U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Annapolis Field Office
Annapolis Science Center
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
TECHNICAL REPORTS
Volume 2
-------
-------
Table of Contents
Volume 2
13 Mine Drainage in the North Branch Potomac
River Basin
15 Nutrients in the Upper Potomac River Basin
17 Upper Potomac River Basin Hater Quality
Assessment
-------
-------
PUBLICATIONS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION- III
ANNAPOLIS FIELD OFFICE*
VOLUME ]
Technical Reports
5 A Technical Assessment of Current Water Quality
Conditions and Factors Affecting Water Quality in
the Upper Potomac Estuary
6 Sanitary Bacteriology of the Upper Potomac Estuary
7 The Potomac Estuary Mathematical Model
9 Nutrients in the Potomac River Basin
11 Optimal Release Sequences for Water Quality Control
in Multiple Reservoir Systems
VOLUME 2
Technical Reports
13 Mine Drainage in the North Branch Potomac River Basin
15 Nutrients in the Upper Potomac River Basin
17 Upper Potomac River Basin Water Quality Assessment
VOLUME 3
Technical Reports
19 Potomac-Piscataway Dye Release and Wastewater
Assimilation Studies
21 LNEPLT
23 XYPLOT
25 PLOT3D
* Formerly CB-SRBP, U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare; CFS-FWPCA, and CTSL-FWQA, Middle Atlantic
Region, U.S. Department of the Interior
-------
VOLUME 3 (continued)
Technical Reports
27 Water Quality and Wastewater Loadings - Upper Potomac
Estuary during 1969
VOLUME 4
Technical Reports
29 Step Backward Regression
31 Relative Contributions of Nutrients to the Potomac
River Basin from Various Sources
33 Mathematical Model Studies of Water Quality in the
Potomac Estuary
35 Water Resource - Water Supply Study of the Potomac
Estuary
VOLUME 5
Technical Reports
37 Nutrient Transport and Dissolved Oxygen Budget
Studies in the Potomac Estuary
39 Preliminary Analyses of the Wastewater and Assimilation
Capacities of the Anacostia Tidal River System
41 Current Water Quality Conditions and Investigations
in the Upper Potomac River Tidal System
43 Physical Data of the Potomac River Tidal System
Including Mathematical Model Segmentation
45 Nutrient Management in the Potomac Estuary
VOLUME 6
Technical Reports
47 Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Input Study
49 Heavy Metals Analyses of Bottom Sediment in the
Potomac River Estuary
-------
VOLUME 6 (continued)
Technical Reports
51 A System of Mathematical Models for Water Quality
Management
52 Numerical Method for Groundwater Hydraulics
53 Upper Potomac Estuary Eutrophication Control
Requirements
54 AUT0-QUAL Modelling System
Supplement AUT0-QUAL Modelling System: Modification for
to 54 Non-Point Source Loadings
VOLUME 7
Technical Reports
55 Water Quality Conditions in the Chesapeake Bay System
56 Nutrient Enrichment and Control Requirements in the
Upper Chesapeake Bay
57 The Potomac River Estuary in the Washington
Metropolitan Area - A History of its Water Quality
Problems and their Solution
VOLUME 8
Technical Reports
58 Application of AUT0-QUAL Modelling System to the
Patuxent River Basin
59 Distribution of Metals in Baltimore Harbor Sediments
60 Summary and Conclusions - Nutrient Transport and
Accountability in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin
VOLUME 9
Data Reports
Water Quality Survey, James River and Selected
Tributaries - October 1969
Water Quality Survey in the North Branch Potomac River
between Cumberland and Luke, Maryland - August 1967
-------
VOLUME 9 (continued)
Data Reports
Investigation of Water Quality in Chesapeake Bay and
Tributaries at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Department
of the Army, Aberdeen, Maryland - October-December 1967
Biological Survey of the Upper Potomac River and
Selected Tributaries - 1966-1968
Water Quality Survey of the Eastern Shore Chesapeake
Bay, Wicomico River, Pocomoke River, Nanticoke River,
Marshall Creek, Bunting Branch, and Chincoteague Bay -
Summer 1967
Head of Bay Study - Water Quality Survey of Northeast
River, Elk River, C & D Canal, Bohemia River, Sassafras
River and Upper Chesapeake Bay - Summer 1968 - Head ot
Bay Tributaries
Water Quality Survey of the Potomac Estuary - 1967
Water Quality Survey of the Potomac Estuary - 1968
Wastewater Treatment Plant Nutrient Survey - 1966-1967
Cooperative Bacteriological Study - Upper Chesapeake Bay
Dredging Spoil Disposal - Cruise Report No. 11
VOLUME 10
Data Reports
9 Water Quality Survey of the Potomac Estuary - 1965-1966
10 Water Quality Survey of the Annapolis Metro Area - 1967
11 Nutrient Data on Sediment Samples of the Potomac Estuary
1966-1968
12 1969 Head of the Bay Tributaries
13 Water Quality Survey of the Chesapeake Bay in the
Vicinity of Sandy Point - 1968
14 Water Quality Survey of the Chesapeake Bay in the
Vicinity of Sandy Point - 1969
-------
VOLUME 10(continued)
Data Reports
15 Water Quality Survey of the Patuxent River - 1967
16 Water Quality Survey of the Patuxent River - 1968
17 Water Quality Survey of the Patuxent River - 1969
18 Water Quality of the Potomac Estuary Transects,
Intensive and Southeast Water Laboratory Cooperative
Study - 1969
19 Water Quality Survey of the Potomac Estuary Phosphate
Tracer Study - 1969
VOLUME 11
Data Reports
20 Water Quality of the Potomac Estuary Transport Study
1969-1970
21 Water Quality Survey of the Piscataway Creek Watershed
1968-1970
22 Water Quality Survey of the Chesapeake Bay in the
Vicinity of Sandy Point - 1970
23 Water Quality Survey of the Head of the Chesapeake Bay
Maryland Tributaries - 1970-1971
24 Water Quality Survey of the Upper Chesapeake Bay
1969-1971
25 Water Quality of the Potomac Estuary Consolidated
Survey - 1970
26 Water Quality of the Potomac Estuary Dissolved Oxygen
Budget Studies - 1970
27 Potomac Estuary Wastewater Treatment Plants Survey
1970
28 Water Quality Survey of the Potomac Estuary Embayments
and Transects - 1970
29 Water Quality of the Upper Potomac Estuary Enforcement
Survey - 1970
-------
30
31
32
33
34
Appendix
to 1
Appendix
to 2
3
4
VOLUME 11 (continued)
Data Reports
Water Quality of the Potomac Estuary - Gilbert Swamp
and Allen's Fresh and Gunston Cove - 1970
Survey Results of the Chesapeake Bay Input Study -
1969-1970
Upper Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Studies - Bush River,
Spesutie Narrows and Swan Creek, C & D Canal, Chester
River, Severn River, Gunpowder, Middle and Bird Rivers -
1968-1971
Special Water Quality Surveys of the Potomac River Basin
Anacostia Estuary, Wicomico .River, St. Clement and
Breton Bays, Occoquan Bay - 1970-1971
Water Quality Survey of the Patuxent River - 1970
VOLUME 12
Working Documents
Biological Survey of the Susquehanna River and its
Tributaries between Danville, Pennsylvania and
Conowingo, Maryland
Tabulation of Bottom Organisms Observed at Sampling
Stations during the Biological Survey between Danville,
Pennsylvania and Conowingo, Maryland - November 1966
Biological Survey of the Susquehanna River and its
Tributaries between Cooperstown, New York and
Northumberland, Pennsylvnaia - January 1967
Tabulation of Bottom Organisms Observed at Sampling
Stations during the Biological Survey between Cooperstown,
New York and Northumberland, Pennsylvania - November 1966
VOLUME 13
Working Documents
Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, Mine Drainage
Chesapeake Bay-Delaware River Basins - July 1967
Biological Survey of Rock Creek (from Rockville, Maryland
to the Potomac River) October 1966
-------
VOLUME 13 (continued)
Working Documents
5 Summary of Water Quality and Waste Outfalls, Rock Creek
in Montgomery County, Maryland and the District of
Columbia - December 1966
6 Water Pollution Survey - Back River 1965 - February 1967
7 Efficiency Study of the District of Columbia Water
Pollution Control Plant - February 1967
VOLUME 14
Working Documents
8 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study - Susquehanna
River Basin from Northumberland to West Pittson
(Including the Lackawanna River Basin) March 1967
9 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, Juniata
River Basin - March 1967
10 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, Rappahannock
River Basin - March 1967
11 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, Susquehanna
River Basin from Lake Otsego, New York, to Lake Lackawanna
River Confluence, Pennsylvania - April 1967
VOLUME 15
Working Documents
12 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, York River
Basin - April 1967
13 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, West Branch,
Susquehanna River Basin - April 1967
14 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, James River
Basin - June 1967 .
15 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, Patuxent River
Basin - May 1967
-------
VOLUME 16
Working Documents
16 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, Susquehanna
River Basin from Northumberland, Pennsylvania, to
Havre de Grace, Maryland - July 1967
17 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, Potomac
River Basin - June 1967
18 Immediate Water Pollution Control Needs, Central Western
Shore of Chesapeake Bay Area (Magothy, Severn, South, and
West River Drainage Areas) July 1967
19 Immediate Water Pollution Control Needs, Northwest
Chesapeake Bay Area (Patapsco to Susquehanna Drainage
Basins in Maryland) August 1967
20 Immediate Water Pollution Control Needs - The Eastern
Shore of Delaware, Maryland and Virginia - September 1967
VOLUME 17
Working Documents
21 Biological Surveys of the Upper James River Basin
Covington, Clifton Forge, Big Island, Lynchburg, and
Piney River Areas - January 1968
22 Biological Survey of Antietam Creek and some of its
Tributaries from Waynesboro, Pennsylvania to Antietam,
Maryland - Potomac River Basin - February 1968
23 Biological Survey of the Monocacy River and Tributaries
from Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, to Maryland Rt. 28 Bridge
Potomac River Basin - January 1968
24 Water Quality Survey of Chesapeake Bay in the Vicinity of
Annapolis, Maryland - Summer 1967
25 Mine Drainage Pollution of the North Branch of Potomac
River - Interim Report - August 1968
26 Water Quality Survey in the Shenandoah River of the
Potomac River Basin - June 1967
27 Water Quality Survey in the James and Maury Rivers
Glasgow, Virginia - September 1967
-------
VOLUME 17 (continued)
Working Documents
28 Selected Biological Surveys in the James River Basin,
Gillie Creek in the Richmond Area, Appomattox River
in the Petersburg Area, Bailey Creek from Fort Lee
to Hopewell - April 1968
VOLUME 18
Working Documents
29 Biological Survey of the Upper and Middle Patuxent
River and some of its Tributaries - from Maryland
Route 97 Bridge near Roxbury Mills to the Maryland
Route 4 Bridge near Wayson's Corner, Maryland -
Chesapeake Drainage Basin - June 1968
30 Rock Creek Watershed - A Water Quality Study Report
March 1969
31 The Patuxent River - Water Quality Management -
Technical Evaluation - September 1969
VOLUME 19
Working Documents
Tabulation, Community and Source Facility Water Data
Maryland Portion, Chesapeake Drainage Area - October 1964
Waste Disposal Practices at Federal Installations
Patuxent River Basin - October 1964
Waste Disposal Practices at Federal Installations
Potomac River Basin below Washington, D.C.- November 1964
Waste Disposal Practices at Federal Installations
Chesapeake Bay Area of Maryland Excluding Potomac
and Patuxent River Basins - January 1965
The Potomac Estuary - Statistics and Projections -
February 1968
Patuxent River - Cross Sections and Mass Travel
Velocities - July 1968
-------
VOLUME 19 (continued)
Working Documents
Wastewater Inventory - Potomac River Basin -
December 1968
Wastewater Inventory - Upper Potomac River Basin -
October 1968
VOLUME 20
Technical Papers
1 A Digital Technique for Calculating and Plotting
Dissolved Oxygen Deficits
2 A River-Mile Indexing System for Computer Application
in Storing and Retrieving Data (unavailable)
3 Oxygen Relationships in Streams, Methodology to be
Applied when Determining the Capacity of a Stream to
Assimilate Organic Wastes - October 1964
4 Estimating Diffusion Characteristics of Tidal Waters -
May 1965
5 Use of Rhodamine B Dye as a Tracer in Streams of the
Susquehanna River Basin - April 1965
6 An In-Situ Benthic Respirometer - December 1965
7 A Study of Tidal Dispersion in the Potomac River
February 1966
8 A Mathematical Model for the Potomac River - what it
has done and what it can do - December 1966
9 A Discussion and Tabulation of Diffusion Coefficients
for Tidal Waters Computed as a Function of Velocity
February 1967
10 Evaluation of Coliform Contribution by Pleasure Boats
July 1966
-------
VOLUME 21
Technical Papers-
11 A Steady State Segmented Estuary Model
12 Simulation of Chloride Concentrations in the
Potomac Estuary - March 1968
13 Optimal Release Sequences for Water Quality
Control in Multiple-Reservoir Systems - 1968
VOLUME 22
Technical Papers
Summary Report - Pollution of Back River - January 1964
Summary of Water Quality - Potomac River Basin in
Maryland - October 1965
The Role of Mathematical Models in the Potomac River
Basin Water Quality Management Program - December 1967
Use of Mathematical Models as Aids to Decision Making
in Water Quality Control - February 1968
Piscataway Creek Watershed - A Water Quality Study
Report - August 1968
VOLUME 23
Ocean Dumping Surveys
Environmental Survey of an Interim Ocean Dumpsite,
Middle Atlantic Bight - September 1973
Environmental Survey of Two Interim Dumpsites,
Middle Atlantic Bight - January 1974
Environmental Survey of Two Interim Dumpsites
Middle Atlantic Bight - Supplemental Report -
October 1974
Effects of Ocean Disposal Activities on Mid-
continental Shelf Environment off Delaware
and Maryland - January 1975
-------
VOLUME 24
1976 Annual
Current Nutrient Assessment - Upper Potomac Estuary
Current Assessment Paper No. l
Evaluation of Western Branch Wastewater Treatment
Plant Expansion - Phases I and II
Situation Report - Potomac River
Sediment Studies in Back River Estuary, Baltimore,
Maryland
Technical Distribution of Metals in Elizabeth River Sediments
Report 61
Technical A Water Quality Modelling Study of the Delaware
Report 62 Estuary
-------
Chesapeake Technical Support Laboratory
Middle Atlantic Region
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
U. S. Department of the Interior
Technical Report No. 13
MINE DRAINAGE
IN THE
NORTH BRANCH
POTOMAC RIVER BASIN
Leo J. Clark
August 1969
Supporting Staff:
Johan A. Aalto, Chief, CTSL
Norbert A. Jaworski, Chief, Engineering Section
James W. Marks, Chief, Laboratory Section
William Sloan, Sanitary Engineer*
Survey Crews
William Thomas
Robert Home
Currently with Maryland Department of Water Resources
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD ..... ......... ...... ...
LIST OF TABLES ....................
LIST OF FIGURES ........ ...... ......
Chapter
I INTRODUCTION .................
A. Purpose and Scope ............
B. Authority . . . ....... . .....
C. Acknowledgments .... ...... ...
II SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...........
III DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA . . ........
A. History ...... . ..... .....
B. Geography .......... ......
C. Hydrology ..... ..... ......
D. Geology .................
E. Economy ... ..... ..........
IV FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS ..... .......
A. Mine Drainage Chemistry . . . . . . . . .
B. Water Quality Standards and Implementation
Plans .... ............ .
C. V/ater Quality Surveillance Programs . . .
D. Abatement Considerations . . ...... „
vi
vii
I - 1
1-1
1-3
1-4
II - 1
Ill - 1
Ill - 1
Ill - 1
Ill - 2
Ill - 3
Ill - 5
IV - 1
IV - 1
IV - 3
IV - 6
IV - 8
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter
V WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS ..........
A. Headwaters to Steyer, Maryland „ . . . .
B. Steyer to Kitzmiller, Maryland . „ . . .
C. Kitzmiller, Maryland to Beryl,
West Virginia ............
D. Beryl to Keyser, West Virginia . . . „ «
E. Summary of 1968-69 Acidity Data . . . . .
VI MINE DRAINAGE TRENDS AND DELINEATION OF ACID
LOADINGS .................
A. Historical Trends in pH and Acidity
for North Branch above Luke, Maryland
B. Delineation of Acidity Load .......
C. Regression Studies ...........
VII EFFECTS OF MINE DRAINAGE POLLUTION . . . . .
A. Water Supply ..............
B. Ecology .................
C. Bloomington Reservoir ..........
VIII CONTROL METHODS AND COSTS ..........
A. General Considerations .........
B. Costs ..................
IX BIBLIOGRAPHY ................
X APPENDICES .................
V - 1
V - 1
V - 6
V - 14
V - 23
V - 30
VI - 1
VI - 1
VI - 5
VI - 12
VII - 1
VII - 1
VII - 4
VII - 6
VIII - 1
VIII - 1
VIII - 3
IX - 1
X - 1
111
-------
FOREWORD
In north central West Virginia near the extreme southwestern
corner of Maryland's panhandle the casual visitor may come upon the
Fairfax Stone, the historic marker identifying the source of the
Potomac River. To a visitor observing the silvery trickle sparkling
amid sylvan surroundings, it would appear that little change had
occurred since the area was first surveyed by George Washington for
Thomas, Lord Fairfax, in the middle of the eighteenth century.
But not for long! A few miles downstream the first evidence
of coal mining activities appears. Both active and long abandoned
open strip mines with the attendant scarred landscape, refuse piles,
and tailings that accumulated over the past 150 years contribute
acid drainage and surface leaching to the stream, discoloring it
with iron and sulfur compounds, clogging the bottom with silt and
coal fines and rendering it sterile and devoid of fish, aquatic
plant and animal life,,
Indifference to the degradation of the North Branch Potomac
River and its surroundings during the past century was partly the
result of its remote location, partly the lack of techniques in
treating mine drainage, and partly the high cost of preventing the
discharges, disposal of coal wastes and restoration of the ravaged
landscape.
IV
-------
Water quality surveys to identify watersheds receiving the bulk
of mine drainage and their effects on the North Branch Potomac River
have been evaluated and are presented in this report. Corrective
action will require identification of all individual mine drainage
discharges in the area and development of feasible methods of elimi-
nating or controlling the harmful aspects of mine drainage.
v
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Title Page
III - 1 Streamflow of North Branch Potomac River
and Tributaries above Cumberland, Md0 III - 8
IV - 1 Water Uses North Branch Potomac River
Basin IV - 5
VI - 1 Tributary Contributions Upstream From
Steyer, Md0 VI - 7
VI - 2 Tributary Contributions Upstream From
Kitzmiller, Md. VI - 8
VI - 3 Tributary Contributions Upstream From
Barnum, W. Va0 VI - 9
VI - 4 Tributary Contributions Upstream From
Beryl, W. Va0 VI - 10
VI - 5 Regression Study Results VI - 17
VII - 1 Projected Water Supply Demands VII - 2
VIII - 1 Preliminary Mine Drainage Abatement
Costs VIII - 9
VI
-------
.1ST OF FIGURES
Number
I -
IV -
V -
V _
V -
V -
V -
V -
V -
V -
V -
v _
V -
V -
V -
V -
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Map - North Branch Potomac River „ . . „ .
pH vs., Net Alkalinity North Branch
Potomac Biver „ ............
Elk Ran -Henry Siding, W. Va. Survey
A-'Cl UCl 3QOOOOOftOO«OOO«Q (.OO
laurel Run-Dobbin Road, Md. Survey
Data .„„ „ „..,„„.. o ......
Buffalo Creek-Bayard, W, Va0 Survey
Data ...„„.. o ...........
North Branch Potomac P.iver-Steyer, Md,
Survey Data ...... .,.....».
Stony Fiver-Mount Storm, W. Va0 Survey
Data „ . , „ „ „ . „ „ . . „ . o , „ o . ,
Lost-land Run near Bethlehem School, Md,
Survey Data «»<,<>,,o<,o°o«;>«o»
Abram Creek-Cakmcnt, W. Va. Survey Data
North, Branch Potomac River-Kitzmiller,
Md, Survey Data ....„......,,
Three Forks Bun-East Vindex, Md, Survey
Elklick Hun-Manor Hillc Survey Data . „ .
North Branch Potomac River -Barnum., W. Va.
Survey Data ...............
Piney Sv/amp Run -Hampshire, W. Va, Survey
Data ...................
North Branch Potomac River-Beryl,, W0 Va.
Survey Data ...............
Savage River USGS Gaging Station near
Bloomineton, Md. Survey Data .......
Page
I -
IV -
V -
V -
V -
V -
V -
V -
v -
V -
V -
V -
V -
V -
V -
V -
2
10
2
4
5
7
8
10
12
13
15
16
17
21
22
25
Vll
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Number
V - 15 Savage River-Bloomington, Md. Survey
Data ................... V - 26
V - 16 Georges Creek-Y/esternport Survey Data V - 28
V - 17 North Branch Potomac River-Keyser, W. Va. . V - 29
V - 18 Acidity Isopleth (mg/l) North Branch
Potomac River ............... V - 32
VI - 1 Historical pH Trend North Branch Potomac
River-Luke,, Md. .............. VI - 2
VI - 2 Historical Flow Trend North Branch Potomac
River-Luke, Md. .............. VI - 3
VI - 3 Historical Acidity Trend North Branch
Potomac River-Luke, Mda . . . . . . . . . „ VI - 4
VI - 4 Tributary Contributions to North Branch
Potomac River ,,..,„......,.. VI - 13
VI - 5 Acid Load - Stream Flow Relationship
Buffalo Creek-Bayard,, W. Va. ....... VI - 15
VI - 6 Acid Load - Stream Flo?/ Relationship
North Branch Potomac River-Barnum, W, Va, . VI - 16
VIII - 1 Mine Drainage Abatement Costs - Preventive
Measures ................. VIII - 5
VIII - 2 Mine Drainage Abatement Costs - Collection VIII - 6
VIII - 3 Mine Drainage Abatement Costs - Treatment VIII - 7
Vlll
-------
1-1
CHAPTER I
INTHODUCTION
A. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The Chesapeake Technical Support Laboratory (CTSL), Middle
Atlantic Region of the Federal Water Pollution Control Adminis-
tration, as part of the President's Water Quality Task Force on
Project Potomac,, completed a water quality survey in 1966„ The
Maryland Department of Water Resources and the West Virginia
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources,
cooperated with CTSL in conducting an intensive sampling program
in the North Branch Potomac River basin between March 1968 and
May 1969. The principal objectives of this study were to:
1. Determine the extent and magnitude of existing mine
drainage pollution,
2. Identify streams contributing significant acidic loadings
to the North Branch and define temporal distribution and
relative magnitudes of acidity,
3. Determine the effects of tributary flows on the main stem
of the Potomac River,
4. Define existing stream use limitations resulting from
mine drainage pollution,
5. Predict the water quality in the proposed Bloomington
Reservoir after impoundment, and the impact of flow releases
on downstream water quality during low flow periods,
-------
DESIGNATES APPROXIMATE
LOCATION OF COAL FIELDS
STREAMS AFFECTED BY
MINE DRAINAGE POL LU TON
STREAMS INTERMITTENTLY
AFFECTED BY MINE
DRAINAGE POLLUTION
SCALE IN MILES
MINE DRAINAGE POLLUTION REPORT
NORTH BRANCH POTOMAC
RIVER SUB BASIN
-------
1-3
6. Suggest the extent of water quality control required to
achieve established water quality standards, and
7. Determine design criteria and costs to provide required
control measures for each drainage sub-basin.
This study is limited to that portion of the North Branch
Potomac River basin currently affected by mine drainage discharges.
Geographically, this area includes all the Potomac drainage upstream
from Cumberland, Maryland,, A basin map is shown as Figure I-I.
Basin schematics are shown in Appendix A as Figures A-2 through A-5.
B. AUTHORITY
This report was prepared under the provision of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.),
which directed the Secretary of the Interior to develop programs
for eliminating pollution of interstate waters and improving the
condition of surface and underground waters„
C. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The cooperation of the following governmental agencies,
industries and other organizations has enabled CTSL to complete
this study and their assistance is gratefully acknowledged:
1, Maryland Department of Water Resources
2. West Virginia Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Water Resources
3, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District
-------
1-4
4. West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company*, Luke, Maryland
5. U. S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Divisions at
Cumberland, Maryland and Charleston, West Virginia
6. Celanese Fibers Company, Division of Celanese Corporation,
Cumberland, Maryland
7. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin
* Recently changed to Westvaco
-------
II-l
CHAFFER II
SIW/LRY Mr. CONCLUSIONS
1, For over a century., mine drainage has been the primary cause
of degradation in the North Branch Potomac River basin. More
than 40 miles of the main stem above Lulce, Maryland, and over
100 miles of 'tributary streams are now virtually devoid of
aquatic life because of the effects of mine drainage,
2. The principal constituents of mine drainage in the North Branch
Potomac River basin are classified as follows:
a. Total dissolved and suspended solids,
b. Acid,
c. Iron and manganese, and
d0 Toxic precipitates,
Each of these substances i,? currently having a deleterious
effect on municipal and industrial water supply, fish and
aquatic life, water oriented recreation and other prescribed
beneficial water uee.su
3, The North Branch Potomar- River} between Steyer, Maryland and
Beryl, West Virginia,, contravenes Maryland interstate water
quality standards throughout the year. Moreover, many of the
tributary streams either continuously or intermittently
contravene their respective intrastate standards. The maximum
acid concentration and minimum pH value observed in the main stem
of the North Branch Potomac were 593 mg/1 and 2.3, respectively.
Both occurred at the Steyer -tation.
-------
II-2
4. Long-term water quality data, monitored by the West Virginia Pulp
and Paper Company, indicate that in recant years a significant
deterioration in water quality has occurred. This decrease can be
attributed to a combination of lew flow conditions and increased
mining activities„
5, The tributary streams in the Potomac basin producing most of the
acid are;
Elk Run 35,000 Ibs/day
Laurel Run 13,000 Ibs/day
Buffalo Creek 15,000 Ibs/day
Abram Creek 8,000 Ibs/day
Stony River 4,500 Ibs/day
Three Forks Run 3,300 Ibs/day
Piney Swamp Rim 3S200 Ibs/day
Lostland Run 1,000 Ibs/day
6. Approximately 54 percent of the acid loading of the North Branch
at Beryl, West Virginia (drainage area of 287 square miles) origi-
nates in 20 square miles of tributary streams consisting of
Elk Run, Laurel Run, and Buffalo Creek watersheds.
7. An estimated 79,000 Its/day of acidity is contributed by streams
within the State of West Virginia and 39,000 Ibs/day by streams
within the State of Maryland,, These estimates represent 67 per-
cent and 33 percent,, respectively, of the total acid loading in
the North Branch Potomac River at Beryl„
-------
II-3
8. Elk Run, the most seriously degraded tributary stream in the
North Branch basin contained acid concentrations approaching
9,000 mg/1 and pH values under 2000
9. Active coal mines in West Virginia appear to be a significant,
and perhaps the largest, source of acid mine drainage while
in Maryland, drainage from inactive mines appears to be the
most significant source,
10„ Since there are no large natural alkalinity sources in the
North Branch above the Savage Elver, an extensive mine drainage
control program to eliminate practically all acid discharges is
required to achieve water quality standards„
11. The proposed Bloomington Reservoir will impound mine drainage
water with acid concentrations ranging from 30 mg/1 to 180 mg/1
and pH values ranging from 207 to 4<,9o 'Ihe annual cost of
neutralizing flow releases from the reservoir to comply with
Maryland's current pB standard has been estimated at $238,000„
12, A preliminary estimate of annual expenditures required to provide
necessary prevention, collection, and treatment measures in the
seven most critical watersheds of the Potomac basin is $5,000,000.
Capital costs are estimated at $32,500,000,
-------
II-3
13. Recent survey data (August 1969) indicate that a "flushing" of
mine drainage occurs during high flow periods with resultant acid
effects, including a major fish kill, observed in the North Branch
Potomac downstream from Cumberland, Maryland.
14. An analysis of the flow release management procedures of the
proposed Bloomington Reservoir is essential to minimize the effects
of mine drainage in the releases.
-------
III-l
CHAPIIH III
DESCRI?IJO.N C F THE SJIDI AREA.
A0 HISTORY
The lower Potomac Fiver b^sin wa£ settled early by English
colonists who recognized the potential in development of the upper
river as a gateway to the west by means of a canal connecting the
Chesapeake Bay to the Chic River bn.:, in, George Washington surveyed
the upper river, the Chesapeake ar^' .Ibic Canal construction started,
and rapid growth in the basin seemed, assured,,
The advent, of the railroad doomed, the future of the canal before
completion; but the discovery of coal in the North Branch basin, aided
by railroad transportion, led to r^pid exploitation of this resource
in the middle of the nineteenth century „ Ihe ravages of the coal
mining activity ar^ still evident though mining continues 'under regu-
lations to conserve the other natural rescarces„ water, forests, and
landscapes,
B. GEOGRAPHY
The North Branch of 4he Potomac River rises in Tucker County,
West Virginia near the Fairfax Stor.^ marking tha historic western
boundary of Maryland with Virginia, now Wept Virginia, and flows
alternately northeast ard southeast for about 98 miles tc join the
South Branch near Old torn, .Maryland to form the Potomac River. Two
miles downstream from its source, belcw Kempton, .Maryland, the right
bank forms the southern boundary between Maryland and West Virginia«,
-------
Ill-2
On the Maryland side the river is bounded by Garrett and Allegany
counties and on the West Virginia side by Grant, Mineral, and
Hampshire counties„
The basin's coal-bearing area lies mainly in this trough-shaped
valley, about 80 miles long with its axis in a northeast-southwest
direction,, The North Branch flows northeastward along this axis for
almost 50 mile?,, then bends to the southeast at the three industrial
communities of Luke, Westernport, and Piedmont, and there leaves the
coal-bearing area. Above Luke it is known as the upper Potomac coal
field. The northeastern valley is drained by Georges Creek which
flows southwestward to join the North Branch at Westernport,
Both the North Branch and Georges Creek valleys are steep,
narrow, and heavily wooded. Most of the tributaries are short hill-
side runs with less than ten square miles of drainage area discharging
directly into the main stem. The exceptions are Stony River and Abram
Creek which drain much of the North Branch basin above Luke on the
West Virginia side0 These tributaries, both of which lie in the coal-
bearing region, each approach 50 square miles in drainage area at
their mouth. The study area encompasses some 875 square miles and
is shown in Figure T-10
C. HYDROLOGY
The flow in Stony River is regulated by West Virginia Pulp and
Paper Company's Reservoir about 19 miles upstream from the North
Branch and to a minor extent by a Virginia Electric and Power Company
-------
III-3
dam about nine miles upstream from the North Branch. A reservoir
near the U, S. Eoute 50 crossing at Mount Storm, West Virginia has
been proposed by the Corps of Engineers„
Savage River, which lies for the most part outside the coal
region, joins the North Branch just upstream from Luke, Its flow is
regulated by the Corps of Engineers' Savage River Reservoir about
five miles upstream from the North Branch, A reservoir upstream from
the existing reservoir (Savage II) has been proposed by the Corps of
Engineers. The Corps of Engineers has also proposed a large reservoir,
the Bloomington Project, on the North Branch approximately eight miles
upstream from Luke„
Because of the steep and generally impervious terrain, streams
in this region respond rapidly to changes in rain or snow runoff and
tend to have low dry-weather flows. Pertinent data for gaging
stations within the study area, can be found in Table III-l.
D. GEOLOGY
The predominant coal-bearing geological formations in the upper
Potomac coal basin are the Conemaugh, Allegheny, and Pottsville
formations of the Pennsylvania system in order of depth from the
surface as well as increasing resource value. The first two outcrop
in the basin, but all have been reached and worked from mine shafts,,
In the Georges Creek coal basin the Monongahela formation with its
thick Pittsburgh coal seam was formerly the most productive source
but has gradually become exhausted and was the major cause of
-------
Ill-4
decline in mining activity in this1 area,, Modern mining methods
have made it feasible to recover coal from previously uneconomical
seams with the promise of coal mining activity in the area for a
long time.
Coal was discovered in the Georges Creek basin in 1782 and has
been mined in the North Branch basin for about 150 years. A mine
was operating before 1816 at EcMiart, Maryland ID C-eorges Creek
field, and output increased rapidly until the early twentieth
century.
Mary land's peak production, 5.5 million tons of coal, occurred
in 1907, earlier than any other coal-producing state. Coal produc-
tion in the North Branch basin for the 1961-1965 period was:
1961 ....... 1,0 million tons
1962 ....... 1.0 million tons
1963 , . . . o . o 1«3 million tons
1964 . . . . „ . . 202 million tons
1965 o o . . o o . 3,3 million tons
The 1965 North Branch production amounted to 0065 percent of national
production. About 2.2 million tons were mined in West Virginia (upper
Potomac field) and 1,1 million tons in Maryland. Of the 1965 Maryland
production, 624,000 tons were mined from the upper Potomac field. The
upper Potomac field accounted for 35 percent of the 1965 North Branch
basin coal production, and the West Virginia part of the upper Potomac
field made up the bulk of the recent increases„ While production for
the entire North Branch basin increased 330 percent from 196l to 1965,
-------
III-5
Maryland production increased only 60 percent0 These increases were
probably a result of use of modern mining methods and increased demand
for electric power generation,,
The many coal seams are interspersed with marine shales, clays,
and sandstones. Calcareous rocks, unfortunately, are not character-
istic of the basin and are sparsely present in thin strata. Such
alkaline rocks could have provided neutralization potential for the
acids found in mine drainage discharges,, Where limestone does occur
in the Savage River basin, it is believed to have provided the alka-
linity in Savage Reservoir and consequently some neutralisation of
acidity in the North Branch at Westernport „
E. ECONOMY
Cumberland, Maryland, the largest population center in the
North Branch basin, is the railroad and industrial center of the area0
It has been a transportation center .since the early 1800's when the
National Road, now TJ, S0 40, was built,,
In 1842 the Baltimore and Ohio Hailroad, and in 1850 the
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, reached Cumberland and rapid growth in
coal mining began. Today the area i;-, also served by the Western
Maryland and Pennsylvania Railroads„ In addition to the railroad
activity, three large industrial plants with employment ranging
from 1,100 to 3,100 are located in the Cumberland area,,
The remainder of the basin is sparsely populated. Principal
towns are Frostburg, Barton, Lonaconing,, Oakland, and Luke-Westernport
-------
III-6
in Maryland and Piedmont and Keyser in West Virginia. The West Virginia
Pulp and Paper Company mill located in the tri-town area of Luke-
West ernport -Piedmont employs 2,400 persons and is the largest "fine
paper" mill in the world.
Coal output per man increased three times as fast in Maryland
during 1961-1965 as in the adjacent states; and in 1965, the output per
man was far greater in the Maryland upper Potomac basin than in the
Georges Creek basin. This was a result of new explorations and invest-
ment in new equipment and was also experienced in the West Virginia
upper Potomac basin.
Because of the increased outpat per man, mining employment in the
North Branch basin did not increase in proportion to production during
1961-1965. Employment for these years was:
196'1 ....... 617
1963 ....... 657
1963 ....... 631
1964 ..... D . 784
19o5 ....... 851
In 1965, 3?3 men were employed in Maryland and 478 in West Virginia.
This includes not only miners but all mine-associated employees.
The average value of Maryland coal in 1965 was $3.63 per ton
f.o.b. mine, below the average U8 S0 price of $4.44 and the
Pennsylvania (including anthracite) and West Virginia values of $5.07'
and $4.87, respectively. Coal values have been stable since 1950, the
average fluctuating within a range of 69 cents per ton from 1950 to
-------
III-7
1905 with West Virginia upper Potomac basin values probably comparable.
This would make the total 1965 North Branch basin coal production worth
about $12 million, or 0.53 percent of the value of all coal mined in
the United States in 1965. Of this the West Virginia upper Potomac
coal field production during 1965 would have been $8 million, about
one percent of the total value of the West Virginia coal production.
The Maryland 19o5 production of $4 million was an almost insignificant
three ten-thousandths of one percent of the gross Maryland state product,
but about five percent of the total value of the mineral industry in
Maryland.
-------
TABLE III-l
STREAMFLOW OF NORTH BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER AND
TRIBUTARIES ABOVE CUMBERLAND, MARYLAND
Streamflow
USGS Gaging
Station
Drainage
Area
(sq.mi.)
Mean
(cfs)
Median
(cfs)
7 Day*
10 yr, Flow
(cfs)
Remarks
North Branch at 73.0 l60 89 4.6
Steyer, Md,
Stony River at 48.8 82.1
Mt. Storm, W. Va.
Abram Creek at 47,3 61.5 27-7
Oakmont, ¥. Va.
Worth Branch at 225 ^24 238 l4
KItzmiLler, Md.
North Branch at 287 498 284 20
Bloomington, Md.
Savage River at
Bloomington, Md.
North Branch at 404 681 356 48
Luke, Md.
Georges Creek at 72.4 77-9 36 2.7
Franklin, Md,
North Branch at 596 859 4^8 ^4
Pinto, Md,,
287
106
498
162
284
76
Median and 7d-10 yr „
flows estimated from
relation with Kltz-
miller gage.
Below dam, records
unadjusted.
Median from USGS pro-
visional records,
subject to revision.
Adjusted for storage
in Stony River Reser-
voir .
Beryl, W. Va. dis-
continued
Below Sa,vage River
dam records adjusted
for storage,
Records adjusted for
storage In Stony and
Sa,'/age River Reservoirs
Unadjusted.
* Design flow prescribed by Maryland's and West Virginia's water
quality standards. 7 consecutive day low flow with a 10 yea,r
return frequency.
-------
IV-1
CHAPTER I?
FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS
A0 MINE DRAINAGE CHEMISTRY
Sulfur and iron compounds found with coal deposits become
exposed to air and water during mining operations and produce dis-
solved iron salts and sulfuric acid that interact to form iron,
aluminum, calcium and magnesium sulfates some of which form toxic
precipitates. In addition manganese, sodium, potassium, and other
elements may be present in the resulting drainage as chlorides,
carbonates, and sulfates.
Mine drainage control methods are based upon preventing the
exposure of pyrite or iron disulfide to air and water in order to
reduce formation of sulfuric acid and other undesirable constituents.
Although investigators differ concerning the specific reactions
and mechanisms involved in the formation of mine drainage, the over-
all reactions can be represented by the following equations:
2 FeS2 + 70Q + 2HpO _^ 2 FeSO + 2H2SO
(pyrite) (oxygen) (water) (ferrous sulfate) (sulfuric acid)
+ 300 __» FeSO. + S00
c. r 4 <-
(sulfur dioxide)
°2
The reaction yields two moles of hydrogen ions, H+, (acidity) for each
mole of iron oxidized.
-------
IV-2
Initially, the iron in mine drainage is in the ferrous state;
however, after contact with air, ferrous iron oxidizes to ferric iron
according to the following equation:
4 FeSO^ + SHgSO^ + 0? —* 2 Fe^SO^) 3 + 2H20
(ferric sulfate)
While the oxidation of pyrite produces sulfuric acid, the above equation
indicates that the additional oxidation of iron utilizes sulfuric acid.
Dependent upon pH, temperature, and concentration of constituents the
reaction proceeds:
Fe0(SO,), + uH00 _j, 2 Fe(QH)(SO.) + SO.
d 4 ) £ f_Z. 4 4
(ferric sulfate) (water) (basic ferric sulfate) (sulfate ion)
In the absence of acid, basic ferric sulfate may precipitate directly
according to the following reaction:
4 FeSO + 0 + 2H00 _» 4 Fe(QH)(SO )
4 <^ t- 4 s
(commonly referred to as "yellow-
boy" )
There is some question as to whether the basic ferric sulfate is a
discrete compound or a ferric hydroxide containing occluded sulfate.
In the presence of strong acid concentrations, ferrous sulfate
may hydrolyze as follows:
FeSO. + 2H00 > Fe(OH)0 + H0SO.
4 <~ ^ r f- c~ 4
The above equations which describe the formation of mine drain-
age compounds are theoretical. As such, they may not always define
-------
"v—?-y <*}
.iv -3
what occurs in the field since mine drainage involves a highly dynamic
and complex system,, encompassing both chemical and biological reactions,
B0 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ANT BdEMFNTAriCN FLAMS
1, State of Maryland
a. Water Use and Water Quality Criteria
The State of Maryland has adopted water quality standards for all
surface waters within the State0 Standards pertaining to interstate
streams were approved ty the U. S. Department cf the Interior on
August 7, 1967, The principal indicator prescribed by Maryland!s
standards for waters receiving mine drainage pollution is pH. The
water uses to be protected and the corresponding pH criteria for that
portion of the North Branch Potomac basin upstream from the City of
Cumberland can be found in Table IV-!„
The water quality standards established by the State of Maryland
are to apply at all times when fIcxs are equal to or greater than the
minimum seven-eonsecutive-day-low-flcw with a ten-year return frequency,
b. Implementation Plan
The State of Maryland has proposed the following programs in an
effort to abate the pollution resulting from mine drainage;
(1) The Maryland Bureau of Mir.es and the Maryland Department of
Water Resources will conduct frequent inspections of active operations
to determine if standards are being met„ If they are not being met,
additional improvement and early action to correct offending conditons
will be required„
-------
IV-4
(2) A regulation on mine drainage control will be prepared
subsequent to conferences with the Land Reclamation Advisory Committee*.
Such a regulation will only require corrective measures which are
economically feasible and practicable of -attainment and may not correct
all mine drainage pollution especially that caused by abandoned deep
mines.
(3) When methods of controlling or minimizing mine drainage from
abandoned mines are developed "by existing experimental work, the State
will initiate a program for such corrective action.
2. State o£_Wesl__Y_irg^jnl^
a. Water Uses snd Water Quality Criteria
The interstate and intrastate stream standards adopted by the
State of West Virginia were approved by the l\ S, Department of the
Interior in May, 19^>8. Water uses to be protected for the State of
West Virginia can also be found in Table rr-l.
Standards which qpply to a tn?o mile reach of the Potomac, below
its source and all tributary streams within West Virginia containing
acid mine drainage, prescribe the following criteria:
(l) Less than 30,0 mg/1 aluminum,
(2) Less than 10.0 mg/1 to'.al iron,
(3) pH greater than 5.5,
(4) Less than 200 mg/1 total suspended solids, and
(5) Less than 200 mg/1 sulfate.-,.
* As of July 1, 1969, know as Land Reclamation Committee
-------
o
Water Uses to pH
Zone be Protected Criteria
rH
0
P
oi
£5
tomac R. From W. Va. - Md. State Line Municipal Water Supply 6.0 - 8. 5
te) to W. Va. Pulp & Paper Water Agricultural Water Supply
Supply Dam In Luke, Md. Industrial Water Supply
Fish & Aquatic Life (trout)
Water Contact Recreation
tomac R. W. Var Pulp & Paper Water Agricultural Water Supply 5.0 - 9.0
te) Supply Dam in Luke, Md. Industrial Water Supply
to Dam at Cumberland, Md.
o
PH
-
H
m
^
CD
p -d
CQ d
0 rH
p t>)
d ^l
•H ^Oj
o
PH
?H
m
&
o3
P TJ
CQ d
?H o3
0 rH
P t^s
d fH
^•i
ver Headwaters to mouth Same as Number 1 6.0-8,5
te)
•H oi
PH P
CQ
0 03
Ml rH
S3 P
£> fj
ra ^
reek Headwaters to mouth Fish & Aquatic Life 6.0 - 8,5
te)
nd
cd
H
£H
1
o
to
0
M
b
0
o
oi
p >d
CQ d
oi o3
rH rH
•p :>>
•rH 03
tribs. Headwaters to mouth Water Contact Recreation 6.0 - 8.5
M
0
cl
p
0
H
3
Potomac Fish & Aquatic Life (trout)
t 8= Agricultural Water Supply
Counties
te)
• P
rH 0
P3 rH
M
• o3
^ C5
P -H
03
t>3 P
d CQ
o3 o3
fcio m
0 P
H d
^
LTN
CO
1
0
VO
d
o
•H
p
oi
0
fH
o
0
p
o
oi
p
o
o
M
0
p
oi
rx
O
•H
H
| Q
f2
^
£>,
rH
ft
ft
d
ra
rH
0
P
oi
H
Oi
£
p
rH
rjj
O
•H
£_i
3
fH r£>
0
P -d
03 0
0
H
o
o
d 0 •
03 rd |S
p
CQ -v
M CM rd
0 O O
P d
o3 • o3
|S CQ JH
H -ri
OJ
LT\
vo
-------
IV-6
b. Implementation Plan
In an effort to determine the feasibility and costs of methods
devised to control acid mine drainage from abandoned mines, the
Federal Government in cooperation with the State of West Virginia
has undertaken a mine drainage control project on Roaring Creek in
Randolph County. Information obtained from this project, and other
similar projects throughout the country, will ultimately be applied
to the entire abandoned mine drainage problem affecting interstate
and intrastate streams within West Virginia.
