EPA3903-R-97-006
Report #CBP/TRS 166/97
The Potential for Nutrient Loadings from Septic Systems
to Ground and Surface Water Resources
and the Chesapeake Bay
A Cooperative Project between
Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program
Chesapeake Research Consortium, inc.
NCRI Chesapeake, Inc.
USDA/NRCS-Northeast National Technical Center
April 1997
-------
The Potential for Nutrient Loadings from Septic Systems
to Ground and Surface Water Resources
and the Chesapeake Bay
Authors:
Margaret Stewart Maize!
George Muehlbach
Paul Baynham
Jennifer Zoerkler
(NCRI Chesapeake, Inc.)
Darlene Monds
Tom livari
Paul Welle
(USDA/NRCS-NNTC)
and
Jonathan Robbin
Janice Wiles
(Consultants)
On the Cover:
Map of septic system densities in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
-------
Ac k n o w led g me n t
The material in this publication is based upon work supported in part by the Cooperative State Research,
Education and Extension Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture under agreement NO. 95-38813-
1325. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed are those of the author(s) and do
necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The oiigina! report was produced in color. TMs copy was prepared using gray-tones for
reproduction purposes. Please refer to the oripnal color copy for making color based
interpretations and analysis. . . .
-------
CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES !
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND $
Nutrient Reduction Goafs in the Chesapeake Watershed and Nitrogen Source Loadings 6
The Role of Septic Effluent in Nitrogen Loadings loGround and Surface Water and 6
the Coastal Zone
'technical Approach j
METHODS • g
Estimating Selected Social and Economic Characteristics of Housing Units 8
and Persons Classified by Means of Sewage Disposal at the Census
Block Group Level of Geography
CENSUS BLOCK GEOGRAPHIES 14
Differentiating Urban from Rural Influences in PUMA's and Block Groups 14
Transected by the Outer Watershed Boundary
Urbanized Areas, Block Group Boundaries and the Chesapeake \ 4
Bay Watershed
Accounting for Land-Based Septic Densities in Block Groups with Water 16
Bodies
Calculating Nitrogen Loadings 17
Data Used in this Study 1 g
Polygon Boundaries for Units of Aggregation: Acetate Layers 20
Other Data Sources Used in this Study 20
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 20
Organization of this Report 20
Housing Units, Population and Means of Waste Disposal in the Chesapeake 29
Watershed
Physical Resources and the Potential for Nitrogen from Septic Fields 30
and other Sources to Affect Ground Water and Surface Water
Nitrogen leadings from Census Block Groups, Surface Waterand Ground 3 8
Water Potentials Directly to the Coastal Zone
State Summaries: Nitrogen Loadings Partitioning to Ground. Water and 4 5
Surface Water, Direct Loadings to the Coastal Zone and Delivery
to the Coastal Zone from Model Segments
Model Segment Summaries: Nitrogen Loadings, Partitioning to Ground 46
Water and Surface Water and the Coastal Zone
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 47
Four new technical approaches have been used in this study 47
Recommendations 5}
Rwfirnmfntlation I 51
Recommendation 2 52
Recommendation 3 52
Recommendation 4 53
References 53
APPENDIX
TABLES 54
COMPILATION OF LITERATURE ON INDIVIDUAL ONSITE WASTEWATER 237
TREATMENT SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO ESTIMATE THEIR NITROGEN
LOADING TO SURFACE AND GROUND WATER
-------
FIGURES
METHODS
Estimating Selected Social and Economic Characteristics of Housing Units and Persons
Classified By Means of Sewage Disposal at the Census Block Group Level of Geography Over
the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Figure A. Public Use Micro-Sample Area Boundaries which touch, cross or are entirely \Q
within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Figure B. Census Block Group Boundaries 13
Figure C. Urbanized Areas -within PUMA Boundaries and in the Chesapeake Watershed 15
Figure D. Urbanized Areas, Block Group Boundaries and the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 15
Figure E. Water and Census Blocks: Lower Delmarva Peninsula, Northhampton County, Virginia 17
Shorelines, Buffer Areas and Water Census Block Groups
Calculating Nitrogen Loadings
Figure I. USDA/NRCS State Soil Geographic File (STA TSGO) 21
Figure 2a. County Boundaries of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 22
Figure 2b, Census Tract Boundaries 23
Figure 2c. Census Block Group Boundaries 24
Figure 2d Public Use Microsample Area (PUMA) Boundaries 25
Figure 2e. Chesapeake Bay Program Model Segments • 26
Figure 3. Geologic Map of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 27
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Households, Population and Waste Disposal in the Chesapeake Watershed
Physical Resources and Potential for Effects ofSeptic Fields and Other Waste Disposal Means Upon
Ground Water and Surface Water
Figure 4. Influence of Soil Components far Rs>.ptir Limitations in Promoting Surface 33
and Ground Water Effects
Figure 5. Association between KARST Topography and Soils with a Shallow Depth to Bedrock 36
Figure 6. Composite Effect of Soils Limitations on Ground Water Potentials in the Chesapeake 37
Bay Watershed
Nitrogen Loadings
Figure 7. Nitrogen Loadings by Block Group 40
Nitrogen Loadings to the Coastal Zone within a 1,000 Ft Buffer Along the Bay Shoreline
Figure 8. Nitrogen Loadings to the Coastal Zone within a 1,000 Ft. Buffer along the 43
Chesapeake Shoreline by Census Block Groups
Nitrogen Loading Summaries
Figure 9. Nitrogen Loadings (Ibs/ac) Average per Model Segment 48
-------
TABLES
(Listed in order of (Sscusston) (.
METHODS
Estimating Selected Social and Economic Characteristics of Housing Unite and Persons Classified
By Means of Sewage Disposal at the Census Block Group Level of Geography Over the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Table A. Occupied Housing Units and Means of Disposal -121 Chesapeake Bay \ 0
Watershed PUMA '$
Table B. Persons per Housing Unit and Means of Sewage Disposal 11
Table C. Correlation of Vacancy Status with Housing Unit Type and Waste Disposal Means 11
RESUL TS AND DISCUSSIONS
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Table 3. Population, Housing and Waste Disposal in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 64
Table 4. State Summaries: Housing Units, Population and Waste Disposal by Housing Unit 65
and Means of Waste Disposal
Table 5 Housing Units, Population and Person per Housing Unit by Model Segments 71
Households, Population and Waste Disposal in the Chesapeake Watershed
Physical Resources and Potential for Effects ofSeptic Fields and Other Waste Disposal Means Upon (
Ground Water and Surface Water --'••
Table D, Soils Limitations for Septic Fields 3]
Table 2 Summary of Ranges of Soils Potentials to Induce Ground Water and Surface 63
Water Effects
Nitrogen Loading Summaries
Table E. Nitrogen Loadings (In Millions of Pounds) to Ground Water, Surface 45
Water and the Coastal Zone by Housing Unit Type and Waste Disposal
Table IL State Summaries for Nitrogen Loaded to Ground Water, Surface Water iei
and the Coastal Zone by Populations using Septic and Other Means of
Non-Sewered Waste Disposal
Table 13, Pounds of Nitrogen Loaded by Housing Type and Waste Disposal 226
Means to Ground Water, Surface Water and the Coastal Zone by Model
Segments
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Table ]. Soils Limitations for Septic: Acreages in the Bay Watershed by State 54
Table 4. State Summaries of Housing Units and Population by Homing Types Using Waste 65
Disposal System
Table 6. County Summaries: Housing Units Using Waste Disposal Systems by Housing Types 97
Table 7, County Summaries: Populations Using Waste Disposal Systems by Housing Types 120
Table fr County Summaries of All Housing Units, Population arid Penum par Housing 126
Unit Using Sewer, Septic and Other Means of Waste Disposal
-------
Table 9. County Summaries of Average Number of Homing Units and Number of Persons per 138
Housing Unit Using Septic and Other Non-Sewered Treatment
Table JO. Model Segment Summaries of Housing Units and Populations as Urban, Rural 149
and Farm Housing Types Using Septic and Other Means of Disposal
Table 12. County Summaries for Nitrogen Loaded to Ground Water, Surface Water and the 169
Coastal Zone by Population Using Septic and Other Means of Waste Disposal
-------
THE POTENTIAL FOR NUTRIENT LOADINGS FROM SEPTIC SYSTEMS TO
GROUND AND SURFACE WATER RESOURCES
AND THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In cooperation with the Chesapeake Research Consortium (CRC) and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program Office (CBPO), NCRI Chesapeake, Inc., with assistance
from the Northeast National Technical Center of the USDA/Natural Resources Conservation Service,
studied population and physical data of the Chesapeake watershed to determine the potential contribution
of nitrogen loadings from septic systems to contaminate ground water, surface water and the bay.
The goal of reducing nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) by 40% in the Chesapeake Bay by the
year 2000, from levels existing in 1985, requires an accurate assessment of specific sources of nutrient
loadings to ground water, surface water and the bay. Relative contributions from various source inputs
will vary by watershed and depend upon population, land use, climate, hydrologic conditions and
physiography.
Four new technical approaches were used in developing a GIS-based system to link population
data to three housing types (urban, rural, farm) and three means of waste disposal (septic, sewer, other
means of waste disposal): 1) 1990 Census Block Group data was used to estimate populations by housing
type and wastf disPosal means; 2) STATSGO, karst and geologic data was used to characterize soils by
septic limitations; 3) physiographic data was used to describe regions where soils are potentially
vulnerable to ground and surface water contamination; and 4) an hierarchical approach aggregating the
block group/STATSGO intersections to county, model segment, state and entire watershed areas was used
to spatially account for associated resource effects of human populations in the environment.
Population. There are 5,292,582 occupied housing units in the watershed, reported by the U.S.
Department of Commerce Bureau of Census. Of these, 70.9% are classified by the Census as urban,
26.4% as rural and 0.6% as farm type housing units. Maryland and Virginia have the highest number of
housing units in the watershed (1.73 and 1.74 million respectively) and Pennsylvania has 1.24 million.
Twenty-five percent of the housing units depend upon septic systems or other means of non-sewered
waste disposal. The average number of persons per household in the watershed is 2.6. The average number
of persons per household depending upon septic and other means of waste disposal in the watershed is 2.8.
However, in Pennsylvania the average number of persons per housing unit depending on septic and other
means of waste disposal is 3.1.
Nitrogen Loading Rate. The edge-of-drainiield load range provided by the CBPO was used as
the nitrogen source loading rate (7.7 - 11.0 Ibs/capita/yeai). From die minimum and maximum population
estimates and minimum and maximum per capita annual loading rates, the mean value of 4,240.36
grams/capita/year (9.35 Ibs/capita/year) was used to calculate me average per capita load. In tin's particular
study, no provisions for transport or chemical modifications through demtiificau'on or oxidation/reduction
was applied to the source loading.
-------
Soils Potential for Nitrogen Loading, On an average composition-weighted basis, soils in the
watershed overall have a 75% potential for ground water contamination from septic field effluent. The
total amount of nitrogen loaded to the watershed ranges from a minimum of 22.41 million Ibs/yr, through
a mean of 33.47 Ibs/yr and a maximum of 47.78 million Ibs/yr. Seventy-one percent is loaded to ground
water, 26.2% is loaded to surface water and 2,9% is loaded directly to the bay through Census blocks
overlaying a 1,000 foot buffer along the bay shoreline. Urban housing units on septic systems load one-
third of this nitrogen class.
Nitrogen Loadings Directly to Ground Water, Surface Water and the Bay. Pennsylvania, because
of its higher percentage of septic-dependent housing units and its higher ratio of persons per household,
ranks first among the states with a total mean loading of 31.19 million pounds (33.4% of the total) of
nitrogen per year to flic watershed. Virginia ranks second with 9.56 million pounds (28.6% of the total)
and Maryland is third with 8.35 million pounds or 24.9% of the total load The same rank order applies
among the states for nitrogen partitioned to ground water and surface water. Maryland leads the states in
nitrogen loaded directly to the bay generating 586,842 Its. (61% of llie total loaded lo the bay) and
Virginia is second with 38% of the total loaded to the bay. Some of the smallest model segments receive
the highest rates of nitrogen loading and they often directly associated with the Bay. For example, the
Coast 6c segment of the west Chesapeake sub-basin receives an average of 8.65 pounds per model
segment acre, the Severn River in Maryland receives 6.51 pounds per acre and the Coast 5 segment of the
Patuxentrecieves3.21 Ibs per acre.
Statistical Methods and Analysis. A method for modeling populations and housing statistics
using Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) provided certain data not available at the Census block level.
Statistical methods were used to link population data to bousing types and waste disposal means. The
reliability of this approach is discussed at length in the "Methods" section of the report. In addition to
absolute amounts of nitrogen loaded, concentrations and locations of these sources within a watershed are
critical in determining the effects of septic fields on water resources Refuse tin transport or chemical
modification was applied to the source loadings, further work is need to estimate these effects.
Recommendations. Several recommendations for extending this type of study include: 1) provide
a comprehensive spatial allocation of all nutrient source loadings to the watershed and the bay; 2) integrate
source loadings with water resources to determine direct and off-site impacts of septic effluent; 3) develop
a water use budget for the watershed using economic analysis of populations and waste disposal means to
identify communities needing economic and feasible disposal alternatives; 4) estimate growth patterns and
the potential pollution impacts of land conversion for use in tributary and development strategies; and 5)
identify the socio-economic characteristics of communities in the watershed in an effort to better
coordinate, design and package conservation assistance on state and regional levels.
-------
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
In spite of an extensive national scale ground water cleanup program, significant and increasing
levels of ground water contamination have been documented in the last few years in the United States.
Ground water contamination can result from a number of sources including industrial and commercial
land uses, agricultural practices associated with cropland and animal waste disposal, home lawn care, non-
sewered housing units, atmospheric deposition and other sources.1 Among these, septic tanks and
cesspools rank second only to industrial uses as the largest source of ground water contaminants.2
Nitrates in ground water from septic field effluent is, in fact, the most frequently reported cause of
ground water contamination.*' In addition, septic fields are the source of the largest volumetric amount of
effluent (3.8 billion cubic meters or one-third of the nation's domestic waste water1) to the ground water
-,nno. *•*
zone.
The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that one-quarter of the nation's population
depends upon on-site septic systems for sewage treatment.4
Nutrient Reduction Goals in the Chesapeake Watershed and Nitrogen Source Loadings
The goal of reducing nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus)
entering the Chesapeake Bay from levels existing in 1985 by 40%
by the year 2000 requires an accurate assessment of specific sources
of nutrient loadings to ground water, surface water and the coastal
zone.*
Comprehensive, quantitative studies of major nutrient
sources such as septic field effluent relative to other point and
nonpoint sources as associated with water quality in a single
watershed are extremely limited in number. This is in part because
field testing of effluent in large watersheds over time is a major
undertaking. In one such study, however, researchers were able to
prioritize varied land uses including agricultural and non-
agricultural uses with respect to nitrogen leaching in a small
watershed in Rhode Island. A conventional septic system and all
silage corn treatments tested produced1 the highest annual flow-
weighted nitrate-N concentrations (in excess of 10 mg/I) for at least
1 of the 2 years of the study. In contrast, forest and home lawn
treatments generated lowest flow-weighted nitrate-N rates (<1.7
mg/1)." For mis watershed at least, a priority to address certain
agricultural uses (silage corn systems) and non-agricultural uses (septic fields) - all other factors being
equal — might yield a higher rate of nutrient reduction for the effort expended.
Relative contributions from various source inputs will vary by watershed and depend upon
population, land use, climate, hydrologic conditions, and physiography.* Associating source inputs with
water quality assessments in watersheds where source inputs are mixed is complicated. Nevertheless,
assessing the environmental potential at the source seems to be a tenable starting point providing there is a
scientific basis for these estimations.
In January 1994, the Nutrient
Subcommittee of the Chesapeake Bay
Program issued a Request for Proposal
to document:
The amount of nitrogen loading in
pounds to:
< surface water,
» ground water and
* directly to the coastal zone from
septic fields by Census Block
Group.
Data were to be aggregated by
* county,
« EPA's Model Segments and by
• state and summarized for
* the entire watershed.
* A literature search was also
requested.
* For the purposes of this report the 'Coastal Zone' refers to the 1,000 ft. shoreline buffer area adjacent to the
Chesapeake Bay. The coastal zone shoreline measures ^,428.51 linear miles and includes tributary shorelines greater
than 355 feet of shore separation. Tributary shoreline separation of less than 355 feet were not included in the
calculation. The coastal zone area in Man-land is known as the 'Critical Area.*
-------
A comprehensive assessment to address the level of source
loadings for all principal land uses would be useful to the nutrient
reduction strategy. Indeed, the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) has
sponsored extensive analyses of nitrogen loadings from the 23.46 million
acres of forestland, for instance, which represent 66% of the land cover
in the Chesapeake watershed.7
The Role of Septic Effluent in Nitrogen Loadings to Ground
and Surface Water and the Coastal Zone
The term 'source loadings' as uxcd
hers and in other studies refers to
loadings at the edge of the drain
field (rather than those entering tka
tank). Reduction of soluble nitrogen
through transport, management and
natural factors that cause
subsequent denitrification, ~
vaporization and chemical
modification are IK* accounted for
in this study.
Estimates of the role of septic fields in contributing to nutrient levels in the coastal zone to date,
vary greatly. While one researcher estimates that 30% of the nitrogen in \kryland ground water comes
from septic systems,8 others have tended to minimize septic fields as a major source within the basin.
While census data show that there are approximately 424,000 septic systems statewide in Maryland,
650,000 in Virginia and approximately 1.5 million in Pennsylvania, exactly how many of these are within
the Chesapeake watershed was not known until now. Extensive areas of low-density residential uses,
suggest that septic use is geographically wide-spread in the watershed. According to Thematic Mapper
imagery developed by EPA for ]990, high density urban development covered 271,220 acres in the
watershed and low density development covered 1,768,689 acres in 199Q.9 Earlier aerial photography
(1972-1984) developed by the U.S. Geological Survey estimated urban lands to cover a larger area (2.546
million acres) of the watershed, of which, 1.887 million acres was residential, mixed and other urban
built-up land.10 Another source of data, the U.S. Census Bureau's TIGER files including Census'
geographies (Blocks, Block Groups and Tracts), provides a suitable graphic base for distribution of
household and population statistics together with their impacts on the watershed.
Technical Approach
Source Loads
Calculations of source nitrogen loadings from septic fields requires information about the number
of housing units using septic fields and other non-sewered means of waste disposal in the watershed. For
this, an accurate count of persons per housing unit is needed. It was also determined that the number of
people per housing unit type as urban, rural or farm types using septic and other non-sewered systems
would be required.
Population statistics by housing type and means of waste disposal were allocated to 12,388
Census block groups in the watershed. Nitrogen loadings from septic and other means of disposal were
calculated for each block group by population correlated with household type, and distributed on an areal
basis to land areas through intersections of the block groups with soils/geology and surface water bodies.
Potentials for Surface and Ground Water
An estimate of loadings to surface and/or ground water requires linking nitrogen loads from
population and housing data to those physiographic layers (soils and geology) which may influence the
primary direction (downward or laterally) of such loadings to ground water and/or surface water and the
coastal zone. It was decided that STATSGO (State Soils Geographic Data Layer) from NRCS/USDA as
the one consistent and available source of soils information was most appropriate to estimate soils
potential influences upon septic effluent. Soils - characterized by their composition of limitations for
septic field operation — were used to determine the initial partitioning of nitrogen toward ground water or
surface water from the base of the septic field. Source nitrogen loadings were aggregated and reported by
county, state, and CBP Model Segment units. No attempt was mads to account for physical, chemical or
-------
biological processes which could reduce the final edge-of-fleld level of nitrogen level used to estimate
nitrogen loads delivered by model segments to the coastal zone.
It is hoped that this study contributes materially to a better understanding of this important source
of nitrogen loading to the water resources of the Chesapeake drainage and its coastal zone.
METHODS
Estimating Selected Social and Economic Characteristics of Housing Units and Persons
Classified by Means of Sewage Disposal at the Census Block Group Level of Geography
This report integrates cultural and physical
data layers heretofore not available to:
(1) classify homing units ffft/sj OS Urban,
rural or farm types by means of waste
disposal (sewer, septic fields and other
means) ;
(2) document the number of persons per
housing unit by HU type;
(3) calculate ranges for estimated nitrogen
loading levels (minimum, maximum oral
mean) far each block group. Based on the
. rales of nitrogen loadings at the base of
the septic field hy HU type and number of
persons per HU using septic or other
means of waste disposal:
(4) associate this load a! the Census Block
Group level wlh soils and getdngic- data;
(5) estimate load partitioning from the hose
of she septic field to ground and surface
water;
(6) determine nilfi/gen loadings tfircaiy to
the coastal tone from block groups
partially overlaying and/or wholly
contained within the 1,000 shoreline
buffer area surrounding the coastal zone.
An estimate of nitrogen loadings from septic and other
non-sewered means of waste disposal requires at a minimum,
not only knowledge about the number of homing units
connected to these systems, but also data about the number of
pet-sons per housing unit. Furthermore, it was believed that
population densities per housing unit (and thus nitrogen loads)
would vary according to housing unit types as urban, rural and
farm types, as well as from one county to another.
The 1990 Census of Population and Housing
questionnaire included the following item requesting
information about sewage disposal from the housing unit head
(or from an enumerator if the dwelling unit was vacant):
H16. Is this building connected to a public
sewer?
Yes, connected to a public sewer.
No, connected to septic tank or cesspool.
No, use other means of sewage disposal [chemical
toilet, outhouse, etc.].
The Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS)
In estimating the number of persons within each
sewage disposal category, the overall mean number of persons
per housing unit for a given block group could be used to weight the number of total housing units in each
category in order to calculate the approximate number of persons included in that category. Such an
estimate would not however, take into account the correlation between means of sewage disposal and
housing unit size (the "interaction" between these two variables).
To assess the effect of this interaction and arrive at a more accurate estimate of the distribution of
population by sewage disposal category', a special tabulation of means of sewage disposal by number of
Gcograpmc block groups arc clusters of blocks, within the same census tract or Block Number Area, having the same first digit of
their 3-digit block numbers; for example, blocks I0l, 102,103^199 in census tract 1210.02 belong to BG 1. Block groups never
cross county or census traci/BNA boundaries, bul nay cross the boundaries of county subdivisions, places, and Urbanized Areas
Block groups gcncraily contain between 250 and 550 housing units. Each block group usually covers a contiguous area Each
census tracl/BN'A contains at least one block group. Block groups are uniquely numbered within census iract/BNAs
-------
persons in housing unit was performed using the Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) * of the individual
records gathered in the 1990 Census of Population and Housing.
One-hundred-and-twenty-eight Public Unit Microsamplc Areas
(PUMA's) intersect the seven state Chesapeake Bay watershed area. Of
these, seven PUMA's were eliminated as having some land area but no
significant population in the watershed. The remaining one-hundred-
and-twenty-one PUMA's contain about eight-million housing units and
nineteen-million persons — larger than
-------
Figure A
Public Use Microsample Area boundaries which touch or cross or are entirely within the Chesapeake
Bay Watershed outer boundary
PERSONS IN HOUSING UNIT
1 person
2 persons
3 persons
4 persons
5 persons
6 persons
7+ persons
MEANS Of
SEWER
28.90%
31.73%
17.96%
14.39%
5.95%
1.96%
1.12%
DISPOSAL
SEPTIC
16.33%
33.5i%
20.07%
18.50%
7.79%
2.41%
1.34%
TOTAL 100.00% 100.00%
OTHER
25.89%
27.63%
17.93%
14.10%
7.82%
3.59%
3.04%
AVERAGE
23.94%
32.18%
18.55%
15.53%
6.48%
2.11%
1.20%
100.00% 100.00%
Table A.
Occupied Housing Units and Means of Disposal -121 Chesapeake Bay Watershed PUMA's
10
-------
PERSONS IN HOUSING UNfT
Occupied Housing Unite
Estimated Persons
Estimated Persons/Housing unit
MEANS OF DISPOSAL
SEWER SEPTIC OTHER
5,148,562 2,019,859 91,497
12,968,024 5,685,119 253,139
2.52 2.81 2,77
TOTAL
7,259,918
18,906,282
2,60
Table B.
Persons per Housing Unit and Means of Waste Disposal
Each housing unit in the PUMS was characterized as located in an urban, rural nonfarm or rural
farm area, according to the above definitions. In addition, all housing units not characterized as Rural
Farm were identified as occupied or vacant ("Farm" status applies only to occupied housing units, by
definition). Together with the three sewage disposal categories, these items produced nine mutually
exclusive categories for which counts of occupied housing units by persons per housing unit and other
person-based items (such as income) were produced (Table €). An additional six categories for vacant
housing units were used (for a total of fifteen categories) where the item was based solely on housing unit
characteristics (such as source of water, etc.).
Category
Vacancy
Urban/Rural
Farm/Nonfarrn Sewage Disposal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Occupied
Vacant
Occupied
Vacant
Occupied
Occupied
Vacant
Occupied
Vacant
Occupied
Occupied
Vacant
Occupied
Vacant
Occupied
Urban
Urban
Rural
Rural
Rural
Urban
Urban
Rural
Rural
Rural
Urban
Urban
Rural
Rural
Rural
Nonfarm
Nonfarm
Nonfarm
Nonfarm
Farm
Nonfarm
Nonfarm
Nonfarm
Nonfarm
Farm
Nonfarm
Nonfarm
Nonfarm
Nonfarm
Farm
Sewer
Sewer
Sewer
Oewer
Sewer
Septic
Septic
Septic
Septic
Septic
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Table C.
Correlation of Vacancy Status with Housing Unit Type and Waste Disposal Means
The joint distribution of means of sewage disposal and number of persons per housing unit by
vacancy status, rural/urban and farm/nnnfarm as shown above were then generated for each of the 121
PUMA's in the Chesapeake watershed by cross-tabulation of the PUMS file of about 400,000 housing
units extracted from these PUMA's. In addition, cross-tabulations of these fifteen categories by number of
persons per housing unit and the seven independent variables listed above were computed for each
PUMA, The average occupancy rate in 1990 was 92.5%. All farm housing units are occupied by
definition. 93.5% and 88.18% of urban and rural housing units were occupied.
11
-------
Translating PUMA statistics to the Block Group Level
These PUMA tables were employed as models to estimate analogous tables for the block groups
included within or allocated to their areas. (Block groups in PUMA's which had less than ten percent of
their areas inside the Chesapeake Bay watershed were allocated to nearby PUMA's if the demography and
physiography of these contiguous PUMA's was more like these block groups than the whole of their
parent PUMA lying largely outside die watershed).
Estimating Housing Type, Vacancy Status and Waste Disposal Means at the Block Group
Level
The procedure for estimation of the inner cells of Table C at the block group level given the
observed marginal (row and column) totals for each block group in the census summary data (the file
designated STF3 A) included the following steps:
I) Expected ficquenaes was caScufatedfetHc mode! table at the PUMA level. WrracY is the PUMA tnd« (ranging fan. 1 to
12 1), T is the row dimension and "j" toe column dimension, "Ep» is m expected joint frequency, "Ffc" is a row marginal
tofal, "Fjk" is a column marginal total and "Nk" is the total base of the table (numberof occupied housing units in the PUMA):
2) Discrepancy ratios, "djjk", of the observed frequencies, "fyV, from the expected frequencies, "Ejjk", were calculated by:
3) An iniu'al approximation (h=l) to the joint frequencies for each bl«^group(ind
-------
Figure B
1990 Census Block Group Boundaries
Estimating Population by Housing Type
By weighting these estimated block poup counts of occupied housing units by the number of
persons per housing unit in each cell and summing the result is an estimate of the number of persons in
each of the nine categories of sewage disposal; urban/rural, farm/nonfarm status was calculated for each
block group. In addition, the average number of persons per housing unit was calculated for each of these
nine categories for every block group.
Using PUMA level cross-tabulations of (1) means of sewage disposal, (2) rural/urban, (3)
farm/nonfarm and (4) occupied/vacant status with the seven independent variables described above,
estimates were made for each category for each block group. Observed block group level marginal totals
from STF3A, and estimates of the distribution of housing units by means of sewage disposal and
rural/urban, farm/nonfarm and occupied/vacant status were determined from the calculations described
above.
Accuracy of Population Estimates
The 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Tape File !5A (Census Block Group data)
is based upon a roughly l-in-6 sample enumeration." This is subject to sampling errors arising from the
13
-------
selection of persons and housing units to be included in the sample. In addition, the data arc subject to
nonsampling error introduced as a result of human error at the collection and/or recording stages.
In this study, population and number of housing units in each block group were taken from the
STF3 A data for the block group. The distribution of the data within the block group was modeled from
PUMS data "Hie population counts and housing unit total counts are subject to sample and nonsample
errors. These errors are dealt with as suggested in the STF3A documentation on data accuracy: the
estimated standard error for each sample estimate total was calculated and then factored by a design factor
for the characteristic in use (population or housing). The estimated and adjusted standard error was used to
construct 95 percent confidence intervals about the estimate. These intervals form the range of population
and housing unit totals within each block group.
Data Precision in Tables
Most of the data presented here was derived from statistical estimates. Precision was carried for
these estimated to the third decimal point Numbers, however, are often shown as rounded upwards to the
nearest whole number. Calculations using these numbers (e.g., persons per housing unit) were based on
the highest precision values and this may differ from those expected from rounded whole numbers
presented in Tables.
CENSUS BLOCK GEOGRAPHIES
Differentiating Urban from Rural Influences in PUMA's and Block Groups Transected by
the Outer Watershed Boundary
Polygon boundaries such as the outer Chesapeake watershed boundaries which transect
geographic units used in assessments always create concern about variability of composition in the
transected polygon and consequent non-representational apportionment of transected polygon
characteristics.
a PUMA's and the outer watershed boundary. Some 44 out of 128 PUMA's are transected by the outer
watershed boundary. Urbanized areas outside the watershed could influence the profile of block
groups within each PUMA that aie inside the watershed. (See Figure C, for example). Two
boundaries, (1) the outline of the Public Use Microsample Areas (PUMA's) in blue, and (2) the
outline of the Chesapeake Bay watershed are shown in red. Red shading indicates Census designated
Urbani2ed Areas * or blocks.
Urbanized Areas, Block Group Boundaries and the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
b. Block Groups, Urbanized Areas and the Outer Watershed Boundary. An example of the intersection
of Watershed and Census Block Group boundaries and Census designated urbanized areas (UA's) is
shown in Figure D.
The red line is the outer boundary of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Black lines outline individual
census block groups. Green shading denotes census designated urbanized areas. Urbanized areas arc
flagged at the census block level. Blocks aggregate to block groups. An individual block within a
note: Sec footnote, page 9.
14
-------
block group could be flagged as a UA, while other blocks in the block group are not. The block
pointed out is designated as a UA, while other blocks making up the block group are not.
Figure C
Urbanized Areas within PUMA Boundaries and in the Chesapeake Watershed
ortolK, VA Region - Census Block Brouos and Watershed Boundaries
Figure D
Urbanized Areas. Block Group Boundaries and the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
15
-------
Examination of those block groups intersected by the watershed boundary showed that urban
distribution at the block group level - inside and outside the watershed - was not significantly affected by
the intersection with the outer watershed boundary. This validated the Block Group again as a satisfactory
small area geographic discriminator for population type segregation.
Accounting for Land-Based Septic Densities in Block Groups with Water Bodies
There are 12,408 unique block groups in the watershed, to 12,388 of which can be allocated data
from the 1990 census. Many Block Groups are entirely composed of land areas and many contain
significant water areas. An example is shown in Figure E. In order to accurately spatially allocate housing
to appropriate land areas, Census Block Groups were integrated with surface water bodies from TIGER
files and surface water areas were deducted from the Census Block areas.
Every census block group polygon was tracked before and after the watershed boundary intersect,
and areal data was tabulated for the entire watershed. Each block group which was not entirely within the
watershed carried the percent of the land area of the original block group which remained within the
watershed. This percentage was applied to all census of population and housing data.
Wafer Census Block Groups: Shorelines, Buffer Areas and Nitrogen Loadings to the Coastal
Zone
Three classes of Block Groups (BGs) were
directly associated with water (see box insert):
Characteristics of BG's in (a) and (b) were
incorporated into county summaries because they
contained county identifiers. Because they could nol be
assigned to model segments, they were collected and
grouped by the principal river system in which they were
found for model segment summaries. Nitrogen loadings
for these BG's were allocated directly to the 1,000 ft
Critical Area buffer area in Maryland and CZMA's
(1,000 ft shoreline buffers) for the other states together
with other BG's wholly or partially contained within the
1,000 ft shoreline buffer area (water block groups).
Water Slock Groups:
(a) Nine hundred seventy BG's containing
77,930 acres at least partially overlaid water
areas — primarily along shorelines. These
had been assigned FffSeot&s by the Bureau
of the Census and contained data far housing
units, population and waste disposal systems.
ft) Three hundred BG's were contained within
the 1,000ft shorettne buffer arm.
(c) Twenty BG's were classified by the Censuses
water block groups. None of these contained
rJata an housing or population and thus
contributed no data to this assessment.
Figure E is an image of the Lower Delmarva Peninsula, Northampton County Virginia showing
certain water BG's.
16
-------
Block Groups can contain varying proportions
of land and water, and often are intersected
by the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Boundary
as in the case of this block group,
#511319SQ3QQ6.
__This block group is composed of the following
Totai acres:
Land acres:
Water acres
36,865
9,370
27,495
The red line follows the outer boundary of the
Watershed, intersecting the block groups in its
path. Calculation of block group polygon acres
«fore and after the intersection reveals the
following area remaining within the
Watershed:
Land acres:
Water acres:
1,393
5
Percent of the land in the block group which
remains inside the watershed is 15%. This
percentage of land available is used
subsequently to proportion population and
housing data to the area of the block group
remaining within the Watershed boundary.
Figure E
Lower Delmarva Peninsula, Northhampton County, Virginia
Calculating Nitrogen Loadings
a. Niirt>gen Loading Rates. The literature review showed that nitrogen loading rates as reported By
researchers vary greatly. "Effluent" loading estimates from the base of the septic field varied from
.013 Ibs/capita/day (4.8 Ibs/capita/year) to .0373 Ibs/capita/day (13.6 Ibs/capita/year). In addition,
estimates of nitrogen loadings vary even more than 30% from the mean per capita load. Some of this
may be the effect of human diet since this can have an even greater effect on septic influent.IZ
Nitrogen Loading Rates from the Edge of ttic Dramfield (Ibs/day/capita):
.03 ibs (13.6 yams "effluent! - Lower Potomac Pollution Control Plant (present)
.023 Ibs +/- .008 Ibs, (10.5 +/- 3.57 grams "effluent") - Bauman (1985)
.025 Ibs {11.4 grams •effluent") EPA (1980)
.0132-.0373 Ibs (6-13 grams "effluent") - Occoquan Sanitary District, personal communication
.028 ibs (12.6 grams 'effluent") - Cornell University (GWlFf
.023 Ibs {10.4 grams 'effluent") - EPA CZMA (1993) Onsrte Waste Disposal Systems (EPA-840-B-92-Q2)
b. Nitrogen Loading Calculations. At the suggestion of the USER A Chesapeake Bay Program, Nonpoint
Source Coordinator, an edge of drain field loading rate based on septic field effluent rates ranging
from a minimum of 7.7 Ibs/capita/year to a maximum of 11.0 Ibs/capita/year was used for this study.
17
-------
For simplicity, though per capita varies by +/- 17,6%, the nitrogen loadings used here are expressed ays
the mean number only.
Once the minimum and maximum population estimates were made, the per capita minimum annual
loading (3492.06 grams/person/year, or 7.7 Ibs/person/year) was applied at the block group level. Per
capita maximum values were calculated at 4988.66 grams/person/year (11 Ibs/person/year). A mean
value of 4240.36 grams/person/year (9.35 Ibs/person/year) was used to calculate the average per capita
load. No provision for transport or chemical modification through denitrification or
oxidation/reduction was applied to this "source loading." The literature review, however, identified a
study by Haith, et al." in which it was determined that ground water impacts could be reduced by 300
grams per person/year through uptake by vegetation over the field." Since it appeared that this study
might provide a framework for follow-on regionally-based transport of septic effluent, we used these
researchers' allowance although many factors such as whether or not grass is mowed and the clippings
removed could affect the amount accounted for removal as vegetative "uptake." Again, there are many
physical, chemical, biological and other processes which could affect edge of stream and pound water
loading levels which are NOT part of this study.
Calculating Nitrogen Loadings to Ground Water and Surface Water*:
N(min) = P(min) * GW% * (3492.06 - 300) + P{min) * SW% * 3492.06
N(mean) = P(mtan) * GW% * (4240.36 - 300) + P(mean)*SW% » 4240,36
N(max) = P(max)» GW% * (4988.6 - 300) + P(max) * SW% * 4988.66
Where:
N(xxx)
P{xxx)
GW%
SW%
300 =
is the Nitrogen load in grams/person/year
is the number of persons using septic systems or other means of waste disposal
is the soils component Percent Ground Water Rating
is the soils component Percent Surface Water Rating
number of grams of nitrogen taken up by septic field cover/year
* Based on Haith, Mandei and Wu (1992).
Data Used in this Study
Soils. The State Geographic Data Base (STATSGO) was provided by NRCS/USDA staff at the
Northeast National Technical Center. Chester, PA. The data layers were assembled and clipped for the six
states and clipped to the watershed boundary for each of the six states in the watershed. The resulting data
layer contains 4,838 polygons and describes 265 soil types (Map Unit IDs) accounting for 40 million acres
of land in the watershed. STATSGO soils for the watershed are shown in Figure la.
Determining Ground- and Surface Water Potentials. Simplistic rules were developed to assess the
potentials of each often limitations for septic fields to affect soils properties between the bottom of the
septic field (24 inches below the surface of the soil profile) and the bottom of the soil profile.
KARST Topography. KARST topography characterizes 9.15 million acres or approximately 25%
of the watershed. Its presence is considered to affect septic field performance where bedrock associated
with KARST topography is within 60 inches of the soil surface. Digital national geology and fault maps
provided a basis for association of soils to define areas of KARST topography within the watershed.
note; It should be noted, however, that this uptake may be affected by whether or not grass clippings are removed from the field
area or whether they arc allowed to remain in place.
18
-------
KARST and STATSGO data bases were geographically unioned to associate soils characteristics with
KARST 'flags' to identify soils that could promote ground water effects due to the presence of KARST,
Geology. The Geologic Map of
the United States (1:2,500,00 scale),
originally published by Philip B, King
and Helen M. Beikman in 1974 was
converted to ARC/INFO format at
USGS, Reston, Virginia The national
coverage was obtained From USGS and
was clipped to the boundary of the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed. The
resulting geology cover contains 43
unique rock units in the Bay watershed
from flic original 162 in the national
cover (Figure Ih).
Simplistic Rules for Soils Limitations for Septic Fields 'Influencing'
Septic Effluent toward Ground Witter or Surface Water:
• Soils suitable for septic operation allow septic effluent to wove
directly downward - toward ground .water at a moderate rate.
» Certain soils limitations for septic systems direct septic effluent '
laterally (sideways) or toward the surface (surface, waterjwitfan
the soil profile. These include subsidence, flooding, shallow depth to
bedrock, shallow depth to cemented pan, ponding, high water table,
and low permeability.
• Other soils limitations increase ground water effects. Thcv are:
shallow depth to bedrock where .the bedrock is KARST, high (rapid)
permeability and a high proportion of large stones present.
Calculating Soils Potentials from SOI-5 Tables. A program interface was written to determine the
composition for each soils map unit of each of the ten soil properties to each component of the soils map
unit identifier. In this process, the SOI-5 property data base is opened and the tables "Comp" and "Layer"
are selected for joining. Each map unit is assigned a ground water and a surface water "weight" based on
the quantitative presence of each component contributing a limitation for septic operations. All properties
are then averaged to produce a final "score" for relative surface/ground water potentials. Soils potentials
for each STATSGO Map Unit are described as "percent composition influencing a surface (or ground)
water effect". Each limitation was treated as equally weighted in its influence upon effluent toward surface
or gound water effects,
Displaying Surface Waier Influences of Septic Field Limitations in Soils. In order to display
surface water and ground water percentage ranges simultaneously and to give some sense of the relative
proportion of surface water effects to ground water effects, the following method was used:
• for each record of data a ratio was produced by dividing the soil's percent surface water score
by the soil's percent ground water score.
» the mean value and standard deviation of these ratios were used to produce z-scores * in order
to standardize the data, according to the following formula;
__ R-R
a '
where R is an individual record's score, and /? and 17 are the mean and the standard
deviation of all scores.
« the resulting z-score values were ordered on the z-score and the table broken by quintiles.
• the acreage for each sot) map unit was coded as positive (-*•) for surface water, and nega&ve (-)
for ground water.
* the range of z-scores were scaled into 100 breaks between the minimum and maximum values
and this scalar table was used to accumulate the acreages of map units falling between the z-score-
breaks. This scalar table was then used for the display of the distribution of surface water to
ground water ratios in the histogram, each quintile group being assigned a unique color in the
note: for a brief discussion of standardi^auon of data, sec R. Hammond & P.S. McCullagh, Quantitative Techniques in
Geography, An Introduction, 2nd Edition. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1978. pp. 43-44,
19
-------
chloroplcth map and key. The relation of the z-scure range to the color key is displayed above the
z-score axis.
Polygon Boundaries for Units of Aggregation; Acetate Layers
In order to facilitate comparisons of GIS themes at soils and Block Group levels with various
geographic areas of aggregation used here, a series of clear acetate layers are provided in this section as
overlays to maps presented in the Results and Discussion section below. They are identified as a series (a-
e) as overlays 2:
a. County Boundaries
b. Census Tract Boundaries
c. Census Block Group Boundaries
d. Public Use Microsample Boundaries
e. Chesapeake Bay Program Model Segments
Other Data Sources Used in this Study
The CBP Watershed Model (Phase IE) Segment boundaries amended as of January, 1995
together with delivery ratios for each model segment were provided by the Chesapeake Bay Program.
Unprocessed post 1990 Census TIGER files were provided by NRCS/USDA, Fort Worth.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Organization of this Report
Summary statistics at various geographies for the watershed including the entire watershed, states,
counties and mode! segments describing housing, population, persons per housing unit and nitrogen
loadings (minimum, mean and maximum levels) and potentials for ground water, surface water and the
coastal zone are provided in the body of this report. Coastal Zone loadings were calculated as nitrogen
loaded directly to the coastal zone through block groups either partially or wholly contained within the
1,000 ft buffer area along the shoreline (see Water Block Groups, Methods).
Since we found there are significant differences in population by housing type and consequently
with waste disposal means, results reported here are also by both parameters.
Statistics for this study can be found in the Appendix. Data produced in this report are extensive
but may not present all possible combinations of interest. Consequently, our discussions address only a
few of the more interesting findings.
20
-------
USDA/NRCS State Soil Geographic File (STATSGO)
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
A daw. l«nwr from eupeak« Say Drc'xon Support SyMwn
10 rapport tho
Ch«4p«a)(e B»y Rmtoration Ad of 1893
OS by ARC INFO
Sources
usb/wcs
StaM Sail Geographic Fik (STAT5COI
1:250,000 S»orilin« Added
by
NCRI Omap«Ue .
Figure 1
NCR / Ch <• i
21
-------
County Boundaries
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
USGS - CIRAS tfaa
convwW to Arc Info
•nd pmoMMd inw.^Bamtai BaywM*
.fly Niikmil C*rtt«rihif nftwourot
Figure 2.a
NCR) C/ie>«p*tJt« "•""V'
-------
Census Tract Boundaries
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
i' "i
}
Samoa .,.., ..... '
1992 TIGER/Uw Hie
U.S. Department of Commerce
tfw GKMIB
ftoaatad a Arc/INFO Um
•nd Polygon Coverages 1W5
bV ..-<
NCR!
Figure 2.b
NCR I
-------
Census Block Group Boundaries
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Soure» ....,.-•
!992 TICER/liB, ftl,
U.S. DqaraiwriTaf Commerce
a* GMM*
«t Are/INFO UM
Cavwtpi 1995
* ?<'
,tnc. \
•ml
NCRI
Figure 2.c
NCR I Chtitpttk*
24
-------
Public Use Mjcrbsample Area (PUMA) JWHindaries
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Department of Catmtcm
Garmn Bunaau
PUMA • Gmui Siodc Croup Equiwfency HI*
Mttdwd lo...Ps*W;iifli*iii£;IlC£R/tjiHi Soundufw
and eonvMd to an Art/Info coverage
NCRI Omapmin, tns..f"'
A dM hyw ftim the
Figure 2.d
s f - ; >"
• • / /> > / (
L la ^
r^ / s /'
/ / 7^~^.
/ • T^
/ •/ • i
? / r-^
/ /^ ' •
i- £? r^~^'
/ -~? -../^x ^r i .
/ V 'a-. '^\
I _ „...,,.... x? ,,^,xr-o ^ )
i* E^^^^S
MMtoMMi^HI »*_ *«•• •HHHHPr
-J / 'A-- -' -"
1 ,. 4 A-^N:,. ,>>
^.V- .'A'^t >^
^ '''^Jk^W
r1 ••••. •>" : ^ /-.'•'
-^ ^> •••..,. - , f -vs
^--\ / • '• ; ', -/ t> •«,
H^ •.,-•>> \ r/^/
*^^ ' ''....-- 1 ' / -'W
r^v *^^K S \ • /.Vi
^_x * ^
.'••' „• -v
'<.,,
25 ""1
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Model Segments
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Souno
Invlrennwntal PncXeoton Agency
Ch««apeato Bay Progrwn
M
-------
Geologic Map of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
A u*n l*yw from th«
NCR! O*»«p«k« Data Library
CIS by ARC INFO
Sources
USGS 1:2r|OQ,000
Geology of the United States
from original by
8. King »nd M. Beikman, 1974
Digital conversion by:
P. Sdvuben
R. Amdt
W. Biwiel
Figure 3
50 25
27 4"
-------
Legend 43 unique rock units in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Stratified Sequence (Mainly Marine)
Continental
Deposit!
Eugemyncllnal
Deposits
Volcanic
Rocks
Pleteacme
ID TM
__ Miocene
Plutonic aid Intrusive Rocki
Metamorphlc
Rocks
Ti
Eocene
TR
Waste
P1
WoVcampfan
Pf3
Miisourlan
PP3
De*Molne«lan Serio
PP1
Awian and Mammon Stria
m
Upptf Devonian
D2
Middle Dmnnlui
Dl
Lower Devonian
S3
Upper
SI
Low* SllurianWmandfian)
O3
Upper Ordovldaii(ancinnatl«j
O2
Middle Odovtdin(MohawWan)
O1
Lower OnJovidan(ranaiHar)
UK
Upper CMaoeouf
IK
lower OMaoeout
a
PenniyKianlift
M
WluJulppian
D .
Devonian
DS
Devonian ind SIM*
S
Slluia
O
Oduvidan
TRI
Triasilc maflc
iMnitluef
UM
UkramaTk rodu
PZMI
Paleozoic male
Inlrmfvej
MM1
Mile
titd ichiit
MM4
DSC
Upper Devonian
P2C3
Mlitdh
amillle rodts
CQ
basal Lower Cambrian daMlc rodci
OE
Ordovklan
CE
CimbHa
P1G«
Lower Paleozoc
rad(§
CV
Cambrian volcanio
Z sedimentary roda
ZV
Z volcanic roda
IB ZC
Z granitic roda
¥A
Anorthorite
VCN
OKhagnete
ttrt 4Mpt r.
-------
Housing Units, Population and Means of Waste Disposal in the Chesapeake Watershed
The Chesapeake Watershed
b.
The housing unit
domain for this study is
the 1^26,633 housing
units (25% of all ff Us)
depending OH septic
sy$tems or other means
of waste disposal in the
Chesapeake Bay
wniemhetJ. (1990
Census)
Housing Unit's. A summary of housing units, population and means of waste
disposal in the watershed is shown in Table 3. There are 5,292,582* occupied
housing units in the watershed. The majority (72.5%) is urban. A significant
proportion is rural (26.4%) and only 0.6% are farm type housing. Sewer services
are divided among the 3,965,950 housing units as urban, (91.7%), rural (9%),
and farm type (0.4%) housing units. Septic serves 23.9% of the housing units
and 1.2% of the housing units use other means of waste disposal. Of the septic
systems supported, 15.3% are urban, 80.7% are rural and 4.8% are farm type
housing units. Of file 61,186 housing units using other means of waste disposal,
18.6 percent are urban, 76,3 percent are rural, and 5.1 percent are farm type
housing.
Many urban housing units (94.7%) are served by sewer systems as might be exported. Septic and other
means of disposal serve 5.0% and 0.3% of the urban housing units respectively. A significant number of
rural housing units (23.4%) are served by sewer. Of the rural housing units, 73.4% are served by septic
systems and 4.3 percent use other means of disposal. Farm housing units are almost entirely dependent on
septic with the exception of the 5.6% using other means and 1 .9% using sewer systems.
Together, the 1,326,633 housing units using septic or other means of waste disposal represent 25.07
percent of the total housing in the watershed. This number agrees almost exactly with the number of
housing units estimated by EPA to be depending upon septic systems some time ago.8
Population. There are 13,787,250 people in the Chesapeake watershed (Table 3B). Of these, 9,773,926
live in housing units designated by the Census as urban; 3,849,733 as rwal and 163,591 as farm type
housing. Of the urban population, 94.7% depend on sewer, 5,0% on septic and 5,3% on other means of
treatment Of the rural population, a significant proportion (21.4%) depend on sewer, 73.2% on septic and
3.3% on other means of disposal. Of the farm population, only 1.9% use sewage treatment, 92.1% depend
on septic and 5.7% use other means of disposal.
Persons per Housing Unit, The number of people per HU over the entire watershed averages 26 The
average number of people per HU using either septic systems or other non-sewered means of waste
disposal is 2.84, higher than that for sewer-served households. For septic systems it is 2.85. For those
dependent on other means, it is 2.79 (Table 3Q. Thus, the average number of individuals per non-sewered
systems is greater than the number of individuals per household within the basin.
State Summaries of Housing and Population by Housing Type and Means of Waste Disposal
Table 4 shows state level summaries for housing units by waste disposal means and average
population in urban, rural and farm housing unit types.
a. Housing. The highest number of housing units in the watershed is
found in Maryland and Virginia (1,740 and 1.730 million) or
32.7% and 32.8% of the total respectively, Table 4-AL
Pennsylvania has significantly fewer HUs (1.236 million or 23.4
The population domain of this sutdy is the
3,773,490people (27.3% af the fatal
population) using septic fields or other
means of waste disposal in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed
note: Data used in this study arc from the 1990 Census though they arc discussed in the present tense.
-------
% of the total). Both Maryland and Virginia, however, support a significant number of these HU's with
sewer. Thus, 33,3% of the housing units in the watershed depending on septic and other means of waste
disposal are in Pennsylvania (442,872 Housing Units compared with 386,633 houses in Virginia and
321,210 in Vlaryland). More than 90% of the housing in West Virginia and Delaware that are dependent
on septic and other means of waste disposal are rural. Both slates also have the highest percentages of HU's
as farm type housing. Interestingly, more than 20% of the housing dependent on septic fields and other
means of disposal in both Maryland and Virginia are urban.
Though all of the housing units in the District of Columbia are classified as urban, 1,702 housing units are
served by septic and a high proportion of these (1,198 units) are using non-sewered, non-septic-dependent
means of waste disposal
Population. Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania contribute the highest populations to the watershed
(4.62, 3.18 and 4.52 million, respectively, TaMe 4-B1). For populations dependent on septic and other
means of waste disposal, however, Pennsylvania with 1.26 million people leads Virginia with 1.08 million
and Maryland with 0.94 million each (Table 4-B2).
Persons per Housing Unit. The average number of persons per housing unit in
f!l*» iirat«»««*l«&«3 » "I £ /*y_t.f_ * s~*9\ **"!„ „ . « A -
the watershed in
Pennsylvania than in
Maryland or Virginia, but
the number of housing
units and the numbtr of
persons per housing unit
depending on septic or
other means ofwasie
disposal u greatest In
Pennsylvania.
the watershed is 2.6 (Table 4-O). The average number of persons per housing
unit using septic and other means of waste disposal is 2.8 (Table 4-C2).
Delaware and Maryland have the highest average number of persons per HU at
2.7 and interestingly, the District of Columbia has the highest number of
persons per housing unit depending on septic or other means of disposal (3.2
persons per housing unit). Maryland has the next highest ratio (2.9 persons/HU,
Table 4-R2), Farm Housing units have the highest number of persons per
housing unit averaging 3.0. Pennsylvania and New York exceed the average
with 3.4 persons/farm HU and 3.0 persons/farm HU using septic and other
means for waste disposal respectively.
Aggregation of Census Block Statistics to Other Geographies
Model Segment Summaries. Summaries of counts of housing units using sewer, septic and other
means of waste disposal together with housing types, population and average number of persons per
housing unit are provided for each Model Segment for the Bay in Table 5,
County summaries for the watershed for housing units, population, housing types, means of waste
disposal and numbers of persons per housing unit are found in Tables 3-9.
Physical Resources and the Potential for Nitrogen from Septic Fields and other Sources
to Affect Ground Water and Surface Water
So/7s Limitations for Septic Fields: Influence on Ground Water and Surface Water
a Soils Limitations for Septic Fields Modified to Describe Surface and Ground Water Potentials The
criteria for estimating effects of soils limitations in affecting septic suitability is described in the National
Sorls Handbook and were developed for this study as described in Methods. Table £> summarizes them
Eleven Junctions apply to soils in determining their suitability for septic field operation. One of these'
LSDA texture' with a restrictive feature as 'Permafrost' does not apply in this region. Cut-offs selected ar°
those which apply to severe limitations and these have been aligned under the column "surface water"
ettects unless the factor induced pound water effects. Limitations including high permeability fe) and
large stones (weighted average to 40 inches,/) in the profile will direct effluent downwards. Shallow depth
30
-------
to bedrock (c) where soils are associated with KARST are indicated in the Ground Water potential column.
Percent compositions of soils were dius the total of both surface and ground water effects.
Item No.
n/a
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
8.
h.
i.
j
Property
USOA Texture
Total Subsidence (Inches)
Flooding
Depth to Bedrock (inches)
Depth to Cemented Pan (inches)
Ponding
Depth to High Water Table (ft)
Permeability (24-60", WHr}
Slope (percent)
Permeability (24-40", WHr)
Weioht Percent Stones >3"
(Weighted average to 40")
Ground Water Surface Water
n/a Ice
»24
Frequent, Occasional
«40 in association with <40
KARST
<40 Cemented Pan
Yes
<4.0
15.0
>e.o
>50
Restrictive Feature
Permafrost
Subsidence
Flooding
Depth to rock'
Ponding Occurs
Wetness
•Pweolates slowly (tow Permeability)
Slope
Poor filter (High Permeability)
Stoney
' PwxiucM » suttx* w«1* «lf«et ««pt In eomWralion *Hh KARST Mpayiphgr, wfiidi pioduci»agrai*i4*Mr*fM.(Swfijfv'*2).
Table D
Soils Limitations For Septic Fields Modified to Describe Surface and Ground Water Potentials
b. Soilx Limitations by STATSCO Map Unit Summarized by State. A table of these effects for each limitation
by percent composition and acreage for each of the 265 Map Units in the watershed for each state is
shown in Table 1). KARST and Critical Area flap (soils found within the 1,000 ft buffer area along the
coastal zone shoreline) for each soil are also shown.
Many data are aggregated to the state level in this study. A summary of the above table showing the soils
with percent minimum and maximum ranges for ground water and surface water potentials for each state is
shown in Table 5. The predominant influence of soils by total pumposition is toward ground water by the
simple approach used here. The soil with Ac maximum surface water effect is urban land in Pennsylvania
(PA039) with 36.4 % surface water and 63.6% ground water effect by composition. The soil with the
highest ground water effect is a KARST-flaggcd Carbo-Chilhowic-Frcdcrick Soil (88.3% ground water
and 11.7 % surface water effect b Virginia and West Virginia). Two of the soils with maximum surface
water effect are in Maryland in the critical area and in the coastal buffer area in Delaware.
Mapping Soils Limitations in the Chesapeake Watershed Each of
the limitations was mapped in order to describe its geographic
location and its extent by STATSGO polygon. The influence of
soils limitations to produce a surface water potential is shown in
Figure 4 (a-j). Green lines are EPA's model segment boundaries.
Blue denotes a ground water- and light pink, a relative surface
water potential. Panels a~h describe the geographic distribution of
these effects. Panels i and j describe two factors (High
Permeability and Large Fragments present in >50% composition)
which induce a ground water effect. The range between ground
water and surface water potentials indicated in the key examines
the relative effect of limitations upon ground water effects only.
The scale of the key is kept constant for comparison between panels.
STATSGO is a stale level soils data
layer. It is in tended far regional and
state level anafyiei. STATSGO
encompasses tip to 21 different soils
which can be located anywhere within
the STATSGO soils polygon. In
practice, septic fields are shed within
soils that are suitable for septic
operation using on-stte soils analyses.
STATSGO, therefore, is used in this
study only as a generalized spatial
indicator of overall SOILS,luilabiliiy
for septic potentials.
31
-------
So,^ Components Related to Surface Water Potentials. Of the panels (a-h\ Subsidence Cemented Pan
and Ponding are aU present by percent weighted composition less than 20%. Ttos no effect is registered at
ttie scale chosen here. Small areas of soils with flooding limitations are visible along the Susquehanna
Rrver basin and its tributaries and in the eastern foothills of the Blue Ridge in Virginia A greater net effect
but with limited geographic extent is visible in the Delmarva and along the eastern shore tributaries to the
coa^l zone m V^ma Depth to bedrock (panel c) is more prevalent than flooding - having its greatest
effect along the Blue Ridge and the Appalachians and in broadest geographic extent in norftem
Pennsylvania. Wemess (Seasonal High Water Table, panel/} is the next more prevalent limitation being
rather extensive in the upper watershed in northeastern/cental Pennsylvania and New York State and the
eastern Shore of Virginia and the Delmarva
Low permeability (panel g) seems to be the most geographically extensive limitation in the watershed It is
observed nearly everywhere though most extensively in New York State, the Patuxent and the Delmarva
Soils Components Related to Enhanced Ground Water Potentials. High permeability (panel i) has little
effect over most of the watershed except in a small portion of far western Maryland. Its small
representation suggests a small net average suffice water potential with respect to this particular limitation.
Large rock fragments (panel j) are very uniformly present in soil composition in the watershed This
dement is related to enhanced ground water potentials and thus provides no differentiation between surface
water and ground water potentials in these maps.
d. Association ofKARST Topography with Soils Having a Shallow Depth to Bedrock KARST topography is
associated with approximately 9,15 million acres or approximately 25% of the Chesapeake^SShfed
STosethW t £?°1°f **** S°? ^ 3 ShaU°W ^ !° ^^ ^^ ° ffld 59 W«)
and those where the bedrock is greater than 59 inches from the surface. Soils with th«« —~»*~~ ~-
flagged as KARST in Tables 1 and 9.
Composite Effect of Soils Limitations on Ground Water Potentials in the Chesapeake Bey Watershed,
figure 3 displays the ratio of composite surface water to ground water effects for the soil units i
T y, T^4 Sh2deS °f blUC "^ VSy 1We reMve ^^ wato «ff«t for ths
group_ Shades of pink .indicate relatively higher surface water effects. Orange indicates a median effect (35-
45 ^by conposmoo) between the t^ surfke water and ground wattr. The maximum effect of soils
hmrtanons promotag a surface water potential is 62% by composition. TOese soils, found primarily in
north central Pennsylvania, represent just 10,000 acres in the watershed
The histogram may be used to examine the distribution of the data around the arithmetic mean (zero on the
z-score scale), or the distribution of soils' acreages as proportioned to surface water or ground water
potent along the x-y axes of the Wstogram. It demonstrates the overall trends by means of the same
co or ramp as the chloropleth map. An increase on the y-axis above the x-axis indicati an increase in a^s
assigned to surface water potentials, and a decrease along the y-axis below the x-axis indicates an increase
3"5 t0 gn}imd W3ter POteltialS" F°Siti0nS 8lon8 fte X"3xis describe re!ative anftce water
. the ' "swgram x-ax,s. As such, zero on the z-score axis marks the mean
* * ""} mdlCate *e nUmb£r °f Stendard devjations from *« ^ean- Two standard
deviations above and below the mean will contain 95% of the data
•These data exhibit the -skewedness" toward ground water effects as shown in the larger proportion of acres
* °f *" mean to *e 8round water end of *»
32
-------
Figure 4.a
Subsidence >24 Inches
Surface VVjtec
LJ20 Percwn or
H 21 to 40
H 41 ID 60
80 Percent
Mai » 100 Penanl
Ooaad tVats AqpacX
figure 4. b
Ftooding Frequently or Occasionally
n
/igure 4.c
Depth to Bedrock <40 Inches
Figure 4.d
Depth to Cemented Pan <40 Inches
33
-------
Figure 4.e
Ponding Ocoin
Figure 4.
Wetneii (Depth t» High Water T
Warn Impxf
20 PMoanl or
2! to 40
41 to 60 Percwit
si «> 80 Poraent
at » 100 Pwcmt
Ground Water ftqpact
Figure 4.h
Steep Stope >15%
low Pwmeability (Permeability <0.6
34
-------
Figure 4.i
High Permeability (Permeability >«JMp*w per Hour)
S»*»ce Waf
LJ20 ftxoant or
LSJ2I lo 40
• 4t » 6O
ED SI to 80 Percent
• 81 to 100 Percent
Ground Wile/ impact
„••/
i Vfr-l--;.. '. I' -f/^ -f
-W UfT^TO^rft'.
&WM^
/Is f j i Ji,^, ..' s~ '• •••. 'v X-s 5 •I'f..) --ft !••
&K...I (' ,,"*/*' ... .f''.fS! ! ! .£.>• 1 I \ }
Figure 4.j
Stoney (Rode Fragraents S3 Indies
35
-------
FigureS
Association of KARST Topography and Soils with a Shallow Depth to Bedroc
An Analy»ii from
Onapoike B«y Ovarian Support ;
to tuppon (tit \
O«s3po»ke Bay Reiteration Act of 1993 -;
CIS by ARC INFO
SOUICB
The toil information UMd for thi« nwp
WM NRCS 1994 STATSGO dua.
STATSCO WM emnpiM It UJO.OOU md
otttt^nvd to DftiHHO"pnBttniy rar
Ktgwnal, rnuWrtJlB, SIM* and
riw buin nMXirot
Depth to Bedrock
in Karst Areas
> 59 -
54 -> 59
40 -> 54
34 -> 40
0 -> 34
36
-------
Figure 6. Composite Effect of Soils Limitations on Water Resource Potentiate
In the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
An ^AfKMywB from iho
atMapBfta Bay
r
Tno §oip InIcEMMlix) UMNifOf thto nttp
1984 STATSGO (tat*.
ST^TSGO WM cxxnplwl « 1 2SO.OOO Md
UMOpi
ifwragwmni and monitoring.
percent of Soils
With Surface
Water Potential
37
-------
Several physiographic provinces with relative potentials for surface water potentials, though never
dominant in these STATSGO soUs, are apparent in this map. They are a large region in the upper watershed
in New York excepting immediate stream drainage ways, in northeastern Pennsylvania, all of a similar
•arge region in the upper Potomac River basin, along (he ridge'ines of die Blue Ridge mountains and in the
Appalachians. The most predominant regions of ground water potential are found in the eastern foothills of
the Blue Ridge and in a large triangular area in the south central part of the watershed. Other smaller areas
are found in the northwestern Delmarva
Nitrogen Loadings from Census Block Groups, Surface Water and Ground Water
Potentials Directly to the Coastal Zone
Nitrogen Loadings by Census Block Group to the Watershed
a. Source Loadings by Block Group. The CBP's Request for Proposal asked only for pounds of nitrogen
toaded to surface water, ground water and the coastal zone.* Nitrogen loadings were calculated for each
Housing Unit and distributed to soils polygons (and composite surface and ground water potentials) within
each block group through intersections of the block group polygons with STATSGO polygons as described
in Methods.
Nitrogen loadings estimated at the individual block group level were divided into six classes ranging fiom
the lowest (0-22 Ibs/BG) through a maximum of 32,461 Ibs of nitrogen per block group. A total of 4 674
Block Groups (BGs) contained no houses or contained only housing units served by sewer systems.
Figure 7 shows the nitrogen loading by Block Group in the Chesapeake
watershed. A mean total of 33.47 million pounds (see Calculating
Nitrogen Loadings, Methods) of nitrogen are estimatedt by these methods
to be loaded to the watershed per year. The highest annual mean number
of pounds of nitrogen produced by a block group was 32,461 pounds.
The lowest was 0.015 pounds. Six classes of loading rates were
developed for this display, A total of 6J9 million acres received loading
m the highest class ranging between 6,835 pounds and 32,461 pounds.
Most of this was in the lower Susquehanna and the area surrounding
Baltimore. Extensive areas are also visible in New York State and in
North Central Pennsylvania Significant loadings are observed in the
Patmcnt, in the Delmarva and the eastern shore regions of Virginia.
White areas visible within cities (Washington DC, Baltimore, ,MD and
Richmond, VA, for instance) denote areas where sewer service is the primary source of waste treatment
An external 'nng' of septic density surrounding the City of Richmond is visible in this figure.
A. Source Loading, Partitioned to Crowd Water, Soils in the watershed as a whole display a predominantly
ground water potential for septic use (Hgure 6). Hgure 7b shows (he portion of the nitrogen load that is
partitioned from Census Block Groups to ground water according to soils potentials described above For
comparison, the ax loading class breaks shown in Figure 7a were maintained in this figure to illustrate
Each Census Block Group
accounts for 250 HUs. The
effect of showing this in maps is
to 'over-display' the spatial
extent of larger Mock groups in
rural areas and 'under-display'
the spatial extent of block
groups in urban areas. Care is
thus needed in visually
allocating population, housing
and nitrogen loadings by Black
Group in these assessments.
The smallest Block Croup is
0,19 acres and the largest is
167,476 acres.
- LMdinB ratcs pcr Wock SfOUPaero arc also Prcvidcd in this
rate, all numbers for population and mtrogcn loadings are estimate and have specific levels of accuracy and/or ranges ofdala
from which they are denvcd (sec data precision in Tables, and estimates of loading ratcs for nitrogen in Methods and in Table 7
ior ins ance). Vanation in nitrogen loadings expressed as minimum, mean and maximum also reflect statistical variation in
population estimates (see Methods).
38
-------
partitioning of loading classes (Figure 7h) to ground water or surface water. The influence of surface water
effects observed in soils (Figure 4) is apparent in this figure in that loadings in New York (Figure 7a)
appear partitioned toward ground water in Figure 7b. This is also apparent in the Delmarva and in the
Central Susquehanna River basin.
c. Source leadings Partitioned to Surface Water. Figure 7c shows the corollary surface water potential of
soils upon Nitrogen loadings. Note the loading distribution is significantly shifted to lower numbers overall
and that amounts potentially diverted to surface water in New York State are apparent in this map.
d. Source Loadings Directly to the Coastal Zone from within the 1,000 ft Shoreline Buffer Strip.
Development and regulations of shoreline of the Bay has been a contentious issue. Nitrogen loadings
b the block groups at least partially overlaying water bodies together with those wholly or partly
contained in the 1,000 foot Critical Area in Maryland and the 1,000 ft shoreline buffer area were
considered for the purposes of this study to be loading nitrogen from septic fields directly to the
coastal zone. Figure 5a shows those loadings by Census block group within this shoreline strip (a).
Figure 5b shows those block groups which at least partially overlaj' the 1,000 foot buffer area along
the shoreline.
Nitrogen Loading Summaries
a. The Chesapeake Watershed. TtMe E summarizes total nitrogen loading
and its partitioning to surface water, ground water loading to the coastal
zone by housing unit type.
The total mean annual nitrogen loading to die watershed from septic and
other means of waste disposal is estimated to be 33.42 million pounds at
the edge of the drainfield. Of this amount, 23.75 million pounds (71%)
are estimated to be partitioned to ground water and 8.754 million pounds 26.2% are estimated to be
partitioned to surface water. Nine hundred sixty-six thousand pounds (2.9%) are estimated to be loaded
directly to the coastal zone.
Of the nearly 1.0 million pounds
of nitrogen loaded directly to the
coastal zone. More than one-
third (35.6%) in estimated to he
from urban housing units using
septic fields or other means of
waste disposal
32
Rural housing units are responsible for 80.J percent of the total load to the watershed; urban housing units
for 15.6% and farm housing units, 4.2% (Percent of grand total, Table E). The partitioning of nitrogen to
surface and ground water is not affected differentially by housing unit type from proportions of nitrogen
loaded by each housing type.
* note: Care needs lo be applied in that actual development aliocaicd to these block groups arc distributed evenly upon land areas
within these BGs. Nitrogen loadings arc thus averages of the block group and do not represent actual housing unit locations-
-------
Figure 7.a Nitrogen Loadings (Ibs) from Non-Sewered Septic and otter Syttwm
by Block Groups to th« Choeapeake Bay Watershed
Chmapnato a«yn»«>,, JUJM Aa ef 1983
«M NRC81984 STAT9GO data.
Pounds
6,609-32,388
40
-------
• figure /.D
Nhrugen Loadings «««* 1
at U i»3 I
wro ?«
Tfc. i««
ww NIKS 1»M"i5TA15CX> «Vi
STATWO •« ampiM M | jso,ooo
tain
and
' ••MMMfflK,
22 §31 2*02 4«75 (US 32461
Ua of Hten|M pw
41
-------
Nitrogen Loadings^bs) Partitioned to Surface Water
An Aulyiu finm g^
.Bay
OS byARCINR3
The Mri lnfomuiaB UMTfer M m»
NRCS 1»« JTATSGO
STATSCO w«o oompiM « IOS
-------
Figure 8.a W^«i Uad!nfl Ratet (!bt) ptr C.TOU, Block Group
within a 1000 ft Buffer Zone along the Chesapeake Shoreline
to support to
Outnii^ai air BMHralou Ad
NCR
Pounds
32,388
6,609
4,368
2,971
1,842
812
43
-------
Figure 8.b Census Stock Group B
Along the Xhesapeak1\Shordine
MCXl
»«y OwMion Support System
*> mpp«n«h»
Rmorabon Ad of 1W3
-------
Waste
Disposal
TH»
Total.
Urban Septic
Other
Total
Rural Septic
Other
Total
Fann Septic
Grand Total
TOTAL %o
Gram)
Total
5232 15.6
4J02 14.S
OJ30 1.0
26*19 80.1
25.718 7S.8
1-101 3.3
1.421 4.2
1.340 4.0
0.081 . 02
33.472 100.0
Ground %«
Water Grand
Tota
S.808 1S.2
3-374 14.2
^0.234 1.0]
19-118 80.5
18.333 77.2
0.78S 3.3
1.028 4.3
0.970 4.1
0.058 02
23.754 10041
Suffice %ol
Water ftrand
Tota
1.280 14.S
1.197 13.7
0.083 O.S
7.098 81.1
6.806 77.7
0.2S2 3.3
0.376 4.3
0.354 4.0
0.022 0.3
8.754 100.0
Coastol %of
Za»» Grand
Total
0.344 35A
0.331 34.3
0.013 1.3
0.603 624
0.579 59.9
0.024 2.5
OJ)19 2.0
0.017 1.8
0.002 02
0.966 1000
Table E
Stales by Total Nitrogen Loadings. While
Maryland and Vtrgink have more housing units in the
watershed, more of these housing units are sewered
(Table 4). More of Pennsylvania's housing units
depend on septic and other means of waste disposal
and they also have higher numbers of persons per
housing ifit of this iype, however. This accounts for
primacy for PenBsjdvmia in nitrogen foadinp among
AeBaystates.
su*
mean
ruautsylraaia mala Ughealn nitrogen foaeBltgs to
Ae watershed (I LWmlttion pounds per year or
33.4% of the total haded), Virginia fallows with
9.557 imlUon pounds (28.6% of ike total) and
Maryland ranks AM with S. 346 million pounds or
24.9% of tie total loaded ... . . :
Eightypercent of the total nitrogen loaded to the
wat»rxhcJ ft from rural monfarm housing tiMa. -
Thirty-four + percent o/Ae direct loafing to the
coastal yme shoreline is estimated to be from urban
Housing icnte using septic fields.
Other Means of Disposal. Rural populations load a total of 26.82
ihm^r K . v • ^fS !*"reaa> U° milUon powds VabteUCand 11F). Pennsylvania leads in to?
foener, but Vngnua leads . the latter category mth 9.506 mfflion pounds (37.9% of fte total loaded by
housing units wrth other means of disposal) and 0.424 million pounds (385% -'
those housing units), reqjectiv^y.
45
-------
Urban Populations and Direct Loadings to the Coastal Zotm
UAan populations are associated with 5.232 million po,^ of
nitrogen loaded to the wateshed (15.6% of the total, TaUtm Of
to a stgrificant amount (344,000 pounds) is baded direct to
°WS ** iMaiy!and Jeads *«^
of Ac direct foadi^ to the coaslal
:WP*n*^*,fi9fi*JZtaZ
s***tn MrtHUr^b^-g^^
•HKUershctL ManiamJ l~.JL ..i , • :> :i:
ante (586.S42pounds or 6l%t and
>%w«&f/blfowiwflfc.JS%; • : :-v
Marylemdkads allstatosjn ttr^af, rural
and/arm populations loading atreeth t»
tmj* r>mi4?tftf a>v*^_i '..'•• • *
s «smg otter means of
County summaries of HU ^pes by sate are found 'm
Loadinss' Partiaonlns to
Nitrogen Loaded
were used
2^
area
the Yoric River m Vi^inia (2.57 fe per acre, area 3,510
-------
"
bousing y - * wM
of
per acne pa model segment The highest
S*** **" * ™^
J0*? *° (0-68-07 p0
River Bam Tfe Wghest rate ofloading to surface water (068-1 37
**
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Four new technical approaches have been used in this study:
A method for
*"» D0t avaflable « *« Ccnsus "«* level.
avaae « « cnsus « level. TCs was
' "**.**, we« *We.»? a«°«n* fw din^« populations by housing unittype. In addition,
Maryland and Vaguua have approximately 1.7 million housing units k the^tershcd, bo&
Pro^f^ to more of their naral housing than does Pennsylvania Gcnera], .
yA. to rund and to fa™ type,, te number of persons per housing ifr
"
unit ^8 ^^ V««« tta do
2^^? .Basel0n ^"^ LoadinS estimate5. d t0 STATS<30 to dcvd°P Seneral ^i'5 P°ten^ toiflumce
effects on airface water retetive to ground water was applied. KARST topography
1
T1^ "^ °r 23 ^^ °f ^ w-Bntod md *« ^^ «ivHe
«»^m wiA respect to ground water potentials for contamination from many uses. By integrating
KARST and geologic date w,th STATSGO layers, we were also able to geographically LoSand
.
,
I' 1 aMed Z*"*™1*** ground «»««• Potential This method should also apply to
for other nitrogen sources including livestock and fertilizer use which NCR! Chesapeake has
afcc 'documented in cooperation with agencies at USDA. In the latter case, however, the entire soil
proiiie would be used.
Physiographic Regions by Relative Surface and Ground Water Potentials in the
While by this generalized method, soils in this region still predominantly affect ground
* This is not to be uwtastood, however, as advocacy of increased sewering policy in rod
47
-------
Nitrogen Loadings Partitioned to Ground Water: Average per Model
An Amt^flm worn ifn ~~
dwn|Mafca Bar QoeHan S^pon SyMon .
to rapport *w \
*«i^»^^^^^w Mf ii^B^P^woii ACS ^fH i993 s
OS by A«C WPO H
The toil Mormrtfon «««d for Mt imp
w» NRCS 1»4 STATSOO for
nwWctata. Stan and
rirw b«in
HKI
22.55
«U» 0.14 MS O.W IJ? MZ
oT Ni«R)g«n par Mcxfa^ per Ao, froo, CW
-------
Figure 9.b
Partitioned to Surface Water; Average per Model
' <*•»•*• hr •*****, VWWIM,
Tl» «* Mmnfcm urn) ibr M map
•w N«3 IM4 STAKOO (fas.
CTABCO «• oinpiM « I J500 ml
fur .
-------
Transported Nitrogen (tbs/ac) per Model Segment
M Analyw from tfw
OmapeaU by RotaMion Act
Swims
Th, «<1
NRCS TS*«"STATSCO (fate.
STA75GO Mm ompM M tiZSC^MO and
p«^ to Uvgwd-prim^Ty foe '
Mfional, muMsMe. S4al.
50
-------
wafer, several piysiographically distinctive regions were delineated in which soils limitations mav
induce surface water effects on septic effluent These areas can also be described according to those
limitations which may induce certain kinds of physiographic potentials such as surface water impacts
?A^ seasonally high water tables, ponding and flooding. Certain other limitations suchas
KAK5T topography associated with a shallow depth to bedrock, high soils permeab2ify and soils
contaraing large stones where there is a potential for enhancing ground water effects. Of bourse these
data are described em a regional basis and septic field siting a done on an on-site basis. Further, this
study does not say that surface or ground water resources are being affected, rather, that there is a
potential, m general- absent transport and other processing - that would otherwise reduce levels of
soluble nitrogen available for these effects.
4. LMdng social and economic characteristics of human communities to physical resources. Techniques
used here include modeling households, populations and estimating nutrient loads linked to physical
resources on a small area basis. The aggregation of block group/STATSGO intersections to various
geographic units including county, model segment, state and entire watershed levels illustrates an
hierarchical GIS approach to spatially account for associated resource effects of human populations in
me environment
Recommendations
Principal findings of this study are outlined in the Executive Summary. The system described here
has me potential for broad applications addressing relationships between human communities and their
piysiGal environments, to addition, we collected a significant number of published and unpublished
technical reports, models and related mfoimation in me literature Review, which should be useful in
designing next steps. The following recommendations reflect this:
Recommendation 1: Integrating Source Loadings with Water Resounds - Identifying Potential
Duectty Impaired Resources
(a) Identification of Surface Water Bodies with Ihe Potential to be Directly Affected by Source Nutrient
readings. Extensive studies related to septic fields have been developed for the Delmarva area and
other parts of the watershed." Models have been developed to account for the proximal relationship
between septic fields and surface water bodies, that result in hydraulic mounding and impairment of
nitrogen processing.30 In addition to the direct association of septic loadings with the 1,000 foot
shoreline buffer area described here, a better-defined spatial association of septic fields through
appropriate land use imagery integrated with surface water hydrography would be useful.
Incorporating a transport model for edge-of-septic fields to edge of open water at higher levels of
geographic precision and utilizing models to predict mounding potentials in high septic density areas
would also be very valuable. These steps might assist in (1) accounting for source loadings with a
potential for direct impairment of specific kinds of water resources and (2) identifying those surface
water bodies. This should be helpful in (1) implementing and prioritizing tributary strategies and (2)
tracking results in a coordinated way for the watershed.
(b) Modeling and Transport. Many studies reviewed in this wo* seem potentially applicable to modeling
off-site impacts of septic effluent Among these is the Cornell model "GWLF" n (Generalized Ground
Water Loading Factor) which could be applied to transport effluent to surface water bodies on a
regional basis. The soils potentials developed here would be useful in such a model. Other transport
models can be applied to surface and ground water transport of livestock nutrient could be
implemented. Chemical modification/denitrification, etc. based on storage, disposal management and
chemical processing of both sources need to be accounted for. Precipitation, topography, land cover,
-------
water holding capacity and condition of soUs and other regimes affectins senrir ««*«~
effluent transport could be ineoiporated. ^^ ^^^ ^**C Perforo™ee and
Gwiift/
*• °f *• tad
52
-------
Remote sensing data together with TIGER (roads, rivers, transportation corridors, etc)
hic data and other information can be used to assess land conversion in tfae past a^ bnild r
for urbanization and growth modeling hi Hie future and this could be used to document resource losses and
pollution potentials due to resource conversion, ««^OTQ.
Recommendation 4: Social and Economic Characteristics of Technology Consumers in the
Watershed - Fashioning Better Conservation Services
i, * ^ °ffle pDot Studies bdHS dwdoped ^ NCRI for Pennsylvania in another cooperative project
seeks to identify conservation practice "adopter" and..the "non-^dopter" among the farm community.13
Farming types and social, economic and demographic factors of potential conservation technology
COTSumers - and thus a better means for marketing conservation technologies - are being buOt by NCRI-
Chesapeake m Pennsylvania using target marketing techniques developed in the private sector. "Marker"
factors - to be used in models - are being developed for use in characterizing socio-economic features of
human settlemente in the study area,.
If this study were expanded from the eleven county study area in southern Pennsylvania to the
entire Chesapeake watershed, an estimation of the efficacy of this technique would be possible for larger
areas and more diverse natural and cultural systems. Results would allow better understanding of the
technology consumer. This could lead to better coordination, design and packaging of conservation
technical assistance on state and regional levels.
References
'*' n ,(l!86)- SCOTCCS Of Nitntte to Groond Wlter- CRC Critfcal K^**5*5 « Environmental Control 1 6357-304
&*li0 Ta"kS' *** Sk
-------
SOIL PROPERTIES AFFECTING SEPTIC SUITABILITY
KAWT CRITICAL
fLjkC1 ARIA1
•OIL nmcerrcoMronTiotf-wiKtiiTiDiJMiU'noN*
ffi'ociATtg* twroT Annocp nocKPtf fwpir moBiT wmr nan mem I-MMUM rtmii4««
UMITATION*
DSWI
DSMI
DEM)
f?E095
DEW!
DM04
DEMJ
DSMI
DEMI
DOM
DEOU
D»ll
DSaiJ
DWIJ
DfiOK
DWIJ
MDM1
MHtl
MBWJ
MW«
MOW
MEM4
MEM*
MCM1
MEMS
MEM!
MEOM
MCMt
MECtT
MWtJ
MEMT
MEMt
MEM!
MEW
MEMI
MCMt
MEM»
MWII
MM!*
MMII
MMII
MMII
MMII
MMII
MBtU
MMH
H
H
Y
Y
N
N
N
M
H
M
H
H
Y
Y
H
N
N
N
Y
H
H
Y
Y
H
H
N
M
N
Y
K
N
H
Y
_HL
H
Y
H
N
K
Y
M
N
N
N
V
N
N
N
Y
H
K
N
filLAWARCAVtRACt
Of LA WAR! TOTAL
N
Y
N
Y
H
Y
N
X
Y
N
Y
N
Y
M
V
N
Y
H
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
H
V
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
M
M
N
IVH»0*O«I)MI4>VlUS.rMlJMmON
!VI»OIUMCBMMIVlU*FAUIItiOTOM
racoMOKfttawmwMtvinoRo
lAisAntAf-MMreno-rAtunnTON
MATAMAKUntB10*lUllAniAS
VOOMTOWH4
*AmAS4MUJfMOfON
lAUATRAJOOWIH.WOOOrtOVM
F*U4MMAlMntAf
BfLTlVIUJS-CltOOM-lAl>Anul
KLTIVTtUXHOOM-fAllArHAI
KI.TtyiUB«HOOM4JK)HAIIDTDWN
IO.TtYBi»OtOO*HIOHAHDTOWN
OnMX(WBJ«TOH-MATTArBC
OnKlXMUCrOMMATTAKX
»trmtAUA-M/j«.»AjfAniAi
aMUCTON
•m
I.M Ml
Mi Ml
1.11 Mt
1*4 Ml
Mf Ml
14) Mt
Ml ».!»
M» M9
US
Ml Ml
IM Mt
Ml Ml
AM MS
t,M «.M
tM tM
1.M «.!»
I1M
IUI
Ml
»»
l.«
I.M
JJ»
Mi
TJI
H.W
11.74
1».I7
ItD
tW
I.M
I.IJ
Mt
Mt
tM
tM
Ml
Mt
441
MS
Mt
«.IJ
M*
Ml
AM
!».!»
IJ.W
I.M
IM
LM
M*
I.TJ
I.7J
UJ
tM
l.»
IJi
I.M
Ml*
Ml
(.»
JJ»
».«
«.«
in
IN
II]
III
tu
IM
l«i
IM
IM
IM
IM
U4
M4
«K
M
IM
MJ
JiJ
in
I.M
AM
•J»
lit
M»
»JI
M»
ijf
Mt
l.«
1.11
•.II
•kit
t
jj
jj
M*
Mt
nvotr
IfXMMM
fMMHBP
wmr
wn»
VIEW
KRMMM neow
wmr
Annooo
«*IOOO
AMFtOOD
WIMP rtMUMN
Ml
Ml
XII
Ml
HRM3IM
nKMMM
ROCXE0
•ocxco
tliOM
ILOff
tut
TUt
TUt
TUt
TIM
IMt
TfM
mw
MM
T7.TI
Till
74.43
MM
TMI
fMI
MM
44. M
W.M
mn
7I.M
7)JI
TM*
n.M
TUt
HM
TIM
7411
TUt
fMt
T4.«0
7J.M
7».«
7J-M
TJM
MM
lt.J»
J4J4
7J.44
tl.Tt
IMt
17.11
Jt.4»
MM
ZJ.J*
ttM
n.N
!».«
»M
1JJ7
UM
H<0
JM«
IMt
M.»
aut
lt.lt
Jl.l«
UJI
»M
• mn
KM
ttM
. KM
KM
MM
MM
iMt
KM
IMt
v.n
X.M
MM.
14. US
tu
nm.i
mi
M:
775. »M(
UK
11,4
SIMM.)
MI.4
HIM
MtMJ)
4M14.4
•J.U74
(.111.1
W.MI.JI
UM.M
IM.MMI
t.m/r
II.D5J
imi
IIXIM.K
M.4M3-
«LNt>
4.H7.U
W>,444»
I.44M
T.r»»j
t.uui
IM.MJ.M
i7».H
tn
Table 1
-------
SOIL PROPERTIES AFFECTING SEPTIC SUITABILITY
Ul
Ul
Table 1
-------
SOIL PROPERTIES AFFECTING SEPTIC SUITABILITY
KAMT CRITICAL
ru»c' ARIA*
**fPC'*TK»H
"Wtm-COMTOtmOK-WnCIHTtOUMtTATlOtf
tiOTQT Artriooo Rocicpir ruttm rmotr WTBIP iion mem tuwm
UMITA1MM>
MDW
MOW
MDtM
MDBt
kffiBI
MWJ1
MD«»
MD9M
MNM
MDtM
MD««
MWI7
MDM
MOW
MMM
WWW
MDMI
M9M1
MDMI
MDW1
MOW]
MDOiJ
Y
M
H
N
Y
N
H
H
Y
M
II
H
H
M
H
H
N
H
H
H
H
H
H
Y
mHraMOVMMMMIUMB
MM Mt
tMR) MM
mq MM
**"* **
MM
M.M
*•**
Ml
Ml
•IJ1
•1J?
UT tM
a;
Ml
Mi
MI
Ml
1.11
•,»
M,
t.to
S2 SS !2 12 5S
^
u»
g
t.»
Mt
u»
nnov
nsMOMt noo»
tM
riT
HT
«•
AHfUXO WTDO-
ROCKDV tUPI
MOOCM? mm
KOCKMT ILon
POOtM? MOM
ROCICDB?
nooaxr
KOMI
now
KOCKtW SLOTt
KOCKDV
man
«»M MM 4J1
««, MM MM *«
MARYLAND AVtKAOt
MARYLAND IUM
»
ifcfl J.M l.»
AW1OCO
Annex*
TIM
MM
W.l«
MM
M.M
KM
TIM
•».!«
MM
«*-M
TU*
«».!•
«,!•
TIM
MM
MM
II.N
«JO
*TM
MM
MM
n.n
OM
ttM
AM
JIM
H.M
ITM
IT.lt
MM
4*M
JIM
n.t
MM
MM
MM
1IM
SMI
MM
H.M
nu
MM
MM
tut
Kl»
MM
JIM
M.NIM
'my
fJttl
I.1M1I
3.»in
I.4JJ.O
4».«n.»
ISOT-II
4JM.4J
4JIX
M.M
wYtfll
mm
MYIU
MYtli
mm
KYOt
KTOJ1
HYMI
HYWt
NYMI
HlfWt
HYMI
HYM
MYWf
HYMI
HWil
KYMJ
NYM1
KWfl
HY9W
NYtM
HYWI
HYWl
HYM>I
fflW
H
N
Y
N
H
N
H
M
H
N
H
N
H
H
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
H
H
N
Y
M
Y
N
H
M
N
N
H
N
H
N
H
N
N
N
H
H
N
H
N
N
N
N
N
K
N
H
H
N
H
H
H
iTOCK8RIDOI*OiORO}A'FAiUtO!IQTQH
VLYUWBMiClMnUOWIMOC
UKAMlUMWKMUAnD
ttBHOOK-CAmLB-MJCCPUBtmY
mMUM9l.WAYyWD.1BL
'w«YKA./u.To»nio*AJU)
>ALHYI(MIO«AMMl«roin-
MUYItMWVAmMMQ'OKT
MONS MM MM 3S
SSM MM
Table 1
-------
SOIL PROPERTI1-S AFFECTING SEPTIC SUITABILITY
KAHT CRITICAL
FLAG' MIA*
«°IL
AltOeiATIOH
metneOMHamOH-mtamafUIAmnaUt
tWTET AKFLoop ttocmtf roam rimotr wrotr nan mem n*Mna mum
wem
HVIH
HYIti
HYIli
HYIM
KYIU
NYI1T
HYIJJ
KYIM
KYIM
KY1J1
KVtll
MY 1)1
HYIM
HYH1
HYIH
KYIM
NYIM
NYIJI
KYIll
KYHI
KYlil
KYtM
NYHI
KYl«
HYIH
NYHI
KYI!»
