U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Annapolis Field Office
Annapolis Science Center
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
WORKING DOCUMENTS
Volume 15
-------
-------
Table of Contents
Volume 15
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
-------
-------
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 arid
Selected Tributaries - 1966-1968
Water Quality Survey of the Eastern Shore Chesapeake
Bay, Wicomico River, Pocomoke River, Nanticoke River,
Marshall Creek, Bunting Branch, and Chincoteague Bay -
Summer 1967
Head of Bay Study - Water Quality Survey of Northeast
River, Elk River, C & D Canal, Bohemia River, Sassafras
River and Upper Chesapeake Bay - Summer 1968 - Head ot
Bay Tributaries
Water Quality Survey of the Potomac Estuary - 1967
Water Quality Survey of the Potomac Estuary - 1968
Wastewater Treatment Plant Nutrient Survey - 1966-1967
Cooperative Bacteriological Study - Upper Chesapeake Bay
Dredging Spoil Disposal - Cruise Report No. 11
VOLUME 10
Data Reports
9 Water Quality Survey of the Potomac Estuary - 1965-1966
10 Water Quality Survey of the Annapolis Metro Area - 1967
11 Nutrient Data on Sediment Samples of the Potomac Estuary
1966-1968
12 1969 Head of the Bay Tributaries
13 Water Quality Survey of the Chesapeake Bay in the
Vicinity of Sandy Point - 1968
14 Water Quality Survey of the Chesapeake Bay in the
Vicinity of Sandy Point - 1969
-------
VOLUME IQ(continued)
Data Reports
15 Water Quality Survey of the Patuxent River - 1967
16 Water Quality Survey of the Patuxent River - 1968
17 Water Quality Survey of the Patuxent River - 1969
18 Water Quality of the Potomac Estuary Transects,
Intensive and Southeast Water Laboratory Cooperative
Study - 1969
19 Water Quality Survey of the Potomac Estuary Phosphate
Tracer Study - 1969
VOLUME 11
Data Reports
20 Water Quality of the Potomac Estuary Transport Study
1969-1970
21 Water Quality Survey of the Piscataway Creek Watershed
1968-1970
22 Water Quality Survey of the Chesapeake Bay in the
Vicinity of Sandy Point - 1970
23 Water Quality Survey of the Head of the Chesapeake Bay
Maryland Tributaries - 1970-1971
24 Water Quality Survey of the Upper Chesapeake Bay
1969-1971
25 Water Quality of the Potomac Estuary Consolidated
Survey - 1970
26 Water Quality of the Potomac Estuary Dissolved Oxygen
Budget Studies - 1970
27 Potomac Estuary Wastewater Treatment Plants Survey
1970
28 Water Quality Survey of the Potomac Estuary Embayments
and Transects - 1970
29 Water Quality of the Upper Potomac Estuary Enforcement
Survey - 1970
-------
30
31
32
33
34
Appendix
to 1
Appendix
to 2
3
4
VOLUME 11 (continued)
Data Reports
Water Quality of the Potomac Estuary - Gilbert Swamp
and Allen's Fresh and Gunston Cove - 1970
Survey Results of the Chesapeake Bay Input Study -
1969-1970
Upper Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Studies - Bush River,
Spesutie Narrows and Swan Creek, C & D Canal, Chester
River, Severn River, Gunpowder, Middle and Bird Rivers -
1968-1971
Special Water Quality Surveys of the Potomac River Basin
Anacostia Estuary, Wicomico,River, St. Clement and
Breton Bays, Occoquan Bay - 1970-1971
Water Quality Survey of the Patuxent River - 1970
VOLUME 12
Working Documents
Biological Survey of the Susquehanna River and its
Tributaries between Danville, Pennsylvania and
Conowingo, Maryland
Tabulation of Bottom Organisms Observed at Sampling
Stations during the Biological Survey between Danville,
Pennsylvania and Conowingo, Maryland - November 1966
Biological Survey of the Susquehanna River and its
Tributaries between Cooperstown, New York and
Northumberland, Pennsylvnaia - January 1967
Tabulation of Bottom Organisms Observed at Sampling
Stations during the Biological Survey between Cooperstown,
New York and Northumberland, Pennsylvania - November 1966
VOLUME 13
Working Documents
Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, Mine Drainage
Chesapeake Bay-Delaware River Basins - July 1967
Biological Survey of Rock Creek (from Rockville, Maryland
to the Potomac River) October 1966
-------
VOLUME 13 (continued)
Working Documents
5 Summary of Water Quality and Waste Outfalls, Rock Creek
in Montgomery County, Maryland and the District of
Columbia - December 1966
6 Water Pollution Survey - Back River 1965 - February 1967
7 Efficiency Study of the District of Columbia Water
Pollution Control Plant - February 1967
VOLUME 14
Working Documents
8 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study - Susquehanna
River Basin from Northumberland to West Pittson
(Including the Lackawanna River Basin) March 1967
9 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, Juniata
River Basin - March 1967
10 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, Rappahannock
River Basin - March 1967
11 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, Susquehanna
River Basin from Lake Otsego, New York, to Lake Lackawanna
River Confluence, Pennsylvania - April 1967
VOLUME 15
Working Documents
12 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, York River
Basin - April 1967
13 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, West Branch,
Susquehanna River Basin - April 1967
14 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, James River
Basin - June 1967 .
15 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, Patuxent River
Basin - May 1967
-------
VOLUME 16
Working Documents
16 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, Susquehanna
River Basin from Northumberland, Pennsylvania, to
Havre de Grace, Maryland - July 1967
17 Water Quality and Pollution Control Study, Potomac
River Basin - June 1967
18 Immediate Water Pollution Control Needs, Central Western
Shore of Chesapeake Bay Area (Magothy, Severn, South, and
West River Drainage Areas) July 1967
19 Immediate Water Pollution Control Needs, Northwest
Chesapeake Bay Area (Patapsco to Susquehanna Drainage
Basins in Maryland) August 1967
20 Immediate Water Pollution Control Needs - The Eastern
Shore of Delaware, Maryland and Virginia - September 1967
VOLUME 17
Working Documents
21 Biological Surveys of the Upper James River Basin
Covington, Clifton Forge, Big Island, Lynchburg, and
Piney River Areas - January 1968
22 Biological Survey of Antietam Creek and some of its
Tributaries from Waynesboro, Pennsylvania to Antietam,
Maryland - Potomac River Basin - February 1968
23 Biological Survey of the Monocacy River and Tributaries
from Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, to Maryland Rt. 28 Bridge
Potomac River Basin - January 1968
24 Water Quality Survey of Chesapeake Bay in the Vicinity of
Annapolis, Maryland - Summer 1967
25 Mine Drainage Pollution of the North Branch of Potomac
River - Interim Report - August 1968
26 Water Quality Survey in the Shenandoah River of the
Potomac River Basin - June 1967
27 Water Quality Survey in the James and Maury Rivers
Glasgow, Virginia - September 1967
-------
VOLUME 17 (continued)
Working Documents
28 Selected Biological Surveys in the James River Basin,
Gillie Creek in the Richmond Area, Appomattox River
in the Petersburg Area, Bailey Creek from Fort Lee
to Hopewell - April 1968
VOLUME 18
Working Documents
29 Biological Survey of the Upper and Middle Patuxent
River and some of its Tributaries - from Maryland
Route 97 Bridge near Roxbury Mills to the Maryland
Route 4 Bridge near Wayson's Corner, Maryland -
Chesapeake Drainage Basin - June 1968
30 Rock Creek Watershed - A Water Quality Study Report
March 1969
31 The Patuxent River - Water Quality Management -
Technical Evaluation - September 1969
VOLUME 19
Working Documents
Tabulation, Community and Source Facility 'Water Data
Maryland Portion, Chesapeake Drainage Area - October 1964
Waste Disposal Practices at Federal Installations
Patuxent River Basin - October 1964
Waste Disposal Practices at Federal Installations
Potomac River Basin below Washington, D.C.- November 1964
Waste Disposal Practices at Federal Installations
Chesapeake Bay Area of Maryland Excluding Potomac
and Patuxent River Basins - January 1965
The Potomac Estuary - Statistics and Projections -
February 1968
Patuxent River - Cross Sections and Mass Travel
Velocities - July 1968
-------
VOLUME 19 (continued)
Working Documents
Wastewater Inventory - Potomac River Basin -
December 1968
Wastewater Inventory - Upper Potomac River Basin -
October 1968
VOLUME 20
Technical Papers
1 A Digital Technique for Calculating and Plotting
Dissolved Oxygen Deficits
2 A River-Mile Indexing System for Computer Application
in Storing and Retrieving Data (unavailable)
3 Oxygen Relationships in Streams, Methodology to be
Applied when Determining the Capacity of a Stream to
Assimilate Organic Wastes - October 1964
4 Estimating Diffusion Characteristics of Tidal Waters -
May 1965
5 Use of Rhodamine B Dye as a Tracer in Streams of the
Susquehanna River Basin - April 1965
6 An In-Situ Benthic Respirometer - December 1965
7 A Study of Tidal Dispersion in the Potomac River
February 1966
8 A Mathematical Model for the Potomac River - what it
has done and what it can do - December 1966
9 A Discussion and Tabulation of Diffusion Coefficients
for Tidal Waters Computed as a Function of Velocity
February 1967
10 Evaluation of Coliform Contribution by Pleasure Boats
July 1966
-------
VOLUME 21
Technical Papers
11 A Steady State Segmented Estuary Model
12 Simulation of Chloride Concentrations in the
Potomac Estuary - March 1968
13 Optimal Release Sequences for Hater 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
Page
Ic INTRODUCTION ... „,..<,...„,„......... I - 1
Ao Purpose and Scope „.. <,„„„.. . . . . . . . . 1-1
B. Acknowledgments ., o.... u ........... 1-2
II, GENERAL . . ...,<,,,. „ . . o . . ....... . . II - 1
A, Source of Information .,00............ II - 1
Be State Stream Classifications ............ II - 2
III. SUMMARY 00 , , „ . o o o o o o o , o o o o . o , , „ „ III - 1
A. Findings 0 0 ..... o .............. Ill - 1
Bo Immediate Pollution Control Needs ......... Ill - 3
1. Waste Treatment ................ Ill - 3
20 Special Studies . „<,........ Ill - k
3, Institutional Practices ............ Ill - k
IV, DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA . . . . . . . . IV - 1
V. POLLUTION CONTROL PROBLEMS, NEEDS, AND COSTS ...... V - 1
A. Mattaponi River Watershed (Headwaters to
Upstream from West Point) ............. V - 1
1,, Mattaponi Sand and Gravel Company ....... V - 2
2., Bowling Green ,.„„.„....<,...... V - 3
Bo Pamunkey River Watershed (Headwaters to
Upstream from West Point) «......„...., V - ^
1. Town of Gordonsville <,„..<,.....„... V - 6
2o Town of Mineral ................ V - 8
3» Other Towns , . „ „ 0 « . ... ........ V - 9
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
C. West Point Area . . . V - 9
1. The Chesapeake Corporation . V - 10
2. Town of West Point V - 11
D. Lower York River Basin (Below West Point to
Chesapeake Bay V - 12
1. Community of Toano V - Ik
2, York and James City Counties Sanitary
District No. 1 V - 15
3. Federal Installations , V - 15
k. Virginia Electric and Power Company ...... V - 23
5. American Oil Company V - 2k
6. Lower York County V - 27
-------
-------
I - 1
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose and Scope
Under the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U0S,C. 466 et seq), Section 3(a), the Secretary
of the Interior is authorized to make joint investigations with
other Federal agencies, vith State Water Pollution Control Agen-
cies and interstate agencies, and vith 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 York River Basin in north-
eastern Virginia, represents the first step in the development
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.
-------
-------
1-2
2. Summarize immediate pollution control needs and esti-
mated costs for providing these needs.
3° Suggest various local and basin-wide pollution
control measures which should be considered in
planning a comprehensive program for the Basin.
B. Acknowledgment s
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„
2o Existing water quality and treatment plant data
obtained from files of Federal, State, and local
agencies„
3o 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 1960
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
Treatment 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; (h) 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 York River Basin, extending lUO miles from the
divide on the Southeastern Mountains in Albemarle and Orange
Counties to the Chesapeake Bay east of Yorktown, embraces ap-
proximately 2,660 square miles of the State of Virginia.
2,, Two principal tributaries, the Mattaponi and the
Pamunkey Rivers, form the York River at West Point approximately
35 miles from the mouth. Extensive marshes on the vide flood
plains of the tributaries attract great concentrations of migra-
tory waterfowlo
3. The Mattaponi River Watershed has no major water
pollution problems. Some coloration of the Mattaponi River
results from an industrial discharge from the settling ponds
at the Mattaponi Sand and Gravel Company near the southeastern
edge of Caroline County. All other waste discharges in the
Watershed receive adequate treatment.
h. There is only one significant water quality problem
in the Pamunkey River Watershed above West Point, this being in
a small, severely degraded, unnamed tributary downstream from
Gordonsville„ The principal contributor to the water pollution
in the area is the Town of Gordonsville which treats, in addition
to municipal wastes, the wastes from the Gordonsville Industries
textile plant. Preliminary plans for a new waste treatment plant
for Gordonsville have been approved by the State.
-------
Ill - 2
There are no other significant pollution problems in the
Pamunkey River Watershed; however, the Town of Mineral is actively
seeking to provide a public sewerage system,
5= In the West Point area the Chesapeake Corporation
kraft pulp and paper mill discharges approximately 32,500 pounds
of BOD per day to the Pamunkey River, Wo serious water quality
problems are indicated by existing data; however, studies of the
downstream reaches are needed before conclusive evaluations can
be made«
6, Four Federal installations are contributing to nui-
sance conditions in the lower York River Basin. At two locations,
the Coast Guard Reserve Training Center and Cheatham Annex, small
quantities of raw sewage are discharged to the York River.
To Oil pollution resulting from accidental discharges
from crude oil carriers has caused widespread damage, including
the killing of waterfowl in the lower York River= Other nuisance
conditions are caused by pollution related to recreational and
commercial boating activity.,
8, The future growth of lower York County will depend
largely upon the provision of an adequate public sewerage system.
The area is presently served by private septic tanks, but the
soil in the County generally is not suitable for sub-surface
drainage systems.
-------
Ill - 3
Bo Immediate Pollution Control Reeds
1. Waste Treatment
The principal immediate need /.n the Basin is for the
provision of adequate waste treatment facilities to control pollu-
tion 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 below,,
at Various waste treatment facilities
and programs should be provided at
Federal installations in York
County, including secondary treat-
merit, facilities for small raw
sewage discharges at two installa-
tions and laboratory and stream
analysis programs at four
cost
ins tallations. undetermined
b. One town to provide enlarged
secondary treatment facilities $192,000
a. One community to provide new
secondary treatment facilities $70,000
-------
-------
Ill -
d. One town and one sanitary district
to provide new sewerage systems
including provision for secondary
treatment
e. One paper mill to provide second-
ary treatment for kraft pulp and
paper mill waste
f. One small industry to provide ad-
ditional settling ponds for efflu-
$6,805,350
cost
undetermined
cost
ent from sand and gravel operations undetermined
Total cost (excluding a,
e, and f)
$7,067,350
2, Special Studies
Additional investigations are needed in several areas in
the Basin to provide data for comprehensive evaluations of exist-
ing or potential pollution control needs. Table II summarizes
these needs.
3. Institutional Practices
A need for action on pollution control measures by
various Federal, State, and local institutions is indicated by
the findings of this study. Table III summarizes needed insti-
tutional practices which would enhance and strengthen pollution
control programs,.
-------
Q
EH
O
o
•H
hD -p
C oi
•H H
rH ?!
> ft
O O
cq ft
O -d
•H O H -H
•d B H H
TJ 0) O O
n3 aJ
-p ^
-P O
o5
S
(,
«
o
;s
>>
rQ
CO
*-.
a>
T3
in
O
JH
01
•d
fi
JD
O
0
0
f\
OJ
ON
H
-W-
-d
0)
bO
rH
cd
H
a
w
t?
cd
•d
a
o
O
0)
CQ
o
rH
r-H
f\
H
0)
rH
H
°H
>
to
R
O
f^j
JLf
O
Vf
o
rj
Ji
O
EH
•d
O)
to
CO
cd
ft
S
3
TJ
a
CU
rH
tt)
<*H
0)
fH
•d
d
o
PQ
&
05
-d
d
o
o
0!
CQ
CM
0
o
CO
3
r-H
ft
d
O
•H
-P
ct5
H
r$
P(
o
ft
O
vo
ON
1 i
-^_^
&
c8
a
•H
a
•H
H
0)
SH
fL,
s
t—
vo
ON
rH
H
•H
(H
ft
<
1
CQ
3
T3
a
•H
•d
M
a
- — *.
ON
o
H
«^
r-H
0
•d
0)
>
o
fH
ft
ft
03
CQ
n5
H
ft
^ — -
rH
CS
•H
fH
-P
0)
.a
-p
A3
-p
•H
U
SO
C
•H
-P
aJ
i-(
CU
ft
O
o
o
d
•H
•d
O)
•d
?(
H
O
fl
H
-P
a
0)
6
-p
cd
0)
rM
-P
1
0)
fH
dn
0)
H
rH
•H
>
to
a
o
T3
fH
O
O
TZ!
tfl
e
w
c
o
r^j
S-,
o
0
c
•H
0)
r — |
H
•H
£>
CQ
^
O
•d
SH
o
o
^H
o
C3
15
o
EH
CM
O
£H
J;
o
EH
CQ
^
OJ
J5
01
CQ
•P
O
a
„
w
A,
^>j
+3
H
H
•H
>
CQ
a
o
•d
fH
o
o
•d
0)
a
•H
g
£_f
0)
-p
0)
•d
CQ
O
•rH
^
£>
fc
CQ
CU
•H
-P
•rH
H
•H
O
cd
«H
W)
a
•H
•d
d
0)
ft
6
3
'd
a
0)
JH
0)
CM
0)
fH
T3
fl
O
M
O
LPv
PO
r
CQ
0)
-P
cd
>
•H
fn
PL,
VO
VO
m
rH
cd
fH
0)
a
•H
s
-------
X — ^
CQ t)
Q 0)
M 2
W G
fe; -H
+J
« G
§ °
•d •—
D CQ
G olj
•H H <;
4^ EH M
G 0 K
o <; EH
0 K CQ
Q
M EH a
m In @
S< *=£
6 "-5
-H O
P !H
CQ PL,
,'T")
01 4^
cd 0)
•H S
oi cd
g CD
M EH
_p
a
0)
CQ
0)
PM
G
O
•H
•P
erf
ps
ft
O
a.
0
o
•H
4-1
O
<;
i •>
CQ
O
O
r^-j
cu
cu
0)
G
O
•H
0
G
cu
_(_3
CU
J-,
EH
-d
0)
>
cu
CO
G
o
•iH
tb
o
o
0)
G
o
1
1
1
1
1
1
i?
cd
•d
G
o
o
cu
CQ
0
o
C\J
f.
OJ
o
VO
CTs
H
-p
G
•H
O
CM
[VJ [ 1
PS W
<£ cu
|3E
p_4
S ^-
H t
OA c
C
^
G £H c
O CU > C
•H ft o ^
4J cd H c
cd CM C
(H PQ C
o 'd >—>•_£
ft G c-
O M C
O ft CQ 4
iH «*!
0) 0 FQ 4
r^J P | i
CO ^ "i
(U -p (ZJ C
ft tH H OP
cd cd —i >H
CQ f-{ >H 4
0) fcd S P5 i
rG M '
O 3= t
O
CQ
r^(
01
CQ
•H
VH
H
H
c~|
CQ
0) 0)
G S
O O
B 00
O
o
0
A
o
c—
-se-
;
1
1
H
cd
•H
>> O
f-t 0)
cd ft
>d co
CIJ
O (U
o d)
ai to
CO —
in
G
£ fr
H cd
cd o ft
fn -H G
4^ 4J 0
G ft CJ
cu ai cu
O CQ CQ
0 0
O O
(T\ -4"
-s*. f*
>J cn
d
3
U
5
d
j
i
d >j
Q O +>
U G -H
1 cd o
J O
EH CQ
3 0)
o 3
j t-j
-1 K*}
H P 'd
3 -H G
j g ^
Q M ^H
U O 0
SO >H
a
cd
cu
SH 01
4J ft
co
G >»
o a
•d
"d G
o> o
G ft
CU bD '
^d G ^d
G -H 0)
O "d >H
O H -H
0 3
CU ,G CT1
^ QJ
cd <£ ^H
- — s
t>j
^,
cd
^
9
£J
w
CQ
cu
•H
'd
3
^_3
CQ
J>^
£_,
cd
4^ ( — 1
•H
G »
cd O
M S
U3 -p
o> o
•H 'H
G 4^
3 CQ
O -H
O O
S^
cd
Jj
£-1
d>
nc5
rf
p
s
cd
CQ
a
erf
H
ft
H
G
•H
fin
O
0
0
f,
0
0
u~\
f
VD
-cO"
e
cu
^_3
CQ
^s
CQ
0)
bD
cd
£H
D
0)
CQ
CU
CO
•H
!H
PM
O
O
O
^
-^
rH
£>j
?S
cd
43
•H
£1
CO
CQ
CO
•d
cd
O
PH
G
0
ft
Cu
w
1
o
JL)
ft S-,
o
bD **-<
G
•H CO
•d G
2 O
H -H
O CO
G -H
•H >
CQ
^4
G
cd
o
•H
ft
0)
CQ
rM
L|
O
f-4
0)
£5
o
i_3
• — ^
_p
o -—-
°H £>5
-P* G
CQ ^
•H O
Q 0
>i -P
^ G
cd cu
r^j g
G 4^
O cd
o cu
(U *H
CQ -P
ill - 6
CU
G
O
1
1
1
1
1
1
1?
cd
•d
fj
o
0
0)
CQ
o
o
CO
ndetermined Inspected by FWPCA
p
>s
in
O
-P H
CO O
k IH
O 4->
^ G
cd o
h4 O
•
H
H
H
cd CQ
•d
G cd
o
O T.1
CU G
CQ cd
O
LA
t>3
Jn
^ cd
CO T-1
!H G
hC O
O o
^i 0)
ft CQ
*
CAJ
•d cu
CU hD
cd cd
d) rCj
M 0
-P CO
£H °H
3 -d
CQ
4-> CU
G -H
01 ^
fi v-J
•P rH
cd -H
0) O
t, cd
4-^ VH
CU
•H
ft
CU
1 1
s
o
•n
h
•H
CQ ft
-------
CQ
Q
W
$25
Q
•"•
H ft
P' OJ
ft CQ
O
PL,
G
O
•H
-P
cd
o
o
x — s.
T)
OJ
G
•H
-P
G
O
O
03
G
O
•H
P
cd
H
H
cd
P
03
G
M
rH
cd
QJ
r**
o
-3" **H
VD O
ON
"G
G OJ
•H a
•p
oj cd
ij ft
G OJ
OJ Q
H
2 •
O CQ
0
OJ •
OJ
G
•H
f*4
OJ
p
OJ
-d
G
£D
i^
O
•P H
05 O
£H ft
0 -P
•3 §
t-3 O
H
1
"•d CQ
co '£
C° oj
cd -p
•d cd
G QJ
O SH
0 p
OJ G
CQ P
O
0
O
H
OJ
t>
ft
OJ
CQ ft
QJ ttJ
K -P
G
•d OJ
ft U
cd
P bD
O G
•H
-P C
03 -H
cd cd
0 f->
0 EH
»
oo
p
cd
rO
P
#t
m
fl
o
•H
bO
OJ
K
f>
i-C«
-p
H
cd
OJ
•
i
^
0)
,0
OJ
bO
c3
•g
03 •
•H 'd
-d OJ
OJ G
-P -H
03 P
cd G
> 0
o
I? 03
cd -H
Sn Td
•
03
CO 1 H
>s -P 0) G OJ
>H G -H -H 03
cd OJ P cd CQ
T3 6 -H !H OJ
G -P H -P >
bD O cd -ri
O 0 OJ 0 ft bD
JH OJ ft cd O G
ft CO -p *H 'H -H
B
O
£4
OJ
OJ
£5
03
OJ
•H
P
•H
H
•H
0
cd
C|_t
p
G
OJ
a
.p
cd
D
EH
1
1
1
O
O
t?
o
1
0
cd
J
£>
cd
G
O
o
OJ
CQ
O
o
H
^3
M
o3
>
05
G
O
PJ
o3
OJ
•a
o3
.
vo
C7N
r— 1
J-l
CD
^o
0
4->
O
O
G
•H
rd
OJ
-p
o
OJ
ft
CO
•H
fq
CO
E
-P
03
""ci
S
H
O
•P
O
0
o
-p
o
H
G
O
•H
^
-p
CQ
CO
G
O
•H
-P
'H cd
o 'd
G
P QJ
G g
B o
-P 0
!H OJ
cd ft
ft
OJ 'd
f~~\ 0 •
cd QJ
•d
CQ •• cd
rG B
' -P
D H OJ
cd ft
>j OJ OJ
£> m >
o
ft
ft
05
•H
05 •
>» CO
f~H 6
cd cd
G ft
co bD
C]
O
cd
U
^-— %.
U
-P
§
H
03
•H a III - T
-P >> O
•H H O
H fn OJ •
•H Cd JH OJ
O QJ >d
cd "d cd
•H CO
•P QJ
G rt "ft
QJ OJ <£ 0)
B P o ts
p CJ pLj
cd QJ S co
OJ ft fc G
ft CO O
P G >> vH
cy cd
•p oj t — 'd
05 ft V£> G
cd QJ Oi OJ
> > H 8
OJ
G
•H
a
Q)
-P
OJ
nd
G
^3
TJ
*-i G
>> O • O CQ -P
JH 4Jpp, >,OJG03
O * ^j C(3 £4 J-) O *rH CD S (D
jj i~H S Q £^ flj t^O QJ £H "41"* ^ O jCj
>H >-l S-lT:! ^1 ft-H+J bDrH ft hC
OJ G
CQ -H
-------
-*"••*
CO TJ
Q 01
w q
•p
o q
g; O
^~- x3
-p q D
cd CD
t — J £-1
3 co
ft CQ
O
PM
C
O
•H
-P
cd
o
a
0)
q
o
^
i
i
i
H
cd
•rl
O
CD
ft CQ
tQ CD
•H
CD T3
CD 0
CO -P
— - CQ
bO
q
•H rl
H CD
0 -p
0 cd
0 &
-d
§
o
„ 1
-p q
o cd
(U ft
w o
o
cd
•H f-<
q CD
•rl i*
bO O
fc PM
•H
^ — ^
t?
cd
a
P
to
CD
bD
5n
cd
r|
O
to
•H
•d
I
^j
H
cd o
*q ft
to H
CD -H
•H O
0
q -d
CD CD
bC -P
cd cd
bO
to -H
3 -P
o to
•H CD
rl >
cd q
> -H
1
1
1
1
O
ft
-P 5-i
H
ft a
q rl
M bO
•d
1 p*
ci? o3
ft
(D CQ
CO rl
O
rH -P
•H Cd
0 rl
^^
i — {
cd
o
o
on .
rH q
« -H
rH C
1
ft
O
0
H
•H
O
§
O
•H
^,
CD
.f.
CD
H !
C^ O op^
CJ cd £H
•rl 4J Cd
xi ^ a
Jj O
•H e
• rl O
Cd -P rl
CD -P 'H
rl Cd
cd w •
>j ci> w
CD H bO H
XI -H 5n CD
-P rl Cd W
cd X! 07
q a 0 CD
•H -H M >
5-1 -H
q ft tf CD
o a
•H CO O -H
-p -H +J +3
1
ft 'H
•H O
H 3
•H q D1 -P
O CD CD 2
X! O
bO is bO
q q to
•H M -H -H •
rd -P 1 -P q o -P
^ cd co u> -H o as
ft is m j- a o js
•p
q
0)
H
cd
•H
CD
q
o
•H
-P
cd
ft
0
ft
•d
CD
a
•H
-P
£3
*
III - 8
-------
Ill - 9
TABLE II
Location
SPECIAL STUDIES NEEDED IN THE BASIN
Responsibility
Need
Basin-wide
Lower Basin
(West Point to
Chesapeake Bay)
Various tributaries
in Lower Basin
FWPCA and State of
Virginia
FWPCA and State of
Virginia
State of Virginia
and local treat-
ment plant owners,
including Federal
installations
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).
Study need for holding ponds to
lessen bacteriological pollu-
tion in shellfish bed areas.
Downstream from
Yorktown
Basin-wide
Barfield Creek
York County
Gordonsville
State of Virginia,
VEPCO and AMOCO
FWPCA and State of
Virginia
Department of the
Navy, Naval
Weapons Station
State of Virginia
and Soil Conserva-
tion Service
Study the effects of thermal
discharges on water quality in
the York River.
Develop comprehensive water
pollution control program for
the Basin and, for planning
purposes, utilize data from the
above studies in mathematical
simulations of the river system.
Determine if any undesirable
waste constituents such as TNT
gain entrance to the York River.
Study the effects waste dis-
charges from Gordonsville would
have on proposed SCS flood
control project downstream.
-------
Ill - 10
Location
TABLE III
INSTITUTIONAL PRACTICES NEEDED IN THE BASIN
Responsibility Heed
Basin-vide
Basin-wide
State of Virginia
State of Virginia
Lower Basin
Basin-wide
Basin-wide
Congress of the
United States and
State Legislature
State of Virginia
and local govern-
ments
Local governments
York County
FWPCA and Federal
installations
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.
Reduce infiltration problems by
strengthening plumbing codes on
house connections and emphasiz-
ing infiltration tests on new
construction =
Establish minimum requirements
for sampling and analysis pro-
grams for waste treatment plants
at Federal installations,
-------
-------
IV - 1
IV, DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA
The York River Basin lies in east central Virginia and
extends about lUo miles from the divide on the Southwestern
Mountains in Albemarle and Orange Counties to the Chesapeake Bay
east of Yorktovn, The Watershed embraces approximately 2,660
square miles, or about 6.5 per cent of the area of the State and
includes all of King William County and a part of Albemarle,
Caroline, Gloucester, Hanover, Louisa, New Kent, Orange, James
City, King and Queen, Spotsylvania, and York Counties„
The York River forms in the coastal plain where the two
main tributaries, the Mattaponi and the Pamunkey Rivers, join at
West Point. From the Fall Zone, in the vicinity of U. S. Route
360, downstream to West Point, the tributaries meander through
marshes and swamps on wide flood plains,, Great flights of water-
fowl, including geese, duck, and rail can be seen in the marsh-
lands when the birds come down each year in their migration.
Below West Point the estuarine main stream is relatively
straight with a narrow flood plain, and numerous short streams
flow directly into the reach.
The Mattaponi River, formed in Caroline County from four
small streams, appropriately named the Mat, the Ta, the Po, and
the Ni, drains a sandy loam watershed which contributes to the
uniform clarity of the stream. The Pamunkey River, formed north-
west of Hanover at the confluence of the North and South Anna
-------
IV - 2
Rivers, is frequently cloudy and heavily silted in the upper
reaches by run-off from the red clay headwaters areas.
Elevations as high as 1,800 feet in the mountains in
the headwaters area drop rapidly in the plateau of the Piedmont
Province; and where the North and South Anna Rivers join to
form the Pamunkey, the river bed elevation is about 30 feet.
Stream bed gradient is relatively flat throughout the
Basin, and tides affect the main streams as far west as U. S.
Route 360.
Mean flows in principal tributaries of the York River,
based on records from U. S. Geological Survey data, are as
*/
follows:—
*/
— Drought Flows in Virginia Rivers, Virginia State Water
Control Board, Richmond, Virginia
-------
IV - 3
Gaging Station
YORK RIVER BASIN
Minimum Mean Discharge Critical
(cfs) with a 10-Year Discharge
Drainage Years Mean Occurrence Frequency (cfs/sm)
Area of Duration (days) (7-day
(ScL.Mi.) Record 1 2 30 Drought)
North Anna River
near Dosvell
Hudson Creek near
Boswells Tavern
South Anna River
near Ashland
Pamunkey River
near Hanover
Totopotomoy Creek
near Atlee
U39
U.I
393
1,072
6
33
13
31
20
13
6
0
10
31
0,02
9
0
12
U5
0.05
lU
0
15
60
0.15
0.021
0.000
0.031
O.OU2
0.008
Mattaponi River
near Bowling
Green 251
Mattaponi River
near Beulahville 6l9
19
1.7
20 16 18 28
0.008
0.029
-------
V - 1
V. POLLUTION CONTROL PROBLEMS, NEEDS, AND COSTS
A. Mattaponi River Watershed (Headwaters to Upstream from
West Point)
The Mattaponi River Watershed above West Point is rural
and sparsely settled, with only one incorporated town (Bowling
Green) in the upper Watershed. The vast marshes in the down-
stream flood plains remain, in effect, virgin wildernesses and,
since Colonial days, the Area has been regarded as one of the
best fishing and hunting sections in Virginia. The usually
crystal clear fresh water reaches of the Mattaponi River abound
in bass, pike, and numerous varieties of the sunfish family, and
in the spring great numbers of shad are taken by net fishermen
in the lower reaches„
The marsh areas have long been noted for waterfowl. The
large flights of duck, sora, and other marsh birds are a primary
attraction for many city dwellers who have erected cottages along
the shores of the Mattaponi. About 50 Mattaponi Indians, a
remnant of the original Tribe, reside on a small reservation on
the River's south bank in King William County.
The River is affected by tides and is open to navigation
as far west as Aylett; however, dredging of the channel above
West Point has been discontinued for several years„ Stream
standards are to be adopted by the State in June 1967 for the
tidal portions of the stream, and standards for the upstream
-------
V - 2
reaches will probably be established in the near future. It is
expected that the standards adopted will be designed to protect
and maintain the non-degraded quality of the waters in the
Mattaponi Sub-Basin and enhance fishing, hunting, and other
recreational benefits in the Watershed.
Waste discharges in the Watershed, as listed below,
emanate from one municipality, seven schools, a highway rest
area, and one small gravel mining operation.
Location
Est.
Population Flow
Treatment Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
Bowling Green (1960
population 528)
Seven Schools
Highway Rest Area
Mattaponi Sand and
Gravel Company
Secondary 200
Secondary 600 - 800
(each)
Secondary
Settling
ponds •
0.020
0.008
(each)
0.1
Maracassic Creek
Miscellaneous
Tributaries
Tributary of
South River
Mattaponi River
Areas having significant waste loads and/or pollution
problems are discussed as follows:
!„ Mattaponi Sand and Gravel Company
The only water quality problem existing in the Watershed
above West Point is a local nuisance condition caused by colloidal
solids in the discharge from the Mattaponi Sand and Gravel Company
located on the Mattaponi River near the southeastern edge of
Caroline County. Approximately hOO gallons per minute of used
-------
V - 3
gravel washing water, which flow from the plant to settling ponds
before discharging into the Mattaponi River, contain colloidal
solids which require a detention time of approximately ten days
to settle.
Complete removal of the suspended matter in the effluent
is not attained by the existing treatment facilities, and the
discharge results in coloration in the River. The Water Control
Board has directed that further action, as required to correct
the color problem, be taken, and it is expected that additional
holding ponds will be constructed in the near future.
2. Bowling Green
The only other significant waste source in the Watershed
is the Town of Bowling Green, the County Seat of Caroline County,
located on U. S. Route 301 at the intersection of State Route
207. Small industries employing less than 100 persons are in
the Area, and preliminary population projections indicate an
increase of about ten per cent by the year 2000=
Town wastes are treated by an efficiently operated second-
ary treatment plant which presently receives the waste from 38
per cent of the Town residents; and the remaining population
utilizes private septic tanks. Treatment capacity is available
at the municipal plant for handling projected waste loads for
year 2000; and no significant water pollution problems are
anticipated in the Area.
-------
V - k
B. Pamunkey River Watershed (Headwaters to Upstream from
West Point)
The Pamunkey River Watershed above West Point is similar
to the Mattaponi River Watershed in several respects. Tides
affect the lower reaches as far west as U. S. Route 360; great
flights of waterfowl and marsh "birds migrate into the marshes;
and the Area is essentially rural and sparsely settled.
About 25 Pamunkey Indians, remnants of the tribe which
traded its corn and venison with Captain John Smith, reside on
an Indian reservation of about 800 acres at Lester Manor in
King William County.
The River is not as clear in the upper reaches as the
Mattaponi because of silt deposits derived from red clay areas
in the headwaters region; however, some of the lower tributaries
are exceptionally clear. Stream standards for the tidal por-
tions of the stream will be adopted by the State in June 1967,
and standards for the upper reaches will probably be established
in the near future.
Four incorporated Towns are in the Pamunkey River Water-
shed above West Point, the largest being Ashland with a I960
population of 2,773°
Waste discharges in the Watershed are as follows:
-------
V - 5
Location
Estimated
Type of Population Design
Treatment Served Flow
Receiving Stream
Gordonsville (i960
population 1,109)
Louisa (i960
population 576)
Ashland (i960
population 2,773)
Eight Schools
One Convict Camp
Three Small
Private Systems
Secondary 1,100 plus 0«l6
200,000 gpd
industrial
waste
Secondary
575
Secondary 2,300
Secondary
Secondary
0.075
0.76
0,OOU
to 0.02
Secondary 100 - 120 0.012
Unnamed Tributary to
South Anna River
Unnamed Tributary to
Gold Mine Creek
Mechamps Creek
Miscellaneous Tribu-
taries of the
Pamunkey River
Miscellaneous Tribu-
taries of the
Pamunkey River
Miscellaneous Tribu-
taries of the
Pamunkey River
Areas in the Watershed having significant waste loads
and/or pollution problems are discussed as follows:
-------
-------
V - 6
1. Town of Gordonsville
The Town of Gordonsville is located on the southwestern
edge of Orange County on U. S. Routes 15 and 33. The I960 popu-
lation was 1,109, and projections indicate limited municipal
growth for the next 50 years. Springs serve as the source of
supply for the Town water system, and the municipal waste treat-
ment plant treats both domestic and industrial wastes in the area.
The only significant water quality problem presently
existing in the Pamunkey River Watershed above West Point is in
a small unnamed tributary to the South Anna River downstream from
the Gordonsville waste treatment plant.
Severe degradation of the stream in late summer months
is indicated by the presence of slime, profuse algal growths,
textile dye coloration, and zero dissolved oxygen levels for
two to three miles below the Gordonsville municipal water treat-
ment plant. The principal source of the polluting wastes is the
Gordonsville Industries Company, a branch of Liberty Fabrics,
which discharges approximately 200,000 gpd of textile plant waste
to the Town sewers.
The Town contributes an additional 100,000 gpd, making
a combined municipal and industrial flow of 300,000 gpd, which
is about twice the designed capacity of the waste treatment plant.
The textile plant, which employs an average of 236
people, plans additional expansion in the future which will
-------
v - 7
more than double the industrial discharge and create a combined
municipal and industrial waste flow of approximately 550,000 gpd.
The State Water Control Board has directed that the Town
of Gordonsville complete construction plans by September 196? for
new treatment facilities which are to be adequately designed to
treat all municipal and industrial wastes emanating from the Area.
Pilot plant studies of feasible means of treating the textile
wastes have been made by consulting engineers. Preliminary plans
for new facilities designed for an average flow of 0.55 mgd have
been approved by the State. The Town of Gordonsville will con-
struct and own the new facilities which are estimated to cost
$192,000. A bojnd referendum is scheduled for April 1967.
A flood control structure of the dry dam type, to be
built several miles downstream from Gordonsville on the unnamed
tributary, has been proposed in the South Anna River Watershed
Plan. A second multi-purpose structure, also proposed on another
tributary in the Area, would be used by the Town for future water
supply. These structures would be built under Public Law 566.
The additional water available from the proposed multi-purpose
structure for the Town water supply, when discharged from the
Town waste treatment plant to the unnamed tributary, would aug-
ment the flow and probably enhance water quality in the receiving
-------
V - 8
stream. However, additional studies are needed to determine
the possible effects the waste discharge from Gordonsville may
have on the quality of water impounded by the proposed flood
control structure. Before the dam is constructed, it should be
ascertained that the flood control facilities will not back up
waste water and create additional water quality problems„ Stand-
ards on the stream probably will be adopted in the near future.
If a section of the stream is designated as a recovery zone, the
proposed impoundment could adversely affect stream recovery.
2. Town of Mineral
The Town of Mineral, located in Louisa County on U. S.
Route 522 at the intersection with State Route 22, had a I960
population of 366. Private'-septic tanks are used for sewage
disposal. Town officials are anxious to install a public sewer-
age system, but a high degree of treatment will be required for
any wastes discharged in the area because of low base flows in
Contrary Creek, the proposed receiving stream.
The Town has engaged consulting engineers to design
sewerage facilities for the Town, and plans have been submitted
to the State Department of Health for approval,, The proposed
system would include a sewage lagoon and a 90-day holding pond
designed to retain all flow during dry seasons. The cost of the
facilities is estimated to be $306,350, with additional future
expenditures of $l8j,000 required to expand the sewerage system
-------
V - 9
for projected loads through year 2000. A bond referendum is
planned for the spring of 196?°
3= Other Towns
Other Towns in the Sub-Basin either have adequate second-
ary treatment facilities or are using individual disposal systems„
The Towns of Louisa and Ashland have secondary facilities which
should be adequate for the projected growth in these Areas, The
sewage lagoon at Ashland has experienced some disagreeable odors,
caused by decaying blue-green algae, and local operators have
cooperated with the State Department of Health in attempts to
control the problem.
C. West Point Area
West Point is at the confluence of the Mattaponi and
Pamunkey Rivers, At one time West Point was the site of the
Village of Chief Opechancanough, implacable foe of the early
white man. In 1622 the crafty Indian leader planned and launched
from this point the massacre which nearly wiped out the early
Virginia Colony.
Today maritime vessels navigate up the 22-foot channel
in the York River to the Point to load kraft pulp for shipment
to foreign seaports. It is the kraft pulp and paper industry
located on the Point which makes West Point the principal manu-
facturing and waste producing Area in the York River Basin.
-------
V - 10
Because of the significance of the industrial discharge, the
industry vill be discussed separately from the Town of West Point,
!„ The Chesapeake Corporation
The Chesapeake Corporation, located in the Town of West
Point, produces approximately 1,050 tons of kraft pulp per day
and employs about 850 persons; making the Corporation the most
important industry in the York River Basin„ In addition to pro-
ducing kraft pulp for export, the Firm also manufactures liner
board and kraft paper=
Both continuous and batch type digesters are used in
the sulfate pulp-making process, and approximately one-half of
the 22 to 23 nigd waste water discharge from the plant is cooling
water from waste liquor evaporators. The untreated plant efflu-
ent, having the following characteristics, discharges to the
Pamunkey River approximately one-half mile above the mouth.
Chesapeake Corporation Waste Discharge Characteristics
Indicator Range
Total Discharge (includes used 22 - 23 mgd
cooling water)
B.O.D. 30,000 - 35,000
pounds per day
pH (of pulp screening water) 9 - 9=5
Several years of sampling data collected in the Pamunkey
River in the vicinity of the paper mill discharge during late
-------
V - 11
summer months indicate that dissolved oxygen concentrations range
from 11.2 to 4U2 rag/1, and BOD concentrations range from 0.5 to
2,0 mg/lo Localized coloration and foaming in the receiving
water is caused by the mill discharge,, Available chemical data
do not indicate that the mill wastes adversely affect shellfish
and other marine life in the estuary, but further investigations
are needed before definite conclusions can be made,,
Although the assimilative capacity of the mill waste
receiving stream is apparently not being exceeded at this time,
the magnitude of the Chesapeake Corporation waste discharge
(population equivalent one and one-half times greater than the
entire York Basin population) warrants that adequate waste treat-
ment facilities be installed to effectively treat the mill waste
and to protect and enhance the water quality in the area* Kraft
mill wastes are amenable to effective treatment by conventional
aerobic processes, and facilities are currently removing 85 per
cent of the BOE from other kraft mill effluents in the State.
2. Town of West Point
Preliminary projections indicate that the I960 popula-
tion (1,678) of the Town of West Point is not expected to
increase more than ten per cent within the next several decades.
The existing municipal secondary treatment facilities in the
Town are designed for a P0 Eo of 3,000 which should be adequate
-------
V - 12
for projected future growth, including additional waste loads
from surrounding communities which may connect with the Town
sewerage system.
The only immediate pollution control needs in the Town
at present are maintenance related.
Some by-passing occurs at the plant during repairs,
causing the Department of Health to close downstream shellfish
beds temporarilyo However, some of the maintenance problems
have been corrected in the past months, resulting in less fre-
quent by-passing.
D. Lower York River Basin (Below West Point to Chesapeake Bay)
The Lower York River Basin is, as are the upper regions,
essentially rural, with York County being the principal County
having significant waste producing activity. The York River,
extending approximately 3^ miles from West Point to the Chesa-
peake Bay, is navigable throughout, with a minimum 22-foot depth
channel. The principal uses of the stream include navigation,
fishing, recreation, and, in the lower reaches, shellfish har-
vesting. Stream standards proposed by the Water Control Board
would establish these pursuits as the intended use of the entire
estuarine reach.
Small municipalities, several Federal installations, and
two industries comprise the sources of significant waste discharges
in the Lower Basin; these sources are summarized below:
-------
V - 13
Waste Discharges and Treatment Facilities
in the Lower York River Basin
Equivalent
Population
Location Served
Community of Toano
York and James City
Counties Sanitary
District No. 1
Camp Peary (two
plants )
*
Cheatham Annex
Naval Weapons Station
Plant 1
Plant 2
Plant 3
Plant It
Plants 5, 6, and 7
Plant 8
Plant 9
Plant 10
Coast Guard Training
School*
Yorktown Colonial
National Park
Virginia Electric and
Power Company
500
3,^00
800
5^0
689
510
ki6
688
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
72
1,000
300
to 500
220,000
gal /mi n
cooling
water
discharge
from con-
densers
Design
Type of Capacity
Treatment (mgd)
Septic Tank 0.05
Secondary 0.38
Secondary
Secondary O.l6
Secondary 0.15
Secondary 0.15
Secondary 0.10
Secondary 0.12
Secondary Unknown
Secondary 0.005
Secondary 0,005
Secondary Unknown
Secondary 0.15
Secondary 0.86
Receiving Stream
Ware Creek
Kings Creek
Center Creek
York River
Ballards Creek
Ballards Creek
Felgate Creek
Felgate Creek
Felgate Creek
Felgate Creek
Felgate Creek
York River
York River
Yorktown Creek
York River
These installations also have small untreated discharges.
-------
V - Ik
Location
Equivalent
Population
Served
Type of
Treatment
Design
Capacity
(mgd)
Receiving Stream
American Oil Company 1,130 gal/ Oil separa- -
min«process tors and
water and holding ponds
33,000 -
1*5,000 gal/
min.cooling
water dis-
charges
York River
Town of Poquoson
Rural Residential
Areas
^,300
17,300
Private
Septic Tanks
Private
Septic Tanks
Sub-surface
Drain Fields
Sub-surface
Drain Fields
Pollution summaries of areas having significant waste
discharges and/or existing or potential water quality problems
are discussed as follows:
1. Community of Toano
Approximately 500 persons from the Community of Toano,
located in James City County on U» So Route 60, are served by a
0,05 mgd septic tank which discharges to Ware Creek. The treat-
ment facilities were modified and chlorination facilities were in-
stalled in 1962, resulting in considerable improvement of the water
quality in the small receiving stream, A need for secondary
treatment at the primary effluent is indicated, however; and a
conventional secondary treatment plant for the area, based on
current sewage treatment plant cost data, is estimated to cost
$70,000; however, the receiving stream should be studied to
determine the decree of treatment required.
