-------
                                                                   V-9
times greater than their Bay counterparts.  These factors




should be carefully weighed when  considering  the disposal  of




dredged spoil in any  open bay areas.




     The Delaware, Potomac and  James Estuaries provide another




opportunity  to evaluate Baltimore Harbor data.  While none of




these three  estuaries have the  concentrated industrial complex




to the extent Baltimore Harbor  does, they do  provide for com-




parisons primarily with an industrialized tidal system (Delaware




River), an estuary with mainly  municipal inputs (Potomac River)




and a third, more remote, system  with a lesser degree of both




municipal and industrial inputs (James River).  The James  River




sediments contain the least amounts of zinc and lead, and  in




fact, the average values of the James (Table  VII) are remark-




ably similar to the open Bay (Table VI).  Potomac Estuary  sedi-




ments exhibit greater ranges of values than the James but  are




no more than two times greater  than Bay concentrations.




     The Delaware Estuary shows consistently  higher levels  than




the James or Potomac  but still  considerably less than levels




found in Baltimore Harbor.  The chromium and  copper averages




are about 5-6 times greater in  the Harbor than in the Delaware




while lead and zinc values are  twice as great in the Harbor.




     Table VIII shows average concentrations  of heavy metals  in




the earth's crust.   As can be seen these concentration ranges




are far less than those found in Baltimore Harbor.  Those values

-------
                       TABLE VI
                                                              V-10
METALS IN BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHESAPEAKE BAY SEDIMENTS
Metal Baltimore Harbor^
Chromium, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Copper, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Lead, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Zinc, mg/kg
Low
Average
Hgih
Cadmium, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Nickel, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Manganese, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Mercury, mg/kg
Low
Average
High

10
k92
$7k$

<1
3U2
2926

<1
3^6
13890

31
888
60UO

<1
6.3-6.6
65k

12
36
9k

121
739
2721

<.01
1.17
12.20
Chesapeake Bay22

18
25
k2

-------
TABLE VII
METALS IN BALTIMORE
POTOMAC RIVER AND
Metal
Chromium, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Copper, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Lead, mg/kg
Low
Average
High

Zinc, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Cadmium, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Nickel, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Manganese, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Mercury, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Baltimore
Harbor22

10
1*92
571*5

<1
3i*2
2926

<1
3 1*1
13890


31
888
601,0

<1
6.3-6.6
651*

12
36
91*

121
739
2721

<. 01
1.17
12.20
HARBOR, DELAWARE RIVER,
JAMES RIVER
Delaware
River22

8
58
172

k
73
201

26
11*5
805


137
523
1361*

<1
2.9-3.1
17

NO

DATA

NO

DATA

<. 01
1.99
6.97
SEDIMENTS
Potomac
Riverl7

20
--
80

10
--
60

20
--
100
\

125
—
1000

<1
—
.60

20
--
1*5

5oo
—
1*800

.01
—
.03

James
Riverl6

NO

DATA

NO

DATA

1*
27
55


10
131
708

NO

DATA

NO

DATA

NO

DATA

.02
.32
1.00
                                                               V-ll
Data taken from tables - ranges only
-------
V-12
TABLE
CONCENTRATION OF HEAVY METALS
Metal
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
Nickel
Manganese
Mercury
viii23' 2U

IN EARTH'S CRUST, AVG. RANGE
Range ,
.10
^.00
7.00
16 . 00
.05
2.00
50.00
.03
mg/kg
- 100 . 00
55.00
20.00
- 95-00
• 30
75-00
- 1100.00
.ko
-------
                                                                   V-13




from Chesapeake Bay and the James River are just  slightly



higher than the values in Table VIII.  For the Potomac  sedi-



ments, Pb, Zn, Cd and Mn values are in excess of  the averages



while Cr, Cu, Ni and Hg are within the specified  ranges.
-------
-------
                                       VI-1





APPENDIX I
-------
TABLE IX
Location
A 1
2
3
k
5
B 1
2
3
it
$
C I
2
3
3*
h
$
6
1
ti
D I
2
3
k
$
6
7
8
9
10
E 1
2
3
k
$
6
6*
F 1
2
3
k
5
5*
6
G 1
2
3
1;
5
H 1
2
CADMIUM BALTIMORE HARBOR SEDIMENT STUDY
mg/kg
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
NS
<1
-------
TABLE X
Location
A 1
2
3
1+
5
B 1
O
3
1+
5
0 1
^
3
3-
1+
5
6
7
8
D 1
2
3
s
5
6
7
8
Q
10
E 1
2
3
1+
5
6
6-x-
F 1
2
3
1+
5
5-;;-
6
G 1
2
3
1+
5
H 1
2
CHROMIUM BALTH
mg/kg
1+1
157
60
28
53
29
31
61+
I6o
Qk
NS
10
86
88
11+1
185
103
231
208
MS
8°
21
161
111+
220
15
2 Ob
310
980
112
72
85
161
195
1+02
282
51+7
225
71+
119
618
183
23^
NS
113
91
36
159
229
116
Location
H 3
1+
k*
5
I 1
2
^
)4
5
6
o-x-
J 1
2
3
1+
!+-»-
'-,'
6
7
8
Q
K 1
2
7
jj
5
0
6-x-
7
L 1
2
2*
3
1+
M 1
2
3
1+
1+-X-
N 1
2
2*
3
1+
5
6
0 1
2
2-x-
3
10RE HARI
mg/kg
1+2
196
31+
536
ll+O
1+57
193
652
299
1+1+U
11+
293
190
621+
1397
95f
15^8
21+01
57 '+5
_L L> '_J. -4-
lii 5 £
26 /
! 5
568
1261
1336
1120
56u
876
599
271+
38
860
NS
1+32
372
162
ll+9
965
765
1+09
1+00
1+05
378
363
NS
661+
569
203
ll+l
30R SEDIMENT
Location
0 1+
5
6
p 1
2
2-x-
3
1+
Q 1
2
•5
3-;;-
'4.
5
6
R 1
2
2-x-
3
1+
S 1
2
_J
T 1
o
3
3*-
U 1
2
2*
3
V 1
2
3
W 1
2
2-x-
3
X 1
2
3
1+
l+-x-
Y 1
2
3
1+
5
5-x-
6
C STUDY
mg/kg
215
131+
281+
115
221+
161
1+5
l+6o
637
97
1+73
139
578
537
1336
1+01+
520
58
320
193
1121+
ll+8
285
730
658
601+
239
573
193
119
1+77
121
79
328
61+
155
159
200
NS
53
1+2
91+
157
1+6
111+
211
109
128
98
li+0

Location
AA 1
2
2-x-
3
BB 1
2
CC 1
2
DD 1
1-x-
2
3
EE 1
2
FF 1
2
3
GG 1
2
2-x-
3
HH 1
2
II 1
2
JJ 1
2
KK 1
2
LL 1
2
3
3*
1+
GB 1
2
3
1+
5
6
7
8
8*
9
10
11
12
13
Ik
15
VI-3
mg/kg
963
163
1+2
310
531+
558
969
60
91+0
876
21+7
39
51
181
92
180
657
1+6
1656
1561+
2137
1+86
2013
171+5
1682
3181+
3057
95
1755
31+0
71+6
1292
2102
1+756
283
200
57
521+
90
11+9
275
319
216
1+0
55
32
296
28
208
21+2
NS  No sample taken
Same sample 30-1+0  cm
-------
TABLE XI
Location
A 1
2
3
k
5
B 1
2
3
ii
5
C 1
2
3
3*
h
5
6
7
8
D 1
2
3
/i
5
6
7
8
9
10
E 1
2
3
k
5
6
6*
F 1
2
3
li
5
5*
6
G 1
2
3
/i
5
H 1
2
COPPER BALTIMORE HARBOR
mg/kg
69
112
63
32
68
62
32
68
123
79
NS
111
97
95
11*5
216
12k
168
173
NS
55
29
135
120
231
36
177
11*2
216
91*
56
65
122
131*
375
209
229
131*
73
' 78
389
133
323
NS
110
72
91
182
11*2
90
Location
H 3
k
k*
5
I 1
2
3
1*
5
6
6-x-
J 1
2
3
1*
1*-*
5
6
7
8
9
K 1
2
3
k
5
6
6*
7
L 1
2
2-x-
3
i*
M 1
2
3
1;
It*
N 1
2
2-x-
3
1*
5
6
0 1
2
2-x-
3
SEDIMENT
rag/kg Location
68
11*0
57
281
11*2
331;
123
153
230
2l|2
10
177
109
372
390
412
51;!
51*1*
9^6
333
329
102
25
16U
218
218
283
305
2 Oli
311
217
2
338
NS
272
66
35
67
393
31*7
331
92
288
271
198
NS
53U
1*05
229
11*0
0 k
5
6
P 1
2
2-x-
3
k
Q 1
2
3
3*
1*
5
6
R 1
2
2-*
3
It
S 1
2
3
T 1
2
3
3*
U 1
2
0 "_
C. 'v
3
V 1
2
3
¥ 1
2
? "-
3
X 1
2
3
li
U*
Y 1
2
3
li
5
5*
6
STUDY
mg/kg
226
15
58
231*
252
276
10
2l;7
31*5
65
358
121
277
1*01
1532
352
291
12
281
185
557
123
229
1*12
61*1*
619
197
375
171*
93
368
131*
68
306
101*
218
330
362
NS
95
31*
278
263
26
161*
1*69
11*2
198
161
209

Location
AA 1
2
2-x-
3
BB 1
2
CC 1
2
DD 1
1*
2
3
EE 1
2
FF 1
2
3
GG 1
2
2-x-
3
HH 1
2
II 1
2
JJ 1
2
KK 1
2
LL 1
2
3
3*
1*
CB 1
2
3
1*
5
6
7
8
8-x-
9
10
11
12
13
11*
15
vi-U
mg/kg
1616
373
11*
321*
1665
731
910
11*3
1389
1315
881
16
21*
278
99
21*3
2926
57
11*15
2000
2220
682
2178
1057
1526
1136
151*2
13
11*26
21*7
1*33
351*
882
933
330
281
1*1*
1*27
88
288
301*
501
139
<1
189
28
590
12
265
1*72
NS  No sample taken
Same sample 30-1*0  cm
-------
TABLE XII
Location
A 1
2
3
k
5
B 1
2
3
/l
5
C 1
2
3
3*
h
$
6
1
8
D 1
2
3
1*
5
6
7
8
9
10
E 1
2
3
h
$
6
6*
F 1
2
3
1*
5
5*
6
G 1
2
3
1*
5
H 1
2
LEAD BALTIMORE HARBOR
mg/kg
90
163
138
16
111
3k
23
128
171*
178
NS
33
161
180
323
301
292
61+2
1310
NS
138
20
11*6
156
317
13
1026
682
1006
137
93
132
11*7
152
380
1008
21+8
180
128
113
1*75
561*
356
NS
177
122
19
190
130
161
Location
H 3
h
h*
5
I 1
2
3
h
5
6
6*
J 1
2
3
U
1;*
5
6
7
8
9
K 1
2
3
1*
5
6
6*
7
L 1
2
2*
3
1*
M 1
2
3
1*
1**
N 1
2
2-x-
3
1*
5
6
0 1
2
2*
3
mg/kg
20
176
16
1*75
171*
1*51*
191
379
50k
393
9
179
179
262
1*10
153
1*89
501
98l
581
636
109
28
233
1*1*8
291
51*8
2218
682
180
55
1*
301
NS
139
132
36
36
298
81
71
159
120
255
105
NS
393
31*8
270
Ikk
SEDIMENT
Location
o 1*
5
6
P 1
2
2*
3
k
Q 1
2
3
3*
1*
5
6
R 1
2
2*
3
1*
S 1
2
3
T 1
2
3
3*
U 1
2
2*
3
V 1
2
3
W 1
2
2-;:-
3
X 1
2
3
1*
It*
Y 1
2
3
1*
5
5*
6
STUDY
mg/kg
161
7
11*
119
169
21*0
7
121*
209
26
231*
109
216
259
2282
191
228
-------
TABLE XIII
Location
A 1
2
3
k
$
B 1
2
3
k
5
C 1
2
3
3*
k
5
6
7
8
D 1
2
3
li
5
6
7
8
9
10
E 1
2
3
k
5
6
6-:;-
F 1
2
3
U
5
5*
6
G 1
2
3
li
5
H 1
2
MANGANESE BALTIMORE HARBOR SEDIMENT STUDY
mg/kg
1301
1287
2076
1166
10^9
1186
1173
1729
1261
1007
NS
590
2286
3317
711
l$hh
698
1112
1187
NS
1251;
1227
2721
936
589
587
1129
775
722
k9k
1518
mia
2 Ii3 3
1772
7U1
1026
365
1220
1505
17UQ
7114
609
1327
NS
1657
1622
12l|7
873
259
1987
Location
H 3
k
k*
5
I i
2
3
li
5
6
6-x-
J 1
o
(~
3
1;
ii*
5
6
7
8
9
K 1
2
3
U
5
6
6-:;-
7
L 1
2
2*
3
U
M 1
2
3
It
li*
N 1
p
O V.
£- A
3
It
5
6
0 1
n
C
2-x-
o
^
mg/kg
itoi
1222
1157
U61
1588
1|05
2309
353
6to
lilO
1129
96ii
1I4;8
7^0
hkl
k9h
515
290
h37
327
367
8ia
2097
2lii
266
200
27U
21^5
285
662
1118
Ito2
396
NS
98U
11^02
1399
Ih87
389
530
1176
1128
969
530
1291
NS
367
ii!2
397
1253
Location
0 h
5
6
P 1
2
2-;:-
3
k
Q 1
2
3
3*
14
5
6
R 1
2
2-;:-
3
ii
S 1
2
3
T 1
2
3
3-
U 1
2
2*
3
V 1
2
3
W 1
2
2*
3
X 1
2
3
h
h*
Y 1
2
3
1;
5
5-
6
mg/kg
1207
209
363
989
782
875
1287
37 k
523
1050
532
267
33k
Ii2l
26l
U97
80U
635
539
361
ii6o
535
552
5UO
698
685
H3l4
kk$
k67
395
to5
toll
516
383
3kk
296
289
1*27
NS
190
350
513
308
U77
1*60
195
389
1527
325
580
Location
AA 1
2
2-x-
3
BB 1
2
CC 1
2
DD 1
1*
2
3
EE 1
2
FF 1
2
3
GG 1
2
2*
3
HH 1
2
II 1
2
JJ 1
2
KK 1
2
LL 1
2
3
3-x-
li
CB 1
2
3
li
5
6
7
8
B*
9
10
11
12
13
lit
15
VI-6
mg/kg
263
516
578
292
333
toa
385
U89
liU3
508
111 8
U21
300
5to
199
185
399
121
330
278
1;67
302
360
259
389
276
261i
185
297
38U
395
32l|
212
222
3li8
Ii22
266
507
598
180
5ia
57 It
392
231
221;
125
512
528
313
812
NS  No sample taken
Same sample 30-1;0  cm
-------
TABLE XIV
Location
A 1
2
3
Ii
5
B 1
2
3
It
5
C 1
2
3
3*
It
5
6
7
8
D 1
2
3
It
5
6
7
8
9
10
E 1
2
3
Ii
5
6
6-;;-
F 1
2
3
Ii
5
5*
6
G 1
2
3
Ii
5
H 1
2
MERCURY BALTIMORE HARBOR SEDIMENT STUDY
mg/kg
.lli
.70
.19
<.01
.32
<.01
<. 01
.56
.72
.26
NS
.03
.67
.Ii3
.57
.09
.50
1.81
1.81
NS
<.01
<.01
<.01
.15
1.26
<.01
i.5It
.99
1.55
.36
<.01
<.01
.30
<.01
.39
1.21
1.75
.67
.66
1.27
2.23
1.28
1.62
NS
.97
.54
.51
.86
.81
.85
Location
H 3
Ii
4*
5
I 1
2
3
k
5
6
6*
J 1
2
3
4
It*
5
6
7
8
9
K 1
2
3
Ii
5
6
6-x-
7
L 1
2
2*
3
4
M 1
2
3
It
4*
N 1
2
P w
3
Ii
5
6
0 1
2
2*
3
mg/kg
.51
1.17
.45
2.83
.60
LA
.38
1.22
1.27
2.5ii
--.01
• 39
.32
.85
1.00
1.39
1.09
2.43
3.87
1.28
1.13
.30
.22
.86
1.24
1.20
.95
2.00
.75
.61
.65
<.01
1.17
NS
2.10
• 54
.lii
.17
1.58
.98
.61
.66
.69
1.27
.48
NS
.90
1.05
1.64
l.IiO
Location
0 Ii
5
6
P I
2
2*
3
Ii
Q 1
2
3
3*
4
5
6
R 1
2
2*
3
4
S 1
2
3
T 1
2
3
3*
U 1
2
2*
3
V 1
2
3
¥ 1
2
2-x-
3
X 1
2
3
4
U*
Y 1
2
3
4
5
5*
6
mg/kg
.66
<.01
<. 01
.51
.45
1.15
<.01
.39
.84
.53
.81
.62
.77
.43
12.20
1.21
.61
.06
.75
.64
1.42
.50
.61
1.31
.95
.73
1.76
1.91
.35
.31
.62
.33
.22
.69
.29

!BI
.39
NS
.23
.17
.22
.61
.13
.63
1.36
.64
.86
.77
.69
Location
AA 1
2
2-x-
3
BB 1
2
CC 1
2
DD 1
1-x-
2
3
EE 1
2
FF 1
2
3
GG 1
2
2*
3
HH 1
2
II 1
2
JJ 1
2
KK 1
2
LL 1
2
3
3*
4
CB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
8*
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
VI- (
mg/kg
2.72
.92
<.01
10.35
4.84
1.01
1.86
.26
1.85
1.49
.49
•^.01
<.01
.05
.23
1.69
3.58
.51
2.88
3.70
3.06
2.74
2.60
3.89
2.31
6.66
9.98
.28
2.84
.81
l.4o
.69
10.98
11.34
1.28
1.45
^25
.61
.33
1,36
.77
.52
.35