HYI»
NYI71
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
K
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
K
Y
N
Y
N
y
N
N
Y
N
Y
H
KIWYOHKIUM
PAJI1
PAIN
Mill
PAOII
PAIII
PM1I
FAtlJ
FASH
PA«M
PAM4
PAMS
MMS
PAB34
PA8J7
fAMf
PA01I
P/WJf
PA«1
PAJJ)
N
N
K
N
H
H
H
N
N
H
H
H
N
H
H
N
H
H
N
N
N
H
N
M
N
N
N
N
H
M
N
TOHKtWWOOMAMOUR-lAJWR
TICX3A^nDDUBtJRY
nomctr
AWLOOO
AMT.OOO
PIMMHM
M9IMMW
PCXMMM
PEXMUU
NMO4M
KUOIM
rBXMMM
KKMMM
MIMMN
WIDIF
W1DH>
WltW
W»»
HKMMM
WTOB*
rauoiM
PNDB9
PNDOD
POtMMM
KRMMM
rBUdHM
PNDOer
PNOPO-
7T.TI
n,M
tl,M
«,)!
«M
«.»•
«».»
MM
tIM
MM
(1.71
7MI
1M
7<.N
7».'l
WM
•».»
n.ti
«.M
ll»
n,N
UN
W.II
n.M
4S.H
(111
UJ»
IIJI
uw
JI.1
Mil
UN
M.M
MJI
M.n
J!»
MM
11,11
U.H
41.M
H.II
J4.ll
M.N
J4.»
».«
7,-au
44ilJMt
M1.II1M
ODOMH»ff|.iM«rOH4KXJ.Y
IJK3CltlLW«e«.VIU»C«.VIH
WAffOW>OCHAHAH.LBC|tKIU.
«INUrTCKaiT«nMn«M
NONE
HOW
HONI
HON.
HOMI
HOMS
NONI
mm
HQM
NONE
HONI
4141
44.K
*«•
J4J*
41M
JIJI
JU»
I..JJ
M.M
41)
11,11
IM!
NOME
HOKS
J.M Ulj »H
in ,„ „„
1M UN "«
J«
,"2
,„
,'."
WIOEP
VTDfr
8LOPI
1 VTDE>
*TDEP
tiora
iton
V
WTCT?
WTD£T
PEKMVM
MKMKW
NXM»K
PEHMM«
FRM2IM
M.OPE
ILOU
*TDEP
vner
wmer
PER»tM«
POU4HM
1441
7I.M
1S.M
W.ll
7I.M
4>.M
MM
M.«»
7I.M
n.»
fl.»
71.11
ftH
!).»
JM»
».»
uji
JI.OI
W.W
H.»t
a.7(
M.M
II J4
94,11
W.M
T7lt
TJM
M4,*
13,IN.TI
I.JM.II
3.011)1
«.mis
1.3'3-M
U1U1
i.xi.a
l,ltf.J4
ittH»M
JUM1M
«,»o.fr
IH'«H
9M.KI.M
M.50S1
4I.MI.II
i.ut.row
Uli.07I.CO
m,4l'.M
Itt.tH.U
H.Hl.ll
M.IUU
X.HJM
UTt.MlW
Table 1
-------
SOIL PROPERTIES AFFECTING SEPTIC SUITABILITY
KAMT CRITICAL
PLAC' ARtA'
ABOCUTIOK
PlftCINT COMPMtTtON-WIICHTtD LIMITATION*
t*«TOT AHFUXM KOCKPtf PAHPtP PNODtP WTBtP JU»PI IHCIII PtBMt4tt P1HM144I
UMITATKJK1
g«WW|.
PAIM
PAIM
PAW
PAMS
PAIM
PAtM
PAD?
PAIM
PAIM
PAMI
PAH)
PMM
PAIM
PAW
PAW
PAtll
PAW
PAIM
PAtM
PAt»
PAB»
PAM*
PAIM
PAMI
PAMI
PAMI
PAK1
PAH)
PAMI
PAW
PAM
PAIM
PAIM
PAW
PAM
PAW
PAW)
PAIN
PAIM
PAIB
PAW)
PAID
PAWI
PAW!
PAOT
PABI
PAM
PAH!
PAttl
PAH!
PAOJ
PAIM
PAIM
PAIM
PA*7
"••1
Y
H
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
H
M
N
H
Y
N
H
H
Y
H
Y
»
Y
M
Y
M
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
H
Y
N
Y
N
V
H
Y
N
Y
»
Y
N
Y
W
Y
N
Y
H
Y
Y
N
N
Y
M
N
H
H
N
N
H
M
M
N
K
M
H
H
H
H
H
N
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
N
N
H
N
N
H
H
N
M
N
M
H
N
M
M
N
H
N
H
N
N
N
N
M
N
H
N
N
H
M
M
N
N
M
ucoKinNri.OBCAU.KA8.ETaN
WiTtOJUOWJ-ALVnlA
•MTOWMBJOM-WAflBMOTON
IKOUUTOWmiXIM-WAiKmCnoM
amDMUCHAMUMiOKinai
AmoT-oquAOAjryimoaiKgpTi
UMAMUM94X>amBM?S«YSmOCIItEPT
(mpn*.wiiARTomw««T
LKKMU«ALVm«tMnyilU
IM40NI
LA4INLO.ATKIHI
HMKMfOVMDGFFaUkCtAMtnUM
frnTMOWLAND-EDOM-OflKJUOM
«WJMOMI^I»H»I*0!«)U.M
S.M
IM
IM
in
in
Ml
1.11
1J4
IM
<.»7
4.JI
Hi
in
us
i.a
Ml
4.41
Mi
' Mi
4.«
4.JI
4.71
M4
iM
4.M
4.H
IM
Ul
4.J3
4J1
Ml
1.TJ
Mt
IN
Ml
17.11
IU>
Ml
134
4.»J
HJI
Ml
>M»
ii.n
SMI
AM
IMI
«.M
<«)
M.»J
IWJ
•a.u
U.«
Ml
Ml
It.O
U.K
I1.IJ
ll.t»
141
141
1.11
4.1?
4.W
IM
Ml
IMI
IMI
1411
I4.»l
lt.«
14.11
IM
AM
>.71
MM
J4.77
J4.77
IUI
IMI
U.M
7,44
M?
1.17
II.M
lUi
J.M
IMS
«.<7
All
IM
544
iM
4.TT
4.T?
14.41
MM
4.M
4.M
1.74
II*
IM
MS
I.4».
IM
Lit
t.»l
*.ll
SJ4
1.14
AM
AM
1157
IUT
4.71
4.71
M?
M»
Mf
liw
tl.II
ll.H
AM
Ml
-«J«-
m
131
IM
tM
ta
IJ3
Ml
iM
An
AM
AU
I.t4
IX
i.n
AM
AH
Alt
AU
ta
AM
AM
AM
AM
1,9
AM
ATS
AH
AH
A*
A«
AH
4.14
AH
AM
l.D
in
AU
All
AM
AM
Ad
AH
l.»
Ml
MI
I.O
I.It
AD
IX
I.H
tM
A44
AM
AM
AM
Ml
Ml
Ml
tM
«M
MI
Ml
AM
IM
AM
AM
AM
AM
AM
IM
AM
tM
AM
All
Ul
AM
AM
Ail
All
tM
AM
AIS
AU
AM
Ml
All
AM
AM
AM
All
l.«
Jffi_
PDtMWM
PEKMUM
KOCKMP
KOOUXP
liX)PI
nan
ROPt
wrap
WIMP
JUJP1
IS^Pf
B-Off
POUO4H
mtMVIM
HMtOUt
HOPS
SLOPt
PBUCMM
ra*aut
aon
ILOPl
PBtM]4M
PEW04M
n»M34M
man
POIMMH
PDtMXM
KQCKMOP HLOP1
KOCKIXP
POtMMM
ROOOXP PtHMM«
ROOOW HOfB
U.OPB
PDU4XW
H/OW
HOOCDIP
74J»
IMt
MM
74.»
TIM
TAN
II.M
TIM
MM
TMt
TMI
mi
TMt
TAM
TMI
7T.M
TAN
73 Jl
TIM
»M
71.54
TMI
MM
MM
74.U
MM
M.II
».4»
TMI
74.M
TiM
TIM
TA4I
MM
TiJt
TS.M
fT.TI
liM
TIM
74 M
MM
7).M
744*
74.11
M.M
MM
IMI •
TMt
TJM
TAM
JJ.7C
MM
MM
tut
U.4I
M.7I
IU»
tut
MM
1141
IMI
MM
17.M
U.4I
D.M
M.U
an
1171
M.7I
M.14
»M
IMt
Mt
U.M
MM
MN
M.M
MM
KM
nn
as.it
H.M
MM
J4,7»
KM
JIM
MM
SMI
MM
MM
ZMt
SMt
U.M
MM
MM
»M
BM
MM
4I4.50IH
•1.4WK
A441K
!«.)J)41
4.MI.U
M.H45!
M.IM.4I
UMI.I4
44,71117
74J.I4JM
HIM*
»,T77I)
.nMM.ii
AMM7
MT.SM.M
M.II).!J
4AMI.44.
M.IM.74
41.7NU
».544.I?
tliiia
1OII7*
J,4JI4t
TT.tM.41
44.417 i!
M.417.17
lt,Ml,H
IKIII.M
IM».M
IIMB.M
1444.11
JI.7D.W
IH.IMM
J.WJ.17
AMI.M
in
oo
Table 1
-------
SOIL PROPERTIES AK liCTING SEPTIC SUITABILITY
Ul
• Table 1
-------
SOIL PROPERTIES AJ'TKCTINO SEFFIC SUITABILITY
KAMT CRITICAL
JtAC- AW'
•on.
AWQCOTtoK
rtictmr coMromiox-wiiairriD LIMITATION*
WITOT ABrtpgpBOCKW PAHIHP rtnow wroir tu»ri mciti i-rnMwi
UMITATIOK*
FMCiirr
<"t°U"t IfHTACt
fg«*.
VARI
VAIJJ
VAWI
VAm
VAIJI
VAMt
VAIJi
VAM1
VAir
VAiit
VAIJf
VAIII
VAM1
VAI«
VAI»
VA«5»
VAW»
VAM
VAM
VA»J1
VAMI
VAM)
VA«1
VAM4
VAIX
VAW
VAH!
VAU)
VAMI
VAMI
VAIJ4
VAIM
VAMI
VAMI
VAIN
VAIM
VAMI
VAI)»
VAMI
VAMI
VAMI
VAMI
VAMI
VAM]
VAN]
VAM]
VAM)
VAM4
VAM9
VAMS
VAMI
VAMI
VAC)]
VAM]
VAM4
v**«
II
«
H
Y
Y
H
Y
H
N
¥
Y
N
Y
N
Y
M
Y
H
Y
H
H
Y
H
Y
H
N
Y
H
N
t
H
N
Y
Y
H
H
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
H
H
H
N
Y
M
N
M
N
H
JL.
N
M
Y
H
Y
M
T4
H
Y
N
Y
H
H
M
N
N
H
H
H
H
Y
N
H
H
H
Y
M
N
Y
M
N
Y
N
Y
H
Y
N
Y
K
Y
H
Y
H
H
H
M
H
N
Y
rl'
M
H
N
Y
H
Y
N
OYKUJHWOW-WAXKOOt
OMfMH-NIAMCO-QIMNTICO
MftfftBKtflMMCO-QVAMTICO
DMmun>mMicWIOUMWMfOIID«4POMA
JUfIOUC*t»«)M%0*0)MA
iUftO
MA
MMttHAYIWUfrOAKimi.
KAWMUYIlVIUJtOMaiU,
iMEBX^oncucra-yAcoicr
fiyi^tn HiiriiiAhirn r*ftt*nttTT
AmnmwiDOMtUMimuRO
rfliiiint-^fPrt ffffi-rftiimi i
CUUSH-WRXffcllllDm
3«»A«OUMA-MUW}fN
COUAX.VANCS4BUHA
COUAX-VAHCZ4BUHA
IAYqOAH*CM10ilPOIt^fHKiTOt*
MAYOOAJWMHJMOOWMtrroH
HAKtMAMIVTUJtLAKKAMD
ItAOUMMHAHIVnilrtAKILAHD
MUKVSIMNUMH
OEOMHVIUMIASCH4IONUM
OBOtO«VIU«-MAlOr«4.)ONUW
ameoTWOUMiAooniA
MtWIWIWOIBCCTTOOCIttTWI
HEW1IAN.iOIOat¥r«)CX«TOM
HOMI
HOWE
HOMI
HON1
NOM
MONH
HOMS
MOM
HOM
NOW
HOM
HONK
KOMI
MOM
HOMI
FMQ
NONE
MOM
MOM
HOM
NONE
HOM
MOM
HOW
ran
FMQ
raw}
raw
fWQ
»MQ
MOM
HOM
HOM
HOM
HOM
HONB
HOM
MOM
MM
MOM
NOME
IT.
nuq
Ml HO»«
Ml HONI
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
TMI
n*t
MM
MM
MM
MM
».7»
».7I
M.M
M.TI
J7JI
4l.fl
4J.TI
MM
M»
MM
MM
MM
MM
4».M
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
WJ*
**M
5TM
»M
MM
MM
MM
I7.JI
J7.TI
MM
MM
n.n
»M
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
*»
•M
IM
•M
tM
*M
IM
IM
IM
IM
«M
•M
IM
IM
IM
*M
*M
I.M
IM
*.M
IM
IM
IM
Ml
IM
IM
IM
I.M
4M
-».«
•AM
I.M
I.M
tM
tM
tM
IM
m
J4T
4.M
4.«4
4.M
4.44
1W
f.n
in
t.n
iM
IM
IM
J.«
M4
MT
in
in
I.M
I.H
4,M
4.N
I.M
I.M
t.M
J«
1«
IM
IM
117
I.t7
t,n
i.»
IM
j.w
4M
4M
4M
Ml
141
4,1$
4.3S
3.JJ
JJ1
*.M
JJJ
J-5>
Ml
Ml
Ml
Mf
111
IM
iMi
U4J
tlM
U4f
in
in
».4J
14]
»41
tM
tin
lt.lt
11.41
11.4]
t<»
Ml
IIU
IIH
I.M
154
J,0
4JI
«JJ
4.11
MS
l.fj
in
IM
IM
IM
Ml
4.41
4.41
IM
M*
M*
IM
»M
444
4.44
3JO
Ml
IM
(.if
i,n
».)»
»J4
M4
"'»
IM
tM
Ml
4JI
Ml
4.11
i.a
i.n
XM
JkM
l.7»
1.79
144
IM
MS-
IM
IJ4
Ml
Ml
Ml
IM
Ml
MS
'MI
MI
*M
IM
MS
MS
*M
IM
IM
Ml
IM
I.K
I.N
l.»l
1.11
M!
Ml
*.M
1.1?
LIT
Ml
IMI
Ml
U)
IB
US
in
M*
tM
tM
US
US
Ml
IJJ
l.«
I.TT
t,rt
I.J»
I.J»
IJ»
I.II
4.U
m
Ml
l.JI
i.n
*M
IM
IM
Ml
IM
Ml
M*
Ml
1.0
I.M
Ml
tM
I.M
IM
M<
}.»
>.!>
'*,»
4.TI
-ML.
IM
IM
IM
IM
Ml
IM
IJ»
Ml
AM
1.71
I.TI
I.II
4.11
MI
M)
M>
U>
MT
IM
Ml
Ml
IM
Ml
Ml
144
I.W
M*
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
AM
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
HXMMtt
not*
HOfl
ItOff
POUHH44
HMIMM
nrootr
KMMMM rocog
fDIMiHM WflJOE?
PCTM344* M4D01P
AKTLOOC
AlfftOOD
WTOBP
WTOET
KRMMfl
HRMMM
nmtiM
HSKMIIM
FEKMHM
HUMMM
AWLOOT
AHTIOOD WTDB*
AMT.OOD
ANFLOOO
AMIOOD WTDCP
KKMXM
KXM14M
KXMMM
POIMlMt
PEFMW44
WTDKP
wnw
wiser
wnstr>
HOCKDH> aon
^OOCPP ttora
M.M
TIM
TIM
TIM
mi
MM
74.M
TUI
7141
TIM
MM
MM
TIM
All
MJI
«T.W
•1M
TKM
KM
TMI
TMI
TM*
TIM
TIM
TIM
TI.M
TI.JO
(IN
MM
nil
4».M
MM
TT.M
T7.M
UM
RM
MM
TIM
TIM
TIM
nj»
mw
4>,ll
MM
«7J»
MM
IfJI
TM
ST.M
I7.M
»M
UM
MM
J4M
IMI
MM
JUI
mM
H.TI
»M
UM
STM
3IM
JXM
»J»
J»M
MM
KJI
J4.ll
MM
J7.TI
IMH
MM
IMI
STM
MM
«M
mi
MM
JIM
OM
ll.ISI.fT
VM.II
M«tM
MJ
4II.N
UN.1AM
ttHT.W
4M.IS
H,m»
VMNM
4S,TM.»
I1.»TJU
I7.3W15
iru.Ti
1MI»»
S4.MMS
4.544)7
B7.U9.7S
M»]l
1M,MIM
u.nix
m.tMw
n,>44.»
HJJJ.I3
i 1.731 5!
4.UI.T7
MXltt'lO.
II.J1M1
is.tn.Ts
M.4HM
II.4U.4)
4JTUT
7.WJJ7
f.llTJI
IMM.M
HMI.4I
IHTllM
Table 1
-------
SOIL PROPERTIES AFFECTING SEPTIC SUITABILITY
Table 1
-------
SOIL PROPERTIES AFFECTING SEPTIC SUITABILITY
KAMI CRITICAl.
FUG' ARIA1
fOlt>
AUOCIAT1OM
tUiTOT AIinOOD ROCKMf fAMMf PKDBir WTMP ItOPI INCR> ftlM14« PIMOM*
UMITATIOM"
timrAct
WVtN
wm
iwtw
Will
Will
WVIU
WVIII
Wll»
WI1»
Wl»
*V111
win
win
WYI«
WVIH
Y
N
If
y
N
T
M
r
N
Y
N
N
V
N
N
¥
N
N
H
N
H
tt
N
N
M
N
H
N
H
N
N
M
N
II
CALVm«CXAl^UZLy TOWN- JCivmrtiM
«RWOm'-ITWrTO«N-W«VCTTOH
COtAlHUBCCTIYllU-OnjIN
NO(H
HONS
NOHK
N0(^
NOW
HOW
NOMI
NOHK
MOHI
NONI
»M
Ml
IM
i.n
I.TJ
Ul
Ul
Mt
147
I.n
ut
Mf
Mt
MT
IJf
M
«.»
«M
*M
I.H
IJ4
Ul
SJI
M*
Ml
Ml
tit
mam
HOft
nan
ILOfl
HMMW
«U«
MXKOIP HMOMt
itOfl
H.OM
iton
ftHMM4» ILOft
HOCKQg HW1
*Mt
M.M
tt.lt
TMt
MM
«T.Tt
njt
T
W UT VmCINI A AflMGt
wuTYinoiNlAtllM
MJt
MM
11.11
Ul
l,?oe,«u
CIIIIAPUKf »*H AVSKAOI
tOlAI.
lt.lt
MJT
,4)1
II.M
!.«>
ItM
Jt,Mf,ll).
« if DMOlM b M«**kl
1 LMuto* An •» ttHfNut m mm*
Table 1
-------
T.N. *, Swnmqr »rRanges of sob Potential* to Induce Groom) Water a«f $„«»«
STATE
Delaware
Maryland
New York
Characteristic
Highest Ground Water Effect OE015 ,-«.-.^™,
HtohestSurfaceWaterEffect DE009 PoconolMJerS^er
oiate Avenge
State Total Acres
Highest Ground Water Effect MO060 HayesvUe-Parker-Peaks
Highest Surface Water Effect MO054 CWncotetgue-MMotha
State Average ~w™
State Total Acres
Highest Ground Water Effect NY594 l^m^a^tavHovMnl
Htehest Surface Water Effect NY141 Pates-Carfefe^iwarts
State Average
State Total Acres
P***»syto*i«* Highest Ground Water Effect PAW2
Highest Surface Water Effect
State Avenge
State Total Acres
Virginia Highest Ground Water Effect
Highest Surface Water Effect
State Average
State Total Acres
West Virginia Highest Ground Water Effect VYV122 _ _
Highest Surface Water Effect WVD48 Maod^Trvssdiaiiey
State Average
State total acres
Water Eflects&fate Sunvnary
80.6 19.4
70.7 23.3
7M 23.6
VA002
VA04S
Tafate2
63
-------
SHO, '
puumWAM worn DISPOSE ME^CTHousta
^ALLOc&avDHOWf^VMmaYHCvsmouNrrrrpeAmueA^ofWASTeotsfosAL
i. er HOUSNG TYPE
«R,Stt
SJMUJ1
MM
IX*
t*
S*pfc
3.S37.3S2
193.785
Ituiat
I"*™
TOM
S«wr
8*f*e
OOwr
TatH
8«MT
UfS.514
327,223
1.021.630
48.S61
MJ
M
{34
I5J
OVMT
l.1«
90,032
3,121
1.1
12,1
S3
z §rw9»$iE£j(s«K«. nre
U9U1t
UCUf*
O*W
(1.1
T4J
»J
12
Mumbaf P»na-a
3.S37^62
327.223
1.165
Tatil
Urban
NtM
Total
Urtna
Rural
Fana
117
U
193,7*5 tSJ
1021.00 MJ
50,032 4J
K»J
11.404 «jt
46.661 7«J
3,121 M
rexccworTOTALHoiJSMOwmvstiotefTiCAmoTHeHHCAHS:
I***!
«*»«
fobl
S«ww
S*p*c
OOiw
St«*r
S»p6e
0«»f
Stwnr
So*e
OA«r
I.14S.01*
551.781
37.125
IAS92
t«9»,»SJ
1H247
U
M
2U
7SJ
3,150
151^59
J.I82
U
KA
U
iBV WASTE OSPOS*.TWe
Mumbw
TOW
Swmr
Stfte
1X717.24*
1M«J«
1MJSS4
714
X.1
12
Total
UtMM
Rural
W^ttJW
f.«5,01*
«n
Hawing
ToW
Ult>M
R«»l
JJTWW
3W4.I40
1K144J
205189
I.SWJS1
2J4
U7
5U3
Uo»
Ofter
61 1SS
US
Jji
c
TaW.3
64
-------
TABLE 4. HOUSINQ UNIT* AND POPULATION BY
WASTE DISPOSAL MiANS AND HOUSING TYPE S'
STATE SUMMARIES
STATfi
DISTRICT Of COLUMBIA Totrt
MARYLAND Total
NiWYORK Total
PENNSYLVANIA Tot.l
VIRGINIA Total
WESTV1R8INIA Total
A. HOUSING UNJTS USINO SEWER AS: ' " —
URBAN % Subtotal RURAL KSuhtater CAOU M B.^^.,
3,?23 55,4 2,967 442 27 oA
247,833 100,0 0 - 0 O 1 li
1^53538 89.Q 55i8t2 3J ° OJ
113*2 i75 16.880 «5 13 o«
«2W7 78.4 170.SJ2 215 K7 of
158S.7I7 ay M^12 2iJ g W
_^s « 1MM ^ 2« 0.0
fl*»»**t «J 32^22 A^ uei RTfj
1
•,717
147,833
1,408,320
130,015
783,128
1.352.483
26,375
3^8S^8
ON
t/1
Table 4
-------
TABLE 4. HOUStNO UNITS AND POPULATION BY
WASTE DISPOSAL MEANS AND HOUSINO TYPES:
STATE SUMMARIES
STATE
DELAWARE Total
DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA Total
MARYLAND Total
HEW YORK Total
PENNSYLVANIA Total
VIRGINIA Total
WEST VIRGINIA Total
,
1. Homing Uflic
B. HOUSING UNfTS USINQ 8EPTC A3: "" " .—_____
URBAN
855
603
78,333
11,025
28,785
75,625
(88
% Subtotal RURAL %
3.1
100,0
2SJ
9,9
20.7
2.5
16,44?
0
219,309
378/42
278,084
35.480
Subtotal
91.5
0.0
713
88.8
89,1
78.4
93.0
FARM
984
0
10,057
3,859
19,432
14,028
1.892
^Subtotal
5.4
00
3.1
3.8
4.8
3.t
4,4
I
503
307,899
111.471
424^80
584,717
38.130
Tablet
-------
TABLE 4. HOUSINQ UNITS ANDPOWIUATION •¥
WASTE DISPOSAL MEANS AND HOUSINQ TYPES:
STATE SUMMARIES
STATE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Total
MARYLAND Total
NEW YORK Total
PENNSYLVANIA Total
VIRQINIA Total
WBST VIRGINIA Toll!
Grand Total ~~~" "
URBAN KSufatoM
28 S.O
1,198 100.0
5362 41.2
100 3.8
1,324 7,4
3.132 143
61. , \a
MI IMA* *f ft t« • K
,«.f °-° ° 0-0 1.198
* 85.7 430 3S 13 sin
2.424 M3 3te ** «*»
1S.875 875 fl« ,7 *{J'
'12 «o TS ** »SJ
' 78.3 3.120 8.^
-------
TABLE 4. HOUStNO UNITS AND POPULATION BY
WASTE DISPOSAL MEANS ANO HOUSINO TYPES;
STATE SUMMARIES
STATE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Total
MARYLAND ToUl
NEW YORK TeUrt
PENNSYLVANIA Total
VIRGINIA Totil
WEST VIRGINIA Total
A, POPULATION USIN6 SEWBft AS:
I
URBAN *
8.1M S5.6
S60.472 100.0
3£38,«M 86,1
270,101 87.2
1.491,318 77.7
3,288,843 MJt
29,494 424
1
RURAL *
V.9M 44 J
0 0.0
141,318 3,8
39,827 12.8
426,720 222
178,128 8.1
1
FARM »
42 . 0.3
0 0.0
808 -0.0
38 0.0
1378 0,1
eii oa
77 0.1
TOTAL POPULATION tlSINOSEW^R
MM MEAN MAX
13,479 18,i74 »,OT7
652^88 S60.472 868,881
3,529.308 3,680,777 3,838,872
281,728 309.W4 W1.093
1.782,184 1J18J89 2,082,808
3^02^032 3,484,579 3,834^37
SOJ91 82.128 74499
Os
00
Table 4'
-------
TAGLE4. HOUSING UNITS AND POPULATION W
WASTB DISPOSAL MEANS AND HOUSING TYPES:
STATE SUMMARIES
STATE
DELAWARE Total
DISTRICT Of COLUMBIA Total
MARYLAND Tata!
NEW YORK Total
PENNSYLVANIA Total
VIRQINIA Total
WiST VIRGINIA Total
2. Population
URB4N *
1,625 3,2
1,417 100.0
228,881 285
30,734 9.8
74,743 6.2
210,988 20.7
2,605 2.4
O SEFTC AS: """" '" ~"
2 2
RURAL * FARM *
48,«2 91,8 2,818 ' 55
0 0.0 0 0.0
641,909 714 28,782 35
270,889 68,4 11,805 3*
1072,805 M.4 6S.728 S.4
mtti HM 37,858 »7
M.881 935 4,617 44
TOTAL POPULATION USING StPTJc'
WIN MEAN MAX
48,334 80,724 SS.121
0 1.417 4,244
758,687 900,143 1,057,245
278,482 313,408 350,387
1.087,984 1 ,213,144 1,368,640
840,046 1.017.27S 5^09,074
XJL?!409 ,1«»J53 122 BBS
3.080823 3^03.064 t.W.Oti
TaWt4
-------
TABLE 4 TOUSINflUrm AND POPULATION BY
WASTE DISPOSAL" MEANS AND HOUSINO TYPES;
STATE SUMMARIES
STATE
DISTRICT OF CQLUMilA Total
MARYLAND ToUl
NEW YORK Total
PENNSYLVANIA Total
VIRGINIA ToUl
WEST VIRGINIA ToUl
MMMM»MV»MMMM^_M,
C. POPULATION USW
1
1
URBAN X
101 e.o
4,063 100.0
18,223 45 &
391 S.1
4209 6.8
10,020 16.8
118 1.5
0 OTHER MEANS OF
1
RURAL X
1,368 81.6
0 0.0
20,155 50.7
e.357 835
4t,1S2 64.1
VJS67 78,2
7,328 81.0
DISPD3^.A3;
. *
FARM at
208 • 12.4
0 0.0
1.MS 3,4
864 113
3^88 TA
2J58 42
«06 7S
B.182 &4
TOTAL POPULATION USING
OTHER MEANS
MIN MOAM UAV
163 1.876 3,640
123 4.063 10,090
2370 39.724 88,050
373 7,811 10,838
11.584 48,880 87*32
7,868 80,485 130,183
1.888 8,058 15.893
23,777 1?0^56 373.625
«!
tTS&S
565^52
4,670.844
630.882
3,182.073
4,542.318
17f,f37
ji,nr,m
Table 4
-------
HOUSING UNITS AS u .JAN, RURAL AND FARM
TYPES AND MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL-
COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT 1. Housing Units
COUNTY SUMMARIES
STATE
DELAWARE
DELAWARE
DELAWARE
DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MAKYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
FIPS
10001
10003
10005
11001
24001
24003
24005
24009
24011
24013
24015
24017
24019
24021
24023
24025
24027
24029
24031
24033
24035
24037
24039
24041
24043
COUNTY
KENT
NEWCASTLE
SUSSEX
WASHINGTON
ALLEOANY
. ANNEARUNDEL
BALTIMORE
CALVBRT
CAROLINE
CARROLL
CECIL
CHARLES
DORCHESTER
FREDERICK
GARRETT
HARFORD
HOWARD
KENT
MONTGOMERY
PRINCE GEORGES
QUEEN ANNE'S
SAINT MARY'S
SOMERSET
TALBOT
WASHINGTON
AS:
URBAN % Subtotal
23.0
391.1
3,309,0
247,933.1
19,534.0
110,536.7
235,145.5
65.8
1,063,8
12,508.2
3,572.6
17,885.2
4,710.7
25,608.9
37,310.2
56,357.0
1,290.1
263,7*8.2
246,078.0
4,529.3
1,150.2
3,830.5
24,541,1
2.7
85.0
61.2
100.0
80.3
98.9
99.2
3,0
31,8
76.6
39.1
92,4
72.8
87.7
96.0
99.1
41.0
99,4
99.2
56,9
35.5
61.8
89,3
RURAL
- 8H.9
68.0
2,080,9
4,879.6
1,1 80.5
1,833.5
2,107,8
2,2614
3,809,9
5,540.7
1,465.9
1,752.9
3,598.3
")sn n
1,567.4
493.9
1,835.8
1,615.0
2,030.9
3,717.4
3.425.S
2,080.0
2,362.7
2920^
*....
•
% Subtotal
97.3
14.8
38,5
19.7
1.1
0.8
96.9
57,7
23.3
60,7
7.6
27.1
12.3
J9.5
4.0
0.9
58.4
0.6
0.8
S9.5
43.0
64.2
38.1
1H£ .
_FARM J
12.1
0.8
14.3
3,9
7.3
2.2
15.5 '
3.2
15.8
S.I
11,2
1.4
8.7
17.2
9.5
19.2
6.0
7,8
9.4
8,0
.!!..•
1
1.4
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.5
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.5
0.0
0.5
0,0
0.5
0,1
0.2
0.2
0,0
H
O
P
, -JL
840.9
459.9
5,404.2
247,933,1
24,817.5
IU.724.4
237,279.0
2,175.8 .
3,340.7
16,321.3
9,129.1
li.359.2
fi.474.8
29,207.2
284.4
38,877,6
56,859.6
3,143,1
265,422,6
248108.9
3,736.6
7,961.1
3,238.0 1
6,202.6 I
27,469.7 I
Table 5
-------
HOUSING UNITS AS URBAN, RURAL AND FARM-
TYPES AND MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL:
COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT 1, Housing Units
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRI-CHESAPEAKE, Inc.
STATE
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
•
FEPS
24045
24047
24SIO
36003
36007
360 1 1
360L5
360 17
36023
36015
36043
3605!
36053
36045
36067
36069
36077
36095
36097
3610!
36107
36109
36123
42001
42009
COUNTY
WICOMICO
WORCESTER
BAUnMORBCITY
ALLEOANY
BROOME
CAYUGA
CHEMUNO
CHENANOO
CORTLAND
DELAWARE
HERKIMER
LIVINGSTON
MADISOH
ONEIDAEAST
ONONDAOA
ONTARIO
OTSEOO
SCHOHARIE
SCHUYLER
STEUBEN
TIOQA
TOMPKIHS
YATES
ADAMS
BEDFORD
a. HOUSINO UNITS USING SEWER
AS:
URBAN
9,375.0
1,611.7
272,335.0
291.2
55,539.6
-
21,298.1
'3^29.6
7,819.2
1,860.5
.
.
912.9
62.7
.
-
4,304.3
.
-
12,372.8
5,631.2
-
-
4,926.7
1.461.3
% Subtotal
70,4
' 63.4
100,0
87,1
95.4
-'
97.6
54,6
81,7
93,8
-
-
91,4
33.3
•
-
62.0
-
•
73.9
83.6
-
-
36,5
32,0
RURAL
3,921.7
927.2
-
43.0
2,706.1
0.2
520.1
2,680.5
1,749.4
123.1
37.3
-
85.4
124.8
286.0
0.7
2,631.3
2.9
14.7
4,360.8
1,106.3
205.4
1.6
1,566.6
3,104.1
% Subtotal
29.5
36.5
-
12.9
4.6
99.6
2.4
4S.3
18.3
6.2
99.8
-
8.5
66.3
100.0
99.8
37.9
99.7
100.0
26.1
16.4
99.9
100.0
63.5
67.9
FARM
13.4
3,0
-
-
-
0,0
-
3.5
1.3
-
0,1
m
0.1
0.7
0,0
0.0
6,6
0,0
-
-
0,7
0.1
-
7.9
7.3
% Subtotal
0.1
0.1
•
-
• -
0.4
-
0.1
0.0
-
0.2
•
0.0
0.4
0.0
02
0.1
0.3
-
-
0.0
0.1
-
0.1
0.2
•g
o
i
13,3101
2,541.8
272^35.0
334.2
58^45.8
0.2
21,818.2
5,913.6
9.570,0
1,983.6
37.3
-
998.3
188.1
286,1
0.7
6,942.2
2,9
14.7
16,733,5
6.7311
205.5
1.6
13,501.1
4,572.8
ts)
-------
MOUSING UNITS AS UliBAN, RURAL AND FARM
TYPES AND MEANS OF WASTE .DISPOSAL:
COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT 1 . Housing Units
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCM-CHESAPEAKE, Inc.
STATE
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
FIPS
42011
42013
42015
42021
42023
42025
42027
42029
42033
42035
42037
42041
42043
42047
42055
42057
4206!
42063
42065
42067
42069
42071
42075
42079
42081
COUNTY
BERKS
BLAIR
BRADFORD
CAMBRIA
CAMERON
CARBON
CENTRE
CHESTER
CLBARFELD
CLINTON
COLUMBIA
CUMBERLAND
DAUPHIN
ELK
FRANKLIN
FULTON
HUNTINODOM
INDIANA
JEFFERSON
JUNIATA
LACKAWANNA
LANCASTER
LEBANON
LUZERNE
LYCOMING
a. HOUSING UNITS
AS;
USING SEWER
URBAN % Subtotal
42.6
31,190.6
4,659,2
1,015,0
1,11-9,7
-
23.5S4.9
1 ,187.9
4,052.9
3,121,6
8,266,7
46,818,3
70,772,0
179.7
,14,744,9
-
3,134,4
-
-
-
70,508.7
89,598.1
16,704.9
90,022.5
22,868.2
8.0
84,8
62,3
15.6
86.0
- .
80.0
70.4 ,
48.9
34,8
81,4
86,1
92.1
26.7
51.0
-
64.4
.
-
-
96,0
85,8
66.8
89,4
90,3
RURAL
490,4
5,6011
2,819.4
5.483.5
18Z2
0.0
5,868,3
666,6
4,230,3
5,8402
1,884.8
7,557.1
6,0133
493.4
14,113.8
1,005.7
2,119,6
897
0.0
1,9488
2,9700
14,609.5
8,301.1
10,6432
2,446,8
% Subtotal
91.8
15.2,
37.7
84,2
14.0
100,0
19.9
29.6
51.1
55. 1
18,6
13,9
7,8
73.3
48.9
>9.8
J5.6
1DQ.O
1DO.O
»9.6
4.0
14.0
53.2
10.6
9.7
FARM
1.2
.
5,7
12.6
0.0
.
18.9
I.I
.
14.6
5.7
29.7
35.4
0.0
25.2
2.2
2.4
0,0
.
7.3
.
246.0
5.3
38.0
•
H Subtotal
0.2
M.
0.1
0,2
0.0
»
0.1
0.0
m
0.2
0.1
0,1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.0
0,0
0,4
w
0.2
0.0
0.0
H
•4
6
H
B
534.2
35,792.7
7,484.3
5,511.1
1,302.0
0.0
29,472.2
2,255,7
8,283,2
$.976,3
10,157.2
54,405.0
7*5,820.6
673.1
28,883.9
1,007.9
5,956,4
89,7
0.0
i, 956.2
73,478.8
104,453.6
23,011.3
100,703.7
25.315,0
Table 5
-------
HOUSING UNITS AS URBAN, RURAL AND FARM
TYPBS AND MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL:
COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT 1. Housing
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRI-CHESAPEAKfi, Inc.
STATE
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA ...
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
FffS
42083
42087
42093
42097
42099
42105
42107
42109
421 II
42113
42115
42117
42119
42127
42131
42133
51001
51003
51005
51007
51009
51011
51013
51015
51017
If
COUNTY
MIFFUN
MONTOUR
NORTHUMBERLAND
PERRY
POTTER
SCHUYLKILL
SNYDER
SOMERSET
SULLIVAN
SUSQUEHANNA
TOGA
UNION
WAYNS
WYOMING
YORK
ACCOMACK
ALBEMARLE
ALLEOHANY
AMELIA,
AMHERST
APPOMATTOX
ARLINGTON
AUGUSTA
BATH
Units
A
a. HOUSING UNTTS USING SEWER
AS:
URBAN % Subtotal
m
4,207,4
3,201,3
20,097.9
973.7
41
8,738.7
1,737.6
*
*
**
2,245,7
3,170,4
66,493.5
9,076.6
-
1,048.9
.
78,176.0
3,009.3
.
41.1
91.1
72.2
21.7
59.7
29.1
•
47.2
54.2
S3.1
87.3
.
58.4
*
100.0
58.4
RURAL
4.7
5,991.5
312.6
7,708.2
3,517.0
666.4
5,879.4
4,204.7
9.3
500.9
4,038.2
2,505.9
2,663.0
110.9
1,902.7
13,455.7
947.7
1,314.7
1,888.9
275.5
745.7
207.5
2,133.4
656.6
*
94 Subtotal
100.0
58.5
8,9
27,7
78,2
99.7
402
70.5
99,8
99.9
52.7
45.5
100,0
99.8
16.3
99.5
12.6
100.0
99.2
41.5
99.3
41.4
99.7
FARM
0.0
48.7
1.6
12.5
6.2
2.1
19.1
23.2
0.0
1.8
3.5
4.2
17.5
4.2
45.9
4.4
8.9
2,2
2.6
1.4
13.3
2.1
% Subtola
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.4
02
WiA
04
W|"1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.8
O.I
0,7
0.3
0.3
H
O
H
6
4 7
^. f
10,247.6
3,515.5
27,818.6
4,496.9
668.4
14,637.3
, 5,965.5
0 t
7.J
4,041.7-
4.7S5.8
5.851.0
1 1 A ft
1 lU.y
1,906.9
79,995.0
Q« I
y jjtt-M
10,400.2
1 83S9
• ^039* y
277.6
1 7J72
If* J I *|6
208 5
78,176.0
5,156.0
6516^
..ble 5
-------
HOUSING UNITS AS UivfiAN, RURAL AND FARM
TYPES AND MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL:
COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT 1. Housing Units
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCR1-CHESAPEAKE, Inc.
STATE
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
FITS
51019
51023
51029
51031
51033
51036
51037
51041
51043
51045
51047
51049 -
51053
51057
51059
51061
51065
51069
51071
51073
51075
51079
51085
51087
51091
COUNTY
BEDFORD
BOTETOURT
BUCKINGHAM '
CAMPBELL
CAROLINE
CHARLES CITY
CHARLOTTE
CHESTERFEUD
CLARKE
CRAIG
CULPEPER
CUMBERLAND
DINWIDDIE
ESSEX
FAIRFAX
FAUQUIER
FLIP/ANNA
FREDERICK
GILES
GLOUCESTER
GOOCHLAND
GREENE
HANOVER
HENRICO
HIGHLAND
a. HOUSING UNTTS USING SEWER
AS:
URBAN % Subtotal
490.0
0,2
-
510.8
-
.
.
52,669.9
983.8
i
3,049.1
137.4
1,268.5
.
271,588.4
1,798.9
.
-
413.6
-
.
6,896.1
79,772.8
-
83,4
0,0
-
77.6
*
.
.
94.6
82.2
.
88.0
77,8
89.2
,
99.5
40.8
.
•
41,3
.
.
81.9
99.6
-
RURAL
' 97.0
798.3
328.4
147.0
770.7
17.2
0.1
3,033.2
209.9
279.6
4149
38.7
1518
690.1
1,376.8
2,596.7
984.3
6,685.5
3.1
584.5
233.4
495.7
1,522.4
348,6
149.1
% Subtotal
16.5
100.0
993
22,3
100,0
100,0
100.0
5.4.
17.5
100,0
12.0
21.9
10.7
99.2
0.5
58,9
99.4
99.5
100.0
58.4
100.0
99,1
18.1
0,4
99.0
FARM
0.4
_
2.3
0.3
.
*
•
—
. 3.3
0,8
0.6
0.8
5.4
_
9,9
6,3
30.2
2,5
4.4
6.5
_ 1.6
% Subtotal
0,1
.
0.7
0.0
*
.
,
*
0.3
0,0
0.3
0,1
0.8
0.2
Q.6
0.5
0.3
0.9
0.0
L0_
•H
?
c
1
587,3
798.6
330.6
658,2
770.7
17,2
0,1
55,703.0
1,197.0
279.6
3,464,8
176.7
1,422.2
695,5
272,965.2
4,405.4
990.6
6,715.8
3.1
1,000.7
233.4
500.!
8,418.6
80,127.8
J50.7_
Table 5
-------
HOUSING UNITS AS URBAN, RURAL AND FARM
TYPES AND MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL:
COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT 1 . Housing
COUNTY" SUMMARIES
NCRI-CHESAPEAKE, Inc.
STATE
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
FIPS
51093
51095
51097
51099
51101
51103
51107
51109
51111
51113
51115
51II9
51121
51125
51127
51131
51133
51135
51137
51139
51145
51147
51149
51153
51157
COUNTY
ISLE OF WIGHT
JAMES CITY
KINO AND QUEEN
KINO GEORGE
KINO WILLIAM
LANCASTER
LOUDOUN
LOUISA
LUNENBERO
MADISON
MATHBWS
MIDDLESEX
MONTGOMERY
NELSON
NEW KENT
NORTHAMPTON
NORTHUMBERLAND
NOTTOWAY
ORANGE
PAGE
POWHATAN
PRINCE EDWARD
PRINCE GEORGE
PRINCE WILLIAM
RAPPAHANNOCK
Units
«. HOUSING UNITS USING SEWER
AS:
URBAN % Subtotal
1,474.9
5,785.5
-
.
1,019.5
20,477.0
*
-
«
m
*
358.7
965.4
1,714.3
1.335.3
1,712.2
55,378.7
80,6
63.4
.
.
94.4
90.6
-
*
.
-
29.3
32.1
53.9
86,7
68.1
95,2
RURAL
• 355.6
3,323.4
11.2
1,231.7
60,1
559.0
2,104,2
561.1
0.0
152,3
188.7
352.4
19.7
414.4
38.0
740.5
311.1
860.5
2,035.8
1,454.5
61,0
204.0
799,9
2,781.8
147.5
% Subtotal
19.4
36.4
98.0
100.0
5.6
99.1
9.3 .
98.7
100.0
99.9
99.5
99.9
100.0
99.7
100.0
99.1
99.0
70.4
67.7
45.7
100.0
13.2
31.8
4.8
99.7
FARM
.
IS.8
0.2
0.1
5.3
8,8
7.6
0.2
1.0
0.4
1.2
7,0
3.2
3.7
6.6
13.3
1,3
2,5
3.6
0.4
% Sublets
Ml
0.2
2.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
1.3
O.I
0.5
0 1
V»l
0.3
0.9
1.0
0.3
0.2
0,4
O.I
0.1
0.0
0.3
o
1
1,830.5
9,127.8
U4
*T
1 231 7
I§*J 1 1 f
1,079.7
$644
tJ'V^t"?
22,590.0
561.7
ft n
v.u
1515
IB* 7
• O7* /
1C *7
13. /
41J.6
7415
314.4
U22.8
3,007.8
3,18X1
jCf A
VI.W
14406
2,514,7
58,164.1
148.0
o\ c
ible 5
-------
HOUSING UNITS AS I .,AN, RURAL AND FARM
TYPES AND MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL-
COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCR1-CHESAPEAKE, Inc.
1. Housing Units
STATE
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VmOINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VmOINIA
VIRGINIA
VTR31NIA
VDIOINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
PIPS
51159
51161
51163
51165
51171
51177
51179
51181
51187
51193
51199
51510
51530
51540
51550
51560
51570
51580
51600
51610
51630
51650
51660
51670
51678
a. HOUSING UNTTS USING SEWER
COUNTY
RICHMOND
ROANOKE
ROCKBRnXJE
ROCKINOHAM
SHENANDOAH
SPOTS YLVANIA
STAFFORD
SUERY
WARREN
WESTMORELAND
YORK.
ALEXANDRIA
BUENA VISTA
CHARLOTTES VE.LE
CHESAPEAKE CITY
CLIFTON FORGE
COLONIAL HEIGHTS
COVINGTON
FAIRFAX
FALLS CHURCH
FREDERICKSBURO
HAMPTON CITY
HARWSONBURG
HOPEWELL
LEXINGTON
URBAN
«•
1,196.1
2,666.6
8,481.3
5,714.5
4,388.7
1,213.9
7,550.1
53,131.6
1,959.2
15,219.4
41,506.2
1,607.3
6,340.5 -
2,534.7
6,843.1
4,161,7
7,3(54.8
48,415.8
9,497.1
8,796.2
1.73Q.S
% Subtotal
20.8
51.6
81.4
51,8
96.5
86.0
87,8
100,0
100,0
100,0
100,0
100.0
100,0
100.0
100,0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1 00.0
100.0
100,0
RURAL
352.9
4,3
1,237,6
4,537.2
2,478.5
1,9346
5,327.7
171,5
157,9
1966
1.040,5
0,2
% Subtotal
vo.s
100.0
99.8
78.8
48,0
18.6
,48.2
99.0
3.5
13.9
12.1
0.0
"
"
FARM KSubion
H.3 3.1
-
2.7 0.2
2«.S 0.5
U.7 0.4
*" *
f.
I 1
"I Tin
364.2
4.3
1,240.3
5,759.8
5,163.8
I 10,417.9
11,042.2
l.« 1.0
0.2 o.O
1-6 0,1
6-5 0.1
*
*™ *
" *
* —
™ *
* at
* *
m u
"" -
"
*
173,1
4,546.8
1,412.2 1
S.597.1
5J.131.6
1,959.2
15,219.4
41,506,3
1,607.3
6,340.5
2,534.7
6,843.1
4,161.7 I
7,364.8 |
48,4 15,81
»,«7.|J
8,?9d.2
~ * ' >r^Q^ 1
Table 5
-------
HOUSING UNITS AS URBAN, RURAL AND FARM
FYPES AND MEANS OF WASTI3 DISPOSAL:
BOUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE B AiT PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT 1 . Housing Units
COUNTY SUMMARIES
HCRI-CHESAPEAKE, Inc.
STATE
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
PIPS
516SO
51683
516SS
51700
51710
51730
51735
51740
51760
51790
51800
51810
51820
51830
51840
54003
54023
54025
54027
54031
54037
540J7
54063
54065
54071
COUNTY
LYNCHBURO
MANASSBSCrrY
MANASSES PARK CIT
NEWPORT NEWS CIT
NORFOLK CITY
PETERSBURG
POQUOSON .
PORTSMOUTH CITY
RICHMOND CITY
STAUNTON
SUFFOLK COT
VIRGINIA BEACH CIT
WAYNESBORO
WILUAMSBURG
WINCHESTER
BERKELEY
GRANT
GREBNQEUAR
HAMPSHIRE
HARDY
JEFFERSON
MINERAL
MONROE
MORGAN
PENDLETON
a, HOUSING UNITS USING SEWER
AS:
URBAN •/.Subtotal
21,101.7
9.157.2
2,182.0
62,153,0
88,572.1
12,405,0
2,711.2
38,274.0
83,518.0
8,740.7
7,833.3
89,583.6
6,478,2
3,334,9
8,311.2
6,075.3
.
0.5
-
-
2.295.1
2,940.7
•
-
.
100,0
100,0
1 00.0
100.0
100,0
100.0
100,0
100,0
100.0
100.0
99.1
100,0
100.0
100,0
100,0
59.0
-
65,6
-
-
42,4
55,7
-
-
-
RURAL
• -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'
4,0
69,5
-
-
-
-
4,220.7
1 ,266.4
0.3
1,091.7
1,247.7
J.119.8
2,340.5
17.3
1,241,0
474,3
% Subtotal
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.0
0.9
-
-
-
-,
41.0
99.7
34.4
99.5
99.6
57.6
44.3
97.3
99.8
99.0
FARM
«
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
-
' -
-
-
-
3.0
4,0
-
6.0
5.1
3.7
2,5
0,5
2,6
4.9
•/•Subtotal
-
•
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.0
-
•
-
-
-
0,0
0.3
m
0,5
0.4
0.1
0.0
2.7
OJ
1.0
,J
I
21,101.7
9,1571
2,182.0
62,153.0
88,572,1
12,405.0
2,71 12
38,274.9
83,518.0
8,744.8
7,902.7
89,583,6
6,4782
3,334.9
8,311,2
10,299,0
1,270,4
0,8
1,097,7
1,252,8
5,418,7
5,283.6
17.8
1,243,5
479,3
-4
oo
leS
-------
HOUSING UNITS AS UKwAN. RURAL AND FARM
TYPES AND MOANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL-
COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRI-CHESAPEAKE, Inc.
STATE FIPS
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
Grnnd Total
54075
54077
S4083
54093
COUNTY
POCAHONTAS
PRESTON
RANDOLPH
TUCKER
1. Housing Units
«. HOUSING UNITS USING SEWER
AS:
URBAN % Subtotal RURAL % Subtotal
• C.2 98.4
0.2 99.1
0.0 100.0
10.9 100.0
FARM V» Subtotal
0.0 1,6
0.0 0.9
* *
,164,0 0.0
j
02
0.2
0.0
10,9
3,965,937.0
vo
Table 5
-------
HOUSING UNITS AS URBAN, RURAL AND FARM
TYPES AND MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL'
COUNTY SUMMARIES
00
o
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
STATE FIPS COUNTY
DELAWARE
DELAWARE
DELAWARE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND.
10001
10003
10005
11001
24001
24003
24005
24009
24011
24013
24015
24017
24019
24021
24023
24025
24027
24029
24031
24033
24035
24037
24039
24041
24041
KENT
NEWCASTLE
SUSSEX
WASHINGTON
ALLEOANY
ANNBARUNDSL
BALTIMORE
CALVERT
CAROLINE
CARROLL
CECIL
CHARLES
DORCHESTER
FREDERICK
OARRETT
HARFORD
HOWARD
KENT
MONTGOMERY
PRINCE GEORGES
QUEEN ANNE'S
SAINT MARYS
SOMERSET
TALBOT
WASHINGTON
I
bi HOUSING
AS:
URBAN
3.9
134.9
415.7
503.1
847.0
24,152.8
11,302.6
1,925.1
84.9
1423.6
359.0
2,144.1
25.0
5,974,0
6,939.4
2,448.6
113,1
7,023.4
5,425.9
2,618.2
16.4
187.9
3,602.2
UNITS USING SEPTIC
W Subtotal
0.1
10.6
3.5
100.0
18.7
66.1
37.4
13.5
1.3
6.4
2.6
17.0
0.5
26.4
*
29.2
21.7
3.4
43.1
60.1
15.5
0,4
3.0
21.6
RURAL
4,646.9
1,095.4
10,705,1
3,639.5
11,936,4
18,299.0
12,016.3
5,685.7
22,755.0
13,014.4
10,113.7
4,830.4
15,652,1
1,307.4
16,441.6
8,54014
2,808,1
8,900.5
3,415.5
8,048.6
13,734.1
4.23J.3
5,655.1
12,565.7
% Subtotal
93.7
85.7
91.3
80.2
32,7
60.5
84.0
88.0
89.8
93.5
80.2
93.5
69.3
94.2
69.1
75.9
84.8
54.6
37.8
95.0
81.5
93.3
89.4
75.3
FARM
307,4
47,8
608,7
49.0
448.5
628,0
361.5
677.6
965.8
541.9
359.3
31X9
985.0
80.5
415.0
269.3
391.1
376.5
188.0
424.S
493.1
286.6
481.1
518,3
%Subtotn
6.2
3.7
5.2
1.1
1.2
2.1
2.5
10.6
3.8
3.9
2.8
6.1
4.3
5.8
1.7
2.4
11.8
2.3
2.1
5.0
2.9
6,3
7.6
3.1
1
°>
4,9513
U78.2
n,729.i
503.1
4,535.6
36,537.6
30,229.5
14^03.1
6,368.2
25344.3
13,915.3
12,617.2
5.168.2
22,651.0
1387,9
23,796.1
11.2583
3312.2
16,300.4
9,029.4
8,473.4 1
16,845.3
4,536.3
6,325,1 I
16.687.2 I
i .ible 5
-------
HOUSING UNITS AS b.^.AN, RURAL AND FARM
TYPES AND MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL:
COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHISAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES '
NCRI-CHESAPEAKE, Inc.
STATE
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
PENNSYLVANIA
PRNNSYLVANIA
»
FITS
24045
2404?
24510
36003
36007
36011
36015
36017
36023
36025
36043
36051
36053
36065
36067
36069
36077
36095
36097
36101
36107
36109
36123
42001
42009
COUNTY
WICOMICO
WORCESTER
BALTIMORE CITY
ALLEOANY
BROOME
CATUOA
CHEMUNO
CHENANGO
CORTLAND
DELAWARE
HERKJMER
LIVINGSTON
MADISON
ONEIDA EAST
ONONDAGA
ONTARIO
OTSEGO
SCKOHARIE
SCHUYLER
STEUBEN
TOGA
TOMPKINS
YATES
ADAMS
BEDFORD
b. HOUSIKG
AS:
URBAN
163.$
22.3
1,334,4
11,4
4,893,2
.
4,364.5
38.6
417.1
29.J
*
.
236.5
5.9
-
.
67,7
.
-
199.1
560.S
.
.
19.3
-
UNITS USING SEPTIC
% Subtotal
1,2
0,9
100,0
1.2
21.8
.
38.8
0.3
6.3
0.9
-
.
5.3
0.8
.
-
0.5
.
-
1.2
4.8
to
«
0.1
-
RURAL
13,3740
2,379.8
-
913.3
17,269.3
14,0
7,051.0
12,133.0
5,928.4
3,142,6
1,355.0
127.8
3,956.5
737.0
707.8
41.1
13,572.8
371.3
1,328.1
15,154.0
10,879.3
1,824.4
81.4
13,048.8
12,374.4
H Subtotal
94,7
91,0
.
956
771
91,7
60,0
94.9
88.9
93.4
93.1
97.8
88.6
93..S
95.5
962
95.0
97.0
96.7
94.0
92.2
97.2
94.1
93.5
95,5
FARM
590.0
213.6
„
30,4
233,1
1.3
140.4
608.6
320,5
191.6
101.0
2.9
271.0
44.5
33.6
1.6
639,8
11.3
45.6
768.6
355.7
51.8
5.1
889.8
584,3
•/.Sublota
4.2
8.2
3.2
1.0
8,3
1,2
4,8
4,8
5.7
6.9
2,2
6.1
5.7
4.5
3,8
4.5
3.0
3,3
4,8
3.0
2,8
5.9
6.4
4.5
1"
|
14,127.6
2,615.7
1,334.4
?55,2
22,395.7
15.3
11,755.8
12,780.1
6,666.7
3,363.7
1,456,0
130.7
4,464.1
787.5
741,4
42.7
14,280,3
382.7
1,373.6
16,121,7
11,795.5
1,876.1
86.5
13,957.9
12.918.7
00
Table 5
-------
HOUSING UNITS AS URBAN, RURAL AND FARM
TYPES AND MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL:
COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRI-CHESAPEAKE, Inc.
00
STATE
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
FIPS
42011
42013
42015
42021
42023
4202S
42027
42029
42033
42035
42037
42041
42043
42047
42055
42057
42061
42063
42065
42067
42069 '
42071
42075
42079
4208!
... COUNTY
BERKS
BLAIR
BRADFORD
CAMBRIA
CAMERON
CARBON
CENTRE
CHESTER
CLEARHELD
CLINTON
COLUMBIA
CUMBERLAND
DAUPHIN
ELK
FRANKLIN
FULTON
HlMnNCDON
INDIANA
JEFFERSON
JUNIATA
LACKAWANNA
LANCASTER
LEBANON
LUZERNE
LYCOMJNG *
IbJjOUSINO UNITS USING SEPTIC
AS:
URBAN
0.5
2,186.0
41S.5
*
5.3
-
288.1
40,5
93.2
6.4
279.2
1.987.1
2,701.8
•
251.4
.*
*
*
*
«
981.9
2,835.5
1,172.5
4,108.6
2.972.8
% Subtotal
0.0
16.7
2.9
-
0.6
-
2.3
0.6
0.7
0.1
2.2
10.8
15.3
-
1.6
•
-
•
•
-
10.9
6.3
9.8
18.9
15.6
RURAL
3,502.7
10,526.5
12,932,0
4,670.3
927.3
0.4
11,754.2
6,133.8
12,831.9
4,1 S0.3
12,090.0
15,584.0
14,483.2
1,696.6
141635.6
3,7 U.3
8,714.7
985.6
1.0
5,046.3
7,901.0
38.382.8
10.28S.6
17,411.2
15,446.8
V« Subtotal
94.2
80.5
91.1
97.3
99.1
98.7
92.1
93.9
97.9
95.8
93.2
84.6
81.8
99.9
91.2
93.3
96.0
97.3
92.1
93.2
87.3
85.9
S5.6
80.0
81.2
Jle5
-------
AS L""!AN' RUI!AL AND FARM
WASTE D1SPOSAL:
00
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES *>
NCXI-CHESAPEAKE, Inc.
STATE pfps rnitKTTY
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
42083
42087
42093'
42097
42099
42105
42107
. - ' 42109
42111
42113
42115
42117
42119
42127
42131
42133
51001
51003
51005
51007
51009
51011
51013
51015
51017
MCKEAN
MIFFUN
MONTOUR
NORTHUMBERLAND
PERRY
POTTER
SGHUYLK1LL
SNY0ER
SOMERSET
SULLIVAN
SUSQUEHANNA
T1OOA
UNION
WAYNE
WYOMING
YORK
ACCOMACK
AI.BEMARLE
ALLBOHANY
AMELIA
AMHERST
APPOMATTOX
ARLINGTON
AUGUSTA
BATH
i i^— ••^•^
b. HOUSING UNITS USING SEPTIC —
AS: " ~
URRAM *£ Q.. !,*-•** nr~v *.
V iv&Jrii^f
"•l in
29.S
70.5
151.6
43.3
68.1
24.4
104,6
22.1
5,922.4 .
1,526.6
3,079,1
239.0
1,244.6
"
*B kJUUlVlJH
••— — • II 1 «...
0.4
2.4
1.4
0.4
0.7
0.4
1.1
0.4
*
12.5
11.3
"
4C.5
100.0
9.0
-
KUKAl
II . i.
71.7
6,603.7
2,656,0
9,876.9
9,236.8
1,191.2
9,551.7
5,881.2
770.5
1,644.8
10,009.5
8,946.0
5,319.8
322,6
7,684.4
39,703.2
4,665.4
11,462,8
2,675,5
2,395.9
4,339.6
2,300.2
11,573.8
917.6
FARM
"""""""•''""•'••••••"••B™
0.6
358.5
203.3
496.8
551.9
71.4
305,3
428.3
82.0
S1.2
341.9
674.8
357.0
23.8
225.3
1,570,7
163.8
556.1
78.0
217,9
193.1
116.8
994.4
61,8
^•MMW^^B^^^K
^Subtotal
0.9
5.1
6.9
4.7,
5.6
1
5.7
' 3.1
6.8
9.6
3.0
3.3
6.9
6.3
6.9
2.8
3.3
3.4
4.1
2.8
8.3
2,5
4.8
7.2
6j|
Table 5
-------
HOUSING UNITS AS URBAN, RURAL AND FARM
TYPI2S AND MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL:
COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRI-CHBSAPEAKE, Inc.
STATE
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
"
FIPS
51019
51023
51029
5103!
51033
51036
51037
51041
51043
SIMS
51W7
51049
51053
51057
51059
51061
51065
51069
51071
51073
51075
51079
51085
51087
51091
•
COUNTY
BEDFORD
BOTETOURT
BUCKINGHAM
CAMPBELL
CAROLIMi
CHARLES CITY
CHARLOTTE
CHESTERFIELD
CLARKE
CRAIG
CULPEPER
CUMBERLAND
DINWTODIE
ESSEX
FAIRFAX
FAUQUDBR
FLUVANHA
FREDERICK
GILES
GLOUCESTER
GOOCHLAND
GREENE
HANOVER
HENR1CO
HIGHLAND
•.
b. HOUSING
AS:
URBAN
1,220.7
14.7
*
1,626.7
-
-
-
8,759.9
•92.9
"
309.1
35.5 '
41.6
-
13,874.6
159.0
.
-
-
2,909.1
-
.
3,656.4
3,400.4
-
UNITS USING SEPnC
% Subtotal
45.2
0.4
-
40.8
-
-
-
50.2
3.2
.
5.4
1.5
3.5
-
73.9
1.4
-
-
.
30,7
-
-
27.0
39.0
-
RURAL
1,413.1
3,569.8
3,465.9
2,338.1
. 5,164.0
I.8S7.9
0.4
8,526.6
2.4S0.9
9S0.1
5,164.9
2,074.3
1,0(3.6
2,217.3
4,856.0
io,mi
3,128.7
8,798.1
«8.2
6.4H.7
4,102.7
2,938.9
9,457,2
5,223.2
609.0
'/.Subtotal
53.1
93.3
95.3
58.6
96.3
97.7
95.9
48.8
86.6
94.9
89.5
89.1
90.6
94.5
25.9
91.9
95.4
96.3
83.5
67.6
94.6
96.1
70.1
59.9
80.6
FARM
46.?
239.8
169.7
26.4
199.4
45.0
0.0
172.0
291.4
52.5
299.5
218.7
68.5
128.8
36.0
788.4
152.0
341.0
17.4
163.0
235.0
120,4
404.0
95.5
146.)
•/.Subtotal
1.7
6.3
4.7
0.7
3.7
13
4.1
1.0
10.2
5,1
5.2
9.4
5.8
5.5
0.2
6.7
4,6
3.7
16,5
1.7
5.4
3.9
3.0
l.i
19.4
H
O
1
2,700.7
3,824.3
3,635.6
3,991.2
5,363.4
1,932.9
0.4
17,458.5
2,865.2
1,0316
5,773.5
2,328.6
1,173.7
. 2,346.1
18,766.6
11,730.6
3,280.8
9,139.1
105,7
9,483.8
4,337.7
3.059J
13,557.6
8,719.1
755,3 f
06
4*.
,_ Table 5
c ;.;.*•
-------
HOUSING UNITS AS'
TYPES AN DM BANS u
COUNTY SUMMARIES
, RURAL AND FARM
DISPOSAL:
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRf-CHESAFEAKE, Ine.
STATE
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
FIPS
51093
51095
51097
51099
51101
51 103
51107
51109
51111
51113
51115
51119
51121
51125
51127
51131
51133
51135
51137
51139
51145
51147
51149
51153
51157
•
1
COUNTY
ISLE OF WIGHT
JAMES COY
KINO AND QUEEN
KING GEOROI
KMO WILLIAM
LANCASTER
LOUDOUN
LOUISA
LUNENBERG
MADISON
MATHEWS
MIDDLESEX
MONTGOMERY
NELSON
NEW KENT
NORTHAMPTON
NORTHUMBERLAND
NOTTOWAY '
ORANGE
PAGE
POWHATAN
PRINCE EDWARD
PRINCE GEORGE
PRINCE WILLIAM
RAPPAIIANNOCK
b. HOUSING
AS:
URBAN
229.7
371.0
82.1
549.3
3,4
33.1
128.9
- 105.2
227.7
1,125.5
UNITS USING SEPTIC
*/» Subtotal
5.3
9.9
3.2
7.2
C.2
0.7
2.8
3.0
13.6
10,0
RURAL
3,962.7
3,304.0
2,026X1
3,223.9
2,346,3
3,651.0
6,283.5
5,981.7
0.8
3^85.6
3,101.5
2,948.2
161.1
3,481.3
3,502.8
2,223.2
3,687.9
1,370.3
4,315.3
4,171.4
4,317.5
3.212.1
1,406.7
9,918.0
1,989.0
% Subtotal
91,4
88.3
93.2
96.1
91.3
97.8
82.8
95.6
95.6
92.9
98.5
97.3
91.8
95.1
97.4
95.1
95.2
90.7
93.0
91.0
96,7
91.5
84.1
88.2
93.1
FARM
145.3
65.3
147.1
131.2
140.1
81.8
751.4
275.6
0.0
256.9
45.8
83,1
14.4
178,2
93,0
114.7
186.2
137.4
292.2
283,3
146,0
192.3
39.1
198.4
147.5
KSublota
3.4
1.7
6.8
3,9
5.5
2.2
9.9
4,4
4.4
7.1
1.5
2.7
8.2
4.9
2,6
4.9
4,8
9.1
6.3
6.2
3.3
5.5
2,3
1.8
6.9
N
g
i
4,337.7
3,740.3
2,173.1
3,355.2
2.5S8.5
3,732.8
7,584.2
6,257.3
0,8
3,642.5
3,147.3
3.0JI.3
175.5
3,659.5
3,595.8
2,337.8
3,874.1
l,5;i,0
4,640.5
4,5*3.5
4,4«3.5 I
3,509.7
1,673,6
11,242.01
2,135.5 1
Table 5
-------
MOUSING UNITS AS URBAN, RURAL AND FARM
TYPES AND MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL-
COUNTY SUMMARIES
00
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
MCRI-CHESAPEAKE,toc. 1 — — -
fit .1 ___
bTE
— jINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGMA
VIRGINIA
VIRGMA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
FIPS
51159
51161
51163
51165
51171
51177
51179
51181
51187
. 51193
5119?
51510
51530
51540
5J550
51560
51570
51580
51600
51610
51630
51650
5)660
51670
51678
COUNTY
RICHMOND
ROANOKS
ROCKBRDGE
ROCKINCHAM
SHENANDOAH
SPOTS YLVANIA
STAFFORD
SURRY
WARREN
WESTMORELAND
YORK
ALEXANDRIA
BUENA VISTA
CHARLOTHSVILLl
CHESAPEAKE CfTY
CLIFTON FORGE
COLONIAL HEIGHTS
COVINOTON
FAIRFAX
FALLS CHURCH
FREDERICKSBURG
HAMPTON CITY
HARRJSONBURQ
HOPEWELL
LEXINGTON
b. HOUSING
•-—
URBAN
*•
69,1
208.6
590.7
768.0
256.5
96.0
3,080.7
67.6
74.6
212.1
3,057.5
3.7
22.5
103
38 1
77
76,8
1,159.4
4*18.5
1234
9J
UNITS USING
% Subtotal
0.5
3.2
7.3
9.5
5.0
2.3
52.8
1000
1000
1000
99.2
1000
1000
1000
tOO A
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
100.0
SEPTIC
RURAL
1,880,4
342.3
5,007.7
12,715.6
5,865.9
7,279,3
7,190.5
848,5
4,755.1
3,974.0
2,741.3
23.0
1
H Subtotal
92.5
93.2
93.8
90.7
89.3
89.4
89.2
92.1
93.3
93,5
47.0
•
0.7
"
•
•
*"
"
"
"
FARM %Stibt0ta
152.7 7.5
25.0 6.8
332J 6.2
1,238.8 8,g
491.1 7,5
268.2 3.3
106.3 |.3
73.2 7.9
85.2 1.7
180.4 4.2
9.9
-------
HOUSING UNITS / 1RBAN, RURAL AND FARM
TYPES AND MEAN. OF WASTE DISPOSAL
COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY I ROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRI-CHESAPEAKE, Inc.
STATE
VIRGINIA
VIROINIA
VIROINIA
VIROINIA
VIRGINIA
VIROINIA
VIRGINIA
VIROINIA
VIRGINIA
VIROINIA
VIROINIA
VIRGINIA
VIROINIA
VIROINIA
VIROINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGDfA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VERGMA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIROINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIROINIA
FIPS
51680
51683
51685
51700
5I7IO
51730
51735
51740
51760
51790
51800
51810
51820
51830
51840
54003
54023
54025
54027
54031
54037
54057
54063
54065
54071
1
Ib.HOUSINO
IAO.
COUNTY
LYNCHBURG
MANASSESCITY
MAHASSES PARK Cn
NEWPORT NEWS Cff
NORFOLK CITY
PETERSBURG
POQUOSON
PORTSMOUTH CITY
RICHMOND CITY
STAUNTON
SUFFOLK CrTY
VIRGINIA BEACH err
WAYNSSBORO
WEXIAMSBURG
WINCHESTER
BERKELEY
GRANT
GREENBRIAR
HAMPSHIRE
HARDY
JEFFERSON
MINERAL
MONROE
MOROAN
PENDLETON
URBAN
4,006.1
125.8
1,656,1
704.6
105,2
1,053.2
346.5
1,608.2
286.6
4,854,5
4,513,5
450,4
126.5
269.8
265.1
0,1
66.4
626.7
^M^BMH.^.^BH,..
•^^•^^•1,,
"™"™"™-"""""™^^^^
~ •• i
UNITS USING SEPTIC "
% Subtotal
100,0
100.0
100,0
100.0
100,0
1CO.O
100.0
100,0
90.4
77.9
103.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
2.3
8.4
0.9
118
"
RURAL
23.4
1,309.3
10,790,8
2,221.3
0.6
4.167.4
2,297.2
6,958.6
3,757.2
215.7
3,258.5
1 701 8
% Subtotal^
7.4
21.0
95.2
92.5
89.6
94.2
-91.1
95,2
82.8
89.6
98,2
FARM
-
I
•
m
•
•>
**
"
6.9
67.6
*
**
*
*
274.1
180.4
0,0
257.9
223.6
287.3
155.7
25.0
59.4
HSublota
-
*
'-
•
•
•
"
2.2
1.1
•
-
-
2.4
7,5
g
N
O
H
_|
4006.1
125.8
1^56.1
704.6
105.2
1,0534
346.5
MOS.2
317.0
6,231.9
4,513.9
450.4
126.5
269.S
11,330.0
2,431.8
2-0 0,7 1
5.8
8.9
3,9
3,4
10,4
1.8
4.4J5.4
2,520.8 j
7,3:2.3 I
4,539.7 I
240,8 1 .
3,318.0 I
Table 5
-------
HOUSING UNITS AS URBAN, RURAL AND FARM
TYPES AND MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL-
COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRI-CHSSAPEAKE, fee.
STATE
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
Grand Totnl
FITS
54075
54077
54083
54093
•
COUNTY
POCAHONTAS
PRESTON.
RANDOLPH
TUCKER
b. HOUSING UNITS USING (SEPTIC
AS:
URBAN V, Subtotal RURAL
0.7
15.1
0.6
1.9
193,784,6 15.3 1,021,629.8
% Subtotal
90.4
93.6
92.1
98.9
80.7
FARM
0.1
1.0
0.1
0.0
50,032,2
%Sub[otaI
9.6
6.4
7.9
1.1
4,0
8
1
0.8
16.1
0.6
1.9
1,265,446.5
8
O
-------
HOUSING UNITS AS BAN, RURAL AND FARM
TYPES AND MEANS v,/ WASTE DISPOSAL-
COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
I COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRl-CHESAPEAKE, Inc.
STATE
DELAWARE
DELAWARE
DELAWARE
DISTRICT OF
MARYLAND
ynn
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
vn
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYIAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
c HOUSING WITS UMNO OTHER MEAN. OP MQM-SEWERED mp^^ST
^_.. HPS
10001
10003
iDoos
)LUMB1A UOOl
24001
24003
24005
24009
2«IOI1
24013
24015
24017
24019
24021
*
24029
24031
"5JITX
/nUJJ
24039
24041
24043
24045
24047
COUNTY
KENT
NEWCASTLE
SUSSEX
WASHINGTON
ALLEOANY
ANNEARUNDEL
BALTIMORE
CALVEaT
CAROLINE
CARROLL
CECIL
CHARLES
DORCHESTER
FREDERICK
GARRETT
HARFORD
HOWARD
KENT
MONTGOMERY
PRINCE GEORGE'S
QUEEN ANNE'S
SAINT MARY'S
SOMERSET
TALBOT
WASHINGTON
WJCOMICO
I URBAN
0,1
273
1,198.4
596.6
457,7
1.6
19.0
55.5
I31J
80.1
47.6
6.0
380,5
729.3
ii
314
165
WORCESTER | 22
'""
*/iSublotol
06
100.0
20.1
70.0
59.3
0.6
3.3
14
21.3
15,4
21.7
2.4
75.4
83.6
0.2
52
'
21
•^— ^"^— ™™.^
RURAL
10?
s */«*
368.4
211.9
240.1
313.9
2603
563.4
410.0
*
559.9
72.0
4"?0 ">
"•**,*
171.5
229.9
124,2
274.0
564,3
187,8
'
. ^Subtotal
89,0
82.8
75.9
28.2
87,8
IM
83.6
78.7
83.1
78,3
932
246
982
81.4
92.5
87,5.
85,4
88.J
FARM y.ggblola
10.6 10.8
1-2 10.8
11.0 3.9
15.3 J.8
44.2 8.7
4.6 1.0
84-6 8.7
27.9 5.9
14.6 ]6 9
10.7 4,4
•
• «
S.O 1.8
14.6 7.2.
3.4 2.3
56,8 9.4
22.6 6.8
PI
j
1
1 5 TftTAi.
98J| 5397J
11.5
444,9
1.198.4
279.
852.0
771.5
507.1
274.1
582.4
453.6
973,7
474.0
711.7
86.6
519.4
219.
246.6
504,7
872.6
279.0
693.6
202.7
149.3
605.1
334,3
1.749.6
I7.J78.7
249,434.6
29.S32.2
149,114.0
1 268410.1 1
16,986.0
9,983.0
42,241,0
23,498.0
32,950.0 I
12,117.0
52.5W.O
1,758.9 1
63,193.0
68.3J7.0
6,702.0
282,227.8
258,010.8
12,419.0
25^00,0
7,977.0 1
I2.67T.O 1
44,7610 1
27,7710 I
-^ 9-7l W.I ( <*»* |
Table 5
-------
HOUSING UNITS AS URBAN, RURAL AND FARM
TYPES AND MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL:
COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCR1-CHESAPEAKE, lie.
StATE F1PS COUNTY
MARYLAND 24510 BALTIMORE CITY
NEW YORK 36003 ALIEOANY
NEW YORK 36007 BROOME
NEW YORK 36011 CAYUOA
NEW YORK 360 1 5 CHEMUNO
NEW YORK 36017 CHENANQO
NEW YORK 36023 CORTLAND
NEW YORK 36025 DELAWARE
NEW YORK 36043 1IERKIMER
NEW YORK 36051 LIVINGSTON
NEW YORK •- 36053 MADISON
NEW YORK 36065 ONS1DAEAST
NEW YORK 36067 ONONDAOA
NEW YORK 36069 ONTARIO
NEW YORK 36077 OTSEOO
NEW YORK 36095 SCHOHAR1E
NEW YORK 36097 SCHUYLER
NEW YORK 36101 STEUBEN
NEW YORK 36107 T1OOA
NEW YORK 36109 TOMI'KINS
NEW YORK 36123 YATES
PENNSYLVANIA 42001 ADAMS
PENNSYLVANIA 42009 BEDFORD
PENNSYLVANIA 42011 BERKS
PENNSYLVANIA 42013 BLAIR
PENNSYLVANIA 42015 BRADFORD
PENNSYLVANIA 42021 CAMBRIA
e. HOUSING UNITS USING OTHER MEANS OF NON-SEWERED TREATMENT
AS;
URBAN '/.Subtotal RURAL ^Subtotal FARM WSubtodl
2,814.5 . 100.0 ....
14.0 . 94.4 0.8 5.6
33.0 10,8 223.8 73.0 49.9 I6J
0.0 100.0
282 19.4 89.8 61.7 27.5 18,9
2.J 0.7 382.9 94.5 19.5 4,8
6.9 3.3 167.2 812 31.9 15,5
74.0 87.0 11.1 13,0
11.4 92.8 0.9 7.2
2.7 96.3 0.1 ' 3,7
12.2 7.5 142.0 87.4 8.3 5.1
O.t 8.8 6.9 77.0 1.3 14,2
14.5 81.7 32 18.3
...
3.0 1.2 2152 84.4 36.9 14,5
16.6 89.6 1.9 104
48.4 732 17.7 26,8
710J 90.5 74.6 9,5
1X7 42 264.0 86.8 27.6 9.1
36.1 883 4.8 11,7
3.8 92.4 OJ 7.6
578.7 952 29.3 4,8
478.0 96.0 20,0 4.0
0.0 0.0 65.2 86.9 9.8 13.1
91.8 19.9 356.0 77.1 13.9 3.0
18,3 2.3 747^6 922 44.9 5,5
481.9 98.5 7.5 1.5
I
1
2,814.5
14.8
306,8
0.0
145.5
4052
206.0
85.1
12.3
2,8
162.6
8.9
17.8
. .
255.1
18.5
66.1
784.8
304.3
40.9
4.1
608.0
498.0
75.0
461.8
810.7
489.4
TOTAL
276,483.9
1,304.2
80,9482
15.6
33,719.6
19,498.9
16(442.7
5.432.4
W05.«
133,5
5.625.0
984.5
1,0452
43.4
21,4774
404.1
1,454.4
33,640.0
18,838.0
2,122.6
922
28,067.0
18,029.5
4.328.1
50.332.0
22,492.0
11,8022
o
Tnblc 5
-------
HOUSING UNITS AS I AN, RURAL AND FARM
TYPES AND MEANS Or WASTE DISPOSAL-
COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCR1-CHESAPEAKE, Inc.
STATS FIPS COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA 42023 CAMERON
PENNSYLVANIA 42025 CARBON
PENNSYLVANIA 42027 CENTRE
PENNSYLVANIA 42029 CHESTER
PENNSYLVANIA 42033 CLEARFIELD
PENNSYLVANIA 42035 CLINTON
PENNSYLVANIA 42037 COLUMBIA
PENNSYLVANIA 42041 CUMBERLAND
PENNSYLVANIA 42043 DAUPHIN
PENNSYLVANIA 42047 ELK
PENNSYLVANIA 42055 FRANKLIN
PENNSYLVANIA 42057 FULTON
PENNSYLVANIA 42061 HUNTINGDON
PENNSYLVANIA 42063 INDIANA
PENNSYLVANIA 42065 JEFFERSON
PENNSYLVANIA 42067 JUNIATA
PENNSYLVANIA 42069 LACKAWANNA
PENNSYLVANIA 42071 LANCASTER
PENNSYLVANIA 42075 LEBANON
PENNSYLVANIA 42079 LUZERNE
PENNSYLVANIA 42081 LYCOMING
PENNSYLVANIA 42083 MCKEAN
PENNSYLVANIA 42087 MIFFLIN
PENNSYLVANIA 42093 MONTOUR
PENNSYLVANIA 42097 NORTHUMBERLAND
PENNSYLVANIA 42099 PERRY
PENNSYLVANIA 42105 POTTER
«. HOUSING UNITS USING OTHER MEANS OF NON-SEWERED TREATMENT
AS;
URBAN HSublotel RURAL ^Subtotal FARM WSubtoUi
IS3J 100.0 - "T"
0,0 -1000
432.4 95.4 20.6 4,4
131-2 95.1 6,8 4.9
818.5 100.0
478.5 97.0 14.8 3.0
0.0 0,0 332J 96.7 11.2 3,3
61.2 9.7 563.2 89,5 4.7 0.7
265.6 36.0 473.2 64.0
- , 464 109.0
696.2 92.8 53.6 7.2
145,0 94.3 8,8 5.7
472 J 9'6.<5 16.7 3.4
88.2 9«.9 2.9 3J
* - 01 Iflfl ft
19I.S 85.1 33.6 14.9
92,5 28.5 2322 7' "5
266.9 15.6 1,191,4 69.7 251.5 147
59.4 22.3 191.1 71.7 16,1 6.0
259.1 31.3 570.0 61.7
»•« 8.3 542.8 8t8 * 18.0 2.9
-- * , . I ] IAfl ft
382.8 83.7 74.8 16J
33 3.4 89 J 91.3 5.2 5,3
32.7 8.3 347.7 81,7 11.7 3^
609.2 98.2 10.9 1,8
I42.J iflnn
i
F
153.7
0.0
453.0
138.0
818.5
493.3
343.4
629,0
738,8
46,4
749.9
153.8
489.0
91.0
O.I
225.4
324.7
1,709.8
266.6
829.1
611,4
i.l
457,6
97,7
392.1
620.1
1*12.1
••••••— i i
TOTAL
2^91.3
0.5
42,483.0
8,929.1
22,210.1
13,144.0
23,478.0
73,451.9
95,264,0
2,418,2
45,«75.0
5,139.0
15,327.0
1.193.3
12
7,598.0
82,849.4
150,8633
37.295.5
123,354.9
44,949.0
?8.2l
17.657.0
6,543.0
38,736.0
14,949,0
2,073.1
Table 5
-------
MOUSING UNITS AS URBAN, RURAL AND FARM
TYPES AND MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL:
COUN1T SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTICPROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES . 1
N'^Rl-CHESM'EAJCE he l~~~ ~~~~ ~~— — — — — — — ,, 1
STATE ops COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA 42107 SCKUYLK1LL
PENNSYLVANIA 42109 SNYDER
PENNSYLVANIA 421 11 SOMERSET
PENNSYLVANIA 421 13 SULLIVAN
PENNSYLVANIA 42115 SUSQUEHANHA
PENNSYLVANIA 42117 T1OOA
PENNSYLVANIA 42119 UNION
PENNSYLVANIA 42127 WAYNE
PENNSYLVANIA 42131 WYOMING
PENNSYLVANIA 42133 YORK
VIRGINIA 51001 ACCOMACK
VIRGINIA 51003 ALBEMARLE
VIRGINIA 5J005 ALLEGHANY
VIRGINIA 51007 AMELIA
VIRGINIA SI009 AMHERST
VIRGINIA 51011 APPOMATTOX
VIRGINIA 5J013 ARLINGTON
VIRGINIA 51015 AUGUSTA
VIRGINIA 51017 BATH
VIRGINIA 51019 BEDFORD
VIRGINIA 51023 BOTETOURT
VIRGINIA 51029 BUCKINGHAM
VIRGINIA 51031 CAMPBELL
VIRGINIA 51033 CAROLINE
VIRGINIA SJ036 CHARLES CITY
VIRGINIA 51037 CHARLOTTE
e, HOUSING UNITS USING OTHER MEANS OF NON-SEWEREn TR PATMFWT
AS,' ' —
URBAN HSubbwl RURAL ^Subtotal FARM %Subtota
9-« 1.7 557.6 96,7 9.4 i.fi
3«2.1 - 823 82.5 17J
50.8 91.9 4.5 8.1
'93 97.5 2.0 2.5
• "913 97.3 13.6 2.7
4** 1-0 462.1 93.8 26.0 S3
117,7 84.6 21.5 15.4
16.7 92.0 1.5 8.6
180.9 97.6 4.5 24
m-1 ?J 1,3073 88.6 59.5 4.0
526.5 93.6 363 64
9-4 1-9 438.9 90.1 39.0 8.0
298.4 100.0
217.6 90.9 21.9 9.1
24.8 5.9 375,9 89.9 |7J 4.1
91.3 95.9 3.9 4.1
105,0 1000 - •
*** 3^ 719.0 88.5 64.3 7.9
236.4 925 20.1 7.8
16.2 12.7 118,3 84.6 3.5 2.7
262.1 100.0
356.8 952 18.0 4,8
2a 3.9 30.8 954 0.4 0.8
4S3.4 973 13.6 2.7
210.9 100.0
VIRGINIA 51041 CHlHmMiRtn ,«., Tf r ™ ™ 0'° 3'8
"I"'"1"5 *,+i
,
I
576,9
4*4.6
55.2
SU
504.9
492.9
1393
II. I
1853
1,474,8
562.8
4873
2984
239.5
418,0
953
10S.O
812.3
258.5
I2S.O
262,1
374.8
533
497.0
210.9 1
• — : —
TOTAL
25,1393
12,764.0
917.0
2380.0
14.898.0
14,974.0
11.689.0
475J
10.002.0
128.666.0
6J44.0
24.433.0
4^40.8
3,131.0
9,827.0
2,721.1
78420.0
19,781.0
1.894.6
3.416.1
4.884.9
4.341.0
4,7024
6,631,0
2.161.0
0.0 I 0 J
±£*OJ 7I.44I.I
\ 'I A-/"'
-------
HOUSING UNITS i IRBAN, RURAL AND FARM
TYPES AND MEANS OP WASTE DISPOSAL- '
COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
MCP1 CHE" U*EArC, IA • ~— — — -
STATE FIPS COUNTY
VIRGINIA 51043 CLARKE
VIRGINIA 5I04J CRAra
VIRGINIA 51047 CULPEPER
VIRGINIA $,049 CUMBERLAND
VIROINIA 5IQ53 DINWIDD1E
VIRGINIA 51057 ESSEX
VIRGINIA ' 51059 FAIRFAX
VIROINIA 51061 FAUQUIER
VIRGINIA 51065 FLUVANNA
VIRGINIA . 51069 FREDERICK
VIRGINIA 5,07! O1LES
VIRGINIA 51073 GLOUCESTER
VIRGINIA 51075 OOOCHLAND
VIRGINIA 5,079 GREENE
VIROINIA 51085 HANOVER
VIROINIA 51087 HENRICO
VIRGINIA 5J09J HIGHLAND
VIRGINIA 5(093 ISLE OF WIGHT
VIROINIA 51095 JAMES CITY
VIRD!N!A 51097 KINOAND QUEEN
VIROINIA 51099 KINGGEORGE
VIRGINIA 51I01 KING WILLIAM
VIRGINIA 5 1103 LANCASTER
V1R3INIA 5 1 107 LOUDOUN
VIRGINIA 5,, 09 LOUISA
VIRGINIA 511 1 1 LUNENBERO
VIRGINIA 51113 MADISON
AS:
_ URBAN '/.Subtotal RURAL V.cii iktoiit PA DM «/ «?, ,*,, .
°-" O.I 159.4 91.7 14.3 51
98,5 • 100.0
30-2 S.8 461.S 89.0 26.6 S.|
263,1 86 Jt • 32,7 10 6
38.1 93,5 2.6 6.5
'93.5 89.4 22.9 106
545,2 88.8 68.4 112
'•« 0-5 346.5 92,9 24.7 6.6
5W.4 97.1 17.7 2.9
6.9 100.0
54J 'I-* 411.2 85.4 15.5 3,2
308.9 100,0
'"M 90.4 18.2 9«
613 9.4 590.5 90,6
116.0 39.9 175.1 ' 60,1 v
135,7 77.6 ' 39.1 22,4
14 I-' 123.4 91.9 9,5 7J
18>2 18-2 W.8 79.8 . 1.9 1.9
133.8 86.6 20.7 13^4
145.4 97.5 3,8 2.5
170.0 91.5 i5j 8J
255,0 95.9 10.9 '41
146 ".« 270 S7.S 24.8 7.8
55S.2 92.9 42.8 7,1
0.0 95,7 0,0 4.3
• - 376 1
-------
HOUSING UNITS AS URBAN, RURAL AND FARM
TYPES AND MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL;
COUNTY* SUMMARJBS
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROilCT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRI-CHESAPEAKE, Inc.
