SECURITY AGENCY
U. S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
CINCINNATI, OHIO
1942
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
FINAL REPORT
TO THE
OHIO RIVER COMMITTEE
VOLUME I
(Of Three Volumes)
INTRODUCTORY AND GENERAL SECTIONS
MAIN OHIO RIVER
MINOR TRIBUTARY BASINS
Prepared at the requesi of the War Department
by the U. S. Public Health Service in cooperation
with the Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army.
-------
FINAL REPORT - OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
CONTENTS
Volume I.
Page
Introductory and General Sections 1
Main Ohio River 77
Minor Tributary Basins 145
Volume II.
Allegheny River Basin 189
-Monongahela River Basin 245
Beaver River Basin 297
-Muskingum River Basin 333
.Hocking River Basin 367
-Kanawha River Basin 387
Little Kanawha River Basin 423
• Big Sandy River Basin 439
Guyandot River Basin 469
Volume III.
-Scioto River Basin 485
-Miami River Basin 517
Little Miami River Basin 563
,Kentucky River Basin 587
Licking River Basin . 613
-Salt River Basin 635
Wabash River Basin 653
Cumberland River Basin 703
-Green River Basin 735
Tennessee River Basin 755
Supplements
A. Collection of Data on Sources of Pollution,
B. Laboratory, Organization and Methods
C. Acid Mine Drainage
D. Industrial Waste Guides
ill. Epideraiological Studies
F. Biological Studies
11
-------
INTRODUCTORY AND GENERAL SECTIONS
Contents
Page
Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
12a
13
14
15
16
17
List of Tables
Summary of Data on V.'ater Supply, Sources
and Cost Estimates of Remedial Measures
of Pollution
. . . .(Facing)
Monthly Distribution of Flood Damage at
List of Figures
Map - Ohio River Basin showing Principal
Organization Chart and Map showing Field
Map - Mean Annual Temperature
Chart - Population (1890-1940)
Map - Urban Population (1890-1940). . .
Chart - Progress of Sewage Treatment. .
Pittsburgh. . .
Streams. . . .
Offices. . . .
. . . .(Facing)
. . . . (Facing)
. . . .(Facing)
. . . .(Facing)
Map - Suggested Industrial V/aste Correction . . (Facing)
Chart - Relation Between Monthly Average
Daily Dissolved Oxygen Results.
Map - Biochemical Oxygen Tenand Results
Map - Distribution of Acid Mine Drainage
and Minimum
1
7
15
22
28
49
52
62
74
6
13
26
41
46
51
65
67
69
Frontispiece
9
16
16a
16b
18
18
20
20
22
23
26
35
43
44
45
64
66
iii
-------
Fig.-I
Iv
-------
SYLLABUS
The Ohio River Pollution Survey was directed, by Section 5
of the River and harbor Act, approved August 26, 1937, and sub-
sequent authorizations by the Secretary of V»ar, Secretary of
the Treasury and Federal Security Administrator. This report
presents information pertaining to sources, amounts and effects
on various water uses of polluting material discharged into the
watercourses of the 204,000 square miles of the Ohio River
Basin and includes cost estimates for comprehensive pollution
control measures.
The work of this survey has included locating all important
sources of pollution and ascertaining the amount of polluting
material discharged at each, measuring the present effects
of the wastes on the streams by means of physical, chemical,
bacteriological and biological examinations, determining the
present and prospective uses of the streams, estimating the
effects of changes in stream flows and river conditions and of
possible future additional pollution, and determinin the degree
of pollution abatement, by treatment, low-flow regulation, or
other methods, which seems economically justified in the light
of present and prospective stream uses. This has necessitated
studies of water quality requirements for various uses, of
available techniques for correcting various types of pollution
and their cost, of disease outbreaks suspected of being water-
borne , and of legal and administrative instruments and methods
available for effecting pollution abatement.
Besides furnishing water for more than 7,000,000 persons
and for industrial processes, the streams of the Ohio River
Basin are used for the disposal of sewage by some 3,^00,000
people and almost two-thirds of this sewage receives no treat-
ment. Industrial wastes with an oxygen demand equivalent to
sewage from almost 10,000,000 additional persons enter the
streams. Pollution problems are further complicated by the
efl'ect of waters containing 1,800,000 tons of acid per year
which flow or are pumped from active ana abandoned coal mines
in the extensive coal fields of the basin.
l.Iany water supplies, both domestic and industrial, suffer
from the effects of these polluting substances and outbreaks
of intestinal diseases, apparently water-borne, have occurred
following periods of low stream flow. Recreation facilities
have been damaged. Fish and other aquatic life have been
detrimentally affected. Steamboats, barges, other river craft
and structures, pumps, pipe lines and condensers exposed to
acia stream waters have been attacked.
- 1 -
-------
Although the Ohio Basin, considered, as a whole, is one
in which water pollution is serious, the intensity of the
problem is far from uniform. Many of the streams receive no
wastes of consequence while others could be restored to good
sanitary condition at a reasonable cost. Large concentrations
of population or of industries and the present need for the
development of more economical methods of correction of pollu-
tion from certain types of industrial wastes are practical
considerations which will delay the attainment of a high degree
of stream restoration in a few areas. Continued intensive re-
search to develop better treatment or recovery techniques is
essential in certain instances if conditions are to be improved.
The results of this survey have made it more than ever apparent
that it is neither practicable nor desirable to establish
either uniform or permanent standards of water quality applica-
ble to all streams throughout an area as extensive and varied
as the Ohio Basin. On the other hand, some degree of treatment
of all municipal sewage seems to be a reasonable requirement in
an area as highly urbanized"and densely populated as the Ohio
Basin even though harmful effects are confined to possible
odors, sludge deposits, floating sewage solids and scum in the
immediate vicinity of the outfall.
Low-flow regulation by reservoirs can be used as an impor-
tant supplement to treatment and other corrective measures in
abating sewage and organic industrial waste pollution and in
reducing mine acid surges. Proposed and existing flood control
reservoirs in the area above Pittsburgh, those under construc-
tion on the Mahoning, New and Cumberland Rivers, and the pro-
posed reservoir on the Olentangy River above Columbus, Ohio,
are among those with outstanding value for pollution control.
Others will have minor value. In general, the cost of provid-
ing storage exclusively for pollution control is not warranted
by the benefits although this does not hold true in certain
instances. If the regulated flow can be made available inci-
dental to some other reservoir use, such as power or flood
control, the value of the flow regulation for pollution abate-
ment may be a factor in determining the economic justification
of the reservoir project.
There appears to be both a need and a desire for abatement
of water pollution in the Ohio Basin. About half of the sewage
entering tributary streams, except at Ohio River cities, such
as Pittsburgh and Cincinnati, now is being treated. However, a
negligible part of the sewage from Ohio River communities is
treated and this stream serves as a source of water supply for
more than 1,600,000 people. The provision of sewage treatment
facilities at Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and Louisville and various
- 2 -
-------
measures for the correction of mine acid pollution, princi-
pally in the upper Ohio River regions, are outstanding projects
in the suggested basin-wide program for pollution abatement.
Salient features of the main Ohio River and the five Ohio
River Division Districts of the U. S. Engineer Department and
their pollution problems are as follows:
Main Ohio River - A negligible part of the sewage
from Ohio River communities is treated and this stream
serves as a source of water supply for more than
1,600,000 people. One of the major factors which has
delayed waste treatment on the Ohio River viiile rapid
progress was being made elsewhere is the interstate
character of the stream. In general, the state agencies
concerned with water pollution lack authority over waste
discharges to the Ohio River. An attempt is being made
to correct this situation by means of an interstate com-
pact, the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Compact,
which has been approved by the Congress and ratified
unconditionally by four states and with reservations by
two others. Ratification, by the Pennsylvania legisla-
ture, is necessary before the compact can become effect-
ive. Since this is -the first attempt that has been made
to deal with interstate pollution problems in any large
area in this manner, ratification by Pennsylvania is
highly desirable in order that the compact may become
operative and that this method of administrative control
may be tested.
Pittsburgh District (Allegheny, Ivlonongahela and
Beaver River Basins) - The tributaries in the Pitts-
burgh Engineer District receive about two-thirds of
all the acid mine drainage in the Ohio Basin. Large
amounts of untreated sewage from Pittsburgh and its
suburbs enter the lower Monongahela and Allegheny
Rivers and untreated sewage and industrial vastes from
the Youngstown district seriously pollute the Mahoning
and Beaver Rivers. Industrial wastes from a pulp mill
and tanneries cause severe pollution along the Clarion
River in spite of extensive measures taken to reduce the
quantity and strength of these wastes. Phenols from by-
product coke plants along the ilahoning cause obnoxious
tastes and odors in water supplies from the Beaver River.
Lov;-flov augmentation by reservoirs on tribu-
taries of the Allegheny and Monongahela will be valuable
supplements to mine sealing and sewage treatment programs
-------
in abating pollution and. the Berlin Reservoir, now un-
der construction on the upper Iwahoning, \|vill relieve
the shortage of cooling and process water for industrial
use in the Youngstown area, in addition to supplement-
ing waste treatment works for pollution control.
Huntington District (Muskingum, Little Kanawha,
Hocking, Kanawha, Guyandot and Big Sandy River Basins) -
The principal areas of heavy pollution in the Huntington
Engineer District are the northern part of the Muskingum
Basin and the lower Kanawha River from Charleston down-
stream. The remaining parts of the Muskingum and Kanawha
River Basins as well as the Little Kanawha, Hocking, Guy-
andot and Big Sandy Basins and the minor tributaries are
relatively clean. A number of the streams are polluted
locally by mine drainage and untreated sewage but the
communities are not large and the streams generally have
sufficient natural alkalinity so that the effects of mine
acid are not felt in the larger streams.
The upper Tuscarawas, headwater stream of the
Liuskingum River Basin, and some of its tributaries are
heavily polluted by sewage and industrial wastes although
steps have been taken to correct conditions. vVaste salts
on the upper Tuscaravas make that stream unsuitable as a
source of water supply and for some other purposes for
many miles. Chemical plants along the Kanawha River in
the Charleston area are among the largest sources of pol-
lution in the Ohio Basin. These wastes, together with
untreated sewage from the cities in the same area, cause
nuisance conditions in the river and serious ta_ste and
odor difficulties at water supplies downstream. Low-flow
control by the Bluestone Reservoir now under construction
on the New River will be of supplementary value in abating
organic but not taste and odor pollution from this area.
Cincinnati District (Scioto, Little Miami, Licking,
Miami and Kentucky River Basins) - More than 80 percent
of the sewage from communities on tributaries in the Cin-
cinnati Engineer District is treated. The most heavily
polluted tributary in the District is the lower Miami
River. Two of- the larger cities on the lower Miami dis-
charge untreated sewage but a major part of the pollution
load comes from paper mills. Adequate pollution abatement
will require research to develop more efficient methods of
treating these wastes. Low-flow regulation for pollution
abatement does not appear promising since present minimum
flows are relatively high, and significant increases in
these flows would require large storage capacities at high
costs.
- 4 -
-------
In spite of the recently constructed complete
treatment plant at Columbus, the Scioto Hiver is still
polluted. There are many times when there is practically
no dilution for the treatment plant effluent. Low-flow
control by the proposed flood-control reservoir on the
Olentangy River above Delaware would aid considerably in
solving this problem. Strawboard plant wastes pollute
the Scioto below Circleville, although the recently com-
pleted treatment plant has helped the situation. There
is an urgent need for improved methods of treating these
wastes and paper mill wastes. The Licking and Little Kiami
Rivers receive considerable amounts of untreated
sewage and industrial wastes near their mouths in the
Cincinnati metropolitan area. These should be inter-
cepted and discharged after treatment to the Ohio River.
Such a program is under way on the Little Miami. The
outstanding sources of pollution in the Kentucky River
Basin are distilleries, a number of which need improved
waste disposal facilities. In general, the Licking,
Kentucky and Little Miami are relatively clean streams.
Louisville District (Salt, Green and Wabash River
Basins) - The Wabash River is the largest stream in the
Louisville Engineer District and the only one with a major
pollution problem. The Salt and Green River Basins are
relatively clean although some of the distilleries in the
Salt Basin have inadequate waste disposal facilities.
About three-quarters of the sewage from communi-
ties in the Wabash River Basin is treated. The largest
municipality discharging untreated sewage is Terre Haute.
Industrial wastes, particularly from vegetable canneries
and strawboard plants, cause the most serious problems at
present. The West Fork of White River is rather heavily
polluted by wastes from Indianapolis, Munoie and Anderson,
although all of these communities have sewage treatment
plants. There are no suitable reservoir sites above these
cities which could be used for low-flow control. Improve-
ments to the Indianapolis treatment plant are needed to
improve conditions in the West Fork.
Nashville District (Cumberland and Tennessee River
Basins) - More than half of the pollution load in the
Cumberland Basin enters the main stream in the vicinity
of Nashville, the only large city in the basin. About
one-half of the sewage outside of Nashville is treated
at present. Under present unregulated flow conditions,
secondary treatment would be required at Nashville in
— 5 -
-------
order to maintain satisfactory stream conditions. Upon
completion of the Wolf Greek Reservoir, now under con-
struction on the upper Cumberland, the minimum flow at
Nashville will be sufficient to permit maintenance of
satisfactory conditions with only primary treatment.
The Tennessee River Basin is a predominantly
rural area which is experiencing a considerable indus-
trial development due in a large degree to the program
of the Tennessee Valley .authority. Scant progress has
been made toward pollution abatement. The largest cities
and principal industrial centers are Chattanooga, Knox-
ville and Asheville,all of which discharge sewage and
other wastes without treatment. Most of the other im-
portant sources of pollution are on tributary streams
in the upper half of the basin. Pulp, paper, chemical
and textile wastes account for the bulk of the industrial
waste load.
The program of the Tennessee Valley Authority
has increased the low flow of the main stream and some
of the tributaries, and further increases will result
from reservoirs now under construction and those pro-
posed but, with the exception of Chattanooga and Khox-
ville, the important sources of pollution are upstream
from reservoirs and will not be helped by the increased
flow. Additional effort is needed to improve methods
now available for treating some of the industrial wastes.
The problem of financing the necessary facilities has al-
ways been one of the principal deterrents to pollution abatement.
The effectiveness of grants-in-aid and low interest loans in
accelerating such work has been proved by the experience of the
past seven years. It seems doubtful that any such rapid progress
will continue without aid from either the Federal or the State
governments.
Table 1 summarizes some of the more important facts about
the Ohio Basin. The cost estimates of waste treatment facili-
ties include both interceptors and treatment plants. The esti-
mated capital cost of the suggested program, including a mine
sealing program, is approximately ^180,000,000 and annual charges
for operation, interest and amortization approximately
$18,500,000. Cost estimates are based on average experience from
1928 to 1940. Costs for 1942 would be considerably higher and
future costs will probably be subject to further change, depend-
ing upon fluctuations in construction costs for this type of work.
-------
rial
Estimated Coats of Waste Treatment Facilities
Existing
Junlc nal
)ltal
1,080
>,800
i,l*6o
,500
*,550
190
8/4.0
1,300
0
70
',890
530
290
),38o
I..370
670
5,650
L,66o
),190
IkO
i,76o
^,990
t,585
^260
210
1,380
,,9l*0
1,900
380
.1*95
150
,190
Annual
95
330
klO
115
1*15
15
70
115
0
10
1,090
55
j5°
155
80
,55
1.600
165
250
6,2ko
10
'500
310
15
2,600
585
270
15P
15
6,2kO
Suggested
Municioal
Capital
67,910
2,310
10,020
12,lkO
1^960
k,870
210
620
5,000
530
l,2f*0
930
530
700
3,680
1,130
210
780
12,330
6,870
22,870
160, 3kO
1,760
2,1*70
17,910
i7,U*o
51*0
3,770
35,2ko
1*3,050
21,670
1,880
lk,600
310
160, ?kO
Annual
5,595
210
925
985
495
395
20
,55
kio
110
90
50
70
320
100
25
80
1,185
5,15
l,6kO
15,520
150
250
1,515
1,290
55
290
3,205
3,710
1,1*75
170
1,200
30
13,320
Sugge
Indus
Capital
'280
660
1,110
i.oko
310
0
0
1,270
0
0
370
50
10
1,180
360
250
0
1,690
270
1,610
13,580
10
20
1,830
1,010
6^0
2, 620
1,090
160
2,570
100
13,580
steti
trial
Annual
1,115
75
230
1*70
370
IkO
0
0
1*05
0
0
90
10
0
3ko
60
1*5
0
14.70
50
395
1*,265
0
5
515
230
30
105
8j*o
1.2k5
305
oS
fl*TC
30
U.265
Total Suggested
Municipal & Indus.
Capital
71,030
2,590
10,680
13,250
6,000
5,180
210
620
6,270
..SB
1,300
580
710
k,86o
1,1*90
k6o
780
Ik, 520
7,lko
173,920
1,770
18*150
6ko
k,klO
1*5 '670
22,760
2,OkO
17,160
klO
173,920
Annual
6,710
285
1,155
1.555
865
535
20
55
815
1*5
110
180
60
70
660
160
70
1.655
565
2,035
17,585
150
255
2,050
1,520
385
1**955
1,780
2,075
°
17,585
Estimated Capital
Costa of Mine Sealing
Through
1940
0
650
510
1,820
60
(2)l,k50
0
(2)
70
1*0
70
100
0
0
0
60
0
80
2kO
200
20
5,^70
0
0
270
0
0
1 '14.90
110
0
1,210
10
5,570
To complete
Program (1)
with 19kO
Restrictions
0
k8o
I,k6o
1,600
50
(2) 110
0
(2)
120
10
2kO
l*o
0
0
0
130
0
310
80
780
100
5.510
0
0
80
1,200
0
0
kOO
3,100
k20
ISO
160
0
5,510
(1) Areas connected to active ventilation
systems and areas where costs exceed
$10.00 per ton per year not Included.
(2) Hocking plus Musklngum costs given
under Musklngum.
-------
INTRODUCTION
Authorization
The investigation of pollution in the Ohio River Basin
has been made in compliance with Section 5, River and Harbor
Act, approved August 26, 1937» which reads in part as follows:
"Sec. 5. That the Secretary of War is hereby
authorized and directed to cause a survey to be made
of the Ohio River and its tributaries to ascertain
what pollutive substances are being deposited, di-
rectly or indirectly, therein and the sources and
extent of sucn deposits, and with a view to deter-
mining the most feasible method of correcting and
eliminating the pollution of these streams.
"The Survey herein authorized shall include com-
prehensive investigations and studies of the various
problems relating to stream pollution and its preven-
tion and abatement. In making these investigations
and studies, and in tne development and formulation of
corrective plans, the Secretary of War may, with the
approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, secure the
co-operation and assistance of the Public Health Serv-
ice, and may allot funds from the appropriation here-
inafter designated to pay for such co-operation and
assistance. The Survey shall be completed as soon as
practicable after passage of this Act, and the Secre-
tary of War shall report the results thereof to the
Congress, together with sucn recommendations for
remedial legislation as he deems advisable."
Organization
In approving this section of the Act, the President ad-
vised the Secretary of War tnat he desired the appointment of
a committee to supervise tne Survey, the Committee to be com-
posed of a representative of tne Army Engineer Corps, the Pub-
lic Health Service, and a non-Government expert to be selected
by the otner two members. Pursuant to this recommendation,
the Survey has been made under the general supervision of a
committee composed of Brigadier General Max C. Tyler, later
succeeded by Brigadier General T. M. Robins, representing the
Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army; Senior Sanitary Engineer R. E.
- 7 -
-------
Tarbett, representing the Public Health Service; and Dr.
Abel Wolman, Johns Hopkins University, selected as the non-
G-overnraent expert.
Under this Committee, data on sources of pollution and
laboratory data have been collected by the U. S. Public Health
Service and hydrometrlc data have been collected by the U. S.
Engineer Department.
The attached organization chart gives in detail the plan
of operation for the conduct of the survey.
Report
In presenting and discussing the data collected, this
general section is followed by summaries covering the main
Ohio River, minor tributaries and the individual major tribu-
taries. Each summary follows a generally uniform pattern.
A number of supplements of general interest on various phases
of the work will follow with the report or later.
Survey Methods
The data collected by the Ohio River Pollution Survey
comprises three principal types of information:
1. Data on sources of pollution
2. Laboratory data
3. Hydrornetric data.
Data on sources of pollution were obtained by engineers
working at, and out of, eleven field stations maintained for
varying periods of time in the offices of State health depart-
ments and of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Surveys were
made of some 3,70° municipalities and 1,800 industrial plants.
Special studies of industrial wastes were made in co-
operation with the cities of Cincinnati and Louisville, the
State of West Virginia and the Tennessee Valley Authority.
These studies were of Value, not only in showing the character
and amount of wastes discharged at the plants studied, but
also in estimating the effect of wastes from similar plants
elsewhere in the basin where less detailed information was
available. A special field unit surveyed the acid mine drain-
age problem and determined the amount and distribution of
this type of waste.
- 8 -
-------
Fig.-2
OHIO RIVER COMMITTEE
BY DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT
GEN. T. M. ROBINS SR. SAN. ENG. R E TARBETT
CORPS OF ENGINEERS DR ABEL WOLMAN u S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
FEDERAL SECURITY AGENC
U S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
SURGEON GENERAL WASHINGTON D.
STREAM POLLUTION INVESTIGATION STATION
CINCINNATI OHIO
PLANKTON AND
FISH STUDIES
N COOPERATION
WITH BUREAU
OF FISHERIES
E1PIDEM OLOGICA
STUDIES OF
WATER BORNE
DISEASE
OHIO RIVER
POLLUTION
SURVEY
STUDIES
MAIN STREAM
AND TRIBUTARIES
CHEMICAL-BIOLOGICAL
BACTERIOLOGICAL
STUDIES OF
STREAMS
AFFECTED BY
ACID
MINE WASTES
STUDIES OF
RIVER BOTTOM
DEPOSITS
Y
c.
WAR DEPARTMEN
CORPS OF ENGINEER
CHIEF OF ENGINEERS WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF STREAM SANITATION (
CINCINNAT OH 0
DFFICE OF THE DIVISION ENGIt
CINCINNAT OHIO
OHIO RIVER OHIO RIVER
POLLUTION POLLUTION
SURVEY SURVEY
FIELD SURVEYS HYDR.OMETRIC
LOCATION TYPES STUDIES
AMOUNTS & EFFECTS STREAM DISCHARGE
OF POLLUTION TIMES OF FLOW
FIELD STATIONS
IN COOPERATION WITH STATE
HEALTH & OTHER AGENCIES
PITTSBURG
MINE SEAL h
ORGANI7ATIO
H
LABORATORY
BOAT "KISKl"
1
MOTOR AUTO
BOAT MOBILE
tAUPL.C SAUN.E
COLLECTION COLLECTION
MOBILE
LABORATORIES
HUMMUS
SPECIAL RIVEN CTUOU
MA HONING- •EAVEN-KANAWHA
CINCINNATI
LABORATORY
i i
AUTO MOTOR
MOBILE BOAT
COLLECTION 3OLIECTIO
COLUMBUS
OHIO DEPT.
OF HEALTH
WILSON DAM
BUF FA LO NASHVILLE
N. Y STATE - TENN. DEPT OF
DEPT. OF HEALTH PUBLIC HEALTH
CHARLESTON
W VA. DEPT.
OF HEALTH
C
dEADVILLE INDIANAPOLIS
RA. DEPT. - 1 IND. STATE
F HEALTH HEALTH DEPT.
LOUISVILLE
OF HEALTH
DISTRICT ENGINEER
PITTSBURGH PA.
DISTRICT ENGIN
HUNTINGTON W
DISTRICT ENGINEER
CINCINNATI OHIO
DISTRICT ENGINEER
LOUISVILLE KY
SPRINGFIELD GREENSBU
L ILL. DEPT. OF - PA. DEPT
PUBLIC HEALTH OF HEALT
(6
H
DISTRICT ENGIN
NASHVILLE TE
IT
s
D C
vEER
EER
VA.
EER
NN
DISTRIBUTION OF FIELD WORK
AT MAXIMUM ACTIVITY
AUGUST, 1940
TTa-JT
I A I
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
U S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
FIELD OmcC
FLOATING LABORATORY
"KISKI"
TRAILER LABORATORY
MOTOR BO AT
ACID MINE
DRAINAGE STUDIES
TENNESSEE VALLEY
AUTHORITY CO-OPERATION
HYDRO METRIC DATA
COLLECTION
AQUATIC STUDIES
-------
O
tt.
o
t,
•P
to
o
(M
tt
ID
O
IH fi
O .H
8 ff~
•H ws:
f!»"^« -P
tt £«•— ra
Ol ID h -rl
Jj *> ID IH » B
4-> -H C fl> 01 01
rH C.H g C .fi
ol « bj) C ,H O
0 tO £j.H bi)
K M SOG l>>
•P C M «H
o C !»W ol
•H -P ol h H +>
rH 01 .p 3 t>> d «H
P .H 01 *> FI o a
3 bO*H «H aj -H ol
PH O 01 fi -P g CO
H 01 CD «H rD 09
oo<e.c!-p-pj3
4J «H CS O fi 01 O
01 t, r) 4J to S -H
>HIDOfi 4J-PBh
oPmoJ-PdmiDO
OUOl-PCol-Hflrl
oiolcBoial-Pnofi
S O S
O • M is
i 0»! M O
rH fi ,H«3 h 3 t, a o —
1O^&4rH
4«H »iJ .fiUtiO-P
. .-fiosrd oiS'rfOoa
I d ^>0l rl 03 -tiB-P4J O
O
fc-P
o cb
i> -P fc
-P O O
to cr>
2 I
O
H rH
I I
>4 O
O ol
OH h
O
S "•
rH -3
K «
O H
H -—•
§
g
•H
O
n paa,
-
I t* O^
i O •
-H» O 35 "tiP+^CTN
;n« -»H •* » C p »-3 C •—•
n< * »^^3O rH-'Cfn
I * • 8 ftfino •<<»O'-*ai
CM O
B^ -^s O
S 7
ID
Sfi
CO
-. - C -W « • " «H J
XI 3 fi^rH U
O Q >H o -H 3 •
ce o o p, to
« 4J OO
^•H a-p n oi^ o> ^T^ b-PTj^! o aao
fi> Cd-P Ol^rH^ bOt3 Fi-P*r( OP B^-P
!
«
K
•P
. J O .P i> C ITN
n o co o) 3 -—
C coco o • *t -,
« «J iJ • O
•.OJ^.LKBO ?
• r^ • OJ CD CD
(C 01 ft B rH-H 45
•i-l • O O rH a*"^ 01
• H »/<^l 3HrHC\J f,
UrH t. OS B«H 01— O
..OH
.•p « e t,
a
oehO
t. bO<
< t< •
O «W
-Ob
o « -
fi-rl rH-HCOSdH M-H t. rH 3
fC^t. >Hqa)o«-l
P4 01 JH CO ^> bO^ F4 PH fi *r4 fi
l»t,'c^ig4J 3rH-H o! t, fi J3 W
b 3 01 H 3 -rt t»O. P fi 4-> 3 W O -P
Ol-PCOP-Pfih 30)*rH-P fi
J303
oi e
o o
•P IH
01 O
o) >
00
43
J?S
a
&£
*H
S*
5§
*H C
SS
£«
o o.
-part aJcO-H-P-PC-Pc-HoQ
oivH 01 Q-P
•H a •><< •><< 01
n 01 • • *H
a »
.«< o) 4
•
-------
Correlated work included the preparation of "Industrial
Waste Guides" containing information on industrial plant
processes and practices, the quantities and strength of wastes
for representative plants, waste treatment and recovery prac-
tices and their effectiveness in reducing pollution; an in-
vestigation of pollution abatement laws in the various states,
their administration, and effectiveness; a study of the cost
of construction and operation of waste treatment plants both
for municipal and industrial wastes; a study of damages caused
by water pollution; an investigation of soil erosion and its
relation to water pollution; studies of population distribu-
tion and trends, of the physiography, climate, cultural and
economic background of the basin as it might affect future
pollution or abatement.
The major part of the laboratory data was obtained by
physical, chemical and bacteriological tests on samples of
water from some 2,000 points on streams in the Ohio River
Basin. The sampling points were located so as to give a rep-
resentative picture of the quality of the streams of the basin
and the effect of waste discharges on water quality. More
than 71,000 samples were examined and some 131,000 tests made.
Laboratories were located at the U. S. Public Health Service
Stream Pollution Investigations Station at Cincinnati, the
quarterboat Kiski, loaned by the U. S. Engineer Department
and equipped for laboratory work, and at six mobile laborator-
ies in automobile trailers.* The Kiski and the trailer labor-
atories were moved from place to place as the work required
and samples collected and brought to the laboratories by
automobile and motorboat.
Laboratory work was begun in 1939 and tke area from the
mouth of the Kanawha River to the mouth of the Kentucky River
was surveyed during that year. The survey, which had origin-
ally been planned to continue for three years, was then short-
ened to two years because of the defense emergency. As a re-
sult the data on the upper and lower thirds of the basin are
less extensive than was originally planned.
The attached table shows the routine laboratory examina-
tions which were made and a brief explanation of each. Special
laboratory tests made from time to time on selected samples
have included nitrites, nitrates, acidity to phenolphthalein
Public Health Reports, April 11, 19^1, - pages 75*4-760
(Reprint No. 2259).
- 11 -
-------
Ihot and cold), total hardness and phenol content.
Recognizing the importance of standard techniques to se-
cure comparable results from the several laboratories, sys-
tematic and thorough instruction in standard methods of water
analysis, covering a period of from four to six weeks, was
given to all laboratory personnel, at the Cincinnati labor-
atory, prior to detail in the field. Frequent checks were
made to observe methods and results and to correct any incon-
sistencies in technique. Memoranda to personnel covering lab-
oratory methods are included in a supplement to this report.
In addition to the routine stream sampling program, a
number of special investigations were made. These include an
Investigation of water quality requirements for various water
uses; an epidemiologlcal study of outbreaks of intestinal
diseases suspected of being water-borne; a biological study
of the effects of pollution on plankton and higher forms of
aquatic life, notably fish; a controlled study to measure the
effect of complete and partial mine sealing on streams; stud-
ies of tastes and odors in water supplies along the lower
Kanawha, the Mahoning and Beaver Rivers, in co-operation with
the State health departments of Ohio, Pennsylvania and West
Virginia; and studies of mud deposits behind the navigation
dams on the main Ohio River.
All hydrometric data were obtained by the Division Engi-
neer's Office, U. S. Engineer Department, Ohio River Division,
with the assistance of the five District Engineer Offices in
the basin. In addition to the operation of the regular stream
gaging stations, the work included the measurement or esti-
mation of stream flows at each sampling station on the days
when samples were collected; compilation of monthly flows dur-
ing the summer months for the entire period of record at se-
lected stations and preparation of frequency curves of low
flows; studies of water velocities and times of flow in the
main Ohio River and certain tributaries; and studies of pos-
sible modification of flow conditions by proposed flood-control
reservoirs.
Acknowledgment s
The various state health departments of the Ohio River
Basin have rendered invaluable help to this survey by making
available the results of their years of experience in pollu-
tion abatement work, by furnishing office space to field en-
gineers, and by assisting in many other ways. The State of
- 12 -
-------
Table 2 Ohio Basin - Significance of Various Physical, Chemical and
Bacteriological Tests used In Ohio River Pollution Survey.
Test
Explanation
1. Temperature
2. Turbidity
3. PH
!(.. Alkalinity
J.. Total and volatile
suspended matter »
6. Dissolved Oxygen
— 7» Pive-day biochemical
oxygen demand at
20°C. (B.O.D.)
8. Total count on agar
In 21). hours at
37°C. «
9. ColJform bacteria
(determined by
standard fermenta-
tion tube test at
37°C.)
10. Collform bacterla-
(determined by
direct plnte count
on brilliant green
lactose bile at
37°C.)
Physical and Chemical Teats
Governs the solubility of oxygen and influences rates of
purification.
An index of the density of silt or other suspended matter
carried by the stream.
or Hydrogen-Ion concentration, indicates the relative acidity
or alkalinity of a water.
Represents the content of carbonates, blcarbonates, hydrox-
ides, and occasionally borates, si!5cotes, and phosphates.
Represents the concentration of suspended matter, In terms
of dry solids, and Is a roxigh Index of the organic waste
material present.
Essential to natural purification of streams and the mainte-
nance of aquatic life, Is drawn upon to support biochemical
oxidation of organic waste and Is replaced by absorption from
the atmosphere and the photosynthetlc action of some water
plants including algae. A deficiency in dissolved oxygen below
the saturation level indicates the presence of polluting organic
substances which are absorbing oxygen from the stream water.
The degree of this deficiency Is a measure of the deoxygenatlng
effect of the polluting natter and hence an Index of the degree
of pollution in a particular stream zone.
Indicates the amount of dissolved oxygen which may be ex-
pected to be absorbed from the stream water lr five days at
20°C. to stipport the blochenlcal oxidation of the organic
pollxition carried by the stream at the point of sampling.
Bacteriological Testa
Considered in conjunction with the collform bacteria the
plate count is of value both as an indication of pollution and
as a rough measure of natural stream purification.
Expressed as "most probable number"(M.P.H.). Thlo test Is
the most delicate and specific test for pollution by sewage as
It shows the approximate density of a group of bacteria which
are always present in large numbers In sewage and are relatively
few in number in other stream pollutants, Collform bacteria
are normal inhabitants of the intestines of warm blooded animals
and are discharged In large numbers in human feces, which
constitute the principal source of these bacteria In sewage.
Utilizes the plate count method, ratner than the fermentation
tube method, for the determination of collform bacteria using
a culture medium selective for this type of organism*
* Discontinued as e routine test at the end of 1939-
- 13 -
-------
Tennessee, in addition, furnished results of stream sampling
programs. The Health and Safety Section of the Tennessee
Valley Authority has aided similarly by furnishing office
space, and the results of its investigations of the streams
and waste discharges in the Tennessee River Basin. Municipal
officials, water and sewage treatment plant operators, and
industrial officials have aided by furnishing" data on waste
discharges and plant operation. In a number of instances
municipal officials have furnished water and electric power
for trailer laboratory units without charge. The cities of
Cincinnati and Louisville have assisted by malting available
the results of consulting engineers1 studies of their waste
treatment problems. The City of Dayton, Ohio, furnished
results of stream sampling conducted by its sewage treatment
plant laboratory. Among the Federal Agencies that have assisted
are the Fish and Wildlife Service, which made physiological
examinations of fish specimens, the U. S. Geological Survey,
which furnished maps and advance data on stream flow, the
Bureau of the Census, which furnished advance data on popula-
tion, the U. S. Bureau of Mines, which aided in the study of
acid mine drainage, the Soil Conservation Service, which
furnished data on the extent and severity of soil erosion,
and the National Resources Planning Board, which made available
the results of its studies of the Ohio River Basin. In the
preparation and criticism of "Industrial Waste Guides,11
assistance has been received from State, Federal, municipal
and industrial officials throughout the country and from
consulting engineers, equipment manufacturers, trade associations,
universities and technical schools.
-------
DESCRIPTION
The Ohio River basin (Fig. 1) includes 205,900 square
miles, about seven percent of the continental United States.
It extends into 14 states. The river originates at the con-
fluence of the Allegheny and Lonongahela Rivers in Pittsburgh
and flows generally southwest for a distance of 98l miles to
its confluence with the Mississippi River at Cairo, Illinois.
It is the second largest tributary of the Mississippi but the
largest contributor to its flow.
Besides the Allegheny and klonongahela Rivers, the larger
tributaries are the Beaver, Huskingum, Kooning, Scioto, Lit-
tle L'iami, Miami and Wabash Rivers entering from the north,
and the Little Kanawha, Kanawha, Guyandot, Big Sandy, Licking,
Kentucky, Salt, Green, Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers enter-
ing from the south. The various tributary basins are outlined
on Figure 1 and their drainage areas are shown in Table 1.
Topography - Three major physical divisions characterize
the Ohio Basin, the Appalachian Highlands in the east, the
Interior Plateau in the southwest and the Interior Plains in
the northwest. The Appalachian Highlands include practically
all of the area draining to the Ohio above the Scioto River
as well as the headwaters of the Licking, Kentucky and Cum-
berland Rivers and the upper half of the Tennessee River. The
land is generally hilly or mountainous with steep slopes and
narrow stream valleys. The Interior Plateau includes the area
south of the Ohio River and west of the mountains and small
parts of southern Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. The hills in
this section are lower and less steep than in the Highlands
and the stream valleys generally v;ider. The well-known Blue-
grass section of Kentucky and the Hashville Basin in Tennessee
are the most highly developed parts of the Interior Plateau.
The Interior Plains include most of the land north of the Ohio
River and west of the Highlands. The land is level or gently
rolling. Practically all of this section has been covered by
glaciers and most of the land is fertile and well suited to
agriculture. It is the principal farming section of the Ohio
Basin and constitutes the eastern third of the "Corn Belt."
Geology - Limestones and shales are the most common bed-
rocks of the basin. The principal mineral resource is coal
wiiich underlies much of the highland section (see Figure 3).
Coal is also mined in western Indiana, Kentucky and in Illinois,
The Ohio £>asin accounts for about eighty percent of the total
national coal production. Petroleum and natural gas has been
-------
Fig.-3
-16-
-------
Fig. 4
-------
Fig. 5
- 16b -
-------
developed in the Appalachian fields of ITew York, Pennsylvania,
Ohio, V/est Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee, in western Ohio,
northeastern and southwestern Indiana; and in central and
southern Illinois. In recent years the development of the
southern Illinois oil field has made that state the second
largest oil producing state in the country. Other minerals
of commercial importance include building stone, phosphate
rock, various types of clay, sandj gravel, rock asphalt and
fluor spar.
Climate - The climate of the basin is temperate and con-
tinental and well suited to various types of agriculture.
Mean annual temperatures vary from 40°F. in the north to over
60°?. in the south (see Pig. 4). Extremes of -35°?. and over
100°?. have been recorded. Lie an annual rainfall varies from
about 36 inches in the north to 60 inches in the southeast
(see Fig. 5).
Run-off - On an average about one-third to one-half of
the rainfall appears as stream flow but this is subject to ex-
treme variations. The flow of the Ohio River at the mouth has
varied from as little as 20,000 c.f.s. to as much as 1,850,000
c.f.s., with the average being about 250,000 c.f.s. T..e win-
ter and early spring months are usually the period of high
run-off. Major Ohio River floods have almost always occurred
between January and the middle of April. The streams usually
fall with the advent of the growing season, kiay and June are
usually months of moderately high flow and the low-flow season
includes the months from July through October or November.
The minimum flows usually occur in September or October.
The ten years from 1930 to 1939 included a number
of notably dry years. The summer and fall months of 1930,
1932, 1934, 1936 and 1939 were among the driest in various
parts of the basin. During 1930 the drought was particularly
severe and general. The Ohio River and most of its tribu-
taries experienced their lowest flows of record during the
late summer and early fall months of 1930. The drought con-
tinued throughout much of the winter and into the early
months of 1931.
Population - The population of the Ohio Basin in 1940 was
approximately 18,800,000, of which about 44 percent was clas-
sified as urban and 56 percent as rural. This represents a
population density of more than twice the national average.
The basin is somewhat less urbanized than the nation as a whole
where about 56 percent of the population is urban. Table 1
- 17 -
-------
Fit 6
-18-
-------
FIG.-7
1920 ^r^.-^r 1940
• ..'• ?%X^
AREA OF CIRCLES
PROPORTIONAL TO
POPULATION OF CITIES
DIAMETERS POPULATION
1,000,000
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
U. S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
I94/
-------
shows the distribution of population by basins and states.
Figure 6 shows the increase in population for the years 1890
to 1940, and Figure 7 shows the distribution of urban popula-
tion for the same years. The northern and eastern parts of
the basin are more densely populated and more highly urban-
ized than the southern and western parts but in recent years
the rate of growth has been more rapid in the southern states
than in the north.
Navigation - The Ohio River has been canalized, 46 locks
and dams now providing a nine-foot channel at low water. Kost
of these dams are movable, that is, when not needed during
periods of high flow they are dropped to the bottom of the
river and boats can pass over them without going through the
locks. Four of the dams are fixed and boats must use the
locks at all times. These four are the Emsworth, Dashield's
and Montgomery Island Dams at the upper end of the river near
Pittsburgh and the Gallipolis Dam below the mouth of the Ka-
nav/ha River.
In addition to the main stream most of the larger
tributaries have been canalized for varying distances. Al-
most 2,000 miles of the Allegheny, Uonongahela, Ivluskingum,
Little Kanawha, Kanawha, Big Sandy and its tributaries (Tug
Fork and Levisa Fork), Kentucky, Green and its tributaries
(Barren and Rough Rivers), Cumberland and Tennessee have been
improved for navigation.
The facilities on most of these streams are not ex-
tensively used but the Monongahela River is one of the most
heavily traveled inland waterways in the world and the Alle-
gheny also carries a large amount of freight in the vicinity
of Pittsburgh.
Flood Control - The acute need for flood control on the
Ohio River and its tributaries was brought to national atten-
tion by the disastrous floods of 1936 and 1937. Prior to that
time a number of flood-control projects had been initiated
locally, notably those of the Miami and Muskingum Conservancy
Districts. The Tennessee Valley Authority and the U. S« En-
gineer Department also had constructed some reservoirs and
other works for flood control. Following the floods of 1936
and 1937 the Congress authorized the construction of a compre-
hensive system of reservoirs on Ohio River tributaries and
numerous levees and walls for flood protection. Figure 8
shows the location of existing flood-control reservoirs, those
under construction and projects being studied. Because major
-------
floods usually occur during the winter and early spring, it
may be possible to use some of the storage capacity at a num-
ber of these reservoirs for lov:-flov; regulation during the
summer and early fall m®nths.
Hydroelectric power - The largest hydroelectric develop-
ments~in the basin are on the Tennessee River and its tribu-
taries. The Kanav;ha arid LTew Rivers also are the sites of
several power projects. Others are on the Ohio River at
Louisville, the Clarion River, a tributary of the Allegheny,
the Youghiogheny and Cheat Rivers, tributaries of the Llonon-
gahela, Dix River, a tributary of the Kentucky and the Tippe-
canoe Hiver and jiast Fork of White River, tributaries of the
V:abash. Tvo large flood-control reservoirs with excellent
power possibilities are under construction at present. These
are the aluestone Reservoir on the New River and the Wolf
Creek Reservoir on the Cumberland.
The power facilities of the Tennessee Valley Author-
ity are being expanded rapidly and a number of new projects
are under construction. The installed capacity of the entire
system is approaching 1,500,000 kilowatts.
Low-flow Control - Pymatuning Reservoir on the Shenango
River and Milton Reservoir on the Ivlahoning River, both tribu-
taries of the Beaver, are the outstanding examples of projects
built primarily for low-flow control. Both of these streams
are used as sources of industrial water supply by the steel
industry and the reservoirs were built to relieve the acute
shortage which occurred almost every summer. The Tygart River
Reservoir, a multiple-purpose project on a tributary of the
Konongahela, was built by the U. S. Engineer Department to
ensure an adequate flow for the maintenance of navigation on
the Monongahela in addition to providing flood control.
Recreation - An increasing demand for water recreational
facilities has been apparent in recent years. The extensive
use of the recently completed reservoirs of the Tennessee
Valley Authority and the nuskingum Conservancy District, as
well as other bodies of water in the Ohio Basin indicates the
need for such recreational areas. Llany of the streams also
are used by large numbers of people for fishing, boating and
swimming in spite of pollution which often makes swimming
unsafe.
V
-------
FIG.-8
) Ownership
}
/ F
] P
<-=> F
F
F
P
F
P
P
F
S
D
M
F
1 L F
• F
F
F
F
F
F
^^ F
^Nj F
F
w F
&" F
4\ F
J)« MEMPHIS p
F
F
F
F
Ml F
1 p
P
P
OHIO RIVER 1 F
U. S. PUBLIC
MA
LEGEND
Capacity No.
Acre -Feet
125,600
28,200
69,500
89,500
93,500
31,800
249000
106,000
72,300
278,800
197,000
32,400
23,000
71,000
49,700
7 1,700
149,600
88,000
203,000
37,400
285,000
102,000
65,000
87,700
88,500
61,600
196,000
609,400
225,000
16,400
106,000
312,000
186,000
167,000
70,000
300,000
5,782,000
1,639,000
2,032,000
54,500
6,100,000
1,091,000
535,000
1,150,000
1,018,700
128,800
705,000
1,132,000
365,500
2,567,000
50,000
438,000
76,600
197,500
190,000
240,000
34,000
31,000
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
70
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
83
84
85
86
87
83
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
1,500,000
Continued
Nome Major Ownership Capacity
Purposes Acre -Feet
Santeetlah P P 156,000
Nantohola P P 140,000
Glenville P P 71,000
Ch.erokee P F 1,640,000
S Holston P F 680pOO
Wotauga P F 627,000
Douglas P F 1,260,000
Woterville P P 25,000
Nolichucky P P
LEGEND
Major Purposes Ownership
F — Flood Control F — Federal
P - Power S - State
M- Municipal W.S. M- Municipal
1 - Industrial W.S. D- Public District
N - Navigation P - Private
A — Pollution Abatement
PROPOSED FLOOD -CONTROL AND
MULTIPLE-PURPOSE RESERVOIRS t*Jfci , crCMn
— HffisxSw*' ""• LEGEND
IN OHIO VALLEY FLOOD CONTROL ^^
PLAN
Allegheny 97 Delaware
French Creek 98 Big Darby
Red Bank Creek 99 Deer Creek
Conemaugh 1 00 Paint Creek
West Fork 101 Rocky Fork
Shenango 102 Caesar Creek
Mosquito Creek 103 East Fork
Eagle Creek 104 Falmouth
Millersburg 105 Cave Run
Frozeysburg 106 Metamora
Dillon 107 Brookville
Burnsville 108 Buckhorn
Steer Cr. 109 Booneville
West Fork 110 Jessamine Creek
Logon || | Rough River
Poca 112 Mining City
Birch H3 Nolin River
^lenaenin II*T iNo.^tsarren
Summersville 115 No. 2 Green
Big Bend 116 Mansfield
Moores Ferry 117 Cagles Mill
Mud River 118 Spencer
East Lynn 119 Shoals
Dewey 120 Wolf Creek
Fishtrap 121 Rossview
Clintwood r22 Three Islands
Haysi 123 Stewarts Ferry
FIG. -8
OHIO BASIN
MAJOR RESERVOIRS
-------
FIG -9
OHIO
I L L I
T E°N N ESSE
LEGEND
UNDERGROUND QUANTITY
WATER Gallons per day
M
G E
o
O
O
O
L««l than 200,000
20QOOO - I.OOQDOO
ijooqooo - lopoopoo
lOOOO/XJO - 20000POO
ovir -20POO.OOO
ALA
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
U S PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
1942
-------
from unpolluted streams or from impounding reservoirs which
collect the run-off from relatively small rural areas but 294
supplies, including most of the larger ones, are from streams
or reservoirs subject to some sewage pollution. These sup-
plies serve more than 5,800,000 people. Practically all of
these supplies are filtered and chlorinated and a number of
them are so highly polluted that special treatment has been
found necessary in order to produce a satisfactory finished
water. Even after careful and complete treatment, many of
the supplies are unpalatable because of obnoxious tastes which
cannot be completely removed by normal treatment processes.
Table 1 shows the number of supplies and the population served
and Figure 9 shows the location and size of water supplies.
Industrial water demands exceed in quantity the de-
mands for the municipal supplies. Steel, chemical, textile
and paper plants, distilleries and railroads are among the
largest water users and although bacterial quality is seldom
of great importance except in the preparation of food products
many of the industries require water of special and uniform
chemical quality.
- 21 -
-------
SOURCES OF POLLUTION
Sewage
About 9^0,000,000 gallons of sewage enter the streams
of the Ohio Basin each day. About one-third is treated to
reduce its objectionable characteristics and the remainder
is discharged untreated. Data on sewerage and sewage treat-
ment are shown in Table 1. Figure 10 shows the location of
the principal sources of organic wastes including both sewage
and industrial wastes.
Techniques for the removal or oxidation of the organic
matter and for the destruction of bacteria in sewage are well
developed and it is possible to achieve almost any desired
degree of purity of the effluent from a sewage treatment plant.
The mo.st common "yardsticks" for measuring the efficiency of
treatment are removal of B.C.D. (biochemical oxygen demand) and
suspended solids. The most common types of sewage treatment
plants remove from 35 to 90 percent of the B.O.D. Their effic-
iency in bacterial removal is of the same order of magnitude.
So-called "primary" treatment plants reduce the pollution load
by about 35 percent on an average. "Secondary" or "complete"
treatment plants usually reduce the pollution load by about 2>5
percent although there are a number of plants which average
from 90 to 95 percent removal of B.O.D. Other types of plants
have efficiencies between those of ordinary primary and second-
ary treatment. Bacterial removal can be increased most effec-
tively and economically by chlorination of the effluent from
one of the above types of treatment plants. The cost of such
disinfection is relatively small as compared with other treat-
ment costs.
It is not necessary, nor would it be economically justi-
fied, to provide complete treatment for all sewage. The ca-
pacity of streams to purify themselves is a valuable and
usable asset. The necessary degree of treatment depends on
the self-purification capacity of the stream or streams in-
volved and the necessary standard of water quality to avoid
undue interference with normal water uses. The effects of
industrial and mining wastes often play an important part in
determining the necessary degree of treatment. In some in-
stances the problem is one of primarily local interest and
importance. In other instances large streams, large areas or
large numbers of people are involved and the problem assumes
regional importance.
Figure 11 shows the progress that has been made in sewage
treatment in the Ohio Basin since 1900. Prior to that time
- 22 -
-------
KIG.-IO
T E N N ESS
LEGEND
i of Circles Proportional to
ulation Equivalent to Wastes
At
Uncharged
Population Equivalent
2,000,000
MISS.
G E
-1,000,000
— 500,000
-100,000
— 10,000
ALA
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
U.S PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
lt4Z
-------
Fig.-II
400-
c
o
300-
o™
1900
40-
M <
O
<£x soH
b«*
t»^=
OHIO BASIN
PROGRESS OF SEWAGE TREATMENT
NUMBER OF PLANTS
CAPITAL COST OF PLANTS
1900 1910
NOTE: Septic Tanks not included
-Primary
Treatment Plants
1920
Year
-Secondary
Treatment Plants
1930
-400
•300
200
-400
CAPACITY OF PLANTS
-300
-200
1940
-40
-30
1940
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
U.S.PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
1942
-23-
-------
only two cities in the basin, Canton and Alliance, Ohio,
had sewage treatment plants other than a septic tank. The
years from 1900 to 1920 saw the invention or introduction
of the principal treatment devices in common use today.
The years since 1920 have witnessed vast improvements in
details and an increasing trend toward mechanization of
plants. Steady progress at an almost constant rate was made
in the construction of sewage treatment works during the years
prior to 1925- During the boom years in the latter part of
the 19201s the rate accelerated but during the depression
years from 193° to 193^ such construction was practically at
a standstill. The effect of various Federal aid programs is
shown by the greatly accelerated progress during the years
from 1935 tc 19^0* As much progress has been made during
these six years as had been made prior to 1935*
The cost of a suggested basin-wide program of sewage
treatment is shown in Table 1. The following data show the
approximate number of plants that would be in operation upon
completion of such a program, their capacity and cost:
Primary Secondary Total
Number of Plants 650 700 1,350
Capacity (M.G-.D.) 850 535 i,3&5
Cost* $61,000,000 158,000,000 $119,000,000
These data indicate that the program is how about one-third
complete. A continuation of the rate of progress made during
the period 1935 to 19*K) for 20 more years would be required to
complete the suggested program. There are no technical or
engineering reasons which would prevent completion of the
presented program in ten years or even less. In the fev; cases
where research leading to the development of more efficient
economical industrial waste corrective measures has been
indicated, 10 years should see substantial progress. There
are legal and administrative barriers which tend to delay the
program. The principal problem, however, is the financing of
the program.
Upon completion of the suggested program the need for
construction would be reduced but not entirely eliminated.
Since the average life of treatment plants in the past has
been about 20 years, many of the plants already built would
need to be replaced and others would need major repairs or
alterations. Eventually such work would probably cost about
$6,000,000 per year.
* These costs do not include interceptors.
-------
Industrial Wastes
Table 3 shows the number of plants of each of the principal
types of Industries discharging industrial wastes to the streams
of the Ohio Basin and the estimated sewered population equivalent
based on B.O.D. of the wastes from each type of industry.
Although no single measure of pollution is applicable to all
types of industrial wastes the B.O.D. is the most nearly satis-
factory. Some industrial wastes contain chemicals which are
toxic to aquatic life, some increase the acidity, hardness or
salinity of the streams, some cause tastes and odors in water
supplies, some contain undesirable coloring matter. These
characteristics require separate consideration in determining
how and to what degree treatment of the wastes is needed.
Reduction of industrial waste pollution is generally accom-
plished by one or more of the following methods:
(l) Changes within the plant itself. This may
involve reuse of all or part of the waste within the
plant, development of by-products, changes in plant
processes, or merely greater care in plant operation
to reduce the amount of material discharged as waste.
(2) Treatment with municipal sewage. Many indus-
trial wastes can be quite effectively treated in this
way. It is often necessary to pretreat the wastes at
the source or to segregate certain portions of the
wastes within the plant and exclude these from the
municipal sewers to prevent damage to sewerage structures
or sewage treatment processes.
(3) Treatment in a special industrial waste
treatment plant. For many types of wastes, such plants
employ essentially the same processes as sewage treatment
plants. Other types of wastes require specially developed
processes. Most of the plants use the principle of sed-
imentation for removal of settleable solids.
The first method is usually the most economical and is the
one generally applied. It is occasionally possible to completely
eliminate pollution and to recover valuable by-products by
changes within the plant but this is not the usual situation.
Ordinarily some pollution remains and some expense is involved.
The second method is the simplest from the standpoint of the
industry. It is also the most satisfactory from the standpoint
- 25 -
-------
Table 3 Ohio River Basin - Suriaary Showing Industrial Wastes not
Discharging to Municipal Treatment Plants, Suggested
Industrial Waste Discharges to Municipal Treatment Plants
and Total of Entire Industrial Waste Load In the Basin.
Industry
Brewing
By-Product Coke
Canning
Chemical
Distilling
Meat
Milk
Oil Refining
Paper
Steel
Tanning
Textile
Miscellaneous
H
ID
C
-------
FIG.-I2
Industrial Wast
Municipal Treatn
Independent Industrial
Waste Correction
Independent Industrial
Waste Correction
Independent Indui
Waste Correcti
Textile Tann
1-3 Plants
4-7 •
NOTE:- E>ciuSive»f Pi
ore adequate
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
U S PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
1942
-------
of administration of pollution abatement programs since it
reduces the number of possible sources of pollution and con-
centrates responsibility for effective waste treatment. It
is usually necessary to make special provisions in the design
of a municipal sewage treatment plant if an appreciable amount
of industrial waste is to be treated. Subsequent changes in
the industrial waste load sometimes cause difficulties. The
third method is used when the first is insufficient and the
second impracticable. In those cases where removal of settle-
able solids is sufficient the problem is not difficult but
satisfactory methods for the relatively complete removal of
B.O.D. are available for only a few of the more common types
of wastes such as those from breweries, meat plants, milk plants,
and some types of canneries and distilleries. There is a press-
ing need for the development of more efficient and economical
methods for relatively complete treatment of other types of
wastes. More complete discussions of industrial wastes and
their treatment are found in the "Industrial Waste Guides"
included as a supplement to this report.
Figure 12 shows the location of industrial plants of
various types which will probably require individual remedial
works and the location of industrial plants of all types which
can probably be connected to existing or proposed municipal
treatment works.
Acid Mine Drainage
The problem of acid mine drainage is one of the most
pressing in the Ohio River Basin. Data relative to the dis-
charge of the present acid load of 1,^00,000 tons of mine acid
per year are presented and discussed in a separate section of
this report and in a more detailed supplement.
-27 -
-------
WATER QUALITY
As a background for the presentation and discussion of
extensive laboratory data, particularly in the individual sum-
maries, a discussion of water quality requirements for various
uses has been prepared. This is followed by a discussion of
present water quality which summarizes briefly the quality of
stream water in the basin as a whole,. More detailed dismission
and either individual or monthly average results are given in
the basin summaries* A further discussion of results plus a
detailed outline of methods is presented in a supplement.
Water duality Requirements
As a basis of comparing the sanitary conditions in streams
of the Ohio River Basin from laboratory observations of their
waters at various points, it is desirable to consider briefly
the limiting characteristics of stream waters in general, when
expressed in terms of laboratory data, which may serve to dis-
tinguish between suitable and unsuitable conditions for different
water uses*
Of the more common water uses in the Ohio Basin, the most
important one is public water supply, because a large proportion
of the population resident in the basin is dependent on surface
sources of water for domestic and other essential uses* Secondary
but also highly important is the growing use of natural waterways
for recreation, together with the continuing need for support of
fish and other higher aquatic life in streams. This latter need,
though it bears a definite relation to recreational use of
streams, is of much broader and more fundamental significance,
as it has a direct bearing on the ability of all natural water-
courses to maintain their normal capacity for self-purification.
Among other stream uses which are affected to some extent
by sanitary conditions are those which have to do with industry,
agriculture, navigation and general community development* In
a broad sense, industrial needs for water are fairly similar to
those of domestic supply, except that in some instances they
have special requirements, either more or less rigid. In the
Ohio Basin, agricultural use of surface water is mainly concerned
with stock raising, as a large majority of farms have their own
private wells for domestic supply, and irrigation is not a
general problem. Navigation is affected by acid pollution and
resulting corrosiveness and hardness of stream waters for b6iler
- 28 -
-------
use» It also is adversely affected by gross sewage pollution
which may cause "nuisance" and sludge banks. Community devel-
opment is hampered, sometimes very materially, by poor sanitary
conditions in streams which not only may cause serious damage
to riparian property values, but also may interfere with the
provision of desirable water-front highways, parkways, public
landings and industrial docking facilities*
In order to systematize the discussion which follows, it
will be convenient to consider the requirements for stream
waters in terms of each separate characteristic as determined
by the usual laboratory tests. In this connection, it is assumed
that the methods of conducting the laboratory tests would con-
form very strictly to those of the latest "Standard Methods" of
the American Public Health Association, as noted elsewhere in
this report,
Coliform Bacteria
Bacteria of the coliform group are normal inhabitants of
the intestinal tract of warm-blooded animals, including man,
and are present in very high numbers in domestic sewage. As an
index of sewage pollution, the number of coliform bacteria in
a stream water is the most sensitive and reliable single determina-
tion available to the sanitarian* This number may be expressed
in terms of the older "Phelps Index" or in terms of the more
recent "most probable number" (M.P.N.). The latter method of
enumeration has been followed throughout the present report.
Although the ooliform bacteria number is used as an index
of general sanitary conditions in natural bodies of water polluted
by sewage, its more important applications are in judging as to
the sanitary fitness of water supplies and their sources and of
bathing waters. In flowing streams, progressive changes in the
density of coliform bacteria below sources of pollution afford
a valuable indication of the extent and rapidity of self-purifi-
cation, after making due allowance for the effects of intermediate
pollution and dilution,. In interpreting the results of stream
observations, the location of water supply intakes and bathing
places with reference to sources of pollution is an important
matter for consideration in connection with coliform data0
Water Supply - Several years ago the Public Health Service
conducted an exhaustive study (1) of the limiting densities of
~)Public Health Bulletins Nose172 and 193; Public Health
Reports, Reprints-Nos.1114, 1170, 1392, 1434 and 1565.
