EVALUATION OF WATER QUALITY TRENDS
SHENANDOAH RIVER, VIRGINIA
FRONT ROYAL TO BERRYVILLE
JOHN W BAUMEISTER
TECH NIC A L RE POP T 2
U.S. DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMIN
MIDDLE ATLANTIC REGION
918 EMMET STREET
C HARLOT TE SV I L LE VIRGINIA
DECEMBER 1968
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements . ..«,..,., ii
Introduction 1
Summary ..........................I.............. 2
Water Quality k
Eutrophication and Phytoplankton 5
Bottom Fauna . 8
Conclusions 11
Bibliography 12
Appendix - Tables , 15
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is deeply indebted to Mr. Eugene >/. 3urber,
Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries, who graciously
supplied long-termed bottom fauna data which were invaluable in
showing eutrophication trends in the Shenandoah River, Bottom
fauna information provided by Mr, John E.. Tackett, Virginia State
Water Control Board was also very useful in this evaluation.
Grateful acknowledgement is expressed to Mr. Lowell E.
Keup, Technical Advisory and Investigations Branch of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration, Cincinnati, for his
helpful suggestions in editing this Report*
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The 1T« 3. Army Corps of Engineers Western Virginia Area Office
near .Jorryville, Virginia, obtains its water supply from the Shenandoah
River, In recent years, Corps officials have expressed concern with
increased pollution and the presence of certain planktonic organisms
found in untreated river water and. problems associated with removing
them in water purification systems. In anticipation of a potential
need to alter water treatment facilities, (k>rps of Engineers officials,
by letter dated May 9, 1968, requested the Middle Atlantic Region,
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, to determine pollution
trends in the i^-iver.
This Report contains the findings of our evaluation of water
quality trends in the Shenandoah River. The nhysical, chemical and
biological information investigated was obtained fro.-n several sources.
These include data collected at the Federal Viater Pollution Control
Administration T
-------
IT, SUMMAHT
The lower /Jhenandoah River has had a long history of pollution
problems, dating back to i9kO when toxic industrial wastes discharged,
in the stream all but decimated aquatic life downstream from Front
Royal„ Subsequent abatement of this pollution resulted in the re-
covery of the River| however, increased discharges of organic wastes
and, runoff from agricultural lands have caused significant nutrient
enrichment.
Physical and, chemical data collected, at the Berryville
Surveillance Station were evaluated to determine pollution and
eutrophication trends in the main stem downstream fr-am fr-oat Hoyal.
It was found, that the chemical quality was within the raw water
criteria established for public water supplies: however, total phos-
phorus and nitrogen content of river water was sufficiently high
to i'ndicate a fertile stream capable of prodv:j;;',g abundant aquatic
organisms,
Eutroph,icatic.r trends are also borne rwt by 'r;^logical data
collected near Berryvill^. Thirteen years of t-cttosn samples collected
over a 30-year period in this reach show a gradual ircrease in the
productivity of aquatic invertebrates. For the most part, these
samples were comprised of clean water and faev.j.ta',;,v© forms which
indicate the presence of relatively clean water0
One of the most significant indicators cf organic enrichment
in the lower Shenandoah River are the changes an phyt^'lankton popu-
lations from .1962 through, I960. Phytoplarnktcn rambers and population
composition dvring this period indicate a change froro a diatom dominated
-------
population to one dominated, by green algae. Although several species
of nuisance algae were found in Rerryville samples, at no time were
they present in quantities sufficient to cause water treatment
problems,
-------
III. WAT3R QUALITT
The Shenandoah River originates in the roantalns of Northern
Virginia, the Hcrth 7ork in the Allegheny Mountains and the South
Fork in the Blue Ridge (Figure I), Each fork fluws -j.r.prr»xirr,ately
15>0 miles through fertile limestone valleys to front Royal, Virginia,,
From Front Royal, tre w.aiR stein flows north ab<^,;t 60 miles before
entering the Fctomac at Haroers ferry, West "Virginia^ The Corps of
Engineers' raw water Intake is located on the main ster approximately
30 miles downstream from Front Royal near the Town of Berryville,
Virginia.