The State of West Virginia feels that the coal industry's pro-
gress toward stream pollution control from active mines has been too
slow and therefore plans to initiate a program which will accelerate
this progress. A program to prevent the possibility of future
pollution from active mines is already in effect. Before a coal
company is issued a permit to discharge water into a stream, there
must be complete assurance that this water will not pollute the
stream. Pollution is defined as a contravention of stream standards.
C. WATER QUALITY SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS
1. State Surveys
The Maryland Department of Water Resources conducts a continuing
surveillance program to monitor the water quality in streams affected
by mine drainage. MDWR has also compiled extensive information
regarding the locations of individual mines, the area currently dis-
turbed by strip mining, and effluent analysis for each of the mines
-------
IV-7
contributing drainage. In addition, MDWR has conducted a pH survey
of all Maryland streams and many West Virginia tributaries to the
North Branch.
A routine surveillance program is currently being maintained by
the West Virginia Department of Natural .Resources, Division of Water
Resources.
2. Water Quality Monitoring by Industries
In the reach from Luke, Maryland to Cumberland, Maryland, ten
water quality surveillance stations are currently being maintained by
three industries. Of the ten stations, five are maintained by the
West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company; two by the Celanese Fibers
Company; and three by the Kelly-^Springfield Company.
Data from the surveillance network is summarized annually by the
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin.
3. FWFCA Cooperative Surveys
The Chesapeake Technical Support Laboratory of FWPCA conducted
mine drainage surveillance programs in the North Branch Potomac River,
upstream, from Cumberland, Maryland, during August and October of 1966
and April and November of 19670
In March 1968, a bi-weekly sampling program was initiated in
cooperation with the Maryland Department of Water Resources and the
West Virginia Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water
Resources., This program was funded in part by the U. S0 Army Corps
of Engineers, Baltimore District, from their Bloomington Reservoir
-------
IV-8
Project. For a period of about fourteen months, eighteen stations
were maintained by CTSL personnel and four by MDWR and WVDNR per-
sonnel.
A description of the sampling stations and all data collected
since March 1968, are given in Appendices A and B. Sampling stations
are also indicated on the basin map (Figure I-l) and on basin sche-
matic diagrams (Figures A-2 through A-5).
D. ABATEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
To achieve a water quality that will allow the desired uses of
the North Branch Potomac River, a reduction of certain undesirable
constituents normally found in mine drainage is necessary. The
constituents of greatest importance are:
1. Total dissolved solids,
2. Acidity,
3. Iron and manganese, and
4. Toxic precipitates.
Each of the above has a deleterious effect on water usage and
will be discussed in a later chapter. The primary problem created
by mine drainage, however, is a result of excessive acidity and the
corresponding decrease in pH. In order to simulate the response of
pH to a reduction in acidity (or increase in net-alkalinity) attri-
butable to an abatement effort, a net allsalinity versus pH relation-
ship was established for the North Branch Potomac River from existing
stream sampling data (Figure IV-l). A plot of this type serves as a
-------
IV-9
"tool" for ascertaining the amount of acidity removal; i.e., degree
of abatement required to increase pH to the minimum levels specified by
the approved state stream standards. Moreover, it is particularly
useful for determining the quantity of acid which must be neutralized
to upgrade flow releases from the proposed Bloomington Reservoir to
acceptable levels. Chapter VII (C) of this report discusses the
requirements pertaining to the Bloomington Reservoir. The general
mine drainage pollution abatement program is discussed in Chapter VIII.
-------
X
a.
FIGURE S-|
-------
V-l
CHAPTER V
WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS
For ease of data presentation, the water quality conditions
in the North Branch are described in four separate geographical
areas as listed below:
Area Notation Area
A Headwaters to Steyer, Md.
B Steyer, Md0 to Kitzmiller, Md.
C Kitzmiller, Md. to Beryl, W. Va.
D Beryl, W. Va. to Keyser, W. Va.
Data plots of pH, net alkalinity or acidity, and stream
discharge are exhibited for each surveillance station.
A. HEADWATERS TO STEYER, MARYLAND
The water quality in this area was monitored at four sampling
stations, three of which v/ere on tributary streams and one on the
main stem of the North Branch,, The three tributaries sampled were
Elk Run, Laurel Run, and Buffalo Creek.
1. Elk Run (West Virginia)
As presented in Figure V-l, acidity concentrations in Elk Run
approached 9,000 mg/1 during low flow periods. Pronounced decreases
in acidity occurred during high flow periods but concentrations still
ranged in the vicinity of 2,000 - 3,000 mg/1. From the standpoint of
acidity, Elk Run is by far the most critical stream in the entire
North Branch Potomac basin.
-------
a:
AJJOI3V IVlOi
RGURE S-l
-------
V-3
The high amount of acidity in Elk Run has produced exceedingly
low pH values. In almost every instance pH was less than 3.0 and in
some cases it was under 2.0. The pH values shown in Figure V-l indi-
cate a relatively small amount of annual variation and apparently a
lack of dependence upon flow. The pH levels observed in Elk Run
were considerably less than the minimum pH (5.5) prescribed by the
State of West Virginia for its interstate and intrastate streams con-
taining acid mine drainage„
2. Laurel Run (Maryland)
Limited data presented in Figure V-2 indicate that Laurel Run
contains large quantities of mine drainage. Maximum acidity concen-
trations approached 600 mg/1 and pH values were less than 3.0.
Acidity appeared to be inversely related to flow while pH was not.
Although Laurel Run does not have acidity concentrations as
high as that of Elk Run, nevertheless, the Maryland stream standards
(pH 600) are contravened.
3. Buffalo Creek (West Virginia)
As in Elk Run, there is a definite relationship between acidity
and flow in Buffalo Creek (Figure V-3). Low flow periods produced
acidity concentrations exceeding 600 mg/1 whereas high spring flows
reduced acidity to approximately 100 mg/1.
The pH also varied somewhat with river discharge as shown in
Figure V-3. On an annual basis, pH levels were usually between 2.0
and 3.00 In general the water quality in Buffalo Creek is comparable
to that of Laurel Run.
-------
d
I
O
O
(V)
/WTU
-------
(1/6,11)
A1IQOV 1V1O1
FIGURE
-------
V-6
The pH of the water in Buffalo Creek does not comply with the
water quality standards prescribed for this stream by the State of
West Virginia.
4. North Branch at Steyer. Maryland
The mine drainage contributed by Elk Run, Laurel Run, and
Buffalo Creek is reflected in the water quality of the North Branch
at Steyer, Maryland. Figure V-4 shows an erratic acidity relation-
ship with flow. Maximum acid concentrations approaching 600 mg/1
were recorded during the critical late summer months. Minimum values
observed during the winter and spring were less than 100 mg/1.
The pH values generally ranged from 2,3 to 3.3 and like acidity
were somewhat related to flow. The lower pH levels prevailed during
low flow periods„ Both the acid concentrations and the pH observed
at Steyer were the most critical of any station on the North Branch
Potomac River.
The Maryland stream standards for North Branch Potomac specify
a minimum pH of 6.0. This criterion is not being attained at any
time or under any flow condition.
B. STEYER TO KITZMILLER, MARYLAND
In this area water quality was monitored at four sampling stations,
three of which were on the Stony River, Lostland Run, and Abram Creek
tributaries. The North Branch station was at Kitzmiller.
-------
H*
9
cc
MJCICW TVlDi
FIGURE Z-4
-------
AllNRWIV 13N
FIGURE 2-5
-------
V-9
1. Stony River (West Virginia)
During the survey, the net alkalinity* of Stony River varied
from -30 mg/1 to +16 mg/1 but net alkalinity (Figure V-5) was nega-
tive during most of the year with only isolated peaks of positive
net alkalinity observed. No relationship appears to exist between
net alkalinity and flow.
The pH levels in Stony River generally vary in a manner similar
to net alkalinity. Values approaching 7,0 (neutrality) occurred
during periods of positive net alkalinity while minimum values of
3.0 were observed when net alkalinity indicated acid conditions.
Water quality standards for this reach of the stream containing
the drainage from Laurel Run, however, are not being met throughout
the year,,
2. Lostland Run (Maryland)
An inverse relationship exists between acidity and flow, as
shown in Figure V-6. No relationship exists between pH and flow.
Maximum acidity concentrations of 130 mg/1 occurred during September
and October, The spring months showed a decrease in acidity to
approximately 15 mg/1.
* The net alkalinity is defined as total alkalinity minus total
acidity. It can assume either a positive or negative sign depending
on whether the alkalinity (positive) or acidity (negative) is greater.
-------
AIIQIDV
FIGURE S-6
-------
V-ll
The pH levels for Lostland Run varied between 3.0 and 4.0. A
minimum pH of 2,7 was observed in September.
The Maryland stream standards for Lcstland Run are currently
being contravened on a continuous basis,
3. Abram Creek (West Virginia)
The maximum and minimum concentrations of acidity at the sampling
station were approximately 180 mg/1 and 10 mg/1, respectively. As
shown in Figure V-7, the acidity occurred during the late summer and fall
while depressed levels were observed in the spring.
The pH was relatively constant, ranging between 3.0 and -4.0.
The quality of Abram Creek does not comply with West Virginia's
intrastate stream standards„
4. North Branch at Kitzmiller, Maryland
When Figures V-4 and V-8 (North Branch at Steyer) are compared,
the similar yearly patterns for acidity, pH, and flow can readily
be seen. In certain instances, the peate at Kitzmiller were observed
at a later date than those observed at Steyer which would compensate
somewhat for the travel time between the two stations.
In terms of acidity concentration, there appears to be a definite
improvement in the water quality at Kitzmiller, The maximum acid con-
centrations at Kitamiller were about 220 mg/1 whereas comparable values
approached 600 mg/1 at Steyer,
The reduction in acidity concentration can be attributed to the
diluting effects of all tributary streams between Steyer and Kitzmiller.
The differences in pH were not as pronounced as those in acidity. The
-------
AJJODV
(TGURE S-7
-------
H"
a
[5
1V1OJ.
FIGURE 3Z-8
-------
V-H
same difference is due to the sharp break in the acidity-pH relation-
ship as shown in Figure IV-1. Much greater improvement is necessary,
though, for this stream reach to comply with the water quality
standards.
Even with the reduction in acidity, there is contravention of
the present pH standards.
C. KITZMILLER, MARYLAND TO BERYL^ WEST VIRGINIA
Water quality data v/as collected routinely from four stations
between Kitzmiller and Beryl. The three tributary watersheds
monitored were Three Forks, Elklick, and Piney Swamp Run. Main
stem stations were maintained near the site of the U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers proposed Bloomington Reservoir Project at Barnum and at
Beryl.
1. Three Forks Run (Maryland)
Acidity concentrations between 600 and 700 mg/1 in Three
Forks Run were measured during low flow periods (Figure V-9). Con-
centrations of 100 mg/1 were observed under high flow conditions.
A direct relationship appears to exist between pH and flow for
the Three Forks Run station. The low pH values (2.1 - 2.5) occurred
during low flow periods and values in excess of 3.2 were noted when
high flows prevailed.
-------
(I/6")
AJJODV TV1Q1
FIGURE 2-a
-------
u
>
w
8 s
A.J.IQIDV TVO.O1
FIGURE 5Z-IO
-------
o:
Ld
5:
00
I
d/6")
AIIODV 1V101
FX3URE 2-11
-------
V-18
The Maryland standards prescribe a minimum pH criterion of 6.0.
for Three Forks Run, The maximum pH observed at the Three Forks
station was only 3<,3«
2o Elklick Run (MDWR data)
Of the three tributaries discussed in this area, Elklick Run
ranks as the least significant in terms of acidity concentration.
The acidity concentrations (Figure V-10) have a range from about
8 to 50 mg/1.
A direct acid-flow relationship was observed for the Elklick
Run station in contrast to an indirect relationship for most other
stations. An exceptionally wide range in pH was noted during the
ten month sampling period. Values exceeding the neutrality level,
7.0, were observed continously from August to December, The
acidity during the same period was at a minimum. The lowest pH
observed was 4.0 which occurred during a high flow - high acid
period in April, The unique manner in which pH and acidity varies
with flow may possibly be attributed to inactive mines that drain
only during wet periods or alkaline mine drainage discharges.
The Maryland stream standards for Elkliek Run were contravened
during February, March, April, and May of 1969.
3, North Branch atBarnum
Figure V-ll summarized sampling data collected from the North
Branch Potomac River at Barnum, West Virginia which is located
immediately downstream from the proposed Bloomington Reservoir
site. A comparison of the acidity concentration presented in
-------
V-19
Figure V-8 for the North Branch Potomac at Kitzmiller and at Barnum
indicated a slight improvement in the water quality. The maximum
acid concentrations encountered at Barnum were about 180 mg/1 while
those at Kitzmiller were 220 mg/1, with minimum concentrations of
approximately 30 mg/1 and 40 mg/1, respectively. At both Barnum
and Kitzmiller,, peaks in acidity were observed during the late
summer and fall months „
'The pK levels also indicated a slight improvement. The
Kitzmiller station had pH values as low as 205, whereas the minimum
pH at Barnum was 2,7, This slight improvement in water quality
from Kitzmiller to Barnum is probably due to a combination of dilution
and natural alkalinity from areas unaffected by mining operations,,
Limited iron data were collected at the Barnum station, A tabu-
lation of the analytical results follows;
Date
(Fe2 +• Fe )
6/26/68 1.95 mg/1
9/25/68 1.78 mg/1
11/06/68 4.75 mg/1
11/20/68 2,75 mg/1
12/04/68 3.40 mg/1
12/18/68 1055 mg/1
1/08/69 4.30 mg/1
1/22/69 1. 08 mg/1
2/05/69 3,60 mg/1
2/26/69 3, 00 mg/1
3/12/69 2,90 mg/1
4/03/69 1,00 mg/1
-------
V-20
Although standards for iron have not been established by the
State of Maryland, the values shewn on the preceding page are about
an order of magnitude higher than recommended levels for municipal
and industrial water supply (Chapter VII-A).
Extensive sampling data indicate that the Bloomington Reservoir
will definitely impound water of undesirable quality.
4. Piney Swamp Run (West Virginia;
The pH levels in Piney Swamp Run at nc time throughout the
entire year of sampling exceeded 3,0. The minimum recorded pH
value was 2.1. Both the acidity and pK were dependent upon flow to
a certain extent.
Acid concentrations in Piney Swamp Run ranged from 100 to
1,000 mg/1 (Figure V-12) and were consistently greater than either
Three Forks Run or Elklick Run. Elk Run is the only stream in the
North Branch Potomac basin having a greater acid concentration„
The water quality of Piney Swamp Hun does not comply with West
Virginia's stream standards,
5o North Branch at Beryl. West Virginia
The effects of Piney Swamp Run and possibly other acid streams
on the North Branch Potomac car, be readily seen by examining
Figure V-13 which presents the water quality sampling data collected
at Beryl0 The maximum acidity concentration at Earnum was about
190 mg/1 while at Beryl it had increased to about 220 mg/1. The pH
at Beryl varied between 207 and 3.6.
-------
1V1QI
FIGURE 2-12
-------
(T
2
s
I
u
CD
X
2!
Hi
UKJI3V 1V1O1
RGURE 2-13
-------
V-23
Similar to the upper North Branch stations, the lowest pH values
were observed during low flow - high acid periods. A comparison of
Figures V-ll and V-13 indicate many similarities in the average magni-
tude and annual variation pattern of pH at Barnum and Beryl.
The water quality of the North Branch Potomac between Kitzmiller
and Beryl does not undergo any significant change from the standpoint
of pH and acid concentration. The adverse effects of Three Forks Run
and Piney Swamp Run are diminished somewhat by the flows of small
alkaline tributaries; nevertheless, the water quality in this entire
reach continues to contravene Maryland's stream standards.
D. BERYL TO KEYSER, WEST VIRGINIA
Four surveillance stations were maintained in the North Branch
Potomac basin between Beryl and Keyser. One station on Georges
Creek, two on Savage River, both of which are tributary streams,
and one on the North Branch at Keyser were maintained within this
area.
1. Savage River (Maryland)
Savage River flows are regulated by Savage I Reservoir to
maintain a predetermined minimum discharge of 93 cfs into the North
Branch at Luke, Maryland. The only major source of mine drainage in
this watershed is Aaron Run, a small creek between Savage I Reservoir
and the confluence with the North Branch.
Survey data for the station above Aaron Run (Figure V-L4) show
an extremely variable net alkalinity concentration, ranging from
-------
V-24
-27 mg/1 to +73 mg/1. Savage River above Aaron Ran is usually alka-
line. Only occasionally were acidic conditions noted. The pH levels
at this station were generally greater than 6.0.
Survey data for Savage River near its confluence with the North
Branch, downstream from Aaron Run (Figure V-15), indicate lower net
alkalinity when compared to the upstream station. The net alkalinity
values ranged from -27 mg/1 to +73 mg/1 at the upstream station with
the downstream station exhibiting a range from -38 mg/1 to +32 mg/1,,
The pH values recorded near the mouth of the Savage River were
somewhat lower than those upstream which also indicates water quality
degradation. A minimum pH of 5.1 was observed near the confluence
whereas upstream values were never less than 5.7.
The pH levels during the months of July and October were under
6.0, the minimum pH standard for the Savage River.
The alkalinity content of the Savage River appears to be greater
during dry weather than during wet weather periods. This may possibly
be attributed to the following:
a. Aaron Run is more likely to contribute a significant acid
loading during wet weather, and
b. Savage River drains a limestone region above the reservoir
and the increased percentage of groundwater inflow during dry
weather probably carries greater alkalinity concentrations into the
reservoir and thence into the release flow.
-------
13N
FIGURE Z-14
-------
13N
FIGURE S-15
-------
V-27
2. Georges Creek
Net alkalinity for the station on Georges Creek varied from
about -26 mg/1 to +4 mg/1. The pH varied from 4.2 to 6.5 with the
lower range occurring most frequently. As can be seen in Figure V-16,
a decrease in flow resulted in an increase in pH and had very little
effect on net alkalinity.
Based on the limited amount of data available, Georges Creek
contributes a more acidic flow to the North Branch than Savage River;
however, neither compares with the acid contributions of most tribu-
tary streams previously discussed,
3. North Branch at Keyser
The North Branch Potomac River at Keyser, West Virginia repre-
sents the most downstream sampling station of this survey (Figure V-17)
Although sampling was conducted only from February through May 1969,
the data (Figure V-17) were sufficient to indicate that considerable
recovery had occurred.
During comparable periods of the year, the maximum acidity bet-
ween Beryl and Keyser had decreased from 125 mg/1 to 65 mg/1 and the
minimum pH had increased from 2.8 to 3.5. The acidity and pH had both
fluctuated widely at Keyser. In a few instances, the net alkalinity
was positive and pH levels were greater than 6.0.
The recovery in water quality observed at Keyser may be attri-
buted to the highly alkaline loads discharged from the West Virginia
Pulp and Paper Company at Luke, and the Upper Potomac River
Commission's waste treatment facility at Westernport. Together
-------
u
o
UJ
O
o
MO1J
I f
o «
* I
FIGURE Z-16
-------
> o
cc £
P
fe
Q.
0 I
s 1
1
o
o
(I/6*)
J.3N
FIGURE S-17
-------
V-30
these discharges provide upwards of 40,000 Ibs/day total alkalinity.
The pulp mill's water withdrawal for processing purposes accounts
for an additional acidity reduction in the North Branch of approxi-
mately 17,000 Ibs/day. The alkalinity from various sources between
Beryl and Keyser greatly overshadows the acidity contributed by
Savage River and Georges Greek,
E0 SUMMARY OF 1968-69 ACIDITY DATA
A summary of the acidity data for the North Branch Potomac
River is presented in isopleth* form in Figure V-18. This indicates
that maximum acid concentrations for any given station generally
occurred during the summer and fall months while minimum concentrations
were observed during the spring months.
The sampling station at Steyer produced higher acid concentrations
than other stations along the Potomac for comparable periods of the
year. Maximum concentrations approached 600 mg/1 whereas maximum
concentrations at Kitzmiller, Barnum, and Beryl were approximately
210 mg/1, 160 mg/1, and 160 mg/1, respectively. Even during the winter
months average acidity concentrations at Steyer were generally greater
than 100 mg/1.
•* An isopleth, which offers a complete graphical presentation of water
quality with respect to location and time along the stream is useful
for depicting variations of a parameter at a given location for a
specific time or for a given time period along the main stem. The
isopleths were constructed by plotting all data for a given station
along the stream for the twelve-month period. A smooth curve was
fitted to these data as representative of "average" conditions
during the entire survey period.
-------
¥-31
It should also be noted that the water quality at Steyer during
the winter period was comparable to summer conditions at Barnum and
Beryl which further indicate the extreme spatial and temporal acid
distribution in the North Branch Potomac.
Water quality data (August 1969), collected subsequent to the
survey data, presented in Chapters V and VI showed pH levels of
3.3 to 3.6 in the North Branch Potomac River at Cumberland, Maryland.
These exceptionally low pH's, which were the result of a reduction in
alkalinity from Westvaco and an acid "slug" produced by excessive
rainfall in the disturbed areas of the upper basin, caused an exten-
sive fishld.il in the lower reaches of the North Branch near Oldtown,
Maryland. Similar water quality problems will continue to be
encountered downstream from Cumberland during high runoff periods.
-------
HDNVM8 HJ/IOS WOMJ S3HIW WV3«1S
FIGURE 2-18
-------
VI-1
CHAPTER VI
MINE DRAINAGE THEMES AND DELINEATION OF ACID LOADINGS
A. HISTORICAL TRENDS IN pH AND ACIDITY FOR NORTH BRANCH ABOVE
LUKE, MARYLAND
Figure VI-1 presents mean monthly pH data for a ten-year period
of record as compiled by the West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company
for the North Branch above Luke. Stream flow data are shown in
Figure VI-2. An examination of Figures VI-1 and VI-2 indicates
that both pH and flow vary in an annual cyclical pattern. Further
analysis of these patterns indicates that pH levels generally reach
a maximum during the late winter and spring months, Flows during
this period of the year also have a tendency to be high. Conversely,
minimum pH levels generally occurred during the late summer and early
fall months when flows were at a minimum.
For the ten-year period, the average annual pH also appears to
be directly related to the average annual flows. For example, the
extremely dry years of 1959 and 1965-66 generally showed lower pH
values. Conversely, the relatively wet year of 1963 resulted in
higher pH values some of which approached a neutral pH of 7.0.
In Figure VI-3, the long-term acidity data, also compiled by
the West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company, reflect the increase in
mining activity as reported in Chapter III. The average acid con-
centration increased from about 3.0 mg/1 in late 1950 to over 20 rag/1
in 1968.
-------
FIGURE a-1
-------
5 I
5: m
P -r
fc
(T
<
A1HJ.NOW NV3W
FIGURE m-2
-------
AJJOD* TVlQi
FIGURE 30-3
-------
VI-5
While a quantitative comparison cannot be made with CTSL data
because of differences in analytical procedures and the effect of
flow augmentation from Savage I Reservoir, the data nevertheless
indicate a marked deterioration in water quality since 1965„
Associated with this increase in average acid concentrations was an
increase in the range of acidity.
Bo DELINEATION CF ACIDITY LOAD
The tabulations of acidity loading for the four stations on the
main stem (Steyer, Kitzmiller, Barnum, and Beryl) are presented in
Tables VI-1, VI-2, VI-3, and VI~4, respectively. The Steyer station
is in area A, Kitzmiller in. area B_, and Barnum and Beryl in area C
as presented in the previous chapter„
In area A, the watersheds of Eli: Run, Laurel Run, and Buffalo
Creek, with 28,2 percent of the drainage area at Steyer, produced 70
percent of the acid loading. As can be seen in Table VI-1, over 39
percent of this loading was from Elk Run0
For area B, as presented in Table VI-2, tributary sampling
stations with 55,9 percent of the drainage area yielded 88 percent
of the acid at Kitzmiller, Of the 77,700 Ibs/day measured at
Kitzmiller, 72 percent originated in area A from the Elk Run,
Laurel Run, and Buffalo Creek watersheds„
As exhibited in Tables VI-3 and VI-4, the tributary contri-
butions also reflect the predominant influence of the three watersheds
in area A on the loadings in area C, Within area C, the total acid
-------
VI-6
loadings increased by 22 percent from 94,000 Ibs/day at Barnum to
119,000 Ibs/day at Beryl.
The following five watersheds, which have a total drainage
area of 116 square miles, produced over 65 percent of the acid load
at Beryl.
Watershed Acid Loading Location
Ibs/day
Elk Run 35,700 West Virginia
Buffalo Creek 15,300 West Virginia
Laurel Run 12,900 Maryland
Abram Creek 8,300 West Virginia
Stony River 4,300 West Virginia
Of the five watersheds listed above Elk Run, Buffalo Creek, and
Laurel Run, with a combined drainage area of 20.6 square miles,
produce over 54 percent of Beryl's acid loading.
The tributary contributions and resulting main stem loadings as
presented in Figure VI-4 also demonstrated the influence of the mine
drainage from area A. The close agreement between the calculated and
observed acid loadings at main stem stations above Barnum indicate
that the primary sources of acid in this area were identified.
However, between Barnum and Beryl an additional 25,000 Ibs/day of
acid were measured. The two streams within this reach that were
monitored (an unnamed tributary and Piney Swamp Run) contained a
combined acid load of 4,700 Ibs/day resulting in approximately
-------
o 'd
ca cd
-p - o
a r( J
3 Tj
r) 0) -H
0) P O
PM ra <<
ON
OO
o
o
o
fl3 «H 0
0) 0 C
'it
o
0
•N
UA
OO
O
O
OJ
rH
O
O
OO
*\
LTN
rH
0
0
Ox
OO
VO
o
o
o
r-T
ON
§
H
O
ra
P -
a ^
CD j
rt CU
CD p
PH ra
OJ
rH
CO
CO
O
rH
rH
O
rH
OJ
O
O
O
H
ON
VD
ON
fe oo
C3N
ra r-H
g
H
H
K
EH
ra
OJ
VO
o
o
CXI
CO
00
o
oo
CO
a
H
PH
PH
p^
o
o
<5
•+H Pi
O
M
P ••
£H rl
0) CD
o ^
CM
•
LT\
OO
•
o
rH
t—
OJ
H
OJ
CO
OJ
o
o
Pi 0<
ra
CO 1/N OO
oo t— ON
VO
o
OJ
ro
H
0)
o
o
ra
H EH
K
EH
-------
O 0)
r-H
-P H
O N Tj
fH -P -H
CD -H O
PM M <
O
LTN
LTN
O
00
00
O
O
O
O
LTN
oo
O
O
O O O
O O O
OO LTN O
*\ »\ »\
LTN -3" rH
o
O
m
•N
CO
O
O
t—
o
O
O
»\
CO
CO
CM
I
H
>
a
F9
1
H
NJ
EH
a
s
O
f«
fe
§
p3 O"\
E VD
EH ON
CO rH
PL, t
•^ CO
VD
H
fo
w
H CD g
PJ O (S3
^ M -P
t- 00 H rH
rH 00 ^t ON
CM
HO ON
• • •
-3r H LTN O
CM LTN O
H
CD
PH
3
•H
CO
OO
L/N
t—
OO
ON
CO
CO
-=t
OJ
ON
oo
t—
ON
ir\
CM
H
CM
CM
•n
0)
-------
K
H
m
H
«
EH
ON
o
-p
PI
0)
o
r(
cu
PH
a
CU
*^
CQ
—
£3
3
a
£_(
aJ
PH
•H
O
.
rH OO _=t- ON rH J" rH
OJ rH
^^ rH O O O O O O
O CQ
H m OJ VO O CO CO O VD
Mo rH OJ OJ VD
P'
CQ
—
ri
3
g
«
-=t CO LA J" LTN CO ON
• • • • D • a
rH OJ OO CO OO t— OJ
rH rH
• T-I co Lr\ooco OJ coco
<[j
•
p
a
OO t— O\ CO ON t— t—
CJ* _^f -~t
CQ
^^ Pi
3
»y PH
0) Pi
0) M pi ,rf CQ
Pi rl 0) PH 0) J*!
nd
O > CU r)
K -H -d rl O
Pi O PH Pi O PH
Pi rH rH 03
PH 0) 03 >s rH g CU
£H CH H -P 03 (D
Al PI M-l O W r) rl
rH 03 P* -P O rO c~]
H i-5 W CQ i-5
-------
<[J
H
H
§
EH
CQ
H
t-S*
Jf
PH
W
pq
j^j
o
VO
ON
CQ H
O
H
H
PH
P"^
O
u
>H
K
I
H
PH
EH
O ^
03
-P w O
fi — | "]
0) H
O >•> T3
rH rH *H
CD CD O
PH PQ j
CU CD
PH pq
JD H
SI PH
CH ^
0 O
4° 03
CD rH
£> g>
0) CD
PH pq
.
<;
•
n
CD rH
PH 'ri TlS rH O
SH O PCI fl O Fq
3 H H a3
PH CD a3 >3 H £ CD
r( 'H S -P co CD
44 ^ CH O 03 rH rH
H a5 ^S -p O ,£! ^
H h-^i pq CQ hH1 <; EH
rH r-H OO
V
O O O
-=h 0 0
OO LTN CM
rH OO
000
r-H rH rH
V V V
o o t—
OJ rH rH
V
OO O t—
• • B
rH i— 1 r-H
V
t— LT\ CO
oo o -3-
ig
,12
S3 -H PH
jj ^_l H
PH EH ro
•5
^ rjj QQ
O 0)
.(— ] rf w
H a3 0)
Has
r~n f-i *r~\
P^l 1=) PH
CO O
0- 0
rH
O 0
O 0
O O
vo" ON
CO H
r-H
,3-
r-H O
LT\ O
r-H
00
OO OO
-^ VO
OJ -=f-
LfN
ON o
-=h o
H
^
CM t-
-3- 00
H OJ
J>H
PH CQ
^r | ~]
EH <-d
p~i EH [ "]
pq o P
H EH PC:
PH W
EH pq
-------
VI-11
20,000 Ibs/day of acidity attributable to the remaining portion of
the drainage area. A prorating of this acidity based upon the res-
pective drainage areas in Maryland and West Virginia indicates that
1,500 Ibs/day originates in West Virginia and 18,500 Ibs/day is
contributed by watersheds in Maryland.
All of the tributary streams in West Virginia which were moni-
tored contribute approximately 68,500 Ibs/day (58% of Beryl's
loading) of total acidity to the North Branch Potomac River. The
monitored streams in Maryland contribute an average acid load of
17,600 Ibs/day (15% of Beryl's loading) and by the difference method
described previously, the watersheds on the Maryland side of the
North Branch between Barnura and Beryl contribute an estimated acid
load of 18,500 Ibs/day (16% of Beryl's loading). By prorating the
13,000 Ibs/day of acid which enter the North Branch directly or via
unmonitored tributary streams above Barnura, the total estimated acid
loads contributed by Maryland and West Virginia amount to 39,000
Ibs/day (33$ of Beryl's loading) and 79,000 Ibs/day (67% of Beryl's
loading), respectively.
Based upon reconnaissance studies in the area and visual
observations, it appears that in West Virginia active mining opera-
tions contribute most of the acid drainage,, The comprehensive
study conducted by the State of Maryland to inventory all known
mines disclosed that 22 mines had active status and 135 mines were
inactive. Of the active mines 15 were found to be draining and of
the inactive mines 71 were draining.
-------
VI-12
C0 REGRESSION STUDIES
The discussions in Section V present an inverse relationship
between acidity concentration and stream flow. It therefore follows
that some relationship should exist between acid loading and stream
flow, A series of lineer and non-linear regression analyses were
performed based upon various standard equations to determine which
would best describe the data. A comparison of the correlation
coefficients for each equation resulted in the following expression:
L = a Q° ....... VI-I
This may be transformed to:
log „ L = a + b log Q ....... VI-2
Where:
L = acid loading (Ibs/day)
Q = river discharge (efs)
a = constant, defining the y intercept on a leg-log plot (a, = 10 )
b = exponent defining the slope of the curve in, the form of Eq VI-2
The above equation is an exponential function which plots as a
straight line on log-log paper. Of particular importance in this equation
is the "b!l term, or slope, since it represents the rate at which acidity
is increasing for any given flow.
A practical interpretation of Equation VI-1 reveals that the lower
flow range produces a maximum reaction rate between the oxygen, water,
and sulfui itic compounds „ The total acid output is limited only by the
quantity of water available,, As flows increase, this reaction rate
-------
TRIBUTARY CONTRIBUTIONS to
NORTH BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER
(1968-69 DATA)
E--40-
06SERVED N. BRANCH
MAIN STEM LOADINGS
ACCUMULATIVE TRIBUTARY LOADINGS
—r~
TO
STREAM MILES
—1—
60
r
I—TO :
50
RGURE H-4
-------
VI-14
decreases due to an overabundance of water compared to the availability
of the other constituents. During exceptionally high flow periods, a
point of diminishing returns occurs. The production of acid approaches
a maximum with the load becoming increasingly dependent upon flow.
This dependency can readily be observed by examining the following
equation which was used to derive acid loadings:
L = Ac x Q x 5.4
Where:
L = acid load (ibs/day)
A = acid concentration (rag/1)
o
Q = flow (cfs), and
5.4 - conversion factor
In the calculations, the streamflow (Q) is incorporated in the load
computation, and therefore an automatic bias is injected into any
L versus Q analysis.
Figures Vl-5 and VI-6 present least-squares regression lines in
the form of Eq VI-2 which describe the acid load - streamflow relation-
ship at two of the sampling stations investigated. Table VI-5 presents
the equations and correlation coefficients for every regression analysis
having a minimum of 12 observations. The regression equations shown in
Table VI-5 indicate a relatively small variation in the slope (b) term
despite gross changes in other factors. This implies that changes in
the rate of acid production, due to increasing flow, are practically
uniform in all of the major tributary streams and consequently in the
North Branch Potomac River itself.
-------
a
i
z
O
1-
LJ
tr
>
O
2 o
i
O
a
CC
<
<
OOl
FIGURE 33-5
-------
Q_
RGURE 32-6
-------
CQ O
0> TJ
CD CD
rl CD
n
VD
VD
rH
ON
OJ
OJ
ON
CM
OJ
a\
OJ
0
•H
-P
03
H
CD
£_j
o
o
CQ
EH
CQ
W
ir\
H j|
g CQ
3 o
EH H
CQ
CO
W O
CJ3 -H
H CQ
PH CQ
0
tj)
CD
PH
bO
M
•H
H
cd
ro
CQ
-P
CD
•H
O
•H
<+H
0
O
o
*
^;
IA
00
•
0
t—
VD
0?
0
O
•H
4>
O1
pr"]
0
o
LTN
•^
ON
H
II
bO
•H
rc$
•H
CQ
K*}
rl
£[
0
•H
•P
•P
CQ
0
W
-P
a
•j
K
*i4
H
n_~j
OJ
ON
«
O
VD
VD
Of
0
0
on
»^
OJ
1!
£_l
tt3
r^i
ro
PP
-p
ro
tM
0
0
?H
o
0
H
ct5
'-H
OH
rr>
rH
a\
•
o
t—
ir\
•
C3?
O
O
OJ
»x
LT\
II
0
0
-P
CQ
-P
05
0
1
0
-P
0
•
* •
?H S 0 ^
pq to 04-3 pq
4^ Jn CQ
• -H rCl CCi
OJ
00
o
ON
o
LT\
VD
•N
OJ
I
&
CQ
0
in
g
o
VD
Q? Of
O
00
LTN
»s
OJ
CD
pq
s
O
4J
O
0
cu
rH
CU
£
4J
03
0
H
OJ
o
s
Pi
bfl fa
PQ
EH
K
•H
CQ
*
*
OJ
I
CQ
fl
O
•H
%
>
$-t
-------
VII -1
CHAPTER VII
EFFECTS OF MINE DRAINAGE POLLUTION
A. WATER SUPPLY
1. Water Used
The Luke, Westernport, Keyser area currently obtains its vrater
from alkaline tributaries of the North Branch Potomac River (Savage
River and New Creek) and from ground water, The West Virginia Pulp
and Paper Company utilizes the North Branch Potomac for its entire
water supply. The Gelanese Corporation withdraws approximately
58 mgd from the North Branch near Ameelle and obtains the remaining .
3 mgd from the City of Cumberland. The water supply source for the
City of Cumberland is Evitts Creek which has a dependable yield of
18 mgd.
The principal water users and the projected water supply demands
are presented in Table VII-1. According to Table VII--1, the municipal
and industrial water supply requirements, excluding cooling water,
are projected to increase drastically over the next 50 years. This
increased demand will necessitate further usage of the North Branch
Potomac since the Potomac is probably the only stream in the area
capable of providing sufficient flows to meet future water supply
needs.
-------
VII-2
TABLE VII-1
PROJECTED WATER SUPPLY DEMANDS
Water
User
Luke, Western/port,
Keyser
West Virginia Pulp
and Paper Company
Celanese Fibers
Company
Cumberland
Present
(mgd)
1.5
72.0*
61.0*
5.55**
1980
(mgd)
3.25
28 „ 0***
15.0***
7.70**
2000
(mgd)
5.50
4.0.0***
21 . 0***
12.75**
2020
(mgd)
6.9
56 , o***
25.0***
17.20**
* Includes Cooling Water
** Municipal Use Only
*** Excludes Cooling Water
2. Effects of Mine Drainage
Streams impregnated with constituents normally found in mine
drainage; i.e., sulfuric acid, iron, manganese, aluminum, calcium, and
magnesium salts are undesirable sources of municipal, industrial, and
agricultural water supply. Modern and adequately designed water treat-
ment plants are capable of removing these constituents but at considerable
cost.
In water treatment plants, high acidity and low pH may adversely
affect chemical coagulation, softening, and corrosion control with the
latter being the major problem of most industrial users. Both iron
and manganese create serious problems in public water supplies.
-------
VII -3
These problems are caueed by the precipitation of iron and manganese
salts which are objectionable aesthetically and which stain and
corrode plumbing fixtures and laundry,, Iron also supports the growth
of filamentous iron bacteria which ms,y obstruct the flow of water in
distribution lines. The *,'. S0 Public Health Service recommends a
maximum iron and manganese concentration in public water supplies of
0,3 rag/1 snd 0,05 mg/i, respectively.
Calcium and magnesium salts produce permanent hardness in water.
Hardness is objectionable in both public supplies and especially in
industrial boiler feed water.
The North Branch at Luke, which is used as an industrial water
supply by the West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company, is characterized
by low pH, high acidity, and high iron. For the months of June, July,
and August, 1909, the total iron in the incoming water varied from a
minimum of 1.0 mg/1 to a maximum of 7.0 mg/1 with an average of 2.3 mg/1.
To meet their current process wster requirements for "fine paper" pro-
duction, the incoming water is treated to remove the acidity, turbidity,
managanese, and iron»
To provide for- existing end future water supply needs, a 50 percent
increase in the deminerslization capsnity by the West Virginia Pulp and
Paper Company is planned. The cost of this expansion, which is required
by the poor quality of the incoming- water, is projected to $300,000,
The increase in water supply treatment cost due to the mine drainage
constituents in the incoming water is estimated to "be about 50 percent
above normal renovation cost.
-------
VII -4
At the West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company, lime is added to
incoming cooling water to protect the condensers against corrosion.
In recent years, corrosion of the cooling water condenser at the
Celanese Fibers Company has "been observed.
Population centers, such as Westernport, Keyser, and particu-
larly Cumberland, are situated along the North Branch Potomac River
but cannot readily utilize it as a water supply source because of
mine drainage and industrial waste pollution. The acidity from
upstream mine drainage occasionally constitutes a major problem
in the vicinity of Cumberland, especially biologically (See Section
VII-B). A reduction in alkalinity at the West Virginia Pulp and
Paper Company discharge, due to process change, would undoubtedly
alter the acid-alkaline balance of the North Branch Potomac for a
considerable distance and thereby lessen its potential as a water
supply source.
B. ECOLOGY
There are approximately 150 miles of streams in the North Branch
Potomac basin which are currently devoid of fish life because of mine
drainage. Many of the tributary streams and portions of the North
Branch Potomac itself could otherwise support a cold water fishery.
Biological (benthic) sampling was conducted throughout the
North Branch basin during the summer and fall of 1966. Generally, the
tributary streams receiving mine drainage were found to be "biological
deserts." The North Branch Potomac upstream from Kitzmiller also
contained practically no form of biological organisms„ Downstream
-------
VII-5
from Kitzmiller, the biological sampling revealed only sparse popu-
lations of acid tolerant forms,
The North Branch Potomac does not appear to recover biologically
until it reaches Gldtown, approximately 10 miles downstream from
Cumberland. The biologies! depression below "Luke can also be attri-
buted in part to large quantities of industrial waste being discharged
into the reach between Westernpert and Cumberland,
One of the most critical -stresses which mine drainage exerts on
the "in-stream" environment is its extreme toxicity to all forms of
aquatic life. Only a scant number of aquatic forms, both macroscopic
and microscopic, can exist in ar environment strongly influenced by
mine drainage. Not only does mine drainage cause this effect near
the point of origin, but without dilution, it may destroy biological
activity for many miles downstream. As indicated previously, much
of the upper North Branch 1? 3 "biological desert."
The acidity in mine drainage produces low pH values in the
streams and the metallic constituents produc0 toxic precipitates.
Both of these are capable of sterilizing a stream. It is generally
agreed that an aqu-atie environment neving a p'i less than c.O cannot
support a well balanced, aquatic population (pH values in the North
Branch Potomac were a,? Icsw as 2,,!,1, The basic ferric sulfate,
known as "yellow boy," presently covers many miles of stream beds.
This precipitate chokes all, bentnic life thus destroying the food
chain for the higher aquatic forms. When mine drainage depresses
-------
VII-o
the microscopic population in a stream, its ability to stabilize
sewage or organic industrial waste biochemically is also impaired,
C0 BLOOMINGTON RESERVdR
The IJ. S, Army Corps of Engineers' Bloomington Reservoir
Project, which is in tne final siages of pre-construction planning,
will be located on the North Branch Potomac eight miles upstream
from Bloomington near Barnurn, West Virginia. The Bloomington
Reservoir is designed as a multiple purpose project with storage
provided for water supply, water quality control, flood control,
and recreation, At the conservation pool level, the dam will
impound 94,700 acre-feet of wster.
Sampling data collected from the North Branch at Barnum indi-
cated that the proposed reservoir will Impound water containing
large quantities of mine drain-age. As shown in Figure V-l"., the
pH levels of the incoming w-;, ler c-,,n be %.s low ys 20L with acidity
concentrations as high a? 180 mg/'l during the critical late summer
and early fall,, Even diiring hip.n flow periods, prl levels under
4.0 and acid concentrations exceeding 30 mg'/l can be anticipated.
Projecting the condition from Barnum, acid leadings into the
impoundment ranging from 12,000 to 395,000 Ibs/day, with an average
of 94,000 Ibs/day, can be expected. Total iron concentrations will
range from 1.0-5.0 mg/1.
Since the proposed reservoir will impound s large volume of
mine drainage, it becomes necessary; (1) to predict what chemical
-------
VII-7
reactions if any will occur in the reservoir, (2) to determine what
subsequent changes in water quality will result from these reactions,
and (3) to evaluate the effects of the resultant water quality on the
intended uses of the reservoir.
Wilkes College in Wilke£-3arre, Pennsylvania under contract with
FWPCA (CB-SRBP) [13] has undertaker! a study of the kinetics of mine
drainage impoundments. Among the purposes of this study was the
determination of the rate of iron, oxidation and hence, the rate of
free acid production in mine water impoundments. Although the reser-
voirs investigated in the Wilk'is study were located in the anthracite
coal fields of northeastern Pennsylvania, a generalization of the
findings appears to be applicable to the blooinington Project. These
findings are outlined as foilewe:
1. In an impoundment. v?hi.?h has a pH between 3 and 6 and an
initial iron concentration in excels of 10 rag/1, the rate of ferrous
iron oxidation appears •,:.> be approximately 3 mg/1 per day. Below a
concentration of 10 rag/I i>rr,:, a losser oxidation rate was
observed. Neither- Surfs^e are--, /olame, nor temperature had a
noticeable effect on 4he resalt;-. CJiv:e iron is oxidized, it is
removed from solution as a precipitated hydrous1 iron oxide,
2, A significant decrease in pH accompanied the oxidation of
iron.