Ue S. Public Health Service, Washington, B.C.
- 29 -
-------
ooliform bacteria in river and lake waters subjected to various
degress of purification, having particular reference to the
production of finished waters meeting the bacteriological
requirements of the Public Health Service's drinking water
standards as promulgated in 1985(2). The results of this study
indicated that the average efficient water filtration plantt
with postchlorination of the effluent included, can purify to
the drinking water standards level a raw water having an average
number of ooliform bacteria up to 50 per ml. (or 5,000 per 100 ml,"
Assuming that a drinking water of standard quality from this
standpoint were judged on the basis of monthly average results
of coliform determinations, this would imply that the raw water
as delivered for treatment should not contain more than 50 per ml,
of coliform bacteria, as an average, during any month, if the
limit of safe loading were not to be exceeded. This limit has
been adopted by a number of states as a criterion in judging as
to the fitness of sources of water supply subjected to ordinary
filtration treatment for public use. Parallel studies indicate
that the change from the Phelps index to most probable numbers
has little effect on the conclusions of the original studies.
From the same study as above noted, two other coliform
bacteria limits were determined which are of interest in this
discussion. One was the upper limit of average coliform density,
amounting to about 0,5 per ml. (or 50 per 100 ml,) which would
permit the production of an effluent of standard quality by
simple ohlorination alone*
The second was the observation that when the ordinary
filtration plant is reinforced by continuous prechlorination
of the raw water in addition to postchlorination, the permissible
maximum limit of coliform density in the raw water may be
increased to about 200 per ml, (or 20,000 per 100 ml,). In this
latter case, however, it was observed that raw waters showing
monthly average coliform densities ranging from 50 to 200 per ml,
are in general unsatisfactory as sources of purified water
supplies as they are likely to exceed coliform densities of EOO
with a frequency ranging from over five to twenty percent of the
time and thus overburden even a reinforced filtration plant for
a correspondingly high proportion of the time. With raw waters
polluted to this extent, moreover, difficulties of delivering
palatable as well as safe effluents are increased, because of the
presence of taste-producing substances originating both in sewage
and in certain industrial wastes. These waters must be considered,
therefore, as being of doubtful fitness as sources of water supply,
(2)Public Health Reports, April 10, 1925, pp. 699-721,
(Reprint No.1029).
- 30 -
-------
From these considerations the following general rules
may be stated as to the fitness of stream waters as sources of
public water supply, when related to their average coliform
bacteria number during any month:
Limiting Average
Monthly Coliform
Number per ml. Relative Fitness
0 - 0,5 For purification by simple chlorination.
0*5 - 50 For purification by filtration and
postchlorination,
50 - 200 Doubtful - unfit for ordinary filtration
treatment. (Unsuitable if greater than
200 in more than 5 percent of samples).
Over "200 Unfit for treatment,
Bathing Waters - Existing standards of quality for natural
bathing waters, as distinguished from artificial pools, are
highly variable among the different states and appear to be
governed more by expediency than by any well established ob-
servational data. The most reliable data bearing on the
relation between observed quality of bathing waters and sanitary
conditions affecting such waters as determined by physical surveys
have come from Connecticut, where two studies of this kind have
been made. Winslow and Moxon I*), as the result of their study
of bathing beaches near New Haven, recommended a standard
providing an average coliform number not over one per ml, and a
maximum number not over 10, Scott (4), on the basis of a survey
of beaches along the Connecticut shore of Long Island Sound,
set up four classes of bathing waters, based on coliform numbers*
The best class, A, showed average numbers from 0 to 0,5 per ml.
This class Scott considered as definitely good, Classes B and
C, rated as doubtful, showed ranges of 0,51-5 and 5-10, respectively.
Class D, judged as very poor, gave average numbers over 10, The
Tri-State Pollution Commission has adopted Scott's class A as the
basis of requirements for natural bathing waters in the New York
area,
(3) Bacterial Pollution of Bathing Beach Waters in Hew Haven
Harbor. C-3. A. Winslow and D, Moxon, Amer. Journal
Hyg., 8, 3, 299-310, May, 1928,
(4) American Public Health Association. Reports of Joint
Committee on Bathing Places,
- 31 -
-------
From the evidence above cited, it would appear that
the highest standard thus far proposed as the result of actual
laboratory and sanitary surveys would conform to Scott's Class A,
though the Y,rins low-Moxon criterion, which also is based on good
observational data, is nearly as high in its average require-
ments 0 For inland streams, the Winslow-Moxon standard might
appear more reasonable, as it permits a degree of variability
which is inherent in all stream waters0 Bearing in mind that
the M.P.N. method of coliform enumeration tends to give some-
what higher results than does the Phelps index method, the
Winslow-Moxon criterion, based on te.P.N's., would be sufficiently
rigid to be comparable to Scott*s Class A requirement when
expressed in terms of the Phelps index. This requirement would
appear to be a reasonably safe one for bathing v/aters in the
Ohio River Basin.
Dissolved Oxygen
In unpolluted streams, the dissolved oxygen content tends
to remain at or very near the saturation level. In polluted
streams, it is depressed temporarily below points at which wastes
are discharged into the stream, but tends to move gradually
upward toward the saturation level along the familiar "oxygen
sag curve.n The depth of the oxygen depression below saturation
at the prevailing stream temperature is an index of the intensity
of pollution in that particular stream zone. In streams only
slightly or moderately polluted, the dissolved oxygen content
usually remains above a level of 70 to 80 percent saturation.
In grossly polluted streams, it may reach zero saturation, or
total depletion, and remain thus throughout stretches of consid-
erable length, particularly in summer low flows where underlying
sludge deposits exist. Between these two extremely divergent
oxygen levels are numerous intermediate ones, indicating various
gradations of pollution between moderate and gross.
The minimum oxygen requirements for streams are, in general,
dependent on the particular uses to which they are devoted,
though two or three p.p.m. of oxygen in a stream usually marks
the extreme minimum level. Septic conditions and general "nuisance
follow inevitably the continuance of oxygen levels at or near the
zero point.
For maintenance of native fish life Ellis (5) states, from
studies by the Bureau of Fisheries, that an oxygen minimum of
(5) Detection and Measurement of Stream Pollution. M.M.Ellis,
Bull. 22, U. S. Bureau of Fisheries, 19370
- 32 -
-------
five p.p.m. is necessary. Although many fish of the more
hardy varieties will survive at oxygen levels of four or even
three p.p.m., he shows that the metabolic processes of most
common"fish are hampered at levels below five pcp»m. and points
out that the mere survival or tolerance level is too low to
permit the breeding and self-maintenance of the desirable forms
of native fish.
Ellis' conclusions have been confirmed fully by the bio-
logical observations made in connection with the present Ohio
River Pollution Survey (6). These observations, as described
in a supplement of the present report, have indicated that in
regions of heavy pollution, with dissolved oxygen below three
p.p.m., fish are mostly absent, with occasional carp, buffalo
and sunfish* In zones of "intermediate" pollution, with dis-
solved oxygen three to five p.p.m., fish are more abundant,
but "showing a tendency to sickness, deformity and parasitization."
In "fertile" zones, with dissolved oxygen not below five p.p.m.,
it has been observed that "fish are varied, plentiful and healthy,"
with large numbers of market fish present. In "game fish" zones,
where oxygen is always above five p.p.m., and usually near
saturation, the presence of basses, perches, pike and forage
fish has been noted»
The striking agreement thus shown between the findings of
the present survey and those of Ellis from his previous survey
would seem to leave no room for doubt as to the validity of the
conclusion reached by both observers concerning the desirability
of a five p.p.m. oxygen minimum in stream zones v/here the proper
maintenance of native fish life is an important consideration
On the basis of stream uses and conditions, the following
summary may be given of the oxygen status of streams, from
present evidence:
Minimum Daily Average
Dissolved Oxygen p.p.m. Stream Conditions
0-3 Heavy pollution, probable nuisance
at times, little fish life.
3-5 Moderate to heavy pollution, no
nuisance, fish life restricted to
coarse species.
Over 5 Slight to moderate pollution, fish
life varied, abundant and healthy,
game fish at higher minimum levels*
(6) Ohio River Pollution Survey - Report of Biological Studies„
Supplement "F" to this report.
- 33 -
-------
la general, the minimum oxygen ranges above given might
te considered as minimum daily averages„ When expressed in
terms of averages for periods of several days up to a month,
it would be desirable to add about 1«5 to 2 p.p.mc to each
daily minimum figure in order to safeguard against daily
variations below the period average. Figure 12a, page 35,
shows the relationship between monthly average and minimum
daily dissolved oxygen results based on the results of 7,500
samples collected during the present and previous surveys
of the Ohio River and its tributaries0 In order to assure
the maintenance of a five p.p.m. daily minimum, a period
average up to a month would be set at a minimum of 6B5 or
7 p.p.mc
A possible question might be raised as to whether it may
be necessary or even desirable to maintain a five p.p0in. oxygen
minimum in all parts of a stream, including limited zones
immediately below sources of pollution. It may be argued with
some reason that it is not essential to the general support of
fish life in streams to maintain such life unimpaired at all
points, so long as the minimum dissolved oxygen does not fall
below limits of tolerance for fishes, permitting them to pass
through certain zones in order to reach their normal breeding
places. Vv'here sources of pollution are isolated and well
separated by zones of active stream recovery, it is quite
possible that an oxygen minimum of four pep.me in limited zones
immediately below each source of pollution would be permissible*
V/here these sources are not isolated but are located so closely
together that recovery is not possible within a reasonable
distance, a definite hazard to fish life then may exist, even
if a four pcp.m0 minimum is maintained, in preventing the free
movement of fish from one recovery zone to anothere In general,
it may be said that a five p.p.m. minimum is desirable, except
where local conditions may be favorable to allowing a four
pep.m. minimum in limited zones immediately below fairly isolated
sources of pollution,
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
In connection with the present Survey, a marked degree of
correlation has been si ovm between the observed 5-day biochem-
ical oxygen demand of stream waters at points immediately below
sources of pollution and known densities of pollution at these
points,, A similar correlation has been shown between the 5-day
B.C.D« and the numbers of coliform bacteria as observed at the
same sampling points. In view of these relationships, an
effort has been made to ascertain, from a study of the labora-
- 34 -
-------
•uj-d-d uafiXxo paA|09s;a
IO
W
V1
UJ
e>
or
UJ
X
X.
ui 5 a: a
m z z 5
2^W<
2 s «
Six
o
Fig.-I2a.
0>
00
in
E
a.
a.
c
«
6
ssolved OIL
m
3
Average
c
o
2
2
>-
UJ UJ
S2
WOT
7U
ii
S§
&
*2~
UJ-J
-35-
-------
tory data, the approximate ranges of B.C.D. which may serve to
distinguish between stream waters of various degrees of pollu-
tion, such as heavy, moderate and slight* A source of difficulty
in this connection lies in the considerable variability with
which natural purification appears to affect the observed B.O.D, ,
in streams of different sizes. In small and shallow streams,
observed B.O.D. tends to diminish very rapidly under low-flow
conditions, partly because of sedimentation, but also probably
because of conditions favorable to rapid oxidation by growths
of bacterial flora resembling activated sludge, attached to the
sides and bottom of the channel. In larger streams, this effect
is generally less marked, possibly because of the lesser effect
of these bacterial growths*
In general, it has been observed that stream waters in the
Ohio River Basin only slightly or very moderately polluted tend
to show 5-day B.O.D. values averaging less than three p.p.m,,
with relatively low numbers of coliform bacteria and dissolved
oxygen contents ranging above five or six p.p.m. In moderately
polluted streams the B.O.D. nay range from three to five p.p.m.,
with correspondingly higher coliform numbers and somewhat lower
dissolved oxygen levels, though in the latter case exceptions
may occur when the observations are made at points very close
to sources of pollution, where the full effect of the "oxygen
sag" curve has not yet become manifest.
The gradations in B.O.D. may, therefore, be summarized
about as follows:
Maximum Monthly Average
5-day B.O.D., p«p,mo Stream Conditions
0-3 Slight to moderate pollution.
3-5 Moderate to moderately heavy pollution*
Over 5 Heavy pollution,
A complicating element in interpreting the results of
B.O.D. tests is found in acid streams receiving mine wastes*
Under these conditions, little if any direct correlation exists
between the observed B.O.D. and the density of pollution,,
Sludge Deposits
Organic sludge deposits may be formed in streams as the
result of discharging raw sewage and certain types of industrial
wastes. Where present, they tend to impose an added burden on
- 36 -
-------
the oxygen resources of a stream and also to exert a very
damaging effect on fish Iife0 When present in large amounts,
sludge deposits may bring about septic conditions', with a
consequent breaking down of the self-purification capacity of
the stream and depletion of the dissolved oxygen supply in
the overlying water. Loss of fish life is due to suffocation
from oxygen depletion, to toxic effects of heavy pollution and
to interference by sludge deposits with the spawning process,
on which depends the normal reproduction of fish. An additional
efiect of extensive sludge deposits is the presence of floating
solids and often obnoxious odors resulting from anaerobic
decomposition of the deposits,
From these considerations, it is evident that the maintenance
of desirable stream conditions necessitates the practical ab-
sence of organic sludge deposits originating in sewage and
certain types of industrial wastes. Where these deposits are
localized, small in extent and subject to frequent removal by
the flushing action of increased stream flows, their effects on
a stream may not be very far-reaching. Nevertheless, they are
always a detriment and should be eliminated so far as pdssible
from streams in which it is desired to maintain healthy conditions,
Alkalinity, Acidity and Hydrogen-Ion Concentration
The normal alkalinity of streams in the Ohio River Basin
varies widely, even where uncomplicated by acidity from mining
and steel mill wastes. In the Ohio River proper and its major
tributaries at their mouths, the alkalinity tends to range
from about 50 to 200 p.p.m., depending on the geological char-
acter of the watershed and particularly the extent of limestone
formations. In a very few streams near the headwaters of some
tributaries, normal alkalinities as low as 20, 15 p,p.m. or
even lover, have been recorded. Ordinarily, the alkalinity
tends to range above 50 or 40 p.p.m. over a large portion of
the Basin.
Acidity in Ohio River streams is due to the effect of mine
wastes and in some local areas, of steel mill wastes, though
the former constitutes by far the larger sources of acid pollu-
tion. The pll values range accordingly from as low as 2.0 or
3.0 in highly acid streams to as high as 8,>0 or more in highly
alkaline streams.
In general, it is desirable to have not less than 15 or
20 p.p.m. of natural alkalinity in stream waters used as sources
of water supply, owing to the absorption of alkalinity by
coagulants most commonly used in water purification. Acid
- 37 -
-------
waters can be treated, by adding alkalinity in the forms of
lime or soda ash, but the expense of treatment is increased
accordingly, and their "permanent" or scale-forming hardness
is also increased. Where acidity is highly variable, diffi-
culties occur in water treatment because rapid changes in
the acidity, if not promptly corrected, may result immediately
in improper coagulation, or even in nullifying it completely*
According to Ellis' findings, the water of flowing streams
tends to range from pH 6.7 to pH 8,,6, where unpolluted by
municipal or industrial wastes, "hen more acid than pli 6.7,
or more alkaline than pH 806, as the result of pollution, he
states that the buffer and carbonate systems are usually so
disturbed that conditions harmful to fish are generally found*
This natural range is, therefore, the most desirable one for
maintenance of healthy fish life in streams. Sllis states
further that pH 4,0 or less is definitely lethal to all fish.
He points out, however, that in determining the lethality of
acid wastes, the specific acid involved must be considered, as
"acid wastes do not kill merely because of a particular degree
of acidity0" Reviewing all of the data on acid wastes, he
states that the truly acid ef:ects must be limited to those
acids which kill at pH values less than 5.0, whereas in the case
of acids killing at pH values more than 5,0, lethality factors
other than hydrogen-ion concentration play the major part.
From these considerations, it would appear that pH 5,0
marks the lowest safe minimum value for maintenance of normal
fish life in streams, when expressed without reference to the
particular kind of acidity involved. As an upper limit of
alkalinity, that which corresponds to pH 9.5 may be regarded
as the maximum tolerable value0 The following summary of
variation limits, expressed in terms of the pH value, may be
useful in this connection:
Average Daily
pH Values Stream Conditions
6,5 - 8»6 Normal for unpolluted streams, favorable
to fish life, suitable for water supplies,
5.5 - 6,5 Moderate acid pollution, tolerable to fish
life, suitable for water supplies prior
to treatment.
4,0 - 5.5 Moderately heavy acid pollution; detri-
mental to fish life, fairly suitable for
water supplies prior to treatment.
Less than Heavy acid pollution, lethal to fish life,
4.0 unfavorable for water supplies prior to
treatment,
- 38 -
-------
Table 4, page 41 presents a condensed summary of the
limiting characteristics of stream waters considered, respect-
ively, as "desirable," "doubtful" and "unsuitable" from the
standpoint of combined water uses. For v/ater supplies, the
requirements in respect to coliforra bacteria, pH and phenols
are of more importance. For fish life maintenance, dissolved
oxygen, B.O.D., pH values and sludge deposits are especially
significant.
Discussion
According to the evidence at hand the water characteristics
designated as "desirable" and "unsuitable" in the summary table
appear to fall quite definitely into these two opposite cate-
gories. The intermediate or "doubtful" group defines character-
istics v/hich may be tolerable but undesirable, or may approach
unsuitability, according to their relative position in the ranges
given. No hard and fast line may be drawn for this "doubtful"
group, but some degree of flexibility in judgment must be
exercised in individual cases.
The requirements set forth in these three categories have
not been intended to constitute a formal classification of stream
waters in the Ohio River Basin, so far as the present report is
concerned. It is fairly evident, however, that the mere endeavor
to define stream characteristics in terms of their relative
suitability for various water uses involves, in effect, the
principle of classification, whether or not this term be used
in this connection. It also involves the idea of stream standards,
v/hich form an essential part of any system of stream classification,
The application of the tentative limiting requirements for
stream water quality, as set forth in this chapter, to the
estimation of corrective measures for pollution in any given
stream zone would involve four steps as follows:
(1) Determination of essential or desirable
stream uses in the particular zone concerned.
(£) Fixing of necessary requirements for
stream water quality in the zone, based on "essential"
or "desirable" uses as defined under (1).
(3) Determination of existing stream conditions
in the zone, based primarily on systematic laboratory
observations above and below known sources of pollution
and at other significant points.
- 39 -
-------
(4) Estimation of necessary corrective measures
for pollution loading «at specific points, in order to
meet essential or desirable stream quality requirements,
on the basis of existing stream conditions and known
pollution loadings at such points,,
In interpreting the results of laboratory observations,
due account should be taken of flow and seasonal conditions
prevailing during the periods of the observations, with special
reference to those conditions which might be considered as
critical for the particular water uses involvedo If the
results observed at any time were definitely bad or unfavorable,
such a finding would be significant regardless of whether or
not the flow conditions were at a"critical" level* If the
results at such a time were favorable and stream conditions
were not at the "critical" level, then the possibility of
unfavorable findings under conditions approaching more closely
the critical point would have to be considered. In this
connection, it should be pointed out that "critical" stream
conditions would vary to some extent according to the particular
water use involved. Where recreational use, maintenance of
fish life, or prevention of "nuisance" is concerned, critical
stream conditions usually coincide with those of extremely low
water in the mid or late summer* For water supplies, the more
critical conditions often occur following major rises in
streams during the winter or spring months, when the effects
of sewage pollution and of scoured sludge deposits at downstream
points are at a maximum*
- 40 -
-------
Ol CO »
?: ft fi
B PT)
O OrH
o C 3
t. o
W £,
C/J rH «
3
t* O B
C 3
II) rH £
BOO
3 0} 01
O* 0) OS
CO A
Ol O t, P
3 600 01
r# « > »i
-P TH frt
bo o) £r: a)
co P
•H O O
•P a rl OS
iJ ItO
C B
CM T-; p H
O 01
•a <« o
*>» ID O "H
!H > bO
a) rH 4> O
B O BrH
B > O O
§ e.c.rt
CO M p £1
c a us
01 O J2 TH
P TH P (H
C P 3
cj TH h a
B T3 > 01 {* TH
P CD -P
•H o men
rH t) O
CC O
3 S-P P
of « *
W T3 bO
t. M CO TH
tt) -P TH rH
I ft
TH !» C
C O rH TH
(CO, t, *
p a:
o £ TH TH
o *
i
-=t
CO
rH
0)
p
TH
3
n
C
H
3
CM
p
£>
3
O
rH
f>
a
t.
m
o
Q
S
0
TH
.p
•H
•a
e
o
o
cc
c
a)
en
rH
a
M
CO
c
CD
O
P.
§•
CO
t.
CD
a
S
i i
l r
1 i
l i
1 i
l i
a i i
P
C I 1
o
e i i
F>* l l
C
0) 1 1
C 1 l
TH
1 O 1
O •
O 1 O 1
CM H
1 1
t, f<
co ia>i
O- 1 O 1
1 1
1 1
o
O 1 1
CM
1 1
CC CM 1 1
.C O
API 1
C H C 1 I
O 0) 0)
B P 0 I I
CC M
>t 0) 0) 1 1
c t, a.
CO 00 1 1
CCM"^ 1 1
TH TH C O
01 1 • 1
O *
CM 1 1 CO
TH 4->
1 1 TH
•a c
CO 1 IX
M CO
TH 1 1
3 rH
• O" 1 1 •"
s: «) c
PHI 1 ID
C ci
O -P I II
EC C C
eg l o l o
>> S TH Hi
C p IP 1 .p
0) la) i s>
C C, M M
TH -P 1 O O 1 U
0 O • 0
O C 1 K «O 1 K
mO rH rH 1
•H II 1 O
M P M t. CM
0)0) 1 U] CO &' I 5. C > &• t-3
OP 1 TH O O 1
rH A A
P TH 1 p .P 4i IV)
Ob 0! O O TH
S— i « 65 fc: i h
O 1 O fl 1
to h03
ol i eg 8 i
H H-H
O 1 CD K 1
> > CO
<< i < a i
, ,
1 1 t
a cc B « a
M TH • 1 M TH • 1 r
O (H rH O ^ rH r-
V, CO S 1 CM C B 1 C
TH 4* TH P 0
H O M 1 rH O h 1 0
o cd o> o oj co T
oce oJ i urn a, i e
II II
II II
rHI 1 II
• 1 1 CO rH 1 rH 1
.3 — • ft cc
•P • 1 1 tfNft 1 M 1
C >» -3 CD
O IS 1 1 ON B 1 C 1
fi "O • co
1 £ I M M • 1 bO 1
r-» Pi -P ID CD P
C C I C 1 t> P C I II
CO CO O O 0} ft)
i a i * a i t» i
THOI r-> i O ft oo 1 col
C O 0) c
O O 1 01 1 O CM M 1 £ 1
• • • p
LTNK-\ 1 C | _-J- o) 1 O 1
TH rH O P
C C I I c p P I 1
S a i • i a t, h i PI
P P LT> POO 0)
1 1 » TH 1 M 1
01 n t< co a M v
01 B 1 Cs 1 0) CM ft 1 *rj 1
CO O > ID C O
iJiJ I 0 i iJD l SI
II II
i l 1 • l
1 1 t 0) 1
fi 1 1 CM 1 TH 1
P >> H
C r*» 1 • 1 U*MH 1 CC 1
O at -C • ft cj
B -C 1 •" 1 ON ft 1 O 1
C 3 rH
t» p> i O i On i ii
C C B -P a>
Ol CC 1 1 M -P 1 PI
t*» VO ID C 01
C C l R l .p co i M!
TH O CC CO CC B ID
• • 1 TH 1 O P- CO 1 B 1
^O ITS O M
1 O 1 LTlCM PI O 1
II • • 4-'
1 ITN 1 VD CO O 1 1
-» rH P P
HI ii i ,-j i a <
~-" Ol *H bO
O O 1 C 1 O P O 1 TH 1
IfNKN. 1 KN 1 H; 3 M 1 CO 1
CO P,
II II
ra
i l 1C
0
1 1 1 TH
C P
1 1 O 1 TH
I 1 -P 1C
C ol o
1C I be 1 o
TH -H
1 -p 1 > I >>
& Cfl M
1 O 1 55 1 CC
M 1 P
1 U 1C 1 TH
ID 0 C
i CC i TH la!
A -P co
4J 1 1 1 CO 1
C t>> 0) H
OalIB l£< lot
fl-S ^ C • | o g
t>> !>» TH -P oi r. c
C C 1 -P G 1 1 -P 1 » 1 t-3 C 1 O
o q M •*
IfNO 1 CO 1 £ 1 -P
••!--» n C3
M3 LOi 1 f-( G 1 -H 1 O
c c - -p 'i io
aj ec T-I O t>i V
4 ^ 1 C • 1 rH IK
1 CO 1 ft ^-O 10)
» CO CH 3 • *-4
rH rH 1 h O IS-* 1 1
§4> rC
4^ i -p ir, in
O O (DO Cfl • -H
S5 fc i O S; i? ^-o i PH
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
•
-P i
G
1
-d
CO
iH 1
-p a
§ ' §•
> 1 VI
a>
rH 1 rH
1 -P
C CO
E- i eo i i
(jO 3 bD I
a) B i (U i l
£ t i i 4J i
H U) « • •! «) i-i
) *»»&, i t*»Q 6 J i bOra l
3 K • 0 • • -O C
joai -tfocJi i ^p,i
^ l . VI K H »
i i IT- [a cj i a i co p i
I
,
1
1
,
1
1
1
1
1
1
O 1
rH
1
rH
V 1
O 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
o
rH 1
rH 1
1
1
1
,
1
1 CD
1 «H
^
i on
«H
i fc
i i
1 G
O
1 CO
CO
1 f-t
o
1 (D
1
1
I
1 rH
iH D,
S i 5
O 1 rH
•P > -P
o al
K I ^
i
i
i
1
(
1
n i
rH •
II!
a. ft i
t^ » t>>
i> OH
TH 3 .p
B TJ Tj C
M TH O 4)
CC U M 3
P a) ft &
1 0)
O 0) P CM
M B
n CM at -P
H PC
TH — o;
O 4) '" 0)
B-PP ft
CO C •
o *•» co n
C C 3 ft)
CC CC CJ O
p a> C
B 43 M cC
X) al CM P
P B
B 4J P fl
C C 3
O 0> 4) B
«H w n
O M M C
E-i ft ft-H
1 H
0 C
H O
«TH
OB*
CO 01
« O CO
ID O O
S 0 C
TH CC
• B
co ft 01
« ""c3
O TH
t-»LTN O
•P CM 3
TH 13
•a t. o
TH 0) (H
0 > ft
«< 0 1
CO
co B P
CO 0 B
t-a a
&.TH4J
CO
p
•d ft
TH CO
o o
in x
0) bO
0) -C
M BTH
CMTH 0
M 3
M f) T3
O 0) O
•O M
« ft
B EH 1
MOV
01 4^
P B B
•O CC
•tTH 4^
BH
H O O
Tt B C
O
01 -H CO
CO P O
U CO M
C 0 3
al H O
P CM B
01
£> OH
p C CO •
™ •• 3 S
U CO P O
•H B a c
«TH C 3
O 4J P
p SB
t"> O ,O
0 C rH 3
S eC
A CO
eg ft
> c
a o
c a>
o M
•d C
C o
O TH
fflrH
O O
O ft
V,
ft> O
t,
ID 0)
vSS
-3
ft O
«-d
» 0) •
•P rH
* co a
a? iH -P
rH O CO
P n **
C NJD
•H ^> •
BrH O
••H ft
a,-a
• ID -p
C n
aj o TJ
•p al
* TJ 13
-C O C
.p -p a
•H 4*
T3 B n
•H
- 41 -
-------
Present Water Duality
As a means of indicating the effect of existing pollution
in the basin on the sanitary quality of the water, the labora-
tory results have been grouped on the basis of concentration
of coliform organisms, dissolved oxygen and biochemical oxygen
demand as outlined in the section on water quality requirements*
Table 5 summarizes the results of coliform organism and
B.C.D. tests. The table shows the number of stations in each
basin at which the worst monthly average results were within
various ranges*
In general, the largest number and highest percentage of
stations falling within the lowest range of ooliform densities
(0 to 50 per ml,) and biochemical oxygen demand concentrations
(0 to 3 p.p.ic.) indicate the better sanitary quality of the
waters of the basin subdivision Conversely, the largest num-
ber of stations and highest percentages of the stations fall-
ing in the higher ranges of coliform density (over 200 per ml.)
and biochemical oxygen demand concentration (over 5 p«p<,nj«)
indicate more highly polluted conditions of the waters of the
basin and less desirable water for domestic supply and other
customary uses.
The tabulations of coliform organisms show clearly the
effects of acidity in the tendency for higher percentages of
the stations in acid streams to show coliform numbers in the
lower density range as contrasted with the corresponding per-
centages for the normal alkaline streams.
On Figures 15 to 15 the average analytical results for
the entire basin have been grouped to show graphically areas
of comparable sanitaryr quality of the streams as indicated
by the particular determination used as the index*
Cpliform Bacteria - Figure 13, based on the determination
of coliform bacteria, shows, by the heavier shading, areas in
which the highest monthly average numbers of coliform bacteria
exceeded 200 per ml. Lighter shaded portions show areas in
which the highest monthly avdrage number of coliform organisms
was between 200 and 50 per ml, and the unshaded areas show, in
general, areas with coliforms less than 50 per ml.
In general. 50 coliform organisms per ml, represent
the desirable upper limit of bacterial concentration for
sources of water supplies. In all areas except those included
- 42 -
-------
Fig.-13
-43-
-------
Fig.-14
-44-
-------
Fiq.-l
-45-
-------
1
« a
4J 4J
C OCOICO KNCHtM W H H OOHHO HO r-wzKrt O r-r\f-»-f
C\J |H I I KNHloj HHH C\JHCMHt\i NNKMO^HOJ OJ H H
lT»^OKO <7\iTtK\ OC O t/NfOlt— IfM/H tTv -J"O H NVd C^KVO^*^ CO LTV«O IT*
t*-Mt— \or-lr- ococo ^KNIKN C»-M r- iAt»->ot^%.3' H^*CJVO K\ C^K>VOVO
MX^lf^ if\f^.g^ OCOICQ KNOLJ" M^OICO L"vO t,OCM U> OCO U^KO^O rH \T\if\r4
C\jlr-l H_dl«\ f\J K^KN KMrQ H rTtf (\J Jd-l/MNJ-^1-^ ^ lTNrT\K\ MV^j-Kyrf
tr.Csl-t rHf\|t— OrHlH HtHm OJCO CO K\OCO Ob- SO rH t-iTKO CM f-.it (\J
i-HM rHfM rH J-NNfO HH|H H H rH (\JiT\HCMH O4 C\] <\J H H C\i CM
<\J MON _3-HlO> O H|H SO N^H lT\C\j| fT\ CM O f-CCCO J-HCO CTNCO f>CJ H f-
OMTfi f-KN-^1 -d'KX1^ IfNfOL^ C^ UN tf\ «\ U-\K\»CS H t-rH «V=J- sC rrCj-K\
1 1 1 1 1
-d-fcJt- co Mm OK-JIO CMCNH HO H f-cyirv±o COCMCTNCOO OJCONO
OjlCNJ HHfA rHlH |H CMCM H HrrNHHCJHrH rHTI H (T>
fill H
SO uNH CVJsO CO O CNCN f*\K>jSO Hs£» p— KNHsO O Is- H K\C\,HsO O CM C7\f—
HHJKN 1 1 HrHH HHHHCMH sOrHH
LTNOjJcO _^f~i H CO ON H Ol rH ff\ HsO K\ H CM l*"\ K>O"»C*— Os
H|H |H H|H
-sja **p -ap "-p -a|s «T-KR «"HW- ^sa
_^-OL4- f-o r- CSJrrJir* H rri^ Hso f- UMIMTCO irv Wf-coo_d- Hso ^-N^
KNfO CMfM ICJlO J^ CM CU rH HH HfM ^±CM f^
N"\HL^t CO CN t— CM *N T» U^KOJrH sO_^| O H OsO KNCM UX^CVl CM C\j r- 1 <\| ip*LT»
C^-O^v6 _^ffM| t— K\l »<\ IrH f— ICC CM H tT\KN CM rH K\H »f\Ci -H/u^
-£
rH 1 §
| 1 I a> a &°% *$ Jf ^
^ tC C ^C fl hOTJtfOORo & t-> ci
H O S O 3 C-H^-HO-H-H^-iCal^cDP®
< X 94 m K CMtJoffiCOMMX^cmoStOE-i
-
^H
o
f-
K\
H
*
o
3
CM
H
O
ir\
«
C&
Tributary Totals
CMrH CMrH
**»
°—
£?sa
CMCO f— C—
««»
«~*
««
CM rH O f-
l-C\IH_H/
VO.HTO KN
K\H CM C\*
KVDOO
-* CM
CM^ X-v
Ohio R. and Minor Tributaries
Pittsburgh - Hunt ing ton
Huntlngton - Cincinnati
Cincinnati - Louisville
Louisville - Uouth
H
CM
H
*
ON
K\
*
t
3
SO
O
IT*
rH
R
S
*
rH
0)
O
-------
within portions of the Allegheny and Ivlonongahela basins, af-
fected by acid mine drainage, the lightly shaded areas indi-
cate stream zones in which good sanitary conditions were found,
resulting largely from a relatively low degree of pollution*
Except in the Muskingum, Green and "//abash basins, these areas
are located mostly near the outer edges of each tributary
basin in their headwater sections. They include several areas
in which recreational use of streams either is being practiced
or readily can be developed, BOtably in the southern portions
of the basin. They also"include areas offering either actual
or potentially desirable sources of water supply.
Areas in which the highest average numbers of coliform
organisms exceeded 200 per ml0 include the larger sources of
pollution and numerous local zones of smaller streams affected
by the discharge of untreated sewage* The effects of industrial
wastes probably are not shown to any considerable extent on this
diagram, as the ooliform bacteria is definitely specific as an
index of sewage pollution* It is noteworthy, however, that the
general locations and extent of these areas reflect to some
degree the effects of combined sewage and industrial pollution,
as the larger sources of sewage tend to coincide with those of
industrial wastes,
Biochemical Oxygen Demand - On Figure 14 the basin has
been divided into areas on the basis of biochemical oxygen de-
mand, the darkest shading representing average amounts of B.O.D«
exceeding 5 p.p.m., the next heaviest areas those in which the
average ranged from 3 to 5 p.p.m., and the unshaded areas
representing points where the highest average B.O.D« observed
was less than 3 p.p.m.
In general, the heavily shaded areas showing B«O.D»
results in excess of 3 p.p.m. tend to coincide fairly closely
with those in Figure 13 showing coliform organisms over 200
per ml., though they are somewhat more restricted in their ex-
tent in some portions of the map. As the B.O.D. of stream
waters is affected both by sewage and by certain types of in-
dustrial wastes of an organic nature, the areas indicated in
Figure 14 probably show most reliably the stream zones in which
the effects of combined sewage and industrial pollution are
most apparent. The heaviest shaded areas denote those in which
the worst conditions were observed and, in general, indicate
the zones of relatively high degrees of pollution. Areas in
which the average B.O.D. was not greater than 3 p.p.m. tend to
coincide with those of Figure 13, though some minor differences
are indicated. In general, they represent stream zones in
which sanitary conditions are good and, except for acid pollu-
tion in certain limited sections, are relatively free of
- 47 -
-------
objectionable pollution precluding their use for normal purposes.
The fair agreement between these areas tends to confirm the
tentative conclusion that stream waters in good sanitary con-
dition should ordinarily show an average B«O.D. not over 3 p»p.m«
Pis solved Oxygen - Figure 15 presents the dissolved oxygen
results divided into areas in which the lowest average content
of the streams was not less than 6,5 p«p»m,, between 5 and 6.5,
between 3 and 5 p.p.m., and less than 3 p.p.m., the latter being
indicated by the heavier shading. An average of 685 p.p.nu,
assuming a 5 pcp.m. minimum on any one day, has been suggested
as a safe minimum average for the maintenance of native fish
life. The greater extent of these areas as compared with the
others of this figure probably is due in part to the fact that
a considerable number of dissolved oxygen observations were
made during the colder months, when organic decomposition in
the stream was retarded and dissolved oxygen levels were
higher than they would be expected to be under summer condi-
tions. Because of this, Figure 15 probably shows a more
optimistic picture in this respect than would be justified by
observations carried out over the entire basin under summer
low-water conditions,
Although the heavily shaded areas are less in extent
than those on Figure 14, probably owing to the limitations in
the proportion of summer observations previously noted, they
tend to coincide with, or to be included within, the areas of
relatively high B.O.D. results, thus confining within their
limitations the locations of the more densely polluted streams
in the basin*
- 48 -
-------
LOW-FLOY; REGULATION
The stream flows of the Ohio Basin vary greatly» The
minimum flow of the Ohio River at its mouth is about eight
percent of the average flow and on most of the tributaries the
variations are much greater. Since the amount of water avail-
able for dilution of wastes is one of the most important factors
influencing ths degree of pollution, any measures which increase
the minimum flew of the streams also aid in abating pollution*
Reservoirs for the storage and regulated release of natural
stream waters offer the only generally practical means of low-
flow regulation in this area,,
Untreated municipal sewage may cause nuisance conditions
even though the flow of the receiving stream is quite large
because of floating solids, scum, grease and the settling and
subsequent decomposition of part of the suspended matter with
accompanying odors. Hence, low-flow regulation is not a sub-
stitute for sewage treatment but an effective supplement which
can be used to eliminate the need for more than primary treat-
ment and to improve stream quality where satisfactory complete
treatment methods are not available at present,
V»There reservoirs expressly for low-flow regulations are
proposed to replace secondary treatment, their value can be
determined by the cost of the treatment eliminated. Studies
of low-flow requirements and sewage treatment cost data indi-
cate that reservoir storage capacity must be provided for not
more than $15 per acre-foot if the substitution of low-flow
control is to be economically justified. Experience in the
Ohio Basin indicates that reservoir capacity seldom can be
provided for this amount, particularly in the relatively small
amounts usually required for pollution abatement. Therefore,
as a general rule, low-flow regulation does not afford an
economical substitute for secondary waste treatment*
If more than one source of pollution is benefited appre-
ciably by the flow regulation, the justifiable expenditure may
be increased. Thus, if by the construction of a reservoir for
flow regulation, the need for secondary treatment at two, three
or more downstream places can be eliminated the allowable expen-
diture for storage may be increased proportionately.
Low-flow regulation can be used to reduce the maximum acid-
ity of streams affected by acid mine drainage. It would not
affect the total acid load but could reduce the damage done by
- 49 -
-------
acid streams. Studies of the comparative cost of mine sealing
and flow regulation indicate that the allowable expenditure
for storage to replace mine sealing is from about ^>0«50 to
$2,,25 per acre-foot depending on the alkalinity of the stored
water *1). Consequently, low-flow regulation cannot economic-
ally be substituted for mine sealing but it can effectively
supplement it in many instances, particularly in reducing
acid surges after the mine sealing program is completed,,
Low-flow regulation may also afford an effective means
of reducing organic pollution by industrial wastes which can-
not at present be adequately controlled by treatment at reason-
able cost. The economic feasibility of such control cannot be
discussed in general terms„
In addition to its value for abatement of pollution low-
flow regulation may be used to insure the adequacy of municipal
and industrial water supplies, to improve the navigability of
streams and to enhance their recreational value, and to increase
the production of hydroelectric plants. Most of the reservoirs
that have been constructed for low-flow regulation have been
built primarily for one or more of these purposes rather than
for pollution abatement*
It is apparent from these data that, in general, low-flow
regulation by reservoirs built expressly for pollution abate-
ment is not economically justified, although it may be in some
cases. However, if the supplemental low flow can be provided
incidental to some other major reservoir use in a multiple-
purpose reservoir, the cost of the additional flow may be smaJ.l
enough to warrant inclusion of provisions for low-flow regula-
tion in the reservoir plan. The major purposes for which
reservoirs are being built or proposed in the Ohio Basin are
flood control and power.
Flood-control reservoirs ordinarily remain empty or nearly
so until a flood threatens and are emptied as quickly as prac-
ticable after danger has passed in order to make the storage
capacity available for the next flood. Studies by the U, S*
Engineer Department of the seasonal occurrence of Ohio River
floods show that major floods occur during the lata winter and
early spring. The following table indicates the monthly dis-
tribution of damage from Ohio River floods at Pittsburgh,
(1) Alkalinity assumed to vary from 10 to 40 p,p,mt
- 50 -
-------
Table 6 Monthly Distribution of Damage from Ohio River
Floods at Pittsburgh, Pa,
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
Average Flood Damage
aa Percent of Damage
in Maximum Month
22
32
100
12
2
2
Month
July
August
September
October
November
December
Average Flood Damage
as Percent of Damage
in Maximum Month
1
1
6
1
2
3
The markedly seasonal character of Ohio River floods and
the equally seasonal character of low-flow occurrences suggest
the possibility of using a portion of the cepaoity of the flood-
control reservoirs after the end of the flood season for storage
of water to be released during the late summer and early fall
months when stream flow is usually lowest. The Ue S. Engineer
Department has investigated the practicability of such operations
and found that at many of the proposed and existing flood-control
reservoirs in the Ohio Basin as much as one-third of the flood-
storage capacity can be used for low-flow regulation from April
15th to December 1st without appreciably reducing the degree of
flood protection. In reservoirs whose capacities are limited to
less than the amount necessary for control of the major floods
such encroachment on the flood-storage capacity is not considered
feasible.
Hydroelectric reservoirs usually store water during periods
of high stream flow and release it during dry periods. The
amount of water released is usually dependent on the power demand.
Low-flow regulation for other purposes can often be included in
the program of reservoir operation without interfering greatly
with power production.
The possibility of using existing or proposed reservoirs in
the Ohio Basin for low-flow regulation has been considered and
discussions of various projects are included in the Basin
Summaries and in the section of the report on Acid Mine Drainage.
A number of areas have been found where low-flow regulation
could be of considerable value for pollution abatement and water
supply.
- 51 -
-------
ADMINISTRATION OF POLLUTION ABATMENT
Stream pollution is a problem of national concerne Re-
sponsibility for its abatement is primarily local. Power to
require its abatement rests with the states, the Federal gov-
ernment having little authority in this field. All of the
states have adopted lav/s of some kind for the purpose of con-
trolling pollution, and, in addition, the common law affords
remedies to injured parties. Because the problem is technical
and one requiring constant attention, the states have dele-
gated power to administer the laws to some state agency, usu-
ally the health agency, since the protection of the public
health is usually the primary purpose of pollution abatement.
The progress that has been made varies from state to state,
A survey of state laws, their administration, and the organiza-
tion of the administrative agencies has been made to determine
what effect laws and their administration have had on the
progress of pollution abatement and to determine what steps
might be taken to accelerate progress.
This survey indicates that more important than a stringent
antipollution law is the existence of an adequately staffed
agency carrying on an effective educational and promotional
program. Education, with its concurrent awakening of the pub-
lic consciousness to the value of clean streams and promotion
of remedial works' installation are the foundations of a stream
sanitation campaign,) A campaign based upon these two factors
will attain a substantial measure of success without the legal
authority necessary to require the installation of remedial
works. However, an impasse is finally reached when the author-
ity must be employed if the program is to proceed.
The law should centralize authority over stream pollution
in one state agency, authorized and qualified to consider the
effects of pollution on all water uses, and not limited to its
effects on the public health. No type of wastes and no area
should be excepted from the provisions of the law. The agen-
cy should be delegated power to function administratively and
to enforce the law without the continual necessity of time-
consuming court action. It should be given the power to de-
fine pollution and the power to seek injunctions when neces-
sary to protect the public interest<> It should be permitted
to carry out fact finding investigations relative to pollution,
Findings of fact are essential in all actions, particularly
in case of court review. The agency should be permitted to
prepare a program for pollution abatement and should have
authority to require proper operation of remedial works„
- 52 -
-------
Legal restrictions on the bonding or taxing power of
municipal corporations have deterred the installation of sew-
age treatment works. Provisions for financing these works
by revenue bonds and sewer rental charges have aided greatly
in overcoming these restrictions. The state administrative
agency should be given the pov;er to require municipalities to
utilize all means at their disposal to finance the construc-
tion of treatment v^orks that have been found by the agency to
be necessary. Provision should be made for the formation of
sanitary districts to construct and operate treatment works,,
In none of the states in the Ohio Basin are all of the
above provision? in effect* Outstanding defects are the ex-
emptions of acid mine drainage from control in Pennsylvania,
Wast Virginia and Ohio and the lack of authority of Ohio, In-
dians and Illinois over wastes from Ohio River communities,.
Organization
In several of the states surveyed, more than one state
agency is empowered to enforce pollution abatement laws, A
comparison of the ease and efficiency of operation in these
states with that in other states with centralized control
clearly indicates the advisability of the latter method. In
this manner, responsibility is centralized and complete cov-
erage of the problem without duplication of effort can be as-
sured at a minimum of expense.
There is an increasing, tendency to view pollution abate-
ment in its broad perspective; namely, as an effort to promote
the full utilization of a vital natural resource. For this
reason it is necessary that the administrative agency not
limit its activities solely to pollution affecting the public
health or interfering with fish life. It should be permitted
by law and qualified technically to act against pollution af-
fecting any phase of water use, The type of organization
best suited to do this cannot be stated categorically.
A number of states in the Ohio Basin and elsewhere have
placed authority in a sanitary water board, a state water com-
mission or some similar agency. Such a body includes repre-
sentatives of all official agencies concerned with water pol-
lution and occasionally representatives of industry and
sportsmen. In this manner all interested parties are given
a voice in the establishment of policies and feelings of ani-
mosity so often present are minimized*
-------
Another method of achieving the desired co-ordination is
by the establishment of an advisory board* This scheme has
not been adopted in any of the states in the Ohio Basin but
it has been suggested by a number of authorities* Adminis-
tration would be centered in one existing agency already vested
with authority* This agency would be advised as to policies
and procedures by a commission including officials of state
agencies concerned with water problems and representatives of
industry and sportsmen. The commission may be supplemented
by local watershed advisory boards throughout the state con-
sisting of representative citizens interested in local improve-
ment and good stream sanitation,.
This type of organization takes from some agencies con-
trol which they might otherwise have and substitxites merely
advisory authority. Unless a high state of interest is main-
tained, something which is difficult of attainment in this
particular field, the interest of the advisory committee is
apt to lag and its influence diminish or entirely disappear*
Whether or not such a scheme would be successful would depend
to a very large degree upon the executive and organizing abil-
ity, personality and farsightedness of the head of the enforce-
ment agency,
The raost common practice is to make the state health
agency the administrative agency for pollution abatement laws*
The sanitary engineering divisions of these agencies are usu-
ally the ones most actively engaged in pollution abatement
work and are better qualified technically than any other one
cgency to carry on such activities. The protection of ^ter
supplies from pollution is of definite concern to the health
department. The effects of pollution on streams used for
recreation are also of interest to the health agency. In
practically all states the health department has been dele-
gated authority either to supervise pollution abatement work
or to advise cities and industries with reference to their
waste disposal problems. By virtue of their functions and ex-
perience, state health agencies should have considerable
authority in any organization for the administration of pol-
lution abatement. In most sanitary water boards, the state
sanitary engineer is executive secretary of the board and the
most active individual member» Under the advisory board scheme,
the health agency is usually the administrative agency. In
those cases where there is no legal provision for co-ordination
of the views of all interested agencies and parties and the
health agency alone is given authority, the co-ordination can
be achieved unofficially if the agencies and individuals con-
cerned are not unduly jealous of their positions, prerogatives
and programs.
- 54 -
-------
In short, the exact type of organization is not highly
significant. It is much more important that the agency be
adequately financed and properly staffed with trained men
familiar with pollution problems and their relation to all
phases of water use* Personality and enthusiasm are as im-
portant as technical ability. The agency must be able to
carry on an effective educational and promotional program and
to work without friction \vith municipal and industrial offi-
cials. A minority of recalcitrant individuals and officials
can be dealt with by legal actior but effective policing to
enforce an unpopular law would require so many men that the
entire scheme would be impractical.
Authority
In some instances co-operation can be obtained only if
there is some legal power or authority which might be used*
In other instances actual use of authority is necessary. The
state administrative agency should have the following powers:
(a) Power to define what constitutes pollution,
with the definition based on consideration of all phases
of water use.
(b) Authority to investigate pollution on its own
initiative,, Investigation of all complaints to the
agency should be mandatory*
(c) Power to review all sewerage plans and plans
for new industrial waste outlets and to require suitable
treatment.
(d) Power to issue orders against polluters, requir-
ing abatement of pollution.
(e) Power to seek injunctions when necessary to pro-
tect the public interest.
(f) Control over the operation of remedial works.
All of those powers are designed to promote rapid and ef-
ficient solution of the problem vdth a minimum of litigation,
The actions of the agency would be subject to court review as
are the actions of any other administrative agency.
The basic law may well define pollution in general terms
but the agency should be given the po\ver to define in more
precise terms what will be considered actionable pollution*
- 55 -
-------
The definition should be broad enough to include pollution
which v/oulcL interfere unduly with any water use and definite
enough to.enable municipalities and industries to determine
what may be expected of them. 17 o exceptions should be made
in the basic law as to sither areas or types of wastes
subject to the control of the administrative agency but the
agency should not be required to apply a uniform standard of
quality to all streams in the state or to all wastes of a
given type.
The agency should be permitted to make all fact-finding
surveys and investigations. Findings of fact are highly
important, not only to serve as a basis for recommendations
and orders but also to support the agency in possible cases
of court review. These surveys and investigations should be
permitted without having to wait for a complaint. The agency
should be given the right of access to municipal and private
property necessary to make surveys and investigations* Only
in this way can a comprehensive plan and program be developed,,
The requirement that all complaints must be investigated and
reported on is a valuable aid in securing public approval of
the progranie
The power of review of all plans for new work involving
increases in waste discharges enables the agency to prevent
any important increases in pollution while engaged in its pro-
grams of abatement of pollution from existing sourcese To make
this power effective, the agency should be able to make rules
and regulations governing sewerage and industrial waste treat-
ment. Most of til3 states with effective pollution abatement
programs have given this power of review to the administrative
agency.
The power to issue orders requiring the abatement of pollu-
tion has been an extremely valuable instrument in many states.
The basic law should outline the procedure to be followed in
issuing such orders and provide for the enforcement of them*
In general, the procedure is as follows:
(a) The agency makes an investigation to deter-
mine whether or not actionable pollution exists.
(b) If such pollution is found to exist the
offender is cited to appear before the agency for a
hearing and show cause why an order should not be
issued requiring the abatement of the pollution*
(c) If the offender cannot show sufficient cause,
an order is entered requiring the treatment or complete
elimination of the waste discharge causing pollution.
- 56 -
-------
This procedure is much more economical of time and money,
and requires less litigation than if the agency were required
to seek action through other legal channels«
Occasionally, even this type of machinery is too slow to
protect properly the public interest. This is particularly
true in the case of seasonal industries, when ponded wastes
are suddenly discharged, or when remedial devices are_improp-
erly operated. The agency should be able to take action by
injunction or otherwise to prevent such pollution.
To ensure the proper operation of treatment plants and
other remedial works, the state administrative agency should
be empowered to supervise their operation and to make the
necessary rules and regulations. The agency should be ade-
quately and properly staffed to permit it to assist municipal-
ities and industries in the solution of operating problems,
Sanitary Districts
Legislation to allow the easy formation of sanitary dis-
tricts to serve unincorporated areas or combinations of one
or more municipalities and adjoining areas is necessary if one
of the more troublesome and difficult to control pollution
sources, the private sewer, is to be eliminated and if pollu-
tion abatement work is to be carried on most economically and
effectively in metropolitan areas. Most states have made some
provision for such districts but, in many instances, the forma-
tion and preliminary financing have been made so difficult that
the law is seldom used,, In one state, 90 percent of the prop-
erty owners concerned must sign the petition for the district's
formation, Illinois has used the sanitary district method with
considerable success. Reasonable legislation could facilitate
the formation of districts and still protect against the for-
mation of additional unnecessary governmental units«
The administrative agency may well be given power to re-
view plans for the formation of districts and the pov/er to order
the formation of districts where this appears to be the only
feasible solution to a pollution problem, as in the case of unin-
corporated areas on the fringes of municipalities, Ohio's admin-
istrative agency has this authority with reference to county
sewer districts and the program in the state has been materially
assisted by the authority. In most other states individual
prosecution, a cumbersome device at best, must be either used
or threatened to accomplish district formation in such cases,,
Financing
Constitutional and statutory limitations on the bonding and
- 57 -
-------
taxing power of cities have hindered the installation of
remedial works in many instances. If a pollution abatement
program is to proceed some means must be found, consistent
with sound financial policy, to overcome these difficulties*
The principle of allowing municipalities to exceed these lim-
itations upon order of the administrative agency might be ap-
plied to statutory limitations but where the limitations are
imposed by the constitution, this would probably not be feas-
ible. In some states the municipalities are forbidden to issue
bonds for other purposes so long as a state order requiring
the installation of pollution abatement works has not been com-
plied with. Provision may also be made for revenue financing
of sewage works, permitting the assessment of sewer service
charges. This is an equitable method of financing such works
and has been used in a large number of cases in recent years*
A recent adverse Pennsylvania court decision in the case of
Philadelphia, which is up to its debt limit, ruled against
determining sewer rental charges on the basis of the assessed
valuation but at the same time stated that a charge based on
a proportion of the water charge was proper*
Administrative Policies
In investigating the administration of pollution abate-
ment, a number of policies were encountered which have met
with a great deal of success. In general, it was found that the
agencies which have been most successful have been relatively
slow to use the courts or administrative orders to force action.
Much of their effort has been devoted to arousing public con-
sciousness of the value of clean streams and securing public
support for remedial measuies. They try to co-operate and
consult with municipalities and industries in order to work out
the most satisfactory solution of individual problems,,
A practically universal policy at the present time in the
Ohio Basin is that no ne\v sewers may be installed unless treat-
ment is provided. Some states even require that no additions
may be made to existing sewer systems without provision for
treatment. The V/orks Progress Administration has aided in ef-
fectuating such policies by refusing to approve sewerage projects
without treatment except in special cases.
Another policy that has been helpful in hastening progress
is that of informing injured riparian owners of their rights,,
The technical knowledge of the enforcement agency can be of
great value to the individual owners who seldom have the means
of getting the necessary information for the successful prose-
cution of a lawsuit.
- 58 -
-------
Much of the routine work of the state administrative
agencies is concerned with securing proper operation of
remedial works after they have been installed. The common
tendency to consider the problem as solved once the treatment
plant has been constructed must be combatted continually. The
agency must be adequately staffed to permit the frequent in-
spection of remedial works and to aid plant operators in solv-
ing their problems. Lost states have adopted the policy of
requiring submission of rather complete records of plant
operation. Some states offer prizes to those operators sub-
mitting the best records*
In order to stimulate interest in the problems of plant
operation and to .improve the standards of operation, a number
of states have conducted or sponsored short schools and con-
ferences for operators. Most of the operators of the smaller
plants have little or no technical education and these schools
have been instrumental in giving such men an understanding of
the scientific principles underlying efficient plant operation.
In addition, such schools enable the men to meet each other,
to discuss their common problems and exchange experiences0
Another step that has been taken to improve the caliber of
plant operators is the licensing of operators by the state ad-
ministrative agency. As a. rule, the licensing plan operates
similarly to licensing of stationary engineers with several
grades of licenses and requirements as to education and exper-
ience, as well as an examination. Licensing has been helpful
in improving the tenure of competent operators and in attract-
ing better trained men to such jobs*
Interstate Waters
As in the case of other water problems, the difficulty of
dealing with pollution of interstate streams has cast doubts
on the effectiveness of state control and brought forth demands
for Federal action. Progress has been made in certain areas in
the solution of some interstate pollution problems but, in
general, much less has been done than where the problems were
primarily intrastate and subject to the control of a single
agency. The Ohio River is a striking example of this.
Informal interstate agreements have been effective in
reducing tastes and odors in Ohio River water supplies but no
appreciable progress has been made in reducing-sewage pollution
of the river. Much of the difficulty is due to the lack of
jurisdiction of the states north of the river over the stream*
- 59 -
-------
The Ohio River Valley hater Sanitation Compact has been drafted
by compact commissioners of the states involved, approved by
the Congress, and ratified by four of the state legislatures
(Indiana, New York, Illinois and Kentucky) unconditionally*
The Ohio and Y/est Virginia legislatures have ratified the com-
pact but their action does not become effective until the
Pennsylvania legislature also ratifies» Considerable progress
has been made in Pennsylvania toward ratification of the
Compact, one branch of the legislature having passed ratifi-
cation legislation on two occasions0
The personnel of the Ohio River Valley Compact Commission
that drafted the Compact is of particular interest* Represented
on this Commission were the administrative or technical heads
of the pollution administrative agencies of the states border-
ing on the Ohio River. These representatives had been engaged
in administering pollution control laws for a great many years
and some of the most notably successful pollution control pro-
grams of this country have been due to their efforts, The
compact, as finally approved, represents the concensus of these
successful, experienced administrators in their efrorts to
prepare a practical workable document* An outline of the
provisions of the compact is included in the summary dealing
with the main Ohio Rivera
Two interstate compacts dealing with water pollution have
been in effect for several years. The one between New York
and New Jersey dealing with the problems of the metropolitan
area of Hew York has been fairly successful,, The one between
North Dakota, South Dakota and Minnesota on the Red River of
the North has accomplished little, A third, the Potomac
Compact, adopted by Llaryland, Virginia, \Vest Virginia and the
District of Columbia created the Potomac Valley Conservancy
District, organized formally in October, 1941. Activities to
date have been confined to a preliminary assembling of available
data. The formation of these compacts may be taken to indicate
a trend but none of them are sufficiently comparable to serve
as a basis for predicting the success of this method in the
Ohio valley as a means of abating water pollution*
Progress has been made in pollution abatement in the
Delaware River Basin since the establishment of the Interstate
Commission on the Delaware (Incodel) in 1936, This Commission
derives its authority from Joint Legislative Commissions on
Interstate Cooperation established by the four states of the
basin. No interstate compact is involved. Standards of
quality for effluents discharged to various zones of the basin
have been agreed upon by the four states and a general plan
drawn up for treatment of municipal wastes. Progress has
- 60 -
-------
also been made in construction of sewage treatment works*
Financial difficulties have deterred construction of such.
works at Philadelphia, the key to the solution of the water
pollution problem of the basin*
Most interstate compacts in the past have dealt with
matters which once settled require little further attention,
such as boundary disputes. Compacts have been fairly success-
ful in settling matters of the apportionment of water in
interstate streams in the sections of the country where
irrigation is important. The Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation
Compact is the first to be negotiated dealing with a continuing
and complex problem in a large area and its success or failure
will probably have considerable influence on future attempts
at controlling pollution of interstate waters, it is highly
desirable that the compact be ratified,
Federal Interest
The increasing activity of the Federal government in other
fields of water use and control, together with the lack of
progress being made in the solution of interstate pollution
problems in some areas have been responsible for a number of
proposals of Federal legislation on the subject. The proposals
have been of two general types; one providing for Federal,
technical and financial aid to states and administrative agencies
and financial aid to municipalities and industries in the con-
struction of pollution abatement works; the other providing for
similar aid to municipalities and industries and, in addition,
for Federal control over the pollution of interstate waters.
