U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Annapolis Field Office
Annapolis Science Center
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
WORKING DOCUMENTS
Volume 14
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION . , » * . . . . „<,„.... 0 . . . . . . I - 1
A. Purpose and Scope ................. 1-1
B. Acknowledgments . ...» ............. 1-2
II. GENERAL ........................ II - 1
A. Source of Information ............... II - 1
B. Determination of Needs ............... II - 2
C. State Stream Classifications ............ II - 5
III. SUMMARY ........................ Ill - 1
A, Water Quality ................... Ill - 1
B. Immediate Pollution Control Needs ......... Ill - 3
1. Waste Treatment ................ Ill - 3
2. Comprehensive Evaluations ........... Ill - 11
3. Special Studies ................ Ill - 13
U. Institutional Practices ............ Ill - lU
C. Recent Pollution Control Progress ......... Ill - 15
1. Pennsylvania .................. Ill - 15
2. Federal and State Cooperative Agencies Ill - 16
D. Water Supply ... ................. Ill - 17
IV. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA ............... IV - 1
A. Location ...................... IV - 1
B, Climate ...................... IV - 1
C. Topography ..................... IV - 2
-------
Table of Contents
Volume 14
8 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study - Susquehanna
River Basin from Northumberland to West Pittston
(Including the Lackawanna River Basin - March 1967
Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, Juniata
River Basin - March 1967
10 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, Rappahannock
River Basin - March 1967
11 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, Susquehanna
River Basin from Lake Otsego, New York to Lake Lackawanna
River Confluence, Pennsylvania - April 1967
-------
-------
PUBLICATIONS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
ANNAPOLIS FIELD OFFICE*
VOLUME 1
Technical Reports
5 A Technical Assessment of Current Water Quality
Conditions and Factors Affecting Water Quality in
the Upper Potomac Estuary
6 Sanitary Bacteriology of the Upper Potomac Estuary
7 The Potomac Estuary Mathematical Model
9 Nutrients in the Potomac River Basin
11 Optimal Release Sequences for Water Quality Control
in Multiple Reservoir Systems
VOLUME 2
Technical Reports
13 Mine Drainage in the North Branch Potomac River Basin
15 Nutrients in the Upper Potomac River Basin
17 Upper Potomac River Basin Water Quality Assessment
VOLUME 3
Technical Reports
19 Potomac-Piscataway Dye Release and Wastewater
Assimilation Studies
21 LNEPLT
23 XYPLOT
25 PLOT3D
* Formerly CB-SRBP, U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare; CFS-FWPCA, and CTSL-FWQA, Middle Atlantic
Region, U.S. Department of the Interior
-------
VOLUME 3 (continued)
Technical Reports
27 Water Quality and Wastewater Loadings - Upper Potomac
Estuary during 1969
VOLUME 4
Technical Reports
29 Step Backward Regression
31 Relative Contributions of Nutrients to the Potomac
River Basin from Various Sources
33 Mathematical Model Studies of Water Quality in the
Potomac Estuary
35 Water Resource - Water Supply Study of the Potomac
Estuary
VOLUME 5
Technical Reports
37 Nutrient Transport and Dissolved Oxygen Budget
Studies in the Potomac Estuary
39 Preliminary Analyses of the Wastewater and Assimilation
Capacities of the Anacostia Tidal River System
41 Current Water Quality Conditions and Investigations
in the Upper Potomac River Tidal System
43 Physical Data of the Potomac River Tidal System
Including Mathematical Model Segmentation
45 Nutrient Management in the Potomac Estuary
VOLUME 6
Technical Reports
47 Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Input Study
49 Heavy Metals Analyses of Bottom Sediment in the
Potomac River Estuary
-------
VOLUME 6 (continued)
Technical Reports
51 A System of Mathematical Models for Water Quality
Management
52 Numerical Method for Groundwater Hydraulics
53 Upper Potomac Estuary Eutrophication Control
Requirements
54 AUT0-QUAL Modelling System
Supplement AUT0-QUAL Modelling System: Modification for
to 54 Non-Point Source Loadings
VOLUME 7
Technical Reports
55 Water Quality Conditions in the Chesapeake Bay System
56 Nutrient Enrichment and Control Requirements in the
Upper Chesapeake Bay
57 The Potomac River Estuary in the Washington
Metropolitan Area - A History of its Water Quality
Problems and their Solution
VOLUME 8
Technical Reports
58 Application of AUT0-QUAL Modelling System to the
Patuxent River Basin
59 Distribution of Metals in Baltimore Harbor Sediments
60 Summary and Conclusions - Nutrient Transport and
Accountability in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin
VOLUME 9
Data Reports
Water Quality Survey, James River and Selected
Tributaries - October 1969
Water Quality Survey in the North Branch Potomac River
between Cumberland and Luke, Maryland - August 1967
-------
VOLUME 9 (continued)
Data Reports
Investigation of Water Quality in Chesapeake Bay and
Tributaries at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Department
of the Army, Aberdeen, Maryland - October-December 1967
Biological Survey of the Upper Potomac River and
Selected Tributaries - 1966-1968
Water Quality Survey of the Eastern Shore Chesapeake
Bay, Wicomico River, Pocomoke River, Nanticoke River,
Marshall Creek, Bunting Branch, and Chincoteague Bay -
Summer 1967
Head of Bay Study - Water Quality Survey of Northeast
River, Elk River, C & D Canal, Bohemia River, Sassafras
River and Upper Chesapeake Bay - Summer 1968 - Head ot
Bay Tributaries
Water Quality Survey of the Potomac Estuary - 1967
Water Quality Survey of the Potomac Estuary - 1968
Wastewater Treatment Plant Nutrient Survey - 1966-1967
Cooperative Bacteriological Study - Upper Chesapeake Bay
Dredging Spoil Disposal - Cruise Report Mo. 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 Enforcemant
Survey - 1970
-------
30
31
32
33
34
Appendix
to 1
Appendix
to 2
3
4
VOLUME 11 (continued)
Data Reports
Water Quality of the Potomac Estuary - Gilbert Swamp
and Allen's Fresh and Gunston Cove - 1970
Survey Results of the Chesapeake Bay Input Study -
1969-1970
Upper Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Studies - Bush River,
Spesutie Narrows and Swan Creek, C & D Canal, Chester
River, Severn River, Gunpowder, Middle and Bird Rivers -
1968-1971
Special Water Quality Surveys of the Potomac River Basin
Anacostia Estuary, Wicomico .River, St. Clement and
Breton Bays, Occoquan Bay - 1970-1971
Water Quality Survey of the Patuxent River - 1970
VOLUME 12
Working Documents
Biological Survey of the Susquehanna River and its
Tributaries between Danville, Pennsylvania and
Conowingo, Maryland
Tabulation of Bottom Organisms Observed at Sampling
Stations during the Biological Survey between Danville,
Pennsylvania and Conowingo, Maryland - November 1966
Biological Survey of the Susquehanna River and its
Tributaries between Cooperstown, New York and
Northumberland, Pennsylvnaia - January 1967
Tabulation of Bottom Organisms Observed at Sampling
Stations during the Biological Survey between Cooperstown,
New York and Northumberland, Pennsylvania - November 1966
VOLUME 13
Working Documents
Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, Mine Drainage
Chesapeake Bay-Delaware River Basins - July 1967
Biological Survey of Rock Creek (from Rockville, Maryland
to the Potomac River) October 1966
-------
VOLUME 13 (continued)
Working Documents
5 Summary of Water Quality and Waste Outfalls, Rock Creek
in Montgomery County, Maryland and the District of
Columbia - December 1966
6 Water Pollution Survey - Back River 1965 - February 1967
7 Efficiency Study of the District of Columbia Water
Pollution Control Plant - February 1967
VOLUME 14
Working Documents
8 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study - Susquehanna
River Basin from Northumberland to West Pittson
(Including the Lackawanna River Basin) March 1967
9 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, Juniata
River Basin - March 1967
10 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, Rappahannock
River Basin - March 1967
11 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, Susquehanna
River Basin from Lake Otsego, New York, to Lake Lackawanna
River Confluence, Pennsylvania - April 1967
VOLUME 15
Working Documents
12 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, York River
Basin - April 1967
13 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, West Branch,
Susquehanna River Basin - April 1967
14 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, James River
Basin - June 1967 ,
15 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, Patuxent River
Basin - May 1967
-------
VOLUME 16
Working Documents
16 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, Susquehanna
River Basin from Northumberland, Pennsylvania, to
Havre de Grace, Maryland - July 1967
17 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, Potomac
River Basin - June 1967
18 Immediate Water Pollution Control Needs, Central Western
Shore of Chesapeake Bay Area (Magothy, Severn, South, and
West River Drainage Areas) July 1967
19 Immediate Water Pollution Control Needs, Northwest
Chesapeake Bay Area (Patapsco to Susquehanna Drainage
Basins in Maryland) August 1967
20 Immediate Water Pollution Control Needs - The Eastern
Shore of Delaware, Maryland and Virginia - September 1967
VOLUME 17
Working Documents
21 Biological Surveys of the Upper James River Basin
Covington, Clifton Forge, Big Island, Lynchburg, and
Piney River Areas - January 1968
22 Biological Survey of Antietam Creek and some of its
Tributaries from Waynesboro, Pennsylvania to Antietam,
Maryland - Potomac River Basin - February 1968
23 Biological Survey of the Monocacy River and Tributaries
from Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, to Maryland Rt. 28 Bridge
Potomac River Basin - January 1968
24 Water Quality Survey of Chesapeake Bay in the Vicinity of
Annapolis, Maryland - Summer 1967
25 Mine Drainage Pollution of the North Branch of Potomac
River - Interim Report - August 1968
26 Water Quality Survey in the Shenandoah River of the
Potomac River Basin - June 1967
27 Water Quality Survey in the James and Maury Rivers
Glasgow, Virginia - September 1967
-------
VOLUME 17 (continued)
Working Documents
28 Selected Biological Surveys in the James River Basin,
Gillie Creek in the Richmond Area, Appomattox River
in the Petersburg Area, Bailey Creek from Fort Lee
to Hopewell - April 1968
VOLUME 18
Working Documents
29 Biological Survey of the Upper and Middle Patuxent
River and some of its Tributaries - from Maryland
Route 97 Bridge near Roxbury Mills to the Maryland
Route 4 Bridge near Wayson's Corner, Maryland -
Chesapeake Drainage Basin - June 1968
30 Rock Creek Watershed - A Water Quality Study Report
March 1969
31 The Patuxent River - Water Quality Management -
Technical Evaluation - September 1969
VOLUME 19
Working Documents
Tabulation, Community and Source Facility Water Data
Maryland Portion, Chesapeake Drainage Area - October 1964
Waste Disposal Practices at Federal Installations
Patuxent River Basin - October 1964
Waste Disposal Practices at Federal Installations
Potomac River Basin below Washington, D.C.- November 1964
Waste Disposal Practices at Federal Installations
Chesapeake Bay Area of Maryland Excluding Potomac
and Patuxent River Basins - January 1965
The Potomac Estuary - Statistics and Projections -
February 1968
Patuxent River - Cross Sections and Mass Travel
Velocities - July 1968
-------
VOLUME 19 (continued)
Working Documents
Wastewater Inventory - Potomac River Basin -
December 1968
Wastewater Inventory - Upper Potomac River Basin -
October 1968
VOLUME 20
Technical Papers-
1 A Digital Technique for Calculating and Plotting
Dissolved Oxygen Deficits
2 A River-Mile Indexing System for Computer Application
in Storing and Retrieving Data (unavailable)
3 Oxygen Relationships in Streams, Methodology to be
Applied when Determining the Capacity of a Stream to
Assimilate Organic Wastes - October 1964
4 Estimating Diffusion Characteristics of Tidal Waters -
May 1965
5 Use of Rhodamine B Dye as a Tracer in Streams of the
Susquehanna River Basin - April 1965
6 An In-Situ Benthic Respirometer - December 1965
7 A Study of Tidal Dispersion in the Potomac River
February 1966
8 A Mathematical Model for the Potomac River - what it
has done and what it can do - December 1966
9 A Discussion and Tabulation of Diffusion Coefficients
for Tidal Waters Computed as a Function of Velocity
February 1967
10 Evaluation of Coliform Contribution by Pleasure Boats
July 1966
-------
VOLUME 21
Technical Papers
11 A Steady State Segmented Estuary Model
12 Simulation of Chloride Concentrations in the
Potomac Estuary - March 1968
13 Optimal Release Sequences for Water Quality
Control in Multiple-Reservoir Systems - 1968
VOLUME 22
Technical Papers
Summary Report - Pollution of Back River - January 1964
Summary of Water Quality - Potomac River Basin in
Maryland - October 1965
The Role of Mathematical Models in the Potomac River
Basin Water Quality Management Program - December 1967
Use of Mathematical Models as Aids to Decision Making
in Water Quality Control - February 1968
Piscataway Creek Watershed - A Water Quality Study
Report - August 1968
VOLUME 23
Ocean Dumping Surveys
Environmental Survey of an Interim Ocean Dumpsite,
Middle Atlantic Bight - September 1973
Environmental Survey of Two Interim Dumpsites,
Middle Atlantic Bight - January 1974
Environmental Survey of Two Interim Dumpsites
Middle Atlantic Bight - Supplemental Report -
October 1974
Effects of Ocean Disposal Activities on Mid-
continental Shelf Environment off Delaware
and Maryland - January 1975
-------
VOLUME 24
1976 Annual
Current Nutrient Assessment - Upper Potomac Estuary
Current Assessment Paper No. 1
Evaluation of Western Branch Wastewater Treatment
Plant Expansion - Phases I and II
Situation Report - Potomac River
Sediment Studies in Back River Estuary, Baltimore,
Maryland
Technical Distribution of Metals in Elizabeth River Sediments
Report 61
Technical A Water Quality Modelling Study of the Delaware
Report 62 Estuary
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
D* Geology „ „ ...... „ . ............ IV - 2
E0 Principal Communities and Industries ........ IV - 3
V. WATER POLLUTION PROBLEMS, NEEDS, AND COSTS ........ V - 1
A. Lackavanna River Basin .„...<,......... V - 1
1. Scranton Area (Lackawanna Valley) ....... V - 1
B. Susquehanna River Between the Lackavanna
River and Nescopeck Creek . . . . 0 „ . . . . . . . V - 11
1. Wilkes-Barre Area (Wyoming Valley) o ...... V - 11
C. Nescopeck Creek .>....„....».. .... V— 19
1. Freeland Area ......... ........ V - 19
2. Hazleton Area ................. V - 20
3=, Nes copeck Borough ............... V - 25
Do Susquehanna River Between Nescopeck Creek
and Catawissa Creek ................ V - 26
1. Berwick Area .„.,.........„....„ V - 26
2. Blooms "burg Area 0 ..... o ......... V - 28
E. Catawissa Creek .„.,..„„.......... V - 32
1. McAdoo Borough ................. V - 32
2. Catawissa Borough .„ „..„...„....,, V - 35
Fo Susquehanna River Between Catawissa Creek
and Northumberland . ^ ........... ...o V - 36
lo Danville Area ...... ........... V - 36
2. Merck and Company ... ............ V - 38
3o Allied Chemical Company .... ........ V - kO
-------
I - 1
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose and Scope
Under the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. U66 et seq), Section 3(a), the Secretary
of the Interior is authorized to make joint investigations vith
other Federal agencies, with State Water Pollution Control Agen-
cies and interstate agencies, and with the municipalities and
industries involved, of the condition of any waters in any State
or States and of the discharges of any sewage, industrial wastes,
or substance which may adversely affect these waters. These
investigations are for the purpose of preparing and developing
comprehensive programs for eliminating or reducing the pollution
of interstate waters and tributaries thereof.
This Working Document reports the results of the water
quality and pollution control studies carried out by staff of the
Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River Basins Project in accordance
with the above provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act.
The primary purpose of this report is to focus attention
on existing and potential water pollution problem areas as the
basis for the initiation of immediate pollution control actions.
Specific objectives of this report are to:
1. Delineate present and potential water quality
problem areas.
-------
1-2
2. Indicate responsibility for the problems.
3= Indicate possible immediate actions and responsibility
to alleviate the problem,
U. Estimate costs of these actions.
The secondary purpose of this report is to present general
coverage of potential future water quality problem areas through
year 2020. Tentative corrective actions are given for considera-
tion in planning for future actions to insure continuing water
quality satisfactory for all desired beneficial uses. A general
coverage of water supply is also included for each area- Antici-
pated water supply needs through 2020 are indicated, with areas
delineated where future water shortages are anticipated.
This report covers the portion of the Susquehanna River
Basin from Northumberland to West Pittston, Pennsylvania, includ-
ing the Lackawanna River Basin. Smaller tributary watersheds
discharging to the Susquehanna River in this portion of the Basin
are also included. The study area encompasses portions of eight
counties and drains approximately 1,760 square miles.
B. Acknowledgments
The cooperation and assistance of the following Federal,
State, and local agencies are gratefully acknowledged:
U. S. Army Engineer District, Baltimore, Maryland
U. S. Soil Conservation Service, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
-------
1-3
U. S. Geological Survey, Harristmrg, Pennsylvania
U. S. Bureau of Mines, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Department of Health, Central Office,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and Region I, Kingston,
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Department of Forests and Waters,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Department of Mines and Mineral Industries,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
National Planning Association, Washington, D. C.
Local Municipal Officials
Local Industrial Representatives
Local Consulting Engineers
-------
II - 1
II. GENERAL
A. Source of Information
Present water quality conditions covered in this report
were evaluated by staff of the Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River
Basins Project, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
employing the following sources of information:
1. Industrial water and waste facilities inventories
gathered from questionnaires sent by the Pennsyl-
vania Department of Health to industries in the
Susquehanna River Basin.
2. Municipal water and waste facilities inventories
obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of Health.
3. Existing data obtained from files of State, local,
and other Federal agencies.
k. Results of CB-SRBP stream sampling investigations.
5. Public meetings and personal communications with
Federal, State, and local planning agencies.
A biological study of the Susquehanna River and tributaries
by CB-SRBP comprised a special investigation to supplement water
quality sampling data of chemical, biochemical, and bacteriological
characteristics for streams throughout the study area. Brief sum-
maries of the biological studies are given along with summaries
of quality data for most of the areas covered in this report. For
more details of the biological conditions of streams throughout
-------
II - 2
the Susquehanna River Basin, findings are presented in two CB-SRBP
reports (CB-SRBP Working Documents Nos. 1 and 2).
A mine drainage study was undertaken by CB-SRBP to delineate
areas, problems, and general corrective measures for mine drainage
pollution in the Susquehanna, Potomac, and Delaware Basins. The
findings of the mine drainage study are summarized briefly in this
Report only to point out the effect of mine drainage on water
quality in the stream reaches under consideration. Detailed find-
ings are presented in the CB-SRBP Mine Drainage Report.
For evaluations of future water supply and water quality
requirements, county population and industrial productivity pro-
jections developed by the National Planning Association were
employed. The I960 U. S. Census Report was used as a base from
which individual community projections were made. Industrial
loadings were projected by type of industry on an individual pro-
duction increase basis. Modifications were made to industrial
projections when specific information was obtained regarding
changes in processing, techniques, or plant operation.
B. Determination of Needs
Water quality needs were evaluated in terms of treatment
required to upgrade and maintain stream conditions which are
generally recognized as being suitable for most beneficial uses;
the minimum use being warm-water fishery. The effects of residual
waste loadings to streams were evaluated with the degree of treatment
-------
II - 3
specified which was expected to maintain the desired water quality
for the immediate future, In most cases, secondary treatment with
85 per cent removal of BOD was specified.
Beyond 1980S the degree of treatment and other alterna-
tives are indicated as possible solutions where water quality
problems are anticipated; however, except for secondary treatment
facilities, the methods proposed for future actions are only
given for consideration, since detailed evaluations of the alter-
natives and comparisons of benefits would be necessary to select
the most likely alternative.
Cost estimates for upgrading present facilities to second-
ary treatment were obtained mostly from consulting engineers who
have completed studies of needed treatment facilities for many
of the municipalities. For communities not having engaged an
engineer, cost estimates were made of the plant proper, employing
construction cost information from the Public Health Service
Publication Wo. 1229, "Modern Sewage Treatment Plants - How Much
Do They Cost," and updating these costs with the Public Health
Service - Sewage Treatment Plant current cost index (PHS-STP
ll^oM. For some communities, costs of treatment plants were
estimated by the Pennsylvania Department of Health in previous
years and, where these estimates were available, the costs were
updated to indicate current dollar values,.
-------
II - 4
Needs or abatement measures to control mine drainage
pollution are discussed separately in the CB-SRBP Mine Drainage
Report; cost estimates of reducing mine drainage pollution in
the study area are given for two methods, land reclamation and
lime neutralization. Since mine drainage pollution control needs
are discussed in greater detail in a separate document, only
general coverage is given in this report= However, in areas
where pollution problems result from mine drainage as well as
organic wastes, measures to upgrade stream quality for beneficial
uses must include consideration of both sources.
In evaluating the adequacy of waste treatment facilities
in areas affected by mine drainage, an assumption was made that
mine drainage would be reduced to such an extent that acidity
and heavy metals associated with mine drainage would not impair
the natural assimilative capacities of the stream. Although
initial steps to control mine drainage may not entirely eliminate
the toxic effects of acids and heavy metals during the immediate
years ahead, measures to control or reduce mine drainage should
not be prerequisites to the provision of adequate waste treat-
ment facilities. Therefore, in making waste assimilative evalua-
tions to determine the degree of waste treatment for both present
and future, the above assumption was made; otherwise, with mine
drainage present, stream biota would be inhibited or eliminated
so that waste assimilation could not readily be determined if
occurring at all,
-------
II - 5
C. State Stream Classifications
The Pennsylvania Sanitary Water Board classifies State
streams in terms of degree of treatment required. The main stem
of the Susquehanna River is classified as a "primary," and the
tributaries thereof are classified as "secondary," requiring pri-
mary treatment and secondary treatment facilities, respectively.
For streams impregnated with mine drainage, waste treatment has,
in most cases, not been required. However, as mine drainage is
eliminated or reduced substantially so that natural waste assimi-
lation may occur, the tributary streams formerly containing mine
drainage are reclassified to upgrade water quality. The stream
classifications presented in this report are those currently
designated by the Sanitary Water Board to streams in Pennsyl-
vania; however, these classifications should not be interpreted
to be representative of the effects of future water quality
standards.
This report delineates specific stream classifications
and actions taken by the Pennsylvania Sanitary Water Board where
municipalities and industries have been given orders to upgrade
or construct treatment facilities. Where water quality informa-
tion and other data indicate the required degree of treatment
does not appear adequate for the immediate future, the need for
additional treatment facilities is included.
-------
II - 6
D. Comprehensive Planning of Water Resources of the
Susquehanna River Basin
There exists within the Susquehanna River Basin a formal
interagency coordinating committee chaired by the Corps of
Engineers and on which the Project is an active participant.
Membership consists of governor-appointed State representatives
from New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, as well as water-
oriented Federal agencies. The purpose of the Committee is to
recommend a water resources development plan to Congress, based
on evaluating alternative solutions, including costs, to meet
Basin needs.
Since all aspects of water resource development, includ-
ing water pollution control, are being considered, no attempt
has been made to prejudge the Committee findings beyond defining
immediate waste treatment needs in this report. Evaluations are
presently underway by the agencies acting as a work group and,
upon completion, not only immediate water resource needs and
solutions, but also the long-range needs will be determined.
E. Susquehanna River Basin Compact
The conservation, utilization, development, management,
and control of the water resources of the Susquehanna River
Basin involve complex, technical, time-consuming efforts by a
large number of governmental agencies cooperating to formulate
a basin-wide program.
-------
II - 7
In order to avoid duplication, overlapping, and uncoordi-
nated efforts from this large number of cooperating agencies, the
Interstate Advisory Committee on the Susquehanna River Basin,
which was created by the action of the States of New York, Pennsyl-
vania, and Maryland, has, on the basis of its studies and delivera-
tions, recommended that an intergovernmental compact with Federal
participation be formed. In an area as large as the Susquehanna
River Basin, where approximately three million people live and
work, comprehensive multi-purpose planning and administration by
a basin-wide agency are necessary to bring the greatest benefits
and produce the most efficient service in the public interest.
Comprehensive planning with basin-wide administration
will provide flood damage reduction; conservation and develop-
ment of surface and ground water supply for municipal, industrial,
and agricultural use; development of recreational facilities in
relation to reservoirs, lakes, and streams; propagation of fish
and game; promotion of land management, soil conservation, and
watershed projects; protection and aid to fisheries; development
of hydroelectric power potentialities; improved navigation;
control of movement of salt water; abatement and control of water
pollution; and regulation of stream flows toward the attainment
of these goals.
The Advisory Committee has prepared a draft of an inter-
governmental compact for the creation of a Basin agency. The
-------
II - 8
States of New York, Maryland, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
and the United States of America, upon enactment of concurrent
legislation by the Congress and by the respective State legis-
latures, agree vith each other to the Susquehanna River Basin
Compact. To date both the States of New York and Maryland have
passed legislation to adopt the Compact.
-------
Ill - 1
III. SUMMARY
A. Water Quality
The foremost pollution problems encountered in the study
area are created "by the discharge of untreated municipal and
industrial wastes and mine drainage.
As a result of untreated wastes emanating from Scranton
and approximately 20 smaller communities in the Lackawanna Valley,
the Lackawanna River is anaerobic in certain reaches. Moreover,
mine drainage originating from inactive anthracite coal mining
operations is compounding the organic pollution problem. Con-
sequently, the Lackawanna River has become degraded to the point
the stream functions only as a means of waste transport.
Pollution contributed by Lackawanna River, plus untreated
wastes emanating from Wilkes-Barre and approximately 20 smaller
communities in the Wyoming Valley, are substantially degrading
water quality in the main stem Susquehanna River from Pittston
(confluence of the Lackawanna River) to Nanticoke, a distance of
20 miles. This reach of stream has a record of chronic fish kills,
which is indicative of polluted conditions. Water quality of the
Susquehanna River in the vicinity of Wilkes-Barre is further im-
paired by mine drainage contributed by the following tributary
streams: Solomons Creek, Warrior Creek, Newport Creek, and Nanti-
coke Creek.
Progress is presently underway to alleviate the municipal
waste pollution in the more critical portions of the study area,
-------
Ill - 2
with emphasis being placed on the formation of regional or "valley"
sewerage authorities. Four such authorities include the Greater
Scranton, the Upper Lackawanna Valley (above Scranton), the Lower
Lackawanna Valley (below Scranton), and the entire Wyoming Valley,
Although the actual construction of a treatment facility is still
forthcoming, the Pennsylvania Department of Health has indicated
that within three years 90 per cent of the total population of both
the Lackawanna and Wyoming Valleys will be served by a sewerage
system. In addition, the polluting industries in these valleys
will be required by the Health Department to connect to municipal
sewerage systems as they become available or to provide appropriate
individual treatment.
Much of Nescopeck Creek and most of Catawissa Creek, tribu-
taries of the Susquehanna River, are adversely affected by mine
drainage pollution, with certain portions of the watershed also
being affected by organic pollution. Hazleton City and Freeland
Borough are currently discharging untreated wastes into Black Creek,
a tributary of Nescopeck Creek; whereas, McAdoo Borough discharges
untreated wastes into the headwaters of Catawissa Creek.
A low-level inflatable dam is currently being constructed
at Sunbury, Pennsylvania (immediately downstream from the West
Branch confluence) to provide a large water-based recreation
facility. Because of their close proximity to the reservoir, the
Merck and Company plant near Danville and the Allied Chemical
Company plant just north of Sunbury should consider upgrading their
-------
Ill - 3
present treatment capabilities from intermediate and primary,
respectively, to secondary with chlorination.
B. Immediate Pollution Control Needs
1. Waste Treatment
The most pressing need in the Basin is for the provision of
adequate treatment facilities to control pollution at its source.
Current treatment practices, needs, and cost estimates for
municipalities and industries in the study area are shown in Table I.
A general summary of immediate treatment needs in the Sub-
Basin is given below:
a. One sewerage authority consisting of
approximately 18 communities presently
having no treatment to provide primary
treatment facilities as an initial step
toward pollution abatement. Estimated
costs with appurtenances: $23,000,000
b. One sewerage authority consisting of
two communities and two individual
communities presently having no treat-
ment to provide secondary treatment
facilities. Estimated costs with
appurtenances: $20,250,000
c. Two sewerage authorities consisting of
approximately 19 communities and four
individual communities presently having
no treatment to provide secondary treat-
ment facilities. Estimated costs with-
out appurtenances: $U,308,500
-------
Ill - k
d. One primary treatment plant to be
expanded to increase level of effi-
ciency (initial action toward pollu-
tion abatement) to primary. Estimated
costs with appurtenances: $2,100,000
e. Five primary treatment plants to be
expanded to secondary. Estimated
*
costs without appurtenances: $711,000
f. Four industries presently having no
treatment to provide secondary treat-
ment facilities or connect to munici-
costs
pal systems. undetermined
g. Two industries, one presently providing
intermediate treatment and one providing
primary, to be expanded to provide
secondary treatment. undetermined
h. Two industries to institute plant
changes to reduce wastes discharged
& B costs
to municipal systems. undetermined
Total (exclusive of f, g, and h) $50,369,500
Costs were developed from current construction cost informa-
tion for treatment plants, exclusive of collector sewers and
appurtenances.
-------
Ill - 5
EH
CO
Q
PT"!
s
CO
O
M ^~-
EH J
O <£
f2 H
PL, o
H
E"1 §
EH
K
EH
EH
£^
P£|
PS
5
O
3
•H
-b
0)
3
M
f_i
0)
-P
O
o
-p
o
(U
1-3
o
Pu
-p
I
-p
03
to
EH
-p
d
0)
w
(U
P-4
d
o
•H
-p
d
rJ
ft
O
ir\
VD -P
a) \ d
d
O
•H
•P
O
<
•P
w
o
0
1
•d
0)
d
o
•H
-P
O
-P
d
j to
-P P -P
rH M ?> *"
n3 -H oi 0>
O p! d -H
H O 3
PP H CJ CT1
js o a)
&
ttj
TJ
d
0
o
j
d O3 r*> c~{ -p
Kd^< -p w d
K A^ra-P -p-HEHdd4 ^H D ^ 1 — i r^ r^ ^*H H rd -P ft f^4 r^4 O
b^- t "] QJ O ^H d f") ^* ^H ^*> ^H O d i>> 03 O to
S r~i f] OOj003cdc8(LJI^t "H rH t — 1 °H ,c~[
Js 0) 03 pi
S ft
O ^D
0)
"o?
Q
OJ
o
-p
» ^*
£> -P*
d
o
•H
^}
H
H
o
ft
r?
oJ
•b
d
o
o
OJ
CQ
d
o
-p
a
M
o
CO
•b
0)
•H
^3
o^
0)
^
o
2
0
Q
-------
SH
cu
cu ,a
•p -P
cd o
-p
03 Jn
O
tJ
CU -P
-p o
cd cu
a 1-3
•rH O
-P JH
rtO CM
0) -P
-p a
cd 0)
•rH a
rQ -P
0) 03
g d>
E ^H
M EH
-P
c3
d>
to
QJ
£H
CM
a
o
•H
-P
H
f-^
O
PM
a
o
p
o
5 a
cu ^3 o o
•d ft p
*n a ^
O 0 Q -d
•H CU
to p p t-i
CU p) ft CU
•H H CU id
P H O k
•H O X O
a ft cu
3 CO
a CD ^ co
6 P LTN >
O Cd VQ
O ,0 ^v. xj
cd -* o
HnJ 1
' I *H
H O ^- ^!
< P CM Js
*
O
o
0
fv
LT\
H
ON
-r^-
K*^
^_J
cd
"^
a
o
0
CU
CO
CD
a
o
o
H
LTN
C\J
cu
cd bO
a cd
d ?H
^ hs hO
f> ^> Ml/
cd (U >> ^i
Al 03 -P O
O -H ft, cd
cd >j $H o
J cu O -ri o
H .a H >
M H -P O <
cu cd ^!
18
K*l *
!» ^ -0
-Q 0) CD
^d ^H
a a -H
o o =1
•H O O1
P CU CD
3 03 ^
H
H -P
o • a
ftOO CD
^t S
p LA Cd
-Q ' — SH
cd en -P
JH O cd -P
o -H CD a
H CO >s O
>> O ^ ft
cd O 3 3
H s PI n
Ill -
w
&
o
03
cu
-p
cd
Q
cd
0
-p
CD
^
O
PQ
LA
VQ
ON
CM
*^^
LA
!>>
,0
a
o
•H
-P
H
H
0
-p
a
cu
-p
cd
£-1 X
-P *
>> •
IN TJ
cd CU
a -H
O 0
O 0*
cu >
§
•H
-P
H
H
O
-p
a
cu
a
•p
cd
CD
!H
P
ft
cd
a
o
o
CD
•0
CD
•H
3
0<
cu
CD
a
9
•H
rH
ft
a
o
o
a
•H
1
CD
a
o
*
tS
03
JM
•p
•H
03ftO3?H 03ft03rH
O
o
o
t\
o
1TN
ON
-69-
-------
Ill - 7
CO
Q
W
W
t3 CD
CU CO 3
3 &a a
a o -H
•H H -p
-P EH a
a o o
O <£ O
O ffi —
*~-* p 1
X .
M EH J
!! M
a gj b
K S
EH S
a
^yr
p^
K
£D
o
cu a
CO X! O
-P -P -H
o3 O -p
-P 0
CO JH
H ^
3 CU
Pi CO
O
P^
a
0
•H
-P
oi
O
O
h*3
>>
^
a3
•H
PH
CQ
CU
$-H •
•H -P
3 a
cu s
Is
ffl cu
S ^H
CO -P
o
o
o
ft
o
VQ
OJ
-£>
c**
^_l
^
a
o
o
cu
CO
^
^
^
a
0
o
cu
CO
r*S
a
B
•H
^
PH
O
t—
H
M"
'S
o
o
P3
03
CO
to
•H
ni
-P
c5
o
-d IA
§cu vo
-p \ H->
os -^ a
10 ,O ^~ CU
CU OS CM B
H -P *
P O >> cd *
H -P Xi cu *
a fn
3 >n a -p •
§ cu o 'd
1 T3 -H
-p
0)
o o
H.S g-
CO
o
o
o
o
o
o
•V
oo
CM
-S3-
>H -H a
03 -P O
B -H -H
•H a -p
Jn T-I O
PU -^ o3
USQUEHAMA RIVER
CO
ra
o
gj
K
pq
M
EH
«
O
&
cu
a
o
0
CM
VQ
00
H
-P
•H
O
Xi
H <$
rH
03 0)
> bO
03
bO (H
a cu
•H &
O CO
r*>
£g
-p
•H
0
-H
O -P
w a
a
o
-P
to
-p
•p
•H
P-i
-P
CQ
£
bO
^ a
in W
r*> (D
tn 0
O J3E
fc, CO
a
o
-p
CO
bO
a
•H
cu
H
•H
^ XI
CQ -P
•0 3
Jn 0
gn
Tj rH
-------
Ill - 8
CQ
Q
W
W
B
Q
B ' — *
' — • <3, *b
T3 (1)
0) CQ 3
3 W G
S3 U -H
•H H +3
-P EH f3
G U O
o
0) .p tJ
-P G 0)
•H 0 B
'b -P
0) 03 H
g o> o
0 ^H *r-i
H EH -P
o
<3^
-P
-P O
(U 0
CQ -P
01 o3
£-) 0
PH ^
EH
G
O
•H T3
-P 0)
03 >
r-l $H
2 0)
ft CQ
o
PH
S3
O
•H
•P
03
O
O
F-_3
0)
o
•H
H
ft
0
O
0
a °
•H PQ
^-
1 CQ
G) 43
G -P
O -H
B >
#
0
O
0
ft
if\
0
vo
-co-
£>
03
-b
E3
O
0
Q)
CQ
0)
^
^
(U
£3
(3
•H
-P
(3
O
O
K
[Vj
g
S
•H pq
1 CQ
0) 43
a -P
O -H
*
0
o
o
n
f. —
ro
H
«3-
t?
03
•b
G
O
O
Q)
CQ
01
G
O
O
O
0
C\J
H
43
O
-P
O
£5
J-j
03
(50
CQ
0)
o
•H
H
ft
0
0
O
G -
£3?
1 CQ
0) 43
G -P
O -H
*
O
O
u\
r\
H
0\
-W-
t?
aJ
G
O
a
o*
CQ
ai
T3
G
O
o
0)
CQ
jj
03
DH
^-(
PH
O
O
-^
O
H
03
01
!H
j^
0
•H
Jj
0)
0)
o
•H
H
ft
0
O
O
fl »
•H pq
S
1 CQ
tt) 43
a -P
O -H
B £
0
O
0
o
o
H
n
C\J
-ee-
a
•iH, 03 ' — ^
W >H (3
03 -H -H
ft (4 -P
X "H 0
W — • a3
£?
OS
0
•H
^1
PH
O
o
LT\
n
VD
03
Jn
o
•H
H
ft
0
O
O
a •
SE
1 CQ
Oi 43
a -p
O -H
B >
*
0
O
O
Ci
VD
O
cvj
-€^-
£>
03
T)
(3
o
a
o*
CO
&
cd
£3
«H
J_j
PH
0
0
CXJ
LfN
43
bD
O
o
pq
(J)
H
H
•H
J>
§
Q
Q)
O
•H
H
ft
0
0
O
a «
•H pq
1 CQ
a> 43
a -P
O -H
B >
*
0
o
o
«
o
OO
-69-
i?
Oi
G
o
o
Q)
CO
a?
0
•H
£H
PH
O
O
ro
H"
43
WD
jj
O
£-t
O
pq
CD
-b
•H
W
^-i
(U
>
•H
«
U
J^-^
«^3"
°
H
t — 1
X
-b
G
H
PH
EH
CQ
1
CQ
M
PH
W
-P
to
o
o
fH
O
•H
-P
a
^,
-p
to
c
0
o
-p
G
01
a
G
o
•b
0)
CO
a3
f
n
H
O
-P
ft
-p
c
0)
0
^J
03
0)
-P
«H
O
-p
tn
O
U
*
TJ
13
pj
0)
o
0
a3
•b
G
Oi
0>
Ti
1
fn
0)
«H
O
-P
05
!H
o » n
-p -p
o3 o3
O O
H H
o3 CD
^H ^H
a) a>
-b -b
O) 0)
^ £H
O O
-b u
0) 0)
•H ^H
H H
ft ft
ft ft
* *
*
-------
CO
Q
W
CU CO
EH K
i
•fJ pQ
SH S3
CU O
T3 >rl
SH -P
O 2
H
ffl H
tZ O
S3
o
•H
-p
o
cd
-p
S3
cu •
a >>
cu cd
0 >
SH SH
O CU
S3 S3
cu
o
cd
•rH
H
ft
a
0
o
S3
•H
1
CU
S3
O
0)
O
03
•H
H
ft
O
O
S3
•rH
1
CU
S3
0
s, s co ftw 3 a a
S3 to
•H a
o cu
•r-j .p
CO
O CO
£"cd
551
S3 o
0 .H
cu 3*
M a
*
CM
CU VO
-P -~-
03 H
o ~^
o3 CO
0 !>>
jj^ O
SH S3
CU O
•El -rl
SH -P
0 3
H
cq H
S o
CO ft
S3 CO
•H a
o co
•rj -P
to
o to
h 'H
M OJ
oi ft
T) -H
S3 0
0 -H
O CJ
co g
co a
-p
S3
a
+j
^
cu
SH
-P
>5 '
03 0)
r£$ ^
S3 -H
O 3
O CF1
0) > ?H
rQ -P
S3 >>
0 f7
•rl OS
•P T)
?! S3
H O
H 0
O (U
ft 00
w
£~
CO
-p
CO
w
H
%
o
•H
rj
a
in
•
^
co
•H
Jj
O1
cu
OJ
S3
O
UA
m
JH
•H
O
-P
-P
03
3
«H
CU
oo
§
O
•H
-P
ft
0)
CO
o
VO
o
0)
c
o
t—
o
t--
bD
S3
•H
Ai
O
03
OH
Abattoir
M
•rl
O
-P
•s
^
(U
T)
•H
CO
CM
o
S3
M
cq
o
S3
H
03
H
ft
aJ
o
o
a
0)
x!
O
o
LPi
S3
O
o cu
K S3
o3 O
co vo
LT\ O
PO t—
Ot
CU
cu
co
%-t
•H
O
-P
-P
03
bD
S3
•H
M
a
cd
CL,
0)
•3
CQ
•H
O
-p
S3
•H
^
O
03
PH
o
•H
cu
S3
O
s;
o
u~\
CO
CO
0)
H
•H
-P
X
D
EH
co
o
•H
^
•8
-p
S3
-------
cu cd a
g cu c
M EH -P
0
3 -H
ft 3
o c?
PL, iq
o cu
-p
cu n
ft cd
§
o
•H
•P
ft
CU
00
on
CO
o
p
3
faO
E!
•H
ft
ft
cd ca
Jn 0)
EH -H
-p
0> -H
W H
cd -H
0) o
JH CtJ
O 03
•H J-l
> 0)
pq en
o
LTN
CO
rt
OJ
CM
fr
cd
cd
-P
00
a
o
•H
-P
cd
o
o
^
cd
cu
K
M
>
H
K
<
'Z
^
CU
p
ij
bb
^
cd
H
00
fn
cu
H
W
CQ
CU
JH
Q
cd
cu
f->
H 0)
cq oo
o
m
Lf\
r>
oo
H
0) O
>» O
a s=
-P
0)
cd
o
0)
cu
bO
0)
H
td
T*
a
o
o
0)
oo
-p
cd
•H
tl
0)
h
0)
p
a
o
o
o
r>
o
o
w
rH
o cd
•H O
M 't~i
cd a
O 0
a
cd
r
o
a
cd
(U
S
cd
(U
Jn
-p
h
O
a
o
o
cu
00
bO
a
•H
H
-p
-p
0)
00
o
OJ
O\
ft
H
cd
o
•H
0)
•d
0)
•H
H
H
oo
-------
Ill - 11
2» Comprehensive Evaluations
Investigations made by the FWPCA and other cooperating
Federal, State, and local agencies indicate a definite need in
some areas for pollution control action in addition to the pro-
vision of conventional waste treatment facilities. Minimum
stream flows in waste discharge receiving streams will not be
sufficient to assimilate the waste loads from certain municipal
areas in the near future, based on evaluations of projected popu-
lation and industrial growth. Alternative methods of protecting
and enhancing the water quality in the Susquehanna River Basin,
in the face of population, and industrial growth, urbanization,
and technological change, are being evaluated during plan formu-
lation workshop sessions by agencies cooperatively participating
on the Coordinating Committee discussed in Section II, Paragraph
Do Upon completion of the evaluations, findings will be sub-
mitted to the Committee for final decisions on methods to be
adopted. While no attempt has been made in this report to pre-
judge the Committee findings beyond defining immediate waste
treatment needs, the various alternatives to be evaluated,, based
on investigations of needs in the area, are suggested.
Three methods of providing supplemental pollution abate-
ment and control in areas requiring more than the protection pro-
vided by conventional waste treatment facilities are generally
considered and are as follows:
-------
Ill - 12
Flow Regulation
Areas having a need for possible flow regulation and in
which potential reservoir sites will be evaluated are listed as
follows:
Location
Responsibility
and Site No.
Need
Scranton Area
COE #11*5
COE #3M
COE #lUl
COE #lUO
SCS #37-20
Lackawanna River - Storage
to provide supplemental
flow for water quality
control.
Waste Flow Diversion
Because of limited drainage area upstream to provide
flow regulation, waste flow diversion to less critically degraded
stream reaches may be a possible alternative in the following
locations:
Location
Responsibility
Need
Scranton Area
Hazleton Area
1. Upper Lackawanna
Sewerage Authority
2. Greater Scranton
Sewerage Authority
3. Lower Lackawanna
Sewerage Authority
Hazleton Community
Reduce waste loads
in the Lackawanna
River by diverting
treated waste efflu-
ents to the Susque-
hanna River.
Reduce waste loads
in Black Creek by
diverting treated
waste effluents to
Nescopeck Creek.
-------
Ill - 13
Advanced Waste Treatment
Advanced waste treatment facilities designed to remove
greater than 85 per cent of the organic solids from waste dis-
charges will be considered as an alternative method of protecting
and enhancing water quality in the following areas:
Location
Responsibility
Heed
Scranton Area
Hazleton Area
McAdoo Area
1. Upper Lackawanna
Sewerage Authority
2. Greater Scranton
Sewerage Authority
3. Lower Lackawanna
Sewerage Authority
Hazleton
McAdoo
Reduce waste loads
to the receiving
streams "by providing
greater than 85 per
cent removal of
organic solids.
Reduce waste loads
to the receiving
streams by providing
greater than 85 per
cent removal of
organic solids.
Reduce waste loads
to the receiving
streams by providing
greater than 85 per
cent removal of
organic solids.
3. Special Studies
Listed below are areas in which a need for special
studies is indicated.
-------
Ill - Ik
Location
Responsibility
Need
Lackawanna
Watershed
Hazleton Area
Nescopeck
Watershed
Catawissa
Watershed
Sunbury-
Northumberland
Area
FWPCA and State
of Pennsylvania
COE or SCS
FWPCA and State
of Pennsylvania
FWPCA and State
of Pennsylvania
FWPCA and State
of Pennsylvania
Basin-vide
FWPCA
A mine drainage abate-
ment program for
Duryea and Old Forge
sources„
Determine potential of
upstream drainage area
for reservoir site to
provide flow regulation.
A mine drainage abate-
ment program for sources
in Black Creek and
Little Nescopeck Creek
Watersheds.
A mine drainage program
for sources in Catawissa
Creek Watershed.
Water quality monitor-
ing of impounded waters
at the low-level inflat-
able dam to determine
effects of upstream
waste discharges.
Utilize data compiled
from various studies
conducted in the Basin
in mathematical simula-
tions of the River
system.
k. Institutional Practices
A need for action on pollution control measures by
various Federal, State, and local institutions in the Susquehanna
Basin is indicated by the findings of this study.
Pollution control programs would be enhanced and
strengthened by the following institutional practices.
-------
Ill - 15
Location
Responsibility
Need
Basin-wide
Basin-wide
Basin-wide
Basin-wide
State of Pennsyl-
vania
Congress of the
United States
State of Pennsyl-
vania
Congress of the
United States and
State Legislatures
Prepare and adopt standards on
intrastate streams„
Enact legislation which pro-
vides authority for Soil Con-
servation Service projects in
headwater areas to include
storage for flow regulation
for water quality control.
Consider expansion of water
quality control surveillance
program (including treatment
plant operation and maintenance)
Enact legislation authorizing
the establishment of a pollu-
tion control authority for the
Susquehanna River Basin.
C. Recent Pollution Control Progress
1. Pennsylvania
The Pennsylvania State Legislature, during the 1966
session, passed a $500,000,000 bond issue which, if voted favor-
ably by the public, will provide $100,000,000 to the Pennsylvania
Department of Health for sewage treatment construction grant
purposes. In addition, $200,000,000 will be allocated to mine
drainage abatement measures, sucn as reclamation of areas dis-
turbed by mining activities„ The other $200,000,000 will be
spent on construction and development of recreational areas.
The Pennsylvania Clean Stream Act, which became effective
in January 1966, is another step toward improvement of water
-------
Ill - 16
quality in areas affected "by mine drainage. The Act prohibits
discharge of acid waters or other polluting discharges from
active coal mines. Enforcement actions are being taken by the
Pennsylvania Sanitary Water Board under the new regulations for
cases not in compliance with the Act. In addition to the Clean
Stream Act, the Board has revised its regulations on the dis-
charges from coal washing operations. Previously, discharges
from these operations could contain as high as 1,000 mg/1 of
suspended solids such as coal fines and other inert material;
the revised regulations limit the discharges to 200 mg/1.