Recent investigations of the Shenarctoah River system
(Tackettj 1962, 63; Surber, 196/4, 65, 66) indicated that the North
and South Forks are relatively free from the serious effects of
water quality degradation,. At Front Royal^ the South Fork receives
treated organic and rhe^jca] wastes from a synthetic fibers company,
untreated organic wastes fron a fruit cacking company, and sewage
which has under gone primar;/ treatment from the City r.f Front,, Royal,
Tn order tt> determine the effects of this pollution on
water quality in the lower Shenandoah River, an anajyais was made of
water quality data col levied, at the FWPCA w'ater PC] lotion Surveillance
Station located at the "->rps f>f Engineers* water supply intake near
^
Berryville/1 These data were compared to the raw wa^er standards for
public water supplies and criteria required to naints,ar> a favorable
environraent for fish and -:-iher aquatic life developed, by the National
Technical Advisory Committee en Water Quality Criteria,
Unpublished 'imOii'E,T data, FWPCA Surveillance Station No, 51008?.
Shenandcah River at Berryville, Virginia0
-------
5
Based on our analysis of composite samples collected at
Berryville between 1962 and 196?, the chemical constituents of
Shenandoah River water were within the raw water criteria estab-
lished for public water supplies. However, wastes discharged into
the River at Front Royal have had. an adverse affect on water quality
and. aquatic life immediately downstream from the source, These
wastes and runoff frorc agricultural lands are also important sources
of nutrients which influence phytoplankton growth in the lower river,
Eutrophication arid Phytoplankton
Eutrophication is a term that is commonly used today to mean
the nutrient enrichment of waters by man-created or natural means.
Urban and industrial growth have combined to increase the fertili-
zation of lakes and streams through the discharge of nutrients in
various forms. Nutrient enrichment has resulted in aquatic weed and
algal nuisances in areas where before this did not exist. One of
the major prc.ble.tis associated with excessive: growths of aquatic
vegetation is the interference which these t>rgants'ns have in the
treatment of a potable water supply. Many forns of algae have been
known to impart undesirable tastes and, odors to drinking water, while
others have clogged filters In water treat-vent -l-nts,..
Within the past two decades, there ha? been a jignificant
increase in the frequency of plankton blocks in the Shenandoah River.
Surber (19-6U) noted the difficulty in counting smallmouth bass nests
downstream from Front Royal because of a phytcpJankton bloom which
had. occurred and indicated that "blooms" were not known to have
occurred, prior to
-------
In 1965 > ^'Jrher rer-.-^r'ied a four-fold Increase in turbidity
on the South K'oiv in *be strevn re'tch from Goori:-: lj!;|.] t^ vront; Royal,
which he attributed, t* thytor.-lankt&n. He concluded that, -iignlf leant
eutrophication had occurred sfier L9 that date
the South Fork was 3s clear as the North Fork v.~. at the rresent time,
This eutrcphicat^n trend was 'junslantia^ed fu^Uc3:* hy *"hartf;es in
vegetatione rn the r«risd between 19ltO and 19SX coarse v-aedr-;
choked the Hiver, ivst soir-eti-'*? later chjri'jr.lfi'ik*. .n '.ie?^:f ; >ed in
such abundance 'hat. ",he quantity of light available to rioted
aquatic vegetat.-.nr- was greatly reduced, As a rest!?,, the rr-arse
vegetation decreased in abundance0
Prosent *-• now! edge indicates that njini^en (K; -^rH rhfGphorus
(P) are the ferti1izing elements which contribute mc-st tu -increased
growths of a/iua',v, '•:&£e:;i',•'•*.>" and alga] bjco^~o Fir.n *• -''ircri'
trations resn.lt m rhvwr-] nnkt',^ *x>t?iulati'.'< di.>>.' snsted by freen
algae and z rus?,^. ow-nKjefitr^' "• •*! of P e»:^Hr,..a-;; * ht- ;rrv^fr. -;f "cl'r.e-
green? 0 l>,e hor-T* •!" fl*i° '-.*:< oir\ 1 Tecnr i:\-i.! .-.-3v-.i. -y ,: .,-rjit -.ee
on ".'ate i* ^oliiv Cf'orr.--i •'"ii''6i1]' i-tilr-* "•"• ••• ' TJ-J •",". f f^."j-«-;\ ^^ ecio?