-------
-------
V - 15
2o York and James City Counties Sanitary District No. 1
A 0^38 mgd secondary treatment plant located near Williams-
burg treats the wastes from approximately 1,100 homes northeast
of Williamsburgj Virginia.
Shellfish beds in a section of Kings Creek, downstream
from the waste treatment plant, are condemned by the State Depart-
ment of Health, probably as a buffer zone between the waste
effluent and non-restricted beds further downstream* A need for
a holding pond is suggested; however, further analyses are re-
quired to determine the effect a holding pond would have on the
lifting of shellfish bed restrictions„
3o Federal Installations
Federal Installations in York County were inspected in
196^ and in early 1967 by the office staff from the Regional
Headquarters of the Middle Atlantic Region of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration. Findings of the investiga-
tions are summarized as follows:
a. Naval Supply Center - Cheatham Annex
Cheatham Annex is a 2$805-acre naval supply center
located on the York River in York County approximately six miles
upstream from Yorktown. Approximately 125,000 gpd of waste from
the Center receive secondary treatment at a 0»l6 mgd plant, and
the chlorinated effluent discharges to the York River. No
laboratory control is practiced at the plant, An additional
-------
v - 16
9,000 gallons per day from the Center flow to 19 septic tanks
and discharge to sub-surface drain fields. To enhance effective
operation of the treatment plant and to provide data on the waste
effluent, a laboratory control program should be implemented
immediately,,
Raw sewage contributed by 5^ persons for approximately
three days (in 19&U) every three weeks (eight hours per day) is
also discharged into the York River from the pier.
Facilities for intercepting and treating the raw sewage
discharges from the pier should be installed immediately. Mobile
holding tanks or chemical treatment units could be used until
permanent facilities are installed.
b. Coast Guard Reserve Training Center
The Coast Guard Reserve Training Center is located ap-
proximately 2.5 miles southeast of Yorktown. The approximate
area of the Center is 152 acres. The population of the Center
in 196U consisted of 189 permanently stationed Coast Guardsmen,
650 reservists during the three-month training program, and 210
reservists for the remainder of the year. Approximately 57
civilians are employed at the Center on a permanent basis.
A training vessel with 37 personnel aboard is docked at
the Center for approximately three weeks each year, and a second
vessel with ten persons aboard is docked at the Center 80 per
cent of the year.
-------
V - 17
Waste discharges from the Center, averaging 95,000 gpd,
receive adequate treatment at a 0,15 mgd secondary treatment
plant, and the chlorinated effluent is discharged to the York
River„
A 10,000 gpd cooling water discharge from the power
plant at the Center enters the West Branch of Wormley Creek with
no apparent adverse effects on water quality.
Untreated raw sewage from the two Coast Guard vessels
is discharged directly to the York River. As with Cheatham
Annex, an effective laboratory control program should be imple-
mented at this Center, and the discharging of raw sewage should
be discontinued immediately„ Mobile holding tanks could be used
temporarily until necessary piping from the vessels to a pumping
station on the dock are installed»
c. Naval Weapons Station
The Naval Weapons Station is located in York and James
City Counties near Yorktown. The Station has an area of approxi-
mately 1^,000 acres, and it is concerned with the manufacturing,
processing, packaging, research, and development of explosives.
Waste disposal facilities for the Station consist of
ten treatment plants, which discharge to tributaries of the York
River, and 25 septic tanks equipped with sub-surface drain fields.
-------
v - 18
Plants Noso 1, 2, 3, and k provide adequate secondary
treatment and chlorination for most of the waste flow from the
Station. Plants Nos„ 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are equipped to pro-
vide secondary treatment without chlorination for waste discharges
from miscellaneous areas within the Station. The present flow
at Plants 5 through 10, being intermittent and below design
values, is not sufficient to maintain the microbial community
on the trickling filters. Consequently, the upper layers of the
filter media are devoid of biological life. The discharge from
the ten plants all flow to the York River via various tributaries»
Industrial waste solids, suspended in plant wash water
from two explosive plants in the Station, are removed by in-plant
baffling and settling facilities before the waste water flows to
holding ponds. Calcium, chloride, aluminum, RDX, TNT, and wax
are utilized at the two plants„ Plant boiler blow-down water is
also discharged to the ponds after passing through settling pits.
The pond which receives wastes from Explosive Plant No. 1
supports abundant biological life, but the pond serving Explosive
Plant NOo 2 is very shallow and appears to have limited storage
capacity. Barfield Creek receives the discharge from the ponds.
The net effect of the waste discharges from the Station
on York River water quality is not known at present because of
insufficient water quality data in the Area. Water Control Board
officials have expressed concern in reference to the discharge of
-------
V - 19
industrial wastes, especially TNT which is toxic to fish, and
have indicated the need for a sampling and analysis program
which will effecti'ely mcmto; the Explosive Plant waste holding
ponds
The U. Se Public Health Service inspection team, which
visited the Station in 196U, recommended the following:
(l) The Navy conduct a stream sampling program
on Felgate Creek to determine the quality of water entering the
York River. The program should include bacteriological determi-
nations. These data are needed to determine if chlorination
should be instituted at Treatment Plant Wos„ 5 through 9-
(2) The possibility of implementing shorter
dosing cycles at Plants Ncs- 5 through 9 should be investigated.
Shorter cycles would improve effluent quality.
(3) The Navy should conduct a sampling program
on Barfield Creek to determine whether any undesirable waste
constituents such as TNT are gaining entry to the York River„
This procedure would determine whether addiLional treatment
facilities need be provided for the expjosive and biowdown wastes,
d. Colonial National Historical Park - Yorktown
Battleground
The Yorktown Battleground is operated by the National
Park Service as a part of the Colonial National Historical Park0
The other major facilities comprising the Historical Park are at
-------
V - 20
Jamestown, Virginia The Yorktown site is in York County, Vir-
ginia, and consists of approximately 5,000 acres, the greater
portion of which is on a high bank overlooking the York River
with a small area adjacent to the Ri;/er at the foot of the banko
The Government reservation entirely surrounds the Village of
Yorktown and has approximately 8*1 privately owned tracts of vary-
ing sizes within its boundaries, U= 30 Route 17 traverses the
Battleground In a general north-south direction and divides it
approximately in half*
The Battleground has a slightly rolling terrain, and
natural drainage is to both the York and James Rivers, Drainage
to the York River is by way of Yorktown Creek and Wormley Creek.
Baptist and Great Runs are the major streams draining from this
Area to the James River,
The working force and the number of visitors at the Park
vary with the seasons The average number of visitors during the
summer is about Uo,000 persons per month, but this figure drops
to 20,000 during the winter months. The number of employees work-
ing an 8-hour day at the installation is kO in the summer and 20
in the winter, with an additional nine employees and their fami-
lies residing on the property in Park Service housing throughout
the year-
The National Park Service provides sewage treatment for
the Yorktown Battleground, the Village of Yorktown, the York
-------
V - 21
County Courthouse,, and several schools and private establish-
ments. The average flow to the sewage treatment plant is esti-
mated to "be 50,000 gpd m the summer months and 35»000 gpd in
the winter. The secondary sewage treatment plant has a design
capacity of 86,000 gpd The chlorinated effluent discharges to
Yorktown Creek which is very sluggish, and algal growths abound
both upstream and downstream Irom the treatment plant discharge„
State Route 230 and U, S. Highway 17 both have 36-inch culverts
in the Creek which possibly have .impeded tidal action, affecting
normal stream flow Jn Yorktow~ Creek
Results of a stream survey conducted by the Water Control
Board in the York River near the mout^ of Yorktcwn Creek during
the summer of 1966 indicated high col.form bacteria counts, possi-
bly attributable t,-; the iorkt^wn discharge. A lack of laboratory
data from the treatmert plant, however, prevents the evaluation
of the Park Ser^r- c:j * re at merit plant a£. a pcss:,ble source of the
bacterial pollution
A potentlaj. hazard to the publi -; beach and shellfish
grounds in the Yorktown Area exists at a sewage lift station in
the Park Service sewerage sys+era which has an overflow line lead-
ing from the wet wel: (c the beach area.
Programs and,'or facilities needed to improve the Park
Service water pollution control program are as follows:
-------
V - 22
(l) A complete laboratory control program, in-
cluding analysis for BOD, suspended solids, settleable solids,
temperature, pH, and chlorine residual, should be implemented
at the waste treatment plant at Yorktown.
(2) A stand-by chlorinator should be installed.
(3) A holding pond or effective stand-by equip-
ment should be provided to prevent untreated overflows from the
sewage lift station from reaching the York River.
e. Camp Peary
Camp Peary, located in York County northeast of Williams-
burg, serves as an Armed Forces experimental training base. The
population consists of approximately ^00 base residents and an
average trainee population of kOQ. For administration purposes,
the Camp is under the Department of the Navy.
Sewage treatment of Camp wastes is provided by two second-
ary treatment plants which discharge chlorinated effluents to
Carter Creek.
Some shellfish beds are condemned downstream from the
plants, but operating data on the plant effluent characteristics
presently are not available. Therefore, evaluations of the effect
of the discharges on the receiving stream have not been made.
-------
V - 23
k. Virginia Electric and Power Company
The Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO) operates
a steam-electric generating station downstream from Yorktown,
Spent cooling water discharges from the steam condenser at a rate
of 220,000 gallons per minute at peak loading, with an average
temperature rise of 8° C, and flows into the York River through
the outfall canal from the plant which continues offshore in a
trench through the inshore shallows. The dispersion pattern of
the thermal discharge is affected by wind and tidal currents.
A study conducted by the Virginia Institute of Marine
. */
Science in 1963—• concluded that the thermal discharge affected
the composition and abundance of marine benthic invertebrates
over a distance of 300 to hOO yards from the discharge, but the
net effect of the discharge on river water quality was not dis-
cussed in the study. The close proximity, however, of the VEPCO
thermal discharge to the American Oil Company Refinery thermal
discharge (discussed in the next paragraph) presents a potential
thermal pollution problem which could adversely affect the water
quality and marine life of the stream. A need for analysis of
the effects of thermal discharges in the Area is suggested.
*/
— "The Effects of Thermal Effluents on Marine Organisms,"
Virginia Institute of Marine Science.
-------
V - 2k
5» American Oil Company
The American Oil Company light oil refinery is located
on the York River downstream from the VEPCO steam-electric gener-
ating station. Approximately 50,000 barrels of crude oil are
processed at the plant each day. The majority of the crude oil
is imported from the Middle East.
Facilities for intercepting and removing pollutants from
the refinery waste water consist of separators, holding tanks,
settling basins, and oil skimmers. Waste process water from the
refinery and tank farm draw-off water are collected and trans-
mitted to an American Petroleum Institute separator for oil
removal before flowing to a four to five-day holding pond,, The
discharge from the holding pond is pumped intermittently to the
York River during the outgoing tide via a 60-inch discharge line
which extends about 3,000 feet offshore, Cooling water from
refinery condensers and coolers flows to an effluent tank where
floating residual oil is skimmed off before discharging to the
60-incn outfall pipe.
Characteristics of the refinery discharge are as follows:
Temperature
Source Discharge BOD Rise
Process Water %
Holding Pond 1,130 gpm 8?o5 mg/1 —
Spent Cooling 35,000 -
Water ^5,000 gpm 10° - 15° F.
*
Process water discharges also contain Phenols, Nitrogen Bases,
Ammonia, Cyanide, Copper, Oil, Sulfide, and Mercaptan.
-------
V - 25
Other discharges from the refinery consist of drainage
from the general area ditch system, which flows to four settling
basins where dirL and oil are separar-ed and removed-, The dis-
charge from the settling basins flows through hay baskets to an
onshore discharge point. Caustic wastes from the refinery are
not discharged intentionally; however, in 1962 an accidental
discharge of caustics was reported^ In addition to a possible
thermal pollution problem resulting from the cooling water dis-
charge,, which mixes with the VEPCO thermal discharge discussed
previously, potentially serious toxic conditions could be created
#
if the phenols in the process water discharge were accidentally
mixed with caustic wastes =, Good housekeeping, which apparently
is being practiced, and monitoring of the effluent are the pre-
ventive actions necessary to prevent the discharge of toxic wastes,
One of the most serious pollution problems in the estuary
is either directly or indirectly related to the oil industry in
the Area, Approximately ],£CO waterfowl were killed in January
1967 as the result of oil slicks in the marshes. The source of
the oil was thought to be a leaking oil barge which unloaded at
the refinery pier, although tbis was not confirmed by Water
Control Board findings,
In March 1967, a Liberian oil tanker unloading crude oil
at the refinery pier lost oil to the River for six and one-half
hours through a partially open valve, An unestimated number of
-------
V - 26
waterfowl were killed, and approximately ten miles of shoreline
and beaches on the south shore were damaged.
The day following the oil tanker spill, a skimming unit
at the refinery process water holding pond was out of operation
for repairs, and the overflow from the pond was diverted to the
drainage ditch settling basins. The increased load on the basins
overloaded the settling basin skimming equipment, resulting in a
discharge containing refinery wastes at the onshore discharge
point. Because of the widespread damage caused by the tanker
spill the previous day, no appreciable additional damage was
caused by the refinery discharge. Proper coordination of main-
tenance operations and in-plant programs designed to cope with
emergency situations are the remedial actions needed to prevent
a recurrence of the waste overflows.
At times sanitary wastes are discharged intentionally
in the River by maritime vessels which dock at the pier, adding
to the localized bacterial pollution and nuisance conditions
which are related to boating activity in the estuary. Problems
related to boat pollution in interstate waters are currently
being studied by Federal agencies, and legislation designed to
effectively prohibit the discharging of polluting wastes from
all types of water craft will probably be forthcoming.
-------
V - 27
6. Lower York County
The growth of York County is presently hampered by a lack
of sewage treatment facilities. The soil in the Area is generally
unsuitable for sub-surface disposal systems„ The County is within
the region served by the Hampton Roads Sanitation District, and a
sewerage system for the County is being planned. The first phase,
which is expected to be started within one year, will provide
sewerage facilities for the Grafton and Bethal Manor Areas. A
population of approximately 1^,000 will be served by the facili-
ties including the Town of Poquoson.
The wastes collected under the first phase of the program
will be transmitted to a new secondary sewage treatment plant
presently under construction near Newport News in the James River
Basin. The cost of the first phase, including the transmission
lines to the treatment plant (but not the treatment plant), is
estimated to be $6,500,000.
Under the second phase of the program, the sewerage sys-
tem would be extended to the northeastern sections of the County,
including Yorktown, and a new secondary waste treatment plant
would be built in York County. When the new plant is constructed
(in about ten years), all wastes intercepted in York County will
then be treated at the new York County plant„ The proposed future
York County waste treatment plant is estimated to cost $4,500,000.
-------
II
CO
<
CD
o:
LU
>
tr
o:
o
U.O
O
z
1-0
ill
t- -JO
CC OUJ
< a. K
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1-1
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
D. Comprehensive Planning of Water Resources
of the Susquehanna River Basin II - 6
E. Susquehanna River Basin Compact II - 6
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 - 20
3. Special Studies Ill - 23
U. Institutional Practices Ill - 2k
C. Recent Pollution Control Progress Ill - 25
1. Pennsylvania Ill - 25
2. Federal and State Cooperative Agencies . Ill - 26
D. Water Supply Ill - 26
IV. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA IV - 1
A. Location IV - 1
B. Geography IV - 1
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
C. Climate ............ IV - 3
D0 Geology ................... IV - 3
E. Principal Communities and Industries IV - h
V, WATER POLLUTION PROBLEMS, RECOMMENDATIONS
AND COSTS V - 1
A. West Branch Susquehanna River Upstream from
Chest Creek (including Chest Creek) V - U
1. Barnesboro, Spangler, Patton and
Hastings Area .............. V - U
B. West Branch Susquehanna River - Chest Creek
to Sinnemahoning Creek (Excluding Clearfield
and Moshannon Creeks) ...... V - 9
1. Clearfield-Curwensville Area . V-9
C. Clearfield Creek V - 16
1. Gallitzin-Loretto-Coalport-Irvona Area . . V - 16
D. Moshannon Creek ............... V - 20
1. Houtzdale-Philipsburg Area ........ V - 20
E. Sinnemahoning Creek ............. V - 23
1. Emporium-Austin Area ........... V - 23
F. West Branch Susquehanna River - Sinnemahoning
Creek to North Bald Eagle Creek ....... V - 28
1. Renovo Area ............... V - 28
G. North Bald Eagle Creek ............ V - 31
1. State College Area V - 31
2. Beliefonte Area ............. V - 36
3. Beech Creek ............... V - 39
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
k. Blancnard Reservoir V - kl
5. Lock Haven Area V - ^3
H. West Branch Susquehanna River - North Bald
Eagle Creek to Mouth V - hi
1. Wellsboro Area V - kl
2. Jersey Shore Area V - 50
3. Williamsport Area V - 53
k. Muncy Area V - 56
5. Milton Area V - 58
-------
I - 1
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose and Scope
Under the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. ^66 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 the West Branch Susquehanna River
drainage area in the West central portion of the Susquehanna
River Basin. The study area includes all of portions of 19 counties
and drains approximately 6,913 square miles. Principle tributaries
include Clearfield, Moshannon, Sinnemahoning, and North Bald Eagle
Creeks.
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
-------
I - 3
U. S. Bureau of Mines, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Department of Health, Central Office,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and Region II, Williams-
port 3 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
-------
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 Pennsylvania
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
-------
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 1960 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 invididual
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 secon-
dary 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
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 (PHS-STP 114.4). 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 - 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 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 Board has
classified the West Branch upstream from Lock Haven and a number
of its tributaries as acid impregnated streams. The Board presently
does not require treatment of sewage discharged to these streams
unless degradation attributable to organic waste discharges is
evident. Primary treatment (35 per cent BOD removal) is required
prior to discharge to the West Branch downstream from Lock Haven.
At least secondary treatment (85 per cent BOD removal) is required
prior to discharge to most of the remainder of the streams in the
study area,
As mine drainage is eliminated or reduced substantially
so that waste assimilation 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 assigned 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 .
This report delineates specific stream classifications
and actions taken by the Pennsylvania Sanitary Water Board where
municipalities and industries have been given orders to construct
-------
-------
II - 6
or upgrade treatment facilities. Where water quality information
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.
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
-------
II - 7
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 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
relations 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;
-------
II - 8
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
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
The West Branch Susquehanna River originates in the
Allegheny Plateau Province in Central Pennsylvania and flows
through the Ridge and Valley Province to join the Susquehanna
River at Northumberland. Natural stream quality and flow vary
greatly between the two Provinces. Streams in the Plateau Pro-
vince are low in mineral content and are poorly buffered; streams
are "flashy" with high flood run-off and low drought flow. In
the Ridge and Valley Province, streams are well buffered and
have more stable flow characteristics.
The most serious and extensive pollution problem in the
study area is caused by mine drainage. Mine drainage, primarily
from abandoned coal mines, has degraded quality in more than 500
miles of streams. While emphasis in this report has been placed
on immediate needs to prevent water quality degradation attri-
butable to municipal and industrial waste discharges, immediate
actions to abate mine drainage pollution are essential to an
effective pollution control program and will largely determine
the extent of future utilization of many of the streams in the
study area.
Aside from mine drainage, the provision of at least
primary treatment is the most pressing sewerage need in the study
area. Twenty-six communities, having a total sewered population
of approximately 38,000, are presently discharging untreated
-------
Ill - 2
sewage. Most of these communities discharge to streams receiving
mine drainage and have not been required, in the past, to provide
treatment facilities„ However9 it is expected that a minimum of
primary treatment will soon be required prior to discharge to
any waters in the State of Pennsylvania, and with implementation
of mine drainage abatement measures, secondary treatment will be
necessary in the near future.
Nutrient problems are presently being encountered in
Spring Creek, a headwater tributary of North Bald Eagle Creek.
Advanced waste treatment facilities, having nutrient removal
capabilities, or other alternatives are needed to alleviate
this problem. The Blanchard Reservoir, located further downstream
on North Bald Eagle Creek, will impound these waters containing
nutrients when the reservoir is filled in 1970 unless immediate
remedial actions are taken.
The West Branchs downstream from Lock Haven, is normally
alkaline and supports a balanced aquatic population. However,
the Eiver in this reach is subject to "acid slugs" which originate
upstream and overcome the neutralizing capacity of the alkaline
flows in the downstream reaches for short periods of time. The
West Branch, from Lock Haven to the mouth, receives mostly
primary effluents from communities and industries throughout
-the reach. Water quality degradation, as a result of these dis-
charges, is not presently evident because of relatively large
-------
Ill - 3
flows of the West Branch. However, secondary treatment facilities
are expected to be needed in this reach in the near future to
protect recreational use downstream, particularly in the lower
reaches of the West Branch where the recreational pool will be
created by the inflatible dam presently being constructed on
the Susquehanna River downstream from the West Branch confluence.
B. Immediate Pollution Control Needs
1. Waste Treatment
Current treatment practices, needs, and cost estimates
for municipalities and industries in the study area are shown
in Table I.
A general summary of the immediate treatment needs in
the West Branch Susquehanna River Watershed is given below:
a. Sixteen communities now having no
treatment or employing septic tanks
to provide primary treatment as an
initial step toward pollution abatement;
(l) Estimated cost of ten primary
plants, exclusive of sewers
and appurtenances: $1*64,000
(2) Estimated costs of two
primary plants to serve
six communities, including
sewers and appurtenances: $1,960,000
-------
Ill - If
b. Eleven communities now having no
treatment or employing septic
tanks to provide secondary treat-
ment;
(l) Estimated costs of eight
secondary plants, exclusive
of sewers and appurtenances: $1,231,000
(2) Estimated costs of three
secondary plants, including
sewers and appurtenances; $2,1^1,000
c. Seven communities now providing
primary treatment to expand
facilities to secondary. Estimated
costs; $1,099,000
d. One community to provide sewers to
join adjacent municipal system.
Estimated costs $375,000
e. Two secondary plants to be expanded
to provide nutrient and greater
than 85 per cent BOD removal.
Estimated costsi $6,115,000
f. Two communities having secondary
facilities to provide advanced
waste treatment or waste flow
diversion; Costs undetermined
-------
Ill - 5
g. One industry to provide primary
treatment and one to provide
secondary treatment or connect
to municipal system. Costs undetermined
h. Two industries providing primary
treatment to expand to secondary: Costs undetermined
i. Two institutions providing second-
ary treatment to renovate plants
to increase level of efficiency
to the equivalent of secondary.
Estimated costs: $170,000
j. One industry to provide color
removal facilities; one to
provide nutrient removal. Costs undetermined
Total (exclusive of f, g, h, and j) $13,555,000
-------
-------
Ill - 6
OJ
-p
o c
oo 6
•H 0)
r-i fc
c
M
V
c
o
e>
fc
0)
-p -p
CO U
«g
O
•p
CO fc
£G
t< -H
4) -P
0> H
r
O
ft
•s
fc
0)
CH
• CM
co O
X
fc -P
O C
Is co
•P C5
c
g H
B co
•p fc
CO tt>
0) >O
fc 0)
-P Cn
0)
-p -p
co o
,0 3
CO fc -P
-p .-.
CO f>
C S
O -P
o co
o
-p
c co cr\
o i-t
G
CO
co
fc
0)
O -P
C lo
o fc
•H CO
O
o
0)
>>
•H 0)
Hg
£>>
O ,0
M
-P
O
C
o
t3
V -P
-P O
§0)
•r-a CQ
£00
CO
W
O
CO
ro
-69-
o
o
ON
C\J
o
o
4*
t-
co
-69-
PQ
I
H
O
i
0)
ey -P t3
•P C 0)
CO 0) 0)
oj co c
a fc -H
H B -P
O
<
•P
-P C
C 9)
4) g
w -p
(U CO
fc (U
H
C
O
*T*H *^
-p a)
CO >
H fc
a o>
ftco
o
c
o
T^
•P
co
o
o
^%
fc
H
PH
O
ra
"
J^
C5
p^j
pt»i
jjg*
^
1
§
t-^
g
M
P-3
<
I
5
C3?
CO
CO
o
2
ffi
PQ
g
S
•§
C
O
o
o>
CO
0)
G
0
S3
o
8
oo
o
o
PQ
^
^
H
tvO
G
CO
ft
CO
1^3
f-t
1
o
0>
CO
ft)
d
o
S
8
j-
#
o
0
PQ
O
O W
^Q M
CO p^
w o
c
fc H
O
^3
^|
0}
•d
§
o
4}
co
4)
C
O
R
g
«\
W
^3
0)
O
fc
f§
C
0
-p
CO
PH
CO
•d
g
o
tt)
CO
0)
G
o
•a
g
^
o
PQ
w
bD
C
•H
0)
C
S
CvJ
-------
4) f} O
4> P -H
OJ O 4»
4^ O
CQ JH <
TJ
43 O
4> 4*
•O W
O O
+> fc O
W PL,
W
g
g
o
M
a
•o
CQ 0)
6 c
H -H
H P
O C
< O
K O
PU v—^
o
V P
4J C
CO 0)
i
«
CO
g
o
4J
o
4>
4^ C
g §
CQ P
0) cd
J-i
A<
H h
3 0)
ft CO
o
i
o
o
0)
CQ
2
o
3
0)
cd
5
o
III - 7
c
o
a
i
o
9)
CQ
o
4>
CO
o
0)
CQ
4)
g
PL,
a>
§
0)
c
I
g
o
PQ
t
o
+>
43
0)
S
(O
ra
o
S
PQ
s
o
-------
III - 8
0>
0) A
-p -p
0 O -P
•p t)
CO f-i
o
-P
O
o
1
•o
1
•rl
-P
§
O
-P C
C 4)
0) g
M 43
0) 0
SH 0)
s
-p
3
C
5
-p
0
O
o
t>
I CO
§
1
ss
.3
-p
(0
*H
-P
•H
C C
Ȥ
fc -H
1"
•H 0
u
!
o
0)
CO
§
o
0>
CO
I
to
n
>»
09
C 00
0)
§
V
H
§
S3
0>
§
2
£
!
H
a
I
H
•d
0
ft
m
00
•a
g
a»
•P
3
O
w
I
8
4)
g
•s
a
to
-------
ec O
-P
-P
t)
III -
«> ft-P
0 a w
» o
En O M -p
§
CQ
1
i —
<; «d
^-s CO
•d CQ 3
CJ W C
3 O iH
C H -P
•H En C
-POO
C <£ O
O p5
O PM
— ' P-i "3"
H fe ^
M r>.
W S H
MHO
S § §
H 2
V-X
EH
£25
ryi
1
o
•d
IV -P
-p o
JO) .p
•o co
0 0
-P ft O
CO 04
w
0)
CD -p >d
-P c
CO CO C
a a) o
3 M *r^
M EH -P
CJ
<
-P
-P G
§ §
CQ .p
0) 0)
h OJ
PL, h
EH
G
O
«*H *^
•P CO
«o >
Ht-J
M
3 CO
ft CQ
O
PM
C
O
•H
-p
CO
o
o
1-3
tt)
•H 3
Jn
*d w
V ft
*d **H
3 H
r-l -H
o fjC
C P^
M
co a
ft 0)
•H -P
H co
•H !»
fi"
tc
G H
•rH 3^
O fO
^3
CO
CO
EH
o
•H
-P
ft
0)
CQ
O
q
'•d r-T
jj
•H J2
-P t£
O O
O h
— ' O
PQ
**9
M ^
B -H
f 1 >yj
fe fH
O OJ
S25 «fJ
S co
*c o
&5 ^1
CQ CJ
§
faC
G ^
^o
•d w
CO ft
•d -H
3 H
H -H
O ^3
G P4
H
1
CO g
ft 0)
r-l CO
•H >»
,C CO
tt)
C ri
•H 3
O .^
*~3
0)
G
0
I/N
c-
ft
•rl
CO
g
o
EH
fl
CO
0
prj
W)
C »H
•H 3
^Q
•d co
0) ft
•d -H
3 H
O ^3
G P-4
H
1
o] g
ft CO
•H .p
H CO
•H >>
g«
CJ M
•iH £)
O .^
•-3
CO
O
^5
o
(A
CM
c*
•tt)
0
o
o
pp
CO
H
o
CO
o
CO
o
I
O
o
U)
w
V
I
o
8
O
CQ
-P
co
CO
§
a
•a
o
CJ
CO
CQ
O^
(fO
C
5
.p
o
CO
R
CO
-------
Ill - 10
CO
•O CQ 3
§85
G H 43
•H E-i C
4*00
H
a
H O
< H
tt) 45
43 O
g TO to
•H O O
43 h O
GQ PL*
w
TJ
tt>
tt) 45 13
4J G 4)
co tt) 0)
Sl*
tt) CO G
fi a) O
H E-i 43
O
4>
43 c
c
0)
to -P
tt> co
f-i a>
§
TJ
43
co
o
o
C-
H
-68-
o
CO
I
o
s
o
CQ
o
c
I
o^
ir\
(M
o
•H
43
o
co
(0
-H
-P
tt)
§
G
0)
+> o
3 «
43
t)
CO
•H C
CO
CO
E-i
43
ft
tt)
CO
•a
o
PQ
«)
o
o
CO
•
tt)
c
0
S3
1
a
-w-
o
•H
-P
O
CO
^> CD
CO -P
a --I
•3 c
£_* «-t
M *n
CO
G
*
o
•H
-P
ft
tt)
CO
o
0
ir\
tt)
O
ja
CO
>
o
c
CO .— *
>-^ ft
•H
o> ja
O CO
tt) 7
h O
eO E-i
H
O
CO G
"O O
C -H
O M -P
O Jd O
0> $H 3
CQ O £»4
5 -p
*b CQ
e -P e
co G O
ft) O
co a
h -P M
ft) co 0)
tt) Vi C
co -P 3
*
R
CO
1?
CO
•b
c
o
o
CO
to
G
CO
O
•H
•P
0)
CO
8
CM
r~l
•a
s
o
o
PQ
r^d
tt>
0)
O
fCJ
t)
0)
0>
pa
CO M
M -P tt>
ft O TJ
W J3 r-l h
-P •••) O
bD-H ft
Pi IS ^H
•H C tt)
-P G 0 T3
CO O C
W)-H +> 3
•H 4» G
-P CD ft) ••>
w bO 3 w
0) >H H -H
t> f^ ja
i
•P
G H
tt) cO
•H S>
M O
•P S
B «
rj>
CO
-a
c
0
o
0)
CO
o
o
o^
CO
tt)
•p
0(5 *D
4J c ft)
CO CO DO
4)
G) Pi rH
•H .p H
G -H O
cO co o
j> ^
^1 tt) tt)
>> >• -P
eo t-i eo
C C -P
G £3 CO
CM
CO
-------
Ill - 11
eo
£9
g
f~\
S» X***v
^ "C
^? 03 3
4) PL) C
3 O i-l
C H -P
•H H C
•POO
C < O
0 « ^
O PH
M fe <
a H o
m < M
|~4 fyj j™}
P 5S
N^ X
E~f
£23
1
o
JL(
4) C
ft) A O
-P -P °H
CO O -P
-P 0
O3 M «a;
0
Tl
ft) -P
-P 0
§4) -P
•1-3 W
iH O O
•P H O
CO pVi
W
Tl
4)
O> -P Tl
•P C 4)
CO ft) 4)
Tl -P
H E-l -P
0
**
-P
•p a
C 4)
a) a
CO -P
0) CO
ft 4)
H
c
O
i-l Tl
•P 4>
CO >
r-l h
3 4)
O
04
fl
O
•H
•P
CO
O
S
CO Pi
ft) 0
i-l H
*rt d) *rt
=» > w
•P 4) T>
M Tl ft)
>» O C •
-P -P (0
•H H 4)
H t>> 0 -H
i-l S3 H
< -p
M C
CO 4)
Ti a
C -P
O CO
0 ft)
ft) rH
03 EH
'•O
4)
3
C ^5
•H O
-P OJ
C
61 21
•v— x
M
g CO iH P4
PC tt) Oj Cj Ckf "i***!
O $-1 -H W -H J3
pfl 03 3 03 C
O W> § H I 0
<< 4) O OB
W rH H C E-l
H O ft)
Q O C W to UD
p O 4) 3 -H ft)
< 43 to h H
•P CO ft) CO O
^fi (p PI ft^ jjj rj
C°4 4=^
PC CO
o
r-l
CO
J>
Q
O 3 rH
•p ft) a
ft) fH tH
U)-P ft)
«o c p T)
> CO Q ft) Tl
4> H PQ fa ft)
w PI m
"B^. 4)
t^ 4^ ir\ o CH
4) C ON Tl Vl
-P 4) 5)0
4) a -p a
r-l -P 0 -P
Pi CO 4) CO C
a ft> tH co
O M <»H C h
O -P ft) O W)
*
5J£
g
o^
ir\
H
CO
•«£•
ft)
00
CH CO
O *
C co to
0 4>
•rl bO-H
•P C -P
CO -H i-l
>• -P r-l
O W -H
C -H 0
ft) X CO
PS ft) «H
rH
cO
T!
C
o
o
ft)
CO
8
CM
**•
rt
*S)
o
PQ
Q)
•p
c
cS
H
r-l
ft)
PQ
ft)
O
i
i
l
^
g>
CO
•b
c
0
o
ft>
to
CO
C
0)
O
•H
•P
CM
ft)
ea
8
(M
r-l
A
M
8
rl
O
PQ
t>0
^0
*
iH
Jg
g
-P Tl 0
CO M tn
4) CO ft)
rH > CO
-P O ft)
K PC; c
Tl 0
C 4) Tl -H
CO > rH -P
rl CO CO •
C ft) 43 ft) W
O W 0 fc ft)
•H C O «H
-P O ec 4) -P
0 -P H h i-l
ft) PQ H
H -P H IH
H C Tl -H O
|
8
o
A
CO
l/N
r-l
-69-
r?
a)
•s
0
o
ft)
CO
CO
1
H
0
•H
-P
ft)
03
8
CO
o
M
O
PQ
M
f
O
G C cc
°H O -P
1 -H CO
bO ft) -p
C M ee g
-P fp ft) O3
OS )S Pi
M 03 O >»
ft) ,O
O 0 • >»
CO Tl
>» c -P 3
r-l O C -P
•p °H ft) CO
c -p a
ft) CO ft) r4
W H tH tt)
4) O -H T)
H fH 3 C
P4 |> & 3
•^
g
O
»\
CO
CO
CM
-€^-
r?
co
T)
C
0
o
ft)
CO
^s
fn
£
~
ITv
H
^
rjQ
g
PQ
C
ft)
>
a
!U
0
0
-------
Ill - 12
fn
0) C
c» ,c o
.p -P °H
as O -P
+3 t)
CQ M
O
t
-p m
CO J5
4) CO
Jn
-P >> •
^ f to
>> V
fc tJ -P
CC 4) tQ
»H P.H
ts 4> CO
to O -H
O -P
CO "H
c
4) -P -H
C C
O 4> CO
IB & CO
I
CO
4> -P
O G
co §
5 o*
o &>
G
M ro
I CQ
C -P
O -H
CO
41 -p
O G
C 4)
cO £j
3£
O O1
O ft)
G
H Q
I CO
C -P
O T-l
a >
S
S5
5| d*"^.
*C?
<-N CQ 4>
13 fj-l ^J
4) O C
3 M «H
C E-l -P
•HOC
4J < O
G re o
o ^^
M i §
a < o
9 S H
E™^ t^ ^5
^S
g_4 x_x
£5
p3
pu
i
Tj
ft)
ft) -P -0
•P C 4>
CO 4> 4)
•H S 65
t) -P
4> co G
§ 5s *H
H H -P
-P "c
C 43
4) 3
CO -P
ft) CO
In ft)
P-! Fi
H
G
O
•H "Q
-p a>
H K
S ft)
OiCQ
O
G
O
•H
4-^
CO
u
o
1-3
4)
-P S*
CO O
CO i-l
!> 4-t
•o ft)
ft) 4J
O CQ
G cd
CO ^
^
5S
^
co
•d
O
u
4)
CO
O
•S
ir\
^!
IP
O
o
W ^
W 43
S M
0 H
M 4)
P4
G
O
T3 -H
C -P
co co
H
§3,
^H 4)
CQ f-t
^1
4) ^
^ O
•H H
T( CH
CO
•0
G
O
O
CQ
^>
^
S
1
•3
^
o
p
*
r-t
C
0
43
ft)
CO
O
§
o
CQ
I
O
f-!
O
«
CO
•H
§
O
ft)
CQ
ir\
CO
4>
V
JH
O
CQ
CO
T3
S
CJ
ft)
CQ
to
•G
t5
o
Ptr-t
co co
S ^
co -P
•H G
H 0
JH
CO
G
O
o
4>
CQ
LTN
•P
G
co
to
-p
CQ
«
-------
Ill - 13
CQ
lyi
S
C5
5? ^-*x
^ *Cf
.->. 0)
tJ CQ P
« W C
0 O i-l
C H -P
•H E-i C
-POO
C < O
O K
W P H
13 P o
EH W 5
£H §
\_^
F-i
Ej^
1
i
c
o
*-**^ «H
£^
ft) C
t> £1 O
P P -H
CO O -P
-P 0
CQ M <
O
•O
W -P
-P 0
J*) -P
*i""0 OQ
0 O
P h O
to pi*
•O
«) -P •«
-P C «
CO V V
™H S 53
«•£$ -*P
ft) CO C
§ o) o
6 fn °H
I-l H -P
O
-P
•P C
c a>
3) g
03 -P
v co
^ H
C
0
•P tJ
CO ft)
H ?
3 h
O CO
C
O
•H
41
(C
O
I °j
*sO -P
vO co
^v C
r-l -H
^ i-l
•O &
9) O
00 J^ CQ
WOW
-P
-P m -H
•H 3: H
& CO *H
fi O
V >> 9
$
0
8
H
**=**, c/3
•8
a
c
-H
P
c
o c
0 0
T^ ^^
hr* cO H
EH C ctJ
HD *H *^
Q fi C
S 00
i-l 0
8 8$
i
°
(^ t5"*
(_J ^t
c3 ffi
^j S
pt-l <>H
a £
§
S 0
@ s
H
<
^r f^
W M
M Jj
5 o
Q? J-i
CO O
CQ
|TJ JJ
O O
a -P
< GQ
O^J or~*
CQ O
^
tr-
• • \Q • • • •
M W O\ CQ W M W
DP t)P 03 i-l t>-P CU-P 0)PO)P
OC OC V "• OC OC OCOC
C U C « >>-H CC C « C« CCUCO)
cog cos M-PO-H 03 OS cogcos
r-4M H?H SH-P'O Hh Hfn i-H^Hf*
ft »H ft °H °H>HOt> Pi'H ft -H ft -H ft -H
S0 Ssi MoS-P SP SS «PSS3
o cy1 o o* o< co f-* w o cy1 o o* o o* o o*
o«j o« CHPH ov o oj owou
IH !H t3 M ft h H f-, N
C C CPCwC C C C
M CQ M CQ CO C O O M « HPQ MCQMpQ
S S WOO 3t IS iX3<
ICO ICO COS ICQ ICQ ICQICO
h -P h W
W^3 t)iC WcOWrQ WfC fl),C 4U,C CU.C
C-P C-P ^WTJ C-P C-P C-PC-P
Oi-l O-H 4) >H C O O-H O-H O-HO-^
* * *
§ § §
** *v »\
O t~- ITN
1 I v£> I I VO O
II-* 1 1 H CM
1 1 -69- 1 1 -6S- -€«-
^-^
C
O
•H
P
0
sfe flj s(t
r» ^ r> {*» **»
fn H Vi V< M
CO >> CO CO CO 0)
rd M *H *d *d *d
C a) P C C C
v o a -H o O 0)0)
!B CQ (1)'^-' CO K COCO
^ ^"
cb ^> ^> cO ^> ^>
i*j £H ^H ^ M ^4
O Gf ^ CH 0 5J
O H ft) S O » £3
O-HC -H O -H ^H
v ^ o f-i a) f-i >H
CO Pi a PH CO to to
800 oooo
O O OOOO
c\j if\ on ITN \5 o o
-* j- c\) (X3 ON
* -H "1
P ^ O (3D
O Oh J
(H fn O A O
•C O O PQ uD |H
w PQ m do
0> 3 0) O PQ
fc 0 >> C H ^
« fn h SHOM
«Sj O ft) O °H CQ ^4
PQ 3 *4^ r^ 13
W O C -P C JO
4) >> M O O O M
r-l O -P to ,O -P -H
Ml C C -P H r-l >
w s a ^ H ^ ^
-------
Ill - Ik
w
p£)
^3
J25
e
J2*j ^"^
^ a?
•d CQ 3
0) W G
3 O °H
G M -P
•H H G
-POO
O p£ "*— x
o K
&"4 t-^
HH £s5 ^J
fjQ pLg
ptj Jg? ^*{
3 E-) O
*3j M p"!
£H S ^5
EH! §
•v ^
£H
*23
M
S
5
C3
¥*$
6) G
«l) 43 O
•P -P T4
CO O -P
-P 0
oa fc
CO >
r-1 N
3 9>
O< CO
O
• >> w
•C fn ®
3 >d -p
03 C °H
03 O H
•H O .H
S3 O •
CO %•( V.O
^d ^ ^^^-^
h O -P \O
O %-t G
4?
c5
ra
W
O
^c
W
ff^
6-1
03
g
CO
H
•^$°
^
G
O
O
C/2
^s
l-a
l^j
pka
O
\r\
CA
CM
^£3
op
3
o
g^j
CQ
W)
J
G
°H
H
^••4
(iM
«H
10
fl) -P
o p
G «>.
«o S
•H W
H h
t^
o^
O 0)
£•4
c
H FQ
S
I CQ
S) 43
G -P
O -H
t5 !*
1
£5
g
(A
O
C\J
H
-69-
&
1
O
O
d>
CO
J>^
N
S
•H
^3
Pm
8
°i
.*
•s
fl
M
0) 43
4| (90
i o
•^ fe
-P O
tj ff\
o
0)
43
-P
G
°H
>S
CO
03
0)
O
0)
G
•d
Ql
M
01
(0
CO
-p
G
0)
S
co
CD
-p
&
G
O
O
03
tfv
-p
C
(J)
£•4
CO
Oi
CD
S*4
H
•4-5
G
0)
9
o
-p
o
C
S
cu
43
0
P)
•
>> 0>
4-1 3
H -P
&^
^
f-i cO
(S) 0)
-P G
CO
IS
*
*»*"-•*.
-£j*
0
-Sf"
H
H
X
CD
*d
j^
M
H
CQ
1
S
P-4
•
CO
-p
0}
0
o
C
0
•H
-P
O
£4
-P
m
§
o
-p
G
4)
M
£•4
£j
o
c
o
•d
09
CO
fi
£•»
rH
C
0
-p
G
P-4
Pi
-P
G
0)
&
-P
CO
ej
+>
Vi
O
-p
O)
O
o
*
•
m
CJ
•P
-p
CQ
OJ
tC
C
•H
o>
0)
G
•H
G
0)
bO
C
•H
-P
i-t
3
OJ
§
O
^
09
0)
O
C
§
-P
^
3
O*
£Xj
(0
U)
C3
0|-(
•d
r-(
V
a
Tt
m
V
•H
-P
•H
H
•H
O
a
-p
G
QJ
g
-p
o3
-p
-------
-------
CO C
CO fi O
•P -P °H
co O
-P O
CO h •
03 -p
t) C
C 9)
CO 3
•H 0)
O CO
(H
C
1 CO
(3 -P
O -H
III - 15
I 03
O A ei
o -P -P
•rl C
C > CO
H S
V 0)
I O M
C -H
0) (0 0
C T) a1
OHO)
(z; P. h
CO
-p I
£0 -H
eO CH
0)
(L)
tQ H •
05 CO >>
0) j> t)
NOG
o 6 co
C CO 'H
H fc O
O
H
O
T)
I
•H
-P
a
o
o
H
-P
•P C
V e
co -p
o> cd
M 0)
C -P
5 c
°H CO
-P H
CO CO
H >
3 i-l
O cr
O CO
« g
H *
C
o
•H
-P
CO
O
&™5
c
o
1-1
•n
-p
CO
•d
•H
Q
o
cr\
«\
^t
V
eO
H
0)
-p
CO
0) CO
CO H^
^
o
O O W
•P S)
H w S
CO CO
g s
o
CO
*d
c
o
>>
c
CO
t
o
^^
CO
c
o
O CO
(0 O
•H
CO 1-3
co
CO -P
O C
O CO
h ft
PH CO
0) >>
CD fl
>-3 CO
ft
n> S
V
S
o
cd
0)
fl
CO
co C
N -H
•H W
CO PQ
-P -P
a co
0)
H§
00
•H »H O
O O O
< PQ O
i
CO O
•H
c o
co co C
c H cd
CM
-------
Ill . 16
•d
s
G
G
O
O
1
I
-p
G
O
O
H
0)
8) ,£3
.p .p
CO O
P
m 1-1
o
9) -P
•P C
eo o>
°r"t £$
»^J -P
3) cd
0 Q}
Q ^4
hH £~4
-p
c
0>
at
Q»
Pk
G
O
-P
(0
H
O
O
S)
S
£H
O
•P
O
<£
-d
0)
•o
3)
V
*25
G
O
•H
4J
O
-P
c
CO
£•*
EH
•P
C
rH
CO
>
•H
3
-P
«a
0)
•rl
^
tt)
•e
G
3
0)
CO
CO
O
fa
0
>9
^
&3
jVI
^^
i
9
S
w
p^3
o
g
M
pt)
pd3
PM
o
o
S
1
M
D3
aS 1 H
I
i @
i 1
1 §
G
o
«H
-P
CO
O
o
§
CO
w
0
h H
< X
0 G
> G
o a>
G A<
Q)
^H
^H
CD
4J
EQ
^
5
ra
S
(U
•p
O CO
•P >9
CO
.p
t) O
o >
C 0
C G
O 0!
o w
Q? ft)
G G
0 O
& &
O
LTN
0 Jfr
i
1
U) h
C CO
-H P
H -H
0 G
O CO
O CO
•O
CO
o
CO
at
w
cu
o
o
o
-p
CO
•a
G
O
h Q
-P S
0 v
& lH
CO
T)
G
O
O
0)
CO
-p
•H
G
CO
CO
O -P
CD co
fn G
O^
O H
CO
CD C
-P O
C0 "ft
-p -p
CO
co
a>
•H
Tj -P
0) -H
G H
•H h iH
03 O «H O
•P S-i O a)
O -P C
•r( O -P
>» a 1-1 G
r-l C -P CD
•p «> co a
G P. t> -P
0) O CO
CJ CQ G tt)
4) S W h
P5 CO (H P
U)
G
•H
H
•P
-P
V
ra
1
08 4J
09
V
CO
(1)
0)
-P
§
CH
-------
•d
CO
3
G
•H
-P
G
o
o
1
E-t
tj
CO CO G
43 ,C 0
CO 43 »H
43 o 43
m o
N <
o
t»
CO
CO 43 >O
43 G «>
co 9) as
o
M S-J f>pj
H iH -P
ej
<
43
43 c
G CO
cO 8
CO 43
0) CO
h co
P* Vi
6^
G 43
O C
•H CO
43 H
CD CO
r-4 !>
nt »»™l
^j °n
ft 3
0 0
Pm W
CH
O 9)
45
95 CO
Oi CO
EH^
G
O
•H
43
CO
0
0
1-3
i
43 >3
G f>
CO
> t3
0) 0)
M fx
ft CO
*O *
O h CH
43 O «H
co
G to 43
O H to
«H H
43 «H fp
0 ftS
< CO CO
,
I
s
c
O
•H H
43 CO
<0 0
N «H
•H S
H CO
CD ^3
fn U
43
3 t3
CO G
a a
9
1
CO
_=*. .I
^^ r^
T3 CO
a> 43
3 CO
G ^ S
•rl ^ !
