
_NEWARK SLOUGH
- ^-STANDARD
2 4 6 8
miles from
MAYHEWS LANOING
FIGURE 39
PROJECTED DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONDITIONS
UPGRADE AT SAN JOSE/SANTA CLARA
11 an> /¦»* »t»I • «¦ —
(1995 CANNING SEASON)
C-321
-------
c*
MAIN BAY TRANSECT
-(„{>1 ))!>!,n7pI^^Wnnim7Tm)J_
z
7ZZL- COMPUTED MEAN ANO LOWER
90- PE«CC.f
-------
>
_l
o
MAIN BAY TRANSECT
-
^STANDARD
teee/fo:
Ct - D1 SSOLVCO OXYGEN SATURATION
-
V/// -COMPUTES MtftM AND LOWER
SO^PERCENTILE CONCENTRATION
~l 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
STANOAHO - 9Q — PERCENTILE STANDARD
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 t 1 1 f 1 II
—JO -8 -6 -4 -2 0 + 2 +4 +6 +8
MILES NORTH OF DUMBARTON
+ 10 +12 +14 + k 6
JO
10
.ARTESIAN
r-ALVtSO
SLOUGH
SLOUGH
9 ^STD.
5
-J
5
-
1
Ft 1 1
0
1 ) 1
0
GUADALUPE SLOUGH
STANDARD
11 I 1 11 1
M ILES FROM
SJ-SC OUTFALL
0 2 4
MILES FROM
GAGING STATION
10
^ UPPER
iCYOTE Cfi.
ZTJ*—
'ZZZTrrm
5
- ^STD.
0
~l 1 1
MILES FROM
. MILPITAS OUTFALL
O
Q
U
>
O
10
MUD
SLOUGH
~ _/:c«
U2JJJX
- £$TQ.
5
~l 1 1
0
MOWRY SLOUGH
0 2
MILES FROM
U-IRV OUTFALL
¦ 1 i I I
0 2 4 6 1
MILES FROM
MOWRY LANDING
NEWARK SLOUGH
i i i I I LI
0 2 4 6 6
MILES FROM
MAYHEWS LANDING
FIGURE 42
'OPTIMISTIC* DISSOLVED OXYGEN PROJECTION DP 31 DISCHARGE
(1995 CANNING SEASON)
C-323
------- |