of algae ha"?e -j iff pn-.^-,. :-*i^ji ^C'r"j3 re').;irfe' t^*-•> witt •? ^^'U/e of
avaiJable r.hc•>:-,:her ;.-- ...^••;'31 ;,v fallinfr iretwe<-j'- OA! ,=srd ''-..03- ^g/lc
At these levels, wV en otht;'- coridit lo>r>j- ar-e lvivjr-.it:ie ulc.-oris. .i>ay
be expectecic 'r>e forrcn ttee 3} so repc-rted th^t w-fh ccncer'trations
greater t,har* Orir HJP/I in flawing waters, proWe^' with excessive
algal gi'cw*hs ^ay be pfnrrv,;nfer^Ti. Tn^ r'rtrof'en-fliosphorus tatlo
is also of iT.pC'rtance in natural waters as an indicator of * he
type of algae which cry) be expected to grow, k 1,'J 1 ratio has been
-------
7
established as a guideline for indicating normal conditions *
Three years of nitrogen and phosphorus data were available
for analysis from the FWPCA Surveillance Station, Nutrient concen-
trations in the lower Shenandoah River during the period 1965-196?
were high with total phosphorus ranging from 0*01 arid 0.33 mg/1.
During this period, the 0,10 mg/1 guideline was exceeded five times
(22% of samples taken), indicating fertile conditions favoring
dense plankton blooms„ Levels of total nitrogen averaged, 1 ,k mg/1
and ranged frorn less than 0»1 mg/1 to h,3 rag A' Inorganic nitrogen
compounds were also found at high concentrations adding to the
overall fertility of the stream. In addition, fertile conditions
were exemplified by the nitrogen-phosphorus ratio which exceeded
the lOsl guideline in 83% of samples taken with a high of 108-1
recorded on May 3* 19670
Perhaps one of the most striking indications of eutrophi-
cation in the lower Shenandoah River is the pr^iounred cbange which
has occurred in the composition of the plankton pcpvJa*IOP, Accord-
ing to the National Technical Advisory Committee on Water Quality
Criteria, conditions indicative of organic enrichment irclud.e a
change from a diatom-dominated, plankton population to one domi-
nated by blue-green and/or green algae5 associated with increases
in amounts and changes in relative abundance of nutrients, Plankton
samples collected at Berryville during the period 1962-1965 show
a significant increase in green algae with a corresponding decline
in diatoms (Figure 2), AlthoxJigh the water was not analyzed for
nitrogen and phosphorus content during this period, this shift in
-------
8
plankton population supports the conclusion that eutrophication has
taken place in the lover Shanandoah River.
Algae samples were also evaluated to determine the presence
of species known to cause problems in water treatment and if con-
centrations were sufficient to warrant concern. Several algal forms
were found that have been known to clog filters in water treatment
plants, including the diatoms synedra, navicula, nitzschia and
others. However, at no time were the numbers of these organisms
sufficient to result in serious filter clogging problems.
Bottom Fauna
In considering biological conditions within a flowing stream,
the quantity and species composition of the bottom organism community
can be indicative of water quality. Because the life histories of
many bottom aquatic invertebrates are one year or longer and because
these organisms are relatively immobile, they are invaluable indi-
cators of long-term water quality conditions. For example, pollution
of organic wastes may fertilize a stream to the point at which
certain kinds of bottom animals become very abundant. Conversely,
the continuous exposure of bottom animals to toxic chemicals can
cause complete mortality. It is possible to classify bottom animals
as to their sensitivity to pollution, tolerance of it, or somewhere
in between (facultative). In graphs found in this report, the
bottom animals have been designated as pollution tolerant, facul-
tative or able to adapt to mildly polluted conditions, and sensitive
forms which are intolerant of pollution.
