ESTIMATION OF POINT SOURCE AND NONPOINT SOURCE LOADINGS IN THE MAHONING RIVER WATERSHED by Mohd. Faraz Ahmad Submitted in Partial Fulfillment ofthe Requirements for the Degree of Master ofScience in Engineering in the Civil and Environmental Engineering Program YOUNGSTOWN STATE UNIVERSITY JANUARY 2004 ESTIMAnON OF POINT SOURCE AND NONPOINT SOURCE LOADINGS IN THE MAHONING RIVER WATERSHED Mohd. Faraz Ahmad I hereby release this thesis to the public. I understand this thesis will be made available from the OhioLINK ETD Center and the Maag Library Circulation Desk for public access. I also authorize the University or other individuals to make copies ofthis thesis as needed for scholarly research. Signature: ~-,---6Y+--0-l-2/o---l--1 Mohd. Faraz Ahmad, Student bate' Approvals: Dr. Scott C. Martin, Thesis Advisor Dr. Lauren . Schroeder, Committee Member if-/tlotj Date ABSTRACT The goal of this project was to contribute the following components to the Mahoning River Watershed Inventory: evaluation ofpoint source pollutant loading for all waste water treatment plant (WWTP) discharges; statistical summary of in-stream water quality data collected by WWTP's; and comparison of point source and nonpoint source pollutant loadings to the Mahoning River. Pollutant loading calculations were performed using NPDES data for the final effluent from each significant WWTP for the years 2000 and 2001. Means and standard deviations of measured concentrations of several water quality parameters were calculated for 2000 and 2001 separately, and for the two years combined, both upstream and downstream of each WWTP discharge. Pollutant fluxes in the Mahoning River were calculated at Leavittsburg and Lowellville using monthly monitoring data collected by Ohio EPA. These fluxes were considered to represent the sum of point and nonpoint loadings above that station. The nonpoint source loadings were calculated by subtracting the sum of point sources from the total flux for each parameter at each location. The point/nonpoint source pollutant loadings at Leavittsburg were estimated to be: 168/46,914 kg/d for total suspended solids (TSS); 44/115 kg/d for ammonia nitrogen (AN); 386/824 kg/d for nitrite + nitrate nitrogen (NN); and 206/1,864 kg/d for 5-day CBOD. Similarly at Lowellville, point/nonpoint source pollutant loadings were estimated to be: 4,086/67,339 kg/d for TSS; 596/92 kg/d for AN; 2,506/2,339 kg/d for NN and 1,668/6,402 kg/d for 5-day CBOD. Nonpoint source controls would be required to reduce levels ofTSS and CBOD in the Mahoning River. 111 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My heartfelt thanks to my advisor, Dr. Scott C. Martin, for helping me in every way possible to complete my thesis; without his patience and generosity this research project would not have been possible. I wish to thank Bryan Schmucker, from the Division of Surface Water at Northeast District Office of Ohio EPA for providing the NPDES monitoring data. I also wish to thank Mr. John Bralich at the Center for Urban and Regional Studies (CURS) at Youngstown State University for developing the GIS maps. I would like to extend my thanks to Dr. Lauren A. Schroeder and Dr. Shakir Husain for agreeing to serve on my defense committee. I would like to let Linda Adavasio, Jimmy Mohsin, my family and friends know how much I appreciate them for their support and motivation. IV TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Information 1.2 Study Goals 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Point and Nonpoint Sources ofPollution 2.2 Description ofWater Quality Parameters 2.2.1 Total Phosphorus 2.2.2 Nitrite + Nitrate and Ammonia 2.2.3 Total Suspended Solids 2.2.4 Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand 2.2.5 Dissolved Oxygen 2.2.6 Water Temperature 2.2.7 pH 2.2.8 Fecal Coliform 2.3 Ohio Water Quality Standards V PAGE 111 IV V V111 x 1 4 6 7 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 13 14 2.4 Relevant Data from Ohio EPA Report 17 2.4.1 Major Point Source Discharges 18 3. METHODS AND PROCEDURES 3.1 General Description ofOriginal Data 23 3.1.1 Sources ofData 23 3.1.2 Data File Format 23 3.1.3 Monitoring Stations 24 3.2 Data File Handling 25 3.2.1 Pollutant Loading and Flux Calculation 25 3.2.3 Assumptions and Handling of 26 Non-Detectible Concentrations 3.3 Calculation Steps 26 3.3.1 WWTP Final Effluent Loadings 27 3.3.2 In-Stream Data Upstream and 27 Downstream ofWWTP's 3.3.3 Pollutant Fluxes from STORET Data 28 3.3.4 Comparison ofPoint Source Vs Nonpoint Source 28 Loadings 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Wastewater Discharge Data 29 4.1.1 Loading Ranges by Parameter 28 4.1.2 Summary ofBest Estimates 28 4.1.3 Discussion 47 4.2 In-Stream Monitoring by Dischargers 48 4.2.1 Summary ofData 48 VI 4.3 4.2.2 Discussion Estimates ofPoint and Nonpoint Source Loadings 4.3.1 Discussion 52 53 58 5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Summary and Conclusions 59 5.1.1 Scope ofWork 59 5.1.2 Results and Conclusion 60 5.2 Recommendations 60 REFERENCES 62 APPENDIX 63 Vll LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1-1 Mahoning River watershed. 2 3-1 Point source locations in Mahoning 24 River watershed. 4-1 Comparison ofbest estimates ofTSS 39 loadings for 2000 and 2001. 4-2 Comparison ofbest estimates ofammonia 40 nitrogen loadings for 2000 and 2001. 4-3 Comparison ofbest estimates ofnitrite + 41 nitrate nitrogen loadings for 2000 and 200l. 4-4 Comparison ofbest estimates of5-day 42 CBOD loadings for 2000 and 200l. 4-5 ArcView GIS map showing average 43 loading oftotal suspended solids for 2000 and 2001 in kg/yr. 4-6 ArcView GIS map showing average 44 loading ofammonia nitrogen for 2000 and 2001 in kg/yr. 4-7 ArcView GIS map showing average 45 loading ofnitrite + nitrate nitrogen for 2000 and 2001 in kg/yr. 4-8 ArcView GIS map showing average 46 loading of5-day CBOD for 2000 and 2001 in kg/yr. 4-9 Dissolved oxygen concentration vs. 51 River Mile. 4-10 Comparison ofpoint vs. nonpoint 54 loading for CBOD5 at Leavittsburg. Vlll FIGURE PAGE 4-11 Comparison ofpoint vs. nonpoint 54 loading for TSS at Leavittsburg. 4-12 Comparison ofpoint vs. nonpoint 55 loading for ammonia nitrogen at Leavittsburg. 4-13 Comparison ofpoint vs. nonpoint 55 loading for nitrite + nitrate nitrogen at Leavittsburg. 4-14 Comparison ofpoint vs. nonpoint 56 loading for CBOD5 at Lowellville. 4-15 Comparison ofpoint vs. nonpoint 56 loading for TSS at Lowellville. 4-16 Comparison ofpoint vs. nonpoint 57 loading for ammonia nitrogen at Lowellville. 4-17 Comparison ofpoint vs. nonpoint 57 loading for nitrite + nitrate nitrogen at Lowellville. A-I Portions (final effluent limitations) ofan 63 NPDES permit. IX LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 2-1 Limiting pH values. 13 4-1 An example ofthe pollutant loading calculations. 30 4-2 Estimates ofmin and max point source loading 31 rates for total phosphorus. 4-3 Estimates ofmin and max point source loading 31 rates for TSS. 4-4 Estimates ofmin and max point source loading 33 rates for ammonia nitrogen. 