U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Annapolis Field Office
Annapolis Science Center
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
WORKING DOCUMENTS
Volume 13
-------
-------
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 AUTJ3-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
r
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 (continu.-rd)
Data Reports
Investigation of Water Quality in Chesapeake Bay and
Tributaries at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Department
of the Army, Aberdeen, Maryland - October-December 1967
Biological Survey of the Upper Potomac River and
Selected Tributaries - 1966-1968
Water Quality Survey of the Eastern Shore Chesapeake
Bay, Wicomico River, Pocomoke River, Nanticoke River,
Marshall Creek, Bunting Branch, and Chincoteague Bay -
Summer 1967
Head of Bay Study - Water Quality Survey of Northeast
River, Elk River, C & D Canal, Bohemia River, Sassafras
River and Upper Chesapeake Bay - Summer 1968 - Head ot
Bay Tributaries
Water Quality Survey of the Potomac Estuary - 1967
Water Quality Survey of the Potomac Estuary - 1968
Wastewater Treatment Plant Nutrient Survey - 1966-1967
Cooperative Bacteriological Study - Upper Chesapeake Bay
Dredging Spoil Disposal - Cruise Report No. 11
VOLUME 10
Data Reports
9 Water Quality Survey of the Potomac Estuary - 1965-1966
10 Water Quality Survey of the Annapolis Metro Area - 1967
11 Nutrient Data on Sediment Samples of the Potomac Estuary
1966-1968
12 1969 Head of the Bay Tributaries
13 Water Quality Survey of the Chesapeake Bay in the
Vicinity of Sandy Point - 1968
14 Water Quality Survey of the Chesapeake Bay in the
Vicinity of Sandy Point - 1969
-------
VOLUME 10(continued)
Data Reports
15 Water Quality Survey of the Patuxent River - 1967
16 Water Quality Survey of the Patuxent River - 1968
17 Water Quality Survey of the Patuxent River - 1969
18 Water Quality of the Potomac Estuary Transects,
Intensive and Southeast Water Laboratory Cooperative
Study - 1969
19 Water Quality Survey of the Potomac Estuary Phosphate
Tracer Study - 1969
VOLUME 11
Data Reports
20 Water Quality of the Potomac Estuary Transport Study
1969-1970
21 Water Quality Survey of the Piscataway Creek Watershed
1968-1970
22 Water Quality Survey of the Chesapeake Bay in the
Vicinity of Sandy Point - 1970
23 Water Quality Survey of the Head of the Chesapeake Bay
Maryland Tributaries - 1970-1971
24 Water Quality Survey of the Upper Chesapeake Bay
1969-1971
25 Water Quality of the Potomac Estuary Consolidated
Survey - 1970
26 Water Quality of the Potomac Estuary Dissolved Oxygen
Budget Studies - 1970
27 Potomac Estuary Wastewater Treatment Plants Survey
1970
28 Water Quality Survey of the Potomac Estuary Embayments
and Transects - 1970
29 Water Quality of the Upper Potomac Estuary Enforcement
Survey - 1970
-------
30
31
32
33
34
Appendix
to 1
Appendix
to 2
3
4
VOLUME 11 (continued)
Data Reports
Water Quality of the Potomac Estuary - Gilbert Swamp
and Allen's Fresh and Gunston Cove - 1970
Survey Results of the Chesapeake Bay Input Study -
1969-1970
Upper Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Studies - Bush River,
Spesutie Narrows and Swan Creek, C & D Canal, Chester
River, Severn River, Gunpowder, Middle and Bird Rivers -
1968-1971
Special Water Quality Surveys of the Potomac River Basin
Anacostia Estuary, Wicomico.River, St. Clement and
Breton Bays, Occoquan Bay - 1970-1971
Water Quality Survey of the Patuxent River - 1970
VOLUME 12
Working Documents
Biological Survey of the Susquehanna River and its
Tributaries between Danville, Pennsylvania and
Conowingo, Maryland
Tabulation of Bottom Organisms Observed at Sampling
Stations during the Biological Survey between Danville,
Pennsylvania and Conowingo, Maryland - November 1966
Biological Survey of the Susquehanna River and its
Tributaries between Cooperstown, New York and
Northumberland, Pennsylvnaia - January 1967
Tabulation of Bottom Organisms Observed at Sampling
Stations during the Biological Survey between Cooperstown,
New York and Northumberland, Pennsylvania - November 1966
VOLUME 13
Working Documents
Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, Mine Drainage
Chesapeake Bay-Delaware River Basins - July 1967
Biological Survey of Rock Creek (from Rockville, Maryland
to the Potomac River) October 1966
-------
VOLUME 13 (continued)
Working Documents
5 Summary of Water Quality and Waste Outfalls, Rock Creek
in Montgomery County, Maryland and the District of
Columbia - December 1966
6 Water Pollution Survey - Back River 1965 - February 1967
7 Efficiency Study of the District of Columbia Water
Pollution Control Plant - February 1967
VOLUME 14
Working Documents
8 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study - Susquehanna
River Basin from Northumberland to West Pittson
(Including the Lackawanna River Basin) March 1967
9 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, Juniata
River Basin - March 1967
10 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, Rappahannock
River Basin - March 1967
11 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, Susquehanna
River Basin from Lake Otsego, Mew 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 Rhodarnine 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
-------
WATER QUALITY
AND
POLLUTION CONTROL STUDY
MINE DRAINAGE
CHESAPEAKE BAY - DELAWARE RIVER BASIN
CB-SRBP Working Document No. 3
FWPCA
Middle Atlantic Region
July 1967
-------
Table of Contents
Volume 13
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
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
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page_
I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1-1
II. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...... II - 1
III. INTRODUCTION Ill « 1
IV. FORMATION OF MINE DRAINAGE POLLUTION .... IV - 1
V. SOURCES OF MINE DRAINAGE POLLUTION ..... V - 1
VI. DAMAGES . .... 0 ............. VI - 1
VII. ABATEMENT ....... ..... VII - 1
VIII. STATE ACTIVITIES AND REGULATIONS VIII - 1
IX. STUDY PROCEDURES ......... IX - 1
X. SUB-BASIN DESCRIPTION ............ X - 1
A. West Branch Susquehanna River Basin ... X - 1
B. Juniata River Basin ...... X - 29
C. Tioga River Basin ............ X - 38
D. Anthracite Area - Susquehanna River Basin
and Delaware River Basin ....... X - 44
Eo North Branch Potomac River ....... X - 79
XI. ABATEMENT COSTS ............... XI - 1
-------
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Number Description
Sub-Basin Maps
1 a. West Branch Susquehanna River
1 b. Juniata River
1 c. Tioga River
1 d. Anthracite Area
1 e. North Branch Potomac River
Profiles of Flows pH}Net Alkalinity Loading, Tributary
Contributions of Net Alkalinity, and Concentrations of
Net Aciditys Sulfate9 Iron3 and Manganese
2 West Branch Susquehanna River
2 a. West Branch Susquehanna River
3 Raystown Branch Juniata River
3 a. Raystown Branch Juniata River
4 Tioga River
4 a. Tioga River
5 Johnson Creek
5 a. Johnson Creek
6 Lackawanna River
6 a. Lackawanna River
7 Susquehanna River
7 a. Susquehanna River
8 Nescopeck Creek
8 a. Nescopeck Creek
-------
Figure Number Description
Sub-Basin Maps
9 Catawissa Creek
9 a. Catawissa Creek
10 Shamokin Creek
10 a. Shamokin Creek
11 Mahanoy Creek
11 a. Mahanoy Creek
12 Mahantango Creek
12 a. Mahantango Creek
13 Wiconisco Creek
13 a. Wiconisco Creek
14 Swatara Creek
14 a. Swatara Creek
15 North Branch Potomac River
15 a. North Branch Potomac River
-------
I - 1
I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this report is to provide background
information to be used in the development of a program to
eliminate or reduce the effects of mine drainage pollution
on the quality of the streams in the Susquehanna River, Delaware
v'
River, and Potomac River Drainage Basins. The report covers
both the anthracite and bituminous coal mining areas in these
Basins.
The principal objectives of the report are to:
1. Generally describe the chemical and physical
processes involved in the formation and occurrence
of mine drainage pollution.
2, Identify and characterize the watersheds contributing
mine drainage.
3. ^Relate mine drainage contributions of the tributaries
to the main stem of the receiving stream.
4-. Isolate and identify significant discharges in
terms of quality and quantity,
5. Identify and estimate the extent of areas disturbed
by mining operations,
6> Suggest measures to be taken to abate or alleviate
the effects of mine drainage pollution in specific
sub-basins,
-------
1-2
7. Estimate costs of mine drainage pollution abatement
and control.
All conclusions3 recommendations, and estimates
contained in this report are subject to further refinement as
the program of the Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River Basins
Project progresses.
y
-------
-------
II - 1
II. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Summary
1, The Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River Basins Project
is engaged in a comprehensive water pollution control
study in a portion of the area covered by this
report. Studies to determine the source of mine
drainage pollution and the estimated cost of
J
abatement have been carried out and are continuing.
2. Preliminary data have been compiled relative to
the extent, causes and abatement of mine drainage
pollution in the Susquehanna, Delaware3 and Potomac
River Basins, Studies to be conducted in 1967 are
expected to supplement data collected to date, making
possible more refined estimates concerning the extent
of mine drainage pollution in the Study Area and
appropriate abatement measures.
3. For the purpose of this report, the Study Area has
been subdivided into sub-areas; The West Branch
Susquehanna River Basin, the Juniata River Basin,
the Tioga River Basin, the Susquehanna River Basin
Anthracite Area,, the Delaware River Basin Anthracite
Area, and the Potomac River Basin-
4, Mine drainage has rendered approximately 1S000 miles
of streams in the Study Area acid. The quality of
-------
II - 2
another 1S000 miles of streams is degraded by
other mine drainage constituents and by intermittent
influence of mine drainage on streams or portions
of streams not usually significantly affected by
mine drainage.
5. An estimated 5D000 mining operations have been
active in the bituminous coal fields in the period
1800 to the present, producing about 1 billion
tons of coal. An estimated 1,000 major mining
operations in the anthracite coal fields produced
5 billion tons of coal.
6. Of the 679 major mine drainage discharges located
in the Pennsylvania portion of the Study Area
of the Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River Basins
Project, 188, or 28 per cent, were found to be
contributing 90 per cent of the acid loading.
Comparable data are not presently available for the
Potomac River Basin portion of the Study Area.
7. Restoration of the 208,500 acres of the Study Area
disturbed by surface mining will cost on the order
of $273 million.
8, The estimated cost of lime neutralization of residual
mine drainage loadings not abatable by land reclamation
methods will range from $258 to $983 million. Estimates
-------
-------
ii - :
are based on construction and 10 years of
operation of treatment facilities,
9. Restoration of the quality of streams presently-
polluted by mine drainage to a level consistent
with quality required for desired water uses is
estimated to range in cost from $531 to $1,256
million,
B. Conclusions
1. Sub-basins have been identified in which mine
drainage pollution abatement appears to be
attainable with a comparatively small expenditure
of time and money as compared to the remaining sub-
basins in the Study Area. These sub-basins should
be considered for highest priority in any limited
mine drainage pollution abatement program. These
sub-basins are:
a, Anderson Creek - West Branch Susquehanna
River Basin
b. Loyalsock Creek - West Branch Susquehanna
River Basin
c. North Bald Eagle Creek - West Branch
Susquehanna River Basin
d. Tioga River - Chemung River Basin
e. Little Juniata River - Juniata River Basin
f, Frankstown Branch Juniaca River - Juniata
River Basin
-------
II - 4
g. Aughwick Creek - Juniata River Basin
h. Nescopeck Creek - Susquehanna River Basin
i. Mahantango Creek - Susquehanna River Basin
j „ Lehigh River - Delaware River Basin
k. Abram Creek - Potomac River Basin
1. Elk Run - Potomac River Basin
m. Laurel Run - Potomac River Basin (Maryland)
2. Coal production is expected to continue throughout
most of the Study Area. Existing water pollution
control authority in Pennsylvania is adequate within
the limits of economic and technical feasibility
to essentially prevent additional stream quality-
degradation in conjunction with future mining.
Present regulatory authority in Maryland and West
Virginia appears to offer much less restriction to
pollution caused by future mining.
3. State regulatory agencies and the mining industry
have done considerable work in determining and
applying methods of abating and controlling mine
drainage pollution from both active and abandoned
mines. Funds are not presently available at the
State level to undertake the costly program of mine
drainage pollution abatement from both active and
inactive mines on a comprehensive basis, A bond
-------
-------
II - 5
issue,, recently approved in Pennsylvania, will
make approximately $200 million available for
mine drainage pollution abatement and control
activities over a 10-year period,
4. Reclamation of land disturbed by surface mining
is needed to restore its utility. This activitys
coupled with mine flooding, restoration of surface
drainage disturbed by subsidence, and other
activities aimed at altering existing drainage
patterns will reduce mine drainage contributions
to the streams of the Basin. It is doubtful that
such work alone will completely abate mine
drainage pollution. Mine drainage treatment
facilities and/or flow regulation for water quality
control will be needed in some areas. Additional
studies are needed to evaluate the most feasible
approach to mine drainage pollution control in
individual sub-basins.
-------
-------
Ill - 1
III. INTRODUCTION
Mine drainage has been defined by the Susquehanna
River Basin Study Mine Drainage Work Group as any "discharge
influenced by or originating from surface or underground
mining operations and natural discharges which by the nature
of their chemical or mineral characteristics exert detrimental
effects on the receiving environment„
Although mine drainage does occur in the natural
process and from the mining of many mineral deposits, by far
the most serious mine drainage pollution problem in the Study
Area results from the commercial mining of coal. The areal
distribution of the major coal fields within the area of
responsibility of the Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River Basins
Project (CB-SRBP) is shown on Figure 1.
An estimate of the area containing coal and allied
deposits in the Study Area is as follows:
Anthracite - Northern, Western Middle, Eastern
Middle, and Southern Fields ..... 529 sq. miles
Semi-Anthracite - Mehoopany, Towanda, Pine, and
Loyalsock Creek Basins , ,.,, 55 sq. miles
Bituminous - Broad Top-Juniata Basin ......... 81 sq. miles
West Branch Susquehanna River Basin
........ 3,606 sq. mi 1es
Tioga River Basin ............... 59 sq. mi 1es
North Branch Potomac River Basin. 370 sq, miles
-------
-------
Ill - 2
Water pollution problems associated with mine drainage
are not new. Discharges flowing from mineral deposits
through natural faults and fissures have, undoubtedly, always
possessed mine drainage characteristics. Long before the
first commercial coal mine was opened, the Indians of the area
were aware of the "black stone" that burned. They used the
many hued mud deposits of early mine drainage streams as
a source of pigments and dyes.
Although mine drainage occurs naturally, the growth
of the commercial coal mining industry has greatly accelerated
the production of mine drainage discharges deleterious to
the receiving streams. Since the opening of the first
commercial coal mine over 150 years ago, the harmful effects
of mine drainage discharges have become increasingly more
significant. What was once a localized problem in the early
days of the mining industry is now widespread. Today, after
the production of over 1 billion tons of bituminous coal and
5 billion tons of anthracite coal9 more than 1,000 miles of
streams in the Study Area are rendered acid by mine drainage
discharges. Mine drainage has rendered at least an additional
1,000 stream miles undesirable for some water uses.
Increasingly stringent regulatory control has been
placed on the raining industry by State water pollution control
agencies and pollution caused by active mines is expected to
-------
Ill - 3
diminish, Most of the mine drainage entering the streams of
the Study Area originates, however, in abandoned mines.
Responsibility for abatement of pollution from this source
has fallen to State, local, and Federal agencies. A
rational9 efficient approach to the problem on a basin-wide
basis involves the identification of pollution sources, their
effect on stream quality, and the development of a comprehensive
pollution abatement plan based upon costs and benefits to
be derived. This report is intended as a first step toward
development of such a plan.
-------
IV - 1
IV. FORMATION OF MINE DRAINAGE
A. Chemistry
Many minerals are sufficiently reactive to form
water soluble salts when they are mined and exposed to air,
Ground or surface water coming in contact with the minerals
dissolves the salts and carries them to the surface3 causing
stream pollution. In the course of the mining of coal, large
amounts of sulfuritic material are exposed to the atmosphere.
When water comes into contact with these materials, sulfides
and other minerals are dissolved, producing a drainage that
contains ferrous and ferric iron, aluminum, calcium, and
magnesium sulfates. In addition, manganese, sodium,
potassium, and other elements may be present in the resulting
drainage as chlorides, carbonates, and sulfates.
The concentration of the pollutants present in mine
drainage is a function of the availability of metallic
sulfides5 water, and oxygen, their exposed surface area,
their contact time with each other, along with temperature
and various catalytic agents, Sulfuritic materials associated
with the various mineral deposits are the principal precursors
of the salts and sulfuric acid found in coal mine drainage.
The minerals, mainly pyrite, oxidize in the presence of air and
water to form ferrous sulfate and sulfuric acid. Although
investigators differ concerning the actual reactions and
-------
-------
IV - 2
mechanisms involved in the formation of acid drainage, the
overall reactions can be represented by the following equations :
2 FeS2 + 7 02 + 2 H20 >»»•»•>•» 2 Fe SO^ + 2H2
(pyrite) (oxygen) (ferrous sulfate; (sulfuric
acid)
Fe S2 + 3 02 »»-»»»•»•> » •»» Fe SO^ + S02
(sulfur dioxide)
2 S02 + 02 + 2 H20 > » >»».>.>.*> 2 H2 SOj^
The reaction yields two moles of hydrogen ions (acidity) for
each mole of iron oxidized.
Initially, the iron in mine drainage is in the ferrous
state; however, after contact with air, ferrous iron oxidizes
to ferric iron, i.e.,
U Fe SO + 2H SO + O »»» 2 F&
(ferrous sulfate) (ferric sulfate)
Dependent upon pH, temperature, and concentration of constituents,
the reaction proceeds:
Fe (SO, ) -f 6 HO >'»»»))» 2 Fe (OH) + 3 H SO,
(ferric hydroxide)
and/or
+ 2 H0 »»»»•»» 2 Fe (OH)
(basic ferric sulfate)
In the absence of acid, basic ferric sulfate may precipitate
directly according to the reaction:
U Fe SO, +0+2 HO ->»»»» k Fe (OH) (SO, )
-------
-------
IV - 3
There is some question as to whether the basic ferric
sulfate is a discrete compound or a ferric hydroxide
containing occluded sulfate.
In the presence of strong acid concentrations,
ferrous sulfate may hydrolyze as follows:
Fe SO, + 2 H0 ->-*•>•> > > > >->•> >•>-»-*-»* Fe (OH> +
B, Microbiology
Although there are conflicting opinions among
researchers as to the importance of micro-organisms in the
productions of mine drainage pollution, there is evidence to
indicate that micro-organisms do contribute to initial pyrite
oxidation. A number of bacterial species (Thiobacillus
thiooxidams, Thiobacillus ferroxidams, and Ferrobacillus
ferrpxidams) have been isolated from mine drainage waters,
but the extent of their role in the formation of mine drainage
pollution is not presently known.
-------
-------
V - 1
V. SOURCES OF MINE DRAINAGE
The gradual increase in the detrimental effect of
mine drainage pollution in the Study Area is closely associated
with the commercial mining of coal. Mining operations are
carried out in a variety of ways depending primarily upon the
location and configuration of the coal deposit to be mined.
The way in which the mine is developed and operated has a
profound effect on the quality and quantity of mine drainage
produced by the mine.
Mines are classified as either "deep mines" or
"surface mines".
A. Deep Mines
Deep mines may be further classified as "shaft", "slope",
or "drift" mines.
1. Shaft
A shaft mine is one in which a vertical opening is
driven downward to a coal seam which may not
outcrop at the ground surface at that point. Coal
seams which are mined through shaft openings
usually lie beneath the ground water table. During
the period the mine is active, water which finds
its way into the mine must be pumped to the surface
through the shaft or through boreholes drilled for
this purpose.
-------
-------
V - 2
2. Slope
A slope mine is one in which the coal is removed
through an entry which slopes downward to intercept
the coal seam, As is the case with shaft mines,
while mining is being carried out, water which
enters the mine must be pumped to the surface.
When shaft and slope mines are abandoned, infil-
trating ground water fills the mines to the natural
level of the ground water table in the area or to
a level in the mine at which the water can find
its way to the surface by gravity. This "natural"
inundation of sulfuritic material has been observed
to have a beneficial effect on the quality of
drainage from mines. In the Anthracite Area many
shaft and slope mines are kept dewatered by a
system of rock tunnels which were driven expressly
to provide gravity drainage of the mines in a given
coal basin.
3. Drift
A drift mine is one in which the opening is driven
into the outcropping of the coal seam. Drainage
from a drift mine is usually by gravity through
open channels, however, local dip areas may be
-------
V - 3
dewatered by siphoning or pumping while the mine
is active. Drift mines are identified as a
major source of mine drainage in the Study Area
because, when abandoned, they tend to discharge
mine drainage with a quality equal to or worse
than that experienced while the mine was active.
B. Surface Mines
Drainage from surface mines may be either by gravity
or pumping, depending upon the elevation of surface drainage
in the area. In addition to provisions for handling ground
water which enters surface mines9 steps must be taken to
divert surface drainage in such a way that it does not enter
the mine workings .
Surface mines may be sub-divided into strip and auger
mines.
1. Strip
A strip mine is one in which the coal is removed
from an open pit following complete removal of
strata overlying the coal seams.
2. Auger
Auger mining is usually associated with some form
of strip mining. However, it is also used to extract
coal near the outcrop which was not recovered by
-------
-------
V - 4
earlier deep mining or where underground
mining is not feasible. Coal is extracted by
boring horizontally into the exposed coal seam.
Most of the coal production in the Study Area has
been accomplished by deep mining methods; however, in recent
years (since 1945), the percentage of coal produced by
stripping operations has steadily increased. At present
approximately 60 per cent of the coal production in the Study
Area is by the strip mine method.
Studies conducted by the Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna
River Basins Project have located a considerably smaller
number of major mine drainage discharge sources than the
total number of mining operations recorded to have been
located within the Study Area. Some of the reasons for
this difference are:
1. Studies were conducted during summer low
stream flow periods when mine drainage flow
would be expected to be at a minimum. Mines
which discharge only during wet weather periods
were thus not located.
2. Interconnection of mine workings, both intentionally
and unintentionally, has in many cases consolidated
drainage from many mines into one discharge.
-------
-------
V - 5
3. Many abandoned mines have been sealed in the
course of mine sealing programs and as a result
of surface mining operations.
4. Some mines have filled with water, interrupting
the air-water-sulfuritic material interaction.
Discharges from these mines do not exhibit the
characteristics of mine drainage and were,
therefore, not considered in the tabulation
of "mine drainage" discharges.
The number and acid loading of mine drainage sources
located to date are summarized by source category as shown
in the table on:page V.- 6.
The quality and quantity of mine drainage produced
from a mining operation is dependent upon a number of factors.
The chief factors'are:
1. The operating status of the mine (i.e. active
or abandoned).
2. Hydrologic and geologic features of the surrounding
terrain.
3. The type of mining method employed.
4. Availability of precursors (air, water, and
suiftiritic materials).
5. Contact time of the required precursors.
6. Character of surface topography.
-------
-------
I BASINS
___— : : , -1
JOR MINE DRAINAGE SOURCES
3UEHANNA RIVER AND DELAWARE RIVEI
MA,
CHESAPEAKE BAY-SUSC
, — i
cd
4J
0
H
Inactive
Deep and Strip
erations
Inactive Op
Active Operations
1
a
•H
4J
co
CO
co
C
•H
2
a
0)
(!)
O
to
a)
C
2
a
4-i
CO
co
CD
C
•H
2
o
cu
Q
cd
T3 "O T3
O O 43
o a
0 -H
& Q
cd
-a T3 -a
0 0 42
O j J
o a
• co
O -H
ZZ Q
CC
T3 T3 *O
•H cd ~-~.
cj O f
C U
• co
O -H
S O
T3 T3 T3
•H C8 -^
U 0 43
T3 "O -O
•H cd ^.
0 O 4i
<: j j
j ^4f
o a
• CO
0 -H
^ Q*
Basin
0
O
CN
00
CM
LT1
-H
6 cd
cdC
CCOcd
cd,c
sea)
CO
0)
>
-H
-Oi
S-<
pau
cd
X6
4-1O
s-i4->
OO
oo
CD
>
> S-i Si
QJCJU
QJCO
>
cfl
C
0)
W
4-1
O
c
cd
4J
cd
O
-------
V - 7
The production of mine drainage from a mining
operation may be continuous or intermittent. Underground
mines developed below the ground water table usually
"make" mine drainage on a continuous basis; the concentration
of the pollutant varying as a function of the volume of water
entering the mine, contact time, and available precursory
materials. In cases where the ground water table is below
the mining level during some seasons or when the mine receives
direct surface water contributions, the discharge quality
and quantity may vary greatly.
In surface mines the production of the pollutant is
often intermittent, generally occurring during and immediately
after periods of precipitation. Runoff in stripped areas
may find its way to a surface stream or be trapped in
inadequately restored trenches or pits formed during the
stripping operation. When the runoff is trapped, pools which
may contain high concentrations of mine drainage indicators
are formed, During subsequent periods of high runoff, these
pools may overflow, releasing concentrated "slugs" of mine
drainage pollution to receiving streams. The pools thus
formed constitute reservoirs of potential mine drainage.
They often drain slowly into the backfill to emerge in the
form of mine drainage seepages downslope from the stripping
-------
V - 8
operation. They may also drain to underground mines
underlying the stripped area, thus increasing the mine
drainage flow from these mines.
Mine drainage may continue to flow from both surface
and sub-surface mining operations long after the mines have
been "worked-out" and abandoned. As long as the precursor
materials (air, water, and sulfuritic material) are available,
the mine will continue to produce the pollutant.
Pollution having mine drainage characteristics may
also originate at refuse and "gob" piles associated with
mining operations. The refuse piles are spoil areas where
impurities removed from the mined coal are deposited. The
i
impurities in the spoil area may contain a sulfur-bearing
material; and, when exposed to air and water, mine drainage
type discharges may result. The pollution emanating from
these "gob" piles is usually intermittent, occurring only
during and immediately after periods of precipitation.
Several instances have been found, however, where the piles
interrupt surface drainage. The water passing through
the spoil banks thus constitutes a vehicle for transport
of soluble salts, thereby forming a "mine drainage discharge".
Although discharges from spoil piles may be extremely
significant, particularly in small watersheds, information
is not presently available to permit a general statement on
-------
V - 9
the effect of spoil piles on water quality on a basin-wide
basis or to estimate the cost of reclamation of spoil piles
which cause pollution. This facet of the mine drainage
problem will be discussed more comprehensively in future
reports„
Both surface and deep mining operations are responsible
for the heavy silt load carried by many of the streams in
the area. During surface mining operations, large tracts
of land are completely denuded, exposing the soil to erosion
by water and wind. Coal fines are often introduced to
receiving streams by coal processing operations and by surface
runoff from piles of coal refuse. This material may itself
contain sulfuritic material and constitute a source of
"mine drainage" pollution.
-------
VI - 1
VI„ DAMAGES
When mine drainage is discharged to a receiving
stream, limitations may be placed on the value of the stream
and adjoining land for recreational, industrial, municipal
and other uses. The effect of mine drainage on stream
quality is not necessarily limited to a reach near the point
of origin. Although the diluting and neutralizing effect of
unpolluted streams generally limits acid conditions to streams
within the coal fields, damages attributable to other mine
drainage indicators are often experienced far downstream from
the point of origin. Although the damages attributable to
mine drainage in the Study Area are not difficult to enumerate,
they are difficult to completely evaluate in monetary terms.
The only information available on the monetary value of
damages attributable to mine drainage relates to sports
fishing. Although this damage is certainly not the only one,
it is believed to be the largest in monetary terms and by
far the most significant in the Study Area at present. Future
development of the Basin's water resources may, however,
create increased demand for the use of streams receiving mine
drainage, thereby increasing calculable damages. It is hoped
that more detailed information on monetary damages can be
developed for inclusion in future Project Mine Drainage
Reports. Although damages caused by mine drainage may be
categorized in many ways, for this report we have chosen to
-------
-------
VI - 2
categorize these effects in terras of "in-stream", "with-
drawal",, and "other" effects.
A. In-Stream Damages
The most striking and probably most economically
important in-stream damage caused by mine drainage is its
effect on aquatic life. Only a limited number of aquatic
forms can exist in an environment strongly influenced by
mine drainage. Mine drainage produces low pH values and the
formation of toxic precipitates, which restrict, and in some
cases practically eliminate, all aquatic life. It is
generally agreed that an aquatic environment having a pH
outside the range 6.3 to 9.0 cannot support a balanced
aquatic population. If the pH drops below 6, as it often
does in streams influenced by mine drainage, both macroscopic
and microscopic populations are adversely affected.
The most economically important members of the
macroscopic population are game fish and the organisms that
make up their food supply. A draft report prepared by the
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service states: "There are
about 3,000 acres involved in the 824 miles of cold water
streams and 3,300 acres in the 206 miles of warm water
streams affected by mine acids. Elimination of this adverse
factor in all streams so affected would result in increased
fishing in the amount of 500,000 fishing days annually with
-------
VI - 3
a recreational value of $1,125,000 and related expenditures
valued at $2,660,000 annually".
Unsightly precipitates, accumulations of inert "silt",
and low pH combine to render most of the stream miles
discussed above unsuitable for other recreational uses.
Mine drainage depresses the microscopic population
in a stream. This may retard the ability of a stream to
biochemically stabilize sewage or organic industrial waste.
The organic material is, in a sense, "pickled" in the acid
water and is stabilized further downstream at a point where
stream alkalinity increases.
A more subtle effect of mine drainage on industrial
and municipal waste disposal is its fostering of a general
disregard for streams presently polluted by mine drainage.
The present limited uses of these streams depress the
incentive for sewage and industrial waste pollution abatement
on the part of Basin residents. Their attitude seems to be
that until mine drainage pollution is abated and a full
spectrum of uses restored, sewage and industrial discharges
are not really polluting the stream. This philosophy is
reflected in the attitude of many area residents who use
the streams as a dumping ground for garbage and trash.
The constituents of mine drainage tend to erode
concrete structures and corrode metal structures in the
-------
-------
VI - 4
stream. This effect may also be observed on intake structure
and the raw water piping of "withdrawal" users of mine
drainage effected streams.
B. Withdrawal Uses
Mine drainage has a definite adverse effect on
the use of streams for industrial, municipal, and agricultural
water supply. The principal sources of the adverse effect
are sulfuric acid, iron, manganese, aluminum, calcium,
and magnesium salts contributed by mine drainage.
In water treatment plants, high acidity and low pH
may result in adverse effects in chemical coagulation,
softening, and corrosion control. Corrosion control is the
major problem of most industrial users; however, industrial
establishments employing chemical or biological processes
experience serious difficulties if the iron concentration or
acidity of the water supply is not or cannot be adequately
controlled by their water treatment plants.
Both iron and manganese create serious problems
in public and in some industrial water supplies. The
problems associated with iron are caused by the precipitation
of iron salts, which are objectionable from an aesthetic
point of view. Iron salts stain plumbing fixtures and
laundry and interfere with certain industrial processes.
Iron also supports the growth of filamentous iron bacteria
-------
-------
VI - 5
which restrict and may completely stop the flow of water in
distribution lines. Manganese has much the same effect as
iron9 except that the precipitate formed is black.
The U. S. Public Health Service has set the maximum
suggested concentration of iron and manganese in public
water supplies at 0,3 milligrams per liter (mg/1) and
0.05 mg/19 respectively. Some industrial processes are5
however,, adversely affected by any measurable concentration.
Some sulfate compounds and the end-products of
their reaction with calcium and magnesium carbonate (the
principal constituents of the alkalinity of many streams)
produce permanent hardness in water. Hardness is objectionable
in public supplies, particularly because consumers are
forced to use more soap for cleaning purposes. Permanent
hardness in boiler feed water forms scale, which cuts down
the heat exchange efficiency of boilers and is thus objectionable
to industrial water users.
The undesirable characteristics of mine water can
be removed by modern, adequately designed water treatment
plants. To an industrial establishment contemplating locating
at a particular site, the additional cost of treating water
polluted by mine drainage could, however, be a very important
consideration.
-------
VI - 6
The use of mine drainage for crop irrigation tends
to increase the acidity of the normally acid soils of the
Study Area and may cause a chemical reaction in the soil,
adversely affecting its physical properties.
In general; withdrawal uses of streams influenced by
mine drainage are very limited in the Study Area, In most
cases water users have been able to utilize ground water or
streams unaffected by mine drainage to meet their needs to
date. No information is presently available on the incremental
cost of utilizing these sources as compared to the cost of
utilizing mine drainage affected streams if they were unaffected,
C. Other Damages
In addition to damages directly assignable to water
uses 3 other damages, real but presently undefined in monetary
forms 9 may occur in areas drained by mine drainage polluted
streams. Unsightly deposits of iron salts have ruined the
natural beauty of many streams discouraging recreational use
of the streams and adjoining land» This impairment of use may
be reflected in depression of adjacent property values.
Industrial or commercial development nearby may be discouraged
because of aesthetic considerations associated with the mine
drainage polluted streams,
-------
-------
ra = i
VII. ABATE&iENT AND CONTROL MEASURES
Over the many years that mine drainage pollution has
teen recognized as & problem, numerous methods have been
advanced as possible solutions„ The method* may be categorized
as either "abatement" or "control" measures„
"Abatement measures" as discussed here are considered
to be methods intended to reduce amounts of mine drainage
pollutants at their source„ "Control measures" are considered
here to be measures intended to eliminate or reduce the
polluting effects of mine drainage after the pollutants have
been formed and are present in the mine discharge or surface
stream „ It is not the purpose of this report to exhaustively
discuss the applications of various specific methods„ Several
of the basic abatement and control methods are briefly-
discussed below. The least expensive solution of a given
problem could involve any or the combination of any of the
following•
A0 Abatement Measures
Abatement measures found to have some degree of success
are based upon the prevention of the siamltaneous contact of
air, water, and sulfuritie material„ Some of these measures are;
.- 1. Mine Sealing
Traditionally the term "mine sealing" has been used to
describe efforts to exclude air frcan deep mines by sealing taiown
-------
VII - 2
openings v/hile permitting the flow of water from the mine0 This
method is generally considered to be ineffective because the
mine continues to "breathe" through hidden fissures after all
visible entries have been sealed„
A variation in this procedure, segregation and burial
of acid-forming refuse, is used successfully to prevent and
abate mine drainage discharges frcm surface mines and coal
refuse piles„ An impervious clay blanket is used to cover the
material and prevent oxidation of the sulfuritic material „
2 a Inundation
This method utilizes the observation that sulfuritic
material Immersed in water cannot come into contact "with the
third basic requirement for mine drainage formation, air0 The
method is applicable to both deep mines and surface mines „
Flooding of certain shaft and slope mines and strip mines, in
which the sulfuritic material lies below the level of the pool
formed, has been observed to prevent formation of mine drainage„
3o Water Control and Diversion
This measure is probably the most universally applicable
of the measures described here0 Although soluble metallic salts,
the pollutant in mine drainage, may be formed by the action of
air, air moisture, and sulfuritic material, flowing water is
needed to dissolve and carry the salts frcm the mine to form
mine drainage„ Complete exclusion of water from a mine or
-------
¥11 - 3
elimination of contact of -water with, sulfuritic material while
in the mine would eliminate mine drainage pollution. In active
and inactive mines, both strip and deep, reduction in the
amount of mine drainage pollutants discharged can "be accomplished
by reducing water flow into the mine,
Ibile the mines are still active, water that does enter
may "be conveyed tack to a surface water course quietly and vd-th
little contact -with sulfuritie material by the utilization of a
system of pumps and closed conduits. In abandoned mines, where
t&is control is not possible, emphasis must be placed upon
preserving surface drainage patterns and minimizing the contri-
bution of surface water to the mines,
Regrading and planting of areas disturbed by surface
mines or deep mine subsidence promotes surface runoff, minimizes
perculation of water impounded in the disturbed area through
sulfuritie material disturbed by the surface mining, and
minimizes contribution of water to underground mines which may
underlie the area0
A major secondary benefit results from the reclamation
of areas disturbed by mining„ The land is restored to a
configuration which makes it more suitable for beneficial use,,
B. Control Measures
It is not always feasible to abate mine drainage
pollution by interrupting the chemical processes by which the
-------
-------
VII - 4
pollutant is formed. In such cases a variety of control
measures may "be utilized to eliminate or reduce its effect on
stream quality„ Sane of these ares
10 Treatment
Numerous methods have been proposed for the treatment
of mine drainage to remove its polluting properties, Probably
the most widely practiced treatment method to date has involved
the addition of lime, limestone, soda ash, caustic soda, or
other basic material to neutralize acid and induce precipitation
of certain metallic salts 0 Considerable research and develop-
ment worlc has been accomplished on variations of this method by
both public agencies and private industry, A number of treat-
ment plants of this type are in routine operation at present,
A major disadvantage of this method is the operation cost, which
has been reported to range as high as $!„30/1,000 gallons.
Major expenditures involved in this method include the cost of
the basic material added and the cost of sludge removal. The
precipitate formed in the course of treatment is frequently
difficult to dewater to the point at which landfill disposal
can be utilised, A second disadvantage of this method is its
failure to remove certain dissolved mineral constituents and
only a portion of the suspended materials Added in the process
are materials which may in themselves cause pollution„ The
hardness of the treated water, for example, may be raised by
lime neutralisation treatment.
-------
-------
VII - 5
Other treatment methods proposed involve removal and
concentration of pollutants in mine drainage. Many of the
methods proposed are also being investigated in conjunction
•with the Federal desalinization program „ Some of the methods
are ion exchange, evaporation, and eleetrodialysis„ Major
problems associated with these methods involve high operating
cost and disposal of the separated pollutants„ No full-scale
treatment plants utilizing these principles have as yet been
constructed in the Study Area, The Pennsylvania Coal Research
Board has, however, sponsored the design of experimental
treatment plants •which utilize evaporation and ion exchange
principles „
At present a need exists for reliable information on
the cost of constructing and operating various types of
treatment facilities under a variety of conditions„ Cost data
presently available have been derived mainly from bench-scale
and pilot~plant studies and may not be applicable to all field
conditions encountered„ Research and development programs
presently in progress and operating data from full-scale plants
in operation and soon to be placed in operation should provide
more reliable data on which to evaluate treatment alternatives
in the future,
20 Impoundment and Controlled Release of Mne Drainage
In certain situations, benefits may be realized from
impounding mine drainage for release in such a way as to
-------
-------
VII - 6
minimize its effect on stream quality. The objective of this
procedure is to maximize utilization of the assimilative
capacity of the receiving stream „
For several years, the storage capacity of -underground
mine water pools in the Northern Anthracite Field has "been
utilized to store mine water during periods of low flow in the
Susquehaxma River, The stored water is discharged to the river
during periods when streamflow and assimilative capacity are
high.
The same general procedure could "be followed utilizing
surface impoundments, An advantage of utilization of surface
impoundments over subsurface impoundments is the reduced
likelihood that additional mine drainage will be formed,
Variation of •underground pool levels may result in further
deterioration of the quality of the Impounded water "because of
increased contact vd.th sulfuritic material„ Preliminary results
of studies of surface impoundments conducted by a private
contractor indicate that impoundment has no significant effect
on the mineral content of mine drainage„ These studies and a
parallel study being conducted in cooperation -with the Corps of
Engineers are expected to be completed in late 1967 0
30 Streamflow Regulation
This method is closely related to impoundment and
controlled release of mine drainage. The objective is to
-------
-------
¥11 - 7
impound good quality water for release during periods of minimum
stream assimilative capacity to increase the assimilative capac=>
ity of streams receiving mine drainage. The impounded water
should be high in alkalinity and low in mine drainage indicators
so that the releases may have the dual value of neutralizing
acid while decreasing concentrations of other mine drainage
indicators by dilution,
Obviously streamfloir regulation is applicable only to
situations in which the stream's natural assimilative capacity
is adequate to prevent pollution under most conditions „ The
releases act simply as loans of good quality "water which are
drawn from the stream's total assets. A stream perennially
polluted by mine drainage cannot be reclaimed by flow regulation
alone„
Because of variations in buffer systems in waters
encountered in areas in which this method is applicable, it is
presently impossible to accurately predict the quality resulting
from blends of mine drainage and natural waters „ This gap in
our technical knowledge makes it presently impossible to
accurately estimate the amount of streamflow regulation required
for mine drainage pollution control purposes „ Studies, are in
progress, both by Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
personnel and a private contractor, to develop procedures for
predicting the resultant quality of blends of mine drainage and
natural water.
-------
-------
¥11 - 8
4» Conveyance and Diversion
Under certain conditions the effects of mine drainage
on water uses may "be controlled lay conveying the mine drainage
to another stream which has a greater assimilative capacity or
a less critical water use0 Diversion of good quality water
between watersheds may also "be feasible In some cases to
increase the assimilative capacity of the receiving stream „
In contrast to the procedure described under "Streamflow
Regulation", Inter~watershed diversion could result in a
perennial benefit to the quality of the receiving stream„
In order to rationally implement this method,
procedures must be developed to permit prediction of the
quality resulting from the blending of mine drainage and
natural water.
-------
-------
VIII - 1
VIII. STATE ACTIVITIES AND REGULATIONS
A e Pennsylvani a
Pennsylvania's mine drainage pollution control program
"began in 1945 with the amendment of the State ''Clean Stream Law"
giving the State Sanitary Water Board limited authority over
acid mine drainage. Coal mine operators were required to obtain
Board approval of a plan of drainage before a mine could be
opened, reopened} or continued in operation. The Aet prohibited
the discharge of acid mine drainage into "clean -waters", which
were defined as those waters which were, at the effective date
of the Act, unpolluted and free from industrial waste and
authorized sewage discharges except for discharges which received
secondary treatment,, The Act also authorized the Board to
provide necessary diversion works to carry acid mine drainage
away from clean waters for discharge to polluted or "unclean
waters"„
The provisions of the 1945 amendment to the "Clean Stream
Law" had the effect of preventing pollution of streams which were
unpolluted on the effective date of the Act. Ihey did not,
however, provide for effective control of discharges to streams
which did not fall within, the rather narrow definition of streams
to be protected.
In 1965 the "Clean Stream Law" was again amended,,
removing all exemptions in the Law relating to mine drainage „
-------
-------
¥111 = 2
Under the provisions of the 1965 amendment which 'became
effective on January 1, 1966, mine drainage is subject to the
same controls as sewage and industrial waste. Discharges may
not cause pollution,, The intent of the amended law ia to
"restore to a clean, unpolluted condition all waters of the
Common-wealth." Regulations adopted "by the Board to implement
the most recent amendment to the law include the provision that
discharges from active mines have net alkalinity and a maximum
of 7 fflg/1 dissolved iron0
In addition to making water pollution control laws more
stringent, the Pennsylvania Legislature has over the years
progressively increased requirements concerning the backfilling
and restoration of areas disturbed by mining. Present require-
ments, which are administered by the Department of Mines and
Mineral Industries, demand pronpt and, in some eases, complete
restoration of the disturbed area. Regulations have been
adopted to prevent acid drainage and soil erosion fr«sn areas
disturbed by strip mining, both during and after mining is
completed„
Present State mine drainage pollution control and strip
mine reclamation regulatory authority appears to be adequate to
essentially prevent additional stream quality degradation as &
result of future mining activities. The extent of stress
quality degradation from future mining will depend largely upon
-------
-------
VIII - 3
the degree of enforcement of the present authority and upon
technical factors which could make complete enforcement of the
authority of the Sanitary Water Board impractical or impossible
in some eases,
In addition to the enforcement activities described
above, considerable effort is being expended by both the
Sanitary ?/ater Board and the Coal Research Board, an adminis=
trative agency within the Department of Mines and Mneral
Industries, to determine and demonstrate new methods of abating
mine drainage pollution, fliese activities are intended to
demonstrate -ways of preventing pollution from active operations
as -well as determining methods of abating pollution from the
thousands of abandoned mines already causing pollution„
Sanitary Water Board and Department of Health activities
include %
10 Sponsorship of basic research into the formation of
polluting constituents in mine drainage „ This wor3c
was carried out from 194-6 through 1953 at the Mellon
Institute in Pittsburgh and resulted in the discovery
of basic methods of minimizing and preventing
formation of polluting characteristics in mine
drainage„
20 Sponsorship of several engineering studies intended
to determine the solutions and associated costs of
-------
VIII - 4
mine drainage pollution abatement in the Susquehanna
River between the confluence with the Lackawanna
River and the confluence with the West Branch
Susquehanna River,
3o Sponsorship of an engineering study of the feasi-
bility of neutralizing streams in a portion of the
Slippery Rock Greek Basin in the Ohio River Basin „
The Coal Research Board and Department of Mines and
Mineral Industries have been very active in pollution abatement
activities. Their activities includes
10 Sponsorship of an investigation into the feasibility
of adapting distillation processes currently used
for desalinization of sea water to the treatment of
mine drainage,,
20 Sponsorship of pilot plant studies of lime neutrali-
zation process as a mine drainage pollution
abatement method0
30 Sponsorship of the design of an ion exchange plant
to remove objectionable constituents in mine
drainage„
4« Sponsorship of the design of a lime neutralization
facility to treat a major mine drainage discharge
in the Sinnemahoning Creek watershed.
-------
-------
VIII - 5
In early 1967 the Pennsylvania Legislature adopted a
$500 million conservation bond issue which y-nas approved "by the
voters "by a wide majority. The bond issue will make approxi~
mately $200 million available to the Department of Mines and
Mineral Industries for the reclamation of areas disturbed by
mining and for the abatement of mine drainage pollution. The
funds will be expended over a 10-year period,
B. Maryland
In March 1967 the Maryland Legislature passed a new
strip mining law which differs from the old (1963) law in
several respects. The 1967 law contains a provision for
pollution control; "The operator is responsible for the
prevention of avoidable stream pollution in excess of standards
established by the Department of Water Resources." The law
specifically states that the Bureau of Mines shall not issue
additional permits to an operator who has failed to meet the
provision for pollution control.
The 1967 law requires baeikfilling to "as near normal
as is satisfactory to the Bureau" (of Mnes) and replanting of
the disturbed area. The 1963 law required backfilling to a
specific geometrical configuration but did not require
replanting.
The 1967 Maryland law is now in the hands of the Land
Reclamation Advisory Committee. After review by the Committee,
-------
-------
VIII - 6
administrative regulations "will "be issued by the responsible
State agencies.
Maryland has no laws or regulations governing deep mine
discharges. The only permit required is a certification by the
operator that he •will comply with the Bureau of Mines * safety
regulations.
C. West Virginia
Legislation recently enacted in West Virginia provides,
for the first time, statutory control of drainage from strip
mining operations. Under the new law, strip mining, except for
safety regulations, is placed under the control of the Director
of the Department of Natural Resources. The law requires public
liability insurance for operators, maintenance of a reclamation
fund, and submission of a plan of operation before mining. The
Director of the Department of Natural Resources has the power to
cancel or prohibit strip mining to prevent destruction of
natural beauty in areas as extensive as an entire watershed. He
also has broad powers to impose rules and regulations. Until
this law was passed, West Virginia's only basis for control of
mine drainage v/as tier membership in the Ohio River Valley Water
Sanitation Compact and her agreement to carry out provisions of
ORSANCO resolutions governing mine drainage. Administrative
rules and regulations issued earlier under ORSANCO membership
now have a statutory basis. These regulations are probably
-------
VIII - 7
adequate to control mine drainage pollution from strip mines.
The nsT» law provides no control of pollution caused by deep
mines.
