U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
       Annapolis Field Office
      Annapolis Science Center
     Annapolis, Maryland  21401
        WORKING DOCUMENTS
           Volume  16

-------

-------
                       Table of Contents

                          Volume 16
16         Water Quality and Pollution Control  Study,  Susquehanna
           River Basin from Northumberland,  Pa.  to  Havre  de  Grace, Md,
           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

-------

-------
                            PUBLICATIONS

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


                              VOLUME 1
                          Technical  Reports


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

 6         Sanitary Bacteriology of  the Upper Potomac Estuary

 7         The Potomac  Estuary Mathematical  Model

 9         Nutrients in the Potomac  River Basin

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


                              VOLUME 2
                          Technical  Reports


13         Mine Drainage in the North Branch Potomac River Basin

15         Nutrients in the Upper Potomac River Basin

17         Upper Potomac River Basin Water Quality Assessment


                              VOLUME  3
                          Technical  Reports


19         Potomac-Piscataway Dye Release and Wastewater
           Assimilation Studies

21         LNEPLT

23         XYPLOT

25         PLOT3D


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

-------
                             VOLUME 3   (continued)

                         Technical  Reports


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


                             VOLUME 4
                         Technical Reports


29         Step Backward Regression

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

33         Mathematical Model Studies of Water Quality in the
           Potomac Estuary

35         Water Resource - Water Supply Study of the Potomac
           Estuary

                             VOLUME 5
                         Technical Reports


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

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

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

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

45         Nutrient Management in the Potomac Estuary


                             VOLUME 6

                         Technical Reports


47         Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Input Study

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

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

                              Technical  Reports

     51          A System of Mathematical Models for Water Quality
                Management

     52         Numerical Method for Groundwater Hydraulics

     53         Upper Potomac Estuary Eutrophication Control
                Requirements

     54         AUT0-QUAL Modelling System

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

                                  VOLUME  7
                              Technical Reports

     55         Water Quality Conditions in the Chesapeake Bay System

     56         Nutrient Enrichment and Control Requirements in the
                Upper Chesapeake Bay

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

                                  VOLUME  8
                              Technical Reports

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

     59         Distribution of Metals in Baltimore Harbor Sediments

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

                                  VOLUME  9
                                 Data Reports

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

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

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

                           Data Reports


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

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

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

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

           Water Quality Survey of the  Potomac Estuary - 1967

           Water Quality Survey of the  Potomac Estuary - 1968

           Wastewater Treatment Plant Nutrient Survey - 1966-1967

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

                            VOLUME 10

                            Data Reports

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

10         Water Quality Survey of the  Annapolis Metro Area - 1967

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

12         1969 Head  of  the  Bay Tributaries

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

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

-------
                             VOLUME 10(continued)
                           Data Reports

15         Water Quality Survey of the Patuxent River -  1967

16         Water Quality Survey of the Patuxent River -  1968

17         Water Quality Survey of the Patuxent River -  1969

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

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

                             VOLUME 11
                            Data Reports

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

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

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

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

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

25         Water Quality of the Potomac Estuary Consolidated
           Survey - 1970

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

27         Potomac Estuary Wastewater Treatment Plants Survey
           1970

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

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

-------
   30


   31


   32
   33
   34
Appendix
  to 1
Appendix
  to 2
    3


    4
                  VOLUME 11  (continued)

                 Data Reports

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

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

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

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

Water Quality Survey of the Patuxent River - 1970

                  VOLUME 12

               Working Documents

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

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

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

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

                  VOLUME 13
               Working Documents

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

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

-------
                             VOLUME   13   (continued)

                          Working  Documents

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

 6         Water Pollution Survey  -  Back River 1965  -  February  1967

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

                             VOLUME   14
                          Working  Documents

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

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

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

11         Water Quality and Pollution  Control  Study, Susquehanna
           River Basin from Lake Otsego,  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

-------
28
                           VOLUME  17  (continued)

                         Working Documents

          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

          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
 29
31
            The Patuxent River - Water Quality Management -
            Technical  Evaluation - September 1969
                               VOLUME  19
                            Working Documents
             Tabulation, Community and Source Facility Water Data
             Maryland Portion, Chesapeake Drainage Area - October 1964

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

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

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

              The Potomac  Estuary - Statistics and Projections -
              February 1968

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

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

                         Working Documents

          Wastewater Inventory - Potomac River Basin -
          December 1968

          Wastewater Inventory - Upper Potomac River Basin -
          October 1968

                            VOLUME 20
                         Technical Papers.

 1         A  Digital Technique for Calculating and Plotting
          Dissolved Oxygen Deficits

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

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

 4         Estimating Diffusion Characteristics of Tidal Waters -
          May  1965

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

 6         An In-Situ Benthic Respirometer - December 1965

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

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

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

10         Evaluation of Coliform  Contribution by Pleasure Boats
          July 1966

-------
                            VOLUME  21

                         Technical Papers

11        A Steady State Segmented Estuary Model

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

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


                            VOLUME  22
                         Technical  Papers

          Summary Report - Pollution of Back River - January 1964

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

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

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

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


                            VOLUME  23
                        Ocean Dumping Surveys

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

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

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

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

-------
                            VOLUME 24

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

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

               Situation Report - Potomac River

               Sediment Studies in Back River Estuary, Baltimore,
               Maryland

Technical      Distribution of Metals in Elizabeth River Sediments
Report 61

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

-------
                           TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                 Page

  I.  INTRODUCTION ......................    1-1

      A.   Purpose and Scope  .................    I  - 1

      B.   Acknowledgments  ..................    1-2

 II.  GENERAL  ...  ..........a..........   II  - 1

      A.   Source of Information  ...............   II  - 1

      Bo   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  , 0  ......................  Ill  - 1

      A.   Water Quality  ...................  Ill  - 1

      Bo   Immediate Pollution Control Needs  .........  Ill  - 3

          1.  Waste Treatment  ................  Ill  - 3

          2.  Comprehensive Evaluations  ...........  Ill  - 19

          3-  Special Studies  ................  Ill  - 23

          ho  Institutional Practices  ............  Ill  - 2k

      Co   Recent Pollution Control Progress  .........  Ill  - 25

          1.  Pennsylvania ..................  Ill  - 25

          2,  Federal and State Cooperative Agencies .  .  .  .  .  Ill  - 26

      D,   Water Supply ....................  Ill  - 2?

-------
                    TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)




                                                                 Page




IV.  DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA ................   IV - 1




     Ao  Location  ..  .....................   IV - 1




     B.  Climate ..  0	  .   IV - 3




     C.  Topography  .....................   IV - 3




     D.  Geology	  .  .  .  .   IV - 3




     E.  Principal Communities and Industries   ........   IV - U




 V.  WATER POLLUTION PROBLEMS, NEEDS, AND COSTS  .......    V - 1




     SUSQUEHANNA RIVER WEST SHORE TRIBUTARIES   ........    V - 1




     A,  Penns Creek Watershed ................    V - 1




         1.  Selinsgrove Area (Penns Creek)   .........    V-l




         2,  Middletmrg Area (Middle Creek)   .........    V-3




     B.  Conodoquinet Creek Watershed  .  ...  ........    V - 5




         1.  Shippensturg Area (Middle Spring  Creek)  .  .  .  .  .    V - 5




         2.  Carlisle Area (Letort Spring Run)  ........    V - 7




         3.  Mechanicsburg Area (Trindle  Spring Run)  .....    V - 11




     Co  Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed  ...........    V - 15




         1.  Mt. Holly Springs Area (Mountain  Creek)  .  .  .  .  .    V - 15




     D.  Conewago Creek Watershed  ...  0  ..........    V - 18




         1.  Hanover Area (Plum Creek) ............    V - 18




     E.  Codorus Creek Watershed ...............    V - 2h




         1.  Hanover Area (Oil Creek)  ............    V - 2U

-------

-------
               TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
    2.  Spring Grove Area (West Branch
        Codorus Creek) ..................   V - 25

    3.  New Freedom-Glen Rock-Shrewsbury Area
        (South Branch Codorus Creek) ......  o  ....   V - 31

    U,  Red Lion Area (Mill Creek)	V - 3^

    5o  York Area (Codorus Creek)  ....  ........   V - 36

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER EAST SHORE TRIBUTARIES .........   V - kh

F.  Shamokin Creek Watershed ...............   V - kh

    1.  Shamokin Area (Shamokin Creek) ..........   V - kh

G.  Mahanoy Creek Watershed  ...............   V - 50

    1.  Mahanoy City-Shenandoah Area
        (Mahanoy Creek)  .................   V - 50

    2.  Ashland-Frackville Area (Mahanoy Creek)  .....   V - 53

H.  Mahantango Creek Watershed ......  	  .   V - 57

I.  Wiconisco Creek Watershed  ..............   V - 59

    1.  Tower City Area (Wiconisco Creek)  ........   V - 59

    2.  Lykens Area (Wiconisco Creek)  ..........   V - 62

Jo  Swatara Creek Watershed  ...... .........   V - 66

    1.  Tremont Area (Good Spring Creek) .........   V - 66

    2.  Fredericksburg Area (Elizabeth Run)  .......   V - 68

    3.  Lebanon Area (Quittapahilla Creek)  ...  	   V - 71

    U.  Palmyra Area (Quittapahilla Creek-
        Killinger Creek) ..... 	  .......   V - 75

    5.  Hershey Area (Spring Creek)	V - 77

-------
               TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

                                                             Page

K.  Conoy Creek Watershed .........	   V - 82

    1.  Elizabethtown Area (Conoy Creek). .	   V - 82

L.  Chickies Creek Watershed  ..... 	   V - 85

    1.  Manheim and Mount Joy Areas
        (Chickies Creek)	 	   V - 85

M.  Conestoga Creek Watershed ....... 	   V - 88

    1.  Morgantown Area .................   V - 88

    2.  Ephrata Area (Cocalico Creek) ..........   V - 90

    3.  Lititz Area (Litit^ Creek)  ...........   V - 93

    k.  Lancaster Area (Conestoga Creek)  ........   V - 96

    5.  New Holland Area (Mill Creek) ..........   V - 102

N.  Octoraro Creek Watershed  ..............   V - 105

    1.  Oxford Area ..... 	 .........   V - 105

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER (NORTHUMBERLAND TO CHESAPEAKE BAY)  .  .   V - 107

0.  Susquehanna River (West Branch to Juniata
    River Confluence) ..................   V - 107

    1.  Sunbury-Northumberland Area ...........   V - 107

P.  Susquehanna River (Juniata River Confluence
    to the Conodoquinet Creek Confluence) ........   V - 11U

    1.  Dauphin Area	   V - 111*

Q.  Susquehanna River (Conodoquinet Creek
    Confluence to York Haven Dam) ............   V - Il6

    1.  Harrisburg East Shore Area  ...........   V - Il6

    2.  Harrisburg West Shore Area  ...........   V - 120

-------
               TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
R.  Susquehanna River (York Haven Dam to
    Havre de Grace, Maryland)	    V - 123

    1.  York Haven-Columbia-Safe Harbor Areas	    V - 123

S.  Susquehanna River at Mouth	    V - 130

    1.  Havre de Grace Area .	    V - 130

-------
                                                          I - 1




I.  INTRODUCTION




    A.  Purpose and Scope




        Under the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution




Control Act (33 U.S.C. k66 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.




        h.  Estimate costs of these actions.






        The secondary purpose of this report is to present general




coverage of potential future water quality problem areas through




year 2020.  Tentative corrective actions are given for considera-




tion in planning for future actions to insure continuing water




quality satisfactory for all desired beneficial uses.  A general




coverage of water supply is also included for each area.  Antici-




pated water supply needs through 2020 are indicated, with areas




delineated where future water shortages are anticipated.




        This report covers that portion of the Susquehanna River




and tributaries downstream from Northumberland, Pennsylvania.




Principal West Shore tributaries include Penns, Conodoquinet,




Yellow Breeches, and Codorus Creeks.  Principal East Shore tribu-




taries include Shamokin, Mahanoy, Mahantango, Wiconisco, Swatara,




Conoy, Chickies, Conestoga, and Octoraro Creeks.  The drainage




area of the West Shore tributaries encompasses approximately 3,100




square miles, and the East Shore tributaries encompass approxi-




mately 2,700 square miles.






    B.  Acknowledgments




        The cooperation and assistance of the following Federal,




State, and local agencies are gratefully acknowledged:

-------
                                                  1-3


U. S. Army Engineer District, Baltimore, Maryland

U. S. Soil Conservation Service, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

U. S. Geological Survey, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

U. S. Bureau of Mines, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania Department of Health, Central Office,
    Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Region V Office, Lewistown,
    Pennsylvania; and Region VI Office, Reading,
    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

Consulting Engineers

-------
                                                          II  - 1






II.  GENERAL




     A.  Source of Information




         Present water quality conditions covered in this report




 were evaluated by staff of the Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River




 Basins Project, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,




 employing the following sources of information:




         1.  Industrial water and waste facilities inventories




             gathered from questionnaires sent by the Pennsyl-




             vania Department of Health to industries in the




             Susquehanna River Basin.




         2.  Municipal water and waste facilities inventories




             obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of Health.




         3.  Existing data obtained from files of State, local,




             and other Federal agencies.




         k.  Results of CB-SRBP stream sampling investigations.




         5.  Public meetings and personal communications with




             Federal, State, and local planning agencies.






         A biological study of the Susquehanna River and tributaries




 by CB-SRBP comprised a special investigation to supplement water




 quality sampling data of chemical, biochemical, and bacteriological




 characteristics for streams throughout the study area.   Brief sum-




 maries of the biological studies are  given along with summaries




 of quality data for most of the areas covered in this report.  For




 more details of the biological conditions of streams throughout

-------
                                                         II - 2






the Susquehanna River Basin, findings are presented in two pre-




vious CB-SRBP reports (CB-SRBP Working Documents Nos.  1 and 2).




        A mine drainage study was undertaken by CB-SRBP to delineate




areas, problems, and general corrective measures for mine drainage




pollution in the Susquehanna, Potomac, and Delaware Basins.  The




findings of the mine drainage study are summarized briefly in this




report only to point out the effects of mine drainage on water




quality in the stream reaches under consideration.  Detailed find-




ings are presented in the CB-SRBP Mine Drainage Report.




        For evaluations of future water supply and water quality




requirements, county population and industrial productivity pro-




jections developed by the National Planning Association were




employed.  The I960 U. S. Census Report was used as a base from




which individual community projections were made.  Industrial




loadings were projected by type of industry on an individual pro-




duction increase basis.  Modifications were made to industrial




projections when specific information was obtained regarding




changes in processing, techniques, or plant operation.






    B.  Determination of Needs




        Water quality needs were evaluated in terms o^ treatment




required to upgrade and maintain stream conditions which are




generally recognized as being suitable for most beneficial uses;




the minimum use being warm-water fishery.  The effects of residual




waste loadings to streams were evaluated with the degree of treatment

-------

-------
                                                         II - 3






specified which was expected to maintain the desired water quality




for the immediate future.  In most cases, advanced waste treatment




was specified for municipalities at the headwaters of the tribu-




tary watersheds, and secondary treatment with 85 per cent removal




of BOD was specified where no treatment or primary treatment is




presently provided.




        Beyond 1980, the degree of treatment and other alterna-




tives are indicated as possible solutions where water quality




problems are anticipated; however, except for secondary treatment




facilities, the methods proposed for future actions are only




given for consideration, since detailed evaluations of the alter-




natives and comparisons of benefits would be necessary to select




the most likely alternative.




        Cost estimates for upgrading present facilities to second-




ary treatment were obtained mostly from consulting engineers who




have completed studies of needed treatment facilities for many




of the municipalities.  For communities not having engaged an




engineer, cost estimates were made of the plant proper, employing




construction cost information from the Public Health Service




Publication No. 1229, "Modern Sewage Treatment Plants - How Much




Do They Cost," and updating these costs with the Public Health




Service - Sewage Treatment Plant current cost index (PHS-STP




llU.U).  For some communities, costs of treatment plants were




estimated by the Pennsylvania Department of Health in previous

-------
                                                         II - k






years and, where these estimates were available, the costs were




updated to indicate current dollar values.




        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

-------
                                                         II - 5






drainage present, stream biota would be inhibited or eliminated




so that waste assimilation could not readily be determined if




occurring at all.






    C.  State Stream Classifications




        The Pennsylvania Sanitary Water Board classifies State




streams in terms of degree of treatment required.  The main stem




of the Susquehanna River is classified as a "primary," and the




tributaries thereof are classified as "secondary," requiring pri-




mary treatment and secondary treatment facilities, respectively.




For streams impregnated with mine drainage, waste treatment has,




in most cases, not been required.  However, as mine drainage is




eliminated or reduced substantially so that natural waste assimi-




lation may occur, the tributary streams formerly containing mine




drainage are reclassified to upgrade water quality.  The stream




classifications presented in this report are those currently




designated by the Sanitary Water Board for streams in Pennsyl-




vania; however, these classifications should not be interpreted




to be representative of the effects of future water quality




standards.




        This report delineates specific stream classifications




and actions taken by the Pennsylvania Sanitary Water Board where




municipalities and industries have been given orders to upgrade




or construct treatment facilities.  Where water quality informa-




tion and other data indicate the required degree of treatment

-------
                                                         II - 6


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 involve complex, technical, time-consuming efforts by a

-------
                                                         II - T






large number of governmental agencies cooperating to formulate




a basin-wide program.




        In order to avoid duplication, overlapping, and uncoordi-




nated efforts from this large number of cooperating agencies, the




Interstate Advisory Committee on the Susquehanna River Basin,




which was created by the action of the States of Hew York, Pennsyl-




vania, and Maryland, has, on the basis of its studies and delibera-




tions, recommended that an intergovernmental compact with Federal




participation be formed.  In an area as large as the Susquehanna




River Basin, where approximately three million people live and




work, comprehensive multi-purpose planning and administration by




a basin-wide agency are necessary to bring the greatest benefits




and produce the most efficient service in the public interest.




        Comprehensive planning with basin-wide administration




will provide flood damage reduction; conservation and develop-




ment of surface and ground water supply for municipal, industrial,




and agricultural use; development of recreational facilities in




relation to reservoirs, lakes, and streams; propagation of fish




and game; promotion of land management, soil conservation, and




watershed projects; protection and aid to fisheries; development




of hydroelectric power potentialities; improved navigation;




control of movement of salt water; abatement and control of water




pollution; and regulation of stream flows toward the attainment




of these goals.

-------
                                                         II - 8






        The Advisory Committee has prepared a draft of an inter-




governmental compact for the creation of a Basin agency.   The




States of New York, Maryland, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,




and the United States of America, upon enactment of concurrent




legislation by the Congress and by the respective State legis-




latures, agree with each other to the Susquehanna River Basin




Compact.  To date both the States of New York and Maryland have




passed legislation to adopt the Compact.

-------
                                                          Ill - 1






III.  SUMMARY




      A.  Water Quality




          This report discusses pollution control needs for the




  portion of the Susquehanna River Basin extending approximately




  12U miles downstream from the confluence of the West Branch




  Susquehanna River at Northumberland, Pennsylvania, to the Chesa-




  peake Bay at Havre de Grace, Maryland.




          The findings of this study indicate that the major water




  quality problems in the Area result from the following conditions:




          1.  Mine drainage from both active and inactive mining




  opoperations and raw sewage degrade water quality in tributaries




  discharging to the Susquehanna River from the east bank.   Princi-




  pal streams affected are Shamokin, Mahanoy, Mahantango, and




  Wiconisco Creeks and the upper reaches of Swatara Creek.   Major




  municipalities discharging raw sewage to these tributaries include:




  Shamokin, Kulpmont, Mt. Carmel, Mahanoy City, Shenandoah, Ashland,




  Frackville, Tower City, Lykens, and Tremont.




          2.  Treated wastes being discharged to streams utilized



  as water supply sources are creating potentially serious  problems.




  Increasing water supply needs and a corresponding increase in




  waste discharges will result in critical water quality problems




  in Swatara and Conestoga Creek Watersheds unless new water supply




  sources are developed and/or increased degrees of waste treatment




  are employed in the near future.

-------

-------
                                                        Ill - 2






        3.  Some streams in the study area are seriously degraded




by secondary waste treatment plant effluents.  The summer flows




are not sufficient to adequately assimilate the treated wastes




which are discharged to the streams.  Codorus Creek, which receives




treated effluents from the P. H. Glatfelter Company at Spring




Grove and from the City of York further downstream, is the most




seriously degraded stream receiving treated discharges.  Other




streams similarly affected are Conodoquinet and Conewago Creeks




on the west bank and Conoy, Conestoga, and Octoraro Creeks on




the east bank.  Municipalities contributing to the problem are




Carlisle, Mechanicsburg, Hanover, Spring Grove, Red Lion, Lebanon,




Palmyra, Elizabethtown, Ephrata, Lititz, New Holland, and Oxford.




        k.  Primary treated municipal and industrial waste dis-




charges from sources along the main stem and residual wastes




contributed by Shamokin, Mahanoy, Mahantango, Wiconisco, Codorus,




and Conestoga Creeks adversely affect water quality in the Sus-




quehanna River.  Even though water of higher quality than that




in the main stem is contributed by the Juniata River and Penns,




Conodoquinet, Yellow Breeches, Swatara, Conoy, Chickies,  and




Octoraro Creeks, their combined influence is not enough to over-




come the degraded water quality in the Susquehanna River.  The




waste assimilative capacity of the main stem is decreased by




four impoundments below York Haven.  Reduced mixing and lowered




velocities in the impounded areas result in reduced reaeration

-------
                                                        Ill - 3






rates in the main stem.  Proposed power generating facilities




along the 35-mile stretch of the Susquehanna River between Three




Mile Island and Peach Bottom may create a thermal pollution




problem which would further affect the assimilative capacity of




the River.




        Recommended needs in the Area include an upgrading of




treatment plant facilities, and control and surveillance of




minimum releases from power dams and heated discharges from




power plants.






    B.  Immediate Pollution Control Needs




        1.  Waste Treatment




        The most pressing need in the study area is for the pro-




vision of adequate treatment facilities to control pollution at




its source.




        Current treatment practices, needs, and cost estimates




for municipalities and industries in the study area are shown in




Table I.  (Cost estimates include treatment plant facilities and




appurtenances unless otherwise noted.)




        A general summary of immediate treatment needs in the




study area is given below:




            a.  Seven existing secondary plants




                to be expanded to increase the




                level of efficiency.  Estimated




                project costs:                       $3,507,000

-------
                                            Ill - k



b.  Thirteen primary plants, serving


    23 communities, to be expanded to


    provide secondary treatment.
                                                   $
    Estimated cost of plant expansion:    $5,893,000


c.  Two communities to provide severs


    to connect to adjacent municipal


    systems.  Extimated project costs:    $9,300,000


d.  Five primary plants to be con-


    structed to serve 12 communities


    now having no treatment or septic


    tanks (initial step toward pollu-


    tion abatement).  Estimated project


    costs:                              $10,8^6,800


e.  Six communities having septic tanks


    or no treatment to provide second-


    ary treatment facilities.  Esti-


    mated cost of plant exclusive of

                                                   #
    sewers and appurtenances:            $1,005,000


f.  Sixteen secondary treatment plants


    to be constructed to serve 22 com-


    munities presently having septic


    tanks or no treatment.  Estimated


    project costs:                      $28,iilU,200

-------
                                                     Ill - 5
             Fifteen communities and tvo

             industries requiring advanced

             waste treatment or other feasi-

             ble alternative:

             Eight industries having second-

             ary treatment facilities to

             expand or modify plant to

             increase treatment efficiency:

             Three industries to incorporate

             process modification, connect to

             municipal systems, or provide

             secondary treatment:
Costs
Undetermined
Costs
Undetermined
Costs
Undetermined
               Total (exclusive of g, h, and i)  $58,966,000
Cost of treatment plant only, based on current construction
costs (PHS-STP Index

-------
                                                        Ill  -  6
    cu   c
 tt) fl   O
-p -P
 cd o  -P
-p      o
CQ  h
    O
           0)
       H  >
        cd -H
        In  0)
        Q>  O
       Ti  

3 0)
ft CQ
O
PL,

fl
o
H
-p
cd
o
o






CQ
w
M
<
EH
D
pq
H
EH
H
0
HI
CQ

EH
CQ
^

K
M
PS
<<
^
fe
3
w
M
S
0?

CQ


1
1
1
1
1







0)
fl
o



^
5-4
cd
r^J
c
o
0
cu
CQ



0
O
LTl
^o"



O
H O
CQ pq

pq 
W o
w ^
S CO
0 fl
rl
a CQ
PM
O
o
o
A
CM
H
-






>
cd
T)
R
O
O

                                       fl  -H    -P
                                       cd  to 13  fl
                                       ft 03  CU  CU
                                       X  O  o  S
                                      W  PM  fl -P
                                                                              fl
                                                                              O
                                                                              H
                                                                              IQ
cd

G
O
o
0)
CQ
cd

fl
o
o
V


(J
H CQ
-P .M
ft fl
cu cd
CO EH
cd
C!
fl
0
o

CO
O
o
o

oo"
                                       o
                                       Sn
                                       O
                                      pq

                                       bO
                                       CQ

                                       O
                                       O


                                      I
                                                               fl
                                                               o
                                                               fl
                                                               o
                                                               o
                                                               0)
                                                              CO
                                                              o
                                                              -3-
                                                              OO
                  CQ

                  pq


                  W


                  O

                  CQ
                  W

                  O
                  w


                  pq


                  o
                                                                                                       bO
                                                                                                       S3
                                                              CO

-------
                                                                                                                   Ill  -  7
                                                 -P  -H
               cd O  -p
               +3     O
               CO  h
d
 CD  -P
-P  O
 as  cu -p
 g  -O CO
H  O  O
       O
                  PH
       d

 0)  -P
-P  (3
 cd  cu  cu
H  e
'd  -p
 cu  cd
 g  
o
<












-p
c
cu
s
-p
3
CU

EH

H
1
O
a
-p
H
OH
O
O
o
n
if\
CVJ
CM
-69-



C
O
H
W
3
cd
ft
X
W

* 	 s.
cd

construction








>>
H
^Q
H
CO
to
O
p 1

f  .
_(")
  


CO
-p
CQ
0
O
(U
-P
CO
cd
^S-

t5
Q)
O
C3
cd

Ti

rmined
cu
-p
0)
d
3
D





-p
fl
CU
3
-p
03
O
J_j
H
                                                                      O
                                                                     a
                                               o
                                               o
                                               o
                                                 *
                                               o
                                               o
                                               OJ
                                                                     -69-
                                                                      cS
                                                                     -d

                                                                      g
                                                                      o
                                                                      o
                                                                     CO


cu
c
o
&
cu
a
H
3
S-i
 cu
O "d S-i



V
a
o







CO
-p
CO
o
o





>>
1  (
o
H
to
to
o
Pn






CU

H


cu
-p
CD
-d
fl
*-
cu
-p
to
cd
ts
-p
'd H
cu cu
o S
CH 4^
cd cd
> cu

<(! EH
ntly constructing
dary plant and
n
cu a o
to O O
0) o bO
^ cu cd
O) CO H

o
o
o
#1
CM
CO
o\
-ee-







r?
cd
d
C
O
0
CU
CQ
initiated for
dary facilities
rve the four
nities.
IQ H   O
 to  EH
 CU
                                                                            CQ
                                           O
                                           CO


                                           I
                                           o
                                           o
                                                             ft
 !
EH
 a
 
-------
                                                       Ill  -  8
CO
a
ft


















CQ
Q
W
W


Q^
"-^  ''d
d cu
CU CO 3
385
H M 4>
P EH 0
C! O O
O < CJ
^  """
x >.
M EH t-3
^ ^j
i-j 53 M
H||
v^^.
E~i
S
W

p^
5
o





























J_,
cu
CU J3
-P 4>
cd O
4^
to h
o







'd
CU -p
43 CJ
cd d>
g T-3
H 0

CQ P-i






CU -P
p a
cd 
cd
rH
j
ft
O





















a
0
H
43
O


cu
CQ








a
o
H
43
cd
o
Q
1 1



























































,  x
d
cu
pi
G
H
S
0
o
^
t H
1


}v*
W
0^J
o

CO
P5
S
o
CJ








Q)
a
0

-d
cu
O
H
g
H
0)
W 43
43 0)
to 'd
O C
0 D

CU
43
CO

^_>
>> 'd fl
H CU CU
,0 0 g
H n 43
to cd cd
to > cu
o 'd ^H
PH ^ EH

fr
cd
f^
C
O
CJ

CQ



O
O

l
LT\










o

o

a
o
H
t-5
>d
cy
K










CU
C
o
S3







CO
43
to
o
o






*>^
H
^3
to
CO
O
PH



O
H
_^>
ft
0)
CO





1
1
1








I
S
0
pq

g
0

to
cd
r  1
Q














T3

4
H


cu
43
cu
r^
5
[^

0)
^5
CO
OJ
^j
'd a
cu cu
0 g
^
> (D
TI? ^
*^I E~^




CQ
fi*H
a
cd
EH

















I
0

0
pq
cu
o
>H

q
3


H
Jj

a
H
^5
(U
cu
0
o
JH
PH







CO
jj
to
0
o

43
rt
CO
H
PH

>
4>
H
u

^
o


ft

CU
"cd
>
o
a
CU
SH

o
^
d
tt)
a
H
g
IH
CU
43
CU
^
a





















































          CO
          W
          O
          W
          CO

          EH


          5
          W
          H
          CO
completed

treatment
                     m
    >>
    !H
    Cd

1
H  O
ft O
    CU
    CO
awaiting con-

t from SWB
                                cu
                                ft
                     H
                     05
                            cu  a
                            H  O
                            43 -H
                            H 43
                            H  0
                     H  O
O
o
o

o
o
CM
                            0
 cd
d
 a
 o
 CJ
 cu
W
                     cu
                     a
                     o
                     o
                     o
                     o
               &    fi
                     O
                     m
                     cd
                     o
                               p
                                to

















cu
o
S






i
i
i
i
i
.C
O bO
P  2
45 o
a s JH
0 0
H -d pq
43 0
o CQ H a
cu o cu cu
a ft a -P
a O ?H CO
O M cd >>
O ft O CQ

















cu
a
0
&
*
o
o
o
ft
0
t
eg
-ee-







^
_j
cd
"R
0
a
0)
03
4^ 1
a CJ
cd -3*
H JH T3
ft 43 CU
ca a
>> a -H
SH 0 Cd
cd o 43
g ^ri
H "d o
SH C
ft cd -p
H
h -d a .
O cu C pq
**-H 43 CU X
CU ft CQ
CO H
Co S O O
H O -H fn
PL, 0 43 H

O
o
o
fl
LA

CM

CO
83-






H
^ cd 
^1 -H a
Cd 43 O
6 -H -H
H C 43
JH -H O
PH -^ Cd
                  CJ
                  o
                  o
                  o
                  LTN
                                       ft
                                      H
                  o
                  EH
                  cd
                  O
                                       -p
                                       S
cu
c
o
        cu
        a
        o
o     o
o     o
CM     O
 sp
 o
 M
 o
pq
 a
 o

 ft
                                                               H
                                                               U
                                                               CO

-------
                                               Ill  -  9















CO
Q
W

S3

P
tJ CD
a) co P
P w a
a o -H
H M -P
P EH a
a u o
o < o
O K -^
%~^' P I
f 	 N
M H i-3

Ed pJ PH
M !^| |~H
PQ EH CJ
<; < M

^ Ss
^_^-
EH

pr~]
PH
PC
, i
u





























a) a
 o> a
a 
H M
P I)
ft CQ
0









a
o
rl
P
03
O
o














V
a
o
a
rl 03
P
TJ a 05
a; -H o
1^5 44 tD
0 0

o oB -p
a .*~i 'rl
H CO O

O 1
-p a a
si cu
C CO -P
O 03
rl -d >j
P 0) CO
O 03

S3 EH
M
O 0)
a o
< 0
M
CQ







cu
a
o
a
H 03
P
rrj G CQ
 >
-P 0) CO
U 03
cu o a
a ft-n
a o A)
0^0
o ft S








 fl
a i '03
a a -P
-rl O ,0
S-< 0 O
ft
. 4J

o co a
> 03'--
,-. -H a
o) -P o
a -rl -H
ri a -P
k -H O
O. ^ 05
0)
s a
SH -H
03 1 05
s a -P
H O r
t< o o
ft
> -P
Jn tJ -H
O Q} 6
H -P G
9) V
03 H ft
a ft
o) a a 
H 0 0 pq
ft O -rl I3S
-P CQ
H -P O
d a 3 S
a 03 fn O
H H -P JH
fc P, 03 
03 0 -P W OS O 03 O O H 05 0) -p oJ JH hO -P jpq >, 0) a O t* M H s 0 -P 0 +3 ;Q o5 Vi a ^-t ^ o Q) rc3 03 > O CO CQ o o o O >> o s I o o o a p o 3 c 03 g ,c CO (U a o o o o ft CM ft r! ' ^ A >> m -p a H > 05 o -P ,U 03 CO (1)
-------
                                                                                          Ill  -  10


































^~,
IS
CU

H
-P
d
o
o
x^x

M

3
i  i
pq
<5
EH
















































CQ
P
W
GJ
^
P
 -d
a>
CQ 3
e.s
M -P
EH 0
0 0
< 0
K  
PL,

EH J
B <
w cm
l^t |._
So
< M
W fe
ps 5
EH g

EH
R
W
fi

P
O























CD
-P
03
-p
CQ






d
a>
-P
03
s
H
-p
CQ
W




cu
-p
03
H
TJ
OJ







































to
0)
fl
-p
0

k
O






-p
a
cu
"-3
O
*H
PH





-P
d
cu
B
-p
a3
cu
to
EH







-P
d
cu
to
CD
h
PH


d
o
H
-P
a3
H
3
ft
O
PH












d
o
H
-p
CJ
<









-p
CQ
O
CJ




T3
cu
-d
0)
cu
tt
a
o
H
.p
0
<




-p
d
cu
S
-p
cd
cu
to
EH



-d
0)
>
to
j
-P
d

o
o
0
o
CO
r*
H
H
CM
A
oo
69-





C>2
57
03
6
H
rH
Pn









a>
d
o
&



0
o
_*
*
o
CM







cu
rH
bO
d
H
CQ

03

T3
CU
-d
d

!H
CU
CQ
































































(
o
o
o
r\
o
J-
H
-69-
-P
d
cu
6
&
H
0)
>
cu
-d

rH
CU
d

0

CO

H
P-I
O
0
0
*
LTN
O
J-
ee-


p -d
fl <3
a a)
H
ft-p


KH
a) ft

H JH
fn O
ft "in

03 to
-P
(H CO
O O
Vi O










U

Td
cu
-p
o3
g
H
-P
CQ 
CU O
O
to o
^ >
0) O
> CM
o> ro
to -eg-








^
5
d
o 
0 >,
0) o3
to 5
c
SH H
d o
0 03
O ^H
o
o
o
A
OO
OO
CM
-69-
3
O
H
+3
a)
rH
cu
ft
o

cu
rQ

o
-p

T3
cu
-p
CJ
>
^3
H
03










rH
o

    > T3
   ,y  is
H  O  CS
.d  03  Si  fc
 CO  In -H  O
< Pn O  O
 O  ft
 to CQ
 o
  c
   H
 d  03
 O -P
a
p1
o
to
o
PP


                            ,0
                            H
                            H
                                  M
o

o
CJ
CQ
M
65
O
o
-p
H
O
                                        o
                                        EH
        bO

        O
        to
        O
       PP

-p
to
                            .d
                            sp
                            o
                                                                    CO
                                                                    a
                                                                    (D
                                                         p
                                                         
-------

-------
Ill - 11
























CO

w
w
a

Q
--- 3 ''d
"d a)
tt) CO 3
0 w a
a o -H
H M -P
p EH a
a o o
o <* o
CJ K 
N 	 S p j
,* ^
M EH t-4

S S M
  M
6-1 p3 j|
EH S

EH"''

W
K
|"~}
O
































f_l
0)
tt) ,a
-P -P
05 O
-P
CQ JH
O






*d
cu -p
-P 0
o! CU
a "*-^
H 0
-p JH
CO P-i
w




0) -P
p a
oj cu
d -P
tt) 0)
B cu
3 _j
f~H EH





-p
a
0)
to
cu
JH
PM


a
o
H
p
cd
r~i
^
ft
o
























a
o
H
-P
o

JH
eu
CO




a
o
H
-P
05
O
o
t-H1





















tt)
a
o
^
*
o
o
o
n
o

H
-ee-







oi
T3
a
o
o
tt)
CQ







tt)
a
o




o
0
H
n
CM



M
CO c]
> -P
4) JH 0 -d
-P oS ^ a)
4) T3 JH a
H a -P -H
PJ O W Co
a o a -P
O 0) O &
O CQ O O

o
o
o
n
O
o
o
*
H
-W-





&
a
0
CJ
tt)
CO







0)
|




o
o
o\
fS
H


bO
f
O
JH
0
PP

tt)
f>
0
^
^
tt)
a
H
PM


-P J^
H tt)
H S tt)
,> H -H
H -p "d be
CQ a cu a
C^ (U J-f (1)
cu 10 o)
 O

O
O
o
**
o
on
(  |
$f$-







c?
a
o
o
cu
CO





0
H tQ
-p .^
ft a
 tt)
O T3 JH
eu <: EH


^
VH
oJ
r^j
a
o
o
CO



o
o
if\
v>
CO
CM






j
-P
H
0

a
o
a
cd
o
tt)
*3
















tt)
a
o
&
"S
a
H
s
JH
tt)
to -p
-p tt)
CQ T>
o a
O t)

 tt)
O T) JH
cu <: B


^
SH
oJ

a
o
0
0)
w



o
0

*
t^-




rt
bD

o
jL|
o
pq

cd




P-t

>>
-p
H
H
H
H
[Q
0)
CU


0)
bO
Oi
J_(
tt)

tt)
to

o
o
o
\
LA
i m
1 CM
1 -

1





"
d
a
tt) O
a o
O 0)
S CO


r">
^|
cd
'd o
a -H
O -P
O Pi
cu cu
CQ CQ



o
o
O 1
** 1
-d- 1


f
tt) O
bO JH
0) O
fn pq
tt)

(U ti
CQ O
!>i -P

tt) Oi H
^ 1
JH O B
0) 0 ^!


bD
a
H
-P
3
CO
a
o
o

K*l
^

-P
4
0
ft
cu
M




























CO

1
&H



























d
tt)
T3
a
0)
8
o
o
D
JH

J^
tt)
(U
a
H
bO
a

a
cfl
cu
^l
-p

K_
^
cd
f^J
a
0
o

-------
                                                                                                              III  -  12
EH O
< M
EH S
               S-i
               cu  d
           d) X!  O

           t6 O  -p
           -P     o
           CO  VH  
-P
a3
0
H
-P
cn
W




d)
p
o)
H
Ti
fi)


M




P
U
co
o
O

CM





-P
C
cu

03

tJ
<<
cu
fl
H
e

CU
-P
cu
tJ
d






-p
fl
rf
-p
03
CU
Vi
EH

O
O
o
in
o
o\
-te-







d
o
H
cn

c3
ft
X
w
                       PQ
 fl
 O
 o
 cu
CO
o
o
oo
  M
03
                            ^3

                            9
                            O
-P

-P
 cu
>
 03
 N
                            W
                           O

                           CO
                           w
                           H
                                            O
o
o
o
 bD

 O
 JH
 O
pq

 S
H
 CU
A

 
                                                                       0)
                                                                       s
                                                                       o
                                                     MD
                                                     O
                                                     O
                                                       w
                                                     en
                                                                      I
                                                                       O
                                           ^   O
                                                EH
                                               CO
                                           p   P4

                                           S   g
                                                o
,000 Enlargement of exist-
ing secondary plant
L/\
on
^t
-e-



a
0 >>
H H
cn >
'H
cn
ft CO
X 0
W CM

. 	 ^ . 	 V
Oj ,Q

fc
03
a
o
t>
CU
CO
0
o
LPv
CO

anticipated; applied
rmined for Federal Grant .

CO
-p
cn
o
0
cu
P
cn
o3
>

T^J

fQ
**












CU
-P






+>
c
0)
s
-p
o3
cu
V*
EH












cu
a
o
szs

cn
-p
cn
o
O






^
rH
>
H
cn
CO
O
CM
fe
03
fl
O
a
0)
CO
o
o
CO
\r\

rmined
CU
-p
cu
d
a
D
cu
-P
cn
03
S
-P
*d d
CU CU
o S
d -p
CD CD
> cu

EH












CU
a
o

CO
-p
cn
O
u






K"
rH
^fi
rl
CO
CO
O
PH
fc
03
a
o
o
cu
CO
o
0
o
c
CM
rmined
cu
43
cu
d
a
t>
cu
p
cn
03
>
-P
rO IM
ft> ft)
o a

ctJ cd
> cu


-d
**
























-p
a
CU
s

o3
cu

EH












f
 o
 o
cq
 oi
-p
 03
 IH
,d
 ft
                                                                       a
                                                                       
                                                                       ^
                                                                       o
                                                                       pq
                                                                                                   -P
                                                                                                   H
                                                                                                   -P
                                                                                                   H
-p  -p
H  a
U  03
    H
 IH  P-i
 CU
-P  rC
 to  -p
 o3  S-t
 O  O
 d  s
                                                                              -p
                                                                              H
                                                                              O

                                                                              f-t
                                                                              CU
                                                                              -P
                                                                              CO
                                                                              03
                                                                              O

-------
Ill - 13






























M
63

O
d 
i-l JH
2 CU
ft CO
O












G
0
rH
-P
CO
O
a

































































,  
13
CU

*
H
-p
G
O
O
>  *-

1=3
M

^]
CQ

^
W
w

o

o
o
EH
CQ
W
3
O
o
-p
CO Vl
H -d 0)
1 G 1 H
-p G co e
GO O -P
cd o o o co
H t

O j  | rH ^
'd -p o
CU O >> XI
(Q -p X! CU CQ
0 >

O 0) CD  g



O
O
O
\
O
o
0

t 
H





&
G
O
a
CD
CO








1

1






1
1
1

-p
o
ft -H
H Vi
X! -P
CO CQ
-pa -H
G 5 Q
ai O XI ft
H EH bD -H JH
PH 3 XJ CU
bO O CQ >
r-tfHh'd'ClCjftCl)
cu 3 OHH IS-HCO
> &  a> co o xl
H CO vH -H EH CQ CU
PH JH CD Vi Vi G >
CU H ft ft JH S O
JH-PHSSDOJH
CU CU-HCU CU-PEnO
-P PH > M W CO
to -p aj JH CU
aj-pq-p-pooH
Oco3cocoGGft
cd O cd Q} co n$ o3
w is r*! ^- i3 .si s
^




















(U
rt
o


rjj
CU

H

^
cu
CO -p
-P CU
en Ti
O G
0 P

cu
-p
CO
CO
5
H CU
H G
CQ 03
en >
O ^3
PH <




17
CO
G
O
O
cu
CQ




O
0

*
en









X)
bO

O

o
CQ

-d
5^
CO
H
O
K
>
cu
*3


U
o3

TJ
CD
-p
CD
H
ft
S
0
CJ

>
co JH
H CO
G T3
CU G
O
O 0
-P CU
w
-d
CU bJD
> G
H -H
0) -P
O CO
CU -H
JH X 
CO -p
co G
r^ (D C(3
H X! H
P 4^ ft

d
CU
G
H
Q
H
CU
CQ H->
-P CU
CO Tt
0 G
O fc>

cu
H->
>> CO
H CO
X* 1^
H -p
CQ Tt C
ca cu cu
o o s
PH G -P
CO CO
^ > H
irf
fft

W
^
^4
g
"^
CO
PL|
W
O
8

Q
J3
K
W
tH5
*T{
EH
0
Z^
x  ^-

PS
M
K

<
^
S

-^3"








X!
bD
3
O
JH
O
pq

""CJ


H
JH
CU
Xi
xi
-p
JH
O
52;


















cu
G
O
a


*
0
o
0
A
O
on
H
-&$-







&
o
o
j
p
H
O


pO
d
^
CO

-------
Ill - Ik
























1

tyi
^

O
Ti  C$ S3
S o> o
H SH -H
H EH -P
O



-P
-P S3
S3 cu
CO 6
CO -P
cu (S
SH CU

-<

O
H T3

o3 t*
H rl
3 
S3nCQ
O
PM




g
r-l
-p
03
o
o


























>
O CQ
H
0) 3
S3 43
(3 S3
0 3
O CQ








CU
3
O



O
o
CM





P.
rl
43
CO
I

cS
-P
w

Sb
j

CQ





t^
H
03
e
H
SH



O
O
O
S
po






^rt
bD
o
o


bD

3
43
CQ
$*4
j
_(
cS
e
rl
SH
P-.


O
O
CO









43

0
O

O
pq

S3
H
43
Pi

oi
Q

















cu
o
^
*
o
o
o
o
on
^
CM
-$$




S
d
S3
O
O
j
SH
o3
g
"H
.4
P-,


o
0
o
M
LA
H
H






-P
rl
O

bO
Vi

43
CQ
rl
SH
S_4
cd


















cu
S3
O
^
*
0
o
o
o\
CM
6ft-






I
S3
O
O
cu
CQ





^*
>_f
cd
fi
H
S_]
PH


O
0
O
ft
o
iH






1
O
rl
O
pq

j
Jj
0
P

H
t
O
rl
S

















0)
c
o
^
*
0
o
o
LA
LA
H
-Eft-






|
S3
O
O
0)
CQ





^5,
SH
03
j
H
SH
PM


O
0
CM
+
on







43
bO
O

o
pq

0)
SH
H
Pi
CQ
43
bO
H
w
1
S3
O
O CU
CO
CQ O
CD -p
SH
U) pq
0 IS
SH CQ t>j
Pi SH
>> 0
-P 43 -P
S3 0
d) "o CD
a 
U P3 CQ








cu
S3
0





cu
S3
O




Pi
rl
43
CQ

O
EH

S3
O
_j_3
^
03
PM

SH
CU
Jj
o
f-H1

















CU
o
^
*
o
0
o
LA
vo
H
&?






&
03
S3
O
0
CQ





^i
>_|
03
S
H
SH
PM


0
O
O
s
vo







43
bO
O
SH
O
PQ

H
H
H
w




U

















0)
S3
O
&
*
O
o
o
o
o
CM
-w-






a)
$3
O
O
cu
CQ





r*>
$-4
o5
a
H
SH
PM


O
O
O
>
CM
H




Pi
H
43
CQ
O
EH

S3

H
H

H
5n JC
o> S
** '  ^
o
i-^

-------
Ill - 15





























1

w
o
*d cu
CU CQ 3
3 W d
d o -H
H M -P
-P EH d
d o o
0 < 0
OK 
~-^ PM
^ 	 V
M EH t-3

|J S M
pq EH O
3 < M
EH W &
K 5
EH a

^
pJ
PC
PC;

O










































^4
CU d

co k 
H ^
3 cu
ft CQ
O
PM







d
0
H
13
0

[_3



























0}
0
0
&
*
o
0
o
LA
H
W-




cd
nd
d
o
o
(U
CO





fc
cd
B
H
PH



O
0
o
A
-3-





ft
H
c~*
CO
g
0
EH
x  s
O -P
0 
f> H
to PM
d

cu -P
dj J
0
-P CQ
CQ 
03
W





















(U
d
o

*
o
o
0
0\
OO
-se-





ed
tj
d
o
CJ
cu
CO





I?
cd

H
CM



O

_^-
s
1  1





ft
H
r*{
CO
d
EH
* 	 s.
0 -P
o 3
> H
co PM
d

tt) -P
PM ^
O
-p &
CQ  -
d
W





CO I
CU d
H O
-P CJ
H
H ^
H CU
O 'd
cd d


^> ^s O
h H 0
cd -p -H
ti d -P
d cu u
o to 0
cj cu h
CU M -p
CQ ft CO

o
o
o
o
LA
vo
-se-




ed
d
o
CJ
cu
CO







CU
c
o
S





1
1
1









ft
H
c^
to
g
o
EH

Jj
CU
H
fc
H
cd
P>H





















cu
d
o
65
*
o
o
o
o
co
ee-




r?
cd
d
o
CJ
cu
CO





i?
cd
a
H
(X)





I
1
1



-P
O
ft
OJ
Q

1
<3j

'O
cd
H

CU
o
a
o
^r
CU
S





















cu
d
0
^

o
o
o
LA
H
-W-




U
d
0
0
o
cu
CO





>
cd
a
H
PM



O
OO
U*\
*
OJ









s
jj
o

o
PQ

CU
rH
,  |
H
>
CO
_i
CD*
s





















cu
0
0


O
o
o
t
H





03
d
o
o
CJ
CO

cu

H
f^5
cu
4
cu
-p
d
M



O
o
cvj

oC






^
bO
*3
o
IH
O
pq

^

r\
JL)

^f











J3

0
^j
O
pq

cu
1
a
cu
1-3





















CU

o

*
0
o
o
o
0\
-69-





0
0
o
cu
CO





o
H 03
-P AS
ft g
cu cd
CQ EH



VO
oo
t











f

o

o
pq

0
cu

cd
W
-M
^
O
>H

3
o to
H CU
-P -H
0 -P
0 -H
^t r-\
-P -H
CQ O
0 cd
O **H
CJ
>>CO
CO H VO
cu cd ON
p ^ i  I
cd 0 I
ft o t
H CJ VO
o cu o\
H CO H
-p
d 
CM ,0 bO O Q pq cd -p -P cu H _] cd S to M cu a > cu cu -p CO CO ^*> -P CQ 0 3 cd $-1 -P -P -P CQ CU d -H 0 f- o cd S o -p d CQ O q """3 3 H *H CM O 0 0 O O O CO e- ^ -p H cu cd f-i -p 3 -P -p cu d -H H f-l o cd *~3 2 o H CO -P .**{ ft d CQ EH 1 1 1 ft H to pt O EH H cd bO cu d -p to cd W -P o H *r-i -p CO -P d q o 3 0 H ftCO o vo -p t>> C7\ CQ Cd 1 d a t* 3 -H vo H IH C7N CM ft H O 0 O o o o c*> cd ^~^ JH H d 3 -H -H H c! -P f-l -H O PM v_- cd o H CQ P .*^i ft d cu 3 CQ EH 1 1 1 r$3 bO O IH O PQ cu H H H CO -P a H IM
-------
Ill - 16

















CO
Q
w
w
>
*   ^ ^
*& ^
^
05
T3
R
O
a
01
CQ






r*^
M
05
B
H

P-,




O
0
o
H
.H










D
U
05

C5

0)


0)
Vt
}>
03
W





*
^-H
^1
-^
H
H
X
OJ
rt
M

p ,
EH
CO
1
CO

w
-p
TO
O
a

H
O
H
-P
O
j
tn
-P
to
C
O
o
-p
(3
0)
h

ij
O

fl
o

a
0)
tn

o

^
H

O
-P
H
ft
-P
c!

-------
                                                                                            Ill  -  IT
                                    Ul
                                    W
    JH
    
o3 O
CO
    JH
    O


CQ
P
W
W
3

p
a
-:<:
T3
u co
2 W
G 0-7
,_i uj J
iBLE I (Cont;
iTMENT PRACT:
( INDUSTRIA

O




Present
Treatment
c 43
o c
H 
3 T-
ft ~
O C
PH P*
>-
                      0)
                      c
                      o
                          >>
                          O
                          a
                           P  O
                                     JH  tfl O -H
                                     ft Oi O -P

                                               03
                                    H
                                     O
                                        O
                                            bD -P
                                            0)  G
                                     O O     E
                                     O 43  O  0)
                                        O  -P  O
                                     O 'M  'a
                                     H  to  (U
                                     43 .H  JH
                                     3 -P  JH
                                     H  0)   P
                                       I  >>
                                      43  O
                                      03  CJ
                                      0)  (U
                                      M  -H
                                      +3  O
                                         H
                                      0)  H
                                      CO  
                                       o C
                                       a   >
                                          o
                                          o
(0
to H
Q) H
ft 03 O 4->
U U
H H nS
O <3J
JH  bO H->
-P >> 0) G
G JH H 0)
O O 
O 4^ O 0)
O 43 O
G 03 JH
O >
4^> U
o3 G
0) 0)
JH -H
43 0
H
OJ 
.0
Possibly
Advanced
Treatmen-




Secondary
o
o
o
CM
LT\













(U
G
O
a
rti
vu
*P
CO
1
45
Possibly
Advanced
Treatmen




Secondary
o
o
t
A
ro
H

|
f<
O
O <1)
fl
to
to O
0) 43
_,
bOM
o >
t. rA fc>.
a &
r^- "
>> 0
+3 ^3 43
G 0
d) Tj 03
a iu H

fl -H 03
<; to w

o
:s
O 4^
Connecti
York Sys
G
o
H O
-P G
Paper por
receives
treatment
0
H
MD


                                                              cf
                                                              G

                                                              
                                                        JH
                                                        0)
                                                                              PH
                                                                                                         PH

H
45
03
O
o
                 CQ
                  o

                  CQ
                  &

                  @
                  PH
bO
G
                       bO
                       JH
            H  ft
            s
            H  O
                                   CQ

                                   ^
                                    o
G -H
H  >
a  m
3 H
H H
 0) -

"S  >>
4>  G
CQ  3
    ft

 G  O
 (U  U
 PH
                                  M
                                  CQ
                                  3
cJ '*""*

l
JH TJ
T)  0)
  s
03 (^
                                         !>> !
                                         O >
                                        PP
                                                                                   G
                                                                               4J -H
                                                                               H  JH
                                                                                 ft
                                                                               
JH
0
O

-------
                                                                                                                 Ill   -  18
-P EH








Q)
-p
03
-P
CQ












CU
-P
03
H
d
cu
0
g
H

























































^
cu
f!
-p
O

fa
0











-p
G
CU
S
P
03
d)
$_|
EH




-p
G
cu
CO
cu
fa
PL.

G
O
H
-P
cd
H

ft
o
<4-l
o

cu
ft
&































0
o
H
-P
CJ

*
ro






"rd" rH
H
<^ ^ '
PQ
CO
W cu
W -H
W JH
K **~f
0 cd
Q
CO
CD G
ffi G
SO)
PH
O
O



cu
>

O
-P

PQ
^
CQ

^i
o

-d
cu
H
cu

rH
CO


G
o
rH
3
03
O
H
^-t
H
*d
o



























































0
^
Jn
o
p
CJ
cd

CO
H
-P
cd
CQ






























































                                            M
                                            CO
                                            0
                                            EH
                                            <;

                                            CQ
 G
 O  CQ
H  G
-P  O
H  O
d  bC
d  cd
<:  H
    CO
    AJ
    G
    cd

 CO
 G  cj
 O  -H
 O  -P
 bO ft
 o3  cu
h3  CQ
 bO
 G '^
H  CU
A  >
 CQ  O

'G  o
H
plH  CU

"d  'rH
 G  P-,
 cd ^
    ft
 G  0
 G  O
 CU  O
PH
                                                                G
                                                                O
                                                               rH
                                                                CQ
                                                                G
                                                                03
                                                               W
                                                                G
                                                                O
                                                                CJ
                                                                cu
                                                               CQ
                                                               O
                                                               o
                                                               LA
 G
 O
H
 CO

 S
 ft
5
 G
 O
 CJ
 cu
CO
                            o
                            CO
                            t






-p
cd
cu
S





>5
H
-P
^
o
PH

CQ
CU
S

^t
C5
bO
G
H
CO
CQ
CU
CJ
0
JH
PH

cd
J_(
0
&
O
o

bO
G
H
CO
CQ
CU
O
0

PH











W)
3
^o
CO
o
H
(H
CU
d
CU

Ct4
>__^

G
0

43







-p
03
cu
S

^"
-p

O
PH

H
H
H
[T]

cu
bO
cu
H
H
O
O
bO
G
rH
CQ
CQ
CU
O
O
fn
PH







G
0
H
_L3
cd
fa
o
ft
tn
O
O

              M
              CO

              pq
                                                                                           o
              o
              o
              EH
              CO
              W

              O
              o
1 %
a 3
o
o cu
CQ
CQ O
CU -P
J_l
bopq
O t3t 
Lt CO >>
o. ^
>> 0
p f -p
G cj
cu 'd n3
0 CU tH
CU >M CQ
-P CU -H
cd -d -p
rD -H 03
>
-P O
cd G
cu cu
^ -H
-P 0
H
CU 





H
cd
G
O
rH
-P
H
d
-d
<

_j


!"
PH
 03  O

 O ^
H

"S  G
 G  cd
 fc  ft
 cu  B
-P  O
 G  O
H

-------
                                                       Ill - 19






        20  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 secondary waste treatment facilities.




Minimum stream flovs 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 pro-




jected population 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 formulation 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



pre-judge the Committee findings beyond defining immediate waste




treatment needs, the various alternatives to be evaluated, based




on investigations of needs in the area, are suggested




        Three methods of providing supplemental pollution abate-




ment and control in areas requiring more than the protection pro-




vided by conventional secondary waste treatment facilities are




generally considered and are as follows:

-------

-------
                                                            Ill - 20


                 Flow Regulation

             Areas having a need for possible flow regulation and in

     which potential reservoir sites have been or will "be evaluated

     are listed as follows:
   Location
   Responsibility
    and Site No.
             Need
Shippensburg-
  Carlisle-
  Mechanicsburg
  Areas

Spring Grove
  Area
York Area
Hershey Area
Hummelstown
  Area
Ephrata Area
Lancaster Area
SCS #5-18, SCS #5-21
SCS #5-23, SCS #5-29
COE #12, COE #13
P. Ho Glatfelter and
Pennsylvania Depart
ment of Forests and
Waters Reservoir

COE #8, P. Ho Glat-
felter and Pennsyl-
vania Department of
Forests and Waters
Reservoir.
COE #13U, SCS #31-2A
SCS #31-U, SCS #31-13
SCS #31-15

COE #13^, SCS #31-2A
SCS #30-2
SCS #30-2, SCS #30-7
SCS #30-9, SCS #30-12
SCS #30-13, COE #U
COE #5
Conodoquinet Creek - Storage
to provide supplemental flow
for water quality control
West Branch Codorus Creek -
Storage to provide supplemental
flow for water quality control.
Codorus Creek - Storage to pro-
vide supplemental flow for
water quality control.
Swatara Creek - Storage to pro-
vide supplemental flow for
water quality control.

Swatara Creek - Storage to pro-
vide supplemental flow for
water quality control

Cocalico Creek - Storage to
provide supplemental flow for
water quality control,

Conestoga Creek - Storage to
provide supplemental flow for
water quality control

-------
                                                            Ill - 21


                 Waste Flow Diversion

             Waste flow diversion will be considered as an alterna-

     tive method of protecting and enhancing water quality in all of

     the areas listed above.  In addition, in the following locations,

     the upstream drainage areas are too small to provide sufficient

     flows for water quality control, and waste flow diversion to less

     critically degraded stream reaches may be a possible alternative.
   Location
   Responsibility
             Need
Hanover Area
Red Lion Area
Lebanon Area
Palmyra Area
Hershey Area
Hanover Borough
1. Red Lion Borough
2. United Piece and
   Dye
Lebanon Borough
Palmyra Borough
I. Hershey Sewerage
   Company
2o Hummelstown
   Borough
Conewago Creek Watershed -
Reduce waste loads in Plum
Creek by diverting treated
waste effluents to the South
Branch Conewago Creek.

Codorus Creek Watershed -
Reduce waste loads in Mill
Creek by diverting treated
waste effluents to Codorus
Creek.

Swatara Creek Watershed -
Reduce waste loads in Quitta-
pahilla Creek by diverting
treated waste effluents to
Swatara Creek.

Swatara Creek Watershed -
Reduce waste loads to Killing-
ers Creek and Quittapahilla
Creek by diverting treated
waste effluents to Swatara
Creek.

Swatara Creek Watershed -
Reduce waste loads to Spring
Creek by diverting treated
waste effluents to Swatara
Creek.

-------
                                                            Ill - 22
   Location
   Responsibility
             Weed
Elizabethtown
  Area
Lititz Area
Elizabethtown Borough
Lititz Borough
New Holland Area   New Holland Borough
Conoy Creek Watershed - Reduce
waste loads to Conoy Creek by
diverting treated waste efflu-
ents to the Susquehanna River.

Conestoga Creek Watershed -
Reduce waste loads to Conoy
Creek by diverting treated
waste effluents to Conestoga
Creek.

Conestoga Creek Watershed -
Reduce waste loads to Mill
Creek directly below New
Holland by diverting treated
waste effluents further down-
stream in Mill Creeko
                 Advanced Waste Treatment

             Advanced waste treatment facilities designed to remove

     greater than 85 per cent of the BOD from waste discharges will

     be considered as an alternative method of protecting and enhanc-

     ing water quality in all of the areas listed above and in the

     additional areas listed below:
   Location
   Responsibility
             Need
Hanover Area
New Freedom-
  Glen Rock-
  Shrewsbury
  Areas
Penn Township
Local Communities
Codorus Creek Watershed -
Reduce waste load to Oil Creek
by providing a greater degree
of treatment.

Codorus Creek Watershed -
Reduce waste load to South
Branch Codorus Creek by pro-
viding advanced waste treatment,

-------
                                                            Ill - 23
   Location
   Re sponsibility
             Need
Shamokin Area
Shamokin, Kulpmont,
and Mt Carmel
Shenandoah Area    Shenandoah Borough
Tower City Area    Tover City
Lykens Area
Manheim Area
Lykens Borough
Manheim Borough
Morgantown Area    Morgantovn Borough
Oxford Area
Oxford Borough
Shamokin Creek Watershed -
Reduce waste load to Quaker
Run and Shamokin Creek by pro-
viding advanced waste treatment.

Mahanoy Creek Watershed -
Reduce waste load to Shenandoah
Creek "by providing advanced
waste treatment.

Wiconisco Creek - Reduce waste
load to Wiconisco Creek by pro-
viding advanced waste treatment,

Wiconisco Creek - Reduce waste
load to Wiconisco Creek by pro-
viding advanced waste treatment.

Chickies Creek - Reduce waste
load to Chickies Creek by pro-
viding a greater degree of
treatment

Conestoga Creek - Reduce waste
load to Conestoga Creek by pro-
viding advanced waste treatment.

Octoraro Creek Watershed -
Reduce waste load in Tweed
Creek by providing a greater
degree of treatment
             3.  Special Studies

             There are many locations in the study area where there

     is a definite need for special studies to be conducted by respon-

     sible local, State, or Federal agencies.   Some of these studies

     are presently underway and should be expanded in the future.

     Listed below are the areas in which a need for special studies

     is indicated:

-------
                                                            Ill - 2k
       Location
 Responsibility
           Need
Shamokin, Mahanoy,
  Mahantango, and
  Wiconisco Watersheds
  and portion of the
  Svatara Watershed

Conodoquinet Creek
  Watershed

Conewago Creek
  Watershed
Quittapahilla Creek
  Watershed
Susquehanna River
Basin-wide
FWPCA and State
of Pennsylvania
FWPCA and State
of Pennsylvania

FWPCA and State
of Pennsylvania
Lebanon City and
Local Industries
FWPCA, State of
Pennsylvania,
Pennsylvania
Power and Light
Company, Metro-
politan Edison
Company, and
Peach Bottom
Atomic Power
Station

FWPCA
Mine drainage pollution
abatement program.
Determine sources of nutri-
ents in Trindle Spring Run,

Conduct studies to determine
sources and extent of
bacterial pollution in the
lower reaches of Conewago
Creek.

Conduct joint studies to
determine needs for possible
pre-treatment by local
industries prior to dis-
charge to Lebanon System,

Conduct joint studies to
determine allowable thermal
loadings from the power
generating stations.
Utilize data compiled from
various studies conducted
in the Basin in mathematical
simulation of the river
systems
             !t.  Institutional Practices

             A need for action on pollution control measures by various

     Federal, State, and local institutions in the Susquehanna Basin

     is indicated by the findings of this study.

-------
                                                            Ill - 25
             Pollution control programs would "be enhanced and

     strengthened by the following institutional practices.
 Location
Responsibility
Need
Basin-wide    State of Pennsylvania
Basin-wide    Congress of the United
              States
Basin-wide    State of Pennsylvania
Basin-wide    Congress of the United
              States and State
              Legislatures
                      Prepare and adopt standards on
                      intrastate streams

                      Enact legislation which provides
                      authority for Soil Conservation
                      Service projects in headwater
                      areas to include storage for flow
                      regulation for water quality
                      control.

                      Consider expansion of water
                      quality control surveillance
                      program (including treatment
                      plant operation and maintenance).

                      Enact legislation authorizing the
                      establishment of a pollution con-
                      trol 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 Pennsylvania

     Department of Health for sewage treatment construction grant

     purposeso   In addition, $200,000,000 will be spent on construc-

     tion and development of recreational areas,

             The Pennsylvania Clean Stream Act, which became effec-

     tive in January 1966, is another step toward improvement of

-------
                                                       Ill - 26






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




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 1967 at




Workshop Sessions called by the Corps of Engineers.  These




agencies have prepared individual reports which delineate spe-




cific water resource needs; this information serves as input to




the multi-purpose planning in the development of the comprehen-




sive 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.

-------
                                                       Ill - 27






Subsequent meetings will involve detailed planning, including




alternative methods of providing for the needs prior to formula-




tion of the Basin program.






    D.  Water Supply




        Municipal and industrial water usage in the study area




currently amounts to about 2kQ mgd and is expected to increase




to about 980 mgd by year 2020.  A preliminary evaluation of the




hydrological characteristics of the study area indicates that




adequate water supply sources presently are available but not




fully developed to meet future demands in most areas discussed




in this report.  Water shortages have been experienced at




Hanover, York, and Lancaster in the past, and the communities




have either restricted water usage during the shortage periods




or obtained water from the Susquehanna River.




        Communities using the Susquehanna River as a principal




supply source or as an emergency source are Sunbury, Harrisburg




(West Shore), Wrightsville, Steelton, Columbia, and Lancaster




in Pennsylvania, and Baltimore, Bainbridge, and Havre de Grace




in Maryland,  Other communities and industries have not been




utilizing this vast supply because of the availability of better




quality water from smaller tributaries and ground water sources;




cost of constructing and maintaining water treatment facilities




and appurtenances; and the general adverse attitude of the people




in the Basin regarding usage of the River water because of the

-------
                                                       Ill - 28






upstream discharges of mine drainage and inadequately treated




municipal and industrial wastes.




        The need for additional water in the future will become




increasingly more evident as more water shortages occur in the




Basin like those experienced in 1966 by communities such as York,




Pennsylvania.  In addition to the areas already utilizing Susque-




hanna River water, other areas such as York, Harrisburg (East




Shore), Hanover, Spring Grove, Lancaster, Chester, and possibly




Gettysburg, Philadelphia, and Washington may obtain all or a




major portion of their water supply from the Susquehanna River.




As the need increases for utilization of the Susquehanna River




as a water supply source, it is expected that the people will




demand a greater degree of treatment of upstream industrial,




municipal, and mine drainage discharges.  When the necessary




pollution control measures are taken, the water quality of the




River will be greatly improved, and the River will be a much




better source of water.

-------
                                                          IV - 1






IV.  DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA




     A.  Location




         The area of study outlined in this report is the portion




 of the Susquehanna River Basin and all tributary watersheds down-




 stream from the confluence with the West Branch Susquehanna River,




 excluding the Juniata River Basin.  The northernmost City is Sun-




 bury, Pennsylvania.  Other municipalities downstream and along




 the Susquehanna River are Dauphin, Harrisburg East Shore, Harris-




 burg West Shore, and Columbia in Pennsylvania, and Havre de Grace




 in Maryland.  Havre de Grace is situated at the mouth of the




 Susquehanna River and along the shores of the Chesapeake Bay.




         The study area consists of about 5,800 square miles drain-




 ing south central Pennsylvania and northeastern Maryland, or about




 20 per cent of the entire Susquehanna River Basin.  For purposes




 of this report, the study area is divided into separate areas:




 (l) West Shore Tributaries, (2) East Shore Tributaries, and (3)




 the Susquehanna River.  (See location map, Figure L)




         The principal tributaries in hydrologic order for the




 West and East Shores of the Susquehanna River in the study area




 are as follows:

-------
                                                              IV - 2
    Tributary
                          West Shore Tributaries
            Principal Area
Drainage
  Area
Sq. Mi.
Penns Creek
Juniata River

Conodoquinet Creek
Yellow Breeches
  Creek
Conevago Creek
Codorus Creek
 Selinsgrove, Middleburg
 (Covered in separate report, CB-SRBP
 Working Document No, 9)
 Shippensburg, Carlisle, Mechanicsburg

 Carlisle
 Hanover
 Hanover, Spring Grove, New Freedom-
 Shrewsbury, York, Red Lion
  375


  508

  220
  510

  211
Mahantango Creek
Wiconisco Creek
Swatara Creek
                          East Shore Tributaries
Tributary
Shamokin Creek
Mahanoy Creek
Principal Area
Shamokin City, Kulpmont, Mt. Carmel
Mahanoy City, Shenandoah, Ashland,
Frackville
Drainage
Area
Sq. Mi.
1ST
156
Mining Areas
Tower City, Lykens
Tremont, Fredericksburg, Lebanon,

Conoy Creek
Chickies Creek
Conestoga Creek
Octoraro Creek
Palmyra, Hershey
Elizabethtown
Manheim
Morgantown, Ephrata, Lititz, Lancaster,
New Holland
Oxford
576
16
125
476
210
             The study area includes most of Snyder,  Dauphin,  Cumber-
     land, York, and Lancaster Counties,  plus portions  of Northumberland,
     Schuylkill, Juniata,  Perry,  Lebanon, Berks,  Franklin, Adams,  and

-------
                                                         IV - 3




Chester Counties, Pennsylvania,  Also included are parts of Balti-




more, Harford, and Cecil Counties, Maryland.






    B.  Climate




        The study area has a temperate climate with four sharply




defined seasons.  Average annual precipitation is k2 inches with




about ten per cent occurring as snow.  The mean summer temperature




is 72 F, and the mean winter temperature is 30 F.  Extreme




temperatures of 107 F and -30 F have been recorded.  The growing




season averages 150 to 180 days per year.






    C.  Topography




        The topography is roughly divided into two regions.  The




northern region or "Ridge and Valley" is characterized by a suc-




cession of long ridges and valleys generally oriented from south-




west to northeast.  The terrain of the southern region of the




study area is characterized by low, rolling hills.  The elevation




extremes are from sea level to 1,800 feet.






    D.  Geology




        The study area can be divided physiographically three ways,




namely, the Piedmont, east of the Blue Ridge Mountains; Ridge and




Valley, east of the Susquehanna River; and Ridge and Valley, west




of the River.




        Piedmont - In the southeast portion of the study area,




uplands are formed by crystalline igneous and metamorphic rocks

-------
                                                         IV - h






of Precambrian and early Paleozoic age.  Extending across the




middle of York and Lancaster Counties are valleys underlain by




limestone and dolomite of Cambrian and Ordovician age.  In the




northern part of the Piedmont is a broad area underlain by con-




glomerate, sandstone, shale, and diabase of Triassic age.




        Ridge and Valley East - The rocks are of sedimentary




origin attributable to the Paleozoic age, belonging to the Car-




boniferous, Devonian, and Silurian systems,,  The hard Silurian




sandstone and conglomerate are responsible for the long, even-




crested mountain ridges that crease the study area,  The Carbon-




iferous system contains anthracite coal beds.




        Ridge and Valley West - This region is also underlain




with folded and faulted rocks of the Paleozoic age, but is es-




sentially bare of coal deposits.  The formations are a sequence




of alternating hard and soft sedimentary rocks (shale, sandstone,




and limestone) that have been severely folded by lateral compres-




sion into a series of anticlines and synclines






    E.  Principal Communities and Industries




        The City of Harrisburg on the east shore of the Susquehanna




River is the largest single community within the study area.  Popu-




lations (i960 census) of principal areas are as  follows:

-------
                                                         IV - 5

West Shore
Selins grove
Middleburg
Shippensburg
Carlisle
Mechanicsburg
Harrisburg West Shore
Hanover
Spring Grove
New Freedom-Shrewsbury
Red Lion
York
Havre de Grace , Maryland

East Shore
Sunbury -Northumberland
Shamokin
Mahanoy City-Shenandoah
Ashland-Frackville
Tower City
Lykens
Dauphin
Harrisburg East Shore
Tremont
Fre der i cksbur g
Lebanon
Palmyra
Hershey
Elizabeth/town
Manheim
Columbia
Morgantown
Ephrata
Lititz
Lancaster
New Holland
Oxford
Area
Population
7,600
i,Uoo
8,700
27,100
8,100
80,600
28,HOO
7,900
6,600
5,600
128,000
8,500
Area
Population
22,900
^9,500
29,^00
17,000
U,700
2,500
3,800
172,700
1,900
1,100
H7,000
8,700
16,900
1^,300
* 12,300
25,900
3,200
17,700
10,700
122,600
7,100
7,700

County
Snyder
Snyder
Cumberland
Cumberland
Cumberland
Cumberland
York
York
York
York
York
Harford

County
Northumberland
Northumberland
Schuylkill
Schuylkill
Schuylkill
Dauphin
Dauphin
Dauphin
Schuylkill
Lebanon
Lebanon
Lebanon
Dauphin
Lancaster
Lancaster
Lancaster
Berks
Lancaster
Lancaster
Lancaster
Lancaster
Chester
        Major industries include railroad shops, principally at




Enola on Harrisburg's West Shore; paper manufacturers at York




Haven and Spring Grove; steel making at Steelton and Lebanon;

-------
                                                         iv - 6






candy making at Hershey, Blizabethtown, and Lititz; food process-




ing at Biglersville, Lancaster, and Hanover.  Lancaster and York




Counties represent the most important concentration of agricultural




production in the State.

-------
                                                          V - 1






V.  WATER POLLUTION PROBLEMS, NEEDS, AND COSTS




            SUSQUEHANHA RIVER WEST SHORE TRIBUTARIES




    A.  Penns Creek Watershed




        1.  Selinsgrove Area (Penns Creek)




            a.  Current Water Quality




        The Borough of Selinsgrove in Snyder County, Pennsylvania,




is situated along the West Shore of the Susquehanna River and




Penns Creek and is approximately six miles downstream from the




Sunbury-Northumberland Area-  Approximately 85 per cent of the




total population (7,600) of the Area is presently served "by the




municipal sewerage system at Selinsgrove.