STATE FIPS COUNTY
VIRGINIA SHIS MATHEWS
VIRGINIA 51 1 19 MIDDLESEX
VIRGINIA 51121 MONTGOMERY
VIRGINIA 51125 NELSON
VIRGINIA 51127 HEW KENT
VIRGINIA 51131 NORTHAMPTON
VIRGINIA 51133 NORTHUMBERLAND
VIRGINIA 5 1 135 NOTTOWAY
VIRGINIA 5 1 137 ORANGE
VIRGINIA 51139 PAGE
VIRGINIA '• 51143 POWHATAM
VIRGINIA 5 1 147 PRINCE-EDWARD
VIRGINIA 51149 PRINCE GEORGE
VIRGINIA 51 153 PRINCE WILLIAM
VIRGINIA 51157 RAPPAHANNOCK
VIRGINIA 51159 RICHMOND
VIRGINIA 5 116 1 ROANOKB
VIRGINIA 51163 ROCKBRIDGB
VIRGINIA 51165 ROCKINGHAM
VIRGINIA 51 17 1 SUENANDOAII
VIRGINIA 51177 SPOTS YLVANIA
VIRGINIA 51179 STAFFORD
VIRGINIA 51111 SURRY
VIRGINIA 511*7 WARREN
VIRGINIA 5 II 93 WESTMORELAND
VIRGINIA 5119? YORK
VIRGINIA 51510 ALEXANDRIA >
o. HOUSING UNITS USING OTHER MEANS OF NON-SEWERED TREATMENT
AS:
.
URBAN HSiiblotal RURAL WSublotal FARM fiSubtott
188.7 97,8 4,2 2,2
139.4 • 95,5 6,5 4,5
18,5 100.0
680.3 92.9 51,6 7.1
S4.2 100.0
235.4 91,9 20.8 I.I
277.9 91.6 25,6 M
122.9 90.1 13.5 9.9
0.4 0.1 264.0 93.8 17.2 6.1
2.1 0.7 278,9 96.4 8.4 2.9
147,5 100.0
0.6 0.2 224.7 95.4 103 4.3
18.5 23,2 60.5 75.6 |J> u
74.6 24,6 2244 74.0 4,0 1, 3
. W6.5 92.9 ISA 7.1
212.7 85.9 35.0 14.1
3.4 100.0
578,7 932 42.$ 6.8
877.8 90.8 88.7 9J
l«.t 22 665.3 92.2 40.5 5.6
. 6.1 1.6 377.0 96.9 5.8 1.5
17,1 5.6 288,1 93.6 2,7 0.9
67.8 93.4 4.8 6.6
2.2 1.0 22S.S 97.5 3.6 1.5
J.5 0.9 356.1 90 3 35,0 8.9
».* 35.1 28.6 63.5 0.6 1.4
80.8 100.0 ....
i
1
193.0
146.0
18.5
731.9
84.2
2S&2
303.5
136.4
281,6
289.4
147.5
235.5
80.0
302.9
211.5
247,7
3.4
621.2
966.6
721,9
388.9
307.9
72.6
234,4
394,5
45.0
80 J
TOTAL
3,330.0
3,530.0
213.7
4,807,0
3,718,0
3,341,5
4,492.0
2.870J
7,930.0
8,055,0
4,672.0
5,285.7
4,268.3
69,709.0
2,496.0
2,645.0
375.0
7402.0
20,750,0
12.4S2.0
18,945.0
19,415.0
1,167.4
9,879.0
6,QS7,
-------
HOUSING UNITS /« URBAN, RURAL AND FARM
TYPES AND MEAi JF WASTE DISPOSAL:
COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCW-CHESAPEAK£,I.K,
STATE
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIR01NIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRaiNIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VJROIN1A
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGIN IA
MBM^BM^^M
Table 5
^
51530
51540
51550
51560
51570
51580
51600
51610
51630
51650
51660
51670
51678
53680
51683
51685
51700
51710
51730
51735
51740
51760
51790
51800
51810
51820
51830
«=. HOUSING UNITS USING OTHERMJI53
j-SEWERED TREATMRN-T
COUNTY
BUENA VISTA
CHARLOTTES VILLE
CHESAPEAKE CITY
CLIFTON FORGE
COLONIAL HEIGHTS
COVINGTON
FAIRFAX
FALLS CHURCH
FREDER1CKSBURO
HAMPTON CITY
HARRBONBURC
HOPEWELL
LEXINGTON
LYNCHBURG
MANASSES CITY
MANASSES PARK CIT
NEWPORT NEWS CITY
NORFOLK CITY
PETERSBURG
POQUOSON
PORTSMOUTH CITY
RICHMOND CITY
STAUNTON
SUFFOLK CITY
VIRGINIA BEACH CIT
WAYNESBORO
WILUAMSBURO
URBAN_
—
34.5
111.9
4.8
25.6
8.4
97.8
16,4
94.4
•/•Subtotn
100.0
100.0
99.4
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
RURAL ****•!
0.3
35J
9.0
( 142.9
201.3
28.2
4.7
120.4
210.8
38.2
324.8
120,6
36.4
. £_?
100,0
100,0
100,0
100.0
100,0
100,0
100,0
100.0
100.0
82.1
100.0
100.0
100,0
61-8 15,6
ARM %Subtola
* *
* ^
0.4 0.3
""
*
*
"
*
-
"
•
*
m
«
*
"
*
"
*
•
..
*
•8 2.2
•
*
to
*
t-
1
1
i
O
JJ 1 1 TOTAL!
23.2
34.5
112.5
-
-
•
4.S
25.6
8.4
97.8
16,4
94.4
-
35.2
9.0
•
142,9
201.3
28.2
4.7
2,057.0
15,466.0
44.742.3
1,611.0
4.363.0
2,545.0
fi.936.0
4,195.0 1
7,450.0
49,673.0
9,962,0
9,014.0
1,740.0
25,143.0
9492.0
2,182.0
63,952.0
19,478,0
12,538.4
3,769.0
I2°.<» 38,741.0 1
210.8
38.2
395.4
120.6
36.4
85,337.0 1
9,100.01
14,530.1 1
94 3. 18.0
6,965,0
-------
HOUSINO UNITS AS URBAN, RURAL AND FARM
TYPES AND MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL:
COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SIPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRl-CHESAPEAKE, Inc.
STATE PIPS COUNTY
VIRGINIA 51840 WINCHESTER
WEST VIRGINIA 54003 BERKELEY
WEST VIRGINIA 54023 QUANT
WEST VIRGINIA 54025 GREENBRIAR
WEST VIRGINIA 54027 HAMPSHIRE
WEST VIRGINIA 54031 HARDY
WEST VIRGINIA 54037 JEFFERSON
WEST VIRGINIA 54057 MINERAL
WEST VIRGINIA 54063 MONROE
WEST VIRGINIA 54065 MORGAN
WEST VIRGINIA '• 54071 PENDLETOH
WEST VIRGINIA 54075 POCAHONTAS
WEST VIRGINIA 54077 PRESTON
WEST VIRGINIA 54083 RANDOLPH
WEST VIRGINIA 54093 TUCKER
Cram! Totil
«, HOUSING UNITS USING OTHER MEANS OF NON-SEWERED TREATMENT
AS;
URBAN SSubiotol RURAL %Subtot»i FARM V.SubtoUl
>•*••>*•
28.4 3.9 657,7 . 91 a 34.9 4.8
2243 89.1 27.$ 10.9
0.1 100.0
592.9 90.0 66.0 10.0
441.1 86.1 7IJ 13.9
168,0 91.8 15.0 8.2
32.6 20.6 1193 75.7 5.8 3.7
35.9 98.6 0.5 1.4
163.4 96.5 «.0 3.5
457.4 81.7 102.6 18.3
0.1 92 J 0.0 7.8
1.0 94.3 O.i 5.7
0,1 100.0
0.7 100.0
11.404.4 18.6 46,6613 763 3,120.7 5.1
i
i
*
721,0
251.9
0.1
659.0
512.4
183.0
157.7
36.4
169.4
560.0
0.1
1.1
0.1
0.7
61,186.5
TOTAL
S.5S1.C
22350.0
3,924,0
1.5
6,182.0
4,286.0
12,914.0
9,981.0
295.0
4,731.0
3,060.4
1.1
17.4
0.7
13.6
5,292,570,0
VO
TableS
!.„.._,
-------
POPULATION AS URBA JtlAL AND FARM TYPES ANt
MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL; COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRKHESAPEAKE, loo.
STATE PIPS COUNTY
DELAWARE 10001 KENT
DELAWARE 10003 NEWCASTLE
OF.1.AWARK 1000$ SUSSEX
1MSTJUCT OF COLUMBIA 11001 WASHINGTON
MARYLAND 24001 ALLEQANY
MARYLAND 24003 ANNEARUNDEL
MARYLAND 2400$ BALTIMORE
MARYLAND 24009 CALVERT
MARYLAND 24011 CAROLINE
MARYLAND • 24013 CARROLL
MARYLAND 24015 CECIL
MARYLAND ' 240J7 CHARLES
MARYLAND 24019 DORCHESTER
MARYLAND 24021 FREDERICK
MARYLAND 24023 OARRETT
MARYLAND 2402$ IIARFORD
MARYLAND 24027 HOWARD
MARYLAND 24029 KENT
MARYLAND 240J1 MONTGOMERY
MARYLAND 24033 PRINCE QEOROE'S
MARYLAND 2403J QUEEN ANNE'S
MARYLAND 24037 SAINT MARY'S
MARYLAND 24039 SOMERSET
MARYLAND 24041 TALBOT
MARYLAND 24043 WASHINGTON
MARYLAND 24045 W1COMICO
MARYLAND 24047 WORCESTER
MARYLAND 24510 BALTIMORE CITY
2. Population
*. POPULATION US1NO SEWER AS}
J
1
URBAN *
24.26 1.14
930.31 tO.OI
5,241,62 4167
565,471.97 100.00
45.63S.30 79.01
295,476.62 99.19
SSi.l3t.4t 9931
I73J8 3.12
1,302.04 30.77
31,815.3$ 78.95
J.35197 31.77
5 ;,05!. 05 92.14
1 1,040.52 71.04
4J.79S.94 f7.64
102.630.59 9«.57
145.032.21 99.13
2,113.22 31.21
693,614.96 99.31
677,741.43 99.01
* *
12,720.9! 59,94
2,100.27 3«.57
8,405.06 61.49
57,041,01 8S.04
22,195.91 61.16
3,942.76 63.29
699657.62 100.00
1
RURAL *
2.0W.47 97,«
229.16 19.7»
J.017.49 37.7J
* *
12.377.92 20.97
' 2.427,40 0.19
3,697.20 0.63
• 3,311.10 96.7*
5,560,16 6I.3»
9.321.61 23.0J
14.73t.2S 61.03
4,517.10 7.83
4,467.16 2S.74
9,276.78 IZ36
717,57 99.61
3.647,00 3.43
1,297.03 0.86
4,490,12 60.95
4.764.00 0.61
6,612.72 0.91
9.467.00 99.34
«,474,M 39,93
4,«29.I5 63.07
5,241.92 3135
7.721.1S U.92
9,740.15 30,22
2,27126 36.57
* *
. "I
TOTAL POPULATION
USINQ SEWER
}
j
FARM J
21.44 1,00
Lit 0.14
19.41 0.15
9.42 0,02
14.71 OJK)
6.» 0,12
61.23 0.14
3.34 0,91
47.0J 0.19
7.75 0,01
33.0? 0,21
X7J OJ9
16.50 0.01
62.21 0,14
1119 O.CO
* •
62.4J 0.(S
2104 0.13
17.78 0.36
2i01 0,16
27.17 0.04
41.74 0.13
8.91 0.!4
k$|XJ ME1 AN U*v
1,613.20 2,134.11 2,117.04
935.04 1.1J1.7J 1,392.74
1J,I3I.6I 11,271.32 15,117.70
132,215.61 560,471.97 56I,«O.I3
54,606.69 59.023.IJ 63.M3.42
2t4,*41t7 301,926.3* 319.S79.32
372.7SI.20 3I9,«3I.2J 60?,»150
3,174.04 5,361.11 7.5M.6I
6,306.11 1,130.43 I0,0n,'«
3S^I7.49 41,347.31 47.7U.73
19,207.92 24,137.32 29.2il.2l
53,631.93 57,575,11 61,123.24
14,121.76 15,540.71 17.072J6
67,766.25 75,073.79 I2.MZ71
354,55 720,33 l.liOJS
99,181.11 106,277,59 113,123.67
144,023.74 150,345.10 I56.IJ3.32
3,445.10 7,36124 9,337.33
613,50193 691,400,37 7l3,6i3.17
66t,52I,I2 614,514,44 700,513.11
7,221.05 9,529.44 12,019,15
17,433,30 21,223.96 25,377.61
6,303.66 7,657.12 9,024.97
11,143.41 13,66t,99 I5.717J2
39,184,40 64,796,40 70,104.13
28,209.61 32,231.56 36,452,61
5,47337 6,230,00 7,031.10
Table 6
-------
POPULATION AS URBAN, RURAL AND FARM TYPOS AND
MEANS OP WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
HCRI-CHESAPEAKE, Inc.
flf
STATE FIPS COUNTY
NEW YORK 3(003 ALLEOANY
HEW YORK 34007 BPOOME
HEW YORK MOii CAYUOA
HEW YORK 3501 J CHEMUNO
HEW YORK 3SOI7 CHENANOO
HEW YORK 35023 CORTLAN0
HEW YORK 35025 DELAWARE
HEW YORK 3(043 HERKIMER
HEW YORK 3M5I LtVINOSTOH
HEW YORK •, 3*053 MADISON
HEW YORK 34043 ONEIDAEAST
HEW YORK 34047 ONONDAOA
NEW YORK 36069 ONTARIO
HEW YORK 36077 OTSEOO
HEW YORK 3C09S SCHOHARtB
HEW YORK . 34097 SCHUYLER
HEW YORK 3«I01 STEUBEN
HEW YORK 3410? TKXJA
HEW YORK 34109 TOMPKINS
NEW YORK ' 34123 YATES
PENNSYLVANIA 42001 ADAMS
PENNSYLVANIA 42009 BEDFORD
PENNSYLVANIA 42011 BERKS
PENNSYLVANIA 42013 BLAIR
PENNSYLVANIA 4201 5 BRADFORD
PENNSYLVANIA 42021 CAMBRIA
PENNSYLVANIA 42023 CAMERON
PENNSYLVANIA 42025 CARBON
2. Population
* POPULATION USING SEWER AS:
1
N
f
I
URBAN *
$21,72 93.54
I30.S44.S9 9J.11
« •
31,944.27 97.69
7,305.41 33JS
11,947.53 11,90
4.404.H 93.11
-
.
2^54.42 93.26
173.95 35,72
.
.
9.HKMK 6I.SI
-
* *
29.19J.34 73.0
14,497.5* 14.94
•
•
lt,202JS!> 33.40
3,091.51 29.71
134.SJ 9.94
74.535.4T 14.32
11,204.22 42.41
2,501.01 15.22
2.4JO.IT f3.«5
•
1
t-
1
I
RURAL X
43.44 «.4«
«,JSt.96 4.79
0,«4 99.69
1,230.90 2,31
- «^T7,I1 46.it
4,113.37 11.01
393.73 6.19
IS. 12 99.15
. .
1*2,94 «.73
311.22 63.90
7J0.74 99.99
1.62 99.94
5.993.68 37.91
6M 99.61
13.13 100.00
10,421.11 2&31
2,603.11 1S.04
4-1 1. «7 99.17
3.94 100,00
22,323.22 6S.JS
7.2W.I2 70.02
1,227.14 19.42
14,012.12 15.48
«,7C9.64 37.42
13,947.12 1443
479.01 14.35
O.OS 100.00
TOTAL POPULATION
USINO SEWER.
*
1
t-
I
FARM *
" . .
• *
0.00 0.31
* •
1.00 0.06
S.lf 0.02
.
0.13 0.1S
• «
0.24 0.01
I.S4 0.31
0.09 0.01
0.00 0.0$
17.14 0.11
0.03 0.40
.
.
1.93 0.01
0.59 0.13
* *
15.43 0.05
21.10 0.20
3.59 0.2$
.
1S.30 0.10
24.55 0.15
0.01 0.00
•
4
MM MEAN MAX
450.62 672,14 926.40
121,759.20 137,1 13.10 145,996.10
0.65 . 249
49^04.09 J3.177.I4 S7,32«.t2
10.444.91 13,690.52 17,014,43
20,146.31 23,134,11 25,431.10
4.541.W 4,901.23 5,443.35
H.2S 227,73
1,904.02 2,419.10 3,044.24
374.11 4S7.05 434.87
Jt7,« 750.14 942,72
1.42 4.02
13,291.80 13,110.19 11,953.44
S.<9 3144
33.13 120.66
35.192.46 39,417.37 4J.M5.77
14.924.48 17,102.41 20.W7JI
I»2.«7 442.24 74141
3.94 13.74
29,91124 33,543.5$ 37,354.86
l^44.« 10^1143 12J 13.47
115.07 M73.I2 1,1(4.24
I3.54I.91 90.551.52 97,473.23
15,795.49 I7.S3XIS 20,235.44
15^73.46 14,479.44 17,7l7.1t
2.S17.H 2,929.19 3418JO
0.02 0.05 O.Ot
oo
' *ilc6
-------
POPULATION AS URBAN, RUn „ AND FARM TYPES AND
MBANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL; COUNTY SUMMARIES
a
o
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NOT-CHESAPEAKE, too.
STATE
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PIPS
42027
42029
42033
42035
4203?
42041
42043
42047
42032
42057
4206!
42063
42045
42057
42069
42071
42075
42079
42011
4201}
420!?
42093
42097
4209$
42105
42107
42109
421 II
COUNTY
CENTRE
CHESTER
CLEARFIELO
CLINTON
COLUMBIA
CUMBERLAND
DAUPHIN
ELK
FRANKLIN
PULTON
HUNTINGDON
INDIANA
JEFFERSON
IUNIATA
LACKAWANNA
LANCASTER
LEBANON
LUZERNE
LYCOMINO
MCKEAN
MIPFLIN
MONTOUR
NORTl fUMBERLAND
PERRY
POTTER •
SCIIUYLKILL
SNYDER
SOMERSET
*« ropuisiton
• POPULATION USING SEWER AS: ~ "~~~ " —
URUAN
51. 146. 11
3,717.14
S.I1X5S
7,177.«2
t!W»4.97
1 10,144.44
I<«,274.32
453.30
33,428.90
f.606.00
172,414.70
223,176.53
39.i67.85
2IS,«9.0t
55.23J.J3
9.1 II. 34
4.W8.4J
44.351.73
2,319.7.1
19,141.03
3,536.37
1
jS
79.5t
41.55
4C.24
33.41
11.34
83.48
91.75
23,19
47.J4
62,40
"
95.42
15,10
63.32
n.tt
90,40
37.94
17,71
71.19
21.35
37.73
27.49
RURAL
14,590.67
1,734.07
10,592.14
14,279 J4
4,455.98
lt,745.23
14,773.76
1,443.13
34,402.21
2,317,53
5.134.04
239,23
0,02
4.403,10
7,904.38
3S.223.54
20.t34.97
26.J28.81
5,731,12
11,73
14,949.04
909,47
11,730,01
1,527.99
1,41X44
14,273,38
10,334.01
I
I
1
20.32
31.42
53.74
44.44
11,40
14.44
i.15
7«.a
$2,09
99,11
37.34
99.91
100.00
99.70
4,38
14.37
34.64
11.09
9.40
99,94
61,58
12.20
21.76
71.50
99.14
42.1$
7117
" .!•
7355
1.8S
21.6?
l$.3f
8X2J
134,52
0.03
48,21
4.33
5,<1
0,06
»
13.24
84X61
10,13
S3.32
0.01
IU,i2
4.99
32.57
15.94
14.66
42.42
49.71
0.03
H
0.10
0.43
0.13
O.C4
O.C6
0.07
0.00
0.07
0.1?
0.0(
0.02
.
0.3D
0.32
0.02
0,03
0.04
cut
0.09
o.o:
0,15
0.86
0.13
0.35
0.19
•"•^VWHWHH.
TOTAL POPULATION
USING SEWER
MIN
64,930,89
4,127.75
14,905.5)7
19,922.40
21,294.05
121,491,43
171,513.75
1,414.00
62^80.84
2,917.19
I2.S54.29
129,07
*
3.J79.61
1 75,05 J.50
241,421,81
55,101.01
230.J69.4S
57,114.97
7.27
21,601.45
7,341,54
6l,.!42,iJ
9,330.34
1,493.94
31,258.79
1 2,724,03
j.15
M
7I.8K
5,52
19,70
2t,4t(
23,95<
129,673
111,211
1,898
69,177
2,321
13,747
239
o
4,416
180,321.
262,359.
«0,U4.
241,951.
60,970
11.
24,277,
7,943,
<5,121.
10,163,1
1,697,
33,863,1
14.32Z2
24.3
0.02
16.34
M.IO
19.18
4.96
H.09
'0.25
1,74
'7,18
13,14
11.23
MAX
76.7W.24
6,2«.I3
22,513.65
23.072.05
26,Ott.OO
137,970.04
191,045,58
2,437.23
77,323.31
2,479.37
14,944,42
334,83
3,06
$,28».«7
115,737,60
284,073.32
64,670.14
233,61149
44,96<.27
19.74
27,137.52
8.544.16
68,130.80
12,345,76
1,930,64
36,62413
15,960.06
51,44
Table 6
-------
POPULATION AS URBAN, RURAL AND FARM TYPES AND
MEANS OP WASTE DISPOSAL; COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NWK1*CHE5 APE AKE, [no.
t
STATE PIPS COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA 42H3 SULLIVAN
PENNSYLVANIA 421 IS SUSQUEHANNA
PENNSYLVANIA 42117 TKX3A
PENNSYLVANIA 42119 UNION
PENNSYLVANIA 42127 WAYNE
PENNSYLVANIA 42131 WYOMING
PENNSYLVANIA 42133 YORK
VIRGINIA $1001 ACCOMAOC
VIRGINIA $1003 ALBEMARLE
VIRGINIA .» JlOOS ALLEGHANY
VIRGINIA $1007 AMELIA
VIRGINIA $1009 AND ERST
VIRGINIA $101 1 APPOMATTOX
VIRGINIA $1013 ARLINGTON
VIRGINIA Slot 5 AUGUSTA
VIRGINIA $1017 BATH
VIRGINIA $1019 BEDFORD
VIRGINIA $1023 BOTETOURT
VIRGINIA 31029 BUCKINGHAM
VIRGINIA $1031 CAMPBELL
VIRGINIA 51033 CAROLINE
VIRGINIA $1036 CHARLES CITY
VIRGINIA $103? CHARLOTTE
VIRGINIA ' $1041 CHESTERFIELD
VIRGINIA $1043 CLARKE
VIRGINIA $104$ CRAIG
VIRGINIA 31047 CULPEPER
VIRGINIA $1049 CUMBERLAND
2. Population
ft. POPULATION USING SEWER AS:
2
|
URBAN *
• *
S.OJ2.43 45,94
7.KX62 5X63
* *
162.030.12 1X40
19,922.1$ l$,«4
W32.2? S3.49
* *
165.325.33 100.00
1,101.36 tl.45
4.62 0.03
•
1 41,611.4 1 94.93
2,640.40 ||.9t
* •
7-351 21 fct 21
298,27 71,79
i
RURAL *
1,073.11 99.76
9.731.44 99.88
5,964.14 33.92
6,40633 47.07
287,52 100.00
4,607.48 99.49
34,521.76 I7.J5
24S8J4 99.38
3.333,33 14.33
4,840.87 100.00
441.47 98.81
1,868.36 44.45
$0X14 99.03
4.971.90 38.33
1,598.25 99.89
231.54 18.48
. 1,949. 13 99,97
814.09 9940
354.09 23JO
2,084.0$ 100.00
5X63 100.00
0,17 10000
7,907,97 5.05
379.53 17.16
695.25 100.00
1,I7S;02 13.78
11X48 27.78
TOTAL POPULATION
USING SEWER
1
i
_ FARM *
X53 0.24
1X04 0.12
11.43 0.14
41,75 0.31
U.34 0.31
83.07 0.04
9.42 0.42
8.10 0.03
7.72 1.19
2J3 0.06
4.t2 0.93
39.88 0.31
1.82 ' 0.11
O.SO 0.07
5.73 0.70
0.85 0.04
5.44 0.17
0.79 0.01
XII 0.52
MIN MEAN MAX
816.78 1.073.67 1J43.«
8,470.17 9,743,48 10,894.00
9,799.20 11,044,03 12,494.07
12,299.70 13,610.61 14,96X10
238.43 287,52 340.19
3,433.43 4,421.82 3,I57.«2
179,034.59 1P4.655.94 214,981.72
1,731.03 2,267.76 2.946.JO
19,393.17 23,263,12 27,546.12
3,567.27 4,840.87 6,135.19
295.92 <49.I9 |,Oi|J4
2,319.88 4,202.97 6,149,43
30S.S8 506.96 770,50
163.S36.73 10,323.33 167,114.12
9,101.49 12.971.23 17,17X63
1,147.27 1,400,07 XI 15.91
743.36 1,341.00 2,034.44
M2.83 1,949.73 3,034.19
310.02 819.82 1,440.37
607.57 1,519.57 2,455.92
910.17 2,084.0$ 3,41X40
$2.43 IJ0.4J
6.07 0.17 0.28
142,160,73 156,593.36 17I.I46.6J
2,453.99 3.245J6 4,118.90
420.71 695.25 969.7J |
7,05259 g,$27.0l I0,fl60.54/
17657 404.85 72MJ /
able 6
-------
POPULATION AS URBAN, lw,
-------
POPULATION AS URBAN, RURAL AND FARM TYPES AND
MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL; COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCR1-CHE5APEAKE, fne.
STATE Ftps COUNTY
VIRGINIA $t|3i NORTHAMPTON
VIRGINIA .3H33 NORTHUMBERLAND
VIROINIA $113} NOTTOWAY
VIROINIA $H37 ORANGE
VIRGINIA $1139 PAGE
VIRGINIA $1143 POWHATAN
VIROINIA $H47 PRINCS EDWARD
VIRGINIA SH49 PRINCE GEORGE
VIRGINIA Sit S3 PRINCS WTLLIAM
VIRGINIA . JH37 RAPPAKANNOCK
VIROINIA j| 139 RICIBMOND
VIRGINIA SI 141 ROANOKE
VIRGINIA $US3 ROCKERIDOE
VmOINIA $| 14$ ROCK1NGHAM
VIROINIA si ni SHENANDOAH
VIRGINIA $1177 SPOTSYLVANIA
VIRGINIA $1179 STAFFORD
VIRGINIA 511H SURRY
VIRGINIA $1117 WARREN
VIRGINIA $1193 WESTMORELAND
VIROINIA SI 199 YORK
VIRGINIA $i$|o ALEXANDRIA
VIRGINIA $1330 BUENAVISTA
VIRGINIA $|$4o aiARLOTTESVILtE
VIROINIA $|$$o CHESAPEAKE CITY
VIROINIA $i$«o CLIFTONFORGE
VIROINIA $i$7o COLONIAL HEIGHTS
VIRGINIA $i$|Q COVINOTON
2, Population
i. POPULATION USINO SE1
3
URBAN *
* *
944.$$ 31.27
2^29.73 3I,3«
4.0W.29 49,91
3,211.79 90.59
5,600,33 70.54
I4t.I20.St 93,93
• H
* *
* *
* . *
2,930.72 .20.10
4.093^2 30.54
23,010.39 M.74
17,134.04 $1.43
10,737.12 94.44
2,7t4,94 t3.t2
22,437.77, t4,«l
IW.349.70 100.00
4.942.50 100 00
3S.3l7.rZ 100.00
11743147 100.00
3,424,3$ 100.00
Il.tl4.34 100.00
).S?4Jt 100.00
VERA3:
I
1
RURAL /
I,4t7.47 91.19
40t.7t 9S.M
%044.2t «t.JJ
3^9t.It 4973
331,79 9J4
7,124,54 4.*?
394.4* 99M
73404 97.14
1 1,02 100 CO
2*25.23 99,«
II.OW.43 7t.«4
3*34.tl 49.24
S,95«.4t 19.24
I«,04«.3I 41.37
<34.33 99,13
374.07 3J4
43t,04 14.11
3,442,41 13.29
* *
0.71 0.08
* *
TOTAL POPULATION
., , USINOSSWSR
i
J
FARM f
«193 l.ll
4.51 1.04
11.49 0.3t
7,04 0.09
23.23 0,29
231 «,07
533 0,07
13X19 0.01
033 fl.0t
22J4 2J4
9.47 OJ2
79,»4 0.34
27.10 0.22
3.T4 0,*5
0.13 0,00
ZJ3 007
25J4 0,10
* *
-
* *
• «
1,314.43 I.704J9 it20.92
I07.t3 «13J9 1,271,27
2,413.14 3.020J2 3,649,4$
4,434.74 7.42334 1,445,13
4,301,74 t,039,S9 9441.30
I79.Z7 451.32
2,tI5.t2 3^52^4 4,405.90
7,3$4.34 7.93I.M t.344.04
149^37.50 175,24049 IIM47.54
129J9 393,11 729.17
404.37 774,10 1,233,24
H.C2 35.42
1,904.42 2,934.71 4,I3S,10
10,401.90 14,090.10 lt,«23.$I
9,336,21 t2.057.J3 14,113.43
27,7t4J4 30,947.10 34,144,43
29,39192 33,22133 37.111.23
144.01 440J7 721.70
18,019,01 11,131,31 12,39345
Z,599,8I 3^47.33 4,! 13.29
2Z.t43.22 25,905.72 2I,«3.$$
101,093.50 101,549.70 I09.W3.tO
4,414.44 4,942.50 3,270.37
3 J,2$2»C2 3&f3 1?«$2 37 14H1
112,439.00 1I7.253.2J I2i«»0.79
3,394.91 3,424,33 3,4Ji.l9
13.704.40 13,114,54 15,924,47
-------
POPULATION AS URBAN, i.wRAI. AND I-'ARM TYPES AND
MGANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRI-CHESAPEAKS, Iiw.
STATE p|pf COUNTY
VIROINIA JU00 FAIRFAX
VIRGINIA $|«io FALLS CHURCH
VIRGINIA 516J(J FREDERICKSBURO
VIROINIA SIS30 HAMPTON CITY
VIRGINIA 31660 HARRISQNBURO
VIROINIA 31670 HOPSWEU,
VIRGINIA ji«7| LEXINGTON
VIROINIA 31610 LYNCH80RO
VIROINIA 3|«3 MANASS8SCITY
VIRGINIA SUM MANASSE3 PARK CIT
VIRGINIA 51700 NEWPORT NEWS CIT
VIRGINIA SI7IO NORFOLK CITY '
VIRGINIA JI730 PETERSBURG
VIROINIA 5I7J5 POQUOSON
VIRGINIA 3(740 PORTSMOUTH CITY
VIRGINIA 51760 R1CHMONOCITY
VIRGINIA H790 STAUNTON .
VIRGINIA juoo SUFFOLKCtTY
VIROINIA suio VIRGtNlABEACHaT
VIRGINIA 3U20 WAYNESBORO
VIRGINIA JIMO WILLIAMSBURO
VIRGINIA 51140 WINCHESTER
WEST VIRGINIA 34003 BERKELEY
WEST VIROINIA 34023 GRANT
WEST VIRGINIA 54925 GREENBRIAR
WEST VIRGINIA 34027 HAMPSHIRE
WESTVIRGINIA S403I HARDY
WESTVIRGWtA $4037 JEFFERSON
*. ropuianon
«, POPULATION USING SEWER ASi
1
URBAN * RURAI
I7,«?.«S 100,80
9,454.50 100.00
16,4(3*71 100 00
123,431.80 10009
22.392.45 |00 09
22,133.40 100 00
3,17X21 100,00
49,128.16 100,00 >
26,281,81 . 100.00
6,7)4,00 100,00
160,61242 100.00
225.1JO.TO 100 00
30,5(193 100 00
7,914.20 100.00
100,121.2! 10000
187,110.04 100.00
20.0J7.73 99,94 10.29
20,779.28 99.06 191.15
240,511.54 100.00
15,331.83 100.00
6,932.91 100.00
19,111.01 100.00
13,910.44 57,«3 10,214,83
2,953.55
1.29 S9.92 0.55
2,367,23
2,873.25
5,614.53 «.« i l«ot
TOTAL POPULATION
I 1
1 J
* . FARM *
* »
* * .
* * *
*
« *
* *
* * "
* * .
-
"
0.05 0.79 0.00
0.94
» *
•
» * .
42.33 5.25 0,02
99.82 3,45 0,18
30.02 0.00 0.05
99,32 16,26 0.68
99.68 9.14 o.32
**•*> 8-16 0.06
— M!N MEAN MAX
17,349.37 17,859,63 18,149.69
9,336.02 9,454.50 9,57198
I«,1J4,49 16,483.71 I«,8tt89
122,733.03 125,431.80 12S.13G46
21,705,61 22,592.45 23,479.34
2J.5J7.35 22,253.40 22,949,45
M26.72 3,872.21 3,91770
45,767,47 49,128,16 32.516,54
25,814.73 26,281,88 26.679.03
6,734,00 6.734.00 6,734,00
156,781.14 160,682,32 I64.573J7
220,880.52 225,180.70 229,308.02
30,085.22 30.565,95 31,046.58
6,766.80 7,924,20 !.'.081,J9
97,940,30 100,121,28 102.30M2
182,808.84 187,180.04 191.531.74.
19,118,97 20,101.81 21,103.13
18,505,33 20,977,43 23.484.J8
234,716,92 240,501.54 246,325.<6
14,577,30 13.531,83 16,499.54
6,322,98 6,932,91 7,342,53
IMQJ.Si 19,111.01 19,818.50
20,37?.95 24,130,52 28,159.?» /
2,325.40 2,959.00 3,703.53 I
1.24 i,t4 2.41 j
1,729.02 2,383.50 3,187.8) |
2,235.91 2,882.40 3,603.2* I
JM!>.70 12,981.58 15,368.35
Table 6
Pat"
-------
POPULATION AS UROAN, RURAL AND FARM TYPES AND
MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL,: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE DAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRI-CHESAPEAKE, Inc.
»
STATE FIW COUNTY
WEST VIRGINIA 3*057 MINERAL
WEST VIRGINIA 34043 MONROE
WEST VIRGIN! A $4085 MORGAN
WEST VIRGINIA 3407] PENDLETON
WEST VIRGINIA 5407 J POCAHONTAS
WEST VIRGINIA J4077 PRESTON
WEST VIRGINIA WOO RANDOLPH
WEST VIRGINIA MOM TUCKER
Gruai T*(nl
2. Population
«. POPULATION USING SEWER AS; TOTAL POPULATION
USrNO SEWER
I
J
URBAN f
1
1
RURAL *
1
|
FARM £
6,931,22 33,93 5,937.02 46.02 6.12 O.OS
4Z96 9?.» 0,?3 2,11
2,736.02 99.» II.« 0,42
I,054.«4 9t,C I4J8 13S
0.4( 57.43 O.tl 17*
0,55 99M SM 0,3«
0.02 X.OJ O.«0 4.00
23.71 99,9» O.W 0^1
9,IW,OI7,7» «.?2 123,392,04 IM 3,15089 003
M!N MEAN MAX
I0,«43.92 12.90l.Ji 15^0I.J9
* 43,19 106 17
2,OSJ,«0 2,747.<$ 3.W3.J3
709.71 1,8«9.«2 t,519.J7
0.1 » 0.47 0.79
O.K 111
O.fl3 0,07
2M7 23.71 29.»
g
"able 6
n
-------
POPULATION AS URunN, RURAL AND FARM TYPES AND
MEANS OP WASTE DISPOSAL; COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE DAY fROCRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
HCRI-CHESAPEAKE,Ine,
STATE FTPS COUNTY
DELAWARE 1000 1 (CENT
DELAWARE 1000} NEWCASTLE
DELAWARE 10001 SUSSEX
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 11001 WASHINGTON
MARYLAND 24001 ALLEQANY
MARYLAND 24003 ANNE ARUNDEL
MARYLAND 24005 BALTIMORE
MARYLAND 24009 CALVERT
MARYLAND 24011 CAROLINE
MARYLAND . , 24013 CARROLL
MARYLAND 2401$ CECIL
MARYLAND 14017 CHARLES
MARYLAND 24419 DORCHESTER
MARYLAND 24021 FREDERICK
MARYLAND 24023 GARRETT
MARYLAND 24023 HARFORD
MARYLAND 24027 HOWARD
MARYLAND 24029 KENT
MARYLAND 24031 MONTGOMERY
MARYLAND 24033 PRINCE GEORGE'S
MARYLAND 24035 QUEEN ANNE'S
MARYLAND 24037 SAINT MAKY9
MARYLAND 24019 SOMERSET
MARYLAND 24041 TALBOT
MARYLAND 24043 WASHINGTON
MARYLAND 2404$ W1COMICO
MARYLAND 24947 WORCESTER
MARYLAND 24110 BALTIMORE CtTY
NKWYCRK 36003 ALLEOANY
b. POPULAnON USING SEPTIC AS
1
N
URBAN #
641 0.04
495.13 111$
1,12Zlt 3.46
1,4 t&IO 100.00
i 12140 17,32
71,20211 66.01
30,«fl99 33,73
1,213,1) 1 1.t3
300,41 1.70
5.040,70 «.JO
1,048,14 2.60
6,721,04 17.02
60,18 (1.46
18,793,14 27,15
.
20.S56.34 25.43
7,129.09 20.«9
335.64 3.S3
20.S33.73 41.48
15,53134 S5.97
•
7,45172 15.31
4170 0,43
547.72 3.40
9,51106 20.3S
56154 j.49
134.72 1.97
3,31141 109.00
015,62 12,«5
1
H
RURAL *
13,499,79 93,14
J.21S.02 13.2$
2J.766.70 91.66
* *
9,936,66 I0.t5
35.335.6S 3ZSO
33,111.35 42.28
37,892,«t 16,01
11,447.39 17 J I
69,53».t3 19.73
37,127.07 93.17
31,535,00 79.17
12,412.12 93.97
47,509.60 $8.62
3,S24.0t 93.21
41,920.92 69,02
25,453.09 76.79
7,338.03 14.04
27,650.64 54.13
?,739.19 37.«0
22^514,1$ 95.30
40,490.9$ Jl.OO
10.SOS.22 92.80
t4.442.S4 J9.57
36,037.31 76.61
36,009.74 94.01
6,292.44 90.45
.
2,124.2? S4.04
TOTAL POPULATION
USING SEPTIC
1
H
FARM *
879.96 6.12
150.58 3.90
1,5*7.69 4.19
*
225.56 I,t4
1,233.10 1.14
1,719.77 1.9?
949 J I 2.15
1,943,73 10.99
2,922,40 3.77
1,420.32 3.52
1.22S.01 3.11
735.90 5.57
2.929.02 4.23
27S.37 $.79
1,101.38 1.5J
I6«.J7 2.52
1.061.71 12.13
1,072.62 2.U
601.29 . 2.32
1,101.60 4.7t
1,847.80 3,70
788.31 6.77
1,133.79 7.0J
1,417.42 3.01
1,675.60 4.31
527.38 7.51
•
83.70 3,31
MTN MEAN MAX
13.J-lt.43 14,316.1$ 15,130.11
3,««0,56 3.MU3 4,123 J I
29,192,51 3X476.54 35,767.12
1,416.60 4,244.12
7,816.12 12.290.63 17.0J7.I9
90,172.64 107,101,05 I2S.703.24
71,315,46 16,401.17 104.225.0
40,915.00 44,055,18 47,204.39
15,342.68 17,491,95 20,057.7
69,918.29 77,501,94 85,142.«
34.721.55 40,294.21 45,942.14
33,746.87 39,484.03 4J.474JO
11,110.61 13,201.21 15,317.90
60.438.44 69,231.10 7t,3Sl.«S
3,603.70 4,10X39 4.401.C7
62.5JI.07 70.t78.4t 79.597.i2
28,292.78 34,448.99 41,3S8.n
6,617,47 t,75S,3« 10,t«0.!8
34.7JO.tJ 49,260.17 63,313.55
13,749.75 25,900.25 40,303,?7
20,707,86 23,414.45 26,147.53
44,413.15 49,991.41 5J.475.M
9,971,79 11,644.23 13.393.i3
14,095.59 14,124.03 1W77.J3
40,259.29 47,04 t.SO 54,009.01
33,67453 38,276.15 43,093.04
5,943,91 6.956.54 7,974.72
«,79 5,382.41 13,109,07
2,229.57 2,527.39 2,125.61
o
Ui
Table 6
Paflf
-------
POPULATION AS URBAN, RURAL AND FARM TYPES AND
MEANS OPWASTEDtSPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM JSPTIC PROJECT
COWfTY SUMMARIES
NCR*43ffiSAPEAKB,lne.
^
NSWTORK
NSWTORK
MSW¥ORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NBWYORK
NSW YORK
NBWYORK
NEW YORK
NSW YORK
NEW YORK
NBWYORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NSW YORK
NEW YORK
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PSNNSW.VANIA,
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
36007
36011
36015
3*017
36023
36025
36043
36051
36053
35043
3606?
36069
36077
36095
36097
36101
36107
36109
36123
42001
42009
42011
42013
42015
42021
42023
42025
42027
42029
.COUNTY
BROOKS
CAYUOA
CHEMUNO
CHENANCO
CORTLAND
DELAWARE
IIBRKIMER
LJVINO3TON
MADISON
ONEIDA1AST
ONONDAOA
ONTARIO
OTSEGO
SCHOHARffi
SCHOYLER
STEUBEN
TIOOA
TOMPKIKS
YATES
ADAMS
BEDFORD
BERKS
BLAIR.
BRADFORD
CAMBRIA
CAMERON
CARBON
CENTRE
CHESTER
Ik. POPULATION IBfflW SBPTC ASi
•
URBAN
13,388.96
*
11,97193
102.02
M42.38
64.4«
*
•
1,4*348
16.13
*
•
158.94
*
•
480.29
1,724.46
*
•
4841
•
1.96
5.W9.81
1.0(9.80
•
1183
•
1,008.22
124.21
I
i
20.87
*
36.84
0.28
5J3
0.71
•
-
11.64
0.69
•
•
0.41
-
•
1.06
5.10
•
•
0.12
•
0.02
15.60
153
•
0.51
.
3.06
_ 0.62
^^^m*m .1^
RURAL
50,044.49
45.77
20,178,25
34.151.82
17.386.67
8,442.23
3,821.49
352.11
10,281.57
2,196,49
1,987.75
111,22
36.35S.t4
969.69
3,802.48
42,623.43
30.908.74
4,858.43
222.89
37.494,76
34,106,17
9,96162
29,214.98
36,411.30
14.06143
2,483.85
l.lt
12,905.26
_J8.44$.73
I
-------
POPULATION AS URBAN, .vURAL AND FARM TYPOS AND
MEANS OP WASTR DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NOU-CtlBSAPfiAKE, Inc.
A>
StATE «PS COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA 42011 CLEARRELD
PENNSYLVANIA 42035 CLINTON
PENNSYLVANIA 4203? COLUMBIA
PENNSYLVANIA 42041 CUMBERLAND
PENNSYLVANIA 42043 DAUPHIN
PENNSYLVANIA 42047 ELK
PENNSYLVANIA 4205$ FRANKLIN
PBNNSYLVANIA 42057 FULTON
PENNSYLVANIA 42041 IIUNHNODON
PBNNSYLVANIA , 420*3 INDIANA •
PBNNSYLVANIA 42045 JEFFERSON
PBNNSYLVANIA 42047 JUNIATA
PENNSYLVANIA 42049 LACKAWAHNA
PBNNSYLVANIA 42071 LANCASTER
PENNSYLVANIA 42075 LEBANON
PENNSYLVANIA 42079 LUZERNE
PBNNSYLVANIA 420H LYCOMINO
PENNSYLVANIA 42013 MCKEAN
PaNNSYLVANIA 42017 MIFFUN
PflNNSYLVANtA 42093 MONTOUR
PENNSYLVANIA 42097 NORTHUMBERLAND
PENNSYLVANIA 42059 PERRY
PENNSYLVANIA 42105 POTTER
PENNSYLVANIA 42107 SCHUYLKILL
PENNSYLVANIA 42109 SNYDER
PBNNSYLVANIA 421 1 J SOMERSET
PENNSYLVANIA 42113 SULLIVAN
PENNSYLVANIA 42115 SUSQUEHAMNA
PENNSYLVANIA 421 17 TtOOA
fc. POPULAltON USINO SEPTIC AS;
1
(->
1
URBAN *
313,43 0.17
IUI 0,1}
45203 117
3,130 U 11.01
7,15109 13.47
£29,52 L35
2,898,70 11,31
»,673.«4 $.13
3,264.81 9,37
11,541,44 19,11
7,20731 13,77
77,64 0,39
11159 1,34
311.27 1,07
105.24 037
191.6! 0,72
4M3 033
239.O 0,19
1
(S
|
RURAL £
3 5,07*. 11 97.70
11,579.73 94,«4
32.40i.14 93.01
^,619.13 I4.2S
48,533.«7 10^2
4,751.31 99.90
42,OS7.fil 90,05
10,340.23 93,29
23.93t.45 95.30
2,143.09 97.40
Z«3 19.70
M,049.2« 93.64
22,292.94 16.99
11(S,$57.15 «2.«0
29,13157 I5.«l
41,173.11 79.59
43,4«9,0t 83,07
i«,07 91.47
11,50$. IS 93.19
",511.32 90,99
27,313.84 93^0
2«,7tl.l« 93.96
3,190.52 92.73
23,452.50 96.22
ld,79J,93 90,98
3.22J.7S 19.00
4,22142 96.46
27.119.51 9«.27
24,372.91 91.04
TOTAL POPULATION
' USINO SEPTIC
1
1
£•
FARM *
51141 1,43
«7.49 5.21
1,714.76 j.12
2,493.90 4.71
1,70X20 3,40
4.67 0.10
4,023.40 S.6I
743.10 «.7I
i.179.24 4.«9
75.92 2.6Q
033 10.30
!,OSQ.4t 6.96
434.S7 1.70
15,921.75 11.25
1,751.54 5.03
781.34 1.30
1,«5X5» 3.1«
192 1.53
1,274.11 6.42
439.10 7.6«
1. 558.53 5.33
1,615,52 5,67
250.19 7.27
80J.94 3,06
1,603.2! 8.68
275.59 11.00
I55,0« 3.54
I,07«.S8 3.73
2.157.93 11.04
MIN MEAN MAX
32,534.24 35,902,05 39,340,14
10,454.13 12,235.61 14,013.14
32,434,30 34,137.93 37,293.94
44,171,95 52,943.12 41.579J6
41.639.57 50,09152 59,514.49
4,191.10 4,755,97 5,323,11
39,061.70 «,740.J7 54,49X42
10,513,44 11,014.05 11491.32
23,495,94 25,117.10 24,7«.<7
2,701.44 2.919.01 3.136.JS
2.97 3 H ^ '.A
13,979.74 15,099.75 14.225.-40
21,398.91 IS,«2(i,S4 30,917.49
120,094.19 Ht,4«7.54 W4, 159.24
30.J3I.44 J4.I4M9 39J55.7S
50,310.19 W.530,23 72,21I,!«
48,100.22 J2.328.IO 56,947.13
181.38 190.99 200 JO
16.450.22 19,157.92 23,14«.«
7.6«,75 8,339.41 9,034.46
25,734.92 29,183.43 32,961.14
26,320,99 28,308.99 30,778.47
3,077.02 3,440.71 3.80J.79
23,375.51 26,453.16 29,490,53
16,530.53 18,463.40 20,443.77
2,379.22 2,504.37 2,629.3*
4,034.16 4,383,4» 4,73J,3t
27,222.34 28,191,19 30,598.51
24,931.16 26.770.30 21.707.01
Table 6
-------
POPULATION AS URBAN, RURAL AND FARM TYPES A"ND
MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRI-CHESAPEAKE, toe.
«
STATE FIPS COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA 42119 UNION
PENNSYLVANIA 42127 WAYNB
PENNSYLVANIA 42131 WYOMING
PENNSYLVANIA 42133 YORK
VIRGINIA " $1001 ACCOMAOC
VmOIMA S100J ALBEMARLB
VIRGINIA $100$ ALLEGHANY
VIRGINIA 51007 AMELIA
VIRGINIA 31009 AMHSRJT
VIRGINIA . $1011 APPOMATTOX
VIRGINIA $1013 ARLINGTON
VIRGINIA . 5 10 IS AUGUSTA
VKGMA JIOI7 BATH
VmOINIA 51019 BEDFORD
VIRGINIA 51023 BOTETOURT
VIRGINIA $1029 BUCKINGHAM
VIRGINIA 31031 CAMPBELL
VIRGINIA . 5103J CAROLINE
VIRGINIA $1036 CHARLES OTY
VIRGINIA $1037 CHARLOTTE
VIRGINIA $1041 CHESTERFIELD
VIRGINIA $1043 CLARICE
VIRGINIA 5104$ CRAIG
VIRGINIA 51047 CULPEPER
VIRGINIA 31049 CUMBERLAND
VROMA 51053 DINWIDDE
VIRGINIA 51057 ESSEX
VIRGINIA 51059 FAIRFAX
VIRGINIA 5 1061 FAUQUBR
l>, POPULATION USING SEPTIC AS:
1
H
|
URDAN f
J7.3t 034
.
* *
16,774.32 1152
4,217.41 11.33
l,«0.»3 40.25
* .
949.93 100.00
3,00.31 9.IJ
3,291«I 4101
43.46 0,43
4,471,11 41.10
* *
23,624,51 47.56
113.69 3.19
76IJO 4.54
35.24 0.5S
114.94 3.49
.
43,!62.t5 7443
404.62 1,17
1
F
I
RURAL *
15,247.60 91.24
910.95 93.3«
21,43414 «.«
I12.601.S6 14.62
ll.50t.45 96.2S
31,607.25 14.92
7,197.43 9164
6,743.43 91.20
12,155.05 57.12
6,249.52 94.49
31.5JI.77 12.14
2,412.16 94.0J
3,921.21 53.56
9.413.31 93.64
9J6173 9167
«,1SOJ9 37.41
15,06 1,94 97.09
$.427.26 97.9t
1.01 96.11
25,606,16 $).$$
7,042.13 17.34
2,623.93 95.09
15^04.32 90.44
5.M5.65 91JI
2.973JS 90.33
6.177J6 93.43
14,933,29 2344
31107.29 9156
TOTAL POPULATION
USENO SEPTIC
i
(2
PASM £
" 1,40176 1.40
6171 6,44
695.41 3.14
4,641,91 3.46
443,30 3.71
1,39546 3.7$
249,90 3,36
63044 1.10
40645 1,93
36542 3,51
3,054.40 1,01
IJIJ7 5.92
104.54 1.43
600.31 J.93
423,59 443
!4,«S ( 0.79
450.W 191
II1BO 2,02
0.04 3.12
443J9 9,90
703.71 1.75
131$ 1 4.91
I49.M 5.02
3I3.H 1.07
203.53 (,|t
295,14 4.57
196.00 0.33
2.I77.W «.2»
M1N MKAK' MAX
15,196.31 16,707.72 11,199.63
IS7.I4 973. iS M60.lt
20,696.34 22,125.55 23,559.71
114,123.24 134,011.43 154,271.10
10,44$at 11.95 1.9! 13,499,44
32^09124 37,220,41 42,403,02
5^tO,«t 7,447.31 t,S4l,96
6,4t0.65 7494.05 t.307.47
ltJW.40 21,02241 23,717.22
6,143.71 6.63454 7,133.99
99,77 949,91 2,215,97
32,721.46 38,133.51 43,«4.1S
1,111.3* 2,563.t) 3,316.28
5,310.73 7421.4J 1,132.17
1,754.03 10,127.1 J 11^00,21
1,411.23 9,786.44 11,091.65
9,693,49 I0.713.6J 11,731.11
13,473.06 15,512.91 17.J32.7S
4.96136 5.539.2T 6.U6.U
0,19 |,01 1.21
J3.6I13S 49.677.0J 64,357.3,1
<^0t.07 t,0612J 9.J1649
2,443.02 2,759,44 3,fl73.«
H.7II.26 16,92114 I9.t79.29
r,S012« 6,39«.« 7.29U4
J.793.47 3,292.01 3,» 10.94
$.5311$ 6,473.40 7,414.61
43^39.27 59,0111$ 77.3J0.03
31,473.4t 34.6t9.9l 37.92d.92
Table 6
-------
POPULATION AS URBAN, RURAL AND FARM TYPES AND
MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
rntWTY SUMMARIES
NCRJ.CHiSAPEAKE.iiK.
1
STATE FB*S COUNTY
VIRGINIA 51065. FLUVANNA
VIROINIA 51069 FREDERICK
VIRGINIA 51071 GILES
VIRGINIA 51073 GLOUCESTER
VIROINIA 51075 COOCHLAND
VIRGINIA 51079 ORBENB
VIRGINIA SlOtS HANOVER
VIRGINIA 31017 IffiNRICO
VIRGINIA 31091 HIGHLAND
VIROINIA ..31093 1SLB OP WIGHT
VIROINIA 31095 JAMES CfTY
VIRGINIA 31097 KING AND QUEEN .
VIRGINIA 31099 KINO GEORGE
VIROINIA Sllfll WNOWILUAM
VIROINIA 51103 LANCASTER
VIRGINIA 3 1 107 LOUDOUN
VIRGINIA 51 109 LOUISA
VIRGINIA 51111 LUNENBERG
VIRGINIA 51113 MADISON
VIRGINIA 31113 MAtHSWS
VIRGINIA 511 19 MIDDLESEX
VIRGINIA 51121- MONTGOMERY
VIRGINIA 31125 NELSON
VIRGINIA 31127 NSW KENT
VIRGINIA 3I1J1 NORTHAMPTON
VIRGINIA 5111J NORTHUMBERLAND
VIRGINIA 31 135 NOTTOWAY
VIRGINIA 51137 ORANGE
VIRGINIA 51139 PAOf
(,. POPULATION USING SEPTIC AS;
i 1
I- 1-
1 1
I 3
URHAN * RURAL *
1,671,23 95.68
24,723.8 1 9642
244.13 83.79
7,659.68 29.37 18,071.19 69,25
11,013.73 9446
i. 155.19 9553
10,514,03 27.73 26,440,44 69,27
8,224.01 33.64 14,560,51 63,10
1,371,79 81,58
549.69 4.68 10,832.95 92,20
1,075.64 10.43 9,115,70 81,56
5,480.11 94,22
9,144,92 96,04
234.89 331 t,000.« 92.94
8,768.11 98.03
1,3?«.2« 6.48 '18,003.71 84.11
16,319.98 9507
119 97,53
9,424.71 9Z31
7,404.05 98.81
7.126.30 90.48
431,16 91.45
9,193,27 95,13
9,593,56 96.89
5,384,41 93,97
1,781,17 95.49
10.43 0.26 3,724,8$ 91.28
95.66 0.74 12,129,80 94.01
427.08 3.34 11,615,20 91.31
TOTAL POPULATION
USING SEPTIC
1
H
FARM jt
391.44 4.32
191.09 3.48
4737 16,21
350.01 1.34
621.09 5.34
345.81 4.07
1,146,98 3,00
2M.I1 1.26
354.82 18,42
3<6.19 4.12
111.71 0.99
336.13 3.78
377,17 3,9«
276.89 3.68
|74,«« 1,95
2,015.48 9.42
847.08 4.93
0.06 2.43
713.06 7.«9
19.43 1.19
250.23 3.32
W.29 8.35
458,16 4,85
398.20 3,11
3
-------
POPULATION AS URBAN, RURAL AND FARM
MEANS OP WASTE DISPOSAL COUNTY
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SHTtCraOJECT
COUKTY SUMMARIES
NCRM3ESAPEAKE, Int.
Ik POPULATION USING SEPTIC AS:
STATE
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA.
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIROINU
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
RPS COUNTY
JIMS POWHATAN
SI 147 PRINCE EDWARD
$1149 PRINCE CBORGE
$1 133 PRINCE 1WLUAM
51137 RAPPAHANNOCK
3 1 159 RICHMOND
5! 161 ROANOKS
31143 ROOCBRIDQB
511*3 ROCK1NGHAM
31171 SHENANDOAH
51177 STOTS*LVANIA
311*9 STAFFORD
31 IH SURRY
51 It? WARREN
31 193 WESTMORELAND
31199 YORK
31310 ALEXANDRIA
11330 BUENA VISTA
51340 CHARLOTTESVaLB
31530 aiESAPEAKE CITY
3 1 360 CLfl*TON FORG8
$1370 COLONIALIEICKTS
315W COVWGTON
5i«oo FAIRFAX
Jl«0 FALLS CHURCH
$i«o fREDBRKKSBURo
3i«so HAMPTONcrry
31660 IIARRISONBURG
Siv/d IJOPR^l/JSl f 1
I
J URBAN
3)1,61
3.5M.1I
201.91
1.725.20
2,131.01
ttt.23
233.33
«,295.lt
17I.9J
600.13
9,304.76
10,45
45,46
24741
17.53
I69J6
1.093J9
J_*JLIJ!L— _^ * IT*** •* J** CiU^ 1 29O ftat
~~ •-**** '"""""^ 1 -MMBMMMH——-
3
1
^^^^^mauu^JCum
3.46
lit*
9,90
*
*
*
0,51
f.50
132
J2J4
101.00
100.00
100.00
99.11
99.99
100.00
100.00
100.00
100,00
100,00
100.00
100.00
JOOJO
• —
RURAL
12,337.94
1,739.13
4,024.61
3l.506.3t
5,229.37
3,121.16
931.49
13,004.16
13.463,03
22,423.77
22.73X00
2,240,56
12.t95.S3
10.-ltl.73
7,531.10
*
*
73.0t
*
*
"
"
m
•"• ••" -^^^.^
I
1
2.
97,43
91.47
tt.OS
tt,36
93.10
93.13
94,41
93.9t
90.07
19.19
»9.77
90,50
91.73
9X03
94.29
47.52
*
*
0,78
.
*
*
*
•
*
*
*
•
^_ PARM
326.44
4t$.4)
96.64
3t7J<
377,19
53.33
mio
3.7U.9I
1,113.50
S29.S1
249.11
201. SJ
232.27
311.36
23.62
-
-
10.89
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
TOTAt, POPULATION
USING SEPTIC
I
1
2
X57
5,07
2.04
1,74
4.90
6.17
5.59
6,02
9.42
6.13
3,32
0.99
t,27
1.66
3.41
0,1$
0.12
"
*
"
*
*
f
'
MW
11,901.73
1419.66
4,092,70
29,933.14
4,904.94
1 4,744.96
1 96X42
11,156.71
34.111,12
13.16 l.7t
21,196.37
20,907.01
2,10X12
1X357.77
9,<41.4t
1W13.97
*
•
52,23
3,360.75
*
*
*
1^,27
*
•
51S.97
324,37
* .
MEAH
12.6t4.40
9,576.12
4,73Xt2
35,655.24
3,«IC74
5.499.05
994.02
39.4I4.5I
I7^37.0t
24.979.71
23,139.11
2,44X44
14,013.01
11,116.61
15,t49,S4
63.29
I7t.9t
21«
15.I3J.2I
20,t34,21
2l,7ri.36
29,519.03
13,73609
12,425 13
11,196, !0
270.12
4S9,t3
U78.JO
14,05699
42B9
15540
9747
532.40
it.49
464.10 I
4,755.7!) /
I.925.5C J
tio.tol
-------
POPULATION AS URBAN, RURAL AND FAUM TYPES AND
MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE DAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRI-CHESAPEAKE, toe.
STATE nps COUNTY
VIRGINIA 31878 LSSNGTON
VIRGINIA 51480 LYNCHBURO
VIRGINIA $1413 MANASSESOTY
VIRGINIA 31415 MANASSES PARK CIT
VIRGINIA $1700 NEWPORT NEWS CTTY
VIRGINIA 31710 NORFOLK CITY
VIRGINIA $1730 PETERSBURG
VIRGINIA 317}$ POQUOSON
VIRGINIA $1740 PORTSMOUTH CITY
VIRGINIA • • 3J740 RICHMOND OTY
VIRGINIA $1790 STAUNTON
VIRGINIA , $1800 SUFTOLKCITr
VIRGINIA $1810 VmOMABBACHaT
VIRGINIA $1120 WAYNESBORO
VIRGINIA $1830 WE.L1AMSBURO
VIRGINIA JH40 WINCHESTER
WEST VIRGINIA $4003 BERKELEY
WEST VIRGINIA $4023 GRANT
WEST VIRGINIA $402$ GREENBRIAR
WEST VIRGINIA $4027 HAMPSHIRE
WEST VIRGINIA $4031 HARDY
WEST VIRGINIA $4037 JEFFERSON
WEST VIRGINIA 54057 MINERAL
WEST VIRGINIA 34043 MONROE
WESTVmOINIA 54045 . MORGAN
WESTV»GINIA $4071 PBNDLBTON
WEST VIRGINIA $4075 POCAHONTAS
WEST VIRGINIA $4077 PRESTON
WEST VIRGINIA 34083 RANDOLPH
b. POPULATION USING SEPTIC AS:
,
URBAN ,« RtmA
21.79 100.00
10,890.90 100.00
390.71 100.00
4,343.43 100,00
2,10434 100.00
230.42 100.00
2,980.79 100.00
793.74 [00.00
4,049.18 100.00
•
TOTAL POPULATION
USING SEPTIC;
1 I
L p . FARM _J
" * *
*
•
*
* »
«Z« 88.45 41.47 $.57 43 at 57$
lJ,42I.lf 75.94 3,8*4.24 21.81 213.84 1,23
1 1,58-1.40 100.00
1,031.48 100.00
270.50 100.00
764.59 100.00
752.74 2.34 30,«01.0S
4,263.37
OJ3 17.44 1.50
11,310.18
198.48 0.94 20,033.35
1,433.74 1174 10,897.32
579.74
8,431.78
4,811.44
1.81
43.27
1.48
"
*
*
?5.I8 794.48 2,48
53.57 430.21 6,43
10,28 0,04 2.08
93.94 742,24 4,08
91.45 549.12 8.35
95.18 817.03 3.88
M.05 413.70 3,|9
90 Jl J2.23 9,«9
S8.15 143.01 1.85
87.47 690.02 I2.J3
18.98 0.22 10.99
W.08 2.72 5.92
19.74 fl.17 )02(S
21.79 «7.28
7,959.72 10,890.90 14,181.34
<7.« 390,78 131.52
* * *
1,334.44 4,343.45 7,149.13
S«.»4 2,104,34 5,445.83
15.22 230.42 587.71
1.879.14 2,980.79 4,134.75
24.C3 793.74 2.1S9.79
1.329.35 4,949.18 7.444.9S
S8.W 747.80 1,513.19
15,045.14 17,439.30 19,983.82
4,873.04 1I.S84.40 17,153,50
2«.«l 1.051.48 1,981.71
13.42 270.50 6S9M
173.34 744.99 1,472.48
27,597.02 32,150.29 34,813.42
5,715.84 4,05.37 7,491,32
'•24 1.87 2.50
10.598.78 12,252.40 13,9««,I5
5,398.44 4,117.27 8,102.84
I8.422.3Z 21,070.85 23,781.51 i
10,4 12.9S 12.M4.79 13,338,80 1
537.51 442.00 74«.49 1
7.74X74 8,194.79 9,884.41 1
4,535.21 5,308,48 4,482,14
l.« 2.03 2,44
42.24 45.99 49.73
*-^* ItOJ I RJ
Table 6
-------
POPULATION AS URBAN, RURAL AND FARM TYPES AND
MEANS OP WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
atESAP^KE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRI-CH2SAPEAKH,hc.
STATS nw COUNTY
WEST VIRGINIA $4093 TUCKER
CrtndToiat
b. POPULATION USING SEPTIC AS: " """
•1
URBAN 1
I
RURAL X
• ..I
FARM x
S.2« 97.9* " 0,tl X02
TOTAL POPULATION
USING SEPTIC
KON MEAN MAX
1.64 1|4 JJJ
-------
POPULATION AS URBAN, RURAL AND FARM TYPES AND
MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
M3U-ClIESAPBAKS,!ne,
STATB
DELAWARE
DELAWARE
DBLAWARB
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
M«IYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
NEW YORK
NOW YORK
fits
1000!
10003
10905
11901
24001
24003
24(05
24*09
24911
. 24013
' 24«l J
24617
24019
24021
24023
2492}
24027
24029
24031
24033
24035
24037
240)9
24ft|E
J¥!
^,
XI
1,34-1
j ni',
4Tl
371
2,1*9
2«2I9
1 4£S
7«
1,536
1 ?1&
I»*JP
2,98!
l,00>
3 HI
^fH3i
m,
1,460.
611.
595.
1,641.
2,543.
695.
9 IMA
z.wjy,
j%c
431.
*ij^ ,
342,
U?(T
7fQ^
'•^u
*%lg 1
245,
J 0,437,1
t8 i
J5 I
(?5< 1
TION
ffiANS
_____
26,22
1,344.07
4,043.00
376.08
2,169,29
2,239.41
1,469.64
708.60
1,334.72
1,233.26
2,981.13
1,005.02
2,133.56
199.64
1,460.75
611.42
595J8
1,461.05
2,563.10
695.11
2,038,60
431.94
342,96
1,570.79
789,29
245,11
10,437,17
3889
625.16
••"• • i
•ina „
MAX
753.33
7121
2,114.73
10,019.69
1,670.43
3,845.37
6^11.49
3,130,36
1.706.30
3,904.08
3,064.53
3,194.40
2,243.25
5,299.55
481.34
3,540.89
1,645.55
1,451.48
4,619.01
6,541.31
1,630,33
4,625,91
1
|
•*M^mmmii i J.7.
16,826.47
5,049.70
47,099.13
S«3,SS1.5t
71,192.40
4 11.896.49
S7I.47S.83
31,086.02
24,531.00
120,316.02
65 663 85
100,041.04
29,758.01
146,459.15
3.02138
171,616,93
IJ5.406.21
14,719,00
^9,321.59
71X377.79
33,641,0)
73.255.04
1.137.33 19/743.0!
i.053.31 30,136.00
3,726,55 1 IJ3.40f.9f/
I.«5.t4 71,294.99
646,25
24,023,07
145.00
13,431.45
715,477.21
J.238.S4
1,918.49) 20I.IK17
Table 6
-------
POPULATION AS URBAN, RURAL AND FARM TYPES AND
MEANS OP WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRK3CSAPBAKE, toe.
STATE WPS COUNTY
NSW YORK 36011 CAYIK3A
NSW YORK 36015 CHEMUNO
NEW YORK 36017 CHSNANOO
NEW YORK 36023 CORTLAND
NSW YORK 36025 . DELAWAR2
NSW YORK 36043 HSRKIMBR
NEW YORK 36051 LIVINGSTON
NEW YORK 36053 MADISON
NBWYORK 36065 ONEIDABAST
NEW YORK 36067 OHONDAOA
NEWYORK ' 36069 ONTARIO
NEW YORK 36077 OTSEOO
NEW YORK 36095 SCHOHARB
NEW YORK 36097 SOIUYLBR
NEWYORK 36101 STEUBEN
NEW YORK 36107 T1OOA
NEW YOEK 36109 TOMPKD4S
NEW YOBK 36123 YATES
PENNSYLVANIA 42001 ADAMS
PENNSYLVANIA 42009 BEDFORD
PENNSYLVANIA 42011 BERKS
PENNSYLVANIA 42013 BLAIR
PENNSYLVANIA 42015 BRADFORD
PENNSYLVANIA 42021 CAMBRIA
PENNSYLVANIA 42023 CAMERON
PENNSYLVANIA 42025 CARBON
PENNSYLVANIA 42027 CENTRE
PENNSYLVANIA 42029 CHESTER
PENNSYLVANIA 42033 CLEARFIELD
PENNSYLVANIA 42035 CLINTON
,
c. POPULATION USWO OTHER MEANS OF DISPOSAL AS; TOTAL POPULATION
1
1-
URDAN /
.
145.75 32.93
5.57 0.5J
23.37 4.19
.
.
.
53.40 12.it
2.02 f.4I
* * *
.
11.00 1,80
» *
* *
* *
51,33 6.99
-
» *
.
» *
0.10 0.05
111.73 16.21
27.99 Ul
* •
-
•
* <*
• .
•
i
s
RURAL #
0,00 100.00
231.93 52,41
1,044.35 96,59
476.31 15.44
178.SO 17.59
11.41 9416
6.51 97SO
347.Z6 t3.7S
19.18 83.63
40.10 86.33
.
542,21 1134
41.20 93,03
121.01 73.34
2,022.97 15,27
719.12 16.30
90.43 9125
9.16 I«I3
1,376.20 95.28
1,100.30 9310
154,71 81,51
86041 77,09
2,163.18 93.45
I,lf5.*7 91.70
425.S7 100,00
0.04 100X10
913.15 90.23
384.36 9225
2^20.11 100.00
U 14.39 94.19
USING OTHER MEANS
1
H
FARM *
. .
6416 1466
31.29 2.89
57,82 10.37
25,30 1Z4I
1.70 5,14
0.14 220
13,97 3,37
1.88 7.89
6,35 13.67
,
59,17 9,66
3,09 6,97
43,99 26,66
349,44 1473
5550 6,70
7,60 7,75
159 13.S7
6*14 472
48.21 4.20
3429 11.08
7405 6.63
123,72 5.34
15.61 1,30
.
000 256
106.57 9.77
32.30 7.75
.
70,tO S.U
M1N MEAN MAX
0.00 0,02
442.54 1,211.65
50.00 1,081.21 X804.57
27.60 557.51 1,419.09
203.90 588,30
33.12 126,49
6.22 23.38
5.15 414.63 1,013,54
23.77 92.38
46.45 131,67
- . .
11.00 612.37 1,967.54
44.28 130.28
3.24 165.00 414.67
271.75 2,372.41 -5,337.30
4.25 834.04 2,195.29
0.38 98.02 22I.J4
11.45 21.22
360.16 1,444.34 2,759,47
264.56 1,148,52 2,113.17
1.51 189,64 480.79
77.76 1,118,30 2,792.48
1,172,17 2,314.19 3,681.99
527.46 1,201,27 1,939,29
137.53 425,57 713.62
0,01 0,04 0,07
197.81 1,090,42 2,325,51
43.38 416,66 871,45
716.31 2,220.81 3,776,76
784.1$ 1,385.19 2.056.25
1
f
I
5C.I5
86,119.41
50,741.28
43,179.23
14,16!.!4
4,273.03
36U6
15,410.70
2.I4J.91
2,91111
11184
34,93.'. 10
1,060,26
4, 12109
87,461.27
51,974,01
5,554.93
254.95
75,211.01
47.60t.33
12,421.08
127.634.05
60,121.98
32,132.25
129
KJJ.7IJ.03
23.S9t.4t
57,121,23
35.I07.S2
Table 6
-------
POPULATION AS URBAN, RURAL AND FARM TYPES AND
MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRJ-dOAPEAKE. Inc.
STATB PIPS COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA 42641 CUMBERLAND
PENNSYLVANIA 42643 OAUPHJN
PENNSYLVANIA 42647 BUC
PENNSYLVANIA 42M$ FRANKLIN
PENNSYLVANIA 42057 FULTON
PENNSYLVANIA 420*1 HUNTINGDON
PENNSYLVANIA 420S3 INDIANA
PENNSYLVANIA 42065 JEFFERSON
PENNSYLVAMA . 42067 JUNIATA
PENNSYLVANIA ' 420S9 LACKA WANNA
PENNSYLVANIA 42071 LANCASTER
PENNSYLVANIA 42075 LEBANON
PENNSYLVAMA 42079 LUZfRNE
PENNSYLVAMA 420(1 LYCOMJNQ
PENNSYLVAMA 420*3 MCKEAN
PENNSYLVAMA 420*7 MffFUN
PENNSYLVAMA 4209J MONTOUR
PENNSYLVAMA 42097 NORTHUMBERLAND
PENNSYLVAMA 42099 PERRY
PENNSYLVAMA 42195 POTTER
PENNSYLVANIA 42107 SCHUYLKILL
PENNSYLVAMA 42109 SNYDER
PENNSYLVANIA 421 II SOMERSET
PENNSYLVANIA 42113 SULUVAN
PENNSYLVANIA 42115 SUSQUEHANNA
PENNSYLVANIA 42117 TIOGA
PENNSYLVANIA 42119 UNION
PENNSYLVANIA 42127 WAYNE
PENNSYLVANIA 42131 WYOMING
c. POPULATION USING OTHER MEANS OF DISPOSAL AS; TOTAL POPULATION ~
IJSlMnriTiisDkffliWB
1
URBAN *
230.04 15,24
103,31 31.57
• *
* *
313.51 30.30
U 11.03 2179
100.65 15.93
657.22 31.36
21«.«4 11,74
* *
7.0* 3.09
73.40 *.H
53.29 3,«3
* *
* *
7.14 0.54
* *.
* *
i
RURAL *
737.23 95.65
1,257,49 *3.33
1.279.19 61,43
134,75 100,00
1,671.10 91.66
33S.*7 94.59
1,0*4.64 96.53
257.34 93.27
0.41 100.00
626.60 13.01
721.1* 69.70
3.276.06 56.9*
42*42 67.79
l,43t.JI 6*.*4
1,569.3* 15,0*
3.03 100.00
1,194.19 76.21
205.49 89.95
79«.47 *t.OO
1,405.21 96.56
404,90 100.00
U79.22 93.96
1,2*12* 73,27
121,74 91,52
I97,*5 97,54
1,3*3.39 97.54
1437.71 94.43
394.99 77,05
50.70 94.54
4*3.34 97.76
1
FARM f
33.53' 4.35
21.59 1.43
15100 S.34
19.20 5.41
31.99 3.47
11.5* «.73
* *
12S.29 16.99
1,164.72 20.25
101*3 16.2*
* »
5*.70 3.1*
372.71 23.79
15.90 6.96
35.23 3.*9
50.07 3.44
35.41 2.4!
467.79 26.73
11.27 8.48
5.00 2.47
34.95 2.46
65.15 5.02
117.66 22.95
193 5.4*
11.01 2.24
WIN MEAN MAX
115.7* 770.76 1,5*9.0*
246.5* 1,509,12 3,355.15
244.J2 2.012.30 4.4U.J2
*J5 134.75 59J.77
441.59 1.J23.IO 3,146.6*
64.il 355,07 W7.02
279.44 1,123.63 2,0*1,32
„ 103.72 275.94 450.44
0.23 0.41 0.60
211.19 754*9 1J4I.74
IOJ.C7 1,034.67 2,44154
«94J4 5.751JI 12,713.04
1.91 631.10 I.6S9.77
256.40 2.095.73 4,939.67
357.7* 1,144.90 3,551,99
0.03 3,03 7.3J
3tO.*I 1,566.90 3,101.47
25.03 221.45 471.61
9J.99 905,10 2,036,17
626,96 1,453.35 2,475,50
132.23 404.90 6J4.23
395.92 1,467.92 2,141.42
914.66 1,730.07 2,$4*.9I
27.73 133,01 241.79
6.60 20113 414.6*
609,40 1,41134 2.3S1.77
4SS.3S I,3ia70 2,304.02
H«,7S 51165 1,001.25
'•« »«3 112.13
?D 97 AQAtt I nil •*
' • • ' '"'•"' ''""'°^.
XJTAL POPULATION
39,565.06
1(4.125.03
133,393.12
6,7*949
111,441.00
13,761.00
39.9H.99
3,434.23
3.51
20,270.9*
206,9(2.31
409,57*.53
95,595.65
304,577.05
115,143,95
205,77
«,70100
16,313.00
93,209.96
(0,121.03
3.J42.71
S 1,7*4.92
14,535.97
2,6*1.71
5,66100
40,060.01
39,145.02
30,130.91
M14.ll
27,241,99
Ul
Table 6
-------
POPULATION AS URUAN, RURAL AND FARM TYPES AND
MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
COUNTY SUMMARIES
rn-iy-ClleSAl'HAKH.Inc.
STATE RPS COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA 42133 YORK
VIRGINIA 5 100 1 ACCOM ACK
VIRGINIA 51003 ALBEMARLB
VIRGINIA $1005 ALLEOHANY
VIRGINIA $1007 AMELIA
VIRGINIA 51009 AMHSRST
VIRGINIA 51011 APPOMATTOX
VRGINJA 51013 ARLINGTON
VIRGINIA 51015 AUGUSTA
VIRGINIA $1017 BATH
VIRGINIA ' ' $1019 BEDFORD
VIRGINIA . $1023 BOTETOURT
VIRGINIA $1029 BUCKINGHAM
VIRGINIA 51031 CAMPBELL
VIRGINIA $1033 CAROLINE
VIRGINIA .51034 CHARLES CITY
VIRGINIA 51037 CHARLOTTE
VIRGINIA 51041 CHESTERFIELD
VIRGINIA $1043 CLARKE
VIRGINIA • JI04$ CRAIG
VIRGINIA 51047 CULPEPER
VIRGINIA $1049 CUMBERLAND
VIRGINIA . 51053 DINWJODE
VIRGINIA 51057 ESSEX
VIRGINIA 51059 FAIRFAX
VIRGINIA 51041 FAUQUffiR
VIRGINIA $1065 FLUVANNA
VIRGINIA 51069 FREDERICK
VIRGINIA 51071 GILES
VIRGINIA $1073 GLOUCESTER
i, POPULATION USING OTHER MEANS OF DISPOSAL AS: TOTAL POPULATION
1
I
URBAN X
225.47 5.77
4100 • 3.22
t4.04 1,13
430,62 100.00
93.01 4.71
* *
44.51 14,72
5.JS 4.22
* *
- *
301.91 54.10
O.I I 0.02
141,44 t.12
21.50 120
2,115.43 94.77
5.20 0.42
* *
• *
* *
1 11.71 9.23
1
1
RURAL *
3,623.13 9147
1.343.3} 9133
1.194.11 91.32
471,99 100.00
457.02 9i.»
911,6? 16.19
217.72 9111
1,490.50 14.95
539.2S 93.13
23t,7l tl.77
591,36 100.09
I.OM.43 95.75
I23.9J 94.4}
l,32f,63 99.00
£90.10 100.00
0.07 94.5J
241.74 43.90
417,27 95.JJ
224.22 100.00
1,409.44 18.02
ttO,t9 90.13
121.51 91,73
550.17 90.72
116,70 5.23
1,174.30 94,45
709.65 94,94
1,53132 98.51
14,31 100,00
1.124.4t t7.4C
USING OTHER MEANS
- I
!
FARM
61.CS 1.56
101.41 7.47
6i.«9 5.26
* *
4173 t.72
40.02 5.<7
lt.«3 7,t9
140,41 1.26
" 39.74 6.J7
11.10 3.31
41.32 4.23
1.W U6
13.4) 1.09
O.OJ 5.41
11,01 4.14
70,74 3.17
74.97 7.47
10.97 J.27
56.2S 9.28
61.14 4.9)
2141 3.05
2111 I.4J
* *
_^ 43.34 3.3JL
MIN MEAN MAX
355.12 3,909.69 S.990.93
274.71 1,451.74 2,751.73
•104.9* 1,304,»7 2,934.5
71.07 471.90 1,4913
90.9J 719.75 1,424.6
1174 1,057.73 2421,73
0.34 236,37 5«4,IO
430.42 I.I30.U
77.39 1,944.19 4,364.9
20S.57 579.01 991,35
3145 316.39 684.93
53.35 591,34 U94.43
139.39 1,134.75 2,211.61
0.20 131,31 334,47
216.61 1,342*5 2,615,94
113.56 690.10 1,241.77
0.00 0.07 0.15
550.4$ 1,873.3*
435.41 99155
36.92 224.22 411.52
430.94 I.I2U3 3.333.44
211.12 977.33 1,744.43
15.43 13155 246.60
J0.59 606.43 1,255,10
6190 2432J3 5.659.20
131.40 1,240.63 2,534,67
45.51 73106 l,47S.tS
91,74 1,554,43 3,54«.22
14,38 36,23
I
j
g
3l4.5t4.B3
11,671.44
41.78910
12^4710
1,763,00
26,283.00
164,703.1:
53,049,02
4,74191
. 12,661.26
1 1.743.01
12.344.i3
11,939.00
4,21100
I.I9
206,121.10
11,743.00
27,277.91
7,779.00
7,11101
*,543.00
104,354,71
12,34100
314.9:
'able 6
-------
POPULATION AS URBAN, RURAL AND FARM TYPES AND
MEANS OF WASTB DISPOSAL; COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
C3UNTY SUMMARIES
NCRI-CHESAPEAKE, he.
S1AT8 pips COW4TY
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VWOINIA
VRGMA
VRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA'
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VtBGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VBGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
5 1 175
51179
51813
51017
5 1091
51093
51095
51097
51099
, .51101
51101
. 511J7
51139
51111
51113
51115
51119
51121
51125
5 1127
51131
51133
51 135
51137
51139
51145
5 1 147
51149
51153
51157
GOOCHLAND
GREENE
HANOVER
HENR1CO
HIGHLAND
ISLE OF WIGHT
JAMBS CITY
KINO AND QUEEN
KING GEORGE
KING WILLIAM
LANCASTER
LOUDOUN
LOUBA
LUNBNBERG
MADISON
MATHSWS
MIDDLESEX
MONTGOMERY
NELSON
NEW KENT
NORTHAMPTON
NORTHUMBERLAND
NOTTOWAY
ORANGE
PAGE
POWHATAN
PRINCE EDWARD
PRINCE GEORGE
PRINCE WILLIAM
RAPPAHANNOCK
****** IM^— ^— — m| m
•
e,fOPULATIOMUSINOOTHBRMEANSOFDISPOSALAS: TO
IK
URBAN |
« *
122.21 4.43
25«.33 41.27
«.02 1.10
34,08 1|.7I
' - *
* «
20.47 2.2!
* *
2.25 0.2«
151 0.35
4.10 0.54
59.21 14,49
189.24 20.11
• i „
RURAL
145.99
513,00
I.771J1
344.71
300.13
339J7
250.14
363,75
377,63
502.41
121.74
1,544.01
O.IJ
1,050.09
391.13
315.02
43,21
I.J79.94
263.9S
625.77
615.63
122,11
711.59
472J2
1(0.27
747.93
55S.OS
1
1
100.00
96.15
93J7
5J.73
79.54
$3,20
14.79
tIJ5
98.65
19.03
94.1S
9Z2S
94.97
97,33
93.67
97J7
92.90
100.00
96.37
100,00
19.52
1S.43
9U6
9SJ2
97.95
100.00
95.19
74.47
7S.13
93.57
FARM
20.55
77.21
20.77
4.13
13.39
41.94
34.15
49.15
12.79
0,00
70.91
10.76
24,15
70,11
73.29
10.35
34,73
39.04
12.35
31.04
2,52
10,t3
31.20
i
3.15
20.44
S.70
1.43
11.45
1.35
10^7
5.12
5.47
5.03
Z67
4.33
2.63
7.10
3.63
10.48
11.57
J.44
4.52
1.70
4.25
1,04
1,06
4.43
* »*r WLMR
BOTHER*,
MTN
113,43
13125
277. J I
41.17
9.47
9.54
107,71
7.15
60.44
31.0
213.47
O.CO
499.67
69.41
*
1.07
711.47
4.11
90.26
53.44
22.01
150.19
10.02
19,14
145.09
4.11
172
Jit!6 .,._
*iwn
(BANS
MEAN^
165.99
533.54
1,900.66
621.04
311.10
34435
219.04
447.14
312.79
544.42
514,72
1907
1,644.17
0.15
1,121.00
409.51
340.17
43.21
1,95(3.74
263,91
499.06
40S.1I
402*2
(6421
726.45
472,32
730.51
242.06
957.30
— 12ilL_
j
MU.23 | 13.155.00
1,041.34
3.97244
1,175,15
717,02
146,01
721,71
123.10
J29.I7
UOL73
2,'l3I45
3,131,41
0,30
1,711.71
771.15
t$0,33
71.36
3,259.64
10.297.00
4l.t5I.02
211,121.73
2,634.41
J7.I1442
33.7S7.99
6,219,00
• 13,119.00
10,130.00
15,517.97
20,153.99
2.43
11.722,00
S.Jtl.OO
1,454.00
565J1
12,637.00
10,276.00
1.3I2.W M35.4I
1,536.41 I 10,507.01
tW,II|
1,731.12
1,10.9.47
1,454,11
564,13
2,495.26
7.502.K
31,190.01 1
21,417.02 I
13,336.00 I
11,159.19 I
12,913,16
21I,I7Z93
_JtL?05 1 iM6 flfl I
'['able 6
-------
POPULATION AS URBAN. RURAL AND FARM TYPES AND
MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT ,
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCR!-C!SESAPBAK£, Inc.
STATE HW COUNTY
VIRGINIA $1159 RICHMOND
VIRGINIA $1141 ROANOKB
VIRGINIA $tl«3 ROCKBRUXJE
VIRGINIA 3 1 143 ROCKINOHAM
VIRGINIA , $1171 StSNANDOAK
VIRGINIA $1177 3POTSYLVANIA
VIRGINIA JU79 STAFFORD
VIRGINIA JUtI 3URRY
VIRGINIA 5| If 7 WARRSN
VIRGINIA $1193 WESTMORELAND
VIRGINIA • ' JJI99 YORK
VIRGINIA' 31J10 ALEXANDRIA
VRQINIA JI530 BUENA VISTA
VIRGINIA 31540 CHARLOTTISVILLB
VIRGINIA SIS50 CUBS APE AKE CITY
VIRGINIA $1540 CUrrONFORGB
VIRGINIA J1J70 COLONIAL HEIGHTS
VIRGINIA J13IO COVINGTON
VIRGINIA $1400 FAIRFAX
VIRGINIA 51*10 PAU3 CHURCH
VIRGINIA 31430 FREDiRICICSBURG
VIRGINIA $1430 HAMPTON CITY
VIRGINIA $14«0 IIARRISONBURG
VIRGINIA $1470 HOPEWELL
VIRGINIA JI47I L8MNOTON
VIRGINIA 51410' LYNCHBURC
VIRGINIA JI4J3 MANASSESOTY
VIRGINIA • JI4I3 MANASSE3 PARK CIT
VIRGINIA 31700 NEWPORT mm OT
VIRGINIA JI710 NORFOLK CITY
=- POPULATION USINOOTHER MEANS OF DISPOSAL AS: TOTAL POPULATION
I
r*
i
URBAN *
* *
* m
24.00 1.39
12.02 1,01
40.47 4.79
* •
2.21 039
4.52 4.42
39.41 40.15
235.94 100.00
54J2 100,00
173.04 100.00
321.14 99.40
.
•* *
12.79 100.00
44.97 100.00
1X05 100,00
393.01 100,00
39.15 100.00
240.43 100,00
101.94' 100.00
2733 100.00
* •
373,27 100.00
TJ6M 100.00
i
H
1
RURAL *
539.34 13.31
7,41 100.CO
I.JI9.61 93.70
2.133.W 91.31
l,«44.14 95.40
1,091.00 91.10
103.94 94,19
202.07 94.41
374.44 9142
930.45 14.07
15.10 57.lt
0.70 0.22
. .
•
.
* m
• *
* <•
USING OTHER MR AN*
" t-
1
FARM *
106.31 14.49
m *
14.7$ WO
200.«9 &49
9.11 043
2.74 042
U.« 3J9
5.74 0.«
144.10 13.31
3.04 2.05
* »
0.5! 0.1J
_
*
-
.
* *
* *
MTN MEAN MAI
17.15 «4J.« L2S2.SJ
7.41 24J
19110 1374.34 2.110.4
144.94 233$.70 $.1205
WI.41 1.723.40 3,40.4
94.97 I.HZI3 2,423.7
4940 149.34 2,035.19
. 3IJI 213.40 414.12
MJ3 3K.47 1313.42
214.73 1,011,07 2,134.2$
14».44 42t.l$
34.13 23194 $$0.01
54.32 II3.lt
173.04 41937
32X43 919.71
* * «
* • »
* * -.
1Z79 47.19
44.97 144.49
12.03 44.00
393.01 933.42
39.15 12405
4<.2« 240.43 440.39
• * *
101.94 29231
* 1? 31 ^A /v»yi
25.44 373.27 941.45
30.41 774.44 2.014.70
1
o
3
i
4^21,00
1,01145
11,14194
33,93100
31,11100
57,059,01
59,211.01
1,994.10
15.445.00
4I^04>DO
10J($70*55
5,171.00
37,090^9
\"m tuLA ix
1 *v§3***%w>W
3,43740
13.IOIM
5,903.1)0
11,120.41
9,539.40
121,114.49
22,794.«I
3.IP4.CO
40.121.62
26,499.99
4,734.0t
145^99.04
00
-------
POPULATION AS URBAN, RURAL AND FARM TYPPS AND
MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL; COUNTY SUMMANES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUlyftCARISS
NCRJ^lffiSAPEAKE.Ine,
«. POPULATION USING OTHER MEANS OF DISPOSAL AS;
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VRCINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA.
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
CnrU Tel Hi
1
ra>s
51730
51735
51740
51760
51790
51100
51(10
smo
5It»
. .51140
54003
54023
54025
54031
54037
540<3
540$)
54071
54071
54077
54093
H
•
_ COUNTY
PETERSBURG
POQLIOSON
PORTSMOUTH CTTY
RICHMOND CITY
STAUNTON
SUFFOLK CITY
VIRGINIA BEACH CTT
WAYNBSBORO
WmiAMSBURG
WINCHESTER
BERKELEY
GRANT
GRBENBRIAR
HAMPSHIRE
HAROY
JEFFERSON
MINERAL
MONROE
MORGAN
PBNDLETON
POCAI1OKTAS
PRESTON
RANDOLPH
TUCKER
1
j
URBAN
10,62
11.01
502,00
721.71
9U9
99.49
9.40
4*
5M7
"
. .,
-
37,125.02
— -
I
j
Sf
mmm^^^^^J^
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100,00
•4.03
100.00
100.00
100.00
*
3.31
-
*
S4.ll
"
*
•
21.77
•"••^^•WMMIHM
..