4» « >s
G 3 TJ >
O G «H CO
o 'H o a)
— .p < ^3
V1 r*
jaSsj ^i
@ °
8 "^ 08 >s
oo C
&4 0) h CO
i4 ?.< co ft
O < ft S
< ft O
M ep O o
43 o
Q C CO
H O O to
^ N
H CO PQ
MHO
EZj sji
B*l w
p^ pq
g
CO
CO 43
0 C
G CO
co 8
t-t (0
H h
ft -H
e 3
0 0<
U CO
t .
G *
M ffi
I CO
CO fi
G 43
0 °H
a >
*
i
c
«H
CO
S
43 CO
H G
•H O
co a
CO CO
c c
0 0
>w 1-9
S ^H
hff
0) -H
r-t i-l
38
PQ 0
fn
CD
?
O
PM
G
G >8
CO G
PM co
SO 0
s
III - 17
^3'
>>
1
43
CO
M •
CO »
•s
43
CO
M •
CO CM
"d «H
C CD
3 4>
CO
(0
CO CQ
CD 5
O CO
fn
O
O G
>s43 CO
fc >
CO 43 >
CO O |J) CO
nee
equire -
CO fn
•H
H e
fl[ >X
S co
0 ^3
43
G -H
M *
>>
M
«!
•S
c
0
o
CO
CO
CO
43
c
CO
&
43
H G
« 0)
u S
•H 43
& CO
CO CO
& h
O 43
H G
SI
-as
.ss
O 43
8
vo
eo
CO
(H
•a;
C
CO
>
CO
as
X
H
CD
0
•H
s
CO
X3
o
=8
CO
>>
o
H
CO
0
•H
3
CO
^3 >s
U G
CD
CO ft
44 S
CD O
?H 0
H
(0
O
•H
a
CO
^3
O
08
CO
^
1
•1-t
G
<
C
CO
o
•H CO
k G
CO >H
S H
-------
0) C
9J ,£3 O
-p -p -HI
co o
-p
CO
v -p
o c
88
O 0<
O 0)
M
fi
H g
I CO
c -P
O -H
S3 >
to
V -P
O C
c «
co e
-H V
i-H h
II
O 0)
?•<
C
H g
I CO
0) ,£S
C -P
0)
c
o
S3
o>
« -p ,,
-PCS)
CO (U (U
•H 3
•3 -p
JO <8 C
I go
HH+J
-P
s
o
H
I
-P
§
O
-P C
c a>
a> e
CO -P
C' CO
l-t Q)
(X, h
H
C -P
O fi
-H 01
-P H
« CO
H >
3 -H
ft 3
O 0
Pk W
ew
O
0) M
ft CO
^*
C
o
•H
•p
co
o
a
F"H hJL^
CO H
o &
•H Q
S o> S
V §
% 5 o
OK H
1
c3
3 0 13
8 1 C3
1 1 S
h
Q ^3
J=! 0
ra «H
^
>s H
0) O
CO O
S-i ^
srH
(P Q)
CO 0)
f-l -P
«> CQ
•-s
CO
CD
(.1
<
4^
f*
O
P4
§
3
.2
H
r4
^-1
&
H
00
O
•a
V
A
0
1
1
w
c
•H
-P
CO
H
Pi
O
•rH
b
4J
O
0)
H
(JQ
43
c
I
>>
CO
H
co
I.
II
i i
i i
i i
38
PH O
-P
0)
f
o
o
U
-------
•H
4J
§
O
M
1
C
•H
-P
§
O
M
M
W
4) -p
0 C
£4
V C
4) .S3 O
•P -P °H
CO O -P
•P 0
CO »M <
O
•d
0)
4> -p -d
-paw
CO 4) V
°H S 23
•d -P
g 4) O
H H "o
<£
-P
-P C
4) Q
W .p
4) CO
h 4>
PL) M
E-t
C -P
0 C
•H ft)
-P H
co co
H >
ft°3
0 cr
(li CtJ
•d
0)
3
C
°H
-P
O
0
|T{
P*i
^~i
C^
5?
o
1
Cj
S
o
3
ft
fr— I
•2
PQ
1
(^
*5
g
<£
Ej^
»SS
«c
tc
W
Qf
CO
CO
*3-3
o
Ss
»
•d i-» M. N
4) PL, C Cd
3 n oH 43
C -d H -H
•H -H O J3
-P o o cd
C < O CO
o
o
£0 H
4> 4)
rH 0)
< -P
CO
•p _
?H 0
O 4) >s
CO 4) CO
S r-H O|
cd ,c! B
•H +5 O
H 4) O
H W
•H
10
4) +3
0 C
03 &
H S
ft -H
la s
O O1
O 4)
f^
C
M PQ
1 CO
4) A
C -P
O 'H
K *
i
i
i
H
CO >>
V it
•iH rt
d Q
4) -H
O PM
O
1
1
DD 1?
P* gj
*tH 4^
-P -H
CO C
H co
P4 CO
I
O
r-l
W
co co
4) -rl
*H C
<; efl o
W Of-)
>> rH M
O >> 4^
Jco
C
o
•H
-P >»
g-0
O 13
G
JH O
•H •
O 4) SH
tw JH 01
-P
w 60 co
C C
cd "H W
r-l 4) ^C
PM ^ co
4)
-p
CO
> -P
0 C
C CO
4) H
^>
fa
cO
*ci
C
o
0
4)
CO
§
•\
rA
U)
C
•H
to
08 co
Q}
H O
CO O
ft ft
C.)
•H rrj
JO
O
1 «
O -P
4) CO
r-l C
m M
o
o H
CO
ft) C3
-P 0
CO -H
-P -P
W
III - 19
•d i
4) 4)
fn M
4) -H
•d 4) 3
•HOD*
09 C 4)
C CO M
0 -H
CJ rH CQ
t^p
CO •
CO
4) O ^4 -P
C -PC
O C -H 4>
S5 -rl ^ S
i?
0)
•d
a
o
o
4)
CO
^>
fH
fi
8
o^
58
W
c
•H
CO
O CO
-P 4)
CO O
S O
O ft
Er*l f^i
4>
Q)
Q
rH
-^J
CO 1
ft O
< m
c <«
O 4)
r~H C3
•H
S
•
4)
C
0
0)
CO
^ 4^
0 C
C CD
4) r-t
pcj Pi
^
^
a
c
0
o
4>
CO
o
•V
1-1
g>
€0
4-*
•H
C
CO
CO
H
CO
fn
4)
"$ b
4) ^i
PE^ cd
•H
-P -P
M C
cd 4)
4) -P
Q *l~l
•P C
^ (D
O ^
tS5
-------
Ill - 20
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
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 investi-
gations of needs in the area, are suggested.
Three methods of providing supplemental pollution abate-
ment and control in areas requiring more than the protection
provided by conventional waste treatment facilities are generally
considered and are as follows:
-------
Ill - 21
Flow Regulation
Areas having a need for possible flow regulation and
for which potential reservoir sites will be evaluated are listed
as follows;
Location
Curwensville Area
Shawville Area
Philipsburg Area
State College and
Bellefonte Area
Lock Haven Area
Wellsboro Area
Responsibility
and Site No.
Need
COE Curwensville
Reservoir
COE #69
COE
West Branch - A minimum
release to provide a
minimum flow at Curwens-
ville Borough,
West Branch - Upstream
storage to provide
supplemental flow for
water quality control.
No sites indicated Moshannon Creek - Storage
to provide supplemental
flow for water quality
control.
No sites indicated Spring Creek - Storage
to provide supplemental
flow for water quality
control.
Blanchard Reser-
voir
Alvin Bush Reser-
voir
George B. Steven-
son Reservoir
SCS
SCS
SCS
North Bald Eagle Creek -
Provide supplemental flow
for water quality control.
West Branch - Provide
flow for water quality
control.
Pine Creek - Storage to
provide supplemental flow
for water quality control.
-------
Ill - 22
Waste Flow Diversion
Because of limited drainage upstream to provide flow
regulation, waste diversion to less critically degraded stream
reaches may be a possible alternative in the following locations;
Location Responsibility Heed
State College and
Bellefonte Areas
Lock Haven Area
Wellsboro Area
State College and
Bellefonte Com-
munities
Lock Haven Com-
munity
Reduce waste loads in
Spring Creek by diverting
treated waste effluents
to North Bald Eagle Creek
or West Branch.
Reduce waste loads in
North Bald Eagle Creek
by diverting treated
effluents to West Branch.
Wellsboro Community Reduce waste loads in
Marsh Creek by diverting
treated waste effluents
to Pine Creek.
Advanced Waste Treatment
Advanced waste treatment facilities designed to remove
greater than 85 per cent of the BOD from waste discharge will
be considered as an alternative method of protecting and en-
hancing water quality in the following areas;
Location Responsibility Need
Barnesboro-Spangler
Area
Patton-Hastings Area
Barnesboro-Spangler Reduce waste loads to the
Communities receiving streams by
providing greater than
85 per cent removal of BOD,
Patton and Hastings Reduce waste loads to the
Communities receiving streams by
providing greater than 85
per cent removal of BOD.
-------
Ill - 23
Location
Responsibility
Need
State College and
Bellefonte Areas
Lock Haven Area
Wellsboro Area
State College and
Bellefonte communi-
ties
Lock Haven
Community
Wellsboro
Reduce nutrients to Spring
Creek and provide greater
than 85 per cent removal
of BOD.
Reduce waste loads to
North Bald Eagle Creek by
providing greater than 85
per cent removal of BOD.
Reduce waste loads to Marsh
Creek by providing greater
than 85 per cent removal
of BOD.
3. Special Studies
Listed below are areas in which a need for special
studies is indicated:
Location Responsibility Need
Basin-wide
Chest Creek
Curwensville Area
Shawville Area
State College Area
FWPCA and State of
Pennsylvania
Westover Leather
Howes Leather Co.
FWPCA, State of
Pennsylvania, and
Pennsylvania Elec-
tric Company
Pennsylvania State
University
Development of mine drain-
age abatement program,
particularly for main con-
tributors in the study area,
Conduct studies of present
processing methods and
treatment to reduce color
and organic waste loads.
Investigate methods to
reduce color in waste loads,
Evaluate need for cooling
towers to reduce thermal
load to West Branch.
Investigate land appli-
lication method of waste
disposal.
-------
Ill
Location
Responsibility
Need
Bellefonte Area
Wellsboro Area
FWPCA, State of
Pennsylvania, and
West Penn Power Co<
FWPCA, State of
Pennsylvania, and
Corning Glass Co.
Evaluate effect of thermal
discharges on quality of
of North Bald Eagle Creek.
Evaluate effects of fluoride
concentrations on water
use.
k. Institutional Practices
A need for additional action on pollution control measures
by various Federal, State, and local institutions in the Susque-
hanna 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
Basin-wide
Basin-wide
State of Pennsyl-
vania
FWPCA and State of
Pennsylvania
Congress of the
United States
Basin-wide
State of Pennsyl-
vania
Prepare and adopt standards
on intrastate streams.
Implementation of a com-
prehensive mine drainage
pollution abatement
programo
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 surveil-
lance program (including
treatment plant operation
and maintenance)o
-------
Ill - 25
Location Responsibility Need
Basin-wide Congress of the Enact legislation authorizing
United States and the establishment of a pollu-
State Legislatures 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 Pennsyl-
vania Department of Health for sewage treatment construction
grant purposes. In addition, $200,000,000 will be allocated to
mine drainage abatement measures, such a reclamation of areas
disturbed 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 regulations
for cases not in compliance with the Act. In addition to the
Clean Stream Act, the Board has revised its regulations on the
discharges from coal washing operations. Previously, discharges
from these operations could contain as high as 1,000 mg/1 of
-------
Ill - 26
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 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 providing for the needs prior to formulation
of the Basin program.
D. Water Supply
Municipal and industrial water usage in the West Branch
Susquehanna River study area currently amounts to about 92 mgd
and is expected to increase to about 1*30 mgd by year 2020. The
five largest water using areas are State College, Beliefonte,
-------
Ill - 27
Lock Haven, Williamsport, and Milton, having estimated needs of
approximately 28, 17, 231, 66, and U8 mgd, respectively. Poten-
tial ground or surface water resources appear to be available
for development to satisfy the projected needs through 2020 for
the larger areas as well as the smaller communities throughout
the study area.
-------
IV - 1
IV. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA
A. Location
The West Branch Susquehanna River drains an area of 6,913
square miles in the West central portion of the Susquehanna River
Basin (see Figure l). The study area lies entirely within Pennsyl-
vania and includes all or portions of 19 countless Cambria, Clear-
field, Centre, Elk, Cameron, Potter, Clinton, Columbia, Tioga,
Indiana, Jefferson, Lycoming, Bradford, McKean, Sullivan, Montour,
Northumberland, Union and Wyoming. The study area is bounded on
the north by the Genese and Chemung River Basins; on the south by
the Juniata River Basin; on the east by the Susquehanna River Basin
and on the west by the Allegheny River Basin. The West Branch
Susquehanna River has its source in northwestern Cambria County
and flows a distance of 2^-0 miles to its confluence with the
Susquehanna River at Northumberland, Pennsylvania.
B. Geography
The upper portion of the West Branch watershed lies within
the high table lands of the Appalachian Plateau Province. At Lock
Haven, the river breaks through the Allegheny Front, then flows
approximately 70 miles through the Ridge and Valley Province to its
confluence with the Susquehanna River. The study area is approxi-
mately equally divided between the Appalachian Plateau and Ridge
and Valley Provinces. In the Appalachian Plateau Province, stream
valleys are narrow and are flanked by high steep hills. In the
-------
IV - 2
Ridge and Valley Province, stream valleys are generally broad and
fertile and are bounded by rugged forested mountains. Moderate
to steep gradients of streams in the Appalachian Plateau Province
provide considerable turbulance and excellent mixing characteristics,
The combination of low gradient and a wide shallow channel con-
figuration combine to produce poor mixing characteristics in the
Ridge and Valley Province.
Major tributaries of the West Branch, their drainage areas
and the mile point of their confluence with the main stream are
tabulated in the following table:
Drainage Area Mile Pt. of
Name (square miles) Confluence
Chest Creek 132.2 205-3
Clearfield Creek 396.h 171.5
Moshannon Creek 288.1 135.5
Sinnemahoning Creek 1,032.7 110.2
Kettle Creek 239-5 10U.1
North Bald Eagle Creek 781.8 67.7
Pine Creek 973-0 57-6
Larrys Creek 78.8 53.6
Lycoming Creek 276.1 14-1.3
Loyalsock Creek ^92.8 35.2
Muncy Creek 216.3 28.2
Buffalo Creek 128.2 7-7
-------
IV - 3
C. Climate
The climate of the study area is divided into two distinct
regions generally conforming to the physiographic provinces. The
lower, Ridge and Valley Province, receives an annual average
precipitation of ko inches, with approximately 10 per cent occuring
as snow. Records for Williamsport, which are representative for
the region, indicate a July mean temperature of 73.6 F. and a Jan-
uary mean temperature of 28.8°F.
Because of the higher elevation, the Allegheny Plateau
Province is cooler than the Ridge and Valley Province. Mean July
and January temperatures at Emporium are 69-3^. and 26.4 F.
Total precipitation is approximately the same as in the lower
portion of the study area, but a greater percentage occurs as
snow.
D. Geology
The Appalachian Plateau portion of the study area is
underlain by rocks of the Pennsylvanian, Mississippian and
Devonian periods. These rocks consits of layers of sandstone,
limestone, clay, shale and bituminous coal. Of major economic
importance are deposits of coal, clay and limestone. Underlying
the Allegheny Front in the Ridge and Valley Province, rocks are
of the Silurian, Ordovician and Cambrian age. The formations
consist principally of sandstones, limestones, and shales.
-------
IV - k
Limestone is mined extensively and is the principal mineral
resource of the area. Scattered leposits of iron ore are
present >x.t are not currently mined.
E„ Principal Communities and Industries
The 1960 population of the study area was about 426,000,
of which approximately 50 per cent was classified as urban.
Major population centers are Williamsport, Lock Haven, Clearfield,
and State College. Population is divided almost equally between
the Appalachian Plateau and the Hidge and Valley portions of the
study area„
The West Branch drainage area includes the most heavily
forested land in Pennsylvania, approximately 70 per cent of the
watershed being covered by forest. Agriculture in the Plateau
Region is limited because of poor, thin soils of mediocre fer-
tility. The residents of this region are primarily engaged in
coal and clay mining, lumbering, and light industry of various
typeso A continuing decline in coal mining over the past 20
years has markedly depressed the economy of this portion of the
study area. The projected growth rates for industry and popula-
tion in this area are generally low.
The lower,, Ridge and Valley, portion of the study area
supports a thriving industrial and agricultural economy. Farm
land is classed as above average to superior. The leading indus-
tries are limestone quarrying, metals, chemicals, textiles, and
paper and glass products.
-------
IV - 5
The most rapidly expanding area in the West Branch water-
shed is the State College Area, site of the Pennsylvania State
University. Expansion of enrollment and research activities at
the University in the past 20 years has stimulated a population
growth which is expected to reach 128,000 by 2020, an approximate
thirteenfold increase over the 19^-0 population.
Economic growth in other communities in the Ridge and
Valley Province is expected to be vigorous, if not as spectacular
as in the State College Area.
-------
-------
V - 1
V. WATER POLLUTION PROBLEMS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COSTS
Exploitation of the rich coal deposits, which underly
most of the Appalachian Plateau Region portion of the study area,
helped develop the economy of this area; however, mining of these
deposits is also responsible for a legacy of polluted streams
and ground water found throughout much of the study area. Water
draining from the estimated 2,200 active and inactive mines in
the West Branch watershed carries acid and dissolved salts which
are toxic to aquatic life, and severely limit the utility of
many of the streams for most beneficial uses.
Investigations by the Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River
Basins Project personnel have determined that by far the greatest
percentage of mine drainage generated in the watershed originates
in abandoned mines which are subject to no regulatory authority.
Abatement of mine drainage pollution from this source will pre-
sumably have to be carried out using public funds.
While coal production has declined over the years, the
total production, approximately 10 million tons per year, is
still significant. This continued production, about equally
divided between strip mine and deep mine coal, is likely to add
to the mine drainage problem in the years to come unless regula-
tions recently adopted by the Pennsylvania Sanitary Water Board
to prohibit polluting discharges from active mines can be success-
fully implemented.
-------
V - 2
Mine drainage has rendered the West Branch Susquehanna
River acidic from its headwaters to the confluence of North Bald
Eagle Creek at Lock Haven, a distance of approximately l60 miles.
Downstream from Lock Haven, the River is subjected to "acid slugs",
originating from headwater tributaries, following periods of heavy
rainfall. The "acid slugs", in moving downstream, overcome the
neutralizing capacity of alkalinity contributed by tributaries
downstream from Lock Haven and consequently results in the River
becoming acidic for short periods of time. These "acid slugs"
cause massive fish kills and are the major cause of depressed
aquatic population, as observed during a recent biological survey
in the West Branch drainage area,
In addition to the West Branch, many of its tributaries
are rendered acidic by mine drainage., Preliminary summaries of
data collected in the course of the Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna
River Basins Project and estimates by the Pennsylvania Department
of Health indicate that about 550 miles of streams in the study
area are rendered acidic by mine drainage discharges.
While emphasis in this report has been placed on existing
and potential stream quality degradation caused by municipal and
industrial waste discharges, it should be clearly understood that
by far the most extensive pollution problem in the West Branch
watershed is caused by drainage from active and inactive coal
mining operations.
-------
v - 3
Tiie extent of ar.y future utilization of the water resources
of the watershed will be very closely related to the success of
efforts made to abate- or control mine drainage pollution. Detailed
information on the extent of the problem anl possible measures to
abate or lessen the effects of mine Irainage on stream quality in
the study area may be found in the CB-SRBF Mine Drainage Report.
In addition to the primary effect of acidic conditions
on stream quality, mine drainage has had a second, more subtle
effect on the quality of many streams over the years. Since mine
drainage has limited stream uses, it has fostered a disrespect
for the streams on the part of the area residents. Raw sewage,
trash and debris are deposited in the streams adding an additional
pollution loado The Pennsylvania Sanitary Water Board, recognizing
the inhibiting effect of mine drainage on the bio-chemical oxygen
demand of sewage, and the limited uses of acid streams, has for
many year's followed, a policy of not requiring the treatment of
sewage discharged to a stream impregnated with mine drainage,
unless it is determined that stream degradation is attributable
to sewage discharges., The staff of the Board is presently reviewing
this policy and may soon recommend, that a minimum of primary treat-
ment be provided prior to any discharge of sewage to the waters
of the C; ornmo n we a 11 h.
At least partially because of the Board's policy, many
of the communities In the portion of the study area influenced by
-------
V - k
mine drainage co not presently provide sewage treatment. In
many eases, poor design of outfall sewers and poor mixing
characteristics of the receiving stream combine to result in
the ponding of raw sewage in backwater areas, and the production
of nuisance conditions and potential health hazards. Apart from
mine drainage, the provision of sewage treatment facilities,
primary in many cases being an initial step toward pollution
abatement3 is the most pressing immediate sewerage problem in
the study area. The problem areas and needs in the West Branch
Susquehanna River drainage area are discussed in the following
sections„
A, West Branch Susquehanna River Upstream from Chest
Creek (including Chest Creek.)
1, Barnesboro, Spangler, Patton and Hastings Area
a. Current Water Quality
Most of the population in this portion of the study
area is centered in the four small Boroughs., Barnesboro, Spangler,
Patton and Hastings, having a combined population of 11,500.
The economy of the area is based primarily on coal mining. The
only significant industry in the area not associated with coal
mining is the Westover leather Company, a specialty leather
tannery in Westover,
The following table lists the significant sewage and
industrial waste discharges in the Area.
-------
V - 5
Est.
Location
Spangler Borough
Barnesboro Borough
Hastings Borough
Carrolltown - West
Carroll Township,
Cambria County
Patton Borough
Westover Borough
Westover Leather
Company
Treatment
None
None
None
Septic Tanks
None
Septic Tanks
Oxidation ponds
Sand Filters
Population
Served
3,000
^,200
1,500
1,500
2,900
500
^,900*
Flow
(mgd)
0.30
0.^2
0.08
0.15
0.28
0.05
0.13
Receiving Stream
West Branch
Susquehanna River
Walnut Run (West
Branch)
Brubaker Run
Sub- surf ace
Chest Creek
Sub-surface
Chest Creek
* Estimated population equivalent
In addition to the above untreated discharges and the
detrimental effects of mine drainage, the West Branch upstream
from Chest Creek (Mile 205=3) contains heavy deposits of coal
silts which apparently are washed into the stream by surface
run-off from nearby mine spoil banks. The West Branch is also
littered with garbage and trash as the stream flows through the
Boroughs of Barnesboro and Spangler.
The following table lists pertinent water quality data
of the West Branch above Chest Creek.
-------
V - 6
West Branch Susquehanna River Above Chest Creek
West Branch at West Branch at
_Indj_cator Carrolltown-Mile 236 McGees Mills-Mile 207
pH 2.6 - 3.2 h.h - 6.2
Net Alkalinity mg/1 -32.3 - -68? -8 - -99
Total Iron mg/1 63-179 0.1-0.30
Sulfates mg/1 990 - 1,^90 330 - 520
Manganese mg/1 2.8 - 4.3 2.0- 3.1
Chest Creek receives sizable contributions of mine drain-
age; however, it is an alkaline stream throughout most of its
length. The bulk of the mine drainage in Chest Creek originates
in the watershed of Little Brubaker Run, a tributary to Brubaker
Run. Chest Creek exhibits acid characteristics from the conflu-
ence with Brubaker Run to Westover, a distance of about three
miles. At Westover a large alkaline discharge from the tannery
overcomes the acidity of Chest Creek and returns the stream to
an alkaline condition. However, colored and oxygen demanding
material in the tannery waste discharge degrades the stream
quality downstream from Westover. Sampling results on Chest
Creek above and below Brubaker Run confluence and at the mouth
are summarized as follows:
-------
V - 7
Chest Creek
Indicator
pH
Net Alkalinity mg/1
Total Iron mg/1
Sulfates mg/1
Manganese mg/1
^Pennsylvania Department
Upstream From Downstream From
Brubaker Run- Brubaker Run- Chest Creek at
Mile 16* Mile 15* Mouth-Mile 0
7.0
+ 50
0.20
150
---
of Health Data
U.O 2.8 - 7.2
-30 lU - i*5
13 0.1 - 0.1+
500 205 - 360
0 - 0.7
The West Branch upstream from Chest Creek is an acid
stream and is used only for the conveyance of waste materials.
Immediate steps should be taken to reduce the mine drainage as
well as to provide adequate waste treatment facilities. Because
of the extremely low stream flows (5 cfs or less) during the late
summer, secondary treatment facilities should be provided. Esti-
mated costs for secondary facilities, exclusive of sewers and
appurtenances, for Barnesboro and Spangler are $190,000 and
$110,000, respectively. No action is presently being taken toward
construction of the needed treatment facilities.
Actions to be initiated toward provision of waste treat-
ment facilities represent only a part of a needed program to
upgrade water quality. Implementation of mine drainage abatement
measures, as discussed in the CB-SRBP Mine Drainage Report, are
essential to an effective pollution control program.
-------
V - 8
Chest Creek, although it is classified as an acid stream
by the Sanitary Water Board, is alkaline throughout most of its
length. Secondary sewage treatment facilities are greatly needed
at Hastings and Patton to abate pollution. These facilities
would cost an estimated $925^000. Both of these municipalities
were ordered by the Sanitary Water Board to abate their sewage
discharge or construct secondary treatment facilities. The
municipalities have failed to comply with the Board's order;
however, some progress is being made toward compliance.
The Westover Leather Company discharge adds considerable
color to Chest Creek. The Company presently provides about 50
per cent BOD removal, employing oxidation ponds and sand filters.
Ferric chloride is being employed experimentally in an effort
to increase solids removal. Detailed studies should be conducted
downstream from Westover and within the Company's waste treatment
facility to determine what additional steps are necessary to im-
prove water quality downstream from the tannery discharge.
b. Future Water Quality
The Barnesboro, Spangler, Patton, and Hastings Area is
expected to experience an increase in population of about two-
fold by year 2020. Assimilative capacity evaluations indicate
that with secondary treatment and abatement of mine drainage
approximately 3 cfs additional flow would be needed in the stream
to maintain a D.O. level satisfactory for a balanced aquatic
-------
population. Comparable flow regulation for water quality control
in Chest Creek would be necessary. Because of the high cost of
acquiring mineral rights under potential dam sites, it is expected
that some other alternative, possibly advanced waste treatment,
will be found to be more feasible than flow regulation.
c. Water Supply
Present public water use in the area, which includes
Spangler, Patton, Hastings, and Carrolltown, is about 1.3 mgd.
Surface and ground water use are approximately equal. Water
use by year 2020 is expected to increase to about 3.2 mgd.
Sources presently available appear to be adequate to serve
future demands.
B. West Branch Susquehanna River-Chest Creek to Sinnemahoning
Creek (Excluding Clearfield and Moshannon Creeks)
1. Clearfield-Curwensville Area
a. Current Water Quality
The major population centers in this Area are the
Boroughs of Clearfield and Curwensville with a combined popula-
tion of 20,000. The following table lists major sewage and
industrial waste sources in the Area;
-------
V - 10
Location
Treatment
Population
Served
Eat.
Flow
(mgd)
Receiving Stream
Mahaffey Borough None
Curwensville
Borough Primary
Pike Township,
Clearfield County ---
100
3,200
0.01 Chest Creek and
West Branch
0.6 West Branch
Developed por-
tion served by
Curwensville
Howes Leather
Company
Clearfield
Borough
Lawrence
Township
Pennsylvania
Electric Shawville
Power Station
Shawville-Goshen
Township
* Estimated population
Lagoon (Process
Water)
None ( Spent
Liquors)
Primary
None
Septic Tanks
equivalent
26,800*
1,700
17,000
Cooling
Water
500
0.35 West Branch
0.10 West Branch
2.5 West Branch
--- Developed por-
tion served by
Clearfield
^20 West Branch
— Sub-surface
The West Branch Susquehanna River from Chest Creek (Mile
205.3) to the confluence of Clearfield Creek (Mile 171.5) is
influenced by mine drainage from Anderson, Montgomery, and Wolf
Creeks; however, the alkalinity of Chest Creek and other smaller
tributaries in this reach is generally sufficient to neutralize
the acidity during a portion of the year. Although this reach
is essentially neutral, varying between weakly acid and weakly
alkaline, the stream does not support aquatic life. Iron deposits
on the streambed, characteristic of mine drainage, are evident.
-------
V - 11
Stream sampling results of the West Branch between Chest
Creek and Clearfield Creek are summarized below:
West Branch Susquehanna-Chest Creek to Clearfield Creek
Indicator
pH
Net Alkalinity (mg/l)
Total Iron (mg/l)
Sulfates (mg/l)
Manganese (mg/l)
Coliforms MPK/100 ml
Temperature F .
* Pennsylvania Department
U.S.G.S. Gage
Mile 201
h
+11
0
360
1
66
of
.2 - 6.7
- -Uo
.1 - 3.0
- 625
.k - 2.3
—
- 73
Health Data
Curwensville
Dam-Mile 185
k.2 -
+21
0.5 -
235 -
1.5 -
67 -
6.5
-38
2.2
580
h.i
20*
75
Clearfield
Mile 173
3.1 - 6.5
+11 - -15
0.1 - 0.6
220 - 315
0.5 - 1.6
—
67 - 77
The Borough of Mahaffey, located at the confluence of the
West Branch and Chest Creek, discharges untreated sewage both to
the West Branch and Chest Creek, creating localized zones of
pollution. Primary treatment of the Borough's waste with dis-
charge to the West Branch would alleviate the currently degraded
conditions and would represent initial pollution control action.
Secondary treatment is expected to be necessary in the near future.
Estimated cost of the primary plant, exclusive of sewers, is $27,000.
The primary treated discharges at Curwensville are not
presently causing evident degradation during most stream flow condi-
tions; however, secondary treatment will probably be necessary in the
near future to protect recreational use of the West Branch.
-------
V - 12
The Howes Leather Company in Curwensville is the only
industrial establishment in the Area discharging appreciable
amounts of oxygen demanding waste. The Company processes approxi-
mately 600 hides per day to produce sole leather and other rough
leather products. Wastes from the Company are settled prior to
discharge. Normal stream flows are adequate to satisfactorily
assimilate oxygen demanding wastes; however, the tannery wastes
discolor the stream under most flow conditions.
In 1966 the Corps of Engineers completed construction
of a multi-purpose dam on the West Branch immediately upstream
from Curwensville. When access facilities are completed, boat-
ing and bathing use of the impoundment is expected to be heavy.
Sanitary quality of the water in this reach is satisfactory for
these uses; however, mine drainage influence is apparent and may
limit bathing use.
Although the Curwensville and the Howes Leather Company
discharges do not cause evident degradation during most flow
conditions, the almost complete cessation of flow from the Cur-
wensville Reservoir on two occasions during the summer of 1966
resulted in low dissolved oxygen conditions downstream from the
discharges and caused the death of more than 3}000 fish. Releases
from the Reservoir should be regulated so as to provide a minimum
flow of 50 cfs at the Curwensville sewage treatment plant to prevent
degradation of the River from the existing waste discharges.
-------
V - 13
The West Branch from the confluence of Clearfield Creek
to Sinnemahoning Creek is seriously degraded by mine drainage
contributed by Clearfield and Moshannon Creeks and other small
tributaries to this reach. Stream sampling results at selected
stations in this reach are summarized below;
West Branch Susquehanna Biver
Clearfield Creek to Sinnemahoning Creek
Shawville Karthaus Keating
Indicator Mile 163 Mile 132 Mile 111
pH 3-3 - ^ 3-2 - 3.5 3.2 - 3-8
Net Alkalinity (mg/l) -21 - -60 -109 - -230 -90 - -130
Total Iron (mg/l) O.k - 170 207 - 12.8 1.0 - 2.1
Sulfate» (mg/l) 280 - 650 k27 - 595 290 - 510
Manganese (mg/l) 3-5 - 5-9 6.6 - 10.3 ^-5 - 6.7
Conforms MPN/100 ml
Temperature °F. 100 - 122 67 - 77 68 - 79
The Pennsylvania Electric Company steam power generating
station at Shawville adds a significant thermal load to the West
Branch. The power plant, having a rated output of 650,000 KWH,
uses approximately k20 mgd for cooling purposes. Present use
exceeds stream flow by a factor of five or more during the late
summer months, resulting in the need to recycle the stream flow
through the plant a number of times. A low head dam impounds the
stream in the vicinity of this plant, forming a cooling pond during
low stream flow periods. During these periods, the temperature of
-------
v - ib
the West Branch is raised to as high as 122°F. as shown in the
preceding data summary. The heated discharge does not at present
have an adverse effect on any downstream water use, primarily
because the presence of mine drainage has greatly limited stream
uses. However, with the abatement of mine drainage pollution,
which is essential to an effective pollution control program,
actions will be necessary to reduce stream temperatures to less
than 3^° C to provide a suitable environment for the propagation
of fish and aquatic life.
b. Future Water Quality
Future growth projections indicate the combined population
of the Clearfield-Curwensville Area will increase about threefold
by the year 2020. Waste assimilative evaluations indicate that
secondary treatment facilities will be needed prior to this date
to maintain satisfactory water quality conditions.
The large volumes of cooling water used by the power
plant at Shawville, in relation to stream flow during the late
summer months, warrant the construction of in-plant facilities
such as cooling towers, especially if expansion of the generating
plant is planned for the future. In addition to in-plant measures,
there are two Corps of Engineers potential reservoir sites indicated
on tributaries upstream from Shawville. Site #7^ on Chest Creek
has been Indicated to have a potential low flow regulation yield
of about 136 cfs at a cost of $^,900 per cfsj site #69 on Clear-
field Creek has a potential yield of about kOO cfs at a cost of
-------
V . 15
$3S600 per cfs. Development of the site on Chest Creek would
provide flow regulation in the Clearfield-Curwensville reach as
well as the downstream reach containing the electric power plant.
The site on Clearfield Creek would impound acid waters and would
only regulate flows for the latter reach. Future planning of
the water resources of the West Branch Watershed will necessitate
evaluations of the possible development of these reservoirs.
Co Water Supply
Areas of significant water use include the Clearfield,
Curwensville, and Shawville Areas. At Clearfield and Curwens-
ville, water is obtained from upland surface water sources and
is used predominately for domestic purposes. Total present
water use is approximately 1»5 mgd and is expected to increase
to about 11 mgd by year 2020, Supplies are considered adequate
to meet present and future demands at Clearfield and Curwensville.
However, at the power plant at Shawville, the present use of
cooling water necessitates considerable recirculation to meet
the power generation needs during the late summer months. Any
development of upstream reservoir would increase stream flow
by the power plant, but, because of the extremely high ratio of
cooling water utilization to stream flow, it is expected that
flow regulation alone would not be economically feasible to meet
future demands. Cooling towers appear to be a necessary adjunct
to meet these demands adequately, as well as minimizing thermal
pollution of the stream„
-------
v - 16
C. Clearfield Creek
1. Gallitzin-Loretto-Coalport-Irvona Areas
a. Current Water Quality
Clearfield Creek, which enters the West Branch at Mile
171.5, approximately one mile downstream from Clearfield, Pennsyl-
vania, is affected by mine drainage from the headwaters to the
moutho The economy of this Watershed is based primarily on coal
mining. All of the communities in the drainage area are quite
small; the larger ones, including the Boroughs of Loretto, Irvona,
Gallitzin, and Coalport, have a combined population of about 6,500.
Principal waste sources in the Clearfield Creek Watershed
are as follows;
Est.
Population Flow
Location
Gallitzin Borough
Loretto Borough
Sankertown Borough
Goalport Borough
Ramey Borough
Bigler Township
Bradford Township
Clearfield County
Irvona Borough
Treatment
None
Primary
None
None
None
None
None
None
Served
3,000
1,300
650
19200
275
1,000
1,000
1,000
(mgd)
0.30
0.10
0.07
0.12
0.01
0.01
0.01
OoOl
Receiving Stream
Bradley Rua (Clear-
field Creek)
Unnamed Tributary
(Clearfield Creek)
Clearfield Creek
Clearfield Creek
Little Muddy Run
(Muddy Run)
Clearfield Creek
Roaring Run (Clear-
field Creek)
Clearfield Creek
All of the above mentioned communities have public sewers;
however, only Loretto has sewage treatment facilities. The effluent
from the primary treatment plant at Loretto adversely affects water
-------
V - 17
quality of the receiving stream, a small alkaline unnamed tributary
discharging to Clearfield Creek at Mile 70. The treatment facili-
ties need to be expanded to secondary to improve the existing water
quality conditions. Plans for the addition of secondary treatment
facilities have been completed and have been approved by the Sanitary
Water Board; the cost of this expansion is estimated at $131,000.
Gallitzin Borough discharges untreated waste to Bradley
Run, a small tributary entering Clearfield Creek at Mile 60.5.
Bradley Run is degraded by both mine drainage and the untreated
wastes from Gallitzin Borough. In addition to mine drainage abate-
ment measures, action is needed toward provision of waste treatment
facilities. In order to enhance water quality of the stream,
particularly during late summer months when flows are extremely
low, secondary treatment is needed. The cost of providing secondary
facilities at Gallitzin is estimated at $120,000, exclusive of
sewers and appurtenances.
The Borough of Ramey discharges to Little Muddy Run, an
alkaline tributary entering Clearfield Creek at Mile 25.5. Secondary
treatment facilities are needed to alleviate the degraded conditions
of this stream. The staff of the Sanitary Water Board is presently
evaluating the effects of Ramey's discharge on stream quality and
may soon recommend to the Board that an order be issued requiring
secondary treatment. The cost for secondary facilities, exclusive
of sewers, is estimated at $76,000. Secondary treatment facilities
-------
V - 18
are also needed at Bradford Township to alleviate the degraded
conditions of Roaring Run, attributable to organic wastes. These
facilities are estimated to cost approximately $72,000 for the
treatment plant only*
The Boroughs of Sankertown (Mile 62), Coalport (Mile 38),
and Irvona (Mile 35-5) and Bigler Township (Mile 25), discharge
untreated waste to Clearfield Creek which contains considerable
acidity from mine drainage, as indicated in the data summary below;
Clearfield Creek
At Clearfield At Irvona At Ashville
Indicator Mile 1 Mile 36 Mile 55
pH 3.2 - 3.5 ^.0 - b.k 3=6 - k.O
Net Alkalinity (mg/l) -98 - -150 -13 - -U3 -te - -58
Total Iron (mg/l) 0.9 - 2.0 0.1 - 1.6 2.0 - 2.2
Sulfates (mg/l) 339 - 690
Manganese (mg/l) 6.0 - 13.2 —- - —
Mining activity in Clearfield Creek Watershed has been
intensive, and the streams in this area receive a loading of
approximately 60,000 pounds of acid per day, most «>f which originates
in abandoned mines.
Because of the inhibiting effects of acidity of Clearfield
Creek, the communities discharging to this stream have not been
required to provide treatment facilities. It is expected, however,
that as mine drainage abatement measures are implemented in the
-------
-------
v - 19
near future, secondary treatment facilities will be necessary.
Initial actions to reduce organic pollution to the stream should
be directed toward the provision of primary treatment facilities.
Costs to provide primary treatment plants, exclusive of sewers,
are $30,000 for Sankertown; $36,000 for Coalport; $U2,000 for
Irvona; and $1*2,000 for Bigler Township.
b. Future Water Quality
Future water quality of the streams in Clearfield Creek
Watershed will depend largely upon the success of mine drainage
abatment measures. Extensive disturbed areas, large numbers and
varieties of mine drainage sources, and heavy acid loadings
combine to make Clearfield Creek one of the most difficult streams
in the study area to reclaim. As indicated in the CB-SRBP Mine
Drainage Report, reclamation work in ten tributary watersheds
would greatly reduce the acid load in Clearfield Creek. However,
with the reduction in acidity of this stream, expansion of primary
facilities to secondary is expected to be necessary to prevent
degradation attributable to organic wastes.
c. Water Supply
Public water supplies in the Watershed are obtained pri-
marily from upstream surface sources. Because of the small size
of the communities and small growth expected, future water supply
deficiencies are not expected.
-------
V - 20
D. Moshannon Creek
1. Houtzdale-Philipsburg Area
a. Current Water Quality
Moshannon Creek enters the West Branch Susquehanna River
at Mile 135.5, approximately four miles upstream from Karthaus,
Pennsylvania. The economy of the Moshannon Creek Watershed is
based primarily on coal and clay mining. Major population centers
include Philipsburg, Osceola, Houtzdale, Chester Hill, and Winburne.
A decline in mining activities has essentially stopped population
growth in the Area.
Aside from coal and clay mining operations which produce
essentially identical water-borne wastes, there are no significant
waste producing industries in the Area. The table below summarizes
the principal municipal waste sources in the Moshannon Creek Water-
shed.
Location
Est. Est.
Population Flow
Treatment Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
Houtzdale Borough
Brisbin Borough
Gulich Township
Woodward Township
Philipsburg Borough
South Philipsburg
Borough
Rush Township
Centre County
Osceola Borough
Cooper Township
Clear fie Id County
Chester Hill Borough
Decater Township
Clearfield County
Morris Township
Clearfield County
None
Septic Tanks
Septic Tanks
Septic Tanks
None
None
None
None
Septic Tanks
Septic Tanks
Septic Tanks
Septic Tanks
850
Uoo
l,Uoo
250
3,100
360
75
2S500
2,800
1,100
3,000
3,000
0.09
«_.
___
__„
0,30
0.01
OoOl
0.25
— -
___
__-
__-
Beaver Run
(Moshannon Creek)
Sub-surface
Sub-surface
Sub-surface
Moshannon Creek
Moshannon Creek
Cold Stream Run
(Moshannon Creek)
Moshannon Creek
Sub-surface
Sub- surf ace
Sub-surface
Sub- surf ace
-------
V - 21
As a result of mine drainage, the water quality in
Moshannon Creek is degraded from its source to its mouth.
Pertinent water quality data on Moshannon Creek are presented
in the following tables
Moshannon Creek
Mouth Philipsburg Headwaters
Indicator Mile 0 Mile 33 Mile U8
pH 2.8 - 3-1 2.7 - 3.6 3.1* - 3.7
Net Alkalinity (mg/l) -80 - -300 -204 - -38l -82 - -85
Total Iron (mg/l) 9.U - 18.8 ih - 22 9.1 - 15.6
Sulfates (mg/l) UlO - 8^0
Manganese (mg/l) 5.0 - 10.0 •— —
Because of the influence of mine drainage on stream
quality and use, the Pennsylvania Sanitary Water Board has not
as yet ordered all communities in the Moshannon Creek Watershed
to abate untreated sewage discharge. Primary treatment of all
existing raw sewage discharges is needed as initial action toward
pollution abatement; however, as mine drainage abatement measures
are implemented, it is expected that secondary treatment facilities
will be needed. Studies have been made to determine the feasibility
of collecting the sewage from Osceola (Mile 39.5), South Philips-
burg (Mile 3*0, Chester Hill (Mile 33), Philipsburg (Mile 33),
and the developed portions of Rush Township (Mile 31.8) at one
primary treatment plant. Such a facility would serve a population
-------
-------
V - 22
of 9s500 and would cost approximately $1,500,000. Construction
of this facility would eliminate existing raw sewage discharge
from all communities in the Area except Houtzdale which dis-
charges to Beaver Run, an alkaline stream discharging to Moshannon
Creek at Mile Ul.5. In June 1965, Houtzdale was ordered by the
Sanitary Water Board to abate its untreated sewage discharge by
June 1967. The Borough has failed to make satisfactory progress
toward compliance with the order. Legal action is being taken
by the Board to force compliance with the order. It is expected
that the enforcement proceedings will result in action being
taken by Houtzdale to provide secondary treatment as specified
by the Sanitary Water Board's classification of tributaries to
Moshannon Creek. The cost of the secondary plant, exclusive of
sewers, is estimated at $27^,000.
b. Future Water Quality
Future water quality of the streams in Moshannon Creek
Watershed will greatly depend upon the success of implementation
of mine drainage abatement measures. At least 50 tributaries have
been identified as contributing acid to Moshannon Creek. As
indicated in the CB-SRBP Mine Drainage Report, the Moshannon Creek
Watershed is the key to the success of any comprehensive mine
drainage pollution control program in the West Branch Watershed.
Although an abatement program would be expensive in th« Moshannon
Creek Watershed, considerable reduction in the acid loading in the
-------
V - 23
stream could be attained by reclamation of several of the ten
major contributing streams and/or by providing treatment of some
of the 32 largest source discharges.
With reduction of mine drainage and the associated
inhibiting effects on stream biota, preliminary evaluations
indicate that the expected stream flows in Moshannon Creek will
not be adequate to assimilate projected waste loadings by year
2020 if only secondary treatment is provided. To insure accept-
able water quality in the stream throughout the projected period,
advanced waste treatment or flow regulation appear to be necessary
alternatives,,
c. Water Supply
Approximately 2.3 mgd of public water supply used in
the Area is presently obtained from upland surface water sources.
The availability of raw water supply in the Area is adequate to
meet present and expected future demands of about 8 mgd. Addi-
tional development of existing sources is needed to meet present
need at Coalport and Irvona.
E. Sinnemahoning Creek
1. Emporium-Austin Areas
a. Current Water Quality
Sinnemahoning Creek, which enters the West Branch at
Mile 110.2, is the largest tributary of the West Branch (drainage
area of 1,032 square miles). Major tributaries of Sinnemahoning
Creek include First Fork Sinnemahoning, Bennet Branch, and
Driftwood Branch.
-------
V - 2k
Most of the Sinnemahoning Creek Watershed is heavily
wooded and sparsely inhabited. Population is centered in
essentially two areas - the Emporium Area and the Bennett Branch
Watershed.
Significant waste sources in the Area are shown in the
following tables:
Location
Est. Est.
Population Flow
Treatment Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
Austin Borough
None
1,000
Emporium Specialities Plating waste —
Driftwood Borough
Emporium Borough
Shippen Township
Cameron County
Sylvania Electric
Emporium
Penfield (Huston
Township) Clearfield
County
None 200
Secondary 3,000
Discharge
Discharge
(plating) —
(sanitary) —
None (cooling)
None 350
0.10 Freeman Run
(First Fork Sinnema-
honing)
— First Fork Sinnema-
honing
— Driftwood Branch
0.39 Driftwood Branch
•— Developed portion
served by Emporium.
0.02 Emporium Sewers
0»05 Emporium Sewers
0.20 Driftwood Branch
0.0k Bennett Branch
Secondary treatment is provided at Emporium for a sewered
population of 3,000 and is not causing an apparent water quality
problem. A feasibility study of sewerage facilities for Shippen
Township recommended provision of a sewer system to serve the
Township and conveyance of waste to the Emporium system. The
cost of the sewer system is estimated at $375,000.
-------
V - 25
The population of the Bennett Branch Watershed is centered
in the small mining communities of Benezette, Penfield, Weedville,
Force, and Byrnedale,, Penfield is the only community discharging
untreated waste to Bennett Branch; the other communities are
utilizing septic tanks and are not discharging directly to the
stream. Primary treatment is needed at Penfield as initial pollu-
tion control action; secondary facilities are expected to be needed
in the near future as mine drainage abatement measures are imple-
mented in the Bennett Branch Watershed. The cost of the primary
plant at Penfield, exclusive of sewers, is estimated at $25,000.