3. There is little change in acidity concentration as a result
of long-term impoundment cf mine drainage.
-------
VII-8
4. No change was found in concentrations of manganese, calcium,
magnesium, or hardness as a result of long-term impoundment. Small
amounts of sulfate were found to precipitate along with iron but the
amount was unpredictable. From the above results, it can be concluded
that the water quality will either remain essentially unchanged or will
deteriorate in the impoundment with the exception of ferrous iron con-
centrations .
If the quality in the impoundment is as anticipated, the intended
purposes of recreation and flow regulation for water quality control will
not be developed to its full potential unless a mine drainage control
program is initiated. The excessive mine drainage content of Bloomington
Reservoir will also lessen the utility of the impounded water for water
supply unless complete treatment, including neutralization, is antici-
pated similar to that currently being provided by the West Virginia Pulp
and Paper Company for their processed water, Based upon a comparison of
the average acid load released from the Bloomington Reservoir and the
little alkalinity reserve in Savage I, utilising the flow releases from
this impoundment for acid neutralization in the North Branch Potomac
below Savage River does r.ot appear to have significant potential.
Using (1) an average acidity concentration of 100 mg/1 in the
impoundment, (2) the minimum regulated base flow from the proposed
reservoir of 205 cfs, and (3) pE-acidity relationship as developed in
Chapter IV-C, the cost of neutralizing the acid to maintain a pH within
the limits set forth by stream standards in Bloomington was determined
as follows:
-------
711-9
(i) Acid loading in Ibs/month
(100 * 5) mg/1 x 205 cfs x 30 days x 5./t = 3,530,000 Ibs/month
where
(100 + 5) = the net alkalinity required to raise the pH to t,0
(ii) Lime requirements to neutralize the acid load
_JkAtJL-£a..Q x 3,530,000 = 1,980,000 Ibs/month
where
A, W. = Atomic weight of the compounds
CaO = Calcium oxide or lime
CaCOo = Calcium carbonate
(iii) Cost of Neutralization
1,980,000 x $.01,/lb = .l?19,800/month
where
the cost of lime = :|i20/ton or $,01/lb
On an annual basis the cost of acid neutralization to maintain a pH
of 6,0 would be $23&%000/year.
Another important consideration is the possibility of any abandoned
mines in the immediate vicinity of the reservoir being subject to recurrent
filling and emptying operations thereby producing acid which otherwise
would not ha ve been generated. I'h? generation of any additional acidity in
the North Branch above t,be Blooming tor; Feservoir would aggravate the
existing water quality problem and further detract from the usefulness of
the proposed Bloomington Project ,
To aid in minimising hydraulic surges which contain low pH waters,
the Bloomington Reservoir could provide a direct benefit in water quality
management, However, the magnitude of this benefit would be contingent
on the reserve storage in the reservoir pool. For example, the fish kill
which occurred in August 1969, might have been averted had adequate storage
been available to impound the acid "slug" responsible for this fish kill.
-------
VIII-1
CHARTER VIII
CONTROL METHODS AND COSTS
A. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
There are various methods available to control or eliminate
mine drainage. The abatement methods as discussed in this report
can generally be categorized as follows:
1. Prevention
2. Treatment
3. Dilution
Measures which can be instituted to prevent the formation of
mine drainage at its source include but are not limited to:
(a) inundation of deep mine workings,, (b) reconstruction of stream
channels, (c) construction of surface water diversion ditches,
(d) restoration and filling of strip mines, (e) excavation and restora-
tion of subsidence areas, and (f) construction of impermeable seals on
or below the ground surface. Preventive measures can be designed to
reduce the volume of mine drainage and acidity loadings by 10 to 100
percent.
Chemical treatment of mine drainage has received considerable
attention recently, probably because this method can produce immediate
results and can be positively controlled. A typical mine drainage
treatment plant should be capable of providing neutralization of the
acid, oxidation of the iron compounds, and settlement of precipitates.
More exotic methods of treatment such as electrodialysis, ion exchange,
-------
VIII-2
reverse osmosis, etc. are being investigated "but early indications
are that all would be too high in cost on a large scale project.
Another important consideration is the collection and impoundment
of mine drainage prior to treatment. In areas where extensive distur-
bance has occurred, the cost of collection may represent a significant
portion of the total expenditure. Since over 50 percent of acid
loadings is from 20 square miles, the collection problem may be simpli-
fied.
Dilution and neutralization of the acid content by either natural
or chemical means is also a method of reducing the "in-stream" effects
of mine drainage pollution. If the quantity and quality of the natural
dilution flow from non-mining areas is sufficient, it will neutralize
the mine drainage acidity and also increase the pH to acceptable levels,
In the North Branch Potomac basin, the tributary streams receiving most
of the mine drainage have a minimum of natural dilution flow of good
water quality. Furthermore, most of the acid streams, excepting
Stony River and Savage River, have no reservoirs or other provisions
for flow regulation.
Detailed engineering studies for the purpose of establishing a
mine drainage pollution abatement program for a specific area are very
limited. Gannett, Fleming, Corddry, and Carpenter, Inc., (GFCC),
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, under contract with the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, conducted small scale studies of
this type in five selected areas of the Susquehanna River basin.
-------
VIII-3
The data obtained from these studies were subsequently used to
develop cost estimates for larger and more complex watersheds within
the Susquehanna basin.
The findings of the GFCC study indicated a large variation in
abatement costs depending upon the schemes investigated. The abate-
ment schemes or plans were developed on the basis of compliance with
present Pennsylvania Sanitary Water Board discharge limitations.
These limitations are as follows;
1. pH not less than b nor greater than 9
2. Iron concentration not in excess of 7 mg/1
3. No acid
Generally, a combination of preventive measures and treatment proved
to be the most economical method of achieving the desired water
quality over the long term. Mine drainage reduction (volume and
acidity) attributable to preventive measures alone was normally
about 20 percent. The remaining volume and acid load has to be pro-
vided for in the design of the collection system and treatment
facility.
B. COSTS
In order to predict the costs of mine drainage control in the
North Branch Potomac basin, an analysis was made of the feasibility
and effectiveness of various abatement schemes Investigated in the
Susquehanna basin [15], These schemes, which consist of xhe pre-
ventive measures discussed in the preceding section, and treatment
-------
VIII-4
appear to be applicable in the Potomac basin since there are many
similarities in the historical mining trends and current mining
activity in West Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. The only
significant difference is that active mining in the Potomac basin
is more predominant and therefore contributes a larger percentage
of the acid load than it does in the Susquehanna.
The primary problem associated with predicting mine drainage
control costs in this study originates from lack of data pertaining
to individual acid discharges. The water quality data collected
during the North Branch Potomac survey was "in-stream" sampling
data with no monitoring of specific discharges.
Since acidity data are more indicative of mine drainage and are
more available than most other data, and since acidity loadings were
used to a certain extent for cost analysis in the Susquehanna basin,
the costs of mine drainage control for this study were developed as
a function of total acidity loadings. The following relationships,
presented in Figures VIII-1, VIII-2, and VIIT-3, were used in com-
puting the cost of mine drainage control as developed from the
Sxisquehanna study:
1. First Cost-Preventive Measures vs Acidity
2. First Cost-Collection vs Acidity, and
3,, First Cost-Treatment vs Acidity
The costs, which would be considered preliminary in nature,
are additive. That is, for a given loading, the cost of mine
-------
o
!_ o
§
2
<
or
o
LJ
1
C/)
t/)
O
O
H £
Z £T
5
-------
o
o
NOtiD3mOD - iSC
:2HI - 2
-------
o
o
IM
CO
O
U
o
vn
UJ
UJ
CD 2
< £
• i w
u a:
O H
8?
o
o
-------
VIII-8
drainage control could consist of all three cost components:
prevention, collection, and treatment.
In calculating the abatement costs, seven watersheds were
included (Table VIII-l). These watersheds represent approximately
70 percent of the total acid load in the North Branch Potomac River
at Beryl. The maximum acidity loading for each watershed was used
as the basis of computing the design criteria,
The operation and maintenance annual costs (0 & M) were deter-
mined as a percent of the construction cost. The figure used for
prevention was 2 percent, collection 5 percent, and treatment 30 per-
cent. The total annual cost, as reported in Table VIII-l, consists
of 0 & M plus first cost amortized at 5 percent interest rate. An
amortization period of 30 years was used for collection and treat-
ment with a 100 year period for preventive measures„
Table VIII-l presents observed and design loadings along with
construction costs and annual costs for preventive measures, collection
systems and treatment facilities in seven tributary watersheds. The
costs in Table VIII-l are preliminary and should be interpreted only as
an order of magnitude of the expense necessary to control mine drainage
pollution in the Potomac basin.
For the above conditions, the estimated construction cost for
abatement of mine drainage in the seven watersheds is $32,450,000.
When operation and maintenance are included, the annual costs were
estimated to be about $5 million/year.
-------
ra
EH
ra
o
0
a ti
H -H
S C/3
f~3 rrl
W CD
EH PP
^\
ffl O
H H 0
H c5 -P
M < 0
> § PL,
n) H rH
K O
< fe!
§
UjJ
p]
l_q
0
K
PH
H
cd
-p
0
EH
H vO
cd O
§ 3
| £
•^o
•S °
CO l~f
O X
•ffr
-P VO
ra O
M H
•H X
fn -eft-
H VO
-P
ri
cu
S
-P
cd
cu
rH
EH
cd O
i $
3 -ee-
"^
VD
^ O
oo rH
O X
•«9-
-P VO
ra -p O
ij g d
•H U ri
fa o-eft-
ft
H
eg
o
•H
-p
0
a;
H
H
O
O
rH VO
cd O
ri ^
ri -e5-
•ri
-P
CU
U
JH
PM
rH VO
cd O
p! rH
ri X
S> -E*
1= VO
S o
33 rH
O X
•w-
-p VO
ra -P O
rH ra rH
•H 0 X
PH 0 -«3-
>=
ri -P >5
hD -H cS
^-H rrj rQ
ra -H "^^
i o ,0
O < H
>J
-p '"^
TH TS
•d cu s
•H > cd
O rH Td
ON
O
rH
VO
O
O
LA
VO
O
rH
O
LA
-=f
o
o
LA
rH
OJ
rH
0
O
rH
O
O
ON
rH
VO
rH
O
VO
o
o
o
rH
ro
8
o
o
LA
O
o
o
^
VO
H
£4
0)
(D
fn
O
o
H
cd
CH
<4H
£
L^
-d-
O
ON
OJ
O
o
OJ
ro
~HT
O
O
H
OJ
O
O
l^
o
00
o
o
°
0
o
ro
r-H
°
6
OJ
0
o
o
OJ
rH
o
o
O
OJ
O
o
LA
»S
-dr
oJ
>
•H
K
E?
O
-P
CO
D— ro ro
VD ro ro
o o o
OJ rH rH
J- OJ OJ
O O O
LA O O
rO rH rH
-d: OJ OJ
VO ro ro
O O O
O O O
O LA LA
rO H H
O O O
O O O
O LA LA
H O O
O VD VO
rH O O
O O O
OO LA LA
O O O
000
o o o
LA O O
H rH rH
ON to rO
O O O
O O O
-d- rH i-H
O O O
O O O
LA VO O
CO O VO
H O O
O 0 0
O O O
o o o
o o o
ro rH rH
O O O
o o o
O ro OJ
v\ *s r\
ON ro m
f-t
ri pi
pi ft;
K
jrf ft
v J4 8
h cd
rH 0 £
o P>H ra
S
•r\
-P
0
cd
0)
ri
o
c± rH
§ V
ra rH In
•P Vl -H
ra pi
O i>3 O1
° 32
>-H H
(U -H
o cd cu
ri a ri
cd
S ra rd
CU -ri rH
•p pi
p! (U O
•H hD £
cd cd
-H c3
tJ cd -p
§ 3 £
ra
ri 5 O 0
H
M -P 0)
oj CO >
0) O -H
>» S ra
w
ii (U cd
o S
^
oo -HO
o ra ri
* $
OJ
VO
-------
IX. BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Chesapeake Technical Support Laboratory, Middle Atlantic Region,
FWPCA, "Interim Report, Mine Drainage Pollution of the North
Branch Potomac River 1966-1968," August, 1968
2. Middle Atlantic Region, FiYPCA, "Water Quality and Pollution
Control Study Mine Drainage, Chesapeake Bay-Delaware River
Basins," Working Document Number 3, July, 1967
3. Chesapeake Technical Support Laboratory, Middle Atlantic Region,
FWPCA, "Investigation of Water Quality in the North Branch Potomac
River Between Cumberland and Luke, Maryland," August, 196?
4. La Buy, James L., Chesapeake Technical Support Laboratory, Middle
Atlantic Region, FWPCA, "Investigation of the Benthic Fauna in
the North Branch Potomac River Basin," Report in Preparation
5. Middle Atlantic Region, FY/PCA, Appalachian Program, "Water Supply
and Water Quality Control Study, Royal Glen Reservoir Project ~
Savage II Reservoir Project, South Branch and North Branch Potomac
River Basin," October, 1967
6. Public Health Service, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, "Investigation of North Branch Potomac River, Report on
Benefits to Pollution Abatement from Low Flo?/ Augmentation on the
North Branch Potomac River," Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering
Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, August, 1957
7. Hopkins, Thomas C., Jr., Maryland Department of Water Resources,
"Physical and Chemical Quality from the Effects of Mine Drainage
in Western Maryland," August, 1967
8. Plopkins, Thomas C., Jr., Maryland Department of Water Resources,
"Western Maryland Mine Drainage Survey, 1962-1965," 3 Volumes
9. Rubelinann, R. J., Maryland Department of Water Resources, "Interim
Report Number 1 on the Western Maryland pH Survey," June 10, 1963
10. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, "Potomac River
Water Quality Network, Compilation of Data," (Annual)
11. Maryland, State of, Water Resources Commission and Department of
Water Resources, "Water Resources Regulation 4.8 General Water
Quality Criteria and Specific Water Quality Standards"
-------
12. West Virginia, State of, Division of Water Resources, "Administrative
Regulations, Water Quality Criteria on Inter and Intra State Streams1'
13. Wilkes College Research and Graduate Center, "Studies on the Kinetics
of Iron (II) Oxidation in Mine Drainage," September 25, 1968
14. Appalachian Regional Commission, "Engineering Economic Study of Mine
Drainage Control Techniques," (Appendix B to Acid Mine Drainage in
Appalachia), January 15, 1969
15. Gannett, Fleming, Corddry, and Carpenter, Inc., "Acid Mine Drainage
Abatement Measures for Selected Areas Within the Susquehanna River
Basin," (Engineering Report - Contract Number WA 66-21), 1968
-------
o o«
i/i • •
o -o
^ o -^ O ^ O >> O f- O
/' o -u <"> .) if ^\J <_) -O
,-, — i ,-NJ
O O o i •„> .-i -)ooO.>Oi>or>J(->O
O O C> O O O O O O 3 O "3 (~ r-> o D O 3
O O O O 3 o O O O "J O O O O O ) O O
O O O C> O O '-> O O O .J O -3 '-y O O o O O
O 1) J 3 O O ^ O -> '-"> O O O -J i 1- ? "- 3
Z>
S-»
'"J
fcti
O
5
>H
£
CJ
f*4
35
3
*-1
as
o
Si
1
K
M
H
-<
H
CO
3
n
1-4
5
c/3
3
O
C>q
05
t~3
0
•
5
X
o
Q
VM
tA
>•
QC
U>
I
2T
at
af
Cu
—
i
fc- O <~» O <^ C f"1 C O O O r'- O
c o o o o c- c a c o t; o
o pooocococco*^
•« C C O O O C O O O O C- O
O O ^ O O O O C- O O *u o
-» — 'T' jl ,-, M IK g (^ i»^ fc^
M-^-^jHr^^ «T^r
^>-
V
*J
o C' o o o c t-
o c o o o o c o o o C <~
C. OOOOCCOOOC'OC
lAf OOOOCOC"OOOC>0
K OOC-OOOOOOOCO
* - - * £ - S N S 2 2 ~
ai cr o": CD a- a^ 4- *• «- r^ o
/\ *r\ t*~ t*\ f\i f^i
rv *, ^ - - r-s
o o o o o c o
r r> o c coo
c c o o o o o
C O C 0 0 C 0
C in O C O C O
* * ~^
ou—*«-jo'^1o1^ft^^ •j~ O c O C O '
O C' c •• — ';• O O o f
r, c c -" '-' c • o i c. c
C' o ^ ri i- • c c > o o
-. C i~ c> c> O "i o O n
•• r f " t^ r ' i c c ' O c.'
oo or CT a
c ••» a-
8
-------
J
•f
O- T o o -j
O O O D O i •>
O O O J 3 O
O O O O O O
O O AJ O
-» -o -r o
o
o
O O O J
O O O 'l
O O 5 ,J 3
i _• '.J ..1 O •
_> ,/ o o o
-j .> O y <-> ,
O '_> O
:> o o
3 O O
O
— ••»> ~> o in in 13
t- • Cf if\ -f -o ~< -TO
O • «*.»<
o o o r- c o
C o o c o o
o o o o o o
o o o o c o
o (M m ^ M »
-0 ^) cr vf —i >o
CM 1^ fNJ «*> m
O i- C C ••" •-. C •""• O O O C ri O O O O O
0 O C O u r, C O O O O O o O C. O O O
o ?:: c o •:• C- o o c o c e o o u> o c o
O O C O O C O O C. O C' O O O *• O "C >O
" CO
rv f\* ti"\ "^
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
O
O
o o c o TJ
O O f. --• c
O CJ C> O C O C 0 c
" o o o c r. o o c
o
C
a
CD
m
z
-%
£
tt.
sr
c
z
o
o
<:• o o o o
o
O
o
c- c- o o o o c- o o
v\ •*• e
O. O O O C'
••. o o o o c r-
t_> c o o
U* O O H"* CD ^ fj^
o c. o c. '_•
o c' o c ;•
O o o ( • :
C. O C. -' < .
Ci O I'' C C- c O O
o c- o c c. o o <->
cr c~ c> a- c a1 —* •'•J
•cj
r •
r- r, -.
<:> c- c
o o •-
-------
o 9 •f JO
• ••«
O O *• 4,
O
O '1 ' ..
00:50-' J -'
• O O ) O O TO
-C —* "1 Jj ,f ^ °~
—* f*- Ns ~C D """> ^
i o . >
I ,j O O
'"> '"5 O
Of
X
"i co
f O
' ' -o
O C C- O O
O C' C- C <_•
O C
c- o
r C' O
'> C O
•: r* C
•~. ;v in
* « i*
O .? O5
^~- ^. **-
'M —>
O
X
O O f, O C' C C' o C. <_ t f ._
• ••B9*tt9^^e>g ^ '^
O o r- o o o < t:- c r t <~ r '•
n1
01
c c o c- o c c o c ~- c c-
o o o C' o c c e o o
o o c o o o c o c. o " c. c
o o o o c c c> r,' c c -~ c n '_
• c- c o
o o o
a
cc
a
C
C
:?
c
c o c c c c - o o c
O O C' O o C O C ,~. .- .
T
r O o
o o o
*A O C>
~'^ ^v C' O
> 1, Q • *
^ "- C O
.c m
O c O O O O *"> C'
O C' O C C- O O C
c c CJ o c o o c.'
O
O
O
f, c c <~> ; > c c ~
o o c c c- o c c
_/ o O c o o •-. •:•
u. o c o c- c -• c
O ^ O I-J 9 .- --
i- C • O
.-• <-« c-
o
o
r r- o '• f
o •-_ c c c
o ci r '- '•i
O c, , , ^ r
-------
C o O o -M -«
***> •«««*
o o o c- -r
00 f -J a -*
O o O O • ) '
<" O O O .,) ~>
O O O O O O • > O 1
O O O '^ -M "f - J -:;
»• O -^>^ '?
ir> in .r o -M
^- o ^- o ^-*
O ft CM
CD
O o e> o c. <~ f c
o o o o o c r i c.
o c o o o c c. c
0- r\, -i, rn u -Nj -< ,. •«
O o C C'
>f O O <•> C-
~i O C- O C
«* C C' C> Cf f (^ '%
O O O
a —
V
Or
C
a. o o c - c Ci c c c~ c
r o o c- o c c o o c
u- C1 c o o o c, c" O r.
t- O o C O c t' c r-- o
o
z
C' O O
C- t' O
o i
o
<: o c . o i >
o c> f. c- c-
«_. o t_, < c
o o r ' f- >*
c <. .
< -*•
a c
o i..
i c> r
-------
•t V ^ u r
Q r,' —• TO t"~ **•
o o o o c; ~> ;
D O O 3 <• i ' • >
a
— f a •*> •*• o - •. -
i —• ci r- i- ,-> o o o C' r.
-f -Q
C fM
C O C' C t C. O ! '..
• *«•»« l*J*«
o o c. o c c> ''• r_ r<
T
o
Uj
UJ
a.
O T- O O t- C C ', •••
t O C- o r c f. f s
u o c o o c^
O- — -v
••^ r^.
c c- <~ i
C c o r
<~ f O r-
C c o c
-------
a
U . J (_ *
r^ r- t. ^
« a, C' "
£C
.O
f" ,T -• 11
O * *.. *•*
•• o —
T- o :•
o vj o o } • ^ • .> '~'
O O O O o — "! - '
O O O O O ' J -> O T •
o o r
f*v o
"S-1 u • O 0**
M 1 * J"*
o
X
n, *-•
c c -J
•*- f- a
oor-c-crc o c -
o r> o o r, c :: ri c o
o o f o <~ c •" o c i"
o o o c c c. '. o c o
o c c- c> o
•-• o o C' o
o c c r o
c c t- c f_
o
r
O o C o O O C C. C r. C v_> ,r ;. i. ,
o o c o o cj o o o o '' :~ '- •: <. • -
o o c
o c o
r
w
z
<
of
or
a o o o o o o c o o
I r o o o c o c c c
U- O C Ci C C C- C C O
k- O O O O O O O C> O o
- « '"" o <_> o r o c o
- - o o J r. c - <"'
:. c c; o c o o c o o
; c o o (/" c1 IT* *r- C1 o
"• f r
>» S3
T> O
c
ar
c
•-'
j
a
'-•: (T c o o :• ' c>
o o t o C' c e o o o -. i '
a
c.' r-> t~ c' o '"• '-'' r- o f" " •:
o o '- c- c - <-' c- •; i -- c
oc-'^o o c. r: • o f - • c
O O f" (Nl C1 c •"* ^f vf "- — •-' ^
T ,' , '. ~ S X-
- - ,~ ... ,. ,-j,
C " C."* '- £ ^' ^' O
r. 'ti f. c- '- C
c > • ;, ' . . - . • r o < c > o C; c. •
C ' -• C 0 '_ ' :'• >-• f C U' , C O 0
'v *C
^ wl r * "-v '^- -'\. -*" $
't
'- r '!._'- f ' C' C O C
- O '- " : r '• c C O o
r <"* t ' . *- ., C' r_, o < r^ u-
-f , T ' t < - : - - .. r-. • •• ,-.
r-*
O
0
o
o
CO
r-J
O
c >
^->
" ,
c- r.
0 0
0 0
C 0
0 C'
CD O
™ *
M
c-
o
l/X
W 0
f C. C- O O <„> o <- r
O *-' O C.' O t < C C
_ o o c o c • •-. -' c
u o o r. c" r c • c
O W.
C) cf
C O >"' C •" r ' ' r •"
C' c.- c < f r •- - <•
r r> <~ c ' - -. r
> r -r
,- ^
-------
a
— */ o •
c
iNI Q ^ JO •<•/ ,f
-^ r* ,c P ~« o
* _> f-l i •> O O O ^ v 1
o o r> o -> '-> •_•> 3 -j —
i/i o o -^ o o o ^ :> o
O O O O r> O .' 7- O
J« :> .-> -•> -1 -> O -j o
_i _> r> -' J jooo
^> 1- O •"! _ O O O
"J <•> O -J 1 O O O J
,">
i- - .- •-"> j O O
r,, rj ~. ^ r>- O r^ O O
-*^ *- -? £> x) xi u'i f\j cr
o
r". <
•r -t '- C
O iT —. -f ~i -o >
)•-- K* f^ w> »*~ tf> rv
O O O O r. C O C O •' -- ; C. r • O C L-
a o C> C' <- c o o o c c • c i. ; ''- o t o c cj e_' c o c. o o
C r f -- ir a t O O O C' O c • O O
^, ;- .-.( «™ ^ K^ ,-_ <:> O C C C O O O
O o o- *"•'•* ~< IT
<> Of to •"' If' f- C- a1
a. o o O «• o o
3 O O O C O C'
u) a o c o c o
>- O O O O O O O O O C'
c- c
O i*~
C C' C' C C
^ ,_- r -r C Cv C1 O O C"* O C' O <
"* & O —' C O O C
" '- O C. r~, o O O C- O O
cr
C
u.
a
C
7
C'
O
O
O
c> c o o c- o o c c o c : '"
o o o c c. c o o o r • c <• • („•
O O C O O C O O C O O
r-- c c, <-• c. o o •*" o o c.' o o o o o o
C O :-» C> "V
C' C' O C O C' O O C - C> c C " '•
T <~- O O O '_> O O C' C. "~ O C- '- O ""
Q c- o o o o <' c-i o o < o c '". ; '-
C' C C' C1 ^ C"' C O O O O
o o r o c Co c- o o
<" '-* C •/" C " O o O C> U^
INJ (N* rj
O o t <• • r i o <. i, r c .- •- r- t
G c • c~ r. < c '.-' c • c- i. . . .- c
O r\> »t if a a o C C • [., ( •' < '.
«X (X^ J IX1 <• > ^ C* C ^ -f - ' ~~* f-» •
i •" '-i O C- O
- '- < o r o
-« h ^ cr —* ^v
«• r > o c • „-, e • r o
T r • "- O
i- o o c c-
< <-. o C' c>
C1 O O C' !.""•
'T *'*-"<„
a ''
*•> <5
-------
a
u* CJ' c'
r» r- r-
—' ir o i— —' 'jo -o uo
-t o O
U '•) O O
O O C O
•^ v/> ^ O & Q
'M -*•>„.
O O Cl '„ ^_? > ^ 3 O > J ^t O o O O
o o _> o • -j j o r> o o o o o o J
-> o o o ' •> j .1 o j r"> o o o o o o
O o
.5 •;> >
f^ f^- o
—* rv
•3
r
O O O O O •"• C- n C' O
O C> O C O C C. r- o C.
o c c- c o o o o o r-
O C1 C/ O C' O -O .•*!—•<.
o c o r. c r r- r <~ o c <-. c o O o
O O O C C i_> C C' O O C' O C O O O
ooofc c coaoccooco
COO O O t. C C. O O C t- CJ O O O
<& ^Q ^ P1^ -^ 3^ 'Y~i -X) •*} P~- •U O *— ^f
a
f
a.
o c c- o o o r o o o
O<~O'" OOOOC'C1
c o o o c <->
o o c.. 1-1 C' o o o o o
O O C' O C C' O O l^ u"
y e ec ai o:
c o <- ° c
^ o o o o o
O o O c O O
•_) rl C • "- C O <•;' T, O C C
«*«•»*•«**
C t c. ifN C. (T> O C' C C
«
>
«
X
_J
r
at
O
2
at
&
If
o
X
o
O C- C O C O C O O O C O C- C Co
o e o c o c «-• o o c, <:• o o c o o
o r o r o o o r; o o <" o o O r o
O O O O O C1 C/ O O O O O O O O O
tf -c « «j so
o o c-r>c c
ty- ^ ^r .» "^ r'
ji d C
-1 /- C
o o o c1
C <.'
r c
o < - o o c
c. r o c o
C'
! t « <
t t ' f >
"f f >' •> *
-------
—
•f
o
•4
O
O
O
c
->
o
o
m
'»
J
O
-o
l-J
t/s
o
-o
•~' ».
1? 1
rf^ •?"
f*- r-
,t -r\
V — *
•~s i-j e
O 0 •
o o -
O 0 ^
'„ •- -/ • - - , . « -• L. < _
J "* C » •* C U- v» -, '< *' ' - *>
j r- — • -™. - „-•' -i1 r- ?- f , -_
-Jf f fe) -o r - - , , i , . ., ,-,,,. j-
•* •"* "J, ,j\ , ^ f ' -O ~* , -*
-« l> J O T - / 0 •- «, -^ ., * /•
0 O O -n, ^* "-» •"'• i-r JT, *• 'a j- ' v-
. - • " * J -' w ' ' -> J '
, "? x ?. 1 ^ ^ ':" S
, » • ' 0 r~- J . . - •> >
. •• -. ., , o , - ^
- .'. " :: A' $ « - D
r~"
^
TO
1
( ")
f-
o
*
o
o
»
0
o
o
0
•m
^v»
J5
OJ
r-
o
O
o
o
9-
IV
^
c.
r-
o
o
o
o
^
«n
r-
f-
or
•*
O
C
c>
*-
o
-c
-..
J
*
r
C'
c
c-
c
—
fs
O
J
r
c
c
c.
»,
f>J
t
(f
f
^ ,
r
c.
c
o
F-.
f^
O •" 'C - r > f -
x r *^ L • " °~ ^
r- r — ^ - "
r- r> r "* r »- ; •'. •
C-- 0 C ' • ' 0 C. C "
C' c c - .; f. f '-
>_> o ;, r, ' c- c/ r, ,;
T^ ^ f~ ^? £J* ^J U • C-
(^ ^ u tr l- ^* <"• " ,
' - - ' '" ' - ' r >"' ° •" "J
., . . . - , ,- r, .- -• f y T -g
'- • .---«"- — a, -c
•• . a - >•- t f»- T> j c
,- f- ." -. ' -, C r c ' ' C <-• C
c i : • c •- r r> o
- . ,- > •- r -• ; ci c c-> o C'
t.i • r - f "- t- • f t. x f*- t* <: • o o
O O O O O O
X
*
O O C O c> C O C- O o r
O O O O o C- O O O c C
O O O C> O C O <..' O O ^'
O O O C O O C C CO'
fe c'
o c o c o o o o
o 'o c o o c o o
o c. o o o <-. o o
O if O C C. C1 -r u^
fj X5 -\J
a.
O
c
f
G
•f cc cr 5; a^ r~ cr y a
c o t o c o o o o
o c, c- o c, ^ o o e o o
e c c c- ' t. o c- o o c<
c~ f- F f, ... c- c r " r r . (-3 c* O O C' o C' O
o c o c
o c1 o '-'
O C 0 C'
O C O Ci
<^ o •£• •*
c' <. c. ;. o i . -•• o i r '
en 'F.
r- o o o o '. : c r-
C r-i f~> O r ' ' f *" ': *~
O C O i. 5 '- <-' i.j t
C i~ -i <- -M -- -J - *-
C_' C1 O f- C w I U"- LT t" O ^ •
,? 2 * 5' ", 2 ^ *
r> " • -_ f ' •* ^ c v. o -~
'-, f^ ~ /• ; •- ^ <- r- r, o C"'
•-' «' <-' •, ^ - •, r c; o c.
'^ - -* - „. s % ~ ,_, -• / ~f
C 0 O 0
^J OC -C
03
C 0 O
•- f~ i-)
C U O
>• .-< -_ —
c c c - • c <-• .-- r c
c: <"^ o C r : c -'< .
O I L' f' C. I • ^ '. C
r <"> O <• !"> ' t f :
oo o -! f* •* -* -* -"
a <7> T-
~C C '
-------
t*
a
fN
f
•J
.„: x: --• j, j, v i
~-> n -n ~M ao ^ ^ '
•^o u "*w A "v o "•*
Q
I/)
O O O O
O O o <-
OO OO
O 'T o
OOO
O O "_> O '-> O O O O "I vJ
o r» '-J o O o O O o j O
OOO,JOOOOOOO
O r«4 —» o O
tM -t M
•^ '.TV TO —« '•"" ~J
•^ -*• o -o -^ »?
r- o « -^ in
•IT: U tf "' -C
O O O O O O O C C. O c C c O O C- r O C. O C O O O
O O O O O O O O O O i— f" O f"' C C C^ C_ C O C C. C O
cooocoo
— — o —' r- -t
<_> o c o c o c- o c o o
o o o o f c o r; o cs c
!_ COO O C1 Ci O O C i_
O O C O O
r. o t. c o
c
c
o o c o r c c; c c o o c
O O O C O O O C' c ~ C- ri
o c: c o ci o c o o o r~' c ^ c- c • '••
c c o c c- c. c- c c f r
o- --' >j c c -c ^ f' -tr ^ -~ -,° c
C C c-
C r O
c c> o
Cr O C
U-- O
C'
o
C1
>^ c
_. c> o
o c o
'- -1 tr ,t
C -r r— 4
-------
*.
-r
o
^
CJ
1/1
o
fM
"<•»
JO
0
»
r-
-4
'J
O
o
o
(^
_., 1* '
i/- r—
l> UJ
u-, -C
f«- f*^
f*^ Q
•"*
0 O
o o
0 0
0 0
3 •*>
r .-• ,- _/> j> ..> j'
< si i • j ^ -J 14 ™j ~7
r -i. w ^ • -i • - -
-» ' J — r t in v
7° -~) ^ *•''.? O j * J 'j -'
r i o O •> J? ^ ~:
0 0 7! 0 C' o 0
O'3O'>'">o^<"
ro ••% >A _ >»• ..ft --. -.
* ; - ^ '_ -i ' ^j
» *• ' o «. « •* * v
.' - V ^ 'j % ' ,? r- " ft
J - . ^ -..,-,, ,. , I -j TJ O
. ( •> • r v , «...'- ) „-. o
-» f, y ., , „ ~i T ^ ^
^ t> ,? .f- -i u* ,f> ^ —.
r r r r
• • , • i ^ .>-.-• ,3
j ^ ,- --> O _> - ( . J '-> O
_"• '.: -^ o o ~j '- ' ^ '--' o
5 •-•> o ->.-.--> o a •"> o o o cj o o
5 •- O '• "•- '-J >> *" '-! — -~ "O 3 m O
t_^
f-.
c .
rsj
O
3
'V
o
:>
Q
O
,-.
— t
4_ j
^'
'••
>*\
_j
**
O
O
o
-I
,.»
tf '
1.1
— *
U-N
V
i»
•N
O
a
0
r««
•>
»> J r
0 O —
< o o u-
0
if^
^~
f7^ CT1 <> •«* l"~ ^
^» — « —1 >*- lp j
» T> •- "S, J" "
— O -• -r * ~
fSj F*~ U ^_. .M y(
r\^ MW rv C
' ^ ,7 ".' " ^' o n ^ o -j S S o ,n
5 T -- • -j ^- ' *• ^s O — ' & '** ^ -J '-J •-*
*, t *"- t - ^ ^ o "^ -" M 4- ^ r> r T;
' ^ -r e 33 -.T D •** -* i"1 -» *•* O o ^;
' /. , ^ *Jf -' W L .'• C ^- ^ — -t
"-" — • •• "**• fa £ ft* y
-* C?* O O
"^ •*• «. O
rsj f*- •> f>
» T. ^ (» O
^-* ^ o ^ o
«-. «-4 !-»•
«—
O c: c r> r- o r- o
O o o c. c. o t•• o
Oocc r Ooo
c r-. r. > c r r- O n c o
* C C O f O O o C' O
A u^c yj"ot^^^-
*N) **~ *•* s. **^ 'V C~ o o '
Z X O O C- O O O C O C' O •
O J O C O C O C C r c- C. .
•— 41 I1*- CC IT TU — /** l»- fX< vfl '- '
c- o e- c« c o o o o o c e>
C,' C C C' C C' C. O C C O O
c f- * i c, ••: c <*•> as o c —
^ /i .-v *- >£ cc d c fv f^l ^ *^
a ~ -t> — c- a — i
-• IM !
a1
O
O
0 O
c o
O 0
o o
0 0
o o
r c
C' O
C 0 c.
r C o
O C c
c o c
o c-
c c
c- C
<•• o <•
c
**•
r-,
- f .
C'
<"
^
o c
c c-
•J r
C
r
(~
'"'
o
... C O ^ C' o O
e c
_. --. ._. »
O ™>J
U;
O
•tf
ff* T1
0 c-
0 0
or
c
C"
C'
-r e
>c o
lirirfcrytr-r" ?
o c • o r r • i ., o c r^ c-
O O 0 C 0 t Or -. o
O O C C- r c O r -
r- c- <" r or' c r .
c- c. c c <_• c c ^ -
* c
o c; c •-' c c '-• o
^ r- *-, , f- c ,— c •. f. r r
f } ^: ',t -1 -f >.' u- - tt c r CO
a- C- *~ vr « •«•• !•• c
"• , ^ ,~ ~ r " f ' O f™
" r !•_• :..- , ..-'''- - • ' 0
-! *
>r- .- ,..'",,.:. i- ,: *•
^v
o
o
C'
O C'
0 C'
C- f'
c ' r-
C' x
u.
o
o
C'
^
o
X
so
!~
o
o
o
C)
0
CO
o
^
f
*
c.
^
U-
o
o
o
<•;>
^
—«
rj 0
cr ^
o o
o e-
a, t-
-. o
c .
f
c
f
f „,
^f
(- .
o
C1
o
,.
^' '"•
c r~-
C >"•
(. i
4- t.
» '
C
O
(_
C
.J-
-^
*" > < * ' ^ t -. ;" ^" ^
r ,>••"' f ,
O ' c f - . <.,• •
c '- , . - <-> t : •
i r ' -, J- f ; i
**• "" r " *'.
. ^ ; • • c •_• r- o < o
' Q r" f „ r • *~, \ r
i - ; - . ': T_- <• <
^ '•" ' . J ^: **' j
r ,' ^ . j - u - ~ '
o c- -:•
C r i
i. : t
t.> O C J
•^ r •*
-------
. j" u • ^ •' • u J j* >t> •"
r- r- •*, u, t- or ~ <- <
•i
a
«.- a
O
•O ^ -*"1 o
o -a •** :>
•n cf o «
O <-» O .-. _> -j 0 ^01 • > ,',
_; o o o o o ~> o o *' ' j ~t > '
O O O O O O 'i O O l * > ^ "^
O O O o O O .> O O O t i ^ f! -5
•o ir> o
•O ,-n O •
r a -t
^ ooonoo01 00000
O o o -' o o T J o o o a o o
i/> OOO O OOOOO O OOO
OOOOOOO030OOO
>»• ^ Ni O <""
IA ^ 'N
ao o "»• -» f"-
O rvJ *"t —« ^
<"y Oj ^ *f f"! I
O ^ U^ <"M ^
O Ci
ooofCcr^ooc f
c c> o o o o o c o c (.
ocooOooc occ
o o o o o o c. o c. c o
•- '.'• r> C o o o c c c c- c c
o o o o o o t o r ' o
o o o o o c- c o o c o o o
C O O CJ !_> O O O C. O O <"> O
a
^
3D
I*
^>
2"
a
a
X
^
o;
C
a O
3 O
ui O
t- C
-r,
—f
.£
cr
z
c^
.„! O
c-
c
o
o
o
J-
C-j
ff
r-i
C
c.
C
o
o
IT
rvj
3C
r-
o
o
o
0
o
c
A,
Q
c
C1
OOO O t.: 0
C' r C' C C C
O 0 C. O f, t
c- o or o c- •'
a.1 CD c o O -" •?
r* j -\_ *— « fj ,. 1 —<
^ T t ~ 'f T ''
O ^ . O :"* O '
(•_, f , C' O O O '
.'- <„ c ~' C'
• • r\ f. , f r
<^ c c r c-
c c- rj o o o c- u-
v fv ^ f. .., ^ ^ „
«vj
'v-
O C' "- '." "" • C
o o o •• o ;;• "
O C' '.' -. 0 ' '
<- •: o i- •:- '. •. '.
f_, -/•' tr c «^- f." **-• -if
tf "„ * 43 ''J C"1 C
•\/ -, . -M -. "v ,-^ ,1
f ' C- O O O
T O C -J O
C C C. '-J C.'
c - / o c
, _ ., ^ J
,v,^ 'V - rf
^ r !y~
-"*
c c
,_ t. r, c ^_
,-* ,-, .J ,., ^
~J~ tf"'
4 ^~
o
o
c
0
c
r\j
c^
C'
c
o
o
•w
(;,
c.
o
o
_J
rsj
o
o
o
13
>.n
*c
»"".
Of
X
d
a.
a,
sr
on
a ooC' ooo ooooo
X OOO OCO OOOOO
UJ OOO OCO OOOOO
H OOOOO C'OOOOtflOO
a- jr -r i f •' tn
o o o ooo
o o o coo
o o o ooo
C O O •- O ' ; u O o O O O O
o o c> o &
« O O o
!N «•• O
c o
I O O
&"' CO
c c c- c o c t •• f
C c O c C r •' r. O
i" o O fj c- r- ^ c C
l/ .J J •-, 0 C v r- '-
33
O O «"' (_' O C~ O O C1 O O O
C C- r i O <- C' O O O O O O
O C' C '"' O Ci C' O to O O O
»» ^4 *' ^ c> >/ ^" h aj i o jj o
;.*
c
'"• ' f. '. ' r
O '"' O O C '
i.' • 3 -- ^ c
o
o
o o o
o o o
c
or
-------
u
r*" ^— AJ vl. Tw l^; —4 If '
4 i —* ,j s_j _. _«
h. f- r» w "J ,0 o f-
«1 O '"^ TI ^f -o r- »
,» o o o Q o j» •-> o
O OOOOOOO'J
I/' OOOOOJ^QO
OOOO"-^fvjO
* O O <"» O J O O
O o ;j o o 3 o :>
*^ o o o o c. o o
O O -T O -o * "~ J3
O
o
(COO
00 X>
K> o
O O O
o o o
o o o
e» o o
g
-t
o
O rv*
m f-
•O IM
o <**
-« m
-<3 —i 10
o •
< -«•
'SS '*'' '*- «< ' J V '
SO «- s i" -< O
^iT ^ t- 4" •<• ^
O ff ru '' ""1 U
•f "M O
!J> 0
r- o
-" O -O
o o -o
CO «D
S>
c o r- o t; o C'
O o o o o o o
O in c --> c ~ f^
t
C o 1-J ;. o £• r' X
'«t llf% ^ -". ' ^ ^ ^ «'
& J- e ,j « 's a* *
SE/ f" ^i ' ir- f> ^~ -J
m —4.
o o c
o o o
o o o
o o o
* • o
P~ IT' O
•o f" '••
£i cr- O
O O O
o o o
o o o
o
oooooooo
C c C- C' C O O o
O O
O T
«c c-
i — f
^, ,/ ri
•#
«9
>
*
I
o o o
• • «
C' O O
o o o o
: O O •" <~ C' C
v o c* o 'v o rs
o c c> u- e *•• c
It-
0
f
o
UJ
o
c
7-
o
l~
0
o
o
0
o
f*
^f
ep
cr
c
cr
C
O
o
O 0
o o
IX
l~-
er
^
o
C-
c c
^ i.
C"
s£
r^
O
(3
O
o
0
^
o
o
o
~
o
!7
\r
r
o
2
C t. C
O o :
O '.' '- '- '
o <• c o -
•"• c
C' c
" c
coo
o r- c
O C' O
O C C'
• OS
O t"> ?"
Q * *
o c> o
a uj
or
eo
C
z
o o o
o o o
C O C-
o o c-
• • *
en (M -O
c> o o o o c-
CJ C' C1 0 "> C.
O C' O
O ;,.' O
O C O
.•»
C
o c c - • c i . c-
O C C' C C O c
r- o c • r • c • o ,
C' O '" «. ^ ' " ''
O
t' C' c
O C> ,;.
C- O <.>
C- .'5 c>
r >
f •,
;i O » r - '^ cj
fv (?• C* C i.*- ^ ^ •*
C i" t O < .' -* J">
or - r- f" t - "
•vJ ~" -J ^3 '-. ^ i.- r
(—, - o
A ./" O"'
-------
APPENDIX
-------
. A rit'.;">
.'JtatioT)
w. <'qc -.W.R. Sampling station
V. '-ra. "jlp ar;d aper 'o. '>amplin,-, .')Lat,io,>
area squaaBB
-------
961
91.7
89.9
864
a
tr
ui
£
I
81.8
ELK RUN
2(3.6)
BUFFALO C«££K
5 (93)
OOMiN ROAD
LAUREL RUN
4(7.5)
STEYER (73)
USGSGAGE
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM
NORTH BRANCH
AREA A - ABOVE STEYER, Md
FIGURE A ••?