_. RURAL,
*
177.24
«
1,73 1. JO
51124
0.21
1,499.3*
1,019,93
454.90
134.22
10S.53
117.16
1,144.69
0.24
2,70
0.15
\,ts
I24.247.42~
1111 II ! •.
i
1
S.
**, »
14.37
92.71
93.91
99.64
92.55
19.61
93.30
83.40
91,72
97.31
1531
93,02
95.92
99.35
JG0.00
_ FARM
19.«4
*
••
74J3
37.28
120.72
125.39
31«
Lit
1.30
10,41
197.13
0.02
0.12
0.00
~';"72.?} s.m.m ~
' I
£
1.59
3.91
4.02
7.45
10.32
4.70
2.22
1.21
2.S2
14.49
4.9!
4.0«
0.<5
-Bif-
TOTAL POPULATION
USING OTTOR MEANS
M1N_
*
9.<4
29911
231.23
94,99
0.07
260,11
15.21
*
17.0S
4t,«l
0.02
*
»
ME*N
IB.«2
11.01
502.00
721.71
9149
1,233,13
343.53
99.49
J.«0
0,21
I,«20,IO
1,21334
4»7.5«
399.77
101.13
397.17
1,341.12
0.2$
2.12
0.15
-.... MAj,
250.72
43.49
1,44 1.28
1,112.27
275.12
2,2
-------
s>
o
T*M*7. HOUamOUNlt* AND POPULATION US1NO
(VAST! OIBTOSAL MlANt BY HOU8IKO UNIT TYFf : *
MOOtL SEGMENT SUMMARY
Mod
8*0 N«n* SuMmin faun*
10 EM Branch 1 flnqtMhwim Atom
20 Entfrnneiil autqintimnc Atom
30 Ente«noti2 Stnqutfwnni Atom
40 EMtBwieh2 8UK*Htnnn» Atom
SO W«l9r»nch SwquitMfim Atom
ao WMBrmsft SmqwtamM Atom
70 WMtBntwft awqwhtnm Mow
80 lowtr8uiqutlMnra 0MqtMh«KM • Atom
90 Junhta ftnqwtermn Atom
100 Jw)«li awqMhmM Atom
110 LwwSu»qv«tannt Simquttann* Atom
120 Cenewtopo Swquttanni Atom
140 committeo autquthmra Atom
1«0 UpptrPotonwa Mama , Atom
170 UpptrPotMMo PatoMg Atom
17i UpptrPetomio PtAemto Atom
180 MMPctonmo Potomw Atom
180 StMramiiMlt PatornM Atom
200 ShwMixlMti PMORIM Atom
210 Low Potomac Potamto Atom
230 Ripp»hir
440 C0MI4 Lowwgiriwn Shon Qttow
450 OmtH WiMOWMpnln Bcfow
470 Ounpowltr WiMOwnpnlm B^ow
480 BtlUmon WntOtupcik* Q^jw
490 Lcwtffttipro WtMCrM^wriw Brtw
900 Prtuxtrt Pitu»nVMIdCh«Mp»»)w Britw
910 S«v«n PMuxM#MkJCh«Mp«ilw Bttew
$40 Ameotlc PMomM B^fw
;50 ooempm Polomn Bttow
f60 RippaMnnock Rappahinnock a*low
JAjoj^|N|irs«HNQae«E» '
38,840 88,878 24
80,740 181^88 £4
108,163 2S8.833 24
82,844 182.474 U
8.383 14.493 U
42.037 101,499 24
18.888 38,884 24
85.3M 183,832 2,3
1,482 3,082 2,1
39498 84438 24
143.024 340,008 24
1.894 4,109 24
•04 1,878 24
22473 53.697 18
0 0 .
0 0 .
29,029 89,012 24
30.S17 72,828 14
' 10,397 23,199 14
28.844 74,816 11
• 190.148 313,289 17
4,938 10,984 24
1,787 5,317 3.9
0 0 .
' 124 288 24
."88 J3S 24
t 0 0 .
7,833 18,323 24
47,449 109.973 24
23.608 62.990 IS
1,830 4,433 24
243 842 It
3.027 13,094 34
81,343 920,879 17
78 210 17
1,134 2.523 12
0 0 •
*,»? 11.247 24
3,249 8,094 24
9.272 21,984 24
2,738 8.9S9 24
0 0 -
18,065 88,797 24
M.S21 148,751 IS
2I9.880 550,831 IS
100J14 2S2J70 16
t W.04S 112,187 19
7,030 23.881 'SJt
218,020 623,898 24
18,098 238,829 10
17,183 45.038 18
. ,"*•*•.
RURAL
14.331 34^08 24
8.911 21,091 14
19*21 41,087 24
10,000 21471 19
13,483 SS.427 24
6,9« 18,494 24
21420 82.038 24
1701 •,328 24
17^X11 41.784 ,13
31,749 91,484 24
1,848 4.743 24
811 W18 2J
8,083 20.421 2J
3.748 9,427 12
2,137 4,920 24
7,861 20433 24
9.347 19,734 19
7428 17,847 24
3.800 8,698 24
3.782 10,439 24
4,339 11,f» 2.7
594 1420 3,1
992 1,394 2.7
$20 1,326 24
769 2,010 24
271 649 24
3.029 12,423 18
4.231 10,889 19
494 1,413 19
1,379 3.843 13
79 229 34
S3 152 24
334 1,319 3,7
189 483 24
2437 8,808 24
612 1.628 17
1980 8.871 13
3*28 9.787 13
3,173 7,918 13
3,883 8.291 24
1,399 3.181 13
7^47 19,102 16
2,108 4.388 11
« 107 24
293 894 12
2,297 9.749 19
38 81 14
489 1.490 24
3.793 11,330 3.0
3.199 7,958 19
; :;
4 12 34
IS 43 24
9 30 34
32 120 24
13 29 18
38 117 34
24 98 24
99 287 19
7 21 24
80 141 24
90 208 24
14 67 44
2 9 17
8 19 24
20 43 24
3 13 4,1
20 43 24
42 116 24
48 77 1.7
3 3 14
18 33 12
17 21 14
0 0
0 0 .
4 4 64
S 8 1.3
1 2 1.7
7 19 IS
24 30 14
2 S 11
« 26 34
0 1
1 2 24
8 13 24
2 5 24
» 90 34
3 8 24
19 68 34
» 78 18
2 7 44
2S 89 17
11 28 24
S2 80 3.7
0 0
0 0
7 13 14
1 2 18
9 1
9 0
3 8 If
1J 40 24
iii
43404 108,031 t4
99.098 229,921 24
114,981 280,959 24
102,017 240,900 14
16,398 38,791 24
63,837 134.888 24
22440 33,408 24
88,803 203478 14
4,170 8,438 24
W.487 139.791 24
174.983 421,732 14
3.538 9,021 IS
1,329 3401 24
30.088 74,037 24
3,788 8.472 24
2.140 4,833 24
32,818 78,389 14
38.906 66,778 24
17,769 43,119 24
33,446 84.317 24
183,943 923,743 17
i.014 22,647 24
2^91 7,137 34
«»2 1,994 17
«9 1,629 24
8» 2431 16
272 951 24
12,889 30,767 24
61,704 120,883 24
28,103 64,409 13
3.417 8,122 24
321 872 17
8.081 15,249 34
81,703 222,013 17
'284 999 24
3,418 8,220 24
813 1,634 17
7,337 17,983 24
7,208 17437 24
12.447 30,161 14
8,614 15,989 14
1,409 3,187 14
33,333 97,976 24
80.629 131,138 24
219,702 931,038 94
1M.8H 263.337 it
41.312 119,023 »
7.997 23,833 U
239,319 827,033 U
W.742 299,186 U
20,381 33,033 1«
Tabl* >
-------
S90 York
000 Jarnm
610 CMotahonlny
320 NmMnwnt
63C Eflztbtth
700 am BrmrKK 1
710 Lower Su»ju«h«rm«
72C Cenewlnee
730 MMPotomM
740 MWPrtomio
780 Lovwr Potcmio
760 Upp«fP,t,p«o
770 Upptrchoptenk
780 Upp« N»nlteok»
000 CoMUt
810 Co«l1b
8% CwiMc
830 On« 10
840 Comtl*
•SO CootSt
BOO ca*tt«t>
§70 Conteo
•80 COIMS
890 Petonmel
800 Potomie2
810 Potomac 3
920 PotomnH
830 CoMt9«
940 CoattSb
950 CoattBe
960 Coa«t9
970 Polomso!
960 Potomac 8
9SO Oo««12
d! CHSSAPIAKf BAY
(2) JAMES RIVBfi
(3) PATUXgNTfilVER
(4) POTOMAC flIVER
!S) RAPPAHANNOCK
" YORK
1 ttott;
R»pp»htmwek
Potonwt
Petonme
WtttOMWpMlt*
Upptrenttmsham
Loww E»tt»m Sb«»
Abov,
Above
Abav*
Abav«
Abort
Upper Emttm Shore
Wpptr&itwnSfww
UpptrEMtomShor*
Petomta
Potomte
Potoniis
Potomio
Rappah«nnock
J«met
Potomso
Petamte
Pa(wmt/MM CtMtapmkt
Bttow
B*tow
Brio*
BitoW
Below
Bttow
B«tow
B«(ow
B«tow
Btlow
Betow
2SS° 8tW3» *»
SafffS
13,539
18.W9 44,419 14
«! 2,143 24
rf'SJ 4llM4 «
71.T32 ir8,U4 14
£g 22.S1S U
9,969
13,188
11
0
ns
o
o
3.292
194
• 12.573
12,151
23,100
231.4S3
330,776
112,142
13,338
34,702
24 U
0 ".
2,178 24
0 .
0 .
Z339 2.«
18,t49 It
412,849 14
3S.4J4 11
61.W1 14
819.1T2 tJt
809,10 _.
112,010 14
36.990 It
0 -
«2 2.3
138,2*4 16
•13,502 24
28,313 3.1
12,616 34
1,901 3,1
18,010 24
6,924 2.J
12 34
4,482 25
381 24
183 3
••"• i,V3V
•» 7,482
.3 981
.7 184
4 0
4 MS
* 2.888
i 9,392
1 8.423
•3 11,814
2 2,593
« 2,408
2 183
198
« 727
1.018
1.674
Z 1.63B
1 278
' 828
1 3
23
1,788
38
97
1,620
3,982
319
754
739
0
1.139
6,318
177
832
37
12
81
36
•*«!«
19,792
2.983
428
0
ijm
7,396
21,'81»
S0.8S8
8,709
6,178
399
470
1,828
4,216
3,994
642
7
23
4,523
84
290
9,268
8,887
648
1,636
2,227
1
2,561
16.S8S
829
1,889
94
26
223
78
. 3J
XT
24
*
2J
2J
11
2J
2.1
2.1
1.1
2.:
2.1
13
24
U
14
14
3.0
24
2.0
2.2
3.0
2.2
34
it
2.2
24
2.2
24
2
0
0
1
41
188
11
29
4
1
1
1
1
7
2
7
2
0
0
0
3
0
0
3
11
9
3
8
0
2
3
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
7t
8
0
0
6
81
603
23
83
S
1
2
1
9
24
S
17
8
0
0
0
3.1
4,3
19
2.1
34
14
1.1
10
3d
3J
12
13
17
II
8.859
290,407
97,066
13,703
16.199
1,101
24
61,390
18,421
32,437
S,»98
19,197
169
198
1,533
1,029
1,676
5,399
1,1)4
13,141
188,4*1
12,174
231,491
330,813
113,784
16,938
324
7M
52,953
231,789
9,315
10,462
789
7,217
2,79?
16
2,096
187
21,437
632,903 2J
132,388
37,«8
44.4W 2.8
4.296 24
66.211 24
44.198 14
».693 24
H104 24
«,862 1,1
416 2J
4T1 14
4.210 2.f
2.538 2J
-------
N)
l-J
Tabi* 7. rausma UNITS MID POPULATION USINO
WASTfi CISPOSAl. MEANS BY HOUSINO UNITTYFI:1
MODEL SIOMIHT lUMMARY
Mod
*t BSV., f*^* «W»
30 ENlBnneM Swquyltinra Abov*
30 EntOmwh: atBquthMM Above
40 Cut 6nneh 2 SuquttMnfM Above
90 WMBnnch SutqutiMflfM Abov*
60 WMBrtnch SutcpMimrn Abov*
70 WttlBmneh SwqiMhMma , Abov*
80 Lm*r 8u*qu*tnnnB Sutqutfunrw Abovw
00 Juntoti 8mou*h*rm» Abov.
100 Juntats 8wqu*h*nm. ' Abov*
110 law autqwhwna autqwiwim Abov*
120 ConowtaQO Swquthanna Abov*
140 Cenowlnso awquriwnrw ABOV*
160 Upp*fPotom»o PotoffiM Abov*
170 UfptrPotomte Potomto Abov*
179 Ufj>*r Polomto Potomao Abov*
110 MMPMame Potom»o Abov*
IK) Sti*n*nf« B«low
430 PoMfflOk* L.OWW E«»t*m Sior* Mow
440 Cot«i4 Low»c E»»|«n Swe Btlow
4SO CQtMII WtttCfWMfwaln B*tow
470 Qunpowdtr W*M CtwMtMM* Mow
490 Brttmor* WttlCtWMpMt* B*tow
490 ym*rPM*p*ca WtMOwMpMl* Mow
JOO PaiwtM miMMiMMMCtMMfNltn Mow
810 Smtffl Prtiixtfll/MkiCtMMpMla Bctow
540 Amcottla Pq(om»o Mow
990 Ocooquin Pol«RWS Bttow
SCO Rapp»h»rmocl( .R»pp«mnnoek Mow
3. HOUSING UMTS USWC SfPBC SYSTBkB
! ! I
^Hs " e^iS " £^
6,811 18.815 2J
3.304 9,253 24
Z191 8,118 24
188 S81. 3J
1,333 3,804 2.<
2,048 4.929 tA
1,877 8,572 34
0 0 -
2^23 5,777 24
9.281 29.392 24
136 443 13
33 121 34
1,474 3,782 24
0 0 .
0 0 •
3,629 9,912 2.7
2.914 8,897 24
638 2.110 JJ
9,918 18,619 3,1
12,799 39.628 3.1
401 1,042 2.1
279 782 24
0 0 -
11 19 1.7
49 203 4.3
0 0 .
113 283 19
11,873 31,949 2.7
1,142 3,178 24
142 978 2.7
8 22 24
1,269 3.416 f.7
2.589 7,839 1.0
0 3 .
111 330 3.6
0 0 »
148 603 34
416 1,120 2,7
162 889 J.5
38 189 44
0 0 -
4,840 14466 34
8,301 23,493 24
3,117 9,808 3.1
7,647 . 22,646 34
5.297 13,808 24
3,993 11,810 3.0
2,481 7,231 24
2,969 9,878 3,3
991 2,742 24
RUftAL PAftM
I ! !
stsoi a.iJfi •}.»
77,633 218,006 24
30,993 87,136 24
33.482 91,236 2.7
18,909 92,116 24
23,831 86,198 24
20,043 96.147 2.8
44,946 126,497 24
12,330 33.871 2.7
33.929 93.634 2,8
62,392 178,095 2'4
9,972 30.018 34
9330 27,041 24
10,707 30,321 24
8,792 15,871 24
7,372 20,007 2.7
16,368 47,130 24
24,162 66.994 24
21,192 86,291 24
2M49 61.370 34
12400 37,094 34
20,089 87,997 24
4416 13,214 3.1
3,618 10,818 24
3,829 10,691 24
9,810 27,361 24
902 1,300 2.7
15,878 42,736 2.7
33,226 90J66 2.7
7,858 21,523 24
10,217 28.218 24
1,642 4.854 34
4.869 13,071 3.1
3,967 12,280 3.1
003 2,609 16
5,824 15.349 2.7
1,430 3.929 2.7
7,009 19,429 24
14,693 40£89 24
9,820 26,269 2.7
8,553 22,923 24
6,294 . 18,399 24
30,901 92.394 34
17499 93.346 34
2.051 6,229 3.6
1,978 4,314 2.7
19,731 81,784 3,1
3,127 8,918 2.9
487 1.832 3.1
17,831 93,187 S.1
1^862 33.731 2.7
tHS \m s.<
3.D32 9,344 3.1
1,125 3,392 34
1.971 3,202 34
341 9» 24
W 2.9W 34
1,1178 3.261 34
2.M7 6,611 34
$42 1.661 J,3
1.T83 8,81? 3.1
2,101 8,692 3.1
137 3,532 44
584 1,981 34
429 1.238 24
S89 1,995 24
SM 1,2M 3.1
1,093 3.0M 24
1,988 8,015 3,1
1,522 3,798 24
1,143 3,993 34
(70 2^01 2.7
1,US 3,784 24
209 SO 24
120 301 24
308 931 24
$32 1,902 24
89 133 2J
1,060 2.804 24
1,473 3,734 24
390 en 24
724 1.96S 2.7
99 i 253 2.7
183 631 3.9
199 441 24
63 193 M
177 1.923 24
122 277 24
768 2,09) 2.7
1.C05 2.672 2.7
159 8M 34
772 2,024 24
237 082 24
1.640 9.792 34
710 1,971 24
30 98 14
29 10S 34
679 1,988 2.9
12 33 24
12 42 34
459 1,407 34
5T9 1,458 24
___ AU, -
'IMsa ii,Mi B
97,476 246.167 24
33,422 00.787 Zt
36,749 1CO.S74 2.7
19,016 81,628 !.«
26,171 72.656 24
23,163 64.339 24
49,470 140,680 24
12,872 35,762 24
37,835 104,921 2J
74,474 211,068 2J
10.945 34,014 3.1
9,928 29,143 2.1
12,609 35.341 24
6,341 .17.408 2.1
T.786 21.228 24
21,059 60.072 24
J6.744 79.806 24
23,310 W.197 24
27,611 81,979 34
26,170 7».0» 34
21412 61783 24
4499 K.81B 3.1
3,737 10.827 24
4,043 11^08 24
10J87 29.089 24
862 1.491 2.7
17.063 45^22 2,7
46J72 128.WS 2.7
W31 28J79 24
11,083 30,974 24
1.744 (.131 1.9
6,313 19,119 34
8.892 20.364 3.9
1,096 2,764 24
6,313 17.202 2.7
1,552 4.208 2.7
7.923 21,983 24
18,074 44,177 f.7
10^91 27.683 2.7
9,366 24,732 24
6.632 18.017 24
37,280 112.752 t4
27,010 78,771 14
9,198 13,083 J.I
9,294 27,089 24
22,704 89,386 3.1
7,131 20,758 24
2,961 8427 34
21,069 68,239 3,1
14,232 37,«l Z7
labl*
-------
Ul
Tlfel* 7. HOUIINO UNIT* AND TO WUTION UtINO
WAIT! DI«POIAUM«AN»»YHOU«INO UNIT TYPI:1 '
MODiU aiOMINT tUMMARY
Mod
»0 Name MHMtkt Pi* Line
5» **t« Rtpprtwmoi* Betcw
800 Jamet Jim** BMOW
810 CNckahomlny June* Beto*
820 Nmtammd Jemet Betow
8)0 SfnbeOi JMM« Bete*
700 Eiml Braieh 1 Buequehtmn Abow
7IQ Lower Sutquehami ftwqiMhmra Mom
720 Conowfnjo . Sutquefnrmai Above
730 MW Potomac Potomio Abtm
740 Mkl Potomac Potomao Abo*
790 Lower Pdomeo Potomac Above
790 Uppef Pitipmco W»»t Ctmepeafce Btkw
7ro UppwCtioptink Upper Entem Shorn Betaw
7» Upper Ninttooke Lower eeetem Shore Mow
BOO CMltli UppefEntern Shore Btkw
*tO CoetMb Upper Eaetem Shore Below
830 Ootttla Upper Eeitem Shore Mow
S» Coittld upp«r Saitem Shore Mow
840 Cantl* Upper Eaitem Shore SMow
890 OMilte WettChrtepeake Below
880 CoertCb We*tCh««peake Below
810 Comtfe • , W*ft CNwpmk* Mow
880 OoiitS . PaftntntmiM ClMWpMlM B«*»
etO PalocMol PotomKi MOW
900 PotomwZ Potomta Stfew
910 PotomiflS Potomac Below
HO Potoma<34 Potomac Bttow
830 CoMtM RmMtannoek fltlm
940 ComtSb Rappthamock Bakjw
9M CoMtSc Rappafiarnock Below
9(0 Coa«9 Jamet BMow
870 Potomac 5 Potomac Betov
950 Polomao! • Potomaa Below
BW CMMt12 Patuxwit/MH Chewpeth* Below
>1) CHESAPEAKE BAY
9) -IAM68RIV6R
?) PATUXEHT RIVER
[4) POTOMAC RIVER
[5) RAPPAWkNHOCK
[8! VORKRMER
. *~^ 1
4.6M 13,031 1.7
13,101 38,817 2.*
4.KM 12,m 2.1
4,304 11,889 2,1
194, 2.208 24
1 3 M
1,320 3,753 24
2.08S 8.441 3.1
181 4M 2,1
1.154 J,«7 2.7
19 41 24
2.W1 7,373 24
4 e 14
1 2 2.1
375 94$ 34
0 0 •
0 C -
t27 34Q If
12 3fl 24
364 1,189 3,6
1,788 5,274 34
7,443 13,184 34
5,580 1«,fS1 M
731 2,331 3.1
3,«5 11,01$ 34
3,513 »,89S 24
1,9» 4,847 3.1
0 0 •
1TS 4BS 24
3,818 9,835 24
7,749 21,283 2.7
244 706 24
240 719 3,0
« 81' 2.2
m 2,47$ 24
208 554 2.7
M tS4 2.1
J3 96 24
12 39 2.4
257 854 24
RURAL
1.6J4 "'"T.eM 2i
13.114 37451 24
20,257 57,2*9 24
3,852 U.754 24
2,247 4,108 24
3 9 33
2,747 7.598 Z4
10,878 30,518 24
19,615 80,078 3.1
10,154 29,128 24
30.657 87,858 24
4,235 12,051 24
18,683 51,412 3.1
3,002 4,731 24
1.238 3,444 24
3.054 1,766 24
2,027 5,44? 2.7
3.294 9.313 M
3,579 «JS3 24
2,850 6,487 24
548 1,682 3.1
380 874 24
800 2,355 2,«
7,284 23,463 3,1
708 2.265 3.2
739 2,203 3.0
3,937 10,448 3.8
14,819 50.809 34
1,280 3,016 24
t,007 23,258 24
1,492 ?900 2.6
20 64 3.1
687 3,067 34
12,270 35,183 24
619 1,618 24
'.834 8,023 24
132 354 2.7
115 345 34
402 1,082 24
201 484 24
100 277 24
SiftU
34 " "* 60 i§
493 1,104 U
520 1,316 24
110 381 34
128 370 24
0 1 .
243 893 24
841 2.230 34
1,817 7,690 44
762 2.529 34
1.138 3,222 24
275 781 2.t
459 1,181 Zl
147 462 3,1
128 363 34
?7 214 24
185 487 24
44 111 24
223 546 24
119 274 24
0 0 .
0 0 .
0 0 .
248 695 24
3 13 34
8 37 44
58 208 34
780 2,682 34
S4 138 24
225 526 24
5 9 14
2 9 3.8
16 45 24
362 617 24
1S 60 3J
57 148 2.9
2 4 24
4 12 J.1
14 38 24
5' 15 24
&L
1,468 1TO — U
18.482 51,993 24
34,678 85,223 1.7
10,965 28,623 2,?
8,678 18.461 - 24
797 2419 24
2,991 8.282 24
12,639 36.901 «
23,317 74,268 «
11,097 32,114 24
93,186 94.005 J4
4.530 12,687 24
19,732 59,968 34
3,152 9,189 24
1^83 3,830 2.1
3.406 9,928 24
2,212 5,914 2.7
3,336 9,424 24
3,829 9,649 24
2,761 6,771 24
942 2,648 34
2.1« 6,246 24
6,343 24,817 14
13,013 34,609 34
1,443 4,806 3.2
4,392 13,255 1.0
7,099 20,390 I.I
18,882 57,818 3.1
1,333 3,153 24
9,407 24,270 24
5.315 13,744 24
7,771 21,337 2.7
1,147 3,818 34
12,672 36,720 24
»» 1,?69 24
2,686 7,645 24
939 921 2.7
173 511 34
449 1,193 2.7
219 829 &4
,JS4,49l 3,*a;6s4 ij1"
1 Not*: Time number* in derived from ttitlitteel Mtl
They am ihown rounded to the ntu«t whole number.
fenom per HU are calculated from number* to lh« Ihlrd decimal tf»
Table T
-------
K)
220 Lowwr Potonwt
239 KtNipom
40 Mittaponl
50 Pamuntoy
60 PamunXey
85 (hum
70 Jtmn
80 Jirnts
290 Jimm
300 Appomatox
330 Paiimmt
340 Ptluwnl
370 Bohtmta
380 Ctttltf
390 Wyt
400 Lewtrctwptank
410 Lowtr NMlloofa
420 Wcomteo
*^0 PooofnoNc
440 Cmst 4
450 Ca«il11
470 Ompowdtf
480- BUHmort
460 Lowaf Patap»co
900 Patuxtrt
510 Stvtm
940 Anocottla
530 Ocooqum
960 Rappahannooh
Ttw. r. Mousma untT« AND TOMJIATMN USINO
WASTI DlSPOSAl MEANS BY MOUSING I/HIT TYMfc'
MOO«.SiOMB« SUMMARY
Mod
ftp Namt
10 EntBranehl
30 Ea«t8m»ch1
30 EattBninoriZ
40 EMt Branch 2
80 W«t Branch
70 Wmt Branch
80
90 JonWt
100 Junteli
110
120 Conowfnga
140 Oommtigo
160 UpptrPotMMo
170 UpptrPotoimo
175 UpptrMoiMO
180 MWPotomto
190 Shtntndoth
300
210
ButqMtaim
Sutquthwimi
SlMqUttlMni
Sutquthanru
Su»qutf>tnni
rotonwQ
Worms
Ywlc
York
Yor*
Jnnt»
Jamtt
Pituxtnl
Pihmtnt
UpptrEtMtmSlion
UpptfEttltmfhoft
Upptf&tttfn Short
LowtfEnttm Short
Low intern Short
Lowtf E»«|tm Stwr.
UwirGnltm Short
WtttChtttPtiltt
W«IChtiaptakt
Wwt QMtapttim
WMOwMpttJtt
Prt«tnVMkiCh»t.p«lw
Potomw
Table ,
M
4.996 24
3,498 XJ
2,632 24
3,762
4,092 2.7
1.819
5.371
972 13
4,105
4.832 IS
853 17
1.399 24
1,509 24
2.410
2.124 24
1,898
3,303 24
3.009 24
1178 24
1.006 34
4,859 3J!
393 24
990 2,7
889 M
2.408 34
385
3.905 IS
6.941 II
1,204 34
2,280 34
187 II
202 11
202 IS
41 13
853 18
142 24
832 14
1.454
424
860 13
1,806 24
2.274 24
969 3.0
90
73 11
1,378
94
1,819
1.ZOJ
1,105
1,430
-------
T«bt«7. HOUIINO UNITS AND POKILATIOMUilNO
WA*TI DliroSAL M8AHS »Y MOUSING UNIT TWI! '
MODEL SBOMINT SUMMARY
Mod
8*0 Nairn
S80 Owwwieoirtoo
J90 Yoric
800 Jim«
610 Chtetahomlrjy
620 NwMumond
630 EHxiMh
700 E««t Srtnoh 1
710 towrStuquthaniii
720 CwioMnoo
730 MMPotomw
740 MWPotomio
750 LewtrPatoRMB
780 Upp*rP*tiBKo
IIS UpP«rChop««n(«
710 UppmNintloek*
830 cow M
840 Ca«fi1*
850 CMM18*
880 Co.M6b
870 CMttte
3 Potomaq 1
900 Potomio 2
910 Potocmo 3
920 Potomio X
930 CoaMBi
940 CoMUb
990
970 Potonno 5
980 PotorntoS
990 Co.it 12
(1} CHiSAPtAKEBAY
{2} JAMEI RIVER
(3; PATUXiNTRIVSR
(4) POTOMAC RWfS
(5) RAPPAHANNOCK
(8> YORKRW5R
1 Note: TDM. numetn in dtiSwi from ttallilM mllmttm.
Thoj- ait ihown mm** to {h. ntimt whot. nttmlwr.
Perroni p«r HU ir* dfcutattd from numb«r» to ft. INrd dtdnil pli
Kt
-------
Tttitot. All Mowrna Unto. f»«ji»iiiti9n*fHll»tiioiwi>«r
Mouth,,, Ihilt U,tn9 fcw.r. S.ptle ,nd O8»r M,,n. of W.rt Dtopowr: County Summtri.s
KJ
•8TATE
DELAWAHB
DELAWARE
DELAWARE
DISTRICT DF COLUMBIA
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
HiWYORK
MEW YORK
HEW YORK
NEW YORK
HEW YORK
HEW YORK
HEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NSW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NSW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
PBNNSYLVAKtA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
RP3 QOUNTV
100U1 KENt
10003 NEWCASTLE
10005 SUSSEX
11001 WASHINGTON
24001 AUSOANY
24003 ANNEAftUNDEl
24003 BALTIMORE
24009 CALVERT
24011 CAROLINE
24013 CARROU.
24019 CBCn.
24017 CHARLES
24019 DORCHESTER
24021 FREDERICK
24023 QARR5TT
24029 HARFORD
24027 HOWARD
24029 KENT
24031 MONTOOMERY
24033 PRINCE OEOROE
24035 aUEENANNeS
24037 SAiNT.MARY-S
24039 SOMERSET
24041 TALBOT
24043 WASHINGTON
24045 WK30MBO
24047 WORC88TER
24510 BALTIMORE CITY
36003 ALLEOANY
30007 BROOME
38011 CAYUOA
38015 CHEMUNO
38017 CHENAN6O
38023 CORTLAND
36029 DELAWARE
36043 HERWMER
38031 LIVINGSTON
38093 MADISON
36089 ONEIDAEAST
36087 ONONOAOA
38069 ONTARIO
38077 OTS60O
36099 8CHOHARIE
38097 SCMUYLER
38101 STEUBEN
38107 TIOGA
38109 TOMPKINS
38123 YA7ES
42001 ADAMS
42009 BEDFORD
42011 BERKS
42013 BLAIR
4201$ BRADFORD
TABLE 8
TTf
3409
247,933
19,934
110437
235,448
60
1.064
12.908
3,373
17,889
4.711
28,809
0
37410
98497
1490
283,796
240,078
0
4.529
1,190
3,831
24,941
9.375
1,812
272439
291
53.540
0
21498
3,230
7,819
1,880
0
0
913
63
_
0"
4,304
0
0
11373
8.831
0
0
4.927
1,461
43
• M.191
4.899
"TEST""
_jftPiio
139
416
903
847
24,183
11403
1.929
89
1424
399
2,144
29
6,974
0
•439
2,449
113
7,023
3.426
0
2.618
16
188
3,802
164
22
1,334
11
4,893
0
4,884
39
418
30
0
0
237
8
08
0
0
199
581
0
0
19
0
0
2,188
419
'6WT
SO-Q
0
27
1.198
66
897
498
18
2
19
39
69
7
192
0
80
48
6
380
729
0
36
0
15
31
16
2
2,813
0
33
0
28
3
7
0
0
0
12
1
0
0
S
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
n
18
rjybtari 1 &J3»"
52
3/3
249,83
20,83
139,281
247,201
2,001
1,161
14,18
3471
20.08!
4.74J
31,739
C
44.33C
58,193
1,401
271402
292433
0
7,184
1.1S7
44J3
28.1T8
9,553
1.636
276,414
303
60.488
0
29,881
3471
8.244
1.B80
0
a
' 89
0
o
4.37S
01
* I Old
81 M
2 . 2,061
S 0
7 4,863
1 1.161
9 1,833
' 2,108
I 2401
3,810
6.94I
! 1,464
1.79J
3491
281
1487
494
1438
1,015
2431
3.717
3.428
2.080
2.383
2,921
3.922
"Z
0
43
2,706
0
920
2,680
1,749
S7
0
83
129
286
\
2.691
3
12.8721 4.381
84* 1.108
0 209
4,946
1,48ll
2
8,687
3,104
490
9,602
2.819
S«do
4,047
1.093
10,709
0
3,640
11,938
18499
12,018
3,808
22,789
13414
10.114
4.830
19,092
1407
10,442
8,340
2.808
8,901
3,413
8.049
13,734
4433
8,658
12467
13474
2,380
0
913
17409
14
7,091
12,133
3,928
3,143
1483
•fWI
**Q
3.957
737
708
41
13,573
371
1,328
16,164
10,879
1.824
81
13,049
12,374
3403
10,828
12.932
' OttB[_
88
10
368
0
212
240
314
44S
201
963
410
834
439
580
72
439,
172
230
124
143
274
984
188
131
917
299
92
14
224
0
90
363
187
74
11
3
142
7
19
0
213
17
48
710
284
36
4
979
478
66
396
748
I Firm
"S.K
1,17
13.13
8.73
13,35'
20,44
14,68)
8,121
27,121
18.98!
1J.41J
7,023
19,890
1,68]
16,441
9401
4,874
10,840
S.5SO
12,040
17,724
6401
8,150
16,004
17,991
3499
970
JO. 199
14
7,881
19.196
7,649
3,340
1,404
131
4,164
669
1,006
42
18,418
391
2J 12^
4 1
4 14
Bn
0
1 4
r 7
S 0
> a
15
3
10
6
11
0
1
0
9
17
9
0
19
I
«'
t
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
^
o
0
A
1,391) 0
20,229] 0
12490J 1
22.1941
1S458J
18,485
18,499
w
0
8
7
1
0
8
•MBBBMBMMBB.
"'fetfe '
TFT
48
609
0
49
448
828
382
«7S
988
642
399
313
999
81
419
269
391
377
186
'429
493
287
481
918
999
214
0
30
333
1
140
on
320
192
101
3
271
2
040
11
4S
769
3M
62
6
890
684
218
369
848
""""^^^mHUf
"odur""""
fl
1
49
0
11
15
0
44
12
0
S
8}
28
0
IS
9
0
11
0
0
9
93
18
3
97
29
10
0
1
80
0
28
10
32
11
1
0
6
1
3
0
37
2
18
75
28
9
0
29
20
10
14
4S
*"""*™^^^*^
"iSiiXSST
390 8,910
60 1,790
672 17,979
Ol 249,839
04 29,832
471 149,114
0391 398*200
40ef 18468
705 8.963
989 42448
682] 23,498
492 32490
332 12,117
963 92470
«7 1,789
416 63,193
278 68437
419 9,702
398 282428
1881 288,011
448 12,489
9821 25,800
309 7.877
494 «477
6631 44,762
0281 27,772
227 6462
01 276,484
31 1404
283 80446
1 16
188 33,720
032 19.099
3641 18,443
203 8,432
1021 150e
3 134
2»| 9,825
48! 96S
371 1049
2 43
6831 21,476
«l 404
«| 1.454
6431 33,840
3641 18438
671 2,123
61 92
»27| 28,067
612! 18.030
327J 4426
3791 SM32
6971 21,492
-------
T»W« t. Ml HoutlnB Unltt, Popul.tton .nd Ptnsns ptr
HeinlnB Unit Uttng s.wt r, *«ptte and Othtr *h*t» of Win. D!.p<,«.|:
TABLE B
STATE
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PSNNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PSNNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PSNNSYLVANIA
PSNNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
YIRQINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
WROINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
WROINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
RPS
42Q2S
42023
42027
42029
42033
42035
42037
42041
42043
4204?
42053
42057
42081
42063
42093
42097
42069
42071
42073
42079
42081
42083
42087
42093
42097
" 42099
42109
42107
42109
42111
42113
421 IS
42117
42119
42127
42131
42133
31001
51003
31003
S1007
31009
31011
S1013
31013 .
51017
51019
S1023
91029
51031
51033
51038
COUNTY
CAMBRIA
CAMERON
CARBON
CENTRE
CHESTER
O.EARFIELD
CLINTON
COLUMBIA
CUMBERLAND
DAUPHIN
ELK
FRANKLIN
FULTON
HUNTWOOON
INDIANA
JEfftRSON
JUNtATA
LACKAWANNA
LANCASTER
LEBANON
LUZERNE
LYCOM1NG
MCKEAN
MIFFUN
MONTOUR
NORTHUMtERLANO
PERRY
POIT1R
SCHUYUOLL
8NY0ER
SOMERSET
8ULUVAH
SUSQUEHANNA
TIOOA
UNION
WAYNE
WYOMIN3
YORK
ACCOMACK
ALBEMARLE
AOEOHANY
AMELIA
AMKiRST
APPOMATTOX
ARLINOTON
AUGUSTA
BATH
BEDFORD
BOTETOURT
BUCKINGHAM
CAMPBELL
CAROLINE
CHARLES CITY
Uttnn
1,015
23,583
1,588
4,093
3.122
8,287
48,818
70,772
1(0
14.74S
0
3,834
0
0
70,309
89,598
18,705
90,022
22.868
0
4,207
3.201
20,098
974
0
8,739
1,738
0
0
2.248
3.170
0
0
68.493
0
9,077
0
1.049
0
78,178
3,009
490
0
511
0
9
0
288
40
93
8
279
1.987.
2,702
0
2S1
Q
0
Q
0
0
982
2,835
1,173
4,109
2,873
0
30
71
192
43
0
88
24
0
0
0
105
22
0
0
5,922
0
1,327
0
3.079
0
239
1.249
0
1.221
0
1,827
0
0 1,61
0 1,12
0
0 23,87
0 1,82
0 4.141
0 3.12
0 8.341
81 4S£ti
288 73.731
0 18C
0 HBW
0 C
0 3.KM
o e
0 G
0 0
93 71,963
287 92.TOO
59 17.D3
259 94,390
SI 25,»92
0 1
0 4,237
3 3,275
33 20,282
0 1,017
0 0
W 8.817
0 1,7H
0 0
0 Q
0 0
5 2.353
0 3.1J2
0 Q
0 0
108 72,524
0 0
9 10,813
0 0
0 0
23 4,193
0 0
10S 78,520
29 4,283
0 0
« 1,727
0 1!
0 0
2 2,140
0 0
- j^j. •—
I _S«*»r '" Strtlc
5 «2 927
0 0 0
3 S.MS 11,754
' 817 8,134
» 4,230 12,832
» 9.840 4,190
! 1.889 12,090
' 7.8S7 15,684
) 8.013 14,483
> 493 ' 1,697
1 14.114 14,038
1 1.008 3,711
2.120 8.T1S
93 988
3 1
1.949 5,046
2,970 7,901
14.810 38.383
8,301 10,290
10,843 17.411
*447 15,447
S 72
5,992 8,804
313 2,858
7,708 9,877
3,517 B.237
898 1,191
9,879 9.SS2
4,205 5,881
» 771
901 1,645
4,038 10,009
2.308 8.948
2.883 5.320
111 323
1.903 7,684
13,458 39.703
948 4,885
1.31S 11,483
1.889 2,878
275 2,398
748 4,340
208 2,300
0 0
4133 11,574
657 918
97 1,433
798 3.S70
328 3.489
147 2,338
771 5,184
0 0 17 1,888
1 1
. Other Subtotal 1 8»W""
4B2 lO.iiSj if
154 1,283 n
0
432 18,03
131 8.93
818 17,88
479 10,50
332 14,30
583 23,70.
473 20,97<
48 2.2*
696 29,441
145 4.882
472 11.30!
88 1.183
0 1
192 7,185
232 11,193
1.191 54.W
191 18,783
570 28,82,
543 18,436
1 78
383 12,978
S9 3,058
348 17.933
809 13,383
142 2,000
858 15,989
382 10.488
51 831
79 2,225
491 14,539
482 11,914
118 8,101
17 450
181 9,788
1.307 54,488
S27 8,140
439 13,216
288 4883
218 2,889
378 5,481
91 2J99
0 0
719 1( 426
236 1,811
108 1,838
282 4,630
357 4.191
51 2536
483 (,418
211 3,116
0 0
8 19
2 1
1 0
» 19
7 8
30
35
0
25
2
2
0
A
7
0
246
5
38
0
Q
49
2
12
6
2
19
23
18
0
4
46
4
9
2
3
1
0
2
0
2
Q
0
0
715
381
183
178
908
S47
520
2
1,154
266
367
27
370
163
3,482
Hfl
252
803
1
359
203
497
«2
71
305
426
82
51
342
675
337
. 24
225
1.871
184
818
211
193
11T
0
62
240
f?fl
43
j6lh»f "_'
7
0
0
21
7
0
15
11
1
0
0
54
9
«r
J
0
34
0
252
18
0
18
0
75
S
12
11
0
9
82
4
2
14
28
21
1
4
99
36
39
0
22
17
4
0
84
20
3
0
18
0
14
0
-_ J TOTAL
JHtMei»n
aET^'ii'SB1
3 2,191
0 0
755 42,683
389 8.928
1*3 22.J10
207 13,844
629 23,478
881 73,452
355 95.264
2 2,418
1,233 45,675
277 5,139
386 15.827
'30 1,193
0 1
411 7,898
183 82,849
3,979 150,883
577 37,298
2901 123,305
8211 44,949
1J 78
4821 17,697
210f 6,943
821 38.739
889 14,949
73 2,073
334 25.139
5341 12.784
88 917
58 2,280
3S9 14,898
70S 14,974
3*9 11.889
23 1 478
234 10.002
1,676 128,668
204 8,344
«M 24,433
71 4,941
242 3,131
213 9.127
122 2,721
0| 78,520
1.072 19,781
«4j 1,895
31 3,418
240 4.885
1» 4,341
271 4,703
213/ J.B31
4SJ 2,181
-------
TlM* ». All Homkie Unlti. fopuliMon MM P*i*«ns per
Homing Unit Utlng ««ww, Stjnle »nd ottitr Item* of W«ft* Dlipoil: County Iummtr1«
00 -
STATE ftps COUNTY *
VIRGINIA 91041 CHISTERRELO
VIRGINIA 51043 CLARKE
VIRGINIA 51045 CRAIG
VIRGINIA »047 CULrePiR
VIRGINIA 61053 WNWIDDK
VIRGINIA SIOS7 ESSEX
VIRGINIA 51058 PAWAX
VIRGINIA 91061 WUflUKR
VIRGINIA 51083 PLLVANNA
VIRGINIA 51069 FREDERICK
VIRGIMA ' 51071 GILES
VIRGINIA 51073 GLOUCESTER
VIRGIMA 61075 OOOCHLANO
VIROIMA 5107B GREENE
VWOIMA 91065 HANOVER
VIRGIMA 51087 HENRICO
VIRGIMA 51091 HIGHLAND
VIRGINIA 51093 I8UEOFWIQHT
VIRGIMA 51095 JAMES CITY
VIRGINIA 81097 KINO AMD QUEEN
VIRGINIA 31099 KM3 GEORGE
VWOIMA 51101 WNO WILLIAM
VIROIMA 91110 LANCASTER
VIRGINIA 91107 LOUDOUN
VIRGINIA . 51109 LOU8A
VIRGIMA • 51111 LUNENBERO
VIRGINIA 51113 MAOttON
VIRGINIA 81115 MATHEW8
VIRGIN* Sing MIDDLESEX
VIRGINIA 51121 MONTGOMERY
VIRGIN!* 51125 NELSON
VIRGIN!* 51127 NEWKiNT
VIRGIN!* 81131 NORTHAMPTON
VIRGIN!* 51133 • NORTHUMBERLAND
VIRGIN!* 51135 NOTTOWAY
VIRGIN!* 51137 ORANGE
VIRGIN!* 51139 PAGE
VIRGIN!* 51149 POWHATAN
VIRGIN!* ' 51147 PRINCE EDWARD
VIRGIN!* 51149 PRINCS GEORGE
VIRGIN)* ,. 51153 PRtNCt WILLIAM
VIRGIN!* 51157 RAPPAHANNOCK
VIRGIN* 51159 RICHMOND
VIRQINI* 51161 ROANOKE
VIRGIN!* 51163 ROCKBRIOGS
VIRGINIA 51185 ROGXINGHAM
VIRGINIA 51171 SHBIANOOAH
VIRGINIA 51177 SPOTSTLVANIA
VIRGINIA 51178 STAFFORD
VIRGINIA 81181 SURRY
VIRGINIA 51187 WARRSN
T5555
82,670 8,760 156 81.881
CM 93 0 1,07
000
3,049 309 30 3,386
137 36 10 163
1,2«9 42 0 1,31
000
271,563 13,875 545 288,008
1.7» 159 2 1,960
000
000
0 0 0
414 2.809 55 3,37
000
000
6,891 3,658 61 10,61
79.773 3.400 116 83^89
D 0 0
1.473 230 1 1,706
8,788 371 18 6.175
D 0 0
9000
1,021 82 0 1,10
9 0 0 i
20,47? 549 15 21.041
000
000
0 0' 0
000
000
000
t 0 0 0
e o o o
0-0 0 0
0000
359 3 Q 382
80S 33 0 699
UM 129 2 W45
t 0 0 0
1.339 105 1 1,441
1.71S 228 19 1,958
85.371 1,128 78 98,579
C 0 0 0
0000
0 0 0 0
C 0 0 0
1.198 69 0 1.265
t«67 209 16 2,891
6.481 591 6 9.078
5,715 788 17 8,500
0000
4.389 256 2 4.647
-ma-
3,033 6827 131 11,68
210 2.481 159 2.85C
280 980 19 1,351
415 9,165 4*2 6,043
39 2,074 I«5 2,37
193 1,064 38 1.359
690 2*17 1M 3,10
1,377 4,856 « 6.30
2.597 10.783 346 13,726
984 3.129 233 4.343
8,886 8/06 5S7 18,08
,885 W12 411 7,407
233 4,103 3GB 4,64
498 J#9 171 3.606
1,522 9.497 580 11,61
349 5t223 175 8,747
149 909 13S 894
356 3^03 123 4.442
3,323 3J04 K 6,70
11 2.U26 134 2,17
1,232 3,224 145 4,60
60 2^48 171 2,876
959 3,«91 255 4,488
2,104 6.283 27» 6,664
561 5,«62 954 7,101
152 3.986 321 3,884
169 8.102 161 3,479
352 *»48 131 3,440
414 3,481 680 4,878
38 3,503 84 3,625
740 2J23 235 3.199
311 3,«88 271 4,177
880 1,370 123 2,354
2.036 4.S1S 264 6.615
1.454 4.171 271 5,805
«1 4.J1? 147 4J28
404 3J12 229 3,641
«0 1.407 81 W67
2,762 9,410 22< 12,924
146 1J89 197 2.333
953 1.8SO 213 2,446
3« 3 390
1.238 8,096 S7S 6.824
4,537 12,718 878 18,131
2.478 3,658 689 9,010
1,937 7,2f9 377 9,993
5,328 7,191 288 12,808
«« 6W 68 1,088
158 4.7S6 229 8,143
0 172 0
3 291 14
0 52 0
1 300 27
1 219 33
1 68 3
8 129 23
0 36 0
10 788 25
6 152 17
30 341 18
0 17 0
3 163 15
0 235 0
4 120 18
0 404 0
8 96 0
2 146 39
0 145 9
19 83 3
0 147 21
0 131 4
0 140 18
S 62 11
» 751 29
8 276 43
0 0 Q
0 257 23
1 46 4
0 63 7
0 14 0
1 1T8 52
0 93 0
7 115 21
3 188 28
4 137 14
7 292 17
13 283 8
0 148 0
1 192 10
3 39 1
4 198 4
0 148 IS
11 153 35
0 25 0
3 333 42
26 1,239 89
19 492 41
0 268 6
0 108 3
2 73 9
0 65 4
saga
17;
301
55
327
283
72
187
38
823
178
969
17
181
235
143
(04
102
187
155
86
168
135
198
96
res
328
0
260
51
80
14
231
93
142
155
316
90S
146
204
43
208
193
IK
37
1,3$4
21'
1C9
69
W
S"
73,441
4.238
1,411
9,787
2,613
2,637
32U
292,3<5
16.9W
4.9W
16,479
118
10,695
4.680
3.749
22.628
89,139
1.081
6,302
12.963
2.333
4,733
3,634
4,661
30,490
7.42T
1
4.144
3,530
3,539
214
4,80?
3.71B
3.342
4,482
2.870
7,939
8.084
4.673 '
69,708
2,498
2,649
373
7.202
20,790
12.452
18,945
19.419
1,167
•,878
TA31E*
-------
T«W. t. All HMMtaf Unite, ropuliflon md P.raoni p.r
Hou.in, U««Urtn9««,.,, «.^|.i(MlOttiW«to,n, »f W«ta Dl.pM.1, County tamm,,!..
STATE
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
i VIRGINIA
• VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
WiSTVIROINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WE8TVIR3INIA
WiSTVIRSINIA
W6STVIR3IN1A
WESTVIRatNtA
WESTVIR3INIA
WESTVIR3INIA
WESTVIR31NIA
WESTVIRSlNtA
WESTVlRaiNIA
WgSTVlRaiNtA
WESTVIR3INtA
PIPS c°JjfT¥
911*4 wtarMORfiLANfi
51199 YORK
SMW ALEXANDRIA
S1S30 BUINA VISTA
91640 CHARtOTTESVItlE
91890 CHItAPEAKectTY
31980 CLIFTON FORGE
31570 COLONIAL HEIGHTS
31380 covweroN
51800 FAIRFAX
51810 FALLS CHURCH
51630 FRieeWCKSBURfl
81850 HAMPTON CITY
91880 MARRI80N8URG
51670 HOPEWEU.
S16T8 U6HNOTON
518W LYHCHBURQ
918J3 MANASSAS CITY
518«5 MANASSAS PARK CITY
51700 NEWPORT NEWS CITY
31710 NORFOtKCITY
91730 PETERSBURG
91735 POQU080N
31740 PORTSMOUTH CITY
517831 RICHMONOOTY
, 51790 STAUNTON
31809 SUFPCtKOTY
81820 WAYNSSBORO
31830 WIU.IAM88URO
51840 WIMCHSSTER
94003 SBRKaSY
94023 GRANT
5402S GREENBRIAR
54027 HAMPSHIRE
54031 HARDY
34037 JEFFERSON
54097 MINERAL
34083 MONROE
54069 MORGAN
54071 PENW.6TON
9407S POCAH6NTAS
34077 PRiSTON
94083 RANDOLPH
94093 TUCKfR
CT — i
Urtowi
" tflT
7,550
53.132
1,999
19.219
41,808
1,807
1 8,340
2.335
6,843
4,162
7.369
48.418
9,497
8.798
1.730
21,101
9,197
2,182
82.183
88.372
12,409
2,711
38,274
63,518
8.741
7.833
89.584
6.478
3.335
8,311
8,073
0
1
0
0
2,295
2,94.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,081
M
75
212
3,098
4
23
10
88
77
1,189
448
123
10
4.008
128
0
1,856
705
109
1,093
347
1,808
287
4,698
4.514
499
128
270
289
0
0
0
0
86
627
0
0
0
0
0
0
S 74S '!"
r.Tfw^^.ww**—
1 {,31
18 10,84
81 93,28
23 2,09
34 <3,40
112 44,71
0 1,61
0 6.3K
0 2,94!
3 8,931
26 4.19!
• r.45C
>» 49,673
18 t,98J
•4 9.014
0 1,740
39 2S.141
9 9,2*2
0 2.182
143 83,952
201 69,478
28 12^38
9 3,769
120 38,741
211 85,337
M ' 9,098
328 13,013
121 94,216
38 6,965
^ 3,488
0 8,381
28 eja
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 2,382
33 3,400
0 Q
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 o
•i.fflr.iBi
. 197
7 1,041
0 0
7 0
8 0
» 0
1 0
> 0
s o
1 0
> 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0°
0°
0
0
«
0
0
0
0
4^21
1.268
0
1,082
1,248
3,120
2,343
ir
1,241
«
0
11
927,222 1.0
rnn^m
3,9/4
2,741
0
0
23
D
5
a
9
0
0
0
-C
I
a
t
0
0
0
a
a
0
0
23
1.309
0
0
0
0
10,791
2,221
1
4.107
2.297
6.959
3,757
216
3,259
1,704
1
19
1
2
ig» J
' !••.
~oi5f suby;
356 <«
29 9,81
0
0
0
0 2
0 1
0 (
0 {
0 (
o e
o e
0 C
0 «
0 0
0 g
0 0
0 0
0 Q
0 I
0 1
0 (
0 0
0 Q
0 0
0 27
82 1,441
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
858 13.669
224 3,712
0 1
5« 3,852
441 3,988
188 10,248
»9 8.217
38 289
183 4,683
457 2,728
0 1
1 16
O 4
I * "
> 2
Of 7
0 0
0 0
0 0
3 0
9 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
3
4
0
8
5
4
2
0
3
8
0
Q
0
nsi 5
»«—«M**MM
•MMMMMMM.
10
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
68
0
0
0
0
274
100
0
258
224
287
156
25
69
227
0
1
0
(i.MJ
MH^HMM^M
•"•MmMWMM
-PJHf "
51
i
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
s
as
29
a
64
71
15
1
103
0
0
0
\ 444 r
—
1?| 14,474
0 53,280
6 2,087
0 15,488
44,742
» 1.811
9 8,363
» 2.845
• 6,936
8 4,195
* 7,490
< 49,673
« 8,982
• 9.014
« 1,740
« 25.143
C 9,292
0 2,182
C 63,952
Of 89,476
0 12.838
0 3,789
0 38,741
0 18437
n 9,109
71 14,830
0 94,218
0 8.989
0 3,468
0 6,981
312 22,350
212 3.924
0 2
330 8.182
300 4,286
308 12,914
164 9,981
28 299
81 4,731
335 3,060
0 1
1 17
0 '
TABLE 8
-------
Tibh ». All Homing Units, Fepulntton «nd f«r»oni ptr
Homing Unit Usltg S*w*r, **ptie «n«t Othtr Mnns of Wwtt Dlspenl;
STATE
OiLAWARI
DELAWARE
DELAWARE
DISTRICT OF c<
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
NIWYORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NiWYORK
NSW YORK
NEW YORK
NfiWYORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NSW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
MEW YORK
NSW YORK
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSaVANIA
RPS COUNTY
10001 KENT
10003 NEWCASTLE
10005 SUSSEX
UJMitA 11001 WASHINGTON
24001 AUEQAMY
24003 ANNEARUNOa
MOOS BALTIMORE
34009 CALVERT
94011 CAROLINE
24013 CARROLL
HOIS OB3L
34017 CHARLES
24019 DORCHESTER
34021 FREDERICK
24023 OARRETT
24025 HARFOTO
2402? HOWARD
24029 KENT
24031 MONTGOMERY
24033 PRtNCCOEOROes
24039 QUEEN ANNE'S
24037 tANTMARrS
24039 SOMERSET
24041 TALBOT
24043 WASHINGTON
24049 WBOM1CO
. 24047 WORCESTER
24S10 BALTIMORE CITY
36003 ALLEOANY
30007 BROOMS
36011 CAYUOA
36015 CHEMUNO
36017 CHENANOO
36023 CORTLANO
36025 DELAWARE
36043 HERKIMER
36051 LIVINGSTON
36033 MAOI80N
36085 ONEIOAEAST
36097 ONONDAQA
30089 ONTARIO
96077 OT8800
36095 8CHDHARIE
90997 aCHUYLER
38101 STEUBEN
38107 TICCA
38108 TOMPKINS
30123 YATES
42001 ADAMS
42409 BEDFORD
42911 BERKS
42013 BUM
4201S BRADFORD
M e o ^
9» 496 0 1.4
8,242 1,123 100 9,46-
S80,4n 1,417 4,083 595,95:
48,9*9 2,126 90 48,857
299.4T7 71,203 1.M8 372£«
S88.1J8 30,870 1,282 81W7C
1T3 5,213 38 8,423
2,902 901 4 2,106
31,815 5.041 58 38,91
9,3» 1,049 98 10,503
33,011 8,721 »4 59.9M
11,041 90 18 11,11
89,7f7 18,793 391 84,088
0 0 0
102,831 20,858 128 123,81
149,032 7,129 148 158,308
2,815 338 15 3,108
893,018 20,634 1,270 718,428
877,749 15.532 2,208 895,485
000
12.721 7,053 80 20,494
2r8GO SO '3 2,833
8.4CS 948 39 8,99
37,048 9.887 80 88,715
22,198 889 77 22.842
9*43 137 5 4.084
809,061 5,382 10,437 718.477
829 320 0 948
130.545 13.389 91 144,025
5000
81,94* 11,t73 148 84,085
7,305 102 8 7,413
18,94*. 1,043 23 20,013
4.8W 84 0 4.889
ft n n M
0 0 0 0
2587 1,484 53 3,774
«4 18 2 192
ft 0 ft «
oooo
9,800 139 « 9,tfO
• 0 O • ft
0.0 0 0
29.198 400 0 29,870
KB** 1,724 58 18.480
e o o.o
CO ft n
11.203 40 0 11,251
3,093 0 0 3,092
137 2 0 139
78,538 5,810 182 82,327
11,204 1,010 28 12,242
715! — —
2.088 13,500 389 15,85
2» 3.215 22 3,4ff
S.01? 29.787 1,077 35,88
000
12,378 J.837 480 22.77
2.427 39,356 541 38,32
3,897 53,811 9T7 88,481
8.381 37,893 1,243 44.5
5,580 19,448 043 21,891
9,629 89,939 1,4^9 80.94
14,731 97,827 . 1,117 83,889
4*17 31,635 2,8(7 38,731
4,407 12412 912 17,80
M77 47IS10 1.7S5 88,54]
718 3|824 172 4,71
3,847 40,921 1^15 83.903
1,287 28,453 4*4 26.21
4,491 7fl58 SO 12,41
4,784 27,851 312 32,798
8.883 9,739 318 18,780
8.487 22,315 8M 37,489
8,478 40,491 1,424 80.389
4.030 10JXX 3tS 10,033
8J42 14^43 2» 19.983
7,721 38,037 1,3» 45,098
9,741 38^10 «M8 48,399
2.278 8J92 215 8,788
0 0 0 0
43 2,124 35 2.203
6,889 50,944 MB 87,011
1 46 0 48
1,231 20.178 232 21,841
8,377 34.132 1,044 41,873
4.183 17.W7 471 22,048
304 8.442 17» 8,928
08 3,121 31 3,941
183 10.282 34f 10,7*
311 2.198 » 2,820
751 1,«8 40 2,779
2 111 8 11$
S.994 90,359 542 42,898
7 170 4t 1,018
34 3.902 121 3,957
10,422 42.S23 2,023 55.088
X803 30,109 720 34JB2
442 4,t58 90 8.391
4 S3 n 237
22,325 37,495 1.376 81,198
7,270 34,«8 1,100 42.478
1^28 9,983 153 11.345
14.018 29,2tS 001 44,091
6.710 36,411 2,103 45484
W Amtlo 6tf»f Sub^t.
21 000 37 m
2 151 4 151
19 1.S88 107 1,77-
0 0 0 (
9 228 25 28C
IS 1,234 42 129C
0 1,720 0 1,721
7 949 190 1,147
88 1,944 22 2,034
3 2.922 0 2,926
47 1,420 0 1,478
0 1,228 111 1,347
33 738 71 (40
0 2,929 0 2929
3 278 28 30S
0 1.101 0 1,101
16 807 0 883
82 1.002 10 t145
18 1,073 0 1,091
0 801 0 001
82 1,102 0 1,172
28 1,048 538 2,412
28 788 40 «5f
22 1.134 0 1,1M
27 1,417 102 1,800
42 1,070 04 1.701
9 827 28 B02
0000
0 04 3 07
0 714 130 K»
04Q4
0 349 05 413
* 1,723 31 1.T02
S 1.058 58 1,|«
0 547 2S J72
0 329 2 $31
0800
0 83t 14 MS
2 128 2 130
0 127 8 134
030)
17 1,992 89 2.868
0 40 3 43
0 124 44 100
0 2.370 349 2.719
2 1.204 90 1J02
1 158 8 184
0 19 2 20
18 2,881 88 " 2.7«
21 1,983 48 2.0J3
4 855 34 0(3
0 1.141 74 Utf
18 2.480 124 2.8B
16.926
5,550
47,999
695,952
71.M3
411,180
878,476
51,086
28,531
120,308
63.M4
100,041
29.758
148,459
8,022
170.617
185,408
18,718
749,315
7I2.MT
33,641
7*255
! 18.743
! 30.138
113.409
71,022
18,482
718.477
3.2J9
201.8M
SO
88,118
80,748
43.1T9
H1M
4JT2
" 348
H.4H
2.JUO
2,912
118
84,9)3
1,0*0
4,125
87,4631
91,9741
S.95SJ
2STI
nsm
47.8W|
127.834
00,118
TABLE r •
-------
T.bt. a. All Mousing Unit*. Populitlon *n« ftmnt pir
Houilni Untt Uflrtg fcwtr, ttpue ind pthtr MMM «f Wut* Dtspenl:
STATE FIPS COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA 42021 &BBRK ~
PENNSYLVANIA 42023 CAM6RON
PENNSYLVANIA 42028 CARBON
PENNSYLVANIA 42027 CENTRE
PENNSYLVANIA 420» CHESTER
PENNSYLVANIA 42033 CLBARFIELO
PENNSYLVANIA 42035 CLINTON
PENNSYLVANIA 4203T COLUMBIA
PENNSYLVANIA 42041 CUMBfmAND
PENNSYLVANIA 42043 DAUPHIN
PENNSYLVANIA 42047 ELK
PENNSYLVANIA 42083 FRANKLIN
PENNSYLVANIA 42057 FULTON
PENNSYLVANIA 42081 HUNTINODON
PENNSYLVANIA 42083 INDIANA
PENNSYLVANIA 42089 JEFFERSON
PENNSYLVANIA 4208? JUNIATA
PENNSYLVANIA 4206t LACKAWANNA
PENNSYLVANIA 42071 LANCASTER
PENNSYLVANIA 42078 LEBANON
PENNSYLVANIA 42078 LUZERNE
PENNSYLVANIA 42081 LYCOMINO
PENNSYLVANIA 42083 MOKSAN
PENNSYLVANIA 42087 MfFFLIN
PENNSYLVANIA 42093 MONTOUR
ESSSJw^ *aW7 NORTHUMBERLAND
PENNSYLWflA 42099 PERRY
PENNSYLVANIA 42105 POTTER
PENNSYLVANIA 42107 8CHUYLK1LL
PENNSYLVANIA 42109 SNYDiR
PENNSYLVANIA 42111 SOMERSET
PENNSYLVANIA 42113 SULLIVAN
PENNSYLVANIA 42115 SUSOUEKANNA
PENNSYLVANIA 42117 TIOOA
PENNSYLVANIA 42119 UNION
PENNSYLVANIA 42127 WAYN6
PENNSYLVANIA 42131 WYOMING
PENNSYLVANIA 42133 YORK
VIROINIA 51001 ACCOMACK
)222!E£ 81003 *LBEMARL8
VROINIA 51008 ALLIOHANY
VIR3INIA 81007 AMBUA
VIRQINIA 31011 APPOMATTOX
VJROINIA 81013 ARUNOTON
VIROINIA 51015 AUQUSTA
VIROINIA 51017 BATH
VIRQINIA 31019 BEDFORD
VIROINIA 51023 SOTETOURT
VIRGINIA 31029 BUCKINGHAM
VIRGINIA 51031 CAMPBaL
VIROINIA 51033 CAROLINE
VIRGINIA 51038 CHARLES CITY
2.508 ^o 6 Ig 13tMt ^4% "tTg* *%% """V Se% ahf "TEHg
2>4*° « 0 MWJ 479 2.484 426 3,388| 0 1 * *
37,146 1,098 0 88,24
3,787 124 Q 3,91
9.113 313 0 9,421
7,178 18 0 7,191
19,485 852 0 20,131
110,645 8.630 230 11890!
16W74 7,831 803 174,92t
454 0 0 434
33,427 830 0 34,03<
i 0 0 0 g
8,608 0 0 6,800
0 0 0 fl
o 0 C
0 0 0 0
172,418 2,899 314 17Sj827
223,277 8.674 1,311 233.281
39,288 3,285 101 42.633
215,039 11,389 857 227,265
83.238 7,207 217 S2.S62
0 0 o 0
9,211 76 0 9.269
8,988 112 ' 7 7,088
48,389 311 73 46T43
2,320 108 0 2,425
19,548 1» 53 18.T83
J>937 *1 0 3.W8
0 0 0 0
0000
0 0 0 0
5,082 239 7 5329
7.163 57 0 7,220
0 0 o 0
0 0 0 0
182,050 18,775 223 178,050
0 00 0
19.922 4,217 42 24,182
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
2.332 8.461 18 10.879
0 Q 0 0
183,328 980 431 188,738
7.939 3.490 93 11.543
0000
1,109 3.296 47 4.4J1
1 43 0 44
0000
1.165 4,478 6 5.849
0 0 0 0
I 14.SM 32^05 984 48,4801 74 1878 107 jns
J'2S 212 "* *M 2 1387 J2 fS
I 10 593 3M Sfit *t 'Mi j* mfm\ d. ' ** i(^*
*i lu.uw ^>,u/o 2,721 47,690} 0 812 n ««
« as ^ sd » ,« « t»
18.745 44,620 1.257 64.623 82 24M a }£
^2 ^ *'m *>m\ 1» vm o ^m
1,443 4,751 135 6,331 1 05 n
M «2S 1'2I M'1«1 « *» "" <22
2,316 1Q£40 336 12,894] 4 Itt « ,£
5.1M 23,938 1,088 xM S 1(JJJ * ,^
2*8 2,843 287 3,340 0 f* <• ' —
0 3 03
4.403 14,048 827 18.079
7.SM 22.283 721 30,820
38,224 116,887 3,278 158,357
20,837 28,833 428 81,088
28,829 48,173 1,438 7844C
8.732 43.469 1,570 50,770
« 188 3 203
14,949 18,508 1,194 34.849
988 7,888 203 8,783
1esM ^T1' ™ *I>MZ
1,M2 3.191 405 5,278
14.273 25.482 1,379 41105
10.338 18,788 1,282 28.417
« 2528 122 2.373
LOW 4.228 198 8,499
i,n'. 27,820 1,383 38,934
5,988 .24,373 1,238 31,877
8,408 1S>248 395 22.049
288 911 51 1,249
4,807 21,430 484 26,521
34,522 112.602 3.623 150.747
2,258 11,808 1,343 15110
3.334 31,807 1194 3S,'l35
4.841 7.197 879 12.717
«41 8,?43 657 8,042
1,668 12,153 812 14835
13 1,050 128 1 18t
0 438 0 '43-
843 15,»22 1,185 17.82i
10 1.752 103 1868
84 788 0 872
0 1,853 s» 1,71)
0 3 03
117 1274 373 1,784
' «9 1( 98J
33 1«37 33 1(824
15 sso « '288
* 809 35 887
» 1,603 486 2,121
0 278 11 }tr
3 153 3 183
12 1,078 39 1,126
« 2,158 66 2239
42 1.403 118 tjO
0 n 3 86
14 8M 11 721
"2 4-*2 81 4.788
• 443 108 881
o8 'IS 1 1'S
8 «1 83° flf
5M WO 218 wl\ 1 5 ~ J»
«? 31,368° ,.«! «J * 30* , JJ
1 &Q6 9 A\"} Ni^a ^ «*AI "*v»^ IB") 3,29!
^ b S 11 i 1 * I
w e8'^ ^ » « « « ^
2,084 15.062 1.328 18,475 0 4M 13 «£
53 5.427 890 8,17o| 0 111 o m
•^^•^•MHMBM^
i! 32,132
8 8,656
0 1
8 106,783
1 28.896
87,828
35,107
89,886
184,128
233,354
6.789
118,441
13,781
38,989
3,434
4
»,271
208,982
409,847
98,598
304,877
115,144
208]
48,702
W.313J
98.210
40,828
8,843
•1,788
H638
2,882
5,882
40,060
39,148
30.831
1,315
27,242
334.883
15,671
61,789
12.9871
8.783J
28,283!
7,3781
168,7!»l
83,0491
4,7431
8.9991
12,8391
1 1,7431
12,3551
18,fl38J
8.282J
TABLE 8
-------
T»Wt«. Ml Homing UnM, MpuUOon md rmw nr
Hoinlna Unit Using a«w»r. Sfptfe tntf OOwrMmnt of Wnt* Df*p*«l:
STATE
VW6M1A
Ul
RP8
51037"
51041
51043
5104S
S1Wt
S10S3
51057
81099
5,089
51089
81075
51079
S10tS
81087
81091
81093
aiOBS
91099
91101
51103
81107
81109
31111
Si 113
51115
81125
81127
51131
81133
81137
81f39
31J45
»1I«
S1157
S1159
81181
CHESTERFIELD
CLARKE
aura
COLPEPER
CUMiiRLANO
DNWIOOIf
ESSSX
FAIRFAX
FUMANNA
FMEDERICK
OOOCHLANO
QPEEN6
HWOVSR
HIGHLAND
BteOFWIGHT
KJNOOEOKOE
HNS WILLIAM
IQUDOUN
LUNfiNBERO
MADISON
NELSON
NEW KENT
NORTHAMPTON
NORTHUMBERLAND
01WM6
PRWCSOE090E
-wtwcevwatAw
RAPPAHANNOCK
ROCKINOHAM
»«HANtX»«H
«1»
S118t
STAffDRD
TABLF,""
1
.
0 y 0
148,185 23,625 309 172,61
2.180 314 0 2,97<
0 0 0 (
7,351 7« 148 8,281
290 35 21 343
3,304 1« 0 3.411
0 0 0 C
738,578 43,863 2.116 784.S57
4.272 403 S 4.682
" 0 0 0
0 00 0
0 0 Q o
1,'Jt 7,860 119 6.899
» • *» ,W,B»i,
0 0 0 0
0 0 o 0
17,2£ 10.564 122 27,973
W0.1S8 8J34 258 198,638
0 0 o 0
4,050 650 4 4,604
14.4« 1,078 34 15.589
"000
0 0 0 o
2,604 255 0 2.858
0 0 0 0
i7,70S 1^88 20 89,112
B 0 0 0
D 0 0 0
3 0 0 0
9 0 0 c
0 o 00
9 0 0 o
• 0 0 0
* 0 0 0
« 0 0 0
• 00 0
,f« « 0 955
JSS J5 2 2.428
Wl» 427 3 4.448
« 0 0 0
W» »32 4 3,835
8,800 610 89 8.289
188.121 3,578 199 1fn848
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 ol
0000
'•£ is i "as I % Id
•s ja £ ,q ;• S i
«n ?«J^ ** 8>83*1 2 818 75 503
i-l im g jd ^ a « g
4.532 14,953 «7 IfteOJ 0 IBS » S
,s w NS ad i *s: g £
«,210 2,7* 1,^ ^ .g g g
1,318 11.072 1.1J4 20,91
«4 H014 BM tt£»
1.257 MS6 513 9,921
4.S13 25,440 1.7T8 32.73
1,252 14,881 «5 16.171
326 1,672 3M 2,191
1.022 10,832 340 12,193
8.847 9,118 2S1 18,01:
23 5480 394 9,885
3,285 9,144 3T8 12.SOT
130 7flOO 8C2 r.833
*•** «JJJ » 10.467
8.481 1ft004 823 24.313
1311 1S.S20 1,584 19,216
0 2 9 2
391 9,425 1,059 10,888
m I'Sf J" *"»
•**. 7,126 31| 8,169
91 431 4) 526
1.023 9, 193 1,689 12,098
110 9.SW 264 9.988
!.«• «*4 62* 7,698
«9 8,781 611 iO.008
2,084 3.T25 36? 6,198
JOM £130 623 1W39
J.998 11.815 J12 wjjs
17» 1*338 472 13.010
,~* Jj^ 895 f,788
2,333 4.C27 180 6.M
7,127 31,5*7 741 39,381
395 J229 tSe 8,180
784 5,121 839 8.418
«2 ™ o 3,133° ,SS SIS g5 S%
11 1-1 « ^ » X£ a; ss;
17,154 ^138 41 19.333 1,069 22.7a W ££«
»° »' 11.84 S £S. 6^ l!SS
; » w o 47
S 350 43 399
0 621 0 621
5 348 21 371
0 1.147 o 1.147
1 17 291 0 308
| 4 355 77 438
6? S 2] ^
102 4 163
S I " S
0 277 62 339
8 175 34 217
2» W15 49 £093
* W7 83 ne
208,821
11,743
3,678
27,278
7^79
7.112
8,545
804,155
47.O9
12^42
45.W5
J17
29,112
13,155
10,297
ais.'i22
2.134
17,!84
33.168
8,368
13.188
moo
10.6S4
85.518
20,154
? ° 0 0 2
? ^ 71 «S8 U.7S
Z 89 11 1021 *•>*'
1 260 24 285
0 40 0 40
1 469 71 HI
8 308 0 JOB
19 345 73 438
7 414 11 W
11 345 35 901
7 677 39 123
23 679 « ,,4
0 m 0 326
I *fj ?1 H
•3 821 « w
0 387 38 4MI
» *• «» «»/
«^»l
8.4S4
SM
12,8)7
10,278
8,135
10,807
7.803
21,1*0
21,417
13.3M
13.8M
12.914
211,8731
6,6011
48211
° * 0 »| 1.012J
? s^ 5 S «l
« •» 9 63»| 87^
0 249 3 252| 39,211
^ IS « 21?j 3.096/
0 232 8 238 2^727/
-------
U»
UI
-STATjj
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIROINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIROINIA
VIROINIA
VIROINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIROINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA '
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
OPS
WESTVtRGIMA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIROINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WESTVIRGtMA
WiSTVlRGlMA
VfBSTVtROIMA
WfST VIRGINIA
WIST VIRGIN*
WiST VIRGIN*
3INA
ToST
511
51198
S1510
51530
51540
51590
51580
51570
51580
51800
51810
51830
51850
51880
51870
51878
51880
51883
51885
««»
W003
54023
««3
5«»7
S40J1
M03f
«05T
84083
M08S
«4£71
84W8
«WT
94W3
TMDftSLANt
YORK w
ALEXANDRIA
BOENA VISTA
CHAR10TTS8VILLE
CHBiAPtAKEaTY
etlPTON FORGE
COVINGTON
FAIRFAX
FALLS CHURCH
FREDERiCKSBURG
HAMPTON aTY
HARRI80NBURG
HOPEWEU.
LEXINGTON
LYNCH9URO
MANAMASCITY
MANAMA* PARK aiY
NfWPORT NEWS CITY
NORFOLK CITY
PETERSBURG
POQUOBON
PORTSMOUTH crrr
RICHMOND CtTY
8TAUNTON
iUFPotKcrrY
WAYNH10RO Cmr
WILUAM89URG
BERKELEY
GRANT
OREENBRIAR
HAMPSHIRE
KAROY
XFPSR9QH
MINERAL
MONROE
MORGAN
POCAHONIA8
WtEtTON
RANDOLPH
TOTAL
800
15,817
5.878
17,860
Ms '
22,253 300
3.872 22
49.128 10.881
» •»
1^734 fl
180.882 4.343
80
37J
28.700
3,443
2.387 2 °
2,873 8,248 1,090
7.359 20,055 455
5,937 10,887 334
43 880 1flt
2,738 8,832 387
1,055 4,818 1,45
0 2*0
. 28
W,
817
0| 108.871
OJ 8,178
1
0 37,081
1 128,884
0 3.837
0 15,882
0 5,003
OJ 18.120
0[ 8.838
0 18,88!
0 23,723
«
<
<
(
{
C
C
0
c
c
0
44
233
0
0
0
0
878
473
0
679
704
> 22.794
> , 3,894
> 80.121
> 28.700
8,734
185,388
228,084
30,877
. 10,918
101.417
191,851
20,848
38.880
182,481
18,883
7,213
18,878
88,148
10.274
4
18,258
10,919
34,540
28,288
788
11,840
7,820
3
481
all
TABLES
-------
Tibl. •, All Homing UnKs, deputation ind hrem* ptr.
Hotwlnj Unit Using Stw*r. S*p«c >nd OflitrMtm* of Wtit« Btipetit;
MLAWARS 1551 Rgff J-¥fj
DELAWARE 10003 NEWCASTLE 2.
DELAWARE 1000S SUSSEX 2.
WtTRIGT OP COLUMBIA 11001 WASHINGTON Z
MARYLAND 24001 ALLBJANY i
MARYLAND 24003 ANNfARUNDEL 2.
MARYLAND 24003 BALTIMORE 2.
MARYLAND 24099 CAtVERT 3,
MARYLAND 24011 CAROLINE Z
MARYLAND 24013 CARROLL ij
MARYLAND 24013 CSOt, 2.
MARYLAND 24017 CHARLES 3,
MARYLAND 24019 DORCHESTER 2.
MARYLAND 24021 PRSKRICK ^
MARYLAND 24023 0ARRETT
MARYLAND 24023 HARTORO 2.
MARYLAND 24027 HOWARD 2.
MARYLAND 24029 KENT 2J
MARYLAND 24031 MONTeOMERY 2.
MARYLAND 24033 PRINCE GEORGE'S 2.8
MARYLAND 24035 OUBB4ANN69
MARYLAND 24037 8AJNT MARTS Z9
MARYLAND 24039 SOMERSET £
MARYLAND 24041 TALBOT r
MARYLAHD 24043 WASHINGTON £3
MARYLAND 24049 WfOOMICO £4
fififTYl *ftr*l liniT ninn nir mrrr n »*-»
MARYLAnD . 24047 WORdSTER 2.4
MARYLAHD 24310 BALTBHORECITY 2.8
NEWYORK 39003 AUEGANY 9.2
NIWYORK 39007 BROOME £4
NEWYORK 39011 CAYUOA
NEWYORK 38015 CHEMUNO 2.4
NEW YORK 38017 CHEtttNOO is
NEWYORK 39023 CORtlANO 2.4
NEWYORK 38025 DELAWARE . 2.5
NEWYORK 38043 MERKMER
NEWYORK 36051 LIVINGSTON
NBWYORK 36053 MADWON 2.3
NEWYORK 36089 ONEtCAtAST 2.1
N6WYORK 39087 ONONQAOA
MEWYORK 39989 ONTARIO
NEWYORK 38077 OTSEOO J3
NEWYORK 39093 8CHOHARK
NEWYORK 39087 SOWVLER
NEW YORK 38101 STEUBEN 2.4
NEWYORK 36107 HOOA 2.6
NEWYORK 36109 TOMPK1NS
NEWYORK 36123 YATES
PiNNtYlVANIA 42001 ADAMS ' 2J
PENNSYLVANIA 42009 BEDFORD Jl
PENNSnVANIA 42011 BERKS 12
PENNSYLVANIA 42013 BLAIR Js
PENNSYLVANIA 42013 BRADFORD 24
1
2,
2,
1
1
a
a
i
a
i
a
ai
i
a
i
a;
19
2.7
as
8,1
4!
27,9
17
11
2.6
15
12
6.2
2.7
13
14
as
13
43
18
14
..«"•[
2
4,
a
a>
2!
2,
1
1
a
1!
i
^
a
9'
A,
a
12
1.1
16
' 16
47
ao
ai
18
m *
9,4
10
as
44
16
a?
48
5.0
10
1.S
1
3
_
2,
~
2,
1
1
a
i
i.
5'
«..
•*
*,
it
1
1
19
17
13
2,6
IS
3.5
3.8
13.
16
3*
.*
13
18
13
43
17
IB
14
a?
2.4
2.1
42
13
11
i^T"
4
J
9
*.
ij
£<
•
i
2.S
18
1
~
1
i«
2.
a
1!
13
12
16
If
IS
10
14
11
2.'
2.4
14
IS
t.
*
10
IS
• J
2.1
IS
% i
*.'
i3
14
12
13
2.7
13
2.3
19
14
*•
2.
^
d.
1
1
a
a
a
2
a
4
2
2
2.
19
2.6
16
29
2.
13
It
' 3.
2,1
2.9
IT
It
•11
2.8
3.0
2.$
2.1
2.T
M |
A.1
1!
11
It
2.7
2.1
IS
2.e
ie
it
a
i
l:
Z,
.
a
2.
1C
1
1
a
3.
a
2.'
a.
i
2.<
a'
i
2.6
1
2.2
13
16
12
13
1!
1.1
2,1
2.8
17
2,8
14
2,1
2.2
2.4
2.9
2.8
2.5
If
11
18
17
IS
16
14
13
2.4
2.4
19
a
3
2
2.
2.
1
2J
1
IB
2.1
3.
1
a
i
2.
a
1!
a
2,
2.
1
2.3
14
17
19
2.3
13
14
17
16
18
17
IS
S.6
IS
13
16
18
16
15
1!
16
2.7
2.6
2.4
16
16
13
16
16
17
OVWVi
1
3
1
2.
1;
a
4
i.
a
i.
i
i.
1.
a
i.
a
4
as
13
a«
3,1
ao
2.0
13
ag
2.1
2.0
2.8
at
1.0
ll
a<
19
43
10
19
as
3,2
J8fi^
J
4
4
1
2
2
2
a
i
• a
. i
a
3
1
a
a
2
a
i
a
i
i
i
i
2,
2.7
3,6
2.9
IS
18
as
2.8
as
2.7
a?
18
ae
1.8
3.1
as
17
as
3.4
as
ae
3,1
3.4
40
3,1
19
Olktr
:
:
4
i
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
&
2
1.
1
1
1
4.2
17
14
1.7
1.8
13
1,9
1,3
1.7
1.S
10
1.8
l,i
IS
4.7
12
1.6
S.9
13
IS
3.5
as
18
2.J
:.«
is
41
18
17
14
11
13
24
1,9
16
ao
24
27
28
27
24
32
19
4.7
ao
11
19
19
17
as
at
IS
11
at
ID
14
2.4
14
14
Awragt
PtnoniPw
Houwhold
11
2.7
IS
2.6
2.7
17
ao
2.8
17
18
16
16
2.9
IS
17
19
16
2.9
ao
16
3.4
18
13
17
ao
ao
as
a.e
17
16
18
14
18
IS
IS
13
ao
16
aai a*
14 10
111 18
HI 17
It] 18
4.31 at 1
ul at f
aol ir
48| a? |
in is /
19 2.5 1
a? as /
42 ao I
ao ie I
TABLF''
!
-------
T«bl« I. MI H«utIng Unlli, Population ind r*reom p«r
MauiIng Unit Ui Ing «*w«r, *«pUa *nd OOnr MMIII «f WMte 0 ipoul:
OJ
"I'rbwt
STATE FIPS COUNTY FSS g-«L ' Aie. ' i. '! —
PENNSYLVAMA 42021 CAMfcRIA j
PENNSYLVANIA 42023 CAMERON ' £
PSNNSYLVANIA 42025 CARBON
PENNSYLVANIA 42027 CENTRS 2
PENNSYLVAN* 4202S CHiSTfR £,
PENNSYLVAWA 42033 CUARflSlD J
PENNSYLVANIA 42038 CLINTON i
PENNSYLVANK 42037 COLUMBIA ?
PENNSYLVANIA 42041 CUM8IRLANO ?•
PENNSYLVANIA 42043 DAUPHIN 3
PENNSYLVANIA 42047 ELK 5
PfNNSYLVANlA 42055 FRANKLIN i.
PENNSYLVANIA 42057 FULTON
PENNSYLVANIA 42081 HUNTINGDON 2
PENNSYLVANIA 42063 INDIANA
PENNSYLVANIA 42085 .IEFFER8OM
PENNSYLVANIA 42067 JUNIAW^
PENNSYLVANIA 42089 LACKAWANNA 2.
PENNSYLVANIA 42071 LANCASTER 2i
PENNSYLVANIA 42075 LEBANON £
PENNSYLVANIA 42079 LUZERNE s
PENNSYLVANIA *2081 LYCOMINO f'
PENNSYLVANIA 42083 MCK6AN
PENNSYLVANIA. ' 42087 MIFFUN 2.2
PENNSYLVANIA 42093 MONTOUR f,
PENNSYLVANIA 42097 NORTHUMBERLAND 2"
PENNSYLVANIA 42099 PfRRY ,'4
PENNSYLVANIA 42105 POTTiR
PENNSYLVANIA 42107 SCHUYLKILL 2J
PENNSYLVANIA 42109 SNYDtft i"
PENNSYLVANIA 42111 SOMERSET
PEW8YLVANIA 42113 SULLIVAN
P6-JNSYLVANIA 42115 SUSQUEHANNA
PEWSYLVANIA 42117 TKXJA 23
PEWSYLVANIA 42119 UNION 23
PENNSYLVANIA 42127 WAY*
PENNSYLVANIA 42131 WYOMIN0
PENNSYLVANIA 42133 YORK 24
VIRGINIA 51001 ACCOMACK
VIRGINIA S1003 . ALBfiMARLf 22
VIRGINIA 31005 AUBOHANY
VIROINIA 51007 AMSUA
VIRGINIA 51009 AMH6RST 22
VIRGINIA 51011 APPOMATTOX
VIRQINIA 51013 ARLINGTON 2.4
VIRGINIA S1015 AUGUSTA t*
VIRGINIA 51017 BATH
VIRGINIA S1019 BEDFORD »•»
VIRGINIA 51023 BOTSTOURT • 28
VIROINIA 61029 BUCKINGHAM
VIRGINIA 81031 CAMPBELL ?3
VIRGINIA 51033 CAROLINE
VIROINIA S1038 CHARLES CITY
a
a
a
i
a
i
a
a
i
i
14
2.6
1,8
23
2,4
2.8
2.!
2,9
2.6
2,8
2.6
IT
4,0
2.7
J.O
5.8
a
a
3.
4
1
2,
4,
2.1
12
5.4
1.5
2.9
4.$
as
4!
3.2
IS
2.7
1
1'
a
3,(
2.1
1<
2,2
ao
2.8
2.4
2
2
3
1
2.
a
i
2.0
2,4
2.4
as
14
10
14
17
3,1
2.8
3,4
19
2,6
2,9
16
! 2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
**a
2
1
1
i:
i
2
1
2.
1
IS
3.1
2,4
14
IS
2,4
IS
16
2J
2,4
IS
2.6
2.4
2.8
2.4
15
16
13
16
14
13
14
2.6
2.4
2,5
2.5
2.7
3.7
Settle
1
1
1
a
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
a
a
2.
i
i
18
2.9
18
19
17
17
19
19
2,8
2.8
2.7
2.9
18
18
18
15
18
2.7
18
2.9
17
17
2.6
2,7
2,7
2,7
2.6
18
19
Other
1
11
2.1
i;
2.1
2.1
11
IS
13
2.7
2.0
14
13
2.3
2.G
3J
3.3
3.2
1
1
2.
1
2.
a
2.3
13
2.4
19
IS
a4
14
2.5
2.8
2.7
3.4
3.4
2,7
2,8
18
17
13
9.2
2,4
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.4
2.3
as
2.4
2.7
3.3
S i
s r
1 !<
1 1!
» 3.1
' 2.J
1?
14
• 18
17
19
18
1!
IS
16
3.1
18
2,9
2.9
2.6
16
2.7
2.6
2.8
18
IS
2.6
17
2.5
29
2.0
17
2.6
19
2.9
2,9
2.7
2.5
2.7
2.S
2.8
16
IS
3,8
3,4
3.8
IS
IS
25
28
33
Avtmgt
-I " L. PwiontPw
_6m*r
1
24
ai
ti
1C
17
28
3«
43
1,9
11
14
1.7
1.8
34
2.0
2,2
5,0
4<
2.5
11
7,1
2.2
It
It
1,4
3.1
3.7
2,4
as
LI
2,3
1,0
as
o.sl
3.91
mm pu,,.
I i.al
4.
1 2.
a
2,1
at
2,1
IS
3.9
2.3
as
11
3,2
2.1
37
11
2,7
48
3.2
3.1
27
4.6
3,6
3,1
3.1
29
as
2.7
3.7
3.4
3.3
3.2
•3,2
as
16
3.9
3.0
2.8
2,8
3 2
ao
2.2
3.1
3.01 a?
O.M 2.9
2,5 2.2
IS
2.5 2.5
2.9 3.2
2.3
1 2.8
I
' s.:
I 41
I
I 4.1
i at
4<
2J
22
13
6.9
ai
4,1
8.4
9.0
3.8
as
aa
15
2.5
2.6
2.S
5.5
2.9
2,5
1,3
ao
1,8
2,9
as
4,7
28
2.0
3,2
2.7
4.8
1.0
Avwiat I mil i
, 2 gl A 1
1 •' •>•*
4,
2 a
r a
a
ii
a.
a:
23
5 i
^t
ai
2,1
2.1
4.3
ai
2.7
4.6
3.7
18
3,1
9.3
2.9
2.9
ao
3.9
18
3.3
2.8
1.8
3.2
ai
12
at
1,8
2,8
25
18
as
1,8
15
2 3.4
9 aa
< a2
P
1 19
) IS
i ao
19
IS
as
1 18
2.8
aa
19
2.6
19
ao
18
17
18
4,0
ao
ao
18
14
19
16
ai
18
19
16
IS
2.9
ao
2,3
3.2
14
16
11
18
17
29
22
2.9
TABLE*
-------
M-,
Honshu UnK Utlnt Smvtr, atptle *ml Other Mints of Wirtt Dlipotil;
VIRGINIA
V»«SINIA
VtRQINM
VIRGINIA
V1RQINW
VIRQINW,
VIROtNW
VTRGIN1A
VIROfNW
VtRQINlA
VJROINJA
VIRGINIA
VIROIN1A
ON
TABLE
I
31W1
S1043
SIMS
SIM?