        Waste sources in the Area are as follows:
Location
Treatment
Selinsgrove Borough Secondary
Selinsgrove State
Hospital 	
Ott Packaging 	
None
(heated)
AMP, Incorporated Settling
Penn Township None
*
Estimated population equivalent
Population
Served
6,500
5,000*
10
0
Est.
Flow
(mgd)
0.65
0.5
0.001
0.0^5
0.08

Receiving Stream
Penns Creek
Selinsgrove Sewers
Selinsgrove Sewers
Penns Creek
Selinsgrove Sewers

        The Borough presently discharges treated wastes to Penns




Creek approximately three miles upstream from the confluence with




the Susquehanna River.  The water quality of Penns Creek upstream

-------
                                                          V - 2


from Selinsgrove is relatively free from pollution, the BOD is

low, and dissolved oxygen levels approach saturation.

        Biological survey results of Penns Creek near Selinsgrove

are summarized as follows:

                       Biological Summary

Upstream - Three miles upstream from Selinsgrove, IT kinds of
clean-water associated "bottom organisms were collected in the
biological sample,

Downstream - Nine kinds of bottom organisms, predominately clean-
water forms, were collected.


        The biological results suggest some degradation of water

quality has occurred in the reach of Penns Creek near Selinsgrove;

however, the low stream flows of 75 cfs or more during the late

summer months appear to be adequate to assimilate the treated

waste loads and maintain water quality suitable for most beneficial

uses.


            b.  Future Water Quality

        The Selinsgrove Area is expected to experience about a

sixfold increase in population and a similar increase in waste

load by year 2020.  An evaluation of naturally occurring stream

flows and waste assimilative flow requirements through 2020 indi-

cate that secondary treatment facilities should be adequate to

maintain satisfactory water quality.

-------
                                                               V - 3


                 c.   Water Supply

             Approximately 7,000 people are presently served by the

     municipal system.   Present needs of about 1 mgd are obtained

     from Penns Creek and ground water.  Future needs of approximately

     7 mgd are expected to be satisfied by the available surface and

     ground water resources in the area.


             2.  Middleburg Area (Middle Creek)

                 a.   Current Water Quality

             The Borough of Middleburg in Snyder County, Pennsylvania,

     is located approximately 11 miles upstream from the mouth of

     Middle Creek, a tributary entering Penns Creek about one mile

     downstream from Selinsgrove.  Approximately 95 per cent of the

     total population (1,366) of the area is presently served by the

     municipal sewerage system.

             Wastes  emanating from the area are as follows:
                                  Population    Flow
    Location	Treatment      Served	(mgd)	Receiving Stream

Middleburg           Primary        1,^00       O.lU     Middle Creek
 Middleswarth
  Potato Chip
  Company            	            	         	      Middleburg Sewers
Middleburg                               #
  Tanning Company    Secondary      8,800       0.05     Middle Creek
*
   Estimated population equivalent
             The water quality is degraded by the waste discharges

     from the Middleburg Area.  The municipal treatment plant is

-------
                                                          v - U






presently overloaded and does not provide chlorination of the




effluent.  Grab samples of the effluent of the municipal plant




indicate 5-day BOD's as high as U30 mg/1.  Grab samples of the




influent and the effluent of the Tanning Company's vaste treat-




ment plant indicate approximately 30 per cent BOD removal.




        In order to eliminate the water quality problem in Middle




Creek, the municipal plant should be expanded to provide second-




ary treatment; cost of this expansion is estimated at $12^,000.




Measures are also needed by the Tanning Company to increase BOD




removal efficiency to the equivalent of secondary either by expan-




sion of the existing treatment facilities or by reduction of




wastes at the source.






            b.  Future Water Quality




        The naturally occurring stream flows of Middle Creek are




expected to be adequate to assimilate secondary treated waste




loads from the Middleburg Area through year 2020.






            c.  Water Supply




        The water supply needs for the Middleburg Area are




presently being met by mountain streams and ground water.  The




available water resources in the area appear to be adequate to




meet the needs through 2020.

-------
                                                             V - 5


       B.   Conodoquinet Creek Watershed

           1.   Shippensburg Area (Middle Spring Creek)

               a.   Current Water Quality

           The Borough of Shippensburg is located in Cumberland

   County near the headwaters of Conodoquinet Creek Watershed.

   The Shippensburg Area is about 5.U miles upstream from the mouth

   of Middle Spring Creek, a tributary discharging to Conodoquinet

   Creek at Mile 70. 5   Approximately 83 per cent of the population

   of the Shippensburg Area and principal industries in the  Area are

   served by the municipal sewerage system.

           Principal waste sources in the area are summarized as

   follows:
Location
                           Est.
             Population    Flow
Treatment      Served      (mgd)
Receiving Stream
Shippensburg
Borough
Shippensburg
Township
Miller & Reed
Dairy
Henry's Bakery
*

Secondary 7,200

	 	
%
133*
None 10


0.75 Middle Spring Creek
Portion goes to
	 Shippensburg Sewers

0.0l8 Shippensburg Sewers
0.001 Unknown

Estimated population equivalent
           The secondary treatment facilities at Shippensburg are

   presently adequate to maintain satisfactory water quality; stream

   flows of 10 cfs or more occurring in Middle Spring Creek during

   the late summer months are greater than estimated flows required

   to assimilate the treated waste loads.

-------

-------
                                                          v - 6






        Shippensburg anticipates enlargement of the existing




sewage treatment plant by 1968.  Shippensburg has applied for




and received offer of a Federal Grant under PL 660.  The project




cost of the plant enlargement is estimated at $312,000.






            b.   Future Water Quality




        Future growth projections indicate a possible fourfold




increase in waste loadings from the Shippensburg Area by 2020.




Normally occurring stream flows are expected to be less  than




assimilative flows needed to maintain satisfactory water quality




prior to the year 2000.  In addition, irrigation needs of about




3 cfs have been estimated by the U. S. Department of Agriculture




and will reduce the normal flow of Middle Spring Creek.   The




provision of advanced waste treatment, diversion of wastes to




the Conodoquinet Creek, or flow regulation should be considered




in future planning to avoid possible water quality degradation




as a result of area growth.




        In the Conodoquinet Creek Watershed there are six poten-




tial multiple use reservoir sites which may be used to provide




flow regulation for water quality control.  Four of these sites




(5-18, 5-21, 5-23, and 5-29) were studied by the Soil Conserva-




tion Service, and the other two (#12 and #13) were studied by




the Corps of Engineers.  The most economical site, Site  #12




located upstream on Conodoquinet, could store an estimated




70,000 acre-feet at a cost of approximately $17,000,000.  Releases

-------
                                                          V - 7






from this site would "be sufficient to increase Conodoquinet




Creek flows to adequately assimilate waste loadings through year




2020.  Further studies will "be needed to ascertain the feasibility




of each alternative.






            c.  Water Supply




        The Shippensburg Area presently obtains approximately




1 mgd from small tributaries to Middle Spring and Conodoquinet




Creeks.  The dependable yield appears to be adequate to satisfy




needs to about year 2000; however, by 2020 the need is expected




to increase to about  6 mgd and will require the development of




additional sources.






        2.  Carlisle  Area (Letort Spring Run)




            a.  Current Water Quality




        Carlisle Borough is located at the headwaters of Letort




Spring Run, approximately 2.6 miles upstream from the confluence




with Conodoquinet Creek; Letort Spring Run enters Conodoquinet




Creek at Mile 33-2.  Approximately 75 per cent of the 27,000




persons and all of the industrial establishments in the urban




complex portion of the Carlisle Area are served by the municipal




system at Carlisle and discharge to Letort Spring Run.




        Waste sources in the Area discharging to Letort Spring




Run are summarized as follows:

-------

-------
                                                          V -
Location
Carlisle Borough
North Middleton
Tovnship
C. H. Masland &
Sons
Aircraft Marine
Reeves & Hoffman
Hunt Corporation

Treatment
Secondary

	

	
Settling
	
	
	
Population
Served
18,000

	
*
1,990
*
200
50

Est.
Flow
(mgd)
2.0

	

0.6
0.123
0.02
0.005
O.OlH
Receiving Stream
Letort Spring Run
Portion goes to
Carlisle Sewers

Carlisle Sewers
Carlisle Sewers
Carlisle Sewers

Carlisle Sewers
*
Estimated population equivalent
        Letort Spring Run upstream from Carlisle is considered an




excellent trout stream, even though inorganic siltation is present.




Downstream from Carlisle, Letort Spring Run is slow moving and




swampy, containing weeds and organic stream bed deposits showing




evidence of anaerobic decomposition.




        The mild stream gradient limits the ability of the stream




to transport the silt loadings and to assimilate waste loadings




from Carlisle.  A report by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission dated




January 12, 19&5, indicated that if the degraded conditions down-




stream from Carlisle were eliminated, the downstream reaches would




support trout only to a limited extent because of the physical




features.




        Stream survey results of Letort Spring Run at the conflu-




ence with Conodoquinet Creek are summarized as follows:

-------
                                                          V - 9






    Letort Spring Run at Confluence with Conodoquinet Creek




	Indicator	Range	




DO (mg/l)                                            7-9 - 10A




Ultimate BOD (mg/l)                                  1,6 - 38.5




Median Value - Coliforms (MPN/100 ml)            9,300






        Waste assimilative flov requirements indicate that stream




flows of 10 to l6 cfs are needed to assimilate present waste




loadings from the Area during the late summer months.  These re-




quired flows, when compared to naturally occurring stream flows




of 10 cfs or less during the same time period, point out the




need for additional treatment or other pollution control action.




        Middlesex Township and a portion of North Middleton Town-




ship in the Carlisle Area are presently utilizing septic tanks




but anticipate the provision of sewers in the near future.  These




communities probably will connect to the Carlisle system, thereby




creating a larger waste load to Letort Spring Run.  Another




portion of the North Middleton Township anticipates construction




of secondary treatment facilities and will discharge the effluent




to Conodoquinet Creek downstream from the Carlisle water intake.




The project cost for these facilities is estimated at $925,000.




        In order to eliminate the water quality problem in Letort




Spring Run, consideration should be given to conveyance of the




treated effluent from Carlisle directly to Conodoquinet Creek.




Stream flows of 60 cfs or more normally occur in Conodoquinet

-------
                                                         V - 10






during the late summer months and appear to be adequate to as-




similate the present waste loads.  Advanced waste treatment is




another alternative to be evaluated for the Carlisle Area; how-




ever, due to the limited assimilative capability of downstream




reaches of Letort Spring Run, waste flow diversion appears to be




a more favorable solution.




        Seepage from the Carlisle municipal landfill presently




degrades water quality of Conodoquinet Creek.  The municipality




has been ordered by the Sanitary Water Board to initiate action




to abate pollution from this source; abatement progress has been




unsatisfactory, and the case has been referred to legal counsel




for enforcement action.






            b.  Future Water Quality




        A twofold increase in waste loadings from the Carlisle




waste treatment plant is expected by year 2020.  The naturally




occurring stream flows of Conodoquinet Creek are expected to be




adequate to assimilate secondary treated waste loads from Carlisle




if treated waste diversion to Conodoquinet Creek is realized.




However, because of projected irrigation needs, approximately 30




cfs by 2020, the available stream flow will be reduced to the




extent that other pollution control needs, such as advanced waste




treatment or flow regulation for water quality control, will have




to be evaluated.  If upstream multiple use reservoirs, as outlined in




B-l (Shippensburg Area),are developed to provide flow regulation,




future action besides treated waste diversion may not be necessary.

-------
                                                         V - 11






            c.  Water Supply




        The water supply needs of 0.7 mgd for the Carlisle Area




are presently being met from Conodoquinet Creek near the northern




edge of the Community and are expected to increase fivefold by




year 2020.  The available surface water resources in the Area




appear to be adequate to meet the projected needs.






        3.  Mechanicsburg Area (Trindle Spring Run)




            a.  Current Water Quality




        The Borough of Mechanicsburg in Cumberland County,




Pennsylvania, is situated at the headwaters of Trindle Spring




Run, a tributary discharging to the Conodoquinet Creek at Mile




l6.  The Mechanicsburg Sewage Treatment Plant provides second-




ary treatment and discharges into Trindle Spring Run approximately




four and one-half miles upstream from the confluence with the




Conodoquinet Creek.  Approximately 98 per cent of the 8,200




people in the Mechanicsburg Area are served by the municipal




sewerage system.  Wastes emanating from the Area are as follows:

-------
                                                            V - 12
Location
Mechanicsburg Borough
Mechanicsburg Naval
Supply Depot
(Hampden Township)
Schaull Elementary
School (Hampden
Township)
American Bridge
(Hampden Township)
Cumberland Valley
High School
(Silver Springs)
Treatment
Secondary


Secondary


Secondary
Chemical
Primary


Secondary
Population
Served
8,000


3,000


375*
^*
251


1,700
Est.
Flow
(mgd)
0.62


0.01


	
0.001
0.025


0.1
Receiving Stream
Trindle Springs Run


Conodoquinet Creek


Conodoquinet Creek
Conodoquinet Creek



Conodoquinet Creek
Estimated population equivalent
           Practically all of the dry weather flow in Trindle Spring




   Run is from the effluent of the Mechanicsburg Sewage Treatment




   Planto  The flow required to assimilate the present waste and




   maintain satisfactory water quality conditions during the late




   summer months is estimated to be approximately 7 cfs.  The natural-




   ly occurring stream flow during this period is less than 0.5 cfs.




   Downstream from the sewage treatment plant, Trindle Spring Run




   does underground for a short distance, thereby creating a poten-




   tial ground water pollution problem.  Nutrient enrichment of




   Trindle Spring Run is also evident from the profuse algal growths




   observed in the stream during recent summer surveys.  Plans were




   recently completed by a consulting engineer for the renovation




   and enlargement of the existing municipal waste treatment plant;




   project cost is estimated at $7^0,000.  However, in order to




   upgrade water quality to an acceptable level, additional pollution

-------
                                                         V - 13


control measures are needed, such as advanced waste treatment

or treated waste diversion to Conodoquinet Creek.

        The Riverton Water Company is planning to develop a water

supply reservoir on Conodoquinet Creek downstream from Trindle

Spring Run.  If the proposed reservoir is developed, the waste

diversion line from Mechanicsburg should "be extended to discharge

downstream from the reservoir.

        The water quality of Conodoquinet Creek in the vicinity

of Trindle Spring Run shows some indication of organic degrada-

tion and suggests nutrient enrichment, as evidenced "by the

profuse algal growths and aquatic weeds observed during the

recent biological survey.  The biological results of Conodoquinet

Creek upstream and downstream from Trindle Spring Run confluence

are summarized below:

                       Biological Summary

Upstream - Thirteen kinds of bottom organisms were collected at
this location, including clean-water, intermediate, and pollution-
tolerant forms.  Numerous fish as well as heavy mats of aquatic
plants were observed,

Downstream - A diverse population of 22 kinds of bottom organisms
was sampled at this station.  Profuse algal mats and submerged
aquatic weeds were observed.


        Conodoquinet Creek receives no major waste discharges in

the reaches downstream from Trindle Spring Run and contributes

toward enhancement of water quality of the Susquehanna River.

-------
                                                         V - 111






            b.  Future Water Quality




        A fivefold increase in population is anticipated by year




2020.  Advanced waste treatment, if provided at Mechanicsburg,




is not expected to be adequate to maintain satisfactory water




quality throughout the projected, period.  Treated waste diversion




to Conodoquinet Creek would prevent degradation of Trindle Spring




Run.  The additional waste loads to Conodoquinet Creek, as a




result of the diversion, could be adequately assimilated by the




normally occurring stream flows; however, the projected upstream




irrigation withdrawals (58 cfs by year 2020) would greatly reduce




the stream flow of Conodoquinet Creek for waste assimilation.




Flow regulation from one or more of the potential reservoir sites




upstream would be a necessary adjunct to waste flow diversion from




Mechanicsburg.  Future planning will necessitate evaluations of




the various alternatives to develop an acceptable pollution control




program for the Conodoquinet Creek Watershed.






            c.  Water Supply




        Eighty per cent of the present water needs of the Mechanics-




burg Area is supplied from Yellow Breeches Creek, and the remaining




20 per cent is supplied from ground water resources.  The water




resources of the Area appear ample to meet all needs in the immedi-




ate future.  Additional needs could be obtained from the nearby




Harrisburg Area or from the Susquehanna River if the water resources




of the Mechanicsburg Area are not adequate in the future.

-------
                                                         V - 15


    C.  Yellow Breeches Creek Watershed

        1.  Mt, Holly Springs Area (Mountain Creek)

            a.  Current Water Quality

        The Mt. Holly Springs Area is located on Mountain Creek,

a tributary entering Yellow Breeches Creek at Mile 31.2.  Princi-

pal industries in the Area are the Eaton and Dikeman and the

Schwetzer Paper Companies.  Principal waste sources are as follows:

                                           Est.
                             Population    Flow
Location
Mt. Holly Springs
South Middleton
Township
(school)
Eaton & Dikeman

Schwetzer Paper

Philadelphia
Clay Company
Treatment
Secondary


Secondary
Settling
Septic Tank
Settling
Septic Tank

Silt Pond
Served
1,81*0


1*1*0
	
	
	
	

-_ __
(mgd)
O.U7


OoOOl*
0.1*31
0.001
1.728
O.OOU

0.03
Receiving Stream
Mountain Creek


Yellow Breeches
Mountain Creek
Sub-surface
Mountain Creek
Sub-surface

Mountain Creek
        Eaton & Dikeman and Schwetzer Paper Companies do not

manufacture their own pulp; therefore, these waste loadings are

relatively small in comparison with other paper companies in the

Susquehanna River Basin.  Each of the Companies is in compliance

with the requirements of the Sanitary Water Board; however,

studies are necessary to determine the effects of the waste dis-

charges on water quality of Mountain Creek.

        Recent stream sampling results near the mouth of Mountain

Run, approximately two miles downstream from the Carlisle Area,

are summarized as follows:

-------
                                                         v - 16


                     Mountain  Run  at Mouth

       Indicator	Range	

      DO  (mg/1)                                   7-8-8.5
                                          Sat. (8.2 -  9.0)

      BOD5  (mg/1)                                 3.2 -  J.h


         Recent problems have been  encountered in Fuller  and

 Laurel Lakes, approximately eight  miles upstream from  Mt. Holly

 Springs  at  Pine Grove Furnace  State Park, due to seepage from

 existing tile fields, the high bather load, and  raw discharges

 from  several summer  cottages.  The high coliform counts  resulted

 in the temporary  closing of the lakes for swimming purposes by

 the Pennsylvania  Department of Health.  Further  studies  by the

 Health Department will be made during the summer months  to

 determine  if continued closure will be necessary.

        Yellow Breeches Creek  serves as a water  supply source

 for many communities in the Area and is used for fishing and

 other  forms of recreation.   The stream is one of the heaviest

 stocked trout streams in Pennsylvania.   Water quality data of

Yellow Breeches Creek immediately upstream and downstream from

Mountain Creek confluence and at the mouth of Yellow Breeches

Creek are summarized as follows:

-------
                                                              V - IT
	Indicator	Upstream    Downstream	Mouth	

DO (mg/l)                 Sat.        Sat.          Sat.

BOD  (mg/l)               3.5 - 7-3    2.6 - 5.U        0.0 -        11.9
                                                        2.6 (med. value)

Coliforms (MPN/100 ml)       	          	       1,500   - 4,600,000
                                                    1,800 (med.  value)

                            Biological Summary

Yellow Breeches Creek at Confluence with Susquehanna River - Sixteen kinds
of clean-water bottom organisms found at this point indicated undegraded
conditions.
             Although the biological sampling indicated undegraded

     conditions, the water companies located in the lower reaches have

     experienced high coliform counts, as indicated in the summary

     table.  However, in general, Yellow Breeches Creek contributes to

     the improvement of water quality of the Susquehanna River.


                 b.  Future Water Quality

             Preliminary evaluations indicate that the naturally occur-

     ring stream flows of Yellow Breeches Creek will be adequate to

     assimilate secondary treated effluents from the Mt. Holly Area

     through year 2020.  However, continual water quality surveillance

     should be a necessary pollution control measure to detect increased

     levels of coliforms or other pollutants in order to initiate action

     to preserve the recreational, water supply, and other priority

     uses of the stream.  In order to protect these uses in the future,

     it may become necessary to provide greater treatment capability

-------
                                                         v - 18






or divert the secondary treated effluents to another Watershed




such as the Conodoquinet Creek or the Susquehanna River.






            c.  Water Supply




        The Mt Holly Area presently uses approximately 2.5 mgd




which are obtained mostly from surface sources.  The available




sources appear to be adequate to serve the needs through year




2020; hovever, additional development may be necessary.






    D.  Conevago Creek Watershed




        1.  Hanover Area (Plum Creek)




            a.  Current Water Quality




        The Hanover Area is situated at the headwaters of Cone-




wago Creek and Codorus Creek Watersheds.  The portion of the




Hanover Area discharging to the Codorus Creek Watershed is dis-




cussed in Section" E-l.  Wastes discharged to Conewago Creek




Watershed are as follows:

Location
Hanover Borough
D.E



Uts



. Winebrenner



Potato Chip



Treatment
Secondary
Discharge
(process )
Hone
(cooling)
Discharge
(sanitary)
None
(cooling)
Population
Served
17,000
#
5,500


#
1,933


Est.
Flow
(mgd)
1.7

0.052

0.002

0.03

0.005
Receiving Stream
Plum Creek
Hanover Borough
System

Plum Creek
Hanover Borough
System



-------
                                                         V - 19
Location
McSherrystown
Borough
Conewago Township
Hanover Ice Locker



*
Population
Treatment Served

Secondary 2,880
Septic Tanks 	
None %
(sanitary) 78
None
(cooling)

Esto
Flow
(mgd)

0.2
	

0.012

0.07

Receiving Stream

Plum Creek
Sub-surface

Irrigation



Estimated population equivalent
        The Boroughs of Hanover and McSherrystown each discharge

treated effluent into Plum Creek 2.5 miles and 1.3 miles, respec-

tively, upstream from the confluence with the South Branch Conewago

Creek.  Stream flows of Plum Creek are normally 0.5 cfs or less

during the late summer months and are not adequate to assimilate

the present treated waste loads.  Preliminary evaluations indi-

cated flows of approximately 9 cfs were needed to maintain satis-

factory water quality during the late summer period.

        Stream sampling data of Plum Creek near the moutn are

summarized below:

                     Plum Creek near Mouth

         Indicator
        DO (mg/1)
	Range

      2.8 - U.6
 (Sat. 8.5 - 9.*0

-------
                                                         V - 20






        The McSherrystown Sewage Treatment Plant is overloaded




and was previously cited by the Pennsylvania Sanitary Water Board




"because of this condition.  Renovation of their existing sewage




treatment plant is underway, and approximately ten per cent of the




construction is completed.  The project cost for the renovation




is estimated at $225,000.  However, because of the extremely low




stream flows in Plum Creek, additional pollution control measures




are needed by both McSherrystown and Hanover.  Two methods appear-




ing to have potential are advanced waste treatment and/or convey-




ance of treated effluent to South Branch Conewago Creek.  Since




the Hanover Area has a history of water shortages, flow regulation




in Plum Creek is not expected to be a likely solution to the water




quality problem.




        The Community of New Oxford, population 1,600, obtains




its public water supply from the South Branch Conewago Creek,




approximately six miles downstream from the Hanover Sewage Treat-




ment Planto  The future use of this stream reach as a source of




public water supply is expected to be limited by the upstream




discharge of treated waste unless adequate corrective actions




are soon initiated.  If treated waste diversion from the Hanover




and McSherrystown Areas proves to be favorable, the benefits




should be evaluated for extension of the waste diversion line




to a point downstream from the water intake at New Oxford.

-------
                                                               V - 21


              Stream sampling data of South Branch Conewago Creek ap-

      proximately one and one-half miles upstream from New Oxford are

      summarized below:

            South Branch Conewago Creek Upstream from New Oxford

               ^Indicator	Range	

              DO (mg/1)                            U,2 - 5-6
                                             (Sat. 8.5 - 9.0)

              BOD5 (mg/1)                          1.9 - Q.k


              Approximately 6.5 miles downstream from New Oxford,

      South Branch Conewago Creek discharges to Conewago Creek at Mile

      50.9.  Conewago Creek is a very turbid stream, supposedly deriv-

      ing its name from the Indian translation "Dirty Waters."  The

      Creek is presently used for swimming and water-related contact

      sports, even though bacterial counts are at times much in excess

      of the State's recommended limits for swimming waters.

              Present waste sources in Conewago Creek Watershed between

      the Hanover Area and the Susquehanna Biver are summarized below:
                                               Est.
                                   Population  Flow
	Location	Treatment	Served    Jmgd)^_  Receiving Stream

Dover Borough        Secondary       1,200     0.10   Fox Run
Conewago Township    Septic Tanks    	       	    Sub-surface
West Manchester
  Township           None                             Little Conewago Creek
Pennsylvania Supply
  Company            Secondary       	       1.10   Conewago Creek

-------
                                                         V - 22


        West Manchester Township is partially served by the York

system in the Codorus Creek Watershed; however, the Shiloh por-

tion discharging to Little Conewago Creek Watershed has completed

plans for the provision of secondary treatment facilities.  The

project cost is estimated at $1,200,000.

        Stream sampling data of Conewago Creek three miles up-

stream from the confluence with the Susquehanna River are

summarized below:

                   Conewago Creek near Mouth

     	Indicator	Range	

     DO (mg/l)                               Saturation

     BOD5 (mg/l)                           3.5 -       8.6

     Coliforms (MPN/100 ml)                0     210,000

                       Biological Summary

     Seven Miles Upstream from Mouth - Twelve kinds of clean-
     water associated bottom organisms were collected at this
     station.


        With the exception of occasionally high bacterial counts,

Conewago Creek generally contributes satisfactory water quality

to the Susquehanna River.  The high bacterial counts in the lower

reaches of Conewago Creek are believed to be attributable par-

tially to raw discharges from summer cottages along Conewago

Creek as well as possible farm land run-off.  However, studies

are necessary to determine the sources and extent of the bacterial

concentrations.

-------
                                                         V - 23






            "b.  Future Water Quality




        Preliminary projections for the Hanover and McSherrystown




Areas indicate a potential fivefold increase in waste loadings




to Plum Creek by year 2020.  As indicated in the previous section,




advanced waste treatment and treated waste diversion appear to




be necessary alternatives to be evaluated in the development of




a pollution control program for the Conewago Creek Watershed.






            c.  Water Supply




        The present water requirements for the Hanover Area are




2.2 mgd and are expected to increase to approximately lU mgd by




the year 2020.  The Hanover Area presently obtains its water




supply from the South Branch Conewago Creek upstream from the




Plum Creek confluence and from auxiliary ground water sources.




It is estimated that the storage capacity of the Sheppard-Myers




Reservoir and the newly constructed reservoir near Hanover will




serve the area adequately in the immediate future.  Prior to the




construction of the new reservoir, the Hanover Area had serious




water shortage problems and placed restrictions on water used




during the late summer and early autumn months.  Future water




supply sources for Hanover are Long Arm Creek, the South Branch




Conewago Creek upstream from Hanover, and possibly the Susque-




hanna River.

-------
                                                           V - 2k


      E.  Codorus Creek Watershed

          1.  Hanover Area (Oil Creek)

              a.  Current Water Quality

          Penn Township Sevage Treatment Plant discharges approxi-

  mately six miles upstream from the mouth of Oil Creek, a tribu-

  tary entering West Branch Codorus Creek at Mile 26.9.  Wastes

  emanating from the portion of the Hanover Area discharging into

  the Codorus Creek Watershed are as follows:
Location
Treatment
             Est.
Population   Flow
  Served	(mgd)	Receiving Stream
Penn Township
Hanover Potato
Chip

Bupp's Dairy
Little's Dairy
Hanover Canning




Hanover Wire

Heidelberg Town-
ship
*
Secondary
Discharge
(process )
(cooling)
	
	
Chemical
(process)
Discharge
(cooling)
Septic Tank
Chemical
Flocculation

Septic Tanks

___
^
2,510

Ik
81
#
6,690

#
11

	

	

__

0.033
0.002
0.01
0.011

0.182

0.195
0.001

0.116

	

Oil Creek

Penn Township Sewers

Penn Township Sewers
Penn Township Sewers



Penn Township Sewers
Sub-surface

Oil Creek

Sub-surface

Estimated population equivalent
          Preliminary studies indicate that the flow required to

  assimilate present waste loadings, approximately 11 cfs, and

  maintain satisfactory water quality conditions is considerably

  greater than the natural stream flows during the late summer

  months.  In order to reduce the degradation of the stream,

-------
                                                         V - 25






consideration should be given to providing advanced vaste treat-




ment and/or treated waste diversion to West Branch Codorus Creek.






            b.  Future Water Quality




        It is estimated that the waste loading from this portion




of the Hanover Area will increase at least fourfold by the year




2020.  Advanced waste treatment, if provided, is not expected to




completely eliminate the degraded conditions in Oil Creek through-




out the projected growth period.  The extremely small flows of




Oil Creek may warrant the elimination of wastes being discharged




to the stream by treated waste diversion to West Branch Codorus




Creek.






            c.  Water Supply




        Water supply needs were covered in the previous discussion




of Hanover, Section D-l.






        2.  Spring Grove Area (West Branch Codorus Creek)




            a.  Current Water Quality




        The Borough of Spring Grove, located in York County,




Pennsylvania, has a population of approximately 1,1*00 people.




Spring Grove is situated along the West Branch Codorus Creek




approximately ten miles upstream from the confluence with the




South Branch Codorus Creek.   The major industry in the Area is




P. H. Glatfelter Paper Company.   The waste prior to treatment




at P. H. Glatfelter is equivalent to the waste from over 150,000

-------

-------
                                                               V - 26
      people and, even vith treatment, is by far the most significant

      discharge in the Area.

              Wastes emanating from the Area are as follows:
    Location
 Treatment
             Est.
Population   Flow
  Served	(mgd)
Receiving Stream
Spring Grove
  Borough
Jackson Township
North Codorus
Secondary         1,^25
Septic Tanks      	
                     West Branch Codorus
             0.13      Creek
             	     Sub-surface
Township
Septic Tanks 	
P. H. Glatfelter Secondary #
Company (process) 152,000

*
Estimated
Discharge K
(sanitary) 30
(cooling) 	
population equivalent
	
10.0
0.03
10.0

Sub- surf ace
West Branch Codorus
Creek
Spring Grove Sewers
Mill Dam

              The West Branch Codorus Creek downstream from Spring Grove

      is one of the most degraded streams in the Susquehanna River Basin

      receiving treated waste effluent.   Stream surveys conducted during

      the late summer months are summarized below:

    West Branch Codorus Creek Upstream and Downstream from Spring Grove
       Indicator
          Upstream
                   Downstream
      DO (mg/1)
      BOD (mg/1)

      Ultimate BOD
        (Ibs/day)

      Flow (cfs)
         Saturated


         1.6 -   k.3


        60   - 760

         2   -   h
               (0.0) Minimum Value
               (1.2) Median Value
                8
   23
              790   - 6,800

               15   -    20

-------
                                                         V - 27
                       Biological Summary

West Branch Codorus Creek, Mile 27, Upstream from Spring Grove
and Oil Creek Confluence - Eighteen kinds of bottom organisms,
predominately clean-water associated forms, were collected at
this location.

West Branch Codorus Creek, Mile 2U, Immediately Downstream from
Spring Grove - Only pollution-tolerant bottom organisms were
found at this station.

West Branch Codorus Creek, Mile 1^, at Mouth - An abundant popu-
lation of only a pollution-tolerant form of bottom organism was
found at this location.
        Prior to installation of secondary treatment by P. H.

Glatfalter, the effluent from the treatment plant contained an

average of 180 mg/1 suspended solids; the average is now approxi-

mately 31 mg/1.  Even though the pollutional load contributed to

the West Branch Codorus Creek by the Paper Company has been

reduced drastically, low stream flows downstream from Spring

Grove and the Paper Company still consist mostly of plant efflu-

ent with only limited dilution by upstream flow.  The stream is

still degraded, containing colors and other evidence of wastes

which are aesthetically objectionable for use of the stream by

farmers and other downstream residents, particularly in the City

of York.

        Preliminary evaluations indicate that waste assimilative

flows of approximately 60 cfs are needed during late summer

months to maintain satisfactory water quality in the West Branch

Codorus Creek downstream from the Spring Grove Area.  Naturally

-------
                                                         V - 28






occurring stream flows of about 8 cfs are not uncommon during




this period.




        A new reservoir for recreation, water supply, and water




quality control is presently being constructed jointly by the




Paper Company and the Pennsylvania Department of Forests and




Waters upstream from Spring Grove on the West Branch of the




Codorus Creek.  Most of the storage in the reservoir has been




allocated to Spring Grove Water Company for industrial water




supply purposes at the P. H. Glatfelter Plant but will provide




a limited volume for water quality control.  The reservoir is




to be regulated to provide a minimum flow of 32.h mgd (50 cfs)




at Spring Grove during low flow periods.  Present process water




use by the Paper Company is about 10 mgd but is expected to




increase to 20 mgd because of planned expansion of the industry.




The Pennsylvania Water and Power Resources Board requires a mini-




mum flow of 2.h mgd downstream from the Spring Grove water intake




at all times.  Therefore, of the 32.h mgd to be released from the




reservoir, 10 mgd (15.5 cfs) could be available initially for




water quality control.  However, with future expansion of the




Paper Company, this remaining flow is expected to be used to




satisfy processing requirements.




        Various pollution control alternatives appearing to have




potential in the Spring Grove Area are as follows:

-------

-------
                                                         V - 29






                (l)  Flow regulation for water quality control




from the new reservoir would be partially effective until the




time when the Paper Company expands its facilities to its maxi-




mum capacity of 30 mgd.




                (2)  Additional flow regulation, with water pumped




from the Susquehanna River approximately IT miles away, could




serve a dual purpose as it would also satisfy water supply needs




of the downstream municipalities of York and Spring Grove during




periods of drought; however, this alternative is expected to have




an extremely high construction and operational cost.




                (3)  Advanced waste treatment alone does not




appear adequate to eliminate the present stream degradation; how-




ever, if utilized with flow regulation, the quality of water in




the West Branch Codorus Creek would be improved significantly.




                (U)  Spray irrigation of waste from the Paper




Company has many advantages, in that it would be helpful to




farmers during drought periods, and it would help replenish the




ground water table along the West Branch Codorus Creek.




                (5)  Transmit treated effluent to either of the




following:




                     (a) Effluent line from Spring Grove to the




Susquehanna River - This line could also receive wastes from down-




stream areas such as York and other communities along the main




stem of Codorus Creek.

-------

-------
                                                         V - 30






                          Effluent line to a point downstream




from the York City discharge - This would improve the water




quality of Codorus Creek between Spring Grove and York, but




would increase the pollutional load on the Creek downstream from




York.




                (7)  Significantly reduce wastes from the Paper




Company by process changes or other "in-plant" modifications as




a result of possible advanced technological research.






            b.  Future Water Quality




        Both immediate as well as future water quality will depend




upon implementation of selected alternatives as indicated above.




The advantages, disadvantages, and benefits of each method will




have to be evaluated in order that an effective pollution control




program can be developed for the Codorus Creek Watershed.






            c.  Water Supply




        The present water supply needs for the Borough of Spring




Grove are 0.2 mgd.  The Paper Company uses approximately 22 mgd,




one-half being used for cooling water purposes.  The new reser-




voir is expected to serve the needs of the Spring Grove Area in




the near future; however, anticipated needs of about 50 mgd by




year 2020 may require either a water supply pipeline from the




Susquehanna River or water reuse.

-------

-------
                                                         V - 31


        3.   New Freedom-Glen Rock-Shrewsbury Area (South Branch
            Codorus  Creek)

            a.   Current  Water Quality

        The New Freedom-Glen Rock-Shrewsbury Area in York County,

Pennsylvania, is situated at the headwaters approximately 18 miles

upstream from the mouth of South Branch Codorus Creek.  The South

Branch and West Branch Creeks join to form Codorus Creek at Mile

1^.1.  Approximately 15 per cent of the total population (6,600)

of the Area is presently served with a sewerage system.  The main

industrial pursuit in the Area is canning.  Principal waste sources

in the Area are as follows:
Location
                         Est.
             Population  Flow
Treatment      Served	(mgd)	Receiving Stream
Glen Rock Borough
New Freedom Borough
Railroad Borough
Shrewsbury Borough
Shrewsbury Township
C. G. Summers





Boyd Laundromat

Hungerford Packing
*
Septic Tanks
Septic Tanks
Septic Tanks
Septic Tanks
Septic Tanks
Secondary #
(process) l.VfO
None
(cooling)
Septic Tanks ^
(sanitary) 10^
Secondary UUO

Secondary 1,285

._.
	
	
	
	

O.Oh

0.005

0.001
0.02

0.035

Sub -surf ace
Sub-surface
Sub-surface
Sub-surface
Sub-surface

Spray Irrigation
South Branch Codorus
Creek

Sub-surface
South Branch Codorus
Creek
Evaporation Lagoon

Estimated population equivalent
        Glen Rock Borough is presently installing treatment facil-

ities consisting of a secondary plant and a lagoon.  The effluent

from the proposed plant will be discharged into the South Branch

-------
                                                         V - 32






Codorus Creek.  The facility is presently under construction and




is approximately 90 per cent complete.  The estimated project cost




for the sewerage system for Glen Rock is $932,000.




        Recently the Borough of New Freedom has initiated plans




for secondary treatment facilities to serve New Freedom, Shrews-




bury, and Railroad Boroughs, and a portion of Shrewsbury Township.




The estimated project cost for this sewerage system to serve the




four municipalities is estimated at $1,500,000.




        Boyd Laundromat presently has a secondary treatment plant




and discharges to the South Branch Codorus Creek.  However, the




treatment plant is not meeting the requirements of the Pennsyl-




vania Sanitary Water Board.  The Laundromat has demonstrated




unsatisfactory progress toward upgrading treatment efficiency




and, unless steps are taken, enforcement action may be necessary.




        Although low stream flows occur (as low as U cfs) during




the late summer months, South Branch Codorus Creek appears to be




capable of assimilating the present waste loads from the New




Freedom-Shrewsbury Area.  The recent biological sampling at the




mouth of the Creek indicated 13 kinds of predominately clean-




water associated bottom organisms.  Flows from the South Branch




contribute to the improvement of the quality of water of Codorus




Creek.

-------
                                                         V - 33






            b.  Future Water Quality




        Projected growth in the New Freedom-Shrewsbury Area indi-




cates a potential fourfold increase in population by year 2020.




The low stream flows during the late summer months are not expected




to be adequate to assimilate the increased waste loads throughout




the projected growth period unless treatment greater than 85 per




cent BOD removal is provided.  Flow regulation, because of limited




drainage upstream from the point of need, does not appear to be a




practical solution to future water quality problems.  A possible




alternative to advanced waste treatment is treated waste diversion




to the waste pipeline from Spring Grove, if the latter is con-




structed.  However, because of the distance (approximately 18




miles), waste diversion may not be an economically feasible solu-




tion to future water quality problems in the New Freedom-Shrewsbury




Area.






            c.  Water Supply




        The New Freedom-Shrewsbury Area currently obtains its




water supply of O.H mgd from ground and surface sources.  It is




expected that the total water requirements will increase fivefold




by the year 2020.  Further development of ground water resources




appears to be necessary to meet the projected demand.

-------
                                                         V - 3^






        h.  Red Lion Area (Mill Creek)




            a.  Current Water Quality




        The Red Lion Area in York County, Pennsylvania, is situ-




ated at the headwaters of Mill Creek, a tributary entering




Codorus Creek at York.  The Red Lion Municipal Sewage Treatment




Plant discharges into Mill Creek 9-5 miles upstream from the




confluence with Codorus Creek.  Wastes emanating from the Area




are as follows:






                                            Est.
Location
Red Lion Borough
Dallastown Borough
Yoe Borough
United Piece & Dye
Treatment
Secondary
Septic Tanks
Septic Tanks
Secondary
(process )
Septic Tank
Population
Served
5,600
13,700*
10
Flow
(mgd)
0.5
l.U
0.001
Receiving Stream
Mill Creek
Sub-surface
Sub-surface
Mill Creek
Sub -surf ace
*
Estimated population equivalent
        The flow required to assimilate present waste loadings




and maintain satisfactory water quality conditions in Mill Creek




downstream from the Red Lion Borough discharge is estimated at




2 cfs during the summer months.  Natural stream flows of less




than 1 cfs occur during this period.  In order to reduce loadings




to Mill Creek, consideration should be given to providing advanced




waste treatment or to conveyance of treated wastes to Codorus Creek.




        Since the construction of the Red Lion Sewage Treatment




Plant within the last five years, the handling of sludge has been

-------
                                                         V - 35


a continuous problem; and the municipality anticipates replacing

the existing sludge devatering facilities with a new vacuum filter

in the near future.

        United Piece & Dye is located along Mill Creek 6.6 miles

downstream from the Red Lion Sewage Treatment Plant.  Prior to

the recent installation of a new secondary treatment plant by

United Piece and Dye, definite water quality degradation occurred,

as evidenced by the following sampling data:

          Mill Creek at Confluence with Codorus Creek
         (2.7 Miles Downstream from United Piece & Dye)

                Before Installation of    After Installation of
 Indicator	Waste Treatment Plant	Waste Treatment Plant

DO                    0.0 -     4.1            Saturation
                Sat. (7.4 -     8.7)

BOD  (mg/1)          12   -    38               4.1 -   8.5

Ultimate BOD
  (ibs/day)       1,000   - 2,780             l40   - 680


        Although the new treatment facilities have greatly reduced

the loadings to Mill Creek, preliminary evaluations indicate waste

assimilative flows required to maintain satisfactory water quality

conditions still exceed normally occurring stream flows during

summer months.  Pollution abatement measures which should be

evaluated include advanced waste treatment, land application, or

treated waste diversion to Codorus Creek, which is about 2.5

miles downstream.

-------
                                                         V - 36






            "b.  Future Water Quality




        It is expected that the population in the Red Lion Area




presently served by sewerage facilities will increase about four-




fold by the year 2020.  Advanced waste treatment, if provided,




is not expected to be adequate throughout the projected growth




period.  Land 'application of wastes or treated waste diversion




to Codorus Creek are two alternatives which should be evaluated




in greater detail during the formulation of a pollution control




program for Codorus Creek Watershed.






            c.  Water Supply




        The Red Lion Area currently obtains its water supply from




Beaver and Cabin Creeks.  Water use in the Area is expected to




increase approximately U5 per cent in the next 15 years.   Addi-




tional development of the surface water resources of the Area




appear ample to meet this increased demand.  Prior to year 2000,




alternative water supply sources, such as the Susquehanna River,




may be needed.






        5-  York Area (Codorus Creek)




            a.  Current Water Quality




        The City of York is situated along Codorus Creek five




miles downstream from the confluence of the West Branch and South




Branch Codorus Creeks and nine miles upstream from the confluence




of Codorus Creek with the Susquehanna River.  The estimated popu-




lation of the York Area is 129,000, of which 97,000 are presently

-------
                                                            V - 37


   served with sewers.  The York Area is a diversified industrial

   center.  The wastes emanating from municipal and industrial

   establishments in the York Area are as follows:
Location Treatment
York City Secondary
Spr inget t sbury
Township 	
West Manchester
Township 	
Certain Teed 	
Population
Served
90,000

635

1,300*
610
Est.
Flow
(mgd)
12.0

O.OH


0.103
Receiving Stream
Codorus Creek

York City Sewers

York City Sewers
York City Sewers
York Corporation
New York Wire
American Chain
Penn Dairies
York & Shipley
Masell Manu-
 facturing
Greens Dairy
Schmidt & Ault
Campbell Chain
None
Secondary
Discharge
  (cooling)
  (sanitary)
Discharge
  (process)
  (sanitary)
Secondary
Discharge
  (sanitary)
None (process)
Discharge
  (sanitary)
None (process)
Discharge
  (sanitary)
Chemical
Settling
Discharge
  (cooling)
  (sanitary)

Discharge
  (process)
  (sanitary)
Neutral
Discharge
  (sanitary)
  660,
3,600
     *
  250


   80'
 ~  *
  150*
  U39
                                       1U
                                       50
065    Codorus Creek
	     Codorus Creek

	     Codorus Creek
	     York City Sewers

0.102   Poorhouse Run
0.007   York City Sewers
0.333   Poorhouse Run

0.066   York City Sewers
0.5*17   Codorus Creek

0.025   York City Sewers
0.1     Mill Creek

0.008   York City Sewers
0.001   York City Sewers
0.075   Poorhouse Run

0.076   Poorhouse Run
0.015   York City Sewers
0.115   York City Sewers

0.373   York City Sewers
0.009   York City Sewers
0.20    York City Sewers

0.218   York City Sewers

-------

-------
                                                            V - 38
   Location
 Treatment
             Est.
Population   Flow
  Served	(mgd)   Receiving St re am
Yorktown Paper
McKay Company
Discharge
  (process)
Septic Tank
Discharge
                                    1,U70     0.25    York City Sewers
                                    	       	     Sub-surface


Manchester
Township
North York
Borough
West York
Borough
Spring Garden
Township
Windsor Township
Ore Valley Ele-
mentary School
(York Township)
M & G Trailer
Court
(York Township)
Molybdenum
Corporation
*
(process) 	 ^
(sanitary) 20

	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	
Secondary 250


Secondary U60


Secondary 125
Lagoon 	 #
Septic Tanks 10

0.128
0.002

	

	

	

	
0.003


	


0.000
0 = 038
0.001

Codorus Creek
York City Sewers

York City Sewers

York City Sewers

York City Sewers

York City Sewers
Krevtz Creek

Tributary to
Mill Creek


Mill Creek
Codorus Creek
Sub-surface

Estimated population equivalent
           Critical water quality problems have been associated with

   the Codorus Creek in the York Area for some time.  At the conflu-

   ence of the West and South Branches Codorus Creek, several miles

   upstream from the City of York, the West Branch Codorus Creek is

   highly degraded from wastes emanating upstream at Spring Grove.

   The South Branch Codorus Creek contributes toward improvement of

   the water quality of Codorus Creek; however, during the critical

   summer months, the entire flow from the South Branch is utilized

   by the City of York as one of its water supply sources.  Codorus

-------
                                                              V - 39


     Creek is further degraded as it flows through York, receiving

     individual discharges of treated and untreated wastes, as well

     as the treated waste from the municipal treatment plant in York.

     Almost all of the flow of Codorus Creek during the late summer

     months is comprised of treated effluent from Spring Grove and York.

             Stream surveys of Codorus Creek conducted during the late

     summer months are summarized as follows:


             Codorus Creek Upstream and Downstream from York
Indicator Upstream
DO (mg/1)
Median
Sat.
BOD (mg/1)
0.
(2.
(8.
7.
(Mile
0 -
1)
0 -
k -
12)
5
10
U9
Downstream
.1
.0)
.6
Median
Sat.

0.
(0.
(7-
13.
(Mile
0 -
1)
7 -
8
_
8)
U
10
29

.5
.0)
.3
Ultimate BOD
  (Ibs/day)               2,100   - 8,1+00              5,300   - 10,700

Flow (cfs)                   17   -    5^                 38   -     80
                            Biological Summary

Upstream (Mile lU) - The biological conditions at this location showed
slight improvement over the location further upstream on the West Branch
Codorus Creek.  Seven kinds of bottom organisms were found, consisting of
three kinds of clean-water associated forms.

Downstream (Mile 6) - At this station significant organic pollution was
indicated, as only four kinds of pollution-tolerant bottom organisms,
predominately sludgeworms, were found.
             The York City Sewage Treatment Plant is experiencing

     operational difficulties in removal of sludge or solids from the

     settling units, and, consequently, the over-all BOD removal from

-------
                                                         v - ko






the plant is less than the equivalent of secondary treatment.




The City of York is presently taking action to renovate the plant




to provide adequate sludge handling facilities.




        The Certain Teed, asphalt and roofing industry, presently




discharges approximately six per cent of its wastes to the York




treatment plant, and the remainder of the waste is discharged to




Codorus Creek.  After renovation of the York treatment plant, all




of the waste from Certain Teed will be treated "by the York




facilities.




        Penns Dairies presently discharges sanitary wastes to




the York system, but discharges milk processing wastes directly




to Codorus Creek.  However, the Company is taking steps toward




the provision of process modifications to reduce waste loads to




the Creek.




        The Molybdenum Corporation is experiencing exceedingly




high nitrate concentrations in the lagoon discharges to Codorus




Creek.  Consultants for the Corporation are presently investi-



gating the problem to determine what corrective actions are




necessary.




        Sampling at the mouth of Codorus Creek indicates little




recovery of water quality prior to discharge to the Susquehanna




River.  Stream surveys conducted during late summer months are




summarized as follows:

-------
                                                         V - hi
                     Codorus Creek at Mouth

	Indicator	Mouth (Mile l)	

DO (mg/l)                                  0.0 -           3.9
                                   Median (2.1)
                                     Sat. (7.9 -          10.0)
     (mg/l)                               ih.Q -          l6.h
   ;
Ultimate BOD (ibs/day)                 6.UOO   -       9,100

Coliforms (MPN/100 ml)                75,000   - 110,000,000

Flow (cfs)                                58   -          88

   Pennsylvania Department of Health Data
                       Biological Summary

Codorus Creek One Mile Upstream from the Confluence with the
Susquehanna River - Codorus Creek recovered slightly at this
point, as thirteen kinds of predominately pollution-tolerant
bottom organisms were found.


        Although measures are being taken to upgrade waste treat-

ment efficiencies in the York Area, the principal limiting factor

to improved water quality in Codorus Creek is the low stream flow

available for treated waste assimilation.  Naturally occurring

stream flows of 25 cfs or less are not uncommon during the late

summer and early fall months.  Flows required to assimilate

present waste loadings and maintain satisfactory water quality

in Codorus Creek during this period are approximately six times

the natural flows.

        In order to improve water quality in Codorus Creek Water-

shed, waste loadings need to be reduced to levels within the

assimilative capabilities of the receiving streams.  The treated

-------
                                                         V - k2






waste diversion pipeline from Spring Grove (discussed in Section




E-2) to the Susquehanna River, if constructed, could receive




treated wastes from the York Area as well as from the Red Lion




Area and the United Piece and Dye Company on Mill Creek.  This




alternative would eliminate the greatest portion of wastes pres-




ently discharged to Codorus Creek Watershed but would impose




additional loadings on the Susquehanna River.  Land application




of wastes by industries such as Glatfelter Paper Company and




United Piece and Dye, and advanced waste treatment by the munici-




palities prior to discharge to the waste~diversion pipeline




would greatly reduce the waste loads to the Susquehanna River




and would still eliminate the major discharges to Codorus Creek




Watershed.  A third alternative is flow regulation from Indian




Rock Reservoir, a flood control structure located several miles




downstream from Spring Grove on West Branch Codorus Creek.  If




the upstream sources of wastes are eliminated from West Branch




Codorus Creek, flow releases from this reservoir could supplement




treatment and/or partially treated waste diversion measures taken




by the York Area.  The alternative or combination of alternatives




to be implemented will be the result of detailed evaluations in




the formulation of a basin-wide pollution control program for




Codorus Creek Watershed.

-------

-------
                                                         V - 1+3






            b.  Future Water Quality




        Preliminary projections indicate a potential fourfold




increase in population of York-Red Lion Area.  The present degra-




dation of streams in the Codorus Creek Watershed will become




progressively worse unless pollution abatement measures, as out-




lined above, are initiated immediately and later expanded to




meet the needs as growth is experienced.






            c.  Water Supply




        The York Area presently obtains approximately hi. per




cent of its water supply from the East Branch Codorus Creek and




57 per cent from the South Branch Codorus Creek; the remaining




two per cent is obtained from ground water sources.  The munici-




pal water requirements for the Area are ih mgd, and the total




water requirements are 19 mgd.  The York Area has experienced




water shortages in the past, such as the severe shortage during




the drought of 1966 when water had to be hauled for several




months by truck from the Susquehanna River.  The Public Utilities




Commission of Pennsylvania instructed the York Water Company




during the drought to construct a pipeline to the Susquehanna




River.  September rains eased the shortage and made this enormous




expenditure unnecessary.




        A new reservoir is presently being constructed on the




East Branch Codorus Creek and will be placed in operation prior




to the summer of 196?  With this additional storage, the Codorus

-------

-------
                                                         V - hk






Creek Watershed is expected to "be capable of meeting the Area's




water requirements during the next 15 years when the water supply




requirements are expected to double.  By year 2020, the water




supply requirements are expected to increase about four times




the present usage and will require additional development of




potential sources.




        An additional reservoir site, COE #8, has been indicated




on one of the tributaries upstream from York.  The site, if devel-




oped, has been indicated to have a storage volume of 52,600 acre-




feet and has a potential yield of 57 cfs at a cost of $16,000 per




cfs.  The other alternatives are further development of ground




water and/or water supply pipeline from the Susquehanna River.








            SUSQUEHANNA RIVER EAST SHORE TRIBUTARIES




    F.  Shamokin Creek Watershed




        1.  Shamokin Area (Shamokin Creek)




            a.  Present Water Quality



        The Shamokin Area in Northumberland County, Pennsylvania,




is comprised of Shamokin City, Kulpmont Borough, Mount Carmel




Borough, and four townships.  The Area has a population of ap-




proximately 1+9,500.  Shamokin City is situated along Shamokin




Creek, 21 miles upstream from the confluence of Shamokin Creek




and the Susquehanna River (River Mile 120.8).  Mount Carmel




Borough is located approximately eight miles upstream from Shamokin

-------

-------
                                                         V - 1*5






City along Shamokin Creek.  Kulpmont Borough is located three




miles upstream from the mouth of Quaker Run, a tributary discharg-




ing to Shamokin Creek about 2.5 miles upstream from Shamokin City.




Shamokin Creek drains an area having active and inactive coal




mines and coal washeries.  The main industry in the Area is coal




mining.  Wastes emanating from the Area are as follows:
Location
Shamokin City
Kulpmont Borough
Coal Township
Ralpho Township
Mt . Carmel Township
Mt . Carmel Borough
Shamokin Township
Doll Paper (plant pre:
A. Clark Poultry
Trevorton Anthracite
Shamokin Sanitary
Milk
Kreisl Brothers
Arc Wire Corporation
Doll Paper Company
Bar Mac Coal
Glen Burn Collieries,
Inc.
Rosini Coal
Steam Coal
Thomas Coal
Diamond Coal
Savitski Coal
D & Z Coal Company
Swift Coal
*
Estimated populatit
Treatment
None
None
None
None
None
sently closed)
Secondary
Primary
Septic Tanks
None
None
Septic Tanks
None
Secondary
Primary
	
Dn equivalent
Population
Served
Ik ,000
5,200
16,000
1,500
lU.OOO
1,01*0*
H,270
*
20
2,850*
6,000^
20
#
980
Est.
Flow
(mgd)
1.7
0.52
1.6
0.15
I.k
0.106
0.079
I.lkQ
0.002
O.OU8
0.122
0.002
0.1U8
0.1
0.375
2.0
0.96
1.2
0.252
0.2k
0.12
0.168
O.lUU
Receiving Stream
Shamokin Creek
Quaker Run
Shamokin Creek
Shamokin Creek
Shamokin Creek
Eagle Run
Lagoons
Zerbe Run
Sub-surface
Shamokin Creek
Shamokin Creek
Sub-surface
Sub-surface
Shamokin Creek
Shamokin Creek









-------
                                                               V -
          Shamokin Creek is the most degraded stream in the portion

  of the Susquehanna River Basin covered in this report.  Shamokin

  Creek receives raw sewage from the municipalities in the Area as

  well as extensive mine drainage.  In addition, the stream is

  heavily loaded with coal fines.  Stream surveys conducted during

  the summer months reveal marked evidence of degradation, as shown

  in the table below:

                       Mine Drainage Summary

                             Net Alkalinity     	 Sulfates
                            Cone.     Load      Coi
Location           pH
                                                              Load      Flow
                                mg/1	Ib/day	mg/1	Ib/day	cfs
Shamokin Creek
upstream from
Quaker Run
Quaker Run at
Mouth

3.3-U.3
3.5-6.11

-2lU
-151

-9,900
-6,500

716
805

33,000
35,000

8.6
8.0
Shamokin Creek
  upstream from
  Shamokin City      3-7-7.9    -16U

Shamokin Creek
  downstream from
  Shamokin City      3.8-H_7    -lU8

Shamokin Creek at
  Mouth              3.0-H.l     -89
                                     -13,000
73,000    15.7
                                     -32,300     626     137,000    HO.5
                                     -35,500     U36     172,000    73.1

-------
                                                         V - U7


                     Water Quality Summary

	Indicator	Downstream from Shamokin City

DO (mg/l)                                  1.6 -       3.7

BOD  (mg/l)                               20   -      72

Suspended Solids Total (mg/l)             20   -   3,700

Dissolved Solids Total (mg/l)          1,300   -   U,200

Coliforms/100 ml                       2,300   - 620,000
#
   Pennsylvania Department of Health Data

                       Biological Summary

Shamokin Creek Downstream from Shamokin City - Only one kind of
pollution-tolerant midge was found at this location.  The water
was black in color; abundant coal fines blanketed the bottom;
and the rocks were coated with iron compounds.

Shamokin Creek at Mouth - Only the pollution-tolerant midge was
found at this point.  Shamokin Creek contributes heavy coal fines,
untreated sewage, and mine drainage to the Susquehanna River.

        Shamokin City presently has an existing combined sewer

system and contemplates construction of a primary treatment plant

within the near future.  Plans for the treatment plant have been

completed, and a permit for the construction of the plant has been

obtained from the Pennsylvania Sanitary Water Board.  The estimated

construction cost for the plant is $1,512,000.  The estimated pro-

ject cost for the municipal sewerage system is $3,275,000.  The

primary facilities represent initial pollution control action which

is needed in addition to mine drainage abatement measures; however,

with reduction of the inhibitory effects of mine drainage in the

near future, secondary treatment is expected to be necessary.

-------
                                                         V - U8






        Coal Tovnship contemplates construction of a sewer system




in the near future.  The Township presently has a permit from the




Sanitary Water Board to provide sewers and to discharge into the




Shamokin System.  Shamokin State Hospital also contemplates con-




nection into the Shamokin Sewer System.




        Mount Carmel Borough has a combined sewer system and dis-




charges untreated waste to Shamokin Creek.  Final plans for a




secondary treatment facility were recently completed.  The Borough




is presently awaiting a permit from the State Sanitary Water




Board.  The estimated project cost for the proposed sewage treat-




ment plant and interceptor sewers is $1,200,000.  Mount Carmel




Township contemplates connection into the Mount Carmel Sewerage




System when "built.




        Although the above treatment facilities are needed pollu-




tion control measures to abate untreated waste discharges, a mine




drainage program involving land surface reclamation, mine sealing,




and treatment (as indicated in the CB-SRBP Mine Drainage Report)




is essential to the improvement of water quality of Shamokin Creek.






            b.  Future Water Quality




        Future water quality will depend largely upon the degree




of success of mine drainage abatement measures, although organic




waste reduction measures will also be needed.  Preliminary evalua-




tions indicate that waste loadings from the Shamokin City Area




are expected to increase about threefold by year 2020.  Secondary

-------
                                                         V - 1+9






treatment facilities are not expected to reduce organic waste




loadings sufficiently to prevent degradation of the streams,




assuming the inhibiting effects of mine drainage on the assimila-




tive capability of the streams are eliminated^  Preliminary studies




indicate that by year 2020 required flovs for waste assimilation




are approximately three times the normal stream flows during late




summer months.  Since there are no indicated potential reservoir




sites in the Shamokin Creek Watershed, advanced waste treatment




may be necessary prior to year 2020.  The various alternatives




need further evaluating during the development of a pollution




control program.






            c.  Water Supply




        The municipal water requirements and the total water




requirements for the Shamokin Area are estimated at k.k mgd and




11.9 mgd, respectively.  The Shamokin Area currently obtains




approximately 85 per cent of its water supply from the South




Branch of Roaring Creek, nine per cent from Trout Run, and the




remaining six per cent from ground water sources.  The total




water requirements for the Area by year 2020 are expected to be




equal to or less than present usage.  The presently developed




sources should adequately satisfy the projected requirements.

-------
                                                         V - 50


    G.  Mahanoy Creek Watershed

        1.  Mahanoy City-Shenandoah Area (Mahanoy Creek)

            a.  Current Water Quality

        Mahanoy City is situated along Mahanoy Creek, approxi-

mately H8.5 miles from the mouth,  Shenandoah Borough is located

about four miles upstream from the mouth of Shenandoah Creek, a

tributary entering Mahanoy Creek about 7.6 miles downstream from

Mahanoy City=  Mahanoy Creek drains an area having active and

inactive coal mines and coal washeries.  The main industry in

the Area is coal mining.

        Wastes emanating from the Area are as follows:
Location
Treatment
             Est.
Population   Flow
  Served	(mgd)   Receiving Stream
Mahanoy City
Shenandoah Borough
Mahanoy Township
East Union Township
West Mahanoy
Township
Gilberton Coal
Capparell Coal
Lehigh Valley
Anthracite
Peca Coal Company
Blaschak Coal
Company
Locust Valley Coal
Sky Top Coal
Reading Anthracite
Mammoth Coal
Company
None
None
Septic Tanks
Septic Tanks

Septic Tanks
Silt Basin
Silt Basin

Silt Basin
Silt Basin

Silt Basin
Silt Basin
Silt Basin
Silt Basin

Silt Basin
11,000 1.1
15,000 1.51
	 	
	 	

	 	
1.35
2.U

	 1.1
0.7

0.2k
0.3
0.25
7.3

2.0
Mahanoy Creek
Shenandoah Creek
Sub-surface
Sub -surf ace

Sub-surface
Mine
Mine

Shenandoah Creek
Mahanoy Creek

Mine
Silt Basin
Mine
Mine

Shenandoah Creek

-------
                                                             V - 51


            Mahanoy Creek downstream from Mahanoy City and Gilberton,

    and Shenandoah Creek downstream from Shenandoah, are each impaired

    by organic pollution and mine drainage and are heavily laden with

    coal fines.  Stream surveys conducted during the critical summer

    months reveal marked evidence of degradation in each of these

    streams, as shown in the table below:


                         Mine Drainage Summary
Net Alkalinity
Location
PH
Cone.
mg/1
Load
Ib/day
Sulfates
Cone .
mg/1
Load
Ib/day
Flow
cfs
Mahanoy Creek
  downstream from
  Mahanoy City

Mahanoy Creek
  above confluence
  with Shenandoah.
  Creek

Shenandoah Creek
  at Mouth
                    5.0-7-1
                     -689
1*.0-U.U   -105     -8,198


5.5-6.9     -0.3     -287
188     2,865    2.8
                                                         ^2,350
                                                1,515   1^5,000   17.7
Mahanoy Creek
  downstream from
  Shenandoah Creek  6.2-7.0
                               -50     -U,300   1,500   129,000   l6.0
            Mahanoy City and Shenandoah Borough presently have com-

    bined sewer systems discharging untreated waste into the receiving

    streams.  Plans for primary treatment plants at both municipalities

    have been completed, and permits were obtained from the Pennsylvania

    Sanitary Water Board.  The estimated project costs of the two systems

    are $1,760,000 and $1,600,000 for Mahanoy City and Shenandoah Borough,

-------
                                                         V - 52






respectively.  The estimated costs of the 1.2 mgd primary plant




at Mahanoy City and the 2 mgd primary plant at Shenandoah Borough




are $39^,000 and $800,000, respectively.  Although the primary




facilities represent initial pollution control action by the




municipalities, secondary treatment is expected to be needed in




the near future, particularly as mine drainage abatement measures




are implemented, reducing the toxic effects of acidity and heavy




metals on the streams.




        Shenandoah Realty in West Mahanoy Township discharges




raw waste into the Shenandoah Borough sewer system through an




interceptor sewer needing replacement.  Because of the interceptor




sewer, the Realty Company is presently listed in violation of




the Pennsylvania Department of Health requirements for sewage




discharges.  Abatement progress is considered by the Pennsylvania




Sanitary Water Board to be unsatisfactory, and the case was




referred to legal counsel for enforcement action.




        Although initial steps are being taken to eliminate




untreated wastes in the Area, mine drainage abatement measures




(as indicated in the CB-SRBP Mine Drainage Report) are essential




to the improvement of water quality in the Mahanoy Creek Watershed.






            b.  Future Water Quality




        It is expected that the waste loading from Mahanoy City,




Shenandoah Borough, and Gilberton Borough will not increase by




the year 2020.  Nevertheless, preliminary evaluations indicate

-------
                                                         V - 53






that, if the toxic effect of mine drainage is essentially elimi-




nated, required flows to adequately assimilate secondary treated




wastes greatly exceed the normally occurring stream flows during




late summer months.  In order to prevent degradation from organic




wastes, in the absence of mine drainage, treatment in excess of




85 per cent BOD removal may be necessary in the future.






            c.  Water Supply




        Water requirements for the Mahanoy-Shenandoah Area are




2.7 mgd for municipal use and l6.6 mgd for total use.  The Area




currently obtains its water supply from several streams in the




immediate area.  Water requirements by year 2020 are expected to




significantly decrease because of reduction of coal mining acti-




vities and, consequently, water use by coal industries.  The




presently developed water sources should, therefore, be adequate




to meet future water needs.






        2.  Ashland-Frackville Area (Mahanoy Creek)




            a.  Current Water Quality




        The Ashland-Frackville Area in Schuylkill County, Pennsyl-




vania, is situated along Mahanoy Creek.  Frackville is located




approximately five miles downstream from Mahanoy City and approxi-




mately seven miles upstream from Ashland.  Ashland is located




approximately 37 miles upstream from the confluence of Mahanoy




Creek with the Susquehanna River.  Other small communities in

-------
                                                             V - 5^


    the Area include Fountain Springs, and the Boroughs of Girardville,

    Gordon, and Girberton.  The main industry in the Area is coal mining.

            Wastes emanating from the Area are as follows:
Location
Ashland Borough
Frackville Borough
Girardville Borough
Gilberton Borough
Gordon Borough
Fountain Springs

Butler Township
Antony Malho
Mosolino
Reichwein & Beury
Treatment
None
None
None
None
None
	

	
	
	
	
Population
Served
6,200
6,500
U,000
1,700
1,000
1,000

	
	
	
	
Est.
Flow
(mgd)
0.62
0.65
O.U
0.17
0.1
	



0.1
0.2
0.13
Receiving Stream
Mahanoy Creek
Mahanoy Creek
Mahanoy Creek
Mahanoy Creek
Mahanoy Creek
Sub-surface and
Mahanoy Creek


Mahanoy Creek
Mahanoy Creek
Mahanoy Creek
            Mahanoy Creek in the area of Ashland-Frackville is

    impaired by untreated organic waste and mine drainage and heavily

    laden with coal fines.  Stream surveys conducted during the late

    summer months reveal marked evidence of degradation in Mahanoy

    Creek upstream and downstream from the Ashland-Frackville Area,

    as shown in the data summary below:


                         Mine Drainage Summary
Net Alkalinity
Location
PH
Cone.
mg/1
Load
Ib/day
Sulfates
Cone .
mg/1
Load
Ib/day
Flow
cfs
Mahanoy Creek
  upstream from
  Ashland
6.2-7.0   -50
-U,300   1,500   129,000   16

-------

-------
                                                         V - 55
                          Net Alkalinity
Sulfates
Location
Mahanoy Creek
downstream from
Ashland
Mahanoy Creek
at Mouth
pH
6.3-7.0
5-9-7-5
Cone.
mg/1
-57
-2.7
Load
Ib/day
-lH,UOO
-993
Cone.
mg/1
i.Mo
1,01*0
Load
IV day
365,000
381,000
Flow
cfs
U6.8
67.6
        Frackville Borough has an existing combined sewer system.




The consulting engineers for the Borough are presently designing




a secondary treatment plant which will discharge into Little




Mahanoy Creek, a clean stream.  The cost of the treatment plant,




exclusive of sewers, is estimated at $280,000.




        Ashland Borough also has an existing combined sewer system.




The Borough's consulting engineer recently applied to Housing and




Urban Development for planning funds to update plans for a primary




treatment plant.  Girardville also has a combined municipal sewer




system and no treatment facilities.  A County Sewerage Study,




recently made by a consulting engineer, indicated that the most




feasible solution for the over-all Area was for Gordon, Girard-




ville, Frackville, Fountain Springs, Ashland, and Gilberton to




provide a single treatment plant to serve all these communities.




The estimated project cost for a sewerage system to serve the




communities is $3,211,800.  The estimated construction of a 2,1




mgd primary plant to serve the communities is $800,000.  To date,




Ashland and Frackville anticipate constructing separate sewage

-------
                                                         V - 56






treatment facilities.  If these two communities proceed with




plans to construct individual systems, the remaining communities




need to initiate steps toward the elimination of untreated waste




either by construction of individual treatment plants or by a




single plant serving the four municipalities.  Primary treatment,




if provided, should represent initial pollution control action,




since preliminary studies indicate secondary treatment will become




necessary to prevent organic degradation of Mahanoy Creek if mine




drainage control measures are successful.






            b.  Future Water Quality




        It is expected that the population presently served by




sewerage facilities, 13,000, will remain essentially unchanged




by the year 2020.  Waste assimilative evaluations indicate that




the provision of secondary treatment facilities should reduce




the organic loadings sufficiently; however, to improve water




quality in Mahanoy Creek, successful implementation of mine drain-




age abatement measures is essential.






            c.  Water Supply




        The total water requirements for the Ashland-Frackville




Area are approximately 1.6 mgd.  The Ashland-Frackville Area cur-




rently obtains its water supply from a spring-fed reservoir.  The




water requirements are not expected to increase significantly to




the year 2020.  Therefore, presently developed sources appear ade-




quate to meet projected water needs.

-------
                                                         V - 57






    H.  Mahantango Creek Watershed




            a.  Current Water Quality




        The Mahantango Creek originates in Schuylkill County and




flows in a westerly direction to its confluence with the Susque-




hanna River.  The stream drains an area having active and inactive




coal mines and coal washeries.  The main pursuit in the Area is




coal mining.




        Mahantango Creek is degraded by mine drainage throughout




approximately IT miles of its 32-mile length.  Although some




degradation may be attributable to small communities such as




Union Town Borough (population 3^8), Klingerstown, and Heggins




Township (1,5^0), degradation from mine drainage represents the




most serious water quality problem in this drainage basin.




        Essentially all of the mine drainage discharged in the




Mahantango Creek Watershed originates in Rausch Creek drainage




area.  Pine Creek, a tributary entering Mahantango Creek at Mile




17-2, is alkaline in the headwater reaches but becomes acidic




after Rausch Creek joins with Pine Creek, adding its mine drain-




age pollutional loadings




        Stream sampling results at selected locations in the




Mahanganto Creek Watershed are summarized as follows:

-------
                                                               V - 58


                           Water Quality Summary

           Indicator	Mahantango Creek (Mile 1.0)

      DO (mg/l)                                  7-8 -    13.6

      BOD  (mg/l)                                l.it -     9-6

      Coliforms MPN/100 ml                       0   - 3,000

         Pennsylvania Department of Health Data


                           Mine Drainage Summary

                                            Net Alkalinity      Sulfate
	Station	pjH	Flow cfs	Cone, mg/l	Cone, mg/l

Mahantango (Mile 17)
  upstream from con-
  fluence with Pine
  Creek             7-5-8.3   0.02 -  0.22   +26.9 -  +29.1    6.3 -  15.^

Pine Creek down-
  stream from con-
  fluence with
  Rausch Creek      3.5-3.6   7.8U -  9-60  -102   	108    213   - 250

Mahantango (Mile 3) H.2-U.5  10.5  - l6.9    -17.8 -  -20.6  158   - 170


                             Biological Summary

Pine Creek (Mile l), Klingerstown, Pennsylvania - Only one acid-tolerant
bottom organism was found.  The water was very clear, and iron compounds
were deposited on the rocks.  Both mine drainage and garbage were observed
in the stream at this point.

Mahantango Creek Upstream from Confluence with Pine Creek - Undegraded
stream conditions were indicated by 13 kinds of clean-water associated
bottom forms.

Mahantango Creek at Mouth - Only two kinds of bottom organisms were
found, indicating that the stream is highly degraded by mine drainage
pollution.

-------

-------
                                                         V - 59






        The most pressing water pollution control needs in the




Mahantango Creek Watershed are mine drainage abatement measures,




as indicated in the CB-SRBP Mine Drainage Report.  Rausch Creek




Watershed, the major source of mine drainage, receives drainage




from 22 pumped and ten gravity discharges.  Preliminary estimates




indicate that treatment of the entire flov of Rausch Creek may




prove to be the most reasonable solution to reduce mine drainage




in Mahantango Creek Watershed.




        The recent biological survey indicated the presence of




raw wastes being discharged to the streams in certain areas; how-




ever, it was not evident who was responsible for these discharges.




Additional studies are needed to complete waste facility inven-




tories prior to determining waste treatment needs.  It is expected,




however, that needs exist for at least primary facilities as




initial pollution control action by several communities in the




Mahantango Creek Watershed.






    I.  Wiconisco Creek Watershed




        1.  Tower City Area (Wiconisco Creek)




            a.  Current Water Quality




        Wiconisco Creek rises in the vicinity of Tower City and




flows approximately 38 miles in a southwesterly direction to its




confluence with the Susquehanna River at Millersburg.  The stream




drains an area having active and inactive coal mines and coal




washeries.  The population of the Tower City Area is approximately

-------
                                                              V - 6o
             Wastes emanating from the Area are as follows:

                                                Est.
                                   Population   Flow
	Location	Treatment	Served	(mgd)   Receiving Stream

Tower City             None          2,000      0.2     Wiconisco Creek
Williamstown Borough   None          2,100      	     Wiconisco Creek
             Wiconisco Creek is an alkaline stream throughout its

     length, although the quality is severely degraded by mine drain-

     age constituents other than acidity.