-------
-------
IX - 1
IX.. STUDY PROCEDURES
Field investigations, sampling programs and laboratory
analyses were conducted by personnel of the Chesapeake Bay-
Susquehanna River Basins Project primarily during the periods
of June through October in 1964, 1965, and 1966.
A. Field Investigation and Sampling Procedure
The field investigations were conducted in two phases -
"Reconnaissance" and "Control Sampling".
During the reconnaissance phase of the survey, primary
effort was directed toward the identification of Study Area
watersheds which contributed significant amounts of mine
drainage pollution. Existing Federal, State, and industrial
data were reviewed. To the extent possible, streams affected
by mine drainage pollution and sources of the pollution were
identified and located on U. S. Geological Survey or county
maps. In cases in which the existing data were inadequate to
characterize mine drainage pollution, survey crews made field
determinations of pH, alkalinity, acidity, conductivity, flow,
and, as practicable, ferrous iron. Field survey crews also
located and identified point sources of mine drainage pollution
when possible. Information supplied by the States of Maryland
and West Virginia was used to locate sampling stations in the
Potomac Basin.
Results of stream biological surveys conducted during
the course of the Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River Basins Project
-------
-------
IX - 2
Study were used as an aid in determining the streams affected
by mine drainage pollution.
Based on existing data and the results of the reconnaissance
survey, control sampling stations were established on all
streams significantly affected by mine drainage pollution.
Depending upon the prevailing conditions, six to eight samples
were normally taken at each station. Samples taken were iced
and transported to the laboratory for physical and chemical
analyses. Time in transit from the field to the laboratory
usually varied from 6 to 24 hours. In the Potomac Basins most
of the analyses were made in the field. At the time of the
sampling, field determinations were made of the flow, pH, and
specific conductivity. During this phase of the Study, every
effort was made to locate and characterize every significant
discharge. Detailed investigations in the Sinnemahoning,
Kettle Creek, Chest Creek, Pine Creek, and other minor water-
sheds in the West Branch Susquehanna River Basin, as well as
in minor watersheds in the Anthracite and Semi-Anthracite Areas,
are yet to be completed. In the Potomac Basin, the Western
Maryland Mine Drainage Survey by the Maryland Department
of Natural Resources lists significant discharges in Maryland.
Investigation of sources in West Virginia remains to be
completed.
Considerable information on major mine drainage discharges
and their effects on stream quality is still needed. Basic data
-------
-------
IX - 3
collection is planned for the summer of 1967.
Responsibility for reporting on mine drainage in
the Delaware Basin was assigned to the Chesapeake Bay-
Susquehanna River Basins Project late in the summer of 1966.
The time and personnel available permitted only a reconnaissance
and limited laboratory analyses of discharges found flowing
during the period of search and study. The limited period
did not allow the development of a population of data similar
to that developed in the area of prime responsibility, the
Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River Basins.
B. Laboratory Procedures
Mine drainage pollution is generally characterized by
increased concentrations of:
1. Specific indicators above usually accepted levels; or
2. The presence of ions of elements considered unique
to mine drainage discharges.
Although these indicators may be common to some types of
industrial waste or result from natural discharges, their
sources can be determined as well as their significance.
In the course of the Project's Mine Drainage Study efforts,
samples of both discharges and receiving streams were analyzed
for the following indicators:
1. Physical
a. pH
-------
-------
IX - 4
b. Conductivity
c. Solids
d. Temperature
2. Chemical
a. Acidity
b. Alkalinity
c. Iron - Ferrous and Total
d. Hardness
e. Calcium
f. Magnesium
g. Manganese
h. Aluminum
i. Sulfate
Methods used and significance of the individual analyses are
discussed below:
1. pH - by Potentiometric measurement (pH meter)
(Laboratory and Field). pH is a term used to express
the degree of acidity or alkalinity of a system and is defined
as the logarithm of the reciprocal of the hydrogen-ion
concentration. The pH scale is a logarithmic scale. Fractions
of a pH scale do not represent arithmetic values but rather
logarithmic values.
The pH measurement is a measure of the actual hydrogen
ion concentration (or activity) present in a given system at
-------
IX - 5
a given time and temperature and is, therefore, the only
true measure of how such a solution will affect another system
which is sensitive to hydrogen of hydroxyl ions.
Natural waters usually exhibit a pH in the range of
pH 6.0 to 9.0. Generally, acid mine drainage will vary from
pH 2.5 to 6.0. Alkaline mine drainage occurs with pH in
the order of 6.0 to 8.0. The pH of the receiving stream
varies according to the severity of pollution and the state
of reaction of the pollutants.
2. Conductivity - by Conductivity Bridge (Laboratory
and Field)
Conductivity is expressed in terms of the reciprocal
of resistance (mho) and is a measure of the electrical conducting
power of the systems. The measurement indicates the degree
of dissociation of the constituents of the system. It is
generally indicative of the concentration of dissociable
constituents, essentially inorganic, and is thereby associated
with the amount of dissolved matter (dissolved solids) in
solution. The measurement is dependent primarily upon the
number of molecules concerned (not their nature) and is
influenced by temperature. Waters uncontaminated by mine
drainage exhibit conductivities in the order of 100 micro
mho. Measurement of mine drainage discharges varies generally
from 500 to 8,000 micro mho. Receiving streams exhibit
intermediate measurements depending upon the degree of dilution.
-------
-------
IX - 6
3. Solids
a. Non-filterable (suspended) solids - by
filtration of a standard volume (250 ml) drying to constant
weight at 105°C (Standard Methods-12th Edition).
This measurement determines that fraction of particulate
matter retained by the filter, i.e., so called suspended
matter of a given sample procured under the existing sampling
conditions.
b. Filterable (dissolved) solids - by evaporation
of filtrate from the previous paragraph and drying the residue
to constant weight at 105°C. Measurement of filterable solids
indicates the concentration of materials dissolved and in
solution,
c. Total Solids - by calculation, i.e., the sum
of the two preceding paragraphs.
A. Acidity
a. Cold Acidity - by potentiometric titration
to pH 8.3 (SFS modification of Standard Methods-12th Edition).
Laboratory analyses were conducted potentiometrically.
Field analyses were conducted potentiometrically or colorimetrically.
This procedure measures the titratable acidity including
volatile acidity which can be made to combine with a base.
It is a measure of the uncombined hydrogen ion immediately
present and that which can be available from all potential
sources under the titration conditions.
-------
-------
IX - 7
In samples containing high concentrations of potential
acidity precursors, the total potential acidity may not be made
available under the conditions of the determination.
Mine drainage normally contains acidic precursors such
as ferrous iron, manganese, and aluminum. Where concentrations
are low,(less than 10 mg/1), the reactions leading to the total
release of hydrogen ion will usually occur under the titration
conditions. Howevers where the concentrations are high,
(greater than 10 mg/l)s reactions during titration may be
incomplete under the conditions of a cold titration.
Preoxidation, either by addition of ozone, peroxide, or heating,
is therefore required for the measurement of total acidity.
b. Hot Acidity - by potentiometric titration to
pH 8.3 end point. (SFS modification of Standard Methods-
12th Edition)
This procedure measures the titratable acidity
(hydrogen ion) which is available in the sample and which is
made available by heating the sample to boiling temperature
for 2 minutes with the addition of hydrogen peroxide. The
sample is either cooled to room temperature under controlled
conditions (C02 free atmosphere) or titrated at 70 - 90°C.
Volatile acidity produced during the heating step may be
removed and thereby not titrated..
The method determines the acidity made available from
potential sources, one of which is ferrous iron. It does not
-------
-------
IX - 8
measure any contribution to acidity of volatile constituents
either present initially or produced by subsequent reactions.
In effect, the "hot acid" titration may determine a portion
of the potential acidity present when volatile acidic precursors
are present. This determination is applicable to relative
measurements such as the effect of an abatement procedure or
the characterization of a discharge. However, it may not be
useful in stream analysis since it does not measure all sources
of acidity.
5. Alkalinity - by potentiometric measurement. Titration
to pH 4.5 (Standard Methods-12th Edition). Laboratory analyses
were conducted potentiometrically. Field analyses were conducted
potentiometrically or colorimetrically.
This procedure measures the titratable alkalinity of
the system which in most waters of this Basin is essentially
bicarbonate and/or carbonate in origin.
Under the conditions of the determination, alkaline
mine drainage exhibits a final positive alkalinity when the acidity
produced in the course of the titration does not exceed the
available alkalinity. It is, therefore, essential that reactions
yielding acidity be completed before the alkalinity determination
is attempted.
6. Net or Residual Alkalinity - by calculation
This calculation is the difference between the alkalinity
and acidity determined by cold titration on a given sample.
-------
IX - 9
For purposes of calculation, acidity is considered to be
equivalent to negative (-) alkalinity.
7. Sulfate - by precipitation with, benzidine-
dihydrohloride
This procedure measures the concentration of sulfate
of the sample and is considered an indicator of mine drainage
pollution. Unpolluted waters of the Basin contain low
levels of the indicator derived from the leaching of soils,
rock, etc.
Mine drainage originates as the result of the
oxidation of pyrite associated with coal-bearing strata.
The sulfur is ultimately oxidized to sulfate. Therefore,
levels of this indicator above natural stream concentration
are indicative of mine drainage pollution. Whereas relatively
unpolluted waters contain concentrations normally below 50
mg/ls mine drainage discharges often exhibit concentrations
in the order of 300 to 10,000 mg/1. Receiving stream concentrations
will be intermediate dependent upon the degree of dilution.
Sulfate analysis of samples collected in the Potomac Basin
were analysed colorimetrically using barium chloranilate.
8. Hardness - E.D.T.A. titration hydroxy napthol blue
indicator.
This procedure measures the total concentration of
such ions as calcium, magnesium, lithium, etc. It does not
-------
-------
IX - 10
differentiate between species.
Unpolluted waters usually exhibit lower values in
the order of 100 mg/1 as Ca COo as compared to mine drainage
500 to 23000 mg/1 as Ca C03<
9. Calcium - by E.D.T.A. titration - Eriochrome
Black T Indicator or by Atomic Absorption.
This procedure measures only the concentration of
calcium, a component of hardness.
Concentrations of this indicator in unpolluted waters
are in the order of 15 to 30 mg/1.
10. Magnesium - by Atomic Absorption.
This procedure measures only the concentration of
magnesium, which is also a component of hardness. Concentrations
of this indicator in unpolluted water are in the order of
10 to 20 mg/1.
11. Manganese - by Atomic Absorption.
This procedure measures the concentration of
manganese, normally an acidic precursor. Concentrations
in natural streams do not usually exceed 0.05 mg/1. This
indicator is usually associated with coal-bearing strata and
resultant mine drainage pollution. Concentrations in the
order of 5 mg/1 to 20 mg/1 are not uncommon in mine drainage.
12. Aluminum - by Colorimetric determination.
This indicators a potential acidic precursor, is
usually present in rather low concentrations in unpolluted
-------
-------
IX - 11
water. High concentrations are usually found as a result of
the leaching of deposits of clays associated with the coal-
bearing strata by the acid mine drainage.
13. Iron - Ferrous and Total by 1,10 Phenanthroline
(SFS modification of Standard Methods-12th Edition).
Generally mine drainage pollution contains iron in
both the ferrous and ferric states. Ferric iron does not
contribute to acidity. Ferrous iron, a major contributor to
acidity, is usually present in high concentrations in active
mine drainage discharges. The presence of ferrous iron in
a receiving stream usually indicates that the reactions have
not gone to completion. The ferric iron present in systems
above a pH of 3 is in the particulate state.
In receiving streams, measurements of the total iron
concentration are complicated by sampling problems, since
the amount of ferric iron present is dependent upon the stream
velocity and sampling depth.
Unpolluted streams in the Basin have iron concentrations
frequently less than 0.3 mg/1. Mine drainage influence may raise
iron concentrations to in excess of 100 mg/1.
-------
X - 1
X. SUB-BASIN DESCRIPTION
A. West Branch Susquehanna River
1. Introduction
The West Branch Susquehanna River drains an area of
6,913 square miles in the west clentral portion of the Susque-
hanna River Basin. The Basin lies entirely within Pennsylvania
and includes all or portions of 19 counties: Cambria,
Clearfield, Centre, Elk, Cameron, Potter, Clinton, Columbia,
Tioga, Indiana, Jefferson, Lycoming, Bradford, McKean, Sullivan,
Montour, Northumberland, Union, and Wyoming. The Basin is bounded
on the north by the Genesee and Chemung River Basins, on the
south by the Juniata River Basin, on the east by the Susquehanna
River Basin and on the west by the Allegheny River Basin. The
West Branch Susquehanna River has its source in northwestern
Cambria County and flows a distance of 240 miles to its confluence
with the Susquehanna River at Northumberland, 123.5 miles from
its mouth.
The upper portion of the Basin lies within the high
tablelands of the Appalachian Plateau Province. At Lock Haven
the river breaks through the Allegheny Front, the escarpment
which divides the Appalachian Plateau and Ridge and Valley
Provinces, then flows approximately 70 miles through the Ridge
and Valley Province to its confluence with the Susquehanna
River. The Basin is approximately equally divided between the
-------
-------
X - 2
Appalachian Plateau and Ridge and Valley Provinces. In the
Appalachian Plateau Province, stream valleys are narrow and
are flanked by high, steep hills. In the Ridge and Valley
Province, valleys are generally broad and fertile and are bounded
by rugged forested mountains. Moderate to steep gradients
of streams in the Appalachian Plateau Province provide considerable
turbulence and excellent mixing characteristics. The combination
of low gradient and a wide} shallow channel configuration combine
to produce poor mixing characteristics in the Ridge and Valley
Province.
Major tributaries of the West Branch, their drainage
areas and the mile point of their confluence with the main 'Stream
are tabulated in the following table:
Drainage Area Mile Point of
Name
Loyal sock Creek
Lycoming Creek
Pine Creek
North Bald Eagle Creek
Kettle Creek
Sinnemahoning Creek
Moshannon Creek
Clearfield Creek
Chest Creek
(square miles)
493
276
973
782
239
1,033
288
396
132
Confluence
35.2
41.3
67.6
67.7
104.1
110.2
135.5
171.5
205.3
-------
-------
X - 3
Figure 1-A is a map of the West Branch Susquehanna
River Basin, illustrating major tributaries and other pertinent
physical features.
2. Geology
Consolidated rocks which outcrop in the area are all
of the Paleozoic era and are generally those of the Pennsylvanian
and Mississippian systems. In descending order, the specific
rock formations are identified as: Conemaugh, Allegheny,
Pottsville, Mauch Chunk Shale, Pocono, Oswago and Catskill. Of
these, only the Conemaugh and the Allegheny formations contain
coal beds of economic significance.
A portion of the main Pennsylvania Bituminous Field
lies within the Basin underlying all or a portion of Clearfield,
Cameron, Clinton, Centre, Lycoming, Potter, Cambria, Indiana,
McKean, and Elk Counties. The bituminous coal beds lie within
the Appalachian Plateau Province in the western part of the
Basin - (See Figure 1-A). Other coal deposits underlie portions
of Blair, Huntingdon, Bedford, Fulton, Bradford, Tioga, and
Sullivan Counties.
3. Economy
The rich bituminous coal deposits of the Pennsylvanian
system play a dominant role in the area economy. It is estimated
(2)
that approximately 4,400 mines have been opened in the Basin,
most of which have long been abandoned. Estimates by watershed
-------
-------
X - 4
(2)
as of 1962 indicate the opening of about 830 mines in
the Moshannon Creek watershed, 1,150 in the Clearfield Creek
watershed, 330 in the Bennett Branch Sinneraahoning Creek
watershed and 180 in the Beech Creek watershed. The remaining
mines were opened in the watersheds of minor tributaries to
the West Branch upstream from the mouth of Loyalsock Creek.
Of the original bituminous coal reserves in the sub-
/ o \
basin estimated to be 4,140 million tons in 1928 , about
2,535 million tons still remained as "recoverable reserves"
in January 1963. About 431 million tons of the depletion of
the reserves is attributed to production ^'. The remainder
is considered "loss in mining", pillers, fines, unminable coal,
etc. An estimated 1,334 million tons, more than half of the
recoverable reserves, underlie Clearfield County ^'. Coal
production in the Basin has been relatively stable, averaging
about 9 million tons per year since 1945. Recently Clearfield
and Centre Counties have accounted for about 80 per cent of
the production in the Basin '"'.
Prior to 1945, deep mines accounted for most of the
coal production in the Basin; however, development of large
earth-moving equipment during World War II greatly stimulated
surface mining activity. Strip mining accounted for 45 per
cent of the Susquehanna River Basin's production in 1945 and
77 per cent in 1955 (6). Of the 8,650,000 tons of coal
-------
-------
X - 5
produced in 1962, about 84 per cent was mined at strip
operations. Clearfield County produced 83 per cent of its
(2)
total from strip mines . Strip mine production in the
remaining coal producing counties exceeded 90 per cent of the
total production.
Basin production for 1970 is projected at about
8,040,000 short tons. A gradual increase in production to
13,380,000 short tons in 2020 is expected ^. ^he following
table lists projected bituminous coal production for the West
Branch Susquehanna River Basin:
Projected Production of Bituminous Coal by Economic Subregion
(thousands of short tons)
Economic Subregion 1970 1985 2020
Clinton
Centre
Lycoming
Cameron
Clearfield
Total
960
7,080
8,040
530
8,610
9,140
450
12,930
13,380
4. Sub-Basin Description
A detailed discussion of the mine drainage sources in
the Basin, their effect on stream quality and possible abate-
ment methods follow:
a. Headwaters to Chest Creek
(1) Mine Drainage Sources and Their Effect on
Stream Quality
A total of 88 major mine drainage discharges have been
located in this sub-basin, contributing approximately 70,000
-------
-------
X - 6
Ibs/day net acidity. Most of the mine drainage originates in
abandoned mines.
The first major addition of mine drainage in this reach
enters in the form of a pumped discharge from an active deep
mine. The discharge contributed a loading of 4,100 Ibs/day
net acidity during the sampling period. This contribution is
primarily responsible for the mean acidity concentration of
450 mg/1 and an associated loading of 4,800 Ibs/day net acidity
recorded at the first project sampling point on the West Branch
about two miles downstream (See Figure 2).
Within the next seven miles, the river gains an
additional 14,000 Ibs/day net acidity; however, the net acidity
concentration declines to 200 mg/1.
Major mine drainage contributors in the reach include
three spoil piles and four abandoned deep mines. Their total
contribution is 30,000 Ibs/day net acidity. The three spoil
piles were responsible for about 30 per cent of this total at
the time of sampling.
Between Mile 229 and 220 the acid load is reduced by
about 10,000 Ibs/day and the acidity concentration declines
to 50 mg/1. The responsible sources of alkalinity are not
yet known; however, the reduction is probably the result of the
neutralizing action of naturally alkaline tributaries to the
reach. Several of these tributaries had alkalinities in
excess of 150 mg/1 during the survey period.
-------
-------
X - 7
From Mile 220 to its confluence with Chest Creek5 the
West Branch did not exhibit a significant change in alkalinity
during the survey period, although a slight increase in other
mine drainage indicators was evident.
In general, concentrations of mine drainage indicators
declined throughout the length of the reach from the headwaters
to Chest Creek. Mean iron and manganese concentrations, which
were 120 and 3.6 mg/1, respectively, at the head of the reach,
declined to 1.1 and 2.5 mg/1., respectively. Sulfates declined
from 15300 mg/1 to 550 mg/1 (See Figure 2-A).
(2) Abatement and Control Measures
Abatement and control of mine drainage pollution in
the sub-basin will involve reclamation of areas disturbed by
strip mines, flooding of deep mines9 restoration of drainage
presently impeded by refuse banks, and possibly treatment.
Diversion of streams presently seeping through refuse
banks would appear to be the most immediately effective and
least costly abatement activity in this sub-basin. This work
could be expected to reduce the acid loading on the West Branch
by about 30 per cent in the reach from Mile 239 to Mile 229.
Research presently being conducted by the Barnes and
Tucker Coal Company into the blending of acid and alkaline mine
waters may result in the development of a relatively inexpensive
method of reducing acid contributions from the Company's active
-------
-------
X -- 8
mines9 one of which contributed about 10 per cent of the acid
contributed to this reach of the West Branch during the survey
period.
b. Chest Creek
(1) Mine Drainage Sources and Their Effect on
Stream Quality
Chest Creek, during the survey period, contributed
approximately 2,500 Ibs/day net alkalinity to the West Branch.
Preliminary reconnaissance data indicate that, although the
stream is alkaline at its mouth, a 3-mile reach is degraded by
mine drainage originating in the watershed of Brubaker Run.
Mining activity has been very heavy in the Basin. Sources of
mine drainage include both deep and strip mines and refuse
piles. Acid loads on the order of 1,000 Ibs/day from Brubaker
Run degrade the quality of Chest Creek from its confluence
with Brubaker Run to Westover. At Westover a large alkaline
discharge from a tannery adds significantly to the stream's
alkalinity assets. Although the stream is alkaline downstream
from Westover, significantly high levels of other mine drainage
indicators were measured.
Active mining operations in the Brubaker Run watershed
were greatly curtailed in March 1967. Although detailed
location characterization work has not been completed in the
sub-basin, it is believed that discharges from active mines
contributed a significant portion of the mine drainage loading
-------
-------
X - 9
to Brubaker Run. The effect on stream quality of the closing
of the active mines cannot be estimated at present.
(2) Abatement and Control Measures
Abatement of mine drainage pollution in the Brubaker
Run watershed will involve an extensive program of deep and
strip mine reclamation and treatment.
Because of the very intense mining activity that
has taken place in the watershed and the absence of any known
use of Brubaker Run, initial abatement efforts should
probably be directed toward reducing the mine drainage load to
the extent that Brubaker Run does not degrade the quality of
the receiving stream. Chest Creek. Abatement work in the
watershed should, however, be held in abeyance until the effect
of the closing of active mines is fully determined.
c. West Branch Susquehanna River-Chest Creek to Clearfield
Creek (not inclusing Anderson Creek)
(1) Mine Drainage Sources and Their Effect on
Stream Quality
Only two significant mine drainage discharges were
located in this Sub-Basin. Both discharges, with a combined
loading of 2,300 Ibs/day net acidity, originate in abandoned
drift mines.
The West Branch Susquehanna River is essenially neutral
in the reach from Chest Creek to Anderson Creek. The reach
varies between weakly acid and weakly alkaline, depending
upon hydrologic conditions. The minor tributaries to this
-------
-------
X - 10
reach 3 although in general slightly influenced by mine
drainage, contribute alkalinity. Acid contributions by
Anderson Creek, Montgomery Creek, and Wolf Creek, totaling
about 3,100 Ibs/day, were outweighed by alkaline contributions
within the reach.
The pH within the reach ranged from 3.1 to 7.6. The
mean total iron concentration declined from 1.1 mg/1 to
0.25 mg/1 through the reach. Manganese and sulfate concentrations
declined from 2.5 mg/1 and 553 mg/1, respectively, to 0.05
mg/1 and 270 mg/1, respectively. Fish and other aquatic
life have been observed in this reach, although the population
is probably somewhat depressed by residual amounts of mine
drainage.
(2) Abatement and Control Measures
Although mine drainage pollution abatement work in
this Sub-Basin should be included in a comprehensive program
of pollution abatement in the West Branch Susquehanna River
Basin, the work should probably have low priority in view of
the relatively minor effect on the receiving stream.
The recently-completed Curwensville Dam, a multi-
purpose structure controlling the West Branch immediately
upstream from Anderson Creek, might profitably be employed
in a comprehensive pollution abatement and control program
by providing flow regulation for water quality control.
-------
-------
X - 11
Cooperative studies are presently underway to determine
the effect of impoundment on water quality in the reser\oxi.
d. Anderson Creek
(1) Mine Drainage Sources and Their Effect on
Stream Quality
Anderson Creek contributed an average of 1 ,750 Ibs/
day net acidity to the West Branch during the survey period.
Most mining activity has been confined to the lower reaches of
the watershed, and stream quality is not seriously impaired
by mine drainage upstream from the confluence with Little
Anderson Creek. (See Figure 1-A) Downstream from Little
Anderson Creek, the stream is rendered acid by mine drainage
which is tributary to Little Anderson Creek. Minor tributaries
from the right downstream from Little Anderson Creek add
to the acid loading of Anderson Creek.
Mean total iron, manganese, and sulfate concentrations
measured at the mouth were 3.9 mg/1, 3.4 mg/1 and 160 mg/1,
respectively.
Most of the mine drainage in the watershed originates
in abandoned mines. Although 28 discharges were observed,
about 70 per cent of the acid load measured originates at
five discharges.
(2) Abatement and Control Measures
Mine drainage pollution abatement in this watershed
will require surface reclamation, mine flooding and possibly
-------
-------
X - 12
treatment. Two drift mine discharges close to the Little
Anderson Creek watershed discharge an acid loading approximately
equal to the net acid loading at the mouth of Anderson Creek.
Abatement of the polluting properties of these discharges,
through sealing or treatment accompanied by relatively
minor abatement work at other discharge points, could reduce
the acid load to a level at which Anderson Creek could
probably assimilate the residual under most flow conditions.
e. Clearfield Creek
(1) Mine Drainage Sources and Their Effect on
Stream Quality
Clearfield Creek is rendered acid by mine drainage
from its source to its mouth. During the survey period,
the stream contributed an average of 57,000 Ibs/day acidity
to the West Branch.
At the mouth, mean net acidity concentrations of
115 mg/1 were measured. Total iron concentrations were
relatively low (1.4 mg/1); however, other mine drainage
indicators were present in high concentrations.
Although mining activity has been very extensive
throughout most of the watershed, about 45 per cent of the
acid load in Clearfield Creek originates in 10 tributaries
which have a combined drainage area of 95 square miles, or
about 25 per cent of the area of .the Clearfield Creek watershed.
-------
X - 13
The streams responsible for most of the acid load
in Clearfield Creek are shown in the following schematic diagram
and tabulation:
PRINCIPAL DRAINAGE CONTRIBUTORS TO CLEARFIELD CREEK
STREAM
Roaring Run
Long Run
Potts Run
Upper Morgan Run
Lost Run
Japling Run
Muddy Run
Powell Run
Brubaker Run
Trap Run
STREAM MILE
( on Clearfield
Creek)
1.3
4.2
18.2
19.6
22.1
24.9
25.5
45.7
49.7
61.6
DRAINAGE
AREA (Sq.
Mile)
12.2
4.0
15.4
12.2
2.5
3.2
30.6
11.2
2.5
1.5
NET ACID
LOADING
(Ibs/day)
550
960
3,180
760
3,180
3,900
6,500
2,280
920
1,210
Seventy-eight major mine drainage discharges were
located in the Sub-Basin. Field analysis of the discharges
indicated that 16 of these major discharges, with a combined
flow of 11 cf s , contributed about 30,000 pounds acidity per
day, or about 60 per cent of the acid load at the mouth.
Most of the major discharges are recorded as discharges
from strip mine areas; however, they are in many cases a
-------
-------
25.5 - INDICATES RIVER MILES
j** 3 sr /*. o w* * c s n f* o sr cr v
oLcAArnc-L-u OnLiiA
DIAGRAM OF STREAMS AFFECTED
MINE DRAINAGE POLLUTION
BY
-------
-------
X - 14
combination of drainage from both deep and strip mines. Since
in many cases strip mines have intercepted shallow deep
mines or crossed deep mine portals, it is particularly
difficult in this Sub-Basin to differentiate between deep and
strip mine drainage. Essentially all the acid drainage
located in the Sub-Basin is discharged from abandoned mines.
(2) Abatement and Control Measures
Extensive disturbed areas, large numbers and varieties
of mine drainage sources, and heavy acid loadings combine
to make Clearfield Creek one of the most difficult streams
in the Study Area to reclaim.
Survey data indicate that reclamation work in the
watersheds of the 10 tributaries found to be contributing
most of the acid drainage would reduce the mine drainage
load in Clearfield Creek. Although complete restoration
of the quality of Clearfield Creek might not be attainable
in the immediate future, any reduction in the mine drainage
loading to tributaries of Clearfield Creek will have a
beneficial effect on the quality of Clearfield Creek and the
West Branch Susquehanna River. Because of the extensive
work required in this Sub-Basin to produce a measurable
improvement in the quality of Clearfield Creek3 pollution
abatement work should perhaps be undertaken only in conjunction
with a comprehensive mine' drainage pollution abatement program
-------
-------
X - 15
aimed at restoring the quality of all streams in the West
Branch Susquehanna River Basin or a very limited project
intended to abate pollution in a tributary of Clearfield
Creek.
f. West Branch Susquehanna River-Clearfield
Creek to Moshannon Creek "***'
(1) Mine Drainage Sources and Their Effect on
Stream Quality
The quality of the West Branch in this reach is
seriously degraded by mine drainage contributed by Clearfield
Creek and several minor tributaries within the reach. As shown
in Figure 2, acid loadings increase from about 4,000 Ibs/day
net alkalinity at Mile 173 upstream from Clearfield Creek to
53,000 Ibs/day net acidity at Mile 163 about 9 miles downstream
from Clearfield Creek. The acidity concentration both upstream
and downstream from Clearfield Creek was about 50 mg/1
during the sampling period. The acid load increased to about
108,000 Ibs/day at Mile 144, upstream from Moshannon Creek,
the result of acid contributions from minor tributaries. Iron
and manganese concentrations of 6 and 7 mg/ls respectively,
were common (See Figure 2-A).
Significant contributors of mine drainage sampled
include the following streams: Lick Run, Trout Run, Millstone
Run, Surveyor Run, Murray Run, Congress Run5 Deer Run, Sandy
Creek, and Alder Run. The total acid contribution by the nine
streams was about 40,000 Ibs/day. Location and characterization of
-------
-------
X - 16
mine drainage discharges in these stream basins has not
been completed. It is believed, however, that most of the
drainage originates in abandoned deep mines, with a somewhat
lesser amount originating in abandoned strip mines.
(2) Abatement and Control Measures
Since the sources of mine drainage in this watershed
have not been located, no definite statement on abatement
methods can be made. The nine minor tributary sub-basins do,
however, contribute a very significant portion of the mine
drainage load to the West Branch and should be included in any
comprehensive mine drainage pollution abatement program.
g. Moshannon Creek
(1) Mine Drainage Sources and Their Effect on
Stream Quality
Moshannon Creek is the largest contributor of mine
drainage to the West Branch Susquehanna River. During the
survey period the stream contributed an average of about 130,000
Ibs/day net acidity to the West Branch.
Stream quality at the mouth is fairly representative
of stream quality throughout most of its length. Mean net
acidity was 228 mg/1. Iron and manganese concentrations were
15.3 mg/1 and 7.6 mg/1, respectively, during the survey period.
As in the Clearfield Creek Sub-Basin, mining has been
accomplished over most of the Sub-Basin both by surface and
-------
-------
X - 17
subsurface methods. The quality of most of the streams in
the watershed is influenced by mine drainage to some degree.
A survey conducted in 1964 located 50 tributaries which were
contributing acid to Moshannon Creek. The 10 streams listed
in the following table are considered to be the most significant
contributors of mine drainage:
PRINCIPAL MINE DRAINAGE CONTRIBUTORS TO MOSHANNON CREEK
STREAM
Moravian Run
Grass Flat Run
Sulphur Run
Hawk Run
One Mile Run
Cold Stream
Laurel Run
Trout Run
Big Run
Beaver Run
STREAM MILE
(on Moshannon
Creek)
11.6
13.5
22.2
29.9
30.5
31.8
32.3
40.0
41.0
41.5
DRAINAGE
AREA (Sq.
Mile)
1.8
1.0
2.3
2.4
0.5
23.6
19.5
11.0
2.5
19.0
NET ACID
LOADING
(Ibs/day)
820
4,970
14,360
19,540
8,270
1,980
5,870
29,650
2,080
1,980
The following figure is a schematic representation
of the principal mine drainage contributors to Moshannon Creek.
-------
-------
25.5 - INDICATES RIVER MILES
MOSHANNON CREEK
SCHEiVIATIC DIAGRAM OF STREAMS AFFECTED BY
MINE DRAINAGE POLLUTION
-------
-------
X - 18
One hundred and thirty-three discharges contributing
about 144,000 Ibs/day acidity have been located in the Sub-
Basin. Of the 133 discharges, 32 contributed most of the
acid load. Preliminary information indicates that one
discharge contributes about 29,000 Ibs/day acidity, or about
20 per cent of the acid load in Moshannon Creek at the mouth.
As in the Clearfield Creek Sub-Basin, essentially all of the
mine drainage in this watershed originates in abandoned mines,
and many discharges are a combination of deep and strip mine
drainage.
(2) Abatement and Control Measures
Because of very extensive mining activity over most
of the Sub-Basin and the resultant large mine drainage load,
the Moshannon Creek watershed is the key to the success of any
comprehensive mine drainage pollution abatement and control
program in the West Branch Basin.
Any comprehensive program in the Moshannon Creek
watershed would, however, be very costly. Considerable
reduction in the acid loading in Moshannon Creek could be
attained by reclamation of several of the 10 major contributing
streams and/or by providing treatment of some of the 32
largest discharges.
Detailed engineering studies in the Sulphur Run watershed
are being accomplished by a consulting engineer under contract
-------
X - 19
with the Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River Basins Project.
The consultant will determine appropriate methods and the
attendant costs of mine drainage pollution abatement. This
study, one of five sponsored by the Project, will serve to
further refine estimated costs of mine drainage pollution
abatement throughout the Bituminous Coal Fields.
h. West Branch Susquehanna River-Moshannon Creek
to Sinnemahoning Creek
(1) Mine Drainage Sources and Their Effect on
Stream Quality
In this reach the quality of the West Branch is severely
degraded by mine drainage contributed in upstream reaches and
by Moshannon Creek. Acid concentrations and loadings vary
slightly within the reach; howevers the variations are not
considered significant. Mean net acidity during the survey
was about 130 mg/1. Sulfate concentrations were in the
800 to 1,000 mg/1 range.
Most of the minor tributaries to this reach are mildly
acid or mildly alkaline and have no significant effect on the
quality of the West Branch.
Mine drainage location and characterization work has
not been completed in this watershed; howevers it is known
that a limited amount of mining has been accomplished.
(2) Abatement and Control Measures
Minor tributaries to the West Branch in this reach
lie in a remote, almost inaccessible area. It is believed
-------
X - 20
that most of the mine drainage contributed in this Sub-
Basin originates in abandoned deep mines. Abatement work
would have very little effect on any streams with significant
public use or on the quality of the West Branch.
Work in this Sub-Basin should probably have low
priority.
i. Sinnemahoning Creek
(1) Mine Drainage Sources and Their Effect on
Stream Quality
During the study period Sinnemahoning Creek contributed
about 369000 Ibs/day net acidity to the West Branch. The
Creek, with its drainage area of 1,032 square miles, has the
largest watershed area tributary to the West Branch. It
encompasses approximately 40 per cent of the area of the West
Branch Basin at their confluence. Major tributaries include
the First Fork Sinnemahoning, Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning,
and Driftwood Branch Sinnemahoning.
Although the stream has a large watershed area3
topographic and geologic conditions combine to produce
"flashy" flow characteristics with low drought flows and low
natural alkalinity reserves in the stream. These characteristics
combine to give it a very poor capacity to assimilate
mine drainage discharges,
Although most of the watershed lies within the
Bituminous Coal Fields, mining activity has been restricted
-------
-------
X - 21
almost exclusively to the watersheds of the Bennett Branch
Sinnemahoning and Sterling Run, a minor tributary to the
Driftwood Branch Sinnemahoning. The Bennett Branch is
essentially acid from its source to its mouth. Its in
turn, renders Sinnemahoning Creek acid from their confluence
to its mouth. Sterling Run, while not overcoming the
alkalinity reserve in the Driftwood Branch, does add mine
drainage indicators.
Although quite acid (136 mg/1 net acidity), the
Bennett Branch is relatively low in concentrations of other
mine drainage indicators. The mean total iron and manganese
concentrations were,, for example, only 1 mg/1 and 4.1 mg/1,
respectively5 during the survey period° Concentrations of
most mine drainage indicators at the mouth of Sinnemahoning
Creek are about half of Bennett Branch concentrations,
reflecting the "diluting" effect of other tributaries of
Sinnemahoning Creek.
Mine drainage discharge location and characterization
work has not been completed in this Sub-Basin; however,
preliminary reconnaissance indicates that most of the mine
drainage originates in abandoned deep mines. The make of the
mines is, however, significantly influenced by strip mining
operations. Preliminary information indicates that the
discharges from four tributaries to the Bennett Branch may
equal the acid loading in the Sinnemahoning Creek at its mouth.
-------
-------
X - 22
(2) Abatement and Control Measures
Data available at this time indicate that abatement
work in this watershed would involve surface reclamation, inun-
dation, and treatment.
The Pennsylvania Coal Research Board has contracted
with the Pennsylvania State University to design a 4 mgd
lime neutralization plant to treat a large discharge near the
Village of Hollywood, which is near the source of the Bennett
Branch. The plant3 intended as a demonstration project, will
neutralize that which is reputed to be the largest acid
discharge in the watershed.
The George B. Stevenson Dam, a flood control reservoir
which controls a portion of the First Fork Sinnemahoning
watershed, might profitably be utilized for flow regulation
for water quality control in a comprehensive pollution abatement
program. The low natural alkalinity in the impounded water
tends 9 howevera to limit the utility of this water.
j. Kettle Creek
(1) Mine Drainage Sources and Their Effect on
Stream Quality
Kettle Creekg with its contribution of 155000 Ibs/day
acidity during the survey period, is the most downstream direct
source of mine drainage to the West Branch. Throughout most
of its lengths Kettle Creek flows through heavily forested
land and is considered an excellent trout stream. In its
-------
X - 23
lower 2 miles,, its naturally low alkalinity is overcome by
mine drainage contributed by Two Mile Run and discharges
which enter directly.
Mine drainage discharge location and characterization
work has not been completed in this Sub-Basin; however, it is
believed that the mine drainage originates in abandoned
surface and subsurface mines.
(2) Abatement and Control Measures
Abatement work in this Sub-Basin will probably require
an extensive surface reclamation and deep mine inundation
program coupled with treatment and/or conveyance of mine
drainage directly to the West Branch.
A portion of the Sub-Basin is controlled by the
Alvin C. Bush Dam, a flood control structure. The naturally
low alkalinity of the impounded water limits its utility for
water quality control purposes.
k. North Bald Eagle Creek
(1) Mine Drainage Sources and Their Effect on
Stream Quality
North Bald Eagle Creek is responsible for neutralizing
most of the acid load in the West Branch. Its contribution
of 132,000 Ibs/day alkalinity during the survey period was
the largest single source of alkalinity to the West Branch.,
Considerable mining has taken place in the Sub-
Basin, however, and the quality of the lower reaches of North
Bald Eagle Creek is influenced by mine drainage. Essentially
-------
-------
X » 24
all the mining in the Sub-Basin has been accomplished in
the watershed of Beech Creek, a major tributary. Beech
Creek is acid from its source to its mouth and contributed
about 10,000 Ibs/day net acidity to North Bald Eagle Creek
during the survey period. Under most natural flow conditions,
the alkalinity in North Bald Eagle Creek is adequate to
neutralize the acid contributed by Beech Creek. During periods
of unbalanced rainfall and runoff in the Sub-Basin9 high flows
from Beech Creek have significantly reduced the alkalinity
in North Bald Eagle Creek, Flow regulation by Blanchard
Dam,, a multi-purpose structure now under construction immediately
upstream from Beech Creek, may tend to accentuate this condition.
Mining conditions in the Beech Creek watershed are
very similar to those in the nearby Clearfield and Moshannon
Creek watersheds. Much of the watershed has been mineds
both by surface and sub-surface methods. Although more than
a hundred mine drainage discharges have been located in the
watersheds preliminary evaluation of the data indicates that
most of the acid originates in six major discharges.
(2) Abatement and Control Measures
A combination of almost all abatement methods will
probably be applicable in this Sub-Basin. Abatement work
should have a high priority, since reduction of acid loadings
is needed to protect the quality of North Bald Eagle Creek
-------
-------
X - 25
during periods of unbalanced streamflow caused by natural
conditions and by flow regulation by the Blanchard Dam,
A project in the Beech Creek watershed intended to
reclaim 379 acres in the Sproul State Forest is in the late-
planning stages. This project,, to be financed with Appalachia
Funds3 is expected to affect some stream quality benefit.
1. West Branch Susquehanna River-Sinnemahoning Creek
to Mou th
(1) Mine Drainage Sources and Their Effect on
Stream Quality
As shown in Figure 2S the quality of the West Branch
in this reach varies significantly in response to several
major inputs.
Acid contributed by Sinnemahoning Creek was responsible
for a 153000 Ibs/day net acidity increase in the acid load in
the river from Mile 111 to Mile 105 during the survey period.
The contribution of an additional 153000 Ibs/day acidity by
Kettle Creek further increased the acid loading at Mile 98.
Although acid concentrations do not vary appreciably between
Kettle Creek and North Bald Eagle Creek, net acidity loadings
increase with increases in flow at successive sampling stations.
The apparent increase in loading is believed to be primarily
the result of limitations in the precision of analysis and
flow measurement procedures, and not to mine drainage discharges
in the reach.
-------
-------
X - 26
At Mile 68 (Lock Haven), North Bald Eagle Creek, with
its contribution of 132,000 Ibs/day net alkalinity during the
survey period enters the West Branch and contributes most
of the alkalinity required to neutralize the acid load in
the West Branch. Ocher major alkaline tributaries in the
reach between Mile 68 and Mile 040 (Williamspoxt) which
contribute no the neutralization of the West Branch include
Pine Creek, Larry's Creek, Lycoraing Creek, and Antes Creek.
Downstream from Williamsport, the West Branch is
normally weakly alkaline (10 rag/1 net alkalinity) and receives
no direct mine drainage discharges. During unusual flow
conditions, when the ratio of the flow in the West Branch
to the flow in North Bald Eagle Creek is considerably higher
than normal9 the acid load carried by the West Branch is not
neutralized, and acid conditions prevail downstream from
Williamsport5 sometimes to the mouth. This condition frequently
occurs in late summer in conjunction with heavy rains in the
Clearfield and Moshannon Creek watersheds with no
corresponding rainfall in the North Bald Eagle Creek watershed.
The condition, normally a once-yearly occurrence, causes
extensive fish kills downstream from Williamsport.
(2) Abatement and Control Measures
No significant mine drainage sources which discharge
directly to the West Branch have been located in this reach,
except those which are described in the discussion of major
sub-basins.
-------
-------
X - 27
Flow regulation to control the chronic "acid slug"
condition may be possible if greater utilization of the
water quality control capability of existing flow regulation
structures and more timely information on water quality and
flow conditions can be attained.
Blanchard Dam? now under construction on North Bald
Eagle Creeks would probably be the key to any program of flow
regulation for water quality control. The high alkalinity of
the impounded water (110 mg/1 during the survey period)
will make it by far the most promising source of "stored
alkalinity" in the Basin.
m. Loyal sock Creek
(1) Mine Drainage Sources and Their Effect on
Stream Quality
Although Loyalsock Creek is an alkaline stream at
its mouth and bears no significant evidence of mine drainage
indicators throughout most of its length,, it does receive
mine drainage from abandoned mines in an isolated semi-
anthracite deposit in the headwaters.
Two drainage tunnels near the Village of Lopez (See
Figure 1-A) discharge mine drainage with a net acidity
concentration of approximately 60 mg/1. The addition of this
slightly acid discharge to the stream, which has a naturally
low residual alkalinity- causes degradation for approximately
eight miles downstream.
-------
-------
X - 28
(2) Abatement and Control Measures
One method of abating polluting discharges in this
Sub-Basin would be to remove all of the remaining coal in the
Sub-Basin, using surface mining methods. Restoration of the
stripped area would probably abate the polluting discharges.
Because of the relatively small mine drainage loading
and the great effect on stream quality, considerable benefit
could be attained by relatively low cost abatement measures.
This area should have a high priority for future abatement work.
-------
-------
X - 29
B. Juniata River Basin
1. Introduction
The Juniata River, 86 miles long with a drainage
area of 3,406 square miles, is formed by the junction of the
Little Juniata River and Frankstown Branch Juniata River in
Huntingdon County3 3.5 miles southeast of Huntingdon,
Pennsylvania. The stream flows easterly by a circuitous
route to its confluence with the Susquehanna River.
All of Blair and Huntingdon Counties are located
within the confines of the Basin. Also included are portions
of Bedford, Centre, Fulton3 Mifflin, Juniata, and Perry
Counties. Figure 1-B is a map showing major streams and other
pertinent features of the Basin.
2. Geology
Virtually the entire Juniata River Basin lies within
the "Ridge and Valley" Province. This area is characterized
by an alternate succession of long ridges and valleys,
generally oriented from southwest to northeast. The ridges
comprising the western part of the Basin are steep and rugged,
whereas, the eastern part is considerably more rolling in
nature. A small area on the western edge of the Basin drains
a part of the Appalachian Plateau Province„
Extremes in elevation range from 340 to 2,900 feer
above mean sea level.
-------
-------
X - 30
Forests occupy approximately two-thirds of the total
watershed and, for the most part, cover the higher ridges and
mountains. Farmland is predominantly confined to the lower,
more fertile valleys and encompasses approximately one-fourth
of the Basin area.
The coal fields influencing stream quality are located
in the southwestern portion of the watershed in Blair,, Huntingdon,
Bedford,and Fulton Counties, The largest coal deposit in
the watershed is the Broad Top Coal Field, located in Bedford;
Huntingdon,, aid Fulton Counties. The field, approximately 81
square miles in area9 lies in a highly dissected plateau
known as Broad Top Mountain and is east of the Allegheny
Mountains., totally isolated from the main bituminous coal
fields. The largest portion of the coal deposit and major
producing area lies in the northeast corner of Bedford County.
The remainder of the field lies in the southern end of
Huntingdon County with an extension into the northwest corner
of Fulton County,
A small portion of the main bituminous coal field
lies within the watershed on the western edge of Blair County
along the eastern slope of Allegheny Mountain.
3. Economy
The production of bituminous coal constitutes an
-------
-------
X - 31
important industry in the Juniata Basin, although no longer
a major one. The first authenticated record of coal mining
in the area occurred during the Revolutionary War when coal
was mined for home use. The first commercial shipments were
made in 1853, reaching a peak production of.approximately 2.7
million short tons in 1918. By 1964 coal production had
diminished to about 0.4 million short tons.
Projections of production in the Juniata Basin are
as follows:
(6)
Projected Bituminous Production (Thousand Short Tons)
1_970 1985 2020
490 780 1,520
Reserves of coal have been estimated to total 215
million short tons of which approximately 129 million short
(5)
tons are recoverable.
4. Sub-Basin Description
Data collected during a reconnaissance and sampling
program conducted by personnel of the Chesapeake Bay-
Susquehanna River Basins Project in August 1965 indicate that
mine drainage is contributed to four major tributaries of
the Juniata River. The Little Juniata and Franks^cwn Branch
are influenced primarily by active and abandoned mining operations
in the coal measures along the eastern slope of Allegheny Mountain
in western Blair County, The Raystown Branch and Aughwick
-------
-------
X - 32
Creek receive mine drainage originating in the Broad Top
Coal Field.
a. Little Juniata River
(1) Mine Drainage Sources and Their Effect on
Stream Quality
Mining activity in this Basin has been limited almost
exclusively to the Bells Gap Run watershed which has been
extensively deep and strip mined.
Sampling of the Little Juniata River upstream from the
confluence with Bells Gap Run indicated an initial net
alkalinity of 100 mg/1 accompanied by low level concentrations
of other mine drainage indicators. Bells Gap Run3 despite
mine drainage contributions, exhibits very little evidence of
mine drainage indicators at its mouth and contributes an
alkaline loading of approximately 170 Ibs/day to the Little
Juniata River.