4-5 Estimates ofmin and max point source loading 34 rates for nitrite + nitrate nitrogen. 4-6 Estimates ofmin and max point source loading 35 rates for 5-day CBOD. 4-7 Best estimates ofpoint source loadings for the 36 year 2000. 4-8 Best estimates ofpoint source loadings for the 37 year 2001. 4-9 Averages ofbest estimates ofpoint source 38 loadings for the year 2000 & 2001. 4-10 Dissolved oxygen concentrations measured 49 upstream ofpoint source discharges. 4-11 Dissolved oxygen concentrations measured 50 downstream ofpoint source discharges. 4-12 Estimated point and nonpoint source loadings 53 at Leavittsburg. 4-13 Estimated point and nonpoint source loadings 53 at Lowellville. x TABLE PAGE A-2 Exceedances ofOEPA Warmwater Habitat criteria. 66 A-3 An example ofpollutant mean concentration 68 calculations. A-4 Results ofwater temperature monitoring 69 upstream ofWWTP discharges. A-5 Results ofpH monitoring upstream 70 ofWWTP discharges. A-6 Results ofammonia nitrogen monitoring 71 upstream ofWWTP discharges. A-7 Results offecal coliform monitoring 72 upstream ofWWTP discharges. A-8 Results oftotal hardness monitoring 72 upstream ofWWTP discharges. A-9 Results of5-day CBOD monitoring 73 upstream ofWWTP discharges. A-IO Results ofwater temperature monitoring 73 downstream ofWWTP discharges. A-II Results ofpH monitoring downstream 74 of WWTP discharges. A-I2 Results ofammonia nitrogen monitoring 75 downstream ofWWTP discharges. A-13 Results oftotal hardness monitoring 76 downstream ofWWTP discharges. A-I4 Results of fecal coliform monitoring 76 downstream ofWWTP discharges. A-I5 Results oftotal recoverable zinc monitoring 77 downstream ofWWTP discharges. A-I6 Results oftotal recoverable chromium monitoring 78 downstream ofWWTP discharges. Xl TABLE PAGE A-17 Results ofdissolved hexavalent chromium 78 monitoring downstream ofWWTP discharges. A-18 Results oftotal recoverable nickel monitoring 79 downstream ofWWTP discharges. A-19 Results oftotal recoverable lead monitoring 79 downstream ofWWTP discharges. A-20 Results oftotal recoverable copper monitoring 80 downstream ofWWTP discharges. A-2l Results oftotal recoverable silver monitoring 80 downstream ofWWTP discharges. A-22 Results oftotal recoverable cadmium monitoring 81 downstream ofWWTP discharges. A-23 Results oftotal cyanide monitoring downstream 81 ofWWTP discharges. A-24 Results of 5-day CBOD monitoring 82 downstream ofWWTP discharges. A-25 Selected Warmwater Habitat Criteria 83 A-26 An example ofcalculations performed on 84 Leavittsburg data xu CHAPTERl INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Information Rivers have immense value. They are the places where most major cities develop; they provide irrigation water, industrial water, and domestic water; they provide recreation and transportation for goods, and have dozens of other uses that nearly everyone agrees are valuable (Schroeder, 2002). The Mahoning River and its tributaries are the major providers of drinking water in the Mahoning Valley. The Mahoning River watershed, shown in Figure 1-1, covers over 1100 square miles of land in northeast Ohio and western Pennsylvania. The Mahoning River watershed occupies parts of eight counties- Columbiana (the headwaters, or starting place, ofthe Mahoning River), Stark, Portage, Geauga, Ashtabula, Trumbull, and Mahoning in Ohio and Lawrence in Pennsylvania. The major tributaries feeding into the Mahoning River are Eagle Creek, Mosquito Creek, West Branch, Meander Creek, Mill Creek and Yellow Creek. Dams on the river and its tributaries form several large lakes and reservoirs including Kirwan, Mosquito Creek and Meander Creek Reservoirs, and Berlin Lake. Smaller reservoirs include Evans Lake, Lake Milton, Pine Lake, McKelvey Lake, and Burgess Lake. Even smaller reservoirs include Lake Newport, Lake Cohasset, and Lake Glacier - all three in Mill Creek Park. Over 150 million gallons per day of water are withdrawn to meet the needs of the watershed's 540,000 residents and the businesses and industries that support them. The streams, lakes and adjacent land also provide many recreational opportunities, including fishing, swimming, boating, hiking, biking and bird watching (Martin, 2001). 1 WASHINGTOu'LE Figure 1-1 Mahoning River Watershed. 2 Mahoning River Watershed Legend Watershed B01..U'Ldary St3H BOWl,jaJ>' o County BOUl'ldary Ivfunic:ip illt)' Major Roads Limited Access. u.s. Route SUte Route Othel' PJim uy E Li.ke. Resen'oir PJver. Stream + 6 :9 Mil@s ~lJ Propmd by, The Center-for UJbm Studies YoungstO'WrL Sbte UnhreJSity Souree: U.5 . Environ ml!nt,1I Prot@etionAgenc~ ~lJ Agenc~ The Mahoning River was polluted during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by two major sources- the steel industries and the human population. The lack of wastewater treatment plants along the Mahoning River until the 1960s also contributed to the river's pollution; until 1965, raw sewage from homes and businesses went directly into the river (MRC, 2002). The lower reaches of the Mahoning River in Youngstown, Ohio, have been characterized by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) as historically having poor water quality. Most wastewater treatment plants (WWTP's) in the watershed did not provide secondary sewage treatment until the late 1980's. By the late 1990's, the Mahoning River still received sewer overflow discharges from 101 locations within the city of Youngstown, Ohio. The Mahoning River in Youngstown and Mill Creek have not met biotic index criteria since the earliest published assessment by OEPA in 1980 (Stoeckel and Covert, 2002). The industrialized section of the Mahoning River that was used by steel mills and factories includes over 30 miles of the river, starting just west of Warren in Leavittsburg and continuing southeast to Lowellville, Ohio at the border with Pennsylvania. There are 10 low-head dams in this section of the river. These dams were built by the steel industries to store water for cooling the hot steel and machinery. The cooling water, which was often over 100 OF and polluted with industrial chemicals, was discharged directly back into the river. While most of the toxins from the steel mills were washed downstream to the Beaver and Ohio Rivers, some accumulated in sediments at the bottom of the Mahoning River and behind the low-head dams. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimated that there are approximately 462,000 cubic yards of contaminated 3 5. Create an action plan 4. Set goals and develop solutions 6. Implement and evaluate the plan riverbed sediments and an additional 286,000 cubic yards of contaminated river bank sediments (for a total of 750,000 cubic yards) spread out over the 30 miles of river (USACE, 1999). The USACE is currently developing plans to clean up this section ofthe Mahoning River (MRC, 2002). The Mahoning River Consortium (MRC) is a citizen's group formed in 1996, dedicated to improving the quality of life in the Valley by promoting the wise use of the Mahoning River and its watershed. The MRC is developing a Mahoning River watershed Action Plan to serve as a blueprint for future activities and projects. The plan will identify specific water quality goals and actions to be implemented to achieve those goals. Youngstown State University is directing the planning process for the MRC. One area the group has decided to focus on is the industrial corridor of the lower Mahoning River (MRC, 2002). The watershed planning process follows six steps recommended by the Ohio EPA (2002) in "A Guide to Developing Local Watershed Action Plans in Ohio": 1. Build public support 2. Create a watershed inventory 3. Define the problem 1.2 Study Goals A watershed inventory IS a comprehensive reVIew of available data on the physical, chemical and biological, characteristics of the watershed on a sub-watershed basis. This includes an assessment of water quality, the human and ecological features that affect the quality of the water resource and the causes and sources ofpollutants. The inventory should also identify which water bodies are high quality and should be 4 protected (Ohio EPA, 2003). The goal of this report IS to contribute the following components to the Mahoning River watershed inventory: • Evaluation of point source pollutant loading for all waste water treatment plant (WWTP) discharges; • Statistical summary ofin-stream water quality data collected by WWTPs; and • Comparison of point source and nonpoint source pollutant loadings to the Mahoning River. 5 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Point and Nonpoint Sources of Pollution Pollutant sources are classified as point and nonpoint. Pollution originating from a single source, such as a discharge pipe from a factory or a wastewater treatment plant, is termed point source pollution. Point source pollution can be traced to the specific point where it enters the receiving water. As authorized by the Clean Water Act, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. Individual homes that are connected to a municipal system, use a septic system, or do not have a surface discharge, do not need an NPDES permit; however, industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters. In most cases, the NPDES permit program is administered by authorized states. Since its introduction in 1972, the NPDES permit program is responsible for significant improvements to our Nation's water quality (USEPA, 2003). Portions (final effluent limitations) ofan NPDES permit are shown in Appendix A-I. Nonpoint source pollution (NPS) cannot be traced to the source of pollution once it enters the river. NPS pollution does not originate from a single identifiable source, or point. NPS pollution occurs when rainfall, snow melt, or irrigation water runs over land or through the ground and picks up pollutants, and then deposits them into the river or its tributaries. Examples of NPS pollution include soil erosion from farmland and construction sites, rural and urban pesticide and fertilizer runoff, failing septic systems, animal waste, motor oil, antifreeze, and salt applied to roadways. When it rains, these 6 pollutants are washed from the land into waterways by way of surface runoff and storm drains. Because concrete and asphalt don't absorb rainwater, runoff from urban and suburban areas is much greater than from undisturbed areas covered with vegetation (USEPA,2001). 2.2 Description of Water Quality Parameters 2.2.1 Total Phosphorus Phosphorus is one ofthe key elements necessary for growth ofplants and animals. Phosphorus in elemental form is very toxic and is subject to bioaccumulation. Phosphates (P0 4 - 3 ) are formed from this element. Phosphates exist in three forms: orthophosphate, metaphosphate (or polyphosphate) and organically bound phosphate. Each compound contains phosphorous in a different chemical formulation. Ortho forms are produced by natural processes and are found in sewage. Poly forms are used for treating boiler waters and in detergents. In water, they change into the ortho form. Organic phosphates are important in nature. Their occurrence may result from the breakdown of plant biomass, human and animal wastes, and organic pesticides which contain phosphates. They may exist in solution, as particles, loose fragments, or in the bodies/cells ofaquatic organisms. Rainfall can cause varying amounts of phosphates to wash from farm soils into nearby waterways. Phosphate will stimulate the growth of plankton and aquatic plants which provide food for fish. This increased growth may cause an increase in the fish population and improve the overall value ofthe water resources. However, ifan excess of phosphate enters the waterway, dense growth of algae and aquatic plants will occur, hindering recreation and navigation in the waterway and using up large amounts of oxygen upon decomposition. This condition is known as eutrophication or over- 7 fertilization of receiving waters. The rapid growth of aquatic vegetation can cause the death and decay of aquatic life because of the decrease in dissolved oxygen levels. Phosphates are not toxic to people or animals unless they are present in very high levels. Digestive problems could occur from extremely high levels of phosphate (Kentucky Division ofWater, 2003). 2.2.2 Nitrite + Nitrate and Ammonia Nitrogen occurs in fresh water in several forms, including dissolved molecular nitrogen (N 2 ), nitrate (N0 3 -), nitrite (N0 2 -), and ammonium (NH/) ions, in conjunction with organic compounds such as amino acids, amines and proteins, and is continually recycled by plants and animals. The major routes ofentry ofnitrogen into bodies ofwater are municipal and industrial wastewater, septic tanks, feed lot discharges, animal wastes (including birds and fish) and discharges from car exhausts. Nitrogen-containing compounds act as nutrients in streams and rivers. Nitrogen and phosphorous are the two most common growth-limiting nutrients for algae and aquatic plants in surface waters. Nitrification reactions [NH/---+ N0 2 ----+N0 3 -] in fresh water can cause oxygen depletion. Aquatic organisms depending on the supply of oxygen in the stream may die. Bacteria in water quickly convert nitrites (N0 2 -) to nitrates (N0 3 -) if oxygen is present. Nitrites can produce a serious condition in fish called "brown blood disease." Nitrites also react directly with hemoglobin in human blood and other warm-blooded animals to produce methemoglobin. Methemoglobin destroys the ability of red blood cells to transport oxygen. This condition is especially serious in babies under three months of age. It causes a condition known as Methemoglobinemia or "blue baby" disease. Water with nitrate levels exceeding 1.0 mg/L should not be used for feeding babies. Nitrite-nitrogen levels 8 below 90 mg/L and nitrate-nitrogen levels below 0.5 mg/L seem to have no effect on warm water fish (Kentucky Division ofWater, 2003). 