The need for financial assistance if the vork is to proceed
rapidly has been shown by the effect of Federal aid on the rate
of progress of sewage treatment in recent years and is generally
recognized* The need for Federal exercise of police pov.:er,
however, has been bitterly contested. The disagreement is not
one that can be resolved by findings of act at the present tims.
It involves problems of governmental policy not within the scope
of this survey. The findings of this survey do indicate a need
for something more than the present degree of control over
pollution of the Ohio River* The compact provides a method
for this control, through the utilization of existing, experienced
state agencies working together with Federal assistance. \Vhether
or not this method is efficient and effective can be decided
only after a trial.
The Federal government can encourage such efforts by making
available advisory and technical assistance. The present survey
should provide the basis for a program of control when and if
the Ohio River Compact becomes effective.
- 61 -
-------
ACID MIKE DRAINAGE STUDIES
Acid drainage from coal mines affects the streams through-
out the area covered by the Ohio River Basin coal fields, (see
Figure 5). In Pennsylvania and West Virginia, the two largest
bituminous coal producing states, the problem dominates the
stream sanitation picture. The present situation exists despite
the fact that in these two states only 5.1 percent of the coal
deposit has been mined out or lost. The present survey has
conducted a study of the basic theories of acid formation in
coal mines and the possibilities and experience with remedial
measures. Particular attention has been directed to control
measures involving mine sealing and flow regulation, particu-
larly by multiple purpose use of flood-control and other pur-
pose reservoirs. Studies and demonstrations by the U. S. Bureau
of Mines of tha possible accomplishments of mine sealing have
shown that acid control at the mine is practical at reasonable
cost, and a start, made in the form of a Works Progress Admin-
istration program (see Figure 16) of sealing abandoned mines
with U. 3. Public Health Service and state co-operation, has
confirmed (see Figure 1?) the earlier work. The present sealing
program, however, is not a continuing activity having been
discontinued from time to time in some states. Provision for
essential maintenance is lacking- Flow regulation by flood-
control reservoirs built by the U. S. Engineer Department has
had a beneficial effect. Aggressive prosecution of a sug-
gested remedial program is amply justified, particularly in
the Pittsburgh District where tangible monetary benefits can
be shown in excess of remedial costs. Remedial measures are
imperative to insure the future of the principal streams in the
mining areas.
The question of acid mine drainage has been made the sub-
ject of a detailed supplement to this report and consideration
here is confined to summarized information and conclusions.
Acid Load Reduction by Sealing
M
ine acid loads in the major tributaries of the Ohio River
Basin as originally measured and after present sealing and
suggested sealing under 1940 restrictions are given on Figure
16 and Table ?• Total basin acid loads from this table and
the estimated load following a sealing program with 1940 re-
strictions modified are as follows:
- 62 -
-------
Original mine acid load 2,500,000 tons per year
Reduction, to date, by sealing 700.000 " " "
Present mine acid load 1,800,000 " " "
Possible further reduction by
sealing under 1940 restrictions 600.000 " " "
Load after sealing under
1940 restrictions 1,200,000 " " "
Possible further reduction with
1940 restrictions modified 600.000 " " "
Estimated ultimate residual load 600,000 " " "
The sealing program under 1940 restrictions is based on
a cost limitation of .£10.00 per ton of acid per year and seal-
ing only in areas not connected to active ventilation systems.
Modified restrictions would permit sealing operations in
\vorked-out sections of active mines.
The cost and benefit estimates, discussed later, apply
to work necessary to complete a sealing program under 1940
restrictions and the report discusses this completion as a
first objective.
Free mineral acid from waste pickle liquor is estimated
at 3.U percent of the present total free and combined mine acid
load. Acid from hydrolized iron sulphates may be minor or as
high as 10 times this quantity depending on the hydrolysis
equilibrium.
Mine Sealing Costs
Mine sealing costs to date in the Ohio River Basin, as
shown in Table 8, have been about &5»400,000. To complete a
sealing program under 1940 restrictions will cost an estimated
additional :j5,500,000. Annual charges of interest (3i%), amor-
tization (0.7*0 based on 35°/° interest and a 50-year life), in-
spection (2%) and maintenance (7 to 10%) are about 15 percent
or $1,635,000 on the total of these two sums of £10,900,000.
This is about 4 mills per net ton of production and confirms
an estimate of the Office of Mine Sealing, U. S. Public Health
Service. These and other estimates of future mine sealing
costs are believed conservatively high as they are based pri-
marily on past experience with Works Progress Administration
programs with the dual purpose of providing relief and im-
proving mine acid conditions.
-------
Fig.-16
-64-
-------
hCM
•d o —
Oj TJ
3§|
•d bO-H
^ B *J
O -H O
Residual /
After Sea
1914.0 RestrJ
H §„
at o -H E
o > -P *•
H O *H r-
o » -d «
:cc*tv
3 o a t
d -P -H a
•d t
O E
d > T
H O >»r-
o HP a
< V i
Mines
Effic-
iency
Sealed
Acid
*
4
C
n o
S !
H
« a
p;
!*.
sss-
sl*>
0 <
Marginal
(l)Mlnes
c
Mr
o
W)
S«
g$
Q
Tributary
Percent
D
f
E*
cd
rH
^ 1
] 3
EH
Percent
4>
t at,
F
• 03
o- 1,
> M »
4 P
D b
5S.3
US
fill
>sj
« a
fri V
Is
CO
!
is
D -P
00»
h
5
H\.»r
H IT
COO
KNrH
CM CO
OO
KNIO
KNsO
CM CM
H
O.H.
UNIT
r-oN
CO O
H H
»
00
^
-=?°"
CM CM
UNO
COO*
3s
rCH
CO CM
KN
H
UNp-
o u-
£8
CM
1®
s£) K>
CM fy
0,
COC\
coco
ONH
All*. R. except Klskl.
Kisklmtnetaa River
i
C\J CO CM
UN 1 _H;iT
SO CMCM
O NNK>
rH 1 NNi-H
(M §«H
1
1
s;gf
US'™
i
ON 1 HCM
CM UNCM
1 CM
Jb~ 'sot-
|!!jr
J 1 O*ON
3- COCM
1 KN
1
UN 1 HCO
*!]fa
i
£ 1 ONsC
UN 1 OON
0 OH
J- I t-CM
1
M sOff
if, £2
£,3S
UN OsO
• CO SO ONp— UNO O CO KNCM r-t tM U^CO U^COsO H
1 t III
1 1 III
8IOOOOOIOO IO O lOOOKNIOOOOsoo
O UNP— K\CM O O CM -^ f—t*-t^O UNO C^O CTsO
SO 1 UN H K\K\ lOH IUNH ICMO f~ — ~f 1 O CM t*-ON_J-o
CO 1 sO CM HCO 1 CNP— I ON K\ 1 KNKNO O 1 UNO H_J- H
HI 1 1 1 1
1 1 III
CM IOOO OCO IOO 1 KN UN 1 UNCM O O IOOO P— O^H
-JT CO t— UNCM K> O KN KN H sOsO OJ" KNUNfy CM SO H
so f CM ^P— KNP— 1 _;fCM 1 -d1 >~* ICOCOtMOlO P~-H CT\O CM
Ml 1 1 I 1
l 1 ill
1 1 III
J\ C--H UNKNftl O_^ *«O KN MNUNMNUN O CM CM If^O O
CM 1 KN^-H KNKN'OUN ICO CM l£--OCMOIr-(COOtO ONK*
« 0 KKO ••.III .|*| K««K • > b « •,
7s 1 UN H_-+sO 1 O H 1 CM O 1 H UNO-H; 1 _H- UN-H; f_so
O CM H CM P-H CM KN O CM UN H J-r-t
1 1 III
^- 1 UNj't"— H CM 1 _^t*- * O KN Cf*l^-OsKN 1 NNSOONOCOsO
_"± 1 UNO CM CM-d1 1 K\K\O * Q> 1 so OCO 1 C— _d"O KN 1 CO C*-CO K\K\H
M HH CM t H KNH
III 1
JJ 1 COCO UXd-CXl IOOO OlOOO IO OCO CM l t-O P-O UNH
UN CO H lf>CO KNOO4* OO*iO P-sOCO ONO O O UN[—
sO 1 KNJBCO H ON I CO H .C 1 ON U^-H, * ONP-»H UN 1 KNUN3D CM O UN
O t t— CM C O 1 ifyH; *H 1 H sO ^H I f~- -4cn ON l CfNKVO P— KNCXJ
CM H KMMs£> H CM H _J- r-H SO KNO _H"H (M H H
ONI 'CM Oil COlCMHIH
1 1 III
^t O KNO OCJs OOO O OOO O UN*T\H f— O_^O KNH
>- 1 CM ONUNOSON IOO IO O lOHsOKNI ONOsO O HH
ON ON»jH>OCOsO trtD CO H _H/ri OsO sO O-H;ry OJ
UN O CM KNl/N KNsO P- CU KNCO CM ON O UXO H O
>- 1 H CM PC\ 1 SO i-l 1 CM ^T 1 ONWN^- 1 HCO H H H
1 1 III
1 1 III
K\ COCM UN«*t— OOO O OOO O UNUN.H; O O_^-O_H;J
*O ON ONsO ON sO-J- CM ON UNO H H KNj-C— KN CO
3 1 > n 1 i H 1 H
1 1 III
ON 1 O KNO OsO IOOO O IOOO 1 O O O P- 1 O O ONOCOsO
O CO CM HCO KNOO O O OHsOt-COO t-O t-lT
O 1 _J-KNCM\O CM 1 C— CTS 1 ON UN 1 OsO ONf- I KNH UNf- ON«N
O 1 UN CNliNhO 1 ^-_d" 1 O SO 1 rfSK\_^sO 1 f— *~* P — ~tnl
33 HH KN. H CM UN CM CM CM
UN I 1 1 1 1
1 1 III
O UNO OOO UNO UNO UN O O O UN UNO O O O O UNO O If
DO 1 _d-fUO p-OO 1 CM H UNt-CO 1 _d"ONCM NN i ONO O O 1 ONUNCO3CO_2
KN H KMT\sOC\J CM UNt—»O KN 0*03 CM CM ONOsO H CM -H; O SO _^s£
t- ^ (Afy f\jH_^- ( ONsOHK\UN ^ sOCMCr\H ( ^j.jj^ , I^'^"^"^N>'-*
1 1 III
1 1 III
i i os i i i o a • *
a l c IM l i i a) 43 • >t G H
*J> ET 0,OSWMH
O 1 *H 1 H 1 | 1
EH OS Jd F. 1
i h i o i i « i
» « tl 0 O ft > •
c& i £ t, v f > m u I h OS
•ilS-iO-HOSIriJiJ >t4l-H h«l IO
H >nps >-r4«a:b«> *o -H
oiHdos >*•§'-* a: > i 4>>*-it c i -^
j3 OS M *> 'd jias «H K>^HOS B o
at I « 0 C i y WPS i M £ K i H i
ClfB-WCKUJIg-H OOICHCHI § J 1 X
1
1
WN O
H 1 CO
1
1
1
so 1 O
KN 1 H
1
IH 1 O
O
H f
KN t
UN
O 1
H 1 O
&,
1
KN 1 SO
0 1 CM
1
O 1 O
IKN UN
UN 1 f-
CM 1 CC
<£-,
P-
UN 1
KN 1
H
1
fW
CM l
?!
*:
O UN
UN 1 C—
UN H
r-
i
Main Ohio River Total
Unclassified - Va.
5
o
H
ON
SO
t-
CM
sO
so
O
UN
H
UN
UN
*
CO
CO
CM
8
CM
a
KN
CO
CT>
t-
r-
CM
CM
UN
O
KN
H
O
UN
sO
H
KN
P-
S
H
S
ON
KN
O
CM
C
CO
0)
03
o
I
rH
cd
O
EH
KNCM cjs ON so o H H ON
1 1 UNK\J- J" 1 t 1 -H; UNKXH;_d-
O O t~CO O ONO OOO iTCOO P-
UNKNO H H CO ONCO t—
•ncoso t- r-co r-o
MN_H- \O --+H-J ON
V4 H 3- CM
8 ONO O O O O O O
ONO o o so_n/r-o
OCO UN _H; ON UNj-o O
KNCO so J-P-HKN
-J'O o CM o _d"O o o
CM rH UN NN UN COCO CO
p-*_H/O p-O OOO rOOD ON
H3-O -id; O KNt- KN
-H>00 CO 0 CO-^ CO
COCO P- t-sO ON
H CM CM H H
O O_H^O O ONO OOO KNO sO
O KN.O C^ O O O*» rc\
CO f\J P- O O H _H;
H KlH UN O UN CT>
KN CM CT\ H
O Oso UNO UNO OOO UNO fM
UNt-O KN O H t- O
K\t— O^ UN O UNf* UN
njco so CMCM p-
UN NN
OOO UNUN O UNUNO O O UNUNO
HON-H-KNP- KNOD if^O P- (M-J-^-H
CO.it-.a'H KS _4;KNC*«C\J UN sOsO HsO
rH CM KN CM H KN CM
g
0. 0 C £
a £ a» U
n r^'diH.iriti > "0 t,
« « -H aj Jrf BnhO -H « «H
^ t, »H *4 U [>»^ *> 0 C C +J
a)OH>dC tj •) > ti «H CC n
5
a
so
H
ON
so
1 f^
so
O
UN
UN
UN
SO
«
8
CM
I
CM
a
KN
CD
r-
p-
CM
S
H
O
3
H
KN
r-
s
rH
I
CM
3
0
SI
o?
4JH
O
•O C
« vH
-------
160H
EXPECTANCY CURVES FOR Fig -17
MINE SEALING PERFORMANCE
FROM RECORD OF 100 SEALED MINES
IN WEST VIRGINIA
JULY,I4-I94I
NOTE:
Information from Office
of Mine Sealing-U.S.P.H.S.
Methyl Red Acidity
[-20
Phenolphthalein
Acidity
,— M i n e
s>+.t Discharge
Phenolphthalein
Acid
h20
k40
h60
C
0)
Q.
I
a
a>
0>
*»—
<
3
CL
*-
3
O
c
o
"o
3
•o
tt>
o:
h80
100
1234
Elapsed Time After Sealing-Years
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
1942
-66-
-------
Table 8 Acid Mine Drainage - Cost of Works Progress Adminis-
tration Program of Mine Sealing to Date and Estimated
to Complete Restricted Mine Sealing Program, both
State-wide and for the Ohio River Basin.
State
State -Wide Expenditures
Total
to Date
(1)
Per Ton
Per Yr.
of Acid
Sealed
Estimated
to
Complete
Program
Ohio Basin Expenditures
Estimated
Total
to (1)
Date
Estimated
to
Complete
Program
By States
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Maryland
Ohio
Penn.
Tennessee
Virginia
V». Virginia
Total
$ 13,000
273,000
340,000
221,000
1,935,000
2,666,000
109,000
0
1,14.62,000
7,018,000
1 7-26
iUs
2.66
8.25
8.14.0
11.50
2. 46
3.00
5.80
••
$ 80,000
1,200,000
50,000
14.00,000
4, 000, 000
J420,000
150,000
200,000
6,500,000
(2)
1 270,000
314.0,000
10,000
1,914.0,000
1,14.90,000
110,000
0
1,210,000
5,370,000
$ 80,000
1,200,000
14.00,000
3,100,000
1420,000
150,000
160,000
5,510,000
By Basins
Minor Tributary Basins
Allegheny
Monongahela
Beaver
Muskingum and Hocking
Kanawha
Guyandot
Big Sandy
Scloto
Kentucky
Green
Wabash
Cumberland
Tennessee
Total
$ 650,000
510,000
1,820,000
60,000
1,450,000
70,000
14.0,000
70,000
100,000
60,000
80,000
214.0,000
200,000
20,000
5,370,000
$ 14.80,000
1,460,000
1,600,000
50,000
110,000
120,000
10,000
214.0,000
14.0,000
130,000
310,000
80,000
780,000
100,000
5,510,000
(1) Rounded. (2) Less than 5,000.
- 67 -
-------
Mine Acid Control Program
Present information indicates that correction, in large
measure, of the mine acid pollution problem is practical by
a comprehensive control program involving the following
measures:
(a) Provisions for the inspection and maintenance
of present air seals and a similar provision in connec-
tion with all future mine sealing programs.
(b) Completion of the present limited (194O
restrictions) mine sealing program.
(c) Provision of reservoir capacity, presumably
in primarily flood-control reservoirs, for flow regu-
lation for acid and organic pollution control.
(d) Inauguration of an aggressive program of
mine sealing with present restrictions modified.
(e) Adaptation of the better mining methods
to acid control.
(f) Extension of the established practice of
refraining from discharging acid waters to streams
previously uncontaminated.
(g) Clarification of the laws governing mine
drainage to facilitate the corrective program.
Upper Ohio Basin
For illustrative purposes and to indicate cost to benefit
relationships, special studies have been made in the upper Ohio
River Basin area or the area above the Ohio-West Virginia-
Pennsylvania State line. Estimates have been made of accom-
plishments, costs and benefits resulting from application of
the first three of these items, namely, mine sealing, mainte-
nance and flow regulation. Any study of reservoir development
should include consideration of organic pollution control and
the program studied considers both organic and acid pollution.
Damages - Damages capable of monetary evaluation caused
by acid mine drainage include neutralization and softening
costs to domestic and industrial water supplies and corrosion
of steamboats, barges, power plant condensers and river and
harbor structures. These damages in the area above the Ohio-
- 68 -
-------
West Virginia-Pennsylvania State line, totaling about
if 2, 000, 000 per year, are shown on Table 9. Equally im-
portant, but intangible or un evaluated, damages are to water
supply due to manganese, to recreation through the destruction
of normal aquatic life, to agricultural uses, to highway struc
tures, to the mines themselves, and indeterminate but serious
damages to the public health due to rapid fluctuations in
quality as reported by water plant operators. Mine acid is a
deterrent to organic pollution abatement as incentive for
abatement measures is lacking if the result is a stream suit-
able only for disposal of mine waters. Mine acid ia not a
safeguard to public water supplies as the rapid increase in
flow during a freshet may bring sufficient alkalinity to neu-
tralize the acidity and eliminate any germicidal effect there
may be.
Table 9 Acid Mine Drainage - Summary, as of 194O, of
Annual Damages, Capable of Accurate Estimation
and Caused by Acid Mine Drainage above the
Ohio-West Virginia-Pennsylvania State Line.
Total Annual
Damage s
Domestic Water Supplies ............ t 364-, 000
Industrial Water Supplies ........... 4-07,000
Steamboats and Barges ............ . 1,14-3,000
Power Plants ................. 76,000
River and Harbor Structures .......... 76,000
Floating Plant (U.S.E.D. ) ........... 5,000
Total - 1940 ................. 2,071,000
Future Estimate - 1950 Based on estimated 2,630,000
future quality but
Future Estimate - I960 no increase in use f3
Mine Sealing - Data on mine acid loads before and after
various stages or sealing, similar to that given on Table J,
for the upper Ohio River Basin are as follows:
Original mine acid load 1,375,000 Tons per year
Reduction, to date, by sealing 313 , OOP " " "
Present mine acid load 1,052,000 N " "
Possible further reduction by
sealing under 194O restrictions 379,000 " " M
Load after sealing under"
194-0 restrictions 683,000 » " *
- 69 -
-------
The completion of a mine sealing program in this
area tinder 1940 restrictions will cost an estimated $3,250,000,
Annual charges, including interest, amortization, inspection
and maintenance as already enumerated, are 15 percent or
$488,000 on this expenditure. Similar annual charges on ex-
isting mine seals of 15 percent of the approximately
^2,550,000 spent on mine sealing to date in this area are
$382,000 per year, making a total of $870,000 per year* As
shown on Figure 17, if these existing seals are not maintained,
the benefits already realized may easily be lost making it
necessary to repeat the expenditure*
Flow Regulation - The application of mine sealing under
1940 restrictions will greatly reduce the maximum monthly acid-
ity but there will still remain acid surges and months in which
conditions are unsatisfactory. The acid surges, particularly
during times of low flow, will be a hazard to aquatic life*
A further improvement during all but the highest flow months
and a measure of protection against acid surges hazardous to
aquatic life are possible by the application of flow regula-
tion from reservoir storage. The estimated reservoirs selected
for acid control are the largest that oan be used without
storing for periods greater than one year. Utilization of
increased capacity beyond this point would be infrequent and
the unit value would therefore be reduced. Reservoir capaci-
ties selected in the upper Ohio River Basin area under these
conditions are as follows:
Allegheny Basin 210,000 Acre-feet
Monongahala Basin 370.000 " "
Total 580,000 " "
Organic pollution in the upper main Ohio River can be
controlled satisfactorily by a partial treatment of sewage and
industrial wastes plus flow control adequate to eliminate those
low-flow periods when a higher degree of treatment would normally
be required, A second method of control would be to allow
natural flows to remain unchanged and install facilities for
providing the required higher degree of treatment*
In estimating the value of flow regulation for organic
pollution abatement, this value was considered as equal to the
difference in cost between partial treatment and the required
higher degree of treatment.
- 70 -
-------
The required flow has been estimated to be 8,000
c.f.s. during the warm summer months (25°Co or 77°F. average
monthly air temperature) and progressively lesser flows as
temperatures decrease. With this flow regulation, primary
treatment plus equivalent treatment of industrial wastes
would be adequate to maintain satisfactory stream conditions
for reasonable use other than domestic water supply immediately
below Pittsburgh.
The question arises as to the justification of
attempting to maintain such conditions during times of ab-
normally low flow such as occurred during 1930. Conditions
of 1930 have occurred but once in a period of record of over
30 years and have not been approached in any other year. If
1930 is included, storage required for flow regulation is
830,000 acre-feet while during all other years storage of
430,000 acre-feet would be adequate. It is concluded that
the cost of providing the higher storage capacity is greater
than warranted by control of pollution during a drought occurring
but once in 30 years. This does not mean that conditions would
not be improved during an extreme drought* A valuable partial
organic pollution control would be available during a year
such as 1930.
Storage required for organic pollution abatement is
430,000 acre-feet (except in 1930) while total storage selected
for acid control is 580,000 acre-feet. This last storage
figure of 580,000 acre-feet has been used in estimating
benefits.
Benefits and Costs
Benefits of the combined program due to acid control are
due to a reduction in the damages detailed on Table 9, Bene-
fits to organic pollution control are due to a reduction in
the cost of needed sewage and industrial waste treatment
Reduction in maximum monthly acidities equitably assigned
to the two items; mine sealing and flow regulation, of this
program are as follows:
- 71 -
-------
Acidity (1) - P.P.M.
Allegheny atMonongahela
Aspinwall abv.MoKeesport
Present monthly maximum 23 33
Reduction by sealing (2) 22 19
Reduction by reservoirs (2) 14 10
Resulting monthly maximum (3) 4
The estimated monetary benefits to acid and hardness re-
duction in the Allegheny, Monongahela and upper Ohio River
Basin due to the suggested mine sealing and flow regulation
programs total $1,133,000 per year. This estimate is believed
conservative as it is based on 1940 damages instead of greater
possible future damages and it does not include benefits to
unevaluated and intangible items. Deducting the cost of seal-
ing of $870,000 per year from these benefits leaves $263,000
per year that can be spent on reservoir construction for acid
and hardness reduction.
In correcting sewage and organic industrial waste pollu-
tion without flow regulation, a higher degree of treatment
(estimated as effective chemical treatment) would be required
to maintain equivalent stream conditions. Estimated addi-
tional annual costs of the selected chemical treatment over
primary treatment is $300,000 at Pittsburgh. Flow regulation
above Pittsburgh would increase the minimum flow at Cincinnati
and this increase would result in savings for similar reasons
of an additional $300,000,
While the flow regulation is designed primarily for acid
pollution control, minor adjustments in the operating schedule
make it possible for the flow regulation also to serve as a
valuable aid in organic pollution control* The two flow regu-,
lation objectives fit well together as acid discharges are at
a minimum during dry periods when augmented flow is required
for organic pollution control. An examination of flow and
acidity records indicates that acid control and organic pol-
lution abatement can both be accomplished with the exception
of one month (also excepting 1930) in ten years and this ac-
complishment has been taken as satisfactory.
(1) To Methyl Red on Allegheny and Methyl Orange on
Monongahela,
(2) Equitably assigned or average improvement if remedy applied
constructed first or second. As a rule, projects applied
first show increased benefits at expense of later projects,
(3) 13 p.p.m. minimum alkalinity,
- 72 -
-------
Annual benefits to flow regulation include $263,000 left
after deducting mine sealing costs from acid and hardness con-
trol benefits, plus $300,000 for organic pollution control at
Pittsburgh and $300,000 for organic pollution control bene-
fits at Cincinnati, making a total of $863,000 per year. For
a storage of 580,000 acre-feet, the annual benefits or the
amount that can be economically spent per acre-foot per year
is $1.49.
A summary of the cost and benefit relation is as follows:
Annual Benefits
and Costs
Benefits - Acid Control $ 1,133,000
Cost - Mine Sealing
To date and Future 870.000
Balance - Acid Control
for Reservoirs 263,000
Benefits - Organic Pollution Control
Pittsburgh 300,000
Cincinnati 500.000
Total available for reservoirs $863,000
Per Acre-Foot $1,49
Reservoir benefits are, in large measure, due to equaliz-
ing and surge reducing effects following mine sealing in order
to develop full benefits from the sealing program. The bal-
ance for reservoirs indicated is, therefore, available to the
extent shown only if and when the mine sealing program is as-
sured. Mine sealing, on the other hand, can be justified be-
yond reasonable doubt as a single independent remedial measure.
Studies conducted by the Corps of Engineers disclose that
storage capacity can be provided in the quantities required
for low-flow control in the Allegheny-Monongahela-Upper Ohio
River Basin. It is further indicated that the best develop-
ment of the water resources of the basin would provide low-flow
control as a function of multiple-purpose reservoir operation*
Under such circumstances, the average annual benefits which
could be reasonably assigned to such an improvement would be
in excess of the average annual cost.
- 73 -
-------
INTRODUCTION TO DRAINAGE BASIN SUMMARIES
The basic information of the Ohio River Pollution Survey
has been presented in summaries covering the main Ohio River,
minor tributary basins and the nineteen major tributary
basins. An effort has been made to have each summary complete
in itself. Certain explanations, applicable to each, have
been made in this section to avoid repetition.
In so far as possible, information for each basin is pre-
sented in as near identical form as possible, according to the
following general outline:
Syllabus and Conclusions
Description
Presentation of Field Data
Presentation of Laboratory Data
Hydrometric Data
Discussion
Accompanying the text are a number of tables, maps and
charts. With the exception of the division on the main Ohio
River, similarly numbered tables and figures cover similar
material in each basin summary.
In the tabulations of costs (Table 1) the annual charges
are based on interest rates of 3i% for municipal and 5f° for
industrial construction and periods for amortization of 40
years for interceptors, 20 years for municipal treatment plants
and 10 years or less for industrial corrective measures.
Studies of interest rates and life of treatment facilities have
indicated that these figures represent about the average experi-
ence of municipalities and industries. Cost estimates of in-
dividual projects are not shown except in a few cases where
they are based on engineering surveys. Since most of the es-
timates are not based on detailed studies of each situation
they may be considerably in error in individual instances.
Grouped for an entire basin, the probability of error is
greatly reduced and it is believed that the figures shown are
an accurate indication of the cost of the suggested pollution
abatement program. Costs of providing lateral sewers or for
the extension of sewers to areas now lacking them are not
included in the estimates.
The urgency of the individual projects for which cost es-
timates have been made is far from uniform. Some projects are
needed to correct critical pollution conditions while in other
- 74 -
-------
cases the need and justification for the expenditure is less
outstanding. The basin summaries place stress on the more
critical and larger sources of pollution where effects are
not confined to local areas. However, cost estimates pre-
sented apply not only to the urgent situations but to a complete
program of pollution control such as might take place during
the course of the next 10 to 20 years. In the special case
of a stream highly acid from the effects of mine drainage, ex-
penditure of public funds for acid reducing measures should
precede or at least parallel expenditures for sewage and or-
ganic pollution abatement.
Cost estimates are based on average experience from
1928 to 1940• Costs for 1942 would be considerably higher
and future costs will probably be subject to further change
depending upon fluctuation in construction costs for this
type of work.
Throughout the report quantities of organic industrial
wastes have been expressed as "sewered population equivalent
(B.O.D.)."* Extensive measurements have shown that the
average oxygen demand of domestic sewage is 0.168 pound
(5-day, 20°C.) per capita per day and this factor has been
used to convert industrial waste loads to a readily under-
standable basis. In the tabulations of sources of pollution
(Table J>) , the column "Sewered Population Equivalent (B.O.D.),
Untreated" represents the total of the population connected
to sewers plus the population equivalent of industrial wastes
discharged at each locality' The difference between this
column and the adjacent column "Sewered Population Equivalent
(B.O.D.), Discharged" represents the reduction in the pollu-
tion load due to treatment in a municipal treatment plant.
Where accurate laboratory results of treatment plant
operation were available, these were used to determine the
pollution load both before and after treatment. In the ab-
sence of such records reductions of 25f° by primary treatment
and 85% by secondary treatment were assumed.
No differentiation has been made in the tables, maps or
charts between industrial wastes which are discharged only
seasonally and those which are discharged throughout the year.
The pollution loading shown represents conditions during nor-
mal operations at the height of the season. In the case of
the canning industry, this may occur only during a few weeks
in the year but these few weeks are often during the late
* Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5-day, 20°C.)
- 75 -
-------
summer when the effects of organic pollution on the oxygen
balance of the stream are most serious. On the other hand,
the season for distillery operations in most cases is dur-
ing the winter months when the effects of oxygen-depleting
pollution are less serious.
Nowhere in the report has a quantitative statement been
made as to the reduction in the industrial waste pollution load
due to treatment, recovery, or other measures at the indus-
trial plant. Such a statement v.ould necessitate a definition
of the strength of untreated industrial wastes from each type
of industry. This is impracticable since the strength of the
wastes depends to a large degree on plant practices which vary
widely. For instance, in some meat packing plants all blood,
paunch manure and offal are recovered and in others these
materials are discharged to the plant sewers. "Pastes dis-
charged from vegetable canneries have been found to vary by as
much as 4.00*;, due to differences in "housekeeping" methods.
v.'astes from paper mills vary depending on the use of save-alls,
recirculating systems and other pollution reduction measures.
At some plants reduction in pollution is inadvertent and is
brought about by the recovery of valuable by-products or pre-
vention of waste of raw materials. At others expense is in-
curred which produces nothing but a reduction in pollution dis-
charges. Tabulations of industrial wastes (Table 4) shows the
number of plants that have taken steps of either kind which result
in some reduction in the pollution load from the plant.
- 76 -
-------
MAIN OHIO RIVER
Final Report to the Ohio River Committee
Ohio River Pollution Survey
U. S. Public Health Service
Cincinnati, Ohio
1942
-------
MAIN OHIO RIVER
Contents
Page
Contents 77
Syllabus and Conclusions 81
Description 85
Presentation of Field Data ..... 87
Presentation of Laboratory Data 92
Hydroraetric Data 114
Discussion 115
List of Tables
Oh-1 Cost Estimates of Remedial Measures 84
Oh-2 Surface Water Supplies 89
Oh-3 Sources of Pollution 90
Ch-4 Industrial 'Wastes 91
Oh-5 Laboratory Results - Seasonal Averages 94
Oh-5a Laboratory Results - Number and Percentage of
Samples within Various Duality Ranges 95
Oh-5b Laboratory Results - Average Phenol Results .... 96
Oh-6 Monthly Mean Summer Flows 114
Oh-7 Summary of Laboratory Results 126
Oh-7a Summary of Laboratory Results on Acid Streams . . . 143
List of Figures
Oh-1 Map - Sources of Pollution (Pittsburgh to Huntington) 78
Oh-2 Map - Sources of Pollution (Huntington to Louisville) 79
Oh-2 Map - Sources of Pollution (Louisville to Mouth). . 80
Oh-4 Chart - Sources of Pollution and Selected Laboratory
Data (Pittsburgh to Huntington) (Facing) 90
Oh-5 Chart - Sources of Pollution and Selected Laboratory
Data (Huntington to Louisville) (Facing) 90
Oh-6 Chart - Sources of Pollution and Selected Laboratory
Data (Louisville to Mouth) (Facing) 90
Oh-7 Chart - Laboratory Results - Seasonal Averages
and Distribution of Results (Facing) 92
Oh-8 Map - Coliform Results (Pittsburgh to Huntington) . 98
Oh-9 Map - Dissolved Oxygen Results
(Pittsburgh to Huntington) 99
Oh-10 Map - B.O.D. Results (Pittsburgh to Huntington) . . 100
Oh-11 Chart - Laboratory Results at Selected Stations
above HuntJngton (Facing) 100
Oh-12 Map - Coliform Results (Huntington to Louisville) . 105
Oh-13 Map - Dissolved Oxygen Results
(Huntington to Louisville) 106
Ch-14 Map - B.C.D. Results (Huntington to Louisville) . . 107
Oh-15 Chart - laboratory Results at Selected Stations
belcw Huntington (Facing) 108
Oh-16 Map - Coliform Results (Louisville to Mouth). . . . Ill
Oh-17 Map - Dissolved Oxygen Results (Louisville to Mouth) 112
Oh-18 Map - E.C.D. Results (Louisville to Mouth) 113
Oh-19 Chart - Coliform Results at Cincinnati Water
Works (1926-41) (Facing) 116
- 77 -
-------
Fiq.Oh-l
-78-
-------
Fig.Qh-2
-79-
-------
-80-
-------
MAIN OHIO RIVER
Syllabus and Conclusions
Syllabus
The Ohio River is one of the most intensively used large
streams in the United States, supplying water for municipal
and industrial use, furnishing a method of sewage and industrial
waste disposal, providing transportation facilities and provid-
ing many sources of recreation. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and
Louisville, the largest urban centers on the river, contribute
the largest amounts of pollution and there are more than 100
smaller places discharging untreated sewage and wastes. Munici-
pal sewage, acid mine drainage and industrial wastes, such as
phenols, which impart objectionable tastes and odors to drinking
water are the principal polluting substances.
The interstate character of the Ohio River is in part re-
sponsible for the lack of progress made to date in controlling
the pollution of the stream. The Ohio River Valley Water Sani-
tation Compact, which has been approved by the Congress and
ratified by four of the State Legislatures, pledges the states
to joint action for pollution abatement and provides for an
interstate administrative agency. This compact should be ratified
by the remaining state necessary to make it operative,,
- 81 -
-------
This report presents a summary of the information collected
and outlines a program of sewage and industrial waste treatment
for the main Ohio River. Such a program, coupled with a basin-
wide program of mine sealing, low-flow augmentation and similar
programs of waste treatment on certain tributary streams would
provide an economical and effective method of reducing the
pollution of the Ohio River,
Conclusions
(1) Thirty public water supplies serving 1,663,000
people are taken from the Ohio River proper0
(2) Sewage from about 2,700,000 people and indus-
trial wastes equivalent in oxygen demand to sewage from
an additional 2,850,000 people enter the Ohio River and
the lower stretches of tributary streams. Only about
one per cent of the sewage is treated prior to discharge.
(3) Laboratory surveys made during 1939-41 showed
notable oxygen sags below Cincinnati and Pittsburgh and
heavy bacterial pollution below these points and many
other cities and at a number of waterworks intakes. The
main stream was found to be acid as far downstream as
Marietta, Ohio, during a part of the sampling period*
It is known to have been acid further downstream on other
occasions. In general, the tributaries are in as good
or better sanitary condition at their mouths than the
main stream and the effect of tributary inflow is not
particularly noticeable,
(4) The major pollution control measures needed on
the main river are: (a) reduction of bacterial pollution,
particularly at water supply intakes; (b) reduction and
prevention of the further spread downstream of acidity;
(c) prevention of taste and odor troubles in public water
supplies; and (d) correction of objectionable nuisance
conditions due to oxygen depletion, discoloration of the
stream, floating sewage and other solids and scum*
-------
(5) Efficient primary treatment of sewage plus
continuous chlorination should effectively reduce
bacterial pollution* Primary treatment of sewage and
organic industrial wastes should correct nuisance
conditions in the stream, except below Cincinnati and
Pittsburgh, when very low flows and high water temperatures
prevail. Supplementary measures of low-flow augmentation
or chemical treatment would correct these conditions,
(6) Prevention of taste and odor troubles will
require special industrial waste treatment at by-product
coke plants, at some chemical plants and at other estab-
lishments with similar types of wastes.
(7) Reduction in acidity can be most effectively
and economically achieved by a basin-wide program of
mine sealing combined with a program of low-flow augmen-
tation*. Neutralization of waste industrial acids would
aid in reducing acidity.
(8) The following estimates of cost of existing
works and of a suggested program of sewage and industrial
waste treatment is summarized from Table Oh-1. The bulk
of the cost for new work is at Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and
Louisville.
Treatment Capital Cost Annual Charges
Existing $1,080,000 $95,000
Suggested additional 71,030,000 6,710,000
The estimated additional cost over existing charges of a
program involving secondary treatment at all sources of
pollution on the Ohio River is:
Primary, all places $71,030,000 $6,710,000
Secondary, all places 86,620,000 8,700,000
* See section of report on Acid Mine Drainage.
- 83 -
-------
01
»
£ S rH
OS "d oS
d -d
bOM d
a o
•H-d O
43 fi CD
<» oS CO
W 'V_»
bOd
as 3
CO rH
•d co
d CD
4J
•H a] 01
43 ®43
01 S en
W O
4) O
I >
•H CD
rH 43 >
V O «H
>
ft =8
0
•%} 43
01
• 03
43 JH
rH CO
i c
H M
< H
> ^-*
S «
H (D (H
oS H «S
•P4-
> H
•H OS rH
ft 03 O
CO > P
oa -^
M
«
o«d
TH «)
P 43
OS O
H ®
S C
ft 2
O 0
PnO
<*H
O
ca
0 rH
43 a>
»
CD
W
*
O
CO CD
rH -P 00
0 fi *
•9 «* s
S i-t «r4
3 OH rH
S5
P4
O
O
o
•^
LTN
O\
O
O
0
•t
0
fC\
0
o
o
•k
IT*
vo
S
o
•i
o
CO
o
*
H
O
o
ir>
«
CM
CM
^O
H
_d-
-P
C
a>
S
43
at
03
h
EH
«3
bO
aS
0
CO
bD
C
•H
43
ca
LTN I ir\
sO O
C^- t-
•t
rH
OO 0
OO O
OO 0
•» •» «
OO O
-^J-CN H
OSCO _H;
^ •%
rHrH
OO 0
OO O
o o o
•V «V «t
OO O
SO LT\ CM
ITNfCN H
« «\ «
O-O KN
fM_d-
o
o
o
«k
o
rH
C—
\o
o
o
o
•k
C
t<-
-3r
•h
CM
O
O
o
«k
o
i$
"^
-=t
o
o
o
«t
o
K>
o
*
rH
C—
ICi
•k
00 1
rH
O
%
CM
o
i
rH '"
rH
H
d
o a
«rl 43 H
43 d o) as
0 OS rH -H
a? H o h
rH CM 43 43
rH ft CO a
O P « P O
o a o -d «H
E 0) d -P rH
•H CP H C rH
C rH CD O
ri En-d -d o
s oj c
«3
•d bOiH ft43 H
Q> Cd p (D CO 0)
43 » cr-d as 43
ra o CD d 3: O
0)eOffJH EH
bC
bC
p
CO
OOO
ooo
ooo
•^ •% ^
ooo
rH O rH
C— C— (V
sOCOso
OOO
OOO
ooo
•k * *
O lf\O
o-vo r-
-J-NX^-
•K « M
CM ^<^CM
ooo
ooo
ooo
•* *l «k
O LfNO
_d-K\_±
CM KVM
-^trx^
ooo
000
ooo
•V •> "V
ooo
KNCM fA
OsO O
•>•»•»
HvO rH
c*~co o-
(D
43
CC 01
43 oS
ro&
cS
5=rH
H
rH <4
rH
^
jj En CD
fn 43
4) EH r*>«
> rH 0)
•H >» 3 bO
43 L-d bO
OS CO d P
rH S O CO
OS -H O
ft fl 0) 01
S CcO> rH
ca d -P
CD CD
fnXj CD
•P bQ.Q
a)
T* rH >>
aJ
CQ
O ^
43 O
H.S
(D O
CD
O CD rH
fn.d 3
CD -P O
S«*
•H d CO
O CD
o
® 3-g
.c co ?
+3
CO Jrf
CD 43 CD
•a -H oj
o
CO
rH
Jd CD
o
C!
CD
> M -p«
O 3 M
^3 J3 CO O
CC5 CO J3 «H
+J O X!
fl-P O
gnHT3
OPM d O
Jd a) fi
0) > CD d
01 +3 > O
O -H -H t-H
o o W at
EH
O
K
- 84 -
-------
Description
The Ohio River is formed by the junction of the Allegheny
and Monongahela Rivers at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and. flows
in a generally southwesterly direction for 981 miles to its
confluence with the Mississippi River, It forms the boundary
between five states; Ohio, Indiana and Illinois on the north
and West Virginia and Kentucky on the south,, The 203,900
square miles drained by the Ohio River and its tributaries
comprise roughly one-fifteenth of the area of the United States
and include parts of fourteen states. Most of this area is
drained by the 19 major tributaries which are discussed
separately. About £3,780 square miles of the watershed drain
directly into the Ohio River or through minor tributaries.
This section of the report is concerned only with the cities
and towns on the Ohio River proper or in metropolitan areas
which touch the river*
The three largest cities on the Ohio River are Pittsburgh,
Cincinnati and Louisville. There are 86 incorporated munici-
palities of more than 2,500 population on the Ohio River and
131 additional smaller incorporated towns. The population of
some of the larger cities and of the entire area is shown below.
Population
Principal Cities
19501940
669,817 671,659
451,160 455,610
307,745 319,077
102,S49 97,062
75,572 78,836
65,252 62,018
61,659 61,099
Urban 1,839,366 2,133,585 2,540,749 2,570,592
Rural* 120,993 118.004 115.251 127.217
Total 1,960,359 2,251,587 2,656,000 2,697,809
Most of the Ohio River cities are relatively old and their
rate of growth during this century has been less rapid than
that of other cities in the basin.
* Includes only incorporated communities of less than 2,500
population on the Ohio River or in metropolitan areas along
the stream*
- 85 -
-------
Steel production is the outstanding single industry in
the Ohio Valley and is predominant in the section above
Wheeling. Most of the Ohio River cities below the steel area
are more important from the standpoint of commerce and trans-
portation rather than as industrial centers*
Water Uses - Forty-six locks and dams provide slack-water
navigation ror boats at nine foot draft for the entire length
or the river. A number of additional locks and dams have been
replaced by fewer structures of higher lift* In 1940 almost
30,000,000 tons of freight, the bulk of which was coal, were
moved by river,
The only hydroelectric development on the Ohio River
is at Dam #41 at Louisville, Relatively small amounts of power
might be generated at some or the navigation dams*
The floods of 1956 and 1937 focused national atten-
tion on the need for flood protection along the Ohio River,
Studies by the U, S. Engineer Department have indicated the
value of reservoirs on tributaries in reducing flood damages
along the main stream. Tributary reservoirs are discussed in
the basin summaries of this report. A number of possible sites
for high dams on the Ohio River have been studied but none
have been constructed nor authorized by the Congress,
In spite of many drawbacks the Ohio River is used
extensively for recreation. There are numerous boat and yacht
clubs and a number of bathing beaches are well patronized*
There is considerable sport fishing in some sections of the
main stream but much more on minor tributaries. Commercial
fishing is practically limited to the lower half of the main
stream and is not of great importance*
- 86 -
-------
Presentation of Field Data
Figures Oh-1, Oh-8 and Oh-3 show the location and magni-
tude of the more important sources of pollution along the upper,
middle and lower thirds of the main Ohio River respectively,.
Figures Oh-4, Oh-5 and Oh-6 show similar data and, in addition,
the location of water supply intakes and selected laboratory
data on coliform organisms, dissolved oxygen and B.O.D.
Public Water Supplies - Thirty public water supplies serv-
ing 1,663,000 people are taken from the Ohio River, The three
largest supplies {Cincinnati, Louisville and Svansville) serve
a total of more than one million people. Table Oh-?, shows data
on the Ohio River supplies and on three other surface supplies
developed by Ohio River communities from unpolluted sources*
The heavy pollution at many of the water intakes necessitates
very careful and complete treatment of the water. The supplies
subject to the heaviest pollution are those in the upper 100
miles of the river, and those at Ashland, Ironton, Portsmouth,
Aurora, New Albany and Henderson, The Cincinnati, Covington
and Newport supplies, which are taken from the river within one
mile of each other, and the Louisville supply are somewhat less
seriously polluted. Several million dollars have been spent in
recent years to improve water treatment plants because of heavy
bacterial loadings and taste and odor difficulties*
Sewerage - Table Oh-3 shows the sewered population and the
total waste load at communities on the main Ohio River* Table
Oh-3 and Figures Oh-1 to Oh-6 show the size and distribution of
these sources of pollution. Sewage from more than two million
people is discharged at these places, only about one percent of
which is treated. In addition, sewage from about 640,000 people
enters the lower Allegheny and Monongahela in the Pittsburgh
area Just above the source of the Ohio River, and sewage from
about 76,000 people enters the Little Miami River near its
mouth, at Cincinnati* The concentrations of population and
pollution in the upper 100 miles from Pittsburgh to below Wheeling;
in the area from Huntington to Portsmouth; around Cincinnati;
Louisville, and Evansville, are notable.
Industrial Wastes - The oxygen demand of industrial wastes
entering the Ohio River is equivalent to that of sewage of about
2,400,000 people. Industrial wastes with an additional popula-
tion equivalent of about 415,000 enter the lower Allegheny and
- 87 -
-------
Monongahela at Pittsburgh, and the Little Miami at Cincinnati
receives industrial wastes with a population equivalent of
about 50,0000 Table Oh-4 summarizes the industrial waste load
by type of industry and method of disposal with the exception
of the industries at Cincinnati which were not surveyed indi-
vidually. Distilleries, by-product coke plants, meat process-
ing plants and breweries are the largest sources of organic
industrial wastes outside of Cincinnati. At Cincinnati, soap,
fertilizer, glue, paper, and meat plants, tanneries, and brew-
eries are the principal sources of industrial wastes,
More than eighty percent of the organic industrial
waste load is discharged from the Cincinnati area and downstream,
the largest concentrations being at Cincinnati and Louisville
(see Table Oh-3)0 The largest sources of organic industrial
wastes along the Ohio above Cincinnati are the by-product coke
plants associated with blast furnaces in the steel producing
area. All of these plants are located above the Scioto River.
The principal industry along the upper river is sveel
production and, although large amounts of water are used in the
steel mills, deleterious wastes are practically limited to
spent acids used in pickling. A total of about 120,000 pounds
of acid per day are discharged from the 62 steel plants along
the river and almost all of this enters the upper 100 miles of
the stream which is acid for a considerable part of the time,
principally because of mine drainage*
- 88 -
-------
Table Oh-2 Main Ohio River - Surface Water Supplies
Supply
State
Source
Mile
(1)
Treat-
ment
(2)
Popu-
lation
Served
Cons.
M.G.D.
Supplies Below Community Sewer Outfalls
Cairo
Paducah
Golconda
Rosiclare
Morganfield (3)
TTnTontown
Mt.Vernon
Henderson
Evansville
New Albany
Louisville
Aurora
Newport
Covlngton
Cincinnati
Maysville
Portsmouth
Ironton
Ashland
Huntingdon
Pomeroy
Sistersvllle
Bellaire
Wheeling
Steubenville
Weirton
Toronto
East Liverpool
Midland
Dixmont Hosp.
111.
Ky.
111.
it
Ky.
Ind.
Ky.
Ind.
tt
Ky.
Ind.
K*-
Ohio
Ky.
Ohio
tt
Ky.
W.Va.
Ohio
W.Va.
Ohio
W.Va.
Ohio
W.Va.
Ohio
tt
Pa.
tt
Ohio River
tt tt
it tt
tt it
ti ti
ti n
n it
ti tt
it tt
It !1
n tt
n ti
it n
n n
n n
it ti
tt it
n n
n n
n it
n tt
it it
n it
n it
n it
tt tt
n ii
tt it
it it
,^5
l£.9
78.5
90.0
1?1'°
Titf.7
151.9
178.0
1694
?72.£
380.5
W-.3
517.3
518.1
£L8.2
572.6
630.1
653.8
661.1
676.8
732.7
$£.7
867.0
89^.2
W-7
918.5
921.9
914.0.8
945.1
973.14-
PD
PD
PD
PD
PD
FD
PD
PD
PD
PD
PD
PD
PD
PD
LD
PD
PD
PD
PD
PD
FD
PD
PD
PD
PD
PD
LD
PD
PD
PD
12,000
33,800
600
1,800
3,000
5ou
5,600
i4,ooo
105,000
2^,000
350,000
1,200
56 , 500
96,800
£60,000
8,000
55,ooo
18,000
k5,ooo
82,000
6,000
2,800
13,800
70,000
32,6oo
llj.,000
7,14.00
23,000
6,300
1,500
2.50
2.75
0.03
0.08
0.17
~ o.ol~
0.75
3.50
11.10
2.00
14.3.70
0.27
14-.00
7.50
61.30
0.33
3.60
1.00
l.8l
6.00
O.kO
0.65
3.10
5.00
3.14-6
1.00
0.30
3.50
0.40
0.67
Other Surface Supplies
Brooksville
New Cumberland
Wellsville
Ky.
W.Va.
Ohio
Impounded
Spr.-Well-
Impo'unded
Impounded
PD
D
PD
Total - Below Sewer Outfalls
Other
Total - Surface Water Supplies
500
2,000
7,700
1,663,000
10,200
1,673,200
0.02
0.06
1.15
170.88
1.23
172.11
(1) Location of Intake in miles above mouth of Ohio River.
(2) P - Coagulated, settled, filtered. L - Lime-soda softened.
D - Chlorinated.
(3) Community on minor tributary of Ohio River but water supply
from main stream. - 89 -
-------
Table Oh-3 Main Ohio River - Sources of Pollution Including Industrial Wastes
Expressed as Sewered Population Equivalent (B.O.D.) (1)
Municipality
Cairo
Metropolis
Paducah
Mt. Vernon
Henderson
Evansville
Owenaboro
Tell City
New Albany-Silver Hills
Louisville & Suburbs
Jeffersonvllle-Clarksvllle
Madison
Lawrenceburg
Cincinnati & Suburbs (2)
Covlngton & Suburbs
Newport & Suburbs
Maysvllle
Portsmouth-New Boston
Ironton
Ashland
Catlettsburg
Ceredo-Kenova
Huntlngton
Oalllpolls
Pomeroy-Middleport
Parkersburg
Marietta
Mounds vllle
Bellalre
Wheeling & Suburbs
Bridgeport -Brooks Ida
Martins perry
Wells burg
Mingo Junction
Follanabee
Steubenvllle
Welrton i Suburbs
Toronto
Wells vllle
East Liverpool
Midland
Beaver
Rochester
Monaca
Freedom
Allquippa
Ambridge
Sewlckley
Coraopolls
Hevllle Twp.
Emaworth-Ben Avon
Bellevue-Avalon
Pittsburgh & Suburbs (6X4)
65 Smaller Sources
State
111.
tt
Ky.
Ind.
Ky.
Ind.
Ky.
Ind.
it
Ky.
Ind.
«
n
Ohio
Ky.
ni
it
Ohio
II
Ky.
n
W.Va.
HI
Ohio
n
W.Va.
Ohio
W.Va.
Ohio
W.Va.
Ohio
n
W.Va.
Ohio
W.Va.
Ohio
W.Va.
Ohio
n
K
Pa.
n
n
n
n:
fi-
•
n
n
n
n
n
it
River Miles
Xtove
Mouth
8
%
189
222
254
372
377
378
£25
488
507
510
511
572
625
653
658
663
666
672
711
729
796
809
890
891
892
906
910
910
913
919
921
933
937
910,
954
956
956
957
961
965
969
971
973
97i
980
Below
P'gh.
k
8o4
792
759
727
609
604
603
558
495
474
471
k?o
409
356
328
323
318
315
309
270
252
185
172
102
95
91
1°
89
75
71
71
68
62
60
48
44
37
27
25
2
20
16
12
l°B
6
I
Total - Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Ohio
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Total Entire Stream
Population
Connected
to Sewers
12,000
4,200
29,000
[(.,200
11,000
103,300
25,600
2-500
18,300
304,300
12,500
7,100
2,500
512,000
77,800
60,800
6,000
45,500
12,500
21,000
3. too
5,100
75,000
5,000
6,000
36,000
13,000
16,000
13,500
67,300
5,600
4.700
5,500
5,100
4,800
32,000
16,700
7,000
7.6oo
21,000
6,300
5,600
10,000
8,000
3,200
27,000
25,000
5,600
10,200
1,500
5,200
16,800
261,700
72,700
18,500
157, Coo
545,700
719,200
397,300
254,100
2,092,200
Treatment
None
n
n
n
n
Secondary(3)
None
Secondary
None
Secondary(3)
n n
None
Primary (3)
None
Secondary! 3)
None
HI
tt
n
n
ft
n
ti
it
n
N
ti
n
n
tfi
ti
fi
H
It
n
rt
ti
ft
n
ni
n
n
n
n
M
It
ti
tt
(5)
Severed Population
Equivalent (B.O.D.)
Untreated
12,000
4,200
39,600
6,000
lU.ooo
192,300
64,4oo
4,700
14.0,600
906,900
14,100
18,900
74,poo
1,569,400
145,900
69,400
13,000
60,000
32,500
46,ioo
8,400
5,ioo
1$g
6,000
82,000
13,000
16,000
13,500
90,100
5.600
14,700
6,4oo
5,100
36,800
44,000
36,500
13,700
7,600
23,600
34,500
5,600
10,000
8,000
4,900
120,000
25,000
5 600
10,800
21^,400
5,200
16,800
278,600
78,100
18,700
357,000
1,516,300
1,833,700
560,400
398,100
4,484,200
Discharged
12,000
4,200
39,600
6,000
14,000
191,200
64,4oo
, 4,700
4o,6oo
906,900
14,100
18,900
71,900
1,569,400
141,600
67,800
13,000
59,100
32,500
43,100
8,400
5,100
95,800
5,000
6,000
82,000
13,000
16,000
13,500
90,100
5,600
4,700
6,4oo
5,100
36,800
MI, 000
36,500
13,700
7,600
23,600
34,300
5,600
10,000
8,000
4,900
120,000
25,000
5,600
10,800
24,400
5,200
16,800
278,600
75,300
18,14.00
353,500
1,307,000
1,832,200
559,200
398,100
4,468,400
(1) Includes communities on Ohio River and other adjacent communities which probably will
discharge waste directly to the river when sewage treatment facilities are provided.
(2) Exclusive of wastes now entering Little tllaml River.
(3) Small portion of sewage treated.
(4) Exclusive of wastes now entering Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers.
(5) Secondary treatment at 3 places, primary at 3, none at others.
(6) Pollution loads from Pittsburgh and Suburbs are distributed to Allegheny and
Monongahela Basins and Main Ohio River as follows:
Pittsburgh
and
Suburbs
Total
Allegheny R.
Monongahela R.
Ohio River
Pa.
HI
n
0-8
0-10
o-4
320,500
319,500
261,700
901,700
None
H
tt
-
597,200
458,500
278,600
1,334,300
597,200
458,500
278,600
1,334,300
- 90 -
-------
CO
Q
K Z
O <
Is
»- I
< h-
a. --
to >
3
O
111
100
80
60
40
20
Proctorvitl*
670 680
311 SOI
10
9
e
* 7
O.
a 6-
S»
o>
^ 4
>»
K
o3'
2
1
0
10.000
i
w
I.OOO S.
-7
Z
200 *
100 £
50 7
E
.,o 3
o
O
1
n*ville,0.
Ffrl< Amittrdom.O.
Soltm.O
P ENNA
».
•
£
^
•«
c
o
X
a
O
U
6.00
M.S.D.
i
«T «
s
5
4
:
<
'•'
^
\
\
\
AH
****&.i*
— fLlii.'
— *^i
unction of
Alltghtnyond
Mononflohtlo Rivtrt
(O
O
Note Pittiburgh pollution load
dott not includt «o>ttl
ditchorgtd to Allff h«ny
and Mononganilo Rivtr«.
100 g
Z O
40
to _
3
O
111
II PENNA
21
a Rotinton Ran
>, 4
O 3
2.
I-
0.
IOOOO
200
100
50
10
e
w
O
O
O
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVE
U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
1941
OHIO RIVER
PITTSBURGH TO HUNTINGTON
SOURCES OF POLLUTION
SELECTED LABORATORY DATA
-------
>
100
80
60
40
20
5 o
0
u
12
1 1 •
10
9
E
d «
a
c
• 6
9
>% 1
^* 3
K
0 4
3
2
1.
IV/V.WV
10.000-
«
Q.
i nnA **
1
3
6
k^
I.UUU • o
°:\
z i
200 "^
100 t>
o
50 =
o
0
10
O^i
\
1
X.
I
43.1
M.S.D.
10 4
)l SI
p^Oi t.
./^^ii*
* ^^"^
\ *<•"'
\ o»X
\^ ' B n H
y>*~— °-°.
/T^ — —
9
>0
;l
W
4*
^
* ^
o a
« 1
(1 •
» t
o
0.
a 1 _
\ = S
3 * «-
jo e
5 §
> *5 —
i ex40 m
; |S5 |
t op i
= »"s 1 «
j • A£ K
; *fs M';°J
BM °- T|
8 Ban EC c
Id jfl . ,? i
No. 31 No. JO £ o • i
? S5
0 £«
i
£
i i
1 ]
«
»
»
I
)
!
»
5
51
ll
11-
i/t
(to
t
£
i-
6?° 640 66ol
H ,1 0 R
3
S
July-A
^^0 (
a
jr~
' /
0
J
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
1941
i
•1 3
BURG
j»-
i
V E R
41 3
H
/'
y
• — _.
in
t»
«
21 j
,'j
*!
1
Fig.Oh-5
(0
o
z
<
.
TM\
°" i
S»c2 •
*«|3
"2 1
£5
11
° 9 M
U v- e X
£iiiB8Ri
c
o
o»
c
a
X
o
>
*
^
A
'\
\
\
i
v
\
^_ \
OHIO
HUNTINGTON TO
R 1 V
LOU
M
^ No.27
-100 K 0)
°0
"I;
< z
60 -1 •
_ O
3 "
0. o
o •
40 0. ffl
0 H
UJ Z
20 K <
U -1
> U
Ul >
o «-
o
e.ol
M.fl.D.
W. VA.
k
^
o680
*
c
a
X
a
-------
Morengo
Fig.Oh-6
en
o
z
K <
O (0
£9
Q. O
O *^ Sinking C r
UJ <
O
UJ
Whiskey Ran
Salem
Corydon
Blue R i v e r
Central
Barren
Indian Cr.
300
320
~7
NO 43
340
360
Sil rer Cr.
Beorgrass Cr.