-------
The number of bottom organisms collected in the Shenandoah
River below Front Royal has varied considerably during the period
1936-1967. In the early 19UO»s, highly toxic industrial wastes
containing high concentrations of zinc were discharged into the
River at Front Royal and all but decimated bottom fauna and fish
populations downstream from the pollution source (Figure 3).
Implementation of improved waste treatment facilities in the late
l?J*0's produced improved water quality and subsequent return of
large numbers of invertebrate bottom animals. Comparing the number
of organisms per square foot of bottom collected in 19ii8 to numbers
in 1965, shows a significant increase in bottom fauna downstream
from the main source of pollution (Figure It). Although part of
this increase can be related to removal of toxic wastes from the
stream, the primary reason for the substantial upsurge in numbers
can be attributed to organic enrichment or eutrophication, which
provides increased quantities of food for these animals.
Recent bottom fauna studies of the Shenandoah River
system indicate that the North Fork of the Shenandoah is rela-
tively free from the serious effects of water quality degradation.
The South Fork is also characterized by good water quality through-
out most of its length except at Front Royal where it receives
industrial and domestic wastes.
While conducting field investigations of the Shenandoah
River, Tackett (1963) found that the South Fork immediately down-
stream from Front Royal was badly polluted with organic wastes and
contained dense growths of SphaerotilUB. a filamentous bacteria
-------
10
characteristic of exceptionally poor water quality. Consequently,
this sector of the River was practically devoid of bottom-dwelling
invertebrates.
Pollution entering the South Fork at Front Royal has also
influenced water quality and the aquatic biota in the Main Stem
downstream from the confluence. In recent years, this reach of the
River has experienced several fish kills, some of which resulted
from dissolved oxygen deficiencies during low flow periods. However,
the cause of some of the larger fish kills has remained unsolved,
which has led to continuing biological investigations in the River
downstream from Front Royal. Adverse water quality conditions are
also demonstrated by the bottom samples taken at Morgan Ford, ten
miles downstream from Front Royal. Review of data from this station
indicates a bottom community comprised of more pollution-tolerant
forms and fewer sensitive species than were collected at stations
located upstream from the pollution source (Figure 5). However,
the increase in clean water bottom fauna collected at Berryville
shows that the stream has almost totally recovered from the very
poor water quality conditions found upstream. Surber, (1966) in
analyzing the results of bottom sampling concluded (l) the North
and South Forks remain rich in fauna and apparently unaffected by
pollution, (2) pollution adversely affects the bottom fauna of the
Main Stem of the Shenandoah River for at least half its length in
Virginia.
-------
I?. CONCLUSIONS
Biological and chemical water quality data can be summarized
as follows:
(1) Constituents of river water at Berryville were within
the raw water criteria established for public water supplies.
(2) Treated organic and inorganic wastes discharged into
the South Fork at Front Royal have an adverse affect on bottom
fauna in immediate downstream reaches.
(3) As the River recovers from this pollution, the en-
vironmental response is an increase in numbers of bottom fauna
near Berryville.
(Ij) Phosphorus and nitrogen concentration in water samples
taken at Berryville are sufficient to cause phytopiankton blooms.
(5) Changes in phytoplankton populations from one pre-
dominantly diatoms to a population of predominantly green algae are
indicative of organic enrichment in the lower Shenandoah River.
(6) Phytoplankton nunbers have not increased to the point
where they could cause serious problems in the treatment of potable
water.
-------
A SAMPLIKO STATIONS
SHENANOOAH RIVER SYSTEM
SHOWING BOTTOM FAUNA
SAMPLING STATIONS
FIGURE 1
-------
1
^^ M
r '"-i »rwiL
&7/>^ JULY
l?A-i!'.'.i'3 OCTOCCft
41 —
n —
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o uj r-
l~ > CD
I
ry ^
03 ,
u.5cD
°° £
Q; 2
UJ < •
5 UJ
s"=
UJ if) -
fT 5 £T
LJ — o:
> 2 U
< < OD
O
uO
IT)
ff)
o
>J
' a>
0 (.
o t
ro o
3 C
J C
0
3 C
D C
C
3 C
3 C
3 C
3 C
3 C
•) a
3 C
3 C
0 f
3 C
J C
i.