2.2.3 Total Suspended Solids Total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations and turbidity both indicate the amount of solids suspended in the water, whether mineral (e.g., soil particles) or organic (e.g., algae). However, the TSS test measures an actual weight of material per unit volume of water, while turbidity measures the amount of light scattered from a sample (more suspended particles cause greater scattering). High concentrations of particulate matter can cause increased sedimentation and siltation in a stream, which in tum can ruin important habitat areas for fish and other aquatic life. Suspended particles also provide attachment places for other pollutants, such as metals, nutrients and bacteria. High suspended solids or turbidity readings thus can be used as "indicators" of other potential pollutants. Land use is probably the greatest factor influencing changes in TSS or turbidity in streams. As watersheds develop, there is an increase in disturbed areas (e.g., cropland or construction sites), a decrease in vegetation, and increase in the rate of runoff. These all cause increases in erosion, particulate matter, and nutrients, which in tum promote increased algal growth. Loss ofthe root structure associated with vegetation due to urbanization exposes more soil to erosion, allows more runoff to form, and simultaneously reduces the watershed's ability to filter runoff before in reaches the stream (Washington State Department ofEcology, 2003). 9 2.2.4 Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) represents the amount of oxygen consumed by bacteria and other microorganisms while they decompose organic matter under aerobic conditions at a specified temperature (usually 20°C). BOD is typically divided into two parts - carbonaceous oxygen demand and nitrogenous oxygen demand. Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) is the result of the breakdown of organic molecules such a cellulose and sugars into carbon dioxide and water. Nitrogenous oxygen demand is the result of the breakdown of proteins. Proteins are composed of amino acids containing nitrogen. After the nitrogen is "broken off" a sugar molecule, it is usually in the form ofammonia, which is readily converted to nitrate in the environment. The conversion of ammonia to nitrate requires more than four times the amount of oxygen as the conversion of an equal amount of sugar to carbon dioxide and water. When nutrients such as nitrate and phosphate are released into the water, growth of aquatic plants is stimulated. Eventually, the increase in plant growth leads to an increase in plant decay and a greater daily variation in the dissolved oxygen level. The result is an increase in microbial populations, higher levels of BOD, and increased oxygen demand from the photosynthetic organisms during the dark hours. This results in a reduction in dissolved oxygen concentrations, especially during the early morning hours just before dawn. The major point sources, which may contribute high levels of BOD, include wastewater treatment facilities, pulp and paper mills, and meat and food processing plants. Typical nonpoint sources include agricultural runoff, urban runoff, and livestock operations. Both point and nonpoint sources can contribute significantly to the oxygen demand in a lake or stream if not properly regulated and controlled (Michigan 10 Department ofEnvironmental Quality, 2003). 2.2.5 Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved oxygen analysis measures the amount of gaseous oxygen (0 2 ) dissolved in an aqueous solution. Oxygen gets into water by diffusion from the surrounding air, by aeration (rapid movement), and as a byproduct of photosynthesis. When performing the dissolved oxygen test, only grab samples should be used, and the analysis should be performed immediately. Therefore, this is a field test that should be performed on site. Adequate dissolved oxygen is necessary for good water quality. Oxygen is a necessary element to most forms of life. Natural stream purification processes require adequate oxygen levels in order to provide for aerobic life forms. As dissolved oxygen levels in water drop below 5.0 mg/l, aquatic life is put under stress. The lower the concentration, the greater is the stress. Oxygen levels that remain below 1-2 mg/l for a few hours can result in large fish kills. Total dissolved gas concentrations in water should not exceed 110 percent of saturation levels. Concentrations above this level can be harmful to aquatic life. Fish in waters containing excessive dissolved gases (especially N 2 ) may suffer from "gas bubble disease"; however, this is a very rare occurrence. The bubbles or emboli block the flow of blood through blood vessels causing death. Aquatic invertebrates are also affected by gas bubble disease but at levels higher than those lethal to fish (Kentucky Division of Water, 2003). 11 2.2.6 Water Temperature Human activities should not change water temperatures beyond natural seasonal fluctuations. To do so could disrupt aquatic ecosystems. Acceptable temperatures are dependent on the type of stream being monitored. Lowland streams, known as "warmwater" streams which support "warmwater habitat", are different from mountain or spring fed streams that are normally cool and support "coldwater habitat". In a warmwater stream, temperatures should not exceed 32°C. Coldwater streams should not exceed 20°C. Often summer heat can cause fish kills in ponds because high temperatures reduce the solubility ofoxygen in the water (Kentucky Division ofWater, 2003). 2.2.7 pH pH is a measure of the acidic or basic (alkaline) nature of a solution. The concentration (in moles/L) of the hydrogen ion [H+] activity in a solution determines the pH. Mathematically this is expressed as: pH = - log [H+] (2.1) A pH range of 6.0 to 9.0 appears to provide protection for the life of freshwater fish and bottom dwelling invertebrates. Table 2-1 gives some special effects of pH on fish and aquatic life. The most significant environmental impact of pH involves synergistic effects. Synergy involves the combination of two or more substances which produce effects greater than their sum. This process is important in surface waters. Runoff from agricultural, domestic, and industrial areas may contain iron, aluminum, ammonia, mercury or other elements. The pH of the water will determine the toxic effects, ifany, of these substances. For example, 4 mg/l of iron would not present a toxic effect at a pH of4.8. However, as little as 0.9 mg/l ofiron at a pH of5.5 can cause fish to 12 Table 2-1. Limiting pH values (Kentucky Division of Water, 2003) Minimum Maximum Effects 3.8 10.0 Fish eggs could be hatched, but deformed young are often produced. 4.0 10.1 Limits for the most resistant fish species. 4.1 9.5 Range tolerated by trout. --- 4.3 Carp die in five days. 4.5 9.0 Trout eggs and larvae develop normally. 4.6 9.5 Limits for perch. --- 5.0 Limits for stickleback fish. 5.0 9.0 Tolerable range for most fish. --- 8.7 Upper limit for good fishing waters. 5.4 11.4 Fish avoid waters beyond these limits. 