380
400
581
O
Z
- 100
80
-60
O ^
I- -
o. o
o •
40 0. *
20
UJ Z
UJ -I
J UJ
u, >
o
Ul
r 100.000
12-
II-
10110.000 "c
9-
• 8-
- 1.000
L 7-
•
'5-
i
4-
3
2
I
0
200 —
100 "
50 Z
o
O
OHIO fi
U.S. f
OHIO RIVER
LOUISVILLE TO MOUTH
SOURCES OF POLLUTION
AND
SELECTED LABORATORY DATA
-------
-Table Oh-lj. Main Ohio River - Summary of Industrial
Wastes Discharged to the Stream.
Industry
Canning
Meat
Milk
Brewing
Distilling
Tanning
Textile
Paper
Chemical
Oil Refining
By-product coke
Steel
Miscellaneous
Subtotal
Number
of
Plants
Hi-
I
3
10
6
10
12
8
62
59
31^
Industrial waste
Disposal
Munlc.
Sewers
10
ft
S
2
8
2
k
2
1
3
28
157
Private
Outlets
1;
20
3
10
1
2
k
6
10
7
59
31
157
At Least
Minor
Corrective
Measures
Taken
2
32
2
13
11
.
3
7
11
7
15
19
125
Industrial Wastes to Cincinnati Sewers (1)
Total Industrial Waste Load - Ohio River
.Estimated
Sewered
Population
Equivalent
(B.O.D.)
i|2,500
118,200
16,900
103,200
588,700
21,600
iiltjltOO
19,900
67,300
U6,ioo
23^,000
.
31,800
1.33^600
1,057,14.00
2,392,000
(1) Industries not surveyed individually. Population
equivalent based on comprehensive sewer gaging
and sampling program of city.
- 91 -
-------
Presentation of Laboratory Data
Laboratory data on the main Ohio River are summarized in
tables as follows:
Table Oh-5 Seasonal Average Results
Table Oh-5A Frequency in Designated Ranges
Table Oh-5B Average Phenol Results
Table Oh-7 Monthly Average Results
Table Oh-7A Aoid Stream Results
Stream samples were collected from February, 1939, to March,
1941, and examined at the Cincinnati laboratory, the laboratory
boat Kiski, and mobile laboratory units. The following schedule
shows the periods during which samples were collected on the
various stream sections and the laboratories at which the samples
were examined:
Pittsburgh to Dam 13 - Oct,-Dec,, 1940 (K);
May,1940,-March.1941 (M)
Dam 14 - Dam 23 - May-Sept.,1940 (K);
Jan.-March,1941(K)
Pt.Pleasant - Dam 32 - June,1939,-April,1940 (K);
April,1940 (M)
Dam 33 - Dam 39 - Feb.,1939-April,1940 (C)
Dam 39 - Mouth - June,1940,-March,1941 (M)
Pittsburgh to Huntington
The Ohio River was at low or moderate stages during the
entire period from May, 1940, to March, 1941, Consequently good
high water observations are not available for the section above
the mouth of the Kanawha River at Point Pleasant.
Figures Oh-8, Oh-9 and Oh-10 show the most unfavorable
monthly average coliform, dissolved oxygen and B.O.D. results
respectively, as found by this survey0
Figure Oh-7 shows group distribution and seasonal averages
of coliform, oxygen demand and dissolved oxygen results at each
of the Ohio River stations from Pittsburgh to the mouth for the
entire period of the survey. Table Oh-5 shows seasonal averages
of laboratory results at these same stations. In Figure Oh-11
variations in coliform, dissolved oxygen and oxygen demand re-
sults during the sampling period are shown for four sampling sta-
tions between Pittsburgh and Huntington. The generally high dis-
solved oxygen and low oxygen demands in the river as well as the
more sensitive changes in the coliform content throughout the
survey period are shown by these charts. A marked dissolved oxy-
gen depression is noted at Emsworth Dam in October.
- 92 -
-------
Fia. Oh -7
J § 8Q
||f «><
> v 4Q •
|I M 1
*5 1 . , 1 .
Sewered Population
Or EquivalenKB.O.D.)
per mil*.
8' 8 8' f 8 a' |i gi $ s1 S1
f-cooobwcoSoi 0t v* 01
• 0
O» O
1 I
O o.
•- 1
s
I^tB)
Vinte
Lo
.Wo
e •
t
/
&> . s
200 -o • * 0
" o" " ?
" i' o ^
50 "• 5 «
I1,1 ill i-ii IP i
OUT > (/> h- O Hft. O
ji -6
"•1
C 1,
«
coo
5"
(A)
Summer Low Water
J u ly-A ug.-Sept-!939-4O
'Flow
Z
a:
a.
I- p. 1.8'
-1 I
OT
UJ
* Cohf
X
0
•-•*
Com
C)
cms
S-
i
it
s
/
0
.
I
IS
•"
./
Prewoi
\
ng Di
X
Diss
.— —
;
rir
S
ol
V
1
g thi
1- *
Obs
. I.
<
ved
r-v.
s
*•*•
ervot
— -1
^X
ept.1940
Hgen
1-
— ..
on Period
M
^
-(A
\
\
orch-
sai
f.Tem
^--3
r?' T1'! f r I ' 0? I
1
in
94
•••
>.2
h«
T
hi
(A
1
7
~~s-
legion.
v Temp.4
..-^
C>
•o
^
OctB
W
\
)
S? S S
in ?tii s JHM y f*si t {i
$00
IS8
IOO
50
JO .
[0 _|
i S
- c
I/WM^
poo
500 _;
zoor
fooo-
50 5
so
i K
[ o.
u.
ipoo—
Eo
jpo °
50
20
!P
!
5
_0
(L
O)
' I-
l*3
CO
rr
Pz
UJ
O
J)
£
" c
Winter HighWater
Feb.-Moreh-April-I940
(B)
Winter LowWater
Nov.-Oec.-I940
Jon.-Feb.-I94l
* ]7
*3
3 .J-
->
co >^c £ 0£* CB£U »-
i !H > Is | ;2i 3
£ i * 56°-
bution of
rm Result*
w O
* —
5 5
—
*5 **
l|
|5
sil
ill
-° >*.
°5a!
• r 50 ptr ml.
'o 200 ptr ml .
•o *~
3 n
QH
e §
o o
KinS
•2(2
§5
D0
if] P'd (1 (1 (I (I
1 1
1 If
_|J[
11 1
m
'
1 II II II
[
in in
u
TPO '
60 sf
40^0
0*2
20 o
0
LOO
80 «
60 =a
S|
0-«_
20 ?
0
" p5
Iff
20 ^-H-
o
« ot
^ - >
^ in o
D0B
EE E
acL o.
Q9o
ISt
§sl
D0B
fill
> iri o c
D0HB
O ^
c =
'Z o
•> —
55
•i
^ —
°i
i1^
AO
'•S9
5°,
•-sf
C X k
°o5
He
il
>-
UJQJ
> o
£>
OTrr
(ft
ox
Ph
d2;
OI 0)
Q_ —
0
ii
KtL
O OT
I 3
O
-------
Acid stream conditions were observed in the river above
Marietta, Ohio, during the cumer and fall months when volumes
of diacharge were low* 4 summary of the acid results is in**
eluded in Table Oh-7A4 Acid doubtless influenced the laboratory
results at times in the upper portion of the river0 The effects
of the highly acid Konongahela upon the Ohio immediately below
its junction rith the Allegheny are shown below* The extremely
large decrease in coliforms and oxygen demand at Emsworth in
October, as compared with November and December, when the acid
concentrations were lower, suggests the effect of acid upon
the bacterial concentrations 3n the r5ver«
Station
Miles
Prom
Point
Bridge
Pitts*
Disch*
C,f .3,
PH
Temp.
Quantity Units*
D.O.
B.O.D.
Coli-
forms
Plow
Time
(Era)
October « 1940
Allegheny
Monongahela
Totals
Emswor th
Dashield
1.7
-5
M
6*
13.5
£,9oo
2,710
5,610
5,460
5,710
6*2
4.0
•*•
5.6
6,6
16.6
18.6
M
16.3
16.0
10*72
11.38
22.10
21,80
Ii4»5
15.53
5 '69
19*02
6*0
6.3
16SO
181
18?1
66
5?
52.8
59.03
November « 194°
Allegheny
Monongahela
Totals
Ems worth
Dashield
1*7
.5
M
6.
15.5
10,600
14^00
25,100
23,660
23>270
Y.O
-5±i
*4
6.2
6.5
9»b
11.6
M
9.0
8^
ilo*
127.6
237.6
2l*U
256
25.6
36.2
6l4..b
^7.5
51.1
it-520
?n
5W
2510
2164
U4-.18
11.96
December «
Allegheny
Monongahela
Totals
Emsworth
Dashield
1.7
o5
6*
13.5
31,200
21,800
53,000
51*550
51.070
6.7
-i-1
M
6.7
6.6
1-3
4.0
p*
44
3.8
477
257
734
755
705
g.e
90. «
924
102 »0
124tf
~T57^
10680
5362
6.26
5.83
# Quantity units
second feeto
Concentration X discharge in thousand
- 93 -
-------
Table Oh-5 Main Ohio River Laboratory Results - Seasonal Averages.
Station
Ems worth Dam
Dashleld Dan
Montgomery Dam
Dan #7
" #8
"- 19
" #10
" #11
" #12
" #12
•- M -
" #15
" #16
" #17
Argand Landing
BaS JIlB ~ ~
Congress Landing
Rapps Run Light
Dam #19
" #20
«- m - - —
" #22
" #25
Point Pleasant
Galllpolls Dam
Dan JZ'l -
" #28
N. 4 W. K.R. Bridge
Dan #29
White Oak Creek
FangTng Rock"LTgKt "
Coal Branch Light
Dam #50
" #51
" #32
-"- 135
" #34
" #35
" #36
Stlllwater Landing
I.~& N7 E.R. Brl3ge " "
Riverside
Dam #57
" #58
" l?2
BoTcE Lick Light
Crooked Cr.( Upper Light)
Clifty Or. (Lower Light)
Lower Hanover Landing
Jobson Landing Light
ToulsvTlTe Waterworks
New Albany "
Falling Hun Light
Hughes Bar (Upper Light)
Steve Green Ldg. Light
Ea5 JF4F
Rock Hsven (Upper Light)
Falling Spg.( Lower Light)
Dam #44
Indian Hollow Light
Earn %lt%
Cloverport Light
Hancock Bend Light
Troy Hill Light
Owensboro Waterworks
TarfcTn Perry LTgHt
Dan #U7
Kvansville Waterworks
Dutch Bend Light
Henderson Waterworks
Ban ?4H
Mt. Vernon Waterworks
Dan #49
Browns Island Light
Greens CrosslnHfUp. Light)
EeKovoK tight
Dam #50
Roaiclaire
Golconda Waterworks
Old Maids Crossing Light
leabetTer Eight
Paducah 'Waterworks
Dam #52
" #53
Cairo Waterworks
Cairo Point
Miles' "
Below
Pitta-
burgh
6.
15.5
31.7
36.5
46.4
-?6.1
66.0
77.0
87.5
96.
li47
1.29.
146.5
167-5
113-5
1BO.
185.
185.
192.
202.5
21475
221.0
251.5
265.
-i?7
512.
516.
520.
326.
-3?07
537.
339.
359-
f?7
i$.
46i.-
462.8
-45975
iti:
503.
51i>7
'54778
$:5
562.6
576.1
-65o.
608.5
610.
614.
627.
6?-3.2
637.
639.
662.
665.
733.
711.
722.7
750.6
756.5
"7FO.
777-7
791-
797.7
805.
"8597
829.1
845-
852.
865.
870.7
876.8
891.6
902.5
918.
92775
954-5
938.9
962.6
978.0
981.
Summer Low Water Results ]
Date
S
a\
rH
O
8
•tt
|
-1
CTV
a
0
M
i
t>»
rH
3
>-3
CT\
>T\
O^
t*
V
^
CO
«s
o a\
O r-t
Temp.
°C
-2J.T
2J.9
2J.8
4-1
24.8
"25.5
24.8
24.8
24-7
-1:1
$
11
2?.?
25.8
25.6
25.7
-m
11:1
24.8
4*:i
25.1
24^4
-m
25.7
26.0
25-5
_2i-2
26.5
29.0
26.1
29.0
27.5
'25.0
28.4
28.8
28.3
29.8
-25.F
26 :5
_27.2
~2T. 2
26.8
27.0
27.8
2J..7
2f.f
25.4
25.9
26.5
26.5
-2F.lt
23.2
24.0
24.1
_23.5
2j.y
23.1
21.2
21.5
21.1
-21.7
zz.L
2?.. 6
22.6
19.8
19.6
Oxygen
~D.O.
870
8.2
8.3
8.2
8-3
-~872
8.0
7.9
8.0
8.1
- ~87l
8.1
8.2
6.6
_6^
774
?.1
7.6
~#
u
7.5
~fci
7.5
--H
?:'
6.5
7.0
~7-9
8.5
7-9
8.5
84
8.8
8.2
8.2
8.1
8.6
8.6
7-5
7-5
7-3
7.0
6.8
6.8
8.1
"8.1
b.4
8.5
8.5
8.2
~ 8.5
9.0
9.1
9.2
9.2
~ 9-3
9-2
5.2
9.3
9.5
«!&
8.7
ri'1*
8.9
HesuTls
m.
B.-b'.D. .
" ff.B ~
0.8
1.0
1.1
l-i
T.f ~
1.9
2.0
1:1
"I.?-"
1-5
1.6
1.2
1.0
i:i
1.0
1.1
1.0
- T.n ~
1.2
1.2
*•{
-T.8-
1.4
I'.k
-U-
1:1
2.1
2.0
2.2 ~
2.6
2.2
?.l
2.2
2.2 "
2.6
2.3
2.6
2-3,
2.E "
1:2
2.!
2.1
2.0
2.2
2.0
2.T "
1.9
2.1
1.7
- 1-I -
T.9
2,1
1.7
2.0
2.0
T"? "
1.6
2.0
1.8
1.8
T.B
1.6
1.2
1.6
1.7
1.7
IToTI^T
'orms
MPN/ml.
2E
68
13
g
"47
55
111
66
96
--50--
21
20
18
12
l?
557
190
216
229
~ 22? -
148
"a?
--M-
73
k8
162
"C?-
1J3J7
2901
481
- 10J
T8&
94
1260
218
la-3.
"~45
997
5220
5480
105
~745-
63
73
90
7§
78
51
i
22
106
199
F56 "
19
29
19
11
6i
4
4
3?
11
89
Winter Low Water Results
Date
rH
3.
rH
ft
Fi
0!
5;
*
P>>
CB
3
c
CO
h>
rjs
N-\'—
s-s
C^
• iH
O
SET
*I
* a
> «-3
o
25
0
S£
t*J H~\
*CT^
> rH
1
t>>-^
t< rH
15.6
12.8
12.6
S.O.D.
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
-X4
178
1.8
2.1
2.0
2.1
"2.0
1.8
1.8
1.9
1-7
-176-
1.6
1.8
1.8
2.0
- -570-
1.9
2.0
1.0
1.0
1-3
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.2
170"
1.0
1.5
-43-
0.9
1.2
- -B-
3-5
5.0
2.5
2.5
3-5
3 "4
3-5
3-2
1.6
1:1
4.2
2.5
\±
1.6
1.8
_l-7
2^6
3-0
u
- l7l
1.2
1-7
1.5
l.l
i7i
3-7
2.7
2.8
3.4
2-7
2.8
2.1
2.7
2.2
~ 2.1
2.1
2.1
2.0
2->
2.4
Coll-
forms
MPN/ml.
157
99
80
75
_ _ 71
56
63
y
133
24
B
14
27
- - ?2-
18
z
--%•
30
2k
10
10
T2
S
&
"T
ii
--17-
22
31
- -$-
2,895
1,840
1,670
-54°
87
199
60
108
$
1
155
25
2fc
Ib
^
96
29
T6
2
9
- »?-
1
28
8
5
l
l
1
5
4
102
Winter High Water Results
Date
I
1
t>»
t*
OJ
I
&
*rHC
^ F.~a
ID CXrH
Temp,
°C
_Lz
5.6
B
-H
4.6
4.9
4.7
- lie
4-5
4~5
8.5
-B.7
8.7
5-?
n
Oxygen Results
p.p n.
D.O.
12.2
12.2
12.T
12.5
12.1
12.1
12.3
~12.T
12.2
12.0
11.9
11.7
-12.4
11.7
11.6
1C .5
'15.4
10.4
11.5
ii4
10.8
i.O.D.
2.3
2.0
"278
2.0
1.9
2.0
2.1
" "179"
1.7
2.0
2.2
- -172-
2.2
2.1
2.1
" T.B
2.0
5.2
3.0
2.4
Coil-
forms
iPH/ml.
50
22
$
%
"f
4o
--I-
56
70
100
--«-
402
111
121
187
- 94 -
-------
Table No. Oh-^A v!umber and Percentage of Samples at Points on Main Ohio River Showing Collform
Numbers, Dissolved Oxygen and 5-Day B.O.D. within Designated Ranges.
Station
Emsworth Dam
Daahield Dam
Montgomery Dam
Dam #7
" #10
" #11
", #12
" #15
" #16
" #17
Argand Landing
6am flB "
Congress Landing
Rapps Run Light
Dam #19
" #20
"- ?2T
" #22
" #23
Point Pleasant
Galllpolls Dam
Bal ?27
" #28
N. & W. R.R. Bridge
Dam #29
White Oak Creek
Hanging Bock LTgHt "~
Coal Branch Light
Dam #30
P
Still»ater Landing
I. &"B7 R.R". Bridge
Riverside
Dam #37
n #3°
TJoTeK Lick-LTgKt
Crooked Cr.l Upper Light)
Cllfty Cr. (Lower Light)
Lower Hanover Landing
Jobson Landlng_Light
L'ouis'vTlTe-Waterworks "
New Albany "
Falling Run Light
Hughes Bar (Upper Light)
Soamosdale *
Cam $4.3
Rock Haven (Upper Light)
Falling Spg. (Lower Light)
Dam #m
Indian Hollow Light
Cloverport Light
Hancock Bend Light
Troy Hill Light
Owenaboro Waterworks
EarkTnTerry LlgTit ~
Dam J&7
Dutch Bend Light
Henderson Waterworks
Cam j&B
Mt. Vernon Waterworks
Dam J&9
Browns Island Light
Grfena_Croaaln,g Light
D*eKoven Tight
Dam #50
Rosiclalre Waterworks
Golconda Waterworks
Old Maids Crossing Light
Ie3betTer light
Paducah Waterworks
Dam #52
" #53
Cairo Waterworks
Cairo Point
Miles
from
Pitts-
burgh
6.
13-5
31.7
? r
-?67l
66.0
77.0
T5
129:
157:5
173-5
IBO.
183.
185.
192.
202.5
-2T475
221.0
231.5
265.
312:
316.
320.
326.
-3T07
337.
339.
359*
462 :e
W
503.
•m
559.5
561.
562.6
576.1
"6*07
608.5
610.
6:4.
-6l?-2
637^
639.
662.
665.
7^37
711.
722.7
730.6
756.5
"7507
777-7
791.
Ill:7
ft1
-37077
876.8
891.6
902.5
918.
-92773
934.3
938.0
962.6
978.0
981.
Coliform Organisms per ml.
No.
Sam-
ples
59
39
-11
41
4i
59
59
-*l
65
s
-a
69
96
-i
-1
38
_ i8
2
7
7
9
9
-T4
10
10
6
6
6
5
9
" "9
9
8
8
8
8
8
9
""9
9
9
9
_ _9
9
9
9
7
0-50
No.
19
27
it
20
"15
27
26
28
21
"52
\
_£s
29
46
54
51
1
4o
30
-if
53
29
102
19
16
~\
2
-1
I
7
8
— *
9
9
f
49
69
1
II
-8
82
83
84
-a
P
69
69
76"
63
81
94
100
oil
42
1
61
72
76
-1
13
12
28
-35
29
71
21
"21
20
67
50
&
So
-P
89
100
5g
.38
88
100
100
Ton
100
89
100
100
Ton
100
100
89
100
57
51-200
No.
16
9
15
9
13
13
10
-12
10
11
7
11
15
16
~12
10
11
3
15
8
i
20
26
22
~5f
3,0
1
3
_ 6
2
_|
6
7
3
1
2
1
1
_ 1
1
_ 1
1
-
1
2
f
41
23
u
i
-1
15
20
~1E
22
44
25
15
22
36
48
46
30
36
20
-ZT
16
21
17
7
21
21
il
100
43
1
22
11
44
It
70
33
50
20
ll
~22
12
12
'SB
12
-
11
29
Over 200
No.
4
3
1
2
1
2
-T
2
3
- 2
I
4
i
10
21
20
-T
7
8
6
If
97
92
2
1
I
5
3
i
i
i
i
i
i
%
10
8
3
2
I
-2
3
5
I
6
2
2
14
22
26
" 20
10
8
"4?
92
66
67
-8
28
34
~12
J6
20
30
It
14
11
J"
12
11
14
Dissolved Oxygen-Percent Saturation
No.
Sam-
ples
39
39
39
32
- T2
4i
41
-I
I
64
"E3
59
S
-i
62
70
97
91
68
-I
72
38
129
73
135
136
88
" "9
2
7
7
9
9
-I
T4
2
6
6
__j
9
_ _8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
7
Over 85
No.
26
29
29
32
f
1
63
61
57
62
~6T
59
57
-i
63
-si
79
63
i
38
112
69
80
~l\
2
7
7
7
10
2
2
5
.|
7
8
-B
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
7
7
*
I
100
100
Ton
100
80
83
-if
97
97
100
Ton
97
i
92
92
69
87
23
1
92
100
87
90
-85
45
P
100
100
100
100
Ton
100
100
83
83
61?
80
80
-S
78
100
100
100
Ton
100
100
100
100
Ton
100
100
100
100
Ton
100
100
100
100
100
65.1-85
No.
2
10
10
0
0
- n
0
8
6
-f
2
0
- n
2
2
2
2
4
5
17
-1
7
ll
"in
12
ll
6
0
3p
34
53
0
0
0
0
- n
2
2
0
0
1
1
2
1
1
3
- 2
2
0
0
0
- n
0
0
0
0
- n
0
0
0
0
- n
0
0
0
0
0
f
20
26
0
0
- n
0
20
17
3
0
-n
8
8
1
10
2
_1?
13
17
0
-1?
41
25
39
22
- n
0
0
0
0
- n
22
2?
22
0
0
17
i
20
43
_11
22
0
0
0
- n
0
0
0
0
- n
0
0
0
0
- n
0
0
0
0
0
14.0.1-65
No.
0
0
0
0
- n
0
0
0
0
-n
0
0
0
0
- n
0
0
0
0
- n
0
0
0
0
~n
0
0
0
0
- n
0
0
0
0
- n
0
0
0
_ 0
il
1
- n
0
0
0
0
- n
0
0
0
0
~n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
_ 0
0
0
0
0
- n
0
0
0
0
-n
0
0
0
0
- n
0
0
0
0
0
^
13
0
0
0
_ 0
0
0
0
0
- n
0
0
0
0
- n
0
0
0
0
11 0
0
0
0
_ 0
0
0
0
0
- n
0
0
0
0
- n
0
0
0
0
- n
ll
8
1
- n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
_ 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
- ff
0
0
0
_ 0
0
0
0
0
- V
0
0
0
0
- 3
0
0
0
0
0
o-4o
No.
6
0
0
0
0
- n
0
0
0
0
- n
0
0
0
0
- n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
_ 0
0
0
0
0
- n
0
0
0
0
- n
0
0
0
_ 0
1
0
- n
0
0
0
0
- n
0
0
0
0
- n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
- n
0
0
0
0
- n
0
0
0
0
- n
0
0
0
0
- n
0
0
0
0
0
f
0
0
0
- n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
- n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
- n
0
0
0
0
- n
0
0
0
_ 0
7
0
- n
0
0
0
0
- n
0
0
0
0
- n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
- T5
0
0
0
0
~n
0
0
0
0
- n
0
0
0
_ 0
0
0
0
0
0
5-Day B.O.D. -P. P.M.
No.
Sam-
ples
39
39
1
4i
-1
65
-1
59
59
-|
- si
70
97
-I
91
68
-1
3
132
-1
7
-I
9
9
-i
I
6
6
5
9
8
~ "8
8
8
8
9
"9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
7
0-3
No.
'1
38
38
-1
33
65
58
g
61
60
64
62
y-
f
95
-II
90
66
68
61
"of
ill
76
50
110
116
66
- E
4
8
12
"f
5
6
i
-B
8
-o
7
7
I
-I
8
9
I
6
f
97
97
97
97
_92
93
100
100
98
100
1!
II
-a
1?
96
100
99
98
98
"95
99
97
1
Ro
87
95
99
i
ii
-Z?
50
8
Ton
39
100
89
-8!
100
83
83
Ton
80
80
86
89
100
100
88
Ton
88
88
88
78
Ton
89
I
-i
89
100
100
86
86
3-1-5
No.
1
1
1
1
-2
3
6
~ T
0
0
1
0
- T
1
2
0
1
1
0
-•J
3
1
1
2
I
- B
20
32
22
21
"I
3
2
- n
i
0
0
2
- n
i
0
1
- 5
l
0
0
_ 1
1
0
0
1
- n
i
i
i
2
- n
i
2
3
~ T
0
0
0
1
1
f
3
3
7
0
0
2
_ 0
2
0
6
~ 8
2
2
2
_ 0
_ 1
1
10
10
4
22
16
1
- n
11
0
0
20
0
17
20
0
0
11
-it
11
0
0
12
- n
12
12
12
22
- n
11
22
33
_22
0
0
0
14
14
Over 5
No.
0
0
0
0
0
- n
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
-n
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
_ 0
0
0
0
_ 1
0
0
0
_ 0
1
1
1
_ 0
2
51
- n
0
0
0
0
- n
0
0
1
0
- T
0
0
0
0
- 5
0
1
1
- TJ
0
0
0
0
- n
0
0
0
_ 0
0
0
0
0
- n
1
0
0
0
0
f
0
0
0
0
0
- n
0
2
0
0
- TJ
0
0
0
0
- n
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
2
_ 0
0
0
0
1
- T
0
0
0
_ 0
1
3
_ 0
3
1
- n
0
0
0
_ 0
0
0
11
_ 0
0
0
0
0
-3
0
20
14
_11
0
0
0
0
- n
0
0
0
0
- n
0
0
0
_ 0
11
0
0
0
0
* And Steve Green Landing.
- 95 -
-------
Table Oh-5B Main Ohio River - Average
Phenol Results
Sampling Point
Ems worth Dam
DaahTeTd Dam
Montgomery Dam
Cam #7
Cam ?8~ ~ ~
Cam ?9
Cam ?10 "
CaH ?1T
Cam yij
Dam f Hf ~
Dam 5?1*[
Dam git
Argand LanHing
Da5 #22
Cam 5F2J
Pt. Pleasant
GaTlTpolTa Dam
Dams #27 & 23*~
Cam #2$ ~
Cams #?0 & JT#
Dam f 31 ~ -
Cam #32
Date
1940
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Sept.
Oct.
Uov.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Ian. Tl5^T )
ffcT.~ "
Nov.
Dec.
Sept.
Dec.
Jan.(l£4l)
Ceo.
Set. "
Nov.
Dec.
Jan. ( 1941 )
Hay "
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
M "~
June
Hay
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Hay ~ "
Hay""
June
Feb"."
Mar.
Apr.
FeE.
Mar.
Apr. _ _
FeE.
Mar.
Feb".
Mar.
Feb".
Feb".
Feb".
Mar.
Apr.
Number
Samples
1
7
2
2
" T "
1
T
" T
1
1
" I
" T "
2
1
T "
5
1
J
1
F "
4
2
7
" £ "
4
9
10
i
10
-i
T
~ T "
5
1
2
2
2
~ T "
1
|
2 "
i
i
" 2 "
3
3
1
T
2
2
2
2 "
1
T " "
~" T "
5 "
5
Average
Temperature °C.
17.8
16.2
9.1
11
_ _^3.8_ _
T7. 2
14.8
3470
T9-5"
13.5
7-0_
^•°-
^•r
6.8
J'°-
T8.5
4.6
5-7
5«7
376
5-7_ _
T575- *
Z'7
8.5
4.7
5-2
T§-r
18.4
22.5
24.4
24.5
25.2
22.2
Tj.O"
TB72
14.5
19.6
4.5
23.8
27.0
23.8
T1.7
20.2
T5-Z"
16.8
19.8
275" ~
5.0
7.0
178
3.9
3.2
8.0
~177~ ~
4.0
6.0
7.0
" " 270
2.0
077
178
2.6"
4.5
4.0
8.0
Phenol
p.p.b.
1.6
*#
4.0
«#
4.3
tttt
•tt-U-
#«
**
««
•a*
1.0
"878"
•»«
>»
_ 4.4_
««>
11.7
*>
17.6
T277"
««
*»
17.0
«•«•
17.8
12.8
875"
•«•*
*»
««
1.6
«#
*»
~ ~674~
**
2.7
•M-ti-
•*«•
•M-*
->*•
•iH)-
2.1
«••»
~4-5
««•
**
" ~2.6
3.8
-i1-*-
li..ST
6.5
*#
««
" 2278"
•»#
8.8
*•»
~ "372"
*«
2274
" T670
**
1-3
•iH*
**
* Composite samples.
«* Less than 1.0.
- 96 -
-------
The effects of phenol waste products upon the taste and
odor problems of public water supplies are well known. Previous
investigations have shown that tastes may be produced by phenols
in excess of one part per billion and that waters containing
more than ten parts per billion are not suitable for public use0
Also phenolic wastes, if highly concentrated, have a toxic
effect upon the biological life in the stream and hence retard
natural purification processes„ A sumnmry of all phenol determine-
tions made on the main Ohio River is shown on Table Oh-5B»
Phenols in excess of 1 p.p.b. were observed in samples below
East Liverpool, Steubenville and Wheeling in the colder months
of November-December, 1940 and January, 1941 and at Pt. Pleasant
and Gallipolis Dam in February, March and April, 19400 Phenols
of from 2 to 8 p.p.b. were observed at Dams 14, 15, 22 and 23
in Inlay, 1940, The results seem to indicate intermittent dis-
charge of phenolic wastes. There is also some indication that
temperature plays an important part in the persistence of these
wastes in the stream, more rapid disappearance being observed
during the warmer months,,
Oxygen conditions in the Pittsburgh-Euntington stretch of
the Ohio River at the time of sampling were generally good, the
large majority of samples having oxygen demands of less than 3,
parts per million and dissolved oxygen contents of more than
6.5 p.p.me Coliform results on the other hand show a relatively
high concentration, counts in excess of 200 per ml. being recorded
at time at all stations except the three just above Huntington*
The heaviest pollution occurred below Pittsburgh, Wheeling
and Parkersburg, Evidence of natural purification was observed
in the 53 mile section between Dams 14 and 17 and in the 70 miles
between Dams 23 and 27. Reductions in number of coliform bacteria
and in oxygen demand were noted in these stretches during the
periods of sampling. The percentage of total number of samples
showing less than 50 coliforms per ml. increased from 51 to 84
percent between Dams 13 and 17 and from 81 to 96 percent between
Dams 23 and 27.
Seven major tributaries enter the Ohio between Pittsburgh
and Huntington including the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers
which join to form the Ohio. In order, proceeding downstream,
the other streams are the Beaver, Muskingum, Little Kanawha,
Hooking and Kanawha Rivers* Comparing the results at stations
above and below these tributaries little, if any, effect was
noted on the Ohio at the time of sampling, except as noted above
at the junction of the Allegheny and the Monongahela*
- 97 -
-------
Fig.Oh-8
-98-
-------
Fig.Oh-9
-99-
-------
Fig.Oh-IO
fiu,
IS
-100-
-------
Fig. Oh-II
UJ
o:
-J >
uj 5
ft
o
x
o
>o
ox o>
XD
O
-------
The findings of the laboratory survey of this section may
be summarized briefly as follows:
(1) Zones of pollution were observed in the
Pittsburgh-Wheeling area and below Parkersburg*
(2) Definite zones of recovery due to natural
purification were observed between Dams 14 and 17
and Dams 23 and 27,
(3) Acid conditions were found during low flows
in the Ohio River as far downstream as Dam 17,
(4) Because of acid concentration, the measurable
effect of sewage and organic industrial pollution below
Pittsburgh and Wheeling was less than otherwise would
be expected, although relatively high densities of
coliform bacteria were observed at some points*
(5) Relatively high concentrations of taste-pro-
ducing phenols were observed at various points throughout
the entire section, especially during the cooler months.
Evidence of progressive diminution in these concentra-
tions was noted during the warmer months,
(6) With the exception of the Allegheny and
Monongahela Rivers the sanitary quality of the water of
the major tributary streams, at their mouths was as good
or better than that of the main stream and the inflow
had little or no effect on the main stream during the
time of the present investigation. The tributaries were
more alkaline than the Ohio River and tended to reduce
the acidity or increase the alkalinity of the main stream,
Huntington to Cincinnati
This section of the river is characterized by a succession
of small cities in the 50 mile stretch from Huntington to
Portsmouth and a relatively sparsely settled valley in the 100
miles between Portsmouth and Cincinnati« Three major tribu-
taries enter the Ohio in this stretch, the Guyandot, the Big
Sandy and the Scioto* AShland, Ironton and Portsmouth take
their water supplies from the river in the upper portion of
this section and Cincinnati, Covington and Newport from the ex-
treme lower end. The major sanitary problem in the Huntington-
Cincinnati area is one of high bacterial pollution affecting the
quality of the raw water used for public supplies* (See Figure
Oh-7 and Table Oh-5A). At Dam 29 (Mle 320 below Pittsburgh)
- 101 -
-------
21 percent of the samples showed coliform counts in excess
of 200 per mle and above Ironton (Mile 326 below Pittsburgh)
26 percent of the samples were in this group during the
sampling period of this survey. At Dam 36 just above Cin-
cinnati counts were over 200 per ml. 6 percent of the time
of sampling and were less than 50 per ml. 77 percent of this
time.
The dissolved oxygen results were generally good in this
area with saturation values of 85 percent or higher at all
sampling stations during most of the period of observation«
The oxygen demand averages were low, rarely exceeding 2.0
p.p.m. and usually being about 1.0 p.p.m., except during high
water periods when some increases were noted.
The most significant indication regarding the high degree
of bacterial pollution in the Huntington-Portsmouth area is the
evidence that the pollution is largely of local origin. High
water results with increased velocities and shorter times of
flow indicate only a moderate increase in coliform organisms
above Huntington which might be attributed to upstream pollution.
There is a tendency for the coliform counts to level off during
the high water period in passing through this district, with the
average maximum occurring at Dam 32 (See Figure 7 and Table 5).
This figure also indicates the reduction in coliform bacteria
between Dams 31 and 36 during low-water periods. There appears
to be little recovery between Dams 32 and 36 during the high
water period.
Phenol determinations made during the period from February
to April are summarized on Table Oh-5B. Phenols in excess of
1 p.p.b. were present at all stations at some time during the
sampling period. Maximum concentrations in excess of 20 p.p.b.
were recorded at Dams 27, 28, 30 and 31H
All of the important tributary streams in this section of
the Ohio had relatively high ooliform counts during the June
to October period. The Guyandot and Big Sandy samples were
undoubtedly influenced by sewage from Huntington and Catletts-
burg. Inflow from the Scioto increased the alkalinity of the
Ohio River markedly. Comparing the results of observations at
stations immediately above and below tributary streams, there do
not appear to have been any marked changes in the sanitary
quality of the Ohio River due to contributions of the tributaries
during the period of sampling.
The observations in the Huntington-Cincinnati section of the
river may be summarized briefly as follows:
- 102 -
-------
(1) The Huntington-Cincinnati section of the
main Ohio River is characterized by a considerable
amount of pollution of local origin originating in
the area from Huntington to Portsmouth,
(2) A zone of self-purification existed in the
river from Portsmouth to Dam 36 during low-flow periods,
which was not apparent during periods of high discharge,
(3) Phenols v.ere present in the area from Dam 87
to Dam '6% during the colder months of the year.
(4) Tributaries entering this section were observed
to have high coliform counts during the warmer months
with lower concentrations in the cooler months of higher
stream flow. The inflow of tributaries did not appear
to c&use any marked changes in the sanitary quality of
the main stream.
Cincinnati to Louisville
This 118-mile section of the river receives a large amount
of pollution at its upper end from the Cincinnati metropolitan
area, and additional pollution from several minor sources be-
tween Cincinnati and l&dison. In the 40-znile stretch between
Madison and Louisville the river receives little or no pollution*
Four major tributaries enter the Ohio River in this section,
the Little Miami, Licking, Miami and Kentucky RiverSo The Little
Miami and Licking Rivers, receiving sewage from the Cincinnati
area in their lower reaches, and the Miami River from upstream
pollution, contributed appreciable pollution loads to the Ohio
River, The Kentucky River appeared to be a relatively clean
stream. The higher alkalinities of the Miami and Kentucky Rivers
tended to increase somewhat the alkalinity of the main stream
below their confluences.
More extensive laboratory observations were made in the
section from Cincinnati to Dam 39, particularly in the Cincin-
nati pool, than in the lower end of this river section where
observations were confined to three series of observations by
mobile laboratory units in July-August and October, 1940, and
January-February, 1941. For this reason the laboratory findings
on these two parts of the river section are discussed separately.
- 103 -
-------
The effects of pollution from the Cincinnati area on the
upper portion of this section of the river are indicated as
follows:
(1) Increases in maximum averages of caliform
organisms ranging from about £,000 to 60,000 per ml«
at times of low flows and from 100 to 400 per mlc at
times of high water,
(3) Decreases in dissolved oxygen below the city
to minimum monthly average values of 3.8 to 5.4 pep.m.
with individual samples approaching total depletion in
September, 1939. During the months of low water temera-
tures and in ths summer months when river flows were
high and open channel conditions existed, dissolved
oxygen results in the Cincinnati area were satisfactory,
(3) Cxygen demand averages usually less than 3
p.p.m. with some individual results above 6 p.p.m. A
shore line survey by the City of Cincinnati close to
the many sewer outlets showed very high oxygen demand
values in the immediate vicinity of these sources of
pollution.
(4) Increases jn dissolved oxygen to approximately
85 percent saturation and decreases in oxygen demand to
between 2 and 3 p.p.m. occurred below Dam 37 with natural
purification much more marked in the summer low-flow period
thqn during high water - low temperature conditions. Dur-
ing high flovvs coliform organisms reached their maximum
at Dam 38, moving upstream to Riverside below Mill Creek
with higher water temperatures and lower flows. The follow-
ing tabulation indicates the effect of stream flow and
water temperatures on the location of the maximum con-
centration of coliform organisms below Cincinnati:
- 104 -
-------
Fig.Oh-12
-105-
-------
Fig.Oh-13
-106-
-------
Rg.Oh-14
-107-
-------
i:oe of
Months
Observed
2
3
3
6
No. of
Months
Observed
8
6
Average
Discharge
Range
ThousiSec.Ft.
Under 1$
15 - 30
31 - 75*
Over 75*
Average
Temperature
Range °C,
Under 15°C.
l5°C.anci over
Per cent of time Maximum Average
Coliform Counts appeared at:
RiverslcTe
(kT-j)
100,0
33.3
66.7
16.7
Dam 37
(If 33)
*M
66.7
33*3
m
Dam *tf
(305)
67.3
Dam 39
(532)
ff«
04
16.7
Per cent of time Maximum Average
Collforms appeared at:
Rjversi.de
2%0
66,7
Dam 37
l?.5
33-3
Datn Jib
^0,0
Dam 39
12.5
•?:- Pool stage ceases and open channel conditions obtain
at flows over approximately 60,000 cef,s0
In the section below Dam 39 an increase in coliform con-
centration is indicated immediately below Madison, especially
marked during the July anci August study but less marked in
October and January. Dissolved oxygen saturation increased
from Dam 39 to Louisville in July with a slight depression
at Madison and fairly high dissolved oxygen saturations were
observed in October and Januarys Oxygen demand results varied
from about 2 to 3*5 p.p.m., being in excess of 3. p.p.nu more
frequently in the cooler months. Nearly 60 percent of the
samples at the Louisville waterworks intake had coliform counts
in excess of 50 per ml.
Louisville to Mouth
The heaviest zones of pollution in the lower river were
found immediately below Louisville and in the Evansville-
Kenderson district with smaller sources of pollution at
Owensboro, Paducah and Cairo, Five major tributaries enter
the Chio River in this section, the Salt, Green, Wabash,
Cumberland and Tennessee,,
At the time of sampling, oxygen conditions throughout the
section v*ere good, even below tho larger communities. Some
- ]08 -
-------
Fig. Oh-15
CO
CO
UJ
tr
>~ z
II
(X w
°«
3s
< o
-I >
UJ -
(X
o
I
o
o
(9
Z
P
Z
D
X
O
111
m
10
I
CD
CJ
z
Z
IUUJ
i
2x
I-H
3-1
_1< ;
OX '
0.
tea.
-------
depression in dissolved oxygen was noted in August and October,
1940 below Louisville with recovery at Dam 43, about £5 miles
downstream. This depression was not noted in February 1941
despite a sharp increase in oxygen demand below Louisville
which was probably due to the rapid rise in the river at this
time. (Figure Oh-7, Oh-15 and Table Oh-5)0 The dissolved
oxygen remained near or above saturation throughout the re-
mainder of the section*.
Oxygen demands were, for the most part, below 3 p,p<,mo,
even below Louisville, except during the period of observation
in January, February and Jarch, 1941 when disturbed flow con-
ditions apparently brought about erratic results with averages
approaching 5 p.p0m. The coliform results reached their highest
averages in the 10-mile stretch below Louisville in October 1940„
Sharp increases also appeared below Owensboro in October, below
Evansville in August and October, and below Cairo in all three
observational periods. Figure Oh-7 and Table Oh-5 show the
relatively cleaner waters existing in the lower reaches of the
river* All tributaries entering the section are in good sanitary
condition at their mouths»
Marked evidence of self-purification is indicated in the
long, relatively unpolluted stretch between Louisville and
Evansville, as measured both by oxygen demand and by coliform
reductions. In the extreme lower portion of the river little
evidence was observed of the heavy pollution loads placed
upon the stream between Pittsburgh and points within 200 miles
of the mouth of the Ohio, thus showing the ability of the
stream to cleanse itself by natural means of the successive
loads of untreated wastes discharged to it. Except for the
two areas below Louisville and Evansville, this section of the
Ohio River vas found to be relatively clean at the time of sampling,
Biological Summary - The results of the biological survey
of the Ohio River indicated:
(1) The plankton population of the Ohio River was
characteristically different from that of the tributaries,,
The Ohio supports large numbers of diatoms of genera not
prominent in the tributaries. Modifying these conditions
was the acidity of the upper river which resulted in
closteriopsis, a form dominating the acid waters of the
Monongahela River, which extended its range downstream in
the acid waters to Marietta, Ohio0
- ]09 -
-------
(8) The plankton population of the main Ohio River
was generally lower than that of the tributaries with
the exception of the Green and Cumberland Rivers0 Acid
conditions in the upper River reduced the volume of
plankton considerably as far downstream as Marietta
during the period of observation. A tendency toward a
gradual increase in plankton was observed downstream
from Marietta, with a slight peak below Cincinnati and
indications of a peak below Louisville due to the in-
crease in fertility below these cities.
- 110 -
-------
Fig.Oh-»€
-------
FtQ.Oh-17
-112-
-------
Fig.Oh-lfr
-113-
-------
Hydrometric Data
Altiiougii continuous, long-term records of gage heights are
available at many points along the Ohio River, reliable flow
records are lacking. This is especially true of low flow data
which are of particular interest in this survey. At Pittsburgh
since 1923, at Huntington since 1934, and a* Louisville since
1928 low flow records are fairly accurate. Prior to those dates
the records are less trustworthy. Plows during 1930 were by far
the lowest of dependable record at Pittsburgh and Louisville and
1939 w&s the second dryest year, based on minimum monthly average
flows. Table Oh-6 shows the flow at three stations during the
dryest summer months of record.
A study of gage heights, precipitation records and tributary
stream flow indicates that the 1930 flows were probably the lowest
experienced in the Ohio River since about i860.
Low-flow Regulation- Reservoir sites on tributaries of the
Ohio River have Been studied by the U. S. Engineer Department in
connection with the authorized program for flood control in the
Ohio Basin. The possible use of these reservoirs for low-flow
regulation has been considered and is discussed in reports on
the various tributaries. The reservoirs on the Allegheny and
Monongahela Rivers and their tributaries above Pittsburgh would
be of particular value to pollution abatement if operated for
low-flow control. These reservoirs could aid in control of acid
pollution as pointed out in the section of ttie report on Acid
Mine Drainage.
Table Oh-6 Main Ohio River - Monthly Mean Summer Plows for
Years in Which Low Summer Plows have Occurred.
Location
River Miles Above :
Mouth of Ohio
Drain. Area Sq. Mi.
Period of Record
Year
June c.f.s.
July "
August "
September "
Tea'r ~~
June "
July "
August "
September "
Tear
June "
July "
August "
September "
Pittsburgh,
Pa.
981
19,100
1923-1^0 _
T950
10,000
3,300
1,300
1,400
T95°
15.500
13, 4oo
6,100
3,040
1929
14,000
12,000
4,000
4,000
- 114 -
Huntington,
VI. Va.
67k
55,200
1924-40
T959 0
39,800
39,600
20,400
7,840
T956
15,100
16,300
15,600
11,500
T934-
«•
34,900
12,700
Louisville,
Ky.
374
91.200
ii28-ito_
1950
25,300
8,000
4,900
6,000
1939^ ~ ~
68,920
70,%.0
33,180
8,5£0
T9?2-
33,500
99,800
27,200
8,650
-------
Discussion
From the data presented it is apparent that the most im-
portant effect of pollution reaching the Ohio River is the
unduly heavy bacterial loadings placed on many of the 30 water
purification plants along the stream. Effects of somewhat
lesser importance are the taste and odor difficulties at the
water plants, the general loss of recreational values, the
occasional destruction of fish life and the nuisance conditions
due to occasional oxygen depletion below the largest cities,
and to scum, floating solids, and discoloration of the stream
at these and many smaller places,
Comparison of Results of Various Surveys - No previous
surveys of Ohio River tributaries comparable to the present one
have been made. T.o laboratory data therefore are available from
which to determine pollution trends for any considerable portion
of the watershed outside the main Ohio River*
Investigations of limited portions of the main river
were made in 1914-15, and in 1929-30 prior to the present study*
Previous surveys covered longer periods of time but the main
river sections studied were relatively short and represented
only a small percentage of the 981 miles of river. The present
survey has been more extensive in its scope, covering the en-
tire watershed, but the analytical data collected at any one
particular station have of necessity been limited*
Lack of comparable data is therefore the greatest
factor in preventing studies of past and present conditions
along the riverc Of considerable importance also is the dif-
ference in laboratory technique between the first and last
survey, which to a considerable extent prevents comparisons
between the oxygen demand results, indicative of the organic
pollution load on the stream. Complicating the laboratory
procedures, both chemical and bacteriological, for examinations
of water in the upper Ohio, are the presence and variation in
concentration of acidc In many instances comparable sampling
points are lacking*
During the summer periods of pool stage with the
navigation dams in operation, measurements of stream discharge
are less accurate and the pools, acting as sedimentation basins,
remove by deposition varying amounts of suspended matter, de-
pending on the amount of flow through and the distribution of
velocities in the pools* Many of these dams have been constructed
since the earlier surveys and some in existence in 1914-15 have
since been replaced, further complicating the comparison of the
results of the various surveys»
- 115 -
-------
The most striking change in the river since the
original survey, and one about which there can be no doubt, has
been the increase in acid concentration in the upper Ohio River«
Acid mine drainage, and to a lesser degree spent acid liquors
from manufacturing processes, now affect the river as far down-
stream as the mouth of the Kanawha River (Mile £66*). On
numerous occasions the u,ater supply of Pomeroy, Ohio (Mile 248*)
has been affected by acid in the river water. Water plants in
the acid zone have experienced definite increases, not only in
acid concentration but in the duration of the acid periods*
During the 1914 survey, acid conditions were occasionally ob-
served as far downstream as Wheeling, W. Va., (Mile 90*). If
the increasing acid trend continues without abatement, it is
believed the main river as far downstream as the Pcioto River
(Wile 356*) may become acid occasionally,.
The records of raw water coliform examinations at
some of the Ohio River water plants constitute the only continuous
long-time records of the quality of Ohio River water« Changes in
location of intakes and in laboratory methods make comparisons at
some of the plants impossiblea
Monthly average raw water coliform results at the
Cincinnati water plant from 19£6 to 1941 are shown in Figure
Oh-19, These data are expressed in terms of the "Phelps Index"
rather than as "Most Probable Numbers" (K.P.IT.) since the early
results were available only in this form. These data show that
during every year since 1935 the annual average coliform counts
have exceeded the safe average for treatment by ordinary filtra-
tion and chlorination. Additional treatment and careful opera-
tion have made possible the production of drinking water of
satisfactory bacterial quality but the water is often unpalatable*
A number of other water supplies from the river are much more
heavily polluted.
During the 25 years since the first survey of the
pollution of the Ohio River the population of the basin, as a
whole, has increased by about 22 percent and the population
adjacent to the Ohio River by about 24 percent. A larger
proportion of the population is served by sewers now than was
in 1915, but progress in sewage treatment has been marked.
Because the recently completed survey of sewered communities
was more complete than that of the earlier survey, the figures
shown below are not strictly comparable but they probably repre-
sent the changes that have occurred within about five percent.
River miles below Pittsburgh.
- 116 -
-------
Fig. Oh-19
cn
CO
<
o
o
£t
UJ
n.
CO
5
a:
o
u.
_i
o
o
UJ
e>
<
a:
I
•O
-------
1914-15 Survey
Present Survey
Per Cent
Increase
Entire Ohio Basin -
Population
Total
Urban
Served by sewers
To treatment plants
Untreated
Ohio River and Minor
Tributaries
Total
Urban
Served by sewers
To treatment plants
Untreated
15,381,000
5,694,600
4,106,600
483,900
3,682,700
3,308,900
2,062,900
1,680,500
27,700
1,652,800
18,824,000
O * £*£*£> y 4
4
,^13)066
5,618,200
10,024,
8,222,300
8,561,200
2/913,000
c & "I f*% e\r\f*i
4,091,100
2,709,100
2,822,200*
133,000*
2,689,200*
22
44
108
502
55
24
31
68
380
63
From these data it can be seen that the amount of
waste material of human origin reaching the Ohio River and its
tributaries has increased by 20 to 60 percent during the past
25 years. No comparable figures for changes in the industrial
waste load are available0
The factor that has probably been most influential in
forcusing attention on the pollution problem of the Ohio River
Basin is the periodic taste in municipal water supplies. This
is caused in part by certain microscopic organisms whose presence
cannot be definitely attributed to pollution but which thrive
best in water recovering from pollution, and in part by chemical
compounds discharged by such industries as by-product coke
plants, some chemical manufacturing plants, oil refineries, and
wood-preserving plants. Although these industries existed in
1914, all of them have grown rapidly during the past 25 years
and, in spite of recovery and treatment measures aimed at reducing
or eliminating the discharge of taste-producing wastes, conditions
in general are probably worse today than in 1914. No analytical
data are available to substantiate this, however. The increasing
public consciousness of tastes and the increasing public con-
sciousness of tastes and the increasing public demand for more
palatable water add to the seriousness of the problem. Improve-
ment in water treatment processes has done much toward overcoming
tastes, but practical considerations demand that further improve-
ments be made at the sources of the trouble.
* These figures cover an area comparable with that of the 1914-15
survey which differs slightly from similarly named areas con-
sidered in this reporto
- 117 -
-------
The increase in acidity arid in taste troubles in
public water supplies have Deeu tne most perceptible changes
in the quality of the Ohio River during the past 25 years.
Increased sevage and organic industrial waste pollution has
been less noticeable, due largely to the fact that the flow in
the Ohio is sufficient to prevent grossly offensive conditions
during a large part of the time*
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Compact - One of the
major factors hindering the progress of pollution abatement along
the Ohio River is the lack of any governmental agency with adequate
statutory pov/er to carry on an effective program with respect to
the stream. This is due largely to its interstate character.
Except for its upper 40 miles which are in Pennsylvania, the river
forms state boundaries, ",','est Virginia and ?7entucky, a part of
the original thirteen states, claimed ownership of the river and
as a result the state boundary is at the low water line on the
right bank of the river. Thus Ohio, Indiana and Illinois have
no jurisdiction over the stream.
Efforts at joint action by the agencies of the vari-
ous states engaged in pollution abatement work in the Ohio
Basin date from 19£4 when a conference of state health com-
missioners was held to consider methods of eliminating or satis-
factorily treating phenolic wastes which were causing, tastes
and odors in public water supplies. In that same year a co-
operative agreement was entered into by the various state
health departments and through their concerted effort considerable
progress was made in controlling phenolic waste. The agreement
had no legal status and no progress was made in controlling
sewage pollution or that resulting from other types of industrial
wastes.
In 1936 the Congress authorized* the negotiation of
an interstate compact between the states of the Ohio River
Basin, The compact was drafted, approved by the Congress,**
and ratified by the state legislatures of Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, New York, Ohio (whose ratification becomes effective
when New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia enter into the
compact) and vVest Virginia (whose ratification becomes effect-
ive when New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia enter into
the compact). It becomes effective upon ratification by five
states and consequently requires either ratification by Penn-
sylvania or removal of the qualifications placed on their rati-
fications by Ohio and /test Virginia.
* Public Res*No«104t 74th Congress, approved June 8, 1936,
** Public No. 739, 76th Congress, approved July 11, 1940.
- 118 -
-------
The principal provisions of the compact are:
Article 1, Each signatory state pledges co-operation in con-
trolling and abating pollution and agrees to enact
any necessary legislation*
Article 2« Creates "Ohio River Valley Vvater Sanitation District"
comprising all of the Ohio River Basin within the
signatory states.
Article 3. Creates "Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Com-
mission."
Article 4» Commission to consist of three members from each
state and three representing the Federal Government*
Article 5. Commission to elect officers, may hire and discharge
employees, establish offices, etc. Shall report
annually to various state governors on activities,,
Article 6
"It is recognized by the signatory states that no
single standard for the treatment of sewage or in-
dustrial wastes is applicable in all parts of the
District due to such variable factors as size, flow,
location, character, self-purification, and usage
of waters within the Districto The guiding principle
of this compact shall be that pollution by sewage
or industrial wastes originating within a signatory
state shall not injuriously affect the various uses
of the interstate waters as hereinbefore defined*
"All sewage from municipalities or other political
subdivisions, public or private institutions, or
corporations, discharged or permitted to flow into
these portions of the Ohio River and its tributary
waters which form boundaries between, or are con-
tiguous to, two or more signatory states, or which
flow from one signatory state into another signa-
tory state, shall be so treated, within a time
reasonable for the construction of the necessary
works, as to provide for substantially complete
removal of settleable solids, and the removal of not
less than forty-five percent (45$) of the total
suspended solids; provided that, in order to pro-
tect the public health or to preserve the waters for
other legitimate purposes, including those specified
in Article 1, in specific instances such higher
degree of treatment shall be used as may be determined
to be necessary by the Commission after investigation,
due notice and hearing.
- 119 -
-------
Article 7.
Article 8.
Article 9,
"All industrial wastes •MS charged or permitted to
flow into the aforesaid waters shall be modified
or treated, within a time reasonable for the con-
struction of the necessary works, in order to pro-
tect the public health or to preserve the waters
for other legitimate purposes, including those
specified in Article 1, to such degree as may be
determined to be necessary by the Commission after
investigation, due notice and hearing.
"All sev/age or industrial wastes discharged or
permitted to flow into tributaries of the afore-
said waters situated wholly within one state shall
be treated to that extent, if any, which may be
necessary to maintain such waters in a sanitary
and satisfactory condition at least equal to the
condition of the waters of the interstate stream
immediately above the confluence,,
"The Commission is hereby authorized to adopt,
prescribe and promulgate rules, regulations and
standards for administering and enforcing the
provisions of this article."
Compact does not limit power of states to require
higher degrees of treatment.
Commission shall conduct a survey of the District
and raake a comprehensive report; shall draft and
recommend legislation to state governors; shall
consult with states, municipalities, industries,
etc., on pollution problems,
"The Commission may from time to time, after in-
vestigation and after a hearing, issue an order or
orders upon any municipality, corporation, person,
or other entity discharging sev/age or industrial
waste into the Ohio River or any other river, stream
or water, any part of which constitutes any part of
the boundary line between any two or more of the
signatory states, or into any stream any part of
which flows from any portion of one signatory state
through any portion of another signatory state. Any
such order or orders may prescribe the date on or
before which such discharge shall be wholly or par-
tially discontinued, modified or treated or otherwise
disposed of. The Commission shall give reasonable
notice of the time and place of the hearing to the
- 120 -
-------
Article 10,
municipality, corporation or other entity against
which such order is proposed. No such order shall
go into effect unless and until it receives the
assent of at least a majority of the commissioners
from each of not less than a majority of the signa-
tory states; and no such order upon a municipality,
corporation, person or entity in any state shall go
into effect unless and until it receives the assent
of not less than a majority of the commissioners
from such state,
"It shall be the duty of the municipality, corpor-
ation, person or other entity to comply with any
such order issued against it or him by the Commission,
and any court of general jurisdiction or any United
States district court in any of the signatory states
shall have the jurisdiction, by mandamus, injunction,
specific performance or other form of remedy, to
enforce any such order against any municipality,
corporation or other entity domiciled or located
within such state or whose discharge of the waste
takes place within or adjoining such state, or
against any employee, department or subdivision of
such municipality, corporation, person, or other
entity; provided, however, such court may review the
order and affirm, reverse or modify the same upon
any of the grounds customarily applicable in proceed-
ings for court review of administrative decisions*
The Commission or, at its request, the Attorney
General or other law-enforcing official, shall have
power to institute in such court any action for
the enforcement of such ordero"
States agree to appropriate their proportion of
Commission budget prorated one-half in proportion
to population and one-half in proportion to land
area within the District*
Article 11. Compact to become effective when ratified by legis-
latures of majority of states and approved by
Congress,
(Signed by compact commissioners for Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,
New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and West Virginia),
- 121 -
-------
Desirable Degree of Treatment - General application of
the compact minimum requirement of substantially complete
removal of all settleable solids and removal of at least 45
percent of the suspended solids from all sewage and industrial
wastes discharged directly to the Ohio River should be ample
to prevent serious oxygen depletion at any place on the Ohio
River except Cincinnati under present conditions of waste
loads and stream flow. Even in the Cincinnati area conditions
would be satisfactory except during periods of extremely low
flow. A marked reduction in the acidity of the Ohio River at
Pittsburgh would greatly increase the effects of organic pol-
lution and necessitate a higher degree of treatment unless the
stream flow during the warm weather months was increased ap-
preciably. At these two places designs for the larger plants
should include provisions for more than primary treatment,
probably by the addition of coagulants. At all of the larger
municipalities and at any of the smaller ones whose sewage
would appreciably affect downstream water intakes, continuous
chlorination of the treatment plant effluents should be pro-
vided for the reduction of bacterial pollution. At places
v.here wastes are being discharged to tributary streams near
their junction with the Ohio River, more complete treatment
may be necessary to correct local conditions unless the out-
falls are extended to the Ohio River.