!l8
<.01
1.57

I.&
1.07
NS  No sample taken            -x-  Same  sample  30-40 cm
               LA  Laboratory Accident
-------
TABLE XV
Location
A 1
2
3
k
$
B 1
2
3
U
5
C 1
2
3
3*
li
5
6
7
8
D 1
2
3
U
5
6
7
8
9
10
E 1
2
3
li
5
6
6-x-
F 1
2
3
It
5
5*
6
G 1
2
3
k
5
H 1
2
NICKEL BALTIMORE HARBOR SEDIMENT STUDY
mg/kg
25
Ii8
Ii5
27
62
26
30
36
18
52
NS
12
U8
57
62
51i
31
li?
37
NS
38
22
51
33
52
16
26
26
32
Ii5
31
3U
lili
51
hh
hQ
Ii5
Ii2
2li
36
k9
25
3ii
NS
38
33
26
37
3k
37
Location
H 3
I;
li*
5
I 1
2
3
li
5
6
6-x-
J 1
2
3
li
li*
5
6
7
8
9
K 1
2
3
li
5
6
6*
7
L 1
2
2-x-
3
li
M 1
2
3
li
li*
N 1
2
?-'-
3
li
5
6
0 1
2
2*
3
mg/kg
25
111
25
Ii7
146
Ii8
lili
33
30
38
20
32
30
liO
60
38
U6
31
71
35
36
52
33
29
30
30
liO
39
liO
Ii2
39
22
U8
NS
lili
k2
30
32
37
Ii8
liO
38
kl
3k
36
NS
Ii3
35
38
32
Location
0 li
5
6
P l
2
9 »
C. ~i\
3
li
Q 1
2
3
3*
li
5
6
R 1
2
2-x-
3
li
S 1
2
3
T 1
2
3
3*
U 1
2
2-x-
3
V 1
2
3
W 1
2
2-x-
3
X 1
2
3
li
it*
Y 1
2
3
li
5
5-x-
6
mg/kg
3li
12
16
lili
Ii2
35
26
30
Ii7
30
Ii2
29
31
1*0
9li
37
39
26
lil
25
51
28
31
lUi
liO
31
30
59
32
26
30
29
31
37
23
22
27
35
NS
27
32
29
27
27
Ii6
38
29
liO
37
U6

Location
AA 1
2
2*
3
BB 1
2
CC 1
2
DD 1
1*
2
3
EE 1
2
FF 1
2
3
GG 1
2
2-x-
3
HH 1
2
II 1
2
JJ 1
2
KK 1
2
LL 1
2
3
3*
U
CB 1
2
3
li
5
6
7
8
8*
9
10
11
12
13
lli
15
VI-8
mg/kg
38
26
22
22
36
35
37
25
36
38
31
2li
2li
28
18
lli
Ii6
21
Ii6
36
58
20
lili
37
Ii2
36
Ii8
20
Ii7
35
3U
37
lil
Uo
28
26
13
Ii8
30
20
31
Ii3
3li
19
17
18
U8
2li
29
51i
MS  No sample taken
*  Same sample 30-1|0  cm
-------
TABLE XVI
Location
A 1
2
3
k
5
B 1
2
3
k
5
C 1
2
3
3*
k
5
6
7
8
D 1
2
3
li
5
6
7
8
9
10
E 1
2
3
k
5
6
6*
F 1
2
3
1;
5
5*-
6
G 1
2
3
1;
5
H 1
2
ZINC BALTIMORE HARBOR
mg/kg
91
757
k9k
81;
620
7k
112
353
667
515
NS
69
572
655
9k6
859
910
2951;
U7k9
NS
kn
92
520
551;
11*09
50
35UO
2300
601*0
397
280
370
670
610
1330
i860
11*09
808
382
506
1681;
1090
1119
NS
930
7k3
72
662
687
668
Location
H 3
k
k*
5
I 1
2
3
k
5
6
6-x-
J 1
2
3
1*
U*
5
6
7
8
9
K 1
2
3
li
5
6
6*
7
L 1
2
2-x-
3
1*
M 1
2
3
1*
k*
N 1
2
2-x-
3
1;
5
6
0 1
2
2-x-
3
mg/kg
125
7kk
103
2858
1*05
1331
635
1363
1301
1307
U8
635
590
1025
1530
1719
2099
3370
5871;
I*6l6
3021
1*12
151;
71*8
1556
2857
1776
3730
1690
1213
816
56
1571
NS
962
669
390
1*22
Iii02
1113
850
711;
920
830
592
NS
975
1220
1*20
385
SEDIMENT
Location
0 k
5
6
P 1
2
2-x-
3
k
Q 1
2
3
3*
1*
5
6
R 1
2
2-x-
3
1*
S 1
2
3
T 1
2
3
3*
U 1
2
2-x-
3
V 1
2
3
W 1
2
2-x-
3
X 1
2
3
li
li*
Y 1
2
3
li
5
5*
6
STUDY
mg/kg
560
192
263
636
9U3
833
68
556
1010
228
767
189
786
789
1*020
588
61*6
51
121
257
1121;
2 Ol;
1*05
862
701*
31
271
1195
268
150
399
291;
2l;5

158
388
320
1;70
NS
215
178
228
1(51
106
571;
930
655
519

698

Location
AA 1
2
2-x-
3
BB 1
2
CC 1
2
DD 1
1-;:-
2
3
EE 1
2
FF 1
2
3
GG 1
2
2-x-
3
HH 1
2
II 1
2
JJ 1
2
KX 1
2
LL 1
2
3
3*

CB 1
2
3
1*
5
6
7
8
8-x-
9
10
11
12
13

15
VI-9
mg/kg
937
U6l
69
639
773
801;
1050
103
1031;
1011
1*06
68
59
189
83
2 1*3
1028
1;2
1215
1092
1608
358
1211
1200
991;
11*08
I3kk
38
1308
610
587
732
1066
ll;53
671;

177
1081;
299

7k3

hQQ
k9
210
k9
81*9
60
509
779
NS  No sample  taken
-x-  Same sample  30-1;0 cm
-------
            CADMIUM (mg/Kg)

           BALTIMORE  HARBOR

             PATAPSCO  RIVER
* y^^~  "^ ^""^ ' ^ • * * .••*f.»/* ', ^n"   ^-^^ ""^ '_~_ ""	I
iC~_r_z" JIT ~ ~ u •. • '• '•?.••'/' \_rir"-r_5iririr" ~

                                           >IOO
-------
                   CADMIUM (mg/Kg)
                 BALTIMORE  HARBOR
             NORTHWEST &   MIDDLE  BRANCH
                      NAUTICAL MILES
VI-11
Figure
'SCO
                                                  
-------
 CHROMIUM (mg/Kg)
BALTIMORE  HARBOR
  PATAPSCO  RIVER
                                    vl-12

                                    Figure
-------
      CHROMIUM (mg/Kg)
     BALTIMORE  HARBOR
NORTHWEST  &  MIDDLE  BRANCH
              o
          NAUTICAL MILES
VI-13

Figure 7
                                    LEGEND
                                   0-50
                                  50  -  250
                                  250  -  1,000
                                    > 1,000
-------
 COPPER (mg/Kg)
BALTIMORE   HARBOR
  PATAPSCO   RIVER
                                    Vl-lU

                                    Figure 3
-------
       COPPER (mg/Kg)
     BALTIMORE  HARBOR
NORTHWEST  &  MIDDLE  BRANCH
              o
          NAUTICAL  MILES
           VI-13'

           Figure 9
                                   LEGEND
                                 0-50
                                 50   -  250
250
                                       1,000
-------
   LEAD (mg/Kg)
BALTIMORE  HARBOR
  PATAPSCO  RIVER
                                    VI-16
                                    Figure Io
-------
        LEAD (mg/Kg)
     BALTIMORE  HARBOR
NORTHWEST  &  MIDDLE  BRANCH
              o        i
          NAUTICAL MILES
VI-17

Figure
                                  LEGEND
                                0-50

                                50  -  250

                               250     1,000

                                  >l,000
-------
       MANGANESE (mg/Kg)
       BALTIMORE  HARBOR
         PATAPSCO  RIVER
                                           VI-18

                                           Figure 12
BAY
-------
     MANGANESE (mg/Kg)
     BALTIMORE  HARBOR
NORTHWEST &  MIDDLE  BRANCH
         NAUTICAL MILES
VI-19

Figure  13
                                0   -  500
                               500  -  1,000
                               1,000  -  2,500
                                 >2500
-------
         MERCURY (mg/Kg)
       BALTIMORE  HARBOR
         PATAPSCO  RIVER
                                          VI-20

                                          Figure
BAY
                                     >5
-------
      MERCURY (mg/Kg)
     BALTIMORE  HARBOR
NORTHWEST &   MIDDLE  BRANCH
VI-21

Figure 15
          NAUTICAL MILES
                                  LEGEND
                                   ND
                                0   -   I
                                I    -   5
-------
  NICKEL (mg/Kg)
BALTIMORE   HARBOR
  PATAPSCO   RIVER
                                   VI-22

                                   Figure 16
-------
       NICKEL Img/Kg)
     BALTIMORE  HARBOR
NORTHWEST  &  MIDDLE  BRANCH
          NAUTICAL  MILES
VI-23
                                   LEGEND
                                 0-25

                                 25   -  50

                                 50   -  75

                                    >75
-------
   ZINC (mg/Kg)
BALTIMORE  HARBOR
  PATAPSCO  RIVER
                                    VI-24

                                    Fi&~. 18
-------
         ZINC (mg/Kg)
     BALTIMORE  HARBOR
NORTHVv'EST  &  MIDDLE  BRANCH
               o
VI-25

Figure 19
           NAUTICAL  MILES
                                     LEGEND
                                   50  -   250
                                  250  -  1,000
                                      > 1,000
-------
BALTIMORE HARBOR
1	• -9	—
-------
                                            VII-1
APPENDIX II
-------
                                                             VII-2
                       TABLE XVII




METALS CONCENTRATION IN MAIN CHANNEL OF BALTIMORE HARBOR
Transect/
Station Cr
, \
A -I
B k
C 3
C 3*
LJ .1*
D l*-x-
E k
F 1*
F k*
G 1*
H k
H 1*-*
I 3
J 2
J 2--:-
K 2
L 2
L 2-x-
M 2
N 3
X 3*
0 3
P 2
P 2-x-
R 2
R 2*
S 2
T 3
T 3*
AA 1
BB 1
BB 1*
28
160
86
88
161
37
161
119
89
36
196
3k
193
190
1*0
75
271*
38
372
1*05
135
ikl
22k
161
520
58
ll*8
601;
239
963
53U
1183
Cu
32
123
97
95
135
6
122
78
61
91
11*0
57
123
109
10
25
217
2
66
288
119
11*0
252
276
291
12
123
619
197
1616
1665
1060
mg/kg
Pb Zn
16
171*
161
16C
liiO
6
Ikl
115
12k
19
176
16
191
179
12
28
55
k
132
120
172
11*1*
169
21*0
228
<1
61
386
197
351
81*4
615
31*
06 1
572
665
520
71
67C
505
1*00
72
71*1*
103
635
590
81
151*
816
56
669
920
365
385
91*3
833
61*6
51
201*
31
271
937
773
710
Mn
1166
1261
2286
3317
2721
131*5
21*33
171*0
2171
121*7
1222
1157
2309
ll*l*8
1288
2097
1118
11*32
ll*02
969
1380
1253
782
875
801*
635
535
685
1131*
263
333
376
Ni
27
18
1*8
57
51
19
1*U
36
21
26
1*1
25
1*1*
30
21
33
39
22
1*2
1*7
22
32
1*2
35
39
26
28
31
30
38
36
32
Cd
-------
                                                                 VII-3
TABLE XVIII
METALS CONCENTRATION IN KENT ISLAND
Station
Number
1
2
3
it
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
15
16

Cr
33
146
55
83
ill
22
63
42
23
40
17
26
30
34

Cu
28
142
29
166
114
16
26
29
^7
32
11
10
10
68

Pb
56
21
93
365
315
70
135
156
2k
22
48
13
23
136
mg/kg
Zn
274
628
343
1180
175
155
509
353
144
93
146
122
162
169

Mn
3142
1460
359*1
1740
1395
1419
2866
1640
10 s 9
1219
750
2505
861
533
DISPOSAL AREA

Ni
62
38
51
119
31
27
47
39
28
28
42
41
39
27

Cd
< 1
1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1

Hg
.01
.20
.01
.12
< .01
< .01
.01
.07
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
.20
NOTE:  No cores were taken at stations 13,  14,  17 and 18 due to
       sandy bottom
-------
             KENT   ISLAND   DISPOSAL   AREA
 IOOO
                                                      VII-1*

                                                      Figure :

                                                           N
SCALE  IN NAUTICAL  MILES
      0        I
    SCALE  IN YARDS
-------
                                                VIII-1
APPENDIX III
-------
VIII-2


Metal
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Lead
Nickel
Zinc

TOXICITY
Chemical
Symbol
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Fb
Ni
Zn
25
TABLE XIX
OF METALS TO MARINE LIFE
Range of Concentrations that have
Toxic Effects on Marine Life
(mg/1 or ppm)
2.0
0.01 to 10
1.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
10.0
-------
                                                                   VIII-3
                         TABLE   XX
               TRACE METALS - USES AND HAZARDS
Metals
Industrial Use
Health Effects
Arsenic    coal, petroleum, deter-
           gents, pesticides, mine
           tailings
                           hazard disputed, may cause
                           cancer
Barium     paints, linoleum, paper,
           drilling mud
                           muscular and cardiovascular
                           disorders, kidney damage
Cadmium
batteries, paints, plas-
tics, coal, zinc mining,
water mains and pipes,
tobacco smoke
high blood pressure, ster-
ility, flu-like disorders,
cardiovascular disease and
hypertension in humans
suspected, interferes with
zinc and copper metabolism
Chromium   alloys, refractories,
           catalysts
                           skin disorders, lung can-
                           cer, liver damage
Lead       batteries, auto exhaust
           from gasoline, paints
           (prior to 19U8)
                           colic, brain damage, con-
                           vulsions, behavioral dis-
                           orders, death
Mercury    coal, electrical batter-
           ies, fungicides, elec-
           trical instruments, paper
           and pulp, pharmaceuti-
           cals
                           birth defects, nerve dam-
                           age , death
Nickel     diesel oil, residual oil,  dermatitis, lung cancer
           coal, tobacco smoke, chem- (as carbonyl)
           icals and catalysts,
           steel and nonferrous al-
           loys, plating
-------
                           REFERENCES
 1  Blick, R.A.P., and B. Wisely, "Mortality of Marine Invertebrate
    Larvae in Hg, Cu and Zn Solutions," Aust. J. Mar. Freshwat. Res.,
    18(1): 63 (1967).

 2 Browning, E., "Toxicity of Industrial Metals," Butterworths,
    London, England (1961) .

 3  Corner, E.D.S., and B.W. Sparrows, "The Mode of Action of Toxic
    Agents.  I.  Observations on the Poisoning of Certain Crustaceans
    by Copper and Mercury,"  Jour. Mar. Biol. Assoc., V.K. 35,531
    (1956).

 k  Curley, A., et . al . , "Organic Mercury Identified as the Cause of
    Poisoning in Humans and Hogs,"  Science, 172 (1971) •

 5  Axelson, G., and P. Magnus,  "Renal Damage after Prolonged
    Exposure to Cadmium, "  A.M. A. Archives of Environmental Health,
    Karolinska Institutet, Stockholme, Sweden, p. 360 (1966).

 6  Irukayama, K.T. Kondo, F. Kai, and M. Fujiki, "Studies on the
    origin of the causative agent of Minamata disease.  I.  Organic
    mercury compounds in the fish and shellfish from Minamata Bay, "
    Kumamoto Med. J . , l^(^), pp. 157-169 (l96l) .
 7  Schroeder, H.A., "Trace Metals and Chronic Diseases,"  Metal
    Bindings in Medicine, Lippincott, Co., Philadelphia (1960) .

 8  Kobayashi, J., "Relation between 'Itai-Itai1 Disease and the
    Pollution of River Waters by Cadmium from a Mine,"  presented
    at the 5th International Water Pollution Research Conference,
    held in San Francisco, July -August, 1970, 7 P-, 2 Ref., 3 Tab.,
    6 Fig., U.S.P'.H.S., Grant WP-00359 (1970).

 9  Faust, S., and J. Hunter (eds), Organic Compounds in Aquatic
    Environments, Marcel Dekker, Inc.,  N.Y., Chap. 12 (1971).

10  Oliver, B., "Heavy Metals Levels in Ottawa and Rideau River
    Sediments,"  Environmental Science and Technology, 7? No. 2.,
    p. 135 (February 1973) •

11  Martin, D., et. al.,  "Distribution of Naturally Occurring
    Chelators (Humic Acids)  and the Selected Trace Metals in some
    West Coast Florida Streams, 1968-1969,"  Univ. of South Florida,
    Professional Papers Series Number 12 (April 1971) •
-------
12  Faust, 3., and J. Hunter (eds),  Organic Compounds in Aquatic
    Environments, Marcel Dekker,  Inc., N.Y., Chap. 13 (1971).

13  Goulden, P.D., and B. K. Afghan,  "An Automated Method for
    Determining Mercury in Water,"  Technicon., Adv. in Auto, Anal.,,  2,
    p. 317 (1970).

lU  Finger, J., Personal communication, Southeast Water Laboratory,
    Analytical Services Section (1970).

15  "Mercury in Water (Automated Cold Vapor Technique),"  Environmental
    Protection Agency, Southeast Water Laboratory, Chemical Services
    Section (April 1972) .

16  Bender, M.E., et. al.,  "Heavy Metals - An Inventory of Existing
    Conditions," J. Wash. Acad. Sci., 62, No. 2,  pp.  lMi-153  (1972).

17  Houser, M.E., and M.I. Fauth, "Potomac River  Sediment Study,"
    Naval Ordnance Station, Indian Head, Maryland (1972).

18  Pheiffer,  T., "Heavy Metals Analyses of Bottom Sediment in the
    Potomac River Estuary,"  Annapolis Field Office,  Region III,
    Environmental Protection Agency,  Technical Report No. ^9
    (January 1972).

19  "Water Quality Management Plan for Patapsco and Back River
    Basins,"  State of Maryland,  Maryland Environmental Services
    (March 1973).

20  Quirk, Lawler and Matusky Engineers, "Water Quality of
    Baltimore Harbor,"  Environmental Science and Engineering
    Consultants, QL & M Project No.  22k-l (March  1973).

21  "Water Quality Conditions in the Chesapeake Bay System,"
    Annapolis  Field Office, Region III, Environmental Protection
    Agency, Technical Report No.  55 (August 1972).

22  Annapolis  Field Office data,  unpublished (1972-1973).

23  Bowen, H.J.M., Trace Elements in Biochemistry, Academic Press,
    N.Y.  (1966).

2\  Green, J., "Geochemical Table of the Elements for 1959,"   Bulletin
    of the Geological Society of America, 70, pp. 1127-1184 (1959).

25  National Estuarine Pollution Study, U.S. Dept. of the Interior,
    FWPCA, Vol. II, Page TV 356 (November 3, 1969).
-------
26  "A Biological Study of Baltimore Harbor,"  Natural Resources
    Institute, University of Maryland, Chesapeake Bay Biological
    Laboratory, N.R.I. Ref. No. 71-76, unpublished (September 1971).