3 C
3 C
3 u
3 C
3 C
~> <•
3 C
3 C
t f
~J (.
3 C
1 c
3 C
3 C
VJ
3 C
3
3'avnos
-------
CC
3
O
or
UJ
O
C£
a:
ct
rt
UJ
CD
o
o
2
* x
cc <
QIC
2 i/> OC
z <
O V <
(T O>
U. CC
00 if)
C
> C
1 0
5 C
3 C
D r-
5 C
3 C
U
i C
3 C
3 if
5 C
3 C
•) •;
3 C
3 C
t P
3 C
3 C
1 0
3 C
3 C
J
3
3
UJ
O)
oo
on
O
o
IT
>
O
CD
U.
O
OC.
UJ
CD
UJ
or
UJ
-------
. WVN \\ \\ '
«2»^X!%XVV»XVW'V«X!«X«V«^V«:^^%!««
C/)
N-
(O
O)
in
UJ
tr
.-3
o
' in
o
U. —
IU
>
LU
01
f-
_J
ID
O
CC
Ixl
O
I"
I
to
' m
_J
- in
5 Q
QC
DC
c
3 j
) C
3 u
T C
3 u
T C
3 v/
•> c
3 a
•>
0
O
in^^frOK>c\Jc\j — —
$£ CC
UJ
ir
UJ T-
0 <
£§
UJ ^
o <
cc ?.
UJ ^
UJ
o
tr
1 N 3 0
3 d
-------
12
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Anon,
1968. Water Quality Criteria. Report of the National
Technical Advisory Committee t© the Secretary of
the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration3, U. S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, D0 C., x + 23k ppc
2. Anon.
1963. National Water Quality Network. Annual Compilation
of Datas October 15 1961 - September 30, 19620
Public Health Service Publication Mo» 663 (1962 ed.)
xi * 909 pp°
3 o Anon.
196U. National Water Quality Network, Annual Compilation
of Data,, October 1, 1962 - September 303 1963*
Public Health Service Publication No, 663., Vol. 2
(1963 ed.) viii - 119 pp»
U. Davis, W. S.
N.D. ohenandoah River Report, U0 S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Kearneysville, West Virginiac (Unpublished,
report^ 5 pp.-)
5. Davis, W. 3.
N.D. Shenandoah Fiver Report, Uc S,, Fish and Wildlife
Servicea Kearneysville, West Virginiac (Unpublished
report,, 5 pp«)
6. Davis, ¥. 3,
N.D, Shenandoah River Report. IL 3,, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Kearneysville,, West Virginia, (unpublished
report, 5 PF»)
7. Davis, W. 3«
N.D. ohenandoah River Report. U0 S* Fish and Wildlife
Services Kearneysville,, West Virginia. (iJnpyblished
report, 5 PP=)
8. Davis, W, S,
N.D. Shenandoah River Report. Uc S. Fish and Wildlife
Service,, Kearneysville, West ?irginia0 (Unpublished
report, 8 pp.)
9. Henderson, C.
19U9. Value of the Bottom Sampler in Demonstrating the
Effect of Pollution on Fish Food Organisms and Fish
in the Shenandoah River, The Progressive Fish
Culturist, 11 (I9li9)s 217=230 pp.
-------
13
10. Henderson, C,
N.D. Shenandoah River Investigations<. U. Se Fish and
Wildlife Service, Kearneysville, West Virginia,
(Unpublished report, 11 pp»)
11. Henderson, C,
N.D. Shenandoah River Investigations. U. S, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Kearneysville, West Virginia,
(Unpublished report, 7 pp.)