Low-flow control by means of flood control and
multiple-purpose reservoirs in the area above Pittsburgh and
Cincinnati might eliminate the need for more than primary
treatment of sewage "and equivalent treatment of organic in-
dustrial wastes at these places. The flow required at Pitts-
burgh to accomplish this (assuming an effective acid-control
program) has been estimated at 8,000 c.f.s. during the warm
summer months (2.5°C. or 77°F. average monthly air temperature)
and progressively lesser flows as temperatures decrease. The
savings in costs resulting from the use of primary treatment
rather than the higher degree of treatment using chemical co-
agulants is estimated at $300,000 per year at Pittsburgh and
an additional §300,000 per year at Cincinnati.
Studies by the U. S. Engineer Department indicate
that such flows could be maintained except during such an ex-
tremely dry year as 1930 by using existing reservoirs and addi-
tional ones above Pittsburgh authorized by the Congress for
low-flow control in conjunction with their major purpose of
flood control. At Cincinnati, a considerably smaller increase
in flow would ensure satisfactory conditions with only primary
treatment. Existing reservoirs together with those above Pitts-
burgh could provide this increased flow.
- 1£2 -
-------
The bulk of the organic industrial wastes should be
treated at municipal plants. In general, removal of settle-
able solids as required by Article 6 of the Compact should
assure adequate industrial waste treatment except at oil re-
fineries, by-product coke plants, and a few other plants where
particular attention should be given to those components
likely to cause tastes and odors in public water supplies.
At plants such as steel mills, acid wastes should be neutral-
ized during periods when their contribution to the acid load
on the stream is significant. However, as mine drainage con-
tributes by far the greater acid load, acid mine control by
sealing should be well advanced before even part-time neu-
tralization of pickle liquor is justified.
The larger cities along the Ohio River are aware of
the necessity of sewage treatment and many of them have made
studies to determine how they can most economically collect
and treat their wastes. Consulting engineers have recently
prepared preliminary plans and estimates for Cincinnati and
Louisville. Pittsburgh, Evansville, Wheeling and Huntington
had previously studied their sewerage problems.
Pittsburgh - The problem of waste treatment in the Pitts-
bur gh~T5TsTrTct is highly complicated and cannot be effectively
solved by the city alone. Some kind of Authority or Sanitary
District comprising the greater part of Allegheny County is
almost essential to an economical and thorough pollution abate-
ment program in this area. The county contains 125 cities,
boroughs and townships, many of which necessarily use joint
sewers. The intensive development of the narrow stream valleys
limits the number of available sites for sewage treatment plants,
The report of the General Committee on Sewage of the Municipali-
ties of Allegheny County, prepared in 1939, outlines a plan for
19 treatment plants on the lower Allegheny and Llonongahela Hiv-
ers, the Ohio River and two smaller streams. Turtle Creek and
Chartiers Creek. Much more detailed investigation of alternate
plans is necessary before any final decision can be made as to
the best plan. The largest plant in any case will almost cer-
tainly be at a site on Brunots Island where most or all of the
sewage from the city of Pittsburgh, as well as from a number
of adjoining boroughs and townships, would be treated. Inter-
ceptor costs will be high since most construction will be in
rock and a considerable part of it will be in tunnel. The es-
timated cost of interceptors and 19 primary treatment plants
in the Committee report is $35,900,000. These would serve most
of Allegheny County- Costs as summarized in Table Oh-1 include
only those plants on the Ohio River in the Pittsburgh area. The
costs of other plants in the metropolitan area are included in
summaries of costs in the Allegheny and Monongahela Basins.
- 123 -
-------
Cincinnati - Comprehensive studies of the pollution prob-
lem of Cincinnati and its suburbs in Ohio have been made and
preliminary plans and estimates have been prepared. Cincinnati
has made more progress toward solution of its pollution prob-
lem than any other large Ohio River city. Plans call for the
ultimate construction of four plants which would treat the
wastes of the city and 1? incorporated suburbs as well as a
large unincorporated area in Hamilton County. The first plant
to be constructed would treat the wastes now entering the Lit-
tle Miami near its mouth and the Ohio in the upper part of the
city. These wastes may affect the water supplies of Cincin-
nati, Covington and Newport which are taken from the Ohio within
a mile upstream from the mouth of the Little Miami. Intercep-
tors for this plant are almost complete. The proposed plant
will have a capacity of about 25 m.g.d. and will provide pri-
mary treatment and chlorination with provisions for later addi-
tions to increase its capacity and to provide more complete
treatment.
The largest plant of the four would be located in
Mill Creek Valley a short distance from the Ohio River. Its
capacity would be about 108 m.g.d. It would treat most of the
sewage from Cincinnati and its suburbs and, in addition, large
amounts of industrial wastes which make the combined wastes
about twice as strong as normal municipal sewage. The plant
as planned would provide primary treatment and chlorination
with provisions for increases in capacity and in degree of
treatment.
The other two plants would be much smaller with a
total capacity of about 5 m.g.d. They would serve the lower
end of the city and adjoining areas in the county. They would
provide the same degree of treatment as the larger plants and
their construction would be deferred until the larger plants
were completed.
The total capital cost of the entire program is es-
timated at about $19,000,000.
Little progress has been made toward pollution abate-
ment in the Kentucky communities across the river from Cincin-
nati. A number of the smaller communities which drain to small
wet-weather streams have installed treatment plants but the
bulk of wastes still enters the Ohio and Licking Rivers untreated,
Co-operative effort seems necessary to any economical program
of waste treatment but numerous attempts to form special dis-
tricts for such work have failed.
- 124 -
-------
Louisville - The recently completed consulting engineers'
report on sewage treatment for Louisville proposes a single
primary treatment plant to serve the city and some of its
suburbs. A large industrial waste load would be treated with
the domestic sewage. The plant would have a capacity of about
73 m.g.d. The estimated capital cost for interceptors and
treatment is about $6,000,000. The report suggests operation
only during low-flow periods- No provision is made for chlorina-
tion of the effluent. Because of the short sedimentation per-
iod provided (one hour at average design flow) and part-time
operation, such a plant would not meet the minimum requirements
in Article 6 of the Compact, nor would it provide adequate pro-
tection to the New Albany, Ind., water supply. If provisions
for chlorination were added and the plant operated continuously
it should effectively reduce bacterial pollution below louis-
ville.
These three large metropolitan areas are the key
ones in a program for abatement of pollution in the Ohio River.
Although the need for sewage treatment is equally acute at
many other communities along the upper Ohio, at Huntington,
Ashland and other places where bacterial pollution is affect-
ing downstream public water supplies, it is proper for the
larger places to take the lead.
Cost - The cost of a suggested program providing for
primary treatment of all wastes entering the Ohio is summar-
ized in Table Oh-1. This suggested program is based on the
assumption that low-flow control will make more complete
treatment at Pittsburgh and Cincinnati unnecessary. An estimate
of the comparative cost of a program for complete treatment of
all wastes is included in Table Oh-1.
- 125 -
-------
TABU: oh-7 MAIN OHIO RIVER
OHIO RTVER POLLUTION SURVEY
LABORATORY DATA
SUMMARY OF AVERAGES
. **.*.
Jnsworth Dan
IT ft
V V
"SBf-t* 1
0 6
H H
ft ft
™"f'"
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
« • [ • » Mar. 'Ul
Daihield Lock & Ban j 0 13.5
.
' " I "
ff ft 1 ft ft
1
fl ft
Beaver River - Mouth
R •
ft t
Montgomery Dan
N ft
N ft
* H
Lock & Dan Ho. 7
« ft
* •
Lode A Dan Ho. 6
R ft
N »
N t
Lock & Item Ho. 9
ft *
« ft
Leek & Dam No. 10
n «
* ft
ft *
n •
11
9
11
7
j
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Mar. '1*1
o 25.11 1100**
(1.1* ml.abr. INov.
no. P«T. R.J
ft «
o 31.7
ft R
ft •
* ft
o 36.5
ft ft
ft
* 1*6.1*
ft R
II ft
ft R
Dec.
Oct.
HOT.
Deo.
Mar. 'Ul
Oct.
HOT.
Dee.
Oct.
HOT.
Dec.
Mar. '1(1
0 56.ll0ct.
H ft
R «
o 66
H H
ft ft
n «
•
Lock & Dam Mo. 11 j 0 77
• *
« *
ft *
Lock & Dan No. 12
« ft
• «
Lock A Dam No. 13
. •
ft H
R ft
ft «
HOT.
Dec.
Oct.
HOT.
Deo.
Mar. '1*1
Oct.
NOT.
' Dec.
« •
-
o 87.5
M •
• II
Mar. "tl
11
9
11
7
11
8
11
11
9
9
7
11
9
10
12
9
9
6
12
J
10
12
10
12
6
12
10
12
6
1
Oct.
ROT.
Dec.
I
0 96 Oct.
« tt
ii •
« ii
HOT.
Dec.
Mar. 'Ill
12
10
12
12
10
12
6
j ,„.
^FPjT~j^
5, wo! is: 3 i "».o
23,660: 9.0 j 10.3
51,350: ii.it' j lit. 7
1*7.750: 2.5 J13-9
5,710:16.0 j 7.8
23.270; 8.3 iil,0
51,070: 3.8 jij.8
U7.1U0 2.3 jis.9
j
633U5.2 ; 8.3
1,797! 8.6 : 11.0
6,228: U.8 112.5
6,100:16.0 i 8.3
2U, 990! g.8 i 11.0
6o.i8o| 3.1 i 13- 8
53, 510: 2. U i 13. 3
i
6,110:16.0 iio.o
*.330| 8.8 i 12.2
61.900J 3.3 il1*.!
i I
6,53o:i5.8 i 9.8
2"t.580> 8.8 jll.8
6U,6ioi 3.8 i 13. 8
53.320: 2.7 J13.7
i 1
6.510:15.3 i 9-7
2U.U30J g.8 j.1.6
6U.650J 3.7 J13.7
6.500J16.3 [ 9. It
23,160] 9.1 iii.5
59."»3o: H.5 1 13.5
5"t.OgO! 2.2 il3,5
' j
6,U8o|l6^3 i 8.3
22,926: 9.3 ji.U
60.160] 1*.3 iij.5
5U.U«o: 2.5 113.5
i i
6,5"*0il5.7 : 8.6
22,680! 9.5 jii.3
60,910: U; 7 JVJ.1
; ;
6,U50J15.6J 8.9
22,1*90! 8.9 : 11. 2
6l,520| >». 8 i 1J.O
55,26o] 2.2J13.2
SOW
B. O. D.
1>
2.0
1.8
2.2
1.1
l.lt*
2.2
1,6'
2.0
1.9
2.6
1.8
2.7
"a*
1.6
2.0
2.0
i'.o
1.5
l.>t*
2.1
0.9
Jlifi*
lit"
1.2*
i*T*
2.U
1.1*
1.7
2-3
U5.*
1.8
1.6**
1.9
2.1
2.8*
•r.T'
J8»ifflf
2.2
1.8
ii*
2.0*1
2.1
1.5
2.1*
2.0*
2.2
cotta™, :
MP.N. i
12 i
106 ]
208
1*0
.H
5.6
6.2
6.7
6.1
!
10
93
6.6
6.3
105 j 6.6
38
6.0
i
802
lUl
380
6.2
6.5
6.7
|
20
58
102
"3
5.6
6.2
6.5
6.0
;
27
£7
103
5-7
6.3
6.5
4-
">7 5.6
"•3 '6.2
99
68
6.U
6.0
31
35
98
5-5
6.2
6.U
30
29
97
30
5-t
6.2
6.U
6.1
I
61
26
"76
22
5-3
6.2
6."t
6.1
j
10
22
9!*
15.3
• 6.1*
[
"3
59
207
2.7 lg
- 126 - '
•5.3
:6.i*
1 6-2
MUlly
p. P.&
8
16
37
26
7
18
1*1
25
13
25
5"
7
16
39
32
6
19
50
It
21
59
31
3
17
58
it
lU
"•7
28
5
16
51
28
6
16
"•7
6
17
~""57
28
AMMf,
7
15
13
10
8
13
11
7
33
Uo
30
8
15
15
9
9
lit
12
7
l"t
12
9
9
ll*
13
~9
lU
12
10
5
13
12
9
5
12
12
-
6
lit
15
13
Harkm
"•••••-
±X*-~
-------
TABLE Oh-7 MAIN OHIO RIVER
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
LABORATORY DATA
SUMMARY OF AVERAOES
s^*«
I^ck A Hun So. it
.
H n
* t!
.
t »
n n
ft fl
Lock & Dam Nft- 15
n fl
Pittsburgh
0 II1*
« •
tt •
If N
H fl
•
.
H *
o 129
H fl
n n tt H
» • fl tt
H fl
V "
tt It
n ti
w n
fl n
tetod
19MO
May
June
July
Aug. ,
Sept.
'SS^fej^i^
12 j 39.05CJ 15.9: 9.7
10 i >tl,51l.9 1 8.3
Aug. 11 j 12, 800! 26. It j 7.6
" " Sept.
it n
» it j * n
!
youth - nun HO. i
« n
Jan. "tl
5 ill,20o:22.1| ! 8.8
7 Iss.1*): 1.6 113.8
Feb. " 2 i29,ltl*01 1.5:13.6
Mar. •
0 172. £ Ifay
(6.2 "a* EOT. 1 June
* It 1 B «
July
" - | " « Aug.
" " {Sept.
9 !6l,U8o| 2.2 J13.lt
i i i
11 ! 9.7*il6.0 j 9.7
i 10 ill, 982 22.2 i 8.6
9 j 5.689 25.5 ; 8.2
11 1 2.050126.11 i 7.5
5 j 3.360J 21.5 : 8.3
11 " tt • Jan.ilii 7 j 5,620 1.6 jiU.l
H fl ft If
" B
Argand l^r.^in^-Below
Mariette 4>UuHKinguni B
" n
It H
H •
" *
"
tt N
Feb. " 2 110,510 1.2 J13.9
Mar. "
0 173.5 May
H n
fl *
H •
H tt
. ,
* i * *
8 i 7.996J 2.3 ;13.6
10 ] 1*3,610 16.1 i 9.9
June 10 j61*,300 22.1 j 8.3
July 10 ! 31.1(1(0, 25. "I i 8.1*
Aug.
S«pt.
Jan. "11
r.b. •
« , — ,.„„,„ L nnl .^L^L,
10 115,000 26.6 i 7.7
6 116,230 22.3 i 8.7
6 163,1*00 1.6 113.8
3 j 1*2.800 1.6 |13.S
8 :65.l*ooj 2.5 J13.5
B.O.D.
1.1
1.2
0.8
0.9
o.s*
6. 8"
0.9*
2.0
l.U
2.0
1.0
1.1
0.9
T.O
0.8*
"oV8"
0.8*
1.8
1.3
1.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
iio*
6-9
1.9
1.2
1.7
1.0
1.6
1.1*
1.2
o.a*
1.0
0.5*
2.0
1-3
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.9
2.0
1.3
l.U
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.5
l."»
l.lt
1.1
1.8
1.3
1.6
„<.• nest.
CoWn
M. P. N. ; .H
hr»l. 1
li i 5.3
"1*35 i 6.8
33 j 6.6"
15 j i*. 9
«• j U.6
33 ! 6.i
3i i 6.5
16 i 6.5
7 iM
81 i6. 8
I* 16.7
93 iit
« i1*.?
17 i 6,1*
16 i 6. 6
21 i6.5
1
7~ ]5. 3
57 J6.S
28 i 6. 7
23 i5-6
U iU.g
18 i6.it
20 i¥.6
11 I6.U
;
U 15.2
122 j 6.6
75 J7.0
26" 16.2
3 J5.1
13 ]6. J
8 |6.5
15 :6.lt
It -7.3
156 J7.5
28 1 7.6
13 i 7.6
12 16.7
107 i 7.1
122 1 7.5
1*9 • 7.6
lit i 6.6
112 ] 7.2
"ft [7.2
123 17.1
2>t 16.5
3>t J6.8
27 J7.1
20 J6.8
Stf
20
62
20
13
7
39
39
32
"3
"19
39
7
39
26
Wt
32
63
35
26
6
37
22
"t3
39
135
63'
lilt
E
33
19
16
66
21*0
56
59
it?
36
38
>>7
56
137
15
"15
23
58
30
51
1ST
8
16
15
13
3
15
12
8
16
18
13
5
13
lit
11
7
16
18
lU
U
12
lit
11
7
16
22
12
6
12
111
10
85
80
100
102
80
*
76
*
22
39
H9
ill
26
38
Mi
2U
P.D.B.
=====.
v
-------
TABLE Oh-7 MAIN OHIO RIVER
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
LABORATORY DATA
SUMMARY OF AVERAGES
i = Nirabw at '
SwpI'M P°.nl Mll.w.r™ ! P.lorf i T^.1 1
Pittsburgh | l£l*0 i ',
Lock & Bam No. IS 0 ISO jllay 1 9
" " " • {June | 10
" " " • {July 1 10
ti » » » jAug. | n
: =
" » " " j Sept. j 6
» « » " {ten. '1*1 | 6
« • ! « • !Feb. 'Ul 1 J
1 1 ;
» « ! * • |Mar. " 1 5
! ! i
mii&ggtT° ^ N i 5
" " | ' " JJW» 1 1°
" " | " " jjuly | 10
" " 1 " " (Aug. 1 11
" " | » « jsept. 1 2
" " 1 " " 1 Jan. '1(1 1 6
\ i i
I " « JFeb. » | 3
« " I " " liter. » 1 8
" ! | 1
U.TaSwte-E£vy«r.-r- =."— . ;"" I""'
B. * 0. H.B. Bridge | ° WU.6 I^W | 9
» » M6.1 mi.abv. Ijune i 10
:«o. .hXaaJi.)* !
" * ' >• {July j 10
" " " " jAug. ! 11
" " j " " j Jan. '1*1 { 6
! " • bet. " 1 3
« " ! • " I Mar. " ! 8
_ i i :
! ! !
1 ! . . i
Kapps Sun Light I 0 185 ttoy 1 9
! „ i ! .
" " 1 " " |J»">e | 10
" " 1 " " |J«iy 1 10
" " » n jAug. I u
i 1 1
" " ii jsapt. ! 2
i !
" " j " " {Jan. '!*! j 6
! • • h»- • i 3
" " I " " |Mar. " | 8
! I
i •
Loclt 4 Dam Ho. 19 0 192 Illay j 10
" " i « |June 1 10
1 i
" " " " [July | 12
« " !«. liug. ! 11
1 1 .1 _.
« * { • i SSept. | 6
I' » 1 » « Sjan. 'Ul | 6
» « j • i iTeb. » i 3
i I !
• \ • • |Uar. " J 7
....i 1 !
. "> 1
Hocking Hiver - 0.1 - •- .
Mouth - Hockingoort 0 199.3 =Jay | U
» « (0.1 ml. abT.rjune i U
mo..Hocki.B£-H. | ;
" « » • iJuly j 5
* nun jiu& j 1,
" " " " [Sept. ! 2
: i
§ j
*"?°0*i T«v.
*ST! *
ltl.53oil6.lt
6U. 30D| 22.0
31, 1*1*0; 25. 3
15,000:26.3
16,230:22.2
63,1*00: 1.6
U2,gOOi 1.6
65,1»00: 2.U
i
Ul, 53oi 16.1
61*, 300:21. 8
31,1*1*0:25.0
15,000|26.0
lg,810|23.5
63,1*00: 1.5
1*2,8001 1.5
es-too! 2.1*
930:16.7
U,8l*6i21.3
1.9S8J25.0
~6~,7~11;25.7
!*,918J 2.2
1.253i 1.8
lt.711*! 2.6
i
i*e,i*6oii6.o
&5,iUo: 21.9
33,"i*30j ai.9
15.6SOJ26.0
15,200123.5
62,320: 1.5
W*,090| i.s
70,080! 2.3
1*2,1*00:16.8
70,190122.8
33,5i*o|25.i
16,700:26.1*
17,300i 22.5
73.600: 2.7
lii.jao: 2.0
6s,03o| 3.2
6llil8.lt
1.21UI23.1*
1*96:25.7
632; 25.1*
l.l*7Ui20.8
'
o. o.
p.p.«.
9.7
8.2
8.3
7.7
s.6
13.9
13.8
13."
9-7
8.2
8.3
7.6
8.2
13.8
13.8
13. t
7.8
7.6
5.6
2.e
12.1*
13.3
13.0
9.6
8.1
S.I
7.5
8.2
13.3
13.8
13."*
9-7
8.0
8,2
..,._
8.3
13.6
13.8
13.3
8.9
7.8
7.6
7.6
8.3
SOW
tO.D
p. p. M.
1.1
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.7
1.1
1.1*
l.i*
1.5
2.8
1.5
1.2
1.7
2.9
1.7
2.2
2.7
2.2
2.1
2.3
1.2
1.7
1.6
2.2
2.2
1.8
1.1*
1.9
l.U
1.8
2.0
.,.._„
1.1*
2.0
I."*"
1.6
1.0
1.3
1.7
2.1
1.2
Colilom
M.P. N.
P««l
7
76
30
78
32
23
31
20
8
79
58
66
1*1
ll*
23
22
1.750
1,280
1,01*0
2,720
185
23
57
23
103
70
210
53
"9
33
29
59
119
72
ss
39
22
i"2
26
2>*
133
68
1*
2>t
p"
6,6
7.1
7.2
7.1
6.5
6.8
7.0
6.9
6.6
7.0
7.1
7.0
6.6
6.7
6.9
6.7
6.7
7.1
7.0
7.0
6.9
6.8
6.3
6.6
6.3
7.1
7.0
6.7
6.7
6.8
6.7
6.7
7.1
7.3
7.1
6.5
6.8
6.9
6.8
7.2
7.3
7.U
7."
6.9
TuA4d«y
p. p. •.
"15
137
>t5
5"
19
1*1
28
118
1(6
122
1*2
^
31*
1(2
27
1*9
25
289
61
105
98
25
169
39
120
50
Kg
38
1(1*
30
U8
1*1
135
65
it?"
17
6"*
32
75
12
120
98
92
20
-
AlblMUr
P.P.M.
22
1*2
U9
1(1
32
37
U2
3H
2L
33
37
32
33
26
3°
20
21*
25
30
28
22
17
19
13
33
37
3"
33
22
31
22
22
32
3S
"~3U
23
26
29
19
78
61*
79
98
ek
Hodnoi
p. p. n.
- 128 -
-------
TABLE Oh-7 MAIN OHIO RIVER
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
LABORATORY DATA
SUMMARY OF AVERAGES
*
ScMplina Point
Lock & Dam No. 20
H If
R n
R R
n *
» R
n n
M K
Lock & Dam No. 21
n 11
R *
n n
H R
H »
H N
H IT
Lock & Dan No. 22
N II
tt R
R n
n "
R n
H II
n R
lock & Xbm No. 23
w n
R H
.-
II «
R R
R . R
R II
Ft. Pleasant, V. Va.
R R
R R
N R
IT H
N H
R R
R R
MlUoo. Fro.
Pittsburgh
..,....n«IU>»"««""" ""••<•>
0 202.5
'*"'""*""""'""'*
Period
May
" " Uune
" " {July
" JAug.
" » ,j Sept.
" " ! Jan. '1*1
• [la*. »
" » Illar. "
;
0 2lU. 5j May
11 " 1 June
" « [July
" " JAug.
" " 1 Sept.
" " jjan. "*1
=
" « [Feb. "
« " (Mar. "
j
0 221 jllay
• " Ijune
1
it •
"
July
Aug.
Sept.
" " Jan.'Ul
• [Feb. -
» »
o 231.5
i n R
•
Mar. n
May
Nuntxrol
10
10
12
11
6
6
3
7
10
10
12
11
6
6
3
g
10
10
11
11
6
6
3
8
8
June i 10
I
July
Aug. '!«
11
* ' j Sept. » | 6
W R
II R
R R
o 265
R H
H R
R R
H H
R •
R n
R H
• » | . ,
Jan. 'Ul 5
Feb. »
liar. •
3
g
Aug. '39J 6
Sept. j 7
Oct. j 9
NOT. 1 8
Dec. | 7
Jan. '1*0
Feb.
liar.
Apr.
1
5
7
U
Avttoo* 1 Twnp. ! 0. O.
1*3,130116.8 i 9.8
71, 580! 22.2 1 8.0
3l*,270J2l*.g j 8.2
18,530:26.0 j 7.6
18,360: 21.9 : 8.6
75.3SOJ 2.3 i 13.6
1*7,030! 2.1 1 13.8
7i.3eoi 2.1* i 13.3
i i
1*3, 150! 15-8 : 9.6
71,760! 21.9 1 7.9
3U.600! 2l».3 ! 8.1
19,650 26.0 j 7.6
19,290! 21.5 i 8.6
73.560J 2.2 113.1
>*g,29oi 2.1 113.6
70,6501 2.9 !13-3
i*3,li*oil5.7 i 9.7
72,020121.3 i 7.7
32,970123.8 1 8.0
20,3001 25.6 i 7.7
19,780:20.9 i 8.5
75.310! 2.2 113.6"
1*7,1*60! 2.g J13.1*
70,1*90! 3.7 113.2
1 \
te.96Cfl6'.3 ! 9.8
72,200|22.1 1 7.7
3U,960j2lt.U | S.I
21.350J 26.U i 7.9
20.620: 21.7 1 8.7
72.690 S.} il3.6
1*8,860! 2.0 j 13.8
71.000: 3.9 ! 13.2
j i
12,600! 25. 8 I 6.1*
l*,6ooi 2U.O i 6.7
11.100117,1 j 8.1*
ll.OOOi 7.8 ill. 2
22,9001 U.9 J12.2
9,1*30! 2.5 J13.5
.09,200! 2.U J12.8
99.500! 5.3 J12.8
,99,l*OOJ 8.3 ilO.g
i '• ''
8. O.D
p. p.".
1.6
1.1
1.7
2.0
1.6
2.2
1.6
1.9
1.1*
1.8
1-5
1.6
1.5
3.8
l.l*
2.2
1.1*
1.7
1.1*
1-7
1.5
1.8
1.6
2.0
1.2
1-7
1-3
1.7
1.9
2.0
1.5
2.0
1.7
O.g
0.8
1.0
0-9
1.2
2.7
1-9 .
2.2
ColifonM
M.P. N.
25
120
62
210
15
36
^
31*
11
188
1*2
19
28
33
Ul
26
11
115
29
17
17
J7
35
22
g
102
*
22
15
30
19
18
27
9
11
7
22
2
29
36
2U
.H
6.7
7.1
7.2
7.2
•6.6
6.8
7.0
6.7
6.7
7.1
7.2
7.2
6.6
6.9
7.0
6.7
6.7
7.0
7.2
7.2
6.6
6.8
7-0
6.7
6.6
6.9
7.2
7.2
6.6
6.8
7.0
6.7
7-3
7.5
7."*
7.0
6.9
7.1
6.9
6.9
6.8
ToWdny
1*0
1"*5
69
61
15
79
33
99
37
19"*"
57
1*1
18
5l*
32
61*
2b
191*
57
31*
22
1*9
3>*
85
30
196
60
31
2"t
1*3
1*0
63
26
1*
9
13
g
9
155
161
.
AlkolMr
p- p.".
23
31
3«
33
21*
26
32
17
21*
32
39
33
26
28
31
19
23
31
39
33
*
27
31
lg
21.
31
36
32
26
28
31
19
38
U5
32
29
23
20
29
28
a
Hodna
P.P.M.
"-"W -'
-------
TABLE Oh-7 MAIN OHIO RIVER
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
LABORATORY DATA
SUMMARY OF AVERAGES
Sawlhg PolM iMIUog. Fro* '
jPittsburgbT:.:.
Ksnawha Biver
n n
It IT
IT N
N R
R n
«
n II
II *
Gallipolie Earn
it «
it "
-
N IT
11 R
n it
R R
R *
.
H *
Lock & Dam No. 27
Above Gujandot Elver
n H
•
H n
M N
M M
o 265.7
(0.6 ni.abv.
T
Nflcd
Aug. '39
Sept.
• " loot.
» " (NOT.
> II
Dec.
" " 1 Jan. 'UO
- (Feb.
" " filar.
" " {Apr.
•
i
0 279 JJ™"
» " jjuly
i
» it
Aug.
" " [Sept.
" " JOct.
i
• » JNov.
" " {Dec.
• " jjan. '1*0
n •
.
it n
.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
0 301 June '3
it it
" " JAug.
it »
• R
Sept.
Oct. '3
n ti I Nov.
• R inn
=
* II
M *
Dec.
* " Jan. »UO
n n
Feb.
n * j " " Mar.
| " " JApr.
I I
I
Guyando t Hive r— U outh
0 305.2 K^e '39
N ft | (0.1 mi.abT. |T .
int. ft». fi.HJuly
« N
R II
" " Aug.
R N
* H R H
Sept.
Oct.
" " j « " JNOT.
H n = n it
n j . ,
» • 1 • it
It H
H N
Dec.
Feb. 'UO
Mar. '1*0
Apr.
***• ITiTi °^ j *•"•••
6 i u.iod 25.8 i 5.2
7 [ 1.80CJ 2U.1 | 6.1
9 i 1.600; 17.9 i 7.3
8 i 1.90QJ 7.9 j 8.5
7 | 2.50CJ 5.0 j 6.9
5 i 2.30QJ 1.9 j 9.8
5 !20,200J 2.UJ12.7
7 i 17.U80J 5.3 j 11.5
1* j 28.U20J 8.8 j 9.9
i i i
2 !39.50o:26.8 i 5-9
7 1 37.800] 25.3 j 6.1*
10 il8,300J25.U j 6.2
6 ! 6,700|23.g i 6.U,
9 112,900:17.6 i 7.9
7 ,'l3,10oi 8.0 J10.8
7 J26.100J 5.3 ill. 6
1 J12,000| 0.8 i
U J126SOOJ 2.0 J13.1
6 J95.000J U.2 112.8
U i228300j 7.8 ilO.g
! ! *
2 J38.700J26.5 i 7.0
7 138, 100:26.5 j 7.2
10 il9,900|26.U i 7.3
7 i 8.20012U.7 j 7.8
9 i 1U.20D! 18.U i 8.9
7 j ll*,500J 9.7 1 ll. 6
6 ! 29.500; 6.5 M.2
2 i 37. 6ooi i.o J13.6
6 il5.l*00! 2.5 J13.1
7 )l28,10oi U.2 J12.6
U 232,800! 8.1 iio.7
1 i ! '
2 i l,010|25.g ! 6.8
: : :
U | 1.1*55:25.3 : 7.1
"» i 3"*5!25.8 i 6.6
5 i 6o|23.6 i U.g
U i ( 1*1:17.6 j 5.3
u ! 52! 8.8 i 9.5
U ! 107J U.U J10.8
2 j 3,s68i U.o i 12. 3
"* 1 l."33 6.5 i 11.7
2 j 2,958! 11,5 i 10.2
1 j i j
SDoy
.O. D.
1.6
0.8
0.7
0.9
1.2
2.5
2.1
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.2
1.1
.0.8
0.6
1.0
0.9
l.U
2.2
1.6
2.2
1.9
1.5
1.6
o.g
0.8
l.U
1-3
1.3
2.5
2.1
3.8
1.1
1.1
1.1
2.U
U.O
7.U
3.9
1.1
O.g
0.7
Collfom i
M. P. M ! 0H
5 i 7-3
1 i 7.5
3 :7-5
2 i 7.2
i i 7.1
1 i 7.0
52 i 7.0
. i
3>* j 7.0
150 j 6.9
I
38 j 7.3
23 17.3
ll i7-3
2 :7.5
5 !7.5
5 J7.2
I1* :7.l
2 17.2
22 J6.9
21 J6.9
2U ; 6. 8
i
2>i J7.3
31 |7.3
rt i7.3
l i 7.5
2 j 7.5
U j 7.2
9 i 7.0
23 | 6.9
33 I 6,9
36 |6.q
29 :6.8
:
350 J7.2
2.950 J7.3
380 J7.U
U.600 i7.2
3,060 17.5
3.280 J7.1
550 17.2
236 J7.0
_j_,
93 J6.6
TnWHy
p. p.«.
ll*
6
7
8
6
"*5
1>*2
62
82
83
77
33
7
8
11
7
9
175
66
157
105
95
38
5
8
11
8
16
156
11*0
11*9
1*05
286
90
15
16
18
10
66
29
20
" i
' ^
Altolinlly i HxdhM
p.p.n 1 P.P.O.
39 i
501
1*6:
57:
6U:
5Uj
26i
28 :
23:
J
31 1
Uo •
35 i
"7i
38 j
33 i
28 !
37 i
28 i
29 i
20 |
i
33 i
>*o i
33 j
Ug :
32 j
29 •
26 j
29 j
30 j
22 {
!
20 i
23 i
36 j
52 i
U8 j
U8 i
59 i
17 i
19]
17!
i
- 130 - ' '" '" " "
-------
TABLE Oh-7 MAIN OHIO RIVER
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
LABORATORY DATA
SUMMARY OF AVERAGES
Sowltog PoM 1 MlUoo. Fro.
1 Pittsburgh
Lock & Ian Mo. 28 i 0 j12
Below Ouyan&ot Biver 1
193£Uo
June '39!
'SX0' j
» « fun |July | 7
j » " Aug. j 10
" " 1 " " I Sept. | 7
" " | " " Oct. 1 9
\
1 n ! n «
HOT. 1 8
i
Dec. | 7
Jan. 'UO 1 3
' * 1 * » !pel>. I U
! ! . . 1
j " « (Mar. j 7
• « I » « [Apr. 1 U
[
S. & W. B. B. Bridge 0 316
It II -MM
.
June '39
July
" " ! " " iAug.
" " | " jSeot.
" " 1 * * jOct.
11
10
11
10
11
] " " boT. I 9
1 " " fuse. | 10
" " | « •- jjan. rt*ol 1*
it • INN
Ifor. I 10
' ' I - ' [Apr. I 5
! i
' t
Big Sandy SlTer-Mouth'j o 317.1 iJ«n» '39J 11
* n it ! (0.3 nl.abr. ijuiy 1 10
" j"" ' " iAug. I 11
' " " | " " Sept. 1 10
" " " 1 * "
Oct. I 11
" " « ( " " JHOT. | 9
- • • j • "Dec.
" " " | " " fjan. 'to
N H II | N H
• N • I H *
Feb.
Mar. 'UO
10
3
6
10
• 1 ' " (Apr. ! 5
1
i
££AlT5l»fcr2IjT«rl ° ^ '•"*" <39i "
« " | " ' July j 10
N R } II It
i
• • { » »
If H } • N
• » jug
It • : • K
Sept. ! 10
3
Oct. | 11
HOT. | 9
Dec.
Jan. '1)0
i
'; !
It it inn
liar.
" " j " " Apr.
!
|
10
1*
6
10
5
39.300: 27.0 '" 6.9 ' 2.6 " 31 '
39.500J26.3 j 7-3
so, 900; 26. 5 j 7.1)
9.000J 2U.5 i 7.3
I"), 900; 17.9 i 8.7
15.100J 9.0 ill. 5
31,1)OOJ 5-9 J12.2
38,900| 0.9 |13.8
Us,50oi 2.5 13.7
.25,700: l*.l 112.6
EUU,200! 8.5 J10.7
i 1
39.200:25.6 i 7.7
39.300:25.8 j 7.6
20,900| 26. 3 i 7.6
8, 800: 21*. 6 i 7.5
1U.600J18.1 : 8.9
: :
15,100. 9.8 jll.U
31.100J 5.7 112.1)
33,60oi o.o jiU.i
.1)2,200! 1.3 J12.9
.36,900j U.l : 12.5
?68,900i 7.8 !10.8
2,560:26.9 j 6.8
i), 68oj 26.3 : 7.0
1,020.26.9 ! 7.1*
210:25.6 i 6.0
109J20.U j 6.1)
10U;12.6 ! 6.1
I33i 9-1* i 7.7
570: 1.3 J12.1
5,oa6J 3.1* J12.2.
>*,590J 6.8 jll. I*
7.806J11.6 i 9.9
i i
1)1,500:25.7 i 7.6
l)2,900J 26.0 i 7.5
21,900: 26.U j 7.6
S.goojaM j 7-6
lit, 600: 16.6 i 8.9
15,200:10.0 jll. 3
31,000! 5.g J12.1)
33,900; 0.2 Ilk. 2
.1*7,100; 2.0 J12.9
.")!, 100: u.o J12.5
866,000! 7.7 ilO.8
"~"i I
j j
1.9
1.1)
1.0
0.9
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.8
2.0
2.2
1-9
1.1
0.9
0.9
0.8
1.0
1.1
1.0
2.2
1.7
1.9
1.5
1-5
l.U
1.2
1.2
2.1
2.0
1.1
0.9
0.9
1.7
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
1.1
1.0
1.2
2.2
1.7
2.0
111
21*1
660
1U2
31
9
6
IS
72
"3
130
.H
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.5
7.5
7.2
7.1
7.0
6.9
7.0
6.8
i
i7.3
177 i
218 i
175
163 j
7l* i 7.2
33 i
13
J6.5
37 i
1*3 6.7
1*1*
:
103
61
22
196
92
i7.3
i7.D
:7.6
7.5
7-7
5"» i7.3
60 J7.1*
1)6
76
59
J7.0
6.9
6.7
i
155
j 7.3
2MO j 7.U
280
129
151
72
1*9
21
36
37
1*2
:7.5
7.6
: 7.7
7.3
7.2
6.9
6.9
j 6. 8
I 6.6
i
i
TmWfly
p. p. IK.
.._....
ioa
K«
6
7
11
8
11)
78
152
1")5
50
6
12
7
90
113
266
37
16
9
11
7
38
}39_
77
82
58
139
Ul
5
6
11
10
11
202
131
1U3
AltariMty
P.P.H.
32
1*1
33
i>5
1*0
32
?3
27
31
28
20
33
1)1
36
30
27
uo
3u
55
n
91
96
100
73
2U
22
33
36
3U
U9
Ul
33
30
33
27
27
20
HortOT
p. p. •.
- 131 -
-------
TABLE Oh-7 MAIN OHIO RIVER
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
LABORATORY DATA
SUMMARY OF AVERAGES
1
Sgxpllng Point j
At White Oak Creek
j
n n
H N
H f
n tt
H n
H «
n N
n *
-
Hanging Rock Light
Above Little Sandy R.
H H
II H
H M
n «
« it
It H
tl •
n N
n H
it n
Coal Branch Light
SelAM.Little.^andy..a.
H It
It tt
n *
" "
H It
9 tl
n n
n H
it it
Lock & Dam No. 30
n ii
if it
H W
H II
n it
n n
M U
" •".•.....ly HH..III
MI.08.Fro-. 1 P-tod
Pittsburgh = 1939-UO
0 326 |june '39
" " ! July
" " j
• i
ii n I
i
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Uov.
» a 1
" " !
H n i
Dec.
Jan. 'Ufli
Feb.
" JUar.
« " 1 Apr.
i
!
0 330 {June '39
" " i July
" • I
, j
« .
It H
n n
"
Aug.
Sept.
Oct. '39
Nov.
Dec.
Jan. 'UO
Feb.
" " jlfar.
.
Apr.
:
0 337 (June
tl H
July
" " SAug.
" ISept.
" " lOet.
1
H »
It •
n N
» »
.
« »
HOT.
Dec.
Jan. «Uo
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
?
i
0 339 (June '39
n it
n II
n n
n H
n It
H H
H r
IT N | n H
j"."~ .
* • i n «
1
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct. '39
HOT.
Dec.
Jan. 'Uc
Je*.
Mar.
Apr.
i*»t>«oi ii?T!? T«* • D-°-
s™°i" : rfT* °c • "•"•••
11 i Ui,5oq 26.1 i 7.1
9 i U2.90CJ 26.1 i 7.2
12 i 21,900; 2o. U ; 7.5
10 i 8,900! 2U.6 i 7.U
11 : lU, 6ooi 18.5 | 8.9
9 : 15,200; 10.1 jii.6
10 ] 31, 000; 5.8 : 12. 3
3 j 37.300J 0.8 iiU.l
"» b3.90o: 2.1 |i2. e
11 >.29,500| U.l J12.6
"t fe73.900; g.O ! 10.9
11 iUi.aod 25.6 ! 7.U
9 :U2,Uoo!a6.i i 7.2
12 | 21,800; 26.2 i 7.U
10 j 8, 3oo!2U.u j 7.5
11 j 13,700; 18.3 i 8.9
9 ; 15, loq 9.8 : 11.5
10 ; 29,900; 6.1 ; 12.lt
3 i 37,30oi 0.5 i lU.o
U 133,900! 1.8 : 12.8
11 129,500! U.O i 12.6
u 273,900; g.o i 10. g
i ! i
11 : Ui,3oo! 25.6 ; 7.2
9 ;U3, 100:26.1 : 7.1
12 J 21, 900; 26.1 j 7.3
10 i g,30o!2U.3 • 7.5
11 :,13,gC3;lg.l '. 8.8
9 : 15, 200: 9.8 jii.3
10 1 30, ooo; 5.u !i2.3
3 138,000! 0.5 !i3.9
3 ia.ooo! 2.2 ii3.U
10 i32,>4OO: U.O ;12.U
U £76.000; 7.6 ;10.7
2 ;Ul, 200:27.1 ! 6.7
7 ;U3, 000:26.9 : 7.2
9 : a, 900:26.8 ; 7.5
7 | g.300;2U^2 i 7.5
9 : 13,800; 18.3 i S.g
9 ; 15, 200: 9.3 :n.2
7 i 30. OOO; 5.5 : 12.2
3 ! 39,6oo! 1.6 i 13. 8
It 132.SOOJ 2.0 !:12.8
8 ^7,500! U.3 '12.2
3 bs.sooi 8.1* | u.o
Stay
B.O. D.
1.5
1.2
1,0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.1
l.U
2.7
1.7
1.8
1-9
1.2
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.1
2.6
1.5
1.7
2.1
l.U
1.1
1.0
O.g
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.8
1.5
1.7
1.9
l.U
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.5
2.5
1.9
1.7
CollFwM
M.P. N.
203
192
306
190
150
76
77
33
30
55
6U
167
289
151
230
186
67
71
32
29
3"
3U
225
215
177
52
75
96
5>t
27
50
Uo
35
278
220
95
17
Us
28
61
59
Ui
3>t
U6
j
eH
7.2
7-5
7."»
7->t
7.5
7.2
7.0
6.8
7.0
6.8
6» 7
7.2
7.2
6.7
7.1
7-3
7.3
7."t
7.5
7.2
7.1
6.8
6.8
6.7
7."
7.t
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.2
7-1
6.9
7.0
6.9
6.6
TmWdlly
p. P.W.
57
62
"*7
11
9
9
q
22
110
12U
158
60
7
260
67
132
U3
5
6
9
9
21
75
155
130
99
33
g
g
9
lU
2U
186
lUg
1*7
AlkoMly
p. p. m.
31
38
32
>t5
Uo
31
29
29
29
25
17
31
32
23
32
3«
33
U6
Uo
31
29
27
aU
17
32
36
33
UU
uo
32
29
29
30
25
18
Hodnoi
p. P.*.
- 132 -
-------
TABLE Oh-7 MAIN °HIO RIVER
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
LABORATORY DATA
SUMMARY OF AVERAGES
StMplbio PolM !MlUae»Fraa }
Scioto River -
Lucasville Bridge ]
H It I
1
o 356.5 J»n- 'M 9
(15.5 Bl.rtT.
mo.aclotixi.-)
n n i
Feb. 7
liar. 9
« " n « Apr- 7
j « "May 5
• " ! " " June
9
it nun July 5
1 -
Sept. 5
« « it . Oct- I,
it . " » Hov. 5
» " • " ! Dec.
" * it n IJan. iUo
Belon Scioto Kiver 1 ° 359
» ~ r""""r"
; ; i-; .
i
n N I It •
n It i n It
3
1
June '3SJ 2
July | 8
Aug.
Sept.
9
8
Oct. 9
Hov. 9
" " j " " Dec. 8
« " ! " " Jan. 'ItCJ 2
1 " " Teb.
ii n | H n
n • IBB
liar.
Aur.
|
Lock & Dam No. 32 f 0 333
n n H H
June '35
July
" " I " « [Aug.
n it
* " H
II fl
11 n
fl B
* it
"
R H
Look & U&m Ho. 33
• H
II II
II H
N K
n •
it *
H U
H H
M t
It H
It II
H •
V V
B N
n B
" "
" It
H n
it ii
0 "105
» it
it •
" •
» H
H It
It H
H II
II H
• II
II H
H It
H •
Sept.
Oct. *3i 3.6 i 11.9
lt,2tui 7.7 iio.5
12, 01*3110.9 i 9.5
2.858;i7.0 i 8.9
8.390! 2>*.3 1 6.5
3.0921 23.7 i 7.2
1*58: a. 7 i 7.6
31*9Ji5.i* i 8.2
571! 7.2 ] 10.0
6lOj 6.2 i 10. 2
1*05! 0.5 iio.U
1*7,500 26.1 i 6.5
1*5.330, 25. 9 i 7.1
22,800 25.5 i 7-1*
7,900 23.0 i 7.5
13,100117.1*1 9.0
15,700; 8.2 i 11.2
29,000! 5.1 ] 12.1
50.000, 0.7 1 13.5
ll*3,80CI 1.9 ! 12.6
Ll*7,l*00! 1*.3 i 12.1
260, sod 7.9 i 11.0
1 1
1*7,200: 26.5 \ 6.1*
l*l*,50oi 25.9 ; 7.1
22,700; 26.9 i 7.3
7,ood 2U.2 i 7 5
12,000 17.81 9.0
15.503 8.8! 11.2
27,50(} y.Oj 11.9
57.90) 0.5! 13.2
127,800 2.6! 12.6
l61*,90C) It.l! 11.8
260,300! 8.9:10.8
; i
101.700; 5.2 !12.1
!1&,700J Y.3 jll.5
^3Y.100J 9.3 i 10.8
33,700116.2 ! 9.8
l*lt,000!25.8 | 7.5
SS.500J26.* i 7.k
6,100j2lt.3 i 7.6
11,300118.1* i 8.7
15,800; 9.0 ; 11. 3
26,000; 7.2 jll.9
91,800! 0.0 J13.7
i 2.5 J12.7
.31,8001 UO 112.3
[1*0.300! 8.2 jll.l
i '•
B. O.D
2.5
2.6
2.1
1.5
2.1*
2.2
1.9
3.0
2.7
1.8
1.9
3.7
2.3
1.5
1.1*
0.9
1.0
1.6
1.3
1.7
2.9
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.5
1.3
1.1*
1.5
1.1*
1.2
1.8
2.6
2.1
2.1*
2.0
2.1
3.5
1.3
2.2
1.8
1.1*
1.1
l.X
1.2
0.9
2.1*
2.2
1.9
ColllMM
M.P. N
200
333
129
SU
26
63
8
3
J
6
2
9
139
79
78
105
76
37
UO
28
76
1*1*
35
138
56
37
3
7
20
50
15
86
1*1*
76
106
53
37
16
60
zr
151*
9
lU
29
9
1)8
71
39
pH
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.7
8.0
7.8
7.9
8.0
8.0
7.9
7.8
7.6
7.**
7-1*
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.1
7.1
6.9
7.1
6.9
6.6
7.5
7.1*
7.U
1:1
7.5
7.1
7.1
6.7
7.0
6.9
6.6
7.3
7.5
7-5
7.7
7.U
7.1*
7.6
7.5
7.3
7,2
7.2
7.3
7.2
7.1
Tidily
P. P.*.
28
21*
IS
10
7
125
90
38
6
9
9
ll*
38
191
160
11*8
80
90
1*1
10
11
11
ll*
50
its
188
133
165
213
107
23
112
66
99
13
10
11
8
260
186
187
Alkalinity 1 Hatdnwi
P.P..L 1 p.**.
173 I
117 i
11*5!
155 i
22S ;
ist i
19!* i
222 1
267;
229 i
229 i
271 i
l*2i
1,9 j
"3!
60 i
52!
36!
32!
36|
3ti
26!
20;
tTj
tg j
li>( 1
56 i_ ___
"""" 55J "
39!
Jtj
35 i
31!
28!
20!
26 i
3t j
35 i
te ;
50 j
is!
55:
58 i
38]
jij
35 1
33 i
31 i
27!
i
- 133 -
-------
TABLE Oh-7 MAIN OHIO RIVER
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
LABORATORY DATA
SUMMARY OF AVERAGES
Sompl'nQ Point
Lock & Dun No. 31*
R H
II N
H R
R R
• R
• R
* N
N "
R •
.
tr *
• t
R II
R N
Lock & Dam No. 35
N R
H R
H H
Lock & Dam No. 36
R n
ii n
R n
n R
R R
"
R R
R R
It R
R H
n N
R n
R N
StVilwater B.Harbor
Abv. L.Miami River
R It
" R
n n
R It
" R
It fl
'< II
R R
It H
\ \
PittslJUrjgh 1 1939-10 j
0 131 »et>. '39i
« • Mar.
« • Apr.
• " May
" " June
« • July
» • jAug.
" • f Sept.
" " Oct.
" " |i~
" JDeo.
" " jJan. 'to
" " ».b. 'to
' « jMar.
" * Ipr.
°... U51. .reh-.:.39
" Mar.
Apr.
« " May
I
0 It6l fell. '39
" " [Mar.
" {Apr.
« H j^y
_ _ =
" " =June
" " "July
R n "jinp-
- . _ . I n It'll
" " 1 Sept. '39
" " JOct.
" " ^Nov
= *
[Dec.
" " !r.b. 'to
i
" " liter.
=
" " JApr.
|
0 U62.8 Apr. *39
« • May
" " June
" " JJuly
" (Aug.
" » [ Sept.
=
" " {Oct.
" JKOT.
" ! Dec. '39
" " Apr. '"to
1
Nuiibvel i£"^?*] Tlml>1 i B'Oi
6 J05,bOO] U.O 112.0
11 fel9,900: 5.8 ill.lt
9 E38.300J 8.5 i 10.5
9 J3l~.8oojl7.~6~ | 9.5
it |liU,itooJ25.3 i 7.7
3 JU3,UOO]25.9 i 7.0
5 ] a, ooo] 25.7 i 7.2
3 ] 6,600)23.7 : 7.8
5 ]io,6ooji6.6 : 8.8
U ] 15,800: 8.3 in.U
3 i 26,000] 5.5 jii.g
l i32.500l o.o il3.~i
2 i | 2.2 112.U
1 1-33.500] U.o ]ll.9
3 233,600] 7.3 ]io.9
! ! :
7 f07,800] 3.8 jii.g
11 221,700] 6.1 iii.U
10 ?39,OOOJ 8.9 J10.5
7 I35.300J15.1 i 9.8
i ! :
6 309.100] 3.8 J12.0
11 ;22290o| 5.g in. 5
8 12395001 g.6 iio.6
• [ ._ { |
12 J35.700J17.U j 9.5
11 ]lt2,ltOO]2lt.lt ] 7.5
9 Jl3,1ooi25,o i 7.0
12 il9.Uoo.J2M : 7,5
9 • 7,00023.2: g.i
11 i 10,500] 16.5 j 9.1
10 ] 15, 800] 8.7 ] 11.3
10 : 26,100! 5.2 j 12.2
5 |l58,sooi 1.6 112.5
10 157.1001 3.9 ill. 8
6 256.900! 7.9 jio.6
! ] |
U 235,600) 8.0 jll.O
1 i 35,800; 22. 3 i 9. i'
10 ]U2, 200] 25.3 : 7.7
8 ]lt2. 800)26. 3 ] 7.1
12 ] 19, too: 26.5 j 7.8
8 i 7, 100] 25.0 i. S.U
11 110,300] ie.3 i 9.3
9 i 15.800) 9.6 J12.0
7 i 26,10C« 6.1 ! 12.U
1 : i 8.5 | 10.3
: i i
5 Dm
B. O.O
2.1
2.7
1.9
1.7
2.7
1.7
1.6
0.8
1.0
1.1
0.9
0.8
2.1
2.2
2.0
2.1
2.5
2.1
1.6
2.8
2.2
1.8
1.6
2.0
1.7
1.6
0.9
0.7
i.l
1.2
2.1
1.9
1.9
2.1
2.0
2.3
1.9
1.5
l.l
1.0
i.i
1.1
2.1
Colliom
M.P. N.
97
1l
86
10
15
100
117
1
5
7
Ug
11
52
56
59
57
73
39
9
130
Us
73
5
57
92
l»lt -
7
3
7
55
133
15
32
39
2
33
It42
38
5
5
U
3"
100
.H
7.2
7.5
7.1
7.6
7.6
7.3
7.1
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.3
7.1
7.2
7.5
7.3
7.6
7.3
7.1
7.2
7.6
7.7
7.2
7.5
7.7
7.6
7.1
7.3
7.1
7-3
7.2
Turbidity
pp.*.
257
231
172
21
68
179
113
11
19
12
13
16
21.5
2Ul
200
277
251
209
27
271
2Ul
172
IB
102
2tft
93
13
11
18
20
237
256
192
AltallrJty
P-p-v.
27
32
31
19
"is"
1~7
51
59
60
12
27
36
30
33
32
27
32
35
is
28
2?
38
50
US
U6
U6
51
63
UU
35
30
3U
27
Hadm
p. p.*.
- 134 -
-------
TABLE Oh-7 MAIN OHIO RIVER
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
LABORATORY DATA
SUMMARY OF AVERAGES
L.Miaa.1" Elver - iiouthj
Beechjncnt Bridge i
n • I
:
" B i
=
n n
n « |
i
* ti
ti n
.
n it
. >
R •
,,
H H
Uarmet's Landing
L. 4 "S. BlSC, Bridge
Above Licking Elver
K n
" "
it n
n it
N II
K 11
It H
It N
II ff
Licking It. .Bail. above
wjutn.aanklidc Creek
N H
.
R N
a N
H K
TI M
" "
N N
" »
Hctlng fir.-l.aj.tfr.
near Latonia, K».
•
.
licking B. - Mouth
> •
'
Southern Bjr. Bridge
i i
Mlle-9" Fron i Period i
Pittsburgh -1939-1*0 1
(M'ad.abY. 11^,.. 1
K^lvJlfljini HX i
" * 1 jlpr» =
: 1
» « JMay j
* * iJune {
» (Aug. |
• jSept. j
« " 1 Oct.
" JNoY. I
n n ! TWC -
[Dec. -
« " Ijan. 'to
!
' ire*.
" " 4 Mar. '1*0
" " JApr.
1
o U65.3Upr. '39
|
!
0 1*69.5.; Apr. '39
it » JUay
=
11 » [June
" • 1 July
. « JAug.
" « j Sept.
1 " jOot.
" « I HOT.
" » j Deo.
" " [Apr. 'hO.
1
0 1*70.2 [June '39,
(5.5 "i.aiT. = j^
««>iLl,eJsUjg..S}'
" " (Aug.
" " ! Sept.
" " jOct.
!„'„'.
• JD.C.
" « Jan. "*0
" " 7en.
" " Bar.
0 "*70.2 Apr. '39
l^'LS;^)!*^
. \Jme
0 !*70.2 !*•».
(0.2 »i.al>T. <„..,.
• " {liar. '110
0 »*72.3JApr. '39
r
Numbor of
mplei
2
U
It
5
U
2
2
2
2
2
1
>*
It
It
7
1,
^
8
9
19
16
23
16
22
16
IS
1
2
2
2
.
2
2
2
3
5
>»
5
2
1
It
5
U
*"•"»«: T«,P. i D.O.
e t i. | 1
S.OOOl 2.5 i 12.5
2. 8001 6.6 j 11. 3
3.100: 9.3:10.2
5ooil8.i»: 7.6
5.000J22.3 : 6.3
2001 21.8 i 5.7
200J2U.5 i 5.8
200; 19.8 ! 2.3
80J15.5 j 3.3
lUoi 7.0 j 7.9
167J 3.5 i 12,0
269J 0.0 j 12. 3
i.aoi 2.0 iij.3
1.3901 5-9 J12.0
8811 11.1 (io» Bun
?i*5,90o: 8.3 1 10.9
M^OOi 8.1 i 11,0
36.500J 22.2 i 9.1
1*3,600:25.1 ; 7.1*
^3,800; 26.0 ; 7.0
19,1*00! 26.if j 7.5
7,30oi 2U.8 ] 8.1
10.500J18.2 ; 9.0
16,000: 9.5 jii.g
26,2001 6.1 J12.U
I 8.7 ; 10.it
i :
2,630! | 6.8
lU.iucs 2U.o : 6.3
2.02O; 23.8 i 6.5
soi 22.3 i 6.5
60; 15.8 1 8.0
190J 5.5 ill.U
128! 2.0 112.2
3.990: 0.0 : 13.1*
10,950: 2.8 112.5
jH.270; 7.6 ill.*
11.230:12.9 j 9.9
1,380121.6 ! 8.3
2,600:23.5 I 6.1*
7.370J 6.0 jii. 7
22.630: 9.3 J10.6
1U.270J 9.2 jll.l
>65.ood 8.3 j 11.0
1 i
- 136 -
,„,....
B.O. D.
p. p. •.
2.1
1.9
1.8
2.9
U.3
7.6
U.3
6.1
7.9
11.5
7.5
U.8
3.6
2.0
1.8
2.2
2.0
1.9
2.5
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.8
1.8
1.8
2.0
2.2
1.6
1.U
1.5
1.1
2.0
3.7
3.8
U5
1.1
2.0
2.6
1.6
3.0
1.9
2.1
Colllora
M.P. N.
2UO
88
3U8
920
2,580
U.600
3.300
2,520
6,650
U.U50
1,100
2,880
39!*
32U
28U
1U6
78
51
196
312
1*99
U~99
6oU
226
2U6
56
U60
235
"5
5
3
l*
9
57
125
27
179
285
285
150
167
555
56
i
7.8
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.9
7.7
7.8
7.7
7.7
7.8
7.5
7.8
7.8
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.6
TwUdily
170
173
550
Alkolmlly
118
9lt
Hordnon
!
i
-------
TABIX Oh-7 MAIN OHIO RXTCR
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
LABORATORY DATA
SUMMARY OF AVERAGES
1 "
Sojrpl'no Point IMileoqa crom
1 Pittsburgn
Riverside SO U75.2J
1 " " j
" -T...~~V~..J
' I,,
I" "
, 1 ,
:
| "
i " "
! ,,
1
1
Anderson's ferry j 0 ^77.5
!
:
Lock & lam No. 37 | 6 &83
« « ) « «
it !' inn
j .
| .
.; """. " i v v
!
„ . i , ,
i
H It EMM
; 1 v v
• « i » >
„ .1 i i ,
n » inn
I
> « = » it
!
» > r; „ "
i
i
i
Miami River - Uouth
West of Cleves : 0 "191.1
•• » :0t.2 mi.aoV.
-mo Miami H. 1
. | . «
I
IT II : 11 II
it n i it H
i v p. "";•"
i •
:
'• !v "
H • « : H «
I
N H | N n
r ~«~ " I v v
n n | n H
H " inn
• " I" •""
i
Lock & Bu> Ho. 38 0 503.
It H H *
> • • «
• • « •
H • MR
H « It *
II It II H
N • II •
D '• N»*«OI !*""""•: T«"P i DO.