S1049
51083
S1W7
5IOS9
S10B1
S1«9
S10M
91W1
31073
51075
81078
S1MS
S108T
S1091
B1083
SIMS
51087
S10W
81101
91101
11107
, -8H109
CHE1TBRFIELO
CLARKE
CRAM
CUIWPER
CUM8ERUNO
DtNWIDDIi
FAIRFAX
FAUQUIER
VIROIN1A
VIROtNIA.
VtROINW.
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VTRGIN1A
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VfROINW
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
81113
91113
91118
91121
S112S
81127
31131
81133
31133
81137
91139
81M9
91147
91149
91193
91157
51199
31181
31193
91189
S1171
81177
91179
91111
91«7
FRB5SRICX
' GILES
GLOUCESTER
OOOCHLAND
GR6DJE
HANOVER
HENR1CO
HIGHLAND
BttOFVWGHT
JAMB8CITY
KINO AND QUEEN
WNOOEOftOE
ICNO WILLIAM
LANCASTER
LOUDCUN
LOU1M
LUNHN8ERG
MACT80N
MATHHW8
MKXXE8EX
MONTGOMERY
NELSON
NEW KENT
NORTHAMPTON
NORTHUMBERLAND
NOTTOWAY
ORANGE
PAOS
POWHATAN
WMHCfi EDWARD
PRtNCSOEORQE
PRWCE WILLIAM
RICHMOND
ROANOKE
ROCKBRIDQe
ROCWNOHAM
SHENANOOAH
SPOtmVANIA
SWTORQ
aURRY
WARREN
2.3
-------
TiW« t. All Xouttng Unlti, PopultUon lnd P.r»onm (Mr
Houilnn Unit Utlne **wtr, Moth: and OtinrMnm of Waste Bltpoml:
OJ
FtPS
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VRGIN1A
VROINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
WGINIA
VROINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
WMTVIRQINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
(VEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WiST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
*V68T VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
91199
51510
91530
51940
81590
81980
51570
81960
91800
91810
51830
51850
51980
51670
81876
81680
91683
91885
91700
51710
61730
91739
91740
91780
51760
91800
91810
91820
91830
91840
84003
94023
94025
94027
94031
S4037
54057
94063
54089
94071
84079
94077
94083
YORK
ALEXANDRIA
BUENA VISTA
CHARLOTttSVULE
CUFTONFOROf
COLONIAL HEIGHTS
COVWOTON
FAIRFAX
FALLS CHURCH
FREDERICK8BURG .
HAMPTON CITY
HARRiSONBURS
HOPEWEU,
LEXINGTON
LYNCHBUR8
MANASSASCtTY
MANASSAS PARK CITY
NEWPORT NfWS CITY
NORFOLK OTY
PETERSBURG
POQUOSON
PORTSMOUTH CITY
RICHMOND CITY
•TAUNTON
SUFFOLK CITY
VIRGINIA BEACH CITY
WAVNtSBORO
WILLIAM8BURG
WINCHESTER
BERKBLiY
ORANT
QREENSRIAR
HAMPSHIRE
KARDT
JEFFERSON
MINERAL
MONROE
MORGAN
PINDLfTON
roCAHONTAS
PRESTON
RANDOLPH
_i_.t**r^ atoBo pn»_765i5r
*
:
i
i
z
z
z
z
2
Z
Z
z
z
z.
z
3.9
2.8
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.8
2.2
5 "
A.«
z\
2,1
2.4
2.6
2.3
2.3
2.J
2.4
94093 TUCKER
'
.
;
3
2.
2
Z
2
2.
2.
2
Z
Z
2J
2.
3.
2.
3.
2.2
2.8
2.3
2.8
21
,•
2.1
ZM
1.1
2.8
2,8
3,6
2.8
:
(
4
2.
2,
1
4
2,
2
Z
3
2,
3.
2.6
2.3
4.2
3.4
2,
3,
3.4
2,7
1.1
2,2
1.7
%?
2.1
3.1
2.1
2.8
3.J
30
2.9
2.3
2.4
2.8l
2.4
2,0
3.1
Z4
2J
2.3
2.8
3.1
3.9
2.8
3.1
2.9
2,7
ao
i;
Zi
2.9
2.8
2.5
2.1
2.8
2.4
4,3
2.7
2,3
^
53
3.4
4.7
— «jj] m
2J
3.2
3.8
"
3.3
3.3
3.0
1,8
8.2
2,2
~ ..I} Hotmhow
Ml*g*l fid)
2.
a
2.;
4,1
2.7
2.3
1.7
3.0
15
2,0
2.4
8 2.4
r 3.4
2.1
2.5
as
3.0
2.5
2,3
2.4
2.8
2.4
2.0
3.1
2.4
2.5
2.3
2.6
3.1
3.9
2.8
3.1
2.8
2.7
3.0
2.7
2.9
2.8
2.8
2.5
2.1
2.4
2,1
34
2,9
2.3
2.6
2.2 M
2.3 2.8
3.0 17
2.? J.«
3.21 24 /
1.« Z2
3.3 2.t I
TABLE 0
-------
HOUSING UNITS AND PQPUWf'ION 1'iIR HOUSEHOLD AS
URBAN, RURAL AND FARM TYPBS USING SUPT1C AND
OTHER NON-SEWERED MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL-
COUNTY SUMMARIES
QO
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRI-CHESAPEAKE, Eno,
DELAWARE 10001 RENT
DELAWARE 10003 NEWCASTLE
DELAWARE 1000$ SUSSEX
DISTRICT OF COLUMUIA 11801 WASHINGTON
MARYLAND 24B01 AUEOANY
MARYLAND 24903 ANNEARUNDEL
MARYLAND 24M5 BALTIMORE
MARYLAND 24999 CALVERT
MARYLAND 24911 CAROLINE
MARYLAND 24913 CARROLL
MARYLAND 24013 CECIL
MARYLAND 2401? CHARLES
MARYLAND 24019 DORCHESTER
MARYLAND 24«1 FREDERICK
MARYLAND 24823 GARRETT
MARYLAND • • ' 24025 HARFORD
MARYLAND , 24027 HOWARD
MARYLAND 24829 KINT
MARYLAND " 24031 MONTGOMERY
MARYLAND 2403 J PRINCE GEORGE'S
MARYLAND 24035 QUEEN ANNE'S
MARYLAND 2-MB? SAINT MARYS
•lARYLAND 24039 SOMERSET
MARYLAND 24041 TAUJOT
MARYLAND 24043 WASHINGTON
MARYLAND 24045 WICOM1CO
MARYLAND 24047 WORCESTER
MARYLAND 24510 BALTIMORE CITY
HEW YORK 36033 ALLEOANY
NEW YORK 38097 BROOME
HEW YORK • 36011 GAYUGA
NEW YORK 36015 CI1EMUNO
NEW YORK 3M17 CIENANOO
NEW YORK 36023 CORTLAND
NEW YORK • 3«02$ DEI-AWARE
Avcngt dumber of Jlou«hold« «n
-------
HOUSING UNITS AND POPL, .ION PER iiOUIIO»
Jin |
SI 127
31 HI
3IIJ3
51 141
JIM?
JH«,
5!I«3
5U«5
JU59
$|m
$111?
*HM
Jtl»
51510
jujo
11 MO
'IS50
si s»
J1WO
COUNTY
UWDOUN
LOUISA
tUKENBBXO
MAfflSOM
MttiBWS
MODUBIX
MONTGOMERY
HttSOH
HIWKEHT
NOHtHAMFTOH
NORTBUMBimiAND
N0TTOWAY
ORXNOE
MOB
KWHATAN
HWOTKWAIUJ
MPMHWWOCK
R»ft83)TO
KINOES
SHDfANOOAH
SKJTSVI.VANIA
STAFTORD
jyj^Y
WAMtEM
ALIXAHDRIA.
BUINAWSTA
CHARLOTTESVILU1
CUMArSAXBCtTY
curronroRai
ntiOIRICICSBt«0
b, POPULATION
QtfMf
SuMtt*]
254.9
OUitr
*».«
JI.O
429,«
MM
<».* 24.0
1,728.2 IZ.O
2.UI.O 40,7
' * *
till 2J
25J.5 4.5
«-3
2M.O
I7W
JZI.I
I7.J
7I4,«
• 1,731,2
2,171,7
»
||7.5
211.0
f(j«,7
MtJ
2|J.J
773,2
?,«23.J
,0,4
4J.5
2M
2«0,4
7.0M.4
W«J
it.w.7
7.126.3
«!-»
»,I«.J
WM.6
S.3H.4
t,?ll.2
J.724J
1J.IJM
II,«ISJ
IJJUO
M»,i
4.02M
MI.I
U.004.J
3J.MW
IJ,4«J.»
32.42J.I
22,?J2.»
Z.240.4
IM»5J
10.411,7
"•1
Sut»i»til
ft)
1,05ft!
?4?,»
5*5,1
J»J
7.4
|,2t9.<
2,1$$.*
|,«44J
1,091.0
W5.9
20ZI
J74.5
9JO.$
<».»
n.132.4
17,114.1
jj
10,474.1
7,IB2.>
7,4,2.3
" 474,4
11,873.2
12,90,7
12.3M.I
12.C0.3
9.4M.J
4i2eSi,
32.2J4.J
J.7M.4
s,^,,
94J,»
14,»l.5
37,7I»J
17,107.2
23,JH,|
23,$5T,S
2,44I,«
13,47».0
11,4112
73.1
«-"^^™™»^
154.7
2,0113
•47,1
0.1
7B.I
0.4
2,'o«o.s
24091,9
2J,'9tt.J
2 15£.0
1M9S.S
I2.1W.7
15,991.1
301.)
235.}
773.2
9,711.2
10.4
45.5
2lU
240,4
14,5
111.3
yra
fKK
IIOUJCUOU)
1 " ^xr^*"
2.1
tr
17
tt
14
14
17
1*
11
IS
14
17
3 ft
***
29
21
2.1
.«
2,7
2,7
15
It
2.S
3 1
*.i
3,1
2.T
ZT
2.0
2.4
3,1
3.0 1
2.t I
2,0
2.4
2,1
2,5
2.1
VtU 1 2.2 1
Table 9
-------
HOUSING UNITS AND POPULATION PER HOUSEHOLD AS
URBAN, RURAL AND FARM TYPES USING SEPTIC AND
OTHER NON-SEWERED MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL
COUNTY SUMMARIES
COUNTY SUMMARIES Wng««l»ll««nJO«iirii.ii-t(wtn
-------
HOUSING UNITS AND I'OPUu. . . ION PFR HOUSHlinr n
URBAN, RURAL AND FARM TYPOS
OTI-.BR NOfhSBWRRliD MEANS OP
COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE DAY PROGRA1W SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUiftiARlES
NCR1-O1ESAPEAKE. Inc.
STATE
PENNSYLVANIA"
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PEhTNSYLVANlA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
Table 9
-iwtred rmim«n(
{«. HOUSING UNITS
PIPS
42069
42071
42073
42079
42011
42083
420t7
42093
42097
42099
42103
42107
42109
42111
42113
42115
42117
42119
42127
42131
42133
51001
51003
51003
51007
31009
51011
31013
51013
51017
51019
31023
31029
51031
51033
COUNTY
LACJCAWANNA
LANCASTER
LEBANON
LUZERNE
LYCOMJNQ
MCKEAN
MIFFLIN
MQNTOUR
NORTHUMBERlAND
PERRY
POTTER
SCHUYLK1LL
SNYDER
SOMERSET
SULLIVAN
SUSQUEHANNA
TIOOA
UNlOH
WAYNE
WYOMING
YORK
ACCOMACK
ALBEMARLE
ALLECHANY
AMELIA
AMHERST
APPOMATTOX
ARLINGTON
AUGUSTA
BATH
BEDFORD
nOTETOURT
BUCKINGHAM
CAMPBELL
_CAROLINE
f- _
ScpliB
911.9
2.J3S.S
1,17X5
2,97X1
M«
m«
151.4
43,3
24,4
104,6
2X1
3,92X4
M26.6
3,979,1
139.0
1,320.7
14.7
I.62S.7
' "
ura»n
Oder
I HUMMl^MB
9X3
246.9
59.4
239,1
3.3
3X7
o •
9.9
"
"
4.1
"
108.1
9.4
24.8
105,0
28,9
16.2
XI
•!••••»• •
1,074.4
3,10X4
1,23X0
4,J«7,7
3,023,4
29,«
73.9
184.3
43.3
77,9
24.4
*
*
109.3
22.1
*
1,536,0
], 103.8
344.0
1,273.5
1,236.9
I-* •»
!**«/
1,621.1
T 7,901,0
10,289.6
17.411.2
13,446.1
71,7
6,603.7
2,656.0
9,236.8
1,191.2
5,111,2
770.5
1.644.8
10,009.3
8,946.0
5.319.8
32X6
7,614.4
39,703.2
4,6«3.4
11,442.8
2.673,5
2495,9
4.339.4
2300.2
11,373,1
917,6
1,433.1
3,569,1
3,465.9
2.3311
• f 3.164.0
_ Ruml
_Qtfnr
23X2
1,191.4
191.1
370.0
54X1
1,1
382.8
S9.2
347.7
609.2
14X1
35?.$
382.1
50.8
79J
491J
46X1
117,7
16,7
180.9
U07.2
526,5
438.9
2914
217.6
375.9
91,3
719.0
236.4
1013
262.1
336.8
50.J
-4tM -
Subtotal
' 1,133,3
39,3743
10,4106
17,9113
15,9894
7X9
6,984,5
2,743.2
10,224*
9,f46J
1.333J
10,1094
«,2S34
821.J
1,724.1
10,500,8
9,4011
3,437,3
3394
7,8«5,3
41,010,4
5.191.9
11.901,6
2,973.9
2,613.3
4,713,6
2,391 J
12,292,9
1,154.0
1.541.4
3.8JI.8
3,82X6
2,3119
1 — :
IStptla
UJ.O
3(*f*4*W
355,5
25X3
603,0
0.6
331.5
203J
496.1
331.9
7M
305J
421]
1X0
31.2
341,9
674,1
337.9
23.8
225.3
1,370,7
163,8
356.1
710
217.9
193.1
116,1
994.4
61.8
46.9
239,1
1«9.7
26.4
_ 3,647.3 1 190*
Farm
Other
,•
251.3
16.1
18.0
74,1
S.2
11.7
10,9
9.4
41
30
13.6
26,0
'
4.5
59.5
36.2
39.0
11,9
17,3
3.9
44.3
20.1
3,5
110
fl 4
v.^
13.6
•**M,«-MM»M
Sublclil
3,733.1
571.1
1 2JX3
621 ,(
433.3
2014
5C8.5
54X1
71.4
314.7
310,1
8«,5
33.2
355.3
700.1
378.5
25.3
229.1
1,630.1
200,0
395,1
71,0
2398
210,4
120,1
1,0517
81.9
30,4
239,8
117.7
26.1
_ ...21 3.0J
I] TOTAL
46,409.7
' 1U84.2
22.601.2
lr,934.0
734
7.449,4
3,027.3
IM3XI
1,404,7
10,501.9
4.798.5
907.T
I.777J
JOJJW
10,21 8 J
5^38.0
364.6
8.395.1
4M7I.O
3491.9
14.0J2..1
3,051.9
2,153.3
t.129,1
X31X2
344.0
14,623.0
1,233.9
X»3I,7
4,016,3
4,010.4
4,041,4
5.I6D.3
-------
HOUSING UNITS AND POPULATION PER HOUSEHOLD AS
URBAN, RURAL AND FARM TYPES USING SEPTIC AND
OTHER NON-SGWBRBD MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL;
COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE DAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT AvtlVf t Numb.r «f Ilouitholdi mrf Namhrr »f P«opl« p«r Heu.rhold
COUNTY SUMMARIES U.lnj S«ptle .nd OHitrii«fi-f««tn4 Tmlimnt
KCRI-CHESAPEAKE, 1m.
STATE FIPS COUNTY
VIRGINIA 51636 CHARLES CITY
VIRGINIA 51037 CHARLOTTE
VIRGINIA JlWl CHESTERFIELD
VIRGINIA 51043 CLARKE
VIRGINIA. J1045 CRAIO
VIRGINIA 51047 CULPSPER
VIRGINIA 31 049 CUMBERLAND
VIRGINIA S10J3 DIWWIDDIE
VIRGINIA »0)7 E3JEX
VIRGINIA 51 0» FAIRFAX
VIRGINIA 510(1 FAUQUIER
VIRGINIA 510<5 FLUVANNA
VIRGINIA SI049 FREDERICK
VIRGINIA 5I07I O1LIS
VIRGINIA JID73 GLOUCESTBR
VIRGINIA "SI073 OOOCHLAND
VIRGINIA 31079 GREENE
V;RGINIA jiois HANOVER
VIRGINIA 3 1 017 ItSHRtCO
VIRGINIA 31091 HIGHLAND
VIRGINIA 31093 1SLSOF WIGHT
VIRGINIA $1093 JAMES CITY
VIRGINIA 31097 KINO AND QUEEN
VIRGINIA 51099 KINO GEORGE
VIRGINIA 51101 KINO WILLIAM
VIRGINIA 51103 LANCASTER
VIKGINJA 5H07 LOUDOUN
VIRGINIA 51109 LOUISA
VIRGINIA 5IIII LUNENBERG
VIRGINIA 51113 MADISON
VIRGINIA 511 15 MATHBWS
VIRGINIA SUI9 MIDDLESEX
VIRGINIA Sim MONTGOMERY
VIRGINIA SI125 NELSON
VIRGINIA 51127 NEW KENT
§. HOUSING UNITS " '" ""~
. Vrtaat
Srrxle . Other Subtotal
* » *
* • •
t.7$9,9 151.2 Mlt.1
92.9 0,1 93.0
-
309.1 30,2 339.3
31} 9.9 45.4
41,6 • 41.S
...
13,t74« 545,2 14,4 19. »
119,0 1.1 l«0.l
* * *
* « *
* » *
2,909.1 54,9 2^4.0
* * *
* * »
3,
-------
CHESAPEAKS BAY PROGRAM SBPTtC JPROIICT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRl-CHESAPEAKE, In*
STATE
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIIIOINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VlROtNlA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
Fire
51131
51133
51135
31137
51I3S
51143
51 147
31149
51153
51157
51159
51161
31163
51143
51171
sim
51179
31 HI
51117
51193
51199
51510
51530
51340
51530
51360
31370
51510
31400
51610
31430
31630
31660
31*70
31878
COUNTY
NORTHAMPTON
NORTHUMBERLAND
NOTTOWAY
ORANGE
PAGE
POWHATAN
PRINCE EDWAItD
PRINCE GEORGE
PRINCE WILLIAM
RAPPAHANNOCK
•— — — -^— «— ««,
Avtt»f« Number ttlta
UtlnE5«p(lcindOth.r
•.HOUSING UNITS "
-1 II I.I .!•
_ Scplie
3.4
33,1
12S.9
105,2
227.7
1,125.3
RICHMOND 1
ROAMOKE I
ROCKBRJDC2
ROCKINOHAM
SHENANDOAH
SPOTSYLVANTA
STAFFORD
SURRY
WARREN
WESTMORELAND
YORK
ALEXANDRIA
BUENA VISTA
CHARLOTTESVItLE
CHESAPEAKE CITY
CLIFTON FORGE
COLONIAL HEIGHTS
COVINOTON
FAIRFAX
FALLS CHURCH
FREDERICKSDURO
HAMPTON CITY
HARRISONBURG
HOPEWELL
LEXINGTON
20I.S
390.7
7«t.O
256.3
3,010.7
«?,*
74.S
212.1
3,097.5
3,7
22.5
10.3
I J.I
7.7
74.!
1,159.4
441,3
123.4
_.. 9.3
Urlmn
Other
-^»,^»
0,4
11
0.4
11,5
74.4
"
14.1
4.1
17.1
2.2
3.3
15.8
to.t
234
34.5
111.9
4.1
25.6
8.4
97.1
94.4
M^BMH^^MHH
Subtotal
3.4
33,4
130,9
105.8
246.3
1,200.2
*
*
*
' S9.I
224.7
594.1
715.1
*
231.7
99.4
},09«,S
14t.4
97.1
246,6
3,209.4
3,7
22.3
10,3
92.9
33.3 J
83.2 1
1,237.2
464.9
217.1
_ 9,3
Table 9
-------
HOUSING UNITS AND POPULATION PER HOUSEHOLD AS
URBAN, RU11AL AND FARM TYPES USING SEPTIC AND
OTHER NON-SBWBRED MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL:
COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT Avtnf* Nnmfctr at Ilouitholdt and Numb«r of Ptopl* p«r Hoiu.hold >
COUNTY SUMMARIES U.lnj SeplleindO(ti«rnon-.«WfPfdTrwlni«nt
NCRI-CHESAPEAKE, Ino,
STATE PIPS COUNTY
VIRGINIA JUIO LYNdlBURO
VIRGINIA 51613 MANASSESCITY
VIRGINIA 3I6t3 MANAS3EJ PARK CIT
VIRGINIA 31700 NEWPORTNEWSCIT
VIRGINIA 51710 NORFOLK CITY
VIRGINIA 51730 PETERSBURG
VIRGINIA 5173S POQUOSOH
VIRGINIA 31740 PORTSMOUTH CITY
VIRGINIA 5I7SO RICHMOND CITY
VIROINIA 51790 STAUNTON
VIRGINIA 51100 SUFFOLK CITY
VIRGINIA 3IIIO VIRGINIA BEACH CIT
VIROINIA 31120 WAYNESBORO
VIROINIA 31f30 W1LUAMS9URO
VIRGINIA 31140 WINCHESTER
WEST VIRGINIA •' 34003 BERKELEY
WEST VIRGINIA 34023 ORANT
WEST VIRGINIA J402S QRESNBRIAR
WEST VIRGINIA S4027 HAMPSHIRE
WEST VIRGINIA $4031 IIARDY
WEST VIROINIA 34037 JEFFERSON
WEST VIRGINIA 540)7 MINERAL
WEST VIRGINIA $4083 MONROE
WEST VIRGINIA J4063 MORGAN
WEST VIRGINIA J4071 PENDLETON
WEST VIROINIA S4073 POCAHONTAS
WEST VIRGINIA S4077 PRESTON
WEST VIRGINIA MOM RANDOLPH
WESTVIItOINlA J4093 TUCKER
Gmnd T«t»I
•.HOUSING UNITS
Urban
S«p
l,«S«.l I42,» I,79?,0
704.* 2014 903,1
103.: 21.2 133,4
1,053.5 4.7 1,037,1
346,3 120.4 446,9
t.601.3 210.1 1,11 9,9
2I«.< 3t.2 324.9
4.S34.9 324,1 3,179,1
4,319.9 120,i 4,434,5
430.4 36.4 4I6.S
126.3 t.4 133,1
269.1 . 269,1
263.1 2M 293.6
.
0.1 . 0.1
« * »
.
<6.4 . 66.4
626.7 31* 639J
* « *
.
•-
...
• * n
« • *
* • *
193,714.6 11,404.4 205,189.0
R«»l
Sepdo OUwr SvbMtl
...
* * •
* * *
" .
>
*.
« • .
. • « .
...
23.4 - 23.4
W09.3 0.7 2.6
1,021,629.* 4«,<«1J 1,041^91.1
...
* . .
—
...
* • •
...
-
- » *
• «
6.9 ' 6.9
«7.6 I.S 784
* • *
w *
« » w
274,1 34.9 309.0
1S0.4 27,5 201.0
0.0 . 0.0
237.9 66.0 324.0
223,« 71.3 294.9
287.3 15.0 302,3
133,7 3.1 161.9
25.0 0,5 25.4
39.4 6.0 «5.4
227.4 10X< 330.0
0.1 0.0 0.1
1.0 0.1 1.1
0.1 • 0.1
0.0 . 0.0
90,03X2 3,120,7 J3.I32.9
TOTAL
(ttpttcMitt)
4.04I.J
134.1
1,799,9
905.J
133.4
l,«37.l
466.J
I.I19.J
35j,j
6,6274
4,634.5
4fg.t
133.1
269,1
I2,05I.<3
2,633.«
O.J
5.0I4J
3,033.:
7.495J
4,697.4
277.2
3,m,4
2,311.2
O.f
17.2
0.7
2.1
1,326,633.0
JX
Ox
.ilc 9
-------
C1DMAMAKB *AY FKOC
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NOU-CHESAfBAKE, Inc.
STATB
DELAWARE
DELAWARE
DISTRICT OF COI.UMUIA
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
KiARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
KIARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
f-OVRYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
NEW YORK
NIWYORK
NIWYORK
JEW YORK
NEW YORK
NIWYORK
NSW YORK
NEW YORK
NIWYORK
NEW YORK
NIW YORK
NKW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
_NEW YORK
RAM SEPTIC fROfl
FtPS COUW
10001 KENT
10003 NEWC
10005 SUSSS
nooi WASIII
24001 ALLBC
24003 ANKB
2400$ BALTD
24009 CALVI
24011 CAROI
24013 CARRC
24015 CECIL
24017 CltARI
24019 DORCI
24021 FRSDE
24021 OARRf
2402S IIARFC
24027 HOWA1
24029 KENT
240)1 MONTt
24033 • PRJNC1
2403J QUBSN
240J7 SAINT 1
24039 SOWER
24041 TALBO-
24043 WASHD
24045 W1COM
2404? WORCB
24510 BALTOk
34003 ALLEO/
J4007 BROOK)
3«ll CAYUO
3*015 ClffiMU
34017 CIIENA1
J4023 CORTU
3«25 DEUAW
J«04I IffiRKD.
3«051 UVINO!
1WS1 MADISO
3*045 ONEIDA
34047 ONONft
34089 ONTARIi
36077 OTSBOO
36055 SCHOIM
HOUSING UNITS AND I . ULATION PER HOUSEHOLD AJ
URBAN, RURAL AND FARM TYPES USING SEPTIC AND
OTHER NON-SEWERED MBANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL-
COUNTY SUMMARIES
ui
fTY
CASTLB
sx
I1NOTON
OANY
tARUHDBL
StlORl
TOT
IUNE
OLL
IBS
HESTER
BRICK
«TT
ORD
AD
tJQMSRY
1010ROE-S
M ANNE'S
MARY'S
WET
)T
NOTON
BCO
SST1R
WORBCTTY
ANY
kffl
1A
UNO
iNOO
AND
KARE
MER
STON
ON
HBASr
ADA
10
ARIB
b, POPULATION
t.4
1.12L2
2,lJr,4
inn
5.2U.I
30I.C
1.041.9
d.2
lf,79J.I
7!lM.l
20,533.7
I541Z3
7,«5I7
• 497
9,517.1
13.319.0
11.972J
102.l> ''
1.W2.5
44.S
1,441.1
I5S.I
OOwr
as
03
1002
1
l,5t«.l
:«.»
95.1
1134
15.1
39S.)
125.1
147,1
12M.1
10.1
3.5
3t.7
SO.O
77.2
4,«
10,437.2
9*1,4
145.1
23.4
"
53.4
2.0
*
*
11.0
Jubtul.1
4,
1,222,
s!iit
«**I«I
717tl,9
5,249
1,144.;
75.7
19,191,4
7474J
2!,ltll
17,737.3
7,7311
53.J
5I&4
9,447.1
445.7
H1.3
15,I19.<
319.4
12,111,7
i,o«f!s
*
1,517,0
«*
*
149.9
S4PIW
1,215.0
*
y»»4fl.?
13,155.7
53,*ll.4
15,4474
K.127.1
12.4111
4;,5W.«
3,124.0
4M20.9
29,453,1
7,131.0
J7,«30.«
9,719,2
22.1I44*
40,491.0
10,101.2
34JJJ7.4
34^09.7
4492.4
2,1244
30.W4.5
45.1
30,171.3
34,131,1
17.JI4.7
1,442,3
3,121.5
io,:n.«
•
I.JI7.I
111.2
3«.35l.t
549.7
•••••••^•^^••••i
Othn
21.1
•
4 SO 4
541.1
977,4
«Z9
1,127,0
J212
I.7J5J
171.9
U34.9
311.7
yna
1,421.4
3»S,4
2MJ
1,319.2
448.1
214.9
35.5
3J7.I
0.0
1.044J
414,3
ni,«
31.4
34Bf.l
19.9
4B.I
•
J4U
41,2
t
SubtMll
3,234,
-
1^397.
I5.I9S.
J4.7II.
. JS.13S.
14,130.
) 1.954.
I33I4,
49,244.9
3,994,0
30.251S
7,920.4
51,0314
10,097,1
23,0014
41,914,5
11,203.4
37,374.6
35,451.0
4,5073
U5J.7
41S
33,19«.2
17,143,0
1,420.9
3,152.9
351.2
1C.42I.I
3,2 1 6.4
Z027.9
1 11.2
34,901.0
1,010.9
Svti, _
150.4
. '
225,4
Ull.t
t,71».»
949.3
1,9417
2,9214
1.420.1
1.221.0
735.9
271.4
'.101.4
144.9
1,041,7
1,072.4
601.3
1,101.4
1,147.1
7W.3
1,113.1
1,417.4
527.4
13.7
714.1
341,4
1,722.7
1.03«,4
544.9
129.2
7,1
131,1
1 26,5
127.1
30
I.W11
39.4
4
Oihg
17,1
4.1
.
25,4
41,9
190.5
2X0
7.4
110.9
7U
.27.7
IM
7.5
334.0
40.0
5J
151.4
25.4
1.4
1340
M.9
11J
J?.«
M.)
1.7
0.1
14,0
1.9
4.1
39,2
3.1
1 i M^,^,,^
Subloul
9I7J)
154.4
250.9 |
U7S.7
1,719,1
1,139.1
1,941.7
2,922.4
1,421.0
1,131.9
107.2
2.J29.0
J06.I
1,101,4
S4&9
1,0714
1.109.1
2,313.1
121.4
1,1)9.3
1,369.0
1,759.5
JS3.0
J7.i
110,1
3,7
413,5
1,753,9
1,114.2
572,2
330,9
1.0
145.1
121.3
133.4
2f05U
«.7
J.M7.9
3,479,«
12.M&7
105,9(1.5
tl.440.5
11,406,$
7S.OJI.7
4I.52&S
42,4<5.2
14,217.2
71,315.3
4,302,6
72,339.4
35.0M.5
9,350.1
10,911.0
21,431,5
24,1 IU
52,031.1
12,015.2
16,447.0
4I.SI2.7
3»,W3,2
7,201.4
15.JI9.4
«,«2,7
4».$
32.N13
37,«$7.7
20,043.1
9,257.4
4,113.1
344.2
12,990.9
2,342.9
2,1(1.3
114,2
39,1213
i9
3.0
IS
3.2
17
1*
19
3.1
II
3.0
19
3.1
2.5
3.1
19
3.0
3.1
Table 9
-------
HOUSING UNITS AND POPULATION PER HOUSEHOLD AS
URBAN, RURAL AND FARM TYPES USING SEPTIC ANft
OTHER. NON-SEWERED MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL-
COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHEBAJPtAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NaU-CKESAPEAXS, IM.
NHWYORK J4097 SdflttLER
NEW YORK J4IOI STEUB1N
NEW YORK 36107 TKXJA
NSW YORK 34109 TOMPHNS
NEW YORK J4I23 YAT8S
PENNSYLVANIA 42001 ADAMS
PENNSYLVANIA 42009 BEDFORD
PENNSYLVANIA 42011 BERKS
PENNSYLVANIA 42013 BLAIR
PENNSYLVANIA 42015 BRADFORD
PENNSYLVANIA 42021 CAMBMA
PENNSYLVANIA 42023 CAMERON
PENNSYLVANIA 4202} CARBON
PENNSYLVANIA 42027 CTNTM
PENNSYLVANIA 42029 CHESTER
PENNSYLVANIA 42033 CLEARHELD
PSNNSYLVANIA 42035 CUNTON
PENNSYLVANIA 42037 COLOMBIA
PENNSYLVANIA 42041 CUMBERLAND
PSNNSYLVANIA . 42043 0AUHBN
PENNSYLVANIA 42047 ELK
PENNSYLVANIA 420S3 FRANKLIN
PENNSYLVANIA 42057 njLTON
PENNSYLVANIA 42041 HUfflNODON
PENNSYLVANIA 42043 INDIANA
PSNNSYLVANIA 42045 JEFFERSON
PENNSYLVANIA 42047 IUNIATA
PSNNSYLVANIA 42069 LACtCAWANNA
PSNNSYLVANIA 42071 LANCASTER
PENNSYLVANIA 4207$ LEBANON
PENNSYLVANIA 42079 LUZERMl
PENNSYLVANIA 420!! LYCOMWO
PENNSYLVANIA 42013 MOCBAH
PENNSYLVANIA 420t7 MffFLW
PENNSYLVANIA 42093 MONTOUR
PSNNSYLVANIA 42097 NORTHUMBERLAND
PENNSYLVANIA 42099 PERRY
PENNSYLVANIA 42105 POTTER
PENNSYLVANIA 42107 SCJIUYUaU,
PENNSYLVANIA 42109 SNYDER
PENNSYLVANIA 421 II SOMERSET
PENNSYLVANIA 42113 SULLIVAN
PENNSYLVANIA 4211 3 SUSQUEHANNA
«tOJ . 4TC.3
1,7243 5t.3 I,7tlt
* » m
» * *
41J . 4t.3
* * -*
10 O.I 2.1
5.609.1 111.7 5,791.6
1,009.1 21.0 ],03?.t
lit - 111
» * •
1.0912 . 1,091.2
124.2 . 124.2
3133 • 3I3.S
IS.4 . 114
«I10 . . 632.0
3.130.1 00,0 4,060.2
MSI.l IM.3 1,654.4
« » •
*».$ * OM
* * * *
* * *
* ' « *
* * *
3UW1.7 313,5 3,1112
1,473.6 1.311.0 9,914.7
1»4J 100,7 3J4SJ
IIJ6M 157.2 1X125.9
7.207,3 J16.4 7.4J4.0
77.7 - 77.7
1 110 7.1 1W.O
311.3 73.4 314.7
IOSJ . 10JJ
"> * *
191.7 53J 241.0
«1.4 . 41.4
* * *
* * *
» * *
3,102.5 121.0 3,923.5
42,623.4 2,023.0 44,646.4
30.901.7 719.1 31,621.4
4,151,4 90.4 4,»4tS»
2219 f,9 13tt
37,494.1 M742 31,171.0
34,1064 1,100,1 33,206.3
9m* 154.7 IO.U7J
29,215.0 160.5 "30,073.5
34.411.3 1143.2 3t.$T4.J
14,0614 1,1157 15,241,1
2.4*3.1 425.6 2,909.4
1.2 0.0 I,]
31905.3 913.9 33,119.1
11,445.7 314.4 11,130,1
35.076,1 2,220,1 37,296.9
1U79.7 Ml 4.4 12,194.1
32,401.1 737,2 33,131.4
4«19.t 1,2573 45,»T7J
40J33.7 W79.2 41.I1Z9
4.751.3 134.1 4,114.1
41017.7 l.«l.l 43,751.1
10,340.2 3319 10,676.1
23.931.4 1^»4.6 25.023.1
2,143.1 257.4 J.IBO.J
14.049.3 626.6 14,473.9
22^92.9 721.2 J3.0I4.I
114.137.1 3,276.1 120,133.2
29,1314 411.3 30,260.9
41,173,1 1.431J 49,«ll.«
43.469.0 13494 45,031.6
111.1 3.0 191,1
• 11,504.2 1.194.2 19,700.3
73».3 205.5 7,793.1
27.315.1 7943 21.II2J
3S.7K.2 1,401.3 21,193.5
XI 903 404.9 3,595.4
25.4515 1.379,3 26,131.7
1 6.791. » 1,212,3 11,011,2
2,221.1 121.7 2,350.5
4221.4 t»7.« 4,42«J
?7.tl9.5 1.313.4 29.202.?
StpU« Oflxf Submul
123.1 44.0 167.1
2J49.1 J49.4 1719.2
1,204.2 35.9 1,260.1
154.2 73 143.1
1*7 M 20.3
2,611.0 61.1 1749.2
1,963.2 41.2 2,011.4
155.2 34.3 119.5
1.141.4 74.0 1,MM
1449,9 123.7 I.S7J.*
311.9 IS.6 404.5
4,9 . 4,9
1,171.3 1046 |,J|4.»
IJK.7 313 1,419.0
«37.5 70.1 7MJ
1,714,1 J3.5 l,lltj
1493.9 21.6 1515.5
1.7012 . 1.7012
4.7 . 4.7
4,023.4 1510 4^175.4
743.1 19.J 743.0
1,179.2 39.0 |,2l».l
73.9 113 94.5
0.3 - 0.3
1,050.5 121.3 1,171.1
434.9 . 4345
11.921,7 1.164.7 I7,«4.5
1,751.5 IOJ.1 1,154.4
7M.3 . 7t«
1.S514 51.7 1,7114
U74.I 372.7 1,444.1
439.1 15.9 6510
M56.5 35.2 1,591,1
1.4153 50.1 1,665.4
250.2 . 250J
109.0 35.4 144.4
1^03,3 447 & 2,071.1
27J.4 11 J. 214.9
155.1 10 160.1
1.071.7 35.0 1.113.4
TOTAL
4,091.3
47,14$.
34,471.
Mil
2110
41,641.4
37JI7.9
11.001.9
37,0114
41113.9
15,632.6
2,927.2
1.2
36,9712
20.373J
31,122.9
13.420.1
35,401,7
54,453.0
52,149.5
4,190.7
41,563.7
11,439.1
24.24U
3,194.9
14
15.154.6
24.641.2
147,204.3
42,425.1
54,173.1
194.0
21,424.1
1,567,9
30.0H.7
29,944,3
3,145,4
27.921. 1
20,213.7
2,437.4
4.5J6.3
t. POPULATION
PER
nomeiioLo
it
it
2.9
17
It
21
19
17
It
3.0
17
It
3.1
- 2,7
11
17
2J
It
It
19
It
17
15
19
It
It
3.2
19
It
11
14
19
It
IS
2.9
17
17
3.0
2,9
O\
-------
STATS
vraoNu
vna&flA
WHO MA
VTROINIA
vmotMA
VW01MA
vmowu
VROIN1A
VIROINtA
VUMINtA
*uwlNlA
VIRGINIA
vmomiA
VIRGINIA
vmcwiA
FffS
42117
42119
42127
4213!
42133
S1001
$1003
31005
51007
51009
51011
51013
31015
51017
51019
51023
51029
310)1
51033
51S34.
5103?
31041
51043
51045
51047
31049
51053
31057
51059
51061
51045
51049
51 071
JIOT3
51075
S10T?
51015
Has;
J1091
51093
51095
31097
JI099
COt/HfY
T10OA
UNION
WAYNI
WYOMING
YORK
ACCOMACK
ALBBMARLH
AOBOKANY
AMXUA
AMHgRIT
AWOMATOX
ARUNOTON
AOOUITA
BATH
j 23S.4
51.4
*
14,774.5
4,217,4
*
M60S
949J>
3,490.4
*
BEDFORD I j 79ljX
K5TBTOURT 1 '
CLARXS
CRAJO
CULMPBl
CUMWRIANO
DtNWWHB
ESSEX
FAIRFAX
FAUlJWER
FLUVANHA
FREDERICK
4.47M
;.-
J3.SW.6
' 111.7
741,3
15.2
114.9
43.862.1
»
utuBS '
OLOUCISTBR
OOOOtLAKD
OREINB •
HANOVER
HSNTUCXi
isuorwoirr
/AMIS CITY
KlKOAHDQWJfiN
KWOOCOROB
7,459.7
10,314.0 '
(.224.0
349.J
1,075.4
• . i i"^^^_
JPtfHT 2
• -..
*
•
225.J
42,«
*
14.0
410.4
91.0
•
44.4
5.5
lOt.9
0.1
141.4
21.5
5.2,
*
*
111?
*
172.3
256.3
4.0
34.1
SET
57^
•
17,000.0
4,259,4
*
*
l,}44.»
i.310.5
3,513,4
»
3,34121
43.}
4,414,4
B.933.J
313.1
914,7
54,7
114.9
45,971.3
•
»
7,771.4 .
*
10,704.3
M».l
353.7
1,109.7
• 1
24J72J
15,247.4
»ll,0
21,430.1
112,601.9
iUOM
3IM7.1
7J97.4
W43.4
12,155.0
6,149.5
3I.JM.J
2,412.2
24,721.1
Ml.l
U.071.9
11,013.7
«.135.9
14.5W.3
I.57U
10,832.0
5,4103
U37.7
395.0
50.7
411.5
1,413.1
1,3(3.1
1.1X2
fW.9
tti.»
217,7
I.S3J.3
1.I2.IJ
15,4414
941,7
21,913.7
116,225.0
12,131.1
32,101.4
ll,0«.7
3J.279.3
3,931.4
1W4.7
1C.43I.2
W74.4
«, 117.4
1.1
25.141.4
7,440.1
2,141.2
3,095.1
6.T27.7
15,070.0
33,211.4
9,310.9
2S.251.1
J«l,2
19,194.4
11,179,7
21,211.4
14,925.2
1.1T2.6
1,402.1
«95.4
443J
249.9
450.4
404,5
365.4
3.054.4
131.7
»l.l
s
ti.l
117.7
19
11,1
lOt.4
41.7
*
(17
60.0
It.4
*
1M.7
39J
II. 1
•
41.3
l.f
13,4
•
8.0
11,0
•
70,?
73.0
II. 0
56,3
•
H.I
!2,4
ill
•
34
*
0.5
JJ
).t
1,1
.4
Jubloul 1 ittftUMk^
^223.1 21,011.0
1,^20.4 I 1727(1 J
<3,l
704..
4,703.(
931.1
M<4.4
249,1
713,4
456.:
314,1
•
3,215.1
191.4
115,7
«OOJ
472.0
14.2
4<4,4
112,0
0,0
445,7
723,7
13J.5
920.1
395.9
214.5
352.1
196.0
2,235.1
411.9
913.2
47,4
3S3.3
22,«0.2
> 137,921.9
13,403,7
31,«W
t.113.1
22410.1
*iS5U
1,310.3 1
40,077,7 '
3.I41S i
7.O7.I j
10,71 1.5
10.MJ.2
10,145.0
14,154.9
4,229.4
1.1 •
J0.2Z7.S
1,497,4
1913.7
lt,7Jl,0
7,374.
3,4244
7,019,1
$!,2
-------
HOUSING UNITS AND POPULATION PER HOUSEHOLD AS
URBAN, RURAL AND FARM TYP6S USING SEPTIC AND
OTHBR NON-SEWERED MEANS OP WASTE DISPOSAL;
COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SETtlC rROJICT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRl-CHES'J'HAKE, In*.
ft
STATE flTS COUNTY
VmOOOA SIW» HAUUSCNBlflta
VTROIMIA Sl«0 MOrtWeU.
VIRGINIA $|»i UXWOTOH
VIRGINIA 11 MO LWCHBUSQ
vaWOTA Sldl MAN AS3AS CITY
VIROIMIA 3l«I$ MAKASSASfARXCrtY
VIRGINIA 51700 NIWfOKT VSWS OTT
VIRGINIA SltlO NOMOUCCITY
VIRGINIA $t73o pmueuRo
VmOINlA $113$ TOQUOSON
VmOIKIA $1140 roHTSMOUTHCTTY
VmOlNlA 317«0 RICHMOND CITY
VmOIHlA 51790 tTAWNTON
vmoMA 5i too sorrow CITY
VBUJOflA JlttO VWOIN1A BEACH CTTV
VmOINlA 51150 WAYMH80RO
VIRGINIA 51 HO WU2AMSBURQ
VIRGINIA $|f4« WWCHZJTBR
WtSTVffiCIMA $4003 BERKEUY
WSSTVIRaNU 5«J3 ORAMT
WBSTVWONIA $402$ OMRNtUAR
WBSTVmONIA $4027 IIAMMICRB
WSSTVmOMA S40JI JIAJtDY
wtnvmoMA 5«JJ mrnmaoN
\VBST VW.OKIA $40)T kflKBRAL
WESTVmomA $40O kfONROH
WESTVmOUlA J4MS MORGAN
\VESTVIRONtA $4071 rSNTXBTON
\VEJT\TRONIA 5«75 FOCAHOMTAS
WBSTVW.ON1A $4077 nefSTON
\VE3TVtRONlA $4013 RANDOLPH
WESTVTRON1A $4093 TUCKER
CnnJ T»t«l
b.rOrjLATIOH i
4
IMM
S«IM CWw Subloli]
1^)91.4 J».l 1,132.$
wao a«a? $40.<
J1J i 21.1
10>90.» 1W.O 10,992.9
190,1 17.) 411.1
* * *
4JMJJ J1« <,ft«.t
%FO&3 7T&$ 2,tt2,I
ba< «,« 3U.2
%no.t 11.0 2,991,1
J93.t 5«.0 !,»$,?
4.049J 7JI.I 4,171.0
«M M.4 M44
13^21.2 1.0)«.3 H,<37,4
* 11,514.4 3M.J II.9W.9
1^51.7 W.5 1,151.1
im$ ».« ao.i
W5.0 . 755,0
f$2J
* * * *
SH,Ht« J7.1U.O $11,907.1
Riml
»«ptk . Olhff SotXotri
,
* « «
. . -
.
. .
« w *
.
* . *
. .
Mt * •>
* * *
Hi -m m
41.7 . 41.7
3J04.1 I77J 9,911.$
* * •
* * -
. * .
* * •
30.WI.1 1.731.1 37,331.2
«Jtf$.4 $SU «.I47.<
U OJ 1,1
lUiftl 1«499.4 13,009.$
«4tJ 1.0900 7,33 tl
20,055.3 4S49 JO.510.1
l«JUV3 3J4J 11,231.5
J79.I iOOJ «I0.3
I.431J IS7.2 9,011.9
4JMt.7 1,144.7 S.9OJ
U 0.1 2.0
«U 2.7 4(.0
IJ OJ l.«
$J 1* ?.l
2^99,193.4 I14J47.4 5,024,140.1
r«n*
hMfe OOur SuhcUl
* • *
. • .
. . .
«
• * *
. . .
* * *
• f " •
* *
* * *
* * *
> * •
434 . 4U
StJ.t ».« 233.$
* » *
...
» *
• * *
7WJ 74J 170.7
430.2 J7.3 447.5
0.0 - 0.0
741} 110.7 K3.0
$(9.1 125.4 «94,$
117.0 317 149.7
413.7 19 422,6
«.J 1.3 «3.5
1C3.0 10.4 173.4
6W.O 197.1 117.1
0.2 OX) 0,2
17 O.I It
OJ 0.0 0.2
0.1 • 0.1
I5I.2S9.0 9.1110 160.44 IJ
TOTAL
(M*MMhn|
1,1315
$4&<
JI.I
10,992.9
4II.I
' .
4,7I«.7
2,nit
111.2
2,991.1
1,29$,7
4,771.0
139.2
1M72.4
11,949.9
1,151.2
210. 1
7«.0
34,017,5
7,315.1
2,1
13,172.3
1.0314
21,351,4
13,3«.5
743.1
9,1914
«,I50.3
13
4I.S
1.1
7,2
"3,HJ,«0
l-rOPULATION
rat
nooraioLD
(ifpilt/olhil)
2.4
2.$
IJ
i7
3.1
0.0
14
3.2
X)
2.1
11
X<
2.4
It
14
14
It
2.1
11
11
11
17
2.4
2.9
XI
2.7
1<
2.7
1<
11
1<
17
It
00
-------
.u. •
'
ModStj Nimt
HOUSING UNITS AND POPULATION PER HOUSEHOLD AS
URBAN, RURAL AND FARM TYPES USING SEPTIC AND
OTHER. NON-SBWBRBD MBANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL-
MODEL SEGMENT SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
MODEL SEGMENTS
10 iul Branch 1
20 Em Drmch 1
40 SM Branch 2
50 WMBWKh
60 Wm Branch
70 Wut Branch
10 Lowtr Stuquthavu
90 jtiithtt
100 JuniM*
110
i:o Conmrinfo
140 Cmowtago
140 Up^trPolem^:
170 UrptrPotom.o
ItO MidPo.OfflM
190 Shutndoth
210 Lever Poiomtc
220 Utter Polomtc
233 M.diponi
240 MtWfxsni
250
260
365 Jtra.i
270 luiM!
210 JUHI
290 Ima
300
310
330 Pin«cm
340 PMiuent
370 Bohimit
310 Chtiter
390 Wy,
400 Lawtr ChopUnk
410 t.»v«rN«nlieakt
Sub-bull
Sut^uchwu
1.353.1
2,044.1
M76.7
0.2 0.0
Jwouthiwu
P«lc
York
Yetk
York
Yoik
Jtmet
hfflci
June*
limn
Apotmitox
ApjmmMx
PUUXIM
Upfxr EuUm Shof t
Upp«r Euu^i Shor •
tt in
-------
HOUSING UNITS AND POPULATION PER HOUSEHOLD AS
URBAN, RURAL AND FARM TYPES USING SEPTIC AND
OTI1ER NON-SEWERED MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL:
MODEL SEGMENT SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM .
MODEL SEGMENTS
I
SEPTIC
11*
ModStlNtm* SWMaito FillLli URBAN 3 RURAL * FARM 3 f
420 WKontko LemtEtMcmShen Below 1612 l.< 9.11*9 95,1 241-1 X*
410 Pocomok. UwefEnWn»»c< Below lt.4 6,4 1455.4 9IJ 771.7 t.l
440 CMtl4 UweflMemSkon Below . . 4394.1 944 217,4 J.<
450 Caul II W«lCh<«p«iit Below 4.1401 13,0 $0,900.1 119 1.5396 4.1
470 Owgowtfer WeftOttitfMeke B«low t.JOIJ 30,7 17,991,7 «4« 710.] 16
4tO BiMrawe Welt Chttipake , Below 3.117.4 M.O 2,950,1 3M 30.1 04
490 Lower hupce WeitOiewpeike Below 7.6449 114 U77.9 17,1 21,9 A)
100 Ptlaxnt PtHKtm/MMClKtiptike Below S.297J 23.1 14711,4 73.7 674.1 3.0
510 Scran Muwni/Mia ChestfMtke B.low 3,991? 34.0 3.I24* 41.1 11.6 0.2
140 Antcetlit PotoiMC B.low 2,411,3 13.2 417.4 W.4 _ 1X4 0.4
550 Onoquin PawnM Below 2,969 J 14.1 17.630.9 13.7 ' 449.1 12
360 R.pp«hKin*.!
14404.:
1,490.:
7J.S13.:
11,120.
224t44.
110,324.
64,711.
15,241.:
142.27S.1
11X154!
J5.696I
I.335.S
27^29.1
314*17.4
67,943.1
20.717.4
17,707,2
4,9240
35,360.7
105,441.6
M.097,9
47.3 It. 3
IO.S715
13,941.7
3,402.1
1,5117
5,011.4
3,359.6
5.019.4
9,415.3
4.JS1.3
H3J0.7
191,<143 j
" M.J67.I
40.325.21
JJ3.4Il.2l
»5,f449{
»M!44 /
Ut
o
,ah!c 10
-------
HOUSING UNITS ANf,< UPULATION PER HOUSEHOLD AS
URBAN, RURAL AND FARM TYPES USING SBFF1C AND
OTHER NON-SEWERBD MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL-
MODEL SEGMENT SUMMARIES
Table 10
-------
HOUSING UNITS AND POPULATION PER HOUSBHOLD AS
URBAN, RURAL AND FARM TYPES USING SEPTIC AND
OTHER NON-SEWERED MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL-
MODEL SEGMENT SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
MODEL SEGMENTS: POPULATION
Me4S«t Him Sub-buln
10 Eui Branch 1 Staqu.hinni
20 EailDrtnciit SiiiqnchMfla
30 Eait Branch 2 3iu
1,593,10
l,<17.5<
2.29M1
43l.2t
30.764.51
1 20,691.44
44.400.04
I.I2I.24
171.74
15,245.11
222,01113
«99,47
t,219Jt
1.4J4J3
M,
H6,iro.
2JO.OJI.;
2J2.173.J
2S4.012.1
M,45«.(
143^29.;
11,401.:
Ol.OH.'
11,354.1
119,465.1
4)3,920.:
11,549.4
4,174.2
1 1,394.7
10,464.3
6,421.4
17.190.0!
$9,101.1!
31.326.4)
93.237.61
340, 167.41
27J(0.94
t,Ml.$(
2,141.01
2,339.6:
3,434.71
93l.il
36.075.43
I3!,32I.«4
-------
HOUSING UNITS AND POPULATION PER HOUSEHOLD AS
URBAN, RURAL AND FARM TYPES USING SEPTIC AND
OTHER NON-SBWERBD MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL
MODEL SEGMENT SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
MODEL SEGMENTS! POPULATION
Ut
Ul
Mod See, Nimt
400 Lower ChuMw*
414 Ijiwer Niiukekt
420 Wkomleo
430 Pxomoks
44C Co»l4
45C Coutli
47C Gunpowder
41C BJiimore
450 Lower Ptbpieo
500 Palusent
510 Sewm
340 Aiucoitfi
330 Otcoqium
340 Ripiuhmnotk
510 Ore* Wtamfco
55*0 York
$6MJ Jimti
410 CWckihominy
420 Naruemond
430 niiubelh
700 Hut Branch 1
7 1 0 Lower Smquehmn »
720 Conowtngo
730 MMPoionut
740 Mil Potomis
750 Lower Potoruc
740 Upper P«ijpieo
770 U|i)urChBpunli
710 Upper Nwtfeok*
100 Cout 1*
110 Com Ib
120 Com to
130 Coail Id
MO Coulle
130 Caul 4i
160 Coul4b
S70 Coul 4e
SuHmlft Pall f In* 1
Upper Bailem Short Dtlow I
Lower Eeilem Shore Delow
Lower EaMem Shore Delow
Lower Eulem Shore |)elow
Lower Intern Short Below
W«U Cheupeilit Dtlow
Weil Chtnpcilic Delow
Wen Chtiiptitct Below
Wen Ctteupeiitt Below
Pi1u»n«Mkl Oienpeike Delow
PilWWnWvflil Chcj.jKike Qelow
TotoniM 3clow
PBIOTTIM Below
ItiepihtnnMie Below
, KipothiMieck Below
ftjpotfuMftoclc Below
***** Below
}mn Stlew'
Imn Bcjow
Sluqiuhtmu /bove
Stuquehtrmi Aoovt
Stis^icHimii (Abovi
I'oiom* j^,^
Poiemit Abflv,
PeiBmn AB»V«
W«i Oicupeilii Dtlow
Upper Emem Short D«Jow
Lower Eulem Short Dtlow
Upper Enlern Skore Dtlow
Upper Eiitem Short Dilow
Upper Eufetn Shore Ddovv
Upper Sillem Shore Below
Upper Eulem Short Diloiv
Weil Cheupc.k. rjdow
Weil ChcMpeil;* Ddow
JMOtMptitt tki^
TOTA1, POPULATION
USffJO SEWER
i. POPULATION US1NB SHOT?
AS;
URBAN
11,247.11
1,094.14
21,913.13
6,449.49
4i.794.I7
146,751.14
350,911.40
2*2.159.14
112,177.29
23,141.43
2,274,03
7,474,41
2,334,14
33,94150
412,541.70
_|Mi|.50
JiTatil
42,54
43,01
7119
41.71
*
7120
97.10
99.91
99.75
»,04
99,42
99,77
95.7«
14,92
11,010.27
«I3,03t.«
129.39f.23
37.letl.52
44,4Itt3
2,241.11
41,144.19
17I.93O4
22.3M.74
47,9i:,I«
7,390.14
34,70113
24.25
14,04
S4.K
97.7J
91.17
1OT.OO
5t70
11.19
17.70
51.99
W.99
52,40
H.It
J.I)
3407
43,41
71J2
94,17
100.00
RURAL
4,471.21
9,714.33
7,917.71
9,251.21
3,141.39
19,101.60
104.14
434,41
1.429.7S
11,330,17
7,951.40
271,73
3,414,27
19,791.5*
425.92
0.03
2.00&54
7,354.27
24,477.43
21,411,32
30,537.11
4,701.99
4,171,24
319.41
449,14
2,314.47
4,213.74
3,993.59
441,53
1,945.44
4.19
22.72
%T«»I
3^*9
34.30
57.14
21.11
2.50
O.C2
0.23
4.17
0.31
0.21
443
15,01
99.45
15.93
3.13
2.24
1.13
0.00
47.15
13.07
1100
31.90
47.57
15.H
93.40
99.72
45,11
99.04
99.11
34.11
21.52
5.13
0.00
_JM«
FARM
4430
7403
4.13
4S.45
2S.13
79.71
OJ2
1153
O.SI
0,13
4042
I.t3
2.n
7174
7,44
4.4}
10.71
40171
2191
12.11
3.07
1.11
140
1.32
3.03
23.71
5.05
. 1S.72
4.95
««•»•«*«•.«_
HTou
T^
OJ7
0.42
A ffi
ViV4
0.4)
0,11
0.09
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
A At
W.WI
A Al
V,Vi
0.01
0.15
0.14
0,30
0.03
0.11
0.04
0,00
0.31
0,21
0,12
0.94
0.12
0.14
0,17
j 13,717.07^
14,101.71
13.171.44
2,14194
71.131,57
I43.JI3.71
233,173.14
112,345.23
21,454.21
SI5.97I.20
251,710.37
47.929J9
11.74
17,973.33
124,214.39
34.7H.31
43,023.07
3,92112
30,549.72
119,433.17
39,305,31
49,15144
12,724.97
33,994,72
344.44
2,977.13
1.321.J9
3,223.33
10,319.41
2,493,39
34,31»,73
472,134.70
— •- 1 J^m.n
17,914.74
17.954.74
30,141,42
13,n9.3<
3,1«,22
I7.971.J3
151,137,49
351,031.20
243,334.11
111,024.32
21,95195
53.034.H
172,71
21,437.04
432,902.13
37,51143
44,411.17
4,253.71
54,211.33
Z04.0J4.I7
44.13t.li
1S,3$lli
14,104.24
4U.JJ
471,14
4,209.34
2,331.23
4,220.12
1 1,413.00
2.911.31
37,193.93
412,555,40
33.434.31
MAX]
21,733.10:
33,154.n
11,33197
4,17193
91,134.64
139,211.73
547,233.101
273,741,41
124,047,01
24,44412
431,093.20
51,324^4
521.97
25,23445 j
<42,494J«
140,734.$!
40,471.17
45,113.94
4.422JJ
42,139.0
211,134.21
49,17l,tl
11,749.11
15,514.41
44,091.21
731.27
4II.7J |
5,411.44 /
3,313.24 1
5.231M
•13,133.33
3,55t.t9
39,509.07 1
492,991.30 I
31.334.40 1
-------
HOUSING UNITS AND POPULATION PER HOUSEHOLD AS
URBAN, RURAL AND FARM TYPES USING SEPTIC AND
OTHER NON-SEWERED MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL:
MODRL SEGMENT SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
MODEL StCMENTSt POPULATION
Mod S«ft NMM 9ub*t»ttn
110 Co«Ml P*fl««w>MiMomM 4 Menus
930 Caul Ii RtppthMinwk
940 Cftttltk RippiSmnKk
HO Cent l« Rjppthtnn*ck
9SO C0MI9 JMRM
9H> PolotnxS Potom*«
990 Cout 12 P»luxmt/Md ChniB**
CHESAPEAKE BAY
JAMBS RIVER
PATUXBNTRIVBR
POTOMAC RIVER
RAPPAI1ANNOCK
_YORXMV1R
PiflLta*
Dcfow
Dtlow
Brtow
Btlow
Bdow
B4IQW
Betow
•>-»— ^^-
allow
Below
Btlow
w Below
fc POPULATION US1NO SSWT31
AS;
URBAN HToul
JiJ .172*40
311,010,04
3t.WJ.52
*
flltw*
1 31,214.09
25.3JZ40
15,010.41
11.14
4,4*1.74
315,77
W.09
99.91
JIJ4
MJ7
JMO
100.00
90.79
40.43
19.04
9l.f(
10.93
I3.lt
x."
RURAL
4.J2J.49
14.43
5,2*5.51
MI4.I9
I.4TJJ2
0.41
11,515.12
425,10
S4.14
223.19
77.71
Ot
STolJ
0.02
. 0.04
J5.9I
Lit
0.00
24.74
U4
49.04
4.74
if.75
1.77
FARM
1.59
0,07
1.13
13.02
t.73
25.25
9.11
4.21
4.74
0.05
0.01
0.35
0.44
0,01
TOTAL POPULATION
USINOSEW1R
HTebl
0.01
0.00
*
0.00
0.07
143
Ml
0.02
0.02
0.01
9,61
».OJ
0,00
0.03
9.01
0.00
MIN
(0,414.24
513.037.90
794,110,13
43.004.43
315.23
7I4.JO
135,339.95
5JI.2J3.59
27,44174
2,300.74
K,7(2.tl
4,104.37
24.42
4,413,77
40U7
45.403J1
519.254JO
109,472,19
317,210.24
47.W.I7
«54Jt
1,704.17
I40.S34U2
I13.502J9
27,17929
2,524.12
7.0JI.I5
3t.)3
40.M
I0.014.142.JO
71,157.00
525^01.50
t22.l7t.21
327.J21.05
S3.JI172
1.051.32
J,»4.77
145.H4.54
29,DI9,40
35,596.73
19,17247
7.75S.54
*4.t3
4.«5.29
J3t,45
10,540,217.75
Ul
/-Table 10
n
f—s
-------
«
12,407,43
32,143.79
145,131.10 j
.29,30}.Ci
34,695.t9
3,3
-------
HOUSING UNITS AND POPULATION I»L!R HOUSEHOLD AS
URBAN, RURAL AND PARM TYP118 USING SBPTIC AND
OTHER NON-SBWORED MIsANS OP WASTE DISPOSAL:
MODEL SEGMENT SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
MODEL SEGMENTS! POPULATION •
b. POPULATION USING SEPTIC
TOTAL POPULATION
USJNQ SEPTIC
AS:
ModSe,
370
310
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
470
410
490
500
510
540
550
940
110
590
400
410
520
$30
TOO
710
720
730
740
750
ISO
770
710
too
110
Mime
Cheilcr
Wve
Lower ChopUnk
Lower Nmlieoke
Wjeomloo
Pooonoko
Cotit4
Coaitll
Gunpowder
Baltimore
Lower Palapteo
Piluxtnt
Seven
Anaeoilia. •
Oocoqutn
RippthiiMoek
Qreal wfcomieo
York
Junei
Chiekihominy
Niniemond
Elinbelh
Eul Braneh 1
Lower Sittquehuiai
Conovinjo
Mid PMemte
Mid Pttomao
Lowef Polomie
Upper Pilaptto
Upper CSepUnk
Upper Nanlteoke
Coullt
Cotillb
Sub-b«in
Upper Oulem Short
Upper Eulem Shore
Upper Eulem Short
Lower Eattern Short
Lower Intern Short
Lower Eulem Shore
Lower Eulem Short
Wett Qwupetke
Weil Chetepeake
Weil Ckeiapctke
Wett Qesapeake
P«tlKeni/Mid Oiejipemke
Ptluxeril/Mid Chesapeake
Polooue
Poloflut
RappihaNioek
Rippihuuxwk
Rappahinnock
Jtmei
Jimet
Junes
Jimei
SunyithiMi
Sujquehinnt
Sutquehuui*
PotoiBM
Polonut
Potornee
Weil Chnapeeke
Upper Eulem Slier*
Lower Eulem Shore
Upper Eutem Shore
Upper Eutem Shore
Fill Line
Below
Below
Below
Betew
Betew
Betew
Betew
Bettw
Below
Below
Belew
Below
Below
Below
Below
Below
Below
Below
Below
Below
Below
Below
Below
Above
Above
Above
Above
Above
Above
Below
Below
Below
Below
Below
URBAN
X51
330,13
•
504.42
1,1 19.72
341.0!
115.20
-
KJ4442
23,453.39
£,606.31
22,443.43
15,<0t.42
11.W.42
7,250,9}
9,47499
2,74167
m
13 63V>38
34,617.13
1ZI77.24
HJtS.07
2,201.47
2.42
3,713.00
6,441.44
455.51
3J27J5
45,44
T373J3
441
2J7
1 94J.14
•
HToUl
0.09
1.92
•
2JQ
233
104
0.7J
»
1X92
29.77
60.44
13.44
2Z50
54.90
n.14
14,41
7.23
.
25.01
31.45
42.25
<4Jt
99.it
0.03
10.21
1.67
1.42
3J3
OJ5
12.30
OJJ7
0.04
9.52
RURAL
2,601.90
1JJ4179
3.92934
19.424,14
40,315.40
26,2«9,14
22^22.43
15J55.29
92493.71
53^4441
6,229,15
4,313.14
51.714.09
1.91 4 J52
1.532.51
55.I54.W
33,730.94
2,410.10
37,«0.74
J7.2I9.43
16.254.35
6,206.01
9.3S
7,594.14
30.J17.4t
40.075.Jt
29.129.14
17,0*55.13
12,030.79
51,411.31
1,730,51
3,444.47
1.744.44
3.444.73
HTol.1
94.39
11,23
93.41
tt.34
91.42
94.96
91.07
9J.I7
11.94
47.72
3J.19
1J.94'
7443
4191
11.34
1357
1193
97,09
72.10
4016
5(5,39
33,42
042
91,41
13,61
10.19
9ft7l
93,25
93,31
t5.73
9491
19.93
W32
92,10
FARM
152.41
L522.94
277.09
1.0S3.11
S.471.70
104.04
2,024^2
44147
J,79I.SS
L97I.41
J7.71
109,05
1,946,45
32.99
41.41
1,404.19
1,454.92
10.37
I,103.»6
1.316J1
391.0«
349.41
1.41
693J3
2.230J3
7,6«9.»9
2,129.37
3,221.61
790.91
l.ltO.77
441.91
313.40
213.95
444.9}
HTeli
5.52
1.15
6.59
9J4
4.05
2.91
1.11
4.13
5.14
ISO
OJ«
0.40
2.13
0.14
0.47
2.12
3,14
2.91
112
1.31
U«
2.00
0.07
144
4.11
10.35
7.11
3i43
414
1.97
S.02
10.01
2.14
7.90
MM
2,53163
14,111.70
3,691.25
19.I1J.30
39.335.96
23,939.15
21.463.34
13,149.10
101.071.44
70^02.03
9410.41
11.144.77
4249SJ2
17^04.71
2JI7M4
56,t23.26
31,134.14
2.363.16
47.I09J3
61.10U5
21,192.54
15,711.54
1,107.17
7,779.19
30,440.41
60,441.30
24,177.29
11,731.55
11,27049
53,160,10
1,611,53
3,409.14
1,606.27
4,766.12
MEAN
2,741.19
17.201.11
4,2003
21.9H.45
44.17i.IO
27.441.52
24.73104
112,73147
71,77144
I5,19).22
27,04157
494U49
20.75t.00
t.m.24
46,231.79
37,927.93
2,740,47
51,99199
21,12167
11,460.79
2.2IS43
1,29110
34401.03
74.264.94
32,114,0!
94,004.77
12,51739
59,945,61
9,191,19
3.130,24
9,925.53
5^I3.<9
MA:
3.995.5;
4,721.41
24,154.24
49.017.1J
31,400.4;
21,059.7!
11,221.3-
124,710.41
24,440,95
34,632.42
76.70Z24
23,72143
16,521.49
74,413.15
44,193.03
3,157.07
$7,143.71
124,440.44
37^50.91
21,377.57
3.JI4.77
t,i|{,12
42,119.09
19,01944
37,450.34
104,410.47
1 4,3 11.93
64.J07.44
9.T14.2J
4.C5IJ4
11,257.41
7,870.42
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
MODEL SEGMENT-SI POPULATION
b. POPULATION USING SEPTIC
AS!
TOTAL POPULATION
4 USING SEPTIC
C/l
Table 10
-------
t/I
co
HOUSING UNITS AND POPULATION PER HOUSEHOLD AS
URUAN, RURAL AND
PARM TYPES USING SRPTIC AND
OTHER NON-SUWERED MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL:
MODBL SEGMENT SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
MODEL, SEGMENTS! POPULATION'
«, POPULATION USING OTHER MEANS OF DISPOSAL
TOTAL POPULATION
USING OTHER MEANS
Mod Set
10
20
30
40
$0
00
70
80
50
100
110
120
140
ISO
170
173
ito
190
200
210
220
230
M5
140
250
260
265
270
2tO
290
300
310
330
340
NORM
Eut Branch 1
Bait Branch i
East Brandt 2
East Branch 2
W«« Branch
W«t Branch
Wert Branch
lavnr Suiqudiama
JuniaU
Juiritta
Lowtr Suiqnthtnna
Conowlnfo
Conowingo
Upper Potomac
UpjM- Potomac
Upper Potomae
Mid Polomac
Shcnandoah
Sh*nin
-------
HOUSING UNITS AMI. ,'ULATION PUR HOUSEHOLD AS
URBAN, RURAL AND FARM TYPES USING SEPTIC AND
OTHER NON-SEWERED MHANS QV WASTE DISPOSAL:
MODEL SEGMENT SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
MODEL SEGMENTS! POPULATION"
,
«, POPULATION
USING OTHER MEANS OF DISPOSAL
TOTAL POPULATION
USWO OTHER MEANS
Mod Seg Name Sub-bum
310 Chester Upper Eastern Shore
3PO Wye Upper Eutem Shore
400 Lower Choptank ' Upper Eutem Shore
410 Lower Ntntlcoke Lower Eulem Shore
420 Wkorrlco Lower Eutem Shor*
430 Pocomake Lower Eastern Shore
440 Coast 4 Lower Eastern Shore
450 Coast 1 1 West Cheupeike
470 Gunpowder West Chesapeake
480 Dallimsre West Chesapeake
4?0 Lower Patapico West ChtsapesJte
530 Paluxent PiluxeflUMW Chesapeake
510 Severn ' ' - P*luxen(/MI
-------
,ole 10
-------
TlbteH. STATE SUMMAKWS fOR NITROOgN tOAOtD TO
ORPUND WATW, IUWACIWATI* AND THI BAY IV
wuiATioNi usma MI-TIC AND OTMW HIANS «• NSW.
SIWiMDWA8«OW«>iAI. »wwon
STATE
OISTRK5T OF CaOMSIA Total
MARYLAND Total
NEW YORK Tola
PENNSYLVANIA Ton!
VIKSINIA TeW
WesTVlROINIA foul
_Q(ind
OS
Table 11
-------
TaM*11. ITATtSUMMAMEl KM NITNOOIN LOADED TO
OnOUNDWA'mM.SWWACIWATtR ANDTHI BAY BY
POWAATKWi UtBM MPTB AND OTMBl MUNI W NOW.
•IVWWra WAtTt DWPOf AL
1
STATE
DELAWARE Tottl
DRTRCT OP COLUMBIA Total
MARYLAND TaM
PENNSYLVANIA TiX.1
VIROtNIA TeW
WE8TVIROWA T<*l
OmtdTaM
ft MTR008H LOADED flJ»>
TOTAL NITROOiN LOADED
M« (CAN M«
W4.SIS 483,722 «18^7«
»M 4t,63e 180*58
S.4MJW «^4S074 t2.l43.W7
2.018,12» 2.WJ.S2S D»1*5S
7.7M,4I« t1,185,M3 15.418,051
MTROQENTRANSPOKTEO (LBS)
ft/RM ItifTAht UAV
403 48JB28 160,606
».14»,«1 7.049.097 t1.4M.M4
«[l0»jl7 8,704^74 12,t41^4Q
l,t*tXMB »,138J43 1Z058.IM
OX
<%
-------
Tib)« 1 1 . STATE SUMMARIES TOR MTROOEN LOAOIO TO
QftOUNO WATER, SURFACt WATIR AMD TMt BAY BY
POPULATIONS UMNO SEPTIC AND OTHER MIANS Of NON-
SfWf RID WASTE DISPOSAL
STATE
DELAWARE T«lal
DISTRICT Of COLUMBIA Total
MARYLAND Trtal
HEW YORK Tail
PENNSYLVANIA Totnl
VIRGINIA Teal
WBST VIRGINS Tetil
CramtTeM
C. POUNDS OF NITROGEN LOAO6D BY URBAN POPULATIONS USINC3 SEPTC FIELDS TO
GROUND WATER
MW MEAN MAX
4,508 10.49$ ir.oag
8.KI9 31.588
W»,M4 1383.i8S 1»I1J!»1
t04313 179.W8 2M.188
201,770 <79,517 612^47
S33.087 1585,175 JJZ29.S25
1.702 18.160 27.681
1,«»,213 3373.T8* 5,«a«.W7
SURFACE WATER
MN MEAN MAX
1.«21 3,496 5J3S
2.897 10.S83
2M,OJ» 443.0S4 739.840
55,011 63,771 147,728
77.830 182,826 148,582
231.321 484,083 '799,328
3.968 8.837 11280
804,680 1,187,180 2.060.8M
IAY WATER
MM MEAN MAX
13t 402 742
737 2,513
135,132 204,763 298.120
73.150 125,432 1D7.SS8
203.413 331,334 497.283
TOTAL 7C
14J92
12.S72
2.04f,502
273.637
662,343
1,*74.700
23,127
4,902303
ON
TlM*11
-------
TaW.11, iTATiSUMMAIWfil'0(ll«TI«»lNlOA08D TO
OROUHD WATER, JWBMCf WATSK AND TMS MT BY
TOPUIATBNS USM «6PT1C AHOOTMtfl MIA1W OF NON-
SEWiRIO WASTI nsPOSAL
RURAL NONFARM POPULAT1OI« mS5»^t5?F
DELAWARE Total
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Tottl
TeW
NEW YORK Total
PENNSYLVANIA ToW
VRGMA T«M
WEST MRGNIA TeM
QmndloHI
1.370.W1 1.714.03S
7«1.IOS 042SS1
2.852.954 3.318303
s.«ee.452
2.407.248
e.soa.wr
8,812.810
-------
T.bl.11. STATE SUMMARMSfORNITROQEN LOADED TO
QROUKO WATIR. SURFAC1 WATf R AND THf iAY BV
POPULATIONS UStW SBTK5 ANB OTHER MEANS t» MON-
stwento WASTE GSPOSAL
STATE
OtSTRCT OF COLUMBIA Totil
MARYLAND Totil
NEW YORK ToUl
PENNSYLVAMA Tool
VIRGINIA TMil
WEST VIRGINIA TeW
OmndTotlH
i. POUNDS OF NITROGEN LOADED BY
WN MfAN MAX
21.813 182,021 412,731
8,150 71,785 172,483
124.058 424.218 S27.8JI
23.731 244,732 S?!.4M
1.9M M.S27 72.13«
•AHM POPULATIONS USINO SEPTIC T
SURFACE WATER
WIN MEAN MAX
*S8 8,618 11.908
TSn 61*57 138.838
4«]847 1$»]040 3
-------
T*M« 11. STATE SUMNAMIS FOR NITROGEN LOADED TO
GROUND WATtR, SURFACE WATER AND THS BAY BY
POPULATIONS UilNO lime AND OTHER MEANS OF NON-
SEWERED WASTE DISPOSAL
STATE
DELAWARE Tool
CHSTRICr OF COLUMBIA Total
MARYLAND Total
NEW YORK Toul
PENNSYLVANIA Total
VIRGINIA Total
WEST VTtGtNlA Tout
OnndTeM
F, POUNDS OF NITROGEN LOWED BY URBAN POPULATIONS USING OTHER MANS OF DISPOSAL ro:
QROUN9 WATER
WIN MIAN MAX
888 I.M2
•430 29.422 75,718
3.875 111,202 345JS8
52 3,330 7.753
2.278 20,015 82.139
2.518 81.848 191.161
728 2.195
8.2SB 23J.M8 706,064
SURFACE WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
226 £78
1M 8.720 25.650
1^97 38,013 111,812
2a 1,148 3,«0«
tt« 10,380 31,000
1,03) 24,019 73,559
325 1.022
3.3J8 82.837 24i.337
BAY WATER
MN MEAN MAX
1 7
308 1,911 4,776
52 7,324 23,321
213 3,328 10.084
S73 12,564 38.196
ft
1
803
36,053
101.540
3,477
37.301
88,803
1.053
129.310
ON
-------
TaM*11, STATISUIMMRIIS FOR NITMCKitN LOADED TO
GROUND WATIR, IUWACI WATtR AND THE BAY BY
POPULATWNS USINO SEPTIC ANC OTHER MKAMI Ol> HON.
SEWERED WASTE DISPOSAL
STATE
DELAWARE Tout
DISTRCT OF COLUMBIA Total
MARYLAND Total
NEW YORK Tottl
PENNSYLVANIA Tool
VIRGINIA Total
WEST VIRGINIA Tola!
QranO Total
3. POUNDS OF NITROGEN LOADED BY RURAL NONFARM POPULATIONS USING OTHER MEANS OF DISPOSAL TO:
GRQUNOWATER
MM MEAN MAX
?05 9.078 21.321
8,787 124.323 334,10?
1,633 38.502 100.704
54.514 281,451 S70.S80
36,847 300^05 706.222
7.732 43.W7 10O.2O3
108.J1S 78S.24J 1J9S4,S33
SURFACE WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
227 2.804 (1.783
2.481 43.208 114.590
768 18,002 50.544
22.118 103.412 224.758
12,893 105.510 2X1.968
3.804 1B.38S 41,348
42,718 292,400 880,188
B/>Y WATER
KM MEAN MAX
5 116 2B2
713 11.452 31.87S
1,284 12,714 31.8t1
2,082 24,285 63,787
TOTAL 70
12.098
178,983
58,503
384.883
424,429
8S.OS2
1,101.928
Title 11
-------
r.M,11. SMTf SUMMARISE FOR NITROGEN LOADED TO
SROUNO w*mn, »UBMCI WATTO AND THE a*r IY
KjMjLAraw USING »§PTK «ID OTKEH MEANS OF MON-
SiWf MtO WMTf DTSPOS«.
ST
DAWARE Tbij
WSTRICT OF COLUMBIA Total
UARWAND
NEW YORK Tttol
T«al
VIWSINIA Total
WSTWRGlNtt T«.l
OrandTaW
».3Z2
S.211
I.30S 23^48 ii.03B
10.066 80,356
M8i 1SJOT
—
00
Tatahli
-------
NITROGEN LOADED TO GROb, WATER, SURFACE WATER AND
THE BAY BY POPU1 JmONS USING SEPTIC AND OTHER MEANS
OF NON-SGWRRBD WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CtttlAPCUCt »A* f ROCHAM «rt!C rROJfCT
COWflYlUMMARiei
NCXi-CHIlAFtAKe, tec.
STATS WS COUHTY
Dtl^WAHl l»01 KINT
DCLAWAIU I«0> HSWCASTLI
DELAWARE I«WI SUSSEX
DtrrnHn or COLUMBIA now wAsiitmroN
MAAYLAIO S4«M ALLCOAMY
MAXYLAM) 24MI AHNt ARUNDB.
MARYLAND J4«$ SALTlMORt
MARYLAND I4W» CALVBIT
MARYLAND ]«1I CAROUNK
MARYLAHl 2«D CARROIL
MAjtYlAfO J40IJ CECIL
MARYLAM) *»IT CHARUI
MARYLAND 3«l» OOKIUm
MARYLAND 24MI FWDOUCK
MAKYLAM9 MM] QAXRCIT
MAKYLAM> 2«11 MARFOWJ
MARYIAK) J4«7 HOWARD
MARYLAND 544Ct KfMT
MARYLAIO J»»t MOMTOOMOtY
MAKYLAH: JWM meicimoiiori
MARVLAM) MM QUtt*IAI*CS
MAMYIAKD 2*017 SAWT MAK1T1
MARYLAND 2M» SOMHXsrT
MAKYLAIO 2«HI TAUOT
MARYLA-O MM} WASHINGTON
MARYLA»> WWJ VICOMCO
MAKYLAM) MM? WOMXITEX
MAKVLASO 2ISI* lALTIMOMCITY
NEWYOMC >*») AUCQANY
NEWYOHK M«l BUOOME
MEWYOSK M01I CAYUOA
MEWYC»K 3MI1 OEMJNO
KKW VO1IK 3« IT CUEHANOQ
HEWYOWC MOD CORTVAMD
MEWVOHH M«J ODLAWAH
NSWYMK MM! ItDUCIMEX
NtWYONC Mill UVIMOSTOM
NEWYOfX J«J) MADISON
HEWYOK MM$ ONUDAEAST
HEWYOtX MM? ONONDAO*.
MSWYOUC MM» OHTAIUO
tmwYOMC MOTI OTSEOO
NtWYOfX M«M SCIIOKARII
NEWYOM! M«' KHinflEK
«, NITROOSM LOADED AW DELWERIO TO THE BAY PROM SEPTIC AND OTHER HON-SBVIRED TREATMENT
TOTAt MTROOEN (IBS) IOAOEO TO:
GROUND WATER
MtN MEAN MAX
ni!s» H.<«I iu,»»i
lt,»X3 J5.:w3 JIUIt
19C,4«I,4 nX7»U 5«.:»I
<» J M.MU l»7.3t<
M.MM T5.M»< UT.tKl
4II.I».) <1MS).' Ht.»lO
M5.J540 MT.4MJ tlt.MU
HI.7M* MM»,I MI.I111
MJW.4 IHJM.t l«4,mi
JU.0.4 JlJ.JMi MI,nt.«
I7J.1IM tXWt.f JM.JSI
m.idj.1 su.au m.Hi*
u,m.» ?«.«)j IIMIM
imMl* 4».1$.l «.«!:4 11.M1I
M.MI.I Tt.wi.i iit,I.) »«.WtJ
I1.0M3 IS.(3U JI.SI'I
S«S.T5».« HU»,I JM.I7t.»
13J 9>2> MIJ
I«.<7).J WO.OII »M3I
tivn.T nuaj Jt«.7!i.i
IJ.H2.I i:V)7)5 170.5*1 >
4MU.1 51.7111 7<.J7l»
»,*»« X*»7 H7)>!
1.4W.1 tllij IttH
»JMJ 7T.17M IOJ.01.7
IO.WIJ 14.I2U l».t«l
t,in.i n.7«n it.Ni.t
11IJ 7»l ITU
174,-tMJ J4I.J7IJ 124.UU
4.1M.1 M7M >.m.J
RMM J4.WI.I JJ.JW.J
SURFACE WATER
MN MEAN MAX
JS.J174 1XCUS 4I,MI,(
ton 1.7 1< s I I.OIM
4t.l)ti (*,»» 5J.471.7
Mi 11.71*7 HULT
IVMI )).!!< 7 MJ».i
117,1441 I7),«7I7 7(1.171.1
117,111.1 IM.Hi; 57«.M!.i
7I.4M.1 >!.7M) H4.UM
li.717.1 J7.IU7 JlOJJ.t
I37.4IH IM.7O.I IM.niJ
S7.IM.7 l.0«.* Il.I!i.}
US).! 7.H5.1 »,7ISJ
DS.KU I».JIO» 2M,»1,4
IIT1 147* ITf.l
D.401* n;7lO I24.ii)l
73.HI.I IH«>4.( 141.1,11
M.JJtt K?Si.7 H.3U.I
I».«3U :*,s»i Httt.i
I,I7!» 10.4S44 I3.«)l
IW7 1.0)11 1.3)4!
J4.4JH X.I4U 47.MM
4, Ml 4 <,I41.< l,«)74
>,t»« S.!»l! 7,114.1
211.1 yu.l VJ-4
TI,fJl.l IM.I117 MUJ7.7
l»l« rw.l 1H4.1
I.)*? 1I.4J1.4 H.144.1
SArWATER
MIN MEAN MAX
IW3 4M1 »].i
1.2U,) 7.57!, 1 11)111
3(7.7 ii4IO 72MI
-
114.) H.4 IM.J2J UJ.HI.2
iu:»« •a.iTt.i tiH?.<
».4II.> 4I.K4 1 <4.;»,2
Mll.i 1,117.4 H.H7I
».H»4 9.0J4.I 40.M70
M.Utt JI.Z4.1 W14I.S
IM4M JM!I.» JXOI.I
.
.
1.4.4,0 4,4W.2 l.?23.2
7.71). 1 tl.KIt nt4M.I
:4» wn i.i*js
lt«i.l 4.JS4.4 7,«7.7
4).4»44 6I«»4 UtOt*
J1.SW.7 7l,7W.« «.W1»
IMW.7 1i.7<77 IMO.f
J1.JK.1 4MS7.J M.»J.4
.
7.M.I ll.IJS.J I7.IM.4
JU.8 ] 4S4.1 44J.J
!,«}.! J.'-4)»
-
-
.
•
-
•
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
TOTAL NITROGEN LOADED
MlN MEAN MAX
>7i4JI 1X.«17 M.MiJ
M.W4 1 X4».I 44,««.4
HtM7J ».2M1 44HH4
NX] 4MU.I 1JMM.I
Mjma 1I4.2U.? II?,ZS4.7
<>U2f.t miMI 1.4II.I1M
)H,)II 1 T14.K43 l.ia«\4I
2n«4.3 «l.7»«4 11U4*.!
IWI7I.1 1*1.1111 2KMI.1
SMMit 7M.MOJ m.UJ§
ni.uit >ti.7i«,i ii4.«ii)
7»>US) 177.11M J4«.»J47
«!>7>.j iiF.nt.1 iw.»ii.7
4X711 > *».>!« tf7.«44.t
U.ttl.3 J«,«7t,I i«7».J
4»>ii> at.mt tn»ti
»)«a.J )»,)47.« 4I1.»W7
4»M»| l),3a.7 IM.MM
J«.I4$.7 4J4.MM 7I4.JI4.4
ft,»X4 1JI.J4M 4-l.m.l
Utjn.t 3K44H 21,111.1
3214M.4 4M.M7J W,iNJ 4T4.II1.I
4JI7S.J (ILIII.S W.J4I.J
*SM.I 1)1.174.1 Jrt.MX
ltl!)« 8.M41 ll.3«l
40M7J.I 17S.J«.J 7I3.4M4
>442 «OJ HI 7
J0»i74,» Jn,7«7.4 4IXH14
7JU)7)J 19.1M4 4iJ.S*»3
121*41* 171.I45.1 W.W».7
M.4J7.4 K.JU,J !«t.4».I
m<71.i J7.»».3 )4,U1*
3,411.4 I.JJil 4,n»f
H»I)S ll>.4».! IJ),»7t
U4M) D.M4.1 J7.*4)7
l),l!74 11. 140.1 I4XX.I
7M.7 WIJ.J UIM
2M441.7 M7.4J4.I 4l),»7I.J
MH.» »,»».! H}f7.«
MUM KM7.J *»!.»
SO
Table 12
-------
NITOOOliN LOADED TO GROUND WATI-R, SUKPACE WATER Ah
dttATIAKt SOT PROGRAM lirTlC PKOkllCT
COUNTY StMMAMES
NCM44 J :«.m» 3W.4M.J
14I.OK.4 Bi,4U.I milM
m«l.J J3S,<»W JM.IJ}.,
^S" ^tT»t 4M,»«!.>
SOfcWW JM.4H.J 4JM».t
S4.0M.* WJM.I »U»J
nuit.i it;.«j.« 3i»,«i.4
H«4^( M.3J».« H.IM.4
T»,41»]j »»»S? ULf*'
I04.741I IH.Ut.1 UMMXT
1JI.I7I.4 JW.ia* 3II.4III
J4Oit.» 3T4.JM4 JJlilM
HMUI U1.W3.4 4S).M)I
W-J I.3I.B MIM
tUMJ IM.tUO IM.W7I
«.4».7 M.4IM 7J.a>2
1H.H7.I 1)I.U>.9 Ui,MU
UtWM !».«).! !4».54»J
HJJM }«,IJ|,| J|,4j,.j
ITU3JJ II2.4K.7 UI.JW.4
IX1MJ l?7.24f .3 171 JH 2
H«)5 IMSM n.«nj
nm.4 :«.«>4 3).4».»
IJMM.4 l*»4*.l iMJIU
mm.i wiu.i ni.«4.j
SURFACE WATER
MtH MEAN MAX
n»».i IKIIJO iM.'n
mm.* >7,n».t i>».i«!;
t, . 14,17*1 ||(M
411741 14.4441 115,11)4
r**ij n.in4 it».j«»
«,*».! Itl.34M,J UUllt
H.1W.I JI.H7) 52.0!) 4
t.lHt 4.4)>.> <,««,1
4I.4TC2 lt,M«.l m«M.l
H1JW 4SJ«.J »,»$|.
Umi K»74« 4«.«3«0
M.3JJ.O NJW.l 114.1171
H494J i:«,457* ITI.I4J.J
».»J.t 131,117.1 174.3MI
77.0).t 1IS.4JI 7 I4A445 1
»i4f.J ».7II.« W.JM.J
4MJI.7 «S :i* ) (4.9M.4
^T7JJ 7.M4.5 IM«l.t
«« 1.1 M.4
SMWJ M.114.S IM.MJJ
]I«,IM.» 1J4.JU* 4IT.1U.I
».M5» U,W)« I14.4ISJ
I»I77J 1W.J41.I MI.154J
H2.4M.1 DM15.4 II).«I7»
WJ.J 4JJ.4 J4J.J
54.I4M JI.IJJJ 7».IM.«
StJ4f,t 74J71.4 II2.I27.4
J4.T4JJ 7«.7M.f IW.JTTI
4MI.4 >.Mt,l IJ.4JI.4
- tMi,« it.9n.f
4.115) «r*i 'WIM
14L364* M?B)? *'***-l
4».Jt)J »l,Kt» IIMI4.J
I»,44».J I1,«M.( !»!.»! 7
2S.949.S I9.I4I.4 f31M9
"BAYWATBR ~ "~~
MN MEAN MAX
"
B
•
-
'.
