U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
       Annapolis Field Office
      Annapolis Science Center
     Annapolis, Maryland  21401
        TECHNICAL PAPERS
         VOLUME 22

-------

-------
               Table of Contents


                  Volume  22


Summary Report - Pollution of Back River - January 1964
Summary of Water Quality - Potomac River Basin in
Maryland - October 1965
The Role of Mathematical  Models in the Potomac River
Basin Water Quality Management Program - December 1967
Use of Mathematical Models as Aids to Decision Making
in Water Quality Control  - February 1968
Piscataway Creek Watershed - A Water Quality Study Report
August 1968

-------

-------
                            PUBLICATIONS

                U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                             REGION III
                       ANNAPOLIS FIELD OFFICE*


                              VOLUME 1
                          Technical  Reports

 5         A Technical  Assessment of Current Water Quality
           Conditions and Factors Affecting Water Quality in
           the Upper Potomac Estuary

 6         Sanitary Bacteriology of the Upper Potomac Estuary

 7         The Potomac Estuary Mathematical Model

 9         Nutrients in the Potomac River Basin

11         Optimal  Release Sequences for Water Quality Control
           in Multiple Reservoir Systems


                              VOLUME 2
                          Technical  Reports


13         Mine Drainage in the North Branch Potomac River Basin

15         Nutrients in the Upper Potomac River Basin

17         Upper Potomac River Basin Water Quality Assessment

                              VOLUME  3
                          Technical  Reports

19         Potomac-Piscataway Dye Release and Wastewater
           Assimilation Studies

21         LNEPLT

23         XYPLOT

25         PLOT3D


     * Formerly CB-SRBP, U.S. Department of Health, Education,
       and Welfare; CFS-FWPCA, and CTSL-FWQA,  Middle Atlantic
       Region, U.S. Department of the Interior

-------
                             VOLUME  3   (continued)
                         Technical Reports


27         Water Quality and Wastewater Loadings - Upper Potomac
           Estuary during 1969


                             VOLUME  4
                         Technical Reports


29         Step Backward Regression

31         Relative Contributions of Nutrients to the Potomac
           River Basin from Various Sources

33         Mathematical Model Studies of Water Quality in the
           Potomac Estuary

35         Water Resource - Water Supply Study of the Potomac
           Estuary

                             VOLUME 5
                         Technical Reports

37         Nutrient Transport and Dissolved Oxygen Budget
           Studies in the Potomac Estuary

39         Preliminary Analyses of the Wastewater and Assimilation
           Capacities of the Anacostia Tidal River System

41         Current Water Quality Conditions and Investigations
           in the Upper Potomac River Tidal System

43         Physical Data of the Potomac River Tidal System
           Including Mathematical Model Segmentation

45         Nutrient Management in the Potomac Estuary


                             VOLUME 6
                         Technical Reports


47         Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Input Study

49         Heavy Metals Analyses of  Bottom  Sediment in the
           Potomac River Estuary

-------
                                  VOLUME  6  (continued)

                              Technical  Reports

     51          A System of Mathematical Models for Water Quality
                Management

     52         Numerical Method for Groundwater Hydraulics

     53         Upper Potomac Estuary Eutrophication Control
                Requirements

     54         AUT0-QUAL Modelling System

Supplement      AUT0-QUAL Modelling System:  Modification for
   to 54        Non-Point Source Loadings

                                  VOLUME  7
                              Technical Reports

     55         Water Quality Conditions in the Chesapeake Bay System

     56         Nutrient Enrichment and Control Requirements in the
                Upper Chesapeake Bay

     57         The Potomac River Estuary in the Washington
                Metropolitan Area - A History of its Water Quality
                Problems and their Solution

                                  VOLUME  8
                              Technical Reports

     58         Application of AUT0-QUAL Modelling System to the
                Patuxent River Basin

     59         Distribution of Metals in Baltimore Harbor Sediments

     60         Summary and Conclusions - Nutrient Transport and
                Accountability in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin

                                  VOLUME  9
                                 Data Reports

                Water Quality Survey, James River and Selected
                Tributaries - October 1969

                Water Quality Survey in the North Branch Potomac River
                between Cumberland and Luke, Maryland - August 1967

-------
                            VOLUME 9   (continued)

                           Data Reports


           Investigation of Water Quality in Chesapeake Bay and
           Tributaries at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Department
           of the Army, Aberdeen, Maryland - October-December 1967

           Biological Survey of the Upper Potomac River and
           Selected Tributaries - 1966-1968

           Water Quality Survey of the  Eastern Shore Chesapeake
           Bay, Wicomico River, Pocomoke River, Nanticoke River,
           Marshall Creek, Bunting Branch, and Chincoteague Bay -
           Summer 1967

           Head of Bay Study - Water Quality Survey of Northeast
           River, Elk River, C & D Canal, Bohemia River, Sassafras
           River and Upper Chesapeake Bay - Summer 1968 - Head ot
           Bay Tributaries

           Water Quality Survey of the  Potomac Estuary - 1967

           Water Quality Survey of the  Potomac Estuary - 1968

           Wastewater Treatment Plant Nutrient Survey - 1966-1967

           Cooperative Bacteriological  Study - Upper Chesapeake Bay
           Dredging Spoil  Disposal - Cruise Report No. 11

                            VOLUME 10

                            Data  Reports

 9         Water Quality Survey of the  Potomac Estuary - 1965-1966

10         Water Quality Survey of the  Annapolis  Metro Area - 1967

11         Nutrient  Data on  Sediment  Samples of the Potomac Estuary
           1966-1968

12         1969 Head  of  the  Bay Tributaries

13         Water  Quality  Survey of  the  Chesapeake Bay in the
           Vicinity of Sandy Point  -  1968

14         Water  Quality  Survey  of  the  Chesapeake Bay in the
           Vicinity of Sandy Point  -  1969

-------
                             VOLUME. IQ(continued)

                           Data Reports

15         Water Quality Survey of the Patuxent River -  1967

16         Water Quality Survey of the Patuxent River -  1968

17         Water Quality Survey of the Patuxent River -  1969

18         Water Quality of the Potomac Estuary Transects,
           Intensive and Southeast Water Laboratory Cooperative
           Study - 1969

19         Water Quality Survey of the Potomac  Estuary Phosphate
           Tracer Study - 1969

                             VOLUME 11
                            Data Reports

20         Water Quality of the Potomac Estuary Transport  Study
           1969-1970

21         Water Quality Survey of the Piscataway Creek Watershed
           1968-1970

22         Water Quality Survey of the Chesapeake Bay in the
           Vicinity of Sandy Point - 1970

23         Water Quality Survey of the Head of the Chesapeake Bay
           Maryland Tributaries - 1970-1971

24         Water Quality Survey of the Upper Chesapeake Bay
           1969-1971

25         Water Quality of the Potomac Estuary Consolidated
           Survey - 1970

26         Water Quality of the Potomac Estuary Dissolved  Oxygen
           Budget Studies - 1970

27         Potomac Estuary Wastewater Treatment Plants Survey
           1970

28         Water Quality Survey of the Potomac Estuary Embayments
           and Transects - 1970

29         Water Quality of the Upper Potomac Estuary Enforcement
           Survey - 1970

-------
   30


   31


   32
   33
   34
Appendix
  to 1
Appendix
  to 2
    3


    4
                  VOLUME 11  (continued)
                 Data Reports

Water Quality of the Potomac Estuary - Gilbert Swamp
and Allen's Fresh and Gunston Cove - 1970

Survey Results of the Chesapeake Bay Input Study -
1969-1970

Upper Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Studies - Bush River,
Spesutie Narrows and Swan Creek, C & D Canal, Chester
River, Severn River, Gunpowder, Middle and Bird Rivers -
1968-1971

Special Water Quality Surveys of the Potomac River Basin
Anacostia Estuary, Wicomico,River, St. Clement and
Breton Bays, Occoquan Bay - 1970-1971

Water Quality Survey of the Patuxent River - 1970

                  VOLUME 12

               Working Documents

Biological Survey of the Susquehanna River and its
Tributaries between Danville, Pennsylvania and
Conowingo, Maryland

Tabulation of Bottom Organisms Observed at Sampling
Stations during the Biological Survey between Danville,
Pennsylvania and Conowingo, Maryland - November 1966

Biological Survey of the Susquehanna River and its
Tributaries between Cooperstown, New York and
Northumberland, Pennsylvnaia - January 1967

Tabulation of Bottom Organisms Observed at Sampling
Stations during the Biological Survey between Cooperstown,
New  York and Northumberland, Pennsylvania - November 1966

                  VOLUME 13
               Working Documents

Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, Mine Drainage
Chesapeake Bay-Delaware River Basins - July 1967

Biological Survey of Rock Creek (from Rockville, Maryland
to  the  Potomac River)  October 1966

-------
                             VOLUME   13   (continued)
                          Working Documents

 5         Summary of Water Quality  and  Waste Outfalls,  Rock  Creek
           in Montgomery County,  Maryland and the District of
           Columbia - December 1966

 6         Water Pollution Survey -  Back River 1965 -  February  1967

 7         Efficiency Study of the District  of Columbia  Water
           Pollution Control  Plant - February 1967

                             VOLUME   14
                          Working Documents

 8         Water Quality and Pollution Control  Study -  Susquehanna
           River Basin from Northumberland to West Pittson
           (Including the Lackawanna River Basin)   March  1967

 9         Water Quality and Pollution Control  Study, Juniata
           River Basin - March 1967

10         Water Quality and Pollution Control  Study, Rappahannock
           River Basin - March 1967

11         Water Quality and Pollution Control  Study, Susquehanna
           River Basin from Lake Otsego,  New York, to Lake  Lackawanna
           River Confluence, Pennsylvania - April  1967

                             VOLUME 15
                          Working Documents

12         Water Quality and Pollution Control  Study, York  River
           Basin - April 1967

13         Water Quality and Pollution Control  Study, West  Branch,
           Susquehanna River Basin - April 1967

14         Water Quality and Pollution Control  Study, James River
           Basin - June 1967

15         Water Quality and Pollution Control  Study, Patuxent  River
           Basin - May 1967

-------
                             VOLUME 16

                          Working Documents

16         Water Quality and Pollution Control  Study,  Susquehanna
           River Basin from Northumberland, Pennsylvania,  to
           Havre de Grace, Maryland - July 1967

17         Water Quality and Pollution Control  Study,  Potomac
           River Basin - June 1967

18         Immediate Water Pollution Control  Needs,  Central  Western
           Shore of Chesapeake Bay Area (Magothy,  Severn,  South, and
           West River Drainage Areas)  July 1967

19         Immediate Water Pollution Control  Needs,  Northwest
           Chesapeake Bay Area (Patapsco to Susquehanna Drainage
           Basins in Maryland) August 1967

20         Immediate Water Pollution Control  Needs - The Eastern
           Shore of Delaware, Maryland and Virginia  -  September 1967

                             VOLUME 17
                           Working Documents

21         Biological Surveys of the Upper James River Basin
           Covington, Clifton Forge, Big Island, Lynchburg, and
           Piney River Areas - January 1968

22         Biological Survey of Antietam Creek and some of its
           Tributaries from Waynesboro, Pennsylvania to Antietam,
           Maryland - Potomac River Basin - February 1968

23         Biological Survey of the Monocacy River and Tributaries
           from Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, to Maryland Rt. 28 Bridge
           Potomac River Basin - January 1968

24         Water Quality Survey of Chesapeake Bay in the Vicinity of
           Annapolis, Maryland - Summer 1967

25         Mine Drainage Pollution of the North Branch of Potomac
           River - Interim Report - August 1968

26         Water Quality Survey in the Shenandoah River of the
           Potomac River Basin - June 1967

27         Water Quality Survey in the James and Maury Rivers
           Glasgow,  Virginia - September 1967

-------
                             VOLUME  17   (continued)

                           Working Documents

28         Selected Biological  Surveys in the James  River Basin,
           Gillie Creek in the Richmond  Area, Appomattox River
           in the Petersburg Area, Bailey Creek from Fort Lee
           to Hopewell - April  1968

                             VOLUME  18
                           Working Documents

29         Biological  Survey of the Upper and Middle Patuxent
           River and some of its Tributaries - from Maryland
           Route 97 Bridge near Roxbury Mills to the Maryland
           Route 4 Bridge near Wayson's Corner, Maryland -
           Chesapeake Drainage Basin - June 1968

30         Rock Creek Watershed - A Water Quality Study Report
           March 1969

31         The Patuxent River - Water Quality Management -
           Technical Evaluation - September 1969

                             VOLUME 19
                          Working Documents

           Tabulation, Community and Source Facility Water Data
           Maryland Portion, Chesapeake Drainage Area - October 1964

           Waste Disposal  Practices at Federal  Installations
           Patuxent River Basin - October 1964

           Waste Disposal  Practices at Federal  Installations
           Potomac River Basin below Washington, D.C.- November 1964

           Waste Disposal  Practices at Federal  Installations
           Chesapeake Bay Area of Maryland Excluding Potomac
           and Patuxent River Basins - January 1965

           The Potomac Estuary - Statistics and Projections -
           February 1968

           Patuxent River - Cross Sections and Mass Travel
           Velocities - July 1968

-------
                            VOLUME  19 (continued)

                         Working Documents

          Wastewater Inventory - Potomac River Basin -
          December 1968

          Wastewater Inventory - Upper Potomac River Basin -
          October 1968

                            VOLUME 20
                         Technical Papers.

 1         A Digital Technique for Calculating and Plotting
          Dissolved Oxygen Deficits

 2         A River-Mile  Indexing System for Computer Application
          in Storing and Retrieving Data      (unavailable)

 3         Oxygen Relationships in Streams, Methodology to be
          Applied when  Determining the Capacity of a Stream to
          Assimilate Organic Wastes - October 1964

 4         Estimating Diffusion Characteristics of Tidal Waters -
          May  1965

 5         Use  of Rhodamine B Dye as a Tracer in Streams of the
          Susquehanna River Basin - April 1965

 6         An  In-Situ Benthic Respirometer - December 1965

 7         A Study of Tidal Dispersion in the Potomac River
          February  1966

 8         A Mathematical Model for the Potomac River - what it
          has  done  and  what it can do - December 1966

 9         A Discussion  and Tabulation of  Diffusion Coefficients
          for  Tidal Waters Computed as a  Function of Velocity
          February  1967

10         Evaluation of Coliform  Contribution by Pleasure Boats
          July 1966

-------
                            VOLUME  21

                         Technical Papers

11         A Steady State Segmented Estuary Model

12        Simulation of Chloride Concentrations in the
          Potomac Estuary - March 1968

13        Optimal Release Sequences for Water Quality
          Control in Multiple-Reservoir Systems - 1968


                            VOLUME  22
                         Technical  Papers

          Summary Report - Pollution of Back River - January 1964

          Summary of Water Quality - Potomac River Basin in
          Maryland - October 1965

          The Role of Mathematical  Models in the Potomac River
          Basin Water Quality Management Program - December 1967

          Use of Mathematical Models as Aids to Decision Making
          in Water Quality Control  - February 1968

          Piscataway Creek Watershed - A Water Quality Study
          Report - August 1968


                            VOLUME  23
                        Ocean Dumping Surveys

          Environmental Survey of an Interim Ocean Dumpsite,
          Middle Atlantic Bight - September 1973

          Environmental Survey of Two Interim  Dumpsites,
          Middle Atlantic Bight - January 1974

          Environmental Survey of Two Interim Dumpsites
          Middle Atlantic Bight - Supplemental Report -
          October 1974

          Effects of Ocean Disposal Activities on Mid-
          continental Shelf Environment off Delaware
          and Maryland - January 1975

-------
                            VOLUME 24

                           1976 Annual
               Current Nutrient Assessment - Upper Potomac  Estuary
               Current Assessment Paper No.  1

               Evaluation of Western Branch  Wastewater Treatment
               Plant Expansion - Phases I and  II

               Situation Report - Potomac River

               Sediment Studies in Back River  Estuary, Baltimore,
               Maryland

Technical      Distribution of Metals in Elizabeth River Sediments
Report 61

Technical      A Water Quality Modelling Study of the Delaware
Report 62      Estuary

-------
                          INTRODUCTION





        At the request of Congressman Clarence D. Long by letter to



the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare on October 24, 1963,



the Public Health Service has conducted a special study of pollution



problems in the Back River Basin in Baltimore City and Baltimore



County, Maryland.  This summary report was prepared in cooperation



with. State and local agencies to present and evaluate all available



information relating to the water quality conditions of Back River.



        Agencies cooperating in and providing information for this



special study are:



        Baltimore City Department of Health



        Baltimore City Department of Public Works



        Baltimore County Department of Health



        Baltimore County Department of Public Works



        Maryland State Department of Health



        Maryland Water Pollution Control Commission



        Maryland State Planning Department



        Chesapeake Bay Institute, The Johns Hopkins University

-------

-------
                          CONCLUSIONS



        Evaluation of existing pollution sources and analysis of



bacteriological data indicates that Back River is potentially unsafe



for bodily contact upstream from lynch Point.  Early improvement of



water quality in this area will be exceedingly difficult because of



the problems involved in controlling and/or eliminating overflows



from hundreds of septic tanks, periodic overflows from several sewage



pumping stations, drainage from refuse dumps, and -waste discharge from



marine craft.  No one source of pollution may be implicated as the



major contributor to poor water quality primarily because of the



present lack of information on water movement within the estuary.



Control of waste discharges would effect improvement of the water



quality in the Basin.  Several benefits may be realized from this



improved water quality.  These are enhanced recreational use and



aesthetic conditions, relief of pollution-caused nuisance conditions,



and a probable increase in property values.



        In any pollution control program, the effects of surface



water drainage from densely populated areas, plus the possibility of



failure of -waste-water transport and treatment systems, must be



recognized.




        After control of pollution sources, water quality in the River



could possibly be improved to a degree that use of the waters for



swimming and other bodily contact activities may be possible in






                               iii

-------

-------
certain limited areas.  Delineation of areas where bodily contact

may be permitted would be made after analyzing the data on water

movement and bacteriological quality in the estuary.

        An effective water quality program to alleviate or control

present and future pollution of Back River must be based upon compre-

hensive 'watershed planning.  In developing such a program, considera-

tion should be given to the following methods for preventing

development of additional pollution sources.

        1.  Adopt more adequate controls regulating the discharges
            of wastes from marine craft.

        2.  Provide more rigid control of solid wastes disposal
            areas and prohibit unregulated dumping of refuse in
            the area.

        3.  Develop land-use regulations to control housing
            developments in areas with no public sewerage.

        The complex nature of the problem requires that additional

studies be undertaken before finalizing a Basin water quality control

program.  In planning and guiding specific studies in the area, the

formation of a committee representing State and local governmental

agencies could be most effective.  Examples of studies that could be

instituted are listed below.

        1.  Determination of water movement and circulation in
            the estuary by dyes or other methods.

        2.  Locate and identify various sources of surface drainage
            pollution and measure volumes and periods of sewage
            pumping station overflow.
                               IV

-------

-------
        3.  Establish a network to monitor the streams and the
            estuary under various hydrologic conditions.  This is
            especially useful in detecting unusual amounts or new-
            contributions of pollution.

        4.  Review laws and regulations governing formulation of
            sanitary districts and/or a Back River commission.
            This review should also investigate the effects of
            these laws and regulations on administration and
            financing of pollution control programs and facilities.

        Information from these studies is necessary in programing

further remedial actions to improve water quality in the Back River

Basin.

-------

-------
                       TABLE OF CONTENTS
     INTRODUCTION .................... , ....................    i
     SUMMARY ..............................................   ii
     CONCLUSIONS ..........................................  ill
I    PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION .................................    1
II   WATERUSES ...........................................    3
III  SOURCES OF WASTES ....................................    4
         Public Sewerage Facilities ... .......... ..... .....    4
         Individual Sewage Disposal Systems ...............    6
         Marinas and Marine Craft ........ ..... ............    7
         Waste-Water ......................................    B
17   EFFECTS OF WASTES ON WATER QUALITY AND WATER USE .....   10
         Studies by Baltimore County Department of Health. .   10
         Studies by the Baltimore City Department of
           Public Works ...................................   11
         Studies by the Maryland Water Pollution Control
           Commission ....... . ........ . .......... ..........   12
         Studies by Eastern Stainless Steel Company .......   13
7    REGULATORY AND CO-OPERATING AQENCIES IN WATER
       QUALITY CONTROL ....................................   U
         State Board of Health and Mental Hygiene .........   14
         Water Pollution Control Commission ..... , ........ .   14
         Baltimore County Board of Health ............. ....   15
         Baltimore County Department of Public Works ......   15
         Baltimore City Department of Health ..............   15

-------

-------
         Baltimore City Department of Public Works 	   16

         Maryland State Planning Department 0	   16

         Chesapeake Bay Institute, The Johns Hopkins
           University ............................. <,,.......   16

VI   BIBLIOGRAPHY ......		   17

VII  APPENDICES			   19

         Append!:  I - Sewage Pumping Stations in the Back
           River Basin	   19

         Appendix II - Maryland State Board of Health
           Regu ations on Discharge of Domestic Sewage
           in a Watercourse	   20

         Appendix III - Industries Discharging Waste Water
           Directly to Back River Basin	   21

         Appendix IV - Bacteriological and pH Study of Back
           River by the Baltimore County Department of
           Health - July 19, 1963 ......		   22

         Appendix V - Regulations Governing Public Swimming
           Pools and Bathing Beaches	   24

         Appendix VI - Analysis of Back River and Chesapeake
           Bay Waters by Baltimore City Department of Public
           Works - August 22, 1963 ...............	.	   25

         Appendix VII - Analyses of Shoreline Waters of Back
           River in the Vicinity of Back River Sewage Treat-
           ment Plant, Baltimore City Department of Public
           Works - September 18, 1963	   26

         Appendix VIII - Bacteriological Analyses of Back
           River, Chesapeake Bay, and Back River Sewage
           Treatment Plant Effluent, Baltimore City
           Department of Public Works .....................   27

         Appendix IX - Stream Sampling for Baltimore City
           Department of Public Works for Herring Run and
           Moores Run	. ......<,.,.....<,....   32

         Appendix X - Observation of Water Pollution Contents
           in the Back River Drainage Basin ...............   33

-------

-------
Appendix XI - Survey of Bacon Creek by Eastern
  Stainless Steel Company, November 5, 1963	   36

Appendix XII - Regulations IV, Treatment and
  Disposal of Industrial Wastes, of the Maryland
  Water Pollution Control Commission	   37

-------

-------
                      PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION


        Back River is a tidal estuary of the Chesapeake Bay in

Baltimore County, Maryland.  The River is 9.2 miles long^ and drains

an area of 62.4 square miles; the drainage area above the head of the

estuary is 26.8 square miles.  Width of the estuary averages about

three-fourths of a mile extending to about a mile and a half near

the mouth.  At mean low water, depths along the center line of the

estuary range from two feet at the headwaters to 31 feet near the

mouth, averaging about five feet in the upper half of the estuary and

nine feet in the lower half s*   Tides in the estuary average about 1.2

feet but may rise up to eight feet with strong winds from the north-

east.  The volume of the estuary is about one billion cubic feet,

and the water is exchanged vdth the Chesapeake Bay at a rate of

approximately 100 million cubic feet per day.''   By comparison, the

fresh water run-off to the estuary is about two million cubic feet

or more per day 95 per cent of the time,^/  This surface run-off

carries large quantities of silt which are deposited in the estuary,

especially in the upper reaches.  Estuary salinity ranges from an

average of about 1.0 part per thousand during spring run-off to about

5.0 parts per thousand during the dry part of the
a/  Estimated by comparing to the Little Gunpowder Falls in the same
    vicinity, i.e., 0.36 cubic feet per second per square

b/  The salinity of seawater is about 35 parts per thousand.

-------

-------
        The tributaries of Back River are several small creeks which



are formed at elevations between 100 and 200 feet and flow through



heavily populated sections of eastern Baltimore City and Baltimore



County.  Soil throughout the basin consists largely of tight gray



clay with sand occurring sporadically.  Standard water seepage tests



average over 40 minutes per inch in the clay and range from one to



14 minutes per inch in the sand, depending on clay content.  Signif-



icant  physical characteristics of the basin are shown in Figure 1.

-------

-------
                           WATER USES





        Principal water uses in the Back River Basin include boating,



fishing^, aesthetic enjoyment^, plus waste-water assimilation and



transport.  The Back River area has developed as a residential and



a major recreational area because of its proximity to metropolitan



Baltimore,  Much of the estuary shore is lined with residences or



summer cottages.  In addition to permanent residents of the area,



several thousand persons utilize the Back River Neck (NE shore)



during the summers.  Boating is very popular in the Back River area,



as a total of 837 craft with motors of 7 1/2 horsepower or more were



registered in 1963.**  These craft were harbored at five marinas and



many private docks scattered along the shoreline.

-------

-------
                       SOURCES OF WASTES





Public Sewerage Facilities



        The portion of the Back River drainage area located within



Baltimore City is essentially completely sewered,  as is the portion



in Baltimore County to the north of the City.   Public sewerage



facilities in the areas immediately surrounding the estuary are



scattered but serve the important areas of Essex and Middle River



to the northeast of Back River, Edgemere to the southwest,  and parts



of Rosedale and Colgate to the northwest.  A portion of the Fuller-



ton area to the northwest is also sewered.  All sewage from these



areas flows to Baltimore City's Back River Sewage Treatment Plant,



by gravity from the extreme northern and western portions of the



drainage area and by means of pumps from other areas.  Sewered areas,



areas where sewers are under construction or design, and pumping



stations are shown in Figure 1, with pumping stations listed in



Appendix I.  The estimated population of the sewered area in the



basin was about 105,700 in Baltimore County and 175,400 in Baltimore



City at the time of the I960 census.



        Baltimore City's Back River Sewage Treatment Plant is located



7.0 miles upstream from the mouth of the River and serves an estimat-



ed 1.17 million persons plus several hundred commercial and industrial



establishments.  A large portion of the effluent from the secondary



units of the plant is utilized by Bethlehem Steel Company's Sparrows



Point Plant, while the remainder is discharged to Back River.-/

-------

-------
Ultimate disposal of the effluent used by Bethlehem Steel Company

is to Bear Creek of the Patapsco River Basin, thus removing this

waste from Back River .  The trend of effluent use by the Sparrows

Point Plant has been to utilize greater quantities, as shown in

the following Table.

                                    Effluent Sold        Effluent to
             Total Effluent         to Bethlehem         Back River
Year             (M3D)               Steel Co.             (M3D)
                  104                    32                 72
1953              109                    53                 56
1958              131                    85                 46
1962              170                   110                 60
1963              153                   113                 40
It is anticipated that the Bethlehem Steel Company Plant will continue

to use greater quantities of the sewage treatment plant ef fluent,

which may result in decreased discharges to Back River.

        The five-day biochemical oxygen demand of the effluent

averages about 20 parts per million, with a total suspended solids

                                7/
content of 20 parts per million.-7   Also, the sewage effluent still

contains nutrients which could stimulate the growth of algae.  Effluent

discharged to the river is chlorinated during the recreation season,

April through September, to reduce bacterial counts.

        Programmed improvements in the Back River Sewage Treatment

Plant over the past several years have resulted in improved effluent

quality.  The plant is presently operating within its capacity of

170 million gallons per day.  Planned future development of the

treatment facilities will handle the increased load from Baltimore

County.  The County will share the costs of these developments.

-------

-------
 Individual Sewage  Disposal Systems



        The  shores of Back River are lined with private residences^,



 man/ of which were apparently designed as weekend aiid suimaer cottages $



 however,, almost-  all are inhabited year-rcrund, at present  Most of



 the.se residences are not served by public sewerage^ they utilize



 septic tanks  with  seepage pits or drain fields, ever; though the soil



 in the area  is generally unsuitable for absorption.  While these



 sewage disposal  facilities may have been adequate for short-term



 usage eaeb yeir^ the continuous loading from year-round occupancy



 has resulted  in  sewage being  discharged to the river by iray of ditches,,



 gollies, arid  storm drains In addition,, waste waters froai .many resi-



 dences and several commercial establishments more distant from the



 river also reach tributaries  of Back River after discharge from



 inadequate septic  tank systems.



        The number of households with private sewage disposal facil-



 ities was ftboct  4*900 at the  time of the I960 eens'is,.,  v7b.en in ; ess ion ?



 the Back River Elementary School discharges about 1<2SOCK> gallons per



 day to a ditch leading to the River from a septic tank aad ina.deq.uate



 seepage pit.  Also5  four large trailer- parks dii?eltar(re sev-agf- to



 tri'o'-itary streams,  three from septic tanks and inadequate --ib^surfaee



 disposal,, one from a septic tank arid sand filter followed tv c'hlorina-



 tior..



        'Io Illustrate difficulties in providing serfage facilities,, a



major factor  is;   all sewage  projects in Baltimore Co^-'ty m:ist be

-------

-------
self-supporting.  The costs for sewerage are apportioned to land



owners on a basis of front-footage.  Any deficit may be paid over a



period of 10 years with interest.  Pi-umbers' fees for sewer connec-



tions may also be financed for the owner by the County over a period



of 10 years with interest.  Within a metropolitan district or a



danger-to-health area, designated by a County committee made up of



the Chief Sanitary Engineer, The Director of Finance, and the



Director of the Section of Environmental Health, all costs may be



financed over a period of 40 years with interest.  According to



preliminary studies by the Baltimore County Department of Public



Works, the cost of sewerage to average home owners in now unsewered



areas along the shores of Back River may be considerable.  Because



of present low population densities, the cost of providing sewerage



for households in the unsewered areas would probably be prohibitive,



unless new methods of financing are developed.





Marinas and Iferine Craft



        Many of the 837 craft (? or more horsepower) registered as



having home ports in the Back River area are equipped with flush



toilets.  Section 402 of the Maryland State Board of Healtn and



Mental Hygiene Regulations (Appendix II) prohibits discharge of



domestic sewage into any watercourse in such a manner to cause pollu-



tion or create nuisance.  Control of waste discharges from craft dock-



ed at marinas is achieved through marine-clientele contracts which



prohibit waste discharges at the facility.  However, waste discharges

-------

-------
                                                               8





from craft cruising in the River or docked at private docks are



presently -uncontrolled.  Marina locations are indicated on Figure 1.





industrial Wa,g|e-4fa;fceir



        The Eastern Stainless Steel Company discharges an average



of about 700,000 gallons per day (1.4 million gallons per day maximum)



of waste water to Bacon Creek just above its confluence with Back



River, 8,5 miles upstream from the mouth.  The plant's sanitary



sewage and acid process waters are neutralized with lime (automati-



cally fed) in a baffled lagoon with an average retention time of 4.5



hours.  The lagoon allows time for neutralization and for settling of



iron oxide and other sediment.  Cooling water is also discharged to



this lagoon and oil is removed by means of an Earle Surface-Separator



System.  The Maryland Water Pollution Control Commission frequently



inspects this operation and has observed effluent pH values as low



as 2.8 for short periods of tijne, generally attributable to equipment



failure.  It is significant to note that no appreciable effect has



been noted on Back River water quality after the pH dropped below the



Commission's established limits of 5.5-8.5, even in proximity to the



discharge.



        Armco Steel Company discharges its sanitary waste to Balti-



more City sanitary sewers, with its waste process and cooling water



being discharged through City storm sewers to Herring Run, 38 miles



above the head of the estuary.  The rate of waste-water discharge is



not meteredj however, average water intake to the plant, is about 1.5

-------

-------
                                                               9





million gallons per day (3.0 million gallons per day maximum), and



the waste-water discharge would probably be in the same range.  The



acid, waste is neutralized, then diluted with cooling water from



which waste oil has been sMmmed manually and mill scale settled



in two settling ponds.



        Other industries, which use smaller quantities of -water, are



located on tributary streams.  In addition to the industries which



normally discharge waste-water directly to the basin^, the many other



establishments located on tributaries may influence water quality



as a result of spills and other accidents.  All sizable industries



discharging waste water directly to the Back River Basin are listed



in Appendix III.

-------

-------
                                                              10





        EFFECTS OF WASTES ON WATER QUALITY AND WATER USE





Studies by Baltimore County Department of Health



        Based upon field observations and occasional bacteriological



examinations, the Baltimore County Department of Health has consider-



ed Back River north of Eastern Airport to be polluted arid unsafe



for swimming for about the past 20 years.  On July 19, 1963, the



Section of Environmental Health of that Department surveyed the



bacteriological quality of the Back River estuary at 16 key stations.



At each station bacteriological samples were taken above,, opposite,



and below potential sources of pollution^ and one pH analysis was



made, except for samples taken at the Back River Sewage Treatment



Plant outfall where twice as many samples were taken,  The results



of the survey, presented in Appendix IT, indicate a "high degree of



bacteriological pollution" in the River except for the areas below



Evergreen Park and Edgemere.  Areas below Evergreen Park and Edge-



mere also had low bacterial counts in a survey on June 25, 1963.,



        At each station, the most probable number of colifarm



bacteria in at least one sample exceeded the Maryland State Depart =



ment of Health Standards governing water quality for bathing beaches 0



(Appendix V).  The survey report states that the high 'bacterial counts



were caused by "Literally hundreds of over-flowing or malfunctioning



septic tanks systems situated primarily along the beach aad .shore



fronts" by "overflowing septic tanks from inland sources/" ar>d by



marine craft.  This report contains a conclusion that the "only means

-------

-------
                                                              11

by which this situation can be solved is the extension of sewers."
The survey also indicated that "bacterial counts in the vicinity of
the Back River Sewage Treatment Plant outfall were relatively low.,
as compared with other areas in the river (except for the lower
reaches } 
Studies by, fthe Baltimore Q^y Deratrtment of Public Works
        The Baltimore City Department of Public Works has sampled
the waters of Back River and the adjacent waters of Chesapeake Bay
at 14 stations several times a year for the past several years,
Analytical results from the most recent samples taken at seven mid-.
stream stations are presented in Appendix VI,,  The results from the
most recent sampling of five shoreline stations in the vicinity of
the outfall and of the effluent, before and after ehlorination., are
presented in Appendix VII.  The bacteriological analyses at all 14
stations obtained during the past two years are presented in Appen-
dix VIII,,  The surveys showed the bacterial counts (colifona) to be
generally high both at mid-etream and at the shorelin.es upstream of
Muddy Gatj while at Middy Out and downstream the counts at midstream
were generally low.  The bacterial counts of the Back River at the
sewage treatment plant outfall were generally low, reflecting the
effects of chlorination.  Shoreline samples usually had higher-
bacterial counts than mid-stream samples; however ^ during a few of
the surveys, conditions were reversed.  The bacterial data are very
difficult to interpret because of a lack of knowledge about water

-------

-------
                                                              12





movement IB the estuary.  The five-day biochemical oxygen demand



(20C.) at the outfall averages about 20 parts per million and



decreases to about two parts per million near the Chesapeake Bay.



The dissolved oxygen concentrations were high, probably due in part



to photosynthesis by algaej however, sampling has not been conducted



at night to investigate the possibility of diurnal fluctuations



        For some years the Department has also sampled the various



streams as they enter and leave the City.  At times increases in bio-



chemical oxygen demand and suspended solids have occurred in Moores



Run and Herring Run between entry to and exit from the City, with



corresponding decreases in dissolved oxygen; however,, the concentra-



tions are not generally severe.  The results of the two most recent



samplings are presented in Appendix IX.





Studies bv the Maryland Water Pollution Control Commission



        The Maryland Water Pollution Control Commission has sampled



the Back River and Bacon Creek in the vicinity of the Eastern Stain-



less Steel Company periodically.  No adverse conditions caused by



industrial waste water have been detected in the past few years



Occasional samples have been taken at various points ii; the basin



in past years in reference to specific complaints^ principally con-



cerning oil pollution.   A listing of the various pollution conditions



observed and investigated by the Commission are reproduced in Appen-



dix X.

-------

-------
                                                              13





Studies by pastern Stai^ess Steel Company



        The Eastern Stainless Steel Company secured the services of



Strassburger & Siegel, Inc., Analytical and Consulting Chemistsf to



assist in a survey of pH and bacterial counts in Bacon Creek and Back



River in the vicinity of their plant.  The survey was carried out on



November 5, 1963, and the most probable numbers of eoliform bacteria



per 100 milliliters observed in the waste effluent were 2,800 and



3,500 in two samples.  After flowing perhaps 25 yards through & ditch,



the number dropped to 210; in Bacon Creek the number was 130; and several



yards downstream on Bacon Creek, the number was 79  Counts in Bacon



Creek upstream of the plant outfall were high, as were the counts in



Back River just upstream of Bacon Creek.  These data are summarized



in Appendix XI.

-------

-------
                                                              14





         REGULATOR! AND GO-OPERATING AGENCIES IN WATER



                        QUALITY CONTROL





        Cooperation at all levels of government is a matter of neees



sity in developing optimum -water quality control programs  for the



Back River Basin.  This need for cooperation has "been  recognized,



and,over a period of time, legislative actions and administrative



agreements have defined the following responsibilities in  these



programs.
   .   Board of Health and Mental Hygiene



        The State Board of Health exercises primary responsibility



with respect to water pollution resulting from untreated or  inade-



quately treated sewage.  The Board has jurisdiction over the construc-



tion and operation of public sewerage systems } plus private  sewage



disposal systems and sanitary wastes from industries, which  discharge



to watercourses or tidewater.
      PQp,3.ut;Lon ControJ. Conpissj-gn.



        The Commission studies, investigates, and recommends means



of preventing pollution of State waters.  The Commission exercises



primary responsibility with respect to water pollution resttlting



from discharge of industrial waste, and has established certain



standards for industrial waste water discharges and the receiving



waters.  The above standards are reproduced in Appendix XII..

-------

-------
                                                              15





          County Board of Health



        The County Board of Health has jurisdiction over private



sewage disposal systems which do not by design discharge to streams.



Since the County Health Officer is also a Deputy State Health Officer,



at times the County Board may assist the State Board of Health in its



functions, such as the sampling of public rmter supplies and public



or industrial sanitary sewage discharges.





           ounty Deartment of  ibi  Works
        This Department is active in the planning, design, inspec-



tion, and maintenance of public sewerage as a part of its broad



program in public works.  The County Department of Public Works



cooperates with the State and Federal Government in the inspection



and approval of those major interceptor projects which are jointly



financed with Federal and State grants for sewage works construction.





Baltimore City Department of Heajlth



        Within Baltimore City, the City Department of Health super-



vises soil percolation tests in the few instances where sanitary



sewers do not exist, chiefly for industrial and commercial property*



Based on the results of the data, recommendations on the type and



size of individual disposal systems are submitted to the Bureau of



Building Inspectors and are used as a basis for approval.

-------

-------
                                                              16





Baltimore City Department of PubliTc Works



        This Department is responsible for public sewerage in the



City and operates the City's Back River Sewage treatment plant, as



discussed previously.  The plant serves all of the sewered areas in



the Back River Basin in addition to areas in metropolitan Baltimore.





Maryland State Planning Department



        In addition to its normal responsibility in coordinating



long-range planning programs which affect the State, the Planning



Department is sponsoring the Maryland Water Supply and Requirements



Study.  Through cooperation with several Federal and State agencies,



the staff and several consultants are preparing a complete inventory



of water resources and water uses, and are making projections of



future needs.





Chesapeake Bay Institutef The Johns Hopkins University



        The Institute at Johns Hopkins University studies the chem-



ical, physical, and biological characteristics of the Chesapeake Bay



and its estuaries.  As a part of its over-all program, salinity,



tides, and other factors have "been studied in Back River.  The rates



of exchange for several tributary estuaries of the upper Bay are



being determined under a contract with the State Department of Health.



To date, the Severn, Magothy, Gunpowder and Susquehanna Rivers, as



well as the Baltimore Harbor system, have been examined with tracer



releases.

-------

-------
                                                              17
                          BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.  Maryland State Planning Department, Maryland Water Supply and
    Requirements Study, "Distances from Mouth of Waterway and
    Drainage Areas for Specific Locations," Baltimore, 1963
    (Mimeographed).

2.  U. S. Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education
    and Welfare, "Prospectus, Comprehensive Water Quality Project,
    Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River Basins," Charlottes ville,
    Virginia, August, 1962 (Mimeographed) .

3.  U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, Department of Commerce, Map.

4.  Chesapeake Bay Institute, The Johns Hopkins University, per-
    sonal communication isrith Donald Pritchard, Director, December
    3, 1963.

5.  Maryland State Department of Geology, Mines and Water Resources,
    and Geological Survey, U. S. Department of the Interior, Mary-
    land Streamflow Characteristics). Flood Frequency f Low Flow
    Frequency f and Flow Duration. Bulletin 25 (prepared by John M.
    Darling), Baltimore 1963.

6.  Baltimore County Department of Health, "Physical and Bacteri-
    ological Survey of Back River," Towson, Maryland, August 13,
    1963  (Mimeographed).

7.  Keefer, C. E., "Improvements and Operation at Baltimore's Back
    River Sewage Works," Journal f . Water _Pollat ion Control Federa-
        , Vol. 33, No, 1, January, 1961 .
8.  Baltimore City Department of Public Works, Bureau of Sewers,
    "1962 Annual Report," Baltimore, 1962.

9,  Annotated Code of Maryland, 1957.

    Baltimore County Code, 1958.

    Baltimore County Office of Planning and Zoning, "Pollution
    Control and the Development of Port-Served Industry with
    Particular Reference to the Back River Area," Towson, Maryland,
    I960 (Mimeographed).

    Baltimore Regional Planning Council, Maryland State Planning
    Department, "A Regional Data System Summary," Technical Report
    No. 6, Baltimore, November I960 (Mimeographed).

-------

-------
                                                          18

Baltimore Regional Planning Council, Maryland State Planning
Department, "Population and Housing Statistics," Statistical
Bulletin No. 1, Baltimore, August  I960  (Mimeographed).

Baltimore Regional Planning Council, Maryland State Planning
Department, "Water Supply and Sewerage," Technical Report No.
4j, Baltimore,, May 1959 (Mimeographed).

Baltimore County Department of Recreation and Paris and Office of
Planning and Zoning, "Waterfront Recreation Survey," Towson,
Maryland, November 1959 (Mimeographed).

Chaney, Charles C., Marinas, Recommendations for Design Con-
struction and Maintenance, National Association of Engine
and Boat Manufacturers, Inc., New York, 1961.

Y/ater Resources Commission of Maryland, Report Setting Forth
Recommendations as, to Policy. Legislation and Method? of
Financing for the Preservation of The Water Sumaly Resources
ofLthe..Slate of Maryland,. Baltimore, January 1933.

Whitman, Requardt and Associates, "Report to Baltimore County
Department of Public Works on the Back River Neck Peninsula
Sewerage System," Baltimore, January 1958 (Mimeographed).

-------

-------
                                                                        19
II
                                    APPENDIX I



                 Sewage Pumping Stations  in the Back River Basin
f\ijj| 1jT)<& Oj
. -\i25plrig
Static^
Fanitz. #1
Panitz #2
Frankford Oar-in
Poteon
Welsh
Iocs T ion of
Station
Bowleycs lane
Radeeke Avenge
a Force Road
Seward Avenae
Denview Way
Stream
Eeeeiving
Overflow
Moores Ron
Moores Run
Moores Ron
Moores Ron
Moores Run
Capacity
(gallons
p^r yffj^fj
180G
1450
2000
66
1800
.Number of
Dwellings
Served
600
1800
1000
74
2500
    East Point



    Essex



    S. Maryljro Avenue



    Dack Cove



    N. Point Drive



    Roeedale



    Stenuners



    Edgesnsre
Oak Avenue         Bacon Creek



Riverside Rrive    Back River



S0 Marylya Avenue  Back River



Riverside Itrive    Duck Creek



N. Point Blvd.
Bread and Cheese Creek
-Philadelphia Rd0   Moores



Mace Avenue        Stexomers Hun



    h Point        Ea'.jk .River

-------

-------
                                                              20
                          APPENDIX II

       Maryland State Board of Health and Mental Hygiene
        Regulations on Discharge of Domestic Sewage in a
                   Watercourse, Section 4C
        By authority conferred by Section 2 of Article 43 of the

Annotated Code of Maryland ..."All domestic sewage shall "be disposed

of by an approved method of collection, treatment and effluent dis-

charge.  Domestic sewage or sewage effluent shall not be disposed of

in any manner that will cause pollution of the ground surface, ground

water, bathing area, lake, pond, watercourse, or tidewater, or create

a nuisance.  It shall not be discharged into any abandoned or unused

well, or into any crevice, sink hole, or other opening either natural

or artificial in a rock formation.  Specific approval may be obtained

from the approving authority, under unusual conditions, to discharge

sand filter chlorinated effluent toto a watercourse."

-------

-------
                                                                                                  21
                                      cv
                                                           c-
                                                             

                                                           o
                                                                                      CO
                                                                                       o

                                                                                       to
                     O
                               o
 CD  O

P  CQ

 TO 'rl

 CCt Q
d H  rl
 S 05  0
^ no P
                                       O
                                        *

                                       H
                                                    O     O
CO


o
                                                                         sf
                                                                           

                                                                         o
o


rH
                                                                                       O
ir\


rH
                                             rf    I
                                      




                                      %
                                             s
                                              rl
                                             E-t
                                                    
 \_i      \_/


     &
                                                                                       8
                                                                                       o
                                                                                 O
                                                                                 o
                                                                                 of
                     o


                     o
                                      \o
                                      rH




                                      P



                                      rH
                                O
                               o

                                
                                cd
                               o

                               r-H
                                aJ

                               
                                0)

                               4


                               1
                               O
                                      o




                                      43
                                                                  O
                                                                  O
                                                                  bo
                            ^

                            0)

                            cd


                            $
                                                                                              CO

-------

-------
                                                        22
                    APPENDIX 1?

     Bacteriological and pH Study of Back River
                       by the
Baltimore County Department of Health, July 19, 1963

                    &QL2ES2BML25HXEKL     ESCHERIQHA COLI       jfl

                                                            8 plus
                                                            8 plus
                                                            8
                                                            8
                                                            8 plus
                                                            8 plus
                                                            7
Deribows
Easton Boat lard
I#nhurst
Bletzer Road
Sewage Plant At Outfall
Sewage Plant At Outfall
North of Eastern
Stainless Steel
Near Balto, County
Pumping Station
Ken's Marina
Cox Point Near
Marylyn Avenue
4,600
930
24,000
11,000
2,400
930
230
4,600
24,000 plus
24,000 plus
24,000 plus
4,600
4,600
390
4,600
930
1,500
430
24,000 plus
24,000 plus
24,000 plus
4,600
24,000
11,000
4,600
24,000
4,600
11S000
11,000
4,600
3.6
21
23
9.1
9.1
15
43
430
930
2,400
11,000
930
150
230
390
430
230
43
24,000 plus
24,000 plus
24,000 plus
430
430
150
930
2,400
930
11,000
930
930
                                                            8 plus
                                                            8 plus
                                                            8 plus

-------

-------
                                                              23


                      APPENDIX IV (Cont'd)


Cox. Point                   11,000                430            7  plus
                            11,000                430
                            11,000                430

Hyde Park                   24,000              4,600            8  plus
                             4,600                930
                             2,400                930

Eastern Airport              4,600              2,400            8  plus
11,000
11,000
11,000
24,000
4,600
2,400
4,600
4,600
2,400
2,400
430
230
230
930
93
230
930
930
430
430
430
4,600
930
930
2,400
4,600
2,400
93
23
93
43
9.1
23
43
230
230
Evergreen Park               2,400                 93             8 plus
Wildrood                       230                 43             8
Cedar Point                    230                43             8 plus

-------

-------
                                                              24
                           APPENDIX V

          Regulations Governing Public Swimming Pools
          and Bathing Beaches, State Board of Health
          of Maryland, Regulation 7, Sanitary Quality
          of Water, etc.   (part)

Under authority conferred by Section 2 of Article 43 of the

Annotated Code of Maryland . . .


        The bacterial quality of water of natural "bathing beaches is

acceptable when the water shows an average "most probable number"

(MPN) of eoliform bacteria not in excess of 1,000 per 100 milliliters

in any one month during the bathing season, provided a sanitary

survey discloses no immediate danger from harmful pollution.  The

presence of such pollution shall be determined from the findings of

sanitary surveys made by the State Board of Health.

        The right is reserved to close any swimming pool or bathing

beach because of continued failure to meet the above standards.

-------

-------
                                                                                                      25
S








c*\
NO
ON
H
ra 
fn CM
 CM
-P
r* <3
>> 5
Cd J3
pq <}

0) .
0) S
as
cd S

0) 0
,4 iH
O H

rt ^3
q A
a
CM
fc 0
^ 1
,&4 JL2
O H
S &
1
(B -P
I!
oj m
_g Q
-H
P
rH
(S





i
M
(Q
fl)^^
*O 
rl 0
t-l 
O P
H 
f~{ G
O>



O *
^g^
H bo <
cn M 
CO O P
Q ^


B
0
o ^->
.0 .
CM S

0 ^P
CQ j p

j
f\
_. r*
S dJ E
M 'H
* ^4- \0 -sf sD ^- ^TN
H rH CM f% C\ fA CA







t>- I>- C*\ ON CT^ to E>- tt) OO
ON *r\ C*\ Nh C*\ 0s- ON 'CO ^0
H rH rH









t--OON^tir\-*->tCM st-
CM



CM NO
o 
"- O Q C^X fX CA C'N C/X
O C<~\ >J- CM 1
CM CM

(1)
m
Ct) tJ
o i

S bo cd -p O w
rH rH M W C ft M
O Cd O -P rM *H &H
P^flfljbtoqo TO
O H O  Cu P-4 ra "*
t3 02 CJ) FH fQ *> JH
Sr|r,>>^.bg5
COQ Pi *O -p ^iJsfgrH
rH WtSMCdOOrH
W-P9>^OrHOr^Ei
rH
-------

-------
                                                                                       26
                         to
                                  ~
                                  CO
                                to
                                                      to
                                                                  03
  vO
o
                 AH
               O

               CM
                                  ir\
                                  to
                          O
                          CM
                          CM
                                8
                                CM
                       CM

                       rH
                       H
                                                      O
      O
      CM
                                                                              CM
                                                                                         O
                                                                                         to*
                                                                                                g
                                                                                               H

                                                                                                O
                                                                                                ed
                                                                                                QJ
                                                                                                P->
                          CM
                                                                              CM
                                                                                                s
                                                                                    
                                                                                    H
                                                                                     a
                                                                                                Cl
                                                                                               ri
flj

&
H
H
O
O
              S8
                                  CM
                                           O
                                                      CM
                                                 8

                                                 CM"
                                                                              o
                                                                                         cv
                                                                                               H
                                                                                                X
H
ts
O
3
            I
            *O J
H O
CO fi
M CO
                               P
                                CO
                                0)
                             P
                             CO
                               CO
                                        CO
                           I A
                             -p

                           fn  O 0)
                           O CO bo

                          CO  
                                                                              f-i
                                                                              O
                                                                      c^^ O
                                                                      cd -H
                                                                     x^ 4J
a? -H
,5 )H
CO r"f
g-s
         S

         -P

         p
         o
         stf
         -p

         Cl
         O
                                                                                    s
   BM
   H
   cd
   c^-^
                               CM
                                                                        g
                                                                   8
                                                                                    W

-------

-------
                                                             27
                         APPENDIX VIII

    Bacteriological Analyses of Back River,  Chesapeake Bay,
       and Back River Sewage Treatment Plant Effluent,
          Baltimore City Department of Public Works
Designation
 for this
  Report
Station
Number
    d
           Effluent
           Effluent
           Effluent
               1A
Location
                        South of West
                        End of Bridge
                        South of East
                        End of Bridge
                        Island Point
                        (Md-stream)
           Island Point
           Shoreline
           East Shore -
           1 mile South
           of Bridge

           Spillway
           Terminal
           Chamber
           Terminal
           Chamber
           Back River at
           Effluent  Dis-
           charge

           East Shore
           North of  Deep
           Creek
Coliform Bacteria (MPM/100 ml)
                                      May 7f  1962
                                      May 14 r  1962
                                      May 21.  1962
                              15,000
                              23,000
                               1,500

                               9,300
                               9,300
                             150,000
                 24,000
                150,000
                 93,000

                  1,500
                 43,000
                 43,000

              4,300,000
                430,000
              9,300,000

                430,000
                930,000
                     93

              2,300,000
              4,300,000
                  4,300
                                  28f  1962
                              June 4f  1962
                              June 7P  1963

                                  93,000
                                   9,300
                                   4,300
                                  23,000
                        430

                      4,300
                      2,300
                                                           23,000
                                                           23,000
                 2,300,000
                    930,000
                        43
                      4,300
                    93,000
                    93,000
                                          43,000
                                           7,500
                                          43,000
                                    230

                                 23,000
                                 43,000

-------

-------
Designation
 for this
  Report	
                     APPENDIX VIII  (ConH.)
Coliform Bacteria (MFN/100 ml)
June 11. 1962
June 18 r 1962
June 25. 1962
2,300
430
23,000
23,000
9,300
43,000

2,300
4,300
23,000
2,300
430
930
2,300,000
2,300,000
430,000
930
43
23,000
4,300
4,300
230,000
2,300
9,300
23,000
JuLy 2f 1962
July 9f 1962
July 16. 1962
2,300
230
430
9,300
930
23,000

4,300
430
4,300
930
430
4,300
230,000
2,300,000
4,300,000
23
23
0
430
920
930
4,000
230
23,000
Julv 23 t 1962
July 30r 1962
Aus. 6f 1962
2,300
230
4,300
4,300
4,300
2,300

2,300
230
23,000
230
4,300
430
4,300,000
2,300,000
2,300,000
43
23
2,300
4,300
9,300
4,300
430
9,300
4,300
Auff.l3P 1962
Auff.l6r 1962
Aug. 21 f 1962
2,300
430
2,300
430
430
2,300
360
2,300
230
430,000
2,300,000
9,300
0
230
430
4,300
4,300

-------

-------
                                         29
APPENDIX Till (Con't.)
Designation
for this
Report
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
Coliform
Aqg. 27, 196 ept.
Sept. 4r 1962 SeTrt.
Seirt.10. 1962 May
62
24,000
230
430
430
430
9,300
2,300
9,300
4,300
230
930
2,300
23,000,000 9,
23,000,000
24,000,000 11,
430
93
430
2,300
430
*
-------

-------
                                         30
APPENDIX Till (Con't.)
Designation
for this
ReDort
a
fc
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
Coliform
J^lv 15 f 196? July
^rty 1$,, 1962 &u-
Jijly 22  1963 Aug,
110,000
150
110,000
4,300
2,000
24,000
4,300
430
2,300
1,500,000 9,
24,
1,500,000 24,
230
23
46,000
4,300
110,000
4,300
24,000
Bacieria
29r 1963
5. 1963
12 1963
230
9,300
2,300
4,300
24,000
930

4,300
24,000
4,300
2,300
2,300
930
300,000
000,000
000,000
-3
430
-3
230
15,000
150
*E>
9,300
43,000
430
(MPN/100 ml)
Aue. 19f 1963
Atig,s 22 j, 3,963
Sept. 3i ?,?63
930
930
2,300
4,300
23,000
930
750
24,000,000
3.6
9,300
7.2
4,300
2,300

Setrt. 9r 1963
Set)tr 16, 1963
3,900
24,000
430
110,000
-

930
46,000
24,000,000
110,000,000
9,300
23
4,300
230
moo
930
24,000

-------

-------
                                                             31

                     APPENDIX VIII  (Can't.)