             Recent stream survey results of sampling downstream from

     Tower City are summarized below:

                          Mine Drainage Summary

                              Met Alkalinity,,       	Sulfates
                  Flow      Cone.       Load       Cone.       Load
       pH	cfs	mg/1	Ib/day	mg/1	Ib/day

     5.0-T.O      6.3        0.3         10         6k        2,200


             The biological survey conducted in 196^ indicated aquatic

     populations in Wisconisco Creek throught its length were severely

     depressed from the effects of a combination of raw sewage,  coal

     silt, and mine drainage.

             The Communities of Tower City and Williamstown are  pres-

     ently discharging untreated waste into Wiconisco Creek.  These

     Communities in the past have not been required by the State to

     provide treatment because of the inhibiting effects of mine drain-

     age on stream assimilative capabilities.  However, the Pennsyl-

     vania Department of Health is presently requiring a minimum of

-------

-------
                                                         v - 6i






primary treatment facilities by these Communities.  Williamstown




Borough, about two miles downstream from Tower City, has almost




completed plans for a primary plant.  Consulting engineers' cost




estimates are $220,000 for the treatment plant and $320,000 for




total project cost.




        Preliminary evaluations indicate stream flows of k to 5




cfs in Wiconisco Creek would be needed to adequately assimilate




primary treated waste loadings during late summer months when




natural stream flows of 3 cfs or less are not uncommon.  There-




fore, secondary facilities appear to be necessary to avoid degrad-




ing Wiconisco Creek during the late summer months.  The cost to




provide secondary facilities at Tower City is estimated at $1^0,000




exclusive of sewers and appurtenances.  Additional units to the




proposed primary plant at Williamstown to provide secondary treat-




ment are estimated at $85,000.




        Although secondary treatment facilities are necessary to




prevent degradation from organic wastes, mine drainage abatement




measures (as indicated in the CB-SRBP Mine Drainage Report) are




essential to the over-all improvement of water quality in Wiconisco




Creek.






            b.  Future Water Quality




        The organic waste loading from the Tower City Area is




estimated to increase fourfold by the year 2020.  Evaluations




indicate that prior to year 2000, flows required to assimilate

-------

-------
                                                         V - 62






secondary treated wastes and maintain satisfactory water quality




will exceed naturally occurring stream flows during the late




summer months.  Additional pollution control measures, such as




advanced waste treatment or flow regulation, may then be neces-




sary.  The only reservoir site which may have flow regulation




potential is a Soil Conservation Service Site #0^-5   Further




evaluations are needed to develop an effective pollution control




program for Wiconisco Creek Watershed.






            c.  Water Supply




        The Tower City Water Supply System presently furnishes




0.2 mgd, serving the needs of about 5>000 persons.  The needs




are expected to double by year 2020 and can be met by the avail-




able surface and ground water resources in the Area.






        2.  Lykens Area (Wiconisco Creek)




            a.  Current Water Quality




        The Borough of Lykens in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania,




has a population of approximately 2,500.  Lykens is situated




along Wiconisco Creek approximately ten miles downstream from




Tower City and 26 miles upstream from the confluence of Wiconisco




Creek and the Susquehanna River.  The main pursuit in the Area




is coal mining.




        Wastes emanating from the Area are as follows:

-------
                                                         V - 63
Location
Lykens Borough
Elizabethville
Meadowbrook Coal
Reiff Nester
Company
Underkoffler Coal
Treatment
None
Silt Basin
None
Silt Basin
Population
Served
i&1
	
	
Est.
Flow
(mgd)
0.278
0.0^9
0.013
0.^32
Receiving Stream
Wiconisco Creek
Sub-surface
Silt Basin
Lykens Borough System
Wiconisco Creek
        Untreated wastes from Lykens Borough further impair water




quality of Wiconisco Creek which is already degraded from upstream




sources of mine drainage and raw wastes.




        Sampling results of recent stream surveys of Wiconisco




Creek are summarized below:




                       Mine Drainage Summary
                                 Net Alkalinity
                Sulfates
                         Flow    Cone.      Load     Cone.      Load
Station pH cfs mg/l Ib/day mg/l
Upstream from
Lykens 6.8-7.9 21 hh 5,000 2k
Downstream from
Lykens 7.0-7.6 21 35 ^,100 78
Wiconisco Creek
(Mile 1.0) 7-0-7.5 36 31 6,100 69
Water Quality Summary
Indicator Range
DO (mg/l) Wear saturation
BOD (mg/l) 1.2 - 8.8
Ib/day
2,700
8,900
13,500


     Coliforms (MPW/100 ml)
1,000   - 110,000

-------

-------
                                                         v - 6k


                       Biological Summary

        Wiconisco Creek at_Mouth - Six kinds of bottom
        organisms, including three kinds of clean-water
        forms, were collected in the sample at this station.
        Considerable biological recovery had taken place
        compared to conditions downstream from Tower City;
        however, the stream contributes some coal fines to
        the Susquehanna River.


        Lykens Borough has been issued orders by the Sanitary

Water Board to abate pollution or submit plans and construct

facilities by February 2k, 1966.  Construction of the sewerage

system is underway, and it is estimated that the sewage treat-

ment plant (secondary treatment) will be in operation by September

1, 1967.  The estimated construction cost for the sewage treat-

ment plant is $206,500, and the estimated project cost for the

sewerage system is $283,100.

        Elizabethville, approximately five miles downstream from

Lykens, has recently completed plans for a primary treatment

plant; the plant and sewer facilities are estimated at $710,000.

Although primary treatment is an initial step toward pollution

abatement, secondary facilities are needed in order to maintain

satisfactory water quality during late summer months.  Prelimi-

nary evaluations indicate that even with secondary treatment the

flows required to assimilate the treated wastes are about equal

to or exceed naturally occurring stream flows.  The cost of

adding secondary units to the proposed primary facilities is

estimated at $75,000.

-------

-------
                                                         V - 65






            b.  Future Water Quality




        Waste assimilative evaluations indicate that secondary




treatment may not be entirely adequate to prevent some organic




degradation in the near future; however, if limited flow regula-




tion is provided from the potential Soil Conservation Service




site upstream, further pollution control action may not be nec-




essary throughout the study period to year 2020.  Advanced waste




treatment and possibly treated waste diversion to the Susquehanna




River are other alternatives to be evaluated in future planning.






            c.  Water Supply




        The Lykens Area currently obtains its water supply from




Rattling Creek, a tributary to Wiconisco Creek.  The water




requirements for Lykens at the present time are municipal 0,k




mgd and total 0.8 mgd.  Because of limited growth in the Area,




the present requirements are not expected to increase appreciably




by year 2020.  The Rattling Creek source, therefore, appears ade-




quate to meet projected water needs in the future.  A small reser-




voir site, #04-3, is indicated on Rattling Creek by the Soil




Conservation Service and could be developed for future water supply




if needed.

-------
                                                         v - 66






    J.  Swatara Creek Watershed




        1.  Tremont Area (Good Spring Creek)




            a.  Current Water Quality




        The Borough of Tremont in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania,




is situated one-half mile upstream from the mouth of Good Spring




Creek which enters Swatara Creek at Mile 63.5-  Good Spring Creek




drains an area having active and inactive coal mines and coal




washeries.  The main industry in the Area is coal mining.  Wastes




emanating from the Area are as follows:
Location
Tremont Borough
Pine Grove Borough
Penn Dye and
Finishing Company
Anthracite Line
Coal
Manbeck Dredge
Swatara Coal
Tremont Anthracite,
Inc.
Hegins Mining
Indian Head Coal
Company
Potts Contracting
Company
Treatment
Hone
None
Lagoons
Septic Tank

Silt Basin
Silt Basin
Silt Basin

Silt Basin
Silt Basin

Silt Basin

Silt Basin
Est.
Population Flow
Served (mgd)
2,100 0.21
1,900 0.19
0.16
	 O.OOU

1.2U
l.UU
O.U8

	 0.2
o.U

2.3

0.1
Receiving Stream
Good Spring Creek
Swatara Creek
Swatara Creek
Sub- surf ace

Good Spring Creek
Swatara Creek
Swatara Creek

Swatara Creek



Mines

Good Spring Creek
        Swatara Creek is adversely affected by mine drainage from




the headwaters to the confluence with Little Swatara Creek, a




distance of about 19 miles.  The major contributors of mine drain-




age to Swatara Creek are Panther Creek, Good Spring Creek, and

-------

-------
                                                              v - 67
     Rausch Creek.  Most of the mine drainage in Good Spring Creek

     originates in the watershed of Middle Creek, a tributary which

     enters Good Spring Creek about one mile upstream from Tremont.

             The results of stream surveys conducted during the fall

     of 1965 are summarized below:


                          Mine Drainage Summary
Net Alkalinity
Location
pH
Cone.
mg/1
Load
Ib/day
Sulfates
Cone .
mg/1
Load
Ib/day
Est.
Flow
cfs
Good Spring Creek
  upstream from
  Middle Creek
  Confluence         4.2-      -159      -1,913

Middle Creek near
  Mouth              5-2-5-6   -115      -2,013

Swatara Creek above
  Confluence with
  Upper Little
  Swatara Creek      U.2-U.8    ~kk      -3,985

Swatara Creek below
  Confluence with
  Lower Little
  Swatara Creek      5.0-6.5     -7.5     1,710
231      2,780


505      8,827




198     16,1*91
125     22,550
                   2.2
                   3.2
                  33.
             Both the Boroughs of Tremont and Pine Grove are discharg-

     ing untreated wastes directly to the receiving streams; treatment

     has not been required because of the inhibiting effects of mine

     drainage in these streams.  However, pollution control measures

     are needed to reduce both untreated organic waste loadings as well

     as mine drainage.  Pine Grove Borough has completed plans for

-------
                                                         V - 68






secondary facilities, and a permit has been granted by the




Sanitary Water Board.  The project cost of these facilities is




estimated at $1,000,000, and treatment plant cost is $215,000.




Secondary facilities at Tremont, exclusive of sewers, are esti-




mated to cost approximately $1^0,000.




        Discharges from the Penn Dye and Finishing Company in




Pine Grove have resulted in detergents entering water supply




sources further downstream.  The Company is proposing to con-




struct additional lagoons which are expected to essentially




eliminate any discharge to the stream.






            b.  Future Water Quality




        Preliminary projections indicate no increase in popula-




tion by year 2020.  If secondary treatment is provided, no further




need for waste treatment facilities is anticipated during this




period.






            c.  Water Supply




        The present water requirements of 3.5 mgd are not expected




to increase to the year 2020.   Therefore, the existing water




supply system should be adequate to meet the projected requirements.






        2.   Fredericksburg Area (Elizabeth Run)




            a.  Current Water Quality




        Fredericksburg, in Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, is located




north of Beech Run and Deep Run which join to form Elizabeth Run, a

-------
                                                         V - 69






tributary to Little Swatara Creek,  None of the population of




Fredericksburg is presently served by municipal sewers and, for




the most part, depend upon individual disposal systems.  Wastes




emanating from the Area are as follows:
Location
Treatment
Fredericksburg Septic Tanks
Grimes Poultry
Processing
Corporation Secondary
College Hill
Poultry
Corporation Secondary
Manbeck Poultry Spray
Company, Inc. Irrigation
*
Estimated population equivalent
Population
Served
1,100
5,600
#
780

Est.
Flow
(mgd)
0.15
0.025
Receiving Stream
Sub-surface
Deep Run
Beech Run

        The water quality of Deep Run, Beech Run, and Elizabeth




Run is degraded considerably by the discharges from the poultry




processing factories.  Grab samples of the influent and effluent




of the treatment facilities indicate extremely poor treatment ef-




ficiencies.  The samples indicated BOD's of the effluent from




College Hill Poultry Corporation to be as high as 500 mg/1.   At




the present time, the poultry companies are expanding their




treatment plants to improve the waste removal efficiencies.   Water




quality surveillance will be necessary to determine the effects




of the discharge on the receiving streams upon completion of




treatment plant expansions.

-------
                                                         V - TO






        Fredericksburg presently is in need of a municipal




sewerage system, as indicated by malfunctions of existing septic




tank systems,  A feasibility report for a municipal sewerage sys-




tem is presently being prepared by a consulting engineer, and it




is expected that treatment facilities will be constructed in the




near future.  In order to eliminate the present water quality




problem, a minimum of secondary treatment (85 per cent removal)




and treated waste diversion to Little Swatara Creek, three to four




miles downstream, appear to be necessary solutions.  Stream flows




of Elizabeth Run are not expected to be adequate to assimilate




secondary treated waste loads without some impairment to water




quality during the summer months.  The cost of providing second-




ary treatment facilities, exclusive of sewers, at Fredericksburg




is estimated at $130,000.




        Preliminary evaluations indicate that naturally occurring




stream flows of Little Swatara Creek should be adequate through-




out the study period (to year 2020) to assimilate secondary treat-




ed waste loads if diverted from Fredericksburg to this stream.




        Additional studies or evaluations are necessary to deter-




mine future pollution control measures to prevent potential degra-




dation by the poultry processing companies in the Area.




        The Soil Conservation Service has indicated a potential




reservoir site on Little Swatara Creek which could possibly pro-




vide some flow regulation if needed.  The site (31-13) is indicated




to have a potential yield of 32 cfs at a cost of $12,000 per cfs.

-------

-------
                                                               V - 71
                  c.  Water Supply

              The water supply needs for the Fredericksburg Area are

      presently "being met by wells.  The available water resources in

      the Area appear to be adequate to meet the needs through year

      2020, although some additional development may be necessary,


              3,  Lebanon Area (Quittapahilla Creek)

                  a.  Current Water Quality

              The Lebanon Area in Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, popula-

      tion ^7,000, is situated along Quittapahilla Creek arid is 11.!?

      miles upstream from the mouth of Quittapahilla Creek, a tributary

      entering Swatara Creek at Mile 22.1.  The principal type of indus-

      try in the Area is meat processing.

              Wastes emanating from the Area are as follows:
    Location
 Treatment
             Est.
Population   Flow
  Served	(mgd)	Receiving Stream
Lebanon City
Bethlehem Steel





Lebanon Steel


Secondary
Discharge:
( chemical
& settling
process)
(cooling)
( sanitary)
Discharge:
(sanitary)
(cooling)
28,500


	

*
1,850
^
QkO
	
h.h


0.05

3.1H
0.185

0.08U
0.062
Quittapahilla Creek

Lagoon, Lebanon
City Sewers , and
Quittapahilla Creek
Quittapahilla Creek
Lebanon City Sewers

Lebanon City Sewers
Lebanon Storm Sewers
 Lebanon Chemical
  Company
Cleona Borough
Worth Lebanon
  Township
North Cornwall
  Township
Discharge
Septic Tanks

Septic Tanks

Septic Tanks
             0.03    Lebanon City Sewers
             	     Sub-surface

             	     Sub-surface

             	     Sub-surface

-------
                                                         V - 72
Location
South Lebanon
Township
West Lebanon
H. Millard Lime




Wengerts Dairy
Calcite Quarry
Weavers Bologna
*
Population
Treatment Served

Septic Tanks 	
Septic Tanks 	
Silt Basin
(process) 	
None (process) 	
Septic Tank ^
(sanitary) hQ^
Septic Tanks 1,^70
None 	 ^
7,060

Est,
Flow
(mgd)

	
	

0,8
6,7

O.OOli
0.03
6.0
0,1

Receiving Stream

Sub-surface
Sub-surface

Killinger Creek
Killinger Creek

Sub-surface
Sub-surface
Canal on property
Sub-surface

Estimated population equivalent
        The Quittapahilla Creek downstream from Lebanon is impair-

ed by organic pollution.  Stream surveys conducted during the recent

summer months reveal evidence of degradation as shown on the follow-

ing table:

     Quittapahilla Creek 6.6 Miles Downstream from Lebanon

           I ndicatpr	Range
     DO (mg/1)


     BOD  (mg/1)

     Ultimate BOD (ibs/day)

     Flow (cfs)
  3.^ -     3.9
Saturation (9.5)

  5o9 -     6,8

800   - 1,000

 20,7
        Minor water quality nuisance conditions such as detergent

foaming have also been reported on Quittapahilla Creek,

        At present the municipal plant is experiencing operational

problems and is producing inadequately treated effluent.  The

-------
                                                         V - 73






treatment facility is an activated sludge plant and is designed




to treat the municipal and industrial vastes from Lebanon as well




as the surrounding communities of Cleona Borough, North Cornwall




Township, North and South Lebanon Townships, and West Lebanon




Township.  The surrounding communities, however, have not been




connected to the Lebanon system and, consequently, municipal




waste is considerably less than design loading.  The operational




difficulties were reported as being the result of the influence




of industrial discharges on the biological processes.  It is antic-




ipated that the surrounding communities will discharge to the




Lebanon system in the near future.  The increased municipal flows




will lessen the effects of shock loadings from industrial dis-




charges and possibly reduce existing operational problems.  How-




ever, studies should be undertaken jointly by the municipality




and local industries to determine needs for possible pretreatment




measures of the industrial wastes.




        Elimination of the treatment plant operational difficul-




ties will not prevent degradation of Quittapahilla Creek.  Pre-




liminary evaluations indicate the flows required to assimilate




present waste loadings, assuming efficient operation of trie treat-




ment plant, is approximately seven times the naturally occurring




stream flows during late summer months.  Since there are no




potential reservoir sites indicated upstream on Quittapahilla




Creek or tributaries, advanced waste treatment and/or treated

-------
                                                         V - lh







waste diversion to Swatara Creek should be investigated as pos-




sible solutions to the existing water quality problem.






            b.  Future Water Quality




        It is expected that the population presently served by




sewerage facilities will increase over threefold by the year 2020.




Advanced waste treatment, if provided at Lebanon, is not expected




to be adequate to reduce waste loadings to prevent degradation




during the low stream flow periods.  Treated waste diversion to




Swatara Creek or the Susquehanna River should be considered as




possible alternatives in formulating a basin-wide pollution control




program.  A treated waste diversion pipeline to the Susquehanna




River could receive wastes from downstream problem areas such as




Palmyra and Hershey (discussed in following sections).   However,




the effects of the diverted waste loads on water quality of the




Susquehanna River needs to be evaluated prior to selection of




this alternative.






            Co  Water Supply




        Present municipal water needs of 5 = 5 mgd and total water




needs of 10 mgd are currently obtained from Fishing Creek,




Swatara Creek, and a small portion from Hammer Creek.  Water




supply requirements by year 2020 are projected to increase to




about 8l mgd.  Lebanon presently supplies the Palmyra Area (ap-




proximately seven miles downstream) with water  While  the

-------

-------
                                                            V - 75






   surface and ground water resources in the Area appear ample to




   meet projected water needs in the immediate future,  additional




   development of the local resource may be necessary.   Studies are




   needed to determine the adequacy of the available sources to




   supply the needs through year 2020.






           h.  Palmyra Area (Quittapahilla Creek - Killinger Creek)




               a.  Current Water Quality




           The Borough of Palmyra in Lebanon County, Pennsylvania,




   is located about one-half mile upstream from the mouth of Killin-




   ger Creek, which enters Quittapahilla Creek approximately 6.6




   miles downstream from Lebanon and five miles upstream from the




   confluence with Swatara Creek.  Approximately 90 per cent of the




   areal population (8,TOO) is presently served by the  municipal




   system.  Meat processing is the principal industry in the Area.




   Wastes emanating from the Area are as follows:
Location
Palmyra Borough
Palmyra Bologna
North Londonderry
Township
Millard Lime
(Dauphin County)



Treatment
Secondary
	

Septic Tank
Settling
(silt)
None
( quarry )
Septic Tank
Population
Served
7,700*
212

	

	

*
20
Est.
Flow
(mgd)
0.25
0.003

	

o.U

3.6
0.002
Receiving Stream
Killinger Creek
Palmyra Sewer

Sub-surface

Swatara Creek

Swatara Creek
Sub-surface
Estimated population equivalent

-------
                                                              v - 76


             Killinger Creek downstream from Palmyra is  impaired by

     organic pollution and contributes little toward the improvement

     of water quality of Quittapahilla Creek which is degraded by the

     upstream sources at Lebanon.   The results of a recent stream sur-

     vey conducted during the summer months are as follows:

                          Water Quality Summary

             Quittapahilla Creek
              above Confluence     Killinger Creek      Quittapahilla
Indicator   with Killinger Creek	at Mouth	Creek at Mouth
DO (mg/1)
BOD^ (mg/1)
Ultimate BOD
(Ibs/day)
3.H
Sat. (9.5;
5.9
800
3.9
)
6.8
- 1,000
8 1-7
1 ~
Sat. (9.2 -
2.5 -
300
9.1*
10.0)
5.5
500
6.0 -
Sat. (8.8 -
5.6 -
1,500 -
8.3
9.0)
6.1
1,800
             The flow required to assimilate present waste loadings

     in Killinger Creek and maintain satisfactory water quality condi-

     tions is approximately 3 cfs during the late summer months.   The

     natural stream flow during this period is estimated at 2 cfs.

     Consideration should be given to the extension of the effluent

     line from Palmyra to Quittapahilla Creek or connection to tne

     pipeline from Lebanon to Swatara Creek (if the latter pipeline

     is constructed).


                 b,   Future Water Quality

             It is expected that the population presently served by

     sewerage facilities will increase about fivefold by the year 2020,

-------
                                                         v - 77






Future pollution control measures to be evaluated for the Palmyra




Area are similar to those of Lebanon.  The possibilities of advanc-




ed waste treatment and/or treated waste diversion need to be




evaluated before realistic judgments can be made.






            c.  Water Supply




        Palmyra Area receives its water supply from the Lebanon




Area, as indicated in Section J-3.  However, an auxiliary ground




water source is maintained for emergency purposes,






        5.  Kershey Area (Spring Creek)




            a.  Current Water Quality




        Hershey is an unincorporated municipality in Derry Town-




ship, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania.  The Area is situated along




Spring Creek 0.5 mile upstream from its confluence  with Swatara




Creek.  Hummelstown Borough is situated along Swatara Creek 3.5




miles downstream from the confluence of Spring Creek and ten miles




upstream from the confluence with the Susquehanna River.  Lower




Paxton Township is located upstream from the mouth  of Beaver Creek




which enters Swatara Creek at Hummelstown.  Approximately k3 per




cent of the population (17,000) of the Hershey Area is presently




served by a municipal sewer system.  The Hershey Area is noted for




the Hershey Chocolate Company and the Hershey Amusement Park.




        Wastes emanating from the Area are as follows:

-------
                                                               V - 78
Location
Hershey
Hershey Chocolate
Company
Hershey Dairy
Hummelstown Borough
Treatment
Secondary
Discharge
(cooling)
(sanitary)
Discharge
Septic Tanks
Est.
Population Flow
Served (mgd)
UU,000 1.1
	 2k. 62
0.^5
0.012
Receiving Stream
Spring Creek
Spring Creek
Hershey Sewers
Hershey Sewers
Sub-surface
Lower Dauphin Joint
  School
Lower Paxton Town-
  ship
Swatara Township
Reese Candy Company
       Tertiary         1,300

       Septic Tanks     	
       Septic Tanks     	  ^
       None               230
                                                   0.007   Sink Hole
                                                   0.311
                        Sub-surface
                        Sub-surface
                        Land Application
   Estimated population equivalent
              Water quality problems have not been experienced in Spring

      Creek in the past, and the stream presently supports a warm-water

      fishery.  Stream surveys conducted in Spring Creek and Swatara

      Creek during the recent summer months reveal some degradation,

      as indicated in the data summary below:

                           Water Quality Summary
 Indicator
  Swatara Creek
Above Confluence
with Spring Creek
                                      Spring Creek
                                        at Mouth
                       Swatara Creek Ten
                      Miles Below Conflu-
                       ence with Spring
                      Creek and Four Miles
                      Upstream from Mouth
DO (mg/1)
                  Saturation
      6.8 -
Sat. (7.6 -     7.9)
                               8.0
                          U.5 -
                                                   6.2
                                              Saturation
                            6.1 -
9*5
Ultimate BOD
  (Ibs/day)
  2,500   - U,700     1,000   - 1,500
                                                             300   - 6,700

-------

-------
                                                               V - 79
                             Biological Summary

Swatara Creek Immediately Upstream from Spring Creek - Eight kinds  of bottom
organisms were collected at this location.   The biological conditions of
Swatara Creek at this station were improved compared to the upstream station

Swatara Creek Two Miles Upstream from the Mouth - Eleven kinds of clean-water
associated organisms were found.  The biological conditions suggested the
stream was nearing recovery.
              The flow required to assimilate present waste loadings

      in Spring Creek below Hershey and maintain satisfactory water

      quality conditions is approximately 6 cfs  during the late summer

      months.  The natural stream flow during this  period is estimated

      to be approximately 2 cfs;  however, because of cooling water dis-

      charges from the Hershey Chocolate Company, pumped from Swatara

      Creek to the Chocolate Company,  the minimum flow in Spring Creek

      is approximately 36 cfs.

              Hummelstown Borough presently is in need of a municipal

      sewerage facility, as evidenced  by malfunctions of existing septic

      tank systems,   A Feasibility Report for a  Sanitary Sewerage Sys-

      tem was prepared by a consulting engineer  in  1959 and recommended

      secondary treatment facilities.   It is expected that the Borough

      will soon initiate steps toward  provision  of  secondary facilities,

      The secondary plant, exclusive of sewers,  is  estimated to cost

      approximately $235,000.   It is probable that  a portion of Swatara

      Township and the Beaver  Creek portion of Lower Paxton Township

      might connect to Hummelstown Sewerage System  when constructed.

-------
                                                         v - 80






            "b.  Future Water Quality




        Preliminary projections indicate that population presently




served by the Hershey Severage Company will increase about eight-




fold by year 2020.  Waste assimilative evaluations indicate that




secondary treatment facilities will not be adequate to prevent




water quality degradation throughout the growth period.  Since




there appears to be no potential reservoir site upstream for water




quality control, advanced waste treatment and/or waste flow diver-




sion should be evaluated as possible solutions.  The pipeline to




divert treated waste flows from the Lebanon-Palmyra Areas to the




Susquehanna River, if provided, could receive the treated effluents




from the Hershey Area; the other alternative is to divert the




treated waste loads from Hershey to Swatara Creek.  In either case,




assimilative studies are necessary to determine the effects on




water quality of the receiving streams.




        Secondary treatment, if provided at Hummelstown, should




be adequate to assimilate waste loads from this Area throughout




the projected growth period.  However, if treated waste diversion




from tributary areas to Swatara Creek is realized, flow regulation




in Swatara Creek may be needed.  In addition to the previously




mentioned site (SCS #31-13), there are three other indicated poten-




tial sites that could increase stream flow in Swatara Creek during




low flow periods.  These sites are listed as follows:

-------
                                                         V - 81
Site Number
SCS #31-2A
SCS #31-U
SCS #31-5
Location
Manada Creek
Bow Creek
Crosskill Creek
Potential
Yield (cfs)
26
11

Cost
per cfs
$6,000
$9,000
	
        The various alternatives will have to "be evaluated and




judgments made during the formulation of a pollution control




program for Swatara Creek Watershed.






            c.  Water Supply




        The present municipal water requirements and total water




requirements for the Hershey Area are estimated at 2.7 mgd and




27.7 mgd, respectively.  The present water supply source, Swatara




Creek, appears ample to meet water needs in the next 15 years.




Hershey Chocolate Company alone uses over 2k mgd for cooling




water which is discharged into Spring Creek 0.5 mile upstream




from the confluence with Swatara Creek.




        Future needs of 20 mgd and 120 mgd for municipal and




industrial requirements are anticipated by the year 2020.  The




existing sources do not appear adequate to meet this future demand.




In order to obtain an adequate water supply, the Hershey Area




will have to locate and develop additional sources in the Area




or pump from the Susquehanna River.

-------
                                                              V - 82


         K.  Conoy Creek Watershed

             1.  Elizabethtown Area (Conoy Creek)

                 a.  Current Water Quality

             The Elizabethtown Area in Lancaster County has a popula-

     tion of approximately 1^,000.  The Area is situated near the

     headwaters of Conoy Creek, 6.6 miles upstream from the conflu-

     ence of Conoy Creek and the Susqueharma River.  The principal

     industries in the Area are AMP, Inc., and Klein Chocolate Company;

     however, AMP, Inc. discharges wastes to Chickies Creek Watershed

     and is covered in the following Section in the discussion of the

     Manheim Area.  Elizabethtown College, the Masonic Home, and

     Elizabethtown State Hospital are also located in the Elizabeth-

     town Area,  Wastes emanating from the Area are as follows:

                                             Est.
                                 Population  Flow
    Location	Treatment	Served	(mgd)	Itecejivlng Stream	

Elizabethtown
  Borough          Secondary       8,300^    1.2    Conoy Creek
 Klein Chocolate   	               160     0.0l6  Elizabethtown Sewers
Mount Joy Township Septic Tanks    	       	    Sub-surface
West Donegal
  Township         Septic Tanks    	  #    	    Sub-surface
Martin H. Cope     Lagoons           635     0.006  	
Bach N. Chocolate  None            	       0=115  Land Application
R & R Electronics  	             	       0.01   Conoy Creek
*
   Estimated population equivalent


             Conoy Creek is presently used for water supply by Klein

     Chocolate Company, Elizabethtown Water Company, and for irrigational

     purposes.  The Creek downstream from the Elizabethtown treatment

-------
                                                         V - 83






plant is degraded by the present waste discharges.  Natural




stream flows of less than 1 cfs are not uncommon during the




late summer months when flows of about 6 cfs are needed to ade-




quately assimilate trie treated waste loads.   Since there are no




potential reservoir sites indicated in the Watershed, flow regu-




lation from reservoir storage does not appear to be a solution.




Alternatives to be considered include advanced waste treatment;




a pipeline to convey water from the Susquehanna River to Conoy




Creek for flow regulation; or treated waste diversion to the




Susquehanna River*  Because of the nearness of Elizabethtown




(about 6,,6 miles) to the Susquehanna River, either the inflow




pipeline or treated waste diversion may prove to be favorable.




While treated waste diversion would remove the wastes from Conoy




Creek, this alternative would add greater loadings to the Susque-




hanna Riverr  The inflow pipeline would increase stream flows of




Conoy Creek so that waste assimilation could occur in the Creek,




and thereby relieve the Susquehanna River of much of this loading,




These alternatives will need to be evaluated before sound judg-




ments can be made as to the method to be implemented=






            b,,  Future Water Quality




        The population served by the municipal sewerage system




is estimated to increase sevenfold by the year 2020.  It is




expected that advanced waste treatment will not be entirely ade-




quate to maintain satisfactory water quality throughout the

-------
                                                         V - 8U






projected growth period unless some flow regulation is provided.




Treated waste diversion would relieve Conoy Creek of the waste




loads, but the effects on the Susquehanna River would have to be




determined.  An inflow pipeline, if of sufficient size, could




provide the necessary flow in the Creek to assimilate the treated




waste loads, particularly if used in combination with additional




treatment (greater than 85 per cent BOD removal) at Elizabethtown,




Future planning will involve evaluation of cost and benefits of




each method






            c   Water Supply




        The municipal and total water requirements for the Eliza-




bethtown Area are Oo5 and 1=1 mgd, respectively, serving approxi-




mately 8,000 people.  The Area presently utilizes three water




supply sources;  a surface supply from a tributary of Conoy Creek,




a supplemental surface supply from Conewago Creek, and ground




water from two drilled wells.  The total requirements are expected




to increase eightfold by the year 2020.  Future water supply could




be obtained through the development of additional wells in the




Area, or the Elizabethtown Area could obtain future water supply




from the Susquehanna River.  A water resources study for Lancaster




County by a local consulting engineering firm was completed and




a report was submitted to the Lancaster County Planning Commission




in August 1966c  The report outlined proposed facilities (the




Upper Susquehanna River Water Supply Project) which could serve

-------
                                                              V - 85


      the municipalities in the northern portion of Lancaster County

      utilizing the Susquehanna River as a supply source.  The project

      is not expected to be feasible until about 1985 and is estimated

      to cost $23,000,000.


         L.  Chickies Creek Watershed

             1.  Manheim and Mount Joy Areas (Chickies Creek)

                 a.  Current Water Quality

             The Manheim Area in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania

      (population 12,400) is the largest municipality along Chickies

      Creek.  Manheim Borough is situated approximately 18 miles up-

      stream from the confluence of Chickies Creek with the Susquehanna

      River,  Mount Joy Borough is located about four to five miles

      from the mouth of Little Chickies Creek, a tributary entering

      Chickies Creek about one mile upstream from the confluence with

      the Susquehanna River.  Wastes emanating from the Manheim Area

      are:

                                                Est.
                                   Population   -Flow
    Location	Treatm_ent	Served     (mgd )Receiving Stream

Manheim Borough     Secondary        10,000     0.53    Chickies Creek
Penn Township       Septic Tanks     	        	     Sub-surface
Rapho Township      Septic Tanks     	        -     Sub-surface

-------

-------
                                                              V - 86


             Wastes emanating from the Mount Joy Area are:
                                                Est.
                                   Population   Flow
	Location	Treatment	Served	(mgd)   Receiving Stream

Mount Joy Borough   Secondary        3,006      017    Little Chickies
                                                          Creek
 AMP, Inc.          None             	        	     Mount Joy Sewers
Milton G. Sand      Silt Pond        	        0=288   Chickies Creek
             Water quality degradation of Chickies Creek is not evi-

     dent as a result of the discharge of treated sewage from the

     Manheim Area at the present time.  The flow required to assimilate

     present waste loadings and maintain satisfactory water quality

     conditions is approximately U cfs during the late summer months,

     and natural stream flows during this period are normally h cfs

     or more.

             Expansion of the existing Manheim sewage treatment plant

     is presently underway.  The enlarged sewage treatment plant,

     twice the former capacity, will "be capable of treating the waste

     emanating from the peripheral areas.  The estimated project cost

     is $950,000, and the estimated construction cost is $781,000.

             Biological studies one mile upstream from the mouth of

     Chickies Creek on the Susquehanna River indicate that Chickies

     Creek contributes good quality water to the Susquehanna River,

-------
                                                         V - 87






            b.  Future Water Quality




        It is expected that the population presently served by




sewage facilities will increase at least threefold by the year




2020.  In order to maintain satisfactory water quality conditions




in Chickies Creek, advanced waste treatment or flow regulation




may be necessary prior to year 2000.  The Soil Conservation




Service has indicated a potential reservoir site (#03-1) on




Chickies Creek upstream from Manheim.  This site could possibly




be developed to provide some flow regulation during low flow




periods.




        Further evaluations are needed to determine future needs




in Little Chickies Creek Watershed at the Mount Joy Area,




Because of the short distance to Chickies Creek and to the Sus-




quehanna River (four to five miles), treated waste diversion




may prove to be a favorable solution to potential water quality




problems in the future.






            c.  Water Supply




        Existing water supply needs (0.5 mgd) of the Manheim




Area are presently obtained from Reiff's Run, a tributary to




Chickies Creek.  The needs by 2020 are expected to amount to




about h mgd.  The Reiff's Run source appears adequate to meet




the projected water needs in the immediate future.  Additional




water can be supplied by other available surface and ground water




sources, although future needs may be met by joining the proposed




Upper Susquehanna River Water Supply Project.

-------
                                                              V - 88


         Mo  Conestoga Creek Watershed

             1.  Morgantown Area

                 a.  Current Water Quality

             The Morgantown Area (population 3,200) in Lancaster and

     Berks Counties, Pennsylvania, is situated at the headwaters of

     the Conestoga Creek and the Schuylkill River Watersheds and is

     approximately 65 miles upstream from the confluence of the Cones-

     toga Creek and the Susquehanna River.  Wastes emanating from the

     Area are as follows:
     Location
 Treatment
             Est,
Population   Flow
  Served	(mgd)   Receiving Stream
Elementary School
  Caernarvon Town-
  ship
Morgantown Borough
Morgantown Laundry
Beth Cornwall
Secondary
Septic Tanks
Secondary
   900       0.070   Conestoga Creek
   	       	     Sub-surface
   	       	     Conestoga Creek
Company





Mrs. Smith's

Estimated
Settling
(process) 	
Discharge
(cooling) 	
Secondary ^
(sanitary) 870
Pies Secondary 	

population equivalent

2. hi

1.171

0,087
Q.Qlh



Hay Creek

Mill Creek

Conestoga Creek
Swamp Creek and
Sub-surface

             The Morgantown Laundry is presently causing a local

     pollution problem in Conestoga Creek.  The treatment plant is

     currently attaining low BOD and detergent removal prior to dis-

     charge to the stream.  Steps should be taken to expand the

-------
                                                         V - 89






present plant facilities or possibly provide chemical and carbon




adsorption treatment to improve removal efficiency.  Abatement




progress is presently considered by the Sanitary Water Board to




be unsatisfactory.




        Preliminary evaluations indicate flows of approximately




1 cfs are needed in Conestoga Creek to adequately assimilate the




present vaste loads from the Morgantown Area during the late sum-




mer months; natural stream flows of less than 1 cfs are not




uncommon during this period.  Consideration should be given to




treatment facilities to provide greater than 85 per cent BOD




removal or treated waste diversion to a point further downstream




on Conestoga Creek where stream flows are adequate.  Flow regu-




lation does not appear to be a practical alternative because of




the limited drainage area upstream from the Morgantown Area.






            b,  Future Water Quality




        It is expected that the population of the Morgantown




Area will increase about fivefold by the year 2020   If advanced




waste treatment is provided, no water quality problem is antici-




pated in the immediate future.  Further evaluations are needed




to determine additional pollution control measures that may be




necessary to protect water quality throughout the projected




growth period.

-------
                                                             V - 90


                c o   Water Supply

            Present needs of 0.1 mgd are furnished by drilled wells

    serving approximately 900 persons.  Bethlehem Cornwall maintains

    a separate supply of approximately 01 mgd from the Conestoga

    Creeko

            Future needs of 1.3 mgd are anticipated by the year 2020.

    The existing sources, with additional development of ground water

    resources, should be adequate to meet this demand.


            2.  Ephrata Area (Cocalico Creek)

                a.   Current Water Quality

            The Borough of Ephrata is in Lancaster County, Pennsyl-

    vania, and is situated along Cocalico Creek, 7*9 miles upstream

    from the confluence of Cocalico Creek with the Conestoga Creek.

    Approximately 50 per cent of the population (IT,TOO) is presently

    served by the municipal sewer system.  Wastes emanating from the

    Ephrata Area are as follows:
    Location
 Treatment
             Est.
Population   Flow
  Served	(mgd)  Receiving Stream
Ephrata Borough
 Cloister Dairy
Akron Borough
Denver Borough
Reamstown
East Cocalico
  Township
West Earl Township
Ephrata Township
Galen Hall Hotel
  (South Heidel-
  berg Township)
Secondary

Septic Tanks
Septic Tanks
Septic Tanks

Septic Tanks
Septic Tanks
Septic Tanks
Secondary
  8,500W     0.65   Cocalico Creek
  1,2T5      Oo026  Ephrata Sewers
  	        	    Sub-surface
  	        	    Sub-surface
  	        	    Sub-surface

  	        	    Sub-surface
  	        	    Sub-surface
  	        	    Sub-surface

                    Tributary to
    250      0.025    Cocalico Creek
   Estimated population equivalent

-------
                                                         v - 91


        Cocalico Creek downstream from Ephrata to Conestoga

Creek shows some evidence of organic degradation during the sum-

mer months.  Stream surveys conducted during this period are

summarized below:


             Cocalico Creek Downstream from Ephrata

                         Downstream
    Indicator	From Ephjrata	Mouth
DO (mg/1)
Sat.
U.6 -
(8.5 -
6.5
92)
Sat.
6.8 -
(9.0)
T.6
BOD5 (mg/1)               3.6 -     5-5           2.1 -     3.6

Coliforms/100 ml          0   - 2,150             0   - 2,750


                       Biological Summary

Conestoga Creek Upstream from Confluence with Cocalico Creek -
Fifteen kinds of clean-water organisms were present, indicating
conditions normally associated with undegraded streams.

Conestoga Creek Downstream from Confluence with Cocalico Creek -
Eight kinds of bottom organisms were collected at this location.
The reduction in the number of kinds of bottom organisms from
the upstream station suggested some degradation may have occurred
between the sampling locations.
        In the near future the Ephrata Sewage Treatment Plant

will be enlarged to serve Akron Borough, Denver Borough, Reams-

town Village, and East Cocalico Township.  The estimated con-

struction cost of the plant enlargement and for a new sludge

digestion unit is estimated at $^35,000.  The Ephrata Borough

has applied for a Federal Grant under Public Law 660 and is

presently 39 on the Pennsylvania priority list.

-------
                                                          V - 92






         The flow required in Cocalico Creek to adequately assimi-




late secondary waste loadings during the summer months from the




Ephrata Area is approximately k cfs.  The estimated natural stream




flows during this period would be approximately 6 cfs; however,




because of the upstream usage, irrigation and water supply source




for Ephrata, the natural stream flow is reduced to practically




zero.




         Preliminary evaluations of methods of improving water




quality include flow regulation for water quality control, treated




waste diversion, advanced waste treatment, or combinations of these.




A potential reservoir site on Cocalico Creek, approximately nine




miles upstream from Ephrata, was studied by the Soil Conservation




Service.  The site (#30-2), if developed, could provide an esti-




mated flow of 6 cfs at $1^,000 per cfs.  The reservoir, however,




would be expensive and does not appear to have potential releases




much greater than the present need.  Other alternatives, such as




waste diversion, may afford greater protection throughout the




future and may prove to be more favorable solutions.






             b.  Future Water Quality




         Preliminary projections indicate the population presently




served by the sewerage facilities may increase about ninefold by




the year 2020.  It is also expected that by the year 2020 the with-




drawal for irrigational purposes will be h cfs.  It is expected




that if flow regulation is provided at the potential reservoir

-------
                                                          V - 93






site (#30-2), releases will not be adequate to provide the required




assimilative flows throughout the period to year 2020.  Advanced




waste treatment supplemented by flow regulation is one alternative




to be further evaluated.  Also, treated waste diversion to Cones-




toga Creek appears to have considerable potential; however, the




effects of this discharge on Conestoga Creek will need to be evalu-




ated prior to making a judgment on this alternative.






             c.  Water Supply




         The Ephrata Water System serves approximately 7500 per-




sons.  Approximately 80 per cent of the present needs, 0.7 mgd,




is furnished by Cocalico Creek, and the remainder is obtained from




ground water sources.




         Akron Borough serves a population of approximately 2,000




people.  The source of water for Akron Borough is five drilled




wells.




         The present water supply sources for the Area are expected




to be adequate to the year 1985-  Future supplies appear to be




available from ground water; further development of surface waters,




such as the potential reservoir site (SCS #30-2); or from the pro-




posed Upper Susquehanna River Water Supply Project.






         3.  Lititz Area (Lititz Creek)




             a.  Current Water Quality




         The Borough of Lititz in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania,




is situated near the headwaters of Lititz Creek, it. 5 miles upstream

-------
                                                          V - 91*






from the confluence of Lititz Creek and Conestoga Creek.   Wastes




emanating from the Area are as follows:
Location
Lititz Borough
Wilbur Chocolate
Company
Lambert & Mudnut
Warwick Township
Morgan Mills
Treatment
Secondary
Septic Tanks
Intermediate
Population
Served
5,800
*
150*
16,300
*
2,310
Est.
Flow
(mgd)
0.7
0.015
0.089
0.139
Receiving Stream
Lititz Creek
Lititz Sewers
Lititz Sewers
Sub-surface
Lititz Creek
*
Estimated population equivalent
         Lititz Creek downstream from Lititz to the confluence




 with the Conestoga Creek is degraded by organic pollution.




 Studies indicate that the flow required in Lititz Creek below




 the Lititz Sewage Treatment Plant to assimilate present waste




 loadings and maintain satisfactory water quality conditions dur-




 ing the late summer months is approximately 10 cfs.  Natural




 stream flows of approximately 1 cfs are not uncommon during this




 period.




         Morgan Mills is currently providing chemical coagulation




 and settling of its paper processing wastes and is discharging




 effluent with BOD removal between the equivalent of primary and




 secondary.




         In order to improve water quality in Lititz Creek,  addi-




 tional treatment by both Lititz and Morgan Mills and/or waste




 flow diversion to Conestoga Creek should be evaluated as possible

-------

-------
                                                         V - 95






solutions.  Flow regulation from reservoir storage does not ap-




pear to be an alternative, as there are no indicated reservoir




sites available in the Watershed above Lititz.






            b.  Future Water Quality




        It is expected that the population presently served by




sewerage facilities at Lititz will increase about fivefold by




the year 2020.  Advanced waste treatment, if provided, is not




expected to prevent impairment of water quality of Lititz Creek




throughout this period.  Treated waste diversion to Conestoga




Creek would prevent degradation of Lititz Creek; however, the




effects of the diverted wastes on the quality of Conestoga Creek




need to be evaluated before judgments can be made on this




alternative.






            c.  Water Supply




        The Lititz Area presently obtains its water supply, 0.6




mgd, from ground water sources and serves approximately 7,000




persons.  The demand is expected to increase approximately eight-




fold by the year 2020.  The present water supply sources should




be adequate to meet needs within the next 15 years.  Beyond this




time, additional development of ground water or locally available




surface water would be necessary  A possible alternative measure




to satisfy needs in the future is to join the proposed Upper Sus-




quehanna River Supply Project.

-------
                                                         v - 96






        h.  Lancaster Area (Conestoga Creek)




            a.  Current Water Quality




        The Lancaster Area in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, is




located along Conestoga Creek approximately 17 miles upstream




from the Susquehanna River.  Two-thirds of the total population




of the Area (123,000) are presently served by sewers.  Lancaster




City presently has two secondary treatment plants, designated as




the North Plant and the South Plant.  The North Plant is located




approximately 22 miles upstream from the confluence of the Cones-




toga Creek with the Susquehanna River, and the South Plant is




located approximately six miles downstream from tne Worth Plant.




        The Lancaster Area is a diversified industrial center;




the largest industries represented are Armstrong Cork Company,




Hamilton Watch Company, and R.C.A. Corporation.




        Wastes emanating from the Area are as follows:
Location
Lancaster City
(North Plant)
Armstrong Cork






R. C. A.


Treatment

Secondary
Discharge:
(process )
( cooling)
Chemical
settling


Discharge
(process )
(sanitary)
Population
Served

27,000
*
6,820
	
*
2^,200^
670


*
300
Est_
Flow
(mgd)

9.UU

0.216
0.05

0,765
0.089


1.30
0.03
Receiving Stream

Conestoga Creek
Lancaster City Sewers
(North Plant)
Glenmore Creek
Lancaster City Sewers
(North Plant)
Lancaster City Sewers
(North Plant)

Conestoga Creek
Lancaster City Sewers
                                                   (North Plant)

-------
                                                               V - 97
Location Treatment
Hamilton Watch Discharge
(cooling)
Primary

Moore Dairy 	

Slatmaker Lock 	

Kunzler and
Company 	
Trojan Boat
Company 	
Primary
Safe Hardware
Company 	
Penn Dairies 	

Lancaster City
(South Plant) Secondary
Millersville
Borough Secondary
East Hempfield Township
Barrcrest
Development Secondary
Hempfield
School
Authority Secondary
West Lampeter Township
None
Gen, Lan. Co.
School
Authority None
East Lampeter Township
Population
Served

-K
3,920
#
1,615

	

#
6,000

~~*~ *
3,090
*
300*
U.9^0


50,000

3,200


110


900

200


	

Est.
Flow
(mgd)

0.007
0.392

0.033

0.062


0.085

0.062
0.2^7

0.126
0.101


6.595

O.U


	


0.006

	


	

Receiving Stream
Lancaster City Sewers
(North Plant)
Lancaster City Sewers
(North Plant)
Lancaster City Sewers
(North Plant)
Lancaster City Sewers
(North Plant)
Lancaster City Sewers
(North Plant)
Lancaster City Sewers
(North Plant)
Septic Tank
Lancaster City Sewers
(North Plant)
Lancaster City Sewers
(North Plant)

Conestoga Creek

Conestoga Creek


Little Conestoga Creek


Swarr Run

Pequea Creek


Big Spring Run

  Con, Val.
   Joint School    Secondary
  State Police
   Barracks
  Shamokin Ele-
   mentary School
East Petersburg
  Borough
Lancaster Township Septic Tanks
Manheim Township   Septic Tanks
Manor Township     Secondary
Pequea Township    Septic Tanks
Secondary

Secondary

Septic Tanks
500     0.002   Stauffer Run

        0.001   Mill Creek

        	     Mill Creek

        	     Sub-surface
        	     Sub-surface
        	     Sub-surface
        	     Little Conestoga Creek
        	     Sub-surface

-------
                                                         V - 98
Location
Bird-in-Hand
Poultry




Ezra W. Martin
Company





Turkey Hill Dairy

Frys Rendering



American Paper
Hollinger and Son
Burnham Corpora-
tion
Lancaster
Processing


S. W0 Hippey
*
Treatment
Lagoons
(process )
None
(cooling)
Septic Tank
( sanitary)
Chemical
Settling
(process )
None
( cooling)
Unknown
(sanitary)
Land Applica-
tion
Septic Tank
(process )
None
( cooling)
None
Unknown

None
Primary
(process )
Septic Tank
(sanitary)
Primary

Population
Served
*
7,300

	
*
50

#
1,1*10

	
K
10
*
1,180
#
11+7

*
^10*
35^
*
310
*
1,270
#
10*
1,270

Est.
Flow
(mgd)

0.135

0.13

0.005


0.02

0.026

OoOOl

0.021*

0.003

0.110
0.165
0.005

0.031

0.026

0.001
0.018

Receiving Stream

Mill Creek

Mill Creek

Sub-surface


Conestoga Creek

Conestoga Creek

Unknown

Sub-surface

Sub-surface

Mill Creek
Conestoga Creek
Unknown

Unknown

Conestoga Creek

Sub-surface
Goods Run

Estimated population equivalent
        Conestoga Creek upstream from Lancaster has not recovered




completely from the degraded conditions at Lititz and Ephrata




Areas prior to receiving additional waste loadings from the Lan-




caster Area.  The results of stream surveys during recent summer




months are summarized for selected locations upstream and down-




stream from Lancaster as follows:

-------
                                                                 V - 99
                             Water Quality Summary

                      Upstream from         Downstream from        Mouth of
    Indicator	Lancaster	Lancaster	Conestoga Creek

DO (mg/1)               6.2 -      6.U         6.2 -      Q,k     Saturation
                     ;. (8.2 -      8.9)  Sat. (8.U -      8.7)
                        2.2 -      5.7         5-2 -      6.1     5.7 -     6.5
   j
Coliforms/100 ml        0   - 78,000           0   - 13,500       0   - 2,050

Flow (cfs)                	                  	          121


                               Biological Summary

Upstream - Eight kinds of clean-water associated organisms were collected in
the sample at this location.

Downstream - Three kinds of pollution-tolerant bottom organisms were found,
suggesting conditions normally associated with degraded streams.

Mouth - Fourteen kinds of bottom organisms were found at this station.
Although some pollution-tolerant forms were observed, the predominance  of
clean-water associated forms suggested biological recovery occurring.


                Conestoga Creek is the principal stream in Lancaster

        County.  Most of the County population resides within the Cones-

        toga Creek drainage basin.  The people of Lancaster City and

        County presently utilize the Creek for water supply and for irri-

        gational purposes.  Irrigation usage has been estimated to range

        between 95 and 12 mgd during the late summer months when natural

        stream flows are at the lowest levels.  The flow required to assi-

        milate present waste loadings and maintain satisfactory water

        quality conditions during August, the peak irrigation month, is

        estimated at 38 cfs downstream from Lancaster North Plant and Qh

-------
                                                        V - 100







cfs downstream from the Lancaster South Plant.   Natural stream




flows of less than 60 cfs, exclusive of irrigation and water




supply withdrawals, are not uncommon in the Conestoga at Lancas-




ter during this period.




        The Lancaster City North Plant recently was given a new




permit which increased the allowable capacity from 6.05 mgd to




9.^ mgd.  The Pennsylvania Department of Health indicated addi-




tional increase in the capacity of the North Plant would not be




permitted.




        At the present time, the South Plant secondary treatment




units are undersized, arid construction of new secondary units is




needed; only about 60 per cent to TO per cent of the waste to the




plant is presently receiving secondary treatment.  The remaining




waste is by-passed from the primary clarifiers  to Conestoga Creek.




The present facilities need to be enlarged to provide secondary




treatment to all of the waste entering the plant.




        A new (ll mgd) secondary treatment plant (New River Plant]




is anticipated to be constructed along Dry Run  near the Susque-




hanna River,  The proposed plant is to serve East Petersburg




Township, Mountvilie Borough, Last Hempfield Township, and por-




tions of West Hempfield Township, Lancaster Township, Manor




Township, and Maple Grove Sewer District in the City of Lancaster.




The estimated construction cost of the proposed sewage treatment




plant is $3,500,000, and the estimated project  cost for the

-------
                                                        V - 101







sewerage system is $17,000,000.   The nev plant is expected to be




constructed prior to 1970.




        Pequea Township is  expected to discharge either to the




South Plant at Lancaster or to the proposed Mew River Plant.  If




the Lancaster City South Plant is abandoned in the future, the




area that presently discharges to this Plant will then connect




to the proposed New River Plant.




        S. W. Hippey Meat Packing Company has completed plans




and obtained a permit to enlarge the existing treatment plant.




Although the Company has been in violation of the Sanitary Water




Board's treatment requirements,  the present progress toward




pollution abatement is considered by the Board to be satisfactory.




        In order to improve and maintain satisfactory water




quality in Conestoga Creek, pollution control measures in addi-




tion to secondary treatment are expected to be necessary.  Alter-




natives include treatment in excess of 85 per cent BOD removal,




treated waste diversion to  the Susquehanna River, and/or flow




regulation.  Seven potential reservoir sites upstream from Lan-




caster have been studied by the Soil Conservation Service and




the Corps of Engineers and  are given below:
Site
Number
COE #U
COE #5
SCS #30-2
SCS #30-7
SCS #30-9
SCS #30-12
SCS #30-13A
Location
Muddy Creek
Conestoga Creek
Cocalico Creek
Muddy Creek
Black Creek
Hammer Creek
Furnace Run
Potential
Yield
29
18
6
U
3
12
6
Cost Per
cfs
$10,600
$28,200
$1*1,000
$20,000
$18,000
$18,000
$15,000

-------
                                                        V - 102






            b.  Future Water Quality




        It is expected that the population served "by sewerage




facilities in the Lancaster Area will increase sevenfold by the




year 2020,  Comprehensive planning and evaluations of alterna-




tives, as indicated above, will be necessary during the formula-




tion of a pollution control program to protect the water resources




of Conestoga Creek Watershed throughout the projected growth




period.






            Cc  Water Supply




        The Lancaster Area presently obtains kO per cent of its




water supply from the Conestoga Creek and 60 per cent from the




Susquehanna River.  When low flow conditions in Conestoga Creek




occur, all of the water supply for Lancaster is taken from the




Susquehanna River.  Lancaster experienced this situation for one




week periods during the last two years.  Presently, the developed




sources appear adequate to meet water needs in the immediate




future,,  The proposed Upper Susquehanna River Water Supply Project




could serve as an alternative source in the future, if the Project




materializes,






        5o  Hew Holland Area (Mill Creek)




            a.  Current Water Quality




        The New Holland Area in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania




(population 7100) is situated at the headwaters of Mill Creek,

-------
                                                        V - 103






21 miles upstream from the confluence of Mill Creek and the




Conestoga Creek.  Mill Creek discharges to Conestoga Creek ap-




proximately 1.5 miles downstream from the Lancaster South Plant,




The main industries in the Area are the New Holland Machine




Company and B. F, Weaver, Inc., poultry processors.  Wastes




emanating from the Area are as follows:
Location
New Holland Borough
B, F. Weaver, Inc.

Hew Holland Machine





Earl Township
*
Treatment
Secondary
	

	

	

Intermediate

Septic Tanks

Population
Served
3,500*
16,180

	
*
150

	

	

Est.
Flow
(mgd)
1.0
0.3

0.07

Oo015

0.002

	

Receiving Stream
Mill Creek
New Holland
Borough Sewers
New Holland
Borough Sewers
New Holland
Borough Sewers
New Holland
Borough Sewers
Sub-surface

Estimated population equivalent
        Mill Creek downstream from New Holland is impaired by




organic pollution.  The flow required to assimilate present waste




loadings and maintain satisfactory water quality conditions in




Mill Creek below the New Holland Sewage Treatment Plant is approxi-




mately 7 cfs.  Natural stream flows of less than 1 cfs occur during




this period.




        Solutions to the problem are limited.  The small drainage




area, less than one square mile, practically eliminates the use




of flow regulation for water quality control, and, because of the

-------
                                                        V - 10k







distance upstream from the confluence of Mill Creek and Conestoga




Creek, it is expected that treated effluent diversion to Conestoga




Creek will not be economically feasible.  In order to reduce the




degraded condition of Mill Creek below New Holland, consideration




should be given to providing advanced waste treatment






            b.  Future Water Quality




        It is expected that the total organic waste from the




municipal and industrial establishments in the Area will increase




twofold by the year 2020.  If advanced waste treatment  is pro-




vided, the degraded conditions of Mill Creek will be improved




but not eliminated during the summer months  Additional evalua-




tions will be necessary to develop an effective pollution control




program to protect water quality throughout the projected growth




period.






            c.  Water Supply




        Approximately one-half of the total water requirements,




0_8 mgd, for the New Holland Area is for municipal purposes, and




the other half is for industrial purposes.  The present water




use is supplied by Mill Creek, Silver Springs, and two  wells.




The total water requirements to the year 2020 are expected to




increase about sixfold.  Additional supply sources will be required




in the near future   Ground water development appears to be the




most economical means of supplying the future water requirements;

-------

-------
                                                        V - 105






an alternative would "be for the New Holland Area to participate




in the proposed Upper Susquehanna River Supply Project.






    N.  Octoraro Creek Watershed




        1.  Oxford Area




            a.  Current Water Quality




        The Oxford Area in Chester County, Pennsylvania, is




situated at the headwaters of Tweed Creek, 3.5 miles upstream




from the confluence of Tweed Creek and Octoraro Creek.  Wastes




emanating from the Area are as follows:
Location
Oxford Borough
East Nottingham
Township
Lower Oxford
Township
Treatment
Secondary
Septic Tanks
Septic Tanks
Population
Served
3,500
Est.
Flow
(mgd)
0.15
Receiving Stream
Tweed Creek
Sub-surface
Sub-surface
        At the present time, all but approximately 100 people of




the Borough's population are served by the municipal sewerage




system, but none of the peripheral areas are served.  Plans were




completed, and bids have been received for renovation and enlarge-




ment of the existing sewage treatment plant.  When construction




is completed, the treatment plant will have the capacity to serve




the peripheral areas.  The cost of this expansion is estimated




at $1*5,000.

-------
                                                        v - io6






        Secondary treatment is not expected to be adequate to




maintain satisfactory water quality in Tweed Creek.  Studies indi-




cate that the flow required to assimilate present waste loadings




is approximately 1 cfs during the late summer months when natural




stream flows of less than 0.5 cfs are not uncommon.  Pollution




control measures to be evaluated further are advanced waste treat-




ment arid/or treated waste diversion.






            b   Future Water Quality




        It is expected that the population in the Oxford Area




presently served by sewerage facilities will increase about ten-




fold by the year 2020.  If advanced waste treatment is provided,




future water quality degradation in Tweed Creek will not be elimi-




nated but will be reduced significantly.  Treated waste diversion




to Octoraro Creek would eliminate degradation of Tweed Creek; how-




ever, the effects on water quality of Octoraro Creek would need




to be determined before judgments could be made,






            c.   Water Supply




        The municipal system, serving 3,500 persons, presently




obtains its water supply (approximately 0.2 mgd) from drilled




wells  Future needs of 2.9 mgd are anticipated by 2020.,  The




available surface and ground water resources appear adequate to




meet these future needs.

-------
                                                        v - 107


    SUSQUEHANNA RIVER (NORTHUMBERLAND TO THE CHESAPEAKE BAY)


    0,  Susquehanna River (West Branch to Juniata River
        Confluence)

        1.  Sunbury-Northumberland Area

            a.  Current Water Quality

        The Sunbury-Northumberland Area is situated along the

Susquehanna River in Northumberland and Snyder Counties, Pennsyl-

vania, and has a population of approximately 23,000 persons

Northumberland Borough is located on the west shore of the Sus-

quehanna River at the West Branch Susquehanna River Confluence.

Sunbury is situated on the east shore of the Susquehanna River

directly downstream from the West Branch Confluence.

        Principal waste sources in the Area are as follows:
Location

Allied Chemical
Nortnumberland
Borough
Furman Canning


Shamokin Dam
Borough
Monroe Township
(Hummels Wharf)
Sunbury City
Sunbury Milk.
Company
Sunbury Textile
Mills, Inc.
Upper Augusta
Township
Treatment

Primary

Primary
Secondary
None
( cooling)

Primary

Primary
Primary

Discharge
Discharge
Lagoon

None
Population
Served
*
5,920

MOO^
1,835

	

	

	
lU,000
*
1,810
625
1,835

200
Est.
Flow
(mgd)

1.0

0.35
0.05

0.01

	

	
2,5

0.037
0.07
0.06

0.02
Receiving Stream

Susquehanna River

West Branch Susquehanna
West Branch Susquehanna

West Branch Susquehanna

Susquehanna River

Susquehanna River
Shamokin Creek

Sunbury Sewers
Sunbury Sewers
Land Application

Shamokin Creek

-------
                                                                 103
            Treatment
I'or.r^ylvani H Power Discharge
  and  lirfi't           ''sanitary)
                                                    Est,
                                      Popui at a on   Flew
                                        EJerved     (mgd)
Receiving Stream
                                                   fha.::ioklr: 1'am  Sewers
                                                   [3 us rjuei'ianr: a Hi ver
  ,V.-;s,qu'. narina  Ri >/er upctrc-jr rrorn I he ;"unl'ur^/-;-lorthi,rnberland

 jj ,s  i Tif''! ! res  ;.;,*  organic  ar;u .'nine- ura^na^e  poliulioa cririn

r ) i' fn  j r L:, ^ r c CA H J:OU.rC'jv5 ^   ' '  sis>'t'^ ^LII  Survey  ^t'su.i^r*  o. tiH'

. er  apprv;xima;,ely 1^. triloi;  u' o ' roam al,  Danville)  ttre :XK  fm
                               oal
                                           P
                                       1,500

-------
                                                        V - 109







        The West Branch Susquehanna River in the lower reaches




is normally an alkaline stream but is subject to ''acid slugs"




originating upstream during periods of heavy rains and rapid




run-off.  The West Branch also exhibits evidence of organic




wastes throughout the lower reacnes and contributes little toward




the improvement of water quality of the Susquehanna River.




        The Pennsylvania Department of Forests and Waters is




presently constructing an inflatable dam on the Susquehanna River




just downstream from the confluence of the West Branch.  The dam




is scheduled to oe completed in 1968 and will provide a recrea-




tional pool which will extend into the West Branch.  Northumber-




land Borough discharges primary effluent to the West Branch




upstream from the impoundment.   In order to maintain water quality




suitable for recreation in the reservoir, secondary treatment




with continuous chlorination should be provided.  The cost to




expand the primary facilities at Northumberland Borough to pro-




vide secondary treatment is estimated at $120,000.




        The Allied Chemical Company, discharging primary effluent




to the Suoquehanria River upstream from the reservoir, indicated




to the Pennsylvania Department of Healtn that "in-plant" changes




were being employed to reduce initial waste strength.  Studies




are presentjy being conducted to evaluate the adequacy of these




changes relative to waste reduction.

-------
                                                        V - 110







        Shamokin Dam Borough and Monroe Township discharge primary




effluent to the Susquehanna River downstream from the inflatable




dam and will not affect the quality of the impounded waters.




Nevertheless, secondary treatment is expected to be necessary in




the near future to enhance water quality for recreational and




other beneficial uses.  Expansion to secondary facilities at




Shamokin Dam Borough and Monroe Township is estimated to cost




$75,000 and $130,000, respectively.




        Sunbury City discharges primary effluent to Shamokin




Creek about 0.2 mile upstream from the confluence with the Sus-




quehanna River,  The Creek, as discussed in an earlier section,




contributes mine drainage, coal fines, and organic waste loads




to the Susquehanna River.  However, the confluence point (Mile




120,8) is downstream from the inflatable dam and will not influ-




ence the quality of the recreational waters in the impoundment.




Preliminary evaluations indicate that stream flows of more than




100 cfs are needed during late summer to assimilate the present




organic waste loads from the Sunbury Area.  If secondary treat-




ment were provided, the required assimilation flow is about 20




to 25 cfs, which is about equal to the natural stream flow for




this period.  Steps should be taken in the immediate future to




expand the present primary facilities to secondary.  The cost




of this expansion is estimated at $395,000.

-------
                                                        V - 111






        Because of limited lateral mixing of the West Branch




stream with the main flow of the Susquehanna River, the flow of




the Susquehanna is stratified; the West Branch stream flows along




the west bank for approximately ^0 miles downstream to where the




Juniata River enters the Susquehanna River (Mile 8^.5).  The Sus-




quehanna River in this reach receives mine drainage, coal fines,




and organic waste loadings from the east shore tributaries of




Shamokin Creek (Mile 120.8), Mahanoy Creek (Mile 112), Mahantango




Creek (Mile 102.5), and Wiconisco Creek (Mile 96.1).




        Penns Creek, which enters the Susquehanna River at Mile




113.6 from the west shore, contributes to the improvement of




water quality of the River.




        Stream sampling results of the Susquehanna River at




selected locations are listed below:
                     Water Quality Summary




        Indicator _ Susquehanna River (Mile




     DO (mg/l)                         Saturation




     BOD  (mg/l)                        3.8 -     k.2




     Coliforms/100 ml                   0   -   105




     Flow (cfs)                     2,800   - 3,150

-------
                                                        V - 112

        Indicator	Susquehanna River (Mile 85)

     DO (mg/l)                         Saturation

     BOD5 (mg/l)                        3.0 -     5.8

     Coliforms/100 ml                   0   -   ^55

     Flow (cfs)                     2,900   - 3,150


                       Biological Summary

Susquehanna River (Mile 120) .iummels Wharf
East Bank - Six kinds of Dootom organisms were collected at this
location.
West Bank - Five kinds of bottom organisms, predominately clean-
water forms, were collected at this sampling point.

Susquehanna River (Mile 106)
East Bank - Seven kinds of bottom organisms were sampled at this
location.
West Bank - Ten kinds of clean-water associated bottom organisms
were found, suggesting improved biological conditions over the
Huimnels Wharf Station.  This improvement was attributed to the
beneficial effects of Penns Creek.

Susquehanna River (Mile 89)
East Bank - Twelve kinds of bottom organisms, predominately clean-
water associated forms and exhibiting a high population density,
were collected at this location.
West Bank - Eleven kinds of clean-water associated organisms were
collected at this station.


        Evaluation of the biological characteristics, both quali-

tatively and quantitatively, suggested continued improvement of

water quality on each side of the River proceeding downstream from

the Sunbury-Northumberland Area.


            bo  Future Water Quality

        It is expected that the population served in the Sunbury-

Northumberland Area will increase about 2.5 times by the year 2020.

-------
                                                        V - 113






Secondary treatment with chlorination is expected to be adequate




for the wastes discharged directly to the Susquehanna River.




For the Shamokin Creek Area, treated waste diversion to the Sus-




quehanna River may be a necessary measure supplementary to second-




ary treatment to protect future water quality in the Creek.




        A potential thermal pollution problem may result from




the Pennsylvania Power and Light Company discharge if the cooling




water requirements are substantially increased in the future.




Additional studies will be necessary to determine allowable thermal




loadings to prevent degradation due to this type of discharge.






            c.  Water Supply




        The present municipal water requirements and total water




requirements for the Northumberland-Sunbury Area are estimated




at 2 mgd and 3.^ mgd, respectively.  Approximately 88 per cent




of the present needs are obtained from Little Shamokin Creek and




lesser quantities from Johnson Run and ground water sources.   In




addition, the Susquehanna River is used as an auxiliary water




supply source.  It is anticipated by the year 2020 that the total




requirements will increase to approximately 6 mgd.  Although




extensive water resources exist in the Area, the presently




developed sources appear adequate to satisfy the projected water




needs.

-------
                                                        V -


    P.  Susquehanna River (Juniata River Confluence to the
        Conodoquinet Creek Confluence)

        1.  Dauphin Area

            a.  Current Water Quality

        The Dauphin Area is situated on the east shore of the

Susquehanna River, 6.7 miles downstream from the confluence of

the Juniata River.  The Dauphin Area in Dauphin County, Pennsyl-

vania, has a population of approximately 3,800 persons.

        Wastes emanating from the Area are as follows:
Location
Population
Treatment Served
Dauphin Borough Primary
Pennsylvania Primary
Railroad (sanitary)
Speeces Dairy Discharge
Pennsy Supply Silt Basin
*
Estimated
population equivalent
800
500*
2l*5

Est.
Flow
(mgd)
0.075
0.75
0.005
1.2

Receiving Stream
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Private Lake
Susquehanna River

        The Susquehanna River becomes further horizontally strati-

fied from the inflow of the Juniata River.   The Juniata stream

flow travels along the west shore; the West Branch flow travels

in the center; and the main stem Susquehanna River flow travels

along the east bank.  The horizontal stratification is noticeable

to the York Haven Reservoir, approximately 28 miles downstream

from the Juniata River Confluence.

        The Susquehanna River in the Dauphin Area and downstream

has multi-purpose use, such as boating, swimming, water skiing,

-------
                                                        V - 115






municipal and industrial water supply, hydroelectric power, and




propagation of fish and aquatic life, as well as treated waste




assimilation,,  In order to protect recreational use and the




water supply source downstream from Dauphin, the existing primary




facilities should be expanded to provide secondary treatment




with continuous chlorination.  This expansion is estimated to




cost approximately $80,000.






            "b.  Future Water Quality




        It is expected that the population of the Dauphin Area




will increase at least fivefold by the year 2020.  If secondary




waste treatment with chlorination is provided, no water quality




problem is anticipated during this period of growth.






            Co  Water Supply




        The present municipal water requirements are 0.9 mgcl,




and the total water requirements for the Dauphin Area are 2.9




mgd.  Most of the industrial water is utilized presently by the




Pennsy Supply and the Pennsylvania Railroad.  The Dauphin Area




presently obtains its water supply from Stoney Creek.  It is




expected that the total water requirements for the Area will




increase about fourfold by the year 2020.  The yield from Stoney




Creek appears ample to meet projected water supply requirements




in the immediate future, after which the Susquehanna River could




supply any additional needs.

-------
                                                             v - 116


         Q.  Susquehanna River (Conodoquinet Creek Confluence to
             York Haven Dam)

             1.  Harrisburg East Shore Area

                 a.  Current Water Quality

             The Harrisburg East Shore Area in Dauphin County, Pennsyl-

     vania, is situated along the eastern shore of the Susquehanna

     River approximately ten miles downstream from Dauphin.  The Area

     has a population of approximately 173,000, of which 129,000 are

     presently served by sewers.

             Principal waste sources in the Area are as follows:
Location Treatment
Harrisburg City Primary
Swatara Township 	
Susquehanna
Township 	
Population
Served
115,000
Est.
Flow
(mgd)
16.7
Receiving Stream
Susquehanna River
Portion connected to
Harrisburg Sewers
Portion connected to
Steelton Borough
Penbrook Borough
Paxton Borough
Harrisburg Steel
Pennsylvania
 Power and Light
T. R. Woolridge
Swi ft Company
Hershey Cream
011~-
  Separation
Discharge
  (sanitary)
  (process)
Settling
  (process)
None
  (process)
Discharge
Discharge
  (process)
  (sanitary)
Settling
Discharge
                                       30
                                       10
   370*
19,100*
 2,1+00
           Harrisburg Sewers
      Harrisburg Sewers
      Harrisburg Sewers
      Harrisburg Sewers

 0.318   Paxton Creek

 0.002   Harrisburg Sewers
 0,001   Sub-surface

 O.lk2   Paxton Creek

 0.022   Paxton Creek
 0.001   Harrisburg Sewers

 0.793   Paxton Creek
 0.037   Harrisburg Sewers
 0.27    Harrisburg Sewers
 0.0^9   Harrisburg Sewers

-------
                                                        V - 117
Location
Penn-Hoak Dairy
Hygrade Food


Highspire Borough
Lower Paxton
Township
(Koons Memorial
Park)
Middletown
Borough
Middle Paxton
Township
(Rector Hall)
West Hanover
Township
Metro-Edison
Company


Bethlehem Steel



Bethlehem Lime-
stone


*
Treatment
Discharge
Discharge
(process)
(sanitary)
Primary



Secondary

Primary


	

Septic Tanks
Septic Tanks
Discharge
(cooling)
Lagoon
Discharge
( cooling)
(sanitary)
Silt Basin
Discharge
(cooling)
(process )
Septic Tank

Population
Served
1,820

	
71
3,200



250

10,000


	

*
50

	
	

#
1,670
	

	
*
50

Est.
Flow
(mgd)
0.038

0.001
0.007
0.35



0.002

0.67


	

	
0.005

ko.o
0.108

21.807
0.167
O.l6l

0.035
0.20
0.005

Receiving Stream
Harrisburg Sewers

Harrisburg Sewers
Harrisburg Sewers
Susquehanna River



Beaver Creek

Susquehanna River


Susquehanna River

Sub-surface
Sub-surface

Susquehanna River



Susquehanna River
Steelton Borough
Susquehanna River

Penna Canal
Settling Ponu
Sub-surface

Estimated population equivalent
        The Susquehanna River at Harrisburg remains stratified




and exhibits differences in water quality from shore to shore,




as influenced by the quality of the tributaries entering the




River upstream.  The results of the 196H biological survey are




summarized as follows:

-------
                                                        V - 118
                       Biological Summary

Susquehanna River at Mile 6U - Pennsylvania Turnpike Bridge
East Bank - Eight kinds of bottom organisms, having a population
density of 35 organisms per square foot, vere collected at this
location.