2. Federal and State Cooperative Agencies
Federal and State agencies, cooperatively conducting
comprehensive water resource surveys of the Susquehanna River
Basin, have met a number of times during Fiscal Year 196? at
Workshop Sessions called by the Corps of Engineers. These
agencies have prepared individual reports which delineate spe-
cific water resource needs; this information serves as input to
the multi-purpose planning in the development of the compre-
hensive water resource program. These meetings to date have
resulted in initial coverage of the entire Basin, merging the
needs from each of the participating agencies and indicating
possible methods of meeting the needs, such as potential reser-
voir sites to provide storage for flood control, recreation,
water supply, water quality control, and agricultural irrigation
-------
Ill - 17
purposes. Subsequent meetings will involve detailed planning,
including alternative methods of providing for the needs prior
to formulation of the Basin program.
D. Water Supply
Current and future water supply requirements, along with
related quality and/or quantity deficiencies, are presented ac-
cording to "water service areas" (major growth centers).
In general, most water supply problems pertain to future
quantity requirements. The current needs are being met predomi-
nately from surface sources requiring conventional treatment.
Most of the "clean" tributaries of the Lackawanna River and numer-
ous tributary streams of the Susquehanna River are being utilized
by the Pennsylvania Gas and Water Company to serve the Scranton
and Wilkes-Barre areas. The future growth in the study area,
along with increasing water supply demands, will necessitate
usage of the Susquehanna River.
-------
IV - 1
IV. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA
A. Location
The study outlined in this report is confined to the
central portion of the Susquehanna River Basin. This study area
extends from Northumberland, Pennsylvania, to West Pittston,
Pennsylvania, and includes the Susquehanna River and all tribu-
taries within this reach. (See location map, Figure 1.) This
Sub-Basin drains approximately 1,760 square miles in northeast
Pennsylvania and represents roughly six and one-half per cent
of the entire Susquehanna River Basin.
Practically all of Columbia County as well as portions
of Lackawanna, Luzerne, Montour, Northumberland, Schuylkill,
Sullivan, and Susquehanna Counties are encompassed within the
study area.
Principal tributaries include the Lackawanna River,
Nescopeck Creek, and Catawissa Creek.
B. Climate
The study area has a temperate climate with four sharply
defined seasons. The average annual precipitation amounts to
approximately kf inches, with 13 per cent occurring as snow dur-
ing the winter months. The average annual temperature is ^7° F.
Summer maximums of 90° F. or higher and winter minimums of -25° F.
have been recorded.
-------
IV - 2
C. Topography
The study area is entirely within the ridge and valley
physiographic region of the Appalachian Highlands. This region
is characterized by a series of alternating ridges and valleys
generally oriented from southwest to northeast. The ridges,
which are composed of the more resistant rocks, i.e., sandstone
and quartzite, vary in elevation from 1,1*00 to 2,700 feet and
are predominately forested.
In contrast, the valleys are primarily composed of the
softer rocks, i.e., limestone and shale, and abound in swamps,
lakes, and ponds of glacial origin.
D. Geology
All of the rocks in tne study area are of sedimentary
origin and are attributable to the Paleozoic Age. They belong
to the Carboniferous, Devonian, and Silurian systems; the first
includes the Pennsylvanian and Mississippian series, containing
the anthracite coal beds. The hard Silurian sandstone and con-
glomerate are responsible for the long, even-crested mountain
ridges that zig-zag through the study area. The softer Silurian
rocks usually underlie valleys which parallel the ridges. Over-
lying the Silurian rocks are the thick sandstones and shales and
a few thin limestones belonging to the Devonian system.
-------
IV - 3
E. Principal Communities and Industries
The Cities of Scranton and Wilkes-Barre are the largest
communities within the study area, having populations in I960 of
111,HU3 and 63,551, respectively. Other significant communities
include the City of Hazleton (32,056), City of Kingston (20,26l),
Borough of Dunmore (18,917), City of Nanticoke (15,601), City of
Carbondale (13,595), Borough of Berwick (13,353), Township of
Hanover (l2,T8l), City of Pittston (12,1*07), and the Town of
Bloomsburg (10,655).
Major industries in the area include the manufacture of
Pharmaceuticals, textiles, and paper, and the production of food,
meat and milk products, electrical power, and anthracite coal.
Important companies represented herein are Merck and Company;
Barrett Division, Allied Chemical Corporation; Magee Carpets;
Wise Potato Chips; Armour Company; Stephans Dairy; Pennsylvania
Power and Light Company; and the Blue Coal Company (formerly
Glen Alden).
-------
V - 1
V. WATER POLLUTION PROBLEMS, NEEDS, AND COSTS
A. Lackawanna River Basin
1. Scranton Area (Lackawanna Valley)
a. Current Water Quality
The Scranton area occupies a large portion of the Lacka-
wanna River Valley. This area is comprised of approximately 25
municipalities and numerous industrial establishments; among the
more significant are Jaunty Fabrics, Scranton Corporation,
Stephans Dairy, and Pennsylvania Power and Light Company. Coal
and meat processors are also significant
The City of Scranton and surrounding communities are
responsible for one of the most critical water quality problems
in the Susquehanna River Basin. Untreated sewage from approxi-
mately 280,000 persons is presently being discharged into the
Lackawanna River and its tributaries. In Scranton alone there
are more than 100 outfalls discharging sewage. The more signi-
ficant waste sources within the Lackawanna Valley area are
tabulated below:
Location
Est.
Population Flow
Treatment Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
Forest City
Vandling
Fell Township
Garb on dale
Stephans Dairy
Carbondale Township
Mayfield
Jermyn
Archbald
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
2,600
ii70
750
12,000^
2l+,500
600
1,200
2,500
3,200
0.2k
0.05
0.08
1.3
0.5
0.05
0.12
0.25
0.32
Lackawanna River
Cave Run
Lackawanna River
Lackawanna River
Carbondale Sewers
Lackawanna River
Lackawanna River
Lackawanna River
Lackawanna River
-------
V - 2
Location
Weston Instrument
Winton
Olyphant
Blakely
Dickson City
Thro op
Scranton City
Lackawanna Beef
Provisions
Scranton Corporation
Chamberlain Company
Woodlawn Dairy
Burschel Dairy
Pennsylvania Power
and Light
Dunmore
Taylor
Dupont
Avoca
Duryea
Moosic
Old Forge
Clarks Summit
Clarks Green
South Abington Town-
ship (Mary Knoll
School)
Penn Hide Rendering
Montrose Beef
M. Brizer, Inc.
I. Kapla, Inc.
Silverlake Packing
Hickory Packing
Jaunty Fabrics
Penbrook Coal
N. W. Mining Company
Old Forge Coal
Mo f fat Coal
Pompay Coal
Waddell Coal
Hudson Realty
Monroe Coal Company
Ace Coal Company
Wyoming Coal Company
•Bel Air Coal Company
*
Treatment
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Secondary
Secondary
None
Lagoon
None
Septic Tank
None
Lagoon
None
None
Silt Basin
Silt Basin
Silt Basin
Silt Basin
None
Silt Basin
Silt Basin
None
Silt Basin
None
Silt Basin
Population
Served
*
50
1*,900
5,800
7,600
8,000
5,000
129,000
*
706*
1,1*10
*
12,300*
2,1*50
#
10
18,000
5,550
360
2,000
5,000
4,000
9,000
3,700
1,256
133*
8,500*
351**
1,060 a
707*
353*
706*
8,350
Est.
Flow
(mgd)
0.05
0.1*9
0.52
0.5!+
0.69
0.^3
18.0
0.01
0.07
1.02
0.25
0.05
0.001
1.7
0.55
0.03
0.32
0.1*2
0.1*
0.75
0.3
0.05
0.01
0.12
0.005
0.015
0.01
0.005
0.01
0.1*2
0.39
1.71*
1.22
1.71*
0.8
0.3
5.1
1.26
0.12
0.81*
0.81*
Receiving Stream
Archbald Sewers
Lackawanna River
Lackawanna River
Lackawanna River
Lackawanna River
Lackawanna River
Lackawanna River
Scranton Sewers
Scranton Sewers
Scranton Sewers
Scranton Sewers
Scranton Sewers
Scranton Sewers
Roaring Brook
Lackawanna River
Mill Creek
Mill Creek
Mill Creek
Lackawanna River
St. John's Creek
Leggett's Creek
Leggett's Creek
Tributary of
Leggett's Creek
Mill Creek
Lackawanna River
Sub-surface
Lackawanna River
None
Lackawanna River
Lackawanna River
Lackawanna River
Tinglepaugh Creek
Lackawanna River
Keyser Creek
Lackawanna River
Lackawanna River
Lagoons
Lackawanna River
Land Application
Lackawanna River
Estimated population equivalent
-------
V - 3
The above discharges of untreated waste have resulted in
an acute pollution problem degrading the physical, chemical, and
biological water quality characteristics in the Lackawanna River
Basin. The magnitude of this problem limits most beneficial water
uses of much of the Lackawanna River and also adversely influences
the water quality of the Susquehanna River downstream to Wilkes-
Barre (a distance of ten miles).
In addition to organic waste pollution, drainage from
inactive anthracite coal mining operations is also currently
degrading the water quality of the Lackawanna River from Carbon-
dale to the mouth. The two major discharges are the Duryea out-
fall (a gravity or uncontrolled flow) and the Old Forge borehole
(a valve operated or controlled flow). These two sources drain
practically the entire sub-surface mining areas within the Lacka-
wanna Valley and enter the Lackawanna River at approximately one
and three miles, respectively, upstream from the mouth.
Water quality sampling data collected from the Lackawanna
River upstream from all sources of waste pollution and at the
mouth reveal marked degradation attributable to the Scranton
complex and to mine drainage pollution:
-------
V - 1+
Lackawanna River
Indicator Upstream Mouth
B.O.D. (5-day) (mg/l) 0.3 - 2.1 2.3 - 21.0
#
D.O. (mg/l) 6.^5 - 10.5 0 - 3.59
Net Alkalinity (mg/l) +8.88 - +21.ih +3.2 - -118.1
PH 6.1 - 7.75 3.2 - 7.52
Iron (mg/l) 0.03 - 0.1 0.13 - 51.0
Sulfates (mg/l) 9.13 - 25.0 196A - 691.6
#
Anaerobic conditions were encountered much of the time through-
out the lower portions of the Lackawanna River (downstream
from Scranton).
Biological Summary
Upstream - Seven genera of bottom organisms predominately clean-
water associated caddisflies and mayflies were found in samples
collected upstream from the Scranton area. Unpolluted stream
conditions are indicated.
Mouth - Heavy sludge deposits were observed near the mouth of the
Lackawanna River. The only bottom organisms found were organic
pollution-tolerant bloodworms and sludgeworms, which indicated
severe water quality degradation.
Alkalinity contributed by the numerous waste discharges
presently entering the Lackawanna River provides some neutraliza-
tion of the acidity from mine drainage. However, this situation
may be somewhat altered when sewerage systems are constructed
causing the discharge points to be reduced in number or relocated.
Acidity (negative net alkalinity) and heavy metals present in
mine drainage, i.e., iron, manganese, aluminum, zinc, and copper,
may be toxic to bacteria and, consequently, inhibit natural
-------
V - 5
stream assimilation of bio-degradable vastes. Therefore, an
effective pollution abatement program for the Lackawanna River
must include riot only provision of treatment facilities for
municipal and industrial wastes, but also remedial measures to
control mine drainage pollution.
An engineering consulting firm, Gannett Fleming Corddry
and Carpenter, Inc., Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, conducted a study
for the Pennsylvania Department of Health to determine the feasi-
bility and cost of treating the mine drainage. It was ascertained
that the Butler Water Tunnel in Pittston, Pennsylvania, would be
a possible collection point, with the cost of treatment facilities
(lime neutralization) ranging from $4,282,000 to $7,678,000 for
estimated flows of kO,000 gpm and 80,000 gpm, respectively. The
annual operating costs would range from $860,000 to $1,93^,000
for a drought year and from $700,000 to $1,710,000 for an average
year. For a more detailed description of the mine drainage prob-
lem and possible abatement measures in the Lackawanna River Basin,
reference is made to the CB-SRBP Mine Drainage Report.
The detrimental effect which the Lackawanna River has on
the water quality of the Susquehanna River is evidenced by the
following stream survey results:
-------
v - 6
Susquehanna River at Lackawanna River Confluence
Indicator Upstream Downstream
D.O. (mg/l) 6.36 - 9.68 1*.5 - 7-56
Wet Alkalinity (mg/l) +85-71 - +87.51* +Ul.l8 - +69.9?
B.O.D. (5-day) (mg/l) 1.25 - k.6 1.0 - 10.2
pH 7.5 - 8.99 6.5 - 8.09
Coliforms/100 ml 0 0 - 96,000
Iron (mg/l) 0.1 0.01 - 0.35
Sulfates (mg/l) 25-5 - ^6.2 75.18 - 153. ^
Biological Summary
Upstream - Twenty-eight genera of bottom organisms provided the
greatest diversification of clean-water associated organisms of
any biological station in the Susquehanna River Basin; excellent
water quality was indicated.
Downstream - Ten genera of bottom organisms were observed at this
station, including several clean-water forms, but with organic
pollution-tolerant organisms dominating. Fair water quality is
indicated.
Most of the municipalities in the Scranton area do not
provide treatment and nave, consequently, been ordered by the
Pennsylvania Sanitary Water Board to abate pollution or initiate
progress through the submission of plans.
The City of Scranton was initially placed under orders in
1962 to provide secondary treatment. Orders were not issued pre-
viously because of a Health Department policy of not presently
requiring communities to provide treatment when the receiving
stream is polluted by mine drainage. A reduction of mine pumping
-------
V - 7
due to a decrease in mining activity significantly lessened mine
drainage pollution of the Lackawanna River by 1960 and subsequently
resulted in reclassification of the stream by the Sanitary Water
Board. Complete or secondary treatment is now required for dis-
charge into the Lackawanna River. In most cases, compliance was
required prior to February 1965. All of the polluting munici-
palities are in violation of these orders with unsatisfactory
progress toward abatement. The polluting industries are also in
violation; however, abatement progress at this time is considered
by the Sanitary Water Board to be satisfactory.
The City of Scranton and the Borough of Dunmore have
formed a Joint Sewer Authority. Gannett Fleming Corddry and
Carpenter, Inc., Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Consulting Engineers
for this Authority, have submitted final plans to the Pennsyl-
vania Department of Health. Upon approval by this Agency, the
plans were then forwarded to the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration for a Federal Grant under PL 660. The Sewer
Authority is currently fifth on the State's priority list, and
their plans are expected to be advertised for bids in the spring
of 1967. It should be rioted that the original plans were modi-
fied to include unsewered outlying areas in the vicinity of
Scranton. The project cost is estimated to be $1^,700,000.
The Boroughs of Clarks Summit and Clarks Green are cur-
rently providing secondary treatment prior to discharging their
-------
v - 8
wastes into Leggett's Creek but are under orders to expand their
existing treatment facilities because of overloaded conditions.
A feasibility study has already been made, and the final planning
phase has been initiated. South Abington Township is expected
to be sewered and connected to the Clarks Summit sewage treatment
plant under this project.
The communities of Vandling, Forest City, Fell Township,
Carbondale, Carbondale Township, Mayfield, Archbald, Winton
(Jessup), Olyphant, Blakely, Dickson City, Throop, and Jermyn
have formed the Upper Lackawanna Valley Sewerage Authority.
According to the most recent time schedule, secondary treatment
facilities are expected to be in operation by April 1970. The
Articles of Agreement for this Sewerage Authority have already
been signed, and a contract is now being negotiated with a fiscal
agent, and engineers are being engaged to formulate plans. Nei-
ther the number nor the location of proposed sewage treatment
plants which will serve the Upper Lackawanna Valley are presently
known. Should a single treatment facility (secondary) be realized,
it would serve approximately 80,000 persons and cost roughly
$2,300,000.
The communities of Old Forge, Duryea, Avoca, Dupont, and
Taylor have formed the Lower Lackawanna Valley Sewerage Authority.
The necessary legal procedures, such as resolutions by governing
bodies and the filing of Articles of Agreement, have been completed.
This Authority is now negotiating with several consulting engineers
-------
V - 9
preparatory to entering a contract„ It is anticipated that one
secondary sewage treatment plant will serve the entire lower val-
ley, a population of approximately 30,000, and will discharge to
the Lackawanna River near the mouth. The cost of this facility
is estimated to be $915,000.
The Borough of Mossic, which is located in the lower por-
tion of the Lackawanna Valley, has tried to join the Upper Valley
Sewer Authority; however, since this appears unfeasible from an
engineering standpoint, the Borough will probably have no other
choice than to be incorporated in the Lower Valley Sewer Authority.
Preliminary studies indicate that with provision of
secondary treatment for the entire Lackawanna Valley, approxi-
mately 130 cfs of stream flow will be required during the summer
months to maintain minimum dissolved oxygen concentrations for
the propagation of fish and aquatic life. The above analysis
applies to the most critical portion of the Lackawanna River
(downstream from Scranton) where the actual flows for this stream
reach range from 50 to 80 cfs in the late summer months.
The above evaluations were based on the assumption of
elimination or reduction of mine drainage to the extent that
waste assimilation could occur,.
Based upon a comparison of actual and required flows, it
is evident that a water quality problem will continue to exist
even though secondary treatment is provided for the entire Lacka-
wanna Valley, Additional treatment, possibly supplemented with
flow regulation or waste diversion to the Susquehanna River, is a
-------
V - 10
method to be considered in future planning. In addition to organic
pollution control methods, abatement measures to control or reduce
mine drainage to the Lackawanna are imperative to the maintenance
of satisfactory water quality.
The Corps of Engineers and Soil Conservation Service have
indicated the following potential reservoir sites on tributaries
to the Lackawanna River.
Potential Cost Per
Site No.
COE #lli5
COE #lM
COE #lla
COE #lUO
SCS #37-20
Tributary
Fall Brook
Rush Brook
Roaring Brook
Spring Brook
East Branch Lackawanna
Yield (cfs)
7
U
3
16
12.5
cfs
$23,900
$36,600
$32,000
$24,000
$10,11*0
These sites will be expensive to develop and may not be economically
feasible when flow regulation is compared to other alternatives.
b. Future Water Quality
Increased municipal and industrial growth, coupled with low
flow conditions, will only worsen water quality problems in the
Lackawanna River Basin,, The population of the Scranton area is
expected to increase twofold by the year 2020, and this, combined
with anticipated industrial growth, will result in a threefold in-
crease in required flows for waste assimilation. Future planning
will necessitate further engineering and economic evaluations to
ascertain the most likely alternative to meet the increasing needs.
-------
V - 11
Co Water Supply
The current water needs for the Scranton area amount to
52 mgd which are supplied by the Pennsylvania Gas and Water Company,
a private corporation. Projected needs for the year 2020 indicate
that approximately 118 mgd will be required.
The current water supply provided by streams tributary to
the Lackawanna River is presently adequate and of good quality, but
a study will be required to locate additional supply sources to meet
the anticipated municipal and industrial growth in the Lackawanna
Valley„
B. Susquehanna River Between the Lackawanna River and
Nescopeck Creek
1. Wilkes-Barre Area (Wyoming Valley)
a. Current Water Quality
The Wilkes-Barre area is located on the main stem Susque-
hanna River immediately downstream from the Laekawanna River con-
fluence c The area's strategic position in the anthracite coal
fields has long been an important factor regarding its economy
and growth. The Blue Coal Company (formerly Glen Alden) is the
largest coal producing company in Wilkes-Barre. Other companies
which are represented in the industrial complex include Stegmaier
Beer, Armour Company, UGI Company, and Metropolitan Wire.
The City of Wilkes-Barre and approximately 20 surround-
ing municipalities, with a total population of about 200,000 are
presently discharging untreated wastes and contribute to the most
critical water quality problem in the main stem Susquehanna River,
Wastes emanating from the area are as follows:
-------
V - 12
Location
Treatment
Population
Served
Est.
Flow
(mgd)
Receiving Stream
Edwardsvilie
Exeter
Fairview Township
Forty-Fort
Hanover Township
Lehigh Valley
Authority
Ashley
Pezzner Brothers
Jenkins Township
Jenkins Township
(Pittston Hospital)
Kingston
Kingston Township
(Meadowcrest
Development)
Nanticoke
Newport Township
Newport Township
(Retreat State
Hospital)
Pittston
Grablick Dairy
Pittston Township
Plains Township
Plymouth
Sugar Notch
Warrior Run
West Pittston
Wilkes-Barre
Lehigh Valley
Authority
Stegmaier Beer
Armour Company
Metropolitan Wire
Wyoming
Swoyersville
Lehigh Valley
Authority
Highstown
Dressier Slaughter-
house
None
None
Secondary
None
None
None
None
None
None
Primary
None
Secondary
None
None
Primary
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Septic Tank
Septic Tank
5,700
U, 500
1+00
13,000
22,596
0.57
0.1+5
0.01+
1.3
3.0
510
1+,000
351**
2,500
125
20,200
5,^00
15,000
5,233
1,1+50
12,000*
831+
2,000
5,000
10,000
1,200
660
7,000
68,000
0.05
0.1+
0.005
0.25
0.02
2.02
0.3
1.2
0.02
0.2
0.5
1,0
0.12
0.06
0.7
17.0
370*
11,600*
2,200
150
Moo
6,700
*
1+00
1,615
0.04
0.6
0.04
0.015
0.1+
0.67
0.04
Toby's Creek
Hicks Creek
Howard Creek
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Garringer's Creek
Hanover Township
Sewers
Hanover Township
Sewers
Ashley Sewers
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Toby's Creek
0.5k Toby's Creek
1.5 Susquehanna River
0.52 Newport Creek
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Pittston Sewers
Butler Creek
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Warrior Creek
Warrior Creek
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Wilkes-Barre Sewers
Wilkes-Barre Sewers
Wilkes-Barre Sewers
Wilkes-Barre Sewers
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Swoyersville Sewers
Sub-surface
834
0.005 Sub-surface
-------
V - 13
Est.
Population Flow
Location Treatment Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
Pennsylvania Power w
and Light Company Septic Tanks 250 0.025 Sub-surface
Blue Coal Company Silt Basin ^.27 Solomon Creek
Hudson Realty Silt Basin H.53 Boston Creek
Susquehanna
Collieries Silt Basin 10.72 Boston Creek
Honey Hold Sand Silt Basin 0.^8 Quarry
#
Estimated population equivalent
A combination of the pollutional effects of the Lacka-
wanna River and untreated wastes from Wilkes-Barre severely limit
beneficial usage of the Susquehanna River for approximately 20
miles downstream. This critical reach has a record of chronic
fish kills, the latest of which occurred in August 1966. Pish
kills were generally attributed to depressed D.O. concentrations
caused by the flushing of oxygen demanding sludge deposits from
the Lackawanna River during periods of high flow in the Lackawanna
River and relatively low flow in the Susquehanna River.
A summary of stream survey results illustrating the marked
water quality degradation caused by Wilkes-Barre's waste loading
is outlined below:
-------
V - Ik
Susquehanna River at WiIkes-Barre
Indicator Upstream Downstream
pH 6.5 - 8.09 5-^8 - 1,9k
Net Alkalinity (mg/l) +Ul.l8 - +69-97 +18.5 - +^7-53
D.O. (mg/l) It.5 - 7.56 O.kk - 5.35
Coliforms/100 ml 0 96,000 0 - 130,000
Iron (mg/l) 0.01 - 0.35 0.01 - 2.6l
Sulfates (mg/l) 75-18 - 153.4 160.6 - 262.7
Biological Summary
*
Upstream - Ten genera of bottom organisms, including several clean-
water forms, but predominately organic pollution-tolerant forms,
were observed in samples collected upstream from Wilkes-Barre. Fair
water quality is indicated.
Downstream - Five genera of bottom organisms, all pollution-tolerant
to intermediate, were observed, indicating degraded water quality.
*
The initial impairment in water quality is due to the Lackawanna
River.
All of the communities in the Wilkes-Barre area, with the
exception of Sugar Notch, Newport Township, and Warrior Run, have
been ordered by the Pennsylvania Sanitary Water Board to abate
pollution or initiate progress through the submission of plans;
all are currently in violation, but at this time abatement progress
is considered satisfactory by the Sanitary Water Board.
The Boroughs of Sugar Notch, Newport Township, and Warrior
Run are riot currently under Sanitary Water Board orders. Warrior
Creek and Newport Creek, which receive their waste loadings, are
-------
V - 15
acid streams and are presently classified by the Sanitary Water
Board as requiring no treatment. It is also interesting to note
that all of the industries in the Wilkes-Barre area are currently
connected to municipal sewers and are in compliance with the
Sanitary Water Board requirements.
The City of Wilkes-Barre was initially placed under orders
in 19^7. Thereafter, legal proceedings were conducted by the
Commonwealth in order to achieve compliance. Compliance with
the most recent time schedule was required prior to February
1965, with the minimum permissible degree of treatment being
"primary" for discharge into the Susquehanna River.
The formation of a Wyoming Valley Sewerage Authority has
been realized, and the following municipalities are incorporated
therein:
1. Hughestown 10. Wanticoke
2. Pittston City 11. West Pittston
3. Pittston Township 12. Exeter
h. Jenkins Township 13. Wyoming
5. Plains Township lh. Forty-Fort
6. Wilkes-Barre City 15- Swoyersville
7. Wilkes-Barre Township 16. Kingston
8. Ashley 17. Edwardsville
9. Hanover Township 18. Plymouth
Final plans submitted by the Authority for sewage treat-
ment facilities have been approved by the Pennsylvania Department
of Health and forwarded to the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration for a Federal Grant under PL 660. A grant offer
made to the Authority has been accepted, and construction is
expected to begin in 1967.
-------
v - 16
The proposed sewage treatment plant will provide primary
treatment and will discharge directly to the Susquehanria River.
Albright and Friel, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the Consulting
Engineers for the Authority, have estimated the cost of this
project at $23,000,000.
Preliminary studies indicate that the provision of pri-
mary treatment facilities with chlorination will alleviate the
current pollution problem in the Susquehanna River in the vicinity
of Wilkes-Barre. Primary treatment would be the first step in
obtaining pollution abatement. Construction of secondary treat-
ment will be necessary in the very near future to produce stream
quality commensurate with most beneficial uses.
Communities which are presently contributing to the pollu-
tion problem and are not a portion of the Wyoming Valley Sewerage
Authority, i.e., Newport Township, Sugar Notch Borough, and
Warrior Run Borough, are expected to provide primary treatment
for discharge into the Susquehanna River or secondary treatment
for discharge into tributary streams.
Stream sampling results previously presented indicate
the addition of mine drainage pollution to the Susquehanna River
at Wilkes-Barre. Major contributions originate from the 17
pumped discharges operated by the Blue Coal Company (formerly
Glen Alden Coal Company). In addition to the main stem of the
Susquehanna River, the following tributary streams also exhibit
the effects of this mine drainage:
-------
V - IT
1. Solomon Creek 2. Warrior Creek
3. Manticoke Creek k. Newport Creek
The Blue Coal Company contracted with Gannett Fleming
Corddry and Carpenter, Inc., ilarrisburg, Pennsylvania, to pro-
vide engineering solutions and develop plans to eliminate the
existing pollution problems created by their mine drainage dis-
charges, This is in accordance with the Sanitary Water Board
order dated September 20, 1962. The Engineers' Report stated
that treatment is feasible for each individual discharge. The
recommended facilities would cost approximately $18,900,000 to
construct. The annual cost, including operating cost and
amortization cost, was estimated to be $3,600,000 over an average
water year.
b. Future Water Quality
The close proximity of Scranton and WiIkes-Barre, coupled
with the future increases in municipal and industrial growth,
will warrant Wilkes-Barre to consider secondary treatment facili-
ties in the near future. The population of the Wyoming Valley
area is expected to increase 2.5 times by the year 2020, with
assimilative flow requirements increasing accordingly. Since
flow withdrawals for irrigation are expected to be significant
upstream from this reach, any water quality problem could be
magnified because the river flows will be less than predicted.
If volumes needed for irrigation are provided in upstream
-------
V - 18
reservoirs, irrigation needs could be met by releases from these
reservoirs during the months of heavy demands.
The Sanitary Water Board has classified the entire Susque-
hanna River as a "primary treatment" stream. Consideration should
be given to upgrading this classification before a critical water
quality problem becomes manifested.
c. Water Supply
The Wilkes-Barre Area currently requires 60 mgd for its
water supply needs. This requirement is expected to increase
to approximately 175 nigd by the year 2020.
The Wyoming Valley obtains its water from the Pennsylvania
Gas and Water Company, which operates numerous reservoirs on
tributaries of the Lackawanna River. Currently there are no
concentrated water supply problems; however, if drought condi-
tions continue, and the growth of the area expands as anticipated,
the Company will probably have to consider using the Susquehanna
River as a water supply source in the future.
Isolated water quality problems occur throughout the
Wyoming Valley Area but are generally small in nature. The
sources which are encountering this problem are generally wells
serving approximately 100 to 200 persons.
-------
V - 19
C. Nescopeck Creek
1. Freeland Area
a. Current Water Quality
The Freeland Area is situated at the headwaters of Black
Creek, a tributary to Nescopeck Creek. Freeland Borough, which
is the lone municipality in this Area, is drained by two adjoin-
ing watersheds—the Susquehanna River on the west and the Delaware
River on the east. The only industrial pursuit in the area is
steel fabrication.
The Borough of Freeland is currently responsible for a
localized water quality problem resulting from the discharge of
untreated wastes into Black Creek. Waste characteristics of the
Area are as follows:
Est.
Population Flow
Location Treatment Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
Freeland Borough
Discon Steel
Foster Township
None
— —
Septic Tanks
5,068
2,683
0.5
0.01
0.27
Black Creek
Freeland Sewers
Sub-surface
The Pennsylvania Department of Health indicated that
there is a great need for financial aid to the Freeland Area to
abate the current pollution problem. The Borough, nevertheless,
has been issued orders by the Sanitary Water Board to abate pollu-
tion or submit plans. The Borough has not yet complied with
these orders, and the case has recently been referred to the
State Department of Justice. Secondary treatment is required
-------
V - 20
prior to discharge. Freeland has applied for a Federal Grant
under PL 660; however, the Borough is number I|8 on the State's
Priority List. The proposed sewage treatment plant is scheduled
to discharge into the Lehigh River Watershed in the Delaware Basin.
The total estimated cost of this project is $950,000.
"b. Water Supply
The Freeland Area currently requires 0.3 mgd and obtains
its supply from ground water sources. This requirement is expected
to double by the year 2020. There are no anticipated water supply
problems pertaining to this Area.
2. Hazleton Area
a. Current Water Quality
The Hazleton Area, third largest in the study area, is
located on an alkaline portion of Black Creek approximately seven
miles downstream from Freeland. Although coal mining and dairy-
ing were the principal pursuits in the past, a strenuous effort
is being made by Hazleton City to attract new industries.
Wastes emanating from the Hazleton Area are summarized
below:
-------
V - 21
Location
Hazleton City
West Hazleton Borough
Hazel Township
Snyder Dairy
Farm Coop Dairy
S. C. Price Dairy
Jeddo Highland
Gowen Coal
Beaver Brothers Coal
*
Treatment
Hone
None
None
Silt Basin
Silt Basin
Silt Basin
Population
Served
31,000
6,200
800*
885,
558,
2,500
Est.
Flow
(mgd)
3.1
0.62
0.08
0.018
0.012
0.05
2.6
0.5
O.k
Receiving Stream
Black Creek
Black Creek
Black Creek
Hazleton Sewers
Hazleton Sewers
Hazleton Sewers
Mine
Mine
Mine
Estimated population equivalent
Untreated waste discharges to Black Creek have resulted
in severely degraded water quality downstream from the Hazleton
Area. Further downstream, mine drainage pollution compounds the
problem. The principal mine drainage sources discharging to Black
Creek are:
(l) Tomhicken Pool - drains a localized stripped
area and discharges mine drainage to Black Creek approximately
seven miles downstream from Hazleton.
(2) Goweri and Derringer Tunnels - gravity flows
draining primarily inactive mining areas discharge to Black Creek
approximately ten miles downstream from Hazleton.
Although Black Creek contributes mine drainage to Nescopeck
Creek, there is no distinct change in water quality in Nescopeck
Creek at the confluence because of existing degraded conditions
upstream. Initial water quality degradation in Wescopeck Creek
-------
V - 22
is caused toy mine drainage contributed by Little Nescopeck Creek.
The following sampling results indicate the marked water quality
degradation of this stream reach.
Nescopeck Creek at Confluence of Little Mescopeck Creek
Indicator Upstream Downstream
pH 6.6 - 8.5 3.3 - 3.8
Net Alkalinity (rag/1) -6.02 - +12.12 -107.61* - -308.37
Iron (mg/1) O.l6 - 1.18 2.37 - 10.51*
Sulfates (mg/l) 8.66 - 38.36 215.6 - 797-5
The prime source of mine drainage in Little Nescopeck
Creek is the Jeddo Highland Tunnel which conveys mine drainage
from the Jeddo Highland Colliery. The Tunnel serves as a dis-
charge point for various pumped and gravity flows originating
from both active and inactive mining operations. This source
is responsible for the largest single contribution within the
Wescopeck Watershed.
As a result of the mine drainage contributed by Little
Nescopeck and Black Creeks, water quality in Nescopeck Creek is
degraded throughout the downstream reaches to its confluence with
the Susquehanna River. Sampling results near the mouth of Nesco-
peck Creek are summarized as follows:
-------
V - 23
Nescopeck Creek at Mouth
Indicator Range
pH 3.1* - k.O
Net Alkalinity (mg/l) -51.12 - -222.5^
Iron (mg/l) 0.97 - ^.09
Sulfates (rag/1) 110.0 - 529.3
For a more detailed, description of the mine drainage
problem in the Nescopeck Creek Basin, refer to CB-SRBP Mine
Drainage Report.
The municipalities of the hazleton Area were issued orders
by the Pennsylvania Sanitary Water Board to abate pollution or
initiate progress by the submission of plans prior to August 1965.
The City of Hazleton is currently constructing a sewage treat-
ment plant with completion expected by March or April 196T-
Secondary treatment will be provided, and the plant will discharge
to Big Black Creek. It should be noted that Big Black Creek is
not acidic in this reach. In addition to Hazleton City, the new
treatment facility will also serve Hazel Township and West Hazle-
ton Borough. Project cost is estimated to be $5,000,000.
The provision of secondary treatment facilities is expect-
ed to alleviate the immediate pollution problem originating from
the Hazleton Area. In order to upgrade water quality throughout
the watershed, mine drainage control measures are essential.
-------
V - 2 It
b. Future Water Quality
A future problem in Big Black Creek is anticipated be-
cause of the low natural stream flows available for waste assimi-
lation. Moreover, the population of the Hazleton Area is expected
to increase threefold oy tne year 2020 and will result in a corres-
ponding increase in flow requirements. Since there are no gaging
stations located on either Black or Nescopeck Creeks, and the
task of calculating actual flows is further complicated by the
mine drainage discharges, the severity of this anticipated water
quality problem cannot be readily determined. However, if typical
run-off rates were applied to the mine drainage area above Hazleton,
the flows obtained are expected to be considerably less than those
required to assimilate waste loadings in 1980.
Additional treatment and waste diversion are methods to
be considered in future planning. Another consideration is flow
regulation; however, the small drainage area upstream from Hazle-
ton may limit the feasibility of this method.
c. Water Supply
The current water supply needs for the Hazleton Area
amount to 9-5 mgd and are obtained from both surface and ground
sources; the anticipated needs by the year 2020 amount to about
2h mgd.
-------
V - 25
The City of Hazleton is encountering no quality problems
with their existing water supply; however, limited availability
of water has resulted in a past shortage. To alleviate this
problem, the City has hired a consulting engineer to study the
feasibility of developing future supply sources in the alkaline
portions of Nescopeck Creek upstream from the Little Nescopeck
Creek confluence. Moreover, the City has constructed additional
wells to prevent water restriction arid to ease shortage conditions.
3. Nescopeck Borough
a. Current Water Quality
The Borough of Nescopeck is located near the confluence
of Nescopeck Creek and the Susquehanna River. The Borough is
currently providing primary treatment of wastes from approximately
1,000 persons and is in compliance with the Pennsylvania Sanitary
Water Board requirements. Nescopeck Creek is currently classified
as a primary stream because of the extremely acidic condition
predominating throughout most of its length.
Although there is no present pollution problem attributable
to organic wastes from Nescopeck, abatement of mine drainage and
subsequent reclassification of Nescopeck Creek will necessitate
consideration of secondary treatment by Nescopeck Borough to avoid
future water quality problems. The estimated cost to provide
secondary treatment facilities is $75,000.
-------
V - 26
b. Future Water Quality
A threefold increase in population is expected by year
2020. Waste assimilative evaluations indicate that the provision
of secondary treatment facilities should be adequate to prevent
future water quality degradation from the wastes associated with
this growth.
D. Susquehanna River Between Wescopeck Creek and Catawissa
Creek
1. Berwick Area
a. Current Water Quality
The Berwick Area is located along the main stem Susque-
hanna River approximately 30 miles downstream from Wilkes-Barre.
The principal industries in the Area include Wise Potato Chip
Company and Continental Cigar Corporation. Wastes originating
from the Berwick complex are summarized below:
Location
Est.
Population Flow
Treatment Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
Berwick Borough
Wise Potato Chip
Berwick Creamery
Continental Cigar
Corporfition
Honey Hole Sand
.T W HPQC;
Primary
Degreasing
Silt Basin
Ki 1 +. Ra<5i n
16,000^
22,850^
U.370
*
380
___
1.3
0.3^
0.09
0.0k
O.kQ
n lift
Susquehanna River
Berwick Sewers
Berwick Sewers
Berwick Sewers
Quarry
Estimated population equivalent
-------
V - 27
The Borough of Berwick is currently providing primary
treatment and is in compliance with Pennsylvania Department of
Health requirements. A minor problem occurs, however, as a result
of waste emanating from the Wise Potato Chip Company. Waste from
this industry contains significant quantities of grease and, when
measures are not taken by the Company to remove this grease, opera-
tions of the Berwick Sewage Treatment Plant are impaired. The
Pennsylvania Department of Health is requiring that Wise Potato
Chip Company provide effective grease trapping facilities to
eliminate the entrance of grease to the Berwick sewer system.
It is expected that as growth is experienced in the near
future, secondary treatment facilities will be necessary to pre-
vent impairment of water quality of the Susquehanna River. The
estimated cost for the provision of secondary treatment facilities
is estimated at $275,000.
b. Future Water Quality
The population of Berwick is expected to increase three-
fold by year 2020. This growth, coupled with anticipated indus-
trial growth, could result in localized water quality degradation
if primary treatment only is provided. Assimilative studies
indicated the expected stream flows in the Susquehanna River will
adequately assimilate waste loadings from the Berwick Area and
maintain satisfactory water quality through year 2020 if secondary
treatment is provided.
-------
V - 28
c. Water Supply
The Berwick Area is currently requiring 3.9 mgd to meet
its water supply needs which are served by "both surface and
ground sources. By the year 2020, the Area is expected to
require about 20 mgd.
The Borough of Berwick has not encountered a current
water supply problem with either quality or quantity. The
expected future growth of this Area, however, appears to warrant
the Borough to search for additional water supply sources. It
should be noted that additional potential water supplies are
available nearby (Susquehanna River) for future consideration.
2. Bloomsburg Area
a. Current Water Quality
The Bloomsburg Area is also situated on the main stem
Susquehanna River approximately 11 miles downstream from Berwick.
The principal pursuit in this Area is textile manufacturing,
Magee Carpets being the most significant industry. The follow-
ing table lists the principal waste sources in the Bloomsburg
Area:
-------
V - 29
Est.
Population Flow
Location
Bloomsburg Town
Scott Township
(Central Columbia
County School)
Scott Township
Bloomsburg Mills
Milco Undergarment
Magee Carpets
U. S. Radium
Corporation
Treatment
Primary
Secondary
Septic Tank
Deionization
Septic Tank
Served
10,000
9l*2
3,260
*
1,790
3,530
*
80
(mgd)
1.7
O.OOit
0.3
1.3
0.09
0.16
0.012
0.008
Receiving Stream
Susquehanna River
Tributary of
Susquehanna River
Sub-surface
Bloomsburg Sewers
Bloomsburg Sewers
Bloomsburg Sewers
Susquehanna River
Sub-surface
Estimated population equivalent
Because of the large volumes of dilution flow available,
water quality of the Susquehanna River downstream from Bloomsburg
is not severely degraded by the above discharges. However, there
is evidence of bacterial pollution as indicated in the summary
table below:
Susquehanna River at Bloomsburg
Indicator Upstream Downstream
D.O. (mg/1)
B.O.D. (5-day) (mg/1)
Coliforms/100 ml
7.3 - 9-7
3.3 - U.2
0
6.78 - 8.15
1.3 - 5-2
0 - 29,000
The Sanitary Water Board presently requires primary treat-
ment of wastes prior to discharge into the Susquehanna River.
Although Bloomsburg has primary treatment facilities, the "pri-
mary" degree of treatment has not been achieved recently because
-------
V - 30
of operational difficulties created by excessive wool solids
entering the plant in the vastes from Magee Carpets Company.
In order to alleviate this problem, the Town of Bloomsburg is
contemplating the provision of additional treatment facilities.
Pre-treatment of the wool wastes may be required in addition to
the expanded facilities in order to provide an effective (35 per
cent BOD removal) overall primary treatment level. Final plans
for the expansion of the Bloomsburg treatment plant are being
developed by Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc., Con-
sulting Engineers in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The total project
cost is estimated to be $2,100,000 ($1,300,000 for plant enlarge-
ment and $800,000 for an interceptor sewer). It is anticipated
that this will be an initial step toward providing secondary
treatment in the near future.
In addition to the wool wastes, the Bloomsburg Sewage
Treatment Plant has recently experienced difficulties because
of large quantities of oil entering the plant, allegedly dis-
charged to the municipal sewers during dewatering of the gas
holders by the Pennsylvania Gas and Water Company. The Company
was immediately contacted and the operation stopped. Permission
must be obtained from the municipality to discharge in the future
and proper measures taken to reduce the amount of oil in the
discharges.
Scott Township is currently served by individual septic
tanks and has experienced a surcharge and flooding problem. The
-------
V - 31
Pennsylvania Department of Health had no jurisdiction initially,
since this was more of a local problem. However, Bloomsburg's
sewer system is scheduled for expansion in the near future, and
the Department will require Scott Township to connect when sewers
become available.
b. Future Water Quality
Because of a threefold increase in population by the year
2020, along witn probable future upgrading of the Susquehanna
River, it appears necessary for the Town of Bloomsburg to con-
sider the provision of secondary treatment facilities. Flows
are expected to be sufficient in the Susquehanna River for the
assimilation of "secondary" treated waste through 2020.
c. Water Supply
The current water supply needs for the Bloomsburg Area
are h.2 mgd. This supply originates from Fishing Creek, a tribu-
tary of the Susquehanna River. The future (2020) water supply
demands, which are estimated at Qk mgd, should be readily obtain-
able from the Susquehanna River.
The Town of Bloomsburg has recently constructed a new
water treatment plant and has since encountered no immediate
problems regarding the quality of their existing supply.
-------
V - 32
E. Catawissa Creek
1. McAdoo Borough
a. Current Water Quality
The Borough of McAdoo, located at the headwaters of Cata-
wissa Creek, is in an economically depressed area where coal mining
is the principal industry. Wastes emanating from McAdoo are indi-
cated below:
Est.
Population Flow
Location Treatment Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
McAdoo Borough None 2,^00 0.2k Catawissa Creek
The untreated wastes discharged to Catawissa Creek create
a localized water quality problem in the immediate reach downstream
from McAdoo. The problem is compounded further downstream by the
addition of mine drainage.
The major sources of mine drainage pollution degrading
the water quality in the Catawissa Creek Watershed are:
1. Audenreid Tunnel (Coxe Tunnel #l)
2. Green Mountain Tunnel (Coxe Tunnel #2)
3. Oneida #3 Tunnel (Coxe Tunnel #3)
k. Oneida //I Tunnel
After receiving the waste discharged from the Borough of
McAdoo, the resultant stream flow is diverted into the Green
Mountain Water Pool, an abandoned deep mine working approximately
three miles downstream from the Borough. Underground flows from
this abandoned mine working discharge through the Green Mountain
-------
V - 33
Tunnel and contribute mine drainage to ari unnamed tributary which
subsequently discharges to Catavissa Creek approximately one mile
downstream from Green Mountain Water Pool. The Audenreid Tunnel
discharges mine drainage to the unnamed tributary upstream from
the Green Mountain Tunnel discharge (refer to the CB-SRBP Mine
Drainage Report for detailed description).
Sampling results of Catawissa Creek at the confluence of
the unnamed tributary are summarized as follows:
Catawissa Greek at the Unnamed Tributary
Indicator Upstream Downstream
pH 3.9-7.0 3.1-3.6
Net Alkalinity (mg/l) -6.1 6l.O -91.T 339.1
Iron (mg/l) Q.21 - 0.97 ^.06 - 8.09
Sulfates (mg/l) 15-31* - 85.18 1*30.3 - 571.2
Catawissa Creek downstream receives additional mine drain-
age from Tomhicken Creek which contains mine drainage primarily
from two sources: the discharge of Oneida #3 Tunnel directly to
the stream, and the contribution from Oneida //I Tunnel to Sugar
Loaf Creek, a tributary to Tomhicken Creek.
Water quality in Catawissa Creek remains relatively un-
changed from the confluence of Tomhicken Creek to the confluence
of the Susquehanna River. Sampling data obtained near the mouth
of Catawissa Creek indicate the following:
-------
V - 3h
Catavissa Creek at Mouth
Indicator Range
pH 3.5 - 4.2
Net Alkalinity (mg/l) -70.06 128.2?
Iron (mg/l) 0.13 - 0.31
Sulfate (mg/l) 135-0 - 206.9
The Sanitary Water Board presently requires primary treat-
ment for wastes discharged to Catawissa Creek, additional treatment
not being mandatory because of the acidic conditions resulting
from mine drainage. Orders have not been issued by the Sanitary
Water Board for the Borough of McAdoo to abate pollution; how-
ever, this action is expected to be soon forthcoming.
Low stream flows available for waste assimilation will
necessitate the Borough to consider the provision of secondary
treatment as a method of alleviating the immediate organic pollu-
tion problem. The cost for secondary treatment facilities is
estimated at $260,000. In order to upgrade the present water
quality throughout the Watershed, mine drainage pollution control
measures are essential.
b. Future Water Quality
The expected threefold increase in McAdoo's population
by the year 2020 appears to warrant consideration of advanced
waste treatment to ease an anticipated future pollution problem.
-------
V - 35
Since there is practically no dilution flow in Catawissa Creek
at McAdoo, it appears that a future water quality problem may not
be entirely eliminated by additional waste treatment alone; how-
ever, the extent arid severity will be greatly reduced if a maximum
degree of treatment is provided.
2. Catawissa Borough
a. Current Water Quality
The Borough of Catawissa is located at the Catawissa
Creek-Susquehanna River confluence. Wastes discharged from the
Borough are as follows:
Est.
Population Flow
Location Treatment Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
Catawissa Borough Primary 1,800 0.00k Catawissa Creek
The Borough is currently providing primary treatment and
is in compliance with the Sanitary Water Board requirements and
apparently is not responsible for an immediate pollution problem
in Catawissa Creek. The presence of mine drainage represents a
greater pollution problem than municipal wastes, and measures to
control mine drainage pollution are essential to enhancement of
water quality in Catawissa Creek.
An inflatable dam to provide a recreational reservoir is
presently being constructed on the Susquehanna River approximately
18 miles downstream from Catawissa; completion is expected in late
-------
V - 36
1968. The nearness of the impoundment appears to warrant that
consideration be given to secondary treatment of wastes from
Catawissa in order to maintain water quality suitable for recrea-
tion in the reservoir. The estimated cost for secondary treatment
facilities is $75,000.
t>. Future Water Quality
A threefold increase in population is expected by the
year 2020; however, the provision of secondary treatment should
be adequate to prevent future water quality degradation from the
wastes associated with this growth.