(2) Abatement and Control Measures
Mine drainage pollution abatement in this watershed
will involve extensive restoration of areas disturbed by
surface mining. Since the stream is used as a source of public
water supply, it may prove economically feasible ro provide
treatment facilities such as ion exchange, which will produce
a high quality water suitable for use as a public water supply,
b. Frankstown Branch Juniata River
(1) Mine Dranage Sources and Their Effect on
Stream Qjality
-------
-------
33
The Frankstown Branch exhibited an alkaline reserve
of 110 mg/1 net alkalinity at its confluence with the Little
Juniata during the sampling period. The stream, while alkaline,
contains significant levels of iron and hardness, mine drainage
indicators.
The major contributor of mine drainage during the
sampling period was the Beaver Dam Branch, which contributed
approximately 3,000 Ibs/day net acidity. The major sources of
mine drainage to the Beaver Dam Branch were Burgoon Run and
Sugar Run.
Burgoon Run receives mine drainage from Kittanning
Run and Glenwhite Run, small streams whose watersheds have been
almost completely disturbed by surface mining. Kittanning Run
is diverted around a public water supply reservoir serving
the City of Altoona and enters Burgoon Run downstream from
the Reservoir, The flow of the upper reaches of Burgoon Run
and the normal flow of Glenwhite Run form the reservcir supply.
During periods of high runoffs however, the flow of Glenwhite
Run is also diverted to the by-pass.
Sugar Run had an acid loading at its mouth of 1 ,,000
Ibs/day net acidity. Most of the acid originates in the
discharge from one abandoned deep mine.
(2) Abatement and Control Measures
Mine drainage pollution abatement activities in this
-------
X - 34
Basin should be directed toward producing a water suitable
as a source of public water supply. Altoona is in serious
need of additional public water supply. Treatment of the
mine drainage normally diverted around the reservoir would
add appreciably to the city's supply. Ion exchange, or some
other method which produces a high quality product, would be
the most desirable treatment process.
Preliminary data collection activities are in progress
on a demonstration project in the Glenwhite Run watershed5
being carried out jointly by the FWPCA and the Bureau of
Mines. Reclamation work carried out wil!9 it is hoped? reduce
the mine drainage effect on the quality of Glenwhite Run
and reduce the need for by-passing the water supply reservoir
during high flow periods.
Since one discharge is the primary source of pollution
of Sugar Run5 mine flooding and/or treatment would appear to
be applicable abatement methods in that watershed.
c. Rays town Branch Juniata River
(1) Mine Drainage Sources and Their Effect on
Stream Quality
Mine drainage in this Sub-Basin originates in the Broad
Top Coal Field and is conveyed to the Raystown Branch by Longs
Run 3 Six Mile Run, Shoups Run, and Great Trough Creek. Each
of the first three streams is acid from its source r.o its mouth.
-------
X - 35
Great Trough Creek is acid throughout its length in the coal
fields, approximately five miles. Alkaline tributaries
neutralize the acid load and provide an alkaline reserve of
200 Ibs/day at its mouth.
The three acid streams contributed the following acid
loading to the Raystown Branch during the survey period;
Longs Run -- 5,600 Ibs/day net acidity
Six Mile Run -- 2,800 Ibs/day net acidity
Shoups Run -- 3,200 Ibs/day net acidity
In spite of the sizable acid contributions, as shown in Figure
33 the alkaline reserve of Raystown Branch upstream (^2,000
Ibs/day during the sampling period) was more than ample to
assimilate the acid contributed. The Raystown Branch downstream
from the coal fields exhibited essentially no evidence of the
mine drainage loading.
Water quality in the three acid streams was generally
comparable. They had pH!s of less than ^.55 and elevated
concentrations of manganese, sulfate3 hardness, and other mi,ne
drainage indicators. Inexplicably, the iron concentration in
Shoups Run was normally less than 1 mg/1; while in Longs Run
and Six Mile Run, mean concentrations exceeded 10 mg/1.
All of the mine drainage discharges located in the
watersheds tributary to the Raystown Branch originated in deep
-------
X - 36
mines. A limited amount of surface mining has taken place
in the Basin and may be influencing deep mine discharges;
however, no surface discharges were observed.
(2) Abatement and Control Measures
In view of the relatively minor effect of mine drainage
on the quality of the Raystown Branch, abatement programs in
the watersheds influenced by mine drainage might include
conveyance of at least a portion of the mine drainage to the
Raystown Branch, in addition to more conventional methods such
as treatment, surface reclamation, and mine flooding.
The limited effect on existing water uses and on
downstream water quality in the Raystown Branch suggest a low
priority for abatement work in this Sub-Basin.
d. Aughwick Creek
(1) Mine Drainage Sources and Their Effect on
Stream Quality
A small percentage of the Broad Top Coal Fields lies
in the Aughwick Creek Sub-Basin. Roaring Run, a tributary of
Sidling Hill Creek, which in turn is tributary to Aughwick
Creek, is the only known contributor of mine drainage in the
Sub-Basin. Roaring Run with its acid loading of 750 Ibs/day
during the sampling period degraded the quality of Sidling Hill
Creek at their confluence. Alkalinity contributed by other
tributaries enabled Sidling Hill Creek to recover from the acid
loading and have an alkaline reserve at its mouth.
-------
-------
X - 47
(2) Abatement and Control Measures
Most of the mine drainage contributed to Roaring Run
originates in one discharge. Abatement of pollution from this
source would have considerable value, reclaiming a number of
miles of otherwise unpolluted streams.
-------
X - 38
C. Tioga River Basin
1. Introduction
The Tioga River originates in Armenia Township in
western Bradford County. The drainage area (within Pennsylvania),
689.5 square miles5 is contained in portions of Potter, Tioga,
and Bradford Counties. The stream is 58 miles long, 45 miles
of which are in Pennsylvania. It flows in a southwesterly
direction into Tioga County near Blossburg, Pennsylvania;, and
thence in a northerly direction to join the Chemung River in
New York State. Figure 1-C is a map of the portion of the
Susquehanna River Basin which includes the Tioga River Basin.
2. Geology
Located within the Allegheny Plateau physiographic
province, the Study Area is characterized by broad valleys
and steep, rounded hills. Shale and sandstones along with coal
in the upper portion of the Sub-Basin, are the dominant
geologic formations. Most of the stream channels are bordered
by wide alluvial flood plains containing deposits of glacially-
derived boulders and gravel.
Most of the alluvial valleys are devoid of tree cover.
In contrast, the hills in the Sub-Basin are steep- rugged,
uncultivated and heavily wooded.
Coal deposits in the Sub-Basin are located in T~he extreme
headwaters of the stream and are contained in two canoe shaped
-------
-------
- 3-)
synclinal basins. The first and most important, the Blcssburg
Basin underlying the Morris Run, Coal Creek, and Bear Creek
watersheds, extends in a general northeast-southwest dLrecLion.
The second 5 the Gaines Basin underlying the Jchnsert Creek
watershed, is a few miles north of and approximately parallel
to the Blossburg deposit. Of the four minable beds cor.tcuned
in the Basins, three have been or are being mined.
3. Economy
Historically 3 the mining of bituminous coal in Line
Area was the primary industry. Mining activity began in
the 1840!s reaching a maximum of approximately 1.4 million
tons in 1886. Production has since declined !ro a level of
approximately 0.4 million tons in 1964. Great emphasis is
placed on surface mining. Approximately 80 per cent of the coal
is produced by this method. Projections of production for the
Tioga River Basin are shown in the following table:
Projected Bituminous Coal Production (Thousand Short Tons)
1970 1985 2020
360 460 660
Reserves of coal have been estimated ar, a
total of 41 million short tons, with approximately 16 million
short tons considered recoverable.
4. Sub-Basin Description
The results of the reconnaissance and sampling program
-------
-------
X - 40
conducted by personnel of the Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna
River Basins Project during September and October 1965 indicate
the quality of the Tioga River above its confluence with
• Morris Run is not significantly affected by mine drainage.
The stream is, in fact5 classified as a trout stream by the
Pennsylvania Fish Commission. Below this points however, for
a distance of more than 25 miles, the stream is rendered acid
by mine drainage contributed by Morris Run, Coal Creek,
Johnson Creek and Bear Creek. Downstream tributaries have weak
alkalinity common to this Area, but succeed in neutralizing
the acid load downstream from Crooked Creek. Biological
studies indicate mine drainage inhibition of aquatic life
downstream to the confluence with the Canisteo River, an
additional 27 miles downstream.
The Corps of Engineers is planning a multipurpose dam
and reservoir at the confluence of Crooked Creek and the Tioga
River. The dam will impound both streams in separate
impoundments. Mine drainage influence on the quality of the
Tioga River impoundment will limit water uses. The mean net
acidity at the dam site was 100 mg/1 during the survey. Iron
and manganese concentrations were 2.1 and 3.7 mg/1, respectively.
The pH ranged from 3.7 to 4.1.
a. Johnson Creek
(1) Mine Drainage Sources and Their Effect on
Stream Quality
-------
-------
X - 41
Although Johnson Creek contributes a weak alkaline
loading to the Tioga River, it does receive mine drainage from
abandoned surface and sub-surface mines near the Village of
Arnot. As shown in Figure 5, mine drainage contributed in the
Arnot area overcomes the stream's alkalinity for a short
distance. Mine drainage indicator concentrations are low in
Johnson Creek downstream from Arnot. Two discharges with a
total net acid loading of 300 Ibs/day were determined to be the
major mine drainage contributors in the watershed.
2. Abatement and Control Measures
A limited program of mine sealing and surface reclamation
would probably substantially improve water quality in this
watershed.
b. Morris Run, Coal Creek, and Bear Creek
(1) Mine Drainage Sources and Their Effect on
Stream Quality
Although Morris Run, Coal Creek, and Bear Creek
constitute individual sources of mine drainage to the Tioga
River, they overlie a common coal deposit. Underground and
surface mining has diverted surface and ground water from water-
shed to watershed. The three watersheds will, therefore, be
discussed as a single mine drainage source to the Tioga River.
As illustrated in Figure 4, the total acidity discharge
from the three streams exhausted the Tioga River's rather weak
-------
-------
X - 42
alkaline reserve and produced an acid residual of 15,500
Ibs/day acidity downstream from Bear Creek during the survey
period. The mean net acidity concentration downstream from
Bear Creek was 180 mg/1. Mean iron and manganese concentrations
were 16 and 4.9 mg/1, respectively. Other mine drainage
indicators were proportionately high.
All of the three streams are acid from source to mouth,
as are most of their tributaries. The quality of the three streams
is essentially uniform from source to mouth. All have acidity
concentrations in the 500 to 1,000 mg/1 range, iron concentrations
in the 20 to 100 mg/1 range, and manganese concentrations of
20 to 50 mg/1. Morris Run receives mine drainage from two major
sources and approximately 20 less significant sources. Most
of the drainage originates in abandoned deep mines; however,
their flow is undoubtedly influenced by contributions from strip
mines, some of which lie in the Coal Creek and Bear Creek
watersheds.
Mine drainage in the Coal Creek and Bear Creek watersheds
is contributed by many major discharges which are combinations
of drainage from abandoned surface and sub-surface mines.
(2) Abatement and Control Measures
Mine drainage pollution abatement work in this watershed
will involve an extensive program of surface reclamation, mine
flooding, and probably treatment.
-------
X - 43
Since the coal measures are isolated from the main
bituminous field and cover an area of only about 10 square
miles, abatement work could be accomplished without involving
a large geographical area. The extensive degradation of the
quality of the Tioga River resulting from mine drainage discharges
in the watershed and its effect on uses of water impounded by
the proposed Tioga River Dam should give the area a high priority
in future abatement programs.
A consulting engineer under contract with the Chesapeake
Bay-Susquehanna River Basins Project is presently making a
detailed engineering study of methods and associated costs of
mine drainage pollution abatement in the watersheds.
Because of the mine drainage influence on the quality
of the water to be impounded in the proposed Tioga River Dam,
discharge schedules should be designed to take full advantage
of the neutralizing capacity of Crooked Creek. Flow regulation
at the dam may be an effective method of minimizing mine drainage
influence on water quality downstream.
-------
-------
X - 44
D. Anthracite Area
1. Introduction
Anthracite coal deposits in the Study Area lie in four
individual fields in Northeastern Pennsylvania (See Figure 1-D).
The coal fields, underlying a total area of 529 square miles,
are designated the Northern Field, Western Middle Field, Eastern
Middle Field, and Southern Field.
All of the Northern Field lies within the Susquehanna
River Basin. Approximately 50 per cent of the Eastern Middle
Field, 90 per cent of the Western Middle Field, and 40 per cent
of the Southern Field are drained by the Susquehanna River and
its tributaries. The remainder of the fields drain to the
Delaware River through its tributaries, the Lehigh and
Schuylkill Rivers.
Major streams draining the Anthracite Area are as
follows:
Name
Susquehanna River Basin
Lackawanna River
Nescopeck Creek
Catawissa Creek
Shamokin Creek
Mahanoy Creek
Drainage Area
(square miles)
346
172
155
138
155
Mile Pt. of
Confluence
195
159
143
122
112
-------
-------
X - 45
Drainage Area Mile Pt. of
Name (square miles) Confluence
Mahantango Creek 164 102
Wiconisco Creek 116 96
Swatara Creek 567 60
Delaware River Basin
Lehigh River 1,373
Schuylkill River 1,916
The Area includes portions of Dauphin, Schuylkill,
Northumberland, Columbia, Luzerne, Lackawanna, Carbon, Monroe,
and Pike Counties.
The Area lies entirely within the Ridge and Valley Province
of the Appalachian Highlands, the principal feature of which is
a series of canoe shaped valleys in which the anthracite fields
are located. The ridges trend generally northeast-southwest
with elevations varying from 1,400 to 2,700 feet.
2. Geology
All the rocks of the Area are of sedimentary origin
and are of the Paleozoic age. They belong to the Carboniferous,
Devonian, and Silurian systems, with one formation of the
Ordovician System found locally. The Carboniferous System is
sub-divided into the Pennsylvanian and Mississippian series.
The Pennsylvanian Series is further sub-divided into the Post-
Pottsville and Pottsville Formations.
-------
-------
X - 46
The Post-Pottsville Formations found within the four
fields contain the most economically important deposits of
Pennsylvania anthracite coal . These formations consist of beds
of sandstone, shale, fireclay, black carbonaceous slate, and
beds of coal ranging from seams several inches thick to the
great Mammoth bed which has a thickness, in areas, in excess
of 60 feet. The anthracite-bearing formations contain from 12
to 26 minable coal beds which are separated by from a few feet
to as much as 200 feet of intervening shale, sandstone and/or
conglomerate. While several anthracite beds found in the
Pottsville Formation are locally minable, the major production
is from the Post-Pottsville Formation.
In the Northern Field, coal deposits are contained within
a canoe-shaped syncline which has a flat bottom and steep sides
which outcrop along the mountain ridges. The Field is about
62 miles long, 5 miles wide and covers an area of approximately
176 square miles.
At Ashley, south of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvanias the
coal measures reach a depth of 2,100 feet and contain 18 workable
strata, having a combined thickness of about 100 feet. A unique
feature of the Northern Field is its separation into two coal
basins, the Lackawanna and Wyoming, by a structural saddle (the
Moosic saddle) near Old Forge, Pennsylvania.
-------
-------
X - 47
The Eastern Middle Field, with an area of approximately
33 square miles, consists of a number of long, narrow coal
basins trending east to west. These coal basins are separated
by members of the Pottsville conglomerate which contain no
anthracite. Most of the deposits lie above surface drainage
level and are drained by tunnels driven expressly to provide
gravity drainage to surface streams. Numerous mine openings,
slopes, drifts, and short tunnels also provide drainage.
The Western Middle Field consists of a series of
parallel, irregularly shaped coal basins covering an area of
approximately 120 square miles. The Field, about 42 miles
long and from two to five miles wide, contains strata which
locally lie nearly horizontal or pitch steeply. Deposits
resemble those in the Eastern Middle Field, except that most
of the deposits lie below surface drainage level and are now
flooded.
The Southern Field, about 7O miles long and 1 to.6
miles wide, covers an area of about 200 square miles. The Field
consists of a series of basins, extending from Mauch Chunk on
the west to the "fish tail" formed by a separation of the coal
measures extending almost to the Susquehanna River at the western
extremity. The geologic structure of the Southern Field is more
complicated than that of the other fields. The dips of the
synclinals and anticlinals are much steeper than elsewhere.
-------
-------
X - 48
and mining conditions are difficult. The largest tonnage of
anthracite reserve lies in this Field.
3. Economy
Approximately 95 per cent of the Nations' true anthracite
lies in Pennsylvania in the watersheds of the Susquehanna and
Delaware Rivers. This, the "hard coal" of commerce, has found
its greatest use as a domestic and industrial fuel. Since
1808 the anthracite industry has shipped over five billion tons
of clean coal. Peak production was slightly more than 100 million
(91
tons '. Production has decreased gradually to a low of about
16.5 million tons in 1964.
Production during the period 1962-64 was only 75 per
cent of that during the 1946-48 period. Strip and underground
mining production declined by 33 per cent and 83 per cent,
respectively.
Projected estimates of anthracite production for the
area are as follows:
Projected Anthracite Production (Thousand Short Tons)
1_970 1985 2020
Susquehanna
Basin 5,900 3,200 2,500
Delaware
Basin 5,300 4,200 9,500
Anthracite coal reserves within the Susquehanna River
Basin have been estimated at 8.2 billion short tons. Recoverable
-------
-------
X - 49
reserves are estimated at 1.6 billion short tons.
4. Sub-Basin Description
A detailed discussion of the mine drainage sources in
the Anthracite Area, their effect on stream quality, and possible
abatement methods follow:
a. Lackawanna River
(1) Mine Drainage Sources and Their Effect on
Stream Quality
Changes in mining activity and mine drainage discharge
points have greatly altered the quality of the Lackawanna River
within the past 10 years. Prior to I960, extensive mining with
associated mine drainage discharges severely degraded stream
quality. Declines in demand for anthracite coal, the cost of
pumping high volumes of water encountered, and other circumstances
gradually forced the abandonment of most of the deep mines in
the watershed.
Cessation of mine water pumping resulted in a very
significant increase in stream alkalinity although some mine
drainage influence on stream quality persists.
In January 1961, the mine water pools which had been
developing in the abandoned underground workings broke through
the surface in the form of a gravity discharge to the Lackawanna
River at Duryea, approximately two miles from its mouth. The
largest discharge of mine drainage in the Anthracite Field
is a combination of the "Duryea Gravity Discharge" and the
-------
-------
X - 50
discharge from a borehole, which was subsequently drilled
one mile upstream at Old Forge in order to stabilize the level
of the underground pools. The combined discharges contribute
an average flow of about 58 mgd, an acid load of approximately
132,000 Ibs/day net acidity, and an iron load of approximately
62,000 Ibs/day.
Although most of the mine water developed in the
Lackawanna River watershed discharges to the river through
the Duryea and Old Forge discharge points, as illustrated
in Figure 6, water quality in the river is also influenced by
other mine drainage discharges.
The initial effect of mine drainage on stream quality
is evident immediately above Carbondale, Pennsylvania, downstream
from Elk Creek. This stream receives mine drainage from two
deep mines. At Carbondale, further water quality impairment
occurs as a result of discharges from two deep mines. Based
on an acidity-alkalinity balance, this reach of the Lackawanna
River receives a net acid loading of at least 1,000 Ibs/day from
the combined flows described above.
Between Carbondale and Old Forge, the river receives
mine drainage contributed primarily by the Jermyn Water Tunnel,
which contributes approximately 5,500 Ibs/day net acidity.
Below the entry of the Jermyn discharge and the
confluence with the Susquehanna River, the Lackawanna River
-------
-------
X - 51
receives the Duryea and Old Forge discharges. These discharges
overcame the stream's residual alkalinity and were primarily
responsible for the acid loading of 47,000 Ibs/day net acidity
discharged to the Susquehanna River during the sampling period.
The Lackawanna River discharge does not deplete the Susquehanna
River's alkalinity reserve; however, iron loadings originating
in the Duryea and Old Forge discharges are responsible for
substantial degradation of the quality of the Susquehanna River.
Variation of mine drainage indicators throughout the
length of the river is illustrated in Figure 7-A. At its
mouth the pH is generally between 4 and 6. The acidity concen-
tration is about 150 mg/1 and iron and manganese concentrations
are normally in the 50 mg/1 and 10 mg/1 range, respectively.
(2) Abatement and Control Measures
Because of the vast extent of the underground mine
workings and the large area disturbed by surface mining in
the Sub-Basin, it is doubtful that reclamation work alone
will constitute a completely effective pollution abatement program,
This work, although needed to reduce the amount of surface water
which is diverted to the underground mine workings, will not
completely abate mine drainage pollution in the Lackawanna River
watershed. Treatment conveyance, or some other abatement
method will also be needed.
-------
X - 52
A consulting engineer under contract with the Pennsylvania
Sanitary Water Board has completed a preliminary study of methods
and the associated costs of lowering the underground mine
water pools below the level of the Duryea and Old Forge discharges
and constructing lime neutralization facilities to treat the
new combined discharge. The cost of facilities to collect and
treat the present average flow is estimated to be $4.3
million. Total annual cost of. the facility is estimated to
be $760,000.
b. Susquehanna River-Lackawanna River to Nescopeck
Creek
(1) Mine Drainage Sources and Their Effect on
Stream Quality
The quality of the Susquehanna River is impaired in
this reach by mine drainage contributed by the Lackawanna River
and by discharges originating in the Wyoming Valley portion
of the Northern Anthracite Field. Tributary streams contributing
most of the mine drainage originating in the Wyoming Valley
include: Mill Creek, Solomons Creek, Warrior Run, Nanticoke
Creek,and Newport Creek, The streams act as conveyances for
discharges from large mine-pumping stations. The qualities
of the tributaries approximate the qualities of contributing
discharges.
The discharges originate in active deep mines and in
abandoned deep mines in which the level of the pool is maintained
-------
-------
X - 53
constant by pumping to prevent the water from entering areas
where mining is actively accomplished.
All of the pumping operations which contribute a
significant amount of acid to the Susquehanna River are operated
by the Blue Coal Company. The company operates a total of 27
pumps at 17 locations. Pumps which stabilize the pool level
in abandoned mines were purchased and installed with public funds
provided by equal allocations by the State and Federal Governments
to a $8.5 million fund, the Joint Federal-State Anthracite
Mine Water Control Program, which was established in 1955.
Of the $7 million of the appropriations'which have already
been spent, $5 million was spent for 26 deep-well pumps operated,
at some time, by the Glen Alden Coal Company, predecessor of
the Blue Coal Company.
The total flow of pumped discharges averages 62 mgd,
the acid loading averages 361,000 Ibs/day net acidity and the
iron loading averages 134,000 Ibs/day.
Under the direction of the Pennsylvania Sanitary Water
Board, the company regulates its discharges in accordance with
streamflow, pumping only as necessary to prevent flooding of
the active mines during low streamflow periods. Calculations
based on pumping records and discharge and stream quality
records indicate the following contributions from major sources
during the period of sampling in the area -- August 1965:
-------
-------
X - 54
(a) Mill Creek - 85,000 Ibs/day net
acidity from the Delaware pumps.
(b) Solomons Creek - 26,700 Ibs/day net
acidity from Huber (14,700 Ibs/day)
and the treated South Wilkes-Barre
#5 discharge (12,000 Ibs/day). The
latter discharge is permitted only with
treatment during low flow periods and
was active only during the period
August 19-31.
(c) Warrior Run - 3,600 Ibs/day net
acidity originating in discharges
from Sugar Notch #3 West (840 Ibs/day)
and Sugar Notch Shaft (2,830 Ibs/day).
(d) Nanticoke Creek - 24,000 Ibs/day from
the Askam pumped discharge. The Loomis
outfall, permitted with treatment during
the low flow period, was operated only
53 hours during the month and is not
considered here.
(e) Newport Creek - 18,000 Ibs/day net
acidity from the Wanamie mining
complex.
-------
-------
X - 55
The total contribution of 147,000 Ibs/day net acidity
was, during the sampling period, about half of the average
contribution from these sources as indicated by pumping records
and miscellaneous water quality data available.
Although the river received sizable acid contributions
from the pumped discharges during the survey period, as
shown in Figure 7, its alkaline reserve was not seriously
threatened. Other mine drainage indicators, particularly man-
ganese and sulfates, weres however, present in relatively high
concentrations.
Samples collected in August 1966 at Mile 196 upstream
from the Lackawanna River and at Hile 179 downstream from all
significant Northern Anthracite Field mine drainage sources
indicate a significant reduction in alkalinity and increases
in other mine drainage indicators through the reach. Alkalinity
dropped from about 84 mg/1 to 38 mg/1. Irons manganese, and
sulfates increased from 0.1, 0.09, and 30 mg/1 to about 0.3,
1.5, and 190 mg/1, respectively. During the sampling period
iron concentrations in this reach were abnormally low. Other
data available indicates that the change in concentrations
of iron and other mine drainage indicators through the reach
is considerably more dramatic under other flow conditions.
The last regularly sampled discharge in this reach
is a gravity discharge from an isolated mine water pool at
-------
-------
X - 56
Mocanaqua. The discharge contributed approximately 6,000
Ibs/day net acidity and had no observable effect on the
alkaline reserve of the Susquehanna River.
Downstream from Nescopeck Creek9 stream quality
rapidly improves. Downstream tributaries draining the
Anthracite Area, while contributing mine drainage indicators,
do not significantly affect stream quality. Biological
surveys determined significant degradation of aquatic life
in the reach from the Lackawanna River to Nescopeck Creek and
slight effect further downstream. Periodic degradation of
stream quality downstream from Nescopeck Creek has been
observed during periods of high stream flow following extended
low flow periods. Iron salts which precipitate during low
flow periods to form sludge deposits in the river upstream
from Berwick are scoured out by increased stream velocities
and are evident downstream to the confluence with the West
Branch Susquehanna River.
(2) Abatement and Control Measures
The Blue Coal Company and its predecessor, the Glen
Alden Coal Company, have, in accordance with Sanitary Water
Board requirements, restricted pumpage during low stream flow
periods and in some cases provided lime neutralization of
key discharges in an effort to minimize the effect of its discharge
on stream quality. Although this action has preserved the
-------
X - 57
alkaline reserve of the Susquehanna River, additional action
is needed to abate water quality degradation caused by other
mine drainage indicators. Treatment of at least a portion
of the present average discharge will, no doubt, be required
as a part of any effective pollution abatement program in the
Area.
A preliminary study conducted in 1962 by a consulting
firm retained by the Glen Alden Coal Company estimated that
lime neutralization type mine drainage treatment facilities
to treat the Company's pump discharges, which were then slightly
larger than those at present, would cost about $18.9 million.
Average annual costs were estimated to be about $4 million.
The Mocanaqua gravity discharge is presently under
study preparatory to carrying out abatement work as a part
of a joint U. S. Bureau of Mines - FWPCA Mine Drainage
Demonstration Project. Work on this discharge, while not of
major significance to stream quality, may point to ways of
abating polluting discharges in other portions of the
Anthracite Area.
c. Nescopeck Creek
(1) Mine Drainage Sources and Their Effect on
Stream Quality
The results of a sampling program conducted during
August and September 1965 indicate that the quality of the
upper reaches of Nescopeck Creek above its confluence with
-------
-------
X - 58
Little Nescopeck Creek is not significantly degraded by
mine drainage. In fact, this 10-mile reach is classified as
a trout stream by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission. Below
the confluence, however, stream quality is degraded by the
contribution of mine drainage from Little Nescopeck Creek
and Black Creek.
Initial water quality degradation in Nescopeck Creek
is caused by mine drainage contributed by Little Nescopeck
Creek. As Figure 8 illustrates, the contribution of approximately
7,000 Ibs/day net acidity by Little Nescopeck Creek overcomes
Nescopeck Creek's natural alkaline reserve and renders it an
acid stream.
The prime source of pollution of Little Nescopeck Creek
is the Jeddo Tunnel, which serves as a gravity discharge point
for a large area of abandoned deep mine workings in Black Creek
Coal Basin in the Western Middle Field.
The tunnel discharged an average of about 20 mgd with
an acid loading of 98,000 Ibs/day net acidity during the sampling
period.
The quality of Nescopeck Creek improves slightly from
its confluence with Little Nescopeck Creek to its mouth. Although
Black Creek contributes sizable loadings of mine drainage
indicators (the acid contribution was 14,000 Ibs/day),
concentrations of mine drainage indicators are less than those in
-------
-------
X - 59
Nescopeck Creek. The mixture of the two streams thus
slightly improves the quality of Nescopeck Creek.
During the survey period, the mean acidity was 240
mg/1 and the mean manganese concentration (8 mg/1) exceeded
the total iron concentration (6.5 mg/1) in Nescopeck Creek
immediately downstream from the confluence with Little
Nescopeck Creek. Stream quality gradually improved in the
18 miles to the mouth. However3 as shown in Figure 8,
stream quality was still poor at the mouth.
Black Creek receives mine drainage discharges from
the Gowan and Derringer Drainage Tunnels, which are believed
to be the major mine drainage contributors in the watershed.
In addition to mine drainage pollution. Little
Nescopeck Creek and Black Creek receive contributions of
coal silt from coal-processing operations and surface runoff
from piles of coal fines.
(2) Abatement and Control Measures
Since most of the mine drainage contributed to
Nescopeck Creek can be attributed to three drainage tunnels,
treatment as a primary abatement method may be feasible.
Conveyance or diversion of the mine drainage to an adjacent
stream basin or the Susquehanna River may be a feasible interim
step. Since the drainage tunnels were drilled for the express
purpose of collecting and providing gravity drainage for
-------
-------
X - 60
the mine water from a large area in the coal field, mine
flooding and surface restoration as primary abatement methods
would probably be quite costly and have limited prospects
of complete success.
d. Catawissa Creek
(1) Mine Drainage Sources and Their Effect on
Stream Quality
As a result of mine drainage contributions, Catawissa
Creek is an acid stream throughout most of its length.
Approximately 38 miles from its mouth, the stream, which
at that point is normally alkaline although bearing evidence
of mine drainage contributions, is diverted underground in
an abandoned surface mining complex which has completely
disrupted surface drainage patterns. The stream then apparently
flows through abandoned deep mine workings for a distance of
approximately 4,000 feet, emerging as the Green Mountain Water
Level Tunnel discharge. The stream, bearing an acid load of
about 150 Ibs/day net acidity during the study period, is
further degraded about three miles downstream by the
contribution of a total of about 24,000 Ibs/day net acidity
from two drainage tunnels, Audenreid and Green Mountain. The
stream, as shown in Figure 9, never recovers from this heavy
acid loading.
As Figure 9-A illustrates, iron, manganese, and net
alkalinity concentrations were essentially equivalent to those
-------
-------
X - 61
measured in Nescopeck Creek. Sulfate concentrations were,
_ however, about twice as great in Catawissa Creek as in
Nescopeck Creek.
• Tomhicken Creek, with its contribution of 1,700
Ibs/day net acidity during the survey period, constitutes
the only other significant contributor of acid and other
^ mine drainage indicators. Its contribution does not, however,
significantly degrade the quality of Catawissa Creek, since
H indicator concentrations are somewhat lower than those in
the receiving stream. Most of the acid contributed by
m Tomhicken Creek originates from the Cox #3 drainage tunnel,
^ which contributed about 1,200 Ibs/day net acidity during
the survey.
II Although all of the known mine drainage discharges
enter Catawissa Creek in the upper one-third of its length,
the weak natural alkalinity and relatively small flow of
downstream tributaries are not adequate to neutralize the
heavy acid loadings contributed in the headwaters. Catawissa
Creek contributed approximately 18,500 Ibs/day net acidity
to the Susquehanna River during the sampling period. This
loading was about 80 per cent of the largest single contribution,
the Audenreid Drainage Tunnel.
Unlike many of the streams in the Anthracite Area,
Catawissa Creek is not significantly influenced by coal silt.
-------
-------
X - 62
This absence of coal silt probably sterns from the fact that
there are no active coal processing operations in the Sub-
Basin.
(2) Abatement and Control Measures
A comprehensive mine drainage pollution abatement
I program in the Sub-Basin would involve restoration of surface
I drainage, reclamation, mine flooding, and probably treatment.
Abatement of polluting characteristics of the
I Audenreid discharge would provide an immediate benefit by
restoring Catawissa Creek to an alkaline condition, although
I its quality would be somewhat degraded by other discharges.
» A consulting engineer under contract with the
Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River Basins Project is presently
• studying methods and associated costs of abating pollution
from mine drainage originating in the coal basin drained
by the Green Mountain Tunnel and Green Mountain Water Level
I
Tunnel.
e. Shamokin Creek
«(1) Mine Drainage Sources and Their Effect on
Stream Quality
Shamokin Creek is an acid stream throughout 28 miles
^j|
of its 35-mile length. The remaining seven miles, the
extreme headwaters, although alkaline, were found to have high
concentrations of mine drainage indicators, particularly
^B iron and mangenese. As shown in Figure 10, downstream from
i
-------
-------
X - 63
Mile 29 the stream is rendered acid by mine drainage
contributed by the North Branch Shamokin Creek and the Excelsior
Drainage Tunnel. Although the acidity decreased fairly
uniformly from about 200 mg/1 at this point to about 100
mg/1 at the mouth, the acid loading increased from about
9,000 Ibs/day net acidity to about 35,000 Ibs/day net
acidity in the next 10 miles, then remained constant the
remaining 18 miles to the mouth.
As shown in Figure 10-A, the total iron concentration
reached a peak of 147 mg/1 at Mile 23 then declined to less
than 20 mg/1 at its mouth. Mean manganese concentrations
ranged from 6 mg/1 to 3 mg/1 along the length of the stream.
Sulfate concentrations ranged from 470 mg/1 at Mile 22 to
430 mg/1 at the mouth.
In the Shamokin Creek watershed, all mine drainage
discharges enter in the headwaters area, which is typical of
the Anthracite Fields . Seven major discharges were located
in the upstream third of Shamokin Creek drainage. All
the discharges originated in underground mines, although
they were undoubtedly influenced by surface water diverted
underground in areas disturbed by surface mining. At the
time of sampling, the seven major discharges contributed a
flow of 13.1 mgd and 38,000 Ibs/day net acidity.
Additional study of this watershed is needed to
confirm the origin of the major acid loads; however, it is
-------
-------
X - 64
believed that most of the acid originates in abandoned
mines and is conveyed to the stream by drainage tunnels.
In addition to constituents attributable to
mine drainage3 the stream is heavily laden with coal silt,
much of which apparently originates at coal cleaning and
processing operations in the Sub-Basin.
(2) Abatement and Control Measures
A comprehensive mine drainage pollution abatement
and control program in the Sub-Basin would involve extensive
surface mine reclamation, mine flooding, reclamation of spoil
banks, and, undoubtedly, treatment. Since much of the
drainage is collected by drainage tunnels and discharge points
are not numerous or widely scattered, treatment may prove
feasible. As a first step, treatment or diversion of the
Excelsior discharge and surface restoration might be a feasible
method of reclaiming a 12-mile reach upstream from the
Borough of Shamokin, where the remaining major discharges
are clustered.
f. Mahanoy Creek
(1) Mine Drainage Sources and Their Effect on
Stream Quality
Mahanoy Creek, although contributing a loading of
approximately 1,000 Ibs/day net alkalinity to the Susquehanna
River, is one of the most severely degraded streams draining
the Anthracite Area. A study carried out in July, August, and
-------
-------
X - 65
September 1965 determined the source of stream quality
degradation to be alkaline discharges which contained high
concentrations of iron, manganese, and other mine drainage
indicators. Severely degraded stream quality was observed
throughout the entire 52-mile length of Mahanoy Creek.
Major contributions of mine drainage reach Mahanoy
Creek through the following tributaries: North Branch Mahanoy
Creek, Waste House Run, Shenandoah Creek, Big Mine Run, Big
Run Creek, and Zerbe Run. In addition, five large deep mine
discharges enter Mahanoy Creek directly.
A.S shown in Figure 11 and 11-A, the stream's natural
alkalinity is overcome in its upper reaches. This is primarily
the result of an 800 Ibs/day net acidity contribution from
the East Barrier Gravity discharge, an intermittent pumped
discharge from the Springdale Tunnel which was discharging 4,200
Ibs/day net acidity on the one day during the survey when it
was found to be discharging, and a 10,5OO Ibs/day net acidity
contribution by Waste House Run which originates in
predominately pumped discharges.
Alkaline contributions by the Girardville #1 and
#2 Drainage Tunnels and Big Mine Run overcame the acid residual
and increased the stream's alkaline reserve to a peak of
approximately 15,000 Ibs/day at a sampling station downstream
from Big Mine Run. This reserve steadily decayed to a minimum
-------
-------
X - 66
of 1,000 Ibs/day at the mouth. Reductions in the alkaline
reserves occurred in response to contributions of acid and
to the oxidation of acid precursors contributed in the large
alkaline discharges. The largest acid contribution in the
portion of the Basin downstream from Big Mine Run was Zerbe
Run with its loading of 7,900 Ibs/day net acidity. Zerbe Run
received essentially all of its acid loading from the Trevorton
Tunnel discharge which contributed 12,000 Ibs/day net acidity.
As illustrated on Figure 11-A, concentrations of
mine drainage indicators vary greatly along the length of the
stream. Mean manganese concentrations range from 2.7 mg/1 to
20 mg/1; mean total iron concentrations range from 3 mg/1
to 110 mg/1. Sulfate concentrations range from 13050 mg/1
to 1,500 mg/1 throughout most of the length of the stream.
Coal silt discolors the stream and practically
chokes the channel in some reaches.
(2) Abatement and Control Measures
This Sub-Basin will be one of the most difficult in the
Anthracite Area in which to develop an effective pollution
abatement program because of the large area involved and the
large number and variety of quality of discharges. Since a
number of the major discharges originates in active mines,
treatment will probably play a major role in any pollution
abatement program. Mine drainage and conveyance facilities
-------
-------
X - 67
may be applicable in combining acid and alkaline discharges
prior to their entering the stream.
Treatment facilities such as ion exchange or
distillation would appear to be the most applicable in
reducing the polluting characteristics of the alkaline
discharges which have high concentrations of other mine
drainage constituents.
The magnitude and complexity of the work necessary in
the Sub-Basin suggest that it receive a low priority if only
a limited abatement program is possible in the Anthracite
Area.
g. Mahantango Creek
(1) Mine Drainage Sources and Their Effect on
Stream Quality
Mahantango Creek is an acid stream throughout
approximately 17 miles of its 32-mile length and contributes
approximately 3,500 Ibs/day net acidity to the Susquehanna River.
Essentially all of the mine drainage discharged in
the Mahantango Creek Sub-Basin comes to the surface in the
watershed of Rausch Creek, a small (10-square-mile drainage area)
tributary to Pine Creek, which is in turn a tributary of
Mahantango Creek.
Rausch Creek, with its acid loading of 5,000 Ibs/day
net acidity, exhausts the alkaline reserve of Pine Creek at
their confluence and renders it an acid stream for the
remaining 13 miles of its length. The quality of Pine Creek
-------
-------
X - 68
is slightly improved by water contributed by alkaline
tributaries, the largest of which is Deep Creek. Although
influenced by mine drainage originating in the Hans Yost
Creek watershed, Deep Creek contributes an alkaline loading
of about 70 Ibs/day net alkalinity.
As shown in Figure 12, the residual acid loading of
about 3,000 Ibs/day net acidity which reaches Mahantango Creek
easily overcomes its weak alkaline reserve and renders it
an acid stream to its mouth. The portion of Mahantango
Creek upstream from Pine Creek, although low in alkalinity,
is of generally good quality. A biological reconnaissance
in 1964 determined that this reach supported normal aquatic
life.
Upstream from Pine Creek, Mahantango Creek is almost
free of all mine drainage indicators and has, in fact,
surprisingly low mineral content. For example, its mean
sulfate concentration was 7 mg/1. Mean iron and manganese
concentrations were 0.4 mg/1 and 0, respectively. Downstream
from Pine Creek stream quality was relatively constant. Iron
and manganese concentrations were slightly less than 0.6 mg/1.
Mean net acidity ranged between 35 and 45 mg/1 (See Figure
12-A).
Mine drainage sources in the Mahantango Creek Sub-
Basin, although clustered in a relatively small area of the
-------
-------
X - 69
Rausch Creek watershed, are not, as is the case in some of the
sub-basins already discussed, collected by drainage tunnels.
Mine drainage is contributed to Rausch Creek through 22
known pumped discharges and 10 gravity discharges, the largest
of which are the Markson and Valley View discharges. These
two discharges were responsible for a total contribution of
1,600 Ibs/day net acidity during the sampling period.
(2) Abatement and Control Measures
Because of the large number of discharges and the
large percentage of active operations in the Sub-Basin,
abatement of pollution in the immediate future would
probably be accomplished most feasibly by treatment. A
treatment plant to treat the entire Rausch Creek flow would
have been called upon to treat approximately 5 mgd during
July 1965, the period of sampling in the Sub-Basin. This,
while admittedly a low-flow period, is an indication that
the treatment plant required would not be unusually large.
Because of the low acidity concentrations encountered and
the general low mineralization of the waters of the Sub-
Basin, treatment should be relatively inexpensive because
alkaline reagent needs would be modest and volumes of sludge
produced would be low, thereby minimizing the cost of sludge
disposal.
In view of the great length of stream influenced by
mine drainage originating in the Rausch Creek watershed, the
-------
-------
X - 70
relatively low expected cost of treatment, and the relative
ease of collecting sources of mine drainage for treatment,
this Sub-Basin should receive high priority in any limited
mine drainage pollution abatement program.
h. Wiconisco Creek
(1) Mine Drainage Sources and Their Effect on
Stream Quality
Wiconisco Creek is an alkaline stream throughout its
length and it contributed approximately 6,000 Ibs/day net
alkalinity to the Susquehanna River during a survey of the
Sub-Basin in 1965. Its quality is degraded by coal silt,
untreated sewage, and mine drainage indicators for at least
a portion of its length.
The major mine drainage sources located during the
survey were the Porter and Keefer Drainage Tunnels and
Bear Creek, which receives its mine drainage contribution
from two drainage tunnels. All of the major discharges are
located in the upper one-third of the stream's length. Figure
13 illustrates the effect on stream alkalinity reserves of
the contribution of 6,000 Ibs/day net alkalinity by Bear
Creek, which overcomes the effect of 900 Ibs/day net acidity
contributed by the Porter and Keefer Tunnels.
Although iron, manganese, and sulfate concentrations
in Wiconisco Creek are temporarily elevated by contributions
from Bear Creek, about 25 miles of stream downstream from
-------
X - 71
Bear Creek are of relatively good chemical quality (See
Figure 13-A), A summary of a biological survey of the stream
conducted in 1964 reports essentially no aquatic life upstream
from Bear Creek. Several species of clean water organisms
were collected at the mouth, indicating at least partial
recovery from the upstream pollution loadings.
Coal silt loadings in the stream were heavy. These
apparently originated in coal washeries in the Sub-Basin.
(2) Abatement and Control Measures
Because of the relatively small number, low volume,
and low strength of major discharges in this Sub-Basin,
abatement work could probably be accomplished at relatively
low cost. Lime neutralization and conveyance to combine acid
and alkaline discharges would appear to be applicable. As in
the Mahantango Creek watershed, low dissolved solids concentrations
in the major mine drainage sources suggest that treatment could
be accomplished with minimum utilization of costly sludge
disposal facilities. Inundation of the numerous deep mines
in the Sub-Basin would also probably prove beneficial. A
parallel program aimed at abating polluting sewage and coal
silt contributions to the streams should be undertaken.
i. Swatara Creek
(1) Mine Drainage Sources and Their Effect on
Stream Quality
Mine drainage renders Swatara Creek acid from its
headwaters to its confluence with Mill Run, a distance of
-------
-------
X - 72
approximately 24 miles. Streams found to be contributing
significant amounts of mine drainage to Swatara Creek during
a survey of the Sub-Basin in October and November 1965 were:
Panther Creek, Good Spring Creek, and Lower Rausch Creek.
As illustrated in Figure 14, Panther Creek, with its contribution
of only 13 Ibs/day net acidity, does not significantly affect
the alkalinity reserve of Swatara Creek. It does, however,
contribute other mine drainage indicators. Figure 14
illustrates how the alkalinity reserve of Swatara Creek was
affected by the contribution of 23000 Ibs/day net acidity from
Good Spring Creek. Most of the mine drainage in the Good
Spring Creek watershed originates in the watershed of Middle
Creek, a tributary which enters Good Spring Creek about
one mile from its mouth.
Lower Rausch Creek contributed a net acid loading
of 1,300 Ibs/day, most of which originated in three drainage
tunnel discharges.
As shown in Figure 14, the acid loading in Swatara
Creek reached a peak of 3,600 Ibs/day net acidity at Mile
589 immediately downstream from Lower Rausch Creek, and
then declined in response to the influence of alkaline
tributary streams.
As illustrated in Figure 14-A, stream quality in
the headwaters reach fluctuates rather weakly in response
to contributions by streams bearing mine drainage, Mean
-------
-------
X - 73
iron and manganese concentrations were about 3.5 mg/1.
Sulfate concentrations were normally less than 250 mg/1.
Downstream from Mile 60, concentrations of all mine drainage
indicators declined.
Considerable mining is presently being accomplished
in the Sub-Basin; however, most of the significant mine
drainage discharges observed during the survey originated
in abandoned mines. About 4,600 Ibs/day net acidity loading
on the stream during the survey could be attributed to four
deep mine discharges and the discharge of Middle Creek.
(2) Abatement and Control Measures
A portion of the Middle Creek watershed is presently
being studied by a consulting engineer under contract with
the Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River Basins Project to
determine alternate pollution abatement measures and associated
costs.
The Pennsylvania Department of Mines and Mineral
Industries is presently carrying out a reclamation program
in the Middle Creek watershed. Work recently completed
prevents a small tributary of Coal Run from entering the
underground mine workings and subsequently emerging as an
acid mine drainage discharge. Planned work will involve
reclamation of other areas disturbed by surface mining. When
completed, the project will probably substantially reduce
the mine drainage contribution to Middle Creek.
Since acid loadings on Swatara Creek are relatively
-------
-------
X - 74
Low, a minimum of reclamation work may at least restore
the alkalinity of Swatara Creek. Complete abatement of mine
drainage pollution will probably involve treatment of all
active mine discharges and certain inactive discharges which
are not amenable to abatement by other methods.
j. Schuylkill River
(1) Mine Drainage Sources and Their Effect on
Stream Quality
The Schuylkill River, a tributary of the Delaware
River, drains a large portion of the Southern Anthracite
Field.
Tributaries discharging significant amounts of
mine drainage to the Schuylkill River include Mill Creek,
West Branch Schuylkill River, and the Little Schuylkill
River.
The Schuylkill River is rendered acid at its head-
waters, apparently by runoff from refuse piles. Numerous
discharges from all source categories add to the acid
load upstream from the confluence with Mill Creek. Eleven
major discharges to this reach contributed 2,200 Ibs/day
net acidity on the day of sampling.
Mill Creek received drainage from four major discharges
and contributed approximately 11,000 Ibs/day net acidity on
the day of sampling.
The next downstream source of acid is the West
Branch Schuylkill River. The West Branch receives drainage
-------
-------
X - 75
from numerous mines of all source categories and contributed
approximately 4,500 Ibs/day net acidity on the day of
sampling, Most of the acid contributed by the West Branch
may be attributed to one drainage tunnel which had an acid
contribution of 6,900 Ibs/day on the day of sampling.