West Bank - Seventeen kinds of clean-water associated organisms,
with a population density of U6l per square foot, were collected
at this station.
        Harrisburg City presently provides primary treatment and

discharges effluent from three points into the Susquehanna River.

The effluent streams from these discharge points are readily visi-

ble from the air and can be followed downstream until they converge.

        The Susquehanna River in the Harrisburg Area and down-

stream is used for many different purposes, such as boating,

swimming, water skiing, municipal and industrial water supply,

hydroelectric power, propagation of fish and aquatic life, as

well as treated waste assimilation.  All of these uses are

expected to increase in importance in the future, especially

water supply and recreation in the reservoir downstream.  Because

of the present and proposed water usages of the Susquehanna River

downstream from Harrisburg, secondary treatment with continuous

chlorination is necessary to enhance and protect water quality

for these uses.  The costs to expand primary facilities to

secondary at Harrisburg and surrounding communities are esti-

mated at $2,810,000.

-------
                                                        V - 119






        The north half of Lover Paxton Township contemplates




construction of a sewer system in the near future.  The proposed




system will discharge into the Harrisburg System through the




Paxton Street interceptor, a combined sewer that occasionally




overflows during periods of exceedingly high rainfall.  The




estimated project cost for the sewer system is $8,500,000.






            b*  Future Water Quality




        It is expected that the organic loading from the Area




will increase at least sixfold by the year 2020.  However, second-




ary waste treatment with continuous chlorination by all communities




in the Harrisburg East Shore Area is expected to be adequate




throughout this period to maintain water quality suitable for the




downstream water uses.






            c.  Water Supply




        The Harrisburg East Shore Area presently obtains TO per




cent of its water supply from Clarks Creek, 11 per cent from the




Susquehanna River, 8 per cent from ground water sources, and the




remaining 11 per cent from miscellaneous surface sources.  The




surface and ground water resources of the Area appear ample to




meet the requirements for the immediate future; however, addi-




tional development of local resources and further usage of the




Susquehanna River should provide ample water to satisfy the




requirements in the future.

-------
                                                        V - 120






        2.  Harrisburg West Shore Area




            a.  Current Water Quality




        Harrisburg West Shore Area is situated iH miles down-




stream from the confluence of the Juniata River and the Susque-




hanna River and 12 miles upstream from the York Haven Dam.  The




population of the West Shore Area is approximately 8l,000, of




which 56,000 are presently served with municipal sewers.  The




Area is basically residential with some commercial establishments.




        Wastes emanating from the Area are as follows:
Location
Camp Hill Borough
Irwins Dairy


East Pennsboro
Township
(North Plant)
East Pennsboro
Township
(South Plant)
Lemoyne Borough
American Can
Company

Lower Allen Town-
ship
State Correctional
Institution
(Lower Allen
Township )
Quaker Oats
Company

Fairview Township
Treatment
Primary
Discharge
(sanitary)
(cooling)


Primary


Intermediate
Primary
Discharge
( cooling)
(sanitary)

Primary



Primary

Discharge

None
Population
Served
6,000
*
U80



1.UUO


^,000
M85

*
220

12,200



1,680
*
117


Est.
Flow
(mgd)
0.75

0.015
0.005


O.llU


0.27
O.U

0.028
0.022

0.6



0.175

0.018

	
Receiving Stream
Susquehanna River

Camp Hill Sewers
Well


Susquehanna River


Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River

Well
Lemoyne Sewers

Susquehanna River



Susquehanna River

Lower Allen Town-
ship Sewers
Susquehanna River

-------
                                                            V - 121
Location
New Cumberland
New Cumberland
Army Depot
Wormleysburg

West Fairview
Borough
Marysville Borough
Messiah College
(Upper Allen
Township )
Upper Allen Township
School Authority
(Upper Allen
Township)
Eempt Brothers
Treatment
Intermediate

Primary
	


Primary
Primary


Secondary


Secondary

Settling
Population
Served
9,200

	
2,000


800
2,580


530


515

	
Est .
Flow
(mgd)
0.65

	
0.13


0.08
0.312


	


	

0.2U
Receiving Stream
Susquehanna River

Susquehanna River
East Pennsboro and
Lemoyne Sewers

Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River

Yellow Breeches
Creek


Yellow Breeches
Creek
Yellow Breeches
Kollinger Meat       Septic Tank

*
   Estimated population equivalent
          Creek
0.009   Sub-surface
             The water quality of the Susquehanna River near the  west


     shore is enhanced by the quality of the waters  entering from the


     Juniata River (Mile 8U.5), Conodoquinet Creek (Mile 71l) and


     Yellow Breeches Creek (Mile 67.0).   The biological sampling  near


     the west shore at Mile 6k indicated, the greatest diversification


     of clean-water associated bottom organisms  of any other station


     in the portion of the Susquehanna River contained in this report.


             Camp Kill's present primary system  is undersized and is


     currently discharging effluent of a quality less than that expected


     of primary,,  A study is currently being made by a local consult-


     ing engineer on the use of poly-electrolytes to increase the

-------
                                                        V - 122






performance of the system.  Two alternatives appear possible




enlargement of the plant or connect to the Lower Allen Township




system.  However, in order to protect water quality in the future,




secondary treatment with chlorination is expected to be necessary.




The estimated cost to expand the primary facilities to secondary




is estimated at $165,000.




        Fairview Township is presently constructing secondary




facilities to serve a portion of the Township.  The estimated




construction cost for the treatment plant is $20^,000, and the




estimated project cost of the sewerage system is $650,000.




        The downstream recreational use of the River and use as




a water supply source warrants that consideration be given to




providing secondary treatment with continuous chlorination for




all discharges from the Harrisburg West Shore Area.  The esti-




mated cost to expand the present facilities to provide secondary




treatment at East Pennsboro Township, Lower Allen Township,




Lemoyne Borough, New Cumberland Borough, West Fairview Borough,




Marysville Borough, and the New Cumberland Army Depot is esti-




mated at $1,379,000.






            b.  Future Water Quality




        It is expected that the organic loading from the Area




will increase about tenfold by the year 2020.  Secondary treat-




ment with chlorination is expected to be adequate to protect




future use of the River downstream from the Harrisburg Area.

-------

-------
                                                        V - 123


            c0  Water Supply

        Ninety-four per cent of the present needs of the Harris-

burg West Shore Area (6 mgd) is furnished by Yellow Breeches

Creek, and the remaining portion is obtained from ground water

sources.  The surface and ground water resources of the Area

appear ample to meet projected water requirements in the immedi-

ate future,  It is expected that the total water requirements

will increase about twelvefold by the year 2020; therefore, it

will be necessary for the Area to utilize water from the Susque-

hanna River as a supply source.


    Ro  Susquehanna River (York Haven Dam to Havre de Grace,
        Maryland)

        1.  York Kaven-Columbia-Safe Harbor Areas

            a.  Current Water Quality

        The York Haven Area in York County is located about 12

miles downstream from Harrisburg along the west shore of the

Susquehanna River.  Columbia and Safe Harbor are located on the

east shore 12 and 22 miles, respectively, downstream from York

Haven -

        Principal waste sources in these three Areas are as

follows:

-------
                                                              V - 12*1
Location

York Haven Borough
International Paper
Pennsylvania Power
and Light




Pennsylvania Supply
Company
Treatment
York
Septic Tanks
Primary
Lagoon
(ash waste)
Septic Tank
(sanitary)
Discharge
(cooling)
Lagoon
(silt)
Population
Served
Haven Area
736*
3^,000

	
#
50

	

	
Est.
Flow
(mgd)

___
2.5

2.106

0.005

320

1.1
Receiving Stream

Sub-surface
Susquehanna River

Susquehanna River

Sub-surface

Susquehanna River

Conewago Creek
Columbia Area
Columbia Borough
Manor Township
Marietta Borough
Wrightsville Borough
Hellam Borough
Hellam Township
St . Ann ' s Home
(West Hempfield
Township)
Grinnell Corpora-
tion





Musser Pot.
Wyeth Lab



Primary
Secondary
Septic Tanks
Septic Tanks
Septic Tanks
Septic Tanks


Secondary
Secondary
(process )
Secondary
Discharge
(cooling)
( sanitary)

Lagoon
Septic Tanks
TJ o vi p
J.N 'Jiic
None
Safe
11,993
180
2,385
2,31*5
1,231+
2,550


173

	
	

#
20
*
13,200.,
1*60



Harbor Area
0.8
0.021
	
	
	
	


o.ooU

0.337
0.100

0,085
0.003

0.052
0.01*6
o 060
W 0 \J \J \J
0.016

Susquehanna River
Conestoga Creek
Sub-surface
Sub-surface
Sub-surface
Sub-surface


Strickler Run

Shawnee Creek
Lagoon

Shawnee Creek
Columbia Borough
Sewers
Spray Irrigation
Sub-surface




Conestoga Township   Primary

*
   Estimated population equivalent
150
Oo015   Conestoga Creek

-------
                                                        V - 125


        The Susquehanna River downstream from York Haven Reser-

voir is no longer stratified.  Tributaries contributing to the

enhancement of water quality in the River throughout this lower

reach are Conewago Creek entering from the west shore at Mile

5^.5 and Conoy Creek and Chickies Creek entering from the east

shore at Mile 51.6 and Mile H.3, respectively.  Codorus Creek,

entering from the west shore at Mile 50.1, contributes degraded

quality water to the River.

        Stream quality sampling results of the River at selected

stations throughout the lower reach are summarized below:

                       Biological Summary

Upstream from Columbia (Mile ^5) - Nine kinds of clean-water
associated bottom organisms were collected at this location.

Wrights ville (Mile h3) - Ten kinds of clean-water associated
forms, exhibiting a high population density, were collected in
the sample at this station.

                     Water Quality Summary

   Indicator _ Susquehanna River at Columbia (Mile

DO (mg/1)                               6.3 -    lh.2
                                  Sat. (7.9)

BOD  (mg/1)                             7.1 -    10,0
Coliforms/100 ml                        0   -

Plow (cfs)                          2,750   - 3,050

-------
                                                        V - 126
   Indicator
           Susquehanna River at Safe Harbor
                Impoundment (Mile 32)
DO (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
Coliforms /100 ml
Flow (cfs)
DO (mg/1)
Indicator
DO (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
Coliforms /100 ml
Flow (cfs)
DO (mg/1)
Indicator
Sample at Surface
5.9 - 6.6
Sat. (7.9)
5.0 - 7=5
0 - 19,000
3,200 - 3,500
Sample at 10-foot Depth
k.O - 5.3
Sat. (7.9)
Susquehanna River at Holtwood
Impoundment (Mile 25)
Sample at Surface
8.3 - 9.^
Sat, (7-9)
7.7 - 8.6
0 - 10,900
3,300 - 3,600
Sample at 10-foot Depth
5.1 - 5-7
Sat. (7.9)
Susquehanna River at Conowingo
Impoundment (Mile 10)
                       Sample at Surface
DO (mg/1)

BOD (mg/1)
Coliforms/100 ml
Flow (cfs)

DO (mg/1)
                        5-5 -
                  Sat. (8.1)
7.2
                        5oO -      6.2
                        0   - 19,000
                    3,^00   -  3,700
Sample at itO-fpot Depth
                        2.U -      14.3
                  Sat. (8,,l)

-------
                                                        V - 12?







        The Susquehanna River downstream from York Haven Reser-




voir receives primary effluents from York Haven, Columbia, and.




Safe Harbor Areas,.  The International Paper Company at York




Haven represents the largest single discharge.  Although Wrights-




ville and Marietta, in the Columbia Area, are mostly served by




septic tank systems, there have been indications of untreated




wastes discharged directly to the River.




        The Susquehanna River downstream from the York Haven-




Columbia-Safe Harbor Areas is used for many different purposes,




such as boating, swimming, water skiing, municipal and industrial




water supply, hydroelectric power, propagation of fish and




aquatic life, and treated waste assimilation.  These uses,




especially water supply and recreation, are expected to increase




in importance in the future.  In order to protect recreational




and water supply use of the River and to prevent impairment of




water quality in the downstream impoundments at Safe Harbor




(Mile 32) and Holtwood (Mile 25), secondary treatment of wastes




with chlorination is considered necessary for the York Haven-




Columbia-Safe Harbor Areas.  Expansion of the primary plants to




provide secondary treatment at Columbia Borough and Conestoga




Township is estimated at $190,000 and $Ul,000, respectively




The International Paper Company at York Haven should investi-




gate the possibilities of waste reduction within the plant or




expand the present treatment capability to the equivalent of




secondary.

-------
                                                        V - 128



        Marietta Borough and a portion of East Donegal Township


(Maytown and Irishtown) contemplate construction of a secondary


treatment plant in 1967-1968.  The project cost of the treatment


plant is estimated at $515,000.  The estimated cost of the sewer


system for Marietta is an additional $500,000.  Sewers for East


Donegal Township are estimated at $800,000.


        The Borough of Wrightsville anticipates construction of a


primary treatment plant in 1967-1968.  While primary treatment


meets the present Sanitary Water Board's requirements for wastes


discharged to the Susquehanna River, it is expected that provision


of primary will represent initial pollution control action and


that secondary will be necessary in the near future.  The esti-


mated construction cost for the primary plant at Wrightsville is


$250,000; cost for the sewerage system is estimated at $1,000,000.


        The Pennsylvania Power and Light Company anticipates


expanding the existing plant at Brunner Island from approximately


600 megawatts to 900 megawatts in the near future.  In addition,


the Metropolitan Edison Company anticipates construction of an


atomic power plant (QhO megawatts) on Three Mile Island near


York Haven by 1972   The atomic power plant was originally


expected to discharge approximately 1,000 cfs cooling water,

                                          Q
with thermal energy equivalent to 200 x 10  BTU/day.  The engineer-


ing firm designing the plant has recently indicated that because


of Pennsylvania's restrictions on thermal discharges, consideration

-------
                                                        V - 129






is now being given to the use of a cooling tower.   In either




case, the plant will be designed to meet thermal standards.




The Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station anticipates  construction




of two (2,000 cfs, 200 x 109 BTU/day) atomic power plants in the




near future.




        Because of the large volumes of cooling water expected




to be discharged in relation to River flow (2,500  to 5,000 cfs),




the use of cooling towers should be encouraged in  design of




future plants to prevent potential thermal pollution problems.






            bo   Future Water Quality




        It is expected that the organic loading from the York




Haven-Columbia-Safe Harbor Areas will increase fourfold by the




year 2020.  Secondary waste treatment with chlorination is




expected to be adequate to protect water quality to satisfy




most beneficial uses of the River throughout the projected growth




period,






            c.   Water Supply




        The York Haven-Columbia-Safe Harbor Areas  presently




obtain 88 per cent of their water supply from the  Susquehanna




River and the remaining 12 per cent from miscellaneous surface




and ground water sources.  The present municipal water needs




are 1,0 mgd,  and the total needs are 1.8 mgd.  Future needs of




over 6.0 mgd are anticipated by 2020.  Extensive surface and

-------
                                                        V - 130






ground water sources exist in the Area and are more than ample




to satisfy projected water requirements.




        It is expected that by the year 2010 many York County




and Lancaster County municipalities will utilize the Susquehanna




River as their water supply source.




        Baltimore presently withdraws approximately 110 mgd




from the River and, by the year 2010, anticipates utilizing an




estimated 250 mgd.  If Baltimore supplies the Baltimore-Washington




corridor with water by that date, it is expected that the Balti-




more withdrawal at the Conowingo Reservoir will be at least 500




mgd.  It is also expected that by this time Chester will utilize




approximately 100 mgd.




        Problems were encountered by Lancaster and Baltimore




during low flow conditions in treating the Susquehanna River




water due to sulfate hardness.  However, as mine drainage up-




stream is abated, the sulfate concentration should be consider-




ably reduced so that treatment may no longer present a problem.






    S.  Susquehanna River at Mouth




        1.  Havre de Grace Area




            a_ Current Water Quality




        Havre de Grade in Harford County, Maryland, is situated




at the mouth of the Susquehanna River on the west shore of the




River and along the shore of the Chesapeake Bay.  Havre de Grace




is approximately ten miles downstream from the Conowingo Dam.

-------
                                                        V - 131


Perryville, in Cecil County, is located across the River from

Havre de Grace.

        Principal waste sources in the Area are as follows:
 Location
                         Est.
            Population   Flow
Treatment	Served	(mgd)
Receiving Stream
Havre de Grace Primary
Perryville Secondary
Veterans Administra-
tion Hospital 	
U. S. Naval Training
Center (Bainbridge) Secondary
*
Estimated population equivalent
11,000
6,010
7,100*

0.8
0.055
0.5
0.675

Chesapeake Bay
Susquehanna River
Perryville Sewers
Susquehanna River

        The primary treatment plant at Havre de Grace was recently

placed into operation; prior to this time untreated wastes were

being discharged to the Susquehanna River.  It is expected that

the treatment facilities will represent initial pollution control

action, and that secondary treatment will be necessary in the

near future to protect recreational and other beneficial uses of

the River and the Chesapeake Bay.  The cost to expand the primary

facilities to secondary at Havre de Grace is estimated at $260,000.


            b.  Water Supply

        Present needs of 1.29 mgd are obtained from the Susque-

hanna River.  Problems have been encountered in the past during

low flow periods due to saline water getting into the water

intake.  Consideration should be given to moving the water intake

-------
                                                        V - 132






upstream.  Future water needs can be met by utilizing the Sus-




quehanna River upstream from Havre de Grace or by connecting




into the existing Susquehanna River water supply line serving




Baltimore, Maryland, from the Conowingo Dam.

-------

-------
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                Page

  I.  INTRODUCTION	    I  - I

      A  Purpose and Scope .................    1-1

      B.  Authority ..,. .................    1-1

      C.  Acknowledgments ..................    1-2

 II.  GENERAL ...................  	    II  - 1

      A.  Water Quality Criteria	    II  - 1

      B.  Determination of Immediate Pollution
           Abatement Needs	    II  - 5

III.  SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS	Ill  - 1

      A.  General ......... 	   Ill  - 1

      B.  Immediate Needs	Ill  - 2

          1.  Waste Treatment .	Ill  - 2

              a.  North Branch Potomac  River   .	Ill  - 2

              b.  South Fork Shenandoah River	Ill  - 3

              c.  Washington Metropolitan Area (Upper
                   Potomac Estuary) 	  ......   Ill  - 3

          2.  Flow Regulation ................   Ill  - 5

          3-  Special Studies ................   Ill  - 6

          k.  Institutional Practices ............   Ill  - 6

      C.  Recent Progress in Pollution  Control	  .   Ill  - 20

 IV.  GENERAL BASIN DESCRIPTION 	    IV  - 1

  V.  BACKGROUND FOR RECOMMENDATIONS  ............    V  - 1

      A.  Pertinent Basin Characteristics ..........    V  - 1

      B.  Present Water Quality Problems  .	    V-2

-------
                   TABLE OF CONTENTS  (Continued)


                                                             Page

          1.  North Branch Potomac River   ........     V  - 2

              a.   Above Savage River   ..........     V  - 2

              b.   Savage River to New Creek   	     V  - k

              c.   New Creek to Wills  Creek	  .     V  - 7

              d.   Wills Creek to South Branch   	     V  - 10

          2.  South Branch Potomac River	     V  - 12

          3.  Potomac River, South Branch to
                Conococheague Creek 	     V  - 13

          U.  Potomac River, Conococheague Creek to the
                Shenandoah  .	     V  - 13

          5.  The Shenandoah River	     V  - 19

              a.   North Fork	     V  - 20

              b.   South Fork		     V  - 21

              c.   Main Stem Shenandoah River	     V  - 27

          6.  Potomac River, Shenandoah to the Monocacy  .     V  - 29

          7.  Monocacy River  ..............     V  - 30

          8.  Potomac River, Monocacy to  Little  Falls  .  .     V  - 3^-

          9.  Potomac River, Little Falls to Hallowing
                Point   . .	     V  - 36

         10.  Potomac River, Hallowing Point to
                Chesapeake Bay	     V  - 39

 VI.  BIBLIOGRAPHY   .......... 	    VI  - 1

VII.  APPENDIX	   VII  - 1

-------

-------
                                                          I - 1



I.  INTRODUCTION



    A.  Purpose and Scope



        The Potomac River, more than any other,  is the focal



point of the American conscience in water quality control and



it has been the subject of extensive study for various purposes.



Though additional studies continue and further investigations



will be required in the future, this report identifies the



following action items on the basis of the best information



presently available;



        1.  Location and evaluation of the major water pollution



            problems.



        2.  Identification of pollution sources and parties



            responsible.



        3.  Summation of immediate water pollution control needs.



        k.  Estimate of costs of these needs.



        This Working Document by describing the immediate pollution



abatement needs for the Potomac River Basin represents an initial



step in the development of a Basin-wide Pollution Control Program.



    B.  Authority



        The authority for this study can be found in pertinent



parts of the followings



        1.  Federal Water Pollution Control Act (PL 8U-660) as



            amended in 1961.



        2.  Water Quality Act of 1965 (PL 89-23*0.

-------
                                                          1-2






        3.  Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966 (PL 89-753).




        U.  Executive Order 11288-Prevention,  Control and




            Abatement of Water Pollution by Federal Activities.






    C.  Acknowledgments




        This report presents no exhaustive compilation of waste




sources and water quality determinations in the Potomac River




Basin.  For over a hundred years reports have  been prepared and




data collected to reaffirm that water quality  in the river and




its tributaries has deteriorated and continues to become worse.




The recommendations in this report reflect the findings by the




various agencies concerned with water quality  in the Basin.




The CB-SRBP referred to the excellent reports  in the bibliography




as well as to intensive field survey data obtained by its staff




to determine and confirm immediate pollution control needs in




the Basin.




        Organizations who cooperated by contributing data and




other information are too numerous to be listed and include




governmental, industrial and institutional agencies.  The following




merit special mentions




        Virginia Water Control Board




        Virginia State Department of Health




        Maryland Department of Water Resources




        Maryland State Department of Health




        West Virginia Department of Natural Resources

-------
                                                  I  -  3






West Virginia Department of Health



District of Columbia Department of Sanitary Engineering



District of Columbia Department of Public Health



Pennsylvania State Department of Health



Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin



U. S. Army Corps of Engineers



U. S. Geological Survey



U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service



U.S. Public Health Service

-------
                                                         II  -  1






 II.   GENERAL



      A.   Water Quality Criteria



          The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin



 (INCOPOT) has developed minimum  water quality  criteria for each



 of several classes  of water use  (Table I) which  are applicable



 to all tributary streams and to  the main stem  of the Potomac



 River upstream from the confluence of the Monocacy River.  These



 criteria have not been officially assigned  as  quality objectives



 for the above specified streams  or any specific  portion thereof.



 They are used only  to delineate  concentrations of the various



 water quality indicators to serve as  guides for  evaluating the



 suitability of the  quality of the surface waters for some present



 or expected use.  However,  the Commission has  adopted specific



 water quality objectives and criteria for five sections of the



 Potomac River within the Washington Metropolitan Area from the



 confluence of the Monocacy River downstream to Hallowing Point.



          In addition to these objectives and criteria, the States



 of Maryland and Virginia have established requirements to regulate



 sewage discharges for the section of  the Potomac River Watershed



 from Monocacy River to Little Falls.   These requirements were



 adopted for the purpose of protection and preservation of water



 quality in this reach serving as the  source of water supply  for



 the District of Columbia and adjacent political  subdivisions in



^Maryland and Virginia.   The requirements established by these

-------

-------
                                                        II - 2






two States are sympathetic to the "no effluent concept" adopted




in 1960 by the Washington Metropolitan Regional Conference (now




Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments); upon completion




of the Potomac River Interceptor, both existing and future




discharges will be eliminated from this reach and will be handled




by the Interceptor.




         The Maryland Department of Water Resources employs water




quality criteria for each of several classes of water use developed




in 19^9 by the former Water Pollution Control Commission (Table II).




These criteria, which are applicable to all surface water streams




within the State of Maryland, are used as guides similar to the




INCOPOT criteria previously discussed.  They have not been officially




assigned as water quality objectives for the surface water streams




within the State.




        The States of Virginia and Maryland have recently proposed




general water  quality criteria and specific water quality standards




for interstate streams (intrastate streams also for Maryland) for




submission to  the Department of the Interior for approval in June




1967   It is expected that proposed plans for implementation and




enforcement of the standards will be put into effect after the




standards are  approved.

-------











.9
tu
>
a
o ^
i
5 3
 ***
O CO
G 13
O J
H >
M p
TO H
-H Qy
V
H)
S
(D
fi



tO)
S 
H n
a  '%
W to B B
a tiss
O M *H 01
01 -0 >
FH G Q)
5a&
H 1
rH 0)
O &** 'id
(A f-t   .   COh-PCOX   -
                                                         -
                                                  Ha>,qtiDa>cM
                                                     ''
                           -P   4)   -P
                           >
                       ft  >
                       P,>FH
                          J  41   O Oj  H O  P
P    ^ tjp    CO    W




rftO-ptShtd-pH


O      rH 0)   S  P


  H *H      O    O
O-HCJO^NOH
                                                                       's P<
                                                                        bp 
-------
Unsatisfactory
source of water
supply; unsuitable
as fish habitat
v<
O JH 1 *--P
"  i .p is
g-ssigs
i^-sll
10 ft O CU
9P 41 -P K
(0 -P -i-
OFH^fc^
> a do) t<
M -P H "H C
OJ cfl O H C
CO * O iH A





i

bo
g
1



1
i i
^a
S8
f,3
Q)
9 ^
S i
n)
a

1
%
H
C













"P



O
vQ
FH
I


0
M3
; over
I







lf\
OJ
f-i
0,
s
-p
o









c-
o"
rH
CU
>
o
Q



XJ
-p
fi


1
<1J
a
0)





p.
p
o
o
0
OJ
-p
d
P
O
cd
^
S
^
o
E>
FH
I


0
!>
'. over
I







iA
(*\
FH
I
I









O
H
F-,
CD
>
O
-p
g




&
d

It
g

H













cq



FH
O
TO
5
^
s^
cu o

to
^
0
<*X rH
1
FH O
QJ 
QJ O
CU O
m










o
0^










-4-
to
\
OJ
\D



^
F3


If
QJ
biJ
JH
0)
J}



|








^^
H
O


i,
O
FH
QJ
S


0
H
JH
QJ
S
I







o
H
f^
1
P
S









O
rH
F-<
0)
>
O
-p
&








1
s
I











a"
ft-~>
 OJ
ft_0
CO
at
a
*FH
s
L
8
ft
cu
s


8

FH
OJ
>
O
1







o
IT.
OJ
(^
I
-P
o
2;









s
FH

O
-P
g




&
T3

1
B
.E
1



1
|
1






e
ft-^-
 (^\
ftO
S
T3
H
^
fe
OJ
FH


ir\
OJ
FH
1
-P
&







o

(
QJ
(_!
-P
o









OJ
fi
o
12;








i
H
1



1

f
ft
ft



g
ft^
ss*

rH
g
QJ
ft
CM
rH
FH
CU

O
-p
O








1
H
I



1

S
ft
ft

OJ
CO
CU

fcT
i



rH
FH
Q>
S


S
rH
S
o
-p-
o








lf\
1>

a>
g
-P
_p









O
OJ
JH
S
O
-P
a.








I
s
1













eg5
ft^"
ft
5
S












I
X -P
" d
P
O CO
a 5
cd
FH W fn
 r^>
O -P >
ft cd
-P CU QJ
O O .3








1
H
1











6
ft' N
tie?
i?^
TD
JH
g
Moderate to heavy
 general

fn
QJ T3
0 S
S -H
H
-p S
o
'H
ho a>
r'-t 03








W
CO -P
O K
ft QJ
CD QJ
O QJ
O PH
S









No deposits
present














i

j
i
'-p !

CO 1
Q !
O 01
H
a3>
.3*~
-P M
!*
H
Toxic substances,
oil or tars pres-
ent frequently;
taste and odor
producting sub-
stances often
present.




f>
S
^M &?
o) ni -H
a P1 P
,-t P T!
SS8
H C
Cd O FH
FH S 0
CU CH -o
C 0
g&'c1
Q) 0 3
J-. CU G)
rt-> -P
JH w cd
O -H -P
,,0 Vl -p
co a/ o tn
H T3 OJ
at co CQ
-P FH -P QJ
o a f-.
rH 'I] S ^

O rH H
O -P Of
- W ^ S
co to) O
CU bJ) -H -H
0 [TrH CO
C -H M d
dp o
p a |>s o
S^ G 
;J >Vi O LO
UJ QJ
"S
H 0) d
O 0) fj 10
P a p ,a
H o P
O -P W CO






















S
H *--
-P ON
S
1
+J
0


















1

8

f.
O

4-3
_]
&
F-,
o
^
rH
&
i
J_,
S
O
C-H
1
!>
XJ

'S
-P
o-
a

r*i
u a~
H r-i
U ' '
FH >i
OJ 
3 flj
3
ca S
7J -g
OJ fc



q
S.S
O W
CC -H
CU E
gs
W
H
O

-------
                                                         II - 5






    B.  Determination of Immediate Pollution Abatement Needs




        Requirements for pollution abatement are based on a




quantitative appraisal of water quality degradation below water




quality criteria established by INCOPOT and MDWR.  The Nationwide




attention focused upon the Potomac River Basin requires that the




waters of the main stem and most of the tributaries be maintained




at the highest feasible quality.  For the entire Basin INCOPOT




Class B and MDWR Class A are used as a guide for ultimate water




quality goals.




        The state of waste treatment technology is such that




these goals can be achieved immediately for much of the Basin.




In these cases recommendations have been made to accomplish this.




        There are a few stream reaches in the North Branch Potomac




River and in the South Fork Shenandoah River where more than




conventional secondary treatment will be required to meet the




ultimate objectives.  In these cases it is recommended that




secondary treatment which will meet the lower INCOPOT Class C or




D and MDWR Class B be provided immediately.  It is proposed




further that studies be made to choose among alternatives such




as advanced waste treatment, flow augmentation and diversion of




effluents.




        Annual costs of the recommended pollution abatement measures




have been estimated for sewage treatment cost data presented by




Frankel4 .  An arbitrary lower limit of $500 per year has been

-------
                                                         II - 6






used In estimating annual costs for disinfection of effluents;




this is based on a high unit cost for small facilities.




        Recommendations of treatment needed for immediate pollution




abatement in the Potomac River Basin are presented in the Summary




(Section III) and are also discussed in the evaluation of present




water quality problems in each river reach.




        The recommendations for immediate action are based on




these general guide lines:




        1.  Disinfection of all waste discharges containing sani-




tary sewage is required.




        2.  Existing primary municipal sewage treatment  plants




are not listed in summary tables if they produce no measurable




degradation of water quality.




        3-  New municipal sewage treatment plants and additions




to existing plants are to provide a minimum of conventional




secondary treatment (85 per cent BOD removal).




        4.  All estimates are based on present waste loads, and




treatment requirements are based on the permissible loading in




the receiving stream below the outfall.




        5.  Costs of industrial waste treatment are based on BOD




removal equivalent to that for sanitary sewage.




        6.  Minimum treatment of industrial wastes considered is




removal of setteable or floating solids with additional  treatment



requirements being determined by the effects of the effluent in




degrading the stream water quality.

-------
                                                        Ill - 1






III.  SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS




      A.  General




          Upon signing the Water Quality Act of 1965> President




Johnson said, "I pledge to you that we are going to reopen the




Potomac for swimming by 1975"




          This report presents initial actions needed in the




development of a comprehensive Potomac Basin Water Pollution




Control Plan which will fulfill this pledge.  The Potomac can




indeed be a model for water quality control of all the rivers




of the nation.  It can be managed for the benefit of all users




to provide fishing, swimming and other recreation, ample municipal




and industrial water supplies and at the same time assimilate




adequately treated domestic and industrial wastes from the rapidly




expanding population.




          Except for the North Branch, the application of existing




technology to the water pollution problems of the Potomac River




Basin will allow these goals to be realized.  New techniques are



under development to cope with the acid mine drainages from the




headwaters of the North Branch that have seriously polluted its




waters.  Even here the proposed Bloomington Reservoir will




significantly dilute these discharges to reduce their effect upon




the lower river.




          Of the 350 waste sources in the Potomac Watershed, 66




account for 97 per cent of the total waste load; eleven of these 66




discharge over three-quarters of the total waste load in the Basin.

-------
                                                       Ill - 2






          The critical areas of water quality degradation are




associated with the eleven major waste sources which are con-




centrated in three widely separated areas.  Summaries of pollu-




tion problems and immediate needs in these areas are listed below.




      B.  Immediate Needs




          1.  Waste Treatment




          The principal immediate need in the Basin is for the




provision of adequate waste treatment facilities to control




pollution at its source.




              a.  North Branch Potomac River




          The North Branch between Luke and Cumberland, Maryland,




receives about 11 per cent of the total organic load entering




the Basin.  The bulk of this (9 of the 11 per cent) consists of




industrial wastes from the West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company




at Luke and from the Celanese Fibers Company at Amcelle, Maryland.




The municipal sewage from the Cumberland sewerage system accounts




for the remaining major organic waste load into the North Branch.




          The North Branch also receives a massive mineral pollu-




tion load of acid mine drainage in the Basin area above Luke.




Present technological methods are not adequate to control the




effects of acid mine drainage.




          Recommendations for this reach include the equivalent




of secondary treatment (85 per cent removal of the 5-day BOD) at




each of these pollution sources except at Amcelle where 90 per

-------
                                                        Ill - 3






cent removal will be required.  The estimated total additional




annual cost is $530,000.




              b.   South Fork Shenandoah River




          The South Fork Shenandoah River is critically polluted




by industrial waste discharges from four industries which account




for ten per cent of the total organic load entering waters of the




Potomac River Basin.  The E. I. DuPont deNemours and Company and




the Crompton-Shenandoah Company contribute 3 per cent of these




wastes into the headwaters of the South River.   Merck and Company




discharges 2 per cent of the total into the upper part of the




South Fork, and the American Viscose Company discharges 5 per




cent near Front Royal and the confluence of the North and South




Forks.  Remedial actions call for improvement of existing second-




ary treatment to achieve 85 per cent BOD removal at the first two




above mentioned industries and the addition of secondary treatment




at the last.  Total additional costs for these improvements over




present costs is estimated to be $570,000 per annum.




              c.   Washington Metropolitan Area  (Upper Potomac Estuary)




          The Upper Potomac River Estuary is the area where pollu-




tion problems are the most critical.  Sixty-five per cent of the




total organic waste loads in the Basin are discharged into the




head of tidewater and cause severe water quality degradation.




The District of Columbia Water Pollution Control Plant alone




discharges U? per cent, the Arlington County Sewage Treatment Plant

-------
                                                        Ill - k






discharges 11 per cent, the Fairfax County Westgate Plant dis-



charges 5 Pr cent, and the Alexandria Plant discharges much



of the remaining 2 per cent of the total.   Only small amounts



of industrial wastes are included in area  discharges.



          Though all the area sewage is treated except for



storm overflows from combined sewers, 85 per cent BOD removal



is not achieved and corrective measures will require BOD removal



of 95 per cent and a phosphorus removal of 90 per cent at the



four major sources of inadequately treated waste discharges



as follows!



          1.  District of Columbia Water Pollution Control Plant



          2.  Arlington County Sewage Treatment Plant



          3.  Fairfax County Westgate Sewage Treatment Plant



          b.  Alexandria Sewage Treatment  Plant



              The estimated additional annual cost to effect



          these recommendations is $7,700,000 if conventional



          methods are used.  Of this, $U,900,000 represents the



          cost for removal of phosphorus.



          Implementation of the foregoing  recommendations would



not eliminate all inadequately treated waste discharges into the



Potomac River nor do they preclude the alternatives of water



quality control by flow augmentation or diversion of treated



effluents to more suitable areas.  They will, however, bring



all stream reaches to the minimum acceptable conditions (Class C or  D)

-------
                                                        Ill - 5






conforming to INCOPOT criteria on an immediate action basis and




will be required in any case




          Other water pollution problems are widely distributed




in the Potomac River Basin and are readily amenable to conventional




secondary treatment.  Recommendations for these treatment measures




for each discharge are also included in this report and their




estimated additional cost is $870,000 annually.  These measures




provide for more complete waste treatment in some cases and dis-




infection of all effluents.




          The total additional annual cost for the entire Potomac




River Basin is estimated to be $9,670,000.  Of this annual total




cost, 80 per cent is for improvements in the Washington metro-




politan area with 6k per cent of the total required for the




District of Columbia Water Pollution Control Plant.  The corres-




ponding construction cost to meet all requirements in the Basin




is $18,351,000,




          A general summary of estimated costs for immediate



vfaste treatment needs in the Basin is given in Table III.




Immediate wa^te treatment needs, responsibilities for providing




these needs, and estimated costs are given in Table IV




          2.  Flow Regulation




          Reservoirs which have been proposed for several areas




in the Basin would provide supplemental flow for water quality

-------
                                                        Ill - 6






control and affect improved localized water quality conditions.




Table V lists these reservoirs.






        3.  Special Studies




        Additional investigations are needed in several areas




in the Basin to provide the basis for comprehensive evaluation




of existing or potential pollution control needs.  Table VI




summarizes these study needs.






        U.  Institutional Practices




        A need for action on pollution control measures by




institutions concerned with the water resources of the Potomac




Basin is indicated by the findings of this study.  Table VII




summarizes needed institutional practices which would enhance




and strengthen pollution control programs.

-------
















03
H
03
o
0

s
EH
^5
S
tl
CO
C_j 1 .._
2; to
M 
O
o
03
rl
O
r:





O
O
O^
CO
tf\


-69-








O Q O
O O Q
O^O^O

000
IA H 00
CM CO CM
*S
H
-W-

0)
J>
rX
O
flj
S
0
4J
O
PM

CJ
co
CQ
0
la




0
o

rl
0)
ft
co


*^ _Tj
c S
. 
fi[ o 13
HOC
PH ca H
rl rl
CO CU 4)
*H ^ *
bD O
rl V
H to CH
> 4) O
-P CO >>
(Q H -P
CD 4) -H
S O O




O
8
V
IA





g
cT
CO
*\
CVJ

8
o
*N \ *
O O O
IT\ O O
LA^t CO







CO
O
o
c
a

0)
03
^
^
O
03










0

*
CQ O
rl O
3 f> Q
a co o
4> O
K T3 4>
(U C W
tj C0 O
C 0
-P CD W
C A -H
O 03 >
P , |
P C C
O O CO
-P 0
 pL) 'H
H  
 rl B
W O <
CH
O
ea
O 3<~N
8M ri 
O O H
8 O\ -rl O 8
-^3 J3 4)
C-- J- -P PH h
^^Q
t^-x^1



o
R
t*"
^
r- 1



w rv *v *\ p
8O OOOVO
t- OSCM CO
J- V CO CO H
*\  \
\O H H





^
CO

P
co
IV^

U
1
-P
O
PH
rl
0)
O
rH
4^
S
H
H
0
PH -P -P
C C
1~i co -P cd
4) H C H
-p PH CO PH
CO H

6-1 S  ^
H  H H* 
fCO PH O3

>>&&)
H V -P H C
o c q r^-H
o co 3  -P -P
H O 03 C CO
H C -rl O
-P O O rl CO
0 H -P -O X -H
H 4^ bfi C cd C
M C C CO  >
CJ 4) 4) f* rt
C rl ^ 0 PS
 O O
m c*  ??
O H-> 
3 4) O
+J O4 D^-l O
V, 4) 0) -P C
(gc^O^^S?

H
CO
CO

M
5
O
O

C
H
to
CO
rf\
t. 
C (0
^ t>
H
PS   
CO J^ tJ *
0 > S g
S2 *^ "
O rT H P" 
4J 0) P ? J C to V,
h *1 3 rl J
4) O -P 4> *d
ft fl r4 M 4)

Ill - 7

-------
















CO
H
CO
O
O

Q
F|
^H
^<
s
H
EH
tfl
EH M
K CO
tJ S PQ


<+H
<^

x:
o
GO
V

H



C
O
H
-P
3
r-l
O
 V(
P -rH 0)
X! 0  >
O CM *H
C fi 
co S co
h o) o >>
pq 4^ -d o
co G eo
-P G C O
H -H CD fl
O w A O
a s to s

bO
c
CO
0
CO
O >j
-p
80 H
O CO
O
CO Jn
CO -P
3 CO G
O > 0
4) H
G 9J -P
CO -P CO
H CO d
rH f-( CO
0) 4) fn
O "d M

H g >6
                                                           III   -  8
       CO
                         O
                         O
                         O
       vD
         (TV
        0\
                  ITS
                  CO
                    *\
                 CO
                  H
                 -60-
    c
    H
    CO
    as
    ,0

    0)
    >-l
    H
    -p
    c
    0)
    ca
    -p
    Is
    co
    CM
    G
    O
    H
H  CO
 CO  (H
 d  tKD
 CO  
 0)  -P
 O  -H
 O
CO
 3  0)
 O  -P
 V  CO
 C  >
 CO
H  4)
H  H
 4)  -P
 O  -P
 CQ  H
H  rH
CO
O
O
                 B
CO

o

-------

















5
o
H
s
a

P CO

P| PQ
O W
EH ^*
M CO 

69 S O
|  I

M 2
W PH
< H

c2
H g
13
<
M
Q

5|
M


















HP
tQ **s
O to
0 rl
CO
H r-l
33
CS-
c
o
H
-P
O CO
3 P
(H m
-P 0
to o
C
O
o



-P
c

>

ft
H CO
*rj
P CO
C CO

P
to
CO
(H


X~X
CM -0
a
 co



CM
O CO
-P
CO CO
*



c
o

P
3
r-l
H
O
PH
CM
O

CO
o
o
CO


CO*

CO


o
o
*s
OJ
r-l




-69-





'c
1
P
CO
CO
P

r?
CO
c
0
o
CO
CO



f-
o





0
rl
P
CO
CO
0
P








33
SH

\
CO
H
r-l
H
S
N
P
H
_p
C
o o
O H
O^PH

ir\ *
CO ft)
CM a

o
8
*v
R
OJ
*^
H






1
C
CO -P P
c c
C CO CO
CO r- rH
CM ft
0
C (25 CO
O PH T)
P O
O  >
ft
P CO
M PL,
co


8
N
CO
ir\


O
8
v
R
H








+3
-P C C
C CO CO
o
-p P
CO O
CO C PQ
rl O K
P -r) OH
_i.3 *" )
>> V
HOT)
CO C 0
Cf C M
C 0 rl
O U 
0 H
1) JH C
CO O J




ON
O



H
CO

rl
O
H
S

*^
C M
03 C
H -H
rt C
H O
2 o
co
 C
-P 0
CM 1-3
5 -
CO C
0
C -P

*& CO
rl PQ
O



*v
=


8
o
*\
o











g
H
p
CO
co

0)
CO
M
d
H
H
O
CO




ITN
O


r-l
CO
O
0 W)
~.s
 H
T) W
C CO
M tS

O
^j

r-l
CO
O
o

c
o
H
-p
co
TJ
H
H
O
CO

O


O
o
OJ
V
t-


8
q^

co"
H





-P
C
CO r-l
3 0
rH fH
f[ ^ rl
CO O
o
CM
O H
0
H
-P -O
CO C
C CO
H
rl *)
O -P
H W
A CO
0 H




CO
ON
r-l



O
CO
C
H
>
8
o
-p
c
V
8
p
CO

rl
EH

A)
00
CO >
5* -P
tt) H
CO H
H
O O
PQ CO
fe^


8
^
g
H

O
8

S
CO


J-t
0>




N
IS
 r-l
" 
CO O
P V
^
^>
fn ^"^
co O
T3 PQ
C
0 -P
0 C
CO V
CO 0




vO
CO

rl
0) CO
S/H

CO O
o co
 -P 3
o v c
c ^) S
H -PS
^
CO
ft
a
o
o

CO
rl 
(0 Tj
_r^ Jg
rl
fn 
CO H
CO i-H
V CO
C O
CO
o



s
OJ


8
o
\
ITN
r-l





4J
r
ft)
3
H
CH
ft)
O

H
-P
CO
a
rl
rl
o
r-l
r^J
0




q
H



H
CO
ft
rl
O
H
s

co
rl
a
H
00
rl
H
J>

-P
CO
^

\
rl
co
CO
CO


o




8
s
CO





^3
c
CO
3
r-l
CM
CM
ft)
CM
O

rl
-P
CO
G
H
rl
O
r-l
_C"j
o



CO
q




H
CD
ft
rl
O
rl
$











rpj
S
*\
rl
H
<3^
H
0)
PQ
AJ- J-

I




8
*\
CO





-p
c
ft)
3
t 1
CM"
ft)
CM
O 
gS
rl
P -P
CO C
C co
H r-H
tj rtj
H &
,) Q)
O (25



co
OJ




H
CO
ft
H
O
rl
$







*
rrt
2?

*\
g
o
+3
ft
CO
CO
O
7

O O
Q 0
uS i^
\
CO
ITS


8 8
*\ t
00
OJ




-p
d
V
3

CM -P
CM C
CO ft)
CM -P
O cfl
C rl
O ^
rl
-P >
0) H
a *
rl C
0 0
i-H 0
^4 ft>
O CO



00
H q
ir\



rH rH
GD CO
ft ft
rl -rl
O O
rl -H
2 2





fp4
s

^ *rt
C |S
4)

1 |

U} r~l
C fn
rl ft)
? 1
PQ O

-------
O w
O rH
3
C f"^
G
O
H
+3 CO
0 -P
3 co
h 0
-P 0
to
c
o
o
O -P
H C
1 1

 1
w I1 -a
P MO

T) PQ -P 4)
4) ^C C 4)
g o R Is
H H to -P
-P < (0
C co pq 4>
OQ rH
0 W 0 E-t
ft IH 1 "5
H   CH I1
[j^ Jg| Q , 	 ^
PQ H W
<; <; pq 4> 4>
P-l fVI fjH 3 -P
PM 3 CO
H (25 r-l CO
H 0 IS
| >
H
Q CH
W O fi>
S "P
SJ^ 4) CO
5*




C
0
H
-P
3
H
H
0


^H
o

4
O
^i
3
O
CO
o
o
cu
t^



o
o
o
*v
LA
O



-69-


"s
j
To
0)

Sfc
p^
CO
t5
g
o
V
CO


t-
-J




r-l
CO
P.
H
O
H
X
CO
j>.


*
\
EO
00
c
H
H

CO

K*S
ft)
H
4)
pi^
M
0>
PQ
O
&




O
8

LA
OJ






-P
C
8
P
CO
4>

Sj
^
co
C
0
o
V
CO


OJ
o




H
CO

*t ^3
-P k
CO 4)
3 C
tJ C
C CO
H 0



$4
co
4) CO
G bO
 aiH
Oil rH
o c^
M CO
m
>>
cj ft)
tlO r-l
3 O
,0 h
CD &)
r~t PQ
^J
<;
O
R




8
o
^
OJ
rH









?
O
gi
4)

O
H
O
O


CO
q




r-T
CO
.H
^H r*3
-P is
m 4>
3 C
o c
G CO
M 4J




0
s
*\
o w\
O -P

 0
C P,
O M
LI ^
> CO
PQ H
H
Q fH
. *

Is
o
g
r-l



8
0^

CO









o
c
flf-4
f^
* -P
a G
rl 4)
S3
g^


c~-
q




r-l
tC

H
O
H
i






*s

\
-p
M
o
ft

fi
(d
r- 1
r-l
H
Ik
O
8^
oo



8
o
^
LA
t>-







0
-p
co
SH
jp^
4)
CO
CO
o
H
O
CO


00
oo


00
G
H to h
CO O> 3
*-< > -P
fn -H 0
-P CO CO
CO O CH
3 r-l 3
SII
10
CO rH
^ 4)
3 -P
O CO
g !s
4>
s w

^ H
f\
P H
C CO

PH
^ ON 
Q  CO
^>
M


W
8
VO^
oo



8
O
*s
CM
rH








O
C
H
^^
CO +3
c c
O r-l
d| ^ ^
O 4)



LA
OJ



H
0)
Oi
H
O
H
1






0
eo
>

*v
J^j
4)
P
W
4)
fi
O
fjj
0rH
Is





o
o
o^

LT\









o

H

co -p
C G
O r-l
O 4>

OJ
H
q





>>

CO
-p
H
G
CO

c\

o
o
4) CO
Q ^>
^3

pg m
v
C -4^
CO 03
> 4)

H 0
H G

CQ |3

O
8




8
o
*\
CO









0
G
*H
4^
CO +3
G G
O r-l
O 4)

IA
CO
q




r-l
(0
Pi
H
O
1-1
a





CO



Is

ff\
r*5
CO
^
4>
r-t
*^
r^
H
2J
XiJ.
O
P-
OJ



o
8^

^
LA






+5
G
1
co
4)

^>
rH
CO
g
O
4>
CO


LA
q




rH

Pi
H
O
H
1








0)



^5

0\
8
o

fj
1 1
- i
-^



8
o
*\
Q
\^5






-p
G
4)
g
CO
4)

^5
rH
CO
O
o
CO


00
q




H
cO
P,
H
O
H
1



CO
>
IS

*\
0)

rH
er-t
K,
GQ
^>
4)
C
rH

4)

k/
OJ



8

C\J
rH








O
C
t-4
^3
CO -P
C G
0 rH
H 
-------
Ill - 11

















5

^
H
D
jj
LjJ
13
P4
fel H

***** *J  H
C CO 

& g 1
tj je
pQ 4 GE]
4^ *tf S
H H
H
1

H

























p
O 09
O fc
,_!
Q
5,
c
8
43
O CO
3 4^
fc 09
43 o
(0 CJ
c
o
o




-P
c

0

o

1
M -d

"c "S
fft)
^ *
CO

H
VI ^
o i
$ N> '
a
3 cy
H 4>
O 09
> S3


M
O^

o j o CO o 8 on * +* -4- ffa P G V 0 4^ co 0) h H J? CO s 0 o 0) CO oO CO bo C l-l 0 o o 43 l-l fc H CO C o H P CO 8. r-t 8 o \ ir\ CM 55 o I-t 4i 2 CO CO 09 tJ H H ci 00 r-l O CO V H r+a H M E-i O O c 1 [J ^1 CD 4^ a H co" 8 o^ C?N n o CM 60 C H 4> 43 CO 8 a rH t * fC! If S }-^ |^E V a o +> OJ 1 CO 1 H T) CO C O CO U 4> CO 8 oT 8 c^ d c o CM PJ H 43 4> CO m o bO ^ C * c4 T) 09 S CO H f m Jj g ^f OQ CO CO CJ bD C H g 0 o 1 (^_ 8 o S H +> C 43 co H fc CO 0 o a> CO a 0 ,_, CO ft H O H S S CO > V o 43 09 ^1 0) ft 0) CO S \ ITN 4-4 O C o H to 43 C C H 0) O H H Vi 0 *V O H cd P! o -H S y[ * rrt * x U) ,0 CO j3 H & CO Q UA H A R CM *C O bO C l-l 4^ 0) CO VC * CO l-l hO c * J3 d w i t 7 .p c V c CO o H JH ^J A3 43 0 h O O a o S ro *s S c o H 4J CO d -H 13 H O CO U) 0 C V *rt H -d 0 C W co c- 0 bD -t-i o 4^ d co C H M IX, d o ^^ CO o ^ <(J 3 H A ^4 CO lf\ t-- H *s 5 H &> JH C C2 ^ o +> O CO 0) C 09 -H 4-1 O O -! 43 0 +> C C 111 O 4> 4-4 M a v SAM co 0 LT\ H GO O H JgJ o rt s \ | 09 0) bD 00 O O O^ l-l \ "H CO 43 c V ^ 4^ 0) A^ O C o H CO a H (H O H O 'H O cO UN 43 O E-i H CO ft H o H SsJ O fn O to C 8 PQ ^) *^ Tj $ * ^4 O * H 4J bfl a i 3 > O 09 O 05 CO 4^ rt W (U CO ^ 4^ 43 O |K4 CO CO


-------
O M
0 h
05
Hi
nn
H
0
G O
C 

G
O
H
-P
O
3 -P
f-t CO
-P O
to o
G
O
O



O +>
R C
EH 4>
E> a
iJ 4)
3 >
2 1
w H a T)
EH CO M 4)
x N. aj ^3 *d
d  M -P 
4) ^j GO)
3 W 4> 3
5 g gS J
-P M ed
C CO  4)
O Q h
CJ W 0 EH
M 1 x-s
~^5 ^5 ^-t *&
3  g
PQ IH W ^ ** '
^J rf pR M
EH W H 34)
H H -P
EH S O w
M > to
g *

^4
Q QH
S O 4)
5^ 4^
!J 4) B9
|-H Ol 8j
ph ^
H




G
o
H
-P
H
H
O

^W
o
o
o
CO
g
C\T



-40-



O
CM



-69-





+i
G

-P
cc
4>
(H
EH
Secondary


ir\
O
.





r |
(0
P*
H
O
H
C
3
S







S

*\
M
H
H
M
f
t^
_^j.j_  ^F>
000 o o o o
o o o o o o o
CMOUNO O UNO O
CM ro u\ ir\ r-i UN
CM M
H




80 o o o o o o
o o o o o o o
oooo o oo o
OQVOO UN OUN O
(M VO CJ\ -3" UN CM UN
M UN

x*^
f-H
co to
-P -P -P vD >
G G C i UN o
3 M 3 3 -H 3 f
H CO -O H M Oh

C C tn C co H ^H C O C CM Q
4> 4>VO4>&> V G-PVQ
a a O-P a OGCBVA
P -ptw4)C%HtH -P i-IOOi-PM
CO COOW4)OO CO -P^-l3cO-iH4J
4) 4> 8 4)<0-PMtt)eOG
h hG^H-PGC h h^Hhh4)
EH HOOcoOO EH eoCV(-P^  ^O
^H 4) -H -i-l ft-H, 4),
h hCOO-PcOCO h W O'' >J h C 4)
CO COG'HCG  r-4JH]J4)P<
T* nd'iHCOW^H'H -O WflCfli'Oa
G ChGbOhh G 'dU-P'GVO
O OOcOeOOO O -H^H'O^ON
O OHftJSr-lH O r-lidGOO
CO COUWWOO CO C09JMCO ft -P


-^ VO ^O UN UN CO
O CM H CM O O
      ^^
CM -H- H

CO
1 V
H H
j*i t* a -H
HHH MGG 4)-P
O CO CO CO O *rH *rH flO _f^ W
H PL PLI fl| H S W CO C? 4)
+5 .H f-t ^H 4J W EH
wooo CQ ^j) 
4) -H -H H 4)  O  .^
a QSQ a 730^ -dr-j
O 333 O GhG CcO
OSSS Q MpLiM MO
M G O
V aS O O
-P -p m w
> CO iH H O h CO
-P G iH -H 3 >
ft CO CO ^ " h O
h  co >> -p a -
O C3  C > 4) CO 0 VO
 > 4>Gh'G! H 4)O
t)0~> -POTJ'H(D4) W -0^3
G4) > WhOCOG-H CO
r4H-> M DOiOCh 4) -P4)
taHh -h |x > ;x ' a  fi>3 ** ** ** Sl CO f*^ O Pu CO
4) ^ ^O O(OOn4) CO "3) Q
>> ^> V C  -P-P-HrHG-P G "
4) B bO O -H G -H h O -H W -H  
H-HTf-Ph 3ft-POH3 -P MO
HEH-H>h eoosw^3>>bO w o
CO heflco ^>O-HO4 pqpw cowcoco<; S H

-------
















s
a
EH

[ *1
[_^
s

W M
EH to
"d PQ PQ
4) <^
cow
H EH 5
i ^ r. 
C to pej

3 H <
> O

Pj| || S
 co



CM
o a>
-p
CD w
1*


a
o
H
4^
*3
H
H
0
PH

O

0)
0

0
to
o
g
^
IP\
CM

-69-


O
O
O

8*^
-4"


-69-
'
-P
fl

&
-p
CD
0)

CO
c
0
CJ
Q)
to


H
CM
OJ








\

a
c
M
0
O
fl3
CO
o
d
c
co
c

o

ft










ra
0,1
rH
iH
-P
EH




































1

4J
C
0)
CJ

tt)
ft
&-H
0 5
-4-3 O
EQ
^D 0)
* ^



































o
o
*s
LT\





o
8
^
ITS
00





-P
C


-p
co

CO
d
0
CJ
0)
ra


0
H






H
CO
ft
H
O
H
1









CO
>

CQ
CD
O
-p
-p
o
fa
O
o
g
*\
ir\
-=*"




8
*\
o
CM
CM




-P
C

3
-P
cc
0)
-p
CO
d
C
o
o
0)
to


LfN
CO
o





H
CO
ft
H
CJ
H
%





0
cc


9\
H
CO
O


-P

rH

O
8
N
O
CO




8
o^

o"
p
CO




+3
c

S
-p
CO
0)
f-1
CO
d
o
CJ
OJ
to


tr\
-*
ro
H
CO
^
0)
1 rQ
. >H
to
o
*\ D(H
 -p
d a>

&
0
o

0)
to
o
CJ
CO
H
>
C
CD
O
H
rH
(P
a
<
O
o
o
-p
 CO
 0)
 G
 O
 o
 0)
to
9
                                   O
                                   O
                                   O
                                                   -  13
            m
            c
            o
            o
            
-------
III -
















&s
o
M

P^
13
lj
S
S3
W H
EH CO

tJ ^^
tt) W
S O W
c H >
P co pt;
OHO
CJ g 4 jgj
M
H
^j*
1^
ft
j3
M
M
















-P
o m
O FH
CO
H H
CO H
3 O
C
O
H
-P
0 -P
Si O
GO
a
o
o



-p
c

i
4)

1
9
M -0
0)
P t3
C 4)
4) 4)
CO
S
H
<^<
O bC
>v5
 4)
H -P
O W
> m
^


4-1
O 4)
-P
4) CO
EH




{3
O
H
g
r-l
H
O
P-l

4-1
O
4)
O
S
0
CO



\
IfN
C\J
-e*-


O
8
g



-49-





P
C
4)
1
CO
4)
H
t?
CO
O
O
4)
CO


5





H
CO
Pi
H
O
H
^







O
3

v
CJ
*
03



8
VD







IPv




-p

0)
3
H

4-1
4)
4-1
O
C
o
H
-P
0)
H
O
O


ri





H
CO
Pi
H
O
H
^






.
g

V
*
5
-p
4)
H
TJ
O
^

S
^5






8
o
tfN




-P
fl
(D
0
H
4-1
4-1
0)
4-1
O
C
O
H
-P
C
H
O
r-l
*
O


on
o





r-|
CO
P.
H
O
H
^






O
S

#\
4)
H
H
CO
^
4)
^

8

N
CM





ir\
CO









4-^
c

P*
co

H
a
o
o
4)
CO


O





H
CO

H
O
H
S





.
>
*
4)
i4
H
H
m
-p
-P

0
i-3

8
OS
\
C"*~





ir\
rH



^
M t*~"
P3 O^
tJ
C 4) r-l
O T3 (0
0 -H >
4) > O
M o a
h 0)

0 o o
P -P O
C PQ
V -P
 C -P
ft) 4) C
> a 4)
O -P O
Lf flj
ft 4) f-l
a h 4)
M -P Pi


ir\





H
CO
Pi
H
O
H
^






,
CD

\
bO
3
f
-P
0)
O



*v
CVJ




I
l^




^
^
CD WN
O O~\
C H
O C CO
o 1-1 !>
4) CO O
W -P 8
r> fl)
4-1 0 h
o
o <~\
-P -P O
3 C -P
S  g
0 -P 0
(< co
ft 4) H


H





rH
CO

iH
O
H
^






0
CO
^
*\


-P
CO
4>
H
P
H
H)

O
O
o^

ir\





R




p
G
4)
j
H
4-1
4-1
4)
4n
O
C
0
H
-P

O
H
g

^^
H
IA CO
* ^J

4) 4) h -H 1
1 rH *C!} Q) $H *r4 _^{
W rH CO -P  C 0
-P O o ra co fH
H O  C*P4 S :D  Q
4) C0 4) r^ ^ 'ri QI
rl E 09 (H IS S^
^CJ O*^O CO
O  rj g M O
Tt CO  O C C 
P bD 4) S -H
o 3 -p eo cu ,a co
fe 43 S EH K H -P

8
o^

vO





ir\
t-
cn








p
c

-^
CO
4)
EH
>>
CO
C
O
O
CO

X"^
ro cd
0

S^^, X

rH bD
>
^l
H -
0 M
* S
H "c fi
 H &3
^5
gh \
CD ^"*N
cO S w
IV. ^J
* S 
O 4) rH
^ W CV)













































O

W
bO
A C
P,iH
4) H
09 bD
^ >H
*v
flj tf\
r* 
H O
-P O

4) 4}
PtrH
O H
O 4)

-------





















|2J
o
H
g
a
2
K
K M
"d" W 
tt) <
c ^D 53
*H PH 5
4-* rH
C CO PS
O W 0
* ' S 
p> 8
H H H
fe O
pill TV] pTj
3 ^P
< < P
E"* pu p
pq
^( t*
M
13


&3
^K
*jgj
H



























H
I's
< co
r-t
H H
CD O
-^ o
o -Cx
H



c
o
H
-P
0 -P
3 w
M 0
-P O
CO
G
o
u


-p
C

1
O
ft
3 '&
H 
3 4)
H -P
O W
> CO
&

t)
}
O
CO

g
*\
CM



69-





8
q^

ir\



69-




-P
G
S
-P
CD
-P
to
t)
G
O
V
4)




UA
q




H
CO
ft
H
O
H


S














g

*s
0
jfe{
o
,0
CO
O
o
5

8
Ox
\
-d"









8
*\
vO








-P
G
S
-p
CO
-P
CO
d
c
o
CJ
tt)
CO




ON
q




H
CD
ft
H
O
H

3
jsj











rrt
S

oT
H
H
H
^
CO
f-l
tt)
^
CO
ts

8
*^
OO
^j-








8
o

R
CM



>
to ir\
doo
G r-l
O G CO
0 -H >
0) CO O
co -p a
.  4>
4-1 O H
O
O Q
-P -P o
c m
Ql -P
a G -P
4) tt) C

O -P O
H CD
ft 4) H
H -P ft





CO
CM



rH
0)
ft
H
O
H


S













o
S

v
r^J
O
H
4
4)
tt>
^
fe

O
8
\
-*









o
8

o
CM




-P
C
tt>

t-l
fc
MH
4)
O
C
O
H
P
CO
G
H
*H
O
r-l
O

<^
H
CO
CD 4^
-^" O
^^x



H
OD
ft
H
0
H





CO


\
H
I O
W O
4> &
4) t)
J CO

s 4^
CM O
3 H
^1 O
co X
4) O
^1 ^j
tJ
*C3 *^
-H ttO
^ %

sk .O

o
\
V0









o
8

R



G
:
co co
d G
C -H
O H
0 O
4) H
to ,G
O
G
H *d
-p co -P
C G
D -P tt)
4) tt) H

O -P 4n
fH CO tt>
M -P O




vD
H




H
CO
ft
H
0
H

















CO

*\
C
o
d
c

w

*

o











o
8

oo"








+>
c

.p
co
tt)
-p
H
co

g
O
o
4)
CO



UA
H
q




Jd M
H G
H -H
S CO
09
* 0)
 O
rd O
C ^
M PH








s 
SN 1^
H !
H
co "
P 4)
H
M H
a -H
H ^
CO CO
Eb C
0

4) >>
H CO
d r-5

K
T
o o
o^o^

OAOO
CO CM








O
8

oo
H


n i
H-SJ
CO -P ft
-d G
C 4) -P
O 0 G
O tt)
tt) h 0
CO tt)
ft H^-v
4-1 tt) H
O ITN ft a>
CT\ >
4) -P 4)
a c  H
tt) tt) H
> S CD CO
0 -P > 3
(H CO O f-i
ft tt) a o
a H 4) .a
M -P H ft





CM
r-l




^1
CO
p
H
G
CD
CO




0
E-i

CO

08

t)0
G
H
-P
co
4)
H

CO
rl
C
H
bO
H
*H
t>
nr-- 15
O
o
* \
CM C~-

ft Q Q
o ir\ tt)
ON " JH
G co co
4) -P > 3
a G Q H
4> tt> S O
J> JH ^ c^
O I "^ JH Qi
h CO CO
M -P  ft





-*
^*-
H


03
ft
H
O
H

^
;g







CD


A
^>
4^
c
3
O
O

G
O
+3
bO
G
H
H
fn




*
tt>
-P
co
G
4>
-P
rH
CO

d
0)
0)
0)

ft

tt>
s
CO
H

CO
H
A
rl
\
0)
H
^>
H
CO
CO
tt>


CO
^H
0)
-p
CO
^}
CO

iaO
H 
-P H
CO K)
H >
^5 
w
R rH
0
H m
 ft
CO
-p
CH G
O tt)
t)
G
O H
.H 4)
CO ft
G
4) Q
-P CTs
X
4) CH
O
4)
H -P
4) CO
.5 o
S o
* *
*

-------
















jaj
H
*"")
h-3
fr^J


W Pi
H 3
O 35 25
*O PQ PQ
g 
4p PJ
C CO 
w! ^5
H W ft
28 < si
6n &3 t*^
C
H
n
a
jQ
3
iS
IS
p^























-p
ca/~s
O w
0 Vi
At _L 1
*Q r~l
3 o

H
P
O -P
d at
ri O
-P O
C
o
0



4)
a
4)
!>
O
h

H TJ
4)
P tJ
G 4)
4) 4)
3 555
4J
CO

o H
0)s^
3 4)
H -P
O CO
*
CH
O 4>
-p
4* 03
ft co

-1







G
O
H
-P

rl
H
0
PL)

t^_j
4)
O

3
0
CO
*
^^
o
o
o
cTcT
r^O^
o
o
o^

o
o

v*r

-69-
>9 -P
H G
CO -P 4>
tf C O
G 4)
O 0 h-'-*
0 4 i-l

CO 4) >
p4 C^ O
CM CT\ 3
O IfN 4
 -P ^ 
i G g ^
4) 4) S O
^ 3 4) *G
O -P h ft
H as co
H -P W ft

IA
r-l
 +'
M G
CO -P OJ
38
O 0 r<*-^
ej 4) H
4 M ft 
CO ) t>
ft CD Q
CM CT\ 3
O IfN 4)
CT\ *^ N
43 * 	 ^ i 1
C CO to
3 < O FH
0) Q) S O
^ CJ ^) ^j
O 4^ H ft
M CO CO

CM
OO
H


H
CO
ft
H
O
<>M













0
CO
>
n
(0

!
CO

A)
H
ill

O O O O O O
80 o o o o
o o o o o
OO i-l O C~- Q O
s  ^ CM H
8 8 8
C) CD O
\ *\ *\
vO f- ir\
v) CM oo
1
,4"


> -p
M G
CO -P 4)
T G 0
G 0)
O t) l*s~.
t) 41 rH
4> M ft CO
CO 4) >
p^f O O
CM CT\ 3
o tr\ 4>
ON *> h
+>  	 . H
G co co
4) -P !> d
S C Q ^
4) 4) S O
> S 4) ,G
O -P H ft
M CO D9
H -P W ft
CM ON \>
CM O O\



H
CO
ft
H
J
H




4>
4>

O
*>
W bO
CO G
JS iH
4> -P ^
CO co G 4)
-P P 4)
>, G  M 4)
-P CO O -P
G rH 4) 0)
7 pLf rH 4) C)0
O -P 3 -P
o H -p U) ta
CO H O 4)
9 J p *
R i l"i.
^ QQ  o o
H H rH CM OO
CO Q
J.J.J. - ID

S
vo"

g
^^
S
LTN
00




-P
G
4)
CM
^H
4>

*+-!
o
G
O
H
-P
CO
G
H
H
O
rH
o
H
CM CO
o 43
OO O
EH

-j
H
eo >
ft >>
H  -P
0 aj H
H ' > O
JcO
^> *v CQ
fi *"
S """" h
> 3 O H
0 O1 S J8
-P 0 CQ S
WO tD
H O 	
^ O -P
pq 60 co
v o pj
irt o> +> cfl =rl  
Jg i| rj ^> j*-^ CO CO 4)
**  O rH * ^% O * 4)
CQ Tj fG PHS CQ CO ^r* *^ *rt rH
P r^ O G i^ f\ 0E rH
fl CO  Q OJ v_- T3 U O
bD ^ CO CO ^ G CO * O
^HT3rH> H -C( 03 0) C
4)COH 4)rHrHWSl
ffi 0) co ^bflcbsoco o-
apCjW'O iHMrHHp>9
O Cfl.r44)[iy COnOfn
C C w H w psxHhaJ
cOOcOfQOGcOGcO^
OH4^cOfrJhS^OG
PtJGGOrHD'OrHO 
OG-HJ)OJ}H2H
O

4
4>
ft

^^
cr\
4-4
0

4^
CO
o
O


*

-------
-o
 I
H
P
 O
O
              CO

              m
fc

o
                          O  ca
                         O
                             CO
                             H
                          C
                          O
                         H
                         -P
                          O  -P
                          3  w
                          h  O
                         -P  O
                          CO
                          G
                          O
                         o
H  0)
   O
P  0)
C  4)

I S
-P
CO
CJ
                         O  0)
                            -P
                         CP  CO
                             G
                             O
                            H
                            -P
                             3
                             O
                            PHI
                             O
                            03
                                                                                                                 Ill  -   17
                         O
                         O
                                       oo
                         O
                         CM
                                      -ce-
                                       -P
                                        CO
                                        S-i
                                       -p
 
 o
 
-------
                                                       Ill - 18
                             TABLE V

              FLOW REGULATION FOR WATER QUALITY CONTROL
  Location
Responsibility
           Need
Bloomington, Md.
Staunton, Va<
Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers
North Branchs Potomac -
Storage to provide
supplemental flow for
water quality control.

Middle River - Storage
to provide supplemental
flow for water quality
control
                             TABLE VI

               SPECIAL STUDIES NEEDED IN THE BASIN
  Location
Responsibility
           Need
Potomac - North
  Branch
(Bloomington Area)
Potomac - North
  Branch
(Cumberland Area)
Potomac - North
  Branch
FWPCA and State
of Maryland
Local Industries
Bureau of Mines,
FWPCA, and State
of Maryland
1 Study effects of pro-
   posed Bloomington
   Reservoir on downstream
   water quality.
2 Investigate methods of
   controlling mineral
   contents in the pro-
   posed Reservoir.

Study feasibility of the
need for the existing low
dam in the river and
possibility for its removal
after the Bloomington
Reservoir is constructed,

Continue studies to find
practical solutions to
mine drainage pollution.

-------
                                                          Ill  -  19
   Location
    TABLE VI (Continued)

Responsibility	
              Need
Middle River and
  South River
(Staunton and
 Waynesboro Areas)
Potomac - Little
  Falls to Hallowing
  Point

Basin-wide
FWPCA and Corps
of Engineers
FWPCA, State of
Virginia, District
of Columbia

FWPCA, District of
Columbia, States of
Virginia, Maryland,
Pennsylvania and
West Virginia
Evaluate proposed waste
diversion plans for area
wastes in connection with
proposed Middle River flow
augmentation project.

Evaluate alternative
methods for improving
water quality in the area.

Assimilative capacity
studies, and chemical and
bacteriological sampling
programs to provide data
for comprehensive planning
studies.
                               TABLE VII
   Location
             INSTITUTIONAL PRACTICES NEEDED IN THE BASIN
Responsibility
              Need
Basin-wide
Basin-wide
Basin-wide
Federal, State and
Local Governments
State and Local
Governments
State and Local
Governments
Consider establishment of
a Basin-wide Water Resources
Management Authority

Enhance waste treatment
plant operator efficiency
by greater emphasis on
operator training schools.

Strengthen waste treatment
plant inspection and
surveillance programs.

-------
                                                       Ill - 20






     C.  Recent Progress in Pollution Control




         Between 1956 and 1960, the U. S.  Public Health Service




conducted a major study of water quality problems in the Potomac




River Basin.  Since that time there have been significant improve-




ments in waste disposal practices throughout the Basin which have




been the result of an increasing awareness of pollution hazards




at the local level, stricter control of pollution at state level,




publicity (regarding water pollution problems) by INCOPOT, and




the strengthening of the enforcement and grants programs at the




Federal level.




         Among the many improvements are:




         (l)  The construction of the waste disposal facility of




              the Upper Potomac River Basin Commission, which treats




              much of the waste from the West Virginia Pulp and




              Paper Company.,




         (2)  Completion of the Cumberland sewage treatment plant




              and connection to it of sewerage from suburban areas.




         (3)  Expansion of the Hagerstown sewage treatment plant.




         (4)  The construction of waste stabilization ponds at




              numerous small communities.




         (5)  Formation of the Occoquan-Woodbridge Sanitary District.




         (6)  Expansion of treatment plant facilities and inter-




              ceptor sewer systems in the  Washington metropolitan




              area.

-------
                                                         Ill  - 21






        These improvements in waste disposal procedures  have  caused




a general improvement of water quality in the Potomac  River Basin




above tidewater.  The upper Estuary near Washington, however,  is




as seriously degraded as it was during the last decade.

-------
                                                         IV - 1






IV.  GENERAL BASIN DESCRIPTION




        The Indian name Potomac, in the Algonkian tongue, means




"something brought" ors by freer translations, "place where




tribute is brought".  By any of its many phonetic variations,




the name appropriately identifies the river at the threshold of




our nation's capital where it is imperative that its waters be




maintained at the highest possible quality.




        George Washington had observed the natural advantages of




this location for the new Federal City at the junction of the




great coastal road from north to south and at the head of the




deep water Estuary in which the largest ocean sailing ships




could navigate.  From this site, the road westward led over the




mountains to the Ohio River Valley; later a great canal would




carry the commerce of the day.  When Captain John Smith explored




the river in 1608 he remarked on the abundance and variety of




fish found, and while fish can still be found in most of the basin,




their numbers are fewer and the less pollution-tolerant species




have survived by migrating to more favorable environments.