19S3t>i *•*• ;Dr5rj -c i*^
May 1 U ! 38.1)00! 22.6 i 7.9
June | 9 !l»5,200j 2U.S j 6.6
July 1 9 150.700:25.8 i 6.6
Aug. | 11 i 20,700:26.3 i 6.3
Sept. i 8 i 7.700J2U.9 | 3.9
Oct. j 11 ilO,500;18.U • 6.2
Nov. | 7 |i6.iOO: 9.5 jii.i
Dec. | 10 1 26.1)00: 5.9 jll.9
Apr. ")OJ 1) ^77,500; 8.7 j 10.U
!._.._.! |_|._
Apr. "39= 5 265.300: 8.2 110.9
"" I ~T j"""i
Feb. | 8 jiiq.So; 3.7 |ii.8
Mar. j 12 P)5.600J 5.9 JH.3
Apr. | 10 265.300i 9.3 : 10. 1)
JMay ! 10 i 38,1400! 18.5 j 8.8
June j 10 i 1*5. 200! 25.8 i 6.1)
jjuly | 10 ! 50.700; 26.7 j 6.3
! Aug. | 11 1 20,700:26.6 i 5.U
jSept. | 11 ! 7,700J2l*.7 ! 3.8
|0ct. | 11 !10,500J18.0 j 5.7
'NOV. ! 11 iie.iooi 8.9 iio.6
(Dec. 1 10 i 26, too: 5.U ill.l)
JTeb. 'Ho! 3 il)3,900! 3.7 J12.1)
(Mar. 1 11 i^.lOOj 5.! jn.7
iApr. ! 12 569,200J 9.0 ilO.U
1 I i"'| 1 "
fMar. '39J "* : 10,600i 6.1) ill. 6
[Apr. j 3 ! i, 1)00; 12. 2 i 9.7
jllay i i ; 2,100119.3 : g.l)
iJune | 5 j 5,100] *.9 j 7.5
(July | 6 | 1),300J 2l).8 ! 7.3
SAug. I 7 ! l.SOoi^.S i 8.0
1 i i -!
jSept. | 6 ; 700| 21.8 | 8.3
|0ct. j 7 i 600! 15. 6 I 8.6~
[HOV. i. 6" i 700! 6.9 '; 9.6
IDeo. \ 6 i 9!0i 5.8 i 9.7
i —1 ! ._ ! j
jjan. '1)0! 2 ! 2.560: 0.5 112.7
?eb. } 5 i 7.290! 2.6 ]U.g
[Mar. i 6 | 9,630i 5.5 ilO.7
[Apr. | U | U.220!11.0 i 9.2
SjFeb. } 9 jlb.UOOJ 3.6J11.8
Oar. I 12 562,100! 5. 7 ill. 2
Apr. 10 ^S5.800i 9.6 J10.3
Kay 10 ! U2.000; 19. 3 i 9.0
Jun« i 11 : 5U.UOO; s>t. 9 i 6.6
July j 10 ; 55.900! 26.0 j 6.1
Aug. j 11 iait.soojsfi.o : 6.3
Sept. j 11 I 8,1*OO;23.S; 6.5
- 136 -
SCO,
B O. t>
p.p m.
2.9
3.0
2.2
2.3
2.9
2.9
3.3
3.7
2.0
2-3
2.5
2.3
1.9
2.7
3."
2.2
2.2
1-9
1.7
2.1*
3.6
3-1
2.6
3-9
U.l*
2-9
l*.l*
U.l
lt.1
u.o
U.o
i*. 5
3.2
3.2
U.l
5.5
3.9
U.8
3-1
2.6
2.2
2.5
2.6
2.U
1.8
i2'1
ColiFornu
M.P. N
P«»l
2.530
1,650
2,270
5.1UO
32,600
60,800
U.300
1.U90
U02
91)
"""67"
132
281
1,630
2,OUO
1.960
5,830
913
12,000
1,700
1,980
80
110
iuu
265
175
131
325
i.6so
376
Ui
50
X90
90
•• 252
2U3
2.290
^33
i)38
Ujo
29t
92U
763
1,020
338
85
«H
7.5
7-5
7-3
7.7
7-9
7-3
7.5
7-1*
7-"t
7-3
7-2
7.2
7.3
7.1
8.2
8.0
B.I
8.0
7.8
8.1
8.0
7.9
7-7
7-7
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.9
7.1*
7.7
7.3
7.7
8.0
7-t
7-6
7.6
TurtwJity
p p.m.
3"33
325
,..,..,._...
21
98
2UO
90
12
11
17
20
232
190
268
85
UO
22
171
809
102
28
16
18
12
195
318
153
65
39
325
20U
22
H3
271
85
13
Albjl.mty
P. P- *
38
36
38
61
59
57
5U
62
67
UU
Uo
38
35
30
2UU
239
2U5
213
195
208
227
236
2D€
250
as
171
198
226
308
w*
"5
70
70
61
67
n
Horinw
P. p. m.
!
-------
TABLE Oh-7 MAIN OHIO RIVER
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
LABORATORY DATA
SUMMARY OF AVERAOES
SowUw Mm
Lock & Dam No. 38
'
* v
'"
R •
• «
Lock & Item No. 39
n i
H IT
* i
it it
N H
H It
» N
,
n 1)
.
n n
r »
_
H N
H R
" R
(• ,1
Kentucky River-Mouth
£&?niUJ&&> J&nmaJar
N H
M II
II N
II N
n •
n H
• N
H II
II «
n •
N *
R •
n N
v* r "
» N
Hotch Lick Light
• •
* *
firooind ~Cr««k
%B«_IAjftt
Clifty Creak
fconw Ucht
• »
H »
M.too.Fro.1 i
Pittsburgh I
o 505-3
• N
* It
' •
9 •
* •
0 531.7
" '
"
> .
.. .„
. .
. .
. .
' "
' "
. — .
' "
'
'_ "
, , '
. .
'1 H
-
0 5*5.8
(0.2 ml.atr.
¥>*triHlV1TV>'B)
N II
• It
It It
» tt
It R
• N
» It
• •
• tt
II *
R R
.
' * *
R •
0 5"*7.«
• i
* it
0 559.5
o 561
• •
t •
" i
Mod
1939-10-
bct. '
MOT.
a».
Jet. 'Mo
Uar.
Apr.
Feb.
fe,
Apr.
Uay
Jane
July
A*
Sept.
Oct.
MOT.
Dec.
Jbr. 'UO
Apr.
July
Oct.
Jan. 'Ul
Uar.
Apr.
Uay
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
HOT.
Lee.
Teb. 'MO
Uar.
Apr.
July
Oct.
Jan.. 'Ul
July
Oct.
J»n. 'Ul
July
July
Oct.
Jan. 'Ul
Nmtool
Soaplw
11
11
10 .
3
10
5
10
«
10
B
It
*
It
5
*
5
-
5
2
*
2
3
5
3
it
5
U
U
5
U
5
U
U
5
1
U
2
- 4,
tt
2
3
2
2
....?
*"•"»•! ^mv.
DltGhara*; or
c f. t. ;
ii;gooi 17.1
16,800! 8.6
27.3001 U.9
.63.300: 2.6
.65.«00! U.U
BO.ioo: 9.3
:
i66.200; U. 2
>67.300! 6.B
•93,Uooi 9.9
U2,gooi 17.7
56.300:25.6
57.500J26.U
25.800i26.8
8,100|2U.6
12.UOOJ18.3
l6,Uooj 9.7
27,UOO! 5.0
U2.000J U.8
100,100] 8.0
36,Uoo|a6.9
13.330:18.0
7S.QIJO! 3.7
27.60oi 8.7
lg,800i 11.0
3,900il9.5
14,500! 25.0
18, SCO; 26. 3
2,900i 25.9
1,000:25.1
60oil9.1
7oojio.i'
800| 5.2
10,000; U.3
33.900! 6.9
1, £00)13.0
3.50DJ26.5
" "200: 17". 8
. l-TdOi. 5kfl
U3,90CJ 26.6
13.SOCJ17.9
79.6001 3.9
:
35.looi 29.0
j
to.iooi 26.1
11.700119.5
89.2001 3.1*
- 137 -
0. O.
P. p. HI.
6.5
10.2
11.3
12.3
11.6
10.2
11.7
11.2
10.3
9-3
6.1
6.2
6.3
8.6
8.2
10.5
ll.U
11.6
9-9
7.2
12.1
ia.6
ll.l
ll.U
9-1
7.5
7.1
6.3
7.U
6.3
8.9
10*7
12.8
ll.U
10.3
7.U
8.5
JZ..1.,
7-9
11.8
12.7
8.5
7.9
11.2
12.5
.._.,
B. O D
p. p-m.
1.9
2.3
2.7
3.7
2.3
2.9
3-2
3.3
2.7
2.U
2.6
2.1
l.U
2.U
1.9
2.2
2.U
2.2
2.7
2.7
3.2
'•7
*.'5
l.U
3.0
2.0
2.6
1.6
1.2
1.0
l.U
l.U
l.U
1.5
1.U
1.8
1.6
,.ii,—
2.2
2.9
3.5
2.6
2.2
3.1
V.
Colikna
M. P. N pH
P..I
uia 7.5
2,lUo [7.3
1,200 ;7.2
156 J7.3
110 17.3
96" 7.2
96 7.U
1U9 J7.7
201 7.3
218 i 7.8
28U 7.9
105 I 7. 2
201 7.5
2 J7.8
13 j 7.6
573 i7.2
520 i7.3
2CO J7.3
17U 7.3
207 7.5
78 8.3
338 J.3
i
35 !T.9
29 J7.6
3 J7.9
30 J7.8
2* !7.3
25 J7-5
U j 7.7
3 :7.5
5 i7.5
16 J7.5
21 i 7.6
3U J7.5
2U :7.3
28 I 7.5
57T7.6
^-ffl hA
i* i 7.5
2U I 8.5
87 17.3
!
9U i 7.6
1
1.260 j 7.5
5« :*U
. '99 JT-3
TuAWIty
pp.".
10
17
25
217
202
2UU
38U
368
20U
27
98
219
72
13
6
18
21
167
290
17
10
61
393
218
37
187
565
201
13
9
15
17
159
323
310
80
-~ur
n»«J5,.
26
20
61
15
29
18
5U
Alkalinity i HordnMi
p. p. m. 1 p. p. «.
' 85]
5UJ"" '
U6 i
i*7i
38 i
33 1
39 1
U7J
U~7i
72;
73 i
59 i
61 :
81 ;
87 j
59 i
U5J
uu ;
32]
53 I
57 j
50 i
i
66 i
65:
«!
80 i
62 :
83 i
93 i
""102 i
9U|
100 i
76 i
60 i
5UJ
61 !
-.««7,ft>~-.iio«. ~
551
5U:
50J
i
5U|
i
55!
5Ui
551
-------
TABLE Oh-7 MAIN OHIO RIVER
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
LABORATORY DATA
•
!
Mll«og. Fro* i IVIod
,„„, , _ ri«sour#i *^?2r*w
Lower Hanover Landingf O 562.6 July
n •
If H
Jobson Landing
n n
Job son Landing
Six Uile Island Light
tow. «!** *;or *«».
,
« jOct.
" " |jan. 'Ul
1
..— -
0 576.1} July
0 576.l|jan. 'Ul
0 597.9 AH«.
0 600.0! Aug.
" " «'
Louisville Highway Br| 0 603.5 Aug
New Albany
Water Works
n n
n H
Falling Run tight
.
; '„
Hughee Bar
Upoer light
it n
»
Kosmoedale, Kentucky
Steve Green
n n
!
0 6o8.5]Aug.
" " loot.
11 " [Feb. 'Ul
0 610 Aug.
« " Oct.
* * Feb. 'Ul
i
0 6lU JAug.
" " Oct.
..._....;...._|____
. i
0 627.1IAug.
= .. .
0 627.9 Oct.
" « {Feb. 'Ul
i
Salt River
Above mouth
n »
•
Lock & Dam No. 1*3
K *
H •
Bock Haven
Ugper Light
n it
Tailing Spring
t5!"«.?-Ji4Silt—
M *
Lock & Dam Mo. UU
K *
Indian Hollow Light
• n
0 629.9 (Aug.
(O.i mi.abT. Oct.
. Salt fcj -
" " Feb. 'Ul
* * 5
i
0 633.2[Aug.
" " Oct.
" • JFeb. 'Ul
I
0 637.1 Oct.
" " Feb. 'Ul
j
0 639.1 Oct.
" * {Feb. 'Ul
f
0 662 (Aug.
" " Feb. 'Ul
0 665 JAug,
» " Feb. 'Ul
3UMMA
Numbw of
"2
2
3
U
2
3
1
3
5
1
U
2
3
U
2
3
U
2
3
k
5
5
3
5
5
5
5
5
,...5.
"•
2
..........
2
RY OF A\
cl i 1 "*"
35. looj 2976""
11, 700J 19. U
89.200; 3.3
37,600:27.3
ll,700i 18.7
89,,200i 3.1
36,200:29.5
26,900:29.1,
28,100! '2.6
i
36.200:29.5
i
25, 300i 28. U
13.300:17.8
oi.aooj 2.0
i
25.300:28.8
13.300il7.9
01,200| 2.1
25,300:28.3
13.300J17.5
01,200| 2.1
|
23,300:28.8
1
ii,50oii6.2
66.100! 1.2
*6J27.7
230115.8
753J 2.2
23,uooias.e
11,200:16.5
67,700i 1.6
11, 200; 16. 8
67,700! 1.6
j
11,200116.6
67,700: 1.6
[
67.200J26.5
UU.500; 3.9
i
67,330:27.2
UU,500: 3.7
- 138 -
fERA(
0.0.
p. p. •.
H.U
12.5
8.3
10.1
12.6
9-U
8.8
12.t
9.0
8.2
7.3
13.1
8.2
7.3
13.0
8.1
7.2
13.1
8.6
7.9
12.9
3.5
8.3
12.7
8.6
8.U
3.0
None
12.8
None
12.9
7.5
13.0
7.5
13.3
3ES
s Dm
B. O. D
2.1
2.7
3.5
2.2
2-9
3.2
2.8
>.i
1.6
2.U
2.6
1.6
1.7
2.3
2.3
1.8
2.6
2.U
U.2
2.3
2.0
2.5
2.0
2.1
1.1
2.6
2.1
3.2
None
2.U
None
1.6
2.7
1.8
2.U
1.7
M.P. N.
218
17
60
113
3
108
9
tu
1"*3
930
997
695
1U2
3.220
765
258
3,Uso
765
87
105
376
lUi
8U5
27
32
7Uo
107
153
63
195
67
2U6
63
23
73
96
pH
._...
8.5
7.3
7.5
8.0
7.3
8.1
^.i
7.?
S.I
8.0
7.6
7.2
8.1
7.5
7.2
8.0
7.5
7.2
8.2
7.5
7.3
7.5
7.5
7.8
8.2
7.6
7.3
7.6
7.3
7.6
7.3
7.8
7.2
7.9
7.3
TnUdtty AUMIr Hordrai
15
10
59
13
11
59
12
9
95
12
13
8
7"»
11
8
71
10
9
7U
10
6
U7
60
17
1U
11
6
U5
U5
UU
30
3°
32
10
53"
51
55
5U
Uq
55
52
re
50
53
53
5U
U6
57
53
U6
56
52
U5
57
50
55
123
67
170
59
50
53
51
55
50
52
56
60
56
60
—,
-
12U
11U
186
116
-------
TABLE Oh-T MAIN OHIO RIVER
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
LABORATORY DATA
SUMMARY OF AVERAGES
SavlbglWM
Lock » K» »o 15-
o 703
Cloverport Light 0 711.3
Mod
Sod..
Aug. j 1
Feb. 'Ul
2
Aug. 2
1 • • i™- s 3
Hancock Bend 0 722-7 Au- 2
Lower Bight
• " Tea. 'l»l 3
troy Hill Light 0 730.6|Aug. U
" " " "
Oweneboro fcter
Worka Intake
I o 756.5
'•' ' •"•' rv ".""•
' '
Feb. 'Ul| 3
Aug. 2o^f ^
Oct. i 2
Feb. '1]J 2
1
Locks fem.Vo. 16 0 757 (Aug.
:
Larkln Ferry Light | 0 760 |Aue' *&"
1
5
' |0ct. | 2
" " " " JFeb. 'Ul 2
_ !
Lock & Dam Ho. 17 10 777.7
1 "
a • on
Aug. 2o-|
Oct.
Feb. 'Ul
2
2
!
Green River 0 ,-j, « *ug. «&; ,
5Eot.t.»rliie.j8rl.tee. _""•" Sept.._U ..........
. .
*Jl6flSeiX)
Oct.
Feb. "tl
EranaTUie Water n Tqj !*u«. "27-
forke Intake " '!&?*• 5
« • « " jOct.-Hor
2
2
5
2
Dutch Bend Light ! 0 797.Tt°*l ^"l U
fl H
• N
Hendereon fcter
Work* Intake
w "
H H
Lock & Dam Ho. 16
» "
.
llount Yernon
Water Work*
n •
N H
Lock & Dan No. ^
" "
• *
At Uouth
" "
" "
N fl
• N
0 603
N *
N •
*
0 809
H •
"
Oct. 29H z
H}V._ 1 !
Feb. "Ul| 1
Aug. 27*
Sept. 6
Oct. 29"-
HOT. 1
Feb. 'Ul
Aug. 27-
Se^t. 6
Oct. 29-
Feb. 'Ul
U
2
2
1
2
2
0 829. l] Sept. 1
" " SOT. j 2
"
0 8l5
Feb. 'ij 2
Sept. | U
" " (Hov. | 2
fl •
o sus.o
(*.l rt.abr.
'• N
Feb. 'Ill 2
Sept.
HOT.
U
2
Feb. 'Ulj 2
1
AMraa* r
DiKkorc. ^p'
6U, 700! 27.2
It2.800] 3.7
67,3001 S6.8
Uo 900! 2.1
80,100; 27.0
U5.600: 2.1
58.800|a7.8
U5,to6| H.i
56,ao:?5.7
10,100! 16.7
71,900; i.o
18,100 27.2
56,200:25.7
10,UOOjl6.7
71.500; 0.5
55,Uoo;25.8
9,700:16.8
70,600: !.l
1.097:26.7
667! 17.5
3,2501 U.o
57.100J25.9
15.806117'. 7
11,10)1 0,8
62,10Cj 26.5
lU,20C< 17.5
U8, 7001 0.8
62.100] 26.5
iu,20o; 17.7
U8,70Ci 0.8
i
62,100] 26.1
1U, 200; 17. 6
US, 700| 0.8
19,70q 23.2
U7,oooj 15.3
31,Uoo; 2.3
j
19,70(1 2U.O
U7,ooci 15.3
3i,Uoq 2.1
3,0001 22.1
j.OKjlio
6,080 2.0
i
D.O.
7.3
13.1
7.0
13.1
6.8
13.1
6.8
13.1
8.1
9.8
13.1
9.i
8.1
9.6
13.1
8.1
8.9
13.1
7.0
8.3
12.5
8.3
9.2
1J.1 .
8.3
9.1
13.1
6.2
9.1
13.1
8.3
9.5
13.3
9.0
9.8
13.6
9.1
9.6
13.6
s.1
10.1
11.2
stw
B.O.D.
2.3
1.5
2.1
2.6
2.0
3.0
2.2
3.3"
2.0
2.6
3.6
2.2
2.1
2.2
1.1
1.9
2.0
1.2
1.1
0.5
0.8
2.1
.«
1.7
2.1
1.3
1.7
2.8
1.1
1.9
2.3
1.1
2.1
2.2
3-7
1.7
2.2
2.7
2» 5
2.7
3.3
M.P.N.
90
16
78
65
78
lU
51
96
37
U
29
It
35
97
16
66
16
17
1
1
2
22
._i
106
350
9
199
112
9
356
58
21
19
1U2
6
29
7S
28
2
U
1
7.9
7.3
7.3
7.6
7.3
7.K
7.3
7-9
8.1
7-3
8.1
7.9
8.0
7.3
3.0
8.0
7.3
7.7
7.8
7.6
8,0
8.0
7.1
7.9
6.1
7.1
7.9
8.2
7.1
7.9
8.2
7.U
7.9
7.6
7.5
7.9
7.8
7.1
6.3
S.3
8.1
"-"
30
30
33
33
31
33
31
36
28
10
30
10
29
9
32
29
11
33
18
13
58
28
12
.33
32
13
29
35
12
29
3~6
13
26
18
13
19
" 15
13
16
55
19"
16
!
*—•
60
55
_..
56
5*
58
60
57
53
61
61
57
53
60
63
55
63
60
lol
126
91
57
6U
55
61
72
56
6U
70
56
66
70
53
61
78
51
60
82
196
213
202
"—
...
-- • -•
10E
125
122
170
150
196
-------
TABLB Oh-7 MAM OHIO RIVER
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
LABORATORY DATA
SUMMARY OF AVERAGES
Soiplhg Point 1
Browns Ligit f
i
AUowFre.. I (feted
'Ittslnirgh 1 1939-Uo
0 852. 3J Sept.
H H N It
HOT.
•~ ~" ' ~ . " ! »el> «t^
Oreeni Croedns 0 z&t & Sept.
&apkn
U
2
2
U
HOT. I 3
THIeTen tight j 0 870.7! Sept.
2
U
" « | it « !HOT. | 3
1 i 1
, it j » it
f
Lock & Dai Ho. 50 j 0 876.8
i " ] • •
Teb. 'Ul|
Sept.
HOT.
2
U
3
• « 1 " " I Teb. 'Ull 2
) I 1
°Eo«iclaire j 0 891.6|^t>120j
" 1 " " SHOT.
*
2
» i » it [nay. liij 3
I 1 5
" I |
Oolooada feter Workt 1 0 902,5
»
. .
OTd'kaidV
Crossing Light
• N
H •
N H
II II
0 918
* it
> I
CtmberlanA BlTer i .. „„ ,.
ibor. Uouth ! ° A??'*.
. • i<2.8 «l.«bT.
!Bu Ho. 52
• it
• it
Lock i Du Do. 53
» V
• '
0 927-3
it •
• t
0 93U.3
1 *
0 jjU.5
(5.3 "i.abr.
« •
0 338.9
" •
1 «
0 962.6
t >
It II
Sept. 20-
Oct, A
SOT.
U
2
Uar. 'Ul| 3
Sept. 20^
Pet. 1
HOT.
Uar.
2.7
1.8
3.3
2.2
1.5
1.2
1.5
1.8
3.2
2.1
1.6
5.1
2.1
0.8
0.7
1.6
1.2
1.9
2.1
1.6
2.1
2.0
Collbnx |
M. P. N. ; pH
19 i s.o
20 | 7-7
8 i 7.6
11 j B.O
26 i 7.8
5 ; 7.6
5 j 8.1
19 7.8
6 I 7.6
j
3 i 8.1
9 J7.8
5 i 7.6
j
62 J8.3
5 js.3
2 |7.6
;
t ie-3
3 :8.3
l 17.6
j
3 !8.3
1 ;6.2
1 J7.6
[
2 J7.8
5 J7.U
2 i7.6
2 18.3
1 |S. 2
1 J7.6
i
11 1 7.9
3 ;7.8
3 i7.6
j
1 17-7
" 1 7.8
1 J7.7
j
5 J7-9
5 f7.9
1 :7.6
37 18.0
7 J8.0
u I.7-7
ruM»r
17
lU
16
lU
13
16
lU
lU
lU
lU
13
lU
12
19
17
11
19
18
12
19
19
2U
32
22
12
18
18
lU
2U
Ul
10
37
36
.12
2U
25
...
25
J
Atkdintly i
;
Honfo*
p. p.*.
72;
63:
89!
76
6s i
102;
.71i
6U!
92:
:
67:
6U
86|
j
76 i
76
86
72
75
88
72
7U
88
78
89
86
77
77
89
66
62
7U
59
5»
65
68
65
82
69
69
83
82
96
112
72
*
86
-------
TABLE Oh-7 MAIN OHIO RIVER
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
LABORATORY DATA
SUMMARY OF AVERAOES
fa^M.
Cairo W.Vka. Intake
H H
« n
Cair*. Point
• n
It H
Blasiesippi River
n H
n ft
KS§i?^t^|¥
R n
t> i
* Seeded and neutral!
** Less than one.
o Only one reault
# Only two results.
_ —
MilM0*ftO»
o 978
n R
. .
0 981
« .
It
H
_
11
"
_
Mod,
.42222:
Oct.
SOT.
Mar. 'Ul
Oct.
HOT.
tor. -a
Oct.
HOT.
liar. 'Ul
Oct.
HOT.
liar. "11
...
'
i
Nu>l»rof
Sowta
z
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
Z
Av*rag«
52, to
86,700
58,1(00
86,700
T«v.
19.8
9.3
5.0
19.6
8.3
It. 2
18.6
6.8
3.3
19.2
9.3
It. 6
D. O,
~M
11.6
12.8
8.9
ll.lt
12.6
8.0
10.9
11.8
8.9
ll.lt
12.8
5Do»
B.O. D.
1.7
2.5
2. >t
1.7
2.7
2.1t
2.1
3.5
3-8
1.U
2.6
a.o
CoMom
M.P.N.
11
6
7
89
>t5
102
i)^
lU2
262
"t8
13
5>t
»
8.0
7.7
7.6
7.9
7.7
7.6
7.3
7.7
7.7
7.9
7-7
7.7
T.W*
12
73
1(8
92
678
95
3"»3
1,280
172
157
?58
82
AIMMly
71*
70
7t
91
117
100
163
163
1X6
10U
85
86
H^n-
l>»3
1U6
ISO
- 141 -
-------
Table Oh-7A Main Ohio River -Laboratory Data - Acid Stream Results
Sampling Point
Emsworth Dam
Mile 6
Da shield Dam
Mile 13.5
Montgomery Dam
Mile 31.7
Dam #7 - Mile 36.5
Dam #8 - Mile 46 .4
Dam #9 - Mile 56.!
Dam #10 - Mile 66
Dam #11 - Mile 77
Dam #12 - Mile 87.5
Dam #13 - Mile 96
Dam #14 - Mile 114
Dam #15 - Mile 129
Dam #16 - Mile 146.5
Dam #17 - Mile 167.5
Month
1914.0
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Oct.
Nov.
Oct.
Nov.
Oct.
Nov.
Oct.
Nov.
Oct.
Nov.
Oct.
Nov.
Aug.
Sept.
Aug.
Sept.
Aug.
Sept.
Aug.
Sept.
No.
Sam-
pler.
1
11
9
1
11
9
2
11
9
2
11
9
12
9
12
9
12
10
12
10
12
10
12
10
11
5
11
5
11
5
11
5
pH
#
6.2
&
6.2
4-7(1)
54(7)
5-9(1)
4.8(1)
54(7)
5-7(2)
54(6)
5-7(2)
5-1
5-7(2)
5-9(7)
£-9(2)
5-0(9)
5-0(2)
5-0(9)
5-5(2)
5-0(9)
5-5(2)
U-6(9)
14.. 6
4-8(7)
4-7
5.0
4.8
t'.9(k)
ACIDITY P. P.M.
Methyl
Red
3-5(2)
5 (1)
10
3 (1)
6 (l)
4-5(2)
7 (1)
6 (2)
4.2(3)
5-5(5)
4.0(5)
4.5(2)
6.3(6)
5.0(1)
34(7)
3.0(1)
4.3(7)
7 (9)
4
2 (4)
4
5 (3)
3 <£)
2 (1)
3 (3)
Phenolpl-
Hot
12
11 (1)
12 (2)
18 (1)
17 (2)
18 (1)
18 (2)
18 (2)
16 (2)
14 (2)
17 (5)
20 (2)
(2)
13 (2)
12 (6)
12
12 (7)
13
10 (6)
12
10
10 (4)
ithaleln
Cold
7
11
12 (2)
17
10
13 (1)
9 (7)
12 (1)
15 (1)
11 (7)
10 (2)
11 (6)
10 (2)
9 (6)
10 (2)
lp (7)
14 (2)
13 (9)
14 (2)
12 (9)
11 (2)
12 (9)
10 (2)
12 (9)
10
7 (7)
9
5(6,
8
7 (4)
IRON P. P.M.
Ferrous
0.6U)
0.2(1)
o.MD
0.5(2)
Total
0.4
0.9
3-0
0.4
1.2(4)
0.3
3-2(4)
1.0(1)
o.U
0.7
5-0
1-5
3-0
1-5
0.7(6)
2.2(6)
3-0
2.0
2.8(2)
0.2
0-3
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.2
0.2
0.3
Note:- Figures in parentheses indicate number acid samples used in computing
averages as shown.
- 143 -
-------
MINOR TRIBUTARY BASINS
Final Report to the Ohio River Committee
Ohio River Pollution Survey
U. S. Public Health Service
Cincinnati, Ohio
1942
-------
MINOR TRIBUTARY BASH-IS
Contents
Page
Contents 145
Syllabus and Conclusions 147
Description 150
Presentation of Field Data 152
Presentation of Laboratory Data 156
Hj'droraetric Data 159
Discussion 161
List of Tables
M-l Cost Estimates of Remedial Measures .... 149
M-2 Surface Water Supplies 152
M-3 Sources of Pollution 154
M-4 Industrial '.Vastes 155
M-5 Selected Laboratory Data 158
M-6 Monthly Mean Summer Flows 159
M-7 Summary of Laboratory Results 162
M-7a Summary of Laboratory Results on Acid
Streams. ." 187
List of Figures
Note: For maps of Minor Tributary Basins see Main
Ohio River Summary.
- 145 -
-------
MINOR TRIBUTARY BASINS*
Syllabus and Conclusions
Syllabus
Minor tributaries of the Ohio drain 23,780 square miles
(about one-ninth of the entire Ohio Basin) in the six states
bordering the main stream. Less than 10% of the 1,400,000
population in the area are in urban communities. Agriculture
is the predominant occupation. Coal mining is important in
the upper portion of the basin above Marietta, Ohio, and the
Saline and Tradewater Basins in Illinois and Kentucky.
Most of the larger communities have sewage treatment
plants and there is little organic industrial waste. Acid
mine drainage causes the most serious pollution. (See sep-
arate section of report on Acid Mine Drainage).
Conclusions
(1) Forty-four of the 94 public water supplies
in the area drained by minor tributaries of the Ohio
River are from surface sources. Nine of these, serving
24,600 people, are from streams subject to pollution.
(2) Sewage from 173,500 people and industrial
wastes equivalent in oxygen demand to sewage from an
additional 31,200 people are discharged to minor tribu-
taries of the Ohio. About two-thirds of the sewage
receives treatment.
* For maps of this area, see main Ohio River.
- 147 -
-------
(3) Laboratory data indicate many instances of
heavy local pollution, particularly on very small streams.
At the time of sampling the streams generally were in
good sanitary condition at their confluence with the Ohio
River except where they were influenced by wastes from
Ohio River communities. Many of the tributaries in the
upper part of the basin, and several small streams in
the Saline and Tradewater Basins, were found to be heav-
ily polluted by acid mine drainage.
(4) Abatement of pollution due to sewage and organic
industrial wastes will require secondary treatment in
most instances because the receiving streams are gener-
ally small and subject to extremely low flows.
(5) Reduction in acidity in the minor tributaries
can best be accomplished in connection with a program of
mine sealing covering the entire Ohio Basin.*
(6) One of the proposed tributary reservoirs author-
ized by the Congress and studied by the U. S. Engineer
Department for Ohio River flood control is on a minor
tributary* Low-flow regulation by this reservoir would
have no appreciable tangible value for pollution abate-
ment.
(7) The following cost estimates of measures for
abatement of pollution due to sewage and industrial wastes
are summarized from Table M-l:
Treatment Capital Cost Annual Charges
Existing $3,800,000 ^330,000
Suggested Additional 2,590,000 285,000
Estimated additional costs over existing charges of pro-
grams involving uniform treatment throughout the basin
area:
Primary, all places 2,220,000 250,000
Secondary,all places 3,010,000 335,000
See section of report jon Acid Mine Drainage
- 148 -
-------
(D
H
•s
EH
x-»«
05
f-.
0}
H
rH
_
0}
(D
tsO
JH
a
O,
rH
2
s
2
<:
,
O
iH
at
4i
O
EH
C
0 •
•H d
P «H
a5 aS
b S
O
a«8
o
c»40
03
•
O40
6 ti
fc
otf 6 05
43 .
«H
ft
P rH
03 H
Q
O
t
d
o -d
•H 0)
434J
05 O
H 0>
2 S
P<2
0 O
cuo
40 £
fc 40 CO
M\ /•* -
V
.n
*4
a! fi
|3 rH -H
3 PLI b
ft
a.
0
O
•t
o
rc»
K\
O
O
O
*
1TN
O
H
O
O
0
•t
LfN
CM
CM
O
0
O
«
O
0
00
«
rfN
8
rov
%
o
H
H
O
rev
CM
H
40
C
40
«!
O
P
EH
d
v4
40
0)
•H
K
M
OOO
OOO
OOO
•> •> M
O O ITN
C— -4- C-
H
0 0
0 0
0 O
*> %
0 1 0
t- _d-
80 o
0 0
OOO
«K •> «\
O O UN
0_H; ^
H
OOO
OOO
OOO
» «. «
OOO
CM ON CO
-ztCO CM
•%
H
0
0
o
A
«r\
00
CM
o
o
o
0
ON
if.
*
CM
O
0
-=t
»
xo I
ON
K"\
CM
t-
H
C!
O 03
Tl P H
40 d a ot
0 Oi P
O LTSITN
LTNKNOO
CM fCNCM
OOO
OOO
OOO
» » *
O IfNO
ONCMrH
rHH
OOO
OOO
OOO
«k •» *
O O IfN
VOH r~
H CM H
OOO
888
«»•»•>
000
CM H ON
CM O ifN
* » •»
CM K\CM
O
40
0) 03
40 at
03 ^
05
*rH
H
rH<«
•H
«**>
d
40
o a) fc -d
0 » 03
> h ®
4-i t>> d bO
•P *•< "Q bO
05 Oj d ?
>H a o co
Cfl H t>
O. h V «
fi d< CO «S
0
o
- 149 -
-------
Description
Small tributaries of the Ohio River not considered in
separate sections of this report drain a total of about
23,780 square miles (slightly less than 12 percent of the
entire basin) in the six states which border the Ohio River.
The area drained in each state and the drainage areas of
some of the larger streams are shown below:
State
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Area (Sq.Mi.)
2,880
3,480
State
Ohio
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Area (Sq.Mi.)
6,450
1,290
3,005
Tributary
Cache River
Tradewater River
Saline River
Blue River
Brush Creek
Little Sandy R.
Twelvepole Cr.
Raccoon Cr.
Middle Island Cr.
Little Heaver R.
Right or
Left Bank
R
L
R
R
R
L
L
R
L
R
Miles Above
Mouth of
Ohio River
6.3
107.6
113.7
318.1
593.0
644.6
667.7
704.9
827.0
Drainage Area
(Square Miles)
720
995
1,235
466
435
780
441
684
685
510
Most of the area drained by the minor tributaries of the
Ohio is hilly. Portions of the area in Illinois and Indiana
are less rugged and better suited to agriculture than the
land farther east.
The following tabulation of population of some of the
larger communities and of the entire area, shows the rela-
tively sparse population and the lack of urbanization. There
are only 16 urban communities in the 23,780 square miles and
most of these are in the upper part of the basin. The larger
communities are in coal-producing sections.
- 150 -
-------
Population
Larger Cities
1910 1920 1930 194-0
Washington,Pa. 18,778 21,480 24,545 26,166
Canonsburg,Pa. 3,891 10,632 12,558 12,599
Salem, Ohio 8,943 10,305 10,622 12,301
Harrisburg,Ill. 5,309 7,125 11,625 11,453
Wellston, Ohio 6,8?5 6,68? 5,319 5,537
E.Palestine,Ohio 3,537 5,750 5,215 5,123
Barnesville,0hio 4,233 4,863 4,602 5,002
Entire Basin
Urban 79,125 109,613 116,468 130,344
Rural 1.148.878 1.123.996 1.144.622 1.254,858
Total 1,228,003 1,233,609 1,261,090 1,385,202
Agriculture is the predominant occupation in the area as
a. whole but there are also important coal mining areas in
Pennsylvania, the panhandle of West Virginia and adjacent parts
of Ohio in the upper portion of the basin and in the
Saline and Tradewater River basins in the lov;er portion of
the basin.
Water Uses - None of the minor tributaries have been de-
veloped for navigation. There are no hydroelectric develop-
ments. Many of the streams, particularly the less polluted
ones which are readily accessible to residents of the larger
Ohio River cities, are used extensively for recreation.
- 151 -
-------
Presentation of Field Data
Figures Oh-1, Oh-2 and Oh-3 show the location and magni-
tude of the more important sources of pollution along minor
tributaries in the upper, middle and lower thirds of the Ohio
River, respectively.
Public Water Supplies - Ninety-four communities and siz-
able institutions on minor tributaries of the Ohio have water
supply systems which serve about 21^,700 peoplo. Forty-four
of the supplies are from surface sources of which nine are from
streams subject to sewage pollution above the water intake.
The remaining 35 supplies are from streams draining unsewered
areas. Table M-2 shows data on the nine surface water supplies
which are most subject to pollution.
Table M-2 Minor Tributary Basins - Surface Water Supplies
Supply
State
Source
Mileage
(1)1(2)
Treat-
ment
(?)
Popu-
lation
Served
Cons.
M.G.D.
Supplies Below Community Sewer Outfalls
Sturgls
Providence
Harrisburg
Versailles
Osgood
Georgetown
We 11s ton
Mlddlebourne
Bethany
Ky.
n
111.
Ind.
n
Ohio
n
W.Va.
n
Tradewater River
n n
Mld.Fk. Saline R.
Laughery Creek
ff " - Wells
Whiteoak Creek
L. Raccoon Cr.-Irap.
Middle Island Or.
Buffalo Creek
,7
4i
35
34
37
8
55
37
13
108
108
ill*
MJ2
1+82
557
705
827
906
LD
FD
FD
FD
FD
LD
FD
FD
FD
Total - Below Sewer Outfalls
35 Other Surface Supplies
Total - Surface Water Supplies
J.IOO
4,300
8,000
500
1,000
1,500
4,700
600
900
2k, 600
108,000
132,600
0.06
0.25
0.53
0.02
0.014-
0.30
0.04
0.07
1.39
8.06
9.45
(1) Miles above confluence of minor tributary with Ohio River.
(2) Miles from mouth of Ohio River to mouth of minor tributary.
(3) F - Coagulated, settled, filtered; L - Lime-soda softened;
D - Chlorinated.
- 152 -
-------
Sewerage - Table M-3 shows the sewered population and the
total waste load at the larger sources of pollution on minor
tributaries of the Ohio River. Sewage from 167,800 people
enters the streams, about two-thirds of which is treated in
12 primary and 30 secondary treatment plants. Most of the
larger sources of pollution are in the upper part of the area.
Minor tributaries entering the Ohio above Huntington drain
about one-third of the area but they receive about two-thirds
of all the sewage.
Industrial Wastes - Relatively little organic industrial
waste enters the minor tributaries. Table M-4 shows the in-
dustrial wastes to be equivalent in oxygen demand to sewage
from 31,200 people, almost all of which comes from canneries
and meat packing plants. Most of these are located on small
streams in Indiana.
Acid Mine Drainage - Probably the most damaging pollution
to which the minor tributaries of the Ohio are subjected is
from acid mine drainage which affects streams in the upper part
of the basin, particularly above Marietta, Ohio, and in the
lower part of the basin where the Saline and Tradewater Rivers
are the largest acid streams. The total acid load in the en-
tire area before mine sealing is estimated at about 230,000
tons per year. Some 53,000 tons have been removed by sealing.
More than 80 percent of the acid is from the area above Hunt-
ington. This problem is discussed in a section of the report
on Acid Mine Drainage.
- 153 -
-------
Table M-3 Minor Tributary Basins - Sources of Pollution Including Industrial
Wastes Expressed as Sewered Population Equivalent (B.O.D.).
Municipality
Mounds
Providence
Daws on Springs
Harrisburg
Eldorado
Morganfield
Port Branch
Boonvllle
Marengo
Central Barren
Sunman
Olive Hill
Wellston
Caldwell
West Union
Woodsfield
Cameron
Avella
Sallneville
Lisbon
Salem
Burgettatown
Oakda le
McDonald
Bridgeville
Canonsburg
Houston
Washington
65 Smaller sources
State
111.
K?'
111.
it
Ky.
Ind.
n
n
n
n
Ky.
Ohio
n
W.Va.
Ohio
W.Va.
Pa.
Ohio
M
Ohio
Pa.
n
n
n
n
n
N
Receiving Stream
Trinity Slough
Owens Creek
Tradewater River
Pankey Branch
Eldorado Ditch
Loet Creek
Pigeon Creek
Cypress Creek
Whiskey Run
Sinkhole
N. Hogan Creek
Tygart Creek
Meadow Run
Duck Creek
Middle Island Cr.
Standing. Stone Run
Grave Creek
Cross Creek
Riley Run
Middle Pk.L. Beaver
n n n ti.
Raccoon Creek
Robinson Run
n n
Chartiera Creek
n it,
n n
n n<
Mi leage
(1)
$
87
35
39
11
44
13
2Z
28
22
52
55
39
71
21
18
H+
12
2k
48
32
15
18
9
25
26
35
(^)
108
108
114
114
138
188
205
318
323
^
628
705
810
827
863
879
909
931
94?-
91*2
951
978
978
978
978
978
978
Total - Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Ohio
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Total - All minor tributaries
Population
Connected
to Sewers
2,000
3,800
1,300
8,000
3,000
2,000
100
3,000
100
1,000
2,000
1,000
1,000
2,200
1,600
1,000
1,500
3, too
12,000
1,000
1,600
3,100
4,200
13,000
1,600
28,000
65,300
20,900
13,100
20,500
1^7,300
58,200
7,800
167,800
Treatment
None
Chemical
None
Secondary
None (3)
ii'
in
ii'
n
it
11
11
Primary
None
n
Primary
None
n
n
n
Secondary
None
n
n
n
n
ii
Secondary
(4)
Sewered Population
Equivalent (B.O.D.)
Untreated
2,000
3,800
1,300
8,000
3,000
2,000
11,100
^,000
9,800
4,000
3,600
1,000
2,300
1,000
1,000
2,200
1,600
1,000
1,500
3,4oo
12,000
1,000
1,600
3,100
4,200
13,000
1,600
28,000
67,900
20,900
43,700
20,500
14.7,800
58,200
7,900
199,000
Discharged
2,000
1,900
1,300
1,200
5,000
2,000
11,100
3,000
§,800
4,000
3,600
1,000
1,600
1,000
1,000
i.koo
1,600
1,000
1,500
3,4oo
1,800
1,000
1,600
3,100
4,200
13,000
1,600
lj.,200
24,000
8,300
36,300
10,700
17,000
30,900
7,700
110,900
(1) Miles above confluence of minor tributary with Ohio River.
(2) " " mouth of Ohio Hlver at mouth of minor tributary.
i) Septic tank ineffective.
I.) Nine places, primary treatment? 28 places, secondary treatment; remaining 28 places,
no treatment.
- 154 -
-------
Table M-ij. - Minor Tributary Basins - Summary of
Industrial Wastes not Discharged to
Municipal Treatment Plants with Total
Industrial Waste Load in the Basin
Indus try
Canning
Meat
Milk
Steel
Miscellaneous
Wastes Unconnected
Munic. Treatment
Number
of
Plants
6
7
2
k
5
2k
Industrial Ytfaste
Disposal
Munic,
Sewers
-
-
-
M
1
1
Private
Outlets
6
7
2
k
k
23
At Least
Minor
Corrective
Measures
Taken
5
7
1
2
1
16
Wastes Discharged to Municipal Treatment
Total - Industrial Waste Load - Minor Tributaries
Estimated
Sewered
Population
Equivalent
(B.O.D. )
13,300
16,700
300
-
M
30,300
900
31,200
- 155 -
-------
Presentation of Laboratory Data
The maps which show coliform, dissolved oxygen and B.O.D,
results on the main Ohio River also show similar data on its
minor tributaries. Summaries of laboratory results are shown
on Table M-7. Sampling of these areas was done concurrently
with work on the adjacent sections of the Ohio River but was
generally less intensive than on the main stream or the larger
tributaries.
Pittsburgh to Huntington
In general, ooliform counts were high along the minor
tributaries in this section, A number of the streams were heavily
acid. Acid data are summarized in Table M-7A, Oxygen conditions
were generally rather good except on Chartiers Creek below Washing-
ton and Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, and on some of the very small
tributaries,
Huntington to Cincinnati
None of the minor tributaries on this section were found
to be heavily polluted although a number of them showed moder-
ately high coliform counts below some of the small sources of
pollution. Oxygen results were good, with B.O.D's, generally
below three parts per million and dissolved oxygen over 6.5
parts per million.
Cincinnati to Louisville
The tributaries in this section also were found to be in
generally good condition. Local pollution was evidenced on
Laughery Creek at Batesville, Indiana, Hogan Creek at Aurora,
Indiana, Harrods Creek at LaGrange, Kentucky, and Goose Creek at
Anchorage, Kentucky,
Louisville to Mouth
This section includes the two largest of the Ohio River's
minor tributaries, the Saline and Tradewater Rivers which enter
the main stream about 110 miles above its mouth. Several of the
tributaries of the Saline were found to be acid* Low dissolved
oxygen, high B.O.D's, and high ooliform counts were found below
Eldorado and Harrlsburg, Illinois. In the Tradewater basin local
pollution was found at Dawson Springs, Sturgis and Providence,
Kentucky, and acid was found at Earlington and Providence. Both
the Tradewater and Saline were in good sanitary condition at
their mouths during the sampling period. Acid results on these
streams are summarized below:
- 156 -
-------
Station
Saline River
teldorado
Wasson
Harrisburg
Pankey Pork
Tradewater R.
Darlington
Providence
it
Month
1914.0
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Nov.
Oct.
Nov.
No.
Sam-
ples
1
3
3
3
3
1
1
PH
2.8
4.2
£.3
3.3
3-6
5.7
Avej
Metnyi
, Red
1,228
Ij-OS
514.8
103
2kl
98
»age Acidity
>. P. M.
Phenolpi
Mot
2,505
914.0
i,j5ko
445
1,0214.
169
76
xthalein
cold
2,40k
536
Ilk
202
891
157
6k
Average
p. p.
Ferrous
500
8*
6-SHfr
12**
456"
2
5
Iron
m.
Total
750
50*
1454HJ
l03*-»
475
12
10
One sample only.
Average two samples only.
Other places where more or less heavy pollution was
found were on Cypress Creek below Boonville, Indiana, Indian
Creek below Corydon, Indiana, Beargrass Creek at Louisville,
Kentucky, Lost Creek below Morganfield, Kentucky, and Crooked
Creek below Marion, Kentucky.
- 157 -
-------
GO
•P
O
•P
OJ
^
O
43
Ctf
f^
•o
H OJ £ •«
•3
^ 03 O bC
s-°§^
P O ,0
03
EJ 1 •
•o * bOrt
^^^
9) 43 »
43 n C
Ctf O
S -P
River
Location
bO. (\J 00
Pi *l • •
^tj-^.rcv # i_d-Qooj
CO 1 | (\JK iTk
KN t» H
S1 ^
^1 H
•1 1
bO CO ONCM
pj| *| • •
ONLTKi; NN I 1 C--O HCO
co 1 1 ojH eg
^ (>», .LTN
Hi | •»
^i F
1 0| _=)-K\
UNO +3|M 1 1 O|O lAoN
OJO 0 rHvO
ONOl |ON
1 ILT^
1 1
W U-N| OOvO
C^-OJ PKN HI HlTUiAoj
KVJ-l-3. OJO
ON l| H
(D
i1 '
^i i
tr> o KNO
• •! •! • •
coco -P-d- i_d-Hvotr>co
0- OP OJH|
ON0. I
1 1
1 1
i-fN vo t-rs
•1 *l • •
rooo -P tc\ i i_3-r-HCO
OJf-0| HfcO
ONO ir>
1 1
t>-. IfNCN
•1 •! • •
_^}OO 43 hTN II -Jd/O O IT\
KNC^- 0| rH|O H
ONO. CO
' U
i r
Kiver Miles Above :
Confluence with Ohio
Mouth of Ohio (1)
Period - 19^0
!Tuinber~~oF SampTe?
Plow in c.f .s. :
Sampling Days
Minimum Month
Water Temperature °C.
UoTiForms per ml.
Dissolved oxygen ppm.
B.O.D., 5~^a7 P»P«m.
d * c
000
O 03 fc
O 43 0)
U
O
bO
O 03
£H H
Q 04)
03 O H
03 rH H •
0> 03 «H T!
P, « fi H
£*> JH O
O O O
PQ
rt
o
§
a
o o
-> C
•a 43 P o
•H O
•I
o\^
10 if
«!
o|
CV)
H|0
O
I *
I
00 r^«
hf\H p
H<«!
i/S OCO
• • .
IOJ|O OH
I
•I
r-co
Ml
ti1
01
M
I K>
H
I
O 0|
OJ O.
CO OVO
•I • •
H|O res
H
Ctf
43
*3|
I
r\ C-CN
•I • .
u
KVJ"
O ON4»t\J
KNO
I
ITV OOJ
t^-OOH
Hjg -
O «H
«O
Ctf O -H •
3: loOCQ
- 158 -
-------
Hydrometric Data
Sixteen stream gaging stations have been maintained at
various times on minor tributaries of the Ohio, Five of these
stations are currently in operation. Table M-6 shows data on
low summer flows at a few of the stations.
Table M-6 - Minor Tributary Essins - Monthly Mean Summer
Plows for Yeers in which Low Summer Plows
have Occurred*
River
Location
River Miles Above:
Conf .with Ohio
Mouth of Ohio(l)
Drain. Area Sq«Mi«
Period of Record
Year
June c.f.s.
July "
Augus t "
September "
Year
June "
July "
August "
September "
Year
June "
July "
Augus t "
September "
Chartlers
Creek
Carnegie,
Pa«
8
978
26k
1919-33
1927
325
135
62
2k
1929
151
c. D
1932
60
67
30
26
L»Beaver R,
East
Liverpool,
Ohio
914.2
505,
1915-40
1932
?6
131
26
17
1930
102
30
22
28
1939
359
C26
103
2Q
Middle
I si and Cr.
Little,
W«Va0
25
827
k^B
1915-20,
1925-14.0
1930
11
2
0
0
1932
5iv
255
166
2
1936
10§
\
Raccoon
Creek
Ademsville,
Ohio
25
705
587
1915-35,
1938-U.O
1930
29
11
Hi
3
1922
5W
72
152
1932
57
255
25
11
(1) Miles above mouth of ObJo at mouth of tributary stream.
- 159 -
-------
A large part of the flow of Chartiers Creek Is mine drainage*
Other minor tributaries are subject to extremely low flows*
Proposed Flow Regulation - One of the reservoir sites
studied by the U, S. Engineer Department for Ohio River flood
control is located on Twelvepole Creek, a minor tributary
which enters the Ohio River near Huntington, West Virginia*
This is a relatively clean stream receiving a small amount of
sewage from one rural community. Low-flow regulation by the
proposed reservoir would have no appreciable tangible value for
pollution abatement.
- 160 -
-------
Discussion
Pollution problems on the minor tributaries of the Ohio
are predominantly local in nature and are concerned primarily
with prevention or correction of offensive conditions in small
streams subject to extremely low flows. An exception to this
is the acid problem which must be attacked on a more or less
basin-wide scale, at least in the upper third of the Ohio Basin,
None of the nine surface water supplies shown in Table M-2 is
subject to heavy sewage pollution and although adequate bacteri-
ological data are not available, it is probable that the water
treatment plants are not overloaded. Several of the water sup-
plies are affected by acid mine drainage notably the Harrisburg,
Illinois, supplye
Recreational use of these minor tributaries is extensive,
particularly in the neighborhood of the large Ohio River cities.
The small tributaries are usually the cleanest streams for water
sports and the rugged terrain through which most of them run is
attractive for summer cottages. Even in the upper part of the
basin where mine acid has damaged many of the streams there are
some which are notable for their recreational value.
The low flows to which most of the streams are subject make
rather complete treatment of wastes necessary for the prevention
of local nuisance conditions. Each stream, however, presents
more of an individual problem than is the case in the larger
tributary basins where the effects of pollution may be felt
more generally*
Most of the sewage is already being treatedo Some of the
existing plants appear to be inadequate. Estimated costs of a
suggested program for abatement of sewage and industrial waste
pollution are summarized in Table M-l. Reduction in the mine
acid load is badly needed. The cost of work to accomplish this
is shown in the section on Acid Mine Drainage*
• 161 -
-------
TABLE M-7 MINOR TRIBUTARY BASINS
OHIO RIVER POUUTION SURVEY
LABORATORY DATA
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS
. . = Milftoge From
Saving Pom. j ^^
Charti er*. Cr.A'.v.ciiir ^h 37
limits- Washington, Pa. 5
n n = n it
n n inn
;
n >t r it w
'•"""" ' !"•" "
••""" "; lv '•" "
it M ; n H
It n : H H
I
:
:
Chartiers Cr.-.2 mi. tCh 3^
below Sew. Tr. Plant f J
v ' ii {n n
:
v n in n
n ;, ~~~"|~ n
n it En n
H n p i.
n « |ri n
n it |n it
[
"Chartiera CVeek - 6,1 = --. y~.
Below Meadowlands. Pa. I ^
n n = it n
=
M H | K n
n n ! n n
ti " I n n
n n i n n
i
n n |nn
!
[-
_ :
1
Chartiers ~C~r«eic-¥iiow ! Q.,. _/•
Houston, Pennsylvania 1
n » | M n
V .1 {•'" .
!
n n : " n
:
= Avoroge
Data IDiichurge
19^0 { c f i
Oct. 7 1
••—5T"~
• 23 j
Nov. 12 I 15
" 25 j 16
Dec. 5 f 12
" 17 j 12
" 27 !
1
Oct. 7 ]
" 15 j
" 23 j
Nov. 12 ] 19
25 1 2U
Dec. 5 i 22
n l is
Dec. 27 !
1
Oct. 7 j
" 15 1
" 23]
Nov. 12 | 21*
" 25 \ Ul
Dec. 5 1 27
" 17 j 31
" 27j
!
Oct. 7 I
15]
--- - _-
" 23 f
| Nov. 12 | 36
» » | " " 1 " 25 I 58
H N 1' - i ' :
i I D"0- 5 ! 38
" " | " » j " 17 1 to
i . , | . 27 1
i i !
! I 1
CBStfeYm Creek"S"iiiVf,:;~ •"""• « <~ ~
Below C«n«rturi, P«. !OCh 23 ! Oct- T\
\, . { „ 15 |
: : :
" n {nil
__ !
|.
!" ^ I
Nov. IE ! 1*2
{» " M 25! 73
" " i » " 1 Deo. 5 ! UU
, i = E
* * }» «
" 17 I 51
[» i» 27 i
- — -.! 1 :
i 1 i
! i !
Chartlera Creek-I mile ! i i
Below Morgmza, to. !och » I Oct. 7|
!" - !" 15!
|.
=
!" 23!
i m,m j
! bi'ooiviei Oiiiigw. ! 5 Day
"C- ] p. p m
18.0 j 8.2
lU.Oi 6.2
7.0! 9-5
8.5| 9.3
ii.5|10.ii
U.0|12.9
3.5111,5
S.5J10.3
20.0; 0.0
15.0J 1.5
9.0; 0.0
8.5 | 5.5
i.5! 6.7
3-0 j 9.9
li.O ;10.0
10. oi 6.7
j
18. 5 j 0.0
lU.O ! 0.0
8.5; 0.0
8.5 | 1.0
5-5 j 1-9
3.0 ; 8.6
3.51 8.0
10.0 i 2.1*
;
18.0 | 2.5
13.5 | o.o
8.0 | 5.1
7.5 i 3.6
5.0 | 6.9
1.0 : 10.9
"*.0 i 8.8
9.0J 7.0
{
19.0 | 2.U
15.0 I 2.0
9.0 i 0.3
9-5 ! 2.8
6.0 j 7.5
i.o : 12.3
U.O 1 10.5
9.0 ; 9.3
I
18.0 i 0.9
13.0 ] 2.U
s.5 j 1.6
-"162 -
««- \ll
85. 'i 1.3
59-3 1.5
77-7 0.6
79.1 i 1.8
79-8 0-9
98.1! 1.3"
86.2! 0.5
87.9 i 0.8
oo. o| 31*. 5
iU.8; 6.8
U2.2*
00.0 i ?.§
-i.2^6*
1*7.2! 13.5
51. 6 i 9.1
73.^ 7.6
76.3! "*.7
59.11 10.6
i
oo.o i 23.5
00.0 i 1*0.6
oo.o i i*i*.o
8.5 i 12.0
15- •*! 21-7
63.8 ! 16.3
60.1* | 6.2
21.3 12.9
25.9 i 5;!j.
00.0 ! 11.0
1*3.1 : 6.6
29.9i 5.0
53.8 | 3.1
76.6i 5.1*
67.0 j 5.8
60.1* i 5.7
!
^iits-
^!i°5.
2.1* i 12.9
2l*.l i 5.6
59.9 j H.1*
86.5 i 5-8
79-8 ! 5.6
80.U | 5.9
!
9.1* i >*.l
23.1 lisla*
13.6 :15.6
Cohlorai
M P. N
P«ml
U6
9
2
U6
21
!»3
23
U6~
1,100
11,000
2,300
2U.OOO
9.300
2,300
2,300
11,000
1,100
110,000
0
1*,600
2,300
2,300
2,300
U,600
39
93
2l*0
93
1.100
1*30
2.1*00
2,1*00
1,100
230
1*30
230
23
1*60
U.froo
11,000
1*60
>t.600
910
»H
6.8
6.5
6.6
6.9
6.7
6.7
6.9
6.7
6.7
5-8
5.9
7.1
6.8
6.7
7.0
6.9
6.7
6.6
6.3
6.8
6.8
6.5
7.1
6.7
5.6
6.0
6.5
6.6
6.8
6.7
7.1
6.9
U.O
3.3
6.0
6.1*
6.2
6.8
7.2
7.0
6.6
5.5
6.1
Turbidity
p. p. m.
5
12
12
21
8
10
20
7
71
115
li*5
1*0
26
90
30
28
98
90
1"*0
1*6
38
100
1*0
35
88
93
22
68
33
^
30
IS
23
28
32
3>*
22
70
30
23
90
108
115
AlhilMly
p. p. I*
108
152
161
127
ll*9
12>*
98
129 -
1U6
15
19
132
135
92
107
135
135
138
65
110
138
16
110
110
7
7
71
1*9
91
92
99
118
11
6
8
SO
98
122
36
5
13
Honfc«.
p.p.«
-
-------
TABLE K-7 UlliOn TRIBUTARY BASH'S
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
LABORATORY DATA
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS
'- Mtlaog* From
Sampling Point \ Mouth
1
Char tiers Creek - 1 mi.!och 21
Eelow Morganza_, Pa.
it ii
n H
n n
u n
lililer Run-^ mi'le above
Cecil t Pennsylvania
n
n ii
tl ii
II II
ii II
.
n n
n n
Miller Bun- $ mi. below
H n
R n
n H
«
it H
II H
II H
II II
"
OChM 16.5
n H
n n
n ii
n n
*"""""""'"
II H
H H
II K
"
OChii 15.5
H n
n H
R tt
H X
tt H
n ti
« n |» »
" I"
i
Robinson Bun - above IcChS 22. 5
Midway, Pennsylvania ]
j.
tl N =n It
=
tt R |N R
R II In It
H R lit H
m I
ft t» = ii n
i
ti M
Hobinson Bun- Below | QQ^ gl S
Ui4*QJTi -Pffrffl9ylvaji4a •*
R n ! ir H
H H : H K
Data
Nov. 12
" 25
Dec. 5
" 17
27
Oct. 1
" 8
17
tt g^r
Nov. 5
" 18
u 2g
Dec. 11
" 23
Oct. 1
" 8
" 17
" 2>4
Nov. 5
" 18
" 29
Dec. 11
" 23
Oct. 2
" 10
it 21
" 28
Nov. 7
« 20
Dec. 3
" 13
:
Oct. 2
" 10
tt 21
» » I" « tt 25
" " |" " Nov. 7
- .