-------
8! 8
783
or
7\-3
689
•
6 STEYER (73)
STONY RIVER
SMlSTOftM
USQS OASC (48.6)
AfiRAM CREEK
MS OAKMONT
USGS GAGC (47.3)
21A
LOSTLANO RUN
» KITZMKJ.ER (225)
USGS GAGE
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM
NORTH BRANCH
AREAS- BELOW STEYER,Md ABOVE KITZMILLER,Md
A-3
-------
68.9
65
us
ct
UJ
UNNA«CD TRW
548
PINEY SWAMP RUN
25 (4.8)
18 KITZMILLER (225)
THREE FORKS RUN
'9 (78)
ELKLCK RUN
23A (3.7)
23B BARNUM (*o.25«)
53.6
26 BERYL f287)
SCHEMATfC DIAGRAM
NORTH BRANCH
APfA '- - BELOW KlTZMILLER.Md. ABOVE BERYL.WVa.
FIGURE A-4
-------
safe
26 BERYL (287)
52 4
5! 4
t
Q:
UJ
or
i
50.0
325
19 6
LUKE (404)
SAVAGE RIVER
29A (74)
GEORGES CREEK
UPRC WASTE TREATMENT
FACILITY
33A KEYSEJR (490)
so
<596>
FORD- USGS GAGC f875»
SCHEMATIC CXAGRAM
NORTH BRANCH
AREA D BELOW BERYL.W Va ABOVF WILEY FQRO.Md
FIGURE A-S
-------
Chesapeake Technical Support Laboratory
Middle Atlantic Region
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
U. S. Department of the Interior
Technical Report No. 15
NUTRIENTS
IN THE
UPPER POTOMAC RIVER BASIN
by
Norbert A. Jaworski
August 1969
Supporting Staff:
Johan A. Aalto, Chief, CTSL
Donald W. Lear, Jr., Chief, Ecology Section
James W. Marks, Chief, Laboratory Section
Gerard R. Donovan, Jr., Draftsman
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES iv
LIST OF FIGURES vi
Chapter
I. FOREWORD 1-1
II. INTRODUCTION II-l
A. Purpose and Scope II-l
B. Acknowledgements II-2
III. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ' III-l
IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE BASIN IV-1
V. DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLING PROGRAM AND OTHER
DATA SOURCES V-l
A. Stream Sampling Network V-l
B. Wastewater Treatment Plant Data V-7
C. Sediment Data . V-7
D. Dalecarlia Water Filtration Plant Data,
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers V-9
VI. SOURCES OF NUTRIENTS (PHOSPHORUS AND NITROGEN) . . VI-1
A. Wastewater Discharges VI-1
B. Land Runoff and Other Sources VI-3
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter Page
VII. ANALYSES OF NUTRIENT NETWORK DATA ........ VII-1
A. Phosphorus VII-1
1. Major Sub-basins . VII-1
2. Main Stem . „ VII-4
3. Tributaries of the Lower Basin Near
Washington. . . . VII-9
B. Inorganic and Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen .... VII-11
1. Major Sub-basins VII-11
2. Main Stem VII-13
3. Tributaries of the Lower Basin Near
Washington VII-19
C,, Mass Balance of Phosphorus VII-19
VIII. SEDIMENTS VIII-1
A. Effects on Nutrient Concentrations VIII-1
B. Spatial and Temporal Variations VIII-2
C. Sediment Loadings into the Estuary VIII-4
IX. TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF NUTRIENTS
ENTERING THE POTOMAC ESTUARY . LX-1
A. Historical Trends LX-1
B. Temporal Variations IX-1
C. Spatial Distribution of Nutrients LX-8
APPENDIX A - Mean Monthly Data, Potomac River at Great
Falls, Maryland . A-l
APPENDIX B - Data Summaries B-l
REFERENCES
iii
-------
Number
LIST Of TABLES
Potomac River Nutrient Network Stations . . . .
Page
V-2
V-l
V-2 Wastewater Treatment Facilities Samples for
Nutrients, Potomac River Basin ........ V-8
V-3 USGS Sediment Stations .„„...„..... V-9
VI-1 Nutrient Loadings from Wastewater Discharges by
Sub-regions .„....„.. VI-2
VI-2 Nutrient Loadings from Watersheds with
Varying Land 'Jse 0 .< ............ VI-8
VI-3 Estimated Nutrient Loadings from Land Runoff,
Upper Potomac River Basin ........... VI-10
VII-1 Comparison of Phosphorus Concentrations and
Loadings for the Major Sub-basins ....... VII-3
V1I-2 Comparison of Phosphorus Concentrations and
Loadings Along the Main Stem of the Potomac . . VI1-9
VII-3 Comparison of Phosphorus Concentrations and
Loadings for Tributaries of the Lower Basin
Near Washington .... VII-11
VII-4 Comparison of Nitrogen Concentrations and
Loadings for the Major Sub-basins ....... VII-15
VII-5 Comparison of Nitrogen Concentrations and
Loadings for the Main Stem VII-17
VII-6 Comparison of Nitrogen Concentrations and
Loadings for Tributaries of the Lower Basin
Near Washington VII-21
VII-7 Phosphorus Balance ... VII-23
VIII-1 Summary of Sediment Sampling Data, Potomac
River Basin, 1966 VIII-3
VIII-2 1966 Sediment Loading, Potomac River Basin. . . VIII-4
VIII-3 Sediment .Data, Potomac River Basin Below
Confluence with the Monocaey River VIII-6
IV
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Number Page
IX-1 1960-1967 Summary of Nutrient Data, Potomac
River Basin at Great Falls, Maryland IX-3
DC-2 Predicted Average Monthly Nutrient Loadings,
Potomac River Near Washington, D.C IX-7
IX-3 Spatial Distribution of Nutrients, Upper
Potomac River Basin Above Great Falls,
Maryland . H-9
DC-4 Estimated Nutrient Loadings, Upper Potomac
Basin, 1966 EC-11
A-l Mean Monthly Flow, Nitrogen, and Sediment,
1960-67, Potomac River, Great Falls, Maryland . A-2
B-l Total Phosphorus (rag/1) B-2
B-2 Total Phosphorus (Ibs/day) B-3
B-3 Inorganic Nitrogen (mg/1) , B-4
B-4 Inorganic Nitrogen (Ibs/day) B-5
B-5 Summary of Wastewater Treatment Plant
Nutrient Data B-6
v
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number
IV-1 Major Municipal Wastewater Discharges IV-4
V-l Nutrient Network ............ V-6
VI-1 Land Use Comparison - Total Phosphorus PO^ VI-4
VI-2 Land Use Comparison - N02 + N03 as N VI-5
VI-3 South Branch Potomac River at Petersburg, West
Virginia, Nutrients vs. River Discharge VI-7
VII-1 Major Sub-~basins of Potomac River Basin - Total
Phosphorus (mg/1) .......... VII-2
VII-2 River Discharge for Selected Gaging Stations, 1966. . . VII-5
VII-3 Major Sub-basins of Potomac River Basin - Total
Phosphorus (Ibs/day) VII-6
VII-4 Main Stem of Potomac River Basin - Total Phosphorus
(mg/1) VII-7
VII-5 Main Stem of Potomac River Basin - Total Phosphorus
(Ibs/day) . . . . VII-8
VII-6 Lower Tributaries of Potomac River Basin - Total
Phosphorus (mg/1) . . . „ VII-10
VII-7 Major Sub-basins of Potomac River Basin - Inorganic
Nitrogen (mg/1) .... VII-12
VII-8 Major Sub-basins of Potomac River Basin - Inorganic
Nitrogen (Ibs/day). ....... VII-14
VII-9 Main Stem of Potomac River Basin - Inorganic
Nitrogen (mg/1) VII-16
VII-10 Main Stem of Potomac River Basin - Inorganic Nitrogen
(Ibs/day) ..... . VII-18
VII-11 Lower Tributaries of Potomac River Basin - Inorganic
Nitrogen (mg/l) . VII-20
DC-1 Potomac River Basin Nitrate Nitrogen Loadings at
Great Falls, Maryland, 1949-1967 IX-2
IX-2 Nutrient Loadings and River Discharges, Potomac
River at Great Falls, Maryland, 1966 IX-4
vi
-------
1-1
FOREWORD
In the past, engineers have been concerned primarily with two
conventional parameters indicative of water quality, dissolved
oxygen (DO) and coliform bacteria; and two wastewater treatment
plant performance parameters, percentage removal of biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids (SS). These four param-
eters have been usually adequate to assess water quality conditions
and to determine wastewater treatment requirements.
With the continued increase in population and associated indus-
trial expansion, the waste assimilative capacity of some receiving
waters are near or already have exceeded the maximum allowable to
maintain water quality standards„ Where this has occurred it has
become essential to introduce new analytical parameters to assess
water quality conditions, to re-evaluate conventional treatment
methods, and also to investigate the long-term effects on water
quality of other constituents in domestic, industrial, and agricul-
tural discharges, such as nutrients, toxic metals, and pesticides.
The nutrients, especially phosphorus and nitrogen, that con-
tribute to dense algal growth in the Potomac Estuary are currently
being studied. A relationship between high nutrient content and
accelerated eutrophication in the upper Potomac Estuary has been
established. Therefore nutrient sources, their temporal and
spatial distribution, and the transport mechanics of the Potomac
River must be better understood.
-------
II-l
CHAPTER II
INTRODUCTION
A. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The Chesapeake Technical Support Laboratory (CTSL), Middle
Atlantic Region, Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion (FWPCA), has undertaken an extensive water quality management
study of the Potomac River Basin. A significant part of this study
has been to determine the sources of nutrients, their effects on
water quality, and the development of a corrective program to achieve
water quality standards.
To implement Recommendation Number 14 of the third session of
the conference in the matter of pollution of the interstate waters
of the Potomac and its tributaries in the Washington Metropolitan
Area (District of Columbia-Maryland-Virginia), the Interstate Commis-
sion on the Potomac River Basin called a meeting for November 13-15,
1969, to consider the water quality problem of the entire basin.
Emphasis is to be placed on the problem of nutrients, bacteria, sedi-
ments and pesticides and their effect on the Potomac Estuary.
This report is on the nutrient concentrations and loadings in
the upper Potomac River Basin above Washington, D.C., and the
purpose is;
1. To present data on the nutrient concentrations and
loadings„
2, To identify the portions of the basin high in nutrients.
-------
II-2
3. To describe the temporal and spatial distributions
of the nutrients in the upper basin.
4. To determine relative nutrient concentrations attrib-
uted to domestic wastewater, industrial discharges,
and land runoff.
A general report considering the nutrients in the entire basin is cur-
rently available [1 ] „
B. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The assistance and cooperation of various governmental and
institutional agencies and industries in the basin greatly facilitated
the collection and evaluation of the nutrient data. While every
agency and industry contacted provided valuable assistance, the co-
operation of the staffs of the following who participated in the
sampling program merit special recognition?
Governmental Agencies;
Maryland Department of Water Resources
Maryland State Department of Health
U. S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior
Washington Aqueduct Division, U. S. Corps of Engineers
Virginia State Water Control Board
West "Virginia Department of Natural Resources
District of Columbia, Department of Public Health
District of Columbia, Department of Sanitary
Engineering
Nutrient Network Stations °
Petersburg, West Virginia, Water Department
City of Romney, West Virginia
Hagerstown, Maryland, Water Department
Moorefield, West Virginia, Water Department
City of Shenandoah, Virginia
-------
II-3
Shepherdstown, West Virginia, Shepherdstown
Utilities Company
Luke, Maryland, West Virginia Pulp and paper Company
Wastewater Treatment Plants;
Winchester, Virginia
Waynesboro, Virginia
Front Royal, Virginia
Staunton,) Virginia
Hancock, Maryland
Pinto, Maryland
Cresaptown, Maryland
Bowling Green, Maryland
Cumberland, Maryland
Frederick, Maryland
HagerstOTOj, Maryland
Williarasport, Maryland
Upper Potomac River Commission, Westernport, Maryland
Celanese Fibers Company, Amcelle, Maryland
-------
CHAPTER 111
33MMARI AND CONCLUSIONS
A 40-station stream sampling network was established for
calendar year 1966, 35 of which were In the upper basin. Included
in the sampling program were nutrient analyses of wastewater at 13
discharges in the basin. Nutrient and sediment data for this
study were also obtained from other sources.
Based on the 1966 survey and other available data, the fol-
lowing were observed:
1. The annual average concentration of phosphorus as PO, in the
major sub-basins varied from a minimum of 0.9 mg/1 in the South
Branch to a maximum <->f 1.9 mg/1 in the Ant let-am watershed.
2. The annual average concentration of NO^ + N03 nitrogen as N
in the major sub-basins varied from 0,3 mg/1 in the South Branch to
2,2 mg/1 in Opequon Creek0
3. The annual average phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations
in the smaller tributaries 'jf the lower part of the basin near
Washington, D.C., were ao^at the same as those in the major upstream
tributaries.
4. The annual average concentrations of phosphates, total
Kjeldahl nitrogen (,TKN) an<3 NO-? *• NO3 nitrogen in the freshwater
stream flow entering the estuary near Washington, D.C., were 0.3,
0.3, and 0,9 mg/1, respectively.
-------
-------
III-2
5. The concentrations of inorganic nitrogen at most of the 35
non-tidal stations increased as the stream flow increased.
6. The concentrations of phosphorus and TKN at most of the 35 non-
tidal stations remained fairly constant over wide ranges of stream flow.
7. Approximately 18,400 Ibs/day of phosphorus as PO^ and 10,700
Ibs/day of total nitrogen (N02 + N03 and TKN) enter the streams of the
upper basin from municipal and industrial discharges. This amounts
to a daily per capita loading of 0.04-5 pounds of phosphorus and
0.026 pounds of nitrogen.
8. From an analysis of watersheds with varying land uses and re-
ceiving little or no wastewater discharges, the annual average nutrient
loadings attributed to land runoff in the upper Potomac Basin were esti-
mated to be 8,600 Ibs/day of phosphorus and 43,900 Ibs/day of nitrogen.
The average annual yield per square mile was 0.8 Ibs/day of phosphorus,
3.4 Ibs/day of N02 + NO^ nitrogen, and 0.5 Ibs/day of TKN.
9. In the upper basin in 1966, about 70 percent of the total
phosphorus entered the surface water from wastewater discharges with
the remaining 30 percent from land runoff and other sources.
10. Approximately 80 percent of the estimated 54,400 Ibs/day
of total nitrogen (N02 + NO^ and TKN) entering the surface waters of
the upper basin in 1966 was from land runoff with the remaining
20 percent from wastewater discharges. Of the 43,800 Ibs/day of total
nitrogen from land runoff, about 27,100 Ibs/day, or 62 percent, were
from agricultural areas which comprise only 37 percent of the total
drainage area ia the upper basin.
-------
111-3
11. The total phosphorus and NOg + NO 3 nitre-gen loadings (Ibs/day)
are highly related t~; river discharge,, for example,, In August of 1966,
with a river discharge of abvut 500 cfs, less than 1,000 Ibs/day of
total phosphorus as PO^ s.nd jMO-> -<- NO 3 nitrogen as N entered the estuary
from the upper basin,: while on February 14, 1966, with a flow greater
than 40,000 cfs, about 217,000 and 354,000 Ibs/day of PC^ and
N02 "*• NO 3 N, respectively, entered the estuary from the upper basin,
120 During low flow eondifJons h. significant proportion of the
phosphorus entering the -Surface water from i.he Vr.,ricjs sources in
the upper basin is retained .in the stream channel„ At high stream
flow, it appears that a large -proportion of this phosphorus is
"flushed" out of the stream channel and transported downstream,,
l,3o Mass balances u?Ing the 1966 data indicated that about
37 percent of the pho3pharos that entered the upper basin was retained
in the stream channel. The long-term fate 'f thi.-. phorphorus retained
in the channel bed 1-3 unKnowii0
14. On an average 4a'!ly basics for 1966, the nutrient loadings
entering the estuary from all -curces in the upper basin were about
17,000; 49,000; and 5,700 lbs/dd,y :,f total phcjplu-rus as PC^, N02 *
NO^ nitrogen as N, and TKN, reope:itively0
15. Wastewater discharges in the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan
Area add about 63,000 Ibs/Jsy ,f i.:teil phosphorus as ?0^ and 54,000
Ibs/day of total nitrogen mainly in the form of TKN to nutrient
loadings in the upper Potomac Est!iarY0
-------
III-4
16 „ During low flow periods over 90 percent of the total phos-
phorus and total nitrogen entering the upper estuary from all sources
is from wastewater discharges in the Washington area.
17 „ Sampling stations in the Shenandoah and Monocacy River sub-
basins account for about 50 percent of the total phosphorus and
33 percent of the N02 4 NC^ nitrogen measured in the Potomac River
at Great Falls, Maryland.
IB, At five stations, sediment data collected by the United
States Geological Survey indicated that the annual yield of sedi-
ment varied from 98 to 29C kilo-pounds (kips) per square mile with
a total basin loading for 1966 of 1,897,000 kips. In 1961, the total
basin loading was estimated to be 5,000,000 kips,
19. In 1966, the maximum stream flow occurred in February.
During that time about 32 to 55 percent of the total annual sediment
loadings were observed at the five sediment stations. Maximum
nutrient loadings also occurred during the month,,
20. The wide variation in nutrient loadings clearly demon-
strates the need to sample more frequently over a wide range of
stream flows before a precise identification of nutrient sources can
be made,,
-------
1V-1
CHAPTER TV
DESCRIPTION OF THE BASIN
From Its headwaters on the eastern slopes of the Appalachian
Mountains, the Potomac flows in a general southeasterly direction
some 400 miles to Chesapeake Bay, The main stem is formed approxi-
mately 20 miles below Cumberland, Maryland, at the confluence of
the North and South Branches of the Potomac and flows southeast to
the Fall Line at Great Falls, Virginia. Below the falls at Chain
Bridge, the lower river is tidal,
The Potomac River Basin has a drainage area of 14,670 square
miles and encompasses parts of Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia,
and Virginia, and all of the District of Columbia. The major sub-
basins including their drainage areas are;
Sub-basin Drainage Area
(square miles)
North Branch 1,328
South Branch 1,493
Caeapon River 683
Conococheague Creek 563
Opequon Creek 34'5
Antietam Creek 292
Shenandoah River 3,054
Monocaey River 970
-------
IV-2
The portion of the Potomac Paver above the Fall Line is about
266 miles long and follows a course thro.ugh the mountainous terrain
of the Alleghenies, across the fertile Paige and Valley Province,
through the Blue Ridge L/Io'.jntains, and across the rolling hills of
the Piedmont Plateau to tne Fr11 Line ard the Coastal plain. It
drains an area of about 11,500 square miles. Tt is a comparatively
narrow, f'a,3t~f losing stream flunked b;. . t-:-ep banks and mountain.?,
and has many natural ens trust ism ant' rarid".,,
The average discharge of T'ne Potoir.ac hiver s.1 hashing ton, D.C.,
is 11,34C cubic feet per second ,cfs}, Discharges of 484,000 cfs
and less than SCO cfe hsve been recorded, The cha-e and character
of the basin are such thai they favor rapid rtuv.ff, with high dis-
charges occurring for -short periods of time- anJ "Lev/ flows existing
for sustained periods ijring drcj^'bhs, The Po'.-^y-iz River and its
tributaries thus -re unar»ct-:: ize^ by flash Bloods and. extremely
low f Ic-ws „
Of the 3 million people iivine; in the bjsn;, ^oo'A. 205 million,
or 83 percent, live in the Vashington, ",C., Metropolitan Area. The
upper basin is largely rural with a sea Her ing :. f sm-,ii cities having
populations of 10,000 to 20,0'JO., F'arriung --.nd related industries
such as canning, fruit packing, tannirg, an-i dairy products processing
are major sources of income to the region.
There are soal mining activities In tne North Branch sub-basin
with industrial activity iri the esterrr-ort and Cumberland areas.
-------
IV-3
Industry has developed in the several small cities in the Potomac
Basin and is expanding rapidly in the area between Waynesboro and
Staunton and Front Royal along the South Fork of the Shenandoah River.
Land use in the entire Potomac Basin is estimated to be 5 percent
urban, 55 percent forest, and 40 percent agriculture including pasture
lands.
A map of the basin showing major municipal wastewater discharges
is presented in Figure IV-1. A detailed inventory of the industrial
and municipal wastewater discharges within the basin is contained in
a separate report.
Some of the Nation's most popular recreational areas are in the
basin. There are many historic and scenic attractions such as the
Skyline Drive, the Appalachian Trail, limestone caverns, the Great
Falls of the Potomac, and Civil War monuments.
The basin has abundant natural resources including coal, lime-
stone, dolomite, glass sand, clay, hard and soft woods, and granite.
-------
0
-------
V-l
CHAPTER V
DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLING PROGRAM AND OTHER DATA SOURCES
A. STREAM SAMPLING NETWORK
A stream sampling network was developed which consisted of
<40 stations located strategically throughout the basin. The fol-
lowing criteria were used in locating the sampling stations;
1. At least one station in each major sub-basin
representative of that sub-basin.
2, Where possible,, sampling stations to be located
at or near United States Geological Survey (USGS)
gaging stations,
3. In the larger sub-basins, additional stations to
be selected for areas having varying water and land
uses.
4o In the Washington area, to determine the loading to
the Potomac Estuary, all significant tributaries to
be sampled„
A brief description of each sampling station is given in Table V-l
and the locations shown in Figure V-l. Samples were obtained weekly
during the entire 1966 calendar year for most of the 4-0 stations.
Samples were analyzed for the following nutrients;
1. Nitrite-nitrate nitrogen
2. Organic nitrogen
3. Ammonia nitrogen
-------
(H
CO
g
i »^
S- u^
*" 2!
Table
EVER NUTRIENT
tt
o
gi
|
ft.
4)
O
8J
Se3<3
C
Loeatio
fc
f
•H
OS
8
•H «
CO
C
O fc
.^ At
•rt m
ttJ B
•*•» 5
03 *
\t\ O IA
tO f*N -4"
CJ* O O
tfN V0 \Q
1 1 1
rH rH rH
P<
rH T3 00
£33™
fl HH 0) 1
bO * *H -P J3
fc O * fcj -C
•HO 1 O 01
>
m m -P
-p
as as *
S
•a £
S 3 *c*
*^S (~H CO
as
a i ?
rH CM f*\
8
rH
1
rH
r»
C
•P
•a
idge-01
n
r~4
o
«
O
R
a.
*
en
»
2
2
•>i
cj
§
-a
O
>r
ir\ TV
§ S
rH rH
.C
•+•»
g
CO >>
hW) A) ffi
P ^ ^> S
CAJ s •as
<\l ^3 iH Q
Sfc K
(Q
^ * 0 O
fl> >T\
CO • W
.
gg.'
rf ^'
•3
jO *•
93 ^>
a. «
ITS ^
lf\
§o
o
rH
1 ^1
rH rH
,
$ 1
fc
H 0 *
•a -P -H
IN "
ii ^
«
o
0 O
g 0
O S
fc fc
CQ $
CO =>
,J
* 0'
*. *
•o gr
rH
-t ff
t £
1 1
VO C^
»f\ O
rH f\
rH rH
rH rH
Aj
0
1
0
9 &
M iH
•H CQ
pa g c\j x
CT P. IT* O
0 0
• o • c
Otf O ^ S§
•
fc 0
•H O
w 1
G ft,
& fc
0 9
s B
O S3
*
0
»
jT
C0 ^??
o
^^3 s^
o
•p O
0 0
0 rt
fc 0
O X
00 <>
0
rH
VO
rH
1
to
V
fc
H
£ g
^> O
€0 ,O
e-^l
§ § a
Sft< s
•H
0 -P rH
tkp £3 rH
IIS
fc
0
Potomac Riv
g
c
O
J *>
£
0
I
o
rH
IfN
rH
P_|
C
•rH
fl
fc|
^3
j_a **"'
*
fc
o
Q>
r*
Conococheai
a
«
c
a
•H
rH
rH
•H
rH
rH
-------
o
rj
H
1
, 5
r— i
*" ,
t j
o
£
£4
C/j 4) «
^j &0 ^"
ScftS
§
•H
P
a
r—3
M
£
•r*
K
§
•H d)
•f^ f§
.$ z
CO
C
O M
•H 4)
-P ,0
at g
•p 9
CO *
IT-
\o
rH
^O
rH
^H
O
-p ^J
CO
gg »
** £
a
4) -
rH t>C
•a s
,0
f~\ «
C 0)
-P -H ttf
,x
CO
0>
o
f^
o
^t
BJ
»>
U)
£j
rO
a
•H
I
CM
rH
O vA
no rj^
rH rH
-O '•£)
1 1
rH rH
rH
0 O
^ ® a
Q CM
*M O
0) O ft) -p
tl£3 tkO O
T) ,G TJ O-.
•H -P -H
^Z C ^S
<£•* M T~t
Jm p o v
p co o
"~^ *Trt Q pj
to 4> -PS
0) -4" £ 4) rH rn
m p, -H v< ft)
3 +> x: c o -H
r-j « co
P, -H
4) p
,c c
tO "^
C*"\ --^
rH rH
tr.
TO
^J
^o
rH
4
^
•o
c
ort
"i
O
T>
I
0)
x;
CO
,
tlL,
CO
*
ccJ
*,
"i
o
•a
a
0>
JH
CO
trs
rH
O
H
O^N
'yO
H
rH
| p>^
cO Q
-H* CM
t/3
s3!
•H ^
O H
w
s s
P -r)
Cc!
rg
V
1
®
f*
c/3
»
(«4
CO
•
>
•v
rH
ft
K
•g
1
x£)
rH
O
CM
f*"\
-O
rH
O
llf\
(M
a
P
Vi
o
5
M
o
z
-p
(Q
3
«
•S
O
'C
o
r^
CO
V
fe.
z
.
0
•v
^/>
g
TD
CD
r^-
rH
o
C^N
•,o
rH
4)
^
fl5
4^
C-3
M
^4
P
*
cu
p
Winch
*
ac!
"§
O
•o
4>
X3
CO
•
fc,
z
*
.*
•t,
•g
H
t3
T)
Z
CO
rH
U>
-O
r'N
"^Q
rH
"«M
o
4)
T3
•H
co
-p
4)
4) -H
*Q rH
§ ^
-P
•
1
O
*o
c
flj
M
4)
45
CO
0
iS
*
^c
„.
^^
a
§
rH
m
CT^
iH
iTN
C*^
C'A
MD
rH
^M
O -*
'^Q
-p -^
CD
0 •
CQ
0) C
rH O
'g ^
O
NT -rl
•P CQ ho
§2 T?
3 -H
T
o
'it
§
1
o
CM
-------
p
S3
O
o
r-i
j->
H
3?
FH
9)
u
c
s
s II
g
o
•H
•P
a
O
,3
4>
•H
OS
§
CO
e,
6 h
•H 0>
-P §
to *
«A O O O O O
SO ("A -J- iT\ UA iT\
C*A ^ ~*\r ^ -st ^xt
'•-O 0 O -0 0 -O
ll II l 1
rH rH H rH rH rH
0)
•H
F~ ^- f* rH
•
<0 -p p p -H +J
:=> c2 « K a: ct: S
JH <0 C
4) > 3 X,
> -H ^ cc
•H cd .
S -S - F ^ S
•& 9) f> *O £> O
C3 *O CO tf 03 tt)
•H CD $) O 4) C
<^i S t-5 CQ M CO
rH CM fN NT sj-
-o
rH
0)
bn
•or
•H
P^
CQ
TJ
1
«
J>
•H
o
g
CQ
r*>
•o
TJ
•
*s
•s
•9
rH
•H
>
fi
S)
AJ tfA
sr -«i-
•JJ ^
r-l rH
f-,
,j
^
o) <;
bo o
T? (Q
•H S
(-,
cc ^-*
o
•o
K ®
te
f-.
d> -p T3
> 01 >
•n 3 rH
PH ^S CQ
^
X3 CD
O »>
C -H
id ct;
CQ O
03 B
•P w
etj o
^C pL^
• •
"O *3
S, *
-t-3 CQ
3 rH
1 fi
rH -P
rH 0)
§0)
rW
CQ O
tx* (T*
CO OJ
O
-£>
1
rH
0)
&p
xT
•H
^f
CQ
-^
o-
rH
•
CC
£
cS
-P
rH
g
*H
Cj_<
CM
S
*
CO
03
rH
£
-p
*
8
o
0
f"\
o
•sf
rH
i ra
iS i w
« p
g hfl-P
O TfrH
-P -H 0)
hn f-i CQ
C CQ
•r-l
J3 • O
CL, «M ITS
0» O O
bOrH ^t
M aJ -p
O -H 10 •
c5 o w as
j^
o
1
P5
•H
§
•.
5
H
f<
•H
cd
o
rH
fA
-------
0)
P!
O
O
H
1
0)
, j
rd
en
USGS
Gage
Reference
•H
P
CD
O
a
-
h
*>
•H
to
G ,
O r-l
•H «
-P ,0
co %
OJ i> O m
ir\ ^c oo »o
NT -J- sf -J-
^ 1 tJ
iH f-i G +>
03 0) O 0}
-P O
r-i C O (O
g M CV) ^J-
+> u~\ •> D
M CT" 4) • &3
C IE 4> (S
§ * °
(fi -P O g
M g >1 O
§ 5 8 "8
•«2 o.
0
«J Q*
• > O
S •> a) o'
'O bO
^ O TH •
p Ctf) CQ CO
t°4 M
tt) »r^ • j^
T5 r-l *5 -P
0 M CO "^
"
C\J r^\ xj U"N
C'v r^N fN r*^
1-6^95
( Riverdal
1-6510
(Hyattevi
do
•o
•H
fLf
OQ
«
ij
1
CO
f-.
0>
Si
0)
*H
-p
o
"*
*
2
«,
tyj
h
rO
§
4)
"O
0)
r-t
«
0
ir\ O if\
•£) F~ ^D
--t iT\ >J-
1 1 1
r-< r-( r-4
OJ
•
-P
OH
«,
1T\ 4)
:-t$t bp
• -H tJO
01 rn TJ
P « -H
CO fn
P £ *
oJ O • H
ffl <; >• r*\
^
43 S 4)
> s >
•H O -H
K CEJ
o 3 o
S •"' 3
OB S
€ I €
0, O d,
4)
•S1
m
c
O
CO 0
•H O>
3e •> tie
C »tf
OP T!
C cr pa
"^ O
O O rH
O O C5
sfc O c*N
j> to O
C"~N C'A C"\
-------
-------
z
2
<
t
fe
g
3
y
£.
0
o
o
<
- 5
Mil
E i^a s
Z Q. £ "1 1-
• •*•«•
-------
V-7
4. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
5. Total phosphorus
B. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT DATA
During the midsummer of 1966, the sampling program was expanded
to weekly measurements of nitrogen and phosphorus in 13 of the major
wastewater discharges of the upper basin. For a period of six months,
nutrient analyses were made of both the influent and effluent at
each wastewater treatment fability„ A list of facilities sampled is
given in Table V-20
A survey was made of all major wastewater treatment facilities
in the upper Potomac River Basin in 19680 All municipal and bio-
degradable industrial wastewater discharges with a flow greater than
0.5 mgd were sampled. In the Washington Metropolitan Area, nutrient
analyses at the large wastewater facilities are made routinely.
C. SEDIMENT DATA
At five of the nutrient network stations, sediment loading is
routinely monitored by the U3QS, The five sediment stations are
listed in Table V-3.
Sediment loading to the Potomac Est'uary at Great Fails, Maryland,
was calculated by totaling the loading from the Monocacy River and
the Potomac River at Point of Roclss, Maryland,
-------
rH
g
8
CQ
r\
if\
C-
lf\
.
«f\
to
«O
O
V
to
& &
1
O
•o -o TJ
§ § 8
000
4> 4>
o
8
•
o
O
8O O O O CM O
S- O O O T\ O
c*\ D «»\ \o CVI oo \O
CM
rH
t>
OJ
O
CM
H
OJ
C\J
•
O
(M
•
xf
0)
O
q
H
£3
cd
ft!
•a
I
•H
CQ
CO
IP
•H
rH
P
€
CO
o
1?
-g fi Q
c 5 S
M CO CO
hfl
|s
•s
W rH
HP HP
•H
rH
g
•H
rH
P
CO
-a
§ 13
5 S
ft rH
efl 0)
co ,a
o c5
fi
a)
CO
-P
rH
£
H?
O
•H
rH
H
0)
T3
§ §
CO CO
CO
t3
t2fi 0)
a I
ers
0?
P
a?
o
•c
H
8
CO
CJ
(0
0)
P
H
•H
fx.
O
•H
, 2
esbo
CO
(U
CO
-o
4)
•H
O
• o
03 P«
€
CO
port
•H
rH
H
•a
G
cd
CO
-------
V-9
Table V-3
IISG3 SEDIMENT SIATION3
Potomac- River Basin
Station Stream
Point of Rocks, McL Potomac River
Jug Bridge near Frederick, McJ, Mbnocacy River
Fairview, Md0 Gonocoeheague Creek
Cumberland,, Md, North Branch Potomac
River
Colesville, Md. Noithwest Branch
Anaecstia River
D. DALECARLIA WATER FILTRATION PLANT DATA, U0 30 CORPS OF ENGINEERS
The raw water supply at Great Falls, Maryland, for the
Washington Metropolitan A-rea 13 monitored for varioxis chemical and
sanitary parameters including nutrients. In 1969, the analyses con-
ducted by the U. s. Corps of Engineers were expanded to include
three forms of phosphorus and four forms of nitrogen.
-------
VI-1
CHAPTER VI
SOURCES OF NUTRIENTS 'PHOSPHORUS AMD NITROGEN)
A. WASTEWATER DISCHARGES
Nutrient loadings and wastewater treatment plant efficiencies
of 13 facilities were determined weekly for six months. Excluding
the Amcelle and Westernport plants, which receive industrial waste
principally, the average concentrations and removal efficiencies are
given below:
parameter
T. PO/ as PO/
N02 as N
NO-3 as N
TKN as N
As shown in the above tabulation, the average removal of phos-
phorus was about 25 percent and the average TKN removal was 22
percent. The nitrite and nitrate loadings to the plants were insig-
nificant. (Summary data for individual facilities are given in Table B-5.)
As of December 1968, there were 2~>6 wastewater discharges in the
upper Potomac River Basin [2] „ Based on a survey of the major waste-
water treatment facilities, it was estimated that about 18,430 Ibs/day
of TPO/ and 10,680 Ibs/day of TK.N were discharged to the surface waters
(Table VI-1). For a sewered population of 403,500, this amounts to a
per capita loading of 0.045 Ibs/day of phosphorus and 0«,026 Ibs/day
of nitrogen.
Influent
TmgTlF
39,0
0.1
0.1
21.1
Effluent
fmg/i)
2904
0,7
0,2
16.4
Removal
25.0
-
_,
22.0
-------
Table VI-1
NUTRIENT LOADINGS FROM WASTEWATER DISCHARGES
BY SUB-REGIONS
Sub -Region
N '.rib Branch
S..Hjth Branch and
Upper Region
Opequan
C'jnococheague
and Upper-
Middle Region
Antietam and
Middle Region
Shenandoah
Catoctin Creeks
Md. and Va.
M nucacy
L wer Region
P pulation
Served
79,200
17,300
34,800
26,900
61,500
108,500
5,4oo
62,500
7,400
LOADING AFTER TREATMENT
BOD BCN TPO,
Ibs/day Ibs/day Ibs/ddy
^j, 300
.*
2,720
3,470
4,250
7,980
31,800
740
4220
200
1750
370
480
710
890
4890
110
1380
100
4850
46o
1100
1050
2380
6360
220
1830
180
TOTAL
403,500
110,630
10,680
18,430
* A Sub-Region may include discharges to the small tributaries and
to the wia stem of the P tomac.
-------
VI-3
Of the nine sub-regions (Table VI-1), the largest source of
nutrients is the Shenandoah watershed. About 35 percent of the TPO/
and 45 percent of the TKN in the upper basin originates in this
watershed.
Nutrient loadings from industrial wastewater discharges are
about 7,700 Ibs/day of TPO^ and 4,600 Ibs/day of TKN. The industrial
contribution to the total wastewater nutrient loadings In the upper
basin is about 42 percent for the total PO, and about 43 percent of
the total nitrogen. The amount of N(>> + NOo nitrogen in both the
industrial and municipal wastewater discharges is insignificant.
B. LAND RUNOFF AND OTHER SOURCES
To determine the amount of nutrients coming from land runoff,
analyses of loadings from three distinct land uses (forest, agricul-
tural, and urban) were made0 Using the Catoctin Creek, Maryland,
watershed basin as primarily agricultural, the Patterson Creek water-
shed as forested, and Rock Creek watershed as urban, the effect of
land uses on the concentration of nutrients in the surface waters is
illustrated in Figures VI-1 and V!-20 The watersheds above the
sampling stations in these three areas receive a relatively small
volume of wastewater.
In the Patterson Creek watershed, the concentrations of both phos-
phorus and inorganic nitrogen were the lowedt for the three types of
land uses. For an agricultural area such as the Catoctin Creek water-
shed, the concentrations of nutrients were higher and fluctuated
-------
81
Q.
(O
Ld
.
CC
-------
Figure VI-2
-------
considerably. The high MC.j + Nl^ ^oaoentraticns were observed during
periods of high stream flow --old:' 1 ions,,
The high variation in N•.'•_:• -" N'"-j m+rogen :;ari be attributed to high
mobility cf NC^ ion as report r-i by fad Leigh [3] and Bailey [4],
Figure VT-3 for the Sooth Bran.:h otation at fer ersourg demonstrates
that the concentration of nitrates is dlrertly related to river dis-
charge while concentrations cf TKN and F-."^ are indirectly related.
For the 3.^ stations in the r,on»ti-ial p'-rtion of the basin,
regression analyses were made us i rig both linear ard log transforms.
The log transforms appeared to y.r-ij the oest correlation resulting
in the following
where:
C = concentration of f ^, TK^, or MC; * NCj i,mg/i;
Q -- stream flow vcfV'
a ~ a Curu->t-iril
b ~ aii exp',i"cTif
Using the slope of the ..oncentratirn-dirscharge relationship (the
exponent b) and knowing the- 3pc:-If1'\- local. :-..r, :. f the sampling point in
relation to the municipal or inrhjstri?! w-^ste '-urfai}.:••, a quantiza-
tion of the sourc.63 of the nutrler.-s ::~±/, L^ -ibtained- For example,
all stations, except one below ar. .[Tuiuotrlal outfall discharging
nitrates, had a positive slope ranging from -about 0.3 tc 007 with an
average of 0,5 -J-jggeHtlng that most of the inorganic nitrogen comes
from land and O"»:her sources and not from wast^waier di.scharges.
-------
10. Or
1.0 •
lif
*(?+•
f-Q. (\l
L- o
SOUTH BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER
AT
PETERSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA
TKN, NO2+N03 ond PO4 Vs. RIVER DISCHARGE
100
1000
10,000
RIVER DISCHARGE cfs
Figure VI-3
-------
VI-8
The concentrations of phosphorus and TKN for most of the non-tidal
stations had either slightly positive or negative slopes indicating a
diluting effect. The correlation coefficients for these two param-
eters were low, probably due to seasonal ani flushing effects.
However, the slope of the relationship for stations above and
below waste outfalls definitely supports the findings of Bailey [4]
which indicate that (1) phosphorus and organic nitrogen have low
mobility in soil, (2) PO^ and TiCN are net readily leached, and (3)
concentration appears to be related to wastewater leadings and stream
transport mechanisms.
The average annual yields of phosphorus and nitrogen based on
the survey data for the three watersheds are given in Table VI-2.
Table VI-2
NUTRIENT LOADINGS FROM WATERSHEDS WITH VARYING IAND USE
Watershed Drainage TPC^ as PC// N3p_ *• NC-j as N TKN as N
and Area
Land Use (sq»mi0) (lbs/day/sqcmi„} (Ib3/day/sq0mi0) (Ibs/day/sq.mi,
Patterson
Creek
(Forest) 279 0,50 2,02
Catoetin
Creek
(Agric.) 109 1,25 5/30
Rock Creek
(Urban) 77 1.10 2.70
0.41
0.65
0.67
-------
Table VI-2
NUTRIENT LOADINGS FROM WATERSHEDS WITH VARYING LAND USE
Watershed Drainage T.PO, as PO, NO + NO^ as N TKN as N
end Area 2 j
Land Use (sq.mi.) (ibs/day/sq.mi}(Ibs/day/sq.mi) {ibs/day/sq.mi.)
Pntterson
Creek
(Forest) 279 0.50 2.02 Q.kl
Cfjtoctin
Creek
(Agric.) 109 1.25 5.30 0.65
Rock
C-eek
(Urberi) 77 1-10 2.70 u.67
-------
VI-9
Similar nutrient levels and seasonal variations were also observed
for T/atersheds having comparable land uses without large wastewater
discharges.
For the Monocacy and Conococheague sub-basins, inorganic nitrogen
yields of over 10 Xbs/day/sq. mile were measured, The high yields
can be attributed partly to land runoff and feed lot drainage. At
times farm animals can be seen wading in many of the small tributaries
of the Monocacy.
Using the same land use designation as the U.S. Corps of Engineers
in the 1958 study [5], the nutrient loading from land runoff was de-
termined and is shown in Table VI--3. It is noted that 64 percent of
the nutrients from land runoff is from agricultural areas even though
over 62 percent of the basin is covered by forest.
-------
a
TS
W
fi
O
VO
O
eg
t—
»
5
03 TJ
tc "^.
CQ
LTN
O
O
-•t
6
u'1-
^O
6
O
0
B»
r-i
8
,0
B
« 8
s
fe
OH
w
03
O
O
s;
s
(T1
CQ
CQ
n«
W
JTJ
cc"
Q
Cj
o
CV;
•— 1
.-I
ul
a
•ct
G
Si
B
*
C
O,
3
-------
VII-1
CHAPTER VII
ANALYSES OF NUTRIENT NETWORK DATA
The data from the 1966 nutrient network stream sampling stations
are presented in a detailed report [6], A computer program especially
designed for the survey was developed to aid in analyzing the data
which are presented in three forms as follows:
1. Sampling station information
2. Input data (observed data)
3, Loading data (calculated information from input data)
Monthly summaries of the nitrogen and phosphorus data are presented
in Appendix B.
The results of the nutrient network survey have been grouped
into three areas (l) major sub-basins of the upper basin, (2) the
main stem of the Potomac, and (3) tributaries of the lower region
near Washington, D.C. Only data from the key stations of these areas
are discussed separately below„
A, PHOSPHORUS
1. Ma.lor Sub-basins of the Upper Potomac Basin (North Branch,
South Braneh, Conococheague, Antietam, Opequon, Shenan-
doah, and Mbnoeacy Watersheds)
Figure VII-1 and Table Vil-i indicate the concentration of phos-
phorus to be about five times greater in the Monoeacy River, Opequon
Creek, and Antietam Creek sub-basins than in the remaining four
basins. These higher concentrations are also reflected in large
yields of 2 to 4. Ibs/day/sq. mile, as shown in Table VII-1.
-------
GO
cr
UJ
E
O D
< tr
2 O
O I
t~ Q-
o f>
a O
t: Q-
Z <
O) I-
< O
co H
CD
D
Ct
O
«">
(VI
FIGURE VII-I
-------
Table VH-1
COMPARISON OF PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS AND LOADINGS
FOR THE MAJOR .SUB-BASINS
Sub-basin T. PO, as PO,,
(Station)
North Branch
(Oldtown, Md.)
Gcvuth .Branch
(Koraney, /.'. Va.)
Conoeocht 'vjj'-ie Creek
(williamsport, Md.)
Antietam Creek
(Aiitietam, Md.)
Opeguon d-etk
(Martin;?! 'irg, W. Va.)
Shenandoah River
( Bloomeri . W . Va . )
Monoeacy River
(Frederick, Md.)
Potomac I-.iver
(Great F^lls, Md. )
(Wi)
.352
.092
.327
1.996
1,511
• 356
1.176
.379
(Ibs/day)^ (ibs/day/sq. mi.
2,551 1.92
1,535 1.06
1,''26 2.6l
1,353 4.78
1,109 3.59
5,105 1.68
3,. ,85 4.16
17,013 1.^8
-------
VII-4
The phosphorus concentration displays a fairly consistent seasonal
pattern, low in months of high flow and higher during dry periods.