        The early settlers found the moderate climate, well




distributed rainfall, and fertile soils of the Coastal Plain ideal




for the agriculture which rapidly became the basis for the economy.




The Estuary provided the artery for the shipping of tobacco.




Alexandria and Port Tobacco were thriving ports and vessels ascended




the Anacostia River to Bladensburg to load tobacco.  Poor farming

-------
                                                        IV - 2






practices depleted the soil, and excessive erosion silted up the




formerly navigable water so that navigation is maintained to this




day only by extensive dredging   Major port facilities no longer




exist, a result of sediment deposits in the upper Estuary and




its tributaries.




        No large industrial centers exist in the lower reaches




of the Basing however, flourishing industries can be found in the




upper reaches and on the major tributaries.  In this respect,




the promise of industrial development predicated on the flow of




iron, coal, and lumber downstream to the Federal City was not




realized.  Agriculture continued to be the economic base for the




lower river area until displaced by the increased magnitude and




scope of Federal government activities which provided the basis




for growth of the greater Washington metropolitan area into the




Potomac's largest population center of some two million.  This




represents two-thirds of the total Potomac River drainage basin




population of three million people.




        The Potomac River drains several geophysical provinces,




finding its source in the Allegheny plateau and passing through




the Valley and Ridge division where lumber and coal from the




upstream areas provided the incentive for industrial development.




The river crosses the Great Valley and then the Blue Ridge.  The




largest tributary, the Shenandoah, drains an area where agricultural




and industrial development contribute their share to the silt and




pollution problem.  The Potomac  then drains the rolling hills and

-------
                                                        iv - 3





valleys of the Piedmont which was historically second only to the



Coastal Plain in agriculture.  The Fall Line dividing the two



provinces passes through Washington and was, until development



of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, the limiting factor in water



transportation in the Basin.



        The Potomac has a drainage area of some lU,700 square



miles and, from its source near the Fairfax Stone at the headwaters



of the North Branch, flows approximately UOO miles to its confluence



with Chesapeake Bay.  The river drains parts of the States of



West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and the District



of Columbia and has been the site of many important events in the



nation's history.

-------
                                                          V - 1






V.   BACKGROUND FOR RECOMMENDATIONS




     A.  Pertinent Basin Characteristics




         The headwaters of the Potomac lie on the eastern slopes




of the Allgeheny Plateau, and its major upland tributaries drain




a region of narrow, steep mountain valleys.  In its upper reaches




the Potomac, as it cuts its way toward the Chesapeake Bay through




the heart of the Appalachian Range, is a series of pools and




rapids during low runoff periods and a turbulent, plunging torrent




during flood periods.  These characteristics produce wide variation




in waste assimilation capacities and in the downstream distances




traveled by pollutants from their points of discharge to where




adequate recovery has occurred.




        The Shenandoah River and the Potomac below its confluence




with the Shenandoah are wide, smoothly flowing streams with only




occasional stretches of rapids appearing as they flow through the




Great Valley and the rolling terrain of the Piedmont.  During




low flow periods these rivers are calm and clear, but heavy pre-




cipitation and high run-off transport large silt loads from farm-




lands draining into this reach.




        The Fall Line, that zone where the river plunges from




the rolling hills of the Piedmont to the relatively flat Coastal




Plain extends from Great Falls to the head of tidewater and brings




about a reversion to the same flow characteristics found in the




headwaters.  This reach of the river is a favorite run for Whitewater




canoeing enthusiasts.

-------
                                                          V - 2






        Near Washington, D. C., the Potomac reaches sea level,




and its movement from here to the Chesapeake Bay is influenced




predominantly by the semi-diurnal tides of the Atlantic Coast




except during flood flows.  The rapid oscillatory tidal flows




cause thorough mixing of the water with treated effluents dis-




charged into the upper tidal reaches, but the net movement of




water toward the sea is relatively slow because of the large




water volumes in the Estuary.  As a consequence, wastes discharged




near the head of tidewater and those reaching the tidal waters




from upstream discharges all affect water quality in the upper




reaches of the Estuary.  The Washington metropolitan area, which




has the greatest population density in the basin, is concentrated




at the head of tidewater and is the major source of pollution




problems in the entire Potomac River basin.




     B0  Present Water Quality Problems




         1.  The North Branch Potomac River




             a.  Above Savage River




         From near its source, the North Branch is polluted by




acid mine drainage.  The primary source of this pollutant is the




abandoned coal mine at Kempton, Maryland, from which drainage




enters the North Branch only a few miles from its source.  Acid




mine drainage flows into the North Branch from numerous other




operations between its source and confluence with the Savage




River at Luke, Maryland.  Some pollution from coal washing plants




is also evident.  The untreated domestic sewage discharged by

-------
                                                          V - 3






the scattered small communities and individual residences all




along the North Branch cause no significant degradation in water




quality.




         The North Branch watershed above Luke is unsuitable for




large municipal or industrial development because of the steepness




of the valleys and the inaccessibility of the region.  Acid mine




drainage has had its detrimental effects on aquatic life, and




fishing in these waters is virtually non-existent.




         Water quality of the North Branch in this reach is




characterized by low pH values (often less than k), high total




solids (often in excess of 200 mg/l), DO values near saturation,




and, due to the toxic effects of the acid, low BOD values (usually




around 1 mg/l).




         The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers has been authorized to




construct a dam on the North Branch at Bloomington which will




significantly decrease acidity in the river below the dam.




         Modern technology has not as yet developed an economically




feasible method of resolving a basin-wide acid mine drainage




pollution problem.  Studies presently under way may provide a




practical solution to this problem in the North Branch.




         An immediate corrective action program for this reach




should include a study of the effects of the proposed Bloomington




Dam and an investigation of possible means of controlling the




mineral content of water in the reservoir and discharges therefrom.

-------
                                                          V - U






As an example, aeration of water in the reservoir could precipitate




iron and manganese salts, thus reducing acid mine drainage pollution




downstream.




         At Kitzmiller, Maryland, secondary sewage treatment




should be provided for all sanitary effluents.




             b.   Savage River to New Creek




         In the Luke-Westernport Area, the North Branch receives




its first major discharges of industrial and municipal wastes.




These wastes originate from the West Virginia Pulp and Paper




Company, small industries, the municipalities of Luke, Piedmont,




and Westernport, and a series of small communities discharging




to Georges Creek, which also receives some acid mine drainage.




About 80 per cent of the total BOD load from paper mill waste




discharges is treated at the Upper Potomac River Commission




Waste Treatment Plant at Westernport where about 85 per cent




BOD removal is attained.  Part of the paper mill wastes (10,000




pounds BOD per day) is untreated, and there are occasional spills




of paper plant waste which alone have been observed to double




the average BOD  load to the stream (normally 15,000 pounds per




day) .




         Water quality in this reach of the North Branch is




degraded by organic and mineral pollutants.  The acid mine




drainage from upstream is effectively neutralized by the alka-




line industrial discharges in the reach, although occasional

-------
                                                         V - 5






low pH values are observed.  However, high concentrations of iron




and sulfates as well as other mineral constituents remain in the




river.  At low and moderate river flows highly colored paper mill




wastes can be observed with accompanying BOD values commonly




above 20 mg/1.  These high BOD values are associated with low DO




concentrations, and at the minimum flow of 93 cfs at Luke DO




readings have been close to zero.  The proposed Bloomington Dam




will allow minimum flows of about 250 cfs which, using present




average waste loadings at Luke-Westernport, will reduce the




maximum BOD in this reach to less than 10 mg/1 and increase the




minimum DO to greater than 5 mg/1.  However, even after construction




of the dam, color and suspended solids will remain high though




pH should range between 6 and 8, and alkalinity at approximately




200 mg/1.  Limited coliform data in this reach show MPN values




of ^30 organisms per 100 ml.




          BOD values approaching 10 with high suspended solids




and color will prevent this reach of the North Branch from meeting




even the minimum water quality standards of INCOPOT or MDWR.




          Thus, additional treatment of industrial wastes from




the West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company and extension of the




sanitary sewage system connected to the Upper Potomac River Basin




Commission waste treatment facility will be required for the




communities discharging into Georges Creek and should reduce waste




loadings to the stream so that the North Branch will meet INCOPOT




standards for Class C streams and MDWR standards for Class B streams.

-------
                                                          V - 6






        Immediate pollution control action requirements for this



reach of the North Branch are as followss



        (l)  Elimination of the present untreated industrial



        waste discharges from the West Virginia Pulp and Paper



        Company by connecting the outfalls to an enlarged UPKBC



        Waste Treatment Facility or provision of other secondary




        waste treatmento



             After completion of the Bloomington Dam, a resurvey



        of this reach of the North Branch should be made to



        determine the actual effect of the Bloomington Reservoir



        on water qualitys particularly with respect to the acid



        mine drainage problem.



        (2)  Elimination of untreated domestic sewage discharges



        from the communities of Bordon Shaft, Midland, Lonaconing,



        and Barton, either by connection to the UPRBC facilities



        or by construction and operation of a secondary sewage



        treatment plant to serve them.



        (3)  Provision of settling at the Consolidation Coal



        Company plant to remove coal fines and silt before discharge



        from washing operations



             Provision of taste and odor control measures at the



        UPRBC plant to remove objectionable materials from effluents



        discharged into the stream

-------
                                                          V - 7

            c.  New Creek to Wills Creek
        From Keyser, West Virginia, to Cumberland, Maryland, the
North Branch flows through a valley and flood plain wide enough
to allow additional municipal and industrial development.  The
river in this reach is still noticeably degraded in quality from
the paper plant wastes and in addition receives a major industrial
waste load as well as several small municipal sewage effluents.
        The Town of Keyser provides intermediate sewage treatment
and discharges 1.0 mgd of effluent containing about 800 pounds
per day of BOD,  Other municipal waste discharges in this reach
are quite small.
        At Amcelle, Maryland, the Celanese Fibers Company dis-
charges about 15,000 pounds per day BOD of inadequately treated
process wastes, together with an average of Uo mgd of cooling
water.
        The Kelly-Springfield Tire Company and the Potomac Edison
Company at Cumberland discharge a total of about 3.5 mgd of
cooling water, but no process wastes, to the North Branch immediately
above a low dam on the river at Cumberland.
        Water quality in the River between Keyser and Amcelle
reflects the impact of the large industrial waste load entering
at and below Luke.  There is no noticeable additional degradation
of water quality, resulting from waste effluents, between Keyser
and Amcelle since these loads are relatively insignificant in
comparison to waste loads discharged upstream.

-------
                                                          V - 8






        The very low DO values in this reach are attributed to




accidental spills at the West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company.




Under present low flow conditions, minimum DO values of about




k mg/1 and BOD values between 10 and 20 mg/1 are typical at




Keyser.  Suspended solids concentrations over 200 mg/1 (20 per




cent volatile) are also typical at this point.  The Bloomington




Dam should reduce the BOD values to an average of less than 7




and suspended solids to about 100 mg/1; DO values should be




above 6 with average loadings.  With the recommended increase




in waste treatment at the West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company




and flow augmentation from the Bloomington Dam, water quality




at the beginning of this reach of the North Branch should,




except for color, meet MDWR stream standards for Class B streams




and INCOPOT standards for Class C streams.




        Just above Amcelle the North Branch should, under these




conditions, meet MDWR standards for Class A streams and INCOPOT




standards for Class B streams.




        The waste effluents from the Celanese Fibers Company



at Amcelle have a pronounced effect on water quality in the




North Branch.  An increase in BOD of 15 mg/1, a decrease in DO




of 5 mg/1, and an increase in temperature of 5 degrees Centigrade




were all observed at present low flow conditions.  An increase




of 90,000 in the coliform MPN has also been observed at Amcelle.

-------
                                                          V - 9






        From Amcelle to the low dam at Cumberland,  water quality




in the North Branch is extremely poor.  BOD values  of 10 to 20




mg/1 are associated with almost total depletion of  DO and water




temperatures k - 6 degrees higher than those above  Amcelle.




        With present loads discharged by the Celanese Fibers




Company, the increase in flow provided by the Bloomington Reservoir




should lower BOD values below Amcelle to 5 to 10 mg/1.  Even




with this flow augmentation, however, conditions in the Cumberland




pool will be nearly as bad as they are under present conditions




because of high temperatures in the Cumberland pool and settling




out of suspended solids and sludge behind the Dam and in the




reach below Amcelle.




        Increased waste treatment by the Celanese Fibers Company,




sufficient to reduce their waste load to 2,000 pounds per day




of BOD, would maintain minimum DO at Cumberland at  about 4 mg/1




with BOD averaging 5 mg/1.  Disinfection is needed  to control




coliform organisms.  Other water quality parameters will be




adequate to classify this reach as MDWR Class B or  INCOPOT Class




D.




        Recommendations for immediate action are:




        (l)  Increased waste treatment at the Celanese Fibers




        Company with BOD removal of 90 per cent and disinfection




        of the effluent is required.

-------
                                                         V - 10






        (2)  The low dam forming the Cumberland Pool was




        originally built as a feeder dam for the C & 0 Canal




        and is now used to provide an adequate water supply for




        the Kelly-Springfield and Potomac Edison cooling water




        requirements  With increased minimum flows to be pro-




        vided by the proposed Bloomington Reservoir, the Cumber-




        land low dam may no longer be necessary for this purpose.




        Since this dam has a pronounced detrimental effect on




        water quality in the North Branch at Cumberland, con-




        sideration should be given to its removal  A feasibility




        study to examine the need for this dam and the possibility




        for its removal should be carried out




        (3)  Chlorination of all treatment plant effluents




        entering this reach is required,




            d  From Wills Creek to South Branch




        Wills Creek joins the North Branch in Cumberland where




it transports small amounts of untreated municipal sewage from




communities on its watershed, small amounts of acid mine drainage,




and settled effluents from two sand and gravel washing operations.




Water quality at the mouth of Wills Creek does not meet the




minimum requirements for INCOPOT Class D streams because of BOD




concentrations higher than 5 mg/1 and falls into MDWR Class C




because of high BOD and coliform bacteria counts over 10,000 per




100 ml.  A sewer to divert part of the sewage from Frostburg to

-------
                                                          V - 11






the Cumberland Sewage Treatment Plant is under construction which




should reduce the stream load in Wills Creek sufficiently to




enable it to meet IHCOPOT Class D and MDWR Class B standards.




        Below the confluence with Wills Creek, the North Branch




receives untreated sewage from about 1,000 persons in Ridgeley,




West Virginia, and three miles farther downstream receives the




primary effluent from the Cumberland Sewage Treatment Plant.




Seven miles farther downstream, the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company




discharges about 2 mgd of treated industrial wastes and about U




mgd of sanitary wastes after primary treatment




        Water quality in the reach immediately below Cumberland




is degraded by gross organic pollution,  BOD values of 5 - 10 mg/1




and DO  1 to k mg/1 are common.  Coliform bacteria counts in




excess of 10,000 per 100 ml are common near the head of this




reach, and below the Cumberland Sewage Treatment Plant outfall




counts averaging over ^00,000 have bean observed.




        At Oldtown, just above the confluence with the South




Branch Potomac River, water quality has improved significantly.




Average BOD values of about 2 mg/1 and DO concentrations of 6




mg/1 are found, and coliform counts average 2,300 per 100 ml.




At this point, the North Branch meets INCOPOT Class C stream




standards and MDWR Class B standards.




        Major contributing factors to water quality degradation




in this reach are residual waste loads from upstream and municipal

-------
                                                         V - 12

sewage discharges at Cumberland with the low dam at Cumberland
an important factor in the low DO values found.  This entire
reach could meet INCOPOT Class C criteria and MDWR Class B
criteria by implementing the recowmendations for immediate action
in the reaches above Cumberland and by providing efficient
secondary treatment of municipal sewage with disinfection at
Cumberland.
        With flow augmentation from the Bloomington Reservoir
and removal of the low dam at Cumberland, this entire reach
would meet the MDWR criteria for Class A streams.
        Recommendations for immediate action ares
            Provision of secondary sewage treatment at Cumber-
land ; connection of the Ridgeley discharge to the Cumberland
plant is under construction.
        2.  The South Branch Potomac River
        This River is one of the least polluted streams in the
Potomac River Basin receiving small amounts of municipal sewage
from Petersburg, Moorefield and Romney, all of which provide
secondary treatment.  Industrial wastes from two tanneries and
a poultry processing plant in the Moorefield Area are treated
by lagooning.  Where the South Branch joins the North Branch,
the water is of high quality with DO values at 80 per cent or
higher of saturation, BOD less than 3 mg/1 and coliform counts
generally less than 2,000 per 100 ml.  At this point it meets
INCOPOT Class C criteria and MDWR Class A criteria.

-------
                                                         V - 13






        There are no needs for immediate action in this sub-basin.




        3.  Potomac River, South Branch to Conococheague Creek




        This reach of the Potomac has slightly degraded water




quality at present near its upper limit as a result of the loads




received from the Luke to Cumberland reach.  There are no major




municipal or industrial waste discharges.  Untreated municipal




waste from Berkeley Springs, West Virginia (population 1,1^0),




untreated cannery waste (seasonal operation), and settled sand




washing waste enter via Warm Springs Run opposite Hancock,




Maryland.  Treated and untreated municipal sewage from Hancock




is discharged to Tonoloway Creek, which receives a total loading




of about 80 pounds of BOD per day.  No other significant sources




of waste enter the Potomac in this reach.




        With the upstream improvements in waste disposal recommended




earlier in this report and with secondary treatment provided at




Berkeley Springs, this entire reach of the Potomac should meet




INCOPOT Class B and MDWR Class A criteria.




        Recommendations for immediate action are provision of




secondary treatment for the Berkeley Springs municipal sewage




and for the food processing wastes from the Aulabaugh Brothers




Cannery




        4.  Potomac River, Conococheague Creek to the Shenandoah




        Conococheague Creek in Pennsylvania receives waste loads




from several municipal and industrial sources, all of which have

-------
                                                          v - lU






at least secondary treatment, and two of which provide advanced



waste treatment.  The Conococheague is of good quality as it



enters Maryland based on the somewhat limited data available.




Dissolved oxygen values are greater than 6.5 uig/l an<* % values



are less than 1.5 rag/I-  There are, however, taste and odor-producing



substances present.



        A tannery at Williamsport uses water from Conococheague



Creek and discharges about .08 mgd of wastes to the Creek after



primary treatment.  Just above its mouth at Williamsport, the



Conococheague has a BOD of 1 mg/1, DO of 9 mg/1 and coliform



counts of 600 MPN per 100 ml, although the tannin present causes



taste and odor problems.



        Conococheague Creek apparently meets MDWR Class A stream



criteria over much of its course, although detailed data are



lacking and it meets INCOPOT Class C stream standards at its mouth.



        The Potomac above and below Williamsport meets INCOPOT



Class C criteria and MDWR Class A criteria.  Waste loads entering



the Potomac in this vicinity are minor and receive at least



primary treatment.



        Opequon Creek and its tributaries receive 2.5 mgd of



secondary sewage effluent from Winchester, Virginiaj 2 mgd of



untreated industrial wastes from the 0'Sullivan Rubber Company



in Winchester; .kk mgd of primary-treated industrial wastes from



the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company at Middleway,

-------
                                                         V - 15






West Virginias 03 mgd of intermediate treated canning wastes




from the Musselman Canning Company at Inwood, West Virginia^




2.5 sngd of secondary sewage effluent from Martinsburg, West




Virginia; and a total of approximately CK75 mgd of untreated




industrial wastes from the National Fruit, Interwoven, Standard




Lime and Stone, and Blair Limestone Companies at Martinsburgo




        Between Winchester and Martinsburg, Opequon Creek has




had high coliform counts (255000 per 100 ml) but no other evidence




of water quality degradation.  Below Martinsburg, coliform counts




in excess of 10,000 per ml, BOD of 3 to 5 mg/1, and DO values




observed as low as 35 mg/l  Throughout its course this Creek




does not meet IHCOPOT criteria for Class D streams or MDWR




criteria for Class C streams.




        At Shepherdstown, West Virginia, there is a slight




degradation of water quality in the Potomac River due to wastes




entering from Opequon Greek and from Sharpsburgs Maryland, which




discharge some 05 mgd of primary sewage effluent four miles




above Shepherdstown0  Occasional DO values below k mg/1 cause




the Potomac to be classified INCOPOT Class D and MDWR Glass B




at this point  Shepherdstown discharges about 0.15 mgd of un-




treated sewage and the Meere Sand and Gravel Company discharges




about 0.29 Big
-------
                                                         v - 16






        The Potomac receives no further waste loads until the




confluence of Antietam Creek.




        Antietam Greek in Pennsylvania receives a total of approxi-




mately 1.3 mgd of sewage from three communities, all of which




provide at least secondary treatment.  In Maryland this stream




or its tributaries receive both industrial and municipal wastes




in these amounts; Smithsburg, 0.09 && of primary sewage effluent;




North American Cement, 18.6 mgd of cooling water and untreated




wastes containing silt and clay fines; Hagerstown, 6 mgd of




secondary sewage effluent (a new plant is under construction);




Western Maryland Railroad, .05 mgd of secondary sewage effluent




and .33 mgd of settled engine and railroad car cleaning wastes;




Mullendore Slaughtering Company, .02 mgd of slaughtering wastes




after intermediate treatment; Fairchild Aircraft, O.l8 mgd of




secondary sewage effluent and 0.5 mgd of untreated plating wastes;




Funkstown, 0.08 mgd of secondary sewage effluent; Halfway, un-



treated sewage from more than 2,500 persons (a waste stabilization




lagoon is under construction)j Maryland State Reformatory and




Boonsboro, a total of 0,12 mgd of secondary sewage effluent;




Keedysville, 0.05 mgd of untreated municipal sewage and Sharpsburg,




0.1 mgd of primary sewage effluent.




        As the Antietam Creek enters Maryland, it has a high DO




and low BOD, but coliform counts of 8,000/100 ml.  It, therefore,

-------
                                                         V - 17






falls into INCOPOT Class C and MDWR Class B at this point.  A




survey of the Antietam by the Maryland Department of Health in




1966 showed coliform counts greater than 2,500 per 100 ml




throughout its course in Maryland, with very high counts (in




excess of 100,000) below Hagerstown.  In 1958, DO values below




k mg/1 were observed in this reach of the stream.  Near the




mouth of Antietam Creek, coliform counts of 2,900 per 100 ml,




BOD of 1.3 mg/1 and DO values of 8.8 mg/1 were also observed




in 1958.  Recent coliform counts are consistent with these




results.  At its mouth Antietam Creek is rated INCOPOT Class C




and MDWR Class B because of the high coliform counts, but




through much of the reach below Hagerstown it is of lower quality.




        There are no water quality data available on the Potomac




between the confluence of Antietam Creek and that of the Shenan-




doah, but this reach is probably of the same quality as the




reach above it, that is, INCOPOT Class D and MDWR Class B.




        The upstream improvements recommended previously should




bring water quality in the Potomac River high enough at the




head of this reach to meet INCOPOT Class B and MDWR Class A




standards.  To bring this entire reach of the Potomac to the




same water quality, the following initial pollution abatement




measures are recommended for:




        1.  W. D. Byron Company, Winiamsport, Maryland: Color




        removal from tannery wastes.

-------
                                                         v - 18


        2.  Williamsport, Maryland:  Chlorination of primary

        sewage effluent.*

        3.  E. ! DuPont deNemours and Company, Falling Waters,

        West Virginias  Separation of floating and settleable solids

        from explosives manufacturing wastes.

        k.  Winchester, Virginia;  Chlorination of secondary

        municipal sewage effluent.

        5.  O1Sullivan Rubber Company, Winchester, Virginia:

        Chlorination of primary sewage effluent.*

        6.  Middleway, West Virginia;  Chlorination of primary

        sewage effluent .*

        7.  Inwood, West Virginias  Secondary sewage treatment

        and Chlorination of effluent.

        8.  Kearneysville, West Virginia;   Secondary sewage

        treatment and Chlorination of effluent.

        9.  Martinsburg, West Virginia;  Chlorination of secondary

        municipal sewage effluent.

       10.  National Fruit Company:  Secondary treatment of

        sanitary and industrial wastes.

       11.  Interwoven Company;  Separation of floating and

        settleable solids from industrial wastes.

       12.  Standard Lime and Stone Company: Settling ponds for

        industrial wastes.
*  Initial Action - Secondary treatment should be considered in
     the near future

-------
                                                         V - 19

       13.  Corning Glass Works:   Settling ponds for industrial

        wastes.

       lU.  Shepherdstown, West Virginia:   Secondary treatment

        with chlorination of municipal sewage.

       15.  Smithsburg, Maryland:  Chlorination of primary

        municipal sewage effluent.*

       16.  North American Cement Company:  Settling ponds for

        industrial wastes.

       17.  Fairchild Aircraft Company:   Holding ponds and

        neutralization of industrial plating wastes.

       18.  Hagerstown, Maryland:  Improvement  of secondary

        sewage treatment facilities and chlorination of

        treatment plant effluent.

       19,  Funkstown, Halfway, Maryland State  Reformatory,

        Boonsboro, Sharpsburg, all in Maryland:  Disinfection

        of sewage treatment plant effluents.


        5.  The Shenandoah River

        The Shenandoah River and  its major tributaries drain

the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia and the western slopes of the

Blue Ridge.  The economy of the Area is based primarily on

farming and related food-processing industries.  There are

numerous small towns and seasonal canning and packing operations

in the upper part of the basin.  In the lower basin there is an

increasing amount of industrial development.
*  Initial Action - Secondary treatment should be considered in
     the near future.

-------

-------
                                                         V - 20






            a.  North Fork




        The North Fork Shenandoah River is west of the Massanutten




Mountains, draining the heart of the Shenandoah Valley.  All




except three of the industries and municipalities discharging




wastes to the North Fork provide the equivalent of at least




secondary treatment.  Mt. Jackson, Edinburg, and Virginia Valley




Processors, Incorporated, all provide primary treatment.   The




Valley Housing Corporation discharges about ,0k mgd of untreated




domestic sewage near Timberville.




        Water quality data on the North Fork are quite limited.




In 1960, before many of the existing treatment facilities were




operational, coliform values in excess of 10,000 per 100  ml




were observed from Broadway to below Edinburg.  From Woodstock




to Strasburg, coliform counts were less than 1,000, and near




the confluence with the South Fork a mean coliform count  of




2,^00 was observedo  The entire North Fork had DO values  of




nearly 100 per cent of saturation and BOD values of about 1 mg/1.




Water quality in this reach of the stream should meet INCOPOT




Class B stream standards if adequate chlorination of all  treatment




plant effluents is maintained.  However, additional water quality




studies should be made to determine further pollution control




action needed to enhance and protect water quality in the Area.




        Recommendations for immediate action in the North Fork




Shenandoah Basin ares

-------

-------
                                                         V - 21






        (l)  Chlorination of all sewage treatment plant effluents.




        (2)  Installation of secondary treatment with Chlorination




        of the effluent at the Valley Housing Corporation.






            b.  South Fork




        The South Fork of the Shenandoah River receives a large




concentration of municipal and industrial wastes from many




different sources in its headwater tributaries.  The small drainage




areas of the receiving streams and the concentration of waste




sources cause severe degradation of water quality in many of




the headwater streams,




        North River receives secondary sewage treatment plant




effluents from Dayton, Harrisonburg and the Packaging Corporation




of America, primary sewage effluent from Bridgewater, and .003




mgd of grain processing waste from the Rockingham Mill Company.




The Harrisonburg treatment plant is occasionally over-loaded by




poultry processing wastes.




        Recent water quality data on North River are lacking.




Data taken in 1960 showed high coliform and BOD values and low




DO in Black's Run, and high coliform counts (greater than 10,000)




in North River below the confluence of Black's Run.   BOD in




North River at this point averaged 1 mg/1 and DO values were




greater than 90 per cent of saturation

-------
                                                         V - 22






        To maintain in North River water quality compatible with




INCOPOT Class B stream standards, the following immediate actions




are recommended;




        (l)  Bridgewater;  Installation of secondary sewage




        treatment and chlorination of effluent.




        (2)  Dayton:  Chlorination of effluent.




        (3)  Harrisonburg;  Expansion of secondary sewage treat-




        ment plant facilities and chlorination of effluent.






        Middle River receives secondary sewage treatment plant




effluents from Staunton, Western State Hospital, Verona Sanitary




District, Skyland-Swannanoa and Mt. Sidney, primary waste effluents




from American Safety Razor Company, Woodrow Wilson School and




Grottoes Sand and Gravel Company, and untreated industrial wastes




from Augusta Dairies and Westinghouse Electric Company.




        Existing water quality data on this stream were obtained




before the Staunton and Verona secondary treatment plants were




in service.  At that time Lewis Creek, which receives sewage




from Staunton, was grossly polluted; but Middle River, near its




confluence with North River, met INCOPOT Class B stream standards




except for coliform counts which averaged about 1,100 per 100 ml




with values as high as 15,000.




        Action on the following recommendations should make water




quality in Middle River compatible with INCOPOT Class B stream




standards.

-------
                                                         V - 23


        (l)  Staunton, Western State Hospital, Verona Sanitary

        District, Woodrow Wilson School, Mt. Sidney, Skyland-

        Swannanoas  Chlorination of treatment plant effluents.

        (2)  Augusta Dairies;  Primary treatment of industrial

        wastes*

        (3)  Westinghouse Electric Company;  Primary treatment

        of industrial and sanitary wastes with Chlorination of

        effluent from sanitary wastes.*

        South River below Waynesboro receives massive loads of

municipal and industrial wastes  These loads are from Waynesboro,

E. I. DuPont deNemours and Company, and the Crompton-Shenandoah

Company, all of which provide secondary treatment.

        Present water quality in the South River below Waynesboro

is extremely poor.  BOD of 15 to 20 mg/1, DO of 0 mg/1, and

coliform counts of 119000 per 100 ml are typical.  Low flows in

this reach of South River are only slightly greater than the

volumes of ewage and industrial waste effluents discharged to

the stream in the vicinity of Waynesbcro.  Maintaining the South

River in INCOPOT Class D condition below Waynesboro would require

96 per cent treatment of all wastes entering th stream near

Waynesboro.  To achieve a higher water quality, such as INCOPOT

Class C or Bs essentially 100 per cent treatment of all wastes

would be required.
*  Initial Action - Secondary treatment should be considered
     in the near future

-------
                                                        V - 2k






        An alternate to this degree of treatment would be a low




flow augmentation dam on Middle River below Staunton which has




been proposed by The Corps of Engineers.  As part of this project,




it is proposed to divert sewage discharges from the Staunton Area




to Middle River below the dam and to divert wastes from the




Waynesboro Area to a point below the confluence of North and




South Rivers.  The interceptor sewers to accomplish this are




included as part of the project proposal.




        Construction of this project with the interceptor sewers




would provide water quality in the South River of INCOPOT Class B




quality, and additional industrial waste treatment at Waynesboro




will protect water quality in the South Fork below the po:nt of




interceptor discharge.




        Near the confluence of North and South Rivers, the Town




of Grottoes discharges untreated sewage from 969 people and the




Reynolds Metals Company discharges .00^ mgd of industrial wastes




after secondary treatment.




        The following immediate action recommendations are made




for the South River;




        (l)  Construction of the Corps of Engineers'  Staunton




        Bam  in the Waynesboro Area.




        (2)  E. I. DuPont deNemours and Company:  Improvement




        of secondary waste treatment to remove 90 per cent of




        the total BOD (56 per cent removal at present).

-------
                                                         V - 25






        (3)  Crompton-Shenandoali Company:  Improvement of secondary




        treatment to remove 90 per cent of the total BOD (k6




        per cent removal at present).




        (U)  Grottoes, Virginia:  Secondary sewage treatment has




        been proposed and should be provided.




        The South Fork at the confluence of North and South




Rivers, at present, meets INCOPOT Class B stream standards.  With




the recommended degrees of waste treatment in the Waynesboro




and Staunton Areas, water quality in the South Fork, at this




point, should still meet INCOPOT Class B criteria with the Staunton




Dam in operation.




        Further waste loads are discharged to the South Fork




near Elkton by Merck and Company, which provides secondary treat-




ment of 7-9 mgd with ?6 per cent BOD removal, and by the Town of




Elkton, providing primary sewage treatment.  The South Fork below




these discharges has slightly degraded water quality, DO values




of 6 mg/1, BOD of k mg/1, and coliform counts of 2,000 per 100 ml,




having been reported.  Implementation  of the recommendations for




the upstream reach and chlorination of waste discharges at Elkton




will maintain the reach below Elkton as an INCOPOT Class B stream.




        The Town of Shenandoah provides primary treatment of




0.7 mgd of municipal sewage.  Occasional BOD values of 5 nig/1




occur below this point, but the stream is otherwise compatible

-------
                                                         V - 26






with INCOPOT Class B stream standards.  These BOD values are




probably the result of residual upstream loadingss  since coliform




counts are consistently Iow0




        At Alma, the Rockingham Poultry Company discharges packing




house wastes after primary treatment.  No data are  available on




water quality in the South Fork below this discharge.  Water




quality immediately above the confluence of Hawksbill Creek,




about 10 miles below this plant, meets INCOPOT Class B stream




standards in all respects.




        Hawksbill Creek receives <,05 mgd of untreated sanitary




waste from Stanley, ,28 mgd of primary sewage effluent from




Luray, screened industrial wastes from Moyer Brothers Cannery,




and .28 mgd of lagooned tannery wastes from Virginia Oak Tannery.




Water quality in Hawksbill Creek is degraded by coliform counts




of approximately 10,000 per 100 ml but otherwise meets INCOPOT




Class B stream standards.




        Immediate pollution control action recommended for the




Hawksbill Creek Area is a minimum of primary treatment of all




waste effluents with adequate eblorination.  Secondary treatment




of all waste discharges should be considered in  the near future.




        In the vicinity of Front Royal, the South Fork receives




additional discharges of municipal and. industrial wastes.  Front




Royal discharges 0.85 mgd of primary municipal sewage effluent,




American Viscose Corporation discharges 13.5 ^gd of primary

-------
                                                         V - 27






industrial waste effluents, Allied Chemical Company discharges




O.l6 mgd of industrial wastes after neutralization of acid, Old




Virginia, Incorporated, discharges 0.10 mgd of untreated canning




wastes.  There are two additional small secondary treatment




plant discharges, totaling .06 mgd.  Recent BOD data on the




Shenandoah below these discharges are not available, but DO




values less than 50 per cent of saturation are commonly observed.




Coliform counts are well under 1,000 per 100 ml.




        Secondary treatment of all wastes entering the South




Fork at Front Royal should maintain the water quality in the




Shenandoah below Front Royal in INCOPOT Class B condition.




        Recommendations for immediate action in this reach are:




        (l)  Front Royal:  Provision of secondary treatment with




        chlorination of the effluent.




        (2)  American Viscose Corporation:  Secondary treatment




        of industrial and sanitary wastes.




        (3)  Old Virginia, Incorporated:  Secondary treatment




        of canning wastes.






            c.  Main Stem Shenandoah River




        Between Front Royal and the West Virginia state line,




Berryville discharges 0.25 mgd of secondary municipal sewage




effluents from an overloaded plant.  Water quality in the




Shenandoah just above the state boundary exhibits satisfactory




DO and coliform count characteristics for INCOPOT Class B streams,

-------
                                                         V - 28






but monthly average BOD values of 5 mg/1 have been observed.




The improvements recommended for the upstream Shenandoah and




expansion of treatment facilities at Berryville will maintain




the Shenandoah in INCOPOT Class B condition at the West Virginia




state line.




        In West Virginia the Shenandoah receives 0.38 mgd of




primary sewage effluents from Charles Town, 0.9 mgd of untreated




industrial wastes and .OOU mgd of primary treated sanitary




wastes from the Valley Board Company, settled industrial wastes




(1.13 mgd total) from U. S. Steel Corporation and Blair Limestone




Company, and O.lk mgd of untreated municipal waste (some septic




tanks) from Bolivar and Harper's Ferry.




        Water quality in this reach does not meet INCOPOT Class




B stream standards because of high BOD and coliform concentrations.




The Shenandoah, throughout the main stem, can be maintained as




an INCOPOT Class B stream by implementation of the recommendations




for upstream and these additional improvements:




        (l)  Berryville, Virginia:  Expansion of secondary treat-




        ment plant facilities and chlorination of the effluent.




        (2)  Charles Town, West Virginia:  Provision of secondary




        treatment with chlorination of the effluent.




        (3)  Valley Board Company at Halltown, West Virginia:




        Chlorination of primary treated sanitary waste and




        secondary treatment of industrial waste.

-------
                                                         V - 29






             Bolivar and Harper's Ferry, West Virginias  Secondary




        treatment of municipal wastes with chlorination of the




        effluent




        6.  Potomac River, Shenandoah t the Monocacy




        The reach of the Potomac River, below its confluence




with the Shen0ndoahs receives settled industrial waste effluent




from the B & 0 Railroad yards at Brunswick, Maryland, and primary




sewage effluent from the Town of Brunswicks Maryland  Below these




discharges, water in the Potomac has slightly increased BOD and




eoliform counts of about 6,000 per 100 ml.




        Catoctin Creek in Maryland discharges primary municipal




sewage effluents from Myersville (0,03 mgd) and Mlddletown (
-------
                                                         V - 30


Shenandoah and the Monocacy will meet INCOPOT Class B and MDWR

Class A stream standards.  Recommendations for improvement of

waste disposal in this reach are:

        (l)  Brunswick, Marylands  Construct new secondary plant

        at another location not subject to flooding.  Eliminate

        industrial waste discharges at railroad maintenance yard.

        (2)  Myersville, Maryland:  Chlorination of primary

        sewage treatment plant effluent.*

        (3)  Middletowns Maryland;  Chlorination of primary

        sewage treatment plant effluent.*

        (4)  Lovettsville, Virginia:  Provision of secondary

        sewage treatment and Chlorination of the effluent.


        7.  Monocacy. River

        The Monocacy River and its tributaries receive hi

separate waste discharges, 17 of which receive secondary or

better treatment, and 10 of which receive primary treatment.

The remainder receive little or no treatment,

        The major waste source in Pennsylvania is the Town of

Gettysburg, which provides secondary treatment; the plant is

overloaded during the tourist season.  Other wastes in Pennsyl-

vania receive at least secondary treatment.

        In Maryland, the Monocacy receives numerous fairly small

waste discharges with varying degrees of treatment.  The major
*  Initial Action - Provision of secondary treatment should be
     considered in"the near future.

-------
                                                         v - 31





waste loads (PE of 500 or more) entering the stream are from



A. W. Feeser Company at Emmitsburg with primary treatment, E,  J.



Nusbaum Company at Taneytown with screening of wastes,  A. W.



Feeser Company at Taneytown with primary treatment, Westminster



which has secondary municipal sewage treatment, Mt. Pleasant



Canning at Westminster with primary treatment, Joseph H. Weller



Company with no treatment, Yingling Brothers at Union Bridge



with no treatment, A. W. Feeser Company with primary treatment,



Western Maryland Dairy with no treatment, Howard Lotte  and



Company at Thurraont which has primary treatment, J. Austin Fraley



Company which lagoons its meat packing wastes, the Town of



Walkersville which has no sewage treatment, and the Town of



Frederick which has secondary treatment.



        The Monocacy is formed by the junction of Marsh Creek



and Pipe Creek at the Pennsylvania state line.  Rock Creek,



just above this point had an average BOD of U.6 mg/1 in 1958,



average DO of ^.5 mg/1, and coliform counts of 3,000 per 100 ml.



Rock Creek receives secondary sewage treatment plant effluents



from Gettysburg and Littlestown.  Little data, other than coli-



form counts, are available on tributaries of the Monocacy in



Maryland.  Total BOD loadings suggest that there is not, at




present, excessive organic loading of the major tributaries.



Coliform counts in 1966 as high as 50,000 were observed in Tom's



Creek (secondary effluent from Emmittsburg) and Big Hunting Creek

-------
                                                         V - 32






(secondary effluent from Thurmont).  The other tributaries had




coliform counts generally averaging less than 5,000, with the




majority of values about 2,000 per 100 ml.




        The main stem of the Monocacy above Frederick, based on




recent data, has coliform counts in excess of 2,000 per 100 ml




but otherwise meets INCOPOT Class B and MDWR Class A water




quality standards.




        Below Frederick, water quality in the Monocacy is severely




degraded.  DO values of 1 Kg/1, BOD of 3.1* mg/1, and coliform




counts of 2,^00,000 per 100 ml have been reported in recent years




several miles below the Frederick sewage outfall.  Near  the




mouth of the Monocacy, a distance of l6 miles below Frederick,




water quality in the stream has improved to such an extent that




only high coliform counts (those in excess of 10,000 per 100 ml)




prevent it from meeting INCOPOT Class B and MDWR Class A standards.




        Because of very low flow in Rock Creek, enhancement of




water quality in this stream can result only from increased




sewage treatment at Gettysburg and Littlestown.  Expansion of




sewage treatment facilities at these points should maintain Rock




Creek in INCOPOT Class C condition and MDWR Class A condition.




Disinfection of all sewage treatment plant effluents in the Basin




and provision of secondary treatment for all waste discharges is




the recommended immediate action needed to maintain water quality

-------
                                                         V - 33





in the Monocacy and its major tributaries, except for the reach



affected  by the waste effluent from Frederick, in INCOPOT Class



B and MDWR Class A condition.



        A major revision in waste disposal practices at Frederick



is required.  Stream data and other information available show



that the secondary sewage treatment plant at Frederick is not



producing a satisfactory effluent.  Efficient secondary sewage



treatment at Frederick will maintain water quality in the reach



of the Monocacy from Frederick to its mouth in INCOPOT Class B



and MDWR Class A condition



        The Monocacy carries a heavy silt load which comes pri-



marily from erosion of farm lands   Control of this type of



pollution can come only through application of soil conservation



techniques on the many farms in the Basin, and, therefore,



specific recommendations for immediate action cannot be made



to reduce this form of pollution.



        Specific recommendations for immediate action in the



Monocacy Biver Basin are as followss



        (l)  Gettysburg, Pennsylvania;  Expansion and improvement



        of present sewage treatment facilities to provide 97



        per cent removal of BOD and chlorination of the effluent.



        (2)  Littlestown, Pennsylvania?  Improvement of sewage



        treatment facilities to obtain 95 per cent removal of



        BOD and chlorination of the effluent.

-------
                                                         V - 3k


        (3)  Chlorination of treatment plant effluents at these

        locations*s  Fort Ritchie, Emmitsburg, St. Mary's College,

        Mto St. Joseph's Academy, Taneytown, Westminster, New

        Windsor, Union Bridges Thurmont, Maryland TB Sanitarium,

        Camp Dietricko

        (k)  Provision of secondary treatment with chlorination

        of sewage effluents from these sourcesi   Willow Farm

        Dairy, Western Maryland Dairy  (2 plants). Farmers'

        Cooperative, Joseph H. Weller Company, Yingling Brothers.

        (5)  Woodsboro and Walkersville, Maryland;  Provision of

        secondary sewage treatment with ehlorination of the

        effluents.

        (6)  Frederick, Maryland?  Provision of secondary treat-

        ment to remove at least 85 per cent of the BOD and

        chlorination of the effluent.  This will require major

        modification of the existing plant or a new plant

        8.  Potomac River, Monocacy to Little Falls

        Below the Monocacy, the Potomac River Basin narrows

abruptly as the River cuts its way through the rolling hills of

the Atlantic Piedmont above the Fall Line from Great Falls to

Little Falls where it enters the Coastal Plain and reaches

tidewater.  Tributaries in this reach are relatively small creeks
*  Initial Action - Provision of secondary treatment should be
     considered in the near future.

-------
                                                         V - 35

with a dendritic system of smaller tributaries draining farmland,
forested areas, and some small urban and suburban areas.  These
streams often carry large sediment loads.
        Goose Creek carries about 0.k mgd of secondary municipal
sewage effluents from Middleburg, Leesburg, and Foxcroft School.
Near its mouth, Goose Creek has coliform counts of over 10,000
per 100 ml but, otherwise, meets INCOPOT Class B stream criteria.
        Sugarland Run receives about .16 mgd of secondary municipal
sewage effluent from Herndon, Virginia.  Near its mouth the run
has BOD values of 3.2 mg/1, DO as low as 4.3 mg/1, and coliform
counts of 89,000 per 100 ml.  Sugarland Run has a very small
drainage basin.
        Seneca Creek receives about .001 mgd of treated plating
wastes from Weinschel Engineering Company and about .015 nigd of
untreated milk processing wastes from Hadley Farms Dairy.  DO and
BOD criteria for INCOPOT Class B and MDWR Class A streams are met
near the mouth but coliform counts of 10,000 per 100 ml are common
during the summer.  This is apparently the result of untreated
sanitary waste discharges from individual summer homes in this area,
        At Great Falls part of the flow of the Potomac, about 170
mgd, is diverted to provide the water supply for Washington, D. C.
At this point water quality in the Potomac is, at present, com-
patible with MDWR Class B criteria, except for occasional combined
sewer overflows from the District of Columbia sewerage system.
There is a continuing program of separation of sanitary and storm
sewers.

-------
                                                         v - 36

        With the upstream improvements recommended, chlorination
of sewage treatment plant effluents entering this reach,  and son.e
plant improvementss water quality in the Potomac can be maintained
in INCOPOT Class B condition and MDWR Class A.   Specific  recom-
mendations for immediate action in this reach are:
        (l)  Chlorination of sewage treatment plant effluents
        at these locations;  Middleburg, Leesburg, and Foxcroft
        School, all in Virginia.
        (2)  Herndon, Virginias  Improvement in secondary treat-
        ment with chlorination of the effluent.
        (3)  Hadley Farms Dairy, Laytonsville,  Maryland:   Provision
        of secondary treatment for milk processing wastes or
        connection to an existing sewerage system.

        9.  Potomac River, Little Falls to Hallowing Point
        In this reach, the Potomac completes its long plunge
from the highlands of the Appalachians to sea level and receives
over half the total waste load discharged into the entire river
basin.  The waste loads are almost entirely municipal sewage from
the Washington Metropolitan Area.  The major loads are discharged
by the District of Columbia Water Pollution Control Plant, the
Arlington County Sewage Treatment Plant, the Alexandria,  Virginia
Sewage Treatment Plant, and the Fairfax County Westgate Sewage
Treatment Plant.  There are also several smaller waste discharges
in this reach.  A total of about 250 mgd of treated municipal
wastes are discharged to this reach at present.

-------
                                                         V - 37






        The impact of these waste loads on the Upper Potomac




Estuary is quite severe.  DO values of nearly zero, BOD values




in excess of 10 mg/ls and coliform counts in excess of 200,000




organisms per 100 ml are common at points within this reach.




In addition to this, the extended time required for flushing of




wastes from the Upper Estuary causes a heavy buildup of nutrients




in the reach.  This contributes to excessive algal growths




throughout most of the reach and a consequent severe degradation




in aesthetic appearance and measureable water quality.  To




control this problem, the input of nutrients to the system must




be controlled.  Phosphorus is the only nutrient for which




maximum tolerable values have been estimated, and recommendations




for nutrient removal are, therefore, based on phosphorus removal




only.




        Rock Creek and the Anacostia River receive stormwater




and some uncontrolled discharges of domestic wastes, as well as




silt and sediment loads from erosion, construction site run-off,




and industrial sand and gravel washing operations.  Coliform




counts in both Rock Creek and the Anacostia River are generally




in excess of 50,000 organisms per 100 ml.  The Anacostia River,




within the District of Columbia, also has DO values well below




k mg/1.  Part of this is the result of intrusion of waste dis-




charges from the main stem of the Potomac through tidal action.

-------
                                                         V - 38


        A recent, detailed report* on water pollution in the

Washington Metropolitan Area discusses the problems of the Upper

Estuary at some length.  This report recommends removal of 95

per cent of the BOD load presently entering the Estuary, 98 per

cent of the total phosphorus, chlorination of all effluents,

and elimination of all uncontrolled waste discharges.

        Implementation of these recommendations would maintain

water quality in the Upper Estuary at MDWR Class A or INCOPOT

Class B condition for all except the most extreme low flows in

the Potomac River.

        Application of present conventional technology can

accomplish all of this except the degree of phosphorus removal

required.  Only 90  per cent phosphorus removal is possible at

the present time.  Such a degree of removal would, however,

reduce the algae problem significantly and serve as an interim

measure until a choice is made between the alternatives possible

for an ultimate solution.

        Some of these alternatives ares

        (l)  Complete waste treatment and possibly re-use of the

        effluent.

        (2)  Flow Augmentation

        (3)  Diversion of effluents to the Chesapeake Bay, down-

        stream in the Potomac Estuary, upstream to the foot of

        Great Falls, or any combination of the three.
* "Report on Interstate Pollution of the Potomac River and  Tributaries
   in the Washington Metropolitan Area."  T.A.& I.  Branch,  FWPCA,
   USDI, Cincinnati, Ohio.  March, 1967.

-------
                                                         v - 39






        Recommendations for immediate action in this reach of




the Potomac River are elimination of uncontrolled waste dis-




charges, and for all major treatment plant effluents 95 per cent




BOD removal, 90 per cent phosphorus removal, and chlorination




of effluents at all times




        10 o  Potomac Eiver, Hallowing Point to the Chesapeake Bay




        The Potomac River,  in this reach, is a Coastal Plain




estuary with salinities of 18,000 mg/1 occurring near the




confluence with Chesapeake  Bay,  Below Hallowing Point, the




residual effects of waste discharges from upstream rapidly




disappear, and the main stem of the Estuary shows little de-




gradation of water quality.  There is some slight degradation




of water quality in a few of the tributary bays and inlets




        Waste discharges to this reach of the river are pri-




marily municipal or sanitary sewage effluents.  Most of these




are quite small, the largest being from the Marine Corps Schools




at Quantico where secondary treatment (90 per cent BOD removal)




is provided for 1
-------
                                                         V - kO






of water quality in the tributaries due to the numerous municipal




effluents discharged to them.  Bull Run receives secondary effluents




from Manassas and the Woodbridge Sewage Disposal Plant at Occoquan.




BOD values over 5 mg/l> DO less than h mg/1, and coliform counts




over 10,000 per 100 ml have been observed in Bull Run and its




tributaries.




        Aquia Creek has had coliform counts in excess of 10,000




with slightly elevated BOD values; a new sewage treatment plant




is under construction for the Stafford County Sanitary District,




and this should bring Aquia Creek to INCOPOT Class C quality




throughout its length.




        Very little water quality information is available on




tributary streams and embayments in the Estuary near or below




the Highway 301 Bridge.  The larger waste discharges in this




reach are from Dahlgren, Virginia, and the Dahlgren Sanitary




District which do not provide treatment at present but do have




treatment facilities planned; from the U?S.N. Naval Weapons




Laboratory at Dahlgren which has secondary treatment of 0.35




mgd; from LaPlata, Maryland, with secondary treatment of 0.11




mgd; from Colonial Beach, Virginia, with primary treatment of




0.25 mgd; and from Leonardtown, Maryland, with priirory treatment




of  .07 nigd.  There are shellfish packing companies with small,




unknown wash water waste discharges at several locations within




the Estuary in both Maryland and Virginia.

-------
                                                         V - kl






        Water quality standards applicable to fresh-water streams




are not always applicable to estuarine zones and estuaries.   The




salt concentrations present in estuaries and the impact of coli-




form bacteria concentrations on shell fisheries require application




of different criteria for water quality.




        The reach of the Potomac between Hallowing Point and




the Highway 301 Bridge is suitable for recreational use and normal




indigenous aquatic life without additional sewage treatment at




this time.  As a safety measure for areas near the shore, chlori-




nation of sanitary waste effluents should be a common practice.




        From the Highway 301 Bridge to the mouth, the Potomac




supports shell fishing.  Coliform counts of less than 70 organisms




per 100 ml are required for this water use if the shellfish are




to be marketed in interstate commerce.




        There are four areas in the lower Potomac which are




closed to shellfishing because of excessive coliform bacteria




counts?  Neale Sound, north of Cobb Island (at the mouth of the




Wicomico River), parts of Breton Bay (near Leonardtown), parts




of St. Mary's River and Monroe Bay, and adjacent parts of the



Potomac




        Neale Sound receives small amounts of wastes from in-




dividual sewage systems discharging to the Sound.  The upper




part of Breton Bay is affected by the primary treatment plant




effluent from Leonardtown.  A very small area of the St. Mary's

-------
                                                         V - k2


River is affected by the primary sewage treatment plant effluent

from Sto Mary's State College, and Monroe Bay is affected by the

primary sewage treatment plant effluent from Colonial Beach,

Virginia.

        Chlorination of effluents from the treatment plants in

this reach should maintain the entire lower part of the Potomac

estuary, except for the part of Neale Sound above Cobb's Island,

in a condition satisfactory for shellfish harvesting.

        Specific recommendations for immediate action to abate

pollution in the Potomac estuary between Hallowing Point and its

confluence with Chesapeake Bay are as follows?

        (l)  Chlorination of sewage treatment plant effluents at

        these locations?  Potomac Heights*, Maryland; Indian Head*,

        Maryland^ Linton Hall School* at Bristow, Virginia;

        Manassas, Virginia; Woodbridge Sewage Disposal Plant at

        Occoquan, Virginia; Dumfries-Triangle, Virginia; Melrose

        Gardens, Virginia; Brown Field* (USMC Air Station);

        Midway Island Housing (USMC); Colonial Beach*, Virginia;

        Leonardtown*, Maryland, and St. Mary's State College* at

        St. Mary's City, Maryland

        (2)  Naval Ordnance Station on Mattawoman Creeks  Provision

        of secondary treatment for sanitary and industrial wastes
*  Initial Action - Secondary treatment should be considered in
     the near future

-------
                                                V -
with chlorination of the effluent.




(3)  Dahlgren, Virginia:  Provision of secondary treatment




with chlorination of effluent .

-------
                                                          VI  -  1


                            BIBLIOGRAPHY


        There are over 150 reports and published documents

concerning the Potomac River Basin currently in the files of

the Chesapeake Field Station.  References to several of these

have been made in the body of the report; additional references

of general interest are presented here.
1.  Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River Basins Project,  "SUMMARY
    OF WATER QUALITY, POTOMAC RIVER BASIN IN MARYLAND".  U.S.
    Public Health Service, Region III,  Charlottesville, Virginia,
    1965.

2.  Gutheim, Frederick, "THE POTOMAC".   Rinehart and  Company,
    Incorporated, 19^-9 

3.  U. S_ Army Corps of Engineers, "POTOMAC RIVER BASIN REPORT.
    PARTS I - VII".   U.S. Army Engineer District, Baltimore,
    Maryland, 1963.

U.  Frankel, Richard Joel, "WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT; AN
    ENGINEERING ECONOMIC MODEL FOR DOMESTIC WASTE DISPOSAL".
    University Microfilms, Incorporated, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1965.

5.  Deininger, Rolf  Arnold, "WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT: THE
    PLANNING OF ECONOMICALLY OPTIMAL POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS".
    University Microfilms, Incorporated, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1965.

-------
                         LOCATION MAP
           SCALE IN MILES

           15     3
           -I    	F
WATER QUALITY S  POLLUTION CONTROL STUDY
   CHESAPEAKE   BAY  DRAINAGE  AREA
              POTOMAC
          RIVER      BASIN
       U.S.  DEPARTMENT  OF  THE INTERIOR
FEDERAL WATER  POLLUTION  CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
MIDDLE ATLANTIC REGION       CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA.
                                   FIGURE  I

-------
                                                          I - 1






Io  INTRODUCTION




    A.  Purpose and Scope




        The purpose of this report is to direct attention to




existing and potential water pollution problems in the Annapolis




Metropolitan Area.,  Recommendations are based on evaluations,




by personnel of the Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River Basins




Project, of water quality data assembled from studies conducted




by Federal, State, and local agencies




        Insofar as applicable, priorities for actions to achieve




immediate pollution control needs are presented with the specific




objectives to:




        lo  Identify present and potential water quality problems




            in the Area=




        20  Recommend actions required to alleviate the problem.




        3  Suggest institutional arrangements required to have




            recommended actions carried out.




        U0  Estimate cost of the actions.






        This report is intended to summarize immediate pollution




control problems and needs and to provide a framework for the




more detailed studies needed in a comprehensive program of water




quality control

-------
                                                          1-2






    Bo  Authority




        The basis for action can be found in the Federal Water




Pollution Control Act as amended (33 USC. k66 et seq), with




special emphasis upon provisions regarding Comprehensive Programs




for Water Pollution 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 the following Govern-




ment agencies enabled the Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River Basins




Project to assemble and evaluate water quality data in the Area




in what would otherwise have taken a much longer period.




        Maryland Department of Water Resources




        Maryland Department of Health




        Anne Arundel County Department of Health




        Anne Arundel County Department of Public Works




        Annapolis City Department of Public Works

-------

-------
                                                          II - 1






II.  SUMMARY



         The water quality control needs of the Area are summarized



 in the following tabulations.   Table I shows the need for and



 cost of major water pollution  control facilities which are required



 for immediate improvement of water quality in the Area.   Table II



 gives the list of institutional activities and studies which will



 be necessary to further evaluate and meet the pollution control




 needs within the Basin.

-------
                                                                                                                      II  -  2
M
EH
CO
Q



H
H
O

K
EH

I
O




-p
CO
o
o

















r^
CD
0)
















>>
-p
H
H
H
^o
H
to
d
0
P
to
0)
K








C
H
-P
03
O
O




O
o
o

-f-
LTN


o\
C\J
-03-

 OJ
bp k
05 -p
fa d
0 
^_j j^
O  -P
CO
d o> t*.
O -H M
H -P 03
CQ -H t)
H i  1 d
!> -H O
O 0 CJ
fa <6 
PM <)-l W

-p

3
O
o

,  1


< d
2
o! 
H d >=
o d -P
 
f-i 
4) M

-p 'd
o3 d
(U O
M CJ
-p 
0) CQ
o d
(!)
* ^H
CQ >

a o3

oJ d
0) O
JH O
P 
-p 

OS CQ O k S3 fa fa > ft oi J_j ^4 ^ g tt> O T) Q) -P fa P CO H O 03 >s W <(-! H tO 0 4-^ d OJ g 4-3 ^ o3 ft V Q 0 p 03 ^ c CQ P 0 O OJ -ea- *-H o d o H -P O (U ,0 O CO 8 JH ft CQ


-------
                                                                                   II  - 3
M
     a
     EH
     CO



























-d
co
to
































^
-p
H
rH

fr!a
Cd -H
a to
H d
^ o
CM p,
to
CO







d
o
H
-P
cd
o
o
J





a
to
CO
bO
Sn
Cd
fi
O
M
H
'd

co
-p
to
G$
Jj

^H
O

s^
M
O
-p
d
co
*>
d
H

co
-p
cd
'd
i
o
-p
i
ft
J

3

d
H
cd
-p
d
H
ed
S





<*-!
O

P
d
co
a

cd
ft
co
Q

T^

H
r*5
M
cd
S
to

H
*J
d
H
CO
cd
pq

























































-d
d
cd
H

?
cd
S

f-
CO
J
^_3
rt
2
O
o

H
co

rt
g
^3*

^
^H
H
nd
O
a

^J



cd
co
&
co
c~{
-P

d
H
d
o
H
-P

H
H
O
ft
1
>^
j^
5$
S

n
_{-}
-p
H
cd
co
W
^H
0

-p
d
co
a
-p

cd
ft
co


CO
_{
to
-p
ed



















0
to
W>
d
H
r^j
fl
H
^M

r^H
O
3
CO

^
-p
H
5

S
?H
o

0
o

o
.p

to
d
o

-p
cd
,  |
^
bD

^


c~{
-p

cd
CO
fr-{

j
-P
H
H
cd

o^

j_j
CD
-P
cd
j

?-l
0
o
ft

^-f ^5
o -p
H
co o
to
0 CO
cd ,d
0 +3

<0 d
H CO
H ^
CO CO

TJ co
d to
CO
co ,d
d -P
H
a d
>-t -H
CO ^3
-p -p
Q) -H
ft >












^
+J
H
0

to
H
H
O
ft
cd
d

^
to
H
rH
O
ft
cd
d
d


T^

co
CO





^H
O

-P
d
CO
a
-p
Sn
cd
ft
CO
Q

T3

H

^H
cd
S
CO
'd
H
^
d

to
cd
m
i
co

H
|3
hD

rf
O
^3
CQ


0
^a
n3
pq

co

^0
CO
ft
cd
to
co
X!
O

CO

-p

o
-p
d
H

CO
CO
a
c~{
0
to
H
d
co
-p
to
cd


_,
o



T^
d
cd
H

^t
cd
S

i
to
co
o
%-,
r$
O
to
to

^_i
Q)
-P
cd










to
p
d
CO
sH
^
+5

d


O
a
CO
H

$-1
o


-p
d
co
a
co

H
j
0*
CO
^

.4
CO

to
d
o
o

'd
H
O

to

to
CO
a
H
H

O

^
[V^

<
,c!
-P

cd
co
W
<4_f
o

-p
d
CO
0
-P
h
cd
ft
co
Pi
















































0
cd
H
^_)
CO
-p
a
cd
>

*d
^
cd

fi
Q
O




































-------
                                                          Ill  - 1






III.   BASIN DESCRIPTION




          The Area covered in this report is  located just  south of




  the Baltimore Metropolitan Area (Figure l).   It extends  through




  Anne Arundel County along the western shore  of the Chesapeake




  Bay into Calvert County.   It is bordered on  the west  and south




  by the Patuxent River Basino  Long and narrow, particularly




  toward the south, it includes an area of 270 square miles of land




  and over 190 miles of waterfront




          The land surface throughout the Area is gently rolling,




  dropping progressively from a high area in the west to the shore-




  line   The Area is drained by hundreds of small creeks and streams




  that flow into the estuaries and the Bay*   The temperate climate,




  extensive water frontage, good transportation, and ready access




  to the Baltimore and Washington Metropolitan Areas make  the  Area




  well suitable for residential and industrial growth.




          Probably the most important single  resource of the Area




  is the extensive waterfront available for recreation  and commer-




  cial fish and shellfish activities3




          The Area, which for many years was  essentially an agri-




  cultural area, has rapidly become more urbanized.   There has




  been a steady growth of light industry and a rapid growth of




  population, especially in the northern portion^   This rapid




  population growth is attributable in part to an in-migration of




  people who are working in the Baltimore and  Washington Areas

-------
                                                        Ill - 2






and making their residence in the Annapolis Area, and to the




growth of light industrial and research and development firms




in the northern portion of the Basin,




        Present trends indicate that population of the Basin




(90,000) will probably double within the next ten to 15 years,




        This rapid increase in population will tax what is




probably the Area's most important resourcegood water quality




along its extensive shoreline.

-------
                                                          IV - 1



IV.  EXISTING WATER QUALITY


         A summary of results of a survey of vater quality made

                                *
 by the Chesapeake Field Station  in the spring of 1967 indicates


 that there are many areas in the Basin vhich do not presently


 meet the bacteriological water quality standards which have

                                                ##
 recently been adopted by the State of Maryland.


         With the expected population growth, the Area's water


 quality will worsen unless extensive water pollution control


 measures are taken.


         The problem is primarily one of bacteriological quality


 which is being degraded by defective septic systems in the


 high-density population areas.


         Nutrient concentrations are not excessively high when


 compared to the water of the Baltimore and Washington Areas,


 although they are higher than the Bay proper.   Whether the major


 source of the nutrients is land run-off or domestic wastes has


 not been determined.


         The effects of the massive recreation  boating of the Area


 on water quality is also as yet unclear.


         Studies of the sources  and effects of  nutrients and of the


 relative importance of boat pollution are presently being carried


 out by staff of the Chesapeake  Field Station.
  *
     Open Files  Report - Chesapeake  Field Station,
 *#
     Water Resources  Regulation  k.Q  - General  Water  Quality  Criteria
     and Specific Water Quality  Standards for  all Maryland Waters,
     Maryland Department of Water  Resources, Annapolis, Maryland,
     May 22,  1967.

-------
                                                          V - 1






V.  RECENT PROGRESS IN POLLUTION CONTROL




        Comprehensive plans for severage systems for the entire




Anne Arundel County Area have teen prepared.  Progress in the




implementation of the plan has been hindered by difficulties in




locating sewage treatment plant sites.




        This difficulty occurs because almost the entire shore-




line of the County is devoted to residential and recreational




use, and there is popular opposition to the use of such land




for a sewage treatment plant.  Past experience of the public




has shown that plants are frequently undesirable because of




odors and their general appearance.  There is also a popular




belief that regardless of the type or degree of treatment of




the plant, its effluent would degrade the waters of the Chesa-




peake Baytheir most valued resource.




        In the interim, sewerage systems, including temporary




package sewage treatment plants which discharge into the tribu-




taries, are being installed throughout the Area.  These plants




are effective in preventing water quality degradation in the




limited area they serve.




        Continuing public education and shoreline survey work




by the Anne Arundel and Calvert County Departments of Health




have obviously helped to prevent the septic tank situation from




becoming completely intolerable.




        In 1966 the Maryland General Assembly amended the Anno-




tated Code of the State of Maryland relating to water supply and

-------
                                                          V - 2






sewage.  According to the amendment, the Counties are required




to develop County plans to provide adequate vater supply systems




and sewage 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.




        In January 1966, the Governor of Maryland announced that




the State of Maryland would comply with the Federal Water Quality




Act of 1965.  Since that time the State has established and




adopted:




        1.  Water quality standards for interstate waters in




            Marylando




        2.  A plan for the implementation and enforcement of




            the standards.






        The adopted standard and plan have been forwarded to the




Department of the Interior for final approval.

-------
                                                          VI - 1






VI.  IMMEDIATE NEEDS




         As stated previously, the prime natural asset of the




 Annapolis Metropolitan Area is its extensive waterfront.   In




 addition to its value as commercial shell and finfish propaga-




 tion area, it has enormous and growing recreational and




 aesthetic value.




         Water quality studies have shown the water quality to




 be generally good, but in some places it is presently below




 the water quality standards proposed by the State Department of




 Water Resources for the Area.  It is recommended that the




 following actions be taken to correct these situations and to




 prevent further deterioration in water quality in the Basin.






     A.  Public Sewage Facilities




         The primary reason for the poor water quality is  appar-




 ently the result of lack of public sewage facilities.  Except




 for Annapolis City and a few isolated areas in the County, the




 Area is as yet unsewered, and problems of overflowing and defec-




 tive septic systems are common,,




         Provision of public sewerage facilities is the most




 pressing need in the Area,  Master plans to sewer the entire




 Anne Arundel County Area and provide secondary treatment  for




 all wastes have been prepared.  The final cost of these projects




 is shown in Table I,

-------
                                                         VI - 2






    Bo  Treatment Plant Design Guidelines




        As previously stated, progress in implementation of the




proposed plans to provide sevage facilities has been hindered




by the public unwillingness to accept the premise that sevage




treatment plants can be designed so that they are aesthetically




acceptable and so that they will produce an effluent which will




not degrade water quality of the Chesapeake Bay.  A public




education program may be necessary to overcome the first objec-




tion, but the second objection is more serious.




        It is not possible at present to definitively state the




long-term effect of treated waste discharges on the Bay0  Because




the Bay is a complex ecosystem, it is virtually impossible to




calculate its assimilative capacity in a conventional sense




The long-range ecological effects and many immediate physical




effects cannot be stated with certainty  Of primary concern




are the following relationships:




        1  Biological Oxygen Demand  Dissolved Oxygen




        2.  Nutrients  Algae  Turbidity  Dissolved Oxygen




        3.  Bacterial levels




        k.  Physical effects on the present salinity structure




            and circulation.






        This lack of knowledge and uncertainty regarding the




degree of treatment required for wastes discharging into the




Bay has become a cause for public concern.  Because of this,

-------
                                                         VI - 3






it is recommended that the Maryland Department of Water Resources,




Maryland Department of Health, and the Federal Water Pollution




Control Administration set guidelines for the degree of treatment




to be required for wastes discharged to the Chesapeake Bay.  Such




treatment requirements should include specifications for BOD, DO,




suspended solids, nutrients, and bacteriologic levels  They




should also consider requirements for installation of duplicate




facilities and other devices to lessen the probability of plant




failure.




        It must be emphasized that because of the complex nature




of the system, the treatment requirements cannot be based on




deterministic cause and effect relationships but must be the




combined judgment of the scientific, engineering, and political




community and must take into account the possible economic and




social consequences of degradation of water quality of the




Chesapeake Bay0




        As an interim step, it is recommended that all plants




in the Area immediately provide the equivalent of secondary




treatment, and for those waste treatment plants in the design




phase, consideration should be given to possible future require-




ments for a higher degree of treatment and nutrient removal.






    Co  Water Quality in Sewered Areas




        A recent Chesapeake Field Station water quality survey




in the Annapolis Area has shown that water quality is poor in

-------
some completely sewered areas within the City of Annapolis,




Whether this is the result of a defective sewer system or the




result of urban land run-off is not known and must be determined




so that corrective action can be taken,






    D.  Boat Pollution




        The relative importance of recreational boat pollution




on water quality is not known   Boat pollution studies are




presently being conducted by staffs of the Chesapeake Field




Station and the Anne Arundel County Department of Health,  Whea




these studies are completed, present laws and regulations con-




cerning sanitary facilities on boats should be modified ID




conform with their findings.






    E.  Municipal and Industrial Waste Inventory




        A lack of data on existing municipal and industrial




waste discharges and their adequacy is prevalent.  This can be




seen In the municipal and industrial waste inventory given in




Table III, compiled from records of State and County Health




Departmentso  The data for population served, average fjow, and




BOD discharged were, in many cases, not known at the time the




report was prepared.  Such an inventory is necessary in order




to fully evaluate the need for additional facilities.

-------
ep
=c




















!>-*
K
C

Eg
H
M

r]
EH
00
M
(X
H
to

O
&H
H'<

S
 f^i
<

cu
tn

^5




c
o
H

cd
1  1
r^
****
o
P-,

















r*S
-p

H
H
O
a
fc




M
cd
B
&


t?
TJ
~-^.s.
-O
H



-P
d
0)
S
P
to
0)
H
H



ro
bO
S





>
H
QJ
fO




c;














&
*->^
Sn
OS
'Ti
Q
O
o
iU
GO









r?
aJ
-p
r-i
C
nt
CO










t
S"
P3
01
Vil 01

u
o
j~^









^
0)
>
!M

43
ti
CO

p
d

o
PH

rjj
d
cd
en












c
o
-H
4_>
tS
c

!
O
*  i
r-j
C5

















































"
o5
P^














c
0
r, ,H
r>3 -P
^ ** cd
cd w e3
'CJ C3 -H
C o $-,
0 0 O
U ttD -H
^ -p
M *^ cd
tjj b>j s^ r^
T^ H M JH
U cd cd ^s
o S 01 6 o
o 'H a H H
OJ ^ O $H ^3
00 PH S P-i O


o o
--^? VO t-O
e o a
O --1 ro
r-i


tr i? t? ho ft
cd cd n$ c! d
-P +J -P -H S-, P
H -H -H H 0) rt
fl C El O -P C
cd cd cd o cd cd
CO CO CO O |5 CO


o
o
H
f
CO
CU


0)

S-, SH r-,
C.> IU  ?>
H  ffi K
cd ^ H
,c o o c a
CU ^ %-t
-p H f-t 01 a>
-H H SH > i>
_C -H Ed 05 (U
S S o en tn
Ki
fl
 r-l
t) CD -P
S W H
S pl 0
O
h tn oj
O -H
C SH rH -H
cd 01 CD 0) O
g B -P -P ft
o s-i o <; <. cd
t^tn cd S 3 3 C
cd ,a GO co d
pq u p 3 <;






o
o
m
ff%
^ -1










CU
c
o



CO
*-- i

o



>J
S--
XJ
c

cd
t--l












^
ai
;>
P



01

CU
TO












-------
































^-*1
a
Q)
G
p
G
O
O
 .*

fH
M
M

prl
pq
EH


















































bC
r,
Q cd
O X3
pq o
CD
H
Q


0)
ft
^


0)
bO
cd >
r( O
 fc





0
-P
W

JS




G
O
p
cd
H
^3
P-i
o
PL,

















>^
( "i
H
H
H
O
cd
ft.







0
^
^
cd
8
01





&
^
*-^
>
<-i

P
G
0)
6
0)
^4
E-.


T^
ElT
6







0!
a
h>j
E-,






01
>
^
0)
CO




G
O
-H
P
cd
o
0









^
cu
>
^
0)
CO




p
G
(L) 01 SH 0>
P O H OJ S
0) p H P > P
cd o) p H cd
|i t) t3 -H PC a>
0) G ^ ^*
>-j bO 3 p H
< M r< " G
cd cd < >j Oi O> 
P x) p x bC p
H o 0) G 3 cd G
G to G 3 p  cd
cd -H a O cd 0> H
CO tl   *

H $H -H
PL, pq fC
m
0
p o
W G
cd M
H
PL, w >
p >J
HOG
cd 3 cd
G t3 ft
o o a
'H f-, O
P PL, 0
cd


D 01 SH
p O HO)
CQ p H P >
cd o> p -H
i T3 'd aH CC
OJ G h-1
|>j bO pJ P
S-, S-, ^t > G
cd cd < >> fl)
P ft p X
H O 0) G 2
G ta C 3 P
cd -H G O cd
CO 'd < O PL,

O










t-i 0)
EL, CO
 
0)
^ X! 
S 0 fn
P G. 
H J-, -H
PM pq K



*
M
0)
H
^
H P
cd w
G 3 "
O T3 O
-H G G
p 1-1 M
cd
p
G

S

0)
JL|
EH

OJ 
bC P
cd G
ti cd
0) H
co PL,







































































           0)
           G
           O
           a
           UN
           O
           o
           o

           o
           p
           H
    
  * -H
 >5 P
 SH  flS
 03  G
T)  -H
 G  SH
 O  O
 O  rH
 5
PQ
(Li
,^J
0)
ft
cd
to
~3 G
O
H -H
cd P
O cd
rG P
CO CO
t,
0)
>
H
K

XI
P

6
CO

f/3
P

O
r*
CO

c
cd
>
r--*
                                       VI  -
                                    co
    o
  " -H

 r?is
 S3  G
^  H
 G  I*
 O  C
 O  r-

CO  U
                      CXI


                      CD
                                               t?
                                               G
                                               cd
                                               CO
                                               LT-.
                                               c\j
                                               LPv
pq
           EH
                         CO

^
a>
a^
?-
C)

T^
ctt
o
*->
pq





ri
rH
H
K

JM
0)
E
^
^3
CO
$-1
O)
>
-4
K

X!
P
"3
b
CO



^
J-4
OJ
P.4

M
f~l
cd
H
E-c



0)
(3D
T^
r-j
fy(

a
o
o
cd
pq
p
ed
p
CO

OJ
r")
H
H
r*
CO
r*
^
O
-,
CJ






X!
0

gj
l)
pq






r-5
cd
^
H
ft
m
o




0!
r^
C(5
K!