The Little Schuylkill River is rendered acid at its
source by several drainage tunnel discharges and receives
additional acid from Wabash Creek (2,000 Ibs/day) and
Panther Creek (6,000 Ibs/day). Although no samples were
collected downstream from the mine drainage sources, it
is believed that the quality of the Little Schuylkill
River is degraded by mine drainage throughout its length.
Nine major discharges contributing about 6,000 Ibs/day net
acidity were located in this watershed. Drainage originated
in both active and inactive mines.
Acid contributed in the headwaters coupled with the
acid contributed by Little Schuylkill River render the
Schuylkill River acid downstream to Reading.
Mine drainage discharges and the receiving streams
in this Sub-Basin are generally low in iron and manganese
concentrations. Net acidity and sulfate concentrations are
relatively high.
The quality of the Schuylkill River immediately
downstream from the West Branch Schuylkill River is representative
-------
-------
X - 76
of the quality of most of its upstream tributaries. On the
day of sampling the net acidity was 78 rag/1. Sulfate, iron,
and manganese concentrations were 590 mg/1, 2.5 mg/1, and 7.8
mg/1, respectively.
(2) Abatement and Control Measures
Because of the wide variety of sources and large
geographic areas involved, abatement of mine drainage pollution
by reclamation alone would probably not be feasible in this
Sub-Basin. Since mine drainage discharges in the Sub-Basin
have relatively low iron concentrations, treatment of major
discharges or in-stream treatment might be accomplished at
relatively low cost since the need for costly sludge handling
facilities would be minimal.
k. Lehigh River
(1) Mine Drainage Sources and Their Effect on
Stream Quality
Mine drainage contributed to the Lehigh River
originates in the eastern edge of the Eastern Middle and
Southern Anthracite Fields.
Streams contributing significant amounts of mine
drainage to the Lehigh River include; Sandy Run, Buck
Mountain Creek, Black Creek, and Nesquehoning Creek.
Essentially all the mine drainage in this Sub-Basin originates
in abandoned mines. Upstream from Sandy Run, the Lehigh River
is almost neutral with a very low mineral content. Sandy Run
-------
-------
X - 77
with its acid load of 6,000 Ibs/day net acidity on the day
of sampling overcomes the weak natural alkalinity reserve
and renders the Lehigh River acid. About 80 per cent of
the acid loading contributed by Sandy Run on the day of sampling
originated in the Owl Hole Drainage Tunnel discharge. Both
Sandy Run and Pond Creek, its major tributary, are rendered
acid from source to mouth by drainage from six major discharges,
three of which are drainage tunnels.
Buck Mountain Creek contributed about 1,900 Ibs/day
net acidity to the Lehigh River on the day of sampling.
Essentially all of the acid originated in the discharges from
two drainage tunnels. Buck Mountain #1 and Buck Mountain
#2. The tunnels discharge to the extreme headwaters of
Buck Mountain Creek and render it acid throughout its length.
Black Creek contributed to the Lehigh River approximately
5,000 Ibs/day net acidity, all of which originated in one
discharge, the Beaver Meadow (Quakake) Drainage Tunnel. The
discharge constitutes most of the flow of Quakake Creek,
a tributary of Black Creek. Both streams are rendered acid
by the discharge. Because of its large flow, Nesquehoning
Creek, although only weakly acid at its mouth (13 mg/1 on
the day of sampling) contributed a sizable net acidity of
1,200 Ibs/day to the Lehigh River. The Creek is acid
throughout its length and receives most of its acid load
from two drainage tunnels.
-------
-------
X - 78
Although no samples were collected downstream
from the acid tributaries on the day of sampling, other
available data indicate that the Lehigh River is severely
degraded by the mine drainage downstream to Northampton.
The quality of mine drainage discharges in this
Sub-Basin is similar to that in the Schuylkill River watershed.
The iron and manganese concentrations are relatively low,
while acidity and sulfate concentrations are high.
(2) Abatement and Control Measures
It is doubtful that reclamation measures alone will
be adequate to restore the quality of the Lehigh River
and its tributaries to an acceptable level. Treatment of all
nine major discharges to the Sub-Basin would involve treatment
of a total of only about 4 mgd under low flow conditions„
In view of the benefits to be derived from abating pollution
in 39 miles of the Lehigh River, a major river, treatment
would appear to be feasible. Because of the low iron
concentration in most of the discharges, sludge handling
costs associated with lime-neutralization-type treatment
plants should be moderate. In-stream neutralization might
also prove feasible.
-------
-------
X - 79
E. North Branch Potomac River
1. Introduction
The North Branch of the Potomac River rises in
Tucker County, West Virginia, and flows alternately north-
east and southeast in a zigzag pattern for about 98 miles
until it meets the South Branch to form the Potomac River
(See Figure 1-E).
The North Branch forms the boundary between Maryland
and West Virginia downstream from Kempton, Maryland. The
North Branch is bounded on the Maryland side by Garrett and
Allegany Counties and on the West Virginia side by Grant,
Mineral, and Hampshire Counties.
The coal-bearing area of the North Branch Basin lies
in a continuous trough-shaped valley about 80 miles long,
oriented in a northeast-southwest direction. The North Branch
flows northeast through the center of the Basin for almost
two-thirds of its length, then bends southeast at Westernport,
Maryland, and leaves the coal region. The northeast part of
the valley is drained by Georges Creek, which flows southwest
through the center of the valley to join the North Branch at
Westernport. The coal-bearing region southwest of Westernport
is known as the Upper Potomac Coal Fields. The coal region
drained by Georges Creek, Savage River, and two small tributaries
of Wills Creek is known as the Georges Creek Coal Field. Coal
is mined from the Pittsburgh, Tyson, Bakerstoxvn, Waynesburg,
-------
-------
X - 80
Freeport and Kittanning coal seams.
2. Economy
Cumberland, Maryland, is the largest population
center in the North Branch Basin and is the railroad and
industrial center of the area. Cumberland has been a
transportation center since the early 1800's when the
National Road (now U. S. 40) was built. During the 1820's
the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad and the Chesapeake and Ohio
Canal reached Cumberland. Today the area is also served
by the Western Maryland Railroad and the Pennsylvania
Railroad. In addition to the railroad3 three large industrial
plants, with employment ranging from 1,100 to 3S1005 are
located in the Cumberland area.
The remainder of the Basin is sparcely populated.
Principal towns are Frostburg, Barton, Lonaconing, Oakland,
and Luke-Westernport in Maryland and Piedmont and Keyser
in West Virginia. The West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company
mill located in the tri-town area of Luke-Westernport-
Piedmont employs 2,400 persons and is the largest "fine paper"
mill in the world.
Coal has been mined in the North Branch Basin for
about 150 years. A mine was operating before 1816 at
Eckhart, Maryland, in the Georges Creek Coal Field. Good
transportation facilities stimulated early development of
-------
-------
X - 81
North Branch coal fields, particularly the Georges Creek
Field.
Maryland's peak production of coal occurred in 1907,
earlier than any other major coal-producing state. Coal
production in the North Branch Basin for the 1961-1965
period was:
1961 1.0 million tons
1962 1.0 million tons
1963 1.3 million tons
1964 2.2 million tons
1965 3.3 million tons
The 1965 North Branch production amounted to 0.65 per cent
of national production. About 2.2 million tons were mined
in West Virginia (Upper Potomac Field) and 1.1 million tons
in Maryland. Of the 1965 Maryland production, 624,000 tons
were mined from the Upper Potomac Field. The Upper Potomac
Field accounted for 85 per cent of the 1965 North Branch
Basin coal production, and the West Virginia part of the Upper
Potomac Field made up the bulk of the recent increases. In
1961 and 1962, Maryland accounted for about 75 per cent of
the coal produced in the North Branch Basin; in 1965
Maryland accounted for only 33 per cent. While production
for the entire North Branch Basin increased 330 per cent from
1961 to 1965, Maryland production increased only 60 per cent.
-------
-------
X - 82
These increases are probably a result of the general U. S.
economic upturn during these years, and are not indications
of the long-term trend. However, they are significant in
terms of present water quality.
Output per man increased three times as fast in
Maryland during 1961-1965 as in the U. S. and the adjacent
states; and in 1965 the output per man was much greater in the
Maryland Upper Potomac Field than in the Georges Creek Field.
The increased output was a result of new explorations and
investment in new equipment and was also experienced in the
West Virginia Upper Potomac Field.
Because of the increased output per man, mining
employment in the North Branch Basin did not increase in
proportion to production during 1961-1965. Employment for
these years was:
1961 617
1962 567
1963 631
1964 784
1965 851
Of the 1965 employment, 373 were employed in Maryland and
478 in West Virginia. The figures include not only miners
but all mine-associated employees.
The average value of Maryland coal in 1965 was $3.63
per ton f.o.b. mine, below the average U. S. price of $4.44
-------
-------
X - 83
and the Pennsylvania (including anthracite) and West Virginia
values of $5.07 and $4.87, respectively. Coal values have been
stable since 1950. The average U. S. value f.o.b. mine
fluctuated within a range of 69C per ton from 1950 to 1965.
West Virginia Upper Potomac Field values were probably comparable,
This makes the 1965 North Branch Basin 1965 production worth
about $12 million, or 0.53 per cent of the value of all U. S.
coal mined in 1965.
The West Virginia Upper Potomac 1965 production would
have been worth $8 million, about 1 per cent of the total value
of the West Virginia coal production. The Maryland 1965
production of $4 million was about three ten-thousandths of
1 per cent of the gross Maryland state product, and about 5
per cent of the total value of the mineral industry in
Maryland.
3. Sub-Basin Description
During a sampling program conducted by the Chesapeake
Bay-Susquehanna River Basins Project personnel in August and
October 1966 and April 1967, the North Branch of the Potomac
River was acid as a result of coal mine drainage from its
source to Luke, Maryland. Until recently, spent process lime
discharged by the West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company's Luke
mill neutralized the acid contributed upstream; but the lime
is no longer discharged and acid conditions will extend further
downstream in the future.
-------
-------
X - 84
Sampling by the Maryland Department of Water Resources
(MDWR) in April, July, and November 1966 and a period of
continuous monitoring by MDWR in April 1967 revealed similar
conditions. This report is based partly on the MDWR data.
The data are the result of year-round sampling
programs rather than low-flow surveys. They do, however,
represent water quality at below average and relatively
uniform flow conditions. In the few cases where samples
were taken at high-flow conditions; the data were not
used in computations. The highest sampling-time flows used
in computations ranged from 25 to 50 per cent of the mean
flows of record at gaging stations in the area, except for one
sampling-time flow at Steyer, which exceeded the mean flow of
record by 20 per cent.
The acid load at high flows was several times the load
computed at below average flow conditions, although the high
flow acid concentrations were always less than the low flow
concentrations. There are acid slugs at high-flow conditions,
probably as a result of a washout of acid accumulated in
surface and sub-surface impoundments.
From its source to the area of Westernport, Maryland,
where it leaves the coal region, the North Branch receives
acid mine drainage from at least eleven tributaries (See Figure
1-E). Of these tributaries, Elk Run, Laurel Run, and Abram
Creek contributed 65 per cent of the total measured net acidity
load in the North Branch Basin.
-------
-------
X - 85
Eighty-one per cent of the total net acidity measured
in the stream originated in the Upper Potomac Coal Field, 2
per cent in the Georges Creek Field, and 17 per cent was
unaccounted. Fifty-seven per cent of the total measured net
acidity originated in the headwaters above the USGS gage
at Steyer, Maryland. West Virginia sources contributed 63
per cent of the total measured acid load in the North Branch
Basin. Maryland tributaries added 20 per cent.
In 1966, a total of 130 miles of stream in the North
Branch Basin was continuously polluted by mine drainage, and
an additional 30 to 40 miles were mildly or intermittently
affected. Most of these streams carried a net acid load.
There are few sources of natural alkalinity in the region.
Shales and sandstones containing coals and fire clays dominate
the geology. There is only one limestone stratum in the North
Branch Basin, and that lies in the Georges Creek watershed.
Biological sampling throughout the North Branch
Basin revealed, in general, only sparse populations of acid-
tolerant benthic organisms. In several cases, no benthic
life could be found. These conditions are attributed to mine
drainage pollution. Except in Georges Creek watershed, sewage
pollution is not a significant problem, and there are no
industrial discharges upstream from Luke,
4. Mine Drainage Sources and Their Effect on Stream
Quality
-------
-------
X - 86
A detailed discussion of the mine drainage sources
in the North Branch Basin and their effect on stream quality
follows:
a. North Branch Headwaters to Steyer, Maryland
The North Branch was sampled at Kempton, Maryland,
approximately two miles downstream from its source. As shown
in Figure 15, at Kempton the North Branch discharged 400 Ibs/day
net acidity, less than 1 per cent of the net acidity
contributed in the Sub-Basin. Fourteen miles downstream
from Kempton, at Steyer, Maryland, the net acidity load had
increased to 52,000 Ibs/day. The acidity measured at Steyer
was 82 per cent of the total net acidity measured in the
North Branch. The three tributaries discussed below discharged
36,000 Ibs/day to the North Branch in this reach.
, (1) Elk Run
Elk Run, a minor tributary in terms of drainage area,
contributes more net acidity to the North Branch than any
other tributary. At its confluence with the North Branch9
Elk Run had a pH of 2.8, a mean net acidity concentration
of 1,900 mg/1, a mean sulfate concentration of 11,000 mg/1
and a mean total iron concentration of 3,500 mg/1. The
measured flows ranged between 1.7 and 3.3 cfs, but the enormous
acid concentration resulted in a mean contribution of 24,000
* Ibs/day net acidity to the North Branch. This load represents
1
1
-------
-------
X - 87
38 per cent of the total measured net acidity in the North
Branch. Elk Run's streambed was colored a bright orange, a
purplish brick-red, and green (algae) and was covered with
a crusted sediment more than a foot thick in many places. The
Elk Run sampling station lies a few hundred yards downstream
from a coalyard and mines operated by the Alpine Coal
Company.
Three water samples collected at the same site by the
West Virginia Division of Water Resources indicate that acid
concentrations were roughly an order of magnitude lower than
present concentrations as late as May 1966. Elk Run1 acid
load is due principally to recent mining operations.
(2) Laurel Run
Laurel Run discharged 8,900 Ibs/day net acidity to
the North Branch, 14 per cent of the total measured net acid
load. Although there are strip mines in the watershed,
most of the mine drainage originates in an abandoned deep
mine near Kempton. Much of the nine is in West Virginia.
(3) Buffalo Creek
Buffalo Creek discharged 2,900 Ibs/day net acidity
to the North Branch, 5 per cent of the total measured net
acid load in the North Branch Basin. Samples were taken a
few hundred feet above the confluence with the North Branch at
Bayard, West Virginia. The North Branch Coal Company yard is
-------
-------
X - 88
located upstream. Buffalo Creek also receives untreated
sewage from Bayard. Except for Georges Creek, this is the
only case of sewage pollution in the waters studied.
b. North Branch - Steyer, Marylands to Kitzmiller9
Maryland
Thirteen miles downstream from Steyer, at Kitzmiller5
Maryland, the acid load in the North Branch was 64,000 Ibs/day
net acidity, an increase of 12,000 Ibs/day over the load at
Steyer. The acid load at Kitzmiller equals the total net
acidity measured in the North Branch. Below Kitzmiller the
net acidity contributions are small and are balanced by
natural contributions of net alkalinity. The three tributaries
discharging net acidity to the North Branch in this reach are:
Stony River (1,600 Ibs/day), Wolfden Run (120 Ibs/day), and
Abram Creek (8,400 Ibs/day).
(1) Stony River
The quality of Stony River is very mildly influenced
by mine drainage near Mount Storm, West Virginia, about 5
miles above its confluence with the North Branch. At Mount
Storm the river supports trout. The only known contribution
of mine drainage to Stony River is from Laurel Run, a small
intermittently polluted tributary several miles upstream.
Stony River itself does not flow through coal-bearing areas.
(2) Abram Creek
-------
-------
X - 89
The 8,400 Ibs/day acidity contributed to the
North Branch by Abram Creek is 13 per cent of the total
measured net acidity in the North Branch Basin. The major
part of the mine drainage in Abram Creek originates in the
headwaters at Bismark, West Virginia. The net acidity load
at this point was 3,800 Ibs/day. Downstream, at Mt. Pisgah,
West Virginia, Abram Creek carried 9,000 Ibs/day net acidity,
a load substantially equal to that discharged to the North
Branch. Two tributaries, Glade Run and Emory Creek, discharged
an estimated total of 2,000 Ibs/day net acidity below Mt. Pisgah,
but some neutralization occurs before the water reaches the
North Branch.
c. North Branch - Kitzmiller, Maryland, to Beryl,
West Virginia
At Beryl, West Virginia, fourteen miles downstream from
Kitzmiller, Maryland, the North Branch carried 62,500 Ibs/day
net acidity, a decrease of 1,500 Ibs/day from the acidity load-
ing at Kitzmiller. Measured contributions of net acidity in the
Kitzmiller-Beryl reach amounted to 4,200 Ibs/day, indicating
that neutralization occurs in this reach. The North Branch is
grossly polluted at Kitzmiller. Measured pH values were less
than 3.5 and benthic sampling revealed no organisms. The four
tributaries discharging net acidity to the North Branch between
Kitzmiller and Beryl are:
(1) Three Forks Run
-------
X - 90
Three Forks Run discharged 1,900 Ibs/day net acidity
to the North Branch, 3 per cent of the total measured net
acidity load in the North Branch Basin. It is grossly
polluted by runoff from mines and possibly from spoil piles
in the watershed. In August 1966, a pH of 1.8 was measured
in Three Forks Run.
(2) Deep Run
Deep Run discharged an insignificant net acidity load
to the North Branch, less than 1 per cent of the total
measured net acidity in the North Branch Basin. Benthic
sampling indicated sparse populations of clean-water organisms.
Deep Run is mildly polluted by mine drainage.
(3) Elklick Run
Elklick Run was sampled once, during April 1967,
just above its confluence with the North Branch. The stream
lies in Maryland about a mile downstream from Shaw, West
Virginia. Elklick Run contributed 600 Ibs/day net acidity to
the North Branch, about 1 per cent of the total measured load
in the watershed.
(4) Piney Swamp Run
Piney Swamp Run contributed 2,500 Ibs/day net acidity
to the North Branch, or 4 per cent of the total measured net
acidity in the watershed. Samples were taken at Hampshire, West
Virginia, a few hundred feet above the confluence with the
North Branch. The Hampshire station lies at the foot of an
-------
-------
X - 91
active mining area operated by Masteller Coal Company.
Above these operations, the flow in Piney Swamp Run is
only about 15 per cent of the flow at the mouth and stream
quality is considerably better than at Hampshire.
d. North Branch - Beryl, West Virginia to
Cumberland, Maryland
Until recently, spent process lime discharged
from the West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company mill at Luke,
one-half mile downstream from Beryl, neutralized the acid
load in the North Branch. Since late 1966, due to in-plant
changes, this spent lime has been reprocessed within the
plant. As a result, the acidity that originates upstream
from the mill is no longer completely neutralized. Other
waste discharges by the West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company
mill reduce the acidity considerably. These effects have
become more significant since the lime discharge was stopped.
As a result of many years of lime discharge, the riverbed,
during the most recent survey, was covered by a lime-gypsum
sludge with considerable neutralizing capacity. Floods
in the spring of 1967 probably washed out much of the
sludge, but data are not available to indicate whether the
river has reached equilibrium with the bottom or the extent
to which acid conditions have moved downstream. Studies
are continuing to determine the effects of mine drainage
below Luke. Savage River and Georges Creek, the two
-------
-------
X - 92
tributaries in the Luke-Piedmont-Westernport area, exert
minor effects in comparison to the mill. Tributary and mill
effects are discussed below in the order in which they occur:
(1) Savage River
The Savage River enters the North Branch a few
hundred feet below the Beryl sampling station. The quality
of the Savage River is mildly degraded by mine drainage in
a one-mile reach from its mouth to Aaron Run. In this reach,
Savage River maintains about 5 mg/1 net alkalinity. This
results in a discharge of 1,600 Ibs/day net alkalinity, which
is not adequate to appreciably reduce the net acidity load in
the North Branch although some reduction in acid concentration
occur by dilution. The Savage River is regulated to maintain
a minimum flow of 93 cfs in the North Branch at Luke,
Aaron Run, the only contributor of mine drainage to Savage
River, is badly polluted. Upstream from Aaron Run, the water
in Savage River is of excellent quality.
(2) West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company
The West Virginia Company withdraws more than 20 mgd
of process water from the North Branch at Luke. This reduces
the acid load by about 16,000 Ibs/day or about 25 per cent.
Waste is returned downstream at Westernport, except for boiler
house3 evaporator, and flyash discharges at Luke. These discharges
have some neutralizing effect, but will be discontinued soon.
-------
-------
93
During April 1967, the Maryland Department of Water
Resources monitored the pH of the North Branch below the West
Virginia Pulp and Paper Company mill. The pH alternated
between 3.5 and 4.5, depending presumably on intermittent
discharges of alkaline waste. After the waste discharges
are stopped, the pH will probably not rise above 4.0.
(3) Georges Creek
Georges Creek, which enters the North Branch at
i
*' Westernport, Maryland, contributes 1S100 Ibs/day net acidity,
**! or 2 per cent of the total measured net acidity in the North
Branch Basin. Most of the acidity in Georges Creek enters
| directly from deep mines which line the sides of the valley.
Georges Creek is badly polluted by a combination of mine
drainage and sewage.
(4) Upper Potomac River Commission Waste
Treatment Facility
This waste treatment plant is located on.the down-
stream side of Westernport, Maryland, 4^ miles below Beryl.
About 95 per cent of the plant's load consists of process
wastes from the West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company Luke
mill. The UPRC plant discharges an average of 20 mgd, which
contributes a load of 17,000 Ibs/day net alkalinity to the
North Branch. This is equivalent to 27 per cent of the total
measured net acidity in the North Branch Basin. Three miles
downstream from the UPRC plant, at Keyser, West Virginia. pH
-------
-------
X - 94
values between 6 and 7 were observed in the North Branch early
in 1967.
(5) Wills Creek
Wills Creek, which enters the North Branch in downtown
Cumberland, Maryland, does not contribute acidity to the
North Branch, although mine drainage residual effects (high
hardness and sulfate concentrations) are apparent in chemical
data. Braddock Run and Jennings Run, tributaries which enter
Wills Creek from the Georges Creek Coal Field to the wests
are degraded by mine drainage. Braddock Run receives the
discharge from the Hoffman Tunnel3 a drainage tunnel bored in
the early 1900ss to drain deep mines in Georges Creek Basin.
At Cumberland9 Maryland, high hardness and sulfate
concentrations are apparent in North Branch chemical data,,
but acid conditions have not been observed.
5. Abatement and Control Measures
The North Branch Potomac River mine drainage sampling
program xvas a stream sampling program designed to isolate
tributary basins which contribute large amounts of acid to
the North Branch. No program was undertaken to sample mine
effluents. Because individual contributors are not yet known,
an estimate of abatement costs is not possible.
The problem watersheds of Elk Run, Laurel Run, and
Abram Creek contribute only 65 per cent of the total measured
net acidity load. Completely eliminating these acid loads
-------
-------
X - 95
probably would not raise the pH of the North Branch above
6.0.
The largest contributions of acid to the North
Branch Sub-Basin come from areas in which there are active
mines. The proportion from active mines is believed to be
significant.
Field work will be continued by the Project and
State agencies to locate and characterize mine drainage discharges,
-------
-------
XI - 1
XI. ABATEMENT COSTS
The major sources of mine drainage pollution in most of
the Study Area have been located as the result of studies con<=
ducted by the Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River Basins Project,
Although sources of mine drainage pollution have been pin-
pointed and their flow and quality determined under one flow
condition, data are not available to permit precise estimation
of the cost of abating pollution under all flow conditions in
each sub-basin influenced by mine drainage.
As previously noted, the least expensive method of
abating mine drainage pollution in a given sub=»basin slight
involve any combination of the many abatement measures
available. Determination of the most appropriate combination
of abatement measures and their associated costs would involve
detailed engineering studies beyond the scope of Project
activities.
To obtain an estimate of the order of magnitude of the
cost of mine drainage pollution abatement in the Study Area,
two separate approaches were ta&ens (1) Estimation of the cost
of surface reclamation in areas disturbed by mining and (2)
Estimation of the cost of Hrne neutralization treatment of
major acid contributions located during periods of lew flow.
Although the first approach would theoretically abate pollution,
a realistic appraisal indicates a conservative estimate of the
-------
-------
XI - 2
cost of mine drainage abatement would "be the sum of the two
approaches. This conclusion is "based on the assumption that
mine drainage discharges located to date during the low-flow
periods under v;hich field activities are carried out represent
the maximum annual residual mine drainage loading in each sub-
basin after all feasible land reclamation measures are applied„
The cost of reclamation of land disturbed by surface
mining is estimated based upon average reclamation costs of
$500/acre for the Bituminous Area and $2,500/acre for the
Anthracite Area. Data on area disturbed in the Anthracite
Fields are based on field reconnaissance and the measurement
of the area indicated as disturbed on recent UoS^GoSo maps.
Data on area disturbed in the Bituminous Fields are based on
measurement of areas indicated as disturbed on UoSoGoS,, maps,
some of which were surveyed more than 30 years ago0 Additional
work is planned by the Project and cooperating agencies to more
accurately determine the area disturbed in the Bituminous Fields,
Table 3 includes a tatnilation of the area disturbed by
mining and the estimated reclamation cost for the various
counties of the five major areas considered in the Pennsylvania
section of the Project area. No information is available for
the Potomac River Basin portion of the Study Are®5 however, the
disturbed area is not "believed to be significant when compared
to that studied in Pennsylvania,,
-------
-------
XI ~ 3
The cost of lime neutralization of major acid contrite
utors in the Study Area has been estimated "by sub^basin^ Major
discharges to each sub-basin were identified and the costs of
lime neutralization facilities to treat the individual discharges
•were estimated. In each sub-basin, an effort was made to include
sufficient discharges in which the total net acidity contribution
was greater than the maximum acid loading measured in the stream,,
The capital cost of individual treatment plants was
estimated with the aid of curves developed by Gannett, Fleming,
Corddry and Carpenter, Inc,, Consulting Engineers, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania,, The curves were based upon preliminary designs of
approximately 30 lime neutralization type mine drainage treatment
plants of varying sizes. The preliminary cost estimate was made
by the Consultant for each treatment plant on the basis of
reinforced concrete units and sludge disposal by means of vacuum
filtration and landfill disposal„ None of the treatment facil-
ities used to develop the curves has been built and the design
estimate of costs has not been verified,, It is believed, how=>
ever, that the precision of the cost estimates determined from
the curves falls well "within the precision of the mine drainage
source data available and the estimate of costs can be considered
to be valid„
Available estimates of the cost of operation of lime
neutralization mine drainage treatment facilities are based on
-------
-------
XI •= 4
very little actual experience. Most estimates vary between
$0.30/1,000 gallons and $1030/1,000 gallons. Estimates of mine
drainage pollution abatement costs developed herein include the
cost of operation of the treatment facilities for 10 years at
the two extremes of treatment cost, $0030/1,000 gallons and
$1.30/1,000 gallons. Table 2 lists estimates of the total
costs of construction and 10 years of operating the needed
treatment facilities in each major division of the Study Area.
Table 3 lists the total estimated cost of reclamation
f and treatment in each major division of the Study Area in
Pennsylvania.
I The total estimated costs for construction and 10 years
§ - of operation of a treatment plant range frem $258 million to
$983 million, depending upon which one of the two extremes in
treatment cost is applied. The estimated reclamation cost is
$273 million. The total estimated expenditure required to
abate and control mine drainage pollution in the Study Area
over a 10-year period therefore ranges from $531 million to
$1.2 billion. It should be noted that operating costs
constitute a large percentage of the treatment costs 0
-------
-------
REFERENCES
1. Draft Report to District Engineer, U. S. Army Engineer
District, Baltimore, Maryland, August 17, 1966
2. Lorenzs Walter C., Mineral Industry Water Requirements
and Waste Water in the Susqueha'nna River Basin. U« S.
Bureau of Mines, 1966, 116 pp
3. Reese, J. F« and J. D. Sisler, Bituminous Coal Fields
in Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Topographic and Geologic
Survey Bulletin MG pt 3, Harrisburgs Pennsylvania,
1928, 153 pp
4. Central Pennsylvania Coal Producers Association Estimate
for January 1963
5. Wessel3 William F., Mineral Resources in the Susquehanna
River Basin9 Uo S. Bureau of Mines, 1966, 85 pp
6. Wessel, William F., Donald J. Frendzel, and Gabriel
F. Cazells Mineral Industry Economics in the Susquehanna
River Basin, U. S. Bureau of Mines,, 19643 90 pp
1, Thomson. Rober D., Private Communications December 1966
-------
-------
W
r •)
i^j
*f. to
Z; K
••"** C/5
(->/ s*1
d (3
'jj ei
S W
t-j ;>
^ ji
r-! rj
^
H <
W -f
£UJ
< Q
W
Cii £3
r j ^f.
*3
2:
O -
£ >
I—* Q£
C 1
[d •*••
2: M
>— ^
w cr
>
o <
to w
O :*
U <
R Ri
J2 ^
5 ^
•« ""*
W
3 ttf d
1- ., ••-.(
4-1 >< -P1
U) O
C O I-
O *—i 1s
U C.
«•• o
•-i 3
4-J pj
O
V» 4_>
— *1 IP
•O
M
C
•r-t
tO
CD
a
o
j_,
cd
•
O
r— 4
SLW
" O
0
«
1-t
cC
*•*
a)
fi
O
i— *
3
<
-a
u
•— < t .
co- C
C
3 -
t
O cfl
co O
o' o
O
o
®J -.
1 — 1
O cd
CO O
—> O
- c
o
0 0
0 U
T3 cd
cd O
O -*
' —
^
O «4-l
— i CJ
fn ^
O f,
O
• Ul
O 'r-l
S5 Q
C
•H
rt
W
i
J2
_3
C/5
-t
-co
9
in
00
cr>
O
O
CM
CO
s
r-
O
en
. J*
o'
m
•^
CM
O
8
m
ro
in
d
—i
,—4
r-H
171
C
C
*-4 Q
3J O
•3 wC V-1 »M
O" CJ *M 4J 0]
C in ^/ CU
Cj C1 CL ^G
M C2 3 O
cc
ll J
Q"'
CM
a^
o"
O
i — 1
CO
o
o"
N
.-H
m
o"
o
o"
CN
CN
d
1
1
1
o
t— 4
r-4
y^
0)
Q)
U
u
4J
in
Co
^C
u
CM
».-, » •*• • » _ -^
.m -3" •* " ^ JfN ^ -- -r^.
' * •''"T'^ i ,.^~
' c * ' - """ ' -t ^.J*
- * , - . ' "" ' - -' .'^
" '" " **' "'* " fc-^SB
- ,<. •-;- v-r'.'-.-4?.;-""^
o o '-. • -; o .- -;L. , 4c, , ,v%a
CM CO CO . - '-CO -*fSpf
m in " •' r^ • ' -" in *§
c0-/-:," Vj«^3
- = .'- >^S"j**-S^^@
'" ' if-> '" '-'-; ~ *' • "'^"^?^^
- c « " ' ^"S" r^ ' " jci
r»> ^» - ~w* ^'*«^E '*"vfe- *i7 ^r*
, - • ~^S» - *^*i-"^'^-1'^-
O O O •"' " r^O • •"''•
CM ro r~ " " ; ^
10 • t) *W •
M J^ *— 4 ^ ^ ^4 ^ _X
gj cJOCjcy as e2oa)
T3 CU Cu CO.
C • 0 »- -« - S- !-
< SE *J u u 5: U U
.
co -J m sc
^-i cr. r-. ,c
o^ . — i •— <
co c^ in co
in en
O CO CM CM
0 O O C
§000
O 0 C
— « O co O
o^ O r^ in
CO CO c~
•"^
CJ\ Cf CO O
-> r-i
n
cc
*-i c ^:
[_) -rJ C)
C 0
C C C 1-
O J3 3 U
c i rf
c e CD
^ C; ^ »— i
x; c ,-i 4J
J> C O -u
O •'-^ C i1
A! CO U u;
r^- CQ cr> o
'-
• — •
^_
in
CO
O
c*
CM
CM
CM
^»
C7>
O
CM
CM
O
C7>
OJ
•«^
O
C
G~\
^
CO
\o
Ci
,»(
OC
cS
*o
^-1
to
CO
•
;z
^
OC
1 -
CM
CM
CC
00
f^
o
co
0^
in
CM
«
C7>
m
m
o~>
CM
00
O>
in
CM
0
cr
•"*
8
CM
CO
*-*
fO
en
CNi
OC
I — ,
oc
_,
C3
o
f— «
»D
r3
CO
-------
-------
0^1 ^ "
t - o
j- C co- O
3 « c ^ c
i >• '£
". cc
- C >~
~ ,— < c; *~*
r^. c C C
c c
'^J & —'
— •{ a
e — •
jj ••-( o ta
cS u ro O
a. c;
>- i- C C
o ~
AJ
~! o —
O O rd
ro O
K •
C — O
'r* W- C
<-J O
c —>
o.
C — '
O cc
--J CO O
rt •
DOC
c: co- 0
C O
*->
u: j->
C o
O O
c_) CJ
,_,
"O " CO
•- r O
C C ~-x
<£ , ; :^.
3 y-
G IH
' — ' x-
U- -
"4-1
O JS
'J
^oo _ -o-
— I xC "— '
— i r-^ ,' in
r^ co C
CN CM CO
ro ro m
»— 4
C C O
ro oo cr*
c
C "^ ^
. - »
~> r~ v— c**i
vD
r-- CM CJ — — ' in
CM CS! — i CS CM
o
O O C cr — C
O \£) ^-J CO CM ("1
ro o m oo oo CM
COO C
ro CM cc co G> co
. . .
OO CM ,-, cr oc in
CM
\
O O C cr — O
»*D vC •—* fO CN CO
ro CT^ in OC co CN
*
CO CN 00 CO G> n
oo CN — H a^ cc m
......
O CM _. ^i — C
C ^0 —
C 00
•— ' r^
in CM
co cr
CM
C O
OC r~-
C vC
in CM
ro cr
•
C CM
oo r-
O vC
C C
CM cr
CM —i
•
^"* •
O O
C 0
*•
^J-
—. in
.
^-* CT^
CM v£
00
_
CO
-3"
CM
•^
£
r^
, — ,
vt
00
•J1
cfl
c
>-.
^
o
i-J
C!
CO
c
c
C
<0
«C
C
cp
c",
X.
O
cr
C
C
CJ
*c
Oi
3
cr
££
tj
Q,
D.
O
u
03
L
U
C
'j,
rj
4-J
C
•r->
__^'
C
G
r
"?'•
O
C
(C
J--
c
ac
c:
cc
A-J
C
fj
J^
c-:I
cq
?-•1
'pl
cr
en
cr.
c
D
v.
-------
-------
^ *-t i~
3 cr o
5- 5, -i-l
.u) £>- J-J
c c i-
O — ' C
u t-
o O
— i D
4_» CX{
C
vr t—
C
•Si ^-
• —
tt
O C_
ro
• C
C, O
c
f- IGJ —
O "r
CO o
4-J
;/
O
u
-•^
—•1 w
c
>-. -H
CC ^-*
a ca
^ j«
Cj
c a
"* Ol
4J
-- U
->\ C
U
CX
(2
•1-1
.u
O
»-.
o
a
c
r-4
«
3
C
C
<
—i O
—
,_,
O cj
CO Q
•
0 0
- o
c
& -
•— *
C cd
ro o
•
•—t Q
<0- O
c
s^ *~-*
*-H
C o;
CO QJ
.
C 0
<0- C
o
a -•
J-
I 4-J
C if.
o c
~
•c -c CD
•* r, O
S. O -v.
< .-J =Jfc
N^>
^-X
2i
O 4-4
St.. •— -
U-i
O f.
o
L
C -H
•z. c
c
•r^
y
td
Ci-
^
CN —
r^* cj*
t^ CO
MD —
o^
ro
CM
c^ o
• — 1 »-i
0 O
*
•H
1- Cf
> ~ H j "C
cc -H a CB c
.C .£-• -0 K (0
CL C 0 3 }-
^ ^ c/i w o o
^j CC r
C/!, j C- £
?
c - • o
r-- ^-4 CM 4_J
Li
00
U-(
0)
C if--i
&0 -O
(/; Ji
T3 cc
P^» CO
U) >-
1- to X
c3 C ' — •
,.. , .^ 1 1
— EC
O -H 0
C-3 *^^ C'
a- c
<4- ^ >_
O cv. o.
U C J-<
C 0 C
o c
•rt X
c. a
, — 1 .J *-(
•r- rj C
"•^ d" ^^
C C \ **+* is
o a, i -| * ?
-------
-------
v" tr —<
, £ 1- O 03
,j\ cd c; fi O
». .^ CC — ' ~ C
L/- J-" O O <> u: M Q O
!.\i O &v coj -H
'** u u-i
Jj| _ ^ °
T2>*' 03 e t/: — i
-*Bi -u >- C O 05
jjj* o i o ri u
' *P§ ' ' £— < C t-t •
'5JI ;-\ CD -H O C
•iiSb H •— i f> C
•**&! -H o
--g5.fi s ® -1
11}
If § £o«
.-^ -1-4 o) cd ro d
a> 4-1 ^< •— * •
co cc •— • «—• o
N C O O
cp ~< >< n o
ZH *-* (SJ ' — '
>-< cC C U-l
CO ^ Ol O
O
U W 4J -H •
> O! u: i-< O O
Hi—1 S O i- ' O
2: CS ^ U -H O
y -^ x e> — i
^_, ki^
W oi
H <£ ^
< 3: C f.
CC < o 0 M
^ *-J *H C fd
W 4J O — •
Z: O CO J-J -H — 1
O E ". — i 0
t-i O ctf O --i P
fc-i 25 — < U -rt
to < u E «*-i
*— * cu s^-' o
rl K (£
-'• O W
,J CM >
:•-'. i-l
< W CC
H c; -O
-- cd
< -< »-• 3 Oi
cf, jn o •*-* j-t
O W <; y;
£ 00
Q >^
W <
55 « ^
2 W iJ
»-< t^ c
H < 3
CO W O
W PLI CJ
<
CO
w
nc
0
cd
f
p-< O OJ CN .-< ^-i
CO l— 1
-f-f
c;
rd
c
c
c!
J=
QJ
3
cr
u:
3
CO
-C
o
c
coj
£
j_j
-'
vO
OC
CN
m
\o
•
00
cxi
*~"
CM
oo
eo
r-
CM
'
es
oo
•
00
r>
oo o "~> CM in
cr« ^. _ o r-
vf
vc C C O c
0 _
C
o
*c
•o ao
1- C C
O »- O V-
M -H U U
t: — < 3 3
cc cc P- sr
c
-H
(/
cd
ca
i-
— 0,1
a >
*-• -r-l
G V,
H
J) S
3 ctfj
f: — < j
r- 1
*~ 1
CM m in ^- _, Q
O CM \O ^C ^-i 00
"~^ r\j
O O O u~i ^t O
CO O vO r-i c
Sf M^ \C iA
.'. cC •-<
cd OK
C2 !^
— < r
C 1- C
J-1 0 t. C
O > u to
f— ' -rH -^ X"
• C£ 0 3,
_n p- ; .-
•>- rv. _.
3 cr. - cr
c/;- yl jr. .
C] t^j 3
-------
-------
1
u •— <
t-> o n
E cc co o
nj — •
w •—!•--' O
00 O G
±J O C5 C
0 in — <
C P-< «*••
u o
t^
,-H CQ V) •— *
co a c c < o en o
Q 1 i-l •
H C — i O O
Oj r-1 O
t-1 -H O
:E <3> — i
C OJ «-i
O U O 03
t-i cc eg co o
U V* r- 4 •
cs q) — • — < O
N <8 O Vt- O
11 >< a o
^-^ ^2J r-M
cc C *w
W. o
.u 1-1
o u. — > O C
E O r-4 •<
>H C It
'-^ JJ O — i
T3 C3 *-> -<-i •-<
c g i/. -t O
3 rt O — < Q
c — . U v-j
"*^ O ' Q>, ^W
xj d) ^-* O
c c£
^0
v^
co -a
^-^ cu
•.^ oj ja
.- CJ l-i
t: ^ 3 cd
< O 4J 4/
H < u) >-
« — T* *£
O
»
^
£) ~~
•^ CM
O
co
ir^
csi
*-»
C^l
00
ff>
1
\
vc en c co
t^.
ITl
1 ^
00 Sf
lT\ CM CM -J-
\D CT> (T*
* •* M
vo ^o r^
xO •— ' --"
c
m
oo
o
CM
•a
>- c
*J •— ' CC
C >~~ \~ — • C • -*
D "C CU »— t C *-^
O 4! •£> •>-* CO if
O3cE.*.c ^
COCO— 'O C — '
— f Ci-J.CP'sIjO O>>
.u tcjcujjacrc j^3
_
4J tcjcujJDcrc ^-_-
C J3N!~.CUJ>, ^^:
o cii^oo^cd cACv
u jj^stnws ocn
C
•H
'J- *^.
rt «?»t
cc e
•H C
^ U". -H
CJ cO t
> pa cj
•e -H «
'J C£ J-
-^ CJ V-i
SI Cj P> 2,
C T- 1 -^ ^. >
C CJ Ci (3 -H
Cd -*-1 AJ £ii
rf: O a, _o
Cu f— t ^~t H O
3 I 1C * c?
cr xi 3 J2 e
' 3 C DO
3 c/: — w; wi
( C/"> C O i
1 o! a,!
,
CO
4_j
fX
T3
C
CS
i-
O
|
I *
3
c^
•--(
ffl
s
C C C3
•r-l -^
y. u. ?-,
cJ c — •
(Q CG *J
c
c c c
•— T-l 1-
o
C cc ;-
etc.
)- >-
ctt Ct) JJ
C
n- uj c
c o
CC
S-? ^ u
i L^ C ci
}<".-.&
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
r-S l
5V
m >
- -H
£5
C_
<=
m
CO
c:
CD
i
CD
>
CO
0)2
> >
-< CD
i m
o
< 33
m m
33 TJ
O
0)2
J>-l
cn
-------
IO
0
O
O
U
i*
O
X
E
150-
100-
50-
0 "
-50-
-IOO-
-I5O-
-2OO-
-250-
_ E ° «
£> ° -
in ^ ^ '•
u, K or
S Ul < 3
— r: Q LJ n
" Z _l C
1 < o :
1 1 1*1 1 1
) j J-J1 . ^ 1 2_J f-
I §5
= 5
£ U) S
III II
!l
TRIBUTARY CONTRIBUTIONS
MEAN NET ALKALINITY
L
WEST BRANCH SUSOUEHA.NNA
MEAN NET ALKALINITY
170 150 130
STREAM MILE
L
PROFILE OF FLOW, NET ALKALINITY OF WEST BRANCH SUSQUEHANNA RIVER
AND
TRIBUTARY CONTRIBUTIONS OF NET ALKALINITY
FIGURE
-------
-------
§!
2 20 200 I BO 160 140 120 100 SO GO
RIVER MILES
PROFILE OF pH, MANGANESE, IRON S SULFATE
CONCENTRATION AND NET ALKALINITY
WEST BRANCH, SUSQUEHANNA RIVER
z
UJ
u
z
FIGURE 2-A
-------
-------
o
o
so-
0-
-50'
-100-
-150-
-200
-250-
-300-
-350
TRIBUTARY CONTRIBUTIONS
MEAN NET ALKALINITY
#
10
O
70-
60-
50-
40-
3O-
20-
10
RAYSTOWN BRANCH JUNIATA
MEAN NET ALKALINITY
U.
O
175
ISO
125
100
75
50
25
O
RAYSTOWN BRANCH JUNIATA
MEAN FLOW
40 35 30
STREAM MILE
PROFILE OF FLOW, NET ALKALINITY OF RAYSTOWN BRANCH JUNIATA RIVER
AND
TRIBUTARY CONTRIBUTIONS OF NET ALKALINITY
FIGUR
-------
-------
< z
OL <
2 2
oS
2
O (B
O
•z
zo
UJ —
•s.
o
u
t>
o
z
o
RIVER
MILES
PROFILE OF pH, MANGANESE, IRON B SULFATE
CONCENTRATION AND NET ALKALINITY
RAYSTOWN BRANCH, JUNIATA RIVER
FIGURE 3-A.
-------
-------
*=*« s
«. c°° 5
200-
-200-
-400-
-600-
-800-
-IOOO-
a ,^K 0
— a ax< S
O o oliJ U
1
1 1
m 1 1 III 1 1 1
r i i -j 1 1 i
TRIBUTARY CONTRIBUTIONS
MEAN NET ALKALINITY
O
D
O
"o -'°- -
TI06A RIVER
MEAN NET ALKALINITY
30-
25'
20-
15-
IO-
5
0
-I-
TlOGA RIVER
MgAN FLOW
50
75 70
STREAM MILE
PROFILE OF FLOW, NET ALKALINITY OF TIOGA RIVER
AND
TRIBUTARY CONTRIBUTIONS OF NET ALKALINITY
FIGURE
-------
-------
•- E
2w
S? to
*- Ul
< 2
(r <
h- o
2 2
UJ <{
z
oas
u
2
2 O
- 5O -
- 100 -
- : 5O-
- 200-
- 250-
- 300 -
• 450
• 400
• 350
• 300
• 250
• 200
• 150
I OO
• 50
0
RIVER MILES
PROFILE OF pH, MANGANESE, IRON a SULFATE
CONCENTRATION AND NET ALKALINITY
TIOGA RIVER
FIGURE 4-A
-------
-------
-20-
- 60-
-100-
-140-
- 180-
-220-
-260-
• r—
1
1
1 1 1 1 1 |
TRIBUTARY CONCENTRATIONS
MEAN NET ALKiLINITY
+ 50
0
- 50
- 100
- ISO
-200
-250'
JOHNSON CREEK
MEAN NET ALKALINITY
JOHNSON CREEK
MEAN FLOW
25 20 15
STREAM MILE
PROFILE OF FLOW, NET ALKALINITY OF JOHNSON CREEK
AND
TRIBUTARY CONTRIBUTIONS OF NET ALKALINITY
FIGURE
-------
-------
cr <
i- a
z o
< c
RIVER
MILES
PROFILE OF pH, MANGANESE, IRON a SULFATE
CONCENTRATION AND NET ALKALINITY
JOHNSON CREEK
FIGURE 5-A
-------
-------
50
40
30
20
IO-
O-
-10
-2O
-30
-4O-
-50-
-60
TRI8UTA9Y CONTRIBUTIONS
WEAN NET ALKALINITY
IO
O
O
0
O
O
>-
<
O
*x
in
0
15-
IO-
5-
0-
-5-
-IO-
-15-
-20-
-25-
-30-
-35-
LACKAWANNA RIVES
MEAN NET ALKALINITY
u.
O
20
STREAM MILE
PROFILE OF FLOW, NET ALKALINITY OF LACKAWANNA RIVER
AND
TRIBUTARY CONTRIBUTIONS OF NET ALKALINITY
FIGURE 6
-------
-------
L E S
PROFILE OF pH, MANGANESE, IRON a-SULFATE
CONCENTRATION AND NET ALKALINITY
LACKAWANNA RIVER
-------
-------
M
8
o
0
^
9
|=
4OO -
300 -
2OO -
IOO -
- 100 -
-200-
-300-
-4OO -
-5OO-
-6OO-
-7OO-
-800-
-900-
_ QC
(r
< I
- ! \
<
1 ^ .. 1
1 '
i
L
(
t.
e.
j
• {
j «
- <.