(See Figure VII-2 for monthly average stream flows for select gaging
stations.)
As summarized in Table VII-1 and exhibited in Figure VII-3, the
loading (pounds/day) for the major sub-basins follows the seasonal
pattern of the river discharge. The large increase in September 1966,
as shown in Figure VI1-3, is a result of extremely high river dis-
charges during this month.
2. Main Stem
As presented in Figure VII-4 and in Table VII-2, the phosphorus
concentrations for stations along the main stem are greatly affected
by the phosphorus levels in the sub-basins. The high concentrations
of phosphorus in the Antietam, Opequon, and Moriocacy watersheds are
diluted by main stem flows.
The phosphorus concentration appears to vary inversely to stream
flow as did the phosphorus levels in the sub-basins (Figure VI-3).
The relatively high levels in September for Oldtown and Great Falls
which had fairly high stream flows are probably due to a flushing
action of river channel.,
The phosphorus loadings during the low flow months of June,
July, and August of 1966 were less than one-fourth of the loading
for the remaining months. This seasonal variation is apparent in
Figure VII-5.
-------
20.000-
RIVER DISCHARGE
for
SELECTED GAGING STATIONS
1966
10000-
1.000-
100-
POTOMAC R.
NEAR D.C.
NORTH BRANCH
/ trf CUMBERLAND
/ /.MONOCACY
/ /JUG BRIDGE
10-
JAN. FEB.
MAR. APR. MAY
JUN. JUL.
1966
AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV.
DEC.
FIGURE m-2
-------
cc
uj
O
<
< o
00 H
I
00
ce
O
-
o
0
o
0
^—-_
^^-~-
0
o
o
o"
^\ \ ~" — ~~V-!» — ~~~~—
o X b ^^*TB
r ' i i i i i i |
o
o
0
~~~- — ^
o
0
1V1O1
Figure VII-3
-------
CD
o:
ui
>
*g
o§
e
O
o
UJ
Oaco a O
• +
m
(M
O
O
m
(VI
so bd IVIOI
FIGURE VII-4
-------
CO
<
00
or
UJ
tr
u I „
IS5 fr
O O ^_
O a £
a , —
LU
H
tO
-------
VII-9
Table VII-2
COMPARISON OF PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS AND LOADINGS
ALONG THE MAIN STEM OF THE POTOMAC
Station River Mile Total POy as PO/
Old-town, Md.
Paw Paw, W. Va0
Hancock, Md.
Hagerstown, Md.
Shepherdstown, W. Va.
Point of Rocks, Md.
Great Falls, Md.
3. Tributaries of
287 . 30
276.55
238,60
210. 2C
183,60
159 o 50
127.20
the Lower
Cmg/1)
,532
.288
.188
0126
.199
.263
.379
Basin near
( Ibs/day)
2,551
4,299
6,683
3,971
15,073
14,816
17,013
Washington
(Ibs/day/sq.m
1.92
1*38
1.64
0.80
2.54
1.54
1.48
(Cabin John
Creek, Seneca Creek, Goose Creek, Rock Greek, Anacostia
River, and Oecoquan Creek)
Figure VTI-6 indicates average monthly phosphorus concentrations
of 1.5 fflg/1 and greater in the Goose Creek, Cabin John Creek, and
Anacostia River watersheds in 1966. The high concentrations in Goose
Creek are attributed partly to wastewater discharges, while the some-
what lower levels in Cabin John Creek and Anacostia River are probably
due to disruptions in the sanitary sewer systems. The average annual
concentration of total phosphorus In the three other tributaries of
the lower basin was less than 004 rag/1,,
As presented in Table VII-3, the yield of phosphorus for Seneca
and Cabin John creeks was 6.14 and 8.7 Ibs/day/sq. mile, respectively.
-------
Table VII-2
COMPARISON OF PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS AND LOADINGS
ALONG THE MAIN STEM OF THE POTOMAC
Station River Mile T. PO,, as PO,.
Oldtown, Md.
Paw Paw, to". Va.
Hancock, Md.
Hagerstown, Md.
Shepherds town, W. Va.
Point of Rocks, Md.
Great Fall*;, Md.
287.30
276.55
238.60
210.20
183.60
159-50
127.20
(me/i)
.532
.288
.188
.126
.199
.263
.379
(Ibs/day) r (
2,551
4,299
6,683
3,971
15,073
14, 816
17,013
Ibs/day/sq.mi .
1.92
1.38
1.64
.80
2.54
1.54
1.48
-------
m
or
ui
or
O t/>
S a
Is
Q.
in
O
•*. I
o a.
UJ <
or tr
m
Or
h-
or
UJ
en
x-.'
cc
o
cc
:O
UJ
O
UJ
z cc . < z
o°5*tl
°<^°So
i)l*J O x
zXw aeoO
m z° o < o
J ujO OZO
•u 0
Q
+ X
-------
VII-11
These yields are about fourfold greater than the 1.4-8 lbs/day/sq. mile
yield found in the Potomac River at Great Falls , Maryland.
Table VI I- 3
COMPARISON OF PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS AND LOADINGS
FOR TRIBUTARIES OF THE LOWER BASIN NEAR WASHINGTON
Station _ Total PQy as
Cabin John Creek
(Cabin John, Md,)
Seneca Creek
(Seneca, Md. )
Goose Creek
(Leesburg, Va0)
Rock Creek
(M St. Bridge, D.C
Anacostia River
( Bladensburg , Md . )
Occoquan Creek
(Occoquan, Va.)
B. INORGANIC AND
1. Major Sub
(ing/XT
0,662
0,290
1.010
.) 0.316
0.753
0.225
TOTAL KJELDAHL
-basins of the
(Ibs/day) "
210
774
791
116
231
1,246
NITROGEN
Upper Potomac
( lbs/day/sq . mile )
8.75
6.14
2.34
1.50
1.78
2.31
The inorganic nitrogen concentrations in the seven larger sub-basins,
as shown in Figure VII-7, had a significant seasonal pattern (see Fig-
ure VII-2 for 1966 river discharges). In general, the inorganic nitrogen
concentrations are directly related to the stream flow. This is at
-------
Table VII-3
COMPARISON OF PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS AND LOADINGS FOR
TRIBUTARIES OF THE LOWER REGION NEAR WASHINGTON, D. C.
Station T. PO, as PO,,
Cabin John Creek
(Cabin John, Md.)
Seneca Creek
(Seneca, Md.)
Goost Creek
(Leesburg, Va.)
Rock Creek .
(M St. Bridge, D.C.)
Anacostia River
(Bladensburg, Md.)
Occoquan Creek
( Occoquan, Va.)
(fflS/1)
.662
.290
1.010
.316
• 753
.225
210
77^
791
116
231
1,2^
( Ibs /day/s q . mi .
8.75
6.1k
2.34
1.50
1.78
2.31
-------
o.
to
(T
Ul
UJ
o o
IS
O H
o
Q.
u
o Z
<» 1
z o
to ^
< o
DO Z
CD
51
cr
o
<0
(O
o
so
FIGURE Vi-7
-------
vn-13
variance with total phosphorus concentrations which are inversely
related to flow.
During the high flow months, February through May, as much as
100,000 Ibs/day of inorganic nitrogen entered the Potomac (Figure VII-8).
During the low flow months of June, July, and August, the inorganic
nitrogen loadings were less than 400 Ibs/day for the major sub-basins.
The Conocoeheague and Monocacy sub-basins had a yield of over
10 Ibs/day/sq. mile. This is over twofold larger than the remaining
five watersheds (see Table vTI-4).
The analysis for TKN was initiated in midsummer 1966. Therefore
loadings for the entire year were not calculated.
2. Main Stem
As shown in Figure VTI-9, the concentration of inorganic nitrogen
on the main stem varied directly with flow. This seasonal pattern
was also observed at the sub-basin stations.
It can be seen in Table VII-5 that the average annual concentra-
tions of inorganic nitrogen were higher for the three stations in the
lower part of the basin. The Conocoeheague, Antietam, and Monocacy
sub-basin inputs were apparently responsible for these higher nitrogen
levels.
The inorganic nitrogen loadings shown in Figure VII-10 demonstrate
the direct relationship between flow and concentration. The loadings
in the high flow month of September were about 100-fold larger than
during the summer low flow months.
-------
ON
Figure VII-8
-------
ID
(Xop/-tq|) N
Figure VII-8
-------
Table VII-4
COMPARISON OF NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS AMD
LOADINGS FOR THE MAJOR SUB-BASINS
Sub-Basin N00 + N00 as N TKN as N
(Station)
North Branch
(Oldtown, Md.)
oouth Branch
(Romney, W. Va.)
Conococheague Creek
(Williamsport, Md.)
Antietam Creek
(Antietam, Md.)
Qpequon Cretk
(Martinsburg, W. Va.)
Shenandoan River
(Bloomery, W. Va.)
Monocacy River
(Frederick, Md.)
Potomac River
(Great Falls, Md.)
(fflg/1)
• 378
.296
1-593
1.^29
2.149
.65^
1.7^
.903
(Ibs/day)
3,26?
t
3,655
5,317
1,321
1,817
6,714
8,661
49,009
(ibs/day/sq.mi . )
2.46
2.52
11.46
4.67
5.88
2-33
10.65
4.29
(ng/1)
.784
-
.019
-536
.264
.580
.693
.270
-------
25
5S
si
O
Q.
Z ~
•5 O
cr
2 O
liJ Z
o
u
O
UJ
•^ ^* K v
oauinb
i- a 5 <
QJUJ±UI
-I
-------
Table VII-5
COMPARISON OF NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS AND LOADINGS
FOR THE MAIN STEM
Station NO- + NO^ as N
Oldtown, Md.
Paw Paw. W. Va.
Hancock, Md.
Hagerstown, Md.
ijhepherdctown, W. Va.
Point of Rocks, Md.
Great Falls., Md.
(ag/1)
-378
.324
.294
.279
.639
.581
.923
(Ibs/day)
3,267
7,791
10,271
8,853
27,205
26,959
49,209
J(lbs/day/sc[.mi . )
2.46
2.51
2.50
1.78
4.58
2.79
4.29
(fflgA)
.784
.432
.298
.386
.378
.422
.270
-------
o
o
q
o
o
o
o
o
10
-------
VII-19
On an annual "basis, TKN concentrations In the main stem were about
0.30 to 0.45 mg/1 with the exception of Qldtown, Maryland, which had
an average TKN of 0.78 mg/1. The high concentration at Oldtown was
probably the result of the large domestic and industrial discharges
into the North Branch.
3. Tributaries of the Lower Basin near Washington
The annual average inorganic nitrogen concentrations in the trib-
utaries near Washington varied from 0,48 to 1.31 mg/1 with the highest
level in the Seneca, Rock Creek, and Anaeostia watersheds. Figure
VII-11 shows that seasonal concentrations varied widely among the
sub-basins. For example, inorganic nitrogen was higher in summer
months and lower in winter months for Seneca Creek while showing the
opposite pattern In Goose Creek.
On a yield basis, Goose and Seneca Creek sub-basins had contri-
butions of 7.7 and 3805 Ibs/day/sq. mile. The remaining sub-basins
had yields of 3,0 to 4,0. (See Table VII-6.)
The TKN concentrations for the six select sub-basins ranged
from 0.349 to 1.130 mg/1 with higher levels in Cabin John and
Anacostia watersheds.
C, MASS BALANCE OF PHOSPHORUS
The phosphorus loading at any given sampling point in the basin
is dependent upon many variables such as flow, soil condition, and
land usage. On an annual basis, the amount of phosphorus can be ex-
pressed mathematically as follows°
Pt = Pw + PI + ?o ± Ps
-------
CO
a:
UJ
o:
z
O LJ
< O
2 O
M. U
ui O
5 a
< o
H- Z
CO
£
I-
(T.
U
in
-o
(vi
-------
Table VTI-6
COMPARISON OF NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS AND LOADINGS FOE
TRIBUTARIES OF THE LOWER R^ION NEAR WASHINGTON, D.C.
Station
Cabin John Creek
(Cabin John, Md.)
Seneca Creek
(Seneca, Md.)
Goose Creek
(Leesburg, Va.)
Rock Creek
(M St. Bridge, D.C.)
Anacostia River
(Bladensburg, Md.)
Oceoqiuan Creek
(Occoquan, Va.)
(mg/l.
.565
1.309
.924
.885
.9142
.478
) (Ibs/SayJ"
89
97!;
1,308
m
409
2,253
n-bs/day/sq.mi
3-71
7-73
38A9
3-56
3-15
4.17
. )(rbs/day/sq..mi .
• 796
.409
AIT
.3^9
1.130
.512
-------
VII-22
where:
P^ = phosphorus observed at Point t
Pw = phosphorus in wastewater discharge above point t
P]_ = phosphorus coining from land above Point t
P = phosphorus from other sources above Point t
Pg = phosphorus lost or released from storage in the stream bed
Utilizing the 1966 data and rearranging the above formulation, the
amount of phosphorus loadings deposited or released from storage in
the stream bed were determined as shown in Table VII-7.
The negative signs on the phosphorus loading storage values indi-
cate that at six of the eight stations phosphorus was retained in the
stream channel, bound there by sediments and aquatic plants. Although
no core data are available for the upper Potomac, data from the
estuary indicate that there is a more than fivefold increase in
phosphorus in the sediments near wastewater discharge points. This
apparent loss of phosphorus to sediments may be temporary in that
during flood conditions a considerable tonnage of sediment is trans-
ported into the estuary in a matter of days.
-------
f£j
p
[23
t* — "^
1 2
HH ffl
"* CO
CD £D
H PH
rQ O
E4 E
CO
O
PH
O
* £
^ 0)
PHWCU
^" -P M
PH O 03
•—'EH 3t
Tl
H
CO
r-P
PH tl
crt
i^
w
S -P
8 c3
!»f^ £
PH fo (U
-P
to
1
0)
£_J
rn
i
cS
(U
cd
CQ
rQ
rH
-1
f*|
Cl
^
•
w
'
/• — ^
1
""*"*-«^
CO
_Q
H
V — ^
>a
5
\
to
5
x_>
0^
0?
1
00
H
LA
_-j-
vo
\o
o
LA
•
O
O
LA
CO
*v
-3-
rH
LA
LA
OJ
CO
OJ
OO
r-T
•s
s
(^
rl
4^
j^
o
t3
O
LA
OO
-r
LA
CO
H
r-T
lA
OJ
VO
O
o
VO
LA
OO
LA
H
O
LA
-4-
H"
•8
§
^
c~j
^J)
d
0
CO
O
rH
1
O
no
H
O
t-
-=t
O
•
rH
O
81
VO
OJ
OJ
rH
ON
VD
-3"
-------
VXII-1
CHAPTER VIII
SEDIMENTS
A. EFFECTS ON NUTRIENT CONCENTRATIONS
The effect of sediments on the concentrations of nutrients in
the surface water are summarized below;
1. Sediments contain nutrients. On the average, topsoil
particles contain 200 rag/1 of adsorbed phosphorus [3].
2. Sediments ca,n act as transport mechanisms „ Studies by
Wadleigh [J] indicate that when phosphorus reaches the
stream its primary vector is soil particles.
3. Due to the adsorption phenomenon, sediments when de-
posited in the stream channel also trap nutrients.
4. More than 99 percent of the soluble nitrogen in the
soil is the nitrate form [4].
5. The forms of nitrogen present greatly affect the leach-
ability of the material. Nitrates leach at a more
rapid rate than the other forms of nitrogen [4].
6. In contrast to the high mobility of nitrate nitrogen,
phosphorus compounds react vigorously with soil and
have a very low mobility [4].
Sediments in water may also reduce the penetration of light and thus
reduce photosynthesis by algal cells„ This reduction will in turn
lessen the effect of the algal cells on dissolved Oxygen concentra-
tions in the surface waters.
-------
VIII-2
B8 SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL VARIATIONS
A study of the sediment sources and transport was prepared by
Wark and Keller [7] in 1963 for the Interstate Commission on the
Potomac River Basin. Their study indicated the following:
1. The average sediment discharge of the streams in
the Potomac River Basin varied from 42 to
4,600 kilopounds (kips) per square mile. The wide
variation was mainly due to land 'use.
2. During the sampling period of the study, the estimated
annual sediment discharge of the Potomac River Basin
was 340 kips per square mile or a total of 5 million kips,
3. For two streams on which daily measurements were made,
about 90 percent of the annual load was discharged
10 percent of the time.
In comparing the sediment loading at Point of Rocks with those of
12 other major rivers in the USA in 1963, it ranked seventh.
An analysis was made of more recent sediment data to determine
further the effects of sediments on nutrient levels. The sediment
data for five sampling stations during 1966 are given in Table
VIII-1. During 1966, the annual sediment yield varied from a mini-
mum of 98 kips/sq. mile at Point of Rocks to 400 kips/sq. mile in
the North Branch at Cumberland„ For all five stations the maximum
sediment load occurred in February with a range of 34 to 57 percent
of the annual loading.
-------
to
ro
lft
ta
o
C7>
CXI
o
o
CM
o
o
o
ro
<
<*H
O
LT\
LT\
t—
Lf\
OJ
m
February
February
February
February
February
H
i
(U
H
•3
fH
K
•H
K
X! 0)
0 -H
o >
o m
O -H
CJ cfl
O fo
O • — '
i-,
V
t>
•H ^^^
K •
o s
o3
S *^
O Tj
-P £
O o5
0, H
• fc
?H rQ
m g
* QJ
fe^ — -
fn
(1)
t>
s
03
•rl '"^
CD Tj
o a
O
J^
-------
VIII-4
For 1966, the sediment loading to the entire Potomac River
Basin has been estimated in Table VIII-2.
Table VIII-2
1966 SEDIMENT LOADING
POTOMAC RIVER BASIN
Area
Upper Potomac
Above Point of
Rocks
Yield
(kips/sq0mi.)
Drainage Annual Percent
Area Loading of Total
(sq.mi.) (kips)
9,651 940,000
Total Basin
129
14,670 1,897,000
* Yield for Monocacy River Basin
** Yield for Anacostia River Basin
50
Potomac Below
Point of Rocks
and Above Estuary
Potomac Estuary
290*
130**
1,909
3,110
553,000
404,000
29
21
100
When compared to the estimate of lark and Keller [7], the annual yield
for 1966 was about 38 percent of the loading for their sampling period
in 1961-1962.
C. SEDIMENT LOADINGS INTO THE ESTUARY
Data summarized in Table VIII-3 show that sediment loadings above
Great Falls may be decreasing. The average flow for this eight-year
period also decreased. In 1961, the annual loading was the largest
-------
Table VIII-2
1966 SEDIMENT LOADING
POTOMAC RIVER BASIN
Area
Yield Drainage Area Annual Loading ^ of Total
(kips/sq.mi.) (sq. mi.)(kips)
Upper Potomac above
Point of Rocks 98
Potomac below Point
of Rocks and above
Estuary 290*
Potomac Estuary 130**
Total 129
1,909
3,no
14,670
9*1.0,000
4o4,ooo
1,897,000
29
21
100
* Yield for Monocacy River Basin
** Yield for Anacostia River Basin
-------
VIII-5
(2.5 million kips) as compared to the lowest (102 million kips) in
1966. (See Appendix A for monthly loadings at Great Falls, Maryland.)
Table VIII-3 also shows that on an annual yield basis the aver-
age sediment yield for the period 1961-1966 was 184 kips/sq. mile
with a minimum and a maximum of 112 and 2/40 kips/sq. mile, respec-
tively. The highest percentage of annual contributions occurred during
either February or March with values ranging from 51 to 90 percent of
annual loadings.
-------
CT*
to
PH
O
-4-
OJ
O
o\
C\J
on
_*
H
OJ
OO
f—
IA
vo
OJ
VO
CO
ON
OO
VO
LfN
CO
o
LT\
CO
i
H
H
t
O
g -S •§ -8
•8
&<
•S
•3
EH
O
g
•H
O
ON
CO
O
LTN
O
OJ
LT\
O
O
VD
LTN
Q O
O O
r-l OJ
O
O
LT\
0)
-p
o
o
o
LTN
H
ir\
OJ
O
O
VD
VD"
ON
r-T
8
CO
no
oT
8
o
OJ
LTN
O
0?
O
0
VD
OO
o
LT\
r-?
O
8
LT\
t-
r-T
O
o
o
t^
ON
r-T
H OJ on -4" LA
\D VjD VD VD VC
ON ON ON ON ON
s:
-------
IX-1
CHAPTER IX
TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF NUTRIENTS
ENTERING THE POTOMAC ESTUARY
A. HISTORICAL TRENDS
The only existing long-term (more than 10 years) nutrient data
for the Potomac River Bas in are nitrogen data collected at Great Falls.
Sediment measurements at Point of Rocks and Monoeacy have been avail-
able since 1961. Mean monthly flow, nutrient, and sediment data for
the Potomac River above Great Falls are presented In Appendix A.
The nitrate-nitrogen loadings for the years 194-9-1967 show a
definite seasonal pattern (Figure .IX-1). The seasonal variation
closely parallels that of river discharge. Except for 1967, there
appears to be a slight downward trend In nitrates, especially during
low flow months. On an average annual basis for 1960-1967 (Table IX-1)
the data also indicate a direct relationship between nutrient loadings
and river discharge.
B0 TEMPORAL VARIATIONS
An important aspect of the nutrient control problem is the annual
variation in nutrient contributions by the various sources. The amount
of phosphorus and nitrogen variation for the Potomac main stem station
at Great Falls can be seen in Figure IX-2. During the summer months,
less than 1,000 Ibs/day of phosphorus entered the estuary even though
more than 18,400 Ibs/day are discharged to the surface waters in the
upper basin from wastewater treatment plants„
-------
EON
FIGURE IX-I
-------
I. •
c.
r (si.
: ' X \
r I Si,'
I-
r - '. '
V , \, •
i;.
>• ft.
• -:-t
t"
, <, -•
r • Si"
s. V
r^ i
<~^ r
CM
sf
i i
vT'
C^
r-,
x
^ ^
v - f
C;
D.
i i
> ,- ! r I
f: "• v •
",J , j bir
,• t-: o is-
nt ^ ~
f'T • S
O r-l r?
-t-C
O
i?
n L?""'
-rr! r-j
C T' rf
-------
NUTRIENT LOADINGS and RIVER DISCHARGES
POTOMAC RIVER at GREAT FALLS, Md.
RIVER FLOWcfs
• TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN (Ibj /day)
© COMPUTED TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN (Ibi/day)
+ N02*NO3 NITROGEN (Ibi/day) as N
TOTAL PHOSPHOROUS (Ibi/day]
Figure IX-2
-------
IX-5
The current nutrient loadings into the upper Potomac Estuary
from wastewater discharges in the Washington area are about 63,000
Ibs/day of total phosphorus as PO^ and 54 ,,000 Ibs/day of TKN. On
an annual average basis, over 87 percent of the phosphorus and
53 percent of the total nitrogen entering the upper estuary are from
wastewater discharges in the upper basin and in the Washington area.
For the low flow months of July, August, and Sept-ember, during which
eutrophieation problems are most pronounced, ever 90 percent of the
total phosphorus and total nitrogen entering the upper estuary is
from the wastewater discharges in the Washington area [1].
Regression analyses were made on the data for the station at Great
Falls obtained during the period 1961™1967„ Predictive equations based
on river discharge were developed, as given below;
Parameter Unit Equation Correlation
(Q=river discharge in cfs) Coefficient
N02* (Ibs/day) = 0.0337Q1"058 0.865
NO^* (Ibs/day) = 0.0362Q1"475 0.903
N02 + N03«* (Ibs/day) - 0.0361Q1-^6 0.924
TKN (Ibs/day) - 0.0965Q0"892 0.927
Total P04 (Ibs/day) = 0.2851Q1'179 0.964
1 *7 A A
Sediments (kips/day) •= 0.995 Q 0.904
* Based on data from the U.S. Arirj Corps of Engineers, Dalecarlia
Water Treatment Plant for 1961-1967.
** Based on CTSL data for 1966.
-------
IX-6
As can be seen In the above listings, the exponent of the NO?
nitrogen and the N02 * NO-3 nitrogen is greater than 1.4. This con-
firms the studies of Bailey [4] in which he reports a positive
relationship between nitrate movement and •amount of water added to
the test area. The exponent of the phosphorus relationship is near
unity, indicating that the measure loading is more a dissolved
transport phenomenon and not related to silt transport which has an
exponent of 1.768. Ii/fore data at, high flows are needed to substan-
tiate these observations.
Table DC-2 presents the predicted average monthly nutrient load-
ings based upon the average monthly flows from the upper basin of the
Potomac River at Great Falls, Maryland,, The largest variations in
the loadings were in NO? + NOj nitrogen, which varied from 17,400 to
174,800 Its/day.
These variations are more pronounced if daily values are con-
sidered,, For example, in August of 1966,, with a river discharge of
about 500 cfs, less than 1,000 Its/day of total phosphorus as PQ^
and N02 + NO^ as N entered the upper estuary from the upper Potomac
River Basin, while on February 1,4, 1^66, with a flow greater than
40,000 cfs, about 217,000 and j£4,GOO Ibs/day of PC^ and N02 + NGj
as N, respectively, entered the estuary.
The wide variation in the nutrient loadings in the Potomac River
at Great Falls and other stream monitoring stations clearly demon-
strates the need to sample various flows continuously over a long
-------
'j Tf1? "? * /"JT
POTOMA.C RIVER
NEAR WASHINGTON, D. C.
; f);
')
-! V - /.i.
171, •
-LI <4t
-------
period of time before an identification of nutrient sources can be
made,, Moreover, as Figure IX-2 shows, sampling only under summer
low flow conditions can lead to misleading conclusions as to the
relative temporal and spatial distribution of nutrients.
C. SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF NUTRIENTS
Of the 11,460 square miles of drainage area, approximately
73 percent was represented by sampling in eight of the major sub-
basins (Table IX-3). The annual yield of these sub-basins was
67.7 percent of the NCr> + NOo nitrogen and 97.2 percent of the phos-
phorus totals measured at Great Falls„
The close agreement between the amount of phosphorus observed
at Great Falls and that accounted for by the various sources is
probably due 'to the following;
!,„ Most of the phosphorus was from wastewater discharges,
2. The sampling stations were selected to reflect the
loadings from 'urban population centers, and
3o Other sources of phosphorus were minor„
At Great Falls, the fairly close agreement between the drainage area
percentage of the total basin (73 = 0) and NC=2 * NO-? percentage of the
total basin nitrogen (67.7) reaffirms the conclusion that most of
the nitrogen is from land runoff„
Table IX-3 shows that the Shenandoah and Monocacy River basins
account for about 50 percent of the phosphorus and 34 percent of the
+ NOo nitrogen recorded at Great Falls. When the South Branch
-------
t-.
0) ..
pi >
c
C"1
c
r
a
r,;
c
C"
a:
or
a
X',
C •
v.. C i
sO X \
^ •%
C'-.. SO
I-'
I- r f-
hfe'E;
jl t ?!
ro 0-
l-t W
n 9- j>
h i a* fr
<,.• (i, «-
t--l .T
F-'
*• ^
C-
rt
sf.
C
V ,
--i
-tj
to
f' >,
',a ft
'-.' ft
I ) T'
O r-
*."! I—t
O -H
i< U
C' C
> f..
fX-l
^ el
t' f •
<7^ F
C"- C
c n
C. "i
',<• (J-
Oj t,
o! -c
f; s:
c
-P
pr- c,
• 4'
?- C
4 '
O
-------
rx-io
and the North Branch of the Potomac River are compared, it can "be
seen that the nitrite •* nitrate contributions of the two, which have
about the same drainage area, are approximately the same. However,
in the North Branch the phosphorus loading is 60 percent greater than
in the South Branch, due primarily to a greater volume of industrial
and municipal wastewater discharges. Based upon the estimates for
land runoff and wastewater contributions in Chapter V", an estimate
of total nutrient loadings was made (Table JX-4). Also presented in
the table are the measured loadings at Great Falls,
Of the 27,040 Ibs/day of phosphorus entering the surface waters,
about 68 percent is from wastewater discharges with the remaining
32 percent from land runoff and other sources„ Based upon the mass
balance equation presented in Chapter VIT, about 10,000 Ibs/day or
37 percent of the 27,04-0 ibs/day were deposited on the stream bed,
mostly in the Shenandoah and North Branch watersheds,,
In 1966, about 79 percent of the 54,6^5 Ibs/day of total nitrogen
that entered the surface waters was from land runoff with other sources
of wastewater contributing the remaining x'l, percent. Most of the total
nitrogen from land and other sources was in the nitrate form with TKN
being the predominant form in municipal and industrial discharges.
About 90 percent of the total nitrogen measured in the Potomac River
at Great Falls can be attributed to either wastewater- or land runoff
sources.
-------
•8
EH
r-J
•w oj
0 -P
O
H
OJ
•e£- -P
S3
CD
•51 S
O 4^
EH -H
ft
>
(0 05
o3 TH-
IS:; CO
EH IH
O -P
t£- -P
ft
cS •—
oo 05
o -3
CO
-t- fl
H
oajv~^
SL -P
O
Oi
^ 1"
^d~ ^""^,
S ^
,-_j
• ^— s
EH
OO
t—
H
•P ra
cS H
O
•H
•H
-P
cS
-P
ra
aJ
-P
d
•H
0)
(3D
O
(n
-P
OJ
g
O
-P
-------
A-l
APPENDIX A
MEAN MONTHLY DATA
POTOMAC RIVER AT GREAT FALLS, MARYLAND
-------
Taba e A-1
MEAN MONTHLY FLOW, NITROGEN, AND SEDIMENT L'M'-l^'i
POTOMAC RIVER
GREAT FALLS, MD
19oC
A-l
Sec iment
\itfs)
•:*n. . i •,-';•/
Fee. 15, «;•'
March ir,2 ^,
Apr!'; :',--,94'>-.<'
May '1 , <32{ •
June a , *-
•!'.jl;» -,,'A.
Au;; . •'/pt. .•,"•:.'-
Oct. .'-,5';..
'\'OV . • ,' Jl J
!.''"•(' . 4 V ?
A'/eragft j ; ,i'-..-y
< Utp
iniH/1) {"/uay/
.•'.KT/ tts-'st
.008 tv^:.,
,oa: bi2../
.001 177.5
.012 1,411.1
.022 l,t.5f.O
.024 5'J-.''
.032 "-.O^.v
.029 6lr;.V
.'JC; ''I/.
.00." -^.i.
.005 .;".-
.012 580.0
L&l
.01' •,:!'•".''"
.OK,- ] ,olb.C
. 'X\- I,'j62.0
. _•!/ i'32.0
.01 ' /o9.C
.Olo ..v,.0
.016 2-, -.U
.013 IcV/
.OCT ?.3.C
.i^.1 v/.C1
.oa. ?c2.'.
.012 ,V •."'.'
Tifcjfc-^— .
(rag/1)
,9f'
. '' i1
.T;
P*.
.t>3
. 6C
• "' • -*
.38
.40
.30
. -?7
. 3C'
.60
^5
.75
.93
.60
.70
.42
.44
.22
.13
.29
.37
.57
.49
r — ir VT -
(#'/day)
^,510
t.-5,313
34,339
150,886
"•4,030
^1 ,138
' ,544
/,!•':' 3
i , 50f
•',497
3,253
<',tobl
43,034
11,999
125,901
1;1,405
110,308
62,129
17,013
8,417
3,160
1 ,671
3,991
c,001
'- ,9^'i
!. 3,79t;
iff/day.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
15(. ,000
32t ,000
31,00.
298,000
!^, 020, ("300
7,350,000
14,800,000
?, 070,000
538,000
175,000
70,200
535,400
633,000
113,000
I,o20,000
'•" ,°77 000
-------
Table A-l
A-2
Mean flow
as NO.
Fee.
March
A:>ri,
Mev
Average
.:
•G''D
010
007
OOo
!X)r-
OlL
013
01C
ulu
CK>^
/ ,./ i.
11
Oil
015
"" '. j
(#/oay; (mg/D
343. ;< .*•
4t>0. n i.i->
i,97H. , .6,5
";<9.u .of
i, "i 5 f'. ;vv
4t'4.o .33
3 5o . 0 . 08
92/i .11
45.;^ .0?
••4'--.0
.' -1 . • . ' ' •
>47.l~ .7d
525..; .4
3
(#/day)
52,952
-'-2,379
155,833
-54,472
U.391
13 ,785
i,254
1,013
226
- , i J
i , ^9--
-,335
1,09f
VOo
-7-
.01-> ,:5.i.
.ou 130.0
.01.; .\c.'o.o
.OOc 3o3.(;
.011 .-V5.0
.041 1,549.0
.010 K77.C
.01- ^o.O
.CX>7 ^-.r,
.'JOt; -~'9.f
.i»^ 1,54.0
.01., UO.C'
.01} VI.-'
.f;5
.MC
. do
."V7
.0^;
.31
.,>_,
.11
.09
.05
» ' - '
.52
.3f<
c/^04
?.;,5&.
174,262
.'0,444
\147
11,719
?.,'7S8
791
52ii
244
5,^87
12,64h
,?6,o70
4,260.0iK
265.800
68,900.000
2V 0.000
313.400
1,744,000
182,000
34,700
2f. , 300
2t,450
439,000
354,000
o,401,000
-------
A-3
Table A_I (cont.)
MontL
J n ' i .
Fer, .
fife re 1:
Aprij.
May
June
Jjly
Aug .
oept.
Oct .
N>v.
Deo.
/•verafie
Mean i^'iow
(Cfe)
i ."• , ^o'O
12,390
'iC',6f '0
i'',c'7c;
15,C;0
2,915
O T 1 r,
•-,,iu
, ,]rW
•91
' j 3" ''
1,9*.
5,671
',^/-(T/
NQ2 as NC
(rag/1) -,'^/day)
. t'Oc
.009
.CX)e
.011
.015
.015
.OOh
.008
.006
.007
.Og/
.007
.003
7^>.0
60C,: . C
1,3 ?1.0
1,062.0
1,?63.0
235.0
9^.0
5 J . •';
•:'5 . ',-
*'0 . 0
75.0
'.'13.0
4^'.0
N0.; as NQ-
3 3
.6^
.93
.dC
.60
.57
.30
.21
.lb
. ' 0
. ' V
.;• o
. i L
.4Q
33 ,654
62,' 095
132,181
59,074
4C,011
^,712
2,6l4
1,033
2,131
39^
-',151
21 , 392
34,995
(#/day)
13,600,000
1,540,000
27,540,000
9,190,000
12,500,000
107,000
1,230,000
77,100
-27,900
48 oOO
167^000
499,000
5,552,000
Jsn.
March
A|LTiI
May
June
July
Aug, .
Sept.
Oct.
Nov .
L»ec .
Average
1,013
1,097
1,038
.021
.015
.011
.011
.013
.020
.oa-*
.005
.005
.00-')
.005
.OOt-
.010
996
;>7 -
•";•,-)
"O
.-.9
.ar/
.77
.50
.23
.20
.42
,35
67
39,345
41,330
117,971
45,321
9,309
2,788
1,843
6O7
l,42b
3,589
3, IBB
7,050,000
11,800,000
26,300,000
2,220,000
851,000
300,000
688,000
135,000
73,700
198,000
28,700
16,200
4,139,000
-------
A- k
Table
ont.)
Mean
Jan.
Fen .
Mar.
Apri./.
Way
June
July
Aug .
Sept.
Oct. ,
Ncv .
Dec.
A .'erage
(Cfs)
i • • -,
j., i..-.
j.;,xVO
l.^-'+c-G
-. -. ,,-,,-
j i , 1 V»U
13,990
2,571
f;9!;
'^36
.-, '/ 1 ' J
, , » _
• ,726
3, til 3
'',929
•;,7<.v
d.
log/1)
.006
.010
.015
.011-
.029
.021
.013
.004
.020
.009
.004
.011
.013
-!-tut2
(#/_
1.05
^ }
1.52
.82
*a ivu^
(#/day)
8,580
105,305
122,878
38,757
42,219
4,849
898
405
25,241
38,066
6,782
04,961
'^8,245
otjuiaen
(#/day
142,000
21,320,000
4,340,000
3,270,000
4,720,000
313,000
38,700
23,900
3,350,000
1,080,000
548,000
594,000
3,354,000
Feb.
iviarch
April
May
June
Average
iv , V/
/./700
18,0.31
.014
.011
.013
.010
.009
.012
.02V
.017
.009
. ',';< '•'
.;x)6
.Oil
.012
'' fO'
>' ^ *"*
00 0
-------
B-l
APPENDIX B
DATA SUMMARIES
-------
Js
US
1
>
2
3
1
w ^
IBS
sB8- i
a K c? ^
« 83O
^^ §
5 la£ 1
0 r^ ^c
S t**
i| I
I
i
i
\
0
£
fl
2
•r
-P
a
W
rH VO OJ C^
f\ in c^\ m
>t O m O
OJ OJ vo vo
OJ O m O
r*\ r^ O to
^t r-H 00 rH
OJ 0 NT rH
in O to in
>fr •>* OJ i-H
~-d" O ~*1" O
...
00 00 O O
OJ rH C^ <£
r^ H a- o
oo p- rr\ oo
Iin O £*•• o
...
--1- O 00 00
VO £\O rH
mop- O
• • • •
P- P- 0
rH m C'N
-J- 1 NJ: O
. . .
O r**\ OJ O
OJ O £\j O
§00 m oj
VD O OJ
0"\ O r"\ rH
p- O <"** in
80 >l-p- "•*
r°v O CVJ O
o o to -*
-Nj- m rH in
m o p- O
O
' lS-
.0 4) 0
i * s
i xJ H
O cq o .
O . q> O ^
•g §. I • °s *i
(3 *O CO S fl 'CJ
0 C • 0 i-*4
M 0 ^ k * ^ QJ
ii iw ii s
OJ P-
OJ >r
^1- •>!•
O O
Ovo
in rH
O 0
Bto
in
rH 0
vo vo
as
00 O
in ^>
o c3
OJ O
0 [-
in in
O O
• •
OJ O
ss
* •
§£
0 0
<*\ m
in o
O
00
O 1
•
^•S
O *
^* OQ **
* tiO
* m C
Romney,
(Blue
Petersb
r^oor^oor^vovo rHO^r-Hr^
SOOO>tOOJOJOrHOOJVO
OJOrHr^rHOmrHOJOJ
rH rH
[•~["-tf"\rn\Q[>OOi>OJ
r--VDDOrHOrHinvD!>OJ
OJ(^ir-Hr^inrHrHOJOor\OJ
OJ rH
OinOOinooomOO
rHrHOrHHOino^r-HrHrH
OJ rH
inOinoooojt>l-HOJinrHrHinrH >tVO
CSOJOrHOJrHOmi-HrHr^i
OJOOJOOJo-NOOOOr^O
•^ VD OJ rH P- OJ 00 rH ^ >n 00
CjOJOrHrHHOp-Oc»\r-l
OJ i-H
vDtoOto^tp-mOOOinr^v
8mto -Nt-Ntin^j-ojoococ^
C'XOrHC^OrHtOOrHOJ
OJ rH
c*\cr\r>Oinc''\r^p~OJOp~
SrHtOOOJOrH>tOP-rH
OJr^rHOJOJr^OOOjr^
rH rH
ojvotooj-roJ^rojr>toH
ininvDtoinOc^rH&^O "^i~
OrHOrHOJHr^OOOJOJ
rH
cocomr^inr^vOc^c^tOrH
inmct'r-iN>-inojp-OOJp-
OrHOOJOJrHVD -NtOJrHOJ
H rH
m O Co m vo O vo O r^ O >i~
SOOjr^moovDvomoJ
OJOt-HOJrHNfOVrHOJOJ
rH
VDvOtOOJOJinmp-rHOJVO
rHVO rHOOtOff-[>OJOOOtO
rH^J-rHOJinOJini-H^J-OJ^l-
OJ OJ
mo O^D vocv\<^OvO
Bin invo torr\ooo»n
Nf lOJvJ- IC«%OJOJOJ(*S
f-i as a
•!*• 3
> ... OB • S
o -H & a c _ ,| ^. ^ eg |
Q (D *> • fi) T3 M *^ S bo O O
Q ^3 ^ ^ QJ ^j» O Cl C -j-* «v CC*
+* ^J ,jO o (•*( IB "^ 3 w .^
O .*"* ^ *• cd *• CQ O 3 jO *t3 O ** t
&<-H u*o>ia-r'3BtH-Ho
tn -".a) uaitij+JC*)*
rlH (^l+iO'HfHOJ^HCm+J
4> -)-> (BOrHOJ-H*Jl3,CCI
PlT3 rl^VCr-HbO-PHWp-H
»G OS&OTHcFCJdJSrlO
»(0 Ct,ffi,ox*a^Swcq(i<
OJ O
r-H O
rH rH
N/ tl,
ss
VOVO
O rH
-n
i-
i i
I i
"3
Q
•o
C
s
CO &
»M R
tt ** S
o >> o
f*i 0 -P
S o -o
O -H t< 2j
Z « CQ 5
-------
a:
•3
H
i
i
43
W
I
& t,
«5
O -H
VJ «
\ \o
CO i*\
•
O O
a
O
r-t
O1VO
»,S
r-i •*
II
« -o
•P Q
i V
A
i CO
VO
00
OJ
li
g
3
0)
w
\D
OJ
O
i^
OJ
00
c\
OJ
>
w
r?
0)
VO
OJ
>!•
Nf
rr\ O IA t^-
O f\ C^ VO
OJ VO rH IfN
vo
OJ
O
CO
O
o
OJ
o
3t
a)
o
o
•H
l-l
4)
T3
tH
0
>
•H
«
«
a.
\O O r^ m vO OJ rH
SrH c»\ TV OJ O r-- r"i
c*> r^i r^ OJ vo ao r^
OJ*
i OJ C^~\ O O c^\ O
\ i> O 0s c^
( rH <"N C- OJ I I I
rH
f H OJ O OJ I I I
OJ rH rH i-H
U~\ ITN tfN O t~ ^ ^^ ^ C^~ C^ O O C^- lf*\ OJ "^ fN
O^ O O^ C^- &^ rH OJ f^v tfN f*^ O VO CT^ "^ rH "^" C^
rH r-H OJ O i-H 0^
SU^V OO rH OJ
rH CT^ rH rH
NT ->!•
OJ
. . _ _ , . . _' O c^- r^i
Hop >j-r^>j-c>S-fNirs
O OJ rH 00 OJ O OJ I
!>
>^ VO OJ
CO ^- *fs O C""N t— *^
r^ o ^^ c^ ^o c"°\ o
rH
C^N OJ ^Q '^O w^* VO ^O CO '
O rH ^5 CJ O CT^ rH O i
Nf
<»N
r^
OJ*
O ("N r'N r^\ O O O
tf> OJ >J-1> \n Co rH
I I I I 1C-- I I I IVDOJOJC'NIrHOJ
rH C-N
0)
If
•2
! 2
3
>!
-S -
£
.o -
> CO
:-S •>£
rH a d
rH -H
rH >
a co
gp
ss
Mo)
^
f +J
CO CO
0) 0) 71 CO
0> Si r-t
i «r1
CO
23£
d) o1
•a o J3 '
cd o +J
rH O ^f
«
•SP
: -H
i ^
> CQ
-------
O i-l H
f\ O T\
CM CM >T\
CM CM*
(Jv lf\ O
rH <»\ i-l
H rHV
CM -•!• rH rH
CX1M3
OJ
1
*
i
1
a
i
O to c«\
>!• lf\ UN
rs
CM 1TV O
IA CM
CMVO
CM
•*
' 8
CM CM
C»\CM
CM H
H f-
(»N CM
O CV
(M
r~ i
CM
<» C\J
^O
C-"\
CM O H CXI O t- O
f*\O\DC^C\l«»\
IfN >*• O 0^ r-l H
rH i-H H rH >*
S}8i5§"«
\O -* CXI H rH
CM
>t O CM rH rH
H rH
>JCM«^>l-VpCMOCVCM
* * * * «^ «k i^
r\ C«\ f^ rH CM <»\ 00
CM PX
1T\ to
CM
CM CM
CMC^
S^i-
r> i
vo i>
-* xf o
O
CM
r^.
CO
I i
PL,
|
A
en
OJ
1 1
-------
CM CM
>n
O
m
to
CM
<"\ CM O O
rH rH CO rH
O in -* m
•V «s Is »\
is O CM m
rH CM -*
I
VO !>
• r^vo
o
f\
f-
*.