27  Ryan, Donald J., The Sediments of Chesapeake Bay,  Dept.  of
    Geology, Mines and. Water Resources, Bulletin 12,  Baltimore (1953).

28  Biggs, Robert B., "Trace Metal Concentration in the Sediments of
    Baltimore Harbor at Dundalk Marine Terminal,"  Chesapeake
    Biological Laboratory, CBL Ref. No. 68-97 (December 1968).

29  Carpenter, J., personal communication,  Johns Hopkins Univ.
    (1970).

30  Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewaters,
    APHA, AWWA, WPCF, 13th Edition, American Public Health
    Association, N.Y. (1971).

31  Great Lakes Region Committee on Analytical Methods, "Chemistry
    Laboratory Manual - Bottom Sediments,"   FWQA, Environmental
    Protection Agency (December 1969).
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY
MIDDLE ATLANTIC REGION-III  6th and Walnut Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
-------
-------
       SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
NUTRIENT TRANSPORT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
               IN THE
    LOWER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN
            October 1974


          Technical Report 60
        Annapolis Field Office
              Region III
   Environmental  Protection Agency
-------
-------
EPA-903/9-74-014
                        Annapolis Field Office
                              Region III
                    Environmental Protection Agency
                        SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

                 NUTRIENT TRANSPORT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
                                IN THE
                     LOWER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN
                          Technical  Report 60

                             October 1974
                             Leo J.  Clark
                             Victor  Guide
                          Thomas H.  Pheiffer
                     Annapolis Field Office Staff

     Maryann L.  Bonning                         Si grid R.  Kayser
     Tangie L.  Brown                            Donald W.  Lear,  Jr.
     Gerard W.  Crutchley                        Evelyn P.  McPherson
     Daniel K.  Donnelly                         James  W. Marks
     Gerard R.  Donovan, Jr.                      Margaret S.  Mason
     Bettina B.  Fletcher                        Margaret B.  Munro
     Margaret E.  Flohr                          Marria L.  O'Malley
     Norman E.  Fritsche                         Susan  K. Smith.
     George H.  Houghton                         Earl C. Staton
     Patricia A.  Johnson                        William M. Thomas, Jr.
     Ronald Jones                               Robert L.  Vallandingfiam
                          Orterio  Villa,  Jr.
-------
-------
     This report has been reviewed by EPA and approved for
publication.  Approval does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does the mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation
for use.
-------
-------
                            ABSTRACT

     Identification of the Susquehanna River as the primary
contributor of nutrients to the upper Chesapeake Bay and recognition
of the need to develop a nutrient management program for their mutual
protection, prompted the Annapolis Field Office, EPA, to conduct a
one-year comprehensive nutrient survey in the lower Susquehanna River
Basin between Northumberland, Pa. and Conowingo, Md.  Three distinct
hydrologic seasons were represented during the study period which
provided the foundation for an in-depth evaluation of all  water quality
data obtained during this survey.  Its principal objectives were:
(1) quantitative identification of average nitrogen and phosphorus
loadings and determination of seasonal variations in nutrient loadings
from every major sub-basin (2) delineation of point source and
non-point source nutrient contributions to establish effectiveness of
controllability measures (3)  seasonal mass balance of nutrient
loadings in the main stem and (4) determination of the fate of nutrients
in impounded areas.  The report enumerates the important findings
and conclusions which evolved during the intensive data analysis and
interpretation and presents recommendations for future studies.
Hopefully, the material presented in this report can assist in the
implementation of a workable  nutrient management program.
-------
-------
                           Introduction

     Possibly the most serious pollution problem currently plaguing
the upper Chesapeake Bay is one of progressive eutrophication
stemming from the uncontrolled discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus
in both the tidal and non-tidal areas of the major tributary
watersheds.  Consequently, during 1969 the Annapolis Field Office
(AFO) embarked on a one-year monitoring study to (1) delineate
significant nutrient inputs to the Chesapeake Bay, (2) quantify
nutrient loadings and establish their seasonal trends, and
(3) determine the relative importance of each watershed's nutrient
load in affecting current biological conditions in the Bay.  The
obvious conclusion from this study was the primary significance of
the Susquehanna River as a contributor of nitrogen and phosphorus to
the Chesapeake Bay, accounting for 50, 60 and 66 percent of the total
phosphorus, TKN and nitrate loadings, respectively, entering the Bay
on an annual basis.
     Recognizing the dramatic effect of the Susquehanna River on the
water quality of the upper Chesapeake Bay and the need to develop a
nutrient management program for their mutual protection, AFO
initiated a comprehensive nutrient study in the lower Susquehanna
Basin between Northumberland, Pa., and Conowingo, Md.  The study
was limited to this particular area since preliminary data analysis
revealed this lower reach to be the significant nutrient contributor
to the Bay.  This twelve month study (June 1971 - May 1972), which
-------
-------
 comprised weekly or bi-weekly sampling at 37 stream stations and
 monthly sampling of 25 major sewage treatment plant effluents, had
 the following principal objectives:
           a)  quantitative identification of average nitrogen and
 phosphorus loadings from every significant sub-basin in the lower
 Susquehanna,
           b)  determination of seasonal  variations in nutrient
 loadings for individual sub-basins and their dependency on stream
 flow,
           c)  delineation of point source and non-point source
 nutrient contributions and determination of typical loading rates
 from agricultural, forested and urban areas, especially the urban
 Harrisburg metro area, in order to establish the potential
 controllability of nutrients on a seasonal basis,
           d)  seasonal mass balance of nutrient loadings in the
Susquehanna River from the West Branch confluence to Conowingo, Md.,  and
           e)  determination of the fate  of nutrients in impounded
areas along the lower Susquehanna River.

      This report contains an enumeration of the important findings
which evolved during the course of data analysis and interpretation.
In addition, the report contains the most important conclusions
which can be drawn from the information presented followed by a
framework of recommendations for future studies.  Graphical
supportive material is included in the Appendix.
-------
-------
     It should be noted that Item 28 of the Summary and Item 23 of
the Conclusion Sections of the report state the need for point source
control of phosphorus to protect the upper Chesapeake Bay from
excessive eutrophication.  Conclusion 24 questions the effectiveness
of nitrogen control at point sources in the lower Susquehanna River
Basin in the absence of an accompanying reduction of the existing
nitrogen load from agricultural runoff.  These findings and conclusions
were specifically developed in AFO Technical Report 56.  Utilizing
a mathematical model and the data from Technical Report 60, the
combined impact of nutrient loadings from the Susquehanna River and
Baltimore, Maryland on the eutrophic condition of the upper Chesapeake
Bay was evaluated.  Technical  Report 56, "Nutrient Enrichment and
Control Requirements in the Upper Chesapeake Bay, Summary and
Conclusions", should be read jointly with this report.
     Technical Report 56 concluded that phosphorus could be made the
rate limiting nutrient in the upper Chesapeake Bay to control
eutrophication or, specifically, the level  of algal standing crop as
measured by chlorophyll a^.  For Susquehanna River flows less than or
equal to 30,000 cubic feet per second (cfs), a reduction of 70 percent
in the existing point source phosphorus load from both the lower
Susquehanna River and the Baltimore Metropolitan Area is required.  At
higher river flows the phosphorus reduction at point sources increases
substantially.  Point source control of nitrogen may not be a viable
alternative to phosphorus control during any flow condition at thts
time without a substantial reduction in non-point sources of nitrogen.
-------
-------
     The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has an adopted phosphorus
policy for the lower Susquehanna Basin which requires at least 80
percent removal of phosphorus from all new or modified wastewater
treatment facilities.  Maryland places phosphorus limitations on
wastewater treatment facilities on a case by case basis in accordance
with receiving water characteristics.  Even with the introduction of
point source phosphorus control in Maryland and Pennsylvania, the
impact from expected population growth in the study area will eventually
require serious consideration of non-point source control  of nutrients
as a supplemental measure to high degrees of phosphorus and nitrogen
removal at point sources.  Technological  and cost considerations of
phosphorus removal and the relative magnitude of non-point source
nitrogen loads may make this consideration imperative.  The delineation
and quantification of point source and non-point source nutrient
contributions for the lower Susquehanna Basin set forth in the
report is substantial.  It is hoped that  management agencies will
utilize this body of data and expand upon it where necessary to develop
land-use management programs in conjunction with point source control
of nutrients to allow for the accomodation of future population
growth while at the same time maintaining permissable nutrient levels
in the lower Susquehanna Basin and the upper Chesapeake Bay.
-------
-------
                               Summary
       :    1)  The Susquehanna River between Sunbury, Pennsylvania
and Conowingo, Maryland, drains an area of approximately 9,000
square miles in south central Pennsylvania and contains a resident
population (1970 census) of approximately 875,000 (25% of the Basin's
total population).
           2)  In the lower Susquehanna River basin approximately 5%,
40%, 50% and 5% represents urban, agricultural, forested and other
areas, respectively.
           3)  Daily flows were monitored at Conowingo Dam during the
entire survey and ranged from about 4,200 cfs (Aug. 1971) to 319,000
cfs (Mar. 1972).
           4)  For purposes of data evaluation, the study period was
separated into three distinct seasons, each characterized by a
different but relatively uniform flow condition.   The mean flows and
mean water temperatures for each season are shown in the table below:
                                                     Mean Water
      Period                   Mean Flow            Temperature
                            (cfs x 1000's)             ^C
June - Oct., 1971                11                    23.5
Nov., 1971 - Feb. , 1972          37                     3.6
March - May, 1972                88                    12.5
           5)  The average seasonal concentration of nutrients
measured near the mouths of the fourteen major tributaries of the
lower Susquehanna River are presented as follows:
-------
-------
o P"- to
Z 00 r— 01
1— O CM O
tO LO LO
•z.  3 r— Cn
c xi r-s. E
oj M- CM
O S- r—
C H-
O D-
0 S-
4-> > U >— i
C T- O Z «?• IOOCO
OJ O£ eCtoO Oi — CM
$- eo C£. O O O
4-> C O> O
3 C C Z
Z ro 3 i — i
.c '•a
cn 3
(O O~
S- (/I
CD 3
> 00
^c *d" ^i" cn G5 ^~
O i/l O O •— «d-
H- O •— O


Z 3 tO O CO LO
CC O 4- CO CM t-~
LU _l O r— .—



NX
LU
C LU
•r- NX rv NX
tO LU CJ LU
ro LU LU
CO Qi Z OT
1 O I-H 0
0 NX.
3 >- 0 00
oo z 2: z
O CC Z
1— I LU
OO 00 O_
oo
to
o
vo
CM
•—

00
LO
o

LO
o
o


00
vo
o









o
1 —
0








t--
CM
o


0
r-.




r*s
LU
^>
*«<
rv
<
<
i— i
^^
•-3
LO
U?
•—
cn
'—
CM

cn
LO
, —

to
o
o


o
to
o









cn
CO
o








00
10
o


LO
CM


o:
c_>

h-
LU
~y*
KH
CD
O
Q
O
O
0
LO
«*
•—
cn
to
'-

CM
CO
, —

OO
r—
O


I--
oo
o









CO
i —
0








CO
1 —
o


0
CM


OO
LU
:r
o
LU
LU
C£
CO
3
O
_J
_l
LU
>-
O
CM
CM
LO
to
CM

O
r—
CM

O

O


LO
LO
O









OO
^3"
0








r—
LO
0


o
LO




NX
LU
LU
DC
O
„.
cc.
3:
00
oo
r*~
i —
to
oo
CM

LO
to
, —

CO
o
o


1 —
r-.
o









LO
*d"
0








cn
LO
O


0
oo
CO



NX
LU
LU
at:
o

3
3
LU
Z
o
0
CO
«*
^O
Lp
^*"
^

^~
CM
to


CM
O


CM
CM
, —









i —
r--
i —








^~
-
O
z
o
o
CM
^f
OO
^
*S"
•*

(^Q
CO
CM


LO
O


i —
to
, 	









CO
co
r_








r—
i —
CM


LO
CM




NX
LU
LU
C£
O
00
C£
O
Q
O
0
CM
LO
LO
cn
0
to

^J-
^r
LO

CO
o
0


LO
to
0









oo
^3"
o








1 —
to
o


o
CM



NX
LU
LU

C^i

oo
LU
I-H
O
I-H
"T"
<->

r--
"*•
CO
LO
LO

O
to
^f-


<—
o


oo
Ol
o









o
1 —
,_








^^
**•
,_


o
o



LU
LU
ca


H

0 5a
mi
§ • °
13
0
0 *
-------
-------













*
Vt
C 10
o cu
•|— »|— «*— *
•)-> t- CVJ
ro to P"-*.
s- -i-> en
+J 3 i—
C -Q
CO 'I— "
u s-
C 1— -Q
o cu
CO S_ U_
CD
•»-> > 1
C •!-
CU C£ < —
S- 03 en
•(-> C r—
3 C
Z to •>
_)^ .
cu eu >
en 3 o
(0 cr z
S_ CO ^
CU 3
> 00
"^

















z
t— 1
I—

z
*~
CO
o
Z CO
+ (0 Z
CM
o

CO
n: co z
Z (0



Z co
i^  ro rt
1—

2: 3 to
^ o ^
LU _1 O






c
>r»
I/)
co
i
_Q
3
oo

0
CM
O
^
OO
o

r—
O


o
o



o
CM
o
^~
~«^
CD
E





oo
o
o







0
o

§







XX
LU
LU
oc
CO
o
oo

LO
CM
CD
CO
CM

OO
O


CO
'-



CM
O
CM









CO
o
0







CO
en
0

CO
CM




**/
LU
LU
o:
(J
z
HH
|
00
r- 00
en o
•- •-
CM r^
00 00
CM r—
CO O
r"** CD
r- r-

OO CO
r- O
0 0



LO OO
o o









00 CM
r— i —
0 O







CM i—
o o

O LO
^- en





fv^
LU
^ >
LU >— i
LU a:
O£
0 
C3
o
Q
O
O
O
LO
LO
•—
CO
00
•~

•*
—

00
o
o



CO
o









en
o
o







^
o

0
CO



00
LU
o:
o
LU
LU
CO

O
_J
LU
CM «*
r^«- O
CM CM
O LO
CM LO
00 CM
i— CM
*3- en
CM i—

i— CM
00 r-
O O



en co
0 0









co en
«fr CM
0 0







LO 00
LO CO
0 0

O oo
r-~ CM
LO O
I — 1 —




^/
i^ UJ
LU LU
LU Q:
ct: o
o
^ CD
•f. ^i
1— LU
 LO
00 «*
oo o
r- 0
O LO
•* CM
en r-~
r-~ oo

CM O
O 00
r— O



en co
i— CM
CM i—









LO O
LO i—
•- •-







CD LO
CM CM
CM i —

° 5





**s
LU
:*£ LU
LU OC
LU CO
ce
o oo
ra
>• tx.
0 0
o o
en
0
i —
00
CD
r~-
CM
cn
CD


r—
0



CO
o









0
o







s
0

o
o
CM




"^/
LU
LU
C£

OO
LU
t-H
CO
»~l
3:
o
I— LO
«*• o
CD CO
«*• »*
oo m
r~~. co
CD CO
cn CD
LO LO

LO CM
«a- «a-
o o



00 r—
co cn
r— O









en cn
O r-
•— o







O -51-
LO CM
r— O

O LO
0 «3-
00 CM



^
LU
LU
ct: ^
O LU
LU
C3 CO
o
i— «s:
00 LU
LU r?
O LU
O Q.

CM
•*
^
cn
^
CM
•—
*fr

cn
o
0



CM
00
0









^~
0





9
1
cn +>
o 9
o
1 1
o
T3
1


, ^,
LU 2
Q^ IS
C-3 \Z
^3 O

M
o'
o »
-------
-------













to
C 00
O O)
•i— -r-
to to
S- -P -~»
•P 3 CM
C JO 1^-
cu -r- cn
0 S- i—
Cl
1 —
0
CJ S- >>
 S
C •!-
QJ a: i
•^
&-  3
fO O"
S— (/)
QJ 3
> oo
ct























h-


H-
CO
O
-*^ CO
+ (0 -Z.
CM
O

co
Lj_ CO *i—



z to
1—





Q-

c ^
1 — 1
^" ^
e£ to O
or
o
•z.