: V
5 *
rs
> K
o
!§§
^
, <«
1 ? Z
1
IU
tt
o
j O
1- 0
£ 5
°- 3
ui •
I 1 Z ! 1 1 * f
1 TRIBUTARY CONCENTRATIONS
• MEAN NET ALKALINITY
X
z
CC
-------
-------
2 25-
J
I _ 20-
^ -
: ul ' s -
t- O 125-
z z
O 5
z
OtO
I 0 -
0 75-
0 50-
O 25-
PT h I If
192 IB4 176 I6B 160 152 144 136 128
RIVER MILES
PROFILE OF pH, MANGANESE, IRON a SULFATE
CONCENTRATION AND NET ALKALINITY
SUSQUEHANNA RIVER
FIGURE 7-A
-------
50-
-50-
S"-ioo-
d
u
-150-
o
_ -200-
6 -250-
-30O-
-350-
o
J m
1 1 II 1 II 1 1
TRIBUTARY CONCENTRATIONS
MEAN NET ALKALINITY
I2O-
IOO'
ao
6O
40-
20
0
NESCOPECK CREEK
MEAN FLOW
12 10
STREAM MILE
PROFILE OF FLOW, NET ALKALINITY OF NESCOPECK CREEK
AND
TRIBUTARY CONTRIBUTIONS OF NET ALKALINITY
FIGURE 8
-------
o 5
2
O CO
2 O
< o:
E
o
RIVER MILES
PROFILE OF pH, MANGANESE, IRON 8 SULFATE
CONCENTRATION AND NET ALKALINITY
NESCOPECK CREEK
FIGURE 8-A
-------
-------
z'z z
Kt- UJ
22 X
o
rz J
UIUJ g
013 ^"
1 1 1 I.I 1 1 1
-10-
-20.
-40-
-60-
-80-
-100-
A
TRIBUTARY CONCENTRATONS
MEAN NET ALKALINITY
STREAM
MILE
PROFILE OF FLOW, NET ALKALINITY OF CATAWlSSA CREEK
AND
TRIBUTARY CONTRIBUTIONS OF NET ALKALINITY
FIGURE 9
-------
-------
< z
o: <
u S
z
O a)
u
z
RIVER MILES
PROFILE OF pH, MANGANESE, IRON 8 SULFATE
CONCENTRATION AND NET ALKALINITY
CATAWISSA CREEK
o
*-
<
FIGURE 9-A
-------
-------
o-
-IOO-
-2OO-
-3OO-
-4OO-
-500-
I
1
I
1
i
1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 t 1
j 1
1
, - • -i — T r- 1 "T | | — r
TRIBUTARY CONCENTRATIONS
MEAN NET ALKALINITY
J—MH
7O
60-
SO
40
30
2O
10
O
SHAMOKIN CREEK
MEAN FLOW
•-r f
-^ HH
10 9 0
20
STREAM
MILE
PROFILE OF FLOW, NET ALKALINITY OF SHAMOKIN CREEK
AND
TRIBUTARY CONTRIBUTIONS OF NET ALKALINITY
FIGURE I
-------
-------
y fi
h- UJ
< 2
Z
o
z
o
MILES
PROFILE OF pH, MANGANESE, IRON 8 SULFATE
CONCENTRATION AND NET ALKALINITY
SHAMOK1N CREEK
FIGURE 10-A
-------
-------
u N
»
200-
150-
100-
50-
-50 •
-100-
-150-
-200'
-250-
-300-
— ^
o
_ _j
z
__ z
z
X
•t
X
o
X U
O -J
o —
1 s
x1 5
in w
,
t-
4
m
0
= sc
« §
a 2
5 x
9 1
1
•
il
0
0
b
r
111)
rRIBUTASY COXCENTRATtONS
j
3
cz
JD
JQC
1 II
MAHANOY CREEK
MEAN NET ALKALINITY
60-
40-
20-
5
„„-.»_ — — — -•""" * MAHANOY CREEK
• MEANFLOW
- /— ""
/
/
w /
-•
i *""" ill i i i i I i
5 50 40 30 20 IO 0
STREAM MILE
PROFILE OF FLOW, NET ALKALINITY OF MAHANOY CREEK
AND
TRIBUTARY CONTRIBUTIONS OF NET ALKALINITY
FIGURE I
-------
-------
< 2
K <
Z 2
UJ<
US,
K
(-
2
RIVER
MILES
PROFILE OF pH, MANGANESE, IRON 8 SULFATE
CONCENTRATION AND NET ALKALINITY
MAHANOY CREEK
FIGURE II-A
-------
i
0
o
0
0
o
_
ca
E
O-
- 25-
- 50-
- 75-
1
-
~
1 1 , , 1 , , , 1
TRI8UTAHY CONTRIBUTIONS
MEAN NET ALKALINITY
MAHANTANGO CREEK
MEAN NET ALKALINITY
STREAM MILE
PROFILE OF FLOW, NET ALKALINITY OF MAHANTANGO CREEK
AND
TRIBUTARY CONTRIBUTIONS OF NET ALKALINITY
FIGURE I
-------
-------
E
z
o
o
o
2
MILES
PROFILE OF pH, MANGANESE, IRON & SULFATE
CONCENTRATION AND NET ALKALINITY
MAHANTANGO CREEK
o
t-
FIGURE 12-A
-------
-------
ro
O
0
O
D
o>
E
IOO-
73'
30-
25-
-25-
-50-
-75-
-too-
— ^ ^
_j -i
— 2 Z
2: -z
t~ H
tt DC
Ul LU
— tu oc
LJ O
J
•; a.
• i
o
?
Ul
t~
H
_J
1 1 t 1 111
TRIBUTARY CONCENTRATIONS
MEAN NET ALKALINITY
WISCONISCO CREEK
MEAN NET ALKALINITY
U.
O
WISCONISCO CHEEK
MEAN FLOW
4O-
30-
20-
10-
0-
— _»
__ — ^ r- —
"™ „ 9~~~
— ^~~°
__ ^t «^
1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1
40 35 30 25 20 15 1O S O
STREAM MILE
PROFILE OF FLOW, NET ALKALINITY OF WISCONISCO CREEK
AND
TRIBUTARY CONTRIBUTIONS OF NET ALKALINITY
FIGURE 13
-------
-------
o 5
2
O
RIVER
MILES
PROFILE OF pH, MANGANESE, IRON a SULFATE
CONCENTRATION AND NET ALKALINITY
WICONISCO CREEK
FIGURE 13-A
-------
-------
o
O - 5
15-
20 -
J5 -
30 •
35 -
40 •
45 •
TRIBUTARY CONCENTRATIONS
MEAN NET ALKAUN1TY
SWARTARA CREEK
MEAN NET ALKALINITY
575 55 525
STREAM MILE
PROFILE OF FLOW, NET ALKALINITY OF SWARTARA CREEK
AND
TRIBUTARY CONTRIBUTIONS OF NET ALKALINITY
FIGURE
-------
-------
^ E
Is
t- iLl
< 2
tr <
z
o
PROFILE OF pH, MANGANESE, IRON a SULFATE
CONCENTRATION AND NET ALKALINITY
SWATARA CREEK
FIGURE 14-A
-------
-------
-------
-------
K J ^ S ^
W cj V 3 o lu
t£ U. Z el L. UJ Q_
* o IL o a J a iij
_l^ i
1 I s
CL tfl O
NORTH BRANCH POTOMAC
WEAN NET ALKAUNITr
STREAM
PROFILE OF FLOW. NET ALKALINITY OF NORTH BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER
AND
TRIBUTARY CONTRIBUTIONS OF NET ALKALINITY
FIGURE 15
-------
-------
6
2
O
PROFILE OF pH, MANGANESE, IRON 8 SULFATE
CONCENTRATION AND NET ALKALINITY
POTOMAC RIVER
FIGURE IS-A
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1 -| -.!_. II II II II iVtu I
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 3
III. DATA EVALUATION AND INTERPRETATION 5
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
I Bottom Organism Data of Rock Creek and
Tributaries 13
LIST OF FIGURES Follows
Figure Page
1 Map of Study Area and Profile of Biological
Conditions on Rock Creek Ik
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
A biological survey of Rock Creek, a tributary of the Potomac
River, was conducted in August 1966. The survey was made to determine
the biological condition of the stream from north of Rockville, Mary-
land, to the mouth of the stream in Washington, D. C. (See Figure 1,
following page 1^.)
For purposes of the study, the community of bottom (benthic)
organisms was selected as the indicator of the biological condition
of the stream. Bottom organisms serve as the preferred food source
for the higher aquatic forms and exhibit similar reactions to adverse
stream conditions. The combination of limited locomotion and life
cycles of one year or more, for most benthic species, provide a long-
term picture of the water quality of a stream. Fish and algal popu-
lations were given some consideration, but only to the extent that
obvious conclusions could be drawn based upon casual observations.
In unpolluted streams, a wide variety of sensitive clean-
water associated bottom organisms are normally found. Typical groups
are stoneflies, mayflies, and caddisflies. These sensitive organisms
usually are not individually abundant because of natural predation
and competition for food and space; however, the total count or num-
ber of organisms at a given station may be high because of the number
of different varieties present.
Sensitive genera tend to be eliminated by adverse environmental
conditions (e.g., chemical and/or physical) resulting from wastes
-------
2
reaching the stream, In waters enriched, with organic wastes, compara-
tively fewer kinds (genera) are normally found, but great numbers of
these genera may be present. Organic pollution-tolerant forms such a,s
sludgeworms, rattailed maggots, certain species of bloodworms (red
midges), certain leeches, and some species of air-breathing snails may
multiply and become abundant because of a favorable habitat and food
supply. These organic pollution-tolerant bottom organisms may also
exist in the natural environment but are generally found in small num-
bers. The abundance of these forms in streams heavily polluted with
organics is due to their physiological and morphological abilities to
survive environmental conditions more adverse than conditions that may-
be tolerated by other organisms. Under conditions where inert silts
or organic sludges blanket the stream bottom, the natural home of
bottom organisms is destroyed, causing a reduction in the number of
kinds of organisms present.
In addition to sensitive and pollution-tolerant forms, some
bottom organisms may be termed intermediates, in that they are capable
of living in fairly heavily polluted areas as well as in clean-water
situations. These organisms occurring in limited numbers, therefore,
cannot serve as effective indicators of water quality.
-------
II. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
1. A biological survey of Rock Creek and tributaries from
north of Rockville, Maryland, to the Potomac River in Washington,
D. C., was conducted in August 1966. Investigations were made at
16 stations on Rock Creek and at four stations on tributaries.
2. Bottom organisms were selected as the primary indicator
of biological water quality.
3. From Avery, Maryland, to the small tributary east of
Rockville, Maryland, an abundance of minnows and clean-water bottom
organisms indicated good water quality. From the tributary to Viers
Mill Village, some degradation of water quality was noted, but indi-
cated water quality was generally good.
U. Trash and degraded aquatic life were observed at Viers
Mill Village, indicating fair water quality.
5. Improved aquatic life, indicating good water quality,
was found from Garret Park, Maryland, to North Chevy Chase, Maryland.
6. Evidence of pollution increased as the Rock Creek Survey
continued downstream to the Potomac. Coquelin Creek contributed
nitrogen and phosphorus, and Piney Branch contributed a mild organic
pollution load to the stream. Sparse clean-water genera at Rock Creek
Recreation Center indicated fair water quality, while intermediate and
pollution-tolerant genera in the reach from Beach Drive to P Street
indicated mild pollution.
-------
7. Slash Run and P Street outfall severs were contributing
organic pollution to Rock Creek. Moderate to heavy pollution was
indicated from P Street to the Potomac River. Dominant bottom organ-
isms consisted of intermediate and pollution-tolerant genera. Only
one bottom organism was found at the mouth of Rock Creek. Tidal
action diffuses salt water into the mouth of the stream, which prob-
ably accounted for the low population of bottom organisms in the area.
-------
-------
III. DATA EVALUATION AND INTERPRETATION
Rock Creek is a small, scenic stream flowing southeast from
north of Rockville in Montgomery County, Maryland, and discharging
into the Potomac River in Washington, D. C. Bridle paths, picnic
and recreation areas, and the National Zoological Park are among the
facilities along the banks of the stream.
Storm sewers discharge into the stream at various points, but
no sanitary or industrial sewers discharge directly into the stream
upstream from P Street in Washington, D. C.
Sampling stations were located after consideration of the
following conditions:
1. Tributaries
2. Areas having a known waste problem
3. Physical capability for sampling.
Bottom organisms are animals that live directly in associa-
tion with the bottom of a waterway. They may crawl on, burrow in,
or attach themselves to the bottom. Macroorganisms are usually defined
as those organisms that will be retained by a No. 30 sieve. In essence,
the organisms retained by the sieve are those that are visible to the
unaided eye.
Each station was sampled once, and the kinds of macro bottom
organisms were observed for the purpose of evaluating water quality.
Quantitative bottom samples were also taken, using a Surber Square
Foot Sampler, and the number of organisms per square foot was counted.
-------
6
Quantitative samples were not taken at stations in non-critical
areas or where organisms were very sparse.
Discussions of stations proceed downstream unless otherwise
noted.
Station #1 - Rock Creek at Avery Road Bridge north of Rockville,
Maryland
The water at this station was clear, and numerous minnows were
observed throughout the area. A total of nine genera of bottom organ-
isms were found, including such clean-water forms as mayflies (two
genera), caddisflies, and fishflies. Good water quality was indicated
based on the bottom organisms.
Station #2 - Rock Creek, East Branch at Route 115 Bridge, north of
Rockville, Maryland
Very clear water and numerous minnows were observed in this
area. A total of 17 different genera of bottom organisms were col-
lected and included such clean-water forms as stoneflies, mayflies
(three genera), caddisflies (two genera), fishflies, and riffle
beetles. A total of 109 bottom organisms were collected in the square
foot sample, which included 35 caddisflies, 20 mayflies, 15 riffle
beetles, and four fishflies. Excellent water quality was indicated.
Station #3 - Rock Creek tributary at Avery Road, east of Rockville,
Maryland
A sparse population of four genera of bottom organisms was
found in this tributary, mayflies and caddisflies being the dominant
organisms. Fair water quality was indicated.
-------
_S_ta_t_ion_gU - Rock Creek at Route 28 Bridge, East of Hockville,
Maryland
A total of l6 genera of "bottom organisms were sampled at this
station and included such clean-water forms as mayflies, caddisflies
(two genera), fishflies, and riffle beetles. The water was somewhat
murky, but small schools of minnows could be observed. Only 35
bottom organisms were collected in the square foot sample, with finger-
nail clams (an intermediate) being the dominant form with 15 in nxunber,
Good water quality was indicated.
Station #5 - Rock Creek upstream from Randolph Road at Viers Mill
Village, Maryland
Cloudy water, abundant trash, and sparse bottom organisms
were noted at this station. Only one clean-water caddisfly was among
the four bottom organisms found; the balance consisted of two inter-
mediate genera and a pollution-tolerant form. Fair water quality was
indicated.
Station #6 - Rock Creek at Route 5^7 Bridge, Garrett Park, Maryland
The water was clear, and small schools of minnows were ob-
served at this station. Bottom organisms were not abundant, and only
five genera were sampled. The sample, however, included such clean-
water forms as mayflies (two genera) and caddisflies. Good water
quality was indicated.
-------
Station #7 - Rock Creek at Beach Drive and Cedar Lane, Kensington,
Maryland
Exceptionally clear water, numerous minnows, and ten differ-
ent genera of bottom organisms were found at this station. Included
in the sample were such clean-water forms as mayflies (two genera)
and caddisflies (two genera). A total of 22U bottom organisms were
collected in the square foot sample, which included 27 mayflies and
three caddisflies. The dominant form was an intermediate midge larva
which made up 190 of the total count. Good water quality was indicated.
Station #8 - Rock Creek at Jones Mill Road, Chevy Chase, Maryland
At this station the water was again exceptionally clear, and
numerous small minnows were observed. Only three genera of bottom
organisms were found, but they consisted mainly of two genera of
caddisfly larvae. Good water quality was indicated.
Station #9 - Coquelin Creek at Jones Mill Road Bridge, North Chevy
Chase, Maryland
On this small tributary to Rock Creek, the water was clear,
but the filamentous algae was heavy in much of the area, suggesting
excessive nitrogen and phosphorus. Oil slicks arose when some of
the bottom was stirred up by wading. A total of 12 genera of bottom
organisms was found and included a fair population of mayflies and
caddisflies. Blackflies were the dominant organism and made up 155
of the 192 organisms in the square foot sample. Only fair water
quality was indicated.
-------
Station #10 - Rock Creek at East-West Highway 1*10, Rock Creek
Recreation Center, Maryland
Clear water and minnows were observed in this area. A total
of ten genera was found, but bottom organisms were generally sparse.
A small population of mayflies, consisting of only 23 organisms, was
collected in the square foot sample. Fair water quality was indicated.
Station #11 - Rock Creek at Wise Road and West Beach Drive,
Washington, D. C.
Only three genera of bottom organisms, consisting of two
pollution-tolerant genera and one intermediate genera, were sampled
at this station. Bottom organisms were sparse, and a quantitative
sample was not taken. About 20 yards downstream, a large storm sewer
empties from the left bank (facing downstream). The bottom in this
channel appeared to be coated with oil, and oil slicks came to the
surface when the bottom was disturbed. Mild pollution is suggested
in this area.
Station #12 - Rock Creek at Military Road, Washington, D. C.
This station was located at a roadside park. Five genera of
bottom organisms were found, consisting of three organic pollution-
tolerant genera and two intermediate forms. Generally, bottom organ-
isms were sparse. A small tributary comes in from the left bank a
short distance downstream. This tributary was very heavy with fila-
mentous algae, suggesting high nitrogen and phosphorus. Mild organic
pollution is suggested.
-------
10
Station #13 - Rock Creek at Park Road Bridge, Washington, D. C.
The water vas clear, and small schools of minnows were
observed in the area. Eight genera of bottoir organisms were sampled,
consisting of four organic pollution-tolerant and four intermediate
forms. Bottom organisms were not abundant; only 27 were collected in
the square foot sample. Mild organic pollution is suggested.
Station #lj+ - Piney Branch at Park Road Bridge, Washington, D. C.
In this tributary to Rock Creek, the water was clear, but
filamentous algae was extremely abundant on the rocks and gravel.
Nine genera were collected, but the sample contained only one clean-
water associated form (mayfly). The balance consisted of four inter-
mediate forms and four pollution-tolerant forms. The dominant form
was an intermediate midge larva, which made up 75 of the 113 bottom
organisms in the square foot sample. A faint sewage odor was detected.
In addition, heavy algae suggested high nitrogen and phosphorus con-
centrations. Piney Branch is believed to contribute a mild pollutional
load to Rock Creek.
Station #15 - Rock Creek at Harvard Street Entrance to the National
Zoological Park, Washington, D. C.
In this area the water was clear, but the rocks were coated
with slime. Although nine genera of bottom organisms were found, only
fair populations of an intermediate midge larva and a pollution-
tolerant snail were sampled. The other bottom organisms were sparse.
-------
11
The intermediate midge larva made up 86 of the 103 bottom organisms
in the square foot sample. Mild organic pollution is suggested.
Station #16 - Rock Creek at Calvert Street Bridge, Washington, D. C.
Clear water and numerous minnows were observed at this sta-
tion; however, a faint sewage odor was detected. Although ten genera
of bottom organisms were found, the only clean-water associated form
consisted of a few caddisfly larvae. An intermediate midge larva made up
1*6 of the 55 organisms collected in the square foot sample. Sludge-
worms , the bloodworm midge Chironomus, blackflies, and two genera of
pollution-tolerant snails were collected. Mild organic pollution was
indicated.
Station #11 - Rock Creek upstream from P Street Outfall, Washington,
D. C.
Rock Creek was sampled immediately upstream from the P Street
outfall. The water was clear, and small schools of minnows and sun-
fish were observed upstream but not downstream from the outfall.
Broken glass and trash were heavy in the stream. Six genera of bot-
tom organisms were collected, consisting of four organic pollution-
tolerant forms and two intermediate forms. The dominant forms were
an intermediate midge (98) and sludgeworms (U3) out of the 158 bottom
organisms collected in the square foot sample. Mild organic pollu-
tion was indicated.
-------
12
Station Hib - Rock Creek downstream from P Street Outfall, Washington,
D. C.
This station was located approximately 2? yards downstream
from the P Street outfall in Washington, I)0 C. A faint sewage odor
was detected, and trash vao observed in the stream* Only five genera
of bottom organisms were found, and these consisted of four organic
pollution-tolerant forms and one intermediate "Kind- 'i'he pojlx,!.ion-
tolerant genera consisted of bloodworms, sludgeworms» leecher.. and a
pollution-tolerant snail. Moderate organic pollution was inoicetea,
Station #19 ~ Rock Creek at Slash Run Outfall! , Washington, Do C.
Rock Creek was sampled downstream from the Slash Run outfall}
which is downstream from the P Street cut fall in Washington, 1). C.
The water was murky, and the sewage odor was strong. The bottom
organisms consisted of three pollution-tolerant genera and two inter-
mediate genera. The U80 organisms in the square foot sample included
390 intermediate midges and 71 sludgeworms, Moderate organic pollu-
tion is indicated at this station. The source appears to be the
Slash Run sewer.
Station #20 - Rock Creek at the Potomac River, Washington, D. C,
The last station on Rock Creek was located approximately 30
yards upstream from the mouth, near the canoe rental concession.
The water was very turbid, and oil slicks were stirred up by wading.
After approximately 15 minutes of intensive searching, only one blood-
worm could be found- A quantitative sample was not taken for this
reason. Tidal action washes trash and waste into the area,
-------
13
TABLE I
BOTTOM ORGANISM DATA OF
ROCK CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES
Station
Number
1
2
3
k
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
Location
Avery Road Bridge,
Maryland
Route 115 Bridge, Rock
Creek North Branch,
Maryland
Tributary at Avery Road,
Maryland
Route 28 Bridge, Maryland
Randolph Road, Viers Mill
Village, Maryland
Route 5^7 Bridge, Maryland
Beach Drive and Cedar Lane,
Maryland
Route 1+95 and Jones Mill
Road, Maryland
Coquelin Creek at Jones
Mill Road Bridge, Maryland
Route UlO at Rock Creek
Recreation Center,
Maryland
Wise Road and West Beach
Drive, Washington, D. C.
Bottom
No. of
Kinds
9
17
1*
16
k
5
10
3
12
10
3
Organisms
No. Per
Sq. Ft.
Not
Taken
109
Not
Taken
35
Not
Taken
Not
Taken
22k
Not
Taken
192
23
Not
Taken
Dominant
Forms
Mayflies
Caddis flies
Caddisflies
Mayflies
Mayflies
Caddisflies
Fingernail
Clams
Intermediate
Genera
Mayflies
Caddisflies
Midge Larva
Mayflies
Caddisflies
Caddisflies
Blackflies
Intermediate
Genera
Pollution-
Tolerant
Genera
Indicated
Water
Quality
Good
Excellent
Fair
Good
Fair
Good
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Mildly
Polluted
-------
-------
TABLE I (Continued)
Station
Number
12
13
Ik
15
16
IT
18
19
20
Bottom
No. of
Location Kinds
Military Road, Washington, 5
D. C.
Park Road Bridge, 8
Washington, D. C.
Piney Branch at Park Road 9
Bridge, Washington, D. C.
National Zoo, Harvard 9
Street, Washington, D. C.
Calvert Street Bridge, 10
Washington, D. C.
Upstream from P Street 6
Outfall, Washington, D. C.
Downstream from P Street 5
Outfall, Washington, D. C.
Slash Run Outfall, 5
Washington, D. C.
Mouth of Rock Creek, 1
Washington, D. C.
Organisms
No. Per
Sq. Ft.
Not
Taken
27
113
103
55
158
Not
Taken
U80
Not
Taken
Dominant
Forms
Pollution-
Tolerant
Genera
Intermediate
and
Pollution-
Tolerant
Genera
Midge Larva
Pollution-
Tolerant
Genera
Midge Larva
Pollution-
Tolerant
Genera
Midge Larva
Sludgeworms
Bloodworms
Intermediate
Midge
Sludgeworms
Bloodworms
Sludgeworms
Leeches
Intermediate
Midge
Sludgeworms
Bloodworm
Indicated
Water
Quality
Mildly
Polluted
Mildly
Polluted
Mildly
Polluted
Mildly
Polluted
Mildly
Polluted
Mildly
Polluted
Moderately
Polluted
Moderately
Polluted
Moderate
to Heavy
Pollution
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES ii
LIST OF TABLES ii
APPENDICES ii
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION 2
III. THE STUDY 3
IV. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 7
V. BIBLIOGRAPHY 18
VI. APPENDICES 1-1
Appendix 1 1-1
Appendix 2 2-1
-------
11
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Coliform Counts, June-August 1966
2. Bacterial Quality for 1965, from D. C. Data
3. Total Phosphorus, January-July 1966
k. Suspended Solids for 1965, from D. C. Data
5. Map of Rock Creek Basin Showing Sampling Points
LIST OF TABLES
1. Summary of Sample Analyses, by Chesapeake Field Station
2. Nitrogen and Phosphorus Analyses, by Chesapeake Field Station
3. Turbidities, Storm of October 19, 1966
APPENDICES
1. Inventory of Outfalls
2, Biological Survey
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
At the request of Secretary Stewart Udall of the Depart-
ment of the Interior, on July 3, 1966, the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration was requested to make a study of the pollu-
tion problems in the Rock Creek Sub-Basin of the Potomac River
Basin and prepare a corrective program to permit water recreation
by October 196?. In accordance with this request, the Chesapeake
Field Station was directed to make a determination of water quality
in Rock Creek and an inventory of waste outfalls.
The cooperation of the following agencies in providing
information assisted appreciably in the completion of this inves-
tigation:
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
Maryland Department of Health
Maryland Department of Water Resources
Montgomery County Department of Health
D. C. Department of Sanitary Engineering
D. C. Department of Public Health
U. S. Geological Survey
-------
II. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
Rock Creek drains a watershed, area of approximately 77
square miles and has its source south of Laytonsville in Mont-
gomery County, Maryland. It flows generally southerly for a
distance of approximately 30 miles, discharging into the Potomac
River Estuary. The lower ten stream miles of Rock Creek drain
approximately l6 square miles of the highly urban District of
Columbia. The urban area can also be considered as extending
northerly to Rockville, beyond which the predominately rural
agricultural area is rapidly becoming suburban (Map, Figure 5).
The watershed is generally upstream from the geologic
Fall Line and located in the Piedmont Zone, which consists of
moderately well-drained, rolling country with fairly narrow flood
plains. The flood plain in the District of Columbia is protected
by park development under the administration of the National Park
Service. A program of land acquisition and park development is
being carried out along the Montgomery County flood plain by the
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission—.
-------
III. THE STUDY
A. SURVEYS
Data for evaluation of the bacteriological, biological,
and other water quality characteristics of the stream were obtained
by field surveys and from records of healtn agencies in the area.
The following field investigations were conducted by the Chesapeake
Field Station:
!• Bacteriological
A stream survey conducted by the Chesapeake Field Station
(CFS) in August 1966, supplemented by earlier sampling during
June, were primary sources of coliform bacteria data. In addition,
bacteriological records of the D. C. Department of Public Health
collected during 1965 provided the remaining source of information.
The year 1965 was selected in order to have an annual cycle of
data. Comparison of the various sets of data indicate relative
agreement.
A moderate storm that occurred during the August sampling
period permitted one observation of bacterial concentrations
resulting from urban runoff.
Since coliform bacteria are not positive indicators of
the presence of human fecal pollution, concentrations of fecal
coliforms and fecal streptococci were also determined by the CFS
laboratory. The ratio of fecal coliforms to fecal streptococci
-------
(FC/FS) is considered a more valid index for establishing the
presence of human excreta. An FC/FS ratio of in excess of 2.5
is generally considered indicative of human pollution—.
Coliform densities were compared with Water Quality Sub-
Task Force, Project Potomac, standards adopted for water contact
recreation which recommend levels of less than 1000 MPN/100 ml at
least 50 per cent of the time and less than 2^00 MPN/100 ml at
least 90 per cent of the time, based on arithmetic averages.
(Figure 1, Table l)
2- Biological
The CFS biologist conducted studies of stream biota to
define water quality as measured by type and numbers of genera
of bottom organisms. Although not a part of the study, casual
observations of fishlife were noted.
Benthic surveys were made at several locations to distin-
guish between siltation and possible sediment from untreated or
partially treated sanitary waste discharges.
3. Waste Outfalls
With the assistance of the D. C. Department of Sanitary
Engineering and the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission,
personnel from the CFS located and identified 211 outfalls capable
of discharging sewage or storm water into the Rock Creek Water-
shed. When there were flows from an outfall, both the discharge
-------
and the receiving vaters were observed and, where pollution was
suspected, samples were taken and analyzed.
U. Surfactants
During the survey period, samples were collected arid
analyzed for surfactants (detergents) and the data utilized to
indicate possible human pollution. Surfactant concentrations
greater than 0.5 mg/1 are considered presumptive indicators of
II
sanitary waste discharges—. A special study was made October
18 to determine detergent levels following a report of extensive
foaming in Rock Creek.
5. Nutrients
Analysis for total phosphorus was made over the six-
month period of January-June 1966 by CFS using samples collected
at the M Street Bridge in Washington, D. C., by the D. C. Depart-
ment of Public Health (Figure 3). Samples collected during this
period were analyzed for both phosphorus and nitrogen (Table 2).
6. Inorganic Solids
Turbidities were determined on October 19, 1966, using
samples taken after a three and one-half inch rainfall (Table 3).
Suspended solids in District of Columbia reaches of Rock Creek
for 1965 are shown in Figure U.
-------
-------
B. EXISTING POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAMS AND REGULATIONS
A review of current and proposed pollution abatement pro-
grams and regulations was made, and a summary is included in this
paper.
-------
IV. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. EXTENT AND SOURCES OF POLLUTION
-*•• Bacteriologi cal
Based upon bacteriological analysis of Chesapeake Field
Station samples taken during June and August, no reaches of Rock
Creek, from the junction with the Potomac River to the headwaters,
meet the Water Quality Sub-Task Force, Project Potomac, criteria
for water contact recreation of coliform counts less than 2^00
MPN/100 ml at least 90 per cent of the time.
In the lower reaches, high coliform counts are a matter
of record, as is indicated by data from the District of Columbia
included in this paper (Figure 2). A tabulation of results of
Chesapeake Field Station bacteriological analyses (Figure 1 and
Table l) indicates generally high coliform counts in all but the
upper reaches of the Basin. In the upper reaches coliform counts
are generally low, but consistent.
Sources of pollution in Montgomery County are:
1. Soil erosion and storm runoff in agricultural areas
near the headwaters carry fertilizers and animal
waste into Rock Creek and increase bacterial levels
in the stream.
2. Urban storm runoff pollution has increased as a
result of the rapid change from rural to suburban
land occupancy in the upper Rock Creek Basin (Map,
Figure 5).
-------
3. Montgomery County is served by a separate sewer
system, and, in the past, some manholes have over-
flowed when the capacity of D. C. sewers in the
reaches of Rock Creek was exceeded.
In the District of Columbia reaches, the principal
sources of pollution were identified as follows:
1. Certain combined sewer outfalls that are subject
to overflow during periods of heavy rainfall—
2. Defective or broken sewers
3. National Zoological Park
k. Urban runoff
2. Biological
D /
Findings of the Biological Survey— indicated good water
quality in the stream reach from Avery Road to Rockville in Mont-
gomery County. Some degradation was indicated in the reach from
Rockville to Viers Mill Road, but general water quality was good.
The Viers Mill reach was degraded to fair quality, but recovery
with good quality was indicated from Garrett Park to North Chevy
Chase.
Evidence of pollution increased as the Rock Creek survey
continued downstream to the Potomac. Coquelin Run contributed
nitrogen and phosphorus, and Piney Branch contributed a mild
organic pollution load to the stream. Sparse clean-water genera
at Rock Creek Recreation Center indicated only fair water quality,
-------
while intermediate and pollution-tolerant genera in the reach
from Beach Drive to P Street indicated mild pollution.
Slash Run and P Street outfall sewers were contributing
organic pollution to Rock Creek. Moderate to heavy pollution
was indicated from P Street to the Potomac River. Dominant bottom
organisms consisted of intermediate and pollution-tolerant genera.
Only one bottom organism was found at the mouth of Rock Creek.
Tidal action diffuses salt water into the mouth of the stream,
which probably accounted for the low population of bottom organ-
isms in the area. (Appendix 2)
3. Nutrients
Phosphorus concentrations ranged from 0.15 to 1.0 mg/1;
nitrogen concentrations ranged from 0.62 to 1.96 mg/1.
One source of phosphorus is the discharge from sludge
control operations in boilers and air-conditioning cooling towers
in commercial and larger residential buildings. The chemicals
used are principally phosphates for removal of scale-producing
compounds, primarily carbonates, from the system. Discharges are
made into storm-water drains. Discharges into sanitary sewers
are prohibited by the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission
and the District of Columbia.
Coquelin Run, Piney Branch, and the Slash Run Interceptor
were found to contribute phosphorus and nitrogen to Rock Creek
(Appendix 2).
-------
10
k. Inorganic Solids
Erosion in the Rock Creek Watershed has resulted in
silting of the stream bed and high turbidities, both of which
contribute to objectional concentrations of inorganic solids
and destroy the aquatic environment needed for the survival and
propagation of fishlife. The condition is especially serious in
the reaches in Montgomery County where rapid development of
residential areas has resulted in exposure of the subsoil to
active erosion.
5. Other Wastes
Rapid urbanization of formerly rural areas in Rock Creek
Watershed, with the resulting increase of paved and roofed areas,
has increased the per cent of runoff as well as causing more
erratic discharges in the stream. Storm water from these urban
areas transports all types of waste into watercourses.
The presence of large quantities of discarded articles
and refuse in the Creek and its tributaries could not be directly
related to pollution; however, aside from being esthetically
objectional, visible trash and refuse tends to invite others to
use the Creek as a general disposal vehicle.
B. STREAM REACH SUMMARY
The following describes briefly, by sections of the Water-
shed, the conditions found during the field investigations.
-------
11
Upper Rock Creek, Montgomery County: The reaches north
of Rockville are not free of bacterial contamination; however,
the concentrations of coliform bacteria did approach levels
generally considered acceptable for body contact recreation.
Pollution sources appeared to be of animal and agricultural
origin and, as such, would not pose serious health hazards in
the concentrations found. The biological survey indicated a good
quality of water, as evidenced by the numerous schools of minnows
and the existence of a balanced population of clean-water aquatic
life.
Lower Rock Creek, Montgomery County: Water quality within
this portion of the Watershed was found to be somewhat degraded
(when compared to the upper rural areas). An increase was observ-
ed in coliforms identifiable as originating from warm-blooded
animals (possibly humans). The increase in surfactants in the
East-West Highway area extending to the District line suggested
this pollution was from domestic sources. While the counts are
generally low, they are consistent. An attempt to trace out
sources of pollution was inconclusive, except that Coquelin Run
was a significant contributor. It appears that, since a small
part of the Coquelin Run area is served by individual septic tanks,
significant seepage from the sub-surface disposal systems may at
times reach the watercourse. The biological survey identified
variable populations of minnows and suppressed numbers of clean
-------
12
water genera, and, when compared with the bacteriological results,
suggested only fair water quality in this reach.
Upper Rock Creek, District of Columbia: In general, the
lower coliform counts, as exhibited in Table 1, suggest this
reach as one of recovery, especially between Sherrill Drive and
Pierce's Mill. A large sewer outfall at Klingle Road, presumably
plugged and out of service, had a small discharge into a pool
that was turbid and discharging gas bubbles with a characteristic
sewage odor, suggesting that septic action was taking place. A
discharge with a distinct sewage odor was also observed entering
Broad Branch at Albemarle and 32nd Streets. Oil seepage from the
ground, noticed on the east side of Connecticut Avenue just north
of 3701, was assumed to originate from an apartment house heating
plant. The oil was transported by a spring-fed tributary to Rock
Creek.
A broken or leaking sewer crosses Broad Branch behind the
shopping center at kkOO Connecticut Avenue and was discharging at
a low rate directly into the stream. The leakage from the defec-
tive sewer resulted in very high coliform counts in Broad Branch.
The FC/FS ratio indicated the bacteria to be of human origin.
Although some schools of minnows were observed, the biological
conditions suggested mild organic pollution.
-------
13
Lover Bock Creek in the District of Columbia: The reach
of the Creek extending from Piney Branch to the mouth shows high
counts of coliforms, fecal coliforms, and fecal streptococci.
The contribution of urban runoff caused by storms cannot be
entirely separated from the effects of periodic discharges of
combined storm and sewage flows into Rock Creek below Piney
Branch. The CFS sampling on August 15 occurred shortly after
an appreciable shower, and the increase in coliform count for
two miles downstream from Piney Branch was clearly evide'nt. At
M Street the biological survey indicated severe organic pollu-
tion, and the high incidence of surfactants suggested this pollu-
tion to be of domestic origin.
The high fecal counts at the ford below the zoo 'are evi-
dence of pollution by warm-blooded animals, with the lower sur-
factant level indicating a lesser contribution of domestic wastes.
The National Zoological Park has initiated corrective action to
control discharge of sanitary wastes into Rock Creek, but there
are outdoor exhibit areas, paved and unpaved, from which surface
discharges eventually reach the watercourses.
At the time of inspection, piles of bedding and 'animal
wastes were observed on the ground at the Park Police stables
at Connecticut Avenue, and there was evidence of movement of
these wastes toward and into the Creek. Drainage from the park-
ing lot, corral, and stable discharges into Rock Creek. '
-------
A seepage of dark and obviously septic liquid was enter-
ing the Creek under the north abutment of the highway bridge
leading to the tunnel, approximately 200 feet north of the Calvert
Street Bridge during the initial survey, but it had stopped flow-
ing on later observations.
The bacteriological and chemical samples taken near the
Slash Run Interceptor, south of P Street in Washington, D. C.,
were extremely high in fecal bacteria, phosphorus, chlorides, and
ammonia, and biological samples indicated the presence of only
pollution-tolerant and intermediate forms. Visual observation
of particulate human fecal and attendant matter, coupled with
olfactory evidence, confirmed severe pollution by sanitary sewage.
Flow was observed from the Interceptor during early sampling,
but it had stopped on later observations.
C. EXISTING POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAMS
1. Erosion
A work plan was developed in 1962 for the upper Rock
Creek Watershed as a joint operation by Montgomery County, the
Montgomery Soil Conservation District, and the Maryland-National
Capital Park and Planning Commission, with the cooperation of the
Soil Conservation and Forest Services of the United States Depart-
ment of Agriculture. The plan provided for park development
along the larger watercourses with two flood control-sediment
-------
15
trap-recreation reservoirs. Approximately 70 per cent of the
acreage has already been acquired; one reservoir has been com-
pleted, and the dam for the second is under construction. The
completed reservoir will be operated for sediment control when
upstream projects under development by the Soil Conservation
Service are also in operation to prevent premature silting. The
flood regulatory feature is designed to reduce downstream erosion
and augment flows, with resultant quality benefits, during low
stream flow periods. The work plan is revised periodically and,
at present, construction of a chemical treatment basin is under
way upstream from the completed reservoir on Rock Creek. It is
anticipated that two-thirds of the sediment can be removed by
this means, to extend the life of the reservoir 200 per cent and
to make the water immediately available for recreational use.
2. Sewerage Separation
In the District of Columbia a substantial part of the
Rock Creek drainage area is already served by separate storm and
sanitary sewerage. This is in the newly developed northwest area
where only storm drainage discharges into Rock Creek. In the
older developed areas, combined sewers carry both surface and
sanitary wastes via the trunk sewers to the District of Columbia
Water Pollution Control Plant, from which the treated effluent is
discharged into the Potomac River. Construction of intercepting
sewers has eliminated all discharges from sanitary sewers under
-------
16
dry weather flow conditions, but overflow during heavy storm runoff
results in discharges of diluted sanitary sewage into Rock Creek
because of inadequate interceptor capacity. The estimated cost
of the sewerage separation program for the Rock Creek drainage area,
tentatively scheduled for completion by the year 2000, is $103
million. This does not include diversion of stormwater drains
from discharging into Rock Creek. At the current rate of alloca-
tion of funds, the separation program will not be accomplished
according to schedule. Even if the program were accelerated, it
would not be possible to complete the separation in less than 20
years without seriously disrupting the traffic arteries by con-
struction.
Industrial wastes and sediment runoffs are not problems
in the District of Columbia.
D. POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
1. Erosion
Montgomery County has pioneered in the regulation of
soil erosion by formation of a Rock Creek Watershed Land Treat-
ment Task Force in 1965- Members to the Task Force are: Maryland-
National Capital Park and Planning Commission, the Montgomery
County Council, the Montgomery Soil Conservation District, and
the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service. Subdivision plans are submitted by the developers to
the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission for
-------
17
approval, after which the planned erosion and sediment control
practices become a part of the Public Works Improvement Agree-
ment under the Subdivision Regulations for Montgomery County.
The County Department of Public Works reviews and enforces com-
pliance with the approved plans.
Control of soil erosion and washing of deleterious
materials in the District of Columbia is provided for in Article
3 of the Police Regulations, which prohibits discharge, except
house sewers, into public sewers and requires maintenance of
conditions so that materials cannot be washed across public pave-
ments and sidewalks into storm drains. The District of Columbia
Code, Chapter 17, Harbor Regulations, Section 22-1703, specifically
prohibits discharge of industrial wastes into Rock Creek or the
Potomac River.
2. Sewerage
The Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission has the
authority to construct and maintain the sanitary sewerage system
in Montgomery County. All trunk sewers and any other sewers 15-
inch or larger must receive the approval of the State and County
Health Departments to assure orderly development of the area's
comprehensive sanitary sewerage system. In addition, the Wash-
ington Suburban Sanitary Commission approves plans submitted for
stormwater drainage facilities for land development projects.
-------
-------
18
V. BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Watershed Work Plan for the Upper Rock Creek Watershed,
Montgomery County, Maryland, August 1962.
2. Sediment Control Program for Montgomery County, Maryland,
adopted June 1965-
3. Sewer Separation Program for Washington, D. C., Department
of Sanitary Engineering, D. C. Government, 1966.
U. Pollutions! Effects of Stormwater and Overflows from Combined
Sewer Systems, DWS&PC, USPHS, November 196k.
5. Comprehensive Survey, Potomac River Basin, Supplement to Vol.
VI, Appendix F, USDA, July 1966.
6. Geldreich, E. E., Clark, H. F., and Huff, C. B., "A Study of
Pollution Indicators in a Waste Stabilization Pond," Journal
Water Pollution Control Federation, 36, 11, 1372 (Nov. 196k)
T. Standard Methods, Water and Wastewater, llth Edition, I960.
8. Biological Survey of Rock Creek, FWPCA, Chesapeake Bay-
Susquehanna River Basins Project, Working Document No. ky
October 1966.
-------
-------
CO
o
1
CO VO
W vo
CO ON
<>; ^
§ <1>
« o
r-rl i_J .LJ
ft 3 US
w fe ^ o
§<|j 03 T3
CO C
to cd
o o C •
o o -P
CG >H -3
W ^
hH
pQ
«
EH
H
CO --
< bO
3 S
CO
En
U
fe
CO
j?^ |T^
I-H 0
< CJ CO
o -3-
W PM
fc W tsl
EH >
CO W
CO
j 2 ETJ
,0
S-4
0)
Ji
CO
C—
•
o
o
0 t-
o' o'
0 0
OJ O
OJ
ft
c—
H
0 0
o
LA
ON
O O
ON O
ON
O
VO
H
A
^
O
H
H
VO
vo vo
VD --,
•^ ON
ON OJ
OO VO
-P
4) 43
0) bO
f-t TH
-p ffi
CO
•
^J ^H
h^
J^
cd (u
co t>
fl 0
,0
*
,M 0) Ai flj
C to u to
cd o
PQ K
t— CO
• •
0 0
o
0*
H
O
O
A
OJ
o
o
o
-=}-
OJ
o
o
o
_^r
OJ
vo
vo
ON
CO
a
K
c-f
m
cd
H
CO
ON
o
CM
H
LA
•
H
0 -3-
O ON
0 O
O ON
O -3
**
CO
H
ON
0 O
0 0
O VO
OO .3-
H
O O
o o
0 0
ON H
0 H
VO
M
H
A
,_,
LA
^J-
0
H
vo
vo vo
•^ vo
ON--
OJ H
VO CO
^-^
!-,
to
-P
-P
(D
W
£j
J3
O
«J
to
to
cd
S
LA
LA O
VO O
O O
0 0
ft ft
LA OJ
0 0
O H
O H
LA
OO
0 O
o o
o oo
_jT r-J"
LA
vo vo
vo vo
— ^ *•*. ^
OJ CO
CO CO
•p
CO
0)
-p
CO
-p
£_f
0)
£>
H
03
U
vo
OJ
-------
*•— •.
f^
CO W
CO
^^1 p*j ?TJ
< 0
U Pt< -J'
W M CM
fr, i-3
o o
0 H
«
re c5 co
o pq re
Pn W
M pt,
1-3 s oo
o o -=t
o o
M pr"]
EH °8 S
Q &H
£*J
o
H
EH
O
3
ftj
fe
§
CO
re co
^> 1 *|
ti 11
re S
LA H
O t—
o o
o o
co o
-=)• ON
00 ^t
o o
o o
LA O
c— co
rH -*
oo
o o
0 O
ON O
O CO
VO -3"
H 00
A
vo
vo vo
vo -^
"s^ l/\
ON rH
co co
o
o
£_j
OJ
Jj
o
rH
^
O
H
0)
•
£
O
o
CM
Tl
a rH
•H O
cd Vi
Q
f-
CM
LA-J-
— 1" j I
-— J nn
o o
-3- VO
0 H
O O
CM O
LA CM
0 0
0 0
O ON
CM OO
0 O
O O
ON O
O H
VO CM
H
A
* — X S-^
LA O
-J" -3"
O O
H H
S^X **~-S
\O VD
MD VD
--^ **^_
H CM
CM CM
VO VO
O
O
co
g
H
OJ
T)
O
t-
CM
_=f OJ
-*' oo
o o
o o
ON O
C- OJ
t-
H
O O
0 0
co o
-3" CM
00 J-
l/\
O O
O 0
CO O
H CM
LA
VO
VO VO
vo \
^ IA
ON H
OO CO
-P
O
rH
hO
a
•H
*^
L^
ni
ft
O
o
co
•H
H
a u
2 §
•o -p
r^ ^_,
O 0}
•H a
CO
o
OO
VO
H
O
O
ON
O
rH
o
O
LA
c-
rH
O
O
ON
O
vo
H
A
VO
vo
•""•^
ON
CO
O
O
co
«H
o
rg
a
0)
f<
-p
o a
a -H
r^ rH
0) -H
§ "°
H
d) O
ho a
0) -p
CO
CM
oo
co
o o
0 rH
o o
o o
CM O
-3- O\
LA -Zj"
0 O
o o
CM 0
J- ON
-3-
O O
0 O
ON O
O O
VO -*
H OJ
A
VO
vo vo
VO "x^-
-^s^ {f\
ON H
co co
1
o
a>
[0
^
a
•$ ^
V cS
^H O
o re
O (-1
o
o
c-^-
0
o
o
0
oo
H
0
o
o
OO
H
ON
O
O
O
ON
0
VO
f
rH
VO
vo
"-x^
LT\
H
CO
£_i
Q)
>
01
CO
a
0) -P
*** D
° £
^Q ^-3
CO
§ T!