CM
«
CM
rH t>
O rH
VO <"\
rH CM*
O-
CM I I I
in
O VQ
VQ
fvcrx
rHAo
rH
in
o
m
O
in
NT
CM to <^\
•IVOrHOCOrHCMCM--l-
CM ...
- - _' C«N rH
<"\vp m CM
O CTi O <»"\
O VO -* CM
CM rH -*
CM
CV1
VO TV
>T\ CM
O 1 O
j
co m
CU CO
cv vo
in
VO
C*\
C^OO rH rH CM
CM C- i
to ON I
in c\J i
VO rHVO o
CM H Nj-rH
O
B
O rH rH H --T
VO !>
•\ ^ ^
m o -4-
OJ rH Nf
-f ITl
O -4-
i
C^D- ^
60 VO O
VO 60 VO O f\
•*
CM
OJ O O>
C^vH CO
rHVO >!• I
rH O C-*
HVO r^
I
CO
CM
CM CO CM
r^\ I
•N
rH
CO
i
H o H
C"\ C*- O
>n Wvr
m i a* vo
* •> *
rH in CM
CM
-' - fe -
>S ±5
f £ 2
II !
§ § °
•H g CO
« rt x 15
I? & 5 £6
o at (_, ^
o « (^ -
Q -a
I & a rH
' CO CO «
Fred
Love
Tribu
•01
t)
«)
rH
«
rH
0 rH *
-------
11
i
•
1
i
.
1 i
-4
H
z
a w
Is <
i I1
i-i r\O.
i o «|
i z g
X (\J r^|
|i
i 3
i
•
i
•
i
i
1
•r
•P
CO
OJ O 00
O CM [>
C- O VO
OJ OJ e*\
\Q *f\ ^P
MN OJ "^
H CM H
O O in
-* oo c-
O OJ iH
oj -^vo
••*• OJ P\
H -*VD
r> o vo
»T\ tfN >$•
O CN -3
• • •
UN VO £-
if*\ ""tf" &^
O OJ c«\
» • •
O O n\
§ff\ £f\
•* OJ
O oo vn
00 &
r\ CM vo
f"\ ^" -w"
vo >r\ -»!•
. . .
^
• '?
0
8 ^-N
+J O
o o
OH § g
fl •** •
0 -o* 5 §
L !aj§
+34) p u ,0 +5
Ti > is M -<; TJ
O -rH 3 3 Cj- ,H
•z K o j o
rH CT^ O CJ^ OJ ^ 0s C^ r^- OJ ^ r°\ rH 00 c^ O
i-H rH OJ
OJ C^ CM VO VO VO O O 1A r^ O O O CM C—
OJ OJ rH
[>- VO OJ O IA O "A C^\VO tf\ ITv O Q C
OJrHH OrHOIfArHCMOt'MfN-J- O
H OJ
^- QQ \^J t^\ Q (V^ (**\ f\J fXJ 00 CO IA OJ C7* f^\ OJ
~^" O U"N C^ O tfN CM CJ^ VN O^ rH 00 CO VO t^ "^"
r^\ OJ ^3" VO ^ T\ u"\ VN f^N CM O VN rH r"- CM 00
CM C*N iH rH
OOg- Oc.gcpvoO^^ggS ^O
H^tH O[>Nrc^\Or^Ojvooj^-vo ^\&
rH OJ OJ rH
OOOCM OVOTvW^tOrHOOC---* C'NOJ
QJC^ir^v fNiHrNOJVOVDO -^VO VO <*N OJ <"\
C3OO OOJOC3OOrHOOOCMO rHO
rH
rr\OO OOOOtfNCMOJVOOOO voO
OOO OrHOOCMrHtSVOrHOO OJO
rH
O VO O O C" O CM C^- O CM W\ O C~- "^" *A IA
B^" VO "^ rH '^ ^Q rH *O C^~ *A *A OJ f*\ CT^ OO
CDO OrHOOrHCMrHr^CMC^vO C^irH
rH CM CM
VO C^VO m VO ~J- 00 OJ •& 00 O CM xf H O >t
OJ OJ OJ CVJ OJ rH CM C^ rH ~^i" O r^X^D ™^" tf\ *f*
rH CM CU
O^tCT^ OOr^-OOCMOOOVOrHOC^O 0"vO
rH CM rH
CVJ CV1 O ^4" U~\ O C3 t> ^- "^i" ^»1" 0s" C*N CO ^3
-^"O^O CjCVjC^i— lOOJVDrHrHCOCO \O
r-1 r-t i-H rH
OC^NI- ^ o^s-o^oto^ov
f*\ C? OJ OJ oj c*~ ^f ~^r c^- v\ co "^rf" r*"* f^\
OJ OJ OJ OJ rH r-* H
->f r*\vo Q1-^ r^or^c^TO
1 1>* 1 WN C*A 1 "^" *^ 1 ~^" C*^ rH CO 0^ 1 1
rH OJ OJ rH
1 «
§rH (D Of * 0 O
«' «' -H «J J ' ^'J ^ 1 I
PL, . . D . . „ ?s & * • m v a) 8
* . ae 0 -rl * a g ^a • 62-3 -G «> X!
££j ^P*t^r^^K'^5^c/^ ^ ^
a) rHje'f!? HJ? «^« P.S-3'gx"' 'S ~K b
H D P Or" rG"103'4tQOBrQ'aC)^ O * ^>O O
CQ "H *• JD '-'-* "^ CO ^ CJ) ,icj Q +3 Q n H *H O ¥*-t CO +* (^~*
CM J>j CQ f-* *aj oj O w 00 +3 C 4) V ^01
j3^ y 4) t J-(E-» fc+ao-HCr^.H^m^ JQ^ t3r-H ^f<
•HV M C H p*tf 2 ^
*rH Q O CJ PH (3 O J8 (H Ol *H Cd G ffi .<~J M O O "H M -H D *H
CODC 2cdCL, o a feffiOS^X-^SwCQf^ ZK mS CO«
-------
1-
c
i
f
<;
^*s
•
fO
PP
«
rH
f>
£
IM
3 JH
3141
•
;g|
a
•
>4
•
•$
ol
i
d
4'
^
g
r»l
3
:S
*
N
41
•
•si
£1
i
€H
col
rH O
-•t -•*
VD C>
VD O
CM H
* rH
r*\ O
xr -J-
-~fr CM
*r-T
in oo
O -~t
- m
Nl-VO
r-l *
Front Roya
Shenandoah
r.
?
•rH
K
Shenandoah
sr
m
vO
0
CO
r-
m
m
>!•
&
r-
ir\
s
rH*
1
O
8
o
-Nt
0
~^
00
r\
O
ir\
I/N
13s
CM
.
ur\
cu
rH
H
00
£
(O
>
•^
»1
tj
rH
«
NJ- ir\ O r^ Oj 0N " ^ ^ f 3^ ^ OJ CO
Nf VD u-> OJ 00 C f CT ".' u^ > CO -<• l>
[^ *A xf H 0s f""' ^ - Nt «N ^- t)0 GV ^t
rH rH rH rH
OJ f\ UN tr\ c^\ >t\ O VN O CM ir\ CM MO 00
t^- voOOO-H O O '/"• ^J in t> CM sf CM £-
m. -st "A. sr a- Nf . - co o H o rH ;•- o
O t"N'MO^-O,--OOsr'\xO^?Mir>
rH rH .-I rH
O ojoom-£>covo
CM CM -^ CM r- O *X' P-- t> 0s ^ O O to
co -j-r^r'\r^rH^rcM'-J'to[>r>com
C^\ -H rH r~^ rH rH
c^ IN O tf\ tr\ O O C O m in vo
to CT-OOrHi^sf^^fl>^rmtO
VO OOo-4'J'Vl'SrHOJr^r-Hinl 1
^t
O r-.r^-rHO^t^rr\rH(v\OOrHCs
IN >j-oo>rc\)~3-oo'i)toi-i«ofyo
^f OCMCT'rH'T'1if^CT1ir\[>i-H'nvO
rH rH rH r-l
LTv >Tv -i) rH V.G CO O U"N t"\J O X> Nf s-£! r-H
rH rHr"tf\O,2rH'Mr^j\OOJVOOJ
ON ir\iAtOOJ!^-'COfin\^3'mfvAVDOJ
rH rH r-H rH i-H
r- «N\orrj\c«.oc\lr»-iriCVirH
00 tOr-HONr^toCMCOi-HtO-^rHtN
O VOlTvCVJCT'OC^CNr-llAOOOOHi-l
rH rH rH rH rH
O C^rHrHOfMOO^OOC^mOm
£N VOC3NCOVOC-^^O>cr\irvir\OJCO
rH ^OJrHOOrHOHOr^VOVOVOOJ
i-H i-H ,-i OJ
T\ rH"OCXJVDOO^tr--rHOvOr^Oj>
r-l OCMr^inrHOJOto c^ f> to o^\ C'N
>T\ VO^TOJrH-J-rHOtOtOOOOr^
I-H H r-H rH rH rH
I-H i>QT\T% OjJlT'tlNf'N.^'OOOO
»r\ c^OvO^xrCMOOr^vOci/rHc^
C\) 00 I> rH "J f- ( J 00 rH 'O Ch CM rH XT
CM fH *H r-! rH ^H rH rH rH
fH r rH m
C Sf f- O
I 1 I i i I o^ ; i i i o* H -J-
rH
^4
tt *
i> O
•H • ...
B! '3 «B • Q T3
rl • 2 3 • > O 2
H)ra o 35" • •ro«f>* •
>S 9 3^3^Srt»a)-ai
•H s u •>S-t3a*t>- r>-
« - 88 S S3 - rH -a -a ff
•^ -C"1-1 S^S^S^C^-HO-rlS^
,>> 0 OiVi O^5-'i Qo3bOtDOlH-QG
o in CL, rt i-i o "M ti -tiCRHC'-.kcntqcd
O (H +5 O r" « 3 n & (33
o «) IW3 cfirH-no^-a^-Pc-aJo*
O TJ *> a -H»(rH>t>mHlW<0-H1J'aO
fi «) S-H J3TJrtl»K«)Ot>4>rHc/)(ao
O /I Qrt «trt«lfcr)rl rHO
2 (», ,-5,H Oc3«nu5^4cQ,ja CT> O to
CM O ^f C*N
O^ m CM r^v
* rH
ITS
CM
in 1 1 1
rH
O
OJ
mill
<">
H
Hill
rH
O >tCM 00
CM OJ O O
<"NVO r- rH
r-H 1-H
o
rH
O 1 1 1
rH
OJ 1 1 1
vO m OJ O
in o r— I o^\
CM cr\ H in-
to CTV CM C^\
C^ 00 CM ^*-
vo CT\ ^t m.
r^\ CM O in
r- m in in
[> VD QN
CM &• O 1
« • •
r-H rH
O
r— |
in 1 I I
rH
O 00 r-
--1- CM m
CM 1 VO CM
• • •
r-H
• a
o ta
• -8
Q -H
f-,
• ^«
2 S,C
F-i T3 O
« --H to
r7 W rl rH
•H rH ff) -H 0)
BS rH * hp
CO • t3
O fc +J k iH
Oj CO P rl
I s*!w
^ gtjilg
OH C3 r-H =B (»\
-------
!> -n
r^ \o
p-
OJ
to o
rH O
p- <"\
i
rH
P\
CT-
xf
Xf
IT\
m
p\
rH
8
P\
xf
PNCO
>r\ to
vO VO
rH
P\ in
in OJ
in XT
O\0
P\ rH
>n PN
OJ
O PN
58
*n
CO m
CO CM OJ
rH CO rH
P\ OJ O
rH~rH
O UA CO
T\ rH CM
<""\ c*- PN
CO IA V£>
XT CO O-'
xfVO i-H
rH PN
P\ P\ OJ
O** P*\ O
P% O O
xF
OJ OJ O
rHrHC^r-O^QrHO E>V£J
O 0s <"~\ CZ~ ^^ O xf O IA iA
ojojtocDo'c-.rHO ir-co
XT tf\ XT IT\ rH £-
mrHr^ r-Oa^xrO'I>^x
OJrH nAO^xftOGN^-CO
•-G 1 VO CM rH CO UJ XT
fv \D O
rH rH
OJOt-r^OO^PNrHOC^O
*Oc»NDiAxl-p%OJ!>r^Oxt
\i)xflf\tDrHC^OJVOrHxfOO
[>rHOrHt-- OJxf |>
rH OJ rH
P~[>OJ\DOvOOQp-\OP\
TirHOJ^^DrHlAOOJXfin
P>OJOl>rHrHOJCOOOJrH
UA rH O^ *A tf> O^XVD rH O
rH P\
rHxflAP\>XI^P\VJD\OtOf-
IT\\£)
rH\£)
in i-H
rH
^D "^
OJ CO
rH
oj o
r-t\0
-*C^
OJ*
P\O
s«
cvTt-T
rH !>
O
6
tf\
t>
&
xf
S
xf
PN
8
OJ
Oj"
se
t--
xf
p\
^0
trv
CO
rH
VO
*.
OJ
xf
8
xf
vo
ITv
OJ
P\
«
P\
VO
OJ
rH
^O
1TN
OJ
xf
tf\
OJ
C^
«N
P\
BS
PN OJ
rH 1A
P>
CO
OJ
OJ
O
^
•t
rH
rH
8
OJ
«
xf
0^
8J
OJ
P\ LT%
rH O
P\ XT
££
NT ?VJ
if\
&S
IT\ rH
•i
ITV
1— i
f-i
r-t
U~\
8
o
rH
8
xf
xf
OJ \O £-
C> xf O
OJ «\ OJ
r^ oj
£3
^1^
m
p\
o
iHrHxfOJC^VOPNOJVDrHO
VO xfCOCOCOP-\£l VO
rH PN P^ Xf P^
OJCCir\rHVO>n\OOJrH>Am
r-i rH rH a- ^ 95 H CO xf p\
xf CMVOOJOJHOJ P\
•* * ^ ^
rH rH rH H
P\OP\D~ xfxfOO^CJ^^PX
OJrHP\r^mCO\DCO^VOc^
COOmCr>O^rHr-PNCO»ArH
OJ rH >A m\D OJ OJ CT^ O
rH rH H P\
rHOP\c^,a"OJr>ovvriOxf
Mameoxfa^xfcoo^^voo
P\mOJ xfc^PNOmrHOJO
OrHOJPNxTOJrHPN P\
rH OJ P\
OJlAPNOOOrH xfCtp-COrH
I>COC>rH\p\.iJrHOPN>f\VO
xfcoojajCMocovoovom
m-HOOrHOJOJr~-rHCO
rH rVj rH rH OJ P\
\o xrr^OrHvoa^a^pxrHvo
CMir\CT-r^r--\or^\D\£)r--rH
tf\VOP\xfO!>- xfOiAOJCO
OJ
CO
rH
p^ PN
P\ O
rH
to
xf
t>
O
a
r-T
p\
xf
rH
1
§
rH
•*
P\
to
P\
P\
Oj"
1
1
\o
ir\
CO
R
p\
rH
rH
lf\
«
xf
PN
to
CO
m
•«
XO
K
OJ
•s
rH <»\ OJ V
r<
-f\ r^ u"\ ~vO r^\ c^\ OJ
vO p. OJir\r^\OJiTv
1 •£! XT 1 ;> ^t t^ a^
OJ rH 1T\ CO
! 1
R
1
«
tbl •z.K
' ?
; -r5
a •
! .fiS
I T3 W *
i"J§
i!*«
i »4 O
ch
South
River
efield, W
ey, W.Va.
tersb W
u
• hO 88
es $ r
Pe
Upper P
Tributar
a)
>
,
B 3
o
to -
13
-2
-
m
C
5
w
I
.
Va
Broa
Midd
w
#
-------
VO
VD
to CM <^
r°> r-» r^
1A CO •<*•
VD
CM
i
c»\
VO
VO M OJ
<5i
VO
CM
•s
VO
VO
•>,
•st
CVJ
VO
<4 «o
IA
IA
>A
IA to
O O I
•\ «.
CM r>-
00 CVJ
O
•sf
HOI
VO
rH
CM I I
-d-
PP
s
t--
-txir^
VO CO
O
CM
O
fN i .
VO CVJ I I
VO O
C"\
H
W»
NT
r^iACMOOCMCOVOvOCMrHCMOrN
<"\ rH C^v
oT
8OJ
VO
CM &• I I
NT r-T
i '
fc
s
vl-
IA
vo
VOOCM CMrHrHrHxT
OJ O
00 O
00 CM
rH O I I
rAo"
1A CM
i
oo
rH
CM
Va
1
S
S «' r, - *
« ^ 5 I S
i *- ^
3 >> >> O 'O r(
•O rl O -rl d, 3
I I
rH VO lf\
xf tO O O
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 • Q
2 a
05
rj
. §s
^1 -r3 -H
>> O Ofn 'SXBjn
« r, ^B ^»2^
00) M 3
O T> 4) ^3
„ 0) k -H
JC rH O t, Qr.
CO CQ S G r5 El
>
-e s •> >
• O
Q S
»-H m
0] rl rH
rH OQ -H 4)
$ .*9
K, +> k -H
(O p ^
+> ¥•> co
*> J5 •O
4) -P 5 rH
f-i >!- O O
O rH » (^\
-------
kn
i
3
f)
«
2
S
w
§
H
* o
g 2
te
W
S
M
5
£3
^5
y*
f-H]
S ^
•3 CQ *Zi
P-I to
H >• <
@S 2
O
3 o
HO
&*
5
s pi
tH
g S
fej Uj
3 _
H
i
s
w
4)1
ll
•31 C
>
•H
H
•H
O
r-H
IS
§
«
^x
• i— 1
^t-tl hp
^^
fclrx"1
G| ftp
M'J.
S^
Op*— '
si
QJi
«l
s~**
• (H
ttl^M
u wi^e
^-^
• rH
rf] g)
' '
rH
IS
0
CU
cri
a^
^.wl Hf
• rH
51^
M —
•gu
§?i
«
^^
•]• -1-1
^-jpx.
Ml B^
• — *
_
•pT-j
^•1 SP
M'J=
<
bo
"
. —
to
IA
in
00
r-H
r-H
rH
0
vo'
CM
in
O
fT\
"^
fx^
f*A
OJ
VO
OJ
O
I>
c^-*
w\
pf\
1
to
H
VO
IA
i-H
t>
rH
m
^
p*^
t>
^f
OJ
CM
°^
O
IA
O
o
o
•D
s
•\
o
•rl
CU
1
•rH
r-H
0)
CQ
m
CO
O
r-l
1
O
r-l
<>
r-H
VO
CM
pj
rH
£
VO
rH
^j-
IA
o
IA
CO
rH
O
00
r-i
Cr%
CM
H
S
r-'
O
<^N
(^
"^"
<*N
^*
c^\
^
VO
CT\
IA
s
d
•
•o
5
o
S
o
•H
rH
03
t^N
IX
1
r*\
m
Qv
xr
CM
^j.
c>
rH
OJ
H
8
O
xr
r-i
0
CM
r-i
IA
oB
rH
IA
to
r^
lA
r^
f\
(V^
t^<
rH
CO
vO
CO
00
m
Oj
r— 1
8
CM
p, •
M T3
o s
O
d)
OJ
\f\
OJ
1
r-l
OJ
rH
S
rH
OJ
(V^
r^
rH
0
co
o
CM
0
O
rH
VO
O
o
J
Cresapt
^
b
3
^
-*,r
xr
xr
r-H
xf
to
^
rH
OJ
r^\
m
f
in
CM
cS
|V
r .
O
rH
r-H
CO
r-H
C\j
xj
OJ
xr
to
rH
rH
^
xr
VD
O
rH
CO
OJ
OJ
Ol
<*\
o
i
1
Cumberl
CO
o
o
rH
CO
xr
CO
rH
C*A
xr
o
Oj
00
o
1A
CO
[-.
rr\
8
to
xr
OJ
o
m
H
UA
§
0
rH
in
o--
r-H
1 -
rH
OJ
o
CO
rH
O
^
1
xT
a
o
Fi-ederi
CO
CO
co
rH
m
in
!>
r-l
xr
CM
O
'~i
IA
VO
d
CM
OJ
i
m
rr^
O
OJ
O
r>
ro
r^
r-H
i
^O
rH
S
$
r-H
CO
co
in
OJ
xr
xr
rH
t>
8
OJ
rH
•
CO
rH
§
o
CM1
OJ
xL>
r^\
v.o
vr\
r-H
&
o
Ol
OJ
£
OJ
xr
U~X
0
rH
xf
00
r-H
O
OJ
CJV
(V^
I
r^\
B
fe
,~_
VO
CM
r-H
co
in
co
!-",
,H
^
OJ
to
m
I"
Hag erst
r"A
O
O
xr
xr
CO
in
[^
rH
OJ
O
CM
O
H
CM
xr
i
P*_
xT
!A"
c*\
0
rH
H
O
rH
xr
rH
r-H
1
B
m
OJ
co
B
o
o
CM
rH
in
rH
CO
CM
B
xr
OJ
r-\
VD
CM
i
Staunto
CJv
CM
in
CO
co
•o
0
rH
8
Ov
(^
OJ
CM
u"\
. — |
"•-O
C1^
I
*r\
£x_
OJ
CM
o
to
i-H
Tx
rH
OJ
1
§
OJ
§
Waynesb
0
IA
xr
vO
r-
rH
rH
CO
vO
OJ
o
2
Q
2
Q
xr
H
VO
vO
rH
(*\
r-H
C^
00
in
CO
(V^
OA
xt
m
to
r-H
O
OJ
rH
O
OJ
rH
OJ
•
S
i
Western
to
xr
m
OJ
xr
CO
OJ
CJN
rH
O
C-N
in
OJ
CM*
Q
xr
i
Q\
CO
co
O
o
rH
CO
CO
in
xr
CM
1
xr
CVJ
in
§
VO
rH
xr
CM
0
£•*_
-sl-
^
vO
^
!>
r-H
in
CM
0
rrt
t
a
•H
rH
r-H
• H
OJ
vD
>A
OJ
f"\
[>
r^
rH
CO
CO
i>
CO
rH
CO
o
C>
,_-(
O
f\
m
O
"A
O
CM
xr
vo
"A
|
xr
IA
xr
8
c~
xT
c<\
(*\
CO
c-
^
rH
OJ
r-
vo
OJ
8
OJ
^f
rt
Winches-
-------
REFERENCES
1. Jaworski, N. A., Villa, 0., and Hetling, L. J., "Nutrients in
the Potomac River Basin/' Technical Report No. 9, CTSL, MAR,
FWPCA, May 1969.
20 Jaworski, N. A., and Aalto, J. A., "Wastewater Inventory, Potomac
River Basin," CFS, MAR, FWPCA, December 1968,
3. Wadleigh, C. H., "Wastes in Relation to Agriculture and Forestry,"
U. S. Department, of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., March 1968.
40 Bailey, G. W0, "Role of Soils and Sediment in Water Pollution
Control, Part One," Southeast Water Laboratory, FWPCA, March 1968.
5. U. S. Army Corps of Fjngineers, "Potomac River Basin Report,"
Volume 1, Pa£t_]L, North Atlantic Division, Baltimore, Md., 1963.
6. Data Report, "1966 Potomac Nutrient Network," CTSL, MAR, FWPCA
(In preparation).
7. Wark, J. S., and Keller, F. J., "Preliminary Study of Sediment
Sources and Transport in the Potomac River Basin," Interstate Com-
mission on the Potomac River Basin, Bulletin 1963-11, Washington,
D.C.,
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cant.)
Chapter
VI. DISSOLVED OXYGEN AND BIOCHEMICAL OXTCEN DEMAND
A. North Branch
B. South Branch
C. Conococheague Creek
D. Opequon Creek
E. Antietam Creek
F. Shenandoah River
1. North Fork
2. South Fork
3. Main Stem of Shenandoah River
G. Monocacy River
H. Main Stem Potomac River
VII. PESTICIDES
A. General
B. Water Quality Criteria
1. Public Water Supplies
2. Fish and Aquatic Life
3. Wildlife
4. Agri cultural
C. Analysis and Discussion
VIII. THERMAL DISCHARGES
A. General
B. Sources and Thermal Conditions
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
VIII
VIII
VIII
1
1
3
3
4
5
5
7
7
10
11
15
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
1
1
3
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cant.)
Chapter Page
IX. MINE DRAINAGE - GENERAL SUMMARY IX - 1
X. NUTRIENTS X - 1
A. Sources X - 1
1. Wastewater Loadings X - 1
2. Land Runoff and Other Sources X - 3
B. Spatial Distribution X - 4.
I. Phosphorus X - 4
2. Nitrite and Nitrate and Total Kjeldahl X - -4
Nitrogen
APPENDIX
REFERENCES
v
-------
V - 1
VI - 1
VII - 1
VII - 2
VII - 3
VII - 4
VII - 5
VII - 6
VIII - 1
VIII - 2
VIII - 3
X - 1
X - 2
X - 3
X - 4
LIST OF TABLES
Title
Bacteriological Data - North Branch
Potomac River at Cumberland, Md.
1968-69
Fresh Water Inflow BOD Concentration
Potomac River Near Washington, D. C.
Pesticide Data Potomac River at
Memorial Bridge
Pesticide Data - Potomac River at
Great Falls
Pesticide Data - Shenandoah River at
Berryville, Va.
Pesticide Data - 1968
Pesticide Data - 1968
Pesticides Data Analyzed and Minimum
Detectable Limits
Water Quality Standards (Temperature
for Selected Stream Reaches in the
Upper Potomac River Basin
Major Thermal Discharges - Upper Potomac
River Basin
Temperature Data (INCOPOT) Upper Potomac
River Basin
Nutrient Loadings from Wastewater
Discharges by Sub-Regions
Nutrient Loadings from Watersheds with
Varying Land Use
Estimated Nutrient Loadings from Land
Runoff
Comparison of Annual Average Nutrient
Concentrations and Loadings
V - 5
VI - 20
VII - 5
VII - 6
VII - 7
VII - 8
VII - 9
VII - 10
VIII - 2
VIII - 4
VIII - 5
X - 2
X - 3
X - 5
X - 6
vx
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Title Page
V- 1 Bacteriological Profile - North Branch
Potomac River - July 28, 1969 V - 2
V- 2 Bacteriological Profile - North Branch
Potomac River - August 18, 1969 V - 4
V- 3 Bacteriological Profile - South Branch
Potomac River - July 29, 1969 V - 7
V- 4 Bacteriological Profile - South Branch
Potomac River - August 18, 1969 V - 8
V- 5 Bacteriological Trends - South Branch
Potomac River - 1964-1968 V - 9
V- 6 Bacteriological Profile - Conococheague
Creek - July 28, 1969 V - 11
V- 7 Bacteriological Profile - Conococheague
Creek - August 18, 1969 V - 12
V- 8 Bacteriological Profile - Opequon Creek
July 29, 1969 V - 14
V- 9 Bacteriological Profile - Opequon Creek
August 19, 1969 ? - 15
V-10 Bacteriological Profile - South River - South
Fork - Shenandoah River - July 28-29, 1969 V - 18
V-ll Bacteriological Profile - South River - South
Fork - Shenandoah River - August 18-19, 1969 V - 19
V-12 Bacteriological Profile - Shenandoah River at
Harper's Ferry - July-September, 1966 V - 22
V-13 Bacteriological Trends - Monocacy River
1964-1968 V - 25
V-14 Bacteriological Profile - Potomac River
July 28-29, 1969 V - 26
vii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont.)
Number Page
V-15 Bacteriological Profile - Potomac River
August 18, 1969 V - 27
V-l6 Bacteriological Trends - Potomac River at
Great Falls - 1964-1968 V - 29
V-17 Bacteriological Trends - Potomac River at
Point of Rocks - 1964-1968 V - 30
V-18 Bacteriological Profiles - Opequon Creek
and Cacapon River - July-September 1966 V - 33
VI- 1 BOD-DO Profiles - North Branch Potomac
River VI - 2
VI- 2 BOD-DO Profiles - Antietam Creek VI - 6
VI- 3 BOD-DO Profiles - South River VI - 9
VI- 4 Mean Monthly BOD and DO Concentrations -
Shenandoah River at Berryville, W. Va. VI - 12
VI- 5 BOD-DO Profiles - Monocacy River yj _ ^
VI- 6 Mean Monthly BOD and DO Concentrations
Monocacy River near Potomac River VI - 14
VI- 7 Mean Monthly BOD and DO Concentrations
Potomac River at Williamsport VI - 16
VI- 8 Mean Monthly BOD and DO Concentrations
Potomac River at Point of Rocks VI - 17
VI- 9 Mean Monthly BOD and DO Concentrations
Potomac River at Great Falls VI - 18
IX- 1 1968-69 Survey Data - North Branch Potomac
River IX - 3
Vlll
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Cent.)
Number Title Page
X- 1 Nutrient Concentrations - Upper Potomac
River Basin Survey - July 21-22, 1969 X - 8
X- 2 Nutrient Concentrations - Upper Potomac
River Basin Survey - August 18-19, 1969 X - 10
X- 3 Phosphorus Loadings - Potomac River at
Great Falls - 1969 X - 13
X- 4 Nitrogen Loadings - Potomac River at
Great Falls - 1969 X - 14
-------
II-1
CHAPTER II
INTRODUCTION
A, PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The third session of the conference on pollution of the Potomac
River-Washington Metropolitan Area Enforcement Conference which
convened in April and May of 1969 resulted in a set of recommendations
for future corrective action.
As a result of questions raised concerning the relative contri-
bution of upstream problems to water quality in the metropolitan area,
a recommendation to include a joint study of the entire Potomac basin
was adopted by the conferees. The Interstate Commission on the Potomac
River Basin was requested to call a meeting to consider these upstream
contributions.
This is one of four technical reports prepared by the Chesapeake
Technical Support Laboratory (CTSL) of the Middle Atlantic Region
(MAR), Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (FWPCA) of the
Department of the Interior to explore the general water quality in
the upper Potomac River basin. The other reports include inventories
of municipal and industrial waste discharges, nutrient studies and
effects of mine drainage.
-------
II-2
B. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
To supplement the special studies of CTSL, data from governmental,
industrial, and institutional sources were collected, evaluated, and
subsequently incorporated into this technical report. The cooperation
of the following agencies is gratefully acknowledged:
District of Columbia, Department of Public Health
District of Columbia, Department of Sanitary Engineering
Maryland Department of Water Resources
Pennsylvania State Department of Health
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Aqueduct Division
U, S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior
Virginia Water Control Board
West Virginia Department of Natural Resources
-------
III-l
CHAPTER III
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The need for a water quality assessment of the upper Potomac
basin was the outcome of a recommendation adopted by the conferees
of the Potomac River-Washington Metropolitan Area Enforcement
Conference. The purpose of the assessment was to investigate
pollution conditions in the upper basin and to evaluate their
possible contributions to water quality problems of the Potomac
Estuary. This report is based on historical data supplemented
by two special surveys conducted in July and August 1969. The
findings are summarized below:
I, The total coliform and fecal coliform concentrations
throughout the upper Potomac basin vary considerably.
2. In the Monocacy basin, persistently high bacterial den-
sities have been observed. Total and fecal coliform counts in
excess of 160,000 MPN/lOOml* are common throughout this basin,
particularly during high flow periods.
3. Fecal coliform counts were also unusually high in the
North Branch Potomac below Luke and Amcelle, Maryland (90,000),
the South Branch Potomac below Petersburg and Moorefield, West
Virginia (50,000), the Gonococheague Creek below Chambersburg,
Pennsylvania (160,000), and the Antietam Creek below Waynesboro,
Pennsylvania and Hagerstown, Maryland in 1969.
* All coliform counts in this report are the most probable number
(MEN) per 100ml.
-------
Ill-2
4. In the Shenandoah sub-basin, high fecal coliform densities
occurred in the North River near Harrisonburg, Virginia (160,000), the
Middle River near Staunton, Virginia (160,000), and the North Fork
Shenandoah River below Timberville, New Market, and Edinburg,
Virginia (50,000) in 1969.
5. The water quality standards for coliform bacteria were
frequently contravened in the North Branch Potomac, South Branch
Potomac, Conococheague Creek, Opequon Creek, Antietam Creek,
Shenandoah River (including both the North and South Forks), Monocacy
River and the main stem Potomac River.
6. Although extensive bacteriological data were collected
throughout the upper Potomac basin, it is difficult to determine their
significance unless the relative coliform contributions from waste
treatment plant effluents and from various types of land runoff can
be established.
7. Three areas in the upper Potomac where low dissolved oxygen
occurred are North Branch Potomac River from Luke, Maryland to Spring
Gap, West Virginia (approximately 45 miles), Monocacy River downstream
from Frederick, and the South River of the Shenandoah domistream from
Waynesboro, Virginia. All of these areas were characterized by DO
levels below 1.0 mg/1 during low flow summer conditions.
8. Less critical areas where future DO monitoring is also
warranted include the North Fork Shenandoah River below Timberville, the
South Fork Shenandoah River below Elkton, the main stem Shenandoah below
Front Royal, and Antietam Creek below Hagerstown.
-------
-------
Ill-3
9. Limited data from the upper Potomac indicate that most of
the determinations for chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides were
negative. However, significant quantities of dieidrin and DDT
(0.666 ug/1 and 0,17 ug/1) were measured in Antietam Creek during
August 1969. Maximum DOT, dieidrin, and endrin concentrations in
the Potomac River at Great Falls for a ten-year period of record
were 0.038 ug/1, 0.04 ug/1, and 0.094 ug/1, respectively. The
endrin concentration exceeds the recommended criteria for fish and
aquatic life (0.05 ug/l).
10. A definite need exists for additional surveillance of
pesticides in the Potomac basin to isolate the sources and to deter-
mine the quantities contributed over a complete hydrologic cycle.
11. Thermal pollution does not constitute a significant problem
in the upper Potomac basin at the present time.
12. Potential thermal problems exist in the North Branch Potomac
below the large industries at Luke and Amcelle and below the steam-
electric generating plant near Cumberland. Future studies of stream
temperatures and ecological conditions will be necessary in those
areas of the North Branch. Studies should also be planned for the
Mount Storm Reservoir below the power plant, and for the main stem
Potomac below the power plants at Williamsport and Dickerson.
13. Mine drainage in the North Branch Potomac basin is contri-
buted primarily from nine tributary watersheds in West Virginia and
Maryland upstream from Luke, Maryland. The effects of mine drainage
-------
-------
Ill-4
while normally confined to the North Branch Potomac River above
Cumberland can be detected throughout most of the North Branch
Potomac River during periods of high runoff.
14. More than 40 miles of the North Branch and more than 100
miles of tributary streams are characterized by high acidity, low pH,
and excessive metals and solids which have rendered these streams a
"biological desert" and unsuitable for most beneficial water uses.
15. Based upon a preliminary appraisal, the annual expenditure
required to control most of the mine drainage in the North Branch
Potomac basin is estimated at $5,000,000.
16. In the upper Potomac basin approximately 18,000 Ibs/day
of total phosphate (PC.) and 11,000 Ibs/day of total Kjeldahl
4
nitrogen (TKN) originate in 256 wastewater discharges. Approximately
7,700 Ibs/day of the above total PO. and 4,600 Ibs/day of the above
4
TKN were from industrial wastewater discharges.
17. The various nutrient concentrations were generally high
in the Opequon and Antietam Creeks and the Monocacy River. These
streams were also characterized by local heavy rooted aquatic and
phytoplankton growths.
18. It appears that, while the nutrient contributions from land
runoff (agricultural and urban) are significant, the most pronounced
increases are from controllable point-source waste loadings.
19. Based upon both long-term and recent survey data, total and
fecal coliforms in the Potomac River at Great Falls are frequently
greater than 1,000. Maximum fecal coliform concentrations of
-------
-------
140,000 and 85,000 were measured during July and August 1968, respec-
tively.
20. The BOD concentrations at Great Falls are low, usually
ranging from 2 to 4 mg/1. However, on a pounds/day basis the fresh
water inflow represented a significant organic loading to the estuary.
During the period from January to August 1969, the average BOD loading
at Great Falls was greater than 100,000 Ibs/day—or 45 percent of the
total BOD discharged into the upper Potomac Estuary from all sources.
21. The average monthly dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations at
Great Falls over the past ten years were generally greater than 6.0
mg/1. The water quality standards specify a minimum of 5.0 mg/1.
22. During the period from January to August 1969, the average
upper basin loadings of total nitrogen and total phosphorus to the
Potomac Estuary were 27,000 Ibs/day as N and 3,600 Ibs/day as P, or
34 and 14 percent, respectively, of the total loads to the estuary.
-------
-------
IV-1
CHAPTER IV
BASIN DESCRIPTION
A. HISTORY
Development and population growth in the Potomac River basin
upstream from Washington, D. C. was not as rapid as in the tidal
area where port facilities had already been established in colonial
times. Alexandria was a bustling seaport and ocean going ships
docked as far upstream as Bladensburg on the Anacostia and Georgetown
on the Potomac River. Little Falls and Great Falls prevented upstream
commerce. It was not until the middle of the nineteenth century that
industrial expansion in the upper basin was stimulated by the completion
of the much delayed Chesapeake and Ohio Canal to Cumberland by develop-
ment of railroads in the Valley and by mining of coal resources in the
North Branch Potomac basin.
The Potomac River basin has been intimately involved in the
history of the nation, the westward expansion, the Civil War, and
the reconstruction and development of a central government in
Washington which became increasingly involved in domestic and
foreign affairs.
B. GEOGRAPHY
The historic source of the Potomac River is at the headwaters of
the North Branch in the rugged and forested Allegheny Mountains of
the Appalachian chain where the coal mining activity in the basin
is concentrated.
-------
-------
T'f 7 r~l
j. v -<=:
The general character of the upper basin does not change appreci-
ably downstream until the Shenandoah Valley is reached. From this
area to tidewater, the broader valleys were first used for farming,
then towns grew to serve the agricultural community and eventually
industry utilized the area's resources as the population increased.
The area covered by this report is the Potomac River drainage basin
above Great Falls which is approximately 11,500 square miles. The
entire basin has a population of 3 million of which 2,5 million are
in the Washington Metropolitan Area.
Mich of the basin industry is related to agriculture: fruit
packing, poultry processing, dairying, and tanning. Natural resources
of coal, sand, stone, and forest products are abundant and have been
the basis of industrial development in the area.
C. GEOLOGY
The North Branch of the Potomac River has its origin in the
Allegheny geophysical province. It passes through the Valley and
Ridge province in which major coal and forest product development
has occurred, crosses the Great "/alley with its extensive agricul-
tural and industrial areas where many of the sediment and pollution
problems originate. The Potomac cuts through the Blue Ridge Mountains
and the rolling hills of the Piedmont on its way to the Chesapeake Bay.
The non-tidal river drains parts of several states: West Virginia,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, and a small area of the District of
Columbia.
-------
-------
17-3
D. HYDROLOGY
Because of the hilly terrain, the soil density, and the rainfall
distribution, the Potomac River can be considered a "flashy" stream.
Long periods of low flow occur during dry weather in the summer and
high flows and occasional floods occur usually during the spring and
fall months. Discharges of over 48/4,000 cfs and less than 800 cfs
have been recorded at Washington. The average flow is 11,340 cfs.
-------
V-l
CHAPTER V
BACTERIOLOGICAL ANALYSES
A. NORTH BR/LNCH
Bacteriological populations in the North Branch Potomac River
upstream from the Savage River confluence at Bloomington, Maryland
are influenced greatly by mine drainage. The extremely low pH
levels caused by mine drainage have inhibited the development of
all forms of aquatic life.
Water quality surveys of the 50-mile reach between Luke,
Maryland and Oldtown, West Virginia were conducted by CTSL on
July 28 and August 19, 1969. Graphical presentations of the
bacteriological data obtained from these surveys are exhibited
in Figures V-l and V-2.
Both total and fecal coliform concentrations were extremely
high (160,000 and 92,000) below the Upper Potomac River Commission's
(UPRC) treatment plant (Figure V-l). A reduction in coliform
organisms to 3>500 occurred downstream at Keyser, West Virginia,
This decrease was followed by a three-fold rise near Cresaptown
and a more significant ten-fold rise below the Celanese Fibers
Corporation Plant where the total and fecal coliform counts again
reached 160,000 and 92,000, respectively. Between the station at
River Mile 311 (below Celanese) and the South Branch confluence
a sharp dieoff in coliform organisms was noted.
-------
IjOOOpOO-i
BACTERIOLOGICAL PROFILE
NORTH BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER
JULY 28, 1969
100.000-
tn
tr
O
u.
O
U ~
_l O
< o
1
10.000-
TOTAL COLIFORMS
FECAL COLIFORMS
FLOW AT CUMBERLAND: 402 cfs
a.
at
O
K
ui
(A
Ut .
Ul-l
KUI
oo
o
K
hi
O>
z
u
ipoo-
r~
320 310
RIVER MILES
340
T—
330
300
290
280
FIGURE V-l
-------
V-3
Data collected during the August 18, 1969 survey (Figure V-2)
also indicated a substantial rise in both total and fecal coliforms
at the UPRC plant. Fecal coliforms increased 50-fold with total
coliforms increasing over 1,000-fold. Fecal counts of 1,000 and
total counts of 90,000 were measured downstream from this treatment
facility. Fecal coliforms decreased to 50 and total coliforms
decreased to 170 at River Mile 311, but the total population increased
to 22,000 in the vicinity of Cumberland, Maryland.
It should be noted that streamflows were unusually high during
both of these surveys, particularly during the August survey. These
high flows may have reduced bacteria concentrations by dilution.
Moreover, the greatly reduced pH which occurred during the August
survey may have been responsible for the varying coliform density
patterns shown in Figures V-l and V-2.
Bacteriological data collected by the Kelly-Springfield Company
in Cumberland for the entire 1968 water year are presented in
Table V-l. These data also indicate variations in coliform popu-
lations.
Bacteriological standards* have not yet been established for the
North Branch Potomac River between Luke and Cumberland, Maryland. The
standards prescribed for the North Branch downstream from Cumberland
(5,000 total coliforms, 240 fecal coliforms) were being contravened.
Public Hearings were held in October, 1969.
-------
-------
100.000-l
10,000 -
a:
O
o
o r
£
oC K>°°
tii
z
BACTERIOLOGICAL PROFILE
NORTH BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER
AUGUST 18. 1969
100-
10-
TOTAL COLIFORMS
FECAL COLIFORMS
FLOW AT CUMBERLAND: 696ef»
340
330
I I
320 310
RIVER MILES
300
290
'1
Z80
FIGURE V-2
-------
V-5
TABLE V-l
BACTERIOLOGICAL DATA
NORTH BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER
AT
CUMBERLAND, MARYLAND
1968-69
Above Plant (308.5)
Below Plant (308.0)
Month.
October
November
December
January
March-
April
June
July
August
September
Total
Collforms
(MPN/lOOml)
2,000
8,000
930
*N/A
23,000
230
21,000
23,000
75,000
93,000
Month
October
November
December
January
March
April
June
July
August
September
Total
Coliforms
(MPN/lOOml)
9,000
15,000
930
2,000
2,000
430
9,000
23,000
43,000
240,000
* Data not available
-------
V-6
B. SOUTH BRANCH
Figure V--3 shows extrejnsly high total and fecal coll form
densities downstream from Petersburg and Moore field,, West Virginia
during the July 1969 survey. Both exceeded 50,000 at River Mile
66.2 and 30,000 three miles below Moorefield (River Mile 53.9). A
significant decrease in total and fecal eolifcrms occurred between
stations at River Miles 53.9 and 13.5 even though, this stream reach
receives primary effluent from the Romney, West Virginia Sewage
Treatment Plant.
Sampling data from the August survey (Figure V-/0 likewise
indicate maximum bacterial populations downstream from Petersburg
and Moorefield followed by a sharp die-off further downstream.
The total and fecal coliform counts at River Mile 53.9 were both
54,000. The lowest fecal count (370) was recorded at River Mile
13.5.
Bacteriological analyses are conducted routinely by the
Romney Waste Treatment Plant. A &unraiary of these data for the
past five years of record is shown in Figure V-5. Bacterial con-
centrations varied considerably ovar the five year period. Several
counts exceeded 20,000. Coliforoi density peaks frequently occurred
during the summer months when stream flows were lew and temperatures
high. Minimum coliform levels were generally recorded during the
winter and spring months„
-------
100,000-
BACTERIOLOGICAL PROFILE
SOUTH BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER
JULY 29, 1969
10.000-
v>
K
S
<
*
1,000-
100-
TOTAL COLIFORMS
•FECAL COLIFORMS
3
^
E
\
r— J 1 1
O 60 50
40
i
30 20
10
0
RIVER MILES FROM POTOMAC
FIGURE V-3
-------
-------
100.000-1
io.oo
-------
100.000
BACTERIOLOGICAL TRENDS
SOUTH BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER
(ROMNEY TREATMENT PLANT DATA)
ABOVE. PLANT
BELOW PLANT
1964
1965
1966
YEAR OF RECORD
1967
1966
FIGURE V-S
-------
V-10
C. CONOCOCHEAGUE CREEK
For the July survey, Figure V-6 shows that stations downstream
from Chambersburg and Greencastle, Pennsylvania had total and fecal
coliform populations in excess of 160,000. Every other station on
Conococheague Creek, excepting at River Mile 5.1, had fecal coliform
counts in excess of 10,000 and total counts in excess of 50,000.