Designation
 for this    Station
  Report     Number     Location Colifonq Bacteria (MPH/10Q mO
                                 Jqne  ? 196^   June 2Qf 1963
                                 Aug. 16r 1963   July I8r 1963
                                 Set>t. 21 1 1963   Aug. 22 f 1963

    k          IB     At  Deep Ck.       230           4,300
                     (Mid-stream     2,300         110,000
                      of  Bade        4,300          23,000
                      River)

    1          2      Middy Gut         230             230
                     (Mid-stream        15             230
                      of  Back          230             950
                      River)

    m          3      Porter's Bar       43              23
                     (Mid-etream        23              43
                      of  Back          230              43
                      River)

    n          4      Clay Bank          43             230
                     (Mid-stream       150              23
                      of  Back           43              23
                      River)

    o          5      Rocky Point        93           2,100
                     (Mid-etream        23             930
                      of  Back           93              -3
                      River)

    p          6      Brown's  Thorofare  23             430
                     (Mid-stream         3.6           430
                      of  Back           43               3
                      River)

    q          7      Miller's Island    23              43
                      Chesapeake Bay     20              93
                                                         3.6

-------

-------
                              >f\
                              O
                                         O O CM O^
                                         C- E> C^ C-
                                               \D t<5
                                               vQ vD
         H C-
         vO >
         vO
                                   O to H vO
                                   O^<0 CM H
                                                              \D
                                                              CM
                                                        CM ota to
                                                        \O !> CM O
 P< co
a%
         g
'O  m
 a -a

 CQ  o  
 3 co P
CO
                           O O
                                         H -* H r^
                                         H H H CM
                                                                    to
^

g
2!
p
o

iH  bp
  H
PQ ri
 ra
p
 CO
    0
   In
i-l  O
   fc
-p
CO
         r\ pq p
                  O H


                  CO CJ
                  -P Q
                  CO M
CO
                           c'xirv

                           f\
                              H
                                      to so o
                                         O O Oi>
                                         H H
                                         OCNlOO
                                         H H H CM
                  >,>    *t...
                  +> -H    -p -p -P
                  HO    -H -H 'H O
                  O       O O O

                  op    o o o o
                  -p /<    -p -p -p ft
                                         f*>
                                         vD
                                         O
                                         O
                                         H


                                          H
                                                           CM
H O

 08
P S-i
                                                                    CM
O c\ O
H H i-l
                                                                 tf\\O
-P -P -P -H
H -H -H O
O O O

 O  O  O  O
P -P -P  fi
                                                                           >
                                    -  -  -   *
                                                                                         B
                                                                                         w
                                    H  H  C3
                                    <\)  
-------

-------
                                                              33

                           APPENDIX X

           OBSERVATIONS OF Y/ATER POLLUTION CONDITIONS
               IN THE BACK RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN.*

  (Report by the Maryland Water Pollution Control Commission)

        These may be listed and described briefly as follows;

        (1)  Oil

        (2)  Petroleum Products Other Than Oil

        (3)  Trash and Debris

        (4)  Fish Mortalities

        (5)  Algal Blooms

        (6)  Pollen Grain Slides

1.  Oil:  This pollutant, not infrequently involving heavy black fuel

oil, has been observed and traced to a variety of sources.  Oil pollu-

tion in the Back River Drainage Basin has resulted from spillages

during delivery of clean fuel oil, accidental rupturing of pipelines,

the flushing down of roadways by fire department personnel following

vehicular accidents, improper disposal of waste oil by scavengers,

losses from gasoline service stations, leakages from waste oil disposal

areas, and losses and spills from industrial operation.  Generally, it

has been possible-through stern action and continued surveillanee-to

control oil pollution resulting from fixed sources,,  There is no way,
   Since the Maryland 7/ater Pollution Control Commission has jurisdic-
   tion only over other-than-Jaealth aspects of pollution, and therefore
   deals in the main with industrial wastes, this description does not
   include references to water pollution involving sanitary sewage effect
   on swimming, the public health, or the sanitary quality of the water.

-------

-------
of course, of guaranteeing that oil pollution can be controlled when



caused by transient sources entering the storm water drainage system



of the Back River .Drainage Area,



2,  Petroleuji products Other Than Oil:  There have been several in



stances where gasoline and kerosene have spilled into tributaries of



Back River.  Except where such pollution results from transient sources,



the operations responsible can beand have beencontrolled.



3.  Trash and Debris;  These contaminating materials are derived from



two principal sourcess  Deposits into streams and storm drains through-



out the entire drainage basin? and improper operation of dumps and



refuse disposal areas.,  Removal of the objectionable matter and adequate



control procedures are required by the Commission wherever the source



of the problem can be identified.



4.  Fish MortalaAiea;  Years ago9 complaints about fish mortalities



and observation of fish mortalities were not uncommon during the



summer months.  These occurrences were attributed to a combination



of elevated temperatures and the depletion of dissolved oxygen caused



by heavy algal blooms and the consequent diurnal oxygen-carbon dioxide



fluctuations,,  More recently.* since the majority of treated sewage



from the Back River Sewage Treatment Plant has been transported outside



the Back River estuary, the oxygen-sarbon dioxide stresses have not



occurred,and there have not been any significant fish mortalities in



these waters.

-------

-------
                                                              35
5.  Algal R^QOfflfi _  These are natural conditions, growths of aquatic
life, which occur in Back River and in other waters of the State
depending upon ambient temperatures and the concentration of nutrients
in t&e water.  There is no evidence that algal "blooms in Maryland are
toxic per se. though it is possible that heavy blooms can produce
oxygen-carbon dioxide stresses which may Mil fish.
6.  Pollen, Grain Slicks:  Periodically, in the Back River estuary,
as in other waters of the State, observations are made of (and com-
plaints received on) slicks or scums of fine, yellow matter often
referred to by the public as "sulfur on the water."  Under micro-
scopic examination, the accumulation and concentration of yellow
matter has been identified as pollen grains.  Although these slicks
are unsightly, they are entirely natural in origin and not harmful.

-------

-------
        o o to
             
        if\ ir\ $
                  to
                               O

                               to*
                                            lf\
                                                         to   to
                                                          *     *

                                                         vD   -vt
                                                            
                                                            j

                                                            8
o
fc <0 -P
is -p  P
"S ?  B
S
                                                                    H
H



O
          88^
          tO 1A
                     cn
O
rT

8

oT



ON O
sT O
Nt-
H"
a
0)
0
i
w
g a  a


<*-< a> c
H +=> jH

O ai
O ffl
^  ^4
H -H -P
gl-P fl
g rt 8
3 p Q
CO CO M
^fc
fit-P rC

3 -P ^

co co M
          88
          tO WNCM

          CM^Cn1
             O   O
             lisa
                   O H
          g

           tt) Pi
                     S   8   5-   8
                     H   H   CM   Nt-

                          H        CM
                             -P    -p   -P


                           O (D   Q^  * 4?
           r'' J' i-p  % _* 

          r P ^ J^ ^(
          

          WS"S   ov-P,

                2  ^ Q
          4 P 0 H CO
           g g H 2 cj (
           CD TO ^H T3 ft
                       >Pt
                                    > at
                                                            ff)
                                                    aJ

                                                          Ol



                                                          0)
                                                    8
                                                    -p
                          
        H H 
-------

-------
                                                              37

                          APPENDIX XII

  Regulations IV, Treatment and, Itf.S'Dosal of Industrial Wastes f
       of the dryland Water Pollution Control Commission


        Ho ind.ifitr.ial wastes shall be placed or permitted to be placed

or discharged or permitted to flow into any of the -waters of the State

in any manner by any person unless the industrial wastes after treat-

ment or untreated shall meet with the nine industrial waste requirements

established by the Water Pollution Control Commission before being dis-

charged into any waters of the State,  These nine industrial waste re-

quirements are as follows;

1.  Solids;

      A.  Solids in the effluent *> Must not exceed particle size
          that can pass Tyler designation 20 mesh screen.  Grinding,
          maceration or any other waste treatment or handling opera-
          tion intended to reduse the size of oversize solids in
          the effluent to pass Tyler designation 20 Biesh screen, will
          not be permitted or approved.
      B.  Total suspended solids  Mist not exceed 400 ppm.
      C.  Dissolved solids  Must not exceed 1500 ppm,
      D.  Total solids ~ Mist not exceed 1900 ppm.

2.  Turbidity  'Mist transmit 10$ of light through 12 inches of
          sample in a 3 inch column or not to exceed 300 ppm., as
          determined by the Jackson candle turbidimeter0

3,  Biochemical Oxygen Demands

      A,  The Biochemical Oxygen Demand  The 5-day, 20C.  Bio-
          chemical Oxygen Demand, in the effluent must not exceed
          100 pprn,
      B.  The Dissolved Oxygen in the waste receiving waters must
          not be depleted beyond 50$ of normal saturation,

4.  Toxicity or Toxic compounds  Eliminate, or reduce to limits
          of tolerance, substances toxic to humans, livestock, fish,
          aquatic and wildlife.

-------

-------
                                                              38

                     APPENDIX XII (Con't.)

5.  Oolor  Color intensity regardless of light frequency must
          not exceed 400 ppm. on the chloroplatinate scale.

6.  pH  Mist not range 'below 55 or above 805.

7.  Temperature = Mist be below 100F. in the stream within 50
          feet from waste outlet.

8.  Oils and grease in the effluent ~~ Must not exceed 30 ppn.

9.  Taste and odor  Effluent must not exceed threshold odor
          number of 1000  Mixture of the waste and receiving
          waters shall have a threshold odor number not in
          excess of 800

        All analyses to be conducted in accordance with the American

Public Health Association Standard Methods.

        These nine industrial waste requirements are generally

applicable values, but are not absolutely fixed values.  They can

be made more stringent if a survey of the waste receiving waters

indicates they are still polluted or are continuing to be degraded,

or in any instance where the V/ater Pollution Control Commission,

after due study and deliberation,, deems that more stringent require-

ments are necessary,  They can be made more liberal only by formal

action of the Commission on the basis of satisfactory evidence and

proof that waste receiving waters are sufficient in. quantity and

quality to not be affected adversely by a particular industrial waste

effluent having values in excess of those stated above.

        Any industrial wastes,  after treatment or untreated, which

do not meet with the above requirements shall be deemed and consider-

ed in violation of this Regulation based on the Water Pollution Control

-------

-------
in

*
%
FIGURE  2

-------

-------
                                                LOCATION  MAP
                                         LEGEND


                                          MAJOR WASTE TREATMENT PLANT

                                        "If "ESTUARY  SEGMENT


                                        A  GAGING  STATION -
                                        2^ POTOMAC RIVER  a WASHINGTON.  DC


                                        A  DISTRICT  OF COLUMBIA


                                        B  ARLINGTON  COUNTY


                                        C  ALEXANDRIA SANITARY AUTHORITY


                                        D  FAIRFAX COUNTY - WESTGATE PLANT


                                        E  FAIRFAX COUNTY - LITTLE

                                              HUNTING CREEK PLANT


                                        F  FAIRFAX COUNTY -
                                              DOGUE CREEK  PLANT
                                               SCALE  IN  MILES
                                                 o	5
POTOMAC   RIVER   STUDY  AREA
                                                               FIGURE   3

-------

-------
                                                                 r
                                                                 I
                                                                ('
                                                                               TONOLOWAV  CBEfK
                                                                U JO i

                                                                 1


                                                                /!,,

         a?
;  (.>
                          I
                  ^4-47

                  V
                                          OVERALL  POTOMAC  RIVER  BA^IN  SYSTEM
                                                                                                     FIGURE    4

-------

-------
NODE
588
570
568
492
458
434
428
420
393
398
402
356
156
244
56
PROJECT
MOUNT STORM
BLOOMINGTON
SAVAGE II
ROYAL GLEN
TOWN CR.
TONOLOWAY CR.
LICKING CR. <$2
N. MOUNTAIN ^X
W. BRANCH
BACK CR.
CHAMBERS8URG
WINCHESTER
BROCKS GAP
STAUNTON
$\X BRIDGE
                                           CONFLUENCE  POINT
         A  SCHEMATIC  REPRESENTATION
                      OF
PROPOSED RESERVOIR  SYSTEM - POTOMAC RIVER BASIN
                                                      FIGURE  5

-------

-------
                                                              39





Law (Sections 34-45, Article 66C, Annotated Code of Maryland (1957



Edition) ), and shall be subjected to penalties imposed thereby.



Each day upon which & violation occurs under this Regulation shall



be deemed a separate and additional violation.

-------

-------
                                                 CO
                                                 <
                                                 m
                                                 K.
                                                 a
                                                 a:
                                                 UJ
                                                 o
                                                 <
                                                 CD
Wl    5     y>

-------
                       TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                           .

LIST OF TABLES .....................    lii

LIST OF FIGURES  ............ 	     iv

INTRODUCTION ......................     1

WATER QUALITY CRITERIA .................     3

SOURCES OF WATER QUALITY DATA  .............     5

WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS ........ a .........    II

    I.  NORTH BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER ...........    13

   II.  POTOMAC RIVER, SOUTH BRANCH
          TO CONOCOCHEAGUE CREEK .	    27

  III.  POTOMAC RIVER, CONOCOCHEAGUE
          CREEK TO LITTLE FALLS  ............    33

   IV.  POTOMAC RIVER ESTUARY  .............    51

SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY IN THE POTOMAC
  RIVER BASIN IN MARYLAND  ...............    67

INDEX  .......... 	 ..oo....    69

APPENDICES ...coo.................    75

    I.  Water Quality Criteria for the Potomac
          River in the Washington Metropolitan
          Area, by Interstate Commission on the
          Potomac River Basin  .............   1-1

   II.  Summary of Analyses of Water Quality Data
          for the North Branch Potomac River
          Obtained by the West Virginia Pulp and
          Paper Company  ................  II - 1

  III.  Water Quality Data from a Special Study
          of the Upper Potomac River by the
          Public Health Service in 1965  ........ Ill - 1

-------
                                                                            11


                                TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)


                  IV.  Summary of Analyses of Water Quality Data
                         for the Potomac River Basin from the
                         Public Health Service Water Pollution
                         Surveillance System	   IV-1

                   V.  Tabulation of Municipal and Industrial
                         Waste Discharges in the Potomac River
                         Basin of Maryland	    V-l

                  VI.  Potential Fishery Classifications of
                         Streams in the Potomac River Basin of
                         Maryland, by U. S. Fish and Wildlife
                         Service	   VI - 1

                 VII.  River Mileages in the Potomac River
                         Estuary: Maryland State Planning
                         Department and Interstate Commission
                         on the Potomac River Basin	VII - 1

1               VIII.  Figures 	 ....... VIII - 1



I
I

I

I

I

-------
                                                            iii


                         LIST OF TABLES

Table                                              Follows  Page

  I.      MINIMUM WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR
            STREAMS IN THE POTOMAC RIVER BASIN
            by the Interstate Commission on the
            Potomac River Basin 	      4
 II.      CRITERIA FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF
            MARYLAND STREAMS by the Maryland
            Department of Water Resources .  .

-------
                                                             iv
                        LIST OF FIGURES

          (All Figures  are Located in Appendix VIII)


 1.   Potomac Estuary -  Turbidity vs.  River Mile

 2.   Potomac Estuary -  D.  0. Concentrations,  July 15  - September
       15, I960 - 1964

 3.   Minimum Dissolved  Oxygen Concentrations  at Three Sisters
       Island, River Mile  113.4

 4.   Minimum Dissolved  Oxygen Concentrations  at Roosevelt
       Island, River Jiils  111.9

 5.   Minimum Dissolved  Oxygen Concentrations  at Giesboro Point,
       River Mile 107.4

 6.   Minimum Dissolved  Oxygen Concentrations  below D. C, Outfall,
       River Mile 105.1

 7.   Minimum Dissolved  Oxygen Concentrations  at Fort  Foorfce,
       River Mile 101.7

 8.   Minimum Dissolved  Oxygen Concentrations  at Fort  Washington,
       River Mile 97.8

 9.   Potomac Estuasy -  CoHform Concentrations, June  = November;
       I960 - 1964

10.   Potomac Estuary - Coliform Concentrations, December - May,
       I960 - 1964

11.   Fish Kill of May 19,  1965

          Maps of Municipal and Industrial Discharges

12.   North Branch Potomac River

13.   Potomac River - South Branch to Conococheague Creek

14.   Potomac River - Conococheague Creek to Little Falls

15.  Potomac River Estuary

-------
                  LIST OF FIGUHES (Continued)






                 Maps of Present Water Quality



16.  Based on "INCOPOT" Criteria



17.  Based on "MDWR" Criteria

-------
                          INTRODUCTION
        In 1962 the Maryland State Planning Department initiated
the Maryland Water Supply and Requirements Study.   The purpose
of the Study is to provide information to assist in planning for
the development of the State's water resources to insure meeting
future demands.  This Study was divided into two principal phases:
(l) determination of the existing characteristics of supply and
denu.id. , and (2) projections of demand on a multiple-use basis of
ten-rea*" intervals to the year 2020.  The areal unit of investi-
gations is by major drainage area and includes both surface and
        The Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River Basins Project,
Public Health Service, agreed to prepare a report delineating
the present surface water quality of the Potomac River Basin in
Maryland.  This summary , prepared in the format established by
the State Planning Department, is to be included as one section
of the Phase 1 report for the Potomac River Basin being prepared
by the U. S. Geological Survey under a contract with the State
Planning Department.  The Geological Survey report will include
information on drainage areas, hydrology, water uses, flow regula-
tion, and the availability and quality of ground water.

        The primary purpose of this summary is to present recent
Potomac River Basin surface water quality data and to draw from
these data general conclusions regarding the suitability of these
surface waters for various uses within the framework of the water
quality criteria promulgated by the Interstate Commission on the
Potomac River Basin and the Maryland Department of Water Resources,
Only the present quality of surface waters of the Potomac Basin
within the State of Maryland and of surface waters! from outside
the State which have a significant effect on Maryland waters  are
included in this evaluation.

-------
                     WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
        The Interstate Commission on the  Potomac River Basin
(iNCOPOl) has developed minimum water quality criteria for each
of several classes of water use (Table  l) which are applicable
to all tributary streams and to the main  stem of the Potomac
River upstream from the confluence of the Monocacy River.   These
criteria have not been officially assigned  as quality objectives
for the above specified streams or any  specific portion thereof.
They are used only to delineate concentrations of the various
water quality indicators to serve as guides for evaluating the
F-ii-i-r-oWJ"-i-r-ir <"vf" -r.rifi CiiiSt ~, "t."f rjf "!'.!'!* filH?*"*"*** WQT.PT"<3 T"r>T- ft rani*  TYT*HRinT.
h-r "* v^fc*^^.* **,/ **-. w~~  ^  i.	 -/	 	    =          		  .	
or expected use.  However, the  Commission has adopted specific
water quality objectives and criteria for five sections of the
Potomac River within the Washington Metropolitan Area from the
confluence of the Monocacy River  downstream to Hallowing Point
(Appendix I).

        In addition to these objectives and criteria, the  States
of Maryland and Virginia have established requirements to  regulate
sevrage discharges for the  section of the  Potomac River watershed
from Monocacy River to Little Falls.  These requirements were
adopted for the purpose of protection and preservation of  water
quality in this reach serving as  the source of water supply for
the District of Columbia and adjacent political subdivisions in
Maryland aau Virginia.  The requirements  established by these
two States are sympathetic to the "no effluent concept" adopted
in I960 by the Washington  Metropolitan  Regional Conference (now
Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments); upon completion
of the Potomac River Interceptor, both  existing and future dis-
charges will be eliminated from this reach  and will be handled
by the Interceptor.

        The Maryland Department of Water  Resources (MDWR)  employs
water quality criteria for each of several  classes of water use
developed in 19^9 by the former Water Pollution Control Commis-
sion (Table II).  These criteria, which are applicable to  all
surface water streams within the  State  of Maryland, are used as
guides similar to the INCOPOT criteria  previously discussed.
They have not been officially assigned  as water quality objectives
for the surface water streams within the  State.

        Based on a comparison of  existing water quality with the
criteria contained in Tables I  and II,  judgments were made by
stream reaches as to which water  use classes best describe the
present quality of the Potomac  River and  its tributaries in
Maryland.  These judgments do not have  any  official standing

-------
and were made only to provide the basis for general conclusions
regarding the suitability of these waters for various  water uses

        In the five sections of the Potomac River within the
Washington Metropolitan Area, the existing water quality was
compared with the specific objectives for these segments as
presented in Appendix I.  As before, this was done to  provide
the basis for evaluating the suitability of these waters for
the designated water uses.

-------
 El -^



 ^H
 S ^

 _g3


>  *<5
1 B
 o to

 G -W
 O 

 ? ?,



 li

 S"
II
            * o
           > d
           g

           g









o c










o c
OJ ->














ir\ c
H r














!!

B - 
 >
S3 '
p'
-H
>i K

S "" =

O TO 4) <-. O 
, CU4> W O-Ht-(W
f i O  OJ . T) -P (-, r-f H
* C S-( CJ -H p. P T3 - Oj O
 (M a << ts H j*S i -^S1 -SoK'd-H
M " K S -^ ti p O  S ft"3 S

-i x' > f.
> C of e
! 0 -H>'0
4 ' K c'

o o




o
3
n
=5
H
si
O -P
T-l
^
f-. tl

^M p.
IS ^
Sg
ft)

sf
13
S g
| 
'O
ba QJ
G -H
H O
II
^ 0
-P Q)
0 h
0 01
H
O ?
a
tu) R
-P
01 -H
"a
>, 0
(U O
S3
Dl
H
T1 ^
^ 

O 1-1

P CO
1
0

^1
H'TJ
O -rf
gf
i
!i
-I O
C i-4

0 Q
O ^.
*1 '-
?


g

-------













I
1





m
GJ
1
S
4
S3
P
a
5
CH
O
by
Dryland Dcp&rtnent
















fj
^ rH
^ : T> rf
>!  CJ C
O ti -P -H -P O
^ f^l'-a-s,.
ij a v, 3 a f i
8 3 S K ? J
+J V .-i -H ft
filial
> w n to d
"g  , ,p-
0 5 i -H  
0 (. J g .H =1H
3 >> '2 -^ ^ <-<
M o -71 g g* 2 r
M  E tu3 0
a s g  * s s ^
3 N,S&W|
 &5S S
S d 0 <-t O 
i
i








4
j
.d
s
B)
fi
P
S



1




OJ
1
industrial






industrial water

*o
4
S
tl
_o
"?
cu




,-,
Q
S
1
1
6

j
ojo
Jf^
9
S 55
t, n ci
S w ra
 C; O
6 5 "J

0 0
O -j r\
s II
S 88
g A3
4J -P -P
| 


f 1 1
1 1


O O '
\O T\

<%T ** **
h ra S
> aj Q>
O H H
I 11






>n tf\
t- sD
 II
1 IK
i 85
1 It
M fr 1
tf cj E
S fcl
5 S3

| 1
1 t
1 1 1
33 !
i-l  i
So H
t,S P,
S t, a,
IS, g
c a S
0 -H gi^^
S o o o a
a ** 	 Tl *~"
II |
vE S
32 g

(-<
O
CO
l"\
.. |s
l<
J^ s s >
S 3


to
TS
0 .   V 5 .
SS 


!




2S
SS 0
: i
Z% X






i
 f> 0)
SS o-
g $
Q %\ 9
rs>
3
t
g
+>
g


;




R
oi
^
>






R
h
OJ
g
&
a
a
1

s
1

J




g
s?
Chlorides




ir\
cy
fH
OJ
S



CJ
JH
0)
g
1







O
f\
TH
0)
>
O
P
S






s
s



I
H
1

j

.0
ft
Pi
'^
b
phenolic




xr\
r^
M
0)
s



H
1
-p
_O







O
H*
S
g
I






c*\
o
t-i
g
^>
&



1
H
X
g

t
1

fi
P.
P,
4)
O
f b
o
s
c
p
1 >"^
1
1


g
r-!
*H
1



S
rH
t-1
O
;>
o
I


i
i




>r
c-
h






8
h
a
>
O
1



1
H


!
t




*:!
Pl
P.
5
S













1
I


>^
J H
R^ d
CJ h vl
S3S
g^&
PU a>
-P 
CJ tO
S !

i
%%
a N
8s
$ g
0
+J rH
5
H flt
W


1




3
H
B
P\ Q>
a>  3 -P U
h M 0 tJ
O O W  -P Pi 




+-^?
OJ 83 -ri
t-l O
*a P 3
-H -P -S
5 2 ^
sis
J C-i tJ
a pTj
 01
V4 -P
M cT 3
 "C "**
K^ (H -P
g^g
^fe|3
^  9 ^
H i-l 3 rH
Or-t ^
O -P OJ
s OJ .Q C
SU) O
fep-H i-l
O K r-t W
d -rH ID (0
No toxic substa
time; no i'loat
coiirces , only
substances occ












a
o
S3-
g-"
8
ti
O
O

-------
                 SOURCES OF WATER QUALITY DATA*
        Each year the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River
Basin publishes a report entitled, Potomac River 3'ater Quality
NetworkCompilation of Data,,.  These annual reports have been
published beginning with the water year I960; a biennial report
was published for water years 1958 and 1959; and one report sum-
marized water years 1950 - 1957.  Included for each network sta-
tion are monthly averages of up to four samples for temperature,
turbidity, alkalinity, pH, dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen
demand, total and coliform bacteria, suspended and total solids,
together "^ith the corresponding stream discharges..  Samples are
collected and analyzed by several industries and governmental
agencies located throughout the Basin,  The total number of sta-
tions reported in 196^ was 77, of which 56 were in Maryland
waterso  The Commission, in cooperation with the Washington
Aqueduct Division, U. S. Army Engineer District, Baltimore, and
the District of Columbia Department of Public Health, is conduct-
ing a special bacteriological study of the major watersheds of
the Basin to define possible contributions to high bacterial
counts which occur during high flows at Great Falls; however,
since insufficient data have been collected to date, an evalua-
tion cannot be made at this time,

        In addition to contributing data to the Commission's net-
work, several industries and governmental jurisdictions obtain
more detailed water quality data, especially at water supply in-
takes ,  Of special significance are daily samples at three loca-
tions on the North Branch Potomac River by the West Virginia Pulp
and Paper Company at Luke, Maryland, and on the Potomac River at
Great Falls, Maryland, by the Washington Aqueduct Division of the
U. S. Army Engineer District, Baltimore  Other jurisdictions not
participating in the network also routinely maintain water quality
records for water supplies,,

        The U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Public Health Service, maintains four stations of the nation-wide
Water Pollution Surveillance System in the Poxomac River Basin,
three of which are located in Maryland  The stations at Williams-
port and Great Falls, Maryland, were activated in October 1957,
and the station at Memorial Bridge, Washington, D, C0. was
   While much related historical information is available, only
   data pertinent to present, water quality are included,

-------
activated in July 1963.  The data on chemical, physical, and
bacteriological analyses and radiological determinations are
generally determined weekly; plankton counts are made twice a
month; organic chemicals by carbon filter technique are deter-
mined monthly; three-month composite samples are analyzed twice
annually for metallic elements and Strontium 90 activity; and
occasional determinations of alkyl benzene sulfonate are made.
These data are published in annual compilations.  The Public
Health Service performed water quality field surveys during the
period 1956 - I960 in the Potomac River Basin with emphasis given
to problem areas.  The resulting data are published in Potomac
River Basin Reportr Volume Y. Appendix Zf U. S. Army Engineer
District. Baltimore, Maryland, February 1963,  Data on the
Potomac River estuary from those surveys are presented in Tecfc-
nical Appendix to Part YII of the Report on the Potomac River
Basil} Studiesf Report on Needs for Water Supply and Flow Regula-
tion for Quality Control in the Washington Standard Metropolitan
Area,,. August 19&2, by the Public Health Service.  The Public
Health Service performed special studies on the bottom and plankton
conditions of the Potomac River in the Washington Metropolitan
Area for the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin in
1952, and the results are presented in A Report on Water PolJji-
^ion in the Washington^ MetroPolitan_Area. Section III - Appendices.
"Appendix A - Bottom and Plankton Conditions in the Potomac River
in the Washington Metropolitan Area," Interstate Commission on
the Potomac River Basin, Washington, D. C., February 195k.

        The Maryland Department of Water Resources initiated a
Western Maryland Mine Drainage Survey in 1962 to define reaches
of streams receiving acid mine drainage and to assist in locating
sources of the mine drainage  Interim Report $L on the Western
Maryland pH SurveyT published in June 1963, presents pH data for
1962 and 1963 from the North Branch drainage area.  Based upon
those data, more detailed studies of acid mine drainage have
continued during 1S6k and 1965, but these findings have not been
published to date.  That Department (under the former name of
Maryland Water Pollution Control Commission) has also prepared
the following:  Final,' Data Report for Zekiah Swamp 3/9/61 -
2/28/62T August 1962; Carroll Creek,Survey  196!; and St Mary's
River Wa,ter Quality Survey - 1962; presenting data from water
quality surveys on these three streams of the Potomac River Basin.
Under contract to the Maryland Department of Water Resources,
the Department of Sanitary Engineering and Water Resources of The
Johns Hopkins University made a study in 1962-63 resulting in a
report entitled Anionic Detergents....in.Maryland Waters_and Wastesf
v/ith Dr0 Charles E. Renn as Responsible Investigator.  Subsequent
to that study, the Nation's detergent industry has converted to
the production of bio-degradable or "soft" detergents, which are

-------
more easily broken down in \vaste treatment plants and in streams.
As a result, the 1962-63 data would be of limited value in
describing present water quality.

        The Maryland State Department of Health conducted a water
quality survey of the Monocacy River in September 19640  The data
are presented in Report on Basic Sewerage System. Frederick County
Western Suburban Area, to the Frederick County Metropolitan Dis-
trict and Sanitary Connnissionj Benjamin E, Beavin Company, Baltimore,
Maryland, 1964.  The State Department of Health has made studies
of shellfish harvesting areas in the Potomac River estuary for
many years.  An intensive study of the bacteriological quality
of these areas was made during the fall of 1964 in cooperation
with the Maryland Department of Water Resources and tne Maryland
Department of Chesapeake Bay Affairs, but these data have not been
published.  Occasional analyses of community water supplies drawn
from surface waters of the Potomac River Basin are also made by
the State Department of Health.

        The U. S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey,
is maintaining, as of January 1965, four stations in the Potomac
River Basin to determine daily suspended-sediment discharge.
Two of these stations, near Cumberland and at Point-of-Rocks,
are on the Potomac River, and the other two on tributaries, i.e.,
the Monocacy River near Frederick and the Northwest Branch Ana-
cost ia River near Colesville.  At three of these stations,
Cumberland. Point-of-Rocks, and Frederick, samples are obtained
monthly for chemical analysis of the common constituents.  The
data resulting from these analyses and from studies begun in
1959 of the suspended sediment in the Potomac River Basin are
published in annual reports entitled Qnfllvty of Surface Waters
of the United States  Daily temperature records are also pub-
lished in these reports and four thermographs are now (1965)
installed at selected gaging stations in the Potomac River Basin.
The longest period of record of these thermographs, that of the
Potomac River at Hancock, has been continuously operated since
July 1952.  Miscellaneous chemical analyses at other stations in
the Basin are also included in the annual surface water quality
reports.  Sediment data through April 196l are summarized and
discussed in Potomac River Basin Report. Volume VII. Appendix Hf
Sediment Studies.. U. S. Army Engineer District, Baltimore, Mary-
land, 1962.  The Geological Survey summarizes and discusses
suspended sediment data collected through April 1962 in Prelimi-
nary Study of Sediment Sources and Transport in the Potomac River
Baslflj Technical Bulletin 1963-!!, Interstate Commission on the
Potomac River Basin, Washington. D. C., June 1963.  The Geological
Survey has also published (l9ol) a report entitled, Water Quality
and Hydrology in the Fort Belvoir Area,. Virginia,. 1954 - 1955.,

-------
                                                              8
which considers the quality of the Potomac River estuary in
Maryland.  The Potomac River at Point -of -Rocks is also one of
the sampling stations in the Geological Survey tritium network,
and composite samples are analyzed monthly for this radioisotope.

        The Chesapeake Bay Institute of The Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity has published Atlas of Salinity and Temperature Distributions
in Chesapeake Bay, 1952 - 1961, and Seasonal Averages, 19U9 - 1961,
by E. D. Stroup and R. J. Lynn, February 1963, and Atlas of the
Distribution of Dissolved Oxygen and T>H in Chesapeake Bay 19^-9 
1961 by R. I. Hires, E. D. Stgoup, and R. C. Seitz, December 1963,
under contract to the Public Health Service.  Those atlases display
the results obtained during cruises of the Institute and include
the Potomac Elver estuary from Chesapeake Bay to U. S. Highway 301.

        The Virginia Department of Conservation and Economic
Development, Division of Water Resources, has periodically pub-
lished reports entitled, Ghemic?^ Character of Surface Waters of
           Chemical analyses of Potomac River tributary streams
        .
are generally available since 19^8, with some miscellaneous
analyses available in earlier years.

        The Virginia State Department of Health determines the
bacteriological quality of the bays and coves of the Potomac
River estuary in Virginia which are active or potential shell-
fish harvesting areas. -

        The Potomac Electric Power Company has studied the effects
of raised temperature on the Potomac River in the vicinity of its
thermo-electric power plant at Dickerson, Maryland.  Temperature
data are summarized graphically in several reports of the. Company,
and studies of biological flora before and after the plant began
operation were performed for the Company by the Academy of Natural
Sciences of Philadelphia and published in three reports on the
surveys of 1956, I960, and 1961.

        The Possum Point steam generating plant of the Virginia
Electric and Power Company, located on the Potomac River estuary
at the mouth of Quantico Creek in Virginia, has sampled the
Potomac estuary waters daily for many years.  Analyses are per-
formed for temperature, ammonia, hardness, chlorides, and other
quality indicators.

        The Chesapeake Biological Laboratory of the Natural
Resources Institute, University of Maryland, Solomons, Maryland,
in a study under R. D. Van Deusen, classified Maryland fresh-
water streams as to type of fish population which could be support
ed.  The classifications are shown on maps of the State in

-------
Maryland Freshwater Stream,Classification by Watershed. Contribu-
tion No. 106, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Solomons, Maryland,
195*K  Using the classification techniques of Van Deusen, the U.
S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, brought
the classifications for the Potomac River Basin above Great Falls
up to date in 19&0, and the results are presented in Potomac
River Basin Report^ Volume VIII. Appendix J. Fish and Wildlifef
U. S. Army Engineer District, Baltimore, 1962.  These classifi-
cations are presented by sub-reach for the Potomac River Basin
in Maryland in Appendix VI of the present report.  The classifi-
cations indicate only the types of fishlife which could be
supported in the absence of pollution and do not describe the
present fish population.

        The West Virginia Department of Natural Resources, Divi-
sion of Water Resources, maintains a network of stations in the
Potomac River Basin of West Virginia where water quality is
determined monthly.  While the station at Shepherdstown is on
the main stem of the Potomac River, several other stations indi-
cate the quality of West Virginia tributaries entering the main
stem.

-------
                                                             11
                     WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS
        The Potomac River Basin In Maryland is composed of
several major areas which present a logical sub-division for
discussion of water quality  The various areas are different
either in types of water quality problems or in physical char-
acteristics.  The major areas chosen for consideration of v/ater
quality problems in this report are as follows:
             Tributary or Reach

  I0    North Branch Potomac River

 II.    Potomac River, South Branch
          to Conococheague Creek

III.    Potomac River, Conococheague
          Creek to Little Falls

 IV.    Potomac River Estuary
River Miles from Mouth
   of Potomac River

    381.6 - 285.1


    285.1 - 210.7


    210.7 - 116.1

    116.1 -   0.0
Tributaries entering these major reaches from States other than
Maryland are considered on the basis of their effect upon the
quality of v/ater in Maryland streams.  A map of each of the major
reaches is included in Appendix VIII.

        A summary of the water quality of the Potomac River
Basin in Maryland is presented in the final chapter of this
report.  Figures 16 and 17, summarizing areas of v/ater quality
problems in the entire Basin in Maryland, are also located in
Appendix VIII.

-------
                                                             13


                     NORTH BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER
Length of North Branch Potomac River . 0 .    96 5 rai

Area Draining to the North Branch    0 .  1,38^   square miles

North Branch and South Branch Join to
  Form the Potomac River at River Mile 0    285 01


Summary

        The presence of mine drainage originating in both active
and abandoned coal 'mining operations is detrimental to water
quality throughout large portions of the North Branch Potomac
drainage area0  In addition, industrial and community wastewater
discharges further degrade the water quality of the North Branch
and of some tributaries.  Water quality is discussed below by
sub-reaches of the North Branch, and a map of the area is pre-
sented in Figure 12 


Headwaters to Savage River (^SoO miles)
        The North Brajich Potomac River and most of the tributary
streams from the headwaters to Savage River possess vmdesirable
characteristics attributable to mine drainage   These streams
are strongly acid (pH values as low as 3..0) and contain iron
salts which precipitate from the water through natural oxidation
and hydrolysis, coating long stretches of the stream bed with
bright reddish-brown iron hydroxides.  High manganese concentra-
tions, which are generally characteristic of waters receiving
mine drainage, are  also present   Practically no aquatic life
can survive such conditions, and little vegetation can grow in
or close to the water's edge,   (Algae attached to rocks may be
observed at some locations, and one species of Diptera, has been
observed to inhabit a highly acid reach of the Youghiogheny River
of the Ohio River Basin, )  The acid water is costly to treat
for municipal or industrial purposes but would be more costly
 *
    Reppart,  R.  T,,  "Aquatic  Life  and the Acid Reaction," Pro_ceed-
    ings.  Fifth  Annual Symposium on..Industrial.V/as^e Control,
    sponsored jointly by Frostburg State College and the Maryland
    Water  Pollution  Control Commission, May 7 and 8, 1961+, Frost-
    burg,  Maryland,

-------
to use -without treatment because of its corrosiveness.  The
acidity concentration of waters receiving mine drainage varies
inversely with flow, generally being higher at the lower stream
flows,,  Limestone which Is soluble in acid is reported to be a
dominant mineral in the area*  Howsver, the geologic formations
near the surface through -which -the drainage seeps are evidently
insoluble^ since the dissolved solids content of these waters
is generally less than 200 rag/I (milligrams per liter).

        The sources of mine drainage are the active and abandon-
ed coal mines that are prevalent throughout 'the Western Maryland
region  The Maryland Department of Water Resources is undertak-
ing an S2chaus*tive search for sources of mine drainage "t-iujoujrii
stream sampling and field inspection.  Also, the^Public Health
Service is studying the possibility of establishing an Acid Mine
Drainage Demonstration Project in the North Branch Potomac River
drainage area to test and evaluate methods of control.  Such
studies will ultimately lead to effective methods for controlling
mine drainage at the source

        The only industrial waste discharges in the sub-reach
from the headwaters to Savage River are from two coal washeries
of the Alpine Coal Company at Henry, West Virginia, and the
North Branch Coal Company at Bayard3 West Virginia.,  The plant
at Henry washes about 60^000 tons of coal per month, and that
at Bayard will wash about 400^000 tons per month when completed,
but is currently operating at less than one-fourth of this capac-
ity   Coal dust and other finely divided solids are removed from
freshly mined coal by water sprays  Some of the fines are dis-
charged to the atmosphere^, resulting in the surrounding country-
side being covered with black dust which may be washed into
streams during heavy rainfall,,  Large lagoons have been construct-
ed to receive waste wash water at the collieries, which are
apparently successful in settling out coal fines from wash waters.
Only one recent sevare incident of stream pollution by coal fines
has been reported by local residents,, and on that occasion the
effects extended down the North Branch for about kQ miles to
Luke, Maryland,,

        Water seeping through the bottom and walls of the lagoons
constructed of spoil and fines from coal washing frequently pro-
duces an effluent equivalent to mine drainage.  The seepage at
Henry discharges principally to JOJLJ^in about one mile upstream
from its confluence with the North Branch Potomac River at River
Mile 916 (miles above the mouth of the North Branch) and also
to Deakin Runj, a small tributary entering the North Branch at
River Mile 92000  The seepage at Bayard discharges to Buffalo.
Creek, about one and one-half miles above its confluence with the

-------
North Branch at River Mile 86A and to an abandoned mine shaft.
It is likely that the abandoned mine shaft could overflow during
periods of high rainfall.

        The major tributary to the North Branch in this sub-
reach is Stony River in West Virginia.  Stony River, as it enters
the North Branch at River Mile 78.3, contains high concentrations
of iron and manganese.  These concentrations have little effect
on the North Branch because of the presence of mine drainage in
this sub-reach.  Two reservoirs on Stony River augment low flows
and provide some dilution, of the acid concentrations in the North
Branch.

        The Oiiiy surface water supply in this sub-reach is taken
from Wolfden Run for the unincorporated community of Shalliaar-,
Maryland (population 100), which provides no treatment.  Water
quality data on Wolfden Run, which joins the North Branch at
River Mile 70.14-, indicate that the stream receives some mine
drainage.

        No community sewerage systems exist in this sub-reach.
However, sewage discharges from individual homes have been
observed entering Buffalo Creek from the town of Bayard, West
Virginia, just above its confluence with the North Branch.  Dis-
charges of untreated or partially treated sewage from individual
households are reported to be common for many small communities
in the North Branch drainage area.

        The average annual sediment discharge near the lower
end of this reach (at Kitzmiller, Maryland, River Mile 68.9) is
9^ tons per square mile, or 21,200 tons per year.  Abram Creek
in West Virginia, entering the North Branch at River Mile 71.3,
contributes 21 tons per square mile on the average, or 1,100
tons per year.  For comparison, the annual average sediment dis-
charge for the entire Potomac River Basin above Washington, D. C.
(at Point-of-Rocks, River Mile 159.5), is 113 tons per square
mile, or 1,090,000 tons per year.

        This reach of the North Branch and most of the tribu-
taries in Maryland do not meet the minimum criteria for 1NCOPOT
Class D (Table l) because of the presence of free acid, iron
precipitates, and pH values below 6.0.  The waters generally
fall into the MDWR Class C (Table II) because of pH values below
3.8 and the presence of iron precipitates.

-------
                                                             16
Savage River to New Creek (7.8 miles)
        The Savage River is of good quality and suitable for
most uses,  However, manganese removal may be required at times
to reduce concentrations to satisfy some uses.  Frostburg, Mary-
land, obtains part of its water supply for 11,000 persons from
the Savage River near its headwaters but does not remove manganese.
Westernport, Maryland, obtains water from Savage Reservoir at
the dam and supplies a population of 3*900 without practicing
manganese removal.  Piedmont, West Virginia, also receives its
water supply for 2,700 persons from Savage River.  Most of the
Savage River drainage area is covered by forests and contains
no sources of municipal or industrial pollution.  Mine drainage
enters Savage River only from Aaron Run (River Mile 1.1) and a
smaller tributary  (about River Mile 2.0).  During drought periods,
releases from the Savage Reservoir provide sufficient alkalinity
to neutralize the small quantities of acid entering from these
two streams.  The mean discharge of the Savage River (l64 cfs
for a 15-year period of record) at its confluence with the North
Branch Potomac River at River Mile 53.5 is about 40 per cent of
that of the North Branch immediately upstream (^37 cfs over 14
years) and thus provides significant neutralization of the acid
in the North Branch.

        The water temperature of the North Branch Potomac River
just downstream  (River Mile 53.3) from the Savage River ranges
from 32F. for long periods during the winter to a peak of 8k
to 86 F. in the summer, occurring sometime between mid-June and
mid-August.  The difference between daily minimum and maximum
                                                  O     O
temperatures during the v/inter is generally only 1  or 2 F.,
while in the summer, the average daily range is 6  to 8 F., and
on some days may reach Ik F.

        The West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company withdraws 40
mgd  (million gallons per day) from the North Branch at River
Mile  52.7.  Part of the water is treated chemically and filter-
ed for process and sanitary purposes.  The town of Luke is also
supplied with this treated water.  Most of the water withdrawal
at West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company is utilized for cooling
and is neutralized to prevent corrosion.  During periods of high
water temperatures and low stream flows, a portion of the used
cooling water is recycled to the River upstream over a reach of
about  002 mile through spray nozzles.  The North Branch at the
plant  intake is  a  mixture of water containing acid mine drainage
from upstream areas and high quality water from Savage River.
The flow ratio of  Savage River to North Branch increases during
periods of  drought, because the regulated flow from Savage Reser-
voir  is higher than that from the reservoirs on Stony River.

-------
                                                             17
        Several waste effluents from the paper mill discharge
directly to the North Branch without treatment , their most sig-
nificant characteristics being high alkalinity, B.O.D,,  (bio-
chemical oxygen demand) , and temperature .  The rocks oh the bed
of the River below the mill are coated with greenish-white lime
wastes, in contrast to the reddish-brown rocks upstream.  Lime
waste discharges from the mill are such that most of the time
the North Branch below the mill is highly alkaline and is acid
at other times.  The V/est Virginia Pulp and Paper Company has a
program underway to reduce discharges of lime wastes .  Lime
recovery units, \vhich are under construction, will be in opera-
tion early in 1966^  The large volume of water used by the mill
will continue to be neutralized to prevent corrosion; therefore,
the return flows are expected to continue to provide sons reduc-
tion in the acid concentrations of the North Branch following
completion of the lime recovery process.  Most of the wastes
from the plant (other than cooling water and lime wastes) and the
domestic wastes from Luke are transported through a rectangular
conduit constructed along the side of the River from the plant
to the Upper Potomac River Commission Waste Treatment Facility
at Westernport, Maryland.  Wastes from the City of Westernport
are also treated at the facility, which provides secondary treat-
ment by an activated sludge process (outfall at River Mile 51. 0).

        The West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company samples the
North Branch Potomac River on week days above the plant (River
Mile 53.1), below the plant (River Mile 52 A), end at River Mile
U5.9, 5.1 miles below the Upper Potomac River Commission Waste
Treatment Facility,  Daily data on several water quality indica-
tors at the three stations from January 1962 through February
1965, and for the effluent of the Waste Treatment Facility from
December 196l through March 19&5, have been analyzed statistical-
ly for this summary.  A summary of the results of this analysis
is presented in Appendix II.

        Georges Creek joins the North Branch Potomac River at
V/est ernport (River Mile 51 ^), 0.^ mile upstream from the Upper
Potomac River Commission Waste Treatment Facility.  Georges Creek,
an alkaline stream at the headwaters, receives direct mine drain-
age discharges along its banks and from tributaries throughout
its 17-mile length.  Untreated sewage is discharged to the Creek
from Frostburg, sewered population of ^,000 persons (River Mile
15..7); Lonaconing, 1500 persons (River Mile 8.l); Barton, 600
   All values of BoO^D,, presented in this report are for measure-
   ments at 20C. for five days.

-------
                                                             18
persons (.River Mile 4U9); and from individual or small collection
systems in several other communities  An interceptor is under ,
construction to transport sewage from Prostburg to Cumberland,
Maryland0  While the interceptor will remove a major source of
organic waste, the corresponding loss of this source of alkalinity
is expected to result in some increase in acid concentrations
in Georges Creek,  The Lobz Wholesale Meats Company discharges
an estimated 1,000 gpd (gallons per day) of settled slaughter-
house waste, -with a B000D0 of 175 g/l? to Sandy Spring Run, 3A
miles upstream from Georges Creek (confluence at River Mile 155).
The Dashiell Dairy discharges its wastes to Georges Creek at
River Mile 11020  Even though the B000D0 concentrations in the
Crsek nesur ii.3 rioiit-li nOiuSa.ITy ~sn.S bs*7*ssn 10 and 20 inff/1. the
dissolved oxygen levels seldom fall below 80 per cent of satura-
tion, possibly because the stream acidity inhibits bacterial
decomposition of the organic material present  Also, coliform
bacteria concentrations  generally fall below 2,000/100 ml be-
cause of the bactericidal effects of the acid0  Several small
communities, serving a total population of about 6,500, obtain
water supplies from tributaries of Georges Creek and provide
only chlorination for treatment <,  The acidity from Georges Creek
is neutralized much of the time by the alkaline waters of the
North Branch  (as a result of lime waste discharges from the West
Virginia Pulp and Paper Company,, to be discontinued by 1966).
The average annual sediment load from the Georges Creek drainage
area is quite high; i0e0jl 207 tons per square mile, or 15,000
tons per year.

        The town of Piedmont, West Virginia, discharges untreat-
ed sewage from 2,UOO persons at River Mile 51o2,>  The flow of
that discharge is estimated to be about 190,000 gpd

        The effluent from the Upper Potomac River Commission
Waste Treatment Facility serving the West Virginia Pulp and
Paper Company, Luke and Westemport, is distributed through  sub-
surface nozales across the center section of the North Branch
at River Mile 51000  Analyses of quality indicators of the \vaste
effluent and  the calculated water quality of the North Branch
immediately downstream from the facility are summarized in Appen-
dix II.
All colifo.nn bacteria counts (or concentrations) in thi
summary are given as deter
as monthly geometric means
    summary are given as  determined at  35C.  and  are  expressed

-------
                                                                                19
                          Until recently^ Keyser^ West Virginia,  discharged an
                  estimated 360,000 gpd  of untreated sewage  from 1*,500 persons.
                  Since August 1965,  a primary treatment  plant which discharges
                  to the North Branch at River Mile k5,.k  has been in operation.

                          A quality station  on the North  Branch  at River Mile  lj-5.9,
                  just downstream from an old outfall, is sampled daily  "by the West
                  Virginia Pulp and Paper Company  Prior to completion  of the
                  treatment plant, thxs  outfall  discharged a portion of  Keyser's
                  sewage.  Since  the  sewage  discharged appeared  to flow  along  the
                  bank of the River opposite the sampling station, analyses of
                  the results, summarized in Appendix II, were interpreted on  the
                  assumption that none of the sewage flow from Keyser was  mixed
                  with the River  at that sampling point,,   Even though the  acid of
                  the North Branch is neutralized by the  alkaline wastes of West
                  Virginia Palp and Paper Company much of the time, high iron  and
                  manganese concentrations persist beyond this point.

                          Savage  River meets the requirements for INCQPOT  Class A
                  and MDWR Class  AA.  Georges Creek does  not meet the minimum
                  standards for INCOPOT  Class D  because of pH values below 6.0
                  and B.OoD,, values above 500 mg/1, and falls into MDWR  Class  C
                  because of B000D0 values over  70 mg/1. The main stem of the
                  North Branch in this sub-reach does not meet minimum standards
                  for INCOPOT Class D because of pH values in excess of  8.5, B.O.D.
                  values over 5.0 iog/1,  high color, and offensive odors, and falls
                  into MDWR Class C because  of B.OoD* values over 7.0 mg/1, pH
                  values over 10.5, and  the  presence of taste and odor- producing
                  substances.
                   New Creek to Wills Creek (2^.0 miles)

                           The North Branch Potomac River flowing into this  sub-
                   reach (beginning at River Mile 1*5.7)  contains  high concentrations
                   of B.O.D. (a range of monthly means of 12.7 mg/1 to 23.7  mg/l),
                   and yet, the dissolved oxygen content  remains  high (a range of
                   monthly means from 601 mg/1 to 13.1 mg/l)  and  remains essentially
                   constant for the next fiva miles to Rivsr  Mile ho (where  the
                   monthly mean range is 5,7 mg/l to 13.3 mg/l).   Downstream from
                   that point, the dissolved oxygen concentration begins to  drop
                   (to about 5.0 mg/l at River Mile 289 during hot weather).  There
                   are three possible explanations for the somewhat unusual  dis-
                   gr"1:d oxygen profile,,  First, the fall in the River between the
                   Piedmont-Westemport area (River Mile  51), where organic  wastes
                   enter the River, and River Mils 40 is  about 16 feet per mile,
                   indicating the likelihood of a very high degree of aeration;
                   whereas, the fall for the 10 miles below River Mile ^0 is only
I
I

-------
                                                             20
about 8 feet per mile,,  SecorA, tlw stream v/aters approaching
the region in vmleh organic wastes are discharged (Luke-Piedmont-
Vfesternport area) are highly acid and are almost biologically
sterile 0  Even though the acid is neutralized at Luke much of
the time by wastes from she West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company ,
a certain amount of time is required before the River can estab-
lish a biological flora, which can decompose the organic wastes
and thus reduce dissolved oxygen concentrations.  Also, until
recently, the untreated sewage from Keyser, West Virginia, entered
the River at River Mile k-6,2, and from New Creek (River Mile k$07}
and contained large numbers of microorganisms which acted to
"seed" the River 0  Third, wastes from Keyser, Bel Air (River
Mile 32.7), Bar-tor !G Dairy (Hivsr Hlle 32.6), the Allegany Bal-
listics Laboratory (River Mile 32  5), Mason's Dairy (River Mile
2907), and Cresaptown (River Mile 2905) add to the biological
population and the organic loading in the 10-mile reach of the
River in which the dissolved oxygen concentration drops 

        The community of Bawlings Heights obtains its water sup-
ply from an unnamed tributary of Mill Run,? which enters the North
Branch at River Mile 35 a00

        The commmity of Bel Air, with an estimated sewered pop-
ulation of ^00,,  discharges its waste effluent after treatment by
lagoon "to the North Branch at River Mile 32.7.  The loading from
the town is estimated to be about 10 pounds of B000D0 per day in
a flow of 30,000 gpd.

        Barton8 a Dairy at Pinto,, Maryland, discharges an unknown
quantity of milk processing wastes at River Mile 32.6,
         The  average  gr^iual  sediment  discharge measured at  Pinto,
Maryland (River Mile 3206)  is  130 tons per square mile,  or 78,000
tons per year0

         The  Allegedly Ballistics Laboratory of Hercules Powder
Company at Rocket Gerr^er^ V/est Virginia,  discharges approximately
100,000 gpd  of sanitary wastes from  about 2,000 persons  to the
North  Branch at River Mile  32  5 after secondary treatment.  No
significant  quantities  of industrial wastes  are discharged to
the River from this  plant,  The total v/aste  loading to the River
is estimated to be 5 pounds of B000D0 per day-

         I/as on* s Dairy at Cresaptown, Maryland, discharges  about
35,000 gpd of milk pro'^-s^ing  wastes at Rivar Mile 2907o  The
loading is about  20 pounds  cC  B000D0 per  day,,

-------
                                                             21
        Cresaptown discharges an estimated 280,000 gpd of sewage
effluent, after primary treatment, to the North Branch at River
Mile 29,5,  The waste loading is estimated to be about 390 pounds
of BoOoDo per day.

        The Celanese Fibers Company at Amcelle, Maryland, with-
draws an average of kO mgd of cooling water from the North Branch
at River Mile 2809, and up to 53 ffigd during periods of high water
temperatures.  An additional 2.0 mgd are obtained for process and
sanitary purposes from the City of Cumberland,,  The plant has
about 3,000 employees  Fly ash is settled and sanitary wastes
undergo decomposition in a large lagoon: whereas. process wastes
receive treatment in another lagoon.  The plant produces acetate
fibers, polymers of cellulose acetate, and cellulose proprionate0
The total average waste loading to the River is about 15,000
pounds of B.O.D. per day from this plant,  A larger lagoon system,
which is expected to provide a higher degree of treatment for
organic wastes, is under design,,

        The dissolved oxygen concentrations seldom fall below
50 per cent of saturation above the Celanese plant, even during
periods of high water temperatures.  The water temperatures at
that point range from 32F. in the winter to 89 F. at times
during the summer   Based on five years of record, during the
warmest ten-week period of the year, the temperature averaged
78F., and Qh F. during the warmest geeli.  The mean water tem-
perature for the month of July is 78 F., as compared to 7^ F.
at Keyes (the last sampling station upstream), showing an average
rise in mean temperatures of k- F, between the two points  Coli-
form bacteria, which were generally present in the order of
magnitude of 100,000 to 1,000,000/100 ml about 10 miles below
Keyser before completion of the Keyser sewage treatment plant,
were reduced to about 1,000 to 100,030/100 ml at the Celanese
plant, even with some additional bacterial loadings immediately
upstream.  Color and odor from the paper-mill vraste are still
detectable above the Celanese plant

        Immediately below the Celanese plant, the coliform bacte-
ria counts increase by about 10,000 to 100,000/100 ml.  During
the warmer months of the year, the dissolved oxygen content below
the plant is much less (near zero at times) than above the plant,
while during the colder months, there is little change.  Water
temperatures below the plant are increased about 1F. during
periods of high river discharge and up to 9 F. during periods of
low river discharge.

        Bowling Green, Maryland, discharges an estimated 180,000
gpd of sewage effluent, after primary treatment, to the North

-------
                                                             22
Branch at about River Mile 25000  The loading after treatment
from the 2,250 persons served is estimated to be 250 pounds of
B.Q.D. per day.  The treatment plant was constructed in 1.96k by
the Bowling Green Sanitary District,,

        The Kelly-Springfield Tire Company obtains 2.9 mgd from
the North Branch for cooling purposes at River Mile 230^ and dis-
charges the heated water just downstream*  Water for sanitary and
boiler use is obtained from Cumberland at an average rate of 1.9
mgd, and the sanitary wastes are discharged to Cumberland sewers.
No process wastes are generated at this plant.

        The Potoffiae Edison Company obtains 6?5 gpd from the
North Branch for cooling purposes at River Mile 22.6 and dis-
charges the heated water just downstream*  An average of 32,000
gpd are obtained for sanitary and boiler uses from the City of
Cumberland.  Sanitary wastes are discharged to Cumberland sewers0
The effect of the cooling water discharges of the two adjacent
plants (Kelly-Springfield and Potomac Edison) is to raise the
temperature of the River about 2 F. during high stream flows
and up to 6 F. during low stream flows, reaching 88 F. at times.