The Borough of Austin discharges untreated sewage to Freeman
Run, a tributary of the First Fork Sinnemahoning Creek. The dis-
charge adversely affects water quality of Freeman Run and constitutes
a potential hazard to recreational use of the George B. Stevenson
Reservoir about 15 miles downstream on the First Fork Sinnemahoning.
Secondary treatment with continuous chlorination is needed at the
Borough to protect the downstream recreational use. The Pennsyl-
vania Sanitary Water Board, in June 19&5, ordered the Borough to
provide secondary treatment by June 196?• Secondary treatment
facilities, exclusive of sewers and appurtenances, is estimated
to cost $93,000.
Although most of the Sinnemahoning Greek Watershed lies
within the bituminous coal fields, mining activity has been
centered almost exclusively in the Bennet Branch Watershed.
Mine drainage discharges adversely affect water quality in Bennett
-------
-------
V - 26
Branch, Driftwood Branch downstream from Sterling Run, and
Sinnemahoning Creek.
Pertinent water quality data at the mouth of the Sinnema-
honing Creek and major tributaries are presented in the following
table %
Sinnemahoning Creek Watershed
Mouth of
Mouth of Mouth of Mouth of Driftwood
Indicator Sinnemahoning First Fork Bennett Branch Branch
3.5 - U.6 6.0 - 7.8 3-2 - U.I 7.0 - 8.0
Net Alkalinity
(mg/l) -15
- -77 +10 - +20 -87 - -160 -2 -+23
Total Iron
(mg/l) 0.1 -
Sulfates
(mg/l)
Manganese
(mg/l)
110
1.3 0.1 - 0.3 0.5 - 2.1 0 0.9
22 - 30 180 - 330 37
1.6 - 2.5 0
0.2 3=0 5.5 0 - 1.2
Geologic conditions are responsible for very unstable
quality and flow conditions in most of the streams in the area.
Natural waters are very low in alkalinity and highly susceptible
*
to quality changes from natural causes and waste discharges.
Flows fluctuate widely throughout the year. The rugged topography
promotes rapid run-off and high spring stream flows, while low
ground water recharge is responsible for extreae drought flow
conditions.
-------
V - 27
The unstable flow and variable water quality conditions
have depressed aquatic populations in many of the streams in
the area, even in streams unaffected by waste discharges.
b. Future Water Quality
Although population growth is expected to be slight in
the Sinnemahoning Watershed, preliminary projections indicate a
possible fourfold increase in the population of the Emporium Area.
Preliminary evaluations indicate that flows required to assimilate
secondary effluents from the Emporium Area by 2020 will equal the
expected naturally occurring stream flows during the late summer
months. With refinement or modification of present data, future
needs should be re-evaluated during future planning to insure
satisfactory water quality in the Emporium Area.
In order to enhance water quality of Bennett Branch and,
consequently, the reaches of Sinnemahoning Creek downstream from
the confluence of Bennett Branch, an effective mine drainage
abatement program is essential. Data available at this time
indicates that most of the mine drainage in the Bennett Branch
Watershed originates from abandoned deep mines and that four
tributaries contribute the bulk of the mine drainage to Bennett
Branch. On the basis of the data at this time, it appears that
mine drainage abatement measures would involve sealing of deep
mine discharges. In addition to the mine drainage abatement
measures, it is expected that the communities in the Bennett
-------
V - 28
Branch Watershed will need to provide secondary treatment to
prevent degradation attributable to organic wastes.
c. Water Supply
Public water supply in the Sinnemahoning Creek Watershed
is obtained from both surface and sub-surface sources. The supply
is adequate to meet present and projected demands. Additional
development of available sources will, however, be necessary to
meet future demands.
F. West Branch Susquehanna River - Sinnemahoning Creek to
North Bald Eagle Creek
1. Renovo Area
a. Current Water Quality
This portion of the West Branch Watershed is almost
entirely wooded and is very sparsely inhabited. Most of the
population is concentrated in the Renovo Area.
The principal industry in the Renovo Area is the Pennsyl-
vania Railroad repair shops. Cut-backs in activity at the shops
have seriously affected the economic structure of the community
and limited its growth.
The following table lists the principal waste sources
in the Area.
-------
Location
Treatment
Est.
Populat ion Flow
Served (mgd)
V - 29
Receiving Stream
Renovo Borough
South Renovo
Borough
Noyes Township
Clinton County
Pennsylvania
Railroad
None 2,600 0.26
None 560 0.06
Septic Tanks 6kQ
Separators - oil --- 0.11
None - cooling
None - sanitary
West Branch Susquehanna
West Branch Susquehanna
Sub-surface
Paddy's Run (West
Branch)
The water quality in this reach of the West Branch is
adversely affected by mine drainage. Acid and metallic salts
contributed by mine drainage inhibit aquatic life and limit
water use. For this reason, the communities in this reach have
not been required to provide treatment facilities.
Pertinent water quality data at selected sampling stations
are summarized below:
West Branch-Sinnemahoning Creek to North Bald Eagle Creek
Indicator
pH
Net Alkalinity (mg/l)
Total Iron (mg/l)
Sulfates (mg/l)
Manganese (mg/l)
At Westport Kettle Creek at
Mile 105 Westport-Mile 0
3,2 - k,i
-80 - -140
0.9 - 3.8
290 - Uoo
2.2 - 5.8
3.6 -
-8 -
0.3 -
70 -
1.1 -
k.Q
-85
0.8
155
3-5
At Lock Haven
Mile 70
3.2 -
-65 -
O.k -
338 -
U.3 -
3.6
-110
1.0
Uoo
5.5
Although mine drainage constitutes the major cause of
water quality degradation in this reach of the West Branch, most
-------
-------
V - 30
of the mine drainage originates in upstream tributaries, with
very little being contributed by tributaries within this reach.
Kettle Greek is the only tributary contributing significant
amounts of mine drainage in this reacho Abatement measures
effecting reduction of mine drainage in Clearfield, Moshannon,
Sinnemahoning, and Kettle Creeks will largely determine the
degree of improvement of water quality in this reach of the
West Branch. However, in order to achieve an effective pollu-
tion control program,, it is expected that in the near future,
as the inhibiting effects of mine drainage are essentially
eliminated, secondary treatment facilities will be necessary.
As initial action, immediate steps should be taken to provide
primary treatment. The staff of the Sanitary Water Board is
presently preparing a report which is expected to recommend
primary facilities in the immediate future. Estimated costs
for primary plants, exclusive of sewers, at Renovo and South
Renovo Boroughs are $171,000 and $25,000, respectively. The
Pennsylvania Bailroad could eliminate untreated discharges by
connecting to the municipal plant when installed at Renovo.
b. Future Water Quality
Growth projections for the Renovo Area indicate a popu-
lation increase of about twofold by year 2020. With implementation
of a mine drainage program^ secondary treatment of the projected
waste loadings will be adequate to maintain satisfactory water
quality throughout the projected period.
-------
V - 31
c. Water Supply
The Renovo Area uses both surface and underground sources
of public water supply to meet the present need of 1.2 mgd. The
needs by year 2020 are expected to increase to about 1.7 mgd; a
need which can be met with additional development of existing
sources.
G. North Bald Eagle Creek
1. State College Area
a. Current Water Quality
The State College Area located near the headwaters of
Spring Creek, a tributary entering North Bald Eagle Creek at Mile
28.1, is one of the fastest growing areas in Pennsylvania. Rapid
population growth is stimulated by expansion of educational and
research activities associated with the Pennsylvania State Univer-
sity at State College. The State College Area supports a thriving
economy based on agriculture, manufacturing, and service type
activities.
Sewer construction in the Area has lagged far behind
development. At the present time only about half of the total
population of the Area is served by sewers. Principal waste
sources in this Area are as follows!
-------
V - 32
Location
Treatment
Est.
Population Flow
Served (mgd)
Receiving Stream
Pennsylvania State
University, State
College Borough
College Township -
Centre County
Ferguson Township -
Centre County
Harris Township -
Centre County
Patton Township -
Centre County
State Correctional
Institution, Rock-
view, Benner Town-
ship, Centre County
Nease Chemical Co.
College Township -
Centre County
Secondary
Septic Tanks
Septic Tanks
Septic Tanks
Septic Tanks
Secondary
Lagoons
36,000 ^.o
k ,000
3,800
2,000
2,1*00
1,600 0.50
Unknown
Thompson Run (Spring Creek)
Sub-surface
Sub- surf ace
Sub- surf ace
Sub-surface
Spring Creek
Spring Creek
Spring Creek is highly alkaline, with fairly high con-
centrations of inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus. The major
source of the nitrates and phosphates is the sewage treatment
plant effluent from Pennsylvania State University. The effluent
is discharged into Thompson Run, a tributary of Spring Creek,
and contains about 4?7 pounds of inorganic phosphorus per day,
at a flow of 3.3 cfs, as determined in 1960. These nutrients
have caused extensive algal growths in sections of Spring Creek.
The results of a biological survey conducted in 1965 indicate
that the water quality of Spring Creek is degraded downstream
from the State College Area. Only three kinds of bottom organisms
were collected in the sample.
-------
V - 33
The Borough of State College is now served by a k mgd
capacity secondary sewage treatment plant operated by the Pennsyl-
vania State Universityo Although the plant provides in excess
of 90 per cent BOD removal, nutrients contributed by the plant
effluent stimulate lush aquatic growths in Spring Creek, Plant
respiration and photosynthesis cause wide diurnal fluctuation
in stream dissolved oxygen concentrations, impairing the quality
of the water for the propagation of fish and aquatic life.
Facilities to reduce nutrient concentrations in treated waste
discharges or otherwise reduce nutrient loads on Spring Creek
are needed. The Pennsylvania Sanitary Water Board, recognizing
the adverse effect of low dissolved oxygen levels on aquatic
life in the stream and on use of the water as a source of water
for a Pennsylvania Fish Commission trout hatchery, has ordered
the University to abate its polluting discharge. Studies conducted
by the University into land disposal of its treated effluent have
indicated that this may be a feasible method of abating the entire
k mgd discharge to Spring Greek.
The Townships surrounding State College are served by
septic tank systems and are presently responsible for ground water
quality degradation, and they are believed to be contributing to
the eutrophication of Spring Creek.
A number of plans have been proposed and are presently
being considered to provide needed sewerage facilities to serve
these communities. One of the plans receiving most serious
-------
V . 3^
consideration concerns construction of facilities to serve the
entire developed area, excluding the University, which would
continue to use its present facilities. The facilities under
consideration include sewers and a 3 mgd treatment plant to
serve developed portions of Patton Township, Ferguson Township,
College Township, Harris Township, and State College Borough.
The proposed treatment facilities would provide 95 per cent BOD
removal and lime alum treatment for nutrient removal. The treat-
ment facilities would have a hydraulic capacity adequate to serve
only slightly more than the present population. Facilities to
treat an additional 3 mgd would be needed by 1975 to keep pace
with population growth. Total project cost of the "first stage"
3 mgd facility would be $5-3 million. Since the proposed facili-
ties would discharge to the same reach of stream in which the
existing Pennsylvania State University Plant discharges. Nutrient
removal must be emphasized in designing the proposed facilities
to insure that the effluent does not intensify the present
eutrophication problem.
Another possible contributor to water quality degradation
of Spring Creek is the treated waste discharge from the State
Correctional Institution at Kockview, approximately k miles down-
stream from State College. Although BOD removal at the 0.5 mgd
plant exceeds 95 per cent, additional treatment may be necessary
for nutrient removal.
-------
V - 35
During the past three years, periodic spills of toxic
chemicals from the Nease Chemical Company in College Township
have caused five fish kills in the headwaters of Spring Creek.
The Company has failed to take precautions to prevent future
spills, and, therefore, legal action is being taken by the
Sanitary Water Board to force compliance with the State Clean
Stream Law,,
b. Future Water Quality
BOD removals in excess of those provided by conventional
secondary treatment are presently required to prevent pollution
of Spring Creek downstream from the State College Area. By year
2020 the population is expected to increase by about three and
one-half times and will necessitate the provision of advanced
waste treatment, possibly supplemented with flow regulation,
land application, or waste flow diversion as methods to control
water pollution throughout this period.
Because of topographic and geologic conditions in the
area, reservoir storage to provide flow regulation does not
appear to be an economically feasible method in this watershed.
Some flow regulation could be provided by additional ground
water development or inflow piped from other sources. However,
it is expected that the most likely solution will be to reduce
the waste loadings to Spring Creek by land application or
diverting treated effluents by pipeline either to North Bald
Eagle Creek or to the West Branch.
-------
V - 36
c. Water Supply
The State College Area is currently requiring about U.2
mgd to meet its water supply needs. By the year 2020, this Area
is expected to require about 28 mgd. The abundance of good
quality surface and ground water in the area should be adequate
to meet the projected water supply requirements.
2. Bellefonte Area
a. Current Water Quality
The Bellefonte Area is located on Spring Creek about
ten miles downstream from State College. Although the development
of the Bellefonte Area has been considerably slower than the
State College Area, the Area does support a thriving economy.
Principal industries in the Area include Warner Company and
Cerro Copper and Brass Company.
Major waste sources in the Bellefonte Area are as follows:
Est.
Population Flow
Location
Bellefonte Borough
Spring Township,
Centre County
Treatment
Secondary
Served
7,200
5,000
(mgd) Receiving Stream
l.k Spring Creek
— Developed portion
Boggs Township,
Centre County
Warner County
Bellefonte Borough
Cerro Copper &
Brass Co., Spring
Township, Centre
County
West Perm Power Co.
Boggs Township,
Center County
Milesburg Borough
Septic tanks 2,300
Sedimentation —
(Lime waste)
Neutralization & —
Chemical Treatment
(Metal Finishing)
None
(Cooling water)
Septic tanks 1,200
served by Bellefonte
— Sub-surface
0716 Buffalo Run (Spring
Creek)
0.50 Logan Branch
(Spring Creek)
1*3.20 H. Bald Eagle Creek
-------
V - 37
The Bellefonte sewage treatment plant constructed over
30 years ago is antiquated and overloaded. Inadequately treated
sewage degrades the quality of the receiving stream. Spring Creek.
Plans have been developed for renovation of the existing plant
to increase hydraulic capacity from the present 1.5 mgd to 3 mgd
and increase BOD removal to 95 P«r cent. The estimated cost of
the planned facilities is $815,000. The Borough recently was
offered a $27^,000 grant under the P.L. 660 program. It is
expected that construction of the facilities will be undertaken
during the summer of 1967.
Periodic spills of toxic waste waters from the Cerro
Copper and Brass Company into Logan Branch, a tributary of Spring
Creek, have caused fish kills. A biological survey conducted
in 1965 indicated almost complete absence of aquatic life down-
stream from the industry in contrast to an excellent biological
population upstream. The Company, at the direction of the Pennsyl-
vania Department of Health, has taken steps intended to prevent
future spills„
Pertinent water quality data of Spring Creek at Bellefonte
is shown in the following tables
Spring Creek at Bellefonte
Indicator
pH 7.1 - 8.U*
Net Alkalinity (ng/l) +89 - +195 *
Dissolved Oxygen % Saturation 100 *
Phosphates (rng/l) 0 - 3-3*
* Pennsylvania Department of Health Data
-------
V - 38
Spring Creek, which enters the North Bald Eagle Creek
at Mile 28.1, causes a mild degradation in the water quality of
North Bald Eagle Creek.
b. Future Water Quality
Preliminary growth projections for the Bellefonte Area
indicate a potential three-fold increase in population by year
2020. Water quality degradation is expected to increase in
severity as growth occurs unless control measures in addition
to secondary treatment facilities are implemented. As indicated
for the State College Area, advanced waste treatment, supplemented
with flow regulation, is one possible solution. However, because
of limited drainage area upstream and topographic conditions,
reservoir storage does not appear to be a likely solution. If
flow regulation is provided, additional development of ground
water and possibly inflow piped from other sources may be con-
sidered. The alternative appearing to be most likely at this
time is treated waste flow diversion, either to North Bald Eagle
Creek or to the West Branch Susquehanna River.
c. Water Supply
Although the available source of public water supply is
more than adequate to meet present (k.k mgd) and projected needs
(l? mgd by year 2020) in the Bellefonte Area, inadequate pumping
and distribution capacity have combined to cause low pressure and
water shortages in the higher portions of the distribution system.
The Pennsylvania Department of Health is presently reviewing plans
for facilities designed to solve this problem.
-------
V - 39
3. Beech Creek
a. Current Water Quality
Beech Creek which enters North Bald Eagle Creek at Mile
12.2 is rendered acid from the headwaters to the mouth by mine
drainage discharges. The economy of the Beech Creek Watershed
is based primarily on coal mining. The Boroughs of Snow Shoe
and Beech Creek and the Village of Clarence are the principal
centers of population in the Watershed.
The following table lists the principal waste sources
in the Areas
Location
Treatment
Estimated Estimated
Population Flow
Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
Snow Shoe Borough
Clarence (Snow Shoe
Township, Centre
County
Beech Creek Borough
Septic tanks 800
Septic tanks 500
Septic tanks 1,200
Sub-surface
Sub-surface
Sub-surface
None of the above listed communities have public sewers
at the present time; however, secondary sewerage facilities to
serve the Borough of Beech Creek are presently under construction.
The project cost of these facilities is estimated at $350,000.
Sewers and sewage treatment at the remaining communities are
needed to eliminate nuisance conditions caused by faulty septic
tank systems, A minimum of primary treatment is needed as initial
pollution control action; however, as mine drainage abatement
measures are implemented, it is expected that secondary treatment
-------
V - kO
will be necessary. Costs to provide primary plants, exclusive
of sewers, at Snow Shoe and Clarence Boroughs are $36,000 and
$30,000, respectively.
Pertinent water quality data for Beech Creek at the
mouth are shown in the following tables
Beech Creek
Indicator
pH U.I - U.3
Net Alkalinity (mg/l) -32 - -55
Total Iron (mg/l) 0.2 - 0.3
Manganese (mg/l) 2,1 - 5.U
Beech Creek is degraded by mine drainage and is almost
completely devoid of aquatic life. Although North Bald Eagle
Creek, below the confluence with Beech Creek, is normally an
alkaline stream, occasionally high acid run-off from Beech Creek
overcomes the alkalinity in North Bald Eagle Creek, turning
North Bald Eagle Creek into an acid stream from the confluence
with Beech Creek to the mouth.
b. Future Water Quality
The future water quality and use of Beech Creek will be
contingent upon the effective reduction of mine drainage discharges.
Most of the watershed has been mined, both by surface and sub-surface
methods. Approximately 100 mine discharges have been located in
the watershed; however, studies indicate that most of the acid
originates from six major discharges. Measures directed toward
-------
V - kl
abatement of discharges from these six sources will largely
influence the degree of improvement of water quality in Beech
Creek.
The staff of the Pennsylvania Coal Research Board is
preparing preliminary plans for a mine drainage neutralization
plant to be located at the confluence of North and South Branches
of Beech Creek. The facility is intended to discharge alkalinity
to neutralize the acidity contributed to Beech Creek downstream.
c. Water Supply
Water supply in th« Beech Creek Basin is obtained from
upland surface sources. Present sources are adequate to supply
future needs.
k. Blanchard Reservoir
Although satisfactory progress is being made toward
solving the difficult water pollution control problems of the
upper portion of the North Bald Eagle Creek Watershed, new
problems may very soon develop downstream as a result of the
construction of the Blanchard Dam. The Dam, a multiple purpose
facility now under construction by the Corps of Engineers, is
located on North Bald Eagle Creek at Mile lU, immediately upstream
from Beech Creek. The ten-mile long impoundment will contain
storage for flood control, flow augmentation, and recreation, and
is expected to be filled in 1970. The present tendency toward
eutrophication of Spring Creek, which makes up about half of the
-------
V - k2
flow of North Bald Eagle Creek at the dam site, and the rapidly
growing waste load in the State College and Bellefonte areas
lead to speculation that severe eutrophication problems may
develop in the quiescent waters of the Blanchard Reservoir, The
reservoir should be kept under close surveillance as it fills to
detect indicators of approaching eutrophication problems so that
steps can be undertaken to minimize or prevent the problems
before they develop to the point that use of the reservoir is
seriously affected.
Aside from the potential eutrophication problem, the
quality of the Blanchard Reservoir should be suitable for all
proposed uses, including bathing. Because of recreational uses
in the Reservoir, Howard Borough, located one and one-half miles
upstream, is presently constructing secondary treatment facilities.
These facilities are being designed to serve a population of
approximately 800 at the Borough and will receive waste originating
from the recreational facilities at the Reservoir. The cost of
the secondary treatment plant and collection sewers is estimated
at $1,150,000.
In addition to the potential problem associated with
eutrophication in the Blanchard Reservoir, a second potential
water quality problem associated with the Reservoir has caused
concern„ Under present stream flow conditions, the acid carried
by Beech Creek sometimes is neutralized by the high alkalinity
-------
V - 1*3
of North Bald Eagle Creek. Flow regulation of North Bald Eagle
Creek for flood control purposes immediately upstream from the
mouth of Beech Creek may limit the neutralizing capability of
North Bald Eagle Creek during peak acid discharges from Beech
Creek. Alteration of the flow regime in North Bald Eagle Creek
may also adversely affect the quality of the West Branch Susque-
hanna since North Bald Eagle Creek supplies much of the alkalinity
necessary to neutralize mine drainage in the West Branch. Addi-
tional studies are necessary to evaluate the effect of the Reservoir
on downstream water quality.
5. Lock Haven Area
a. Current Water Quality
The Lock Haven area, characteristic of the communities
in the Ridge and Valley Province portion of the West Branch
Watershed, is prosperous, steadily expanding, and supports a
diversity of industry, The area is located at the confluence
of North Bald Eagle Creek and the West Branch. Municipal and
industrial wastes produced in this area are discharged to North
Bald Eagle Creek.
The principal waste sources in the Area are as follows:
-------
Location Treatment
Lock Haven Borough Primary
Mill Hall Borough
Flemington Borough ---
Allison Township,
Clinton County
Castinea Township,
Clinton County —
Woodward Township,
Clinton County —
Bald Eagle Township,
Clinton County —
Dunnstable Township,
Clinton County ---
Wayne Township,
Clinton County —
American Aniline Chemical
Drake Chemical Co. Chemical
Hammermill Paper Primary
* Estimated population equivalent
Est.
Population Flow
Served (mgd)
15,000 1,30
1,900
1,600
300
1,200
1,900
1,200
800
600
3,^00* 2.0
100* 0 .02
179,600* 20.00
Receiving Stream
H. Bald Eagle Creek
Lock Haven Sewers
Lock Haven Sewers
Developed portions
served by Lock Haven
Developed portions
served by Lock Haven
Developed portions
served by Lock Haven
Developed portions
served by Lock Haven
Developed portions
served by Lock Haven
Developed portions
served by Lock Haven
N. Bald Eagle Creek
N. Bald Eagle Creek
N. Bald Eagle Creek
The discharge of waste from Lock Haven and the Hammermill
Paper Company plant, and other industrial waste discharges, are
responsible for severe water quality degradation in the U-mile
reach at the mouth of North Bald Eagle Creek. The Hammermill
Paper Company discharges approximately 90,000 population equiva-
lent (P.E.) of BOD after providing primary treatment. American
Aniline Products and Drake Chemical Company discharge colored as
well as oxygen demanding wastes to the stream. The Lock Haven
primary sewage treatment plant discharge contributes about 9,800
P.E. Although the establishments are in compliance with all
-------
previous Sanitary Water Board orders, stream pollution is occuring.
Preliminary computations indicate that in excess of 90 per cent
removal of BOD from the present waste load will be required for
maintenance of a balanced aquatic population. The provision of
secondary treatment facilities is an immediate step needed toward
pollution control in the Lock Haven Area. The cost of expansion
of the primary facilities at Lock Haven to provide secondary
treatment is estimated at $223,000. Conveyance of all or a
portion of the treated waste to the West Branch Susquehanna is
an additional step which would reduce waste loadings to North
Bald Eagle Creek. The staff of the Sanitary Water Board has
instituted steps which will probably lead to issuance of orders
to abate pollution of North Bald Eagle Creek.
Water quality data for North Bald Eagle Creek in the
Lock Haven Area are listed in the table below;
North Bald Eagle Creek (Lock Haven Area)
Lock Haven Howard *
Indicator Mile 0 Mile 19
pH 7.7 - 8.5 7.6 - 8.6
Net Alkalinity^ (mg/l) +100 -+120 +9^ - +155
Total Iron (mg/l) 0.1 - O.U
Dissolved Oxygen (% saturation) --- 100
Coliforms (MPN/100 ml) — 230 - 22,000
Manganese (mg/l) 0 - 0.3 ---
Phosphates (mg/l) --- 0 - 1.0
* Pennsylvania Department of Health Data
-------
V - U6
North Bald Eagle Creek is normally an alkaline stream
and contributes to the neutralization of the acid waters of the
West Branch below Lock Haven.
b. Future Water Quality
The population of Lock Haven is expected to increase
more than fourfold by year 2020. This increase in population,
plus the low natural stream flows available for waste assimilation
will require pollution control measures in excess of secondary
treatment to alleviate the already critical water quality condi-
tions in North Bald Eagle Creek near Lock Haven. The Blanchard
Reservoir, now under construction, could possibly supply additional
flow for low flow augmentation. However, it is expected that the
most likely solution will be the conveyance of treated waste
discharges to the West Branch Susquehanna River.
Preliminary evaluations indicate that by year 2020,
with secondary treatment of waste in the Lock Haven Area, the
needed assimilative flows in the West Branch downstream from
North Bald Eagle will exceed natural occurring stream flows by
more than 100 cfs during late summer months. However, there are
9 Corps of Engineers and 3 Soil Conservation Service potential
reservoir sites which could be developed on upstream tributaries
to satisfy flow regulation needs in the West Branch at Lock Haven
or further downstream.
-------
V - k7
There are also two existing reservoirs in the Sinnema-
honing Creek Watershed and are presently expected to be capable
of meeting the projected water quality flow requirements; l)
the Alvin Bush Reservoir on Kettle Creek has an additional
potential storage of 90,000 acre-feet at a total cost of $4,500,000
and could provide a potential yield of 221 cfs at a cost of
$900 per cfs; 2) the George B. Stevenson Reservoir on the First
Fork Sinnemahoning Creek has an additional potential storage of
90,000 acre-feet at a cost of $6,000,000, yielding a potential
233 cfs at $6kO per cfs. The additional development of either
of these reservoirs would be more than adequate to satisfy the
projected water quality needs in the West Branch at Lock Haven
and throughout the downstream reaches.
c. Water Supply
Present water use in the Lock Haven area amounts to
about 59 rogd which is expected to increase to about 231 mgd by
year 2020. Available ground and surface water sources are adequate
to meet the projected needs.
H. West Branch Susquehanna River - North Bald Eagle Creek
to Mouth
1. Wellsboro Area
a. Current Water Quality
The Wellsboro Area is located in the headwaters of Pine
Creek, a tributary entering the West Branch about 10 miles down-
stream from Lock Haven. The economy of the Borough of Wellsboro
-------
V - U8
is supported primarily by a glass factory and a milk processing
plant. Wastes originating in the Wellsboro Area are summarized
below:
Est.
Population Flow
Location Treatment Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
Wellsboro Borough Secondary 5,800 0.90 Marsh Creek (Pine Creek)
Bordon Company 1,500* 0.03 Wellsboro Sewers
Corning Glass Chemical 0.06 Charleston Run (Pine Creek)
Company (Etching waste)
Wellsboro Hone 0.20
(Cooling)
Galeton Primary 1,700 0.20 West Branch Pine Creek
* Estimated population equivalent
Although the Borough of Wellsboro provides secondary
treatment for 0.9 mgd of combined domestic and industrial wastes
prior to discharging to Marsh Creek, a tributary of Pine Creek,
the assimilative capacity of Marsh Creek is presently exceeded
during low stream flow conditions. Advanced waste treatment or
treated waste diversion to Pine Creek, supplemented with flow
regulation, are potential solutions to improve current water
quality. Three potential reservoir sites have been indicated
by the Soil Conservation Service in the headwater areas of Pine
Creek. These sites are;
Potential Cost Per
Site Number Location Yield (cfs) cfs
SCS #2k-l
SCS #2^-3
SCS #2k-k
W. Branch Pine Creek
Nine Mile Run
Gene see Forks
22
12
8
$11,000
$18,000
$15,000
-------
v - 1*9
These sites could provide flow regulation in Pine Creek
but would have no effect on stream flows of Marsh Creek on which
Wellsboro is located. Waste flow diversion from Wellsboro to
Pine Creek would be a necessary adjunct if any of these sites
are developed. However, since these reservoir sites will be
expensive and there will be the additional cost of the waste
diversion pipeline, it appears that advanced waste treatment may
prove to be a more favorable solution in the Wellsboro Area.
The Corning Glass Company discharges waste waters
carrying about 20 mg/1 of fluoride to Charleston Run, a tribu-
tary to Marsh Creek. The fluoride concentration in the receiving
stream is elevated to about 8 mg/1 during low flow periods.
Additional study of this situation is needed to determine if the
elevated fluoride concentrations adversely affect water use.
Galeton presently serves approximately 1,700 people with
primary treatment facilities prior to discharging into the West
Branch Pine Creek. Secondary treatment facilities are expected
to be necessary in the near future to maintain satisfactory water
quality for most beneficial uses. The cost for expansion to
secondary is estimated at $123,000.
b. Future Water Quality
The population of the Wellsboro Area is projected to
increase about fivefold by the year 2020. The increase in popula-
tion coupled with low natural stream flows in Marsh Creek will
-------
V - 50
intensify the water quality problem in the Wellsboro Area.
Advanced waste treatment and other alternatives such as flow
diversion and stream flow regulation need to be evaluated as
possible means to meet increased water quality needs.
c. Water Supply
The present water use in the Wellsboro Area is about
1 mgd; use by year 2020 is expected to amount to about 3-6 mgd.
Available surface water supply sources appear to be adequate
to meet 2020 projected demands5 however, some additional develop-
ment of existing sources may be necessary.
2. Jersey Shore Area
a. Current Water Quality
Jersey Shore is located near the confluence of Pine Creek
and the West Branch Susquehanna River, approximately 11 miles
downstream from Lock Haven. Principal waste sources in the area
are summarized below;
Est.
Population Flow
Location
Woolrich Mills,
Pine Creek Town-
Treatment
Secondary
Served
6,000*
(mgd)
0.60
Receiving Stream
Chatham Run (W. Branch)
ship, Clinton County
Avis Borough
Jersey Shore
Porter Township
Lycoming County
Salladsburg Borough
Piatt Township,
Lycoming County
Nippenose Township,
Lycoming County
Primary
Primary
-__
Septic Tanks
Septic Tanks
Septic Tanks
1,300
5,800
1,200
300
700
500
0.16
0.65
___
__-
_„_
W. Branch Susquehanna
W. Branch Susquehanna
Developed portions
served by Jersey Shore
Sub-surface
Sub- surf ace
Sub- surf ace
-------
V - 51
Est.
Population Flow
Location Treatment Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
Mifflin Township, Septic Tanks 500 --- Sub-surface
Lycoming County
Jersey Shore Steel None 0.10 W. Branch Susquehanna
Jersey Shore (Cooling)
* Estimated Population Equivalent
Water quality degradation is not presently evident down-
stream from the Jersey Shore Area, primarily because of the
relatively large stream flows (^00 cfs or more) in the West Branch
during the late summer months. Water quality is generally satis-
factory and can support most beneficial uses.
Water quality data of the West Branch at Jersey Shore
are summarized below;
West Branch at Jersey Shore
Indicator
pH 5.2 - 6.6
Net Alkalinity (mg/l) +90 - -9
Total Iron (mg/l) 0.1 - 0.2
Manganese (mg/l) 2.0 - 3-0
Sulfatep (mg/l) 1^0 - 200
Under normal stream flow conditions, the West Branch
below Jersey Shore is an alkaline stream. The highly alkaline
waters contributed by North Bald Eagle Creek mixes with and
neutralizes the acid waters originating in the headwaters of
-------
V - 52
the West Branch. Mixing and chemical reactions are essentially
complete by the time the water reaches the Jersey Shore Area.
The West Branch downstream from Jersey Shore supports abundant
aquatic life and bears little evidence of the heavy load of acid
originating upstream. During periods of unbalanced stream flow
between the West Branch and North Bald Eagle Creek, the alkalinity
contributed by Bald Eagle Creek is not sufficient to overcome the
acid load carried by the West Branch, and acid conditions prevail
downstream, sometimes as far as its mouth, 68 miles downstream.
This condition, normally a once or twice-yearly occurrence, causes
massive fish kills.
b. Future Water Quality
The population of the Jersey Shore area is expected to
increase about threefold by the year 2020. This growth, coupled
with associated industrial expansion, may result in water quality
degradation if primary treatment only is provided. Assimilative
studies indicate the expected stream flows in the West Branch
will adequately assimilate waste loadings from the Jersey Shore
Area and maintain satisfactory water quality through year 2020
if secondary treatment is provided.
c. Water Supply
The present water use of 1 mgd is expected to increase
about fourfold by year 2020. Available surface water supply
sources appear to be adequate to meet 2020 projected demands;
however, some additional development of existing sources will be
necessary.
-------
V - 53
3. Williamsport Area
a. Current Water Quality
The Williamsport Area, with a population of 76,000 is
the largest population center in the West Branch drainage area.
The Area includes the City of Williamsport, the Boroughs of
Mountoursville, South Williamsport, Duboistovn, and developed
portions of Loyalsock and Old Lycoming Townships. The economy
of the Area is prosperous and is supported by numerous commercial
and manufacturing establishments, the largest of which are the
Avco Corporation, Sylvania Electric Corporation and the Beth-
lehem Steel Company.
Principal waste sources in the Area are shown in the
following table:
Location Treatment
Est.
Population Flow
Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
Williamsport
Primary
South Williamsport
Loyalsock Township —
Lycoming County
Dairymans League
Coop., Williamsport
Coca Cola Company
M & E Bottling and
Processing, Williams-
port
Darling Valve Company
Avco Corporation Chemical
Williamsport
Central Ul,000
West 6,500
7,000
9,000
Uoo*
500*
1,300*
7.0
0.8
W. Branch Susquehanna
Williamsport Sewers
Williamsport Sewers
Bethlehem Steel
Williamsport
(Plating)
None (Cooling)
Discharge
(Sanitary)
Chemical (Acid)
None (Cooling)
Discharge
(Sanitary)
500
koo
1,100
0.02 Williamsport Sewers
0.02 Williamsport Sewers
0.03 Williamsport Sewers
0.07 Williamsport Sewers
0.05 Lycoming Creek (West
Branch)
0.90 Willimasport Sewers
0.20 W. Branch Susquehanna
0.20
O.l6 Williamsport Sewers
-------
V -
Location Treatment
Armstrong Township Septic Tanks
Lycoming County
Fairfield Township Septic Tanks
Lycoming County
Hepburn Township Septic Tanks
Lycoming County
Lycoming Township Septic Tanks
Lycoming County
Montoursville Septic Tanks
Lycoming County
Susquehanna Town- Septic Tanks
ship, Lycoming County
Upper Fairfield Septic Tanks
Township, Lycoming
County
Woodward Township Septic Tanks
Lycoming County
DuBoistown Borough Primary
Population
Served
600
900
1,300
1,200
5,000
800
900
1,600
i.Uoo
Sylvania Electric Chemical (Plating) ---
Williamsport
Est.
Flow
(mgd) Receiving Stream
--- Sub-surface
• — Sub-surface
Sub-surface
— Sub-surface
— Sub-surface
Sub-surface
— Sub-surface
Sub-surface
0.02 W. Branch Susquehanna
0.01 Bull Run (West Branch)
* Estimated Population Equivalent
Williamsport, South Williamsport, and adjacent sewered
areas are served by two primary sewage treatment plants which
have a total average loading of 7.8 mgd and ^8,000 P.E. The
plants are operated by the City of Williamsport and are in
compliance with Sanitary Water Board requirements. Population
growth and expected increased recreational use of the river will
necessitate provision of secondary treatment with chlorination
in the near future.
With the exception of infrequent spills of toxic material,
industrial waste treatment by establishments in the area has
-------
V - 55
been adequate to prevent pollution, and, with appropriate treat-
ment plant renovation as waste loads change, should be adequate
for the near future.
The Borough of DuBoistown with a population of i,kOO
provides primary sewage treatment. Secondary treatment with
chlorination facilities is expected to be needed in the near
future to protect recreational use of the river.
Pertinent water quality data for the West Branch at
Williamsport is shown in the following table:
West Branch at Williamsport
Indicator
pH 5.8 - 6.8
Net Alkalinity (ng/l) -1 - +28
Total Iron (mg/l) -0.1 - 0.2
Dissolved Oxygen ($ Saturation) 95
Coliforms MPN/100 ml 1000*
Manganese (mg/l) 1.6 - 3.2
Sulfates (mg/l) 100 - 200
* Pennsylvania Department of Health Data
With the exception of several miles of the headwater
streams of Lycoming Creek, mine drainage has no significant
effect on the quality of the tributaries of the West Branch
in the Williamsport Area. A biological survey of the basin,
conducted in 1965, indicated that the tributary streams in
-------
V -56
this Area support a balanced aquatic population and generally
contribute to waste quality improvement of the West Branch.
b. Future Water Quality
Growth projections for the Williamsport Area indicate
less than a threefold increase in population by year 2020.
A comparison of expected stream flows in the West Branch and
flows required to assimilate projected waste loads from the
Area indicate that secondary treatment should be adequate to
maintain acceptable water quality in this portion of the West
Branch throughout the period to year 2020.
c. Water Supply
The present water use in the Williamsport Area amounts
to about 9 mgd which is projected to about 66 mgd by year 2020.
Available surface water supply appears to be adequate to meet
future water supply requirements.
k. Muncy Area
a. Current Water Quality
The Muncy Area, located 28 miles upstream from the
mouth of the West Branch, consists of Muncy Borough, developed
portions of Muncy Township and Muncy Creek Township, and
Montgomery Borough. Principal waste sources in the Area are
summarized in the following:
-------
-------
V - 57
Location
Treatment
Population
Served
Est.
Flow
Receiving Stream
Eagles Mere
Muncy Borough
Muncy Township,
Lycoming County
Muncy Creek Township
Lycoming County
Sprout Waldron
Sylvania Electric,
Muncy Township,
Hughesville Borough
Wolf Township, Ly-
coming County
Muncy State Cor-
rectional Inst.,
Clinton Township,
Lycoming County
Montgomery Borough
Secondary
Primary
200
4,500
900
2,000
500
Chemical(Plating)
Primary 300
(Sanitary)
Septic Tanks 2,200
Septic Tanks 1,000
Secondary 1,000
None 4,300
0.01 Muncy Creek
0.55 W. Branch Susquehanna
Developed portion
served by Muncy
— Developed portion
served by Muncy
0.22 Muncy Sewers
0.10 W. Branch Susquehanna
0.01 W. Branch Susquehanna
Sub-surface
Sub-surface
0.10 Turkey Kun (W. Branch)
0.60 W. Branch Susquehanna
The primary treated effluents from Muncy are not pre-
sently causing apparent water quality degradation of the West
Branch. However, secondary treatment is expected to be
necessary in the near future to protect recreational use of
the River.
The secondary sewage treatment plant serving the State
Correctional Institute for Women near Muncy has reached its
design capacity. Plans are being made for renovation of the
plant. Estimated cost of the renovation is $70,000,
Sewers and primary degree treatment facilities are under
construction at Montgomery Borough and are scheduled to be
-------
V - 58
completed early in 1967. Estimated cost of the facilities is
$U60,000. Secondary facilities are expected to be necessary in
the near future to protect recreational use of the West Branch.
b. Future Water Quality
Although this area is expected to experience a threefold
increase in population by the year 2020, no future water quality
problems are anticipated if secondary treatment is provided.
c. Water Supply
The Muncy Area presently uses about 1 mgd to satisfy the
water supply needs. The projected needs by year 2020 are ex-
pected to be approximately 5-3 mgd. Available water supply
sources appear to be adequate to meet the projected requirements.
5. Milton Area
a. Current Water Quality
The Milton Area includes the portion of the West Branch
and tributaries from Watsontown (Mile 23) to the mouth. The
principal industry in the Area is the Chef Boy-Ar-Bee food
processing plant in Milton. Bucknell University is located at
Lewisburg. Waste emanating from the Area is summarized as
follows s
-------
V - 59
Location Treatment
Watsontown Borough Primary
Milton Borough Primary
War show and Sons —
Delaware Township, Septic Tanks
Northumberland County
White Deer Township, Septic Tanks
Union County
East Chillisquaque Septic Tanks
Township, Northumber-
land County
West Chillisquaque Septic Tanks
Township, Northumber-
land County
Turbot Township, Septic Tanks
Northumberland County
Chef Boy-Ar-Dee Plant Primary
Milton
Lewisburg Borough Primary
Kelley Township,
Union County
East Buffalo Town- Septic Tanks
ship, Union County
Buffalo Township, Septic Tanks
Union County
West Buffalo Township Septic Tanks
Union County
Mifflinburg Borough Primary
North East Federal Intermediate
Penitentiary, Kelly
Township, Northumber-
land County
Northumberland Borough Primary
Population
Served
2,500
8,000
1,^00*
2,UOO
2,1*00
600
1,700
1,400
68,000*
9,000
3,300
3,200
1,600
1,100
2,500
1,^00
U,200
Est.
Flow
(mgd)
0.30
0.68
O.Ik
___
1.25
1.00
___
___
0.50
0.30
0.35
Receiving Stream
W. Branch Susquehanna
W. Branch Susquehanna
Milton Sewers
Sub-surface
Sub- surf ace
Sub- surf ace
Sub-surface
Sub -surf ace
W. Branch Susquehanna
W. Branch Susquehanna
Developed portions
served by Lewisburg
Sub-surface
Sub- surf ace
Sub- surf ace
Buffalo Creek
Buffalo Creek
W. Branch Susquehanna
* Estimated Population Equivalent
Watsontown Borough, 23 miles upstream from the mouth of
the West Branch, provides primary waste treatment for a popula-
tion of about 2,000. Water quality degradation, attributable to
Watsontown discharge, is not apparent, primarily because of the
large stream flows (650 cfs or more) occurring during the summer
and fall months.
-------
V - 6o
The Borough of Milton, 12 miles from the mouth, provides
primary treatment for a population of about 8,000. The municipal
discharge is very small in comparison to the waste discharge
from the Chef Boy-Ar-Dee Company food processing plant in Milton.
Tomato processing wastes from the plant have a BOD equivalent
of about 68,000 P.E. The BOD of the treated waste discharge
(36,800 P.E.) constitutes the second largest discharge of BOD
in the West Branch Watershed. Only the Hammermill Paper Company
at Lock Haven is responsible for a higher BOD loading. The Chef
Boy-Ar-Dee waste discharge varies seasonally, reaching a peak
during the two month tomato canning season in late summer.
The Chef Boy-Ar-Dee plant is considered to be in compliance
with Sanitary Water Board requirements at the present time;
however, solid material attributed to the plant has been observed
in the West Branch, indicating that the waste treatment facili-
ties may be by-passed or overloaded at times. In view of the
large loadings from the plant and downstream recreational use,
secondary treatment or "in-house" measures to reduce waste
loadings are needed.
The Pennsylvania Department of Forest and Waters is
presently constructing an inflatible dam on the Susquehanna
River just downstream from the confluence of the West Branch
and the Susquehanna River. The dam is scheduled to be completed
in 1968 and will provide a recreational pool which will extend
-------
V - 6l
into the West Branch, The nearness of the impoundment to the
Milton Area appears to warrant consideration be given to secon-
dary treatment of wastes with continuous chlorination in order
to maintain water quality suitable for recreation in the reser-
voir. The cost of expansion of the primary plant at Milton to
secondary is estimated at $167,000; expansion of the primary
plant at Mifflinburg to provide secondary treatment is estimated
to cost $130,000.
The Lewisburg Area is located approximately k miles
downstream from Milton. The principal source of employment in
the Area is service-type activities associated with Bucknell
University. Primary waste treatment is provided for a popula-
tion of about 9,000, the discharges apparently causing no
evident quality degradation of the West Branch. Similarly,
primary treatment is provided at Northumberland Borough, located
at the confluence of the West Branch and the Susquehanna River.
Because of the recreational pool being provided by the downstream
inflatible dam, secondary treatment facilities with chlorination
for both Lewisburg and Northumberland Boroughs are expected to
be necessary to maintain water quality suitable for recreation.
Costs to expand the present facilities at these two Boroughs
to provide secondary treatment are estimated at $205,000 and
$120,000 for Lewisburg and Northumberland, respectively.
-------
V - 62
The secondary treatment plant at the North East Federal
Penitentiary, discharging to Buffalo Creek, is antiquated and
provides less than 50 per cent BOD removal. Engineering studies
are needed to formulate plans for the renovation of the plant
to increase the level of efficiency equivalent to secondary.
Water quality data for the West Branch in the Area
are summarized in the following table:
West Branch at West Branch at West Branch at
Indicator Milton-Mile 12 Lewi sburg-Mile 8 Horthumberland-Mile 0
pH 6.5 6.5 6.5
Net Alkalinity (mg/l) +15 +15 +16
Total Iron (mg/l) — 0.5
Dissolved Oxygen
(% Saturation ) 90 90 85
Coliform MPN/100 ml — 100
Manganese ( mg/l) — 0.5
b. Future Water Quality
Assimilative studies indicate that the anticipated flows
of the West Branch in the Milton Area will not be sufficient to
assimilate expected waste loads, principally from Chef Boy-Ar-Dee,
through year 2020 if only secondary treatment is provided. However,
additional development of the Alvin Bush Dam or George B. Stevenson
Dam, to provide the needed water quality control flows below Lock
Haven, will also satisfy the projected quality control ne«ds at
the Milton Area.
-------
V - 63
c. Water Supply
Preliminary projections indicate a potential fourfold
increase in population of the Milton Area by year 2020. However,
water supply requirements are projected to increase about eightfold,
primarily the result of increased water use by the Chef Boy-Ar-Dee
Company. The available water supply sources appear to be adequate
to meet the projected requirements; however, studies should be
made within the Chef Boy-Ar-Dee plant to ascertain what measures
could be taken to reduce future water use.
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 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 - 2
III. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Ill - 1
A. Findings Ill - 1
B. Immediate Pollution Control Needs Ill - U
1. Waste Treatment Ill - 4
2. Flow Regulation . . . . ' Ill - 5
3. Special Studies , Ill - 6
U. Institutional Practices Ill - 6
IV. GENERAL BASIN DESCRIPTION IV - 1
V. WATER POLLUTION PROBLEMS, NEEDS AND COSTS V - 1
A. Covington-Clifton Forge Area V-l
1. Jackson River Watershed V-l
B. Lexington-Buena Vista Area V - 7
1. Maury River Watershed V-7
C. Lynchburg Area V - 11
1. James River Watershed V - 11
2. Buffalo River Watershed V - 17
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
D. Charlotte sville Area V - 18
1. Rivanna River Watershed .......... V - 18
E. Richmond Area V - 22
I. James River Watershed V - 22
2. Chickahominy Watershed V - 31
F. Hopewell-Petersburg Area V - 34
1. James River Watershed V - 3^
G. Hampton Roads Area . V - 39
1. James River Watershed V - 39
VI. APPENDICES . VI - 1
A. Biological Survey of the Jackson and
James Rivers VI - 1
B. Report on the Effects of Pollution on Stream
Fishery Resources in the James River Basin ... VI - 27
C. Population Projections for Major Municipal
Areas in the James River Basin VI - Uo
VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY ..... VII - 1
-------
I - 1
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose and Scope
Under the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. ^66 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 discharge 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 water
pollution control action needed in the James River Basin, repre-
sents the first step in the development of a comprehensive program
to control water pollution in the Basin.