12. Keup, L. E., W. M. Ingrain and K0 M. Mackenthun
1966<, The Role of Bottom-Dwelling Macro fauna in Water
Pollution Investigations. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, Cincinnati, Ohio, Public
Health Service Publication No. 999-WP-38, v + 23
PP»
13. Mackenthun, K. M«, and W. M0 Ingram
1967. Biological Associated Problems in Freshwater
Environments, Their Identification, Investigation
and Controlc U. So Department of the Interior,
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
Washington, Do C0 x + 287 pp.
lli. Mackenthun, K. Me
1965. Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Water, An Annotated
Selected Bibliography of Their Biological Effects.
Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center,
Cincinnati, Ohio» U. S. Public Health Service
Publication No, 1305, xxviii -*- 111 pp.
15. Palmer, C. M.
1962. Algae in Water Supplies,, U. S. Public Health
Service Publication No. 6$7» Washington, D0C0,
vi -*• 88 p00
16. Palmer, C. M.
1967. Biological Aspects of Water Supply and Treatment
in Virginia With Particular Reference to Algae.
Virginia Journal of Science 18 (l)i 6-12,
17. Surber, E. W.
1967. Smallmouth Bass Stream Investigations. Job No. 2,
Shenandjoah River Study, 196lu Commission of Game
and. Inland Fisheries, Richmond, Virginia, 30 pp.
(mimeograph).
-------
11*
18. Surber, E. ¥.
1966, Smallmouth Bass Stream Investigations * Job No. 2,
Shenandoah River Study, 1965. Commission of Game
and Inland Fisheries, Richmond, Virginia. 80 pp.
(mimeograph).
19. Surber, E. W.
1967. Smallmouth Bass Stream Investigations. Job No« 20
Shenandoah River Study, 1966, Commission of Game
and Inland Fisheries, Richmond.,, Virginia* 72 pp.
(mimeograph).
20. Tackett, J. H.
N. D, Shenandoah River Basin, Biological Assessment of
Water Quality, October 1963. Virginia State Water
Control Board, Richmond, Virginiat 76 ppc
(mimeograph)„
-------
APPENDIX
TABLES
-------
Date
10/2U/62
1/23/63
it/3/63
7/2i;/63
10/16/63
1/22/6U
U/22/6U
7/29/6U
10/1U/6U
1/20/65
U/21/65
7/28/65
10A2/66
1/18/67
5/2t*/67
7/12/67
l.O/U/67
TABLE 1.
D,0,
rog/1
8,6
13o3
9.2
8.U
9.2
SELECTED WATER CHEMISTRY DATA.
SHENANDOAH RIVER NEAR BERRTVILLE, VIRGINIA
8.3
8.U
8.3
8,h
8.2
808
8,3
B.k
8.2
8°.3
801
Alkalinity
______ mg/1 _
156
92
120
7k
76
120
88
76
Ilk
97
8l
80
97
131
Hardness
192
128
12U
160
196
90
90
172
200
1214
105
180
10?
92
86
126
155
Sulfates
mg/1
9h
31
26
90
150
3U
38
138
150
57
39
70
iil
k3
3k
86
50
I/
STORST data0 FWPCA Surveillance Station No<
River at Berryville, Virginia,
510087. Shenandoah
-------
TABLE 2. NITROGEN AND PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS IN THE
SHENANDOAH RIVER NEAR BERRXVILLES VIRGINIA,
1965-1967. I/
Date
1/6/65
2/3/65
3/3/65
a/7/65
5/5/65
7/7/65
9/8/65
10/6/65
11/3/65
1/5/66
3/9/66
a/6/66
5A/66
6/8/66
7/6/66
8/3/66
9/7/66
10/5/66
11/2/66
12/7/66
1/7/67
2/8/67
5/3/67
7/5/67
9/6/67
Total
Phosphorus
0.05
0,02
0,38
0,05
0,02
Oo05
0006
0,03
0.01
0,02
0«06
~ «.
0.15
o»o5
0,07
O.lli
Q008
Ool2
O.Oii
_ =
0,03
« ^
OoOii
Oo2
O.Oli
(All values in milligrams per liter)
Ammonia N
Organic N
0.5
Oo3
2.8
o!e
0,2
Co?