        A pool created by a low dam on the North Branch at River
Mile 21.9 provides an adequate depth for the cooling water in-
takes of the Kelly-Springfield Tire Company and the Potomac
Edison Company.  The velocity of the River decreases in this
pool, permitting suspended solids, including organic matter frcon
the numerous waste-water discharges upstream, to settle out at
this point.  Conditions are created which permit organic solids
to accumulate on the bottom of the pool and decompose at a high
rate0  Numerous bubbles may be seen breaking at the surface as
a result of anaerobic decomposition taking place at the bottom.

        The entire sub-reach from New Creek to Wills Creek does
not meet the minimum requirements for INCOPOT Class D because of
B.O.D. values over 5-0 mg/1, and offensive odors which occur
most of the time.  The entire sub-reach falls into MDWR Class C
because of coliform bacteria concentrations over 10,000/100 ml,
B.O.D. values over 70 mg/1, and the presence of taste and odor
producing substances


Wills Creek to South Branch (21.7 miles)

        Wills Creek, as it enters Maryland from Pennsylvania,
carries the untreated domestic wastes from Hyndman, Pennsylvania,
a town of 1,12^4- persons,  Hyndman is located approximately 8
river miles above the Maryland State line,,  The average annual

-------
                                                              23
sediment discharge bale?/ Hyndinan  Is 127 tons per square mile,  or
18,500 tons per year0  Untreated  sewage from a portion of  Frost-
burg, Maryland, is discharged into JeaaaagS-J&JB.  which enters
Wills Creek at River Mile kak0  The Appalachian Stone  Division
of the Martiri-ivlarietta Corporation, obtains water from  Wills  Creek
at River Mile k01 for washing sand arid gravel and returns  the
water to the stream after sett-lingo  The Manley Sand Division  of
the Martin-Marietta Corporation also maintains a similar opera-
tion on Wills Creek at River Mile 3010  La Vale,  Maryland, popula-
tion of ^,031, dischargee untreated sewage to Braddock RUT.J.  which
joins Wills Creek at River Mile- 2c3  ^ interceptor sewer is
under construction to transport- sewage from Frostburg  and  La Vale
to CuJubcrlguid for trss.tr.er.to  WiP-1? Greek has a high capacity  for
assimilating org.anic wastes, and  the dissolved oxygen  concentra-
tion near its mouth has been found to be high0  Both Jennings  and
Braddock Runs occasionally show signs of acid mine drainage; how-
ever, Wills Creek contains sufficient alkalinity to neutralise
considerable amounts of acid0  At least part of the tics more
than trace concentrations of manganese can be found in Wills
Creek near the mouth.  Wills Creek joins the North Branch  Potomac
River at River-Mile 217 within the City of Cumberland, and  below
the low dam on the North Branch mentioned above,

        Ridgeley,, West Virginia,  discharges untreated  sewage
from 1,000'persons to the North Branch at about River  Mile 21.5.
The loading is estimated to be about 170 pounds of B0QaD0  per  day,

        Cumberland,, Maryland, discharges sewage effluent from
33,000 persons to the North Branch at River Mile  l802  after  pri-
mary treatment,  The wastes from  several industries, including
Cumberland Brewing Company, Cumberland Coca-Cola  Bottling  Company,
Kelly-Springfield Tire Company (sanitary waste only),  Liberty
Milk Coprp&ny, Potomac Edison Power Company (sanitary waste only),
Potomac Farms Quality Dairy Products, Queen City Brewing Company,
and Queen City Cooperative Dairy? Inc., account  for the high total
waste effluent discharge of 5 0 mgd from the Cumberland sewage
treatment plant,,

        JMj^sJDregk. enters the North Branch at River  Mile 17.5.
Cumberland obtains its water supply from t
-------
                                                             24
and about 400,000 gpd of sanitary wastes from about 1,200 employees,
after primary treatment, at River Mile 11.1.  The industrial wastes
containing iron oxide and silica oxide are treated with acid to
reduce the pH and are settled before discharge.

        Past data have shown that the high iron and manganese
contents from upstream acid mine drainage and taste, odor, and
color from paper-mill wastes persist in the North Branch down-
stream below Cumberland.

        Patterson Creels; enters the North Branch from West Vir-
ginia at River Mile 9.0.  The average annual sediment discharge
froffl Patterson Creels, as ineasurGd at Headsville. West Virginia^
is-84 tons per square mile, or 18,400 tons per year.

        Because of a lack of current water quality data for the
North Branch and the Potomac River between Cumberland, Maryland,
and Hancock, Maryland (River Mile 23?. 5), a special study of
that reach was made by the Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River
Basins Project of the Public Health Service in July 1965.  At
each of the five stations established during the study, four
sampling runs were made.  Three runs were performed during the
daylight hours, and one was performed prior to sunrise to evaluate
possible algal activity.  The results of that survey are pre-
sented in Appendix III.  Above the Cumberland sewage treatment
plant effluent outfall, at River Mile 19.6, the B.O.D. averaged
1.8 mg/1; dissolved oxygen, 3.6 Bg/1; coliform bacteria, 9,90/
100 ml  (geometric mean); and hardness, 230 mg/1.  The dissolved
oxygen at 3:00 a.m. (3.2 mg/l) was slightly lower than at 2:30
p.m. of the same day (3.9 mg/l).  The water temperature and total
dissolved solids averaged 82.8 F. and 450 mg/l, respectively.
Average stream flow during the survey was 168 cfs.

        Downstream of the Cumberland sewage treatment plant and
the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company industrial waste outfalls,
the average total dissolved solids during the special survey
increased to 490 mg/l and the total hardness to 250 mg/l, while
coliform bacteria count decreased to 2,300/100 ml.  Factors
explaining the reduced bacterial counts would be the natural die-
off in the seven miles of stream between the sampling points,
especially in the pool behind a low dam on the North Branch at
the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, and the diluting effects of
stream  flows from Evitts Creek and other small tributaries.  The
B.O.D.  dropped slightly to an average of 1.1 mg/l, even though
on two  sampling runs the change was not significant.  There was
no change in the average dissolved oxygen concentration (3.6 mg/l)
between the two stations.  The water temperature dropped an
average of 3.6F. to 79,2F.; this would be expected because of

-------
                                                             25
artificially elevated water temperatures at the upstream station
from industrial cooling water discharges.

        A third sampling station in the special survey of July
1965 was located at Oldtown, Maryland, 2.2 miles upstream from
the mouth of the North Branch.  The coliform bacteria count
(2,300/100 ml) was the same as that for the last station upstream
(a distance of 9.0 miles).  The average B.O.D. increased to 1.7
mg/1, and the average dissolved oxygen concentration increased
to 6,2 mg/1.  The dissolved oxygen concentration in the middle
of the night (5.1 mg/l) was 2.2 mg/1 lower than on the same day
in the late afternoon (7.3 mg/l) , indicating the possible presence
of photosynthetic plants.  The total dissolved solids averaged
c;T^O Tn^/T.  "'"h1? t-frhfil bcirdrif^s?'. gvffT*pcrr! 5^-0 TnCT/l- snd tlift
water temperature was 80.6 F.
        Wills Creek does not meet the minimum requirements for
INCOPOT Class D because of B.O.D. concentrations higher than
5.0 mg/1 and falls into MDWR Class C because of B.O.D. concentra-
tions above 7.0 mg/1 and coliform bacteria counts over 10,000/100
ml.  Braddock Run and Jennings Run of Wills Creek have these
same classifications because of mine drainage conditions in addi-
tion to untreated sewage discharges.  Evitts Creek in Maryland,
except possibly immediately below the sewage effluent outfall of
Growdenvale, may be classified as INCOPOT Class B and MDWR Class
A.  The North Branch in this sub -reach does not meet the minimum
requirements for INCOPOT Class D because of average dissolved
oxygen concentrations below 4.0 mg/1 in the upper portion and
the presence of odors throughout, and falls into MDWR Class C
because of the same reasons plus coliform bacteria concentrations
over 10,000/100 ml in the upper portion.

-------
                                                             27
                [T0  POTOMAC RIVER,  SOUTH BRANCH
                     TO CONOCOCHEAGUE CREEK
Upstream River Mile 

Downstream River Mile

Length of Reach 

Are_- draining Directly to Reach 

Total Drainage Area to Downstream
  Limit of Reach       .  .
                                             210 . 7

                                              7k. k miles

                                                   square miles
                                            ,110   square miles
Summary

        The Potomac River is formed 285.1 miles above its mouth
by the confluence of the North Branch from Maryland and the
South Branch from West Virginia,  The North Branch, as it enters
the Potomac River, contains iron, manganese, and taste and odor
producing substances in greater than trace concentrations  Water
of higher quality from large tributaries in West Virginia, includ-
ing the South Branch and the Cacapon River, provide dilution of
these undesirable constituents from the North Branch.  At the
lower end of the reach, after receiving dilution flows and under-
going self-purification, the quality is good, except that some
taste and odor producing substances are still present  Surface
run-off and several small communities constitute the only waste
sources within this reach,  A map of this reach is presented in
Figure 13 <,
South Branch to. Tonoloway Creek (476 miles)

        The South Branch Potomac Riverj as it joins the North
Branch to form the Potomac River at River Mile 285*1, is of a
quality suitable for most uses.  Normally, the dissolved oxygen
content is 80 per cent of saturation or higher, and the B.O.D0
is less than 30 mg/1.  Manganese removal, however, may be nec-
essary to reduce concentrations to satisfy some water uses.  The
South Branch contains some taste and odor producing substances,
but to a lower degree than the North Branch.  The average stream
discharge of the South Branch (1,253 cfs for a 39-year period of
record as measured 13 miles upstream from its mouth) is about 67
per cent of the average discharge of the North Branch (1,867 cfs
for a 25-year period), and, therefore, provides considerable

-------
                                                             28
dilution of some constituents in the North Branch, such as iron,
color, tastes and .odors,  The alkalinity of the South Branch
normally ranges from 5 to 100 mg/lc,  The coliCcrm bacteria con-
centraticns of the South Branch usually fall below 2,000/100 ml.
The average annual sediment discharge from the South Branch is
107 tors per square mile., or 157,000 tons per year,  Comparable
sediment figures for the North Branch are 138 tons per square
milej, or 225,000 tons per year..  While the North Branch contrib-
utes mere sediment uer square mile of tributary area, it also
cs.T."ributes acre \/-a; er in about the same proportion, and thus the
sut ;irv'.ed solids i-orrcent cf these tvro rivers is quite comparable,,
        The tov/n of Pavi Paw, West Virginia (Elver- Mile ?^f, &} .               *
discharges about ^OfOOO gpd of untreated wastes from 750 persons
to the Potomac River,,  A waste stabilization lagoon is under con-            K?
struction> and, after completion, the waste loading discharged               p
to the Paver is estimated to be about 15 pounds of 3.O.D. per
day,  A reduction in colifor.m bacteria of about 9 per cent can
also be expected 0

        The average annual sediment discharge of the Potomac
River at Paw Paw, West Virginia, is 123 tons per square mile,                K*
or 383,000 tons per year,                                                    

        A previously mentioned survey by the Chesapeake Bay-                 B"
Susquehanna River Basins Project of the Public Health Service in             S-
July 1965, indicated that the dissolved oxygen concentration of
the Potomac River at Paw Paw, West Virginia (River Mile 27t> 5),              m
averaged 6,9 mg/1; the B.O.D., 1.3 mg/1; the total dissolved                 W_
solids, 320 mg/1; the total hardness, 150 mg/1; and the coliform
bacteria concentration, 9*500/100 m!0  The sewage outfall at
Paw Paw., located 0,3 mile upstream of the sampling station, may              B-
have some influence on the coliform concentrations.  The average             
stream flov at Paw Paw during the survey was 597 cfs, as compar-
ed to a long-term average of 3,120 cfs (25 years of record).                 ft"

        Most of the drainage area of the Potomac River within
this sub-reach is covered by forests   Farm land occurs inter-               g*
mittently.                                                                   ff

        The Cacapon River joins tha Potomac River from West
Virginia at River Mile 2if709  Available data .indicate that the              |
water quality of the Cacapon River is excellent for most uses,               *
The average stream discharge of the Cacapon River (56^ cfs for
a 40-year period of record, measured 6,5 miles from the mouth)               jjh
is only about 16 per cent of the annual average stream discharge             |
of the Potomac River (3.^35 cfs for a 31-year period) just up-
stream from their confluence; thus^, in general, a slight                     *g^

-------
                                                                                  29
*
11
improvement of water quality in the Potomac River by the dilution
could be expected.  The dissolved oxygen concentration in the
Cacapon River seldom falls below 9 per cent of saturation,  and
the B.O.D. is normally below 3.0 mg/1.  Coliform bacteria are
generally below 1,000/100 ml, and the suspended solids concentra-
tions generally are less than 5 mg/1.  Total solids are normally
less than 150 mg/1, and turbidity is less than 10 standard scale
units.  The average annual sediment discharge of the Cacapon
River is 6^ tons per square mile, or ^3,600 tons per year, about
one-half of the areal rate in the Potomac River Basin above Paw
Paw.

        The most doisnstream station of the special Public Health
Service survey of July 19&5 was at Hancock, Maryland (River Mile
239.1).  The Potomac River at that point (37. ^ miles from the
next upstream station) had an average dissolved oxygen concentra-
tion of 7.6 mg/1.  The dissolved oxygen concentration of 6.8
mg/1 at 7:00 a.m. was 2.0 mg/1 lower than the 8,8 mg/1 found at
5:00 p.m. on the same day, indicating the possible presence of
photosynthetic aquatic plants.  The B.O.D. averaged 1.0 mg/1;
total dissolved solids, 300 mg/1; the total hardness, 1^0 mg/1;
and the mean coliform bacteria count was 2,300/100 ml.  The
stream flow at Hancock during the survey averaged 907 cfs and
at Paw Paw was 597 cfs.  The U. S. Geological Survey has deter-
mined the travel time between Paw Paw and Hancock at 1,010 cfs
(measured at Paw Pew) to be U856 hours} a velocity of 0,78 miles
per hour.  The average stream flow of the Potomac River at Han-
cock is 3,999 cfs  (31 years of record).

        Hancock, Maryland, a city of 2,000 persons, obtains its
water supply (200,000 gpd; from Little Tonolowav Creek about one
mile above its confluence with the Potomac River at River Mile
238.8 and maintains an emergency pump on the Potomac River at
River Mile 239.0.  No recent samples of the Potomac River supply
at Hancock have been taken, although the Little Tonoloway Creek
supply is reported to contain about 200 mg/1 of hardness and
about l80 mg/1 of alkalinity.

        Warm Springs Run, as it enters the Potomac River from
West Virginia at River Mile 238.3, receives untreated sewage
from over 700 persons at Berkeley Springs, West Virginia, 7.0
miles upstream, and industrial and sanitary wastes from the
Pennsylvania Glass Sand Company, ^.0 miles upstream.  The Pennsyl-
vania Glass Sand Company employs about 225 persons.  These indus-
trial wastes of about 180,000 gpd, with high concentrations of
suspended solids,  are treated by settling.  Before the recent
construction of a  settling basin at the plant, suspended solids
concentrations of  about 10,000 mg/1 were found in Warm Springs

-------
                                                                             I
Run.  The degree of reduction of suspended solids by the present
treatment has not be?n. established                                          f

        The Potomac River in the upper portion of this sub-reach
may be classified as INCQPOT Class D because of mean colifona                r
bacteria counts over 5,000/100 ml and the presence of taste and              [^
odor producing substances,, and MDWR Class C because of the pres-
ence of taste and odor producing substances.  After self-purification        f
and dilution, the lower portion of the sub-reach may be classi-              j
fied as JNC09CT Class C because o'f mean ccliform bacteria counts             *""
be-n-Men 500 and 5,000/100 ml, and MDWR Class B because of mean
coliforui bacteria counts between 2,000 and 10,000/100 ml (assum-             
ins for both Cisco's fi"^tier's th.2.~t taste end odor "araduci/rip mih              
  -                   ""                          j,       '_?                   
stances are present only 3acasionally).  Little Tonoloway Creek
may be classified as INCOPOT Class B and MDWR Class A.                       I
                                                                             1^

Tonoloway Greek to. Conocoeheague Creek (26,8 miles)                          ^

        Tonoj ov/ay Creels; enters the Potomac River at River Mile               *~
2375.  The City of Hancock discharges about 150,000 gpd of
sewage effluent from 2.,000 persons, after treatment by waste                 IT
stabilization lagoon,, to Tonoloway Creek at about River Mile                 L
0C8.  An additional 200 persons at Hancock discharge untreated
sewage to the Creek.  The estimated total organic loading to                 t?
the Creek is about 80 pounds of B.O.D. per day.                              &

        Back Creek, which enters the Potomac River at River Mile             ^.
225.9, from West Virginia, has an average annual sediment dis-               W
charge of 51 tons per square mile, or 12,^00 tons per year.                  *
Back Creek receives untreated sewage from about 500 persons
throughout its drainage area, but these wastes are stabilized                ||
to negligible levels before ^he Creek reaches the Potomac River.             B?
A sand and gravel operation on Back Creek does not appear to
impair water quality.                                                        me
                                                                             I
        Much of the drainage area to this sub-reach is covered
by forests with intermittent farm Iand0

        This sub-reach down, to Back Creek has been clouded and               "^
covered with silt fines from Warm Springs Run (River Mile 238.3).
Since the construction of the settling basin at the glass-sand               &
plant on Warm Springs Fun, the present concentration of suspend-             B
ed solids is unknorm0

        The City of Hagerstown, Maryland, obtains most of its                |j
water supply from the Potomac River at River Mile 212.0.  This
source serves 57,000 persons^ while mountain springs serve an                _^
                                                                             I

-------
                                                             31
additional 28,000 persons.
control tastes and odors.
The Potomac source is treated to
        The only current water quality data available for this
sub-reach are those obtained for the Public Health Service Water
Pollution Surveillance System at Williamsport, Maryland, in
cooperation with the Hagerstown Water Department.  Periodic
samples are taken above the water supply intake at River Mile
212.5.  Five years of data (1960 - 1965) from that station have
been analyzed, and a summary of the results is presented in Ap-
pendix IV.  These analyses include 35 observations for dissolved
oxygen, 36 for B.O.D., l8o for coliform bacteria, 197 for pH,
intermediate iiuuiuers for other indicators, and 8 observations
for C.O.D. (chemical oxygen demand).  The summary shows that the
monthly average dissolved oxygen concentration reached a miniinum
of 7.5 Kg/1 in August, with the minimum individual observation
of 6.0 mg/1 also occurring in August.  The monthly average B.O.D.
reached a maximum concentration of 1.3 mg/1 in September and
November, with a maximum individual value of 2.6 mg/1 occurring
in November.  The maximum monthly mean coliform bacteria concen-
tration was reported as 590/100 ml.

        The monthly average water temperatures of the Potomac
River at Williamsport range from 35.2 F. in January to 77.2 F.
in July, with the maximum individual value of 82.0 F. having
occurred in July.  The maximum individual determination of gross
beta radioactivity of 1^1 pc/1 (picocuries per liter, a picocurie
being one-millionth of a microcurie, or commonly called a micro-
microcurie), the maximum monthly (February) average of 43 pc/1,
and the annual average of 19 pc/1, are all well under the maximum
permissible concentration of 1,000 pc/1 for mixtures of unknown
radionuclides.

        As noted in the preceding discussion, current water
quality data  for this sub-reach are minimal; however, based upon
the known quality of water at Williamsport, Maryland (River Mile
212.5), "the sub-reach may be classified as INCOPOT Class C be-
cause of monthly mean coliform bacteria counts between 50 and
5,000/100 ml, and MDWR Class A because of monthly mean coliform
bacteria counts between 100 and 2,000/100 ml.  Taste and odor
producing substances occur only occasionally.

-------
                                                                              33
]
!
                     POTOMAC RIVER, CONOCOCHEAGUE
                     CREEK TO LITTLE FALLS
Upstream River Mile ,   . .  0 .       210  7

Downstream River Mile . a , ...... .    116.1

Length of Reach .............     9^.6 miles

Area Draining Directly to Reach . . . . .  5,4?0   square miles
                 Total Drainage Area to Downstream
                   Limit of Reach   0 ........ 0  . 11,580   square miles
                 Summary

                         The waters of the Potomac River from Conococheague Creek
                 to Little Falls are moderately hard (annual averages between 100
                 mg/1 and 125 mg/l) .  Monthly mean coliform bacteria concentra-
                 tions generally exceed 2,000/100 ml immediately below major trib-
                 utaries, and die-off to lower values between these tributaries.
                 Maximum monthly mean coliform bacteria concentrations of 9}QQQ/
                 100 ml occur at Point -of -Rocks, Maryland, and then decrease to
                 3,900/100 ml at Great Falls, Maryland.  These maximum values
                 commonly occur at high stream flows, indicating that surface
                 drainage may be a principal source of the bacteria.  Average
                 monthly dissolved oxygen concentrations in the Potomac River
                 are generally above 600 mg/1, but fall to about 3-0 Wg/1 at
                 times.  Two thermo-electric generating stations (at Williamsport,
                 Maryland, and just downstream from the Monocacy River) raise
                 the temperature of the Potomac River by several degrees (F.),
                 but there appears to be no serious effect on water quality.
                 Manganese is present in concentrations which may require removal
                 Tor some uses in upstream portions of this reach, but is diluted
                 to insignificant levels downstream.  Tastes and odors are present
                 at times in municipal water supplies drawn from this reach,
                 Several tributaries of the Potomac River in this reach have de-
                 graded water quality because of municipal and/or industrial vraste
                 discharges   Conococheague Creek contains taste and odor produc-
                 ing substances and hardness concentrations of about 180 mg/1.
                 Antietam Creek contains moderate concentrations of coliform bac-
                 teria. is low in dissolved oxygen below Hagerstown (l.O mg/1 at
                 times), and has a hardness from 190 mg/1 upstream to 225 Kg/1
                 downstream.  The Monocacy River has been found to have low con-
                 centrations of dissolved oxygen just below the Pennsylvania State
                 line and below Frederick, Maryland, and at times to contain taste

-------
and odor producing si3Dstances0  A map of this reach of the Potomac
River is presented in Figure Ik0
Conccocheag]ie_._C:ree^LXQ^ Mtle_tam Creek (30,5 Mies)

        Conocrcheague Creek, upstream of the Maryland-Pennsylvania
State line, receives, following secondary treatment, 100,000 gpd
rrc.7i 850 persons at the Scotland Orphanage and 300,000 gpd from
Ly7^0 persons at the Dixon TB Hospital in Pennsylvania; 3,000,000
gpd .if se^ondazy eew^ge plant effluent from 22,000 persons at
Chamber-:-"burg, Pennsylvania] 500,000 gpd of canning wastes from
x-he H, J Heins Company., and 25,000 gpd from Path Valley Esso
at Chambersburg, both after secondary treatment$ 220,000 gpd of
secondary effluent frcia 2,300 persons at Lfereersburg, Pennsyl-
vania; 220,000 gpd of tannery wastes from Lcwengart and Company
at Mercersturg, after primary treatment; 125,000 gpd of secondary
effluent from 4,000 persons at Greencastle, Pennsylvania; and
12,000 gpd of meat packing wastes from the Greencastle Packing
Company at Greencastle, after secondary treatment.  Although data
are limited, Conocochaague Creek appears to be of good quality
with respect to dissolved oxygen (greater than 605 mg/l) and
B0O.D. content (less than 1,5 mg/l) as it enters Maryland.  How-
ever, substances producing tastes and odors are present, hardness
is about 180 mg/l, and the alkalinity is about 160 mg/l0  The
V/. D. Byron and Sons Tannery at Williamsport, Maryland, obtains
210,000 gpd of water from Conococheague Creek at River Mile Q.k,
84,000 gpd from a spring, and 66^000 gpd from Williamsport, and
discharges 300,000 gpd of process wastes to the Creek at River
Mile 003 after screening, neutralization, aeration, and settling.
Conococheague Creek;, as it enters the Potomac River at River Mile
21007, has a hardness of about 150 mg/l, alkalinity of about 130
mg/l, and taste and odor producing substances,,  Conococheague
Creek, as measured at Fairview, Maryland, 18 miles upstream of
its mouth, discharges a relatively high average annual sediment
load of 21? tons per square mile, or 107,000 tons per year*

        The Potomac Edison Company, R0 Paul Smith Station, obtains
an average of 7200 mgd of cooling water plus ^2,000 gpd for boiler
and other uses from a low dam on the Potomac River at River Mile
21006, just bslav the entry of Conococheague Creek, and returns
the used waters to the Potomac River just downstream^  The maximum
usages during hot v/aathsr are 1,92,0 mgd for cooling and 6^1,000
gpd for boiler and ether uses,,  Fly ash is removed from wash
waters by settling before discharge.  The rise in temperature
of the Potomac River is not pronounced, usually being no more
than 3oOF.

-------
                                                             35
        Williamsport s Maryland,, discharges 30,000 gpd f sewage
effluent from 1,900 persons, after primary treatment, to the
Potomac River at River Mils 210,3,,  The organic waste loading
is about 210 pounds of B^O.D, per day.

        The water quality of the Potomac River is affected by
the Conococheague Creek waters and the sewage effluent discharge
from Williamsporo, but not to a point causing nuisance conditions
because of the large amounts of dilution afforded by the Potomac.
Ihy stream flow of Conococheague Creek at Fairvievr, Maryland,
l8<,C nf.les upstream of its mouth, averaged 761 efs over 35 years,
as compared to 3,999 cfs over 3! years for the Potomac River at
Hancock, Maryland  Generally,  the maximuxn B00,,D0 in the Potomac
River increases from 100 Kg/1 upstream of Conococheague Creek to
about 1..5 nig/1 downstream of the Creek and Williamsport; the
annual average alkalinity increases from about 50 mg/1 upstream
to about 100 mg/1 downstream; and the maximum nonthly coliform
bacteria counts increase from about 600 to about 2,000/100 ml.
Limited data are available on dissolved oxygen concentration;
however^, it appears that the dissolved oxygen concentration de-
creases slightly from 85 per cent saturation upstream to about
80 per cent saturation downstream much of the time during warm
weather0  .Dissolved oxygen concentrations are near saturation
during some days downstream to Conococheague Creek and Williams -
portc  This may be the result of photosynthesis by growths of
plant life stimulated by nutrients in the tannery wastes (typical-
ly high in nitrogen content), and in the Williamsport sewage
effluent,,  Night-time sampling would be necessary to determine
daily minimum concentrations of dissolved oxygen.  The Potomac
River below Conococheague Creek and Williamsport has a hardness
of approximately 125 mg/1, and contains some taste and odor pro-
ducing substances,

        The E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company explosives plant
at Falling Waters, West Virginia, discharges 10,000 gpd of sani-
tary wastes from 420 persons, after intermediate (approximately
50 p?r cent B.O.D. removal) treatment, and 500,000 gpd of indus-
trial wastes to the Potomac River at River Mile 205,4,  The
industrial waste loading is unknown  Nitrogenous substances
are typical of this type of industrial waste0

        Qpequon Creek enters the Potomac River from West Virginia
at River Mile 202000  Opequon Creek and its tributaries receive
2,5 mgd of sewage effluent from Winchester, Virginia, after secon-
dary treatment; 300^000 gpd of canning wastes from the Musselman
Canning Company in Inwood, West Virginia, after intermediate (ap-
proximately 60 per cent B.O.D. reduction) treatment; 205 mgd of
sewage effluent from 12,000 persons at Martinsburg, West Virginia,

-------
after secondary treatment; and a total of about 7^0}000 gpd of
industrial wastes from the National Fruit Company, Interwoven
Company, Standard Lime and Stone Company, and Blair Lirnesxone
Company at Mart ins burg, none of v/hose v.'aste loadings are known.
Belov; tortinsburg, Opequon Creek has a 3.0.D0 of approximately
3.0 mg/1, with values at times greater than 5<>0 ir/l.  The
hardness is about 250 mg/1, alkalinity about 225 mg/1, and coli-
form bacteria frequently exceed 10,000/100 ml.  Dissolved oxygen
concentrations fall to 3.5 &/l at Martinsburg during warmest
periods with corresponding low stream discharges, but lower D.O.
valrc.s ir.ay occur betv;een this point and the confluence with the
Potomac. 8,3 miles uov/nstreanu  Opequon Creek, near Martinsburg,
has a moderate average annual sediment discharge of 97 tons per
square mile, or 26,400 tons per year.  The stream flov/ added to
the Potomac River by the Opequon is relatively small (204 cfs
average over 16 years at Martinsburg, as compared to a 3,999 cfs
average over 31 years on the Potomac River at Hancock), so that
the water quality of the Potomac River is not seriously affected
by the lower quality water from Opequon Creek,,

        Shepherdstown, West Virginia, obtains its water supply
from the Potomac River at River Mile 183.6 and provides spray
aeration to remove tastes and odors during the treatment process.
The Potomac River at Shepherdstovm has a hardness of about 125
mg/1 and an alkalinity of about 100 mg/1.  Coliform "bacteria con-
centrations are generally less than 2,000/100 ml.  Dissolved
oxygen concentrations are normally greater than 605 mg/1 and
fall below 5=0 mg/1 only rarely during the warmest weather
B.Q.D. levels average about 1,5 to 200 mg/1 at this point.

        Shepherdstown discharges 150,000 gpd of untreated sewage
from 2,000 persons at about River Mile 183.O,  The loading is
estimated to be 3^0 pounds of B.O.D. per day

        Conococheague Creek may be classified as INCOPOT Class
D and MDWR Class C because of taste and odor producing substances.
The taste and odor problem is moderate above Williamsport but
great below Williamsport  The Potomac River in this sub-reach
may be classified as INCOPOT Class D because of dissolved oxygen
concentrations belcw 5<>0 mg/1 and the presence of taste and odor
producing substances, and MDWR Class B because of dissolved oxygen
concentrations between 30 and 5D0 mg/1, v/ith an average of about
4.0 mg/1.
Antietam Creek to Monocacy River  (26.7 miles)

         Antietam Creek;,  as it  enters Maryland  from Pennsylvania
at River Mile  37,0,  contains 1.2  mgd of secondary sewage effluent

-------
                                                             37
from 11,000 persons at Waynesboro, Pennsylvania; 21,000 gpd of
secondary sewage effluent from 350 persons at the E. U. B, Orphan-
age in Pennsylvania; and 140,000 gpd of secondary sewage effluent
from 1,500 military residents plus 280 civilian employees at Fort
Ritchie (National Guard), Maryland.  The average of six samples
taken in September and October of 1958 just below the State line
showed that the water quality was good with respect to dissolved
oxygen concentration (7.8 mg/l) and B.O.D. (l05 mg/l).  Antietam
Creek at that point had a hardness and an alkalinity of 186 mg/l
and 162 mg/l, respectively, and a coliform count of 8,100/100 ml.
Hagerstown obtains part of its water supply from mountain springs
of high quality in the headwaters of Little Antietam Creek (the
more northernly of the two Little Antietam Creeks).  Marquelie
Cement Manufacturing Company at Security, Maryland, obtains 8,1
mgd of water from Antietam Creek at River Mile 27.,0 and discharg-
es 78 mgd of cooling water at River Mile 26080  The Fairchild
Stratos Corporation discharges about 30,000 gpd of sanitary wastes
from i<-,600 employees, after secondary treatment, and 50,000 gpd
of cooling water to the West Branch of Marsh Run, about 5,0 miles
upstream from the confluence of Marsh Run with Antietam Creek
at River Mile 26.k.  The Municipal Electric Light Plant obtains
an average of 33.k mgd of cooling water and a maximum of 62,2
mgd from a low dam impoundment on Antietam Creek at River Mile
2308 and discharges the used cooling water just downstream.  The
Western Maryland Railway Company discharges 150,000 gpd of engine
and railroad car cleaning wastes, after settling and oil removal,
to a small tributary at Hagerstown, Maryland, which enters Antie-
tam Creek at River Mile 23.7.  Potomac Creamery Company discharges
an unknown quantity of cooling water to a branch of that same
small tributary.  Hagerstown discharges about 3.8 mgd of secondary
sewage effluent from 36,000 persons to Antietam Creek at River
Mile 22060  Sampling upstream and downstream of the effluent out-
fall shows that under average stream flow conditions (265 cfs
average over 40 years at Sharpsburg, Maryland), the B.00D. in-
creases from about 100 mg/l above the outfall to about 2,5 mg/l
below the outfall; the dissolved oxygen concentration decreases
from about 98 per cent to about 30 per cent of saturation in
hot weather,  Coliform bacteria concentrations increase from 5^0
to 3,000/100 ml.  The alkalinity below the Hagerstown outfall
ranges from 150 to 200 mg/l.  Funkstown, Maryland, discharges to
Antietam Creek at River Mile 21k about 75,000 gpd of wastes from
970 persons, after treatment by a stabilization lagoon.  The
Maryland State Reformatory for Males at Breathedsville, Maryland,
discharges 125,000 gpd of secondary sewage effluent from 1,250
persons to Antietam Creek at River Mile 12040  Boonsboro, Mary-
land, discharges 120,000 gpd of sev/age effluent from 1,200 per-
sons after treatment by a waste stabilization lagoon, to a trib-
utary of Little Antietam Creek (southern)  Boonsboro obtains

-------
its water supply from Gilardl .Run of Little Antietam Creek (south-
ern) and from several springs   Keedysville, Maryland, does not
have a municipal sewerage system but is estimated to discharge
about 47,000 gpd of untreated sewage from 320 persons through
individual and small sewerage systems to Little Antietam Creek
(southern) about 1.0 mile above its confluence with Antietam
Creek.  The total organic loading from these four discharges is
about 1^0 pounds of B.O.D. per day.  Untreated sewage from small
collection systems in a portion of Sharpsburg, Maryland, discharg-
es to Antietam Creek.  Antietam Creek near Sharpsburg, Maryland,
has a high average annual sediment discharge of 193 tons per
square mile, or 5^,200 tons per year.  Although no recent water
quality data are available on Antietam Creek except at Hagerstown,
the results of six samples taken in September and October of 195
showed that dissolved oxygen concentrations remained high through-
out Antietam Creek, even with B.O.D. loadings higher than at
present.  The hardness near the mouth was about 225 Eig/1, and
the alkalinity about 175 mg/1.

        Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, discharges untreated sewage
from 250 persons to the Potomac River and the Shenandoah River at
their confluence.

        The Shenandoah River enters the Potomac River from West
Virginia at River Mile 171.5 and transports the residual of muni-
cipal wastes and industrial wastes of a wide variety from Virginia
and West Virginia.  The Shenandoah River at Millville, West Vir-
ginia, has a moderate average annual sediment discharge of 120
tons per square mile, or 3^5,000 tons per year.  The Public Health
Service has maintained a station of the National Water Pollution
Surveillance System at Berryville, Virginia, since June 196l,
in cooperation with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.  Mineral
analyses were performed weekly for a total of about 150 observa-
tions through February 19&5, while smaller numbers of observations
were made for dissolved oxygen (73), B.O.D. (39), and certain
other indicators.  This station is about 25 miles upstream of
the mouth of the Shenandoah River and, therefore, does not show
the effects of several downstream waste discharges in West Vir-
ginia.  However, by considering the sampling results at Berryville
along with the results of samples obtained in September and Octo-
ber of 1958 at the mouth of the Shenandoah River, a reasonable
description of the water quality of the Shenandoah River entering
the Potomac River may be given.  The 48-year average stream flow
of the Shenandoah River at Millville, West Virginia, 5 miles
upstream  from its mouth, is 2,677 cfs, as compared with an aver-
age flow  (including the Shenandoah River) of the Potomac River
at Point-of-Rocks, Maryland, of 9,215 cfs over 68 years of record.
The results from the analysis of approximately three and one-half

-------
                                                             39
years of sampling at Berryville are briefly summarized in Appen-
dix IV.  This analysis indicates that the monthly average dis-
solved oxygen concentrations reached a jninimun of 7.2 mg/1 in
July, with the lowest observed concentration of 51 TOg/1 occurr-
ing in August,  In the month of August, the monthly average B00D0
reached a maximum concentration of 5.1 mg/1, and a maximum indivi-
dual value of 6.7 mg/1 was observed.  The maximum monthly mean
coliform bacteria concentration of 300/100 ml occurred in October.
Recent results of sampling by the Interstate Commission on the
Potomac River Basin at West Virginia Highway 9, about six miles
from the mouth of the Shenandoah River, showed that the mean
coliform counts for individual months reached as high as 6,300/
100 ml.

        The monthly average water temperatures of the Shenandoah
River at Berryville ranged from 35.7F. in January to 77.7F. in
July, with the maximum individual value of 82. k F. occurring in
July.  The maximum monthly average hardness of l8l mg/1 occurred
in October (at lowest flows) as did the maximum individual value
of 2^0 mg/1; the annual average hardness concentration appears
to be approximately 1U6 mg/1.  The maximum individual determina-
tion of gross beta radioactivity of 136 pc/1 (picocuries per
liter), the maximum monthly (March) average of 70 pc/1, and the
annual average of 37 pc/1, are all well under the maximum per-
missible concentration of 1,000 pc/1 for mixtures of unknown
radionuclides.  Other constituents measured were well within
acceptable limits.  Samples obtained in 195^ at the mouth indi-
cate that iron, manganese, and taste and odor producing substances
were present in concentrations which may require treatment prior
to satisfying some water uses.  Monthly sampling of the Shenandoah
River at River Mile J.k- in 1963 by the West Virginia Department
of Natural Resources, indicated that the quality was essentially
the same as at Berryville, except that higher B.O.D. concentra-
tions (up to 6.9 mg/1 in June) were found.

        The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad locomotive maintenance
shop at Brunswick obtains its water supply from the Potomac River
at River Mile 165.5 and discharges the waste cleaning waters,
after settling and oil removal, at River Mile 165.3.

        Brunswick, Maryland, discharges about 250,000 gpd of
sewage effluent from 3,700 persons, after primary treatment, to
the Potomac River at River Mile 165.2.  This loading amounts to
about ^10 pounds of B.O.D. per day when the treatment plant is
operating efficiently.  The Maryland State Department of Health
has recommended replacement of the treatment plant.

-------
            2lJ=iLj]jL2H<= I'.iarjl-ar.cl  Cutcctin Cr-ek of Virginia is
discussed in the fcllovr-ng section),  enters the Potomac .River at
River Mile 162A,  J^srsviile,, Maryland,  discharges 25,000 gpd
of sewage effluent- fros i'-pO persons,,  after primary treatment., to
Catoctin Greek at a'coat Fiver Mile 2!f-,7,   Ttis loading from %ers-
ville is about 50 po-.xn-s  of B.05D0 per  da:/,,  Myersville obtains
its water supply froji spring.3 along Brojd_Smi, which enters Ca-
toctin Crsek at Piv-sr Vile '" ,8,  arid provides only chiorination<,
Middietown^, JferylancL, discharge 60 ,,000 gpd of sewage effluent
from 1,100 persons ,,  aft^r- primary treatment, to Catoetin Creek
at about, Elver Mile  15  4,  'Hie loading  from Middletown is about
120 pounds of E.G.. D0 per  day,, Catoctin Hreek near Middletown
has a low average annual  sediment discharge of k7 tons per square
irdlej or 31^,200 tons par  jear0   While no recent water quality
data are available for Gatoctin  Creek,  the results from sis
samples taken in September and October  of 1958 indicated that
the hardness and. alkalinity ~?/ere quite  Icw^ being 55 azid. 50
respectively,
                          irginia^  enters the Potomac River at
River Mile l^oS,,   Catoctin Greek receives about 10 5 _, 000 gpd of
sewage effluent  from 850 persons, after primary treatment^ at
Purcellviile , Virginia,  about 1.10 ^ 000 gpd of meat packing wastes
from Jo Lynn Cornwellj Inc0? at Pu.rcellvillej and untreated
sewage from individual or small collection systems at Lovatts-
ville, Virginia,

        At Point -of -Recks., Maryland (River Mile 159o5), the
Potomac P,iyer has  an average stream discharge of 9*215 cfs (68
years of record) ;  however^ the range of stream discharges is
great, with fluctuations often occurring rapidly.  During lower
stream discharges , the Potojnae River at Point -of -P.ccka is moder-
ately hard (15  Eg/1 at  2/300 cfs), while at high stream discharges }
hardness is low  (60 mg/1 at yO.QQQ ofs and higher) ,  The average
annual sediment  discharge is 1.13 tons per square mile,, or 1,, 090^000
tons per year0   Tha sediment discharge varies greatly throughout
the year here,, as  at- mo?t locations in the Basin,,  In 1962, the
monthly sediment dia charge ranged frcoi 295 tcr,s in. September to
601,653 tons ir.  March o   Even during low stream discharges (about
1,500 cfs),, and  at highest tesroerature-s , the monthly average dis-
solved oxygen  eccicentraiaons do not fall below about 600 jcg/1.
Monthly average  B,00Da  concentrations T-arge between 1,,0 and 6,1
isg/1, with an  annual avei-age corie-sri-' ration, of 20p rcg/l0  Generally,
the higher B,0,,D.,  concent rat ions oc-xir at higher flows during
the winter and early sprirg, x?hile lower 5onoentr?";ions occur- at
lower flows darlr^ th^?  si5jTJuer0  The highest colifoim bacteria
concentrations at Polnt-of-F.otk-: c>::^xc curing the high flows of
winter and spring (ruft-jm of 9 . 000/100 mi for January - Juna for

-------
three years), while the lowest coliform "bacteria concentrations
occur during the low flows of summer and early fall (mean of
2,300/100 ml for July - October for three years).  This relation-
ship between coliform bacteria concentration and stream discharge
'is under special study by the Interstate Commission on the Potomac
River Basin.  The washing of pastures and barnyards by heavy rain-
fall is suspected as a source of the high concentrations,

        Antietam Creek, upstream from Hagerstown, may be classi-
fied as INCOPOT Class C and MDWR Class B because of monthly mean
'coliform bacteria concentrations above 5,000/100 ml.  Antietam
preek downstream from Hagerstown may be classified as INCOPOT
Class D and MBiVR Class C because of average dissolved oxygen con-
centrations below k.O Kg/1.  Even though current water quality
data are not available for the Potomac River between Antietam
Creek and the Shenandoah River, the classifications may be as-
sumed to be the same as those for the sub-reach immediately up-
stream (discussed in the previous section); i.e., INCOPOT Class
D and MDWR Class B.  The Potomac River between the Shenandoah
River and the Monocacy River may be classified as INCOPOT Class
D because of average B.O.D. concentrations above 3.0 mg/1, coli-
form bacteria concentrations greater than 5,000/100 ml, and the
presence of taste and odor producing substances, and MDWR Class
C because of monthly average B.O.D. concentrations over 6.0 mg/1,
coliform bacteria concentrations over 10,000/100 ml, and the
presence of taste and odor producing substances.  In the absence
of current water quality data for Catoctin Creek, it can be
classified as INCOPOT Class D and MDWR Class B because of coli-
form bacteria concentrations over 5,000/100 ml found in 1958.


Monocacy River to Little Falls (37.^ miles)

        The Monocacy River enters the Potomac River at River Mile
153.5 and has an average stream discharge (886 cfs over 3^ years,
as measured near Frederick, Maryland) of about 10 per cent of
that of the Potomac River upstream (9,215 cfs over 68 years at
Point-of-Rocks, Maryland).  Rock Creek joins Marsh Creek at the
Pennsylvania State line to form the Monocacy River at River Mile -
52.5.  Results of six samples from Rock Creek, taken in September
and October of 1958, indicate an average B.O.D. of U.6 mg/1, an
average alkalinity of 122 mg/1, hardness of about 125 mg/1, and
a mean coliform bacteria concentration of 2,900/100 ml.  Dissolved
oxygen concentrations averaged 4.5 cig/1, with a minimum of 1.5 rag/1
found on one occasion.  Waste effluents discharged to the Monocacy
River drainage area in Pennsylvania are 750,000 gpd from 10,000
persons, after secondary treatment, at Gettysburg; 160,000 gpd
from 2,800 persons, after secondary treatment, at Littlestown;

-------
                                                             42
and 108,000 gpd of Inorganic wastes from the Funkhouser Company,
after settling in lagconsa  The results from other sampling in
the Monocacy River drainage area in 195^ are generally not ap-
plicable at present because of changes in v/aste treatment and
populations, except for hardness, which was about 100 rag/1 in
stream reaches downstream from the State line, and alkalinity
was 80 mg/l0  The headwaters of several tributaries of the
Monocacy River serve as water supplies for several communities
and receive only chlorination  Pinev Creek, which enters the
Monocacy River at River Mile 453.. receives about 150,000 gpd
of sewage effluent from 1,500 persons,, after secondary treat-
ment, from Taneytown, Maryland; 22,000 gpd of cooling water from
Cambridge Rubber Company; and 10,000 gpd of cooling water from
A. W. Feeser and Company, both at Taneytown  The loading from
the City of Taneytown is estimated to be 38 pounds of B.O.D.
per day0  The Toms Creek drainage basin, which drains to the
Monocacy River at River Mile ^3,9^ receives 35,000 gpd of sewage
effluent from 200 persons, after secondary treatment, at the
Victor Cullen State Hospital, Sabillasville, Maryland; 250,000
gpd from 2,600 persons, after secondary treatment, at Emmitsburg,
Maryland; 50,000 gpd from 600 persons, after treatment by waste
stabilization lagoon following primary treatment, at Mount St.
Mary's College at Emmitsburg; and 70,000 gpd from 900 persons,
after primary treatment, at Mount St0 Joseph's Academy at Emmits-
burg0  The total organic waste discharge to the Toms Creek drain-
age area is estimated to be about 200 pounds of B000D. per day*
The Double Pipe Creek drainage basin, which enters the Monocacy
River at River Mile 38.3, receives 40,000 gpd of milk-processing
wastes from the Willow Farms Dairy; about 750,000 gpd of sewage
effluent from 8,000 persons, after secondary treatment, at West-
minster, Maryland; 20,000 gpd of steam condensate from the
distillation of wormseed oil at the George W. Magin Company;
55,000 gpd of sewage effluent from 700 persons, after secondary
treatment, at New Windsor, Maryland; and 65,000 gpd from 800
persons, after treatment by waste stabilization lagoon, at Union
Bridge, Maryland,  The total organic v/aste loading to the Double
Pipe Creek drainage area is estimated to be about 250 pounds of
B.O.D. per day0

        The Maryland State Department of Health sampled the
Monocacy River for four days in September 1964  At River Mile
32.9, which is 5,4 miles downstream from Double Pipe Greek, the
B.O.D. averaged I0k mg/l<,  The dissolved oxygen concentration
averaged 806 mg/1, with a minimum of 800 mg/1, and the mean coli-
form bacteria concentration was 850/100 ml.  Hunting Creek, which
enters the Monocacy River at River Mile 316, or its tributaries,
receive 55,000 gpd of sewage effluent from 675 persons, after
secondary treatment, at Thurmont, Maryland; 18,000 gpd of meat-

-------
i              packing wastes,  after primary treatment,  from Howard Late and
               Company at Thurmont;  and 9,000 gpd of meat-packing  wastes,  after
B              treatment by waste stabilization lagoon,  from Fraley's Meats at
I              Catoctin Furnace,  Maryland.   The total waste loading to  the
               Hunting Creek  drainage  area  is estimated  to be 150  pounds of
               B.O.D. per day.  The  results of four samples taken  in September
               119614-, by the Maryland State  Department of Health, from the
               Monocacy River at  River Mile 28.2 (3.4 miles downstream  from
               Hunting Creek) indicated an  average B.O.D.  of 1.0 mg/1,  an aver-
               Iage  dissolved  oxygen  concentration of 8.8 mg/1,  and a mean coli-
               form bacteria  concentration  of 75A00 ml.   Thus, even with the
               added waste  loading from Hunting Creek, the dissolved oxygen
i            ccncsntrsLticn  rensi^ed  h^"h   sncl "the B.O.D. and coliforni bsctsris.
I              concentrations decreased from values found at the upstream sampl-
               ing  station.  A  slope of about k.O feet per mile aids in the
               self-purification  of  this stream.  The slope downstream  from
               (this point decreases  to 2.2  feet per mile.   During  the same
               survey, the  dissolved oxygen content of the Monocacy River in-
               creased to an  average of 8.9 mg/1 at River Mile 25.2 and to an
               (average of 10.2  mg/1  at River Mile 22. k,  while the  B.O.D. concen-
               tration increased  to  an average of about  1.3 Jflg/1 at these two
               stations.  The mean coliform bacteria concentration decreased
I              to 3^0/100 ml  at River  Mile  25.2 and increased to 880/100 ml at
I              River Mile 22,h.  The increase in coliform concentration at River
               Mile 22.4 is attributed to waste discharges from individual and
               small sewerage systems  at Walkersville, Maryland (estimated to
I              be 85,000 gpd  from 680  persons), and other small communities in
              the  vicinity.

1                       Frederick, Maryland, and Fort Detrick, Maryland,  obtain
               water supplies from the Monocacy River at River Mile 20.4.  Taste
               and  odor control are  practiced at each treatment facility.  A
               sample of raw  water from the Frederick supply, taken by  the Mary-
I              land State Department of Health in July 1962, contained  88 mg/1
               hardness, 73 mg/1  alkalinity, iMt mg/1 total dissolved solids,
               9.3  rag/1 chlorides, 2.0 mg/1 nitrates, 0.2 mg/1 iron, and had a
               (turbidity of 10  units,  color of 18 units, and a pH  of 8.2.  Ideal
               Farms Dairy  discharges  ij-,000 gpd of cooling water to Detrick
               Creek,, which enters the Monocacy River at River Mile 20.1.  Fort
I               Detrick discharges 650,000 gpd of sewage  effluent after  secondary
               treatment to the Monocacy River at River  Mile 19.7.  Waste dis-
               charges from Fort  Detrick average 15 pounds of B.O.D. per day,
               indicating a high  degree of  treatment (about 95 per cent removal),

                       Carroll  Creek,  which flows through the City of Frederick
               and  enters the Monocacy River at River Mile 18.8, receives 9k,QQQ
               gpd  of neutralized plating wastes from the Everedy  Company; an
               unknown quantity of cooling  waters from Jenkins  Brothers; unknovm

-------
                                                             44
quantities of cooling water from the Corning Packaging Company;
and an unknown quantity of condenser cooling water from Fort
Detrick.  A survey of Carroll Creek in 1961 by the Maryland
Water Pollution Control Commission indicated the dissolved oxy-
gen content to be high both .in the winter (range of 1001 to 12,3
mg/l) and in the summer (range of 8.6 to 140 mg/l).  Obviously,
photosynthesis brought about supersaturated dissolved oxygen
conditions at times during the summer.  The B.O.D. ranged from
0,6 to 5.4 mg/l.  Large quantities of trash and refuse in the
Creek were reported.  The Monocacy River at Jug Bridge near
Frederick has a very high average annual sediment discharge of
327 tons per square mile, or 267,000 tons per year.

        The City of Frederick discharges 3.8 mgd of secondary
sewage effluent from 2k, 500 persons to the Monocacy River at
River Mile 18.7.  The wastes treated at the sewage treatment
plant include dairy, poultry, meat-packing, and cannery wastes.
Even with a high degree of treatment (average of about 90 per
cent), the waste loading after treatment during the canning sea-
son in September 1964, was found to be 1,200 pounds of B.O.D.
per day.  The Maryland Cooperative Milk Producers discharges
2,000 gpd of wastes from its milk receiving station at Union-
ville, Maryland, to the North Fork of Linganore Creek.  Linga-
nore Creek enters the Monocacy River at River Mile 16.3.  The
Maryland State Department of Health survey in September 1964
found the following average concentrations in the Monocacy River
at River Mile 15.6 (3.! miles downstream of the Frederick ef-
fluent outfall): dissolved oxygen of 1.0 mg/1 (minimum of 0.1
mg/l), B.O.D. of 3.4 mg/l (maximum of 4.5 mg/l), and colifonu
bacteria of 2,400,000/100 ml.  The average dissolved oxygen con-
centration increased rapidly to 6.8- mg/l at River Mile 12.9 and
was found to be 8.5 mg/l at River Mile 1.8.  The B.O.D. decreased
to an average of 2.2 mg/l at River Mile 1.8, and the coliform
bacteria decreased to 830/100 ml at that point.  Examination of
three years of data from the Interstate Commission on the Potomac
River Basin network station near the mouth of the Monocaey River
shows that the monthly average dissolved oxygen content at that
point ranged from 6.4 mg/l in August to 12.3 mg/l in February.
The average B.O.D. concentration ranged from 1.2 mg/l in Septem-
ber to 4.6 mg/l in February, and the mean coliforro bacteria con-
centration ranged from 1,300/100 ml in September to 36,000/100
ml in March.

        The Potomac Electric Power Company obtains an average of
355 mgd and a maximum of 415 mgd from the Potomac River at River
Mile 15204 for the Dickerson Generating Station in Maryland, and
discharges the heated waters after use at River Mile 152,1.

-------
Sanitary wastes from 8l employees are given secondary treatment
before discharge at the same point.  The Academy of Natural Sci-
ences of Philadelphia (Pennsylvania) performed expensive biological
and chemical surveys of the Potomac River upstream and downstream
of the Station in 1956, I960, and 1961 to determine the effects
of the heated waste discharges on the River.  These surveys were
performed both before and after initial operation (1958) and
expansion (i960) of the Station.  The 1961 report concludes,
"These surveys were carried out in June (High Water) and August
(Low Water) and indicated that overall there were no major changes
in the aquatic biota that might have been caused by the PEPCO
operations."  The Potomac River was rated as "healthy" with re-
spect to all biological types at all sampling stations during
each of the three survey periods.  Examination of the temperature
data reveals that the warmer waters of the Shenandoah River do
not mix readily with the cooler waters of the Potomac River during
higher stream discharges.  At 6:00 a.m. in June, at Point-of-Rocks,
Maryland (River Mile 159.5), the vrater temperature on the right
(Virginia) bank was 1.8  to 5.6 F. higher than on the left (Mary-
land) bank, though this differential decreased to 0.7 to 1.8F.
by 6:00 p0m.  Daring low stream discharges, the difference in
temperatures between banks at Point-of-Rocks was insignificant.
Immediately below the Generating Station, the water temperature
on the left bank at 6:00 a.m. averaged 80.8F. for the four sampl-
ing days in June (high stream discharges), while the corresponding
temperatures on the right bank averaged 75.HF., the differential
of 5.^F. being caused by the Station's discharge.  The maximum
water temperatures in June at the Station were reached at 3:00
p.m., being 82.0F. on the left bank (Station side) and 77.4F.
on the right bank, a differential of i.6F.  In August (low
stream discharge), the 6:00 a.m. temperatures immediately below
the Station averaged 85.8 F. on the left bank and 78.UF. on the
right bank, a differential of T.kF., while the 3:00 p.m. tempera-
tures averaged 92.1 F. on the left bank and 83.! F. on the right
bank, a differential of 9.0 F.  Dissolved oxygen concentrations
were decreased by the elevated temperatures, but no dissolved
oxygen concentrations below 6.0 mg/1 were found.  Total hardness
measured at the Generating Station in 1961 averaged 115 mg/1 in
June and 137 mg/1 in August; the alkalinity averaged 79 mg/1 in
June and 99 mg/1 in August; the B.O.D. of one sample in June was
2.5 mg/1 and of one sample in August was 6.0 mg/1; and the mean
coliform bacteria concentration was 5^0/100 ml in June and 120/100
ml in August.  Dissolved iron content was insignificant, phosphate
averaged 0.06 mg/1 in June and 0.10 mg/1 in August; nitrate nitro-
gen averaged 0.59 mg/1 in June and 0.3! mg/1 in August; and total
of nitrite, nitrate, and ammonia nitrogen averaged 0.69 mg/1 in
June and 0.39 mg/1 in August.  The Academy found the water quality
of the Potomac River 5.5 miles downstream of the Generating Station

-------
                                                             46
(i.e., River Mile 146.6) to be essentially the same as that im-
mediately "below the Station, except that the temperatures were
lower (roughly 5.0  to 9.0 F, on the left bank) and the dissolved
oxygen concentrations were higher by about 0.5 to 4.0 mg/1, with
evidence of photosynthetic plants being present at the lov/er
sampling station.