The principal objectives of the investigation and report
are to:
1. Delineate 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 local and basin-wide pollution control
measures which should be evaluated in planning a
comprehensive water pollution control program for
the Basin.
B. Acknowledgments
The cooperation and assistance of the following Federal,
State, and local agencies are gratefully acknowledged:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Geological Survey
U. S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District
U. S. Department of Commerce
Virginia Division of Industrial Planning and Development
Virginia Division of Water Resources
Virginia State Water Control Board
Virginia State Department of Health
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Virginia Military Institute Research Laboratories
City of Richmond, Department of Public Works
-------
-------
II - 1
II. GENERAL
A. Source of Information
Present water quality conditions covered in this report
were evaluated by the staff of the Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna
River Basin Project, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
employing the following sources of information:
1. Existing data obtained from files of Federal, State,
and local agencies.
2. Results of stream sampling investigations conducted
by State institutions under contractual agreements
with the FWPCA.
3. Personal communications with municipal and industrial
representatives associated with pollution abatement
activities.
A biological study of the upper reaches of the James
River and tributaries conducted by CB-SRBP comprised a special
investigation to supplement sampling data of chemical and bio-
chemical characteristics of water quality. Brief summaries of
the biological studies are given, along with summaries of quality
data, for most of the areas above Lynchburg, with more detailed
descriptions of biological conditions outlined in the Appendix.
For evaluations of future water supply requirements,
county population and industrial productivity projections developed
by the National Planning Association were employed. The I960
U. S. Census Report was used as a base from which individual
-------
II - 2
community projections were made. Industrial requirements 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
Immediate 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 bene-
ficial 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.
For the purpose of this report, the CB-SRBP has recommended, in
most cases, that secondary treatment with 85 per cent removal of
the biochemical oxygen demand of waste discharges be provided.
Cost estimates for new facilities and for upgrading
present facilities to secondary treatment were calculated from
construction cost information obtained from the literature5
and updated, using Engineering News Record Current Cost Index .
Existing estimates for proposed projects were obtained from some
communities where engineering costs had been previously determined,
C. State Stream Classifications
At the writing of this report, the State of Virginia has
not established specific water quality objectives for either
-------
-------
II - 3
State-wide or individual stream application. It is anticipated,
however, that stream standards will be adopted for the James River
Basin in June 196?. The policy in the past has been to consider
each waste discharged on its own merits, taking into consideration
downstream 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 k 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 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.
Proposed stream standards for the Basin have been prepared
by the State Water Control Board and public hearings were held in
April 1967. The standards generally follow the criteria used in
the past with certain modifications applicable to specific reaches.
-------
Ill - 1
III. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A„ Findings
The James River Basin, an area of approximately 10,000
square miles, reflects a balanced economy that was established
from the earliest colonial days. In addition to sanitary wastes,
agriculture, chemicals, manufacturing, transportation, food pro-
cessing and forestry all contribute to pollution loads discharged
in the basin.
From its mouth at Hampton Roads upstream to Covington, a
distance of 3&0 river miles, one-third of the James River is ad-
versely affected by municipal and industrial wastes to the extent
that use of its water is Restricted to some degree. Biologically
oxidizable wastes equivalent to a population of four million are
produced each day in the basin. Present treatment and waste
reduction practices reduce this amount to about two million
population equivalents that are actually discharged to the James
River and its tributaries. Table I summarizes municipal and
industrial waste loadings discharged to various streams throughout
the basin under present treatment levels and also indicates what
these loadings would be if a secondary (85 per cent BOD removal)
waste treatment policy were implemented.
The most critical areas, with regard to water quality,
exhibit recurrent conditions of depleted or nearly depleted
dissolved oxygen content. Industrial wastes resulting from pulp
-------
Ill - 2
and paper production account for a large part of the problem,
especially in the Covington and Lynchburg areas„ In all, indus-
trial wastes account for about 50 per cent of the total organic
waste load presently being discharged in the basin; municipal
effluents account for the balance. Of the ten largest producers
of organic waste in the basin including both municipal and
industrial sources, only one provides secondary treatment to its
waste.
Surface waters of the James River Basin are presently
used for municipal and industrial water supply at a rate of 280
mgd. Municipal and industrial water use upstream from Richmond
is now and will continue to be much less than the development
potential of the surface water supply. Additional water supply
impoundments may eventually become necessary for quality or
convenience but this is not an immediate problem.
At Richmond and some of the communities along the Estuary,
water supplies have reached or are approaching a critical stage.
Development of water supply reservoirs in the basin will be a
factor to be considered in any long term comprehensive water
management study.
A comprehensive program to affect the proposed water
quality standards (see Section II - C) throughout the Basin is
beyond the scope of this study. The investigations and resultant
recommendations of this study have been made to identify the most
urgent needs of the basin that should be met to produce a signifi-
cant improvement in stream water quality.
-------
-------
Ill - 3
H
!
1
w
CD
n*
W W EH Q
3 5 • 0
X £3 Is
?3 C3 C3^ ^C
P S W
CQ H 0
a ° **•
[y| ^C
Q s
PH
g
H
CO
S>
g
0)
PC
Pi
S
00
c"j
^J)
•H
CQ
0
•O
c
M
rH
CO
a-
•H
O
•rl
c
3
S
^~N
CO
H s
5 «
O CQ
H 'c
0)
t-H
CO
H >
CO iH
•H 0
S "
l3 |M
•d o
C -H
H -P
Q.
H O
CO PH
Qj x_x
..J
*n
0
•H
gj
S
X^v
3
JM
CQ
^
0)
a)
H
co
0
5
ONVO Oi vD QCU ONONr-l
IfN CM LfN 1 ON OO O CO
H r- 1 r-H VO
*
r-l PO O< rH rH! OCOON
ITNCVI-^K r-l 1 ITNrHCQ
rH r-H CO
^t- CO O 1 IA ON CM ON VD 00
rH 1 t- CO O\ CO
CM
ITN ON COI C~- HCVJ O ITNOJ
VD -* -* 1 -* CO vO O
CM -4- C- -* CD^
CxT
*
O CO O
Pn w > bD
°rH "rl ^4
C ^"x t^ ^"^ p< rj
O rH ?H ^D
tH^ Cr( rtf-trH> fnC SnM $H
•Hi-l 0)0) 0)0) H°H 33 -H 0) (D CO CO
r-Hpfi 3> >> 'rHpCi >g +5>.rC|>.
O W-H -rl «H J> -HOCO-rHeO^H H
1 G 1 fyj ppl firt 03 cd p^ rt p^ p^ Q iyj j^
COC W 0)C to i K P
OCQ Oh HW'*>H-)C ) HCQ CQ O
-p >J -PH 7Q}«) 4^ co C co o Hcu cv EH
bOo bO? ,£3SC OP OQ»H 4)3 OS
CCO G K ,ficO*H rH*rl S CO ^3 ^CO-PcO C
•Ht-3 'H£ CJr-gpL, rlW ^HI"3O V1^ &^ >rl
^ >^^x ^ N S C N.^^^^-* CO *•— ' O N_XS»> P^4>^^^ Q **_^ CQ
OCUh Xl-H OCO CO
OJi-5 OP5 KW pq
4
S
co
4)
M
-P
CQ
CQ
•rH
,£3
•P
O
•P
co
o
CQ
•H
*d
CQ-
•H
•d
•rH
O
CO
0
•H
9
,£!
r^
CQ
CH
O
.
CO
•\
CQ
C
o
43
00
VO
^
f— )
0)
43
•H
X
0
£4
PJL(
<
*
-------
Ill - U
B. Immediate Pollution Control Needs
1. Waste Treatment
The principal immediate need in the Basin is for the
provision of adequate waste treatment facilities to control pollu-
tion at its source.
Immediate waste treatment needs and estimated costs for
municipalities and industries in the Basin are given in Table II.
A general summary of these needs follows %
a. One municipality to provide
primary and secondary treatment
for existing untreated discharge. $125,000
b. One County Service Authority to
provide sewerage system, in-
cluding secondary treatment. $1,400,000
c. Sixteen municipalities to provide
secondary treatment for existing
primary discharges. $3^,795,000
d. One Sanitary District Commission
to continue with sewerage program,
including secondary treatment
facilities at four existing primary
treatment plants. $21,200,000
e,, Two Federal Installations to provide
secondary treatment at existing
primary treatment plants. $1,050,000
-------
Ill - 5
f. Twelve industries to provide
primary and secondary treatment
of existing untreated discharges. $20,750,000
go One industry to provide enlarged
secondary facilities and increased
operating efficiency at existing
Cost
secondary plant „ undetermined
Total (excluding g) $79,320,000
2, Flow Regulation
To adequately protect and enhance water quality in the
face of population and industrial growth, urbanization, and
technological change, water pollution control action, in addition
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 pollu-
tion control needs in the two areas in the James River 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 III„
-------
Ill - 6
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 IV summarizes
these study needs.
k. Institutional Practices
A need for action on pollution control measures by various
Federal, State, and local institutions in the James River Basin
is indicated by the findings of this study. Table V summarizes
needed institutional practices which would enhance and strengthen
pollution control programs.
-------
Ill - 7
L Annual
lost
1 — ' vj
(C
-p
o
EH
G
O
•tH
P
0 -P
0 W
JH O
-P U
CO
C
O
O
•d
4)
4)
S
-p
•H
r-l
•H
,0
CO
C
O
a
CO
V
c
o
•H
•P
CO
O
O
8
o
o
CM
-69-
•d
t) O
c o
•H O
fi
5 &
d>
•d
G
CO
v •
M >»
f-t O
-P CO S3
C ,G O
V 0 -H
>» 8 W 0
k P "H -H
CO CO "d *M
•d V CM
C r* « «
O -P -P
0 W PL,
D U co EH
w >d f* CO
•H
«J > H O>
M O H > b»
>H fn «0 O M
co ft h co
r-l fn ft -d
G 0 0 8 G
W -P
•H a o
MO 0
M O
•H CM
> h O
0)
P ft G
W CO ?
« PH 0
* EH
H CM
1 CO
CM V
j e.
•n M
r-l <
O
C ttf)
O rt
-P 0
bD (*.j
C
•H C
> 0
0 -P
o
1
UA
r-l
8
o
s"
OJ
**
CD
•s
o
o
V
CO
4)
bO
JH
o
h
G
0
-P
CH
•H
O
<4«|
o
g
o
EH
CO
o o o c
80 o c
o o c
O CM CM C
rH J
-O
O O O
8 8 8 c
•> n *\ (
ITv O O
CM CO OO U
H a
M
•«
s*
p
^>
^4
co
t3
G T
o
O r
V
CO
•d
G
co !>»!>><
^ t-1 (j
>> CO CO p
fn 'd "d <
CO C G
S O O p
•3 o t) C
fn o> OJ f,
Pi CO CO
1-
1
e
OJ
h p
O 00
O O
S CO
__ c s
> 0 rl
O r4 0)
|J M CO
CM Vn 4-1
o o o
S § 0
o o o
EH EH EH
0 * •
-^f LTN VD
5 8 8 8
D O O 0
T\ O CM O
1- r-l tH
3000
•C o" o" o^
D OS PO UA
D rH r-l
9- -69-
••>
H
t,
3
5
3d
p-H
H
3
3
H
J
><
V
-S
1 r? r? r7
c co to co
2 -d -d -d
C G G
5 O 0 O
3 000
H t) V V
CO CO CO
q
^
H
H
CO
-P
co c
> i °
O 00
co t* c
C CO -H
4) CO M
0 rH S
PQ O i-3
SJH CH
8
CM
CM
-69-
0
f\
CO
-69-
gs
§
nrt
^?
(*4
H!
0
E^
-------
G
•H
4^
G
O
O
M
M
H
S H
M CO
m
M <
02 <
< O
hs M
H
CO
js
C
^J*
1 — 1
CO
•p
o
H
r-1
6
•H
o
^
-p
ra
G
O
O
-p
M
O
o
-p
CO
O
O
•d
0)
f>g
-P
•H
r-H
•H
10
C
o
a
as
3)
PC
G
O
•H
•P
CO
O
,3
a
o
o
g
-P
•H
O
rH
CO
!H
hO
JH
r$
-Q
r^3
O
cj
J5>
o
o
O
y-.
CM
§
•N
O
CO
r?
10
c
p
0)
co
M
JJ
A3
bO
-H
&
PH
M
o
•H
•d
1
CM
o
f~*
J3S
o
&"1
CM
C' O
0 O
o o
C*>_ "\
O CM
CM -*
~t CM
t/3
•d
G
^-N -H
H g
v_x )H
80! O
-P O
O 1) O
*\ frjj r*
O G 0
ir\ 3 co
t- U~N
« +5 »,
rH W CO
o
CJ -69-
W
(I)
bO
i-l
-P CO
4/ O
i — 1 CO
CO -H
> -a
•H
3
?H P>
O 0) -H
d (X
CO J-' tt) S
•d c G <;
G O -H
o y CM (X
y co O
0) °H O ft.
CQ O -P ^
<;
g
EH
r^
G -rH
o S
••H CO
+1 G
CO CO
f-t >s
0 0
M C
O CO
o o
•H
°T^ M
CO (D
0) S
JgJ «^
CO _HT
o o o
0 0 O
O O O
»\ ON *\
»/\ m o
0 0 O
rH H IT\
•"*
1 — 1
-&9" -t/5~ ^
M
CO
a G cu
CD O ilO
-P 0 CD
CO CD >H
>) m w
w ^
(D G W w £?
bD «H K co
^ ^d ^^ *d rd
^n ^S G G
a> H K co o
iJ C' O O< O
Q> C P>n X D
m -H H co
<
g
J>3
>» -P TS
-P °iH G
C «J O
d o a
O -£4 A=3
O -P O
3 «H
>s
A3 S-" -P
H 0) -H
<; w o
rH rH
0)
H
H CO
•H 0)
i
-P tJ
-p a
O CO O
H 0) g
in M A3
CO 3
-P
G
^
O
C^
*-rJ
rH
(X)
•H
Cf.^
^
0)
-P
tl'
CD
A3
0
OJ
o
o
o
•s
o
o\
CM
O
O
0
<^
o
0
o
T\
-^
0)
so
03
£-1
CD
^
CO
"S "c
co O
ft o
X ci)
w w
r^
-P
G
3
O
r ^
O
^~
»H
'M
£^
GJ
W
CO
o I-
o
o
f\
o
(TN
CM
**~^
H
•s. ^
0
o\
U"\
CM
CM
*\
rH
-P
O
,-,
GCM
cO^ — '
ft
o
u
fn
0)
ft
03
O
rH
^
fO
a
&
rH
<
-^t'
tfe
O
0
*"l
o
i-H
**—*%
f-i
^_jf
O
o
o
*^
o
LT\
rH
4-^
CJ
0)
f^
G
O
$_t
o
r?
CO
"d
c^
O
O
^)
CO
>>
c
CO
f-^
0
o
o
£-4
0)
ft
r"5
i — I
£0
:-•
r
f77"
^D
fo
ir\
^
f%
CO
f — 1
CD
PD
"a
'H
c
r3
s
Q
-P
i^-v.
d
FH
0)
-p
3
o
U3
80
O
0
*\
LT\
H
*•— - ^
H
v, s
0
8
B\
0
o
C]
4-1
o
o
c
fl A4
o r/5
rH 1 — '
O CO
ft
r^'o
CO -H
t3 G
G 3
0 g
C
0) O
CO -P
J>^
G
CO
ft
s
,-°
^— ^
^-. T5
l^J f*-l
Pi CC
0} C1
05
' — 1 (U
03 CO
ii}
'D
a>
fo
vd
-------
rH
q
q -P
< 02
O
rH O
TO
-p
o
H
o
o
o
o^
o
CM
CO
O
O
0
UA
r—
-^
CM
•*r>
O
8
o"
•*&•
o
o
o
o
OA
o
o
o
cT
CO
0
O
O
o"
UA
cvj
O
o
o
UA
f-
CM
O
O
o^
o^
vO
O
o
c^
UA
CM
CM
8
o
CT\
III - 9
o
o
o
UA
CM
O
o
O
UA
O
rH
H
-te-
o
•H
•P
O -P
3 W
fn O
-P O
W
q
o
o
'H
"o
8
o
o
c-
-ee-
rH
"o
o
o
-3-
§
UA
f-
t-
_-nT
co
•us-
o
o
o^
a
o
CO
-t&-
a
UA
CM
CM
rH
O
o
o^
o
o
o
o
o"
o
co
CO
CO
o
o
o
o"
o
CO
8
o^
o
o
o
co
0
8
UA
CM
CM
rH
o
o
c^
a
UA
co
o
o
o^
o
o
o^
UA
rH
-69-
CD
q
•H
-P
q
o
o
M CQ
•o
CD
J>3
-p"
•H
H
• H
_o
•r-l
w
a
o
P
CO
CD
q
o
•H
-P
CO
O
o
, — „,
in
CD
G
•H
.p
q
0
o
^_^
CO
CD
rH
r^
q
o
a
Cj
V
•H
K
-P
O
0)
q
G PU
O H
O CO
rH H
O CO
ft
fH 'O
CO -H
•d q
q 3
o a
o
CD O
CO -P
r*>
q
CO
ft
gj
o
o
fH
CD
ft
CO
T3
fH
CO
r£|J
q
CO
-P
CO
•
c—
-p
o
0)
G
G PH
O fH
o ro
fH rH
O CO
ft
t>l «H
^
CD
t3
G
O
O
CD
03
rH
H
CD
^
CD
ft
O
W
CH
O
f>^
+3
•H
O
•
H
1
CO
fH
CD
-P
CD
PH
H
rH
CD
|s
CD
^>
^
CO
q
o
o
CD
HO
1
W
F*H
(D
-p
0)
PH
CH
o
^a
-P
•H
CJ
•
CM
CO
fH
<
iaO
^
^j
fH
CO
rrj
q
o
o
CD
CO
W
-p
,G
UO
•H
CD
W
rH
CO
•H
q
o
rH
o
o
<4_l
0
K">
-p
•H
O
•
ro
fH
O
•P
>, q
fH 9)
CO H
•O CO
q >
O -H
O 0
03 W
J>5
q
CO
ft
a
o
o
rH
CD f N
O H
•rj CO
a CD
CD *^
.q a
C? CD
rG
tJ O
CD ^— ^
•H
H
rH
> G
fH CD
CO rH
*^3 CO
G >
0 -H
O ^
CD CT1
03 W
^>
q
CO
ft
S
o
0
H
CO
O
•H
fi ^~^
0) O
^! fH
O -P
•H
13 S
CD
•H
H
rH
<£
•
UA
fH
o
-p
>> q
fH 0)
CO H
TJ CQ
q >
0 -H
O 0
> q
fn CD
CO rH
^3 ^
G >
0 -H
CJ 3
CD D1
W W
r"*
C
cd
P!
£<
0
o
G
CO
o
rH
CO
-P
C
CD
G
•H
-P
q
0
o
•
t —
fH
O
•p
>> q
fn a)
CO H
•O CO
q >
O -H
O 3
CD O*
03 W
r*5
r^J
CO
ft
a
0
o
f-f
CD
Jj
O
PH
CO
CD
H
0
CJ
fH
CD
•
CO
!>>
^
CO
r)
q
0
o
0)
fH
CO
-p
•H q
rH O
•H .rl
S -P
C5
CD >
CD fn
i-^ CD
CO
-P CD
fn O-H
O
Cn
*
Q\
ftrQ
o
W
-------
Ill - 10
§
G
C
< w
O
H O
CO
-P
O
C
O
•H
-P
O -P
3 09
fc O
-P O
ra
O
O
•d
§
c
•H
•P
c
o
o
I
«
-d
4)
a)
is
-69-
•€«-
H
0>
o
P5
O CO
-p fl)
ft i)
a <
CO
w
8
o
o
OJ
H
O
8
o
o
r-T
§
CM
CM
O
8
8
CO
8
t-
H
O
O
O
o
o
ir\
CM
O
8
ir\
0
8
8
CM
O O
80
o
Lf\ O
CM UA
H
0 0
8 8
0 0
o o
r-T
§
s
00^
r-l
-69-
O
O
cT
s
co
OJ
§
s
CM
lf\
<*
O
cT
OJ
oo
ON
c-
CO
•d
c
o
o
v
co
•P
c
co
-p
c
•H
o
a,
v
•i
CO
co
1
o
a>
CO
-p
c
co
M
CO
-P
CO
O
pq
O
b b
%4 H
to co
T3 tHJ
§ §
o o
v o>
co co
•p
G
G a
4) to
£Xl -P
M
^j o
O Pm
-P
CO
co
•s
o
o
V
CO
CO
-p
•H
H
•H
to o
°i-i °H
-P -P
03 CO
&q r«
•P Ki
o
-p
»H O (
O fei
CM OO
CO
3
CO
-p
CO
o
o
-p
fi
CO
rH
ft
-p
c
I
-p
CO
4>
CO
ft
•H
O
c
CO
.p
•H
O
CO
-P
G
J
so
0)
-p
CO
CO
ft
W
03
CO
-P
TO
(P
-P
CO
O
o
OJ
-------
Ill - 11
TABLE III
FLOW REGULATION FOR WATER QUALITY CONTROL
Location
Responsibility
Existing or
Potential Need
Covington
Lynchburg
of Engineers
(Gathright Project)
Corps of Engineers
Richmond
Corps of Engineers
Jackson River - 67,000
acre-feet of storage to pro-
vide supplemental flov for
water quality control.
Potential need for storage to
provide supplemental flow for
water quality control on the
James River in the Lynchburg
area.
Potential need for storage to
provide supplemental flow for
water quality control on the
James River in the Richmond
area.
Location
TABLE IV
SPECIAL STUDIES NEEDED IN THE BASIN
Responsibility
Need
Covington
Lynchburg Area
Charlottesville
Hopewell
Paper Industry
Paper Industry
City of Charlottes-
ville and State of
Virginia
Local industries, City
of Hopewell, and Fort
Lee Military Reserva-
tion.
Color removal from paper wastes,
Color removal from paper wastes
1. Study relocation of STP out-
falls from Moore's Creek to
stream having a more depend-
able assimilation capacity.
2. Study nutrient enrichment
problems in the Rivanna
reservoir.
Study relocation of waste dis-
charges from Bailey Creek to
James River Channel.
-------
Ill - 12
Location
TABLE IV (Continued)
Responsibility
Need
Richmond
Basin-wide
James Estuary
Richmond
City of Richmond
FWPCA and State of
Virginia
FWPCA and State of
Virginia
City of Richmond
Investigate purchase of
Kanawha Canal water rights
to prevent low flow diversion
from James River Channel.
Develop basin-wide compre-
hensive study.
Study nutrient enrichment
problems in the estuary to
evaluate control needs.
Investigate possible solutions
to problems associated with
the combined sewerage system.
TABLE V
INSTITUTIONAL PRACTICES NEEDED IN THE BASIN
Location Responsibility
Need
Basin-wide
Basin-wide
Richmond Area
Basin-wide
State of Virginia
State of Virginia
Local Government
Local Government
Consider legislation to pro-
vide appropriations for State
participation in grants for
construction of sewage treat-
ment works.
Legislation, if necessary,
enabling approved surveillance
of industrial waste loads.
Consider the establishment of
a centralized water pollution
control authority for the area.
Reduce infiltration problem by
strengthening plumbing codes
in house connections and em-
phasizing infiltration tests
on new constructions„
-------
IV - 1
IV. GENERAL BASIN DESCRIPTION
The James River Basin is narrow and irregular with head-
waters in the Allegheny Mountains at the West Virginia State line,
and the River flows generally southeasterly 3^0 miles through
four physiographic regions : the Valley and Ridge, the Blue Ridge,
the Piedmont, and the Coastal Plain. The total area drained is
10,060 square miles, of which 80 are in West Virginia at the edge
of the Appalachian region. There is a total fall of 988 feet
from the headwaters to the "Fall Line" separating the Piedmont
and Coastal Plain at Richmond. From this point, the James is
an estuary that joins the Chesapeake Bay at Hampton Roads.
Captain John Smith, in describing the James River Basin,
wrote: "Heaven and earth never agreed better to frame a place
for man's habitation." The observation is appropriate. The
Area has a mild climate, without extremes in temperature, and
there is adequate, well-distributed rainfall to encourage agri-
cultural development of the rich soil. Preceding the colonists,
the Indians developed a successful though primitive agriculture.
As the colonists increased, European farming methods were adapted
to the new plant species; tobacco was introduced to the Old World,
and agricultural development spread first in the Coastal Plain
and then to the Piedmont. To this date agriculture remains a
primary activity of the Area.
-------
IV - 2
Industry also dates back to colonial times. The forest
resources provided lumber as well as charcoal for making iron
from the native ore, and eventually pulp for paper making which
is now one of the largest industries in the State. The extensive
chemical industry existing in the Basin today had its beginnings
in the manufacture of indigo, tannin, tars, and turpentine.
Transportation by water opened the land, first to the
head of the Estuary at Richmond and, later, with development
of The Kanawha Canal system to beyond the Blue Ridge. Highways
and railroads facilitated the movement of population to major
communities at Petersburg, Lynchburg, Charlottesville, and
Covington. The estuarine area offered the convenience of deep
water shipping to Hopewell, Newport News, Portsmouth, and Norfolk.
As population increased in the developing communities,
public sewer systems were constructed, many being designed to
convey both storm and sanitary wastes, and the James River became
the recipient of untreated discharges from several population
centers in the Basin. Consequently, the River essentially became,
in several reaches, an open sewer with water quality becoming
increasingly less suitable for most beneficial uses. With the
enactment of the Virginia Water Control Law in 19^6, pollution
control programs were formulated, and the arduous task of abating
pollution in the James River began. Much progress has been made,
but the ravages of the past are still evident. The sewage from
-------
IV - 3
populated areas is generally treated, but not as completely as
desirable, and the industrial waste discharges fall far short
of the treatment required to restore the quality of waters to
a level acceptable for most beneficial uses.
An analysis of the Basin by areas discharging significant
waste loads to local watersheds will serve to identify the problems,
suggest corrective actions, and estimate costs for needed actions.
-------
V - 1
V0 WATER POLLUTION PROBLEMS, NEEDS AND COSTS
A, The Covington-Clifton Forge Area
1. Jackson River Watershed
a. Pertinent Hydrologic Characteristics
The Jackson River joins with the Cowpasture River approx-
imately 22 miles below Covington to form the James River. This
section of the Jackson River is shallow, rocky-bottomed and
contains alternating stretches of riffles and pools. During
the dry season nearly all of the base flow in the river is pro-
vided by springs, most of which are upstream from Covington.
The drainage area to the head of the reach at Covington below
Dunlop Creek is 6lO square miles. The flow through the reach
has been assumed equal to the summation of the flows at the
Falling Spring gage on the Jackson River (DA = U09 square miles)
and the Dunlop Creek gage near Covington (DA « 166 square miles).
During the dry season very little, if any, flow is added to the
reach downstream from these two gages.
The minimum daily flow recorded at the Falling Spring
gage is 57 cfs, and the average discharge for the period of
record is 480 cfs. The minimum and average daily discharges
recorded at the Dunlop Creek gage are 9 cfs and 157 cfs, res-
pectively.
The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers' Gathright Project is
located on the Jackson River above Covington. Plans for this
-------
V - 2
project, expected to be completed in the early 1970'3, include
provisions for 60,700 acre feet of storage for water quality
control.
b. Current Water Quality
The Jackson River below Covington is annually afflicted
with depressed dissolved oxygen conditions during the dry summer
months. Table VI is a summary of dissolved oxygen measurements
made during a one-week intensive survey in July of 1966. These
low dissolved oxygen conditions are the result of heavy organic
loadings to the stream at Covington.
TABLE VI
SUMMARY OF DO DATA COLLECTED DURING 1966 INTENSIVE SURVEY
ON THE JACKSON RIVER BELOW COVINGTON, VIRGINIA
July 10-16, 1966
STATION
LOCATION
Covington Filter Plant
VEPCO Substation
Fudge ' s Bridge
Hercules Plant Bridge
Route 18 Bridge
Low Moor Bridge
Old Boat Landing
Swinging Bridge
Route 60 Bridge
Iron Gate Bridge
NUMBER
OF
SAMPLES
3±
3^
15
5
3U
3^
29
19
3U
3^
AVERAGE
DO
mg/1
7.1
0.3
o.i*
0.7
O.U
1.2
1-9
2M
2.6
3.9
MINIMUM
DO
mg/1
5-9
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.8
MAXIMUM
DO
mg/1
9.1
1.2
0.6
1.1
0.6
2-9
U.3
U.3
k.k
5.6
-------
V - 3
A biological survey made during the summer of 1966 shows
pollution tolerant organisms to be dominant among the bottom
fauna for the sections of the Jackson River between Covington
and Clifton Forge. Appendix A is a complete report of that survey.
A review of survey data from past studies by other inves-
tigators indicates that quality problems have existed in this
area during low stream flows for a number of years. A survey
and report made by the U. S. Public Health Service to the Army
Corps of Engineers in 19^5, shows water quality conditions to
have been nearly the same as were found during the 1966 survey,
even though considerable pollution abatement measures have been
taken.
c. Major Sources of Waste and Present Pollution
Abatement Practices
Table VII lists the major waste contributors, their present
load and type of treatment. West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company,
at Covington, is seen to be the largest producer of biologically
degradable waste, and even though this company maintains a secon-
dary treatment plant, the discharged waste load represents about
75 per cent of the present total load to the stream in the area.
The Towns of Covington, Clifton Forge, Iron Gate, and Selma provide
primary treatment for their municipal wastes and Low Moor presently
discharges its waste untreated into Karnes Creek, a tributary to
the Jackson River.
-------
V - U
Although the West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company waste
treatment plant operates at an average annual efficiency of 85
per cent removal or better, the variability of treatment efficiency
is apparently large, resulting in a considerably increased load
to the stream on occasion. During the summer months treatment
variability may be critical, and some provision is needed to
assure a more uniform efficiency. Subsequent analyses in this
report are based upon the assumption of uniform treatment efficiency
for this and all other waste discharges. Approximately one-fourth
of the load discharged by the industry does not receive treatment.
A somewhat unusual condition exists in this section of
the river during low stream flows when the West Virginia Pulp
and Paper Company effluent comprises more than half of the avail-
able Jackson River flow. The resulting mixture of waste and river
flow produces an immediate low DO water due to the lack of oxygen
in the waste effluent. Efforts have been made by the industry to
aerate the river by using instream mechanical aerators.
-------
V - 5
TABLE VII
PRINCIPAL WASTE DISCHARGES
IN THE COVINGTOW-CLIFTON FORGE AREA
Location
Covington
Clifton Forge
Low Moor
Iron Gate
Selma
West Virginia Pulp
and Paper Company
Total for Water
Type of
Waste
Municipal
Municipal
Municipal
Municipal
Municipal
Industrial
Service Area
Type of
Efficiency of
Waste Removal
Primary
Primary
None
Primary
Primary
Secondary
Waste Load
Discharged
P E
8,500
5,000
600
600
700
50,000
65 ,*K)0
d. Recommended Immediate Pollution Control Needs
The provision of storage for water quality control in
the proposed Gathright Reservoir was computed on the basis of
a minimum of secondary treatment, or its equivalent in BOD removal
by all waste contributors. The largest waste contributor, the
West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company, is presently providing
secondary treatment to approximately 96 per cent of its total
waste flows. Additional capacity to treat the remaining k per
cent9 which represents one-fourth of the total load discharged
to the river by the Company, is recommended. In addition to
increasing the treatment capability to handle all of the waste
-------
V - 6
produced by the paper company, some provision should be made to
reduce the variability in waste load discharged to the stream
during the critical months. The municipalities and communities
in the area (see Table VII) should increase their waste removal
facilities to provide secondary treatment either individually
or in a centralized treatment unit.
The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers' Gathright Project,
for which construction approval has been granted, should be
expedited. This reservoir will provide 60,700 acre feet of
storage for water quality control. The annual cost allocated
to water quality control by this project is estimated to be
$75,000.
Cost for increasing treatment in the area to 85 per
cent BOD removal is estimated to be $55,000 per year for a
total cost, including flow augmentation, of $130,000 per year
to satisfy immediate pollution control requirements in the
Covington-Clifton Forge area.
Because of the large volume of waste relative to the
low stream flows, it is further recommended that no waste be
discharged to the river with a DO of less than 2.0 mg/1.
e. Water Supply Needs
Table VIII shows the present and projected water supply
requirements for the Covington-Clifton Forge area through 2020.
The bulk of both the present and projected needs are for indus-
trial purposes. Nearly all of the 38.9 mgd presently being
-------
V - 7
used is from surface water supplies, primarily the Jackson River.
The City of Covington obtains its municipal water from a Jackson
River intake at Clearwater Park. Below this intake at Covington,
the West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company withdraws an average of
35 mgd from the Jackson River for industrial use. The water
requirements projected for 1980 and 2020 exceed minimum Jackson
River flows; howevers all of these needs are primarily for a
single industrial use. Any plan to develop additional water
supply capacity must allow for changes to consider industrial
processes that may make drastic changes in the water requirements
for that industry.
TABLE VIII
PRESENT AND PROJECTED WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE COVINGTON-CLIFTON FORGE AREA
Municipal
Industrial
TOTAL
Average
1965
33
35.6
38.9
Daily
1980
3A
68.3
72
Demand (mgd)
2020
4.6
80.0
85
B. Lexington-Buena Vista Area
1. Maury River Watershed
a. Pertinent Hydrologic Characteristics
The Maury River enters the James River at Glasgow, Virginia,
(River Mile 279-8) and drains a watershed of approximately
-------
v - 8
700 square miles. The U. S. G, S. gaging station near Buena
Vista on this river drains 6^9 square miles. The average and
minimum daily discharges at the gage are 6kO cfs and 50 cfs,
respectively,
b. Present Water Quality
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports (see Appen-
dix B) that frequent light fish kills occur in the Maury River
between its mouth and Buena Vista, approximately 12.5 miles
upstream. At the time of this report, no chemical data was
available from which to ascertain the cause of these kills;
however, large organic waste loads, primarily of industrial
origin, are discharged to the stream in this area, and it is
reasonable to assume that low dissolved oxygen content is at
least partially responsible.
c. Major Sources of Waste and Present Pollution
Abatement Practices
As far as can be determined from the limited available
data, approximately three-fourths of the organic waste discharged
to the Maury River in this area originates from an industrial
wool scouring process (James Lee & Sons) at Glasgow, Virginia,
where the Maury River merges with the James, This and other
industrial and municipal waste discharges in the area are listed
in Table IX together with an estimate of their respective waste
loads. Total population equivalents discharged to local water
courses is approximately ^9,000.
-------
v - 9
TABLE IX
PRINCIPAL WASTE DISCHARGES
IN THE LEXINGTON-BUENA VISTA AREA
Location
Buena Vista
Glasgow
Lexington
James Lee & Sons
James Lee & Sons
Type of
Waste
Municipal
Municipal
Municipal
Sanitary
Industrial
Type or
Efficiency of
Waste Removal
Primary
Primary
Primary
Secondary
Acid cracked and
Waste Load
Discharged
P E
^,600
900
5,300
200
38,000
Lagooned
Bonded Fibers Industrial None 200
Total for Water Service Area ^9,200
d. Recommended Immediate Pollution Control Needs
To meet the minimum treatment requirements recommended in
this report, all waste contributors must expand their present
waste removal facilities to provide secondary treatment or
equivalent. This can be done at an estimated total cost of
$^5,000 (per year).
Due to high dilution provided by the Maury River and
the fact that the area population is relatively stable (see
Appendix C), secondary treatment or its equivalent will probably
resolve the stream quality problems in this area.
-------
MA.,
-------
V - 11
TABLE X
PRESENT AND PROJECTED WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE LEXINGTON-BUENA VISTA AREA
Average Daily Demand (mgd)
1965 1980 2020
Municipal 2,0 3,1 3.6
Industrial 13,6 2^.0 2k
TOTAL 15.6 27.1 2^6
G„ Lynehburg Area
lo James River Watershed
a„ Pertinent Hydrologic Characteristics
The James Rivei between Big Island and Bent Creek} some
k? miles of stream, averages approximately 7 feet in depth under
summer flow conditions. The river emerges from the Blue Ridge
Mountains on the Piedmont physiographic province, and a somewhat
more uniform river bed and channel gradient is found. The river
flow is regulated to meet peak power loads at several run-of-the-
river dams upstream from Lynehburgo The Army Corps of Engineers'
Gathright Project on the upper Jackson River, when completed in
the early 1970's, will provide 60,700 acre-feet of storage for
low flow augmentation.
Stream flow in this section of the James River has been
referenced to the U0 S „ G. S. gaging station at Holcombs Rocko
The drainage area above the gage is 3,250 square miles, and the
mean and minimum daily flows recorded are 3>^92 and 223 cfs,
respectively,
-------
V - 12
b. Present Water Quality
Table XI summarizes the dissolved oxygen data collected
during the 1966 intensive survey of the James River. These
data, supported by past studies of other investigators, evidence
recurrent water quality problems in this section of the James
River. During low flow conditions, two dissolved oxygen sags
are seen to occur in the river; one between Big Island and
Lynchburg and the other below Lynchburg, Occasional light fish
kills have been observed below Lynchburg and complaints have
been made by the local citizens that the fish caught in this
area have a bad taste.
A biological study of this section of the river (see
Appendix A) shows evidence of moderate to heavy degradation.
The U, S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports (see Appendix A)
that approximately 7 miles of the James River in this area
is adversely affected by municipal and industrial pollution.
-------
V - 13
TABLE XI
SUMMARY OF D 0 DATA COLLECTED
OH THE JAMES RIVER BELOW
Station Location
Parkway Bridge
Skimmer Creek
Coleman Falls West
Coleman Falls East
Holcomb Rock
Lynchburg
Six Mile Bridge
Galtz Mill
Stapleton
Eades ' Laundry
Riverville
Allen's Creek
Number
of
Samples
3k
3k
3k
3k
3k
3^
3k
3k
3k
3k
3k
3k
DURING 1966 INTENSIVE
BIG ISLAN^JTIRGINIA
Average
D 0
mg/1
6.U
k.k
3.6
6.0
7.2
6.6
2.0
2.5
2.9
3.3
k.l
5.3
Minimum
D 0
mg/1
5.7
2.5
1.8
5.1
6,0
k.7
0.6
1.3
0 = 9
1 = 5
2.9
3*k
SURVEY
Maximum
D 0
mg/1
7.1
5.9
6.0
6.9
7.6
11.5
U.I
3o7
k.6
k.Q
6.9
6.9
c. Major Sources of Waste and Present Pollution
Abatement Practices
Organic wastes resulting from pulp and paper production
along with municipal wastes constitute the major sources of
oxygen demanding waste discharged to the James River in this
area. Table XII lists the major contributors, their present
loads, and type of treatment„ Under present treatment practices,
a total of 2^6,000 population equivalents of biologically degradable
-------
V - lU
waste Is discharged dally into the local watercourses. About
85 per cent of this load is of an industrial origin. None of
the principal waste contributors presently provides secondary
waste treatment or its equivalent in removal of oxygen demanding
wastes with the exception of the Owens-Illinois Paper Plant
located on the James at Big Island, Virginia„ This plant has
reduced its losses to the river by approximately 85 per cent
through process changes. The Mead Corporation, another large
paper plant located in Lynchburg, Virginia, has also reduced
its losses by about 65 per cent through process changes. The
City of Lynchburg has a conventional primary treatment plant for
its municipal wastes.
TABLE XII
PRINCIPAL WASTE
DISCHARGES
IN THE LYNCHBURG AREA
Location
Lynchburg
Madiscr: Heights
Lynch'o org Render ing
Mead Corporation
Owens-Illinois
Type of
Waste
Municipal
Municipal
Industrial
Industrial
Industrial
Type or
Efficiency of
Waste Removal
Primary
Primary
20%
In Process (65$)
In Process (85$)
Waste Load
Discharged
P E
32, UOO
1,000
1,000
12U,QQO
89,000
Total for Water Service Area
2^6,000
-------
V - 14
waste is discharged daily into the local watercourses. About
85 per cent of this load is of an industrial origin. None of
the principal waste contributors presently provides secondary
waste treatment or its equivalent in removal of oxygen demanding
wastes with the exception of the Owens-Illinois Paper Plant
located on the James at Big Island, Virginia. This plant has
reduced its losses to the river by approximately 85 per cent
through process changes. The Mead Corporation, another large
paper plant located in Lynchburg, Virginia, has also reduced
its losses by about 35 per cent of previous losses through
process changes. The City of Lynchburg has a conventional
primary treatment plant for its municipal wastes.
TABLE XII
PRINCIPAL WASTE DISCHARGES
Location
Lynchburg
Madison Heights
Lynchburg Rendering
Mead Corporation
Owens-Illinois
IN THE LYNCHBURG
Type of
Waste
Municipal
Munic ipa 1
Industrial
Industrial
Industrial
AREA
Type or
Efficiency of
Waste Removal
Primary
Primary
20 %
In Process (65$)
In Process (85$)
Waste Load
Discharged
P E
32,UOO
1,000
1,000
12^,000
89,000
Total for Water Service Area 2^6,000
-------
V - 15
d. Recommended Immediate Pollution Control Needs
The reduction of all wastes by secondary treatment or
equivalent BOD removal is recommended as the most urgent pollu-
tion control need for this important area. The resultant waste
load from these actions would be ho per cent less than the load
presently being discharged and the dissolved oxygen at the critical
point below Lynchburg would improve from 2.0 mg/1 average measured
during the 1966 survey to 5 mg/1 under the same flow and tempera-
ture conditions.
The estimated total cost for the area to meet this
minimum treatment requirement is $230,000 per year.
The completion of Gathright Reservoir on the upper
Jackson River will permit increase in dry season river flows
and thereby reduce the severity and frequency of critically low
dissolved oxygen conditions.
e. Water Supply Needs
Municipal and industrial water supply requirements pre-
sently total approximately 30 mgd for the Lynchburg area. All
but about 0.2 mgd of this supply is met from surface water sources
and about 20 mgd is for industrial uses. The Owens-Illinois
Paper Company at Big Island, upstream from Lynchburg on the James,
and the Mead Corporation, also a paper plant, are the largest
industrial users in the area. Both companies obtain their water
from the James River and Mead's intake is located downstream from
the point of discharge of Owens-Illinois waste water.
-------
-------
v - 16
The City of Lynchburg maintains a water supply reservoir
on the Pedlar River, a tributary of the James, and has an auxiliary
capability on the James River itself.
Water supply needs for the area are projected to increase
to 88 mgd by the year 2020. Table XIII is a breakdown of projected
requirements for municipal and industrial use.
The projected total requirement for the year 2020 is well
below the minimum James River flow of record as recorded at the
Holcomb's Rock gage. The minimum flow at this gage was about 150
mgd compared to the total projected water supply requirement of
88 mgd.
No additional water supply development is indicated for
this area.
TABLE XIII
PRESENT AND PROJECTED WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE LYNCHBURG AREA
Municipal
Industrial
Average
1965
10
20
Daily
1980
18
30
Demand (mgd)
2020
61
27
TOTAL 30 1*8
-------
V - 17
2. Buffalo River Watershed
a« Pertinent Hydrologic Characteristics
The Buffalo River flows southeast out of Amherst County
and joins the James River at Norwood in Nelson County. The river
drains a watershed of 360 square miles and the critical 7-day
drought discharge is approximately 0.09^ cfs per square mile.
The mean discharge at Norwood is kjb cfs.
The principal tributary of the Buffalo River is the Tye
River which joins the Buffalo River approximately 5 miles above
Norwood. Piney River, a tributary of the Tye River, drains a
watershed of approximately 50 square miles and contributes a
mean flow of 87 cfs.
b. Present Water Quality
Chemical water quality surveys of the Buffalo River and
tributaries were not conducted by the CB-SRBP for this report,
but reports of investigations by other agencies (see Appendix B)
indicate that Piney River is grossly polluted with acid wastes.
Fishing resources are totally eliminated in the stream, and the
acid wastes contributed by Piney River affects water quality
downstream to the confluence of the Buffalo and James Rivers.
The pH in Buffalo River at Norwood averages 3°5 • A recording
pH meter at Wingina, operated by the American Cyanamid Company,
indicates pH levels range from 6 to 7 in the James River below
the mouth of the Buffalo River.
-------
V - 18
c. Major Sources of Waste and Present Pollution
Abatement Practices
The source of the acid waste discharge to Piney River
is an American Cyanamid Company plant located seventeen river
miles above Norwood. The plant produces titanium dioxide from
locally mined titanium, using sulfuric acid, and the diluted
used acid is discharged to the river. The average discharge to
the river is about 68 tons of acid per day.
d. Recommended Immediate Pollution Control Needs
To enhance and protect the water quality of streams in
the Buffalo River watershed and to reduce the possibility of
contributing damaging acid wastes to the James River, the American
Cyanamid Company should take necessary action to alleviate the
acid waste problem in Piney River.
Neutralization or acid reclamation processes should be
employed as required to reduce acid discharges to levels which
will not adversely affect water quality in the watershed.
D. Charlottesville Area
1. Rivanna River Watershed
a. Pertinent Hydrologic and Physical Characteristics
The Rivanna River drains a watershed of approximately
700 square miles, 500 of which lie above the Charlottesville Area.
The average and minimum daily discharges recorded at the U.S.G.S.
gaging station at Palmyra (DA = 6l7 square miles) are 68l cfs
-------
V - 19
and 11 cfs, respectively. At Charlottesville, the several streams
draining the eastern front of the Blue Ridge Mountains converge
to form a relatively mature river as the Rivanna flows out onto
the Piedmont Plateau and then to the James River some 35 river
miles downstream from Charlottesville.
b. Present Water Quality
Chemical water quality surveys were not conducted in the
Charlottesville Area for this report. Biological observations,
however, have been made by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
and a report from that agency (see Appendix B) reveals problems
with regard to the fish population in three reaches of the Rivanna
and its tributaries. The main stem of the Rivanna River in the
Charlottesville vicinity is shown to suffer light losses in
potential fish population. Moores Creek is unable to support a
fish population and the Mechum River, for almost ten miles above
its confluence with the South Fork of the Rivanna, is reported
to be severely affected.
c. Major Sources of Waste and Present Pollution
Abatement Practices
All of the foregoing water quality problems are the result
of municipal and industrial waste discharges. The major contributors
are: the City of Charlottesville, affecting the Moores Creek and
Rivanna River reaches, and Morton's Frozen Food Corporation in
the Crozet Area, affecting the Mechum River reach. The City of
Charlottesville presently operates two secondary treatment plants
-------
V - 20
designed to serve a total population of approximately l4-3>000.
Both plants discharge their effluents to small tributaries
(Moores Creek and Meadow Creek) which flow into the main stream
of the Rivanna River.
Morton's discharges its food processing waste into a
small tributary of the Mechum River after treatment by an acti-
vated sludge plant which was placed in operation in November
1966. Waste from this industry has been the primary source of
pollution in the Mechum River for a number of years. This recent
pollution abatement action is expected to effect considerable
improvement in river water quality.
The Albemarle County Service Authority operates several
lagoons in county residential areas, and plans for a sewerage
system for the west central county area have been made. The
system, including a secondary treatment plant, would intercept
sanitary and industrial wastes emanating from the Crozet Area.
d. Recommended Immediate Pollution Control Needs
Charlottesville's two waste treatment plants discharge
to small tributaries (Meadow Creek and Moores Creek) which,
during the dry season, provide little or no flow for dilution
of the effluent. Without detailed study, the indicated solution
to achievement of the water quality objectives in these tribu-
taries is to pipe the effluent to the nearest receiving water
having a higher and more dependable assimilative capacity. An
-------
V - 21
alternative to changing the outfall location would be to provide
advanced waste treatment. However, cost estimates of these two
alternatives have not been made. A comprehensive study of the
James River Basin should consider these and other alternatives
for achieving specific water quality objectives in this area.