6.0 7.2 Optimum (best) range for fish eggs. --- 1.0 Mosquito larvae are destroyed at this pH value. 3.3 4.7 Mosquito larvae live within this range. 7.5 8.4 Best range for the growth ofalgae. die (Kentucky Division of Water, 2003). Synergy has special significance when considering water and wastewater treatment. The steps involved in water and wastewater treatment require specific pH levels. In order for coagulation (a treatment process) to occur, pH and alkalinity must fall within a limited range. Chlorination, a disinfecting process for drinking water, requires a pH range that is temperature dependent (Kentucky Division of Water, 2003). 2.2.8 Fecal Coliform Total coliform bacteria are a collection ofrelatively harmless microorganisms that 13 live in large numbers in the intestines ofman and warm- and cold-blooded animals. They aid in the digestion of food. A specific subgroup of this collection is the fecal coliform bacteria, the most common member being Escherichia coli. These organisms may be separated from the total coliform group by their ability to grow at elevated temperatures and are associated only with the fecal material ofwarm-blooded animals. The presence of fecal coliform bacteria in aquatic environments indicates that the water has been contaminated with the fecal material of man or other animals. At the time this occurred, the source water may have been contaminated by pathogens or disease producing bacteria or viruses which can also exist in fecal material. Some waterborne pathogenic diseases include typhoid fever, viral and bacterial gastroenteritis and hepatitis A. The presence of fecal contamination is an indicator that a potential health risk exists for individuals exposed to this water. Fecal coliform bacteria may occur in ambient water as a result of the overflow of domestic sewage or nonpoint sources of human and animal waste (Kentucky Division ofWater, 2003). 2.3 Ohio Water Quality Standards Ohio EPA sets standards to protect the quality of water bodies in Ohio. Water quality standards (WQS) contain two distinct elements - designated uses and numerical or narrative criteria. The agency assigns "designated uses" for the water based on the current or potential quality of the aquatic life inhabiting the water body. Use designations consist oftwo broad groups, aquatic life and non-aquatic life uses. OEPA designates whether the water is or could be used for agricultural, industrial, or public water supplies. In applications of the Ohio WQS to the management of water resource issues in rivers and streams, the aquatic life use criteria frequently control the resulting protection and 14 restoration requirements (OEPA, 2003). This is especially true in the lower Mahoning River, since it has been declared unfit for fishing and recreation purposes by the Ohio Department ofHealth (ODH, 1997). Aquatic life habitats are compared to a reference site within the state that has the best known quality of aquatic habitat and are described as follows (OEPA, 2003): • State Resource Water (SRW) - waters ofhigh chemical and biological quality that include water bodies in state and county parks. • Warmwater Habitat (WWH) - waters capable of supporting and maintaining a balanced, integrated, adaptive community ofwarmwater aquatic organisms. • Exceptional Warmwater Habitat (EWH) - waters capable of supporting and maintaining an exceptional or unusual community of warmwater aquatic organisms as compared to a relatively pristine reference site in the state. • Modified Warmwater Habitat (MWH) - waters that have been found by OEPA to be incapable of supporting and maintaining a balance, integrated, adaptive community of warmwater organisms due to irretrievable modifications of the physical habitat. Such modifications are of a long-lasting duration and may include stream channel modification, extensive sedimentation from abandoned mines, or permanent impoundment offree-flowing water bodies. • Seasonal Salmonid Habitat (SSH) - rivers, streams and embayments capable of supporting the passage of salmonid fish from October through May and are large enough to support recreational fishing. • Coldwater Habitat (CWH) - waters capable of supporting populations of coldwater fish and associated vertebrate and invertebrate organisms and plants on 15 an annual basis. These waters are not necessarily capable of supporting successful reproduction ofsalmonids. • Limited Resource Water (LRH) - waters that have been assessed by OEPA and have been found to lack the potential resemblance of any other aquatic life habitat. Fauna are substantially degraded and recovery potential is precluded. Ohio EPA has provided statewide water quality criteria for different chemicals for the protection of aquatic life. A mixing zone is an area downstream of a discharge point where the effluent is diluted by the receiving water and within which certain water quality standards that would otherwise be applicable may be exceeded. Setting of water quality based effluent limits is done by the criteria of "Outside Mixing Zone" where the effluent and the receiving water are reasonably well mixed. Tables have been formulated for calculating effluent limits for pollutants for WWH, EWH, MWH, SSH, CWH and LRH. These calculations are dependent on temperature and pH ofwater. Ohio EPA biological criteria consist of numeric values for the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) and Modified Index of Well-Being (Mlwb), both of which are based on fish assemblage data, and the Invertebrate Community Index (ICI), which is based on macroinvertebrate assemblage data. Criteria for each index are specified for each of Ohio's five ecoregions, and are further organized by organism group, index, site type, and aquatic life use designation. These criteria, along with the existing chemical and whole effluent toxicity evaluation methods and criteria are the main parameters used in the monitoring and assessment ofOhio's surface water resources (OEPA, 2003). 16 2.4 Relevant Data from Ohio EPA Report As part of Ohio EPA's Five-year Basin Approach for Monitoring and NPDES permitting, chemical, physical, and biological sampling was conducted in the Mahoning River basin study area during the summer and early fall of 1994. The principal objectives ofthis study were to (OEPA, 1994): 1) Determine the extent to which uses designated III the Ohio Water Quality Standards are or are not in attainment status; 2) Identify causes and sources associated with any non-attainment or partial attainment ofuses designated in the Ohio WQS; 3) Provide information for the development of Water Quality Permit Support Documents (WQPSD's) in support of NPDES permit reassurance for selected point sources; and 4) Assess and characterize changes (trends) in biological performance and chemical/physical water quality since previous surveys (i. e., 1980 and 1983) and subsequent upgrades by major municipal and industrial wastewater treatment facilities. A summary of the status of aquatic life use attainment for all sites sampled in the Mahoning River