{•H Cd
pp 3
0)
oS H
S
r-
rH
o
o
o
ON
c-
o
o
o
o
oo
H
O
o
o
o"
CM
VO
VO
' s^
LT\
H
CO
£-4
OJ
0)
w
S -P
° £
CQ «M
CO
§ Tl
JH cd
PQ ^
(U
«i H
rH
-------
x— s
r(J
OJ
J3
G
W -P
W G
W O
PH O
O ^— "
fc*H
O
O H
K
I *)
PH
EH
H
CQ \
<£ tiC
J S
CQ
O
fe
CQ
s a5
J 0
S
M M
« S
ON
•H/
OJ
NO UN
H H
H
CO O
NO OO
00
O O
ON ON.
t— j-
O o
0 0
-=)• -&
M *
CM CM
,*— «»,
t—
H
O
H
•*—**•
vo
*\O VD \O
\o vo *****».
"^x """x OO
CM CM H
CO CO O
H
1
O (1)
§
>j O O
0) O co pq
0) -H 'tJ
o o oJ > C
•H
0 TT, O PH
0 0
PH H
CM OJ
J- ,^-
^
ON
O
OJ
O O
O i— I
O O
ON O
t- O
**
ON
OO O
H 0
O
A
ON
"*
O O
-3- O
OJ O
« «
UN O
00
H
s~*
OJ
OJ
o
H
«. — *
VO VO
V£> VO V£)
VO ~^~^
^^ UNCO
ON H H
CO OO O
H
0)
H
•H
-P
G
•H
<&
IH
^
A
O
C
oJ
FH
^»
(1)
•H
-*'
CO LTN t—
UN CM t—
0 O 00
* • *
H C^
O t--
1-1
0 0
-X OJ
H OJ
O O
OJ O
V t~-
M
H
O O
0 0
H O
* ft
oj oo
H
^— N *~- -x x— >.
O O -=!•
OJ H OJ
H H O
H rH H
»— " •»*—'• **-^*
VO VO VD
VO VO VO
"****«. "***•*, >x*s.
H OJ CO
OJ OJ H
vo vo o
H
A
*
P-t
( — |
H
•H
s
Q)
0
»H
(U
•H
PH
0>
0
cd ^"J
cd
H O
0 P5
O
PH
t—
-*'
UN CO OJ
OJ t-- OO
0 O OJ
C— O CO ON
\O UN CO V£>
H OJ
OO O O CO
t— _=t CO t—
H
O O O O
o o o o
00 t- t- H
M **
H OJ
O O O O
o o o o
ON 00 H O
ft * * *
-3- 00 CM H
H
^~* ^-^ ^-^
UN O t—
-* OO O
rH H O
H H H
*^-* *— •* •«— ^
vo vo NO
VO VO *^3 VO NO
vo ^^ ^~vo —
^-. H CM -^.OO
H CM CM H H
~~-^ ***^ "^^ "*^ ^"^
CO NO NO CO O
H
PH
<^
G r?
(U
t»0 -H
(d H
H -H
PH 2
ON CO
-^j- NO
OO UN O
00 ON ON
o o oo
OO OONO
o o o
O 0 O
t— CO O
ON
*
o
H
o o o
OJ CM O
V V -3-
r*
NO
O 0 0
o o o
00 H ON
ft ft f>
OJ OO O
\Q
H
A
^— "* ^-^ * — s
O UN UN
o j- j-
OJ H -3-
H H H
•»^^ N J V X
V£) VD VO
vo vo vo
*****%. *****.. ^^»
H OJ ON
CM CM CM
NO NO NO
0}
0)
OJ
0
•H
G
o
•H
PH
-P
Hi
0>
•H
Q
H
H
•H
J_j
0)
X!
CQ
H
CO
00
o
o
o
oo
ft
1-1
0
oo
00
o
oo
H
A
ON
NO
NO
"-•^
CO
--v^
CO
*M
0
-p
03
0)
•p
03
*-J
^fj
o
§v<
0)
PQ f-i
o
O 4^
•H O
> o
G PH
OJ
oo
*
ON
-------
O
o
X— fc
•d
CO W
&K
*i K a
<: o
C_> PH J"
pr, |_^
O O
o w
3
ffi O C/3
gpq ffi
a
M Pn
i_3 £; CO
O O -=}•
O U
w w
< M
O EH
S!
0
M
EH
O
s
a
*g*
^
CO
K CO
rvi M
> a
M M
« S
O OO VO CM
t— VO H O
O O OO H
OO IAOOVQ LT\ l/N ITN
OOOCMOOOOOOO
rH CM
OOOOOOOO
OOl— OOOt— ONOOO
CM CM H H -3- 00 O
ft M
CM t—
H
OOOOOOOO
OOOONOCMI/NO
A A A A
IT\ PO r-H CO
OOOOOOOO
OOOOOCOOOO
OOCM ONJ' ir\Jtj' o
vo -*
H
A
^-x *~* *~^ *~*
ir\ LA o o
o o oo tr>
oo CM J- ON
H H H O
vo vo vo vo vo
VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO
~v» --N, ~~xVO VO VO VO ' — *•>.
H CM ON "•>, • — ""x. ^»» IfN CO
CMCMCMHCMCOONrHH
vovovocococococo o
H
cu
bO
-d
•H
PQ
CD
a
•H
J
-p
o
•rl
-p
CO
•H
Q
o
o
H
ON
ON
0
oo
o'
0
o
D —
0
o
CM
O
O
0
oo
rH
*~^
O
CM
-=r
H
\o
^o
ON
CM
VO
1
cu
CO
0
fi
£.4
cu
-p -p
H 0)
0)
rH 'd
^H O
h O
(U [S
^
0
t-
o
H
O H
-3" ^O
o o
H O H H -=f
0 CM 0 CM O
O O O OO O
CO CM O VO O
H t— O O
A A A A
CT\ rH OO t—
H H
O O O O O
o o o -a- o
CO -d" I/N H O
A A A
00 H C—
O O O O O
O O O O O
co co ON oo o
-3- H O H 00
ONVO OO
H
A
^— X ,^~x ^^
o o o
CM -=r o
oo 00.3-
rH H H
vo vo vo vo
vo vo vo vo vo
H CM ON -~-- l/N
CM CM CM H H
Xx^_ *x^ x,^ x^^ x,^^
VO VO VO CO CO
1
4
•H
a
-p
CO
0)
1
-p
CO
0)
rH
H
rH
CM
t —
0
ONVO co o
O rH O H
O O O O
CM ON CM O
V t— t— O
A A
rH 00
OO
CO O O O
rH O O O
oo oo o
A A A
H H 00
OO
O O O O
ON co co O
-J- _* _=!• O
oo oo oo
oo
t X
C—
oo
ON
o
vo vo
vo vo vo vo vo
VO VO VO ^^
,-^x. ITNOO
H OO ON H H
CO CO CO CO O
H
H
•H
S
CO
CU ' — x
fl cu
0 >
t-0 -H
-P O
0)
§1
K CU
PH
•H
H -d
cu cd
pl O
& PH
o
o
oo
H
H
O rH
rH C—
O O
0 0
t— OO
A A
rH H
O O
CM CO
t— H
A A
H ON
O O
0 0
O O
VO -3
rH CM
VO VO
VO VO
"-^ ***s«^
oo ON
^\ "-w^
co oo
-p
o
•H
-P
0
CU
a
a
o
o
-p
03
«
a cu
•H 3
H G
CU
O* ^ -»^
co oo
-p
CO
cu
i
-P
en
cd
cd
«
r*S
c! cd
•H &
«•§)
3 *H
O^ W
o
0
LTN
H
OO
H
H
-------
-------
y — s
•d
0)
c
i*3 "H
W -P
w a
K 0
O CJ
W
CJ
O rH
«
3
5
H
CQ "^~
CQ W
CO
s§ K
< o
o fa -=r
W H CM
fa t~P
O O
CJ W
pq
^ ^
PH O CO
o PQ «
fa W
M fa
t-3 !=3 CO
00-4-
0 CJ
£3 r-fi
EH 08 g
Q EH
<^
0
M
EH
CJ
s
g
^1
(J
M M
« S
-3"
CM
O
H
H
0
VO
OJ
0
o
CM
O\
vo
vo
H
co
0)
c
0)
>
c
o
-p
a
•H
w
^ ^^^ —
^O V^ VO
VO VO VO VD
~^ ^^^~vo
CM OJ OJ H
V£> VO VO CO
^
QJ
^_!
U
v{
O
O
%
CO
0 0 O
OO OO O
00 00 OO
«\
oo
o o o
CM H O
1— CM O
H CM 00
H
s~~*.
H
OO
O\
0
^^
VO ^O
MD VO VO VO
VO VO ^-^~.
CO O\ H H
COCO CO O
H
vo ON
O oo
0 0
oo oo
H OO
CO O
c— o
oo
*
H
o o
0 O
oo _=r
H OJ
VO V£>
vo vo
H OJ
CO OO
^
0
•p
•H
T)
ffi
M
b^ CJ
i a
OJ
QJ r*
rt <£
3
0)
o3 *j
Tj O
(1) C
CJ W
-^t 00
LTN t^-
rH rH
;o
oo
o
co co
oo o
O 0
oo t—
rH rH
o o
o oo
ir\ H
0 0
o oo
t— oo
H
. — »
0
rH
H
<^^f
VD
V£5 VO
\VQ
CM CM
VO CO
•d
oj
0
i~)
f—
CM
H
CM
H
oo
0
V£> \£>
H O
O O
oo oo
rH OO
O 0
rH O
CM CM
0 0
VO O
H
f — v
0
OO
_^J-
H
v *
^O
V£> VO
V£> ^s.
OJ CM
CO VO
T)
cd
O Tlf
PH Cd
o
o
(U r*>
O J_j
J-i (L)
O >
a <:
H CO
9 0
oo oo
CM CM
H
O
O
t—
rH
0
CM
O
0\
J-
V£)
CM
CO
t-- H
t— rH
0 0
t— 0
H H
«
CM
0 O
0 0
00 J"
* #1
H CM
0 0
O O
00 _=f
rH IT\
VQ VO
VO VO
CM CM
CO CO
cd
O
K
0)
-p
U3
cd
o
r*
^
13
t^
0
0)
o
^
fj
o
«
VO
OO
oo
ON
O
oo
oo
o
o
oo
H
V£>
CM
CO
oj
O
«
T3
0
O
>
0)
£
$
1^
d)
(U
O
oj
Q
O
K
-------
-------
en
1
CO
* w
O CO
>H
^
Cd a
E3 •> 3
5^3 . ^"^
PJ p^j
0 8 §
WO PS
OB O
0 H W
P"*^ |*y* p [
CQ CO
< 0
M |
^ Q
M W £*«
OH O ^
Q
OH a
^J PH W
53 « O
o o
r | r j p*"
O W EH
P-i W H
EH
CO
& CM'
1
EH
HH
aJ >-.
"o a
EH
O H
O
&
bO H
O W
cs a
H
£3
ON
> H
O VO CO
CO H OO
ON CM LA
H H H
VO CM CO
CO H -^
ON co ON
H
-X O
CO CO CM
ON O OO
H
CM CM 00
O O O
O O O
CO CM
CM H
CO O LA
H CM CM
1 1 1
H H H
t- H O O VO
CO-* LA C— CO
-=r LA t— ON LA
CM CM H CO H
OO CM H O CO
LA CO CM CM OO
ON LA H t— H
H H H H H
OO CM
OO OO CO LA C—
LA CM O CM ON
H H H H
CM CM
O O H CO
O O O Q O
O O O a O
V
t- O -3 t- H
CO CO O -* CM
O\ O VO COCO
H H CM CM
1 1 1 1 1
CM CM CM CM CM
J- CM -* CM
CM CO H H
LA ON t— VO
H H O O
t— CM H H
LA CO VO LA
CM-* CO OO
H H
O ON t- ON
CM H t- t-
H H
H CM H H
0000
O O O O
vo -* ONVO
O CM O O
ONVO co o
H CM CO
1 1 1 1
CO CO CO CO
CM VO O
H CO LA
t- LA t—
O H H
OO-3- OO
CM VO t-
VO CO t—
-* -* VO
LA t— VO
CO-* CO
O O H
O O O
OO CM O
O H H
t—
rH
i
VO -* O
CM
0
1 -P 1
-* H ~t
H
1
,^
H -* 00 CO
LA CM CM CO
OH H
CM H -*
LA LA H
-* VO H
CO t— CO
CO OO O
t- LA t—
LA LA H
H CO CM
0 O O
LA O ON
OHO
CO
1
LA O CO LA
H H CM
O
•Pill
CM LA LA LA
1
LA
-------
VQ
VQ
ON
rH
ON
rH
0)
fQ
o
-p
o
w o
p£|
W 1
K
O *
CO
w w
O M
O EH
K H
H
ffl
EH
•
O^
J
9
EH
EH
O
M
PQ
EH
H
*?
M
EH
>H
EH
H
Q
M
pq
«
=8
H
§
M
EH
>H
EH
M
Q
M
S
£n
08
rvi
5*
H
EH
>H
EH
M
Q
M
BH
\ i
EH
°8
r-r-T
*ij
M
EH
s
O
M
EH
O
s
OJ
o
o
OJ
H
ITN
t—
O
o
0
H
O
I—
O
o
CO
0
0
vo
o
rH
VO
0
rtf
o3
o
K
r?
crJ
-p
•H
, — |
•H
s
VO CO
ON OJ
ir\ t—
o o
OJ OJ
rH H
I/N CO
CO OJ
IT\ t—
0 O
0 O
H H
OJ CO
co rn
LTN t —
rH rH
CO CO
O O
l/> LfN
t— m
O LP>
OJ OJ
vo vo
o o
TJ O
cd o
O K
£4
pq a)
^>
r^
^) a3
o a
o
K
CO
ON
O
OJ
OJ
H
CO
t —
O
OJ
0
H
O
ON
LfN
CO
CO
o
t—
CO
0
UA
VO
o
o
o
tS]
o
-p
•
s~*
£
-P
EJ
•H
X
O
p.]
Qj
^
-------
-------
1-1
APPENDIX 1
INVENTORY OF ALL DRAINS, CULVERTS
AND PIPES ENTERING ROCK CREEK
(Includes D. C. Combined Sewer Outfalls Previously Listed)
Rock Creek from M Street Bridge to below Massachusetts Avenue Bridge
Al. 100 yards above M Street Bridge stone culvert 3 feet
diameter—dry. West bank. D. C. overflow No. 1. Olive
Street extended.
A2. 200 yards above M Street. East side. Drop culvert dis-
charging 6/17/66. Has been cut off since. This is D. C.
Sewer No. 3. N Street.
A3. UOO yards above M Street Bridge. Street drain. Dry.
West side.
A.k. U50 yards above M Street. Large box culvert connected to
sewer manhole; no discharge.
A5. Large manhole on west bank.
A6. 100 yards downstream at "P Street Beach"—12-inch culvert
built into abutment. No discharge. East side.
AT. 8-foot diameter pipe with invert below water. Discharging
a grayish material. This is Slash Run interceptor. Flow-
ing 6/17/66; has been effectively cut off since August 1.
A8. 100 feet below P Street Bridge 1 1/2 x 2 foot culvert set
in stone abutment; no flow. East bank. Storm drain.
A9- F Street sewer—discharging under a nicely designed outlet
structure which conceals flow. East bank on upstream side
of P Street Bridge. This is D. C. Sewer No. 7. Northwest
Boundary Trunk Sewer.
A10. 1 1/2 x 2 foot culvert, west side, 50 yards above P Street
Bridge. No drainage.
All. Q Street Bridge—dry culvert, west side. D. C. overflow
No. 26.
A12. Several drain pipes on west of stream through retaining
wall. No flow observed.
-------
1-2
APPENDIX 1 (Continued)
A13- Several drains in east side draining flat park area. No
flow observed.
AlU. Dam below Massachusetts Avenue Bridge.
Rock Creek from Dam below Massachusetts Avenue Bridge and proceeding
upstream to ford at south side of National Zoological Park
Bl. 2-foot drain and overflow pipe west bank 50 feet above dam.
Pipe dry. Dam at Dumbarton Oaks Park Creek. Confluence.
B2. 4-inch pipe over overflow from powerhouse (?). Both dry.
100 feet above dam. East bank.
B3. Storm runoff 200 feet above dam. East bank.
BU. D. C. Sewer No. 21. West bank.
B5. 2 1/2-foot drain 150 feet above dam; clear water flowing.
West bank.
B6. Storm runoff 100 feet south of Massachusetts Avenue Bridge.
West bank.
B7. Three storm drain pipes 6-8 inches draining Massachusetts
Avenue Bridge, east bank.
B8. 18-inch storm drain 150 yards above Massachusetts Avenue
Bridge, east bank.
B9. 2-foot pipe 300 yards south Sewer Ho. 2k. West bank. Pipe
3/U submerged in creek.
BIO. 6-inch pipe, continuous flow, water clear. No visible sign
of sewage. 300 yards south of D. C. Sewer No. 28. East bank.
Bll. 18-inch storm drain 250 yards south of Sewer No. 28. Dry.
East bank.
B12. Normanstone Creek.
B13. D. C. Sewer No. 28.
BlU. 10-inch storm drain. East bank. Dry.
-------
1-3
APPENDIX 1 (Continued)
B15. D. C. Sewer No. 29-
Bl6. D. C. Sewer No. 9-
BIT. Storm drain 200 yards south of D. C. Sewer No. 30. East bank.
B18. D. C. Sewer No. 30.
B19. 18-inch storm drain east bank across from D. C. Sewer No. 30.
B20. l8-inch storm drain east bank above D. C. Sewer No. 30.
B21. Small stream 75 yards above D. C. Sewer No. 30. West bank.
Light flow, slightly cloudy, sewage smell and visible sewage.
B22. D. C. Sewer No. 10.
B23. 75 yards above 10, 12-inch pipe, dry. West bank.
B2l*. Open sewer 100 yards above Sewer No. 10, west bank. Light
flow. Green colored pool at mouth. This may be corral
washings from Park Police stable.
B25. 9-inch pipe 300 feet south of Sewer No. 31. West bank. Dry.
B26. Storm drain Connecticut Avenue Bridge. West bank, dry.
B27- Drainage from Park Police stables enters on east side on
downstream side of Connecticut Avenue Bridge. Evidence of
manure and stableage materials entering Rock Creek from a
parking lot drain was found.
B28. D. C. Sewer No. 11.
B29. D. C. Sewer No. 31.
B30. 25 feet above Sewer No. 31 dry gully, strong sewage odor,
east bank.
B31. D. C. Sewer No. 12.
B32. ll*-inch storm drain above stable bridge dry. West bank.
B33. Storm drain, dry, 100 yards above Sewer No. 12, west bank.
-------
l-U
APPENDIX 1 (Continued)
B3U. 100 yards above Sewer No. 1? (A) Extremely heavy ground
seepage; (B) U-inch pipe continuous flow, east bank. This
is a surface stream which flows behind a retaining wall and
is discharged into Rock Creek.
B35. Storm drain, dry, Calvert Street Bridge. West bank.
B36. 100 feet above Calvert Street Bridge storm drain, dry,
east bank.
B37. Storm drain by tunnel bridge slow flow. East bank.
B38. Center foundation of tunnel bridge. East bank broken sewer
source. Bottom seep in stream bed. This has been sampled.
This has been cut off and has not been observed recently.
B39. 75 yards below ford, dry storm drain, east bank.
Rock Creek from National Zoological Park, West Bank, below Ford to
Porter Street
Cl. Zoo Sewer 12—Steady flow, oily, 5-foot pipe.
C2. Zoo Sewer 5—18-inch pipe flowing.
C3. Zoo Sewer 3—Culvert 3-foot diameter flowing has been sampled.
C4. Zoo Sewer 2—12-inch pipe flowing.
C5. Zoo Sewer k—Effluent smelly, partially closed by silt.
C6. Zoo Sewer 6—18-inch pipe corrugated heavy flow, yellow color.
C7. Zoo Sewer 13—Runoff storm drain, oily water, drains parking
lot.
C8. Zoo Sewer Ik—Flowing, storm runoff from parking lot.
C9. Zoo Sewer 15—Flowing, 8-inch iron pipe, cantilevered k feet,
duck pond drain. Heavy flow.
CIO. Zoo Sewer 16—Parking lot runoff, oily plus trash.
Cll. Zoo Sewer 17—Oily, trash, no flow.
-------
-------
1-5
APPENDIX 1 (Continued)
C12. Runoff from Zoo parking lot, 8-inch pipe, dry.
CIS. Zoo Sewer 1—Culvert at Harvard Street Bridge, flowing.
ClU. 1-foot pipe, dry.
C15. Storm drain, nearly closed.
Cl6. 10-inch pipe, slightly running, heavy oil.
C17- Zoo Sewer 7—1-foot pipes, minor flow.
Cl8. Zoo Sewer 8—1-foot pipes, minor flow.
C19. Zoo Sewer 9—1-foot pipes, minor flow.
C20. Zoo storm drain, garage, oil.
C21. Zoo Sewer 10—Extreme amount of sewage on the creek bank.
C22. Storm drain, runoff, dry.
C23. Stream, very light flow.
C2it. Stream, light flow, clear, next to Sewer 32.
C25. D. C. Sewer 32, flowing, estimate 0.2-0.5 cfs. Has been
sampled. This is the largest observed overflow and is from
a supposedly plugged sewer.
C26. 12-inch drain running sewage. (East bank through to Klingle
Road)
Rock Creek from National Zoological Park, East Bank from Ford to
Porter Street Bridge
Dl. 150 yards above ford, 10-inch pipe, no visible flow. East
bank Zoo ford to Porter Street.
D2. Storm drain 50 feet from start of wall filled with silt.
D3. Storm drain 100 yards north of start of wall.
Dh. Storm drain 150 yards north of start of wall.
-------
1-6
APPENDIX 1 (Continued)
D5. Storm drain 200 yards north of start of wall.
D6. 25 feet south Sewer 13. Storm drain dry.
D7. D. C. Sewer 13.
D8. 2-foot storm drain 50 feet south of Zoo bridge, dry.
D9. D. C. Sewer Ik.
D10. Storm drain 25 feet south of Sewer 15, running, high iron
content.
Dll. D. C. Sewer 15-
D12. Storm drain 100 feet north Sewer 15, dry.
D13. D. C. Sewer l6.
Dll*. D. C. Sewer 1?.
D15. 300 yards north of D. C. Sewer 17 storm drain, dry.
Dl6, 500 yards north of Sewer 17 storm drain, dry.
D17. 600 yards north of Sewer 17 storm drain, dry.
Dl8. 650 yards north of Sewer 17 storm drain, dry.
D19. 750 yards north of Sewer 17 storm drain, dry.
Soapstone Creek, Tributary of Rock Creek, West Side in Park, from
32nd and Albemarle Street downstream
El. 5-foot sewer line head of Soapstone Creek. Pool below mouth
of sewer covered with scum, soapsuds, paper, and miscellane-
ous materials not surface runoff type. Odor of sewage
noticeable.
E2. 200 feet below mouth of sewer, it-inch pipe, steady flow,
water clear, possibly from apartment building.
E3. 50 feet below No. 2 same as above.
-------
1-7
APPENDIX 1 (Continued)
EU. H-foot sewer crossing creek, broken in one area. Raw sewage
leaking out. A gray mossy growth commonly found in sewage
was observed in Soapstone Creek downstream from this point.
E5. 18-inch sewer, slight flow with evidence of sewage; signs
of heavy flow at times.
E6. 3-foot pipe, heavy flow, water looks clear. Just below apart-
ment building. This flow comes from the west under Connecticut
Avenue.
ET. Two 1-foot pipes, ground seepage. Just below apartment building.
E8. Small creek from spring, appears to be clean.
E9- Small creek from 18-inch pipe under building under construc-
tion, water slightly cloudy. Evidence of iron content at
mouth of pipe.
E10. Small creek, water clear, spring source probable.
Ell. Runoff from street, dry.
E12. 2-foot pipe near end Audubon Terrace Drive, slight flow.
Water clear.
E13. 75 feet below No. 12 small stream, water clear. Opposite
No. 13, ground seepage from concrete block, strong odor of
s ewage pre s ent.
ElU. 18-inch pipe, possible runoff, dry.
MelvinC. Kazan Park Creek. From Connecticut Avenue downstream
Fl. Oil flowing out with spring water. Hearsay evidence indi-
cates that this oil was spilled at the Broadmoor Apartments
1 1/2 blocks south of this point. D. C. Health Department
has been notified and has made preliminary inquiries.
F2. Flows 50 feet, emerges with sewer. Discharge looks clear.
No sign of sewage.
F3. Rocks in stream coated with oil scum. Oil layers observed
in quiescent pools.
-------
1-8
APPENDIX 1 (Continued)
Rock Creek from Porter Street Bridge to D. C. Line
Gl. Approximately 300 yards above Porter Street—2 storm drains,
dry.
G2. Drain near Kazan Park drainage confluence. Near Pierce Mill,
east side of creek. Dry.
G3. Drain pipe above Item 2, east side of creek.
G^. Drain pipe at Tilden Street Bridge, west side of creek near
playground.
G5. Military Road, in bridge abutment, east side of creek.
G6. 200 yards above Military Road—3-inch pipe draining from east.
GT. Sewer manhole No. 335 below USGS gaging station.
G8. 100 yards above Sherrill Drive. One large drain and one
small drain. West side of Rock Creek at playground. Small
pipe drains drinking water fountain. Large pipe appears to
drain the parking lot.
G9. 500 yards above Sherrill Drive—storm drain.
Pinehurst Branch from Origin downstream to Extinction
Creek begins 100 yards west of Oregon Avenue. 50 feet below beginning,
H-foot pipe enters from left. Slight flow, visible signs of sewage.
Strong sewage odor. Creek dries up 50 feet below Oregon Avenue.
Rock Creek from D. C. Line North to Capitol Beltway
HI. Bridle Path Bridge Blackhorse Trail, two 2i*-inch storm drains,
dry. West bank. Foot of Windalle Road.
H2. Small stream storm drainage, light flow 50 yards above 1.
East bank.
H3. 3-foot pipe above ford, dry. Storm. West bank.
Ek. 8-inch pipe 75 feet below pedestrian stoplight. West bank.
Light flow, visible sewage.
-------
-------
1-9
APPENDIX 1 (Continued)
H5- Storm drain 75 yards above -pedestrian crossing„ East bank.
H6. lU-inch pipe below school, water clear, slight flow. West bank.
HT. Small creek from ^-foot storm drain and 1^-inch pipe.
(Woodbine Street Sewer.)
H8. E-l (Donny Brook) Confluence.
H9. Creek 100 yards above E-W Highway. West bank. Slight flow.
H10. W-2 (Coquelin Run) Confluence.
Hll. Creek, light flow, runs in above green house, west bank.
H12. Creek, light flow, broken sewer leaking into creek bed.
(Locate and inspect this one.)
Rock Creek from Capitol Beltway to Cedar Lane
Jl. East of Beltway overpass storm drain running heavily. Water
clear.
J2. West lane, west side, stream runoff, bed dry.
J3. West, north side, runoff dry, 25 yards from Beltway bridge.
Jh. 2it-inch pipe leading to creek, slow flow, signs of sewage.
J5- South side, storm drain, dry, 100 feet below Connecticut
Avenue exit sign.
J6. 3-foot pipe, dry, above sign.
J7- Creek, one-half mile from bridge drain small amount of flow.
J8. South side of Creek storm drain, dry.
J9- North side of creek, stream, flow heavy.
J10. 2^-inch pipe drain, east of Connecticut Avenue Bridge.
Jll. 25-inch pipe one-fourth mile above Connecticut Avenue Bridge,
flow slight.
-------
1-10
APPENDIX 1 (Continued)
J12. 3-foot pipe. Water black, soap north side of creek.
J13. Creek south bank. Water slightly polluted looking below
Summit Avenue.
Jlk. Creek west bank, small amount of flow.
J15. Storm drain, no flow south bank.
Jl6. It-foot sewer, running, soapsuds, 100 yards south of Cedar
Lane, west side of creek.
Rock Creek from Cedar Lane to Knowles Avenue
Kl. W-3 Confluence of unnamed stream.
K2. Storm drain; under beltway, dry.
K3. 2-foot storm drain, east bank, dry.
K^. Small creek, east bank, dry.
K5. W-U and W-5 Confluences of unnamed stream.
K.6. Storm drain east bank, dry.
K7. 3-foot drain east bank, dry.
K8. 2-foot drain east bank, dry.
K9. Stream west bank, W-6, Confluence of unnamed stream.
K10. 2-foot drain west bank in woods, slight flow.
Kll. Stream west bank, dry.
Rock Creek from Knowles Avenue to Gaynor Road
LI. Runoff from Newport Drive dry.
L2. Creek from ^-foot pipe, no flow.
L3. Dry creek storm drain east bank.
-------
1-11
APPENDIX 1 (Continued)
LU. Stream, clear flow (E-5).
L5. Stream, dry, storm drain.
L6. .Small creek, dry. West bank.
L7. Stream, dry.
L8. Creek, light flow, clean.
L9. Creek, clear light flow, west bank.
L10. Creek, slight flow, clear.
Lll. it-inch dry pipe 200 yards above swings on playground, east
side.
L12. lU-inch overflow; street overflow just below Randolph Street,
west bank.
L13. 3-foot storm drain across from above.
LI it. Stream emptying from a i|-foot sewer, some sewage, slight odor
(above Randolph Street).
L15. Creek, east bank, light flow, water clear.
Ll6. Stream, no flow, pools covered with scum.
Rock Creek from Gaynor Road to JJorbeck Road
Ml. W-10.
M2. Pool UOO yards off Viers Mill Road and St. Judas School.
Signs of sewage, smell and discoloration of water.
M3. Creek south side of second bridge, west bank, water light
brown in color; 300 yards above second bridge stream east
side bank strong odor, brown color of water.
Mi*. W-12.
M5. Creek west side bank, dry.
M6. Creek east side small flow.
-------
1-12
APPENDIX 1 (Continued)
M7. Creek west side small flow,
M8. Creek 25 feet above bridge clear, running fast.
M9. Creek east bank running slight.
Rock Creek North of Norbeck Bridge
Nl. Creek west bank, slight flow.
N2. Sewers on both sides of creek, no visible leakage.
N3. Creek 20 feet north of sewers. No flow, east bank.
N^. Spring west bank clear slight flow.
Coquelin Run upstream from Jones Mill Road Bridge near Confluence with
Rock Creek
01. 3-foot storm drain 300 yards above bridge, dry.
02. 18-inch pipe, light flow, extreme amount of algae.
03. U-inch pipe 100 yards above No. 2 same side of creek, pipe,
dry.
OU. U-inch pipe 100 yards above No. 3, light flow, water clear.
05. Stream, dry.
06. 18-inch storm drain, dry.
07. 2U-inch storm drain from Connecticut Avenue, dry.
08. Stream above Connecticut Avenue flowing under chlorine tanks
from swimming pool, water clear.
09. West end of lake small stream, flow fairly clear. Lake is
cloudy green. Coliform counts high.
010. Just inside country club fence, pools of cloudy green water.
Laboratory analyses show high coliforms.
-------
1-13
APPENDIX 1 (Continued)
Oil. Numerous sewer lines just before East-West Highway. Water
cloudy and green. Sources unknown, but some evidence of
pollution.
012. Creek east bank, slight flow, water hazy.
013. Two 18-inch storm drains at end of Maple Avenue, both dry.
01^. Two 6-inch pipes and street runoff on east bank, water clear.
015. 6-inch drain, east bank, dry.
Ol6. l8-inch drain west bank, no flow.
017. 2-foot drain west bank, no flow.
E-2: This stream drains Forest Glen, and its confluence with Rock Creek
is at the Capitol Beltway Bridge
PI. Stream on the left, running slow, clear.
P2. Sewer 2-inch pipe 500 yards below first bridge, strong odor,
white stuff all around. Forest Glen.
P3. Sewage line burst, very little running out, 25 feet below
second bridge (Capitol View Avenue).
Pk. Pipe ^-inch, no flow, 25 feet below second bridge.
P5. 2k-inch pipe clean, dry, below third bridge.
E3: This stream drains Rock Creek Hills, and its confluence with Rock
Creek is near the Capitol Beltway Overpass, over Story Brook Drive
Ql. Dry
E-U; This stream drains the Kensington area, and its confluence with
Bock Creek is at the Kensington Parkway Bridge
Rl. 18-inch storm drain, dripping, east bank.
R2. 75 yards above bridge, stream, no flow.
R3. 18-inch storm drain 100 yards above bridge, dry.
-------
1-lU
APPENDIX 1 (Continued)
R^. 8-inch storm drain 125 yards above bridge, dry.
R5. Two storm drains, slight flow, 200 yards above bridge, water
clear.
R6. 2-foot storm drain, Frederick Avenue, dry.
R7. 2-foot storm drain, dry, 75 yards above Frederick Avenue.
R8. 300 yards above Frederick Avenue, east bank, storm sewer,
heavy flow, water clear, no odor.
R9- 50 yards below Kent Street 18-inch storm drain, west bank, dry.
RIO. 50 yards above Kent Street 18-inch storm drain, west bank, dry.
Rll. 50 feet below street storm drain slight flow.
R12. Runoff, dry, halfway between bridges.
R13. Storm drain at bridge dry.
Elk. Small creek, light flow, clear.
R15- Storm drain from parking lot flowing; something being washed
off.
Rl6. Storm drain from Murdock Road, dry.
R17- Storm drain from school ground, dry.
Rl8. 3-foot storm drain slight flow, muddy water.
R19- Runoff from school parking lot, dry.
W-2: Stream Draining National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda. Proceed-
ing upstream.
SI. Inside of hospital grounds stream, east bank, slight flow,
water clear.
S2. Stream, moderate flow, fluid is extremely cloudy and milky
in color, behind Exchange.
-------
1-15
APPENDIX 1 (Continued)
S3. 2^-inch sever, light flow and clear, below stream pipe went
into sewer.
Sk. Overflow from evaporation slight.
S5. 3-foot sewer below third bridge, slight flow, looks clear.
S6. 3 dry storm drains around foot bridge.
ST. 18-inch pipe about 20 feet below second bridge, dry.
S8. Same as above, 12-inch pipe with very slow flow, pool below
pipe very full of pollution substances.
S9. 24-inch sewer opposite parking lot, dry.
S10. 6-inch and 2-inch pipes below parking lot, both dry.
Sll. Two 12-inch drain pipes 75 yards below fence (Jones Bridge
Road).
S12. Stream goes underground from hospital fence to Wisconsin
Avenue.
S13. 2^-inch sewer just above Wisconsin Avenue, slight flow,
algae in area.
Slk. 3-foot storm sewer, slight flow.
S15. Parking lot runoff.
W-3: This stream drains the National Institutes of Health upstream
from confluence with Rock Creek.
Tl. Creek starts from a 6-foot pipe.
T2. 2U-inch pipe, running slow, 75 feet from bridge.
T3. 2^-inch pipe, running fast, soapsuds beside second bridge.
T4. 2-foot pipe, dry, 25 feet from third bridge.
T5. 2-foot pipe, dry, 25 feet from third bridge.
T6. 8-inch pipe, dry, 75 feet from third bridge.
-------
1-16
APPENDIX 1 (Continued)
TT. 25 feet below fourth bridge, stream running fast, needs to
be walked.
T8. U-foot pipe, slight flow, storm drain.
T9. 3-foot pipe 3A submerged below fourth bridge, no flow.
T10. 2lt-inch pipe, no flow, 25 feet below fifth bridge.
Til. 2-foot pipe, no flow, 25 feet below fifth bridge.
T12. 2-foot pipe, no flow, above fifth bridge.
W-U: This stream drains north Bethesda from Pooks Hill. Its conflu-
ence with Rock Creek is near Wisconsin Avenue.
Ul. Dry
E-5: This stream drains Viers Mill Village and Connecticut Gardens
VI. Spring west bank, dry.
V2. 75 yards below creek (No. 3), scum on top of water brown
in color.
V3. Creek east bank, no flow, water muddy with trash. Probably
E-5-A.
Vk. 600 yards above creek (No. 3), creek west bank, light flow.
V5. 2-foot drain at the end Garrett Park Road dry, trash below.
V6. Creek west bank, light flow, orange scum on the water.
E-5-A
Wl. 2l+-inch storm drain, Viers Mill Road, dry.
W2. Goes into pipe at Weisman Road, storm drains emptying at
intervals. Comes out at lower part Valleywood Road.
W3. Farnell and Valleywood Roads, 12-inch storm sewer, oily,
algae.
-------
1-17
APPENDIX 1 (Continued)
WU. Hathaway and Valleywood Roads, storm sewers, oily, algae.
W5. 300 yards below head, 12-inch storm runoff, dry.
W6. 150 yards below head, 12-inch storm runoff, dry.
W7. Head emerges from 2-foot pipe, water full of newspaper and
trash.
E-5-C
XI. Stream runs in underground pipe storm drainage, water flowing.
X2. Large amount fine silt deposited.
W-5: Drains Weldwood Manor
Yl. 2-foot pipe 3 A full of water, no flow. At head of creek.
Signs of sewage.
Y2. 2U-inch pipe 3A full of trash, no flow. 25 feet below first
bridge on the hill.
Y3. Stream running clean, 600 yards from first bridge.
YU. Storm drain right below second bridge.
Y5. Storm drain, running slow.
W-6: Drains Garrett Park and Garrett Park Estates
Zl. Pool 50 yards from mouth full of speckled and brown trout.
Z2. Creek turns into small pond in Grosvenor Park Apartments,
water below dam filled with algae and brown scum.
Z3. 6-inch drainage from apartments, light flow, clear.
Zh. Storm drainage from road, dry.
Z5. Storm drainage from Route 70, dry.
-------
1-18
APPENDIX 1 (Continued)
Z6. 3-foot storm sewer, dry, Cheshire Drive, water full of algae
and shopping carts.
Z7. Runoff from swimming pool, 25 yards above Cheshire Drive.
Z8. Dry stream comes out at Grosvenor storm sewers.
W-6-A
All storm drainage and runoff.
W-6-B
AA1. Creek bed at source, dry.
AA2. Pond in farmyard, water muddy, flowing, brown algae in pond.
AA3. Creek continues dry after pond.
AA.H. 200 yards from pond pools of muddy water.
AA5. Farm road fords creek.
AA6. 100 yards from ford, water reappears in creek, slight flow.
AA7. Creek east bank, dry, 150 yards from start of flow.
AA8. 250 yards from start of flow, flow ends (creek bed muddy).
AA9. 150 yards from No. 8, road ford.
AA10. Creek west bank, slight flow.
AA11. 100 yards below mouth of No. 10, flow stops in creek. After
flow stops, pools of water at intervals.
AA12. Creek west bank, moderate flow, water clear.
AA13. Trestle, not in use, 100 yards from side creek.
AAllj. Creek passes under road through pipe.
AA15. After road, creek enters Grosvenor Park Apartments.
AAl6. 200 yards from road, creek enters pond, slight scum.
-------
2-1
APPENDIX 2
BIOLOGICAL SAMPLING STATIONS
ROCK CREEK
Station #1
This station was located at the Avery Road Bridge north of
Rockville, Maryland. The water was clear, and numerous minnows
were observed throughout the area. A total of nine genera of bottom
organisms were found, which included such clean-water associated
forms as mayflies (2 genera), caddisflies, and fishflies. Good water
quality was indicated based on the bottom organisms.
Station #2
This station was located on the East Branch of Rock Creek at
the Maryland Route 115 Bridge north of Rockville, Maryland. The water
was very clear, and numerous minnows were observed. A total of IT
different genera of bottom organisms were collected, which included
such clean-water forms as stoneflies, mayflies (3 genera), caddisflies
(2 genera), fishflies, and riffle beetles. Excellent water quality
was indicated. A total of 109 bottom organisms were collected in the
square foot sample, which included 35 caddisflies, 20 mayflies, 15
riffle beetles, and U fishflies.
Station #3
This station was located on a tributary to Rock Creek at Avery
Road on the east edge of Rockville, Maryland. Only four genera of
bottom organisms were found, and the population was sparse. However,
mayflies and caddisflies were the dominant organisms. Fair water
quality was indicated.
Station A
Rock Creek was sampled at the Maryland Route 28 Bridge east
of Rockville, Maryland. A total of l6 genera of bottom organisms
were sampled, which included such clean-water forms as mayflies,
caddisflies (2 genera), fishflies, and riffle beetles. The water
was somewhat murky, but small schools of minnows could be observed.
Only 35 bottom organisms were collected in the square foot sample
with fingernail clams (an intermediate) being the dominant form with
15 in number. Good water quality was indicated.
-------
2-2
APPENDIX 2 (Continued)
Station #5
The next station downstream was located off Gaynor Road
immediately upstream from Randolph Road at Viers Mill Village, Mary-
land. The water was somewhat cloudy, and trash was fairly abundant
in the stream. Bottom organisms were sparse, and only four genera
were found. Only one clean-water caddisfly was found. The balance
consisted of two intermediate genera, and a pollution-tolerant form.
Only fair water quality was indicated.
Station #6
This station was located at the Route 5^-7 Bridge (Knowles
Avenue) at Garrett Park, Maryland. The water was clear, and small
schools of minnows were observed. Bottom organisms were not too
abundant, and only five genera were sampled. However, they included
such clean-water forms as mayflies (2 genera) and caddisflies. Good
water quality was indicated.
Station #1
This station was located at Beach Drive and Cedar Lane near
Kensington, Maryland, The water was exceptionally clear, and
numerous minnows were observed. Ten different genera of bottom
organisms were found, which included such clean-water forms as may-
flies (2 genera) and caddisflies (2 genera). A total of 22U bottom
organisms were collected in the square foot sample, which included
27 mayflies and 3 caddisflies. The dominant form was an intermediate
midge larva which made up 190 of the total count. Good water quality
was indicated.
Station #8
The next station downstream was located at Jones Mill Road
downstream from the Beltway-Route ^95 at Chevy Chase, Maryland.
Again the water was exceptionally clear, and numerous small minnows
were observed. Only three genera of bottom organisms were found,
but they consisted mainly of two genera of caddisfly larvae. Good
water quality was indicated.
Station #9
The next station was located on Coquelin Creek at Jones Mill
Road Bridge at North Chevy Chase, Maryland. Coquelin Creek enters
Rock Creek a short distance downstream. The water was clear, but the
-------
2-3
APPENDIX 2 (Continued)
filamentous algae was heavy in much cf the area suggesting excessive
nitrogen and. phosphorus „ Oil slices arose when some of the bottom
was stirred up by walking. (This stream is quite small.) A total
of 12 genera of bottom organisms was found, which included a fair
population of mayflies and caddisflies. Blackflies were the dominant
organism and made up 155 of the 192 organisms in the square foot
sample. Only fair water quality was indicated.
Station
The next station downstream on Rock Creek was located down-
stream from the East-West Highway hlO at the Rock Creek Recreation
Center. The water was clear, and minnows were observed. A total of
10 genera was found, but bottom organisms were generally sparse. A
few mayflies were sampled, but only 23 organisms were collected in
the square foot sample. Fair water quality was indicated.
Station
This station was located approximately 100 yards downstream
from West Beach Drive at the junction with Wise Road in Washington,
D. C. The water was clear, but only three genera of bottom organisms
were found, which consisted of two pollution-tolerant genera and one
intermediate genera, Bottom organisms were sparse, and a quantita-
tive sample was not taken. About 20 yards downstream a large storm
sewer empties from the left bank (facing downstream). The bottom in
this channel appeared to be coated with oil, and oil slicks came to
the surface when the bottom was disturbed. Mild pollution is sug-
gested in this area.
Station #12
This station was located at the roadside park immediately
downstream from Military Road, Washington, D. C. The water was clear,
but only five genera of bottom organisms were found, which consisted
of three organic pollution-tolerant genera and two intermediate forms.
Generally, bottom organisms were sparse. A small tributary comes in
from the left bank a short distance downstream. This was very heavy
with filamentous algae, suggesting high nitrogen and phosphorus.
Mild organic pollution is suggested.
Station #13
Rock Creek was then sampled at Park Road Bridge in Washington,
D. C. The water was clear, and small schools of minnows were observed.
-------
2-k
APPENDIX 2 (Continued)
Eight genera of bottom organisms were sampled, "but they consisted
of four organic pollution-tolerant forms and four intermediate forms.
Bottom organisms were not abundant. Only 27 were collected in the
square foot sample. Mild organic pollution is suggested.
Station #lk
Piney Branch, a tributary to Rock Creek, was sampled at
the Park Road Bridge in Washington, D. C. The water was clear, but
filamentous algae were extremely abundant on the rocks and gravel.
Nine genera were collected, but the only clean-water form found was
a mayfly. The balance consisted of two intermediate forms and six
pollution-tolerant forms. The dominant form was an intermediate
midge larva, which made up 75 of the 113 bottom organisms in the
square foot sample. A faint sewage odor was detected, and high
nitrogen and phosphorus are suggested by the heavy algae. Mild
organic pollution is suggested at this station. Piney Branch is
believed to contribute a mild pollutional load to Rock Creek.
Station #15
The next station downstream was located near the Harvard
Street Entrance at the National Zoological Park at Washington, D. C.
The water was clear, but the rocks were coated with slime. Although
nine genera of bottom organisms were found, only fair populations of
an intermediate midge larva and a pollution-tolerant snail were
sampled. The other bottom organisms were sparse. The intermediate
midge larva made up 86 of the 103 bottom organisms in the square foot
sample. Mild organic pollution is suggested.
Station ttl6
The next downstream station was located at the Calvert Street
Bridge in Washington, D. C. The water was clear, and numerous minnows
were observed; however, a faint sewage odor was detected. Although
ten genera of bottom organisms were found, the only clean-water form
consisted of a few caddisfly larvae. An intermediate midge larva made
up k6 of the 55 organisms collected in the square foot sample. Sludge-
worms, the bloodworm midge Chironomus, blackflies, and two genera of
pollution-tolerant snails were collected. Mild organic pollution was
indicated.
-------
2-5
APPENDIX 2 (Continued)
Station #17
Rock Creek was then sampled immediately upstream from the
P Street outfall in Washington, D. C. The water was clear, and small
schools of minnows and sunfish were observed, but they did not venture
downstream below the outfall. Broken glass and trash were heavy in
the stream. Six genera of bottom organisms were collected, which
consisted of four organic pollution-tolerant forms and two intermediate
forms. The dominant forms were an intermediate midge (98) and sludge-
worms (U3) out of the 316 bottom organisms collected in the square
foot sample. Mild organic pollution is indicated.
Station
The next station was located approximately 25 yards downstream
from the P Street outfall in Washington, D. C. A faint sewage odor
was detected, and trash was observed in'the stream. Only five genera
of bottom organisms were found, which consisted of four organic pollution-
tolerant forms and one intermediate kind. The pollution-tolerant genera
consisted of bloodworms, sludgeworms, leeches, and a pollution-tolerant
snail. Moderate organic pollution is indicated.
Station #19
This station was located downstream from the Slash Run outfall,
which is downstream from the P Street outfall in Washington, D. C.
The bottom organisms consisted of three pollution tolerant genera and
two intermediate genera. An intermediate midge with 390 organisms
and sludgeworms with 71 were the dominant organisms out of the H80
organisms obtained in the square foot sample. Moderate organic pollu-
tion is indicated at this station. The source appears to be the
Slash Run sewer.
Station #20
The last station on Rock Creek was located approximately 30
yards upstream from the mouth, near the canoe rental concession. The
water was very turbid, and oil slicks were stirred up by our walking.
After approximately 15 minutes of intensive searching, only one blood-
worm could be found. A quantitative sample was not taken for this
reason. Floating debris noted in the stream could have been washed
up out of the Potomac, as this area is affected by the tide. Moderate-
heavy organic pollution is suggested.