        Goose Creekf which enters the Potomac River from Virginia
at River Mile 142.1, receives a total of about 240,000 gpd of
sewage effluent from about 3,000 persons from Middlesburg, Lees-
burg, Goose Creek Country Club, and Foxcroft School, all after
secondary treatment.  Goose Creek has a very high average annual
sediment discharge of 290 tons per square mile, or 98,000 tons
per year, as measured near Leesburg, Virginia.

        Sugarland Creek? which enters the Potomac River from
Virginia at River Mile 135.3, receives about 155,000 gpd of
sewage effluent from 1,960 persons, after secondary treatment,
from Herndon, Virginia.  Three years of data from the Interstate
Commission network show that the maximum monthly average B.O.D.
concentration was 3.2 mg/1 in January, the minimum monthly mean
dissolved oxygen concentration was 4.3 mg/l in September, and
the maximum mean monthly coliform bacteria concentration was
89,000/100 ml in August.

        Seneca Creek, which enters the Potomac River at River
Mile 133.9/ or its tributaries, receive about 1,200 gpd of plating
wastes after neutralization, oxidation, and settling from Weinschel
Engineering Company; 15,000 gpd of milk processing wastes and
10,000 gpd of cooling water from Hadley Farms Dairy at Laytons-
ville, Maryland.  The maximum monthly average B.O.D. concentration
of Seneca Creek for three years was 3.3 mg/1 in February, the
minimum monthly average dissolved oxygen concentration was 7.4
mg/1 in June, and the maximum monthly mean coliform bacteria con-
centration was 9,900/100 ml in June.  Seneca Creek has a very
high average annual sediment discharge of 320 tons per square
mile, or 32,300 tons per year, as measured at Dawsonville, Mary-
land.

        Watts Branch, which enters the Potomac River at River
Mile 129.2 has an unusually high average annual sediment dis-
charge of 516 tons per square mile, or 1,91 tons per year.

        Difficult Run, which enters the Potomac River from Vir-
ginia at River Mile 124.1, also has a high average annual sedi-
ment discharge of 290 tons per square mile, or 16,200 tons per
year.

-------
        The Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission obtains an
average of 5.5 ragd from the Potomac River at about River Mile
127.0.  The Washington Aqueduct Division, U. S. Army Engineer
District, Baltimore, obtains an average of 167 mgd froia the
Potomac River-at Great Falls, Maryland (River Mile 126.5), to
supply Washington, D. C.  Treatment practices, at times, include
taste and odor control.

        The Public Health Service maintains a station of the
National Water Pollution Surveillance System at Great Falls in
cooperation with the Washington Aqueduct Division.  The results
from five years of weekly sampling have been analyzed and are
summarized in Appendix IV.  That analysis shows that the monthly
average dissolved oxygen concentration reached a minimum of 59
mg/1 in July, when a minimum individual value of 3.0 mg/1 occurred.
The monthly average B.O.D. reached a maximum concentration (3.3
mg/l) in February, with a maximim individual concentration value
of 8.6 mg/1.  The maximum monthly mean coliform bacteria concen-
tration of 3,900/100 ml occurred in March.  While this coliform
concentration was determined from weekly sampling for a period
of five years, daily sampling for four years (within the above
five-year period) by the Washington Aqueduct Division resulted
in a monthly mean of 8,200/100 ml for March,  That Division
attributes the difference in results to the "flashy" nature of
the Potomac River, so that weekly sampling may miss many high
bacterial counts at high stream flows of short duration.  The
fact that the highest concentrations of B.O.D. and coliform
bacteria occur at times of highest stream discharge suggests
that surface drainage is a principal source.  Calculations of
the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin show that
the coliform bacteria counts exceed 2,000/100 ml at least some
portion of every month and up to about 95 per cent of the time
during some months, the high values occurring principally in the
winter (high stream flow) months.  The monthly average \vater
temperatures at Great Falls ranged from 3^.7 F. in January to
78.6 F. in July, with a maximum individual value of 91.9 F.
(occurring in July),  The maximum monthly average hardness of
14l mg/1 occurred in October (at lowest flows) with a maximum
individual value of 188 mg/1 occurring in August; the annual aver-
age hardness was 105 mg/1.  The maximum individual determination
of gross beta radioactivity of 213 pc/1 (picocuries per liter),
the maximum monthly average of 55 pc/1 (November), and the annual
average of 23 pc/1, are well under the maximum permissible con-
centration of 1,000 pc/1 for mixtures of unknown radionuclides
in the absence of alpha emitters and Strontium 90.  The maximum
soluble phosphate phosphorus concentration of 0.3 mg/1 occurred
in April.  A special study of chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides
was made on September 23, 196U, as part of the National Water

-------
Pollution Surveillance System,  At Great Falls, the Potomac River
had a concentration of Dieldrin between O.Olj.O/ug/1 (micrograms
per liter) and 0.08/ug/l and a concentration of Endrin between
0.09lyug/l and O.lSo/ug/l, the latter being the highest concen-
tration found at any of the stations located throughout the Nation.
(These values are similar in magnitude to those found in the lower
Mississippi River during the major fish kill of 196^, except that
the concentrations in the Potomac River were apparently of short
duration.)  Water of the Potomac River at Great Falls is generally
moderately hard, and at times contains tastes and odors.

        The U. S. Navy Bureau of Ships discharges about 130,000
gpd of secondary sewage effluent from about 1,600 persons at- the
David Taylor Model Basin, Carderock, Maryland, to the Potomac
River at River Mile 121.7.

        Downstream from the vicinity of Cabin John Creek (River
Mile 119.0), the sewerage system draining to the District of
Columbia Blue Plains Sewage Treatment Plant (now called the
District of Columbia Y/ater Pollution Control Plant) contains
combined sewers which transport both sanitary sewage and storm
drainage.  These sewers overflow during intensive rain storms,
thus allowing untreated sewage to enter the Potomac River.  An
extensive program is underway to provide separate sewers through-
out the entire sewerage system.

        Little Falls Branch, which enters the Potomac River at
River Mile 116.3 just upstream of the District of Columbia bound-
ary line, receives about 10,000 gpd of settled concrete truck
washing wastes from Maloney Concrete Company and occasional dis-
charges of oil-drum cleaning and oil spillage wastes from the
Washington Petroleum Company, both in the Chevy Chase area of
Maryland.  Little Falls Branch has an extremely high average
annual sediment discharge of 2,320 tons per square mile, or
9,530 tons per year, as measured near Bethesda, Maryland.

        During low stream discharge periods, the Washington Aque-
duct Division obtains a portion of the water supply for Washington,
D. C., just above Little Falls at River Mile 116.3.  The Dalecarlia
Water Filtration Plant of the Washington Aqueduct Division dis-
charges an average of 1.8 rngd of filter wash water plus wastes
from washing settling basins (discharged at high stream flows)
to the Potomac River below Little Falls.  These wastes contain
all of the silt removed from the raw water, plus coagulating
chemicals, principally alum.  The maximum wash water use occurs
during the summer, with the peak usage occurring in August.  The
average wash water use over the past five years was 2.2 mgd, or
about 1.3 per cent of the total raw water intake volume (for two
filtration plants).

-------
        The head of tide on the Potomac River begins just below
the lower end of Little Falls (River Mile 116.1).  The average
Potomac River discharge to the estuary is 11,040 cfs (33 years of
record, measured two miles upstream of the District of Columbia
boundary).

        The Monocacy River, in the approximately 15-mile reach
upstream of Frederick, may be classified as INCOPOT Class C be-
cause of mean coliform bacteria counts between 500 and 5,000/100
ml, and MDWR Class A because of average B.O.D. concentrations
between 1.0 and 2.5 mg/1.  In a reach just below the Pennsylvania
State line, about five miles in length, the Monocacy River does
not meet the Eiininrain criteria for INCOPOT Class D and must be
classified as MDWR .Class C because of dissolved oxygen concentra-
tions less than 2.0 mg/1.  In between these two reaches, the
remaining 12 miles probably falls within INCOPOT Class D and
MDWR Class B, since monthly coliform bacteria concentrations are
estimated to range from 2,000 to 10,000/100 ml.  The Monocacy
River below Frederick must be classified as not meeting INCOPOT
Class D minimum criteria, and as MDWR Class C, because mean
monthly coliform bacteria concentrations exceed 10,000/100 ml,
and dissolved oxygen concentrations fall to 1.0 mg/1.  Carroll
Creek of the Monocacy River must also be classified as not meet-
ing INCOPOT Class D, and as MPWR Class C because of large quan-
tities of floating solids and debris.  Even though coliform
bacteria counts v/ere not obtained in the survey of Carroll Creek
in 1961, high counts would be suspected in this small stream
which traverses densely populated areas.  Low dissolved oxygen
concentrations could also be suspected, since B.O.D. concentra-
tions over 4.0 mg/1 were found.

        The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River has estab-
lished specific objectives and criteria for the main stem Potomac
River from the Monocacy River to Little Falls which are presented
in Appendix I.  The classification system used upstream is, there-
fore, not utilized for the main stem Potomac River in this sub-
reach and below.  The Potomac River is well within the criteria
set by the Interstate Commission for this sub-reach during most
of the year.  However, during the high stream flow periods of
March through May, the monthly median coliform bacteria concen-
trations are greater than 2,000/100 ml, at times taste and odor
producing substances are present, and occasionally individual pH
values exceed 8.5.  On very rare occasions, the dissolved oxygen
concentration has been below 4.0 mg/1.  The Potomac River in this
sub-reach would be MDWR Class B, since monthly mean coliform
bacteria concentrations lie between 2,000 and 10,000/100 ml,
monthly mean dissolved oxygen concentrations lie between 4.0 and
6.0 mg/1 with no value falling below 3.0 mg/1, and monthly average

-------
                                                             50
B.O.D. concentrations fall between 2.5 and 6.0 mg/1.  Seneca
Creek may be classified as INCOPOT Class D and MDWR Class B,
because of monthly geometric mean coliform bacteria concentra-
tions betvreen 2,000 and 10,000/100 ml and monthly average B.O.D.
concentrations between 2.5 and 6.0 mg/1.  Muddy Branch, which
enters the Potomac River at River Mile 13!.^, may be classified
as INCOPOT Class D and MDYYR Class B, because of monthly mean
coliform bacteria concentrations between 2,000 and 10,000/100 mle

-------
                                                             51


                   IV.  POTOMAC RIVER ESTUARY


Upstream River Mile 	    Il60l

Downstream River Mile ..........      000

Length of Estuary	    116.1 miles

Area Draining Directly to Estuary ....  3,090   square miles

Total Drainage Area to Potomac
  River Basin .,.;......,.. l4,6"0   square miles
        Waste effluents discharged in the metropolitan area of
the District of Columbia significantly reduce water quality in
the upper Potomac River estuary over a distance of approximately
1*0 miles from the vicinity of the l^th Street Bridge in the
District of Columbia to Sandy Point.  Deleterious effects at-
tributable to these wastes include very high bacterial levels,
high concentrations of organic materials, a low and sometimes
depleted dissolved oxygen content, and high nutrient concentra-
tions which bring about massive algal blooms.  The algal blooms
discolor the water, reduce its clarity, and in general create a
displeasing aesthetic appearance.  The subsequent death, sedimen-
tation, and decay of these organisms may contribute further to
the unsatisfactory oxygen conditions in the upper estuary.  Low
dissolved oxygen levels may be a predisposing, if not primary,
factor in some of the fish kills which are repeatedly observed
in the Potomac,  Suspended sediment entering at the head of the
estuary from the Potomac River, from surface runoff in the D. C.
metropolitan area, and from sand and gravel operations, contrib-
ute to the turbidity of the upper estuary.

        In the lower estuary from U. S. Highway 301 Bridge to the
mouth, water quality is generally satisfactory for most uses;
however, occasional algal blooms and fish kills do occur.  In
addition, there are a few small isolated areas below waste out-
falls where coliform bacteria concentrations are such as to pre-
vent the commercial harvesting of shellfish.  Depleted oxygen
conditions in the deep waters near the mouth of the Potomac are
observed annually during the warmest months of the year0  This
condition is common to all deep waters of the Chesapeake Bay
and its tributary estuaries.

-------
                                                             52
        The water quality objectives set for the estuary from
Little Falls to Hallowing Point by the Interstate Commission on
the Potomac River Basin are not being met in all respects at the
present time (1965).

        A map of the Potomac River estuary is presented in
Figure 15.                           ,
Little Falls to U. S. Highway "301 Bridge (67.3 miles)

        The quality of estuarial waters is predominantly influ-
enced by the quality of the fresh water trifles? at its head and
the brackish or salt water body at its mouth.  In addition, trib-
utary streams, ground water, and waste water discharges entering
the estuary along its length affect the water quality.

        The principal fresh water inflow to the Potomac estuary
is provided by the Potomac River.  The River, upon entering the
area of tidal influence just below Little Falls, 116.1 miles
above Chesapeake Bay, has drained about 11,500 square miles, or
about 80 per cent of the total area draining to the tidal estuary.
The River provides roughly 80 per cent of the total fresh water
inflow, since ground-water accretions to the estuary are not
considered to be significant.

        Minor tributary streams having relatively small drain-
age basins enter the estuary all along its length.  Two of these,
Rock Creek and Anacostia River, enter near the head of the estu-
ary and drain major portions of the District of Columbia Metro-
politan Area.  All of these tributaries are important to the
estuary, but more from the standpoint of quality than quantity.

        Rock Creek, which enters the Potomac River estuary in
the District of Columbia at River Mile 111.9, receives untreated
sewage when combined sewers overflow during storms.  Also, the
District of Columbia West Heating Plant discharges 225,000 gpd
of cooling water and 225,000 gpd of boiler blowdown and water
softener backwash to Rock Creek.  Minor quantities of oil from
spillage at two establishments are discharged to tributaries,,
Because of the storm-water overflows, the water quality in Rock
Creek is highly variable.  Monthly mean B.O.D. values at the
mouth average k.k mg/1 during December through May, and 2.8 mg/1
during June through November, reflecting high storm-water flows
in the v/inter and spring.  Monthly mean coliform bacteria counts
at the mouth vary from 110 to 130,000/100 ml, showing no distinct
seasonal pattern.  Monthly mean dissolved oxygen concentrations
at the mouth average 8.9 mg/1 during June through November, with

-------
                                                             53
no monthly mean below 7.0 mg/1.  The quality of water upstream
in Rock Creek for nine miles is essentially the same as at the
mouth, although B.O.D. and coliform concentrations are slightly
lower upstream.  The quality of the Potomac River estuary adja-
cent to the confluence -with Rock Creek is generally better than
that in Rock Creek, indicating that the lower water quality in
Rock Creek is the result of the storm-water overflows from com-
bined sewers in the drainage area, and not due to tidal exchange
with the Potomac estuary.  The average annual sediment discharge
of Rock Creek at Sherrill Drive, Washington, D. C., is 1,600 tons
per square mile, or 99,500 tons per year.

        The Anacostia River, which enters the Potomac River estu-
ary in the District of Columbia at River Mile 107.8, is influ-
enced for about four miles by tidal exchange with the main estuary.
Significant concentrations of sewage effluent from the District
of Columbia Blue Plains Sewage Treatment Plant have been traced
by dye throughout the lower four miles of the Anacostia River.
Untreated sewage from combined sewers overflowing during storms
discharges directly to the Anacostia River.  Other discharges to
the River or its tributaries include 26k mgd of cooling water
from two electric generating stations, wash water from sand and
gravel -washing operations, 110,000 gpd of sanitary waste effluent,
after primary treatment, and 160,000 gpd of cooling water from
the Naval Ordnance Laboratory, and other wastes of lesser signifi-
cance.  The quality of water in the Anacostia River is highly
variable.  Monthly mean eoliform counts in the lower seven miles
have ranged from 500 to ^,880,000/100 ml, the higher values
generally occurring December through May, but with high and low
values being found throughout the year.  Monthly mean B.O.D.
values range from 0.9 to 17.2 mg/1, being generally higher up-
stream during December through May, and generally higher down-
stream from June through November.  Monthly mean dissolved oxygen
concentrations near zero may be found at times beginning two
miles above the mouth and extending upstream for two or more
miles, but concentrations are generally above 5.0 mg/1 near the
mouth throughout the year.  The average annual sediment discharge
of the Northeast Branch Anacostia River at Riverdale, Maryland,
is 1,060 tons per square mile, or 77,HOO tons per year; of the
Northwest Branch Anacostia River near Colesville, Maryland, is
470 tons per square mile, or 10,000 tons per year; of the North-
west Branch Anacostia River near Hyattsville, Maryland, is 1,850
tons per square mile, or 91,300 tons per year.

        The quality of the Potomac River at Great Falls, summa-
rized in Appendix IV, may be considered representative of the
fresh water contribution to the estuary.  By considering its
chloride content, which is quite low as compared to that found

-------
at the mouth in Chesapeake Bay, some idea may be gained,of the
distribution along the estuary of the soluble constituents con-
tributed by both sources .

        Mineral Salts,,.  It is generally recognized that the
chloride content of the estuary will gradually increase from a
minimum value at the head to a maximum value at the mouth.  This
is also true of other constituents such as alkalinity, sodium,
potassium, and others which are present in much higher concentra-
tions in the sea than in rivers.  Chlorides, however, are usually
of greater significance to most water uses.

        The chloride content of the Potomac River at Great Falls
varies from 3.0 to 30 mg/1, while that of the Chesapeake Bay at
the mouth of the Potomac River varies from about 5,000 to 10,000
mg/1.  The chloride content within the estuary will lie between
these extremes, the actual value being dependent upon location
in the estuary and seasonal differences in fresh water inflow
rates.  The chlorides of the Bay waters move up the estuary by
a process usually referred to as turbulent diffusion, which is
brought about by the action of reversing tidal currents.  The
chlorides contributed by the Potomac River move downstream by
the same process and, in addition, are displaced seaward by the
river discharge which flows through the estuary to the Bay.  This
latter process is referred to as advection0

        As would be expected^ the chloride concentration in the
upper estuary varies inversely with the river inflow.  At the
Public Health Service automatic water quality monitor on Memo-
rial Bridge at Washington, D. C., the chloride concentration
between July 19&3 and December 1964- varied from a low of 5-0 mg/1
during the winter, to a high of 50 mg/1 during the late autumn
of 1964-.  This latter value is almost twice the maximum chloride
concentration found at Great Falls and reflects the presence of
sea salts which have diffused upward from the Bay.  At the U. S.
Highway 301 Bridge (River Mile k-Q,3), the low spring chloride
content is usually greater than 1,500 Kg/1, while the late fall
maximum concentration will generally reach 6^,000 mg/1.

        During the four-year period of 1961 - 196^, chloride con-
centrations of 250 mg/1 reached approximately 86, 90, 98, and 9
miles above the River mouth in successive years, the maximum up-
ward intrusion taking place in the late fall.  The maximum intru-
sion occurred in November of 1963, when chlorides of 192 and 359
mg/1 were observed at Fort Foote  (River Mile 101.7) and Fort
Y/ashington (River Mile 97*8), respectively.  This extensive up-
stream  intrusion of sea salts can be attributed to the very low
Potomac River flows experienced during that year and v/as comparable

-------
                                                             55
to the intrusion found during the 1930 drought  In that year,
the chloride level at Indian Head (River Mile 86.3) reached a
maximum value of just over 3,000 mg/1, while in 1963, a maximum
of 2,650 mg/1 was observed at Possum Point (River Mile 78.5).
The total Potomac River flow (at Point-of-Rocks, Maryland) in
1930 was k,7 million acre-feet, while in 19&3, 5.1 million acre-
feet were discharged at this Potomac River gage.  It is doubtful
that chloride concentrations in excess of 250 mg/1 would ever
be found very far upstream of Fort Foote, unless droughts were
more severe than those experienced over the last 70 years.  The
250 mg/1 chloride level is significant, since this is the recom-
mended maximum concentration for drinking water supplies (Public
Health Service Drinking Water Standards).

        Should the Potomac River Basin flows above the estuary-
become more regulated as the result of dam construction, minimum
drought flows to the estuary will be increased, and the upstream
intrusion of sea salts will be inhibited.  On the other hand, if
any significant quantity of Potomac River water is not returned
to the upper estuary after use, a further intrusion of salts
would be expected

        The variations in chlorides described above apply also to
total dissolved solids, hardness, and sulfates.  During periods
of low fresh water inflow, the total dissolved solids content of
the Potomac River at Memorial Bridge falls between 200 to 300 mg/1,
the hardness between 150 to 200 mg/1, and sulfates in the range
from 75 to 100 mg/1.  When the Potomac River flows are high, these
concentrations drop to ranges of IkO to 200 mg/1 for total dis-
solved solids, 80 to 135 mg/1 for hardness, and 25 to 50 mg/1 for
sulfates,,  The lowest concentrations cited are comparable to those
found in the Potomac River at Great Falls at times of maximum flow,
while the highest values are all higher than those encountered at
Great Falls and reflect the presence of sea salts just as in the
case of chlorides.  As one moves down the estuary, each of these
quality indicators increases in a manner similar to the increases
described for chlorides,

        Temperature.  Water temperatures in the upper estuary
reflect ambient conditions, being highest in July and lowest in
January,  The five-year mean (i960 - 196^) surface temperatures
at Memorial Bridge for the above months were 82 and 36F., re-
spectively.  Maximum values in the mid-nineties may be found in
shallow waters at sunset during the summer  These temperatures
are typical of the entire upper estuary down to the U. S. Highway
301 Bridge.  At depths below 30 feet in the saline portions of
the upper estuary, water temperatures are usually 2,0 to 3.0 F.
cooler.

-------
        Sediment and Water Transparency.  A considerable sediment
load, estimated to be approximately 2.5 million tons annually,  is
transported to the estuary by tributary streams   Much of this  load
is delivered to the head of tide by the Potomac River; however,
significant amounts also enter from the smaller tributaries which
drain the Washington Metropolitan Area,,  This silt contributes  to
the turbidity of the tidal estuary before settling to the bottom.
Since 9 psz* cent of the upstream load enters during that 10 per
cent of the time when stream flows are highest, maximum turbidity
levels would be expected during the same period of the year; i.e.,
late winter and spring.  Any intense local rainstorm in the
Washington Metropolitan Area will produce a heavy silt load which
causes very high turbidities in the estuary at and near Washington.
This silt gives the water, an obvious brov/n color} which rapidly
dissipates as the suspended material settles out.

        The average turbidity of the Potomac River during the four-
year period from 19&1 - 1964 is shown in Figure 10  The average
turbidity in the upper five miles of the estuary and that observed
near Maryland Point, 5 ffi^les downstream, are both relatively low,
being less than 40 J0C0Uo   Everywhere in the 50-mile reach be-
tween these two limits, the turbidity is higher.  Two turbidity
peaks may be readily identified,  A rather sharp peak (51 JoC.U.),
occurring near the Blue Plains outfall, is attributed to the dis-
charge of sewage treatment plant effluent containing suspended
solids.  After the peak at the sewage treatment plant, a more
gradual build-up in turbidity is observed, reaching a maximum of
54 J.C.U. at Hallowing Point.  This turbidity build-up is similar
to the B.O.D0 build-up in the estuary (discussed in a later sec-
tion).  Both B.O.D. and turbidity reach a peak at Hallowing Point,
15 miles below the Blue Plains outfall, and are assumed to derive
from the same cause; i.e., algal cells.  This assumption is sup-
ported by recent findings of the Chesapeake Bay Institute, which
is carrying out algae and nutrient studies in the Potomac estuary
for the Public Health Service.  For these studies, maximum chloro-
phyll levels3 indicative of maximum algal density, have been con-
sistently found at stations near Hallowing Point.  Thus, while the
direct effect of the Blue Plains effluent in increasing turbidity
is quite noticeable, the indirect effects caused by the stimula-
tion of algal growths reach even higher levels and affect a much
greater section of the estuary.

        A large (400 tons per hour) sand and gravel dredging opera-
tion is carried out on Greenway Flats just below Hallowing Point.
   Jackson Candle Units

-------
                                                             57
Studies by the Maryland Department of Water Resources show that
a great deal of turbidity is created in the immediate vicinity of
the dredging and washing operations.  These effects are confined,
however, and are not noticeable beyond a distance of about 1,000 feet.

        The Potomac River at Great Falls had an average turbidity
of ^0 J.C.U. for 252 samples collected over a recent five-year
period.  This is quite comparable to the estuary outside of the
area influenced by waste discharges.  The Potomac estuary also
compares favorably with another heavily populated East Coast estu-
ary, the Delaware at Philadelphia, where the average of 53 readings
during the 1962 water year was 80 J.C.U.

        Turbidity or resistance to light penetration into the water
may also be measured by means of the Secchi disk or photometer cells.
Equivalent Secchi disk readings, or the depths at which approximately
16 per cent of the incident light remains, were recorded during the
period from March to September of 19^5.  In the navigation channel
of the upper estuary below Giesboro Point, Secchi disk readings
varied from 1.5 to 5.0 feet.  The lowest values, 1.5 to 2.5 feet,
were found between Giesboro Point (River Mile 107.4) and Indian
Head (River Mile 86.5); values in this area were usually higher
in the spring than in the summer.  Between Indian Head and U. S.
Highway 301 Bridge, somewhat higher readings were obtained, ranging
from 2 to 5 feet.  In this reach, however, the higher readings
were obtained in. August and September.  It appears that in the
spring the upper estuary is uniformly turbid as a result of spring
runoff.  In the summer, the lower portion becomes clearer as the
silt load is reduced, while algal growths in the upper portion
restrict light penetration even further than the light restriction
experienced in the spring.

        Nutrients.  Heavy algal growths which give a bright green
color to the water are observed throughout the upper estuary dur-
ing the warmest months of the year.  These growths are known to
be stimulated by the fertilizing materials contained in waste ef-
fluents, primarily nitrogen and phosphorus.  During August and
September of 19&5, when algal growths were particularly heavy,
about 15 tons of inorganic nitrogen were added to the estuary
each day in waste effluents, in addition to about 3.0 tons per
day which entered in the Potomac River inflow.  Most of the nitro-
gen was in the form of ammonia, with a peak concentration of over
3.0 mg/1 being observed near the Blue Plains Sewage Treatment
Plant outfall.  Much of the ammonia was subsequently converted
by bacterial oxidation to the nitrate form, which reached a con-
centration of over 1.0 mg/1 about 10 miles below the Blue Plains
outfall.  Extremely high phosphorus concentrations were also
present, 0.9 rcg/1 being observed near Fort Washington.

-------
                                                             58


        In a study of the Potomac River in the Washington Metro-
politan Area (1959), the total phosphorus content of the River
just above the tidal reach was found to be 0.23 Eg/I, and the
content in the tidal area several miles below the municipal
sewage effluent outfall v;as found to be greater than 1.0 njg/l.
Based on measurements made in 19^5, it is estimated that approx-
imately eight tons per day of phosphorus are discharged to the
estuary in v/aste effluents.  These nutrient materials are present
in sufficient quantity to support massive algal growths in the
estuary.  Chlorophyll levels, which are indicative of algal
density, were found in 19&5 "t have reached a maximum of l8o/ug/l
in the estuary.  This level is higher than previously reported- 
anywhere in the Chesapeake Bay tidal system,

        Influence of Waste-Water Discharges.  The Potomac River
estuary and its minor tributaries receive waste-water discharges
from the Washington Metropolitan Area, several communities and
Federal installations below Washington, power generating stations,
and several industries, principally sand and gravel washing opera-
tions.  The principal organic waste loadings occur in the Washing-
ton Metropolitan Area and include the District of Columbia Blue
Plains Sewage Treatment Plant (80,300 Ibs/day B.O.D.), Arlington
County (23 000 Ibs/day B.O.D.), and Fairfax County (12,500 Ibs/
day B.O.D.).  A complete listing of waste discharges giving
location and treatment provided is presented in Appendix V.

        The Blue Plains Sewage Treatment Plant outfall, which is
the principal waste source, enters the estuary at River Mile 105.k.
Upon leaving the outfall pipe, which lies on the bottom and termi-
nates at the eastern edge of the deep water channel, this waste
stream rises to the surface, becoming slightly diluted by the
surrounding waters which are entrained in the waste plume.  The
turbulence of the moving tidal waters bring about favorable mir-
ing conditions, with the wastes being transported over several
miles upstream or downstream depending on whether the tide is
flooding or ebbing.  To a large extent, the water mass contain-
ing the waste is returned to the vicinity of the outfall by the
reversing tidal current.  However, in traversing the distance of
the tidal excursion, the waste material is mixed throughout a
larger water mass by turbulent diffusion processes, resulting in
lower v/aste concentrations on returning to the point of discoarge.

        An idealized pattern of dispersion of a waste discharge
to a uniform tidal channel having no inflow may be envisioned
by considering the incremental discharge at the time of slac^
water.  A plot of waste concentration versus distance longi-
tudinally along the estuary would, at the time of discharge,

-------
                                                             59
show an extremely high concentration at the discharge point,
with no waste present at short distances upstream or downstream.
After one complete tidal cycle, such a plot would show the peak
concentration remaining at the point of discharge, though greatly
reduced in magnitude, with a normal distribution of waste both
upstream and downstream for a total distance approaching the
tidal excursion distance.  With succeeding tidal cycles, the
normal distribution of waste concentration would remain about
the discharge point but with a diminishing peak concentration.
From this peak value, the concentration decreases in both up-
stream and downstream directions for large distances.  Ultimately
this curve would flatten out to a straight line, indicating uni-
formly infinitesimal concentrations throughout the system.  Under
the more practical conditions of the Potomac estuary with stream
flow entering at the head, the channel cross-section increasing
toward the mouth, and a net outflow to the ocean causing a net
outflow displacement seaward through the estuary, the normal
distribution mentioned above would be skewed toward the Bay, and
the peak concentration, instead of remaining in the vicinity of
the outfall, would have a net movement seaward with time.

        In the usual case of a steady discharge, such as that
from a waste treatment plant, the peak concentration in the
estuary would lie downstream from the discharge point at low
slack water and above the discharge at high slack water.  If
averaged over a tidal cycle, the peak concentration would be
found at the outfall.  Both the magnitude of the peak concentra-
tion and the extent of the upstream intrusion of the waste would
be limited by the fresh water inflow entering at the head of the
estuary.  In the case of non-conservative pollutants, increasing
stream flows to the estuary would result in an increase in down-
stream pollutant concentrations.

        Oxygen Balance.  The presence of organic waste discharges
to the Potomac River may be detected by increased B.O.D. concen-
trations and the resulting depressed dissolved oxygen conditions,
which these waste materials bring about in the estuary.

        Samples collected at five stations located at about one-
mile intervals above the iVth Street Bridge from June to November
show the B.O.D. to be quite uniform.  The B.O.D. level exceeded
10 per cent of the time in this area is near 3.5 mg/1.  Below
the l^th Street Bridge, the B.O.D. concentration rises rapidly
over the next four miles, reaching a maxumum just below the Blue
Plains outfall where the level exceeded 10 per cent of the time
is 12.0 mg/1.  The B.O.D. concentration drops very slowly and
at a distance of kO miles below the peak concentration has not
returned to the levels found above the l^th Street Bridge.  The

-------
                                                             60
upper 10 per cent of the concentrations found at Maryland Point
(River Mile 6l.O) exceed 4.3 mg/1.

        An attempt to balance the incoming B.O.D. waste loadings
with the total B.O.D. found in the estuary has shown more than
ten times the calculated value to be present.  This apparent pro-
duction of secondary B.O.D. in the estuary begins above the Blue
Plains outfall and reaches a peak some 15 miles below the outfall,
after which it begins to drop off.  It may be presumed that this
discrepancy is partially attributable to algal cells which are
contained in the samples collected in the estuary but are not
present in the waste-water effluent samples.

        Dissolved oxygen concentrations in the estuary drop
steadily from the head of tide to a minimum at the Blue Plains
outfall, as shown in Figure 2.  In the critical two-month period
from July 15 to September 15, the lowest 10 per cent of the values
observed over five years were below 6.7 mg/1 at River Mile 114.8,
dropping to 1.4 mg/1 at the Blue Plains outfall.  Proceeding down-
stream, dissolved oxygen concentrations rise steadily, and at
Sandy Point (River Mile 75.0), the lower 10 per cent of the values
lie below 6.5 mg/1, similar to conditions found some 1*0 miles
upstream.  The recovery of the dissolved oxygen curve is impeded
by the increasing salinity and resulting decreased solubility
of oxygen encountered downstream of the Washington Metropolitan
Area.

        From the above, it is evident that the estuary oxygen
balance is affected by Metropolitan Area waste discharges over
a distance of about 40 miles.  These effects are most serious in
a 10-mile reach extending from Giesboro Point (River Mile 107.4)
to Fort Washington (River Mile 97.8) where dissolved oxygen con-
centrations are less than 4.0 mg/1 half of the time during the
warm summer months.  Concentrations between zero and 1.0 mg/1
are not infrequent in this stretch.  Furthermore, it should be
noted that the concentrations discussed above were found in
samples collected near the surface of the navigation channel
during daylight hours.  Nighttime samples collected near the
bottom, especially outside the channel, could be as much as 1.0
to 2.0 mg/1 lower.  This is due to the uptake of oxygen by both
the decomposible, organically rich bottom muds and respiring
phytoplankton, which may be found in great numbers in the upper
estuary during the warmer months.

        The trend in critical dissolved oxygen concentrations at
six estuary stations measured over the past 10 years is shown in
Figures 3 through 8.  Little significant improvement in minimum
dissolved oxygen concentrations is apparent during that period.

-------
                                                             61
        Bacteriological Quality.  The number of coliform organisms
present in the estuary is markedly influenced by the waste efflu-
ents discharged in the Washington Metropolitan Area, primarily
by that discharged at Blue Plains.  Figures 9 and 10 show the five-
year mean of the average monthly concentrations found in the June
through November, and December through May periods, respectively.
The highest coliform concentrations are encountered in the winter
and spring months, considered to be primarily the result of the
cessation of chlorination of the Blue Plains effluent.  The high
fresh water inflows which carry large numbers of coliforms and,
in the case of downstream stations, the lower die-off rates
experienced in colder weather, and the advective effects of high
stream flows on the pealc concentration, also contribute to higher
bacterial levels during December through May,  During the same
period, the mean coliform counts above the .estuary were 6,800/100
ml at Point-of-Rocks (River Mile 159A), Maryland, and 3,100/100
ml at Great Falls (River Mile 126.5).  Coliform levels in the
upper five miles of the estuary above the Memorial Bridge are
lower than those in the River at Point-of-Rocks, and it is not
until a half-mile below the Itoi Street Bridge that the upper
River coliform levels are exceeded in the estuary.  The mean coli-
form counts quickly riss in the If. 5 miles below this point and
reach a peak of 260,000/100 ml near the Blue Plains outfall.  This
high level slowly drops over the next 30 miles, until a relatively
stable mean value, less than 200/100 ml, is reached.  Thus, in the
winter and spring months, the mean coliform level in three over-
lapping reaches of different lengths in the vicinity of the Blue
Plains outfall are as follows:  in the upper 30 miles of the estu-
ary, mean coliform counts generally exceed 2,000/100 ml; in the
15-mile reach from Potomac Park (River Mile 109.1) to below
Marshall Hall (River Mile 9308), they exceed 10,000/100 ml; and
they exceed 50,000/100 ml in a five-mile reach from just below
Giesboro Point (River Mile 107 A) to a point below Fort Foote
(River Mile 101.7).

        In the summer and fall months of the recreational season
on the Potomac estuary, the River contributes less inflow and
contains fewer coliform organisms.  However, coliform concentra-
tions in the estuary above the Blue Plains outfall are as high,
or higher, at this time than during the winter, since further
upstream intrusion of wastes is possible.  Though the Blue Plains
effluent is chlorinated, some regrowth of organisms possibly
takes place in the estuary.  The mean peak concentration at the
outfall is less than half the winter-spring value, or 120,OOO/
100 ml.  The drop in bacterial numbers is more rapid than in
the winter below the plant, and mean concentrations less than
1,000/100 ml are found at Hallowing Point (River Mile 89.5).
In the summer-fall season, then, mean coliform concentrations

-------
                                                             62
in excess of 2,000/100 ml extend over a 20-mile stretch of the
upper estuary above Fort Washington, and values greater than
50,000/100 ml are confined to a four-mile stretch from below
Giesboro Point to just above Fort Foote.

        Fish Kills .  The Potomac estuary has had a long history
of large fish kills   One of the more recent of these (1963) was
tentatively attributed to a bacterial infection among the -white
perch   The large kill which occurred in May 19^5, however, af-
fected several different fish species, and in this case,, bacterial
studies yielded negative results.  The extent of this kill is
shown in Figure 11.  Examination of a few of the more than 500,000
fish estimated to have died showed the presence of pesticides,
However, these compounds were also found at similar non-lethal
levels in fish that were not affected and was not considered to
have caused the mass mortality which was observed   A small num-
ber of water samples analyzed for dissolved oxygen at that time
showed concentrations much lower than would be expected at that
time of year, and this condition may have contributed, directly
or indirectly > to the fish kill.  A definite correlation may not
always be established between man-made pollution and fish kills
in the Potomac River; however, this possibility can not be com-
pletely ruled outo
        Water QnaJ.i+.y Criteria.  The water quality objectives
and criteria established for the upper Potomac estuary in 1958
by the  Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin are
given in Appendix I.  The objectives and criteria differ for
each of three reaches of the estuary 

        In the upper reach, from Little Falls (River Mile Il6l)
to Key  Bridge (River Mile 112.5), the water use objectives are
swimming,  boating, shore recreation, and propagation of all fish
species.   The criteria established to meet these objectives are
currently  not being met with respect to coliform numbers, since
levels  in  excess of the maximum of 2,000/100 ml specified for
"nearly all" of the samples are frequently observed ,  Criteria
established for dissolved oxygen are being met in this reach0

        In the middle reach, from Key Bridge (River Mile 112 0 5)
to Fort Washington (River Mile 97 08), the water use objectives
are boating, shore recreation, industrial water supply, safe
passage of all fish, and propagation of the hardier types of
fish.   Here the criterion for the coliform group is less than
10,000/100 ml in  "most" of the samples   This criterion is not
met in  the reach  except for a two-mile stretch at the upper end<,
The specified monthly average dissolved oxygen of 500 mg/1 with
a minimum  of U00.mg/l is not met anywhere in the reach during

-------
the summer months.  The turbidity criterion is not met because
of storm runoff, and the nutrients in waste effluents could be
interpreted as deleterious substances which make the waters un-
suitable, through the stimulation of algal growths, for boating
and shore recreation.  The fish kills observed in this and lower
reaches of the estuary are ample evidence that the waters are
unsafe for the passage of all species of fish.  It is not possible
to state conclusively at this time, however, that this condition
is brought about by man-made pollution.

        In the lowest reach for which objectives and criteria
have been established; i.e.. Fort Washington (River Mile 97.8)
to Hallowing Point (River Mile 89.5), the water uses to be pro-
tected are boating, fishing, swimming, and other recreational
-uses.  The coliform criterion of 2,000/100 ml is exceeded in most
of the samples collected in this reach during most of the year.
The minimum monthly average dissolved oxygen of 5.0 mg/1, with
no dissolved oxygen below 4.0 mg/1, is likewise not achieved at
all times.  The comments on the upstream reaches pertaining to
effects of algae and low water transparency on suitability of the
water for recreational purposes and to fish kills apply in this
reach as well.
U. S. Highway 301 Bridge to. Mouth of Potomac (48.8 miles)

        In the lower Potomac estuary from the IT. S. Highway 301
(Wbrgantown) Bridge to the Paver mouth, there is always present
a detectable amount of sea salts which diffuse up the estuary
from Chesapeake Bay.  These concentrations are highest during
the later summer and fall months due to the low fresh water in-
flows to the Potomac estuary and to the entire Bay system which  ^
are experienced at this time.  During the fall months, salinities
average approximately 9.0 and 11 parts per thousand at the sur-
face and at a 30-foot depth, respectively, near the Highway 301
Bridge.  This vertical stratification in the fall is not as pro-
nounced with respect to temperature, which averages near 52 F0,
through the water column.  Surface dissolved oxygen values are
generally near.7.0 mg/1, although values up to 11 mg/1 may be
found in late fall when temperatures have dropped.  Little infor-
mation is available on bottom oxygen conditions in the Highway
301 Bridge area.
   1 ppt salinity is approximately equal to 550 mg/1 chlorides.

-------
        At the mouth of the Potomac during late summer and fall,
the salinities are the highest experienced in the Potomac estuary,
usually being about 1? ppt at the surface and 18 ppt at the 30-
foot depth.  Surface water temperatures in the fall are warmer at
the mouth than upstream, being near 57 F. at the surface and about
two degrees less at a 30-foot depth.  Surface dissolved oxygen
values are similar to those experienced upstream, 6.0 to 7.0 mg/1
during the warmer fall months and rising to 10 and 11 mg/1 during
late fall.  At a 40-foot depth at the mouth, the dissolved oxygen
concentrations are generally 1.0 to 3.0 mg/1 less than surface
values; pH values of 8.0 and 8.4 have been reported at 40 feet
and the surface, respectively.

        Daring the winter months, the salinity at Highway 301
Bridge drops to about 5.0 ppt under the influence of increased
fresh water inflows.  Temperatures are usually near 36F., and
saturated dissolved oxygen concentrations are normally present.
A similar effect is felt at the mouth, where salinities are
about 13 and 15 ppt at the surface and at a UO-foot depth, re-
spectively.  Water temperatures are usually two to four degrees
warmer at the mouth than at Highway 301 Bridge.  Saturated dis-
solved oxygen conditions may be found both at the surface and
at the deeper waters near the mouth.

        During the spring months, salinities are at their lowest
values, coinciding with highest fresh water inflows.  At the
Highway 301 Bridge, salinity is usually near 3.0 ppt at the sur-
face and 4.0 ppt at a 30-foot depth.  Surface temperatures average
57F. at the surface, being two to four degrees cooler in the
deeper waters.  Dissolved oxygen concentrations are near satura-
tion at the surface and may be significantly less near the bottom
at this time, although little data are currently available; pH
values near 8.0 are usually found.  At the mouth, surface salinity
may drop to 10 ppt and is some 2.0 to 3.0 ppt higher in the bot-
tom layers.  Water temperatures are similar to those found near
the Highway 301 Bridge, and pH values usually lie between 8.0
and 9.0.

        During the summer months, salinities in the lower estuary
begin their annual upward rise, as fresh water inflows drop off.
Vertical stratification is also most pronounced at this time of
year, as reflected by salinity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen
concentrations.  Surface and 30-foot salinities are usually 7.0
and 10 ppt at Highway 301 Bridge and 13 and 16 ppt, respectively,
at the mouth of the estuary.  Average surface water temperatures
are at or above 8lF. throughout the entire lower estuary and
are two to four degrees cooler at a depth of 30 feet.  Very
striking dissolved oxygen conditions are found in the lower

-------
estuary during the warm summer months   Daytime dissolved oxygen
concentrations at the surface are generally at or above satura-
tion and, while no nighttime dissolved oxygen values are available,
it could be expected that these would be below saturation.  In
the deeper waters (kO feet and "below) at the mouth of the Potomac,
complete depletion of oxygen is commonly found from July to Sep-
tember,,  The pH values in these deep waters are just above 7*0>
while at the surface the pH generally exceeds 8000  These com-
pletely deoxygenated conditions are also found below kO feet
throughout the entire central portion of Chesapeake Bay during
the summer and can be attributed to oxygen uptake by bottom
sediments coupled with a lack of vertical mixing due to a sig-
nificant degree of vertical density stratification.  It is not
known how far up the Potomac estuary similar conditions exist,
but it may be reasonably assumed that the entire lower estuary
is probably devoid of oxygen at water depths greater than 35 to
kO feet during the summer<,

        Transparency of the water, as measured by Secchi disk
readings taken between March and September, varied from 3 to 13
feet.  The highest values are found near the Chesapeake Bay in
the spring (11-13 feet) and near the Highway 301 Bridge in the
summer (7-9 feet),  The water is more turbid at the Eiver mouth
in summer (7-8 feet) and near the Highway 301 Bridge in the
spring (3-5 feet),

        The Maryland State Department of Health, as a participant
in the certification program of interstate shellfish shippers in
cooperation with the Public Health Service and the shellfish
industry, has classified the waters of the lower Potomac River
estuary and its estuarins tributaries a3cording to Part I of the
ManuaJ. of Operations of the Cooperative j'rggram for the Certifi-
cation- of Interstate Shellfish Shippers[, PHS Publication No. 33.
Based upon bacteriological sampling and sanitary surveys, the
following areas have been classified as "prohibited:" Neale _Sound
north of Cobb Island (River Mile 38,1); Br?ton,_Bay north of a
line drawn from Society Hill to Lovers Point (River Mile 27 ,,2);
and St. Mary's River upstream from a line from Portobello Point
east to the opposite shore0  All other areas are classified as
"approved0"  The upstream limit of shellfish production in the
estuary lies between Colonial Beach and Dahlgren, Virginia, on
the western shora and just downstream from the Highway 301 Bridge
on the eastern shore,  The Potomac River produces about 13 per
cent of the clams and 10 per cent of the oysters harvested in
Maryland 0

-------
                        OF WATER QUALITY IN THE
                PQICMAC RIVER BASIN IN MftRYLAND
        Numerous significant water quality problems exist in
the Potomac River Basin in Maryland,,  In the 97-mile length of
the North Branch, the wide-spread occurrence of mine drainage
inhibits the development of normal biological life in many of
the tributary streams as well as in the upper North Branch it-
self.  Water containing mine drainage requires expensive treat-
ment when usad for municipal and industrial purposes  Iron and
manganese are also present in concentrations which may require
removal to satisfy some uses in this sub-basin,,  High bacterial
counts and low dissolved oxygen concentrations are found in the
lower third of the North Branch 

        The 7^-inile reach of the main stem Potomac River down-
stream from the confluence of the North and South Branches to
Conococheague Creek gradually improves in quality over that
found in the North Branch, because of dilution by better quality
waters entering from West Virginia  However, due to discharges
of untreated domestic wastes and run-off from agricultural areas,
eoliform bacteria are present throughout this reach in concentra-
tions unsatisfactory for some uses when compared with criteria of
the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River and Maryland. De-
partment of Water Resources

        Several tributaries which enter the Potomac River in the
95-mile reach from Conococheague Creek to the estuary have lowered
water quality because of municipal or industrial waste discharges.
Great quantities of suspended sediment are contributed by the
Monocacy sub-basin, and high eoliform bacteria levels occur in
streams throughout the area at times of high spring stream flows,,
Tastes, odors,, iron, and manganese are problems at times in sur-
face water supplies in this area.  The discharge of some untreated
sewage and entry of inferior quality water from tributaries
adversely affect dissolved oxygen levels in the upper third of
this reach.

        The quality of Trader in a 40-mile reach of the upper
Potomac estuary is seriously diminished by pollution from v/aste-
water discharges.  Deleterious effects attributable to these
wastes include very high bacterial levels, high concentrations
of  organic materials, a low and sometimes depleted dissolved
oxygen content, and high nutrient concentrations v/hich bring
about massive algal blooms  The algal blooms discolor the water,
reduce its clarity, and, in general, create a displeasing aesthe-
tic appearance.  The subsequent death, sedimentation, and decay

-------
                                                             68
of these organisms may contribute further to the unsatisfactory
oxygen conditions in the upper estuary.  Low dissolved oxygen
levels may be a predisposing, if not primary, factor in some of
the fish kills v/hich are repeatedly observed in the Potomac.
Suspended sediment entering at the head of the estuary from the
Potomac River from surface runoff in the Washington Metropolitan
Area and from sand and gravel operations also contributes to the
excessive turbidity of the upper estuary.

        In the lower estuary from U. S. Highway 301 Bridge to the
mouth, water quality is generally satisfactory for most uses;
however, occasional algal blooms and fish kills do occur.  In
addition, there are a few small isolated areas below waste out-
falls where coliform bacteria concentrations are such as to pre-
vent the commercial harvesting of shellfish.  Depleted oxygen
conditions in the deep waters near the mouth of the Potomac are
observed annually during the warmest months of the year.  This
condition is common to all deep waters of the Chesapeake Bay.

        The present (19^5) water quality from Little Falls to
Hallowing Point generally does not meet the objectives set for
this reach of the estuary by the Interstate Commission on the
Potomac River Basin.  Results of studies have indicated that
for the major portion of this reach, coliform and dissolved oxy-
gen concentrations failed to meet the criteria established for
these-indicators more than 50 per cent of the time.

        Diagrams illustrating the present water quality based
on Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin criteria
(Table l) and the Maryland Department of Water Resources (Table
II) are presented in Figures 16 and 17, respectively.
                                                                            I
                                                                            1C
                                                                            1C
                                                                            1C
                                                                             c

-------
                                INDEX
                                                               69
Aaron Run. 16
Abram Creek (W. Va.), 15
Academy of Natural Sciences of
  Philadelphia, 8, 45
Allegany Ballistics Laboratory
  of Hercules Powder Co.
  (Rocket Center, W. Va.), 20
Alpine Coal Co. (Henry, W. Va.),
  14
Amcelle, Md., 21
Anacostia River j, 52,. 53
Antietam Creek (Md., Pa.), 33,
  34, 36, 37, 38
Arlington, Va., County of, 58

Back Creek (Va., W. Va.), 30
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad
  (locomotive maintenance shop,
  Brunswick, Md.), 39
Barton, Md., 17
Barton's Dairy (Pinto, Md.), 20
Bayard, W. Va., 14, 15
Bel Air, Md., 20
Berkeley Springs, W. Va., 29
Berryville, Va., 38, 39
Bethesda, Md., 48
Blair Limestone Co. (Martins -
  burg, W. Va.), 36
Blue Plains Sewage Treatment
  Plant, Washington, D. C.
  (now called D. C. Water
  Pollution Control Plant), 48,
  53, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 6l
Boonsboro, Md., 37
Bowling Green, Md., 21, 22
Braddock Runf 23, 25
Breathedsville, Md., 37
Breton Bay,. 65
Broad Run^ 40
Brunswick, Md., 39
Buffalo Creak (ff. Va.), 14, li
Byron, W. D., and Sons Tannery
  (Williamsport, Md.), 34

Cabin John Creekf 48
Cacapon River (W. Va.), 27, 2J
  29
Cambridge Rubber Company (Tan<
  town, Md.), 42
Carderock, Md., 48
Carroll Greek. 6, 43, 44, 49
Catoctin Creek^ (Md.), 40
Catoctin Creels; (Va.), 40
Catoctin. Furnace, Md., 43
Celanese Fibers Co. (Amcelle,
  Md.), 21
Chambersburg, Pa., 34
Chesapeake Bayf 8, 51, 52, 54.
  58, 63, 65, 68
Chesapeake Bay Institute of
  The Johns Hopkins University
  8, 56
Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna RT
  Basins Project, 1, 24, 28, '<.
Chesapeake Biological Laborat(
  University of Maryland
  (Solomons, Md.), 8
Chevy Chase, Md., 48
Cobb Island, Md., 65
Colesville, Md., 7, 53
Colonial Beach, Va., 65
Conococheague Creek (Md., Pa,,
  27, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 67
Corning Packaging Co. (Freder-
  ick, Md.), 44
Cornwell, J. Lynn, Inc. (Pure?
  vine, Va.), 40
Cresaptcrwn, Md., 20, 21
Cullen, Victor, State Hospital
  (Sabillasville, Md.), 42
   Words underlined are names of streams or other bodies of water.
   State abbreviations are designated where streams are not entirely
   within the State of Maryland.