The Albemarle County Service Authority Crozet Project
would enhance development in the Crozet Area and also provide
additional capacity for treatment of industrial wastes, including
Morton's Frozen Foods discharges if required. The estimated
cost of the proposed Crozet project is $1,^00,000.
e. Water Supply Needs
Several small water supply reservoirs provide raw water
storage for the City of Charlottesville, the largest water user
in the water service area, which has an average daily use varying
from U.7 to 6.2 mgd. An auxiliary intake is located on the
Mechum River and a new 1.76 billion gallon raw water reservoir
has been constructed on the South Fork of the Rivanna River.
Adequate surface water supplies are available to meet the pro-
jected water supply needs through the year 2020. Table XIV
shows the projected water supply requirements for the Charlottes-
ville water service area.
-------
V - 22
TABLE XIV
PRESENT AMD PROJECTED WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE CHARLOTTESVILLE AREA
Municipal
Industrial
TOTAL
Average
1965
U .8
0.5
5-3
Daily
1980
8.9
1.0
10
Demand
2020
lU
2
16
E. Richmond Area
1. James River Watershed
a. Pertinent Hydrologic Characteristics
At Richmond, the James River flows across the Fall Line,
which delineates the eastern edge of the Piedmont physiographic
province, and onto the Coastal Plain„ As a consequence, the
James River falls approximately 75 feet in 6 miles at Richmond
and below Richmond becomes a tidal estuary.
Above Richmondj at Bosher Dam, the Kanawha Canal diverts
a portion of the James River flow from the main channel and
returns it to the river at tidewater. The U. S. G. S. maintains
gaging stations on both the Canal and the river. The mean and
minimum combined flows at both gages, which is estimated to be
the flow to the estuary, is 7,351 cfs and 350 cfs, respectively.
-------
V - 23
During drought conditions such as have occurred during
recent years, all of the river flow is sometimes diverted into
the Kanawha Canal at Bosher Dam, producing conditions of little
or no flow in the main river channel between the diversion dam
and tidewater. The diverted flows are utilized by the City of
Richmond and local industrial concerns which own water rights
in the Canal (see paragraph e.).
b. Present Water Quality
The water quality of the James River below Richmond is
adversely affected by waste discharges from the Richmond Area
during the hot, dry summer months to the extent that the river
is unfit for most beneficial uses. Dissolved oxygen concentra-
tions are frequently less than 1 mg/1, fish kills occur, and
gasifying sludge deposits float to the surface during warm
low flow periods. Table XV summarizes some dissolved oxygen
analyses made by the City of Richmond in the tidal James.
The Boulevard Bridge Station is located upstream from
most waste discharges in the Fall Zone and the terminal station
is upstream from the city's sewage treatment plant. Although
the river is seen to be recovering at the Dutch Gap station,
which is about 12 miles below the sewage treatment plant, the
appearance of the river seriously limits its recreational and
aesthetic use downstream to the Hopewell Area. Eutrophication
processes accelerated by nutrient enrichment from municipal and
industrial wastes are among the contributing factors of this
-------
V - 2k
degradation. The extent of this eutrophieation and possible
decelerating actions will be examined in a FVIPCA comprehensive
project report scheduled for a later date.
TABLE XV
SUMMARY OF DO DATA COLLECTED
BY CITY OF RICHMOND DURING JULY AND AUGUST 1966
STATION
LOCATION
Boulevard Bridge
Intermediate Terminal
Light 168
DuPont Intake
Light 166
Dutch Gap
NUMBER
OF
SAMPLES
10
10
10
10
10
3
AVERAGE
DO
mg/1
7.1
1.9
.k
• 9
.8
3.5
MINIMUM
DO
mg/1
5.1
0
0
0
0
1.7
MAXIMUM
DO
mg/1
8.2
M
2.5
3.7
*.9
*.9
Above the head of tidewater, in that section of the river
below the Canal diversion, low flow conditions result in near
stagnant pools which become nutrient enriched from urban run-off
and combined sewer discharges. This enrichment, in turn, promotes
the growth of phyto-plankton and algal blooms often occur. Thus,
the major part of the river within the city is rendered unfit for
any use and is a potential health hazard under low flow conditions.
-------
V - 25
Attesting to the seriousness of the problem is the
current awareness and concern being expressed by both public
and civic leaders in the Richmond area.
c. Major Sources of Waste and Pollution
Abatement Practices
Both municipal and industrial wastes contribute to the
problem at Richmond. Several industries discharge their waste
to the city sewerage system and are treated at the city's
primary waste treatment plant. A few significantly large
industrial wastes are discharged directly to the local water-
courses. Table XVI is a list of the principal waste discharges
in the area, their present treatment, and waste effluent loads.
The City of Richmond's current plans call for the provision of
secondary treatment of all municipal wastes, including certain
areas in Henrico County, by the early 1970's. At present the
city provides primary treatment for 70 per cent of its sewered
waste. The remaining 30 per cent discharges untreated to the
James River through several combined sewers. Henrico County
presently provides secondary treatment for all county waste
discharges, except for areas in the west and northwest sections
of the county which are under contractural arrangements with
the City or Richmond and discharge to the city interceptors.
Chesterfield County has recently completed a $9,000,000 sewerage
system which includes a 3 mgd primary treatment plant. Both
Henrico and Chesterfield have expansion programs underway which
-------
V - 26
will provide sewage collection and secondary treatment for
rapidly developing county areas.
A total organic waste loading of about U35,000 population
equivalents per day is applied to local watercourses in this
area. Of this total, 350,000 PE's originate from Richmond
municipal sources. Secondary waste treatment for all of
Richmond's municipal waste would reduce the Richmond contribution
to about 72,000 PE's per day.
-------
V - 27
TABIiE XVI
PRINCIPAL WASTE DISCHARGES
IN THE RICHMOND AREA
Type of
Location Waste
Richmond Municipal
(James River)
Untreated Richmond Municipal
Load (James River)
Chesterfield Municipal
(James River)
Crestview Apartments Municipal
(Chickahominy Watershed)
Henrico County Municipal
(Chickahominy Watershed)
Henrico County Municipal
(Chickahominy Watershed)
Hechler Village Municipal
(James River)
Byrd Airport Municipal
(Chickahominy Watershed)
Albemarle Paper Co.* Industrial
(James River)
Federal Paper Co . Industrial
(Southern)
(James River)
Federal Paper Co. Industrial
(Seaboard)
(James River)
Standard Paper Co. Industrial
(James River)
E . I . duPont Co . Industrial
(James River)
Total for Water Service Area
Type or
Efficiency of
Waste Removal
Primary
None
Primary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
In Process (20%)
In Process (20%)
In Process (20%)
In Process (20%)
None
Waste Load
Discharged
P E
236,000
115,000
13,000
100
100
1,^50
500
U50
2,300
5,200
8,800
2,000
50,000
^3^,900
* Scheduled to close in spring 196?.
-------
V - 28
d. Recommended Immediate Pollution Control Needs
In the Richmond area the most urgent requirement to
improve James River water quality is secondary treatment of
Richmond municipal wastes. The city's plans call for completion
of a secondary waste treatment plant capable of handling all of
the municipal wastes by 1971. Expedition of these plans is
urgently recommended to improve the extremely poor conditions
in the James at and below Richmond. The city has estimated that
a total capital cost of $15jOOO,000 is necessary for completion
of the planned program. In terms of annual cost based on a 20
year period of amortization at k^ per cent interest and adding
an estimate for operation and maintenance, the total annual cost
would be about $2,000,000 for the city. About $600,000 per year
would be required to treat all other wastes in the area to the
level of 85 per cent BOD removal.
Completion of the Richmond interceptors and the secondary
treatment plant should be accomplished at the earliest possible
date. This is, perhaps, the most urgent need in the entire river
basin. In addition, engineering studies should be initiated and
plans formulated for delivering secondary treatment or equivalent
BOD removal to all waste discharges in the area. The total annual
cost for attaining this secondary treatment objective is estimated
to be $2,600,000.
-------
V - 29
Since eutrophieation of the estuary has caused serious
water quality problems, some nutrient removal by the waste
treatment plants will be necessary in the future. Studies are
now being made to determine nutrient removal requirements and
costs. Therefore, in waste treatment plant design, space should
be provided for possible future nutrient removal.
Also urgently needed in the City of Richmond is the
capability of alleviating the pollution problems resulting
directly or indirectly from combined sewers in the City of
Richmond. Raw sewage discharges during storm flow conditions
contribute significantly to the pollution of the river, and
operational problems at the municipal treatment plant created
by sand and gravel washed into the plant during storm flows
also lower treatment plant efficiency. Studies should be made
of alternative methods of reducing pollution problems related
to the combined sewers.
e0 Water Supply
The present municipal and industrial water supply use
in the Richmond area averages about 52 mgd exclusive of that
used for power production. Many industrial and commercial water
supplies are purchased from the City of Richmond. As shown in
Table XVIIs the total requirement is projected to more than
triple by the year 2020. Almost all of the large supplies are
obtained from the James River, which has a minimum flow at
Richmond of 350 cfs (226
-------
V - 30
When evaluating water usage and future water supply needs
at Richmond, the water rights for 645 cfs of James River flow must
be considered. These water rights are deeded to the Chesapeake
and Ohio Railway Company, then leased by them to others on a
long-term basis and apportioned as follows:
City of Richmond 88
VEPCO 173
Albemarle Paper Company 384
645 cfs
During periods of summer low flow, water rights almost
equal stream flow. The City of Richmond has negotiated an agree-
ment with VEPCO, giving Richmond use of VEPCO's 173 cfs for
municipal supply during periods of low flow when James River
flow would not meet the City's needs. This 173 cfs is restricted
to municipal water supply only. Combined City and VEPCO rights
amount to 26l cfs (167 mgd) which is less than the projected 2020
requirement of 180 mgd (see Table XVII).
The completion of Gathright Reservoir on the upper Jackson
River is expected to increase the low summer flows in the James
by about 200 cfs. Although this low flow augmentation was designed
for water quality control on the Jackson River, it will undoubtedly
benefit the Richmond area water supply by increasing the extreme
low flows. A water supply reservoir has been approved for the
-------
V - 31
Appomattox River above Petersburg which will be a potential
future water supply source for Richmond. This 11.5 billion
gallon development is so located as to provide a potential supply
for all water users in the lower James River Basin. A detailed
engineering study for this development has been proposed by the
Appomattox River Development Committee.
TABLE XVII
PRESENT AND PROJECTED WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE RICHMOND AREA
Municipal
Industrial
Total for Water Service Area
Average
1965
36
16
52
Daily
1980
70
20
90
Demand
2020
130
50
180
2. Chickahominy River Watershed
a. Pertinent Hydrologic Characteristics
The Chickahominy River, draining a watershed of approxi-
mately ^00 square miles, has head waters in Henrico and Hanover
Counties and discharges to the James approximately seven miles
above Jamestown. The mean flow near Providence Forge is 271
cfs. The north side of the City of Richmond, and approximately
half of Henrico County, is drained by tributaries of the Chicka-
hominy River.
-------
V - 32
b. Present Water Quality
The water quality of Upham Creek, a tributary of the
Chickahominy River which receives urban run-off from the City
of Richmond and waste discharges from Henrico County secondary
waste treatment plants, is adversely affected by organic wastes.
Recent dissolved oxygen data on the Creek is not available, but
a report by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Appendix B)
states that fishery resources are severely affected by pollution.
Data on the Chickahominy River below Richmond indicates
significant improvement in dissolved oxygen concentrations in
the River since the early 1960's when flow from two treatment
plants, one belonging to the City and one County-owned, were
abandoned and waste flows were pumped to Richmond sewers in the
James River Watershed. Results of analysis made in the summer
months of 196U indicated dissolved oxygen concentrations ranging
from k.2 to 9.0 .
c. Major Sources of Waste and Pollution Abatement
Practices
The principal waste discharges to the Chickahominy River
Watershed are from secondary waste treatment plants owned by
Henrico County, private developments, and Richmond's Byrd Airport
secondary plant. (See Table XVI)„ Urban run-off from the City
of Richmond also contributes to the pollution problem and some
raw sewage from City sewers flows into Upham Creek when sanitary
sewers become surcharged by storm water infiltration.
-------
V - 33
The master plan for Henrico County's water pollution
control program includes interceptor and pumping station
facilities which would intercept and pump all county waste dis-
charges in the Chickahominy Watershed to sewerage systems in
the James River Watershed.
d. Recommended Immediate Pollution Control
Needs
The current Henrico County pollution control program in
the Chickahominy River Watershed should be continued. This
program is designed to provide sewerage systems for the urbanized
areas without increasing waste load discharges to the Watershed.
New sewer systems flow to pumping stations which pump waste flows
to the City of Richmond sewerage system. Plans are also being
made to reduce the present flow to the Sandston treatment plant,
which discharges to a tributary of the Chickahominy River, by
pumping a portion of the flow to the James River Watershed for
treatment. Costs for these improvements are included in this
report under Richmond Area - James River Watershed.
The Henrico County master plan for pollution control
would provide the capability for eliminating all county waste
discharges to the Chickahominy Watershed by pumping all flow
to James River sewerage systems. The estimated cost for the
program, which also includes current and future County projects
in the James River Watershed, is $17,000,000.
-------
V - 3k
The existence of two watersheds (James and Chickahominy)
and three separately administered pollution control programs
(City of Richmond, Henrico County, and Chesterfield County) in
the Richmond Area suggests the need for a comprehensive pollution
control study of the Richmond Area with the formation of a water
pollution control authority as a possible goal.
F. Hopewell-Petersburg Area
1. James River Watershed
a. Pertinent Hydrologic Characteristics
Hopewell is situated at the lower end of the freshwater
portion of the James Estuary. At Hopewell the Appomattox River,
having a drainage area of 1,335 square miles above the U.S.G.S.
gage near Petersburg, merges with the James. The fact that the
James at this location is tidal but not saline enhances its
development appeal to large water use type industries. A rather
sudden increase in volume capacity of the Estuary at Hopewell
provides a large amount of storage for freshwater, thereby, making
available considerably larger yields than the river flow itself.
bo Present Water Quality
A dissolved oxygen sag, depressing the DO to less than
h mg/1, has been observed in the Hopewell vicinity under summer
temperature conditions. The organic waste load to the river at
this location is higher than any other water service area in the
basin, but the capacity of the river to assimilate oxygen demanding
-------
V - 35
wastes is also greater than at points upstream. The effect of
this high organic load on the river is more serious than is
reflected by the dissolved oxygen parameter alone. Floating
solids, sludge deposits, and highly turbid discharges from
severely polluted creeks such as Bailey Creek in Hopewell,
all give visual evidence that inadequately treated waste is
being discharged.
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see Appendix B)
reports that fish populations are moderately affected by pollu-
tion from municipal and industrial waste for about 25 miles
below Petersburg.
c. Major Sources of Waste and Present Pollution
Abatement Practices
Approximately 85 per cent of the wastes discharged to
water courses in the Hopewell-Petersburg Area are of an indus-
trial origin. Paper and chemical production processes are the
largest contributors. Taking the Area as a whole, an organic
waste load of 730,000 population equivalents, 610,000 of which
are from industrial sources, is presently being discharged.
This load would be reduced by approximately 75 per cent if all
waste contributors provided treatment equivalent to 85 per cent
reduction of biologically oxidizable wastes. Table XVIII
itemizes the major waste sources and their respective loads.
-------
V - 36
do Recommended Immediate Pollution Control Needs
Considering the fact that upgrading waste treatment
practices to a minimum of 85 per cent removal will result in a
75 per cent reduction in total waste load produced by the water
service area, it is recommended that a policy of secondary
treatment by all waste contributors be adopted and implemented.
Conventional secondary treatment or other waste reduction methods
capable of reducing waste loads by 85 per cent BOD removal are
feasible pollution abatement measures and should preclude alter-
nate methods of maintaining specific water quality objectives
in receiving streams.
Bailey Creek is a small tributary to the James, draining
only 20 square miles in the Hopewell area. This small stream is
the recipient of approximately 300,000 population equivalents of
organic wastes, principally from the Hercules Powder Company,
although the City of Hopewell and the Fort Lee Military Reser-
vation both discharge their domestic wastes to this watershed.
The bulk of this load is introduced into the watershed within
three miles from the mouth of Bailey Creek, This lower end of
the creek,and a large area of the James into which it empties,
is very shallow and swampy. Physically, this body of water is
not suitable for assimilating or transporting large quantities
of wastes„ To remedy the existing condition of severe pollution
in Bailey Creek, it is suggested that either a very high degree
-------
V - 37
of treatment be employed by Hercules Powder Company, or the
company relocate its outfall to a more suitable receiving body
of water such as the James River Channel. Detailed engineering
studies, considering the problem of waste outfall locations in
Bailey Creek, should be made simultaneously with plans for waste
reduction to a minimum of 85 per cent BOD removal at all waste
discharges.
The estimated total annual cost for implementing the
above recommended action in the area is $1,100,000.
TABLE XVIII
PRINCIPAL WASTE DISCHARGES
IN THE PETERSBURG-HOPEWELL AREA
Location
Hopewell
Petersburg
Colonial Heights
Allied Chemical Co. (Chemical)
Allied Chemical Co. (Nitrogen)
Allied Chemical Co. (Fibers)
Continental Chemical Co.
Hercules Powder Co.
Firestone Co.
Fort Lee Military Reservation
Total for Water Service Area
Types of
Waste
Municipal
Municipal
Municipal
Industrial
Industrial
Industrial
Industrial
Industrial
Industrial
Sanitary
Type or
Efficiency of
Waste Removal
Primary
Primary
Primary
None
None
None
50%
k(^
None
Primary
Waste Load
Discharged
P E
11,000
96,000
9,000
U7,000
59,000
8,000
195,000
29^,000
1,000
6,000
726,000
-------
V - 38
e. Water Supply Needs
Hopewell is located at the confluence of the Appomattox
and James Rivers in tidewater but above the intrusion of significant
salt concentrations. The availability of large quantities of
fresh water has no doubt been a significant factor in the location
of several large water-using industries in this area. The total
water use for other than power production is presently about 253
mgd. The fifty-year outlook is for an increase to over four times
this amount by the year 2020, (see Table XIX). The present
quantity of surface water is sufficient to meet this increase,
but water quality deterioration must be halted and salt water
intrusion controlled by returning the used water to the James.
TABLE XIX
PRESENT AND PROJECTED WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE HOPEWELL-PETERSBURG AREA
Municipal
Industrial
Average
1965
ko*
213
Daily
1980
2k
560
Demand (mgd)
2020
83
980
Total for Water Service Area 253 58*4- 1,063
* Old Dominion Water Corporation provides water for several
industries in the water service area. Projected require-
ments separate municipal and industrial uses.
-------
V - 39
G. Hampton Roads Area
1. James River Watershed
a. Pertinent Hydrologic Characteristics
The James River is the southernmost river draining into
the Chesapeake Bay and, as such, enters the bay very near its'
mouth. The Hampton Roads area, at the mouth of the James, is
an important international shipping center. The average salinity
at Old Point Comfort, on the northern penisula, is about 20 parts
per thousand. Two small tributary watersheds, the Nansemond and
the Elizabeth, drain to the Hampton Roads area from the southern
peninsula. The headwaters of the Nansemond are almost completely
dammed for freshwater supply sources. Few, if any, suitable
sites are available for freshwater impoundments on the Elizabeth
watershed.
b. Present Water Quality
During 1965 and 1966 the Virginia Institute of Marine
Sciences, under contract with the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration, conducted a routine biological and chemical
sampling study on the tidal James River. The following excerpts
from a report of this study sum up the current water quality in
this section of the James Estuary.
The estuarine portion of the James River is a major oyster
producing area in the Chesapeake Bay. In 1966, over 500,000
bushels of shucking oysters were harvested for marketing and over
-------
v - 4o
600,000 bushels of seed oysters were harvested for replanting in
other rivers„ This harvest represents only a fraction of past
and potential levels because breeding populations in the lower
Estuary have been destroyed by the protozoan Minchinia nelsoni,
which is often referred to as MSX.
In the estuarine portion hundreds of acres of oyster beds
are condemned for direct harvesting. This industry cannot exist
in close proximity to concentration of human activities, and even
if all outfalls were removed most areas would remain condemned.
The other intended uses of Hampton Roads are not curtailed.
The estuarine portion of the James, i.e. from Jamestown
Island to the mouth, is a suitable environment for aquatic life,
and the water quality meets the standards required for all uses
except direct marketing of shellfish harvested from populated
areas. Protection of this area is dependent upon careful evalua-
tions of all proposed waste discharges into the Estuary and
maintenance of active programs to improve and control the water
quality of the tributary streams„ These controls are actively
enforced by the State Water Control Board and its cooperating
state agencies.
In addition to these observations, the Virginia State
Water Control Board has conducted extensive studies on the
Nansemond River. A report of these studies is included in the
Water Control Board's Record of Hearings on the Nansemond River
held on March 23<> 1965- This report contains data which show
-------
V - 1*1
dissolved oxygen concentrations of less than 1 mg/1 in the upper
Nansemond where the City of Suffolk as well as several industries
discharge biologically degradable wastes.
c. Major Sources of Waste and Present Pollution
Abatement Practices
Municipal wastes constitute the major portion of the
total biologically degradable waste loads discharged to the
Hampton Roads area and its tributaries. Existing municipal waste
treatment plants in the area treat approximately 650,000 popula-
tion equivalents of waste, while available industrial waste data
indicate an industrial production of about 125,000 population
equivalents. Of the total 775,000 PE's produced, about 300,000
are removed by treatment.
Most of the waste treatment facilities in the area provide
only primary treatment with strictly enforced, high chlorination
standards to protect the shellfish industry. Substantial im-
provements by effluent chlorination have been made insofar as
shellfish harvesting is concerned in the James River and Hampton
Roads waters. Tributary waters, however, have become increasingly
worse as a result of the rapidly growing population of the area.
Table XX lists the major waste sources, their present treatment
and loads.
-------
V - U2
TABLE XX
PRINCIPAL WASTE DISCHARGES
IN THE HAMPTON ROADS AREA
Location
Army Base Plant
Lembert Point Plant
Portsmouth
Suffolk
Boat Harbor Plant
Patrick Henry Plant
Best Foods
Gwaltney
Joel Harrell & Sons
Luters
Virginia Packing
Total for Water
Type of
Waste
Municipal
Municipal
Municipal
Municipal
Municipal
Municipal
Industrial
Industrial
Industrial
Industrial
Industrial
Service Area
Type or
Efficiency of
Waste Removal
Primary
Primary
Primary
Secondary
Primary
Primary
20$
Lagoon (75$)
Lagoon (75$)
Lagoon (75$)
Lagoon (75$)
Waste Load
Discharged
P E
56,000
160,000
8**, 000
6,000
120,000
3,000
5,300
12,000
8,500
U,700
U,700
465,000
do Recommended Immediate Pollution Control Needs
This important area, the most heavily populated metro-
politan center in the entire James River Basin,, should and could
be doing more to protect its valuable water resources. Even
though the present primary treatment waste effluents discharging
directly to the main body of the James River may not appreciably
-------
V - 1*3
affect the dissolved oxygen content of the river, secondary treat-
ment is an economically feasible pollution abatement measure that
•would have long term benefits as well as present aesthetic benefits.
The major sewage treatment facilities in the area could be improved
by secondary treatment at an estimated total annual cost of $750,000.
The Hampton Roads Sanitation District, the sewerage and
sewage disposal management organization for the cities of Newport
News, Hampton, and Norfolk, initiated engineering studies for an
expansion and development program of the area's sewage disposal
facilities. A report of these studies was published in 1960 and
calls for an initial construction of four new treatment plants
totaling 12 mgd in capacity as well as expansion of waste collection
facilities. A total cost of $11,000,000 was estimated for this
initial development in the near future. On the basis of h^ per
cent interest and depreciation over 20 years, the total annual
cost would be about $850,000, including operation and maintenance.
It is recommended that the district expedite this development
plan as well as the previously recommended secondary treatment
program for all waste discharges.
The approximate total annual cost of the recommended
program is $1,800,000.
e. Water Supply
In the heavily populated Hampton Roads area, sources of
freshwater for municipal water supply are limited. Existing
-------
v _ kh
supplies for the cities of Newport News, Hampton, Williamsburg,
Norfolk, Portsmouth, Suffolk, and Virginia Beach deliver an
average of 90 million gallons a day for municipal water use.
The combined safe yield of all facilities serving these cities
is about 118 mgd. Table XXI shows the projected municipal water
supply requirements of the water service area for 1980 and 2020.
From the Table it can be seen that the water needs will exceed
the present safe yield before 1980.
The Appomattox River above Petersburg has been considered
as a potential site for the development of a water supply reser-
voir to serve the entire lower James River Basin, including
Petersburg, Colonial Heights, Hopewell, Chesterfield County,
Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Newport News. A consulting engineers'
report on this development indicates that the potential to
meet the municipal water supply requirements through the year
2020 is available on the Appomattox.
TABLE XXI
PRESENT AND PROJECTED WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE HAMPTON RQADS_AREA
Average Daily Demand (mgd)
'_ _ Z __ 2Q2Q
Municipal 90.0 132 280
-------
VI - 1
APPENDIX A
Biological Survey of the
Jackson and James Rivers
-------
VI - 2
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE JACKSON RIVER
(Between Clearwater Park, Virginia,
and the Covpasture River, Virginia)
I< INTRODUCTION
A "biological survey of the Jackson River between Clear-
water Park, Virginia, and the Cowpasture River, Virginia, was
conducted from July 13 through July lU, 1966.
For purposes of the study, the community of bottom (benthic)
organisms was selected as the indicator of the biological condi-
tion of the stream. Bottom organisms serve as the preferred food
source for the higher aquatic forms and exhibit similar reactions
to adverse stream conditions. The combination of limited locomo-
tion and life cycles of one year or more, for most benthic species,
provide a long-term picture of the water quality of a stream. Fish
and algal populations were given some consideration, but only to
the extent that obvious conclusions could be drawn based upon casual
observations„
In unpolluted streams, a wide variety of sensitive clean-
water associated bottom organisms are normally found. Typical
groups are stoneflies, mayflies, and caddisflies. These sensi-
tive organisms usually are not individually abundant because of
natural predation and competition for food and space; however,
the total count or number of organisms at a given station may be
high because of the number of different varieties present.
-------
VI - 3
Sensitive genera tend to be eliminated by adverse environ-
mental conditions (e.g., chemical and/or physical) resulting from
wastes reaching the stream. In waters enriched with organic wastes,
comparatively fewer kinds (genera) are normally found, but great
numbers of these genera may be present. Organic pollution-tolerant
forms such as sludgeworms, rattailed maggots, certain species of
bloodworms (red midges), certain leeches, and some species of air-
breathing snails may multiply and become abundant because of a
favorable habitat and food supply. These organic pollution-tolerant
bottom organisms may also exist in the natural environment but are
generally found in small numbers. The abundance of these forms in
streams heavily polluted with organics is due to their physiologi-
cal and morphological abilities to survive environmental conditions
more adverse than conditions that may be tolerated by other organ-
isms. Under conditions where inert silts or organic sludges blanket
the stream bottom, the natural home of bottom organisms is destroyed,
causing a reduction in the number of kinds of organisms present.
In addition to sensitive and pollution-tolerant forms,
some bottom organisms may be termed intermediates, in that they
are capable or living in fairly heavily polluted areas as well as
in clean-water situations. These organisms occurring in limited
numbers, therefore, cannot serve as effective indicators of water
quality.
-------
VI - 1+
Streams grossly polluted with toxic wastes such as mine
drainage will support little if any biological life and will
reduce the population of both sensitive and pollution-tolerant
organisms.
Classification of organisms in this report is considered
in three categories (clean-water associated, intermediate, and
pollution-tolerant) which provides sufficient biological informa-
tion to supplement physical and chemical water quality data for
this study area. Tentative identification and counts of specific
organisms have been tabulated for use during intensive investiga-
tions of selected areas and are available upon request.
-------
VI - 5
II. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
1. A biological survey of the Jackson River between
Clear-waster Park and Iron Gate, Virginia, plus the lower end of
the Cowpasture River in Virginia was made July 13 to lU, 1966.
Investigations were made at eight stations on the Jackson River
and at one station on the Cowpasture River.
2. Bottom organisms were selected as the primary indi-
cator of biological water quality.
3. From Clearwater Park, Virginia, to the Covington,
Virginia, Water Filtration Plant, extremely high water quality
was found.
k. From the Covington, Virginia, Playground Park to
Iron Gate, Virginia, degraded biological conditions were found.
5. The Cowpasture River was found to contribute high
quality water to the Jackson to form the James River.
6, Based on known biological sampling, the River has
recovered by the time it reaches Salisbury, Virginia, which is
a short distance downstream from Eagle Rock, Virginia.
-------
vi - 6
III. DATA EVALUATION AND INTERPRETATION
The Jackson River joins the Cowpasture River downstream
from Iron Gate, Virginia, to form the James River. The Jackson
River was sampled between Clearwater Park (upstream from Coving-
ton, Virginia) and Iron Gate, Virginia, in order to evaluate the
biological conditions of this stretch of stream.
Sampling stations were located after consideration of the
following conditions:
1. Tributaries
2. Areas having a known waste problem
3. Physical capability for sampling
Bottom organisms are animals that live directly in asso-
ciation with the bottom of a waterway. They may crawl on, burrow
in, or attach themselves to the bottom. Macroorganisms are usually
defined as those organisms that will be retained by a No. 30 sieve.
In essence, the organisms retained by the sieve are those that are
visible to the unaided eye.
Each station was sampled once, and the kinds of macro
bottom organisms were observed for the purpose of evaluating water
quality. Quantitative bottom samples were also taken, using a
Surber Square Foot Sampler or a Petersen Dredge (0.6 square feet),
and the number of organisms per square foot were counted or
calculated.
Quantitative samples were not taken at some stations be-
cause of poor physical sampling conditions or organisms were sparse.
-------
VI - 7
Station #1 - Jackson River at the riffle immediately upstream
from the Virginia Route 687 Bridge at Clearwater,
Virginia
The water at this station was extremely clear, and
numerous smallmouth bass were observed throughout the area. High
water quality was indicated by the UQ kinds (genera) of bottom
organisms. They included such clean-water forms as stoneflies
(three genera), mayflies (four genera), caddisflies (11 genera),
fishflies, hellgrammites, riffle beetles (two genera), and gill-
breathing snails (three genera). A total of 288 bottom organisms
were collected in the square foot sample which included 86 may-
flies, 2U caddisflies, three stoneflies, 83 gill-breathing snails,
ten riffle beetles, and one fishfly. The clean-water organisms
made up 78 per cent of the quantitative sample. Based on the
bottom organisms, excellent water quality was indicated at this
station.
Station #2 - Jackson River at the riffle approximately 100 yards
upstream from the Covington, Virginia, Water Filtra-
tion Plant
Numerous smallmouth bass and darters were observed in
the clear water at this station. A small group of children were
seen swimming downstream from the water filtration plant. High
water quality was again indicated by the 38 kinds (genera) of
bottom organisms which included such clean-water forms as may-
flies (eight genera), caddisflies (eight genera), stoneflies
(one genera), riffle beetles (two genera), and hellgrammites.
-------
VI - 8
A total of k2.G bottom organisms were collected in the square
foot sample which included 95 mayflies, 51 caddisflies, and 9^
riffle beetle larvae. Clean-water organisms made up 56 per cent
of the total in the quantitative sample. High diversification
and numerous clean-water forms indicated excellent water quality.
Station #3 - Jackson River at the Covington, Virginia, Playground
Park
This station was located approximately 0.7 of a mile down-
stream from the pulp and paper company and adjacent to the Coving-
ton Municipal Playground. Virtually all of the rocks were coated
with a heavy, black slime believed to be Sphaerotilus sp. The
water was a dark, coffee color at this station.
The water temperature was elevated, and foam was observed.
In addition, a strong odor characteristic of a mill operation was
noted. The air-breathing snail Physa was present in fair numbers,
but these snails were all at the waterline and on the rocks. For
this reason, a quantitative sample was not taken. Only a few
sludgeworms and another bristleworm (Mais sp.) were found in addi-
tion to the Physa snails. Severe biological degradation is indi-
cated at this station when compared with the upstream station.
The enormous drop in genera from 38 (upstream station) to three
at this station, plus the complete absence of clean-water forms,
indicated heavy industrial pollution. All three kinds of bottom
organisms found at this station were pollution-tolerant forms.
-------
VI - 9
The low dissolved oxygen and high water temperatures found by
VMI sampling during this period further substantiate the poor
biological conditions.
Station #k - Jackson River at the riffle immediately downstream
from the Durant Road Bridge due south of Covington,
Virginia
Here the water conditions of the previous station: a
coffee color, foaming, and an elevated temperature persisted.
Again black slime coated the rocks, and the strong odor prevailed.
The only bottom organisms present in fair numbers were the air-
breathing Physa snails which were exposed at the waterline and
on the rocks. The only other bottom organism found was the
bristleworm Nais sp. Degraded biological conditions were still
indicated by the presence of these two pollution-tolerant forms
and the absence of clean-water bottom organisms.
Station #5 - Jackson River at the Drive-in Theatre east of
Covington on Routes 60 and 220
The water still remained coffee colored and foaming.
Rocks were covered with a glay slime-like growth believed to be
Sphaerotilus sp. The only bottom organisms found were pollution-
tolerant sludgeworms, the air-breathing snail Physa, and an inter-
mediate midge larva. The quantitative sample consisted of kQQ
sludgeworms. Heavy biological degradation Was still indicated.
-------
VI - 10
Station #6 - Jackson River off U. S. 60 and 220 approximately
0.5 mile from the Low-Moor, Virginia, intersection
The coffee color and foaming prevailed at this station
also,. Most of the rocks were still black and covered with a
grayish-black slime believed to be Sphaeroti_lus sp. There were
good populations of the air-breathing snail Physa in certain
sections of the stream, but their distribution was erratic. A
quantitative sample was not taken because of the spotty distri-
bution of bottom organisms. Such pollution-tolerant forms as
leeches, horsefly larvae, another air breathing snail, and a
beetle larva were also collected,, Degraded biological conditions
were still indicated^ This indication was supported by the low
dissolved oxygen readings found in the VMI survey.
Station #7 - Jackson River at the mouth of Smith's Creek in
Clifton Forge, Virginia
The water continued to appear coffee colored, and foam-
ing was present. Smith's Creek was very cloudy and appeared to
be contributing a pollutional load from Clifton Forge. The rocks
in the area were still black and coated with slime. Approximately
50 dead fish were observed in the area and appeared to be mostly
suckers and minnows. Bottom organisms could not be found. De-
graded biological conditions still existed at this point.
-------
VI - 11
Station #8 - Jackson River at the last bridge crossing downstream
from Iron Gate, Virginia
The water was tea colored and still showed signs of foam.
Approximately ten dead fish, primarily suckers and minnows, were
noted in the area. The rocks were still black, and slime was still
present. The bottom organisms consisted of ten kinds, composed
of pollution-tolerant and intermediate forms. The square foot
sample contained k6h bottom organisms which consisted of 176 sludge-
worms, 208 air-breathing snails (two genera), eight leeches, and
72 intermediate midge larvae (three genera). Degraded biological
conditions were still indicated at this station, although there
was some improvement. The VMI survey also indicated some improve-
ment . While the dissolved oxygen was still appreciably low, there
was a higher average reading than stations downstream from Covington,
Virginia.
Station #9 - The Cowpasture River at the Virginia Route 633 Bridge
This stream was extremely clear, and numerous smallmouth
bass were observed throughout the area^ The surrounding area is
farming: country arid appeared to be primarily pasture land. Twenty-
two kinds of bottom organisms were found which included such clean-
water forms as stoneflies (two genera), mayflies (three genera),
caddisflies (three genera), and riffle beetles (two genera). There
was a total of h'kO bottom organisms in the square foot sample,
•including 26 stoneflies, 32 mayflies, 230 caddisflies, and 80
-------
VI - 12
riffle beetles „ Based, on the great diversification of bottom
organisms and the high percentage of clean-water forms, the Cow-
pasture River contributes high quality water to the Jackson River
to form the James River downstream from this station.
-------
VI - 13
Station
BOTTOM ORGANISM DATA OF JACKSON RIVER BETWEEN
CLEARWATER PARK, VIRGINIA, AND THE COWPASTURE RIVER
Number of Organisms
in Square Foot Sample
Location
Clean-
Water
Inter-
mediate
Pollution-
Tolerant
Total
No, of
Kinds
Jackson River
Upstream from Route 687
Bridge, Clearwater,
Virginia 20?
Upstream from Covington,
Virginia Water Filtra-
tion Plant 2^0
at Covington, Virginia,
Playground Park
Downstream from Durant
Road Bridge, Covington,
Virginia
at Drive-in Theatre,
Covington, Virginia
Upstream from Low-Moor,
Virginia Intersection
at Mouth of Smith's
Creek, Clifton Forge,
Virginia
Downstream from Iron
Gate, Virginia
76
36
150
Quantitative Sample Not Taken
Quantitative Sample Not Taken
U88
Quantitative Sample Not Taken
Quantitative Sample Not Taken
Cowpasture River
at Virginia Route 633
Bridge ^00
72
22
392
18
38
3
2
10
22
-------
VI - Ik
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE JAMES RIVER
(Between the Maury River, Virginia, and
Bent Creek, Virginia)
I„ INTRODUCTION
A biological survey of the James River between the first
dam downstream from the Maury River and Bent Creek, Virginia,
was conducted September 7 to 8, 1966. The survey was made to
determine the biological condition of this reach of stream.
For purposes of the study, the community of bottom (benthic)
organisms was selected as the indicator of the biological condi-
tions of the stream. Bottom organisms serve as the preferred food
source for the higher aquatic forms and exhibit similar reactions
to adverse stream conditions. The combination of limited locomo-
tion and life cycles of one year or more, for most benthic species,
provide a long-term picture of the water quality of a stream. Fish
and algal populations were given some consideration, but only to
the extent that obvious conclusions could be drawn based upon casual-
observations .
In unpolluted streams, a wide variety of sensitive clean-
water associated bottom organisms are normally found. Typical
groups are stoneflies, mayflies, and caddisflies. These sensitive
organisms usually are not individually abundant because of natural
Treflation and competition for food and space; however, the total
count or number of organisms at a given station may be high because
of the number of different varieties present.
-------
VI - 15
Sensitive genera tend to be eliminated by adverse environ-
mental conditions (e.g., chemical and/or physical) resulting from
wastes reaching the stream. In waters enriched with organic wastes,
comparatively fewer kinds (genera) are normally found, but great
numbers of these genera may be present. Organic pollution-tolerant
forms such as sludgeworms, rattailed maggots, certain species of
bloodworms (red midges), certain leeches, and some species of air-
breathing snails may multiply and become abundant because of a
favorable habitat and food supply. These organic pollution-tolerant
bottom organisms may also exist in the natural environment but are
generally found in small numbers. The abundance of these forms in
streams heavily polluted with organics is due to their physiologi-
cal and morphological abilities to survive environmental conditions
more adverse than conditions that may be tolerated by other organ-
isms. Under conditions where inert silts or organic sludges blanket
the stream bottom, the natural home of bottom organisms is destroyed,
causing a reduction in the number of kinds of organisms present.
In addition to sensitive and pollution-tolerant forms,
some bottom organisms may be termed intermediates, in that they
are capable of living in fairly heavily polluted areas as well
as clean-water situations. These organisms occurring in limited
numbers, therefore, cannot serve as effective indicators of water
quality.
Streams grossly polluted with toxic wastes such as mine
drainage will support little, if any, biological life and will
-------
vi - i6
reduce the population of both sensitive and pollution-tolerant
organisms.
Classification of organisms in this report is considered
in three categories (clean-water associated, intermediate, and
pollution-tolerant) which provide sufficient biological informa-
tion to supplement physical and chemical water quality data for
this study area. Tentative identification and counts of specific
organisms have been tabulated for use during intensive investiga-
tions of selected areas and are available upon request.
-------
vi - 17
II. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
1, Unpolluted biological conditions were indicated be-
tween the first dam downstream from the Maury River and Battery
Creek.
2. Mild degradation was indicated between Skimmer Creek
and upstream from the low level dam at Coleman Falls, Virginia.
3. Recovery conditions were indicated from downstream
from the low level dam at Coleman Falls, Virginia, to Holcomb
Rock upstream from Lynchburg, Virginia.
it. Mild degradation was indicated at Daniel Island op-
posite Lynchburg, Virginia.
5. Moderate to heavy pollution was indicated at Six Mile,
Virginia.
6. Mild pollution was indicated between Gaits Mill and
Stapleton, Virginia.
7 = Fair water quality was indicated at Christian Mill
Creek, Virginia.
8. Good water quality was indicated from Riverdale,
Virginia, to Allen Creek which is upstream from Bent Creek, Virginia.
-------
VI - 18
III. DATA EVALUATION AND INTERPRETATION
The James River is a fairly substantial stream between
the Maury River and Bent Creek, Virginia. In this reach are
located two paper operations and the industrial community of
Lynchburg, Virginia.
Sampling stations were located after consideration of
the following conditions:
1. Tributaries
2. Areas having a known waste problem
3. Physical capability for sampling
Bottom organisms are animals that live directly in asso-
ciation with the bottom of a waterway. They may crawl on, burrow
in, or attach themselves to the bottom. Macroorganisms are usually
defined as those organisms that will be retained by a No. 30 sieve.
In essence, the organisms retained by the sieve are those that
are visible to the unaided eye.
Each station was sampled once, and the kinds of macro-
bottom organisms were observed for the purpose of evaluating
water quality. Quantitative bottom samples were also taken using
a Surber Square Foot Sampler or a Petersen Dredge (0.6 square
feet), and the number of organisms per square foot were counted
or calculated.
Quantitative samples were not taken at some stations
because of poor physical sampling conditions or organisms were
very sparse.
-------
VI - 19
Station #1 - James River approximately 100 yards downstream from
the first dam downstream from the Maury River near
Glasgow, Virginia
The water at this station was very clear, and numerous
fish were observed throughout the area. Most of these fish were
minnows. Good water quality was indicated by the 16 kinds (genera)
of bottom organisms collected which included such clean-water forms
as caddisflies (four genera), gill-breathing snails (three genera),
and riffle beetles. Out of a total of 2,025 bottom organisms in
the square foot sample, there were 536 caddisflies and 6k riffle
beetles, or 30 per cent of the quantitative sample. Good water
quality was indicated at this location.
Station #2. - James River approximately 50 yards upstream from
Battery Creek (West Bank) which is upstream from
Big Island, Virginia
Numerous minnows were observed at this station. The
water appeared to be a light, tea color but was clear in the
bottle. Sampling had to be confined to about four to five feet
off the bank because of the sharp drop-off, and a quantitative
sample was not taken for this reason. Nine kinds of bottom
organisms were found which included gill-breathing snails (one
genera), air-breathing snails (two genera), flatworms, leeches,
and intermediate midge larvae (four genera). Fair to good water
quality was indicated; however, it is strongly believed a much
greater diversification could have been found if a riffle area
had been present. Based on known dissolved oxygen readings,
-------
VI - 20
other water chemistry, and this limited biological sampling,
unpolluted biological conditions were indicated at this station.
Station #3 - James River immediately upstream from Skimmer Creek
and downstream from Big Island, Virginia
The water was a dark, tea color, and fish could not be
found. Due to a very sharp drop-off, bottom sampling had to be
confined to the immediate bank. Bottom organisms could not be
found in this area. While there appears to be some slight degra-
dation, it is difficult to make a judgment based on bottom organ-
isms because of poor sampling conditions and the lack of a riffle
area. Based on dissolved oxygen readings and other known water
chemistry, this station does not appear to have a really serious
problem, although some degradation was present. Water quality
could only be described as mildly degraded at this location.
Station #b - James River upstream from the low level dam at
Coleman Falls, Virginia
The water continued to be tea colored but was clear in
the bottle. The bottom in this area appeared to be coated with
a black, gelatinous material, and bottom organisms were sparse.
Only a few bloodworms and a bristleworm (Mais sp.) could be found.
Again sampling had to be confined to the bank area due to the
sharp drop-off. Because of the drop-off and the sparse bottom
organism population, a quantitative sample was not taken. A few
minnows were observed in the sample area. Based on the bottom
-------
VI - 21
organisms and known dissolved oxygen readings, mild degradation
vas still indicated at this station.
Station #5 - James River approximately 150 yards downstream from
the low level dam at Coleman Falls, Virginia
The water still appeared tea colored but again was clear
in the bottle. Only six kinds of bottom organisms were present,
and they were sparse. They consisted of a gill-breathing snail,
an air-breathing snail, flatworms, a bristleworm, a dragonfly
nymph, and a few intermediate midge larvae. Sampling still had
to be confined to the banks because of the sharp drop-off. A
quantitative sample was not taken because of the poor sampling
conditions and sparse population. Based on the known water
chemistry at this station, recovery appeared to have occurred
despite the low number of bottom organisms. It is believed the
low number of bottom organisms sampled can be attributed to the
poor sampling conditions created by the impoundments in this area.
Station #6 - James River at Holcomb Rock upstream from Lynchburg,
Virginia
The water continued tea colored but again was clear in
the bottle. Bottom organisms were sparse, and only a few sludge-
worms and gill-breathing snails could be found. Due to a sharp
drop-off and impoundment conditions, sampling had to be confined
to the banks. The water chemistry at this station indicated that
recovery had occurred at this station. The poor bottom organism
-------
VI - 22
population is attributed to poor sampling conditions and poor
habitat created by impounded conditions.
Station #7 - James River downstream from a low level dam down-
stream from Daniel Island opposite Lynchburg, Virginia
(East Bank)
The water was dark, tea color but was clear in the bottle.
Foam had built up in sections below the dam similar to detergent
suds. A fisherman was observed in the area, and a dead channel
catfish approximately eight inches long was found. Only a quali-
tative sample was taken due to the drop-off and large rocks.
Eight kinds of bottom organisms were sampled which included gill-
breathing snails (two kinds), air-breathing snails (two kinds),
Fingernail clams, f1atworms, the scud Gammarus sp., and an inter-
mediate midge larvae. Mild degradation appeared to be present
at this station.
Station #8 - James River at Six Mile, downstream from Lynchburg,
Virginia
The water at this location was very turbid, and clumps
of dead algae were observed floating. Sludge deposits were heavy
along the shore and prevented wading out very far from the bank.
The only bottom organisms found were sludgeworms and mosquito
larvae, both of which are pollution-tolerant. Sludgeworms were
abundant. Moderate to heavy degradation was indicated at tnis
location based on the bottom organisms and known dissolved oxygen
readings.
-------
VI - 23
Station #9 - James River at Gaits Mills
The water at this location was tea colored but was clear
in the bottle, A total of 15 genera of bottom organisms were
found at this station, including mayflies (one kind) and gill-
breathing snails (one kind). Other kinds sampled included such
intermediate forms as fingernail clams, the scud Gammarus sp.,
damselflies (two kinds, and dragonflies (one kind). Pollution-
tolerant organisms included sludgeworms, mosquitoes, air-breathing
snails (two kinds), and leeches (two kinds). A quantitative sample
was not taken because the bottom was predominately bedrock. The
river appeared to be recovering at this station, but recovery had
not yet occurred. Mild pollution was still indicated.