^" ^
O V) 0
^. n3 Q-


z: slo"
<: o <4-
UJ _1 O
s u_




C
00
(O
CO
i
o
3
OO


OiOOCOocM1— OCOLD
r-VOVOCTli— ChCOOOLrt
O" — i— o c^ ' — CM i — r~-
criOOv^ooor^o^-cM
CO O " — CM LO CM CM CO LO
O CM CM i — CM CM CO CM 00
CO ^^ f""^ LO P^* CO r~~ r*"* *^h
f^ to LO co c T r^* r^*^ r**^ CTJ
O O i — O CM i — CM i — to


tO^COLOLOCOO,^,-
OOi— OOi— OOIO
o •— ooooooo


Lp O^ ^«O LjQ Lf% «sj' ^^ px» OO
CVJ OO V.O OO ^^ LO ^^ LO LO
Oi— OOOOOOi—

r—
"•"•^
o>
E




co oo r— r*** r^ ^" co LO CTI
O O i — Oi — i — CMi — CM
OOOOOOOOi—








^J" CO ^1" t£> f""*> to o^ r^ CO
ocooji — coi — CMCOCO
OOOOOOOOr—

1
2>CTlLOCOl — tOi — ^d"l — LO
5> o to to ^~ CTI i — o r — • co
•*i — COCMr~-LOlOtOCM
o "~ *~
•~

oi i/o
LU o; ° :r *£ LLI
LU LU | — O LU UJ
UJOLUl-HZLUDiOUJ
LU LU cc i— i a: o LU
a: z a; rD DQ o oi
O •— t <_> eC CD »- CO t/) ^C t*^ CO ^C *^e ^~
ZSZi— -tOC_)O
OO O CM O !--•
r- •— LT> CX) O
^^ px,, ^Q Lf^ ^^
^^ ^^ O^ '^ t^J
o* LO o c\j r^.
.* r- r-. to ^f
O^ c^> Q^ C\J ^^
r*"i>' t^ji c\\ r**^ o^
co r-. to LO co


O~i O CO CO CO
CO i— CM O r—
0 O O O O


1^3 O^ iT^J C\J ^D
f\j LO co LO r^
r— 0 O O O









r^- co ^~ CM co
o CM r~- i — CM
i— O O O O






•
1

LO CO 00 CM CM +»
>— O O O O H
O

«d- o LO o o S
CO LO LO O O -H
LO CM O CO ^3- S
"~ "£
0
•o
fi
xx 1 1 j 1 1 1 1 1 1 Q|
LU LU a: ^ LU T*
f r"*


CO LU CO CX
ra i— ' i— 
-------
     The data shown in the preceeding tables indicate that Shamokin,
Conoy, Codorus and Conestoga Creeks had the highest phosphorus
concentrations during each season.  During low flow periods these
concentrations exceeded 1.0 mg/1.  Both total and inorganic
phosphorus concentrations usually decreased when stream flows
increased, indicating that excessive runoff was having a diluting
effect on point source discharges.
     Maximum TKN concentrations  (1.0 - 3.0 mg/1) were also measured
in Shamokin, Conoy, Codorus and Conestoga Creeks during the low
flow season and probably reflected the sizeable waste loadings
received by these streams.  In general, TKN behaved similar to
phosphorus in that higher stream flows resulted in further dilution.
     Oxidized inorganic nitrogen (N09 + NO-J appeared to be the
                                    £.     3
most prevalent nutrient monitored.  Because of the importance of
agricultural runoff, most streams did not experience the diluting
effect observed for other forms of nutrients during high flow
periods.  Pequea Creek, a predominately agricultural watershed
having no significant point source discharges exhibited a high
NOp + NOg concentration but a relatively low TKN concentration for
each season.  Stony Creek, a predominately forested watershed, on
the other hand, contained relatively low nutrient concentrations
regardless of season.
     Except for Shamokin Creek, a highly acidic stream where
nitrification is probably inhibited, ammonia levels were quite low,
especially during the warmer periods when the nitrification reaction
should be most pronounced.
-------
                                                                 10
          6)  The average seasonal nutrient concentrations measured
at the ten main stem Susquehanna stations are presented in the tables
on the following pages.
     Since the volume of flow in the Susquehanna is extremely
large in comparison to the tributary flows, the river was not very
responsive to a given nutrient input in terms of a concentration
increase.  The considerable amount of dilution present is illustrated
in the comparatively low phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations
shown in the following tables.  Phosphorus concentrations were
generally higher during the low flow periods but did not exceed 0.3
mg/1.  Moreover, concentrations were consistently greater in the reach
from Harrisburg to Conowingo than they were in the upper reach,
probably the result of several large tributary inputs.  The fairly high
phosphorus concentrations observed in the vicinity of Harrisburg during
the high flow period may be partially due to combined sewer overflows.
It is also important to recognize the dramatic decrease in phosphorus
during lower flow periods in the area of Conowingo and to a lesser extent
at Safe Harbor.  These impoundments appeared to represent a significant
"sink" for phosphorus when detention times were long.
     The maximum TKN and NOp + N03 concentrations (0.82 mg/1 and
1.3 mg/1, respectively) were measured in the Susquehanna River between
Safe Harbor and Conowingo Dams.  While TKN was always greatest during
low flow periods because of minimal dilution of tributary inflows,
NOp + N03 levels were greater during the higher flow-lower temperature
periods.  This  latter  relationship reflected  the effects of runoff
-------
t— 1
JE
oo
o
^|* ^j
+ (0 Z
OJ
o
z

oo
re to z
Z 03
to
C
0 S-
•i— (I) Z (/)
4-5 > s/ (^ ^~
(O-i- (—
S_ Qi ^^
-!-> i—
c to r-~-
OJ C CTi
0 C r—
C (O
O -C O-
O  cr o >-<
c to z «>
CL> 13 1 «C to O
•i- OO C5 fO Q-
S- CD Oi
4-> E C O
=5 0) 3 Z
Z •»-> '"S i— i
00 — -
CD
Ol C
£ '5
cu s:
eC ^~ ^
O to O
Q- ft3 Q-


^-^
- CQ
Z Z C£ OO
<; 	 1 3IeC 	 1 eiCQ e£ "HOC
z a: o z o: zz z oj zee
=CZUU ZZLLJ Z=3 ZOJ Z ^ co  O O O O C
0 CO CO CTi LO J
CT> ** *^ *^ *^ S
*"" 2 l~~ ^ "t!
0
^3
•o
g
a»
Qi ^
CO 2
oo SJ
o=c ooo ^
-------
-------

















to
c
0 i-
•r— CU
•4-> > *-~v
 CT.
C fO i—
cu E:
u c
C <0 .0
o -c cu
O CU U.
3
•4-> cr i
C to
CU =3 r—
•i- co r-.
i- CM
•»-> E r-
3 CU
CO >
CU O
CD C Z
S- '(0 *~'
cu s:
>
^c





















z
t— <
h-

^.
I—
CO
0
Z tO
+ * z
CM
o
z


CO
3: to z
rtfT,  o
a_ its o_


Z 3 to
«=c o «*-
LU _J U
S U_ ^-









O
1 — 1
<:
CO


1—
•
o
en

o
en

•
0


OJ
r"
.
o



0
CO
•
o

1— •
•"•x^
D^
E





CM
O

O







CO
O

O


O
O
cn
o
*~~




a
z
^^
^^ T^
3: z LU
j^ 1 1 1 — \
a: =3 3:
CO Ort—
co a:
• ^^i f~$
3 CO Z
LO
*
1
CM

•—
CO
CO
•
o



CM

O



^>
LT)
•
O










^Q
O

o







cn
i— -
•
o


o
o
*3~
CO
l~~




a
z
 t— =D CM 3) •—
O1 cr o-
co co co
~-i ^— *~i ^— ^^ ^.«,
CO Q£ CO Q£ CO Cxi
cn S co Ln

0 o •— -—

i — CO (£> i—
i — i — i — CM
CO *J3 CM O
!-•- co r- co
* • • •
0 0 •— .—


^j~ co co cn
c— i— CM CM

o o o o



i— O LT> r-
^ LO LO 00
• • • •
o o o o










kO ID i — CO
O r— •— r—

o o o o







O*i VO ^t1 Cft
i — CO CM CM
* • • •
0 O O O


O 0 O O
O 0 O 0
co i-~ cn CM
co co h-T cn
co ro co co


CD
C£
CQ
co
1— 1
^C <"*** ^c *^^  ^ =) =33
O' O-=3 &LU CXI—
co • co _J co u_ co _j

coo£ coo coco CO3:
•=!•
•


00
•~
VO
CM
•
1 —


CO
1—
.
o



LO
LO
,
o










o

•
o







cn
1 —

o


o
**
r^1
CO







xf
Z 0
LU •— t
o-o
=3 O
oo co











































T1
rti
JJ
1 •%
•a
o
H
i
y
"2
o
•a
2
0)
^
E
«\
*_J
_J
1
3

Ht
-------
-------













to
a
0 S-
•r- O)
•*-> >
rO 'r~ *• — -
s- o: CM
-M r--.
C ra CTi
0) E r—
o c
C ra >,
O -C (O
o a> s:
^
4-> cr i
c to
cu ^ CM
•r- OO r-.
s- en
+•> E r—
3 0)
Z -M
00 S-
CL) ro
CD c 2:
S- ro
QJ ^»
>
ct























•z.
i — i
1—
Z.

ro
O
+ ro Z
CM
O
Z


ro
re co z
z ro



Z CO
i«i ro Z
I—






O_

O
i — i
^ ^
et co O
O rO D_
rv*
O
^^
i — i






^~ ^
O in O
/"\ fO t*\


, — ,
Z 3 to
=t 0 4-
LU _l O
S! La- ^-^









z
O
g


0 ooo'000l~
£ -§s§^^^
0 r- ^-' o' r-' ^-' »- •-

^d- cMuni^-ocriCOCTi
^- r~.LOLnr--voi-~.co
o ooooooo

^
O i— i— •— O •— 0 i—

o ooooooo



ro C35 LO O^ 00 CO ro LQ
CM ^" ^~ ro co ^~ ^rf" ^~
• •••••••
o ooooooo

f—
*^^
CD
E




^- (^ i_f^ Ln CT> cd o^ r--
r o oooot— oo

o ooooooo









00 CO ^~ VO O CM i — CO
O i — r — i — CMCMCMi —
• .••••••
o ooooooo


o ooooooo
o OOOOOLOO
^j" en LO Ln cTs ^3 ^i" r--
n n f> ft K * r< n
Ln OLncMLnuni — o
CM ^~ LO r*~. CO CO CTi CTt



f-D CD
OL OC
O Q >- CQ CQ
'Z. Z C£. OO OO
el <: rr> i— i i— i •
z Q; o z a: zz z CM z a: z a: z CQ zo
rczuj ZZLU zrD ZCM z<; z< z zca
oecco >— roco IDS: m
CQCXI— zo-h- or cr or cy errs o-uJ
oooi i— IOOQ: oo- oo- oo- oo- oo 	 i oo u_
• ID o  oooo
5 ^
ro co
OO CO
1 i —

r— r--
en o^
O o

r— en
r. ^~
• •
O O



CNJ f •
^^ LO
• •
o o









O*l r—
O i—
• •
O 0







.
TD
Ol i—O)
i — CM >>
* ' +•*
° -a
0
0)
O O SB
0 0 3

** ** s
C\J OO »H
O^ 00 £H
o
•o
0)


s
4)
•rt
z z !p
z z o 3
re o re z °
LU O UJ •— i ,H
cri— cro 2
oo _i oo z
mo mo
oo re oo o *
-------
-------
                                                                 14
from agricultural land and reduced biological utilization rates.
The Susquehanna River water appeared to be highly nitrified during
high temperature periods as evidenced by the extremely low NH~
concentrations.  During low temperature periods, however, NH, was
generally more abundant because of reduced nitrification and
biological utilization rates.
          7)  In an attempt to establish statistically valid relation-
ships between both nutrient concentrations and nutrient loadings
versus stream flow, a series of regression analyses utilizing the
appropriate sampling data were performed at each station and for
each parameter.  These regression analyses were made using both
linear and log transforms with the latter yielding the best correlation,
     A summary of the regression data for nutrient concentrations
versus stream flow is presented in the following table.  As can be
seen, numerous regressions resulted in poor correlation based upon
non-significant "t" statistics at the 5 percent level.  However,
several interesting conclusions can be drawn from the remaining
data.  In the case of total phosphorus, negative slopes ranging
from about 0.2 to 0.6 were detected excepting for Pequea Creek.
This would corroborate the previous discussion wherein a diluting
effect was shown to occur at higher flow conditions.  Moreover,
these negative slopes would imply that the majority of phosphorus
was contributed by wastewater discharges.  Pequea Creek, on the
other hand, had a large positive slope (0.97) indicating that land
runoff may be the primary source of phosphorus in that watershed.
-------
-------
                 o
                    L
                 11
                 Q.
                 O
^
o
o
o
r^ o r- co
LD ro ch r-v
«3- LO CO i—
I— 10 10 r~
r— O 0 O
CM
Ch
O
0
0
oo LO r^. c\j en
CM «3- r— CTi C\J
O O O r~ O
1
0 O O •— O
o o o o o
o en co
r— CM CVJ
-— «3- co
o o o
                                                                                               *
                                                                                               og
                                                                                               CO
ro     3
<->     o
^     i—
>*-  ^
 O  cr
   UJ
 Ol
 Q. C
 O  O
                                          o

                                          o
o
o
                                                                                 CO
                                                                                 r^

                                                                                 O
                                                                                                                   CO


                                                                                                                   o
                                                             o

                                                             IS)
>-
z
o
                                      o
                                      z
                                      o
                                                                                        o
                                                                                        o
                                                                                        o
                                                                                                      •a;
                                                                                                      C3
                                                                                                      O
                                        o
                                        t-
                                        c_>
                                        o
-------
                                                                16
     The relatively large negative slopes of the TKN regression
equations indicated that Shamokin, Codorus and Conestoga Creeks all
received major TKN loads from wastewater discharges.  Shamokin
Creek, an acid stream receiving a considerable quantity of untreated
sewage, exhibited a particularly large negative slope (-0.92).  At
the other end of the spectrum were streams having relatively minor
point source contributions, i.e. Pequea and Yellow Breeches Creeks,
which showed highly positive slopes (0.78 and 0.67).  The remainder
of the streams appeared to be influenced by a combination of point
and non-point sources insofar as TKN was concerned.
     All of the sub-basin sampling stations where statistical
validity was realized had a positive relationship between
N0? + NO, and stream flow.  The slopes varied from about 0.2 to over
1.0.   The consistency of this relationship indicated the significant
overall effect of agricultural runoff as a contributor of nitrate
nitrogen especially during periods of intense runoff.
          8)  The main stem Susquehanna River sampling results should
theoretically reflect the accumulative effect of all tributary
inputs.  Regression data obtained for a nutrient concentration versus
stream flow relationship for the Susquehanna, which  are summarized
in the following table, basically substantiated this contention.
In the case of phosphorus and TKN, the slope terms were very
similar for every station where statistically valid  data were
-------
-------
           -X
           •=*-
-X
o
-X
O     CM     CM
LT>     CM     i—
10

o
                    CO

                    o
                                  i—    CO    I—
                                  LT>    O    O
                                      i—        O
                     O    i—        i—
                                                                     co     ,—

                                                                     o     o
CO        r—
                           O       i—
                                                                     i—    O
                                                                     o    o
                                                       r—    <<-    i—
-------
-------
                                                                 18
realized.  The range for phosphorus (-0.20 to +0.12) was somewhat
lower than the values recorded for the tributary stations since the
effects of land runoff, including drainage along the river itself,
were more pronounced in comparison to point source discharges.  A
similar situation was indicated by the generally greater positive
relationship between nitrate nitrogen and stream flow for the
Susquehanna River.  The range in slopes for TKN (-0.32 to -0.05)
suggested a net diluting effect when compared to all of the tributary
data presented previously.  The negative relationships for
phosphorus and TKN concentrations versus stream flow and the
positive relationships for nitrate nitrogen versus stream flow
determined for the main stem Susquehanna River were essentially in
agreement with those reported for the Potomac River.*
          9)  Regression analyses proved much more statistically
reliable when nutrient loadings and stream flow relationships were
investigated.  The average nutrient loadings computed for the various
tributaries to the Susquehanna River from regression data are presented
in the following tables for each of the three hydrologic seasons.  It
should be noted that average stream flows for the entire season were
used, when available, rather than flows corresponding to individual
sampling days.
     The watersheds contributing the greatest phosphorus loads
regardless of season were Conestoga and Codorus Creeks and the Juniata
River.  The major nitrogen contributing watersheds were Conestoga and
Swatara Creeks and the Juniata River.   The Juniata River was a
* Nutrients in the Upper Potomac River Basin, Jaworski, CTSL Technical
  Report 15, August, 1969.
-------
-------
                                                                19
significant contributor of nutrients due to its relatively large
flow whereas the other streams contained considerably greater
nutrient concentrations because of sizeable inputs from wastewater
effluents and land runoff.
         10)  Average seasonal nutrient loadings computed at each of
the main stem Susquehanna River stations from regression analysis and
average stream flow data are shown in the following tables.   A
graphical mass balance analysis of these loadings will  be presented
and discussed in a subsequent section of this report.
     Both nitrogen and phosphorus loadings throughout the lower
Susquehanna River varied drastically from one season to the  next
because of differences in stream flow.   The loadings also showed a
gradual but steady increase in the downstream direction which reflected
substantial inputs from several tributary watersheds.  It is important
to note that generally about 30-40 percent of the total phosphorus
load was inorganic, regardless of spatial  or temporal position.  In-
organic nitrogen accounted for about 50, 65 and 80 percent of the
total nitrogen load during low, mean and high flow periods,
respectively.   This upward shift was partly due to relatively greater
increases in nitrate rather than organic nitrogen loadings from major
tributary watersheds during periods of  excessive runoff.
     The nitrogen-phosphorus ratio (by  atoms) throughout the lower
Susquehanna River averaged about 34:1 during the summer season, 46:1
in the winter and 43:1 in the spring.   These values are considerably
greater than the elemental ratios comprising algal  cellular  material
(15-20:1) reported in the literature.
-------
-------
 to
 O)
 c
•r—
T3
 <0
 O
 OJ
•r-
 i-
 cn
        00
        O)
JD

 r
 s-
 cu
 >
 to
 c
 c
 (O
.c
 cu
 13
 CD-
 CO
 3
oo
       r--
       cn
                o
               o
               cn
                CD
                c
z
1—4
h-



Z.

oo
o
z to
+ IB Z
CM
0
Z


CO
re to z
Z fO



Z CO
NX (^J !^"
h-




^

CD
\— i
Z ^
=t to o
CD 03 Q-
rv
O

^- ^
O to O
i- ns Q.
—



Z 3 to
, co o
IO OO
-O CM
to
-Q
T~
1

LO O
LO



t- o o
•— o
oo




CD CO
CO CM
r—







NX
LU
LU
NX. rv
LU CD
LU
GtL Z.
C_J i—(
NX
>- O
O <
I— m
00 OO
o
o
co




c.
o
LO



o
o
CM





o
LO




o
0
CO






o
o
r^


o
LO
r—




LO
f^
1 —










NX
LU
LU
ry
r >

OO
Z.
z.
LU
Q-
o
o
LO




o
o
o
o
r—



o
o
o
•Nl-




^3
o
LO



o
o
o
LO





o
o
0


CD
o
o
CM



O
^d~
r»^








C£
LU
>
i — j
fV

-
O
o
00
to



o
o
o
00



o
o
LO
to




o
o
CO



o
o

•—





o
o
o


0
o
CM
•~



o
to
LO








NX
LU
LU
rv
CD

e^
o;
t—

~^
oo
O
§
CM



o
CO
co



0
o
CO
CM




o
0




0
o
CD
p—





o
o
LO


CD
o





0
CO
CO







NX
LU
LU
cc
(_5

o
CD
eC
LU
Z
O

o
o
LO




o
o
vo



o
o
LO





o
CM




0
o







o
co
r^


CD
LO
n—




LO
^«











NX
LU
LU
QL
C_)

o
z
0
CD
O
o
CM




O
O
O
LO



O
o
10
oo




o
0




o
o
LO
>—





0
0
to


CD
o
o
CM



LO
r—
CM








NX
LU
LU
rv*
CD

CO
i
Qi
O
Q
O
CD
0
O
oo



o
o



o
o
00
CO




o
LO




o
o
CO






o
o
CNJ


CD
o
CO




o
CM
r—







NX
LU
LU

CJ

00
LU
i — i
CD
i — i
m
CD
O
O
o
•»
o


o
o
CD
CM



O
O
O

O



O
O
CO



0
o
o
CM





O
0
CM
CM

CD
O
O
CO



O
o







NX
LU
LU
o;
0

i^£
CD
O
I—
OO
LU
Z.
o
CD
O
O
cn
co



o
o
CM



o
o
00
oo




o
o




o
o







o
00
r—


CD

oo




IO
LO
1 —









NX
LU
LU
rv*
O

•=C
LU
ID

LU
0.
O
o
CM



O
o
CO



o
o
00
CM




O
O




O
o
to






O
0



CD
O
CO




0
O
CM







NX
LU
LU
CC
CD

O
o:
«^
o

CD
0
3
^5

o
a
I
o
ft)

f .
g

&
a
(0
CO
O

0
2&
cd m
•> (0
CQ ^P
4> C
P*L *^


* c*\
C O
0 X
•H C\l

Cu
£•4 +
bo
O 'O
(J
-------
CO
O)
O)


il.
OJ
CD
(1)
        to
        c
        o
        (T3
       •*->
       OO
        (O
       •r—
        ro
        c
        CT
        co
CSJ
rv.