-------
                                                               70
                          INDEX (Continued)
Cumberland, Md., 7, 18, 21, 22,
  23, 24
Cumberland Brevong Co. (Cumber-
  land, Md.), 23
Cumberland Coca-Cola Bottling
  Co.(Cumberland, Md.), 23

Dahlgren, Va0, 65
Dalecarlia Water Filtration
  Plant (of Washington Aque-
  duct Division), 48
Dashiell Dairy (Midland, Md.),
  18
Dawsonville, Md., 46
Deakin Run (W. Va.), 14
Department of Sanitary Engineer-
  ing and Water Resources of The
  Johns Hopkins University, 6
Detrick Creelc. 43
Dickerson Generating Station
  (Dickerson, Md.), 44
Dickerson, Md., 8
Difficult Run (Va,), 46
District of Columbia (see
  Washington, Metropolitan
  Area of)
District of Columbia Blue
  Plains Sewage Treatment
  Plant (see Blue Plains)
District of Columbia Depart-
  ment of Public Health, 5
Dixon TB Hospital, Pa., 34
Double Pipe Creek. 42
DuPont de Nemours and Co,
  explosives plant (Falling
  Waters, V/. Va,), 35

Elk^Run (W. Va.), 14
Emrnitsburg, Md0, 42
E.U.B. Orphanage (Pa.), 37
Everedy Co. (Frederick, Md.),
  43
Kvi+.-hg n-rppv (Md., Pa.), 23,
  24, 25
Fairchild Stratos Corp,, The
  (Hagerstown, Md.), 37
Fairfax, Va., County of, 58
Fairview, Md., 34, 35
Falling Waters, W. Va., 35
Feeser, A. W. and Co. (Taney-
  town, Md0), 42
Fish and Wildlife Service (see
  U. S, Department of the
  Interior; Fish and Wildlife
  Service)
Fort Detrick (U. S. Army), Md.,
  43, 44
Fort Foote, Md., 54, 55, 6l, 62
Fort Ritchie (National Guard),
  Md., 37
Fort Washington, Md., 54, 57,
  60, 62> 63
Foxcroft School (Va.), 46
Fraley's Meats (Catoctin Furnace,
  MdJ, 43
Frederick, Md., 7, 33, 43, 44,
  49
Frederick, Md., County of, 7
Frostburg, Md., 17, 18, 23
Funkhouser Co. (Littlestomi,
  Pa.-), 42
Funkstown, Md0, 37

Geological Survey (see U. S.
  Department of the Interior,
  Geological Survey)
Georges Creek. 17, 18, 19
Giesboro Point, 57, 60, 6l, 62
Gilardi Rmij 38
Goose Creek (Va0), 46
Goose Creek Country Club (Va0),
  46
Great Falls, Md., 5, 33, 47, 48,
  53, 54, 55, 57, 6l
Greencastle, Pa0, 34
Greencastle Packing Co. (Green-
  castle, Pa.), 34
Growdenvale, Md., 23
I
r

-------
                                        INDEX (Continued)
                                                                             71
I
Hadley Farms Dairy (Laytonsville,
  Ma.), 46
Hagerstown, Md., 30, 31, 33, 37,
  38
Hallowing Point, Md., 3, 52, 56,
  6l, 63, 68
Hancock, Md., 7, 24, 29, 35, 36
Harpers Ferry, W. Va., 38
Headsville, W. Va., 24
Heinz, H. J., Go. (Chambers-
  burg, Pa.), 34
Henry, W. Va., 14
Herndon, Va., 46
Hopkins, The Johns, University
  (see Chesapeake Bay Institute,
  Department of Sanitary Engineer-
  ing and Water Resources)
Hunting. Creek. 42, 43
Hyattsville, Md., 53
Hyndman, Pa., 22

Indian Head, Md., 55, 57
Interstate  Commission on the
  Potomac River Basin, 3,  5, 6,
  15, 19, 22, 25, 30, 31,  39,
  41, 44, 49, 52, 62, 67,  68
Interwoven  Co,  (Martinsburg,
  W. Va.),  36
Inwood, W.  Va., 35

Jenkins Brothers  (Frederick,
  Md.), 43
Jennings Run. 23, 25
Jug Bridge, Md., 44

Keedysville, Md., 38
Kelly-Springfield Tire  Co.
   (Cumberland, Md.),  22,  23
Key Bridge, Washington, D. C.,
  62
Keyser, W.  Va., 19,  20, 21
Kitzmiller, Md.,  15

Late,  Howard, and Company
   (Thunaont,  Md.),  43
La Vale, Md0, 23
Laytonsville, Md., 46
Leesburg, Va., 46
Linganore Creek, 44
Little Antietam Creek. 37, 38
Little Falls, 3, 49, 52, 62,
  68
Little Falls Branch. 48
Little Tonoloway Creek. (Md.,   '
  Pa.), 29, 30
Lonoconing, Md0, 17
Lotz Wholesale Meats Co
  (Frostburg, Md.), 18
Lovers Point, Md., 65
Lovettsville, Va., 40
Lowengart and Co. (Mercersburg,
  Pa.), 34
Luke, Md., 14, 18, 20

Magin, George W., Co. (New
  Windsor, Md.), 42
Maloney Concrete Co, (Chevy
  Chase, Md.), 48
Marquette Cement Manufacturing
  Co.(Security Md.), 37
Marsh Creek  (Pa.), 41
Marsh Runf 37
Marshall Hall, Md., 6l
Martin-Marietta Corp-.,  (Appa-
  lachian Stone Division)
  (Cumberland, Md.), 23
Martin-Marietta Corp.,  (Manley
  Sand Division), Hyndman, Pa.
  23
Martinsburg, W. Va., 35,  36
Maryland Cooperative Milk Pro-
  ducers  (Unionville, Md.),  44
Maryland Department of  Chesa-
  peake Bay  Affairs, 7
Maryland Department of Water
  Resources,  6, 7, 14,  15, 19,
  22, 25,  30,  31, 36, 41,  57,
  67, 68
Maryland  Point, Md.,  56,  60

-------
                                                               72
                          INDEX (Continued)
                                                                               I
Maryland State Department of
  Health (Baltimore, MdJ, 7,
  39, 42, 43, 44, 65
Maryland State Planning Depart-
  ment., 1
Maryland State Reformatory for
  Males (Breathedsville, MdJ, 37
Maryland Water Pollution Control
  Commission, 3, 6, 44
Mason's Dairy (Cresaptown, MdJ,
  20
Memorial Bridge (Washington,
  D. C.), 5, 54, 55, 61
Mercersburg, Pa., 34
Middlesburg, Va., 46
Middletown, Ml., 40
Mill Runf 20
Milville, W. Va., 38
Mississippi Riverf 48
Monocacy River. 3, 7, 33, 36,
  41, 42, 43, 44, 49, 67
Mt. St. Joseph's Academy
  (Emmitsburg, MdJ, 42
Mt. St. Mary's College
  (Emmitsburg, MdJ, 42
Muddy Branch^ 50
Municipal Electric Light Plant
  (Hagerstown, Md.), 37
Musselman Canning Co0 (Inwood,
  W. Va.), 35
Myersville, Md., 40

National Fruit Co. (Martinsburg,
  W. VaJ, 36
Neale Sound. Md., 65
New Creek (W. VaJ, 19, 20, 22
New Windsor, Md., 42
North Branch Coal Co. (Bayard,
  W. Va.), 14
North Branch Potomac Riverf 5,
  6, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,
  19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25,
  27, 28, 67
North Fort of Lineanore Creek.
  44
Northeast Branch Anacostia,
  River, 53
Northwest Branch AnacQstia^
  Hiyer, 7, 53

Ohio River Basin^ 13
Oldtown, Md0, 25
Onequon Creek, (Va0, W. VaJ
  35, 36

Path Valley Esso (Chambersburg,
  Pa.), 34
Patterson Creek (W. Va.), 24
Paw Paw, W. Va., 28, 29
Pennsylvania Glass and Sand Co0
  (Berkeley Springs, W. VaJ,
  29
Philadelphia, Pa0, 57
Piedmont, W. Va., 16, 18, 19, 20
Pinev Creekf 42
Pinto, Md., 20
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.
  (Cumberland, Md.), 2J} 24
Point-of-Rocks, Md., 7, 15, 33,
  40, 45, 55, 61
Portobello Point, Md0, 59
Possum Point, Va0, 8, 55
Potomac Creamery Co0 (Hagers-
  town, MdJ, 37
Potomac Edison Coa (Cumberland^
  MdJ, 22, 23
Potomac Edison Co,, R. Paul
  Smith Station (Williamsport,
  Md.), 34
Potomac Electric Power Co0
  (PEPCO), 8, 44
Potomac Farms Quality Dairy
  Products (Cumberland, Md J,
  23
Potomac Park, D0 C., 6l
Potomac Riverj 3, 8, 9, 24, 27,
  28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36,
  38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 47,
  48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55,
  56, 57, 58, 59, 6l, 62, 63, 64,
  65, 67, 68
t
r
r
r
                                                                               r

-------
                                                               73
                          INDEX (Continued)
Potomac River estuary, 8, 51,
  52, 53, 57, 59, 6l, 62, 63,
  64, 65, 67, 68
Public Health Service (see U.
  S. Department of Health,
  Education, and Welfare,
  Public Health Service)
Public Health Service Drinking
  Water Standards, 55
Purcellvilla, Md., 40

Quantico Creek (Va,,), 8
Queen City Brewing Co. (Cumber-
  land, Md.), 23
Queen City Cooperative Dairy,
  Inc. (Cumberland, Md.), 23

Rawlings Heights, Md., 20
Reservoirs (see Savage Reser-
  voir, Stony River Reservoirs)
Ridgeley, W. Va., 23
Riverdale, Md., 53
Rock Creek (Md.), 52, 53
Rock, Creek (Pa.), 41

Sabillaaville, Md., 42
St. Mary's River, 6, 65
Sandy Point, 50, 60
Sandy Spring Run, 18
Savage Reservoir, 16
Savage River, 16, 19
Scotland Orphanage (Pa,), 34
Security, Md., 37
Seneca Creek, 46
Shallmar, Md0, 15
Sharpsburg,  Md,, 37, 38
Shenandoah Riverf 38, 39, 45
Shepherdstown, W. Va., 9, 36
Society Hill, Md., 65
Solomons, Md., 17
South Branch Potomac, River.,
  27, 67
Standard Lime and Stone  Co.
  (Martinsburg, W. Va.),  36
Stony River  (W. Va.), 15
Stony River Reservoirs (/. Va
  15, 16
Stream Classifications (see
  Classification of Streams)
  or (see Maryland Department
  of Water Resources or Inter
  state Commission on the
  Potomac River Basin)
Sugarland Creek (Va,,), 46
Surveillance Station (see
  Williamsport, Great Falls,
  Memorial Bridge, Cumberlanc
  Point-of-Rocks, Frederick,
  West Virginia Department o:
  Natural Resources, Colesvil
  Shepherdstown, Oldtown, Md

Taneytown, Md., 42
Taylor, David, Model Basin
  (Carderock, Md.), 48
Thurmont, Md0, 42, 43
Toms Creek (Md., Pa.), 42
Tonoloway Creek (Md., Pa 0),
  27, 30

Union Bridge, Md., 42
Unionville, Md., 44
U0 S. Army Corps of Engineer
  38
U. S. Department of Health,
  Education, and Welfare, Pv
  Health Service, 5. 6,  8, :
  31, 38, 47, 54, 56, 65
U. S. Department of the  Int
  Fish and Wildlife Service,
U. S. Department of the  Inte
  Geological Survey, 1,  7, 2
U. S. Geological Survey  (se<
  S. Department of the Inte:
  Geological Survey)
U. S. Highway 301 Bridge, B
  52, 54,  55, 57, 63, 64, 6
U. S. Naval Ordnance Labora
   (Whiteoak, Md.),  53
U.S. Navy Bureau of Ships,

-------
                                                               74
                          INDEX (Continued)
Upper Potomac River Commission
  Waste Treatment Facility
  (Westernport, Md.), 17, 18

Virginia Electric and Power Co.
  (Possum Point, Va., Steam
  Generating Plant), 8
Virginia Department of Conserva-
  tion and Economic Development,
  Division of Water Resources, 8
Virginia State Department of
  Health, 8

Walkersville, Md., 43
Warm Springs Run (W. Va.), 29
Washington Aqueduct Division of
  U. S. Army Engineer District,
  5, 47, 48
Washington (Metropolitan Area),
  4, 6, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53,
  54, 56, 58, 60, 6l, 68
Washington Petroleum Co. (Chevy
  Chase, Md.), 48
Washington Suburban Sanitary
  Commission, 47
Water Pollution Surveillance
  System, Public Health Service,
  38, 47
Watts Branch. 46
Waynesboro, Pa., 37
Weinschel Engineering Co..
  (Gaithersburg, Md,), 46
West Branch of Marsh Run. 37
West Heating Plant (Washington,
  D. C.), 52
Western Maryland Railway Co.
  (Hagerstown, Md.), 37
Westernport, Md., 16, 17, 18,
  19, 20
Westminster, Md., 42
West Virginia Department of
  Natural Resources, Division
  of Water Resources, 9, 39
West Virginia Pulp and Paper
  Co. (Luke, Md.), 5, 16, 17 ,
  18, 19, 20
Williamsport, Md., 5, 31, 33,
  34, 35, 36
Willow Farms Dairy (Westminster,
  Md.), 42
Wills Creek (Md., Pa.), 19, 22,
  23, 25
Winchester, Va., 35
Wolfden Run^ 15

Youhioghenv River - Ohio River
       , 13
Zekiah
            j. 6
14th Street Bridge, Washington,
  D. C., 51, 59, 61

-------
                                    75
APPENDICES

-------
   APPENDIX I.  WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR THE POTOMAC RIVER
              IN IKE WASHINGTON J/STROPOLITAN ARE&
        Interstate Comnission on the Potomac River Basin
                   (Adopted January 22., 1958)
        The ultimate goal, of a comprehensive pollution abatement
program Is to provide that quality of water in the Potomac which
will be compatible wiin the principal uses the people desire to
mate of them,,  Many uses are currently being mads of the river
even though the water quality is far from desirable for many such
uses.  Other uses are proposed for the future which can be realiz-
ed only if pollution abatement is achieved.  It is believed that
the following water quality objectives and criteria for Five
Sections of the Potomac River in the Washington Metropolitan Area
are capable of achievement and desirable of attainment.  Some
aspects are admittedly long-range objectives.  For example^ the
complete removal of raw sewage most await elimination of combined
sewage and an application of practical methods of disposal of
sewage and other wastes from boats.  Nevertheless, the objectives
are worthy goals and should be sought

        Because of the varying nature of the streams and the
situations pertaining to them, no single set of water quality
criteria can be .made to apply to the entire Metropolitan region.
The portion of the Potomac under consideration has been divided
into Five Sections,

        (l)  Mouth of Monocacy to Great Falls

        (2)  Great Falls to Little Falls

        (3)  Little Falls to Key Bridge

        (4)  Key Bridge to Fort Washington

        (5)  Fort Vfashington to Hallowing Point

        Key Bridge is the present division point between Sections
(3) and (4), but. this would be aoved downstream to the vicinity
of 14th Street Bridge in Washington at the proposed "Barrier Dam!'
if the provision *'or a water recreation basin is adopted as r-5c~
omTiiended in the v/oliran Report entitled, "A Clean Potomac River
in the Washington Metropolitan Area," November

-------
                                                          1-2
                    APPENDIX I.  (Continued)

        As a "basic consideration applying to all Sections,  the
Commission advocates that all sewage or industrial wastes dis-
charged or permitted to flow into tributaries of the Potomac
should be treated to that extent, if any, v/hich may be necessary
to maintain such waters in a sanitary and satisfactory condi-
tion at least equal to the criteria recommended below for the
waters of the Potomac immediately above the confluence of the
tributary with the main stream.

        The water quality objectives for the Sections indicated
above are as follows:

                           SECTION I

POTOMAC RIVERs  MONQCACY RIVER TO GREAT FAILS

Objective:  The establishment of conditions suitable for domestic
            water supplies, fish propagation, and recreational
            uses, and elimination of excessive soil erosion.

Criteria:   The water quality shall be held in the normal natural
            condition of the stream, with nearly all samples fall-
            ing within the following limits:

            1.  Coliform Group: MPN not to exceed 2,000 per 100 ml.

            2.  pH: Range between 6.5 and 8.5.

            3.  D, 0.: Monthly median not less than 6.5 ppm, with
                no D. 0. below 4.0 ppm.

            4.  Turbidity: After opportunity for good mixing in
                the River, turbidity of the stream should not be
                appreciably changed.

            5o  Other Conditions:  There shall be no floating
                solids, oil,' settleable solids, or sludge deposits
                attributable to sewage, industrial wastes or other
                v/astes.  There shall be no toxic wastes, delete-
                rious substances, colored or other wastes, or
                heated liquids, taste or odor producing substances
                either alone or in combinations sufficient to be
                injurious to fish life or to make the waters un-
                safe or unsuitable as a source of municipal water
                supply or other desirable uses.

-------
                    APPENDIX I.  (Continued)

                           SECTION II

POTOMAC RIVER:  GREAT FALLS TO LITTLE FALLS

Objective:  The elimination of sewage and vraste effluent and
            excessive soil erosion so that the water will be
            suitable for domestic water supplies and fish life.

Criteria:   The water quality shall be held in the normal natural
            condition of the stream, with nearly all samples fall-
            ing within the following limits:

            1.  Goliform Group: MPN not to exceed 2,000 per 100 ml.

            2.  pH: Range between 6.5 and 8.5.

            3.  D. 0.: Monthly median not less than 6.5 ppm, with
                no D. 0. below 4.0 ppm.

            4.  Turbidity: After opportunity for good mixing in
                the River, turbidity of the stream should not be
                appreciably changed.

            5.  Other Conditions: There shall be no floating
                solids, oil, settleable solids, or sludge deposits
                attributable to sewage, industrial wastes or other
                wastes.  There shall, be no toxic wastes, delete-
                rious substances, colored or other wastes, or
                heated liquids, taste or odor producing substances,
                either alone or in combinations in sufficient
                amounts to be injurious to fish life or to make
                the waters unsafe or unsuitable as a source of
                municipal water supply or other desirable uses.
                          SECTION III

POTOMAC RIVER:  LITTLE FALLS TO KEY BRIDGE

Objective:  The elimination of sewage and waste effluent and
            excessive soil erosion so that the water will be
            suitable for swimming, boating, shore recreation,
            and safe for all species of fish life with favor-
            able conditions prevailing for their propagation.

-------
                                                                            1-4
                                       APPENDIX I.  (Continued)

                   Criteria:   The water quality shall be held in the normal natural
                               condition of the stream, vdth nearly all samples fall-
                               ing within the following limits:

                               1.  Coliform Group: MPN not to exceed 2,000 per 100 ml.

                               2.  pH; Range between 605 and 8.5.

                               3.  D, 0,: Monthly median not less than 6.5 ppm, with
                                   no D. 0. below 4-0 ppm.

                               4.  Turbidity:  After opportunity for good mixing  in
                                   the River, turbidity of the stream should not  be
                                   appreciably changed,

                               5.  Other Conditions:  There shall be no oil, floating
                                   solids, settleable solids, or sludge deposits  at-
                                   tributable to sewage, industrial wastes, or other
                                   wastes.  There shall be no toxic wastes, delete-
                                   rious substances, colored or other wastes or heated
                                   liquids, taste or odor producing substances, either
                                   alone or in combinations, in sufficient amounts to
                                   be injurious to fish life or to make the waters
                                   unsafe for swimming or shore recreation.
u
i*
m
                          SECTION IV

POTOmC RIVER:  KEX BRIDGE TO FORT WASHINGTON

Objective:  To reduce the quantity of combined sewage discharged,
            and to control the quality of waste effluents by
            effective treatment so as to make the water suitable
            for boating,  shore recreation, industrial water supply
            and safe for  the passage of all species of fish, with
            favorable conditions prevailing for the propagation
            of the hardier types

Criteria:   The water quality shall be maintained so that the
            results of most  of the samples fall within the follow-
            ing limits:

            1.  Coliform  Group: MPN not to exceed 10,000 per 100 i

            2.  pH: Range between 6.5 and 8.5.

-------
                                                         1-5


                    APPENDIX I.   (Continued)
            3.   D.  0.:  Monthly average not less  than 5.0 ppm,
                with no D.  0.  "below 4.0 ppm.

            4.   Turbidity:  After opportunity  for good mixing  in
                the River,  turbidity of the stream should not be
                appreciably changed.

            5.   Other Conditions:  There shall be no floating
                solids, oil, settleable solids,  or sludge deposits
                attributable to sewage, industrial wastes or  other
                wastes.  There shall be no toxic wastes,  delete-
                rious substances, colored or  other wastes or
                heated liquids, taste or odor producing substances,
                either alone or in combinations, in sufficient
                amounts to make the waters unsafe or unsuitable
                as  a source of industrial process water supply,
                or for boating, shore recreation, passage of  all
                species of fish or propagation of the hardier
                species of fish.
                           SECTION V

POTOMAC RIVER:  FORT WASHINGTON TO HALLOWING POINT

Objective:  To reduce the quality of combined sewage discharged
            and to control the quality of waste effluents  by
            effective treatment of wastes and disinfection of
            effluents to make the water suitable for boating,
            fishing, swimming, and other recreational uses.

Criteria:   The water quality shall be maintained so that  the
            results of most of the samples fall within the
            following limits:

            1,  Coliform Group: MPN not to exceed 2,000 per 100 ml.

            2.  pH: Range between 6.5 and 8.5.

            3.  D. 0,,: Monthly average not less than 6.5 ppm,
                with no D. 0. below 4.0 ppm.

            4,  Turbidity: After opportunity for good mixing in
                the River, turbidity of the stream should  not be
                appreciably changed.

-------
                                                          1-6
                    APPENDIX I.  (Continued)
                Other Conditions: There shall be no floating
                solids, oil, settleable solids,  or sludge deposits
                attributable to sewage, industrial wastes or other
                wastes.  There shall be no toxic v/astes,  delete-
                rious substances, colored or other wastes or
                heated liquids, taste or odor producing substances,
                either alone or in combinations, in sufficient
                amounts to be injurious to fish life or to make
                the waters unsafe or unsuitable for swimming,
                fishing, or other recreational uses.
INTERPRETIVE NOTES:

        In arriving at numerical values included in the foregoing
objectives, it is the intent that A.P,HA. Standard Methods be
utilized.  It is further intended with a series of samples, that
arithmetical averages be used.

        The reference "other wastes" under Condition No. 5 of
the foregoing objectives shall be interpreted to include trash,
garbage, dirt, soil, or any matter causing or aiding pollution.

        With reference to disinfection of effluents for safe-
guarding of recreational areas, it is intended that the recrea-
tional season comprise the period of May 1 to September 30.

-------
                                                          II - 1
        APPENDIX II o  SUMMARY OF ANALYSES OF WATER QUALITY
         DATA FOR THE NORTH BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER OBTAINED
           BY THE WEST VIRGINIA PULP AND PAPER COMPANY

 A.  Above Luke, Maryland (River Mile 53.1)
     Critical Concentrations (January 1962 - February 1965)
Item
D. 0.
Temperature
B,00D05
pH
Color
Turbidity
Total
Alkalinity
Hardness
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Suspended
Solids
Units
*A
C
mg/1
	
Platinum
Jackson
Candle
mg/1
mg/1

mg/1
mg/1
Critical
Month
July
July
July
August
July
March
May
July

July
March
No. Obser-
High (H) vat ions for
or Critical
Low (L) Mean Month
T Q O
H 19.6
H 4,5
L 4.7*
H 7
H 45ol
L 4,0
H 83 .7

H 217
H 47
61
6l
61
65
61
65
65
61

61
65
Geometric

-------
                                                          II - 2
 B.
               APPENDIX II.  (Continued)

Below Luke, Maryland (River Mile 52.4-)
Critical Concentrations (January 1962 - February 1965)

1
1

1

1

1
1



i
1
11
Item
D. 0.
Temperature
B.O.D05
pH
Color
Turbidity

Total
Alkalinity
Hardness
Total
Dissolved
_ Solids
^^" Suspended
Solids
Mi
Units
mg/1
c.
mg/1

Platinum
Jackson
Candle

Eg/1
mg/1


mg/1

mg/1
High (H)
Critical or
Month Low (L)
August
July
September
October
October

October

April
July


July

October
L
H
H
H
H

H

L
H


H

H
No0 Obser-
vations for
Critical
Mean Month
7.1
24.2
20.5
9.4*
11.

67.3

9.6
98.1


381

169
65
43**
58
66
68

68

58
63


63

68
Geometric

Two years only

-------
                                                                 II - 3
                        APPENDIX II.   (Continued)

     C.   At Keyser,  West Virginia (River Mile 45.9)
         Critical Concentrations (January 1962 - February 1965)
Item
D. 0.
Temperature
B.O.D
pH
Color
Turbidity
Total
Alaklinity
Hardness
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Suspended
Solids
Units
Kg/1
C.
fflg/1
Platinum
Jaclson
Candle
rog/1
Eg/1
mg/1
mg/1
Critical
Month
August
July
December
September
August
October
April
October
October
September
No0 Obser-
High (H) vations for
or Critical
Low (L) Mean Month
L
H
H
H
H
H
L
H
H
H
6.8
24.0
21.2
8.2*
118
115.7
13.8
210
638
154
65
41**
46
60
64
68
57
68
68
56
**
    Geometric
    Two years only

-------
                                                         II - 4
                   APPENDIX II.   (Continued)

 D0  Upper Potomac River  Commission Waste Treatment Facility,
    Westernport, Maryland  (River Mile  51.0)
    Critical  Concentrations (January 1962  - February 1965)

                                                        No. Obser-
                                  High (H)             vations for
                       Critical       or                 Critical
                                                            90
Item
D. 0.
  5
pH
Color
Turbidity
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Suspended
Solids
Units
Big/1
3!g/l

Platinum
Jackson
Candle


H>g/l
fflg/1
Month
April
V -, rr

toy
February
October


June
August
Low \ L %!
L

L
H
H


H
H
Mean
2,5
*"*~  J 
608*
329
420


1,725
353
                                                            93

                                                            84


                                                            93



                                                            90


                                                            93
Geometric

-------
              APPENDIX III
WATER QUALITY DATA FROM A SPECIAL STUDZ
   OF THE UPPER PQTCMAC RIVER BY THE
     PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE IN 1965

-------
a
a
ra
                            ,

                 -p   C--    O       -J- -^ -*'.
                                    <>:>>    c^       t^ t^ t> 'o    t^
                                   &i
                     fi Q
                  Q  OJ Q
                  O  +> -H
                                                            C^ OJ P ^f\
                                                            TO to -Q o
                                                                                        ~ c- r-    c--       ca r- w c^-
                                                                                       r^-, \o cr*    j>       cH c^ c> u
                                                                                        5QQ    Q       5QQ    Q        oooo    o
                                                                                        ^ ?, ?-.    s       Str\w%O    fv        tf*^^T"41    ^T
                                                                                        JCMCM    CM       rHrHr-trH    r-l        f-if-it-lrH    -H
                                                                                                   *

                                                                                             f\   O
                                                            8       8    8       R
                                                            PS  i  i  ?S    ?S       CM  i
                                                             *  I  t        -           '
                                                                                                                                     CM       CM    CM
                                    I>- rH V\ O    O
                                    r\ri\fr\frs   c-\       r^c^^rf^v    r^\      \tf\c-is    ^O       i>Ot-'-O
                                                   CM       O O O w^




                                                   CM       CM CM CM CM
CMOOO    O       G>tf~U'\O    CM       CMOCM*Ti    CT>


f-C'-CONO    5^       D-'O^QvO    t       GstO3ll<^    C~-
cJCMcMCM    CM       CMCMCMCM    CM           O       -si- vO C- C    ffl        h

                                                                                    HOi-i-H     tj)       r^OHO    W)       <-1O~*O    Pp      -p
                                                            -* tfS V% vt!

                                                            ^r^



                                                            C- C"- L- l>
                             I
                                                                                                                   s
                                                                                                                 A
                                                                                           g-H
                                                                                     S    g

                                                                                     3    S

                                                                                                                                     S

-------
IV - 1






55
M
9
o"i
JJ-H!
W
M W
 H
CO
0 H
2! w
3 W
s 

K j
 M
H g
rt S
fe c/3
^ 3
- O
<3 M
^H 5 1
EH 3
fH O
^
*"^ f^i
&m
x%
w is
E-!
3j W
5B 0
feP
@
E3< o
j w 5
3S 3
^ ^ S
fcj 0
OH >
>H^ S
Prf S=> P 3
< P-i ft fl
CO t^ rH Cj
 ^ M t3
> K ^t Q)
M k-i O
tL,j Cj
X <3 0
M o
Q PJ
2j PM i  1
pr| p>, pj
D-, HO

o! '-P
O -H

aC3
fc'
O5 *
fj^ , 	 j
0
3j
M O rH
0) "Vn oJ
CO O ,3
ra tn -H -p
o d -p rt
O -H O
 'H IH S
O -P 0


0 *
ct . ^^
Q) =n =
O O r^
O tf



1
H
X
cd




q
cc
^



a
|

r~
^S


2" s-
^*s ^~
^r] O
bo ^
rl C


rH
(d
O ^5
H -P
-P C


01
-P
"r










Q.
P





VO VO VO
rH






rH



r- to
to H t>
0) CVJ






vT\ rH
> rH W.
tO CM




o to
VO O OJ
VO OJ






t-3 i-3 Eti





>J,
hp H-3 rH
<3< O r,



rH Id
\ ra
hp O








o
*  P'l
0 0 H
>   O OA
rH OH
ir\



C*N VO
O O O- O if\
I1






    




rH
e jj ^ 
> g ba >s -P
 H P J3 
S -3 <4 ^0

rH
^J
o 
O r4
rH rH H -P
\ \  "\ ta
fen bp I Pri rH
M - | *^ ft^



CO
H
<\ 0
 o O -P
Ct Q c^i o p
oo -H qj O
O O H fQ rH
  ffi O O
cq o P4 o o



r- r-






vr\ OJ
xt- to
OJ



O u~\
8 to


rH




VD C^





VO VD






 





o 9
JH rCi
^ ^
*^ r*-*

Q)
f** r***
O TJ
3 fj
^4 d rH
0 O \
a o




& >*,
>> -p P
4-5 0) 1 =r!
H 05 O !>
13 -H H
H rH TJ -i-
,Q 03 0} 0
fj -P  tf
d o


-------
IV - 2



1 M
?- O i-S
CD c*-* rd
ta v fi






















'>
fcj
Q)
3
s
H
P
g
O


*
ft
Q

CL, Q
p . ^
J
b-4
p"l

O -p O
2; 53
v: $^

e.


r-(
N

^>





Q
oj
d)
^^





g
j-4
H
1


s ^

^J s^
bo &
rl Q
JXj hJ


1  |
ca
o &
H -P
S|

O"^


to
H
ri
to






1
-p
M






T-v_
C'N ->J- to -~4~
! 	 |



*
rH I> O VO CJ
sT -sf r^> -CO
rH

-4- .
OJ O H
rH
OJ


*
st rH O O t-
CM ->t > O CXJ
IT\ O^ C^
e^
O^





^f VO -vj- O VO
rH rH VO CM I>
ipv rH





h 1 K H prj Jr!







cd
^>  -J 6 O
P* l  ?H ?H

CO < ^ ^ <<

co ra co *-> cp
O"^"^'" 05 
/aonso-no Su 
R
5
~!
"rS
^

\ o \ o \ o TH -d o i v
w > en > ca > \ o \ -
,ClrH ^IrH rQH fe^ OrH


Cd Cd r*i
H -P -P
B in 0) 1 -r-i
IfN rH 0) (T) O >
o o Op -rH -H
O Q CM O r-H t3 -p
   -H cd cd td O
O O O r-HCQ -pKcd
0 0 0 O O
ft M O O H
1,^
g
O 
-------
                                                                                                 IV - 3
a)

I
o
 H
S
                 ^ ,
                 0) c^
                 w
                 -d ?J
                 O g

                    -H
                  O -P
                 58  5
H
 cd
 o
H.



I*
                                        o
                                                    VO
                                                                         to
                           i
                            "
                       00
                      o
                                   r-l
                                     

                                   CO
                      10    8   <3
to    vo
>
                                                      P    **
                                                       b  I -H
                                                      PQ  O  >
                                                          H n
                                                       H  tJ -P

                                                       +3  f4  cd
                                                       o
                                                       E-i
                                                                                                                     O
                                                                                                                     H
                                                                                                                      0)
                                                                                                                       a>
                                                                                                                       I
                                                                                                                        G)
                                                                                                                         o
                                                                                                 0)
                                                                                                cJ
                                                                                                CJ
                                                                                                 a
                                                                                                 1
                                                                                                 -p
                                                                                                 to
                                                                                                 3
                                                                                                  I
                                                                           id
                                                                           H
                                                                           9
                                                                           CM
                                                                            O


                                                                           5

-------
                                                                                     IV  -
CO

            o
            O
            1
             o
             g
            o
             o

             H
             -rl

             ?-*
             o
O H
CH g


83
ST2

-s0
                   CH



                     M

                       fl
                                                           o
                                                           H
                                       to
                                            0
                          CI
                               CM
                                             '""'
                          .

                                                                -P

                                                                d


                                                                H
        o



a
-p

>>
>

O

-------





_


















's


"4
'0-



Q
3
<4 M
a
f~H
^
^f
H~j CO
H (D
J> H]-3

i -
cq O
S ^
ra

P Ji
t  1
K H
* cd
M y
3 'H
O -P
O -H
PT -|
 O O O O
xj- to o o to
c^\ CM O CM

CM VO <
CV)




*
CM O O O O
CM xjr to O -vt
iH to VO VQ

CM rH
CM O^ CJ^ CO |>-
i  1 0*^ C^ Jx,
H



1-3 W W W W




i  {
cd
* o J o a
111! 1


CQ 03 W '"* CO
^S *~ r*> * ^> '"CO 
rO *^ T3 CD fc3 CO StVJ ctf CD
\^ CD ^^x CD *\^ CD "T!}" 1 rc3 CD
CQ <^ CO * CO ^ ^, O \ ^
tDt i D r I rQiH fer-I OrH
,  1 *^S ,  | -^_^ (  1 v_*>* 3S v_^* j v 	 -



a ed >>
.H -p -P
S f-> r\ H a> cq o >
o " O -P -H -H
Q Q Vi O  'HiaJcdO
O O O rHCQ-PCSCd
0 0 0 O O
Q cq o o H



o
iH



CM
*i\




o
rH








O
O



O
rH
rH



w






0
3


M
>5-
5 O
^a o

in ^
ft r-i






H)

d
O
rH
O
1
1

tO r-1 O tO 1>
rH ,H







*
tQ O O ON >: 1
sr VQ vo  CM
H rH





rH O O O -St-
xt O xt O
CM O CM

IT\ Z> rH
to o o o o
CM CM ur\ sr>.
tO O T\
rH C*\


i-l 33 W W BH










a
C


f-

J:

1
5


-
*







t
^J 3 o O O
rH f-i 54 *-" S




ai tc CQ oi ca j

cti CD G& O cj C5 ^c CD co C^
^\. C5 ^"x C5 ^x^ CD "^x O *^\ CD %
01  31 "^ vO " CO "* M "
^irH ,OrH ,QrH ^IrH ^QrH
!  ( >^^ j^ v^-** )  j ^^-c rH x ^* j  | * 	 s

r>i
-P T3
H OJ
P! > a
H rO rH W -P
H C' O t3 Q> cij
ci c; ro T! -p ^,
iq rHmrHtd Pi
CirHTJ Oj -rl O ^-t W
8*" S ^QCOrH 0
H W g-i CO f^i




>".*
*rS
^-i
J -
<'
r*
;";
CJ
*

-------
J^^H
6








.


11

 s
TJ

a . H
$
-P
o
a ^


^
i>
H
' K

33
*4
- 3-J ft
"1
M
frj
S*
"- S

CO
HBIi tjj rn
^^^1 M K
^^ S -H
-p
HH  "*
PPi o 
(>
1 w
^M "** 0
^^^^H -_j
^B @ H
^^^^ p30 cri
rH 0
P4 -H
Hfl O -H
^^^H 
^H K rH
^B
^^^^^B o
r * o
in O rH
 H
VO P'N VO
a a o
TV. -N^" r^ "OD i>* cy^ o
O CA VD O
O
'-TX
y~\

*

xrv c^\ u\ C'N oj to O
r> oj oj o
ON
**
0*"%


O VO ON
0 00
OA Xf rH rH >TN t- O
OA OJ XT
rH







t-3 tA W W W W W








1 ! 1 i i f 1

d


* 8
^J frit 	 1 . 	 1 p J
\ ra  \ \ | "X
^ ^  S & i S


r!

00 O -f3
ft ft ^1 0
o o QJ o o H Cd
O O S 0 0 rH CQ
o o 
3 Pi rH
fj O Tj
in co rf









S

0)
5

P*3
r"

0)
d
H
'd

ri
o
H
"S
H

rH -P ,M itf ^
\ aj y o
tj rH erf
1 O
fc fXi 1-3 ^
I H


1^5
-p
TJ
1 O ,0
C-N rH r<
JXIi O ^J
S 0 EH
ri H
^ O
p "rH
CD V4
O <1)
0 O
O 0


^

-------



1



t ,




i










-X
3

fj
tH
o
-4
-*
D

^ 	 X



H
9t s
o
3 ^
01 '  Crf
M 0
K -H
i ^
0 -H
^ri J-i
^ O
u> C)
f-J
c? 
PH rH

0
O
^ O rH
O rl ^
0 '-P O
IS 03
>
- C""\ rH OA C^\ rH O
CM CM CM CM CU rH




H VO VO tO VO rH CO

rH
CM















O- O IT\ CM O O rH !
c*"\ r^ u^\ VO (j^ c^x
rH rH CV! rH




C-A
ITN tO CM rH rH rH O
T\ H -si- -^- CM VO
rH CM








rH VO Nf VO VO VO O
0"\ rH if\ CM
rH rH






W W KH W K W W






ft
a o a  o .iO o
> -P F^i -P -P ft fH
O o bo o 0) ft
SO SO O co <> -H CD
-P -P fl > 'C! H CQ Ot3 0) cd
H -H -H cd CD K> -ri -p A
rH'Ci-p r< rH^J & rH 03 H Ct ft
CdCCJO O CdH tp CO -HO V< K!
PWcJ H -P-aJ H -PQco rH O
O A C crj O 3 tfi
EH O EH H E-H CO 



s
CO
6
CD
^P

j>^
rQ
T)
Q^
0
iH
t>
H
a

o
H
-P
H
Q)
S
Kf

s
-p

Kl
rH

a1


g
n
+3

H

cd


p^
O
-P
j^
x>
H
C)
ri

r^j
&
0
O

Si

-------
                                    XV - 8
p
' 1
p

+
a
o


























1
1
*
en to
H -p
fxj [j^
H g
1 ^
co
*3 ii
2;
pj
H rH
t> cd
3 3
O -H
 O
^3

0
OJ

o
o
1 f_.
M 0 rH
CQ 0 ,3
ft 05 .H -p
 S  0
0 '-p 0
S cd
*
CM "6-8

> <- 2? *" ^? **"
TiJ C5 n^ CD tlJ CD
"v^ C) ^^x,. CD -
r~i r~i pH *~n



*
CO ON VQ O -d"
lf\ ON ITS J-
i i rH
O CX> Q O O
O ON O CO VX3
O VQ rH rH
\ % *\ v
O ON OJ H
0 rH
C-
*
O C- O CO O
8rH CO rH ON
CO OJ VO
* ws \
O CO rH
OJ
O OJ O O O
O CO VO
O -4- CO
H
w w w w ^



O  O 0 O
Jj " ft ^ ^
" *" ^> "" 5?^.
GxVI 'O ^D Co ^D "T3 ^D rO ^D
'Ci"^ '*ss. CD *O ^D ""^s^ CD "^^ CD
^'X. O CQ ^ ^X. ^ CQ *v tQ* "^
ftjr-H ,QrH OH ,QrH ,QiH
^^ v 	 X |  ) Nw_^* jj *>' | 	 ) VX f~-4 V,-**

-P
cd cd t>> *H
rl 43 -p 
S fn 0) 1 -H  13 rH
O -P -rl H vH Stf
HOS Hti-Pr< rHr^
Hcd 1 cdcdoo cdrH
rHCQ CO -PWCdrH -P> ~ ^5 ~
tl) O 'cJ O
^^x, C5 "^^ CD
CQ " tQ 
,Q i  1 ,Q rH
rH ^ ^ !  i ^ ^'

t3
0)
CQ rH Cfi
CQ O T<
Qi W -H
fl rH CQ r-*
t3 CJ -H O
^ .p Q CO
cd O


-------
                                                                                                            IV  -  9
o
 .g
'1
 o
a
 
(0*
               d
                o>

                H
               H
               O
               O
               01
               0)
                CO
                ra
                rH
                cd
                o
                H


                3
                CM
                      5-. O
                      OJ M
                      CO
                          o -H jgl
                         iH  ?-i
                         -P O
                          CtJ
                          0) CM
                          0 O
                          o
                                                    o
                                                    rH
                                             .
                                           -

         O
                                                     CO  <
                                                      (O

                                                     I
                                                      p)
                                                      m

                                                      I
                                                                 g

                                                                 I
                                                                  
-------
                                                                             IV  - 10
P
p
til






















s~^
pJ)
s
s
CQ


3

Q
O
O
Q
.
S
B
1-3.
M

1 g

13 i
CM . -^
^-3 w
H 0
ro i~i
td ?3
e? 
W H
t> CtJ
H o
C4 -H
P
0 -H
^i tj
S O
f-.
S H

0
1 fH
f-, O rH
0) Vi ctS
ra o ,
,r> tft -H -p
o d -P 6
O -H <2
 H fn ,2
0 -P 0 ^
S 05
^ i
(1) ^t ) '
0 O f-i
O aj

1
T-
*J
*^1




c
c

J^




g

r
r

^-^.
S "2
_} O '
bo &
W 5

i-l
cd
0 ^
rl -p
-P f


U"
+
r*
p:






i
!
-|
1




VO VO VD tf\ to - ON
O OJ ^O




*
IT\ "CO VO O^
   *
ir\ O r- H --t t>
r> oj c^





\O vr\ ->2"
* o 
f\ VO VD H OJ J>
~> >> >> '  ^
H rM rH M -P >
0 j ^J P4 O O
1~3 *^> *~3 'I O S



e
rH "S H .H
v^^ CQ  "^X- NX^. 1
?a ^ o g ^ !





a o
o o p>i o o
00 S O 0
0 o CD  e JE
Q d EH  o Pi



ir\ vo to r-




*
LT\ ON VO C^N
iH UN I> H
tH
^
O O* H O
O r*\ ON
O -sT
o"
O
OJ

UN
* 
0 O OJ 0
8 ^ >Tv
*v
OJ
~^




O O T\ IfN
O OJ
ir\
^



WWW W






>s >i  
3 3 S i?

^ S to
'"I C*j p ^
C5 fi O T5
O H 01 fj
H. rH -P 5 Cd
\ "V^ oJ 0 O
^j M rH Cd



cd

O -P "Ci
<-


to







tX3







0





W






i




H
^^N^
O
P



(tf f>>
-P -P
OJ 1 -H
 O >
rl rl
cri cd o
-p W ctJ
O
EH

-------
m
V
I I





























Cr3
EH


O <1)
CU -p
r^. r^
K CD

E-


O

-P td tl
w A P
cd o bi
la; rn *- -
-H
0





P! g
H O S

"ffl Tl ^^
H  -P
O 0) fl
P^ CO 3=



4 CQ

H
rH
H
O
cd
[H
-P
4
 g ? 1
H -H 'H Cd
rH (H 0 rH 0>
+3 -p CU 0) -p ^
-P -P S3 B +^ * E-l
CU  ci -H
CM 3 g

H O
0) > O
rH -H
S ^ CU
3 o'sl^
M r-t ft f> O ^=
*CM PQCDftCU
Vf\ rHOrH VOOH CO fACMCM rHV\VAC^H ,c!cd Cd
tJOO tO O-ir\vr\>f\ ir\rHrHrH-PCU
CM M J4 fi CU
O -P -P ho
bp rH Cd ri
Pi rH fif
5^ ,p4  -~ cu cdrtocurH
H  rH ft Q) TJ -P -P -H
cri cdtUcd'~ cd S ^ O  PH COCUC?
o o ocd (UC)Mpso
g OfQ |> ojj rHCl-f^-P
0 ^.rH S-cd'o  ft tJ^rarH* OOt3
^z rH ^^ fij CL) rH P ^
N ' rj ^ i  1 Cy ^*-t fn tlO
PH O CO  ?H rHp fi 0)->h;OQ (DOOfn
  (U&CQ JH CU CUbOCrCl 5P'H!S
r-* ^ fe dj ^ CU ^TlJ* ?HrH'H^SrH raw H-3 &
Cri o O-  o X^H > -H S .Cd 0 ^ fn rH PH ft) 5-t O
B d ~'H rd-P-HWt> ^PiSJCU CDtOCCQ
p> S p!>>ft OrHM OH  CQ-PW-p-H (DSnft-H
H rH 3HrH HCdO CUCU- CUtQ-rfOJ^ tOCd TJ
fcj cq (Spj>S > b<,yg= hrOfir^oa ^qis
cu MCd p! co3 fn?Hcn cd -p o O -p
OrCjAtW "i-4CQ O ^>H O&nCOQ HW "l~5 M
g-p r  i ^ -p cd cu ^d *H cd td
5-iW CQ COCO O CWd>;PH
o
Q   o 
& Cd rQ 0 73

-------
V  -  2















1
H
-P
Q
o
>
0

&

























-x TJ
Lf\ CD.-~>
fn cd
 CD "Cf
2\ c"i ^^^
 O CQ
O W ,O
 HI  i
cq 0 
O CC
CO -p
K G;
ho
CD H '"
P a -a
CO .C P
0 O tK
SB CQ^ '
g
f! CD
H O J>
1^H'
H CD  -P
& CO Cd
PU CQ ta;

JH K
> i-















H >> >
O 4-^ r-
H -p
 i-l to
O Cd -
H p,-c(
-P -H C
cd o H
0 -H
Sfc
s




o
t-H
-d-







0)
|

a
rH






O
O
c\T


.
^

\
-p
PI
i
T3
(1)
H
f^


8 a





&
"S c3 5
O E O Cl>
0 -H M P)
CD fH c? O
t/) (Xi M S
OOO
8O O
0^ 0^
o"1 o" o"
O VO OO
CVI ro
V
o-
cu
cd

cf
800
0 O >j,
2 *" 3
o o CM o- vo
rH rH VD CM CM
iTvirx 3- oo oo



o
rl
CQ
43

o

J.
  C^
4-* "4^ *^3
MO * ^i * CO
g^ ^ ^ g -

So fn -H ^-p
CD ft CD ^ f  1 Cj CQ
0) CD CD -rl



O
ir\





B
K
O
o
CD
O
O
O
o"'
o






8
o

IT* l^
CM CM
OO OO
s
rH
0
_l
CD
jxj
^
0
^

 CQ
cd o
> -rl
-P
&'3

^4 cd O
 !4
o 5 
tkQ ^
"S^HfS
0 ^
O



0 0
0\CM
OO






cd
fi CD
||
88
0 O
O if\
^^






&r?
^3
IA t-
O\ON
CM CVJ














 >>
12 M

cd
*^ (~\
c\
o -
jj> Cj
ft 0
cd w
CQ J3
CD S
M



0 0
8LTN
CM
s
ir\
i j



o o 3
000 s cu CD
bfl C bo H C! fl
CO O Cd ?H O O
OOO OOO
OOO OOO
OOO O O ir\
ir\O ir\ co o t>-
O\ O rH C7\\O

rH O CM


3

co bp fi* up bp
8co q oi o R H
CD -H -p ITS -H -H
O 0 rH -H CM rH rH
 O O H > O O
OO f-i O ca CM O O
00 O -3-M3
co* tr\ ooc\i
CM CM CM CM






0
o
o
ft
H
En
O 
O 13 O
Q rH O
CQ ^ CO
CO Vl O
H f? fT -rl
 Si, CD -ri T3
73  Qi ?H Pi
co O en t>
*\ 
-------
V - 3

















x-^
TJ
S
g
M
H
4J)
1
O
>
c^
x
u
Q
ii
PH
3
^^
























 13
U\ to-"*
 ' to >;
?-i ^
o 3 T3
Q ^5\
 O CC
O ra ^3
 -H rH
 Q^
j
-p
 CU
g > -p
P) ^ CO
O CD Cd
(!< CO 



r< CQ
CU CU
> rH
-H f-
S S
H*-C |^^














H >> >
O -P H
"iH -p
C H CO
O cd ^
H P,t3
-P -H S
cd o ^
O H
o d K
^ s c





g cS & 3 S 2
S1 v^ H CM r-





-rf K r7 r? d ^ .
rH rH *" 9^2 n
CUQ)-P-Pa B O S ,
S S   B S J J l5^ |
S^COCOSSP^ (Sn^fX, S>
d) _
8888
O 00 C
^ * **
o o u\ c
O O CM *
O CO
^ "N
ITv CM





08 08 ^
* fill S ! ! ' Is i s
^J 1 CO -J" rH CO w r-1 tu
  CO M >
^- f-3"


b- ^ H rH 00 IT\ CMo ITNO^ 00 rH rH CC
H ^ ^ ^ CU rH CO C^CM H rH ^ |
V.M CJ C



x >
0
^
*
s=
a >^--^
0
& S
O CO >
" a ^ 
fl) o r-j ^
 S PH  P S
Si    S s S 1
^O -CJ OJ  -r5 ^
c^rtS>22  ts 2 -S
ajiffs -a ^ - - s ^^ ^  a *
a.l2 1^5^-JSg^ S-g^
Isill ^ s^ ^ s sg g g | 
0|lla ! la 3  ll 1 5 fl j
ail I II -s1 i ?s s o A k
SH
\ CU
Pi
1?
tj
1
ITv
o
O
o
o
o
PQ
> 
\ CO
- s
lf\
o rH
CO
) CD CU
_ - -i o
O "fl ji_i
) f-i
-P rH
J eg rH

-g'S
H bO
C""
rH-5
cd -cf
54 od
CU O
> t-3
CU
to
9
Sr+
o
ri -H
CM -J
O
W t3

-------
Y -  4























(D
3
3
p
o
o
>'
M
Q

hj.j
PH
2i




















  ho >
f-i 03

 o cc
O CQ fi
o -H rH
} f~^ X 	 ,





p
O 0)
g
O -p
Pi cd

E-1
tu
ttO
/ r. j^-.
UJ M ^
-p cd ci
CO XI P
cd o in
""" -rH
0


H 0 !>
-P EH
cd TJ
rH CO  -P
P) rH CO
O 0) cd
PH CO ==


4 CO
CO CD
> rH
H T









CM >> >
0 -p P
H -p

o cd 
-P -H P
cd o M
O -H
*




0 O
OJ -t
rH









P?
H

<0 CD -p
g g "o
Z 55 U}
8O
o
tf\ O
c-CcT
CO





|

co
_ a
O >f\ -s
O CM
CN CM t3

CO

f\ O O
  0
to f- *> rt
cd cd
>  CO
^
 CO
3=  co
 co cd

Pj Pi CJ5
3 *(H
co co Q
b^ cd
H O rH
f-! H >>
P 0) CQ

6 <0 Q)
fi CQ PH
tc

O ir\ O O O O O
uS to "^* ~^i" O O^ to
H OJ ts tr\ \O
C^C



pf
5
-rl
-p
-> cd 08
cd cd cd cd cd cd ^^ cd QJ *ri tHi O PJ
CJ rO TC3 rt_J T^ "id *v3 rH 'O 'CJ ft td *^ *rS
O P!PJPJP!P!P!COP1P! (U^H-prH
O OOOOOOSOO O-Pcd-P
bo oooooo-r-ioo s-i r> t* +*
Cd CUCOCUCOCDCDMCOCl) OCDOd)
i-^l COCOCOCOCOCOPHCOCO COSTCO
8OOOOOOOOO O
OOOOCDOOOO O
O OOOOOOOQO O
O OOOOifNOO*r\CM O
ifN OOOOCMCMCMCMrH O
rH rHOAOfNOJCMrH C^k
fV^"



- I
cd X
H 0
ha fn fc-, cd t
O O OOQpf-PO^iOPH k
SO irvOO'i-icoOcuO O
ir\ tac--Opipc"-\pjO-p c
* *v *v C rQ *^ O *^ Cd Pi
CM rHC\!3p;CM3-^-CU ctl
CM O rH -1 ^ E-l

Tv tO O^ C"- f^N
e  *  
I> O >fN O O
C*\ CM rH
CM CM CM

*
O
 o
cd *
PH Cd bQ
^ -H 
CD . O A! O
'"^ A4hflrH-Kl  O-CO
 cucdcdcdOto "O cdtJ
cd a>p!+>PHOMcdOcdPHSo8
> ^ 3 -H Pn PH
^J O ,C^' P< * W K*S C$3 0) *> PI
<} ft  p^ CO bO H dJ ** ^ i  1 -P O
CDT! ^: (Df-iOfHTfrHbO-POJ-PHk
5ng - - plOWP^r-irHHrHClOS
co ti( ,0 ^r| cd PJ cd -p cd pi fQ
\ f^ cD'dCQco t=*^3hpcqocg
t>:AH 0) CDC6HH- COpfcdPie-
cdO Q) ,Ccd CDl-s^fHCUOCUcoCl
feO Pi OrHpjp -PO)^PlCU-H
OO O O-POQ'CdOOCOfHrH'
rHPi OOX3WPHfH^tt)OrHS:
O CO rM O O -H ,Cl OJ H -H
GW a gcoOo S O S:
O cd O
EH CP 0












pf
f~|
rH
P
-8
CO
O O
0 0
0 0
CM O
^
c\T
^





fn PI
0) -rl
rH rH
38
 0

VD
O
o
rH
CM









O
O
O

g
to
H
T3
w
0
i
-P
O
PH
O
rH
CM










^
Crt
w
H
P-i
O
O
O
o""








o
o
v
rH


c^s
a
O
OJ











[3
^^
VI
g
o
p

H
3
r-
^

-------
V - 5




























X x
0)
3
-p

o
M
\  \
f"^
s
IT"!
S<
p-1
<





























  bo >
m ro

 o w
O to ,a
 -H rH
CQ ft ^~-






M ~54
O CO
e
CO -P
ft cO
P} co
-J ^
EH

CO
&0^~

w J4 IS
cd o b!

H
o

54 CO
8 m P
H O i>
-P H
03 ""O
rH CO CO
3 > -P
Pi ft CQ
o  rH
H -H
 S

















o -p E
H -p
K H CO
O cd 3
H fttj
P -H G
cd o M
O -H
J




0 :
>








fl> CO
-p -p
cd cd
-H >> -H
co cd  S co 
E ^O ^ _jj 3 
M CJ "^ "^ F-t
O O v^ j? tU 
-f3 O **^ *^ i-^ ^
* Q) CO W fH 
^ ^* t>* t*
vf\ O
0 Nf
C*\ CA










er-i
Q) *

"r G
jQ Q (J)
* P*? U fi
^ 
* cd fij
^- CO   t-* C
*d o o o
Boo o
goo o
3 - \ *\ *\
5^8 S
^ |>- iT\ r~i
*^
> CVI


bO
r-l
H
** 2 S
M O O
rJ o o
f4 C\T CM^
M rH


O
%
to
rH















cd
> .
^ &
 * *
13 ^ cd  cd cd **^s ^s
 v_^t>  cd O >
TO -P & t>
ft 54 .**'{ s pi
-p PM CD CO >jg: fc ^
cd :^ f-i -p cd rH
5= OtO&:-vOC
CO CO 13 CQ g
CO
rH - A3
 rH bO 54 CO
H ft pi O
> y o ^
- CO & -P 0
. ?> 03 C0
: CO 54 T) B
bQ' j,5rHOa>OG-H ^ Cd
RM OO'OOb-pft-p CO -p
"rH ^ 54 'Cl ^- ^^ C,
cd in Su CO
rH  a rt -H f4 0) O Cj 'ft -H
rH W CD 3= ^ M tJ:
s a

ws a 1
tO <4

800 o
o o o
o o o o
*v *. *x "s
0 rH 0 0
O CM ir\ O
CM tx>

y^ s^




O O O ff
8VN O -H
CAO H
r-T r-T O
rH O


tt> ^f
* *
VD VO
CM CM


a
'O
*=5

^
^
^1
cd

O

Cd rH 
PH Cd O
54 O
-6
0) -H 4^>
bo-P f4
co cd o

cd 3  ' CD
(!< ^!  O

>. ft*-H S CO
o o o o o
o o o o o
o o o o o
"V *V W\ *V 9\
o o o o o
ifN ir\ CA CD O
rH O tQ

c*\ c^\
c-\



bp bp ft" bp
3 f5 cd SO
^ -H +s -HO
p VO
e o
C"\ CM
CM CM






P
S
rH


CXj 4-^
r4 r^*-i
O bo
0 -H

to
O 0
-p -H
cd ft
f-t -p 
P O Tj
to 0) S
^ rH
r) w .
0 0 A ^ -P rH g
fH 0 p 54! -H H S
O  -p >> CO 0
,a ca -H -p 3 P4
co crj -H a1

to *** !H
O **"* Clj
^: W O CO gj

^4 cd O
0 ft-p
ft -H CO
H CJ ft
Ki ri CU
fe f4 to
3 ctf


^
f!
0
H
-P

"Z.
 
If
8
3
o
io
H
O CO
54
to o
*0 P
+1 CO
0}
ca co
rH H-3
H h
rH 'H
-P cd
M rH
3 CQ
-o
C T?
^ g
o
XI -
43 >
o
H 0
o
CM 0)
S
w o
p p
gCO
O cjj
o
c co
cd S
rt
rH i-^
cd
-p -a
o ft
-P Ct5
T5
03 54
H cd
^4 -P
EH co
bfl

-------
                                                                                                                  V
                                          CM
                                                     O     O f\
                                                                              O
                                                                                                   O  O
o
 3 a
1
-P

H

^

*C
P
C
a
f
t*
CO
a
^T
0
0
CQ

CQ
                          ^
                          s
                           o
                                                                                          H

                                                                                          S

                                                                                           0
                                                                                          H
                                                                                            CD

                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                    H
                                                                                                                          fi)


                                                                                                                          g
                                                                                                                       O O
                                                                                                    o o
                                                                                                      ,>
                                                                                                    if\ O
                                                                                                    O r-i
O
ITS

tX)
                                                                                                                         o
                                                                                                                         cd
                                                                                                                         cd
                                                                                                                  to
                                                                                                    OJ -sf TV
                                                                                                   VO OJ H
                                                                                                         T)
                                                                                       COI

                                                                                       ^
                                                                                       o
                                                                                                       o
                                                                                                       o
                                                                                                       -p
                                                                                                       ttJ:
                                                                                                       O
                                          S  6
                                          3  5
                                          .H  -P
                                             co
                                           CQ  H
                                           in  TJ

-------
                                                                                                               V  -  7
o
m 
             0  0
O
o
o
cq






c
+
s'a oc
g^ ^
rM ^--7 ,
O W1 rH
CQ rQ
H ,-(
p)  ,
tn rt
0 S
Q) -P
Cb fti


&
i
S Si o
? ti
^H
CD
bo
 <#
CO i-l
o o
O 0
o o
*v *\
O CO
V) O
^r



&
ed
a
g
o

              o
              r^
              OJ
                                                                                       O O
                                                                                       C\J CM
                          O
                          CM
    o  o o o
        80 o o
        ooo
     *\   *v   *   "N
ooo
      N CVJ
S
P
o  o
o  o
o  o
  -,  *".
UA to
                                                                                                                    o
                                                                                                                    I
o
  1
o
^-^ 1 0)
id
QJ
I
P
1
0
.
>
ixd
H
0
P-.
PH
 9
O Pi
p M
cd -0
| tt)  is
rl w
M ri
CO S
Q) -c)
o 8 g
ooS o goo o ^8go8 c
go bo o ooo o ^ojc^-to M
ocvTH H  :g<^
r-i H
c^ 0 ^ ^
u\ v x  .
1 R ^ 15 ^ ^
jrj ->t
a
-p
H
Pi t2>
1 M s

 -
JS  ^ 5
cd bo . 
. +3 0) tQ
1 tJ CO r"1 ~
^0 -o -a *
J . . . ^ QJ ^ o 
H*t a 31H s !
f!l 11 lllis  1
s I ! f! t^i * i
S^-.-^fi.rte-'eww P;



0 0) -H -H U g
S  s ^*
i*|S^
8 OJ  ^ bO ^
fl OJ fe; O "O tU
cd to CQ -H fl)
^'dS.'BS o
cTiJG'grt g
rH -P  K -H
^: ^: S > f


pj O ^ P-i H Ml
*

I I
C ij
-*1 ^^
0 0
*r* M
W *u
^P, P.
D-g 13
i i









A
 S
n -^
IhtLrmont, Md.
Howard late & Cc
Catoctin Furnace,
Fraley's Meats





-------
^T_<

























^^
tJ
3
5
-P
g
0

>
a
Q

p^
P.J
P-,
^*


























H cd
 cd rO
^ -^ **^sx
 o co
.  rH

Q O ^-*


p

o aj
a
CD +-
P) re

EH 
E-H
 -P
PH rH CQ
O CO Cd
PH CO 3=


rH CQ
o a

H *r
OH *2















O -P rH
H -P
P) rH m
O cd 
H Pn-a
-P 'H C
Cd O M
O -H
0 C r-
*j>





ir\ o
CM
v
1  1



H
-p
cd ,<"!
r? -H r7
cd r { cd
TlJ Cd *CJ
gj ("1
-P 0
O 2 O
CO CO CO
CO 2! W

00 o
o o o
o CD o
** \  *\
-d- O -4- O
UA O\ O
VO CO
*\
00

hp
^i
H
S ho
cd cd
O ^!
cd
c^Pn 0
bp hp hp hp O ir\
Pi Pj g R -H 
*iH *rH *fH *rH -f^  ^r
rH -P Pi rH CQ CM
80S Pi O Cd
rH cd O rH
O PH O O OH

rH t~ CO C-- CO

O O\ CO CO V3
CM rH rH rH rH












"a
co - o
s o
( 1 b^ lip
P M CO Pi
P! -rl rH -iH
O Cd CO hO
O Q fit cd 4
 * -P Al  CO
rXCQ rX'OO 13 CO
rH  rH Cd -H rH >
H OP>4 rH O>jCQhp ^4 CO
P^ -p -O C Pi 0 rH
^i H b rH 0 -iH -H -rH O
J> OCd Q rHrH^Pi rH P!
O'HCO OCOPJrH 0 Oj
cd rnT) -P rnt>COO t3 h(
O -pM rH rHWI-sO CO R
o a> o cd >H -H
G Q ft, o p4 ^
s


V - 8
CU O 0
CO UA








p^ ?^
cd cd
'O tj
p) G
O CO O
OH o
<0 O CO
co S co

O UAO O
O rH 0 O
O CM O O
v \ *\ *\


0 O
0 -H
P> -P
a cd
O -P
&p
H -H
|H -P
CO "~^
 P< Pi -H cd
T3 O CO  t>
SO 0 ^-^ oj 0.
0  >
^ Pi cd M
0 Tj O t>  CO
i  1 P! CQ - ^ bo co
I  i CD H rH ?H
Pi H O CO CQ TJ
O jd -H fn CO P!
H ^ Q O rH Cd
rt ^ "d rH
D O 0 tJ rH
S 8^ g
PH O CO









r?
cd
TJ
Pi
0
o
0
CO

o
o
O CO
\ b>-
UA
rH r-T
O
O
o

01 -P
CO SH
-P 0
 fT|
O rH
*>8 0 T?
rH Co
0 -
Pi rH
cd o
** ?3
ho M
Pi "P
*rH Pj
f-4 3
o o
cd o

P  ^ '
rH '-
-s o C
O -H 4

Pi CQ C
rH -rl -r
0) H ,1
w He

rd !