Station #10 - James River at Stapleton, Virginia
The tea color was still present, but the water was clear
in the bottle. There was a recent moderate to heavy fish kill
of white suckers in the area, the majority of the suckers averag-
ing one pound in weight. A large school of white suckers had
sought refuge in Partridge Creek and refused to leave the creek
and venture out into the James River, despite being disturbed
by the sampling activities in the mouth of the creek. A total
of ten kinds of organisms were sampled at this station, consist-
ing of gill-breathing snails (two kinds), air-breathing snails
(two kinds), fingernail clams, leeches (two kinds), flatworms,
and intermediate midge larvae (two kinds). A quantitative sample
-------
VI - 2k
was not taken because the riffle area was made up of large bed-
rock. Mild pollution was still indicated.
Station #11 - James River immediately upstream from Christian
Mill Creek
The water at this location still had a tea color but was
clear in the bottle, indicating the color was caused by the sub-
strate. Aquatic vegetation was heavy and included duckweed, fila-
mentous algae, moss, and submerged aquatic vegetation. Twelve
kinds of bottom organisms were found (versus ten upstream), in-
cluding such clean-water forms as caddisfly larvae (two kinds)
and gill-breathing snails (two kinds). Also included were air-
breathing snails (one kind), fingernail clams, flatworms, sludge-
worms, damselflies, another bristleworm, and intermediate midge
larvae (two kinds). Out of 1,128 bottom organisms in the square
foot sample, there were 776 flatworms, 18U caddisflies, 128 inter-
mediate midge larvae, 2h sludgeworms, eight bristleworms, and
eight gill-breathing snails. Fair water quality was indicated
at this station.
Station #12 - James River at Riverdale, Virginia
The water still appeared tea colored but was clear in
the bottle. The bottom organism at this station took a great
upsurge in diversification. Twenty-three kinds were found
(versus 12 at the upstream station), including such clean-water
bottom organisms as caddisflies (four kinds), mayflies, riffle
-------
VI - 25
beetles (two kinds), and gill-breathing snails (two kinds). Out
of 706 bottom organisms in the square foot sample, there were 280
caddisflies, 232 flatworms, 152 intermediate larvae, 2k riffle
beetles, nine air-breathing snails, and one unidentified bristle-
worm. The river appeared to have recovered at this point, and
good water quality was indicated.
Station #13 - James River at Allen Creek upstream from Bent
Creek, Virginia
The water was still tea colored but clear in the bottle.
The surrounding land is in farmland, and siltation appeared heavy.
The drop-off was sharp beyond the silted area, and sampling condi-
tions for bottom organisms was extremely poor. Only three kinds
of bottom organisms were found. A quantitative sample was not
taken because sampling had to be confined close to the banks due
to the soft banks and drop-off. The only clean-water form found
was a gill-breathing snail. In addition, an air-breathing snail
and damselflies (one kind) were found. The poor bottom organism
population was attributed to the heavy siltation, absence of a
riffle area, and generally poor sampling habitat. Based on the
known dissolved oxygen readings and other water chemistry at this
station, good water quality still existed at this location.
-------
VI - 26
Station
Number
BOTTOM ORGANISM DATA OF JAMES RIVER BETWEEN THE MAURY RIVER,
VIRGINIA, AND BENT CREEK, VIRGINIA
Number of Organisms
In_J3^uare_ Foot _S_ample
Clean- Inter- Pollution-
Location Water mediate Tolerant
Total
No. of
Kinds
10
11
12
i 3
James River
Downstream from confluence
of Maury River, Glasgow,
Virginia
Upstream from Battery Creek
(W.B.), Big Island, Virginia
Upstream from Skimmer Creek,
Big Island, Virginia
Upstream from low level dam,
Coleman Falls, Virginia
Povnsbream from low level
dam, Coleman Falls,
Virginia
at Holcomb Rock, Lynchburg,
Virginia
Downstream from low level
dam, opposite Lynchburg,
Virginia (E.Bo)
at Six Mile, downstream
from Lynchburg, Virginia
at Gaits Mills, Virginia
at Stapleton, Virginia
Upstream from Christian
Mill Creek
at Riverdale, Virginia
at Allen Creek upstream
from Bent Creek, Virginia
600
1,2^0
185
Quantitative Sample Not Taken
Quantitative Sample Not Taken
Quantitative Sample Not Taken
Quantitative Sample Wot Taken
Quantitative Sample Not Taken
Quantitative Sample Not Taken
Quantitative Sample Not Taken
Quantitative Sample Wot Taken
Quantitative Sample Not Taken
192 90^ 32
30*). 3Qh 18
16
2
15
10
12
23
Quantitative Sample Not Taken
-------
-------
VI - 27
APPENDIX B
A Report on the Effects of Pollution
on Stream Fishery Resources
in the James River Basin
By
U. S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
April 1967
-------
VI - 28
EFFECTS OF POLLUTION OF FISH POPULATION
IN THE JAMES RIVER BASIN
The geographic area covered by these interim data contains
2,556 miles of streams, comprising 87,826 surface acres, which
provide significant value fish habitat. These waters in an unpol-
luted condition are capable of annually supporting H,117,500 man-
days of quality fishing. This total capability is based on an
average daily creel of one pound per fishing trip and a yearly
sustained average yield that would not detrimentally affect quality
of the fishery. Currently, pollution is estimated to cause an
annual reduction of 796,850 man-days of fishing potential. This
figure represents 19.^ per cent of the total fresh water stream
fishing opportunity available in the James River Basin.
Table A provides detailed data of basin fresh water fish-
ery habitat, its use and productivity, and the affect of pollution
on the resources. A narrative description of each polluted sec-
tion follows the Table.
-------
t —
vo
o\
rH
K
O HH1
fe, M
ffi
C-1 "^
H
EH -
0 M
M B
ft, M
M O
CO K
CO H
O «
{^
2, M
O (in !-<
PM
i
01
^
-p
CO
: rH
0}
o
•H
bQ
O
H
O
O
•:3
^-~x
f~)
1
^
^ rf
^
1
s
^]
o
•H
-p
H
H
O
PH
"o
i
^
V ^
o
•H
-P
H
H
O
f —
o
^
Q
S^
f N
Q
s
H
erf
4^>
O
EH
0)
W
cj
0)
h
a
^
w
a
o
^
o
o
t—
o
o
o
t-
0
LA
o
^^
o
LA
o
c—
rH
on
rH
on
, — j
o
*
rH
O
CO
ON
O
H
CM
0
ON
O
VO
t-
O
o
on
vo
c—
o
\^
0
•^
t—
CM
LA
r.
VO
CO
CO
O
O"\
^
rH
on
H
c—
0 0
0 -3-
co at on a)
** t"1 c~*
C R
^ O O
— J" 'f~*r t^.
o o o o
O O VO O
ON ON J- CN
vo vo oo LA
CO H H
vo
o o o o
o o o o
t— ON CO ON
H vo on LA
on H H
c—
o o o o
~\ "^-~ ^~ — ^
O LA CM LA
J- OJ H CM
H O CM VO
H LA O O
LA H LA VO
A ft «% A
CM t- -=t -*
-J- CM CO
H
on vo j- LA
ON t— LA on
OJ OJ H VO
A A
00 rH
H
OJ CO LA VD
co on on on
t— H t— OJ
vo LA -^- on
0)
C
o
^^
c
OJ
LA
O
o
CM
LA
0
^^
LA
CM
VD
VO
CM
H
LA
t—
0
CM
O
CM
CM
CM
O
O
LA
r.
H
LA
C—
0
0
LA
LA
VD
-=^
OJ
o
0
o
t^I
rH
OJ
n
on
LA
_rj"
OJ
A
OJ
CO
H
0
on
A
_^-
vo
VD
OJ
OJ
H
cd
-p
O rH
EH 03
I ^
,0 -H
3 EH
CO
o
LA
on
r
LA
0
LA
H
LA
LA
CO
O
0
LA
O
O
ON
CM
on
t—
ON
0
_j-
VD
CO
,jj-
•N
on
CM
O
on
on
A
CM
H
H 05
cd T3
-P -H
0 EH
EH 1
i a
£1 O
PJ f=H
CO
0
LA
CO
«*
vo
0\
t" —
0
LA
VO
O
OJ
on
on
o
o
LA
t—
H
H
r-
_j^f
t—
t—
ON
n
H
ON
LA
vo
OJ
CO
r.
t—
co
vo
LA
LA
A
CM
CO
rH1
<
EH
O
EH
VI - 29
-------
VI - 30
JAMES RIVER - Mile 23-0 - 38.5
!• Location: The entire section of the James River between
Jamestown, Virginia, and the Surry-Isle of Wight County Line.
2° Data Reference: 1, 6.
3. Pollution Sources: (a) Hopewell residential and industrial
wastes,(b) Richmond residential and industrial wastes.
h. Pollution Effects: Fishery resources are lightly affected
by pollution. Although the river immediately above this
segment is in a seeming state of oxygen depletion recovery,
large fish kills occur in this river section yearly. These
kills were recorded6 in 196U and 1965. Circumstances behind
these fish kills are not completely understood. A complex
series of events involving some delayed chemical reaction
coupled with tidal effect is thought responsible. During
most of the year the fishery appears unaffected.
JAMES RIVER - Mile 38.5 - 53.3
!• Location: The entire section of the James River from a few
miles below Weyanoke to Jamestown, Virginia.
2. Data Reference: 1.
3. Pollution Sources: (a) Hopewell industrial and residential
wastes,(b) Richmond residential and industrial wastes.
^. Pollution Effects: Fishery resources are insignificantly
affected by pollution. The river in this segment is in a
state of recovery. Although pollutants are present, their
effect on fishery resources is considered minor.
JAMES RIVER - Mile 53.3 - 77.0
1. Location: The entire section of the James River from Hope-
well, Virginia, to a few miles below Weyanoke, Virginia.
2, Data Reference: 1, 6.
3. Pollution Sources: (a) Richmond industrial and residential
wastes; (b) Petersburg industrial and residential wastes;
(c) Hopewell industrial and residential wastes; (c) Signifi-
cant industrial waste sources from Hopewell include Firestone
Synthetic Fabric, Hercules Powder Company, and Continental
Can Company.
^. Pollution Effects: Fishery resources are moderately affected
by pollution. A large waste load from Hopewell reduces water
quality in this river segment. Very little data is available
on water quality characteristics in this area. However, it
is believed that low oxygen levels combine with various other
toxicants, lowering water quality for fish. A large fish kill
was recorded6 covering over lU miles of this segment in 196l.
-------
VI - 31
Resident species are composed mostly of rough fish able to
endure low vater quality conditions. Spring anadromous
spawning runs are not usually adversely affected and are
subject to heavy fishing pressures.
JAMES RIVER - Mile 77,0 - 9?U2
1. Location: The entire section of the James River from the
confluence of Falling Creek to Hopewell, Virginia
2, Data Reference: 1, 5.
3. Pollution Sources: (a) industrial and residential wastes
from Richmond, Virginia
h. Pollution Effects: Fishery resources are moderately affected
by pollution. Organic waste loads from Richmond result in
low dissolved oxygen levels in this river segment during warm
weather periods. However, water quality tests5 performed in
1962-196U indicated the river was in a state of recovery in
this stream segment. Additionally, detrimental effects of
other deleterious substances are believed somewhat reduced.
Pollution mainly affects resident species composed primarily
of low populations of rough fish which can exist in less
desirable environmental conditions. A large spring anadromous
spawning run is exposed to a short period of heavy angling
pressure.
JAMES RIVER - Mile 97.2 - 105.2
1* Location: The entire segment of the James River from Bosher
Dam in Richmond to the downstream confluence of Falling Creek.
2- .Data Reference: 1, 5, 6, 7.
3. Pollution Sources: (a) Richmond industrial and residential
waste loads; (b) Significant industrial contributors include
Federal Bond and Paper Company, Richmond Guano Company, Depont
Chemical Corporation, Standard Paper Company, Virginia Carolina
Chemical Company, and National Analine Division.
h. Pollution Effects: Fishery resources are severely affected by
pollution. High organic waste loads reduce dissolved oxygen
concentrations in this river segment during warm weather
periods. State water quality tests5 made during 1962-196^
substantiate dissolved oxygen concentrations below 3 mg/1.
In addition, it is thought that heavy metals, acids, phenols,
and other deleterious substances combine to significantly
reduce the capacity of the water for providing good quality
fish habitat. Fish kills are known to occur in this area
yearly. A large kill was recorded in 196U6, and one of unknown
extent was recorded in 196l. High spring flows usually dilute
pollution sufficiently to permit anadromous runs to penetrate
-------
VI - 32
as far as Bosher Dam. Occasionally the spawning run suffers
losses due to polluted conditions. Most of the fishing
pressure in this river segment is attributable to angling
pressure during the spawning runs,
JAMES RIVER - Mile 208,0 - 21k ^Q
1° Location: The entire section of the James River from the
confluence of the Buffalo River near Nordwood, Virginia, to
the vicinity of Wingina, Virginia.
2. Data Reference: 1, 6.
3. Pollution Sources: (a) Lynchburg residential and industrial
wastes, (b) pollution load from the Buffalo River.
k. Pollution Effects: Fishery resources are lightly affected
by pollution. No recorded water quality data is available
for this segment of the James River. Water conditions present
some problems occasionally. In 1963 a large fish kill was
reported6 near Wingina. The major fishery problem attributable
to pollution in this area is a reported bad flavor of fish
flesh. Sport fishing pressure is reduced because of this
phenomenon, according to local game wardens.
JAMES RIVER - Mile 230.0 - 25^.0
1. Location: The entire section of the James River from Lynch-
burg to Riverville, Virginia
2. Data Reference: 1, U, 5, 6.
3. Pollution Sources: (a) Lynchburg residential and industrial
wastes, (b) waste load of upper James River.
U. Pollution Effects: Fishery resources are lightly affected.
Organic wastes from Lynchburg coupled with waste loads present
in the river reduce dissolved oxygen concentrations through-
out the entire river segment during warm weather periods.
Dissolved oxygen concentrations are particularly low immedi-
ately below Lynchburg. Both VMI4 and State data5 substantiate
this fact. Occasionally water quality may drop so low that
it cannot support fish life. In 1962 a large fish kill was
reported6 which covered over four miles of the river below
Lynchburg. Generally water quality is adequate and supports
populations of rough fish along with some game fish. Recruit-
ment of fish from tributaries and other stream areas increases
the quality of the local fishery. Wardens and biologists
report disflavored fish flesh occurs during certain periods
of the year which in turn reduces fishing demand.
-------
VI - 33
JAMES RIVER - Mile 301.7 - 339-7
1. Location: The entire section of the James River from the
confluence of the Jackson and Covpasture Rivers to the
vicinity of Buchanan, Virginia
2, Data Reference: 1.
3. Pollution Sources: (a) Covington residential and industrial
wastes; (b) Clifton Forge residential and industrial wastes;
(c) organic wastes from Covington and an unknown chemical
substance from Clifton Forge are thought to be the main
pollutants o
k. Pollution Effects: Fishery resources are moderately affected
by pollution. Heavy organic waste loads from Covington are
diluted in this river segment by the relatively unpolluted
waters of the Cowpasture River, Low dissolved oxygen levels
encourage the invasion of rough fish. However, water quality
standards adequate for fish survival are present except on
rare occasions. Tainted fish flesh seems to be the major
problem in this area. According to the local game wardens
and biologists, the unpleasant flavor of the fish greatly
reduces sport fishing demand.
JACKSOI RIVER - Mile 339-7 - 3^3.8
1. Location: The entire section of the Jackson River from
Clifton Forge, Virginia, to the confluence of the Cowpasture
River.
2. Data Reference: 1, U, 5°
3. Pollution Sources: (a) Covington residential and industrial
wastes; (b) Clifton Forge residential and industrial wastes;
(c) organic wastes from Covington and an unknown chemical sub-
stance from Clifton Forge are thought to be the main pollutants.
h. Pollution Effects: Fishery resources are moderately affected
by pollution„ While organic waste loads from Covington cause
low dissolved oxygen concentrations, the river is recovering
in this stream segment„ The 1966 VMI Study1* revealed dis-
solved oxygen ranged from 0=1 rag/1 to 5»1 mg/1. Fish survival
under these circumstances is doubtful. However, this situa-
tion does riot prevail all year long. Water quality parameters
are near survival levels in portions of the segment under the
most adverse circumstances„ Fish are thought to migrate into
the area for a greater part of the year in substantial numbers.
Compounding the dissolved oxygen problem is the report of bad
tasting fish flesh. Chemicals or compounds causing this flavor
problem are unknown at present, but the source is thought to
be Clifton Forge industrial wastes.
-------
VI - 34
JACKSON RIVER - Mile 3^3.8 - 363.6
1. Location: The entire section of the Jackson River from
Covington to Clifton Forge, Virginia
2. Data Reference: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
3. Pollution Sources: (a) Covington residential and industrial
wastes;(b) the West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company is
thought to be the main pollution source contributing a huge
quantity of organic effluent.
U. Pollution Effects: Fishery resources are severely affected
by pollution. Oxidation of large quantities of organic
material from Covington reduce dissolved oxygen concentra-
tions throughout the entire stream segment. A recent scien-
tific study by VMI1* revealed dissolved oxygen levels in this
area averaged below 1 mg/1. State studies^ also showed water
quality was poor. Fish require a minimum average of 5 rag/1 s
and at no time should dissolved oxygen drop below 3 mg/1.
Based on the above water quality results, fish life and many
associated food chain organisms could not survive. However,
a total fishery loss was not assigned to this river section.
During certain periods of the year a combination of increased
flow and cold water temperatures reduced the pollution effect.
At this time some fish recruitment takes place. An example
is the yearly spring run of suckers that passes through the
area. Despite the occasional presence of fish, the waters
in this river section are virtually worthless, providing
only occasional low quality fishing opportunity.
UPHAM CREEK - Mile 0.0 - 3.2
1. Location: The stream is located just north of Richmond,
Virginia.
2. Data Reference: 1.
3. Pollution Sources: Probably domestic sewage from Richmond,
Virginia.
h. Pollution Effects: Fishery resources are severely affected
by pollution. High organic waste loads from the Richmond
area periodically reduce stream dissolved oxygen concentra-
tions to critical levels. Fish populations are low and
composed of hardier less desirable species.
WHITE OAK SWAMP - Mile 6.3 - 7-3
!•• Location: Near Elko, Virginia
2„ Data Reference: 1.
3. Pollution Sources: Elko sewer wastes.
-------
VI - 35
Pollution Effects: The small stream segment is severely
affected by pollution. Oxygen levels in this small section
of White Oak Swamp are reduced to critical levels during
warm weather periods. Fish populations are extremely low.
Undesirable esthetic traits of the stream preclude sport
fishing effort in the area.
BAILEY CREEK - Mile 0.0 - 3=5
1. Location: This section of Bailey Creek is located just east
of Hopewell, Virginia.
2. Data Reference: 1, 2, 5, 7-
3. Pollution Sources: (a) Hercules Powder Company; (b) resi-
dential pollution of Hopewell; (c) Fort Lee, Virginia, military
reservation wastes.
k. Pollution Effects: Fishery resources are totally eliminated
from this creek segment. Oxidation of organic wastes reduces
this stream to an aseptic condition. Water quality tests con-
ducted by the State5 have shown a complete lack of dissolved
oxygen in the creek. Plant and animal life are reportedly
absent.
APPOMATTOX RIVER - Mile 0.0 - 12.2
1. Location: The entire stream segment from Petersburg to Hope-
well, Virginia
2. Data Reference: 1.
3. Pollution Sources: (a) Petersburg residential and industrial
wastes, (b) Hopewell residential and industrial wastes.
h. Pollution Effects: Fishery resources are moderately affected
by pollution. Water quality data available does not indicate
substandard water conditions in this stream segment; however,
large quantities of organic waste from Hopewell and Petersburg
are thought to reduce dissolved oxygen levels of the river
below optimum conditions for fish. Various other deleterious
waste substances from Hopewell industries are thought to be
present. Resident fishery resources are composed primarily of
moderate populations of rough fish species. A large anadromous
spawning run passes through the area yearly, providing signi-
ficant fishing opportunity.
-------
-------
VI - 36
RIVAMA RIVER - Mile 32.3 - 36.3
I- Location: A segment of the Rivanna River east of Charlottes-
ville and below Moores Creek.
2. Data Reference: 1.
3. Pollution Sources: Charlottesville industrial and residential
wastes„
1*. Pollution Effects: Fishery resources are lightly affected
by pollution. Organic wastes from Charlottesville reduce dis-
solved oxygen concentrations in the river segment during warm
weather periods. No fish kills have been reported. Although
water quality data is unavailable, it is believed poor environ-
mental conditions prevail. This situation encourages the
invasion of rough fish species and reduces the abundance of
fish.
RIVANNA AND NORTH FORK RIVANNA RIVER - Mile 1*1.0 - 1*2. U
1. Location: Just east of Charlottesville, Virginia.
2. Data Reference: 1.
3. Pollution Sources: Sand and gravel dredging operation.
1*. Pollution Effects: Fishery resources are lightly affected
by pollution. Suspended solids in this small section of the
river reduce productivity of the water, encourage invasion
of rough fish, and interfere with local spawning activities.
MOORES CREEK - Mile 0.0 - 5-5
-*•• Location: This creek borders the southern edge of Charlottes-
ville, Virginia
2. Data Reference: 1, 2.
3. Pollution Sources: (a) Charlottesville Woolen Mill, (b)
Charlottesville sewage plant #1.
k. Pollution Effects: Fishery resources are totally eliminated
from this creek segment. Although no water quality data is
available, wardens report the stream is in an aseptic condi-
tion and is unable to support fish life.
MECHUM RIVER - Mile 0.0 - 9.6
1. Location: The entire stream segment from the vicinity of
Batesville, Virginia, to its confluence with Moormans River.
2. Data Reference: 1.
3. Pollution Sources: Mortons Frozen Foods.
IK Pollution Effects: Fishery resources are severaly affected
by pollution. No water quality data is available for this
-------
VI - 37
river segment. Large organic waste loads from Mortons Frozen
Foods severely reduce dissolved oxygen stream concentrations.
Fishery resources in the affected area are composed primarily
of low populations of rough fish. Populations are thought to
migrate to better water areas when extremely adverse water
quality conditions prevail^ Occasionally small fish kills occur.
HARDWARE RIVER - Mile 11.9 - 27.3
1. Location: The entire river segment from Red Hill, Virginia,
to the Albemarle-Fluvanna County Line.
2. Data Reference: 1.
3. Pollution Sources: Unknown.
h. Pollution Effects: Fishery resources are lightly affected
by pollution. Heavy silt loads reduce light penetration and
productivity of the water, in addition to affecting spawning
success. A fishery composed of large numbers of more tolerant
rough fish is thought to occupy the stream because of poor
water quality and habitat conditions.
TYE RIVER - Mile 0.0 - 15-1
!• Location: Stream segment from the confluence of Piney River
to the confluence of Buffalo River. The latter stream is
located a few miles west of Buffalo Station, Virginia.
2. Data Reference: 1, 7.
3. Pollution Sources: American Cyanamid.
U. Pollution Effects: Fishery resources are severely affected
by pollution. Piney River acid wastes are diluted and buf-
fered by mixing waters of the Tye River. Aquatic conditions
of this river section border near tolerance limits of fish.
Both productivity and carrying capacity of the stream are
very lowo Occasionally a fish kill occurs because of acid
conditions.
PINEY RIVER - Mile 0.0 - 5.0
1. Location: Stream segment from Piney River, Virginia, to the
confluence of the Tye River.
2- Data Reference: 1, 2, 5, 7°
3. Pollution Sources: American Cyanamid.
U. Pollution Effects: Fishery resources are totally eliminated
from this river segment. Sulfuric acid wastes from American
Cyanamid reduce pH levels in the stream far below fish toler-
ance levels. Hydrogen ion concentrations of around pH 6 are
considered a minimum acceptable level for fisheries.
-------
VI - 38
FISHING CREEK - Mile 0.0 - 1.2
1. Location: The entire length of this creek segment runs
through suburban Lynchburg, Virginia.
2. Data Reference: 1.
3. Pollution Sources: A meat packing plant and cannery are
major pollution sources.
k. Pollution Effects: Fishery resources are severely affected
by pollution. Large quantities of organic material reduce
stream dissolved oxygen concentrations significantly according
to local wardens. Fishery populations composed of lov numbers
of rough fish survive in the section of the creek adjacent to
the James River. Upper portions of the creek are void of fish
life.
MAURY RIVER - Mile 0.0 - 12.5
1. Location: The entire river segment from Buena Vista, Virginia,
to the James River.
2. Data Reference: 1, 2.
3. Pollution Sources: (a) Industrial and residential wastes of
Buena Vista; (b) several industries contributing significant
waste loads are Piedmont Paper Products, Inc., Leas McVitly
Tanning Company, and a limestone and rubber treatment plant
near Buena Vista.
k. Pollution Effects: Fishery resources are lightly affected
by pollution. A combination of silt, deleterious chemicals,
and reduced dissolved oxygen levels is thought to reduce the
productivity of the stream and encourage the presence of
rough fish species.
MAURY AND CALFPASTURE RIVERS - Mile 20.h - U6.5
I. Location: The entire river segment between Goshen and
Lexington, Virginia
2. Data Reference: 1.
3. Pollution Sources: Silt of unknown origin.
^. Pollution Effects: Fishery resources are lightly affected
by pollution. High stream silt loads are thought to reduce
the quality of habitat and encourage the presence of rough
fish species.
-------
VI - 39
REFERENCES
1. Expert opinions of State game wardens, State fishery bio-
logists, Federal fish and wildlife biologists, and other
authoritative sources .
2. 1937 Inventory, Municipal and Industrial Waste Facilities,
U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public
Health Service.
3. 1962 Inventory , Municipal Waste Facilities, Region III,
U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public
Health Service Publication No. 1065-
U. 1966, Report on Stream Pollution Surveys in the Jackson and
James Rivers, Parker, Clifton E. , and Knapp, John W. , VMI
Research Laboratories, Inc., Contract No. WA 66-7-
5. Data Sheet of Water Quality Parameters compiled by Gary
Gardner, FWPCA, 1966, from data of Virginia Division of
Water Resources.
6. Pollution Caused Fish Kills I960 - 196$, U. S. Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service
Publication No.
7. Industrial Waste Quality Computer Print-out , furnished by
FWPCA, July 30, 1965.
-------
VI -
APPENDIX C
Population Projections for
Major Municipal Areas
in the James River Basin
-------
VI -
^
M
O
M
s a
>—\ i i
~? ^n
•=?
0
si i>
M
PH PH
O
~-r1
00 §
0 t-a
M
EH W
O 53
W EH
O S
(X M
P-,
P!| <$,
O ri}
1 — 1 (X|
EH «3j
^
h~3
^3
PM
O
O
CM
O
CM
O
H
O
CM
O
0
O
CM
O
ON
ON
H
O
CO
ON
H
O
t—
'ON
H
*
UN
VO
ON
rH
O
VO
ON
H
cfl
0)
SH
<^
0
O
o
r\
vo
ON
O
O
O
*
on
ON
0
o
o
n
H
ON
O
o
o
*t
ON
CO
0
O
O
ft
CM
t—
O
O
0
ft
CM
UN
O
o
0
ft
vo
ON
r-
ON
r\
CM
01
rH
H
•H
£>
U)
CL)
-p
-p
0
,-H
f-t
a!
c~]
O
O
O
O
rt
CM
on
0
o
0
ft
ON
CM
O
O
O
ft
CO
CM
0
0
O
ft
CO
CM
O
O
0
f>
00
CM
O
O
O
ft
ON
CM
O
o
CO
r>
CO
CM
CO
UN
J-
rt
CO
CM
1
M
^ S3
O 0
P^i -p
bC
a a
O -H
-p >
Vi O
•H U
H
0
0
O
o
ft
ON
CO
o
0
o
ft
CO
H
"^
0
o
o
»t
CM
vo
on
o
0
o
ft
0
CM
on
o
0
o
^
H
ON
CM
O
O
0
ft
ON
vo
CM
O
O
O
ft
o
UN
CM
CM
on
H
f.
ON
H
CM
-P
!-i
O
ft
£5
0)
£H
|
a
o w
-p >
ft jj;
CO
03
O
0
o
rt
LT\
CM
O
O
O
rt
LfN
CM
O
0
o
ft
LTN
CM
O
0
0
ft
LTN
CM
O
0
o
ft
UN
CM
O
O
O
n
LTN
CM
O
0
O
•N
UN
CM
ON
UN
H
*t
UN
CM
aJ
a
0)
jj
fXJ
1
£j
O
-p cd
bC -P
S3 w
•H -H
X >
j
j
O
0
O
^
H
0
0
H
0
O
O
f>
CM
CO
CO
0
o
o
ft
LTN
ON
t—
O
0
O
f\
ON
VO
t-
O
0
O
ft
vo
CM
vo
o
o
0
n
on
0
VO
o
0
o
^
o
t—
CO
CO
ft
LTN
CM
LTN
^3
-P
O
1 £
rM W
H -P
O ^
W 0)
&H ft
0) O
1 •) j~£j
(1)
PM
O
O
O
n
vo
o
ON
0
O
O
f\
t—
CM
CO
O
O
O
ft
^j-
LT\
t-
0
o
o
ft
vo
t—
vo
o
o
0
ft
u>
vo
UN
o
0
o
ft
on
UN
_^-
o
o
o
ft
o
Cvj
H
on
r.
on
CO
on
r^H
S3
O
^3
O
•H
K
0
0
O
ft
ON
J-
• o
o
o
ft
ON
-3"
o
0
o
ft
ON
-}•
o
0
0
ft
o\
-^t"
o
0
o
ft
ON
^J-
O
O
0
ft
_^J-
_^-
0
o
o
ft
CM
UN
UN
VO
*
ON
on
r^H
H
0
^H
^—1
^
01
•
w
S3
o
to
a
0)
!H
•d
S3
O
•H
-P
OJ
-p
Pi
ft
e
o
o
!H
O
-------
VII - 1
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. The James River Project Committee of the Virginia Academy
of Science, "THE JAMES RIVER BASIN, Past, Present and Future",
Richmond, Virginia, 1950.
2. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public
Health Service, Region III, "WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY
CONTROL STUDY, GATHRIGHT RESERVOIR - JAMES RIVER BASIN,
VIRGINIA, Study of Needs and Value of Storage for Municipal
and Industrial Water Supply and Water Quality Control",
Charlottesville, Virginia, May 1962.
3. O'Connor, Donald J., Hydroscience, Incorporated, Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey, for the West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company,
"PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THE ASSIMILATION CAPACITY OF THE
JACKSON RIVER", July 1962.
k. The Institute of Paper Chemistry, "A BIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF
THE JAMES RIVER AND ADJACENT WATERS IN THE VICINITY OF
COVINGTON, VIRGINIA — 1961", (Project 1575 - Report ll),
Appleton, Wisconsin, February 1962.
5. Frankel, Richard J., "WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT: AN ENGINEERING
ECONOMIC MODEL FOR DOMESTIC WASTE DISPOSAL", University
Microfilms, Incorporated, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1965.
6. Wiley and Wilson, Consulting Engineers, "REPORT ON A WATER
SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT FROM THE APPOMATTOX RIVER For the Cities
of; Norfolk, Portsmouth, Petersburg, Newport News, Colonial
Heights, and Chesterfield County, Virginia", Lynchburg and
Richmond, Virginia, 1958.
7. Brehmer, Morris L. and Haltiwanger, Samuel 0., "A BIOLOGICAL
AND CHEMICAL STUDY OF THE TIDAL JAMES RIVER", Virginia
Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia, 1966.
8. State Water Control Board, "RECORD OF HEARING - NANSEMOND
RIVER", Richmond, Virginia, 1965.
9. Smith, Russell S., "REPORT OF A WATER QUALITY SURVEY OF HAMPTON
ROADS SHELLFISH AREAS", U. S. Public Health Service, 1950.
10. Buck, Seifert and Jost, Consulting Engineers, "REPORT ON A
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR THE HAMPTON ROADS SANITATION DISTRICT",
New York, New York, April 1960.
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION .. .................... I - 1
A. Purpose and Scope .................. 1-1
B. Authority ..................... 1-1
C. Acknowledgments ......... ......... 1-2
II. SUMMARY ........................ II - 1
A. General ...................... II - 1
B. Immediate Pollution Control Needs ......... II - 3
1. Waste Treatment ................ II - 3
2. Flow Regulation ....... ......... II - k
3. Special Studies ................ II - 5
k. Institutional Practices ............ II - 6
C, Recent Pollution Control Progress ......... II - 6
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA ............. Ill - 1
IV. EXISTING WATER QUALITY ............ IV - 1
A. Biochemical Oxygen Demand and
Dissolved Oxygen ............ IV - 2
B. Nutrients ....... .............. IV - k
C. Bacteriological Quality ... „„....„.... IV - k
D. Dissolved Solids .................. IV - 5
V. RECENT PROGRESS IN POLLUTION CONTROL .......... V-l
VI. IMMEDIATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL NEEDS ........ VI - 1
A. Treatment Requirements .<.............. VI - 1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
B. Flow Regulation ...„„„„.....„..... VI - 2
C, System Cost „„.,:.„,,„......,...,,. VI - 5
D. Transportation to Estuary and Estuarine
Consideration ............. VI - 8
VII. APPENDICES .......... o VII - 1
A. Source of Data ................... VII - 1
B. Formulation Parameters and Criteria ........ VII - 3
C, Method of Data Analysis . „ . VII - 5
VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY ............. VIII - 1
IX. TABLES ......................... IX - 1
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
1 Municipal and Industrial Waste Water
Inventory ......... IX - 1
2 Summary of Water Quality Data for Low
Flow Periods 1961 and 1966 IX - 1+
3 Summary of Bacteriological Data for
July, August, and September IX - 5
k Water Quality Data for Months of July,
August, and September 1965 , IX - 6
5 Water Quality Data for Months of July,
August, and September 1966 IX - 7
6 Projected Increase in Waste Water Volumes
for Major Treatment Facilities IX - 8
7 Mean Monthly and Design Flows IX - 9
8 Monthly Volume of Patuxent Water
Filtration Plant IX - 10
9 Population Projections IX - 11
10 Basic Data for Patuxent Model IX - 12
-------
I - 1
Io INTRODUCTION
Ao Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this report is to direct attention to
existing and potential water pollution problems in the Patuxent
River Basin.
Insofar as applicable, priorities for actions to achieve
immediate pollution control needs will be presented with the
specific objectives to:
1. Identify present and potential water quality problem
areas.
2. Indicate responsibility for the problems.
3. Suggest immediate actions and responsibilities to
alleviate the problems.
h. Estimate costs of these actions.
This report, by describing the immediate needs for
controling water pollution in the Patuxent River Basin, repre-
sents the first step in the development of a comprehensive
program to control water pollution in the Basin.
B. Authority
The basis for action can be found in the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (PL 8^-660) as amended in 1961 (PL 87-88),
the Water Quality Act of 1965 (PL 89-23U), and the Clean Water
Restoration Act of 1966 (PL 89-753), with special emphasis upon
provisions regarding Comprehensive Programs for Water Pollution
-------
1-2
Control, Grants for Water Pollution Control Programs, Grants
for Construction, and Enforcement Measures against Pollution of
Interstate or Navigable Waters.
C. Acknowledgments
The assistance and cooperation of various governmental
and institutional agencies enabled the Chesapeake Field Station
to assemble and evaluate water quality data in the Basin in what
would otherwise have taken a much longer period. While every
agency contacted provided valuable assistance, the cooperation
of operating personnel at the Patuxent River Basin Sewage Treat-
ment Plants and the following Government agencies and institutions
merit special recognition:
Maryland Department of Water Resources
Maryland State Department of Health
University of Maryland Natural Resources Institute
Anne Arundel County Department of Public Works
Howard County Metropolitan Commission
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission
U. S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior
Fort Meade, Department of the Army
-------
-------
II - 1
II. SUMMARY
A. General
In relation to other east coast basins, the Patuxent River
Basin is unique in that there has been little or no historical
urban development. Water quality problems can be related to past
agricultural exploitation of the land; the diversion of upstream
flows for water supply purposes; and, currently, the rapid sub-
urban development, especially in the central basin area.
The accelerating population increase (255 per cent between
19^0 and I960) was the result of growth of the metropolitan areas
of Baltimore and Washington and the expansion of area Federal
facilities including Fort Meade, the National Agricultural Research
Center, and the Goddard Space Flight Center. As the displacement
of agriculture by suburban development continued, additional water
supply and sewage treatment facilities were provided. Approxi-
mately ten million gallons per day (mgd) of fresh water and five
mgd for developing industry are obtained primarily from surface
water in the Basin, In addition, UO mgd are diverted for use out-
side the Basin in the Washington Metropolitan Area by the Washing-
ton Suburban Sanitary Commission.
The water quality in the Patuxent River Basin has deteri-
orated as a result of increasing volumes of treated waste dis-
charges and diversion of natural flows for water supply outside
the Basin, The population projection for 1980 is 270,000, an
-------
II - 2
Increase of 200 per cent over the I960 population of 135,000.
The projection of treated organic waste discharges shows an
increase of 1*10 per cent from the present 7 mgd to the
1980 figure of 29 mgd, primarily in the Western Branch and in
the upper Little Patuxent Sub-Basins.
Waste treatment requirements, based upon uniform treat-
ment policy for projected I960 loads, a minimum dissolved oxygen
(DO) content in the stream of 5-0 mg/1, and for the 5 percentile
of the mean monthly flow, were determined to be 9^ per cent
removal of 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). The effect
of regulation of stream flow by discharges from Rocky Gorge and
Tridelphia Reservoirs which a total storage capacity of 13.8
billion gallons was investigated. These Reservoirs, owned and
operated by the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission pri-
marily for water supply, should supplement the proposed waste
treatment standard of 9^ per cent BOD removal with a 20 cfs
flow to maintain the DO level. Increasing released water to 30
cfs would have ric measurable effect in reducing treatment require-
ments, Based upon historical and synthetic hydrological evalua-
tions of stream flow data, it was found that this multi-purpose
use of the reservoir system could be maintained with a prospec-
tive failure incidence of only about five months in every 100
years,
-------
II - 3
Water quality in the River and Estuary has been monitored
by the Maryland Department of Water Resources since 196l; the
Natural Resources Institute is currently studying the effects of
thermal discharges from the PEPCO Plant in the Estuary; with the
IL S. Geological Survey participating and maintaining five robot
monitors„
Tentative water quality standards have been proposed by
the Maryland Department of Water Resources, and public hearings
are currently being held with plans for implementation and enforce-
ment of the adopted standards scheduled in compliance with the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1965.
There are 2^ significant waste water discharges in the
Basin, with the largest organic loadings from the Laurel-Parkway,
Bowie-Belair, and the two Fort Meade treatment plants. No major
organic industrial waste water discharges occur in the Basin.
B. Immediate Pollution Control Needs
!„ Waste Treatment
In order to accommodate the increased organic pollution
load expected to occur in the Basin in the near future, the
capacity and efficiency of existing treatment plants must be
expanded. Also, a new treatment plant on the Western Branch
will be required. To maintain a dissolved oxygen objective of
5 mg/1 in the Patuxent River in the immediate future (i960),
organic waste discharges must receive at least 9^ per cent 5-day
-------
II -
BOD removal,- The required increased capacity and the approxi-
mate cost of obtaining this degree of BOD removal are presented
in the following table.
Required Added
Treatment Plant
Laurel-Parkway
Savage
Maryland City
Patuxent Plant
Western Branch
Capacity (mgd)
2.k
7.0
0.75
2.2
5.0
17.35
Cost
$2, 26**, 000
$7,81+0,000
$1,223,000
$3,796,000
$3,857,000
$19,000,000
To aid in the reduction of the coliform counts in all
waters of the Basin, organic waste effluents should be chlorin-
ated continuously.
2, Flow Regulation
The additional treatment recommended in the foregoing
will not. achieve the immediate water quality goals in the Patuxent
River (5 ppm DO) unless at least the five per cent minimum low
flow is maintained in the River at all times. This flow could
be achieved by releasing a minimum of 20 cfs from the Rocky
Gorge and Tridelphia Reservoirs at all times. Rocky Gorge and
Tridelphia Reservoirs are a part of the Washington Suburban
Sanitary Commission's system which supplies water to parts of
-------
-------
II - 5
the Metropolitan Area of Washington, D. C« Based on 1966 with-
drawal rates from these Reservoirs, preliminary calculations
indicate that 20 cfs could be released from the Reservoirs more
than 99 per cent of the time without jeopardizing Washington
Suburban Sanitary Commission water supply withdrawals. No costs
have been established for this flow augmentation, but means for
its accomplishment should be investigated, and the required
releases negotiated,,
3o Special Studies
Listed below are the areas in which a need for special
studies is indicatedo
Location Responsibility Need
PEPCO Chalk FWPCA, State of Determine the extent and long-term
Point Plant Maryland, and effect of thermal pollution from
PEPCO PEPCO's Chalk Point Generating
Plant on aquatic life in the
Patuxent Estuary,,
Basin-wide F'WPCA and State Determine the current nutrient
of Maryland levels and establish the removal
required.
Western Branch WSSC, FWPCA, and Determine the effect of the efflu-
Treatment Plant State of Maryland ent from the proposed treatment
plant on the Patuxent Estuary.
Tridelphia and WSSC and State Determine the feasibility and cost
Rocky Gorge of Maryland of low flow augmentation releases
Reservoirs from the Reservoirs.
-------
II - 6
^r Institutional Practices
A centralized authority should "be considered, and a
comprehensive plan developed to achieve an orderly and integrated
program for- maintaining acceptable water quality In the Patuxent
River Basin, Since the Patuxent River Basin is entirely within
the State of Maryland, the responsibility for such an authority
would be that of State and local governments.
C. Recent Pollution Control Progress
Plans for providing basin-wide water quality control
have been initiated by various State and local institutions in
the past The principal ones are discussed below:
!„ A regional sewerage plan, prepared by Wolman, Geyer,
and Beavin, was submitted to the Maryland State
Department of Health In 1960= Although the plan was
never adopted, It has served as a guide for planning
agencies.
2 , The State of Maryland enacted the Patuxent River
Watershed Act in i96l to regulate erosion, floods,
and urban development
3- The State amended the Annotated Code of Maryland in
1966 to require counties to submit by 1970 compre-
hensive plans for water supply and sewerage systems
to meet State and Federal standards. These are
currently In preparation. The State Department of
-------
II - 7
Health has "been given the authority to establish
minimum requirements subject to review "by the State
Department of Water Resources
Although the Patuxent River Basin is entirely within the
State of Maryland, the River downstream from Hardesty is subject
to tidal action, and this portion of the River is classified as
a coastal or interstate stream. In compliance with the Federal
Water Quality Act of 196"?, the State is currently in the process
of establishing water quality standards for interstate streams in
Maryland. Also, the State is developing a plan for the implemen-
tation and enforcement of the standards.
-------
Ill - 1
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA
The Patuxent River originates in the Piedmont geological
area in Howard and Montgomery Counties and flows southeasterly
approximately 110 miles through the Coastal Plain to Chesapeake
Bay, draining an area of 930 square miles. The Basin lies wholly
in the State of Maryland, encompassing parts of five Counties.
The Piedmont streams characteristically drain a rolling hill and
valley area but become broader and more sluggish in the Coastal
Plain, expanding frequently into swamps and marshland.
The lower River is a tidal estuary under tidal influence
extending upstream as far as Hardesty, 56 miles from Chesapeake
Bay. During periods of low flow, salinity has been found at
Lyons Creek some ^3 miles upstream.
The two major tributaries of the Patuxent River are the
Little Patuxent and Western Branch, with drainage areas of l6o
and 110 square miles, respectively, The Middle Patuxent, a
tributary of the Little Patuxent, has a drainage area of 57
square miles.
The Patuxent River Basin receives an average of kk inches
of precipitation annually, with a resulting surface run-off of
about l6 inches„ Average annual temperature is 55° F., ranging
from 0° to 100° F.
Since the days of the early settlers, land, use in the
Patuxent River Basin has been predominately agricultural over
-------
Ill - 2
the 930 square mile drainage area. Tobacco was grown on the
Coastal Plain and remains a major crop, but the cereal grain
crops raised in the Piedmont Area have been displaced by dairy-
ing during the past hundred years. More recently the Central
Basin Area on both sides of the "Fall Line" separating the Coast-
al Plain and Piedmont Areas has become suburban, with economic
bases for the most rapid population growth primarily in Balti-
more, Washington, and in the Federal activities at Fort Meade
and Beltsville.
Agriculture, however, remains the most important economic
activity in the Basin, with a significant percentage of the south-
ern Coastal Plain Area in tobacco, and dairying now the predominant
activity in the northern Piedmont.
The sand and gravel deposits of the Coastal Plain are the
only extensively used mineral resource of the Basin.
According to a survey made in 1953, land use in the Basin
is as follows:
Forests ^2 per cent
Fields and Meadows k3 per cent
Urban and Residential 15 per cent
When these data were compared to 1930 data, it was found
that the percentage of forested land had remained static, while
agricultural land had been lost to residential and urban use, a
trend obviously continuing.
-------
Ill - 3
The I960 population of 135,000 represented a 255 per
cent increase over the 19^0 figure of 53,000, with the most
rapid growth in the Central Basin Area.
About 15 mgd of potable water is used for domestic and
industrial purposes within the Basin, of which approximately
two-thirds is domestic use and the remaining industrial use.
The major surface water withdrawals from the Patuxent Basin are
as follows:
Utility Quantity Source
Washington Suburban Patuxent (Rocky Gorge
Sanitary Commission ^2.51 mgd .Reservoir)
Fort Meade 2.91 mgd Little Patuxent River
Maryland House of Little Patuxent and
Correction 0.82 mgd Dorsey Run
PEPCO Chalk Point Patuxent Estuary for
Plant 720.0 mgd cooling water
The remaining water requirements are met from ground
water sources and are estimated to be about 5 mgd1. About Uo
mgd of the water are diverted to the Washington, D. C. Metro-
politan Area for use outside the Basin.
There are 2k significant waste water discharges in the
Basin, with the largest organic loading from the Laurel-Parkway,
Bowie-Belair, and the two Fort Meade sewage treatment plants
(Table l). No major organic industrial waste water discharges
occur in the Basin.
-------
IV - 1
IV. EXISTING WATER QUALITY
Increase in waste water volumes, a high density of out-
falls in limited areas, sluggish streams, and large diversions
from the Basin for water supply combine to cause water quality
problems in the Patuxent Basin. The degradation in water quality
in reaches below the Fort Meade, Patuxent, Bowie-Belair, Laurel-
Parkway, and Maryland House of Correction sewage treatment plant
outfalls was very pronounced during the low flow periods of 1966.
The most significant waste discharges enter the Patuxent
River in the Upper Basin above River Mile 1*5- To simplify inves-
tigation and presentation, the Upper Basin has been divided into
three reaches and numbered as follows:
1. Main Stem of Patuxent from Mile 1+5-0 to confluence
with Little Patuxent at Mile 63-70.
2. Main Stem of Patuxent from confluence with Little
Patuxent to Mile 80.9 just below Rocky Gorge
Reservoir.
3- Little Patuxent from confluence with the Patuxent
to Savage at Mile 82. U.
The detailed field investigations and engineering studies
necessary to evaluate the water quality in the Patuxent Estuary
(downstream from River Mile ^5) have not been performed at this
time. Studies are being conducted, and the analysis of water
quality in this portion of the Patuxent River will be reported
at a later date.
-------
IV - 2
As shown in Figure 1, the significant waste water dis-
charges are found in reaches 2, and 3> Even though the majority
of the waste is receiving at least 85 per cent treatment, there
is a degradation in water quality in the reaches below Laurel
and Fort Meade.
A. Biochemical Oxygen Demand and Dissolved Oxygen
During the low flow periods of July, August, and the
early part of September 1966, the water quality in all three
reaches near the confluence of the Patuxent and Little Patuxent
Rivers was typified by DO values ranging from 1.0 to ^.0 mg/1
and BOD's ranging from h.O to 22.0 mg/1. A summary of the water
quality for selected stations is given in Table 2 and Table 3.