-------
CO
CO
0>
o m
S^
So
5C
-------
CO
c
CO
-o
m
z
o
CO
o _
5 O
co o
•n >^
o
o
30
m
m
IO JQ
0) __
01 m
P
P
o
>
o
c
m
C/5
CD
O
o
c
-1
I
o
O
O
O
m
m
\
S
c:
2
o
PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE
PARK ROAD
MILITARY ROAD
SHERRILL DRIVE
-------
03
>
o
H
m
o
c
o
O
o
33
0)
Ol
23
o
3)
m
m
C
3)
>±
H I>o
O C
2-n>
THEODORE ROOSEVELT ISLAND
PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE
PARK ROAD
MILITARY ROAD
SHERRILL DRIVE
NEAR DC LINE
\\
\\
\x
\v
-------
MPN / 100 ml.
-------
4
3
Xa = ARITHMETIC MEAN
Xg = GEOMETRIC MEAN
90%<- MPN< INDICATED VALUE
90 % OF THE TIME
100,000
9
8
7
6
5
4
(PLANNING GOALS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH REVISED PROJECT POTOMAC
WATER QUALITY SUB-TASK FORCE
REPORT OF NOV I, 1966 )
o
o
UJ
Q
10,000
9
8
7
6
* WA'
CRI
REi
CC.
O
u.
_J
o
o
1,000
-------
-------
1.00-
.90-
.80-
2
fL
a
.70-
60-
CO
1)
-------
2 +
1,000
9
8
7
6
5
4
2 -h
E
o
k_
o>
E ._L
100
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
O
05
24-
O
UJ
o
z
UJ
Q.
CO
^>
CO
8
7
6
5
4 —
3 --
2-h
1.0
-------
-------
-------
-------
(a 9 w) 31 va men j
FIGURE 2
-------
-------
moo
£ g
2 5
1 i
2 I
£ £
U Q J u.'
FIGURE I
-------
16
ON
3
pQ
^j
EH
0>
ti CQ
G t)
O> -H
O.H
to O
S CQ
CQ
U
« Q
O
PQ
0)
-p
H cd
CO 45
-p p.
o w
EH 0
£1
0
rH -H G
x-x cd G O
H -P Cd rO
co o bO ^
CQ > EH f* cd
MO O U
H S
O 0)
S K
W
M -P
CJ G -d
MO) (U
pr , ^_) Q2 r^ [Q
pr | pT] G rd
PL] ^ O (U -H
01 ft H
pL< WO
~-- 3 CQ
CQ
Q
O
PH
•P
G
•H
O
PL.
bD
G
•H
H
&
8
CQ
m co i
co ir\ 1
oo on i
co t— i
on o cvj
CM OJ H
H H CO
-a- o t—
co \o u~\
rH LTN O
CO t— t-
G O>
•H iH
H O
& ^!
co cd
CQ S
H
0 cd
G
-p • -H
G Q En
(U --' v-^
0
H -P -P
CM G a
CH 0) 0)
H H
^ CM V-.
^j cjn , — N CM
cd ' - -pel -p W
G H -H H
O Cd O Cd
O> -H -H
CQ P=H P^<
OJ
VO
on
t-
LA
H
on
vo
t—
KO
t-
t-
B
5
JH
CM
id
0)
-p
P<
O OJ
o o
N • £*
cd
-P H
G cd
H
H |
G S
•H
fc
-------
15
to
§
EH
Q
CO Q
•
O
Q
-P
H a*—
a fi (ii
CO -P ft
g; O CQ ra
0 EH O oJ
H rC *^p-'
H P-i
K
EH
O CJ
S5 H -H C
O — * cd fl O
OH -p CO ft
\ O bO ft
Q tC EH in cd
W 0 O 0
§ V"'
Si *
W CO
2 En t)
t3 -d w
O CO S3 "d
« K ft H
m mo
> co 2 co
<; EC, co
o
Q
O
pq
-P
a
•H
O
p_l
tiC
c
•H
H
£3
Co
CO
ON
on
H
CM
t—
H
V0
•
t—
CM
VD
H
H
t—
on
H
CO
t> —
H
-P
a
0)
H
a
M
-P
CO
H
PH
•
<£
on
CM
O
on
on
«
H
CM
on
H
CM
_^j-
on
$
•
0
*
*
*
t — ON
CM LA I
CM 1
* 1
CM
*(•
*
*
C— t—
IA ^f 1
H 1
H
ON o on
• • •
on -3 -3
-=t CM CM
H
on ON CM
t— -=f LA
VD
t— o ON
t— MD VD
\o
A
H
CO t— VO
ON -^ LA
_^-
JH
0) • H
4J O Cd
cd £3
tZ -^ jrj
C~] v * ^J N -
CO C
Cd -p -r-l -P
> co a
(U PL, QJ
a 3 s
O H (JO H --x
-P Vi -H Vt H
cd W H WO
tr~ i £H
cd CD
3 c co as
H -H -H
W P^ C^t
• • •
Q p£] PTI
O
O
• •
O
H
e
O
<£n
to
H
cd
J>
*H
-P
a
•H
^
o
c^
i
CM
-P
cd
0)
-p
o
i — 1 VO
H V£>
O ON
0 H
CO "
0) H
H H
it* ^i
CO ft
e
LA 0)
CM -P
ft
CM Ci)
O CO
• — * C
ts O
O
H (3
CQ O
O
O £5
-P
O
boo
•H CM
U H
O 0
0 -P
o
cd ON
N •
ft
tt)
bC ft
cd g
^H CD
0) -p
> ft
03 (L)
CQ
lu c
-P 0
li •
•H S
0) •
^
G
•H
W
cd
fi
o
•d
(U
w
cd
pq
*
*
*
-------
TABLE 7
ANALYTICAL RESULTS - FINAL EFFLUENT (FINAL MANHOLE)
SAMPLING STATION F
(mg/1)
Date Time
Nov. 9, 1966 1000
1220
11*10
1615
1815
2015
2215
Nov. 10, 1966 0010
0213
01*15
0610
0800
1000
1200
11*11
1615
1815
2015
2215
Nov. 11, 1966 OOll*
0209
Ql+09
0612
0800
1000
Ipnn
5-Day
BOD
50.2
36.8
1+2.2
71+-0
>ll+7
26.8
35-0
50.8
1+5.0
65-0
86.8
5!+. 8
18.1*
37.2
29.6
22.8
70.8
l+l+.O
37.1+
30.1+
1+8.1+
52.0
98.2
115.1+
73.6
Suspended
Solids
6
7
16
80
—
21+
1+6
27
260
52
136
l+O
12
22
28
37
ll+2
55
28
17
32
62
131+
260
138
, , TJr, Rnm-nl A T
Total
Organic
Carbon
31+.0
32.0
29-5
61.5
800.0
36.8
1+0.0
37-9
38.3
55.8
126.8
1+1.6
36.0
3l+. 5
29.5
3l+. 3
75.1
1+6.5
38.0
36.2
38.5
51.8
86.6
128.6
68.0
Total
Phosphate
21.070
23-823
23.31+1+
28.732
33.61+0
26.1*30
22.300
16.282
21+.896
22.1+18
-------
-------
13
TABLE 6
ANALYTICAL RESULTS - FINAL EFFLUENT (D. C. SAMPLING POINT)
SAMPLING STATION E
(mg/1)
Date Time
Nov. 9, 1966 1000
1210
1405
1605
1805
2005
2205
Nov. 10, 1966 0005
0205
01*09
O6o4
0800
1205
11*05
1605
1805
2005
2205
Nov. 11, 1966 0008
0203
0403
0603
0800
1000
1200
5-Day
BOD
1*1*. 5
39.8
35-3
68.2
59.2
35.0
36.3
1*6.9
1*7.4
62.6
21.1*
54. 1*
1*2.1
34.9
1*9.2
66.8
1*8.3
1*2.8
50.5
1*3.4
50.1
51*. 1
53.7
1*6.1*
39.8
Suspended
Solids
28
26
35
—
134
58
52
34
53
90
73
53
44
39
109
124
50
50
37
44
50
6l
71
59
No Sample
Total
Organic
Carbon
38.2
35.0
35-3
47.5
49.7
51.3
43.2
42.5
44.0
76.3
74.5
51.8
47.0
38.0
58.8
77.0
46.5
41.4
43.4
44.0
46.5
50.5
48.6
45.6
38.3
Total
Phosphate
22.627
20.950
24.302
26.337
32.803
28.790
16 . 872
21.238
21.710
-------
12
TABLE 5
ANALYTICAL RESULTS - ELUTRIATION WASH WATER
SAMPLING STATION B
(mg/1)
Date Time
Nov. 9, 1966 1000
1215
11+07
1610
1810
2010
2210
Nov. 10, 1966 0008
0209
01+12
0607
0800
1000
1207
11+09
1610
1810
2010
2210
Nov. 11, 1966 0011
0206
Oi+06
0609
0800
1000
1200
5-Day
BOD
762.0
796.0
388.0
8l6,0
121+.0
3Q1+.0
598.0
552.0
710.0
1+55-0
1+3*+. 0
637-0
661.0
1+9^.0
1+1+7.0
559-0
757.0
609.0
1+82.0
31+3.0
275-0
1+05.0
152.0
1+51.0
219-0
521+.0
Suspended
Solids
1070
2620
2100
1660
2l+0
I61t0
1680
1010
168
2030
1260
1150
1720
2330
11+20
1650
291+0
1850
1550
lll+O
780
1+20
691+0
1200
870
No Sample
Total
Organic
Carbon
695
IQl+O
81+0
1126
70.8
75^
717
61+0
700
936
686
525
770
850
630
816
1000
71+6
559
31+8
1+37
1+18
580
1+90
1+63
665
Total
Phosphate
188.799
116.21+8
132.770
86.1+38
221.121+
113.863
161.296
127.078
176.636
115.279
-------
11
TABLE 4
ANALYTICAL RESULTS - VACUUM FILTER FILTRATE
SAMPLING STATION C
(mg/1)
Date Time
Nov. 9, 1966 1000
1225
11*12
1620
1820
2020
2220
Nov. 10, 1966 0013
0215
o4i8
0613
0800
1000
1212
1414
1620
1820
2020
2220
Nov. 11, 1966 0017
0212
0412
0615
0800
1000
1200
5-Day
BOD
370
230
280
292
331
316
222
237
221
243
257
335
266
333
331
427
287
266
323
228
26l
26k
246
344
348
309
Suspended
Solids
186
347
178
49
67
271
83
53
39
32
26
160
172
302
86*
3334
270
—
276
56
47
40
27
228
79
No Sample
Total
Organic
Carbon
181.2
157-0
180.8
157-2
158.0
216.6
154.6
133.2
129.4
129.6
183.8
181.0
174.8
211.0
172.6
408.0
210.0
145.6
196.6
163.6
147.2
146.6
143.4
212.0
170.6
165.8
Total
Phosphate
106.191
108.466
127.741
98.290
87.396
117.639
109.734
122.359
121.179
127.078
Was upside down in box
-------
10
TABLE 3
ANALYTICAL RESULTS - SECONDARY EFFLUENT
SAMPLING STATION B
(mg/1)
Date Time
Nov. 9, 1966 1000
1230
ll*17
1625
1825
2025
2225
Nov. 10, 1966 0016
0220
01*21
0617
0800
1000
1215
1M8
1625
1825
2025
2225
Nov. 11, 1966 0020
0215
OU15
06l8
0800
1000
1200
5-Day
BOD
38.0
19.0
23.0
38.7
28.6
28.9
U3.3
35.5
39.9
29.7
1+0.0
26.6
33.9
30.1*
33.8
26.5
31*. 5
3U.3
36.8
36.1
37.9
1*0.5
38.9
36.3
31.6
30.2
Suspended
Solids
21*
26
18
22
18
21
28
17
18
16
6
6
5
30
19
25
31
20
25
19
26
23
21*
33
26
No Sample
Total
Organic
Carbon
31.3
30.3
29-3
31.7
29-9
33.2
36.8
36.8
35.0
37.0
53.8
33.2
35.3
3^.1
33.2
31.5
3^.7
33.5
33.3
33.0
33.5
3H.3
3U.1
3U.3
30.6
30.2
Total
Phosphate
20.592
19- 271*
22.7^6
26.936
25.7^0
2i*.66o
21.356
1U.866
lU.512
22.061*
-------
TABLE 2
ANALYTICAL RESULTS - PLANT INFLUENT
SAMPLING STATION A
(mg/1)
Date Time
Nov. 9, 1966 1000
1200
11*00
1600
1800
2000
2200
Nov. 10, 1966 0002
0203
Ql*06
0601
0800
1000
1200
11*00
1600
1800
2000
2200
Nov. 11, 1966 0005
0200
oi*oo
0600
0800
1000
1200
5-Day
BOD
186.5
220.5
225.5
197-0
186.0
167.5
219.0
21*3.0
200.5
125-0
11*3.5
90.5
152.5
15^.0
171.5
199.5
181.0
191.0
235-5
225.0
188.5
11+3.5
109.0
131.5
161.0
Suspended
Solids
107
110
139
ll*2
127
119
115
111
184
119
92
79
86
179
276
153
157
173
120
107
313
109
101*
97
111*
No Sample
Total
Organic
Carbon
90.1
11.5- 1*
128.0
172.6
152.0
ll+l.O
151*. o
ll*l*.6
13U.O
113.1*
81.2
81. U
72.0
121.6
105.0
115.6
122.2
151.6
122.2
127.6
1^5-0
90.6
89.6
87.6
82.1*
83.0
Total
Phosphate
21*. 51*2
35.317
38.908
31.81*5
2l*.302
17.580
16.990
20.1*12
33.510
32 . 329
-------
TABLE 1
EFFICIENCY BASED ON DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
"FINAL EFFLUENT" SAMPLES
(Per Cent Removal)
MONTH
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
BOD
58
66
62
65
TO
67
69
67
63
51
51
51
1965
SS
1+8
63
56
53
69
69
&\
67
58
^9
31
h6
1966
BOD
37
Ik
62
58
63
63
Ho
56
7U
73
73
63
SS
23
26
55
59
63
70
7^
52
75
7U
69
68
Annual
62
53
56
59
-------
CONCLUSIONS
1. The efficiency of the District of Columbia Water
Pollution Control Plant on November 9 and 10 was JO per cent
removal of BOD and 57 per cent removal of suspended solids.
2. During the study period the differences in plant
efficiency vhen calculated using the District of Columbia final
sampling point, the final manhole sampling point, and a material
balance were small and of little significance to our use of this
data for planning purposes.
3. The decrease in plant efficiency caused by the addi-
tion of elutriation wash water to the final effluent is significant,
-------
District of Columbia sampling point, while slightly underestimat-
ing the gross load to the river, is representative of the total
load to the Potomac River.
-------
-------
DISCUSSION
Except for the elutriation wash water, there is reason-
ably good agreement "between the values as computed from the study
samples and the values measured by the District of Columbia.
Since the District of Columbia values on the elutriation wash
water are based on only three grab samples, this difference is
not unexpected. In every case the final efficiency as determined
by the Field Station is within five per cent of the values as
determined by the District of Columbia. (Table 9)
The apparent difference between efficiencies represented
by concentration of the final effluent samples and the calculated
concentration from a materials balance which has consistently
occurred in the historic records was not observed during this
study. The differences in plant efficiencies calculated both
ways using either the Chesapeake Field Station data or the Dis-
trict of Columbia data are small and well within normal sampling
error. The over-all efficiency of the plant (greater than 70
per cent removal of 5-day BOD) was higher than efficiencies indi-
cated by the historical data for the same period during previous
years.
The concentration of all parameters measured was higher
at the final manhole sampling point (F) than that measured at
the District of Columbia final effluent sampling point (E). This
difference is small and is consistent. This indicates that the
-------
THIS STUDY
The study involved analysis for 5-day BOD, suspended
solids, and total organic carbon every two hours for a US-hour
period, and total phosphorus every four hours for a 30-hour
period at the following sampling points shown on Figure 1:
A. Plant Influent
B. Secondary Effluent
C. Vacuum Filter Filtrate
D. Elutriation Wash Water
E. Final Effluent (D. C. Sampling Point)
F. Final Effluent (Final Manhole)
Sampling Point F was chosen at a manhole approximately
25 yards down from the final effluent sampling point of the
District of Columbia. This was done to provide a check because
of the previously described apparent difference between the final
effluent values at Point E and those from a material balance of
the component waste loads.
The analytical results of sampling during the study are
shown in Tables 2-7- Plant flows as recorded by plant flow meters
are shown in Figure 2.
Using the measured flows and concentrations, the values
in Table 8 were computed. Values measured by District of Columbia
are also shown in Table 8.
-------
and (h) periodic raw sewage by-passes. Thus, the total amount
of material discharged from the four sources enumerated above
should be equivalent to the amount of material found at the "final
effluent" sampling point. However, the sum of the four source
flows is consistently higher with respect to solids and BOD than
that found at the "final effluent" sampling point. The following
example for April 1965 is typical. All of the data shown is based
on information contained in plant operating records.
APRIL 1965
SUSPENDED SOLIDS FLOW
SOURCE (Ib/day)
Secondary effluent 55,710
Elutriation overflow 11,89^
Secondary sludge 71,221*
Raw sewage 17,728
156,556
"Final effluent" data 109,733
These data show that in April only two-thirds of the
solids reported as being discharged in the four component flows
was picked up in the "final effluent" sample. This anomaly was
consistent throughout the year and usually applied to the BOD load
as well. In no case did the "final effluent" sample load exceed
the calculated total load.
-------
HISTORICAL DATA
The District of Columbia Department of Sanitary Engineer-
ing has established an intensive sampling program of the plant
for operational control purposes. Flow proportional composites
(2^-hour) are collected by automatic samplers at the plant influent,
primary settling effluent, secondary settling effluent, and final
plant effluent.
These samples are analyzed daily for suspended solids
and 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). Efficiencies
based upon the operational sampling program of the District of
Columbia for each month during 1965 and 1966 at the Final Plant
Effluent Sampling Point are shown in Table 1. In addition, data
on daily grab samples of the elutriation wash water are available
from the District of Columbia operational sampling program.
There has been some question as to whether the "final
effluent" sample is a representative one. This question was
raised by an apparent difference between the "final effluent"
sample results and the final effluent characteristics as cal-
culated from reported characteristics of component parts.
The "final effluent" sample is collected from the plant
outfall at a point which is reported to be below the entry of
all of the various plant outflows. These outflows consist of
(l) secondary clarifier effluent; (2) elutriation tank overflows;
(3) periodic sludge (primary, secondary, or digester) by-passes;
-------
INTRODUCTION
An operational efficiency study of the District of Columbia
Water Pollution Control Plant was made by staff of the Chesapeake
Field Station, Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River Basins Project, of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration on November 9,
10, and 11, 1966. The purpose of the study was to verify the
results of a daily composite sampling program carried out by the
District of Columbia Department of Sanitary Engineering in order
to establish the reliability of this data as input to a mathe-
matical model of the Potomac Estuary. Total phosphates were also
measured in order to determine the operational efficiency of a
conventionally operated, large activated sludge plant in removing
this nutrient.
A simplified schematic sketch of the plant is shown in
Figure 1. The plant is operated similarly to most high rate acti-
vated sludge plants, except that the elutriation wash water and
the filtrate from the vacuum filters are discharged to the final
effluent pipe instead of being recirculated back to the beginning
of the plant.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION 1
HISTORICAL DATA ..................... 2
THIS STUDY ...... ...... k
DISCUSSION , 5
CONCLUSIONS 7
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. Efficiency Based on District of Columbia
"Final Effluent" Samples
2. Analytical Results - Plant Influent,
Sampling Station A ............ ..... 9
3. Analytical Results - Secondary Effluent,
Sampling Station B ..... . ........... 10
i+. Analytical Results - Vacuum Filter Filtrate,
Sampling Station C ........... . ..... 11
5. Analytical Results - Elutriation Wash Water,
Sampling Station D ............. .... 12
6. Analytical Results - Final Effluent (D. C.
Sampling Point ) , Sampling Station E . . . . . . . . 13
7. Analytical Results - Final Effluent (Final
Manhole), Sampling Station F ............ 1^
8. Average Measured Concentrations ...... ..... 15
9. Efficiencies ........ ..... ........ 16
-------
V - 1
APPENDIX V
RESEARCH PROJECT OF MR. JACK GRAVES
Mr. Graves of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health,
as his Master's thesis, conducted tests in both the Back River
and Middle River to try to determine why milfoil, which is abun-
dant in the Middle River, does not grow in the Back River. In
fact, very few if any bottom aquatic plants can be found in the
Back River. Since there are numerous opportunities for the
milfoil plant to have been introduced to Back River, and since
its environment is very similar to that of the Middle River,
there would appear to be some inhibitory factor present in the
Back River.
For his investigation Mr. Graves removed milfoil plants
from the Middle River, washed their roots, and replaced half of
them in boxes of Middle River bottom sediments and half of them
in boxes of Back River bottom sediments. Boxes of each type were
placed in the Back River and in the Middle River. Within three
weeks the plants in the boxes in the Back River were essentially
dead. After the same period of time, the plants in boxes placed
in the Middle River were found to be flourishing, regardless of
the source of the sediment in which they were rooted.
-------
IV - 1
APPENDIX IV
REGULATIONS OF THE MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF HEALTH
AND MENTAL HYGIENE GOVERNING PUBLIC SWIMMING POOLS
AND BATHING BEACHES, REGULATION 1*3 L Ok, APRIL 26,
1951, SANITARY QUALITY OF WATER, ETC, (part)
Under authority conferred by Section 2 of Article h3 of the
Annotated Code of Maryland . . .
"The bacteria.! quality of water of natural bathing
beaches is acceptable when the water shows an average ' most
probable number ' (MPN) of coliform 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 and Mental Hygiene.
"The right is reserved to close any swimming pool or
bathing beach because of continued failure to meet the above
standards."
-------
Ill - il
olog R alog R
0.00 1.00 l.Oi* 17-T
0.30 1.27 1.08 21.9
0.1*8 1.83 1.12 26.8
0.60 2.6l 1.15 32.5
0.70 3.65 1.18 39-1
0.78 1+.98 1.20 U6.7
0.85 6.65 1.23 55-3
0.90 8.67 1.26 65.1
0.96 11.2 1.28 76.2
1.00 Ik.2 1.30 88.8
Thus, for the data in Figure A-l where o is 0.55, R
xog
may be estimated for the table as being 2.29. This value must
also be corrected for the variability of the MPN test by multiply-
ing it by a factor of 0.85 for a 5-tube test or 0.76 for a 3-tube
test. In this example, five tubes were used, and R has a cor-
rected value of 1.95. Thus, the arithmetic mean is found to be
almost twice the geometric mean, or 1950.
The arithmetic mean will always be larger than the geo-
metric mean due to the nature of the log-normally distributed
data which is skewed toward the higher values. As shown in the
table above, the discrepancy rapidly becomes very large as the
variability of the data (or a, ) increases.
log
-------
Ill - 3
This information may now be used to calculate the coli-
form density that would occur with any given frequency. The
value exceeded five per cent of the time, for example, would be
the mean density plus 1.65 times the corrected standard deviation.
In this example ,
i n £r n -m\ n i n™ n /Value exceeded-,
(1.65 x 0.30) + loglOOO = log (5j; Qf
the value exceeded five per cent of the time is found to be 3120.
The term, mean coliform density, is usually presumed to
refer to the geometric mean, since the variation of coliform
bacteria in natural waters is best described by a log-normal
distribution. However, it is sometimes desired to know the arith-
metic mean density. This may be determined accurately only by
calculation using the geometric mean density and standard devia-
tion as determined from Figure A-l. This calculation has been
simplified to a ratio (R) of the arithmetic mean to the geometric
mean. This ratio depends upon the magnitude of the uncorrected
standard deviation as shown in the table below:
-------
Ill - 2
Since the analytical procedure itself has a predictable
variability, it is necessary that this be eliminated from the
test results before they are subjected to further statistical
analysis.
The procedure used to accomplish this is as follows:
1. The test results of samples from each station are
plotted on log-probability paper as in Figure A-l and a straight
line drawn through the points.
2. The geometric mean is found at the intersection of
the plotted line and the 50 per cent occurrence line (i.e., MPW
of 1000/100 ml).
3. The standard deviation of the log-normal distribution
is obtained from the plot. This may be done by subtracting the
logarithm of the value (280) found at the intersection of the
plotted line and the -la vertical from the logarithm of the geo-
metric mean (1000), i.e., log 1000 - log 280 = 0.55.
k. This standard deviation is then corrected for the
variability of the test procedure by reducing it by an appro-
priate factor depending upon the number of tubes used, i.e.,
#
0.32 for three portions and 0.25 for five portions . Since five
portions were used in these tests, the corrected standard devia-
tion in the example is 0.55 - 0.25, or 0.30.
Velz, C. J.
-------
Ill - 1
APPENDIX III
STATISTICAL PROCEDURES USED FOR
ANALYSIS OF BACTERIOLOGICAL DATA
The 'basis for the statistical manipulations performed
on the bacteriological data is the log-normal distribution.
This best describes the variability of bacterial numbers in
natural waters. The log-normal distribution applies where the
logarithms of a set of data rather than the data themselves are
normally distributed. The appropriate measure of central tend-
ency of such a distribution is the log mean or geometric mean
which coincides with the median or the value exceeded 50 per
cent of the time.
As stated previously, the serial tube dilution method of
analysis was used to estimate bacterial numbers (MPN) in each
sample collected. The result of a single such test is actually
just a statistical estimate of the true number of bacteria pres-
ent. If a series of such tests were performed on a single sample,
these results would also be distributed in a log-normal fashion
due to the statistical nature of the test itself. The best
estimate of the true bacterial density of the sairmle would be
the mean of the logarithms of the results or the geometric mean.
The variability of the results obtained using this method of
analysis depends upon the number of portions or tubes used for
each sample dilution. The greater the number of tubes, the less
will be the variability of the test results.
-------
II - 8
CO
rH 3
e o
M
0 EH
LA O <
VO H EH
ON^. CO
rH a
1 £j EH
-3- vo o
1 ON CO pq
< H W
M PH
W -En EH
J « H CO
pq w CQ
a w
EH M Cd ffi
ffi Q O
W S H
c_> S EH
<; o 1-3
pq PH <;
H pq
0 EH
0 <
c—
1
pq
vo
I
pq
LTN
1
pq
i
pq
on
1
pq
CM
pq
eq
1
i — 1
pq
<
rH
1
pq
rH
1
cp
cJ
o
•H
-P
Ctf
-P
CO
. — -
o
H
f — •-,
ON
• "
s~*
00
fn
•s x
f S
VD
N^_X
"LA
•• —
--^
^
on
X .
* — *
CXI
X "
> • -p
H rt H bo ft
--' 3 pS pi (U
H^ r~3 > •
rH C rH bD
^2 '"S ^
VO
on o on on
o -* v
CO
CO
vO
on o o on
CM LfAJ-
H CM
on vo
t— o on on
LT\ J-
H
rH
ON o on on
on -3- ON
ON
on o o on
ON LfN-d- OJ
rH CM
LT\ on on on
on
•
O t- UA 0
O rH LTS
O rH
O
VO
-^
O O O O
o m on o
on ON ON o
-3- O
o
rH
H
o o o o
o m o on
i/\_3- on j
* *%
t— CM
co on on t—
'— - -H CM H rH
-^d"
VO
ON 0) >i • -p
rH g rH b£) ft
hs ^ <; co
rH O VO
ON O on
O O rH
0 0 ON
rH H
on ON ON
CNJ
VO
o") on LA
_* rH
on on LA
OJ CM t—
H
.
on ON 0
-=r o
-&
CM
000
on o o
oj o on
O ON
vo
-=!•
O O O
on ^t o
ON CM on
ON
on o o
ON o o
O LA
*! **
-=f rH
CM
VO H VO
-— • rH CM rH
LA
VO
ON > •
rH 5 rH hO
""" "-3 ^ <
-------
II - 7
o o
CM CM
V v
o o o o
CM CM CM CM
V V V V
o o
CM CM
V V
o o
CM CM
V V
O O
CM -=t
V
o o
O CM
ro v
ft
H
O O
CM CM
V V
o o o o
CM CM CM CM
V V V V
." — .
t)
CJ
£j
G
•H
-P
G
O
O
•• — ^
m
i
<3^
JV]
CD
o
CM rH
H ~-.
i a
H ^
^
cu to
,0 0)
E -H
CU -P
> -rt
O CO
a G
OCM
OOV rH VV -3- O V
ft
vo
H
OO OO OO OO OO OO OO
CMCM CMCM CMCM CMCO CMCM CMCM OOCM
v vvvvv vvvro
O
CO
O
H
H
O
t—
rH
O
CM
V
O
m
H
0 O O
CM CM LA
V V
o o o o o o
CM CM CM H CM CM
V rH V
O O O O O O
CM CO CM -=t CM CO
V H
O O O O O O
CM CM CM CM CM CM
V V V V
0)
£
o
CM
I
rH
ro
rH
H
H
rH
I
H
CO
I
O
H
I
rH
CM
H
I
H
-------
II
LA
VQ rH
ON g
rH
0
*> O
CM H
1 £5
H P_H
fc?
^
0) to
,0 0)
S -H
> -H
ro o &
1 JSS d
*-^ (U
•> Q
J H w
CP > 3
•^ rX CJ
EH D u
CO O
G
K 0
w +•*
> Of
t~l 0)
(X s^
-p
W CO
CJ
< rH
33 Cd
CJ
DO 0)
O
CO
t-
y
^
vo
r~
£-/ c3
Rj VD
^j
-p
,1-,
a
•n O
C!i LA
s
j-j
0
ro ,0
C LA
O
•H
-p
Cd
-P
CO
03
LA
-^.'
ro
CM
rH
O
I 3
ci
£2
O O
LA V£)
O CJ
CM v£>
O O
LA -3-
o o
CO CO
0 0
CM t—
V CM
O O
_3- LA
O O
cj ro
rH
o o
CM LA
V
o o
CM CM
V
o
CJ
y
0
CJ
V
o
CM
V
rH
1
rH
H
O p
H r-i
0 0
t~- tA
H
0 0
CM CM
O O
ro CM
CJ V
o o
VO OJ
o o
CM CM
v
0 0
CM CV
V V
0 0
CJ CvJ
V
o o
LA CM
o
cv
V
0
CO
V
o
CV
V
CM
1
rH
H
O O
IA ~}
0 0
CM CO
V v
0 0
CM LA
V
0 0
CM CM
V
O 0
CM CM
V V
o o
CM CM
V V
O O
CM CM
v v
O O
CO CM
V V
O O
CM CO
V V
O
CO
V
0
CV
V
o
CM
V
on
I
i — i
rH
0 0
on _=i-
H
0 0
ON CM
O O
CM C—
V
o o
LA CM
V
0 C
ro LA
rH
0 0
t- CM
o o
CJ CO
V
o o
CJ CJ
V
o o
CO CO
V
o
CJ
V
o
CO
V
o
CM
V
^
1
rH
H
o o
LA LA
0 0
Co CM
V
o o
CM CM
V V
0 0
CO LA
V
0 0
CM CO
0 0
CM CM
V V
O O
CM OJ
V v
O O
CO OJ
V
o o
CO CM
V V
0
CO
V
0
CM
V
o
CM
LA
1
H
rH
O O
CM t—
rH
0 0
CM ro
ro
0 0
H t--
H
0 0
LA CM
V
0 0
CO CM
V V
o o
CJ CO
o o
CO CJ
V
o o
CJ f-
H
o o
CM CM
V V
0
CO
V
o
CM
V
0
CM
V
CO
1
rH
H
O O
ON rH
0 H
n
H
O O
O -d-
ro H
H
o o
O CO
-=^
CO
0 0
Q\ VQ
-^
0 O
CO ON
-3" rH
n
ro
o o
ro f—
ro H
o o
O. Co
,J3"
C O
ro LA
LA
*-
CJ
o o
Co CJ
H v
0
ON
J-
o
rH
CM
0
r—
rH
ON
1
rH
H
O O
CM -^r
rH
0 0
ro ro
rH ro
0 0
co ro
V CM
O 0
cj ro
CM
c o
CJ O
V JA
0 0
CV CJ
V V
o o
CM CJ
V
C 0
CO CJ
V V
o o
CM CO
V V
o
cv,
V
o
CM
V
0
CO
V
o
H
1
rH
O O
CO CJ
V
0 0
Cj H
V H
0 0
CO CO
V
0 0
CM CM
v
0 0
_=!• CM
V
0 0
CJ CM
0 0
cv co
0 0
-3- CO
V
o o
CM CM
V V
0
CJ
V
0
CO
V
o
a
V
H
H
1
rH
rH
0 0
CO LA
0 0
LA CM
0 0
CJ CM
V
0 0
-=t CM
0 0
CM CM
V V
0 0
CM CO
V V
0 O
CM CV1
V
o o
CO Co
V
o o
CVJ CM
V V
o
a.
V
o
CM
V
0
CM
V
co
rH
1
r-H
i — i
-------
II - 5
o o
o o
CM CM
V V
O O
o o
C\J CM
V
O O
O LA
CM
V
O O
o\ o
C\J
o o
O CM
OO
r>
VD
O O
CM OJ
V V
o o
t— CM
rH CM
O O O O
CM CM ON CM
v v r— v
o o
CM LA
V
LA
VO
ON
H
" £3
CM
rH O
1 O
H H
£H S
0) PL,
n S
1i
0)
T3 O -H
OJ £5 -P
3 -H
fl "tQ
•H >-, C
-P M (L>
C > Q
O K
O
CM K H
H O
to M
Q)
•H
fn
05
-P
o
•H
£H M
EH
bO
H
•rH
O
H
=H C5
1
0)
CD
£
£j
O
px.
to
fi
o
•H
-p
03
-P
CQ W
O
O
oo
*
H
O
0
*
00
o
0
o
ft
ON
O O
-=f O
VO CM
V
0 0
o o
OJ OO
oj oo
o
ON
t—
o o
0 O
oo oj
f. v
oo
o o
0 0
ON CM
f V
^j-
0
t—
o
o
o
oo
rH
o o
O CM
ft ft
H LA
o
o
CO
*
CM
0
0
ON
t-^
O
r—
rH
O O
0 VD
^"^
H
O
CO
OJ
O
0
o
ft
t-
H
O O
o o
vo o
f\ ft
j- o
vc
rH
o o
t— 0
H CM
V
o
o
CO
CM'
0 0
0 0
OJ OO
r- ft
OJ 00
o o
0 0
ON H
* f>
t— -3-
o
o
o
A
o
H
H
O
CO
o
ON
t—
O
0
OO
*
oo
o
o
CO
ft
OJ
o
o
OJ
ft
OJ
0 O
O\ LA
C—
0 O
0 0
OO LA
ft
oo
o
o
t—
«*
H
o o
0 0
oo ON
r. r,
H 0
H
0 0
0 0
OO LA
ft f\
~3" -^
oo
o
CO
O
ON
-^
0 O
ON CM
t— V
O
O
OO
ft
oo
0
o
o
ft
oo
oo
o
ON
t-
c o
ON O
O- OJ
v
O
O
o
o
vo
rH
o
oo
rH
o
O
CO
ft
OJ
0 0
o oo
o -=r
r>
oo
rH
O
o
o
ft
CM
OJ
o
OO
o
H
00
W
K
u
E
o
H
to
CM
O O
O O
CM C—
V t
rH
O O
CM O
ON
ooooooooo
OOOOCMJ-OOt— O
CMOJ-^fC— ONrHrHOO
V V f f
OJ rH
OO O O OO OO OO OO OO OO
CMOO C— OJ OON OO OO OO OO OO
V CM OJ -3" OO £•— CO CM t— CO OJ OJ OJ CO IA CM
r, r. ft v v
LA rH rH
OO OO QO OO OO OO OO OO OO
oo oo oo oo ONCO rH co ojoo cr\ oo c~- oo
OJOvJ OJLA J-OO OJOJ t— t— H-d- H -=rOO OJ
v V „ f. r. f, f.
O\H H w ^
oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo
OO OO CMO OOO LAVO OOO OJCM OOOO OJOO
OJ OJ CO LA rHrHCO OOOOVVrHH OJ
V V r, ft
H OU
-p
ctf
P
H
I
rH
H
I
r-H
oo
I
H
rH
I
H
CO
I
rH
H
ON
I
O
rH
I
rH
I
H
OJ
H
I
rH
rH
-------
-------
II -
LfN
VO
ON
H
CM
H 0
1 O
rH rH
SH ^
tU P
-9 §
a
ti> w
CM O -H
1 S -P
< -H
•• M
W >- C
9 ^ Q
EH S £
CO J-i
o
PH ^
W *H
j> | — j
M O
pc; u
1^ 1
o cd
< a
PQ 0)
[i.
CO
O
OO
t—
o
^o
,0
vo
&U
cdKo
^
-p
to
t3
s!
•Hi
cd u
^ LTN
a
o
m
g
C £5
•H LfN
-p;
EC
-p
to
as
LfN
-^
on
a
rH
i
1
•%
H 00
o o
o o
00 LTN
f.
H
O C
0 O
oo CO
00
O 0
CM CO
_^J- _^J-
r* t*
ir\ oo
0 0
LfN h-
1 — i
0 O
LT\ CM
rH
0 0
vo ON
0
-^
o
oo
rH
o
CM
V
CO
1
rH
1 — i
O 0
O 0
co oo
*
H
o o
o o
CM OO
r.
CM
0 C
C 0
CM CO
0 0
o o
CM CM
V
o o
0 0
CO CO
O O
vo ON
_-f [*_
0 0
VO ON
~^d~ ^3"
0 O
ON ON
_-f _^J-
0 0
ON rH
-3- CJ
o
tr—
H
O
o
CM
V
OA
1
rH
rH
O O
o o
CM CM
V V
O O
0 0
CM CM
V
O O
0 0
CM CM
V y
O O ON
O o t—
CM CM
V V
o
0
CM
0 0
LfN CM
'V
0 0
CM CM
V V
o o
CM CM
V V
0 0
CM CO
V V
O OO
CM OO
V
O CM
CM
V
co
O H
CM
V V
O
H
1
H
O O
O O
LfN CM
V
0 0
O 0
CM CO
0 0
o o
Cvj CM
O O
O O
t- >-
^ t*
H H
0 0
0 O
O CM
»> V
oo
rH
O O
LfN CM
t--
ft
H
0 0
t-- OJ
^
Cv
LTN
O 0
OO CO
i — i -^r
r*
OO
o o
rH CM
H
o
LfN
0
CM
V
0
CO
V
H
rH
1
H
rH
0 0
0 0
LfN CO
0 0
O 0
CO CM
V
0 0
O O
CM ON
V
0 0
o o
CM LfN
0 0
0 0
OJ CM
o o
LfN -^3"
0 0
CM D—
V
O 0
CO OO
H
O O
CO LfN
V
o
CM
V
O
CM
V
O
CM
V
CM
rH
1
H
H
-------
II - 3
o o
o o
C\J CM
V
o o
o o
LA CM
V
o o
o on
CM rH
V
o o
O\ O
CM
O O
O CO
o\
o o
CM H
V H
O O
ON o
o tn
o o
CO CM
V
o o
O CM
CM V
r<
ON
O O
CM CO
V rH
Lf\
^O
ON
A
CM
H H
1 S
H
O
^ rl O
tJ --^
£j £q r"^
fl (Up.
•H r* §
-P 0
fi S tQ
O -H
^-x >H 40
W -H
i-l > W
i K a
CQ Q
w
KB
O
EH H «H
05 -H
H
W O
o o
pq
CQ
u
ra
0)
•H
JH
c$
-p
rQ W
•H
£_j
EH
bC
a
•H
J5
O
H O
1
•H
EH O
H
cS
•rH
EH
a PQ
o
w
a
o
•H
I 1 <^
03
-p
CQ
H
H
O
0
O
*
O
on
H
O
O
rH
n
rH
0 0
O LA
O t-
ON H
-^
O
O
CO
O
t—
H
O O
0 0
-3- on
A
H
O O
o o
CJ t—
n
rH
on
I
rH
H
O
0
on
on
o
o
o
A
O
rH
H
O O
O O
0 CO
ON ^t
t- on
o o
on o
on CM
V
o
o
0
on
rH
O
o
ON
t*
^3-
o o
CM O
-f O
LA VO
H
0 0
O O
LA LA
A
t-
H
O 0
CM 0
H
A
rH
-4"
1
H
H
0 0
O O
o on
c— on
o o
o o
O CM
A A
on^t
on LA
o
o
o
A
o
H
rH
0
on
on
o
0
0
t—
o
o
ON
A
^$
o o
O ON
-=!• t—
CM
O O
O O
t— -3-
A
on
o o
CM O
CM CO
LA
1
rH
rH
O
0
o
o
CO
CM
O
o
o
A
ON
t—
O
0
0
ON
O O
0 0
O ON
A A
-J- t-
rH
O O
o o
ON o
t— -3-
CM
O
o
o
A
t—
o o
o o
O ON
-^ -=r
rH
o o
0 0
vo o
A A
-4" -^
CM
O O
O CM
CM t—
A A
O\ H
CO
1
rH
H
0
O
O
on
on
o o
o o
0 0
r> rt
CM CM
CM ON
O O
0 0
O O
A A
O O
O V£>
t— rH
•> A
H
O
ON
t—
O
0
o
n
ON
t-
O
O
O
A
VD
H
O O
O O
ON ON
t—-3-
O O
CM CM
r> A
rH LA
O O
on ON
on o
A
, — i
ON
1
rH
H
O O
0 0
ONVO
t— -3-*
O
O
ON
«v
—4"
o
o
o
rt
0
on
on
o
0
on
«%
CM
O O
o o
0 CC
O -d-
on on
H
O
rH
CM
«>
CM
O O
0 0
t— CM
H t—
O 0
on o
on ~rj"
A
C\J
o o
on ON
on -cj
o
rH
|
rH
H
0
O
LA
A
_j-
on
o
on
on
o
o
-3-
A
CM
O O
0 0
CO H
CM
O 0
ON O
.3- on
A
rH
0 0
o -3-
e— ON
,_(
H
1
H
H
O
0
0
CM
CM
0 0
o on
O -=f
r,
ON
t—
O
O
O
«\
O
on
on
o
o
on
^
CM
O
O
o
rH
rH
O
CM
«s
LA
O O
o o
on on
on CM
o o
CO CM
rt rt
on H
o o
on on
on on
CM
H
1
rH
-------
II - 2
UA
V0
/>v
LJ \
H
«•!
CM
H H
i s
i — i
o
!s 0
H P
P-H1 W -H
pq > to
< « G
rH £> CU
r A ^~*\
CU M
PS e
W k
t> o
H <»H
K -H
H
gtS
< — ' (_>
CO
P«H
O
rr~i
\-w
r*—
L^
o
vo
xw
vg
VLJ
*s_j frt
PH Uj
PH VO
<:
3
EH
CO
W
a o
H ir\
a
o
GO
*^» o
^ r*-*
O UA
H
EH
<
EH
CO
05
i r\
u \
xj-
ro
CM
H
CO
_=r
o o
0 0
LTN O
00
H
O O
0 0
CM CM
O O
0 0
CO CO
0 0
o o
00 CM
H
0 0
oo oo
OO H
o
H
H
O
CM
V
O
CO
CM
1
H
H
0 0
ON O
^r t-
o o
0 0
CM CO
O O
0 0
U~N uA
OOO
0 0 VO
CM Ovj _=r
Vw
V
o o
o o
00 00
H
o o
0 0
OJ C\i
o o
o o
CM ITN
V
0 0
0 0
CO LTN
o o
oo oo
H 00
o o
CF\ OO
t— CM
1
H
-3-
o oo
ON CM
_3-
CO
O VO
CM
1
-3-
00
1
H
H
0 0
O O
CM O
ONVO
H
O O
0 0
CM CM
t-^-3-"
H l/N
0 0
0 0
OO CVI
H-=f
ir\
0 0
0 0
oo oo
H OO
o o
0 0
0 0
o oo
U3 H
H
0 0
0 0
LTN CM
0 0
0 0
f— LTN
O O
O O
CO CM
0 0
Ovj H
CM H
O
oo
H
O
CVi
O
CM
_3-
|
H
H
0 0
CM CM
-4- t~-
LP> H
0 0
0 0
OJ ON
CVJ [--
0 0
o o
oo oo
CM OO
O O
O O
CM 00
CM 00
0 0
0 0
OO OO
r-T 00
0 0
0 0
I/A 00
0 0
o o
ON t-
t— H
o o
0 0
H H
-3- H
H
0 0
OOCO
H
O
CO
O
H
H
O
CVJ
V
ir\
1
H
rH
O O
0 0
O OO
-a-'cvj"
H
0 0
O O
o oo
-=f 00
CM
0 0
o o
0 0
-=t t-
CM
0 0
O O
vo oo
ON CVJ
0 0
0 0
O CO
oo
1 — i
0 0
o o
cvi o
** ft
CNVD
H
0 0
O CO
O -3-
VD 00
H
o o
o o
CM CM
ON ON
0 0
O CO
CM -^r
I* *
ON oo
o
o
CM
f-
ON
o
CN
-3"
0
OJ
V
CO
1
H
H
O O
0 0
oo ON
CM -J-
O O
O O
oo o
CM OO
H
O O
O O
H H
OJ rH
O 0
O O
1XN U\
0 0
o o
ON CM
-=f OJ
0 0
-3- vo
ON-^T
0 0
ON 0
o oo
H H
0 0
O CO
-* -3-
CM 00
O O
O CM
OO t—
*r *>
H H
O
OO
00
0
H
H
0
OJ
CN
1
H
H
0 0
0 0
oo vo
OO _3-
o o
o o
oo oo
oo oo
o o
o o
LTN CO
OOO
000
CM CM -3-
H
o
o
_=f
H
o o
ON ON
-=t t—
0 0
o oo
oo oo
H
0 0
ON CN
i-_ t^_
0 0
ON oo
t— oo
0 0
t*- oo
H 00
O CN
t— t—
o oo
CM CM
V
o
H
1
H
H
o o
0 0
H OJ
H OJ
o o
0 0
LTN ON
t—
0 0
o o
CO H
H
o o
0 0
t- ON
H -^r
0 0
o o
CM CM
t—
H
0 0
OO CO
00 J-
f\
oo
o o
CM O
CU O
vo
H
A
o o
H 0
00 CM
ON
0 0
CM O
CM t-
o
f —
H
O
CM
V
0
CM
V
H
H
1
H
H
0 0
O O
CO OO
CVi
O O
o o
f— oo
H*00
o o
o o
H CJ
H CVJ
O O
O O
CVi UA
Oj"
o o
0 0
t-- oo
H H
0 0
ON 00
^t OO
o o
oo o
oo-j-
CM
o o
CM ON
c— o
H H
0 0
t— o
H t—
**
H
O
OO
H
O
OJ
V
o
Cvi
V
CM
H
1
H
H
-------
II - 1
APPENDIX II
RESULTS OF BACTERIAL ANALYSES
-------
1-2
2. Maryland State Department of Health
Certain samples collected by the Health Departments of
Baltimore City and Baltimore County were analyzed for coliform
and fecal coliform by the Maryland State Department of Health
laboratory as a service to the Chesapeake Field Station. The
procedures were virtually the same as CFS procedures, and data
have been treated identically with CFS data,
3. Baltimore City
Bacteriological samples collected by Baltimore Back
River STP over the period 1962-1965 were analyzed by the Balti-
more City Health Department laboratory. The MPN's were based
on presumptive tubes, using three tubes per serial dilution.
Samples taken from chlorinated plant effluent were analyzed
both with and without addition of thiosulfite.
CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL*
* Standard Methods for the Examination of Water, Sewage, and
Industrial Wastes, APHA.
-------
I - 1
APPENDIX I
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
BACTERIOLOGICAL
1. Chesapeake Field Station
(a) All multiple-tube analyses were performed using five
tubes per serial dilution. Samples for Most Probable Number of
the chlorinated effluent of the sewage treatment plant were col-
lected in bottles containing sodium thiosulfite which reacts with
the chlorine to prevent a nontypical disinfection contact time
between collection and inoculation.