K^
O*
VI
e
cd






rH
O
o
rG
 'i
co

o
^
m

^-*
0)

'H
ec

c^
p

O
m


















-------
-    7




























?-~ *
T^
0)
P
C
o
o
	 r

M
M
* t

W
J
2!
EH






































1
0)

0
SsO

Q cd cd
O ,G -d
pq o -^
W >
H r-\
Q


-P
C
CD 0)
Pi fi

EH o3
cu
S-i
:__(


bC

SH O bO
01 r~t B
r* PL^
^



CD
P 0)
M P,
o3 i>3
3: EH





C
O

-P (D
cd >

3 (D
pjOO
o



C
O

-P
c
u
O











r*~
-p" TJ
H CD
H >
H -1
O CD
ed co
















a
O
 "H
s^ -P
< cd
cd c
*d r^
c $-1
O 0
O r-l
0) 43
CO U

VD
O
0
0
O





J>J
-T
cd
p
H
j
cd
CO



0

CM







CD   '*
> 14
O (U
!_> >
'H
M K

H p
M W
P. (D
O S
K "--*

1
,
-P
W >j
d (3
1-1 c<3
Ps
CD S
M O
a t_>
cu
P4 P
CO G
CD 01
CD g
-C
C?














i*
J^
k
cd

C!
c
t>
CD
CO


































^
CU
1..,
o

1^
cd
CD
pH




-H
CD

0
X
W

s~
o

p
co












a
0

4.3
cd
d
H
SH
O
r i
(-J
CJ


r-<
O

o





p*S
j_^
cd
P
H
C

CO












,-'- ~
^4
0)

K

Q)
'd
o

K
^, 	 ,




































CD
C
O



VD
O
e
O

CD
** 4-3
SH cd
CD >
-P
a3 K
> a
H
43 -<
m o
S3 O
> O











M
0)  .
^ SH
O CD
J>
CD I
03 ffi
^
O 03
,C T)
-P O

0) 05
p-t '  -




r^
CO
-r-l ^
ft, CD
4J
2 S, q1
CD O 3
H P,
<<-, Ti g
TS S O
O cd cj
o














o
- -H
r*3 "P
JH Cd
cd c
^ "H
s^ ^
0 0
0 H
cu ,c"?
CO C^

VD
o
o
0
o





J>J
JH
cd
-p
11 rH
c
cd
CO



o
vo









K^
cu
(U
o

rj
-P
^j
O
CO






01

o
o
CO
CD
-p
cd
H
CL,












C
O
' -H
>5 -P
?H cd
cd G
"d "H
G S~
o o
o ^i
01 J3
CO C)

l/\
O
o

o





r*j
H
cd
-p
-rH
P*
^
co



o
ir\










^H
CD
H
CC

-P
W
a>
^5


4->
fG
O
cd


(D
cd
CD
p, D
cd 'pi
CD O
-d
U














"
J>j
SH
td
^
d
o
o
CD
00

CO

o
0
o





J>J
M
03
p
H
(3
eg
GQ
































r.
G
O
In
fc












j-,
d
H
p
cd
G
H
-3
0
1
^
o


on
o

o

























(U cd'
CU ffi
^-(
U O)
3
<( Q.)
0 p.
,C Cj
,-id W
o cu
O ,3
X. rj


tt)
P
G
O w
0 JH

he H
G -^ -~l
H CD CJ
PJ H
Pi cd o
O CD r-l
t>> CO ~-^ G
03
m
ed
K
i*

i.



^'^ 9



--!
U'
O
C'

CU
O 0 .
^ --H ** H ^
>5 P ;> ' cf
M ttt ^' ^ t"'
cd fi r, c:
^ "r^ *'s 'r ' t'
G r-( (3 5~< >f4
O O C C P
O .' 1 i- -t A
0 4; t -a a-










0
^i'
C*
-r-'
f T
f~"
m
** -

oo cj '-/; '} r.o a;
i ^
!
O ; *
-\J  I'
c
o





J>j ^ ^>;
5^ P w
aJ a^ aJ
-P +,:> +j
f-* H ' *t
j C C
0 G OJ
c-: a; x


^!
O O O
o o r^
\O "~ " fC*'
&

.r



^tJ o5
pTJ 1 1



r/
r
T-




-6-
i"^
U


^
ft


C,'


-f-


. -i
+ --
CC
,%
4-"1
U^
cu a? a-1
*n5 "rt
4/ CU
P. &
cd co
to cc
 Of
4^ .G
'.) r j

{ '
r?
G1
fe"
4

7
Oj
a;
\ ' "
i3 * ^"
1 0
J
P cd
cd o
DPS <-J
s?
tt;
^ ^ G CD ^T'
0 H Cd CD T3 j
Oi r^ , G
cu cu a, cd d >
PC bD CL ^-* *
cd *J P, 
-------
                                                          VII - 1






VII,  INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS




          The entire northern area is under political control of




  Anne Arundel County, except a narrow strip bordering on the Bay




  south of Herring Bay which is in Calvert County and the area




  within the Annapolis City limits.   Some problems have developed




  between the City and County regarding the extension of city




  facilities to serve county residents in close proximity to the




  City.  A political solution to this problem will undoubtedly




  be found in the near future.




          Beyond this, the recent State legislation regarding




  water and sewage planning, and the  Federal and State legislation




  regarding water quality standards, and the apparent ability of




  the County to provide needed service, should provide an adequate




  administrative framework for implementing the proposed immediate




  needs

-------
                                                          VIII - 1
VIII.  BIBLIOGRAPHY
   1.  Anne Arundel County Sanitary Commission, Patapsco-Magothy-
       Severn Sevage Report, prepared by Rummel, Klepper and Kahl,
       Consulting Engineers, April 1962.

   2o  State Planning Department, The Counties of Maryland and
       Baltimore City, Maryland State Planning Department, April 1963,

   3  Anne Arundel County Office of Planning and Zoning, Compre-
       hensive Development Plan, NorthBay, Anne Arundel County,
       Maryland., prepared by Marcou, O'Leary and Associates, 1965o

   k  City of Annapolis, Report on Water and Sewage Treatment
       Improvements, prepared by Whitman, Requardt and Associates,
       Engineers, January 196^0

   5.  Anne Arundel County Office of Planning and Zoning, Water and
       Sewerage Master Plan Report, prepared by Whitman, Requardt
       and Associates, Engineers, February 1967=

-------
   "3
   m o 31
   O 31

   ?0
c
3
m
          O
          m
-0 r-
m

5*
m
          m
          o>
        DO m
        > 3j
        -< z
          m
      3) o
      > z
      I> O
      o o

-------
                                                                  Page


  T   INTRODUCTION	    I - 1


      A.  Purpose and Scope  ........... 	    1-1


      R.  Authority	    1-2


      C.  Acknowledgments  ..................    1-2


 II   GENERAL  ........................   II - 1


      A,   Sources of Information ....... 	   II - 1


      B.  Determination of Needs	   II - 1


III.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS  . .  .  .	  Ill - 1


      A,  Findings ,...,..,.,,............  Ill - 1


      B.  Immediate Pollution Control Needs   .........  Ill - 2


          1.  Waste Treatment  ................  Ill - 2


          2,  Flov Regulation  , .	  Ill - 3


          3.  Special Studies  .........  	 .   .  Ill - U


 IV.  BASIN DESCRIPTION  ...................   IV - 1


  V.  RECENT PROGRESS IN POLLUTION CONTROL ..........    V - 1
                                                  V

 VI.  IMMEDIATE NEEDS  .......,  	 ......   VI - 1


      A.   General Needs  ...................   VI - 1


          1.  Eutrophication of Chesapeake Bay ........   VI - 1


          2.  Municipal and Industrial  Waste Inventory ....   VI - 2


          3.  Advanced Waste Treatment	   VI - 2


          k.,  Boat Pollution Investigations	   VI - 3


          5.  Thermal Pollution Studies  ...........   VI - 3

-------

-------
                      TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  (Continued)
           6.  fiewnKt1 Treatment  Plant  Reliability
               Study  .,.,..	.  .  .    Vi - U
                                                     *>
           7.  Sludge Disposal	    VI - 1;

           8.  Federal  Installations,  U.  S. Army  .......    VI - 5

           9.  Extension of  Intercepting  Sewers  to the
               Sod Run  Sewage Treatment Plant  .........    VI - 5

       B.  Specific Needs  ......<,...........    VI - 5

           1.  Anne Arundel  County   .......  	    VI - 6

           2.  Howard County  .................    VI - 7

           3.  Baltimore City ,  .  .	    VI - 8

           k,  Baltimore County  ........    .....    VI - 13

           5.  Harford  County .................    VI - 15

           6.  Cecil County  ...................    VI - 18

 VII   INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS  ...............   VII - 1

VIII.  BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................  VIII - 1

-------
                                                           I  -  1






 I,   INTRODUCTION




     A.  Purpose and Scope




        The waters of Chesapeake Bay, when explored by Captain




 John Smith in 1608, supported an abundance of fish and shellfish




 with shorelines endowed with natural harbors and bounded with




 fertile lands.  Development of the agricultural resources  and




 fisheries, growtn of cities and shipping, ana extensive recrea-




 tional use of tne Bay has not as yet caused a significant




 degradation of water quality in the Bay proper, but there  has




 been increasing evidence of pollution problems in the river in-




 lets.  It is the purpose of this study to examine those areas




 along the northwestern part of the Bay, extending from the




 Patapsco to the Susquehanna Rivers, and to provide the follow-




 ing  information on the basis of the best available information:




        1,  Locate present and potential water quality problem




            areas and evaluate the need for corrective action.




        2.  Identify pollution sources and determine the parties




            responsible.




        3.  Present immediate pollution control needs, responsi-




            bilities,  and costs.






        The foregoing objectives  are the initial steps in a




more comprehensive program presently in progress.

-------

-------
                                                          T - ?
                                                          X   C.







    B.  Authority




        The Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended (33




U.S.C. U66 et seq) directed the Secretary of the Interior to




develop comprehensive programs for eliminating or reducing the




pollution of interstate waters and tributaries thereof and




improving the sanitary condition of surface and underground




waters.







    C.  Acknowledgments




        In conformance with the Federal Water Pollution Control




Act, the cooperation of other Federal, State, and local agencies,




industrial representatives, and institutions was sought and is




gratefully acknowledged.   Recommendations appearing in this




study are based upon data from several excellent reports listed




in the bibliography and upon carefully considered opinion result-




ing from conferences with representatives of agencies concerned.




        Cooperation was received from individuals and organiza-




tions too numerous to be  listed, but special mention is merited




by the following:




        Maryland Department of Water Resources




        Maryland Department of Health




        Regional Planning Council,  State of Maryland




        Anne Arundel County Health  Department




        Baltimore  City Health Department




        Baltimore  City Department of Public Works

-------

-------
                                                  1-3
Baltimore County Department of Health




Baltimore County Department of Public Works




Howard County Metropolitan Commission




Harford County Metropolitan Commission




Harford County Health Department

-------
                                                          II - 1






II   GENERAL




     A.  Sources of Information




         Present water quality conditions were obtained entirely




 from the records of State, County, and institutional agencies




 and included the regular stream and Bay sampling runs where




 available, the special stream surveys, and the summer surveys




 at  bathing beaches usually conducted by local health agencies.




 These data were evaluated by the staff of the Chesapeake Field




 Station after conferences with the several agencies concerned.




 No  sampling was conducted by Chesapeake Field Station personnel




 except for previous studies on Back River included as part of




 this report.




         Waste water discharge data, both sanitary and industrial,




 were compiled by the Chesapeake Field Station staff from pre-




 vious reports and were revised after review of current data from




 pertinent agencies.




         Water supply requirements  were not investigated, since




 the major surface water sources have already been developed,




 and further water supply sources are either from outside the




 subject areas or from ground waters.






     B.   Determination of Needs




         Immediate needs were evaluated in terms  of the treat-




 ment or sewerage required to maintain the most beneficial  uses




 of  the watercourses  as proposed in the water quality standards

-------

-------
                                                         II - 2






recently approved by the State.3  In general, the Chesapeake




Bay-Susquehanna River Basins Project has recommended secondary




treatment (H'^ per cent HOD removal) for sanitary wastes and an




equivalent for industrial wastes, with consideration of factors




delineated in tne general water quality criteria of the State.3




Stream reaches upstream from water supply reservoirs were not




included, since adequate sanitary control of their watersheds




was already in effect.

-------
                                                         Ill  - 1






II    SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS




     A,   Findings




         Since  the  study area included a number of river basins




  large  and small,  the  detailed study was made  using  political




 boundaries.  To some extent  this  offered the advantage  of




 delineating responsibilities for  water quality surveillance,




 planning,  and  enforcement, as  well  as reducing the large number




 of  stream  basins to be considered separately.




         Water  quality  data,  except  for the  area near Baltimore




 City, were largely unavailable and  were primarily based upon




 bathing  beach  surveys  during the  past two years.   Sewage treat-




 ment plant operating data, except for the two  Baltimore City




 plants  and a 1961+  FWPCA survey10  with limited  data,  were also




 lacking,   A tabulation of industrial waste  sources was  initi-




 ated with  limited  information  based upon a  1961- questionnaire,




 but a more comprehensive inventory  is necessary,  and a  recom-




 mendation  to accomplish this  is included in this  study.




         A  wealth of information to  effect improvements  in water




 quality  was  found  in the several  consulting engineers'  reports




 listed  in  the  Bibliography.  These  reports  furnished the  bases




 for immediate  construction needs, although there  were several




 modifications  required to coordinate  the  programs, evaluate the




 relative priorities, and make  realistic  construction  cost




 estimates

-------
                                                        Ill - 2






        No consideration was given to the upper reaches of the




larger streamsthe Patapsco River and Gunpowder Falls.  Both




are used for water supply, and the consequent sanitary control




in the Liberty, Loch Raven, and Prettyboy Reservoirs preclude




gross water pollution problems.  For a similar reason, the Sus-




quehanna River above the Conowingo Dam was also omitted but is




the subject of a separate report,,20






    Be  Immediate Pollution Control Needs




        1,  Waste Treatment




        The immediate needs, as evidenced from the water quality




data available, were for sewage treatment facilities to achieve




corrective action for the untreated and partially treated waste




discharges where existing water quality did not meet the approved




State standards 3  The several recommendations in the consulting




engineers' reports for the various agencies were reviewed and




modified to some extent in favor of fewer, larger sewage treat-




ment plants-   All of the larger population centers in the subject




area can be served by three sewage treatment plantsthe exist-




ing Baltimore City facilities at Patapsco and Back River, and




the Harford County Sod Run plant now under construction.   High-




est priorities should be given to expansion of these facilities




and construction of the intercepting sewers to convey sewage to




these locations  High priorities should be assigned also to

-------
                                                             II.I  - 3







 i nterrept: r.<  :,- wen;  at Locations where deterioration  in  water




'lunllty hn,'~  IHV!  iarntified.




        '!'re  tola]  cost for immediate pollution control needs




 i:, -.,!, iron t.ocj  ,-i:. .,'''''',' '0(1, 000 .   Thin dorr, not  includr i-o:: t  of




s turi Le.') recornnn-udod,  desirable actions not directly related to




water  pollution control,  nor  provision of general area sewerage




to ameliorate  j.ocal  nuisance  conditions.  A  summary of the  con-




struction needs wiui  estimated construction  costs is  given  in




Table  T,





        2,   Fiov  Regulation




        I'xistirir  reservoirs in the Gunpowder and Patapsco Basins




were developed  for water  supply, and any releases would  nave  as




primary purposes  fish  survival and aesthetic values in the  down-




stream park developments.   Some benefit to water quality would




on/rue me i 'i-'-ni <-.iy  but is not considered in this study.




        Ginre  '.->i :;T:ore already draws 110 mgd from tne Susque-




hann.'i  Hiver nt  ' or.owinro  Reservoir to augment its water  supply,




       > > fj.-.'W  rtarulation  releases from these iiasins  would  be
nomina;.
        With .increasing  use  of the Susquehanna River for water




supply by Baltimore, Havre de  Grace,  and other municipalities




outside Maryland, flow regulation for this purpose and for fish




survival will be required and  is  included as a study recommenda-




tion in the Cusquehanna  River  Study.20

-------
                                                        1T1  -  '






        3.  Special Studies




        Additional water quality and pollution control studies




are needed  in the Basin to provide more datn for comprehensive




evaluations.  Recommended studies are summarized in Table II,




and the more significant needs are discussed below.






            a.  Nutrients




        There is a developing need to determine existing condi-




tions in the upper Chesapeake Bay Area with respect to nutrient




content, including studies of the possible accelerating effects




increasing nutrient contributions from waste treatment plants




and agricultural run-off may have on eutrophication.  The inves-




tigation should include not only the Bay proper with its estuaries,




but also upstream reaches of its tributaries, and especially




those that drain agricultural areas.   This study could be made




in cooperation with the Chesapeake Research Council  The Office




of Estuarine Studies, FWPCA, should be involved for coordination




with similar projects, and the Chesapeake Field Station water




quality field studies should include determinations of nutrient




content,






            b.   Waste Inventories




        In attempting to relate water quality to probable pollu-




tion sources,  Chesapeake Field Station personnel found the waste




inventories in the subject Area were  either unavailable or out-




dated, especially for industrial wastes.   This  responsibility

-------
                                                        Ill - 5






rests jointly upon Maryland Department of Health and. Maryland




Department of Water Resources.  While the Field Station will




continue to Rather all waste data available, assistance from




the aforementioned State agencies is essential to preparation




of the comprehensive program for pollution abatement in the Area.







            c.  Sludge Disposal




        The problem of sludge disposal in the large municipal




sewage treatment plants has become increasingly serious as the




availability of lands for disposal decreased.  The demand for




dried sludge for use as a soil conditioner is limited, with




areas for large area disposal too remote to be economically




feasible.  Odors resulting from the drying process have been a




source of complaint-  The alternative disposal methods suggested




have been incineration, which may aggravate an existing air




pollution problem, and sludge disposal at sea, which required




a large capital outlay and a long haul to the Gulf Stream in




the ocean to insure thct the sludge will not wash ashore to




become a nuisance at shore points.  It is recommended that the




feasibility of sludge disposal at sea through a pipeline be




investigated,  preferably as a Baltimore-Washington cooperative




enterprise.

-------
                                                         Ill  - 6






            d.  Thermal Pollution




        Thermal pollution of the upper Bay Area  has  not  as yet




liocome M.H aj KH i f"< omit, an ecological probjrm  nu it  haa  in othfr




areas of Chesapeake Bay.  However, a recommendation  to initiate




studies of the effect of thermal discharges  for  the  Bay  and  its




estuaries is an immediate need.

-------
                                                                                                                      LU   -  Y
tH   O
i -->


jJ
U'J
O
O















', j
CD

!""














P"
-H
r-H
r 4
o
',--(
C.Q
*-^4
O
ft
tn
D
[V









C
o
H
P
a)
o
o
!. "J








., "}
6
n
0
o
o
o
rH





r--*
"O
cj

*
^
+ / +J
* -t (.-J
0 O
cd M
P;-U
a! d
0 OJ
^

5^
* >j
t' &H
r~i Cd
IH T3
- ^
o
T3 O
Tj 0
"


; ^
4 J

f ,

CU
5- H
o
E,"
'r-1,
4 *
r i

4-)
q

-JJJ
cd
0)
j^
H

cu
bO
cd
^j
0)
oo

o
u p
[fl C ,
Pi aJ
cd H
p Q-<
cd
fr-l











CU
cd
t J
rH
r  i
.,-1
^}
'cd
r^-J
cu
IH

rr<
^
Jj

^fc
t 1
r 4
O
cd
^.
cj
a

r^J
T;
^*


^
^_j
-r-i
' )

o
**
q

H
4_>
 1
J^

i
-p
cd
cu
^
EH

CU
b:
cd
Ji
0)
CO
^
a)

H
P;

A;
o
Ct5
fO
O
o
o
*
. ->
o
o
,--)
OJ
ft.
CO
T3 ^
fi QJ
< ,
. H O
rH 5'
cd
CM -p
-p ctf
71
o e
o
C/J -rH
CLS -p
t, cd

r  i Eff
O
d tc
M a

c.
i'

P O,
a
cd T3
r-H C




























p

rH
a,

p
rj
CU
e















O'j
0!
bC
JL+
a3
jrjj
CJ
y5

'C3

CJ
p

ro

0
CO
o
*
o
o
LT\
_v
-"*?-



4T
^
CU
^>
H
~3

r-
S-i
cu
p
rH
^

O
u
CO


















CU
bC
cO
^f
CU
in 

c

CO
cd











1
S
(L.O

6
0
J_j
CM

CO
'"*
o
r  i
VH

0)
HO
cd
ft PP >
Q..'
+J

r^;
rH
E

r-l

-p'
O
o

H
d'
'O
C
f^
SM
<;

o
*H
c




^
o
P
P-i
0)
u
fl
CU
3
a
M

o
O
CO
ft
cd
-f 3
cd
ru
cd
-p
cd
Cu

O
_^J
d
H

-P
r^
'J
O
r 'y

CU
Vl
o
E
.i
p
,  1
cd
























p
a
CU
X
~J
P
cd
a.



r^J
4_?
C
jj
O
c.^

xi
JM
aJ
^
O























CU
co

P
f-,
cu
;>
H
C

p
rj
^j
b
u

01
$H
O
fc'
 r-l
P
  !
C7J

d
P
ft
cu
o
^
cu
-P
c
r- i

^
O
cd
cu
cq

^
cu

H
rH
O
O
O
O
n
0
o
^
rH
W




)-*
a>
r*
H
DH

-Sc*
0
cd
(jQ

O
-p

JH
q^
>
H
K

h
CU
rO
^
b
ft























































-p
G
cd
H
P-i

p
a
cu
e
-p

cu
^
EH

CU
t>r
cd
^
CU
CO
























































c
H
ft
g2
3
rX
T*
f^J
cd

co
O
-p
ft
01
o
S-i
(LJ
-f--5
j
M
ert sewage leaking to Back
Middle Rivers to Back
er Sewage Treatment Plant. $2,100,000
> T3 >
H C -H
a cd K


-P
c
o
o

CU
o
e
p
r  (
cd
eq



cu cu
O > ti
cd O O
A! tl o 
  ,M cu s
^i ,M oJ EH O
O O CU rH .^ >j

a cd > cq co
O s to C a1 C
H cd cu c T) 'd cd
P *H fl CU rH ,>> -P
Cd O O CM O S CQ
p
CO


".1
H
b
S
-P'
H
ft
C!3
O
o
p
r^
rrj
"
-P
c
6
o
r-
J_,
O

rM

0)
bO
cd

CO
^4
0
0)
rH
CJ

X
o
u
o
o
o
rv
O
ir\
1
B
-p
cd
0)
JH
03
C
0
O
cu
m
























i
rH
Cu

-P
C!
cu
e


struct a parallel force
n to Cox Creek Sewage
atment Plant to increase $600,000
acity.
C -H CU ft
O Cd JH Cd
0 B EH 0
-P
C
O
o
r-H
CU
3
C!
In
<
CU
a



o
.p
ft
0)
o

-p

M
A!
O
CU
Jr.*

J>j
CU
H
V*
oj
S

-------

































	 .
d
01
f1
c
H
G
0
f.
M
W
iJ
Si




































p
m
O
r >
















-d
OI












4 >
G
cd
'M r 4
(J ( -
( )
; P
cu c
bf CU

ij P
cd

d ^
rH H
,-% 0)
cu bf
















^
P
H
rH
rH
rQ
H
W

O
ft
CO
 CO

n <






^
G C
d cti
O p
O -H
rH
Tf O
S-H ft
0 O

^H 4J
cti CU









q
ri
P^
rH
TS O
O P
co ft
I 0)
T) O
O !H
O CU
* p
CD G
bC M
t3
w
O
O
O
r-
o
L/^
f~
r-
(XI
;cy





P
11
ti

cd
0)

r <

0
!'

CD
CO

3
;3
C*H

'"U 
0 P
CO G
cd
O H
; 1 p ,








C
O
H
CO
CO
H
e
E
o
o




































K"}
01
In
O
ft
r
cu
p

E
0


cu
be
cd
^
U
to

p

cu
i>
H
3






p
G
b
CJ

rrj
^
o
s*-^
^
cd
1 1








G

cc;

r^
o
CO

H
P.V
-4
rH
CD
PU,
J
0

f,
o
o
'O
co-



co
d
r^
O
p :>
U ;3
01 -'
E rt
p> "J
Oj SH
D t."i

E~H o
0 d

cd b
1* ;.o
O)
CO G
j
C* i^i
cd

>> 0 -P
rH CO G
rH w
d) C -H
&H P OH







5
4-"1 i ~
r-H x"
i  !  i
O cr-
ft ^
O -H
rJ i^
P C.

S O











!H
O
P
ft
cu
o
cu
p
G
M


o
o
o
*
0
o
o

on
-&3*

1
^
CU
^x
01
CO g
o DC;
p
^ -p
CU O G
bO 00 cd
cd H
> bC P-,
CU G
W -H 4->
> G
t-t t~i t)
> 0
>-< co bG
cu cd
> cu >
H bO CU
Q cd CO






+5
D c3
0 P C
0 -rH 0
rH -H
T3 O CO
JH ft W
O O -rH
^H ^H E
^-i P S
03 CU O


^_t
0
rO
JH
03
SH

fa
cd
cq

bO O
G 4->
O ft
J cu
1 O
H CU
< -p
c
H M
CU
P3
O
O
O
r-
O
ITv
OO
-fO-






a
P
G
CU

^J
03
CU
S-,
4J

r^M
03
TlJ
p]
o
o
cu
CO

E
H
_j
CU
4J
G
M






4^
 
0 P G
O -H O
1 1 -rH
nd O co
Sn ft M
0 O -rH
^~* rH E
^H P 
cd o> o
w 5: o
1
+2
0)
cu

fH

(J)
bO
cd
*J
0>
CO 4^

"cy rH
CU CU
O 4->
G
cl *u
CO S
^J
CO














^,
0)
ft
ft


cu
r-<
^J

S
o


0
bp
c?
>
01
CO

-p

01
>
H
Q




>>
-p
0
o
CJ>

CD

o
e

p

cd
cq

J_,
o
.p
ft
0)
o
^

H CU
K bO
cd
rH ^?
0! 
P -rH
O K




















































CU
p
03
r;
i i
t:
H
,  j
CU

o


^
H

d
ft
cd
o

C.1
co
d
o
^
Cj
G
rH






^
c"

'J
r--t
3
:
it
TJ
I 	 i
ti
*





bO
C
H
ft

3
(X

o:
rH
H
cd
f^-,

en
0)
G
O
-i
O
O
O
n
O
LA
f-
-f-^->







0
4J

cu

cd
>

CO

03
^

(f^ .
O W
rH
OI rH
b cd
SH (x,
cd
X! CO
o cu
co G
H O
T3 t-3
































a
o
H
-P
cd
,p
co


o
o
0
r-
O
LTN
rH
69-







4J
oi
6

03
CU
^
P

r-^
f~,
cd
rrj
3
O
CJ
0)
CO

0)
13
H
>
O
^
OH







P
H
W
O
ft
O)
^)

4^
^
_O
ft












4J
rH
CO
O
ft
cu
f~~)

4J
fa
O

o
o
0
*1
o
o
(>">
o^-





*J
cd
^H
cu
p
cd
G
H
E
H
H 
0) CO
0)
O bO
-P rH
Cti
>> JG
P 0
H CO
U -H
cd ^3
ft
cd 01
o be
cd
Tj JS
T3 01
<; co






^
H
0

tt)
r<
O
e
H
P
r--j
cd
ca

^
o
-p
ft
cu
a
j_(
0)
+J
G
M

<
05
bO
G
H
^H
^
_CU

o
o
o
*
o
o
0
*
o
rH
-ee-




ii
bO
J-H
Cd
r^
o
to
rH
d 
w
>
cd >
G O
H
e o
 r-' -fJ
H C
H -H






P
H
CJ

o
rH
O
e
,rJ,
-p
,  j
cd
PQ





G
o
H
en
f-i
cu

H
Q

CO
CU !H
> cu
-G ^i
P 0)
P CO
o
CO

-------
Ill - 9


































,~-^
Tf
01
3
C
H
P
C
o
o
-- '
M
Kl
.q
f'1*
a;




































-p
M
o
o


















TD
0)
01
<";

















^
P
H
.-H
H
,Q
H
W
G
0
P
CO
CU
K










G
O
H
-P
OJ
O
o
(-q





















6
*H
O
-P
to

Td
G
cd

>>
f-i
cd
p
H
s
to

CU
p
oj
1H
cd
ft
01
CO








0)
CJ
aj
^H
O

0)
0

CU
!H
>
cd
tu








h
0)
>
CD
co

G
3
cc
>>
rH
rH
H
l~~1
O
o
o
.
o
o
LT\
"$






tj
CD
G
H
,0
S
0
o

K
a
H
P
to
H
X
cu
V,
0
CW

CU g
bf 0)
cd P
> w
CD >,
CO CO

































c
0
H
-P
cd
>H
cd
P<
cu
CO


o
o
o
*
o
o
LTN
r>
CM
-co-
>.
rH
0)
-p
aj 0
3 -P 
O1 CO
CD G 6
T3 3 3
aj ffi 0)
G rH
H T3 P
O to
rH M
O 
TJ P -rH
CU P
-P CD O
cd hp 0)
0) aj ft
tn I* tO
-P 0) QJ
G CO JH
,-3
T) P
P 0) O
^. -P 0)
01 Oj -P
> CD O
H >H Vl
Q -P ft








>>
+1
G
3
O
O

TJ
^H
O
VH
JH
aj
;u
^j
aj G
O
CO -H
fn P
O -H
-p Td
ft f-l T)
0) 01 cd
o ,a id
rH CJ > C
cu G fl o 3
-P a) 3 ft te
G )H K C
M G PQ P >>
3 CO O rH
>> K -p - Sn
-P aj (-H 01 01
H 0 O 0> rH X3
G 3 TJ -P -p q
3 a M c -P 3
g >j -r< -H -H (-(
H  IX 3: t-T O
0
o
0
o
0
t
o
o
0
f
m
-r>
CD
O hp
-P cd
G :*
H >i CD
p to
CO -H
CD O -P
M aj G
JH ft CD
aj aj X
A o 3
O -p
to 0) aj
H TJ a,
T< -H
>  "-H
^ CO
0) 0) tM
p OP 01
cd M >
C U -rH
H 1
-P

O
o
>5
rH +J
CD q
T3 3
G O
3 0
JH
< ti
V<
0) cd
G >
G 0
"^ r^~i

rH
0
-p
ft
CD
O
rH
CD
4J
G
M

0)
G
H
tj

;>>
-p

o
o
o
o
o
r>
O
on
-60-











.
-P
G
CD
S
-P
aJ
CD
M
+>


aj
n
c
o
o
CD
en

TJ
d
<










>>
p
G
3
o
o

rH
H
CJ
CD
U














o
hO
c
rH
>
o
G
o
o
o
o
o
*
o
o
ro
-69-











-p
G
CD
e
.p
aj
QJ
(H
P

r?
aj
T3
G
O
o
0)
CO

d
'd
<








CD
o
aj
rH
0

CD
d

cu
(H
>
cd
2C



CD
bO
aj
>
CD -P
M 
CD H
o PL,
aj
rH -P
O C
0)
0) fi
TJ -p
aj
CU CD
rH rH
> H
aj
K














g
^
O
+J
to

J
p
H
o

0)
*H
O
C4
H
P
H
cd
pq







0)
bO
aj
*H
CD
>
01
CO

Oi
-P
cd
rH
aj
ft
01
CO
O
O
o
*
o
o
0
ri
r 1
->










,
a?
t
aj
^
01
>
0)
CO
r?
cd
P
H

Cu
CO

'd

Cu











































O
O
o
*
0
ir\
CM
6r>





bO
G
H
-p
O
0) 
G rH
G 0
O -P
O ft
0)
>> 0
rO rH
CD
+J P
G G
aj M
rH
ft 0
CJ
0) tO
-P PH
cd cd
G -P
M a)
S Pu
H
rH 0
W -P






>>
-p
G
3
O
O

CD
JH
O
S
H
P
rH
cd
PQ




01
bO
aj
> -P
CU G
CO cd
rH
.G PH
O
4^
G
tn 0)
PQ 6
p
>i cd
CD CD
ft rH
0 EH
o
O
0
O
0
*
O
o
t
-6r>




1
-P
cu cd
W O)
03 ^
r* H
CD
CO 0)
bO
4^ aj
rH >
0) CD
> co
H
T3 CO
P
o .a
P bO
H
^H 01 
O M -P
P G
ft CU aj
CU bO H
0 J-< OH
rH 0
01 ft, -p
P C
GOO)
M -p E






>>
-p
rl
3
O
o

0)
rH
O
E
H
P
H
cd
pq


cu
bO
aj
rH
0)
^
CD
CO

to
p
Si
hO
rH
0)
w
OP
bO
JH
O
P^
O
O
0

-------

































co
Q
W
W
^

^""*
Q
lZ)
EH
CO
<
M

rij
p
CO

W
EH
<3j
1 1
O
g
5i3
M


















































-d
cu
cu
a



























>,
-P
H
H
,O
rH
to
G
O
P
to
cu
K














a
o
rH
-P
cd
cj
0
J







'd
CO W
bO CM cd
G O CU
H SH
Id -P G
O -rH -H
.1.1
' i IH
P X> O
G -H CM
cu to
H Cd +J
IH 0) d
-P 5 G
-p cu
CM -H -H
O U H
cd +3
G ft pi
o cd a
rH O
-p 'd
cd H CU
G cd H
H -H H
S -P o
rH G ^H
CU CU -P
-P -P G
CU O O
Q ft a



r> *
r-H CO
H CU
O -rH
G T)
j j
O -P
0 CO

XI CU
o G
>H -rH
03 JH
cu cd
to ps
cu -p
K to
w
cu
X CM <
a! o o
cu P-I
ft CU ts
cd o fc
CO -H
cu **H 'd
rG H
03 *n
cd
r*> -P
cd j3
fQ rO
-H
(U ^
r^4 EH
cfl
CU r-H
ft cd
cd T3
tQ -H
CU EH
XI
u





bC
H
-p
cd
SH
cu
rH
0)
o
o
cd

p
0
o
XI
-p
H

G
o
H
-p 
CJ C
p) 0
TH. -H
O -P
rH Cd
ft o
>5 XI
r-1 ft
cu o
to -p
H P)
rH
r-H Cd
cu cu
Xl rH
to cd



















































CM CO
v 0 B
p CU
tO (U rH
cti CU X>
^f SH O 'd
bO rH CU
H 0 ft -H
M r-4 -H
>.<  00 .p
4  .S -H fl
(/i p c> cu
;.i -H cu TJ
0 U ft -r-l
c cd to
H ft CO
cd .G cu
c o -P bO
C -H SH
< * 3= cd
rH cd >j a
cd O o to
ft rH G -H
r-i CU "d
C CU -rH
r-i "d a cu
C 3 -H -P
? rH CM to
B o CM cd
G CU >
CM -H
0 -d rH
O G cd
C -P cd -H
0 rH
-! >> -P -P
-P >H G CO
CO O 0 PJ
rH -P fi -d
 H G -P G
ft cu cd -H
S > cu
0 G rH G
O -H -p -H



^
cu
-p
cd
^3r.

CM Tli
0 G
cd X!
-P rH -P
G >> rH
cu H cd
E cd 0

s_<
cd *d CM
ft q o
d) Cd
f-> 1 -^
co G
t* cu 0
G CJ 5
cd M -p
i  1 Pi H
>> O od
^i CO ft
cd cu cu
S K Q






G
H
>> to
cd cd
PQ PH

0 0
^ bD
cd cd
0 a
ft -H
cd cd
tO (H
CU Q
o




cu
cd
(^
-p a)
G a
cu p)
H T)
^ OJ
P M
r3
G O
-p
CM
O to
p
w G
'd co
O 3
XI r-H

CU H
-p +J
CO
e
>> 0
-P rH
H
H H
X1 ai
H >
to o
cd B
0 cu

















r*>
-p
H
u

(H
o
B
H
^3
H
cd




-p
G
cu
B

p cd
H CU
O rH
fjH
0
rH 0
O bO
a cd
H >
-p 0
'a! W
pq



1
>
H
CU
o
0

G
H
4J


o
H
CM
H
G
bO
H
to

0

cu
XI
Jj

0
H
-p
cd
H
xi to
ft rH
O 0
rH -P
-p ai
pi >
cu
bC
CM G
O -H










































CO
-p

rH
(X,



r-H
G cd
O -H
o
tO >H
H 0
SB
a
si -o
ft CJ
cu 3



H
> G
o
CO -H
p -p
cd pi
O H
> H
o
B ft
0

CM O

G H
o o
H >H
-p -p
Pi G
rH O
H O
o
ft > O
ro 4^
3 -p
-P (D
co B



^i
c?
PQ

CD
rid
w
0
ft
cd
CO
0  -p



















































to
0
M)
1 q
M CO
rd O

rH H
cd cd
H CJ
) -M
d> bO
^4 O
-P H
o
M O
O 0

t/3 -P
^ 
a 0
H -H
rH IM
H
a; d

+J -H
to
CM
O -P
PS
d o
O XI

4-1 -H
cc >
c
H tQ
: 0
f-. bD
O rH
-P cd
0 XI
G 0




rH
rH
o
G
P)
o
o

.c
0
d?
cy
to
d'
K

cu
ffi CJ
0 P^
ft ^
CO fe
to
0 "d
x! q
CJ CO



to
d 0
*H
J^l
cd

cd Pi
pq xi
 1
0 SH

w
0 rH

03 -H
0 EH
XI
o
I
0)
-p 0
(O rH
cd pi
;* to
to
H cd to
CO rH
rH O 0
>H -P -P
-p cd
to to >
3 a
"d o uo
a -H c

cd ^c^
r*> ^H CD
-P 0 -H
rH ft CM
rH O rH
H rH
XI -P 0
cd q xl
H CO tO
H H
0 ft a
rM O
-p ft
X) G Pi
bO 0
H a -P
XI -P 0
cd 0
CM 0 CM
O M CM
-p 0
-p
G 0 0
cu bO to
a Cd rH
ft > 0
O 0 >
rH tO "d
0 Si
* 'd
0 G O
Q cd G


XI
-p
H
cd CM
0 O

-p

O 0
a
-p -p
C SH
0 cd
B ft
-P 0 W
H Q 0
cd o
ft T3 rH
0 G Pi
Q co O
H to
d >> 0
rH PC
cd
r-1 2 rH
S cu
M T3 -P
jj q ^



to
d 0

CO rH
cd

cd ^3
PQ X)
H
0 SH

cd
0 H
ft cd
cd "d
tO -rH
0 EH
X!
CJ
II - 10

1
0 -r-j
G S-i
H tifl
bO r-H cd
G 0
H ft -P
ft-H G
B ft cu
ft CM 03 
O "? bO
>i i TI d
o 10 id -,H
q G
>> 3 o o
-P 0 .p -H
H a 4^
r-i G -H
H >> o -d
Xi X1 -H G
H MO
to a M 
cd cu (U
0 0 > rH
CM IH -H -H
-p >d o
0 CO CO
XI CM
-P CM O SM
r-j O
CM pi !>> CM
O O -p
H CO
G 0 rH cd
O X! -H 0
 H -P XI k
-P -H Cd
cd o w
bD -p CQ rH
H O Cd
-P 0 ft >H
co bO Pi
0 T3 f! -P
> P) -P H
G rH -H P!
M 10 > O
























<3^
CJ
PH
1
X!   
0 -P CO
bC -H cd
cd > 0
> CO rH
0 -P G cd
CO G O

>arH -p 0
-P PJ Cd rH
H rH X)
O -p 0 O
G ft rH
0 0 O ft
rH a O
O -P 0 SH
B cd 0
H 0 C XI
-p (H -H -P
gEH^ 0
pq

-------
Ill - 11





































, 	 s
Ti
ID
-t
C
rH
p
0
o
h"f
M
w
,J
pD
<[,
EH





















































r^
0>
01
^























r*!
HJ
H
H
H
o
rH
tn
q
o
p.
10
0)
fr*.










C
o
rH
4J
Oi
O
o






gj
o
rH
'oJ
j,^
H
e
rH
H
(U

ai
1 1
ul
R
rH
4>
, H

*M
O

f;^
^_>
H

to

q
M



1

CO
to
C
cu
(+_t
0)
0

VH
O

4J
q
o)
E
4^
r^
cd
ft









r*>
|


CO


IrD




V 1
O


o
j^
a.

q
a>
^4
4)
^
<3j











R*
0)
4>
tn
J:*.
to

d>
a
^ 4
HI
Jj
0)
U)

!>i

rH



O
o

cd
o

to
01

to
cd
1*


































J
4-3
 H
rH
H
rO
 f-j
U)
a

VH

O
,q
4^
0)
q
H
6
(H
0)
^j
d)
O



H
O
q
3
o
o

bO
q
H
q

Co
H
CU

H
cd
q
o
H
bO
K




r*}
Rj
FQ


rH
t *
J1
^


O
o

0)
OT
D
.a


0
rH
fn

0)
bO
cd
r
0)
to
p
rH
O
^
H
TJ
o
-p

to
rH
O
P
Pj
OJ
o








i-*}
-p

H
o
0

T3
rH
O
V^
rH
cd
W

1^
9




* 
tf
(U
H
^_j
M


is
o
u




;^
.(a*
r-*

C
-H

4J
'"1
co
" i
t-- 1

-P
i.^
0)
i :
4 )
cj
OJ
t-,
t i


0
cd
fH
O

0)
c)

rH
aS
W





1
CtJ
  • H p -. 1 , 4 H O cd 4~> q O R cd 1> -f_> 0) a! rH cd ft 0) to ^H O q o 0) rH 0) O c ^ jl rH a ti< cd o VH O HI 0) cd ?! o a r ( bO q H -a q o ft M 0) rH O O 0) 5 T) q o H -P Q) *j 0 CtJ ft ft O !-3 4-> H ft r~j -P q rH

  • -------
                                                              JV - 1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    TV.   BASIN DESCRIPTION
    
    
    
    
             This study area represents in its  entirety an economy
    
    
    
    
     centered in the urban-industrial complex of Baltimore, with
    
    
    
    
     suburban area environs and extending to rural  agriculture to
    
    
    
    
     the north and east.   It includes all of Baltimore City and
    
    
    
    
     County and Harford County; parts of Anne Arundel, Howard, and
    
    
    
    
     Carroll Counties;  and even that small area of  Pennsylvania
    
    
    
    
     containing the headwaters  of the Gunpowder River Basin.   That
    
    
    
    
     part of the Susquehanna River Basin in Maryland is also included
    
    
    
    
     in  this study with its small drainage area in  Cecil County.
    
    
    
    
             The critical areas with pollution  problems are largely
    
    
    
    
     in  the Coastal Plain geophysical province.   The Fall Line separat-
    
    
    
    
     ing this from the  Piedmont province is close to the head of tide
    
    
    
    
     of  the several estuaries along this northwestern shore of Chesa-
    
    
    
    
     peake Bay,  and above this  Line the characteristic rolling country
    
    
    
    
     of  the Piedmont is evident.   Aside from the  suburban communities
    
    
    
    
     near Baltimore, the  Piedmont portion of the  study area is pri-
    
    
    
    
     marily agricultural.
    
    
    
    
             The primary  drainage basins to be  considered are  the
    
    
    
    
     Patapsco,  Back, Gunpowder,  Bush,  and Susquehanna Rivers,  but
    
    
    
    
     the analysis  for immediate needs  requirements  is based on a
    
    
    
    
     political  boundary rather  than drainage  basin  because  of  the
    
    
    
    
     several small  tidal  streams  that  are adjacent  to the basins.
    

    -------
                                                             IV - 2
    
    
    
    
    
    
            The Patapsco River provides the fine harbor which was
    
    
    
    
    instrumental in the development of Baltimore as the State's
    
    
    
    
    largest City, tne excellent port facilities, and the industrial
    
    
    
    
    center.  Industry and suburban development followed the course
    
    
    
    
    of the Hiver uputrcam, but nearer the headwaters the country in
    
    
    
    
    rural,
    
    
    
    
            The Back and adjacent Middle Rivers developed as suburbs,
    
    
    
    
    although some industrial growth occurred at their heads of tide
    
    
    
    
    due to their proximity to Baltimore.  Waterfront recreation and
    
    
    
    
    living are predominant here.
    
    
    
    
            Gunpowder River and Falls, with the tributaries Little
    
    
    
    
    Gunpowder Falls and Bird River, have not appreciably changed
    
    
    
    
    their rural characters, and there has been a concerted effort
    
    
    
    
    to develop the lower stream shores for park and recreational use.
    
    
    
    
    The estuary has several bathing beaches, and the headwaters are
    
    
    
    
    in agricultural areas with two reservoirs constructed for water
    
    
    
    
    supply to the City of Baltimore.
    
    
    
    
            The Bush River drainage area is small, and the land use
    
    
    
    
    is rural.   Except for the large Federal installations of the
    
    
    
    
    U. S. Army at Edgewood Arsenal and the Aberdeen Proving Ground,
    
    
    
    
    there is little industry.  These  Federal activities occupy
    
    
    
    
    practically all of the Chesapeake Bay shore front from Bush
    
    
    
    
    River northward to the Susquehanna River.
    

    -------
                                                             IV - 3
    
    
    
    
    
    
            The Susquehanna River Area contains the larger communi-
    
    
    
    
    ties of Aberdeen and Havre de Grace but is otherwise rural in
    
    
    
    
    ehanu'trr.  'I'hju Hiver In the primary source of frah water to
    
    
    
    
    Chesapeake Bay, providing 65 per cent of the flow and maintaining
    
    
    
    
    a low salinity in the Area during most of the year.
    

    -------
                                                              V - 1
    
    
    
    
    
    
     V=   RECENT PROGRESS  IN POLLUTION CONTROL
    
    
    
    
            In accordance with the Federal Water Pollution Control
    
    
    
    
     Act,  the f>tate of Maryland has approved and adopted water quality
    
    
    
    
     standards for all waters.3  In addition, a program of implementa-
    
    
    
    
     tion  has been proposed1* based upon amendments to the Annotated
    
    
    
    
     Code  of the State requiring all Counties and the independent City
    
    
    
    
     of Baltimore to submit a program of improvement of water quality
    
    
    
    
     in their respective  areas by 1970.
    
    
    
    
            Maryland Department of Water Resources and Maryland
    
    
    
    
     Department of Health are Jointly charged with the responsibility
    
    
    
    
     of reviewing these programs, with the former especially directed
    
    
    
    
     toward problems involving industrial wastes and the latter,
    
    
    
    
     sanitary wastes.
    
    
    
    
            A special committee has recommended creation of a Waste
    
    
    
    
     Acceptance Service27 to receive and treat all municipal and indus-
    
    
    
    
     trial wastes generated in the State.  This recommendation is now
    
    
    
    
     under study by a consulting engineer under contract.   A new law
    
    
    
    
     was passed by the Maryland Legislature requiring examination and
    
    
    
    
     certification of all waste treatment plant operators  effective
    
    
    
    
     June 1, 1968.
    
    
    
    
            During July 1967, construction of the Sod Run Sewage Treat-
    
    
    
    
    ment Plant near Ferryman was started.   It is  anticipated that,  in
    
    
    
    
     accordance with present plans and the  recommendations contained
    
    
    
    
    herein, the sewage treatment requirements for the entire subject
    
    
    
    
    area can be met with this and the Baltimore City plants.
    

    -------
                                                              Vi - J
    
    
    
    
    
    
    VI   IMMEDIATE NEEDS
    
    
    
    
         A.  General Needs
    
    
    
    
             An note.I  pr
    -------
                                                             VI - 2
    
    
    
    
    
    
    that can be achieved by controlled addition of nutrients from
    
    
    
    
    treated waste effluents in specific areas.
    
    
    
    
            The Chesapeake Research Council would be the recommended
    
    
    
    
    coordinating agency for the study, cooperating with the Office
    
    
    
    
    of Estuarine Studies, FWPCA, to their mutual advantage.  The
    
    
    
    
    Chesapeake Field Station will include nutrient determinations
    
    
    
    
    with water quality investigations in the upper Bay area where
    
    
    
    
    a field sampling program has already been scheduled.
    
    
    
    
    
    
            2.   Municipal and Industrial Waste Inventory
    
    
    
    
            Proposals for corrective action to improve water quality
    
    
    
    
    depend upon the availability of information on all waste dis-
    
    
    
    
    charges, treated or untreated.  The limited information avail-
    
    
    
    
    able is incomplete and, to a great extent, outdated because of
    
    
    
    
    recent progress by local governmental agencies.  The responsi-
    
    
    
    
    bility for this inventory lies with the Maryland Department of
    
    
    
    
    Health for sanitary discharges and municipal sewage treatment
    
    
    
    
    plant data and with the Maryland Department of Water Resources
    
    
    
    
    for industrial waste discharges and treatment data.  It is
    
    
    
    
    recommended that these agencies cooperate with the Chesapeake
    
    
    
    
    Field Station in preparing a complete waste inventory for the
    
    
    
    
    entire State.
    
    
    
    
    
    
            3.   Advanced Waste Treatment
    
    
    
    
            Some evidence of accelerated eutrophication was found
    
    
    
    
    in a study of the Back River Area12 and, contingent upon the
    

    -------
                                                             VI - 3
    
    
    
    
    
    
    findings of a general study of the Chesapeake Bay Area as recom-
    
    
    
    
    mended, additional problems in over-enrichment of Area waters
    
    
    
    
    from treated sewage effluents may be found.  It is recommended
    
    
    
    
    that provision be made for addition of advanced waste treatment
    
    
    
    
    facilities at the larger sewage treatment plants.  In addition,
    
    
    
    
    various methods of nutrient removal should be studied for eco-
    
    
    
    
    nomic feasibility, including that of industrial re-use of the
    
    
    
    
    effluent as currently practiced at the Back River Sewage Treat-
    
    
    
    
    ment Plant
    
    
    
    
    
    
            U.  Boat Pollution Investigations
    
    
    
    
            The relative importance of pollution from boats has not
    
    
    
    
    been resolved,  Tne Chesapeake Field Station is continuing a
    
    
    
    
    program of field studies on pleasure boat pollution with incon-
    
    
    
    
    clusive results because of high background pollution.  In addi-
    
    
    
    
    tion to these studies, some investigation is required of the
    
    
    
    
    pollution problem from commercial shipping in Baltimore Harbor.
    
    
    
    
    Legislative restrictions on indiscriminate waste discharge from
    
    
    
    
    vessels in the Harbor are recommended for adoption by the State
    
    
    
    
    based upon a uniform policy to be suggested by FWPCA.  There is
    
    
    
    
    an indication that Federal legislation may be required to effect
    
    
    
    
    control in interstate commerce.
    
    
    
    
    
    
            5.  Thermal Pollution Studies
    
    
    
    
            An investigation of the  ecological effects of thermal
    
    
    
    
    discharges from industrial cooling is required to determine the
    

    -------
    

    -------
    capacity of receiving waters for each discharge location.  This
    
    
    
    
    study should be referred to the Chesapeake Research Council to
    
    
    
    
    determine the institution to conduct each specific study and
    
    
    
    
    coordinate the findings with those of other locations and with
    
    
    
    
    the Office of Kstuarine Studies, FWPCA.
    
    
    
    
    
    
            6.  Sewage Treatment Plant Reliability Study
    
    
    
    
            The increasing trend toward large waste treatment plants
    
    
    
    
    with outfalls to Chesapeake Bay is becoming a threat to exist-
    
    
    
    
    ing shellfish growing areas where rigid water quality standards
    
    
    
    
    must be maintained.  The alternatives to duplication of treat-
    
    
    
    
    ment facilities, which may result in excessively high costs,
    
    
    
    
    should be explored to arrive at a feasible method to guard
    
    
    
    
    against breakdown of equipment and accidents in operations.
    
    
    
    
    These alternatives could include automatic monitoring of efflu-
    
    
    
    
    ents, emergency holding facilities, emergency chlorination
    
    
    
    
    equipment, and "nigh reliability equipment for all stages of
    
    
    
    
    treatment
    
    
    
    
    
    
            7=  Sludge Disposal
    
    
    
    
            This has become a problem not only in Baltimore, but
    
    
    
    
    also in other large cities where urban and suburban growth has
    
    
    
    
    preempted site locations for sludge disposal.   A study of alter-
    
    
    
    
    nate means of disposal is recommended, with pipeline  disposal
    
    
    
    
    to the ocean as discussed in further detail under the Baltimore
    
    
    
    
    City specific needs.
    

    -------
                                                             VI - 'j
    
    
            8.  Feaeral Installations, U, S. Army
    
            The extensive shore front activities at Edgewood Arsenal
    
    and Aberdeen Proving Grounds have limited the areas available
    
    for sewage treatment plants in the Harford County Area, and a
    
    large plant to serve the Area is now under construction on the
    
    Proving Grounds under agreement.  A study to explore the feasi-
    
    bility of diverting all sewage from these installations for
    
    treatment at the Sod Run Sewage Treatment Plant is recommended.
    
    
            9-  Extension of Intercepting Sewers to the Sod Run
                Sewage Treatment Plant
    
            The existing sewage treatment plants serving Havre de
    
    Grace, Aberdeen, and Joppatowne vary from poor to good in per-
    
    formance c  A feasibility study to divert sewerage from these
    
    locations to a central treatment plant is recommended.
    
    
        B.  Specific Needs
    
            A general discussion of needs by political divisions
    
    follows to supplement and furnish more detail than given in the
    
    Summary.   No cost figures are provided for construction needs,
    
    since they are included in the Summary,  and cost figures are not
    
    included for special studies recommended because of their inde-
    
    terminate nature at this time.   Responsibilities for action are
    
    also included in the tables in the Summary.
    

    -------
                                                             vi - 6
    
    
    
    
    
    
            1   Anne Arundel County
    
    
    
    
            The recent consulting engineer's study for Anne Arundel
    
    
    
    
    County^3 offers adequate solutions for waste problems in the
    
    
    
    
    Patapsco drainage areas, and the proposed interceptors to carry
    
    
    
    
    sewage to the .Baltimore City Patapsco Sewage Treatment Plant
    
    
    
    
    should be considered as joint ventures with adjacent counties,
    
    
    
    
    where applicable   Tentative plans to divert sewage from part
    
    
    
    
    of the Patuxent River drainage basin also provide feasible
    
    
    
    
    methods of reducing nutrient loadings to that already criti-
    
    
    
    
    cally loaded River, and this too should be achieved by coopera-
    
    
    
    
    tive action by Howard and Baltimore Counties to construct
    
    
    
    
    intercepting sewers.
    
    
    
    
            Water quality in the Patapsco outer narbor area appears
    
    
    
    
    to be fairly good based upon the limited data available, and no
    
    
    
    
    immediate construction needs are recommended for that Area,
    
    
    
    
    The inner harbor does receive industrial discharges from Anne
    
    
    
    
    Arundel County of relatively unknown quality and quantity, and
    
    
    
    
    an inventory of such discharges should be included in the require-
    
    
    
    
    ment of a general waste inventory to be prepared by the Maryland
    
    
    
    
    Department of Water Resources.   Examination of inner harbor water
    
    
    
    
    quality data regularly made by Baltimore City does not show any
    
    
    
    
    nonconformity with approved State standards.  However, the
    
    
    
    
    sampling points are located well out into the Harbor where con-
    
    
    
    
    siderable dispersion and dilution have already occurred.
    

    -------
                                                             VI - 7
    
    
    
    
    
    
            The existing primary sevage treatment plant at Cox Creek
    
    
    
    
    is inadequate, but additions to capacity and secondary treatment
    
    
    
    
    facilities (at a total cost of $P,062,000) are presently under
    
    
    
    
    construction and should provide adequate capacity until 1975-
    
    
    
    
            The Riviera Beach Area is now served "by an intercepting
    
    
    
    
    sewer with a pumping station to discharge all sewage to the Cox
    
    
    
    
    Creek Sewage Treatment Plant.
    
    
    
    
    
    
            2,  Howard County
    
    
    
    
            The problem of pollution in the Patapsco River by dis-
    
    
    
    
    charges from Elkridge and Ellicott City has been in existence
    
    
    
    
    for some time7* 8> 9 and prompted a consulting engineers' study15
    
    
    
    
    to develop a feasible corrective program.  An intercepting sewer
    
    
    
    
    to serve this Area was proposed and is an acceptable means of
    
    
    
    
    conveying the sewage from Howard and Baltimore Counties to the
    
    
    
    
    Patapsco Sewage Treatment Plant in Baltimore.  Part of this
    
    
    
    
    interceptor has been completed to a temporary treatment facility
    
    
    
    
    below Ellicott City, hut the remainder to the Baltimore City
    
    
    
    
    interceptor at Washington Boulevard is presently under design.
    
    
    
    
    Prompt completion of this interceptor is an immediate need for
    
    
    
    
    water quality improvement in the Patapsco River.
    
    
    
    
            The consulting engineers'  report also recommends  diver-
    
    
    
    
    sion of sewage from the Patuxent River drainage basin to  the
    
    
    
    
    Patapscc because of inadequate capacity in that Basin.   Inclu-
    
    
    
    
    sion of an intercepting sewer along Deep Creek to serve both
    

    -------
                                                             vi - 8
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Anne Arundel and Howard Counties in the Patapsco Basin and con-
    
    
    
    
    struction of a pumping station and force main to divert Patuxent
    
    
    
    
    Basin sewage are included an high priority immediate needs.
    
    
    
    
    
    
            3   Baltimore City
    
    
    
    
            Sixty-three per cent of the cost of all immediate water
    
    
    
    
    pollution control needs in the study area is for Baltimore City
    
    
    
    
    projects.  The more significant needs are as follows:
    
    
    
    
                a*  Waste Treatment Plants
    
    
    
    
            Most of the consulting engineers' studies have provided
    
    
    
    
    that at least part of the sewage from surrounding counties be
    
    
    
    
    treated at one of the two existing sewage treatment plants
    
    
    
    
    operated by the City.  In these proposals there can be no disagree-
    
    
    
    
    ment, since the discharges into the Patapsco inner harbor and
    
    
    
    
    Back River can be controlled wi^h adequate treatment to provide
    
    
    
    
    effluents that will allow approved standards to be met.  Consid-
    
    
    
    
    erable savings in sewage interceptor costs can be made by sharing
    
    
    
    
    of costs by the City and the several Counties, and this joint
    
    
    
    
    construction action is recommended.  The two Baltimore sewage
    
    
    
    
    treatment plants will then comprise two-thirds of the proposed
    
    
    
    
    eventual treatment plants for the study area and offer the
    
    
    
    
    advantages of large operational economy and effluent quality
    
    
    
    
    control.  Expansion and rehabilitation of both plants are
    
    
    
    
    included as high priority immediate needs with details as follows:
    

    -------
                                                             VI - 9
    
    
    
    
    
    
                     (l)  Patapsco Sewage Treatment Plant - This
    
    
    
    
    plant provides primary treatment only for an approximate flow
    
    
    
    
    of  10 mgd.  As an immediate need, the capacity should be
    
    
    
    
    doubled and secondary treatment provided to afford capacity
    
    
    
    
    and satisfactory treatment for the additional nowage load from
    
    
    
    
    Howard, Baltimore, and Anne Arundel Counties, as well as to
    
    
    
    
    enhance the degraded water quality in Baltimore's inner harbor.7'8'9
    
    
    
    
    In addition, provision should be made for location of advanced
    
    
    
    
    waste treatment facilities that may be required from proposed
    
    
    
    
    nutrient studies of the Harbor and Bay.
    
    
    
    
                    (2) Back River Sewage Treatment Plant - This
    
    
    
    
    plant was constructed in 1911 and has performed well in provid-
    
    
    
    
    ing secondary treatment to approximately 160 mgd of sewage from
    
    
    
    
    Baltimore City and County.  Contributing to the lack of problems
    
    
    
    
    in the receiving waters attributable to this plant has been the
    
    
    
    
    sale of effluent for industrial use by the Sparrows Point Plant
    
    
    
    
    of the Bethlehem Steel Company.12  In view of the proposals to
    
    
    
    
    divert additional sewage from Baltimore County to this plant
    
    
    
    
    and the age of existing facilities, enlargement and major reha-
    
    
    
    
    bilitation of this plant is recommended as an immediate need
    
    
    
    
    with the highest priority.  This location should also provide
    
    
    
    
    a site for possible advanced waste treatment facilities.
    

    -------
                                                            VI - 10
    
    
    
    
    
    
                b.  Sludge Disposal
    
    
    
    
            Sludge disposal problems for these sewage treatment
    
    
    
    
    pjnnta in the Baltimore City Area have become increasingly
    
    
    
    
    acute because of odor nuisance and lack of suitable sites for
    
    
    
    
    land disposal.  The alternative of incineration has been con-
    
    
    
    
    sidered and rejected as contributing to an existing air pollu-
    
    
    
    
    tion problem.  Baltimore City has, therefore, submitted a
    
    
    
    
    construction grants request for assistance in providing channel
    
    
    
    
    and boat facilities for sludge disposal at sea.  This facility
    
    
    
    
    cannot be recommended in this study as an immediate need to
    
    
    
    
    control vater pollution, although it has been asserted that
    
    
    
    
    there is leaching from sludge deposits into the River.  The
    
    
    
    
    previous Back River vater quality study12 does not reveal any
    
    
    
    
    discernable pollution from this source but did recommend con-
    
    
    
    
    sideration of dredging a channel in the River to allov greater
    
    
    
    
    tidal exchange to reduce the rate of eutrophication.
    
    
    
    
            Use of sludge boats for this Area would require an
    
    
    
    
    excessively long trip to reach a desirable location, would lack
    
    
    
    
    dependability in maintaining a schedule in adverse weather, and
    
    
    
    
    would require rigid inspection and control to assure that no
    
    
    
    
    premature or accidental dumping takes place.   Costs of opera-
    
    
    
    
    tion will be relatively high because of manpower requirements,
    
    
    
    
    boat and shore facility maintenance, and emergency storage
    
    
    
    
    provisions.   The proposed discharge location  20 miles offshore
    
    
    
    
    is not adequate  to prevent pollution of shorelines.
    

    -------
                                                             VI  -  11
    
    
    
    
    
    
             It  is  recommended,  therefore,  that  as  an  immediate  need,
    
    
    
    
     disposal of sludge by alternative methods be studied with con-
    
    
    
    
     n i derail on  to  IK? Driven  to devmterlnp; to  produce1 a filter cake
    
    
    
    
     and to disposal by pumping  to  the Gulf Stream  offshore  via
    
    
    
    
     pipeline,
    
    
    
    
             Modern sludge dewatering-incineration  processes  allow
    
    
    
    
     preparation  of a dry filter-cake that  can be disposed of by
    
    
    
    
     economic hauling to disposal sites and/or incinerators.
    
    
    
    
             Previous proposals  to  pump either raw  or  treated sewage
    
    
    
    
     effluents to the Gulf Stream have been considered but rejected
    
    
    
    
     thus far because of cost or the effect of diverting  treated
    
    
    
    
     effluents from the headwaters  of estuaries with resultant salin-
    
    
    
    
     ity incursion, but sludge disposal by pipeline may prove feasible.
    
    
    
    
            Pipeline costs  can be  reduced by joint action with  other
    
    
    
    
     treatment plants, such  as that of the District of Columbia  where
    
    
    
    
     sludge disposal problems already exist.
    
    
    
    
            Estimates of pipeline  and pumping costs can  be obtained
    
    
    
    
     from the extensive transcontinental lines carrying gas,  oil,
    
    
    
    
     and suspended solids which have provided an economical means  of
    
    
    
    
     transporting liquids of sludge consistency.
    
    
    
    
            Pipelines offer a definite point of discharge into  the
    
    
    
    
     Gulf Stream to achieve vertical dispersion at a point where
    
    
    
    
     currents will carry the nutrients away from the shoreline,   and
    
    
    
    
    the Gulf Stream provides an inexhaustible sink for sludge
    

    -------
                                                             VI  -  12
    
    
    
    
    
    
     solids and can absorb to advantage any dissolved nutrient load
    
    
    
    
     available,.
    
    
    
    
    
    
                 c,  Hewers and Appurtenances
    
    
    
    
            Intercepting sewers and other projects proposed  as
    
    
    
    
     immediate needs items supplement existing systems and allow
    
    
    
    
     sewage from  other areas to be treated in the Baltimore City
    
    
    
    
     plants and are considered separately.
    
    
    
    
                    (l)  The Patapsco Intercepting Sewer should be
    
    
    
    
     constructed  to serve Baltimore, Anne Arundel, and Howard Counties
    
    
    
    
     on an immediate need basis with capacity to meet long-term require-
    
    
    
    
     ments and to eliminate present pollution of the Patapsco River.7'**'9
    
    
    
    
                    (2)  The Southwest Intercepting Sewer is required
    
    
    
    
     to reduce pollution of Gwynns Falls resulting from remaining  com-
    
    
    
    
     bined sewer  overflows   and to provide capacity for area growth.
    
    
    
    
     Sampling of urban streams has consistently shown excessively high
    
    
    
    
     coliform counts, and coliforms have been a primary source of
    
    
    
    
     pollution in the Patapsco River and Baltimore inner harbor.214
    
    
    
    
                    (3)  The Jones Falls Pumping Station is inade-
    
    
    
    
     quate to prevent discharge of raw sewage overflows into Jones
    
    
    
    
     Falls, one of Baltimore City's urban streams.21*  Increasing the
    
    
    
    
     capacity of this Station with attendant force main construction
    
    
    
    
     is included in the high priority immediate needs.
    
    
    
    
                    (U)  The West Branch-Herring Run Intercepting
    
    
    
    
    Sewer is required to supplement existing interceptors which are
    

    -------
    

    -------
                                                            VI - 13
    
    
    
    
    
    
    periodically surcharged and to eliminate raw sewage discharges
    
    
    
    
    presently founa in these urban streams.24
    
    
    
    
            These itemised projects include immediate needs as far
    
    
    
    
    as they could be determined with the information available.  The
    
    
    
    
    Regional Planning Council has engaged a consulting engineering
    
    
    
    
    firm to prepare a master plan to include abatement of water
    
    
    
    
    pollutionc  The plan is scheduled for completion in early 1968.
    
    
    
    
            Baltimore is the hub of industry in the State of Mary-
    
    
    
    
    land.  An industrial waste inventory is essential for planning
    
    
    
    
    corrective action for pollution control in the Area and is a
    
    
    
    
    Maryland Department of Water Resources responsibility.
    
    
    
    
    
    
            h,   Baltimore County
    
    
    
    
                a.   Water quality in the Patapsco River is poor as
    
    
    
    
    a result of untreated or partially treated discharges.7'8'9
    
    
    
    
    While many of these wastes originate in Howard County, a sig-
    
    
    
    
    nificant number of industries in Baltimore County discharge
    
    
    
    
    effluents of undetermined quality into the River.  The County's
    
    
    
    
    Cooper Branch Sewage Treatment Plant near Catonsville provides
    
    
    
    
    secondary treatment to area sewage at present but can ultimately
    
    
    
    
    be eliminated and the sewage discharged to the Patapsco Inter-
    
    
    
    
    ceptor.  This has been undertaken as a cooperative project with
    
    
    
    
    Howard County,  and its completion is recommended as an immediate
    
    
    
    
    need.
    

    -------
                                                             VI  - 14
    
    
    
    
    
    
                 b.   Baltimore  County  drainage  area,  tributary to tne
    
    
    
    
    Patapsco River outer  harbor  area,  is  considered  separately  from
    
    
    
    
    t.lio  upntr^'un nrf-nn, nim't*  tidnl wxchfuigr-  providfM!  luimr  dJlut.lun
    
    
    
    
    to effect better water  quality.   However,  the  immediate needs
    
    
    
    
    involve construction  of pumping stations and force  mains to
    
    
    
    
    protect outer harbor  water quality when upstream pollution
    
    
    
    
    sources have been abated,
    
    
    
    
                 c.,   The Back River drainage area was the  subject of
    
    
    
    
    a separate report12 and the  recommended interceptor sewer con-
    
    
    
    
    struction to abate pollution from  the tributaries is  included
    
    
    
    
    as an immediate  need  in this study.  Also  included  in this  report
    
    
    
    
    was the recommendation  that  increase in the industrial  use  of
    
    
    
    
    effluents by the Bethlehem Steel Company be promoted  to reduce
    
    
    
    
    nutrient discharges,  or that the feasibility of  advanced waste
    
    
    
    
    treatment be investigated.
    
    
    
    
                 d.   Pollution  from unsewered areas exists in the
    
    
    
    
    Middle River Sub-Basin14,  and extension of severage with con-
    
    
    
    
    struction of pumping  stations to serve these areas  is recommended.
    
    
    
    
                e-   The Bird and Gunpowder River areas have  poor
    
    
    
    
    water quality,  as evidenced by bathing beach sampling1**  and  pre-
    
    
    
    
    vious studies.17'18  A  survey by the County Health Department,
    
    
    
    
    using dye in sanitary fixtures, confirmed the origin as  from
    
    
    
    
    inadequate private disposal systems.   To protect the recreational
    
    
    
    
    park facilities along Gunpowder Falls and the bathing beaches in
    

    -------
                                                            VI  -  Vj
    
    
    
    
    
    
    the Gunpowder River, sewerage along the Creek and adequate  treat-
    
    
    
    
    ment are essential as immediate needs.  Previous studies have
    
    
    
    
    proposed interim treatment at locations downstream from Loch
    
    
    
    
    Raven Reservoir, with an ultimate sewage treatment plant at the
    
    
    
    
    mouth. 16  The construction of an interceptor along the lower
    
    
    
    
    Gunpowder Falls is not recommended at this time as an immediate
    
    
    
    
    need because of low population density.  Instead, the construc-
    
    
    
    
    tion of the Forge Heights and White Marsh Interceptors is pro-
    
    
    
    
    posed, the former to divert sewage to an existing small treatment
    
    
    
    
    plant, and the latter to the Back River Sewage Treatment Plant.
    
    
    
    
    A pumping station near Joppatowne to divert sewage to either the
    
    
    
    
    Back River or Sod Run Sewage Treatment Plants should be considered
    
    
    
    
    as an alternative to expansion of the existing Joppatowne plant,
    
    
    
    
    perhaps with the ultimate objective of eliminating this plant.
    
    
    
    
    A considerable cost saving may be achieved over that of maintain-
    
    
    
    
    ing a separate sewage treatment plant.
    
    
    
    
    
    
            5   Harford County
    
    
    
    
            The Harford County Metropolitan Commission has already
    
    
    
    
    developed plans for sewerage and sewage treatment in the tide-
    
    
    
    
    water and adjacent areas that can be included in the immediate
    
    
    
    
    needs study.   Most of the shoreline is occupied by Government
    
    
    
    
    installations which effectively limits sewage treatment discharge
    
    
    
    
    considerations to the Bush River.   This discharge location has
    
    
    
    
    been studied and rejected as unsatisfactory in providing dilution
    

    -------
                                                            VI - 16
    
    
    
    
    
    
    for treated effluents.  A site on the Aberdeen Proving Grounds
    
    
    
    
    was acquired, and the Sod Run Sewage Treatment Plant is now
    
    
    
    
    under construction.  This plant will discharge* its effluent into
    
    
    
    
    Roraney Creek, a tidal stream and estuary flowing into Chesapeake
    
    
    
    
    Bay.  It is anticipated that this broad, shallow estuary will
    
    
    
    
    serve as a stabilization pond for this effluent and effect some
    
    
    
    
    "polishing" action to reduce nutrient content before discharge
    
    
    
    
    into the Bay,  However, a condition in the agreement with the
    
    
    
    
    Federal Government provides that, should nutrients become a
    
    
    
    
    problem in Romney Creek, additional treatment will be required.
    
    
    
    
            Bush River has been subject to serious pollution problems
    
    
    
    
    in the past23, but conditions have been improved as a result
    
    
    
    
    of the interim stabilization ponds constructed near Ferryman,
    
    
    
    
    as proposed in an earlier County plan, and corrective actions
    
    
    
    
    taken at the Army Chemical Center at Edgewood.
    
    
    
    
            The recommended action to serve immediate needs is to
    
    
    
    
    construct interceptors from communities in the Area which are
    
    
    
    
    most urgently in need of additional sewage treatment facilities;
    
    
    
    
    namely,  Bel Air, Ferryman, and Edgewood.   The latter has been
    
    
    
    
    notified that it can no longer continue discharging sewage into
    
    
    
    
    the Edgewood Arsenal sewerage system.   Other interceptors  are
    
    
    
    
    required to serve new communities at Wildcat Branch, Winter's
    
    
    
    
    Run, Bynum Run Extension,  Swan Creek,  and Cranberry Run.   The
    
    
    
    
    remaining immediate construction need is  at Havre de Grace,  where
    

    -------
                                                             VI - 17
    
    
    
    
    
    
     discharges  from  combined  sewers  and primary treatment have pol-
    
    
    
    
     luted part  of  the  Susquehanna  River at  some river stages.   This
    
    
    
    
     romrtiun I iy ,  iilotiK wit.h  othrr  eommuni t It-.i  prov i ilJ tv. primary  t.rrnl-
    
    
    
    
     ment only,  has been  notified by  the State  Department  of Health
    
    
    
    
     to take corrective action.
    