•
".
•
".
'.
*
*
" * *
* «
TOTAL NITROGEN LOADED
MI.H7.7 XII. 120 » 4I4.J»)
M.1U4> 41,4117 AIM.*
l.*»4 ISJIl MM.l
»1,WT M4.IJU 4M.MI«
WJ.I2J.I )».»J4) 417.1M.O
Tj.7344 i7.jiu m.tm
JD.U7.4 IM.M1.1 44).mt
W»,MI.I BJ.IIJ.I 4tl.4«.4
tl.144.4 IM.7SJ.I 1I7.IWI
«.S 114 |J.»
m,i»J U7.4M.I 4»,4tl.t
M7.N14 IU.IUJ ia.f4l?
«4W«I.I )J7.W)! 411,411.'
ll.Uil l»,llt) 141.0441
IM.J'1.4 JIS,I7U • 4«4.»77.0
94-M7I.4 44l,ftll.t 4t43)7J
XDM 43J8I.1 5».(»>
3U.M19 4M.I1M 41J.OU4
»M»1.1 MI.4M.I IU.041I
m.l».» J>14IJ4 MJ.IH.4
22-*> 314 4i )
I»M».I I4«,«)J4 IU.MI1
1541117 U7,iRl )5iJM7
«».»Mt l,»l.»»j 1.IM.IN.1
3II.4MS J14.JB4 431.1*7 11
J44.W.I IJ4.MJ.7 1IMU.I
»»MJ4» 4M,»M U4.MI*
1,105.4 un.4 i||i€
in, 400) IK),M«J 274,644.4
«J»J Ht«,j »j,i.7
••4.J774 M4.TOI Mf,w>.4
IM.J47J 24J.T7U J4».§a.J
in,4».» 247.IK4 1M.141J
I«.»MJ I7»,»».l 241*71.4
"•>»' tU4U J4UJI.J
».!».! 40,111 1 H4W.J
1
-------
NITROGEN LOADBD TO ORO WATER, SURFACE WATER AND
THE BAY I1Y POPULATIONS USING SRPTIC AND OTHER MEANS
OP NCN-SEWI-HED WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
OMMMAKt KAY MtOCRAM StmC f ROJICT
COUVTY5UMMARIE4
STAW WJ COUNTY
ItKNtYWAHIA 4JI27 WAWS
PCJWS^ft.' AtHA 42131 WYOMIHO
MMMSWAHIA 41IJ1 YORK
VIltCNIM 51001 ACCOMACX
VHtMMIA 5100) ALDIMAMJ
VIROrNIA 51005 ALLEOHANT
V1HOIN1A J1047 AMEUA
VIRGINIA 31409 AMDUT
VmOIWIA SI411 AlfOMATTOX
VIRGINIA 31913 ARUNOTOH
VTROIN1A SMI! AUGUSTA
VIRGINIA 51017 BAT1I
VIRGINIA SIII9 KDTOM)
VIRGINIA 5101) tOtCTOUftT
VIRGINIA JWS9 BUCKINGHAM
VIRGINIA 3I«)I CAkfWlU.
VIRGINIA 510)3 CAROLINA
VWOINIA SIO)t ClIARLSSCmf
VmOIMA S1437 CHAR1.OTTJ
VMdlHIA JtWI CHESTi3U?t&.D
VIRGINIA 5104) CLARKE
VIRGINIA IIMI CKAM
VmOWlA. SI947 CULfEPEX
VIROIVtA S1CM* CUMtfDtLAXD
VIRGINIA 51053 DINWIDOIE
VIRGINIA 31«S7 ESSEX
VWO1NIA 51059 FAIRFAX
VIRGINIA 51041 fAUQUtEK
VIRGINIA SIM! FLUVANNA
VIRGINIA 31949 nUDCRICK
VIRGINIA 51071 GILES
VIRGINIA (107) OLOUCCITOt
VIRGINIA JI973 OOOdlAND
VIRGINIA 31479 OWENS
VIRGINIA })«! IIANOVQl
VIRGINIA JIOI7 tCKKlCO
VIRGINIA 11091 HIGHLAND
VIRGINIA 31991 ISLCOrwiailT
VIRGINI/l 11991 lAMESCnT
VIRGINIA SI997 KINO AND 4JUEH
VntQINU 5l*f9 KINO GEORGE
VatOINU S110I KING WILLIAM
VIRGINIA JII4) LANCASTER
VIRGINIA 51107 IOUDOUN
«. NITROOIH tOAOED AHO OIIJVERIO TO THI BAT «OM SEPTtC AND OTMtR HON-«EWiRf O TRfATMTOT
TOTAL NITII006N tLBSi LQAOED Tft
GROUND WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
4.HIS 4.411.! I.I4H
tt,J)t.J D2.S74.1 171.154.4
413*3914 • 9I9.3I44 L?I2^344
41.1«l 74.47U I07.)i;.l
I7».«]» 24I.7IM M4.07<.l
29,424.1 49.144,1 75. Hi 5
34.7WJ SS.9S14 M.KJ.l
H1477J 1SI.X4.1 JI1UI.4
3X443.7 44.7244 4X394.S
54M 4.IJ4.» M.))!4
141.JJ7.7 2M.R9.I MI.4K.7
».»1J H994.I *>.97!«
34J74J 5143)7 71841.5
4I7.477J 74.4311 IM.I71J
5J.17»« 71.974,1 »7,W.4
7J.7«,4 IIJ.:n.t I40.0JJ.4
24.MU J7.41S.I 5143J1
M 7J It!
m.HJJ 337,5771 53.«*0
33.134.4 S3.9«^ 77,4919.»IT.7
MJ.4SS.7 174.474).! 2$7^JJ.4
1.334* 1.1JJJ 1S7T.2
100.11 1.3 141,923.1 111.7)13
S4.MM U.I4IJ M».H'.7
«.»!!» 51. nil II.MU
I74.4IM 2(7.«)S.I JJl.Kl?
7.!».T D.90SJ HIO(>
J4.044.7 70.975J 94.I4I.I
4«.704.> 43.509J 97,«9!.3
21.334.1 M422J 55,4)1
41,141,4 40.7011 I4.))1.3
27,719.9 4X4HJ 41.411)
SLWFACil WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
1143.4 3.1341 4,3*17
91.9SI.I 44.1X.7 tt.iil.1
21X443.4 309,7f4ID 4S9.91S.4
2I.1UJ 32.117.4 43,73».t
il.OOJ.I 71.571.7 1W.2D.1
14.111.* 23,9719 H7W.1
I9J91.1 I),»5I.O 2X19.1
I9.S417 43.HM i9,l»J
I4.23M 13,944,1 14,341.9
144,7 1414 J 7.4X1
44U2X7 141.334.9 141713.)
I45tl.l I4.9H.4 29JJ14
H.3 14 4 21,421.4 3i,244J
M.4J1I 21,791.1 3.5145
9.9S4.1 M.411.7 JH.315-4
1.4 3.1 ).l
31.1714 101 HI 4 1!».IT1»
I4.SH.4 21.344.4 29.934,7
S.7H.4 1.14W 11,444.7
37.7U.4 41,430,9 51.JI3.I
1.711! D.J5I) I9.4M.I
X475.3 S.14ZS 7.IW.S
I4.JK4 IS.734.3 USW.I
lf.741.4 1)4.110.7 311.249,4
>7,II!.» 7J.J417 103,415.7
1I.491J 11,913.1 J3.SJ9.9
41.79I.4 ti.rHi »t^!4
4*1.4 444.1 I.I1S.4
31.S3S3 53,111.) 70.OI4
14,N:.9 34.4SS.I 3MM.3
14,«W.J Jl,9ili.l KIM.4
54,441.3 44.4HI UI.JH.S
27.2IM $».»).» 11.441.3
3.411.1 4.514 i IMW.7
r»,434S 17.423.1 54.414.7
15.31.1 24.5U3 M.444.4
I4.414.I 1X794 J I1.M4.4
14.4114 24,934.2 31.449.1
IJ.41%4 17,174.9 J4.4JI.4
14,9911 14.444.1 33.411)
29JRI 44.3M.7 44,432.4
BAY WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
« . .
4.449.7 I3.W1.3 14.71M
* • *
•
.
319.3 1,131.4
1.141.1 1.7J7J WI4U4
14W.4 1.747.1 5.J54.1
ie:i.t j.w*.2 4.».i
4.4»,7 7.4».« n.nt,t
J4.TI1.I M.9IIS 441,129.4
2.2M.4 3.i:t.S 4.J41-4
7,4472 14,4142 I3.«»»
2.S)«.4 3.933 I.499.3
1.719.4 1,3+10 ),442.1
4.1)1.4 • 1.111.1 »,I70»
1*11.1 J.211.1 4.KX.J
14.4)1.9 24.9119 37,574,4
TOTAL NITRO3EN IOACEO
MjN MEAN MAX
«4912 1.147,9 11)714
I54OI4 2W.494.4 MI.MI4
124177.2 t,2»,144.t 1.7I3,I9(.4
71.923.2 111.154) IM.HM
231997.1 149.2139 4JS.249.S
43.IM.9 7X237.4) 199.M4.4
41,141.7 71,404,2 141,944,3
131V34.4 ]94,47t4 2?l,794.4
44,1211 44,449.2 19.934.4
7I4.S U.2IJS W.IJ17
2H73M 3SS.M4.S SM.29M
M411I 17.919.1 11.4014
44.941.4 0.4JI.7 WJ74.4
4J.54T7.4 9S.473.J 1)4,422.9
4MWJ K.4S9J I».4I4S
49.4211 93.744.3 1M.44U
9I477J I4t.943.4 a 1.41 3.7
37^4S,9 SS.423 ) fljfm
4.4 9.4 14.1
23SIS43 441.927J 4M.4914
44.449.J JU44.4J II7.M! !
17,941.4 Jt.113.4 J4.74J.7
199,194.1 141.H3.1 IM.241.7
41,444.7 J1.929.S 9UM.I
JU9W.3 XIM.I 42.SI4.1
49SII.I 4tt94.7 HJ77.4
119,541.2 141393.3 ri.909.9
227,351.4 J17.79I.9 .9B,9 119,791,7
m»!.Z )».2H.3 344,341.)
1 1 1411.3 10M41.2 )1J.»)1
1U94.4 24,494.3 )J,«SJ
HIW.I 191,9144) M.SM.4
141144 9J.W.9 H9.719.J
4*3)4.7 »7,9t4J IttlSM
49M4.4 71,944^ k^91M
17JX1 l!.l».| 121,123.4
mini H4.9]t.7 1KS4I.1
Table 12
-------
NITROGEN LOADED TO GROUND WATER, SURFACE WATKR Ah
THE BAY BY POPULATIONS USING SEPTIC AND OTHER MPANS
OP NON-SL-WURBD WASTB DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
Clllf AKAKt BAY PROGRAM tlttlG PROJICT
COUflYIUMMAJUtl
MCR1-CHEJATCAXE.IK.
***** TVS COUKTY
vmoHfl,A SII09 tOUI&A,
VmOTNIA till) LUMMBBIO
vmowiA sun MAOIJON
VrROINlA 11 IIS UAT1IEWS
VIRGINIA 31119 MIDOLESEX
WHNtA JICI MONTOOMERY
VWOHIA JIBJ NELSON
VmOHIA Sl» NEWKEMT
VWflWIA 31 HI HORTKAMJTON
WOWIA J1OJ NORTtRABERLAND
*fMJI»IA JIBJ HOTTOWAY
VWOHIA HOT ORANDS
VK«NIA JIB» r*at
VBWIHIA 51 IIS rowllATAN
WWINtA SUIT miNCI EDWARD
flftOMA siu» HWeicEOKOi
VMOIMA SHU fWNCt WILLIAM
VWOIWA 3II1J HAJfAKAHNOCK
VIRGINIA nit, RICHMOND
VHWWU $H(| ROANOKt
"IWSBflA JIIO ROCKflRIDOE
VIROttflA JHJS ROCKINOIIAM
VntOHIA Jim SIESAMJOAI1
vmotaA »i in jronruvANiA
VIROMA J||J» JTAFTORO
VIRQMA )|ll| SUMY
VWOMA stilt WAMEN
VM0MA Sll» YOMC
W*°KIA JIJ|« AUXAMMUA
VIROMA 5U» MJENAVIJTA
VIROKIA }|j)j aiAju.OTTtjvn.LS
"WOMA 3U» aCSAKAKICnY
VIROMA J15« CllfTONrORCt
VIROMA JIJJJ COLONIAL 1C10HTS
VIRON1A Sing COV1NOTOK
VIROMA }|«n TAILS CIMtCH
vtROMA sw» ntEDBuacnMma
VIMMMA JI4» HAMnOHCITY
VHSONIA SIMI I1ARR.IJOHBURO
V1RON1A 3147J HOPtWtU.
VIRQHIA tun LEonaroH
*1»ONfA St<» LYMCHMXa
«. NITROOeN U>AOHS AND OtUVERED TO TTO BAY f ROM SEPTIC AMD OTHER NOM-SeWf RED fRiATMf HT
TOTAi NrTRCXJEN (LBS) LOADED TO- 1
IV
MIN WEAN MAX
HIH.7 IXtTT.J
11^ ' I4J
U.7M.4 3t,««t.4
KNT.1 3T.4IJ.9
WtlT I.II1S.J
RIU.J 4U3JJ
O.7MI M,»IM
J»»ll «,«!.«
MH17J K444J
mm.t tn.m,i
IXI37J ]7J^.»
4^2t4 o^l 4
i'w* m»»i
?3.4^.f 13^3*4.2
IIMI14 HUM.t
MJttJ UMl.t
CU>1« H4541
41.W4.T 4UMJ
»!.? 1104.7
UW XISM
23,142.3 33.443 4
«lt
JMJ
MM
mt
1043^
I.W.3 I1W4.7
1.4T7J T3IJ.4
3CS.0 Si99J^
144.7
XXB04 741T1»
1B.464.1
HI
4£I39^
SI.NU
.4
JJJ.44JI
II4M.C
7JM.3
JJJJJ
... ^ *
2t(.tW.«
U31I44J
•t.1444
i.nj.7
!4J3tl
i*l«90t.(
97J
i.mj
7X4
4.3MI
1.44J.1
9U24J
13.7313
H;04>J
314 >
IHI114
SURFACE WATER
MM MEAN MAX
2I.WI.3 ».»7».S 41.9K4
J.i 4.7 <
M.2M.* H.JII.S JJ.4JJ.
Will I.4»J t»lj;
M.I4J.2 a.143.7 Jft4»4J
i.ltt.1 linn !!,>».>
ll.m.T H.U4.3 JXJ«»7
11.XWI njMl M
34.3114 M.III1 M.IH.1
9t.ZU.i 17.11*4 !U».4
Mli.4 12.2M.1 n,m.t
1141)1 TTJlt.S I1».IJJ.»
1^131^ 1X444 ' IMII 3
tUKl JMBJ J4.541I
* ' ^^ "i3**.l
»«3».« 4I.J4S.I .MI.l M.7M4
JO.Hi.1 H,»W.» 4«.«l.4
IM ju.j i,»io,a
' «$1.3 3;MS.?
111.? 1,413.3 4.4.11.4
*•'**'* JI.4M.I
• tl-9 147,9
* l>4.2 341.4
•4.J Jlf.i
. |7|,4 4MJ
* 433.1 !,4QQ.t
432.P 3.7H.I $,7*1)
" 32J IMJ
W.«««J HMi.1 nun".
i
4
«
MIN MEAN MAX
.
14,134.1 2I.WI.7 J».l)>4
IXSIM H.IH,* H.4H.S
4.UM.O 1.101.3 7.M74
»,»«.• IK7.I 11474.4
».•».! JEHU 44.W11
* - .
-
"M l»l-t 1.W.J
J53.J WJ3I 4.JIJ.4
-
*2»J.J S.7M.3 3,471.1
* - .
IJS4.3 11)71 J,)«T
4.J1JJ MII.J I14S4.1
i.ies.4 t,«j.7 iiti,*
»,63U 14.724.5 21481.3
UJrne u.in,4 37^11.1
* *
JIJ-3 2.I4S4 J,3i,.,
"
'. ".
•
• * .
tIJ.I 4510
««.» 4,1114 ».74».»
" .
*•• 11.4
• »
I»,IM.» I4M54.1 D7.7M.7
'" 11 1 M.4
IMM.J W.J3I.I IKIM.»
51JM4 1M8«.4 0,H3.t
J.iM« 4.JJ34 4.JU.
«4.«tti WIS3H IM.tH.l
4U33.7 M.4M.* II4.45J)
J*«U 3TJ<».» M.4M.1
3»,7»l.4 W.1I5.J IH37J7
7O.J«« W.SMI 4MM.I
iJ.*M-2 121.331.7 M9,3M^
77^19.4 IK.44II 174,l»>»
11.447 ) 1141*1 « |]J.rj< 1
A4U.4 44.IW5 OL744.
J15.154) MJ.741.1 ' 417.311.1
»M744 34,123.7 TH4J7J
94.N4.I 34,4It.i 7S (ill
«,MII I.B1.I H.MI.I
•».»!« 4 IJ4.I41.J 1K»»«
J4»,»l-7 17I.MM 33).»»4
Ml.m.t I44H4.I 13MI1.1
I3X7I7.I X»,m* JM,»>43
I3MTJ.I !».!«) 111,371,4
li.411.3 23.4JOJ 11,711.}
7I,M4.» WI.»JM IM.244.7
M.4M.J 144.4WJ 2««,IW.7
2M.« 2,434.4 ),]t4.|
2.W2.1 «,7JJt
447,7 4.»34.» I%K7.7
»M"i M.34I.4 I5l»:»
»».• 4440
4W.} I.44U
234* l.«24.»
1311 2JM.4 4,013
* 74C.3 2>I274
I.4HJ J.JW.J
3.M3.I H.744.1 44.7JI.I
J.JW.7 IMJU 1UJ7J
•II* 4,711.1 IMW.I
m» tn.t
Table 12
-------
TUB BAY BY POWJUmONS' 0 SEPTIC AND OT11RR MEANS
OFNON-SKWBRED WASTE D. ./SAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
COUHTTWKMAMB
HCM-cHcurtAMt. tw.
VTROMA II4W MAMAMtSCItlf
V7AOMA SIMS MANASJtl fAWtCtTY
PfRQQtUt S17M NEWT'ORT IW3 Mil
VKOCWA sm* Mcmrotxcirr
VOKNMA sm* ntrauMma
V1H&MA S1739 MQ9OION
VmOWIA 5174* MCHMOHDOTr
VtKOMA SITM STAWTOM
vmotMiA SIM* jufTootcrrr
VIKOnflA «•« VTROWIAMACHCtTY
VWOD4IA HIM WAYXBBOtO
VTROMA SltM VtUIAKSBUta
wssrvnemu S4M1 itNcasr
wtrrvtuoiMA urn WANT
VSSrVMXMA M«2J OKfBAXlAt
iMT *UMI*4I* S"1* HAMWHIM
HmtVltamiA S4«]| HARDY
W15TV»3O4|A SM1> KFTOtStW
•MTVM9MIA MM' MMSAt,
wssrvmaiMA »«4> Moxmoc
wssrvmuiMA MMJ MOKOAK
«txrvntM4U H«'S FOCAHONTAS
VISTVIMMU 94*77 MtlTON
WEXrVmnMA. UW> MMXHfM
WESTVtKQIHiA $409} 1UCK^
I. MTROOEH LOADED ANB DEUVEtXED TO THE BAT FROM SE fTlC AMD OTHER HON-SEWERED TREAIMtMT
TOTAL NnTWQBN OB8) LOAO60 Tft
GROUNOVMTER
MM MEAN MAX
1444 iMt.l TJI1.5
» * •
$.MI.1 34JM.9 SMdJ
911.1 I4.0M.4 4XII4J
tl.7 %693.S itTTJU
5.J7.1.4 7,31)4 1X1*4.!
74.4 4.4WI ttSU.)
7.441.1 H,4I>,I 74.WI*
MJ 1411.1 14.34-
WMM 143.4H4 I47.IT7J
M.Hll «4.K»,« Mt.02«.l
ti^tt.? ?F)7t.)> IT^TtJ
«J 1.7S4.3 Sk»U
Mi* J.I3I4 1I.77)J
I4»,M1J 574.547.J 3nJWI
2MtU 44.J27J 4il47)
4.1 117 31.7
J14U.4 4M'I.> 74.1513
n.141.4 I4I.MI.S I*MMI
St,4MM tl.T«4 I»,!4X»
17)) 4 4,]».l Mill
IM9M S4JM.9 79.97X1
15.17)4 4i.S»7,l *ttl!»
7.7 11.] MS
Kt,* 12},] 4W4
4.1 »4 IS>
«4 44 J 101
IMM.MS.7 3X7$IJ4»J M.MM'1
SURFACE WATER
MtN MEAN MAX
7».1 KJ.4 1.147J
. .
tn;i n.474) «.n«.)
•Ot.) 7,444.1 JtlN*
Z7.S 4SSJ X974J
l,42>,4 4.JH.4 7,4)1}
»,1 »,«»< lt»»U
1,1511 1S)».« »7$l,1
UK 1,025! 117*1
X.W3.I 44.S4S4 4MM.4
IXM7.I *Lt77.i 4».4IM
4I7J 11717 4.W].»
BJ 7)1.1 II71>
)MJ I.4MJ J.474.7
S9.W1.7 74.t4t.I WUM.T
D.I43I M.MM 2«.4»:!
M 4.1 U.»
«,*?« ».«4.l JMII.J
IX74M 22.N3) M.4M.7
14.4M4 4I.M1.I 44.UK
7*7)74 Jtll»J 1).»7JI
l.!Si« X»l«5 ),03'7
I7.3:«l J4.1D.O M.1'11
11,4174 ll,l«4.< a.nn
42 7.1 11.*
7»! 10*7 141.*
)4 S3 ).4
»J 17) »,4
S.»I».1W4 t.7S).J7)» 1M74.WSO
BAYWATiR
MIN MEAN MAX
1,4711 $,*i*J 13,97*.*
44X7 4,171.1 I3.)W»
*
I.M4I 15.7X2 7A4W.1
til 1.7J74 3.IH4
IK I XD.2
.
Il.)7<.« I441U II 007 »
7.«'.4 11.1111 }*,«*,*
•
.
,
.
.
«), i K » «i.»a .7 i. »« tsi o
TOTAL NfTROGEN LOADED
MIN MEAN MAX
9*4.1 J.*«4 »4».I
* *
lo.ixn «ua» »)M4 )
IWl 2),H)4 7tS4>.l
1W.$ ^tM.$ I.7*J,4
14,117.4 37.11 12 41 W 2
1)11 II.MSJ WStt.4
r»)7 4i.i))! n«3)
4114 7>Mi M.))7»
111,7911 144.4H) rj'.Xnl
M.IM4 1M,»I2 mil»
I,?S4.4 M19I.4 23,171.1
MI t<«!3 '<641
1.147.1 4,741.5 IUM.S
IM.K4.) XHtlO 421.HII
47.I1I.4 44,17)7 ».ll»4
I) HI 314
7>.147.4 mini IJ>.»1.7
U)JH 71,414 4 !M 411 0
DtUt 1 IM 741 4 141201-4
74,711.4 1117724 I7).4»7
4.11 1.4 « M7 4 l.ri 7
M.J30 11,42)1 tl>.l»>
M.»1.Z «0,t«31 »,»M4
lit »< 111
KM 2 4)1.) 5TJ4
103 15t 73.1
Hi 4)1 141)4
IJ.48I.»«.J M.473.S«I 47.7W.SS4I
Table 12
-------
NlIROGKN LOADBD TO GROUND WATI-R, SURFACE' WATI'R Ah
THE BAY BY POPULATIONS USINC SI-ITIC AND OTTO MFANS
OF NON,SI;WI*B» WASTIJ DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMVtARIES
•
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NGRl-CHESAPEAKE, Inc.
.STATE FIPS COUNTY
*«»«•••»" *»iwi lowi KENT
DELAWARE 10003 NEWCASTLE
DELAWARE jooos SUSSEX
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 1100! WASHINOTON
DRYLAND 24001 ALLEOANY
MARYLAND 2«003 ANNEARUNDEL
MARYLAND 24005 BALTIMORE
DRYLAND 24009 CALVERT
MARYLAND 24011 CAROLINE
MARYLAND 24013 CARROLL
MARYLAND 2401$ CECIL
MARYLAND , 24017 CHARLES
iCARYLAND 24019 DORCHESTER
MARYLAND 24021 FREDERICK
MARYLAND 24023 QARRETT
MARYLAND 24025 HARFORD
MARYLAND 24027 HOWARD
MARYLAND 24029 KENT
DRYLAND 24031 MONTGOMERY
.IARYLAND 24033 PRINCE GEORGE'S
MARYLAND 24035 QUEEN ANNE'S
MARYLAND 24037 SAINT MARY'S
b. NITROGEN DELIVERED TO THE BAY
TOTAL NITROGEN LOADED
WIN MEAN MAX
97,683.1 130,032,7 167,84 U
25,944.8 34,429.1 44,074.4
210,887.3 299,260.1 405,059.6
903.3 48,625.8 150,806.1
36,370.2 1 14,283.7 197,224.1
655,327.8 980.954.8 1.40IJS5.4
515,31 I.I 786,346.3 1,162.914.1
298,674.3 405,748.4 531.746.2
110,578.2 163,112.1 228,847.6
504,045.0 700,080.3 935,855.0
251,045.0 368,728.8 516,013.3
249,195.5 377,2:9.0 540,036.7
81,975,2 127,079.0 185,911.7
434,786.9 630,918.0 877^64.0
25,967.5 38,078.7 53,373.7
450,3 12 .9 639,732.3 872,502.3
203,822.5 310,347.6 451.909,7
•IS.646.9 83.328.7 130,047,0
264,645.7 450,848.6 714,314.4
99,553.4 251,969.0 492,323.1
151,897.1 216.46J.1 295.181.1
325,494.4 464.547.0 *•?< -in* <
NITROGEN 1
MfM
97,685.
25,944.8
211,118.8
903.3
40,711.8
653,141.3
515,311.4
298,674.4
110,935.5
474.782.3
250,935.3
249,290.3
81,978.1
352,699.6
17,955.1
448,108.4
123,307.8
48.646.9
202,994.3
98,411.7
151,897.0
3259150
'RANSPORTED(LBS)
130,032,7
34,429. i
299.259.8
48,625.8
80,8693
975,8174
786,347,3
405,748.6
163,112,1
659,083.7
368,346.5
377,218,7
127,079.0
511,762,0
26,329.4
636,622,0
200,886.)$
83,328.7
361,698.5
248,1 84. 5
216,469,1
MAX
i«7,S41,6
44,074.4
405,060,5
IJO.806.1
138,994.3
1,352,053.0
1.162,915.4
531,746.5
228,847.6
880,6i7.5
S 15,503.0
540.036.8
185,911,7
711,990.5
36,905.0
868,375.3
307,140.1
130,046.9
596,394.8
484,047.9
295,181.2
635,705.6
Me 12
-------
NITROGEN LOADED TO GROUND \\ R, SURFACE WATER AND
THBBAY BY POPUI^TtONS USING SEPTIC AND OTIIBR MEANS
OF NON-SiiWERl;D WASTIi DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE EAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRI-CHESAPEAKE. Inc.
STATE FIPS COUNTY
MARYLAND 24039 SOMERSET
MARYLAND 2404 1 TALBOT
MARYLAND 24M3 WASHINOTON
MARYLAND 24945 WCOM1CO
MARYLAND 24947 WORCESTER
MARYLAND 24510 BALTIMORE CITY
NEW YORK 36003 ALLEOANY
NEW YORK 36007 BROOME
NEW YORK 36011 CAYUOA
NEW YORK 36015 CHEMUNQ
NEW YORK 36017 CHENANOO
NEW YORK 36023 CORTLAND
NEW YORK 36025 DELAWARE
NEW YORK 36043 HERKIMER
NEW YORK 36051 LIVINGSTON
NEW YORK 36053 MADISON
NEW YORK 36065 ONE1DA EAST
NEW YORK 36067 ONONDAOA
NEW YORK 36069 ONTARIO
NEW YORK 36077 OTSEGO
NEW YORK 36095 SCHOHARIE
NEW YORK 36097 SCHUYLER
b. NITROGEN DELIVERED TO THE BAY
TOTAL NITROGEN LOADED
M1N MEAN MAX
72,608,5 107,967,5 153,828.3^
102,617.3 147,944.5 206,598.2
289,9*7.7 429.874.0 605,804.3
243,0)5.4 346,208.3 474,151.1
42,875.5 63,913.5 90,741.2
5.550.1 139,974.2 389.849.8
16,133.0 22,806.5 31,300.1
403,973.1 576,596.3 793,064.4
3-J6.2 440.5 540.7
205,874.9 292,747,4 402,982,4
231373.8 329,334,6 452,569.2
122,448.9 178,162.2 249,849.7
60,637.4 82,313.5 109,497.1
28,673.5 37,090.2 46,832.6
2,481.4 3,254.9 4,220.9
84,013.5 115.428.7 153,207.0
15,480.9 20,964.3 27,643.7
13,452.4 19.160.1 26,256.1
7S3.7 1.013.9 1,248.6
252,441,7 347,424.0 465.'J?i )
6,622.9 9,358.1 12,987.4
26,343.5 36,357.5 487516
NITROGEN T
WIN
72.608.5
102,754.3
233,005.7
243,397.7
42.9380
5.5501
11,6336
211,7105
1814
145,909.0
121,244,5
64.165.7
31,785.7
15.025.5
1,789.4
44,133.3
8.1123
7,0493
572.3
132,284.4
3,470.5
17,309.7
RANSPORTED(LBS)
MPAW
107,967.4
147,944,5
345,402.4
346,405,5
63,913.6
139,974,3
16,446.0
302,146.5
230,8
207,673,7
172,577.9
93,360.5
43,134.0
19,436,0
2,347.1
60.487.0
10,985.7
10,040.3
731.1
182,057.1
4,903.8
24 020 6
MAA
153.828.3
206,598.2
486.733.1
474,150,5
90,741.3
389,850.0
22.570.8
415,582.1
283.3
286,068,3
237,155.5
130,926.2
57,378.6
24,541.2
3,043,7
80,283.5
14,445,9
13,758.7
900.4
244.178.0
6.805.7
Table 12
-------
NITROGEN LOADED TO GROUND WATER, SURFACE WATBR AND
TUB BAY BY POPULATIONS USING SEPTIC ANI> OTHER MEANS
OF NON-SKWEREP WASTB DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRI-CHESAPEAKE, Iiw.
STATE F1PS COUNTY
NEW YORK 36101 STEUBEN
NEW YORK 36107 TiOOA
NEW YORK 36109 TOMPK1NS
NEW YORK 36123 YATES
PENNSYLVANIA 4200! ADAMS
PENNSYLVANIA 42009 BEDFORD
PENNSYLVANIA 42011 BERKS
PENNSYLVANIA 42,013.00 BLAIR
PENNSYLVANIA 42015 BRADFORD
PENNSYLVANIA 42021 CAMBRIA
PENNSYLVANIA 42023 CAMERON
PENNSYLVANIA 42025 CARBON
PENNSYLVANIA 4202? CENTRE
PENNSYLVANIA 42029 CHESTER
PENNSYLVANIA 42033 CLEARHELD
PENNSYLVANIA 42035 CLINTON
PENNSYLVANIA 42037 COLUMBIA
PENNSYLVANIA 42041 CUMBERLAND
PENNSYLVANIA 42043 DAUPHIN
PENNSYLVANIA 42047 ELK
PENNSYLVANIA 42055 FRANKLIN
PENNSYLVANIA 42057 FULTON
b, NITROGEN DELIVERED TO THE BAY
TOTAL NITROGEN LOADED
MIN MEAN MAX
289,596.5 425,247.0 598,461.6
221,987.7 308.120.9 414,709.5
33,823.0 45,452.7 58,810.7
1,609.6 2,251.3 3,051.2
261,734.7 368,152.2 494,808.9
245,229.2 329,954.9 427,170.0
73,736.4 97,515.6 125,852.7
213,867.6 328,693.1 483,898.6
275,901.8 375,113.5 491,608.6
98,160.6 138,753.1 187,104.8
16,160.2 25,902.7 38,129.0
8.5 1 1.0 13.9
224,170.2 327,499.1 457,621.9
137,045.4 180,216.0 228,969.7
240,401, 1 337,803.2 453,415.7
81,395.7 120,818.5 169,064.8
236,371.4 315,7713 «8,977,0
325,038.6 482,060.6 681,978.2
301.671.6 461,843.1 574,337.8
30.252.8 43,301.3 59.020.3
284,345.0 430,125.9 SI5.033.0
76.903.2 101,495.8 129.061.8
NITROGEN TRANSPORTED (LBS)
MIN
208,931.6
i 16,493,5
17,725.3
1,160.7
220,442.1
103,704.7
65,125.6
161,886.9
182,133.9
72,441.6
11,102.0
6.4
166,412.2
135,881.5
176,690.9
55,968.1
177,711.9
273,328.5
256,702.1
20,783.7
229,437.5
60.025.0
MEAN
306,650.0
161,711.3
23,818.2
1,623.4
309,958.8
139,168.5
86,496.3
249,292.4
247,038.0
102,376.6
17,795.1
8.3
241,859.5
178,703.1
248,347.9
83,023.3
237,493.7
405,536.0
393,264.0
29,747.9
347,052.2
79.115.7
MAX
431,557.1
211.733.2
30,818.0
2,200.2
416,470.1
179,646.5
1 1 1,238,4
367,611.6
322,930.9
138,021.0
26,194.6
10.4
336,494.2
221,074.3
333,424.5
116,173.8
307,589.1
573,922.3
574,558.8
40,546.9
496,226.8
Table 12
-------
NITROGEN LOAOIIDTO GRt .D WATER, SURh'ACE WATER Ah
THE BAY BY POPULATIONS USING SEPTIC AND OTHER MKANS
OF NON-SEWBRBD WASTIJ DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRI-CHESAPEAKE, Inc.
STATE FIPS COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA 42061 HUNTINGDON
PENNSYLVANIA 42063 INDIANA
PENNSYLVANIA 42065 JEFFERSON
PENNSYLVANIA 42067 JUNIATA
PENNSYLVANIA 42069 LACKAWANNA
PENNSYLVANIA 42071 LANCASTER
PENNSYLVANIA 42075 LEBANON
PENNSYLVANIA 42079 LUZERtiE
PENNSYLVANIA 42081 LYCOMINO
PENNSYLVANIA 42083 MCKEAN
PENNSYLVANIA 42087 MIFFLIN
PENNSYLVANIA 42093 MONTOUR
PENNSYLVANIA 42097 NORTHUMBERLAND
PENNSYLVANIA 42099 PERRY
PENNSYLVANIA 42105 POTTER
PENNSYLVANIA 42107 SCHUYLKILL
PENNSYLVANIA 42109 SNYDER
PENNSYLVANIA 42111 SOMERSET
PENNSYLVANIA 42113 SULLIVAN
PENNSYLVANIA 42115 SUSQUEHANNA
PENNSYLVANIA 42117 TIOOA
PENNSYLVANIA 421 19 UNION
b. NITROGEN DELIVERED TO THE BAY
TOTAL NITROGEN LOADED
MIN MEAN MAX
171.520.9 2J2.6I3.4 303,357.4
20,240.2 28,324.1 37,718.3
23.0 31.6 41.3
102.459.1 140,632.4 184,508,5
156.133.7 237.554.8 352,304.2
866,988.1 1,301.929.7 1,856,120.1
218,638.3 314,223.4 433,107.0
366,236.7 556,897.7 813,410.8
349,876.9 480,559.0 636.S01.9
1,305.4 1,716.4 2,182.6
122,400.3 150,049.9 276.C64.4
55,579.2 75,884.2 99,881.7
186.377.6 266.723,1 368,009.4
194.547.S 265,771.9 349,828,5
23,183.9 34.1 19.2 47,270.8
172.619.9 247,158.4 339,585.2
125,938.2 179,309.8 242,978.0
17450.7 23,368.3 30.252.3
29,326.3 40.853.2 54,400.5
201.854.2 269,889.0 347,800.5
184,023.8 249,718.7 326.939.9
110,246,0 152,423,7 202.689,7
NITROGEN TRANSPORTED (LBS)
WIN
118.026.1
14,956.2
17.0
' 79.518.0
102.916.5
790,759.1
190,415,6
267,659.7
257,842.9
896.8
94,310,9
42,4 S4.3
145,381.5
158,945.0
16,189.4
143,591.2
104.055.8
10,764.6
22,380.5
123,702.8
130,862.0
86,306.6
MEAN
160,586.3
20.929,7
23.3
109,106.6
156,585.8
1,182,658.2
273,588.6
406,608.1
353.896.8
1,179,1
146,340,0
57,869.3
207,551.1
217,163.2
23,787,2
205,671.9
148,141.9
14,551.4
31,181.7
164,750.6
177,509.3
1 19,276.2
MAX
210,219.2
27,871.4
30.5
143,336.?
232,224.0
1,683,565.6
377,033.1
593,263.3
468,696.*
1,499.5
212,586.5
76,132.7
285,713,5
285,893.8
32,919.2
282,684.5
200,732.4
18,886.4
41.526,6
21I,58I.»
232,306.1
158.569.0
Table 12
-------
NITROGEN LOADKD TO GROUND WATER, SURFACP WATl'P AND
TUB BAY BY POPULATIONS USING SEPTIC ANCOTHFRMFA
OPNON4IIWIKBD WASTE DISPOSAL; COUN
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRI-CMESAPEAKE, he.
STATE
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIROINIA
VIRGINIA
VIROINIA
VIROJNtA
VIRGINIA
VIROINIA
VIROINIA
VIROINIA
VIROINIA
VIROINIA
VIRGINIA
VIROINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
^
42127
42131
42133
51001
51003
31005
51007
51009
51011
51013
51015
51017
51019
51023
51029
51031
51033
51036
51037
51041
51043
51045
cowry
WAYNE
WYOMING
YORK
ACCOMACK
ALBEMARLE
ALLEGHANY
AMELIA
AMHERST
APPOMATTOX
ARLINGTON
AUGUSTA
BATH
BEDFORD
BOTETOURT
BUCKINGHAM
CAMPBELL
CAROLINE
CHARLES CITY
CHARLOTTE
CHESTERFIELD
CLARKE
CRAIG
b. NITROGEN DELIVERED TO THE BAY
MIN
6,492,2
150,281.4
828,377,2
77,923.2
232,097.1
43,814.0
47,101.7
132,054,9
44,122.1
716.5
236,751.4
14,623.8
46,965.4
63,587,6
61,888,2
69,622.1
98,477.8
37,285.0
6.4
255.854.3
49,869.3
17.945.6
NITROGEN LOADED
MEAN
• •'"
9.14T.O
201,404.9
1,220,304.8
1 19.6S4.3
340,2810
72,237.0
71.604.2
I94,87a4
60,689.2
12,2125
355,386,5
27,9391
67.421.7
95.073.S
96,4503
95.7681
149,045.4
55,423.5
ft rt
v.y
443.927.}
75.344.6
26,513.6
MAX
— M_ —
12,372.6
259,952.4
1,713.806,4
171,891.4
475,289.5
109,966.6
101,946,2
271,798.0
80.936.4
35.122.7
504,205,0
45,401.6
92,378.4
134,622.9
139,414.5
126,461.9
211,615.7
77,685.7
14.2
6M.695.6
107,345.5
36.743.7
™~ _
NITROGEN TRANSPORTS n n*\
um
3,814.8
99,080.
734,655.4
78,009.7
171,086.4
27,661,2
21,120,2
96,1 13.8
28,050.6
716,5
162,566.4
7,487.8
33,678.9
41,013.4
44,840.2
51.22S.8
61,653.2
37,285.0
2.8
243,817.9
41,505.1
11,574.7^
"i1
MEAN
5,4 12.3
132,784,8
1,080,843.7
119.654.3
250,786,
45,698.3
32,075.2
141,861,2
38.158.0
12,211.2
243,909.7
13,954.1
48,299.9
61,321.4
69,881.4
70,464.8
92.761.5
55,423.3
4.3
427,529.7
62,699.2
17,100.9
Utjf
T~
MAX
" l-rT/\
r 7^3586 j
171,383.8
1,517,195.7
171,891,4
350230.3
69679.0
45,660,4
197,951.1
50257.3
35.118.6
345JJ48.6
22,365.5
66,140.9
86,530.3
101,025.8
93,048.8
13U08.3
77,485.7
6.3
673,183.7
89,319.7 1
23.6?9.3 |
Table 12
-------
NITROGBN LOADED TO GRO. , WATER, SURFACb WATER AND
THE BAY BY POPULATIONS USING SBPT1C AND OTHER MBANS
OP NON-SEWORBD WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCW-CHESAPEAKE, Inc.
STATE HPS COUNTY
VIRGINIA S1047 CULPEPER
VIRGINIA 51049 CUMBERLAND
VIRGINIA 51053 DINWDD1E
VIRGINIA 51057 ESSEX
VIRGINIA 51059 FAtRFAX
VIRGINIA 51061 FAUQUIER
VIRGINIA 51065 FLUVANNA
VIRGINIA sim FREDERICK
VIRGINIA 5107l qiLES
VIRGINIA 51073 GLOUCESTER
VIRGINIA 51075 OOOCHLAND
VIRGINIA 51079 GREENE
VIRGINIA 5)085 HANOVER
VIRGINIA 51087 HENRJCO
VIRGINIA 5 1091 HIGHLAND
VIRGINIA $1093 ISLE OF WIG! IT
VIRGINIA 51095 JAMES CITY
VIRGINIA 5 1097 KING AND QUEEN
VIRGINIA 5J09? KINO GEORGE
VIRGINIA 5U01 KINO WILLIAM
VIRGINIA 5H03 LANCASTER
VIRGINIA 5 no? LOUDOUN
— . _ „
b, NITROGEN DELIVERED TO THE BAY
_____
TOTAL NITROGEN LOADED
WIN MEAN MAX
109,104.2 165.863.1 23t,28l.7
41.444.7 65,029.5 9-1,588.1
20,083.3 30,1 18.0 42,588.3
40.511.1 62,894.7 91,377.6
310.588.2 542,305.2 S7U90o!9
227,553.6 317.795.9 424,663.4
57.980.0 86,298.9 121,059.6
155,451.7 240,600.6 350,219.2
1,939.2 2,740.9 Jj|2.6
176.108.2 245,154.6 327,664.3
75,451.3 110,343.7 153,814,0
55,650.4 79.988.9 109,793,7
237.265.2 354,292.3 500,562.5
1 1 1,655.5 209,662.2 355,293.8
1 1. 190.8 20,490.3 32'4<1S,5
77,380.6 107,914.6 W550.4
58,536.4 93,954.9 139739.2
40,000.8 55,563.0 73^900.3
60.559,7 87.980.2 122,258.4
49,364,8 71,844.4 !>9,03I,4
57,3540 85,850.1 122^525.0
127,798.1 1969267 2Srt«i <
- — i i
m,
NITROGEN!
MIN
99.412.2
26,242.0
14,310.6
40,565.2
294,317.8
217,873.9
42.681.1
126,085.3
1,250,8
176,108.2
65,011.3
44,003,8
221,862.8
111,042.8
6,098.0
77,397.9
58,824,4
38,895.8
60,559.6
49,027.7
57,354.0
113,175.0
-'
RANSPORTED(LBS)
MEAN
151,129.1
40.911,1
21,885.7
42,892.1
517,524.1
304,279.8
63,528.9
195,222.6
1,767.8
245,154.7
S4.995.0
63.467.4
331,717.8
207,605,7
10,861.1
107.914.6
93,954.9
53,999.8
87,980, 1
71,300.9
85,850. 1
174,362.4
MAX
215,292.3
59,295,9
31.413.6
91,374.1
836,310.
406,6 1J.4
89.I1J.O
284,260.6
2.394.6
327,664.2
132,363,3
87,365.7
469,2814
350,960,4
17,0 14. 8
144,550.4
139.739.2
71,802.5
122,258.4
98,2626
122,525.0
254,008.6 1
Table 12
-------
NITROGEN LOADED TO GROUND WATCH, SURFACE WATER Ab
TUB BAY BY POPULATIONS USING SEPTIC AND OTHER MEANS
OF NON-SliWERBH WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRI-CHESAPEAKE. ho.
STATE FtPS COUNTY
VIRGINIA J1I09 LOUISA
VIRGINIA S 1 1 1 1 LUNENBERO
VIRGINIA 51113 MADISON
VIRGINIA $ 1 1 ! 5 MATHEWS
VIRGINIA 51 119 MIDDLESEX
VIRGINIA 51121 MONTGOMERY
VIRGINIA 5 1125 NELSON
VIRGINIA 51127 NEW KENT
VIRGINIA 51131 NORTHAMPTON
VIRGINIA 51133 NORTHUMBERLAND
VIRGINIA 5 1 135 NOTTOWAY
VIRGINIA 51137 ORANCE
VIRGINIA 51139 PAGE
VIRGINIA 51145 POWHATAN
VIRGINIA 51147 PRINCE EDWARD
VIRGINIA 51149 PRINCE GEORGE
VIRGINIA 51153 PRINCE WILLIAM
VRGINIA 51157 RAPPAHANNOCK
VIRGINIA MI 59 RICHMOND
VIRGINIA 51161 ROANOKE
VIRGINIA 51163 ROCKBRIDGE
VIRGINIA 51165 ROCKINGHAM
b. NITROGEN DELIVERED TO THE BAY
TOTAL NITROGEN LOADED
WIN MEAN MAX
1 10.860.0 165,656.5 232,730.7
14.9 21.1 284
71,405.3 100,211.5 134,191.9
52,308.4 71.406.4 93,442.4
48,256.8 69,396.2 96,218.3
3,114.8 4,575.6 6,315.3
64,032.5 I02.5J7.0 150,974.8
68,033.7 90.401.2 116,458.3
36,071.3 57,349.7 84,430.7
59,791.4 89,112.9 126,375.7
23,398.9 39,509.5 60,408.1
82,690.2 121,558.7 169,389,6
77,680.4 119,441.8 174,195.9
85,647.3 116.230.6 152,826.9
60.224.2 91.228.2 130.091.3
29,626.4 44.180.5 62,744.3
215,256.5 323,742.8 467,511.1
35,674.4 54.823.7 78,657.3
34,966.8 54,617.1 79,105.8
6,948.1 8,832.1 11.044.8
86,930.4 134,865.2 196,089.6
247,292.7 371,049.8 525,920.6
NITROGEN TRANSPORTED (LBS)
MIN
69,718.1
6.6
65,062.3
" 52,308.5
48.256.8
2,009.0
47,112.2
68,033.8
36.072.4
59,791.4
10.636.3
49.746.6
53,823.6
66,770.3
26,461.2
29.S26.4
215,461.7
32,511.9
34,966.8
4,481.5
56,069.2
183,599.1
MEAN
103,229,6
9.3
91.327.7
71,406.4
69,396,1
2.951,2
75.441.9
90.401,3
57.349,7
89,112,9
17,845.0
74,029,8
82,7119
90,679,9
40,083.7
44,180.5
323,728,4
49,951,1
54,617.1
5.728.9
86,986.8
275,949.5
MAX
144,121.7
12.5
122,271.2
93,442.5
96.218.3
4,073.3
111,080.2
1 16,458.3
84,430,8
126,375.7
27,181.2
104,064.6
120,585.4
1 19,300.8
37.159.3
62,744.4
467,491.9
71,666.2
79,105.8
7,123.8
125,475.9
391,535.0
00
o
Table 12
-------
NITROGEN LOADED TO CROL JVATER, SURI-'ACE WATER Ah ,
THE BAY BY POPULATIONS USING SEPTIC AND OTHER MEANS
OF NON-SnWBRED WASTB DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAYPROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRI-CHESAPEAKE,Inc.
STATE HPS COUNTY
VIRGINIA SI 171 SHENANDOAH
VIRGINIA 51177 SPOTSYLVANIA
VIRGINIA 51179 STAFFORD
VIRGINIA 5> 181 SURRY
VIRGINIA 51I«7 WARREN
VIRGINIA SI 193 WESTMORELAND
VIRGINIA 51199 YORK
VIRGINIA S1SIO ALEXANDRIA
VIRGINIA 51530 BUEHA VISTA
VIRGINIA 51540 CHARLOTTESYILLE
VIRGINIA SI 550 CHESAPEAKE CITY
VIRGINIA 5IS60 CLIFTON FOROE
VIRGINIA 51570 COLONIAL HEIGHTS
VIRGINIA 51510 COVlNGTOto
VIRGINIA 51600 FAIRFAX
VIRGINIA 51610 FALLS CHURCH
VIRGINIA 51630 FREDER1CKSBURG
VIRGINIA 51650 HAMPTON CITY
VIRGINIA 51660 HARRISONBURO
VIRGINIA SI670 HOPEWELL
VIRGINIA $1678 LEXINGTON
VIRGINIA 51680 LYNCHBURO
b. NITROGEN DELIVERED TO THE BAY
TOTAL NITROGEN LOADED
MIN MEAN MAX
101,998,0 168,896.9 255,613.5
152,717.1 230,263.9 326.9SS.3
151,072.2 230,140.5 331.571.6
15,453.5 23,620.2 33,711.2
89,569.7 129.580.8 179,712.6
71,664.9 101,938.4 156,246.7
95,483.2 144,459.8 206,184.7
264.0 2,656.4 8,584.8
2,092.2 6,773.8
447.7 6,836.9 18,867.7
38,914.8 86,561.4 158,992.9
93.0 444.0
404.5 1,641.6
236.0 1.024.0
138.8 2,304.4 6,095.5
746.3 2.1S7.6
1,614.2 5,389.2
3,803.2 24,744.6 60,732.1
2,310.7 10,032.2 21,537.2
491.0 4,781.1 I3.3<10,l
193.0 707.0
57,196.7 97,136.1 151,7(0.5
NITROGEN TRANSPORTED (LBS)
MIN
M.577.5
90,869.1
149,414.5
I5.4S3.S
71,523.8
71.712.9
95,483.2
264.0
-
329.4
38,914.7
t
-
-
138.8
•
-
3,803.2
1,594.9
491.0
-
42,084.5
MEAN
141,526.1
141,875.1
227,829.3
23,620.2
103.506.7
108,938.4
144,459.8
2,656,4
1,349.5
5.030.5
86,561.3
60.0
404.5
IS2.2
2,297.6
746.3
1,604.3
24,744.6
6,991.8
4,781.1
124.5
71,471.3
MAX
214,189.5
206,171.9
328,470.7
33,711.2
143,591.8
156,246.7
206,184.6
8.584.8
4,369.0
13,882.5
158,993.0
286.4
1,641.6
660.4
6,069.4
2,127.6
5,362.0
60,732.1
15,044.4
13,340.1
456.0
111,677.8
00
Table 12
-------
NITROGEN LOADISDTOGROUND WATI-'R SURKArnWATi-i, *
THKBAY BY .WUI.ATIONS USWO SU»W?ND OT W iS t
Ql- NON-SewnRBD WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMAR.n
00
K>
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRf.CHESAPEAKE.Ine.
STATE
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
nps
51 683
5 1
-------
NITROGEN LOADED TO GRC i WATIIR, SURFACE WATER Ah
THE BAY BY POPUI.ATIONS UsiNQ SEPTIC1 AND OTHER MEANS
OFNON-SBWEREDWASi'II DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
GOUNTYSUMMARIES
NCRJ-CHESAPEAKE, too,
STATE FtPS COUNTY
WEST VIRGINIA 5406$ MORGAN
WEST VIRGINIA 54071 PENDLETON
WEST VIRGINIA 54075 POCAHONTAS
WEST VIRGINIA 54077 PRESTON
WEST VIRGINIA $4083 RANDOLPH
WEST VIRGINIA 54093 TUCKER
Grand Tot»1
b. NITROGEN DELIVERED TO THE BAY
TOTAL NITROGEN LOADED
MIN MEAN MAX
56,328.0 8 1.623.8 113,250.9
36,891.2 60,862,2 90,938.4
11.9 20.4 31.5
304 2 431.9 587.6
10 -3 15.9 13,2
11.* 63,8 H0.6
NITEOGEN TRANSPORTED (LBS)
MIN
44,742.0
26,488.0
3.6
210.3
7.4
8.2
lli.'OI, 118.6
MEAN
64,748.9
43,628.3
6.4
298.6
11.4
44.2^
27.720,698.5
MAX
89,745.4
65,188,2
10.2
406,3
16.6
97.3
39.783,514.0
Table 12
-------
NtTROGKN LOADKD TO GROUND WATRR, SURFACE WATI-R AND
THE BAY BY POPULATIONS USINCS SEPTIC AND OTHER MEANS
OF NON-SEWERED WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT 4. Nttrogtn
COUNTY SUMMARIES
• POUNDS Of NITROGEN LOADED BY URBAN POPULATIONS IKlNfl swnc imA* T"
GROUND WATER
STATE FffS COUHTY MW MEAN MAX
DELAWARE 1000! KENT 1,1 4j,6 85.4
DELAWARE 10003 NEWCASTLE 2,168.4 3,l5S.i 4.J74.2
DELAWARE 10005 SUSSEX 2.422.2 7,29X3 13.J26J
MSTRICr OF COLUMBIA IIOOI WASHINGTON . |,|»,| 31,568.9
MARYLAND 240« ALLKJANY 3.627.0 13.2219 28,032.3
MARYLAND 240M ANNEARUNDEL 248.761.0 39t,OS).9 573^7258
MARYLAM) 24005 BALTIMOR1 W.042.0 184,300.2 327,107.6
MARYLAND 2*009 CAlViRT 20,940.9 26,361,3 32, US 9
MARYLAND 24011 CAROLINE I32.S US4.8 J2223
MARYLAND 24013 CARROLL I6,9tl,3 32,7026 53.$«,9
MARYLAND 2401$ CECIL 2.554.4 «.»$?.3 i2,jjo.4
MARYLAND 24017 CHARLES 24.2SS.I 43JJ41 69,225.4
MARTfLAND 24019 DORCHESTER . 319.9 ljm.t
MARYLAND 24031 FREDERICK lO.TOl.f 124.2W.9 I7IJII9
MARYLAhC 24033 OARXETT
MARYLAt* 2403$ HARFORD 14,082.2 139.32J.2 2093594
MARYLAND 24037 HOWARD 13,935.1 47,243.2 91,170.2
MARYLAND 24039 KENT 1.409.1 2.US.I 3.331.S
MARYLAND 2403! MONTGOMERY $
-------
NITROGEN LOADED TO GROUND WATER, SURFACE WATER AND
THE BAY BY POPULATIONS USING SFJ'TIC AND OTHER MEANS
OF NON-SEWERKD WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CIESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT 4. Nitrogen
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCIU-CHESAPEAKE. Inc. "" •
1. POUNDS OF NTTROOEN LOADED BY URBAN POPULATIONS USING SEPTIC FIELDS TO
GROUND WATER
STATE FIPS COUNTY MIN MEAN MAX
NEWYORK 36025 DELAWARE . . 444.8 1,611.9
NEWYORK 36043 HERKMER
NEWYORK 36051 UV1NOSTON
NEWYORK 36053 MADISON 6.303.0 9.MI.4 12.319.6
NEWYORK 36065 ONE1DAEAST . 104.4 231,1
NEWYORK 36067 ONONDAQA .
NEWYORK 36069 ONTARIO . " .
NEWYORK 36077 OTSEOO . 5)2.6 3.034.J
NEWYORK 36095 SCHOHARffi
NEWYORK 36097 SCHUYLBR
NEW YORK 36101 STEUBEN 403.1 2,981.9 1,444.4
1«EWYORK 36107 T1OQA 5,152.2 10,631.9 19J3I.J
NEWYORK 36109 TOMPHNS
NEWYORK 36123 YATES
PENNSYLVANIA 42001 ADAMS . 323.7 1,1417
PENNSYLVANIA 42009 BEDFORD
PEBNSYLVANIA 42011 BERKS . ]« 44.1
PEHNSYLVAMA 42.013.00 BLAR 15,160.6 35,677.0 68,021.4
PEHNSYLVANtA 42015 BRADFORD 2,193.3 6,650.8 13,457.2
PENNSYLVANIA 42021 CAMBRIA
PEBNSYLVANIA 42023 CAMERON . J5.5 371.1
PEHNSYLVAN1A 42025 CARBON . . ,
PENNSYLVANIA 42027 CENTRE 123.1 7,155.3 U.244.1
PENNSYLVANIA 42029 CHESTER 1.6 815.3 2.159,1
PENNSYLVANIA 42033 CLEARF1ELD 93,2 1,951.0 5,OU,6
PENNSYLVANIA 42035 CLINTON . 117.8 45J.3
PENNSYLVANIA 42037 COLUMBIA 254.2 4,033.7 I I.I i 1.2
PENNSYLVANIA 42M1 CUMBERLAND 14.248.7 3J.053.1 73.421.5
PENNSYLVANIA 42043 DAUPHIN 16.614.5 50,277.9 102,4710
PENNSYLVANIA 42047 ELK ...
PENNSYLVANIA 42055 FRANKLIN 359.9 4,144.4 10.901.6
PENNSYLVANIA 42057 FULTON
PENNSYLVANIA 42061 HUNTINODON
PENNSYLVANIA 42063 INDIANA
SURFACE WATER
MIK MEAN MAX
124.2 . 446,7
« » *
.
2.758,2 3,911.6 5.Z77.5
31,5 17.1
...
-
$t»,0 I.S54.I
...
.
136.4 1.274J 3.T70.6
1302.2 4.674.8 8,179.3
...
.
103.4 J6J.9
-
47 15.8
6.304.3 14,051.3 26.S22.8
737.C 2,284.4 4.493.2
...
210 1224
. -
326.: 2,5613 6,170.7
0.5 283.9 743.0
39.1 831.2 2.143.1
45.1 I7J.4
98.7 1.7SJ7 4.J07.2
$,305.3 13.561.4 25.53*4
6,456.1 19,301.9 39.0U.4
. . *
133.1 1.426.1 3.069.3
...
...
_._..-
BAY WATER
MM MEAN MAX
•
•
...
...
• *
I
, ,
'.
-
.
'.
•
_
...
,
!
-
1
569.0
12,993.0
142.9
1,416.6
4.263.1
15.313.7
"
427.1
17.4
49,735,4
8,935.2
113.5
9.723.6
1 099 2
2.78X?
162.9
5,789,4
51,614.4
69,579.8
5,570.5
Table 12
-------
NITROGEN LOADED TO GROUND WATER, SURFACE WATER Af-
THE BAY BY POPULATIONS USING SEPTIC AND OTHER MEANS
OP NON-SEWERED WASTE DISPOSAL; COUNTY SUMMARIES
COUNTY SUMMARIES NiIfOQen
NCR1-GHE5APEAKE. tat. — —
i/fOUNDS Or NITROGEN LOADER BY URBAN POPULATIONS USING SEPTIC FIW ns TO
STATE FIPS COUNTY MjN MTIM ui\
PENNSYLVANIA 42067 JUN1ATA
PENNSYLVANIA 430(9 LACKAWANNA 31470 1671 57 4-»««
PENNSYLVANIA 42011 LANCASTER n\ni.9 jj^j ,j^,j
PENNSYLVANIA 42015 LEBANON 1166^2 2 1*46*0 tt'«ii
PENNSYLVANIA 420» LUZERNE 332941 Win'c iW,.n
PENNSYLVANIA 4JOII LYCOMWO 300372 *TvL, «£!,
PENNSYLVANIA 420» MCKEAN . ' '
PENNSYLVANIA 420« MffFIJN ,-w, , , *
PENNSYLVANIA 42091 MONTOUR ™t ''*?!*
PENNSYLVANIA 4209T NORTHUMBERLAND . ,954, 7™,',
PENNSYLVANIA 42099 PERRY am °''5'"-'
PENNSYLVANIA 4210S POTTER !"'"'5
PENNSYLVANIA 42101 SCHUYUOLL i in,, , ...
PENNSYLVANIA 42.05 SNYDER ,„, ,"
PENNSYLVANIA 42111 SOMERSET
PENNSYLVANIA 421 13 SUUJVAN
PENNSYLVANIA 421,3 SUSQUEMANNA
PENNSYLVANIA 42111 TTOOA ,J17 , „„ . .,"
PENNSYLVANIA 421 J9 UNION 'jj, ,'".
PENNSYLVANIA 42121 . WAYNE .
PENNSYLVANIA 42131 WYOMING
PENNSYLVANIA 42133 YORK 55,143.0 1107950 189 9W 9
VIR!07.S $7,196.1 76.IM6
VKOWIA S10I1 APPOMATTOX
VKOWIA J10IJ ARUNQTON 549,, ftJ08,j ,7WJJ
VmCHNIA 51017 BATH " , J>3'2"5 33-5W'2
VKGMA 51019 BEDFORD ,7,347.» 22,477.4 2I.I73J
VmOIWA 5,023 BOTETOURT j|gj 2554 MJfl
SURFACE WATER
MtN Kfl-AN KtAX
-
1,703.8 9,114.5 22.997.
S.868.5 11,760.7 31.871.
4,491.1 7,422.4 11.355.
14,688.5 31,957.6 51,741,
12.393.1 18,567.5 27,267.7
"
I80.» 597.5
277.1 §61.4
W7.1 2,751.1
341.4 1,005.9
507.6 1,613.3
223.9 685.1
"
"
•
639 661.J |,tlM
139.2 461.3
* • .
19,219.3 37,611.3 63,353.1
4.WJ.3 8,292.0 15,726.9
* *
12,1*46 17,551.0 23,177.6
166.7 1,111.1 4,9720
J.273.2 8,623.7 12.104.6
5,193.7 6,625.1 f,2ls.o
111! 1304 UO t
BAY WATER
*
-
*
-
'
-
*
'
* »
•
'
-
* *
•
• .
*
•
• '. '.
•
.
275.5 718.7
*
T
g
_
25.M02
76,6112
21,1914
102,7752
63.934J
617 1
9925
2,761.4
9317
1.701.3
549-i
m
2,127.1
5084
I4t,406,3
37,300.3
.
74.754.1
1401 6
30,9363
29.102.6
386.1
Table 12
-------
NITROGEN LOADED i O GROUND WATER, SURFACE WMTill Ah
THE RAY OY POPULATIONS USING SliPTIC AND OTHER MEANS
OP NON-SliWBRIiD WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
I
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT 4. Nitrogen _j
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRJ.CHESAPEAKE. he.
a POUNDS OF NITROGEN LOADED BY URBAN POPULATIONS USING SEPTIC FIELDS TO
GROUND WATER
STATE FIPS COUNTY MW MEAN MAX
VIRGINIA 51029 BUCKINGHAM
VIRGINIA 51011 CAMPBELL 21,310.2 30,470.3 40,865.2
VIRGINIA 51033 CAROLINE
VIRGINIA 51036 CHARLES Crry •
VIRGINIA 51037 CHARLOTTE
VIRGINIA 51041 CHESTERFIELD 49,551.6 IS9.227.8 210.21(3
VIRGINIA 51043 CLARKE K5.1 X1I7.7 4.059.2
VIRGINIA J1045 CRAIG - •
VIRGINIA 51047 CULPS?ER I.J28.S 5.129.4 9.147.4
VIRGINIA 51049 CUMBERLAND - 250.1 76T.3
VIRGINIA JIOS3 DINWEMJIE 7.4 850.0 2.031.0
VIRGINIA 5IOS7 ESSEX
VIRGINIA S10S9 FAIRFAX I5«.229.0 28«.«S$.4 4S7.64J.9
VIRGINIA SlOSt FAUQUIER 386.2 2.450.1 S.303.3
VIRGINIA $1065 FLUVANNA
VIRGINIA SI069 FREDERICK
VIRGINIA 51071 GILES
VIRGINIA SI07J GLOUCESTER 22,656.7 30,559.9 39.3SJ.S
VIRGINIA 51075 OOOCHLAND
VIRGINIA 51079 GREENE
VIRGINIA S10SS HANOVER 4I.19U 70,437.4 107.219.1
VIRGINIA 510*7 HENR1CO , 12,617.3 S5.240.4 123.90! .9
VIRGINIA 51091 HIGHLAND
VIRGINIA 51093 ISLEOFWlOlfT 1,146.2 3,I21.» 5,5629
VIRGINIA S10W JAMESCJTY I.6S1.3 6.561.2 13,619.1
VIRGINIA 51097 KINO AND QUEEN
VIRGINIA 51099 13NG GEORGE
VIRGINIA SHOl HNOWULIAM 492,1 1,19X9 2,2II.«
WRGINIA 51103 LANCASTER
VIRGINIA 51107 LOUDOUN 2,934.2 9^13.1 lt.MO.2
VIRGINIA 51109 LOUISA
VIRGINIA 5IIII LUNEHBERO ...
VIRGINIA 51113 MADISON
VIRGINIA 5111$ MATHEWS
SURFACS WATER
MM MEAN MAX
. .
6.414.1 9,586.7 12,034.1
•
,
.
21,6:1,4 49,507.9 !5,676.5
170.7 S54.1 1,239.8
.
445.5 1.563.7 3,142,7
J9.7 1«8.0
1.4 159.9 374.7
.
S4S12.5 M.756.4 M7.156.4
1 16.0 1.145.9 2,443.4
.
,
.
8.394.3 11,196.8 14.302.4
•
.
13,754.7 23160.3 34,964.1
4.225.2 17,339.7 37,835.1
.
497,6 1,151.7 1.961.9
721.1 2,7380 5,595.9
-
.
259,5 605,6 1.094.9
.
1,011.7 3,046.2 6,095,4
.
-
,
.
BAY WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
.
•
-
.
.
H9.2 530.7 1,015.2
.
.
-
.
.
.
1,038.0 2.S4S.8 5,678.5
.
.
.
.
20.395.8 27.534.6 35,506.3
-
.
.
38.9 101.4 199.5
.
261.9 628.3 1,078.8
70,4 2S8.4 515.1
.
.
177,4 4948 998.4
.
-
.
•
.
*»
J?
f-
o
H
- 1
39.5S70-
• •
-
-
201,766.4
2,771.1
•
6.793 I
310.4
1.0099
•
388,2906
3.596.6
-
-
.
69.291.3'
•
-
93,5979
72.688.7
-
•1.901.9
9.557.6
•
-
2,292.5
-
12.260.0
-
•
•
Table 12
-------
N TROOEN LOADED TO GROUND WATER, SURFACE WATER AND
THF BA Y BY POPULATIONS USING SBPTIC AND OTOBR MflANS
01-- NON-SEWBRHD WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
HI,
KAMs. inc. -
t. POUNDS OF NITROGEN LOADED BY 1MB
GROUND WATER '
STATS RP1^ rvn MTV
5 1 i I" MBIc/DLJBSEX "j
WRGMA SI 121 MONTGOMERY
VKOWU SI 125 NELSON
VKCMA 51,27 NEWKENT ".
VIROMA 5II3I NORTHAMPTON
VmQBI1A 51133 NORTHUMBERLAND
VWGIWM 5113$ HOTTOWAY " *
VDWIHIA 3,IJ7 ORANOB ' W-3 321.8
VIRGINIA 5H39 PAOB , - "* ' 1.720.4
VIRGINIA 5U4J POWHATAN 1,560.3 2,7122 5,177.
51147 PRINCE EDWARD 3,533 201,, . ~
VIROIMA S"49 FRWCiQIORai 2,656.0 4^0952 60336
SI 157 RAPPAHANNQCK
VR
-------
NITROGEN LOADED TO CROuND WATER, SURPACK WATER Al^
THE BAY BY POPULATIONS USING SEPTIC AND OTHER MWNS
OF NON-SEWERED WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES '
Gf ESAPIAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTTC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRI-CIIESAPEAKE, Inc.
4. Nitrogen
I POUNDS Or NITROGEN LOADED
GROUND WATER
STATE
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VmOtNTA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGrNIA
VIRGINIA
vmatNiA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
WESTVIROJJIA
WEST VKGN1A
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WESTVIROMA
WESTVtRGKIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WESTVmOMA
WiST VIRGINIA
FIPS
51630
51650
516®
S16TO
51671
51680
SIM]
5I68S
$170}
SI7H
51730
SI73J
51740
$1760
51790
51*00
51810
51820
SUM
51840
54005
54021
S402J
54027
54031
54031
54051
540S3
54063
$4071
54075
54077
5408J
54093
COUNTY
FREDERJCKSBURB
HAMPTON CfTY
HARJUSONBURO
HOPEWEU.
LiXWOTON
LYNCHBURO
MANASSESCITY
MANASSES PARK CITY
NEWPORT NEWS CITY
NORFOLK CITY
PETERSBURG
POQUOSON
PORTSMOUTH OTY
RKmtONDCITY
STAWTON
SUFFOLK crrv
VIRGMA BEACH CITY
WAYNISBORO
WBAIAMSBURG
WWaffiSTER
BERKELEY
ORANT
OREEMBR1AR
HAMPSHIRE
HARDY
JEFFERSON
MINERAL
MONROE
MORGAN
PENDIETON
POCAHONTAS
PRESTON
RANDOLPH
TUCKER
MJN
1.SM.5
l,«77.l
4S.S50.4
2644
S48J.I
4665
Il.T
1.321,0
74.4
7,519.2
299.1
50,125.6
».*!2.1
1,261.7
683
9-15.3
2,839.0
HI
5,8486
.
MEAN
1,01 S.3
I0,!0).9
7,0617
1 .991.1
140.7
73.4IK
2,661.0
BYURD
!*ft
3.118.3
26,018.1
14,799.0
6.W3.6
516.9
113.7692
6.736.3
22.574.3 49,(M9.0
9,923.1 30,360.1
1.5511 4.715,7
7.3527 JJ.960.3
J.9547 ||,J«.»
27,7739 «0,352,«
4.2739 10.730.7
71.9377 91.624.9
61,8449 111.281.4
«,741,8 15,t08.6
1,694.0 4.9J5.2
5.1386 11,773.3
4,944.3 8.7J9.7
1,3415
9,9023
.
"
3,670.9
15,257.0
"
W POPULATIONS
' ,
USWO SEPTIC FIELDS TO
SURFACE WATER
MIM
1,097.8
632.9
13,6463
79.7
2,691.7
174.7
27.8
1,929.6
39.2
1.935.1
118.6
23,323.7
12,237.0
487.9
28.6
J02.3
1,125.7
~
•
4.4
2,139.2
*
*
"
MEAN
416.3
6,296.6
2.6217
65S)
52.3
12.752.6
790.2
W.691.3
5.140.2
485.0
4,213.2
2.1260
J.871.2
1,599.0
3X627.9
2S.072.8
2.578.1
706.3
1,622.9
1.717.5
•
1.0
•
412.0
4JD&4
•
•
•
"
MAX
1.3233
15,057.4
5.434.6
2,093.9
190.1
34.946.3
1,979.3
23,006.2
15,856,1
1,447.4
7,344.1
7,0545
17^222
3.957.4
44.343.7
46,645.6
5,724.3
2,051.4
3,670.7
2,734.6
-
1.9
1.114.5
7.4119
•
-
-
-
-
-_
SAY WATER ~
MIN MEAN MA:
73.6 255.6
»16.S 4,117.5 9,49go
2J U6
, 1.6242 5.627.0 11,367.0
60.7 3,875.8 1 1,965 J
8,906.8 15,744.7 24,3706
645 1.039.6 2,947.6
. • 100.1 J00.2
11,894.1 15,445.4 19.380.5
7,907.4 14,611.4 23,633.2
.
•
»
-
•" .
-
'
Table 12
1.505.2
JI.2I8.1
9.6J5.4
2,652?
1930
96,2353
3.4512
38,892.$
18.938.J
2.03S.D
27,310,i
7,120)
35,7454
5.871S
I20.011.e
103,529.1
9.319,5 i
2.400.3 j
6.761J j
6,661.1
2.S
1,753.6
14.70J.7
-------
NITROGEN LOADED TO GROUND WATER, SURFACE WATER AND
THE BAY BY POPULATIONS USING SBPTIC AND OTHER MEANS
OFNON-SEWBRED WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT 4. Nitrogen
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRJCHESAPEAKE, toe.
i POUNDS OF NITROGEN LOADED BY URBAN POPULATIONS USD*) SEH1C FIELDS TO
(WOUND WATER
STATE FffS COUNTY MM MEAN MAX
OtmdToul 1.619.1129 3,173,719,1 J.I3M36.9
SURFACE WATER
MM MEAN MAX
604.619.« 1.197.179.9 2,060,1636
BAY WATER
MM MEAN MAX
20H.4I3.I 33I,JJ)6 497.2S2.9
1
4,902,302$
Table 12
i
-------
NITROGEN LOADED TO GROUND WATBR, SURFACE WATER AND
THE BAY I1Y POPULATIONS USING SEPTIC AND OTHER MEANS
OF NON-SEWERED WASTE DISPOSAL COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
QUNTY SUMMARIES - - - — , _
(CRI-CttESAjEAKE. ine.
TATE FTPS COUNTY
DELAWARE !«*» Kl-m
DELAWARE 1000J NEWCASTLE
>ELAWARE 10005 SUSSEX
DISTRICT OFCOLUMBIA 11 001 SVASHW3TON
.1ARYLAND 24001 ALLEdANY
4ARYLAND 24003 ANNEA*UNDEL
MARYLAND 24005 BALTIMORE
MARYLAND 24009 CALVERT
•IARYLAND 24011 CAROLINE
MARYLAND 24013 CARROLL
ilARYLAND 2401 5 CECIL
ttARYLAND 24017 aiARLES
ytARYLAND 2401? DORCHESTER
MARYLAND 24021 FREDERICK
MARYLAND 24023 QARRETT
MARYLAND 24025 HARFORD
I4ARYLAND 2402? HOWARD
MARYLAND 24029 KENT
MARYLAND 24031 MONTGOMERY
MARYLAND 24033 PRINCE OEOROBS
MARYLAND 2*35 QUEEN ANNFS
MARYLAND 24037 SAINT MARTS
MARYLAND 24039 SOMERSET
MARYLAND 24041 TALBOT
MARYLAND 24043 WASHWOTON
MARYLAND 24045 W1COM1CO
MARYLAND 24*4? WORCESTER
MARYLAND 24510 BALTIMORE CITY
NEW YORK 36003 ALLEOANY
NEW YORK 36007 BROOME
NEW YORK 36011 CAYUOA
NEW YORK 3«015 CHEMUNO
MEW YORK 36017 CHENAMOO
NEW YORK 3«23 CORTLAND
HEW YORK 36025 DELAWARE
NEW YORK 36043 HERKMER
POUNDS OF NITROGEN LOADED BY RURAL NONFARM POPULATIONS USIHO SEPTIC TO:
ROUMD WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
10.W.S KS.603.1 106,111.4
16,6104 OT,W2,3 25,«3.1
U2.06S.1 I96.0M.1 343.t01.l
JS.OI6.4 60^91.< 93,024.5
I5I.M5.2 2<«,
-------
NITROGEN LOADED TO GROUND WATER SURFACE WATPR Ah
THE BAY DV POPULATIONS USING SEPT!C AND OTHTO MEANS
OF NON-SGWBRBO WASTE DISPOSAL COUNTY SUMMAROS
NCRt-CHESAPEAKE. he.
gg^
NEWVORK
NEWVORK
NEW YORK
HEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEWrORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
INEWYORK
JNEWYORK
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
WNNSnVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
OPS
96051
16053
16065
16067
J6069
J6077
36095
3609?
36101
36107
36109
35123
45001
42009
42011
4J.013.00
4:01 5
43021
42023
42025
42927
4392S
42M3
42D35
42037
42M1
42M3
42«47
42CSS
420$)
420(51
42053
420S5
420S7
42CW9
42071
\
COUNTY
UVWOSTON ~~
MADISON
ONEIDAEAST
OHONDAOA
OHTARJO
OTSEOO
SCHOHAJUE
SCIIUYLER
STEUBEN
T10OA
TOMPKINS
YATBS
ADAMS
BEDFORD
BERKS
BLAIR
BRADFORD
CAMBRIA
CAMERON
CARBON
C~££niKf*
CHESTER
CLEARFIELD
CLINTON
COLUMBIA
CUMBERLAND
DAUPHIN
ELK
FULTON
INDIANA
JEFTERSON
JUNIATA
LACKAWANNA
LANCASTER
I n
•• „
•-
"' '
~
•'•
^Slii^^^^^m^^^^r--
MM
1,6807
50.581 1
10.1115
552.3
173,476.7
4,554.)
193,818.3
1 45,277. J
22.838.9
I.OS6.S
169.380.5
51,482.6
1 73.347.9
5.8
157,631.8
98,353.9
- 169,170.1
52.296.5
201,638.7
22.118.2
52.J72.S
119.362.3
13,119.7
14.9
68.125.7
96.953.4
MIAN
62.W7.8
224.251.1
2S.H2J
251.906.5
187.815.9
29,332.9
1.333.5
253.461. 1
31 7,045.0
64,4615
186.591.2
2ll,79t,2
122,203.1
225.398.9
204.9948
291 .3258
265,5714
30,9650
272.S7M
152,745,7
18.100.?
18.$
128,896.4
T75.486J
MAX
2,5344
75,332.8
16,652.1
16.01 1.8
114J
2T8.292.2
7.272.3
28,139,1
329,282.1
232,641.3
36.029.1
1,599.1
321,565.5
261.263.7
71.148.2
245,278.9
266,660.6
11 4.887.0
23.333.1
273,829,4
146,966.5
287,422.9
96,318.2
249,028.8
372,145.6
33SJ41.3
4IJ74.7
360,1416
78,115.9
189,019.0
22.693.0
22.5
109.515.8
163,188.4
985.721 4 1
j SURFACE WATER
- MIN
1 8007
I 23,643.0
4.584.0
3,845.9
241.3
77,5496
2,0686
8,394.2
91.300.9
68,408,5
10.983.3
535,4
59,804.0
67,658.7
19,365.2
53,120.2
84.721,7
26.585.2
3,936.5
2.5
S9.528.1
33,511.7
65,151.4
21,789.2
66,364.7
79,231.0
71.868.2
8,074.6
73,8764
22,0317
47,201.9
5.517.4
t *
3.3
28,493.0
13,281.3
i an »*•* i -
•
MEAN
9911,8
28,7S»1
5.706.7
4.9579
2968
98,6305
2,6535
10,648.7
1 19.9105
86.S055
13,860.1
659.1
77,81 7.»
8S,322.«
23,773.J
72,360«
104,990.0
34.991,5
5,6333
3.1
78.868.4
40,960.6
85.401 .8
29.856.0
82,348.4
103.6888
93,198,9
11,102.2
100,080.0
26.909.5
59,449.1
7.103.9
6.5
36.079.0
69,721,1
' ' 1 «^*.pnj.l 258.O8S 7
_ 1
HAX
UMjT
34,147.8
6.HS.3
3«,3
121,034.8
3.1M.8
12,864.4
150.650 of
106,059.1 j
H5.8II.I j.
781 1 j
97.55J.2
I04.3W.9
28,6«3.9
94,1017
126,30(6
44,271,5
7,60*2
37
100,3148
48,7082
107.694.3
39.002O
9S.983J
131,032.5
116, 591. S
14.577.9
1 30,348 «
32.01 1.1
72.771. (i
.8,101.1
7.7
44.224.9
87,673.6
323.917.1
BAV WATER
MIN
MEAN
MAX
Table 12
19,417,9
17.621.3
987.3
J3.79I.2
214.691.5
43,193.0
1.9832
331.279.0
30Z.367.7
81,242.1
251,953.8
325,787,2
124.657.3
21.979.5
10.5
291,471.1
163.163.6
310,8007
287,343.2
3950146
358,770.3
42,067.2
372.J588
91.M5.0
212.194.8
2S.HM.8
25.0
124.UI9.7
I98,6S5.2
1.033.512.:=
-------
NITROGEN LOADED TO GROUND WATER, SURFACE WATPR A!*
THBBAY BY POPULATIONS USING SRPTIC AND OTHER MlSJs
OF NON-SBWKRIiD WASTli DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES "
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRJ-CHESM'EAKE, Inc.
STATE FD>s COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VmoiNIA
vmoiNIA
VIRGINIA
VmoiNIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRONIA
VIROINIA
VIRGINIA
vmaiNtA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
42079
42081
42083
4208?
41093
4209?
42099
421 OS
4210?
42109
421 1 1
42113
421 IS
421 11
42119
4212?
421)1
4 2 133
51001
SI 003
SI COS
5! 007
51009
51 Oil
51013
51015
5101?
51019
51023
51029
SI031
51033
51036
51037
51041
LEBANON
LUZERNE
LYCOMNO
MCKEAN
KOFFLIN
MONTOUR
NORTHUMBERLAND
PERRY
POTTER
SCHUYLK1LL
SNYOEH
SOMERSET
SULLIVAN
SUSQUEIIANNA
T100A
UNION
WAYNE
WYOMING
YORK
ACCOMACK
ALBEMARLE
ALLEOltANY
AMELIA
AXOCERST
APPOMATTOX
ARLINGTON
AUOUSTA
BATH
BEDFORD
BOTETOURT
BUCKINGHAM
CAMPBELL
CAROLINE
CHARLES CITY
CHARLOTTE
CHESTERFIELD
^POUNDS OF m
ROUND WATER
MM
l45,J99,fi
:i 0,773.0
213,007.6
972.1
8J.662 9
38.573.8
129.619.1
111.1 56.9
} 5,2)5 .2
D4,03t.9
80.166.5
1 1.632.6
18,195.3
1 21.449,3
1 16,933.1
17,501.3
4,170»
95.427.0
554.96S.S
«.005.4
10,799.8
29,026.2
JS.594.6
, «W25.3
J3.86S.5
150,96*2
8,716,5
18,838.6
44,003.2
NS USING SE
71,030.6
140,399.3
111,8552
419.9
47.M6.3
18,041.2
67,988.1
68.479.8
8.327.0
58,606.5
43,226.7
5,416.0
13,095.7
84,113.5
70,342.6
35.011.5
2,772t
65.174.9
252,7435
27,513.2
S3.849.9
ZO.438.3
L3.006.I
!2,625.0
12,734.6
10,043.0
6,871.9
7,560.9
24.357.9
18,735.3
12.J72.3
31,167.9
12,746.9
1-9
_»J)6.0
PTICTO:
I9,«63.9
180,572.4
136,551.0
506.9
63.8820
21,9324
86,609.4
83,975.1
10,309.0
74,565,5
54.69S9
6.394.3
16,185.5
101,684.3
84.403.9
43,171.3
3.3766
79.77JJ
319,449.2
34,951.4
79,815.2
28,258,2 '
16.202.9
29,191.7
15,261.1
101,1370
10,111.5
10.0526
31,240.8
' 23,7497
15.286.1
40,066.7
15,935.7
2,5
66.4116
BAY WATER
MW MEA1
8,363.5 11,029.4
1.301.1 |,«6.4
2,303.0 3,130.5
2.5«5 3.789.0
Table 12
MAX
•
•
-
•
-
-
•
•
-
-
-
•
*
-
-
13,980.6
-
•
•
-
-
-
•
-
2,01 7.2
3,989.8
•
5.2749 |
.O
£
264,2212
421.48). I
185.5936
i, 663.7
164.171$
67,207.4
242,1417
237,5940
21,3099
225,2904
149,015.7
19,147$
37.665.1
247.6605
21 6.740 £
1 34.955.1
8,111 3
190,806.1
996,222.9
IOJ.717.9
279.1361
63,980.1
59,51 0.S
107,209.4
55,37)4
280.122.2
21,444.3
34,604.3
84,119.6
82.673.6
54.305.9
133,187.*
48,278.1
8.9
226.349.6
-------
N1TROOEN LOADED TO GROUND WATfiR, SURFACE WATER A.ND
THEBAY BY POPULATIONS USING SEPTIC AND OTHER MEANS
OF NON-SEWIiRKD WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRI-CHESAPEAKE. Ire.
STATE ntS COUNTY
VIRGINIA 5IM3 CLAKKE
VIRGINIA 51045 CRAIG
VDIO1NIA 51047 CULFEPER
VIRGINIA 51049 CUMBERLAND
VIRGINIA 51053 DINWIDD1E
VIRGINIA 51057 ESSEX
VIRGINIA 51059 FAIRFAX
VIRGINIA 51051 FAUQIKER
VIRGINIA 51055 FLUVANNA
VIRGINIA 51059 FREDERICK
VIRGINIA 51 OM GILES
VIRGINIA 51013 GLOUCESTER
VIRGINIA 5IO!5 OOOCULAND
VIRGINIA 510*9 GREENE
VIRGINIA 51 OSS HANOVER
VIRGINIA 51(87 HENRICO
VIRGINIA SI Ml HIGHLAND
VIRGINIA 51 OH ISLE OF WIGHT
VIRGINIA 5! CSS JAMES CITY
VIRGINIA 51W7 UNO AND QUEEN
VIRGINIA S1099 KINO QEORQE
VmOMA 511DI KINO WILLIAM
VIRGINIA SI 101 LANCASTER
VIRGINIA 5! 107 LOUDOUN
V1ROIN1A 51109 LOUISA
VIRGINIA SI 11 1 LUNENBERQ
VIRGINIA 51111 MADISON
VIRGINIA Sill 5 MATHEWS
VIRGINIA SI 119 MIDDLESEX
VIRGINIA SI 121 MONTGOMERY
VIRGINIA SI 125 NELSON
VIRGINIA 51127 NEW KENT
VIRGINIA SI 131 NORTHAMPTON
VIRGINIA SI 131 NORTHUMBERLAND
VIRGINIA 51135 NOTTOWAY
VIRGINIA 51137 ORANGE
b. POUNDS OF NrTROOEN LOADED BY RURAL NONFARM POPULATIONS USING SEPTIC TO:
ROUND WATiH
MIN MI-AM MAX
33.8806 44,4675 56.4246
ll.*82,7 15,977.) 20,491.4
77,195.0 101,331.3 128,511.2
10,942.9 40.7760 51,178.1
16,391.4 21,694.3 27.S71.7
S7.776.9 37,833,4 49,151.0
67.757.2 95,7830 129,145.7
166,248.9 213,102.7 263,502,0
46,109.2 61,455,5 77,»S3.I
113,161.1 160,772.9 214,476.7
1,241.5 1.504,3 1,105.7
77419.6 101.469,5 127.J44.3
$7,642.6 75.621.2 94,«9.4
40.291.9 S1.M2.S 67,419.5
135.694.8 176.807.6 221,5298
69,594.5 95,0578 122,691.6
6,930.1 9,4t$J 12,770.1
41,637.2 62,650,5 73,261 .7
39,004.2 56.4845 76.129.8
27,411.2 34,431.0 41,738.7
41,611.6 56,170.5 72,065.7
31.978.2 44,2213 55,229.9
27.549.8 38.610,9 50.935.7
92.583.9 121.219.2 158420.4
18.164.1 116.768,1 I47.S05.S
11.6 15,1 18.6
4i,7M.O 62,4109 76.985.3
2J.S50.2 30,5858 37.S9S.8
26.0079 14,1456 42.934.0
2,029.4 2,601 5 3.244.3
45,376.0 62,1250 S2.2454
45,544.3 57,5966 69.720.4
22,266,9 30,11 » 5 31^89.1
29,226.9 < 31,9994 49.355.2
18,301.5 26.2789 35.188.2
62.656.2 82,8496 104^61.0
SURFACE WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
14,0)16 17,991.4 22,464.!
5,548.9 1.139 6 9,105.''
26,149.5 14.0504 42.700.3
8,343! 10,7163 13.1920
1.427.5 4,456.6 5.598.1
10,169.0 13,741.6 17.667.1
21,096.3 32.110.7 42,164.5
55,840.2 70,875.9 »7,07t.';
11.186.7 14.941.6 18.748.5
41.595.4 58,172.7 76,735.1
5624 670.1 795.!
29,776.7 38,586.1 48,061.3
16.6629 21.5921 26,876.8
14.179.5 18,8104 21.5644
44.322S 56,9451 70.692.!
22,991,9 10,923,4 39.475.5
1.135,2 4,485.6 S.964.«
19,404,8 24,592.4 29.984.0
14,552.8 20,888.5 28.0955
9,768.6 12.069.4 I4.462.T
14,565.1 19,406.1 24.681.2
12,032.1 15,412.7 19,061.1
10,937.5 15,064.0 19,580.1
27,248.4 35,714.0 45.211.5
20,681.8 26,933.5 33,616.:
1.1 4.1 5.1
16,691.1 20,958.5 25,519.0
12,247.1 15,6588 19,248,1
9,730.9 12,582.5 15,667,!>
976.8 1,2)1.8 1.518 1
13,161.2 18,3488 23,892.1)
18,044.6 22,472.9 26^22.1
7.98ZO 10,682.2 13,567.4
11,096.5 14,565! 18,216,1
4.731,0 6,547.6 t,68S.«
18,592.1 24,256.2 30.4621
BAY WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
.
,
2.Q06.S 3,304.6 4,761.6
3,442,1 4,601,0 5,8*0.2
.
.
.
.
16,053.8 21.190.9 26.973.2
-
.
.
1,187.7 2,889.9 3.64J.O
.