basin study in 1994 is presented here. Note that River Mile (RM) is measured upstream from the mouth of a river or stream. In the upper Mahoning River Mainstem from Alliance (RM 100.6) to the Leavittsburg dam (RM 45.6), only the two furthest upstream stations (RM 68 and 56.5) were in full attainment of the existing Warmwater Habitat (WWH) aquatic life use, with 17 both the fish and macroinvertebrate community indices (IBI, Mlwb, and ICI) meeting the biological criteria. Two stations (RM 70.3170.7 and 63.6/62.7) exhibited partial attainment and nine stations exhibited non-attainment ofthe WWH biocriteria. Of the 45.5 river miles evaluated in the lower Mahoning River mainstem, a total of 0.3 miles (2 sites - RM 44.3 and 39.1) were in full attainment of the existing WWH use designation, 5.8 miles (3 sites) in partial attainment, and 39.4 miles (23 sites) in non attainment. The macroinvertebrate communities met the WWH ICI biocriterion from downstream of the Leavittsburg darn (RM 45.5) to upstream from the Dickey Run storm sewer (RM 39.1) in Warren. Sampling results in Mahoning River mainstem tributaries showed only 2 ofthe 25 tributary locations in full attainment of the WWH use (Eagle Creek [RM 6.6] and Silver Creek [RM 0.8/0.9]). Two locations exhibited partial attainment (W. Br. Mahoning River [RM 0.4] and Dry Run [RM 0.6]), and the remaining 21 exhibited non-attainment (Mosquito Creek [RM 1.0/0.6], all sites in lower Meander Creek, all sites in Mill Creek and tributaries, and Yellow Creek [RM 1.0]). Exceedances of Ohio EPA Warmwater Habitat criteria for chemical and physical water parameters (grab samples) from the Mahoning River study area during 1994 are shown in Appendix A-2 (OEPA, 1994). Fecal coliform was the major parameter exceeding standards in the upper Mahoning River and dissolved oxygen in the lower Mahoning River and its tributaries. 2.4.1 Major Point Source Discharges The following is a general summary of information about major point source 18 discharges which were evaluated during the 1994 Ohio EPA survey. These discharges were also the subject ofthis study, along with several smaller plants not described here. • Alliance WWTP (Beech Creek RM 0.35, Mahoning River RM 82.03): The city of Alliance WWTP discharges to an impounded portion of Beech Creek within the Berlin Reservoir. The discharge location corresponds to RM 0.35 of Beech Creek, which joins the Mahoning River at RM 82.03. • Thomas Steel Strip Corporation (Dickey Run Storm Sewer RM 1.2, Mahoning River RM 39.17): Thomas Steel Strip produces cold reduced steel strip, some of which is electroplated with nickel, copper, brass, or a nickel-zinc alloy. Outfall 001 discharges to the Dickey Run storm sewer at approximately RM 1.2 which, in tum, empties into the Mahoning River at RM 39.06. • WCI Steel Inc. (Mahoning River RM 37.15 to 35.86): WCI Steel is a manufacturer offlat rolled sheet and coiled steel with discharges to the Mahoning River mainstem between RM 37.0 and 35.9. The largest outfall in terms of flow and loadings is outfall 013, with an average daily flow ofapproximately 35 MGD. Outfall 008 is the next largest, with an average flow between 1993 and 1994 of approximately 7.0 MGD, and outfall 007 is the third largest at approximately 2.0 MGD. • City of Warren WWTP (Mahoning River RM 35.25): The Warren WWTP has a 16.0 MGD design flow and was last upgraded to advanced secondary treatment in February 1988. Treatment processes include grit removal; detritus settling tanks, extended aeration activated sludge, primary and final settling tanks, 19 chlorination, and post aeration with the discharge to the mainstem at river mile (RM) 35.25. • RMI-Niles (Mahoning River RM 33.63): RMI-Niles is a manufacturer of titanium alloy in slabs, billets, and sheets and has one discharge to the Mahoning River at RM 33.63. Wastewater includes non-contact cooling, process water, sanitary wastewater, and stormwater. • Meander Creek WWTP (Meander Creek RM 1.98, Mahoning River RM 30.27): The Mahoning County Meander Creek WWTP discharges to Meander Creek at RM 1.98. The Meander Creek WWTP is owned and operated by the Mahoning County Board of Commissioners. The plant was built in 1976 with treatment processes for pre-chlorination, grit removal, pure oxygen activated sludge, two stage clarification, rapid sand filtration, and ozone disinfection. Its design has a separate sewage system and the ability to remove phosphorus. Meander Creek is a small to medium size tributary (85.8 mi 2 drainage area) ofthe Mahoning River (RM 30.27). • Ohio Edison Company, Niles Plant (Mahoning River RM 30.00-29.51): The Ohio Edison, Niles Generating Plant (NGP) generates electric power by employing two 108 Megawatt (MW) coal fired steam generating units and one 30 MW combustion unit. • City of Niles WWTP (Mahoning River RM 28.86): The Niles WWTP discharges at RM 28.86 and was upgraded in 1988 to a secondary treatment facility. Treatment processes include grit removal, oxidation ditch with internal clarifier, and chlorine contact. 20 • City of Girard WWTP (Little Squaw Creek RM 0.4, Mahoning River RM 25.28): The Girard WWTP was constructed in 1962 and upgraded to a secondary WWTP in 1988. The discharge is to Little Squaw Creek just upstream from the confluence with the Mahoning River at RM 25.28. Current wastewater treatment includes grit chamber, pre-aeration, primary settling, tricking filter, final clarifiers, equalization basin, and chlorine contact. • Boardman WWTP (Mill Creek RM 9.6, Mahoning River RM 21.63): The Mahoning County Boardman WWTP discharges to Mill Creek at RM 9.6. Downstream from the WWTP, Mill Creek flows through Mill Creek Park to its confluence with the Mahoning River in Youngstown (RM 21.6). Major land uses within the 78.4 square mile watershed are a mixture of suburban development, agriculture, and forested park land. The Boardman WWTP was constructed in 1962 as an activated sludge plant and upgraded in 1987 to advanced secondary treatment with nitrification, disinfection and post-aeration with a design flow of 5.0MGD. • City of Youngstown WWTP (Mahoning River RM 19.43): The Youngstown WWTP is the largest municipal discharge to the Mahoning River (RM 19.43), with a design flow of35.0 MGD. A primary treatment plant was built in 1957 and construction for a secondary WWTP was completed in 1988. The current treatment process includes bar screen, grit chambers, primary clarifiers, activated sludge, and trickling filters for flows up to 35.0 MGD. Flow in excess of 35 MGD bypass the aeration system and is passed through microscreens to the chlorine contact tank. 21 • Campbell WWTP (Mahoning River RM 15.89): The Campbell WWTP was upgraded from a primary plant to a secondary WWTP in March, 1988 and discharges to the Mahoning River at RM 15.89. Treatment processes include screening and grit removal, activated sludge aeration using two oxidation ditches, secondary clarification, and chlorination. • Struthers WWTP (Mahoning River RM 14.32): The Struthers WWTP has a design flow of 6.0 MGD and discharges to the Mahoning River at RM 14.32. In March 1987 the WWTP was upgraded from primary to secondary treatment. 