At the Pennsylvania-Maryland State Line, both counts were about
160,000.
Figure V-7 shows a coliform density pattern quite different for the
August survey than for the July survey as presented in Figure V-6, a
further example of the extreme temporal fluctuations associated
with bacteriological populations. Maximum fecal coliform counts
(l6o,000) occurred downstream from Chambersburg with a sharp decrease
in these organisms occurring throughout the following 50-mile reach
of the stream. Total coliforms varied in a similar manner, except
for a large rise (9,200 to 35,000) which occurred downstream from
Greencastle near the state line.
The West Branch, Conococheague Creek, an intrastate tributary
of Conococheague Creek, receives treated wastes from Mercersburg,
Pennsylvania. Both total and fecal coliform counts of 92,000
(July 1969) and 5,400 (August 1969) were recorded downstream from
Mercersburg.
Neither Pennsylvania's nor Maryland's interstate water quality
standards are being met in the Conococheague basin.
-------
ijooojtxxH
IOO.OOOH
E
O
2 IQOOO-
I
ipooH
100-
BACTERIOLOGICAL PROFILE
CONOCOCHEAGUE CREEK
JULY 38. 1969
TOTAL COLI FORMS
• FECAL COLIFORMS
O
(T
ffi
1
O
Ul
(T
60
50
40 30
RIVER MILES FROM POTOMAC
20
10
FIGURE
V-6
-------
-------
ipoopoo-
100,000-
g
o „
"e
o
Q>
%
10/DOO-
ipoo-
BACTERIOLOGICAL PROFILE
CONOCOCHEAGUE CREEK
AUGUST 18.1969
ui
CA
TOTAL COUFORMS
FECAL COLIFORMS
\
60
50
20
RIVER MILES FROM POTOMAC
10
FIGURE V-7
-------
V-13
D. OPEQUON CREEK
While Opequon Creek does not directly receive significant
quantities of waste, two of its tributaries, Abrams Creek and
Tuscarora Creek, receive large quantities of treated wastes from
Winchester, Virginia and Martinsburg, West Virginia. During the
August survey, total and fecal coliform counts exceeded 161,000 in
Abrams Creek, The influence Abrams Creek exerts on Opequon Creek
can readily be seen in Figures V-8 and V-9. Maximum total coliform
densities (161,000) and feeal coliform densities (35,000) in Opequon
Creek were both recorded in the vicinity of Abrams Creek, Tuscarora
Creek, to a lesser degree, also exerts an adverse effect on the
bacterial water quality of Opequon Creek. Fecal coliform counts
increased seven-fold during the July survey and three-fold during
the August survey at the station below Tuscarora Creek,
A bacteriological study of the upper Potomac, including a
station on the Opequon Creek below Martinsburg, was conducted by
CTSL from July 6 to September 8, 1966. In eighteen samples which
were collected during this period, fecal coliforms ranged from 1,300
to 35,000 (See Figure V-18).
The State of Virginia has not assigned bacterial water quality
standards to its portion of Opequon Creek, The West Virginia standards
were contravened on numerous occasions.
-------
-------
100.000 -,
BACTERIOLOGICAL PROFILE
OPEQUON CREEK
JULY 29. 1969
10.000 -
-------
IPOQ.OOO -I
100.000 -
(T
p
^<§
o o
BACTERIOLOGICAL PROFILE
OPEQUON CREEK
AUGUST 19.1969
A
\
10,000-
ipoo-
TOTAL COLIFORMS
•FECAL COLIFORMS
' 1 ' — 1 1
50 40 30
RIVER MILES FROM
zo 10 o
POTOMAC FIGURE V-9
-------
V-16
E. ANTIETAM CREEK
The Antietam Creels basin drains portions of Pennsylvania and
Maryland. The primary source of organic wastes within Pennsylvania
is Waynesboro and Hagerstown is the primary source in Maryland.
Water quality surveys conducted in the Antietam basin by CTSL
and the Maryland Department of Water Resources (MDWR) revealed
widely variable coliform and fecal coliforra populations. During
the July 1969 survey, total coliform counts were greater than
161,000 from Hagerstown to River Mile 4.6. Fecal coliform counts
throughout this 20 mile stream reach ranged from 161,000 (Hagerstown)
to 54,200 (River Mile 13.6). Upstream from Hagerstown, total coli-
form counts ranged from 17,200 to 161,000 (above and below Waynesboro)
and fecal coliforms ranged from 1,400 to 91,300. (See Tables in
Appendix)
The August 1969 survey showed a completely different distri-
bution of coliforms. Maximum total and fecal coliform counts greater
than l6l,000 were recorded from Waynesboro to Hagerstown. Between
Hagerstown and the mouth of Antietam Creek both total and fecal
coliforms ranged from 4,900 to 91,800.
During July 1969, the U. S. Geological Survey reported fecal
coliforms of 10,000 in Antietam Creek near Waynesboro, Pennsylvania
and 90 near Sharpsburg, Maryland. Data collected over the past five
years by personnel of the Hagerstown Sewage Treatment Plant (below the
outfall) show total coliforms ranging from 1 to 3,000.
-------
-------
V-17
The bacteriological (total coliform) standard set by Pennsylvania
is 2,400*. Recent sampling data indicate that this standard is not
being met in Antietam Creek. Maryland's fecal coliform standard
(less than 240) is also being contravened.
F. SHENANDOAH RIVER
The Shenandoah basin drains 3,054 square miles in Virginia
and West Virginia. Because of its size, more bacteriological data
for more stations has been collected from the Shenandoah than from
any other stream in the upper Potomac basin.
The most recent intensive bacteriological surveys conducted by
CTSL were during July 28-29, 1969 and August 18-19, 1969. Total and
fecal coliform populations measured in the South River-South Fork-
Shenandoah River during these surveys are shown in Figures V-10 and
V-ll.
Fecal coliform densities in excess of 20,000 were recorded down-
stream from the North River confluence, downstream from Elkton, and
immediately upstream from Front Royal, Virginia. Moreover, a fecal
count in excess of 10,000 was recorded downstream from the North
Fork confluence. Total coliforms at each of these locations ranged
from about 20,000 to 35,000.
Bacterial pollution in Middle River adversely affects the South
Fork. During the July survey, many sampling stations throughout the
Middle River sub-basin, including the North River, indicated total
and fecal coliform counts of 160,900. Minimum counts of 22,100 total
* For the period 5/15-9/15 only
-------
-------
Ul
V)
o:
I
LJ
to
I
-------
swaojnoo ivoaj ONV
FK5I.SE V-ll
-------
V-20
and 34,800 fecal coliforms were recorded in Middle River. The two
major pollution sources are Harrisonburg on the North River and
Staunton on the Middle River.
The South River-South Fork-^Shenandoah River data collected by
CTSL during its August survey exhibited a five-fold increase in
fecal coliforms at the confluence of the Middle River and a ten-fold
increase at the confluence of the North Fork Shenandoah River. Maxi-
mum total and fecal coliform densities (54,000 and 34,000) were
recorded near Waynesboro and at River Mile 5,0.
During August, the coliform counts were again high in the North
and Middle rivers. The North River had total coliform counts of
13,000 and 24,000 and the Middle River had fecal coliform densities
as high as 160,900.
Unusually high stream flows occurred during the August 1969
survey. The differences in coliform densities and trends along the
main stem Shenandoah River (between River Miles 51 and 5), as shown
in Figures V-10 and V-ll, may be attributed to this substantially
increased stream flow.
The North Fork Shenandoah River was also bacteriologically
polluted. During July 1969, total coliforms ranged from 2,600 to
160,900 and fecal coliforms ranged from 3,100 to 91,800, the highest
coliform counts occurred in the vicinity of New Market and Edinburg.
A bacteriological study of the entire Shenandoah basin was con-
ducted by CTSL during June 1967 [1]. The data compiled from this
study generally agree with the findings presented above. High fecal
-------
V-21
coliform counts were recorded in the North Fork Shenandoah at
Timberville (91,800), New Marker (9,180), and near Qu!cksb-jrg (5,420).
Corresponding total coliform counts at these stations ranged from
5-4,200 to 160,900. Maximum fecal counts in the Scuth Fork (490-5,400)
occurred downstream from Elkton. Relatively high concentrations
(180-2,100) were also recorded in the South Fork down?tream from the
Middle River confluence. North Rive'" exhibited a maximum fecal coli-
form count of 4,600 and a maximum total coliform count of 160,900,
Fecal coliform counts in Middle Rivei* ranged from 20 to ^90 and counts
in the main stem Shenandoah River were generally le,-?3 than 20,
The temporal variation in coliform organism? in the Shertandoah
basin is quite significant. A special study was conducted by CTSL
from July to September 1966 to determine the extant of temporal
variation. Based upon 13 samples, the South Fork exhibited a fecal
coliform range of 20 to 16,000; the range in the North Fork was
1,720 to 24,000. Fecal coliform counts in the Sheriariioab. River at
Harper's Ferry are presented in Figure 7-12, Extreme temporal
fluctuations can readily be seen, at this station despite the fact
that stream flows were relatively constant '260 to 6?4 of;?.} over
the sampling period.
Extensive sampling data collected over the past thrss years
indicate that bacteriological water quality standards f wh^e
established in the Shenandoah ba,sin, were generally not being met
under any flow conditions.
-------
IO.OOO,OOCH
ipoo.ooo-1
100.000-I
M
31
ui
lO^XX)
100-
BACTERIOLOGICAL PROFILE
SHENANDOAH RIVER at HARPERS FERRY
JULY-SEPTEMBER. 1966
10
JULY
20
30'
PERIOD
OF
16 AUGUST 2'°
RECORD
SEPT.
FIGURE V-12
8
-------
V-23
G. MONOCACY RIVER
The total and fecal coliform populations in the Mono-easy River
"basin during July and August 1969 were considerably greater than
populations measured in other areas of the upper Potomac basin. Of
the 13 stations sampled, ten stations produced total and fecal coli-
form counts in excess of 160,000 during the July study and five
stations produced like values during the August study.
Although the Monocacy basin receives wastewater discharges from
many sources, the largest of which is Frederick, Maryland,, the per-
sistence of high bacterial levels indicates that rural and urban runoff
also play a significant role in affecting water quality. During both
surveys stream flow was abnormally high which may have resulted in a
"flushing" of coliforms from the predominately agricultural watershed
and a "scouring" of sludge deposits along the stream bed.
The Maryland Department of Water Resources investigated the
bacteriological water quality of the Monocacy River from March to
December 1966 [2]„ It was concluded from this study that domestic
animals, primarily cattle, contribute most of the coliform organisms
upstream from Frederick. Maximum total coliform counts in the upper
Monocaey exceeded 2,000,000 with median counts over 9,000. The maxi-
mum values occurred during high stream flow periods.
Immediately below the city of Frederick, maximum total coliforms
during the MDWR survey exceeded 2,000,000 and median counts were
235,000. Relatively high coliform populations (greater than 100,000)
persisted downstream to the Potomac confluence. Maximum coliforms
-------
-------
in the lower Monocacy generally occurred when stream flows were
very low, an indication that surface runoff is a less significant
contributor of coliforms than it was in the upper reaches.
Long-term coliform data collected from the Monocacy River
(River Mile 2,0) "by the D, C. Department of Health, are shown in
Figure V-13. This figure shows that the coliform counts generally
increased over the past five years of record but with considerable
temporal variation. Maximum counts of 250,000 were recorded in
December 196? and July 1968, but high counts were also recorded
during other months.
Bacteriological data collected in the Monocacy by various
agencies indicate that the water quality standards were being contra-
vened throughout the year.
H. MAIN STEM
Survey data from the main stem Potomac River are presented for
July and August 1969 in Figures V-14 and V-15. Distribution of bac-
teria in the Potomac was similar in both the July and August surveys,
but the August survey generally yielded higher bacterial counts des-
pite comparable flows. Relatively high total coliform counts (54,000)
and fecal coliform counts (3,300) were recorded at Paw Paw, Maryland,
a station strongly influenced by the water quality in the North Branch
Potomac. The highest counts were at Great Falls where total and fecal
coliform counts were 160,000 and 10,900, respectively.
During the July and August surveys a sharp increase in bacterial
densities occurred between stations at River Mile 183.7 (Shepherdstown)
-------
-------
1.000,000-
100,000-
8
10.000-
1,000-
BACTERIOUOGICAL TRENDS
MONOCACY RIVER
(D.C DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH DATA)
1964
1965 1966 1967
YEAR OF RECORD
1968
FIGURE V-13
-------
UJ
LJ
M3AW ADVDONOW-
«3AI« HVOONVN3HS-
M33MO WV13UNV-
X33MD NO(103dO-
3T10V3HOO3ONCO-
33NVH9 HinOS ONV H1MON
i i i i—i—i—i r
i i i—i—r—i r
SWHQjnCO 1VD3J CJNV 1VJ.O1
FIGU« V-14
-------
-------
2
o:
UJ
£
d»ooi/u<)")
aw IVJ.CH
FIGURE V-15
-------
V- 28
and River Mile 125.7 (Great Falls). This increase may be the result
of bacterial pollution in Antietam Creek, the Shenandoah River, and
the Monocacy River. The wastewater discharges directly to the Potomac
River appear to have a lesser effect on its bacterial content than the
major tributaries do.
The bacteriological data for five years of record, collected at
Great Falls by the water supply facility at Dalecarlia, is shown in
Figure V-l6. A sharp rise over those five years is evident. Fecal
coliforra counts are also shown in Figure V-l6 for almost two years of
record (1967-68). During this period the temporal variation of fecal
coliforms closely paralleled the variation in total coliform organisms.
Maximum fecal counts (75,000-85,000) were measured at Great Falls during
July and August 1968 when total counts exceeded 140,000.
Similar long-term bacteriological data for the Potomac River at
Point of Rocks are shown in Figure V-17. When these data are compared
with the data presented in Figure V-13, it appears that the influence
of the Monocacy River on the bacterial water quality at Great Falls
results in higher bacterial counts than those found in the Potomac
at Point of Rocks„
The Maryland water quality standards of the Potomac River were
being contravened. Throughout the main stem of the Potomac River,
populations ranging from 1,000 to 10,000 were frequently recorded.
-------
1.000,000
BACTERIOLOGICAL TRENDS
POTOMAC RIVER of GREAT FALLS
(DALECARLIA DATA)
100.000-4
10,000--J
I000H
100 H
TOTAL COLIFORMS
FECAL COLIFORMS
10
1964
1965 1966
YEAR OF RECORD
1967
1968
FIGURE V-16
-------
wxxyxxH
BACTERIOLOGICAL TRENDS
POTOMAC RIVER at POINT OF ROCKS
(OiC DEPARTMENT OF HEAUH DATA)
KXWXX) ^
IXXX)
1964
1965
1966
YEAR OF RECORD
1967
FJGURE V-17
-------
V-31
I. DISCUSSION
Based upon the foregoing discussions, it is apparent that coliform
populations fluctuate greatly both temporally and spatially. It is
also apparent that bacterial water quality standards are being contra-
vened throughout the upper Potomac basin during all flow periods.
Despite all of the bacteriological data, there are two important
questions which cannot be answered "with any degree of certainty:
(l) the effect, if any, that stream flow and rainfall have on the
bacterial content of a stream, and (2) the significance of agricul-
tural, urban, and other land runoff as a contributor of coliform
bacteria. In order to adequately assess bacteriological water quality
in the upper Potomac, these questions must be answered.
Some insight into the second question can be obtained by examining
Figure V-18, wherein fecal coliform densities are plotted for two
watersheds that are geographically similar but with different land use.
Figure V-18 shows that the urbanized and agricultural Opequon basin
produced fecal coliforms an order of magnitude greater than the heavily
forested Cacapon basin.
In areas where consistently high fecal coliform counts are
encountered, a detailed sanitary survey should be conducted to ascertain
whether human wastes or other sources are the dominant cause of bacterial
contaminat ion.
-------
V-32
To minimize bacterial pollution of the receiving waters, chlori-
nation facilities are generally provided at all sewage treatment
plants. The effective operation of these facilities is the responsi-
bility of the various state health departments.
-------
100000-1
BACTERIOLOGICAL PROFILES
OPEQUON CREEK and CACAPON RIVER
JULY-SEPTEMBER. 1966
10,000-
3J 1000-
OPEQUON CREEK
CACAPON RIVER
1
A
100-
A
/I
I /
I /
I /
\ i
\i
\i
v
I /
i /
\i
V
10-
SEPT. 8
FIGURE V-18
T-
10
JULY
AUGUST
IS"
PERIOD OF RECORD
-------
VI-1
CHAPTER VI
DISSOLVED OXYGEN AND BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
A. NORTH BRANCH
The major sources of wastewater discharge in the North Branch
sub-basin are listed below:
Wastewater Discharge
Facility flow (mgd) BOD (Ibs/day)
West Virginia Pulp and Paper Co.* 11,0 16,000
Upper Potomac River Commission 21.0** 5,300
Keyser, West Virginia 0.6 400
Celanese Fibers Company 3.0 25,000
Cumberland, Maryland 5.2 6,930
As a result of loadings from West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company and
the Upper Potomac River Commission facility, the dissolved oxygen (DO)
from Luke, Maryland to Keyser, West Virginia was often below 1.0 mg/1
(Figure VI-1). The Maryland water quality standard for this reach
is 4.0 mg/1.
As a result of the BOD loadings from Celanese Fibers Company, the
DO of the North Branch from Amcelle to Cumberland was often below
1.0 mg/1 in the summer months. Hydrogen sulfide gas was detected in
the small impoundment at Cumberland indicating septic conditions.
* Now Westvaco
** About 20.0 mgd is from the West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company
-------
-------
Ct
UJ
u. 2
Q
a
O
CD
O>
CO
F- ~
O o>
CL?
IS
§3
X
CC
O
dis
'dMOO
3S3NV13D-
dJ.S M3SA3M-
diS NOISSIWWOO
«3AI« DVWOlOd «3ddn-
ODVA1S3M-
«3AW 39VAVS
ft
•*
(M
(VI
1
O
CO
(M
I
00
I
(O
(Vt
(I/5™)
oa-aoa
FiGCRE VM
-------
-------
VI-3
During an intensive survey by CTSL in August of 1966, DO concen-
trations of less than 2.0 mg/1 were observed downstream to Spring
Gap, a distance of about ten miles from Cumberland, Maryland. Low
DO concentrations with high BOD levels were also observed in this same
reach in July 1969 (Figure VI-1). The DO standard for this reach is
5.0 mg/1.
B. SOUTH BRANCH
Compared to the North Branch, the South Branch of the Potomac
River receives relatively small volumes of wastewater as tabulated
for the major facilities below:
Wastewater Discharge
Facility Flow (mgd) BOD (Ibs/day)
Petersburg, W. Va. 0.27 75
Loewengart & Company 0.40 790
Moorefield, W. Va. 0.04 240
Rockingham Poultry 0.15 670
Romney, W. Va. 0.34 200
Berkeley Springs, W. Va. 0.17 280
Although localized pollution has been observed, the DO concentrations
in South Branch were usually above 6.0 mg/1. The standard for DO is
5.0 mg/1 for this reach of the Potomac.
C. CONOCOCHEAGUE CREEK
The major wastewater discharges on the Conococheague watershed
are presented below;
-------
VI-4
Wastewater Discharge
Facility glow (mgd) BOD (Ibs/day)
Chambersburg, Pa. 1.80 730
H. J. Heinz Co., Pa. 0.43 290
Loewengart & Co., Pa. 0.18 590
Mercersburg, Pa. 0.22 60
Greencastle, Pa. 0.13 50
W. D. Byron Co. 0.37 1,390
Water quality data for the July and August 1969 survey indicate
DO levels greater than 5.8 mg/1 for all the sampling stations. While
the BOD concentrations varied from about 2.0 to over 7.0 mg/1, the
assimilative capacity of the Conococheague appears adequate to main-
tain DO levels over 5.0 mg/1, A Pennsylvania water quality network
station near Worleytown established in 1962 also confirms high DO con-
centrations in the Conococheague.
D. OPEQUON CREEK
The major Opequon Creek sub-basin wastewater discharges containing
organic matter are listed below:
Wastewater Dis charg e
Facility Flow (mgd) BOD (ibs/day)
Winchester, Va. 2.40 460
0'Sullivan Rubber Co., Va. 2.10 unknown
Clearbrook Woolen Mills, Va. 0.20 unknown
Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., W. Va. 0.62 420
Musselman-Pet Milk Co., W. Va. 0,30 1,500
Martinsburg, W. Va. 1.50 950
Corning Glass Works, W. Va. 0.53 35
The BOD concentrations in Abrams and Tuscarora creeks for the
1969 surveys were 5.0 mg/1 and the BOD at the other stations ranged
between 2.2 and 5.0 mg/1. At all stations the DO was above 5.0 mg/1.
(See Appendix A for data listing.)
-------
VI-5
Wastewater
Flow (mgd)
1.96
0.14
5.58
0.18
0.25
0.10
Discharge
BOD (Ibs/day)
285
5
6,900
45
260
110
High nutrient levels were also observed in the Abrams and Tus-
carora creelcs and this is discussed in Chapter X. In general, streams
in this watershed are in compliance with the water quality standards.
E. ANTIETAM CREEK
The major wastewater discharges in the Antietam Creek sub-basin
are;
Facility
Waynesboro, Pa.
Ft. Ritchie, Md,
Hagerstown, Md.
Fairchild-Hiller Corp., Md.
Halfway, Md.
Sharpsburg, Md.
The major source of BOD is from the Hagerstown sewage treatment
facility, which causes a significant DO depression during low flow
conditions (Figure VI-2). The rapid DO recovery indicates high reaer-
ation rates in Antietam Creek.
Diurnal observations during a cooperative study by MDWR and
CTSL demonstrated the typical daylight-dark diurnal fluctuations of
DO and C02 associated with aquatic plant growths [2]. In the
Antietam watershed, most of the growths were rooted aquatic plants
and phytoplankton.
F. SHEMNDOAH RIVER
The Shenandoah sub-basin is the largest tributary of the Potomac
River.
-------
diS
2
2
00
i^ i
(O V
I
U-
O
I
*
-------
VI-7
1. North Fork
In the North Fork Shenandoah watershed, which is mainly forested,
the major wastewater discharges are as follows;
Was t ewa t er Dis charg e
Facility Flow (mgd) BOD (Ibs/day)
Broadway, Va. 0.13 35
Rockingham Poultry Corp. 0.50 650
Shenandoah Valley Packers 0.20 290
New Market, Va. 0.35 355
Caroline Foods 0.17 unknown
Mt. Jackson, Va. 0.11 130
Shenandoah Mfg. Co. 0.30 170
Blue Ridge Poultry & Egg Co. 0.07 750
Woodstock, Va. 0.35 90
Strasburg, Va. 0.30 100
During the June 1967 intensive survey by CTSL, low BOD concen-
trations, with corresponding high DO levels, were observed except near
Timberville and on Smith Creek near New Market where low DO values
were measured. Similar observations were made during the July and
August 1969 surveys. The DO depressions occurred downstream from the
several wastev/ater discharges.
2. South Fork
The upper South Fork Shenandoah is composed of three tributaries—
North, Middle, and South rivers. The major wastewater discharges in
the tributaries and the mainstream are identified separately below:
-------
VI-8
Facility
a. North River
Va. Valley Processes, Inc.
Bridgewater, Va.
Dayton, Va.
Harrisonburg, Va.
b. Middle River
Verona San. Dist.
Staunton, Va.
Western State Hospital
c. South River
Crompton Shenandoah Co.
E. I. DuPont Co.
Waynesboro, Va.
d. Main Stem South Fork
Merck & Co.
Elkton, Va.
Rockingham Poultry
Moyer Brothers
Va. Oak Tannery Co.
Luray, Va.
Amer. Viscose Corp.
Front Royal, Va.
Wastewater
Flow (mgdl
0.10
0.26
0.16
2.25
0.13
1.50
0.25
0.89
11.00
2.30
7.70
0.25
0.07
0.10
0.43
0.28
8.64
1.20
Discharge
BOD (Ibs/day)
1,000
430
270
1,100
35
410
70
920
1,800
645
3,500
250
300
1,700
500
420
9,350
1,000
There are five reaches of the South Fork in which water quality
degradation occurs as a result of wastewater discharges. These are
(1) South River "below Waynesboro; (2) Grassy Run below Harrisonburg;
(3) South Fork below Elkton; (4) Hawksbill Creek below Luray and
(5) Main Stem at Front Royal. Of the five areas, the most critical
in terms of DO is the South River (Figure VI-3). Grassy Creek, which
receives wastes from the Harrisonburg area,, also had DO ranging from
-------
ho
3
. Q
» 2
-------
VI-10
1.7 to 3.2 mg/1 with a BOD level greater than 13 mg/1 during an
intensive survey in June of 1967.
On the main stem of the South Fork below Elkton, BOD concentra-
tions ranging from 5.7 to over 15.0 mg/1 were measured in June of
1967. This varying BOD loading resulted in a DO variation from
4.5 to 15.8 ing/1.
Data from the July 1969 survey indicated that the water quality
in Hawksbill Creek is degraded as a result of industrial wastes.
More data are required to evaluate the extent of the degradation.
Discharges in the Front Royal area have the greatest adverse
effect on the main stem of the Shenandoah. This is presented in the
following section.
3. Main Stem of Shenandoah River
The main stem receives the residual wastewater discharges from
the Front Royal area and from the major sources discharging into
tributaries of the main stem as listed below:
Wastewater Discharge
Facility Flow (mgd) BOD Clbs/day)
Berryville., Va. 0.25 104
Charlestown, W. Va. 0.38 443
Halltown Paperboard Co. 1.00 4?200
During the June 1967 survey, the DO in the main stem between
Front Royal and Harper's Ferry varied from 5.2 mg/1 at night to
12.9 mg/1 in the daytime. The BOD during the survey also varied
diurnally from 5.2 to 11.3 mg/1. For the July and August 1969
-------
VI-11
survey, somewhat lower DO concentrations were observed, ranging from
5.1 to 6.7 mg/1.
The mean monthly data for the nutrient water quality network
station at Berryville, West Virginia (Figure VI-4) indicate that the
stream is in compliance with the water quality standard at this point.
G. MONOCACY RIVER
The major wastewater discharges in the Monocacy River watershed
are listed below;
Wastewater Discharge
Facility Flow (mgd) BOD (Ibs/day)
Gettysburg, Pa. 0.90 375
Littlestown, Pa. 0.26 130
Emmitsburg, Md. 0.21 55
Taneytown, Md. 0.19 120
Westminster, Md. 0.00 410
Union Bridge, Md. 0.10 30
Camp Detrick, Md. O.£0 10
Frederick, Md. 4.33 9,660
The largest source of pollution is the Frederick waste treatment
facility. The wide range of BOD in the Frederick facility's effluent,
caused by varying industrial wastewater loadings into the treatment
plant and extensive algal and rooted aquatic growth in the river itself,
is shown in the diurnal DO profile (Figure VI-5).
During low flow conditions, the DO in the main stem downstream
from the Frederick facility was often below 5.0 mg/1. The river
recovers rapidly as shown in Figure VI-5. Near the confluence'with
the Potomac River, the monthly average was 6.0 nqg/1 and higher, and
the average monthly BOD was about 2.0 mg/1 (Figure VI-6).
-------
BOD-DO CONCENTRATIONS *
MAIN STEM SHENANDOAH RIVER at
BERRYVILLE, W. Va.
1961-1964
14-
12-
10-
8-
O
Q -~
0
CD
2-
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DATA
1961
1962
1963
1964
FIGURE VI-4
-------
QC
rO
-o
m
a
i
-o
(M
FIGURE VI-5
-------
MEAN MONTHLY BOD and DO *
MONOCACY RIVER near CONFLUENCE with POTOMAC RIVER
1965-068
16-
12-
10-
a g»
oj
oo
8-
6-
4-
1965
DO
SAMPLED BY D.C. HEAUH DEPARTMENT
BOD
1966
1967
1968
FIGURE Vh«
-------
VI-15
H. MAIN STEM POTOMAC RIVER
From the confluence with the North and South branches to the
Potomac Estuary the major wastewater discharges to the main stem are;
Was t ewat er Dis charg e
Facility Flow (mgd) BOD (Ibs/day)
Paw Paw, W. Va. 0.10 50
Hancock, Md. 0.38 45
Williamsport, Md. 0.23 430
Shepherdstown, W. Va. 0.14 235
Halfway, Md. 0.25 260
Sharpsburg, Md. 0.10 109
Brunswick, Md. 0.40 435
Figures VI-7, VI-8, and VI-9 for the Potomac River at Williams-
port, Point of Rocks, and Great Falls, respectively, show that the
mean monthly DO at these stations was usually greater than 6.0 mg/1
except for the months of July and August 1963 at Great Falls. DO
concentrations greater than 6.0 mg/1 were also recorded during the
July and August 1969 surveys.
The BOD levels at all three stations, also shown in Figures VI-7,
VI-8, and VI-9, indicate low levels of oxidizable organic matter.
At Great Falls, the concentration of BOD ranged from about 1.0 to
4.0 mg/1 while at Williamsport the levels were lower, ranging from
about 0.5 to 3.0 mg/1.
-------
-1-
o
00-COS
FIGURE VI-7
-------
0-
MEAN MONTHLY BOD and DO
POTOMAC RIVER at POINT of ROCKS
RIVER MILES = 163.0
1965 -1968
DO
* SAMPLED BY D.C. HEALTH DEPARTMENT
BOD
FIGURE VI-8
-------
o •*
O co
1^
° ^ $
CD g ,,
O
g
ni o
OQ-OCM
vi-9
-------
VI-19
The monthly BOD loadings in the Potomac River at Great Falls
from January to August 1969 are shown in Table VI-1. The average
BOD load (107,800 Ibs/day) during this period represents 45 percent
of the total BOD discharged into the upper Potomac Estuary from
all sources.
-------
H
H
a
o
o
o
0) >?
bDH
O
C- CO
-------
VII-1
CHAPTER VII
PESTICIDES
A. GENERAL
Pesticides are chemical compounds, either natural or synthetic,
used to control unwanted or noxious animals and plants. They fall
into four general classifications depending upon their chemical
composition:
(l) Chlorinated hydrocarbons (DDT - dieldrin, heptachlor,
endrin, aldrin, etc.)
(2) Organic phosphorus compounds (parathion, malathion,
phosdrin, etc4)
(3) Other organic compounds (denithophenols, carbonates,, etc.)
(4) Inorganic compounds (copper sulfate, lead arsenate, zinc
phosphide, etc.)
The chlorinated hydrocarbons constitute the most common type of
insecticide currently used0
B. WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
The Committee on Water Quality Criteria, Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, has published recommended pesticides concen-
trations for various water uses [33. Criteria pertaining to the
common chlorinated hydrocarbons are as follows:
-------
VII-2
1. Public Water Supplies
Permissible*
Constituent Criteria
(ug/1)
Aldrin 17.0
DOT 42.0
Dieldrin 17.0
Endrin 1.0
Heptachlor 18.0
Heptachlor epoxide 18.0
2. Fish and Aquatic Life
Aldrin, BHC, endrin, heptachlor, DDT, and dieldrin are all
acutely toxic to aquatic populations at concentrations of 5 ug/1
and less. Based on the assumption that 1/100 of this concentration
represents a reasonable application factor, the levels of these
substances in the marine or freshwater environment should not
exceed 50 nanograms/liter (0.05 ug/1).
3. Wildlife
A limited knowledge of the dynamics of biological magnification
in wildlife habitats does not permit the realistic establishment of
tolerable pesticide criteria.
* The permissible levels are based upon recommendations of the
Public Health Service Advisory Committee on use of the PBS
Drinking Water Standards.
-------
VII-3
4. Agricultural (Irrigation, farmstead, and livestock water supply)
Recommended*
Constituent Criteria
(ug/1)
Aldrin 17.0
DDT 42.0
Dieldrin 17.0
Endrin 1.0
Heptachlor 18.0
Heptaehlor epoxide 18.0
C. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
Analytical pesticide data for the upper Potomac River basin,
are presented in Tables VII-1 through VII-5. The long-term data
(Tables VII-1 and VII-3) were collected at three water quality net-
work stations (FWPCA) and the remaining data were collected at
CTSL stations during September 1968 (Table VII-4) and August 1969
(Tables VII-5). All samples were analyzed at the FWPCA laboratory
in Cincinnati, Ohio within certain detectable limits (Table VII-6).
An examination of the results indicates that most pesticide
determinations were negative; however, many samples showed trace
quantities of certain chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides and
samples collected in the Potomac River at Great Falls and in
Antietam Creek showed significant quantities of DDT, dieldrin., and
endrin., The 0,666 ug/1 of dieldrin and the 0.17 ug/1 of DDT
measured in Antietam Creek and the maximum endrin concentration
(0.094 ug/l) measured at Great Falls exceeded the recommended
criteria of these constuents for fish and aquatic life (0.05 ug/1).
* Same as criteria prescribed by PBS Drinking Water Standards
-------
VII-4
In view of the limited number of pesticide analyses currently
available, it is essential that a more representative water quality
sampling program having a minimum duration of one year "be initiated
to obtain the necessary data for assessing potential pesticide
pollution problems in the upper Potomac basin.
-------
o co o
iJ Q Q o
~— o o o
B o o d
iS
o o o
o o o
w
k 8 8 %
18 odd
I a g H 13
H o B ^ d ^ ooo
H 1 3
O O O
odd
g M
Q) (I)
H 3
0) "eg
H >>
ri
^ 0)
o 43
IU
+3 d
a
&
-f ra
u m
«D
r^
o o o
43 0)
a i-i
Cl 0)
-L> JJ
•? +3
43 43 43
s s §
m m
Q) 0)
ft ft
in ra ra
0) QJ
•*i
is
o o o
o o o
43 43 43
gag
O S 5)
3 3 P
-P +3 -P
•H -H -ri
•P -P P
OOO
\O
-------
o'ddddddddoddddddd
QoUddddddoooododddod
-ddddodddoododdood
idddddoddddoodoooo
01
i
OO
CO
o
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
3
8
8 8
8
51 8
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
f
ddddddddddooddddd
dddoddddddddddddd
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
-------
I
H
H
>
o o o o o
do do do
o o o o o o
O O O O O O O
! o o o o d d
O O \O Q Q O
o o q o o o
d d d d d d
o o o o o o
M
h^l O r-i OO Q Q Q
"^ O O 00 Q O Q
rh O O O O O O
o d d d d d
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
-^ -* -* lf\ VO (—
VO VC VO \O VO VO
o\ vo on cvj on o\
CM W
-------
I
o o
o o
o o
o" d
O
O
O
w>
3
§Q
o
o o
o
8
o
8
o
8
o
8
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
8
O
8
o
o
o
C)
8
o"
I
d
8 8
o c>
O
O
V
H
-------
LA
1
H
j— (
^>
a
1
CQ
-P
CO
CD
ON
H
1 ^
C^ M
^5 o
<; -H
-P CD
1 O -P
<; HP
EH H
a s
H
H
O
EH
CO
ti
O
•H
-P
03
o
Q
[_3
bQ
, i
rn
H
&
§
CO
CD
-P
O
CD
-P
CD
1
^
1
0
O
o
a
ON
VD
H 0
H 00
CO H
a3
^_i
S
•H
K
O
fa
O
-P
O
PM
-------
TABLE VII-6
PESTICIDES ANALYZED AND
MINIMUM DETECTABLE LIMITS
Compound Minimum Detectable Concentration
ng/1
Dieldrin 5
Endrin 5
DDT 10
DDE 5
Heptachlor 5
Heptachlor Epoxide 5
Aldrin 5
BHC 5
Endosulphan 5
Chlordane (Tech.) 25
Toxaphene 1^ 000
Methoxychlor 25
* ng/1 = nannograms/liter
-------
VIII-1
CHAPTER VIII
THERMAL DISCHARGES
A. GENERAL
Thermal discharges may be defined as any discharge which has
been artificially heated above the natural temperature of the receiving
water. Tremendo\;ts amounts of water are used by the power generating
industries for condenser cooling and subsequently discharged as thermal
wastes. While power generation represents the principal source of
thermal wastes in the upper Potomac River basin, other industries
involved with manufacturing processes requiring cooling water also con-
tribute a significant amount of thermal discharge.
The emission of heated water, especially in large quantities,
exerts an adverse effect on the aquatic environment because of changes
in the physical, chemical, and biological properties of water. Fore-
most among these effects are (1) a reduction in the solubility of
oxygen and other gases, (2) an increase in metabolic activity with
abnormal growth and reproduction patterns in all freshwater and
marine organisms, and (3) a greater sensitivity of these organisms
to toxic substances due to synergistic action.
An acute awareness and concern over large thermal waste dis-
charges has recently occurred. This concern is manifested by the
establishment of temperature criteria in all Federal-State water
quality standards. The temperature criteria applied to Maryland
streams which receive significant quantities of thermal wastes are
presented in Table VIII-1.
-------
o ON o ON
CO • CO-
ON PO ON f*~)
00 CO
lAo
ONlrt
CO
IfNo lAo ^ •
O\1A O\1A CO O
CO CO CO
S
I
o rl
0 S
4?
L
§
:*
1
i! 3
0)
ts
W
I
(D
W
01
3
+3
W
1
ffi
0)
a
I
I
I
If
0)
ft
jg
-------
VIII-3
B. SOURCES AND THERMAL CONDITIONS
Major sources of thermal wastes in the upper Potomac basin are
presented in Table VIII-2. Also given are the receiving waters and
waste flow for each source.
Average monthly temperatures for the past five years of record at
representative stations throughout the upper Potomac River basin are
presented in Table VIII-3. These temperatures were extracted from
the compilation of data published annually by the Interstate Commission
on the Potomac River Basin (INCOPOT). The temperature values shown
in the table indicate that water quality standards were being met in
the four sub-basins investigated despite the fact that these streams
receive large quantities of heated wastes!
The most critical sub-basin was the North Branch Potomac where
temperatures exceeding 30°C. (86°F.) were quite common. Heated dis-
charges from the West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company (between
Stations 338.2 and 337.5) generally raised stream temperatures more
than 5°C. Moreover, the Celanese Fibers Company in Ameelle, Maryland
(Station 314) created an additional rise in temperature averaging 3°C.
Water temperatures in the North Branch Potomac at Cumberland, Maryland
(Station 308) remained relatively high due to the heated discharge
from Potomac Edison Company's steam electric plant immediately up-
stream. If future expansion of these industries result in greater
usage of cooling water, a thermal pollution problem in the North Branch
Potomac River will occur unless corrective measures are undertaken.
-------
s
I
I
1)
I
S
a
O
CO
•ri
K
0)
3
Ai
I
0)
g
•s '•§ •§
Q P Q
V
S
AS
I
g
o>
>j
I
K
|
§
0)
g
1
.p
co
i:
h
fc
o
5
H
I
•ri
bO
h
•ri
4J
W^-' «v
•P
CQ
S
CJ
§
in
O
S
O
O
H
O\
?!
-------
0
i
"Q
•H
I
!
I 1
<< a *
•? 1 S
H >E'~S
1 I Is
1
U
^
*
1
t:
d>
^ O -d" u*\ -3" Ox u\ \o vQ -J" ir\ t — ii
•o CM CVJ CU H Oj C\J <\) OJ OJ O4
$
H U O I OJ ON HJ-.CVIl H t— LTN CVI
OI 0 CU CVIH CMCMCM CM H CVI CM
IOONI-4-O i-tLALAI 1ILAI
OoH CVIOJ CMCVICM CM
H'
1
1 O LA ^O LA LA CO t — VO CO V£) OS VO l^~
Ho CMCVICMCVI rHOJOJCVI CVICMCV1H
H-
-*
'•fs
10 ro^J-rOLA Is-v^icoco >-O t— ^* t-
-Ho CVICVICMOJ MCVIOJCVI CVICMCVIH
0
10 roiACUOs OLAroro cM-*-=tC^~
Ho OICMCVIH CMCMOJCM OJCMOJrH
-t
\o
tr—
IO ro-*CVJCO CO-*CMrH HLTvcot^
H_o CMCMCMr-1 HCVICVICVI Cvicvl'cMH
H
O
-OO LAHOscO Hr-IHaN -^rOHO
Oo CMroOJCM rorococu cvlrorocvl
-*O CVJOLAlA S-OOCO t-OSILA
Ho cvlroCMOJ ojcorocvi CMCM co
uA
^~• O OS VO LA ON V£) t — LA CM ON \O VO O
rOo HOJCMrH CMOJCMCM rHcMCMCV)
OJ
X3O LAOCTVLA HHt^LA t^CMVOLA
rOo HCVIHH OJCMHH HCVIHH
no
H1K--P O it • 4? >-4?
gHMft SHMU Id¥w
333U 33?a> 3;3?3?
l-3h) •? CQ
t--
VD
o\
H
CVI \O V£>
OJ OJ CM
?} CM
co vo i
H CVI
ro CO VQ
CM CM OJ
LA OS -^
CM CM OJ
O -4" IA
CM OJ CM
ON OJ -4-
r-( CM CM
t- -4- OS
CVI ro CVI
1 ' co
CO OS LA
CVI CM CO
Si Si Si
Hi
H
SJ
'
0
Si
OS
H
•3
o
CO
t—
CVI
OJ
a
i
m
-------
VIII-6
In addition to INCOPOT data, other temperature data collected by
CTSL and the U. S, Geological Survey were also analyzed. A water
quality survey in the North Branch Potomac River was conducted "by
CTSL during August 1967. Temperatures ranging from 28°C. to 36°C.
were observed at the Luke-Piedmont Bridge, downstream from the West
Virginia Pulp and Paper Company. Although water quality standards
assigned to this stream reach by the State of Maryland were not being
contravened based upon CTSL data, a potential problem nevertheless
exists„
The U, S. Geological Survey maintains gaging stations on the
North Branch Potomac River at Luke and Cumberland, Maryland, and
routinely records water temperature data at these gages, USGS data
yielded results comparable to those already presented.
Extensive temperature and corresponding biological data have not
been collected in the immediate vicinity of the two largest thermal
waste discharges in the upper Potomac basin; namely, Virginia Electric
and Power Company at Mount Storm, West Virginia and Potomac Edison
Power Company at Biekerson, Maryland. It is necessary to collect
such data before the effects of these facilities on the thermal
regime of the receiving streams can be evaluated.
-------
IX-1
CHAPTER IX
MINE DRAINAGE - GENERAL SUMMARY
A cooperative Federal-State comprehensive water quality study
of the North Branch Potomac River basin was conducted from March 1968
to May 1969 to identify the principal sources of mine drainage and to
ascertain the effects of acid tributary flows on the North Branch
Potomac River [4]. Eighteen stations were sampled bi-weekly for
pertinent water quality indicators. The data obtained during this
survey indicated that mine drainage has created extremely low pH
levels which are destroying all forms of aquatic life in more than
4.0 miles of the North Branch Potomac and more than 100 miles of
tributary streams. Moreover, the excessive acid, solids, and metals
such as iron and manganese in mine drainage are having a deleterious
effect on the North Branch as a source of municipal and industrial
water supply.
The tributary streams in the Potomac basin producing most of the
acid are outlined below:
Average
Watershed Acid Load State
(Ibs/day)
Elk Run 35,000 West Virginia
Laurel Run 13,000 Maryland
Buffalo Creek 15,000 West Virginia
Abram Creek 8,000 West Virginia
Stony River 4,500 West Virginia
Three Forks Run 3,300 Maryland
Piney Swamp Run 3,200 . West Virginia
Unnamed Tributary 1,500 West Virginia
Lostland Run 1,000 Maryland
-------
IX-2
Approximately 79,000 Ibs/day of acid is presently being contributed
by streams within the State of West Virginia and approximately 39,000
Ibs/day by streams within the State of Maryland. These estimates
represent 67 percent and 33 percent, respectively, of the total acid
load in the North Branch Potomac River at Beryl, West Virginia.