-------































CD
g
H
-p
g
O

*
^>

a
Q

S
S!





























Lf\ Q) <*'*'
" f? CD
o cd ru
Q 45\
 o co
O co 43
 -H rH
m a -






P

O 
g
CD -p
ft *

H $
EH

0)
hfl
CD ri''-*

CO 45 P
cd o W
^ co  
ZJ

H O P
-P H
CtJ rd
rH O CD
3 > -P
ft ?H CO
O CD Cfl
AH CO ^



t-t CO
CD CD
t> i
S^













> >
O -P H
H -P
 rH CO
O cd r.
H ftTJ
-P -H G
cd o H
O -rl
O fj p
i "i ^> C
s












^
O
H
P f5
15 5
ISJ -H
H -P
rH Cd
cd Td
rH 'rl
-P X
3 o
CD
2 08

o
o
OJ
*v
H









P?
H
8
l_l
P-l

ON

ro
rH







0
O
o
H5
H

0
CD

tib
S^
PH
r*$

^_J
cd
'Ci
cj
o
o
CD
CO

8
o
v
o

H






O
O
vo
rH




t-

rH
OJ
rH








(5
H
CQ
cd

rH

CJ


 M
TJ O
S H

v Cti
r^ EH
o
O T*
JH -H
(U >

?H Ci;
cd
o






















































tiO
c^
rl
rH
-P
-P
CD
CO

g
O
V
o
rH




M
o
g H
EH O
cu S" a
"o S S
?H CO TJ
o cd i
g -5= rH
O -rl
0 0

OO

vo"
H
rH













O

^
03

CO
rH
H
cd
fX|

0)
rH
-P
-P
r~t
^1













 3
o 3
O CD
CD O
-P rl
CD -P
rl CD
O CX(

rj
0 O
P
>i bfl
CD R
5 -H
O 45
H CO
cd cd
f^ ^*











rl
0
H
-P
cd
PI
rl
_j
O
rH
^dj
O

O
o
k
o
o
CO
%
H


45
co

r)
CD
jfj
rH
!JH

rH CTN
a *
VO H
r~i r*"H
rH H


-P
g
rH
On


O
H
1
P
rH
g

CD
-P

s=-

cd ^1
rl CD
H CD H
fH rl
cd O .1
O i
CD ,!
-P O
-p e
CD CD
co rt










H

CD
rH
O

-P
O
cd
rH
H

t-

rH

O*
O

^
-P
O
cd

_!

1
ft,

.8
73 -p
S 0)
*^
s
fl) 
rH Q

Lj .f~{ og
rj K*
-* ,M 
3 o txj
H Cr4
FH
-H


                          V  -  9
o-\
  *
OO
rH
        H
        O
       "f

       8
        o -p
        S  cd
               45
               a
 O  45  O
 Pi  CO  Q)
 O  cd -P
O  5= co
        O
       o
        0)
       o
 cd

I
    aT aJ
    co to
    cd
        
P 2
P 6
CD CD
CO 
a
O d
H O
P TH
 -P
CD 2
-P rH
( Q



0)
rt
5
2;
               ^-^         '^X

               8         8
                      CM
                      CM
               p
               cd
                       H1
                      H
                      H
                      o
                      s
               I
               
               CD
                       CQ
                       CD
                       cd
                      H
               H
               O
               O
 O

p
 O
H
 rl
-p
 CO
                          LTv
                          CVJ
                          CJ

-------
 m
                          V  - 10
             Q)
             O
f
             OH
"-tJ \
-i Ctf
 03 13

o O CQ
O CQ ,0
a -
-P 
cd T)
H CU CD
a> -p
!H CQ
O cu cd
PH CO S=

H CQ
CO CD
> rH
-H ;r

















CM !>, >
0 -P r<
H +-
P! rH C
O cd p
H PM-a
P -H p
cd o M
O -H.
Or"* '
H '
j-3 d c




o
vr\ cu
^ P!
rH O
*^4



t^
M
cd
<^j
P!
5 cu
o P!
tt) O
co 2;
O
O
o



CM

flj
P
^^
g g1
-p -H
H rH
8
CO 0
to vo
o tt
r-^. "CQ
C3
rH
CO
-p
|
PM

p
P!
 PQ
p* P! O -ri
cd bp CM -P
"* CO CC
P! bo -p cd cci
O Pj fl iH Ct
bn-p PM CQ -p
g^ cd- ' O f-
H 0 0 C
H W tf 2
<^rt <3J


0) OJ

O O
*^4 ^4



p
CU
CO bfl
pf
-> 'r\
o i  !
73 -P
H -p
X CU
O CO
O O
8 8
s \
8 8
CVJ -xf

rH
} ^
0 >
cd
CQ O
g ^
d)
3 *O fi^
bp g CQ
rf Co CtJ
o< co ^
VD
0
C*A


a
o
0
o
>
 cd
PN ^i
r^ C5
o
o c3

CQ t3
*P Pl
 O

                                  CO *Z
                                       0
                                       VD
                                       r^
                             ri rH
                             
                             cd  cd

                            ^C5
                                                                                                                     s
                                        cu
                                       -p
                                        cd
            Ef<
            H
            rH
            8
                               0 CO
                 b
                 P
                 r

              "He

              ^c5
                             rH

                             s
                             -p
                             CO

                             bp O

                             5
                             H
                             P r-1
                             cd CU
                             h
                          cd o
                          rH Pi
                                                                                                                cd
rH t3



^ iw
   (Q o
-p    cd
o O 6-
H O O
P-J PL, -p
-| "> pJ Q
CQ PL, PL,

-------
                                                                                               V - 11
8
  i
ro
CM
                                
                         0}

                         S

                         08

                         CJ

                         S
                         CO
-
S
                                                     CM-*
                                                          

                                                     OOrH
                                                     O
                                                                   ll
                                                                   rH  
                                                                   P  O
                                                                     O
                                                                     cd S 1_. w
^ .H crj bo 3 rH
	 >>_ _O cd rH O M
^1? 'S rH P 0 fH PT
i *l IS *1 .'1
^5 SI goo >a
i  asi .p B
as sa :i | i
1 P P aaa Jt j



o*
o
rH
^
cd
S
Hillside, Md.
Washington Sand &
Him^ine CreeK (Va.)
Cameron Run,
jH
=fe
o
o -P
0
1 - J
rH fl
/i) r-l
> -P
cd co
S -H
c3 o
.^ r?
cd tJ *
> Pi "^
9  *H
^CO rf Pi
Pi tJ t> 05
3 H erf co -e
rt > d r
>J CM -H -H -P rH C
0 hp txO M Q ^ \
H p; fn -a 2 -^ ,!
_J .M -r-l C O CO CO t.
P > cd 0 -P  !
CO I
,jpfC
J -H '
L) f-t r
- P4
J CO '
3 P,
Tt 3
3 o
nj

-------


























CD

rt
*rl
-p

o

J,,
Q

fc-T
OH
PH


















UN 0)x 
r) CO
 cd/d
Q ,CJ\.
o O CQ
O ra ft
 -H rH
CQ  

V) P
O CU

0 +:

^> OJ
EH ?H
H


CD
hO
CD fc-<
P Cd "d
CO A P
cd o hi
""" -rt
Q

P: cu
0 (H P
H O >
-P EH
CtJ *l3
rH CD CD
ft rH CO
O CD Cd
O, CO &

n CO
Q) CD
> t-








s >
0 -P r)
rl -P
S d m
O cd p!
H PtTJ
-p -H a
Cd O H
O -rl
k-3 J3 O








CD
Pi
O
ts;

?> r*i
^ ^ P
T? rCJ *rH
C fi H
00 -P
00 -p
CD CD CD
CO CO CO

O
o
0
s
o
o
c




1 I
(J)
r*
cd
fn
r? .7 
cd cd oo
H^> -P
H -H -g A
P! PJ PS CQ
cd cd cd cd
co co to 5=
CVJ -3- CJN ON
 o e o
t--3r C t
ON

0
0
4 4 M
A -P -P >

CO rH rH Ct5
CQ f-t
cq ,cj cq a>
t^H QJ P*-^ o r^j * *f^
 C ^ co f-t O cd
cdco-H-ri (1)13 -PH
S(l)CD
08

 *3
   3
   CD
O
LT\
                CVJ
o o
-H- t-
OOrH
O
IT\
cd

f-J
O
O
CD
CO




cd

rt
O
o
CD
CO
O
cT
O
rH
cd
d
PJ
O
o
CD
CO
o
8^
cT
O
cvj
cd cd
*& *73
P! PI
0 0 CD
OOP!
CD CD O
CO CO 53
888
o o o
o^o^o"
o u~\ o
rH -H- UN
                                         cd


                                         1
                                         o
                                         CD
                                         CO
                                         O
                                         O
                                         o

                                         o
                                         o

























CO
CJJ
-p
cd
_j_>
[jg

P!
0
-p
P?
H
CO
Jti


t^
o
ttl


O
O
O
"S
rH
H



CO CVJ
UN rH
ON
-P
P!
C3
rH

-P
P!
CD
B
-p
 s
-p
r> ^
rH O
-P O
*
^ S
^*-i
CD S4
rH -rH
P cd
H

-p
cd
O =
O (H &p
 cd Pf
00 H-> -H
H rH
Pi O
cd O
CO 0
UN
OO
ON
-P
s
rH
O.
-P
P!
CD
s-5i

"cd^
CD -p
E-I B
rH
CD On
cd3^
^ PH
CD ^
CO CO
^ >iS
cd -P
P> R fn
^ o "o
^1 0 >
CD rH
CD X CD
r< Cd CQ
O ^H
r) -P
CD -rl fH
pi cd O
O

                        M

                         r
                                    mo

                                    rH CVJ*
                                    CJN

-------
	 rr-t 1





















-
P
H
.p
1
O


*
t*
J,
Q

PJJ
p.
5!































' ^ ^J 1
UN 0)^-^
- 	 ^ bO !>
rT S

-^ ,-* -^
 O CQ
O co ,n
 -r-l rH
22j Q ^ 	 '
O CD
o o _-t o o
rH ITS O ro
5 >>
g CP rHrH CCdCd
0) -p
S CD
H f-


0)
hn
i^U
0) ^x .
CO ,P P
cd o tn
g= 03^^
H

0 rM P
H O F

cd rO
r-J CO CD
g > -p
PH PH CQ
O 0) co
P-< CO ^



rl CO
CO 0

H ^


















C^( Ss J>
0 -p f-,

Pj jl-J f
O cd p
-P -H f
Ol O M
O -H
0 P f-

s




O O -P -P OSS
O O -P -P O -H -H
CO CO 0) CO CO in PH
CO CO CO CO CO P-i P-"
O O O O O
O O O O O
O O O O O

ro CM oo O VO
rH rH rH OJ 0N
PO rH




rH
>
t$
O rH 0 O O
O O hp t- O O
t>- p, H c~- OJ
-v 08 .3 >
OO hO OJ rH
Tj ,CJ Id
P CO CO
CO Cd rH
co ^ Q
VO O ro
S 0 O
rH CT\ 00
OO CO

hO
cd
CQ


^! -p ^ ' CO
P P ^)
H cd  -P
-P rH O Cd
P Pn O -P

0 ^ rH W

3! > rO 'O cc
Bed cd *> '^'^ l^3
fn 0 *~* o
cd -p  * O K *>  cS Ai
>cd ^ra^*>CD)s::

COCOH lrc;'&t rCp^-
CO CDW Old O'H hO ^MOj^P
>rH >p f-i'O-HtlaffiCL
OOrM.H cd op CD aj rrv c ' -
O OO)CO M HJ 0) iCDTdf-
^ 1 rY^I h>- *T~* C~* ^ iT* /~
^s "H CM P^ K >-:, O ?-!
-p rr"j p [ r-lM p^f^COCTO rO
CQ O O O O O 6 -H O! O
p PH f=n -p g: S5 -P T3 O O
3 0 0 0 P 0
O P^ P-. &l H O
V - 13
0
-^t"
CD
cj
O
*2


& & r?
cd cd >s cd
ti T3 H tJ
P p! cd P
DOS CD O
O O H P O
0) CD rH O CD
CO CO P" ^. CO
0 0
0 0
o o

CJ _3-
o\




CQ 8
cd S
& w
O -  '
O cd
S-i 0) cd
0) S -p
-P S *H
rH 115 p
H CQ 05
Cn-  co





^
ft
-4
o
o

 rH > -P &
03 W H ~ 	
 -p *" fsi)  rH
O CO cj cd f-i
^ 3^> rH ^ t-* tmj *^
) rH 0) ^5
) -H -H -H > P W
5 W > > ^ O Pi A
1 CO U) O -J P t>
0) 0) T^I -P p Cp
1 CO 0 cd CO -H &1
i tJ -H t-H -H 1-^ f-s S
Cd Pi CC Cd
: O CO t3 O
0)
O




-------
                                                              V -  U
                      o

                    i
                     8 S S

                    ill
         o
         \  *\
         o
      cd
                       I
                       o

                       1
                                      
I
g
                             
g
"
S 8
00

co to
                        o o
                          80
                          o
                                                                    CJ
Q)
1
o
>


a
Q


&<
PH
                                                     00


                                  OJ
                                   


                                  O
                       CM
                       CO
        rt
Continued
Va
a

i
g
o
o





                                                    o
                                                    g
                                              CQ
                                              cd
                                               0 'O
cd cd O S
CO 22 W M
w . . .
sw
X
CO

-------
                                                      V  -  15





















c
rl
-P


O



o
S
Q

M
cw
CX,










ir\ tt) ' 
 cd/o
 o en
O CO rO
0 -H 1 1


V( "fJ
O CD







H M
r-< n-(
CD -pj  R
Pi tfi O O
So oo

^

CO
hO
CU 1H '"'
p cd -tf
to ,3 P
cd o hi
3= to 
s
a
O $-{ P
H O F
"P fr~*
cd TJ
rH O 0)
a > -p
P< m to
O <1) cd
(X, to 3=


fn cn
CO CD
> H
H -H





V< >i >
O -P fn
H -P
C rH CO
O cd 3
Locati
Municip
or Ind



CD 0)
CO CO
o
o
-4-
o\
CM








r*i
Jj
CO O
-p CM
rl

CO

vo
o
rH



3
t* r^-3
M
0)
P 4^
H O
^ w B
cu cd
CD ft)   }U
Ctf  3
 TJ -a cd ,0
Cd rH rH 2; -H
p _cd cd fn
r&





0)
-p
f"" 1
H
&H
O
g
cd
o














S^
r^
a

r3





P
O
5
3
 -P
3 pj
S4
'S
O 0
eg isi
S ^
r?o<
cp


                                            u-\
                            
T3>hCOP!
 oJ  cd -p        0
   
              O
              0
                 CU
                 to
                 CD
                           if\

                           to
                           t>
                 CM

                 to
                        O  O  O
                        O  O  O
                        CU  CD  O
                        CO CO to
O

O
xt-
rH
              Cd
              TJ
              P!
              o
              O
              CD
              CO
O

cT
CM
                                                          CM
                                                           *
                                                          rH
              cd
              a

           CD o  v
           cos
           O CD  O
O O O
o o o
sf-O O

   cTcT

   c^\

   rH*"
                               CO

                               fe:
                                                                    O  erf H
                                                                    CM -p O
                                                                       CO
                                                                a

-------
                        V  -  16
m co x~-
' bfl >.
fs cd
o cd *d
o o CO
o to f
o -H r-l
CH 
O CO
g
CO -p
ft Cd
t>3 CO

EH

CD
h^~

*p cd T;
CQ .^"i P
cd o w
3= CQ-
a
CO
B pi co
'-P -3 0 !>
P! -P EH
o cd >d
O rH CO CO
  d > -P
Pi f-i CQ
o co a
 PH CO 5=


X
Q
C"rJ r"l Cf
0 CO 0)
PH > rH
PH -H T


















0 -P* 
rl -P
P! rH tn
O cd 2
H P.-d
P H Pi
cd o H
O -H
t-1 ji 0











&
t*> cd
rH t!
cd ?
a o
H O
fn. CO
PH CO
O O
o o
-vf O
V *S
V> CM
CO MD








^> t^
3 cd
P -P
H -H
P* Pi
cd co
CO CO

H C^- ^
e o 
\o -^ o^
c**- c**~ ^o
pi pi
0 0
r-l -H
-P -P
cd cd
^> ^
c. FH
CD   p]
co co 'd  co w cd i
^H rH Cd rH > ;
O  CO t>-  CO v ^ P
tr> -H ^  & 1-1
o fin ^! f
HO AJ O >a CD
cnopj cuocd CDT
B -H g CO -H & ^ S
COj -P O f-l -P *d O (
S 3 M cd. S cci
PS! ^ b -H
o cf? c C5 pi p
-C cd a
O EH -^







Pi t*
cd cd
*d Pi 'd
Pi 0 Pi
O O O CD
o ba o P!
CD Cd CD O
CO i-3 CO "Z
o o o o
80 o o
O ir\ tf\

O O XT' C--
VO i~) \D
rH




,5-
CQ
cd
^> ^-
O co M
O -P CD H
iH -H -P CD
P! r"i -P
cd *H cd
to fe >










o
CQ -^>
o co
OH" P<

CQ O
Pi O
O CD
0 &

CO fs
P! 
S  ?H co
CD cd cd
 W) P* PH 
  ( CiTrH
3 t=> H H -P
^ CD H ^0 -P
O H -H O CO
3 o H > S f-i
3 -H -H S ^ ^
3 -P PS O cd cd
M p: 01 -H eq
i> CO 1 -H 3
> p! fn O^ PH
33 G? rH 
-------
                                                                                                        V  -  17
                                                                                                         o
                                                                                           CD
^  * fi\
>.
Q
PQ
H
^
SZ
c
H
p;

2:
S"

^
CO
H
ci
o1
O

s

\
g
6
-p
d

c
o
jj
^

g
d
e
6
EH
^
cd
s
a







e
cE
CD
^3
CU
iH
O
                                   O
                                   o

                                   H
                                   CD
                                                                                         ^
                                                                                         O
                                                                                         rn
                                                                                         10
                                                                                          CD
                                                        C        CD
                                                        S     -Mj-P
                                                       CJ     
-------
                           V  - 18





















o
0)
g
-H
-p

O
O

o
>
s
Q
W
On
22






















--> -o
.-A :
!H 5d
o cd 13
=1 ,d\
o o ra
0 w ,0
o -H rH
03 Q -




-p
f . i r*
^^ * t
O CD
fc
CD -P
p{ <
>> CD
^

0
hO
rt} f> ^**
If r~f
-p cd T3
CQ ^5 P
cd o bj
g= CO  
S


 CD
.H-Sg
^H
H CJ CD
g > -P
P( ^ CQ
O CD Cd
P* CO &


fH CO
CD CD
> t-l
sa














sin
flSt
0 erf p
H P4-E
-P -H P
cd o H
0 -H
Q Pi 
^ J c
=e;




'-^'"S
P Gj
c j L
*J rrt x^_^
ft
*} ^-^ ?*
C_t ^f
cd  >> ot
-c) fl JH H O
P; o cd 03 rt
So a a o
O hO -H -H O
CD cd h M CD
CQ H-i o, & cya
0

to







C^
o
O ifN
to vo
H


IN H -i rH -H
CD rl  rH ri fe
'-^ > Cd TJ O O
 -H -p S O -H 5-1
.cd  S -P co
t> CD -N  cd +3
v^ O fi >i fn bO CQ
0 0 ^ -p >0 >rH ,Q
M'H rXjrH 0) -H > CD
oucd&
> O CD -H -- ^ 	
H 0 ?H O K W X
ctjoocd -MJH-p -^
CD r~i CQ>j^-HO CD
OlMCDH -NS-^J^ CD
O bi cd > jrd "~a f-i
H^-OO fHSrHO 0
B -P Q .# -P cd fn
O. p( t-5 S-CO>CLI ^3
o O -p cd -P
O CO ' CO S *H
Q) -p S
!>i CO CO













CD
g
ZZ










m bp
H fi
<+H -H
H ^
rH O
A\ *-{
S 
CO CO






o
o
o

8
o
CH
cd
CD
CO


-------
                                                         VI - 1
   APPENDIX VI,  POTENTIAL FISHERY CLASSIFICATIONS OF STREAMS
             IN THE POTCMAC RIVER BASIN OF MARYLAND
                               by
                U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                     NORTH BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER
Headwaters to Savage River (43.,0 miles)

        The main stem of the North Branch in this sub-reach has
been classified as Type 3P (Trout stream with observed pollution
condition).  This is a potential classification only.  One long-
time resident of Barnum, West Virginia, the site of the proposed
Bloomington Reservoir, stated that no fish had been seen at that
site for 35 years.  Some of the small tributaries in Maryland are
classified as Type 2 (Trout feeder), Type 3 (Trout stream), and
Type 4 (Sucker stream).
Savage River to New Creek (7.8 miles)

        Savage River in its headwaters and below Savage Reser-
voir has been classified as Type 2 (Trout feeder) and in other
sections as Type 3 (Trout stream).  Most tributaries to Savage
River are classified as Type 2 (Trout feeder) in their head-
waters and Type 3 (Trout stream) in their lower reaches, except
that Crabtree Creek is classified as Type 4 (Sucker stream).
Georges Creek is classified as Type 2 (Trout feeder) in the head-
waters, Type 3 (Trout stream) in the upper reaches below the
headwaters, and 2P (Trout feeder with observed pollution condi-
tion) in the lower reaches.  The main stem of the North Branch
Potomac River in this sub-reach is classified as 6P (Bass stream
with observed pollution condition).
New Creek to Wills Creek (24,0 miles)

        This entire 24-mile sub-reach is classified as 8? (Bull-
head stream with observed pollution condition).

-------
 r.
 T
AM
                                                                            VI - 2


                                      APPENDIX VI.  (Continued)
                   Wills_Creek_to .South..Branch (21.7 miles)

                           Wills Creek In Maryland has been classified as Type 6
                   (Bass stream) upstream and Type 6? (Bass stream v.rith observed
                   pollution condition) downstream,,  Jennings Run is classified as
                   Type 3P (Trout stream with observed pollution condition).   Brad-
                   dock Run, while net .reported,, would probably be classified the
                   same as Jennings Run,,  Evitts Creek has been assigned Type 5
                   (Bass feeder) classification,,  The North Branch in the sub-reach
                   from Cumberland to its junction with the South Branch is classi-
                   fied as Type 8 (Bullhaad stream).
                                   II.  POTOMAC RIVER, SOUTH BRANCH
                                        TO CONOCQCHEAGUE CREEK
                   South Branch to Tonoloway .Creek (4?6 miles)

                           This sub-reach of the Potomac River has been classified
                   as Type 6  (Bass stream).  Fifteen Mile Creek (confluence at River
                   Mile 255,4) and Sideling Hill Creek have been classified as Type
                   5  (Bass feeder).  Little Tonoloway Creek has been classified as
                   Type 4 (Sucker stream).
                    Tonoloway  Creek to Conococheag^e Creek (2o08 miles)

                           Tonoloway Creek in Maryland has been classified as Type
                    5P (Bass feeder with observed pollution condition) before the
                    construction of waste treatment facilities at Hancock  It is
                    assumed that the classification would now be Type 5, except per-
                    haps immediately below the effluent outfall.  The Potoaac River
                    in this sub-reach is classified as Type 6 (Bass stream).  Lick-
                    ing Creek  is classified as Type 6 (Bass stream).  Little Conoco-
                    cheague Creek^, which enters the Potomac River at River Mile 2l606,
                    is classified as Type 4 (Sucker stream).

-------
                                                          VI - 3


                   APPENDIX VI.  (Continued)
               III.  POTOMAC RIVER, CONOCOCHEAGUE
                     CREEK TO LITTLE FALLS
_CQnoc^>cheague Creek to Antietam,Creek (30,5 miles)

        Conoeoaheague Creek in Maryland has been classified as
Type 9 (Catfish stream).  Rockdale Run, which enters Conococheague
Creek at River Mile 1700y is classified as Type 4 (Sucker stream).
The Potomac River in this sub-reach is classified as Type 5 (Bass
feeder).  Marsh Run, which enters the Potomac River at River Mile
192,4, is classified as Type 4 (Sucker stream).
Antietam Creek to Monocacy River (26.7 miles)

        Antietam Creek has been classified as Type 5 (Bass feeder).
The upper reaches of the small tributaries of Antietam Creek near
the Pennsylvania State line are classified as Type 4 (Sucker
stream).  The Potomac River between Antietam Creek and the Shenan-
doah River is classified as Type 6 (Bass stream).  The Potomac
River between the Shenandoah River and the Monocacy River is
classified as Type 9 (Catfish stream).  The West Branch of
Catoctin Creek, which enters Catoctin Creek (Maryland) at River
Mile 2802, is classified as Type 2 (Trout feeder).  The upper-
third of Catoctin Creek (Maryland) is classified as Type 3 (Trout
stream), the middle-third as Type 5 (Bass feeder), and the lower-
third as Type 6 (Bass stream).  Little Catoctin Creek, which
enters Catoctin Creek at River Mile 17.0, is classified as Type
4 (Sucker stream).  Tuscarora Creek, which enters the Potomac
River at River Mile 155.7, is classified as Type 4 (Sucker stream),
Monocaey River to Little Falls (374 miles)

        The Monocacy River has been classified as Type 6 (Cat-
fish stream) except for a short reach of about three miles just
below the Pennsylvania State line, which is classified as Type
5 (Bass feeder).  The small tributaries of the Monocacy River
to the west of the River are generally classified as Type 3
(Trout stream) in the headwaters, and as Type 5 (Bass feeder)
downstream,,  The larger tributaries of the Monocacy River to
the east of the River are gansrally classified as Type 4 (Sucker

-------
                                                         VI  - 4
                   APPENDIX VI.  (Continued)
stream) in the headwaters, as Type 5 (Bass feeder) in the mid-
reaches, and as Type 6 (Bass stream) in the lower reaches.  The
Potomac River in this sub-reach is classified as Type 9 (Catfish
stream).  Horsepen Branch, which enters the Potomac River at
River Mile 137.9, is classified as Type 4 (Sucker stream).
Seneca Creels: is classified as Type 6 (Bass stream) in the lower
reach, and its two major tributaries, Dry Seneca Creek and Great
Seneca Creek, are classified as Type 4 (Sucker stream) in the
headwaters, and as Type 5 (Bass feeder) downstream.  Muddy Branch,
which enters the Potomac River at River Mile 1314> is classified
as Type 4 (Sucker stream) in the upper half, and as Type 5 (Bass
feeder) in the lower half.  \Vatts Branch, which enters the Potomac
River at River Mile 129.2, is classified as Type 4 (Sucker stream).
Cabin John Creek is classified as Type 8 (Bullhead stream).

-------
m
                                                                    VII
                 APPENDIX VII.  RIVER MILEAGES IN THE POTOMAC RIVER ESTUARY:

                           MARYLAND STATE PLANNING DEPARTMENT

                                          AND

                    INTERSTATE COMMISSION ON THE POTOMAC RIVER BASIN
                    The River Mileages used in this report are those recently
            developed by the Maryland State Planning Department.  The table
            below has been prepared to compare these mileages in the upper
            Potomac estuary with those of the Interstate Commission on the
            Potomac River Basin to assist in locating points under the two
            systems.
                                                          Maryland State
                     Location               INCOPQT     Planning: Department

             Point -of -Rocks                   163.0            159.4

             Great Falls                      125.6            126.5

             Little Falls  (head of tide)                     116.1

             Fletcher's Boat House            104.5                 *
I  "          Three Sister's  Island            103.1            113.4*

             Roosevelt  Island                 101.6            111.9*

I            Memorial Bridge                 100.7            111.0

,  -          Highway Bridge                    99.7            109.9

             Potomac Park                     99.1            109.1

1  "          Hains Point                       98.3            108.3*

             Giesboro Point                    97.4            107.4

I            Above Sew. Treat.  Plant           96.1            106.0

a  -          Opposite Sew. Treat. Plant        95.6            105.4

             Below Sew. Treat.  Plant           95.3            105.1

I            Woodrow Wilson  Bridge             94.4            103.4

-------
                                                        VII - 2
                   APPENDIX VII.  (Continued)
         Location



Fort Foote


Fort \Vashington



Mt. Vernon



Marshall Hall



Hallowing Point



 Indian Head



 Stump Neck



 Sandy Point



 Smith Point



 Maryland Point



 ^
     Calculated or estimated
INCOPOT



  92.9


  89.0



  86.4


  85.0


  80.7



  77.5


   72.7



   67.3


   62.9



   57.3
  Maryland State

PI arm i.tig Det)artEiervt



      101.7


       97.8



       95.2



       93.8



        89.5



        86.3*



        80.4*

            *
        75.0



        70.5*


        61.0*

-------
                                   VIII - 1
APPENDIX   VIII
      FIGURES

-------

   INIOd
    3 a
         ON V I
S1INO  31QNVO  NOSMOVP  Nl
                                              U!
                                            o >
                                            CD 

                                              o:
                                              <
                                              5
                                            m O
                                              o
                                              a.
                                              u.
                                              O
                                            o> UJ
                                              O
                                              m
                                             CO
                                            - ui
                                                           S
                                                           2
                                                           UJ  >
                                                           ir z

                                                           >- 
                                                           H <
                                                            CD
                                                           o
                                                           a: cr
                                                           UJ
                                                           ^ u
o
Q.
   o:
   < Q
   13 U


   UJ C
                                                                o S
   O h

   oE
   a. c

-------
i     I



















-;pJ7q






























































































o




in





o




f>
""


CC
UJ
0 >
to 
cc

o
5
m H-
O



0
2 rj
rf .. ^"
^ 0^
( Q-
- 

cr en
UJ
< 
> *!
5
O ill
. i
00
Q >
1 (7)

>-
CE '
^ 
H -
CO -
UJ UJ
CO

~r in
5
>
O _l
O f~ 23

o a.
D.


UJ
cr
< h
u. <->
	 J UJ
1x1 0
S (r
CO
to
Z 2
O 
Vj LJ "
^
1 ~^ CD
0 cr K.
-' uj ~-
Q CO '
UJ ^ K
- X <
1- J J
< w 
UJ j:
I
^ o ^
0 3 T
!_ CD x
H ^ 

S 
a 2

O u
r
o
^
                                                                                              X
                                                                                              t-
                                                                                              r>
                                                                                              o
                                                                                              5

                                                                                              UJ
                                                                                              >
                                                                                              O
                                                                                              CQ
                                                                                              UJ
l/6ai  -
                                                                   OQ

-------



o
I
1

1
r
in
u>
01


*
u>
en




I
'





10
. *
en


CM
L *
I en










1 <>


I *"
8 <



O
Q^
/v ^^
0- - *"
h- *^
 CD
_j
I**
!* a:
5^
_
cc or
UJ
H- o
< eT
^ ^-
^ 5
^ 0
z z:
0 <
 _i CT
 ^j"
en .
S " !2
o 
%_ en
x ^
0 ^u
S-1
o __ 
uj en ^
-1 uj oc
0 S ^
w K >
tn ^ 
 x Q:
O ! 	 	
o
H 2 H

0 .5 <
Q.




i
"5

<
^
^
jj
X
V-
1

 UJ 
1 " > ?





I ^
I o> >-
1 10 UJ <
r en o o
2 i
                                                (T>
                                                CD
                                                 in
                                                 Ol
1VH1N30NOO  N39AXO   QBAIOSSIQ
                                                                       00
cc
3
o
                                                                       UJ
                                                                       0  f

-------
<>
                                        cr
                                        UJ
o
2
<
                                             UJ  I
                                             >-  ^
                                             \-  **
                                               CD
                                                CC
                                                UJ
                                             or  or
                                             UJ

                                             3  <->
                                                o
                                                f-
                                                o
                                                (X
O
2
o o
0 2 "~"
   ~: en
_ <

S^E

x I-
o Li LU
   UJ _J
a > 
UJ UJ ^
> to
-i O Q:
o o uj
to tr >
CO    
Q b S
LU
cc
<
U-
_l
LU
5

CO
                                                                   o
                                                                   ec -"
                                                                   o. '
               ^ >
               r> cr

               o ^
               LU

                - I
                  - H

                                                          S a
                                                          ,  3
                                                          CO O
                                                          C\J
                                                            LU
                                                          UJ ^
                                                          > -"
                                                          J -
                                                          S o
                                                          o ?
                                                          O CO
          N39AXO   Q3A10SSIQ

-------
I
I




Q
2 0
< 2
r* O
c *
o S
CL ^
UJ 1
cc 2
>- w
f- <
 CO
is
T CC
UJ
t u
Q
^ <[
5
O
z
UJ
o
X
0
0
UJ
_J
o
CO
CO
-~.
Q
O
1- Z
O ^
CL -^








H ^
2 
2
o
CC. UJ
o -J
m ^
CO ^
UJ
5

1 	 	
< CC





u
D
c
L
_
L

C

).

I
1
|
1

|






                                                                                                      CD

                                                                                                      O

                                                                                                      er

                                                                                                      ui

                                                                                                      CL
UJ
O



                                                                                                      <
                                                                                                      O
                                                                                                      S
                                                                                                      O

                                                                                                      2
                                                                                                   03 3

                                                                                                   CM

                                                                                                      UJ


                                                                                                   UJ -"3
                                                                                                   co -J


                                                                                                   II
                                                                                                   o co
                                                                                                   2 S
                   U/&UM NOIlVyiN30NOD  N39AXO   Q3A10SSIQ

-------
  CO
                             t

                            -f-
                                    to
                                                        O
                                                            en
                                                            0)
                                                            to
                                                            (D
                                                            en
                                                            CM
                                                            (P
                                                            0}
                                                            in
                                                            CT>
                                                            00
                                                            lO
                                                            in
                                                            o>
                                                            in
                                                          ^ en
   CO
                U)     10
                                     IO     OJ
                                                            a>
                                                                  _i >
         CO  UJ 

         o  m5
UJ
E

u_


UJ


05

z
o

i-

o


o
UJ
                                                                                         O

                                                                                         O

                                                                                         EC.
               IU  <
                                                                                     UJ
               >  2
               
               co  Q
               (M
                   UJ

               UJ  =>
                                                                                     o
                                                                                     O  CO
                                                                                     s  s
                                                                                     2  2
NOilvyiN30NOD   N39AXO   Q3A10SSIO
                                                                                              UJ

                                                                                              O
                                                                                              o:
                                                                                              UJ
                                                                                            - I
                                                                                           E  t-
                         UJ

                         X
                                                                                              CD >-
                                                                                              ID <
                                                                                              a <

                                                                                                 UJ
                     CL
                     UJ

                     O

-------
:l
                                 to
                                            CO
                                                                          -    o
                                  CO
                                             co
                                                                    CM
                                                                                  CO
                                                                                  CD
                                                                                  ro
                                                                                  co
                                                                                  CD
                                                                                  CD
                                                                                  en
                                                                                  co
                                                                                  CD
                                                                                  o   5
                                                                                  0)   <
                                                                                  CD   UJ
                                                                                  en
                                                                                  in
                                                                                  en
                                                                                  00
                                                                                  in
                                                                                  en
                                                                                  in
                                                                                  en
                                                                                  CO
                                                                                  in
                                                                                 - en
                                                                                  10
                                                                                  m
                                                                                  en
                                NOI1VH1N3DN03  N39AXO   Q3A10SSIO
   <



-5
o ^
CL ^
UJ I
tr 2

>- w
I- <
 CO

< a:

o >

tr or
UJ
^ <->
                                                                                             O
                                                                                             t-
                                                                                             o
                                                                                             0-
O

o
o

z
UJ
o

X
                                                                                                     UJ
                                                                                                        O
h- _
o
o
u.
o-
LU Q  2
> u.
O H-
to <

o

z
                                                                                                        o:
                                                                                                        UJ
                Q
                O

                CE
                UJ
                a
             Ul "3

             < i
             5?
                                                                                                        CO
                                                                                                        CM
             > 

             t- ;


             I '
             CO
             2 '
             O
             O
           
           UJ|

-------
1N3DNOO  N39AXO   a3A10SSlQ

-------
                                              WASHINGTON D. C.

                                             BLUE PLAINS  S.T.P.
                                                 BROAD CREEK
OCCOQUAN
         BAY
                       INDIAN HEAD
                           POWDER FACTORY
                     ATT AW OMAN CREEK
                                                        WILSON BRIC
                                                  PISCATAWAY CREE
QUANTICO
CREEK
 MARYLAND   PT.
                               OBSERVED  CONC ENTRATION OF DEAD

                                S HEAVY        >I20     / ACRE

                                ^MODERATE      60-  120 /ACRE

                                v LIGHT           0 -  60 /ACRE



                                        SCALE  1:250.000
                                          WATER  QUALITY  REPORT

                                    PO T 0 MAC  RIVER  BASIN - MAP'


                                       FISH  KILL  of MAY 19, IS


                                US  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION

                                            PUBLIC  HEALTH  SERVICE
                                  CHESAPEAKE BAY-SUSGUEHANNA  RIVER BASIN
                                REGION HI                     CHARLOT

-------
                                                         -too
IVE MOUTH OF  POTOMAC RIVER
                              WATER QUALITY  REPORT
                         POTOMAC  RIVER  BASIN - MARYLAND
                       POTOMAC  ESTUARY-COLIFORM  CONC.
                              JUNE-NOV,  1960-1964
                     U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE
                               PUBLIC  HEALTH  SERVICE
                       CHESAPEAKE BAY-SUSQUEHANNA  RIVER BASINS PROJECT
                     RESIGN HI                   CHAS LOTTE SVILLE , VA
                                                       FIGURE  9

-------

-------
 115     "0    105    IOO     95    9O

MIL S  ABOVE MOUTH  OF POTOMAC RIVER
                                    WATER  QUALITY  REPORT
                               POTOMAC  RIVER BASIN - MARYLAND
                             POTOMAC  ESTUARY-COLIFORM  CONC.
                                     DEC-MAY,  1960-1964
                           U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION  & WELFAR
                                     PUBLIC  HEALTH  SERVICE
                             CHESAPEAKE 8 AY - S VI SQUEH ANNA  RIVER BASINS PROJECT
                           REGION TTT                   CHARLOTTESVltLE ,V
                                                            FIGURE

-------

-------
          WATER  QUALITY  REPORT
    POTOMAC  RIVER  BA SIN - MAR YLAND

  MUM.  8  INDUS.  WASTE  DISCHARGES
       NORTH BRANCH - POTOMAC  RIVER
US  DEPARTMENT  OF  HEALTH, EDUCATION S WELFARE

            PUBLIC  HEALTH  SERVICE
  CHESAPEAKE BAY-SUSOUEHANN4 RIVER BASINS PROJECT
REGION HI                       CHA R L OT T E S VI L L E , VA
                                     FIGURE   12

-------

-------
           WATER  QUALITY  REPORT
    POTOMAC  RIVER  BASIN - MARYLAND

   MUN.  a  INDUS.  WASTE   DISCHARGES
  POTOMAC RIVER-SOUTH  BRANCH  POTOMAC
          TO  CONOCOCHEAGUE  CREEK
U S  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION 8 WELFARE
            PUBLIC  HEALTH  SERVICE
  CHESAPEAKE B A Y - S U SO UE HANNA RIVER BASINS PROJECT
REGION HI                        CHAR t OTTE S VILLE . VA

                                      FIGURE  I

-------

-------
           WATER  QUALITY  REPORT
    POTOMAC  RIVER  BASIN  - MARYLAND

  MUN.  8  INDUS.  WASTE   DISCHARGES
  POTOMAC RIVER - CONOCOCHE AGUE  CREEK
              TO  LITTLE   FALLS
US  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION  & WELFARE
            PUBLIC  HEALTH  SERVICE
  CHESAPEAKE E
-------

-------
          WATER  QUALITY  REPORT
    POTOMAC  RIVER  BA SIN - MAR YLA NO

  MUN. &  INDUS. WASTE   DISCHARGES

          POTOMAC RIVER ESTUARY
US  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION a WEL rA
           PUBLIC  HEALTH  SEHVICE
  CHESAPEAKE 8 AY - SU SOUEMANMA R 1 V I   A S I   l"OJtCT
REGIOX  m                     CHA  t. Or T E 5 VILLE .

                                   FIGURE

-------

-------
UJ I

IE 2
S5
    o
    z
    o
    o
    tc 
    < >
    o o
O 3
< -5
S
O
1-
o
Q-

-------
11 I  I
        i+FF
TmiTT
                     hH-
H+

a
z
<
1
PORT
MARY
UJ 1
a s
>~ W
f_ <
-a,
i|
a K
UJ
il
o
f-
o
0.


IJ
2
O
o

11
_J 1
o o
O -
or .
< ?;
?1
(0 |
UJ (j
LU
0 0
2>
o
l-
o
Q_

li.

UJ
5
Cfi
Z
 UJ
1- 0
< >
Z) ^"

UJ
- I
X H
t- _J
-* <
C UJ
x x
u. U
O _j
t~ ^
1 '
h-
Q;
< H
Q- 9
O z
o


-------
0
<
_J
>- CC
K <
0 2
0. ^
UJ I
a z

>- "*
tS
" K
i|
cr K
LU
is
o
o
CL

(n
UJ
o
o:
<
X
o
if)

O

UJ
L_
C/5
5

(/i
o
o
z

-------










-



<




Q
Z
<
_J
>-
K
<
2
i
_
in
<
ID
tr
UJ
>
o:
jj
0
t
0
Q.
to "
^ s
^ 0
o: i-
< 0
x " ^
O x Ul
(O o o:
 20
Q <
a: UJ
Uj ma
-S
Z Q;
o
. O 1
* <
 S
Z 0
i













y
ffl
Z)
a


o
trt
^

"

: >
10
>-
;
5








B
IE

-------


0
z
<
_J
-
K <
2*
Ul 1
K Z
)- ">
t S
M
o: a
UJ
is
o
o
a


m * n
, . LU li
^ W
O a: i
CC o
 
Z Q:
_ o
d5 <
Z o
=1 
S a.



J


3


J ~
; J
3 ^i
j ^
r ^
-J <
j -
a
r
Q-
D
tn
D
'
















a
7
5


-------






















































































































I ;
1
3
1
*
i
!.l
' 1 S
' 5 r
i; |
1 i ;
















i


n
" :
! *
j | |
I ! 1
                                        : t
                                        W*
0000000  0        @       @  @


















Q
Z

REPORT
N - MARYL
ui
>* ^
 CD
_J
** 0:

" ^

CE tE
UJ
WAT
roMAC
o
Q.

UJ
o
cc
DISCH^
ESTUARY
UJ
1-  5
D 0
 5
Q.
oS
Z
3

"


y

-------
LJ
- "I
H <
 CD
_J
< rr
l
01 01
UJ
WAT
OTOM AC
Q.
>_ <
1- Q=
 UJ
_J H
< E
^> o
O
rr t~
CL Q
UJ Q_
t 
< U
 2
H Z
2 o
PRESE
BASED 

5
z
o
*-

D
0
U
r-
J
r
o
f
z
>
a
a
D
i

-i
"
J



,



s
5
LL)




O.

-------
UJ




CL

-------
                             PARTICIPANTS
Rodney H. Rests


Hairy E. Schwarz


Russell Morgan


Gary Baltis


Walter B. Langbein

D, R. Dowdy

Frank Rainwater


William M. Colony



Leo J. Hetling



Norbert A. Jaworski



John Graves


J. Karl Lee



Isabel Picken
U0 S. Army Corps of
Engineers

U. Sc Army Corps of
Engineers

U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers

U, S. Army Corps of
Engineers

U0 S. Geological Survey

U. S0 Geological Survey

Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration

Middle Atlantic Region,
Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration

CES, Middle Atlantic Region,
Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration

CES, Middle Atlantic Region,
Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration

Special Consultant, Depart-
ment of the Interior

Office of Assistant Secretary,
Water & Power Development,
Department of the Interior

Office of Assistant Secretary,
Water & Power Development,
Department of the Interior

-------

-------
GENERAL



       Water quality investigations in the Potomac River Basin have been



conducted for the past several years by the Chesapeake Field Station as



part of the Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River Basins Project.  A map of the



Potomac River Basin showing existing and proposed reservoirs is exhibited



in Figure 10



       As an integral part of the project, large mathematical simulation



models were developed  The models, after verification, are being applied



to this river basin as well as others in the Chesapeake Bay drainage



system.  The general relationship of these models to management of Potomac



water quality is shown in Figure 2 and the attached outlines.



       While the hydrological principles and quality formulations applied



are not new, the use of these models in the application of systems



analysis techniques has substantially reduced analysis time and costs,



has achieved a precision commensurate with the accuracy of data input and



has allowed the engineer to observe the broad spectrum of water quality



parameters synoptically.





CONCLUSIONS




       The series of models presented have already proved their effective-



ness to water quality managers.  They have been instrumental in clarifying



several points in the decision making process.  The problems they have



solved, and some current and envisioned future applications, are stated



in more detail in the attached outlines.




       From the successful experience in use of mathematical models in the



water quality management and control programs, the Chesapeake Field Station



has observed the following:

-------

-------
      1,  The relative time and money spent on systems analysis, because



of the ability to use computers, have been reduced compared to that re-



quired for planning, assembling and analyzing the necessary field data



for verification,



      20  Field testing and verification of the models is expensive.  Over



a half million dollars have been expended in collection of field data and



verification of the Potomac system to bring it to its present stage of



usefulness  As much again will be required to develop the refinements



desirable to complete the job.



      3.  There remains a communications gap between water quality admin-



istrators and engineers with respect to the capabilities of mathematical



models.  Much more emphasis should be placed upon bridging this gap in



order to realize the full potential of the models.



      4  Since the nature of the planning process is dynamic and con-



tinuing and the changes in technology rapid, the models require continuous



updating in order to retain their usefulness.

-------

-------
SUBJECT;  The Potomac Estuary Water Quality Model (See Figure 3)
PURPOSE;  To define the effects of environmental changes such as low flow
augmentation and increased waste treatment on the estuary's water quality.
ORIGIN AMD DEVELOPMENT;  The basic theory was developed by Dr0 Robert
Thomann at New York University,  The model's digital computer program was
written by the Re-Entry Systems Department of the Missile and Space
Division of General Electric under a series of contracts sponsored jointly
by the Delaware Est^lary Comprehensive Study and the Chesapeake Field
Station.  A specialized analog version of the program was also developed
for the Chesapeake Field Station by Electronic Associates, Inc.  The
model has been field tested and verified by the field station.
SCOPE;  The Potomac estuary model as presently verified extends from the
head of tide at Chain Bridge t the mouth of the estuary at the Chesapeake
Bay,  It is presently capable of simulating the effects of low flow aug-
mentation, wastewater diversions, water supply withdrawals, and increased
wastewater treatment on dissolved oxygen (DO), phosphorus, chloride and
bacterial concentrations in the estuary.  Solutions are available for
both dynamic (time dependent) and steady-state situations


PRESENT APPLICATIONS;  Up to the present time, the model has been used in
the following studies,

      1.  Determination of a range of feasible alternative plans to
          improve water quality in the estuary for the Water Quality
          Sub-Task Force of the President's Project Potomac,  From
          this study it was concluded that there are technologically
          feasible alternatives to large upstream dams for water
          quality control,

      2,  Determination for the FWPGA. enforcement programs f the
          degree of treatment required by waste treatment plants
          discharging to the Potomac Estuary to meet the water quality
          standards adopted by the District of Columbia and the State
          of Maryland.  The model results indicated that a high degree
          of advanced waste treatment is necessary,

      3.  Results from the model were used by Dr0 Robert Davis of
          Resources for the Future (EFF) in his study of the effects
          f advances in technological software on the planning
          process.  Dr, Davis concluded that gains from the modeling
          technique could be a significant advantage in the planning

-------

-------
      4*  The model has been used to determine the feasibility of using
          the upper estuary as a future emergency water supply for the
          Washington Metropolitan Area0  On the basis of water quality,
          this is a feasible alternative.  The economies and esthetics
          of such a program have not yet been investigated.


FUTURE APPLICATIONS;  Continuous improvement in the accuracy and efficiency
of the model will be made.  The Chesapeake Field Station will use the model
in developing a range of alternative water quality management programs
for the Potomac River basin.  This will require linkage of the upstream
water quality and hydrology models.  Training of state and local agencies
in the application of the model has been instituted.

-------

-------
                                                                         5

SUBJECT;  Water Quality Simulation and Verification Model  (See Figure 4)


PURPOSE;  To aid in analyzing field data, establishing and verifying water
quality formulation parameters, and predicting the response of the water
quality in the free flowing portion of the Potomac Basin to changes in
waste loadings, flow, etc,


ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT;  Developed at the University of Michigan and field
tested at the Chesapeake Field Station.


SCOPE;  With predictive algorithms for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD),
DO, temperature and phosphorus, the model can be used in non-tidal waters
for the following;

      1.  Establishing and verifying the parameters of the various
          quality formulations;

      2.  Predicting the water quality in a river for a given set of
          environmental conditions;

      3.  Planning of field studies;

      4.  Routing of an accidental spill;

      5.  Verifying and editing the system for the optimal flow
          release model.


PRESENT AFPLIGiTIOMSg  As an integral part of the field station's activities,
the model has been utilized for the following:

      1.  Determination of wastewater treatment requirements in the
          North Branch of the Potomac River basin in cooperation with
          the State of Maryland Department of Water Resources;

      2.  Determination of the need for and value of reservoir storage in
          that portion of the basin in "Appalaehia" as requested by the
          U. S. Corps of Engineers;

      3.  Investigation of the effects of wastewater treatment and flow
          regulation on water quality in the Patuxent River basin;

      4.  Analysis of field data and establishment of well-defined water
          quality parameters for the Monocacy River basin;

      5.  Determination of the times-of-travel of accidental spills as
          requested for the pollution surveillance program of FWPCA.


FUTURE APPLICATIONS ?  Continued use in verifying the quality formulation
is anticipated with possible expansion as needed to better describe the
system.

-------

-------
SUBJECT;  Optimal Flow Release Model (See Figure 5)
PURPOSE;  To develop optimal-release sequences from multiple reservoir
systems for water supply and water quality control.


ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT;  Developed at the University of Michigan and
field tested at the Chesapeake Field Station.


SPQPE;  The model with quality algorithms as described in the verification
link and using dynamic programming, can "be used to determine reservoir
release sequences based on various optimization criteria.  For a given
wastewater treatment policy, release sequences can be developed to main-
tain the "best" quality of water for a given flow requirement with
minimum reservoir storage for a given quality level.  Although the model,
which also includes a least-cost of reservoir storage, is limited to
non-tidal waters, it can readily be linked to the Potomac Estuary
Water Quality Model.


PRESENT APPLICATIONS;  The model, which is still in the developmental
state, has been used to determine optimal reservoir release patterns for
the proposed impoundments in the Potomac Basin.  Since general coefficients
were used in some of the sub-basins, the results of model should be con-
sidered preliminary only.
FUTURE APPLICATIONS:  After verification of the quality formulations in
the entire Potomac system, the field station will be in a better position
to investigate the various alternatives of water quality management, such
as the relative economy of advanced waste treatment as compared to flow
augmentation.

-------

-------
SUBJECT;  Reservoir System Simulation


PURPOSE;  To investigate the hydrologic performance of the existing and
proposed reservoir systems in meeting given flow requirements for quality
control and water supply.


ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT;  Initially developed by the U. S. Corps of Engineers,
the model was expanded "by RFF and reprogrammed for the IBM 360 computer
by the Chesapeake Field Station with the assistance of RFF.


SCOPE;  Using either historical flows or synthetically generated traces
(e~.g., the synthetic hydrology model as developed by the Harvard Water
Resources Group), the model can be used for the following:

      1.  Studying the performance of a proposed or existing reservoir
          system with respect to specific water supply and/or water
          quality flow requirements in the Washington Metropolitan Area
          or other critical sections of the basin;

      2.  Scaling reservoir systems to meet desired targets;

      3.  Determining the performance of a reservoir system in terms
          of probability of failure at a given level of performance.


PRESEM? APPLICATIONS;  Dr. Robert Davis of RFF has demonstrated, utilizing
the data from the 1963 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers study, that there are
sufficient differences in the choices of both on the matter of Icinds of
solutions and action to be taken in water quality management for the
Potomac Estuary.


FJTTJEE APPLICATIONS;  Once the quality formulations are verified and
optimal release sequences developed, the simulation will be invaluable
in investigating the consequences of the various alternative solutions
to Potomac Basin water resource problems.

-------

-------
FIGURE  I

-------

-------
                 USE OF MATHEMATICAL MODELS AS AIDS TO




               DECISION MAKING IN WATER QUALITY CONTROL*
                               By



               Chnrlos R. Hall** and Luo J, liotling***
* Presented at the Sixty-Third National Meeting



 of the Americam Institute of Chemical Engineers,



 St. Louis, Missouri, February 19, 1968
 ** Water Resources Engineer, Maryland Department of Water Resources,



    State Office Building, Annapolis,  Maryland










 *** Director, Research Unit, Environmental Health Services,



     New York State Department of Health,



     84 Holland Avenue, Albany, New York

-------

-------
                         TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.  Introduction






II.  Theoretical Considerations



     Ao  Computer Models Utilized



         1.  Oxygen Sag Model



         2.  Segmented Estuary Model



         3.  Hydraulic Simulation Model



     Bo  Analytical Concepts






 III.  A Case Study - The James River Basin




       A.  Basin Description




       Bo  Water Quality Control Flow Requirements




,       Co  Alternate Methods of Meeting Water Quality Control Objectives






IV.  Discussion of Alternatives






Vo  Summary and Conclusions

-------

-------
                              LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO.        TITLE
                  Probability of Failure versus Allowable



                  Waste Loading Lovol For Various Reservoir
   2              The James River Basin






   3              Dissolved Oxygen Profile






   4              System Geometry
                  Reliability versus Storage For Alternate



                  No. 11 at 1995 Conditions






                  Reliability versus Storage For Alternate



                  No. 11 at 2020 Conditions

-------

-------
                                ABSTRACT
           A method of utilizing existing water quality and hydraulic



computer models to arrive at least cost solutions of water quality



problems is presented. The alternatives considered are reduction of



waste loads by treatment, industrial process modification, and



construction of reservoirs for low flow augmentation.  The application



of the methods to water resources problems in the James River Basin



is discussed.  The least cost solution of the water quality control



problem is presented along with a subjective analysis of various



alternatives.