22 CHAPTER 3 METHODS AND PROCEDURES 3.1 General Description of Original Data 3.1.1 Sources of Data NPDES monitoring data for the years 2000 and 2001 for 21 significant point sources, including all major wastewater treatment plants (WWTP's) and industries, (shown in Figure 3.1) were acquired from Ohio EPA. Bryan Schmucker, from the Division of Surface Water at Northeast District Office of Ohio EPA, was the key facilitator for obtaining this data. All parameters that are monitored at different monitoring stations (discharge, upstream, and downstream) by WWTP's were included in one file, resulting in 21 files. STORET data were also obtained from Ohio EPA (Mary Ann Silagy, Central Office) for Leavittsburg and Lowellville and were used in calculating the total pollutant flux. Monthly water quality data were obtained for the years 1990-2001. STORET (short for STOrage and RETrieval) is a repository for water quality, biological, and physical data and is used by state and federal environmental agencies, universities, private citizens, and others. 3.1.2 Data File Format All NPDES data files were in dbf (dBASE) file format. dbf is a generic database file type that allows for the transfer ofdata between various database programs. STORET data files were in Microsoft Excel format. 23 MERCER Mahoning River Watershed Wastewater Treatment Plants Legend • Wastewater Treatment Plant Watershed Boundary State Boundary County Boundary Municipality Lake, Reservoir River, Stream CORTLAND + O~ 6 9 Miles - i CANFIELD Mosquito Creek WWTP ,{ /. Boardman WWTP Thomas Steel \ WARREN • Uilton Reswvoir Berlin ReseNolr Garrettsville WWTP . GARRETTSVILLE WINDHAM /. Windham WWTP HIRAM LIMAVILLE TRUMBULL WCI J Warren WWTP • NEWTON FALLS - • • , NILES Niles WWTP RMI TItanium _~ Newton Falls WWTP • MCDONALD Ohio Edison Co:---- • -G' d WWTP Craig Beach WWTP • lIar " LORDSTOWN! GIRARD WBranoh R•.,rvolr " • Meall(ler Creek WWTP CRAIG BEACH,_... Youngstown WWTP 6. YOUNGSTOWN I Me K.,v.yL.k. i1 CA:PBELLcimPbell WWTP :r • STRUTH~.LOWELLVILLE Struthers WWTP • POLAND I Lowellville WWTP ASHTABULA GEAUGA w c.? 0.80 for zero difference). While dissolved oxygen concentrations decline slightly as water flows downstream, levels in the river seem to be within acceptable limits (WWH criteria> 4.0 mg/L) for aquatic life. Only one location had a combined mean below 7.0 mgiL. This was near the Niles WWTP discharge around RM 30. However, the values presented are averages and include both summer and winter values. There might be times in the summer when dissolved oxygen is much lower than the average. 4.3 Estimates of Point and Nonpoint Source Loadings An example of pollutant flux calculations performed on STORET data is shown in Appendix Table A-25, for CBOD at Leavittsburg. Final estimates of point and nonpoint source loading at Leavittsburg and Lowellville are presented in Tables 4-12 and 4-13, respectively. Pie graphs depicting the percentages of point vs. nonpoint source loadings for each parameter are presented in Figures 4-10 through 4-17. 52 Table 4-12. Estimated point and nonpoint source loadings at Leavittsburg. Mass flux Total upstream Non-point source Non-point source Parameter in river(k~/d)point sources (kg/d)Loadin~(kg/d) Loading (kg/yr) CBOD5 2,071 206 1,864 680,466 TSS 47,081 168 46,914 17,123,448 AN 159 44 115 42,091 NN 1,210 386 824 300,746 Table 4-13. Estimated point and nonpoint source loadings at Lowellville. Mass flux Total upstream Non-point source Non-point source Parameter in river (kg/d) point sources(k~/d)Loadin~(k~/d)Loading (kg/yr) CBOD5 8,070 1,668 6,402 2,336,569 TSS 71,425 4,086 67,339 24,578,891 AN 688 596 92 33,464 NN 4,845 2,506 2,339 853,793 53 (k~/d)Loadin~ (k~/d)Loadin~(k~/d) Figure 4-10. Comparison of Point vs. Nonpoint Loading for CBODS at Leavittsburg. 0206; 10% o Total upstream point sources (Kg/d) r2I Non-point sources loading (Kg/d) Figure 4-11. Comparison of Point vs. Nonpoint Loading for TSS at Leavittsburg. 0168; 0.36% o Total upstream point sources (Kg/d) ~Non-point sources loading (Kg/d) ~46,914;100% 54 ~ ~46,914; Figure 4-12. Comparison of Point vs. Nonpoint Loading for ammonia nitrogen at Leavittsburg. o Total upstream point sources (Kg/d) ~Non-point sources loading (Kg/d) Figure 4-13. Comparison of Point vs. Nonpoint Loading for nitrite + nitrate nitrogen at Leavittsburg. o Total upstream point sources (Kg/d) I!:l Non-point sources loading (Kg/d) 55 ~ Figure 4-14 Comparison of Point vs. Nonpoint Loading for CBOD5 at Lowellville. 01,668; 21% o Total upstream point sources (Kg/d) ~Non-point sources loading (Kg/d) Figure 4-15 Comparison of Point vs. Nonpoint Loading for TSS at Lowellville. 04,086; 6% DTotal upstream point sources (Kg/d) r:.il Non-point sources loading (Kg/d) 12167,339; 94% 56 ~ Figure 4-16. Comparison of Point vs. Nonpoint Loading for ammonia nitrogen at Lowellville. o Total upstream point sources (Kg/d) ~Non-point sources loading (Kg/d) 0596; 87% Figure 4-17. Comparison of Point vs. Nonpoint Loading for nitrite + nitrate nitrogen at Lowellville. 02,506,52% llJ2,339,48% o Total upstream point sources (Kg/d) IZJ Non-point sources loading (Kg/d) 57 ~ 4.3.1 Discussion Nonpoint sources were much higher than point source at Leavittsburg for all parameters. This is expected because most WWTP's above Leavittsburg are small. For AN and NN, point sources account for a significant fraction (>25%) of the total loading. At Lowellville, point sources were greater than nonpoint sources for AN and NN, but nonpoint sources were greater than point sources for CBOD and TSS. Management programs to reduce TSS loading should focus on nonpoint sources. Reductions in CBOD, AN and NN loading can be accomplished by a combination of point source and nonpoint source controls. 58 CHAPTERS SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Summary and Conclusions 5.1.1 Scope of Work The goal of this project was to contribute to the Mahoning River Watershed Inventory. In a four step calculation process, point source and nonpoint source pollutant loadings were estimated for the watershed. 1. Pollutant loading calculations were performed using NPDES data for the final effluent from each significant WWTP for the years 2000 and 2001. The parameters included total phosphorus (TP), nitrite + nitrate nitrogen (NN), ammonia nitrogen (AN), total suspended solids and 5-day CBOD, based on their importance to water quality. 2. Means and standard deviations of measured concentrations of several water quality parameters were calculated for 2000 and 2001 separately, and for the two years combined, both upstream and downstream of each WWTP discharge. All parameters monitored that had sufficient reliable data were included. 3. Pollutant fluxes in the Mahoning River were calculated at Leavittsburg and Lowellville using monthly monitoring data collected by Ohio EPA. These fluxes were considered to represent the sum of point and nonpoint loadings above that station. 