F. Susquehanna River Between Catawissa Creek and
Northumberland
1. Danville Area
a. Current Water Quality
The Danville Area is situated on the main stem Susquehanna
River approximately 11 miles downstream from Bloomsburg and ten
miles upstream from the West Branch confluence. Danville Borough
occupies the west shore area; whereas, Riverside Borough is
located on the east shore. The Merck and Company, which is im-
mediately downstream from Riverside, is the only major industry
in the Danville Area. Because of its extreme importance, the
Merck and Company will be discussed separately in a subsequent
section. Wastes emanating from the Danville Area are as follows:
-------
V - 37
Est.
Population Flow
Location Treatment Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
Danville Borough Primary 8,000 lA Susquehanna River
Mahoning Township
(Danville Hospital) Secondary 3,100 0.3 Hospital Run
Mahoning Township
(St. Cyril Home) Secondary 100 0.001 Sechlers Run
Riverside Borough Primary 2,000^ 0.09 Susquehanna River
Thorn Ramo 100X 0.01 Danville Sewers
Kennedy Van Saun 320* 0.032 Danville Sewers
Merck and Company Intermediate 1,550,000 8.5 Susquehanna River
#
Estimated population equivalent
The Borough of Danville is currently providing primary
treatment and is in compliance with Sanitary Water Board require-
ments. The Borough has recently completed the expansion of their
existing treatment plant and has subsequently incorporated the
Danville State Hospital and a portion of Mahoning Township.
Because the inflatable dam is being constructed approximately
ten miles downstream from Danville, the nearness of this project
warrants that consideration be given to secondary treatment of
wastes from Danville in order to maintain water quality in the
reservoir suitable for recreation. The estimated cost for
secondary treatment facilities is $206,000.
The Borough of Riverside is very small in comparison to
the size of other municipalities discharging wastes into the
Susquehanna River. However, as in the cases of Catawissa and
Danville, the nearness of the downstream reservoir necessitates
that consideration be given to the provision of secondary treatment
-------
V - 38
in the near future. The cost to provide secondary treatment
facilities is estimated at $80,000.
b. Future Water Quality
A comparison of expected flows in the Susquehanna River
and flows required to assimilate wastes from the projected growth
of the Area indicates that secondary treatment should be adequate
to maintain water quality in the River; however, because of the
impoundment, future studies appear to be necessary to evaluate
the effects of these upstream discharges on the water quality
in the reservoir.
c. Water Supply
The current water supply requirements for the Danville
Area amount to 28 mgd and are obtained solely from the main
stem of the Susquehanna River. Although future needs are antici-
pated to increase significantly, the close proximity of the
Susquehanna River should permit the area to meet these demands
with the provision of proper treatment.
2. Merck and Company
a. Current Water Quality
The Merck and Company is the largest single contributor
of oxygen demanding wastes in the entire Susquehanna River Basin.
Their pharmaceutical manufacturing processes yield an organic
chemical type waste having a population equivalent of approximately
-------
V - 39
*
1.5 million before treatment. For comparison, this is more
than three times the population of both the Lackawanna and Wyoming
Valleys combined.
The Sanitary Water Board requires the Company to provide
a minimum of primary treatment prior to discharge. Their waste,
however, is not amenable to conventional primary treatment and,
instead, the Company has provided neutralization, flotation, and
an activated sludge type facility to effect the necessary treat-
ment. Recent State sampling data indicate that Merck and Company
is providing the equivalent of intermediate treatment with ap-
proximately 50 per cent BOD reduction.
The following stream survey results are indicative of
the marked degradation occurring in the stream reach at Merck
and Company:
Susquehanna River at Merck and Company
**
_ Indicator Upstream Downstream
B.O.D. (ult.) (Ibs.) 20,000 50,000
Coliforms/100 ml 0 - 3^,000 0 - 100,000
**
This sampling station was located approximately ten miles
downstream from the Merck and Company outfall.
The Pennsylvania Department of Health is currently conducting
a study to ascertain the validity of the waste loading from
Merck and Company.
-------
v - ko
The obvious effect that the Merck and Company waste dis-
charge has on the vater quality of the Susquehanna River and the
potential adverse effects on the proposed impoundment near Sun-
bury, Pennsylvania, present a need for additional treatment
facilities. A comparison of actual minimum stream flows with
required flows for waste assimilation indicates that primary
treatment is insufficient for the maintenance of satisfactory
water quality. Secondary treatment with chlorination (85 per
cent BOD removal) should be provided by Merck and Company to
alleviate the existing pollution problem.
The availability of land near the Merck and Company
enhances the possibility of land application as a means of
organic waste treatment and disposal.
3. Allied Chemical Company
a. Current Water Quality
The Allied Chemical Company is located on the Susquehanna
River one-half mile upstream from the West Branch confluence.
Wastes presently discharged from the Allied Chemical Company are
characterized below:
li'St.
Population Flow
Location Treatment Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
Allied Chemical ^
Company Primary 15,920 1.0 Susquehanna River
*
Estimated population equivalent
-------
V - hi
The Allied Chemical Company presently has facilities
for primary treatment (35 per cent BOD reduction) and is in com-
pliance with the Sanitary Water Board requirements for tne Susque-
hanna River. However, a recent inspection conducted by the
Pennsylvania Department of Health regional personnel indicated
that the Allied Chemical Company was evidently providing a lesser
degree of treatment. The Company was consequently issued a notice
to initiate and present steps which could be taken in order to
meet the minimum standards set by the Sanitary Water Board.
Although the Company indicated to Health Department personnel
that "in-plant" changes were being employed to reduce initial
waste strength, a detailed field study was undertaken by both
parties, and the case is still unresolved.
Primary treatment appears presently to be sufficient to
maintain dissolved oxygen concentrations suitable for the propa-
gation of fish and aquatic life; however, nearness of the proposed
reservoir warrants the provision of secondary treatment with
adequate chlorination.
-------
r -n
°3
°E^
2 -* 7-
O
O
Ji
i ° _
> m
o ;o
So
C I
o c
? OJ W
, m
> w-
z f
> ^ aj
H
< tn
m^
330
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1-1
A. Purpose and Scope 1-1
^ B. Acknowledgments 1-2
,. II. GENERAL II - 1
•",«
'1
A. Source of Information II - 1
^ B. Determination of Needs II - 2
C. State Stream Classifications II - 5
•• D. Comprehensive Planning of Water
Resources of the Susquehanna River Basin . . II - 6
E. Susquehanna River Basin Compact II - 7
III. SUMMARY Ill - 1
A. Water Quality Ill - 1
1. Little Juniata River Ill - 1
2. Frankstown Branch Ill - 2
3. Kishacoquillas Creek Ill - 3
k. Juniata River Ill - U
B, Immediate Pollution Control Needs Ill - I)-
*?1 1. Waste Treatment Ill - U
2. Comprehensive Evaluations Ill - 1^
j|
"a 3. Special Studies Ill - l6
. h. Institutional Practices Ill - 17
C. Recent Pollution Control Progress Ill - 18
1 1. Pennsylvania Ill - 18
2. Federal and State Cooperative Agencies . Ill - 19
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
D. Water Supply Ill --19
TV. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA IV - 1
A. Location IV - 1
B. Climate IV - 2
C. Topography IV - 2
D. Geology IV - 3
E. Principal Communities and Industries TV - h
V. WATER POLLUTION PROBLEMS, NEEDS, AM) COSTS ..... V - 1
A. Little Juniata River V - 1
1. Altoona Area (Northeast) V - 1
2. Tyrone Area V-5
B, Frankstown Branch V - 9
1. Roaring Spring Area V - 9
2. Altoona Area V - 1^
3. Williamsburg Area V - 17
C. Juniata River (Between Frankstown and
Raystown Branches) V - 20
1. Huntingdon V - 20
D. Raystown Branch V - 22
1. Bedford-Everett V - 22
2. Saxton V - 2k
E. Main Stem Juniata River V - 26
1. Mount Union Area V - 26
2. Orbisonia Area V - 28
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
3. Union Township Area (Belleville) V - 28
k. Lewistown Area V - 30
5. Mifflintown Area V - 33
6. Newport Area V - 3*4-
-------
-------
I - 1
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose and Scope
Under the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. h66 et seq), Section 3(a), the Secretary
of the Interior is authorized to make joint investigations with
other Federal agencies, with State Water Pollution Control Agen-
cies and interstate agencies, and with the municipalities and
industries involved, of the condition of any waters in any State
or States and of the discharges of any sewage, industrial wastes,
or substance which may adversely affect these waters. These
investigations are for the purpose of preparing and developing
comprehensive programs for eliminating or reducing the pollution
of interstate waters and tributaries thereof.
This Working Document reports the results of the water
quality and pollution control studies carried out by staff of the
Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River Basins Project in accordance
with the above provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act.
The primary purpose of this report is to focus attention
on existing and potential water pollution problem areas as the
basis for the initiation of immediate pollution control actions.
Specific objectives of this report are to:
1. Delineate present and potential water quality
problem areas.
-------
-------
1-2
2. Indicate responsibility for the problems.
3. Indicate possible immediate actions and responsibility
to alleviate the problem.
U. Estimate costs of these actions.
The secondary purpose of this report is to present general
coverage of potential future water quality problem areas through
year 2020. Tentative corrective actions are given for considera-
tion in planning for future actions to insure continuing water
quality satisfactory for all desired beneficial uses. A general
coverage of water supply needs through 2020 is indicated, with
areas delineated where future water shortages are anticipated.
This report covers the Juniata River Sub-Basin in south
central Pennsylvania. Principal tributaries include the Little
Juniata River, Frankstown Branch, Raystown Branch, Aughwick Creek,
and Kishacoquillas Creek. The study area encompasses all of Blair
and Huntingdon Counties and portions of ten others, draining ap-
proximately 3}^00 square miles.
B. Acknowledgments
The cooperation and assistance of the following Federal,
State, and local agencies are gratefully acknowledged:
U. S. Army Engineer District, Baltimore, Maryland
U. S. Soil Conservation Service, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
U. S. Geological Survey, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
-------
1-3
U. S. Bureau of Mines, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Department of Health, Central Office,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and Region V, Levistown,
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Department of Forests and Waters,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Department of Mines and Mineral Industries,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
National Planning Association, Washington, D. C,
Local Municipal Officials
Local Industrial Representatives
Local Consulting Engineers
-------
-------
II - 1
II. GENERAL
A. Source of Information
Present water quality conditions covered in this report
were evaluated by staff of the Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River
Basins Project, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
employing the following sources of information:
1. Industrial water and waste facilities inventories
gathered from questionnaires sent by the Pennsyl-
vania Department of Health to industries in the
Susquehanna River Basin.
2. Municipal water and waste facilities inventories
obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of Health.
3. Existing data obtained from files of State, local,
and other Federal agencies.
h. Results of CB-SRBP stream sampling investigations.
5, Public meetings and personal communications with
Federal, State, and local planning agencies.
A biological study of the Susquehanna River and tributaries
by CB-SRBP comprised a special investigation to supplement water
quality sampling data of chemical, biochemical, and bacteriological
characteristics for streams throughout the study area. Brief sum-
maries of the biological studies are given along with summaries of
quality data for most of the areas covered in this report, For
more details of the biological conditions of streams throughout
-------
p
II - 2
the Susquehanna River Basin, findings are presented in two pre-
vious CB-SRBP reports (CB-SRBP Working Documents Nos. 1 and 2).
A mine drainage study was undertaken by CB-SRBP to delineate
areas, problems, and general corrective measures for mine drainage
pollution in the Susquehanna, Potomac, and Delaware Basins. The
findings of the mine drainage study are summarized briefly in this
report only to point out the effect of mine drainage on water
quality in the stream reaches under consideration. Detailed find-
ings are presented in the CB-SRBP Mine Drainage Report.
For evaluations of future water supply and water quality
requirements, county population and industrial productivity pro-
jections developed by the National Planning Association were
employed. The I960 IL S. Census Report was used as a base from
which individual community projections were made. Industrial
loadings were projected by type of industry on an individual pro-
duction increase basis. Modifications were made to industrial
projections when specific information was obtained regarding
changes in processing, techniques, or plant operation.
B. Determination of" Needs
Water quality needs were evaluated in terms of treatment
required to upgrade and maintain stream conditions which are
generally recognized as being suitable for most beneficial uses,
the minimum use being warm-water fishery. The effects of residual
waste loadings to streams were evaluated with the degree of
-------
treatment specified which was expected to maintain the desired
water quality for the immediate future. In most cases, secondary
treatment with 85 per cent removal of B.O.D. was specified,
Beyond 1980, the degree of treatment and other alterna-
tives are indicated as possible solutions where water quality
problems are anticipated; however, except for secondary treatment
facilities, the methods proposed for future actions are only
given for consideration, since detailed evaluations of the alter-
natives and comparisons of benefits would be necessary to select
the most likely alternative.
Cost estimates for upgrading present facilities to second-
ary treatment were obtained mostly from consulting engineers who
have completed studies of needed treatment facilities for many
of the municipalities. For communities not having engaged an
engineer, cost estimates were made of the plant proper, employing
construction cost information from the Public Health Service
Publication No. 1229, "Modern Sewage Treatment Plants - How Much
Do They Cost," and updating these costs with the Public Health
Service - Sewage Treatment Plant current cost index (HIS-SI?
llU.U). For some communities, costs of treatment plants ware
estimated by the Pennsylvania Department of Health in previous
years and, where these estimates were available, the ••osts ve-": -_-
updated to indicate current dollar values.
-------
-------
II - k
Needs or abatement measures to control mine drainage
pollution are discussed separately in the CB-SRBP Mine Drainage
Report; cost estimates of reducing mine drainage pollution in
the study are are given for two methods, land reclamation and
lime neutralization. Since mine drainage pollution control needs
are discussed in greater detail in a separate document, only
general coverage is given in this report. However, in areas
where pollution problems result from mine drainage as well as
organic wastes, measures to upgrade stream quality for beneficial
uses must include consideration of both sources.
In evaluating the adequacy of waste treatment facilities
in areas affected by mine drainage, an assumption was made that
mine drainage would be reduced to such an extent that acidity
and heavy metals associated with mine drainage would not impair
the natural assimilative capacities of the stream. Although
initial steps to control mine drainage may not entirely eliminate
the toxic effects of acids and heavy metals during the immediate
years ahead, measures to control or reduce mine drainage should
not be prerequisites to the provision of adequate waste treat-
ment facilities. Therefore, in making waste assimilative evalua-
tions to determine the degree of waste treatment for both present
and future, the above assumption was made; otherwise, with mine
drainage present, stream biota would be inhibited or eliminated
so that waste assimilation could not readily be determined if
occurring at all.
-------
-------
II - 5
C. State Stream Classifications
The Pennsylvania Sanitary Water Board classified State
streams in terms of degree of treatment required. In accordance
with the currently assigned classification, new treatment plants
presently being planned or constructed to discharge to the Juniata
River or tributaries must include secondary treatment facilities.
Municipalities and industries not having secondary treatment
facilities and presently responsible for evident water quality
degradation are being placed under orders to take immediate action
for the provision of secondary treatment. Where secondary treat-
ment facilities are not presently provided, but the wastes are
not causing an apparent water quality problem, the communities
and industries will be required to provide secondary treatment
facilities in the near future before water quality degradation
becomes evident.
For streams impregnated with mine drainage, waste treat-
ment has, in most cases, not been required. However, as mine
drainage is eliminated or reduced substantially so that natural
waste assimilation may occur, the tributary streams formerly con-
taining mine drainage are reclassified to upgrade water quality.
The stream classifications presented in this report are those
currently designated by the Sanitary Water Board for streams in
Pennsylvania; these classifications should not be interpreted to
be representative of the effects of future water quality standards.
-------
-------
II - 6
This report delineates specific actions taken by Pennsyl-
vania Sanitary Water Board where municipalities and industries
have been given orders to upgrade treatment facilities. In some
cases, where a marginal water quality problem existed or where
water quality degradation was not evident as a result of primary
treated wastes being discharged to the watercourse, secondary
treatment facilities were assumed to be necessary in the near
future.
D. Comprehensive Planning of Water Resources of the
Susquehanna River Basin
J^ _ There exists within the Susquehanna River Basin a formal
^B interagency coordinating committee chaired by the Corps of
Engineers and on which the Project is an active participant.
Membership consists of governor-appointed State representatives
from New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, as well as water-
| oriented Federal agencies. The purpose of the Committee is to
recommend, a water resources development plan to Congress, based
on evaluating alternative solutions, including costs, to meet
Basin needs.
Since all aspects of water resource development, in-
cluding water pollution control, are being considered, no attempt
has been made to prejudge the Committee findings beyond defining
immediate waste treatment needs in this report. Evaluations are
presently underway by the agencies acting as a work group and,
upon completion, not only immediate water resource needs and
solutions, but also the long-range needs will be determined.
-------
II - 7
E. Susquehanna River Basin Compact
The conservation, utilization, development, management,
and control of the water resources of the Susquehanna River Basin
involve complex, technical, time-consuming efforts by a large
number of governmental agencies cooperating to formulate a basin-
wide program.
In order to avoid duplication, overlapping, and uncoordi-
nated efforts from this large number of cooperating agencies, the
Interstate Advisory Committee on the Susquehanna River Basin, which
was created by the action of the States of New York, Pennsylvania,
and Maryland, has, on the basis of its studies and deliberations,
recommended that an intergovernmental compact with Federal partici-
pation be formed. In an area as large as the Susquehanna River
Basin, where approximately three million people live and work,
comprehensive multi-purpose planning and administration by a basin-
wide agency is necessary to bring the greatest benefits and produce
the most efficient service in the public interest.
Comprehensive planning with basin-wide administration
will provide flood damage reduction; conservation and development
of surface and ground water supply for municipal, industrial,
and agricultural use; development of recreational facilities in
relation to reservoirs, lakes, and streams; propagation of fish
and game; promotion of land management, soil conservation, and
watershed projects; protection and aid to fisheries; development
of hydroelectric power potentialities; improved navigation; control
-------
-------
II - 8
of movement of salt water; abatement and control of water pollu-
tion; and regulation of stream flows toward the attainment of
these goals.
The Advisory Committee has prepared a draft of an inter-
governmental compact for the creation of a Basin Agency. The
States of New York, Maryland, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
and the United States of America, upon enactment of concurrent
legislation by the Congress and by the respective State legis-
latures, agree with each other to the Susquehanna River Compact.
To date both the States of New York and Maryland have passed
legislation to adopt the Compact.
-------
-------
Ill - 1
ITT. SUMMARY
A. Water Quality
The Juniata River and. tributaries are generally clean
streams with high dissolved oxygen concentrations prevalent
throughout. The rugged topography which characterizes this
Sub-Basin produces shallow and turbulent streams, enabling rapid
assimilation of organic wastes. On all but two major tributaries,
Little Juniata River and Frankstown Branch, stream flows appear
to be adequate to assimilate secondary treated wastes and maintain
water quality suitable for most beneficial uses through year 2020.
For localized areas in the Little Juniata River and Frankstown
Branch Watersheds, waste treatment plant discharges from munici-
palities and paper manufacturing industries are seriously degrading
water quality. In these areas, population and industrial concen-
trations combined with extremely low flows during the late summer
months severely limit most beneficial areas of the streams.
1. Little Juniata River
Low stream flows relative to the secondary treated waste
flows from the northeastern portion of Altoona result in water
quality degradation of the Little Juniata River, with recovery
apparently occurring at Tyrone, nine miles downstream. However,
the secondary treatment plant at Tyrone, overloaded primarily
from the waste discharges by the West Virginia Pulp and Paper
Company, discharges wastes which adversely affect water quality
of the River for approximately ten miles downstream.
-------
-------
Ill - 2
Expansion of the treatment plant at Tyrone and/or pos-
sibly pre-treatment by West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company are
actions which are expected to alleviate the immediate degraded
conditions; however, to improve and maintain water quality suit-
able for most uses, it appears that additional treatment or other
suitable alternatives must be provided. Flow regulation as a
means of quality control in the Altoona-Tyrone Area would be
expensive if at all feasible because of limited upstream drainage
areas. Land application appears to warrant consideration as a
possible means of reducing waste loads to the Little Juniata River,
particularly since 200 acres of the flood plain between Altoona
and Tyrone can be irrigated.
2. Frankstown Branch
Frankstown Branch, approximately 38 miles upstream from
the mouth, is initially degraded by discharges from Halter Creek.
Halter Creek receives treated wastes from the secondary treatment
plants at Roaring Springs and the Bare Division of Combined Paper
Mills, Inc., the Paper Mill discharging by far the greater waste
loads» Investigations by CB-SRBP reveal that these waste dis-
charges exceed the assimilative capacity of the stream during
the late summer months. Possible pollution control measures to
alleviate the degraded conditions include advanced waste treat-
ment with land application or waste diversion to the Frankstown
Brancho A study conducted by the Pennsylvania Department of Health
-------
-------
Ill - 3
is expected to result in necessary action being taken by Roaring
Spring and the Paper Mill to alleviate the immediate pollution
problem.
The Frankstown Branch does not recover from the degraded
conditions upstream, resulting from the Halter Creek discharges,
prior to receiving additional treated effluents from Holidaysburg
and Williamsburg. The West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company at
Williamsburg discharges primary treated effluents to the stream
and is the main contributor responsible for further degradation
downstream. The Paper Mill is constructing a new secondary treat-
ment plant which will reduce considerably the amount of waste
discharged in this reach. However, reduction of the upstream
waste loadings originating in the Roaring Spring Area is essen-
tial for water quality improvement throughout the Frankstown
Branch.
3. Kishacoquillas Creek
Kishacoquillas Creek, discharging to the Juniata River
at Lewistown, is degraded throughout the lower reaches by untreat-
ed effluents from individual communities adjacent to Lewistown.
The communities are planning for the provision of sewers which
will connect to the Lewistown system. These facilities will
|
Itt greatly alleviate the water quality problem of Kishacoquillas
1
Creek.
1
-------
Ill - h
h. Juniata River
The Juniata River throughout receives untreated and pri-
mary waste effluents from small communities or boroughs. However,
in many cases water quality degradation is not evident because of
the relatively large flows and rapid assimilative characteristics
of the Juniata River. Nevertheless, most of these communities
presently discharging untreated wastes are under orders by the
Pennsylvania Sanitary Water Board to provide for secondary treat-
ment. Those communities presently discharging primary waste
effluents to the Juniata River are, in some cases, under orders
to expand the facilities to secondary immediately and, in other
cases, where water quality degradation is not"now evident, will
be required to provide secondary treatment in the near future
before a water quality problem develops.
B. Immediate Pollution Control Needs
1. Waste Treatment
The most pressing need in the study area is for the
provision of adequate treatment facilities to control pollution
at its source.
Current treatment practices, needs, and cost estimates
for municipalities and industries in the study area are shown
in Table 1, ( Cost estimates include treatment plant facilities
and appurtenances unless otherwise noted.)
-------
Ill - 5
"below:
A general summary of the Juniata Sub-Basin needs is given
1. Two existing municipal secondary plants
to be expanded or modified to increase
the level of efficiency to secondary.
2. Two existing secondary plants (one
municipal and one industrial) requiring
advanced waste treatment or other
feasible alternative.
3- Two existing industrial primary plants
to be expanded to secondary.
h. Seven secondary treatment plants to
be provided to serve 9 communities
which currently have no treatment or
employ septic tanks. Cost with appur-
tenances:
5. Four communities now having no treat-
ment or employing septic tanks to
provide secondary facilities. Cost
without appurtenances:
$500,000
costs
undetermined
$650,000
$5,309,000
$307,000
-------
-------
Ill - 6
6. Five communities to provide sewers to
connect to existing municipal systems. $2,372,000
7. One industry now providing no treat-
ment and one industry providing primary
to construct secondary facilities or
connect to existing municipal systems costs
undetermined
Total (exclusive of 2 and 7) $9,138,000
-------
M
CU G
cu ,£ o
-P P -H
d O -p
•p o
CO fc <
o
CO
Q
W
P
CO
jj
H
EH '—
CJ J
d
4^ CD
d >
'pi 0)
ftco
O
PH
.
cu
o
G
d
•H
rH
ft
B
0
a
G
•H
1
0)
G
O
1
1
1
1
1
T3
cu
-P
a
pi
-d
G
O
a
bC
£
•H
(U
,Q
J>^
ro
£3
p
CO
o
o
o
o
u\
CM
-to-
J^
o
G
O
•H
05
G
d
ft
W
cu
r— J
.Q
•H
W
co
O
ft
cu
a
•H
B
JH
CU
-p
•d
o
^
o
-p
G
o
-H
-p
d
t)
•H
CM
•H
0
B
03
£_)
Pi
trQ
d
0)
E
jj_D
G
e
p
d
cu
JH
p
i
0)
^
ft
H
d
^»
o
e
cu
£-,
cu
CO
d
cu
$H
o
£j
•H
.
H
H
•H
s
SH
CU
ft
d
PH
J>^
f>
K*i
O
p*
cu
•H.
O
•H
M
P^
^H
EH
-P
G
O
•H
CO
G
d
ft
X
r?
d
•d
G
o
a
cu
CO
o
0
t-
CQ
G
•H
d
0>
o
§
•H
rH
ft
§
CJ
G
•H
G
O
cu
o
d
•H
rH
&
O
a
G
•H
CU
G
O
CU SH
o o
G -p
d o
•H d
i1
O
o
G
•H
CU
G
O
CO
•H
-P
CO
CO
cu
sc
o
PH
O
o
o
ft
o
o
IPv
H
•ee-
cu
G
O
r?
0}
rd
JH
O
o
cu
CO
o
o
H
ON
ro
cu
G
O
d
ti
G
O
o
cu
CO
o
o
LTV
o
rH
CU
G
O
fe
i7
"ri
G
O
a
cu
CO
o
o
^
r-T
G
O
O
cu
CO
to
d
EH
a
•H
-p
ft
cu
CO
o
0
LA
CJ
•^1
^
Q
K
&-\
<
p
CO
^0)
-p
•H
0
d
G
0
o
-p
H
, — ^
-p
G
d
H
PH
60
CO
b>s
d
r£J
•H
rH
rH
O
CU
H
rH
•H
J>
CO
G
d
0
£1
«
ft
•H
CQ
G
O
EH
G
CU
"bO
CU
rH
H
-------
-------
Ill - 8
CQ
W
pq
p*
r~]
f?4 * — *
x — * "^ rd
•d 03
03 CO 3
G O -H
.H H -P
-P tH G
GOO
O < O
Sg^
M E-t'S'
^ S M
m H o
< <; M
?Y* *2J
E-)_S_
g
r£j
K
CM
j — j
£^}
£-!
SH
0) G
03 ,fl O
+3 -P -l~l
co O -P
-P O
CO JH d
-P G 03
03 03 03
•H a £5
'd -P
03 CO C
S 03 O
£3 5-t >r^
|__| C_| ^-1
C3
<£
-P
-P G
C 03
03 fi
CQ -P
03 CO
5n 03
H
C
o
•H n3
+3 Q)
r~l £H
£$ 3 J>3
-P to co
O TJ
03 -r-l JH
C H 03
K r~i i^
O O 03
O ti4 w
en
•a
(jj
EH
o
•H
-P
f»[
03
CO
O
O
*\
on
"^d
0)
C
•H
-P
O -H
0 .C
' G
W g
0 0
*?" C— J
^ cn
prt cj
PP ^
•s4 °
< W
§ 'C
W cd
^* PM
PQ
03
o
G
CO
•H
, — \
p.
S
o
o
G
•H
1
03
G
O
1
I
I
03
G
O
^H
r*}
M
CO
G
O
O
03
CO
o
0
CO
*N
H
bD
5H
^j
^o
w
CO
H
H
•H
IS
*
co i
w
r>i .,_{
P -P
CD
co to
5-i G
CJ £3
T3
JH W
O to
3
f~{
CO
Ti
G
O
CJ
03
CQ
03
G
O
^
O
CM
— it"
I
O
£-i
O
PQ
CO
•M
£j
G
CO
X
03
H
•
1>3
5^
o
-p
CJ
CO
C,
•H
-P
C
03
5n •
5n 03
3 O
O C
CO
I -H
-
o o
fe o
G
O
o
CO
O
O
CM
G
-H
>>
H
-P
03
M •
5-1 03
3 0
0 C
CO
1 -r-1
r-l
03 PH
G £H
0 0
G
>>
i-l
-P
G
03
5-i •
J-i 03
3 O
CJ G
CO
1 -r-l
r-l
03 pi
^ P3
0 0
SH co
03 0)
P4 03 5-1
,Q Ml •
G O >5
O G 5-i 5-i
•H O Pn O
•P O -P
O CO O
3 • CO
-P -p 03 CQ
CQ d -H
G -P M .p
O -rl CQ CO
5n
CO
•d
C
o
o
03
CO
O
o
oo
cd
•d
G
O
o
03
CO
O
O
1TN
CM
o a
O
O
O
cs
CM
O
VD
cd
1
o
03
w
w
.M
G
CO
H
o
•H
-P
03
co
CM
o
£H
o
pq
M
p>
M
K
<£
E-t
1-1
1
C
o
•d
G
•H
-P
G
^J
hD
K
O
§
p-1
pQ
J^H
^
O
CO
p?
0
O
O
pq
r^j
£_l
o
CM
*d
03
.G
«)
O
O
pq
•p
4^>
03
^
03
>
03
O
C
03
•H
>
O
5-.
£X|
-p
CO
CO
-------
-------
t-t
0) G
0) £2, O
-P -P -iH
CO O -P
•P O
O
CD -P
-P O
g (D -P
•H O O
•P )H O
CO CU
-d
-p
w
£>5
-P
•H
rH
-H
tO
•H
W
£0
CD
pt^
O
o
o
H
H
''•O
•
G
,-Q^
CO
-P
^
tu
•d
C
^
factory
10
•H
-P
CO
to
w
w
Q)
£*]
bD
O
m
(Xj
0
o
-p
-p
•H
s
,0
3
w
CO
G
CO
i — 1
P-i
O^
cT
vD
i«
O
PH'
i — |
to
0
f-^
ft
CO
0)
-p
CO
-p
m
o
.p
o
CO
to
•H
-P
cc
w
to
w
0)
J^
bO
bO
G
_-H
(1)
CD
O
o
ft
-p
3
O
O
*
*
*
0
o
o
CO
ON
-ea-
gres s
o
PH
>
cr
^
0)
na
G
K^
£H
0
-p
o
CO
w
•H
•P
CO
CO
-69-
H
-p
a
CO
£-1
£*4
ni
O
1
CD
G
O
J2^
CO
O
G
CO
•H
H
ftn
£3
0
O
c
•H
bfi
C
•H
^4
CD
CD
G
•H
bO
G
W
*
*
*
0
O
o
U"M
0\
-€O"
taken.
J^
0)
•d
3
w
Q)
•H
T)
-P
CO
sfactory
.H
-P
cd
ta
to
co
0>
bO
O
PH
J-J-Jl
r$
C^
CO
0)
r^
J_^
o
^
cu
G
P
*
*
*
0
O
o
H
c^
-
to
ca
0)
^4
bfl
0
P4
•
g
CQ
• ^
t.
0
-P
CJ
CO
to
•H
-P
CD
CO
2
1
•d
CU
-p
CO
r-l
ft
0
o
CO
c
cd
,-t
P^
O
O
o
o
CM
-ee-
sfactory
•H
-p
CO
CO
W
CO
a)
bO
0
p.
4) -P
-P G
CO CU
•H £3
TTl -P
CD cd
S CU
K ^4
M EH
-P
(D
ta
Q)
j^
P-4
G
O
•H
-P
CO
r-4
0
•d
Q)
•d
CD
CD
^j
G
0
•H
-P
O
-P
C
6
-p
cd
CD
^
E-'
T3
(D
r*
i^j
O
-P
to
O
o
CO
G
cd
H
O
•H
•P
co
to
O
o
O
•H
CO
•d
fH
O
T3
CU
m
cd
G
O
O
CD
CO
(D
G
O
O
o
hO
o
«
o
-p
X
CO
CO
•s
o
o
cu
CO
o
CQ
G
O
-H
G
-P
G
CO
-a
C
o
o
Q)
CO
0)
G
O
CM
CM
$f
O
EH
rH
•H
CO
G
O
O
0)
CO
0)
G
o
O
PQ
G
o
-p
o
r-l
ft
:§
cd
-d
§
o
0)
CO
Q)
C
o
52;
IfN
C-
ro
•a
rs
o
h
o
CD
•-I
-P
W
•H
-------
-------
CO
fi
p=p
0) G
CU ^ O
-P P -H
co O -P
O
P
W
fn
O
-d
CU -P
-P O
•H O O
-P 5n O
co OH
CU
M
f5j
Q
b? ^ — ^
*-~* <; "d
-d cu
cu co 3
^ W G
G O -H
•H M P
-P EH G
GOO
o — -
^-PH
H EH 1-3
S ^J
a§ft
PQ EH U
< < M
EH W S
CU -P T3
•P C CU
CO CU CU
•H £3 S
•d -P
0) cd G
g cu o
0 J-j »H
M EH -P
o
j
CU rH
W fn O
G bO p
cd o o
r— 1 rH CO
PH PH CM
O
O
O
•N
^r
-^i"
-69-
r-l
-P
G
,
CU JH
rH O
bO P
O 0
rH CO
PH CH
i
CO
•H
•P
CO
CO
CO
CO J>3
CU M
rH O
bO p
O O
fH CO
PH CM
G i
•rH G
•d o
cu EH
-d
3 >>
<-l rH
O rH
G CU
M O
CO
-p
CO
o
o
ft
•H
A
CO
1
CO
•H
-p
CO
CO
CO
CO
cu
rH
bO
O
J_|
PH
G
•H
•d
cu
*d
r-l
O
G
H
.
£>j
^H
o
o
CO
1
G w
? P
o w
EH 0
O
rH ft
rH 'H
CU .G
£T) CO
|
CO
•H
-P
cc
CO
CO
co
cu
fH
bO
O
M
PH
G
•H
•d
CU
•d
H
O
G
H
*
K-*>
M
O
p
O
CO
CM
1
G co
& -P
O CO
EH O
O
1? ft
Jn TH
cu ,G
Q co
III
1
Q)
i-H
fH £3
CO O
G O
•r-l
B G
•H bQ
iH -H
CU CO
fn CU
PH -d
O
8
«
o
m
^
H
- 10
CO •
w >>
CU fH
f-. O
MP
O 0
f-t cO
PH CH
CO
• -H
"d p
CU CO
p w
fH
CO
•d
G
O
o
cu
co
cu
G
O
-69-
$
>>
CO
•d
G
O
O
cu
CO
o
-p
o
cu
G
G
o
o
G
o
-p s
CO CU
•H P
!? CO
cu >>
o
p
-p
a>
G
G
0
o
G
o
-p
CO
•H
£
0)
>-3
a
-p
w
?5
co
o
p
-p
o
cu
C
G
o
o
G
o
-p
CO
•H
Is
cu
s
cu
4^
CO
>>
v>
o
-p
p
CJ
cu
G
C
o
0
G
o
p £3
CO CU
•H -P
fe CO
cu >>
I-H1 W
lu5
CO
•d
G
o
CJ
cu
co
G
CO
EH
O
•H
-P
CO
W
A;
G
CO
EH
O
•H
-P
ft
CU
co
cu
C
o
0)
C
o
CO
G
CO
EH
O
•H
-P
ft
CU
co
G
O
•H
-P CU
CO
O
O
CM
o
o
o
MD
O
O
CVJ
O
O
O
o
H
0
PH
G
C
•P
CO
o
0
1 —
^—^
•d
cu
jj
G
•H
P
G
O
O
PH
ryi
E>
H
*^
EH
H
cd
•H
C
0
*f-{
^Q
$_{
O
•d
CO
CO
1 1 rG
H bO
•H 3
W O
fH
Ai O
o pq
O
PS
•a
3
O
^i
O
o
-p
w
•H
£
CU
r-H
ft
"H
,G
CO
O
EH
rH
fs
CU
CU
iafl
CO
r-l
H
O
p
rH
CU
bO
cO
CU
>H
O
O
o
CO
o 6
rH CU
P
CH co
CD >>
O
cd
C
co
H
•a
•H
ft
'iH
^)
CO
o
EH
G
O
.r-l
G
P
-------
-------
CO
1
ej, — ^
r •> t_l *d
rrj 5
^
CO
C
•H
S
•H
H
CU
fa
fM
C
•H
tJ
CU
*d
jj
r-l
0
C
M
0
-P
-P
CJ
cu
C
o
o
w
H V\ C
P-t fH
EH
C
O
"H TJ
-P CU
CO >
r-l 5s
3 0)
P* C.Q
o
PH
C
O
•H
-P
CO
O
I j
o
£5
f^)
VD
••v
H
.f — •>,
*&
U)
^5
C
•H
-P
C
O
C_^
V f
CT*
CrQ i — 1
M H
pc; -H
^
«-H
0
1 -p
O 0
it CO
OH 5
^
cO
•iH
fa
P-i
O
o
•N
r-l
CJ
3
O
-p
C
•H
rH
CM
CM
•H
23
K^
rH
1 -P •
a t^ co
O (U 0
O S-i C
H co
C 3 -H
•H <• OH
CU p!
i o i a
c o
cu co cu o
£ "iH CIJ
o rH on
^ P, K -H
1 1
1 1
1 1
VH
CO
Tl
a
o
o
cu
CO
£?
CO >3
"d fr*
C CO
o S
0 -H
O -P
P-I ^
O
-I-* Q\
£n >5
O O
f^ &
0)
rd
-p
C
•H
>5
J^
CO
CO
co
CU
O
CU
C
rrj
CU
a
CO
w
CO
-P
C
cu
a
-p
CO
o>
-p
r>j
£_l
CO
•d
a
o
o
cu
w
-p"
C
CO
p*
ca
>>
rH
-P
C
fa
?g
o
-p
o
a
a
rH
£>
O
^
Oj
K*3
43 »
•H OJ
i — 1 f-j
cd 0
'j r*)
CT* ^i
Cj_(
?H
Q) ?H
-P 03
05 4)
t5- fl
*
•
, ^
_jj-
•
•-H
H
X
-d
C
M
Ps
EH
i
£j3
PH
^--
CO
-p
CO
o
o
0
•H
-P
CJ
^
fa
-p
w
C
O
o
-p
C
cu
£H
^j
O
C
O
T-!
CU
CO
CO
5^
H
C
O
-p
C
ca
H
PH
40
a
-------
-------
o
11
0) ^J O
-P -P -H
CO O -P
-P O
co M <
O
Ill - 13
>-p
fd o
3 3
•p -d
w G
O
M O
-|H
r— H p^
03
PQ
-° c
'S I
-p -p
o J-t
O
o
OJ
o
-p
0)
i
0)
-p
c
I
•p
CO
-p
CO At
CO
•H
G
CO ,£5
> -P
rH r-H
>5 CO
w a;
G W
G
0)
CO
G
O
O
i-i a)
o co
Q)
o
G
cfl
•H
3 O
o1 o
M O
CO O
*d •»
G O
o o
O -3-
m
•H
f-i
PH
O
O
H
CM
G
CO
o
G)
W
o
o
w
•H
G
CO
O
•H
-------
-------
HI - lU
2. Comprehensive Evaluations
Investigations made by the FWPCA and other cooperating
Federal, State, and local agencies indicate a definite need in
some areas for pollution control action in addition to the
provision of conventional waste treatment facilities. Minimum
stream flows in waste discharge receiving streams will not be
sufficient to assimilate the waste loads from certain municipal
areas in the near future, based on evaluations of projected popu-
lation and industrial growth. Alternative methods of protecting
and enhancing the water quality in the Basin, in the face of popu-
lation and industrial growth, urbanization, and technological
change are being evaluated by agencies cooperatively participating
on the Coordinating Committee in workshop sessions discussed in
Section II, Paragraph D. Upon completion of the evaluations,
findings will be submitted to the Committee for final decisions
on methods to be adopted. While no attempt has been made in this
report to prejudge the Committee findings beyond defining immediate
waste treatment needs, the various alternatives to be evaluated,
based on investigations of needs in the area are suggested.
Three methods of providing supplemental pollution abatement
and control in areas requiring more than the protection provided by
conventional waste treatment facilities are generally considered
and are as follows:
Hi
-------
-------
Ill - 15
F low JRegula tlon
Areas having a need for possible flow regulation and in
which potential reservoir sites have been or will be evaluated
are listei as follows:
Location
Responsibility
and Site No.
Need
Tyrone Area
Roaring Spring
Area
SCS #12-6
SCS #12-11
COE #129
SCS #11-6
Little Juniata - Storage to pro-
vide supplemental flow for water
quality control.
Frankstown Branch - Storage to
provide supplemental flow for
water quality control.
Waste Diversion
Because of limited drainage area and/or no potential
reservoir sites upstream, the following areas may require as a
possible alternative waste flow diversion to less critically de-
graded reaches:
Location
He spons ib ility
Need
Altoona Area
(Northeast)
Tyrone Area
Altoona Community
Tyrone Community
Reduce waste loads in Little
Juniata River at Altoona by
diverting treated waste dis-
charge to Juniata River down-
stream from the Spring Creek
confluence.
Reduce waste loads in the
Little Juniata River by
connecting to waste diversion
line from Altoona.
-------
Ill - 16
Location
?.e spons ib ility
Need
Roaring Springs 1.
Area 2,
Soaring Springs
Bare Division
of Combined
Paper Mills
Reduce waste loads in Halter
Creek by diverting treated
waste loads to Frankstovn
Branch.
Advanced Waste Treatment
Advanced waste treatment facilities designed to remove greater
than 85 per cent of the organic solids from waste discharges will
be considered as an alternative method of protecting and enhancing
water quality in all of the areas listed above.
3. Special Studies
Listed below are the areas in which a need for special
studies is indicated. <
Location
Responsibility
Need
Headwater Tri-
butaries
Tyrone Area
Roaring Spring
Area
Lewistown Area
FWPCA and State
of Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Pulp and Paper
Company
Bare Division of
Combined Paper
Mills
Baldwin-Lima-
Hamilton, FWPCA,
and State of
Pennsylvania
A mine drainage abatement pro-
gram for sources in tributary
watersheds upstream from
Altoona.
Evaluation of pre-treatment
or process modifications to
reduce waste loadings from
the paper mill.
Evaluations of present pro-
cessing and waste reduction
practices.
Conduct study to determine
extent of thermal pollution
of Kishacoquillas Creek by
Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton„
-------
Ill - 17
Location
Responsibility
Need
Basin-Wide
FWPCA
Utilize data compiled from
various studies conducted in
the Basin in mathematical
simulations of the river system.
h. Institutional Practices
A need for action on pollution control measures "by various
Federal, State, and local institutions in Juniata Basin is indicated
"by the findings of this study.
Pollution control programs would be enhanced and strengthened
by the following institutional practices:
Location
Responsibility
Need
M
Basin~Wide
Basin-Wide
Basin-Wide
Basin-Wide
State of Pennsyl-
vania
Congress of United
States
State of Pennsyl-
vania
Congress of the
United States
and State Legis-
lation .
Prepare and adopt standards on
intrastate streams.
Enact legislation which provides
authority for Soil Conservation
Service projects in headwater
areas to include storage for
flow regulation for water
quality control.
Consider expansion of water
quality control surveillance
program (including treatment
plant operation and maintenance),
Enact legislation authorizing
the establishment of a pollu-
tion control authority for
the Susquehanna River Basin.
-------
Ill - 18
C. Recent Pollution Control Progress
1. Pennsylvania
The Pennsylvania State Legislature, during the 1966
session passed a $500,000,000 bond issue, which, if voted favor-
ably by the public, will provide $100,000,000 to the Pennsylvania
Department of Health for sewage treatment construction grant
purposes. In addition, $200,000,000 will be allocated to mine
drainage abatement measures, such as reclamation of areas dis-
turbed by mining activities. The other $200,000,000 will be
spent on construction and development of recreational areas.
The Pennsylvania Clean Stream Act, which became effec-
tive in January 19^6, is another step toward improvement of
water quality in areas affected by mine drainage. The Act pro-
hibits discharge of acid waters or other polluting discharges
from active coal mines. Enforcement actions are being taken
by the Pennsylvania Sanitary Water Board under the new regula-
tions for cases not in compliance with the Act. In addition to
the Clean Streams Act, the Board has revised its regulations on
the discharges from coal washing operations. Previously, dis-
charges from these operations could contain as high as 1,000 mg/1
of suspended solids such as coal fines and other inert materials;
the revised regulations limit the discharges to 200 mg/1.
-------
r
p
III - 19
2. Federal and State Cooperative Agencies
Federal and State agencies, cooperatively conducting
comprehensive water resource surveys of the Susquehanna River
Basin, have met a number of times during Fiscal Year 19&7 a^
Workshop Sessions called by the Corps of Engineers. These
agencies have prepared individual reports which delineate
specific water resource needs; this information serves as input
to the multi-purpose planning in the development of the compre-
hensive water resource program. These meetings to date have
resulted in initial coverage of the entire Basin, merging the
needs from each of the participating agencies and indicating
possible methods of meeting the needs, such as potential reser-
voir sites to provide storage for flood control, recreation,
water supply, water quality control, and agricultural irrigation
purposes. Subsequent meetings will involve detailed planning,
including alternative methods of providing for the needs prior
to formulation of the Basin program.
D. Water Supply
Municipal and industrial water usage in the Juniata
River Sub-Basin currently amounts to about 51 mgd and is expect-
ed to increase to about 160 mgd by year 2020. The three largest
water using areas are Altoona, Tyrone, and Lewistown, having
estimated needs of approximately H5, 22, and 53 mgd, respectively,
by 2020. Altoona and Tyrone are two areas expected to experience
-------
Ill - 20
serious water shortage problems in the future. By 1980 it is
anticipated that the Altoona area will have to consider other
watersheds or extensive ground water development to satisfy the
demands s Prior to 2000., the Tyrone area is expected to need
additional sources of supply, possibly from potential ground
water sources or from the Juntata Biver when the present quality
is upgraded. Potential ground or surface water resources appear
to be available to satisfy needs through 2020 for the other
areas covered in this report.
-------
-------
IV - 1
IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA
A0 Location
The Juniata River drains an area of approximately 3,^00
square miles in south central Pennsylvania (see location map).
The Juniata River Sub-Basin is bounded to the north by the West
Branch Susquehanna River, to the east by the Susquehanna River,
to the south by the Potomac River, and to the vest by the Allegheny
River. The Juniata River joins the Susquehanna River at Duncannon,
approximately 12 miles northwest of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
All of Blair and Huntingdon Counties are located within
the confines of the Basin. Portions of ten other Counties con-
stitute the remainder of the drainage area. Juniata drainage,
by County, is as follows:
Area Draining to Juniata
County
Bedford .
Blair
Cambria
Centre
Franklin
Fulton
Huntingdon
Juniata
Mifflin
Perry
Snyder
Somerset
(Square Miles)
710
523
9
16
33
Ih6
895
370
hlB
235
lU
31
-------
-------
IV - 2
Principal tributaries are the Little Juniata River and
Frankstown Branch (which join to form the Juniata River), Stand-
ing Stone Creek, Raystown Branch, Aughwick Creek, Kishacoquillas
Creek, and Tuscarora Creek.
B. Climate
The Juniata River Basin has a temperate climate with
four sharply defined seasons. The average annual temperature is
51° F., with extremes recorded at 31° F. below zero and 106° F.
above zero. Precipitation is well distributed throughout the
year, with an average of Uo inches annually. The total average
snowfall varies from about 28 to ^9 inches.
C. Topography
Virtually the entire Juniata River Basin lies within the
Appalachian Highlands in the mountainous physiographic province
known as the "Ridge and Valley" Region. This Region is charac-
terized by an alternate succession of long ridges and valleys
generally oriented from southwest to northeast. The ridges com-
prising the western part of the Basin are steep and rugged;
whereas, the eastern part is more "rolling" in nature. A small
area on the western edge of the Basin drains a part of the
Appalachian Plateau.