(b) Method for Coliform Group. Analyses were performed
*
according to Standard Methods , using the fermentation tube tech-
nique. All presumptive tubes were incubated for U8 hours and
those positive submitted to the confirmed test, using brilliant
green lactose bile broth. MPN's were taken from positive con-
firmed tubes.
(c) Method for Fecal Coliform Group. Analyses were per-
formed according to Standard Methods, using EC medium at 44.5° C.
All tubes were incubated U8 hours.
(d) Method for Fecal Streptococcus. Analyses were per-
formed according to Standard Methods, using the azide broth pre-
sumptives and ethyl violet aside broth confirming media. Both
presumptive and confirmed tests were performed. All tubes were
incubated for kQ hours.
*
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water, Sewage, and
Industrial Wastes, APHA.
-------
CC. If
Ul t-
I- Z
4 UJ
* 2
' 5
* UJ
O fi
o.
v>
. CM
#
1
1
1
} -
1
1
Bl
J —
4
m
"#
>.
oc
V) _
z Zj
0 l_
.» r r-
* < (O
« UJ
(9 f^0
m W ^
* 3 UJ
Q. ^
2 S
. to
* ^
2
O
Ul
CO
u.
0
E
u
Q.
O
Z
(0
tr
UJ
J
z
< w
OD Q:
O
X
Q.
CO
O
o
o
o
10
o
o
o
S1N3WIQ3S -
o
o
o
o
CD
O
10
O
IO
H31VM - t»0d I/Bui
FIGURE 14
-------
INIOd MNV8AV13 „.
INIOd «31«0d
iNIOd
INIOd XOD
39oiaa s
o
(O
Q
ro
-------
JLNIOd XNV8AV10
INIOd d31HOd
0-NIOd AdnaSNVIS
1MVM
INIOd XOO
390ia8 S
390IH9 'N
o
in
O
o
O
m
CO
Z
O
(O
t-
z
UJ
^
Q
UJ
O
<0
(T
UJ
O
<
CO
O
o:
I
O
_l
UJ
UJ6/6UJ N-1HVQ13PX
FIGURE 12
-------
INIOd «31«0d
INIOd
iNIOd XOD
aooma s
390IH8 N
o
*>
CM
o
o
(M
o
o
•t
CO
UJ
2
o
UJ
CO
*«. co e
v UJ 10
Ul
>
tL
O Q:
CD °
o
a:
o
FIGURE II
-------
-------
iNIOd XNV9XV1D
iNIOd H31HOd
xanasNViS
iNIOd iflNIVM
iNIOd XOO
Q.
o
51
UJ
Ul o
cr E
o o
r
< O
CD ?
o
i-
1N3WIQ3S
SnUOHdSOHd 1V101
FIGURE 10
-------
CO
UJ
CO
UJ
£
O
O
UJ
o
ui
CO
CD
-------
SEDIMENT DEPTH, (in.)
OO^O
CM —
WATER DEPTH, (ft.)
CORE DEPTH, ( inches )
FIGURE 8
-------
AiNnoo nva
XTio ilva
(U
K
o
Ul
ac.
UJ
S
tu
OT
1
CO
CD u.
o
CO
o
u.
or
UJ
o
cc
i-
§
o:
o
i-
co
to
O
<
CD
CO
CD
QL
UJ
CO
FIGURE 7
-------
o
a
o
o.
to
IK
<
Z
oc
(9
z
ui
o
Q-
X
o
_ < m
moo
444
t- I- I-
o> at co
o
OL
(C
O
a.
ro
CD
O
a.
z
<
CD
o
a
Z
3
C
O
10
CD
±co
0~
a.
h-
m
o
o
100,000
10,000- —
UI
z
tc.
t-
IU
X
o
u
o
o
4
m
Z
tc
o
1,000- —
60 S.O 40 3O ZO
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF BACK RIVER
1.0
o.o
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
MILES INTO CHESAPEAKE BAY
BACK RIVER ESTUARY
PROFILE OF RIVER COLIFORMS, GEOMETRIC MEANS, STP BOAT STATIONS
FIGURE 6
-------
Ul
s
xiNnoo nva
AlTo 1TV8
z
o
to
Z uj
— oc
CO o
< 5
CD u.
O Q.
CD
o
<
CD
UJ
£C
O
CD
FIGURE
-------
CO
to
o
J-
<
H-
co
J-
o
Ul o oc
o oc
o
O
<
CD
o
00
UJ
o:
o
2E
t-
m
FIGURE 4
-------
UJ
UJ
(C
o
z
(£
(n
4
III
UJ
>
o
OB
4
CD N-
4 4
I- )-
in in
O
Q.
X
O
(J
UJ
4
o
a.
t-
3
Z
J
I
in
4
in
O
a.
o
10
z
<
t-
cn
O
a.
O
a.
o
a.
>-
_i
o
o
a.
ac
a
o
o
100,000-
-------
-------
o
O
^
a.
2
UJ
S
UJ
2
O
UJ
(9
(C
UJ
O
<
a
a:
o
o
o
lOO.OOO-i—
i p.ooo —
1,000- —
100-
10-
UJ
UJ
cc
o
o
>
O
a.
Ul
z
Ul
O
ffl
00
<
CD
2
OC
UJ
1—
CO
UJ
h-
<
K
Z
o
a.
X
O
o
to
<
o
a
H
3
_l
*
in
<
cr
m
z
<
v>
t
<
o
a.
tc.
UJ
H
K
0
0.
IO
<
(6A)
o
a.
z
<
m
o
CM
o
a.
(E
O
8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF BACK RIVER
1,0 0.0
BACK RIVER ESTUARY
PROFILE OF RIVER COLIFORMS, GEOMETRIC MEANS, CFS
FIGURE 2
-------
(O o
< H
00 u. g
O m
UJ g z
> i- H
— < o.
CD
FIGURE I
-------
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I
10 +20
SAMPLE PROBABILITY PLOT
FIGURE A-l
-------
36
TABLE 10
BACK RIVER BASIN
CAPACITIES OF SEWAGE PUMPING STATIONS
Pumping
Station No.
1
2
3
U
5
6
7
8
9
10
Unnumbered
Operated by
Baltimore City
Baltimore City
Private
Private
Baltimore City
Private
Private
Private
Baltimore City
Baltimore City
Baltimore City
Capacity
gpm
360
1,600
Unknown
1,800
1,000
1.U50
Unknown
5^5
70
200
Unknown
-------
35
TABLE 9
BACK RIVER, 1962 - 1965
SUMMARY OF COLIFORM DENSITIES AT BALTIMORE
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT BOAT STATIONS
Station
B-l
B-l-A
B-l-B
B-2
B-3
B-l*
B-5
B-6
B-T
No, of
Samples
lit
13
Ik
Ik
14
14
Ik
D4
13
Geometric
Mean
MPN/100 ml
1,400
1,400
1,700
91
45
44
32
18
13
Percentile Limits
Geometric ,
Std.Dev.-
0.58
0.70
1.57
0.60
0.21
0.38
0.54
0.83
0.52
95$
MPN/100 ml
12,000
20,000
63,000
870
98
180
250
410
92
5$
MPN/100 ml
160
99
46
9.5
21
11
4.1
0.79
1.8
a/
— Expressed as a logarithm. Variability of the 3-tube MPN test
eliminated by subtracting 0.32.
Samples collected June through September of each year and analyzed
using the presumptive test with 3 tubes per serial dilution.
-------
TABLE 8 (Continued)
BACK RIVER, 1962 - 1965
SUMMARY OF COLIFORM DENSITIES-/ AT BALTIMORE
BACK RIVER SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT SHORE STATIONS
June - October 1964
Station
(1)
S-l
S-2
S-4
S-5
S-T
Spillway
c/
TCT-
Station
(1)
S-l
S-2
S-4
S-5
S-T
Spillway
m /TT1 S^.
Nou of
Samples
(2) T
12
18
18
IT
IT
18
IT
No. of
Samples
(2)
14
14
14
1.4
14
14
14
Mean
MPK/100 ml
(3)
2,400
4,900
1,000
2,800
1,400
7.6 x 106
1,000
May -
*
Mean
MPN/100 ml
(3)
3,400
9,100
2,200
910
1,400
7.6 x 10
2, TOO
Standard
Deviation £/
(4)
0.61
0-88
0,02
0.56
0.65
0.09
0 = 95
September 1965
Standard
Deviation IS.'
(4)
0.30
0.88
0.86
0.4l
0.62
0.20
0.84
Percentile
95'£
(5)
24,000
13,000
10,000
23,000
16,000
11 x 10 5
36,000
Percentile
95$
(5)
11,000
250,000
56,000
4,300
15,000
16 x 10 3
65,000
Limits
5*
(6)
240
1,800
95
340
120
.4 x 106
28
Limits
5$
(6)
1,100
330
86
190
130
.6 x 106
110
Geometric
a/
— By Presumptive Test usinjr 3 tubes per dilution.
— Corrected to eliminate variability in MPN test; reported in log units,
c/
— Samples treated with thiosulfate to inhibit chlorine.
-------
33
TABLE 8
BACK RIVER, 1962 - 1965
SUMMARY OF COLIFORM DENSITIES-/ AT BALTIMORE
BACK RIVER SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT SHORE STATIONS
May - September 1962
Station
(1)
S-l
S-2
S-l*
S-5
S-7
Spillway
c/
TCT-
Station
(1)
S-l
S-2
S-l*
S-5
S-T
Spillway
TCT£/
No. of
Samples
(2)
20
20
20
20
20
20
18
Wo. of
Samples
(2)
13
16
16
16
16
16
16
*
Mean
MPN/100 ml
(3)
3,800
1,700
U , 300
1,200
1*,100
2.1 x 106
It, 100
May -
*
Mean
MPN/100 ml
(3)
2,800
1,100
1,700
1,200
2,800
6.1 x 106
1,700
Standar§ , ,
Deviation —
(U)
0.52
o.6k
0.50
0.51
0.1*3
0.36
0.67
September 1963
Standard
Deviation 5/
(U)
0.57
0.78
0.63
0.1*8
0.1*8
0.26
0.70
Percentile
95#
(5)
27,000
19,000
28,000
8,300
21,000
8.2 x 106
52,000
Percentile
95%
(5)
2l*,000
21,000
18,000
7,1*00
17,000
16 x 10 2
21*, 000
Limits
5^
(6)
5^0
150
650
170
800
5Uo,000
330
Limits
5%
(6)
330
58
160
190
1*50
.3 x 106
120
Geometric
a/
— By Presumptive Test using 3 tubes per dilution.
— Corrected to eliminate variability in MPN test; reported in log units,
c/
— Samples treated with thiosulfate to inhibit chlorine.
-------
32
TABLE 7
CFS BACK RIVER SURVEY, November 5, 1965
HEAVY METALS CONCENTRATIONS
Zinc^7
Station
1
2
3
4
5a
5b
5c
6a
6b
6c
7
8
A
B
C
D
H
I
J
Soluble
mg/1
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.05
0.01
<0.01
0.05
<0.01
0.03
0.05
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<.0.01
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.03
0.04
0.08
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
0.04
0.03
Part icul ate
mg/gpy
2.6
1.3
2.1
0.9U
1.0
l.U
0.93
2.9
1.5
l.U
0.6
2.1
1.1
7.2
1.9
2.7
2.2
2.0
1.6
1.7
1.2
l.U
1.9
1.8
U.3
1.7
3U
36
lU
1.6
Copper—
Soluble
mg/1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Particulate
mg/gV
U.2
1.5
1.6
0.63
0.32
0.06
0.04
0.69
0.06
o.4o
O.l6
1.1
0.43
3.1
1.2
2.0
0.95
1.4
0.68
0.94
0.56
0.57
1.5
1.3
3.2
0.95
2k
19
7.5
0.8
Chromium-
Soluble
mg/1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<:0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Particulate
mg/gk/
1.0
0.43
3.7
0.78
1.9
1.3
1.2
0.98
1.8
1.7
0.50
2.5
1.3
6.7
9.3
U.O
7.6
5-2
7.8
1.7
1.3
2.8
2.4
1.6
4.3
2.8
16
13
2,7
2.2
*
All samples were taken on November 5.
aj Expressed as weight of metal regardless of valence.
b_/ Milligrams per gram of suspended solids.
-------
31
TABLE 6
CFS BACK RIVER SURVEY, November 1-12, 1965
SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL DATA (EXCEPT METALS)
PH
Chlorides
Oil
Chlorophyll
Station
(1)
1
2
3
It
5a
5b
5c
6a
6b
6c
7
8
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
Mean*
Value
(2)
7.7
8.0
8.1
8.3
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.7
8.7
8.7
9.0
9.1
8.3
8.8
9.1
8.7
—
7.6
—
—
7.2
7.1
No. of Median
Samples Cone.
mg/1
(3) (It)
2
2
2
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
k
It
3
2
-
1
-
-
1
U
*,950
lt,81tO
U,230
3,810
3,290
3,360
3,390
2,600
2,720
2,750
2,ltltO
2,380
3,7*0
3,180
2,310
2,900
2it
18
It H
65
33
120
No. of
Samples
(5)
10
10
10
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
18
19
10
k
It
It
It
3
20
Mean
Cone.
mg/1
(6)
6
It
6
2
It
6
6
8
7
5
9
it
7
6
it
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No. of
Samples
(7)
1
1
1
It
It
U
U
It
It
It
It
3
k
U
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mean No. of
Cone . Samples
MR/1
(8) (9)
31*
92
lltO
160
200
200
230
190
180
2ltO
260
250
280
250
180
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Geometric Mean
-------
30
TABLE 5
CFS BACK RIVER SURVEY, November 1-12, 1965
SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL DATA
Light Extinction Depth
by Secchi Disc
Station
(1)
1
2
3
h
5a
5b
5c
6a
6b
6c
7
8
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
Median
Value
inches
(2)
30
23
15
12
11
10
11
10
11
11
10
10
12
10
9
—
—
—
—
—
—
No. of
Samples
(3)
10
10
10
20
19
19
19
19
19
18
19
19
18
17
18
—
—
—
—
—
—
^ ,_
Total Susp. Solids
Mean
Cone.
mg/1
(10
38
U6
67
boo
220
130
1,900
160
71
92
81+
150
290
110
UU
9^
—
—
—
U
5
66
No. of
Samples
(5)
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
j_
2
2
1
1
-
-
-
1
1
2
Water Temperature
Median
Value
°C
(6)
10.0
9.5
9.5
10.5
10.5
1.0. h
10.5
11.0
11.0
10.9
10.8
10.5
10.it
10.6
10.6
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
No. of
Samples
(7)
10
10
10
20
20
20
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
18
19
—
—
—
—
—
—
_ —
-------
29
EH
ITN
V^Q
ON
H
n
CM
H
1
H
^
0)
£>
S
0)
o
rt
^H
§
PS
CO
K
pr"]
M
K
Jyj
o
pq
CO
o
CO
CJ
p"]
£3
o
CO
g
o
M
K
<3j
J>
>H
pq
CO
Si
0
M
B
M
K
EH
s;
8
v-3
«3f
M
K
£-1
O
M
cjj
i_3
[T-^
K
rH
03
-p
O
i^ ON
£ ^~* — '
o °
H
O
H'-^
0^
n> '"""*•
£ X CO
on
s ^
-p
o
EH '—
t-
CH >
W O
5^
O
•H
H
O '-»
CJ -3-
f — V
X VO
^^-'
on
^ ^
^-j
EH
M
CQ
Si
Q
*
^
H
J5^
w —
H C >^---
n3 O
O Vt
0) -H •
fc H H
0 S
CJ
o
o
CQ H
£H r^t
O O i
^H §
•rH
H —«•
o -=r
on
rH
CM
O
rH
X
O\
CM
H
CO
•
on
on
0
rH
X
CM
H
CM
O
O
H
rH
O
O
0
CO
H
O
d
CM
O
CO
rt
p
K
w
JH
cu
S
S
dJ
4J
CO
0!
0)
o
GJ
CQ
o
TJ
(U
PH
K
CO
0>
rH
o
o
pj
£J
p^
bC
a
•rH
rH
JH
0)
31
Trf
cd
r^j
cd
0)
rH
pq
ID
cu
rH
O
CU
CQ
OJ
cu
c]
CJ
-p
C
OJ
rH
VH
-------
-------
28
TABLE 3
CFS BACK RIVER SURVEY, November 1-12, 1965
SUMMARY OF FECAL COLIFORM AND FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS DENSITIES
Station
(1)
1
2
3
1*
5a
5b
5c
6a
6b
6c
7
8
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
FECAL COLIFQRM
No. of Mean
Samples MPN/100 ml
(2) (3)
12
12
12
20
20
20
20
19
22
19
19
19
20
18
18
10
13
13
13
13
12
20
<20
12
37
56
ll*0
130
150
630
280
200
320
530
ikO
280
350
550
1,100
160
16,000
3,800
1,1*00
23
FECAL STREPTOCOCCI Ratio:
Std. No. of Mean Std. Fecal Coli.
Dev. Samples MPN/100 ml Dev. Fecal Strep.
a/ a/
(1*) (5) (6) (7) (8)
—
.89
.73
.55
1.00
.98
.99
.97
.82
.95
1.00
.1*6
.80
.87
.65
.63
• 55
.1*8
.95
.53
.52
1.30
10
10
10
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
18
18
10
1*
1*
1*
1*
3
20
<20
<20
<20
<20
10
5.1*
9-1
28
27
21*
37
52
<20
35
13
19
115
<30
11*0
105
32
<20
—
—
—
—
.80
1.18
.92
1.05
.80
.72
.82
.1*3
—
.91
1.17
.63
1.00
—
.70
1.28
.kg
—
—
>.6
>1.8
>2.8
ll*
21*
16
22
10
8
9
10
>7
8
27
29
10
5
111*
36
1*1*
>X
Geometric Mean.
a/ Standard deviation is expressed in logarithmic units. No correction was
applied.
-------
27
TABLE 2
CFS BACK RIVER SURVEY, November 1-12, 1965
SUMMARY OF COLIFORM DENSITIES
Station
1
2
3
1+
5a
5b
5c
6a
6b
6c
7
8
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
No. of
Samples
12
12
12
20
20
20
20
19
22
20
20
20
20
18
19
10
13
13
13
13
12
20
Arith~
Mean—
MPN/100 ml
3
2
12
3
2
13
6
1
3
1*
11
1*8
5
200
60
20
10
22
270
270
860
,700
,200
600
,000
,1*00
,300
,000
,000
,1+00
,700
,900
,000
,000
,100
,000
,000
,000
,000
Geometric
Mean—
MPN/100 ml
1
1
2
1
3
3
1
3
3
21
100
25
10
12
It 8
170
1*00
,200
,000
1*20
,100
960
,300
,500
,200
UK)
,600
,000
,800
,000
900
,000
,000
,000
90
Geometric
Std. Dev.
a/
.23
.56
.17
.29
.1*0
.29
.12
.57
.kk
.21
.1*6
.24
.39
.32
.18
.38
.31
.56
.26
.33
.26
1.09
Percentile Limits
95%
MPN/100 ml
-i
i.
5
3
18
5
2
20
8
1
5
5
16
67
6
280
88
27
5
28
1*00
320
,200
,1*00
,000
670
,000
,000
,900
,000
,000
,900
,1*00
,900
,000
,000
,900
,000
,000
,000
,1*00
5%
MPN/100
5
6
90
130
260
330
260
21*0
180
610
610
1,300
100
1*70
1,500
890
660
120
39,000
7,100
3,700
1
ml
.0
.0
.5
a/
— Computed by Thomas' relation. See Appendix III.
— Expressed as a logarithm* Variability of the 5-tube MPN test eliminated by
subtracting 0.25-
-------
26
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Designation
Stream
River
Mile
Description
Thiosulfate Contact Tank,
Sewage Treatment Plant
Effluent
6.76 After chlorine contact chamber,
samples treated with thio-
sulfate to inhibit chlorine.
-------
25
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Designation
Stream
River
Mile
De s c ript i on
B-5
B-6
B-7
Back River 1.70
Back River 0.00
Chesapeake Bay -1.60
Chesapeake Bay -3=53
Midstream, between Claybank
Point and unnamed point on
western shore.
Midstream, at river mouth
between Rocky Point and Drum
Point.
Midway between Wells Point and
Millers Island,
About 1_5 mile northeast of
Millers Island and 2.2 mile
east of Wells Point—Booby
Bar headland.
(Sewage Treatment Plant Shore Stations)
S-l
S-2
S-h
S-5
S-7
Back River
Back River
Back River
Back River
Back River
Spillway Within Sewage Treatment
Plant
7.12 From western shore at Green-
marsh Point„
7.65 At southwestern end of Eastern
Boulevard Bridge.
7.65 At northeastern end of Eastern
Boulevard Bridge.
6.1^4 From eastern shore at foot of
Scandalwood Road, about Chi
mile southeast of mouth of
Deep Creek.
6.28 From eastern shore at foot of
Riverside Drive about 0.1
mile northwest of Cox Point,
Point at which flow is diverted
to Bethlehem Steel Company
Plant.
-------
TABLE 1 (Continued
Designation
Stream
River
Mile
Description
B
D
G
H
I
Deep Creek (tidal) 6.30
8,00
Deep Creek (tidal) 6.30
Northeast Creek
(tidal)
Stemmers Run (non-
tidal)
8.00
Redhouse Creek (non- 9,20
tidal)
Moores Run
Herring Run
Bread and Cheese
Creek
Sewage Treatment
Plant Effluent
10.20
9.20
6.90
Midstream, near mouth, between
two unnamed points.
Midstream, about 0,2 mile
above mouth.
Midstream, about 0.2 mile
above Marilyn Avenue Bridge.
At bridge, on Stemmers Run
Road (continues as Back River
Neck Road).
At bridge, on U. S. UO.
At bridge, on U. S. HO.
At bridge, on U. S. Uo.
At bridge, on North Point
Boulevard.
6.76 After chlorine contact chamber.
(Sewage Treatment Plant Boat Stations)
B-l
B-l-A
B-l-B
B-2
B-3
Back River
Back River
Back River
Back River
Back River
7.11 Midstream, opposite Greenmarsh
Pointo
6.78 At Sewage Treatment Plant
Effluent discharge.
6.29 Midstream, opposite Cox Point.
U.91 Midstream, about 0.2 mile
downstream from Walnut Point„
3.12 Midstream between Porter Point
and Todd Point.
-------
23
TABLE 1
DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLING STATIONS
Designation
Stream
River
Mile
Description
(Chesapeake Field Station Stations)
Back River
Back River
0.00 Midstream, at river mouth,
between Rocky Point and
Drum Point„
1.69 Midstream, between Claybank
Point and unnamed point on
western shore.
3
k
5a
5b
5c
6a
6b
6c
7
8
Back River
Back River
Back River
Back River
Back River
Back River
Back River
Back River
Back River
Back River
3.11 Midstream, between Porter Point
and Todd Point.
H.39 Midstream, opposite Stansbury
Point.
5-3T Near western shore, opposite
Walnut Point.
5.37 Midstream, opposite Walnut
Point.
5.37 Near eastern shore, opposite
Walnut Pointo
6.32 Near western shore, opposite
Cox Point.
6.32 Midstream, opposite Cox Point.
6.32 Near eastern shore, opposite
Cox Point „
7.65 Midstream, at Eastern Boulevard
Bridge.
8.00 Midstream, opposite unnamed
point at confluence of Back
River and Northeast Creek.
Muddy Gut (tidal) ^.90 Midstream, at mouth.
-------
-------
22
VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. "Summary Report-Pollution of Back River," Chesapeake Bay-
Susquehanna River Basins Project, Public Health Service,
Region III, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, January
2. "A Study of Pollution Indicators in a Waste Stabilization
Pond," Geldreich, Clark and Huff, Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 36, No. 11, pp 1372-1379,
November 196k.
3. "Physical Condition of Streams in Baltimore," Ira L. Whitman,
December 1966, prepared for Baltimore (City) Department of
Public Works.
, if , '.', •
-------
21
The schedule of development of this plan could te a significant
factor in control of pollution in Back River. A proposed channel,
as part of the development of port facilities, could be quite
effective in increasing the amount of tidal excursion, the result-
ing dilution of nutrients, and the lowering of water temperatures.
The beneficial water quality aspects of a deepened shipping
channel is directly related to the concurrent development of
pollution control facilities in the area and correction of exist-
ing inadequacies.
-------
20
established priorities for sewer extensions by cooperation of
the public works and health departments. All sources of pollu-
tion from private sewage disposal systems have been located,
priorities established, some extensions completed, some are
presently under construction, and the remainder are in some
stage of right-of-way acquisition or design. There is some evi-
dence of pollution in Herring Run and Moores Run within the
Baltimore City limits which appears to originate as a result of
deficiencies in the sewerage system. Inspectors have been as-
signed to locate and identify any questionable outfall discharges— ,
It can be estimated with reasonable accuracy that 1,100
homes remain to be sewered at an estimated cost of $^.5 million,
with the exceptions previously mentioned. The costs include the
necessary sewage pumping stations and additional treatment plant
capacity required.
The time schedule for the completion of the program is a
function of the availability of funding which, in turn, depends
upon State and Federal aid availability. The corrective action
program then is to accelerate the sewer extension program to
complete the design and make the appropriate funds available.
On March 23, 1966, the Baltimore County Planning Board
adopted the Report on the Master Plan and Comprehensive Rezoning
Map for the Eastern Planning Area. Part of this area includes
the peninsula along the north shore of the Back River Estuary.
-------
19
V, CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM
In accordance with Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration policy, all pollution studies include a program
of corrective action with cost estimates, if applicable. The
196^ study suggested several areas for water quality improve-
ment which were not evaluated because of lack of information
which this study now furnishes. The original proposals to (l)
control marine craft waste discharges, (2) regulate solid waste
disposal areas, and (3) develop land use regulations in unsewered
areas, remain valid and are provided for in continuing studies
and in the new regional plan. In addition, the increase in
diversion of the effluent from the Back River Sewage Treatment
Plant (currently 80 per cent) to industrial water use is effec-
tive in retarding the rate of eutrophication and additional diver-
sion should be encouraged. The cooperation of industry in in-
creasing the degree of treatment of wastes is also desirable.
The most effective program to improve water quality in
the Kstuary was identified in the current study as the extension
of sewerage to eliminate private disposal systems in all loca-
tions where a significant pollution problem exists and where such
extensions are economically feasible.
Prior to the recent Amendment to Article ^3 of the Laws
of Maryland requiring all counties to provide plans for adequate
sewerage systems before 1970, the Baltimore County government had
-------
18
Present diversion of most of the Treatment Plant effluent
for industrial use has probably slowed the eutrophication process.
A planned further increase in the industrial use of the treated
effluent may, for practical purposes, reduce nutrients to negli-
gible levels in Back River. Land use in the Back River watershed
has stabilized in urban and suburban development, so that factors
other than treated waste discharges are not pertinent.
-------
17
bottom core observations made during the survey which showed
rapidly increased thickness of organic deposits of reduced oxygen
content some distance downstream from the Treatment Plant out-
fall. These deposits then generally decreased in thickness ap-
proaching the Bay, presumably as the nutrient-stimulated algal
growth was dispersed and diluted. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and
organic carbon determinations of the sediment water interface
samples also showed a rapid downstream decrease after an initial
build-up below the Treatment Plant outfall. These oxidized and
reduced deposits with their high available nutrient content appear
to be the result of treated effluents from the Sewage Treatment
Plant since it was placed in operation in 1911.
In summary, it can be concluded that eutrophication of
the Back River Estuary has been accelerated by discharges from
the Sewage Treatment Plant from evaluations of the following:
(1) the relative position of the underlying gray clay and its
relatively low phosphorus content, (2) an examination of the
available nautical charts for the Back River Estuary since the
l870's, (3) the underlying gray clay sediment deposits of homo-
geneous, small-sized particles which are evidence of the geologic
stilling basin effects of a small watershed discharging into a
relatively large estuary, and (k) the increased chlorophyll for-
mation in the lower estuary.
-------
16
in the channel and a gradual build-up to a sill at the mouth.
The sediments generally show a recent fluvial oxidized material
in the upper estuary; extensive deposits showing reduced oxygen
conditions extending from the Sewage Treatment Plant gradually
decreasing in thickness toward the mouth of the estuary; and
below this a fine, compact, gray clay of obviously different
origin than the overlying material with a relatively low phos-
phorus content (Figure 9). The phosphorus content of both oxi-
dized and reduced deposits (Figure 9) is similar and is in marked
contrast to the low content of the underlying gray clay.
The phosphorus in the top 5 cm of bottom cores was
measured and plotted (Figure 10) as representing that available
for uptake into the estuary water. Organic carbon and nitrogen
determinations in the same samples (Figures 11 and 12) confirm
the observation that there is a rapid nutrient build-up beginning
at the Sewage Treatment Plant to a maximum at Cox Point (Station
6) and a gradual reduction to values approximating conditions
above the Treatment Plant effluent discharge point.
The effects of the extensive eutrophication in the Back
River Estuary, accelerated by the high nutrient content of the
Back River Sewage Treatment Plant effluent, are not as serious
as the effects in the non-tidal body of water. The fraction of
nutrient escape is large because of the shape of the Estuary and
the effects of tidal excursion. This deduction is supported by
-------
-------
15
sediment fraction of the water samples. Significantly higher
particulate concentrations of each of these metals were found
in samples from Herring Run, Bread and Cheese Creek, and the
Back River Sewage Treatment Plant effluent. The reason for the
higher concentrations at these locations could not "be determined,
but may be related to particular industrial activities on the
drainage watersheds above the sampling points.
All of the dissolved metal concentrations observed were
well below levels considered toxic to aquatic life, and the metals
contents of the suspended particulate matter is of little signi-
ficance in Back River.
C. EXTENT AID SOURCE OF NUTRIENTS IN THE ESTUARY
During and after the water pollution survey in November
1965, analyses of nutrients were made to determine the extent of
phosphorus compounds in the estuarial water and bottom sediments ,
nitrogen and organic carbon in the sediments, and phytoplankton
in the water. The results are plotted in Figures 8 to lU. Water
was sampled with a PVC Van Dorn bottle, and sediments were sampled
with a two-foot Phleger cover. The observations included tempera-
ture, salinity, and Secchi disk readings. The analyses gave values
for total phosphorus, phosphate, Kjeldahl nitrogen, organic carbon,
and sand-silt-clay ratios.
The profile of the river bottom and sediment depths
(Figure 8) shows an estuary with a maximum water depth of ten feet
-------
lU
period preceding the survey. A slight lateral chloride stratifi-
cation in the Estuary may be noted at Stations 5 and 6 just below
the treatment plant outfall where the chloride concentration shows
a slight increase from the west to the east bank. The chloride
gradient is probably caused by the lower chloride concentration
in the effluent discharged by the Back River Sewage Treatment
Plant on the western shore, which apparently promotes a counter-
clockwise horizontal circulation. Such a flow pattern would also
explain the higher bacterial densities found on the western side
of the Estuary.
Results of analyses for oils are inconclusive because
of the low accuracy of the analytical method used at the levels
encountered and the influence of sampling techniques. Samples
were scooped from the water's surface where oil content should
be highest. No trend in oil concentration distribution was found
along the Estuary, although the levels found at Station 7 below
the Eastern Boulevard Bridge were consistently higher than at
any other location. The amounts of oil detected during this
particular period are not considered to be excessive.
Analyses for heavy metals such as zinc, copper, and
chromium were performed on water samples from each station;
results are shown in Table 7. Dissolved copper and chromium
were riot detectable (<0.01 mg/l) while zinc concentrations of
from <0.01 to a maximum of 0.08 mg/l (at Stations 8 and C) were
found. These metals were readily detected in the suspended
-------
13
It is interesting to note, hovever, that despite the
existing growth stimulating conditions, Back River is virtually
free of the Eurasian milfoil plant that is so prevalent in other
areas of the Bay. Experiments conducted by the School of Public
health, The Johns Hopkins University (see Appendix V), in which
milfoil plants were transplanted from the adjacent Middle River
Estuary to Back River, seem to indicate that some quality charac-
teristics of Back River waters are detrimental to the plant.
Further study to determine these characteristics is certainly
warranted.
Results of transparency measurements in Back River could
also be an indicator of the high algal populations present. Trans-
parency and chlorophyll concentrations appear to be inversely
correlated; i.e., as the Bay is approached, transparency steadily
improves from 10 inches to 30 inches, while chlorophyll levels
decline. It is not unusual to find that high algal densities
reduce the clarity of the water considerably. However, it should
also be noted that the Estuary becomes deeper and contains fewer
suspended solids as the Bay is approached. This factor could
also have a decided influence on clarity of the water.
Observed chloride concentrations increased from about
2,^00 mg/1 at the head of the Estuary to almost 5,000 mg/1 at
the mouth, which is approximately 15 per cent of that of sea water.
These high concentrations were due both to the low stream inflows
normally expected in the late fall months and the extended drought
-------
12
B. PHYSICAL AID CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ESTUARY
A limited amount of data on certain physical and chemical
characteristics of Back River was collected. These data are sum-
marized in Tables 5, 6, and 7-
Temperature varied slightly along the length of the Es-
tuary within the range of 9-5 to 11.0 degrees Centigrade. The
pH dropped steadily from a high value of 9-1 at the upper end of
the Estuary to 7-7 at the mouth. This is a reflection of the
high level of algal activity in the Estuary which diminishes as
the Bay is approached. This activity is also shown by the
chlorophyll levels which are highest (approximately 250 yg/l) at
the head of the Estuary and drop steadily to low levels (3^ yg/l)
near the mouth (Figure 13).
The chlorophyll pigment levels found are among the highest
ever reported in the Chesapeake Bay area. This is not unexpected,
however, because of the relatively large nutrient addition by the
Back River Sewage Treatment Plant effluent to the shallow Estuary.
During warm weather the Estuary receives a small amount of fresh
water inflow which promotes desirable flushing and exchange with
the waters of the Bay. As a result, ideal conditions are created
for a large increase in algal population, which is readily ap-
parent in the green color of the Back River waters. This could
ultimately cause an accumulation of unsightly and odoriferous
floating mats of decaying algae along the shore.
-------
11
FC:FS ratio was never found to be less than one at any estuary
location, suggesting bacterial pollution from other than human
sources is not a significant factor affecting bacterial quality
of Back River.
An examination of the standard deviation and the upper
and lower percentile limits presented in Tables 2 and 3 reveals
the variability of the coliform densities observed in the Estuary.
The greatest variation in coliform density is found in the Treat-
ment Plant effluent (J) which had a standard deviation of 1.09.
The variability is also reflected in high standard deviations at
Stations 5a, 5b, 6a, 6b, and 7; however, because of the downstream
locations of these stations, the variability is apparently direct-
ly influenced by the Treatment Plant discharge. This variability
diminishes both above and below these stations. It would appear
from these data, as well as certain of the chemical data discussed
below, that the Sewage Treatment Plant effluent travels along the
west bank of the river for some time before being mixed through-
out the entire cross-section. Further studies of water movement
and circulation in the Estuary are needed to ascertain flow
patterns, but the findings of this study indicate that while the
Treatment Plant effluent normally contributes a small percentage
of the total bacterial contamination, it will periodically cause
high coliform densities, particularly on the west bank of the
Estuary.
-------
10
The influence of polluted tributary inflows discussed
previously is reflected markedly in the high bacterial levels
found in the samples collected at Stations 7, 8> and C (Figure
l). These stations were located upstream from the Sewage Treat-
ment Plant outfall, and the bacterial levels were three of the
four highest found in the estuary, all being 3,000 (MPN/100 ml)
or greater (See Table 2).
The highest coliform density in the estuary, 3,800 (MPN/
100 ml), was at Station D in Deep Creek. Since the density at
the mouth of Deep Creek, Station B, was less than half (1,600)
of that found at Station D, it would appear that an additional
source of bacterial pollution may exist in the vicinity of the
Marilyn Avenue Bridge crossing Deep Creek. A ratio of fecal coli-
form to fecal streptococci of 29 at Station D suggests that the
source of pollution is of human origin.
The high coliform densities found at the head of the
Estuary decrease rapidly proceeding downstream (Figure 2). The
geometric mean coliform density decreases to 1,000 (MPN/100 ml)
near Cox Point approximately 6.3 miles above the mouth, remains
the same for about one mile downstream to Walnut Point, and then
diminishes steadily to a low level of 12 (MPN/100 ml) near Rocky
Point (Station l).
The fecal coliform and fecal streptococci densities
follow the same trend, being highest at the head of the Estuary
and dropping steadily to very low levels at the mouth. The
-------
originate from animals. An intermediate ratio is considered to
be inconclusive.
In each of the tributary streams the FC:FS ratio was
greatly in excess of 2.5, indicating that the coliforra densities
were probably of human origin.
The coliforms observed in the treated sewage effluent
are obviously of human origin. The FC:FS ratio (>l) was incon-
clusive, however, because the unexpectedly low FS density could
only be expressed by an upper limit (>20/100 ml).
2. Back River Estuary
Regulations governing the bacterial quality of natural
bathing beaches, adopted by the Maryland State Board of Health
and Mental Hygiene, require that the average most probable num-
ber (MPN) of coliform not exceed 1,000 per 100 milliliters.
Examination of Figure 2 shows that the mean coliform
density exceeds the regulatory limit in the upper three miles
of the Back River Estuary or in that area upstream from Walnut
Point. This conclusion is based upon the geometric mean coli-
form density which is often used to describe bacterial data.
Consideration of the arithmetic mean density which is always
higher than the geometric mean would place the limit for accept-
able bathing waters slightly downstream or at Stansbury Point,
as shown in Figure 3. The State regulations do not specify
which mean value should be used.
-------
-------
locations sampled, reflecting the operational difficulties asso-
ciated with maintaining a uniform chlorine residual in treatment
plant effluents.
To determine relative significance of the bacterial con-
tribution of the tributary inflows to Back River, it is necessary
to consider both their bacterial densities and rate of flow.
The product of these two factors gives a relative index of the
total numbers of bacteria contributed per unit time by each
tributary.
This procedure was carried out (Table h) and revealed
that Herring Run was the source of almost 90 per cent of both
coliform and fecal coliform bacteria contributed by the five
streams and the Back River Sewage Treatment Plant. Moores Run
and Stemmers Run, together, provided about 10 per cent of the
total, while the contributions of the Back River Sewage Treat-
ment Plant effluent, Bread and Cheese Creek, and Redhouse Creek
contributed about one per cent or less.
Analyses of samples for fecal coliform (FC) and fecal
streptococci (FS) densities were performed to provide an indica-
tion of the source of the coliform bacteria observed. It has
2.1
been established— that a ratio of FC to FS (FC:FS) densities
exceeding 2.5 at any location indicates that the coliform bacteria
present are presumably of human origin. Where the FCrFS ratio
is less than one, the coliform density observed is likely to
-------
IV. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. BACTERIAL QUALITY OF BACK RIVER
The individual results of bacteriological analyses of
all samples are presented in Appendix II. These results are
summarized in Tables 2 and 3 where the geometric mean and stand-
ard deviation of the data from each station are given. The
statistical procedures used to determine these properties are
described in Appendix III. Bacterial quality of the Estuary
and various tributaries is summarized as follows:
1. Back River Tributaries
Four of the five tributary streams sampled showed coli-
form densities greater than found at any other survey location.
Moores Run (with a geometric mean coliform density (MPN) of
100,000/100 ml) was the most highly polluted location encountered
in the survey. Herring Run (MPN 25,000/100 ml), Stemmers Run
(MPN 21,000/100 ml), and Bread and Cheese Creek (MPN 10,000/100
ml) were the other three tributaries containing excessive coli-
form densities, while Redhouse Creek contained only MPN 900/
100 ml.
The effluent from the Back River Sewage Treatment Plant
may be considered to be a major tributary inflow to Back River.
The bacterial quality of this chlorinated effluent was quite
good, the mean coliform density being 90/100 ml. The coliform
density of the effluent was also the most variable of any of the
-------
-------
properties of the estuarial system. Dye was released at a con-
stant rate into the effluent outfall sewer of the Back River
Sewage Treatment Plant. Shortly after the test was started,
however, the dye discharge device was destroyed by an act of
vandalism, resulting in the unplanned release of large amounts
of dye at unknown rates and times. A subsequent repetition of
this incident forced cancellation of the dye dispersion study.
The small amount of data collected did not reveal any signifi-
cant amount of useful information. This type of test will be
repeated at a later date.
3. Nutrient Studies
Concurrently with and following the other sampling and
analysis program, analysis of nutrients was made to determine
the extent of phosphorus compounds in the estuarial waters and
bottom sediments, nitrogen and organic carbon in the sediments,
and phytoplankton in the water.
Water was sampled with a PVC Van Corn bottle, and sedi-
ments were sampled with a two-foot Phleger cover. The observa-
tions included temperature, salinity, and Secchi disk readings.
The analysis gave values for total phosphorus, phosphate,
Kjeldahl nitrogen, organic carbon, and sand-silt-clay ratios.
-------
The Back River Sewage Treatment Plant was also sampled
by Chesapeake Field Station personnel.
A total of 368 water samples were collected for analysis
of bacteriological, chemical, and physical properties.
Analyses were performed by Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna
River Basins Project personnel and by the Maryland State Depart-
ment of Health laboratory personnel in Baltimore. In each case
analyses were initiated within a few hours of sample collections,
The following water quality indicators were measured:
Bacteriological
Coliform Most Probable Number (MPN)
Fecal Coliform (FC) Most Probable Number (MPN)
Fecal Streptococcus (FS) Most Probable Number (MPN)
Chemical
Oil
Chlorides
pH
Chlorophyll
Metals (Zinc, Copper, Chromium)
Physical
Transparency
Total Suspended Solids
Water Temperature
The analytical methods used are presented in Appendix I.
2- Dye Dispersion Studies
A dye dispersion study was initiated during the survey
period for the purpose of defining the mixing and transport
-------
III. THE STUDY
A. SURVEYS
Data required for the evaluation of the water quality
of Back River was obtained from field surveys conducted by the
Chesapeake Field Station of the Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River
Basins Project in cooperation with State and local public works
and health agencies during November 1965. The following programs
were carried out:
1. Bacteriological, Physical, and Chemical Sampling
and Analysis Program
Seven stations located on streams and coves tributary
to Back River were sampled from ten to 20 times by personnel
from the Baltimore County Department of Health and the Baltimore
City Department of Health. Samples were taken from bridges both
in the morning and afternoon.
Fifteen stations located in the Back River Estuary were
sampled by Chesapeake Field Station personnel. Since tidewater
quality indicators of primary interest could be expected to reach
extreme values at the time of slack water, samples were taken
at mid-depth during boat runs scheduled to coincide with the
predicted time of slack water. An equal number of samples col-
lected at times of successive slack waters should have provided
good tidal average values but, due to wind effects, actual tidal
times varied appreciably from predicted times, and the results
must be evaluated accordingly.
-------
II. INTRODUCTION
In the Summary Report-Pollution of Back River— prepared
by the Public Health Service, U. S. Department of Health, Educa-
tion and Welfare, January 1961*, it was concluded that the complex
nature of pollution problems in the Back River Basin required
that additional studies be undertaken before a Basin water quality
control program was finalized.
The Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River Basins Project con-
ducted a survey in November 1965 for the purpose of obtaining
some of the desired information. Specifically, this survey was
designed to investigate the following aspects of the problem:
1. The relative magnitude of various tributary sources
of bacteriological pollution of Back River,
2. The extent of the area adversely affected by bacterio-
logical pollution.
3. The extent to which the existing bacteriological
pollution is due to human sources.
k. The dispersion and flushing which takes place in
this tidal Estuary.
5. Other significant pollution problems that might
exist.
This report presents the findings of the survey, an
evaluation of these findings, and recommendations for corrective
action to supplement the previous Summary Report.
-------
of data indicates that a major contributor of nutrients to the
River is the Back River Sewage Treatment Plant.
To minimize or eliminate these undesirable conditions,
the following actions should be considered:
1. The program of elimination of inadequate private
sewage disposal systems remaining in the Back River Basin should
be accelerated. These sources of bacterial pollution have been
identified, and priorities for extension of public sewerage were
established by the Baltimore County Department of Health. Since
the Summary Report of 196^, approximately 25 per cent of the
inadequate systems have been, or are being, eliminated. Comple-
tion of the program is estimated to cost five million dollars.
2. The nutrient loads being contributed by the Back
River Sewage Treatment Plant should be reduced, either by com-
plete diversion of the effluent to a more suitable location or
by treatment to remove nutrients.
Elimination of this rich source of nutrients would sig-
nificantly decelerate the eutrophication of Back River.
As reported in the Summary Report of 196U, the Bethlehem
Steel Company at Sparrows Point is continuing to use greater
quantities of the Sewage Treatment Plant effluent which decreases
the discharge to Back River. Complete industrial reuse of the
effluent, which is presently being planned, is desirable.
-------
I. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A field survey, designed for the purpose of determining
the source, extent, and significance of bacterial pollution of
the Back River Estuary, was conducted in November 1965 by the
Chesapeake Field Station of the Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River
Basins Project, in cooperation with State and local public works
and health agencies. Significant vater quality problems indicated
by survey findings are as follows:
1. The bacterial water quality of Back River upstream
from the vicinity of Stansbury Point does not meet the Maryland
State Department of Health regulations governing natural bathing
areas. Coliform bacteria counts in the stream exceed the State
standards, and the discharge from a large waste treatment plant
in the area creates an immediate danger from potentially harmful
pollution.
2. Bacterial pollution of human origin is contributed
to the Back River by Herring Run and other small tributary head-
water streams, and also by the Back River Sewage Treatment Plant
effluent. Additional sources may exist in the Deep Creek area.
The primary sources of bacterial pollution are inland and shore-
front overflowing septic tanks.
3. The eutrophication of Back River is advancing rapidly,
as evidenced by an extremely high algal population. Evaluation
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
(Following Page 36)
Location of CFS Sampling Stations
Profile of River Coliform, Geometric Mean, CFS
Profile of River Coliform, Arithmetic Mean, CFS
Location of Baltimore Back River STP Boat Stations
Location of Baltimore Back River STP Shore Stations
Profile of River Coliforms, Geometric Mean, Back River GTP
Location of Sewage Pumping Stations and Storm Water Overflows
Sediment Profile, Back River Estuary
Phosrshorus Content, Bottom Core Sanroles
10. Total Phoschorus, 'i'op 5 err of Bottom Sediment
11. Organic Carbon, Tot) 5 cm of Bottom Sediment
12?. Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Top 5 cm of Bottom Sediment
13. Chlorophyll Content and Secchi Disk Readings
1^4. Comparison of Phosphorus in Water and Bottom Sediment
APPENDICES
I. Analytical Procedures I - 1
II. Results of Bacterial Analyses II - 1
III. Statistical Procedures Used for Analysis of
Bacteriological Data Ill - 1
IV. Maryland State Board of Health and Mental
Hygiene Regulations IV - 1
V. Research Project of Mr. Jack Graves V - 1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1
II. INTRODUCTION 3
III. THE STUDY h
IV. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 7
V. CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM 19
VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 22
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. Description of Sampling Stations 23
2. Summary of Coliform Densities 27
3. Summary of Fecal Coliform and Fecal
Streptococcus Densities 28
U. Bacterial Contributions by Various
Sources 29
5. Summary of Physical Data 30
6. Summary of Chemical Data (Except Metals) 31
7. Heavy Metals Concentrations 32
8. Summary of Coliform Densities at Shore
Stations 33
9. Summary of Coliform Densities at Boat
Stations 35
10. Capacities of Sewage Pumping Stations 36
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The following State and local agencies participated in
this study:
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 State Department of Water Resources
The cooperation and valuable assistance of these groups
are gratefully acknowledged.
------- |