CTl
                
                O
z.
KH
H-






Z.



CO
o
z. to
"H T3 "*^
CVJ
o



CO
re to z.




Z. CO
i^ (0 Z
h-





Qu
O
1 — i
2^ ^
«C co O
C3 (C D-
CH
O
•— ^
^-.
\ — i

O co O
D- (O CX
\-




Z. ~3. CO
< O c»-
LU 	 1 U
SU- —





z.
1 — 1
OO
> CO 0
- o
o <
H- Id
oo oo
o
0
CVJ
f—





o
O
O
CVJ



o
o
o





o
LO
^—



o
o
CO








o
LO
1-^



CD
o
CO





0
LO








**/
LU
LU
cy*
O

OO
^*
LU
D_
O
O
o
^-
CVJ




o
o
o
ID
CO


0
O
0
CVJ
CVJ



0
o
LO
r~


o
o
o
CVJ
^—






o
0
o
CM


o
o

^"




LO
t^
en
^




a;
LU
;>
*— 1
ry

«^
I—
1 — 1
z.
=3

o
o
o
CTl





o
o
o

>—


o
o
o
en




o
o
CO



0
o
LO
CVJ







o
0
o
1—


CD
o
0
CVJ




0

CO


LU
LU
a:
o

h-
LU
Z.
i — i
ID
CD
O
O
•z
o
o
o
o
o
CO





o
o
co



o
0
CO
CVJ




o
o
r™*



o
o
CO








o
o
CVJ



CD
LO
CO





o
-
O
o
o
o
CVJ




0
o
o
^^p
CVJ


o
o
LO
CO
'



o
LO
co
f"


o
o
0
LO







o
0
CVJ
CVJ


CD
0
^x.
CVJ




o
r^
LO
1




*^*
LU
LU
a:
0






O
O
r^



o
0
Is*..








o
o





CD
LO





O
o
CVJ




'^
LU
LU
C£
£__)

OO
LU
h— I
O
1 — (
m
C_3
O
o
o
co
CVJ




o
o
o
VO
CVJ


o
o
o
CVJ
CVJ



o
o
o
"~


o
o
VD
CO







o
o
CO
CO


o
CD
CVJ
•*




0
o
00



^
UJ
LU
ce:
(__}

CZ£
CD
o
1—
oo
LU
z.
0

o
o
f*m.
to





o
o
LO




o
o
LO
10




LO
f-.
^—



o
o
o








o
o
^~



o
CD
f"^.





LO
^~
CVJ






%/
LU
LU
a:
0^3

cC
LU
c^*
UJ
O-
o
o

^J*





o
o
o
IO



o
o
CTl





o
LO
^—



o
0

1 —







o
o
CVJ



o
CD
LO





0
o
CO




^^
LU
LU
a:
o

o
a:
eC
a:
o
I—

o
H
O
•£5

-p
t)
C0
H
4)
4)
^A

O
4)
d

M

•H
(H
(0
a

CJ
4)
0
-p
a
H
i-H
•H


W
M
s
*n
•o
s>;
r-( H
4)

^H *r4
EH -p
O

0) CQ
j|
SL 'Q
t"H ctf
S °
(0
C 0
0 %
•H c\J
co Q
CQ 55

£H +
tJO ^
CM
-p cP
sg.

4> 2;

4^ +

O ??
•p 52
£_|
0)
a««
o


*
-------
-------



























* c
i/l O
en •!-
E 4-> —
•r- rO CM
~o +J f-»
ro CO CTi
O i—
-J >>
s- >>
4-> ro re
c +-> s:
0) 3
•i- .a i
S- T-
4-> $- CM
3 i— r--.
z en
rO i—
cu c
CD C •
rO ro S-
s- -c: ro
a> a> s:
=t o-
CO

























z.
1— 1
1—





z.
1—



CO
o
z to
+ rO -^
CM
O
z


co
DC to Z
Z ro




Z t/>
^ ro Z
1—




D-
0
H- 1
et to O
O re Q_
a:
o
z
1 — 1




O 1/5 O
Q_ ro Q_
1—



Z 3 to
e£ 0 M-
LU _J V
s: u_ — •





2
i — i
CO

CO



2 °
0 0
T~~ r—
CO




O O
o o
CM O
^"


o o
o o
r— CO
r—




LO O
CM O
r-.
*—



o o
0 0
>, I— LO
ro CM
TD
.0
r—



|- LO o
i— O
r—








1" LO O
CM O
CM
i —



en LO
o ^o
i — CO





^
LU
LU
V rv
LU O
LU
a: z
(*-} 1 — 1
NX
>- o
z. s:
0 
o

o
o
o

I"-*,



o
0
o
CO



o
o

CO
CM





0
o
CO
^-







o
o
CO



J 	
^~
r***.
o





C£
LU
^>
1 — t
D;

^^
i—

i — i
z
i-O

o
f""E
CT>




o
O
CO
^-
CM

O
O
0

, —



O
o
r-»-




o
o
f"i
LO






o
o
^3
OJ







o
o
CO



10
rj^
LO
i —


^
LU
O
1—

"^
H— 1
ID
CD
o

o

o

0
1^^
(^3
LO




o
o

f*n^


o
o
0





o
o
CO




o
o
Q^)
CM






o
o
CO








o
o




, 	
r*—
vo





CO
LU
0

LjJ
c^
CQ

s
f^5
_J

>-

o
CO
I—
CM



o
o
CO
^~
CM

o
o
o

,—



o
o
^1-
•—



o
o

LO






o
0
CM
CM







o
o
CM



^-
f"^
^Q
c —





xx
UJ
I.LJ
fy
o

^£
Di
^f
1—

CO

o o o
r"**> CO C3
CO i— i—
i — i —



o o o
o o o
C3 '-^ ^^
fx^ r— CO
f— . ^~

o o o
o o o
O CM O
r- •— O
r— r—



O 0 O
O O O
U3 i— i—




O 0 O
o o o
CD CO CD
LO CO






o o o
o o o
LO CM LO
i — CM







o o o
O LO O
CM CO



i— LO «tf-
P**. CO CO
CM LO
1 —




^
LU LU
rv sx i T i
(_} T ' ' rv^
LU C_)
O C£
CD C_3 C/^
 O O
_4
0 0 O 00
O CD O O +>
CO CD ^f LO Q
t*^ CM oo r** jSt
CO "^
•p
o
0
)4
O O O O1
^i" t ' LO CD ' A)
CO ^"5 CT* CT> t rt
co 53
•p
O O O 'O «>
O O O O ,J
LO O CO LO C
t^ o co r- Si
co jJJ
^
•H
at
ID
0 O O 0 S
O O LO O o

I~ fl
-p
s

o o o o 'Li
0 0 0 0 £3
("^ V.D ^^ r*1* ^
l~~~ *^J p" " r~~
in
|

of •
8 >,
pH H
d>
O O O O -z s
LO O O O P .5
^" CD LO CO f . . %
^~ "" ' TT
•rt tt
G QJ
cd D9

^m f\
H
•. 03"
0 0 0 0 X 5
0 O O 0 pl.rQ
^ S °. "~" g 8
a)
rt ^
o a
•H CN]

LO LO CD C^ m ^^
C\j ^^ CO ^" ?\ j.
•— M
4) CO
§
^"8
^ c^
-P O
NZ S *
^^ C C^
1 iJ 1 1 1 l-L-l ... (^
LU a: ^ LU 2 z
ry^ ^_5 UJ fV v> A,
O LU C_>
^C Q^ *fc ^y.
CO CD C_5 C^ ^3 ^3
L i i ^^ fy* "*"^ ^J
"-1 i— •=£ <: 
-------
t— t




z
1—


CO
o
Z CO
+ (0 Z
CM
0

CO
DC CO Z
Z ro




* S-
CO OJ Z CO
CTi > .— - i .C (J O-
C CU O
CU 3 O
•r- CT 1 •— '
S- CO Z ^
-P 3 i—  CU >— '
ro CO C
i- 3
CU C r~D
et res
S
^- ^
O co O
Q- ro Q.
1 —





Z 3 CO
«a: o 4-
uj _j o
s: LJ_ — -













z
o
1 — <
\—
•a:
i—
00



o
o
0




o
o
0
o
CM

o
o
o
CO


o
o
CO
r—





>> o
ro O
•o o
"-^ CM
CO i —
-Q
i —




i- o
o
o








o

LO
CO






o
o
LO
CO







Q
z
<

QL
T~ 1 i 1
O OQ
z s:

C£. 3D
CQ h-
C£.
n; o
I— Z
o:
0 h-
z -
ct:
— )
CO
^
—)
oo

uo
r—

•
H-
OL
0
O
o
o



o
o
o
00
CM

O
O
o
00


o
o
CO






o
o
o
o
CM






o
o
0
CM







0
o
o
CD






o
en
0














CM
CM
CO
1
CM
CM

•
1—
OL
o
o
o
o
CM


o
o
o

CO

o
o
o
"

o
o
o
CO





o
o
o
co
CM






o
o
CM
•3-







o
o
p--*
CM






LO
en
o
en







CD
C£
~^
CQ
oo
a:
("V
^£
DC

LO
r—

•
I—
QL
o
o
o
o
CM


o
o
o
CTl
CO

o
o
o


o
o
o
CO





o
0
0

CM






o
o
o
CO







o
o
LO
CO






LO
en
o
en







CD
OL.
ID
CQ
CO
cc
a:
e^
T

CO
CO

*
1—
cc
o
o
o
r^
CM


o
o
o
LO
CD

o
0
o
CM

o
o
LO
CO





o
o
o
o
^~






o
o
o
«cj"







o
o
0
I--.
1





o
o
CO
1 —
1














e^
1 — 1
CQ
2^
1
1
o
o
o -
o
o
CM
"d"


o
o
o
^n
CD

o
CO
0
CD
CM

o
o
o
LO
T~




o
0
o
CM
^~






0
o
o
^~







o
o
o

1





o
o
CO
o
1











QL
o
CQ
O£.
>
•^~
("O
co
LO
cu

cu


o
c:
l 	
^_
t
^

CO
CD

•1—
ro
o >>

CD

! | t
1 — +->
o
T3 CU
c: Q.
ro CO
cu
Z S-
f—
- CO
CU C
CO *i —

i — ro
ro O
ro
ro
c o
0 Z
•i- CM
co O
C/) ^**
QJ

en
cu oo
z
o -a
C
CU ro
i-
3 ro
4-* CD
ro Z
C CM
( — ^
cu z
1 \ [

O IZ

[ 	
Q}

(~~^ ^3


•K
-------
-------

























* s-
oo cu
O> > ^""^
C -i- CM
*n^ cy* t^^
TJ CD
re rO i —
O C
_J C
(O -Q
4-> -C O>
SCU LU
3
'r^ O" 1
S_ l/>
4J 3 i—
3 co r^
2: CD
a) cu
a> +J
to co >
S-. 0
a) c z
> -r- — •
^
£-

























Z

1—



z
1—




CO
o
Z tO
+ fO Z
CM
O

CO
IE to Z
Z ITS




Z tO
:*: ro z
i—






D.
CJ
i— i
Z «:
-
CX
CQ
Z
— *
co

LO
T-~

•
h-
CX
o
o
o
o


o
o
o
CM
LO
1—


0
o
o
o
oo

o
o
o
CM
1



o
o
o
LO
ID





O
o
0
CO






o
o
o

CM
0
o
CD

CM






CM
CM
CO
1
CM
CM

•
1—
Dd

^s
^p
^J
TO
^""
O
o
o

CD
i—


O
o
0
CM
•—

O
o
0
LO
1



o
o
o
^j-
r-.





o
o
0
CM






o
o
0

CO
o
o
00
CO
CO
CD
C£
— i
03
CO
£X
QL

"^

LO
r—

•
i—
ad
o
0
o
CM
CO
•~
O
O
O
O
O
CM


0
O
o
co
•—

o
o
o
CO
1



o
o
o
r-.
r*-.





o
o
0
LO






O
o
o

CO
0
o
oo
CO
CO

ex
— i
03
CO
ex
CX
^£
~1~

CO
00

•
1—
ex
o
0
o
o
LO
r~"
O
o
0
o
LO
CVJ


o
o
o
to


o
o
o

1



o
o
o
o
0
^~"




o
o
o
^"






0
CD
o
LO
*
o
o
r^.
CO
CO








^£
I-H
CQ
^"
ID
1
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
CM
o
0
o
co
LO
CM


o
o
o
o
LO

o
0
o
CO
CO



o
o
o
LO
o
r—




o
o
o
LO






o
CD
o
CM

o
o
CD

CO





CX
o
CQ
ex
^£
T~

UJ
1 1
^£
oo
o
o
o
o
CO
CM
o
o
o
o
o
CO


o
o
o
LO
00

o
o
o
00
"*



o
o
o
CM
1 —
^—




o
o
0
oo






o
o
o

*
o
o
CM
CD
CO








Q
o
o
3
1—

O

o
o
o
o
CO
CM
O
O
O
o
o
co


o
0
0
LO
00

o
o
o
CD
CO



o
o
o
LO
! 	
r—




o
o
o







o
o
o

oo
o
o

t-v.
co







o
CD
z
I — I
^^
o
z
o

  (O
 4->
  O
  O
  fl3
  X
 cu
 -C
 •4->

 •M



 tK
 CU
 S-
 ra
 to
 to
 cu
 o
 cu
 to
 01
 c
-5
 ro
 o  >,
z  >
-o  cu
 C  Q.
     O)
  "  to
 (/I  CD
 O)  C
 re  o
 c •—
 na
      CO
 c: O
 o z
•i-   CM
 to O
 tO Z
 CD
 S- 4-
 CJ)
 O)   CO
 s- 3:
 O) (O

 3   ro
•*-> O
 rO Z
 C   CM
    O
 O) Z
 o  z
+->  ^
    I—
 O)
 3  4-
Q  O
-------
-------


















* s-
CO QJ
CJ> > ' — *
C •!- CM
•^ rv r*^
•o CTI
0 C "~
—I C >,
ro ro
-M -C 2!
C OJ
QJ 3 1
•i- CT
S- CO CM
-(-> 3 r--.
3 c/0 CT>
Z i—
E
QJ QJ JT
cn -P o
ro c/> S-
S- ro
QJ C 2:
> 0
ro O
T3 LO
t/)
J3
r_mm




O
r o
o
CO







o
j- o
o

"^
o
o
LO
o


z
5
o:
or LU
C_} rv\
z s:

rv^ ~T~
CQ H-
Q;
n: o
h- z
cc:
O 1—
Z ef
O
o
0
§
o
o
o
LO
o


o
o
o
o
r«^.

o
o
o
r—
"

o
o
0
o
CO






o
o
LO
CO







o
o
0
en

0
o

LO
CM

Z
_J

UJ
in CQ
o s:

^C "^~
r*i^ I—-
CO a:
o
I— Z
oo
UJ 1—
3 •<
O
O
o
0
oo
co
o
o
o
o
o


o
o
0
0
CO
CM
o
o
o

*"""

o
o
o
o
CO






0
o
o
CO







o
o
0
oo

o
0

LO
CO


>_
C£
*~"3
CQ
z

oo

LO
1 —

•
1—
C£
o
o
o
LO
co
o
o
0
o
00
"*

o
o
CD
o
LO
CO
o
o
o
^-
**

o
o
o
o
LO






o
o
0
CM
CM






o
o
0
o

o
o
LO
CM







CM
CM
co
1
CM
CM

•
1—
Cd
o
o
o
o
LO
0
o
o
CM
r_
CO

0
o
0
0

**
o
o
0
CO


o
o
0
o
CO






o
o
o
r^
CM






o
o
o
CM
CTi
o
o
o
LO
CO
CD
OL
CQ
oo
1 — 1
OL
OL

  O
  X
  QJ
  CD
  
  0)
  C
  o
  C
 CO
 cn
 to
     O)
     >
     o
T3    c
 CO •>-
i—  ro
 ro  O
 c: i —
 ra
      co
 c o
 o z
•i-   CM
 co O
 CO Z
 OJ
 i- +
 cn
 a>   co
 o TD
     c
 O>  ro
 i-
 ^   CO
-M O
 ra z
 C   CM
    o
 CO Z
 O)
 ^  M-
a  o
-------
-------
                                                                 26

         11)  The following table shows the average daily phosphorus
and nitrogen loads currently discharged by each of the major wastewater
treatment facilities in the lower Susquehanna Basin.   Also shown are
the average per capita loadings based upon the present population
served.  The three areas responsible for approximately one half of the
total measured phosphorus and nitrogen load from municipal point source
discharges were Harrisburg, Lancaster and York.
     Utilizing the average per capita loadings (0.024 Ibs/day TPO, and
0.018 Ibs/day TKN) and the entire lower basin population served by
sewerage facilities (850,000), the estimated total phosphorus and
nitrogen contributions from wastewater effluents were computed to be
20,400 Ibs/day and 15,300 Ibs/day, respectively.
         12)  The average daily phosphorus and nitrogen loadings
discharged by the major water using industries in the lower Susquehanna
River Basin are presented following the municipal wastewater table.
These data were contained in the industries'  NPDES permit applications
and reflect the best currently available information  on loading rates.
While the list is probably not complete, it is believed that the
industries shown in the following table constitute the bulk of the
industrial nutrient contribution based upon a comprehensive compilation
of industrial discharges throughout the Susquehanna Basin.
     As can be seen, the total phosphorus and nitrogen loads from
industrial point-source discharges were estimated to  be 1,355 Ibs/day
and 4,800 Ibs/day, respectively.  Of the total nitrogen load
approximately 40 percent was in the form of TKN and 80 percent was as
inorganic nitrogen (NH3 + NOp + NO^).
-------
-------
                        o

                        o
o

o
                         o

                         o
                                                                     o

                                                                     o
                        8
                                                                           ro    •—    i—
                                                                                  o
                                                                                  o
                                                                                  CM
                        O