Extremes in elevation range from 2,900 feet above mean
sea level at the Appalachian Plateau on the western boundary of
-------
-------
IV - 3
the Basin to 3^0 feet above mean sea level at the confluence of
the Juniata and Susquehanna Rivers.
Forests occupy approximately 63 per cent of the total
Basin area and, for the most part, cover the higher ridges and
mountains. Farm land is predominately confined to the lower,
more fertile valleys and encompasses approximately 25 per cent
of the Basin area. The shale valleys are characterized by poor,
thin soil of mediocre fertility. Limestone valleys, fewer in
number than the shale valleys, are more conducive to farming,
especially dairying.
D. Geology
The Ridge and Valley Region is underlain with folded and
faulted rocks, predominately of. the Paleozoic age. These forma-
tions can be described as a sequence of alternating hard and soft
"sedimentary" rocks (shale, sandstone, and limestone) that have
been severely folded by lateral compression into a series of
anticlines and synclines. Thence, the entire area was slowly
base-leveled by erosion, and hard and soft layers alike were
I " reduced to a nearly uniform surface. Finally, there followed a
general uplift of the Region which resulted in valley-forrdng
I stream erosion of limestone and shale rocks. The more resistant
rocks, such as sandstone and quartzite, stand out as the long,
narrow ridges. A relatively small area located in the southwestern
portion of the Region is underlain with folded shale, sandstone,
-------
-------
IV - k
conglomerate, and bituminous coal (mostly of the Pennsylvania^
age). This area is generally referred to as the Broad Top Coal
Field. The abundance of fine quality limestone and sandstone
deposits has led to large-scale quarrying of these minerals in
1 various parts of the Basin.
A small portion of the extreme western edge is within
• the Appalachian Plateau Region. The underlying rocks are nearly
I horizontal and are of Devonian, Mississippian, and Pennsylvanian
age. These formations consist of alternating shale, sandstone,
I limestone, and bituminous coal.
I E. Principal Communities and Industries
The City of Altoona, with a I960 population of 69,1*07,
is the largest community within the study area. Other important
communities and their I960 populations are the Boroughs of Lewis-
town (12,61*0), Tyrone (7,792), Huntingdon (7,23*0, Hollidaysburg
(6,1*75), Mount Union (l*,09l), and Bedford (3,696).
Major industries include railroad shops; the manufacture
of paper, leather, metal, and textile products; the production
of bituminous coal, clay, glass, sand, stone, and foodstuffs; and
electrical power. Important companies represented in the area
are the Pennsylvania Electric Company; Saxton Nuclear Electrical
Company; West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company; Bare Division of
Combined Paper Mills, Inc.; Pennsylvania Railroad Yards; American
Viscose Corporation; and Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Division of
Standard Steel Corporation.
-------
-------
V - 1
V. WATER POLLUTION PROBLEMS, NEEDS, AND COSTS
A. Little Juniata River
1. Altoona Area (Northeast)
a. Current Water Quality
The Altoona Area is located on a ridge between two adjoin-
ing watersheds—the Little Juniata River on the north and the
Frankstown Branch on the south. Because of the location and asso-
ciated hydrologic factors, primarily the existence of only small
headwater streams, water shortage is already a problem. To add
to the delicate situation, streams emanating from the Glen White
Coal Area above Altoona within the Little Juniata Watershed are
tainted with mine drainage, making them generally unsatisfactory
for most beneficial uses, including much needed sources of water
supply.
The City of Altoona is the major water user and waste
source in the area. Altoona is currently complying with Pennsyl-
vania Sanitary Water Board requirements in providing secondary
treatment at two plants—the Northeast Plant, discharging to the
Little Juniata River, and the Southwest Plant, discharging to
the Frankstown Branch (see Section V-B).
At present, approximately Hi per cent of Altoona's wastes,
following treatment at the Northeast Plant, are discharged into
the Little Juniata River. Waste sources in the area are as
follows:
-------
-------
V - 2
Est.
'»• Population Flow
Location Treatment Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
,„ Altoona Secondary- 26,900S 5-0 Little Juniata River
Industries 12,000 Altoona Sewers
*
Estimated population equivalent
&•
Although shallow and turbulent stream conditions enhance
I...
reaeration and enable rapid assimilation of organic wastes in this
area, stream flows are extremely small in comparison with waste
• water discharges. Consequently, water quality downstream from
I - waste outfalls is moderately degraded, particularly during sum-
mer months when stream flows of 12 to 15 cfs are common. The
I following table summarizes stream sampling data of the Little
Juniata River approximately four miles downstream from the North-
east Plant waste outfall.
I
I
Little Juniata River
Indicator Downstream from Altoona
• . D.O. (mg/1) " 5.3 - 12.1
B.O.D. (5-day) (mg/l) 2-7 - 5-0
I ' Net Alkalinity (mg/l) £>k - 110
Biological Summary
| Only sludgeworms were present in the sample collected downstream
from Altoona. Nine miles further downstream, immediately up-
I stream from Tyrone, six kinds of bottom organisms were observed,
predominately clean-water associated mayflies.
Results of the sampling program conducted by CB-SRBP in
the summer of 19o5 indicate that the stream is not seriously
-------
V - 3
degraded, based on evaluation of D.O. and BOD concentrations.
However, as evidenced by the biological results, a potential
water quality problem exists but with recovery occurring rapidly
in the reach downstream
Some coal fines were observed in this reach during the
biological survey; however, sampling data indicated that the
acidic conditions encountered in upstream tributaries had es-
sentially been neutralized prior to reaching the Altoona Area
and no longer posed a pollution problem. (For details of the
mine drainage conditions in the Juniata River Sub-Basin, refer
to the CB-SRBP Mine Drainage Report.)
bo Future Water Quality
Although currently the Little Juniata River has a marginal
water quality problem, a definite and more serious problem will
result in the very near future. By 1980 the flows, required to
assimilate secondary effluent from Altoona and maintain optimum
dissolved oxygen (D.O.) levels (5 to 6 mg/l) for fish propagation,
will exceed minimum dependable flows of the Juniata River six
months of the year.
Because of a limited drainage area upstream from Altoona,
flow regulation does not appear to be an alternative solution.
Possible solutions to future problems include: (l) the provision
of advanced waste treatment; (2) waste diversion to a point down-
stream where quality conditions are more favorable to discharge;
-------
-------
V - U
and (3) land application. For waste diversion, a pipeline about
19 miles in length could be provided, vith discharge to the
Juniata River downstream from the Spring Creek confluence. It
would be possible also to receive Tyrone's secondary effluent
in the same line, if this alternative is selected. There are
about 200 acres in the reach between Altoona and Tyrone which
are indicated by the Department of Agriculture as suitable for
irrigation. A second alternative of applying treated effluent
on this land would serve the dual purpose of disposing of wastes
and increasing production of forage crops.
c. Water Supply
Water use in the Altoona Area averages more than 12 mgd.
Usage is expected to increase to ^5 mgd "by 2020t This projected
increase in demand is expected to create serious water shortage
problems. As early as 1980, Altoona will have to consider other
watersheds or extensive ground water developments to satisfy its
needs. The Corps of Engineers has located a site on Bells Gap
Run which, though very expensive, could serve a portion of the
needs. Other solutions will have to be explored, such as recir-
culation of industrial water and, perhaps, even reuse of waste
effluent,
-------
V - 5
«- 2. Tyrone Area
i
a. Current Water Quality
a
i The Borough of Tyrone is locared approximately 12 miles
downstream from Altoona at the confluence of South Bald Eagle
•
Creek and the Little Juniata River. The principal industry in
» the Area, West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company, has been a pre-
dominant economic factor for the past 70 years, Other signifi-
*
cant industries include the Juniata Meat Packing Company, Wilson
Chemical, and the West End Laundry.
Waste sources in the area are:
i Est.
Population Flow
Location Treatment Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
Tyrone
West Virginia Pulp
and Paper Company
Wilson Chemical
Other Industries
Snyder Township
Juniata Packing
West End Laundry
Secondary
Septic Tank
Primary
None
13
63
-
5
3
1
1
,000
,000
*
,000
,329*
,800*
,600"
2.
5,
0,
0.
—
0.
—
3
U
02
3
025
-
Little
Tyrone
Tyrone
Tyrone
Little
Little
Juniata
Sewers
Sewers
Sewers
Juniata
Juniata
River
River
River
Estimated population equivalent
Although stream flows (20 to 30 cfs during late summer
months) in the Little Juniata River at Tyrone are approximately
twice the flow at Altoona, these flows are inadequate to assimilate
the waste loadings from the Tyrone Area- Biological, "bacterio-
logical, and chemical sampling results reveal marked evidence of
degradation downstream from Tyrone, in contrast to the conditions
-------
-------
v - 6
immediately upstream Excessively high color and coliform counts
discourage use of this stream reach as a water supply source. A
summary of stream survey results is given below:
Little -Juniata River at Tyrone
Indicator Upstream Downstream
D.O. (mg/l) 5>3 - 12,1 3,H - 11.8
Coliforms/100 ml - 30,000 - 850,000
B.Q.Do (5-day) (mg/l) 2.7 - 5-0 H.I - 11.8
Biological Summary
Upstream - Six kinds of "bottom organisms were observed; clean-
water associated mayflies were the predominant forms.
Downstream - Only two kinds of pollution-tolerant snails were
observed, indicating biological degradation.
The degraded water quality conditions arise primarily
from overloaded conditions at the Tyrone treatment plant, which
was designed to provide secondary treatment. The plant receives
high solids discharges from the West Virginia Pulp and Paper
Company. The plant operation io in violation of Sanitary Water
Board requirements. At present the municipality indicates no
expansion of the existing treatment plant facilities; however,
a study is currently being1 made by a local consulting engineering
firm to determine what addiMonal pre-treatment measures by the
Paper Company will reduce the load on The treatment plant at
Tyrr-ne
-------
-------
1
i
v - 8
30 cfs are not uncommon in this reach during the summer months.
Preliminary estimates indicate that flows of about 80 to 90 cfs
will be needed to adequately assimilate wastes after secondary
treatment (85 per cent reduction in BOD) by year 1980. Based
on the above, it becomes apparent that severe water quality
problems will continue in the future unless additional treatment
is provided or other water quality control measures are undertaken.
Future planning should consider advanced waste treatment;
land application; flow diversion, such as discharging into the
*
19-mile pipeline as discussed in the Section on Altoona; and,
in the case of industry, possibly "in-house" processing or other
changes to reduce quantities of waste loadings. In addition,
there are three potential reservoir sites which may provide flow
regulation from tributaries of South Bald Eagle. Two of these
sites (#12-6 and #12-11) were studied by the Soil Conservation
Service, the other (#129) by the Corps of Engineers. These three
sites could store an estimated 5,000 acre-feet at a cost of about
ten million dollars. Releases from these sites would not be
sufficient to increase Juniata River flows to adequately assimi-
late waste loadings through year 2020. However, the increased
stream flows with advanced waste treatment would result in water
quality more favorable for supporting fish and aquatic life and
for other beneficial uses. Further studies will be needed to
ascertain the feasibility and economics of each alternative and
the effects upon stream quality.
-------
-------
I
1-
B. Frrinkstown Branch
~L . 1^ o ri. r i i . ^ ^ n T I *^ •r'r A ^ c ri
;-•. . Current W-,t ^r r."
'o';r miles UT;-
s^recrn from the confluence \.'it;i "•' r '-:-•.> :; t'~--;n
'-md limestone qunrryinp; i ti(;.js*,r; o:;- '•.r-v-'1 of-.
f3 ct •','"-; in tiie FoaTl/i,'? Surir;-" Ar.v^, TVi--* L
' y
-------
-------
I
I
V - 10
Location
Roaring Spring
Bare Division of
Combined Paper
Mills
Martinsburg
Treatment
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Population
Served
3,000
1^6,000*
1,700
Est.
Flow
(mgd)
0.50
U.O
0.30
Receiving Stream
Halter Creek
Halter Creek
Plum Creek
Estimated population equivalent
Water quality degradation of Plum Creek is not apparent
downstream from Martinsburg. The shallow, turbulent character-
istics of the Creek provide rapid assimilation of the,treated
wastes in the five-mile reach prior to discharge to Halter Creek.
Nevertheless, the secondary treatment plant at Martinsburg is
old and overloaded, which resulted in orders being issued by the
Sanitary Water Board for the Borough to expand the plant facili-
ties. Present plans include doubling the plant capacity at a
cost of approximately $250,000.
Halter Creek, downstream from Roaring Spring and the
Paper Mill, is one of the most seriously degraded streams in the
Juniata Sub-Basin. Stream sampling surveys have revealed exces-
sively high BOD and coliform counts in this reach. In addition,
coloration of the water was observed downstream from the Paper
Mill. The stream survey results are summarized as follows:
-------
I
V - 11
Halter Creek at Roaring Sparing - Paper Mill
Indicator Upstream Downstream
D.O. (mg/1) 12.0 - 15.1 5-7 - 7-2
Coliforms/100 ml 230 110,000
B.O.D. (5-day) (mg/1) l.U 12 - 70
Although secondary treatment is provided by both Roaring
Spring and the Paper Mill, evaluations by CB-SRBP indicate the
residual waste loadings, particularly from the Paper Mill, exceed
the assimilative capabilities of low flows of 20 cfs or less
occurring throughout the summer and fall months.
Possible abatement measures to alleviate the immediate
pollution problem include advanced waste treatment with land
application or waste diversion to the Frankstown Branch three
miles downstream. Also, since the industry is discharging the
greater portion of the waste loadings in this area, a study of
present processing and waste reduction practices appears warranted
to ascertain what additional measures could be undertaken by the
Paper Mill to alleviate the problem.
Both the treatment plant at Roaring Spring and the Paper
Mill are providing treatment in compliance with the Sanitary
Water Board requirements; however, the water quality problem in
Halter Creek prompted a study conducted by the Pennsylvania Depart-
ment of Health in 1965 and 1966. It is expected that further
State action will follow, requiring Roaring Spring and the Paper
Mill to initiate steps to alleviate the immediate pollution conditions
-------
-------
V - 12
The residual waste loadings at the mouth of Halter Creek
adversely affect the water quality in Frankstown Branch. Stream
survey results, as summarized below, indicate the marked influ-
ence of Halter Creek on Frankstown Branch.
Frankstown Branch at Halter Creek Confluence
Indicator
Upstream
Downstream
D.O. (mg/1) 10.5 - 15.1 5.7 - 7.2
Coliforms/100 ml 230 - 5^,000 100,000 - 2,^00,000
B.O.D. (5-day) (mg/l) I.k - 2.6 20 - 22
Biological Summary
Upstream - Seven kinds of bottom organisms, predominately clean-
water forms, were observed upstream from Halter Creek confluence.
Downstream - Degradation is indicated by the predominance of nine
kinds of organic pollution-tolerant forms such as the midge and
leech. Clean-water forms were absent at this sampling station.
b. Future Water Quality
Unless the current quality conditions are improved,
degradation of Halter Creek and Frankstown Branch will become
more severe as growth is experienced in the future. Primary
consideration should be given to the reduction of Paper Mill
wastes. Partial diversion of waste effluents to the Frankstown
Branch would help alleviate the quality problem in Halter Creek.
Flow regulation, if provided from a potential upstream
reservoir, could enhance water quality in Frankstown Branch.
The Soil Conservation Service has indicated a potential dam site
-------
-------
V - 13
(#11-6) in South Popular Run, a headwater tributary to Frankstown
Branch. It should "be noted that stream flows in Frankstown Branch
will "be diminished in the future during the months of June through
August "by as much as 8 cfs for upstream irrigation purposes. The
estimated irrigation needs were ascertained from studies conduct-
ed by the Department of Agriculture. Unless storage is provided
to meet these withdrawals, water quality conditions in Franks-
town Branch will become even more serious. If the potential dam
site on South Popular Run were developed with storage provisions
of about 3,000 acre-feet, flows could be provided to maintain
water quality in Frankstown Branch as well as to meet irrigation
needs for approximately 600 acres of prime cropland. Additional
studies will be required to determine the most desirable and
efficient method or combination of methods to alleviate the water
quality problem in Halter Creek and Frankstown Branch.
c. Water Supply
Roaring Spring presently uses in excess of 5 mgd, which
is expected to increase to about 8 mgd by 2020, The present
ground water sources are already being utilized to the limit;
however, the potential for further development of the ground
vater resources appear adequate to satisfy needs through 2020,
-------
V - lU
2. Altoona Area
a. Current Water Quality
The unusual hydrologic situation at Altoona was discussed
previously wherein it was indicated that approximately Ul per
cent of Altoona's waste was treated at the Northeast plant and
discharged to the Little Juniata River. The remaining 59 per
cent of Altoona's wastes are treated at a second plant (Southwest)
and discharged to Beaverdam Branch, a tributary to Frankstown
Branch. Duncansville Borough is located approximately four miles
downstream from Altoona and discharges treated wastes to the
Beaverdam Branch. Hollidaysburg is located about three miles
downstream from Duncansville at the confluence of Beaverdam
Branqh and Frankstown Branch and discharges treated wastes to
Beaverdam Branch.
Waste sources in the Altoona Area are summarized below:
Est.
Population Flow
Treatment Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
Altoona
Industries
Duncansville
Hollidaysburg
Allegheny Township
Frankstown Township
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Septic Tank
Septic Tank
39,000
U,ooo*
1,500
10,500
5,060
3,900
6.20
0.98
Beaverdam Branch
Altoona Sewers
Beaverdam Branch
Beaverdam Branch
* Estimated population equivalent
The effect of the waste discharges from Altoona and Dun-
cansville on Beaverdam Branch results in a marginal water quality
-------
-------
V - 15
problem; degradation becomes noticeable, particularly during the
summer months when flows of less than 10 cfs are not uncommon.
However, because of steep stream gradients and turbulent charac-
teristics, Beaverdam Branch tends to rapidly assimilate the waste
loadings to the stream. Altoona and Duncansville are in compli-
ance with Pennsylvania Sanitary Water Board regulations requiring
secondary treatment,
Hollidaysburg discharges secondary treated wastes to
Beaverdam Branch, 1.5 miles upstream from the confluence with
Frankstown Branch, and is in compliance with the Sanitary Water
Board's Requirements.
The two unsewered Townships, Allegheny and Frankstown,
are formulating plans to provide for secondary treatment of their
I wastes. Allegheny Township plans to construct secondary treat-
• ment facilities; whereas, Frankstown Township plans to provide
sewers to discharge to the secondary plant at Hollidaysburg.
I The costs for these facilities are estimated at $1,500,000 and
$UHO,000 for Allegheny and Frankstown Townships, respectively.
I The water quality of Frankstown Branch at Hollidaysburg
• has not recovered from the Halter Creek discharges. Although
stream sampling data of Frankstown Branch are limited in the
vicinity of Hollidaysburg, the biological survey results indi-
cated the predominance of pollution-tolerant organizes continuing
for miles downstream.
-------
-------
V - ID
In addition to organic wastes, mine drainage is contrib-
uted to Beaverdam Branch from two headwater tributaries, Burgoon
Run and Sugar Run. The water quality of Beaverdam Branch does
not appear to be seriously affected by the mine drainage contri-
butions, as evidenced by the rapid waste assimilation character-
istics. However, above the Altoona water supply reservoirs on
Burgoon Run, acidic discharges are by-passed around the reservoirs,
reducing by about 50 per cent the inflow to these reservoirs.
b. Future Water Quality
Based upon growth projections, the flow requirements to
provide minimum D.O. for fish propagation downstream from Altoona
beyond 1980 are expected to exceed low flows normally occurring
in Beaverdam Branch during late summer and fall months. Future
planning should include evaluations of advanced waste treatment,
waste flow diversion, or land application of waste effluents as
possible methods to preserve water quality in Beaverdam Branch.
c= Water Supply
Water use in the Altoona Area was previously discussed
in the Little Juniata River Section. Hollidaysburg and Duncans-
ville presently use about 1 mgd, mostly from surface water stipplies,
Future requirements for these two Boroughs are included in pro-
jected needs given previously for the Altoona Area*
-------
-------
V - 17
3- Williamsburg Area
a. Current Water Quality
Williamsburg is located on the Frankstown Branch about
16 miles downstream from Hollidaysburg and about IT miles up-
stream from its confluence with the Little Juniata River. The
primary industry, West Virginia Pulp and Paper, has played an
important role in the economy of Williamsburg for over TO years.
A Pennsylvania Electric Company steam-electric power generating
station rated at 67,OOOKW is also located here. Waste sources
in the area are as follows:
Location
Est.
Population Flow
Treatment Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
Williamsburg
West Virginia Pulp
and Paper Company
Alexandria
Secondary
Primary
None
1,800 0.13 Frankstown Branch
K
26,300 U.OO Frankstown Branch
H20 Frankstown Branch
Estimated population equivalent
The water quality of Frankstown Branch upstream from
Williamsburg has not recovered from the degraded conditions caused
by Halter Creek discharges; color and high coliform counts still
remain- Wastes from Williamsburg and the Pulp and Paper Company
further degrade the stream., with excessive color and BOD continu-
ing for about seven miles downstream.
Stream survey results at Williamsburg are summarized
below:
-------
-------
v - 18
Frankstown Branch at Williamsburg;
Indicator Upstream Downstream
D.O. (mg/l) 3.7 - 10.1 0 - 8.2
Coliforms/100 ml 10,000 - 25,000 1,700 - 93,000
B.O.D. (5-day) (mg/l) 0 8 U.8- 9.2
Biological Summary
Upstream - Biological degradation was indicated by the predomi-
nance of nine kinds of organic pollution-tolerant forms such as
sludgeworms and leeches.
Downstream - Eight kinds of organic pollution-tolerant bottom
organisms (snails and leeches) indicated continued biological
degradation.
The West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company, responsible
for the largest portion of the waste load in the area, has nearly
completed construction of a new secondary treatment plant costing
approximately $250,000. The new facilities will significantly
alleviate the degraded conditions presently existing downstream.
Unless color removal treatment is provided, this form of pollu-
tion may persist in the future.
The Borough of Williamsburg is currently providing second-
ary treatment and is in compliance with the Sanitary Water Board
requirements. The small Town of Alexandria, about ten miles
downstream from Williamsburg, is currently under orders to provide
treatment facilities. It is expected that immediate steps will
be taken by the Town to provide secondary treatment facilities.
The estimated cost for secondary facilities exclusive of sewers
and. appurtenances is approximately $^8,000.
-------
-------
v - 19
The electric power plant presently discharges about 20
I mgd of heated cooling water in addition to silt wastes from coal
ashes. These discharges are expected to be eliminated soon
'» because of plant retirement„
I b. Future Water Quality
, , The population served by waste treatment facilities in
the Williamstmrg Area is expected to more than double by year
1 2020, With the provision of secondary treatment at the Pulp
and Paper Company, the expected stream flows appear adequate to
I assimilate the projected loadings through 2020. A problem of
color may still exist if measures are not taken by the industry
to remove this pollutant.
c. Water Supply
Present water usage is in excess of 30 mgd, mostly
obtained from Frankstown Branch. The Pennsylvania Electric
Company uses 77 per cent of this amount but will soon be phased
out of operation. Therefore, in the absence of the power plant,
future water use by year 2020 is expected to be about 9
which could be met from "Frankstown Branch.
-------
-------
V - 20
C. Juniata River (Between Frankstown and Raystown Branches)
1. Huntingdon
a. Current Water Quality
Huntingdon is located about ten miles downstream from
the confluence of the Little Juniata River and the Frankstown
Branch which join to form the Juniata River. Juniata College,
the State Correctional Institute, and the production of paper
and fiberglass products play an important role in the economy
of the Area.
Waste sources are as follows:
Location
Est.
Population Flow
Treatment Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
Huntingdon Primary
J. S. Blair
Strickler & Son
Juniata Township
Other Industries
*
Estimated population equivalent
7,200
500*
5,200
2.10 Juniata River
0.013 Huntingdon Sewers
0.018 Huntingdon Sewers
0.0^0 Huntingdon Sewers
Huntingdon Sewers
Discharges from the treatment plant at Huntingdon do not
presently constitute an immediate water quality problem downstream.
Color from upstream waste sources is still evident in this stream
reach; however, biological sampling results indicated improved
water quality compared to upstream conditions.
Stream survey data downstream from Huntingdon are sum-
marized as follows:
-------
-------
V - 21
Juniata River at Huntingdon
Indicator Downstream
D.O. (mg/l)
B.O.D. (5-day) (mg/l)
7.0 - 11.6
2.0 - k.O
Although there is no apparent water quality degradation
of the Juniata River as a result of the primary waste effluents
being discharged by Huntingdon, secondary treatment facilities
are expected to be provided in the near future before degradation
becomes evident. The cost of these facilities is estimated at
$3^0,000.
b. Future Water Quality
With the provision of secondary treatment, assimilative
capacity evaluations indicate that the expected flows of the
Juniata River should be adequate to assimilate the projected
treated waste loadings through year 2020.
c. Water Supply
Huntingdon now uses less than 3 nigd, which is expected
to increase to about 8.1 mgd by 2020. The safe yield of the
present water supply source, Standing Stone Creek, is about 6
mgd. Other surface water sources are available for possible
development, in addition to the authorized Corps of Engineers
Raystown Reservoir Project which will provide water supply storage
-------
V - 22
1"
D. Raystown Branch
1. Bedford-Everett
a. Current Water Quality
The Bedford-Everett area is located in the headwaters of
the Raystown Branch. Principal industrial activities include
the manufacture of mining tools, fertilizers, and the processing
of poultry and dairy products.
Waste sources in the area are as follows:
Location
Treatment
Est.
Population Flow
Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
Bedford
Everett
East Providence
Township
West Providence
Township
Bedford Township
Industries
Primary
Primary
Septic Tank
Septic Tank
Septic Tank
None
2,500
1,280
3,000
H,000
1,520
0.25
0.108
Raystown Branch
Raystown Branch
Raystown Branch
Estimated population equivalent
There is no immediate water quality problem below the
Bedford-Everett Area. Although BOD is slightly higher than back-
ground, D.O. concentrations are high, and the flow of the Raystown
Branch is in excess of present flow requirements for waste assi-
milation.
Stream survey results downstream from Everett are as
follows:
-------
-------
I
v - 23
RaystownBranch Downstream from Everett
Indicator Downstream
D.O. (mg/l) 13-3 - 17.7
B.O.D. (5-day) (mg/l) k.1 - U.6
Biological Summary
Thirteen kinds of bottom organisms, including many clean-water
associated forms, were found.
Although water quality degradation is not evident as a
result of the present waste discharges, the primary treatment
facilities of Bedford and. Everett are expected to "be expanded
to provide secondary treatment in the near future before degradation
becomes apparent, Expansion costs are estimated at $1110,000 and
$70,000 for the Boroughs of Bedford and Everett, respectively.
Three unsewered Townships within the Area, East Providence,
West Providence, and Bedford, are planning to construct secondary
sewerage facilities of their own; costs for these facilities are
estimated at $602,000, $6ll,000, and $600,000, respectively. The
proposed facilities of the East and West Providence Townships are
also expected to serve the industries which are presently dis-
charging untreated wastes to Raystown Branch.
b. Future Water Quality
The population served by waste treatment facilities in
the Bedford-Everett area is expected to increase nearly ninefold
by year 2020. A comparsion of expected streams flows and waste
-------
I.
I.
V - 2k
assimilative flow requirements indicate that the provision of
secondary treatment facilities will be adequate to maintain
satisfactory water quality through year 2020.
c. Water Supply
The Bedford-Everett area presently uses less than 1 mgd,
which is expected to increase to about 8 mgd by 2020. The safe
yield of existing sources is not well defined, but adequate sur-
face supplies appear to be available for development to meet
future demands.
2. Saxton
a. Current Water Quality
Saxton is located about l8 miles downstream from the
Bedford-Everett Area, approximately 60 miles upstream from the
Juniata River confluence. Generation of electric power and min-
ing are predominant factors in the economy of this Area.
Presently the chief pollutant is the Pennsylvania Electric
Company's steam-electric station which discharges about 53 mgd
of heated cooling water. However, the Company has indicated plans
to retire this station within the next ten years because of
economics and obsolescence.
The Borough of Saxton is presently discharging untreated
wastes from about 1,000 persons into the Raystown Branch which,
in this area, is shallow and turbulent and provides rapid waste
-------
V - 25
assimilation capability. The water quality of the stream, as
evidenced by the sampling results, does not appear to be seriously
impaired by this discharge, These results are summarized below;
Raystovri..Br_an_c_h_Dgvn_stream from Saxton
Indicator Downstream
D. 0. (mg/l) 10.0 - 11.6
B.O.D. (5-day) (mg/l) 2.2 -. 3-3
Biological Summary
Thirteen kinds of bottom organisms, including many clean-water
forms, were observed.
Saxton has been under orders by the Sanitary Water Board
to provide secondary treatment by 1965, but thus far has exhibited
unsatisfactory progress. The Sanitary Water Board has initiated
court proceedings to obtain compliance. Assuming compliance with
the Sanitary Water Board requirements, no further action appears
necessary. The cost of providing secondary treatment facilities
at Saxton is estimated at $93^000.
b. Future Water Quality
Future projections indicate that the present population
will more than double by year 2020. A comparison of expected
flows in Raystown Branch and flows required to assimilate waste
leadings associated with this growth indicate that secondary treat-
ment should be adequate to maintain desirable water quality conditions
-------
V - 26
c . Water Supply
Saxton presently uses 0.1 mgd, which is supplied pri-
marily from surface sources . Future needs are expected to
increase to 0.3 mgd by year 2020 and should not pose a problem
of supply. The Pennsylvania Electric power station presently
uses 53 Kigd for cooling purposes but, because of the plans to
retire this plant, future water needs were not included in the
projections .
E . Main Stem Juniata River
1. Mount Union Area
a . Current Water Quality
The Mount Union Area is located on the Juniata River ten
miles downstream from the Raystown Branch confluence. Manufacture
of refractory brick is the principal industry.
Sources of wate in the area are as follows:
Location
Est.
Population Flow
Treatment Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
Mount Union
Industries
Shirley Township
Map let on
Kistler
C. M. Creitz
Packaging
Primary
None
None
None
Stabili-
zation Ponds
U,100
1,100*
225
666
375
580
0.30
—
0.035
O.OlU
0.025
0.011
Juniata River
Mount Union Sewers
Juniata River
Juniata River
Juniata River
Juniata River
Estimated population equivalent
-------
V - 27
An immediate water quality problem is not evident as a
result of the above discharges. Stream flows in excess of 300
cfs are common during the summer and fall months and provide
considerable dilution of the present waste flows. The Juniata
River has recovered considerably from the upstream degraded con-
ditions at Huntingdon.
The three unsewered Communities, Shirley Township, Maple-
ton, and Kistler, have recently been ordered by the Sanitary Water
Board to provide secondary treatment and are initiating action
to comply. Costs to provide secondary treatment facilities at
these communities are estimated at $95,000, $71,000, and $200,000,
respectively.
Mount Union has not presently been issued orders to up-
grade the degree of treatment to secondary; however, this action
is expected to be forthcoming in the near future, particularly
since the Juniata has been classified by the State as a stream
requiring secondary treatment. Cost of expansion from the present
primary plant facilities is estimated at $160,000.
b. Future Water Quality
Because of the relatively large flows of the Juniata
during the summer and fall months compared to waste flows,
-------
-------
m
m
m
m
m
n
V - 28
secondary treatment appears to be adequate to maintain desirable
quality through 2020.
c. Water Supply
The Mount Union Area presently uses about 0.6 mgd, mostly
from ground water sources. Future requirements are expected to
increase to about 2 mgd by year 2020 and should easily be met
either from ground or surface water sources.
2. Orbisonia Area
Orbisonia and Rock Hill are two small Boroughs located
on Shade Creek, a tributary discharging to Aughwick Creek approxi-
mately nine miles upstream from the junction of Aughwick Creek
and Juniata River. Aughwick Creek discharges to the Juniata
River about five miles downstream from Mount Union.
The two Boroughs presently have a combined population of
approximately 1,200 persons and are not providing waste treatment.
However, immediate actions are being taken for the provision of
secondary treatment facilities to serve these two Boroughs. Plans
have been completed for these facilities, with costs estimated at
$HH6,000. With the provision of secondary treatment facilities,
no further action appears necessary in the near future.
3. Union Township Area (Belleville)
Belleville within Union Township is located on Kishaco-
quillas Creek about 20 miles upstream from the confluence of the
-------
V - 29
Creek and the Juniata River. The economy of the Area is supported
primarily by farming and dairying activities. The principal
industry in the area is the New Holland Machine Company, manufac-
turers of farm machinery.
Waste sources in the Area are as follows:
Location
Treatment
Est.
Population Flow
Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
Belleville
Union Township
Industries
*
Estimated
None
Septic
Septic
population
Tank
Tank
1
1
,600
,100*
550
Kishacoquillas
Creek
equivalent
Union Township is planning to construct secondary facili-
ties in the near future; the preliminary design of the sewerage
system has been completed with an estimated cost of $1,350,000.
The proposed facilities, when completed, will also receive wastes
from Belleville which currently discharges untreated effluent to
Kishacoquillas Creek.
b. Future Water Quality
Waste assimilation evaluations indicate that secondary
treatment facilities appear adequate to maintain satisfactory
water quality through year 2020.
c. Water Supply
Present water use in the Area averages about 0.6 mgd,
r.ostly from ground water sources, Estimated needs of about
-------
V - 30
2 mgd by year 2020 are expected to be easily met by the avail-
able ground and surface water resources in the Area.
k. Lewistown Area
a . Current Water Quality
Lewistown is the second largest metropolitan Area located
in the Juniata Basin and is situated at the confluence of the
Kishacoquillas Creek and the Juniata River, approximately 20
miles downstream from Mount Union. The manufacture of synthetic
textile fibers and steel products has long been an important
economic factor in the Area .
Principal waste sources in the Area are as follows;
Location
Est.
Population Flow
Treatment Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
Lewistown
Industries
American Viscose
Baldwin-Lima-
Hamilton
Chief Logan School
Highland Park
Berry Township
Yeagertown
Primary
Primary
Rone
None
None
Septic Tank
Septic Tank
13,000
9,300
21,300*
1,200
i,Uoo
5,000
1,600
2.0
2.039
12.92
0.05
Juniata River
Lewistown Sewers
Juniata River
Kishacoquillas Creek
Kishacoquillas Creek
Kishacoquillas Creek
* Estimated population equivalent
The ateve discharges to Kishacoquillas Creek have resulted
in considerable degradation of this stream. Biological survey
results indicated unpolluted conditions upstream from the waste
sources with an abundance of fish observed; however, downstream
-------
V - 31
from the discharges only pollution-tolerant organisms such as
sludge worms and midges could be found.
The current water quality degradation of Kishacoquillas
Creek resulted primarily from individual discharges by local
industry and bordering communities, as indicated below:
(l) Baldwin -Lima -Kami It on Division of Standard
Steel Corporation discharges heated waste into the Creek. Stream
flows of less than 30 cfs are not uncommon during the late summer
months and, because of the relatively large discharge (approxi-
mately 20 cfs) of the Steel Corporation, a potential thermal
pollution problem exists. A study is to be conducted to determine
the extent and severity of the problem.
(2) Septic tank overflows and untreated waste
discharges from the outlying areas are contributing to the degraded
conditions of Kishacoquillas Creek, a situation that is expected
to be soon eliminated, Plans are being developed to provide sewers
for Berry Township which will also serve Yeagertown, Chief Logan
Joint School System, and Highland Park* These communities have
recently decided to pump the wastes to the Lewistown sewage plant.
The project cost for this system is estimated at $1,932,000.
Water quality of the Juniata River is adversely affected
as a result of the Kishacoquillas Creek discharge and the primary
treated waste discharge from Lewistown and American Viscose
Corporation; however, because of the relatively large volume of
-------
-------
V - 32
flow (normally greater than UOO cfs during the late summer months)
of the Juniata River in this Area, degradation is not severe.
Also, the stream gradient drops quite sharply in the vicinity of
Lewistown, providing considerable turbulence and rapid assimilative
capabilities.
The discharges from American Viscose have recently resulted
in investigations by the Pennsylvania Department of Health; orders
to provide additional treatment are expected to be issued soon.
A consulting engineer's study indicated expansion of the present
primary plant to provide secondary treatment would cost approxi-
mately $14-00,000.
Secondary treatment facilities are expected to be pro-
vided at Lewistown in the near future before degradation of water
quality becomes evident. The cost of expansion from the present
primary facilities is estimated at $^12,000.
b. Future Water Quality
A threefold increase in population is expected to be
served by the sewerage facilities in the Lewistown Area by year
2020. With the provision of secondary treatment, the expected
flows in both Kishacoquillas Creek and Juniata River appear to
be adequate to maintain satisfactory water quality.
c. Water Supply
Presently the Lewistown Area uses about 32 mgd, about
half supplied from the Juniata River and half from Kishacoquillas
-------
-------
f
M
v - 33
Creek. By 2020 the demand is projected to be about 53 mgd and
could easily be provided from the above sources.
5. Mifflintown Area
a. Current Water Quality
Mifflintown is located on the Juniata River about ten
miles downstream from Lewistown. The area is primarily residen-
tial with some small industry.
Waste sources in the Area are as follows:
Est.
Population Flow
Location Treatment Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
Mifflin and
Mifflintown Primary 1
Industries
Port Poyal Secondary
* Estimated population equivalent
,700
300*
800
0.16
0.08
Juniata River
Mifflintown Sewers
Juniata River
Water quality degradation downstream frcm Mifflintown is
not evident, primarily because of the relatively large flows (UOO
cfs or more) during the late summer months and the rapid assimila-
tive characteristics of the Juniata River in this reach.
Mifflintown and Mifflin, although on opposite sides of
the Juniata River, are presently served by the treatment plant
a: Mifflintown, It is expected that the present primary treatment
facilities will be expanded to provide secondary treatment in
fc^^| tr.e near future in accordance with the stream classification
:cr the Juniata River. The cost of this expansion is estimated
a. * i " 0 5 COO
~ -^ _< j ^V-W .
-------
-------
m
m
V - 3^
Port Royal, approximately three miles downstream, has
recently constructed, a secondary treatment plant which is now
operational.
b. Future Water Quality
The magnitude of flows and the rapid assimilative charac-
teristics of the Juniata Oliver in the Mif flintown Area appear
adequate to assimilate secondary treated waste effluents and
maintain a desirable water quality.
c . Water Supply
Present water usage in the area is about O.U mgd and is
expected to increase to more than 1 mgd. This demand can easily
be met from either surface or underground sources.
6. Newport Area
a. Current Water Quality
Newport is located on the Juniata River about 12 miles
upstream from the Juniata -Susquehanna confluence. Dairying and
dairy industry are important economic factors in the Area .
Waste sources in the Newport Area are as follows:
Location
Est.
Population Flow
Treatment Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
Newport Primary 1,900
Industries 3_
* Estimated population equivalent
0.13 Juniata River
--- Newport Sewers
The waste flows from Newport are small compared with
stream flows (normally greater than 500 cfs during late summer
-------
T
V - 35
months) of the. Juniata River in this Area and, because of the
rapid waste assimilative characteristics, stream quality is not
noticeably degraded. Water quality survey results downstream
from Newport are summarized, below:
Juniata River Downstream from Newport
_ Indicator Downstream
D.O. (mg/l) 8.7 - 13-6
B.O.D. (5-day) (mg/l) 1.9 - 7.1
Biological Summary
Twenty kinds of bottom organisms, predominately clean-water forms,
indicated excellent water quality.
It was concluded, from the stream sampling results, that
the Juniata River 12 miles downstream contributes excellent water
quality to the Susquehanna River.
In order to maintain the present water quality in the
future, secondary treatment is expected to be provided, particu-
larly since the River is classified as a stream requiring secon-
dary treatment prior to discharge, The cost to expand the present
primary facilities to secondary is estimated at $186,000. Pro-
visions of secondary treatment should be adequate through year 2020.
c. Water Supply
The present water usage of 0.2 ir.gd is expected to double by
year 2020 and should not encounter any difficulties in being met
by the available surface or ground water sources.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION .............. . I - I
A. Purpose and Scope 1-1
B. Acknowledgments 1-2
II. GENERAL II - 1
A. Source of Information II - 1
B. State Stream Classifications II - 2
III. SUMMARY Ill - 1
A. Findings Ill - 1
B. Immediate Pollution Control Needs Ill - 3
1. Waste Treatment . Ill - 3
2. Flow Regulation Ill - U
3. Special Studies Ill - 5
k. Institutional Practices Ill - 5
IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA IV - 1
V. WATER POLLUTION PROBLEMS, NEEDS, AND COSTS ....... V - 1
A. Headwaters Area V-l
1. Town of Warrenton V-l
2. Remington - Fauquier County V - It
3. Town of Culpeper - Culpeper County V - 6
h. Town of Orange V - 8
B. Central Area V - 13
1. Fredericksburg Urban Area . . „ V - 13
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
C. Lover Area ..................... V - 20
1. King George County .......... V - 22
2. Westmoreland County V - 22
3. Essex County V - 22
h. Richmond County V - 22
5. Lancaster County ........ V - 23
6. Middlesex County V - 2k
-------
I - 1
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose and Scope
Under the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. U66 et seq), Section 3(a), the Secretary
of the Interior is authorized to make joint investigations with
other Federal agencies, with State Water Pollution Control Agen-
cies and interstate agencies, and with the municipalities and
industries involved, of the condition of any waters in any State
or States and of the discharges of any sewage, industrial wastes,
or substance which may adversely affect these waters. These
investigations are for the purpose of preparing and developing
comprehensive programs for eliminating or reducing the pollution
of interstate waters and tributaries thereof.
This Working Document, by describing the immediate needs
for controlling water pollution in the Rappahannock River Basin
in northeastern Virginia, represents the first step in the develop-
ment of a comprehensive program to control water pollution in
the Basin.
The principal objectives of the investigation and report
are as follows:
1. Outline existing and potential water quality
problems in areas producing significant municipal,
industrial, and/or other wastes, and identify sources.
2. Summarize immediate pollution control needs and
estimated costs for providing these needs.
-------
1-2
3. Suggest various local and basin-wide pollution
control measures vhich should be considered in
planning a comprehensive program for the Basin.
Bo Acknowledgments
The cooperation and assistance of the following Federal,
State, and local agencies are gratefully acknowledged:
U. S. Soil Conservation Service, Charlottesville, Virginia
U. S,, Geological Survey, Charlottesville, Virginia
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk, Virginia
Virginia State Water Control Board, Richmond, Virginia
Virginia Department of Health, Richmond, Virginia
Virginia Division of Water Resources, Charlottesville,
Virginia
National Planning Association, Washington, D. C.
Local County and Municipal Officials
Local Industrial Representatives
-------
II - 1
II. GENERAL
A. Source of Information
Current pollution abatement programs, existing water
quality, and estimated costs for needed facilities were evaluated
employing the following sources of information:
1. Sewage and industrial files of the Virginia State
Water Control Board.
2. Existing water quality and treatment plant data
obtained from files of Federal, State, and local
agencies.
3. Publications of various Federal, State, and local
agencies.
k» Personal communications with public health oriented
individuals associated with pollution abatement in
the Basin.
For evaluations of future water quality requirements,
county population and industrial productivity projections developed
by the National Planning Association were employed. The I960
Census Report was used as a base from which individual community
projections were made. Where applicable, industrial loadings were
projected by type of industry on an individual production basis.
Although limited data on tributary water quality and
assimilative capacities were available, secondary treatment of
-------
II - 2
all significant waste discharges in the Basin, with 85 per cent
removal of the biochemical oxygen demand, has been assumed by
the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Chesapeake
Bay-Susquehanna River Basins Project, to be a minimum requirement
for the purpose of this report.
Cost estimates for upgrading present facilities as re-
quired to provide the desired degree of treatment were obtained
for the most part from consulting engineers who have completed
studies of needed treatment facilities. For communities not
having engaged an engineer, cost estimates were made of the
plant proper, employing construction cost information from the
Public Health Service Publication No. 1229, "Modern Sewage Treat-
ment Plants - How Much Do They Cost," and updating these costs
with the Public Health Service - Sewage Treatment Plant current
cost index (PHS-STP 105.0).
In areas where future water quality problems are anti-
cipated, methods proposed for future actions are given for con-
sideration only, since detailed evaluations of alternatives and
comparisons of benefits have not been made.
B. State Stream Classifications
Public hearings on proposed stream standards for the
estuarine reaches of the Basin have been scheduled for March
1967; however, at the writing of this report, the Virginia State
Water Control Board has not established specific water quality
-------
II - 3
objectives for either State-wide or individual stream applica-
tion. The policy in the past has been to consider each waste
discharged on its own merits, taking into consideration down-
stream water uses and assimilative capacity of the receiving
waters. However, with certain modifications and/or expansion,
the following basic criteria are used: (l) dissolved oxygen
not lower than U milligrams per liter in the stream; (2) no
appreciable settleable or floating solids; (3) no noticeable
coloration or discoloration of the receiving stream; (U) toxic
substance to be reduced below the toxicity limit of the stream;
(5) no appreciable change of pH of the receiving stream; and
(6) stream flow for design of sewage treatment facilities equal
to minimum average 7-day low flow occurring in a 10-year frequency.
The Water Control Board is expected to adopt water
quality standards for the estuarine reaches of the Basin by
June 1967.
-------
Ill - 1
III. SUMMARY
A, Findings
1. The Rappahannock River Basin, extending l60 miles
in a southeasterly direction from the divide on the Blue Ridge
Mountains to the Chesapeake Bay, is divisible into three sections,
the headwaters, central, and lower areas, the boundaries for the
areas being based upon economic, population, and geographic con-
siderations. (See Figure l)
2, In the rural headwaters area, all municipalities
have secondary treatment, with the exception of the small com-
munity of Remington, which discharges a primary effluent to the
Rappahannock River.
Localized problems exist in several stream reaches in
the headwaters region, including degraded conditions in Mountain
Run at Culpeper, where the overloaded secondary plant is being
enlarged; degraded conditions in Popular Run at Orange, due to
an industrial waste discharge from the Kentucky Flooring Company
of Virginia; and bacterial pollution in the Rappahannock River
below Remington, resulting from the primary discharge of the
small municipal treatment plant.
3 In the central area, which includes the populous
Fredericksburg Area, the Rappahannock River is severely degraded
by industrial and municipal waste discharges. Zero dissolved
oxygen levels, fish kills, and other nuisance conditions occur
-------
Ill - 2
for three miles below Fredericksburg during lov flow periods,
and water quality is affected for ten miles downstream.
The principal contributor to the problem is the Food
Machinery Corporation, American Viscose Division, which discharges
approximately 30 mgd of untreated waste to the river. The 48,000
population equivalent (P.E.) of the discharge is about three
times the total population of the Fredericksburg urban area.
Municipalities in the area which contribute to the problem include
Fredericksburg, Falmouth Sanitary District, and the Ferry Farms
Subdivision which contribute primary treated wastes with P.E's.
(
of 11,000, 225, and 650, respectively, and the Tylerton Sub-
division which discharges approximately 0.03 mgd of untreated
sewage.
4. Localized water pollution associated with boating
activity is the principal problem in the rural lower region.
Bacterial pollution exists in Urbanna Creek, Broad Creek, and
Carter Creek, and the State Department of Health has placed
restrictions on the direct marketing of shellfish from approxi-
mately 1200 acres of beds.
The Town of Urbanna contributes a P.E. of approximately
100 to Urbanna Creek from an outmoded and structurally unsound
primary treatment plant. The Tide's Inn resort at Irvington has
contributed to potential nuisance conditions in Carter Creek by
poor operation practices at their secondary treatment plant.
-------
Ill - 3
The Town of Kllmarnock has septic tank discharges which flow to
Corrotoman River, Eastern Branch,
5, By-passing of raw sewage flows during wet seasons,
as a result of storm aad ground water infiltration of sanitary
sewer systems, lowers treatment plant over-all effectiveness in
towns throughout the Rappahannock Basin, Also, in some towns,
plant operators have various other municipal duties, and the
part-time attention given to treatment plants is inadequate.