" "
If M
Ro'binson Run-^J mi .Above
licDonal4t Fa.
it . n go
" Dec. 3
13
OChS 19
j.
« it j. .
\
fit ,
Average
c'f. i
1*2
75
<*5
52
2
9
>t
2
3
13
8
2
•*
**
*•
**
1
1
2
1
Oct. 2 j
« 10 1
" 21
T..p
Y.o
H.5
1.0
U.5
9-0
13.0
12.0
U.O
10.0
9.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
>*.5
13.0
12.5
3.5
10.0
9.0
0.0
2.0
3.0
U.O
12.0
6.0
5.0
8.0
5.0
1*.5
0.0
6.0
11.0
6.5
5.5
8.0
5.0
K.5
1.5
5.5
12.0
6.5
5.0
i 7-5
p p m
5.0
7.2
12.1
9.8
9.1
10.9
8.7
12.U
9.t
10.1
12.5
I2.lt
12.6
10.6
9.1*
9.1
11.7
9. a
9.8
12.2
12.8
12. l!
10.0
8.1
7.1
8.0
9.2
10.6
10.3
12.6
10.9
9.8
10.5
11.1
10.6
11.5
ia,2
13.0
11.1
10.lt
8.U
9.5
10.1*
%Sol.
1*0.7
55.6
8U.9
75-7
78.2
103.0
80.0
91*. 2
83.U
88.3
87.7
39.7
93.3
81.5
88.7
Sit. 8
88.2
80.9
slt.6
83.5
92.3
92. it
76.2
7t.it
57.2
62.1
77.9
82.8
79.1
85.9
87.2
88.2
8H.9
87.9
89.0
89-7
git. 2
92.1*
88.1
96.1*
76^3
714.3
86.6
BOD
p. p. IB
3.0
7.1
7.3
3.U
5.5
b.lt
7.1
"C.V"
0.0*
2.8*
2.0*
2!s*
0.8
0.9
i.7
1.2*
,.._...
1-1*
7.0
0.9*
I:t*
6." 5
2.6*
0.9"
.2.0*
6.3
2. It*
0.8
0.8
0.8*
1.6
1.2
0.1
7.6
1.0
0.5
0.6
0.9
1.2*
0.7
2! 2*
i.7
0.9*
1.0*
1.6
1.8*
"Kg—
l.U*
0.6
f."5"
"1.1*
"T.T"
1.2*
O.lt*
CoMorm
M.P. N
91
93
93
2ltO
2UO
**
0
o
0
0
0
11
110
9
0
0
o
0
11
0
11
110
23
110
93
150
1.100
1*3
U60
15
23
**
...
1-
1
**
**
*«
2t
0
0
0
7~r~j o '
»
6.14
6.2
6.7
7.0
7.1
3.1
3.0
2.8
3.0
14.5
>*.5
6.U
6.3
5.6
3.0
3.0
2.8
3.1
5.3
5.0
6.6
6.8
5.1*
7.14
7.0
6.6
6.8
6.8
6.5
6.8
6.8
3.2
3.1
2.9
3.2
14.5
It."*
U.6
6.1
2.9
8^8
a."*
2.S
TuAWilY
p. p. m
68
35
70
1*0
23
13
16
38
1*9
79
120
60
55
150
6
IS
12
15
91*
110
55
80
220
"45
8
6
12
18
10
15
35
28
31
ita
36
39
1*0
85
50
37
3a
28
17
Alkalinity
p. p. m.
23
8
56
63
136
15
8
sit
100
12
8
11
99
99
aU
237
259
2141*
236
220
231
203
169
5
8
5
23
p. p, m
- 163 - ' " '
-------
TABLE H-7 MINOR TRIBUTARY BASINS
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
LABORATORY DATA
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS
""•""""*•*• " «"•«••»»» ' '
Sowhno POM
Robinson Hun - J mile
Above McDonald,. Pat ___
R N
* K
II II
Boblnion Hun - J mlYe
Below McDonald, Fa.
« R
• •
H 11
tt N
N fl
• »
* t
irrrc.TBHnVon'm^'mT;
Above Oakdale. Pa.
* N
"
N •
(« «
• II
* B
tt N
tt «
3£ottCn*on Hun-upper
limit! Oakdalei Pa.
• N
• •
II •
tt R
N •
• *
• •
• R
Eoblnion »» - $ alia
Below Oakdfcle, Pa.
• N
N •
II »
It N
• «
tt tt
« •
V •
CKarVle V» "CVeik-iVoTa" "
CarnefieL Pa.
R *
• R
R *
" "'"
OChE 19
. .
— .
• N
OChH i7.5
. «
" "
" "
» i
' "
tt R
' "
OChBHf 15.5
H tt.
R H
H fl
tt H
R tt
N R
N tt
H R
ochR 15.5
tt tt
• M
" •
V V"~"
R It
R •
"
• m
OOhB lU.5
* •
» tt
• it
tt •
M •
• »
I «
• It
OCh 8.5
* tt
N •
K tt
"'•"
Dot.
_jate_.
Hov. 7
" 20
Dec. 3
" 13
Oct. 2
" 10
• a
28
»CT. 7
" 20
Dec. 3
• * •»
" 13
Oct. 1
• 8
Oct. 17
• 2U
HOT. 5
« 18
29
Dec. 11
' 23
Oct. 1
" 8
" 17
. *
*,. 5
• 18
29
Dec. 11
Dee. 23
Oct. 1
" 8
" 17
• 2U
HOT. 5
" 18
29
Dec. 11
' 23
Oct. 1
" 8
17
" 2U
Avarag*
Dlicl.jrg*
cf.l.
2
2
It
2
2
2
5
J
17
6
3
"
it
2U
8
U
8
1*2
lit
7
T_ :.?»*«
"t.5 1 11.5
5.0 j 11.3
1.0 jlU.6
6.5 ill. 3
]
lU.O { 8.2
6.5 jio.o
5.5 ; 10.3
9.0 jli.o
U.O jll.0
5.0 : 12.0
0.0 ilU.l
7.0 ilO.S
i
11.5 i 10.7
12.5 i 7.2
U.O 3.2.0
10.0 i 10.2
9.5 jio.8
0.5 i 11.9
>*.0 ! 12.9
3.0 ! 12.8
U.5 i 12.2
j
12.0 110.3
ll.o : 9.0
H.oj 9.0
10.0 ! 7.6
10.5 i 10.1
0.5 1 12.3
3.5 J12.9
3. 0 | 12.U
3.s| iaa
I
12. oj 9.5
11. 5 i 6.9
3.5:10.2
10.0 ! 7.7
10.5! 10.1
0.0 j 13.3
1.5 i i*t.o
2.5112.9
U.o 1 12.5
. L
lU.O i 7.0
13.5 j iz
5.5 j 6.0
11.0 j )»4
- 164 -
t&tirx- \ i D«
«.s« ! B.O.D.
»Sal- : P. p.*.
88.5 i f;?.
9^9 I SS-
»•*! f:98.
»•' I is.
i
.J.!L'J..7^.
«-«l£?.
8i.2 |-^r
qlt q ! 5-7"
9 ° 7.3'
Hft
93.7 i ij-g.
*3 I JJ.
S8.7J ^.
— --T-1V8--
97-» | i.u.
66-B i Ji
.Ml i:5.
89.8 i °-9
_.:„:. Ail*
«.9 1 i:i.
*»i t2.
"•' 1 J:I-
»»l ^
9^.0! J;|.
[
95.3 1 i:i
6^3 | "£9~
..^d-IJ--
66.8 i 6-3.
90.0 j «;5.
•ioi J?.
07 •< i f.9
..?!:.?.! .2.0?...
92.0 : 5-6
. _i 2.2*,
_?i.?.i^p
i
87.3 i 0".
6i7j 3.3.
76.8 i "1*-3
..'.....: .ift*...
68 2 ! '•*
68'2i l.o»
8^i!;I.
_?:°!.lk.
QQ.Q [ 3»3
" ' i l.t*
J^IJJ.
9"i rf.
i
67^3 1 *• 8
i 8.0«
^f.|jSL.
^iJii*
jHlsLL.
Colllom
UP. N.
!>«.!
**
*.
**
**
**
«*
1
**
U
110
U
9
0
0
0
0
0
**
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2k
0
• *
5
0
0
0
o
2
U
1
1,100
0
lU
9
2
0
pH
3.5
3.3
't.o
>*.5
3.1
2.9
8.U
3.1
U.2
3-7
M
U.5
2.8
2.9
2.6
2.9
3.3
3.3
3.2
2.8
2.9
2.9
3.0
2.8
3.1
3.8
3.7
M
3.8
3.8
2.8
3.0
2.7
3.1
3.5
3.5
3.9
3.1
3.0
3.9
3."
3."*
3.*
,„„„„„,„„.,
87
90
170
100
152
138
225
195
70
75
150
110
U
It
U
it
11
95
85
85
60
19
17
2>t
52
is
110
85
130
120
17
8
11
lU
32
75
85
90
110
25
17
lU
11
__
6
5
8
9
•HiiimiuMHHimimi
-------
TABLE M-7 MINOR TRIBUTARY BASINS
OHIO RIVE1. POLLUTION SURVEY
LABOKA1ORY DATA
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS
Wling Point
Char-tiers Creak - Above
Carnegie,,. Pennsylvania
H It
H H
Miloog.Fro* I „_ I£T°* ! T*»*
M™,tt, * °°t9 iDI«chdlJ« ^
"^ igQo ! c-f.f. ! *-
OCh S.5
H M
Nov. 5 { 111.0
" 18 | 78 j 2.0
" " 1" 29
13>* | 1.5
" " 1" " [Dec. 11 I 93 j 3.5
V N
» «
1
Chart! era Creak - Below
CAnftBifii.E«&AWJtaHLa,
n ti
n •
H *
" ZJ
-
OCh 6.5 joct. 1
"|» 8
. j. 17
» • j" Jit
" " 1" " !Hov. 5
n H
" " j" 18
M H H H 1 t.O
90 i 5.0
J13.0
iio.o
21 ! i 9.5
" 28 I 112.0
SOT. 7
E
5: 7.0
20 | It! 7.5
I >
Dec. 3 { 13 i 1.0
" «|" 13 I 51 6.0
1 i !,__
I i
| '
teccoon Cr.- Vmi.t.elowi OBa 3^5 Oct. 2
B^rgetUtom^.Pa... .:...:_ „ _.
H M
t 11
H N
jll.5
" « " 10 i i 8.0
; !
a | i 6.5
" " " 28 | ;' 9.0
" " [HOT. 7 i 7j %5
| « . {. 20
I ; _ _ _
• N
• " "
_^ _•_
" «
I
I
Baccoon Creek -
At Jfo&tb
n N
it *
N N
N tt
• n
Uiddle Pk. Little Beaver
LJ&L>JWyA-§ftlfiRv-OteiP
* «
• N
Middle ifc.L. Bearer R.
U ml. below SaleBL Ohio
IT •
• K
oa» 0.5
• N
D.=. 3
6| 5.5
17: 0.0
Eec. 13 j 10j 6.5
!
HOT. 7 1 1 7.0
15
. j. 25
It H
57J >t.o
59: 5.5
Dec. 11 ! i 3.0
• !" 17
1. —
« i
" 23
OLWtf 37 }june 28
• «•
N •
OLtiUf 32
N •
• •
July 10
" 29
June 28
July 10
' 29
ni 5.0
65: 3.5
i
**! 18.5
**! 22.0
aa"».o
i
519.0
3J21.5
3^85.0
Dmoivod Oxypw
P.P.IB.
8.1
10.7
11.7
11.0
10.3
6.2
6.2
6.9
5.6
8.2
9.3
11.6
11.3
10.8
9.1
9.0
9.2
11.5
10.9
10.5
12.U
lo.u
10.2
7.7
9.7
9.6
11.1
U.I
13.3
11.7
11.2
12.0
11.1
12.6
12.0
12.0
9-5
5-1*
2.6
5.6
5-9
%Sa.
73.3
77.1
83.5
83.0
79.1*
60.5
60.9
57.2
51.7
7"*.5
67.5
83.6
86.0
8U.1
85.7
79A
80.3
.06.3
89.2
87.2
87.U
83.6
92.7
6>t.9
78.U
82.7
«7.6
88.1
90.8
9". 7
91.6
91-2
88.0
93.6
9"S.9
90.3
100.5
61.7
30.2
60.3
6&2
it. 1 i Ug.o
SD«
8 O. D
p. p. ».
'TT
18.5*
5-3
T-o*
2.9
2.6
3.5
........
7-9*
"OY5"
3.S*
7.0
2l.g»
7.3
17.. 8*
8.3
18.§*
••znr~
20. 2»
3.8
5."
-E-.T"
8.6*
e.r-
2.1*
"6".T"
U.8*
7.0
2.8*
'TB'.V'"
3.5*.
4.2
2.6*
7.5
1.8*
-r:i~"
2.8*
-y.-o-
1.5*..
T.-?""
2.8*
U.O*
-(C6~"
2.0*
7.t
J.J*...
T.5
.JfK..
7.9
3.0*
&
tz.
1.7
2.0*
0.6
2". 8
.)'?.
0.8
U3*
0.7
0.7
2,2*
1.9
2.9
3-1
t.7
2.0
12.7
Collfona
M.P. N
P««l
11
2
110
23
93
6
U6
lU
it
9
110
23
2UO
It
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
2
•*
0
0
0
e
i
2
0
*»
•*
**
z
••
••
"*3
23
*0
91
23
2Ho
pH
5-3
5.1
6.3
6.0
6.1
3.2
U.O
3.3
3-5
5.0
5.2
6.1
6.0
5."*
2.9
2.8
2.5
a. 9
3.9
3.t
"t.5
5.6
2.9
2.5
2.5
2.9
3.U
3.3
"t.3
*t.2
"t-9
6.1
"*-9
5.9
6.7
5.8
8.0
7.5
6.8
7.t
7.6
Ti»Udllr
p. p. «.
90
95
125
95
120
35
31*
28
6U
71
130
90
90
110
88
63
162
112
108
170
2JO
130
33
it
t5
30
1W
120
200
180
3
6
6
23
22
22
13
7
7.6 1 15
AftolMy
p. p. •.
11
8
12
30
52
7
12
8
2U
11
8
32
6
5
5
1
11
8
7
135
132
Hadm
p. p. M.
• • - -
ito
202
172
- 165 -
-------
TABLE M-7 MINOR TRIBUTARY BASINS
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
LABORATORY DATA
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS
So«pling Potrt j
Ml 441 • TkUmV Beaver*
1 mi. above Leetonia.O.
n n
H N
Middle Fk. Lit tie Beaver
X mi. belgw Leetpnia^),
it tt
R tl
Middle Fk. Little Beaver
^ mi. above Lisbon^ Qhip
If IT
n *
**
"
5
2
1*6
1)6
9
9
n
9
U
<5
"*5
67
52
1*1*
58
TO
107
p. p- n.
19>*
au
188
ISO
-------
TABLE M-7 KINOR TRIBUTARY BASINS
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
LABORATORY DATA
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS
— * 1 M"zer
little Beaver River
At tooiith
n n
it n
H »
n it
.
it n
it n
n n
n it
H H
n n
M ii
.
ir n
n ii
Yellow Creek-i mile
Above Amsterdam^ QhiQ
* it
n it
•
it n
II H
"
•?elTow"Cre~ek ""I ml'ie
Below Amsterdam, Ohio
n n
it n
n n
It H
II II
tt n
Rlley Hun - J mi. Above
Salinevillet Ohio.
H H
It M
n it
H n
It H
n tr
» a
n n
Riiey Run - \ mi. below
Salinevillel Ohio
H It
N N
H H
It H
n it
OLt) 0.2
.
II It
n n
n n
n ii
«
•• *
n it
n n
« it
n *
H It
II H
ii 11
it n
OY 25
It H
It II
H It
H
n H
it it
OY 23.5
n n
n n
N it
H IT
« It
ii n
OYR 13
it n
It H
" n
t> n
* H
n n
•ft H
n it
OYB 11.5
H H
n n
1 Averag*
Dot« iDischorge
19*0 | c I. ,
" T!
• 13 1-
• 151
" 19 i
25!
- 27!
" 29!
^
Bee. 5 !
" 9 1
" 11 [
» 13 1
H 17 |
19 I
" 23!
" 31 I
" " i
Jan. 2 j
\
Oct. 22 1
31 1
NOT. 8 i 2
i
" 22 [ 2
Dec. 1* | 6
" 16 | 3
" 26 j
i
Oct. 22 |
31 |
= __
Nov. 8 i 3
22 | 3
Dec. I* | 7
" 16 ! I*
• 26 | — "
1
Sept. 26 |
Oct. 3 |
" 22 |
" 31 j
Nov. g | 1
" 22 I 1
Bee,. 1* 1 2
16 | 2
" 26 |
:
1
Sept. 26 !
Oct. 3 1
_ „ . !_
it 22 j
- |» 31]
" " f NOT. g 1 3
• • |" 22j 3
; Dinolvad Oxygen
°C. JP.P*.
6.0 j 11.7
5.0 i 12.3
5.5 |12.7
1.0 illJH
5.0 J12.6
2.0 i 13.0
0.5 i 1U. 0
0.5 jlU.l
0.5 i lU.3
2.0 J13.fi
U.5 J12.U
^.0 J12.5
1.0 :13.8
3.0 :i3.2
3-5 J12.8
"t.5 12.5
2.5 i 12.1
6.5 i 10.6
2.5 113.0
11.0 I 11. 1*
2.0 i lU.O
8.0 i 11.6
5.5 J12.3
U.O i 12. U
6.5 : 10.7
3.0 ; 12.6
11.5 i 11.1
2.0 i 13.6
8.0 i 11. 8
5.0 ;11. 9
10.0 : 11.2
12.0; 9.8
1.5 i 12.0
5.0 i 11.1
2.5 ] 12.8
10.5i 11.2
2.0 i 13.7
7.0 j 11.7
5.0 I 12.U
:
10.5: n. u
12. 5 j -9.fi"
2.0 j 11. 8
6.0 | 11.0
3.0 ! iz.i*
11.5 j 11.0
%Soi
93.8
36.2
95.3
99.3
98.2
9>4.1
96.9
97.7
99.0
98.3
95-6
95.0
97.0
97.5
96.0
96.5
88. 8
g6.2
95.1*
103.1
101.5
97.6
97.1
91*. 2
87.1
93.3
101.5
98.1
99.2
93.1
98.1»
90.3
85.U
87.0
93.7
99.6
99.2
96.3
96.9
101.7
89.8
• 8i*. 9
g7.g
91.8
ico. 5
SDoy
BOD.
p. p IB.
0.8
1.1
0.8
1.0
0.9
2.5
1-5
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.2
2.6
0.8
0.9
1.1
0.7
0.9
2.0
1.0
0.8
0.7
l.U
0.8
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
1.0
1.7
0.7
0.8
0.7
1.2
1.5
0.7
0.5
O.g
2.0
0.8
1.1
1.3
1.5
O.g
0.5
o.7
Colifom
M. P. N
Perm!
2
2U
2
**
1
110
36
9
110
9
2
11
9
U3
U6
9
9
11
U60
39
%
>*3
23
93
2UO
It
2U
23
75
2"40
93
9
15
1*
2U
2U
1*
*
93
2to
28
93
"*6o
23
t3
»H
6.5
7.0
6.9
6.5
6.g
6.8
6.5
6.8
6.1*
6.5
6.6
7.0
6.6
6.5
6.9
6.8
6.1*
7.2
7.1
7.1
6.8
6.8
6.S
6.3
7.3
6.8
7.0
6.7
6.8
6.9
7.3
7.0
6.3
7.3
7.1
6.9
6.8
6.8
6.9
7.2
7.0
6.2
7.2
6.9
6.9
TurbkiUy
P.P.BI
5
15
7
10
6
85
18
22
5
7
23
130
17
12
60
18
7
8
8
10
5
130
15
6
8
10
c
6
130
28
8
7
22
6
7
6
6
210
6
3
trace
1*
3
3
3
Alkolmtty
P. ».«.
9U
85
SU
gl*
93
67
51*
61
69
63
61
1*1
39
60
21*
33
97
69
73
69 .
51*
35
>*5
60
59
l*g
59
t5
36
3»
30
lit
10
39
36
38
30
18
20
Ul
"*7
i»3
1*6
"5
23
Hordn«>
p p m
' -167-
-------
TABLE M-7 MINOR TRIBUTARY BASINS
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
LABORATORY DATA
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS
' T —- "-» -i s
«-*— | w'sr I •&
^^^:so'."j™ "^P" "
• . |. 16
• »
» 1" 26
Average
DteKorg*
C.f. 1.
5
5
1
it.Yit.Yeliow Creek _„.., , !. _, ~c
Above IroBtale, Ohio ! °™f 5 rSeEt- * 1
" " I ' " !"••• 3
n . j " » }" 22 I
| . • j. 31
« " 1 " " iNov. 8 l 5
" * | " " j" 22 ! 5
" " ! " " pec- •* 8
• " | " » 1" 16
n « j n » |H gg
! I
1 !
7
N.ne.Yellcw Creek;-! ml.] 3 | ^ =
Below Irondale, Ohio \ * \
n it
"
H H
.
n " | « «
n N
H II
fl n
n n
n "
Yellow Creek
4t_Jfc!rtfe
H «
H H
" N
it n
H n
-
n B
n n
N H
Oct. 3
Oct. 22 |
n 31
Nov. 8
. 22
Dec. U
« 16
« 26
i
or 0.2 {NO*, i1*
" "1" 27
" " JDec. 9
" j" 19
" " |jan. 2
Harmon Creek - Mouth ! 0H 0.2
W, Va. Route #2 ! "• *
H U
• »
N H
" "
H H
11 i
,
II It
n it
« N
H V
• *
NOT. 12
» 18
" 26
Dec. 2
« 10
» 18
» 26
Cross Creek - Mouth \ | L
Ohio Route*? ! OCr 0.2 Nov. 1*
H II { It H
1 It
r «
• n
_
Cross Creek - Mouth
f. Va. Route #2
« M
N •
H *
R •
R •
* "
N
n *
OCr 0. 2
N II
.
• N
H N
• *«
" 27
Dee. 9
" 19
Jan. 2
HOT. 12
» 18
5
5
8
8
3°
153
72
36
359
56
50
61
55
65
IK
7C
38
1JU
50
37
205
18
17
« 26 j 16
Dec. 2
• 10
20
*.
• is i 17
i
1 " " 1" *J *
T-IR !.?<<»i»«:if"
13. 6«
l-l
8.2
32. u«
7.2
16.J-
6.1
12.0*
•v;6'~
lau*
0.7
2.6
0.5
O.U
0.5
1.6
i.6
U7
2.0
i.7
"6.9
0.8
CoUbm
MP. N
f«m\
23
U6o
230
2"t
2
1
2
**
2
11
2U
15
lt6
2U
39
93
MS
9
9
150
9
2lt
150
U
9
9
0
#*
^
2>t
15
9
*•
9
2UO
9
It
2
110
2to
5
it3
1,100
23
93
JH
6.8
6.7
S.8
7.2
7.0
6.U
7.3
6.9
6.9
6.8
6.9
6.9
7.2
7.0
6.U
7.1
6.8
6.9
6.8
6.9
6.9
6.6
7.1
7.0
7.1
6.9
2.7
2.7
2.9
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.1
6.7
7.0
6.8
7.1
6.8
7.0
6.7
7.0
6.8
6.6
6.8
6.8
TinUftr
p. p.*.
6
110
12
3
2
It
U
It
U
7
85
6
3
trace
3
3
118
5
7
90
5
Q
210
7
12
23
19
15
12
55
l»
.60
13
9
170
23
S
60
53
35
30
£
5s
UO
35
AIMiiHy
p. P.M.
36
20
29
67
55
57
69
51
35
38
26
3U
61
60
60
68
51
51
33
25
30
(M
it6
1*
36
25
95
5U
79
69
"3
»3
88
101
97
99
98
105
Horira
p. p.*
- 168 -
-------
TABLE M-7 MINOR TRIBUTARY BASINS
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
LABORATORY DATA
Sonpllug Point
0.8 - W. Va. Route #67
n tt
R tt
.
H R
H R
Middle Pork Short Creek
R tt
R R
R II
R tt
R tt
» R
R H
tt R
Short Creek- upper llnlt
AdenajL. Ohio
MtlaoqcFre*
OBu 0.8
" ,/„
» H
tt R
R R
R R
R «
OShUf 25. 3
R tt
H N
tt H
tt tt
N R
H tt
R R
«
OSh 17.3
i ,
•: " !•"•
« «
R n
i .
R It
R R
n R
n R
Short Crflek-1 nU*
Below AdenaJ Ohio
IT tt
R N
It •
.
It tt
tt R
. R
Short cYeeto^ ml. above
DillonvalCj Ohio
« H
• tt
" •
» tt
» •
Short Cr»«k-lJ mils*
telpw MllopTOlB. Ohio
H R
* »
* R
" . ."
« H
tt M
R »
OSh 16.3
• R
R H
tt tt
tt R
tt N
R H
R R
H tt
OSh 10
H tt
» H
t It
tt R
tt tt.
OSh S.3
R tt
1 •
• *
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL.
"i"A«mil"!"7 rKihld'ow"
iHb
HOT. lU
37! 6.0 ] 12.5
« 22 1 36i 10.0 ill.lt
JNOT. 28 { 160J 2.0 113.2
Dec. 6 ! 115! 0.0 | lU.2
« 12 ! 7« 5.0 i 12.8
« 20
« 2>l
j >t.5 j 13.0
i 2.0:13.7
j i
"T" : 1
Sept, 27 | 110.0 110.lt
Oct. 9
25
HOT. 1
1 10.0 1 3.3
i 10.0 i 7.6
i 9.5 j 7.8
" 6 | zi 7.0 [10.3
" 19 I 2! 0,0 jll. 3
Dec. 2 1 61 0.0 113.3
" 12 | It' >t. 5 J12.0
" 2"t i 21 0.0 113.9
i" i !
Sept. 27 j 1 10.0 i 18.6
Oct. 9 | i 9.5 i 11.6
" 25 1 i 9.0 j 9.7
HOT. 1 | i 9.0 I 10.1
» 6 | toj 7.5 iii.2
"19
Dec. 2
" 12
» 2U
Sept. 27
Oct. 9
25
Nor. 1
» 6
" 19
Dee. 2
" 12
. 34,
HOT. 13
" 26
Dec. 6
" 18
' 30
31
HOT. 13
" 26
Ike. 6
• 18
• 30
• n
35i o.o iiit.lt
86 | o.o ilU.0
go! U.5 J12.1
85: o.o llU.6
i j
iio.o iio.5
i 9.5 111.1*
iio.o i 9.7
i 9.0 i 10.5
itoj 7-5 JU.1
36: o.o J13.9
ee; o.o |13.6
93! lt.5 J12.2
88; 0.0 il3.U
j [
to: it.o 1 6.8
50; 2.0 i 9.0
38J 2.0 i 11.0
8JJ 1».0 1 11,7
i lt.5 jll.8
290 >i,5|ll.9
; i
"tlj i.o i 9^
52J 8.0 i 9.6
39j 2.0 1 11.7
83J "li.O ! 12.1
j 3.5 J12rf
300] 3.5 j 12.2
-"169"-
100.1
100.9
95.2
96.9
99.6
100.3
99.2
91-9
28.9
66.7
68.0
Sit. 5
77.3
90.8
92.6
95.1
111.0
101.0
8lt.O
87.2
93.3
98.5
96.0
99-9
92.5
99-1*
85.5
90.U
92.6
95.2
92.7
93-7
91.8
51.8
65.3
79.2
88.9
9U2
91.7
69.9
69.5
8U.lt
92.t
90.1
,91-6
RESU
B. O 0
p. p •
0.6
0.7
1.3
0.7
0.7
o.£
0.8
1.8
15."»
3.2
"t.U
2.7
1.5
1.2
1.0
1.5
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.6
l.lt
0.7
1-3
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.2
I.I
0.6
o.s
0.6
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.8
3>
0.7
L.TS
M.P N ; pH
Pwml :
it i 7.0
•) 16.9
5i 6.9
It i 6.9
15: 6.8
7 j 7.1
«j 7.1
1.100 i 7.1
11,000 :6.9
910 j 7.3
It, 600 16.9
2.300 i 6.8
93016.7
150 ! 6.8
13 16.8
2Uo i 6.9
2UO i 7.2
23 i 7.0
93 i 6.7
15 i 6.9
150 ! 6.9
It6 16.9
"*3 1 7.1
"13 |6.9
23 i 7.0
I
2te 17.0
U6o |6.8
!t3o i 6. 7
36 :6.8
it6o i 6.8
U6o j 6.8
ifc :7.1
23 :6.8
ifio i 6.9
9 j 6.3
150 | 6.7
Si \ 6.6
23 i 6.9
23 j 6.7
kj i 6.8
i
*|6.5
23 j 6.6
150 | 6.9
93 ! 6.7
39 J6.S
Mkilly i Alt**,
P.IX M. 1 P.P.M.
9 j ilti
10 i 135
55! 88
22 | ItO
12! 12>t
7: 126
5J 131
j
5J 157
20 j 198
5 j 193
8 | 183
13 j 168
10 1 160
6 i llto
71 136
71 1>»8
j
5J H6
3 i 129
2) 126
It 1 128
21 i 119
15 i 153
6 j 135
30 i 126
5 I I'M
i
25 j 69
10 j 60
10 i 66
8 j 85
50 i 75
35 i 112
50 j 97
50 j 93
110 j 102
i
125! 22
120! 13
110 | 53
SO! 73
130! "17
95 1 59
j
1J1 ! 31
125 | 13
110 I 66
75! 71
2,600 i 63
100 j 52
Hodrw
p. p.n
. .....
-------
TABLE M-7 MINOR TRIBUTARY BASINB
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SDRVEY
LABORATORY DATA
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS
' -i
Sampling Point
F*iney Pork Creek - Atovi
Piney Forkt Ohio
n *
n n
it n
.
n "
it n
W N
Piney Fork Creek-Below
PJ.ney Fpjct, Ohio
fl n
,
tt N
ii n t
n if
N •
n "
it n
Short Creek - Mouth
Ohio Route £l
it n
N 1)
N H
N H
IheeVing Creek- Uouth
W. Va. Route #2
R n
n «
II M
n n
?evLlnfcSlT#2." "°uth
" "
R II
« II
Wheeling Creek-SJf mile«
Below Flushing Ohio
* N
II ft
Wheeling Creek - ij mi.
below laferty.^ phio
it «
n *
^TO^e.
« N
"
' r" " !"*" ' ;""
M»* j j^o iDi^'i <•
OShPi 12.3J Sept. 27 | 113.0
" • bet. 9 ! ilO.5
• !« 25! [9.0
— i i !
• " [Nov. 1 j i 9.0
" " [Nov. 6 | 6J 6.5
" »I» 19 j 5j o.o
" » JDec. 2 1 iHi 2.0
" " \* 12 | 9J 5.0
" " |" 2H ! HJ 0.0
1 I i
OShPi 11.3[Sept. 27 I 113.5
" " [Oct. 9 | 1 11.0
" "I" 25 | j 10.0
" • [HOT. 1 | i 9.5
" "1" 6 | 6; 7.0
"j" 19 [ 5J 1.0
" " (Dec. 2 1 lit! IvO
" "I* 12 ! 9i 5-0
• }• 2H ) 5J 1,0
OSh O.SJNov. lU \ lt3J lt.0
" "I" 27 | 155! 3.5
« « JDec. 9 j 75! 1.5
" " i" 19 1 55J 1.0
• " ijan. 2 j 330] 6.5
1 !
i !
' - ! ;
Olh O.lJHoT. It | i 9.0
" • I" 6 | jio.0
" "I" 1H { 203! 6.0
" "1" 22 ] lgll!10.5
" » |» 28 1 1150! 3.0
i" i r~~!
I = : '
OWh O.lfPec. 6 1 175! 0,5
" "I" 12 j 281; 5.0
" "1" 20 ] 181J U.5
•" !" * ! i 2.0
1 i i
Ofh 2U.7Illa7 10 > 3113.0
= E -*i -*
" " 1" 13 ! 2J20.0
! " ' l» 15 1 1J17.0
I 1 1 I"""
Ofh 23.7tUay 10 1 gill. 5
i it
| " * \* 13 ! 6J16.0
! " • !" 15 i Uii7.o
i = = 1
! s s i
• " loct. ig I : 7.0
1 " "|" 29 ! 1 9.5
Dinolve
P.P.OL
11.3
lo.e
10.1
10.5
11.1
13-9
13-3
2. It
lU.O
.O.U
11.0
6.5
g-3
8.6
9.5
12.9
ll.l
13.3
6.2
11. E
ll.lt
12.0
11.1
10.3
9.6
10.9
9.3
12.1
13.0
12.0
12.0
12.2
9.9
g.g
9.0
9.1
7.6
".3
7.9
g.3
10.0
170 -
05S«>_
%Sot.
106.6
96.2
87-2
gg.9
95.0
96.0
97.0
95-7
99.1
99.1
57.2
72.3
70.7
66.5
90.7
86.9
93-3
l»7.2
88.9
81.2
gU.3
89.8
S8.6
8>t.8
87.3
82.6
89.9
90.0
93.5
92.6
gg.2
93.6
96.U
92.6
g2.7
79.6
"*3.9
75.6
67.9
87.3
5 Dor
6 o. a.
p. P.O.
0.7
1.0
0.9
O.S
0.7
0.5
0.8
0.6
0.6
1.3
1.9
6.3
£.7
15-1* .
2.5
2.2
1.1
0.8
0.8
1.6
2.0
1.0
0.5
0.6
2.0
1-9
1.U
2.7
1.6
3.1
2.8
2.1
2.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
•0.5
0.3
0.1
0.6
1.2
1.2
CoMornrt ;
M. P. N. ; pH
9 i 7.0
"t6 | 6.9
>t3 i 6.6
23 J6.9
9 1 7.0
1+16.9
9 17.0
** 16.8
11 j 7.0
1,100 J7.0
0 ;6.8
U6o J6.1
0 i't.g
93 i 6.7
93 J6.6
t3 j 6.9
93 j 6.6
^3 i tig
l»6 I 6.0
93 i 6.9
93 J6.7
93J6.g
2>to j 6.8
i
110 ; 6. 5
1,100 16.7
1,100 16.9
>»30 i 6. 5
"*30 J6.g
i
2.UOO J6.8
930 16.7
lt,600 J6.9
U}0 16.9
!
>t 17.0
9 J7.2
"• 'i7.2
1
>t J6.6
1 16.5
*• i6.o
0 16.8
1 16.2
** i6.3
p-r>- ••
g
5
6
7
22
25
30
23
"»5
2t
25
86
5g
61
55
100
Ho
Ho
138
250
130
130
120
2lt
23
28
30
H5
30
25
21
23
55
38
63
60
19
2H
'™jj' "
p. P.«.
H7
68
93
87
65
git
67
69
go
37
57
11
12
25
39
5H
53
67
9
36
50
60
70
83
95
92
90
63
101
gg
82
SH
86
35
36
11
15
""'»*>»*«•'
P. P. M
380
HoH
21*
"**" ' «'"»"""""'"*
-------
TABLE M-7 MINOR TRIBUTARY BASINS
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
LABORATORY DATA
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS
Sowing Point I
1
Wheeling Creek-lJ miles
Above Fairpoint^ Qhip
"
j
R n j
i
• " \
• "
Wheeling 'Creek- "$ mils
Below Fairgeintj Ohio
it n ;
- -- ~:
"
ft R
R n
n ti
R- *
R *
K R
Town HunrUelow Youth"
n "
0 R
II H
« n
H R
tf H
H R
R R
Wheeling Creek- £ mile
Above Bart on v Ohio
n n
R R
H H
a n
R n
R If
R R
R II
IT M
Wheeling Creek- f mile
Below Barton, Ohio
R II
R It
H H
ff R
R R
IT R
""EE***" l °°» ~i°«*>*™
M°™ ! igUo s c 1. 1.
OWh 20.2|noT. U
" » » 13 ! 17
« "i" 26 { 18
" « Deo. 6 j 15
" " i" 18 i 17
" » I" 30 1
» 31 | 56
! i
1
OWh 18. 2J Sept. 30 i
1 1
» » |«ct. 18 ]
" - I" 29 !
•v ~;~~ii^r~u r
i \
• j. I3j I*
" • !» 26 j 19
= - 1
" " JDec. 6 ! 16
" "I" 18 i 18
i =
" " JDec. 30 !
: =
» « i" 31 j 60
OWhT 13. 2J Sept. 30
" » Oct. 18
" « i" 29
= !
" " HOT. U 1
» • it 26 1 •*
» " Dec. 6
» « « 18 | *•
• .' • ..».!
.•__• !". ?.l :
!
OWh 1O.7 Sept. JO
" « Oct. 18
" " jflct. 29 1
" " (HOT. U !
_ 1 1
" "1" 13 I 32
' • » 26 38
" " Dec. 6 | 38
• • " 18 26
• it ill 30
!
" • " 31 I 8U
1
i
OWh 9.2 Sept. 30 |
* ' Oct. 18
" " * 29
1
" " HOT. U I
1
" " " 13 I 32
\
• • • 26 39
« Dec. 6 39
| Dinolv.
7.0 : 10. 9
3.0 jll.9
1.0 J12.6
0.0 iii.9
3.5 J12.lt
U.O J12.3
U.O J12.3
13-5 : 5.6
7.0 i U.6
9-5 1 10.2
7.0 i 10.8
3.0 jll.5
1.0 :n.g
0.0 i 12.0
3-5 ii2-3
U.O J12.1
U.5 i 12.1
;
lU.5 j 3-1
9-5 i U.5
11.5 t 2.1
10.0 : 8.U
6.0 i 8.9
6.0 i 7.6
3.5 : 9.2
6.0 : 10.1
5. 5 j 10.9
6.5 1 10.9
|
15.5 i 5.0
9.0 | 11.0
10.5 iio.o
8.0 ill.O
3.5 :i2.2
1.0 J12.3
i.o 113.3
3.5 il2.6
U.O J12.0
U.5 J12.3
I
15-5 | 9.7
8.5 jll.lt
10.5 |10.U
7.5 jll.5
3.5 J13.1
1.0 jio.6
1.0 |13.U
Oqm.
%Sot
89.3
88.1
88.5
81.U
93-3
93-7
93-9
53A
38.1
89.3
88.3
85.2
83.1
82.0
92.7
92.0
93.6
30.2
39.6
18.8
73-8
71.6
60.7
69.1
80.8
86.5
88.3
Ug.8
9U.8
89. U
92.8
92.1
86.5
93.6
95.0
91.6
9^.5
96.5
97.2
92.7
95.6
98.5
7U.2
9U.1
SDoy
B O.D.
p. p. n
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.6
2.0
2.9
U.9
0.6
0.6
Broke
0.6
o.u
1.2
0.3
U.2
5.9
30.9
7.9
9-5
19.6"
19.9
12.9
12. U
17.0
2.5
'"•*.
~3V
0.8
0.9
O.U
0.6
0.6
1.2
O.U
"avr"
1.2*
Z.I*
5.5
1.0"
1.6
0-5
1-7
0.6
ColUonn ;
M. P. N i «H
2U j 6.U
8 J6.8
2 i 6.9
** i 6.3
11 j 6.7
9 I6.1*
2U :6.6
0 i 6.5
5 i 6.0
9J6.2
2U i 6.U
U J6.8
1 J6.6
** i 6.5
2 i 6.8
2 J6.5
£U ]6.7
i
U3 i 7.3
1.100 i 6.6
2.UOO : 6.8
U.600 |6.8
U.600 j 7.1
2U.OOO 17.3
7.500 ] 6.9
1,500 ; 7.0
U.300 i 6.8
360 i 6,8
it j 6.7
** i 3.3
** i3.U
2 i 6.8
5 :7.2
U j 7. 8
9 J6.9
U |7,2
15 J7.0
2U (7.0
[
oiu.7
0 ;3.U
1 J3.3
2U (6.6
8 J6.7
U -6 7
U |6.8
""'
p. p. m.
U5
U9
U5
70
U5
60
55
50
12
23
93
72
55
50
Uo
130
65
13
lU
32
10
10
130
30
20
UO
70
31
21
33
66
85
80
100
80
150
90
33
lU
31
99
106
95
95
p. p. m.
92
98
119
90
"3
59
77
21
158
8
72
98
105
92
113
57
79
230
209
225
182
ISO
197
165
lUU
n
89
19
51
76
68
98
111
68
gg
6
32
U5
25
93
P- P m
- 171 -
-------
TABLE M-7 MINOR TRIBUTARY BASINS
OHIO RIVER POU1JT1ON SURVEY
LABORATORY DATA
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS
— ™ 1
Soapllno Point
Wheel log 'Creek-? mile
Below Bartouj Ohio
« N
H II
Wheeling Creek - Ifouth
Ohio Route No. J,
R n
t
* W
II *
AultB Bun— Little HcUaho
??Tofl"?f IT^ ff-f*Bh1 o
« *
,
ii if
IT «
• •
« II
Moutfi
OWh 9.2
H II
N tt
OWh 0.2
9 IT
n •
II H
N II
igKo |
_. _..„» |
30
31
!±5!lJL!±niJSiLil!ls.
27J 3.5 112.1 i 90.8 j 0.6
| U.5 111.9 j 91.5 | 0.7
88! U.5 i 12.0 i 92.9 i 0.3
i i i |
HOT. lit 35: lt.ojl2.3J 93.91 2.6
" 271 1U5J U.O 112.8 j 97.7! 2.7
Dec. 9J 68! 2.0113.3J 96.0! 1.1
" 19 i Uoi 1.0 J13.U 1 9U.3 j 0.5
Jan. 21 267! 6.5111.9! 96.7! 0.8
i
' OUcLmi 10. 7
• »
it n
n N
* N
11 l>
II M
1 "
Sept. 30
Oct. 18
ilU.5 jio.2 i 99.2 i 1.9
110.5 I 6.U i 57.3 i 11.2
" 29 ! j 11.0 i 5.1 j 115.9 120.0
HOT. Ul JiUO i 6.7 j 60.1 ill.2
« 13 i **[ 7-0 i 7.8 i 6U.1 116.7
"__ 26 i ••! 3.0 i 8.1 i 59.9 1 11-5
Dec. 6 | U.O i 10.3 i 78.6 j 7.3
" 18
i ~; j~; ~< i, 30
N • ! « «
Ucfehon Creek - Ifeuth
Ohio Route Ho._J
1
« 31
OUe 0. 2 HOT. lU
• *
II • 1 • N
• II
• II
Below BarnesYillej Ohio
• N
* II
Bind rk. -Ciptina (Veek
• V
N *
Sunfiih Creek- 1.1 ni.
ft *
• i
* •
• •
* N
• •
• t
II •
i •
• .
• R
ft *
• *
"
•
OCitff 31.0
II N
• H
OCpB 27. 0
.
N H
OSf 22.9
. .
i *
• .
i t
• "
i •
N t
" "
> f
• H
t II
II »
'
I
" 27
Dec. 9
" 19
Jan. 2
**! 7.0 j 9-9 I 81.2 !13.2
j 5.0 1 10.3 i 80.1 j%7-5
*< 7.0110.0; 82. 3 i 8.6
i i i |~~
5UJ U.5 111.6 j 89.3 i 0.6
1671 5.0 i 12.0 1 93.6 i 2.1
83J U.5 i 12.7 i 98.2 i 0.8
55j 1.0 113.1 j 92.2 i 0.5
22UJ 6.0 : 11.5 j 92.3 i 0.7
j i i i
Mar 10 i 31 10.5 i 10.8] 96.31 2.8
" 13 S 21 16.5 113.0 [131.9 j 1.8
" 15 j 2J19.5 j 11.3 122.2 | 1.9
1 1 I i 1
Hay 10
13
15
May 2U
June U
" 13
" 21
July 1
« 18
26
*««. 5
• 13
• 21
' 29
Sept. 6
" 16
JUS?1 20
lill.5 112.2 i 111.0 | 2.2
1117.0 ilU.U 11U8.2 i 1.6
lilS.O J12.3 1 128.6 ! 1.9
j I 1 i"
1 17.5 j 8.9 i 92.6 j U.U
1 17.5 jio.6 ] 109.7 j 0.8
J23.0 | 9.0 1 103.9 j 1.2
ilU.O J10.7 1 103.3 i 0.8
1 17.0 j 9.2 1 gU.6 1 1.7
[20.5 ! 9.7 [106.7 1 0.9
J2U.5 1 8.U i 99.5 ! 0.8
123.0 i 7.6 i 87.1 i 0.9
123.5 j 8.1 j 9U.5 j 1.1
[16.0 i 9.7 [ 97.9 ! 1.2
120.0 1 8.8 1 95.5 i 1.0
|18.0 i 9.7 1 101.6 i O.U
jlU.0 | 9.9 j 95.7 i 0.7
i 1.5 [lU.7 jioU.6 i 1.3
1 _i_ ! i ..
iii]
Collkn.
M. P. N ; pH
Pv»l 1
9 J7.1
8 | 6.Q
"»i 7.0
1
1,100 j 6.7
910 1 7.0
230 i 6.9
"*3 i 7.1
93 i 6.q
i
lio.ooo i 7.U
9.300 16.3
U.300 ! 6.6
11.000 i 7.0
2U.OOO i 7.3
23.000 i7.1
9.300 i 7.1
2U.OOO i 7.1
U.300 i 6.9
2U.OOO '. 7.0
j
2 i 6.8
2Uo i 7.0
9 i 6.9
U i 7.0
U6o j 6.8
1
2UO i 7.9
U6o 1 g.U
23 i 8.U
1
23 J7.S
918.6
9 I 7.8
|
l.ioo i 7.U
15 j 7.2
150 i 7.8
23 [6.9
110 | 6.8
91 i «.0
91 i 7.5
23 i 7.8
* J7.9
150 i 7.U
"*30 j 7.3
9J6.9
•» 'i 7.1
2 J7.5
i
]
TuiWdUy
P.* ••
90
150!
95 i
AUMir
p. p. •.
99
66
8U
9U
250
95
59
70
100
U5 1 109
70
110
i
6
13
210
200
-22 1 t^O
9
21
8
11
20
30
21
186
195
193
181
161
91
12U
j
32
7U
lUo j 79
25
23
22
105
106
106
i
1 139
ui
8)
1
7
101
i
U20
2
61
55
5U [ 68
12
90
12
8
U
65
36
75
72
87
Ul 9U
13
13
U
trace
6
SU
52
78
90
U2
[
|
Hanhmm
p. P.M
18O
196
lUg
- 172 -
-------
TABLE M-7 MINOR TRIBUTARY BASINS
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
LABORATORY DATA
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS
SfMpltng PoW
Below Woodsfleld, Ohio
MilFroi»
Mai*
DM fDHdn-Jj TJJP-
OSf a. 1*1 Hay 2U i 18.5
M IT I tt *
:
ii » » »
n a { R «
« « tt R
i
June 1*
« 13
" a
il9.5
J23.5
jii.o
July 1 | 1 17.0
» » 1 « " !" 18
" n
IT »
R H
m «
IT 1)
n IT
.
» «
Middle Island Greek
St. UaryeL W__ Vas
R tt
R
M tt
n tt
Little Uugkin£Uin River
Xt Mfl-^S
n n
H n
n N
V
« 26
ia.5
i 26.0
" " *u«. 5 [23.0
" " " 13 J2U.O
" " " a J16.5
" " " 29 121.5
" " Sept. 6 iig.O
" ' * 16 1 jllt.o
II II
jS:1 »
J2.5
Oltl 0.1 July 2U J27.0
K tt
Aug. 9
. |. .9
" " !" 27
n n
125.0
J25.0
J22.5
Sept. 1* I J2U.5
" " " 12 ] | lf.5
OLmu 0.1
Hay 1 ! il6.5
" " j" 7 J15.0
H tt
" 9 ilS.O
"|" 13 I 115.0
« fl } n it n 15
n « i n «
£
tt fl = n n
=
= j
" 17 ! il^.S
" a i :i8.o
tt tt f H it « 23 iao.o
tt n
n n
» R :
H H
N n
N tt
tt H Inn
j ,
tt «
tt tt
* « j » «
i
R tt
* * INK
._
tt tt
tt
tt
N R
tt tt
" N 1 N H
i
1 R
__- .» i
i" 27
Bay 29
31
June U
« 6
" 10
• 12
1 J15.5
1 17.0
: 16.5
! 18.0
i a.o
;2l*.0
i 20.5
It | | 28.5
" 18
" 20
' 2U
" 26
" 28
" " f July 2
" • • » ! « 10
i
n N i H tt
:
" 12
i 22.0
120.0
i 23.0
i28.0
i 23.0
j 17.0
J23.5
J2U.O
" 16 j 2U.O
D«olv«) O,yo«,
p. p. in.
9.0
10.6
8.1*
10.6
9.3
9.1*
7.7
H.2
6.U
9.6
8.7
lO.U
9.9
ll*.g
6.5
5-9
1*.U
i*.3
7.2
7-2
9.0
9-9
8.9
8.8
8.0
9.6
8.7
9-0
9.0
8.8
9.2
8.7
7.8
6.8
7.3
7.2
7.0
7.5
8.1
7.5
8.6
7.8
9.2
8.U
8.2
%&».
95.1
111*. 7
97.7
10U.1
95.8
105.6
93."*
l«.l*
7>t. U
98.0
97.5
111.5
95. U
108.5
80.U
70.U
52.8
1*9.6
85.5
7^.2
9L1
97.9
93.U
86.3
78. U
93.1*
91.6
97.7
S9.9
90.2
93.1
91.1*
87.0
79.2
80.U
82.3
79.8
81.8
93-1
35.2
98.6
79.6
107.1*
97.9
96.5
B. O. D.
p. p. «.
l.U
0.7
1.6
O.U
1.6
0.9
1.1
1.5
0.9
1.1
1.2
0.5
0.6
0.7
l.1*
l.l
0.9
o.l*
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.0
3.s
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.6
1.8
0.6
0.7
1-9
3-5
1.1*
2-9
1.2
1.0
0.9
0.9
2-3
1.0
1.5
1.6
Collfofin ;
M. P. N. 1 »H
P««l 1
150 i 7. 8
21 i 7.6
93 i 7.S
15 1 7.1
1,100 i 6.9
0 i 8.1
>»3 i 7.7
23 j 7.9
9 J7.8
110 i 7.6
930 j 7.3
0 i 7.U
9 I 7.0
21* J7.6
i
23 J6.8
1*6 i 7.U
1*6 | 7.1
0 J6.9
2U )7.1
A"]6".g
:
2 |6.8
2J7.5
1 17.2
2 i 7.1
11 i 6.9
2 i 6.1*
2 j 7.3
5 J7.>*
11 ] 6.7
no | 6.9
1*60 i 6.5
2Uo i 6.8
23 | 7.1*
290 | 7.1*
"<60 j 7-3
oi 7.2
l.lOOi 7.0
"•3° i 7.1
91 i 7.0
OJ7.3
23 i 7.3
WO j 7.3
0 i 7.2
15 1 7.0
9 J7.1*
Turbidity
P.P.IH.
30
2
160
9
ISO
58
38
12
lU
69
Alkalinity
P. p. M.
79
68
66
7"
39
81
79
97
109
95
51* 61
5
1
5
97
002
50
18 j 32
150
135
39
31
67 1 ua
62
5~2
39
39
J
17
12
90
99
18 i 9U
11
2,100
56
25
22
iio
36
230
Ug
20
108
59
2U
87
92
58
71
5**
68
80
1*50! 89
1,800
385
1,600
270
58
>*8
73
59
63
62
39
95
31* i 106
550
17 j
20 i
20j
- 173 -
59
9U
87
85
p. p. n.
'
-------
TABLE M-7 MINOR TRIBUTARY BASIKS
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
LABORATORY DATA
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS
SoflpUng PoM
Lit*tie1"ku1^Tni^MMver
At Uputh
R R
H R
It II
'
11 »
R N
* «
» R
II H
B R
tt IT
- R
R *
N *
II R
R fl
R N
* it
R fl
it n
R H
H R
n «
K II
H It
« fl
R R
R »
N II
IT •
R H
R R
R R
R »
R II
It It
R R
H H
Duck Creek-city Unite
AbqYe..Cal.df?llJ.Ohip._._
R H
n R
It *
• R
R R
R R
R M
r
Mow*
OLmu 0.1
R R
.
R H
N N
II It
M R
n *
R II
R R
....... .
N «
H R
R IT
It •
.
R R
" _1 .
. .
R R
R H
"
R R
ft tt
n it
It R
R •
R n
1 '
1 „ „
R N
ff H
* R
R H
N R
H fl
fl R
n H
R R
on 37.1
• «
• •
* tt
II R
• tt
It tt
H *
=
I
i9Uo_ !
July 18
" 22
» 2>t
26
" 30
Aug. 1
" 5
7
" 9
13
15
' 19
• 21
" 23
' 27
" ,9
Sept. It
" 6
" 10
" 12
- 16
— IPI— -
Jan. 15
' 17
" a
" 23
• 27
29
• 31
reb. 1*
" 6
liar. 6
' 10
19>ll
Mar. 12
" l"t
" 18
" 20
" ait
• 26
« 28
TgiRj ,
Ua? *
June U
" 13
» 21
July 1
" 18
1 26
Aug. 5
Dtekw
e 1. 1.
•C
2U.5
27.5
26.5
2S.O
29.0
27.0
27.5
26.5
25.5
27.5
27.0
26,5
25.0
2U.5
2U.O
21,5
23.0
23.5
22.5
20.5
20.0
1.0
H.o
0.5
2.0
2.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
1.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
1.5
0.0
1.0
5.0
5.0
5.5
18.5
22.0
25.0
17.0
19.0
2U.O
28.5
26.0
Dunk*
P.P.H.
7.6
6.7
5.9
7.2
7.7
6.9
8.0
7.t
6.1
7.2
7.1
7.1
8.1
8.6
8.2
6.2
«."•
8.2
8.5
8.9
9.3
13.5
12.lt
13-7
13.5
13.0
13.0
13."»
13.lt
13."»
13.H
13.7
12.8
13.2
13.6
1U.O
12.9
12.2
12.5
7.6
8.2
7.5
8.5
8.2
8.5
7.3
6.U
174 -
L09I8"
%S«.
89.8
83.5
72.0
91-3
99^0
85. •»
100.3
90.8
73.1
90.0
87.8
87.2
97.1
102.2
95-6
69.7
96.9
95.6
97.5
97.7
101.0
9U.6
9M
9>t.7
97-7
95.2
92.5
95.5
92.8
95-5
93.1
96.5
92.6
9^.2
93.2
98.lt
100.9
95.5
99.1
80.3
93.1
89.5
87.3
88. 1
99.8
93.2
77.3
star
B. O. D.
J(P._P.«.
1.0
1.U
2.5
1.5
1.0
1.8
1.2
l.H
1.6
1.3
1.0
1.0
0.7
O.J5*
0.3
1.0*
0.5 '
3.0
1.2
0.3
6.6"
-l.-.l.!..
0.2
0.9-
1.0
.A.o_'__.
0.6
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.3
1.3
0.6
1.6
O.U
2.0
0.9
1.2
0.6
0.9
0.6
0.9
0.7
0.7
"t-9
1.1
1.0
0.6
2.8
1.2
2.0
1.6
Colllorn. '
M.P. N. ; ,H
P-.l ;
2"! Tie
9 j 7.8
U6o i 7.u
9 J7.0
it :6.9
U6 : 7.2
2 J6.8
aU j 7. »t
no : 7.0
o :7a
2:6.5
11 i 6.1
0 J5.8
*• : 5.1*
2J6.3
U£o i 6.8
0 i 6.5
9i 6.0
15 i 5.3
2J 5.6
l|lt.5
i i 6.7
11 i 6.8
2:7.7
>*• 7.3
7J 7.1
UJ7.2
93 | 7.-3
"* j 7.5
•* i 7.1*
917.5
9J7.6
"* I 7.5
9 I 7.1»
•» ! 7.6
** j 7.7
01 7.8
IJT."*
oi 7.6
1
1,100 i 7.7
7! 7-5
t3 1 7.8
23 i 7.2
It6oi7.l
36| 8.0
9! 7.7
Oi 8.0
""" r "
f-p.*. i p.p.«.
15 | 116
13 : 123
370 : no
235 I 28
22 j 15
200 ! to
9 j 15
15 J 20
355 1 *6
12 i 12
lit i 11
32! 17
7:
u :
11 i 8
1.650 i 76.
52 1 39
12 j 10
10 1 6
12! 11
3| 5
5 i 93
60 i 69
21 j 36
1*5 i 66
120 i It2
60 j US
25: 65
12; 80
7,i 82
lltoj 55
25: 6U
130 | ' its
35 j >ts
15J 67
TJ 73
18 i 117
8 j 82
12 i 86
j
550 1 91
36! 117
120 i 92
i«: 119
U}0i 94
38 | 137
Hi j 153
52 i ll!2
~™
P.D.*
\
-------
TABLE K-7 MINOR TRIBUTARY BASINS
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
LABORATORY DATA
'SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS
Sowing Point | M^
Duck Creek-city limits i OD 77 i
Above Caldwellj. Ohio 1
v ; TV i""
!
M n I tt t
1
Duck Creek - 1.8 miles S OL ^ c
Below Caldwell, Ohio •
It » |B»
!
H H | H H
1.
.— . 1 . .
:
n « ! • •
!
1 ,
i .
ii it inn
;
,. .
3
IT tt | » «
\
Duck Creek - Mouth ] OE 0.2
it it inn
=
tl ' Inn
\
* tt i B tt
1
•' , |~jj f
|. .
1 "
> it ) . .
« « j » n
|.
| .
» « i > «
i
N tt ! R tt
i
" | .
' * inn
1
< • | • «
. ••• r.
» " 1 M II
1 '
• • 1 > »
N tt i tt N
tt H N N
• « « »
> « > »
• ' « I
• > ID
tt * It M
> tt n <
_„___ _„ .
tt If » •
Jl tt tt •
> « | • 1
Da.
191*6
Aug. 13
it 21
• 29
May 2>*
June 1*
• 13
" 21
July 1
" 18
26
Aug. 5
13
It ^
" 29
May 7
9
« 13
tt 15
" 17
" 21
' 23
" 27
n 39
" 31
June X
" 6
» 10
12
IX
" 18
June 20
21*
26
• 28
July 2
« . 10
" 12
'• 16
" 18
• 22
• 2X
" a
• 30
Aug. 1
• 5
• 7
Dltchofg*: ^
c 1 I. 1
J26.5
i 20.0
!