    
    
    
            Sewer  separation  and secondary treatment  in the Lilly
    
    
    
    
     Run Basin are  urgently required,
    
    
    
    
            Special studies are  recommended  as  part of this immediate
    
    
    
    
     needs report and should be undertaken promptly to avoid unneces-
    
    
    
    
     sary construction expenditures.  The most urgent  is the feasi-
    
    
    
    
     bility of extending  intercepting sewers  from the  Sod  Run Sewage
    
    
    
    
     Treatment Plant to Havre  de  Grace via Aberdeen.   Aberdeen  has an
    
    
    
    
     adequate treatment plant  at  present, but prospective  peripheral
    
    
    
    
     growth will exceed its capacity, and additions to the plant  appear
    
    
    
    
     less desirable than  providing  additional capacity at  Sod Run.
    
    
    
    
     Cooperation of the Aberdeen  and Havre de Grace communities could
    
    
    
    
     achieve mutual savings in cost of an interceptor  and  allow the
    
    
    
    
     latter to discontinue  plans  for additional  treatment,
    
    
    
    
            Possible elimination of the Joppatowne Sewage Treatment
    
    
    
    
     Plant has already been discussed elsewhere,  and feasibility  of
    
    
    
    
     connection to the Sod  Run Interceptor should be studied.
    
    
    
    
            While sewage treatment facilities at Federal  installa-
    
    
    
    
     tions in the Area do not appear to be a problem based upon
    
    
    
    
     limited information  available, it is recommended  that  the  feasi-
    
    
    
    
    bility of future elimination of sewage treatment  facilities  at
    

    -------
                                                    VI - 18
    
    
    
    
    
    
    botn the Aberdeen Proving Ground and Edgewood Arsenal be examined.
    
    
    
    
    Executive Order No. 11288 declares the disposal of sewage to ade-
    
    
    
    
    quate municipal sewerage to be the preferred method of treatment.
    
    
    
    
    Arrangement:-, ^ deliver Aberdeen Proving Oroxind newagr via pro-
    
    
    
    
    posed interceptors to the Sod Run Sewage Treatment Plant under
    
    
    
    
    construction at the site would permit operations at the Aberdeen
    
    
    
    
    Proving Ground Sewage Treatment Plant to be discontinued if a
    
    
    
    
    satisfactory agreement could be reached.  Similarly, tne Kdgewood
    
    
    
    
    Ajsonal sewerage system could be readily adapted to discharge into
    
    
    
    
    the proposed Edgewood Community Interceptor.
    
    
    
    
    
            6.  Cecil County
    
    
    
    
            There are just two communities in tne Susquehanna Drainage
    
    
    
    
    has in in this County that contribute any significant waste dis-
    
    
    
    
    charges.  These are Conowingo, furnishing primary treatment, and
    
    
    
    
    Port Deposit with none.   Although the River water quality is good
    
    
    
    
    in these reaches,20 secondary treatment should be provided.
    

    -------
                                                              VII -  1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    VII.  INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
    
    
    
    
              The problem of the several separate plans prepared by
    
    
    
    
      foriuul t.inK <*r'K i noorn for Uie r.<>vfrril political Jurisdictions
    
    
    
    
      has already been resolved by cooperative actions.  The existing
    
    
    
    
      institutions can, within their frameworks of authority, plan
    
    
    
    
      and implement actions for the abatement of pollution in accord-
    
    
    
    
      ance with existing legislation.14
    
    
    
    
              Considering the size of the stream basins included in
    
    
    
    
      the study area,  there is no necessity for formation of basin
    
    
    
    
      commissions nor  authorities to expedite corrective actions.
    
    
    
    
      Any preliminary  review of programs can be accomplished compe-
    
    
    
    
      tently by the State agencies responsibleMaryland Department
    
    
    
    
      of Water Resources and Maryland Department of Health.
    

    -------
                                                              VIII -
    VIII,   BIBLIOGRAPHY
           C,  H.  J.  Hull, Consultant, "MARYLAND WATER SUPPLY AND
           DEMAND STUPY, Part I, Volume I, Chesapeake Bay West
           UruinuKi'  lUtDiri," for Maryland State Plannlm1; Department ,
           Baltimore, Mary J and, September
           HnruJci K  VoKon, "GEOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY OK MARYLAND,"
           HuJJ'-Ljn [> of the Maryland Department of Geology, Mines
           and Water Resources, Baltimore, Maryland, 1957.
    
           Maryland Water Resources Commission and Department of
           Water Resources, "GENERAL WATER QUALITY CRITERIA AND
           SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR ALL MARYLAND WATERS,"
           Annapolis,  Maryland, Approved May 22, 1967=
    
           Maryland Water Resources Commission, "PLAN FOR THE IMPLE-
           MENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR
           ALL MARYLAND WATERS (including Interstate Waters),"
           Proposed April 12, 1967.
    
           Whitman, Recuardt and Associates, Engineers, Baltimore,
           Maryland, "WATER AND SEWERAGE MASTER PLAN- REPORT," for
           County of Anne Arundel, Maryland, February 1967.
    
           E.  D,  Stroup, D. W. Pritchard, and J. H.  Carpenter of the
           Chesapeake  Bay Institute, The Johns Hopkins  University,
           Baltimore,  Maryland, "FINAL REPORT, BALTIMORE HARBOR STUDY,
           Technical Report XXVI, Reference 6l-5," December 1961,,
    
           J   R=  Longwell of the Maryland Department of Water Resources,
           Annapolis,  Maryland, "PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL AND BACTERIOLOGICAL
           WATER QUALITY IN THE PATAPSCO RIVER, SUMMER  SURVEYS 1963-
           1961*-1965," January 1967.
    
           J,  R.  Longwell of the Maryland Water Pollution Control Com-
           mission, "DATA REPORT, PATAPSCO RIVER SURVEY, MARCH 196l -
           DECEMBER 1962," September 30, 1963.
    
           Maryland Water Pollution Control Commission  and  Department
           of  Health,  "WATER POLLUTION SURVEY OF THE PATAPSCO RIVER,"
           Baltimore,  Maryland, March 1, 1957 
    

    -------
                                                           VIII - 2
    10.  U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public
         Health Service, Region III, "TABULATION, COMMUNITY WASTE
         DATA, MARYLAND PORTION, CHESAPEAKE DRAINAGE AREA,"
         Charlottesville, Virginia, August 196k.
    
    11.  U. B. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution
         Control Administration, Middle Atlantic Region, "WATER
         POLLUTION SURVEY, BACK RIVER, 1965," CB-HRBP Working
         Document No. 6, Charlottesville, Virginia, February 1967.
    
    12.  U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public
         Health Service, Region III, "SUMMARY REPORT, POLLUTION OF
         BACK RIVER," Charlottesville, Virginia, January 196^4.
    
    13.  Baltimore County Board of Health, "POLLUTION CORRECTION IN
         BACK RIVER," Tovson, Maryland, July 196U.
    
    lU.  Baltimore County Board of Health, "BATHING BEACH SURVEY,
         BALTIMORE COUNTY 1965-1966," Towson, Maryland.
    
    15-  Whitman, Requardt and Associates, Consulting Engineers,
         Baltimore, Maryland, "HOWARD COUNTY SEWERAGE REPORT,"  for
         Howard County Metropolitan Commission, Ellicott City,
         Maryland, June 1958.
    
    16.  Black and Veatch, Consulting Engineers, Kansas City,
         Missouri, "WASTE-WATER COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL IN THE
         GUNPOWDER RIVER BASIN," for Maryland State Planning
         Department, Baltimore, Maryland, 1962.
    
    17-  J. R. Longwell of the Maryland Department of Water Resources,
         Annapolis, Maryland, "PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL AND BACTERIOLOGICAL
         WATER QUALITY IN GUNPOWDER FALLS AND LITTLE GUNPOWDER  FALLS,"
         August 1962 - August 1963.
    
    I8o  Maryland Water Pollution Control Commission, "GUNPOWDER
         FALLS, PROGRAM TO CONTROL WATER POLLUTION FROM INDUSTRIAL
         SOURCES," August 1, 1958, with 1962 Supplement.
    
    19.  Whitman, Requardt and Associates, Engineers, Baltimore,
         Maryland, "WATER AND SEWERAGE PROGRAM FOR THE BUSH RIVER
         AREA," for the Harford County Metropolitan Commission,
         Bel Air, Maryland, February 196U.
    

    -------
                                                           VIII - 3
     0.  U. S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution
         Control Administration, Middle Atlantic Region, "WATER
         QUALITY AND POLLUTION CONTROL STUDY, SUSQUEHANNA RIVER
         BASIN FROM NORTHUMBERLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, TO HAVRE DE GRACE,
         MARYLAND," CB-SRBP Working Document No. ]6, Chariot tenvi 1 Jt?
         Virginia, July
         Rommel, K^epper and Kahl, Consulting Engineers, Baltimore ,
         Maryland, "BEL AIR SEWERAGE REPORT," for the Harford County
         Metropolitan Commission, 1965.
    
    22.  Whitman, Requardt and Associates, Engineers-Consultants,
         Baltimore, Maryland, "TOWN OF ABERDEEN, MARYLAND, SEWERAGE
         REPORT," for the Commissioners, Town of Aberdeen, January
         1966.
    
    23.  Harford County Health Department, Bel Air, Maryland, "THE
         BUSH RIVER IK THE MAIN-STREAM OF AMERICA," 1965.
    
    2^4.  Ira L. Whitman, "PHYSICAL CONDITIONS OF STREAMS IN BALTIMORE
         AND THEIR RELATION TO PARK AREAS," for the Departments of
         Public Works and Recreation and Parks, Baltimore, Maryland,
         December 1966.
    
    25.  Richard J. Frankel, "WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT:   AN ENGINEERING-
         ECONOMIC MODEL FOR DOMESTIC WASTE DISPOSAL," University of
         California, Berkeley, Ph.D. 1965-
    
    26.  R. C. Whaley, J. A. Carpenter, and R. L. Baker, "NUTRIENT
         DATA SUMMARY 196U, 1965, 1966, UPPER CHESAPEAKE BAY,"
         Special Report 12, Reference 66-k of the Chesapeake Bay
         Institute, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland,
         November 1966.
    
    27.  A Study Commission to Investigate the Problems  of Water
         Pollution Control, "A PROSPECTUS, WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
         IN MARYLMD," in response to Senate Joint Resolution H8,
         Adopted by the General Assembly of Maryland during the
         1966 Session.
    

    -------
    

    -------
    

    -------
                            TABLE  OF  CONTENTS
    
                                                                  Page
    
      I,  INTRODUCTION .....................     I  - 1
    
          A.  Purpose and Scope  ...............     1-1
    
          B.  Authority  ...................     1-2
    
          C.  Acknowledgements   ...............     1-3
    
     II.  GENERAL  ......................    II  - 1
    
          A.  Sources of Information  .............    II  - 1
    
          B.  Determination of Needs  .............    II  - 2
    
    III.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS   ..............   Ill  - 1
    
          A.  Findings ....................   Ill  - 1
    
          B.  Summary of Immediate Needs ...........   Ill  - U
    
              1.  Waste Treatment   ..............   Ill  - k
    
              2.  Special Studies   ..............   Ill  - 5
    
              3.  Institutional Practices  ..........   Ill  - 18
    
     IV.  BASIN DESCRIPTION  .................    IV  - 1
    
          A.  Area and Population   ..............    IV  - 1
    
          B.  Water Use and Hydrology  . .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    .  .    IV  - 3
    
          C.  Economy  ....................    IV  - 5
    
      V.  RECENT PROGRESS IN POLLUTION CONTROL  ..     V  - 1
    
     VI.  IMMEDIATE POLLUTION CONTROL NEEDS  .........    VI  - 1
    
          A.  General Needs  .................    VI  - 1
    
              1.  Waste Source Inventory and Data
                    Compilation  ...............    VI  - 1
    
              2.  Field Studies  ...............    VI  - 2
    
              3.  Sewer Districts   ..............    VI  - 3
    

    -------
                      TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
    
                                                                   Page
    
          B.  Area Needs ....................   VI - 4
    
              1.  Atlantic Coast Drainage of Maryland  .....   VI - 5
    
              2.  Atlantic and Chesapeake Bay Drainage of
                    the Virginia Peninsula ...........   VI - 8
    
              3.  Northeastern Chesapeake Bay Area,  Stump
                    Point (Susquehanna River) to Swan Point
                    (Chester River), Maryland  .........   VI - 10
    
              U.  Chester River Basin  .  . ,    .........   VI - 13
    
              5.  Eastern Bay Drainage ........,..     VI - ik
    
              6.  Choptank River Basin .............   VI - 15
    
              7.  Nanticoke River Basin  ............   VI - 18
    
              8.  Wicomico River Basin .............   VI - 20
    
              9.  Little Annemessex River  ...........   VI - 23
    
             10.  Pocomoke River Basin .............   VI - 23
    
     VII.  INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS  .............  VII - 1
    
    VIII.  BIBLIOGRAPHY  ...................  .VIII - 1
    

    -------
    

    -------
                                                                I - 1
    
    
    
    I.  INTRODUCTION
    
    
    
        A0  Purpose and Scope
    
    
    
            The Eastern Shore is a land America almost left behind.
    
    
    
    Until Chesapeake Bay was crossed by the Bay Bridge in 1951, the
    
    
    
    Shore was a farming and fishing area with many watermen and farmers
    
    
    
    with three to six generations of ancestors on the land or waterfront;
    
    
    
    their clannish independence s industry and strong adherence to
    
    
    
    tradition were akin more to rural America of 100 years ago than
    
    
    
    to a modern industrial society.
    
    
    
            Today the small farmers and watermen have lost their dominance
    
    
    
    of the area economy  Farms have modernized and become large, and
    
    
    
    the very survival of the watermen depends on their changing their
    
    
    
    methods and attitudes.
    
    
    
                 "..... They are dying now
    
    
    
                  Or being educated, which is the same.
    
    
    
                  One need not weep romantic tears for them,"
    
    
    
            But when they are gone -
    
    
    
                 "Something will pass that was American
    
    
    
                  And all the movies will not bring it back."2
    
    
    
    
            The Eastern Shoremen now have the opportunity of accepting
    
    
    
    industrial development while retaining the best of their traditional
    
    
    
    way of life, an opportunity not available to any other comparably
    
    
    
    sized area on the East Coast.  Already, however, the recent growth
    
    
    
    of modestly-sized metropolitan areas has given the Eastern Shore
    
    
    
    the same type of problems (if not of the same intensity) as those
    

    -------
                                                                1-2
    
    
    
    
    
    
    of conventional metropolitan industrial areas.  At the same time,
    
    
    
    
    the existing rural population and industry, increasing development
    
    
    
    
    of the shoreline, and the need for very high water quality have not
    
    
    
    
    allowed the problem of rural pollution to be disregarded.
    
    
    
    
            The purpose of this study is to examine the surface waters
    
    
    
    
    of the Chesapeake Bay drainage and the Maryland and Virginia Atlantic
    
    
    
    
    Ocean drainage of the Eastern Shore, and to prepare a working docu-
    
    
    
    
    ment describing the immediate water pollution control action needed
    
    
    
    
    in the Area.  The principal objective to the investigation and report
    
    
    
    
    is to provide the following information based on currently available
    
    
    
    
    knowledge and datas
    
    
    
    
            1.  Location and magnitude of present water pollution
    
    
    
    
                problem areas as determined by interference with
    
    
    
    
                water uses specified by the states.
    
    
    
    
            2.  Identification of the pollution sources and parties
    
    
    
    
                responsible.
    
    
    
    
            3.  Outline for an immediate action program to correct
    
    
    
    
                existing problems and prevent incipient problems
    
    
    
    
                from developing further.
    
    
    
    
            k.  Cost estimates for achieving the corrective program.
    
    
    
    
    
    
           B.  Authority
    
    
    
    
           This report is submitted under the provisions of the Federal
    
    
    
    
    Water Pollution Control Act as amended (33 U.S.C.  k66 et.  seq,)
    
    
    
    
    which directed the Secretary of the Interior to develop programs
    

    -------
    

    -------
                                                                I - 3
    
    
    
    
    
    for eliminating pollution of interstate waters and improving the
    
    
    
    sanitary condition of surface and underground waters.
    
    
    
            C.  Acknowledgements
    
    
    
            The findings and recommendations in this study are based
    
    
    
    largely upon information and opinions offered by State and local
    
    
    
    officials and upon consulting engineers' reports prepared for
    
    
    
    local governments.  This information was supplemented by inspections
    
    
    
    conducted by personnel of the Chesapeake Field Station.  Cooperation
    
    
    
    of the officials of the State agencies and local governments listed
    
    
    
    below was invaluable in developing a summary of the immediate water
    
    
    
    quality control needss
    
    
    
            Delaware Water and Air Resources Commission
    
    
    
            Maryland Department of Chesapeake Bay Affairs
    
    
    
            Maryland Department of Water Resources
    
    
    
            Maryland State Department of Health
    
    
    
            Virginia State Department of Health
    
    
    
            Virginia State Water Control Board
    
    
    
            Cambridge, Maryland
    
    
    
            Cecil County, Maryland
    
    
    
            Pocomoke City, Maryland
    
    
    
            Salisbury, Maryland
    
    
    
            Delmarva Advisory Council, an economic development
    
    
    
              council supported by the three states and the
    
    
    
              Federal government.
    

    -------
                                                               II - 1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    II.  GENERAL
    
    
    
         A.  Sources of Information
    
    
    
             Information was secured principally from State agencies
    
    
    
    and to a lesser extent from officials of local governments and
    
    
    
    through inspections by members of the FWPCA Chesapeake Field
    
    
    
    Station staff.  No comprehensive body of data was available in
    
    
    
    summary or report form during this study, except for coliform
    
    
    
    data in shellfish waters   Considerable field data, however, were
    
    
    
    available in preliminary form from MDWR, pending later publication
    
    
    
    of the reports.  Qualitative observations solicited from State
    
    
    
    officials were relied upon where quantitative field data were
    
    
    
    lacking.  The conclusions and recommendations in this study,
    
    
    
    however, are those of the FWPCA Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River
    
    
    
    Basins Project.
    
    
    
             Consultants' cost estimates for municipal construction
    
    
    
    were used where available.  In most such cases, consulting engineers'
    
    
    
    reports were on file with MSDH, but in several cases proposed
    
    
    
    action and cost information was transmitted orally by MSDH or
    
    
    
    local officials.  Where consultants' studies were not available,
    
    
    
    treatment plant costs were estimated from average national costs,7
    
    
    
    except in the case of small plants for communities of less than
    
    
    
    2,500 population.  For such construction, an average per capita
    
    
    
    cost was computed from consulting engineers' studies16_l8,24,26,27-29
    
    
    
    and applied to the town population   Construction costs of sewers
    
    
    
    were also estimated in this way.
    

    -------
    

    -------
                                                               II - 2
    
    
    
    
    
    
            The costs of independent industrial waste treatment were
    
    
    
    
    not determined.  Estimates of industrial waste quantities were not
    
    
    
    
    available, and no contact with officials of industrial activities
    
    
    
    
    was made during the study.
    
    
    
    
    
    
            B.  Determination of Needs
    
    
    
    
            Determination of immediate action needs was based on whether
    
    
    
    
    or not pollution sources were interfering, or could be expected to
    
    
    
    
    interfere, with the water uses specified by the State115in waters
    
    
    
    
    which were expected to receive the specified uses to a significant
    
    
    
    
    degree.  For the purpose of evaluating the significance of pollution
    
    
    
    
    sources, it was assumed that all large tidal waters received
    
    
    
    
    appreciable use of the types specified.  On smaller tidal and
    
    
    
    
    non-tidal interstate waters, evaluations were made on each indivi-
    
    
    
    
    dual stream, primarily on the basis of size.  In each case where
    
    
    
    
    there was interference with a water use, it was assumed that
    
    
    
    
    nuisance conditions existed or water quality was significantly
    
    
    
    
    degraded.
    
    
    
            It should be noted that these criteria reflect the need
    
    
    
    
    to emphasize large tidal waters because of their importance as
    
    
    
    
    a multiple resource, and that they are not at variance with the
    
    
    
    
    States' water use classifications, which may apply to all waters
    
    
    
    
    regardless of size.  This is particularly applicable in the case
    
    
    
    
    of Maryland water.  Violations of quality standards have occurred
    
    
    
    
    in small creeks and ditches, primarily as a result of bacterial
    

    -------
                                                               II - 3
    
    
    
    
    
    contamination from overflowing septic tanks37 .   Unless such con-
    
    
    
    tamination was believed to extend downstream to  interfere with
    
    
    
    significant water uses, it was considered a local public health
    
    
    
    problem only and not cited as a pollution control need.  In cases
    
    
    
    where malfunctioning septic tanks were exerting  an adverse effect
    
    
    
    on waters wMch received significant use, however, an entire
    
    
    
    sewerage system, as well as the treatment plant, was listed as a
    
    
    
    pollution control need.
    
    
    
            Immediate needs have been interpreted here in a broad
    
    
    
    sense.  Not only construction and special study  needs but also
    
    
    
    organizational changes have been recommended because of the
    
    
    
    necessity of enhancing and protecting the water  quality of the
    
    
    
    tidal waters in the face of accelerated population growth.  The
    
    
    
    present importance of the tidewater resource, when evaluated in
    
    
    
    terms of dollar value, is not nearly as high as  the potential
    
    
    
    overall benefits to regional economic development which may be
    
    
    
    attributable directly or indirectly to the resource.
    
    
    
            It is important, therefore, that an institutional frame-
    
    
    
    work be established which can implement a comprehensive program
    
    
    
    of pollution control, embracing all of the water resources in
    
    
    
    the area.
    

    -------
                                                              Ill - 1
    
    
    
    
    
    III.  SUMMARY AM) CONCLUSIONS
    
    
    
    
          A.  Findings
    
    
    
              Pollution control needs on the Eastern Shore reflect the
    
    
    
    fragmented drainage system, the scattered rural population, the
    
    
    
    predominance of the food processing industry, and the fact that
    
    
    
    almost all waters are classified as recreational or shellfish
    
    
    
    waters.  Because many of the problems are relatively small and
    
    
    
    remote, the distinction between public health and water quality
    
    
    
    needs is often arbitrary.  Most of the pollution control needs
    
    
    
    can be met by proper application of existing technology, but
    
    
    
    because of the lack of adequate records and inventories of pollu-
    
    
    
    tion sources and quantities, further studies are needed to determine
    
    
    
    the effect of rural pollution sources such as poultry farms and
    
    
    
    the extent of pollution control measures beyond conventional
    
    
    
    secondary treatment needed at some of the larger waste sources.
    
    
    
              While the trends outlined in Part IV tend to reduce
    
    
    
    the total waste from the food processing industry, the industry
    
    
    
    remains the largest single waste producer on the Eastern Shore,
    
    
    
    and in many instances has not provided adequate treatment of its
    
    
    
    wastes or else has not assumed its share of waste treatment costs.
    
    
    
    In Maryland, food processing wastes have frequently been treated
    
    
    
    by towns without charge as an incentive to industry because the
    
    
    
    food processing industry is an important employerparticularly
    
    
    
    of unskilled labor, of which there is a surplus in the area.
    

    -------
                                                              Ill - 2
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Frequently (though occasionally only seasonally) the food processing
    
    
    
    
    wastes overload or otherwise interfere with the operation of
    
    
    
    
    municipally-owned sewage treatment plants  '  '
    
    
    
    
              The only other industry in the area which discharges
    
    
    
    
    significant waste loads is the chemical industry which has contri-
    
    
    
    
    buted to pollution problems in the Elk River.  Municipal discharges
    
    
    
    
    adversely affect water quality throughout the Eastern Shore.  The
    
    
    
    
    principal immediate pollution control needs in the area are related
    
    
    
    
    to municipal or food industry discharges, or to a combination of both,
    
    
    
    
              Although the principal pollution problems are associated
    
    
    
    
    with larger discharges, seepage from small towns, rural communities,
    
    
    
    
    and dwelling units along the shoreline can have a cumulative effect
    
    
    
    
    on water use far out of proportion to the size of the discharges.
    
    
    
    
              The problem of waste treatment for small towns and communi-
    
    
    
    
    ties needs attention for two reasons; first, small communities do
    
    
    
    
    not have the resources to adequately plan, construct and operate
    
    
    
    
    treatment facilities; and secondly, construction of conventional
    
    
    
    
    sewers and waste treatment facilities for small communities involves
    
    
    
    
    high per capita costs which vary widely among towns in different
    
    
    
    
    locations.  Establishment of governmental units, with resources
    
    
    
    
    sufficient to cope with these problems has been recommended in
    
    
    
    
    Section III-B.  Studies of ways to reduce overall costs have also
    
    
    
    
    been recommended.
    
    
    
    
              Shellfish harvesting requirements  '  '  considerably
    
    
    
    
    influence pollution control needs for the Shore.  Waters may be
    

    -------
    

    -------
                                                              Ill - 3
    
    
    
    closed to shellfishing on the basis oft  (a)  demonstrated bacterial
    
                 M.
    contamination ;  (b) lack of evidence that no pollution sources
    
    
    exist in the area (a survey within the last ten years should have
    
    
    indicated that the shoreline is free of waste flows or seepages);
    
    
    (c) possible contamination from sewage plant discharges.  A buffer
    
    
    zone is required surrounding each sewage treatment plant outfall
    
    
    and is determined by the time required to notify authorities and
    
    
    to close the waters in case of malfunction.  The buffer zone is
    
    
    generally the area over which a tracer dye will diffuse in
    
    2k hours.
    
    
              Eliminating pollution from defective septic tank systems
    
    
    by replacing them with sewers and treatment facilities may con-
    
    
    ceivably establish a buffer zone larger than the original polluted
    
    
    area unless adequate plant control and alarm systems are provided,
    
    
    or unless treated wastes can be discharged to areas whose principal
    
    
    value is as seed oyster beds and whose harvest for direct consumption
    
    
    is of negligible value.
    
    
              The positions of the States of Maryland and Virginia
    
    
    represent opposite schools of thought on shellfish water policy.
    
    
    Maryland has classified all Eastern Shore waters where shellfish
    
    
    grow as shellfish-harvesting waters 10and has indicated an intention
    
    
    to open prohibited waters.  Virginia has exempted from the shellfish
    *  Median coliform density not to exceed 70 MPN per 100 ml and no
       more than 10 per cent of the samples to exceed 330 MPN per 100 ml.
    

    -------
                                                              Ill -
    harvesting classification those waters now "condemned" by "people
    
    
    
            ii*
    activity   and has stated that most of these areas probably cannot
    
    
    
    
    be recovered  .  A study of benefits to the Eastern Shore economy
    
    
    
    
    which can be realized by selective protection of shellfish waters
    
    
    
    
    is recommended in Section III-B.
    
    
    
    
              Water quality of the rivers of the Eastern Shore may be
    
    
    
    
    further endangered by rapid eutrophication caused by nutrient
    
    
    
    
    rich discharges from developing urban areas and agricultural
    
    
    
    
    activities.  Some Eastern Shore rivers are naturally eutrophic,
    
    
    
    
    but there is a possibility that eutrophication is accelerating  .
    
    
    
    
              B0  Summary of Immediate Needs
    
    
    
    
                  1.  Waste Treatment
    
    
    
    
              Raw or partially treated wastes from ten small towns
    
    
    
    
    and thirteen industries , wastes from the two largest metropolitan
    
    
    
    
    areas, and eight aggregations of unsatisfactory septic tank systems
    
    
    
    
    interfere with proposed water uses.  The provision of adequate waste
    
    
    
    
    treatment facilities to correct these situations is the Eastern
    
    
    
    Shore's most important immediate pollution control need.
    
    
    
    
              Table I presents a tabulation of pollution sources ,
    
    
    
    
    corrective action required and estimated costs for needed facilities,
    
    
    
    
    The program as outlined will require continuous updating and modi-
    
    
    
    
    fications as more complete and reliable data become  available on
    *  Terms used by VSDH
    

    -------
                                                              Ill - 5
    
    waste loads, diffusion characteristics, assimilative characteristics,
    and the present state of eutrophication of the rivers in the area.
              Conventional secondary treatment with 85 per cent removal
    of the BOD and chlorination of treated effluents have been generally
    recommended for polluting discharges.  Measures required beyond
    conventional waste treatment, such as flow diversion and advanced
    waste treatment, were not determined for this study because of the
    lack of data,,
              Further investigations, recommended in the next Section,
    will probably reveal a need for additional pollution control action
    in certain areas, especially for the food and poultry associated
    industries throughout the Eastern Shore and for the chemical industries
    in Cecil County, Maryland,,  For this reason, the recommended equivalent
    of secondary treatment is a necessary minimum level of treatment but
    should not be considered adequate unless it can be demonstrated that
    acceptable water quality levels can be maintained,
                  2.  Special Studies
              Special studies to determine requirements for measures
    in addition to the construction needs cited and to determine more
    economical solutions to existing problems are listed in Table II.
              The objective of future studies should be to determine
    optimum methods of protecting and enhancing the water quality in
    the area in accordance with accepted State stream standards.  Alter-
    native methods of achieving the desired results should be investigated
    with emphasis on the development of a unified area-wide pollution
    control program.
    

    -------
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    CQ
    
    iyi
    S
    o
    H
    EH
    O
    5
    
    W
    
    8
    
    S
    I
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    o
    01
    -p
    CO -P
    a 
    H O
    P 0
    CQ
    W
    *
    
    
    
    
    
    0)
    -d
    0)
    4>
    
    
    C
    o
    rl
    P
    O
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ttf >;
    G -P
    H -iH
    -P H
    tQ -H
    H CJ
    X CO
    W 1
    
    
    
    
    T3
    4>
    -P
    0
    4>
    
    .
    tt> rt
    r( -P
    < CO
    rj
    * rrj
    c c
    ? H
    
    oooo o o o o o
    oooo o oooo
    oooo o oooo
    OOOO O OOOO
    O O -HT O -dr CO -3" -4- v>
    vO v> CO O CO J-CMHcO
    OO lf\
    Cy^. ^^. EO ,(yj /^-
    
    
    . . fc 43 rH   rt -P
    W CQ 4) CJ CO to to a> CJ
    G G 43 4> 3 C C 43 4)
    OO-P'O G OO-P'O
    OOOO J3 OOOO
    fH < rl
    CM * CM
    rH *
    H
    CO
    
    ^^ -P ^s
    JH 3 (H
    CO O CO
    n3 w T3
    C C ri G
    O 0 0) O
    CJ 0) |X O
    (DO 0) 0)
    CO O CO CO
    ^-^,
    !H
    W
    1
    ,0
    
    co
    H
    a
    H
    M
    r<
    H
    o
    -p
    
    rl
    0)
    'S
    O
    ,>
    a>
    rl
    co
    0)
     '
    CO
    H
    
    1
    ^
    fl)
    bC
    CO
    G
    rH
    CO
    
    ^
    P
    ca
    
    o
    o
    tH
    -P
    G
    co
    p
    
    
    
    O Q O O
    O CD O O
    O O O O
    v> t G C C\J CT\
    rt -H J-
    r) r!
    -69- -<^- 4) 4; -fl-
    P -P
    4) 4)
    rH H Id tJ  fn
    CO S CO G G W 4)
    P 3 P tD G 43
    H 08 G 0 -P
    ft G O O
    CO O <
    0 *
    *
    >> >>
    H f>H
    -P CO -P CO
    C TJ G T3 l>
    4) G 4) G ri
    HO HO CO
    co o co o tJ
    > 4) > 0) C
    H CO -H to O
    3 3 CJ
    j^1 OH o^ ^t-t 

    to 4) O O CO -r-t CO -P G CO O ri -O >j (JO -P CO G o> pq .GO rH >j O r4 G CO -P G P-i H PQ 43 ^J co W) O rl 0) >s-P -H C pq H PCS CO H H4) rl W H G ft >s -rt O CO 0) 4) "tf -P rfl 4) G rH G G to O T\ 10 CO 3 iH O co H co pq pq CO 4) O ft 8r( O O 0) O r( O CO -P > 4) O * G Q I rH iH CTS rH ^ rH 3 CO rH *"5 ****'** Q h *v d> *v ba 4^ (D x~s 4? W H X H 4) H 4) O O i-l to H J> to G O ^s 0 S5- "Sm O 4) O CO rH C -H 0 & W H C 4) > -P CO -C) hD CO -P C G I iH -H (-J H fn CH tr\ -P O 4) O CO -p H C -S ON 4> 43 O S H A3 **{ > "^ nC' ^ v CO P 4) W x-x 3 rH OS -4) O -H O Tj -P >, ft, ft 4) W ,h o > o H ft,C C fH t3 4) O to HO CM 43 H H s ro . x co pq r* v ^ H 4) W pq pq CO H ft O ft O S H k r"~ Cj P3 -P rl O g1 4) fe III - 6


    -------
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    CO
    
    g
    ""V S5^
    8 *
    3 O
    G H
     B
    
    C^ cR
    Nta-^ CQ
    S
    H 8
    W
    |T^ IT*}
    pn EH
    *2 *^I
    EH H
    
    ^3
    ^p
    JgJ
    M
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    "S
    43
    
    JCO
    O
    P O
    CO
    W
    
    
    
    
    
    O
    CO
    o
    
    co
    
    
    C
    0
    H
    P
    0
    ^
    
    
    
    tlO ^i
    JH "4^
    H rl
    P H
    B rl
    rl 0
    M CO
    W Pn
    
    
    
    
    o
    CO
    -p
    CJ
    CM
    CM
    
    
    S><
    CO
    4^
    CO
    ^
    
    
    
    
    a
    o
    H
    -P
    CO
    3
    a
    o
    Pn
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ^H
    o
    CO H
    t ... J ^
    <; w
    
    * *CJ
     c
    0
    E-l
    O O O O
    
    CO O O O O
    H ON CO OO vD
    g N
    G H
    eo -ee-69-
    -p
    CO
    rj   M ,p
    C tO 03 CO O
    P C C fi CO
    O O -P -o
    O 0 O O
    PH
    
    OH
    O
    Sj
    P M
    C >> co
    (Oh "d
    H CO C
    CO T) 03 O
    t> C MO
    rl O 0) CO
    ?! 0 ? CO
    O* CO 0) *
    W to co j
    CO
    C
    ctO as
    C -P
    *H
    a o
    4) -r4
    > C
    CO 0)
    vj fir\ r\ .
    a>
    (DO) CO
    U DO C
    CO -H
    H co M
    
    CO O -H
    ,0 >
    CO C
    (4 *H *
    cb *fl o
    Js o tic
    CO
    C
    H
    co
    Q
    
    1 '
    x-v
    h CO
    co .^
    -P CO
    CO CO
    CO P
    O CO
    ^ CO
    O 0)
    > -C
    C v_-- 0
    O 
    MO* TJ
    ^  S CO
    CtO
     C  O
    $U -H JSij -H
    C fH -P
    43 C 03 C
    ft CO Je co
    r-l U 0) H
    co a -P
    p^ ^
    CO
    
    
    
    
    
    
    CO
    >
    CO
    (U
    -P H
    O CO
    0 C
    C C
    H CO
    C"{ _{"j
    0 0
    
    
    
    s ^
    ^ "S
    O C O CO
    O > 0 H
    CO O O W
    C\l ^T^^ a^^ "^^
    
    
    
    
    
    
    *
    CO
    
    
    *\
    CO -*"^
    gj-g
    CO CO
    eo 6
    -P 0
    O 0
    o o
    C3 ^^
    H  '
    ,c
    o
    
    .
    CM
    O O O O O 0
    o o o o o o
    o o o o o o
    
    O CM CM CO O O O
    CM r-l CO C CM V> CO
    H iH i-l OO CO
    e
    
    69- J69- 0) -69-69-
    -P
    co
    H _ H -O  H -P
    co S co c co co o
    -P 3 P C ,K CO
    H 08 C O -P -0
    ft C O O O
    CO O < fn
    0 * PH
    *
    
    
    
    
    t>> *>
    M JH
    CO CO
    
    C C
    0 0
    o o
    CO 0)
    CQ CO
    
    0) O
    -P C -p
    > t3 co C
    C (0 S ~ CO
    !* S> & 03 g
    O CO CO fn -P
    ^! H CO  CO
    C CD C 0) JH
    p ,Q T-( CO -P
    
    
    
    
    ^ 1
    (U CO
    CO CO CQ
    5n CO OJ
    O H fi
    M O J>9
    ^ CO CO
    o ft ~m
    O O M
    O O CO
    C CO ^3 A!
    CO ft H CO
    G CO CO CO
    O O W ft
    
    
    
    
    
    O Q
    O O
    CO H
    H CM
    
    
    
    
    
    
    0
    CO
    
    "c
    ^ 0
    CO ^-x W -p
    b> J^ co ft
    ^0 % &
    
    00 ^5
    O O O M
    o o o
    
    co  ' ft-S"
    G cO
    O 0
    
    
    
    o o o
    O O Q
    o o o
    
    CT\-3~ f~)
    CM H J-
    
    
    
    (y^i. ^/^.
    
    
    H H
    co S co
    i *) ^j
    H og C
    ft S3
    CO O 
    -------
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    CQ
    
    gj
    * N _3
    o
    3 PM
    
    
    
    
    
    cf
    Q)
    -P
    O
    0)
    
    CM
    <^
    
    rH
    0)
    -p
    CO
    Ss
    
    
    
    
    G
    O
    H
    P
    CO
    H
    1^5
    P
    O
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ^
    O
    
    CO >5
    11} r<
    rH -P
    a; to
    0
    ** *r^
    G G
    O
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    a
    ffl
    PQ
    
    0)
    
    co
    0)
    ft
    95
    M
    0)
    A3
    O
    
    G
    ?H
    (P
    P
    cQ
    CO
    

    Cf Jn (t 0 9 CO i 1 -P 3 CQ a, O 0) O O P< VD O -0 G H O K O tn ^) t>H ro tj -p .s w co fn r* IS iH PH ^ -P CQ CO H CO [V] rl 0) O A3 A3 0> -P -P O r-1 rH "* * O O ^-"1 ^ D 0 XJ-J- 3 0 DO r\ i/> (U d) CD 4? H G C C G H -H -rl H a a s e ^H r-l SH ^ A- Q) CU 0) aj H rcS rc3 'CS t^ g CO G G G C 3 !Z> > > & G C D < * C * O G CH CH -HO O 5*4 rCj O "T~^ "^ O -P tn CO -P +5 -H ptj -p OtJ CO G ^ Js E~f G ^5 cy 'JH tQ CDfHO2 OJrH -PHH -H Hcoo; HOT coOcc H CO ti G G CO T3 ^ rH rH CO J>GarHO r*G CT'-P-P ?-s H O A^ ~^ ap^ O CD G ^ -p 3oSi< ^o tsoa; 3 CJ1 d) O i ) C71 QJ *^ O G CD (iq 01 o w W M K \ CQ C K! taO tJ O * CO CQ ^^ oH rQ CO *d G0>3 OHO H s-cOD CiJGC tnO-pi 1 O $-* P^-PtJ CD-PcCeO -PEOW4) G TJ A3 S "G dJ A3 3 *^ O O "* ' O G ^ O J>O3'CU h O CD-P H OPjOt*> -P-P SHA< p^OrH- ^XIO- cojsi SHH OCnQ COGS HrH dpsp & fnOO HHS DM CO-' H -H CO A3 -P w o co - 8


    -------
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    CO
    -$
    pgi
    pfi
    '""** S
    d
    CD R
    3 O
    C M
    H EH
    -P U
    C CD
    O H
    v CO
    5
    H O
    O
    M
    3 M
    PQ H
    ^C <(J
    H M
    
    p3
    2?
    H
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    d
    j
    C -P
    rH *rH
    -P rH
    03 .H
    H 0
    X to
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    d
    (U
    -p
    O
    CD
    ^M
    ^
    
    IH
    (U
    -p
    eo
    
    G
    O
    H
    CO
    H
    P
    O
    PM
    
    
    
    
    
    
    O
    
    CO >,
    0) FH
    f-i -P
    << CQ
    rj
    ^CJ
    o M
    EH
    OOO
    ooo
    ooo
    O CM OJ
    VO LA rH
    CM 00
    
    -69- 69-
    
    
     ^ -P
    W 0) O
    C ,Q CD
    O -P '0
    ooo
    rl
    
    
    
    
    
    
    fc?
    eo
    d
    G
    o
    o
    a>
    to
    W
    s
    CO
    +3 i^*^.
    OA
    ^ on
    ^=i CT\
    O H
    ^d 	 '
    g3
    H
    
    
    
    
    
    
    'd H"
    C eo
    eo fl
    
    OJ U A!
    >! OJ
    CO 0) CD
    0) JH h
    ft CO O
    eo >
    to co ^!
    1) rH U
    f3 0! CO
    O O ff)
    
    ^***t
    00
    'd H ON
    c *""'
    rl
    +5
    c
    c >>
    H -p
    W -H
    CO O
    0)
    0) eo rH
    > Of H
    H ft O
    CC eo 0)
    M O
    ^ 4) s 	 ^
    H ,a
    w o
    
    
    ooo
    ooo
    ooo
    _* CM VvO
    CM rH OO
    
    
    ~vy" CO1
    
    
    f-1  rH
    
    
    H 08 C
    Pi C
    0 O <
    0 *
    *
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    d
     >
     CD   M
    rH   CO
     co  'd
     >   c
    H   O
    
     O<  (J)
    B3   W
     0)
    -P
     eo
     d
     D1
     0)
    d
     =o
    
    M
    "S  H
     C  eo
     co   0)
     flJ   JH
     ft  co
     CO   06
     W   CO
     0)  rH
    
    o  a
        -P
        H
     >3 0)
    
    H  eo
     CO  OJ
    0  ft
    
     G  ra
     0)  0)
    -p  JM
     to  o
     o
                CO
     
    
    
    -W-
    H
    CO
    4^
    H
    Pi
    CO
    O
    
    o
    o
    o
    CM
    
    
    
    
    S
    
    08
    
    o
    
    
    o
    o
    o
    CO
    oo
    
    69-
    H
    CO
    d
    C
    G
    
    3^-
    *
    O
    O
    O
    o
    LA
    oo
    -69-
    
    CO
    C
    O
    o
    
    
    
    o
    8
    VD
    CM
    
    
    0
    CO
    G
    O
    O
    
    
    
    o
    o
    o
    vO
    r>-
    ro
    69-
    -P
    0
    0!
    1-3
    o
    FH
    PH
    
    o o
    o o
    0 0
    ONVD
    CM
    
    -69-
    rH
    CO S
    -P
    rH 08
    
    CO O
    o
    
    o
    o
    o
    LA
    oo
    
    69-
    r-l
    CO
    3
    G
    C
    
    *
    *
                                                                                       ill  -  9
            CO
    
    
            0)
            CD
           co
            S
            CO
            -P
            O
           rH
    
           -P
                       CO
            .M
            0)
            0)
            M
            O
            -P
            CO
            G
            a>
            OJ
    
            <
                       LA
                       [-
                       oo
                           t&
                          H
                           03
                           a>
                           o
                           o
        CO
        a>
        c
        G
     O  G
    -P  3)
     oi  a>
     c  3
     a; a?
                       a?
                                       o
                                       o
                                   CD  CO
                                   co i-i
                                    G
                                    CO
                                   -P
    
                                    O
                                   H
                                   -P
    
                                    0)
                                   co
                                   o
                                   >
                                                      w
                                   o
                                   o
                                                   c
                                                *  so
                                                -  H
                                               SO  w
                                             OJ
                                           -P   eo  >d
                                           p-1
                                           ooo
                                           0  O  O
                                           0)  CM  IA
                                           M
                                           o 
                                           o
    -p
     c
     0)
    

    -------
    

    -------
                                                                                                                    Ill  -  10
        
     .S   B
     +>   O
     o   E
     O   EH
    -   CO
        0)
       T3
        eu
        o>
        s
        o
       H
     G -P"
    H -H
    +3 H
     CO r4
    H  y
     X  o
    W fc
                                                                    O  O
                                                                    o  o
               0)
              pq
              ITN
                                  d
                                   o>
                                   c
                                  H
                     T)
                      C
                                      CO
                                    I  C
                                   CU  O
                                   f*  -H
                                   O  43
                                  ,C  CO
                                   W  r-l
                                      O
                                  4J  .H
                                   y  >
                                   0)
                                   fn  CD
                                   h  G
                                   O  -H
                                  O  H
                      C
                      CO
                     43
                                   ft
                                   0)
                                  CO
                      o
                     .p
        0)
        0)
        in
    ,M O >i
     IV      0)
     CU M  4!
     h  O  ri
    O  CD O
                      CO  K  r(
                     43      0)
                      3  ra  o
                         CU  C
                     H  i-l  CU 4s
                      )  -rj  ft -H 0>
                     EH  S co ^ B
                                   O
                                   G
                                  >d
                                   C
                                                 a0lS
                                                 O  W  CO
                                                 o  >d
                                                 '   CD
        ?
        H
    
     *
    
     ^^
    r4  CO
      M
     0)  (D
     Hi  CU
     >  fn
     O U
     h
     !H  G
     03  O
    [25 .p
        ft
     dJ -H
     >5 M
    SB C73
                                                              ^
                                                               10
                                                               w
                                                              PQ
                                                               eo
    
                                                              !
                                                              xi
                                                              o
                                                  
                                                  7n
                                                                                        o
                                                                                        o
                                                                                        o
                                                        o  o
                                                        o  o
                                                        o  o
                           ooo
                           ON tr\|
                           CM
                                                                   -69-
                                                                                   -  fn
                                                                                  CO  CU
                                                                                  C  ^3
                                                                                  O  4J
                                                                                 O  O
                                             h
                                             05
                                            d
    
                                             o
                                             y
                                             cu
                                            CO
                                             o
                                             G  -P
    
                                               G
                                             CO  g
                                             IH  4^
                                             CU  83
                                             >  CU
                                             0)  !',
                                            CO  4^
                                                                                C\J
                                                                               -&9-
                                                                            y
                                                                            cu
                                                                           o
                                                                            o
                                                                    K
                                             G
                                             CO
                                            4-5
                                             ft
                                                                    O
                                                                    O*--.
                                                                    O-H-
                                                                    H  r-4
                                                                                   ^ (1)
                                                                                  O  C
                                                                                  h  -H
                                                                                  O  H
                                                                                 ,Q  O
                                                                                  W  fn
                                                                                  C  CO
                                                                                  CU  O
                                                                                  CU '
    
                                                                                 
                                                        JS*  g
    
                                                        U08  
                                                         eo O <
                                                        O     *
                                                               *
                                                                                              d
                                                                                              cu
                                                     cu
                                                     1
                                                     CU  N
                                                     r-4  CO
                                                     co -d
                                                     >  c
                                                     H  O
                                                     3  y
                                                            bO
                                                     bO     G
                                                     G     -rl
                                                     H  > CQ
                                                     G  ^H  co  w
                                                     0) 4^  CU  CU
                                                     0) r-4  y 4^
                                                     h  3  O  w
                                                     y  O  fn  CO
                                                     CO  ft ft  |S
                                                                                               (U
    
                                                                                              H
     CO
    45
     ft
    
    S
    O
                                                                       o
                                                                      o
                                                        *  s
                                                          >H
                                                         C  H
                                                     COO
                                                     O 4^  h
                                                     r<  G  CO
                                                     P  CU  U
                                                     X R^-
                                                     cu
                                                               o  o
                                                               o  o
                                                               o  o
                                                                 ON  >
                                                               O-d-
                                                               CM -H-
                                                               OJ
    
    
                                                              -69-
                                                                       CO  0)
                                                                       C  ^3
                                                                       O  4^
                                                                      o  o
                                                                                                                           O  01
                                                                                                                           co
                                                                                                                           OJ
                                                                                                                                   CM
    
    
                                                                                                                                  [69-  -69-
                                       ir*^
                                                                       y
                                                                       cu
                                                                      o
                                                                       O
                                                                       r<
                                                                      PM
                                  CO
                                 +>
                        CO
                        3
    
                 ft"   
                c5?
                                     08
                                                                C
                                                                O
                                                                y
                                                                cu
                                                               co
                                                                _     H
                                                               r4  C ON
                                                                to  T4 H
     CU  CU
     CU  >
     rl  -H
    o  
    
     CU  ^
     O  G
    l  CO
     CO  4^
      ft
     y  o
     3  41
    EH  O
    
                                                                                                                   ON
                                                                                                                   H
                                                                                                               O
                                                                                                               ON
                                                               *  g
    
                                                                  oH
                                                                >3rH
                                                                CU  O
                                                               H  h
                                                                
    -------
    
    d
    CD
    p
    CO 4-3
    g CQ
    H O
    43 0
    to
    
    3fc
    
    
    
    
    
    -d
    Q)
    -d
    0)
    0>
    
    
    G
    O
    H
    -p
    O
    
    
    
    
    
    tlO r>a
    CO C -P
    
    ft) 4 H
    M 01 -H
    X~"V CT !-( _)
    d X co
    & K w fe
    3 O
    C M
    H H
     B
    O K
    O H
     co -d
    ^H G)
    HO 43
    CJ O
    w 4>
    3 w H
    PQ H <*H
    <; 4(j J;
    
    Q fc
    
    Is CO
    H ^
    
    
    G
    o
    H
    43
    03
    rH
    i
    P.
    o
    p-l
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    J_J
    o
    
    s
    JH -f^
    < CQ
    j3
    *\ ^
    C G
    ? H
    0
    EH
    OOO OOO OOOO
    ooo ooo oooo
    OOO ITNOO OO OOOO
    OCJCM LfN CM 00 O OO O CM
    VO H C-- C?\CO O> t
    r~H rH ~j
    
    
    C/3 ^y3 c/3 ^^> ^/j &9-
    
    
    . fn 4-> H r-l  . h 4^
    
    G43CU45 3 GC^Q)
    
    OOO ft G OOOO
    h CO O << H
    PH O * (^1
    *
    
    
    
    
    K*i
    FH
    CO
    d to G
    C h 0
    o a> o
    o |s tfl
    d'> Q^ CO
    CQ CO 1-3
    ~ CQ
    ^ ^
    G^~*. C
    co CT\ CO
    P OO 43
    CT\
    H rH 0
    Cj_j ^.^^ =H
    O V
    A CM ft
    B H 0)
    HO CO
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ^H FH
    NO) fn 0)
    Q) > fl) |>
    > -H > -H
    
    PC K
    _^ |^j
    O CO O CO
    H -P -H 4^
    r< O MO
    CO 43 co ;d
    ^0 tS 0
    C
    bO
    pn
    ^-% CO
    O > 0)
    >d CM ON vo
    0) CM H OO O
    3 ^^" f~^
    G vD
    H
    ^->
    C
    O
    
    v 	 ^ ^
    
    G
    
    CO  CQ
    01 0) >> <1>
    
    H  f->
    O 0) O
    ^ 45 Q rH Q
    C W  0  '
    CO ffi Q)
    4J pq co
    a
    o
    X!
    o
    ooo oooooo
    800 oooooo
    OO OOOOOO
    VOCMOO 0) OOO-St-r-HlA
    OOOO G OOOLTNOOOO
    H VO -=) O r-l H
    3 #v *s
    fi H CM
    ^/J &^> CD H:^- /^- C/3 &
    40
    cu
    rH H "d  fa -P rH H
    coSco G wcucjcoSco
    
    H 08 G 0 45 1-3 .H 08 G
    ft C O O O ft C
    S ZQ
    ^ fn
    >3 CO 0)
    CQ ,Q -d 4s
    C G CQ
    o -d o a>
    -P -H (U CQ O M
    O 4^ H >s 0) vH
    0) CO S3 Q) CO >d
    h H 0) >
    ?-t O !> fn >d "d
    O H Q) 3 >d G
    O > in CQ < CO
    CQ cO 45
    ,1x1 0) CQ
    C X! 0
    CO ft
    
    J>j r^j
    0 H G
    H 0 CO
    ^ i g
    ft *rl 0) CM
    
    =H 0 'H
    P^ -t-** pt^
    3
    ^ P ^
    ^ -H G
    CO n CO
    1 ^ _P > "^
    ft ft
    O 'Cf O
    ^3 C ^3
    O co o
    
    
    G PH
    fe o *S
    0 O O
    G O O
    X O O
    G v i
    P OO CM
    1 i  t IP\
    H
    rj
    OS 3 0
    CD s a *H
    M S 0 C
    CO O h Q) CO T!
    O H bfl tiD CO
    OJ ?4 r^ O
    CMS  CO O H
    H G CO -d H
    H -H CD S rH CO
    CU C !H (3D CO CQ
    ^-j H 4^ d> ^ G *H CO
    OcQEflbO CU-H^Hd)
    Cj g fi| r^ y) rd 4-1 M
    CQ CU 3 **H 'd ^ CQ tjD
    C n rl r 1 3
    H CQ ^3 JL| O d "d
    CO Tf ID Q ,OGGG
    ^j rjj ar-j g^ g ^ or_j JQ
    3 co -P O eo
     O
    
    
    
    
    III - 11
    

    -------
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    CO
    
    P"M
    ryi
    x-"s E5
    d
    CU ^
    3 0
    C M
    H EH
    43 B
    0 
    0 EH
    > - CO
    25
    H 0
    O
    M
    h3 Crl
    PQ E^
    1
    G -P
    H -H
    -P rH
    M .H
    H O
    X CO
    W fa
    
    
    
    
    
    
    d
    CU
    -p
    0
    cu
    CH
    CM
    
    
    H;
    (U
    -p
    CO
    IS
    G
    0
    H
    -P
    CO
    H
    p.
    O
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    fr"t
    O
    co >>
    CU Hi
    H: -P
    < CO
    *
    G G
    O
    EH
    
    
    G
    H
    3
    M
    0)
    -p
    TJ
    G
    f"i
    
    
    
    
    >s
    IH
    CO
    d
    S
    O
    CU
    CO
    
    *o
    d
    
    
    
    
    
    -> CM
    J>5 f  (
    HI O
    
    M "P
    H 09
    HI O
    PM ft
    
    
    
    
    
    ^H
    CU
    j>
    H
    
    
    d)
    ^
    0
    o
    H
    -P
    C
    CO
    K
    
    
    8
    *^
    -*
    
    G
    CO
    PP
    0)
    H rH
    P5 tu
    c^ ^^*
    q X
    >j * d w
    O HI CO
    rl OS
    -P CH CO
    G co ^-^
    S CO
    
    
    c-
    o o o
    o o o
    o o o
    O-* J-
    t~ CO O
    r-H CM
    
    -69- 69-
    
     HI -P
    co 0) o
    G S3 0)
    O -P '0
    0 O 0
    
    PH
    
    
    
    
    H?
    CO
    
    G
    O
    O
    0)
    CO
    -p
    c
    0)
    s
    -p
     CO
    CO CU
    f-l HI
    cu -p
    *j
    CU O
    CO fi
    
    
    
    
    
    ^H
    0)
    
    H
    K
    
    CU
    
    o
    o
    H
    -P
    G
    o
    
    
    
    g
    t-
    
    
    
    
    
    o
    g ,_^
    o
    o> O
    G OIH
    S fi
    O 0
    -P O
    
    HI 5
    CO 
    CO
    
    
    
    o o o
    0 O O
    O 0 O
    v) CO -*
    rH CM
    
    'vir CrJ
    
    rH H
    
    4^ ^
    *H oj) C
    ft G
    CO O <
    O J
    *
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    CU
    c
    H
    HI
    CU
    -p
    0)
    d
    c
    t=>
    
    
    c
    o
    H
    p CO
    G G
    0) CO
    rH S ft
    CO -P X
    H CO CU
    HI 0)
    P HI CL,
    co -p EH
    3 1 CO
    d cu
    G HI I*
    M ft O
    g
    -P rH O O
    I ft CO HI -P
    01 cy c CM co
    bO-d 0 O -P
    G CO X M "d O
    H CU CO CO ft
    rH HI (DO CO
    M 0) 0) W rH -P CO
    O -p -P HI 4) -P
    H rH CO HI 0) CU CO
    H; -H 3 O !> !* CO
    EH CH o< CH O W ?
    CU
    cu
    H
    o
    CU
    ft
    o
    HI
    >>
    CO
    ^]
    ^
    
    
    o'er?
    ovo
    rH ON
    o
    o
    o
    tr^co
    ON H
    
    
    c/3
    
    
     JL|
    CO 0)
    C ^3
    O -P
    0 O
    
    
    G
    O
    H
    P
    CO
    p
    C w
    O
    0 -P
    00 CM
    CO -H
    
    
    
    CU
    HI -P
    CU G
    
    (U Q
    W +5
    CO
    > CU
    rH HI
    -P -P
    CO
    C
    
    J^
    g>
    ^ [
    
    
    CD
    0
    O
    P
    C
    co
    c
    bO
    Ow
    O cu
    -ij" T3
    o o o
    80 o
    co ro
    LTN CO VD
    H
    H
    
    69- -69-
    
    
    -P H
    O CO ^
    CU -P
    0 -H 08
    0 ft
    HI CO O
    Pl< O
    
    H
    G ' '
    H CO
    CO CH
    6 d
    
    cu o
    o
    
    o c
    ^|;_| CO
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    O
    S
    ir\
    H
    
    
    69*
    
    
    rH
    CO
    
    G
    G
    
    *
    *
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                                                III  -  12
    CM
     fn  OJ
     3  C
    4a -H
     CO rH
    H  O
     CO  !H
     HI  CO
     eu o
    'd^-'
     01
    fa
        HI
        0)
        -p
    >rt  w
    E  CO
        ^3
       o
     CO  ?H
     G  O
     a  
     QJ v	,
    H
    

    -------
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    CO
    Q
    M
    CM
    jp;
    *& fe
    s
    G -p'
    H -H
    -P rH
    CO -H
    H O
    X 
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    T3
    Q)
    -p
    o
    CU
    CM
    
    -P
    co
    IS
    
    
    G
    O
    rl
    -P
    CO
    rH
    0
    P.
    0
    PM
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    fn
    O
    
    CO J>3
    0) rH
    rH -P
    < CO
    rH,
    * *r*,
    G
    H
    O
    EH
    OOO OOO OOOOO QOO
    OOO OOO OOOOO OOO
    OOO OOO OOOOO OOO
    OOO C~-O~NV> -3" O CM OJ CO CM CO -* CO
    rHJ-LT\ OJO-O H r-l CVI t^- rH OOOJ1T\ G
    CO-*VD rH CM 0\rOrHOOt>-rH rH -H
    *\ *N \ gl
    rH rH H rH
    
    -p
    CD
     t* -P rH r-l ^-prH rH tJ
    wcycj coScO cocotSDcj cOSco G
    G^3(U -P S GGG-GCU-P S |D
    O -P -0 -H 08 G O O O -P -n> -H 08 G
    OOO ft G OOOOO ft G
    5iCOO5 CU G
    CO H -H I* rH O
    ft rjj ^ CO CO O
    X G -P co 13 > <0
    0) CO 03 CO inG -H (0
    ^ 0 T3 Ci) O 3
    PMtJcO ?O Cftw^
    EHOGO CUCU WOrH
    CQ -P -rl rH CO CO rH
    CO
    * a *iH
    rH O 0
    s~* co CO h CU O
    'O ^ co CH ^ p>t ^j>
    0) G O G co co iaD
    >9"O co ftCcoQj-PG
    H COCO -P co O O -H
    COHO .rl-rHCU^ftra
    CJOrH O TJ-PbDtHCO
    flfc -H aeo ft CrHCUCtUO
    cuoo cu cooeua^jH
    CO ft^ 	 CO i-3 ft CQ ^ to ft
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ^H ^H 1 ^H
    cy cu iH ^cj cu
    > > fn 13 O !>
    H i-l -P G C -H
    pel W w co K
    rH H
    o o I-H w pq o
    O O CO 0) CO O
    rl -rl g H tU CO H
    a a w ?n a ft a
    O O CO O f-i O
    O O 13 -P -P CO O
    H -H G 3 -H ^3 "H
    S ^-^^CO^QT3 COI3
    C
    rt G
    W pr3 w bD
    PH  PM CU -rl
    x N >C) " CO
    13 O ^D O O O OCT\OOCO-4- I
    > !H > rH > > ON  O 1
    CO-
    CvJ "
    ro
    G co jrt
    W CU O
    CO 0> -P o O "
    PQ bO CO P) p^ 13
    ^  N C
    h  co   O G CO
    CU rrj )  I rt O S -H IS '^ N-PO
    H OMCO O -PO-HO
    (Z  0 G -H  0 G JH 0 -H
    ^^Tiiij*"1 ^'d co^f-ia
    oHatJ-p ca H(xiO
    OdOSw cOO O>>iO
    H^aoHSJ'C) rHo V n -H
    aw-HOtJcO 4^.rl GGIX
    O-HJSGGO -Hts cura!>  '
    O H    H TH rH 0 	 CU r < rl
    H CO rH ?H J d
    IS CO fe OP
    * * *
    * * *
    * * * *
    CO
                Ill  -  13
     rH
     CU
    
    
    H
    
    PH
    
    
    
     8
     CO
     CO
     0)
    cr\
            o
            0)
            G
            H
            a
            rH
            o;
            -P
            a)
    
            s
            
            o
            0)
            CO
                G
                O
               H
    
               P
             >  CO
    
            >>  G
                O
           H r-l
    
            rH ,3
           (X,  O
            II)  0)
    
    
    
           < K
    
            o>  x
           rH  0>
           -P  CO
           -P  03
           H  a;
           KH  a
            LTN
                CU
                w
           Q-H  O
    
            M CO
    
           H -
    
            rH
    
           O
    

    -------
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    CO
    
    E3
    FJ
    ^d
    3 O
    S H
    P O
    C P
    
    C^ P
    v ' CO
    ^
    M O
    o
    N r-,
    Lj M
    PQ H
    < <
    
    /^%
    &3
    S
    *y[
    &
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    -d
    0)
    -p
    cd -P
    J CO
    H O
    -P 0
    CO
    W
    *
    
    
    
    
    d
    0)
    'O
    0>
    0)
    
    C
    0
    H
    -P
    t)
    
    
    
    
    C -P
    H -H
    P H
    CO -H
    H O
    X co
    W Pn
    
    
    
    
    d
    
    -P
    CJ
    CO
    CH
    <
    h
    CO
    -P
    0?
    
    
    
    S
    O
    H
    -P
    CO
    H
    J
    P
    O
    PH
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    J-i
    o
    
    co >j
    CO fn
    fl -p
    < CO
    p" c
    TB i TT!
    jjt rn
    o
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    d
    3
    o
    CQ
    
    CO
    ^
    O
    O
    p^
    
    d
    c
    CO
    
    C
    H
    CO
    co
    pq
    
    _l
    d)
    ^
    H
    P^
    
    CO
    jyj
    O
    0
    O
    0
    (2
    
    d
    H
    
    CO
    C
    
    S
    ]H
    d)
    -p
    co
    d
    C
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    >
    CO
    d
    
    O
    0
    >
    CO f-i
    H CO
    co -d
    > c
    H O
    3 CJ
    a1 co
    W w
    
    
    
    CJO
    H
    C
    0)
    CO
    SH
    O
    CO
    
    
    
    
    t-H
    0)
    
    H
    PH
    
    CO
    ^!
    i
    o
    0
    0
    PH
    
    
    
    
    8
    O W
    
    r-T
    H
    
    
    
    
    e
    C 0
    (U d
    i^ i *
    HM r^
    o
    H 
    Xi CO
    0 fW
    
    Tj CO
    C CO
    co co
    rH 0
    ! 0
    H Vt
    .gp*
    
    
    o o o
    0 O O
    o o o
    ON CM H
    UA H H
    rH
    
    
    69- -69-
    
    
    P rH
    CJ CO S
    0) .p
    0 -H og
    O ft
    r-< CO O
    PH O
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    0
    rrt
    ^ X~N
    ^f
    ~ CO
    H +3
    H CO
    H CO
    W cj
    ^
    !? O
    0 >
    
    CQ
    
    
    
    8
    o
    CO CO
    CM C
    H
    S
    
    >$- d)
    -p
    CO
    H T3
    CO C
    fl
    C
    
    *
    *
    
    
    
    r?
    CO
    d
    C
    o
    CJ
    CO
    
    
    
    bC
    C
    H
    C
    CO
    co
    ^4
    o
    CO
    
    
    
    
    4
    CD
    
    H
    PH
    
    CO
    1
    O
    0
    0
    PH
    
    
    
    
    I
    i
    I
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    *
    o
    C_5
    
    J>j
    CO
    H
    G
    O
    
    *
    H
    
    is
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    o
    
    CO
    -p
    (0
    bO
    CO
    >
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    *^J
    p^l
    
    \
    rH
    rH
    H
    pr|
    
    ^
    0
    C
    CO
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    s~**
    ff
    H
    C
    C
    CO
    O
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ^-~s
    ^f
    CO
    -p
    CO
    CO
    CJ
    
    o
    
    x^x
    
    
    
    o o
    o o
    q q
    O l/N
    o ao
    J- H
    
    CM
    -69-69-
    
    
    -P rH
    O CO
    CO 3
    T~3 f^
    O C
    H <
    PH *
    *
    
    4
    0 C
    -P O
    ft 0
    co bO
    CJ CO
    ^t h^
    CO
    -p -d
    a c
    M CO
    -p
    C
    CO
    a
    -p
    * co
    CO CO
    M M
    co -p
    ;*
    CO O
    CO C
    
    
    
    
    (H
    co
    
    H
    PH
    
    0)
    i
    o
    o
    o
    PH
    
    
    
    
    O
    O
    
    *\
    ro
    
    
    
    
    
    f^-J
    J^
    
    \
    ^ax1^
    i ^ Cj
    H 
    CJ v_x
    o
    PH
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    I I
    1 1
    I I
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    >
    -P
    H
    d o
    0)
    C CO
    C ,M
    co o c
    H B 0
    ft O O
    0 M)
    O O CO O
    EH PH ^ TJ
    
    
    EH Ci
    H 0
    H
    -P -P
    co o
    Sj ^J
    rd a>
    -P 0 C
    O ft O
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    0 0
    d -d
    
    
    
    
    , ,
    i i
    i i
    
    
    o
    o
    
    c
    o
    O -H
    CJ CO
    H
    ft >
    2 O
    O rH
    CQ PH
    
    rH CO
    rH ,^H
    d) O
    o g
    ft O
    a o
    CO O
    O PH
    
    
    III -
    
    
    
    
    I I I
    1 I 1
    1 1 1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    O O O
    *d *d 'd
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    o o o
    d *d T)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    O O 0
    >d *d 'd
    
    
    
    
    i i i
    i t i
    i i t
    
    
    CO
    -p
    o
    
    d r
    0 0
    fn O *-*
    PH  bD
    
    4""1 d CJ *r">
    CO -H fn
    OJ C H 0)
    S C H -P
    CO S fl
    C O PQ bb
    O -3
    CQ  GO  CO
    CO O C CO H
    43 O W H W
    O CO '^-^
    !-3 S 0
    
    
    - lU
    

    -------
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    CQ
    g
    ryi
    'cT
    3 
    C M
    
    -P O
    G J^
    O W
    0 H
    ^ ra
    B
    M 8
    
    < <
    E-i M
    
    1
    M
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    d
    0)
    -P
    CO -P
    & CO
    H C
    P 0
    CO
    W
    *
    
    d
    0)
    d
    CD
    CD
    fe
    
    C
    
    r
    -P
    O
    <
    
    
    
    bO >s
    G -P
    H .H
    -P r-l
    CQ -H
    rl 0
    X CO
    W *
    
    
    
    
    
    d
    0)
    -p
    o
    CD
    CH
    CM
    <
    (H
    CD
    p
    
    
    
    G
    o
    H
    -P
    CO
    rH
    3
    a
    o
    PM
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    fn
    O
    
    CO >,
    CU h
    in -P
    <; co
    3
    g~
    [S M
    O
    EH
    d
    CD
    G
    H
    P
    C
    CD
    -P
    CD
    *d
    G
    O
    CH
    O
    
    -P
    G >>
    CD JH
    rH CO
    co -d
    !> G
    H O
    3 t)
    0< 4)
    W 
    >
    CQ f-i
    CO CO
    Q) >d
    rH G
    o
     O
    G CD
    ? CQ
    O
    G G
    X CO
    G ,G
    t> -P
    
    N
    >5 M
    rH 4)
    03 0)
    -P fc
    *^  *
    d
    0)
    S
    H
    -P
    O
     '
    d
    o
    m
    
    CD
    <4
    
    Q
    0
    o
    o
    On
    a
    CO
    
    G
    H
    CQ
    CO
    PQ
    
    M
    CD
    !>
    H
    K
    CD
    A!
    O
    t)
    O
    PM
    S 0
    ^3
    H CQ
    m -p
    -p -P
    H
    d fit
     CD
    CO ,0
    G >
    C CO
    
    
    
    
    
    g
    1
    1
    
    
    
    a
    0
    o
    CO
    08 >
    
    >>
    vs-^ ja
    rH bfl 0
    H G f-j
    CD -H 3
    Sad G 43
    G O
     CO
    w o ;*
    v_^ CD
    w s
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    X~x
    M
    0
    CO
    o
    o
    o
    <
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                                                              III  -  15
     o
      w\
     iH
    
     O
      *\
     O\
     H
    -ee-
     w
     -p
     CQ
     O
     o
    
     -p
     o
    PM
    O
    CH -P
     O  C
        0)
    -P  S
     co -p
     O  to
        0)
    
        C
        CO
       -p
       l-l
     CO     CO  SO
     -P    -P O
     O     O
     EH    EH
    CQ
    O
    O
    S
    E-i
    Lngency, and other associated costs
    of construction and other costs
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    -p
    CO
    O
    0
    
    C
    0
    iH
    -P
    O
    3
    f-t
    -P
    CO
    G
    O
    O
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    
    ^
    
    CO
    G
    0
    O
    *
    
    T '
    -p
    c
    0
    U
    bO
    G
    H
    JH
    CD
    CU
    G
    rH
    bO
    G
    0)
    
    
    It
    0
    f-l
    p<
    
    CH
    O
    
    -p
    CQ
    O
    o
    
    -p
    G
    0)
    S
    -p
    CO
    CD
    
    G
    H
    
    rH
    CO
    -P
    O
    EH
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    -
    +3
    o
    CD
    0
    O
    !H
    P-i
    
    
    J-t
    
    G
    H
    
    -P
    O
    0)
    1-3
    0
    m
    Pfd
    0
    CH -H
    O M
    CD
    -P Pi
    CQ
    0 tH
    O CO
    0)
    rH >>
    0
    G CV1
    C
    <,
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    H
    CO
    -P
    i-H
    Pi
    CO
    O
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    >>
    r-H
    C
    0
    
    -p
    G
    CD
    0
    -P
    CO
    CD
    >
    G
    H
    
    -P
    O
    CD
    1-3
    O
    P,
    >-H
    CM
    0
    
    -P
    to
    O
    O
    
    rH
    CO
    3
    G
    G
    <
    *
    *
    w
    -d
    CD
    CD
    (2!
    efl
    CD
    M
    <<
    CD
    CD
    CO
    
    DC*
    G
    O
    H
    -p
    O
    3
    ^
    -P
    CO
    c
    0
    o
    
    0)
    f-l
    o
    CH
    0)
    ,0
    -d
    CU
    d
    CD
    a)
    G
    *>*
    K^>
    d
    0
    -P
    CQ
    
    H
    co
    G
    O
    rl
    -p
    H
    d
    
    -------
                                                                                                                                              Ill  -  16
          CO
    H
    3    g
    PQ
          H
          O
    
          g
          CO
                  0)
                  o
                  0)
     a
     o>
    
    
     0)
     M
                  -P
                  CO
                  O
                  H
                  -P
                  P
                  O
                  co
                  0)
                 P
                         H ~P<:p
                         H  d)  H
                          o p  co
                          0)     0)
                         O J3  W
                             p
    
                         K  co  -p
                              C  -P -P
    
                              O  0)  0)
                                             -p
                                          G H
                                          0)  CO
                                          0)  0)
    
                                         >
                          CO
            
     0)   CO  CO -H ,G
    
    
    
    
    
     M   O  0)  C  0>  >H
    
    
    
    P   CO      0)
    
    
    3  < &q K  co  PQ
                                                           M  O
                                                       -P      G
                                                        C  -P -H
                                                        0>  G
                                                       -73
                                                                  P
                                                               0)  CO
                                                       -P  CO iZ
                                                        GO)
                                         W   CO  -P Qf
    
    
    
                                         ,0
                                      CO
                                      p   
                 I           -         WC
    
            GO)      to ii fi      X H
           H .p   a  o>  c -p      o> -p
                         P'HCUg-PO)      OO
    
                             CSOOlfnOPi'tH
    
                          03  4^  ^         O <(-i  CO
    
    
                          fn      CO  g     HOMO
    
                          O  O      O  0)  5-H  CO     -P
    
                             P  0)      J-i  M  CO  >s  8
                                               -HCO-H
                                                    coo)
                          0)  0)  |3 -O   W)
                                                     O
                                                     O   
                                                     H -P
                                                     a  PI
                                                     O  0)
                                                     o p
                                                     H
                                                                              O
                                                                             O
    0)
    
    o  'B
    
    CO
    
    
    0)  4)  0)
    
    H  ?H  h
     OOO
     OOO
    H  -H  -H
     a  a  a
     000
     OOO
                   -P
                   0)   
                   CO  -p
                   ft  Pi
                   0)  0)
                   ap
    
                   CO  X3
                                                                   
                                                                        o
                                                                       o
                                                                                         0)  bO
                                                                                         >  G
                                                                            0)
                                                                            co
                                                                                        <  0)
                                                                           -P  -H  0)
                                                                           -P  JH  !H
    
    CO
                                  g
                                                                                       CO
                                                                                      H
                                                                                      H
                                                                                       CO
    
    
    
                                                                                  H  O
                                                                                   0)
    
    
                                                                                   co  a
                0)
               -p
               H  h
               P  O
    
    
    
            0)5*0
    
    
    
            l\
                                                                                                      o
    
                                                                                                     -p
                                                                                                        CO
                                                                                                       H -P
            4)  d  O
            ra .H
            O -P  0)
    G  -P
    H  O
    H  M
    
    
    CO  PH
                                                                                                                      f>  W
                                                                                                         ^0)          0)
    
    
                                                                                                        ? -P  ^3  M  W  0)  O -H
                                                                                                                     bD
                                                                                                                     G
                                                                                                                    H
                                                                                                         T3    H -P
                                                                                                         G  tiD  CO  co
                                                                                                           PrHOtWW>jCgCl>O
                                                                                          G  0)  ?H      -P         fi  3  O
                                                                                              p|         -H  bO  co  co  co -H
                                                                                          0) &   f-i  -H -H     -PCQrHr-lrQ
                                                                                          .. .p  O   J-  0) "  O
                                                                                                                          CO  0) -P     h
                                                                                                                                     -P  3  O
                                                                                          X!  >,co  C  taO-P   co          >  o
    
                                                                                          HCOC-P'HO)    r-l+5CJ-(
    
                                                                                          rHCO)4)-H-p-P-i-(O     t3
                                                                                          HO-P-P>COCW-HCQ
                                                                                                       OJ
    

    -------
    o
    
    
    CD
    H
    fl
    f5
    CO
    G
    o
    ft
    CO
    CD
    PH
    
    >s
    y
    G
    CD
    bD
    <
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    d
    s
    
    a
    43
    CO
    (H
    O
    
    G
    O
    H
    43
    ft
    H
    H
    y
    CO
    CD
    
    08
    
     PH
    S
    CO H
    > o
    
    -p
    w y
     CO
    CO H
    S -P-
    G
    > o
    < y
    
    PH >>
    IS fl
    fa 
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (U
    rH
    fl
    00
    y
    H
    H
    ft
    ft
    <
    
    4*
    O
    &
    
    
    
    
    43
    G
    S
    CD S
    > HJ
    rl CO
    43 0)
    CO rl
    G 43
    H
    0) CD
    43 bO
    rH CO
    CO 
    *s
    1-d
    43 G
    CO 03
    
    0)
     t)0
    CO CO
    d H
    O CD
    fl f
    43 CD
     w
    H
    H 00
    CO G
    W O
    O -H
    ft 4>
    w G
    H CD
     >
    G
    H O
    co y
    H
    0 0
    PS 43
    
    
    *
    CO
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ^~x
    fl
    y
    G
    co
    ft
    fl
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    >>
    43
    H
    rH
    H
    fl
    H rd
    W G
    CO CO
    4)
    H G
    O
    CD -H
    C +3
    g 2
    fi CD
    0) ft
    43 0
    CD
    O H
    O
    
     CD
    CO CO
    CD CO
    H CD
    43
    iH 
    43
    CQ
    S O
    a y
    O
    y CH
    O
    rH
    rH CO
    cO Q
    S H
    CO CD
    -p
    Sn
    0 G
    CH -H
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    CD
    bO
    CO
    Ai
    U
    3ft
    g
    y fl
    CO 43
    H G
    fl CD
    EH 8
    43
    CO
     CD
    >> rl
    43 43
    H
    rH ft
    H 3
    fl o
    CO H
    H bD
    rH 1
    CD 0)
    H CO
    3
    d o
    C fl
    CO
    H
    * H
    CD CO
    y a
    G co
    CO
    G CD
    CD T3
    43 3
    C rH
    H y
    <5 G
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    G
    0
    H
    43
    CO
    G
    H
    *4
    O
    H
    fl
    y
    
    H
    co 
    y
    43 43
    G CO
    
    a *
    43 43
    CO G
    CD CD
    H 3
    43 H
    CH
    rH CH
    CO CD
    c
    0 J
    rl fl
    43 CO
    H 43
    d
    13 y
    03 -H
    43
    > ft
    43 CD
    G co
    co
    H CH
    ft 0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    K
    Q
    
    2,
    
    v
    fr\
    ^
    Q
    ^j
    
    *
    <,
    
    P_|
    ^
    fa
    |
    fl
    CO
    H
    rH >
    CO 
    co a
    
    
    M 
    CD fd
    > c
    H CO
     rH
    43
    O -H
    y 3
    H h
    a fa
    0
    y -d
    H C
    S CO
    
    
    CO
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    OB
    CO
    CD
    H rH
    4-> CO
    rH "ri
    H 43
    y ft
    CO O
    *<*
    43 c
    G CO
    CD
    a co
    43 -d
    CO 0>
    CD 01
    rt G
    H
    43
    CD G
    43 CD
    co a
    CO +3
    3e co
    CD
    -d H
    CD 43
    43
    CO CD
    T3 G
    H fl
    H a
    O fi
    CO CD
    G 43
    O CD
    0 Q
    
    
    
    -4"
    CO
    CD
    H
    y
    C
    0)
    bO
    co
    
    CD
    43
    CO
    43
    CO
    
    S
    <
    o
    Pj
    5
    fa
    -d
    CD
    43
    CO
    y
    H
    'd
    C
     -H
    .  *
    CQ W
    CD CO
    H
    H W
    43 CO
    CQ CD
    3 H
    fd co
    G
    ft ^
    CD
    d fl
    C 4=
    co O
    
    
    fl
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    **
    CO
    CD a
    43 ey
    rt 43
    H I
    H bO
    y G
    CO O
    H rH
    
    43 -d
    G G
    CD CO
    a
    P 0)
    CO 4>
    CD CO
    H fl
    43 Tf
    CD
    CH a
    O H
    fl
    CO
    G bD
    O C
    H fl
    43 H
    CO CD
    G -d
    H fl
    JQ W
    rj
    o
    y y
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    c
    o
    H
    43
    CO
    bD
    rt
    43
    CO
    CD
    >
    C
    H
    
    JH
    CD
    fl
    43
    H
    3
    CH
    
    >>
    fl
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    >5
    43
    H
    H
    to
    jj
    0*
    h
    CD
    43
    CO
    >
    G
    0
    
    CO
    43
    y
    CD
    CM
    CH
    CD
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    W*
    
    O
    pc
    ^
    
    A
    fg
    ^E
    Q
    
    
    *\
    o 
    H
    PH
    
    H
    rH
     JH
    H 43
    K 3
    CD
    CH
    O CH
    O
    G
    O CD
    H 43
    43 CO
    CO -P
    y co
    H
    fl 43
    ft G
    O CD
    rH CQ
    43 0)
    3 H
    W ft
    
    
    
    UA
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    d
    CD
    43
    CO
    H
    
    H
    CD
    y
    y
    co
    bO
    G
    rH
    CD
    fl
    
    CO
    H
    
    43
    H
    fl
    y
    H
    1
    
    O
    p
    
    CD
    CD
    H
    bo
    cu
    d
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    n
    a
    CO
    
    fl
    1
    H
    bO
    
    G
    CO
    43
    H 
    rH >5
    0 43
    ft fl
    0 >
    fn -H
    43 43
    CD U
    a co
    
    -d rH
    CD CO
    CQ V)
    co 3
    CD 43
    H H
    y 3
    G u
    H -H
    M
    ! bD
    fl CO
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    *
    CQ
    O
    5
    p>
    
    \
    ^
    ^5
    Q
    S
    
    ^
    o <:
    ?S 
    *S< fij
    ^ 3-
    Q pt(
    rH
    CD
    fl co
    43 43
    fH CO
    d -d
    CH
    C
    >> 0
    fl ft
    3 
    >d w
    CD -d G
    43 CD O
    CO M .H
    y co 43
    H fl CO
    rd H
    G >> fi
    H rd ft
    3 a
    CO 43 O
    < CQ y
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    CO
    CD
    rl
    d
    d
    43
    CO
    d
    H
    0)
    H
    fa
    
    )H
    CD
    fl
    43
    O
    
    
    0
    \D
    Ill - 17
    

    -------
                                                              Ill - 18
    
    
    
    
    
    
          3.  Institutional Practices
    
    
    
    
          A need for certain organizational changes and institutional
    
    
    
    
    practices is indicated by the findings of this study.  Action should
    
    
    
    
    be taken by the States to promote the establishment of interjuris-
    
    
    
    
    dictional area sewerage organizations for the following purposes:
    
    
    
    
          a.  Contracting for construction of pollution control works.
    