B0 Immediate Pollution Control Needs
lo Waste Treatment
The most pressing need in the Basin is for the provision
of adequate treatment facilities to control pollution at its
source. Current treatment practices, needs, and cost estimates
for municipalities and industries in the study area are given in
Table I.
A general summary of immediate waste treatment needs in
the study area is given below1:
Municipal
a, Four municipalities to provide
secondary treatment plants. $867,000
b Two municipal secondary treat-
ment plants to be enlarged $9^,
-------
Ill - k
c. One municipality to expand
sewerage systems $250,000
d. One proposed Sanitary District
to provide a new secondary treat-
ment plant and interceptor system $950,000
e. One municipality to provide a new
sewerage system, including sewage
treatment plant $650,000
Total Municipal $3,66l,UlO
Industrial
a. One large industry to provide
*
secondary treatment $800,000
b. One small industry to reduce
solids in wastes discharged by
in-plant changes or waste
treatment undetermined
Total Industrial $800,000
2. Flow Regulation
To adequately protect and enhance water quality in the
face of population and industrial growth, urbanization, and
*
Cost for pilot plant only.
-------
Ill - 5
technological change, water pollution control action, in addi-
tion to the provision of conventional waste treatment facilities,
is needed in areas where stream flows are low in comparison to
the existing and/or projected residual BOD loads which the stream
must assimilate.
Reservoir storage to provide supplemental flow for water
quality control is a possible solution to supplemental water
pollution control needs in the two areas in the Rappahannock
Basin where a need for greater than 85 per cent removal of the
BOD in waste discharges is indicated.
The areas requiring flow regulation and proposed reser-
voirs are listed in Table II.
3. Special Studies
Additional investigations are needed in several areas
in the Basin to provide the basis for comprehensive evaluations
of existing or potential pollution control needs. Table III
summarizes these study needs.
i|. Institutional Practices
A need for action on pollution control measures by various
Federal, State, and local institutions in the Rappahannock Basin
is indicated by the findings of this study. Table IV summarizes
needed institutional practices which would enhance and strengthen
pollution control programs.
-------
-------
Q)
-P
cd
-p
CQ
•d
CU
-p
cd
g
•H
-p
w
pr"}
CU
-p
°H
T^
0
H
JH
0)
Cj
-p
o
fn
o
•P
0
cu
°*~3
O
»H
PH
4->
G
(T)
e
-p
cd
s
EH
-p
G
0)
CQ
CU
^H
PH
G
O
•H
-p
cd
H
£i
P!
O
PH
G
O
•H
-P
O
rQ
w
^
d)
r^
iM
O
^j
cu
•d
G
D
0
0
o
f\
o
0
00
-ea-
>j
^
cd
G
o
a
cu
CQ
cu
G
O
E;
:£
0
o
o
r\
CO
-^"
G
O
•H
-P
cd
SH
O
B1
cfl O
cu o
JLf
^ r?
bo cu
H (3
rP X3
CQ O
^! cd
o S
•H
*H -d
cu o
•d o
CU f>H
i>-i
0)
G
^
-P
KJ
H
PH
-P
O
rH
'H
PH
1
H
PH
-P
O
H
•H
PH
v— *"
G
O
•H
CQ
•H
£>
•H
Q
CD
CQ
O
O
CQ
•H
£>
£j
cd
o
•rH
!H
i
0
G
O
•H
-P
O
e
-p
CO
G
O
o
* — *,
b^
H
G
O
pq
o
£s
£>,
X!
CO
L,
cu
^
o
^H
0)
Tj
G
D
O
o
0
o
c—
LPv
H»
r^
JH
£T|
•d
G
O
0
CU
CQ
r*5
H
cd
6
•H
^.f
PM
0
LTN
fy~)
A
-^f
H
hO
^j
CQ
rM
O
-H
fn
•d
0)
[T !
C^H
O
>>
-p
•H
O
*
G *
bO*
•H
CQ o
CU 0)
fd -p
cu
rH H
cd P^
M 0
-rt O
fin O
ON
m
vo
(Tl
m
H
G
O
•H
-P
cd
H
P
PH
O
P)
O
,
-P
^
O
O
•d
cu
S-l
°cH
P
a1
(D
Si
£3
3
TH
G
CU
fH
0)
(L>
K
G
O
•d -H
0) -p
tjD 0
^ cu
cd H
rH H
G 0
0) 0
0)
bO
cd
a
en
•H
-d
•d
cu
-p
cd
cu
^H
-P
G
O
-P
01
rH
T3
G
cd
A
Ul
g
^
cd
^i
f-t
^_j
£
-d
e
cu
-p --»
CQ PH
^M EH
CO CQ
a
pq
o
£s
r"}
X>
CO
^H.
cu
•d
f-i
o
^H
cu
•d
G
D
"5
TO
-d
cu
-p
cd
o
o
rH
rH
cd
K*i
cu
G
O
S
I
a
g
•p
CQ
G
O
a
£_j
0)
r<
0
-P
G
cd
rH
PH
-P
G
CU
O
£*4
0)
P)
CU
J-
o
G
O
•H
-P
•
c—
vo
•^^
OJ
cu
-p
cu
H
PH
6
O
O
tt)
-p
TJ
cu
CQ
•H
£>
•d
cd
CQ
cd
X!
pq
c_>
cd
G
•H
O
rH
^
H
r^
O
x:
CQ
G
o
•H
-p
JH
pj
-P
HH
^H
cd
0)
G
G
•H
•d
cu
H
H
cd
-p
CQ
- 6
o
ON
vo
-ee-
•d >»
cu -p
bC -H
(H O
cd cd
cd
•d
a
o
o
cu
CQ
O
O
o
CM
CM
G
O
•rH
•P
cd
! !
PH
0
!H
CU
P
cu
a
0
PH
o
vo
ON
rH
O
o
o
r-
o
t-
-69-
Cd
T)
G
O
O
o
CQ
O
G
XI G
-P O
•H -H
£ -P
cd
>, G
*H -H
cd ^
B o
•H rH
JH XI
OH 0
O
O
m
CO
co
c\i
G
o
•H
13
H
P
PH
\O
ON
-------
H d
^
cu C
(U £} O
-P -P -H
cd o -p
•P U
CQ fn
H ^
P* CU
ft CQ
0
CM
a
o
•H
-p
cd
o
5
cd o
a -H
O -P
•H Pi C I
-P H bC fn
•H H -H CU
'Ci O CO "tn
•d ft (D CU T
1 CQ
cd B o>
£n pi H CQ -H O ft
0 -P JH S
0) -H ft O
} ^ J3 ?H 0
> -H >j -p -H bO >j
»O- f-t°p! 'D «O-P -H fn
C ,^ T^ cd T^ c
O CU C -p -H O •
3 fn > 0 ft -P H
3 0) Cd C CQ 03
-P -59-
t? t?
cd cd
C C
O O
0 O
cu cu
CQ CQ
O
•H
-p
ft
CU
CQ
fn cd
cd !H CO
S -P X
JH Q) cd
CM 0 EH
0 0
LA LA
H ON
CM C—
H CM
LA ON
C C
O O
•H -H
-P -P
cd cd
ft rM ft
o o o
ft O ft
03 C
CO ft O
§vo cd vo
ON B ON
£> H H H
ft -H
| — j k^
3 C C O -H pi X -H
Tj
cu
•H
BO o
R O O
CU O O
-p .. "
cu o o
T^ LA LA
fl CM CM
D -E9- -69-
1
•H
^ ^1
o o
B
CO >5
-P C SH T^i K^ TJ
C O cd cu -p 0)
Cd -H 'tj bC 'H ^
H -p C ^0 C
ft ctJ o cd cd cd
1 0 0 H ft ft
C -H , -H ft
fn AJ bO CM O C
< 0 f-t O ft O
Pi -H -p
CU -P > CO C
bO C |S VO O
§0) CM O ON JH
WO EH H fn
fn cd
o ts
cd .
£H ^)
•H -P
B cu •
•H H CQ
H ft tf
j
-e* — o CQ
•
CM
EH
CQ
bO S
CU CU C !H
M bO -H cd
cd B cd B ^ ^
fn CU JH CU p! C
CU -p CU -p H O
> CQ IS CO 0 U
CU >j CU >j C ^
•H C
fn co
CM EH
ON
LA
CM ON
CM j-
LA LA
f<
on c
o
C -H
O 4^
•H Cd
3 ^
H ft
Pi O
ft ft
0
ft > 0
cd vo
o w ON
VO fn H
ON cd
H S
II - T
. — •«
O
LA
0
H
X
(U
f^
C
H
CM
EH
CQ
1
CQ
CM
CQ
-P
CQ
O
O
C
O
•H
-P
O
pi
•p
CO
C
o
a
+3
C
i_i
£_(
£3
0
C
o
T-j
CU
CQ
cd
4-3 fO
C
cu "
H >5
cd H
!> d
•H O -P
cu c s~t
3 o
C H
0 ft H
•H cd
-P -P fn
cd C H
o cd
ft CU !H
!H O
T5 -p ^H
cu
-P ^H T)
cd o (U
B -H
•H -P H
-P CO ft
CO O ft
w o <;
* * *
^e sfc
*
-------
Ill - 8
TABLE II
FLOW REGULATION FOR WATER QUALITY CONTROL
Location
Responsibility
Existing or
Potential Need
Culpeper
Fredericksburg
Soil Conservation
Service (Mountain
Run Watershed Dams
18 and 50)*
Corps of Engineers
(Salem Church
Reservoir)
Mountain Run - storage to
provide supplemental flow for
water quality control.
Rappahannock River - 130,^00
acre-feet of storage to provide
supplemental flow for water
quality control.
Storage for flow regulation was not included in planning.
Storage for flow regulation included in planning.
TABLE III
SPECIAL STUDIES NEEDED IN THE BASIN
Location
Responsibility
Need
Basin-wide
Lower Basin
(Fredericksburg to
Chesapeake Bay)
Warrenton (This Town
is located on the
divide of the Potomac
and Rappahannock
River Basins)
FWPCA and State
of Virginia
FWPCA and State
of Virginia
State of Virginia
and Town of
Warrenton
Determine assimilative capaci-
ties of all existing and pro-
posed waste receiving streams
in the Basin.
Conduct intensive water quality
studies in the estuary (includ-
ing boat pollution).
Conduct comprehensive studies
to determine which River Basin
should receive future waste
discharges.
-------
Ill - 9
TABLE III (Continued)
SPECIAL STUDIES NEEDED IN THE BASIN
Location
Responsibility
Need
Orange (This Town is
located on the divide
of the Rappahannock
and York River Basins
Culpeper
Basin-wide
State of Virginia
and Town of
Orange
FWPCA and
Soil Conservation
Service
FWPCA and State
of Virginia
Conduct comprehensive studies
to determine which River Basin
should receive future waste
discharges.
Study need for flow regulation
in Mountain Run Watershed
Development.
Develop basin-wide comprehensive
program and for planning purposes
utilize data compiled from
the above studies in mathe-
matical simulation of the river
system.
TABLE IV
INSTITUTIONAL PRACTICES NEEDED IN THE BASIN
Location
Responsibility
Need
Basin-wide
Basin-wide
Lower Basin
Basin-wide
State of Virginia
State of Virginia
Congress of the
I], S. and State
legislature
State of Virginia
arid local govern-
ments
Prepare and adopt standards on
intrastate streams.
Consider legislation to provide
appropriations for State parti-
cipation in grants for construc-
tion of sewage treatment works.
Strengthen boat pollution laws.
Enhance treatment plant operator
efficiency by greater emphasis
on operator training schools
and State certification.
-------
Ill - 10
TABLE IV (Continued)
Location
Responsibility
Need.
Basin-wide
Local Governments
Reduce infiltration problems
by strengthening plumbing
codes on house connections
and emphasizing infiltration
tests on new construction.
Fredericksburg
Area
State of Virginia
and local govern-
ment
Consider establishment of a
centralized pollution control
authority for the Area.
-------
IV - 1
IVc DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA
The Rappahannock River Basin embraces approximately 2,700
square miles in northeastern Virginia and extends l60 miles in a
southeasterly direction from the eastern slopes of the Blue Ridge
Mountains to the Chesapeake Bay,
The 60-mile wide headwaters area and the 10 to 20-mile
wide middle and lower tidewater areas form a tomahawk-shaped
basin which is a geographic reminder of the Indian origin of the
name "Rappahannock," interpreted by authorities on Algonquin dia-
lects as "river current which flows back again." This back flow
occurs with the incoming tide which affects the stream from the
mouth to the "fall line" at Fredericksburg, a distance of about
107 miles=
Headwaters lie in Rappahannock County, approximately 80
miles northwest of Fredericksburg in the Blue Ridge physiographic
province where the rugged topography rises in elevation from 500
to over 3,500 feet above mean sea level° The geological forma-
tions in the mountainous regions consist of quartzites and
granites, and stream channels are steep with few flood plains.
The main tributaries in the headwaters area are Thornton
and Hazel Rivers and Mountain Run, all of which are small
The principal tributary, the Rapidan River, flows eastward out
of Madison, Orange, and Culpeper Counties and joins the main
stem 122 miles above the mouth.
-------
IV - 2
The middle reaches are in the Piedmont Province, a
plateau lying between the eastern foot of the Blue Ridge Moun-
tains and the Fall Zone. Topography is well rounded; formations
consist of mingled crystalline and metamorphic rocks, and the
stream flows in a sinuous, entrenched channel with limited flood
plains.
The broader headwaters area, draining into the narrow
middle reach where topography, stream patterns, and geology are
conducive to floods, has produced gage height variations near
Fredericksburg of greater than 25 feet.
Below the Fall Zone at Fredericksburg, the stream meanders
for about kO miles through the flat Coastal Plain where unconsoli-
dated sediments of sand, gravel, and fossil shells derived from
the mountainous regions to the west are laid down on a basement
rock of granite, and for the remaining 67 miles to the mouth,
typically estuarine reaches range from two to four miles in width„
The watershed includes all of four Counties: Culpeper,
Madison, Rappahannock, and Richmond, and portions of 11 Counties:
Caroline, Essex, Fauquier, Greene, King George, Lancaster, Middle-
sex, Orange, Spotsylvania, Stafford, and Westmoreland, The Basin
Area is approximately one-seventh of the total State Area.
Mean flows in the Rappahannock River and its tributaries,
based on the last 19 years of record from U. S. Geological Survey
*/
data, are as follows:—
*
Drought Flows in Virginia Rivers, Virginia State Water Control
Board
-------
IV - 3
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER BASIN
Gaging Station
Location
Rappahannock River near
Warrenton
Rush River at Washington
Thornton River near
Laurel Mills
Hazel River at Rixeyville
Rappahannock River at
Remington
Mountain Run near
Culpeper
Rapidan River near
Ruckersville
Robertson River near
Locust Dale
Rapidan River near
Culpeper
Rappahannock River near
Fredericksburg
Cat Point Creek near
Montross
Piscataway Creek near
Tappahannock
Mean
Flow
(cfs)
190
14.2
159
330
657
15-3
154
210
515
1,655
39.2
30.6
Minimum Mean Daily
Flow Return Period
2 Yr. 5 Yr. 10 Yr.
7 2 1.2
0
1.1
27 6.6 3.9
38 10 6.8
0.1
12 4.5 3.8
19 10 2.6
37 13 4.1
112 67 10
1.2 0.1 0
0
-------
V - 1
V. WATER POLLUTION PROBLEMS, NEEDS, AND COSTS
For discussion purposes, the Rappahannock River Basin
may be subdivided into three areas with boundaries based on
physiographic and economic characteristics (see Figure l).
Pollution summaries of the three sub-basins follov.
A. Headwaters Area
The upper or headwaters area is largely rural, with
more than 84 per cent of the population residing on farms or in
rural residential areas. Warrenton, Orange, and Culpeper are
the only population centers having 2UOO persons or more. Four
other small towns had a total I960 population of 4,59^.
The principal industry in the region is sawmilling and
logging; but small industries, including furniture and other
wood products, wearing apparel, metal products, and electrical
equipment manufacturing, are scattered through the area.
Municipal areas having significant waste loads and/or
existing or potential pollution problems are discussed as follows:
1. Town of Warrenton
Warrenton, the County Seat of Fauquier County, is at
the intersection of U. S. Routes 29 and 211 and is approximately
U2 miles southwest of Washington, D. C. The municipal area is
approximately divided by the ridge line between the Potomac and
Rappahannock River Basins. The water supply comes from Cedar
-------
V - 2
Run in the Potomac Basin, and the waste treatment plant discharges
to Great Run, a small tributary of the Rappahannock River.
The present population within the Town limits is it ,100;
however, approximately 8,000 persons reside in the municipal
area. Projections for the area show a population increase of
about 67 per cent by the year 2000.
The Town is served by a secondary treatment plant designed
for a population equivalent of 6,000.
Waste Treatment Facilities
Town of Warrenton
Type of
Treatment
Secondary
Design
Average
Flow
. *
0.6 mgd
Present
Average
Flow
0.23 mgd
Receiving
Stream
Great Run
(Standard Rate
Trickling Filters)
*
Drying beds designed for 0.5
a. Existing and Potential Problems
To maintain water quality in Great Run, the State Depart-
ment of Health estimates that 90 per cent of the BOD in Town
wastes must be removed consistently by the municipal waste treat-
ment plant, but efficient plant operation could be adversely
affected by infiltration which has increased flow to the plant
by 300 per cent during rainstorms.
The design capacity of the municipal treatment plant
will probably be exceeded in the near future if flow from a
-------
V - 3
proposed expanded sewerage system in the Cedar Run Area is col-
lected and pumped to the plant.
b« Action Pending and Required
Engineers for the Town have completed and submitted plans
for an expanded sewerage system to State agencies for approval,
which includes interceptors and a pumping station designed to
provide sewage collection in the Cedar Run Watershed for a ten-
year projected population of 7,000., Capacity is provided for
additional areas of Fauquier County, if the Fauquier County
Sanitary Authority elects to enter into a cooperative agreement
with the Town. The estimated cost of the proposed system is
$250,000. As proposed, waste water collected in the Cedar Run
Area would be pumped over the ridge line to the existing treat-
ment plant until flow reaches design capacity, at which time
additional treatment capacity would be required.
The Town has applied to the State for a permit to dis-
charge treated waste water to the Occoquan Creek Watershed which
is presently under a moratorium set by the State Water Control
Boardo If the permit is granted, present plans call for a
future waste treatment plant to be built downstream on Cedar Run,
a small tributary of Occoquan Creek which flows through several
communities in Fauquier and Prince William Counties. If the
future treatment plant is not built in the Cedar Run Watershed,
-------
V - k
an alternate plan would involve the enlargement of the existing
municipal plant, and all future wastes originating in the Cedar
Run Watershed in the Potomac Basin would be pumped to the Rappa-
hannock Basin for treatment and discharge. Because of the high
degree of treatment required, including removal of nutrients,
for waste discharges to the Occoquan Creek Watershed, it may be
more economical to enlarge the existing plant as required and
pump Cedar Run wastes to the existing site. However, an analysis
of comprehensive pollution abatement plans for the two Basins
is suggested before a final decision is made,,
The assimilative capacity of Great Run should be studied
and compared with projected waste discharges from the existing
waste treatment plant so that plans for additional treatment
facilities may be expedited as required to assure that over-
loaded conditions at the existing plant will not develop„ A
preliminary cost estimate for a new plant is $^50,000*
The infiltration problems should also be investigated
and correctedc
2. Remington - Fauquier County
Remington, a small community with an approximate popula-
tion of 300, is located at the intersection of Uo S0 Route 29
and State Route 66lo The Southern Railway crosses the Rappa-
hannock River nearby. Waste treatment facilities consist of
the following:
-------
V - 5
Waste Treatment Facilities
Remington, Virginia
Minimum Mean
Design Present Discharge 7-Day
Type of Average Average Duration 10- Year
Treatment Flow 5low Receiving Stream Occurrence Frequency
Primary 0.075 mgd 0.030 mgd Rappahannock River 10 cfs
(Imhoff Tank)
No chlorination is provided
a. Existing and Potential Problems
At Kellys Fords a swimming area five miles downstream from
Remington, bacterial counts of 11,000 (MPN) have been found, and
analysis of samples taken upstream and downstream from Remington
by State agencies have indicated that Remington is the principal
source of the bacterial pollution. Other evidence of degradation,
including algal growths , were noted during low flow periods.
Stream analysis made by the State Water Control Board in 1966
indicated that the river recovered from the effects of the Reming-
ton discharge within one mile downstream except for bacterial
pollution .
b. Action Pending and Required
The plant operators are planning to extend the effluent
line from the treatment plant to tlu. outer of the River to pro-
vide more rapid mixing and dilution with the receiving stream.
Chlorination facilities should be installed immediately
to reduce bacterial pollution,, and plans for secondary treatment
-------
v - 6
should be started. Cost for secondary facilities is estimated
to be $70,000.
3. Town of Culpeper - Culpeper County
Culpeper, the County Seat of Culpeper County, was survey-
ed in 17^9 by the young County Surveyor, George Washington.
U. S. Routes 29 and 522 intersect in the Town; the Southern Rail-
way passes through; and the Town is centrally located in one of
the leading dairy farming Counties in the State. There are
varied small industries in the Town, including furniture, wear-
ing apparel, and metal products manufacturing, and all signifi-
cant industrial discharges enter the municipal sewer system.
Municipal water needs are supplied by a dual purpose structure,
including 531 acre-feet of municipal water storage, located
upstream on Mountain Run, a small tributary of the Rappahannock
River. The Town waste treatment plant discharges into this
stream in the Culpeper Area.
Population projections by the National Planning Associa-
tion indicate an increase of about 52 per cent by the year 2000.
-------
v - T
Waste Treatment Facilities
Town of Culpeper, Virginia
Type of
Treatment
Existing:
Secondary
Design
Ave rage
Flow
0. 35 rogd
Present
Average
Flow
0.5 mgd
Receiving
Stream
Mountain Run
Minimum Mean
Discharge 7-Day
Duration 10-Year
Occurrence Frequency
0.1 cfs
(Standard Rate
Trickling Filter)
Under Construction:
(High Rate
Trickling Filter)
mgd
Mountain Run
a. Existing and Potential Problems
The degraded condition of the receiving stream prompted
the State Water Control Board to require additional treatment
capacity, and improved and enlarged secondary treatment facili-
ties are under construction at the existing treatment plant site
(approximately Ii5 per cent complete in February 1967). When flow
approaches the design capacity of the enlarged plant, daily re-
movals of 90 per cent of the influent BOD will be required to
protect water quality in the receiving stream, according to pre-
liminary studies conducted by the Water Control Board. The studies
indicated the assimilative capacity of Mountain Run to be about
200 pounds of BOD per day with a stream flow of 5 cfs to maintain
an average minimum dissolved oxygen level of 5 mg/lo
-------
v - 8
The Supplemental Work Plan for the Mountain Run Water-
*/
shed— , presently in the final phases of review and approval,
includes plans for a new multi-purpose structure on Mountain Run
which will provide 1,000 acre-feet of additional municipal water
supply storage for Culpeper. Also included is a floodwater
retarding structure on Ball Run, a tributary of Mountain Run
upstream from Culpeper. Preliminary drought flow studies made
by the Virginia State Water Control Board indicate that addition-
al impoundments in the Watershed may result in flows in Mountain
Run being reduced to critical levels during dry seasons.
b. Action Pending and Required
Additional hydrological and assimilative capacity studies
of the Mountain Run Watershed should be made to determine if
water quality will be endangered by the Town waste treatment
plant discharges in the future. Storage for flow regulation
in the proposed Mountain Run Watershed project or advanced waste
treatment of the Town waste discharges may be required to protect
the water quality of Mountain Run.
h. Town of Orange
Orange, the County Seat of Orange County, is at the inter-
section of U. S. Route 15 and State Route 201 and is served by
the Southern and the C & 0 Railways.
*/
— Supplemental Work Plan for the Mountain Run Watershed, Soil
Conservation Service, Culpeper, Virginia.
-------
V - 9
This Town is similar to Warrenton, in that the ridge
line between two river basins nearly divides the Town, and future
growth in the area could be in either the York or Rappahannock
Basins.
Principal industries include fabrics, metal, and wood
products manufacturing. The Town has also acquired approximately
200 acres south of the Town in the York River Basin which is to
be developed for industry.
Construction of a new water treatment plant in the Rappa-
hannock Basin with a capacity of 2 mgd has been approved by the
Town, with construction scheduled to start in the near future.
Population projections by the National Planning Associa-
tion indicate limited growth for the area, with less than ten
per cent increase by year 2000; however, the new water plant and
the industrial park will enhance growth possibilities.
A secondary treatment plant designed for a population
equivalent of 3,700 is located west of the Town on Popular Run;
however, the effluent is piped to the Rapidan River, a tributary
to the Rappahannock River.
Waste Treatment Facilities
Town of Orange, Virginia
Minimum Mean
Design Present Discharge 7-Day
Type of Average Average Receiving Duration 10-Year
Treatment Flow Flow Stream Occurrence Frequency
Secondary 0.37 mgd 0.2H mgd Rapidan River 11 cfs
(High Rate
Trickling Filter)
-------
V - 10
The plant is designed so that plant capacities can be
increased to 0.65 mgd by expanding primary facilities and modify-
ing secondary facilities.
Approximately 0.08 mgd or one-third of the existing flow
to the waste treatment plant originates in the York Basin.
a. Existing and Potential Problems
Degraded water quality in Popular Run is primarily caused
by an untreated industrial effluent from the Kentucky Flooring
Company of Virginia. The industry uses approximately 50,000
gallons of water per month and discharges to a storm drainage
ditch which flows to Popular Run. The industrial discharge
contains approximately 1,750 mg/1 suspended solids, of which
about 93 per cent are volatile, according to a sample analyzed
by the State Water Control Board. The solids are in the over-
flow from settling tanks which settle the wash water from
scrubbers installed by the Company to eliminate air pollution
problems caused by the exhaust from sawdust collectors. Tannic
acid in the waste, reacting with iron in the stream, causes pre-
cipitation and coloration for approximately one mile downstream.
Storm and ground water infiltration of sanitary sewers creates
nuisance conditions in the area. During wet seasons, flow at
the municipal waste treatment plant sometimes increases by 650
per cent, resulting in by-passing and other operational problems.
-------
V - 11
Sewers are sometimes surcharged, causing manholes to overflow
to streets and storm drains. These overflows are probably the
source of the bacterial pollution indicated by the high coliform
densities found by the Water Control Board in samples taken in
the storm drainage ditch mentioned above.
The only other significant industrial waste discharge
in the area is an organic tint from a fabrics industry which
contributes a small BOD load to the municipal waste treatment
plant. If anticipated increases in water usage occur after the
new water treatment plant is constructed, overloaded conditions
at the waste treatment plant could develop in the near future.
Wo water quality problems are on record in the Rapidan River;
however, further studies are needed to determine the assimila-
tive capacity of the River.
b. Action Pending and Required
The State Water Control Board is studying the Popular
Run pollution situation to determine the most feasible solution
to the problem. Further treatment of the Flooring Mill effluent,
possibly by chemical precipitation, may be required. The cor-
rection of the infiltration problem would reduce operation problems
at the municipal sewage plant and reduce the bacterial pollution
of Popular Run resulting from raw sewage overflows at manholes
during storms.
-------
V - 12
The Town has recently smoke-tested the municipal sewer
system in an attempt to locate infiltration problem areas, and
plans are being made to conduct more extensive investigations.
Cost estimates for correcting the infiltration problem have not
been made, but immediate action is needed.
In preparation for increased loads anticipated after the
new water system is developed, the waste treatment plant should
be expanded to the ultimate design capacity of 0.65 mgd. Stream
studies are needed to determine the degree of treatment required,
but improvements to provide conventional secondary treatment are
estimated to cost $250,000.
A comprehensive plan for the area is needed to determine
the most feasible means of disposing of future wastes originating
on the two sides of the ridge line. Future growth in the area
will probably take place south of the Town in the York Basin, in
the area proposed for industrial development. Disposal of wastes
originating in this area will involve either the pumping of the
wastes into the Rappahannock Basin or the construction of a new
plant in the York Basin. Since the water supply needs are
originally met by withdrawals from the Rapidan River, waste dis-
charges to the York Basin would result in decreased flow in the
Rapidan River, possibly affecting downstream water quality.
-------
V - 13
B. Central Area
The Central Area, containing the City of Fredericksburg,
is the economic and population center of the Rappahannock River
Basin. The Area is part of what has "been named the Metropolitan
Corridor, which includes the four large metropolitan complexes
of the State of Virginia, namely: Arlington, Alexandria, and
Fairfax; Richmond, Petersburg, and Hopewell; Hampton and Newport
News; and the Norfolk-Portsmouth Area.
The principal industry in the Rappahannock Basin, a large
cellophane manufacturing plant, is located in the Central Area.
The major water pollution problems in the Rappahannock River are
downstream from this industry. All significant waste discharges
which contribute to pollution problems in the central reaches of
the River originate in and around the City of Fredericksburg. A
summary of pollution in the Area follows:
1. Fredericksburg Urban Area
The Fredericksburg Urban Area, defined as the City of
Fredericksburg and the four surrounding political districts
(Chancellor and Courtland Districts in Spotsylvania County and
Hartwood and Falmouth Districts in Stafford County), is located
approximately 50 miles southwest of Washington, on U. S. Route 1.
The Area is served by the Richmond, Fredericksburg, and Potomac
Railway, and Interstate Highway 95 passes west of the City.
-------
v - lU
The water supply for the City of Fredericksburg system,
which also serves the Falmouth Sanitary District, draws raw water
from a canal which receives its flow from a diversion created by
a low-level dam located above the City in the Rappahannock River.
Industries in the area utilize the upper estuary as a major source
of raw water, while surrounding communities, including Ferry Farms
Subdivision, utilize wells„
The population of the Area is expected to increase more
than twofold by the year 2000; however, growth of industries
having significant industrial vaste problems is expected to be
moderate to light.
Municipal and industrial wastes totaling nearly 32 million
gallons are discharged daily to the Rappahannock River in the
Fredericksburg Area. Approximately two million gallons of the
total receive primary treatment, and the remaining 30 million
gallons are discharged untreated. (see details on page V - 16)
-------
V - 15
Waste Discharges in the Fredericksburg Urban Area
Present Type of
Population Discharge Treatment
Location Served
American Viscose
Corporation U8
City of
Fredericksburg lk
Falmouth Sanitary
District
Ferry Farms
Subdivision 1
Tylerton
Subdivision
Total 6k
*
Population equivalent
*
,000
,350
350
,000
300
,000
(mgd)
30
1.5
0.035
0.1
0.03
31.665
Received Receiving Stream
None Rappahannock River
Primary Rappahannock River
Primary Rappahannock River
Primary Rappahannock River
None Rappahannock River
The Fredericksburg municipal waste treatment plant also
serves areas in Spotsylvania County, including the Four Mile Fork
Sanitary District and the Spotsylvania Service Authority. At
present, approximately 86 per cent of the contributing population
is within the City; however, consulting engineers estimate that
the City's contribution will be reduced to about 6l per cent by
the year 2000.
One of the largest cellophane plants in the world, owned
by the American Viscose Corporation, a division of Food Machinery
Corporation, is located immediately downstream from Fredericks-
burg in Spotsylvania County. Present employment is about 2,100
persons, making it the largest employer in the Basin.
-------
v - i6
The plant discharges waste water to the Rappahannock
River having the following characteristics: pH, 2.7; BOD, 8,200
Ibs/day.
The plant has followed a continuing program of process
improvements and modifications over past years which has reduced
the BOD load of the waste by approximately 50 per cent; however,
the present waste load of 8,200 pounds of BOD per day, having a
population equivalent of about three times the total urban popu-
lation of the Central Area, continues to be the principal waste
discharge in the Basin.
The Falmouth Sanitary District and the Ferry Farms Sub-
division each have primary sewage treatment plants, while the
Tylerton Subdivision discharges untreated wastes. All are in
Stafford County, and all discharge to the Rappahannock River.
The combined discharges from all municipalities in the Fredericks-
burg urban area, including occasional by-passed flow, contribute
approximately one-third of the waste load received by the Rappa-
hannock River in the Fredericksburg Area.
a. Existing and Potential Problems
Serious water quality problems exist in the Rappahannock
River below Fredericksburg. The quality of the River varies
with River discharges and tides, but for the lower range of
flows (less than 500 to 700 cfs), when fresh water inflow is not
sufficient to overcome tidal effects, wastes accumulate in the
-------
V - IT
upper estuary creating seriously degraded conditions. Dissolved
oxygen concentrations are reduced to zero; fish kills occur; and
the River becomes generally undesirable for most legitimate uses.
Nutrients contributed by Fredericksburg Area treatment
plants could adversely affect water quality in the Rappahannock
Estuary; however, sufficient data are not presently available
to afford an evaluation of the problem.
Assimilative capacity studies of the Rappahannock River
*
made by the U. S. Public Health Service in 196U indicate that
the River can assimilate approximately 2000 pounds of BOD during
low flow periods and maintain a minimum average D.O. concentra-
tion of k mg/1. Projections indicate that waste loads in the
Area will be as follows:
Discharge in Pounds of 3-Day ..BOD
Type
Municipal
Industrial
Total
*
Assuming 85 per
*
Present 1980
1,800 1,325
8,200 2,100
10,000 3,1*25
cent removal of BOD
*
2000
1,81+0
2,680
1+,520
Water Resource Study - Salem Church Reservoir, Rappahannock
River, Virginia, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Public Health Service, Region III, Charlottesville,
Virginia,
-------
V - 18
It is obvious that water quality problems will still
exist after all wastes receive secondary treatment, unless
additional measures are taken.
b. Action Pending and Required
The industrial plant and all municipalities in the Area
have been directed by the State Water Control Board to begin con-
struction of secondary treatment facilities by June 1, 1967. In
response to the directive, action has been as follows:
(l) Fredericksburg
The City of Fredericksburg has submitted plans for
secondary treatment facilities to the State Department of Health
for approval. The proposed facilities include a high rate trick-
ling filter designed for a population equivalent of 28,000 and a
BOD removal of 85 per cent. The estimated cost is $570,000.
State agencies have approved the plans and forwarded
them to the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration with
an application for a Federal grant,
(2) Falmouth, Ferry Farms, and Tylerton
A Sanitary District for the southeast portion of Stafford
County, which would include Falmouth, Ferry Farms, Tylerton, and
other areas of the County in the Rappahannock Basin, has been
proposed, and a referendum is being planned for May 1967° If
the referendum is approved, a secondary waste treatment plant
-------
V - 19
designed for a population equivalent of ^,000 would be constructed
to serve the newly created Sanitary District, with the exception
of a small area in the Potomac Watershed, The plant, as proposed,
would "be the contact stabilization type and would discharge to
the Rappahannock River between Falmouth and Fredericksburg. The
estimated total cost of the sewerage system for the proposed
Sanitary District is $950,000,
(3) Food Machinery Corporation, American Viscose
Division
In compliance with the State Water Control Board directive,
the American Viscose cellophane plant has started construction of
secondary treatment facilities. The proposed treatment plant
will be designed to treat approximately 10 mgd, or one-third of
the waste discharge. The process will consist of neutralization,
nutrient additions, contact aeration, and clarification. The
Company has proposed that the treatment plant be operated for
one year as a pilot plant, after which time additional units
will be constructed to treat all of the industry's wastes. It
is estimated that BOD removals will be on the order of 60 to 65
per cent. The estimated cost of the initial unit is $800,000.
(h) General
The apparent need for flow regulation to maintain water
quality below Fredericksburg after secondary treatment facilities
are installed has been recognized and provided for in planning
-------
V - 20
for the proposed Salem Church Reservoir which would be located
approximately six miles upstream from Fredericksburg. Studies
made by the Public Health Service indicated that 130,1+00 acre-
feet of storage will be required to maintain water quality below
Fredericksburg through the year 2020, assuming that secondary
treatment for all Fredericksburg Area wastes will be provided.
If the dam is constructed, based on the aforementioned
study, a minimum average D.O. value of U mg/1 could be maintained.
If the dam is not constructed, alternate methods of
reducing waste loads which could be considered are: (a) flow
diversion to points further downstream or to the Potomac River,
which is approximately ten miles from Fredericksburg; and/or
(b) advanced waste treatment of area wastes.
Population projections indicate a need for additional
waste treatment facilities for municipal wastes after 1980 in
the Fredericksburg Area. Proposed new facilities are designed
for 1980 populations.
C. Lower Area
The Lower Basin is essentially a rural area with approxi-
mately 95 per cent of the population residing on farms or in
rural residential areas.
The six incorporated towns in the region are all small,
the largest having a population of approximately 1,100. Indus-
tries in the Lower Basin having waste discharges are seasonal,
-------
V - 21
and industrial pollution problems originating in the Area are
primarily localized nuisance problems.
The River has a 12-foot minimum depth navigable channel
over the entire tidal portion from the mouth to Fredericksburg,
a distance of 107 miles. Twelve Federally improved small boat
harbors on tributaries of the lower reaches of the River are
used extensively by commercial seafood boats and recreational
craft.
Highly productive oyster grounds are located in the
lower Rappahannock River, the reach from Towles Point upstream
to Bowlers Wharf being the principal oyster growing area in the
State. The Estuary also serves as a spawning area for shad and
striped bass.
Projections indicate that growth in the lower region
will be moderately small, with only about a 33 per cent increase
expected by the year 2000.
No single town is causing major pollution problems in
the lower reaches of the River; however, there is a need for
sewerage systems to replace septic tanks in two towns, and
several existing plants need attention. The principal pollu-
tion problems are localized and are related to boat pollution.
A summary of pollution in the Lower Basin follows:
-------
V - 22
1. King George County
The only significant source of waste in the County is
the Engelhorn Meat Packing Company, located near Dogue, Virginia,
which discharges waste to a holding pond and uses the pond dis-
charge for spray irrigation of about 1,000 acres. Feed lots for
fattening pigs are located in the Area; however, the feeding
operation has been reduced. Presumably there is no effluent to
the River; however, the State Water Control Board is monitoring
the Area to assure that no pollution problem is created by run-off.
2. Westmoreland County
A small cannery at Leedstown creates localized seasonal
nuisance conditions when pulp wastes from tomato canning opera-
tions are discharged to the River. Methods of alleviating the
problem are being studied cooperatively by the owner and the
Water Control Board,
3= Essex County
The Town of Tappahannock, the largest in the Lower Basin,
has a stabilization pond with sufficient capacity for future needs.
No pollution problems are evident in this County„
Ho Richmond County
The Town of Warsaw, with an approximate population of
500, is served by septic tanks and has been seeking financial
aid for several years for the construction of a sewerage system
-------
V - 23
for the Town. An attempt is being made to acquire financing
through the Farm Home Administration. The proposed town sewer-
age system would discharge to Jugs Creek, a small tributary of
the Rappahannock River» The system would cost an estimated
$650,000.
Clothing manufacturers located near the Town treat their
own waste in a stabilization pond which discharges to Cat Point
Creek. No significant water quality problems exist in the Area;
however, the Town desires to construct public sewers to enhance
growth.
5. Lancaster County
Wo serious water quality problems exist in this County;
however, Kilmarnock, the second largest Town in the Lower Basin
with a I960 population of 927 > has local problems, including
suspected bacterial pollution of Corrotoman River, Eastern Branch,
resulting from several municipally owned septic tanks which dis-
charge to small stream.„ The Town has recently voted against a
referendum which would have authorized a construction program
including a two-acre lagoon in the Rappahannock Basin. The
estimated cost of the Project was $127,000; however, the Town
is restudying sewerage needs in anticipation of holding a new
referendum, and cost estimates may be increased.
The only other significant pollution problems in the
County are related to boating activities. Bacterial pollution
-------
V - 2k
in Carters Creek and Windmill Point Areas has caused the State
Department of Health to place restrictions on the direct market-
ing of shellfish from beds in the area., The Tides Inn resort
at Irvington has a privately owned secondary plant which is
adequate to treat the wastes from the resort; however, improper
operation in the past has contributed to the pollution problem
in Carters Creek„ This problem is being handled by the State
Water Control Board.
At the mouth of the River, a yacht basin at Windmill
Point has secondary facilities.
6. Middlesex County
The principal problem in the County is related to a
yacht basin in Urbanna Creek where the direct marketing of shell-
fish is condemned. The pollution stems from boat activity in
the area and from a structurally unsound and outmoded primary
waste treatment plant serving the Town of Urbannao The Water
Control Board has not yet directed that additional facilities
be provided, primarily because of the need for additional studies
of the boat pollution problem,
Barndardt Farms Inn, a duck farm downstream from Urbanna,
has a series of settling and retention ponds for treating dis-
charges from duck runs. The final effluent is not chlorinated
before discharge to the Rappahannock River; however, a review of
-------
V - 25
Water Control Board data collected during a six-month study of
#
the facilities resulted in the State Department of Health's
lifting of restrictions on direct harvesting of oysters from
approximately ^00 acres of public shellfish beds. The data also
showed the water quality in the Area to be satisfactory for
recreational purposes except in the immediate vicinity of the
treated discharges.
The only other significant pollution problem in the County
is in the Broad Creek area near the mouth of the River, where
bacterial pollution attributable to intensive boat activity has
resulted in the condemnation of shellfish beds.
"Treatment of Duck Wastes and Their Effects on Water Quality,"
R. V. Davis, C. E. Cooley, and A. W. Hadder, Virginia State
Water Control Board.
-------
ftlk*yA$$
.*£ f.J$B/2ll
,& ?' r-r- 3 V
; i / ,.-•'- iff /^
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION . ... „*........„...,,... I - 1
Ao Purpose and Scope ... ..»„......*... 1-1
B. Acknowledgments ......... . 1-2
II. GENERAL ......... II - 1
A. Source of Information ........ . . II - 1
B. Determination of Needs ............... II - 2
Co State Stream Classifications ............ II - 5
D. Comprehensive Planning of Water Resources of
the Susquehanna River Basin II - 7
E. Susquehanna River Basin Compact ... II - 7
III. SUMMARY Ill - 1
A. Water Quality .... .......... Ill - 1
B. Immediate Pollution Control Needs ......... Ill - 3
1. Waste Treatment ..... ...... Ill - 3
2. Comprehensive Evaluations ........... Ill - 22
3= Special Studies ................ Ill - 2h
k. Institutional Practices ............ Ill - 25
C. Recent Pollution Control Progress ......... Ill - 26
1. New York .................... Ill - 26
2. Pennsylvania .......... 0 ....... Ill - 27
3. Federal and State Cooperative Agencies ..... Ill - 27
D. Water Supply .................... Ill - 28
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA ............. IV - 1
A. Location < .o. .................. IV - 1
B. Climate .............. IV - 1
C. Topography ............. IV - 2
D. Geology .......... IV - 2
E. Principal Communities and Industries IV - 2
V. WATER POLLUTION PROBLEMS, NEEDS, AND COSTS ....... V - 1
A. Susquehanna River Upstream from Binghamton,
Hew York ............... V-l
1. Oneonta Area .......... V-l
2. Sidney Area V-3
B. Chenango River ......... .. V - 7
1. Hamilton Area ................. V - 7
2o Norwich Area .................. V - 9
C, Tioughnioga River ....... 0 ......... V - lk
1. Cortland Area ................. V - lU
Do Susquehanna River Below Binghamton,
New York ...................... V - 19
1, Binghamton Area . o .............. V - 19
2. Owego Area V - 25
3. Waverly, New York - Sayre, Pennsylvania,
Area ...................... V - 28
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
E» Susquehanna Eiver Between the Chemung
and Lackawanna Rivers . . „ . . . . . . „ . . . . . V - 32
1. Towanda Area V - 32
2. Charmin Paper Company ....... V - 3^
3. Swanee Paper Company V - 36
F. Tioga River .................... V - 37
1. Blossburg Area .. ............... V - 37
2,, Mansfield Area V - 39
G. Cowanesque River ............ V - U2
1. Westfield Area . V - k2
2, Elkland Area V - hh
H. Canisteo River ................... V - k"J
1. Hornell Area V - 1*7
I. Cohocton River ...... ............. V - 51
1. Bath Area ................... V - 51
J „ Chemung Ri ver ................... V - 5^+
1. Corning Area .. ...... .......... V - 5^
2. Elmira Area .................. V - 59
-------
-------
I - 1
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose and Scope
Under the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. h66 et seq), Section 3(a), the Secretary
of the Interior is authorized to make joint investigations with
other Federal agencies, with State Water Pollution Control Agen-
cies and interstate agencies, and with the municipalities and
industries involved, of the condition of any waters in any State
or States and of the discharges of any sewage, industrial wastes,
or substance which may adversely affect these waters. These
investigations are for the purpose of preparing and developing
comprehensive programs for eliminating or reducing the pollution
of interstate waters and tributaries thereof.
This Working Document reports the results of the water
quality and pollution control studies carried out by staff of the
Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River Basins Project in accordance
with the above provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act.
The primary purpose of this report is to focus attention
on existing and potential water pollution problem areas as the
basis for the initiation of immediate pollution control actions.
Specific objectives of this report are to:
1. Delineate present and potential water quality
problem areas.
-------
-------
1-2
2, Indicate responsibility for the problems.
3= Indicate possible immediate actions and responsibility
to alleviate the problem,
k. Estimate costs of these actions.
The secondary purpose of this report is to present general
coverage of potential future water quality problem areas through
year 2020„ Tentative corrective actions are given for considera-
tion in planning for future actions to insure continuing water
quality satisfactory for all desired beneficial uses. A general
coverage of water supply is also included for each area. Anti-
cipated water supply needs through 2020 are indicated with areas
delineated where future water shortages are anticipated.
This report covers that portion of the Susquehanna River
and tributaries upstream from the Lackawanna River at West
Pittston, Pennsylvania, including the headwater tributaries in
the State of Wew York. Principal tributaries include the
Unadilla, Chenango, Tioughnioga, Chemung, Cowanesque, Canisteo,
Cohocton, and Tioga Rivers= The drainage area encompasses ap-
proximately 6,270 square miles in the central portion of New
York arid U,1T5 square miles in north central Pennsylvania.
B. Acknowledgments
The cooperation and assistance of the following Federal,
State, and local agencies are gratefully acknowledged:
-------
1-3
U. So Army Engineer District, Baltimore, Maryland
Uo So Soil Conservation Service, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Uo So Geological Survey, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and
Ithaca, New York
New York State Department of Health, Central Office,
Albany, New York, and Syracuse and Rochester
Regional Offices
Broome County Health Department, Binghamton, New York
Chemung County Health Department, Elmira, New York
Hornell District Office, New York State Department of
Health
Pennsylvania Department of Health, Central Office,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and Region II, Williamsport,
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Department of Mines and Mineral Industries,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
National Planning Association,, Washington, D- C.
Local Municipal Officials
Local Industrial Representatives
-------
-------
II - 1
II. GENERAL
A. Source of Information
Present water quality conditions covered in this report
were evaluated by staff of the Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River
Basins Project, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
employing the following sources of information:
1. Industrial water and waste facilities inventories
gathered from questionnaires sent by the New York
and Pennsylvania Departments of Health to industries
in the Susquehanna River Basin.
2. Municipal water and waste facilities inventories
obtained from the New York and Pennsylvania Depart-
ments of Health.
3. Existing data obtained from files of State, local,
and other Federal agencies.
k. Results of CB-SRBP stream sampling investigations.
5. Public meetings and personal communications with
Federal, State, and local planning agencies.
A biological study of the Susquehanna River and tributaries
by CB-SRBP comprised a special investigation to supplement water
quality sampling data of chemical, biochemical, and bacteriological
characteristics for streams throughout the study area. Brief sum-
maries of the biological studies are given along with summaries of
quality data for most of the areas covered in this report. For
-------
-------
II - 2
more details of the biological conditions of streams throughout
the Susquehanna River Basin, findings are presented in two pre-
vious CB-SRBP reports (CB-SRBP Working Documents Nos. 1 and 2).
A mine drainage study was undertaken by CB-SRBP to
delineate areas, problems, and general corrective measures for
mine drainage pollution in the Susquehanna, Potomac, and Dela-
ware Basins. The findings of the mine drainage study are sum-
marized briefly in this report only to point out the effect of
mine drainage on water quality in the stream reaches under con-
sideration . Detailed findings are presented in the CB-SRBP Mine
Drainage Report.