1 18.5
i 22. 5
j 26.0
118.0
J18.5
•2X.5
j 28.0
J25.0
126.0
! 20.0
J2>*.5
•15.5
J17.5
115.0
117.0
ilX.5
ilB.0
120.5
116.0
1 17.0
115.5
119.0
J22.0
123.0
121.5
!2X.o
!22.0
ia.s
! 122.5
121.5
i 22.5
! 18.0
| "T«"V
J23.5
J23.5
123.5
127.0
127.0
1 .
i 28.5
J26.5
J27.0
126.0
Dlnolvw
P-P «
6.1
5.6
6.1
6.6
7.8
6.8
7.6
8.2
6.1
7.8
6.2
6.2
5.8
5.6
9.9
8.9
8.6
8.3
9.5
9.6
6.1
8.3
8.U
8.8
8.U
7.8
6.1
7.0
6.X
7.0
7.2
7.5
7.7
8.3
7.7
7.X
6.8
7.5
6.2
X.X
3.5
7.2
6.1
X.o
7.6
5.2
175 -
Oxnjeo
%Sot.
75-1
61.0
71.8
70.1*
89.7
82.1
79-8
86.9
71.7
98.9
73.6
75.8
63.2
66.1*
98.9
92.3
SX.2
8X.S
92.5
100.3
88.9
83.U
86.7
87.8
89.7
87.9
69.8
78.9
75.1*
79-3
80.9
86.1
86.8
9U. 6
80.3
85.6
79.1
87-3
71.8
5U.6
1*2.9
90.1
78.1
1*9.1
91*. U
62.8
5 DOT
B. O. D
p. p. m.
1.6
1.8
2.1
6.U
1.0
2.1
1.1
3.6
1.8
3.9
3.0
2.8
3.1
3.3
l.l
1.3
3.1*
1.0
0.8
2.1
1.7
1.7
1.0
2.0
0.9
0.9
2.8
2.6
1.0
>*.o
1.1*
1.0
1.0
1.6
1.9
2.2
2.6
1.5
2.1*
1.5
1.7
1.X
1.0
2.3
1.1
1.8
Colifom ;
M. tM. i »H
Pwml 1
2 | 7.8
2U i7.5
1*30 i 7.1
i
1,100 1 None
i*3 i 7.5
150 17.8
93 j 7.X
2.XOO i 7.3
0 |7.9
23 j 7-7
2X j g.O
2U j 7.6
110 j 7.3
X30 17.3
XJ7.7
1*6 J7.U
9 17-3
2X i 7.3
X 16.6
no 17.3
93 J7.5
X3 17.0
"»3 i7.o
2X0 is. 7
X60 i 7.0
39 J7.5
290 i7.5
X60 j 7.6
210 i 7.5
11,000 ;7.2
J7.X
J7.5
U3!.!r5.
X3 j 7.6
2X0 1 7.2
X3 j 7.3
150 i 7.2
150 j 7.X
36 i 7.6
1,100 i 7.X
91 i 7.5
110 | 7.0
15 ; 7.3
110 j 7.0
XJ7.1
110 ; 7.6
TintHd *' Alk.1
p-p. • ] p. p. m
18 i 136
112 i 127
1*90 i 89
XOO ; 117
36 j 119
xxo i sx
57 j 12X
X50 ; 69
X5 j 127
27 j 151
63 1 160
71 i 160
138 i 138
1,125 i 96
8 i 120
2X i 121
9 i 125
22 i 127
56 I 25
11 1 120
13 1 123
185 i «X
XS i 102
3X0 i 90
55 | 10X
17 i 116
1.200 i 99
1.100 ! 70
X60 j 105
1.550 i 91
270 | 95
55! 99
55 j 135
51 1 36
'500! 9X
23 i 136
107 I 125
15 i 116
25 | 133
25 j 138
2X j 128
80 i 29
23 i 61
151 i Xo
12 | 23
78 i X6
p. p.*
_ -
-------
TABLE M-7 MINOR TRIBUTAfK BASINS
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
LABORATORY DATA
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS
SaMpling Point I
Duck Creek - Mouth f
i
» « !
Ir « I
!
V • {
_ j
R H
1
r , j
•
* • i
=
=
n n !
It *
K « i
• R
It R i
R R !
1 II
if R i
=
tt I)
\
R n
R R
N H
R H
H «
It tt
R R
«
n R
• R
Shade Biver - Mouth
n tt
n n
.
tt R
N R
« N
tt tt
tt tt
it n
.
R H
tt R
tt *
R R
R *
M"**J*^ro* 1
OD 0.2 1
. i
tt fl I
II tt i
'«'" \
tt II :
• n
H n =
I
ti it
!
11 * !
« i
tt N 1
. j
, i
. j
tt R i
!
- [
"„ ••"" ":
n n
R It
n H
.
n «
II II
.
. .
.
. .
R tt
OSh 0,1
H R
tt H
It tt
R R
R H
.
R tt
i H R
tt tt
I N R
• R
R R
R 1
tt H
R N
* *
T
Pot* !
Aug. 9 f
- 13!
" 15 1
« 19 t
=
V -~-|
' 23 |
27 i
" 29[
Sept. It }
6]
" 10 |
" 12 1
» 16 |
—• iglff—
Jan. 15
« 17 !
• 21 j
Jan. 23 j
" 27
29
.
Feb. U *
:
• v
Mar. 6
" 10
» 12
" lU
' l8
. 20
" *
» 28
Hay 2"t
June 3
• 11
" 17
25
July 1
I' 9
i" 15
}• 23
• 29
Aug. 6
" 12
" 20
« 26
Sept. 3
* 9
Mfclnrg*
j'"BS«rf6w)«i
Jr**" ! !
3.5 i 6.0 : 72.3
27.5 i 6.8 ] 35.5
27.0 i 6.U ] 79.3
26.5 i 5.8 ! 71.1
2U.5! 7.1 j 8U.1
2U.5 i 8.1 | 95.1*
2^.0 ! 8.0 i 9U. 1
21.5 i 6.3 i 71.0
21.5 i 6.6 i 7^.0
23.0 ] 7.7 i 88.5
22.0 | 8.7 i 98.>4
20.0 ] 6.6 i 9>t.3
20.0 i 9.1 i 99-3
l.o i 13.6 | 95.9
3.5 J12.5 | 9"».l
0.5 i 13.5 j 93-5
1.5 i 13.7 i 97.5
2.0 J13.2 ] 95.U
1.0 113.2 ] 92.8
l.o ]13.2 i 92.9
0.5 J13.1 i 90.8
1.5 J13.5 j 96.1
0.5 113.6 i 9^.2
0.5 [13.6 i 9^.7
2.5 ] 12.9 i 9"*.2
1.5 113.2 | 93.9
O.o J13.7 i 93.7
1.5 ilU.i i 100.3
5.5 J13.0 1 102.5
5.5 J12.6 | 99.5
5.0 1 12. 2 | 95.7
| ]
20.0 i 7.7 ] 8>t.l
18.0 ] 8.0 j 8>l.l
2>t.O i 6.6 i 77.8
23.5 i 6.9 j 80.2
22.0 i 7.U | 83.5
22.0 | 7.6 j 85.9
23.0 i 8.7 i 100.2
2U.5 | 8.7 i 103.0
27.0! 7.8 i 96.2
29.0] 7.1 j 90.9
28.0 j 7.9 i 99.U
29.0 ! 8.2; 106.2
25.0 ! 5.8 ] 69."!
*»5 i 7.8 | 92.9
28.5 j 7.7 j 87.6
i 23.5 1 «.5j 9^7
- 176 -
S'DW
B.O D.
1.7
1.3
1.2
1.5
0.8
0.8
1-3.*.
0.6
3.5
1.8
1.1
O.g
0.7
0.7
..Li!..
0.7
1.3
1-9
0.9
1.5
1.2
0.8
0.6
o.it
1.3
l.o
2.8
2.1
o.i»
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.6
1.3
1.1
1.5
1.8
2.0
0.8
1.3
1.6
l.l
1.2
1.8
1.0
1.1
0.8
1.5
1.0
Colilonn :
M.P. N. : pH
Pvnl :
9:7.2
it ! 6.8
15 i 6.5
2:6.5
2] 5-9
it ; 6.6
2.UOO i 7.1
91 1 6.8
"li6 j 6.U
9 j 6.1
110 i 6.0
it: 5.2
"*: 7.o
2! 6.9
15 i 7-1
15 J7.5
"9 J7.3
93 i 7.5
23 j 7.5
9 I 7.7
2 j 7.6
>* i 7.6
"»!7.7
12 i 7.1*
2U |7.5
2 i7.8
1
2 J7.8
!* ]7.7
2 '7.8
2 J7-8
|
9 J7.3
23 i 6.9
"»3 i 7-6
2UO i 7.U
1*60' 7-2
36 j 7-3
tlr.8
9 i 7.1*
9i 7.3
2UJ7.3
9J7-6
21 7.2
t'7.2
2U i 7.2
"t6] 7.1
i UJ6.8
i
&it j 61
i>» ': 21
21 j *
68] 30
17: 17
7!
8] 9
1,300] 100
73 i &
21: 25
15! 13
16 19
8] 10
5] 123
85 1 31
15 i 103
50 i 106
130 | 70
65 i 71*
23 j 93
15 ] 110
5 ] 108
50 1 95
25 j 101
160 ] 82
55 i 83
15 | 10U
7 I 11"*
22 ] 82
16 ! 120
12 i 120
i
50 : 102
80! 61t
335 j 83
700] 3Z
650! 77
98] 71
31*! 59
lU j in.
9! "3
57 1 "t5
11 i 32
7 i 27
It8| 53
11 1 33
ll*5 ! "*5
i>»i 30
-------
TABLE H-7 XHIOR TRIBUTARY BASINS
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
LABORATORY DATA
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS
Sav-lno**!!
Pinchtn Folk-Bridge in
n n
.
PYncEin Tfk.-4 mi. below
sewage plt.-flcArtlrar.O.
•
ii »
Raccoon Creek - 1 idle
Abpve Ve,lle.tpn^ Ohio
Moo*™"
ORaElP 66.0
M ft
n a
Dow
Apr. 17
19
" 22
OBaELP 6U.oUpr. 17
ft N
• 19
ft K |« 22
\
OBa 55.0J Apr. 1?
H H
» 19
• « i n " |« 22
Sa'cCDon" Creek - T mile | gga 53. OJ Apr. 17
Below felltton, Ohio ! I
»- v r«r i""
II It i • •
» 19
" 22
1 ! 1939-"K>
Twelvepole Creek - .7
Above Wayne^ W. Va.
M *
I 11
1 II
" "
OTw 25.0
ft ft
H H
> .
n »
• « | . .
II II | It II
I
Dec. 15
Jan. 1_9_
Feb. 2
16
" 23
Uar. 15
S" 29
! i
1 =
Twelvepole Creek-Corp.
• H
i "
II tt
N *
ft ft
« n
Littfe Sand/ B.-U.l mi.
« ft
ft H
ft fl
H II
ft H
M ft
N «
ft ft
M tt
n N
H H
H N
«
OTw 2>*.OJDec. 15
" " [Feb. 2
- |. 16
, |. 23
" " [liar. 15
n tt
OLs 32.1
it a
It H
n tt
n M
H N
tt n
H H
" tt
tt tt
tt N
• I
tt N
fl R
ft H | ft n
i
ft ft |(i?
» " ! ' •»
» 29
.
June 30
July lU
" 28
Aug. 11
" 25
Sept. 8
" 22
Oct. 6
» 20
Nov. 3
" 17
Dec. 1
" 22 i
Janf°12
Feb. 8
1
Avofoo. i 1 Dtoo*v«d Oiiyjivi
1U2111.5 J10.6
399: s-5 i 10. 9
155: 6.5 ill.9
i i i
ll*2J11.0 J10.2
i 399i 7.5 iio.7
i 155: 7.0 ill.l*
i i i
6UJ12.5 : 9.8
181: 8.5 ill.O
70J 8.5 i 10.6
6Uii2.6 j 8.7
in: 9-5 i 9-9
... .70,' 11,1 LA?.
i o.o 112.3
i o.o 112.5
i o.o ill. 3
j o.o 113.9
j 2.5 J12.S
i U.O 112.5
ill.O jlO.l*
i 1
| 2.0 i 9.U
i o.o ji3.i
i 0.0 j 8.8
i o.o 113.7
i 2.0 J12.6
i 3.5 J12.3
ill.O :10.2
J23.5 j 6.3
I aU.0 1 6.6
J2U.O i 6.7
J20.5 j 6.7
J21.5 | 6.8
i 22.0 j 6.5
|i6.5 i 6.3
J16.5 | 7.1
ill.O i 7.8
i 6.0 j 9.1*
i 5.5 ilo.it
i 7.0 i 11.2
i 2.0 i 12.1
i 1.5 J12.2
| 1.0 J13.2
Mar. if : U~. 6 j~12.lt
- 177 -
97.1
93.2
96.8
92.1*
89.1
91*. o
91.5
93.1*
90.7
80.0
86.5"
83.9
85.U
77-1
9>*.9
93.7
95.3
93.6
67.7
89.7
60.3
93.8
91-3
92.8
92.1*
73.0
77.8
78.7
73-8
76.9
73.5
63.9
72.1
70.3
75.1*
82.0
92.1
87.5
86.8
92.8
jtq
SD*
B. O. D.
p. p-«-
0.3
1.8
0.8
0,7*
2.2
2.9
1.8
U.U
1.1*
1.2
2.8
!.$""
1.8
0.5
1.2
0.6
1.8
0.7
0.5
0.2
2.3
1.0
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.1*
1.0
0.6
1.9
0.9
1.5
0.6
1.0
l.l
1.1
l.l
1.0
0.6
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
Collfam ;
M. P. N. : pH
no J6.0
150 :6.i
3 1^8
j
no i 6.0
23 i 5.7
36 ji*.g
!
2l»0 J6.1
93 |6.0
7J6.1
i.ioo i 6.1
1.506 : E".?
23 ' 6.1
:
3 i
** !
" :6.6
9 i
"3J
Ui
tj
i
1*3 J7.o
no i6.6
75 J6.7
9 J6.5
15 J6.8
1*3 J6.6
1*3 J6.9
a J7.5
9 J7.5
J7.2
9 i7.5
1*3 i 7.6
9 ! 7.6
2>* j 7.5
9 J7.«
^3! 7.6
^3 i 7.5
0 J7.2
^J7.5
9 J7.5
#* !
17.5
8 | 6.7
P. P. •.
310
300
1*25
59
aSo
2||
5
6
6
5
37
18
16
5
130
20
1,1*00
38
95
30
22
22
10
80
18
12
17
75
25
Alkalinity
P. p. IK.
12
1*
23
22
68
1*1*
20
23
13
12
19
22
60
56
"*5
76
66
88
90
85
92
70
81
85
S3
39
21
HanhM
p. p.*.
50
51*
ZI
-------
TABLE M-7 1IIKOR TRIBUTARY BASINS
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
LABORATORY DATA
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS
, = Mileogo From 1
&w*ng Point , Mou,h i
Dot*
Little Sandy Hiver-0.1* | OLe 27.6ljune 30
n n | n « jjuly ll*
n it inn:
= :
» 28
" * j n n Aug> u
i n
j
25
" " ! " " (Sept. 8
|.
:
" 22
" » | t. « -|0 £
it n i n " i" 22
E
i
Little Sandy Hiver 1 ols 26.2
1,8 below Gro'-EOTj. &rt I
I "
AUg. 11
" 25
• " I " ° {Sept. 8
n it : n n
i
n pa
• " j it n I Oct. 6
n n { n it
" 20
" " 1 " " !NO». 3
it n i n n
i
n II : H It
it n inn
i
n" V |"V V '
- 17
Dee. 1
22
i~~So
Jan. 12
n » | It n jj.el:< g
n R I H n
i
n n i R ft
I
Littls Sandy Biver-Moutfc OLi 0.1
i
!
n n inn
i
War. 1
» 22
1939
June 2
6
• 8
'_ ' I" ' I' »
| "
1" "
'• n j « <
ft « i R n
« it inn
i
» n | R n
1 __
n n inn
- 1 -
n n in*
!
j .
N R ! H N
1
: : U L.
i
II llj.
16
" 20
• 22
26
.*.
n 30
July 6
.
» 10
- 12
« lU
Avoroae ; ^^^n
Dltchorg.| -c
52:23.5
60J2H.O
J24.0
38:21.0
UUJ22.0
UOJ22.0
27:17.0
1*5:16.5
31*1 10.5
U3; 6.5
35: 5.5
iai 6.0
1*7; 2.5
1*8; 2.0
355J 1.0
758; U.5
i
| 22.0
•j 21.5
i 22.0
i 16.0
:i6.5
jio.5
j 6.5
i 5.0
i 6.0
i *'5
; 2.0
i 1.0
i "t.o
i 6.5
i
96|27.0
115! 23.0
83| 2l*.0
inoja.s
106! 21.0
86; 22.0
196i 2"*.0
273:21*. 5
98; 2U. 5
91: 2U.5
100; 2U.O
7,880! 22.5
279i 25-°
157! 23.5
115i2"».0
i
Diuolvot
5.5
6.U
7.1
6.2
6.1*
6.2
>*.5
7.0
6.1
8.3
9.0
10.6
11.0
11.1
13.0
i~2.it
1UL
5.6
6.3
5.9
1*.7
6.5
5.6
7-6
8.0
9."
10.1
10.3
13.0
12.5
11.1
6.5
7.0
6.8
6.9
7.3
7.2
6.5
6.5
6.7
6.7
6.3
5.8
6.8
7.5
' 7.8
Oxygon
63.7
75.2
83.6
66.1*
72.5
70.3
1*6.2
71."*
5U. 6
67.1
70.9
8U. S
80.5
80.1
91-3
95.8
63.6
70. U
66.8
1*7.6
66.0
50.0
61.1*
62.5
75.6
7>*. 2
7"*.7
9L1
95.1
90.1*
80.2
80.5
79.1
77.8
81.1*
81.3
76.3
76.9
79.5
79.3
73.1*
66.6
81.3
87.2
81*. 2
SDoy
BOO
0.9
O.I*
0.8
0.6
1.2
0.7
1.0
0.8
1.3
1.6
1.2
1.0
0.6
1.0
0.6
1,0
1.6
1.3
2.2
0.8
1.1*
1.8
1.7
1.1
1.0
1.1*
1.1
0.5
0.0
1.7
1.7
1.5
2.7
1.3
1.0
1.2
0.7
1.3
0.9
0.9
2.7
0.9
O.U
0.6
Coliformi
M.P. N
2UO
23
110
23
"3
75
1*60
93
1*3
i*3
93
75
9
93
21
9
1*60
230
1*60
1*60
1*60
U60
1*60
2UO
230
150
2l*0
15
23
9
t3
1*3
23
i*6o
1*3
23
U
1*6
9
0
i*~6
75
K3
t
7.5
7.U
7.7
7.5
7.1*
7.6
7.6
7.3
7.9
7.6
7.5
7.0
7.5
7.5
6.S
7.5
6.7
6.8
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.1*
7.1*
7.2
7.5
TuiUdily
170
175
120
1*2
110
35
35
22
10
90
22
12
17
8
75
27
10
20
18
32
1.300
160
57
52
100
55
65
150
2.500
550
65
50
All«illit«r
51
56
58
61
61*
57
S3
71*
85
so
58
69
73
72
72
1*2
17
26
35
38
36
22
3i»
39
39
37
1*6
l«2
39
lU
22
32
26
HordnM
- 178 - " ~
-------
TABLE M-7 MINOR TRIBUTARY BASINS
OHIO RIVES. POLLUTION SURVEY
LABORATORY DATA
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL, RESULTS
•""" " """ 'i
Sampling Point i
I. Sandy River - Mouth
»
}
,i «
ft it
tt n
n .
"a" « ~
H It
It •
;
• *
ft »
N n
H n
• -" '-
« »
-__
11 »
tt "
n n
_
n H
N *
H tt
II tt
tl H
H It
it n
• M
H It
• H
tt N
tt
II It
N ft
H N
M H
N *
I N
r »
n *
N N
* II
R tt
tt n
Mouth *
„ m
OLe 0. 1
H tt
•
n
» «
H "
> .
» It
II It
n n
"i -
"
.
n *
H n
. .
tt »
tt H
tt n
n •
N tt
tt tt
H tt
tt
tt •
tt H
tt H
tt tt
tt tt
tt H
N t
* tt
.
tt tt
tt tt
N H
tt «
tt N
N •
IT tt
R N
tt tt
tr H
n «
H N
Dal*
1253.....
July IS
" 20
2*
11 26
" 2S
Aug. 1
3
• 7
" 9
» 11
" 15
17
" 21
- 23
• 25
Aug. 29
• 31
Sept. 5
" 7
" 11
• 13
15
19
« 21
. 25
27
. 23
Oct. 3
" 5
• 9
Oct. 11
13
17
19
23
1 25
• 27
" 31
Nor. 2
• 6
• e
• 10
« i»t
« 16
• 2k
DlKl.org. ! 'y-
eli. !
86J 23.5
557; 23.5
i 23. 0
i 2lt. 0
|*.5
173J 8U.O
I06j gl*. 5
88 £5.0
S3j 25.0
73j*.5
225J 2>t.O
716: lit. 5
225 23.5
lllj 23.0
851 2>».0
71J2U.O
67J2U.5
388'2l).0
296J2U.O
250;2U.O
236125.0
227! 25.5
200J 2U. 0
36lj 23.0
196! 81.5
1S6J21.5
158122.5
108; 18.0
goiiy.o
77:20.5
77i 20.5
67! 18.0
i 58115.5
63J15.0
60! 15.0
31! 15.5
29! 17.0
111! 11.0
77J 10.5
75! 7.0
73J 7.0
75 6.5
58! 10.5
65! 11.0
81] 6.0
i
Dmolvs
p.p m
7.7
7-2
7.6
7.2
7.0
7.2
7«3
7.1
7.0
7.3
6.6
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.2
7«1
7.0
6.5
7.1
6.7
7."»
6.7
7.2
7.0
7.6
7.S
7.5
8.0
E.O
7.9
7.7
7.9
9.0
9-0
8.5
8.6
7.9
8.1
9.0
9.6
9.8
9-9
10.0
10.5
10.1
lOngM
%Sa.
89. 8
82.3
87.2
8U.5
82.5
83.6
86.6
8k. 2
83. H
86. U
87 £
83.7
S3. 5
8U.3
8U.2
83.1
82.2
75-9
83.2
78.9
88.6
81.1
8l(,l
79.2
85.1
88.3
85.9
83.9
85.3
87.2
git. 9
82.6
89.3
88.7
83."*
85.8
81.1
73.5
80.2
7$-3
80.8
80.3
89.6
9>a
81.2
SDay
B. O. D.
p. p. m.
1-3
1.9
0(8
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.5
1.0
0.9
1.1
1.3
0.7
1.3
0.9
1.0
1.2
1.5
1-3
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.7
1.2
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.9
0-9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
1.0
o.g
l.U
1.2
1.0
1.0
l.U
1.0
1.0
Coliloml
M.P-N.
P»r ml.
110
1,100
36
2>*0
23
2ltO
23
75
2UO
1.100
91
93
93
U60
210
91 •
150
U3
93
230
390
230
150
930
230
2UO
U30
230
23
1130
230
230
2to
150
230
U60
91
3
2U
15
au
93
U6o
^
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.U
7.3
7.1*
7.3
7."*
7.U
7.3
7.U
7.U
7.6
7.U
7.3
7.U
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.5
7.U
7.2
7,5
7.6
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.7
7.5
7.9
7.6
7.U
7.6
7.5
7.3
7.0
7.U
7.2
7.2
7.U
7.2
7.U
7.1
P. p. •.
30
too
100
125
85
"5
Uo
75
35
20
220
50
880
250
90
35
IS
9
10
12
7
6
8
6
12
O
5
11
20
g
15
9
8
12
lit
7
10
75
17
8
12
12
13
13
lU
p.p.m.
39
1*2
U2
37
36
U6
50
U2
i|i[
U7
36
Ug
29
29
33
36
33
l)U
U2
U6
Ug
U8
51
U6
Ue
1*9
53
5U
U7
50
52
U7
U3
U5
Ult
Ul
%
53
68
71
67
71
65
53
38
"' "H_7'
p. P.«.
^
- 179 -
-------
TABLE M-7 MIKOR TRIBUTARY BASINS
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
LABORATORY DATA
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL, RESULTS
SoipKnePoM
L, Sandy River - Mouth
K H
m N
* n
» *
n n
II H
» H
t •
» »
.
* N
* H
IT H
•
« n
• *
t H
W «
M H
* It
• tt
M H
H H
• W
• t
II II
IT *
N t
• II
Tye&rV CrMk - Mouth
At Hjjjhway Bridge
IT II
» «
» »
» N
* fl
• N
i V
K H
• •
tt H
n n
« •
i H
X tt
• «
• H
• «
• t
* H
• •
Mov*
OLu 0.1
it i
tt •
• •
i •
• tt
V M
" *
* tt
H Hi.
• H
H •
• **-
Dot.
1939
NOT. SB
30
Dec. 4
" 8
" 12
« 14
" 18
» 20
" 22
" 27
" 29
— ijTjo""
JM: 15
17
F«b. 20
26
let. 28
Bar. 5
" 7
" 11
" 13
" 15
19
• 21
" 25
27
• 29
Apr. 2
• H
" 8
" 10
...19.33...
July 11
" 13
" 19
* 25
" 31
Aug. 8
Aug. 14
« 22
• 28
Sept. 5
« 11
" 19
» 25
Oct. 3
" 9
' 17
23
" 31
No». 6
" ill
» 20
DtetoS.!1^-
c.t.1 !
79i 7.0
a! 5.5
811 6.0
75J 5.5
75i 5.0
ni 5.0
77J 4.5
85; 6.5
90! 4.o
94: 3.5
94J 1.5
82CJ 0.5
324J 0.5
3.150J 3.5"
5lij 2.5
2,Uioj 3.0
2,900: 7.5
1.170J 5.5
U23J U.o
330J 3.5
703: 3.5
667: 7.0
550! 7.0
275J 4.0
236: U.o
234J 8.0
2,150110.0
1,150! 12.0
49CJ11.5
376J10.0
i
|24,0
125.0
122.0
122.5
123.0
j 23.0
j 24.0
i 22.0
i 22.5
|a.5
I 21.5
!20.5
J17.5
[15.0
iis.o
in. 5
ill.5
|10.5
i 6.0
] 5.0
i 8.0
i
Dtaoh*
p.p.«
10.6
10.4
10.6
10.9
H.3
11.2
11.4
11.2
11.6
12.5
12.6
12.5
13.5
11.8
12.9
12.9
10.5
11.3
12.0
12.4
12.4
11.6
11.3
12.0
12.6
11.5
9.9
9.3
9.4
9.6
6.8
6.6
6.4
7.1
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.7
6.7
5.8
5.8
6.4
6.7
7.2
7.0
7.9
7.2
5.6
8.5
8.2
7.0
•LOos-
%s«
87.1
82.6
84.9
86.3
88.3
67.8
88.1
91.0
88.6
94.1
89.6
85.4
93.8
8S.7
94.4
95.6
87.5
89.4
91.4
93.3
93.0
95.2
92.5
91.5
95-8
97.0
87.5
86.0
85.8
8U.U
80.0
78.8
72.7
81.3
74.1
74.9
75.0
76.0
76.6
65.2
65.5
70.2
69.4
71.1
73.0
71.8
65.9
50.3
67.8
63.9
58.8
B.O 0.
1.2
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.4
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.8
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.3
0.7
0.6
1.0
0.6
0.4
0.1*
0.7
1.2
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.2
1.1
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.9
0.6
l.i
1.3
2.1
0.7
1.0
1.0
l.l
0.8
0.8
1.1
0.9
1.1
1.4
1-9
1.6
1.2
2.1
Colilom I
M. P. N. ; pH
93 i 7.2
21* ! 7.0
93 i 7.1
240 i 7.1
43 i 7.1
i 7<1
23 i 7.3
240 i
58 i 7.3
9 1 7.0
a] 7.2
15 i 7.1
9 i 6.8
4 i 6.9
4 i 7".!
24 J7.1
9J6.7
9 |6.9
7 J7.0
0 ;7.o
9 :6.9
1 J6.8
15 ;6.9
9 jfi.9
4 J6.g
15 :6.8
46 \6.S
43 |6.8
9 i6.8
0 16.6
:
240 I 7.5
23 j 7.7
23 | 7.5
43 i 7.4
93 i 7.4
9 i 7.5
15J 7.7
BJ7.5
..... _|__._
2J7.4
2 I 7.5
4 i 7.4
217.6
5i7.7
9:7.7
ai 7.5
2:7.6
9 I 7.1
2J7.4
l :7.2
•• i 7.4
•
i
8 i 41*
13 j 49
15: 1*9
13 i 49
8| 42
13| 45
9j 52
g| IK>
8j 45
7! 55
8j 46
27 54
90 4o
300 23
18 19
45! =3
350 ! 19
85 15
16 23
9 26
14 25
150 i 18
30 17
7 23
8 j 26
7 i 27
l4o i lit
65 i IB
15 19
7 j 26
75 69
45 so
75 i 78
4o> 65
150 i 72
25! 83
30! S3
65 58
30 i 85
16 i 91
14 93
8! 106
12 [ 107
14 i 106
13 i 92
13! 94
10 j 99
25: 73
10 j 77
g j 90
12 i 95
'
- 180 -
-------
TABLE M-7 MINOR TRIBUTARY BA8XH8
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
LABORATORY DATA
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS
" " •
Sapling KM
Vy&it Creek - Mouth
it it
it it
it n
" ...
;• .
R II
a R
* it
n »
• it
• n
It H
It H
Lick Creek - Above
fej}t.Ufll.!W.--QMa
* tt
. »
• V
"
BeaBley Tork - Below
West Union. Ohio
r " .
.
R D
M It
Brush Tork
»5At-UBtflat.AbiA
fbfte bale Crftek -
Abort 0«orjptowni Ohio
N II
* H
N It
It *
1
11 H
White" dale ~Cre«k - Below
OSaSB?*ft*?jL.OMo__
H tt
V K
• 0
* *
IT •
* —.«»•"-»»».
Mouth
1
OTy 1.0
. .
R II
n N
"
. .
.
ii *
it «
» *
. .
M N
. .
_ _
II »
OBrLi 15
n »
»
It N
R n
OBrBe 13
..: :„_
. .
. .
•
—
It M
OBr Ik
Ofo 11
H It
It H
* N
t I
IT t
Ofo 10
« I
"
R tr
N «
• t
'
Dot.
193?.
NOT. 28
Deo. U
" 12
" 18
• 26
~ "igw~
Jan. 3
" 15
Feb. 12
» 20
- 26
Mar. 5
- 11
« 19
" 25
Apr. 2
» 8
,-2.m..
Sept. 8
Oct. 5
HOT. 2
Deo. 13
19l|0
Jan. 12
. 1239
Sept. 8
Oct. 5
Nor. 2
Dec. 13
19UO
Jan. 12
13J3
Sept. 8
Au«. 1
Sept. 8
Oct. 5
Nor. 2
DM. 13
191*0
Jan. 12
1933-
AUg. 1
Sept. 8
Oct. 5
DOT. 2
Dec. 13
19ltO
Jan. 12
""" """"
Dftchofo*
c f.t.
.
°c
5.5
6.0
5.5
6.0
3.0
0.5
3.0
5-5
"*.5
3.0
8.0
t.5
8.0
5-0
11.5
13-5
17.5
llt.O
5.0
5.0
0.0
2l*.0
15.5
5-0
5.5
0.0
17.0
2U.5
2U.5
17.0
6.0
5.5
0.0
2U.O
23-5
lt.5
7.0
6.6
0.0
Otoi'lvi
P.p.ffl.
9.1
8.8
9.9
10.5
12.0
12.1*
11.5
12. U
12.3
12.6
11.0
11.7
11.3
11.9
9.9
9.0
7.5
8.5
10.6
10.6
12.5
6.U
io.u
12.2
11. U
13.2
6.8
8.1
7.0
9.1
12. k
12,0
13.9
7.6
7.5
9.6
11.1*
11.9
13.2
__
%S=l.
71.9
70.7
78.6
8l*.U
88.9
85.9
85.1
98.1
glt.6
93.6
92.6
90.5
95.5
92.7
90.2
85.9
78.1
82.}
83.0
83.1
85.U
75.6
10U.O
95-6
90.U
90.5
69.6
95."*
82.2
93.7
99.0
95.3
9>*.9
88.7
86.9
99-9
93-7
96.5
90.2
SDoy
B.O. D
IX p.«.
1.0
1.1
1.3
1.0
1.2
1.2
0.7
1.3
1.1*
0.7
1.0
0.7
1.1
0.8
1.1
0.5
0.8
1.1
0.9
5. i"
5-5
1.5
1.1*
0.9
6.6
0.8
2.1*
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1*
2.5
3.2
2.9
0.9
1.2
1.2
0.7
1.0
Colilomi
M.P N.
Pwnl.
«
1
2
1
2
0
5
1*
H
1*
U6
1*
7
0
1*6
2
110
1,100
73
230
2to
93
39
23
1.500
2l*0
2l*
9
1*
**
9
1
1
K3
3
11
9
1*
5
=H
7-1*
6.9
7.5
7.»*
7.6
7.2
7.1
7.1*
7.1
7.3
7.0
7.0
7-1
6.9
6.8
6.7
8.0
7.9
7.8
7.9
7.9
8.0
7.0
7.9
7.9
7.6
7.9
7.9
7.5
p. P.M.
23
lU
10
13
19
lU
25
225
260
17-
210
9
250
8
110
10
"
p- p- «•
89
90
83
83
83
85
gu
38
1*1
1*1
32
"»5
37
1*1
31
1*3
'
(X p. m
- 181 -
-------
TABLE M-7 MINOR TRIBUTARY BASINS
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
LABORATORY DATA
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS
"*""'"" * ' ' ""j
Scwplino Point
Tinners Creek - Above j
Lawrence bur gj Indiana
tt N
it tt
H H
H H
H H
N H
R H
tt tt
tt tt
t H
tt n
n •
n n
H 1
S/Rt.TIogah Creek- Above
Auro ra , I ndiana
II H
tt N
n N
N H
tt fl
H »
N «
3outK Fork Hogan Creek"
Above Aurora, Indiana
;
« tt
tt H
• H
» H
H H
H n
Hogan Greek
Below Aurora^ Indiana
• «
M N
II H
N «
H tt
R »
tt tt
Laurie ry Cre*k
Above .Bateiville^. Ind.
.
tt it
T "
MouA | lg^
OTa 0.2 [July lU
* 1" 26
» " JAug. 10
" " |» 23
" " [Sept. 20
" " [Oct. 18
« " JKov. 15
" " {Dec. 27
" » ljuly I1*
i
» |» 26
« " {Aug. 10
n . |» ^
I
" ' (Sept. 20
" » {Oct. 18
" " |Uov. 15
" " IDec. 27
!
CHNf 0.5 jjuly lU
" » j" 26
" " JAug. 10
- |" 23
« " I Sept. 20
:
" " |0ct. 18
" JNov. 15
" " | Dec. 27
I
OHSf 0.5 Jjuly 1>*
" " 1" 26
" " JAug. 10
. « |. 23
" " {Sept. 20
" " lOct. 18
J
" " {HOT. 15
" " {Dec. 27
I
OH 0.0 ljuly lU
" " !« 26
i
• * JAug, 10
"I" 23
" " {Sept. 20
" " lOct. 18
" |Nov. 15
" [Dec. 27
:
OLa UO.OJJuly 1»+
» • {» 26
fl « JAug. 10
7
DiKhore*
c f. ).
1..
=
[
:
;
;
=
|
i
!
i
;
:
-
I
•
i
I
••
i
"
•c
2U.5
2U.O
21.0
20.5
18.0
17.5
5.0
1.0
30.0
27.0
26.0
30.0
27.0
27.0
26.5
30.0
26.0
2l*.5
a.o
21.0
17.0
6.0
1.5
1.0
26.0
25.5
23.5
21.5
19.0
8.0
3-5
0.5
27.0
25.5
25.0
25-5
23.5
15.0
6.5
3.0
28.5
27.5
25.0
o's;«
p. p m
6.0
6.6
6.3
5.6
5.S
10.1
18. S
15.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
7.7
6.U
7.1
7.5
8.6
11.6
12.2
12.8
6.E
7.8
5.8
5.9
U.2
5-5
7.1
10.8
6.8
5.6
7.0
6.1
6.5
7.2
8.7
11.6
"».5
7.8
1.6
182 -
.OwsT
%Sol.
70.8
77. U
70.5
61.1
61.1
105.1
1U6.5
106.5
00.0
00.0
00,0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
93.7
75.5
79-0
83.6
88.3
98.9
87.3
89-7
83.1
9U.3
68.0
65.8
Vt.9
1*6.3
53.6
75.2
SU.6
67.7
Ct.i
73.0
75^5
71."*
70.5
85.8
57.8
97.9
19.6
SDoy
B. O D.
p- p.".
1.6
1.2
o.u
1.5
0.8
5.3
3.3
2.U
U3.6
70.0
23.0
1*7.2
162.1*
68.1
111*. 5
t"*l.5
3.6
1.9
1.5
2.1
0.9
0.3
3.5
2.3
3.H
2.8
1.9
5.1*
3.0
2.7
6.6
5.6
2.1*
2.6
2.0
1.7
1.8
1.7
3.1
U.1
6.U
6.1
10.7
Colifonn
M.P. N.
P«r«l
9
24
23
150
9
2
1
u
2,300
11,000
2,300
2,1*00
7,300
2>*,000
1*3,000
360
2U
2U
23
23
1*6
2
2U
1*
110
2>»0
1*60
>*3
36
i
i
ei*o
i(6o
230
1*60
2UO
23
1,100
2,1*00
91
2l4O
930
l
•"• "•"•
^
7."*
7.5
7.7
7.6
8.0
7.5
7.1
7.5
7."
7.5
7.6
7.9
7.9
7.8
7.9
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.8
T-5
7.3
7.5
7.5
7*5
"" """
p.p, M.
p. p M.
P. P- «
-------
TABLE M-7 MINOR TRIBUTARY BASINS
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
LABORATORY DATA
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS
' t
Sowing Point !
Laughery Creek-Bel ow
Batesville, Indiana
n «
fl N
Laughery Greek-Above
Osgood, Indiana
tl H
H n
Laughery Creek-Below
Osgood, Indiana
n K
N.Fk. Cedar Creek-Prison
Farm-Louisville, Ky.
n n
Ha r rods Creek-Mouth
R H
w "
* n
n n
n n
n R
n ft
« n
t H
H R
Goose Creek - 1 mile
n «
ti n
Goo Be Creek - Mouth
H N
n N
,
N H
,
n it
R' N
it n
• H
H H
*
Bear Grass Creek
iexingtQn__Soa_d
R R
H II
.
1 1
Miloog. Fro<« = =
"-* LJSkJ
OLa 39. 7J July lU
" ' I " 26
» » f Aug. 10
OLa 30. OJ July lU
» « I" 26
:
" " {Aug. 10
OTa 29. 71 July lU
" » I.! A.
i
" " jAug. 10
! ig'to
OHaCBf 8. SJ July 29
« |» 31
" " [Aug. 2
!
OHa 0. Of Aug. 1
" " 1 " 3
* *in : H T
" " j" 9
" " J0ct. 25
- j. 26
"„ ". i V3*T'
I Jan. 27
" » j " 28
"I" 29
« {« 30
--
" }" 31
1 igUo
OOo 3.9 jJuly 29
. j. 31
" " {Aug. 2
|
OOo' 0.0 ! Aug. 1
!
" i" ' 3
_'. .'.J1___L
» » j" g
" " (Oct. 25
« |" 26
h9Ui
" " {Jan. 27
« • |« 28
• ]« 29
" I" 30
" « i" 31
I 19110
OBg 2. Of July 29
. ,, 31
• JAug. 2
' i
1
Avo^i"
DiKhdro*
C-f. »
**
**
**
**
••
**
•H
•5
*•
•c
28.0
26.5
25.0
26.5
2U.5
23.5
26.6
25»0.
23.0
29.0
28.5
26.0
29.5
28.0
27.0
27.0
16.0
None
5.5
SO
U.O
3.0
3.5
26.5
25.0
21.0
29.0
28.0
22.0
23.5
l%5
16.5
5.0
U.O
3.5
3.5
3.0
26.0
2"*.0
22.5
- 1
Dntolva
p.p n.
10.2
10.0
8.8
8.5
6.3
5.7
7.2
7.6
5.7
5.7
0.0
0.0
6.1
>t.6
2.7
3."
6.3
6.U
12.2
12.5
12.6
12.6
12.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
3.6
2.9
3.1
5.0
U.U
10.1*
11.1
11.5
12.3
".7
0.0
0.0
0.0
83 -
IChygf,
%&».
129.3
122.9
10U.9
IOU.8
7"*.3
66.3
87.8
-30.1.
65.7
73-7
00.0
00.0
79.5
57-8
33.0
U2.0
63.1
96.8
97-9
96.3
93.5
95.6
00.0
00.0
00.0
38.7
t5-5
32.8
35.9
50.0
Ul».7
80.9
8U.3
86.5
92.6
86.6
00.0
00.0
00.0
SDoy
8 O. 0
(X p. n.
5.1
6.5
6.7
1.8
1.9
2.3
2.5
-3.fi...-
1.3
25.5
38.6
20.U
1.9
1.5
1.3
1.1
1.1
1.1
2.2
0.7
0.9
1.2
0.8
59-1*
53-8
U2.8
>*.5
2.U
10.0
3.7
2.2
2.0
U.I
2.5
1.8
3.3
1.9
28.8
28.0
10.U
Coliform
M.P. N.
Pvml
E.UOO
U30
930"
l^
2U
23
u
U6.
9
2U.OOO
U.300
230
93
23
93
93
3
2
lU
23
U
aU
9
11,000
2UO.OOO
93.000
230
36
2.UOO
930
93
U3
93
U3
150
2Uo
75
230
au.ooo
U.600
""
7.2
7.1
7.2
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.7
7.5
7.5
7.9
7.9
7.9
8.0
7.9
7.1
7.2
7.3
7-3
7.3
7.5
7.5
7.5
7-U
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.3
6.8
7.1
P.P.II.
70
20
35
12
16
1,700
lU
15
15
38
35
31
33
lU
100
70
70
Uo
72
25
75
55
55
25
13
12
^18
12
20
130
35
p. p. m.
lUl
80
116
86
95
120
118
72
72
15U
173
17U
176
177
158
202
20U
108
95
66
86
112
120
171
179
161
179
181
158
58
13U
p. P. HI.
136
99
1U8
lUo
lUs
63
126
1U5
-------
TABLE M-7 MINOR TRIBUTARY BASINS
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
LABORATORY DATA
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS
•—'»""• ' " ' '"i
Soiling Wnl
Bear Orass Creek-Mouth !
Hifchnay Bridge
; — : ""
" [
„ i
n " j
. ".' 1
II H i
\
I
n n |
=
=
|
n v
•"
n
»
K H
Sanders Spring
n *
Otter Creek - near
rp_rt Kn&x Intake.
H *
K II
n •
Tip lop, Kentucky
*l K
It •
Otter Creek -
Just above mouth
In take- Cory don. Indiana
V "
• N
Blg_ lifdlan ffreelc-telow
IT N
H ."ft. Blue Hirer- 2j ml.
"below Salem, Indiana
IT «
n n
Big Blue Rirrr - feuth
H •
• »
II H
N N
* *
Cyp»M Creek- 1 mile
Beloy Bp,qnej&yL_et__I_ndj_
H «
1 ' ""•" "*""i
Mouth i
OBg 0.0 j
M tt 1
1
* n I
n n j
» ti i
H H |
I
!
" !
H H -
=
N tt !
i
w n i
« N i
_.!
•
OOcS 6.0
H n
OOc 5.1*
0 II
N H
H II
OOc 3.1
" "
n it
OOc 0.0
OBI 19
* *
" " ..
OBI 17
"» V"
M N
OBBlKf 59
" "
IT It
OBB1 0.1
N N
II W
II N
• W
II •
OOy 1.0
i.
N •
=
igSo |
Aug. 1 |
3
7
H o
Oct. 25
26 .
19U1
Jan. 2?
" 28
» 29
• 30
« 31
,
Oct. 25
26
Oct. 21
• 22
' 23
Aug. 1
1 5
» 6
Oct. 19
Aug. 1
" 7
: 9.
Aug. 1
" 7
.« a
Oct. 23
" 28
31
Aug. 15
19
• 20
" 23
TeF-JSa
. llt
191Q
Oct. 22
25
• 30
/wi£"!
ell. \ 'C
J2S.O
|28.0
i 25.5
J27.0
1 17.0
•! 18.0
i
I 5.5
1 5.0
1 3'5
i 1.5
j U.5
i None
i 16.0
i
J13.0
|lU.O
116.0
:i6.o
. ...
:
•l|2U.O
50J 23.0
50:25.0
i
jig.o
:
J28.5
ilia
i
i 28.0
127.0
I
**! 13.0
••ii6.o
**!ll.O
i
• 27.0
[ J27.5
125.0
iaU.5
j 5.5
i 1-5
1:13.5
i: 18.0
ij 13.0
i
Dli»!v»
p-p •
2.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.0
0.0
9.8
11.3
11.5
11.0
11.3
10.2
10.7
10.2
9.1
9.1
8.2
8.5
8.2
7.9
9.3
6.5
5-9
6.1
7.2
1.8
7.3
1.8
7.0
8.5
6.9
7.3
8.2
13.2
11.9
0,0
0.0
0.0
i_0*V*<
25.9
co.o
00.0
22.2
00.0
00.0
77.2
88.0
86". 7
85.0
87.1
107.3
96.0
91.0
91.8
82.0
100.0
91.7
91.9
99.8
83.1
73.2
91.2
59.1
-22»J
6s. 7
17.9
63.2
105.0
86.1
86.6
97.3
101.6
92.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
5 Dm
B. O. 0.
p. p."
9.5
11.7
28.2
12.0
11.0
58.1
5-1
8.9
5.8
9.1
9.0
O.U
0.8
2.7
1.9
2.2
1.1
1.3
3.3
2.9
1.8
1.1
1.5
J..2.
7.5
ft
2.2
2.3
3.8
2.9
2.6
2.3
1.3
0.8
1.1
23.0
15.0
68.8
Col.lom ;
M. P N. ; .H
P«r ml. I
11,000 | 7.1
9,300 J7.1
.100.0OOJ 7.1
75.000 j 7.2
16,000 j 7.3
1(6,000 | 7.3
i
130 | 7.7
130 i 7.7
160 ] 7.7
1,500 i 7.6
2,100 i 7.7
';
3! 7.7
li 7.7
i
3 j 7-7
2 i 7.8
2! 7.8
2 j 7.7
;
aUo | 7,8
23 i 7.7
210 J7.7-
j
75J7.7
|
9 j 7.7
13 i 7-7
3 '• 7.5
1.600 j 7.7
16,000 j 7.7
i
2317.7
93 | 7.7
13 j 7.6
:
23 j 8.1
21 : 7.7
U6 J7.6
aUo i 7.7
iis.o
1 j 7.8
J
360 i 7.5
9.300 i 7.U
2U.OOO i 7.0
1
p. p. m.
57
32
80
IJ
35
35
30
ii
25
105
90
3
3
5
8
8
8
20
15
20
13
18
13
J.2.
30
30
iO
10
12
13
12
35
28
15
12
15
10
10
30
...
p. p. m.
96
130
118
106
182
2*
175
181
186
196
203
231
221
201
203
201
206
170
172
171
135
150
156
J.61.
159
1U2
231
212
2UO
80
66
65
62
159
150
2»
275
199
P. p. ».
118
180
189
121
197
161
132
£08
115
17*
660
- 184 -
-------
TABLE M-7 MINOR TRIBUTARY BASINS
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY
LABORATORY DATA
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS
Lost Creek-Belo" Sewage
OjitfeUr.HcJffi5Xlgid.-Jty
» n
n it
Eldorado Drainage Ditch
IT H
H n
Trib.toMiddle Fk. Saline
Below Waison^ Illinois
M n
ft H
iflftdie Tic. Saline River
ff.ttks. - Harrisbur&Ill
n *
K H
PanJcejr Fork
MII.oo.Fra.
M«*
OL 9.8
n »
it i
OSa
•
tl
OSaUfT
it
.
; Avwoo* ! T
19>tO j tit ! ^
Oct. 28 | "J17.0
" 31 | "i 8.5
HOT. 5j 1J15.5
i"K3™i"<5«M»ri 's't^'"
i ! „ , i 8. 0. 0.
j 6.3 i 6it. 5 i 10.0
i 7.0 ! 59.7 j 5-2
j 6.3 j 62.7 j 6.6
i. i ! .1 1
Aug. 23 | "i 32.0
" 26
27
Aug. 22
•*! 33.0
2! None
| o.o : oo.o i 13.2
i o.o i oo.o i to.o
i • i H2.2
! ' : *
li 21.0
" 23 ! 1| 23.0
• 26 i ii 27.5
" T T
OSaUf
fl
n
OSaUf
.
n •
S.Fork Saline River
N »
* 0
Saline River
EoTJalUjk. Illinois
H If
Saline River - Uoutfa
• *
N «
II M
_. f
* f
n »
N H
n
i OSaSf
N
H
OSa
"
N
OSa 0.1
« n
N *
• N
n N
" «
H *
1
Trevdewater R, - Above
.
fradewater £ - Below
I^veon Sjoringiii, Kjr.
• *
* H
Oft1 S7.5
R N
H N
OTr 86
It H
* *
Aug. 23 | li 27.5
« 26
" 27
Aug. 23
• 26
1130.0
li26.0
i
1:25.5
1:26.0
" 27 j 1J27.0
j i
Aug. 22 j 9J 2%0
• 23 j 3i 26.5
• 26
ii 29.0
i 7.8 : 86.3 : 2.5
i 8.0 I 91.7 : 2.1
j 1.0 i 12.5 i 2.1
I I i
i 6.0 i 7U. 8 i 1.8
i 2.2 i 28.2 i 3.2
i 1.0 J.-U.2 i 2.5
! i {
1 5.5 i 66.7 ilO.O
• 0.0 j 00,0 i 5.5
i 0.0 i 00.0 J15.8
7.6 j 90.7 | 2.1
7.8 i 95.8 | 2.2
7.3 i 9>*.0j 1.9
j 1 j i
Aug. 23 10J 2U.O
" 26 j llj 26.0
" 27 j 5i 27.0
! i
Sept. 10 ] i 2>t.5
" 12
• 16
« IS
HOT. 5
" 7
.!— ...—a.
»• 28
^ iauo
Oct. 29
SOT. 1
• 6
Oct. 29
Ho, 1
J23.0
122.0
[22.5
7.7 i 90.5J 2.2
| 8.0 i 97.6 i 1.8
i 7.5 i 93.>t i 2.0
1 1 i
: 7.5 i 88.5 i i.a
i 7.2 ; ¥i.~7 j i.'g
• ¥.9 : ibo.6 : i.¥
i 9.2 ; 165.0 : i.U
: : !
j 15.5 1 8.2 j 81.9 i 1.7
:iii
: 2.0
i 1.5
! 8 Q ' 8*1 T ' 22
J13.3J 96.2! 3.5
113.7 1 97.!»: 2.0
i i ! i
H W'S
**i 15.5
**! 8.0
! 2.3: 2li.lt! M.6
2.5 1 25.0 | 2.5
2.3 i 19.1 i i.o
!" j ! !
i i i i
"j 19.5
"i 1S5
. . •*' J»5L
I I ! ~
Great? Creek-Bridge
V N
* •
Eradewmter B, -Water Wki
Providence, Kentudgr_
it it
• i
OTrClOr 63
M M
• N
OTr k\
H H
"
HOT. 12
« lit
" 11
Oct. 28
" 31
«OT. 5
li 10.0
••j 5.5
"i 10.5
j
-i 23.5
•*| 15.0
"jiz.5
0.0 i 00.0 1235.
6.6" i 06.0 ! 95.
i !
7 u : fis i i "-1
'• ! b5-1i 6.ir
10.7! 8U.6J ^|,
9.2! 82.3:^-7,
! [
6.5] 75.6 i 1.7
6.5; 63.6 j 2.7
7.8 j 72.5] Z.»t
M. P. N. i tH
7.500 : 7.5
2, too i 7.6
it. 300 j 7.6
i
23,000 j 6.9
2^,000 i 7.1t
36 ': 2.8
,.! „
•• : 3.0
1J3.3
•* i 6.6
2! 3.1*
•* J2.9
»« ! 2.9
I
U3 ilt.7
UiM
•• i 3.9
2to i 6.7
23 j 7.1
23 i 7.6
!
11 I 6.9
"»3 i 7.1
>*! 7.0
J
9 i 7.7
2 ! 7.9
2:7.9
9 j 8.3"
8 ! 7.7
1 i 7'i
9J7.lt
2J7.5
i
U3J6.7
"I 6.7
I
93.000 j 6.7
75,666": 6.7"
246,000 1 6.3
** i 3.1
•* 1 3."*
— «|3T
!
2J7.1
TwMllr i AlteCta»y
220! 256
70! 256
75 i 23»1
|
125 j 256
88 i MWl
550i
'
si
5!
5!
5i
5i
10 ;
i
15i
10 i
15 i
j
32o] 35
190 i 37
120 1 53
i
51 35
5: to
10 i 37
1
55! 92
"17 j 92
18 i 83
"li ] 85
15 i 91
i's" : s~ii
15 i 9P...
13 i 9«
12: 95
!
25; 36
15 i 50
25! 1(6
j
Itoi 182
¥6 i iii
to : 150
!
10J ~
10 i
10 i
!
20! 88
2 j 7.1 j 50 i 90
^T
* "•"""-
6to
232
1,765
1.075
192
to
137
89
189
lits
U2
___
7,200
2J7.2 j 30j 76 j 102
- 185 -
-------
TABLE M-7 MINOR TRIBUTARY BASINS
OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVETf
LABORATORY DATA
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS
: igUo : c f. i.
Owens Creek-Belo» Bewail _ ^, i
plant - Providence, Kj.! ° ™ J
,
it n
Cypress Creek-Below
sewage jtlant-SturgUjKy-
n n
n M
Tradewater R- -Water Vka
Intake - SturgiBj Kjr^
it n
« n
" |
Oct. 28 j £
" 31 I •*
• [Nov. 5 I «
" ? ;
f £
: ;
OTrCy 8 1 Oct. 2S 1 •*
M it n 31 1 **
11 » [Nov. 5] 2
OTr 6
.
;
Oct. 28 ] 2
" 31 I 3.
" " 1 Nov. 5 1 U
I
Trade aster H, - Mouth I OTr 0.2
1 . .
N n
"
« H | n R
• { .
it n
•
« R
n N
it n
« IT
N H inn
Crooked Creeb-below
n N
>
Town Branch-below sewag
Marlon, Kentucky
" it
OCr 9.8
i) n
Sept. 10 | . , 'i
12 | 1
16) 1
» 18
1
Sov. 5 | 1
7 l
8] 1
;
Feb. 26 ! 151
=
28 | iWt
|
Oct. 28
" 31
' " } Sov. 5
' OOrT 9.8! Oct. 28
• I" 31
*
.,
.
'
*
" • 1 " jNov. 5f 1
1. Cache Biver- 1 mile
Below Anna^ JUlaol*
s
OLCa k). JAug. 22
1
i
I*
* Seeded and neutralize
'* Less than one.
i
_
2
!
;
°C
2U.5
15.0
12.5
18.0
9.5
15.5
18.5
9.5
16.5
24.0
22.5
a.5
22.0
16.0
lU.O
13.5
2.5
1.5
21.5
11.5
15.5
19.5
11.5
16.5
20.0
Dtoolvwt O»yg*n
p.p m.
7.9
2.0
It. 6
0.0
0.0
U.U
U.6
u.o
t.5
U.6
8.6
8.7
9.2
8.9
10.3
10.2
12.9
13.3
1.1
2.7
6.9
1.8
2.0
0.0
5.5
*s«
93.5
19.3
42.6
00.0
00.0
U3.8
48.6
34.6
45.4
53.9
98.8
97.8
103.8
«9.4
98.9
97.5
94.6
94.6
12.7
2U.6
68.9
19.5
18.6
00.0
60.2
B5^D. i STJT
§;].
31.
li5'
99.0
34.0
12.9
1.1
4.9
2.1
1.5
1.3
1.6
1.1
1.9
1.8
1.7
2.3
1.0
23.0
14.4
11.6
14.2
12.6
25.8
2.1
1
2,300
23
4,300
24,000
2,300
„'
9
4
9
4
4
2
9
2
24
4
1
4.300
2.300
2,400
2,400
2,400
46,000
430
•*
3.6
7.1
5.7
7.4
7.4
6.8
7.3
7.2
7.1
7-5
7.8
7.9
8.0
7.8
7.7
7.8
7.0
7.0
7-5
7.2
7.3
6.9
7.0
7.2
7.3
130
150
130
220
24o
170
5
5
15
50
23
27
15
IS
13
12
12
5
15
13
260
5
70
35
5
UtTj ttr
238
16
312
240
62
-^ '
82
80
68
68
67
6s
72
60
60
38
42
182
158
62
72
256
170
120
820
770
134
85
148
135
88
6I«
170
127
- 186 -
-------
Table M-7A Minor Tributary Basins - Laboratory Data - Acid Stream Results
Stream
Chartlers Creek
Mi. 3 Below Pgh.
Miller Run (Trlb.
of Chartlers Cr.)
Robinson Run
(Trib. of Char-
tiers Creek)
No. Robins on Run
(Trlb. of Char-
tiers Creek)
Chartlers Creek
Ml. 3 Below Pgh.
Raccoon Creek
Mile 29.6 Below
Pittsburgh
Harmon Creek
Mi. 66. 7 Bel. Pgh.
Plney Fk. of Short
Cr.-Mi.8l.3 Below
Pittsburgh
Wheeling Creek
Ml. 90. 2 Bel. Pgh.
Little Musklngum R.
Ml. 168.3 Bel. Pgh.
Duck Cr. -Ml. 170. 6
Below Pgh.
Bel, Washington, Pa.
Mile 34
Bel. Houston, Pa.
Mile 26
Bel. Canonsburg, Pa.
Mile 23
Bel. Morganza, Pa.
Mile 21
Abv. Cecil, Pa.
Mile 16.5
Bel. Cecil, Pa.
Mile 15.5
Bel. Midway, Pa.
Mile 21.5
Abv. McDonald, Pa.
Mile 19
Bel. McDonald, Pa.
Mile 17.5
Abv. Oakdale, Pa.
Mile 15.5
Bel. Oakdale, Pa.
Mile 14.5
Abv. Oakdale, Pa.
Mile 15.5
Abv. Carnegie, Pa.
Mile 8.5
Bel. Carnegie, Pa.
Mile 6.5
Abv. Burgettstown, Pa.
Mile 32.5
Bel. Burgettstown, Pa.
Mile 31.5
Mouth - Mile 0.5
Mouth - W.Va. Rt. 2
Mile 0.2
Bel. Piney Fork, Ohio
Mile 11
Abv. Barton, Ohio
Mile 10.7
Bel. Barton, Ohio
Mile 9.2
Mouth - Mile 0.1
Mouth-Mile 0.2
Month
191*0
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Nov.
Oct.
Nov.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Oct."
Nov.
Dec.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Nov.
Dec.
Nov.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Oct.
Aug.
Sept.
Aug.
Sept.
No.
oam
3
3
3
3
-d-K-iCM
4
3
4
2
4
2
-*
------- |