Although the Beryl station drains 287 square miles, approximately 54
percent of its acid originates from only 20.6 square miles comprising
the watersheds of Elk Run, Laurel Run, and Buffalo Creek,,
A summary of the 1968-69 water quality data for the North Branch
Potomac River is presented in Figure IX-1. An examination of these
data indicates that the North Branch Potomac was continuously acid from
Steyer, Maryland to Beryl, West Virginia, a reach representing approxi-
mately 30 miles. This stream reach is also characterized by pH levels
generally less than 4.0, whereas the Maryland water quality standards
prescribe a minimum pH of 6.0. In the past, large alkaline loads in
the Luke-West err-part,, Maryland area (West Virginia Pulp and Paper
Company and Upper Potomac Commission's sewage treatment plant) have
normally prevented acidic conditions in the North Branch Potomac from
extending further downstream.
Recently, however, a reduction in the alkalinity from the West
Virginia Pulp and Paper Company, combined with a "slug" of mine
drainage flushed out of the critical acid-producing watersheds by
excessive rainfall, resulted in exceptionally low pH values in the
North Branch Potomac River beyond Cumberland, Maryland, The data
collected in the vicinity of Cumberland during a special GT3L survey
-------
7.0-
6.0-
5.0-
4-0-1
J
1968-69 SURVEY DATA
NORTH BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER
-480-i
-520-1
LEGEND
{MAXIMUM
MEAN
MINIMUM
-560-j
-600-*
1.000-
900-
800-
700-
600-
§ 500-
400-
300-
200-
100-
0-
c
I
^~^^
| 1
I
0 80 70 K 60 50 40
STREAM MILES
FIGURE IX-I
-------
-------
IX-4
on August 18, 1969, exhibited a pH range of 3»3 to 3,6, These low pH
levels appear to be the cause of a fish kill which occurred the pre-
ceding week near Qldtown, Maryland approximately ten miles downstream
from Cumberland,,
Since there are no large natural alkalinity sources in the North
Branch Potomac River upstream from Beryl, an extensive mine drainage
control program to eliminate practically all aeid discharges is
necessary to attain a water quality commensurate with approved water
quality standards. Based upon a preliminary appraisal, an annual
expenditure of $5,000,000 is required to provide necessary preventive,
collection, and treatment measures in the seven most critical water-
sheds of the Potomac basin. The first cost figure was estimated to be
about $32,500,000.
-------
X-l
CHAPTER X
NUTRIENTS
For the 1966 calendar year, a 40-station stream sampling network
was maintained by CTSL in the Potomac River basin. Based upon three
water quality network stations and data from the CTSL wastewater
loading surveys of 1966 and 1968, a detailed report on nutrient
sources and distribution has been prepared [ 5 ]. To further define
the nutrient forms entering the estuary from the upper basin, weekly
monitoring of nutrients at Great Falls is currently being conducted
as a component of a nutrient transport study in the Potomac Estuary,
A. SOURCES
1. Wastewater Loadings
As of December 1968, there were 256 wastewater discharges in the
upper Potomac River basin [ 6]. In the upper basin about 18,430
Ibs/day of total PO, and 10,680 Ibs/day of TKN were discharged to the
4
surface waters (Table X-l). For a sewered population of 403,500 this
reduces to 0,045 and 0.026 Ibs/capita/day of phosphorus and nitrogen,
respectively.
Nutrient loadings from industrial wastewater discharges are about
7,700 Ibs/day of total PO. and 4,600 Ibs/day of TKN. The industrial
4
contribution to wastewater nutrient loadings in the upper basin is
about 42 percent of the total PO (TPO ) and about 43 percent of the
4 4
total nitrogen. The amount of NOp + NO,, nitrogen in both the indus-
trial and municipal wastewater discharges is insignificant.
-------
TABLE X-l
NUTRIENT LOADINGS FROM WASTEWATER DISCHARGES
BY SUB-REGIONS*
Sub -Region
North Branch
South Branch and
Upper Region
Opequon
Conococheague
and Upper
Middle Region
Antietam and
Middle Region
Shenandoah
Catoctin Creeks
Md. and Va.
Monocaoy
Lower Region
Population
Served
79,200
17,300
34,800
26,900
61,500
108, 500
5,400
62,500
7,400
LOADING
BOD
Ibs/day
55,300
2,720
3,470
4,250
7,980
31,800
740
4,220
200
AFTER TREATMENT
TKW
Ibs/day
1,750
370
450
710
890
4,890
110
1,380
100
Ibs/day
4,850
460
1,100
1,050
2,380
6,360
220
1,830
ISO
TOTAL
403,500
110,680
10^680
18,^30
* A Sub-Region may include discharges to the small tributaries and to the main
stem of the Potomac.
-------
X-3
2. Land Runoff and Other Sources
To determine the amount of nutrients coming from land runoff,
analyses of loadings from areas with three distinct land uses
(forest,, agricultural, and urban) were made. Using the Oatoctin
Creek (Maryland) watershed basin as primarily agricultural, the
Patterson Greek watershed as forested, and Rock Creek watershed as
urban, the effect of land uses on the contribution of nutrients to
the surface waters is illustrated in Table X-20 These three areas
receive a relatively small wastewater volume.
Table X-2
NUTRIENT LOADINGS FROM WATERSHEDS WI'IH VARYING LAND USE
Watershed Drainage T PC as PC NO + NO,, as N TKN as N
and Area 4 4 d -5
Land Use (sq mi) (ibs/day/sq mi) (Ibs/day/sq mi) (Ibs/day/sq mi)
Patterson
Creek
(Forest) 279 0.50
Catoctin
Creek
(AgricJ 109 1.25
Rock
Creek
(Urban) 77 1.10
2002 0.41
5,30 0,65
2,70 0,67
-------
X-4
Using the same land use designations that the U. S. Corps of
Engineers used in their 1958 study [ 7], the nutrient loading from
land runoff was determined (Table X-3). It should be noted that the
largest contribution of nutrients is from agricultural runoff even
though over 62 percent of the basin is covered by forest.
B. SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION 1966
1. Phosphorus
As can be seen in the summary of the nutrient data for the major
sub-basins in Table X-4, the phosphorus concentrations were at least
three times greater in the Monocacy River, Opequon Creek, and Antietam
Creek sub-basins than in the remaining five sub-basins,, These three
sub-basins are primarily agricultural but receive considerable
quantities of municipal wastewater. These higher concentrations are
also reflected in large PC yields of from 3.6 to 4.8 Ibs/day sq.. mi.
4
as shown in Table X-4.
2. Nitrite + Nitrate and Total K.leldahl Nitrogen (TKN)*
The Conocheague, Antietam, Cpequon, and Monocacy sub-basins had
an average NCL + NCL nitrogen of 1.4 mg/1 and greater„ The Conococheague
and Monocacy sub-basins had nitrite and nitrate yields of over
10 Ibs/day/sq. mi., almost twofold larger than that of the remaining
four sub-basins.
* TKN in this report is defined as organic plus ammonia nitrogen.
-------
c^ O
« g
S3
CQ
co
s
EH
S3
CQ
cd
o
S3
1
CM
»
^j-
g
CQ
cS
s*
*
£— I
cd
<<
0)
CO
f~*>
Id
cd
t—i
§
^
«
r-
o
VD
•v
CM
*•"""».
•r
e
c
^v^
J>
CC
V.
ft
rH
* — •
s~*
0!
T3
^x^
CO
H
U"\
VD
o
o
o
lf\
•»
CM
X—N
•H
0
o
ra
cd
CO
i-H
In
ctf
\
CQ
H
O
•
VO
o
o
H
U"\
•H
g
o
CQ
cd
tJ
CQ
rH
x — *
•H
s
a
CQ
tf\
CM
e
rH
O
O
rH
Np
*
8
<— t
-P
rH
£j
O
•rl
r)
bo
O
OJ
^
CM
O
•
O
8
VO
rH
O
*
CM
O
O
-J
C"\
O
ir\
o
0
to
vo"
•p
CQ
CD
ri
Q
fe
lf\
VD
U^N
vo
O
g
OA
o
*
o'x
o
rH
O
»
rH
O
O
H
fi
cO
£_j
!=>
O
vr\
O
O
to
CM
O
rH
VD
to
to
*
o
O
m
I
rH fi
Ctl -H
-P CQ
O cd
EH M
CQ
•o
0
•cJ
fl
•H
a>
-p
H
r(
$
*
-------
X
^
i-l
0)
o
i
g ON ft
I
(Q
as
O
o
(Q
iQ P
03 fL,
O
^
•H
S
«
o1
03
I
so
05
oo
p
a
p
5
•H
9
CO
S
r-4
s
cd cS °H
' «) 8
C0 *3l 01
P tQ
CO*—
^t
CO
f—
vo
-4"
CM
c-
vo
CM
<*>
«n
CO
t—
oo
OJ
ON
0
H
IA
IA
CM
CM
l/N
CO
CM
OO
H
^— .
fi4
§s
fl8 *
^ $3
J2Q £E
43 *£$
Ti H
o o
I
CM
LA
CM
IA
IA
VO
Oy,
00
vo
ON
CM
VO
O
H
IA
OO
IA
».
H
ON.
O
0
tr\
i^f*
H
O o
a £5
05
b'
§o
OS
ON
O
*
OO
H
N-
H
OO
=4
in
ro
IA
r-5
H
VO
*
OJ
vo
CVi
cy
H
CM
f*"J
ON
VO
•
^4 ',]?'
0
4) .p
§> O
cd Pi
VD
OO
IA
0
e—
VO
^t
H
oH
OS
H
ON
-=fr
H
CO
£—
_d-
cn
U*N
m
0"*
H
VO
ON
ON
H
00
co
<.M
^•"V
p^4 *
0 'tJ
O «*-
s
S S
-p ^
g^
og
S3 °H
O 4>
o-T-i
S) Jfi
ftS
o-~--
8
IA
OO
CM
OJ
<»l
VD
ir\
vo
ON
VD
IA
q
IA
VD
IA
oo
as >
w
Sheaand
'Bloome
VO
IA
VO
O
VD
VO
co"
^t-
H
VO
.=?
IA
co
oo
00
vo
OT)
H
CO
«j> S
5 ,
*-g
f»a-H
O ^
«J _®
C nrj
O -
OO
-d
S
a?
«H
-P
oj
•p
O
60
5
H
S-i
O
I
c»
VO
g
•C!
«J
OJ
PQ
*
-------
X-7
Since the TKN determination was initiated in the midsummer of
1.966, annual loadings were not calculated for this parameter. The
average TKN concentration ranged from 0.017 to 0.784 mg/1.
C. NUTRIENT CONCENTRATIONS - 1969
Nutrient concentrations in the July and August 1969 surveys
corroborate the findings in 1966 (presented in Appendix A). The
nutrient concentrations for July 21-22, 1969, were the highest
in the Opequon, Antiet&m, and Monocacy sub-basins (Figure X-l).
Stream flow from the upper basin, including the North and South
branches, diluted the runoff containing the high nutrient levels
from the lower sub-basins.
Stations with high nutrient levels for selected watersheds are
presented below:
Station Stream Location
A-3 Antietam Creek below Eagerstown, Md0
MR-9 Little Pipe-Monocacy River near confluence with
Monocacy
MR-10 Monoeacy River below Md.-Pa. State Line
0-1 Abrams Crsek-Opequon Greek below Winchester,, ¥a0
0-7 Tuscarora Creek-Opequon Ck. below Afertinsburg, W. "Vac
S-4A South River-South Fork below Waynesboro, Va0
Shenandoah River
S-8 Grassy Creek-South Fork below Harrisonbut-g, Va,
Shenandoah River
Numerous other stations in the Monocacy sub-basin also had high
nutrient concentrations. During this surveyf rainfall was fairly
heavy throughout the watershed.
-------
+ IflAM A3V3ONOW—
U3AW HVOQNVN3HS
—X33«3 WVJL3I1NV
-8 •» - S5DOM JO
X33MO
M33IID
H3Afti NOdVOVD +
1
-STMJ J.V3HO
iMOd
-NMOISOa3Hd3HS
-XOOONVH
-MVd-WVd
-r
-ONIfllS ONVTOd
lNOWQ3ld
FIGUie X-l
-------
-------
X-9
For the August 17-18, 1969 survey, the concentration of nutrients
was also highest in the Opequon, Antietam, and Monocacy sub-basins
(Figure X-2). Although the base streamflow was higher than during
the July survey, the rainfall prior to the survey was less.
Sampling stations with high nutrient levels for selected sub-
basins in the August survey are summarized below:
Station Stream Location
A-3 Antietam Creek below Hagerstown, Md.
A-8 Antietam Creek below Waynesboro, Pa.
C-13 Conococheague Creek below Chambersburg, Pa.
MR-9 Little Pipe-Monocacy River near confluence with
Monocacy
MR-12 Rock Creek-Monocacy River below Gettysburg, Pa,
0-1 Abrams Creek-Opequon Creek below Winchester, Va.
0-7 Tuscarora Creek-Opequon Creek below Martinsburg, W. Va.
S-8 Grassy Creek-^South Fork- below Harrisonburg, Va.
Shenandoah River
D. EFFECTS IN THE UPPER BASIN
The data summarized in the tabulations indicate that high
concentrations of nutrients, especially phosphorus and ammonia, result
from municipal and industrial discharges. While the contribution from
land runoff is significant, the most pronounced increases in nutrients
are from point-source discharges.
Though the primary area of eutrophication is in the nutrient-rich
Potomac Estuary, water supply treatment operational problems have
occurred during periods of low flow for facilities on the main stem of
the Potomac at Great Falls and on the Monocacy River. These problems
-------
-r ui w
=i 3 -J
i|a
fc*3&
R* 2 S
II
II
s
-8
H3AIH ADV3ONOW H
(BAN HVOONVN3HS
WVJ.3UNV+
H33UO
K33U3 3T1DV3HOOOONOD
SYWd 1Y3MO
-8.
-SJOOM JO INIOd
•« NMQi
EON + 'ON
FIGURE X-2
-------
X-ll
are mainly associated with piiyt/iplanlcton growths. High growths &.;-•
measured by chlorophyll "a": wei-i otaervad during the August 1969 survey
in the Monoeacy and. along the main stem of the Potomac,
Heavy rooted aquatic growths are common in the Opequon^, Monoeacy,,
Conocosheague, and Antietam wat-^rifheds. These sub-basics are rich
in nutrients originating bcth frcoi land runoff and wastewater dis-
charges «,
In determird.ng the magnitude o/l" the eu-trophieation problem in
the free-flowing upper basir. strwams1,, it has been established that
the large rooted aquatic ar,d pri.ytr. plankton growth occurs during low
flow periods0 During' these period,^ the major source of nutrients
is from wastewater discharges,,
At higher flows, the transport of nutrients is greatly increased
and their effect in s,ccelerai:i::,g eatrophication if reduced„ Thus it
appears that the mo;;t significant c^uae of eatrophication is the con-
trollable point-source wust*? loaSings,
E. EFFECTS ON SiE E3;:\AS:;
Based, on regret 3i.rr: bj,sly;::Ie: e^v:atior>3 from 1966 nutrient n^f,-
work data, the average morrj.hly ratrient loadings at C;rsat Fall,j!
computed for the average flow ,yep,r were 21^200; 8,200; and 72,000
Ibs/day of tctal phcsphor^' t^ ?0 j XK\'j and N00 + W^ nitrogen,
4 £ ;>
respectively [8], Che daily \iar-iati,xa in nutrient loading is quits
pronounced and is a fur,ctior. c-.f -jtreamflow. During the month of
August 1966,, less thr,n 1/000 Tt>Vday of tctal phcsphor^is as PO, and
4
NOp + N€L as N entered Ihe upper estuary from the upper basin while
-------
X-12
on February 14, 1966, about 217,000 and 354,000 Ibs/day of PO and
4
N0p + NO-, respectively, entered the estuary.
The streamflow hydrography of the Potomac at Great Falls for
the first eight months of 1969 was not typical. The flows were at a
record low for the month of June with high flows occurring in August
(Figure X-3).
Since the river discharge distribution was not typical, the
nutrient loadings into the estuary for the first eight months of 1969
were also non-typical. As can be seen in Figures X-3 and X-4, the
total phosphorus TKN, NCL + N00 loadings from February through July
were usually less than 10,000 Ibs/day. This contrasted with about
63,000 and 54,000 Ibs/day of total phosphorus and nitrogen, respectively,
from wastewater discharges in tidal waters of the Potomac Estuary.
During part of July and in August, the nutrient contributions
increased tremendously due to the increase in river discharge. Even
at the high flows, the contribution of phosphorus was greater from
the wastewater discharges in the Washington area than from all sources
in the upper basin.
To aid in the Potomac Estuary nutrient transport study, the forms
of the various nutrients are also being distinguished. Figure X-3
shows that only about 25 percent of the total phosphorus is in the
dissolved reactive form. This indicates that most of the
phosphorus in the upper basin is or becomes attached to silt particles
and can be removed by settling such as behind a small dam or in the
estuary.
-------
FIGURE S-3
-------
I I I [ I I I p
tf
N300U1N
FIGURE X-4
-------
X-15
Fraction studies of the TKN form indicate that over 50 percent
is in the particulate form also subject to settling when the conditions
are suitable.
-------
APPENDIX
DATA SUMMARIES
-------
APPENDIX
Table Description
A-l North Branch Potomac July 1969
A-2 North Branch Potomac August 1969
A-3 South Branch Potomac July 1969
A-4 South Branch Potomac August 1969
A-5 Conococheague Creek July 1969
A-6 Conococheague Creak August 1969
A-7 Antietam Creek July 1969
A-8 Antietam Creek August 1969
A-9 Opequon Creek July 1969
A-10 Opequon Creek August 1969
A-ll North Fork and Main Stem Shenandoah July 1969
A-12 North Fork and Main Stem Shenandoah August 1969
A-13 South Fork Shenandoah July 1969
A-14 South Fork Shenandoah August 1969
A-15 Monocaey River July 1969
A-l6 Monocaey Hiver August 1969
A-17 Potomac River July 1969
A-18 Potomac River August 1969
A-19 Upper Potomac Bacteriological Study
July through September 1966
-------
o al
lA ON ON ON
ONt— ONO t—
OV0 .
(o \o
C— Q
co o
ON t- to ^ coco ON ONt— O
r— O CO r-i ON IAVO IA-4- IA
t— t— -=t r-l •* IA
IAOOOOOOOOO
-=!• O
O ir\
IA t—
CO no
H rl •
•S-8 8'
-------
1
£
0
7J
t>
1
i1
^
•g
61
1
&
1
i
4)
8
H
ill
S*--^
N
•H ID
•d EH
•H *~3
oil
3\
.c !:?
Pi
'"5
w
)
< «
ifi
*
&i >~i
EH td
a
gig
gf
O R
§ 0
4-1 O
ogj
1*°
g
4) -H
ra M
1)
II
ro ir\ OJ UN
O O CM O
O\ H CU H
-3" H O oo
cy ro m PO
iH Ox -^ 0^
H ir\ S- vo
H
H 31 1*
rH l/\ PO fc^~
CO CU H O
«?j o o U~\
"*
8 8
CO CO
IA VO
O CO
cu cu
H ON
CO CU
0
r™- \D
VO -^r
r-I
Q\ O
H r-
a a
80
cu
H £•-•
a H"~
LA
LA LA
cu cu
ON O
@ i
LA LA
H LA
t— vo
rH rH
O rH
rH H
i SLA'
H CO i
a -P K i
5> § -31
P4 (X,
PH I
^^5
: 8 S 8'
i £ ggi
i i i i i i
CO-* LAVO t— O i
te S is E K S !
-------
8 tg
s|
ill
S i-l H
CO-I
? »
SB
S-~l
(H ttf
H
Px
H
g; 8> S 81 S 8 S
01 oi co ol eij co co
^ VO QL -t ITV CO t*-
Ol rH UX ^ O CO O
CO CO CO CO t— I— O">
O ir\ o i^ O O IA
VO VO Ol r-l Q VO CXI
ITS O ir» ir» o O O
01 o 01 cu O u*> ir»
CM VO Ol Ol VO CO t—
St— o ir\ H CO vo
O ^" ^ lfv OA CO
O H O O O O O
§VO ir> O <*> "v
Q H 3 OS vo
O O r-l H O
O ON r-l CO VO r-l
no ON CJ cy O CA
*" H
j£ J± l-t CO rH VO U\
t- 3 P"> Ol W CVI O
q H o q « H H
H C Q j o o o s? s ^ v-T1
"0 O Oj F' CM CU O CD M -3"
0 *< H! « «
£I1| * " *
H!
B fi! _
lit j O Q O O
•H r-l ^ * * •< CD Ol r-l
o'fe' "" T?s w ^ * oT
O fe 0"l
£
5&o
3 £
> r-. Ol CO -=f IA VO O\
r55l § B S S S S S
ID l3| 02
0) '
i-l C
•HUD H H H r-l H H H
HCOtHirH H H H i-l i-l r-l
»'Sg
3 «
11
«l
(
t-
g CV
03 Q)
1 i
i §i
*
3
st Virgini
£
a
|
I
Vi
o
f.
I
1
13
VO
U
•jj
s
g
1
M
1
|
o5
i
i
3
"oO
'>
fc
Is
'l»
•I-l
*1
n
o
ij
rl
1
"!
CO
t)
!]
1!
11
1
li
r,
n
d
o
j|
ti
(i
41
o
II
1
O.I
i
UA
j
i
;1
1!
t]
O
i;
g
'.i
5s
.11
4>
t;
Pi
01
i!
•rl
f,
t)
i
tf
§
!
o
11
i!
1
Ul
f
i
.
5
•rt
I
|
S
|
|
Is
"JU1
U
!
i
i
03
I
i
-------
-=t
j«;
li
^
P
$
-*
H\ v
JIP£
28
<<
al
%
*
vo
cf
in
8
UN O O O O
O in O
in c-- UN
O CT* <*\
fN H f\
O O O
a a
a
fc
s
o
g 8 8
M t\l C-
8
§
O m o
C*N f\ "^"
CM *
+* *
8
5
45
Jf
3 »
45
V
•o &.
t> -a
*
g
45
n
g
w
*
•o
I I
3 *•
S §
H O O
4S Si 8
II!
° e>
. g g
i-l -H
81> 4»
O O
V »
gP
£
« «
s
41
CO
I
I
I
o
I
I
i I
3 I
p &
* %
«i
I
:-3
8 3
O Q)
*H ti
I «
i S
I
.*> «
A m
§ 2 fi
888
CQ CO CO
I I I
a! Si m
W CO CO
o o o
I I i i I &
I I I I I I
£
fill
05 «Q W CO
I I I I I I
•* UN VD CT* »>4
IB n m a ^ en
m w w CQ J x
-------
fi
s
s
>j 3
?TJ
H ,0
o *
fa rj
O r^
^ft
rv
g
en
O
5 H
+ "-^
£*
S
n
o a;
a
dl
0 T{
0 H
fe 0
O
g
(J_j
•H
O
O
J &
d 53
is B
a)
1
1
H
V P*
V
u ft
11
I
H
\
g
<
a
|
H
^
VH
1
c
g
H
"§
P
ft
3
s
1
s
fej
s
o
o
g
•H
1
S
d
IV
rM
g
c
1
B
__j.
-d-
en
VD
CO
LA
O
01
o
[_1
8
H
H
T en
en
CO
3
IA
g
t—
o
-d-
m
eM
en
o
to
LA
3
CO
CVI
t-
CO
m
VD
LA
en
^
CO
LA
o
&
CO
LA
H
vo
\D
H
H
VD
O
J*
0
LA
^
t-
3
IA
O
fl
CO
p
OJ
g
CO
en
<£
3
of
VD
|
O
I
3
ro
IA
S
VD
0
-!?
tA
^
CO
LA
C>
c^
^t
OJ
-d-
en
g
CO
Si
g
CO
r~\
si
t-
o
R
^
_^
CVI
IA
ON
01
VO
O
o
LA
j.
O
LA
LA
6
H
H
Ol
£
01
8
o
H
g
OJ
_3-
IA
si
CO
1
o
1
*
H
LA
LA
OJ
VO
o
o
LA
Ol
.*
H
&
'""i
O\
LA
H
H
^O
H
p.
o
H
0
CO
51
g
O\
O
i— 1
A
Si
0
o
LA
S
H
S
-
^_
t—
LA
g
vo
O
LA
VO
°Q
c5
£^
H
3
-d"
rH
H
VD
H
8
01
-d-
tA
g
^
O
r-(
81
3
0
o
d
H
*
m
01
-*
ol
vo
o
o
VC
cS
OJ
t—
VO
m
LA
LA
H
o
CO
8
o
H
8
Ol
_^.
LA
LA
d
a
1
0
IA
I
*
VD
c—
•*
ON
VO
O
LA
VO
e
H-
^•
LA
H
s
CO
H
vS
Ol
H
8
CO
ON
8
ON
O
VD
H
A
H
en
o
LA
1
*
O
Ol
J-
o
en
^
O
R
ON
H~
t-
co
6
LA
m
en
M
en
ON
g
ON
O
VD
H
g
ON
Q
H
A
ol
-d-
H
1
O
LA
C-
I
m^- vo »-co o rH 01 PO j-
r-( H H H H
I I I I I I I I I I
OCJOOOOOOOO
-------
I"
1
0
SS
•H H
•p
fl
I,
Oo"!O"i^£>V£!^? O C\J N-
H lACVI-itCVjOt^Hcn
COC\jaj-^HOJOOrOLA
o
01
m tA o
IALALALALAO O LA O Q
CVJ C— CM t~ t— LA tA OJ lAO
H o LA co O\ h- -* LA -3- co
H r-{ H
LA ON O lA Of) O
en LA oo
O H H
moo
M300 f— r-f -4" -* LAOGOGO
OOVDx^ LAOJ CV1OJ t— -=t CO
H H OJ CO CO CO H
o s-
O CO
CO £^
-d- cu
ri »
LA O -4- -* CO tA
LA VO H OI t~ OO
H OI ON LA
H H H
R 8 8 § 3
t— ro t1— -if
8 8 § 5 §>
OO ^ -if H
O
3
8 8
H ON
sT s
H H
ON ON
-2t IA LA -4- PI CO CO
01 w cvi oi cu cy SI
co o
o o o o
§ a
8
1
LA LA LA O
am co ^f
fl a a
R
CO
CO
•« O 0
LA VO I--
9 • •
+rf
I
-------
o &
W 8
gH
§
1 IE
^ 2 &
*-°
i al
o
O r-l'C
2 ^? 2
6 en
ffi rH
1
oo
25 H
g%g
H
g-C^
^ ^
ft
. ^
P top
O BPH
tl
H 8 0
d il-i O
O -H H
p4 O g
g
H
§ 0
^H O
0~B
o B
0) Pi
i!"
r*
5
flj -H
^•g
i o
ro J
H
H CO rM
t£
1
omen
fi;
1
ON ON
H H H
t>- CQ O\
< oj <^
O O LT\
939
CO ON O
m on j-
0) 0)
bO -H -H
O PR
•H VO t—
TO O HJ 0>
g> « H § 8
•rt U) 3 W W
•H S) fi O fS f?
ID tj ^a VD
Mfq -H 0) Id II
'0 in Wt OS 0)
•HGOpq^O-PO-^-
ij MD -H W ^ VD VO
0) a) FQ >
1
d
^
3
1
a
-------
e i
I;
R
Si
dl
15 S '
E
-S a
l
ill
O CQ f^> CO IA Ox
in
CO
t~ t- in
A A
ot~-oot—
\Q \Q ^t t- VO
in in ro
J- H
R S
m
3 *
m
H
rH rH IA lA
rH in in o o ^o
vo t— f- o o o
m ("N [*- .7 w o
CM H cu w
S
CN CD eft ON CD CA 9\
AJ ON \D *5j
H H
A
A A A A
in o O O O
O
co
O\
O
CO
O 'n in o m
Jn -* H o in
00 vfi vo *35 in In
O H H
r> cvi m jt in
in in in in in
4
(M
O m in •)
O in .4- i)
>J5 in in C
oooooooo
SSSSSSSS
«OV00«Vtl
lillilli
-------
n MO
P SP4
rH O O
d
B o
a o
0 i-J
01
H d
0) p, 4)
SEX
•H 03 OJ
^ ro ^
0)
H e
A
0\
CT\
H
O
CVJ
in
in
o
8
i>-
CVl
&
H
&
in
in
CVJ
CO
oo
VD
O
0
m
in
CVJ
CO
o
S1
OJ
o
1
rH
8
ON
^-f~
I
t-
m
OJ
S
IA
3
S
ON
OJ
OJ
VD
OJ
VD
O
in
OJ
in
t-
VD
VO
£
t—
Ol
OJ
d
in
ON
VD
H
8
no
en
g
J-
OJ
s
in
€
H
&
w
CVJ
o
o
•H
4^
.3
rH
^
OJ
H
9
rss
iras:
I S a) I
O -H
SO)
-------
-------
H
11
g^
o H& *5 o
*"!* P os *** frj
B to
1 §1 * u
B P||
1
I
1
,
§
_|
1>
pT
f
1"
j.
-I
(3
«
S
§
«
RH
§•«>
r-l
8"a>
B
-p P
•H M
•H
«l
r-t H
a9
Pirn
1
H B
fff
*
P|
H
B S
H
II
If
r-f
li
O fe
s
Sample
Location
V
i-H C
t|
B A
J5 J"
o5 S
11
a
!A
S
*
LA
CM
LA
51
§
«O
t«-
(0
O
!
g
O
I
i
s
.1
£H
S^
£*
*~ S
(0 (C
o a
(B >
1 1
M M
H
0 O
&§•
l>l<
&t>
t 1
85-
S
•c
(S
iA
i
cc
ID
6»
i
1
O
i
&
s
i
*
s
3
£
S
+>
£
I1
H
•a
8
«
.5
fi
3
Q
fl
i
M
"
&
£
9
1
i?
a & «
Sts
•p »< •«
03 5 5
r i i
«&S
&
1
£
I
•
4>
.q
ti
a
i
*
s
o
8-
&
5
i
&
«
•S
0
s
rS
1
§
•§
,3
,
. 3
-------
S3 I
as'
s
9<
13
28
St
(4
0) O.
r-l C
i § «
Q CO H
V (H
r-t O
PfO
\ cu o
X^O <*\
OOOO OOOOOO OOO
g
IA Q »T*
O !> O OJ
• to oj eo
IA to o oj
. COtOOJr-l
OO^tiHOJi-HOr-IHOO Hr-lr-lrH
O ^i" tTNVO
r-l i-l rH r-l
«H iH r-t
o o o o o o s o o o o o Q t
o
J3
, --*• f\ ^" f-\ C"\ r-l
tf\ rH H r-l O
O "A M C k
g. *o£JJr
to P fl*
'Or-)
CO C rH
OOOQQ QQQQO Q O O O OW
OOOQO«^pOOOO OOOO O
•^•^rf^c^O t^^fOJOj 1^
228
S£ £
.C
-------
t-- O CM -^ t^ CM \D ONCO ?7 £7 i ^K^D HOw1
-Pd-g tq -HScdH
OD>(D MAI a ^3-rf
858
\fO CVJ
8fl SJ
"l C fi -
•H s a o
I O\E
I IA
^ to CO -P
o ca ®^old 8S'I|BS85
si-;VOCV]CVJ^O tA -H^ac{fE;(U
HH rH wfuajcfiaj^Hwiu
&) 4J (U 43 M • M d) M
•HO'OOH^'rtH *T<
-------
Si
ill
1 0)1
O
!H rH H
0 H
I3
Fecal
oliform
100 ml
O
J S o
i! So
OJ Os H t^co O osvo O t— H -=!" H co os Os fr- en m
O-4- oj ovnosojcoo osco t—PO t^-w ^-^^ow
OJVDOJOJr-iOJrOI-—OJrHHOJ-^tOJHH HOJ
CO CU LTNVD t~- VD t~ if\CO t
ir\oooo
LT\ IA IA
O IA LA LA O IA OJ I
I (A t— OJ N- ITV £— O O1
^t—V£>HV£'-3'1^OOJOJ l
I H H H r
-
>-LT\Q^OJCOOjrOOJ l
- i-j CM
H H H H
co Osco co LALTsmcooo LAC^OOJ t^cOOOJ H ro
OJ H t^-OSLAOCO C— OJ O H moJCT\t^
H t— LA LA-^t \O LA'CD H CniALAO t—LAO O-^T-d'
8
CQ
H^O-^-cO ^ OON OO-=tH
>^ (^ n ^ >\ »\ *\-s *,
ojcnOCMH o rof~ oo
M3 O> H H
8
OJ
) CO CO O O OJ i
_. [-_.
i-H H Os'rn OS H' OJ H
> VD rO-=f OJ OJ
? rO O? t-^ oT
ir\ IA ir\ IA LT\
mcomrooj c^ifOHrH HcnoJ rn-^- IACM ir\-* IA
OJOJCMOJOJOJCVfOJOJOJOJOJOJOJOJOJCVJOJOJ
pq
O\O\O r-| O(
i-JrH
- lAVO OS O
Hi-JrHHr-irHHHOJ
cocoMcaaJcQcowcow
If
03 CD
II
gs^535
222 2 ft B 33
asssl
a ca
tii i i i
D^OOONONOrjOJPO
xiraramcocQcoKiai
i i t i i i i i
.* IA\O ff\(
H H H i-l (
00 03 50 tQ !
o v
O H
:a
R o
Q 4)
««
j>«
•S S
JS
I I
2)g
-------
o o
tM O
^
So
SH O
•H H
_ Pi
SJoU
4) -rH
•&«
- N- m CM ir\ on oo H ir\ cvi en
GOCO O en t— VD en fn Oi ir\-^- N- cy LT\ o\ cvi CVJ
CVJ fr-.* t— LA CVJ LA-d O\MD 00 t— OOC^-OJ-
OiAiAiAOOOQOOQOOOOOLT\OO
OVD en co o LA o O LA LA LA LA o LT\ o ~=t -3- en IA
co t— LAOD c— vr> iv^o -3- LA IA N- fn IA
OQOLALAIALALT\OLAOO(
LAO lAN-t"— f—CXfN-JAGJ OO<
> LA O O LA LA
> OJ lA
o t-—U"\
HHH
m LA t—CQ -3- CO OO i
co cvj m LA t— co -3- co
O^F-Hf-y-^-OOoj
o
;s>
-3- o
IrH-d-Or-lHQt—-4-\OOr-l-4'LACT\
icvl o. o rn t— O d\ cr\ O H cvico cncn
VD CM -3- ^ tr\ t
o t--* o c-
H H H OJ H CVJ H
LAHMDlA tnHr-if^COC—OM3pjmr-|-
O t— en CO VD XD ^t -4" LA ON ON-=J- cnt-rH r-i i
H cnO1^) r-iCO CXxHCO-d" C--LACO O\C*-CV1 (
H H LA OJ CVI .
80 o o o o o o
o o o o o o o
H H H
A A
LAOD H H CM H
§O O (
CTs. O '
) LA O CVI '
LALA LAlALA LA LALA LA
MMCtiCUNMWWWWWWWWWCUaiMW
H cncn-4--^l-\DMDCO ONCJNO rj cu cn-=t LAVD cr\o
i i i i i i t i i i i i i i i i i i i
WWCQWCDWCOCOCOWCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCQ
oo
CVJ
^5.
P5 « I
ll:
ra co i
H fit
CO CO t
co tS t§ £ g ti €
llll33ll
o
a)
§
3
-------
CO h3
fil
EH B; >-} '
S !
in
I Oil
O H
358
tfo
LA C\f f^- IA fO-^- ^- H tA t~- E-- LA r-l
t~- {Q t~ f~ Lf\ lT\-^f
IT\ IT\ lf\ U\ LT\ LT\ t— VQ I
OOOOOOO1AOOC5OO
CV1 VD l/\-4- COOJ H CVl-^tVOVO-^t CVJ
t>-LT\lAOt--t^OO
in r- O C\l H rOOXDt— CVIOJHCVJ
cncomoooj cvJ-4- w rovO CM ro CM
ONC\]c\jroOVDOONCOroOrOro
rH ro^j-,4- LT\VD c—t^ao c\J H rt")O
--
VD OJOOCM o rooo O\
!&
COCO OCOONCT\r-iOr-l <-.„,_ .
rH-^tOONHt— -=}- r-J C\J ro PO [~- r
-=t H O VO \rf ON t— CO ONOJ ONt— VO
(M PH W P^i
H • W CD -
I I I I I I
^ PH fn ^H tn H
(L) CD (!)
t> t> !> t> t> >
•H -H -H -H -r| -H
K K W K M K
o o o o o y
qj aj aJ aJ oJ aJ
o o o o o o
§§§§§§
<5 O O ^ O JQ
LA b- -P ON pQ fjQ
(U 0) O i
g ?
•H *H
r^ ti f
O a)
•H 0) > >> fl) >, a) ! ^ X
c! cl -p C a o o
vc r—co Q>p H
-------
- ONLrNiAOO\c\joocu-=i-
O ^--. 0N O (T~J '•— _^ ON CV OO O —3~ OJ
-g, ...... ^
CO CO OJ -H; ONV£> C~- 00 o") O CO -^f ON
o -4* ["-- ^i -H/ ON roco r—) H o t*— o~i
6 r-\ t~- oo ro LT\ LTNVO M> C~~ ^D t~— CvJ
-P . LA in
LTNLTNOOOOLrNOOOJOJCOLrx
' H OJ H r-f
i ail
o
L< --t r-l
P H"
O Pt H H
oajvooi/NojoiAOONO
H OJ O ON LT\ O i/N^t- LA no u"\ LT\ H
oo-^-ooojHOoajooo-icvi
CO tA
H H
CO
OOOOlAU"NLr\QU"NOOOO
t~CO ON O
c-Or
ON
I— CO ON
-
o
co
EH
CQ
S «j
I—I
cu cu bD >
3) Sl-d to
•a >a-H cu
•H -
^l
CQ
CO
ftj
•p
!-, o co
O (DO
ft ^
* ij c3 pQ 03
U m .H -P aj
M JH j-i 0) -p aJ d>
T3 (I) (X) IJ3 fl3
TH H «a m ^
o
LT\ O
OO-=i-
! ro
vo
. . OJ
OJ 43 OJ CU
-P ^3 CD -P
P5 W PH
• ra to •
S t> C5 S
i i i i
in ^ ^ fn
-d « 0) •
•H -H -H -H '
O
ir\ t— !> I I I
.
W
g ?! ?? ?!
I rH O
OUtl
Q. 3 o
t—CO ON O i
§ § i i
-------
5,
S a«;
s
i-1
h r-l r
P dt
o:
01
o i
o
Hi-
ll
if I
e-s
IJ
£ £ 3 £
tA CO
IA 3
vo t^
VQ O CO
vS 3 3
U3 CO O\
O *A IA IA
CO CV V£> OO
8 R CM 8 8
w
rf
1A CO*
IA 75
ft
» * .*
6 d
§ S
IT\ 00
00 H
ro co
IA m
O O O (7 O
3O r5 fl\ «5 o
F- H j* 3 «Q
t^- 00 VQ CO
CU OJ W CJ
rn -d1 <*^ «5
3
ft
B
V +1
° §
« J
I
x
£
i «
i-t
(0
&
| |
| I
I I I I I I
£ S » £ « £
o o o o o o
I I I I I I
H CM «n jj- ir\ vo
ft ft * ft fe ft
(4
«
J
j
-------
S3
H (
s
3 CTiCP g
3^eg m
I d|
o
o 3-^
§<*
£
o 0,
I,
I,
^ p- 5)
C\i t~ 00
ON ^O t—
LA LA
LA m m oj co LA \D
o o
UN LA
O LA O
LA C^ LA
CM
CM
0000
I—
00
s
CO CO
(VI H
m t— LA
C7\ m
IA CO
CM a
00 ^D
Is— H
ON O
r-i
8 a
m
o
OJ
~
O
O
ON
*s
S
t-
OJ
H
f* § 2
-rf H CTN
CM CV) (O
S 1C "£
222
a
O O O ^% O O
*^ S 2? «tf ^n m
^~ ^^ o ^^ rn JT
H H H O H H
s? e e « s
a)
3
•H +:
I « a)
252
||
»
-------
H K
4 S Q
8 8
8 8
.p
Pl CO
V 1
CO t-
Pit-
• 0
M en
CM
f UN
CM
OJ
>i O
^£
*-3 ro
H
^
1-3 MD
H
0
8"
VD
r-T
UN
8
CM
OJ
O
o
t—
r-T
O
o
-4
UN
8
H"
8
t—
•\
8
eo
r-T
I
UN
8
o
o
s
o?
0
en
eo
A
8
UN
O
ro
en
0
eg
0
9,
CM"
Shenandoah R. at
Harper's By. Park
CM
oT
8
CM
CM"
o
UN
ON
0
en
en
8
CO
c\r
o
CM
CM
8
CM
o
o\
t—
8
CM
o\
ON
t—
O
r-T
O
OJ
g
8
on
0
O
OJ
oj"
1
&
^s
fc
«ff
°"°
ft 1
t~
UN
O
t—
r-l
0
O
3
8
!•
8
CM
"
O
8
en
A
O
ON
O
H
eg
O
en
en
o
en
en
Potomac River
at Shepherdstown
UN
•t
crt
|
UN
O
O
CO
CM"
8
UN
- en
8
en
H
35,000
o
o
o
o
o
CM
ON
8
CM"
8
CM
ON
8
CM
OJ
I
O
o
CM
O?
3
LA
8
Oj"
8
UN
O
O
UN
en
Opequon Cr . below
Martinsburg
e-
S
H
0
en
en
8
CA>
CM"
UN
O
ON
O
o
UN
O
en
en
8
CM
ON
8
ON
o
o
o
o
en
rn
I
O
t—
o
CO
CM
CO
1
o
en
CM
Potomac H. at
Williamsport
ro
r-T
8
CO
I
1
f
!
I
f
o
eo
en
I
o
t~
co
s
"
o
en
OJ
8
LA
•v
en
II
•ri CO
Tl +5
CO oj
CM
8
r-T
CO
O
en
en
o
rn
eo
o
8
ro
r-T
O
eo
eo
O
ON
0
eo
OJ
O
0
CM
ON
0
eo
OJ
1
S
a
s
o
a
o
H
1
1
O
en
rn
H
f
f
I
UN
0
ro
m
UN
CM
o
ro
eo
o
t-
H
"*
en
en
O
H
eo
Cacapon River at
Qreat Cacapon
CO
8
rn
i-T
o
CO
CM
O
eo
CM
o
o
OJ
•*
CJ\
o
eo
O
3
o
s
o
en
en
S
n
o
ro
CO
S
0
8
eo
r-T
Qreat Cacapon at
jjttpomery, W. Va.
0^
CM
UN
8
ir\
ir\
CO
8
o
-4-"
O
o\
-4-
1
1
|
CM"
I
3
o
o\
-4-
O
3
en
I
8
CO
-4-"
en
3
Ai
111
-------
I. Chesapeake Field Station, ""Water Quality Survey in the- 5henandoah
River of the Potomac Paver Basin," CB-SE3P Working Document No0 26,
FWPCA, WAR, April 1968
2. DeRose, Charles R., "The Monccaey River," Report No« 1, Department
of Water Resources, State of Maryland, March. - December 1966
3. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, "Water Quality
Criteria," Report of the fi&ticn^l Technical Advisory "omjnitt.ee to
the Secretary of the Interior, Washington, D. "„, £.pril 1, 1968
4. Clark, Leo J., "Mine Drainage in the "Vorth Branch Potcsnae River
Basin," Technical Report Ko. 1.3, Chesapeake Technics! -Support
Laboratory, FWPCA, MA.R, A^ust 1969
5. Jaworski, N0 A., "Nutrientfj in the v/'pper Potomac Kiver Bfetsin,"
Technical Report No, 15, Chesapeake Technics 1 Support labcrat.ory,
FWPCA, MAR, August 1969
6. Jaworski, N. A., and Aalt,-., -•';'„ A., "Wastewa^er Inventory, Potomac
River Basin/' Chesapeake Field, 5't^.tion, FW??A, MIR, reoejnter 1968
7. II. S. Army Corps of Engineers, "Potomac .River Basin Report,"
Vol. 1, Part 1, North Atlantic Division, Baltimore, Maryland, 1963
8. Jaworski, N. A0, Villa, i" o ^ and Hetlirig, Leo -"'., '''Nutrients in the
Potomac River Basin," :J,eearicy.l Report No. 9, Thes.vpeake Technical
Support Laboratory, MAR, F*'?0i, May 1969
------- |