Key Words:  Water Pollution, Mathematical Models, Low-flow Augmentation,




            Systems Analysis, Optimization Methodology, Decision-making,



            James River Basin

-------

-------
                               INTRODUCTION
          The Chesapeake Field Station* of the Federal Water Pollution




Control Administration has been participating in water quality control




management and planning studies for the past several years.  Since its




inception, the Field Station has attempted to make maximum use of the




newly developing tools of systems analysis and operations research in




its efforts.  It quickly found that in this area there is a rapidly




growing wealth of theory, and that much of the theory has been translated




to mathematical forms and programmed for rapid solution on high speed




digital computers.  However, it was also found that the application of




these new tools to the solution of real life problems is not widely




practiced.  It is their application to an actual water quality problem




that is the subject of this paper.




          The primary objective of the study being presented was to




determine the optimum blend of waste treatment and storage (for low flow




augmentation) necessary to meet a specified dissolved oxygen (DO)




standard in the James River Basin.
* During the period in which the study reported on here was made,




  both authors were employed at the Chesapeake Field Station.

-------

-------
                             THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS








          Before discussing the case study, a description of the computer



models used and the analytical concepts with which the study was approached



will be presented,



The Computer Models Utilized -



          The theory behind the actual computer programs and models utilized



will be only dealt with briefly here since the objective of this paper is



not a discussion of modeling techniques but to show how existing models and



programs can be used to aid in the decision-making process.  The three



computer programs described below which have been utilized in the study are



well documented elsewhere.



          1,  Oxygen Sag Model



              This program uses the basic Streeter-Phelps v ' formulation



of the oxygen sag curve, a function describing the inter-actluii of the



fundamental biological and physical processes that simultaneously remove




and regenerate dissolved oxygen in a free flowing stream*  Tne prograir.



offers adaptations to the basic fornvala to enable the inclusion of the



effects of benthic organisms and photosynthesis on the oxygen balance*  As



programmed, the model is capable of computing the flow required to maintain



a stated DO objective in a river system receiving multiple point source



waste loads*  It is important to realize that, as used in these studies,



this computed  flow requirement is totally unrelated to the actual hydrology



of the system.   It is, in fact, a theoretical flow required to meet the



quality constraint one hundred percent of the time.

-------

-------
                                   -2-                                  ;


          2.  Segmented Esutary Model ~


              This program was designed to simulate the oxygen relation-


ships in & tidal river or estuary.  The basic principles of the model

                                   (3)
utilized were developed by Thomann.     The model incorporates a term to


account for longitudinal diffusion caused by tidal action into the


Strecter-Phelps equation and employs an incremental or segmented approach


to the problem rather than a continuous function solution.  Both the steady


state '^' and time dependent     versions of this model have been programmed.


The steady state version was used in the present study to compute the flow


requirements necessary to meet the quality objective in the tidal segment


of the river.  In essence, this model serves the same purpose in the tidal


river as the Oxygen Sag Model does in the free flowing portions.


          3.  Hydrologic Simulation Model -

                          (6)
              This program simulates the hydrologic nature of a river system.


Stream flows (either historic or synthetic) are routed through the river


system and compared to required target flows (computed outside of the model)


at various locations in the basin and the pertinent statistics regarding


failures computed.  Reservoirs can be introduced into the system and their


effect on the statistics noted.  In short, this model provides, the means


of determining the reliability of the hydrology in the basin to meet the


required flows and the effect variation in the amount of storage provided has


on this reliability.


Analytical Concepts -


          The following theoretical discussion presents a general outline of


the computational procedures with which the study was approached.


          These procedures utilize the three river system models described


above to arrive at the least cost combination of treatment and storage that

-------

-------
                                    -3-


 will satisfy DO quality objectives  at various  probabilities  of  failure


 (reliability).


           In this theoretical  discussion,  only the  following two  policy


 constraints were assumed.
                                                                             

           1.  Treatment and storage will be  given equal  consideration.


 That is,  no uniform treatment  policy will  be adopted  and computations will


 begin with a system having no  treatment and  no storage for water  quality


 control.   The base could just  as well be some  level of treatment  and some


 existing  reservoir configuration.


           2.  A water quality  (DO)  standard  has been  established.   (The


 procedure could be applied to  various other  standards to show ^he  cost  of


 attaining these standards).


           In addition to these policy constraints,  it was assumed  that


 the following as inputs to the river system  models  were  available.


           1.  Waste loadings (ib/day 5-day BOD)


           2.  Paramotoro defining tho self-purification  of tho  river
               (Kp K2,  K3, etc.)


           3.  Layout of system geometry


           4.  Historic river discnarge  records


           5.  Statistical  analysis  of water  temperature


i           Given a particular river  system, the flow required to assimilate


 a  specific waste load and  maintain  a specified water  quality is primarily a


 function  of temperature.  By selecting  design  temperatures for  seasons  corres-


 ponding to the  seasons  for which the analyses  are to  be  made (e.g., months)


 a  minimum flow requirement that will meet  the  quality constraint can be


 computed  for each month using  either the Oxygen Sag or Segmented Estuary Model.


 These seasonal  flow requirements can be arranged to form a matrix, the  columns

-------

-------
of which represent the months and the rows of which represent the various

waste loading levels (either changedby improved waste treatment or, in the

case of industrial waste, a percent reduction in loadings due to process

changes).
 Waste
 Loading
                Matrix A

Flow Required_to Meet Quality Objective

                Months

Jan.   Feb.   Mar.   Apr.   May   .
                                                                           Dec,
1

2

3!

4

5
                 Q-j 1
        -j r\
                                          
   1

   n
          For example, in Matrix A shown above, row one might represent the flow

required with no treatment and column one represents the flow required in January.

          The row matrices of Matrix A can be introduced into the Hydrologic

Simulation model described previously to compute the failure probability for

each element of the row matrices as well as for the row matrix itself.  This

program is capable of handling a large river system with various waste loadings

and thus minimizing the quantity of data coding and the number of computer runs

-------

-------
                                   -5-
required.  The probability of failure for each location in the river system

is computed by the program simply as the number of deficient seasons divided

by the total number of seasons on the historic or synthetic record.  The

vector of probabilities formed by consideration of the different waste

loading levels is essentially a conversion of the elements in Matrix A to

a vector, the components of which are failure probabilities for the system

at various waste loading levels.

          Similarly, by step increasing the potential storage capacity of

a reservoir placed in the system and rerouting the dilution flow requirements

through the hydrologic model, a number of such probability vectors can be

computed.

          A family of curves as shown for Figure 1 can be drawn from the

data thus generated.

          A new matrix can then be extracted from these curves.  The rows of

this matrix correspond to allowable loads and the columns refer to selected

risk factors (probabilities).
Allowable
Loading
                 Matrix B

Quantity of Storage, cfs-nonths
Risk Factor, 1 month per x years
Levels
Tl
T2
T3
T4
T5
n
l/b
sll





1/10





1/20 , 1/30





j






1/50





Sid

-------

-------
                                   -6-






          Given cost curves for both storage and treatment, the elements



of the second matrix can be mapped Into cost*  By adding the cost for treat-



ment to each of the corresponding elements In the cost matrix, a matrix of



total system cost is formed.  The position of the minimum cost in each



column will identify the least cost treatment and storage combination to



meet the desired standard at that particular failure rate.  The costs for



each failure rate can then be ranked, listing the corresponding combination



of treatment and storage.



III.  A CASE STUDY - THE JAMES RIVER BASIN



          The case study presented herein is a preliminary evaluation of



the potential of the water resources In the James River Basin for meeting



present and future water needs.  The study was performed by the authors



while employed by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration as



part of the Water Resources Study for Appalachia authorized by Congress



in the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965*  The Federal Water



Pollution Control Administration, cooperatively with the U.S. Corps of



Engineers, Virginia State Department of Water Resources, Virginia State



Water Control Board, and other Federal and State agencies, is currently



evaluating present and future water resource needs of the James  River Basin



toward formulating a comprehensive program to enhance and preserve the




beneficial water uses in the Basin.  While the case study presented in this



paper was based on information existing at the time of the study, the find-



ings are not final and should not be interpreted as representing the Basin



program to be formulated.

-------

-------
                                    -7-


      General Basin Description, -

           The James River Basin is narrow and irregular with headwaters

 in the Allegheny Mountains at the West Virginia state line.  The river

 flows generally southeasterly 340 miles through four physiographic regions*

 the Valley and Ridge, the Blue Ridge, the Piedmont, and the Coastal Plain

 (Figure 2).  The total area drained is 10,060 square miles, of which 80

 are in West Virginia at the edge of the  Appalachian region.  There is a

 total fall of 988 feet from the headwaters to the "Fall Line" separating

 the Piedmont and Coastal Plain at Richmond.  From this point, the James is

 an estuary that joins the Chesapeake Bay at Hampton Roads.

           Here we will focus our attention on that portion of the main stem

 of Craig Creek from a proposed dam site (Hipes) to its confluence with the

 James River, that portion of the Jackson River extending from the Gathright

 Dam site to its confluence with the James River and the main stream of the

 James River from its confluence with the Jackson River up to and including

 the James estuary immediately below the City of Richmond.

           Gathright is a multipurpose reservoir under construction on the

 Jackson River approximately 19 miles upstream from Covington, Virginia,

 which will provide 60,700 acre feet of storage for flood control, recrea-

 tion and water quality control.

           The Hipes site on Craig Creek has been selected by the Corps of

 Engineers as the most feasible site for reservoir storage in the basin both
i
 from an economic and design standpoint*  In this study, our analysis was

 limited to increased storage at the Hipes site for water quality control*

 Reservoir cost data for this site were provided by the U.S. Corps of Engineers*

-------

-------
                                    -8-



 Water Quality Control Flow Requirements


          Dissolved oxygen is the water quality indicator upon which the


design of control measures was based in this study.  A minimum monthly


average DO of 5.Q mg/1 was the planning objective.


          There are presently two areas in the James River Basin, Lynch-


burg and Richmond, within the sphere of influence of the Hipes reservoir


site that experience recurrent DO problems.  Figure 3 indicates the effect


of wastes discharged in these two vicinities on the DO of the river.


Economic and engineering projections of industrial and municipal waste


loads to the James River showed that, although the provision of biological


treatment would improve the existing conditions, the projected growth and


resulting waste loads in these areas require that control methods in


addition to conventional waste treatment be considered.  A detailed des-


cription of the projections and resulting loading has been given else-

       [7]
where. v '


          To form a basis on which to plan for possible water quality


control needs, the 50-year period ending in the year 2020 has been divided


into two 25-year treatment plant design periods.  The required monthly


river discharge in the critical sections belov; Lynchbirg and Richmond under


present conditions and at the end of each of the 25-year periods was


calculated using the water quality models previously discussed.  The results


are shown in Tables 1 and 2 for throo levels of waste treatment*  The


waste treatment levels considered are defined as follows:


Level 1 - Conventional secondary treatment operated at an efficienty of


          85 percent removal of 5-day BOD.  The provision of this level


        1  or its equivalent in BOD reduction is considered to be pre-


          requisite to low flow augmentation.

-------

-------
-9-
















































(

1
1
J

i i






































































rH

bD
B 0
K
0 5
 cq

o
^j ^*
r-H >-t
< -}

^ ; H
M <;

"^* cc
uj
0 >
EH M

EH
13 00
a w
g 
jj <;
OM *~D
r-H
n w
C" S
W EH
cc;
z,
3. M
o r

fc, >
M
-3 H
O CJ
pH W
EH r-j
s ro
0 O
o


EH
M W
>J 0
*~^ *"*!
^5 pd
cy w
^
K <
^t)
EH






,







i









on

1 >> r-,
cd -P O
H -H -p
rH H O
j -H cd
 r=> fc,

















CO
V-4
o

c
rH

w
-p
c
OJ
S

r*
rM
3
0*

JH 8 ^


*d
o
H
rM
4)
(X,

C
^0
H
w
CJ
p

O
EH





S
O
v<
*4

*3^  O LA
W H LA
J OJ O
rQ H







M
H H


O
OJ
o
OJ





LA
ON
ON
rH
1
1






LA ON OJ
-3" OJ rH
~J" C"~
on

CM rH VO
^J rH H
OJ IA
OJ

ON H -3-
H on oj
ON-*
i-H
t-- rH ON
on oj oj

rH

ONCO OJ
IA LA on
ON --*
rH

co on oj
o o on
VO LA
rH

t O OJ
on rH on
-^ ON
OJ

CO O LA
tf ON OJ
O rH
-3- i-l

ONCO on
-* ON OJ
r~i t^~
VO rH

O rH LA
CO -a- rH
OJ C
t OJ

Oj O H
OJ ON rH
. CO VD
LA

ON rH ON
-a- on
t vo
^f



,  X
o
o
' *  ^

, cd
pLj |  | ^
rj
S^ -_j.> j>^
M CJ r !
^JlM O rd
P K 4J
G G
.0 q vq

"^ s ~
C -H C
cii C cv)
fij -H- a>
5^ t. ii










^>j
rH
0)

H
.p
O
CU
ft
U)
IH

rH
cd
J>
o
a
41
,-t

Q
0


4->
C

u

J^
o
ft

LA
ON

d
C
a}

A
O
ON

A
LA
CO

-p

5

0)
j_,
ft
0)
rH

M
M
M

-d
c
ol

A
M
M

A
M

W
H
I)
>
0

-P
C
o
a
4^>
cd
GJ
(^
EH


^^
r-H
*M 



^
rH
+3
cd
N
r4
4-5

O

CO

d
c
cd

A
0)
0
c
cd
a
4)
4^

H
cd
a 

 o
C ON
O O
rH rH
4J
cd n

C) 03
ft rS
0 W
faO
c
rH
rrj r/j
3 ^-*
H cd
o o
C >,
rH
-P OJ
W
0 rH
0 O

H
cd 4->
JJ K
O 4)
EH 0


*~*
CV
*^






-p
'5)
H
J^
r~]
-P
cd
O


. 
^_>
CD
a

L
4)
Jjf

(0
4J
1 a
CJ
a
0>
~<
H
3



rrj
>H
O
o
0)

j
0 O
rH -P
rH ti
O C
4-> "rH
W >
H O
fi O

**H 4-3
O 0)

w 'd
M 0)

O C

J^
t 3
on a
H


A
^vj
a
o
cc
m
o
S
o
o
H
O
M

JH
rf
O
C!

JM

-------

-------











t











H

hO
t)

O :;
' Q

^c
r^ o
HH H
< 05
EH

t ( 3l
go:

o E>

CG
EH
S 00

S 
-T"] ^
CC 1-3
M
s w
G'W

K
Si
6
rj M
*- ^*
HH
fj EH
O O
cs w
EH *~D
IS* CQ
0 O
Q_}
o
>H Q
EH
M W
iJ O
-^ ^^
ID CC
o* w
^
Q^ ^J
w
EH
<4
^






















j.
V--
n) -p b
H -H -P
H H 0
O -H J
'05 rQ fK

o
o
Q

o


4-5
v CJ
O


.-
Ill
(f> CO

o
to

' TH ,'

CO
4^ H

q 1-3

0)

; H 3
' & ^
O

d
> *"
O ""
H

O,




j^
cd
^


_n
O
(JL)




cd
1-3



*-^ (0 H
oo t, cd
^ cd C
P H ;H

0 0 ^
0 Q
r-H
H to cd
cd - -H
3 O -P
d O vH
d O d
. ^^ ^-^
rH H H
^^ V^r >^^

H H rH


*^-^ *^ **  >
H r-H H
s^^ v^ ^ V.^


** * x % * >
f-( M H
V* SX *^->


*-^ *  ^ *.
r-H rH r-i



X * ^-N * 
H H rH



*^x <^-% <-^*
H r-i H


*-"s *^-^ *^-%
H H H



.*  ^ v ^ x
H rH H




*^> * s. ^-^,
H H H
NX ^h_^ SX


X^ ^ i' > **~N
H H H
V_X V_rf V_X



^-^ * ^x %
rH rH H
V_^%*>V.^




  *
3^ "^ ^
  
a s a




  *
<3j ^J ^
 * 
tetsts,





,

H
H H
H M H


*!
tZ^


p
c
fl>
m
Pi


CM O O
VO 0 0
ON O O
H H



O ^~~N *~^*
OHH
OO^_ v_

OHH


Q * *fc <* 
OHH
ON *^^ -. -


O O '-*
UN IP\ r-H
oo ir\ ^*-*
r-(

o o *~
IPS O rH
' UACO >  
H

0 O '
(f\ O H
UNOO  
H

O O *~+
\T\ l/N H
-d" VD ^-^
H

0 0 *~*
0 O H
O OO  
H

O ""* *  *
ITS H H
VO ^^^'



O """* ^"^
OHH
CO **-* ^-**


O *^s """^
OHH
OO ^ ^ "^-^



o *  * *  *
OHH
OO v_^ ^



o o
o vo oj
CO H OO
cd "
o H



o o
O ON OO
CO ON
cd
,0




1


n
H H
HUH


ON
H




O
H
A ^

CO LA O
-=r ON o TJ
ON ON O > C . -P "^
-=r H H cc) ' cd c
O O O
O O *""* ' cX) O OO !> O H
LAOH OOOCVI, -HO to
i  t OO '***' <  1 C*-* *P ^  ^4
H -=r o ^1 4> o
(11 4-> 0> >
O O '- I OJ CO P< i 1 -H
LA C^ H ON <-) CVJ  (0 -P '0
LA (X) ^ * Vo  4) (H < H
'd r-l fl) tU
o o <^ o co o !H  cd ^ n
O IA H OJ LA OO O H 4-* co
OOO^-'IACO o ed H CO O
H H ~=f (U > P -P
M O cd c! cd
o o *-* LAVO o s o O a 1*
CO O ^* VO OO O >H V4 O Cd
HH OOH H O >H G
4J Jn'O
cd d cd 3
O O "" ^ OJ CO -^d" T3  H C
H t 00 3>HJH Vt H
S O O
O *-*'-* VOVOO -Hf^S -P O
lAHHVOt OJ d Cd Cti 4->

OJ OO S ON T) -p  TJ
H C QJ
d rrj cd rrj ^j
O ~^~ ONVO OO  cd d !H W
OHH VOONH ^Icd  O 3
lAv--v^ LA OO 4^ O O T-J
OO VO  O H'0
OHH OJlA WO ^Jd-H
-3- v_^v_^ O VO 4^ co " O CC
OH d o d 
H 0) ^ O  O bO 4J
^-" C^LJ H ^-^* d crj
OO O dd3 r(3 H TJ v_  O O OS
cd ** cd VH  3 c3 j-^
rQ H r-l . H H 4->
P< O C 2 O 1 ^G
S r) > -r-t Cd S +>
""^N u) 4-5 rH U (/) H
t/*N E-* C< 4-^ ^ -C X C
*  ' O t/1 t/i +> aj O
**""* t6 f3 O i  i O l/S C i
iAOd OJOCVJO C;
HH ^^ f~H S b ^ Ea S-j tn
HH. >PM-H ,-> OH>H O Cd
HHH o x TH^n}oH jlj H 3 VH O
P^HA cd4jc! toco
oj ja 3dG4J-Pco
O . HflH t! O4)*>S
OJ .cox: r-4->Hoocd
4JJ54J OcdoJ J-iS
C d 4^ d) 4-3 (H JM d) O
OJO ttj ^ OO O Ci( ^i
*"~*rt t-*tr^C^M*M^U>*
tA C -H C
ON n5 d cd * * *~+ *^ -^^ ^- N.
rH JS  2 "" ** ' "*-^ **^ *^-*

-------

-------
                                -11-


Level II - Ninety percent removal of the 5-day BOD.  This level will

           result in a further one-third reduction in treated waste

           load discharges and can bo achieved by design modifications

     1      of conventional biological wuato troatmont plants.

Level III - Ninety-five percent removal of the 5-day BOD.  This level of
      (
            treatment can be achieved by conventional biological treat-

            ment in combination with oxidation ponds, chemical precipi-

            tation or some other method of advanced waste treatment.


         The cost estimates shown in the tables for each treatment level

represent the annual expenditures at the beginning and end of the design

period to provide either Level II or III, over and above the annual cost

of Level 1.   Level 1 is considered to be a minimum level when considering

low flow augmentation as an alternative to treatment.  Costs were estimated

from municipal treatment plant cost data compiled and analyzed by Frankel

and from cost data made available by industries in the Basin.  The costs shown

include total annual cost of operation, maintenance and amortization of

capital at 3-1/8 percent over 25 years.  The interest rate chosen is the

same as that used by the U.S. Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District, for

reservoir construction.  Uniformity of interest rate was considered to be

desirable for benefit evaluation.

         The stream flow requirements necessary to assimilate the corres-

ponding waste loads without depleting the average DO below 5.0 mg/1 were

computed by means of the digital computer simulation models discussed pre-

viously.  For planning purposes, the mean monthly maximum water temperatures

were used.

-------

-------
                                  -12-


           The probability at which the natural or regulated stream flows

can be expected to meet the required  stream flows is a measure of the

reliability of the system.  This probability is computed as the number of

successful events divided by the total number of events considered.  As

applied to the inonthly stream flow requirements, an event consists of a

routing of an historical monthly average stream flow through the river

system and comparing it to the corresponding monthly flow requirement.  In

this study we used the term "reliability factor", defined as the probability,

as discussed above, multimplied by 100.

    Reliability Factor = 100 x	Number of Successful Months	
                                  Total Number of Months in Historic Record

           Thirty-seven years of historical stream flow data have been routed

through the system and reliability factors computed for each of the flow

requirement vectors shown in Tables 1 and 2.  For planning purposes, a

reliability factor of 99.6 has been chosen.  On the basis of monthly flows,

this represents one unsuccessful month out of 20 years. Hydrologic analysis

of the historical records showed that this reliability is approximately

equivalent to the 7-day, 10-year return frequency drought flow specified in

the State of Virginia proposed water quality standards.  It was assumed that

Gathright Reservoir will be operational by the early 1970's.  Hydrological

routings, therefore, have been made with Gathright operating for maximum

water quality control benefit.  Table 3 shows the target flows assumed for

operation of Gathright Reservoir.

           The hydrological analysis has been facilitated by the application

of a computer program developed by Fiering and Pisano^discussed earlier.     ""

Thirty-seven years of historic stream flow records were available for this

study area.  The period of record used was from October 1927 through

September 1964.  Figure 4 shows the system geometry as assumed for this study.

-------

-------
-13-
,^>
H



W
P
M
n
p-
(->

o
3

O
O
3
c+-
V
O
H
M
fP
P<

c+
fl>
S
>0
ft
M
P
cf
c
H
rt>

M
(D
M
0
P
01
n>

r?
"i
o
(3
O
P
d-
3-
1
H
TO
3*
cf

















o
fD
W
H'
w
3
H
n>

/T>
(V
^
P
c*
JS
R
(9





VO





CO





H
ro





ro
0



' ro
H





ro
a\
^~-^
M_


ro
X
M
*^^


ro
cr\
-^
H
^^

ro
4r-

ro






M
f-1
U)

M
O
ro
o
ro
o






H






M
3
VI



H
 J
O




H
oo
0




M
VO
O



ro
H1
o



O
<-< n
O W :
V> H-
"-< (n '
3


^
w
i
f ft)
(!) P
< cf
0> Kl
M ft
3
e+


C-(
P
3



M
ft
0'




S
P
T




>
tJ
"(


^
Is
I
N '
IP
jco
W C-. ct
cr\ c
VI 3 O




U)
ON
VI '



U)
ON
VI



ro
vT
ro
H-
o

V)
H
~~3
VI
o
i<
H.
3
-U?i
C c+
MO
3
1
-<
3
>
C 0
7Q -*
u>


co!
(T> I
di
o
o
*
q'
s
O
ffl
O















*



o
d
re
*~t
P
rl-
H-
O
O 3
O
3 >">
c* O
^ ^
O
M >-<
O
>T] P
M ^
O
< ro
o
S3 ro
o o
O
r-*
c s;
H- p
^ f+-
f-> re
H >-i
O
3 O)
(+ C
to 
>d
po i-1
ri-v;

O P
O 3
< P-
(-.
3 s:
C<5 P
ft- C+
O 0
3 >1

JO

P
I-1
H'

*s





































O
>
>J

5
M
O

H5

^T^
~*J
t=d
CO
t_-<
C/j
*J
<
o
M
a

50
w
f
M
>
W
w


c




















                                         K

-------

-------
                                 -14-
                I

 Table  4  is a  list of the U.S. Geological Survey  stream gaging stations used

 and Table 5 lists the pertinent geographical locations of the system.

 Gage No. 6 was  created  for this study by adding  the flows from the gage

 on Dunlap Creek with those at Falling Spring on  the Jackson River.  The

 resulting record was considered to be a reasonably good approximation of

'the flows that  occur at Covington, the point of  need for Gathright water

 quality  control storage.

-------

-------
             -15-
           TABLE 4

STREAM GAGES USED IN HYDROLOGIC
 ANALYSIS OF JAMES RIVER BASIN
Gage
No.
1
2
3
k
5 ^
6
7
8
9
10 .
11
Description
Jackson River at Falling Spring
James River at Lick Run
James River at Buchanan
James River at Holcombs Rock
James River at Bent Creek
Dunlap Creek plus Falling Spring gage
James River at Casterville
Cowpasture River near Clifton Forge
Craig Creek at Parr
Dunlap Creek near Covington
Maury River at Buena Vista
Drainage Area
(square miles)
h09
' 1369
208U
3250
3671
575
621*2
1*56
331
166
6^9

-------

-------
                            -16-
                           TABLK 5  '

       DESCRIPTION OF COORDINATES FOR HYDROLOCIC ANALYSIS
                                                              Gage
                   River    Drainage Area     Reference    Adjustment
 Location          Mile	(square miles)    Gage* '	Factors
I
Jackson River
Gathright dam site
Jackson River
City of Covington
Craift Crock
Hipes dam site
James River
City of Lynchburg
James River
City of Richmond
1*3.5 3**1*
23.5 610
11*. 8 327
250.0 3200
100.0 6760
1 0.81*11
6 1.0000
9 1.0000
1* 1.0000
7 1.0816
See Table  4  for gage description.

-------

-------
                                  r!7-
         ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF MEETING WATER QUALITY CONTROL
                                OBITEC7IVES

           Probably, the most widespread methods for meeting specific water

quality objectives with respect to dissolved oxygen arei  (l) reduction of

BOD waste loads by treatment at the source; and (2) regulation of stream

flow by providing reservoir storage.  Preliminary studies indicated that

other methods such as instream aeration, waste storage, and piping of waste

to bodies of water having a greater assimilation capacity did not appear to

be feasible devices for pollution control in the Lynchburg and Richmond

areas*

           The analysis was, therefore, limited to an examination of storage

and treatment either separately or in combination, as a means of meeting the

water quality control needs of the portion of the James River described.

From a cost evaluation of many possible combinations of storage and treatment,

a single least cost alternative can be selected.  Table 6 defines the

pollution control alternatives that have been considered for t,us report.

The treatment combinations considered include all possible combinations of

the three treatment levels at Lynchburg and Richmond.  The a.iuunt of reservoir

storage in Hipes that is required to meet the average DO objective of

5.0 mg/1 for each of the treatment combinations has been computed as previously

discussed.

           Figures 5 and 6 exemplify the method of handling the output from

the program to determine storage requirements.  By routing the historic flows

through the system with various sizes of storage in Hipes and plotting the

computed failure probabilities versus storage, the storage required to meet

the desired reliability can be picked from the curve.  These curves were

-------

-------
                      -18-
                     TABLE , 6

STORAGE REQUIREMENTS CORRESPONDING TO ALL POSSIBLE
       COMBINATIONS OF TREATMENT LEVELS AT
              LYNCHBURG AND RICHMOND
                                                      26
    Treatment Level
Required Storage
    in Hipes
Lynchburg

I
I
I
- II
II
II
III
III
III . 

I
I
I
II
II
II
III
III
III
Richmond
Design Period
I
II
III
I
II
III'
I
II
'III
Design Period
I
II
III
I
II
III
I
II
III
(acre-feet)
1970 - 1995
 75,000
27,000...
27,000
.75,000
0 
o 
75,000 -
0
0
1995 - 2020
'128,000
62,000
o2,G ju
j. ,  - ~t
r - -^ *^
/ > , V VVj
27,030-
128,000
0
0

-------

-------
                                    -19-






developed for all of the alternatives considered.  Only the curves for the



selected alternate are shown as an example.



 ;          In the historic record of thirty-seven years, two months'  failure



would exceed the objective reliability factor of one month in twenty years.



However, based on observations of the records from gages for which a longer



historic trace is available, it was concluded that, for the limited record



used, two failures (reliability factor = 99.5) would be accepted for design




purposes.  Future studies, perhaps utilizing synthetically generated flow



records, are recommended to support this judgment decision.



           The total pollution control alternative, therefore, consists of



a specific treatment level at Lynchburg and at Richmond in conjunction with



a specific storage volume at the Hipes site for stream flow regulation.



           Since the benefit of storage for water quality control is



generally evaluated on the basis of a fifty year period, it is necessary to'




select the long-range alternative first and then designate the minimum



required short-term action plan, taking fullest advantage of the storage



computed to meet the long-range needs.  By so doing, the alternatives listed



in Table 6 can be reduced to the six logical firty-yor.r pollution control



alternatives shown with their respective costs i,j T.^io 8.



           Pollution control by treatment is generally designed for a twenty



to twenty-five year period of capital amortization.  For comparative purposes,



the alternatives and associated costs for a twenty-five year plan are given



in Table 7.




                                DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES



           Alternatives 1 through 9 (see Table &) are designed to meet the



stream DO objective through the year 1995.  These alternatives are included

-------

-------
                     -20-




                       TABLE 7




  COST COMPARISON FOR POLLUTION CONTROL ALTERNATIVES




                 Twenty-Five Year Plan



                     (1970 - 1995)
Description of Alternative
Cost of Alternative
Alternative
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Treatment
Lynchburq
I
I
II
II
III
III
I
II
III
Level
Richmond
I ,
II
II
I
II
I
III
III
III
Storage
In Hipes
(acre-ft.)
75,000
27,000
0
75,000
0
75,000
27,000
0
0

Present
Treatment
(millions
0
2
5
3
15
13
19
22
33
.00
.15
.41
.52
.88
.74
.32
.58
.06
Worth 1970
Storage Total
of dollars)
9.87
6.10
0.00
9.87
0.00
9.87
6.10
0.00
0.00
9.
8.
5.
13.
15.
23.
25.
22.
33.
87
25
41
39
88
61
42
58
06

-------

-------
-21-


(_(_,(_,(_<(_.(_"'
Oi Ji. O> CO H* O






MUM
M M






fH H H H !! }-4
l-t M M M
M




M M M M M M
M M M M
M M M










M


t-1
M ^ K>
-4 Ol CO
v ^ w
O O O
O O 0 O O 8




J__J
Ol (O Ol Ol M O
Ol eT>    
  ON 4^ Ol O
& 5 *** * M 





O O O 0^ vO M
b b M oo \>
O O O -J (-




,
Ol fO *! h-1 M
Ol ON Ol I-1 I-1 H*
  o   
IVJ l- Ox Ol CO (O
O Ol -J O> CO I
2:
r^
5
Q*
m
H


t-1
3
O

d
H



o
*?

o
^3
0-
r1
D
O

cr
c
H






^cJ
O
g
o

0)
o
H

1

" '





^<-^
3
H-
;  i
l_ -i
S'
^3
01

O
Hj
g-
1 	 f
M
0>
4
(rt
SwX




c+
CD
4
D
0
ct-
<'
(0

K"
j
fD
0)
(-f-
^
CD
D
rh
m*
CD







H

(0
{!>
r^*
|3
CD
^3
c~t*

j^i
(D
0)
H-1

H
^>

^C
H'

fD
0)


H

CD
CO
ft*
S>
(D
p




cn

H
CU
CD




H
O
H-

H->











H-*
vO
*^j
O

1
Cn











i  i
vO
vD
Ol

1

ro
0
CD


cn

o
H
OJ
Id
CD







13
fD
Co

rf-

^
0*
rt-
i '
vO
^j
O
























a
CD
to
O
O
H-
O
D

O
H,

!3>
h^
rl-
rt>
H
D
a>
C-H
H-















O
w
r^"
o
m

s>
H4
H-
CD
{.
H-


-------

-------
                                  -22-
for comparison purposes.  It is presently common practice to assume a fifty-



year design period for storage for water quality control.  These shorter



range plans are presented because there are definite advantages to short-range



planning in this day of rapid technological change.  Advances in waste



treatment technology and industrial production purposes could drastically



alter the water requirements and waste production of the future.



           Alternatives 10 through 15 are six feasible long-range (fifty years)



water quality control plans from which the need for and value of storage in



a multi-purpose reservoir on Craig Creek can be evaluated.  Table 9 provides



a subjective evaluation of these six alternatives.  Although the rating of



secondary effects is admittedly a somewhat arbitrary approach to making a



non-monetary comparison of the different plans, it does present a method of



acknowledging and considering effects that might not otherwise be included



in the evaluation.



           The following is a short description of each of the six fifty-year



plans*  The particularly significant secondary effects of each are also briefly



commented upon.



           Alternative 10 is what can be considered the minimum acceptable .



treatment level in combination with 128,000 acre-feet of storage for water



quality control at the Hipes site.  This is both the least costly alternative



and the one requiring the most storage.  Significant secondary benefits are




increased low flows in the Fall Zone at Richmond and maximum performance



stability.  Since this alternative requires the minimum treatment and




maximum storage, it is the least consistent with the goal of complete



elimination of point-source pollution.




           Alternative 1.1 > the second least costly alternative,  is judged



insignificantly more expensive than Alternative 10 and the storage requirement

-------

-------
-23-













CO
1*3
M
<
W
EH
O
05
EH

O
O

5=3
o
M
EH

|_JJ
~3
O
OH

f-f_t
O

?*
6
M
C~*
^
D

-jJ
^*
W

W
^
M
EH
O
W

pQ
p^
03


















M
1^
r: rH
'0
JH C
4J -H
C CM -P
0 rH Cd
O 05
a
o
H rH
H
rH
PM O
H





















^r >,
rH

W




*















K
o
rH
OJ
ft

d

c3

^>J
rH
ft
ft
d
W

J-<

o

td

H
cd
O
E

j_^

4J
C
CJ
H
JH
P

*
*
ed
**
CO



CO




CM




CM

CM

























C
o
H
^J
cd
a
rl
^C\
ft
O

4^
0
0)

s^
J_i
o
,3
+>
W
CO
J_(
o
CM

-d
a
o
J
o
H
P5





















s
rH
^l
ni
rH
rj
O
rH
P
rH
cd
ft

M
J>j
^
-P
V)
H
d
C
H

rH
O
ft
n)
ft

.C
P
H
^

d
o
P
Cd
rH
O
o

in
cd
I
l
rH
cd
>
o
a

rH

O
rH
O
o
^
/3
"*
-a-



CO




CM




CM

CM













































60
rH
rO
,d
o
G

h-5

0
H
CO
,0


H
H



CM




CM




CM

CM
































rH
CJ
p>
H
rH

0
O

w
p
o
CO

H
OJ
1
1
a
o
H
P
cd
CJ
rH
O
(D
05
9
U
s. Jf
c-t -=J



^ CO




- CM




f" ^

fr. I









W

o
c
M
^>
d
cfl

H
cd
o
H
bO
O
rH
O
a
r^3
O

-p

*M
O

rH CJ
D bfl
> cd
rH H->
rH C
cd
a >
o 'd
cd
w
P CO
0 ,X
o cd

VH
d) O
1 -P
1
S >>
JH xj
CO -rH
A H
W -H
H rO
fe <
 
frj (U
f-l
H



CM




CO




CO

^f





















*












V
CJ
c
cd
p;
JL^
O
j 4^ H H rH rO cd H rH a) > t C o t-3 H H CTJ PL, c rl Jj O rH H 1 1 -P a CJ g CD ^ O rH ft S H O H 4_J CD 4J W CJ 3* * bO 4-3 c H O ft CM o 0 rH 4_3 cd C rH S H rH CJ CJ .p CJ rH ft 6 O CJ v^ o to rH cd O i rj 4J rH > 4.^ a (U 4_> w rH C O O . ^3 * CO CO CM CM 1 C o vH ^ rH rH O ft CO o rH ^ O n I i CM s rH ^. O IP, bO c H Q rH Oj P C H ft E M O d) , > rH P U O lJ rQ O r-H - v , ___. ._. , tf ft H tj c H 4O rH -P 0 ft CJ CO CO M O W VI *H cs C P5 CJ -H CO 0 O M 4-> -H *X^ ^_4 *w *rH -P ^-* H O CO W C -rt o +3 o 3 a C C! 0) O ft O M H O r OJ < -H H -H M -P <> CJ C tO -H tD !H CJ -H CJ O rH -H CO *M *fH r^* J5 CO CO ^* W Q 1 rH CM OO-3- "in <:v7 > ~ .p cj CJ <^H *M
-------

-------
                                  -24-
 is reduced by about forty percent to 75,000 apre-feet.  This reduction in



 storage is the result of the application of the second treatment level at



 Richmond beginning in 1995 and through the year 2020.  The secondary benefits



 of this alternative are essentially the same as the first, with an additional



 slight positive effect in the area of eliminating point-source pollution.



            Alternative 12 calls for the second treatment level at Richmond



 for the 1970 through 1995 design period and at both Richmond and Lynchburg




 for the 1995 to 2020 design period.  The alternative requires 27,000 acre-feet



 of storage at Hipes and has a total cost that is again only insignificantly



 more expensive than the least costly plan.  In the subjective evaluation,



 losses with respect to Aesthetic improvement for the Fall Zone at Richmond



 are balanced by gains in the ability to take advantage of technological



 advances.



            Alternative 13 is almost one and one-half times as costly as the



 least cost alternate.  The sharp rise in cost is due to the requirement of



 treatment  level III which involves chemical precipitation and its corres-



 pondingly  high operating costs.   No storage above that provided by the



 Gathright  Project is required.   The 95 percent treatment level with chemical
i


 precipitation at Lynchburg would have the secondary benefit of significant



 color and  nutrient reduction.



            Alternative 14 requires the third level  of treatment at Lynchburg



 for both design periods and the  second level of  treatment at Richmond for



 both design periods.   No  flow regulation other than that provided by Gathright



 for the Covington area is needed.   The cost is substantially more than



 Alternative 13.   The  secondary benefits are somewhat higher in the nutrient



 and color  removal categories but lower in performance variability and



 dependable flow in the Fall Zone.

-------

-------
                                   -25-






         Altern.-itive 15 Is five times as expensive as we least cost



alternative due to the specified highest treatment level for all waste



contributors in the Lynchburg and Richmond areas from 1970 through 2020*



As in Alternatives 12 and 14, no storage is required.  This alternative



scores highest in scondary effects with very significant positive effects



on nutrient and color removal, ability to take advantage of technological




advances and consistency with the goal of complete elimination of point-*



source pollution.

-------

-------
                                     -26-



i                             SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS






           In making this study, many conclusions were reached,  some of



which can be supported by the data presented while others are more subjec-



tive in nature.  The more significant of these are:



           1.  In a given situation, low flow augmentation is still an



               economically feasible method of water quality control.




           2.  In using operations research and systems analysis principles



  ;             in water quality control planning, translating theory to



               mathematical formulas and computer programming is only a



               small portion of the task facing engineers and scientists.



               Obtaining the data necessary to satisfy the input require-



               ments of these models and evaluating and interpreting output



               in the light of political, economic and physical  constraints,



               in fact, pose significant if not more difficult problems.



           3o  There is a need for greater emphasis by water quality control



               agencies on the establishment of water resource policy.Studies



               on the implication of various policy avenues by use of the



               case study technique are desirable.



           4.  From the experience encountered in the James River studies,



               the solution of the least cost alternative does not seem to



               lend itself, practically speaking, to a continuous solution.




               Cost curves for waste treatment are generally not continuous




               functions especially when complicated by existing treatment




               levels and policy constraints.  The individual evaluation of



               discreet management plans not only is indicated to be a more



               practical approach but perhaps a more desirable and realistic



               one as well.

-------

-------
                         -27-






5.  Mathematical models in water pollution control planning



    can provide a means whereby many system designs may be evaluated




    and thereby provide a more rational selection of the optimum



    design.  It is the opinion of the writers, however, that the



    decision should not be based solely on the cost aspects of




    the total water resources picture.  A subjective analysis of



    the project may show that the least cost solution may not be



    the optimum solution.  In fact, there may be more than one



    "optimum solution" depending upon the vantage point of the



    decision maker.



6.  Considerable field work followed by still more office work



    involving the use of large measures of engineering judgment



    were required to arrive at seasonable approximations of the



    system parameters and input data required for this study.



    For this reason, caution is advised in a ttcn,pt:a,g to reduce



    all problems to a computerized systems analysis approach.



    For example, it probably would not be ocononu ;ally feasible



    to spend the money and manpower required to obtain models for



    very small,perhaps intermittent, creeks.   In cases such as



    this a policy decision based on experience would appear to be



    more realistic.




7.  Limited industrial waste reduction cost data present a major.




    problem in making cost oriented evaluations such as this one




    although the help received from the industries in the study



    area indicated their willingness  o provide such data as.exist.

-------

-------
                                   -28-
1.  Worley, J.L. - "A System Analysis Method For Water Quality Management

    by Flow Augmentation In A Complex River Basin" - Master's Thesis,
                  i
    Oregon University, 1963.


2.  Streeter, H.W. and Phelps, E.B. - "A Study of the Pollution and Natural

    Purification Of The Ohio River - III,  Factors Concerned In The

    Phenomena Of Oxidation And Re-Aeration" - Public Health Bulletin No.  146,

    U.S. Public Health Service, February, 1925.


3.|  Thomann, R.V. - "Mathematical Model For Dissolved Oxygen" - Journal

    Of The Sanitary Engineering Division, ASCE, Volume 89,  No. SA5, Proc.

  '.  Paper 3680, October, 1963, pp. 1-30.


4.  Jeglic, John M. - "Mathematical Simulation of the Estuarine Behavior",

    Digital Computer Technology and Programming Analysis Memo No.  1030,

    Rev. A, General Electric Re-Entry Systems Department, Philadelphia,

    Pennsylvania, July, 1967.


5.  Bunce, Ronald and Hetling, Leo J. - "The Steady State Segmented

    Estuary Model" - CB-SRBP Technical Paper No. 12,  Federal Water Pollution

    Control Administration, Middle Atlantic Region, Charlottesville, Virginia,

    1968.


6.  Fiering, M.B. and Pisano, W.C. - "Synthesis and Simulation Package For

    Reservoir Planning" - prepared for Federal Water Pollution Control

    Administration, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1966.

-------

-------
                                  -29-





                            B1BLIOGRAPHY (CONTINUED)
 7.  "Water Supply and Water Quality Control Study - Hipes Reservoir,



     Craig Creek, Virginia" - Prepared For The Corps of Engineers,



     U.S. Department of the Army, Army Engineers District, Norfolk,



     Virginia, February, 1968.






8.  Frankel, R.J. - "Water Quality Management: An Engineering Economic




    Model For Domestic Waste Disposal", Ph.D. Dissertation, University



    of California, Berkeley, 1965.

-------

-------
                                                                  UJ
                                                                  u.
uJ
cc
^

LJ
	)
co
CE

O
	i

en
    UJ
    >
    uj
CE
u_  cc
    O
^  _J
O
CO
nr
CO
o
CK
                                                            UJ
                                                            tr
                                                            a_

                                                            U.
                                                            en
                                                            ca
                                                            o

-------

-------
'



30000C
?  ; 
 ? "


V
I :
L e
&

i>00

; I
| I
*
              \\\\
  0   0 0

>
[
_


c
in
O
m
2
^
-i
s
m
2
H
O
Tl
T>
3
2:
O
TJ
f
m
S
c
z
o
T3
>
r
9>
5t
O
C
; -<
-i ' ^
X

z
PI
2
o
*;

>
f*
*H
m
; f//
V
r O
J ;^






C_
>
S
m
O)

33

<
m
33

OD
>
f/\
^^^
~2L


5
J
m
3

w
c
t>
o
r~
-< >
o
 -D
>
< r~
> i
1 O
rn i
a 

Ct
c
C 2
< i
:o
0 **
i^
 1 !
a
0
r I
t/>
-1
c
, o

-------

-------
                            D. 0.  mg/l
 o
              r\>
ro
m
c/>

>
CO
o
<
m

S
o
c
H
X
                                                     CD



w
en
o






i i 1 1 I 1 i 1
,
- - 	 -. 0
^C COVINGTON
V'^^^~-r\
" V^/^*^^~\
^ ^-.
s
S
\
N CRAIG CREEK CONFLUENCE
s
\



t

>
m
ji
0 ^
r^S
^ m
0
V c-

00
o
Q





\ X o
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
rx_==n___^ 	 -OB 16 ISLAND \
^~~ 	 -o
* ' '.
H >f>
~l u")
O O c__
- < >
2 n -,
o ---
^- rn
?9 oo
                                          LYNCHBURG
                                              -GRiCHMOND
                                                                       a
                                                                       \
                                                                       o
                                                                          o
                                                                             i k i
                                                                       J>
                                                                       C 2
                                                                       cn -n
                                                                       O
                                                                       CTi
                                                                         00
                                                                         c
                                                                         33
                                                                         <
                                                                         m
                                                                         <
                                                                         CO

-------

-------
         SIMPLIFIED  SKETCH OF GEOMETRY
                          for
               HYDROLOGIC   ANALYSIS
 GATHRiGHT
 DAM SITE
(RM1. 43.5)
               FALLING SPRING
         COVINGTON
         (RMI.23.5)
HiPES
DAM SITE <
(RMI. 14.8)





^ /-^ CRAIG
4~"O
o:
K
2


LEGEND

CREEK


O HOLCOMBS ROCK
1
gQ LYNCH3URG
> T (RMI. 250)
5


UJ
A

O

O
DAM SITE

POINT OF NEED FOR
WATER QUALITY
CONTROL

U.S.G.S. GAGING
STATION
CARTERSViLLE
                               RICHMOND
                               (RMI.100)
                                                   FIGURE

-------

-------
  RELIABILITY OF WATER  QUALITY  CONTROL   VS.


       STORAGE   FOR LOW FLOW AUGMENTATION


             (ALTERNATE NO. II AT 1995 CONDITIONS)
    80,000
H  70.OOO
LU

LU
U.
i

LU    s


O  60,000
CD
LU
0.

X   50,000
U!

U;

<  40,000


O
o:
-  30,000
LU
CO
LU
   20,000
    10,000
                  PERCENT OF  MONTHS FAILED

                      10    5    : 2   I  0.5  0.2
                           I
                                1    I   I
r
                    Richmond
                      J_
                                         LynchburgN
                                I	I
                     90   95   98  99 99.5 99.8 :>y.9


                PERCENT OF  MQNTHS SUCCEEDED

                       (RELIABILITY FACTOR)
                                                       1400
                                                       1200
                                                       lOOO
                                                            c
                                                            o

                                                            5
                                                            CO
                                                            UJ
                                                            a.
                                                       600
                                                      40O
                                                            o:
                                                            o
                 a:

                 o
                 >
                 cc
                 LU
                 OT
                 LU
                 CC
                                                      -1200
                                                          F I G U K f. J?

-------

-------
  RELIABILITY OF WATER  QUALITY  CONTROL  VS.


       STORAGE   FOR LOW  FLOW AUGMENTATION


             (ALTERNATE NO. II AT 2020 CONOiTI ONS)




                  PERCENT OF  MONTHS FAILED

                      10    5     2    I  05  0.2
   80,000
I-  70,000
LJ
UJ
u,
I
UJ

O  60,000
UJ
a.
^  50,000
UJ
ID
<  40,000
CC    '
O
h-
g  3O.OOO


ct
UJ
en
UJ
<  20,000
   10,000
                   Lynchburg
                                        Richmond
                     90   95
                               98  99 93.5 993 99i)
                PERCENT OF MONTHS  SUCCEEDED

                       (RELIABILITY FACTOR)
                                                      1400
                                                     -JI200   in"
                                                           n
                                                           o
                                                      ,-s 0 0
                                                     - <..oo
                                                      40O
                                                           z


                                                           UJ
O
h-
cn
o
>
a:
LJ

UJ
CC
                                                      20O
                                                          FIGURE

-------

-------
            A WATKR QUALITY HTUDY

                    OF THE

          PIGCATAWAY CREEK WATERSHED



                 August 1968
                 Johan  A.  A alto
              Norbert  A.  J a wo r ski
           Chesapeake Field Station
            Middle Atlantic Region
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
       U. 3. Department of the Interior

-------

-------
                         TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                              Page
LIST OF TABLES	     iii

!,[.".'!' OF FTCIIRF'r,	      iv

CJiAPTUH

  I.  PRKFACK	     I - I

 II.  INTRODUCTION	    II - .1

      A.  Purpose and Scope	    IT-1

      B.  Authority	    II - ?

      C.  Acknowledgements	    TT - M

III.  OWtMAKY AMD RECOMMENDATIONS	Til - 1

 IV.  DESCRIPTION OF AREA, WATER RESOURCES, AND
      WATER QUALITY STANDARDS	    IV - 1

      A.  General	    IV - 1

      15.  Water anO Land Related Resources	    IV - 3

      C.  Water Quality Standards and
          Implementation Plan	    IV - 5

          1.  Water Uses	    IV - 5

          2.  Water Quality Standards   	    IV - 6

  V.  WASTI.WATKK TREATMENT FACILITIES	     V - 1

      A.  Andrews Air Force Base Wastewater
          Treatment Facilities  	     V-l

      B.  Piscataway Creek Wastewater
          Treatment Facility  	     V-l

      C.  Other Discharges	     V - 6

-------

-------
                    TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

CHAPTER                                                      Page

 VT.  EXISTING WATER QUALITY 	   VI - 1

      A.  Potomac River near Piscataway Creek   	   VI - 1

          1.  Water Quality Monitoring Programs   	   VI - 1

          2.  Water Quality in the Upper Potomac
              Estuary near Piscataway Creek  	   VI - 1

      13.  Upper Piscataway Area Watershed	   VI - rj

      C.  Piscataway Creek Embayment	   VI - 'j

          1.  Survey of July 11, 1968	   VI - 9

          2.  Investigation of August 6, 1968	   VI - 13

          3.  Intensive Surveys of August lU-l6,
              I960	   VI - lU

          U.  Investigation of August 23, 1968	   VI - 26

VII.  CORRECTIVE MEASURES	VII - 1

      A.  Existinr Wastewater Treatment Facilities ....  VII - 1

      B.  Existing Temporary Discharge Location of
          the Piscataway Wastewater Treatment Plant  . .   .  VII - 2

      C.  Expansion of the Piscataway Wastewater
          Treatment Facility and Potomac
          Interceptor	VII - '4
                                 11

-------

-------
                           LIST OF TABLES

Number                                                       Page

  V-3   Piscataway Wastewater Treatment Data,
        January -- June, 1968	
  V-;;   Wastewater Oischarge, Piscataway Creek
        Basin	   V-3

 VJ-3   Water Quality Data - Potomac Estuary
        near Piscataway Creek, 1968	VI - 3

 VI-1   Monthly Summaries of BOD and DO Data,
        Meetinghouse Branch STP, Piscataway
        Creek		VI - 6

 VI-3   Monthly Summaries of BOD and DO Data,
        Payne Branch STP, Andrews AFB,
        Piscataway Creek	VI - 7 '

 VI-U   Piscataway Wastewater Treatment Plant
        Data, July 11, 1968, Chesapeake Field
        Station	VI - 10

 VI-5   Piscataway Creek Survey, July 11, 1966,
        Chesapeake Field Station 	  VI - 11

 VI-b   Piscataway Creek Survey, August lH, 1?68,
        Chesapeake Field Station	VI - l.fj

 Vl-7   Piscataway Creek Survey, August 15, 1968,
        Chesapeake Field Station 	  VI - 17

 VI-8   Piscataway Creek Survey, August 16, 1962,
        Chesapeake Field Station 	  VT - 18

 VI-9   Wastewater Data - Piscataway Wastewater
        Treatment Plant, August 14, 1968	VI - 20
                                 111

-------

-------
                           LIST OF FIGURES

 Number
 I V-l    Preneral location Map - Potomac River,
         Washington Metropolitan Area	IV - ;'

  V-l    Schematic Diagram of Piscataway Waste-
         water Treatment Plant	  . .  .   V - 3

 VI-1    BOD, DO and Temperature, Potomac River
         near Piscataway Creek	VI - 2

 VI-2    Piscataway Creek Sampling Stations,
         Chesapeake Field Station 	  VI - 8

 VI-3    Piscataway Creek Survey, July 11, 1968	VI - 12

 VI-h    Piscataway Creek Survey, August ih, 1968	VI - 21

 VI-5    Piscataway Creek Survey, August 15, 1966	VI - 22

 VI-6    Piscataway Creek Survey, August l6, 1968	VI - 23

VII-i    Wastewater Flow Patterns, Piscataway
         Embayment	VII - 3
                                  IV

-------

-------
                             CHAPTER 1




                             PPFFACE






         Tl;'j W.'tr. 'i i nrton , !'.  C. ,  me trope,] -j t an complex,  i r.  a  ntpiiily




 rrowinn area, cnanpiinp; not  only the character of tru  lnna use of




 the  upper Potomac vstuary Drainage Basin, hut also nlacin^ increaf,-




 ii'.r.  demands upon the water  resources  of tne Fiver anu  its i:ni.uur,y.




 .''uifo  I960, the population  of the  metropolitan area  aas ,n-rown from




 about  P,100,000 to the present  estimated population  of  approximateLy




 ;\900,on(\




         r'i;*ht major municipal wastewater treatment f'acilit i'~:; ri\s-




 charrc  to the Potomac Estuary.   The trr-rtea disch^r~^".  have a hio-




 fhe'nical oxygen aemand (E')D)  of 100,000  noun'is per 'iay, eqiiivnJont




 to tne  untreatea sewage from  600,000  peonle.  This loaoin;T ir. t-hout




 yix  tires the natural capacity  of  the Estuary to assimilate oxygen




 acrnnndlnp wastes -uid maintain a dissolved, oxyren (B'l) average <~>?




 fivr r.i 1 liDrains per .liter (mp/l).




         "'.ie facility at blue  Plains discharges direct"]./ into tae




 Potoinnc River and  i:; tne largest,  servinr the District  of Colurihia




 and  larf:e aruMS ir ''ontp;omery and;  Prince  Ceor^ec four.ties,  Marylana.




 The  remaining seven (iischarges  are  to erhayments of  the "otorrnc




 tistuary.   The relative advantages  of  conveying t'-eateo wa^V-vatcr




 directly  into t.ie  Potomac Tstuary  irsteaa of into t.;-e s^alJ  ei.:;'i,v-




nentr, hnd not been previously investigated.




         In  recent  months, public interest in the oneratior  -n; j effec




of tiv  ''israta.vay  '.v.'istewater Treatr.eiit Plant on pLr>f.'itawav  Creel.

-------

-------
water quality caused  considerable attention to be riven to  thin  are.




The problem is twofold:  first,  the limited assimilative capacity of




tin's small pmbaymnnt  and,  second, provision of su.i l,;ib"l r- " fai 1-r,;ifo"




mechanisms and operating procedures in the 'aaLew;itcf tr
-------

-------
                                                              II - 1




                           CHAPTER II




                          INTRODUCTION






A .  Purpose .and Scope




        As part of the Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River Basins Project,




the Chesapeake Field Station (CFS), Middle Atlantic Region, Federal




Water Pollution Control Administration (FWPCA) has undertaken a com-




prehensive water quality management study of the Potomac River Basin.




Important phases of this study are determination of the effects of




wastewater discharges on water quality in the Potomac Estuary and




recommendation of a program to achieve tne approves water quality




standards for this interstate river.




        In recent months there has been considerable oublic interest




in the operation of the Piscataway Wastewater Treatment Plant (PWTP)




of the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (W8SC) and the effect




of plant effluent on the water quality of Piscataway Creek.  A series




of field surveys was conducted by CFS on the efficiency of the PWTP




and on water quality in Piscataway Creek.