                        o
                   o

                   o
o

o
                               o

                               o
o

o
o
s:
•=t
                                                 o
                                                 z
                                                 o
                         O
                         ^

                         O
            o-
            t/0
            ^)
            00
                   =C

                   t—

                   =C
<:

5
0)
s
o
                                                                                       o
                                                                                       o
                                                                           o
                                                                           o
             'S 
-------
-------
ro
0
0
C\J
0
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
CNJ
0
o
CXJ
0
o
CO
0
o
0
o
CO
o
o
<3-
o
o
                    o
                    o
                          O
                          o
                          en
o

o
       o

       o
                                             o

                                             o
o

o
o

o
o

o
                    o     o    o
                    O     ui    CO
                    i—     i—    C\J
••-  E
 >  re
•r-  CU
 O)  S-
           o
           ^
           o
       o
       o
       o
                    ^
                    UJ
                    UJ
                    cc:
O
Q

O
       i^
       LU
       LU
       o:
                                        a;
                                        C3
                                        o
                          •=£
                          C3
                          o
                                        o
                                        o
                                        o
                          o     o
                          o     o
                          O     ID
                          O     Ln
                          ro     i—
                                                                       o    o
                                                                       o    o
                                                                       co    r^
co     co

i—     in
-------
-------An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
-------
S-
OJ
                            CO    i —
                            to     v
                                                               CO    «=J-

                                                               OvJ    I	
                     CTi    ro     i—     I—

                     O    CO      V     O
                     i—    I—            C\J
C£
O

•a:
o

•a:
3
o
                                                                     o
                                                                     ^
                                                                     o
                     o
                     o
                     o
                                                                                          eC
                                                                                          C£!
                                                                                          O
o:
o

=1
LU
ZD
O'
                                                                                                       <:
                                                                                                       ce
                                                                                                       o
-------
-------
00
Q
OO
OL
LU

g


Q
LU

00
       t-v
       CTi
       C_3
       O
CJ3
o
H-l
Q-


in
CO
o
CM
0


•z.
to
1—


o
Q.
fO
o
D-
h-

Q
Q
WATERSHt
CM
'i
O
=»=
Q
0)
•i—
C?
=tt=
Q
E
c\l
E
Q
*

Q
=tt=
CD

00
CM

0
o
00
co
o
00
CM

o
n
«

CO
CT>


o
o
OO
o
o
oo
LT)

_J
^ LU _|
CrLU :^
LU a: c_5
Q- C_3 i— i
CJ3
LO
*


o
CM
CM
OO


o
CO
CM
CM

en
CM


o
en
0
LO
OO


Q
LU
>- ^ (—
z: LU oo
O LU LU
1— c£. a:
OO O O
LU
-------
-------
GO
CO
cc
LU
LU
       CM
GO
LU
C£     CO
O     LU
Lu     LU

OS      I
      r--
      cn
ct
CJ3
C_5
I—t
cu



z
(/I
co
0
^^
CM
0






=
(fi
(O
NX
h-








^J-
O
0-
ro
O
Q.
h-



.
t r—
Q
LU
n:
CO
o:
LU
h-
^£
3

CM
'i

Q
--^
=tfc

Q
**-X.
=»=

f_
O1
E
CM
'i
Q
=tfc
Q
•"s^
=«=

"^^^
O5
E
CM
'i

Q
•"-s^
=tfc:

Q
*
^~
cr>
E
CO
.
CM
•si-

O
o
LO
VO

CO
^"i
LO

CO
10

O

cn

CTl
•
o

00
LO
•
^J-


o
o
CM
•
o
ro
LO


CM
CM

o
CO

o
CM
•
o

1 —
LO
•
o


o
CM
uo
o

o
LO
CO


Q
LU
>- ^ I—
•Z. LU GO
O LU LU
[— <"V fV
00 O O
LU
-------
00

s
ad
oo
a:
a
LU

oo
LU
a:
o
a:
a:
CJ3

z.
\—







^f.
o
Q-
tO
^j.
0
Q.
1—




fit CM
•r—
• E
Q
LU
~T~
00
nr^
LU
I—
e£
3
CM
•r-
E
Q
=«=


Q

~4I=


,_
CD
E
CM
'i
Q

=«=

•x^
=«»=

•N^.^
C7>
E
CM
E

^_
=tt=


Q

=tt=

^^^
C7)
E

LO
CM
•51-



o
o
CO
00

CM
.
LO

LO
•
CTi

o
o

CM
LO
•
o

^f.
LO
vo



o
o
o
1 —
0
CM
•
o
00
LO

_J
o:
<: zo
LU i^ 1—
ro LU _i
cyi-u ro
LU QC O
Q- C_J i— <
Qi
cs

o^
CM
CM



o
CO



CO
"~"I
o

<£>
00
•
CM

O
O
"

CM
*
o

r—
f^
O



LO
CM

^
O
•
0
LO
CO


**— «.
Q
LU
>~ ^* H~
Z LU 00
O LU LU
I — r^ C£
oo c_> o
u_
-------
                                                                  35
         15)  The City of Harrisburg has been reported to have over
20 combined sewer outfalls which discharge large quantities of sanitary
waste and street surface runoff directly to the Susquehanna River
during periods of heavy rainfall.  The effects of these discharges
coupled with other urban runoff from the Harrisburg metro area were
estimated from an examination of the measured nutrient loads in the
Susquehanna River at both the Route 15 and the 1-83 Bridge stations.
As will be shown in a later section of this report (mass balance
analysis), considerable increases in the total phosphorus and
nitrogen loads were observed in the vicinity of Harrisburg during the
high flow season.  Since the Susquehanna River received no major
wastewater effluents from the confluence of Conodoguinet Creek to the
1-83 Bridge it was assumed that these differences in loading could be
attributable to the collective effects of urban runoff (point source
and non-point source).
     Allowing for the possibility of nutrient re-introduction inte
the water column through the scouring of bottom sediment and the
innundation of shoreline weeds and other sources which are apparent
during the high flow periods, it appeared that approximately
6,000 Ibs/day of total  phosphorus and 14,000 Ibs/day of total nitrogen
(approximately 2/3 of which was T.KN) were contributed by the entire
Harrisburg urban area during the maximum flow period of March-May 1972.
These figures completely overshadowed the average contributions from
the area's wastewater facilities.
-------
-------
                                                                 36
     During the mean flow period (Nov.  1971  - Feb.  1972) respective
phosphorus and nitrogen contributions from the Harrisburg metro area
exclusive of wastewater effluents were  estimated to be 800 Ibs/day
and 3,700 Ibs/day (approximately 2/3 of which was TKN).   During the
low flow period no measurable contribution was detected.
         16)  In view of the fact that  nutrient loads in the
Susquehanna River above and below the Harrisburg area indicated an
extremely large urban input, the magnitude of which may be somewhat
questionable and probably not applicable to other urban areas in the
Basin, the decision was made to utilize relevant literature material
to provide independent estimates of typical  areal nutrient loading
rates exclusive of untreated sanitary sewage contributions.   These
estimated rates were intended to serve  as a basis for developing a
total urban effect on the nutrient balance in the lower Susquehanna
Basin.
     A summary of the relevant literature data which was used as
a basis for estimating the nutrient loading rates for the urban and
suburban portions of the Susquehanna River Basin are presented in
the following table.
-------
-------
                                                                                                 CM   >,'—
                                                                                                 •r-  m  >,
                                                                                                  e  -a  10
                                                                                                 •~~.-~~.f3
                                                                                                  S..CM  \
                                                                                                  n3-l—C-l

                                                                                                 •06-1-
                                                               E

                                                              CO
                                                                                                      - -Q         i— i— .
i— "O        i—
                                                 I—  
-------
-------

                                                  en         i—
1—  *
•=c  s
O  UJ
                                                             O
                                                             -M
                                                             O
                                                                              r—  13
                                                                              i— O
                                                                              o
                                                                              £co ^
                                                                             J3 O OJ
                                                                             ~O CNJ
                                                                              C  I
                                                                              fd C£L
                                                                              fD -i-
                                                                             •o  i-  <
                                                                             ^.  OJ
                                                                              O) UJ  >>

                                                                              03   * -i-

                                                                                  l/l  03
                                                                              cn -t->  13
                                                                              cr  c  O"
                                                                             •^  fd
                                                                             •O  E=  S-
                                                                              (T3 'r—  OJ
                                                                              O  E  -M


                                                                              C  C  £E
                                                                              O  O  $-
                                                                                 C_)  O
                                                                             ~O     -P
                                                                              CU  OJ  CO
                                                                              C/1  U

                                                                             _J~) (+—  c
                                                                                  S-  -r-
                                                                              l^  ZS  +J
                                                                              C c/1  in
-------
-------
                                                                 39
         17)  Based on a review of the aforementioned nutrient
data summary for storm water, the decision was made to use the
following loading rates applicable to city and suburban areas of
the Susquehanna Basin for the high flow season.  It may be noted
that maximum importance was attached to the recent estimates of
urban contributions such as the data presented in EPA's "Water
Pollution Aspects of Street Surface Contaminants", and AFO's
Technical Report No. 35.
                      Areal Nutrient Loads
                   Urban Runoff (Storm Water)
                          (Ibs/mi2/day)

                   T.POU            TKN
City                20               30           15
Suburbs             10               15           10
-------
-------
                                                                 40
     Utilizing the above nutrient loading rates for the major
cities and suburban areas of the lower Susquehanna Basin, the
total non-point source urban runoff nutrient contributions to the
Susquehanna River for the high flow season were determined and
are contained in the table below:
                Urban Runoff Contributions
               Lower Susquehanna River Basin
         (High Flow Season:  Mar. 1972 - May 1972)
Location
Harrisburg
Lancaster
Lebanon
York
Urban Area
exclusive
of Major
Cities
Urban
Land
Area
(mi2)
7.6
7.2
4.6
5.3
425.3
T.P04
Ib/mi2/day Ib/day
20 152
20 144
20 92
20 106
10 4253
TKN N02+N0.
Ib/mi2/day Ib/day Ib/mi2/day
30 228 15
30 216 15
30 138 15
30 1 59 15
15 6380 10
3
Ib/day
114
108
69
80
4253

Total
Urban
Area
450
4750
7120
4625
     Applying the measured percentage increase in phosphorus  and
nitrogen urban loadings between the Rt.  15 and Rt.  83 Bridge  stations
during the middle and high flow periods  (see statement #15),  an
-------
-------
       estimated urban runoff nutrient contribution for the middle flow

       period was determined.

            The non-point source urban nutrient loadings (Ibs/day) and

       average urban nutrient loading rates (Ibs/mi2/day) for the lower

       Susquehanna River Basin during the middle flow season are presented

       as follows:
                        Urban Runoff Contributions
                       Lower Susquehanna River Basin

             (Middle Flow Period:  November 1971 - February 1972)

Location

Harrisburg
Lancaster
Lebanon
York
Urban Areas
exclusi ve
of Major
Cities
Urban
Land Area
mi2
7.6
7.2
4.6
5.3



425.3

T.
lb/day/mi2
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6



1.3



P04 TKN
Ib/day
20
19
12
14



553
lb/day/mi2
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8



3.9
Ib/day
60
56
36
41



1659

N02 +
lb/day/mi2
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9



2.6

N03
Ib/day
30
28
18
21



1106

Total
450
608
1852
1203
            It was assumed that urban runoff contributions for the low flow

       season were negligible and consequently were not considered in the

       mass balance analyses.
-------
-------
                                                                 42
         18)  Utilizing the nutrient loading rates for urban runoff
presented in statement 16 and typical  population densities for
large metropolitan areas in the Susquehanna Basin, i.e.  Harrisburg,
York and Lancaster, as well as outlying suburban areas (see table
in Appendix), an attempt was made to estimate total  nitrogen and
phosphorus contributions assuming various percentages of sanitary
sewage overflows.  The graphs in the Appendix depict these
contributions which should be applicable to a variety of situations
where combined sewer overflows are a problem.  The component
representing sanitary sewage  (see table below) was derived from the
per capita loading rates presented in  statement 11.
                      Area! Nutrient Loads
                         Sanitary Sewage
                          (Ibs/mi2/day)
                   T.P04            TKN              N03
City                225             162               0
Suburbs              75              54               0
     Unfortunately, the actual quantities of untreated sanitary
sewage which are bypassed during different storm intensities have
not been defined for either Harrisburg, York or Lancaster.  However,
based upon the measured increased in nitrogen and phosphorus loadings
in the Susquehanna River at Harrisburg, it would appear  that a
relatively large fraction of the wastewater generated in the area is
transported through the combined sewer system, especially during the
high flow season.
-------
-------
                                                                 43
         19)  Applying the nutrient loading rates developed in



statement #14 for agricultural and forested land to the total


                     ?                       ?
agricultural (3600 mi ) and forested (4500 mi  ) areas of the lower



Susquehanna River Basin, relative contributions of T.PO., TKN and



N0? + NO^ in pounds per day were determined.  Inclusion of the total



urban nutrient contributions as developed in statement #17 results



in the following tables which show the estimated seasonal nutrient



loadings in the Susquehanna River Basin for every major land-use



category.



     Although the total forested area exceeds  the agricultural area



in the Basin, the latter represented the principal land use



contributor of T.PO,, TKN and NO-, (especially  during the high flow



season).  In addition, the urban contribution  of nutrients is



significant during the high flow season in comparison with other



land uses even though the urban area comprises only about 5% of the



entire basin.



     The key non-point source nutrient input to the lower



Susquehanna River Basin is definitely from agricultural runoff with



significant periodic augmentation by urban stormwater runoff and



combined sewer overflows from the major metropolitan areas.
-------
-------
                                                                            o
                                                                            o
                                                                            10
o
o
                                                 -X
                                                 	1
                                                 •=c
-------
-------
                                                                               •—      r--
                                                                              .—      LTJ
     UJ  O

     >•  ^
     l-H  O
eC
Z
O
on
<:
                                                                                      et
                                                                                      h-
                                                                                      O
-------
-------
o
<:
o
         o
         z
         o
<:
z.
o
                                                                               o
                                                                               o
-------
-------
                                                                            47
                    20)  The average seasonal nutrient loadings attributed to

           land runoff  (non-point sources) and the average annual nutrient

           loadings attributed to municipal and industrial wastewater

           discharges (point sources) are summarized as follows:


                                     NUTRIENT LOADINGS
                                           IN THE
                                LOWER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN
          Point  Source*
          Contributions
          (Municipal
           !  Non-Point Source Contributions   Total  (Point + Non-Point Sources)
arameter  Wastewater &     June  1971   Nov.  1971  Mar.  1971   June  1971  Nov.  1971  Mar.  1972
          Industrial          to         to        to          to         to         to
          Discharges)      Oct.  1971   Feb.  1972  May  1972    Oct.  1971  Feb.  1972  May  1972
            Ibs/day      1
 P0k  as
:N as N
  as  N
21,800
              17,400
20,100
  8,400    20,000
              14,000    36,000
31,300     30,000
                       54,000     31,500
                                                                        42,000     53,000
                       53,500     71,500
106,000   198,000     264,000    126,000     218,000    284,000
            *  Average  annual  load  applicable  t» each  season
-------
-------
                                                                            48
                      a)   Of  the  total  phosphorus and nitrogen loadings from
            the  lower  Susquehanna River Basin  the percentages attributable
            to point source and non-point  source discharges are as follows:
I
June 1971 - Oct. 1971
Parameter ; Point Source source"
T on o<- on • 79 OQ
Nov. 1971 - Feb. 1972
Point Source ^J"^™* '
R9 /IQ
Mar. 1972 - N
Point Source
A 1
lay 1972
Non-Point
Source
CO
TKN as N
TN as N
55
16
45
84
33
67
             91
24
76
                         93
                As can be seen, non-point source contributions of T.P04 and
           TKN predominate when flows increase.  Total nitrogen contributions
           from non-point sources are most significant in every season.  These
           differences in percentage signify the increased importance of the
           collective load from non-point sources when runoff rates are high.
                During the high flow period (March - May 1972) approximately
           93 percent of the estimated 284,000 Ibs/day of total nitrogen
           (N02 + NOa and TKN) entering the surface waters of the lower basin
           was from land runoff (non-point sources) with the remaining 7 percent
           from municipal wastewater and industrial discharges (point sources).
-------
-------
                                                                      49
     Of the 264,000 Ibs/day of total nitrogen from land runoff,
     approximately 229,000 Ibs/day, or 87%, was from agricultural land
     areas which comprise only 42% of the total drainage area in the
     lower basin.
               b)  The average annual yield, Ibs/day/sq. mile, for
     each season based on 8,550 square miles in the lower Susquehanna
     River Basin (3600 mi2 - agriculture, 4500 mi2 - forest and 450 mi2
     urban) is as follows:
                                    Average Annual  Nutrient Yield
                                     (Point + Non-Point Sources)
                                          Ibs/day/sq.  mile
Parameter            June - Oct.  1971 j;Nov.  1971  - Feb.  1972 ;Mar.  1972 -  May 1972
                  i                   l                        '(
                  |
T.POl, as POi,               3.5       '           4.9                    6.2

TKN as N                   3.7                  6.3          :          8.4

N02N03 as N               11.1                 19.3                   24.9

TN as N                   14.7                 25.5                   33.2
          Thus,  the  average  annual yield  was directly  related  to  the
     runoff rates.
-------
-------
                                                                 50
         21)   An attempt was made to mass balance the average



seasonal phosphorus and nitrogen loads (TPO», TKN and NOp+NO,)



in each of the tributary basins.  The method employed for this



analysis was to compare measured loads with expected loads in



accordance with the following equation (Total Phosphorus):









     Where:



          P.  = total measured phosphorus in watershed



          PW = phosphorus in wastewater discharges



          P= = phosphorus from agricultural land
           a


          Pf = phosphorus from forested land



          P  = phosphorus from urban runoff



          P  = phosphorus lost or released in the stream channel

               through biological utilization, deposition, scouring, etc,



     Of particular importance in this analysis is the magnitude and



sign of the P  term.  The following tables, which delineate the



various components of the mass balance equations, permit several



conclusions to be drawn regarding P  (or TKN  and NO  depending on
                                   o        O       O


the parameter).