7.138.3 9,2668 11,5577
2,46«C 1.558.1 4,8448
1,711.1 2,119.0 2,5144
4.092.1 5,643.5 7,400.4
1.8518 2.452,8 1,1244
18,613.3 25,284.6 32.489.0
,
.
.
15,997.! 20,654.6 25,6610
12,518,9 17,103,1 22.710.9
,
.
4,106,0 5,245.1 6,355.9
5.IJI.8 7.03S.2 9.219.1
19.049.1 25.S6S.4 12,714.$
.
.
,*»
62,<649
21.317.3
13S.382.2
5US2.1
26,150.9
54,179,7
1 12,320.7
283.S78.6
74397.1
218.S45.7
2,174.6
161,246.5
97,220.1
72,193.2
233.7S2.9
12t,Ml,l
ll.»71.8
96,509.7
80.M1.3
4!>195
81,1200
62.0J7.0
79.019.6
1 58,953.1
141.1O1.6
19.)
81,169.1
66.199.2
64.031.2
1.133.2
81.173,9
85.1145
4l,(3S.f
79,134.6
32.U6.S
107,(05I
-------
NITROGItN LOADKDTO GROUND WATER. SURFACE WATER Ah
TUB BAY BY I'OPUUVTIONS USING SBPTIC AND OTHER MEANS
OF NON-SEWERED WASTl- DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROORAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRI-CHESAPEAKE, Inc.
STATE FTPS COUNTY
VIRGINIA $1145 POWHATAN
VROBflA $1147 PRINCE EDWARD
VmOtNlA 51149 PRINCE OEOROE
VDIQ1NU 5I1SJ PRINCE WILLIAM
VmaiMA 51 IS? RAPPAHANNOCK
VmOWIA 51 1 59 RICHMOND
VIRGINIA 51161 ROANCKE
VIRGINIA 5II6J ROCKBRIOOE
VBK1WIA J] 16$ ROCKBKIHAM
WROBflA Sim SMENANDOAH
VIRGINIA 51 177 SPOTSTLVANIA
VmOBOA $1179 STAFFORD
VIRGINIA $1181 SURRY
VIRGINIA JHS7 WARREN
VmOMA 51191 WESTMORELAND
VIRGINIA 51199 YORK
VIRGINIA 51510 ALEXANDRIA
VIRGINIA 51 530 BUENA VISTA
VmatNIA 51540 CHARLOTTESVILLE
VmaMA $1550 CHESAFEAKBOTY
VIRGINIA $1560 CLIFTON FORCE
VKOBJIA $|$70 COLONIAL HERMITS
VmODflA 51580 COVWOTON
V»OMIA 51600 FAIRFAX
VmOBflA $1610 FALLS CHURCH
vmawiA 5i«3o FREDEUCKSBURO
VKOMA 51*50 HAMPTON CITY
VIRGINIA SI 660 HARRiSONBURQ
VROINIA 51S70 HOPEWELL
V»OMA 51678 LEXDMTCM
VmaMA 51680 LYNCHBWO
VmaiNIA 51681 MANASSESCTTY
VmOWIA 516«S MANASSES PARK CITY
VIRODflA 5HOO NEWPORT HEWS CITY
VBMJ1M1A $1110 NORFOLK CITY
If— ___ i
b. POUNDS OF NITftoQEM LOADED BY RWIM. NONFARM POPULATIONS USSNO SEPTIC T»
ROUND WATER
MJN MEAN MAX
51,150.5 71,246.6 92,408.8
65,312.9 81,67$.! 102.J5H
43,121.5 57.453.8 72,84*7
17.7JI.1 2^469.3 3I,91».4
I58.J$«.3 210,921.0 2S7.JW.8
27,245.9 35.94S.4 45,J2t7
21.423.7 31,1 11 .1 J9.61M
4,872,3 5,924.0 «,9«.0
60,920.4 82^31.4 10«,«913
I69.53S.3 225.019.3 288.I64.J
70.330.0 99.290.4 133,1409
114,925.1 155.381.4 199,453.3
106,306.2 149,023.2 I9?,«M.3
10,196.0 13,422.4 17.1 Ml
«P!9.4 79.9J3.7 101.35S.4
43.4J0.2 $8,4£5.£ 74,441.5
22,892.5 33.39S.3 45,133.2
,
f
17S.2 424,2 675.1
,
.
".
•
"
-
-
.
-
-
...
: : ._
SimFACE WATER
MM MBAN MAX^
23,694.5 3I.9J1.0 40,823.9
20,192.0 25^016 30,891.2
15,262.7 20,069.7 25.354.1
7,461.4 IQ.II1.9 13.021.6
51,413.2 67.124.7 83.993.1
7,769.4 10.211.5 1 2,848.7
8,671.6 11,377.3 14,328.1
2,006.5 2.399.1 2,790.1
24,157.0 32,34».7 41,214,2
69376.7 90.368.1 114,104.$
27.130.7 37,729.4 $0,342.1
30446.3 40,919.6 52,358,1
33,192.1 4«,I73.2 60,968.5
3,928.4 5,087.5 6,431.5
26,419.4 34^64,4 43,492.0
17,721.9 23,544.4 29,730.9
10,959.9 15,854.9 21,381.1
-
"
S*.4 226,8 354.5
"
-
*
*
-
"
-
*
"
" *
"
•
"
BAY WATER
M1N MEAN MAX
8J9.3 1,2017 1,537.9
122.3 474.7 927.1
2,240.5 2,961 ,3 3,785.1
J.0545 1.531.1 2.117.4
4,177.9 6.188.5 8.505.8
1,095,4 1,417.4 1,786.9
8,515.8 11,5428 14.953.3
14,624.5 18,621.9 22.966.5
• • .
"
-
• •
* * «
* » *
•
-
*
« .
* • «
* « «
* •
•
* « «
H
o
101,17) .6
109.1 7S.4
77,521.5
35.7858
278.521.4
4S,ISr.9
45, 509.6
t,1218
115.281.1
315,38».6
1 31,01 >J
197,831.1
201 ,m»
19,921.1
114,481.1
93,552,8
67.873.1
•
•
651.0
-
•
-
-
•
-
-
•
-
•
•
-
*
Table 12
-------
VO
OS
NITROGEN LOADEOTO OROUND WATER, SURFACE WATER AND
THE BAY BV POIHJI.ATIONS USING SliPTIC AND OTHER MEANS
OF NON-SEWERED WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMAR1 ;S
CHESAreAKE BAY HtOQRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNT" SUMMARIES
•
STATE FBS COUNTY
VKOMA 5H30 PETERSBURG
vmowiA sins POQUOSON
VmOMA 51140 PORTSMOUTH CITY
vmowix si 160 RICHMOND CITY
VmOBJU. 51190 STAUNTON
VIROWU - SHOO SUFFOLK CITY
VIRGINIA SIIIO VTRONIA BEACH OT Y
VIROINU SII20 WAYNESBORO
VIRGINIA 51 130 WDJJAMSBURO
VIRGINIA SII40 WINCHESTER
WESTVROIMA 54(03 BERKELEY
WESTVROMA 54023 ORANT
WEST VIRGINIA S4CES OREENBRIAR
WEST VIRGINIA J4C27 HAMPSHIRE
WEST VIRGINIA 54C3I HARDY
WEST VnOINIA 54(37 IEFFERSON
WEST VHaMA 54C57 MINERAL
WEST VROMA 54C63 MONROE
WESTVmoiNIA 54C65 MORGAN
WEST VTSOIN1A 54071 PENDLETON
WEST VROBflA 5407S POCAHONTAS
WEST VROINIA S4077 PRESTON
WESrVRQWlA S4C83 RANDOLPH
WESTVROIMA S4C93 TUCKER
OmdToBl
1
b. POUNDS OF WTROOEN LOADED BY RURAL NONFA1M POPOIJiTlONS 1 Rt^n -tRFnr TO
ROUND WATER
MIN MEW MAX
-
.
261.5 7*0.5
16,844.2 23,23&7 30,665.6
-
...
* »
145,888.6 204,0958 269,268.0
2J.287.8 38,4802 50,01 9 <
5.9 89 13.2
51,497.6 69,506 S 89,512.5
26.901.4 37,6840 $0,289.6
98,039.0 131,86*2 168^214
47,OS»,9 66,9903 89.759.0
2,649.6 3,5535 4.SS0.6
38.759.0 53,3«0.7 69jS45.0
21,759.4 29,467,2 38,496.9
7.3 104 14.1
226.0 2856 346.6
6.8 t7 10.8
8.4 338 68.9
1 3.138.264.5 18.333,81 18 23,273*69.7
SURFACE WATER
MIN MEAN MAK
-
101.8 2947
7,271.2 9,903.6 12,9496
4M01.0 66,485.4 86,578.5
12,172.5 17.171.2 22,006.?
3.1 45 6.7
24.6S9.S 32,121,2 41 .§21.1
12.964.J 17,8671 23.574.S
34,452.6 4S.611.4 57,844.1
20,874,7 29,799.1 40,144.1
1,210.7 1,596.7 2.034.1
17.217.3 23,262.2 29,933.2
10,002.9 13,3438 17.248.^
4,0 5,6 7.i
782 972 116.1
3.4 4.3 5 )
35 126 25.1
BAY WATER
MDI MEAN MAX
316.J 66J.3 1.067.2
»
.
P
-
"
"
33,»00.6
"
*
*
270381 .2
$5,551,4
102,128.0
55,551.1
177.177,6
96,189.4
5.150.2
76.M2.9
•42.111.0
46.4
'!¥' 12
-------
NITROGEN I.OADI-DTO GROUND WATHR, SURFACE WATI'R M-
11 m BAY BY POPULATIONS USING SliPTIC AND OTHER MEANS
OF NON-SEWCREt) WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCR1-C1IESAPEAKE, Inc. '
STATE FIPS COUNTY
DELAWARE IOOQI KENT
DELAWARE 10003 NEW CASTLE
DELAWARE 100C5 SUSSEX
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 11001 WASHINGTON
MARYLAND 24001 ALLEOANY
MARYLAND 24003 ANNEARUNDEL
MARYLAND 240CS BALTIMORE
MARYLAND 24009 CALVERT
MARYLAND 24011 CAROLINE
MARYLAND 24013 CARROLL
MARYLAND 24015 CECIL
MARYLAND 24017 CHARLES
MARYLAND 24019 DORCHESTER
MARYLAND 24031 FREDERICK
MARYLAND 24023 QAR8ETT
MARYLAND 240J5 JIARFORD
MARYLAND 24037 HOWARD
MARYLAND 240:9 KENT
MARYLAND . 240)1 MONTGOMERY
MARYLAND 240)3 PRINCE GEORGE'S
MARYLAND 240)5 QUEEN ANNE'S
MARYLAND 240)7 SAINT MARY'S
MARYLAND 240)9 SOMERSET
MARYLAND 24041 TALBOT
MARYLAND 24043 WASHINGTON
MARYLAND 2-1045 WICOMICO
MARYLAND 24047 WORCESTER
MARYLAND 24510 BALTIMORE CITY
NEW YORK 360»3 ALLEOANY
NEW YORK 36097 BROOME
NEW YORK 3601 1 CAYUOA
NEW YORK 36015 CHEMUNG
t TOUNDS OF NITROGEN LOADED BY FARM POPULATIONS t'SINO SEPTIC TO:
OROUND WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
1.004.9 5,755.6 12.004.7
155.4 1,001.3 2,1310
I.J98.4 10,477.8 22,9619
• * *(
1.370.3 3,805.5
1,010.1 7.901.1 16.91)0
1.1662 11,249.7 26.409,3
26.1 5.599.0 15,3110
3,237.3 I2.S85.2 24,347.5
2,448.0 11.958.7 42.991.0
78.6 9.121.9 23,069.9
971.8 7.438.9 17.4614
1410 4.379.5 11.0210
2,371.9 19.797.6 43,694.0
168.7 1,815.4 4497.1
384.8 7.2944 19.I2J.S
639.5 5,659.1 13,281.2
1.366.4 6,412.5 12,5196
637.5 7,031.3 15.554.5
558.7 3,698.6 7.537.0
1,0794 6.763.4 14.835.1
1.354.6 10,919.0 24,645.1
611.4 4,653.3 9.955.0
9662 5,686.7 11,7666
6346 9.443.3 23,603,8
1,409.3 10,838.1 23,4€2.0
5411 3,333,7 7.0639
.
53.5 504.6 1.119.5
417.5 4,299.1 11.179.2
22.1 48.5
2.108.4 6,2734
SURFACE WATER
M!N MEAN MAX
3610 2,031.8 4178.2
46.5 307.2 6S3.J
45*1 3,:i7.0 1.075.6
.
634.4 1,729.8
377.9 2,«67.5 3,581.2
42*7,8 3,944.5 S.129.6
»,8 2,021.0 i.475.2
1,03«.4 3,985.2 1,630.0
909.9 6.922,3 15,560.4
214 2.S28.6 1.327.9
J71.2 2.722.5 6.297.6
411 1.-145.9 3,626.8
781.5 6,081,4 13.085,8
64.7 649.1 1,509,4
137.1 2.-H8.2 «.27i.O
234.7 2.014,5 4,663.3
40S.2 1.933.1 • 3,733.7
221.6 2,462,4 3,405.1
20J.S 1.M4.5 7.712.9
324.3 2.IW04 4.457.3
499.1 3.H9.I 1,737.4
23J.7 1,745.5 3,682.6
312.9 I.I06.4 3.691.2
209.2 3.090,7 7,617.7
468.8 3.725.2 1.006.0
191.4 1.113,7 2,820.0
.
25,1 139.6 520.6
1».3 2.M9.7 5,269.9
II. 1 24.2
W0,4 1922.4
BAY WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
.
5.5 211 4}g
2.8 2923 695.4
.
351.4 916.9
29.1 99.2
4.5 829.1 2,247.3
123.9 645.1 1.271.6
.
534.9 1,4399
10.0 754.0 1,8011
24.1 721.8 1.9462
.
.
.
139.9 1.017.1 2,176.5
.
62.2 297.4 550.4
23.1 911. 1 2,109.1
696 1.5975 4.2304
546 617.6 1,458,8
364.3 2.674,9 5,861,0
.
278.4 786.9
29.1 74,0
-
.
.
.
.
j
7,789.4
1.331.7
14,0471
.
2,004.7
10.934.0
15,223.3
8,449.8
17,215.7
25.8*10
12,515.5
10,515.5
6,547.7
25,879.0
2,464,6
9,742.6
7,674.3
9.433 4
9,493,7
5.340.4
9.785.0
16,445.6
7,016.4
10,168.0
12.533.9
14,141.7
4,677.2
.
744.2
6.349.5
33.2
3.0989
Table 12
-------
NITROGHM LOADED TO GROUND WATOR, SURFACE WATER AND
THE BAY BY POPULATIONS USING SEPTIC AND OTHER MEANS
OF NON-SEWimED WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CO
CftE$APEA>CE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NGRJCHESAPEAKE, fra:, *
STATE FJPS COUKTY
BEW [uiut 36017 CHENANOO
NEW *ORK 36023 CORTLAND
NEW YORK 36025 DELAWARE
NEW YORK 36041 HERKIMEB
NEW YORK 3S051 LIVINGSTON
NEW YORK 36053 MADISON
NEW YORK 36065 ONEIDAEAST
NEW YORK 36067 ONONDAGA
NEW YORK 36069 ONTARIO
•IEWVORK • 36077 OTSEOO
NEW YORK 3609$ SCHOHARIE
NEW YORK 36097 SOIUYLER
NEW YORK 36101 STEU13EN
NEWTORK 36107 T1OGA
NEWTORK 36109 TOMPKINS
NEW YORK 36123 YATES
PENNSYLVANIA 42001 ADAMS
PENNSYLVANIA 42009 BEDFORD
PENNSYLVANIA 42011 BERKS
PENNSYLVANIA 42.013.00 DLAIR
PENNSYLVANIA 42015 BRADFORD
PENNSYLVANIA 42011 CAMBRIA
PENNSaVANIA 42023 CAMERON
PENNSYLVANIA 42025 CARBON
PENNSYLVANIA 42027 CENTRE
PENNSYLVANIA 41029 CHESTER
PENNSYLVANIA 42033 CLEARF1ELD
PENNSYLVANIA 42035 CLINTON
PENNSYLVANIA 42037 COLUMBIA
PENNSYLVANIA 42041 CUMBERLAND
PENNSYLVANIA 42043 DAUPHIN
PENNSYLVANIA 42047 ELK
.— 1
' — *
«. POUNDS OF NITROGEN LOADED BY 1
WIN MEAN MAX
511.2 10,450.! 26,122.7
286.0 J.3798 15.099,9
3733 3.285.1 7,3047
82.7 3.08J.7 4i36u
47.4 111.6
«0.7 5,063.6 10.5663
1 1.0 716,8 2,027.1
19.7 804,8 1.941.0
18.6 «|,3
W7.6 12,331.7 28,841.2
239.9 791,2
754.8 2,367,1
I.3W.9 14,267.1 34.062,7
574.4 7,289.4 17,405.7
1-1 M6.2 2,482.4
U.4 111.0 245.5
5.95S.8 18.1365 M.746.2
4.501.8 12,510.0 22,806.0
2.047.0 5,451.6 9.5678
V06.1 7,184.6 15.024.9
4.256.1 14.S98.J 28,042,0
599.6 2,+65.7 - $,425.1
32.5 1446
0.0 0.2 0.4
3.2C2.6 I2.;45.2 25.212,1
3.63.7 9.172.0 '.5,929.5
197.3 3.283.4 8,252.1
1,194.0 3,590.9 8,134.1
4,512.3 II.J20.2 20.646.5
3.88J.8 16.422.1 33.284.7
2.5M.3 11,292,4 23,902.7
30.5 H9.fi
•ARM POPULATIONS USING SEPTIC TO
SURF ACE WATER
M1N MEAN MAX
234.0 4.861.1 12,033.4
H3.7 3,011.4 7,005.
1720 1.578.7 3.487.0
"< B3S.4 1,724.2
222 84.
220.1 2,321,7 4,794.4
"3 333.8 849.3
7.7 322.0 769.9
8.0 26.1
398.0 5,355.9 12.396.5
112.1 357.4
345,1 1,071,8
708.6 6,804.1 15,951.0
273.1 3.414.7 8,043.9
0.6 442.5 1,150.7
59 55.2 120.8
1,874.9 5,550,2 10.505.7
1.7826 4.893,5 8,831.4
830.8 2.129.9 3,661.9
«18.6 2,724.9 5.582.9
2J44I 7,196.4 13.618.0
24S.5 982.5 2,126.0
11.2 49.4
0" 0,1 0.1
1.231.8 4,492.6 9.211.6
1,242.2 3,095.6 5.316.6
78.1 1,258.3 3,117.8
513,1 1.665.8 3,3518
1,6*25 4.290.1 7.689.8
1.379.9 5.645.5 I1.31I.I
*»S 3.763,4 8,017.8
10 1 11 1
BAY WATER
*
*
1
H
15,111.2
9.J91.2
4,163.1
2,»19.2
696
7.JI5.3
1,1226
1.1268
26.6
17.6876
3520
1,099.9
2I.07I.2
I0.7MO
1.318.7
1S6.2
23.616,6
17.4M 6
7.SI1.J
10.199.4
21.7M.7
3.411.3
02
16.637.9
12,2(76
4,541.7
-------
NITROGEN LOADEDTO GROUND WATER. SURFACE WATER Ah
TUB BAY BY POPULATIONS USING SEPTIC AND OTHER MEANS
OF NON-SEWERED WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SETT1C PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRI-CIIESAPEAKE, Inc
STATE FIPS COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA 42055 FRANKLIN
PENNSYLVANIA 42057 FULTON
PENNSYLVANIA 42051 HUNTINGDON
PENNSYLVANIA 42063 INDIANA
PENNSYLVANIA 42065 JEFFERSON
PENNSYLVANIA 42057 JUN1ATA
PENNSYLVANIA 420S9 LACKAWANNA
PENNSYLVANIA 42011 LANCASTER
PENNSYLVANIA 42075 LEBANON
PENNSYLVANIA 42079 LUZERNE
PENNSYLVANIA 42011 LYCOMING
PENNSYLVANIA 42013 MCliEAN
PENNSYLVANIA 420O MIFFLIN
PENNSYLVANIA 42W3 MOKTOUR
PENNSYLVANIA 42W7 NORTHUMBERLAND
PENNSYLVANIA 420» PERRY
PENNSYLVANIA 42IW POTTER
PENNSYLVANIA 4TO7 SCIIUYLKILL
PENNSYLVANIA «1» SNYDER
PENNSYLVANIA 42111 SOMERSET
PENNSYLVANIA 42113 SULLIVAN
reNNSYLVANIA 42115 SUSQUEIIANNA
PENNSYLVANIA 42117 TIOOA
PENNSYLVANIA 421 19 UNION
PENNSYLVANIA 42IJ7 WAl'NE
PENNSYLVANIA 42IJ1 WYOMING
PENNSYLVANIA 42113 YORK
VIRGINIA 51001 ACCOMACK
VIRGINIA S1M3 ALBEMARLE
VIRGINIA 51005 ALLEGHANY
VIRGINIA SICNI7 AMELIA
VIRGINIA 5IOW AM1IERST
«. POUNDS OF NITROGEN LOADED BY FARM POPULATIONS USING SEPTIC TO
GROUND WATER [
M1N MEAN MAX
7,093.9 26,078,7 50.556.3
1,560.6 4.651.1 1.4350
XI06.S 7.50S.« 14.302.2
109.4 480,3 1,«7.2
0.9 2.1 3.6
2,566.2 6,639.5 11,973.9
157.2 2,476.1 6,232,0
37,122.2 105,957.7 191,032.0
1.2106 IU5I.C 24.979.2
727.1 4,775.« 11,737.2
X352.2 10.312.5 21,774.0
19.3 €1.6
2,045.9 1.139.2 1«,«7,5
1,784,5 4.135.9 6.9S0.1
1,498.2 9.995.9 19,574.3
3,470.0 10,213.9 19,572,0
286.2 1,552.9 3,214.7
M93.9 5,342 C 11.930.0
4J44.J IO.I37J I7.2J2.5
761.6 1,772.3 3.0C7.5
93.2 901.1 2,0*4.7
1,099,5 6.318.3 I3.7C9.9
4,287.2 12.897.4 23,234.3
3,1897 9.161.1 17.W2.8
40.5 366.2 815.5
106.3 4.052.« 8.637.2
3.299.7 30,473.1 70,875.4
42.1 2.412.4 6,857.6
444.3 9.5S8.9 23,111.7
251.8 1.520.8 3,318.9
641,4 4,517.5 9.666.1
37.5 2.121.0 7.191.1
SURFACE WATER
WIN K£EAN MAX
2.7C2.7 9.SS4.5 18,2707
679.1 1,948,6 J.4753
i:4.6 2,949.5 5.573.7
<5.3 192.1 420.7
03 0.7 1.2
I.W9.4 2476.6 4.77S.3
S9.4 1.400.6 I.4S8.S
12.459.7 34.143,5 6J.075.7
439.1 4.161.7 9.068.I
319.5 2J3I.9 5.455.0
990.2 4.J78.6 J.163.5
6.5 20.5
805.1 3,154,0 «.395.5
6«7,8 1,524.8 1,534.9
1,324.8 3,796.5 7.431.6
1,426.1 4.113.5 7,780.6
138,8 568,1 1,341.1
403.1 1,115.0 4,061.8
1.7590 4.B81.5 4,884.0
292.7 669,5 1,123.2
50.0 479.4 1,074.8
586.4 3.JW5.4 7,063.5
2,116.5 6.J97.2 1.224.5
1,228.9 3.ZS6.6 i.905.7
22.0 192.2 422.7
435.4 2,140.9 4,493,9
1,176,0 10,508.1 2J.342.7
23.4 I.M0.5 2,978.2
120.4 2.730.5 4,569.7
117,3 700.0 :,53«,3
I5S.5 1,222.0 t620,3
U.9 7646 1,890.4
BAY WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
.
-
-
•
-
L4 470.2 1,290.2
,
-
5
|
35 633 3
104544
'
93165
\ rn $
3,9 1 1,3
140.801.2
1C f\f 7
IJ,Jl£,l
.'.'
, 1.1
11.293.2
13,7915
14.327.4
T i *iT 1
tflji-f
,.188
2,441,8
' '
19
'
"
6.193.5
3.9630
I2,J11>4
2.2201
5.739.6
3 5856
Table 12
-------
NITROGEN LOADED TO GROUND WATER, SURFACF WATFR AND
THB BAY BY POPULATIONS USING SEPTIC AND OTHER MEANS
OF NON-SEWERED WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
M
O
o
i^tl!i5kTEpsROGRAMSEPTlcreojECT
NCRJ.CHESAreAKE.iTO.
STAT1 FtPS COUNTY
VIRGINIA $1011 APPOMATTOX
VIRGINIA 51013 ARUNGTON
VIRGINIA 51015 AUGUSTA
VIRGINIA 5101? BATH
VIRGINIA sioig BEDFORD
VIRGINIA 51023 8OTETOURT
VIRGINIA 51029 BUCKINGHAM
VIRGINIA J10JI CAMPBELL
VIRGINIA 5IOJ3 CAROLINE
VIRGINIA 51036 CHARLES CITY
VIRGINIA 510J7 CHARLOTTE
VIRGINIA 51041 CHESTERFIELD
VIRGINIA 5)04} CLARKE
VIRGINIA 51045 CRAIG
VIRGINIA 51047 CULPEPER
VIRGIWIA 51049 CUMBERLAND
VIRGINIA 51053 DINWIDDIE
VIRGINIA $!057 ESSEX
VIRGINIA 51059 FAIRFAX
VIROIMIA 51061 FAUQUfER
VIRGINIA 51065 FtUVANNA
VIRGINIA 5(069 FREDERICK
VIRGINIA 5 1071 GILES
VIRGINIA 51073 GLOUCESTER
VIRGINIA JI075 GOOCHLAKD
VIRGIH1A 51079 GREENE
VIRGIH1A 3IOSS HANOVER
VIRGINIA SIOI7 I (ENRICO
VIRGINIA 51091 HIGHLAND
VIRGINIA 51093 ISLEOFWIQIfT
VIRGIIIIA 51095 JAMES CITY
VIRGINIA 51097 KING AND OUEEN
e, POUNDS OF NITROGEN LOADED BY FARM POPULATIONS USING SEPTro TO-
GROUND WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
14.2 2,482.9 6.227.5
3.W.6 19.410.7 39,815,1
153.5 920.3 2,172.5
00 718.8 1,891.2
S14.2 3,146.0 8.642.0
S,8S2,7 8.0J3.7
575.2 1,395.1
2.9S8.1 g.476.4
669.7 2,459!
0.0 0.3 0,7
3,9*2,1 7.76J.2
««,9 4593.5 9,2903
169.1 828.5 1,101.1
410.7 5,6«5.l 12,910.4
1J8.5 3598.9 8.4160
1 11. 2 1,476.7 3,499.3
22.1 1,794.4 4.623.3
1,214.3 2,7779
2,891.3 14,666.5 30.21S.8
ll.l 2,764.1 7,133.8
28.5 5,134.4 I6.0S2.3
"I 291.1 506.6
5,1063 5,602.8
256.6 4216.0 10,151,6
2,243.6 5,751.3
IS0.9 7,732.7 18,707.9
1,91 1.4 5,843.4
351.7 2,|}i.9 4,119,8
J6.I 2,253,9 5,101.1
S67.2 2,221.5
2410 1137. 1 4,6682
SURFACE WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
*1 744.8 i.852.1
1,475.9 7,6701 15,6146
».l 427.7 1,001.2
0.0 204.8 528.8
200.7 1,474.1 3.314.8
859.4 2,358.7
170.6 4064
933.2 2,599.4
263.9 «e.«
00 O.I 0.2
958.0 J.464.5
2124 1,655.2 3,340.6
TJ.7 3754 809.4
1281 1,8449 4.HI.5
32.7 9508 2,181.3
M.» J13.I 725.5
«-J ««0 1.647.2
427.5 960.5
8606 4,5809 9.528.3
25 685.5 1,751.0
9.1 2,053,1 5,646.4
«.2 129.7 223.2
768.7 2,051.3
65.9 1,194.9 2.841.3
818.1 1010.0
434 J.402.8 5.770.0
629.1 1,899.8
ITS' 1,015.9 1,963.0
10.4 1648 2^».2
226.6 747,7
*3.8 7435 I610J
BAY WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
67.8 nog
626 2335
t.9 119.1 5171
98.4 273.1
237.2 653.S
353 1144
133.6 378!
«4 25.1
_. . « 99-5 2301
I
3,2276
27,080$
1,34<0
923.6
5^20.1
3.7421
745J
3,»89.0
W62
04
3,»40.I
6,!4t,7
1,203.9
7.SIO.O
4.M9.8
1.1905
2,429.5
1.1401
19,147.4
3,449.6
7.H74
420.8
3.112.2
5,«0.9
3.C62.5
10,135,5
2,576.5
3.IJ4.7
3^J2,J
9M.2
3.910. 1
12
-------
s
NITROGEN IjOADBD TO GROUND WATER, SURFACE WATBR AND
THBBAY »Y I'OPULATK)NS USING SIJPTIC AND OTHER MPANS
OF NON-SEWIiRED WASTli DISPOSAL; COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE IUYPROCRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCR1-CHESAPEAKE. Inc.
STATE F1PS COUNTY
VIRGINIA 51 1» YORK
VIRGINIA SI 510 ALEXANDRIA
VIRGINIA S15JO BUENA VISTA
VIRGINIA J1540 CHARLOTTESV1LLE
VIRGINIA J1550 CHESAPEAKE CITY
VIRGINIA SI560 CLIFTON FORGE
VIRGINIA 51570 COLONIAL HEIGHTS
VIRGINIA 31 580 COVINGTON
VIROINIA 31600 FAIRFAX
VIRGINIA 31610 FALLS CHURCH
VIRGIN!* 31630 FREDERlCKSaURG
VIRGINIA 3I6SO HAMPTON CITY
VIRGINIA 51660 HARRISONBURG
VIROINIA 31670 HOPEWELL
VIRGINIA 3I67S LEXINGTON
VIRGINIA Sl«0 LYNCHBURO
VIRGINIA 51613 MANASSES CITY
VIRGINIA 516SS MANASSES PARK CITY
VIRGINIA 31700 NEWPORT NEWS CITY
VIROINIA 31710 NORFOLK CITY
VIRGINIA 31730 PETERSBURG
VIRGINIA SI 735 POQUOSON
VIROINIA 51740 PORTSMOUTH CITY
VIRGINIA 51760 RICHMOND CITY
VIRGINIA SI 790 STAUNTON
VIRGINIA 51800 SUFFOLK CITV
VIRGINIA 51110 VIROINIA BEACH CITY
VIRGINIA 51120 WAYNESBORO
VIROINIA 51830 WILLIAMSBURG
VIRGINIA J| MO WINCHESTER
WEST VIRGINIA 54003 BERKELEY
WEST VIRGINIA 54023 GRANT
t POUNDS OF NITRCOEN LOADED BY FARM POPULATIONS USING SEPTIC TO
GROUND WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
144.0 695.9
"
".
63.1 1612
',
.
'.
".
,
,
,
.
27J2 655.1
50S I.32S.J 3,022,7
.
„
.
17I,» S.27J.J 14,437.1
124.1 2.62X5 6,t»3,8
SURFACE WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
65.9 324.9
-
*
33.9 M.7
-
•
-
*
f »
"
*
*
*
m
'
"
*
.
*
*
"
103.5 240.2
22J 562.1 1.274.2
-
"
76.6 I.765.J 4.721.1
57.2 1.1992 2,7984
BAY WATER
•
•
*
" ." :
*
- .
-
*
•
•
•
* « .
* -
* •
* *
•
•
*
0.0 9.« 27,j
"
*
•
203.9
91,0
•
.
.
-
.
-
-
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
.
.
-
,
3S2i
1,8984
-
-
•
7,045.1
3.J22.T
•He 12
-------
NITROGEN I.OADED TO GROU,,,J WATBR, SURFACE WATER ANT
TlIK BAY BY PONII.ATIONS USING SKPTIC AND OTHER MBANS C
NON-SEWEIUiD WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY I'RCGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCR1-CI1ESAPEAKE, Inc.
STATE FIPS COUNTY
VIRGINIA 51099 KING GEORGE
VIRGINIA 5iioi KING WILLIAM
VIRGINIA $1101 LANCASTER
VIRGINIA 51107 LOUDOUN
VIRGINIA 51 IW LOUISA
VIRGINIA 51111 LUNENBERG
VIRGINIA 5 1 1 It MADISON
VIRGINIA 51 IIS MATHEWS
VIRGINIA Sll!» MIDDLESEX
VIRGINIA 51121 MONTGOMERY
VIRGINIA 51125 NELSON
VIRGINIA 5112? NEW KENT
VIRGINIA 51131 NORTHAMPTON
VIRGINIA SI 133 NORTHUMBERLAND
VIRGINIA SI 135 NOTTOWAY
VIRGINIA 51137 ORANGE
VIRGINIA 51135 PAGE
VIRGINIA 51145 POWHATAN
VIRGINIA 51147 " PRINCE EDWARD
VIRGINIA $1149 PRINCE GEORGE
VIRGINIA SI 153 PRINCE WILLIAM
VIRGINIA SI 151 RAPPAHANNOCK
VIRGINIA 5II5> RICHMOND
VIRGINIA 51161 ROAHOKE
VIRGINIA SI 16) ROCKBRIDGE
VIRGINIA 5116! ROCKINGI1AM
VIRGINIA $117! SHENANDOAH
VIRGINIA $1177 SPOTS YLVAN1A
VIRGINIA 51 IT) STAFFORD
VIRGINIA $1181 SURRY
VIRGINIA Si 18? WARREN
VIRGINIA 51193 WESTMORELAND
(. POUNDS OF NITROGEN LOADED B If FARM POPULATIONS L'SINCS SEPTIC TO:
GROUND WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
IS0.8 2.197.2 5,495.8
122.3 1,710.6 3,997.3
866.4 2.689,2
2.845.7 14.0219 28.1912
6,075.4 15,331.7
0.4 1.2
1,741.8 5.205.2 9,707.6
422.4 1,206.0
• . 1,525.5 3,754.9
33.9 243.1 494.6
152.5 3,257.6 8,293.4
219.2 1,895.2 4,631.9
22.9 1.915.2 S.024J
14.4 1,908.2 5,046,1
167.8 2.402.5 5.3319
286.0 4,616.1 10.681.6
203.0 4,215.2 10.123.3
2.234.8 6,155.8
49,7 3,1990 7,743.6
588.9 1,63(5,4
30.0 4,1 14.9 10,993.7
1343 2,656.3 6.323,8
2,236.7 $.480.1
49.1 350.6 737.6
332.3 5.J29.6 13.326.9
4,834.8 23,583.7 47.69S.7
493.2 7,583.2 16,844.7
421.7 S.5S2.8 13,901.7
1,651.7 J.3SI.3
5.3 1.216.4 2.687.2
1,490.5 4,028.7
2.108.7 J.934.9
SURFACE WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
4S.1 7504 1,869.6
46.0 624.7 1,434.2
3203 992.6
7219 3,154.1 7.596.2
1.3822 3,443.7
0.1 0.3
5S6.S 1,738.8 3.2O4.0
213.7 603.0
560.6 1,357,0
16.3 115.1 231.6
321 878.2 2273.4
90.0 747.3 1806.6
1.2 657.9 1.734.3
« 725.4 1,881,6
4tt6 642.4 1,410.1
788 1,353.2 3,128.1
S6.6 I.SOS.S 4,620.6
647.2 1,790.0
17.4 1.W5S 2,607,4
244.3 673.3
99 1,374,4 3S9I.I
4S.I 753,3 1,810.8
829.6 2006.0
202 I4I.9 295.3
130.4 2,0541 $1012
1,951.2 9,3*3,2 18769.6
178.0 2.9M.2 6408.9
1*4,0 1.597.2 3,664.4
502.3 1,615.9
2.1 442.1 1,009,2
$«7.7 1,534,9
8JI.O 2,285.6
BAYWATER
MIN MEAN MAX
346 411.7 950.8
33 1234 285.2
: 380,4 1.2732
-
-
168.0 473,4
230.9 6614
"
.
949 3430
fiO $001 U92.5
11.6 1,095,5 2,796-9
.
-
•
»
.
25.5 76.0
"
296,7 6793
« ,
»
*
275.9 563.0
49.4 164.5
0.3 116.5 257.1
- « »
4754 1,245.4
4?
1
3.359.3
2.458.7
1.567.1
17,777.1
7,457.6
0.5
6,944.0
804.0
2.317.0
358.2
4,1358
2,737,4
3,083.2
3,729.1
3,0449
5,9793
6,024.0
2,882.0
4,2949
858.7
5,4893
3,419.6
3,363.0
492.S
7,383.7
32,976.9
10,4814
7,336.0
2,203.4
1.794.9
2,058.2
3,405.1
Table 12
-------
NITROGEN LOADKD TO GROUND WATUR, SURFACE kVATFR Ah
THE BAY HY POPUIAI1CNS USING SRPT1C AND OTHER MRANS
OF NON-SEWEUBD WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE I1AY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRI-CHESAPEAKE.I.*,
STATE Pips COUOTV
WESTVKGWIA 5402! GREENBR1AR
WESTV1ROW1A 54021 HAMPSHIRE
WESTVIRGIHtA $4031 HARDY
WEST VIRG1M1 A H03T JEFFERSON
WEST VIRGINIA S40S? MINERAL
wESTvmomiA 540*3 MONROE
WEST VIRGINIA $4065 MORGAN
WEST VIRGINIA S407I PENDLETON
wisTvmomiA $w$ POCAHONTAS
wresrvmomu vsm PRESTON
WEST VIRGINIA 540IJ RANDOJH
WEsrvmoiinA «<»j TUCKER
GrandTotil
^^-^___^____
fc POUNDS OF N1TROGEH LOADED BY FARM POPULATIONS USING SEPTIC TO-
GROUND WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
0.0 8.2 as
376.2 4^00,6 10,1549
4SI.9 3,447.2 7.J7M
23.2 $.500.1 I3,lia3
53,3 2.54J.6 S^S4,I
19.0 311.1 861,4
»J.« 3,0914
«79.5 4,231.0 t.m9
0-3 U 27
H.O 43.9
0.1 1.0 2J
0.6 |J
1
SURFACE WATER
MIH MEAN ' WAX
00 O.I 0.3
171.7 2.0«.7 5JJ1S.O
210.2 1.61 1.6 3.S66.3
7.4 1.720.4 4,104.2
23.7 1,134.3 2,?32.6
»•' "1.7 SJ4.3
4J4I 1,404.9
306.4 I.J9S.5 3,160,5
0,2 0.7 1.4
6.1 |.|«
0,» 0.5 |.|
• 0.3 0£_
BAY WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
»l,l 17.J36.7 434724
«
P
0,4
6.597,3
5.05I.S
7.220.S
3,674.0
552.9
1.441.5
6,129.5
20
24,1
1.5
I.W9.4S53
Table 12
-------
NITROGEN LOADED TO GROUND WATER, SURFACE WATRIt AND
THE BAY BY POPULATIONS USING SGFi'lC AND OTHKR MEANS
OP NON-SEWERED WASTG DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
Cl IESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRt-CHESAPEAKE. Inc.
STATE Fire COUNTY
DELAWARE 10001 KENT
DELAWARE 10»3 NEW CASTLE
DELAWARE tOX» SUSSEX
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 11 Ml WASHINGTON
MARYLAMD 24001 ALLEGANY
MARYLA?«> 24W3 ANNEARUNDEL
MARYLAND 24W5 BALTIMORE
MARYLAND 24309 CALVERT
MARYLAHD 24011 CAROLINE
MARYLAHD 24013 CARROLL
MARYLAHD 24015 CECIL
MARYLAHD 2401 7 CHARLES
MARYLAHD 2*19 DORCHESTER
MARYLAHD 2*21 FREDERICK
MARVLAHD 2*23 OAKRETT
MARYLAHD 2*25 HAXFORD
MARYLAMD 24«27 HOWARD
MARYLAHD 2*29 KENT
MARYLAHD 2*31 MONTGOMERY
MARYLAKD 24033 PRINCE GEORGE'S
MARYLAHD 24035 QUEEN ANNE'S
MARVLAHD 24037 SAINT MARY'S
MARYLAHD 24039 SOMERSET
MARYLAHD 24M1 TALBOT
MARVLAHD 24W3 WASHINGTON
MARYLAHD 24M5 W1COMICO
MARYLAND 24047 WORCESTER
MARYLAHD 24SIO BALTIMORE CJTY
NEW YORK 36003 ALLEGANY
NEW YORK 36(07 BROOME
NEW YORK 36)11 CAYUGA
NEW YORK 36015 dCMUNG
NEW YORK 36017 CHENANOO
d POUNDS OF NITROGEN LOADED BY URBAN POPULATIONS USING OTHER MEANS OF DISPOSAL TO:
GROUND WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
10 10.9
11 5.5
660.7 1,725.5
439.5 25,423.4 75.715.7
576.1 2J37.9
51.1 1,6080 26.116}
6,9246 25,161.5
141,4 J60.9
17.7 123.6
3Tt< 1,193.1
£115 1.S45.6
1,1917 4.I82.J
1029 453J
2,5969 I.J99.0
...
1199 3.S73.4
9615 3,151.1
995 J32.2
1.1 J.3I75 27.76J.9
273.4 14,2294 43,778,7
-
36S3 1,497.6
115 135.6
24tO 960.5
5396 2,295.0
44S9 1,211.7
2»7 125.1
3,647.7 68,9761 115.4516
.
5239 I.M2.9
.
1730 2,702.6
319 195.6
SURFACE WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
I.I 3.»
0.6 1.5
224,6 S72.B
1S6.1 8.720.0 25,650.0
224.5 839.4
14.4 2.402.2 7,378.?
2,2142 7,957.1
52.3 206.J
5.4 38.1
134.7 663.S
201.7 6OTJ
432.8 1,506)
34.0 148 5
929.1 2.992J
.
245.9 1.102,9
347.1 1,180.0
27.7 91.4
0,4 2,908,2 9,598.4
91,2 4,895.1 14,981!
.
127.4 516.S
6,6 4S>
71.9 274.S
167.4 706.!
13*.3 378,1
11.8 51.0
1.191,1 22.417.2 . 60441.1
.
290.3 l,087.f
...
423.3 1,293,3
17,7 107.7
BAY WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
*
*
1.0 6.5
307.7 1,911.1 4,776,2
3.164.0 10.081.5
2,131.3 6,612.8
1366 507.1
10.0 58.1
34.6 90.2
1,0 141
O.I 2.8
-
48.3 271,2
5.4 17,8
104,7 426.1
52,3 406.2 920.0
227.2 742.3
6.1 47.6
22.6 82.4
103.4 237.0
922.5 3.203.0
-
• .
-
.
g
i
4.1
5.8
88»3
36,053.5
80S 6
14,1742
11.272,0
3303
33.0
$13.3
141.1
1.625.6
131.1
3,5210
1,114.1
1,301.6
1316
11,321.4
!9,S3C.t
726,8
31.2
342.6
7010
681.7
40.5
92.33S.S
1142
1.2963
49 S
M
O
^ 12
Pat.
-------
NiTROGRN LOADED TO GROUND WATER, SURFACE WATER AND
THE BAY BY POPULATIONS USING SEPTIC AND OTHER MEANS
OF NON-SEWERED WASTB DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMVARttiS
NCRl-CIIESAJBAKE. Inc.
-
STATE FIPS COUNTY
NEW YORK 36021 CORTLAND
HEW YORK 36025 DELAWARE
JEW YORK 36043 HERK1MER
-------
NITROGEN LOADED TO GROUND WATER, SURFACE WATER AND
THE BAY BY POPULATIONS USING SliPTIC AND OTHER MBANS
OF NON-SBWERED WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
s
S!Sf°£
STATE
rer*iu i la v/\|xtA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGIMA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
:RAM sera
. i
42061
42063
42065
42067
42069
42071
42075
42079
42081
420»3
420S7
42093
42097
42099
42105
42107
42109
421)1
42113
42115
43117
42119
42127
42131
42133
S100I
51003
51005
51007
51009
51011
$1013
5IOI5
CHMMECT
COUNTY
HUNTINGDON
INDIANA
JEFFERSON
JUNIATA
LACKAVVAMNA
LANCASTER
LEEANON
LUZERNE
LYCOMINC3
MCKEAN
MJFFLIN
MONTOUR
NORTHUMBERLAND
PERRY
POTTER
SCHUYLKILL
SNYDER
SOMERSET
SULLIVAN
SUSQUEIIAKNA
TIOOA
UNION
WAYNE
WYOMING
YORK
ALBEMARLE
ALLEGI1ANY
AMELIA
AMHERST
AWOMATTOX
ARLINGTON
—
UPOCNDS OF NITOOOEN LOADED BY URBAMmmn *«„».,«».
GROUND WATER
WIN MEAN MAX
"
"
1,777.1 tf.300.7
1,251,3 1.728.2 22.021.7
666.0 2.567.0
330.7 .<$ 1,320 3.3JJ.
" " ,
*6I 217.1
461.2 2.0t3.3
"
331.5 1,129.0
"
• .
- : ;
43.1 239.2
"
-
•
t,SOI.5 5,5318
" *
279.9 969J
*
• .
JIM 1,670.9
* I • »
AUGUSTA 1 " •",*».>> I.I37.I
— f ' SO-0 I.483.S
SURFACE WATER ~~
, ..M
" Mill KiE^N MAX
-
-
1.01 SJ 1574,0
423.1 2.I6S.J 7113.3
221.4 ts$s
133.3 1.SW.S J959J
31.1 59J.6 .1,522.8
-
l«.4 76.2
190.0 J46.2
-
I4I.J 4765
-
"
204 112.1
-
•
4921 lJH3.t
.
915 313.4
.
"S.9 S48.3
*
»68.3 2.6M.2
2325 s»3
—""•""
•~~**»*l»lll*iiii***—^—um—ii*~*m
jfplSfOSALTO:
BAY WATER
MIN
•
,
i
>le 12
U3.8
-------
NITROGEN LOADI-D TO GROUND WATKR, SURFACE WATER Ah
THE BAY BY POPU1.ATIONS USING SEFFIC AND OTHER MKANS
OF NON-SEWEItED WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE IU V PfcOGIUM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRI.CHE$APEAKE,lM. ftr
STATE FIPS COUNTY
VIRGINIA 51419 BEDFORD
VIRGINIA $1923 DOTETOURT
VIRGINIA 51029 BUCKINGHAM
VIRGINIA 5W31 CAMPBELL
VIRGINIA 5IOJ3 CAROLINE
VIRGINIA 5(036 CHARLES CITY
VIRGINIA 51*37 CHARLOTTE
VIRGINIA J1MI CHESTERFIELD
VIRGINIA 5IW3 CLARKE
VIRGINIA SIWi CRAIG
VIRGINIA 5IW7 CULPEPER
VIRGINIA 51049 CUMBERLAND
VIRGINIA $1053 DINWIDDIE
VIRGINIA 5 1 057 ESSEX
VIRGINIA 51059 FAIRFAX
VIRGINIA JI«1 FAUQU1ER
VIRGINIA SIMS FLUVANNA
VIRGINIA 51069 FREDERICK
VIRGINIA 51071 GILES
VIRGINIA 51073 GLOUCESTER
VIRGINIA SIC7S GOOCHLAN'D
VIRGINIA 5K7J GREENE
VIRGINIA 51085 HANOVER
VIRGINIA SIOS7 HEWRICO
VIRGINIA SIC9I IIICHLAND
VIRGINIA 51 093 ISLE OF WIGHT
VIRGINIA 51095 JAMES CITV
VIRGINIA 51097 KINO AND QUEEN
VIRGINIA $1099 KING GEORGE
VIRGINIA 51 101 KING WILLIAM
VIRGINIA 51103 LANCASTER
VIRGINIA 51107 LOUDOUN
d. POUNDSOF NITROGEN LOADED BY URBAN POPULATIONS USING OTHER MEANS OF DISPOSAL TO
GROUND WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
. 311.6 »$6.7
)
317 2010
-
"
2,047.4 I.MS.S
07 22.9
9945 2,«2.«
1530 4943
-
339.8 13,9692 40.797.7
330 216.1
.
4819 1,602.4
,
801 1 3,506.3
1,7222 6,703.3
22.3 155.4
2113 1409
.
•
.
137.0 622.6
SURFACE WATER
WIN MEAN MAX
* 93.7 278 1
"
11 1 *A1
11,3 OU.j
"
*
677.3 2.775.1
02 7 *
315.6 136.1
38.4 HI. 1
-
112.6 4.5556 13,143.5
H.I 841
.
"
184.2 599.6
280.5 1,2161
539.4 2,094.1
8.7 60.1
- ' 91.1 • 3584
.
-
44.0 196 8
BAY WATER
•
"
•
* - «
*
* - .
* *
7.7 512
* -
.
*
192.7 579.7
-
* .
407.2 1,358.4
* .
4.0 20.2
4.9 34.0
-
" • .
"
"
•K
•H
<
•
411.3
-
-
49.0
-
-
2.7J24
09
1,312.1
1893
-
11,7176
461
•
-
1,0733
-
1.0823
2.26S.6
35.i
302J
•
•
•
ffl ft
151.9
Table 12
-------
NITROGEN LOADED TO GROUND WATER, SURFACE WATER Af-
THE BAY BY POPUUTIONS USING SEPTIC AND OTHER MEANS
OF NON-SIiWi-RED WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUlfTY SUMMARIES
NCR1CHESAPEAKE, Inc.
,
STATE FIPS COUNTY
VIRGINIA 51 109 LOUISA
VIRGINIA S1I1I LUNENBEF.O
VIRGINIA SI 113 MADISON
VIRGINIA SIII5 MATHEWS
VIRGINIA 51119 MIDDLESEX
VIRGINIA 51 121 MONTGOMERY
VIRGINIA 51125 NELSON
VIRGINIA 31127 NEW KENT
VIRGINIA SI 131 NORTHAMPTON
VIRGINIA 3I13J NORTHUMBERLAND
VIRGINIA $1135 NOTTOWAY
VIRGINIA 51 137 ORANGE
VIRGINIA 51139 PAGE
VIRGINIA $1145 POWHATAN
VIRGINIA SI 147 PRINCE EDWARD
VIRGINIA SU49 PRINCE GEORGE
VIRGINIA S1IS3 PRINCE WILLIAM
VIRGINIA S1IS7 RAPPAHANNOCK
VIRGINIA 51159 RICHMOND
VIRGINIA ' 51161 ROANOKE
VIRGINIA 51163 ROCKBRJDGE
VIRGINIA 5116$ ROCKINGKAM
VIRGINIA S11TI SHENANDOAH
VIRGINIA 51177 SPOTSVLVAN1A
VIRGINIA $1179 STAFFORD
VIRGINIA $11*1 SURRY
VIRGINIA 5118? WARREN
VIRGINIA 5II9J WESTMORELAND
VIRGINIA 51199 YORK
VIRGINIA 51510 ALEXANDRIA
VIRGINIA $1530 BUENA VISTA
VIRGINIA 51540 CHARLOTTESVILLE
VIRGINIA $1550 CHESAPEAKE CITY
4 POUNDS OF NITROGEN LOADED BY URBAN POPULATIONS USINOOTHER MEANS OF DISPOSAL TO-
GROUND WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
. »
. ,
» . .
.
• . .
> » *
• »
• " .
• «
15.2 139.7
142 1 11. 2
* . m ,
24.S 137.9
396,7 1,227.3
1.312.6 5,001.1
• *
. .
•
• * r
, „ _
IS6.I 7S1.5
7J.7 $74.5
252.0 1.227.1
•
13.1 137.9
2.5 130
311.3 1,232,3
201.7 1.650,1 4J76.2
345.2 1,331.3
I.ISJJ 3325.4
I.M1.9 6,721.7
SURFACE WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
-
.
.
•
.
.
-
"
5,0 44,«
S.O 41.9
11.7 Ml
lir.2 392.0
401.9 1,530.4
*
"'
',
SS.4 276.4
21.7 1M.I
tl.4 4294
.
4.4 61.0
1.4 7.2
1IT.I . 709.2
5S.3 43« I.IM.2
157.0 S9S.5
377.0 I.1T4.I
961.6 3.173.4
BAY WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
0.2 2.3
41.4 1W9
2.9 ll.S
20.7 109.2
38.1 l«.6
27.7 I42.S
0.2 0.9
* •
- 59.0 217.1
I
i
20.2
22.3
36.5
324.1
1,762.9
"
2I2.S
106.3
3(1.0
20.2
410
533.1
502.2
1,530.1
28626
Table 12
-------
NITROGEN LOADRDTO GROUND WATER SURFACE
NCRI-CHESAPEAKE, IIK,
STATE
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA .
VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WESTV1ROWIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WESTVIRG1HIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST V1RGIK1A
RAM SEPT1
FH'S
51 MO
51 5»
51 510
51600
51610
51630
51653
5I6M
5167!
5I6SI
$1683
51683
5170C
51710
5I73C
51713
51740
51760
51790
$1800
51810
51820
51830
51840
54003
54023
S4025
54027
S40JI
54037
54057
54063
C PROJECT
1 d, FOUNDS OF NITROGEN 1 1
COUNTY
CLIFTON FORGE "
COLONIAL HEIGHTS
COVINGTON
FAIRFAX
FALLS CHURCI!
FREDERICKSBURO
HAMPTON CITY
IIARKISONBURG
HOPEWELL
LEXINGTON
LYNCHBURO
MANASSES CITY
MANASSES PARK CITY
NEWPORT NEWS CITY
NORFOLK CITY
PETERSBURG
POQUOSON
PORTSMOUTH CITY
RICHMOND CITY
STAUNTON
SUFFOLK CITY
VIRGINIA BEACH CITY
WAYNESBORO
WILL1AMSBURG
WINCHESTER
BERKELEY
GRANT
CREENBRIAR
HAMPSHIRE
IIAROY
IEFFERSON
GROUND WATER
I
MIN MEAN
"
«.t
48.2
2,190.8
252.7
368.0 1.601,6
689.3
186.2
W.1 2,0206
4.IJ7.7
30.7
2,733,4
521 4,711.2
590.5
1.360.0 5,917.7
1,963.1
638.1
60.3
394.6
"
*
"
MINERAL • 3336
MONROE [
— _
>ADED BY L
MAX
*
*
•
313.
1.1®,
2i!f.
952.9
3.6440
2,JSe,4
57*9
6,420.3
12,7541
2.0W.6
144.4
14,635.3
2,120.5
12,454.7
6.73 1,6
2,169.7
298.4
8408
•
•
*
*
1.354.5
— . — _
RBAN POPULATIONS USINfi n
SURFACE WATER
MIN MHAN
•
-
-
29.4
135.9
17.2
1.270.9
94.1
123.0 $26.$
2116
5$.2
46.1 983,0
53.6 2,304.8
170.1
20.5
1.5044
17.4 1,678.8
219.1
«31 2,660.2
804,7
243.6
24,8
153,8
-
«
-
-
170.8
BANS CF DISPOSAL TO:
"" I BAY WATER
$48.4
Table 12
-------
NITROGEN LOADED TO GROUND WATER. SURFACE WATER AND
THE BAY BY POPULATIONS USING SEPTIC AND OTHER MEANS
OP NON-SEWRRBD WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAV PROGRAM SEPTIC TKOJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES i - --
NCRI-CHESAPEAKE. Int '
W
STATE fin COUNTY
WEST VIRGINIA 54065 MORGAN
WEST VIRGINIA 54071 PENDLETON
WEST VIRGINIA 54075 POCAHONTAS
WEST VIRGINIA 5*577 PRESTON
WEST VIRGINIA 54013 RANDOLPH
WEST VIRGINIA 54093 TUCKER
A POUNDS OF NITROGEN LOADED BY URBAN POPULATIONS USING GtYrER MEAKS OF DISRpSAL TO:
GROUND WATER
MM WEAN MAX
.
9,2$«.2 233,9080 70<5.0640
SURFACE WATER
WIN MEAH MAX
.
3.J27.« 12.S374 24SJ36.»
DAY WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
.
573.0 12.5*4.5 31.195!
TOTAL 4d
.
J29.J09.9
KJ
***
O
Table 12
-------
NITROGEN LOADT-:D TO GROUND WATIIR, SURFACE WATKR Ab
THRBAY BY POPUIJmONS USING SEPTIC ANDOTHGH MEANS
OP NON-SKWBRED WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
3UNTY SUMMARIES • ,
CRI-CIIES AP6AKE, Inc.
TATB TO* COUNTY .
DELAWARE 10001 KENT
CLAWARB 10003 NEWCASTLE
DELAWARE 10005 SUSSEX
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 11001 WASHINGTON
MARYLAND 24001 ALLEGANY
ilARYLAND 24003 ANNEARUMDEL
MARYLAND 24005 BALTIMORE
itARYLAND 24009 CALVERT
MARYLAND 24011 CAROLINE
MARYLAND 24013 CARROLL
MARYLAND 24015 CECIL
MARYLAND 24017 CHARLES
MARYLAND 24019 DORCHESTER
MARYLAND 24021 FREDERICK
vlARYLAND 24023 GARRETT
MARYLAND 24025 IIARFQRD
(MARYLAND 24027 HOWARD
MARYLAND 24029 KENT
MARYLAND 2403! MONTGOMERY
MARYLAND 24033 PRINCE GEORGE'S
MARYLAND 24035 QUEEN ANNES
MARYLAND 24037 SAINT MARY'S
MARYLAND 24039 SOMERSET
MARYLAND 24011 TALBOT
MARYLAND 24043 WASHINGTON
MARYLAND 240« WCOM1CO
MARYLAND 24041 WORCESTER
MARYLAND 24510 BALTIMORE CITY
NEW YORK 36003 ALLEGANY
NEW YORK 36007 BROOME
NEW YORK 36011 CAYUOA
NEW YORK 36015 CHEMUNO
NEW YORK 3601? CIDENANOO
NEW YORK 36023 CORTLAND
PCUNDS OF NITROGEN UMDBD BY RURAL NONFARM POPULATIONS USWO CTIIER MEANS OF DISPOSAL TO:
GBOUNDWATIR
MM MEAN M«
___ |§7527 4.563.1
142.2 4».S
572.7 7,170.6 16.344.4
2.841.1 9.213.2
3,269.8 10,496.7
6.134.S 19,439.2
1,047.7 7.235,3 16,746.2
190,5 4,418.6 11.670.2
91.7 9.582.2 28,223.0
27,4 7,153.5 20,1)5.6
3,494.2 16,275.0 34,6216
185.4 4,120.2 I1.6SI.1
299.« 11,102.6 33,626.2
12,5 1,121.6 2,899.6
411.2 8,772.1 23.967.4
J7.8 3.028.2 9.426.3
64.9 3.134.3 8,535.0
2,488.5 7,9110
2.323.0 6,380.3
917 3,638.4 9,681.5
' 442.4 8,311.7 21.060.5
2.209.9 5.976.5
1.511.7 4,1350
399.1 1.840.4 22J34.9
3,958,5 1IJ02.4
1,352.0 3,?56,9
-
2IS.8 M1.9
2,365.7 8.J65.
0.0 0.
1,399.9 4,117.
247.9 6,346.7 18,087.
134.9 2.871.4 7.M1.
SURFACE WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
«.l (SI4.7 1,571.8
51.2 148.3
178.5 2.337.7 5.042.6
1.J47.4 4.016.9
1.052.0 3.307.7
2.M3.3 6,672.3
3J3.5 2.M7.4 6.072.9
«7.1 1,430.3 3,716.3
J3.2 3,514.5 10.238.2
8.8 2,299.6 6,412.3
1.338.2 5.M0.5 I2J9I.O
ID2.9 1,810.1 4.2849
M.5 3.JI0.8 10.375.5
4.8 400.7 1,020,8
136.2 2.S36.5 7,617.0
9.9 1.076.2 3.326.1
19.2 977.8 2,637.5
891.2 2.822.6
816.1 2,328.2
27.4 1,121.6 2,962.5
158.6 Z970.6 7.430.8
808.6 2.212.5
480,9 1.527.1
126.0 3,008.3 7.618.7
1,375.6 3.87J.8
547.5 UI9.S
. *
99.2 414.7
1.173.6 4,125.
0.0 0.0
662.1 2,198,9
113.8 5,934.1 8.267.
64.9 1.363.5 3,624.
BAY WATER
M!N MEAN MAX
5.1 118.5 281.5
488.8 1,800.4
119.0 409.7
I2S.9 1,115.5 2,990.1
200.0 591. 1
•
539.4 1,9561
393.6 1.6260 3,522.6
1718 1.625.1 3.808.1
1S.3 205,0 542.3
3.8 909.5 2.472.0
138.3 3S7.6
0.1 1,391.8 3,733.2
1.0 1,395.3 4,172.6
510.4 1.644.7
685.7 2.7014
"
425.7 1,146.4
6.8 26.2
.
"
• * *
.
* " "
4
i
191.4
9,526.7
4,081.5
4.810.6
8.6568
11,061.2
6,049.0
13,096,7;
9,992.5
23,181.6
8.255.5
15,513.4
1,522.3
11,113.6
4,104.4
5,021.6
3,379.7
3.177.4
6,151.9
12,677.6
1.529.0
2,671.4
1 1,848,7
5.7599
1,906.4
315.3
3,539.2
0.0
2,062.0
9,281.5
4.234.9
Table 12
-------
II II. I
NCRI-CIESAPEAKE. Inc.
KJ
STATE
NEW YORK
NEWYORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
HEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEWYOSK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
PENNSYIVANIA
| PENNSYIVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
«NNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
TP'*^ 12
COUNTY_
DELAWARE^
HERKMER
LIVINOSTON
MADISON
ONEIDAEAST
OHONDAGA
ONTARIO
OTSEOO
SCHOHARffi
SCI1UYLER
STEUBEN
TKX3A
TOMPKNS
YATES
ADAMS
BEDFORD
BERKS
I BUR
BRADFORD
CAMBRIA
CAMERON
CARBON
CENTRE
CHESTER
CLEARFIELD
CLINTON
COLUMBIA
CUMBERLAND
DAUPHIN
ELK
FRANKLIN
FULTON
HUNTINGDON
INDIANA
UPOUNDSOPNrraOQENLOAnBnBvni^,
j OROUNDWATER
MM
.
252
.
;
1,224.3
1,970.5
1.345.6
7,9
406.7
5,628.4
2.730.5
731.8
0.0
1.032.5
234.6
4.085.5
•t.081,9
503.2
1487.7
683.2
44.1
2,210,8
320.1
1.419.1
535.2
MEAN
1,0760
16,8
III 1.2
114,7
2J3.3
3.34S.8
2JS.6
735,3
12.154.2
4.382.1
554.5
5t.S
J.32J.9
1.003.7
$,4«S,9
12,843.5
7.574J
02
6,3393
2.5477
14,263,6
4.700.1
881.7
10,624.4
2,1013
6.8702
MAX
3,312.0
U. NONFARM POP ULATIONS USMQ OTinre
SURFACE WATER
1
MM
801.3 I
150.7
5.628.7
7S3.S
11.819.2
791.1
1,969.0
J0.02S.7
12,687.0
1.347.2
152.9
19.729.3
14,822.9
2.904.1
15.139,6
22.569.9
KI35.01
12.1
-
604,9
$95.9
560.0
3.0
153.8
2,866.3
1.0744
W*5.3 258.4
0.5 I
1S.I9I.3
1,833.8
2MB.!
10.162.5
18.701.1
20,854.0
2,302,4
25,2776
4,358.6
1O80.7
0.0
394.1
77,3
1,585.7
1,520.9
2291
489.9
229.7
16.0
911.7
138.3
399.2
3.038.2 1 2u,|
MEAN
512.0
80.2
17.2
975.0
SI.7
102,3
1.469.1
110.2
340.3
5,813,7
2.014.5
253.0
29,2
2.833.7
2.771.1
364,3
2,137.9
6.404,4
2.934.4
967.4
01
2.377.1
1521
5.415,0
3.2267
1,135,2
2.980.2
2,879.9
311.1
*.I9I,5
873.5
2,748, 1
640.6
Ill LM.M,
MA*
1,561,1
MEANS OF DISPOSAL TO:
BAY WATER
1 MM MEAN
320.9
69.1
2,568.7
214 £
301.3
5,!05.8
338,3
I9S.5
14.072.2
5.7701
6152
75.5
5,942*
5,7922
1.034.3
$.159.8
11,094.0
5,416.4
1.907.1
0.2
5.6244
1,938,5
10.823.8
5409,5
4.239.7
7.040.«
7,067.8
803.8
9^77.8
1.781.3
$.653.9 J
-
•
•
-
•
"
.
•
-
1.I72,|J
MAX
4,114.9
3«.7
1.015.4
17,917.8
6.395.6
803.6
11.1
1XI$T.«
9,75*. I
I,37«.0
7.627.8
19.247.9
IO.SOS.3
3,7«.0
C3
8,716.4
3,399.8
19.6786
11,6483
6.535J
II.136.IS
HJI7.»
1.192.1
14,815.$
2.9*0<1
9.6113
2281.4
-------
NITROGEN LQADl-OTO (iHOUND WATIiR, SURFACE WATIvR AND
THE BAY BY POPULATIONS USING SBPTIC AND OTHER MEANS
OF NON-SEWBRBD WAS'l'li DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCR] -CHESAPEAKE, Inc.
STATE F1PS COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA 42065 JEFFERSON
PENNSYLVAHIA 42067 JUNIATA
PENNSYLVANIA 42069 LACKAWANNA
PENNSYLVANIA 42071 LANCASTER
PENNSYLVANIA 42075 LEBANON
PENNSYLVANIA 42079 LUZERHE
PENNSYLVANIA 42081 LYCOMJNO
PENNSYLVAM1A 42083 MCKEAN
PENNSYLVANIA 42087 MffFUN
PENNSYLVANIA 42093 MONTOUR
PENNSYLVA>flA 42097 NORTHUMBERLAND
PENNSYLVANIA 420W PERRY
PENNSYLVANIA 42105 POTTER
PENNSYLVANIA 42107 SCHUYUOLL
PENNSYLVANIA 42109 SNYMR
PENNSYLVANIA 42III SOMERSET
PENNSYLVANIA 42113 SULLIVAN
PENNSYLVANIA 42115 SUSQISKANNA
PENNSYLVANIA 42117 TtOGA
PENNSYLVANIA 42119 UNION
PENNSYLVANIA 42127 WAYNE
PENNSYLVANIA 42131 WYOMING
PENNSYLVANIA 4213J YORK
VIRGINIA 5 1001 ACCOMACK
VIRGINIA 51003 ALDEMARLE
VIRGINIA 51005 ALLECHANY
VIRGINIA 51007 AMELIA
VIRGINIA 51009 AMIIERST
VIRGINIA 5101 1 APPOHATTOX
VIRGINIA 51013 ARLINGTON
VIRODHA SIOI5 AUGUSTA
VIRGINIA 51011 BATH
VIRGINIA SI019 BEDFORD
VIRGINIA $1023 BOTETOURT
t POUNDS OF NITROGEN LOADED BY RURAL NONFARM POPULATIONS USING OTHER MEANS OF DISPOSAL TO:
CROUNDWATER
MN MEAN MAX
1.2 2.7 4.7
1.078.8 3,946.2 7,711.8
505.2 ,4.162.2 10.364.5
1,209.7 21,7428 54.767.7
2,779.5 8.1)5.9
933.3 8,644.0 22.104.5
1,719.1 9,857.8 21.178.1
O.I 19.8 57.1
1,385.8 , 7,532.1 17.081.7
122.3 1,310.9 2.955.5
509.8 5,058.0 11.998.2
3.177.0 8,824.2 17.195.8
689.0 2,595.2 5.21 F.S
2.019.4 8,835.0 19.1(8.1
3.917.3 8,0416 13,7584
141.0 712.2 1,603.0
31,0 1.149.3 2,654.6
2.921,6 8,168.6 15,3796
2.220.4 7.426.1 14.369.7
561.9 2.545.1 5.43S.I
37.3 296.6 (79.2
98.0 2.825.3 6.S29.9
1.882.6 23,8670 61.414.8
1.141.3 7,314.3 15.310.0
$64.0 8.083.4 19,945,2
348.0 4,100.9 10.744.8
46S.5 4,502.4 9.WS.8
421.5 6.361.0 14,121.3
1,476.0 3,930.4
.
379.1 10,620.8 26.4514
1,023.6 3.264.1 6,280.1
187.8 1.799.2 4.367.C
265.1 3.707.2 9.W6.7
SURFACE WATER
UIN MEAN MAX
0.4 0.9 1.6
4«0 1.612.1 3,117.5
279.5 2.263,8 5,562.4
4091 7,232.9 18.006.0
1,013.7 2.945.0
458.1 4,148.0 10.516,0
748.3 4,067.0 8.583.J
0.1 7.0 19.8
542.7 3.060.0 6,883.8
46,5 489,1 1,075.5
204.5 2,003.9 4,688.6
1,352.0 3,643.4 6,977.4
2644 993.0 1,981.5
839.0 3,388.0 7.151.6
1.614,6 3,327.9 5,744.0
54.6 296.5 600.4
16.9 613.1 1,400.0
l.<96.2 4,144.2 7,729.7
1,0549 3.S8I.1 6.853J)
224.4 954.3 1,983.8
19.7 154.8 351.0
54.3 1,480.7 3,551.1
«3.4 8,192.3 20,754.8
530.2 3,261.3 6,675.0
206.6 2,466.8 $.978.5
S66.5 1,934.6 4,983.5
137.8 1,297.9 2,752.7
105.6 i.678.8 3,152.4
447.3 1.187.8
-
166.8 4.376.7 10,576.8
486.1 1,529.3 2,915.0
45.9 482.8 1,145.9
120.8 1.539.7 3.941,7
BAY WATER
M1N MEAN MAX
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
244.7 1,4:7.6 2.983.1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
i
B
3.6
5.558,3
6.42&0
28,975.7
3,793.2
12,791.9
13,924.8
26.8
10,592.2
1,820.0
7,061.9
12.467.5
3,581.2
12.223.0
1 1.376,5
1.078.7
1,762.4
12,3128
11,007.2
3,499.4
451.5
4.306.0
32,059.3
12.001.3
10,550.2
6,035.5
5,800.3
8,039.8
1,923.3
-
14.997.5
4,793.4
2.282.0
$.247.0
Table 12
-------
^
NCRlHTHESAPEAKl. Inc.
STATE
VmGlhIA
VmGWA
VIRGINIA
V"MIB*A
VOUSMA
VROINIA
VIRGINIA
VBWMA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VmOMA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
Vm°WU
VRGMA
vmGINJA
VIRGINIA
VIKOINU
vmoiNiA
VIRGINIA
vmctNU
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VRGMA
VRCMA
r»\w. 12
(AM SEPTIC PROJECT
FIPS COUNTY
51029 BUCKINGHAM
ilOJI CAMPBELL
S1033 CAROLINE
51036 CHARLES CITY
51037 CHARLOTTE
51041 CHESTERFIELD
JIW3 CLARKE
1104] CRAIG
JIW7 CULPEPER
51049 CUMBERLAND
51053 DlNWIDDiE
51057 ESSEX
51059 FAIRFAX
SI06I FAUQUIER
51065 FLUVANNA
51069 FREDERICK
SI07I OU.ES
51073 GLOUCESTER
51075 GOOCHLAND
51079 GREENE
51085 HANOVER
51087 HENRICO
51091 IflGICLANC
51053 ISLE OF WIGHT
SW95 JAMES CITY
51097 KINO AND QUEEN
51099 KB*} GEORGE
51101 KING WILLIAM
51103 LANCASTER
51107 LOUDOUN
51109 LOUISA
51 111 LUNENBERG
$1 113 X1AMSON
sins MATIIEWS
—
"
SOF NTIROOEN LOADBP B Y RURA
GROUN0WATER
MM MEAN MAX
7711 7.O0.5 16.0498
" «*-» 2,382.6
1.153.1 IJ38.I 19,148.9
«3«2 3,585.5 8,639.6
00 O.S I.)
i.595.6 6,368.1
2,662.9 6.683.7
2,405.1 10.618.0 21,277.0
1,585.5 «.|5t.3 1 1,145.0
S8.» 8T5.6 1.918.0
376.5 3.3J9.7 7,567.8
*42J 7,710.0 17,403.2
367.4 4.998.3 1 1.295. J
463.* 9,913.5 25,113.3
IC0.6 264.9
J.004.S «,,38.l ,3|39I,
"0.1 5.910.4 14,828.8
US2.1 11.875.7 28^1
2.360.7 7.94J9
2590 1,813.3 3.715.8
37.4 1,895.9 4.807.9
51.4 US7.9 4.258.5
STO.9 2,320.2 4,611.1
39.5 2.309.1 g.401.7
292.4 3,181.2 6,979.6
161.1 2,724.0 6.964,2
320.2 S.6H7 14.432.8
1.647.S I1.23J.I 33,600.5
1-0 2.2
MSS.O 6.92S.I J2.417.7
230.4 1,609.7 13575
1. NONFARM POPULATIONS US1NO OTHER 1
j SURFACE WATER
MO* MEAN MA.\
212.6 2,137.6 4,564.
03 247.8 690
406.3 2,879.2 6,316,
351.1 1,608.9 3,430,
0.0 o.l 0.
«0.5 1,847.
1,035.9 2.590.J
MS 625.7 I.3SI.J
840.7 3,602.2 7.IOI.J
4126 1,598.4 3,0312
216 194.5 4177
133.5 1,226.7 2.733.J
240.5 1,144.0
298.3 2,607.3 S.75H.3
103-0 1,256.3 2.780.3
1914 3,648.2 9,340.8
44.8 lift?
354.2 2,356.2 J.203.0
"31 1.672.1 4.148,1
315.1 1.32S.9 2.748.9
515.4 3,841.0 89496
770.7 2,563,!
12*3 861.4 1,741.0
13.7 757.4 1,899.2
172 569.8 1,560.7
193.7 SOO.I 1,580.8
HI 7894 2,174.0
996 1.096.9 2,3*40
54.6 1.015,1 J.610.4
126.1 1,706,6 4,237.2
366,5 2,530.4 5^70.3
0.3 o.«
9419 2,361.7 4,146.9
124.5 (41 0 1 ?i< i
' —
HEANS OF DISPOSAL TO:
BAY WATER
MN MEAW fc58.4 1,155.8 2.603.8
. — ,^™™^____^_
j
I
It
___
i.094.7
1 1.150.0
6,149.0
0.6
2,1388
1,992.4
14^40.2
7.7S6.7
1.0M.I
4 815 3
I.OJ6.2
10,317.3
6,2546
13.5JI.7
I4S.S
IO.CMC6
7,6*2.5
4,521.0
15,723.7
3,230.3
2,614.7
3.0306
2.226,9
3.2215
3.3SS.I
4.4M.O
4.9S».0
7.321J
13.761.6
1.3
9.2908
3,606.5
-------
r,?J^?^i°ADGDTO GROUND WATOR, SURFACB WATI'R Ah
Illb BAY BY roiH/LATIONS USING SIIPT1C AND OTIIFR MPANS
OPNON-SBWEllEDWASTG DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMA^IR
W&WS£?™™«°>«*
STATE FIPS COUNTY
VIRGINIA 51 IIS MIDDLESEX
VIRGINIA sin) MONTGOMERY
VIRGINIA 5112; NELSON
VIRGINIA suit NEWKENT
VIRGINIA 5H3I NORTHAMPTON
VmOIN1A SI133 NORTHUMBERLAND
VIRGINIA 51135 NOTTOVVAY
VIRGINIA 51137 ORANOI
VIRGINIA 51 139 PAGE
VIRGINIA 51(45 POW1IATAN
VIRGINIA 51H7 PR1NCEEDWARD
VIRGINIA 51149 PRINCE GEORGE
VIRGINIA 51153 PRINCE WILLIAM
VmCWIA 5H57 RAPPAHANNOCK
VIRGINIA 5H59 RICHMOND
VIRGINIA SI 161 ROANOKE
VIRGINIA 51163 ROOCBR1DGI
VIRGINIA 51165 ROCKWGIIAM
VIRGINIA 5)171 SHENANDOAH
VIRGINIA 5H77 SPOTSYLVANIA
VIRGINIA 5H79 STAFFORD
VIRGINIA 51181 SURRY
VIRGINIA . 51U7 WARREN
VIRGINIA 51193 WESTMORELAND
VIRGINIA 51199 YORK
VIRGINIA 51510 ALEXANDRIA
VIRGINIA 5IS30 DUENA VISTA
VIRGINIA 5IS40 CHARLOTTESVELE
VIRGINIA 51550 CHESAPEAKE CITY
VIRGINIA 51560 CLIFTON FORGE
VmOIMA 51570 COLONIAL HEIGHTS .
VIRGINIA 51580 COVWOTON
VIRGINIA 51600 FAIRFAX
WRCINIA 51610 FALLS CIIURCH
_
— — —
..POUNDS OF NITROGEN LOADED BY RURAL NONFARM MP» ™w< ,,^ mmi ^r nr nrm-TTTT"
OROUNDWATER
M1N K
-------
NITROGRN LOADED TO GROUND WATER, SURFACE WATER Ah
THB BAY BY POPULATIONS USING SEPTIC AND OTHER MEANS
OF NON-SEWERED WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAV PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NOU-CJCESAPEAKE, Inc.
STATE FIPS COUNTY
GrmdToul
«, POUNDS OF NTTROOEN LOADEDBY RURAL NONFARM POPULATIONS USING OTHER KUANS OF DISPOSAL TO
GROUNDWATER
MIN MI-AM MAX
I0t,2l7.« 7SS.W3.0 I,IM,5J2,9
SURFACE WATER
MW KffiAN MAX
4J.7I6.0 293,4002 680,1612
BAY WATER
. IvGN MEAN MAX
2,«2,J 24,214.1 63.T67.4
TOTAL 4t
1.101,921.1
O\
-------
NITROGEN LOADED TO GROUNu rfATliR, SURFACE WATER AND
THE BAY BY POPUIATIONS USING SEPTIC AND OTHER MEANS
Of-' NON-SEWERED WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE RAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
mtlNTY SUMMARIES
NCM-CHESAPEAKE, Inc.
STATE HPS COUNTY
VIRGINIA 51634 FREDGR1CKSBURO
VIRGINIA S16M HAMPTON CITY
VIRGINIA Sl«6) HARMSONBURG
VIRGINIA 51671 IIOPBVELL
VIRGINIA 51671 LEXINGTON
VIRGINIA 51689 LYNCHBURO
VIRGINIA 5168} MANASSES CITY
VIRGINIA 51685 MANASSES PARK CITY
VIRGINIA 51700 NEWPORT NEWS OTY
VIRGINIA S17IO NORFOUCCrrY
VIRGINIA 51730 PETERSBURG
VIRGINIA 51735 POQOOSON
VIRGINIA 51740 PORTSMOUTH CITY
VIRGINIA SITffl RICHMOND CITY
VIRGINIA 51790 STAUNTON
VIRGINIA 51 WO SUFFOLK CITY
VIRGINIA S1810 VIRGINIA BEACH CITY
VIRGINIA 51830 WAYNESBORO
VIRGINIA 51830 W1LUAMSBURG
VIRGINIA 51840 WINCHESTER
WEST VIRGINIA 54003 BERKELEY
WEST VIRGINIA 5403 GRANT
WESTvmeiNiA 540:5 GREENBRIAR
WEST VIRGINIA 5402? HAMPSHIRE
WESTVOICINIA S40J1 1IARDY
WEST VIRGINIA 540)7 JEFFERSON
WESTVROWIA 540S7 MINERAL
WESTVma&flA 54WJ MONROE
WESTVROIKIA 540S5 MORGAN
WESTVRSIN1A S40!l PENDLETON
WEST VIRGINIA 54075 PQOUIONTAS
WEST VIRGINIA 54077 PRESTON
WEST VIRGINIA 540J3 RANDOLPH
WEST VIRGINIA 54033 TUCKER
. POUNDS OF NITROGEN LOADED BY RURAL NQNFARM POPULATIONS USING OTHER MEANS OF DISPOSAL TO:
OROUNDWATIR
MIN MEAN MAX
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
5.9 i.075.3 2,554.9
.
-
.
.
1,063.0 H.361.4 26,591.7
470.6 3.596.1) 7,9036
OJ 1.4 4.1
1.697.1 9,037.1 11.750.2
1.255.1 6.S8M 13.124.7
15.1 3,032.1 1.075.1
2,071.1 «,350.6
84.8 616.5 1,3098
240.9 2.363J 5,804.1
2,834.8 6,992.7 12,206.7
0.1 1.4 3.3
17J 43.2
, 09 2.4
111 33.0
SURFACE WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
•
.
-
•
-
,
-
-
•
.
•
.
•
.
.
3.1 459.8 1.082.4
.
.
-
-
398.5 3,959.5 9,124.8
213.4 1,574.3 3.409.4
0.2 0.8 2.1
815,1 4.293.7 8,807.4
595.1 3.108,6 6,139.2
24.0 989.6 2.644.8
896.1 2,724.7
31.6 276.5 581.0
1 10 8 1,076.7 2,598.7
1,308.3 3,177.8 5,484.5
0.0 0.7 1.7
6.1 14.5
0.5 1,2
4.4 11.7
BAY WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
•
.
•
.
•
. *
•
•
.
•
•
•
-
.
.
40.2 130.5
•
,
•
-
•
.
.
,
.
•
.
•
-
•
•
•
•*
1
-
•
-
•
*
-
•
-
•
-
-
-
•
•
•
1.575.1
-
•
-
15,320.1
S.UOJ
24
13,331.1
9,690.0
4,022.4
2.9677
893.0
3,440.0
10.170.4
2.1
13.)
1,1
"*i
Table 12
-------
NITROGEN LOADED TO GROUND WATRR, SURFACE WATER AND
THE BAY BY POPULATIONS US WO SEPTIC AND OTHER MEANS
OF NON-SEWERED WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
00
CllESAPEAi\E llJtV I*RGCRAhI SEP'ITC PROJTEfT
COUwT Y SL/KfKtARIES
NCRr-aiESAPEACE. Inc.
STATS Hi>s COUNTY
DELAWARE 10003 NEWCASTLE
DELAWARE |0005 SUSSEX
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 11001 WASHINGTON
MARYLAND J400I ALLEOANY
MARYLAND 24003 ANNEARUNDIL
MARYLAND 24005 BALTIMORE
MARYIAND 24009 CALVERT
MARYLAND 24011 CAROLINE
MARYLAND 24013 CARROLL
MARYLAND 24015 CECIL
MARYLAND 24017 CHARLES
MARYLAND 24019 DORCHESTER
MARYLAND 24021 FREDERICK
MARYLAND 24023 CARRETT
MARYLAND 24025 HARFORD
MARYLAND 24027 HOWARD
MARYLAND 24029 KENT
MARYIAND 24031 MONTGOMERY
MARYLAND J4033 PRINCE GEORGE'S .
MARYLAND 2403J QUEEN ANNE'S
MARYLAND 24037 SAINT MARYS
MARYIAND 24039 SOMERSET
MARYLAND J4041 1ALBOT
MARYIAND M043 WASHINGTON
MARYIAND 14045 WICOMICO
MARYIAND M047 WORCESTER
MARYLAND MS10 BALTIMORE CITY
NEW YORK J6003 ALLEOANY
NEW YORK 36007 BROOME
NEW YORK 3601 1 CAYUOA
NEW YORK 36015 CHEMUNQ
NETWORK 16017 CHENANGO
"""""""" ' • .,
GROUND WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
242.6 I.JOT.4
26.6 13T.O
1.1 lit 4.204.6
156.2 910!
267J I3M.I
t, 138,1 3.966.8
143,7 J.2T1.9
48.3 168.4
«65.4 3.1428
440.7 2.315,4
179,9 8369
109.4 »43J
69.5 3.270.4 1.991.4
244.3 1,317.7
1,918.1 4.506,1
404.3 2^47.1
160.6 928.»
20.7 137.4
818.8 3.157.7
392.2 1,770.0
119.6 1.979.1
1 SURFACE WATER
MM MEAN MAX
8S.4 453.:
9.4 47.3
349,0 1,298,}
69.0 39T.4
91.1 462.1!
414.2 1,430.1
46.1 403.9
15.2 _ 273.0
244.1 1,136.2
144.2 761.7
65.4 298,6
•
32.7 253.2
* » .
•
U 3 183.7
25.0 1.184.0 3.202.8
88.1 476,4
9.0 135.2
323.6 1.453,3
I3S.3 694.0
«.2 3852
9.9 63.1
390.6 1.4976
0.0
184,4 827,5
SS.5 »I«O
HER MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSA1
BAY WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
18.1 61.
13.2 94.
' 141,5 5709
4.9 JJ.7
4.1 57.6
41.5 295.4
«
-
15,9 162.4
•
'
4.4 97.1
307.8 1,251.6
23.4 176.2
125 245.1
335 J1S.6
0.7 7.1
-
-
TO;
328
36
1.472.
225,
371.
t.694.
194.7
67,7
915.9
633.4
245.3
,
158.0
«
„
668
4.762,2
355.8
49.6
1,339,7
566.2
227,5
30.6
1.209,5
0.0
576.6
278.1
130^317
J4.4291
299^60.1
48415.1
II4JI3.7
9IO.»54.S
786, (46.3
405,7414
I43.1I2.I
700.W0.3
36t,12t.l
377.JI9.0
U7.C79.0
630,5110
3I.C7I.7
639.B3J
310.3476
13.321.7
450.HI 6
251.9690
216,469,1
-------
NITROCHiN LOADED TO GROUND WATtiR, SURFACE WATER AND
THE HAY BY POPULATIONS USING SKPT1C AND OTHER MEANS
OV NON-SEWERED WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPHC PROJECT
3UNTY SUMMARIES - ,„ , — — - ,
NTR1-CHESAPEAKE Ine.
STATE F1PS COUNTY
HEW YORK 36023 CORTLAND
NEW YORK 36025 DELAWARE
JEW YORK 36043 HERKIMER
JEW YORK 36031 LIVINGSTON
fl-WYORK 360J3 MADISON
IEWYORK 36045 ONEIDAEAST
JEW YORK 36087 ONONDAOA
NEW YORK 36049 ONTARIO
HEW YORK 36077 OTSEOO
NEW YORK 36055 SCHQI1AR1B
•JEW YORK 36097 SC1IUYLER
•JEW YORK 36101 STEUBEN
>JEW YORK 36107 TIOOA
NEW YORK 36I« TOMPKINS
HEW YORK 361J3 YATES
PENNSYLVANIA 42001 ADAMS
PENNSYLVANIA 42009 BEDFORD
PENNSYLVANIA 42011 BERKS
PENNSYLVANIA 42,013,00 BLAIR
PENNSYLVANIA 42015 BRADFORD
PENNSYLVANIA 43021 CAMBRIA
PENNSYLVANIA 42C23 CAMERON
PENNSYLVANIA 42025 CARBON
PENNSYLVANIA 42C27 CENTRE
PENNSYLVANIA 4»29 ClIfSTER
PENNSYLVANIA 42«33 CLEARF1ELD
PENNSYLVANIA 42035 CLINTON
PENNSYLVANIA 42037 COLUMBIA
PENNSYLVANIA 42041 CUMBERLAND
PENNSYLVANIA 42043. DAUPHIN
PENNSYLVANIA 42M7 ELK
PENNSYLVANIA 42«SS FRANKLIN
PENNSYLVANIA 42057 RIUTQN
*
POUNDS OFMTROOEN LOADED BY FARM POPULATIONS USING OTHER MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL O:
GROUND WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
I 348.3 1.8698
152.0 900.0
10.7 143.8
0.8 17.7
85.0 757.1
11.4 117,3
40.0 235.5
365.7 2,569.8
19.0 168.1
267.7 1,032.4
2,094.4 8,255.5
339.0 1,986.3
46.3 257.9
9.4 46.4
460.9 2,501,8
304.2 1.680.4
219,1 804.4
477.6 1,395.5
735.4 2,7710
99.$ 604.0
.
0.0 0.0
684.6 2,645.
213.5 1,029.
446.7 1,456.
216.3 1.170.
141.2 1,339.
• « » "
967.9 4.042.
1204 623.
URFACE WATER BAY WATER
MW MEAN MAX
165.8 872.5
73.0 428.0
4.4 57.5
0.4 8.2
39.2 344.9
5.3 51.7
16.3 94.7
159.7 1.106,5
8.4 73.6
123.3 469.5
1,0135 3,994,3
157,8 910.0
21.2 117.2
4.7 22.9
141.1 757.9
123.4 663.3
84.0 300.9
178.4 513.3
365,5 1,361.2
38.9 233.7
0.0 0.0
259,7 977,7
72.2 344,6
181.3 592.
80.8 4J6.
49.9 464.
.
3796 1.539.
500 254.
'
MIN MEAN MAX
i ; ;
•
.
•
.
•
.
-
,
•
•
.
..
.
TOTAL 4f
225.0
15.1
1.2
124.1
16.7
56.3
525.4
27.4
190.9
3,107,8
496.8
67,5
14. 1
602.0
427,6
303.8
656.0
1,100.8
138.3
0,0
944.3
2*5.7
628.0
297.0
191.1
1,347.5
1704
I
|
82,313.5
37,0902
3.254S
115,428.1
20,964,1
19.160.1
347,424,6
9.358.1
36J57.5
425.247.4
308.120.9
45.452.7
2,251.3
368,152.2
329.954.»
97,515*
328.693.1
375,1135
131,753.1
25,902,'
II. 1
327,499.!
180,216)
337,803,!