        This reriort contains the findings of the CFf> studies to date.




The purposes of this report are:




        1.  To provide information on:




            a.  Efficiency of PWTP




            b.  effects of the discharge on the water quality in




                Piscataway Creek and the Potomac River-




            c.  General operation of the PUTP

-------

-------
                                                               II  - 2







        2.  To investigate and recommend alternative locations  for




            the effluent discharge point from the PWTP.






        AJthouf/h  the acope of this report  is prlmnri l.v  LLmiU'ii  to




the Piscataway Creek and the adjacent reaches of the Potomac Kstuary,




other embaymenta  in the area were investigated in order to  compare




the Viscatsway results with similar embayments including  three  not




receiving treated water discharges.  In the future, the rapid growth




of thr- area will  require construction of additional vastewater  treat-




ment facilities in the lower embayments, such as Mattawoman Creek,




and may result in similar problems in this and other embayments of




the Potomac Estuary.







L.  Authority




        This survey was conducted and the report prepared under the




provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as anended (33




li.fj.C. h66 et ECCJ,.) which directs the Secretary of the Interior to




prepare or develop programs for eliminating or reducing the pollution




of interstate waters and tributaries thereof and improving the  sani-




tary condition of surface and underground waters, in cooperation with




State water pollution control agencies and witn the municipalities




and industries involved.







^  Acknowle laments




        The assistance and the cooperation of the Washington Uuburban




Ganitary Commission, Maryland State Department of Health (MSDIl),

-------

-------
                                                              [I - 3






Maryland Department of Water Resources (MDWH), and the Prince Georges




County Cheverly Laboratory, enabled the CF'3 to collect, assemble, and




evaluate the necessary data in a muen shorter tinie than would otherwise




have been required.

-------

-------
                                                             Ill - 1




                          CHAPTER III




                  SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS






        Intensive field investigations, sampling surveys, and data




analyses have been conducted to determine the conditions in the




Piscataway Creek and adjacent water by CFS, including the operations




of the Piscataway Wastewater Treatment Plant of WSSC.  A summary of




the findings of these investigations, surveys, and analyses follows:




        1.  The Piscataway Creek Watershed, which is a Sub-Basin of




            the lower Potomac River below Washington, D. C., has a




            drainage area of about 80 square miles.




        2.  The Piscataway Basin is rapidly being developed into




            suburban residential areas with no major industrial




            development in the area.  Andrews Air Force Base is




            located in the headwaters of the Basin.




        3.  The waters of the Piscataway Basin, including the embay-




            ment, are used for commercial and sport  fishing.  In




            the lower portion of the embayment near  the Potomac




            Estuary there is a marina and a national park.




        h.  There are six municipal wastewater treatment facilities




            in the Piscataway Basin discharging,  after secondary




            treatment, about ?80 pounds of 5-day  BOD into the waters




            of the Basin.

-------

-------
                                                     I IT - P







5.  The Piscataway Wastewater Treatment Plant, which also




    serves parts of Prince Georges County outside of the




    WnternlKMl, contributes about HO percent of tlir ilomrnt. I c




    wastewater loading.  The current population of the




    service area is about 110,000, with a projected population




    of over 600,000.




6.  The Piscataway Wastewater Treatment Plant has a nominal




    design capacity of 5.0 million gallons per day (rogd).




    This facility was placed in operation in late 1967 and




    has a temporary discharge to the Piscataway embaymen't.




7.  Since the Piscataway plant was placed into operation,




    the following have occurred.




    a.  Flow exceeded nominal design capacity.  For example,




        in June 1968, the average flow to the plant was




        6.5*t mgd.




    b.  Untreated sewage has been by-passed to the Piscataway




        embayment, resulting in numerous complaints by local




        residents.




    c.  Operational difficulties occurred at the treatment




        facility, resulting from power failures and inexperienced




        personnel.




8.  Evidence of water quality degradation has been observed




    in the embayment near the pumping station and near the




    wastewater outfall.  Chemical analysis of the water also

-------

-------
                                                             Ill  - 3






            indicates high nutrient  (phosphorus and nitrogen)




            concentration in these two areas.




        Q.  Due to  the very limited  fresh water inflow rind cxcaiu,i vo




            weed growth, the water movement is restricted and thus




            reduces the overall effect of the periodic tidal flushing




            of the embayment in the  vicinity of the pumpinp" station




            and the temporary outfall.




       10.  During low tide, the water depth in the embayment near




            the discharge point is less than a foot.  The effluent




            from the wastewater plant flows within 100 feet of ttie




            shoreline of a residential area downstream from the




            outfall.




       11.  In tne lower Piscataway  embayment near the Potomac Estu-




            ary and in the Estuary itself, extensive al^al blooms




            have been occurring in recent years, apparently as a




            result of the wastewater discharges from the Washington




            metropolitan area.  The dissolved oxygen in the upper




            Potomac Estuary below Washington often falls below 3.0




            mg/1 in the summer months.






        After investigations following a series of complaints by




residents in the area adjacent to the wastewater treatment plant,




the Maryland State Department of Health directed that WSSC take




the following actions:




        1.  Limit the flow into the plant to an average daily flow




            of 5.

-------

-------
                                                             Ill - h






        2.  Install an alarm system vhich would be activated during




            periods of by-passing of flows; and




        3.  Upgrade the general operating conditions of the plant,




            including training personnel.






        WSSC has complied with this directive.




        Since mid-July of 1968, analyses of the efficiency of the




wastewater treatment plant by WSSC, MSDH, FWPCA's advanced waste




treatment group, and CFS indicate that the efficiency is of very




good quality.




        As part of the water quality management program for tne




Potomac River, including Piscataway Creek, tne following specific




recommendations are presented for the WSSC facility:




        1.  As originally proposed by WSSC and approved by Maryland




State Department of HepJth and FWPCA, an outfall should be constructed




to tne main channel of the Potomac Estuary.




        ?.  An investigation should be made and appropriate action




taken by WSSC to eliminate by-passing of untreated sewage to the




Piscataway embayment.




        3.  To provide for better dispersion of the vastewater in




marshy areas of the embayment, pending completion of the Potomac




outfall, a channel should be excavated or temporary pipeline laid




to convey the final effluent out to the southerly stream channel.

-------

-------
                                                             Ill -
        As guidelines for long-range planning, the following general




recommendations have been developed as a result of the Piscataway




investigation and the previous studies of the entire Potomac Kntuury




by CFS:




        1.  No new discharges of wastewater to the fclstuary or to its




            embayments, temporary or permanent, should be approved




            until an engineering study has been made on the assimi-




            lative capacity of the receiving water and a plan developed




            to eliminate discharge of untreated wastes.




        2.  Inspections and efficiency studies should be made onfall




            treatment facilities at least four times a year to insure




            high quality operation and to provide an opportunity for




            discussion of any operational problems with the plant




            personnel.

-------

-------
                                                              IV - 1
                           CHAPTER IV
             DESCRIPTION OF AREA, WATER RESOURCES,
                  AND WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
A.  General
        The Piscataway Creek Watershed has a drainage area of 81.5
square miles and is located about 12 miles southeast of the center
of Washington, D. C. (see Figure IV-l).  The Creek, whicn flows in
a westerly direction, enters the upper Potomac Estuary about 98
miles upstream from the Chesapeake Bay.
        Since it is located in the Washington metropolitan area, 
Watershed is rapidly being developed into a suburban residential area.
Housing for employees of Andrews Air Force Base, which is located
partly in the upper portion of the Piscataway Sub-Basin, has also
added to the urban development of the Basin.
        There are no major industries in the Watershed.  The only
industrial discharges are from sand and gravel operations in the
non-tidal portions of the Watershed.
        Except for the embayment segment of Piscataway Creek, the
Stream is small, sluggish, and, in the headwaters, the stream flow
is intermittent.  The maximum, mean, and minimum flows from a. stream
gaging station established near Piscataway, Maryland, in 1965, were
328, 19.7, and 0.0 cubic feet per second (cfs), respectively.  Using
the longer term records of Henson Creek, which has an average yield
of 1.10 cfs per square mile, the average annual flow from the entire

-------

-------
                                WASHINGTON D.C.
       Pentagon  S.T.P:
               Arlington  S.T.P.
                                                  Dist. of  Columbia
                                                attr Pollution  Control /Mant
               Alexandria  S.T.P.
Fairfax - Wettgat*  S.T.P.
                                      t  Hunting Cr.  S.T.P.
                     u* Cr.  S.T.P.
                                                  Piscatawoy  Cr.   S.T.P.


                                                 GENERAL LOCATION  MAP
                                     POTOMAC RIVER  -  WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA
                                                                            FIGURE ISr I

-------

-------
                                                              IV  -  3






Piscataway Creek Watershed is estimated to be about 90 cfs.  The




upper part of the embayment is a swamp with abundant growths of




submerged and emergent aquatic plants.  Tentative identification  of




bhe noted a^..t  Lc growths ..indicates that the majority of the emergent




plants are reed grass, Phyragmites and Pontederia cordata.  The sub-




merged growths appear to be mostly coontails, Cereatophyllerm.  The




center and lower embayment is about four to six feet deep and has




little or no submerged and emergent plants.






B.  Water and Land Related Resources
        The waters of Piscataway Creek are used for both tidal and




non-tidal fishing.  According to the Annotated Code of Maryland, the




waters of Piscataway Creek above Maryland Route 22k are considered




non-tidal.




        Although sport fishing is not widely practiced due to the




limited access to embayment waters, local residents have made catches




of catfish, carp, perch, and rockfish in Piscataway Creek.  During a




CFS sampling survey, a local resident who has fished the Piscataway




for the past 20 years stated that he had not noticed any great change



in the fish population.  He did indicate that there had been an




increase in commercial fishing for carp and catfish in the swampy




area of the embayment in recent years.  Also, during many of the




surveys, numerous species of fish were observed, especially in the




marshy area of the embayment.

-------

-------
                                                              IV - k






        During the spring spawning period, herring are netted from




the waters of Piscataway Creek.  Larger catches are obtained near




Indian Head Highway and other shallow portions of the upper embayment.




According to a game warden of the Maryland Department of Game and




Inland Fish, the 1968 herring run in Piscataway Creek was considered




to have been good.




        After long periods of hot, dry weather, crabs are often seen




in the Piscataway Creek embayment.  However, the crabs observed are




too small in size and in number to have any sport or commercial




significance.




        There is a marina on the northern shore of Piscataway Creek




near the confluence with the Potomac River.  The marina provides




slips for approximately 1*50 boats, 30 of which are covered.




        Also on the northern shore of Piscataway Creek embayment and




continuing along the shoreline of the Potomac River is the Fort Wash-




ington National Park.   Historically, since the early 1800's this Fort




had been the key defense position for the City of Washington, I). C.




Since World War II, however, the Fort has been made into a National




Park.  This Park, which is operated by the U. S. National Park Service,




had 1*13,000 visitors in 1967.




        The remaining portion of the embayment, including the southern




shore, has been developed for residential use and includes several




small, private recreational areas and marinas.

-------

-------
                                                              IV - 5


C.  Water Quality Standards and Implementation Plan
                                      *
        In 1967, the State of Maryland

            ". . .in order to provide for the enhancement of

            the water quality where such quality has deteri-

            orated or is deteriorating, for the conservation

            of water quality where such quality is good or

            satisfactory, and for the protection of lawful and

            reasonable uses ..."

established both general and specific water quality standards for

both inter and intrastate waters.  A plan for implementation and^

enforcement of the water quality standards for all of Maryland's

waters was also established.  The standards and the implementation

plan for the interstate waters were approved and adopted by the

U. S. Department of the Interior in August 1967.

    1.  Water Uses

        The uses of waters of the Potomac Estuary were grouped into

        six categories as follows:

            "I - Shellfish harvesting

           "II - Public or municipal water supply

          "III - Water contact recreation

           "IV - Propagation of fish and other aquatic life and
                 wildlife
   Water Resources Regulation U.8,  General Water Quality  Criteria and
   Specific Water Quality Standards for all Maryland  Waters,  Water
   Resources Commission and Department of Water Resources,  Maryland
   State Office Building, Annapolis,  Maryland 21U01.

-------

-------
                                                              IV - 6


            "V - Agricultural water supply

           "VI - Industrial water supply"

For each of the water uses categories, bacteriological, dissolved

oxygen, pH, and temperature standards were specified.  The desig-

nated uses of applicable water zones of the Piscataway Creek water-

shed are presented below:
      Waste of Water Zone

Piscataway Creek and Tributaries
  (Headwaters to Md. Rt. 22k)

Piscataway Creek and Tributaries
  of Potomac River
  (From Md. Rt. 22k to Mouth)
Water Use to be Protected
      III, IV, V, VI
         III, IV
    2.  Water Quality Standards

        Dissolved Oxygen (DO) is the parameter most indicative of

        water quality in a free-flowing stream or estuary of this

        type.  Wastewater treatment requirements  and/or flow regu-

        lation needs were determined using a mean monthly DO level

        of 5.0 mg/1 with a minimum level of k.O mg/1.   This  is the

        approved standard for the waters of the Piscataway Creek in

        the study area.   (See Water Resources Regulation it. 8 of the

        State of Maryland for other specific bacteriological,

        temperature, and pH standards.)

-------

-------
                                                                V  -  1




                           CHAPTER  V




                WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES







        In the Piscataway Creek Basin there are seven wastewater




discharges.  One of the discharges  is mineral, and the remaining




six are organic in nature.







A.  Andrews APE Wastewater Treatment Facilities
        Andrews Air Force Base has two wastewater discharges in the




Basin.  Plant Number 1, which discharges into Meetinghouse Branch of




Piscataway Creek about 13 miles upstream from the Potomac, has an




average flow of 0.6'j mgd with a biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) load-




ing to the River of 90 pounds per day.  The Number h plant, which has




an average flow of 0.06 mgd and BOD loading after treatment of 10




pounds per day, discharges into Paynes Branch of Piscataway Creek




about 13 miles upstream from the Potomac River.




        Both facilities consist of Imhoff tanks, trickling filters,




secondary sedimentation, and chlorination.   BOD removal efficiency




of 89 percent and 83 percent for plants "log. 1 and ky respectively,




is obtained.  A summar/ of the water quality below the two discharges




is given in Chapter VI.






B  Piscataway Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility




        The treatment facility was placed in operation in late 1967




and has a design capacity of 5-0 mgd at a 5-day BOD removal efficiency




of 90 percent.   Flows above this capacity can be treated at a reduced

-------

-------
                                                                V - ?







BOD removal efficiency.   Provisions  have been made on the site to




expand plant capacity  to  30  mjrd.




        The r.eviifp  i <;  brought  to  tar? faci. lity by  two fore" mninr,,




one from the Herison  I'.'reek  area and the  other  serving the au.JHrent




Piscataway Creek area.  The  plant provides  activated sludge treat-




ment with sludge digestion,  conditioning and  vacuum filtration.   The




effluent is chlorinated and  discharged  into a partly lined chnnnel




which flows into a marsh  area  of  the embayment.   A schematic diagram




of Ine plant is riven  in  Figure V-l.  In an agreement recently si^ne';




with FWPC/i, the V.'f'oC is to design and build a h.Q mrd advanced waste-




water treatment (AWT)  pilot  plant consisting  of line precipitation




and sedimentation, filtration,  ana carbon adsorption.




        The major factors  influencing effective utilization of the




Piscataway Creek facility  include operating problems,  presence of a




bypass, location of the temporary outfall,  and high flow.-j  to tne




olant.  In the first six months of the  year,  except for  January,




there were days cairinr; which the average  daily flown  were  from 6.0




to 9.0 mpd.  As can be seen  in Table  V-l, the averape  daily flows




for the months of April, May,  and June  were above the  nominal




design capacity of tne plant.




        While the reported plant efficiencies  in  terms of  BOD  nnd




suspended solids removal are high, tnese  figures  are misleading, since




the influent figures were not representative  of the untreated  sewage.




Nevertheless,  excluding the times when  the  average  flow  was  greater

-------

-------
                                                             :NSON-BHQAO CSEEK **
SCHEMATIC  OF PISCATAWAY WASTEWATER TREATMENT  PLANT

-------

-------
a
I



CO
H
H
O
CO

*d
eu

"a

P rH
c5 ^*^
Aj hj
f* M
^H ^M^*




* .
p --^
cd H
CD -.

^^



fj.
p^
<
Q
H
EH CO
3 C
W d
3 O

H ctf O
3^
O V8.

5)
CG




 x-*.
-p H
a) ^
CD W
j_, g
EH 




*

-P ^-
05 H

]Lt W
-P S
E ^

o <
CO
M




O
rH







1  r&
X M
rt B



 "-d
bO M
-^ 


,^^
 'd
C M
'rH @
s - -




_[
-g
Q
Is


ON ON co v>
f- 03 OO ON





ON C- ON t-
H H iH CM







OO OJ -3- ITl
rn Lf\ vo oo
H H on C-





Jt LT> H H
CO OO O\ ON








u"% on co on
H CM H on









oo on ITN ON
ON -* o t/\
H CM on







on ifx o on
ICM O LTN H
   
J- MD M3 C


CO CM _=( VD
LTN t CM on
rH On -3" LT\



o o o o
o r- o on
   
o o o on



>>
H Cd
ctf 3 fl H
d f-i o -H
pi ^ JL* ^t
Co CO Co pij
~3 fe S * C3
a! 3
s ^




0)
c^
P

^-J
O

cu
^
|j
CO
cfl
1

-d
o
o
hO
0
c
CD
O
^H
CU
^_(
QJ
Pd
+5

*
to
_4
0)
4J
w
OJ
bC
H
d

S
o

1-H

*S
O
H
^H
J_j

CD >
H 0)
PH P
S to
CO 03
in 3

UJ CO
P -P
cd nj
0) 0)
p p
5 


*
                                                           V - U

-------

-------
                                                                V - 5







than  5.0 iirrt, as f^ivcn  in Table V-l,  the plant  is  capable  of  provid-




ing 90 percent BOD removal.




        Flans for the Piscataway Wastewatcr Treatment Plant,  as




originally approved  by  the Maryland State Department of Health,




provided for an effluent lime some three miles  lonf;  lischarginr  the




treated wastes into  the main channel  of the potorric l'iver.  The




plans and specifications as submitted were reviewed and approved  for




a construction p;rant by FVPCA.




        When some difficulty developed in obtaining a rirht of way




for an outfall to the Potomac, WSSC submitted plans and specifica-




tions for a temporary outfall to discharge into tne head of the




Piscataway enbayment in July 1967-  This was approved by MSDH.




        Operational problems occurred in sludge handling,  screen




cleaning equipment jammed, and pumpinfc stations were subject  to




power failures.   No emergency stand-by power was provided  in  the




oririnal design, nor was there any alarm system to indicate failure




of equipment in the system.




        During the first six months of 1968, power failures and




operational problems resulted in the discharge or raw or partially




treated sewap-e into Piscataway Creek.   The limited transport  aru




assimilative capacity of the embayment obviously caused a  degrada-




tion in its water quality far more than a similar accidental  dis-




charpn would have caused in the Potomac River.

-------

-------
                                                                V  -  6







        The discharge of untreated sewage and, to some extent,  the




overloading of the treatment plant suggest these three general  needs




which should be studied to identify actions which snould be  taken to




prevent water quality degradation in all embayrrentt; of the Potomac




Estuary in the future:




        ] .  More frequent nurveillance of the wastewater tro'itment




            facility by the appropriate State and County health
        ?.  Incorporation into the design of the wastewater facility




            a "fail-safe" warning or stand-by system which vi.ll'




            minimize uncontrolled discharges of untreated wastes.




        3.  Specialized engineering studies in the design nnd the




            selection of discharge points for the wastewater




            effluents.  The study should also incorporate the




            affects of possible discharges.






        The latter of the three needs ip the primary area of concern




in the surveys which were subsequently conducted by CF'J.






C.  Other Discharges




        The remaining organic wastewater loadings into Piscatavay




Creek, about seven percent of the total, come from throe; sources,




Cheltenham Boys Village, II.  S. Naval Communications Station, and




the Country Club Cleaners.  These three, which have a total HOD

-------

-------
                                                               V - 7






loading to the Piscataway Creek of 50 pounds per day, will probably



be connected to the WSSC system in the near future as the sewer




system is expanded.  In Table V-2 is presented a complete listing of




wastewater discharges into the Piscataway Creek Watershed.

-------

-------































c
fcq -H
O w
K cd
< PI
W
O ,
CM CO CU
1 M CU
> 0 in
O
 H 
53 
EH > cd
W -P
EH cd
W O
 cd

43 *?

 CM .  ^
O
CJ -P
oQ rH -  
H O Ti
W cd M

S
H
-P
CU
^j
"
C7N
CO


O
ON







O
CO
CO




LTN
vo
o


OO
i  I
ON
O




g
CO





H


e

>
0)

tf
fl
j
JH M CO
pq  ^
a)
CQ CO -P
QJ c^ cd
fl d o
C cr ^Q
CO CO H
O-i CM PH
CO -=} J-
00 CO OO


O -3" U>
rH 00
VD






>vD irx O
VO CU O
O
t*
-*


O LTN O
^D H O
0 C 0
 * *
O O LT\


l/A O
Of O
rH ,X O
a
O 3 LA


TlJ
c
cd cd co
CO J CO



1

-p
-^t CQ
=fc cd -p
3- fi
fP rQ 9
E 3 CO >>H
H
!* >> 3 -p cu
cu -P cu cd -p
f-t q H o cd
13 30 ta >
CO -H


O
(4
r >

CO
^t
cd
P
cd
o
OT
H
a.

"
R
o
ON



r*o







m
oo
00




rH
CM
rH
O


O
VD
0
*
O





CO


cu

cd -  -
H -d*
rH S
[>
B O
rd CU
C -P
CU cd
P -P
H CO
CU ^
43
O


























































1
H
rt
3 c
I 
6 4J
cj cd
^->
rH CO
cd
> w
cd d
!23 0
H
 -P
CQ cd
o
*
t3


O
"*"*
rd
0)
s
o
J
In
C >

ro
!?
cd
-P
cd
CJ
CO
H
Pn


EH
U"\
C7N


0
rH







0
o
C\J




VC
0
0


O
LT\
0
O





CO

-"  V

^ci
g
M
s
CO
CD
-P
H
CU

O




r*S
-P
rH
o
cd
P.
cd
u



































































V  -

-------

-------
                                                              VI - 1

                           CHAPTKR VT

                     EXISTING WATER QUALITY


A.  Potomac River Near PiBcatayay Creek

    1.  Water Quality Monitoring Programs

        Water quality in the Potomac River in the Washington, D. C.,

area has been monitored since the early 1930's by the Department of

Sanitary Engineering, District of Columbia Government.  Since the late

1950's, originally the U. S. Public Health Service and presently the

Federal Water Pollution Control Administration has also conducted

numerous water quality surveys in the upper Potomac Estuary.  An

automatic water quality monitor at Fort Washington was added to the

existing system in the Potomac Estuary in 196^.

    2.  Water Quality in the Upper Potomac Estuary Near Piscataway
        Creek

        The water quality in the Upper Potomac Estuary near Piscata-

way Creek is greatly affected by the wastewater discharges, as shown

in Figure VI-1.  Approximately 100,000 pounds of 5-day BOD and

136,000 pounds of suspended solids are discharged into the upper

Estuary above PiscatawB,y Creek each day.

        As can be seen in Fipure VT-1, BOD loading during the low

flow months of June, July, Aupust, and September, depresses the DO

in the main channel of the Potomac Estuary below the State Standard

of 5.0 mg/1.  BOD data from the 1968 survey, as given in Table VI-1,

exhibit similar effects on water quality.

-------

-------
Ld
OC



5
OC
w
UJ
UJ
OC.

O
CO
                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                   _o
                                                                                                                   a
                                                                                                                    o
                                                                                                                   O
                                                                                                         1
                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                                    x
                                                                                                                   A
                                                                                                                    Q.
                                                                                                                    E
                                                                                                                    O
                                 0.
                                                                (I  6u)  flog -OQ
                                                                                                       FIGURE  3ZI-I

-------

-------
                                                                     VI -  3
a




















EH


J>H
E*^
H
jj
^r
g.

w
1







































CO
VO
H


9>
2)
O
1
as
-p
OS
o
w
H
CM

o!
a
&
.p
w


o
g
-p
o
CM


















H
H
If
O

O
s

(Y*

1
C\J
o

S5
ca
a)

a-
S

__,.
S




-l"
o
PH
EH


Q
o






Q



&
g
V
-1











^x
^
tn


H
W
j?





H
*"*^
W
xS





s~*l
H

W
Q
' 	


H

*S
Js



s*-*.
H

1


^^
CJ
o
s.^>





(U

"S
Q


O
CO
H


_rf
ro
d





f_
OJ

(M






H
LA

H



OO

OO






LA
H*


LA

ON
H



co
VO
1
l/\
H
1
LA

t~- IA CA CO LA
H -* co co p co
CO O4 t S -*
H

LA t ON OJ LA
IA jj- O\ VD IT
O J O O iH H





o o vo ON
CO LA t OJ

t-3 H OJ & H H






ON OJ OJ CO CO C
LA H O CO t- _=!
 **
O H H O O H



CO VO VO VO H
  f~\   
ro -* &5 o -* oj
H H





ON OO OJ OJ -3" O
VO LA -^ -3- CO LA


VO H t O -4- LA

VO t CO t O ON
OJ OJ 
-P C
S 'g
T3 (H
H 
O -P
O 

-------

-------
                                                              VI  -
        A nutrient load is also associated with the large BOD and


suspended solids loadings in all the waste-water discharges in the


upper Potomac Estuary.  Based upon current wastewater volumes, ap-


proximately 66,000 pounds per day of total phosphorus as PO,  and


50,000 pounds per day of total KJeldahl nitrogen (TKN) as nitrogen


are discharged into the estuary.


        During the past five years, extensive algal blooms have "been


observed in the upper Potomac Estuary.  The blooms, consisting


principally of Anacystis sp., Oscillatoria sp., and Chlamydomonas sp.


occur in areas which are high in nutrient content.


        As presented in Table VI -1, the nutrient concentrations for


the Potomac Estuary for 1968 indicate a high concentration of phos-


phorus and nitrogen near the confluence with Piscataway Creek.  For


the months of May, June, July, and August, the average concentration


of POjj, TKN, and NOg-NO- were 1.06, 1.89, and 0.99, respectively.


        Associated with these high nutrient concentrations were high

           *
chlorophyll  levels in the Potomac Estuary near Piscataway Creek.


As can be seen in Table VI -1, the chlorophyll levels for the latter


part of July and for August were above 50 yg/1.   During August, there


was an extensive algal bloom in the entire upper Potomac Sstuary.
*
   Chlorophyll is a gross measure of algal concentrations or
   "standing crop."  A chlorophyll level of 50 yg/1 is considered
   to be a "bloom."

-------

-------
                                                              VI -  5






B.  Upper Piscataway Area Watershed




        Water quality in the upper Piscataway Creek has been monitored



by personnel of Andrews Air Force Base above and below the discharge



points of their waste treatment plants since iy67.  A summary of ttie




weekly sampling program is presented in Tables VI-2 and VI-3 for the




Meetinghouse and Paynes Branch facilities, respectively.




        As can be seen in these Tables, the effects of the wastewater




discharges on DO and BOD in Paynes and Meetinghouse Branches are




insignificant.  The BOD below the two discharges is usually less




than 0.5 mg/1 larger than above the facilities, with the DO essen-




tially the same above and below the discharges.




        The water quality standard for DO, which is 5.0 mg/1 monthly




average, was met in Paynes Branch except for October of 1967  How-




ever, the DO above the discharge point at the same time was also




below 5.0 mg/1.  In general, the water quality in the headwaters of




Piscataway Creek appear to meet the approved quality standards.






C.  Piscataway Creek Embayment




        A series of stream and wastewater treatment plant surveys



was conducted by CFS in order to determine the effects of wastewater



discharges on water quality in the Piscataway Creek embayment,




especially those discharges in the Piscataway Basin and in the




Potomac Estuary, and including land runoff.  Sampling stations in




the Piscataway Creek embayment are shown in Figure VI-2.   The

-------

-------
                                                            vi  - 6
                        TABLE VI-2

          MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF BOD AND DO DATA*

                 Meetinghouse Branch STP

                     Piscataway Creek
                           800 Feet
                        Above Outfall
   2 Mies
Below Outfall
Year
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
BOD
(mg/1)
1.5
5.0
1.7
2.5
1.5
2. It
2.1*
1.3
1.9

2.5
2.0
2.2
2.U
1.6
2.7
U.O
3,1
3.0
DO
Ug/1)
10.3
9.5
10.2
9.1
8.6
7.3
7.3
6.U
6.6

6.7
8.3
10. k
11.9
8.6
8.5
7.0
6.9
6.0
BOD
(mg/1)
2.3
U.6
2.5
1.6
0.8
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.5

1.9
2.3
2.8
U.2
2.1*
2.9
5.0
2.9
2.5
DO
(mg/1)
10.0
10.3
10.1
10.6
7.3
5'. 3
5.3
6.8
5.6

5.9
8.0
9.7
10.6
7.6
7.3
7.2
6.0
6.2
Analysis made by Andrevs AFB personnel four times per veek.

-------

-------
                                                            VI  - 7
                        TABLE VI-3

          MONTHLY SUMMARIES OF BOD AND DO DATA

                     Payne Branch STP

                  Andrews Air Force Base
                     Piscataway Creek
                           800 Feet
                        Above Outfall
   2 Miles
Below Outfall
Year
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
BOD
(mg/1)
2.9
3.2
1.0
0.6
1.2
1.3
1.8
1.6
2.3
2.9
2.1
1.9
1.5
2. It
1.9
2.0
3.9
1.9
3.2
DO
(mg/1)
6.5
8.9
9.6
7.2
7.0
6.3
6.3
6.3
5.3
1*.9
6.1
8.1*
8.7
11.2
8.8
8.2
6.3
7.1*
6.0
BOD
(mg/1)
2.2
3.9
1*.5
1.6
2.1
2.0
2.0
1.1*
2.0
2.7
2.6
1.1*
1.1*
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.0
3.3
3.3
DO
(mg/D
6.1*
10.1*
11.0
9,5
7.1*
6.3
6.3
6.1*
5.5
U.I*
6.3
8.2
8.6
10.1
8.1*
7.3
6.8
5.9
5.9
Analysis made by Andrews AFB personnel four times per week.

-------

-------
FIGURE  "SI-2

-------

-------
                                                               VI  -  9



surveys were incorporated into the larger program of the upper


Potomac Estuary from the Washington, D. C., area to 301 Bridge near

                     #
Morp;aritovn, Mary 1 and.


    1.  Survey of July 11, 1968


        Data from the embayment and waste treatment plant surveys


are presented in Tables VI-1* and VI-5, respectively.  The survey was


conducted during high tide.


        As can be seen in Figure VT-3, there was a pronounced  algal


bloom in the embayment during the survey.  The algal concentration


in the Potomac Estuary was about one-half of that in the piscataway


embayment.


        The phosphorus values in the vicinity of the waste treatment


facility were about twice those in the Potomac Estuary or in Piscata-


way Creek as it flowed into the embayment.  The nitrite-nitrate


(N00-N0 ) concentrations decreased with distance from tne treatment


plant, suggesting that denitrification was occurring.  Since T'-IN


data was not taken, no nitrogen balance was attempted.


        The BOD in the embayment near the treatment facility was


only slightly higher than in the Potomac Estuary (Figure VI-3).


However, the BOD of Piscataway Creek at Indian Head Highway was less


than 5.0 mg/1, suggesting that BOD in the embayment is coming from


both the Potomac Estuary and the PWTP.
   The data from this survey will be presented in a separate report
   by CFS.

-------

-------
                                                             VI - 10
                           TABLE VI-h


           PISCATAWAY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT DATA


                         July 11, 1968

                    Chesapeake Field Station
Parameter
Average Flow (mgd)
Maximum Flow (mgd)
BOD (mg/1)
TKK as N (mg/l)
Nil as N (mg/l)
NO-NO as N (mg/l)
T. PO^ as PO^ (mg/l)
*
Influent
h.20
5.00
91.50
10.50
6.90
1.79
9.65
*#
Effluent
IK 20
5.00
32.140
16.30
10.50
0.08
15.71
*
   Based on a three-hour composite,  9:00 a.m.  to 12:00 noon,  on
   July 11, 1968,  of the incoming wastewater from the Piscataway
   area only, and  therefore is not a good measure of incoming
   characteristics.

#
   Based on a 2^-hour composite,  8:00 a.m. on  July 10, 1968,  to
   8:00 a.m. on July 11, 1968.

-------

-------
























1


4)
rH
>
tO
-1












































W C

5 +*
w to 5
H rH *O
W rH
05 > 4)
0 3 

5}  5
1 * !
S 0)
a 1
a. o






















I
H
0
o
3
O -rl
.0 H
fc< O
O

8



t~t
rH

rH
fi
n

t*N
0
CM

5S
^
S
10
0

S
H-


M
CO
H
_cj
O
O
03
1 1

rH V
*-H
2 t-<

o

a
CO


c
o
H
a
CO
1
8
.
z

1
8
\
i
-
J
x~
\
J
f~*i
^
t
s_


,H
Q
E





* .
0
6





*-^
i
O
C
}-
*_-

















g



3

S

^0
m
^
8



o
Nf







OJ













n
si
if\
OJ
rH

O
1
OH


O
H
tn
i
T3
Indianhea

000000 o
ITN o OJ '- ^r OJ c^\
rC ^ c^
^ oj
O Or\ir\OOr^iA
rr\rr\os(irH(v\Ni"'^-
OJ &J OJ  OJ
rH
OJOOJOJO-^NTtO
r^\ fH i/s ^3 0^ ITN r^ uS
SfifNSJ-OJHrHrHO
i-irHHrHrHrHrHrH
8 8 8 8 8 9, 8 S
~4" f\ O rH CM fS CO ^3
rH OJ OJ

C*-C\JOONC^*frHO
r- 1 t"- m rH sD !^ C*- ^O
    .  . 
i-l





O rH \O TO -^ CO *>! 00
In^oo^S fd^Sxoo

OJ OJ i-H rH iH





 * C a IQ -p >H
O V & -H rlrlbr<
a > .-IB g h THtiftg
a; o vot) o 2 fe >i S
JD tn J3 M fn 2 fiJ5
1 ^J ^ rf^-l tHCJI-P-*3
Ol+>6 * 5HH-HBI
i m w ,-3 -P o o %
(0 k 3 rH rH rH
-H -O C-HB CD rH xVUO
co cj+5< o m v t>c oc
botJbo-H -r> 1 fietJGCP!
Mt,cafT,uo ui ifjffiai t> *>
fco of^-r1 n>>>>ai a] A "3 R
HJ3 -Pfl -rl *fi +^J3 10 r*"
O.O too k-p S CO  -H CO "M
HB hB r R h-rl -O O RT3
3>H -ri-H t) t)  t: sal oc rl* d
&Q fc,Q ^3 C-rl MS 0,-H SH OS

O O
<"1 c^
OJ >f


c? ^

to rH
i-l OJ
NT -*!
0 0

O O
rH f-H
U> O
i> in
to ^>
c- r-

OJ OJ

, ,
i-t





f\ OJ
 s







OJ OJ




o m
r*- \Q
OJ N
\r\
~* l
1-1
O

Oi PJ



A O
0* 
CO f< S
t) ft,
S -H P
-P DS -H
H
CO 'D
<*-! -P O >
VI - 11

-------

-------
200
I
d
loo
                            PISCATAWAY  CREEK  SURVEY

                                       JULY  11,1968
                                  Chesapeake  Field  Station
                                                                      \
                                                                       \
                                                                          \
                                                                            *
            00   f~-
            a   a.
                           
-------

-------
                                                              VI - 13






        At stations P-l, P-2,  ana  P-3  in  the  southerly  channel,




coliform  concentrations were the highest.   The  concentration of




fecal coliforms, which is  an indicator of human wn.sl,'*,  war.  hirhlant were observed near  the




stations  P-l and P-P by CFS personnel.  Has bubbler, emanati'rir  from




slupgisn  wnters in marsh areas are  common  and,  therefore, no special




significance can be attached as to  their  causes.




        Durinr  the survey,  an analysis  of  trie influents  and  effluents




of the PWTP was made as given in Table  VI-U.  Although  the  influent




sajny)linp;  point  was not representative  of  all  the untrnted waste-




water, the data indicate that the  facility  was  then producing*  a




5-day BOD removal efficiency of about  65 percent.






    2.  Investigation of August 6,  1968




        As a result of an odor complaint,  an  investigation




was  made of the water quality conditions in the Piscataway Creek

-------

-------
embayrnent.  Ourinc;   odor  wai  deterted




However, in a visit to PV/TP later the sane  day, it was  learned  that




there hud bo^n some operational difficulty  fit  thr I.rvntiwtit.  f.-ifility




during the week-end of August 3-^, 1^68, resulting in uiscHarre of




a poor quality effluent.







    3.  Intensive Surveys of August 1^-16,  1968




        To further define the effects of the wastewater effluent on




the Piscataway embayment, a three-day intensive survey was conducted.




Three surveys were made durin? ebb tide, as contrasted to flood  tide




for the July survey.  The data for the three surveys are presented




iu Tables VI-6, VI-?, VI-8, and VI-9.




        As can be seen in Figures VI-U, VI-5,  and VI-6, the chloro-




phyll level for the embayment and the Potomac  Fstuary are indications




of an extrenely extensive algal bloom.  In Piscataway Creek near




Maryland 210 Highway, the chlorophyll drops off considerably.




        The phosphorus and TKN concentrations  were higher in tne




tributary near the facility, especially for tne surveys on August




15 and 16.  (See Fi^urea VI-5 and VI-6.)  The  phosphorus and TuiJ in




the main or northerly channel which flows on the  opposite side of




the embayment were relatively lower, as can bo seen in Figures VI-U




and VI-G.




        Nutrient data for the August 16, 1968, survey as presented




in Figure  VI-6 shows larpe nutrient concentrations in the Piscataway




embayment  near the confluence with the Potomac Estuary.   These

-------

-------
                                                                         VI - 15
8
8     S     8    8    8
8 
SS
D rH r-
Ct, Q "NV
s
a
-
8 1
a H
g J
H
i-t
 at
* 5 4  B ^j

S 9 a

H ! _g Si p"*
So x
i a s <
g*J
H
^~
0 5 *
<*Q~
8 iS
&-

|S
CO-
 o'
P 35
CO



H
-P
5
CO
0s ^O ^^O ^4"
>f -st OJ
g o o o
*

^ i- 1 ^O W
r-" CU rH ^
S ^ ^ 5
<\ vn to (^
if\ O ifs Q
oj f\ r^~ O
CVJ (^ CU C\J
rH


o to o IN
rH rH rH OJ
.


^ O\ ^ (*\
-3- & 3 o
-v 1T\ OJ




>f\ if\ c*\ <0

r-1 i 1 r~i

i ^t o \n
rH rH
OJ O O f\
C\J OJ C\J OJ
O CD M> O
f\ O O OJ
CJ^ O O O
O rH rH rH

O rH OJ C*\

CL, 0, d, P-,


r? ? rnS
 f3 +>V<
a. Sff ^i" 15
SIP 1 fil h1J
TJ -H S(D fi 0) QJH
Cfi P!r* -H*H 4> 0)
n pq AQ fc Q %Z
vC vC cvT cvT >r evT
rH r-H
Q O O 0s C*\ O O
C'V C\J CM ~^" O^
CVJ

0s to OJ to C*\ O TO
\jo \o o w IN ^o y^
r-4 H
to to c\f \o "^ o ^j2
SO 0^ T. IV OJ CV tS >
f> o t S^ *^O ^ "^
H CVJ CM H rH rH


CVJ IS rH ->t O CVJ O
*O iH O CVI O^ O i 1
H rH


CVJ CV OJ rH - rH




0s O c*\ ^ to [> \O
fe 8: 8 8 SJ ^ ft
rH rH

T\ if\ xj- ITS O OJ OJ
rH rH rH
W"\ tf\ O O T\ O O
OJ OJ OJ CVJ OJ oj OJ
O to r\ Q O KTN O
-tf ^ T\ O i-H rH OJ
O O O rH rH rH rH

^ C*\ C^ ^ f\ \JD >>
1 t 1 1 1 7 1
AH p^ p., pn PL, PH PL
1
a i
1 3 fi I *E
^ 5 *.o' . g >. SS
H-P iHC  'H bO >< O -H^l
on m  h>9
H '^  0)0) c>> >> 5 P c o,a
^S ^'SP J&'S* it" * ^ i? "
PC -PCb JnO SfQCQtH 1
 O
^rT'S ^0  5 JI fe 3J>
oo,c cSpn+j Z-H S.-H us o-ri an

o


to
to
SO'
8
to
o
VN
^J
rH


8
rH


to
Oj'




to
^


cvj
rH
O
*
O
rH

to
1


1
O
l
58
tig
Confluence
mac Mid cha:
markers

-------

-------
                     o
                    o
                    SS8
                    ) -H
                    S
     CO
   g
               g
     
-------

-------




















to
s
C
rH
1
!





































8
H
-P
$
co
a
H
2
9)
s
(0
S
g

















g ^
0 O

H r-
0 ^
o K
3
'o =H o
0 v-l C
~-
8 |
-
 ^

cA ^" vo
C*"\ CM <*\ rH
rH



rH rH m C^
rH CM * 0
Q\ f^ ^Q Q
(^s u"\ r^N


CO \Q CO \G
B\Q CM Q
--t VO O
H CVJ C^ CM



1 -4- rH O
H rH H

O O OJ O

OJ C"N ^ if\
OJ OJ OJ OJ
r\ OJ *r\ Q
OJ (*N >t O
^ 33^

O OJ cn ^d-
1 III
PH PH PH PH


0) TO 

> ^3 h ^3 bu Is ^ 5* 3 C8 T3 CO -H C 0) -P (H d> -P Vf O 35 OJ ID no -H +> co. * S g tf>, 0) bfl +> 3 -H CO rt-O MO rlf> BCQ a >H H n a H R c ri -H -H r\ tfN CM rH rH ITS I i !l (A * 8 C\I rH C\J rH S H rH O vj- CM' vo M- rH 0 rH O 8 rH VO ^ Off Point - Below Marina in Channel y, ^ r^ rH rH 8 Ov O VO. rH T\ rH CM to CO vo H" o rH O ^ rH C^- ft< Mid-Bay, off first tvo Channel markers eJ to eo rH ITv rH lf\ rH 0 CM rH C"\ R CM r^ \ rH CM rH tf\ VD CVJ VO CVJ rH rH CO 1 PL, 1 O Confluence with Pot mac Mid Channel at markers * --t >* OV ITv CM rH rH g rH ^* 0 CM' o 8 rH Nt rH u~\ jr. rH rH I EL, fo Q Off Monitor Sta. Bu Potomac River .0 *C 3 0- OJ a o rH rH rH j CM' H rH H | O VO CM 5 rH rH o PH 0 I c H II VI - 17


-------

-------
















G 5
5 o
p3 *H
03 00 10
M ^ w
i g 3
^Z ffi ^O 4)
0 H ti
1) -P

Cti S & (J
8 -I 1,
1 8
S O

















1
v. 8
rt 1-
rH "\
 So
O ro^^ ^o ^o-4->r
otoc^r- f*\ Oc^'O
f^ CVI C*N CO C^- f*\ t^N 0s
O>OQ O OTvirv
lAOJiAO "s Oc^-C^-
-^r^r'Nc^ CM tovrsO^
C^ OJ W rH O^ C*~
i-H rH rH W
SS^rH S ~
H rH rH



SwK^ S rHrH^
-4"C^I>OJ CO t>iAr-t





gC"- C*- <*N & ^f Sf if\
O'X r^ if\ VO w VO C^
rH *^ O V\ rH ~^" "5 ~^"
r-i C*N -4- OJ rH rH rH



1 O C\l "^" "^" "^" **O ^O
rH rH
OOv\tfN "A W\OO
CMC\)f\j?J cj oJCMcy
ir\Ov\r\ r\ r\oo
H-~tC^CM UN OrH^t
CJrHrHH O rHrHO
rHrHrHH rH rHrHrH


O rH C\J C"\ r^ (*\ f\ -N^
1 1 1 1 1 III
OnOnOnOn OH CLtOnOn
1
Pi
JS r? f

h ( ^ 643-H+J -rtg -P-nS)
CV/  1 I3Q 91 A Ml M< C^ t-4
*O (0 H ^4 ^4 ^H 4)
M P m 7 .a o J^c r^ntj SB 5t
SE-jS S*^'^ TO cue no ri-p -PC -PCEH ho B f>
O-rlSOrlCaOlH 0rH 3 CO rl
ch r?5 r1 ?? *" ^fHa) ^r10 *c J>R
M ftQ fcCl Z 2 OOnC Obn-P S5-H fi-H






to cj^
00 ^O
CJ to"
rH
O CVJ
cvi r>
rH O
rH rH
8 OJ
rH C*\
rH rH
S ?
'



^4 S
00
CVJ




1 
rH rH



rH rH
rH rH
ir\ O
UN \O
CM CVJ
o o
o o
H rH


IT\ Vp

(Xi Oi
I

g |
s " i
o S
gg
&g 2^
SK M-
C JO Vi G
rH S O *H








-O
CVJ

'rH
8
o
to
rH
6
'



UN
CVI
n
to'




to

VN



rH
O

I


^.

a,


H-S
z&
H r<
fas
ferH
O 1)
r*> m
& O
T
a o
25
VI -





r\

^
CM
^4"
C?
rH
8
to
rH
vo
rH
rH



rH
^
rH




to
B
rH



rH
O

rH


to
1
0,

1
1.
AH 0
fi rH
ss
* s
Confluence
mac Mid eft
nrkers

-------

-------
                                                                                VI - 19
              *ga

              |5a
              "o1^
                o
              8
   I       *
   1     3  o^
   w  to  a  s

   s  5  _

-------

-------
                                                           VI - 20
                        TABLE VI-p
                     WASTEWATER DATA
          Piscatavay Wastevater Treatment Plant
                     August  1't,
                                                       Reduction
Parameter
Flow (mgd)

BOD (iuK/1)
S. Solids (mg/l)
T. PO^ as PO^ (mg/J )
TKH as H (m^/l)
NK as N (mf;/l)
M()_-WO_ as W (mp;/l)
' J
Influent
5.2
##
93.5
-
11.0
11.2
12.7
0.5
Effluent (/)
5.2

17.5 ii2
C.O
8.6 22
9.6 D4
7.7 39
1.2 -ikQ
Based on a 2^-hour composite.
Based on an average of 3 analyses of the 2't-hour composite.

-------

-------
      200
  2

  3

  o
      100
                                   PISCATAWAY  CREEK  SURVEY


                                           AUGUST 14,1968

                                         Chapak  Fitld Station
                  0
                  a.
f-
a.
10
a.
            9     oo       
-------

-------
                             PISCATAWAY  CREEK  SURVEY
200
100
                                     AUGUST 15,1968


                                   Chopakt  Field Station
                                                    V


    o>
    a
4.0
 3.0
 1.0
  0




 20
   oo   r-
   a.   a.

-------

-------
                               PISCATAWAY  CREEK  SURVEY
   200
    100
o
                                      AUGUST 16,1968
                                             Field Station

Q.
CO
a
a
to
a
in
a
0
? !?
a a
00
2
2
o
a
                   TKN
                                     LEGEND

                                  	MAIN STEM
                                  	TRIB NEARSTP
                                  SAMPLING TIME-0930 to 1215

                              I                        Z
                                  MILES FROM POTOMAC RIVER
                                                                                 FIGURE 21-6

-------

-------
                                                              VI  - 21*



higher concentrations, which were observed  at low  tide,  are  probably

                                                         *
the result of tidal flushing of the wastewater discharge.


        The HOD and DO determinations of the three  surveys exhibit,


similar characteristics in the nutrient data, as also Riven  in


Figures VI-1, VI-5, and VI-6.  However, the concentrations near  the


pumping stations near the manholes were not much different from  the


stations on the main channel.


        In general, the BOD in the Potomac Estuary  near  Piscataway


Creek was about 10 mg/1.  The EOD in the Piscataway embayment was


also about 10 mg/1, thus suggesting that BOD in Piscataway emba/ment


is related more directly to BOD in the Potomac than to the Creek


itself.


        Using a tidal height prism of 2.h feet and a surface area of


5-53 million square feet, it was determined that about 17,000 pounds


per day of BOD enter and leave the Piscataway embayment  from the


Potomac Estimry.  This compares to less than 1,000 pounds per day


cominr from wastewater effluents and the fresh water flow into


Pificataway Creek.


        Although the data required for determinenfr exchange rates


are not currently available for Piscataway embayment, it can readily


be seen from the above calculations that organic loadincr, including
*
   In later investigations it was determined that effluent does
   "hug" the southern shore, thus confirming the interpretation
   of the August 16 data.

-------

-------
                                                              VT - 25







the nutrients  in the middle  and  lower  Piscataway  embayment,  is  con-




trolled primarily by the  quality of the  Potomac Estuary.  Nevertne-




lesrs,  it  can a] no br seen in Figures VT-h,  VT-'3,  ami  VI-C>  t.fmt  the




effluent  from  the Fiscataway Wastewater  Treatment  Plant does  affect




effluent  and water quality in the embayment,  especially in tnc  small




tributary on tne southern shore.




        Coliform concentrations  of over  9,000 MPN/10U ml were observed




in the upper portions of  the southerly and  northerly  channels.   The




highest counts, over 2^,000,  were detected  in the  southerly channel




near the  manhole by the pumping  station.  As  can be seen in Table




VI-5, the highest fecal coliform  counts  are for the two uppermost




stations  in the main or northerly  channel.  Urban  runoff frori .-3




recent rainfall may have  been the  probable  source  of tnese hiph  fecal




counts.




        Results of the efficiency  study  of the wastewater treatment




facility, as given in Table  VI-o,  indicates that the effluent leaviru*




the plant is of very pood quality.   The  BOP and suspended RoliJs wer




17.5 and  8.0 mg/1, respectively,  for the 2H-hour composite sample.




        The influent to the plant  appears to be very weak for a




domestic  sewage.  The incoming wastewater ranges from about TO to




120 mfl/1 of 5-day BOD, with an average of about 95" ^/l   Similar




BOD concentrations for the influent were observed  by MSDIi and WSoC




personnel.

-------

-------
                                                             VI - 26







    k.  Investigation of August 23, 1968




        A complete inspection of the Piscataway area wastewater




treatment plant and adjacent area wns made by cyr> personnel on




Aup-ust 23, 1968.  During the inspection of the plant, the following




were observed.




        a.  The plant was operating efficiently.




        b.  The effluent, which was being monitored continuously




            by FWPCA, indicated that BOD was between 10 and PO




            mr/1, with the suspended solids concentrations ranging




            from h to IT mg/1.




        c.  An alarm system, which had been installed recently, ap-




            peared to be working satisfactorily.  ." lop of en.ca




            alarm activation is beinf kept by WHSC personnel.




        d.  f'irice the plant was placed into operation, no solids




            from the digester have been wasted.  Start-up seed was




            beinr brought to the plant from Vie Laurel-Parkway




            facility of WSfiC to aid in establishing the proper




            bacteriological cultures.




        e.  No evidence of recent by-passing or accidental spills




            was observed.




        f.  A maintenance crew was filling a gully formed by  the




            effluent near the present  terminal end of trie discharge




            interceptor.   As a result  of this fillinr operation, a




            high silt load was picked  up by the effluent stream.

-------

-------
                                                             VT - 27



        An inspection t low tide was also made of the Calvert-


Manor area which is downstream from and adjacent to the WSoC


facility.  The combination of low tide and the Inrpc quantities of


silt in the effluent clearly showed that effluent from the waste-


water plant was flowing along the shore, near the site of the original

                   *
Lord Calvert grant.   Under these conditions, the water is less


than one foot deep, and the only discernable flow was the wastewater


discharge.


        The "tag^inp" of the effluent by silt particle;; clearly


showed the course of the effluent.  This confirms the reports of


local residents of Calvert Manor that an accident or malfunction at


the plant would readily be noticeable from the shoreline as, for


example, durinp the early August breakdown when the area near the


shoreline was reported to be an "open sewer" under low tidal


conditions.
*
   This historical site is currently beinp- restored by the Clap^ett
   family.

-------

-------
                                                             VII  - 1




                          CHAPTER VII




                      CORRECTIVE MEASURES






A.  Kxiating Wastpwater Treatment Facilities




        As indicated in Chapter V, there are seven wastewater dis-




charges in the Piscataway Watershed discharging about 5.8 mgd with




a 5-day BOD loading of 780 pounds per day.  All of the treatment




facilities are currently providing secondary treatment with a POD




removal efficiency of 83 percent and greater.




        Since August 1, 1968, as directed by the Maryland State




Department of Health, the following actions have been taken "by W6SC




at the PWTP.




        1.  The flow into the plant has been limited to average




            daily flow of 5.0 mgd.




        2.  An alarm system has been intailed to indicate pumping




            or other mechanical difficulties which could result in




            by-passing untreated sewage.




        3.  General upgrading of plant operation.






        The above actions by the Maryland State Department of Health




and WGSC are endorsed in this report.




        A major deficiency at the existing plant appears to be failure




to provide stand-by electric power.   If a power failure occurs, the




incoming wastewater will be by-passed from a manhole near the plant's




pumping station serving the Piscataway area or from the Broad Creek




pumping station for the remaining service area.

-------

-------
        To eliminate or significantly reduce the incidence of over-

 flows which have occurred in both service areas, it, is recommended

 tbnL stand-by power be provided at ail pumping stations.  A3 a pre-

 cautionary measure, in case of dual  failure, a plan for diverting or

 storing of the wastewater should be  developed to prevent discharge

 of  untreated sewape.


 B.  Existing Temporary Discharge Location of the Piscatayay iVasteyater
    Treatment Plant

        As indicated in the previous chapter and as shown in Figure

 VI1-1, the existing discharge location results in a wastewater flow

 pattern in the Piscataway embayment which flows alonf; the shoreline.

 To  eliminate this condition and to provide for better dilution and

 dispersion of the wastewater, it is recommended that the final efflu-

 ent be conveyed to the southerly channel as shown in Figure VTI-1.

        The conveyance, which could be by an excavated channel or

 via a temporary pipeline, would provide a vehicle for continuous

 wastewater flow ana prevent stagnant conditions.  If a channel is

 excavated, a program to maintain the channel, including weed control,

 as  required should, also be initiated.

        Since the current assimilative capacity of the Piscataway

 embayraent is being exceeded by present wastewater loadings, il is

 recommended that the effluent outfall, as originally proposed by

WSSC, be constructed as soon as possible.  In addition, provision

should be made to eliminate the discharge of untreated wastes.

-------

-------
FIGURE

-------

-------
                                                             VTI -
^   Expansion of the Piscatavay Wastewater Treatment Facility and
    Potomac Interceptor

        According to the 1969-1973 Sewerage Program of WS3C, the

existing plant is to be expanded by 25.0 mgd.  It has been estimated

by WSSC that wastewater flow in the service area by 19&0 will be

about 30 mgd.  Associated with the expansion program will be a U.O

mgd advanced wastewater treatment plant .

        Preliminary studies by CFS have indicated that the wastewater

treatment level for all discharges into the Potomac Estuary will have

to be provided as given below to meet established water quality

standards .


        _ Parameter _ Per c ent Re duct i on

                 5 -day BOD                       95
        (Biochemical Oxygen Demand)

                    TKN                          85
         (Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen)

                    PO^                          95
               (Phosphates)
Using the projected population and current loading averages for the

entire Potomac Estuary, this will result in the wastewater loadings

from the' 30 mgd Piscataway facility as follows:

-------

-------
                                                              VT1  -
              Current Treated Loading     Projected Treatea  Loadir/
I'arameter
5 -day BOD
TruJ
h
Of/day)
635
koo
390
(#/cay)
.',yjo
Y50
300
   Trentou loadings based on 95, ^5, ana 95 percent LOI), TuTi,  and
   FOj  removal efficiency, respectively.
        As can be seen when the -projected, and current loadings  are

compared, the projected loadings to the Piscataway e'lbayme-nt, caven

with addition of AWT, will be higher than from the existing  5.0 m^ci

facility.

        Therefore, it is recommended tnat the effluent  f^om tnc

existing plant and the proposed expansion be conveyed to the Potomac

Estuary.

-------

-------