4. The nonpoint source loadings were calculated by subtracting the sum of point sources from the total flux for each parameter at each location. 59 5.1.2 Results and Conclusion For the point sources, the largest loadings were observed in WWTPs of Youngstown, Struthers, Girard, Warren, Niles and WCI. For example, Youngstown WWTP accounted for 36% of the point source loading of nitrite + nitrate nitrogen, 22% of the TSS, 30% of the 5-day CBOD, and 13% of the point source ammonia nitrogen loading. Similarly, Struthers WWTP was the source for 21 % of the 5 day CBOD, and 26% of ammonia nitrogen loading from point sources. Discharges from WCI Steel, Inc. contributed 35% of the total point source loading of TSS. It can be concluded that these are the major contributors to the point source loading. In the comparison of point versus nonpoint source loadings at Leavittsburg, as was expected, nonpoint sources were much higher than the point source loadings. At Lowellville, nonpoint source loadings were larger for TSS and CBOD; point source loadings were higher for ammonia and nitrite + nitrate nitrogen. 5.2 Recommendations Non-detectible concentrations III the data sets cause some uncertainty III the loading calculation. In most cases, there was not a large difference between the minimum and maximum loading calculated. However, the uncertainty could be reduced if MDL (minimum detection limit) values are reported consistently when non-detectible concentrations are obtained. NPDES monitoring data for TP were available for only five WWTP's. TP should be monitored in all WWTP's, if possible. Although the major contributors for TP come from the nonpoint sources, monitoring TP would make it possible to estimate both the total point source loading and the nonpoint source loading for TP. 60 Studies that contribute to the watershed inventory should be continued. Data from these and other programs should be analyzed in the future to refine the estimates of point source and nonpoint source pollutant loadings. Management programs should be monitored and improved to protect the Mahoning River and its tributaries. 61 REFERENCES Kentucky Water Watch, 2003. Water Quality Parameters. http://www.state.ky.us/nrepc/water/wcparint.htm Mahoning River Consortium (MRC brochure), 2002. Mahoning River Consortium (MRC), 1996. http://www.mahoningriver.co.trumbull.oh.us/mission-goals.htm Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2003. Biochemical oxygen demand. http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-swq-npdes-BiochemicalOxygenDemand.pdf Ohio Department ofHealth, 1997. Ohio fish consumption advisories revised, issued for PCB's, mercury and lead. Ohio EPA, 1997. A Guide to Developing Local Watershed Action Plans in Ohio. http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/nps/wsguide.pdf Ohio EPA, 2003. Water Quality Standards- OAC Chapter 3745-1: 3745-1-07,3745-1-25 and 3745-1-34. http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/rules/3745-1.html Ohio EPA, 1994. Division ofSurface Water, Biological and Water Quality Study ofthe Mahoning River Basin. http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/documents/mahon94.pdf Schroeder, L, 2002. The Mahoning River Education Project- The Value of a River. http://www.ysu.edu/mahoningriver/Research%20Reports/rivervalue.htm Stoeckel, D.M., and Covert, S.A., 2002. Water quality ofthe Mahoning River and selected tributaries in Youngstown, Ohio. U.S. Geological Survey. http://oh.water.usgs.gov/reports/wrir/wrir02-4122.pdf USACE, 1999. Mahoning River environmental dredging reconnaissance study. US EPA, 2003. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdeslindex.cfm USEPA, 2003. Point and nonpoint sources pollution. http://www.epa. gov/ebtpages/water.html Washington State Department ofEcology, 2003. Total suspended solids and Turbidity. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/managementlioysmanual/streamtss.html YSU Public Service Institute, 2001. The Mahoning River Education Project- A Brief Description ofthe Mahoning River and the Restoration. http://www.ysu.edu/mahoningriver/riverrestoration.htm 62 APPENDIX Figure A-I Portions (final effluent limitations) of an NPDES permit. Page 1 ot 28 Ohio EPA Permit: No! 3PK00002*fill ~::i'NE DRAFT COpy SUBJECT TO REVISION OHIO EPA ApplicatioIl No. OH0037249 Issue Date: Effective Date: Expirat:i.on. Date: October 31, 2000 In Chio Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Authorization to Discharge Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System iance with the crovisions ur the Federal Water Pollution Control Act l as (33 U S.C 1251·et. seq.} hereinafter referred to as the tIAct!1), and the Nate"f' Po] .l\.:t:l.on Control Act (Ohio Revised Code. Section 611l)} Manoning County Commissioners is aut::lori::ed by the Ohio Envircnmental Prot.ection Agency, hereinafte,r referredt~o as l'OhioEP~.,:l~(~dis<::harge frc:m the~<;a.:rdma~~'~stewatertreatment. works located at 7980Ea~)tPar'KSJ,c.e Dx-lve, Boarc...'Tlan,On~olManonJ..ng Count)' and discharging to Mill Creek -i..:-: accordance with the condit.ions specifie,d. in Pa.r-t.s I, II, and III of this permit a lowering of~a~erin Mill Creek as authorized bv necess:aI"1 .I have mad.e this based liDon the ccmn:e.:; t,s > anc includil'2g the considerar.ion of tecr..,nical, socia.L, d,nd eCOllc,mic criteria concer'ning this application and i.Los impact. on waters ()f the sta'::".f:' This permit is ccnditicned upon payment of applicabl!!"', fees as req'u.ired by Section 374s.1l of the Ohio Revised Cede. '-:"his permit: and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on the expiraticn date shown above. In order to receive authorization to discharge beyond the above date of expiration, the permit.tee shall submit such inforrnaticn and forms ,"s are required by the ohio EPA no later than 180 days prior to the above date of expiration. DOTecr."r Form EPA 4·;29 63 ~::i'NE .l\.:t:i.on county t~o EP~.,:l~(~~<;a.:rdma~~'~stewater Ea~)tOn~olCounty ~a~er Page 4 of 28 Ohio EPA Permit No.' 3PK00002*HD Pa,rt I, II. .. FINAL EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS During the period beginI1ing on the date that the improved wastewater treatment works are to attain operational level as specified in Item I, C.l in the Schedule 0: Cornpliance and lasting until the expiration date, the permittee is authorized to discharge in accordance with the following limitations and monitoring requirements from outfall 3PK00002001. See Part II, OTHER RRQUIREMENl'S, for locations of effluent sampling. #/ICOml fecal Col form (Sl..rner Only) , rig Un i ts P2r-arrl€'t;:-r MON tTORINCEciJlkEHENTS Meas, S""I"t. Freq. Type Daily Cont i nuct.;S~ax. 3/lleek Ccovosi te 1/2 '.leeks Grab 3/lleekC~<)si;e 3/\1eek Carposi te 1/lleek Carcger., Total(jelda!":~ ~~tiOser:.).Iitr'ite ..~itrate Silve'. Total Recove,::!ble 21r:, Tot.1l Recoverable Ch'"::;.m;UT'f TotalRecove!"at:l~ Dissolvc-c h·exa··...at'?~:: ~tn.. lr""yl ) Tctz"l Reccyen:;ble T,:;ti3lReccver~bl