When the water quality is compared to those of 196l for
the same three months, it is apparent that it has deteriorated.
Although waste water volumes have increased about 50 P6*" cent
in the past five years, some of the low quality can be attributed
to the extremely low flows during 1966. For example, the mean
monthly flow in August at Laurel was 5-73 cfs in 1966. The low
flows that occurred during August 1966, based on a log normal
probability relationship, have an occurrence probability of less
than 2 per cent„
As presented in Tables h and 5, the quality data for the
same selected stations in 1965 and 1966 indicate that the stream
is reaching its maximum assimilative capacity. Due to large
-------
IV - 3
differences in temperature in some of the sample data in 1965,
a quantitative comparison cannot be made using 19&5 data. How-
ever, data from "both years indicate poor water quality in all
reaches near the confluence with the Little Patuxent.
A major factor which indirectly affects the water quality,
especially near the confluence with the Little Patuxent, is the
large water loss due to evaporation, transpiration, leakage, etc.
According to field measurements by the U. S. Geological Survey
in 1966, there was about an 8 to 10 cfs loss of flow in the
Patuxent between Laurel and the confluence with the Little Patuxent.
In the Patuxent the low flows have a twofold effect on
the water quality:
1. The velocity of the stream is much less at low flows,
thus there is a larger exertion of BOD on the reaches
just below the Laurel-Parkway, Bowie-Belair, and
Patuxent treatment plant outfalls.
2. The low velocities reduce the reaeration rate of the
stream, thereby the assimilative capacity of the
stream is drastically reduced. For example, on
August 8, 1966, the velocity of the Patuxent River
near Bowie was calculated to be 0.2 fps, and reaera-
tion coefficient was determined to be about 0.2
(base 10).
The high water loss rate from marshy areas of the Patuxent and
small water releases from Rocky Gorge Reservoir (average of 5-73
-------
IV - k
cfs for August 1966) caused very sluggish flows in the Patuxent
from Laurel to the confluence with the Little Patuxent River.
In the Little Patuxent, the 6.0 mgd water withdrawal "by Fort
Meade and the Maryland House of correction also significantly
reduced the volume of dilution water during the low flow months.
B. Nutrients
A summary of nutrient data since 196l from the U. S.
Geological Survey and Maryland Department of Water Resources for
select stations in the Patuxent River is presented below:
Location
Laurel
Fort
Meade
Hardesty
Lower
Marlboro
*
Average
Stream
Patuxent River
Little Patuxent
River
Patuxent River
Patuxent Estuary
of two samples
River
Mile
80.90
75.62
U9.68
30.65
PO, as P
(mg/1)
0.006
0.330*
0.062
0.061
NO- as N
(Mg/1)
0.5^0
0.535
O.T60
0.576
From the summary it can be seen that the nutrient levels in the
Basin are low. There are no reported algal problems in the
Patuxent River.
C. Bacteriological Quality
As summarized in Table 3, high coliform counts are indi-
cative of the water quality in the upper watershed. The high
-------
IV - 5
counts are associated with agricultural land usage, sewage out-
falls , and population centers.
The lower counts at Station 10 indicate a rather high
die-away rate as one moves downstream; however, the bacterial
quality of the Patuxent at Mile k2.Q is poor. This quality
degradation is probably due to Western Branch which also has a
rather high coliform count.
D. Dissolved Solids
According to a study by the U. S. Geological Survey in
1962, the average dissolved solids concentration in the Patuxent
River at Hardesty was determined to be TO mg/1. The average
daily load, which was computed to be about 73 tons, contains
very small amounts of trace elements.
-------
V - 1
V. RECENT PROGRESS IN POLLUTION CONTROL
The local county governments have been responsible gener-
ally for zoning, land use planning, water supply, and waste dis-
posal. In Howard County the initial sewerage plan was developed
in 1958. The Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission has aided
in water supply and waste disposal planning in Prince Georges
and Montgomery Counties„ For the remaining Counties in the Basin,
sewerage planning was done on a community basis.
In 1958, officials from the interested Counties, State,
and other planning agencies agreed to study the sewerage needs
of the entire Patuxent Basin- The regional plan, which was
developed by Wolman, Geyer, and Beavin, was completed in Decem-
ber I960, and the recommendations are summarized below:
1. Construct, according to formulated schedule, sewer-
age treatment facilities at Laurel, Savage, Priest
Bridge, and Mataponi Creek to serve the waste dis-
posal needs of the Basin up to the year 2000.
2. Using low stream flows occurring less than five per
cent of the time, with 23 cfs being released from
Rocky Gorge Reservoir to maintain a minimum DO level
of 5«0 mg/1, 90 per cent BOD removal was recommended
for Mataponi Creek, Laurel, and Priest Bridge sewage
treatment plants, while the Savage plant was to pro-
vide 92-5 per cent removal.
-------
-------
V - 2
The regional plan, although never formally adopted, served as a
guide for use by County and State planning agencies.
In 196l, the Maryland General Assembly enacted the Patuxent
Watershed Act. According to this Act, a board of commissioners
and representatives of the State Government was to coordinate
County and State activities for:
"...the purpose of protecting said watershed by a pro-
gram of flood prevention, conservation, the protection
of areas therein subject to sediment or erosion damages,
and to prevent encroachment therein by the rapid spread
and growth of urban development, and to cooperate with
local, County, State, and Federal agencies; and it is
hereby declared that such flood prevention, conservation,
sediment or erosion protection, and the prevention of
urban development within said watershed is a public
benefit conducive to the public health, safety, and
welfare." (2, Section 1+ilA)
Attempts have been made recently to amend the Act in order to
make it more effective in accomplishing its goals.
In 1966, the General Assembly amended the Annotated Code
of the State of Maryland relating to water supply and sewerage.
According to the amendment, the Counties are required to develop
County plans to provide adequate water supply systems and sewer-
age systems by 1970 and to include a time schedule with cost
figures to implement the program. The State Department of Health
was designated the approving agency with opportunity for review
offered to the Maryland Department of Water Resources.
-------
V - 3
Numerous studies have been conducted on various problems
and conditions in the Patuxent Estuary. In order to determine
the effect of the cooling water discharge from the proposed PEPCO
Chalk Point Plant, a study was initiated by Natural Resource
Institute of University of Maryland, the U. S. Geological Survey,
and the Chesapeake Bay Institute of The Johns Hopkins University.
The power plant was placed in operation in 19^4, and part of the
study is being continued.
In January of 1966, the Governor of Maryland announced
that the State of Maryland would comply with the Federal Water
Quality Act of 1965. The State is currently establishing:
1. Water quality standards for interstate waters
in Maryland.
2. A plan for the implementation and enforcement of
the standards.
Public hearings are being conducted preliminary to the establish-
ment of such standards and plan.
-------
VI - 1
VI. IMMEDIATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL NEEDS
In the design of a system for maintaining water of good
quality in the Patuxent River Basin, the following must be
considered:
I, The projected ^10 per cent increase in municipal
water discharges by I960.
2. The high rate of diversion of the Patuxent River
water by the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commis-
sion for water supply purposes.
3° The maximum use of assimilative capacity of the
streams in conjunction with effective sewage treat-
ment in order to maintain good water quality in the
Patuxent Basin.
k, Possible transportation of waste water to the Estuary.
5. Nutrient removal.
The design of the system must also reflect possible trade-
offs between low flow augmentations from the presently existing
reservoirs and increased treatment requirements. The methods of
analyses employed in this report are discussed in Appendix C.
A,, Treatment Requirements
The various treatment levels which would be required to
maintain a DO of 5 nig/I for the 1980 projected waste water
volumes at various flow probabilities, if no reservoirs existed,
are presented in the following table:
-------
VI - 2
Mean Monthly Low
Flow Probability Treatment Requirements
Per
*
Cent of Time
5
2
1
Per cent BOD
July
9^
9^
95
removal values
August
9^
9k
96
rounded upward
September
9^
9*
95
The data in this table shows that, using the five per
cent mean monthly low flow and a minimum DO requirement of 5.0
mg/1, all waste water should receive a minimum of 9^ per cent
BOD removal. In the determination, it was assumed that all the
minimum DO's in the effluent were k*0 mg/1, there was an 8.0 cfs
loss in the marsh in the critical area, and there were no reser-
voirs in the system.
Be Flow Regulation
The effect of fixed release from the Rocky Gorge Reser-
voir on treatment requirements for the month of August is as
follows:
-------
VI - 3
Release Flow Treatment Requirements
,..._(cfs) (Per Cent of BOD Removal)
5 96
10 95
15 95
20 9k
30 9^
Data in the above table were calculated assuming all
other stream flows at the 5 percentile, a mean August stream
temperature of 21.3° C, a DO minimum of 5^0 mg/1, and a uniform
treatment policy were utilized in the calculations.
Based on a mean September stream temperature of 18.5° C,
the effect of flow regulation on treatment requirements is as
follows:
Release Flow Treatment Requi rements
(cfs) (Per Cent of BOD Removal)
5 95
10 9k
15 93
20 93
30 93
This table indicates that only slightly less treatment
is required to achieve the objective of 5^0 mg/1 for the month
of September.
As indicated in the tabulation for August, a minimum of
20 cfs (which is the 5 per cent mean monthly low flow) should be
released from Rocky Gorge Reservoir in conjunction with a minimum
-------
VI - h
treatment requirement of 9^ per cent removal of BODo Increasing
the minimum release to 30 cfs has no measurable effect on waste
water treatment requirements„ Using Fiering's hydrology model,
the 30 years of unregulated historical data, 191^ to 19^, were
routed through the reservoir system. The Washington Suburban
Sanitary Commission 1966 monthly withdrawal rate for water supply
requirements was also read into the model (see Table 8)» The
number of months in which the indicated release flow was not met
is given below:
Release Flow Number of Months
(cfs) Deficient
10 1
15 3
20 5
30 11
^0 25
In reviewing the 30 years of unregulated stream flow
data at the gage at Laurel, Maryland (formerly Burtonsville,
Maryland) the mean monthly flaw that occurred in 1931 has a
recurrence interval of about once in 100 years„ Therefore, the
drought that occurred in the early 1930"s probably has a mini-
mun recurrence interval of once in 100 years,
Twenty 150-year periods of synthetically generated flows
were routed through the reservoir system under the same condi-
tions as above. The probability of not meeting the mean monthly
release as indicated is given below:
-------
VI - 5
Release Flov Probability of Monthly
(cfs) Failure (Per Cent)
10 less than 0.05
20 less than 0.05
30 0.20
40 1.20
Since increasing the release flov above 20 cfs will have
little measurable effect on lowering the BOD removal requirements,
nothing would be gained by requiring a release greater than 20
cfs. The failure rate for the 20 cfs release rate, based on
specified treatment requirements, would be five months in 100
years, based on historical data, or less than 0.05 per cent of
the time, based on the synthetically generated flow data. If
the 20 cfs release rate is maintained, and all waste water is
subjected to 94 per cent removal of BOD, both the 5.0 mg/1 DO
objective and the current water supply withdrawal rates of the
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission will be met greater than
99 per cent of the time.
C. System Cost
No cost estimates have been established for the require-
ment of releasing 20 cfs from the existing reservoir system, but
the above analyses have indicated that it could be done with
little change in the current water supply withdrawal rates. Means
for accomplishing this release should be investigated, and the
required release negotiated.
-------
vi - 6
Each of the agencies has developed plans for meeting its
projected waste water treatment requirements. The cost of the
proposed expansion program is as shown in the following table:
Added
Community Capacity Cost
Laurel-Parkway (WSSC) 2.k mgd $1,850,000
Savage (Howard County) 7.0 mgd $6,1400,000
Maryland City
(Anne Arundel County) 0.75 mgd $1,000,000
Patuxent Plant
(Anne Arundel County) 2.2 mgd $3,100,000
Western Branch (WSSC) 5.0 mgd $3,150,000
$15,500,000
The above costs, which include the secondary treatment
facilities only, were obtained from various consulting engineers'
reports, county plans, etc.6'7'8'9'26
In order to maintain the water quality criteria of 5.0
mg/1 DO, 9h per cent removal of BOD for the projected 1980 waste
water discharges is required. To aid in reducing the coliform
counts in all waters of the Basin, all organic waste effluents
must be chlorinated continuously. The cost of the increased
BOD removal rate, according to a study by Frankel25, from 85 per
cent to 9^ per cent is about 20 per cent of the basic plant cost
for a 2.5 mgd plant and about 25 per cent for a 10 mgd plant.
-------
-------
vi - 7
Using an average cost increase of 22.5 per cent for a U.O mgd
plant, the increased construction cost is estimated to be
$19,000,000.
Other factors that must be considered in waste water
treatment are nutrient removal requirements and cost. Nutrient
removal requirements and cost were not determined because of
insufficient data. However, using average nutrient loadings
from ten sewage treatment plants in the Potomac River Basin
and the limited stream sampling data available, it appears that
the Patuxent River has a large capacity for assimilating phosphorus,
Expressing phosphorus removal by the sediments, aquatic
plants, etc., by a first order reaction, it was estimated that
the removal coefficient is about 0.30 (base 10). Until the
mechanisms of removal and controling factors are firmly estab-
lished and the resulting algal blooms documented, treatment
requirements for phosphorus cannot be determined with precision.
As indicated above, the required uniform treatment is 9^ per
cent removal. The type of treatment facility required to obtain
this high BOD removal rate will affect the concentration of nutri-
ents in the final effluent. Therefore, in the waste treatment
plant design phase, consideration should be given to possible
future nutrient removal requirements.
In lieu of formulating the nutrient removal requirements
at the present time, a study should be initiated to determine
-------
vi - 8
the current nutrient level and establish the rate of removal.
Upon completion of this study, an evaluation of nutrient treat-
ment requirements will be possible. (Preliminary studies are
currently being conducted by the Chesapeake Field Station,
CB-SRBP.)
D. Transportation to Estuary and Estuarine Consideration
In developing the Regional Beverage Plan, Wolman, Geyer,
and Beavin6 investigated the possibility of disposing of all
Basin sewage to the Patuxent Estuary by means of a continuous
interceptor system leading to a single large treatment plant
located near Mataponi Creek. Their investigations indicated
that the Estuary was incapable of assimilating the effluent from
a single point discharge.
Further investigation by Wolman, Geyer, and Beavin showed
the feasibility of discharging the effluent to Chesapeake Bay,
provided it is planned jointly with the District of Columbia
Government for disposal of their final effluent. This plan for
disposal into Chesapeake Bay by the District of Columbia has not
been adopted.
The proposed Western Branch Sewage Treatment Plant by
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, plus the projected
increased stream load, will result in water quality deteriora-
tion in the Estuary„ Due to the two-layer nature of the Patuxent
-------
VI - 9
Estuary and currently indeterminate effects of the PEPCO Chalk
Point Plant, the use of Thoman's estuary model or spectral analysis
in conjunction with substantial field work will be required to
fully evaluate the significance of this water quality deteriora-
tion, A study of this nature will also be valuable in assessing
the effects of nutrients in the Patuxent Estuary.
-------
VII - 1
APPENDIX A
SOURCE OF DATA
The basic population projections were obtained from the
National Planning Association^ Projections were also obtained
from the Howard8 and Anne Arundel26 County water and sewerage
master plans. The Regional Sewerage Plan Report by Wolman,
Geyer, and Beavin6 and the Patuxent Report by the Water Manage-
ment Seminar of The Johns Hopkins Universityio were also sources
of population projections and the dichotomy of population within
the Basin.
Surface water discharge rates were obtained from the
U. S. Geological Survey.15'16'17 The U, S. Geological Survey
has six permanent and six temporary gaging stations within the
Basino
Chemical and biological water quality data were obtained
from the Maryland Department of Water Resources„ This Depart-
ment conducts a monthly sampling program at 3^ stations within
the Basin, some of which were established in 1961 and other sta-
tions added since 1962„ The Department has also conducted surveys
in the Estuary from 1962 to 196U. Intensive surveys were also
made by the Department in the Upper Patuxent River during the
summers of 1964, 1965, and 1966, Sampling stations for the
Patuxent River are shown in Figure 2, Chemical quality water
data were also obtained from the Uo S> Geological Survey which
-------
VII - 2
has established five stations for monitoring vater quality in
the Estuary.
Monthly operating reports were obtained from all major
waste treatment plants within the Basin. Operational data for
the remaining discharges were obtained from the Maryland Depart-
ments of Health and Water Resources.
Stream temperature data were obtained from the Fort Meade
water treatment plant records in order to establish mean monthly
water temperatures for the Patuxent River.
Time-of-travel and cross-section data were obtained by
personnel of the Chesapeake Field Station, CB-SRBP. Dye studies
were conducted by the U. S. Geological Survey in 1965 and were
also used to establish time-of-travel.
-------
VII - 3
APPENDIX B
FORMULATION PARAMETERS AND CRITERIA
1. Population and Waste Water Projections
In order to further define the water resources problems
in the Basin, the immediate needs were expanded to include re-
quirements up to the year 1980, The population projections of
National Planning Association, as tabulated in Table 9, indicated
that the Basin population will increase about 200 per cent by
1980. Projections by the various counties, planning agencies,
and consulting engineering firms are somewhat higher; however,
all projections indicate a rapid rate of growth in the Basin.
Due to the large projected increase in population, each
of the major planning agencies within the Basin was contacted
and, whenever possible, supplied projected waste water discharges
for 1980. Since planning agencies are more familiar with the
local sewage effluent problems, and only part of each County is
within the Basin, the projected waste discharges obtained from
planning agencies were used in the study. The current and pro-
jected flows from major sewage treatment facilities are given
in Table 6.
2. Stream Flow
The design stream flow used in determining pollution
control needs is the mean monthly low flow which occurs five
per cent or less of the time (Table 7). The consecutive 7-day
-------
VII - k
low flow with recurrence interval of once in ten years, as rec-
ommended by the Maryland Department of Water Resources, is quite
similar to the design flow (as can also be seen in Table !)•
The advantage of using the mean monthly flows is that flow and
temperature can be more realistically incorporated in prediction
of water quality.
3. Water Quality
Since the parameter which is most indicative of water
quality in a free flowing stream is dissolved oxygen, the treat-
ment requirements and/or flow requirements were determined using
a minimum dissolved oxygen level of 5-0 mg/1.
In order to keep the waters essentially free from heavy
growths of rooted plants, slimes, algae, and other plankton, the
Sub-Task Force on Water Quality on Project Potomac has proposed
a phosphorus maximum of 0.1 mg/1. This has been used in this
report.
-------
VII - 5
APPENDIX C
METHOD OF DATA ANALYSIS
A mathematical model relating temperature, dissolved
oxygen (DO), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and stream flow
vas established for the Basin. Thomas' step method version2 of
the oxygen-sag equation is the basic algorithm in the model.
The steady-state temperature formulation of Duttweiler3 was
employed as the temperature algorithm in the model. The reaera-
tion coefficient for each section was calculated employing the
Churchill formulation. **
For the model study, the Patuxent River Basin above
Estuary River Mile U5.0 was divided into 28 physically-homogene-
ous sections (Figure 3). Logarithmic velocity versus stream flow
and logarithmic depth versus stream flow relationships were
developed for the 12 gaging stations. The relationships are as
follows:
•DTD
Depth = AA x Flow
Velocity = CC x FlowDD
The exponents were established at each of the gaging
stations and extended to other sections within the model. The
constants for the relationships were determined primarily by
cross-sections and time-of-travel studies. Exponents and con-
stants for each of the sections are tabulated in Table 10.
-------
vii - 6
The model, which was programed on a digital computer,
was verified by comparing the calculated results with known water
quality conditions. The verification procedure used was as
follows:
1. Establish the constants and exponents for the depth
and velocity relationship for the sections.
2. From existing water quality data, determine deaera-
tion coefficient.
3. Compare the calculated BOD profile with field results
and, if necessary, adjust the deaeration coefficient.
1*. Once the calculated BOD profiles were satisfactory,
the calculated DO profiles are compared to field
results.
5. When necessary, the depth constants are uniformly
adjusted in order to yield a satisfactory DO profile.
Once the model was verified, it was used to predict the
water quality at various treatment and discharge levels. A
computed and a field data profile are shown in Figure H. Water
quality predictions were made for the months of July, August,
and September in order to take into consideration low flow con-
ditions and water temperatures simultaneously.
The following assumptions were made in projecting water
quality.
1. All waste water discharges have a DO of U.O mg/1.
-------
VII - T
2. The temperature of all waste water discharge was
25° C.
3° The deaeration rates of the waste waters will be
equal to those as determined in the verification
procedure.
k. BOD in the waste discharges will remain relatively-
constant.
In order to determine how much water could be released
for water quality control from Rocky Gorge Reservoir without
jeopardizing the water supply needs of Washington Suburban Sani-
tary Commission, the synthetic hydrology model of Fiering5 was
used. The 1966 water supply figures were used in the model.
-------
VIII - 1
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Uo S, Geological Survey, "Water and Land Resources of the
Patuxent River Basin, Maryland," (Unpublished)
2, Thomas, H. A., "The Dissolved Oxygen Balance in Streams,"
Seminar Papers on Waste Water Treatment and Disposal, Boston
Society of Civil Engineers, 196l.
3. Duttweiler, D= W0, "A Mathematical Model of Stream Tempera-
tures," Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, The Johns Hopkins Uni-
versity, 1963.
k. Churchill, M. A., et al., The Prediction of Stream Reaera-
tion Rates, Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, Tennessee,
July 1962.
5. Fiering, M. B., and Pisano, W« C., "Synthesis and Simulation
Package for Reservoir Planning," prepared for Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, Uo S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, 19660
6,, Wolman, A., Geyer, J\ C., and Beavin, B. E. , "Patuxent Regional
Sewerage Report," Board of Consultants, Baltimore, Maryland,
1961.
1, Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, "Sewerage Program,"
Fiscal 1967-1971, 1966o
80 Howard County Metropolitan Commission, "Sewerage Report,"
prepared by Whitman, Reguardt and Associates-Consulting
Engineers, June 1958.
-------
VIII - 2
9. Howard County Metropolitan Commission, "Water and Sewerage,"
prepared by Whitman, Reguardt and Associates-Consulting
Engineers, 1966
10. Water Management Seminar, "Report of the Patuxent River Basin,"
The Johns Hopkins University, 1966,,
11. Maryland State Planning Department, "Maryland Water Supply
and Demand Study," prepared for Maryland State Planning
Department, Hull, Co H<, , Consultant, September 1965•
12o Maryland Geological Survey, "Chemical Quality of Water and
Trace Elements in the Patuxent River Basin," prepared in
cooperation with the U, S« Geological Survey, 19&5-
13. Maryland Department of Water Resources, "Physical, Chemical,
and Bacteriological Water Quality in the Patuxent River,"
Unpublished Report, 1967=
lit. Potomac Interim Report to the President, Federal Interdepart-
mental Task Force on the Potomac, Potomac River Basin Advisory
Committee, January 1966.
15. Uo S, Geological Survey, "Surface Water Records of Maryland
and Delaware," 1961-1966.
16. Maryland Department of Geology, Mines, and Water Resources,
"Maryland Stream Flow Characteristics," Bulletin 25, 1962.
17. Uo So Geological Survey, "Surface Water Supply of the United
States," North Atlantic Slope Basin, New York to York River,
Geological Survey Water Supply Papers, 1702, 1722, and 1302.
-------
VIII - 3
l8o Chesapeake Bay Institute, "On the Prediction of the Distribu-
tion of Excess Temperature from a Heated Discharge in an
Estuary," The Johns Hopkins University, Technical Report 33,
February 1965°
19- Us S0 Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, "Waste
Disposal Practices at Federal Installations, Patuxent River
Basin," Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River Basins Project,
Charlottesville, Virginia, 196^.
20. Nash, Carroll Blue, "Environmental Characteristics of a River
Estuary," Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Board of Natural
Resources, State of Maryland, December 19^7°
21. Beavin, C. F., "Temperature and Salinity of Surface Water at
Solomons, Maryland," Chesapeake Science, Volume I, No. 2,
April I960,
22. U. S. Geological Survey, "Temperature and Water Quality Condi-
tions for the Period July 1963 to December 1968, Patuxent
River Estuary, Maryland," Department of the Interior, Open-
File Report, 196T.
23. Natural Resources Institute, "Patuxent Thermal Studies,"
Progress Report for Maryland Department of Water Resources,
University of Maryland, 1967,
2k, Stross, Ru C., and Stottlemyer, J. R., "Primary Production
in the Patuxent River," Chesapeake Science, Volume VI, No. 3,
September 1965.
-------
viii - U
25. Frankel, R. F., "Water Quality Management: An Engineering
Economic Model for Domestic Waste Disposal," University of
California, Berkley, Unpublished. Doctoral Thesis, 1965.
26. Anne Arundel County, "Water and Sewerage Master Plan Report,"
prepared by Whitman, Reguardt and Associates-Consulting
Engineers, March 1967.
-------
>H
K
O
EH
|r
M
K
W
-p
ft o3
££
EH
-p
C H Q
CU cd O
U > PQ
O
rH B
Q
0)
-P
CO ft
II?
W 1 0)
CU 03 >
0) H £n
>5 P
4-^
-H
O
rrj
fi
rH
£"<
C$
s
s^
o
0)
-P 0
03 CQ
M CQ
5 0)
JH ft
03 0>
•P CQ
r^ O
•H W
EH
&
03
•H
-P
0)
EH
tr\
C7N
LP\
O
tr\
0
•
O
s?
03
-p
•H
cd
CQ
O
VO
J-
-P to
0) ^H (U
-p 0) bC
CQ fi .
LT\
CM
H
0
O
£>
cd
-P
•H
a
cd
CQ
CQ
0)
•H
£_{
cd
^
£
CQ
^
CU
•H
O K
-p
-p
fr S
5 S
^td
•H PH
EH
fr
cd
•H
-p
0)
EH
0
o\
o
o
o
«
H
-3-
_^-
•
, — j
fc
03
•P
•H
£
00
0
o
o
^
H
CM
PH
EH
CQ
^_j
•H
cd
H
(U
pq
i
•H
^5
O
PH
O
-p
£-1 CU
03 rH
•P -P
P -P
,0 -H
•H (-3
EH
i?
cd
T3
c
o
o
CO
0
o
H
0
O
H
O
0
o
o{3 i — 1
CtJ
£? 'S
cd -p
-P tQ
•H P1
CH TJ
oj a
CO M
CM
IA
^
O
a
cd
s
5
bC
0)
O
bD
P
O
Q
CU
bO
03
0
CQ
•H
Q
O
£5
-p
a
CU
^
"id
PH
PH
EH
O CO
-p
CU
0 bD
bO cd
^
i — 1 n5
H CO
•H
|3
0)
cu
EH
co
3
H
PH
1?
cd
r^
G
O
O
0)
CQ
w
LA
CO
w
CM
t-
0
LA
O
e
O
^>
cd
-p
•H
cd
CO
o
o
\D
PH
EH
CO
a
•H
bO
bD
O
H
Q
IX - 1
•p -P -P
C fl fl
a) cu cu
3 3 P
-p -P -P
PH PH PH
r-j |> H >
rcJ K ^ PH ^ CC
g g g
r? & &
o3 o3 nj
T^ f^ ^
c a o
o o o
O CJ O
CU 0) 0)
CQ CO CQ
W H
LA LA OO
CO CO CO
p£J p£j pr"]
J- LA O
on o\ t—
rH
ro CM LA
H LA VD
O 0 0
• • 0
o o o
oJ3 i — 1 08 i — 1 08 i — 1
cd cd cd
fc '£ t?'£ & *c
cd -p cd -p cd -p
-p CQ -P CQ -p CQ
•HP -H S -H ^J
cd SH cd a cd G
CQ M CQ M CQ M
H O O
CM LA O
m o
*•
OJ
!»
rH
rH
O
CH jj^ Q to
0 ?H G >>
" Cd CU -H M
>^ ti fc o j^ o
•H cd ^ £H G O Cd
CQ H CU C5 cd W ^-i
fa Sj 4J p>j O
cu M cd " a CQ ,0
^> CvJ ^3 PH O G 03
•H S 0? O ^3 J
G • O
D S h>
-------
J- — "1.
T3
0>
•-<
•-J
S3
•H
-P
S3
0
O
•"^^
-H
r-r-1
d
m
<
EH
-P
(3
0)
O
SH
CU
PH
QJ
bC
SH
n3
J^
o
M
H
O
CO
(U
>3
O
rH
P4
e
M
sn
QL
S3
'H
>
•H
O
0)
K
O
e
cu
o^
«H
O
a
w
PH'
cy
H
H
0
>
cu
HP
CO
f^
Cu
js
1
03
M
pi
PH
O
PH
rH
O
CQ
rM
O
1
K
£
ct
OJ
rH
-P
CQ
-P
S3
D
e
-p
o3
OJ
f-
H
P
O
m
CH
o
OJ
bC
SH
cc
,CJ
O
CO
•H
Q
^ — s
Ti
bC
• — .
0)
ft
EH
Ti
OJ
>
rH
D
CQ
S3
O
"H
tj
cy
S3
-p
(3
CU
X
f— *
,->
-p
rrt
tu
PH
cu
H
-P
-P
•H
^
r7
03
Ti
S3
O
o
/i\
W
CQ
W
LA
CO
w
o
-3-
H
CM
t-
O
O
08
^
r*S
rH
03
+J
°r~i
CQ
0
O
C—
PH
EH
CQ
0)
be
oJ
>
o3
CQ
f-H
cu
f>
•H
P?
H
cs3
"rH
rH
-P
CO
r-~j
Ti
f™*
M
M
03
Tl
C
O
O
CU
CQ
W
LA
CO
§
CO
CM
O
LA
o
H
03
•H
S3
M
H
•H
T! s
o3 o3 co
•H P
' S3 O
a -i
bO
(3
O
-H
H -P
n3 o3
S3 rH
O OJ
M PH
03 O
CU
CQ
ft
cq
Ti
S3
O
o3
•H
O
CO
OJ
O
CM
O
CD
cd
•p
•H
S3
o3
CQ
>
9)
CO
ft
o
P
r?
0$
T!
S3
O
o
-p -H
-P K
•H
i-q
r?
03
T!
S3
o
o
D
CQ
^Q
CO
0
0
t-
CQ
a
CO
0)
rW
U
pi
rH
O
S3
M
-P
$3
D
X
rH
I-*
"P
oi
PH
D
H
-P
-P
•H
r-q
0
-p
0)
ft
V
>
•H
P5
tf
03
T3
S3
o
CJ
1)
CQ
on
o\
0
0
-j-
LA
CM
O
CQ
S3
CU O
CO -H
Pi -P
O O
W 0)
SH
Ti (s
S3 O
03
S
t-
H
r?
03
-P
«H
CQ
H
CO
m
o\
o
03
-p
•H
CQ
SPH
-P EH
in CQ
O
CU
T)
03
0)
S
PH
-P EH
t*
ffi
S3
d>
CO
£
O
EH
03
°H
rH
PH
LA
OO
LA
ON
t—
O
O
03 Hp
-p CO
•H Pi
CQ
T)
>s S3
_Q 3
rH
Ti < >>
» S3
rH CD
H -H X
OS 03 p!
SQ 13
S PH
IX - 2
-P
$3
CU
X
HP
o3
PH
ft
CU CU
H !>
-P -H
-P K
O
-=!•
-p
H
•H
CQ
aJ
Tl T)
3 §
In
< Tl
g
» 03
-p *H
O Ti
O (3
Oi H
CQ CD
to a
•H fc
H O
O
-------
*• —
«
•H
-P
a
o
-.
rH
w
3
c3^
C~J
-p
a
o
o
^
0)
CD
•iH 0)
0> KM
0 -P
CO
OH
-p
Pq
O
a v.
(U O
§'T3
b£
O
^1
M
^J fn
-P -H
2 rO
rQ 03
•H 0
$H
EH
j>^
£_,
ni
a
o
o
OJ
CQ
0
CT\
O
VO
ro
O
0
oo
O --- O
>
08 r-J
a
J^
h
pq
d
D
•P
03
0
*
0)
-p
a3
•H
-a
(L)
0)
-P
a
i— i
w
o
LPv
w
o
0
(VI
0
VO
o
o
1 • '"1
4' -N ;
^i , — S
OJ
ft a
0 -rH
a a
•rl O
-P -P
^S
-P S-i
d Cl5
0) 3
X -P
pi co
-P W
cd
P^
0
<£
•
^
<£
0
^
0
o
o
o
o
CM
t**"
•H
a
03
CO
IX - 3
CO
0)
O
H
P;
a
U-l
V. ' (
i ajf
H 5nj 0
ftC/3
O
cu a
o
ii -H
0 ^'
0
<3j [ —
V
^
0
i ^
I a> o
1 S-. W ,Q
a> -H a3 M
B
cd
e^
*"_) -p
C.)
O (1)
O !-<
P-t ^
^
03
0)
P
i — !
cd
>
f^j
D
_p
ctf
g
•ri
j i
to
W
^
H
,0
cS
CJ
•H
H
ft
ft
-p
o
II
0
<£
'•
-------
-------
IX -
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY DATA FOR LOW FLOW PERIODS 19 6l AND 1966
#*
Station
5
8
10
11
12
13
lit
15
#**
Ll
L2
L3
!.«
L6
L6A
LT
L8
Ave,
River No, of Temp,
Mile Samples (° C)
kZckO
60.70
63,80
66.30
68,60
71,^3
75,0
78.03
63.80
66,80
71.20
7 it, 05
77,2
Dorsey
Run
81.35
85.2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
^
3
3
3
3
3
3
2U,3
21 ,,6
20,8
22,2
22,0
21 08
21,7
21 c 5
21,8
22 ,.7
23,3
23,7
22,0
18,3
25.0
22,7
1961
Ave,
DO
(mg/1)
6.2
6,8
6.6
6,9
6,0
3,8
6.7
8,3
6,6
6,7
7.8
7,8
7,8
5^9
8,2
8,6
Aye,
BOD
(mg/1)
1.2
0,87
1,0
0,7
1,0
3.5
1.5^
2,1
1.1
1.3
1,0
I.k
0,7
it. 5
0,9
0.5
Ave,
No, of Temp.
Samples (° C)
3
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
21*. 5
22.9
23.1
22.6
22,9
22,5
21,3
19.9
22, h
22.1
22.3
22,7
23,0
21.3
2^,2
22,0
1966
Ave,
DO
(mg/1)
5.1
2.9
1.7
5.1
3.7
3.k
6.8
8,9
3.7
U.5
6.3
1*. 5
8.2
3.2
9.1
9.2
Ave.
BOD
(mg/1)
3.3
6.7
9.3
k.l
6.3
8.5"
h.k
3.3
6.9
7.6
3.7
k.6
U.2
11.5
3.1
3.2
***
Average Flow = for the period during 1961
at Station 15 = 11,8 cfs
at Station L8 = 10,7 cfs
Average Flow = for the period during 1966
at Station 15 = 6,3 cfs
at Station L8 = 5.1 cfs
L Prefix denotes Little Patuxent River
-------
IX - 5
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF BACTERIOLOGICAL DATA
FOR JULY, AUGUST, AND SEPTEMBER
Mean Coliform Count
Station
5
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
*
LI
L2
L3
L4
L6
L6A
L7
L8
River Mile
42,40
60o70
63,80
66,30
68060
71oU3
75oO
78,03
63 »80
66.80
71,20
7^,05
77.20
Dorsey Run
81,35
85«20
July
(MPN/100 ml)
120,000
41,000
8,000
8,000
43,000
11,000
81,000
52,000
123000
37,000
7,000
28,000
98,000
53,000
168,000
2i5000
August
(MPN/100 ml)
111, 000
22,000
1,600
1,800
1,900
1,600
170,000
36,000
2U,000
18,000
18,000
62,000
62,000
18,000
65,000
26,000
September
(MPN/100 ml)
18,000
11,000
5,000
4,000
8,000
1,500
529,800
73,000
1,800
22,000
24,000
32,000
141,000
24,000
64,000
23,000
L Prefix denotes Little Patuxent River
-------
TABLE k
WATER QUALITY DATA FOR MONTHS OF
JULY, AUGUST, AND SEPTEMBER 196?
Patuxent River Basin
IX - 6
BOD
DO
TEMP
Station
5
8
10
11
12
13
Ik
15
*
LI
L2
L3
Lk
L6
I-6A
L?
I,R
River
Mile
42
60
63
66
68
71
75
78
63
66
71
7k
77
,4o
70
,80
.30
.60
.^3
,0
.03
,.80
,80
.,20
05
r.
Dorsey
Run
81
85
,35
,2
min,
mg/1
2o
2,
40
?„
3.
3.
2,
2,
P ^
'4C
4
5,
^
4
jy
1
5
6
1
I
l
8
8
8
5
2
6
0
1
9
i
8
a»/e
mg/
3,
5.
cr
:> -
3.
'4
11
5-
4,
4,
k..
6,
6.
c;
14,
3,
3,
I
9
5
8
7
s
2
3
8
9
9
C
>
6
0
0
6
7
max,
mg/1
M
7,6
8 5
6.1
5.8
22,0
6,5
7,h
6,7
5,9
8.5
8.!*
6.1*
21.0
k-,l
6.2
min.
mg/1
k 7
1.5
2,8
6U]
5,8
5.2
6.9
8,1
5 = 5
5.14
6,6
60 U
7,3
3»0
7,7
7,0
ave0
mg/1
5,3
5 = 9
5«0
7,2
6,5
5.6
7,5
9.1
7,2
6,5
7^
7,3
7- '4
3-9
8,3
7.,7
max.
mg/1
5,9
7,k
6.0
8.0
7°3
6,1
8.2
9°7
Q.h
7.1
7,9
7,8
7.6
5,3
8.9
8.1*
min*
o c
21 o
15.
15,
Ik.
14 o
14.
15.
15-
15.
19,
20,
19.
20 o
20,
20.
19»
0
2
2
5
7
5
1
6
5
2
7
5
4
3
6
4
ave.
0 C
23.8
18.5
18.6
17.8
17.8
17.7
17.7
18U4
18.7
21.6
23.0
21,1
22^0
22.0
22,4
21.0
max.
0 C
28.0
23.7
23.8
23.2
23.2
22.2
21.0
21.0
24«0
24.5
24.5
25.0
25.0
24.3
25.5
23,5
L Prefix denotes Little Patuxent River
-------
TABLE 5
WATER QUALITY DATA FOR MONTHS OF
JULY, AUGUST, AND SEPTEMBER 1966
Patuxent River Basin
IX - 7
Station
5
8
10
11
12
13
Ik
15
*
LI
L2
L3
L4
L6
L6A
LT
L8
River
Mile
42
60
63
66
68
71
75
78
63
66
71
74
77
.1+0
.70
.80
.30
.60
A3
.0
.03
.80
.80
.20
,05
.2
Dorsey
Run
81
85
.35
.2
mm.
mg/1
1.6
3.8
5.0
2.4
1.7
2.4
2.6
2.0
it. 6
6.8
2.0
1.4
3.7
5.6
2.1
2.1+
BOD
ave.
mg/1
3.3
6.7
9-3
4.1
6.3
8.5
4.4
3.3
6.9
7.6
3.7
4.6
4.2
11.5
3.1
3o2
max,
mg/1
4.3
12.0
22.0
11 „!
9.5
18
6.1
5.4
10.0
9.1
6.3
6.2
U.6
17.0
3o7
3.7
mm.
mg/1
4.1
2.1
1,0
3.8
2.9
2.8
6.2
8.0
3.0
3.8
5.U
3.6
7.0
2.5
8.3
8.5
DO
ave.
mg/1
5.1
2.9
1.7
5.1
3.7
3.U
6.8
8.9
3.7
4.5
6.3
4.5
8,2
3.2
9.1
9.2
max.
mg/1
6.5
3.3
2.1
7.2
4.1
3.9
7.6
9-9
4.1
4.8
7.6
5.3
10.3
4.0
10.0
10.3
mm.
0 C
20.5
19-5
20.5
19-2
19-0
19.5
19.5
16.6
20.5
21.2
20.8
20.7
20.0
18.5
18.5
I8o0
TEMP
ave.
0 C
24.5
22.9
23.1
22.6
22.8
22.5
21.2
19.9
23.7
22.1
22.3
22.7
22.8
21.3
24.2
22.0
max.
0 C
27-5
24.7
25.0
24.7
24.7
24.3
22.8
22.5
25-2
24.0
24.7
25.0
25-5
23.5
28.0
24.6
L Prefix denotes Little Patuxent River
-------
IX - 8
TABLE 6
PROJECTED INCREASE IN WASTE WATER VOLUMES
FOR MAJOR TREATMENT FACILITIES
Plant
Laurel Parkway
(WSSC)
Bowie-Belair
(Prince Georges County)
Savage
(Howard County)
Maryland City
(Anne Arundel County)
Patuxent Plant
(Anne Arundel County)
Western Branch
(WSSC)
Fort Meade
#1
Fort Meade
#2
Current
Design
Flows Capacity
mgd mgd
2000 2, hO
I.hh 2, hO
OoOT loOO
O.hh 0,75
0,1+2 2.00
0.00 OoOO
1.11 2.50
0.9h 1,50
Projected
Flows
mgd
It. 80
2. hO
8.00
1.30
3.10
5.00.
2.50
1.50
Per Cent
Increase
lUO
68
Major
Expansion
195
6UO
New £
Plant
126
60
Proposed plant will be discharging into Patuxent Estuary and not
included in upstream calculations.
-------
t--
CO
o
o
M
CO
Q
p
g
O
•H
IS
p
00
bO
a
H
cs
CO
03
c o
cS bC
pa cd
a> o3
-P (D
w C
0
S
cd
a*
*
-P H
C 0!
§i
-p 1-5
03
P-
+•' -P
C -H
o> a
X D
1
P-
C Pi
pi co
K CO
0)
CD
co to
to cd
O CD
PI a
2 hO
+-
b
o
CO
O
_^
OJ
0
m
^j-
CO
CO
CM
O
H
O
0
oo
o
j.
o
CO
H
oo
oo
CO
CO
o
n
^}-
H
OO
(U
,0
&
to
o
Q)
Q
OO
rH
CVJ
ON
rH
ON
o
C\j
rH
-*
-=f
to
n3
r*i QJ
Jj
O
H
>
O
rH
r^3
H
r*
-p
a
o
g
c
crJ
Q
•H
«P,
CQ
r-l
Pi
O
0
o
o
•H
a
in
a
o
-p
to
PS
M
5
0)
g
^
o
to
(D
pi
H
03
^»
Jj
O
rH
-------
IX - 10
TABLE 8
MONTHLY VOLUME OF PATUXENT WATER FILTRATION PLANT
(Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission)
1966 Average Water Filtered (mgd)
January 28.76
February 30.26
March 29^76
April 29=91
May 1+8,91
June 55-12
July 580*16
August ^8»75
September 50.75
October 1*3.87
November 1+2^85
December 1+2,65
Average h2, 51
-------
TABLE 9
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
IX - 11
Area
Anne Arundel County
Calvert County
Charles County
Howard County
Montgomery County
Prince Georges County
St. Marys County
Per Cent
in Basin
11
39
6
62
2
18
20
I960
206,600
15,800
32,600
36,200
3^0,900
357,^00
38,900
1980
^400,000
26,000
52,000
100,000
551,000
7^5,000
52,000
Per Cent
Increase
19^
16U
160
276
162
208
133
Baltimore Metropolitan
Area
Washington, D. C.
Metropolitan Area
Patuxent River Basin
1,800,000 2,750,000
50
2,050,000 3,550,000 73
135,000 270,000 200
-------
IX - 12
TABLE 10
BASIC DATA FOR PATUXENT MODEL
Section
1
2
3
It
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
ll*
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2k
25
26
27
28
Lover
Node
1
2
1*
6
8
10
12
lit
16
18
20
21
22
21*
26
28
30
32
36
38
ItO
1*2
1*6
1*8
50
52
5>*
56
Upper
Node
2
It
6
8
10
12
lit
16
18
20
21
22
21*
26
28
30
32
36
38
1*0
1*2
1*6
1*8
50
52
51*
56
58
Distance
(Miles)
It It. 990
1*5.000
50.000
55-000
60.000
63.700
61*. 500
66.100
69.1*00
71.000
73.000
71*. 600
76.000
77.300
78.500
80.000
80.900
66.650
66.850
70.650
73.000
75.1*50
75.650
77-200
78.500
80.100
80.900
82.1*00
Area
(Sq.Mi.)
52U.270
52l*.270
ltlU.770
386.000
362.000
31*2.600
181.200
181.200
181.200
157-000
157-000
157-000
157.100
133.000
133-000
133.000
133.000
161.100
161.100
11*0.000
11*0.000
125.000
125.000
125.000
110.000
110.000
110.000
98.1*80
AA
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.375
0.360
0.680
0.620
0.600
1.000
0.850
0.700
0.660
0.660
0.660
0.580
0.1*80
0.660
0.660
0.550
0.550
0.530
0.500
0.580
0.580
0.580
0.1*80
0.330
BB
0.585
0.585
0.585
0.585
0.1*1*0
0.1*80
0.1*80
0.1*80
0.1*80
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.273
0.273
0.320
0.320
0.320
0.320
0.31*3
0.31*3
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.3l*0
CC
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.01*7
0.056
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.062
0.062
0.056
0.070
0.076
0.080
0.360
0.1*00
0.038
0.039
0.01*1
0.01*2
0.2ltO
0.21*0
0.060
0.060
0.060
0.100
0.135
DD
0.1*83
0.1*83
0.1*83
0.1*83
0.525
0.1*90
0.1*90
0.1*90
0.1*90
0.622
0.622
0.622
0.622
0.622
0.622
0.253
0.253
0.625
0.625
0.625
0.625
0.360
0.360
0.622
0.622
0.622
0.622
0.525
-------
-------
-------
-O -D -o z
» » a c
mm ml
•q TI 11 m
x x x ^
r
t C r ca
•+ + •*•
• z z z
o p p
H II II H H
S£ !?5!:j
T Z « O ~> —
H -0 _, O HZ
I! m<~ r
n •* a "I 1*1
o
x c c =
> x xx
z m m m
o z zz
i H -in
O > (• U U (•
m
m C
rn
o
£
r
0)0
c
o
O O OO
z z zz
01 Ok C* *•
- I
CO ^
c m
m
K CD
2 >
c
m
ro
-------
-------
m
(A
z
o
CD
O
r
I
o
3)
O)
rn
-o
m
z
CD
3)
O
I
3)
cn
en
o
O
j>
31
r o
> 3J
c o
X> S
m r-
r CD >
3) Z
T> > O
31
O
O
O
3)
O
m
3)
m
01
m
31
<
O
3)
O)
o
I
m
>
o
o
§
m
Ol
o
m
GO
<
m
CD
>
CO
z
oo
o o
0
01
O
o
o
o
o
0
o
0
01
k,
0
o
o
o
o
m
O
c
XI
m
OJ
T3
J>
-I
C
X
m
z
O
3)
2
m
o
m
H
T3
H
S
PI
]>
O
m
#
ro
en
H
ru
FORT
S
m
>
0
m
g
^
H
m
3!
o
o
3)
cn
ni
-^
3)
C
Z
I
o
c
o>
R
O
O
O
31
31
^m
So
5=!
mO
3)Z
I
&
MMOND
CD
31
Z
0
I
SAVA
cn
m
cn
H
TJ
-------
30N3mjNOO INBXniVd 311111 04 39809
31ldOHd 'O'Q S 'CTO'a
Nisva
p
o
99
03
9961 U36W31d3S
'isnonv 'ATOP SNiano
30VW SNOIJ.VAU3S80
O
O
-Zl
-------
------- |