For evaluations of future water supply and water quality
requirements, county population and industrial productivity pro-
jections developed by the National Planning Association were
employed. The I960 U. S. Census Report was used as a base from
which individual community projections were made. Industrial
loadings were projected by type of industry on an individual
production increase basis„ Modifications were made to industrial
projections when specific information was obtained regarding
changes in processing, techniques, or plant operation.
B. Determination of Needs
Water quality needs were evaluated in terms of treatment
required to upgrade and maintain stream conditions which are
generally recognized as being suitable for most beneficial uses;
-------
-------
II - 3
the minimum use being warm-water fishery. The effects of residual
waste loadings to streams were evaluated with the degree of treat-
ment specified which was expected to maintain the desired water
quality for the immediate future. In most cases, secondary treat-
ment with 85 per cent removal of BOD was specified.
Beyond 1980, the degree of treatment and other alternatives
are indicated as possible solutions where water quality problems
are anticipated; however, except for secondary treatment facilities,
the methods proposed for future actions are only given for con-
sideration, since detailed evaluations of the alternatives and
comparisons of benefits would be necessary to select the most
likely alternative.
Cost estimates for upgrading present facilities to second-
ary treatment were obtained mostly from consulting engineers who
have completed studies of needed treatment facilities for many of
the municipalities. For communities not having engaged an engineer,
cost estimates were made of the plant proper, employing construc-
tion cost information from the Public Health Service Publication
Wo, 1229, "Modern Sewage Treatment Plants - How Much Do They Cost,"
and updating these costs with the Public Health Service - Sewage
Treatment Plant current cost index (PHS-STP 11*1. U). For some
communities, costs of treatment plants were estimated by the New
York and Pennsylvania Departments of Health in previous years and,
where these estimates were available, the costs were updated to
indicate current dollar values.
-------
-------
II - U
Needs or abatement measures to control mine drainage
pollution are discussed separately in the CB-SRBP Mine Drainage
Report; cost estimates of reducing mine drainage pollution in
the study area are given for two methods, land reclamation and
lime neutralization. Since mine drainage pollution control needs
are discussed in greater detail in a separate document, only
general coverage is given in this report. However, in areas
where pollution problems result from mine drainage as well as
organic wastes, measures to upgrade stream quality for beneficial
uses must include consideration of both sources.
In evaluating the adequacy of waste treatment facilities
in areas affected by mine drainage, an assumption was made that
mine drainage would be reduced to such an extent that acidity
and heavy metals associated with mine drainage would not impair
the natural assimilative capacities of the stream. Although
initial steps to control mine drainage may not entirely eliminate
the toxic effects of acids and heavy metals during the immediate
years ahead, measures to control or reduce mine drainage should
not be prerequisites to the provision of adequate waste treat-
ment facilities. Therefore, in making waste assimilative evalua-
tions to determine the degree of waste treatment for both present
and future, the above assumption was made; otherwise, with mine
drainage present, stream biota would be inhibited or eliminated
so that waste assimilation could not readily be determined if
occurring at all.
-------
-------
II - 5
C. State Stream Classifications
The New York State Department of Health classifies surface
waters on the basis of "best use." Although many streams may be
used for a number of purposes, water quality conditions must con-
form to a standard matching the use requiring the greatest purity.
Tiie New York State Department of Health engineers have
surveyed the State's streams to determine what uses each is being
put to and their existing water quality. Upon completion of sur-
veillance, a public hearing is conducted for each body of water
prior to the assignment of a classification. Once the classifi-
cation has become legal, all communities and industries are
required to treat any wastes they discharge so as not to violate
the assigned purity standard of the stream.
The classifications prescribed by the Hew York State
Water Resources Commission are as follows:
*
Classification Best Use Required Treatment
AA Drinking supply Tertiary treatment
with chlorination
A & B Bathing Secondary treatment
with chlorination
C Fishing Secondary treatment
D Industrial,
agricultural,
and drainage Secondary treatment
*
Unless otherwise specified by New York State Department
of Health.
-------
II - 6
It should be noted that all streams in the New York
portion of the Susquehanna River Basin are presently classified
as requiring a minimum of secondary treatment (75 to 95 per cent
removal of BOD)„
The Pennsylvania Sanitary Water Board classifies State
streams in terms of degree of treatment required. The main stem
of the Susquehanna River is classified as a "primary," and the
tributaries thereof are classified as "secondary," requiring
primary treatment and secondary treatment facilities, respectively.
For streams impregnated with mine drainage, waste treatment has,
in most cases, not been required; however, as mine drainage is
eliminated or reduced substantially so that natural waste assimi-
lation may occur, the tributary streams formerly containing mine
drainage are reclassified to upgrade water quality. The stream
classifications presented in this report should not be interpreted
to be representative of the effects of future water quality
standards.
This report delineates specific stream classifications
and actions taken by State Water Pollution Control Agencies where
municipalities and industries have been given orders to upgrade
treatment facilities. Where water quality information and other
data indicated the required degree of treatment does not appear
adequate for the immediate future, the need for additional treat-
ment facilities is included.
-------
II - T
D. Comprehensive Planning of Water Resources of the
Susquehanna River Basin
There exists within the Susquehanna River Basin a formal
interagency coordinating committee chaired by the Corps of
Engineers and on which the Project is an active participant.
Membership consists of governor-appointed State representatives
from New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, as well as water-
oriented Federal agencies. The purpose of the Committee is to
recommend a water resources development plan to Congress, based
on evaluating alternative solutions, including costs, to meet
Basin needs.
Since all aspects of water resource development, includ-
ing water pollution control, are being considered, no attempt
has been made to prejudge the Committee findings beyond defining
immediate waste treatment needs in this report. Evaluations
are presently underway by the agencies acting as a work group
and, upon completion, not only immediate water resource needs
and solutions, but also the long-range needs will be determined.
E. Susquehanna River Basin Compact
The conservation, utilization, development, management,
and control of the water resources of the Susquehanna River Basin
involve complex, technical, time-consuming efforts by a large
number of governmental agencies cooperating to formulate a basin-
wide program.
-------
II - 8
In order to avoid duplication, overlapping, and uncoor-
dinated efforts from this large number of cooperating agencies,
the Interstate Advisory Committee on the Susquehanna River Basin,
which was created by the action of the States of New York, Pennsyl-
vania, and Maryland, has, on the basis of its studies and delib-
erations, recommended that an intergovernmental compact with
Federal participation be formed. In an area as large as the
Susquehanna River Basin, where approximately three million people
live and work, comprehensive multi-purpose planning and adminis-
tration by a basin-wide agency is necessary to bring the greatest
benefits and produce the most efficient service in the public
interest.
Comprehensive planning with basin-wide administration
will provide flood damage reduction; conservation and develop-
ment of surface and ground water supply for municipal, industrial,
and agricultural use; development of recreational facilities in
relation to reservoirs, lakes, and streams; propagation of fish
and game; promotion of land management, soil conservation, and
watershed projects; protection and aid to fisheries; development
of hydroelectric power potentialities; improved navigation;
control of movement of salt water; abatement and control of water
pollution; and regulation of stream flows toward the attainment
of these goals.
-------
-------
II - 9
The Advisory Committee has prepared a draft of an inter-
governmental compact for the creation of a Basin agency. The
States of New York, Maryland, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
and the United States of America, upon enactment of concurrent
legislation by the Congress and "by the respective State legis-
latures, agree with each other to the Susquehanna River Basin
Compact. To date both the States of New York and Maryland have
passed legislation to adopt the Compact.
-------
Ill - 1
III. SUMMARY
A. Water Quality
This report covers pollution control needs for that
portion of the Susquehanna River Basin upstream from the Sus-
quehanna River-Lackawanna River confluence at West Pittston,
Pennsylvania, These needs were evaluated on the basis of heavily
populated areas presently influencing the water quality within
the study area.
The principal cause of pollution within the study area
is inadequate treatment of municipal wastes. The Binghamton
Area, for example, is currently providing primary treatment and,
in some cases, no treatment prior to discharging wastes to the
Susquehanna River. This waste loading adversely affects water
quality of the River for approximately 20 miles. The downstream
beneficial uses are more limited in this reach than in any other
portion of the entire Susquehanna River, with the possible excep-
tion of the reach downstream from Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.
Secondary treatment is needed as an immediate action, in order
to improve the water quality downstream from Binghamton„ Present
planning is considering provision of secondary treatment facilities,
Other areas along the Susquehanna River causing localized
pollution due to inadequate treatment are Oneonta (primary treat-
ment), Sidney (none and primary treatment), Owego (primary treat-
ment), Waverly (no treatment), and Sayre (no treatment). These
-------
Ill - 2
areas are also in need of facilities to provide a greater degree
of treatment,
Aside from Binghamton, the second most serious pollution
problems occur in tributary watersheds where wastes receive inade-
quate treatment and where stream flows are insufficient to assimi-
late the resulting discharge. These areas and the receiving streams
include Hamilton (overloaded secondary treatment plant) and Nor-
wich (primary) on the Chenango River; Cortland (primary) on the
Tioughnioga River; Hornell (primary) on the Canisteo River; Bath
(primary) on the Cohocton River; Westfield (primary) on the
Cowanesque River; and Corning (primary) and Elmira (overloaded
secondary plant) on the Chemung River. Secondary treatment facili-
ties, providing a minimum of 85 per cent BOD removal, are needed
in these areas.
Nutrient enrichment, resulting in profuse algal growths,
creates a problem in the Chenango River downstream from Norwich.
The Norwich Pharmacal Company and the surrounding dairy farm are
presumably responsible for the nutrient contributions. The
Corning Area, which is highly industrialized, also contributes
excessive quantities of nutrients to the Chemung River, causing
heavy growths of algae in the downstream reaches. However, ad-
ditional studies are needed to determine the sources and extent
of the problems in these areas.
-------
Ill - 3
Mine drainage pollution is a major problem in the upper
reaches of the Tioga River. Morris Run, Bear Creek, and Coal
Creek drain the Bloss coal field in the vicinity of Blossburg,
Pennsylvania, and are primarily responsible for the mine drain-
age introduced into the Tioga River. Mine drainage adversely
affects the Tioga River over a 36-mile section from Blossburg,
Pennsylvania, to the confluence with the Canisteo River. The
biological sampling results in the fall of 1965 indicated that
this reach of stream was generally devoid of benthic organisms
and fish life. A contractual study indicates that treatment
and land reclamation to reduce the mine drainage may be feasible;
however, specific methods and costs have not been formulated at
this time.
B. Immediate Pollution Control Heeds
1. Waste treatment
The most pressing need in the Basin is for the provision
of adequate treatment facilities to control pollution at its
source.
Current treatment practices, needs, and cost estimates
for municipalities and industries in the study area are given
in Table I. (Costs estimated include treatment plant facilities
and appurtenances unless otherwise noted.)
A general summary of immediate water treatment needs in
the study area is given below:
-------
-------
Ill - 1
a. Two existing secondary plants
to be expanded to increase the
level of efficiency: $3,085,000
~b. Six primary plants, serving 16
communities, to be expanded to
provide secondary. Estimated
total project costs: $25,097,000
GO Eight primary plants, serving
11 communities, to be expanded
to provide secondary. Estimated
costs of plant expansion only: $1,68^4,300
d. Three secondary treatment plants
to be constructed to serve five
communities presently having
septic tanks or no treatment.
Estimated costs vith sewers and
appurtenances: $^,2^1,000
e. Two communities having septic
tanks or no treatment to provide
secondary treatment facilities.
Estimated cost of plant without
sewers and appurtenances: $72^,000
-------
Ill - 5
f. Two communities having no
treatment to provide primary
treatment as an initial step
toward pollution abatement.
Estimated cost of plant without
sewers and appurtenances:
g. Thirteen industries now having
no treatment to provide second-
ary or join municipal systems:
$U03,000
costs
undetermined
h. Three industries now having
primary or intermediate treat-
ment to provide secondary or
join municipal systems:
i. One industry to provide primary
treatment as an initial step
costs
toward pollution abatement: undetermined
costs
undetermined
Total estimated costs
(exclusive of g, h, and i) $35,23^,300
-------
CQ
Q
W
W
Q
£_l
a;
CO
G
O
•H
•P
cd
o
o
t_ij
H
O G
-p -H 1
f-T, O <•£*,
CO 2 CD
rH to >•
(I) • O
•d G G rH
£-1 O CD ft
O -H CO ft
-P rQ Cd
CD £3
-P rH CD T3
cd H > G
-P O cd co
CQ ft ff
T3
$«H CD cn CD
a; -p G -P
TJ cd cd -p
G £> H -H
P cd ft S
*
o
0
0
*
o
MD
U"\
-ee-
r?
cd
rfj
f^
o
0
CJ
CO
r?
cd
•H
rl
Cn
0
OO
on
A
CM
(U
he
cd
H
K H
p> £>
M
PH G
^
< o
p* 4^
S tn
<£ fn
33 D
W ft
P O
cy o
CO CJ
p
CO
^
d)
TlJ
J-4
o
to
•.
0)
rjj
O
•rl
cn
to
°H
g
O
0
<;
o
o
o
*
o
0
CM
CM
-69-
r?
cd
^
G
O
0
5
-P
•H
CJ
cd
4-^
G
o
0)
o
^
^{
cd
rH *H
ft lO
0) G
P-H 0)
G 0)
•H £n
ft
"^j a
(U O
3 o
to
to
•H
t—
CO MD
cd ON
> H
•
r^J
OJ
-P
P>4 -P O
to l-i G *-i
SH O 0) ft
CO • 'H a ft
Ti G -p cd
O -H 0) CO -P
-p H ?H *H
OS H ft ;>> hD
-P O ft rH
CQ ft Cd «S rH
-d cd
fn CO to G SH
0) -p G O 0)
nci cd cd o id
G rd H CO 0)
H3 cd ft to Pti
*
o
o
on
^
C7\
H
ro
-69-
r7
cd
TJ
G
O
O
(U
CQ
£
S
•H
^H
P-i
LT\
U~N
H
*s
LT\
0)
hC
cd
H
rH
•rH
£>
^i
0)
G
rQ
•H
CO
•P
•H
rH
•H
o
•H
to
cd
Q)
"d
•iH
1
•g
J3
o
CJ
*
0
o
o
*
-j-
t—
r?
cd
^
G
O
o
0)
CQ
CO
G
O
£5
O
o
t—
CO
hD
cd
H
rH
•H
^>
cd
H
H
•H
rrH,
cd
£3
•
c?
>
rH
0)
-d
p
•d3
lj
-p
to
t~ ITT
^ VQ -1-
co o\
•d H
O !>i H
rH Cd
to cd 'd
- 3 G
JH G O
rH -P
0
o
o
t—
on
OO
rv
t—
-eo-
£>
cd
S
CQ
G
•H G
O O
•-3 -P
QJ
G
O
O
o
o
n
(T\
CM
0)
ttC
rH
rH
•H
J^
-P
•H
O
G
O
CO
G
O
-------
Ill - 7
CQ
O
prT)
pt^
a
a •—•
rd 01
0) CQ 3
3 W G
G 0 -H
•H M -p
P EH G
GOO
o <; o
O p~i > — *"
v_, (L,
x"— v
M EH ij
W W PW
PQ H O
< «; H
EH W a
PH u3
EH g
s — ^
EH
£5
PT")
K
| i
O
JH
CD
i-l
CD
CQ
G
O
•H
P
cd
0
o
K— 3
$H O
0) rH
JH t>> ^i
O M M
cd cd
ETJ
G
f-i fi O
CD 01 0
G P1-* CD
O 10
tn 0) bO P
to p! G G
•H CO -H 01
a w JH a
j~ .rH -H -p
O S cd
o w c* CD
Cd 01 JH
JH P
*
*
*
0
O
o
r\
CO
CO
CM
O
H
-ee-
i?
cd
G
O
O
CD
CQ
>v
JH
a
•H
PH
O
o
o
n
LP\
ru
rrj
Ol
•H
P
O
U
• — '
Ol
PH" bC
£*3 cd
t> 1 — 1
M H
PC; -H
^>
«rf
^ 4-*
a P
<, o
w o
EX] °H
' ) rrj
G? G
CQ
O
-p
tn
CD
^
o
01
-p
cd
-P
CQ
fa
0)
T)
G
D
G
•H
Tj
CD
*d
0
rH
O
M
P
P
O
CJ
•H
G
G
•H
O
Ol
G
O
O
O
O
t—
rH
H
CD
-C*
a
\
G
0
EH
G
O
•H
I -d
CU 01 0)
JH a p
ft O CD
a o H
O JH ft
O PQ 8
0
JH O
• O
O H
•H S P
p -d G
2 3 0)
rH P 0
H to CD
0 JH
ft O)
> t*.
5
J_(
cd
a
•H
JH
PH
O
LT\
on
VD
=te
p
o
•H
JH
P
CO
•H
Q
G
> 0)
O bD
EH oJ
JH
rH CD
cd >
P 0)
tn CQ
CD
G 1
0 JH
•H CD
P t*
cd 0)
-d CQ
G
CD CD
£j *H
o to
o G
0) CD
JH 43 •
ft 3
a a P
CD O CQ
P U
CO Ol
!>» <«H bC
tn O cd
p
P
O
o
•H
T)
_.G
a
01
p
to
[>j
CQ
G 1
O JH
W -H 0)
- P >
-P cd CD
P T3 CQ
0 G
O CD CD
•H I >
G O CO
0) 0)
O JH fl •
P CD S,
1 JH T3
43 fi^ ^
o a a p
01 CD O CQ
G P 0
G to CD
O >a 3
h> CQ
r*^
M
cd
a
•rH
JH
PH
0
O
\J~\
ffs
U"\
H
=»fc
-P
U
•r-l
^
P
W
•H
(~^l
CD LT\
bD "•'fc
cd
JH 'd
0) G
fs ro
0)
CQ
G
o
tO -H
- P
-p cd
p 'd
o a
0 (U
W 0
0)
O JH
P
Ss
CD CD
G P
G to
0 >>
o tn
G
•H
fd p
0) P
*d o
3 o
H -H
O T^
G G
M M
P
P
O
O
•H
G
w a
0)
G P
•H tn
0 >»
hj CQ
0)
G
O
a
o
o
LP\
*i
rH
_-,-
=te
p
u
•H
JH
P
to
•H
Q
01 t~-
bO :-*fc
cd
JH 'd
0) G
> cd
01
CQ
1
JH
0)
O)
CQ
CD
>
•H
CO
G
0)
c] •
0) >>
JH -0
ft 2
a P
O CQ
O
CM bO
O cd
i
to
••
p
p
o
CJ
•H
rrj
G
W
O
p
-p
CD
G
G
O
0
G
•H
rd
01
£1
S
0
o
0)
JH
a
CD
p
to
>>
CO
p
p
O
CJ
•H
'd
G
a
CD
P
CO
^
CQ
1
JH
0)
Jj
CD
CQ
0)
•H
CO
G
0)
,G •
CD >>
JH -d
£3
O CQ
U
CD
CM bO
O cd
-------
Ill -
CO
f-5
w
w
^"i
Q ^
^— ^
M
PS G
pc
< o
^1 rH
t=d o3
W -P
ID 03
a? D
CO >
CO
G
O
•H
-P
cd
G
0
£3
R
o
O
D
^f
1
B
0)
-p
03
^"9
03
d
•rH
^H.
tt)
r^j
£j
rH
O
d
M
-p
-p
o
o
•H
-d
G
W
G
•r-t
O
t-3
fr
03
a
•H
^
PH
O
LPi
CM
ON
=tfc
-p
O
•H
^
-P
CO
•H
Q
D
bC
o3
CP
jj
tt)
CO
1
^
4)
*j
tt)
CO
tt)
£>
•H
CO
d
D
c| .
tt) >J
^H r0
D, H
a -p
O CO
o
tt)
<«H bO
O o3
4-^
-p
o
o
•H
£j
[T")
a
-p
CO
CO
CO
•-
-p
•p
0
o
•r-t
T5
G
O
-P
-P
0
(D
d
G
O
O
d
•rH
T3
0)
r^j
|3
H
O
G
M
-P
-P
O
O
•H
G
W
G
•H
O
(-3
fr
03
S
•H
PH
O
O
rH
0
rH
"*fc
-p
O
•rH
-p
CO
•H
tt)
bO
03
0)
>
Q)
CO
fH
O
•H
-P
03
•d
d
D
£3
§
0
O
4)
^i
1
a
D
-P
CO
*>j
03
-P
-P
O
O
•H
d
w
a
D
•p
CO
CO
1
^)
0)
*J
0)
CO
D
£>
•rH
to
d
tt)
rj
tt)
PJ
a
0
0
^H
o
u
J>j
r^J
3
-p
0)
bC
03
o
0
o
r.
O
o
VQ
t*
CM
-te-
state orders to
r-t
D
G
$
o
o
o
f\
co
CM
CM
-&9-
pollution. Compre-
e sewerage study
ay.
> ?
tt) -H *H
-P CO tt)
o3 d 'd
,a tt) d
o3 si 3
issioner's Order
E
o
o
•^
G
•rH
T!
CJ
^cJ
3
H
O
G
sued February 1967 .
hensive sewerage
underway „
03 D
'H P< -d"
to a 3
o3 O -P
> U CO
D
bO
o3
rH
H
•H
£>
O
bO
tt)
issioner's Order
H
o
o
^
G
•H
*d
tt)
nrj
3
o
d
sued February 1967.
CO
•H
CO
03
*
V
bO
o3
H
H
•H
£>
O
bC
tt)
hensive sewerage
O
t?
§
O
D
CQ
t?
03
a
•H
PH
O
O
CM
rc3
G
03
*
O
tiO
G
03
G
0)
£>
*
G
O
-p
G
tt)
PH
CO
G
>
O
EH
G
O
CO
d
•H
O
•H
Q
^
G
03
0)
o3
rH
•H
>
O
bO
tt)
>
O
M O
§
O
tt)
CO
•H
(H
PH
O
o
VO
H
O
EH
O
bO
M O
§
o
0)
CO
t?
cd
S
•H
SH
OH
O
O
O
CM
=«fc
g
O
EH
O
bD
0)
O
-------
CO
Q
pt^
pi"]
a
Q
T) d>
<1> CO 3
3 W G
G 0 -H
•H M -P
•P EH G
GOO
O <£ U
U 03 ~-^
v £L,
- — •,
M EH >-3
S
(H
0)
CO
G
O
•H
+3
cd
0
o
) i
£H ON (D
0) H bfl
'd cd
SH J>-, fa
O !-< 0)
cd £5
w 3 (U
M to
£H XJ £"s
a) u o cd
(3 PL, >• >
O -H S-i
H TJ tO Q)
to (U G Ti
to 3 H M r*5
c ft 'd
o w 0 3
cd o -p
< > o w
(y
bD
G cd
•H H
H
fd -H
0) >
3 O
rH bC
U 0)
G >
M O
r^
H
cd
r^j
G
O
o
0)
DO
r*>
SH
cd
e
J_j
PH
O
0
tr-
*\
H
— ,
-d
0)
jj
G
•H
P
G
O
O
v— '
K
W
> ro
M sfc
K
•< 3
F^H O
SH EH
c^
M O
M bO
D 0)
& >
CO O
VO
JH VD
(U ON
^ ' — 5
JH >>
O i>> h
fn nJ
to cd 'd
- 3 G
JH G O
(U cd o
G >-3 0)
O to
^H ^ «
to -J
0
^
•>
K*^
H
^_i
0)
cd
^
Q>
-P
cd
cd
o
•p
03
SH
a;
-d
JH
o
pq
^
CO
JL{
(U
•d
G
*
*
O
O
o
*
o
t—
H
-T~f$-
r*^
£H
cd
c
"H
^
PH
0}
G
O
S;
o
o
UA
*v
-^d"
X!
bo
O
f-i
O
«
0)
J>1
cd
co
G
O
•H
-P
cd
1 — 1 r*S
O J-i
•H 0
0
G cd
to
•H
• -P
G cd •
O to to
•H G 03
-P 3 , f! bO
H -p O
O -H SH
ft > ft
H
cd ^ — ^
•H G
-P O
•H .H
G -p
•H O
^ cd
-p
cS
i-O
cd
0
-P
to
^
0)
^
o
CQ
ts
CQ
^_|
(U
•d
G
*
*
o
o
o
fft
ro
on
OJ
-£/9-
K^
M
cd
0
•H
$_)
PH
0}
G
O
£=5
0
0
o
OJ
iM
bC
^3
0
o
03
a
(U
X!
-0
**
G
0
•H
•P
cd
H
0
•H
>
G
H
0
G
O
•H
-P
r-f
H
O
ft
H
cd
•r-l
-P
•H
G
•H
to
03
0
bD
O
f-,
ft
r^
£H
o
-p
o
cd
CM
to
•H
-P
cd
M
x;
-p
•H
>
^-^.
G
O
•H
-P
O
cd
0)
G
O
*
*
0
o
o
»*
UA
CM
£*<>
M
cd
G
O
0
(D
CO
r*5
^
cd
0
•H
^_j
PH
O
LfN
OJ
^ — ^
H
cd
-P
•H
ft
03
• O
>H W
0 >>
S -P
<\ 3
G o
> 0
o
EH cd
bO
a o
o -^
JH ' —
cd
PH
Q)
G
O
*
*
0
o
0
fl
t--
on
H
•69-
r^
^j
cd
r^
G
O
O
0)
CO
r*i
^-)
cd
0
•H
^
PH
O
o
OJ
LT\
X3
bC-
O
O
cq
cd
TJ
JH
cd
>
o
EH
- 9
-------
S-i
OJ S3
O> ,-C O
-P +> -H
Ct3 O -P
P O
s-i <;
o
CO
TJ
d)
3
H
•H
-P
S3
o
o
V '
M
3
pq
EH
CQ
P
g
P
0)
CQ 3
pq g
O -H
M -P
eg
•< o
f^ - — '
p t
, — *
E-H |_i)
Si <1
W PH
EH O
*53 fr — i
K 3
EH 2
v — ^
EH
£3
p£]
K
K
O
•d
01 -p
-P 0
cd
a °"~j
•H O
-P »H
jn p.,
0) -p
p S3
cd 11
fd -p
o> cd
a oi
g SH
M £H
P
S3
OJ
CQ
CU
P-I
S3
0
H
j_>
rd
^
ft
0
PH
-P
CQ
O
O
-d
0)
cu
0)
fe,
S3
O
•H
-P
O
<^
P
S3
(D
a
-p
cd
cu
SH
EH
•d
CD
CD
CQ
O
-P
CQ
S-i
0)
SH
O
cd
-p
CQ
S3
cd
ft
M
PH
O
i
w
s
H
•H
J^>
S3
O
P
, — j
•H
J
-d
cd
cd o SH
H SH O>
ft ft TJ
ft CU
cd
s3 "d *-i
"H S3 O
(in OJ VH
(3
O
S3
cd
ft
X
S3
O
o
o
Lf\
O
•P
*d o3
£H 'd
° §
0) O
p oi
cd CQ
CQ 0)
T)
JH -H
•d o
S3 !M
P ft
0)
a
o
-P bO
cd S3
5 r!
<; Td
S3
0)
ft
-P
(3
(U
*
*
-P
•H
O
o
•r-t
S-i
o
a 0
4JJ i.^
cd 01
CU J3
SH O
-P CQ
O
o
o
r>
o
CO
H
-69-
cd
•d
S3
o
o
O)
CQ
z
cd
a
-H
K
O
H
EH
w
1
-P
cd
O CU
P SH 0)
•P >
•H
>5 W
- >H S3
TJ 03 CU
h -d -c!
O S3 O)
O S-i
O) O ft
-p -p
"d O S3
S3 $H 0)
D ft a
o
o
VQ
on
Ill - 10
•H
o
•d
S3
cd
O
o
H
-p
(3
0)
o
0)
-p
CQ •
0> OI
60 -P
cd 01
>H H
> I"
O) O
CQ O
cd
•d
S3
o
o
0)
CO
r?
Oj
a
PH
O
O
O
o
C\j
S3
•H
T) -d
0) S3
rcJ cd
3 H
H -P
O S-,
S3 O
M O
0)
S3
O
O
O
MD
0>
b0
0)
a
o
I
01 -p
!H Td (3
ft 0) d
> O
bO O
S3 £H fn •
•H ft 0) -p
0) ft ft W
,0 05 O
CO O
CQ S3 ft
^ b 5° ,
•H CO M MH
fe ft bC O
O
O
o
IS
o
o
o
-ee-
(3
O
o
D
CQ
•H O
> -H
•H -p
-d ft
S3
M CQ
VD
m
ON
I
o
^
o
pq
to
CQ
O
rH
PO
-------
(D fl
M
EH
O
5
o
to
ffl fl cd
S O rH
CO -H ft
p
r-l 3 H 0)
QJ H cd P
•d H fl cd
C O vH p
D p, Pn CO
o
o
o
*
rH
-3-
VQ
cd
•d
H
O
o
0)
CO
CO
fl
o
o
CO
fl
o
•H
-P
cd
CJ
o
^
o
CO
-63-
C
o
a
j -H
cd £ H
i* cd ft
'd to ft
>-i fl d <;
JH
to J-i 3 O
<; -H p to -»
cd
5
1-3 03
fc
cd
e
•H
£_,
PM
0
O
CM
CM
111
Q)
'cd
fQ
d
O
-P
CO
£_)
Q)
^
£-4
o
CD
-p
-p
W
£H
«
«
*
*
o
o
o
**
o
\D
H
-W-
>j>
cd
•d
fl
o
o
cu
CO
C?
I
•H
PM
O
O
0
VD
—
i
Jn
cd
OJ
H
cd
•rH
-P
•H
C
M
*
H
O
•H
-P
3
H
H
O
ft
11
•
•d
rH
0
M pq
K
£3 i — l
P CD
GT* «H
CO V)
p£] .j.3
fe CO
< 0)
^ K^
O
o
fl
bC
O
O
OH
T5
r*
cd
rH
^|
i — |
W
K !>i
W -P
> -H
H O
PC;
H
O rH
W 0)
EH fl
03 Jn
M O
^
O
0)
bC
cd
rH
H
•H
>
o
H
K
&
O
EH
O
O
«
O
o
0)
bO
cd
H
rH
•rH
>
fl
-P
cd
cp
Cd
h
p
to
•H
fl
•H *
P fl
o> o
fl > -TH
_p N X [ 1
-------
-------
CO G
CO A O
-P -P -H
cd O -p
-p o
CQ SH a
td CD -p
a -o co
•H O O
-P >H CJ
CO PH
W
CO
co -p "d
-P G CD
cd co co
•nas
•d -P
CO 03 G
a co o
B *H -H
H EH -p
O
"^
-p
-P G
G CO
CO 0
CQ -p
co cd
*H 0)
PH h
EH
G
O
•H -d
-P CO
cd >
Ht_i
M
^ cu
ft CO
o
*H
1)
-d
*n
0
CO
•.
M
CO
G
O
•rH
W
W
•H
C2
£~
O
0
<;
bO
G
•H
M
•rH
3
0<
0)
*H
•d
CO
2
CO
CQ
•H
CQ
o3
is
.
-p
G
CO
a
-p
03
CO
h
-p
>>
£f
03
•d
G
O
O
CO
w
.
Tf
CO
>
o
h
ft
ft
03
03
£J
cd
H
ft
H
03
G
•H
PH
3
SH
bC
rH
n3
f-,
CO
•d
CO
PM
*H
O
=H
T)
CO
H CO
ft G
ft O
03 G
<1J O
,G S
CP CO
G G
0 0
III - 12
o
o
o
CO
-ea-
cd
•d
G
O
o
0)
CO
cd
PH
ir\
co
O
-P
•H
O
bC
G
•H
O
o
G
O
0)
G
O
G
O
o
CO
o
o
CM
CM
0)
t>0
03
H
-P
to
O
CO
-p
G
•rH
td
PH
G
O
a
0
CO
o
o
o
G
s
EH
o
o
o
CO
CM"
G
o
•H
W
§
O
CO
o
o
MD
-P
•H
O
UA
vo
t—
r?
cd
•d
G
o
o
0)
CQ
O
LTN
l/\
G
O
O
CO
o
o
CM
b
cd
O
O
-------
CQ
Q
W
W
£5
O ^^
nd 0)
0) CO 0
3 W S3
C 0 -H
•H M -P
-P EH S3
S3 0 O
O
0
SH
•H e s
•a -P
H
EH
S3
O
•H T3
+3 0)
03 >
HL
M
^ 0)
ft CO
o
PH
S3
O
•H
-P
nj
0
O
J
0)
S3
O
a
i
i
i
i
i
i
i?
aJ
•a
S3
o
o
0)
M
H
ON
on
"•a
o>
^
•H
-P
S3
O p
O ?
— ' O
EH
Jv£*
W CO
w 'a
« oi
0 <1J
^3
a I)
J2 CO
O fc
EH O
f^ I~T~(
^S >J-|
S
&
III - 13
w
(LI
-p
[0
01
0)
0)
fl
•H
bC
S3
S3
•H
-P
O
o
0)
W
03
S3
o
-p
S3
a
la
-p
0
O
o
H
S3
M
PL,
EH
CO
I
CO
w
PH
W
-P
W
o
CJ
S3
O
•H
-p
o
-p
CQ
S3
O
O
-P
S3
0)
g
-a
0)
to
rH
J3
O
•P -P
§ §
H H
ft ft
-P
S3
0)
a
0)
(H
-P
-------
CQ
O
W
Q
• <3*
r{3
CU CQ
P W
d o x~*
•H M 1-3
-p EH <;
d u H
O i
C3
O
•H
-p
U
cd
-P
•H
§
CQ
H
(8
O
•H
B
05 CU
> 0
M Cd
K cu 'd
*H H
cd
J>J
cd
in
ft
CQ
O
•g
Pj
ttO
£-t
o
M
SH
o
•H
-P
Cti
bC
•H
^
^_,
M
cd
o
•H
B
cu
o
III - Ik
cd
Q)
^
•H
CQ
o
-p
T) a
!H O
O .H
0) "p"
-PH
Cfi H
-P O
CO ft
CU +3
CU
0)
CQ
CQ
O
O
O
CU
cd
43 «
•H TJi
d -H
cd o
CQ <;
d
o
d -H
o -P
•H Cd
CO JH
•H O
> ft
•H fn
Q O
O
cd
t~~\ rS
H -H
"H *d
d cy
•H pq
o
CQ
•H &
PQ CQ
o
ON
CM
1
1
1
d
o
•p
3 03
fd ^H
ho cu
d Is
•H CU
PQ CQ
0
0
amton
s
rC £"l
bo cu
d Is
•H CU
pq CQ
0
OJ
i
i
d
o
-p
3 CQ
bO cu
d |s
•H 0)
PQ CQ
CO
00
1
1
1
0
-P
§ 01
fj ^
bC CU
d Is
•H CU
pq CQ
o
o
o
o cd k
•H o cd
O o CQ
o3
(D
^
"^
d
o
-p
CD
a
hD
d
2
bO
03
5
0)
H
O
£.4
O
d
o
•H
-p
o
ft
JH
o
0
y
pq
M
CD
d
•H
, — )
•H
d
H
(S
£_,
cu
d
o
cu
d
•H
rH
•H
^
H
03
^_|
CU
d
cu
pq
-------
00
Q
P1-!
w
Q — s
p3 ^
^ .3, o)
^ 13
CD 00 G
G O -p
-H M G
-P EH O
GOO
O 05 "
-— PH ^
| — | EH <^
^ | — |
f£] pc"| ££j
I_JJ ^ ^_f
a EH CQ
<; <; P
EH W O
K K
EH H
EH
K
5
o
0)
0> ,("1
-p -p
oS O
-p
CO ^
O
0) -p
-p 3
03 01
•H 6
tt -p
0) csi
g 0)
g ^H
M EH
-p
C
0)
10
0)
£_)
PH
G
O
•i-l
-p
ni
( — !
o
o
CD
J>^
£~i
G
O
•H
-P
O
-p
CQ
n3
h3*
G
O
•H
-P
a
o
o
h- -1
0
-p
CQ
O)
T3
JH
O
CD
-P
oi
-p
fa
•>
•H
ffi cd o3
(]£I d; Q
> !H
H < 0)
K H
G 03
<£, O 1J
S -P JH
3
•T3 CQ
0)
G
o
1
1
1
^
-p
•H
0
G
o
W
G
O
\—^
0
o
o
ON
q^J
O
o
p^
03
Tj
O
o
r*5
-p
H
cfl
•H
0
0)
ft
CO
CQ
£_f
CD
j5
0)
CQ
G
CQ
CQ
(U
0
o
PH
0
G
O
1
1
1
r*3
-P
•H
0
G
0
ra
G
O
h-j
O
H
f7
oi
-p
•H
G
nJ
CO
0
•H
in
-P
O
0)
H
[V]
H
03
fa
CD
G
CD
O
to
fa
01
CD
CQ
III - 15
c
o
cu
G
O
S
O
0)
G
O
1
1
1
1=-.
-p
•H
o
G
o w
10 £H
G -3 00
O
ON
1
1
^
•P
•H
U
G
O
w
G
O
^
O
0
CQ
?H
CD
J5
0
CQ
0
OJ
t— CO
H
*J
CU
^i
&
-p
•H
g
oo
CO
O
T^
G
oi
o
•H
fa
-P
O
CNJ
c?
-P
•r-t
G
03
CQ
1
1
1
!>,
-P
•H
0
G
O to
10 JH
G CD
c$ ^
O 0)
!-D CQ
O
r-f
CNJ
n
CXI
oi
-p
•H
§
00
0)
G
•H
H
•H
s
H
03
£-1
0)
fl
O
1
1
1
-p
-p
o
0
•H
r^j
G
0
CO
ON
r\
H
&
-P
•H
§
co
G
O
CQ
G
,G
O
1
-P
-P
O
0
•H
rfH.
G
to
^i
CD
is
0)
CQ
oJ
o>
o
bD
I
O
CD
§
O
on
03
-p
^ -H
I I C^
S CQ
•H
0)
Q
-------
Ill - 16
d
-P B 0)
cd 0) 0)
•H B a
>d -p
(D cd G
g CD O
g J-i =H
H EH -P
O
<3j
-P
40 £j
G CU
w -p
CD cd
fH Q)
a. ^
EH
G -p
O G
•H
-P H
cd cd
r-t >
3 -H
ft 2
O O1
>
^
cd
-p
•H
G
nd
01
C
P
G
0
O
V •
re
P*3
^>
M
K
<<
^»
S
3
HM
w
t^3
Q?
CO
co
td
CO
"•d
(U
jj
c
•H G
P O
G -H
0 P
o cd
*-— ' £H
O
cd ft
0) FH
?H O
>
^
cd
p
•H
£^
cd
co
G
O
to
G
r^J
O
H^)
i
p
p
o
o
•H
'd
G
W
cd
0)
^
J
CL, 1-3 to
CD
G
O
0
CO
ir\
£_j
cd
p
•H
rt
co
CO
T^
G
cd
re
i
H
H
O
03
^
CD
hD
G
M
1
1
1
j>j
rH CQ
!s ^
XH
D
S
CO
OJ
^1
0
r^S
CD
r-i
1 1
a)
cd
nd
G
O 0)
EH CO
O
O
CM
cd
-p
•H
CO
cd
cu
cd
-d
o
EH
-P
O
Q)
cd
•H
re
re
o
w
w
o
cd
(U
XI
o
o
a
cd
fH ft
O -rH
O
cd 3
"a 8 B
G CD
O G P
O -H CO
CD O >s
CO 1-3 W
G
o
» p
bO cd
G G
•H -H
POO)
P H G
CD X! O
CO O a
O
UP,
ctS
-P
CO
•d
•H
O
-------
Ill - 17
S-l
cu a
eu ^3 o
+5 -P -H
Oi O +J
•P CJ
CQ ^ o3 a
| cu o
M EH '-P
o
Hp
-p a
a cu
cu g
05 -p
0) Oj
!H CU
PH JH
EH
a -P
o a
•H CU
o3 oJ
H !>
3 -H
O C7^
PH W
cu
r-f
03
-P
O >H
-P OJ
PH •
to "d
£
- a cu
5n O -H
O -H S3
-P CJ
cu 3 o3
-P H
ai H -P
•P O S3
CO ft CU
SH CU CU
(U -P H-3
rd 03 w
a rQ t&
CD a! a!
O a
•H
fcfc
aS o
*d f-~*[ fj
S3 CU
O S3 -P
CJ vH CO
CO i-j M
H h O
>H 0) -rl
O -p -P
•H r-H ft
rH -H CO
EH (JH CQ
O
O
o
rt
m
o
H
S3
O
S3
T)
H
+3
O 0)
U CO
o o
o on
o
it
ON
bO
S3
•H
O
-p
to
f-i
cu
S3
O
CU 3
-P H
ai H
•P O
CQ ft
f* ft
o -H
•a a a
S3 CU
O S3 -P
O -H CO
0) O >>
CQ "-3 tQ
CO
O O
**£> H
ON
-P
1
a
0
-p
oS
o
S
cu
a
•H
•p
a
o
u
K
W
^>
M
W
8
S
p*-!]
w
o
cu
a
•H
-p
a
0
• —
oi
£_)
<
J3
e
o
S
^
rH
•rH
S
rH
oJ
0
•H
^
cu
^3
U
rd
, — |
CU
•H
CU
CO
Oj PH OS
-P -P
•H -p -H
3 cu cd
CQ S CO
K
H
O
O
M
W
^
0
M
EH
at a
M ,M
<; o
03
•0 PH
a
3 ft
-p ro
^ CJ
O
0!
X -"H
•H 03
S CO
m
G
ccJ
P«H
S
s
cu
bO
cu
cu cu
S3 S3
0 0
£JT ^s^
H
rH ft
O -H
0
£? 'a
cd 3
'^ 0 S
S3 0)
o a -P
1 0 -H tQ
1 CD O |>j
1 CQ "-3 W
O
•P
CQ
*-!
0)
-d s3
^ O
O -H
-p
CU p3
-P H
03 H
•P 0
CO ft
I-, V
»
co *-» to
cu
rt
o
1
1
1
•d
§
to
-p
O V
O CO
o
U"\
CO
^
(U
^3
-P
O
I
a;
C
o
C7\
(U
§
ai
-p
•H
C!
a3
CQ
17
'5
o
CO
a;
•p
o
a
•H
C
o
P!
O
a
o
o
o
•H
S
•d
to a)
O (U
-p ^
•H CJ
O
O
-P
to
a)
(I)
CO
-------
Ill - 18
M W PH
i-5 S EH
PQ EH CO
EH g Q
EH M_
EH
PH
PH
0) G
CU 43 O
-P -P 'H
cd O -p
-P O
CQ >n
O
cu
§
•d
(U
cu -p "d
•P G CU
Cti CU CU
•H Q £5
•d -p
cu cd G
g 0) O
H EH -P
0
-p
-p a
a cu
cu £3
CO -P
cu cd
i-i cu
EH
R -P
O G
•H CU
-P H
cd cd
H >
3 -H
ft 3
O 0*
OH PL}
O 0)
-p
cu to
ft cd
?*i t^
d
o
•H
-P
cd
o
0
1
1
1
'd
a
cd co
H f-(
•p cu
o cu
0 CQ
O
CM
CM
£>
cd
-P
11
C
•H
-P
C
o
o
«
^
H
«
-l
CQ H
O
OJ
CO
•H
•H
cu
3
bO
cu
G
^
CL
£_i
•H
cd
P
ft
O
1
o
o
X
cd
-p
•H
G
05
CO
>>
-P
•rH
G
•H
EH
•
J
^*
a
PH
orporation
C_J
-p
s
ft
•H
'j
p*
K
g
M
PH
W
J~i
Q?
CO
ptl
<^
*s
o
o
cd
cu
3
•d
H
•H
«M
-p
CQ
CU
bC
G
•rH
G
cd
EH
bO
G
•H
G
£-i
cu
H
cu
w
cd
fb^
H
H
W
bD
G
•H
G
§
EH
cu
c*j
•p
cd
0)
G
T5 05
§ft
g
H 5
^J o
H
W
PC
O
w
c^
o
cd
cu
^
<
cu
G
O
S3
(jj
•d
o
CQ
- CU
Lt -p
cu cd
a 43
o cd
*rH
CO O
CO -p
•H
fi *d
S CU
O 3
O CO
CO
< -H
1
1
1
•H
O
T-J
a
0)
-p
H
•H
CO
•H
CQ
CO
CU
O
X
CU
cu
a
o
JH
o
£
cd
C
o
o
cu
CQ
H
cd
ft
•H
o
•H
3
B
a
•H
o
*o
e
cu
-p
CO
!»
w
Hornel
o
H
Sewers
CU
|
CU
G
O
1
1
Hornel
o
oo
Sewers
CO
cd
-P
-P -H
H CU C
•H >» Cd
CQ O CO
cd h
G -H
G cd
cd ft
5 <"
cd K
O H
a5 cp
1-5 CO
i cu
CU -H
•H Q
CQ
O
a
cu
s
-------
Ill - 19
h
CU G
cu £ o
-p -P -H
cd o -P
-p
CO fc
o
CU
fc
r^
cu
CO
CO
•H
CO
bO
G
•H
fa
cd
cu
-p
G
cu
B
OJ
o
fa
o
**-4
G
W
•
f^
cu
H
•a
cu
CJ
CO
pq EH
<2
3 -H
ft r^
o o-
a. w
o cu
-p
cu w
ft cd
r-°"a ^
^H
G
O
•H
-p
cd
o
o
^
I
1
1
rH
H t/3
CU Jn
G CU
^j [j
O CU
W CO
o
on
o\
CM
CU
^
Q
cu cu
j3 pi
G G
•H -H
4-3 ,ij>
G G G
O O JH
O 0 CU
"^ "^ CO
PH cd co
W OJ ti OJ
> fn G H
M <; cd -H
EG -P
H G X
OH ?H CU
W fl; CU EH
EH G -P
CO k CO
M O
<£
0
1
1
1
H
rH W
tt> i-l
a cu
fa f£
o cu
W CO
0
OO
t—
1
1
1
[^
fa
•H
03
Q K
W
CO M
£H ffi
Jj
r| ^
B 0
H fH
f£j O
O
O
O
1
1
1
en
fa
cu
£j
CU
CO
^
I ^
cd
pq
0
CM
CO
(A
H
fr
cd
-P
•rH
G
cd
CO
cu
2 o
O -H
A fH
cd bO-p
cu GO
>H -H CU
< -P H
W W
X! CU
-P IS
cd
FQ
1
1
1
H
O
O
ft
CO
w
CD
CJ
0
&
cd
-p
•H
G
03
CO
H K
•H y\
o >
H
H K
•rH
Q r^|)
O S
S 5
*>*
S
w
0
i
i
i
bO
G to
•H >H
G cu
^™* I*
O CU
O CO
0
CO
CO
CM
£
cd
-P
•H
03
CO
CO
SH
O
CO
to
cd
cd H
CU C5
^c
H OJ
G CU
•H -P
S CO
H ^
^1 w
o o
"-3 -P
01
G
O
o
CM
O\
*\
CM
H
•H
s
03
Q
cd
•p
CO
rH
w
-------
CQ
Q
W
Q •"»
B *d
^-. < o>
^ pi
CD CQ G
p) W -H
C 0 -P
•H H G
-P EH O
COO
O *3* *• — •*
O PH
N — -• pL| •• — *.
f--]
M EH •<
S 1 — 1
WWW
I-H- S EH
PQ EH CQ
EH W Q
PS B
N -
£H
3
pz^
Pn
PH
P
0
£-1
CD a
0) X! O
-P -P -H
cd O -P
-P 0
CQ f-t <
0
•d
CD
CD -p qj
-p G
Pi "H
ft P<
o a<
p ( PT"]
O ,
CQ 1-3 CO
CD
a
o
&
0
-^t
>>
cd
-p
•H
§
CQ
T3 CD
OJ Pf
P* G
a -H ho
•iH -P G
-P C -H
a o bo
o o cd
rj V t^{
- — 0
cd c(5
W CD P-i !>»
rv] ^ c4
^ <^ bD cd
M fl ft
PH be *H a
a c o
O -H r( O
S o
w o
o
i -a
(U 0)
Cd 03
0 ,0 -r)
-P < H
X>
03 cd
?H -p
CD • 03
Jn O
O -H CD
-P rH
CD pJ c(
-P rH TCI
Cd rH >
CQ 1-3 0)
CD
G
o
B
o
o
o
»>
o
rH
/«•{
H
•H
S
-p
cd
rH
fa
O
-H
P^H,
^ nJ
C3 (U
cd >s JH
£H <^J
O -H
•H cd cd
H Q ^
O -H
PH a
H
W
0)
G
O
^
rH
cd
fn ft
O -rt
o
r?'G
cd p)
"d a a
G 0)
O G -P
CJ -H CQ
CD O >»
CQ i-j 03
CD
G
O
B
0
C\|
r7
cd
-p
•H
§
CQ
CD
CJ
G
cd
^ bO
fc G
•H
cd AJ
f-^I CJ
pi
^ ^H
cd
0)
G
O
B
1
1
1
A!
cd
EH
O
•H
-P
ft
CD
CQ
O
rH
&
cd
-P
•H
§
CQ
1
cd
J~t
O
ft
o
o
rH
CD
CD
-P
CQ
G
• O
CQ -H
-P
D
CD
G
0
1
1
1
^ H
CD =lfc
CD -P
CQ 0
•H
bC !H
3 CO
a -H
o
0
OJ
r?
cd
-P
•rl
§
CQ
^H
CD
G
•H
cd
-p
G
O
O
CO
r*
•rl
^
1
CD
G
0
1
1
to
CD
CD
CQ
cd
•H
H
r?
cd
•P
•H
G
cd
CQ
£_,
O
-p
cd
CD
bO
•H
h
»
^
CD
ft
CQ
CD
G
0
B
^
O
r?
cd
G
O
o
0)
CQ
CD
G
O
B
00
O\
r?
cd
-p
•H
§
CQ
03
CD
bO
cd
CD
CD
G
cd
H
cd
ft
•H
a
•H
•^
a a
S
G -P
•H 03
O >J
1-3 03
-------
-------
CQ
W
^
Q '—•
S ^d
^— < CD
TJ Si
CD CQ d
S< W -H
d o .p
•H H d
-p EH O
d o o
O <£ —
O K
-— PH -—
t— 3
H EH <
W W PS
! 1 >? £-<
pq EH CQ
•^ *3j [ID
EH W Q
K S
EH H
"**-**
EH
S
W
D
O
D d
D. X! O
-p -P -H
cd o -P
-p o
CQ fn <
O
nd
CD
CD -p i3
-P d (D
cd 0) CD
•H E a
•rl -p
CD cd d
g 0) O
H EH -P
CJ
<£
-p
v d
d
£3 arH
ft SI
o cj1
PM W
O V
-p
CD CO
ft cd
d
O
•H
-P
cd
o
o
(— }
W cd
W H
CQ
-P
t£ 0
07!