     The negative signs shown for most of the P  terms, regardless



of flow, indicate that phosphorus was being retained in the stream



channels, bound there by sediments and/or aquatic plants.   The



apparent loss of nitrogen fractions which prevailed during the low



flow period might be temporary,  however, as indicated by the



increased number of positive TKN  and NO  terms during flood flow
-------
-------
                                                                  51
conditions when a considerable tonnage of sediment is known to be
transported to the main stem of the Susquehanna River.  An
explanation of why nitrogen and phosphorus recoverability differ so
greatly during periods of high streamflow and extensive scouring
within these tributary basins may be due to the high solubility of
nitrogen - especially the nitrate form.
-------
-------
                                                                  ro    i—


                                                                  O    CM
•=c
I—
O
                                                                 O     O
                                                                 LD     O

                                                                 i—     O
                                                                        ~    UJ
-------
-------
                                                       O    CO
                                                       i—    CO
                                                        I     CO
                                                                                CO     LD
                                                                                CO     CO
                                                                                i—     ro
CO
10
                                          1^    ^f    CO
                                          CO    O    •—
                                          i—    C\J
«£
H-
rri
CO
    j—
                                                                                 s
-------
-------
                                                       CO     i—
                                                       o     ro
                                                       O     c\j
                                                                                                                       i—     r--     i—
                               eC

                               I—
                               O
                                                                     00
                                                                     •=}•
                                                o    o
                                                o    r~^
                                                .—    c\j
                                                              CO

                                                              01
CC     rv*
         CO


         OL
Q.

c-0

O
CTl     r—     i—
co     
-------
-------
                                                                                                              in


                                                                                                              T
CO


00
                    •n.
                    f—
                    o
CC      r—
«C
1C
UJ


o-
                                                                        i—    C\J
                    o
                    LU
                    a.
                                                                        o
                                                                        o
                                                                        10
                                   o
                                   s:
                                   «s
-------
-------
                                            O    i—    -—
                                     CO
                                     CO
•a:
:z
2:
«t
                      •=c
                   S 2
                                                                                                ^     r-    CO
                                                  O

                                                  O

                                                  O
O
O
CO
                                                  •a;
                                                  h-
                                                  •a;
-------
-------
               O-  _J
                    •=c
                +  i—
03    en
i—    in
,—    0
                                                                       I—

                                                 O    CM

                                                 I—    LO
                                                O    O
                                                o    o
                                                o    •—
                        o
                        o
                        o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o    o
o    o
O    10
                                                            o
                                                            o
                                                            o
-------
-------
CO      i—
                          CC
                          a
                          --~
                          LO
o    ^o
k£>    cn
i—    CO
<^>    CM
00
O

CO
                                                 o
                                                 o
                                                 o
                   o    o
                   o    o
                   CO    O
                   m    o
                                                                                 o
                                                                                 CD
                                                                                 •=C
-------
-------
21 in
eC t—   --~.
UJ 13   i—
         ~
                                                  (—     T;    CXJ
       00
       ro
       CXI
                  i—     C\J    i—
                        -—    CM
                                                 O
                                                 O
                                                 00
                                                 CM
O    O
O    CM
i—    CO
-------
-------
                            •a;
                            1—
                            o
                                                                                              o    o    o
                                                                                              |—    LT)    O
                                                                                                    CO    i—
 ro
o
                                                                                                          oo
                                                                                                          oo
                                                                                                          co
                                                                                en    i—    •—
                                                                                                                o
                                                                                                                o
                                                                                                                o
-------
-------
                                                                 61
         22)  A seasonal mass balance analysis for the main stem
Susquehanna River between Northumberland, Pa., and Conowingo Dam,
Md. was performed based upon all of the regression data previously
presented.  The graphs in the Appendix vividly depict the relative
effects of each tributary's load and the Harrisburg metro area on
the phosphorus and nitrogen balances in the river.  In addition,
changes in mass between tributary confluences resulting from
various physical, chemical and biological reactions occurring
within the stream channel are illustrated.  The following
observations are noteworthy:
          a)  The impoundments along the lower Susquehanna,
especially Conowingo Dam, had a profound effect on the phosphorus
load in the river during the low flow periods.  As can be seen,
the load decreased from about 17,000 Ibs/day to 9,000 Ibs/day
between Columbia and Conowingo.  During high flow-low temperature
periods this decrease diminished because of the reduced rates of
biological utilization and shorter retention times in the impoundments.
          b)  During the high flow period a considerable increase
in phosphorus (20,000 Ibs/day) was detected between Penns Creek
and the Juniata River.  Since this area is primarily undeveloped
with the total  phosphorus contribution from existing land usage
estimated to be less than 2,000 Ibs/day, it was assumed that scouring
of the bottom sediment and inundation of shoreline marsh and weeds
played an important role in the phosphorus balance.  The Susquehanna
channel is very unique in that its width undergoes a much greater
-------
-------
                                                                 62
increase than its depth when flows rise.  It is also a known fact


that aquatic weeds and other sources of nutrients are prevalent


along the river's shore.


     Allowing for contributions from land runoff, it was estimated


that about 500 Ibs/day/mile of total phosphorus (as PO.) was


introduced into this reach of the Susquehanna River during the


maximum flow period.  During the mean flow period (Nov., 1971 -


Feb., 1972) this overall scouring rate was computed to be


approximately 70 Ibs/day/mile.


          c)  A comparison of wastewater effluents and other urban


contributions of phosphorus in the Harrisburg metro area revealed


the significance of the sewage treatment plants during low-flow


periods and the over-shadowing of this load by non-point  source


loads  during  high  flow  periods.


          d)  Total nitrogen behaved much more conservatively in


the Susquehanna River than phosphorus, particularly in the area
                                                                  ••i

of major impoundments.   While the phosphorus load was reduced


radically through the impoundments, nitrogen remained essentially


unchanged regardless of flow.


          e)  The relative importance of point source and non-


point source contributions of total nitrogen from the Harrisburg


area for various flow conditions closely paralleled the findings


presented in the above  statement for phosphorus.


         f)   Due to  excessive  stratification  it  was  not  possible


to adequately balance the summation of the North Branch and West
-------
-------
                                                                 63
Branch nitrogen load with the measured load at Sunbury.  This
problem became especially acute during the high flow period when
about 25,000 Ibs/day of TKN could not be accounted fet\
          g)  The effects of scouring and inundation of shoreline
vegetation were not restricted to phosphorus.  A review of the
nitrogen data between Penns Creek and the Juniata River indicated
a significant increase in load during high flow periods (60,000
Ibs/day) which corresponded closely to the phosphorus profile and
which could not be attributable to normal runoff from the area.
Deducting the appropriate agricultural and forested runoff loads
from this observed increase yielded a scouring rate of 1,200
Ibs/day/mile.  A rate of about 100 Ibs/day/mile was computed for
the mean flow condition.  During low flow - high temperature periods
both nitrogen and phosphorus loadings were reduced in this stream
reach probably because of a physical deposition process.
          h)  The mass balance analysis of the nitrogen fractions
(TKN and NO.J generally corroborated the pertinent findings for
total nitrogen.  During the low flow period the ratio of  TKN to N0~
varied from about 2:1 in the extreme upper reach of the Susquehanna
River to about 1:1 near Conowingo.   This increased abundance of nitrate
nitrogen may be partly due to nitrification and, more importantly,
to the relatively greater nitrate loadings contributed by the
various sub-basins.   A similar pattern was evidenced during the
mean flow condition when nitrification was minimal.
-------
-------
                                                                 64
          i)  As the flows increased, differences in the TKN and
NCL loadings became less pronounced.  Moreover, at times of excessive
stream flow these loadings approached their maximum level much
farther  upstream.
         23)  The effects of sediments on the concentration of
nutrients in surface waters as summarized by Jaworski in AFO
Technical Report #15 are as follows:  (1) sediments contain nutrients
and act as transport mechanisms (2) due to the adsorption phenomena
sediments when deposited in the stream channel also trap nutrients
(3) more than 99% of the soluble nitrogen is in the form of nitrates
which leach at a more rapid rate than the other forms of nitrogen, and
(4) in contrast to the high mobility of nitrate nitrogen, phosphorus
compounds react vigorously with soil and have a very low mobility.
         24)  Sediment yields calculated by USGS at over 40 sites
throughout the Susquehanna Basin generally indicated that the
seasonal  distribution of sediment discharge is quite similar to that
of water discharge.   Moreover, the long-term data showed the annual
sediment discharge rates to the extremely variable but strongly
related to a particular year's hydrograph.  On the average, the
Susquehanna River transports approximately 3 million tons of
sediment annually which equates to 110 tons per square mile.  Extreme
sediment yields vary from 20 tons per square mile in established
forest land to 800 tons per square mile in denuded areas and areas
disturbed by strip mining.   Of the three million tons of sediment
-------
-------
                                                                65
transported by the Susquehanna River, it has been estimated that
only about 2 million tons actually enters the Chesapeake Bay
because much sediment is trapped behind the power dams along the
lower Susquehanna.
         25)   A summary of annual  sediment yields and computed
nutrient yields for a comparable time period are presented in the
following table for eight stations throughout the lower
Susquehanna River Basin.  Except for Conestoga Creek, the data
revealed a definite relationship between the tons per square mile
of sediment yield and the phosphorus yield (lbs/mi2)  on an annual
basis.  The annual TKN yield also appeared to be strongly influenced
by sediment load.  The leaching and general mobility  characteristics
of the NO., ion in soil are such that a reliable correlation between
sediment and NO, yields could not be made with existing data.
-------
-------
                 fO O)   M-
                 3 -r-    E
                 C >-   \
                 C       (/>
                
                                un
                    T3   CM
                f— I—   •!—
                 to Q)    E
                 3 -r-   ^
                 c >-    to
                 c      .a
                «=C 2:   i—
                    •1
                      00
                      CVJ
                                to
                                CVJ
                                 CO
                                 O
                                 CVJ
                                                      CO
                      LO
                      V£>
                      CVJ
                        n
                      CVJ
                      UO
                      O
                                                                           CVJ
                                           O
                                           •sl-
                                                                                                CVJ
 (/I
 c
 O

•M C
 n3 •>-
i — (/)
 CO n3
Qi QQ
                         CM
 3
 c
 c.
            CO
            CM
                                in
                                CO
o
CVJ
10
                                            CO
                                            CVJ
           00
           CVJ
           CO
           LO
           o
    O
    a.
           en
           oo
           en
             t\
           CVJ
 O) >
•r™ *^
>- Qi

+J fO
 C C
 O) C
4J CO
 3 3
z o-
    t/5
 I  3
   00
         CM
    T3   ••-
 O)
 E Q)
•n- *r--
T3 >-
 CD
OO
                                en
                                            o
                                            CO
I/)
C
O
                     o
                     CVJ
                     CVJ
                     o
                     CVJ
                     CVJ
                     O
                     un
                     co
           O
           CO
T3
 CO
00
             fO CO "O
             3 E  "3
             C -r-  O
             c -o _i
            •a: cu
                oo
          cz
          o
            O
            O
            o
              n
            CO
            CVJ
                                                o
                                                o
                                                o
                                10
                                CVJ
o
o
o
  f\
o
o
o
CD
o
  fl
00
CV1
o
o
o
  A
CO
r--
                                                                           o
                                                                           o
                                                                           o
o
o
o
  «t
10
CVJ
o
o
o
                                                                                                LO
                   oo
                                  to
                                  c
                                  c
                                  OJ
                                  (O
                  O
                  CO

                  O

                  to _^
                  E  CO
                  C  CO
                  CO  S-
                  Q- CJ
                                             CO


                                            C£





>4hJ
s_
o
CL
3
CO
z:
•*->
tO
i.
CO
to
c
c:
to
-C
CO

cr
to
3
OO


cn
s-
3
("1
to
•r—
S-
S_
to
1C
CO
0
CO
CO
o
CO
0)
S-
CQ

^
o
l^~
1 —
CO
>-
,—
~r"

Q-
E
to
tJ)

S-
lO
CO
E:
4J
IO
CO
CO
S-
C_3

to
S-
tO
4*3
to
3
oo
£
CO

to
h-

to

CO
Q.
s-
tO
rE
CO
o
0
cn
tO
3
CO

0
o

•4_)
to
CO
3
S-
co
co
cu
.c
0
c
to
5:

^.
to
CO
c
h Codorus
o
c
ea
&-
r>r>

r~
+->

o
oo
                                                                            s-
                                                                            to
                                                                            CO
                                                                            c
                                                                                                      CO
                                                                                             4J
                                                                                             to
                                                                                             CO
                                                                                             2!
                                                  to  S_
                                                  cn co
                                                  O  4J
                                                  +->  00
                                                  CO  tO
                                                  CO  O
                                                  c  c
                                                  O  to
                                                  O  _)
-------
-------
                                                                 67
         26)   Regression analyses performed separately with 1969

(Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Input Study, TR #47) and 1971 total

nitrogen and phosphorus data at the Conowingo Dam station revealed

distinct increases in loading for both parameters during the two

year period.   A comparison of these Susquehanna loadings is as

follows:
     Flow             Total Phosphorus             Total  Nitrogen
    (cfs)                (Ibs/day)                   (Ibs/day)
                    1969          1971           1969        1971
   10,000         6,500          8,500         75,000      82,000

   50,000        60,000         75,000        370,000     420,000

  100,000       150,000        190,000        750,000     850,000


         27)   The data presented in the following table,  which were

derived from a mass balance analysis, depict the  effects  of

different reductions at all continuous point source discharges on

the river loadings at Conowingo Dam and  reveal the extent of

nitrogen and phosphorus controllability during different  seasons

and flow conditions.
-------
-------
C3
Z *?
i-i O
Q cn
   > UJ
   o o
   S o:

   a: o
      oo
    c z
z o
z r^
   CD Z
   O i—i
   ce o
   I— D.
O Z _1
un    	i
   CD. <:
  «z
   < t—

   oo
   :^ >-
   ce _i
   o E:
   3C DC
   D_ O
   OO U_
   O 1—4
I/O
to ID
   O)
Z 00








CM
en
1
>_
ej;
s:

i

•
D;
s:











CM
en
CQ
UJ
U_
(

O
•z.









cr>
^_:
o
o
i

UJ
ID
•"3






^*
1 — 1
1—


z
1—


z
vx
1—




O
Q-
•
1—



Z
>— H
I—


Z

Z
| 	


^.
O
D-
•
1—

Z
1— I
1—


z.

"zr
I—



^.
0
D-
•
1—

1—
Z
UJ Z
1-4 O
Q£ 1—4
1— 1—
&^ ^ o
z :D
o
r\ 1 1 1
J-— O£
oo
O O O O
O O O CD
0000
un i— en co
CM CM i — i —
un un LO ID
0 0 0 O
o o o o
O O O CD
O ID CM i —
en oo co oo


o o o o
0000
o o o o
o CM en LD
un *3- ro oo
CM CM CM CM

O O O O
O O CD O
0000
CM 1^ UO OO
CO f*^ f^ ^«
o o o o
O 0 O O
o o o o
O WD «d- CM
00 CM CM CM
CM CM CM CM
o o o o
o o o o
o o o o
O 00 i— CO
o en en co
00 CM CM CM
o o o o
o o o o
O 0 O 0
if> ^t- i — en
i — en en co


0000
0000
o o o o
*sj~ co to *3~
OO CM CM CM
O O O CD
0000
O O O O
i^^ ^~ en r"^
10 to tn ID
O 0 0 O
O o o o
O CD O O
ID CO to OO
en co co oo
o o o o
o o o o
o o o o
1^ ^~ i"~ CD
«d- oo oo oo



o o o o
o o o o
o o o to
en to un oo







O 0 0 0
if) t^. en












o
o
•""^
oo
co


















o
o
oo














o
0
un
1











3:
O
_J
G:

UJ
CD

o:
UJ
^>
 — CO i —
E CO E CO
•r- CO T- 00
1 — 1 ' — 1
A| y\
4- 4-
02 03
O O
^S f~~ o~5 r~
un u_ un u_
CM l~-














0 0
0 0
E r-» E r-~
•i- OO .i-OO
1 _., I
r A| y\
4- 4-
o -5. os
O O
O ui_ O U_
OO 1 —











CD CD
o o
co un co un
.E "" .E r~
*~ A| *~ v\
M — 4—
0 0
^•^ r" ~ ^S r^
o u. o u.
oo r-~.





ITS
C E fO
o  tO I—
IB o en  O 00 •»->
O S- C CM 10
i— is o en •!-
u. o o t— n;
                                                                                                                             3
                                                                                                                             a_
                                                                                                                             c
                                                                                                                             (O
                                                                                                                            •r—
                                                                                                                             S-
                                                                                                                            GO
                                                                                                                            3
                                                                                                                             (J
                                                                                                                             X
-------
-------
                                                                 69
         28)  In order to protect the upper Chesapeake Bay from
excessive eutrophication, a combination of mathematical modeling
studies and mass balance analyses have indicated that during
relatively low-flow conditions (<_ 30,000 cfs), 70-75 percent of
the total phosphorus load from point source discharges in the lower
Susquehanna Basin must be eliminated.  For a river flow of 50,000
cfs, a 90 percent reduction of the point source contribution must
be realized.
         29)  Based on the extensive body of data previously
presented in this report nitrogen is largely uncontrollable in the
Susquehanna Basin, especially during periods when flows and runoff
rates are high.   In order for the management of nitrogen to be a
viable alternative during extremely low-flow periods (_< 10,000 cfs)
about 90 percent of the point source loading will have to be
eliminated.  In  view of the importance of agricultural  runoff as
a contributor of nitrogen, and to a lesser extent phosphorus, it
is recommended that methods be devised and seriously considered to
maximize control of this once regarded non-controllable source of
nutrients.
-------
-------
                                                                 70
                           Conclusions
     1)  The tributary streams of the lower Susquehanna River
which had the highest phosphorus concentrations on both an annual
and seasonal basis were:
                           Shamokin Creek
                           Conoy Creek
                           Codorus Creek
                           Conestoga Creek
     2)  The greatest total nitrogen concentrations both seasonally
and annually, were measured in the following tributaries:
                           Conoy Creek
                           Chickies Creek
                           Conestoga Creek
                           Pequea Creek
     3)  Maximum nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in the
tributary streams occurred during the low flow period with the
exception of oxidized inorganic nitrogen, the most abundant nutrient
fraction in the study area.  Higher stream flows appeared to have
a "diluting" effect on the TKN and phosphorus concentrations but
not on the oxidized nitrogen fraction.
     4)  In general, all seasonal concentrations of every nitrogen
and phosphorus fraction in the Susquehanna River were dramatically
higher in the reach from Harrisburg to Conowingo Dam than in the
reach upstream of Harrisburg.
-------
-------
                                                                 71
     5)  The major impoundments along the lower Susquehanna River,
i.e. Conowingo and Safe Harbor, represented a significant "sink"
for phosphorus, particularly during low flow periods when
detention times were long.
     6)  Phosphorus concentrations in the Susquehanna River were
not significantly influenced by variations in stream flow as were
the nitrogen fractions.  While TKN concentrations throughout the
Susquehanna River were at a maximum during the low flow - high
temperature season, NC^+NOg levels increased during higher flow -
lower temperature periods due to amplified effects of agricultural
runoff and reduced biological activity.
     7)  The major phosphorus contributing streams, in terms of
daily loads to the Susquehanna River, were as follows:
                           Conestoga Creek
                           Codorus Creek
                           Juniata River
     8)  Streams providing the major daily loads of nitrogen were
as follows:
                           Conestoga Creek
                           Swatara Creek
                           Juniata River
     9)  Nitrogen-phosphorus ratios (by atoms) in the lower
Susquehanna River varied from about 34:1 to 46:1.  Approximately
30-40 percent of the  total  phosphorus  load represented the  inorganic
-------
-------
                                                               72
fraction, whereas approximately 50-80 percent of the total  nitrogen
Toad represented the inorganic fraction.
    10)  The total nitrogen and phosphorus contributions from
municipal wastewater effluents were estimated to be about 15,000
Ibs/day (5 to 25 percent of the maximum measured load in the
Susquehanna River) and 20,000 Ibs/day (40 to 200 percent of the
maximum measured load in the river), respectively.
    11)  Approximately 50 percent of the  total  measured phosphorus
and nitrogen load from municipal wastewater effluents was contributed
from three areas - Harrisburg, Lancaster  and York.
    12)  The total nitrogen and phosphorus contributions from major
industrial dischargers in the lower Susquehanna River Basin were
estimated to be approximately 4800 Ibs/day (30% of  the municipal
wastewater load) and 1350 Ibs/day (7% of  the municipal wastewater
load), respectively.
    13)  Runoff from agricultural land (42 percent  of the study
area), accounted for 75-85 percent of the non-point source  phosphorus
contribution, 60-70 percent of the TKN contribution, and more than
90 percent of the nitrate nitrogen contribution from all non-point
sources.
    14)  Runoff from forested land (53 percent  of the study area),
accounted for 10-15 percent of the non-point source phosphorus
load,  25-30 percent of the TKN load, and  about  5 percent of the
nitrate nitrogen load from all non-point  sources.
-------
-------
                                                                73
    15)  During the high flow period, it has been estimated that



urban storm water from a 450 square mile area accounted for about



15 percent of the non-point source phosphorus load, 13 percent of



the TKN load, and a negligible percentage of the nitrate nitrogen



load from all non-point sources.