    
    
    
          b.  Maintaining consolidated operating staffs for treatment
    
    
    
    
              plants in the area.
    
    
    
    
          c.  Adopting and enforcing sewer ordinances and charging for
    
    
    
    
              waste treatment service s>i~4ii
    -------
    

    -------
                                                               IV - 1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    IV.  BASIN DESCRIPTION
    
    
    
    
         A.  Area and Population
    
    
    
    
             The Maryland and Virginia Atlantic drainage and the
    
    
    
    
    Chesapeake Bay drainage of the Eastern Shore include  all of
    
    
    
    
    Virginia's two Eastern Shore counties, western and southern
    
    
    
    
    Delaware (parts of all three counties comprising slightly more
    
    
    
    
    than one-third of the State) and all of Maryland's Eastern Shore
    
    
    
    
    except for about one-fourth of Cecil County which drains to the
    
    
    
    
    Susquehanna and Delaware Rivers.  A small part of Chester County
    
    
    
    
    in southeastern Pennsylvania also lies within the Basin, and the
    
    
    
    
    entire Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, an important commercial
    
    
    
    
    waterway between Chesapeake Bay and Delaware River (Cecil County,
    
    
    
    
    Maryland, and New Castle County, Delaware) was included arbitrarily.
    
    
    
    
    The entire Eastern Shore except northern Cecil County and the
    
    
    
    
    Pennsylvania portion lies in the Coastal Plain geophysical province.
    
    
    
    
    The Fall Line runs roughly northeastward across Cecil County from
    
    
    
    
    the mouth of the Susquehanna River, and divides the County approxi-
    
    
    
    
    mately in half.  Traditionally and economically, the area north of
    
    
    
    
    the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal is not a part of the Eastern
    
    
    
    
    Shore, but it is necessarily included for the basin-oriented study.
    
    
    
    
             Land areas and population are presented in the following
    
    
    
    
    table.
    

    -------
                                                               IV - 2
    
    
                                 TABLE III
    
                  LAND AREA AND POPULATION, EASTERN SHORE
                CHESAPEAKE BAY AND MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA
                         ATLANTIC OCEAN DRAINAGE
    
                             Area (square mile)     Population (1965)
    
    Delaware                        U60                   M*,800
    
    Maryland                      3,290                  215,500
    
    Pennsylvania                     90                      700
    
    Virginia                        700                   U
    TOTAL                         ^,590                  308,400
    
    
    
    
             Only eight towns in the "basin have populations of 2,500
    
    or more.
    
                                TABLE IV
    
                TOWNS OF POPULATION GREATER THAN  2,500 5
    
    Town	County  	Population (1965)
    Salisbury
    (Salisbury Metropolitan
    Area)
    Cambridge
    Easton
    Seaford
    Chestertown
    Crisfield
    Pocomoke City
    Laurel
    Wicomico, Md .
    Dorchester, Md.
    Talbot, Md.
    Sussex, Del.
    Kent, Md.
    Somerset, Md.
    Worcester, Md.
    Sussex, Del.
    16,300
    (36,000)
    12,200
    6,300
    U,Uoo
    3,650
    3,500
    3,350
    2,750
    

    -------
                                                                IV - 3
    
    
    
    
    
    
            Except for the Salisbury metropolitan area, these numbers
    
    
    
    
    do not include fringe areas or adjacent town populations, some of
    
    
    
    
    which are significant.  Both the Salisbury and Cambridge areas are
    
    
    
    
    growing rapidly, and there is also growth in other towns and rural
    
    
    
    
    areas as well.  Increasing activity along the shoreline is reported
    
    
    
    
    in Virginia
    
    
    
    
            Census tabulations for all towns, unincorporated communities
    
    
    
    
    of 1,000 or more, and farm populations, plus a road map   count of
    
    
    
    
    unincorporated communities of less than 1,000 accounted for only
    
    
    
    
    70 per cent of the total population.  The place of residence of the
    
    
    
    
    other 30 per cent of the Eastern Shore population could not be
    
    
    
    
    determined from the information available; and in Cecil County,
    
    
    
    
    Maryland, 59 per cent were found to live in places not on the road
    
    
    
    
    map and also not on farms.  Many of these residents undoubtedly
    
    
    
    
    live in small shoreline communities and subdivisions, as well as
    
    
    
    
    in fringe areas of the larger towns and in hamlets along highways.
    
    
    
    
    In the northeastern Chesapeake Bay region (Cecil and Kent Counties,
    
    
    
    
    Maryland) and at the eastern end of Bay Bridge (the Kent Island-Kent
    
    
    
    
    Narrows are in Queen Annes County, Maryland) shoreline communities
    
    
    
    
    are expanding rapidly.
    
    
    
    
            B.  Water Use and Hydrology
    
    
    
    
            Tidewaters are the most important water resources of the
    
    
    
    
    Eastern Shore.  The free-flowing river reaches are short compared
    
    
    
    
    to the tidal portions, and much of the runoff goes directly into
    

    -------
                                                              IV - It-
    
    
    
    
    
    
    tidewater through small sandy runs of which there is little water
    
    
    
    
    use.  Except for the major estuaries, there is no central river
    
    
    
    
    system of any importance (Figure l)
    
    
    
    
            Surface water is unimportant as a source of municipal or
    
    
    
    
    industrial water supply.  Of nine withdrawals, only three are in
    
    
    
    
    the coastal plain province.   The majority of agricultural water
    
    
    
    
    use, however, is surface water from fresh water streams and from
    
    
    
    
    normally brackish waters when salinities are low,
    
    
    
    
            Average annual rainfall over Maryland's Eastern Shore is
    
    
    
    
    about 43 inches, more than half of which is removed by evaporation
    
    
    
    
    and transpiration   Local average rainfalls, however, vary signifi-
    
    
    
    
    cantly.  The average stream flow is I.l4 cfs per square mile,
    
    
    
    
    equivalent to 36 per cent of the mean annual precipitation
    
    
    
    
            In many locations high tide rises to a point halfway
    
    
    
    
    across the peninsula.  On the Pocomoke River, the head of tide is
    
    
    
    
    above Snow Hill, Maryland; on Nanticoke River it reaches Seaford,
    
    
    
    
    Delaware .  Except in northwestern Cecil County, ground elevations
    
    
    
    
    rarely exceed fifty feet.  The divide between Chesapeake Bay and
    
    
    
    
    Delaware Bay drainage parallels the Delaware coast about ten miles
    
    
    
    
    inland, so that most of the  Eastern Shore is in the Chesapeake Bay
    
    
    
    
    Basin.  Rivers on the southern half of the Shore flow much of their
    
    
    
    
    length through marsh; the Pocomoke in particular originates and
    
    
    
    
    flows virtually its entire length through cypress swamp.  Large
    
    
    
    
    volumes of water are available far inland, and low stream flow
    
    
    
    
    conditions affect waste dilution principally by reducing the net
    

    -------
                                                              IV - 5
    
    seaward movement.  Under low flow conditions there is also con-
    siderable salt-water encroachment into the Wicomico, Nantieoke,
    Choptank and Chester Rivers *.  Because of the flat terrain,
    generally sandy soil and lack of concentrated runoffs flow augmen-
    tation is not a pollution control alternative on the Eastern Shore.
    
          C  Economy
          Agriculture and related activities are the outstanding
    industries on the Eastern Shore.  In 1961*, the total value of farm
    products sold on the Delmarva peninsula, the majority of which is
    in the study areas was $264 million (55 per cent from poultry alone)
    By comparison, the value of shellfish sold in 196^ was $8,^ million,
    and the value of the entire fishery catch was $W,5 million0  Fifteen
    per cent of the Eastern Shore work force was engaged in agriculture
    and ten per cent in food manufacturing (including seafood) in 196^ .
          Certain trends in the agricultural industry are significant
    in terms of water quality,  There is a trend toward consolidation
    of poultry processing plants.  Although poultry raising is increasing,
    the number of processing plants in Delaware declined from 15 to six
    in the last 15 years.  Two of the six existing plants, however, are
    integrated egg to product operations, including by-product rendering,
                                                   3 -
    and the other four are moving in this direction "  Concurrently,
    with the increase in poultry raising is an increased emphasis on
    easily harvested field crops for feed at the expense of vegetables .
    The number of small canneries is declining, probably as a result of
    the decreased proportion of vegetables and competition from larger,
    more efficient plants
    

    -------
                                                               iv - 6
    
    
    
    
    
    
          Clamming and oystering, both of which depend on high water
    
    
    
    
    quality, are traditional occupations on the Eastern Shore.  Oysters
    
    
    
    
    accounted for ^3 per cent and soft-shelled clams for l6 per cent
    
    
    
    
    of the value of the total fishery catch in 196^.  The value of the
    
    
    
    
    shellfish harvest declined l8 per cent during the period 1960-6^;
    
    
    
    
    a 25 per cent decline in the value of the oyster harvest was slightly
    
    
    
    
    offset by a five per cent increase in clams.  Both species, moreover,
    
    
    
    
    lost ground in relation to the national shellfish production33.
    
    
    
    
    Management practices in Maryland were responsible for a serious
    
    
    
    
    depletion of oysters in former years5.  There are present indications
    
    
    
    
    that the oyster industry is making a comeback,
    
    
    
    
          The MSX oyster virus appeared in Atlantic waters and in
    
    
    
    
    Chesapeake Bay as far north as Tangier Sound in 1959-60.  The
    
    
    
    
    disease produced by this viruss which affects young oysters, cut
    
    
    
    
    deeply into shellfish production in these waters.  The Virginia
    
    
    
    
    harvest has partially recovered through harvesting waters of salinity
    
    
    
    
    too low to support the virus  These headwaters, however, are more
    
    
    
    
    subject to pollution and produce oysters of lower quality41,
    
    
    
    
          While care should be taken to avoid over-reliance on shell-
    
    
    
    
    fish as a factor in economic development 5) the industry is still
    
    
    
    
    important, accounting for a large share of the ten per cent of the
    
    
    
    
    labor force employed by the seafood industry in 196^-, and it has
    
    
    
    
    a significant growth potential, given adequate resource management,
    
    
    
    
    pollution control, and some promotional effort.
    

    -------
                                                                V - 1
    V  RECEHT PROGRESS IN POLLUTION CONTROL
    
    
    
    
    
    
            The most significant progress has been the increased attention
    
    
    
    
    now being paid to Eastern Shore problems and to pollution control
    
    
    
    
    in general.  Several new sewage treatment plants have been built
    
    
    
    
    within the last few years, and many more are in the planning stage.
    
    
    
    
    Field surveys and surveillance activities being conducted by States
    
    
    
    
    and the FWPCA Chesapeake Field Station survey, will provide a much
    
    
    
    
    better picture of water quality than has been available in the past.
    
    
    
    
            Planning activities have also taken place.  Maryland has
    
    
    
    
    required each county to prepare comprehensive plans for water and
    
    
    
    
    sewerage by 1970 9   It would be desirable for these planning
    
    
    
    
    activities to be conducted as a continuous process with adoption
    
    
    
    
    of interim plans for immediate needs before 1970, preparation of
    
    
    
    
    a comprehensive plan by the scheduled date, and periodic reviews
    
    
    
    
    and additional plans as required thereafter.  The overall Economic
    
    
    
    
    Development Program of the Delmarva Advisory Council  which recognizes
    
    
    
    
    water pollution control as an essential need for the Eastern Shore
    
    
    
    
    is part of such a continuous activity.  The life of the program as
    
    
    
    
    adopted is about a year, after which review and re-evaluation are
    
    
    
    
    necessary.
    
    
    
    
            The Delaware State Planning Office and the Delaware Water
    
    
    
    
    and Air Resources Commission are cooperating with Sussex County
    
    
    
    
    officials and other Federal agencies in studies and the preparation
    
    
    
    
    of comprehensive development and comprehensive water and sewer plans
    

    -------
                                                                V -  2
    
    
    
    
    
    
    for Sussex County,  Requests for Urban Planning and Technical
    
    
    
    
    Assistance Grants from HUD and EDA have been made to carry out
    
    
    
    
    these planning activities.
    
    
    
    
            Maryland has taken action which will require eventual
    
    
    
    
    certification of sewage treatment plant operators.  Unless the
    
    
    
    
    sewer districts recommended in Part VI are established,  or some
    
    
    
    
    other provision is made to obtain full-time operators of adequate
    
    
    
    
    competence, the potential benefit of this program will not be
    
    
    
    
    fully realized.
    
    
    
    
            The most significant setback in area water quality enhance-
    
    
    
    
    ment has been the delay experienced by MDWR in forcing abatement
    
    
    
    
    of gross pollution notably in Buntings Branch and Marshall Creek.
    
    
    
    
            Progress has been made during the study period in preparation
    
    
    
    
    of plans and estimates and consideration of new projects.  It is
    
    
    
    
    recognized that actions or programs recommended in this  report
    
    
    
    
    may already be under development by the State and local  governments
    
    
    
    
    involved
    

    -------
                                                               VI - 1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    VI.  IMMEDIATE POLLUTION CONTROL NEEDS
    
    
    
    
         A.  General Needs
    
    
    
    
             The needs cited below are studies or actions generally
    
    
    
    
    applicable to the entire Basin.
    
    
    
    
    
    
             1.  Waste Source Inventory and Data Compilation
    
    
    
    
             Recent progress in pollution control has done much to
    
    
    
    
    resolve principal pollution problems, and it is believed that all
    
    
    
    
    major existing sources of pollution are evaluated in this study.
    
    
    
    
    A program to maintain and improve water quality, however, will
    
    
    
    
    require a complete inventory of pollution sources which, for the
    
    
    
    
    Eastern Shore, will require the locating of rural pollution sources.
    
    
    
    
    Such detail is usually of minor significance In areas with less
    
    
    
    
    sensitive water uses, but it is essential for the Eastern Shore,
    
    
    
    
    in view of the large shellfish areas affected.  The inventory
    
    
    
    
    should also include waste load discharges to streams and treatment
    
    
    
    
    plant efficiencies which will require a more comprehensive effluent
    
    
    
    
    sampling program than currently exists
    
    
    
    
             Water quality data in each State are recorded by the
    
    
    
    agency responsible for water quality (MDWR, VWCB, BWARC).  Many
    
    
    
    
    bacteriological data, however, are also available from shellfish
    
    
    
    
    units in the State health departments and from local health depart-
    
    
    
    
    ments.  It is recommended that recent data be compiled and maintained
    
    
    
    
    in a central file in each State.
    

    -------
                                                               VI - 2
    
    
    
    
    
    
             Establishment and maintenance of current waste inventory
    
    
    
    
    and water quality data files are an essential requirement for
    
    
    
    
    adequate pollution control and are the responsibility of the
    
    
    
    
    several State water quality control agencies (DWARC, MDWR, and
    
    
    
    
    VWCB) and of the FWPCA.
    
    
    
    
    
             2.  Field Studies
    
    
    
    
             Current studies by the Chesapeake Field Station, FWPCA,
    
    
    
    
    and the State agencies, particularly MDWR, were designed to deter-
    
    
    
    
    mine the extent and degree of known pollution.  Attention was con-
    
    
    
    
    centrated on major rivers, and the smaller streams were surveyed
    
    
    
    
    only where there  was  obvious gross pollution.  Further intensive
    
    
    
    
    studies of organic and bacterial pollution are required to the
    
    
    
    
    extent indicated by further inspection of the area and gaps in
    
    
    
    
    existing data.  There are undoubtedly many needs for surveys in
    
    
    
    
    minor streams.
    
    
    
    
             Studies are needed to determine the present state of
    
    
    
    
    eutrophication and the degree to which it is being accelerated
    
    
    
    
    by man's activities.  Eutrophic conditions exist in some Eastern
    
    
    
    
    Shore rivers, and have historically been of benefit to some water
    
    
    
    
    uses, but the growth of metropolitan areas and the increased
    
    
    
    
    importance of agriculture and application of modern techniques
    
    
    
    
    are a threat to previous natural balances.  Field studies needed
    
    
    
    
    to make this determination are the responsibility of the State
    
    
    
    
    water quality control agencies (DWARC, MDWR, VWCB) and of the FWPCA.
    

    -------
    

    -------
                                                                VI - 3
    
    
    
    
    
    
             3.  Sewer Districts
    
    
    
    
             The small size of most Eastern Shore communities and the
    
    
    
    
    marginal, highly competitive nature of the food processing industry
    
    
    
    
    offer obstacles to needed construction and reliable treatment plant
    
    
    
    
    operation.  Existing administrative units, whether governmental or
    
    
    
    
    industrial, generally do not have the resources necessary to review
    
    
    
    
    plans or propose alternatives.  Most towns are too small to afford
    
    
    
    
    many skilled employees, and sewage treatment plants have in the
    
    
    
    
    past received low priorities in municipal budgeting.  Small towns
    
    
    
    
    and communities are also too small to obtain favorable interest
    
    
    
    
    rates in their bond financing.
    
    
    
    
             It is recommended that formation of sewer districts to
    
    
    
    
    contract for necessary design and construction and to operate,
    
    
    
    
    maintain and administer the sewage treatment facilities after
    
    
    
    
    construction be promoted.  Sewer districts independent of municipal
    
    
    
    
    governments also offer a promising means of apportioning combined
    
    
    
    
    industrial waste and municipal waste treatment costs by adopting
    
    
    
    
    regulatory sewer ordinances and a system of equitable charges for
    
    
    
    
    waste treatment.  A sewer district organization will also be able
    
    
    
    
    to offer technical assistance to the planning agency because of the
    
    
    
    
    familiarity of district officials with local conditions.
    
    
    
    
             Community waste disposal facilities are generally planned
    
    
    
    
    with primary emphasis upon economy rather than maintenance of
    
    
    
    
    receiving water quality.  The sewer district offers the advantages
    
    
    
    of consolidating sewerage facilities to achieve the economy possible
    

    -------
                                                               VI - U
    
    
    through lower unit construction costs of the sewerage and sewage
    
    treatment plants, the more competent maintenance and operating
    
    personnel that can be provided and the incidental benefits of
    
    better receiving water quality that can be realized.  Of the
    
    advantages cited above, the one which could be realized most
    
    quickly would be the greater competence available for small plant
    
    operation and more efficient and flexible use of operating staffs.
    
    Most of the small, separate treatment plants do not require a
    
    full-time operator, but it would be desirable to have an operating
    
    staff for a group of plants to provide for sickness, leave, per-
    
    sonnel turnover and similar contingencies.
    
              The DWARC presently encourages establishment of local
    
    sewer districts.  The proposed Maryland Waste Acceptance Service
    
    is a step toward making water quality a primary instead of an
    
    incidental goal.
    
             B.  Area Needs
    
             The following sections are detailed discussions of needs
    
    in areas where pollution is adversely affecting water use.  Area
    
    needs are discussed in the following order:
    
                 1.  Atlantic Coast Drainage of Maryland
                       Ocean City Inlet and Adjacent Waters
                       Buntings Branch and St. Martins River
                       Kitts Creek, Trappe Creek, and Newport Bay
                       Marshall Creek
    
                 2.  Atlantic and Chesapeake Bay Drainage of the
                      Virginia Peninsula
    
                 3.  Northeastern Chesapeake Bay Area
                       Northeast River
                       Elk River
    

    -------
                                                              VI  -  5
    
    
    
    
    
    
                 U.  Chester River Basin
    
    
    
    
                 5.  Eastern Bay Drainage
    
    
    
    
                 6.  Choptank River Basin
    
    
    
    
                 7.  Nanticoke River Basin
    
    
    
    
                 8.  Wicomico River Basin
    
    
    
    
                 9.  Little Annemessex River
    
    
    
    
                10.  Pocomoke River Basin
    
    
    
    
    
    
               1.  Atlantic Coast Drainage of Maryland
    
    
    
    
             Maryland's Atlantic Coast Drainage area consists of a
    
    
    
    
    strip of land extending two to ten miles inland, including a small
    
    
    
    
    area of lower Sussex County, Delaware.  This strip drains into a
    
    
    
    
    series of landlocked bays enclosed by Fenwick and Assateague
    
    
    
    
    Islands, and thence to the Atlantic Ocean.  Major coastal waters
    
    
    
    
    are Assawoman Bay, Isle of Wight Bay, Sinepuxent Bay,  Newport  Bay
    
    
    
    
    and Chincoteague Bay.  Drainage to the Atlantic occurs through
    
    
    
    
    Ocean City Inlet and several channels at the southern  end of
    
    
    
    
    Chincoteague Bay.  These are still important shellfish waters,
    
    
    
    
    although the oyster harvest has been affected by the MSX virus;
    
    
    
    
    Chincoteague oysters, particularly, are well-known for their
    
    
    
    
    flavor and quality and highly valued as raw-bar stock.
    
    
    
    
    
                       Ocean City Inlet and Adjacent Waters
    
    
    
    
             Ocean City, Maryland, at the southern end of  Fenwick
    
    
    
    
    Island, discharges sewage to Ocean City Inlet without  treatment.
    
    
    
    
    This has required closing adjacent landward bay waters to shellfish
    

    -------
                                                               VI - 6
    
    harvesting **.  The discharge may also affect the bacterial quality
    of ocean beach waters.  Ocean City has an extremely variable
    population; the permanent population of 1,800 may increase to as
    much as 150,000 on a summer weekend, although not all of the
    visitors occupy areas served by sewers.  To cope with this problem,
    consulting engineers have recommended dual treatment plants-- a
    small plant for permanent residents and a large plant for summer
    operation.  Both plants are to be of only primary treatment
    capability, but a k,000-foot outfall will carry the effluent to
    the Atlantic Ocean  .   There is some doubt as to whether or not
    this combination is adequate in view of the intensive use of the
    ocean beaches and the possibility that the plant effluent could
    be driven back onto the beach.  Secondary treatment for 100,000
    population during the summer season has, therefore, been specified
    as an immediate need.   Ocean City should be required to show that
    it would be impossible for the sewage effluent to return to the
    ocean beaches except under the most unusual storm conditions before
    a primary plant is considered acceptable.  Adequate plant control
    measures are also essential.
                       Buntings Branch and St. Martins River
             Buntings Branch and its tributary, Sandy Branch, are
    polluted by septic tank overflows and direct sewage discharges
    from the unsewered town of Selbyville, Delaware.  The H and H
    Poultry Company, a fairly small operation located in Selbyville,
                                                           3 3
    discharges wastes after some settling and chlorination   .   These
    wastes cause serious degradation of Buntings Branch water quality1*3
    

    -------
                                                                VI - 7
    
    
    
    
    
    
             Just south of the Delaware border, Buntings Branch receives
    
    
    
    
    waste from the Bishop Processing Company near Bishop, Maryland, via
    
    
    
    
    a small tributary.  The effluent from the processing (rendering)
    
    
    
    
    plant is a foul, bluish-black stream carrying large floating solids
    
    
    
    
    and globs of grease43 .  Flows estimated by MDWR as a part of its
    
    
    
    
    Buntings Branch water quality survey were all greater than one
    
    
    
    
    million gallons per day   .  It was not ascertained whether the
    
    
    
    
    waste stream came from the plant directly or from a break in the
    
    
    
    
    wall of a lagoon, which at the time of observation was a festering
    
    
    
    
    swamp.  Any attempt being made by the processing company to treat
    
    
    
    
    its waste was grossly inadequate.
    
    
    
    
             At Bishopville, Maryland, a small impoundment on Buntings
    
    
    
    
    Branch, originally intended as a recreational pond, is grossly
    
    
    
    
    polluted by the three sources cited above.  The water was sooty
    
    
    
    
    black and putrid at the time of inspection.  Water quality in
    
    
    
    
    Bishopville Prong of St. Martin's River is also adversely affected
    
    
    
    
    by these wastes  .  The two industries cited above should provide
    
    
    
    waste treatment adequate to maintain water quality standards as
    
    
    
    
    soon as possible.  Selbyville, Delaware, should construct sewers
    
    
    
    
    and provide secondary treatment for its sewage.  Consideration
    
    
    
    
    should be given to combined treatment of Selbyville and H and H
    
    
    
    
    Poultry Company wastes, to the extent that it is consistent with
    
    
    
    
    policies of the DWARC.  Both Selbyville and the H and H Poultry
    
    
    
    
    Company are under orders from DWARC to abate the pollution caused
    
    
    
    
    by their discharges.
    

    -------
                                                               VI - 8
    
    
    
    
    
    
                       Kitts Creek, Trappe Creek,  Newport Bay
    
    
    
             These waters are adversely affected to an undetermined
    
    
    
    degree and extent by sewage and laundry wastes from Berlin, Maryland
    
    
    
    (population 2,100), which receives inadequate treatment in an
    
    
    
    overloaded, obsolete Imhoff tank constructed in 1935.  Consulting
    
    
                                                                   9 1
    engineers have recommended secondary treatment for these wastes  ,
    
    
    
    and this has been listed as an immediate need.
    
    
    
    
                       Marshall Creek
    
    
    
             The Ralph L. Mason Canning Company seasonally discharges
    
    
    
    wastes from tomato canning operations with screening treatment
    
    
    
    only.  This waste seriously degrades the water quality of Marshall
    
    
    
    Creek and creates an obvious nuisance  .  The Mason Company should
    
    
    
    provide a minimum equivalent of secondary treatment.
    
    
    
    
    
    
                2.  Atlantic and Chesapeake Bay Drainage of the
    
                      Virginia Peninsula
    
    
    
             The Virginia Eastern Shore, consisting of Northampton
    
    
    
    and Accomack Counties, extends 65 miles southward from the Maryland
    
    
    
    border to Cape Charles, at the mouth of Chesapeake Bay.  The
    
    
    
    peninsula is only tenmiles wide at its broadest point, excluding
    
    
    
    the extensive coastal marshes on the Atlantic side.  The Poeomoke
    
    
    
    River and Sound, portions of which are in Virginia, are discussed
    
    
    
    separately.
    
    
    
             Chincoteague, Virginia (town population 2,800, island
    
    
    
    population ^,000), has a serious problem because of a concentration
    

    -------
                                                               VI - 9
    
    of septic tanks in an area generally unsuitable for tile fields.
    Sewers and treatment facilities should be constructed.  Shellfish
    harvesting is now the principal income on the island, but tourism
    is expected to increase rapidly because of the island's location
    at the southern end of the Assateague National Seashore.  Plant
    control measures should be provided, or a discharge location
    selected, so that the treated discharge will not interfere with
    either shellfish or tourism.
             Onancock, Virginia (population 1,800), discharges sewage
    to Onancock Creek after treatment which is believed to be inadequate,
    Secondary treatment has been recommended as an immediate need,
    unless further investigation reveals that present treatment is
    adequate.
             The Town of Cape Charles, Virginia (population 2,100},
    discharges sewage without treatment to Cape Charles Harbor.  Cape
    Charles sewage should receive secondary treatment.
             There are several industries on the peninsula with
    significant pollution potential.  The Green Giant Corporation
    operates a food manufacturing plant near Exmore, and there are
    menhaden processing plants at several locations.  The VWCB has
    indicated that these plants cause no water quality problems in
    tidal waters 5>lt  .  Surveillance of water quality below these
    plants should be continued.
             Waters are closed to shellfish harvesting at seven
    locations on the Virginia Eastern Shore, in addition to the
    

    -------
                                                               VI - 10
    
    
    Pocomoke areas.  Two of the closed areas are sewage treatment plant
    
    buffer zones, and one is the result of the Cape Charles sewage
    
    discharge.  The remaining four are closed because of shoreline
    
    activity or land runoff from unsewered areas.  Other areas are
    
    expected to be closed in the foreseeable future1*1 and the VSDH has
    
    stated that the areas already closed probably cannot be recovered15
    
    These areas should not be abandoned without fully exploring the
    
    possible means of recovering them.  Sanitary conditions in many
    
    locations'along the Virginia peninsula, particularly in migrant
    
    labor camps, are notoriously poor, and correcting such conditions
    
    at shoreline locations would probably produce significant improve-
    
    ment in the sanitary quality of adjacent waters.
    
             The value of the shellfish which might be harvested from
    
    recovered areas, however, is probably not as important as the value
    
    of the recreational potential as an attraction both to tourists
    
    and to new residents.  Action should be taken to  insure that this
    
    potential is not diminished.  Bacteriological data and shoreline
    
    conditions should be reviewed to determine where  bacterial con-
    
    tamination might interfere with recreational uses.
    
                3.  Northeastern Chesapeake Bay Area, Stump Point
                     (Susquehanna River) to Swan Point (Chester River),
                     Maryland
    
             Waters of this region, because of their  proximity to
    
    Baltimore, Wilmington and Philadelphia, and because of their
    
    natural beauty, are among the most popular recreational waters
    
    of the Chesapeake Bay Area.  Sassafras River, in  particular, is
    

    -------
                                                               VI - 11
    
    
    
    
    
    
    considered by many the most beautiful river of the Eastern Shore.
    
    
    
    
    Elk and Northeast Rivers are the other two large rivers which are
    
    
    
    
    tributary to the Bay, and the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal runs
    
    
    
    
    eastward from Elk River to the Delaware River.  There are, in
    
    
    
    
    addition, many creeks in the area which drain directly to Chesapeake
    
    
    
    
    Bay.  Most of the shoreline lies in Cecil County and the remainder
    
    
    
    
    in Kent County, Maryland.  Headwaters of streams are in northern
    
    
    
    
    Delaware (New Castle County) and southeastern Pennsylvania (Chester
    
    
    
    
    County).
    
    
    
    
             Along the shorelines of the rivers are numerous small
    
    
    
    
    communities.  Some are composed predominantly of summer homes,
    
    
    
    
    but others have many year-round residences.  It is estimated that
    
    
    
    
    in Cecil County as much as half of the population lives in small
    
    
    
    
    communities and rural subdivisions, many of which are located on
    
    
    
    
    the shoreline and almost all of which are served by septic tanks.
    
    
    
    
    Although sanitary conditions have not required that any bathing
    
    
    
    
    beaches be closed, coliform densities of 1,000 MPN per 100 ml and
    
    
    
    
    greater have been found on occasion by the Cecil County Department
    
    
    
    
    of Health   .  Some of these densities may possibly be attributed
    
    
    
    
    to treated sewage discharges, and chlorination procedure at existing
    
    
    
    
    sewage treatment plants in this region should be reviewed.
    
    
    
    
             Continued development of unsewered communities, including
    
    
    
    
    conversion of summer homes to year-round residences, however, poses
    
    
    
    
    an immediate threat to water quality.  A detailed study should be
    
    
    
    
    made of the area, especially along the shoreline, to determine the
    

    -------
                                                               VI  -  12
    
    
    
    
    
    
    existence of a water quality problem.   If a problem exists, the
    
    
    
    
    extent to which further development of the shoreline can be expected
    
    
    
    
    and the feasible means of providing treatment facilities should  be
    
    
    
    
    explored.
    
    
    
    
             The northernmost shellfish beds in Chesapeake Bay lie in
    
    
    
    
    the northeast region, between Pooles Island and Swan Point.   This
    
    
    
    
    area is closed to shellfish harvesting from March 15 to May 1  because
    
    
    
    
    of excessive coliform counts from the Susquehanna River during spring
    
    
    
    
    runoff release from flood gates **.  This water may also contribute
    
    
    
    
    to high coliform densities experienced in the rivers to the north.
    
    
    
    
             Conditions other than bacterial quality in the rivers
    
    
    
    
    adjoining Chesapeake Bay in the northeast region are as follows;
    
    
    
    
                       Northeast River
    
    
    
    
             The Town of North East, Maryland (population 1,630),
    
    
    
    
    discharges sewage to Pedlars Run, near the head of tide in the
    
    
    
    
    Northeast River, after primary treatment and chlorination.  This
    
    
    
    
    plant should provide secondary treatment, although at the present
    
    
    
    
    time it is believed that there is only marginal interference with
    
    
    
    
    water use.
    
    
    
    
                       Elk River
    
    
    
    
             Elk River tributaries are of good quality where they  enter
    
    
    
    
    Maryland from Pennsylvania, but industrial discharges cause serious
    
    
    
    
    degradation of Little Elk Creek between the Pennsylvania border and
    
    
    
    
    the head of Elk River.  Galaxy Chemicals, Incorporated, in Providence,
    
    
    
    
    Maryland, discharges a strong butanol and organic solvent waste  in
    

    -------
                                                                VI . is
    
    
    
    unknown quantities.  Chemetron Chemicals and Stauffer Chemical
    
    
    Company, in Elkton, Maryland, discharge acid also in unknown quanti-
    
    
    ties.  Chemetron has neutralization facilities, but control of the
    
    
    operation is inadequate.  Elk Paper Manufacturing Company,  in Childs,
    
    
    Maryland, has discharged paper waste and grease in the past, although
    
    
    no discharge has been observed recently
    
    
             Airco Chemical Division in Elkton, Maryland, discharges a
    
    
    polyvinyl acetate waste without adequate treatment to Bens  Gut, a
    
    
    tributary of Big Elk Creek   .  Equivalent of secondary or higher
    
    
    treatment for organic wastes and adequate neutralization should be
    
    
    provided for the waste discharges cited above.   The possibility of
    
    
    a common waste treatment plant for present and  prospective  industries
    
    
    in the Elkton Industrial Park should be investigated.
    
    
             The Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, which runs eastward
    
    
    from Elk River through Back Creek and a dug channel to Delaware
    
    
    River, receives partially treated sewage from Imhoff tanks  at
    
    
    Chesapeake City, and untreated wastes from the  Losten Dairy near
    
    
    Chesapeake City have been observed flowing into a culvert leading
    
    
    toward the Canal.  These wastes should receive  secondary treatment.
    
    
                k.  Chester River Basin
    
    
             Chester River rises in Kent and New Castle Counties,
    
                                                                   o q
    Delaware, but receives no known waste discharges in this area   .
    
    
    In Maryland, it forms the boundary between Kent and Queen Annes
    
    
    Counties, in which most of its drainage area lies.  In Maryland,
    
    
    the River is closed to shellfishing from the head of tide to about
    

    -------
                                                               VI - lU
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ten miles below Chester-town because of shoreline septic tank leaching
    
    
    
    
    and erratic operation of the obsolete Chester-town (population 3}650)
    
    
    
    
    sewage treatment plant **.  Coliform densities in excess of 1,000 MPN
    
    
    
    
    per 100 ml have not been experienced 36.  A new lagoon for Chester-
    
    
    
    
    town is under construction, and action should be taken by local
    
    
    
    
    authorities to correct septic tank malfunctions.
    
    
    
    
             Queenstown, Maryland (population 375), has forced closure
    
    
    
    
    of Queenstown Creek to shellfish harvesting because of septic tank
    
    
    
    
    leaching ttl .  Queenstown plans to build a lagoon for a design popula-
    
    
    
    
    tion of 600, as proposed by consultants 27.   Queenstown should also
    
    
    
    
    be included in the Kent Island-Kent Narrows Area study (see Eastern
    
    
    
    
    Bay discussion and special study needs).
    
    
    
    
             Septic tank leaching in Rock Hall,  Maryland (average popula-
    
    
    
    
    tion 1,200), has forced the closing of Rock Hall Harbor to shellfish
    
    
    
    
    harvesting ** .  Rock Hall plans to build a lagoon for 1,500 population
    
    
    
    
    as proposed by consultants 20 .  Current plans are to discharge the
    
    
    
    
    treated effluent to Grays Inn Creek.
    
    
    
    
                5.  Eastern Bay Drainage
    
    
    
             Eastern Bay lies south of the Kent Island-Kent Narrows Area
    
    
    
    
    and north of Tilghmans Island.  The drainage area lies entirely in
    
    
    
    
    Talbot and Queen Annes Counties, Maryland.  Principal tributaries
    
    
    
    
    are the Miles and Wye Rivers and Prospect Bay.
    
    
    
    
             Septic tank leaching along the rural shoreline area around
    
    
    
    
    the Miles River tributaries of Spencers Creek, Little Neck Creek,
    
    
    
    Newcomb Creek, and Leeds Creek has required closing these waters
    

    -------
                                                               VI - 15
    
    
    
    to shellfish harvesting.  Wye River, Wye East River, Wye Narrows
    
    
    and Skipton Creek are also closed to shellfish harvesting because
    
    
    of septic tank problems along the rural shoreline area ** .   Local
    
    
    authorities should take action to correct the septic tank malfunctions,
    
    
             Until recently, Miles River was closed in the vicinity of
    
    
    St. Michaels, Maryland, because of buffer zone requirements for the
    
    
    St. Michaels' sewage treatment plant.  This area was opened on the
    
    
    condition that adequate plant capacity, control measures, and alarm
    
    
    precautions be provided.  Miles River is the only Eastern Shore area
    
    
    where buffer requirements have been relaxed
    
    
             Kent Narrows, the channel dividing Kent Island from the
    
    
    main part of Queen Annes County, and Cox Creek are closed to shell-
    
    
    fish harvesting because of septic tank malfunctions along the shore-
    
    
    line area, which includes the communities of Stevensville, Chester
    
    
    and Grasonville, as well as many marinas  .  Total population of
    
    
    this area is in excess of 35000.  Sanitary conditions along the
    
    
    shoreline in the Kent Island-Kent Narrows Area are notoriously poor.
    
    
    It is doubtful that these conditions can be corrected by routine
    
    
    septic tank maintenance.  A survey should be made in this area,
    
    
    including Queenstown, to investigate conditions thoroughly and to
    
    
    determine the need for public sewers.
    
    
    
                6.  Choptank River Basin
    
    
             The Choptank River, largest of the Eastern Shore rivers,
    
    
    is the most valuable of all its oyster waters currently closed by
              qi,
    pollution   .  The River rises in Kent County, Delaware, but most
    

    -------
                                                               VI - i6
    
    
    
    
    
    
    of its drainage area is in Talbot, Caroline and Dorchester Counties,
    
    
    
    
    Maryland.  There are no known sources of pollution in the Delaware
    
    
    
    
    portion of the Basin 33.
    
    
    
    
             Greensboro (population 1,200) discharges raw sewage into
    
    
    
    
    the Choptank River above the head of tide.  This discharge is the
    
    
    
    
    apparent cause of a median coliform density of ^0,000 MPN per 100 ml
    
    
    
    
    below Greensboro.  The median coliform density is 1,000 MPN per 100
    
    
    
    
    ml at the Town of Choptank (Hunting Creek), about 25 miles downstream
    
    
    
    
    from Greensboro 35.
    
    
    
    
             Other discharges contribute to pollution in the upper reaches
    
    
    
    
    of the tidewater.  The Textron Company, in Denton, discharges poultry
    
    
    
    
    processing waste into Choptank River after screening treatment only.
    
    
    
    
    Ridgley (population $00) discharges sewage to Tuckahoe Creek about
    
    
    
    
    ten miles upstream from Choptank River after some treatment in an
    
    
    
    
    obsolete primary plant constructed in 191^.  East New Market (population
    
    
    
    
    225) discharges sewage to Warwick River after treatment in a 1939
    
    
    
    Imhoff tank plant.  Septic tanks in Secretary (population 365) affect
    
    
    
    
    the bacterial quality of Warwick River, and there are other rural
    
    
    
    
    septic tank problems in the shoreline area and communities in the
    
    
    
    
    upper Choptank Basin 36.  Secondary treatment should be provided for
    
    
    
    
    the towns cited above and corrective action on shoreline septic tank
    
    
    
    
    violations should be taken by local health officers.  At present only
    
    
    
    
    Secretary, for which a consultant has recommended construction of
    
    
    
    
    sewers and a treatment lagoon, has definite plans 28.  Although East
    
    
    
    
    New Market and Secretary are only two miles apart, the cost of
    

    -------
                                                               VI - 17
    
    
    
    transmitting raw sewage between them would probably exceed significantly
    
    the cost of providing a separate new treatment plant for East New
    
    Market.  Consideration might be given, however, to pumping the
    
    effluent from East New Market's Imhoff tank to the Secretary lagoon.
    
             Cambridge, Maryland, the largest town in the Choptank
    
    Basin and the second largest on the Eastern Shore, discharges about
    
     ,7 mgd of sewage and industrial waste effluent to Choptank River
    
    after primary treatment and heavy chlorination  '  .  Although the
    
    population served is 13,000 plus some fringe population, the plant
    
    receives an organic load of 52,000 population equivalent because
    
    of industrial contributions.  Principal industrial waste contributors
    
    are the Maryland Tuna Corporation (canned tuna), Chun-King Corporation
                                                               J( //,'!,;,.   "* -
    (Chinese speciality foods), Coastal Foods Corporation, and Weotogn-
    
    Prntng~?md Mthg3?apb4ng Company.  In addition, Coldwater Seafood
    
    Corporation, a tuna canning operation, has made definite plans to
    
    move to Cambridge.  The Cambridge sewage treatment plant needs both
    
    secondary treatment capability and additional capacity.  Only ex-
    
    cellent operation of the Cambridge sewage treatment plant has pre-
    
    vented serious degradation of water quality thus far.
    
             The Choptank is open to shellfish harvesting below the
    
    Cambridge buffer zone.  Cambridge, because of the massive chlorine
    
    dosages applied to the effluent, does not contribute significantly
    
    to bacterial contamination except during periods of heavy rainfall.
    
    Because of the importance of the potential shellfish harvest in
    

    -------
                                                               VI - 18
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Choptank River, measures should be taken to avoid closure of shell-
    
    
    
    
    fish waters for buffer zones.  MDWR is currently conducting field
    
    
    
    
    surveys to determine water quality in the Cambridge vicinity.  Data
    
    
    
    
    from earlier surveys above Secretary are now being published.
    
    
    
    
                7.  Nanticoke River Basin
    
    
    
    
             The Nanticoke Basin, second largest of the Eastern Shore,
    
    
    
    
    is the largest single drainage area in Delaware.  The Nanticoke
    
    
    
    
    and its larger tributaries, Marshy Hope Creek and Broad Creek,  all
    
    
    
    
    originate in western Sussex and Kent Counties, Delaware.  Slightly
    
    
    
    
    less than half the drainage area lies in Maryland, in Caroline,
    
    
    
    
    Dorchester and Wicomico Counties.   The River is navigable to the
    
    
    
    
    head of tide at Seaford, Delaware.
    
    
    
    
             Sewage from the Town of Seaford (population 4,^00) receives
    
    
    
    
    primary treatment in a modern plant before discharge to the Nanticoke.
    
    
    
    
    Secondary treatment should be provided for Seaford wastes to protect
    
    
    
    
    and enhance water quality in the receiving stream.
    
    
    
             A large nylon manufacturing plant operated by the DuPont
    
    
    
    
    Company is located at Seaford.  This plant has an enormous pollution
    
    
    
    
    potential but in-plant measures and careful waste segregation has
    
    
    
    
    limited this plant's effect to an "occasional DO problem."33
    
    
    
    
    Sludges and concentrates are barged to sea.  Game fish pass in
    
    
    
    
    water adjacent to the plant in season 32; apparently neither organic
    
    
    
    
    nor thermal discharges interfere seriously with sport fishing.
    
    
    
    
    During a 1957 water quality survey by DWARC * , the minimum dissolved
    

    -------
                                                              vi  -  19
    
    
    
    
    
    
    oxygen concentration measured in Nanticoke River was 3-1 mgd,  or
    
    
    
    
    35 per cent saturation.  Dissolved oxygen fluctuations characteristic
    
    
    
    
    of eutrophic streams were apparent in these data.  The DuPont  plant
    
    
    
    
    has cut back on operation during periods of critical stream  conditions
    
    
    
    
    to avoid degradation of water quality33.
    
    
    
    
             On the basis of the program now in effect, it is believed
    
    
    
    
    that the DuPont plant management and the DWARC will continue to
    
    
    
    
    take action as necessary to maintain water quality in the Nanticoke
    
    
    
    
    River.  No immediate need was cited for the DuPont plant.
    
    
    
    
             Sharptown, Maryland (population 700), discharges raw  sewage
    
    
    
    
    just downstream from the Delaware border.  This sewage should  receive
    
    
    
    
    secondary treatment as soon as possible.
    
    
    
    
             Federalsburg, Maryland (population 2,100), located  above
    
    
    
    
    the head of tide on Marshy Hope Creek, provides secondary treatment
    
    
    
    
    for its sewage and wastes from the John N. Wright Company (vegetable
    
    
    
    
    cannery) and the Textron Company (chicken processing).  Treatment
    
    
    
    
    is adequate except during the sweet potato season.  Expansion  of
    
    
    
    
    treatment facilities or industrial pretreatment is an immediate
    
    
    
    
    need to prevent a seasonal effect on water quality.
    
    
    
    
             Vienna, Maryland, (population Uoo), located at the  U. S,
    
    
    
    
    Route 50 crossing of the Nanticoke, discharges sewage to the river
    
    
    
    
    without treatment.  Vienna's sewage should receive secondary treat-
    
    
    
    
    ment as soon as possible.
    
    
    
    
             The bacterial quality of Nanticoke River does not become
    
    
    
    
    acceptable for shellfish harvesting until Newfoundland Point,  a
    

    -------
                                                              VI  - 20
    
    
    
    
    
    
    short distance below Wetipquin Creek 2 .   Oyster beds extend several
    
    
    
    
    miles above this point.   The importance  of shellfish in these pro-
    
    
    
    
    hibited waters was not determined during this study, but they are
    
    
    
    
    potentially productive.   The salinity of these waters is too low
    
    
    
    
    to support the MSX virus.  There is a productive area below the
    
    
    
    
    prohibited area and above the more saline waters of Tangier Sound.
    
    
    
    
    
    
                8.  Wicomico River Basin
    
    
    
    
             The Wicomico River receives waste from the Salisbury area,
    
    
    
    
    the largest and fastest growing area of  the Eastern Shore.  The
    
    
    
    
    drainage area of the Wicomico, which is  one of the smaller Eastern
    
    
    
    
    Shore rivers, lies principally within Wicomico County; the remainder
    
    
    
    
    is in Sussex County, Delaware, and Somerset County, Maryland.  Only
    
    
    
    
    a few small tributaries feed the Wicomico above Salisbury where
    
    
    
    
    the tidal action is stopped by dams.
    
    
    
    
             The Salisbury (population 17,000) sewage treatment plant,
    
    
    
    
    a modern trickling filter plant, is of adequate capacity for the
    
    
    
    
    population served (about 28,000), but industrial wastes raise the
    
    
    
    
    total BOD load to 8^,000 population equivalent.  A single year-round
    
    
    
    
    food manufacturing plant operated by the Campbell Soup Company
    
    
    
    
    contributes 27 per cent of the flow, 57  per cent of the BOD load,
    
    
    
    
    and ko per cent of the suspended solids  load to the sewage treatment
    
    
    
    
    plant.  Caustic discharges from the Campbell Soup Company plant also
    
    
    
    
    interfere with proper operation.
    

    -------
                                                              VI -  21
    
    
    
    
    
    
             In spite of excellent operation and a conscientious (often
    
    
    
    
    round-the-clock) control program, the plant cannot cope with the
    
    
    
    
    load it receives.  A study has been made by a consulting engineer,
    
    
    
    
    and badly needed plans for plant expansion are being considered
    
    
    
    
    by the city25.
    
    
    
    
             The Salisbury area, however, consists not only of Salisbury,
    
    
    
    
    but also of a fringe area outside the incorporated limits and the
    
    
    
    
    contiguous unsewered Town of Fruitland (population 2,UOO).  Septic
    
    
    
    
    tank leachings and overflows from Fruitland have an adverse effect
    
    
    
    
    on water quality, and, in addition, the Green Giant Corporation,
    
    
    
    
    Dulany Frozen Foods Division, has a land disposal system which
    
    
    
    
    seeps and overflows to Sharps Creek, a small tributary of Wicomico
    
    
    
    
    River.  A consulting engineer has recommended sewering Fruitland
    
    
    
    
    and building a 0.37 mgd trickling filter plant for the town only22.
    
    
    
    
    Consideration should be given instead to building a plant which
    
    
    
    
    would provide both greater economy in unit costs and more flexi-
    
    
    
    
    bility for municipal growth.  One alternative would be to provide
    
    
    
    
    a new secondary treatment plant to treat Fruitland's sewages Green
    
    
    
    
    Giant's waste (after adequate pre-treatment) and a portion of
    
    
    
    
    Salisbury's sewage as required to prevent overloaded conditions
    
    
    
    
    from occurring at the existing Salisbury plant,  A second alter-
    
    
    
    
    native would be to expand the existing Salisbury plant to provide
    
    
    
    
    secondary treatment for wastes from the sources listed above.
    
    
    
    
    Costs given in the summary are for plans as now proposed.  This
    
    
    
    construction, however, should not be undertaken without a review
    

    -------
    

    -------
                                                              VI - 22
    
    
    
    
    
    
    of the action outlined above and other relevant alternatives.
    
    
    
    
    Fruitland is a logical part of the Salisbury metropolitan area,
    
    
    
    
    and treatment needs should not be considered limited by political
    
    
    
    
    boundaries established when the Towns were separate physical entities,
    
    
    
    
             Waste loads from the Salisbury area may require, even at
    
    
    
    
    the existing population level and state of industrial development,
    
    
    
    
    BOD removal greater than 85 per cent, advanced waste treatment for
    
    
    
    
    nutrient removal, or diversion to an area which will provide more
    
    
    
    
    adequate dilution and flushing.  Field studies of water quality in
    
    
    
    
    the Wicomico are now being conducted by the Chesapeake Field Station,
    
    
    
    
    FWPCA.
    
    
    
    
             There are currently no waste discharges to the Wicomico
    
    
    
    
    below Salisbury, and no known waste sources below the Fruitland
    
    
    
    
    area.  Coliform densities between the Salisbury area and Wicomico
    
    
    
    
    Creek vary from 1,000 to greater than 2,^00 MPN per 100 ml35.
    
    
    
    
    Wicomico Creek itself has a median coliform density greater than
    
    
    
    
    2,400 MPN per 100 ml.   Below Wicomico Creek, the median density
    
    
    
    
    is less than 1,000 MPN per 100 ml, and at Mt_ Vernon (Buoy 2l),
    
    
    
    
    bacterial quality of the Wicomico is acceptable for shellfish
    
    
    
    
    harvesting.  Since oyster beds extend only slightly above Mt.
    
    
    
    
    Vernon, interference with the harvest is probably marginal.  The
    
    
    
    
    salinity of these waters is too low to support the MSX virus, and
    
    
    
    
    there are productive oyster grounds between the prohibited zone
    
    
    
    
    and Tangier Sound.
    

    -------
                                                              VI - 23
    
             The excessive coliform densities are apparently not the
    result of the Salisbury sewage treatment plant discharge36.   Fruitland
    certainly has an adverse effect on river water quality, but  unsewered
    areas downstream are also significant, particularly in Wicomico Creek,
    Sewering these areas is not practical at this time.  Local health
    authorities should require correction of shoreline septic tank
    malfunctions.
                9*  Little Annemessex River
             Crisfield, Maryland (population 3,500), discharges  sewage
    after primary treatment to the Little Annemessex within the  embayment
    formed by James Island, where the State of Maryland plans a  state
    park development.  Extensive marina facilities have already  been
    constructed at Somers Cove in Crisfield.  In view of the extensive
    water use which this area is expected to receive, Crisfield  sewage
    should receive secondary treatment.
             The Town of Crisfield is not entirely sewered nor are fringe
    areas served.  The town is so low in elevation that tidewater floods
    some streets,and ditches within the Town are known to be contaminated ^
    The Crisfield area should be the subject of a pollution source survey.
               10.  Pocomoke River Basin
             The Pocomoke River originates in lower Sussex County,
    Delaware.  The remainder and by far the largest part of its  drainage
    area lies in Maryland, except for a small area in northern Accomack
    County, Virginia.  Lower reaches of the Pocomoke form the boundary
    between Worcester and Somerset Counties, Maryland, and between
    Somerset County and Accomack County, Virginia.
    

    -------
                                                                VI  -  2k
    
    
    
    
    
          The Pocomoke is a beautiful and interesting river which reminds
    
    
    
    one more of the bayou country of the Gulf Coast than of the  other
    
    
    
    rivers to the north.  It originates and flows through the northernmost
    
    
    
    cypress swamp in the United States and supports an abundant  fish
    
    
    
    and wildlife population in its waters and marshes.  Because  its
    
    
    
    shoreline is predominated by marsh, long reaches of the river remain
    
    
    
    wild.  Large well-kept farms and stately houses occupy the higher
    
    
    
    land, especially in the lower reaches.
    
    
    
          There are no known sources of pollution in the Pocomoke Basin
    
    
    
    upstream from Snow Hill, Maryland33'35.  Snow Hill (population  2,^00),
    
    
    
    provides primary treatment for its municipal sewage.  Maryland
    
    
    
    Chicken Processors, Incorporated, operate a very large poultry
    
    
    
    processing plant in Snow Hill and discharge waste to the Pocomoke
    
    
    
    River with essentially no treatment.  The effect of these wastes
    
    
    
    on river water quality has not yet been determined, but a nuisance
    
    
    
    is created by feathers and offal in the river43.  Snow Hill  plans
    
    
    
    to add an extended aeration treatment plant for the poultry  pro-
    
    
                                                         ? O
    cessing waste adjacent to the municipal primary plant  .  Bids
    
    
    
    received for this construction in response to recent advertising
    
    
    
    were 40 to 60 per cent above the consulting engineers' December
    
    
    
    1965 cost estimate, and the Town did not let a contract for  the
    
    
    
    work40, but current indications are that they will go ahead. The
    
    
    
    Maryland Chicken Processors plant waste is a major pollution source
    
    
    
    and should receive a minimum of equivalent of secondary treatment.
    

    -------
                                                              VI - 25
    
    
    
    
    
    
    The W. T. Onley Company, located across the river from Snow Hill,
    
    
    
    
    discharges about 0.6 mgd of vegetable canning waste in season after
    
    
    
    
    screening treatment only.  This waste should receive a minimum of
    
    
    
    
    equivalent secondary treatment.  Snow Hill should also provide
    
    
    
    
    secondary treatment.
    
    
    
    
             Pocomoke City (population 3,^00) discharges raw sewage to
    
    
    
    
    the Pocomoke River.  Three small meat-packing plants and a cannery
    
    
    
    
    located in Pocomoke City all discharge raw or inadequately treated
    
    
    
    
    wastes to Pocomoke River and are listed in Table I.  The Campbell
    
    
    
    
    Soup Company is modernizing the old Birdseye food manufacturing
    
    
    
    
    plant, a large installation, and will start operation in the near
    
    
    
    
    future.  Engineering studies were recently completed for a lagoon
    
    
    
    
    and interceptor to collect and treat sewage and industrial waste
    
    
    
    
    from Pocomoke City38.  This facility should be constructed as soon
    
    
    
    
    as possible.
    
    
    
    
             Pitts Creek originates in Wagram Swamp in Maryland but
    
    
    
    
    lies largely in Virginia.  Cannery wastes discharged with less
    
    
    
    
    than secondary treatment by H. E. Kelley and Company near New
    
    
    
    
    Church, Virginia, degrade water quality in a small tributary, al-
    
    
    
    
    though their effect on Pitts Creek is undetermined  .  This waste
    
    
    
    
    should receive equivalent secondary treatment.
    
    
    
    
             The median coliform density in the Pocomoke River is
    
    
    
    
    greater than 2,400 MPN per 100 ml below Pocomoke City.  The coliform
    
    
    
    
    density is generally in the hundreds in the lower reachess but
    
    
    
    
    bacterial quality is not acceptable for shellfish harvesting
    

    -------
    

    -------
                                                              VI - 26
    
    
    
    
    
    
    downstream to the outer waters of Pocomoke Sound36.   The waters
    
    
    
    
    closed to shellfishing, however, are not important commercially;
    
    
    
    
    crabs are the important catch in Pocomoke Sound.  Abating the raw
    
    
    
    
    sewage discharge from Pocomoke City will, of course, produce immediate
    
    
    
    
    improvement in the bacterial quality of Pocomoke River.  Bacterial
    
    
    
    
    contamination from poultry and livestock farms along the river and
    
    
    
    
    upper sound may also be significant, however, and an estimate of
    
    
    
    
    their contribution should be made in the course of preparing a
    
    
    
    
    pollution source inventory.
    

    -------
                                                               VII - 1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    VII.  INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
    
    
    
    
            In Delaware, the Water and Air Resources Commission (DWARC)
    
    
    
    
    has the responsibility for maintaining water quality and a general
    
    
    
    
    authority over all waste discharges and treatment facilities.   As
    
    
    
    
    its name implies, the scope of authority of DWARC is quite broad.
    
    
    
    
    The only water-related functions not included in its jurisdiction
    
    
    
    
    are shellfish sanitation and review of health aspects of waste treat-
    
    
    
    
    ment, which are under the jurisdiction of the Delaware State Depart-
    
    
    
    
    ment of Health (DSDH).
    
    
    
    
            Maryland and Virginia institutional arrangements rrc very much
    
    
    
    
    alike.  The Maryland Department of Water Resources (MDWR) and Virginia
    
    
    
    
    State Water Control Board (VWCB) both have responsibility for main-
    
    
    
    
    taining water quality and general authority over industrial waste
    
    
    
    
    discharges and treatment facilities in their respective States.
    
    
    
    
    Similarly, in both States the MSDH and VSDH have jurisdiction over
    
    
    
    
    sewage discharges, treatment plants and shellfish sanitation.   The
    
    
    
    
    Maryland Department of Chesapeake Bay Affairs (MDCBA) has general
    
    
    
    
    jurisdiction in Maryland over the use of the Bay as a resource.
    
    
    
    
            In all three States, county health departments have juris-
    
    
    
    diction over local sanitation.  Measures to correct unsatisfactory
    
    
    
    
    local sanitary conditions are outside the jurisdiction of pollution
    
    
    
    
    control agencies, but there are many shoreline areas where these
    
    
    
    
    local conditions affect water quality.  The problems involved in
    

    -------
                                                             VII  -  2
    
    
    
    
    
    
    the assumption of responsibility for building and operating  sewage
    
    
    
    
    treatment plants by small towns and industries have  been discussed
    
    
    
    
    in preceding sections (III and IV).  The existing pattern of local
    
    
    
    
    government on the Eastern Shore does not lend itself to  a near-optimal
    
    
    
    
    program of pollution control.
    

    -------
                                                              VIII  -  1
                               BIBLIOGRAPHY
     Reports,  Books and Papers
         Aulenbaeh,  D  L0  and Kaplovsky,  A0  J0,  of the  Delaware  Water
         and Air Resources Commission (Then  Water Pollution  Commission) ,
         "A COMPREHENSIVE  STUDY OF POLLUTION AND ITS  EFFECT  WITHIN THE
         NANTICOKE RIVEK DRAINAGE BASIN," July 1958 
    
         Benet, S_ V.,  "JOHN BROWN'S BODY,"  Holt, Rinchart and Winston,
         New York, 1927S p 72, kQtla printing,
     3.   Bureau of the Census,  "UNITED STATES CENSUS  OF POPULATION," 1960,
    
     h.   Carpenter, J, W.,Jr,JS  Public Health Service^ U S.  Department
         of Health, Education and Welfare,  "EVALUATION OF THE  MARYLAND
         STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SHELLFISH GROWING AREA SANTTA^Y
         SURVEY PROGRAM," March 1964, as revised L':rc-tj:i Pe^m'ber 15, 196*4,
         and as corrected through June 196? per oral  communication
         with MSDH.
    
     5o   Delmarva Advisory Council, "OVERALL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM s
         DELMARVA PENINSULA," Salisbury, Maryland,  April 20, 1967.
    
     6.   DeRoses C0 ROJ Maryland Department of Water  Resources,  "A REPORT
         ON THE EFFECTS ON CANNERY WASTE ON MARSHALL  CZEEK," (Survey of
         October 1965) 
    
     7o   Frankel, R J., "WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT^ AN ENGINEERING-ECONOMIC
         MODEL FOR DOMESTIC WASTE DISPOSAL," University of California,
         Berkeley, PhD 1965.
    
     8   Henbeck, A  , Jr., et al, , (A Study Commission to Investigate
         the Problems of Water Pollution Control, Maryland), " A
         PROSPECTUS s WATER POLLUTION CONTROL IN MARYLAND ,"' February 21, 1967,
    
     9.   Maryland, State of, Senate Bill 335, 1966  Session of  the General
         Assembly.,
    
    10 o   Maryland Water Resources Commission and Department  of Water
         Resources "GENERAL WATER QUALITY CRITERIA  AND SPECIFIC  WATER
         QUALITY STANDARDS," Water Resources Regulation 4.8, June 30, 1967.
    

    -------
                                                               111  -  2
    11.  Otton, E. G. and Heidel, S0 G_, Geological Survey,  l\  S 
         Department of the Interior, "MARYLAND WATER SUPPLY  AND DEMAND
         STUDY , PART I, BASIC DATA, VOLUME 59 THE EASTERN SHORE."
    
    12.  Public Health Service, U0 S. Department of Health,  Education
         and Welfare, "NATIONAL SHELLFISH SANITATION MAFJAL  OF  OPERATION ,
         PART I, fANITATION OF SHELLFISH GSOWING AREAS/' 1965 revision.
         NOTE; This manual provides for certain variations in policy "by
         the states, and the text discussion applies primarily  to  Maryland
         practices 
    
    13   Rand, McNally and Company, "TOURING MAP OF CHESAPEAKE  BAY AREA/'
         Texaco, Incorporated,, 1965.
    
    1^.  Rubelmann, R0 J0, Maryland Department of Water Resources, "A
         REPORT ON THE BUNTINGS BRANCH SURVEY, SURVEY P.EPOFT 63-9 -SB,"
         January
    15.  Virginia Water Control Board, "PLAN FOR MANAGEMENT OF WATER
         QUALITY IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY AND ATLANTIC OCEAN DRAINAGE
         BASINS IN VIRGINIA/' Publication No, WQ-3**, June l6s  1967.
    Consulting Engineers '  Studies
    
    l6.  Bourne, Thomas B0 ,Associatess Incorporated,  Consulting Engineers,
         Washington, D0 C,,  Subjects   Engineering Study on Sewerage  and
         Sewage Treatment  for Betterton,  Kent County, Maryland, April 28,  196?,
    
    17  Bourne, Thomas B0 sAssociates, Incorporated,  Consulting Engineers,
         Washington, D0 C_,  Subjie_ct;   Engineering Study on Sewerage  and
         Sewage Treatment  for Cecilton, Cecil County, Maryland, June 3>
    l8.  Bourne, Thomas B0 ^Associates, Incorporated,  Consulting Engineers,
         Washington, D. Cu,  Subjects   Engineering Study on Sewerage  and
         Sewage Treatment for Fair lee, Kent County, Maryland,  April  28, 196? 
    
    19.  Crockett, James Associates,  Consulting Engineers, Baltimore,
         Maryland, Subjjects   Engineering Study on Sewers and Sewage  Treat-
         ment for the Town of North East, Cecil County, Maryland,  January 30,
         1963 o
    
    20o  Crockett, James Associates,  Consulting Engineers, Baltimore,
         Maryland, ^ubject^i   Engineering Study of Sewerage and Sewage
         Treatment for Hock Hall, Kent County, Maryland,
    

    -------
                                                              VIII  -  3
    21.  George, Miles and Buhr, Consulting Engineers,  Salisbury, Maryland,
         Subject;  Engineering Study on Sewage  Treatment for Berlin,
         Worcester County, Maryland, December 1966,
    
    22,  George, Miles and Buhr, Consulting Engineers,  Salisbury, Maryland,
         Subjects  Engineering Study of Sewerage  and Sewage Treatment  for
         Fruitland, Wicomico County, Maryland,  March 17, 196?.
    
    23.  George, Miles and Buhr, Consulting Engineers,  Salisbury, Maryland,
         Subject;  Engineering Study of Waste Treatment for Maryland Chicken
         Processors, Incorporated,  Snow Hill, Worcester County, Maryland,
         December 1965, (grant under provisions of PL 660 applied for
         by Snow Hill).
    
    2k,  George, Miles and Buhr, Consulting Engineers,  Salisbury, Maryland,
         Subjects  Engineering Study of Sewage  Treatment for Vienna,
         Dorchester County, Maryland, April 6,  196?, (information from
         grant application by Vienna under provisions of PL 660)
    
    25.  Pirnies Malcolm, Engineers, White Plainss New  York, "Report on
         Operation of Sewage Treatment Plant Facilities", City of Salisbury,
         Wicomico County, Maryland, December 19660
    
    26.  Richardson, Edward H., Incorporated, Consulting Engineers, Newark
         and Dover, Delaware, and Snow Hill, Maryland,  SubJect;  Engineering
         Study of Sewerage and Sewage Treatment for  Newark, Worcester
         County, Maryland, December 1966
    
    27=  Rummel, Klepper and Kahl,  Consulting Engineers, Baltimore, Maryland,
         Subject;  Engineering Study of Sewerage  and Sewage Treatment  for
         Queenstown, Queen Annes County, Maryland, March 1966,
    
    28.  Rummel, Klepper and Kahl,  Consulting Engineers, Baltimore, Maryland,
         Subject;  Engineering Study of Sewerage  and Sewage Treatment  for
         Secretary, Dorchester County, Maryland,  December 1965.
    
    29-  Rummel, Klepper and Kahl,  Consulting Engineers, Baltimore, Maryland,
         Subject;  Engineering Study of Sewers, Sewage  Treatment and Outfall
         for Sudlersville, Queen Annes County,  Maryland, April 19660
    Personal Communications_by Chesapeake Field Station Staff Members
    
    30.  Cambridge, Maryland, sewage treatment plant superintendent
    
    31.  Cecil County, Maryland, Department of Health
    
    32.  Charles Holt (marina owner), Seaford, Delaware
    

    -------
                                                              VIII
    33.  Delaware Water and Air Resources Commission
    
    3^.  Maryland Department of Chesapeake Bay Affairs
    
    35.  Maryland Department of Water Resources
    
    36.  Maryland State Department of Healths  Division  of Food  and Milk
           Sanitation
    
    37.  Maryland State Department of Health,  Division  of Water Supply
           and Sewage Treatment
    
    380  Pocomoke City, Maryland
    
    39*  Salisbury, Maryland
    
    kO.  Snow Hill, Maryland
    
    4l.  Virginia State Department of Health (Shellfish)
    
    k2.  Virginia State V.'ater Control Board
    
    
    In-file Data
    
    1*3.  Chesapeake Field Station, FWPCA, Annapolis,  Maryland,  INSPECTION
           BY STAFF MEMBERS.
    
    WK  Chesapeake Field Station, FWPCA, Annapolis,  Maryland,  "Preliminary
           Data from Reconnaissance Survey of Pocomoke, Wicomico, and
           Wanticoke Rivers," July 196?.
    

    -------
    

    -------