0 -P
CD CO
,£-! -H
0 Q
1
1
1
M
H
•H
S
(p
£5
bO
d
0>
i "^
f^
0> ft
B o
f-i O
•rH O
cd
Q
O
rH
O
cd
d
o
0
0)
CQ
bG
d
H
-p
•p
CD
CQ
0
on
H
IM
cd
-P
•H
§
CQ
CD
CO
J3
o
(~j
bC
d
•H
-P
CO
0)
12
ect to Under State orders to
ung Sewer abate discharge of un-
rict #1 treated industrial waste
d B -p
d D co
o ,d -H
OOP
i
cd
C-J
•H
( — I
cd
-P d
2 o
0) -H
S -P
|
1
1
bO
d
•H
-P
H
PH
O
•rH
£_,
[ 'b
O
0)
H
[V]
O
H-5
CO
, CD
T3
O
-p
cd
-p
CQ
d
o
£
cd
d
o
o
CD
CQ
d
o
•rH
) •*
cd
d
•H
O
H
,d
o
J
i
i
"d
flj
,3
•H
O
^
d
o
•H
-p
cd
£_l
o
ft
^J
o
o
X
•rH
nd
d
CD
pq
I
o
0)
faO
cd
o
CO
•rH
1
Id
O
-p
-p
o
CD
d
d
O
0
H
cd
-p
£
cd
01
d
o
•H
CO
•H
•H
Q
0)
CO
ft
•H
H
O
ung Sewer treated industrial waste
rict #1
B -P
CD CO
c~| .^
O P
d
o
•H
-P
cd
d
•H
O
H
C"J
O
O
o
t—
A
H
fc
cd
•H
d
cd
CQ
CD
d
0
1
1
1
01
>
CD
CQ
^t
S
fi
CD
<~\
O
|
1
1
CO
CQ
CD
O
O
^
W
tn
cd
H
O
rH
CD
^>
o
cd
d
EH
H
=5te
-P
O
•H
-P
CQ
•H
0
0
O
&
cd
-p
•H
§
CQ
III - 21
-------
Ill - 22
2. Comprehensive Evaluations
Investigations made by the FWPCA and other cooperating
Federal, State, and local agencies indicate a definite need in
some areas for pollution control action in addition to the pro-
vision of conventional vaste treatment facilities. Minimum
stream flows in waste discharge receiving streams will not be
sufficient to assimilate the waste loads from certain municipal
areas in the near future, based on evaluations of projected popu-
lation and industrial growth. Alternative methods of protecting
and enhancing the water quality in the Susquehanna River Basin,
in the face of population and industrial growth, urbanization,
and technological change, are being evaluated during plan formu-
lation workshop sessions by agencies cooperatively participating
on the Coordinating Committee discussed in Section II, Paragraph
D. Upon completion of the evaluations, findings will be submitted
to the Committee for final decisions on methods to be adopted.
While no attempt has been made in this report to prejudge the
Committee findings beyond defining immediate waste treatment
needs, the various alternatives to be evaluated, based on inves-
tigations of needs in the area, are suggested.
Three methods of providing supplemental pollution abate-
ment and control in areas requiring more than the protection pro-
vided by conventional waste treatment facilities are generally
considered and are as follows:
-------
Ill - 23
Flow Regulation
Areas having a need for possible flow regulation and in
which potential reservoir sites have been or will be evaluated
are listed as follows:
Location
Responsibility
and Site No.
Need
Norwich Area
Cortland Area
Binghamton Area
Mansfield
Hornell
Bath
Elmira
COE #11 It
SCS #50-2
COE #152
SCS #1+9-28
SCS #^9-31
SCS #1+9-32
COE
SCS
COE #ll+6
SCS #1+6-2
COE #100
COE #95
COE #96
COE #97
COE (Tioga-
Hammond and
Cowanesque
Projects)
Chenango River - Storage to pro-
vide supplemental flow for water
quality control.
Tioughnioga River - Storage to
provide supplemental flow for
water quality control.
Susquehanna River - Supplemental
flow needed for water quality.
Flow from storage on Chenango
and Tioughnioga will enhance
water quality in this reach.
Tioga River - Storage to provide
supplemental flow for water
quality control.
Canisteo River - Storage to pro-
vide supplemental flow for water
quality control.-
Cohocton River - Storage to pro-
vide supplemental flow for water
quality control„
Chemung River - Storage to pro-
vide supplemental flow for water
quality control.
-------
Ill - 2k
Waste Diversion
No potential reservoir sites exist in the following
areas, and diversion of waste effluents to less critically
degraded stream reaches is a possible alternative.
Location
Responsibility
Need
Hamilton Area Hamilton Village
Elmira Area
lc Elmira City
Chemung Sewer
District #1
2. Horseheads Town
3. Bendix Corporation
Payne Brook - Reduce waste
loads in Payne Brook by
diverting treated waste ef-
fluents to the Chenango River.
Reduce the waste loads in
Newtown Creek by diverting
treated waste effluents to
the Chemung River,
Advanced Waste Treatment
Advanced waste treatment facilities designed to remove
greater than 85 per cent of the organic solids from waste dis-
charges will be considered as an alternative method of protect-
ing and enhancing water quality in all of the areas listed above,
3. Special Studies
Listed below are the areas in which a need for special
studies is indicated.
Location
Respons ibility
Need
Norwich Area
FWPCA and State
of New York
Determine sources of nutrients,
bacterial and organic pollution
in the Chenango River upstream
from Norwich„
-------
-------
Ill - 25
Location
Responsibility
Need
Blossburg Area FWPCA and State
(Tioga River) of Pennsylvania
Westfield Area
Hornell Area
Corning Area
Elmira
Basin-vide
FWPCA and
Eberle Tanning
Company
FWPCA and State
of New York
FWPCA and State
of New York
City of Elmira
FWPCA
A mine drainage abatement program
for Morris Run, Bear Creek, and
Coal Creek.
Development of biological proc-
esses for treating tannery wastes.
Determine source of pollution in
Canisteo River near Arkport.
Determine sources of nutrients in
the Chemung River near Corning.
Program for intercepting and
treating storm flow from combined
sewers.
Utilize data compiled from various
studies conducted in the Basin in
mathematical simulations of the
river system.
4. Institutional Practices
A need for action on pollution control measures by vari-
ous Federal, State, and local institutions in the Susquehanna
River Basin is indicated by the findings of this study.
Pollution control programs would be enhanced and
strengthened by the following institutional practices:
Location
Responsibility
Need
Basin-wide State of Pennsylvania Prepare and adopt standards on
intrastate streams.
-------
Ill - 26
Location
Responsibility,
Need
Basin-wide
Basin-wide
Ba,sin-wide
Congress of the
United States
States of New York
and Pennsylvania
Congress of the
United States and
State Legislatures
Enact legislation which pro-
vides authority for Soil Con-
servation Service projects in
headwater areas to include
storage for flow regulation
for water quality control.
Consider expansion of water
quality control surveillance
program (including treatment
plant operation and maintenance)
Enact legislation authorizing
the establishment of a pollu-
tion control authority for the
Susquehanna River Basin.
C. Recent Pollution Control Progress
1. New York
The State of New York has embarked on a mammoth pollution
control program involving an expenditure of 1.7 billion dollars.
Under the program the State will finance comprehensive sewerage
studies, assist in construction costs of new treatment plants,
and allow tax benefits to industries for waste treatment plant
expenditures. The comprehensive sewerage studies are an essential
preliminary to approval of a grant to aid the construction of
adequate treatment facilities; approximately $1,000,000 has been
spent on these comprehensive studies and general planning for
the New York portion of the Susquehanna River Basin alone.
-------
Ill - 27
2. Pennsylvania
The Pennsylvania State Legislature, during the 1966
session, passed a $500,000,000 bond issue which, if voted favor-
ably by the public, will provide $100,000,000 to the Pennsylvania
Department of Health for sewage treatment construction grant
purposes. In addition, $200,000,000 will be allocated to mine
drainage abatement measures, such as reclamation of areas dis-
turbed by mining activities. The other $200,000,000 will be
spent on construction and development of recreational areas.
The Pennsylvania Clean Stream Act, which became effective
in January 1966, is another step toward improvement of water
quality in areas affected by mine drainage. The Act prohibits
discharge of acid waters or other polluting discharges from
active coal mines. Enforcement actions are being taken by the
Pennsylvania Sanitary Water Board under the new regulations for
cases not in compliance with the Act. In addition to the Clean
Streams Act, the Board has revised its regulations on the dis-
charges from coal washing operations. Previously, discharges
from these operations could contain as high as 1,000 mg/1 of
suspended solids such as coal fines and other inert material;
the revised regulations limit the discharges to 200 mg/1.
3. Federal and State Cooperative Agencies
Federal and State agencies, cooperatively conducting
comprehensive water resource surveys of the Susquehanna River
-------
Ill - 28
Basin, have met a number of times during Fiscal Year 1967 at Work-
shop Sessions called by the Corps of Engineers. These agencies
have prepared individual reports which delineate specific water
resource needs; this information serves as input to the multi-
purpose planning in the development of the comprehensive water
resource program. These meetings to date have resulted in initial
coverage of the entire Basin, merging the needs from each of the
participating agencies and indicating possible methods of meeting
the needs, such as potential reservoir sites to provide storage
for flood control, recreation, water supply, water quality control,
and agricultural irrigation purposes. Subsequent meetings will
involve detailed planning, including alternative methods of pro-
viding for the needs prior to formulation of the Basin program.
D. Water Supply
A preliminary study of the hydrological characteristics
of the study area indicates that adequate water supply sources
presently are available, but not fully developed, for all major
growth centers discussed in this report. The closeness of these
areas to relatively large streams and the availability of ground
water resources enhance the possibility of meeting future demands.
Most of the larger areas are currently utilizing both
surface and ground water sources. As future water supply needs
increase, these areas will probably resort to additional surface
water use. However, as natural stream flows appear to be
-------
Ill - 29
inadequate to meet 2020 needs of Hornell, Bath, Corning, and
Elmira, additional studies will be needed to evaluate the possi-
bilities of further ground water and/or reservoir development to
fully satisfy the projected demands.
As growth occurs in the smaller areas, either further
development of ground water sources or increased use of surface
water appears to be adequate to satisfy the projected needs.
Improvement in water quality where streams are now degraded is
expected to encourage greater use of surface water in these areas,
-------
IV - 1
IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA
A. Location
The Susquehanna River rises in Lake Otsego, New York,
and flows southwestward to Waverly, New York, and then southerly
into Pennsylvania. In the vicinity of Athens, Pennsylvania, the
Chemung River joins to form the Upper Main Stem of the Susque-
hanna River, which then flows southeastward where the Lackawanna
River enters at West Pittston. This study covers only that por-
tion of the Susquehanna River and tributaries which is upstream
from West Pittston, Pennsylvania.
The study area discussed herein comprises approximately
38 per cent of the entire Susquehanna River Basin. Principal
tributaries are the Cowanesque, Canisteo, Cohocton, and Tioga
Rivers, which comprise the Chemung River Basin, and the Unadilla,
Chenango, Tioughnioga, and Susquehanna Rivers, which comprise
the New York portion of the Susquehanna River Basin.
The study area included in this report drains approxi-
mately 6,270 square miles in the central portion of New York
State and i+,175 square miles in north central Pennsylvania. (See
location map, Figure l)
B. Climate
The climate is temperate, with four sharply defined seasons.
Mean temperatures vary from about k6° to 48° F. Summer maximums
of 90° F. and above and winter minimums of 25° F. below zero have
-------
IV - 2
been recorded in the study area. Average annual precipitation
varies from 30 to Uo inches. Approximately 20 per cent of this
precipitation occurs as snow.
C. Topography
Rolling, rather broken land characterizes the topography
of the study area. Swamps, lakes, and ponds of glacial origin
abound; forests cover most of the higher ridges. The greatest
single land use is agricultural with dairy farming the principal
pursuit.
D. Geology
The study area lies within the Allegheny Plateau. Paleo-
zoic sediments of the Devonian, Mississippian, and Pennsylvanian
systems are encountered. The area is a typical dissected plateau
with rocks dipping gently southeastward with a few overhanging
cliffs. Shale and sandstone characterize most of the study area,
with some deposits of bituminous coal located within the Tioga
River Watershed known as the Blossburg and Gaines fields.
E. Principal Communities and Industries
Binghamton, New York, with a 1960 population of 75,9^1,
is the largest City in the study area. Other significant com-
munities and I960 populations are: in New York; Elmira (^6,517),
Cortland (I9,l8l), Johnson City (19,118), Endicott (18,775),
-------
IV - 3
Corning (17,085), Hornell (13,907), Oneonta (13,1*12), and Norwich
(9,175); in Pennsylvania; Sayre (7,917).
Major industries of the area include the manufacture of
leather and leather products, Pharmaceuticals, business machinery,
photographic supplies, chemicals, electronics, glass products, and
textiles; the production of bituminous coal, glass, sand, stone,
and dairy products. Some of the larger companies represented in
the area are: Westinghouse, General Electric, Bendix Aviation,
International Business Machine, Corning Glass, Sperry Rand, Norwich
Pharmacal, and Endicott-Johnson.
-------
-------
V - 1
V. WATER POLLUTION PROBLEMS, NEEDS, AND COSTS
A. Susquehanna River Upstream from Binghamton, New York
1. Oneonta Area
a. Current Water Quality
The City of Oneonta in Otsego County, New York, is situated
near the headwaters of the Susquehanna River. The principal pur-
suit in the Oneonta Area is dairy fanning. Sheffield Chemical,
which processes milk, represents the largest industry. Wastes
emanating from the Area are as follows:
Est.
Population Flow
Location _ Treatment _ Served _ (mgd) Receiving Stream
Oneonta City Primary 13, ^10^ 2.3 Susquehanna River
Sheffield Chemical Septic Tank 10 0.001 Sub-surface
#
Estimated population equivalent
The Susquehanna River upstream from Oneonta is relatively
free from pollution, the principal waste discharge being Coopers-
town approximately 28 miles upstream. Cooperstown provides pri-
mary treatment of wastes from approximately 2,380 persons and
discharges to the Susquehanna River.
Downstream from Oneonta, water quality is degraded but
soon recovers because of the rapid assimilative capability at-
tributable to relatively shallow and turbulent conditions of the
River. Stream survey results during the late summer months are
summarized below:
-------
V - 2
Susquehanna River at Oneonta
Indicator Upstream Downstream
D.O. (mg/1) 5.3 - 8.1 2.5 - 6.1
Coliforms/100 ml 0 - 20,000 100 - 50,000
Oneonta is presently experiencing difficulties with
treatment plant operations, resulting in decreased treatment
efficiency. Sludge deposits and floating solids have, on occa-
sion, been observed below the outfall, indicating degraded condi-
tions. In order to improve water quality and maintain conditions
suitable for most beneficial uses, expansion of the present pri-
mary plants at both Cooperstown and Oneonta appears necessary.
A consulting engineer's cost estimate for expansion of the pri-
mary plant at Cooperstown is approximately $560,000.
A comprehensive sewerage study for the Oneonta Area has
been completed by the firm of Stern and Wheeler of Cazenovia,
New York. The study recommended that Oneonta City and Oneonta
Town be served by a joint secondary treatment facility. Prelimi-
nary costs for the treatment facility are estimated at $2,200,000.
b. Future Water Quality
The population served by sewerage facilities in the
Oneonta Area is expected to double by I960, and to increase four-
fold by the year 2020. A future water quality problem is not
anticipated downstream from Oneonta, even with this increased
-------
V - 3
municipal and industrial growth, if secondary treatment facilities
are provided. Preliminary studies indicate that the provision
of an 85 per cent reduction in BOD by secondary treatment would
maintain satisfactory water quality with the projected increased
waste loadings of 2020.
c. Water Supply
A population of about 15,000 is presently served by the
municipal water system which obtains about 2.5 mgd from Oneonta
Creek. Future needs of about 12 mgd are anticipated by year
2020. It is expected that future needs will continue to be met
by surface water sources; flows of Oneonta Creek appear to be
more than adequate to satisfy the 2020 demand. In addition, the
Susquehanna River is an additional potential supply source.
Oneonta is fortunately situated in an area where adequate water
supply sources are readily available.
2. Sidney Area
a. Current Water Quality
The Villages of Unadilla and Sidney, in Delaware County,
New York, comprise the Sidney Area and are approximately 2k and
26 miles, respectively, downstream from Oneonta on the Susquehanna
River. The Scintilla Division of Bendix Corporation is the only
major industry in the Sidney Area. Wastes emanating from the
Area are as follows:
-------
V -
Location
Treatment
Sidney Village Primary
Scintilla
Division,
Bendix
Corporation
Unadilla
Village
*
Estimated
Equalization:
(acid-alkaline)
(cyanide)
(chromium)
Discharge:
(sanitary)
(heated)
None
population equivalent
Population
Served
5,155
*
2,000
TOO
Est.
Flow
(mgd)
0.52
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.20
O.U5
0.07
Receiving Stream
Susquehanna River
Sidney Sewers
Sidney Sewers
Sidney Sewers
Sidney Sewers
Creek at Plant
Susquehanna River
The water quality of the Susquehanna River upstream from
Sidney shows some evidence of recovery from the upstream conditions
at Oneonta prior to receiving primary and untreated effluents from
the Sidney Area.
Stream survey results reveal the following:
Susquehanna River at Unadilla-Sidney
Indicator Upstream Downstream
D.O. (mg/1) 6.2 - f.k 5.1 - 6.k
Coliforms/100 ml 2,500 - 1+0,000 5,000 - 60,000
Biological Summary
Upstream - Abundant populations of clean-water associated organ-
isms, consisting of 22 kinds, indicated unpolluted biological
conditions; numerous smallmouth bass were observed.
Downstream - This sampling station, located approximately eight
to nine miles downstream from Sidney, revealed the presence of
18 kinds of clean-water organisms; again, numerous smallmouth bass
were observed.
-------
V - 5
The relatively unchanged water quality, based on the
above sampling data, in this reach of the Susquehanna River might
be attributed partly to the added flow of the Unadilla River and
the rapid waste assimilation rate of the Susquehanna River. The
sampling stations, however, do not reflect the existing localized
pollution problem. Immediately downstream from the Sidney and
Unadilla outfalls, sludge deposits have been observed at times.
Moreover, floating solids have been observed at Unadilla which
provides no treatment. Secondary treatment facilities are needed
at both Sidney and Unadilla to alleviate the present degraded
conditions.
Sidney is in the process of initiating action for second-
ary treatment. Final plans have been submitted, and a Federal
grant under PL 660 has been approved. The facility is expected
to be under construction within a year. The estimated cost of
the project is $319,300.
The untreated sewage discharge by Unadilla into the Sus-
quehanna River represents a violation of the classification of
the River prescribed by the New York State Water Resources Com-
mission. A county-wide feasibility study is being conducted and
is expected to include recommendations for the provision of
secondary treatment facilities. However, an alternative to join
the Sidney system might be recommended as being more feasible
than providing a separate system. The cost of secondary treatment
-------
v - 6
facilities is estimated at $7^,000, exclusive of sewers and other
appurtenances. Costs for the alternative of joining the Sidney
system are undetermined at this time.
b. Future Water Quality
The population presently served by severage facilities
in the Sidney Area is expected to double by 1980 and to increase
tenfold by 2020= With secondary treatment of wastes from both
Sidney and Unadilla, stream flows of the Susquehanna River are
expected to be adequate to assimilate the residual waste loadings
from the projected population.
c. Water Supply
Present water needs for the Sidney Area of 2.2 mgd are
furnished by local springs, wells, Collar Brook, and Peckham
Brook. These sources serve a population of approximately 6,700.
Future needs of k3 mgd are anticipated by 2020„ It is
likely that the Susquehanna River, as well as existing sources,
will be used as a future water source. The Sidney Area is,
fortunately, situated in an area where adequate water supply
sources are readily available for development.
-------
v - 7
B. Chenango River
1. Hamilton Area
a. Current Water Quality
Hamilton Village, in Madison County, New York, is situated
on Payne Brook, a headwater tributary of the Chenango River. The
Area is practically void of industries; however, Colgate Univer-
sity is located in Hamilton and helps sustain the local economy.
Wastes emanating from the Area are as follows:
Est.
Population Flow
Location Treatment Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
#
Hamilton Village Secondary 3,350 0.1*0 Payne Brook
*
Includes enrollment of Colgate University.
The Hamilton treatment plant experiences overloaded condi-
tions when the College is in session and, consequently, results
in reduced treatment efficiency. During the fall months when
natural stream flows are low, and the University commences classes,
water quality of Payne Brook downstream from Hamilton is signi-
ficantly degraded.
Stream survey results presented below reveal this marked
evidence in degradation:
Payne Brook at Hamilton
Indicator Upstream Downstream
D.O. (mg/1) 6.8 k.O
#
New York State Department of Health sampling results
-------
v - 8
Biological Summary;
Upstream - Fourteen kinds of clean-water associated organisms
were collected in the sample at this location. The physical
appearance and biological conditions were characteristic of
unpolluted streams.
Downstream - Ten kinds of bottom organisms, predominately pollu-
tion tolerant forms, were collected at this location. Water
quality degradation is indicated.
Plans for expansion of the existing secondary facilities
at Hamilton have been submitted to the State for approval. The
estimated cost of the project is $250,000. A Federal grant appli-
cation has also been submitted to help finance this project.
Assimilative studies by CB-SRBP indicate that expansion
of the secondary plant to provide a minimum of 85 per cent removal
of BOD will alleviate the immediate pollution conditions.
b. Future Water Quality
A future water quality problem is anticipated downstream
from the Hamilton Area by 1980 due to increased municipal growth
and College enrollment. Natural flows are relatively low in
Payne Brook and do not appear to be sufficient to assimilate
Hamilton's waste loadings beyond 1980 during the late summer and
fall months of the year. By the year 2020, a fivefold growth
increase is expected in the Hamilton Area, posing a serious water
quality problem, potential unless pollution control measures are
undertaken. Future solutions are complex. Studies conducted by
the Corps of Engineers and Soil Conservation Service have indicated
-------
v - 9
no potential reservoir sites upstream from Hamilton to provide
flow regulation for water quality control.
Methods to be evaluated in future planning include ad-
vanced waste treatment and/or waste flow diversion to the Chenango
River, which is about two miles downstream. Based on preliminary
evaluations, stream flows of the Chenango River appear to be ade-
quate to assimilate the waste loads from Hamilton after secondary
treatment providing 85 per cent BOD removal. However, additional
studies will be required to determine the most desirable alternative.
c. Water Supply
The municipal water system of Hamilton obtains 0.6 mgd
from Payne Brook and presently serves approximately 5»900 persons.
Future needs of about 5.U mgd are anticipated by 2020.
Hamilton is, fortunately, situated in an area where ground or
surface water sources are readily available for development and
are expected to adequately meet the projected needs.
2. Norwich Area
a. Current Water Quality
The Village of Norwich, in Chenango County, New York, is
situated on the Chenango River approximately 35 miles downstream
from Hamilton. Principal industries in the Norwich Area include
Sheffield Chemical Company and Norwich Pharmacal Company which
discharge industrial waste into the Chenango River about two
-------
V - 10
miles upstream from the Norwich treatment plant. Wastes emanat-
ing from the Area are as follows:
Location
Norwich City
Norwich
Pharmacal
Sheffield
Chemical
*
Estimated
Treatment
Primary
None (process)
None (heated)
Settling,
Chlorination
(sanitary)
None (heated)
Trickling
Filter (milk)
Septic Tank
(sanitary)
population equivalent
Population
Served
9,175
*
50
3,000
*
10
Est.
Flow
(mgd)
0.917
0.12
0.20
0.005
0.262
0.061
0.001
Receiving Stream
Chenango River
Chenango River
Chenango River
Chenango River
Chenango River
Leaching Pits
Sub-surface
The Chenango River upstream from the Norwich Area is
somewhat impaired by organic pollution. The Towns of Sherborne
and North Norwich, with a combined 1960 population of approxi-
mately ^,000, are located in this reach and may be responsible
for septic tank discharges or seepages to the River. With the
additional waste loading from the Norwich Area, water quality
in the Chenango River becomes severely degraded.
Stream survey results collected during the late summer
months reveal the following evidence of degradation:
-------
V - 11
Chenango River at Norwich
Between Sheffield
Chemical and
Indicator Upstream Norwich Downstream
D.O. (mg/1) 6,k - 8o5 3.8 - 608 0.1 - 3.7
Coliforms/100 ml 0 - 3,000 0 - 1,000 0 - 7,000
B.00Do (ult.)
(mg/l) average 6.68 7.6k 1,33
Biological Summary
Upstream - Ten kinds of bottom organisms were collected at this
location. Although three clean-water associated forms were found,
most of the organisms were intermediate to pollution-tolerant.
Downstream - Eight kinds of "bottom organisms were observed in the
sample at this location, consisting of one clean-water associated
and seven intermediate to pollution-tolerant forms.
Organic pollution emanating from the Norwich Area ad-
versely affects about 30 miles of the Chenango River downstream.
Profuse algal growths blanket much of this reach, suggesting a
high nutrient concentration. The Norwich Pharmacal Company is
possibly one of the principal contributors of the nutrient. More-
over, the Chenango drainage area is characterized by numerous
small dairy farms which also exert heavy nutrient loads on the
stream due to fertilizers employed in modern farming techniques.
Algae, which have a short life span, thrive on the nutrients and
subsequently die, exerting an additional organic load on the
stream.
-------
V - 12
Recent modifications of the Norwich primary treatment
plant have been installed at a cost of $612,000; however, the
State of New York will require that secondary treatment be pro-
vided. Cost for this additional treatment is estimated at
$180,000. An abatement schedule by the State Department of Health
has not yet been set.
Sheffield Chemical is presently providing leaching lagoons
for treatment. A recent survey conducted by the State of New York
indicated that Sheffield Chemical is no longer discharging its
effluent, but rather is allowing it to leach into the earth. The
State Department of Health considers this method of disposal as
a partial abatement measure but will soon require additional facil-
ities to provide a degree of treatment equivalent to secondary.
Norwich Pharmacal has been cited by the State Commissioner
of Health as being in violation of the Public Health Law and ordered
to abate pollution. Enforcement action has been taken, and hear-
ings are being scheduled.
Preliminary studies by CB-SRBP indicate that the expected
stream flows of the Chenango River are adequate to assimilate the
present wastes from the Norwich Area, providing all organic wastes
receive secondary treatment with 85 per cent removal. Additional
studies are needed to validate the sources of nutrients in the
Area prior to recommending corrective action. Also, stream and
reconnaissance surveys are needed upstream from Norwich in the
-------
V - 13
vicinity of Sherborne and North Norwich in order to ascertain
sources of water quality degradation and to indicate pollution
control needs.
b. Future Water Quality
The present waste loadings of the Norwich Area are
expected to increase threefold by year 2020 as the result of
municipal and industrial growth. Waste assimilative evaluations
reveal that the required flows to assimilate the projected waste
loadings after secondary treatment will exceed the naturally
occurring flows (35 cfs or less) during the late summer or fall
months. Additional treatment facilities to provide greater than
85 per cent removal will be necessary unless other abatement
measures are undertaken. Flow regulation could be provided from
potential reservoir sites studied by the Corps of Engineers and
the Soil Conservation Service. The Corps of Engineers has located
a site (#llH) on Canasawacta Creek, a tributary of Chenango River,
which could provide a potential flow of 69 cfs at a cost of about
$5,910 per cfs. Site number 50-2, studied by the Soil Conserva-
tion Service, is indicated to have a potential yield of 27 cfs at
a cost of $5,500 per cfs. Future planning of the water resources
in the Chenango River Watershed will necessitate evaluation of the
flow regulation potential in addition to waste treatment needs.
-------
V - Ik
c. Water Supply
The municipal water system of Norwich serves a popula-
tion of about 9,000 and uses approximately 2 mgd obtained from
Chenango Lake and ground water sources„
Future needs of about 9 mgd are anticipated by year 2020.
However, existing and undeveloped available sources in the Area
are expected to be adequate to satisfy the projected needs.
C. Tioughnioga River
1. Cortland Area
a. Current Water Quality
The Cortland Area, in Cortland County, New York, is
situated near the headwaters of the Tioughnioga River, the prin-
cipal tributary of the Chenango River. The primary industrial
pursuit in the Cortland Area is dairy farming. Major companies
in the Area include Dairymen's League Co-op, Sealtest Foods,
Hegeman Farms (processors of dairy products), and Camp Packing
(meat processors). Wastes emanating from the Area are as
follows:
-------
V - 15
Location
Cortland City
Camp Packing
Wickvire
Brothers
Smith-Corona
Dairymen 's
League Co-op
Homer Village
Hegeman Farms
Sealtest Foods
Bill Brothers
Dairy
Marathon Line
Whites Milk
and Cream
P.A.L. Trinity
Equipment
Corporation
*
Treatment
Primary
Settling:
(meat packing)
Discharge:
(heated)
(sanitary)
Discharge:
(silt)
(heated)
(sanitary)
Leaching Beds:
(acid)
Discharge:
(plating)
(heated)
(sanitary)
Discharge
None
None (milk)
None
(vaporization)
None (heated)
Septic Tank
(sanitary)
None (milk)
None (heated)
None (heated)
Dry Wells
None
Septic Tank
(acid)
(sanitary)
Population
Served
20,000
*
9,000
*
30
*
50
#
220
*
ll*,300
600#
1,960
#
10*
k,koo
*
196*
10
K
1*40
*
50
Est.
Flow
(mgd)
5.5
0.127
0.06
0.003
0.005
1.U89
0.005
0.001
0.561
O.U76
0.022
0.291
0.06
0.0**
0.002
0.12
0.001
0.09
0.005
0.001
o.ooH
0.001
0.009
0.013
0.005
Receiving Stream
Tioughnioga River
Cortland Sewers
Cortland Sewers
Cortland Sewers
Cortland Sewers
Unknown
Cortland Sewers
Sub-surface
Cortland Sewers
Cortland Sewers
Cortland Sewers
Cortland Sewers
Tioughnioga River
Tioughnioga River
Tioughnioga River
Tioughnioga River
Tioughnioga River
Tioughnioga River
Tioughnioga River
Tioughnioga River
Sub-surface
Tioughnioga River
Sub-surface
Sub-surface
Sub-surface
Estimated population equivalent
The Tioughnioga River upstream from Cortland is relatively
uninhabited and exhibits excellent water quality. However, the
-------
v - 16
addition of wastes from the Cortland Area produces marked degra-
dation in water quality. Stream survey results collected during
the late summer and fall months reveal the following:
Tioughnioga River at Cortland
Indicator Upstream Downstream
D.O. (mg/1) 6.3 - 6.6 0.3 - 2.6
Coliforms/100 ml 0-800 0 - 4,800
Biological Summary
Upstream - Twenty-one kinds of bottom organisms, with a large
diversification of clean-water associated forms, were collected
in the sample at this location. Numerous sport fishes were also
observed. Water quality characteristic of unpolluted streams
was indicated.
Downstream - Fourteen kinds of bottom organisms were observed at
this station, 13 kinds being intermediate to pollution-tolerant.
Sludgeworms were the dominant forms, suggesting a considerable
degree of organic pollution.
The residual waste loadings to the stream from the pri-
mary and untreated effluents from the Cortland Area amount to a
population equivalent of approximately 35,000 persons. Prelimi-
nary studies indicate that stream flows of approximately 80 cfs
are needed to assimilate the present loading during late summer
and fall months when natural stream flows of ^0 cfs or less are
not uncommon. Adverse effects on the stream from the present
waste discharges can be evidenced for approximately 15 miles
downstream.
-------
v - IT
Based on the present water quality and the above evalua-
tions, the need for further reduction of wastes is obvious.
Secondary treatment of all wastes from the Cortland Area is
needed in order to alleviate the presently degraded conditions.
Industries not already connected to the municipal system should
make efforts to join the system or provide a similar degree of
treatment.
The Cortland Comprehensive Sewerage Study, financed by
the Hew York State Department of Health, has recommended the
formation of a regional sewerage district which would include
Cortland and surrounding communities„ Moreover, the study con-
cluded that secondary treatment is presently needed and is
estimated to cost $1,1*36,500, Enforcement hearings have been
scheduled for the City of Cortland and the Village of Homer.
b. Future Water Quality
A fivefold increase in the Cortland Area population is
expected by year 2020. Increased waste loadings from municipal
and industrial growth will exert additional demands on the receiv-
ing stream and, by 1980, are expected to pose potential water
quality problems even with the provision of secondary treatment
(85 per cent removal). Without additional pollution control
measures being taken in the near future, water quality degrada-
tion will get progressively worse, Required assimilative flows
by 2020, based on 85 per cent removal of the projected waste
-------
V - 18
loadings, will exceed natural stream flows for six months of the
year. During the months of July, August, and September, required
assimilative flows "by 2020 are expected to exceed three to four
times the natural stream flows 0
Future design of treatment plants should include provi-
sions for obtaining greater than 85 per cent removal of organic
material. Flow regulation may prove feasible and thus serve as
a supplemental measure to maintain satisfactory water quality
through the projected period of growth. Four potential reservoir
sites upstream from Cortland have been studied by the Soil Con-
servation Service and the Corps of Engineers. The potential
yields and costs are:
Potential Cost Per
Site Number Yield (cfs) cfs
SCS #1*9-28 50 $5,3^0
SCS #1*9-31 17° 5 $8,900
SCS #1*9-32 39 $6,650
COE #152 96 $23,!*00
The comprehensive planning of future water resources in
the Tioughnioga Watershed will necessitate evaluation of addi-
tional treatment needs as well as flow regulation alternatives.
c. Water Supply
A population of about 30,000 is served by the Cortland
water system. Present needs of 7<-8 mgd are obtained mostly from
drilled wells.
-------
V - 19
Future needs of approximately 51 mgd are anticipated by
year 2020 „ Additional ground and surface vater sources are
available for development and are expected to be adequate to
satisfy the projected demandc
D, Susquehanna River Below Binghamton, New York
1 , Binghamton Area
a. Current Water Quality
Binghamton City, the largest community in the study area,
is situated at the Susquehanna River-Chenango River confluence
in Broome County, New York, Binghamton City, Johnson City Village,
Endicott Village, and Vestal Town comprise a large urban, munici-
pal and industrial complex^ The population currently served by
sewerage facilities in the Area is about 150,000.
Principal industries in the Binghamton Area are Endicott-
Johnson, General Aniline, Line Division of General Precision,
General Electric, and IBM Corporation, all of which are connected
to municipal sewer systems. Wastes emanating from the Area are
as follows :
Population Flow
Location _ Treatment __________ Served _ (mgd) _ Receiving Stream
Binghamton City Primary 82,000 10*0 Susquehanna River
Dai rymens League #
Co-op --- 1,^70 Oo03 Binghamton Sewers
Crowley's Milk Discharge: ^
(milk) 15,250 0.311 Binghamton Sewers
(heated) # 0.898 Susquehanna River
(sanitary) 40 O.OOU Binghamton Sewers
-------
V - 20
Location
Treatment
Population
Served
Est.
Flow
Receiving Stream
H. Titchener
General Aniline
General Aniline
Cooperdale Dairy
Johnson City
Village
Endicott-Johnson
General Aniline
Specialty Foods
Barney and
Dickinson
General Electric
New York State
Electric and Gas
Endicott Village
Endicott-Johnson
Discharge:
(heated)
(heated)
(sanitary)
Discharge:
(plating)
(organic
chemical)
(heated)
(sanitary)
None
None
Discharge:
(leather)
(sanitary)
(heated)
Settling
Holding Tanks
(plating)
None (chemical)
None (heated)
Discharge:
(sanitary)
None (heated)
None (inorganic
chemical)
Settling (ash)
None (heated)
Septic Tank,
chlorination
(sanitary)
Discharge:
(sanitary)
Primary
Discharge:
(heated)
(sanitary)
1,250
88
2,000*
25,000
38,700#
2,820
*
2,210*
9,000
0.789
0.282
0.106
0.15
0.16
110
30
„
90
25,000
1,980
0.169 Binghamton Sewers
0.375 Binghamton Sewers
5.00 Binghamton Sewers
0.125 Binghamton Sewers
0.02 Binghamton Sewers
0.006 Binghamton Sewers
0.01 Binghamton Sewers
0.20 Binghamton Sewers
0.003 Susquehanna River
6.0 Susquehanna River
Johnson City Sewers
Johnson City Sewers
Sub-surface (wells)
Johnson City Sewers
Johnson City Sewers
1.0 Susquehanna River
0.002 Sub-surface
Q.Ohl Little Choconut Creek
Q.0h9 Little Choconut Creek
0.011 Johnson City Sewers
0.005 Little Choconut Creek
0.019 Little Choconut Creek
0.152 Little Choconut Creek
kh.Q Little Choconut Creek
0.003 Little Choconut Creek
0.009 Johnson City Sewers
9.9 Susquehanna River
Endicott Sewers
0.198 Endicott Sewers
-------
-------
V - 21
Location
IBM Corporation
Union Town-Endwell
Vestal Town
Sewerage
Districts 1, 5,
6, 8, and 10
Sewerage
Districts k and
7
Sewerage
District 9
Fenton Town
Chenango Town
Dickinson Town
Binghamton Sand
and Gravel
#
Treatment
Neutralization
(plating)
Discharge:
(heated)
(sanitary)
None
Primary
None
Primary
Septic Tanks
Septic Tanks
Septic Tanks
Settling
Population
Served
*
1,500
7,000
6,100
1,500
250
1^0
9,858
6,591
Est.
Flow
(mgd)
1.33
2.98
0.15
0.7
0.615
0.15
0.025
0.01k
1.0
Receiving Stream
Susquehanna River
Endicott Sewers
Endicott Sewers
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Choconut Creek
Sub-surface
Sub-surface
Chenango River
Lagoons
Estimated population equivalent
The water quality of the Susquehanna River is greatly
impaired by the large quantities of primary and untreated efflu-
ents discharged from the Binghamton Area. Stream survey results
collected during the late summer and fall months reveal the
marked degree of degradation between upstream and downstream
reaches„
SusquehannaRiver at Binghamton
Indicator Upstream Downstream
D.O. (mg/1)
Coliforms/100 ml
5-0 - J.k 0.9 - 3.8
200 - 10,000 U,000 - 200,000
-------
V - 22
Biological Summary
Upstream - The entire sample consisted of only clean-water
associated forms (12 kinds).
Downstream - The entire sample consisted of pollution-tolerant
forms, most of which were sludgeworms. Heavy organic pollution
was evidenced at this station.
Sampling results indicated that the stream reach below
the Binghamton Area is one of the most severely degraded in the
entire study area, about 23 miles of stream "being adversely af-
fected. It should be noted, however, that the stream sampling
was performed prior to completion of Endicott's primary treatment
facility. This facility has been in operation only a very short
time at the writing of this report. Even with the new primary
plant, the total waste discharged from the Binghamton Area is
greatly in excess of the assimilative capabilities of the River
in this reach. Waste assimilative studies by CB-SRBP indicate
that the provision of secondary treatment is necessary for the
entire Binghamton Area to maintain a satisfactory water quality,
enhancing downstream beneficial uses of the Susquehanna River,
The New York State Department of Health has already
initiated action against Binghamton and Endicott to upgrade
their existing facilities to secondary treatment. An abatement
schedule is presently being prepared. The Binghamton Area
comprehensive study, recently completed, recommended that Johnson
City Village connect into the Binghamton treatment plant; this
-------
V - 23
recommendation is presently "being implemented. Bids have been
opened for construction of pumping stations, interceptor sewers,
and additional primary units at the Binghamton Plant to handle
Johnson City's wastes. This action is an initial step toward
pollution abatement; however, secondary treatment facilities are
scheduled for the near future. The total project cost to pro-
vide secondary treatment at Binghamton, including sewers to receive
Johnson City's wastes, is estimated at $7,837,000.
The comprehensive sewerage study also recommended that
Vestal Town Sewer Districts and Union Town jointly treat their
wastes with Endicott Village. The total project cost to provide
secondary facilities at Endicott, with the necessary interceptors,
is estimated at $10,233,000.
Union Town has completed interceptors at a cost of
$108,600. A Federal grant of $32,351 has been accepted by the
Community, final payment of the grant is pending hook-up to treat-
ment facilities. Final plans for additional interceptors are
being reviewed by FWPCA. The estimated cost for the additional
interceptors is $132,000. A Federal grant for $39,600 is
anticipated.
In the comprehensive study, a secondary waste treatment
plant is recommended to serve Chenango Town, Fenton Town, and a
portion of Dickinson Town. This facility is scheduled to dis-
charge to the Chenango River. The estimated cost for the second-
ary treatment plant, exclusive of sewers, is $2,600,000.
-------
V - 2k
The total cost for new construction to provide secondary
treatment for the entire Binghamton Area is estimated to be ap-
proximately $36,600,000= The treatment plant costs are estimated
at $12,800,000; interceptors necessary for the next 50 years are
estimated to cost $12,100,000, with laterals costing an estimated
$11,700,000.
b. Future Water Quality
The population served by sewerage facilities in the Bing-
hamton Area is expected to increase fivefold by the year 2020.
A comparison of expected flows in this reach of the Susquehanna
River with those required to assimilate secondary treated waste
loadings indicates a potential water quality problem by 2000.
Methods to be evaluated in the future planning include advanced
waste treatment for the Binghamton complex and/or flow regula-
tion for water quality control. Flow regulation from either of
the potential reservoir sites in the Chenango or Tioughnioga
Watersheds will increase stream flows of the Susquehanna River
and should enhance water quality downstream from Binghamton.
Comprehensive planning of the water resources of the Susquehanna
River Basin will necessitate inclusion of upstream reservoir
development in order to evaluate the effects on water quality
downstream.
-------
V - 25
c. Water Supply
A population of approximately 175,^00 is presently using
about k2 mgd, obtained from drilled wells and the Susquehanna
River.
Future needs of 217 mgd are expected by year 2020. The
available surface and ground water resources appear to be adequate
to satisfy the projected needs; however, the Susquehanna River
will probably supply the majority of the needs.
2. Owego Area
a. Current Water Quality
Owego Village is situated in Tioga County, New York, on
the Susquehanna River about 22 miles downstream from Binghamton.
The principal pursuit in the Area is dairy farming; however, a
few large industries help to diversify the economy. IBM Corpora-
tion has a large plant in Owego, employing H,000 persons. Other
industries include Endicott-Johnson, employing 333 persons;
Stokmore Company, employing 122 persons; and the Tioga Foundry,
employing 108 persons„ Wastes emanating from the Area are as
follows:
-------
V - 26
Location
Treatment
Esto
Population Flow
Served(mgd) Receiving Stream
Owego Village
Endicott-Johnson
IBM Corporation
Owego Town
Sewerage
District 1
Sewerage
District 2
Sewerage
District 3
Highland Dairy
Stokmore Company
Tioga Foundry
*
Primary
Discharge:
(heated)
(sanitary)
Discharge:
(heated)
(sanitary)
Neutralization:
(inorganic
chemical)
Primary
Primary
Primary
None (milk)
None (heated)
Septic Tanks
(sanitary)
Septic Tanks
Septic Tanks
3,200
#
50
*
1,000
U,6oo
1,000
1,700*
1^7
*
30*
30*
30
0.32
Oo002
0.005
0.07
0.10
0.06
0.35
OolO
0.15
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.023
Susquehanna River
Owego Sewers
Owego Sewers
Owego Sewers
Owego Sewers
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Swamp
Swamp
Sub-surface
Sub-surface
Sub-surface
Estimated population equivalent
Water quality of the Susquehanna River downstream from
Owego is somewhat degraded by municipal and industrial waste
discharges, but stream degradation is relatively localized.
Sampling data collected during the late summer and fall months
are as follows:
Susquehanna River at Owego
Indicator Upstream Downstream
D.O. (mg/1)
Coliforms/100 ml
5.5 - 11.0
500 - 7,500
-------
V - 27
Biological Summary
Upstream - Eight miles upstream, l4 kinds of bottom organisms,
all intermediate to pollution-tolerant forms, were found,,
Downstream - Seventeen kinds of bottom organisms, composed of
an abundance of clean-water forms and a limited number of sludge-
worms, were observed,.
Water quality samples were not collected immediately
upstream from Owego; however, the biological results suggest
recovery, from the degraded conditions at the previous sampling
location, is occurring in the vicinity of Owego. Although the
sampling data do not reveal serious impairment of water quality
downstream from Owego, assimilative studies by CB-SRBP indicate
the need for secondary treatment to avoid localized degradation
during late summer and fall months.
The New York State Commissioner of Health has issued an
order requiring Owego Town to upgrade its degree of treatment to
secondary. A comprehensive sewerage study for the Owego Area is
currently being conducted. It is anticipated that recommenda-
tions will include a joint secondary treatment facility for the
entire Owego Area, An abatement schedule is pending completion
of the comprehensive report. Estimated cost of secondary treat-
ment for the Owego Area is $223,000, exclusive of sewers and
other appurtenanceso
-------
V - 28
b. Future Water Quality
The present population of the Owego Area is expected to
increase tenfold by the year 2020. With provision of secondary
treatment (85 per cent BOD removal) for the Owego Area, stream
flows of the Susquehanna River are expected to be adequate to
assimilate the projected waste loads.
c. Water Supply
A population of about 10,^00 is presently served by the
Owego system. The present needs of 1.22 mgd are obtained from
ground water sources.