1.3
1.0
1.3
0*2
0.3
3.U
Nitrate N
Nitrate N
0.7
0,6
0.7
006
Ocii
0.1
l.U
0.5
loll
0.8
0,8
1.0
1.0
O
I/
STORET data. FWPCA Surveillance Station No. 5l0087<
Shenandoah River at Berryville, Virginia„
-------
TABLE 3. PHITOPLANKTON POPULATION OF THE SHSNANDOAH RIVER
NEAR BERRIVILLE, VIRGINIA FOR SELECTED DATES. V
(Number per railliliter)
Date of Sample
1/3/62
U/3/62
7/6/62
10/3/62
1/9/63
U/3/63
6/19/63
10/9/63
1/22/6U
U/8/6U
7/22/61*
10/7/6U
1/6/65
U/7/65
7/7/65
9/8/65
Blue-Green
I/
Green
Flagellated
"
0
0
6,960
230
0
Uo
1,010
U3Q
20
160
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
210
9,620
1,350
0
70
17,390
5,Uoo
180
660
33,680
3 2UO
180
580
50,220
15,560
20
1,260
' Uo
0
20
90
130
50
0
1,230
Uio
160
20
160
180
220
Diatoms
2,710
6,650
8,11*0
860
1.89Q
Total
110
32,000
28,700
2,8UO
1,010
UUo
li,220
2,160
200
33,500
U5,300
U,Uoo
1,000
600
22,700
8,000
2,900
1,200
2,600
53,900
17,700
STORET Data,, FWPCA Surveillance Station
River at Berryville^ Virginia,
No. 510087* Shenandoah
-------
TABLE U° PERCENTAGE OF VARIOUS TOLERANCE FORMS
OF BOTTOM ANIMALS, SHENANDOAH RIVER 196U-1966 I/, 2/ ,27
STATION
33 Miles Upstream
from Front Royal
YEAR
196U
1965
1966
Average
TOLERANT
13
11
17
FjlCULTATP/E
37
52
SMSTT1TO
50
37
1,0
Front Royal
196U
1965
1966
Average %
13
8
11
33
38
19
UO
5U
5it
Uo
• !-••-••••i
51
Morgan Ford
1961*
1965
1966
Averag
29
30
31
51
38
10
19
?6
—in—11 n im
28
Berry ville
1961.
1965
1966
Average %
2
27
18
Tmm|-i_ i..
16
2?
37
29
•wnraiKM
?9
— Surber, S, W,, 196?, Srnal 1 mc>,;th Bass Stream Investigations- *ob No, 2,
Shenandoah Hiver Study, L9&k» Concussion of Gar.e ar:u inland Fxsneries,
Richmond, Virginia. 30 pp.
2/
- 5urbers u. W», 1966, Smallmouth Dass '.-tres/ ! 's1':-,.* ,.7 .- ,^,rjr, -.'oo '::o - 2
Shenandoah River Study, 1965« Commission of Game anj :'r; ^-i-i Fisrien^b,
Richmond, Virginia* 80 ppa
- Sxjrber, Ee W., 19660 Smallmouth Bass Stream Investigations, -'oh Moc 2
Shenandoah River Studyt 1966„ Ccmmission of Game and. Inland Fisheries,
Richmondj Virginia, 72 pp.
-------
TABLE 5. AVERAGE NUMBER OF BOTTOM ANIMALS,
SHENANDOAH RIVER, 19U8 AND 1965
(Number per sq» ft0)
Year
Station 19^8 i/ 1965 -/
33 Miles Upstream from
Front Royal 7lU 952
Front Royal 937 637
Morgan Ford. 85 ill9
Berry ville 270 '",6
~ Henderson, C,>, 19U9. The Value of the Bottom Sampler in
Demonstrating the Effects of Pollution on Fish Food Organisms
and Fish in the Shenand.oah firver. The Progressive Fish
Culturist, Volume 11, No, h» pp° ?17-230,
?/
~f Surber, E» W., 1966, SmaUmouth Bass Stream Investigations,
Job No, 2, Shenandoah River Study,, 1965^ Commission of Game
and. Inland Fisheries, Richmond, Virginia,.. 80 pp,
------- |