    16)  Although the nutrient contribution from the numerous combined



sewer outfalls in Harrisburg was not accurately quantified, it



appeared, from a comparison of sampling data obtained above and



below the majority of these sewers, that this source was quite



significant, actually surpassing the measured nitrogen and



phosphorus load from the Harrisburg S.T.P. during the peak flow



season.



    17)  During the low flow season, wastewater effluents alone



accounted for 16 and 72 percent of the total nitrogen and



phosphorus contribution from both point and non-point sources,



respectively.  During the high flow condition, these percentages



decreased to about 7 and 40 percent, respectively.



    18)  A mass balance analysis of the data collected in the



tributary watersheds indicated that a significant quantity of



phosphorus was retained in the stream channels through a deposition



or biological utilization process during every flow season.  While



nitrogen showed similar loses during the low flow season, its



recoverability during the higher flow periods, when scouring of



the bottom sediment prevails, appeared to be greater and more



widespread than phosphorus.
-------
-------
                                                                 74
    19)  A mass balance analysis of the main stem Susquehanna River


data, besides underscoring the importance of major impoundments as a


sink for phosphorus, depicted a substantial introduction of both


nitrogen and phosphorus into the water column during high flow periods


because of scouring of the bottom sediments and innundation of


shoreline vegetation.  Any apparent difference in scouring characteristics


of  the main stem Susquehanna River and the tributary streams as related


to  phosphorus may be the result of higher stream velocities in the river,


longer duration of high flows, sediment content and its adsorption


potential, or some other complex physical behavior.  During the low


flow period deposition of nutrients and biological utilization by


aquatic plants were significant in-stream processes implied by mass


balance data.

                                                       2
    20)  The areal yields of phosphorus and TKN (Ibs/mi ) appeared

                                                     2
to  be markedly influenced by sediment yields (tons/mi ) based upon


average annual data collected by USGS at eight stations in the lower


Susquehanna Basin.  Such a relationship could not be established for NCL.

    21)  A regression analysis utilizing 1969 and 1971 nutrient data

collected at Conowingo Dam revealed that distinct increases in both


phosphorus and nitrogen loadings for comparable stream-flows have


occurred during this two year period.


    22)  Phosphorus is considerably more manageable than nitrogen in


the lower Susquehanna River Basin during all flow conditions.


    23)  In order to protect the biological integrity of the upper


Chesapeake Bay,  a sizeable  reduction  (70-90 percent)  in the existing
-------
-------
                                                                75
point source contribution of phosphorus must be realized.
    24)  The effectiveness of nitrogen control  at point sources is
questionable unless attention is given towards  reducing the existing
load from agricultural runoff.
-------
-------
                                                                  76
                   RECOMMENDED FUTURE STUDIES



     1.  Select a primarily agricultural  watershed to study fertilizer


application practices.  This study should include but not be limited


to the following:  determination of the present rate of application


(Ibs/acre) and types of fertilizer applied (quick vs. slow release);


quantification of seasonal application practices (fall, summer and


spring); identification of the state of the plant growth that


fertilizers are applied.  Study results would be compared to recommended


Federal and State fertilizer application programs to determine if the


existing practices of the farmers within the watershed are sound, both


in terms of conservation and economics.  Should it be found that


excessive amounts of fertilizer are being applied, economic


considerations should dictate reassessment of current practices.


Subsequent to the implementation of any modified fertilization program


water quality monitoring of the watershed would allow for data


comparison with previous studies (Technical Report 60) to show possible


nutrient reductions in the watershed.


     2.  Technical Report 60 concluded that the areal yields of

                          2
phosphorus and TKN (Ibs/mi ) appeared to be markedly influenced by

                        2
sediment yields (tons/mi ) based upon average annual data collected by


the USGS at eight stations in the lower Susquehanna Basin.  Actual


nutrient loadings associated with sediment yields, however, were


not determined.  It is recommended that a study be undertaken to
-------
-------
                                                                  77
contrast a watershed farmed with a high degree of conservation measures



employed versus a watershed in which conservation practices  are



minimal.  Area! sediment yields from the two watersheds would be



determined on a seasonal basis.  The phosphorus content of the



sediment would be determined in order to establish  the relative



contribution of phosphorus from the erosion of farmland under the two



contrasting situations.  The selection of phosphorus for this study



seems appropriate because of its correlation with sediment yields



(Technical Report 60) and its known adsorption to sediment particles.



In addition, reduction of non-point source phosphorus input  by erosion



control measures in conjunction with direct point source control of



phosphorus should enhance the possibilities of making phosphorus the



rate limiting nutrient to control eutrophication in impoundments in



the lower Susquehanna Basin and the upper Chesapeake Bay.



     3.  The significance of the construction industry as  a  non-point



source of pollutants in the lower Susquehanna Basin should be examined.



The scope of Technical Report 60 did not include the assessment of



nutrient contributions from specific land uses.  The impact  of sediment



loading from activities including, but not limited to, housing



construction, commercial building, road construction, and  water



resources projects should be evaluated for the purpose of  developing



guidelines for erosion and sediment control for use by the various



management agencies.
-------
-------
                                                                  78
     4.  Although the nutrient contribution from the numerous combined
sewer outfalls in the City of Harrisburg was not accurately quantified
in Technical Report 60, the significance of the combined sewer system as
a major source of nitrogen and phosphorus was established.  Studies
should be carried out to determine the sources  of nitrogen and
phosphorus in the urban runoff.   The relative contribution from
diffuse sources such as street debris, rainfall, snow melt,  lawn
fertilizer, vegetative decay, and fallout from  particulate matter
should be included in a study of this nature.  The object of the
study would be to develop guidelines for reducing the water quality
impact of urban runoff.
     5.  Major impoundments exert considerable  influence in  regulating
phosphorus and, to a lesser extent, nitrogen in the lower Susquehanna
River.  In addition, these impoundments are highly susceptable to the
proliferation of aquatic plant growths because  of their quiescent
nature and reduced silt content.   It is therefore suggested  that  a
detailed study be undertaken in  at least one of these impoundments
to address the following key areas:  the lateral, longitudinal  and
vertical distribution of nutrients on a seasonal basis; exchange
rates at the mud-water interface including characterization  of the
bottom sediment; existing algal  growth conditions and species
diversity; growth potential through a series of bioassay analyses;
and development of nutrient-algal relationships for inclusion in  a
-------
-------
                                                                  79
predictive model.  The literature is abundant in material  dealing
with lake eutrophication and it is quite conceivable  that  much  of
it would be applicable to and assist in the  design  of such an
impoundment study.
-------
-------
                                                                 80
                         Acknowledgements
     The authors wish to acknowledge and express their gratitude to

the following governmental and institutional  agencies for having

extended the assistance and cooperation that  facilitated the collection,

analysis and evaluation of the data presented in this report:


               Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
                Resources
               Susquehanna River Basin Commission
               City of Harrisburg
               City of York
               City of Lancaster
               City of Lebanon
               Borough of Selinsgrove
               City of Sunbury
               Township of East Pennsboro
               Borough of Mechanicsburg
               Borough of Shippensburg
               Borough of Carlisle
               Township of Lower Allen
               Borough of New Cumberland
                       of Camp Hill
                       of Middletown
                       of Palmyra
               Hershey Sewage Company
               Borough of Hanover
                       of Elizabeth
                       of Red Lion
Borough
Borough
Borough
Borough
Borough
               Township of Penn
               Borough of Manheim
                       of
                       of
                       of
                       of
Borough
Borough
Borough
Borough
           Lemoyne
           Lititz
           Ephrata
           Columbia
U. S. Geological Survey, Department of Interior
Philadelphia Power & Light Company
Pennsylvania Power & Light Company
-------
-------
APPENDIX
-------
-------
SUSQUEHANNA RIVER  NUTRIENT SURVEY
        SAMPLING NETWORK
                              CONOWINGO DAM*
-------
-------
                 Ibs /day /m i
                 O
                 O
                        en
                        O
ro
O
O
en
O
  O
  o -
  ro
  o '
  Co
  O '
$
  *•
  o
2
35
-<
ft
J en

r
m
O
m
3s-
o
£
 -J
 o'
 00
 o
 10
 O '
                                                          m
                                                          V)
                                                          H


                                                          1
                                                          m
                                                          o
                         • 1
                         §

                         I

                         11
                                                        o c
                                                        m to

                                                        -< CD
                                                          >
                                                        (fl 2
                                                        m
                                                        m
                                                        o
                                                        85
                                                          m
 o J
 o
-------
-------
Ibs /day/mi
-------
-------
                 TN  Ibs/day
                                               TP04 Ibs/day
          w
          o
          b
          o
          o
          1
             in
             o

             b
             O
             o

             I
        -i
        p

        b
        o
        o

        I
ID
O

b
o
o

I
o
o
o
I
o
o
o
o
o
o
I
Ol
b
o
o
I
                  WEST  BRANCH

                  SHAMOKIN  CREEK

                   PENNS  CREEK
m
01
33
o



o

m
7*
m
1
    o.
    o
    (O
    o'
    g-
SI-
                   JUNIATA  RIVER
CONODOGUINET   CREEK

 HARRISBURG  E & W SHOREL

    YELLOW  BREECHES
     lit
(f
o'
      SWATARA   CREEK



       CONEWAGO   CREEK



          CODORUS  CREEK



           CHICKIES   CREEK
                                  CONESTOGA  CREEK

                                    PEQUEA  CREEK
                                                                            c- w m
                                                                            C O 2
                                                                            Z C H
                                                                            m m

                                                                             i £ ^
                                                oz to
                                                H > CO


                                                5 5 CD

                                                C m r~
                                                  33 >
                                                     2

                                                     O
-------
-------
                TN  Ibs/day
                                              TPO4 Ibs/day
          o
          p
          b
          o
          o
          I
    r\) .
    O
m
10
O
o
I
m
T3
m
>
7.
m



5
    o.
    o
    §•
    CD
    o '
§•
    tn
    O '
             o
             p

             b
             o
             o
             I
o
o

I
t\>
a>
p
b
o
o

I
O

b
O
O

I
OJ
o

b
o
o

I
o
b
o
o
I
p
b
o
o
I
                   WEST  BRANCH

                   SHAMOKIN  CREEK

                     PENNS  CREEK
                          JUNIATA  RIVER
                      CONOPOGUINET  CREEK

                 V   HARRISBURG  E & W SHORE

                         YELLOW  BREECHES
      SWATARA  CREEK



       CONOWAGO  CREEK



        CODORUS CREEK




         CHICKIES  CREEK
                                    CONESTOGA   CREEK

                                     PEQUEA CREEK
                                               TI £ 00
                                               m > oo

                                               CD

                                               — 3) 00
                                                                                   o
-------
-------
                 TN  Ibs/day
                                                TPO4 Ibs/day
to
O
O
b
o
o
1
0
o
o
0
0
I
Ol
0
o
b
o
0
1
o>
o
o
b
o
o
i i

WEST BRANCH
\ SHAMOKIN CREEK



PENNS
CREEK
    o.
    o
    §-
2


m
CO   00.
O
I
m
10
m
§•
03
>   in
:<   o-
^
o
b
o
0
1
en
p
b
o
o
i
00
O
b
o
0
, 1
o
p
b
o
0
. i
                                   JUNIATA  RIVER
CONODOGUINET  CREEK

HARRISBURG E & W SHORE

    YELLOW BREECHES



    SWATARA  CREEK



    CONOWAGO  CREEK



    CODORUS  CRE-EK



    CHICKIES   CREEK
                                         CONESTOGA  CREEK

                                         PEQUEA   CREEK
                                                                                 z
                                                                                 c
                                                                                 H


                                                                           f £!
                                                                           3D O  Z
                                                                           O C  H
                                                                           I m


                                                                           ^ Z  >
                                                                           $ Z  CO
                                                                           -< >  CO
                                                                               
-------
-------
                NO 3 Ibs/day
                         TKN  Ibs/day
         o

         b
         o
         o
          i
o
o
o
I
o
o
i
             p
             b
             o
             o
              i
o
o
o
i
o
o
u>
o

b
o
o
I
o
b

8
o
o
               WEST  BRANCH

                SHAMOKIN   CREEK

                  PENNS CREEK
m
-n
10

O
o
I
m
CO
m
    o.
    o
    8-
    s-
    §
    tn
    o '
                 JUNIATA  RIVER
                                                   —  C
    CJ
    O '
CONODOGUINET   CREEK

 HARRISBURG E & W  SHORE

     YELLOW BREECHES




      SWATARA  CREEK



       CONOWAGO   CREEK



          CODORUS  CREEK
                                  ic
                                  rn m

                                  i  ^


                                  8|
                                  H >
                                                               O

                                                            -  O
                                                            D  m
                                                        Co


                                                        CD
                             CHICKIES   CREEK
                                                   (O  7J

                                                   -  < r-
                                                   ~  m !T
                                                      3) >


                                                        O
            CONESTOGA  CREEK

                  PEQUEA  CREEK
          o
          z
          o
          t
          z
          o
          o
-------
-------
               NO3 Ibs/day
                                           TKN  Ibs/day
      ro
      p

      b
      o
      o
    0).
    o
    M _
    O
r~
m
in
Ci
I
m
13
m
CO
    o-
    o
    8-
    8-
8-
    s-
    8-
         O)
         O

         b
         o
         o
         I
o
p
b
o
o
I
o
o
I
CD
O

b
o
o
I
o
o
I
o>
o
b
o
o
I
00
o

b
o
o
I
o
p
b
a
o
I
ro
p

b
o
o
I
                  WEST  BRANCH

                   SHAMOKIN CREEK

                    PENNS  CREEK
                         JUNIATA  RIVER
                    CONODOGUINET  CREEK

                     HARRISBURG E &  W  SHORE

                      YELLOW  BREECHES
          SWATARA  CREEK



           CONOWAGO   CREEK
                             CODORUS  CREEK



                              CHICKIE S  CREEK
                                               - " O
                                               z c O

                                               .<§§

                                               "si e
                                               - > 2
                                                I  2 >
                                               -n Z CO
                                               m > CO
                                               CD

                                               51 5
                                                                              O
                                                                              m
                                     CONESTOGA   CREEK

                                       PEQUEA  CREEK
-------
-------
                  NO3 Ibs/day
                 TKN  Ibs/day
m
CO
3)
O


O
I
m
T>
m
m
CD
                                  JUNIATA  RIVER
                      WEST  BRANCH
                         SHAMOKIN CREEK

                          PENNS  CREEK
                                              o
                                              p
                                              b
                                              o
                                              o
                                              I
                  o
                  o
                  I
o
o
b
o
o
j
o
o
1
                                          - <"
                                          2 C

CONODOGUINET CRK.
HARRISBURG E&W SHORE
  YELLOW BREECHES
   SWATARA  CREEK


  CONOWAGO  CREEK


    CODORUS  CREEK


    CHICKIES  CREEK
                                     CONESTOGA  CREEK
                                         PEQUEA   CREEK

                                                                             ro m
                                                                                  O
                                                                                  m
-------
-------
                                                                      91
     Land area figures (acres and square miles) were determined for
the following sub-divisions within the lower Susquehanna River Basin:
SUB-DIVISION AREA
LAND AREA
POPULATION
mi2 acres
... . . „ Harrisburg
Major cities of
feater.than Lancaster
25,000 inhibitants
Lebanon
York
7.6
7.2
4.6
5.3
4
4
2
3
,864
,608
,944
,392
67
57
28
50
,880
,589
,572
,335
POPULATION DENSITY
pop/mi2
8,931
7,998
6,211
9,497
pop/acre
13
12
9
14
.45
.50
.70
.84

Harrisburg
Major Urbanized
Areas Lancaster
York
78
39
37
49
24
23
,920
,960
,680
240
117
123
,751
,097
,106
3,086
3,002
3,327
4
4
5
.82
.69
.20

Adams
Cumberland
Dauphin
Juniata
Counties Lancaster
Lebanon
Northumberland
Perry
Snyder
York
526
555
518
386
946
363
453
551
327
909
336
355
331
247
605
232
289
352
209
581
,640
,200
,520
,040
,440
,320
,920
,640
,280
,760
56
158
223
16
319
99
99
28
29
272
,937
,177
,834
,712
,693
,665
,190
,615
,269
,603
108
285
432
43
338
275
219
52
90
300
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
.45
.68
.07
.53
.43
.34
.08
.14
.47
-------
-------