Future needs of 26 mgd are anticipated. Ground water
will probably continue to be used but will be supplemented by
surface supplies, such as Owego Creek and possibly the Susque-
hanna River.
3. Waverly, New York - Sayre, Pennsylvania, Area
a. Current Water Quality
Waverly, New York, is situated in Tioga County on the
Susquehanna River immediately above the Pennsylvania-New York
State Line. Sayre is situated in Bradford County, Pennsylvania,
immediately below Waverly„ Athens Borough, also incorporated
in this Area, is situated two miles south of Sayre, near the
Susquehanna-Chemung confluence. Principal industries in the
Area are the Ingersoll-Rand Corporation and Valley Creamery.
Wastes emanating from the Area are as follows:
-------
V - 29
Location
Sayre Borough, Pa0
Athens Borough, Pa.
Ingersoll-Rand
Waverly, N. Y.
Valley Creamery
Tioga County
Hospital (Barton
Town, N. Y.)
*
Estimated population
Population
Treatment Served
None
None
None
(sanitary)
Settling
(alkaline)
None
Discharge:
(milk)
(sanitary)
None (wash)
Primary
equivalent
i+,500
2,500
*
580
2,000
#
31*.
10
250
Est.
Flow
(mgd)
O.U5
0.15
0.058
0.6
0.2
0.007
0.001
0.030
0.025
Receiving Stream
Susquehanna River
Chemung River
Susquehanna River
Athens Sewers
Cayuta Creek
Waverly Sewers
Waverly Sewers
Dry Brook
Cayuta Creek
The water quality of the Susquehanna River below the
Sayre-Waverly Area shows some evidence of degradation by the
discharge of untreated municipal and industrial wastes, but
because of the large volumes of dilution flows (^30 cfs or more
during late summer months), the degraded conditions are predomi-
nately localized at the sewage outfalls.
Stream survey results collected during the late summer
and fall months are shown below:
Susquehanna River at Sayre-Waverly
Indicator Upstream Downstream
D.O. (mg/1)
Coliforms/100 ml
7.b - 9.5
100 - 2,100
7.1 - 8.6
0 - 6,000
-------
V - 30
Biological Summary
Upstream - Twenty-two kinds of bottom organisms, predominately
clean-water associated forms, were collected at this sampling
location.
Downstream - Fourteen kinds of bottom organisms, consisting
mostly of clean-water associated forms, were observed-
Chemung River at Mouth - Twenty kinds of bottom organisms, con-
sisting of clean-water associated forms, were observed at this
location.
Waverly, New York, discharging untreated waste to the
Susquehanna River, is in violation of New York's Public Health
Law and is currently under orders to abate pollution. An engineer-
ing report recommending secondary treatment has been completed
recently and submitted to the State for approval. The treatment
facility is estimated to cost $650,000*
Both Athens and Sayre Boroughs in Pennsylvania are in
violation of the State Sanitary Water Board's orders to abate
pollutionc The Board requires a minimum of primary treatment
for wastes discharged to the Susquehanna River,, The Boroughs
are presently considered by the Board to be making unsatisfac-
tory progress toward initiating pollution control measures. The
provision of primary facilities is expected to be an initial step
toward pollution abatement; however, assimilative studies indi-
cate that secondary treatment will be needed in the future to
avoid potential water quality degradation. Estimated costs for
primary treatment for Sayre and Athens are $170,000 and $223,000,
respectively.
-------
-------
V - 31
"bo Future Water Quality
The population served by sewerage facilities in the Sayre-
Waverly Area is expected to double by 1980 and increase eightfold
by the year 2020.
No future water quality problem is anticipated below
Waverly if secondary treatment is provided and treatment capacity
keeps pace with municipal and industrial growth„
Since primary treatment is contemplated for Athens and
Sayre Boroughs, a future water quality problem is anticipated
before the year 2020„ Studies indicate that, with primary treat-
ment, approximately TOO cfs of stream flow will be required by
the year 2020 during the late summer and fall months to maintain
satisfactory quality conditions. Natural stream flows within
this reach of the Susquehanna River of ^50 cfs or less occur
during these months. However, with the provision of an 85 per
cent reduction in BOD by a secondary treatment facility, approxi-
mately only 170 cfs will be required„ Secondary treatment should
therefore be included in future planning for the Susquehanna River
Basin.
c,, Water Supply
Present needs of 208 mgd are furnished by surface supplies.
Sayre and Athens share a common supply system which obtains its
water from the Susquehanna River,, Waverly, New York, gets its
water from Dry Brook, a tributary to Cayuta Creek.
-------
V - 32
Future needs of approximately 12 mgd for the Sayre-
Waverly Area are anticipated by 2020, The Susquehanna River
should amply supply this future demand.
E. Susquehanna River Between the Chemung and Lackawanna
Rivers
1. Towanda Area
a. Current Water Quality
The Borough of Towanda, in Bradford County, Pennsylvania,
is situated on the Susquehanna River approximately 13 miles down-
stream from the confluence of the Chemung River. The Sylvania
Electric Company and Masonite Corporation are the principal indus-
tries represented in the Towanda Area. Wastes emanating from
the Area are as follows:
Location
Treatment
Est.
Population Flow
Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
Towanda Borough
Sylvania
Electric
North Towanda
Township
Primary 5,200
Neutralization
( inorganic
chemical)
None (process)
None (heated)
Discharge: #
(sanitary) 200
Secondary 1*3
0.25
0.12
0.1*95
0.20
0.02
0.002
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Towanda Sewers
Sugar Creek
Masonite
Corporation
Land
application
No Discharge
Estimated population equivalent
-------
V - 33
Towanda is not presently creating a serious water quality
problem. Stream sampling data collected during the late summer
months are shown "below:
Susquehanna River at Towanda
Indicator Upstream Downstream
D.O. (mg/1) 7.1 - 7.9 7-7 - 8.6
Coliforms/100 ml 0 0
Biological Summary
Upstream - Fourteen kinds of "bottom organisms, all clean-water
associated forms, indicated water quality characteristics of
unpolluted streams„
Downstream - Fourteen kinds of bottom organisms, consisting of
three clean-water associated forms, were collected at this
station. However, the predominant organisms were pollution-
tolerant and intermediate. Some degradation was apparent in
relation to the upstream station.
Towanda is in compliance with the Pennsylvania Sanitary
Water Board requirements of primary treatment prior to discharge
to the Susquehanna River. However, because of the downstream
uses, which include considerable recreation, consideration
should be given to providing additional treatment in the near
future,, The cost of expansion of the primary plant to provide
secondary treatment is estimated at $137,000, exclusive of
sewers and appurtenances.
-------
V - 3^
bo Future Water Quality
The population served by sewerage facilities in the
Towanda Area is expected to double by 1980 and increase six-
fold by the year 2020„ Should secondary treatment be realized,
the naturally occurring flows in the Susquehanna River would
be sufficient to assimilate the increased future loadings with-
out significantly impairing water quality.
c. Water Supply
Present needs of I.?1* mgd are furnished by springs,
drilled wells, and Satterlee Run. A population of 6,000 is
served by the municipal system.
Future needs of 6 mgd are anticipated by 2020. It ap-
pears that Towanda should not have any trouble meeting this
demand since adequate water supply sources are readily available.
2» Charmin Paper Company
The Charmin Paper Company, division of Proctor and Gamble
Corporation, is situated on the Susquehanna River at Mehoopany,
Pennsylvania, kO miles downstream from Towanda, Pennsylvania, and
32 miles upstream from the Lackawanna River confluence, The
Pulp and Paper manufacturing plant is scheduled to be constructed
in four stages„ The first stage is presently under construction
and should be completed in the near future. It is anticipated
that all four stages will be operational by 1980„
-------
V - 35
The Company's industrial waste discharge permit, issued
by the Pennsylvania Sanitary Water Board, specified the following:
"The maximum allowable waste load after treatment for
the first stage is 1S500 pounds of BOD per day* For the second,
third, and fourth stages, the maximum allowable load is 30,000
pounds of BOD per day, except when stream flows during the fourth
stage operation exceed 1,500 cfs , Under this condition, ^5,000
pounds of BOD per day will be permitted,,
"The minimum degree of treatment required in the second
and third stages is 75 per cent BOD removal., When the treated
waste loading is less than 30,000 pounds of BOD per day, in the
fourth stage, a 75 per cent BOD removal is required. However,
when the loading exceeds this, a 90 per cent BOD removal becomes
necessary.
"The Company must also maintain at least 5°5 mg/1 dissolved
oxygen downstream from their discharge, must not increase the color
of the Susquehanna River by more than ten units, and must not in
any way affect the aquatic life in the River,"
Between 1980 and 2020 the maximum flow required to assimi-
late the Charmin Paper Company's waste loading, based on prelimi-
nary estimates, is 350 cfs. The expected stream flow during this
period is greater than 800 cfs« A future water quality problem
is not anticipated if the Paper Company adheres to permit
requirements„
-------
V - 36
3. Swanee Paper Company
The Swanee Paper Company is situated on the Susquehanna
River approximately five miles upstream from the Lackawanna
River confluence. Wastes emanating from the Company are charac-
terized below:
Est Esto
Population Flow
Location __ Treatment _ Equivalent imgd) _ Receiving Stream
Swanee Paper Chemical floe-
Company (paper' 1C „ 300 L.5 Susquehanna River
None s' heated) 1,0 Susquehanna River
Stream survey resuics collected from the Susquehanna
River during the late summer months reveal the following:
Susquehanna River at Swanee Paper Company
Indicator _ __ Upstream _ Downstream
D.Oo (mg/r. 6,36 - 9»68 6,08 -
B O.D. (5-day? (mg/1) i ?5 - k.6 1,2 - k
Coli forms. -'100 ml 0 0 7,000
The large quantity of dilution flow minimizes the effects
of the Swanee Paper Company *s waste loading. A downstream water
quality problem is not presently evident; however, with expansion
and growth of the Company, future waste treatment planning for
the Swanee Paper Company should encourage the provision of
secondary facilities.
-------
V - 37
Chemung River Sub-Basin
F, Tioga River
lc Biossburg Area
a. Curient Water Quality
The Borough of Biossburg, Tioga County, Pennsylvania, is
located near the headwaters of the Tioga River downstream from
the confluence with Morris Run, The Borough is at the center of
the bituminous mining activity in the Bloss and Gaines coal fields,
Three foundries owned by the J, P. Ward Company support most of
the economy of the Borough and employ approximately 650 persons.
Biossburg, with a I960 population of 1,956, does not
presently have a sewer system,, Many connections to storm sewers,
however, convey untreated waste tc the Tioga River., Final plans
are being prepared for a complete sewer system with secondary
treatment facilities which will alleviate this situation. The
Farmers Home Administration has approved a grant to the Community
for 48 per cent of the project ;ost» which is estimated at
$1,000,000.
The Tioga River downstream from Biossburg is greatly
impaired by mine drainage pollaticr,, The Pennsylvania Sanitary
Water Board dees not presently require treatment of wastes dis-
charged tc acid impregnated streams anJ.ess degradation attribut-
able to organic pollution is evident. However, Biossburg has
taken the initiative to provide secondary treatment facilities
which should be operational by the summer of 1968,
-------
V - 38
Mine drainage pollution is contributed mainly from Morris
Run, Bear Creek, and Coal Creek, all of which are in close proxi-
mity of Blossburg and drain directly into the Tioga River. Morris
Run is considered to be the principal contributor of mine drain-
age pollution; its effects on the Tioga River can be seen readily
in the sampling results summarized belov. (See CB-SRBP Mine
Drainage Report for detailed description of mine drainage in the
Tioga River Watershed.)
Upstream From Morris Run Downstream From
Indicator Morris Run at Mouth Morr1 s Run
pH 6.8 - 7-5 2.k - 3.0 2.7 - 3.3
Acidity (mg/l) alkaline ^03 - 1,019 76 - 200
Sulfates (mg/l) 15 - 82 653 - 1,652 2^0 - 363
Iron (mg/l) 0.03 - 0.5 10.9 - 101.3 3-0 - 56.0
Manganese (mg/l) 0 22.8 - 6l.8 1.8 - 6.1
The CB-SRBP has contracted with Gannett Fleming Corddry
and Carpenter, Inc., an Engineering Firm in Harrisburg, Pennsyl-
vania, to make a feasibility study for mine drainage abatement
in the Tioga Watershed. The report including costs and recommen-
dations should be forthcoming by the end of 1967- A preliminary
appraisal indicates that abatement of mine drainage is contingent
upon treatment and/or land reclamation; however, specific alterna-
tives and related costs have not yet been formulated.
-------
V - 39
2. Mansfield Area
a. Current Water Quality
The Borough of Mansfield in Tioga County, Pennsylvania,
is situated on the Tioga River about ten miles upstream from the
proposed Tioga-Hammond Reservoir and nine miles downstream from
Blossburg. There are no industries in the Borough, but Mansfield
State Teachers College helps sustain the local economy. Wastes
emanating from the Area are as follows:
Est.
Population Flow
Location Treatment Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
*
Mansfield Borough None 3,380 0.338 Tioga River
*
Includes enrollment at Mansfield State Treachers College
The water quality of the Tioga River below Mansfield is
impaired by mine drainage conveyed from the Blossburg area in
addition to Mansfield's untreated organic waste. Heavy iron com-
pounds noticeably coat rocks along the stream bed. Variation of
pH from 2.0 to 3.5 is indicative of highly acidic conditions.
Stream biota was found to be virtually devoid in this stream
reach. The mine drainage inhibits biological activity, thus
considerably reducing the natural assimilative capacity of the
stream. Alleviation of mine drainage appears eminent. Studies
presently being conducted indicate treatment and land surface
reclamation may be the most feasible abatement measures.
-------
V - 1+0
Mansfield Borough, discharging untreated wastes to the
Tioga River, is in violation of the Pennsylvania Sanitary Water
Board orders to abate pollution. The Board has ordered the Com-
munity to construct secondary treatment facilities by June 19&7-
Mansfield has submitted plans to the State Department of Health
and is number 2k on the State's 196? priority list for a Federal
grant. The cost of secondary treatment is estimated at $6Ul,000.
A Corps of Engineers' flood control reservoir project,
the Tioga-Hammond, has been authorized for construction approxi-
mately six to eight miles dovnstream from Mansfield, The project
consists of two dams, one on the Tioga River creating the Tioga
Reservoir, and one on Crooked Creek creating the Hammond Reser-
voir. The two Reservoirs are connected by a cross-over channel
to allow flows to spill over into the adjacent pool during flood
stages. Both Reservoirs are to provide recreational use as well
as possible water supply and flow regulation for water quality
control. Because of the nearness of this Reservoir project to
the Borough of Mansfield, secondary treatment with chlorination
is necessary to maintain water quality in the Reservoir suitable
for recreation,
b. Future Water Quality
The Mansfield Area is expected to increase threefold in
population by the year 2020. Preliminary waste assimilative
studies indicate that by 2020 a water quality problem is
-------
V - ill
anticipated during the late summer months, even with secondary
treatment. Methods which might be considered to maintain a
satisfactory water quality in the Tioga River are advanced waste
treatment on the part of Mansfield or flow regulation» Two po-
tential reservoir sites have been located on the Tioga River
upstream from Mansfield. The Soil Conservation Service has indi-
cated a potential yield of 35 cfs from site #H6-2 at an estimated
cost of .$10,000 per cfs° Similarly, the Corps of Engineers has
revealed that site #1^6 may provide 51 cfs at an estimated cost
of $18,1*00 per cfSo Future planning will necessitate considera-
tion of any upstream reservoir development in formulating pollu-
tion control programs.
c. Water Supply
Present needs of 0«26 mgd are supplied by a public water
system, utilizing surface sources to serve approximately ^,^00
persons.
Future needs of approximately 1.3 mgd are anticipated
by 2020o An evaluation of the hydrological characteristics of
the Area indicate that adequate surface and ground water resources
are available for development to meet the projected needs.
-------
V - 1*2
G» Cowanesque River
1. Westfield Area
a,, Current Water Quality
The Borough of Westfield in Tioga County, Pennsylvania,
is situated near the headwaters of the Cowanesque River, one of
the principal tributaries to the Tioga River. The main industry
in the Area is the Eberle Tanning Company, manufacturers of
leather. Wastes emanating from the Area are as follows:
Location
Westfield Borough
Eberle Tanning
*
Population
Treatment Served
Primary 1,200
Lagoons ^
(tanning) U,000
( lime )
(sanitary)
Flow
(mgd)
0.205
0.09
0.35
Receiving Stream
Cowanesque River
No discharge
No discharge
No discharge
Estimated population equivalent
The Cowanesque River downstream from Westfield is seri-
ously impaired by organic pollution* Stream survey results con-
ducted during the late summer months reveal marked degradation,
as indicated in the table below:
Cowanesque River at Westfield
Indicator Upstream Downstream
D.O, (mg/1)
5-2 - 8.0
Biological Summary
1.6 - 2.6
Upstream - A total of 14 different kinds of bottom organisms,
all clean-water associated forms, indicate excellent water
quality conditions,,
-------
v -
Downstream - Ten kinds of bottom organisms, predominately organic
pollution-tolerant forms, indicate degraded biological conditions
compared to the upstream station<=
Studies indicate that flows required to assimilate present
waste loadings and still maintain satisfactory water quality con-
ditions for the propagation of fish and aquatic life are approxi-
mately 5° 6 cfs during the late summer months, Natural stream
flows of less than 2,8 cfs are not uncommon during this period,,
It is evident, from these evaluations, that a need exists for
additional treatment, particularly since there are no potential
reservoir sites upstream from Westfield to provide flow regula-
tion for quality control0 Immediate steps should be taken
toward the provision of secondary treatment to alleviate the
existing water quality problem The estimated cost of secondary
treatment facilities, exclusive of sewers, is $80sOOOo
The Pennsylvania Sanitary Water Board requires that
secondary treatment be provided prior to discharge into the
Cowanesque River? Westfield, however, provides only primary
treatment and is, therefore, In violation of the Board's require-
ments „
Eberle Tanning Company is presently lagooning its wastes
and provides for the evaporation of spent tanning liquors. In
addition, an application was submitted to FWPCA for a research
grant for the development of biological treatment facilities to
treat tannery wastes,. The cost for these facilities is estimated
at $197,000.
-------
V - kk
b. Future Water Quality
It is expected that the population presently served by
sewerage facilities in the Westfield Area will increase three-
fold by the year 2020. If secondary waste treatment is provided
by both Westfield Borough and Eberle Tanning, no future water
quality problem is anticipated.
c. Water Supply
Present needs of 0.6 mgd are furnished by drilled wells
and the Cowanesque River. A population of about 1,200 is served
by the municipal system. Eberle Tanning Company maintains a
separate supply, using the Cowanesque and wells for its process
water. Domestic water, however, is obtained from the Westfield
municipal system.
Future needs of 0.8 mgd are anticipated by 2020. The
existing sources are expected to meet future demands adequately.
2. Elkland Area
a.. Current Water Quality
The Borough of Elkland in Tioga County, Pennsylvania, is
situated on the Cowanesque River approximately 13 miles down-
stream from Westfield. The principal industry in the Area is
the Elkland Leather Company, employing about 500 persons. Wastes
emanating from the Area are as follows:
-------
V -
Location
Elkland Borough
Elkland Leather
Company
Treatment
Secondary
Spray Irrigation
( lime )
(tanning)
Population
Served
2,150
7,820*
Est.
Flow
(mgd)
0.2
2.1
Receiving Stream
Cowanesque River
No Discharge
No Discharge
*
Estimated population equivalent
Water quality upstream from Elkland still exhibits degra-
dation from the Westfield Area's waste loading. Moreover, addi-
tional degradation of the Cowanesque River occurs as the result
of the wastes discharged at Elkland. Although the degradation is
not as severe as that encountered upstream at Westfield, the waste
loadings from Elkland impose further oxygen demands on an already
overloaded stream. Stream sampling results are summarized below:
Cowanesque River near Elkland
Five Miles Eight Miles
Downstream Downstream
Indicator Upstream
D.O. (mg/1) 3.H - 6.7
B.O.D. (ult.)
(Ibs/day) 233
From Elkland
3.1 - 5-6
291
From Elkland
3.8 - 5-3
222
Elkland Borough and Elkland Leather Company are both in
compliance with Pennsylvania Sanitary Water Board requirements.
Elkland Leather Company has completed facilities for spray irriga-
tion of wastes during the summer of 1966 and, allegedly, has not
been discharging tanning wastes to the Cowanesque River. It
should be noted that BOD sampling data at the two downstream
-------
v - k6
locations, when extrapolated back to Elkland, suggest that over
300 pounds of BOD were discharged from the Elkland Area—more
than appears reasonable from just Elkland Borough's waste. Ad-
ditional studies are needed in this stream reach to determine
the sources and magnitude of the pollution. However, with cessa-
tion of the tannery waste discharges, studies indicate that ade-
quate flows are available in the Cowanesque River to assimilate
the secondary effluents from Elkland, provided upstream conditions
are improved.
b. Future Water Quality
The population in the Elkland Area is expected to double
by the year 2020. Assimilative evaluations indicate that if water
quality upstream from Elkland is improved by pollution control
actions taken by Westfield, then secondary treatment (85 per cent
BOD removal) of Elkland1s waste will be sufficient to maintain
water quality downstream through year 2020.
The Corps of Engineers has proposed a reservoir on the
Cowanesque River, approximately ten miles downstream from Elkland.
The reservoir project is being designed for flood control, recrea-
tion, water quality control, and conservation of fish and wildlife
environment. Because of the nearness of this reservoir project
to Elkland and Westfield, it is essential that necessary pollution
control measures are taken in the upstream reaches of the
-------
V - HT
Cowanesque Watershed in order to impound water suitable for
recreation as well as other beneficial uses.
c. Water Supply
Present needs of 2.2 mgd are furnished by drilled wells
and the Cowanesque River. Potable water is obtained from wells;
whereas, process water used by the Elkland Leather Company is
furnished by the Cowanesque River.
Future needs of about 2.8 mgd are anticipated by 2020.
The existing as well as available surface and ground water sources
appear adequate to satisfy the projected needs.
H. Canisteo River
1. Hornell Area
a. Current Water Quality
Hornell City in Steuben County, New York, is situated
near the headwaters of the Canisteo River, a principal tributary
of the Tioga River. Canisteo Village is situated about three
miles downstream from Hornell. Principal industries within the
Hornell Area are the Erie-Lackawanna Railroad, employing 100
persons; Stern and Stern Textiles, employing 1^0 persons; and
Elmhurst Dairy, employing 65 persons. Wastes emanating from
the Area are as follows:
-------
V - kB
Location
Treatment
Population
Served
Est.
Flow
(mgd)
Receiving Stream
Canisteo Village
Hornell City
Erie-
Lackawanna
Diesel Repair
Merrill Hosiery
Stern and Stern
Textiles
Elmhurst Dairy
Primary
Primary
None (silt)
None (silt)
Discharge:
(sanitary)
None (dye)
None (heated)
Discharge:
(sanitary)
Discharge:
(dye)
(heated)
(sanitary)
None
2,200 0.25 Canisteo River
13,800 2.0 Canisteo River
0.025 Canisteo River
0,025 Canisteo River
#
10 0,001 Hornell Sewers
OoOOl Canisteo River
0.012 Canisteo River
*
30 0,003 Hornell Sewers
*
2,930 0.15 Hornell Sewers
Hornell Sewers
# Hornell Sewers
780 0<,0l6 Hornell Sewers
Estimated population equivalent
The water quality of the Canisteo River below the Hornell
Area is greatly impaired by organic pollution. Stream sampling
surveys conducted during the late summer months are summarized
below:
Canisteo River at Hornell
Indicator
D.O. (mg/1)
Upstream
3.2 - U.6
Biological Summary
Downstream
0 (most of the
samples)
Upstream - Although a few clean-water associated forms were
collected at this station, only five kinds of bottom organisms
could be found. Biological degradation is indicated compared
to the station about three miles upstream where 16 kinds of
clean-water organisms were collected.
-------
v -
Downstream - Only two kinds, but an abundant population of
pollution-tolerant organisms, were observed in the samples at
this station. Sludge deposits near the banks were literally
"alive" with sludgeworms.
Initial impairment of water quality may be attributed to
septic tank or untreated waste discharges from Arkport (i960
population of 837)» approximately four miles upstream from Hornell,
Additional stream studies are needed to locate and identify the
actual sources.
Polluted conditions downstream from Hornell severely limit
the beneficial use of the Canisteo River over a ten-mile reach.
A comparison of required flows for assimilation of primary ef-
fluents and expected flows in this stream reach indicates that
dissolved oxygen concentrations may be critically depressed six
months of the year, with anaerobic conditions occurring during
the late summer. Based on the foregoing analysis, a definite
need exists for secondary treatment capabilities for the Hornell
Area.
The New York State Commissioner of Health has ordered
Hornell to provide a minimum of secondary treatment. The City
has responded by submitting final plans to the State for approval
and by applying for a Federal grant under PL 660. The project
is now nearing the construction stage. The estimated project
cost is $2,^22,500,
-------
V - 50
be Future Water Quality
A water quality problem is anticipated downstream from
Hornell in the very near future,. Studies indicate that required
flows necessary to assimilate projected 1980 waste loadings,
even with secondary treatment, and maintain a desirable oxygen
level for the propagation of fish and aquatic life will be in
excess of the naturally occurring stream flows„ The water quality
problem is expected to intensify with continued municipal and
industrial growth, unless corrective measures are undertaken.
Hornell's 2020 waste loading, for example, is projected to more
than double the 1980 loading, based on preliminary estimates„
In order to improve and maintain satisfactory water
quality in the Canisteo River, additional methods to control
pollution will be necessary before year 198CK Treatment facili-
ties to provide greater than 85 per cent BOD removal should be
considered, as well as flow regulation, which may be a supple-
mental method or possibly an alternative° Further evaluations
are necessary to determine the feasibility of each alternative
and resulting water quality°
The Corps of Engineers has indicated two potential reser-
voir sites on tributaries to the Canisteo River; (l) site #100
is located on Bennett Creek and is expected to yield approximately
1+0 cfs at a cost of $13,000 per cfs; (2) site #99 is located on
Tuscarora Creek and has a potential yield of 76 cfs at a cost of
$13,600 per cfs.
-------
-------
V - 51
Bennett Creek discharges to the Canisteo River an^roxi-
mately six miles downstream from Hornell and, therefore, could
increase stream flows in the severely degraded reach of the
Canisteo River, Tuscarora Creek, however, discharges to the
Canisteo River approximately 23 miles further downstream and
about six miles upstream from the mouth and would, therefore,
not supplement stream flows in the reaches where flow is most
needed.
c<, Water Supply
A population of 19,000 is served by the Hornell municipal
systems, These systems obtain nearly all of the present needs
(2»7 mgd) from an impoundment on Carrington Creek. By year 2020,
it is anticipated that the Hornell Area will need about 7 mgd,
which is expected to exceed the supply capability of the exist-
ing surface water source. Future utilization of the Canisteo
River, as well as further development of ground water sources,
appear to be necessary to satisfy the projected needs.
I. Cohocton River
I. Bath Area
a. Current Water Quality
The Village of Bath in Steuben County, New York, is
situated on the Cohocton River approximately 19 miles upstream
from its mouth„ The principal industry within the Village is
-------
V - 52
Westinghouse Corporation, employing 1,100 persons„ Waste sources
in the Area are as follows:
Location
Bath Village
Veteran's
Treatment
Primary
Population
Served
2,000
Est.
Flow
(mgd)
0.20
Receiving Stream
Cohocton River
Administration
Hospital
Westinghouse
Electric
Mobil Oil
Company
*
Estimated
Secondary
None (heated)
Limestone Pit
(acid)
None (heated)
Discharge:
(sanitary)
None (process)
Cesspool
(sanitary)
population equivalent
2,1*50
130
*
10
0.199
0.008
0.001
0.060
0.013
0.10
0.001
Cohocton River
Cohocton River
Bath Sewers
Cohocton River
Bath Severs
Sub-surface
Sub-surface
Limited data collected during the 1965 summer sampling
period indicated dissolved oxygen levels approach saturation,
possibly attributable to algal growths observed in the Area.
The results of the biological survey conducted in the fall of
1965 indicated the presence of 18 kinds of predominately clean-
water organisms. However, prior to the biological survey, a fish
kill occurred in August 1965 downstream from Bath, The cause
of the kill apparently did not adversely affect the biological
condition of the stream.
A survey conducted by the New York State Department of
Health indicated the effluent from the primary treatment plant
ce.used localized grayish discoloration of the stream, and sludge
-------
V - 53
deposits were observed along the small outfall ditch leading to
the stream. Consequently, the New York State Department of Health
is requiring the Village to upgrade the degree of treatment to
secondary. A comprehensive sewerage study for the Bath Area is
currently being conducted and is expected to recommend secondary
treatment facilities. The cost of the treatment plant, exclusive
of sewers, is estimated at $160,000.
Assimilative studies by CB-SRBP indicate that the expected
flows of the Cohocton River are adequate to assimilate the present
and near future waste loadings, after secondary treatment, with-
out appreciable impairment to water quality.
b. Future Water Quality
The population served by sewerage facilities in the Bath
Area is expected to double by 1980 and increase sevenfold by 2020.
Assimilative studies of the Cohocton River downstream from Bath
indicate that secondary waste treatment appears to be satisfac-
tory to maintain desirable oxygen levels through 2000= Beyond
the year 2000, advanced waste treatment or flow regulation ap-
pears necessary in order to assimilate adequately the increased
waste loadings due to municipal and industrial growth.
Flow regulation may prove to be feasible from either of
three sites located on Twelve Mile Creek, a tributary discharg-
ing to the Cohocton River upstream from Bath. The Corps of
Engineers has indicated the following three sites:
-------
V -
Site Number
#95
#96
#97
Potential Yield
IT
3^
28
Cost Per cfs
$21,000
$39,700
$18,900
Comprehensive planning to protect water quality in the
Cohocton River Watershed will necessitate evaluation of the
effects of any upstream reservoir development, in addition to
determination of future waste treatment needs.
c. Water Supply
Present needs of 0.7 mgd for the Bath Area are furnished
by ground water sources. A population of 5,000 is served by the
municipal system.
Future needs of approximately 16 mgd are anticipated by
2020. A study will be required to locate additional water sup-
ply sources. It is anticipated that the Cohocton River will be
utilized to satisfy a large portion of the projected needs.
However, further development of ground water resources or reser-
voir storage will be necessary to fully meet the needs by 2020.
J. Chemung River
1. Corning Area
a. Current Water Quality
The City of Corning in Steuben County, New York, is
situated on the Chemung River immediately downstream from the
-------
v - 55
confluence of the Tioga and Cohocton Rivers, which form the
Chemung. Painted Post Village is located two miles west of
Corning. Principal industries within the Corning Area are the
Corning Glass Works, employing 7,500 persons; Ingersoll-Rand
Company, located in Painted Post and employing 3,500 persons;
and the Corning Packing Company, employing about 350 persons.
Wastes emanating from the Area are as follows:
Location
Treatment
Est.
Population Flow
Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
Corning City
Corning Glass
Works
Painted Post
Village
Ingersoll-Rand
Gang Mills
Erwin Town
Polio and Fiorlat
Dairy
Corning Community
College
Scuder and Sand
Dairy
New York State
Electric and
Gas
Dan's All Star
Dairy
Corning Packaging
Company
Primary
None (heated)
Discharge:
(sanitary)
Secondary
None (process)
Discharge:
(heated)
( sanitary)
Septic Tanks
Secondary
None
Secondary
None ( mi Lk ')
None (boiler ash)
None (heated)
Septic Tanks
(sanitary)
None (milk)
Septic Tank
(sanitary)
None (heated)
None (organic
chemical)
None (sanitary)
17,085
*
2,880
2,200
#
2,730
1,000
#
10,000
500
*
980
*
10
150
&
ko*
3=0
10,9
0.288
0.2
0.002
Oo2lt
0,273
0,12
0 ., 227
0.05
0.02
0.27
^3,3
CL001
Go 003
0=001
o.ooi*
Chemung River
Chemung River
Corning Sewers
Cohocton River
Cohocton River
Painted Post
Sewers
Sub-surface
Cohocton River
Cohocton River
Bailey Creek
Cohocton River
Ash Pond
Chemung River
Sub -surf ace
Tioga River
Sub-surface
Bill Smith Creek
Unknown
Unknown
Rhinehart Sand
and Gravel
None
Filter Pond
Estimated population equivalent
-------
V - 56
Based on the 1965 summer sampling results, the above
vaste discharges did not cause appreciable reductions in dis-
solved oxygen concentrations compared to dissolved oxygen levels
upstream from Corning. However, the profuse algal growths
observed in the downstream reaches are partially responsible
for maintaining relatively high dissolved oxygen levels during
daylight hours, even though biochemical oxygen demands are being
exerted on the stream by Coming's waste discharge. Conversely, in
the absence of sunlight, the algae exert additional oxygen demands
on the stream. The summer sampling, however, was conducted during
daylight and did not reflect possible minimum dissolved oxygen
concentrations during the hours of darkness. Stream survey results
are summarized below;
Chemung Riverat Corning
Indicator Upstream Downstream
D.O. (mg/1) 11.7 - 6.2 11,2 - 6.6
B.O.D. (mg/1) (5-day) 3.0 - h,2 k,6 - 8.4
Biological Summary
Upstream - An abundant population of 11 kinds of clean-water as-
sociated bottom organisms was observed in the sample at this
location. Smallmouth bass were numerous in the area.
Downstream - Seven kinds of bottom organisms, predominately
pollution-tolerant and intermediate forms, dominated at this
station. Degradation of water quality from the upstream station
was indicated.
-------
V - 57
Coming's existing primary plant is antiquated and over-
loaded. A survey conducted by the New York State Department of
Health revealed that floating material and sludge deposits vere
being conveyed to the stream.
This condition will be remedied soon, as final plans for
a new secondary plant have been approved, and construction is
expected to be underway shortly. The cost of the project is esti-
mated at $968,000. An application for a Federal grant under PL
660 has been submitted to the FWPCA for approval.
Corning Glass Works discharges its sanitary wastes to
the City sewer system and discharges a portion of its industrial
wastes, such as acids, alkalies, brine, oil, etc., directly to
the Chemung River. Sludge deposits, oil slicks, and discolora-
tion in the receiving stream are caused by these waste discharges.
The Company is engaged in a study of plant operations and indus-
trial waste problems and is making "in-plant" modifications to
reduce these discharges. The New York State Department of Health
has ordered abatement of this industrial waste discharge by
October 196?.
Dan's All Star Dairy, located on the Tioga River immedi-
ately upstream from the Cohocton River confluence, is causing a
localized pollution problem. Domestic wastes are treated by
septic tanks; whereas, cooling and wash waters containing organic
material are discharged without treatment directly to the Tioga
-------
V - 58
River, causing discoloration of the receiving stream and deposi-
tion of sludge on the stream bed. Enforcement action to abate
pollution from Dan's Dairy has been taken by the State Department
of Health, and a hearing is currently scheduled. Dan's Dairy is
expected to connect to the Erwin Tovn sewerage system.
b. Future Water Quality
The Corning Area is expected to grow considerably in the
future; the population served by sewerage facilities is expected
to double by 1980 and to increase sevenfold by 2020. Preliminary
evaluations indicate that the expected stream flows of the Chemung
River will be adequate to assimilate the projected waste loads
after secondary treatment.
c. Water Supply
Present area needs of 17-8 mgd are furnished mainly by
ground water sources. Corning Glass Works, however, uses the
Chemung River for cooling purposes. The New York State Gas and
Electric Company presently uses approximately U3 mgd from the
Chemung River; however, this Company is being phased out of opera-
tion. A population of 19,300 is presently served by municipal
systems.
Future needs of 90 mgd, in the absence of the Electric
Company, are anticipated by 2020 for the Corning Area. A study
will be required to locate additional sources to meet this future
-------
V - 59
demand. The Chemung River is a potential water supply source
which could supplement existing sources; however, further develop-
ment of ground water resources or reservoir storage will be
required to fully satisfy the projected demands.
2. Elmira Area
a. Current Water Quality
The City of Elmira in Chemung County, New York, is situat-
ed on the Chemung River approximately 12 miles downstream from
Corning. Newtown Creek, which drains a portion of the Elmira
Area, joins the Chemung River within the City. Elmira is the
largest community in the Chemung River Basin and the second
largest in the New York portion of the Susquehanna River Basin.
The Elmira Area is a diversified industrial center. Municipal
and industrial waste sources in the Elmira Area are as follows:
Est.
Population Flow
Location Treatment Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
Elmira City Secondary 1*6,500 5-5 Chemung River
Elmira Town Discharge 5>765 0.5 Elmira Sewers
Hygeia Refrigerator Discharge:
(rinse) Elmira Sewers
(heated) Elmira Sewers
(milk and fats) 590 0.012 Elmira Sewers
(compressor) 0.^32 Chemung River
(sanitary) Elmira Sewers
National Biscuit (No Data)
Kennedy Valve Discharge:
Manufacturing (testing) Elmira Sewers
(compressor) Elmira Sewers
(sanitary) Elmira Sewers
Art Card Publishing Discharge:
(sanitary) Elmira Sewers
-------
v - 6o
Location
Treatment
Population
Served
Est.
Flow
(mgd)
Receiving Stream
Hardinge Brothers
Sperry Rand
Seven Bottling
Company
General Electric
Pepsi Cola Bottling
Elmira City
(Chemung Sewer
District #l)
Dairymen League
Co-op
Hankins Container
The Great Atlantic
and Pacific Tea
Company, Ann Page
Division
Discharge:
(metal)
(sanitary)
None (organic
chemical)
None (heated) 0.25
Pre-treatment
(acidic) 0.3
(oil) 0.072
(metal) 0.136
(acid and
alkaline) 0.02^4
(heated) # 0,036
(sanitary) ^,320 0.^32
Discharge:
(caustic)
(silt) 0.001
(heated) 0.001
(sanitary)
Discharge:
(sanitary)
None (heated) 0.3
None (heated)
None (silica
sand)
None (caustic) 0.001
Secondary 2,700 2.0
Discharge:
(condensing) 0.05
(cooling) 0.095
(milk) 2k5 0.005
Discharge;
("boiler)
(paste and ink)
Discharge
(process and #
sanitary) 98,000 1.0
Elmira Sewers
Elmira Sewers
Dry Well
Eldridge Lake
Elmira Sewers
Elmira Sewers
Elmira Sewers
Elmira Sewers
Elmira Sewers
Elmira Sewers
Elmira Sewers
Elmira Sewers
Elmira Sewers
Elmira Sewers
Elmira Sewers
Eldridge Lake
Storm Sewers
Eldridge Lake
Newtown Creek
Newtown Creek
Chemung Sewer
District #1
Chemung Sewer
District #1
Chemung Sewer
District #1
Chemung Sewer
District #1
-------
v - 6i
Est.
Population Flow
Location
Thacker Glass
Horseheads Town
Big Flats Town
Big Flats Town
Corning Glass
Treatment
Discharge:
(organic)
(air wash)
(heated)
(sanitary)
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
None (cleaning)
Served
#
600
489
550
200
(mgd)
0.001
0.47
0.06
0.05
0.059
0.004
0.03
Receiving Stream
Chemung Sewer
District #1
Chemung Sewer
District #1
Chemung Sewer'
District #1
Newtown Creek
Chemung River
Sing Sing Creek
Chemung River
Fawn Beverages
Schwezer Aircraft
Ward La France
Trucking
U. S. Steel
Corporation
Westinghouse
Electric
Bendix Corporation
Eclipse Division
Buckley-Nylok
Company
Corning Glass Lab
Neutrali zation
(etching)
None (compressor)
Discharge:
(sanitary)
None
None (alodine)
None (compressor)
Septic Tank
(sanitary)
None (process)
None (heated)
None (sanitary)
None (heated)
Septic Tanks
(sanitary)
Cesspool
(sanitary)
Lime (plating)
None (air
conditioning)
Settling
(sanitary)
Chlorination
(heavy metal)
Chlorination
(acid)
Chlorination
(heated)
Tertiary
(sanitary)
330#
98
70
4
20
4
10
4
20
130
1,700
(No Data)
(No Data)
Chemung River
0.147 Chemung River
0.033 Big Flats Sewers
0.005 Sub-surface
0.002 Dry Well
0.015 Dry Well
0.007 Leach Fields
0.002 Dry Wells
0.002 Dry Wells
0.002 Dry Wells
0.04 Dry Wells
0.001 Sub-surface
0 = 002
Tributary to
Newtown Creek
Tributary to
Newtown Creek
0.013 Lagoons
Tributary to
0=85 Newtown Creek
Tributary to
0.15 Newtown Creek
Tributary to
0.154 Newtown Creek
Tributary to
0.17 Newtown Creek
Estimated population equivalent
-------
V - 62
Stream sampling surveys conducted during late summer
and fall months reveal the following results:
Chemung River at Elmira
Indicator Upstream Downstream
D.O. (mg/1) 9-3 - 12 6.7 - 9.0
B.O.D. (5-day) (mg/l) 1.7 - 3.3 8.0 - 8.2
No samples were collected upstream from pollutional
sources on Newtown Creek. Samples collected downstream from
treated waste effluents are as follows:
Newtown Creek
Indicator Range
B.O.D. (5-day) (mg/l) 10.3 - 116.0
Coliforms/100 ml 9,000 - 5,500,000
Biological Summary
Chemung River Upstream from Elmira - Eighteen kinds of bottom
organisms, consisting of an abundance of clean-water associated
forms, were collected in the sample at this location.
Newtown Creek at Mouth - Seven kinds of bottom organisms, pre-
dominately pollution-tolerant forms, were observed at this sta-
tion. Degraded water quality is evidently being contributed to
the Chemung River.
Chemung River Downstream from Elmira and Newtown Creek - Fourteen
kinds of bottom organisms, predominately pollution-tolerant and
intermediate forms, were collected at this location. Degraded
conditions are indicated in relation to the upstream station.
Elmira City is currently providing less than secondary
treatment, about 60 per cent removal of organic waste. The New
-------
V - 63
York State Department of Health requires that a minimum of 75
per cent BOD reduction be maintained. Present plans include
expansion of the existing secondary plant to provide a greater
degree of treatment, A consulting engineer's cost estimate of
the proposed expansion is $2,835,000.
In addition, Elmira, like many older Cities, has a com-
bined sewer system which is overloaded during periods of excessive
run-off. A moderate rain causes untreated sewage to overflow
directly into the Chemung River from at least three points of
discharge. A comprehensive sewerage study for Elmira and Environs
currently in progress disclosed the following existing overflows.
Location of Overflow Overflow From Overflow To
Grove Street
Columbia Street
College Avenue
Railroad Avenue
DeWitt Avenue
Lake Street
Sullivan Street
Luce Street
East Water Street
Water Street Interceptor
Sewer
Water Street Interceptor
Sewer
Water Street Interceptor
Sewer
Water Street Interceptor
Sewer
Water Street Interceptor
Sewer
Water Street Interceptor
Sewer
Water Street Interceptor
Sewer
Luce Street Trunk Sewer
North Side Sewer System
Chemung River
Water Street Storm Relief
Sewer and Chemung River
Water Street Storm Relief
Sewer and Chemung River
Water Street Storm Relief
Sewer
Water Street Storm Relief
Sewer
Water Street Storm Relief
Sewer
New York State Pumping
Station
Chemung River
Chemung River
-------
v - 6k
Furthermore, the study recommended a three-stage remedial
plan which calls for expansion and modifications of the existing
treatment facility to adequately treat the dry weather flow. The
following relief sewers were also proposed in the study:
(1) Walnut Street (2) West Hudson Street
(3) Erie-Miller (h) Railroad Avenue
Estimated cost for these sewers is not presently known. A report
has been prepared and submitted to the State but has not been
approved; evidently there is no anticipated construction. Unfor-
tunately, there is no inexpensive method of completely eliminating
the storm water problem.
The area surrounding Elmira, including Elmira Heights,
Horseheads Village, and portions of Horseheads Town, is served
by the Chemung County Sewer District #1, which discharges its
secondary treated effluent into Newtown Creek. The present treat-
ment facilities are currently overloaded and are providing only
approximately JO per cent BOD removal. Industrial parks located
in Horseheads and Big Flats provide separate secondary treatment
facilities.
Secondary waste treatment is provided for most sanitary
wastes discharged into Newtown Creek. Most industrial waste,
however, is conveyed to Newtown Creek with little or no treatment
at all. Westinghouse and Bendix Corporations allow oil and chemi-
cal wastes to be discharged directly into the Creek. Westinghouse
Corporation is contemplating connection to the Chemung County
-------
v ~ 65
Sewer District #!„ These industries are in violation of stream
standards set by the New York State Department of Health, In-
plant modifications and additional treatment have been initiated
by the industries at the request of the Department of Health„
Because of the low flows in Newtown Creek, every effort should
be made to provide maximum treatment of municipal and industrial
wastes or join the Elmira sewerage system which discharges to
the Chemung River where flows are considerably greater„ However,
since the Elmira treatment plant is already overloaded, expansion
of the plant would necessitate provisions for additional capacity
to receive these outlying areas,
bo Future Water Quality
A severe water quality problem is anticipated in the
Chemung River downstream from the Elmira Area beyond the year
1980. Waste assimilative studies indicate that the expected
stream flows in the Chemung River are insufficient to assimilate
the 1980 projected waste loadings, after secondary treatment,
throughout most of the year»
The population presently served by sewerage facilities
in the Elmira Area is expected to double by 1980 and to increase
sevenfold by 2020= Industrial growth is expected to increase
accordingly. By the year 2020, flows of 600 cfs are expected
to be required during the summer months to assimilate secondary
treated waste (85 per cent removal) and maintain satisfactory
-------
v - 66
water quality in the Chemung River. Natural stream flows of less
than 85 cfs frequently occur during these months. Treatment in
excess of 85 per cent removal of organic material will be neces-
sary unless other pollution control measures are undertaken* One
alternative, which appears possible, is flow regulation from up-
stream reservoirs such as the proposed Tioga-Hammond and Cowanesque
projects. Other reservoir sites, in the Canisteo and Cohocton
Watersheds, if developed may also serve to increase stream flows
in the Chemung River during the low flow periods of late summer.
Newtown Creek, which is presently degraded, will become
progressively more degraded as growth is experienced in the Area.
Flows of approximately 92 cfs will be required during summer months
to assimilate the 2020 secondary treatment waste loads and maintain
satisfactory quality conditions. Natural stream flows of less
than 8 cfs are not uncommon in Newtown Creek, Since there appear
to be no potential reservoir sites upstream on Newtown Creek, con-
sideration should be given to providing the maximum degree of
treatment attainable. Alternatives to consider in future planning
include diverting treated waste effluents to the Chemung River
and/or portions of the outlying areas joining the Elmira municipal
system. Industry should make every effort to eliminate toxic
chemical and oil wastes discharged into streams in the Elmira
Area, either by practicing good housekeeping methods, making in-
plant modifications, or pre-treating wastes and then discharging
-------
v - 67
treated effluents into municipal sewer systems if at all
possible.
Comprehensive planning of the water resources in the
Chemung River Basin, involving sound engineering and economic
evaluations and judgments, is needed to formulate and implement
an effective pollution control program.
c. Water Supply
Current water needs of l6.5 mgd are furnished mainly by
surface supplies for the Elmira Area; however, many of the sur-
rounding communities use ground water sources.
Future needs of 288 mgd are anticipated by the year 2020=
The municipal supply, however, will require only 2k per cent of
the total demand. The remaining 76 per cent is attributed to
industrial water supply needs. The lack of water may curtail
industrial expansion in this respect. The Chemung River cannot
meet the projected demand for the Elmira Area without additional
storage reservoirs. Additional studies will be required to explore
the possibilities of ground water development as a means of further
supplementing surface water sources.
-------
------- |