120,818,5
315,775.!
412,060$
461,843.
43,301.!
430,125.9
I0M95.I
Table 12
-------
NCRI-atESAPEAKE, Inc.
SOF WASTE DISPOSAL TO:
BAY WATER
257.9
464
2.501.J
1,610.4
STATE
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
MEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
l"ENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
Tab
-------
NIFROGRN LOADED TO GROUND WATF.R SURFACE WATFR AN
Ye!Y POPUUTIONS US!NG SBFTIC AND OTHW MEAW
.SEWRRED WASTE DISPOSAL; COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRI-CHESAPEAKE, 1m
STATE FIPS COUNTY
PENNS^ LVAN1A 42061 HUNTINGDON
PENNSYLVANIA 420S3 INDIANA
PENNSYLVANIA 42085 JEFFERSON
PENNSYLVANIA 42067 JUNIATA
PENNSYLVANIA 420S9 LACXAWANNA
PENNSYLVANIA 42071 LANCASTER
PENNSYLVANIA 4M» LEBANON
PENNSYLVANIA 4207? LUZERNE
PENNSYLVANIA 42081 LYCOMING
PENNSYLVANIA 42081 MCKEAN
PENNSYLVANIA 4208? MIFFL1N
PENNSYLVANIA 4209) MONTOUR
PENNSYLVANIA 4209T NORTHUMBERLAND
PENNSYLVANIA 4209* PERRY
PENNSYLVANIA 4210$ POTTER
PENNSYLVANIA 42IOT SCHUYLKILL
PENNSYLVANIA 42IOf SNYDER
PENNSYLVANIA 4211 SOMERSET
PENNSYLV&NIA 42115 SULLIVAN
PENNSYLVANIA 421 IS SUSqUEHANNA
PENNSYLVANIA 42111 TIOGA
PENNSYLVANIA 421 1? UNION
PENNSYLVANIA 42121 WAYNE
PENNSYLVANIA 42131 WYOMING
PENNSYLVANIA 42133 YORK
VIRGINIA jiooi ACCQMACK
VIRGINIA 51003 ALBEMARLE
VIRGINIA 51005 ALLEDIIANY
VIRGINIA $1007 AMELIA
VIRGINIA stoos AMIIERST
VIRGINIA $1011 APPOMATTOX
VIRGINIA $IO|3 ARLINGTON
VIRGINIA 51015 AUGUSTA
t POUNDS OF NITROGEN LOADED
CROUND WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
246.2 1.329.2
117.7 377.9
801.9 2,336.5
JS0.4 7,771.9 23.752.1
S69.S 2,230.1
369.0 2,0514
164.2 2,408.7 6.297.1
1019 455.3
225,0 1,301.9
0.0 313.4 1,331.7
230.6 1,448.5
755.9 2,949,0 5,965.7
724 2994
29.1 212.1
206.2 1,202.4
394.1 1,834.3
21.6 764.2 2,217.0
17.1 100,9
M.S 546.9
JM.2 3.608.0
571.2 2.514.6
464.8 2.749.1
429.5 1,929.7
420.6 1.971.0
1266 771.3
1.014.2 5.1609
Y FARM POPULATIONS USING OTHER MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSA1 fr>
MIN MEAN MAX
99.6 527.8
47.0 1480
329,0 939.8
1 15.4 2.526,5 7.679.5
241.0 J06.2
IS1.7 829.6
62.5 8928 2,357.8
37.9 !«.!
87.3 $03.1
0.0 130.9 540.1
83.0 514.1
308.1 1,200.3 2.401,8
27.5 1122
15.4 IH.4
104.9 606,8
191.5 883 R
8.4 277.J 810.6
9,0 SJ.4
34.2 284.0
142.5 1.261.6
262.6 I.H6.1
142.1 809.4
124,4 54(5.2
IOt.5 $03,2
38.1 234.9
4109 Ttxta
* '- — L
DAY WATER
MIN MEAN K4AX
136,3 5!9,6
* L- —
345.8
164.7
1,137.9
10,2984
9105
520.*
3,301.4
140.9
312.3
444,2
3136
4,149.3
99.9
44.5
311.1
585.7
1.1M10
26.1
91.7
$40.7
970.2
606.9
553.9
529.1
164.7
1,425.1
Table 12
-------
NITROGEN LOADED TO GROUND WATI-R, SURFACE WATKR Ah
THE !JAY BY POPUIJVTIONS USING SBI'TIC AND OTHER MEANS
OP NON-SUWI-;RED WASTE DISPOSAL. COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCR1-CIIESAPEAKI, Inc. If
STATE F1PS COUNTY
VIRGINIA 51017 BATH
VIROIMIA 51019 BEDFORD
VIRGINIA 51023 BOTETOURT
VIRGINIA 51029 BUCKINGHAM
VIRGINIA 51031 CAMPBELL
VIRGINIA 51033 CAROLINE
VIRGINIA 51036 CHARLES CITY
VIRGINIA 51037 CHARLOTTE
VIRGINIA 1104! CHESTERFIELD
VIRGINIA 51043 CLARKE
VIROIMA SI 045 CRAIG
VIRGIMA 51047 CULPEPER
VIRGIMA 51049 CUMBERLAND
VIRGINIA 51053 DINWIDDIE
VIRGINIA 51057 ESSEX
VIRGINIA 5)059 FAIRFAX
VIRGINIA 5)06) FAUQUIER
VIRGIMA 51065 FLUVANNA
VIRGINIA 51069 FREDERICK
VIROIKiA 51071 GILES
VIRGIMA 5107J GLOUCESTER
VIRGIMA 51075 COCCI [LAND
VIRGIMA 51079 GREENE
VIRGIMA 51085 HANOVER
VIRGIMA 51087 HENRICO
VIRGJMA SI091 HIGHLAND
VIRGINIA SI093 ISLE OF WIGHT
VIRGINIA 51095 JAMES CITY
VIRGINIA S109T KING AND QUEEN
VIRGINIA SI 099 KING GEORGE
VIRGINIA 51101 KING WILLIAM
VIRGINIA 51103 LANCASTER
VIRGIMA J1I07 LOUDOUN
' t
f. POUNDS OP NITROGEN LOADED BY FARM POPULATIONS USING OTHER MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL TO:
GROUND WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
241.3 157.9
77.3 4139
-
331.) 1.918.0
12.3 130.7
88.6 881.4
-
0.0 03
•
118.3 8315
.
471.8 2,355.5
524.3 2.200.5
78.9 370,5
338.6 1,4742
» »
417.3 2,40t»
157.1 1.117.5
143.4 1. 563.1
.
267.7 1.247J
* .
U0.2 ma
•
465.4 1.430.1
I30.J 769.5
27.1 2614
534.4 I,«|3.f>
31.4 376.1
371.9 1.275.6
195.0 «M
3J4.4 2,2801
SURFACE WATER BAY WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
112.1 394.9
20.7 1 10.9
« «
95.5 570.9
3.5 37.2
29.5 283,2
.
0,0 0.0
.
41.3 296.0
153.7 764.9
136.7 564.6
17.6 80.4
120.0 522.1
122.6 730.0
40.5 280.4
52.4 561.4
.
96.8 462,0
.
51,9 337,1
221.1 671.1
50.2 293.1
9.1 88.0
18J.3 552.4
10.3 I24J
136.9 4S4.2
67.5 304.6
99.7 645.7
•
MIN MEAN MAX
«
.
-
-
0.5 9.5
.
.
.
»
-
41.6 221.8
.
-
.
*
20.4 127.0
-
• »
- - «
3.3 333
0.2 3,7
21.3 74.8
4.1 44.3
344 I03.I
42.0 251,6
TOTAL 4f
3534
97.9
4266
15.8
118.6
0.0
159,6
625.5
661.0
96.5
500.2
539.9
197.6
195.S
384.9
182.2
687,1
184.2
36.5
739.0
45.8
550.2
304.5
434.1
I
c
3
$
27.599.1
67,421.7
95.073.5
96,450.3
95,758.2
149.045.4
55 423 3
9.9
443 927 3
75,3*4.6
26,513.6
165.853.1
«S,0}9.5
30.118.0
62.K4.7
542,305.2
317,795,9
86,298.9
240.600.6
2.7W.9
245,154.6
110 343 1
79.9819
354,292.3
209,652.2
20.490.3
107,9146
93.954.9
55,5*3.0
87,910.2
71,8*44
85,159. 1
196,926.7
K>
Tab;
-------
NITROCEN LOACliD TO GROUND WATliR, SURFACE WATI-R M-
THE BAY BY I'OII JLATIONS USING SEPTIC AND OTHI-R MEANS
OF NON-SEWERED WASTG DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRI-CHESAPEAKE, Inc.
STATE FiPS COUNTY
VIRGINIA 51109 LOUISA
VIRGINIA 5111! LUNENBERG
VIRGINIA 511IJ MADISON
VIRGINIA 511 1 S MATHEWS
VIRGINIA Slll» MIDDLESEX
VIRGINIA 5112 MONTGOMERY
VIRGINIA 5I12J NELSON
VIRGINIA 51127 NEWKENT
VIRGINIA sm NORTHAMPTON
VIRGINIA 5113J NORTHUMBERLAND
VIRGINIA 51 135 NOTTOWAY
VIRGINIA SH37 ORANGE
VIRGINIA 5113? PAGE
VIRGINIA 5114! POWHATAN
VIRGINIA 51147 PRINCE EDWARD
VIRGINIA 51 141 PRINCE GEORGE
VIRGINIA 5I15J PRINCE WILLIAM
VIRGINIA 51 157 RAPPAHANNOCK
VRGINIA 5H5J RICHMOND
VIRGINIA 51161 ROANOKE
VIRGINIA 51163 ROCKBRIDGE
VIRGINIA 51165 ROCKINGHAM
VIRGINIA 51171 SHENANDOAH
VIRGINIA 51177 SPOTSYLVANIA
VIRGINIA 51175 STAFFORD
VIRGINIA 51 III SURRA'
VIRGINIA 51187 WARREN
VIRGINIA 51 153 WESTMORELAND
VIRGINIA 51 159 YORK
VIRGINIA 51510 ALEXANDRIA
VIRGINIA 51530 BUENA VISTA
VIRGINIA 51540 CHARLOTTESV1LLE
VIRGINIA 51553 CHESAPEAKE CITY
r. POUNDS OF NITROGEN LOADED BY FARM POPULATIONS US ING OTHER MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL TO:
C.10UND WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
595.4 3,221.1
0.0 0.2
467.1 1,657.9
50.6 291.3
143.6 721.3
.
493.5 2.404.3
.
410.8 1,762.9
409.6 I.6S1.7
239.7 1,185.8
266.8 1,586.8
76.fi 929.5
.
205.2 1.207.J
15.4 160.3
66.9 727.2
262.3 1.371.6
631.1 2,180.5
.
556.0 2,934.6
1,258.6 6,133.6
350.9 2,270.6
58.0 8274
17.7 305.8
69.9 392.1
36.8 411.0
748.6 2,583.7
17,5 121.6
.
.
.
3.3 II.*
SURFACE WATER BAY WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
IJ3.4 714.5
0.0 O.I
159.6 553.5
25.7 146.1
53.8 261.4
.
131.0 662,6
144.0 611.8
1498 610.7
66.8 321,5
77.9 459.8
330 399.4
.
69.3 197.0
61 65,6
21.9 1315
75,0 391.8
235.1 801.6
.
212.8 1.123.1
5145 J.465.4
139.0 883.5
15,7 218.2
5.6 94.6
26.8 14S.4
14.0 157.6
315.3 1,029.8
9.6 66.3
.
.
.
1.8 6.5
MIN MEAN MAX
.
.
.
20.3 115.2
17.5 97.3
.
.
.
9S.2 418.8
162.6 732.0
.
.
.
.
.
06 7.1
0.8 19.8
.
81.6 167.4
.
.
.
,
70 51.8
1.2 16.4
5.7 33.1
.
245.1 W4.3
.
.
.
.
TOTAL 4f
7287
00
627.4
947
214.9
.
624.5
.
654.0
722.0
306.5
344.7
109.6
.
274.6
22.4
89,6
337.2
947.9
.
7688
1.775.0
489.9
80.7
24.4
102.4
50.8
1,309.0
27.1
-
-
-
5.2
I
J
165,656.5
21.1
100.2H.S
71,406.4
69.396.2
4575.6
102,537.0
90,401.2
57,349.7
89,112.9
39,509.5
IJI.558.7
119,441.8
116,230.6
91.228.2
44.180.5
323.742.8
S4.823.7
54,617.1
8,882.1
134,865.2
371,049,8
168,896.9
230.263.9
230,140.5
23.620.2
129,580.*
108,938.4
144.459.8
2,656.4
2.092,2
6.836,9
86.561.4
Table 12-
-------
NITROGEN I.OADED TO GROUND WATFR SUR1-ACF WATrn AXH-,
TUB BAY BY POPU^TTONS USING SB »W AND OTlS M 1
K>
1^
NCRI-CHESAPEAKE, Int.
STATE
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGIhdA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGIMIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGIMIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGIMA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGIMA
VIROIMA
VIRGIMA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
SRAM SETT]
51560
51570
51510
51600
51610
51630
51650
51660
51670
51671
51680
51683
51615
$1700
51710
51730
S173S
S1740
51760
51790
SI 800
S1IIO
51120
J1S30
ilf«
54003
J4023
34025
J4037
5103 1
5W37
54057
$1063
C PROJECT
COUNTY
CLIFTON FORGE
COLONIAL HEIGHTS
COVINGTON
FAIRFAX
FALLS CHURCH
FREDERICKSBURG
HAMPTON CITY
HARR1SONBURO
HOPSWELL
LEXINGTON
LYNCHBURC
MANASSES CITY
MANASSES PARK CITY
NEWPORT NEWS CITY
NORFOLK CITY
PETERSBURG
POQUOSON
rORTSMOUTHCITY
RICHMOND CITY
STAUNTON
SUFFOLK CITY
VIRGINIA BE*CH CITY
WAYNESBORO
WILLIAMSBURO
WINCHESTER
BERKELEY
GRANT
GREEKBR1AR
HAMPSHIRE
ItARDY
JEFFERSON
MINERAL
MONROE
n 12
•
/. POUNDS OF NITROGEN LOADED
MIH MEAN MAX
"
.
.
•
.
.
• .
.
* * •
*
•
«
*
* *
" * ,
* *
•
120J 554,1
•
* * ' •
-
«l.l 2.71 IJ
227.5 I.OS0.5
0.0 O.C
730.5 3,164.1
759J 2,»2*,0
220.1 1,347.4
55.6 491.5
1.0 M I
BY FARM POPULATIONS USING OTHER ME ANi OF WASTE DISPOSAL TO-
MIN MEAN MAX
•
•
"
-
» -
* " >
.
.
51.7 235,3
- '.
164.7 8«54
103.7 477.9
0.0 0.0
342.6 1,467.7
355.2 1,316.7
*7.7 425.2
23.2 204.6
3.6 11*
MIN MEAN MAX
-
-
•
* - .
•
-
*
•
" .
«
"
*
"
" •
*
-
t,9 IQ.O
-
* «
*
~
TOTAL 4t
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
«
*
-
-
•
•
•
174.4
•
-
•
656.6
331.2
0,0
1,073.1
I.I 14.5
218.5
7I.I
11.6
|
I
[
93.0
404.5
236.0
2304.4
746,3
W14.2
24,744.6
I0,i)32.2
4.TII.I
193.0
M92.6
42,521.1
25,113.6
2,150.5
27.411.2
1I.O5.9
42.I3S.2
166^3
106.797.:
10.301.6
2,415.3
6.751.5
300.1140
64.9TS.7
19.1
123.329.5
71,4 14.4
118,722.61
6.60T6 1
-------
NITROGEN LOADED TO GROUND WATER, SURFACE WATER AND
THE BAY BY POPULATIONS USING SEPTIC AND OTHER MEANS
OF NON-SEWERED WASTE DISPOSAL: COUNTY SUMMARIES
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM SEPTIC PROJECT
COUNTY SUMMARIES
NCRI-CHESAPEAKE, Inc
STATE FiPS COUNTY
WEST VIRGINIA MWS MORGAN
WEST VIRGINIA S4071 PENDLETON
WESTVJRBINIA MOTS POCAHONTAS
WEST VIRGINIA 54017 PRESTON
WEST VIRGINIA 540J3 RANDOLPH
WEST VIR3INIA 54053 TUCKER
Grind Total
r, POUNDS or NITROGEN LOADED BY FARM POPULATIONS USING OTHER MEANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL TO:
OROUND WATER
WIN MEAN MAX
633 53I.J
1,206,9 3,430.4
0.1 O.S
O.I 5.9
0.0 O.I
.
IJ71.6 58,0226 242,524.2
SURFACE WATER BM WATER
MIN KffiAN MAX
29.2 242.1
$44,3 1,531. 1
0.1 0.3
0.3 2.0
0,0 0.1
.
JI9.J !l,7«.5 I93«.J
MIN MEAN MAX
.
-
.
.
.
.
1,434.7 7,361.5
TOTAL 4f
93$
1.751.J
02
1.0
0,0
.
I1.4J3.9
S
o
1
tl.CB.1
(50.842.1
20.4
•431.)
I5.»
63 »
33,473,$«6I
J
a
A
Table 12
-------
ls» 1
l-J •
—
TiW. 13. POUNDS OF NITROGEN LOADED BY HOUSINO TYPi " — — — _
AND WASTE DISPOSAL MEANS TO GROUND WATER,
SURFACE WATER. AND THE SAY: MODEL SEGMENT SUMMARIES I . -—________
[a. POUNDS OF Hrtar^fH t ^ Dpn nv , ,„„'„ f , nrin, „ . T, r , , , ... . — ~
ModSeg Mad Sen Name Sub-tartr, c.»llM
20 E«l Branch) Suiqwhanna Abow
30 Eatt Branch 2 Siwquehaniwi Above
40 East Branch 2 Suiquerumn. Abw
50 Wb«t Branch StnqiMhaima Abcr-
60 WHI Branch Sutquehanna Above
70 Wrat Branch Su.quth.nrB Above
80 Lower Susquthmna Susquehanna Abom
(90 Juntata Siwquthanna Atom
100 Juniata Stwquthanna Abo*
110 Lower Susquefnnn* Sutquthanna Abo*
120 ConowlnBO SuiqwNnn. Abo»
140 Qnowinoo SuK^han™ Abow
160 Upper Potomac Potonuo Abow
170 Upper Potomac Potomee Abcw
175 Upper Potomac Potomac Abow
180 MM Potomac Potomac Ahm-
ISO StMnandoah Potomac »£«
200 Srmundoah Potomac Abow
220 Lowr Potomac Potonwg Abow
230 Rafpahannock RaDOahannock AH~_
23S Malapont Yorti^ VZ^!
240 Malaporri York Abo^
250 Panunkey York Abovt
260 ParMmkey York Ahnu»
270 Jarre. J™« *£**
260 Jarre. jamet ^j^
300 Appjmatax Appomatox Abow
310 App*nato» Appomatox Abow
330 Patixenl Paluxenl Abow
340 PatLxertt Patuxenl AboM
370 M,«mta Upper Emtem Shore Betow
380 Chester Upper EartemSwre Below
rrr Wl* Upper E«lem Shore Betow
400 Lower Chapter* Upper intern Show Betow
410 Lower Nanllcoka Lower Entem Shore Below
420 Mamtoo tower Eartem Shore Below
430 Poecmoke Lower Eittem Shore Below
450 SXi LovwrEaaem Shore Below
470 Gunpowder WertOwtapeake Betow
480 BaRI-ore West CheMpeake Betow
490 LowwPatapseo We«l Chnapeake Betow
500 Patoent PaluwnlAlM Chesapeake Betow
510 Severn PatuMnUMkJ Chesapeake Below
GROUND WAfER
MIN MEAN MAX
57,624,9 10T.42a7 tto!si63
23,978.0 5»,282.5 109 7871
12^90.0 3«.802,5 79OSl'7
327.9 1,549.3 8.65a3
9.789.6 22,394.0 44 122 1
20,968.2 30,819.2 446038
11.116.3 35,5256 74.614.8
15.161,1 36,774,3 710070
82,158.1 173,888.4 3046428
Z43.1 3.947.9 6,225.4
35,7 794.1 1,828,9
9,475.6 23,130.0 43.298.0
"
0,3 1 3
41.S51.9 67,831,1 163.36a8
18.318.6 44186.7 81,1962
3.674.5 13515.8 270900
77,362.5 121,998.8 1J7.07O2
151.839,8 2S7.802.9 4CfA22A1
1.S26.7 6841.0 13,758.0
2.384.7 W42.2 8.971.8
* .
130.2 397.8
72S.8 1,322.8 J.01M
•
223.4 1,'36.9 5215.4
136.9J7.2 215,538,7 317.953.6
8.658.2 22.129,3 41.8498
353.5 2.J40.4 5.352.1
1.7 I64.8 347.6
14.9J5.4 22,231.6 31 266 1
16.190.2 50,577.2 10U94.8
17.2 40.5
1.409.1 2,169.1 3,33tj
721.8 2.W6.2 5,6066
2,428.2 7.32t.1 13.400J
S09.0 3.S55.4 10.110.6
1.891.3 3,200.2
55.916.6 98.J81.1 152,418.2
90,80.4 145,228,6 218,1240
17.17R4 63.096.3 140,941.0
78.025.3 143.634.8 238,207.6
52.812.9 88,484.9 130,543.7
43,847.6 69.906.1 102,3845
v»«»->n njruu« i luniH 11x0*1 SKDTff p
MIN MEAM u»y
J^l«.« 35.837.1 55,308.2
34,515.3 60,311.8 973818
10.482.6 25.987.3 51,9558
6.008.4 17,470,9 38,8988
125.8 1,422.6 3.4528
3,827.5 8.665.6 18,9865
8,867.7 12,919 9 18.521 9
4,430.9 13,870.5 28,7858
07 27
8,306.3 14,444.9 27,564 4
29,2566 60.433.9 105,151,4
BI.1 873.4 2.029.0
12,4 2735 621.1
4,347.9 10,471.0 19,418.8
0.1 0.5
12.240.8 19,877.6 29 858 4
7,174.4 18,929,4 30,688.7
1,535.8 5,188.4 10,1806
27.662.8 42,804.2 81.2156
53,134.0 B1.311.8 139,2514
540.1 2,384.6 4.7056
710.8 1,560.5 2.579.8
-
,«;„ 4'4 123°
266.0 476.8 716.7
115.5 781.4 22788
42.700.7 $8.624.7 97 653 4
2.419,8 5.877.7 10,8160
158.4 1,0014 2,205.6
0.3 30.5 83 8
5,495.3 8.015.9 11 1448
5,475,5 16.954.7 343052
5,0 11.7
398,9 609.6 917.4
232.1 901.1 1,721.2
747.2 2.249.5 4.076.9
177.0 1,237.9 3.534 3
468.3 1,321.6
17.547.8 35.302.7 463337
28,318.4 45,786.0 B95114
6.089.2 21.2600 46,273.5
20,089.4 37,650.4 83 107 8
19,093.3 30,294.4 44.808,3
11,908.5 11,569.7 28,7916
IB.OS IP —
T BAY WATER
M IN MP AM k I A v
'" McAN MAX
*
• ,
* -
808.8 1.776.5 3,2136
*
•
* »
•
-
57.4 121.3 274.7
67.0 689.6 1 429 4
109.2 332.6 6146
219,4 581.4
89.0 371.9
„ - 42.5 119.4
11.025.5 18.217.4 228314
659.5 1.978.1
13,778.1 19.451.5 271870
17,766.1 22,5747 27.825.0
11,683.6 16.629.6 22.690.8
j
«
£
115,183.4
167,741.6
82,248.8
54.373.4
4.6719
31,0696
43,739.1
49.3S6.0
2,6
51,219.2
233,322.3
3,821.3
1.087.6
33,601.8
04
87,503.8
61.1231
18,702.1
184,801.1
350.891.1
9.22S.6
6.802.8
171.7
1,796.4
2.S1I.2
282.263,3
28,001.0
3,341,8
199.3
30.24W
67,531.8
22.2
2,920.0
4.4988
9,9114
5,01 2 b
1,648,6
128,708.3
208,2323
85,015 r
200.796.1
139,354.1
105,105.4
Table 13
-------
TaW»13. POUNDS OF NITROOIH LOADED BY HOUSINO TYPE
AND WASTE DISPOSAL MEANS TO OROUHO WATER,
SURFACE WATER. AND THE BAY: MODEL SEOMINT SUMMARIES
Mod Sea Mod Sm Nam* Sub-basin Pal Una
HO OocoquMi Potomao Below
260 Rappahmnock Rappahanneck Betow
S80 GieHWIcomlco Rappahamock Below
SQO Yoik Rapparianncck Below
COO James James Betow
610 Chickahominy James Betow
£20 Nanscmond James Betow
630 EHnbeU James Betow
700 East Bnrreh 1 Susquehanna Above
710 Lower Sutquehanna Susquehanna Above
720 Conowtaoa Sutquehanna Above
730 MM Potomac Potomac Above
740 MMPotemae Potomac A6ov,
790 Lower Potomac Potomao Above
760 Upper Palapeco W«l Chesapeake Betow
770 Upper Onotank Upper Eastern Shorn Betow
780 Upper Nmtlcok* Lower Eastern Shorn Betow
800 Coast 1. upper Eastern Shore Betow
810 Coattlb Upper Eastern Shore Betow
820 Coast 1c Upper Eastern Shore Betow
830 Coast U Upper Eastern Shore Betow
840 Coast 1« Upper Eastern Shore Betow
850 Coast 6* West Chesapeake Betow
880 Coast6t> West Chesapeake Betow
8rO CoatfSe West Chesapeake Betow
880 Coasts PBtuxent/MW Chesapeake Betow
890 Potomac 1 Potomao Betow
900 Potomao2 Potomao Betow
910 PotomaoS Potomae Betow
820 Potetnac4 Potomao Betow
930 Coast Bt Rappahannock Betow*
940 Coatteu Rappahannock Betow
950 Coast 8c Rappahanmxk Below
980 Coral 9 James Betow
9TO Potomac 5 Potomac Betow
980 Potomao 6 Potomao Betow
990 Coast 13 Pahaent/MM Chesapeake Below
(1) CHESAPEAKE BAY
(2> JAMES RIVER
(3) PATUXSIT RIVER
J4J POTOMAC RIVER
[5J RAPPAHANNOCK
E6J YORK RIVER
TOTAL —
rPWn^v^KMm^Nl.w[jEDBYHPP*«E™*...™- ~~ ~~~
GROUND WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
8.169.3 47.481,7 113.814,4
27,876,0 63.251,4 115.808.5
5,055.1 16.509,6 33.4J4.T
43,874.6 64,7943 91,237.6
81.681.0 238.568.1 448.1C79
34.043.J 81.348.0 150,777.2
44,628.7 65,943.4 929898
5,108.3 12,042.1 22,511.9
16.4 76.8
10,033.5 24,962.1 474S90
12,977.3 43,1383 91.500.4
359J 2.988J 7,386.5
8.025.5 20,915.0 405084
305JJ 785.7
25.024.1 48,384.1 79,0834
7.1 41.8 85.4
15.4 52.5
3.5113 6,067.1 9.391.0
339.8 2,268.9 5 652 1
198.T e24.S
1,344,0 6.744.8 150700
3.027.0 27,285.7 75.274.1
85.058.4 121,047.5 163,834.9
44,570.8 70,233.7 102,787 1
2,590.5 15,087 .« 40.SW6
13.754.1 73.174.4 173,4659
20,705.0 61,458.5 125.4530
15,674.4 30.204.4 50,202.4
1,915.5 3,011.2 45609
14,853.7 35.701.4 68,541.9
50.488.0 117,294.11 224,1904
904.9 4,645.» 11,027.0
928.3 3J51.2 7.9319
6.8 508.4 1,130.4
•
*
"
.,689,212.9 3.3?0eiT~s33fl3rlfl-
SURFACE WATER
MIN1 MEAN MAX
3.260,9 18,418.6 38,6961
9,583.6 20,845.9 37,311.9
2,057.8 6,810.1 12985.2
16,8586 24.608.0 344784
30.352.3 78.864.1 149448.2
11,315,6 26,317.8 47,872.4
20.574.3 30,091.3 42,1834
2,647.8 5,948.6 " 10,841.5
8.9 32.1
3,360.2 8.228.0 15,470.4
4,1663 13,806.8 29,070.2
133.2 1.055.0 2,598.7
2.761,6 6.733.4 12.618.2
88.6 253.8
9.018.7 16,872.7 27022,6
2.6 15.2 30.8
S.6 18.7
1.313.0 2.1H.O 3.260.5
•
98.1 635.7 1.568.5
«5.7 204.5
433,8 2.180.7 4.T74.4
1.0W.5 9,051.2 24,861.2
22,081.0 31,132.5 41 9000
13.884.0 21,465.3 31,015 1
981.7 5,411.1 14,272.8
4,488.9 23,198.4 54,0989
7,818,2 22,637.7 45,482 5
5,79«.6 10,9^4.4 17.J2S.8
655.3 1,066.2 1.S79.5
8.07J.8 19.4-.2.5 36,016 1
23,235.4 54,532.4 105,150.1
254.3 1,388.3 3,351 3
3550 1,434.7 2.S93.2
U "1,2 378.2
87.9 157.4 3824
205.4 4C1.0 M5.8
* • .
1.0 2.6
"
15<.7__ 216.5 5958
604.676.6 1,197,179 9 2 060 663T
fcLUblU
BAY WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
281.0 952.4
700.9 1.548.1 2,671,7
485.7 1.361.7 2.674.0
20.068.1 27.573.3 36,224 7
3,410.1 8.926.2 17,235,8
7,707.4 10,070.1 12.7009
284.2 1,741.6 4,414.9
138.3 3487
104.6 2800
417.3 1,476.9 30698
4.544.7 10.899.7 21,3553
33,571,1 4S.744.5 601834
30.124,2 4S.293.1 73,837.6
142,9 5430
47.4 1,048.0 2,9439
272.0 1,877.9 4,419.3
34.2 210.7 415.4
20,618.8 34,128.2 SJ.775.1
7,538,2 1C.048.9 351798
213.1 58«,9
2684 1,2614 2,690.4
1352 2842
14.191.S 22,8814 34.7218
3.937.6 4,813.5 ?,5S98
1,131.5 1,439.1 IJF2S
197,6 895.0 J 012 3
89.9 278.6 547.8
*?807 5.895.9 ?.734.3^
64.1814
85,645.5
243813
116.97S.8
324.358.4
107.663.8
108.104.8
18,732.3
23.3
33,190.1
56,945.2
4,033.6
27,648.4
403.7
65,256.8
21.0
8 375 1
3,009.2
264.4
10,382.3
47,236.8
197.924.4
140,982.1
20.641.6
97,418.7
85.972.1
41 I486
4.308.1
89.242. 1
189,878.2
8.245.4
6,439.3
813.3
23,140.8
52145
2796
6.115.4
Tabte 13
-------
K)
NJ
00
Table 13. POUNDS OF NITROGEN LOADED BY HOUSING TYPE
AND WASTE DISPOSAL MEANS TO OROUND WATER,
SURFACE WATER, AND THE BAY: MODEL SEOMENT SUMMARIES
MedSeg Mod Sea Name Sub-basin Fan Lino
10 East Branch 1 Susquehanna Above
20 East Branch 1 Sutquetianna Above
30 E«sl Branch 2 Susquahanna Abova
40 East Branch 2 Susquehanna Above
50 Weil Branch Susquehanna Abova
60 Wett Branch Susquehanna Above
70 Weil Branch Susquehonna Abova
80 Lower Susquehaflna Susquetianna Abova
90 Juntita Sutquehanna Abova
100 Junlita SuMJuehwma Above
110 Lower Sutquetianna Sutquehama Above
120 Corewinoo SutqueMrma Above
140 Conowinoo SusqueMama Abovo
ISO Upper Potomac Potomac Above
170 Upptr Potomac Potomac Above
17S Upper Potomac Potomac Above
180 Mid Potomac Potomac Above
190 Shenandoah Potomac Abova
200 Shefiandoah Potomac Abova
210 Lower Potomac Potomac Above
220 Lower Potomac Potomac Above
230 RapoahannocK Rappahtnnoek Abova
235 Mattapon) York Above
240 MaMaponi York Above
250 Pamunkey York Above
280 Pamunkey York Above
285 James Jamem Above
270 Jamet James Abova
280 Jamet James Above
290 Janwt James Above
300 Appomatox Appomatox Above
310 Appomatox Appomatox Abova
330 Patuxent Patuxenl Above
340 Patnent Patuxenl Above
370 Bohemia Upper Eistem Shore Below
380 Chester Upper Eastern Shore Below
390 Wy« Upper Eastern Shore Below
400 Lower Choptank Upper Eastern Shore Below
410 Lower Nantlcoke Lower Eastern Shore Below
420 VMramioo Lower Eastern Shore Below
430 Pocomoke Lower Eastern Shore Below
440 Coast 4 Lower Eastern Shore Below
450 ContH WestCneaapeake Below
470 Gurpowder West Chesapeake Bekw
480 Baltimore West Chesapeake Below
490 Lower Patentee West Chesapeake Below
SOO Patuxent Paluxent/MW Chesapeake Below
510 Severn Patuxent/Mid Chesapeake Below
b. POUNDS OF NITROGEN LOADED BY RURAL POPULATIONS USING SPETIC FIELDS TO:
GROUND WATER
MIH MEAN MAX
433,732.6 567,143.0 709,741,6
1,014.651.4 1,323,835.2 1,654,009.3
395.JOO.O 508,176.4 628,598.0
• 426,157.9 568,071,4 725,079.1
249.150.1 334,199.9 428,332.4
311.516.2 418.7334 538,645.9
274.982.1 355,5058 443,943.0
625.8388 817,9529 1,029,249.2
169.403.4 217,058.7 268,365.3
444.960.2 5S3.6269 759.579.2
873,077.7 1,111.087.6 1,502,796,2
159,576.7 , 2(10,162.5 244.581.6
141,757.5 1J7.594.3 214,933.1
128,982.7 189,279.6 259,900.9
70,027,7 86,078.2 126,4014
89.372.1 131.783.2 158,057.8
240.912.8 323,726.4 41S.848.6
314.992.7 419,895.9 537,266.8
269.388.S 3*9.3926 484,133,2
312.145.0 403,373.4 505,198.4
181.551,7 245.617.2 317.940.8
299.2224 393,116.9 489.4O4.S
68.T02.7 S1.303.5 115,693.5
51.490.1 11,5249 93,682.3
56.417,1 74,481.0 94,139.5
148.749. 1 1S1.729.8 240,047.3
8.063.7 8,206.0 12.078.8
1S3. 101.1 2K.5442 347.600.6
466. 1 16.8 623,858.7 795.809.3
111.897.4 146.401,0 183,410.8
144.1952 1S1.433.3 242,8103
27,169.9 34,869,3 43,082.3
78.424.3 17,866.3 117,525.7
60,9720 (0,570.5 102,222.8
12,266.2 15,719.2 19,254.8
73,304.2 47.151.3 124,286.9
15.D14.4 30,094.4 25.722.8
94,573,9 121,545,7 152.454.7
202,208,3 262,812.3 328,889.7
121,587.8 155,879.9 215,534.9
104.173.9 138.347.0 172,494.3
63,5096 17,078.8 112,3909
470,911.5 607,791.1 755.183.8
273,389.9 347,899.8 425.2353
32,422.3 41,039.8 49,205.5
13.J825 34,603.5 39,067.5
248,119.4 314,992.0 388,078.9
39,271.8 50,040,0 81,595.6
SURFACE WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
204,599,2 262,680.3 324,5049
478,341.3 613,662.1 758,667.4
211,895.8 267,851.1 327,4213
183,758.7 241,923.9 308,3315
96,789.5 127,638.1 161,681,4
127,635.6 167,948.9 212.8113
110,6634 141,329.2 174,236.3
235.031.5 302.519.» 376,672.7
65,857.4 83.1090 101,706.)
180,4304 236.651.6 299.211.4
306,951,3 404,567.4 512.7BJ 1
52,867.8 65,263.3 78.8922
50,108.4 61,719.7 73.832.4
54,653.6 79,806.3 109,321.3
33.2B7.9 44.997.9 58.583.2
41,8904 56.010.T 71,7013
69,688.7 92,295.8 117,475.4
131.0049 171.726.1 217,0735
109,791.9 147.502.S 190.543.9
109,929.9 139,724.0 172,941.9
61,844.2 82,515.8 105.68J.2
94,976.2 122,076.0 151,720.0
19,308.6 25,299.0 31.753.7
15,651.9 21,376.7 27,872.8
14,997.3 19,4389 .24.263.5
38.623.8 49.682.1 61.582.9
2,437.6 3,886.9 5,657.6
80,302.6 109,134.0 141.781.4
136,045.1 179.3647 228,471.3
33.837.1 43,714.0 54.282.0
44,351.5 57.826.S 72.452.6
8.132.2 7.748J 9.451.4
2S.008.1 35,593.3 42.2458
21.594.1 28,1105 35.293.9
3.732.3 4,697.} 5.67B.7
22.551.6 29,528.5 37,351.7
4.817.2 6,334.8 8,011.1
29,611.2 37.609 D 48,618,0
65,890.7 84,205.1 104,170.9
44.221.7 59,392.7 76.257.9
40,130.7 52,012.9 65.3835
25,333.8 34,112.1 43.448.1
158.692.0 201.017.J 246.47U.3
87.581.3 121,961,9 147.353.4
11,442,2 14.078,3 16,683.8
4,843.9 7.624.5 10,775.8
89,026.8 112.160.9 136.6619
10,978.6 13.763.5 18,752.5
BAY WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
-
-
-
-
.
.
.
.
.
-
-
*
.
- - .
.
- .
*
*
.
»
«
.
.
.
.
_ . .
-
-
*
2,218,4 2,7792 3.3108
7,147.6 9,434.6 12.027,9
6,664.1 8,779.3 11,0517
10,135.7 13,2136 16,7839
8,115.1 10,578.7 13,2618
5,736.2 7,606.8 8,792,0
8,109.4 11,845.8 16,271,8
11.792.7 15.752.B 20,068.1
5.787.5 8,788.5 12.432.1
1,91tO 2.441.4 2,962.2
.
3,94315 8,233,4 8,620.6
26,007.0 33,046.3 40,413.5
12,3798 15.738.4 19,274.6
i
829,133.3
1,937,5980
776,127,5
809,995.3
461,138.5
586,680.3
497,135.0
1,120,4718
300.167.7
830,278.5
1,575,455.0
265,426.3
239,114.0
269,086.4
141.078.1
177.793.9
41S.0222
S91.J22.0
518,495.1
543.096.2
328.133.1
512.1929
116,602.5
92,901.6
93.919.9
241,412.1
12,092.8
374,478.2
803,223.4
190,115.0
249, (59 8
42,717.9
133,460.0
108,681.1
23.1964
136,114.4
357085
172.368.3
357.5340
232,979.2
200.205,6
136.M2.3
817,5088
472,302.0
S5.I180
38,461.4
460,199.2
79,641.9
Tabla 13
-------
Tabtt 13. POUNDS OF NITROGEN LOADED BY HOUSING TYPE
AND WASTE DISPOSAL MEANS TO GROUND WATER.
SURFACE WATER, AND THE BAY: MODEL SEGMENT SUMMARIES
ModSeg Mod Seg Name S'jb-basln Fall Line
550 Occoquan Potomac Below
560 Rappahannock Rippahannoek Below
580 Great Wfccmfco Rippahannock Betow
590 York Rippahannock Below
600 James James Below
610 Chtckahorrtny James Below
620 Nansemord Jamea Below
630 Elizabeth Jimes Betow
700 East Branch 1 Susquehanna Above
710 Lower Susqueharma Sjsquehanna Above
720 Conowingc Sjsquehanna Above
730 MktPotomtQ Potomac Above
740 MMPotomn Potomac Above
750 Lower Potcmac Potomac Above
760 Upper Patep*co West Cheiapeika Below
770 Upper Choptank Upper Eastern Shore Betow
760 Upper NanHooke Lower Eastern Shore Below
800 Coast 1a Ubpsr Eastern Shore Below
81O Coast 1b Upper Eastern Shore Below
820 Coast 1c LJopef Eastern Shore Betow
830 Coast 1d Upper Eastern Shore Betow
840 Coast 1e Upper Eastern Shore Betow
850 Coast 6a West Chesapeake Below
860 Coast 6b West Chesapeake Below
870 Coast 6c West Chesapeake Betow
880 Coasts Patuxent/Mkl citettptaka Betow
890 Potomac 1 Potomac Betow
900 Potomac 2 Potomac Below
910 Potomac 3 Potomac Below
920 Potomac 4 Potomac Below
930 Coast 8m Rappahannock Below
940 Coast Bb Rappahannock Below
950 Coast So Rappahannock Below
960 Coast 9 James Betow
970 Potomac 5 Pjtomac Below
980 Potomac 6 Priomac Below
990 Coast 12 Pituxent/MM Chesapeake Below
(11 CHESAPEAKE BAY
(21 JAMES RIVER
(3| PATUXENT RIVER
(4| POTOMAC RIVER
(9 RAPPAHAHNOCK
(6| YORK RIVER
b, POUNDS Of MTROQ6N LOADED §f RUR,
GROUND WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
6.589,7 9,891.1 14.272.5
278.118,9 365,492.1 462,876.4
139,«i9.6 193,021.5 252.232.1
8.697,8 11,882.5 15,318.1
182,0701 235,777.0 292,8948
281,051.3 359,603.3 469,394.5
78,650.6 10B,362,» 137,178.1
29,1059 38,638.3 49.204.8
7.5 53.r 98.3
38,117.1 45,291$ 55.052.8
150.033.0 200,845.4 257.J67.4
296,5200 400,023.3 519,454.0
137.488.0 188,807.4 248,064.3
424.898.4 575.S18S 740.239.1
80,109.3 81,262.8 104.748.7
257,654,4 333,121.0 412,149.1
45.706.0 58.903.2 68,3916
18.636.3 23,034.1 27,858.5
37,084.2 50,B71,r 86.309.8
22,444.3 31.705.3 42,741.2
23,711.2 32,406.2 42,045.1
26.823.9 35,8927 46,262.9
24,808.0 33,827.r 44,032.8
W16.2 10,130.r 18,130.1
3359.7 4,252.5 5,298.5
7,951.4 10,105,1 12,849,8
102,564.8 135,142,» 169,e83,3
11,058,4 14.769.J 18,633.9
8.624.4 11,995.r 15,683.2
43.S02.7 64,945.9 89.4712
225.182,3 298,454,1 378,559.3
8,843.7 12.329.B 16,340.4
93.650.2 122,456.3 153.848.1
9,007.4 13,472.0 18.568.2
168.8 , 373.B 583.8
14,618.0 20,681.4 27.614.6
153,476.7 211,974.2 277,125.6
5.525.8 7.532J 9,654.7
328.0 522.1 759.3
•
13,838,264.5 18 333 871 9 23 273 669 7^
.L POPULATIONS USING SPETICFIELDS TC
SURFACE WATER
M'N MEAN MAX
2,408,1 3,572.6 8,044.2
93,858.3 1S2.3432 153,315.1
51,224.7 69.8239 90.384.6
3,164.1 4,282.5 5.482.5
65,670.8 83,914.8 103.347.1
90,946.0 123,443.8 159,419.4
28,327,9 37.517.8 47.671.1
12,250.4 16,034.1 20.2218
4.3 299 541
18,050.2 22.2843 26,8016
52,640.5 69,202.5 87,495.0
98,856.1 131,2319 168,369.2
51252.8 69,174.9 88.772,3
150S36.2 200,245.0 254,280.2
19013,5 25,225.3 32,090.2
86 138 6 122,214 4 149,452.3
16.656.6 20.395.3 24,231.4
6,119.9 7,417.9 8.781.4
12,488.7 16.794.7 21.593.2
6,851.3 9,545.9 12,739.4
6,924.0 11.871.8 15,327.9
8,657.7 11,4099 14.479.7
9,548.0 12,962.3 16.84S.3
1,838,8 3.322.7 5.234.2
1,129.1 1,405.8 1.731.1
2,536.0 3,176.5 3,809.4
34,768.4 45,2112 58,344.7
3,946.0 5.185.1 6.537.8
2,8818 3.936.9 5.1S2.2
16,391.6 54,205.4 33.088.2
83,041.1 108,2202 135,681.5
3,600.4 5,199.9 6,802,4
39.517.4 50,906.6 62,990.9
4.933.5 7,250.1 8,857.2
94 3 193 8 304, 1
4,347,3 6,020.1 7,913.7
53,207.8 12,473. 1 83,848.8
1,915.8 2,568.1 3.320.B
655.7 915.3 1,223.5
403.5 512.8 628,3
85.9 109.2 132.8
81.4 132.5 195.5
0.8 1.5
i;
BAY WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
0.0 552 126.2
27,447.9 37,843.0 49,3510
5,522.3 7,9784 10,828.8
12,512.4 16.2616 20,467.5
16,674.5 25,230.3 32.518.2
204.2 414.2 6613
7.972.8 10.4267 13,0822
5.010.0 7,261.2 9,985.1
29.680.4 40,230.3 51,990.1
24,012.8 31,791.0 40,4048
8,187.7 10,995.5 14,021.4
743.4 1.504.4 2,455.5
2,399.9 3,127.1 3,9411
6.1268 7,883.0 9,992.8
14,2480 19,382.3 25,251,6
84.2 84.8 10S.6
2,798.5 3,749.8 4,789.5
2,587.9 3,592.0 4,836.8
32,604.3 43,798.8 56,087.3
7.041.4 8.727.3 12,803.0
26,688.3 X7M.Q 43,522.3
11,590.0 14.720.2 18,068.6
115.4 397.8 7598
20,943.5 28,3788 36.557,2
3,422,7 4,454.0 5,547.1
33.416.8 45.491.4 59,173.9
2,108.7 2,848.5 3,673.9
2,560.8 3,228.5 3,919.7
7.334.8 9,816.8 12,582.0
3.170.6 4,393.7 5,7727
1,990.7 2.591.5 3.277.7
1
m.&x.s
300,638,4
24,153.4
335,953.2
508.277,3
143.880.2
55,084.6
87,575.6
270,0479
531,255.1
257,982,4
775,764.5
106,486.2
455.335.4
77,298,5
30,452.1
78,093.0
48,513,0
84,608.4
79,193.6
57,885.8
14.957.8
8,785.4
21,2467
199,7360
20,0489
19,682.3
92,7433
450.472.9
27,258,9
208,137.8
35,4423
572.6
27,099,4
312,8261
14,554.8
46,928.8
3,361.1
3,228.5
9,926.0
4,526.2
25.718,137.0
Table 13
-------
Table 1 J. rOUNDS OF MITROOEN LOADED BY HOUSING TYPE
AND WASTE DISPOSAL MEANS TO OROUND WATER,
SURFACEWATER, AND THE BAY: MODIt. SiOMf NT SUWIURIE8
ModSeq Mod Sen Nona Sub-twsln Frit Una
20 East Branch 1 Sucquehanna AJOV«
30 East Branch 2 Su«)u*hanna Above
40 East Branch: Susqtiehanna Abova
SO West Branch Susquehanna Above
60 West Branch Susquehanna Above
70 West Branch Swqueharwia Above
80 Lower Sutquthanna Sustpehanna Above
90 Juntats Susquehanna Above
100 Juntatt Stwtuahanna Above
110 Lower Susqwhanaa Suseuehanna Above
120 Conowiriflo SuKtuehmna Above
140 Conov*iQO Susquehanna Above
160 UppefPotomao Potomac Alow
170 Upper Potomac Potomac Above
175 Upper Potonwo Potomac Alow
180 MM Potomac Potomac Above
190 Shenandoah Potomac Atove
200 Shtnandoah Potonae Atove
210 Lower Potomac Potomac Atove
220 lower Potomac Potomac Atove
230 ftappahannoek Rappahannoek Above
235 MMIaponl York Ato»
240 MatUponi York Above
250 Famunkey York yy^,
260 Pamunkey York Above
265 Jama* James Above
270 James James ADM*
280 Jsmes James /May,
290 June* James Abiwa
300 Appomatox Appomatox Atowa
310 Appomatoic Appomatojt AtxSve
330 Fatuxent Patawnt Atove
340 Patoent Pahaant Above
370 Bohemia Upper Eastern Shorn Batow
380 Qmtter Hipef Eaatem Shore B«ow
390 Wsw l*parEatt«mShow Below
40D LowwChoptarK Upper Eatlem Shore Bekw
410 Lower Nanticote lower Eastern Shore Below
420 Vneomteo tower Eastern Show Bebw
430 Pooomok* Lower Entem Store Below
440 QMSI4 Lower Eastern Show Betow
450 Coast 11 WeilCheMpeake Betnv
470 Qunpowder West Chesapeake B«bw
480 BaBknore WestCtmaptaln Beftw
490 LcwerPalopsco West Chesapeake Bebw
500 PMuxent PatumnVMId Chesapealn Betow
S10 S«vem Patuwot/Mkl Cheeapeake Bebw
0. PUNDS Ojt NITROGEN LQACfi) BY?A
MIN MEAN MAX
5.275,1 28.648.6 63,642,
3.932.7 56,933.1 135,767,2
4.342.5 19,802,9 41.123.7
6,370.6 20.474,1 410690
901.1 8.063.1 14.636.3
3,567.3 18,761.5 40,323.1
6.5135 20.842.0 408S9.I
20,114.2 S5.844.8 102.296.9
4,133.4 12.089.5 222408
11,184.3 35,118,8 87.621 8
1B.598.3 88,968.4 123,910,7
7,062.7 J3.871.5 437963
3,243.9 12.875.5 25,787.1
980.5 7,8035 181143
928,0 ft.337.2 21,216.4
1,284.7 7,404.7 16,490.4
1.651.9 30,949.9 451118
7,580.0 38,183.6 79.888.7
1,829.7 34,383.7 54.535i9
4,295.2 38,290.1 54,786.4
J.828.7 15,736.8 32,905.4
),B93.0 25,425.7 549675
380.0 3.574.3 8.864.8
31.0 2,104,8 5.885.7
259.3 3,721.9 8.6«7.6
247.6 1D.533.1 25.603.7
1t4.6 805.5 17598
2.370.6 1?,6S5.1 395920
514.9 %732.6 65.050.3
305.8 J.054.8 14,684.6
914.5 11.510.2 31,669.6
133.0 1,835.1 4,2985
630,0 4,097.3 8,887.1
519.0 2.931.7 6.422.4
96.4 968.6 2 304 0
3,075,1 »,698.5 19645.8
295.8 1.599.0. 3.414.9
2.489.9 11,144.3 28,855.4
2.894.9 1T.484.7 37 325.2
428.8 5.060.6 117529
2,038.7 11.796.5 28,351 0
22.9 3.877.7 10,479.2
13,686.0 3I.17E9 71,995.5
1,330.2 12,865.8 29,547.7
382.6 1,300.8
72E4 1,810.0
928.3 U.127.9 28.036.1
193.9 606.9
-------
Tlbta 13, POUNDS OF NITROGEN LOADED BY HOUSING TYPE
ASD WASTE DISPOSAL MEANS TO GROUND WATER,
SURFACE WATER, AND THE BAY: MODEL SEGMENT SUMMARIES
ModSeg Mod Set) Name Sub-bash FalLine
550 Octoquan Potomac Below
560 Rappahannock Rappahannoek Below
560 Great Wteomfco Rappahannoek Below
S90 York Rappohannock Below
600 Janes James Bekw
610 Chfckahomlny James Bekw
620 Natsemond James Bekw
630 EJfaabeth James Below
700 Eatt Branch 1 Susquerianna Above
710 Lower Susquehama Susquehanna Above
720 Conowlngo Susqueharma Above
730 MM Potomac Potomae Above
740 MM Potomac Potomac Above
750 Lower Potomac Polomaa Above
760 Upper Patapsco West Chesapeake Bekw
770 Upper Choptank Upper Eastern Shore Bekw
780 Upper Nerflteoke Lower Eastern Shore Bekw
BOO Contla Upper Eastern Shore Bekw
810 Coistlb Upper Eastern Shore Bekw
820 Coast 1c Upper Eastern Shore Betow
830 CottHd Upper Eastern Shore Betow
840 Coeitle Upper Eastern Shore Bekw
850 Cotstea Wetl Chesapeake Bekw
660 Cottt6b West Chesapeake Bekw
870 Coast 60 West Chesapeake Bekw
880 CotstS PatuxanVMUChesaptaka Bekw
690 Potomac 1 Potomac Bekw
600 PotomacJ Potomac Bekw
610 Potomac? Potomac Bekw
920 Potomac 4 Potomac Bekw
930 Coast 8a Rappahuwoek Below
940 Cotsteb Rappahinnock Below
950 Cotsteo Rappahinnock Betow
960 Co*st9 James Bekw
970 Potomac 5 Potomac Bekw
980 Potomac 6 Potomac Bekw
990 Coast 12 Patuxert/MW Chesapeake Bekw
(1) CHESAPEAKE B*Y
(2) JAMES RIVER
(3) PATUXENT RIVER
(4) POTOMAC RIV63
(5) RAPPAHANNOCK
(6) YORK RIVER
0, HUNUS OF Ml I ROGEN LQAOE . BY FAP
GROUND WATER
MIM MEAN MAX
1Z.8 272.6 694.4
442.4 9.247.3 22,884.2
«3.0 8,504.2 21.689.6
«2.9 1.288.0
304,8 7.K3.0 17,429.5
62.8 8,133.0 23,248.1
181.9 2.528.6 6,269.9
77.0 2,318.9 5,484.1
8.5 27 5
1,460.5 4,136.8 7,412.4
2.271.4 14.727.4 31,819.0
16.287.8 51.517.0 95929.7
3>«8.9 16.J58.4 33.472.9
1,634.2 21.071.7 53.265.0
1.417.6 5.314.8 10,964.5
216.6 7,*52.3 20,445.9
124.1 3,013.9 6,685.4
930.9 2,559.9 4,539.4
48.1 1.J58.1 3,184.8
206.8 2,138.5 ' 6,222.6
11.5 421.8 1,303.2
360.9 2,300.7 5.071.9
1.«35.2 4,444.0
f
»
2W.O 4,259.1 10.515J
77.1 267.0
194.2 545,4
0.0 1,251.0 3,637.0
2,2r&2 16,173.9 38,150.2
14.1 596.3 1.409.9
57.6 3,<28.0 8.267.8
499 3112
55 0 142 3
M7.0 827.4
10.1 4.515.3 13.321.9
281.4 792.5
"
.
._
M POPULATIONS TO: "
SURFACE WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
4.5 957 24t«T
156.1 3.2031 7,829.4
53.0 3,0180 7,633.7
158.6 447.1
108.4 2,4509 6,032.7
26.8 2.9480 S.127.1
653 935.1 2.267.8
32.7 9523 2,232.6
47 15 1
726,5 2,0306 3,6000
822.0 5,004.9 18,683.2
5.217.8 16.461.2 30,429.0
1.264.6 6.0458 12,172.8
669.9 7.4460 18.440.0
481.3 1,6758 3,400.8
85.2 2,805.2 r.391.0
43.4 1,075.5 Z.432.1
297,0 830,0 1.452.7
14.3 406.5 1.024.5
59.4 836.7 1,828.1
3.8 157.6 481.4
115.5 735.4 1,599.5
S95.6 1,611.9
*
*
83,9 1,437.8 J.517,8
270 62.6
57.3 159.0
0.0 459.5 1,315.6
854.4 5.885.1 1t964.6
6.1 245.6 572.4
20.4 1.215.6 3,207.0
91.5 243.7
3.4 1.653.2 4,775.4
985 272.6
1.6 21.8 50.7
2.6 6.7
•
3.3 9.5
BAY WATER
0.0 0,0
33.5 1,433.9 3.718.7
105.4 302.9
91 312.5 775.5
0.3 392.7 t,155.1
0.0 8.8 24.9
4.9 240.0 592.3
38 4746 1,127.4
7.4 423.6 1.3S2.9
216.9 1.891.4 4,286.3
209.9 647.6
*
.
479.8 1,224.2
13.0 26.7
83.4 231.7
117.6 314.4
1 63.4 1,596.5 4,056.5
10.4 399.7 S5t.4
340.1 1,005.1
* • .
1,128.7 3,048.6
157.1 453.9
114.3 1,342.8 3,248.7
0.0 36.8 111.5
9.7 112.0 2S9.5
5.2 330.1 858.5
3.0 138.0 343.2
e
g
' ^368,3
12,450.4
12,956.0
717.0
9,7864
11.873.7
3,4639
3.2800
132
6,167.7
19.7323
67,978.3
22,404.2
28.517.7
6.990.4
10.457.5
4.089.4
3,389.9
1.9046
4,149,9
1,003.0
4,927.5
2,440.7
•
-
8,178.8
1172
334.9
1.828.1
23.655.5
1.241.5
4,663.6
77.6
84,5
3985
7.297.2
537.1
1,364.8
39,4
1120
333.4
1380
Ul
Table 13
-------
Table 13. POUNDSOF NITROOEH LOADED BY HOUSING TYfE
AND WASTE DISPOSAL MEANS TO OROUNO WATER,
SURFACE WATER, AND THE BAY! MODEL SEGMENT SUMMARIES
Mod Sao Mod See Name Sub*ba«ln Fall Line
10 ia*l Branch 1 Sutquehanm Above
20 East Branch 1 Smquehanm Above
30 East Branch 2 SuKJueharm Above
« East Branch 2 Susquenanm Above
50 WestBnneh Susquehanni Above
so West Branch Susquehannt Above
JO WeslDnnch Susqueharra Above
BO Lower Susquehanna Susquehanni Above
90 Junlata Susquehanni Above
100 Junlata Sutquehanni Above
110 Lower Susquehanna Susquehanni Above
120 Conowlngo Susquehannt Above
140 ConowinoQ Susojuehanm Above
150 Upper Potomac Potomac Above
170 Upper Ptlomac Potomac Above
175 Upper Potomac Potomac Above
190 MMPotmac Potomac Above
190 Shenandoah Potomac Above
200 Shenandoah Potomac Above
210 Lower Potomac Potomac Above
220 Lower Potomac Potomac Above
230 Rappahamock Rappahannock Above
215 MattaporJ York Above
240 Maltaporl York Above
250 Pamunlieif York Above
2«J Pamunkey York Above
265 James James Above
270 James James Above
2(0 James James Above
290 James James Above
300 Appomabx Appomatox Above
310 AppomatM Appomatox Above
330 Patuxent Paluxent , Above
340 Paluxent Patuxent Above
370 Bohemia Upper Easter.i Shore Below
3«0 Chester Upper Eastern Shore Below
390 Wye Upper Eastern Shore Below
400 Lower Cboptank Upper Eastern Shore Below
410 Lower Nsntlcoke Lower Eastern Shore Below
420 Wtcomlco Lower Eastern Shore Below
430 Pocomote Lower Eastern Shore Below
440 Coast 4 Lower Eastern Shore Below
4SO Coast 11 West Chesapeake Bekm
470 Gunpowcer West Chesapeake Below
410 Baltimore West Chesapeake Below
490 Lower Patapsco West Chesapeake Below
500 Patuxent PatuxenVMM Chesapeake Below
510 Severn Paluxent/MW Chesapeake Below
d. POUNDS OF NITROGEN LOADED Bi URBAN POPULATIONS OSWfi OTHER MFANS OP nispnia. Tn-
GROUND WATER
WIN MEAN MAX
893.6 2,8168
52,2 1,819.0 8,706.0
3.028.8 11,291.3
330.7 3.270.3 10,611.7
3.6 19.6
70.6 1,185.3 3,002.9
203.7 713.7
3,053.0 9,917.4
0.1 1.3
1.160.7 4,658.1
622,1 5.828.6 17,973.5
212.7 586.7
0.6 8.2
909.8 3,492.5
-
503.1 2,058.5
2,087.7 8,830.0
172.4 949.6
2,847.0 8.795.0
12.8 8,891.4 21,014.7
1,009.5 2.788.8
62.9 368.3
3.9 48.4
30,2 183.6
345.4 1.331.8
3,082.2 9,510.9
261.7 1,027.2
174.7 598.4
275.9 911.9
1,921.9 6.093.4
99.S 332.2
166.3 710.0
658.9 1,721.1
445.9 1,211.7
47.2 261.4
...
1.134.7 4.362,2
2.334,9 7,849.0
2.663.1. 45.508.2 125.583.0
328.8 8,995.5 26.084.3
2,658.0 8,817.2
1,337.3 4.202.7
SURFACE WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
429.8 1,329.8
27.6 781.7 J.739.9
1.587.1 5,7189
133.3 1,458.4 4.705.2
1.2 8.7
31,1 491.1 1.231,7
131.1 434.6
1,201.0 J.888.2
0,0 • 0.4
445.0 1.765.5
228.2 2.073.1 8,333,1
70,8 192,5
0.2 2.8
395.3 1,539.4
143.7 582.0
794.5 2,567.4
63.6 347.3
959.6 3,109.5
4.9 2,319.0 7.279.8
319,8 877.0
19.0 110.2
1,2 14.1
10,5 63.7
157.1 598.9
984,9 2,982.1
54.3 211.6
46,9 174.1
100.2 329.0
660,6 2,081.4
27.7 91.4
54.0 227,1
224.0 570.5
138.3 378,2
18.3 99.3
352.4 1.342.7
743,3 2.471.0
855.1 14,610,1 3^798.8
1123 2.774.8 7,876.5
8889 2,928.5
350.3 1088,0
BAY WATER
UIN MEAN MAX
.
-
-
-
-
230.1 774.7
.
-
*
* ]
.
,
4.0 13.2
12.3 81.5
0.8 5,1
79.4 183.6
5.4 41.0
26.0 147.1
1,3492 3. £99 9
589.0 1,957.3
B93.5 2,028.9
J30.5 1,124.9
196.1 555.0
O
£400.7
4,5857
4.728,7
4.6
i,8re.s
It 4 a
4M.O
4,254,0
/y *
U. 1
1,615.7
7.901.7
263 3
n A
11. fl
1,305.0
*
646,8
2,892.2
235.9
3.608.6
9,140.5
1.3292
81.9
•
5.1
40,7
5025
4,027.2
3160
221.6
"
376,1
2,592.6
131.2
2326
883.7
6836
71 n
i l.U
1.513.1
4,427,4
60,637. 3
12.463.8
3,817.4
1,883.7
Table 13
-------
T» We 13. POUNDS OP NITROGEN LOADED BY HOUSING TWE
AND WASTE DISPOSAL MEANS TO GROUND WATER,
SURFACE WATER, AND THE BAY: MODEL SEGMENT 8UMMMUE*
fit
Mod Sea ModSeaName Sub-beski Fed Line
540 Anaeoetla Potomac Below
550 Ooeoquan Potomac Below
560 Rappahannock Rappuhennock Below
580 Great Wkxmlco Raepahannock Below
590 York Raopahannock Below
600 James James Below
610 CMckahornlny Jemm Below
620 Namemond Jane* Below
630 Elizabeth Janet Below
700 East Branch 1 Susquehanna Above
710 tower Susquehanna Susquehanna Above
720 Conowlngo Susquehanna Above
730 MM Potomac Potomac Above
740 Mid Potomac Potomao Above
750 Lower Potomac Potomao Abcve
760 Upper Pataptco West Chesapeake Below
770 Upper Choptsnk Upper Eastern store Below
780 Upper Nmticoke Lower Eastern Shore Below
000 Coast 1 a Upper Eastern Shore Below
810 Coast 1b Upper Eastern Shore Below
820 Coast 1c Upper Eastern Shore Betow
830 Coast Id Upper Eastern Shore Below
840 Coast 1e Upper EetlemSrore Below
850 Coast 6a West CtMSapeake Below
860 Coast 6b W«t Chewpeato Below
870 Coast 60 WetfCheaapeakt Betow
880 Coasts PahnenVMid Chesapeake Below
690 Potomao 1 Potomac Below
900 Potomac 2 Potomac Below
910 Potomao 3 Polomao Below
920 Potomac 4 Polomao Betow
930 Coast 8a Rappahannock Betow
940 Coast 8b Rappahannock • Below
850 Coast 8c Rappahannock Betow
960 Coast 9 James Below
970 Potomac 5 Potomac Below
880 Potomac 6** Potomac Below
990 Coast 12 Patuxenl/Mid Chesapeake Below
(1) CHESAPEAKE BAY
(2) JAMES RIVER
(3) PATUXENT RIVER
(4) POTOMAC RIVER
(5) RAPPAHANNOCK
(6) YORK RIVER
tOTAL — — — — — _^___
•
GROUND WATER
MIN MSAN MAX
216,6 18,511.0 51.811.2
2,743.2 6,784.9
148.8 852.8
B97.B 3,4900
661 B 12445.0 3S.674.8
1630.8 1.163.0
1.209.5 5689.5 12,460.9
2.0 265.4 919.9
722.8 2.744.8
1.252,3 8061.1 1S.839.0
08 3.9
564.4 1,620.3
25 31 3
666.5 2,808.9
35 *K *
177.8 481.1
200.7 793.3
1 } »>5 4
105.0 562.5
708.9 23,060.7 66089.4
?53.3 2,617.4
1,858.5 5,597.9
335.5 15.058.9 44,727.5
537.1 14,660.5 41,917.3
160.5 9,970.0 30,050.4
1.100.8 3,955,9
38.1 183.2
2J292.9 7,064.5
94.7 10^02.9 33,777.6
126 5 597 7
222.1 970.2
„
"
*
BY URBAN POPULATIONS USiiJGl
SURFACE WATiR
i
MIN MEAN MAX
BB.9 5,519.4 17,2«.«
819.0 3,078.4
S8.2 317.3
337.9 1,283.8
251.8 4,671.2 14,681.2
530.3 2,004.0
556.3 2,588.1 5,589.4
1.2 120.3 415.3
256.2 875.1
423.2 2.657.6 6,394.8
0.2 1.2
207.9 571.7
0.8 10.0
214.3 903.8
1.1 1.9
0.8 5.4
56.8 15J.4
« «
56.8 221.8
0.4 1.5
33,3 176.3
238.2 7,606.2 21,520.6
136.1 671.8
500.3 1,6615
1J2.3 5,340.0 15,66».2
1633 4,508,3 12,721.2
66.0 3,471.3 10.37S.2
394.9 1.403.0
13.8 72.0
1,327.0 4,024.4
53.6 5,357.3 17,511.9
40,4 19i6
75.8 32J.4
*
19.2 78.2
03 H.Q 57.4
"
0.3 1.1
0.9 4.6
JTHER MEANS OP DISPOSAL TO
BAY WAFER
309.8 1,1546
219 922
56.8 2834
330.2 1.0686
8«.7 S01.8 1,218J
104.3 4399 9403
11.4 56.5
•
• »
*
•
31.6 822
*
16,7 61.3
H6 85,4
814.3 3.230.J
312.5 1.077.0
1.786,5 5.881.4
283.8 1,200.4 2.441.1
138.5 455,4
«.2 502.4 1,262.2
2.7 26.S
67.9 310.5
1.195.6 3.802.0
21.3 86.7
sao 1955
" • .
593,4 1.814.7
219 1969 553.3
233 77.3
300 3537 1,016.3
83 41.2
!_.. 75.8 263.6
5730 12,564.5 38 198 T
1
i
22,34or
3,6380
261.1
1,5660
17,6180
2,1601
8,697.8
397.1
6781
10.6887
1.0
7724
33
6809
4.1
3.1
265.9
.
274.2
1.6
152.8
31,501.2
1.261.9
3,043.4
21,599.4
18.307.3
13.943.8
1.495.8
54.6
3.687.8
16.755.8
168.2
335.9
„
612.7
210,9
23.3
354.0
8.3
76.9
329.309.9
Tnble 13
-------
T*Me 13. POUNDS OF NITROOEN LOADED BY HOUSING TYPE
AND WASTE DISPOSAL MEANS TO OROUHD WATER,
SURFACE WATER. AND THE BAY; MODEL SEGMENT SUMMARIES
ModSeo Mod Seo Name SuMMSln FslLlne
10 East Branch 1 Sinqueftanna • Above
20 East Branch 1 Simjueitanra Above
30 East Branch 2 Suwjuehanna Above
40 E**t Branch 2 Smquehanna Above
50 West Brand) Suiqoehanna Above
60 West Branch Suwjuetwrim Above
70 West Branch Sutquehanna Above
80 Lower Stmquehanna Sutqueherma Above
90 Junlata SuMguehamn Above
100 Junial* Sutquetmnna Above
110 Lower Susquehanna Suiquehanna Above
120 Conowtnflo Sutqueharm Above
140 Conowfngo Suiquehanna Above
160 Upper Potomac Potomac Above
170 Upper Potonac Potomac Above
175 Upper Potomac Potomac Above
180 Mid Potomac Potomac Above
190 Shenandoah Potomac Above
200 Sh*nandoari Potomac Above
210 Lower Potomac Potomac Above
220 LowerPotorroo Potomac Above
230 Rappahanncck Rappahannock Above
235 Mattaporil Yortt Above
240 Mattaponl Yort Above
250 Pamunkey Yor< Above
260 Pamunkey York Above
265 James James Above
270 James Jams Above
280 James James Above
290 James James Above
300 Appomatox Appomatox Above
310 Appomatox Appomalox Above
330 Patuwnt Paluxent Above
340 Patuxent Ptuxent Above
370 Bohemia Upper Eastern Store Below
380 Chester Upper Eastern Store Below
390 Wye Upper Eastern Shore Below
400 Lower Choptank Upper Eastern Store Below
410 Lower Nanticoke Lower Eastern Shore Below
420 Wicomfco Lower Eastern Store Below
430 Pocomokt Lower Eastern Store Below
440 Coast 4 Lower Eastern Shore Below
450 Coast 11 West Chesapeake Below
470 Gunpowder West Chesapeake Below
480 Baltimore West Chesapeake Below
490 Lower Palapsco Wert Chasapeakt Betow
500 Paluxent PatimeM/MM Chesapeake Below
510 Severn PatuxenVMH Chesapeake Below
e. POUNDS OF WltROCEN LOADED "BY" F
GROUND WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
2.754.8 20,111.0 48.531.4
2,982.6 28,888.9 83.217.7
5.776.8 20.509.8 42,2218
1.881.3 18,361.0 40,113.5
7,323.6 24,121.5 47,788.3
8,274.4 25,834.4 50,381.0
1.251.0 10.197.8 23.254.7
10.081.4 34.259.0 71,3038
765.8 8.238.3 14,097.4
5.279.2 25.919.8 87.788.2
2.423.2 31.8258 82,068.4
357.3 5.670.8 13,882.4
1,455.5 8,895.4 18,624.7
630.8 8,473.1 25.150.8
4,030.2 14,611.4 28,849.4
2,615.1 12.850.8 26,5748
518,1 11.527.5 31,419.8
514.0 21.284.7 53,8181
2.388.4 25,433.7 60,265.1
1,085.7 14.466.1 38.588.4
163.6 6,766.3 18,780.6
6,652.9 31,184.5 83.978.6
178.3 4,080.4 10.261,4
771.6 6,361.1 14.310,8
088.3 6,264.4 13.408.7
2,119.7 16.875,1 37.153.3
659.2 2,328.7 4.485.1
2,810.6 24.429.4 56.880.9
7.744.3 47.445.0 102.966.6
1.008.1 8,262.3 20,548.2
1,687.9 15,539.3 35,040.0
138.8 1,400.4 3.409.2
1,310.8 4.140.1
5.8 1,325,6 4.622.1
251.0 719.7
116.1 4,028.5 10.695.6
02 745.7 2.0907
241.8 5.373.2 13.650.1
565.9 9.487.2 22,571.4
2,634.8 7,457.7
58.3 5.127.2 13,679.8
1.551.1 10.1545 21.329,5
638.5 14.994.1 40,678,4
74.5 6,481.3 19,108,3
5913 1.871.1
447.5 1,567.8
835.2 9.442.1 23.222.4
533.3 1,765.0
URAL POPULATIONS USING OTHER M
SURFACE WATER ;
MIN MEAN MAX
1,359,4 9,615.8 22,7847
1,499.2 14,070.6 38,364.6
2.984.2 10.635.4 21,710.1
82Q.7 7.001.7 17,103.8
2,862.8 9.214.6 18.0150
3,258.8 10,181.2 19,760.4
518.1 4.184.5 8,352.5
4,140.4 13,350,7 27,147.0
296.8 2,374.3 5,3140
2,183.1 10,487.8 23,0482
843.7 10,926.4 27,8754
122.4 1.875.9 4,543.0
520.4 3,097.5 «,735.4
259.4 3,813.0 10,321.8
1.878.6 6,811.1 13,243.2
1.242.4 6,032.5 12,313,3
178.4 3.4717 8,185.1
216.7 8.8225 22,046.6
863.2 10.015.9 23,478.1
322.8 4,800.4 12,851.6
«1.8 2,139.6 5,839.5
2,249,0 9,962.0 20,064.3
54.6 1,152.1 2,859.8
2681 2,017.0 4.427.4
239.5 1.573.2 3,353.6
559.5 4,351.3 9,515,7
314.2 1,091.2 2.080.7
1,198,5 10,226.5 23.557.4
2,411,8 13.642.8 29,528,4
259,6 2.362.2 5,925.9
502.4 4.596.7 10,273.1
36 2 334 1 798 2
478.3 1.492.5
2 1 461 9 1 590 7
72.5 205.8
38,9 1,239.1 3,249.5
0.0 236.1 651.8
81.4 1.668.8 4,1782
177.4 3,0400 7,1688
925.7 2.819.8
24.0 2,009,9 S.28S.1
673.6 4,118.0 8,459.2
212.8 4.924.9 13,183.8
27.7 2,270.7 6,630.1
2025 6338
143.8 493.1
308.2 3.392.8 8,227.8
150.9 495,2
EANS OF DISPOSAL TO:
BAY WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
-
437 1264
3.4 533.8 1,3838
287.0 731.7
0.1 327.1 839.0
69 341.4 892.6
20S.1 5382
5.6 514.S 1,688.0
269.8 1,836.7 3,772.7
201.0 883.5
20.5 712
52.9 267.8
112.9 1.210.3 3,068.6
153.0 500.0
1
29,7268
44,057.5
31,145.2
23,362.7
33.336,1
38,015,6
14,362.1
47,610.7
8,6126
36,407.6
42,752.2
7,546.7
11,993,0
13,386.1
21,422.5
18,883.3
15,001,3
30,107.2
3S.449.6
19,266.5
8,905,9
41,148.5
5,232.5
8,3901
7,837.6
21,2264
3.4199
34,6559
61.287.8
10.624.5
20,136.0
1,7870
367.2
5.799.3
1.268.8
7,369.2
12,868,5
37668
7,851.7
16,1092
20,1200
8.752.5
644.2
14,0453
837.2
Table 13
-------
UJ
Ul
Tlbl. 13, POUNDS OF HITROOEH LOADED BY HOUSINO TYPE
AMD WASTE DISPOSAL MEANS TO 0 ROUND WATER,
SURFACE WATIR. AND THE BAY: MODEL SKMENT SUMMARIES
Nod Sea Mod Seg Name Sub-basin Fall Line
550 Oceoquan Potomac Betow
580 Rapparwnnock Rappahannock Below
560 Great Wicomlco Rappahannock Betow
590 YoUc Rappahannoek Below
600 Janet James Betow
610 Chfckahomlny James Below
620 Nawemond James Betow
630 Bbabetli JMMS Betow
700 Eat! Branch 1 Susquehanna Above
710 Lover Susquehanna Sutquehanna Above
720 Gmowineo Sutquehanra Above
730 MM Potomac Potomac Above
740 MM Potomac Potomac Above
750 Lover Potomac Potomac Above
760 Upper Patapaco West Chesapeake Betow
770 Upper Choptank Upper E«»tem Shore Below'
780 Upper Nanttooke Lower Eastern Shore Betow
600 CowMa Upper Eastern Shore Below
610 Contlb Upper Astern Shore Betow
820 Cmstle Upper Eastern Shore Betow
830 Coistld Upper Eastern Shore Betow
640 Contla Upper Eastern Shore Betow
650 Cosstea WestCtMsapeaka Betow
860 Cou!6b West Chesapeake Betow
870 Coast 6c West Chesapeake Betow
880 Coasts Pattosnt/MM Chesapealm Betow
890 Potomao 1 Potomao Betow
900 Potomao 2 Potomao Betow
910 Potomao 3 Potomao Betow
820 Potomao4 Potomao Betow
930 CoMtea Rappaharmock Betow
940 Coast 8b Rappahannock Betow
950 COiStSc Rappahannock Betow
960 ContS James Below
970 Potomac 5 Potomao Below
980 Potomac 6 Potomac Below
990 Coast 12 Pahoenl/MM Chesapeake Below
(1) CHESAPEAKE BAY
(2) JAKES RIVER
(3) PATUX6NT RIVEf?
(4) POTOMAC RIVER
(5) RA?PAHANNOCX
(6) YOW RIVER
a, POUNDS OF NITROGEN LOADED BV R
GROUNO WATER
MIH MEAN MAX
mo 51,6
3S7.6 8665,0 J3.384.7
1,830,4 14866.7 34.052.3
6.6 934.4 2.334.7
1,906.8 11.840.0 26,822,8
1,074.7 11,913.8 32,089.2
1?5.0 3,641.2 8,617.6
23.2 1,5756 3,9048
0.7 22
590,7 18652 3,883.7
218.7 56268 15.199.7
845.1 11,953.0 30.330.7
1,426.4 6,867.0 16,435.4
2,062.3 2S923.2 CS.442.3
351.3 2709.8 6,688,4
21.9 68565 20,192.9
116.6 1,508.6 3.809.0
430.7 1,254.2
Z5.6 1,384.6 3,430.6
5.8 1,627.1 4,771.3
650.2 1,840.2
660.8 2,500.8
1S4.7 2,882.4 6,838.3
52.5 870.6 2,487.2
125.9 410.1
138,1 527.8
347.2 3,333.5 8,854.5
102,8 401.7
87.3 3,261.4 8.060.8
3.7M.8 19,612.3 «,224,0
0.1 743.4 2,012.8
759.2 6,521.3 15.009.4
366,5 1,035,7
4,0 158
549.3 1,738.8
1.1Z1.3 8,865.6 24,741.5
348.1 865.8
5,4 28.3
"
JRAL POPULATIONS USING OTHER M
SURFACE WATER
WIN MEAN MAX
6.3 17.9
139.1 2,993.7 7,862,9
589.2 S.350.8 12.172.5
2.4 329,8 821.6
685.8 4.216.8 8,381.2
4396 4.508.7 11.724.6
68.7 1309.4 3,389.3
9,5 651.7 1.595.9
04 12
2993 979.6 1.892.1
81.8 1.993.0 5,283.0
207.3 3.862.1 8.7228
639.5 3,726.4 6,292.2
810.2 i,741,6 23,297.4
114.8 851.2 2.085.8
7.8 2,513.1 7.293.1
42.1 536.0 1.339.8
136.6 393 6
8.3 443,8 1,078.8
1.6 503.4 1,460.5
221.5 624.8
213.5 789.2
85.2 1,182.2 2,765.5
21.4 323.2 617.0
41.8 134.1
43.8 188.6
109.1 1,165.0 3,087.1
0.1 0,4
35.8 137.6
23.8 1,233.1 3,403.2
. 1,409.3 7,218.3 15,538.8
0.0 313.2 837.5
301.4 2,791.3 6,383,3
199.6 555.8
155,9 490.6
435.4 3,544.7 8,755.3
119,9 284.9
4.3 51.0 136.0
0.1 9.9 29.4
-
0,1 3.5 9.4
15.7 52.6
:ANS OF DISPOSAL TO:
BAY WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
21.4 44,4
109.2 2,184.2 5,758.1
6,5 511,7 1,395.8
193.9 849,2 2,167.4
136.1 1,309.1 3,250.4
264 J3.8
.
140.8 377,2
487,2 1,395,4
176.7 2.391.0
535.3 2,174.5
149.7 1,183.8 2,727.8
15.1 188.6 483.0
86.8 296.8
54.8 244.3
328.3 1,096.5
1.8 7.5
58.6 2«3
148 175.8 4-18.2
351.9 2,180.9 5,310.7
597.1 1,612.0
175-6 1,7968 4,378,0
120.2 385.8
58.3 2-100
241.5 1,7358 4,319.9
170.9 436.5
736 1.813.8 4.475.5
17.0 149.7 3M.O
12.0 120.0 292.8
51.5 465.1 1,232.2
11.1 257.8 706.5
44.1 190.0 423.4
3,002 3 24,284.8 63,767.4
1
24.3
11,702.2
22,401.6
1,775.8
17,108.0
17,731.7
4,0506
2,253.8
1.1
2.964.8
7.ei96
15,815.1
9,593.4
36.664.8
3.581.0
9.3696
2,044.6
S37.3
1,879.3
2,597.7
1,748.4
1,409.8
5,258.4
1,482.4
254.4
236.8
4.826.7
2,0
197,2
4,6703
29.211.6
1,653.7
11,109.4
6884
8.2
763.5
15,146.1
638.9
1,670.9
159.5
120.0
4sas
2715
Tabte 13
-------
ON
TaMs «, POUNDS OP NITROGEN LOADED Wf HOUSING TYPE
AND WASTI DISPOSAL MEANS TO GROUND WATER,
SURFACE WATER, AND THI BAY: MODEL SEGMENT SUMMARIES
,
ModSeo Mod Sea Name Sob-basin Pal Lin.
10 East Brunch 1 Susquehanna ' Above —
20 East Branch 1 Susquehanna Abn*
30 E»t Branch 2 Sutquehanna Above
40 6wt6ranch2 Sutquehanna Above
50 West Branch Susquehanna Above
60 Watt Branch Susquehanna Above
70 WeslBnnch Susquehanna Abo*
80 Lewer Susquehanna Susquehanna Above
90 JunMa Susquehanna Above
100 Juniata Susquehanna Above
110 Lower Susquehinna Susojuehwm Abo*
120 Conowlnao Sutquehanna Abow
140 Conowrfngo SusquBhama Abow
160 UpperPotomao Potomac Abo*
170 Upper Potomac Potonwc Abort
175 Upper Potomac Potomac Above
180 M*f Potomac Potomac Abo*
190 Sftenandoah Potomac Abow
200 Stwnanooah Potomac Abow
210 Lower Potomac Potomac Abow
220 Lower Potomac Potomac Abow
230 Rappahannock Rappahannock Abow
235 M.tlaponi York Abow
250 Panunkey York Abow
260 Panunkey York Abow
265 Janes James Abow
280 Janes James Abow
290 James James Abow
300 Apxxnalox Appomatox Abow
310 Apxmatox Appomatox Abow
330 Paltnent Patinent Abow
340 Patuxent Patumnt Abow
370 Bohemia Upper Eastern Shore Below
380 Chtster Upper Eastern Shore Beta*
380 W>* Upper Eastern Shore Below
400 Lower Choptank Upper Eastern Shore Below
410 Lower Nantlooke Lower Eastern Shore Below
420 Wicomlco Lower Eastern Shore Below
430 Pocomoka Lower Eastern Shore Below
440 Coast 4 Lower Eastern Shore Below
450 Coistll West Chesapeake Below
470 Gunpowder Weil Chesapeake Bet™
480 Baltimore West Chesapeake Below
490 Lower Patapsco West Chesapeake Below
500 Panwent PaUnent/MM Chesapeake Below
510 Severn PatuxenVMU Chesapeake Below
f. NITROGEN LOADINGS FROM ft
GROUNDWATB?
MN MEAN MAX
3.003.9 12,202,8
2,628.1 15,298,2
738.7 3.162.3
322,8 1.934.2
2296 1.143.8
8BS8 4.189,4
216 821,7 3.847.4
7514 4.3815 11.454.6
2819 1.56J.1
166.7 4,0542 11,794.4
1,4451 7,048.2
10.8 1.1393 4,414.0
4261 2,081,3
5038 2,704.8
1.9257 8,587.4
1,1040 4.503.5
9889 4.484.1
1,556.2 8,6941
1.341.4 7,451.3
54J1 2825
274.1 1,799.3
1,639.7 8,0688
50.J 6097
120.1 7241
275.1 1,5345
447.1 2,577,1
177J 874.2
1.278.* 5,6214
2,209.5 11.902.1
104.0 402.8
1,110.5 5,621,7
102.5 484.0
44 m*
16B.J 1,221.3
m« 146.4
253.1 1,760.8
1,182.? 5,101.2
228.9 1.101.5
841.4 3,911.0
848.9 3,824,9
».9 855.4 3,879,8
8.8 65.4
-
0.1 1,072.7 4.1210
4.C 55.3
RM POPULATIONS USING OTHER M
SURFACE WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
1.443.U 5,754.
1.229.0 7.024.
374.3 1.S96.U
120.1 714.
90.3 438.3
400.4 1,724
8.4 344.3 1,457,2
307.1 1,738,8 4,440.4
100.9 596.4
63.6 . 1.552.8 4.534.4
510,0 2.457.0
3.8 373.4 1.433,3
151.6 724.0
1S8.9 1.064.$
883.8 3.008.3
519.0 2.097.0
310.4 1.376.1
623.5 3,469.3
531.7 2,877.7
15.7 80.8
68.2 466.8
524.2 2.529.9
* 143 ffiQI
39.4 227.8
69.8 386.6
988 571.3
81.8 3080
530.4 2,280.0
626.5 3,356.1
22.7 883
322.8 1.610.8
23.6 108 S
* *
* .
1.3 17.8
52.3 372.5
3.2 45.6
76.9 532.1
378.7 1,618,2
78.8 378.8
323.2 1,487.8
332.8 1,480,3
8.9 332.7 1,253,7
3.4 24.4
*
0.0 388.2 1,470.9
1.1 14.7
WS OF VMASTE DISPOSALW"
BAYWATER
MIN MEAN MAX
•
".
•
•
0.6 9.5
12.2 1157
1.9 331
23.7 1M.9
23.2 135.7
15.8 75.8
24.6 183.5
206.1 830.3
• . 0.1 2,8
•
120.5 488.3
1.3 17.7
4,446.
3,858.
1,113.
442,
320.3
1,366,3
1,266.0
6.100.
362.8
5,607.2
1,955,
1,512,7
577.8
702.8
2.809.2
1,623.0
1,299.3
2,179,7
1,873.1
70.5
342.3
2,164.0
64.6
1602
3447
5480
2591
1,809.1
2,8360
1267
1.433.2
128.2
„
,
6.3
232.8
15.1
354.2
1.584.6
323.5
1.189.2
1.387.9
1,288.1
12.2
1,581.4
64
Z
if
1,022,866,2
2,238,6907
925,342.9
921,283.0
508,802.9
683,378.4
586,4568
1,304,091.7
325,810.4
974,025.8
1,938,237.9
310,1034
270,4862
329,066.9
178,948.6
209,148.4
547,2167
741,246.6
608.790.1
766,1459
717.798.2
599,499.1
133.502.3
104,189.1
107,000.9
278,267.6
16,9505
439,038.1
1,188.595.6
236,842.6
291,880.1
47,021 4
171 4665
1845823
24,844.0
158,698.9
38.961.4
203,017,7
406,492.9
249,897,1
228.718.2
180.345. 1
1.020,478.6
711,179.2
202.125.3
253,330.3
636,520.4
187,668.3
Table 13
-------
TaM« 13. POUNDS OP NITROGEN LOADED BY HOUS1NO TYPE
AND WASTE DISPOSAL MEANS TO OROUHD WATER.
SURFACE WATER, AND THE BAY: MODEL SiOMENT SUMMARIES
ModSeg Mod Sea Name Sub-basin Famine
550 Occoquan Potomac Below
560 Rappahannoek RapoahannoeK Betow
580 Great Wicomico Rappalunnock Betow
590 York Rappahanrtoek Betow
900 James James Betow
$10 Chfckahomlny James Betow
520 Nansenond James Below
S3O Elizabeth James Below
700 East Blanch 1 Susquehama Above
710 Lower Susquehanna Susquehama Above
720 Ccoowinao Susquehanrn Above
730 Mid Potomac Potomac Above
740 Mid Potomac Potomac Above
750 Lower Potomac Potomac Above
760 Upper Patapsco WeM Chesapeake Below
T70 Upper Choptank Upper Eastern Shore Betow
780 Upper Wanticote Lower Eastern Shore Betow
900 Coast 'a Upper Eastern Shore Betow
310 Coast "b Upper Eastern Shore Betow
120 Coast 1c Upper Eastern Shore Betow
S30 Coast tt Upper Eastern Shore Betow
840 Coast 1e Upper Eastern Shore Betow
850 Coast ea West Chesapeake Betow
860 Coast Cb West Chesapeake Betow
170 Coast Cc West Chesapeake Betow
ISO Coasts Pafuxenl/MM Chesapeake Betow
«90 Potomac 1 Potomac Betow
900 Potomac 2 Potomac Betow
910 Potomac 3 Potomac Betow
920 Potomac 4 Potomac Betow
930 Coast {a Rappahannock Betow
940 Coast fb Rappahannock Below
950 Coast EC Rappahannock Betow
960 Coasts James Betow
970 PotomtcS Potomac Betow
980 PotomtcS Potomac Betow
990 Coast 12 Patuxent/MW Chesapeake Betow
(1) CHEWPEAKEBAY
(2) JAMES RIVER
P) PATUXENT RIVER
{4) POTOMAC RIVER
(5) RAPPAHANNOCK
(8) YORK RIVER
f, NITROGEN LOADINGS FROM FA
GROUND WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
171.8 1,545,3
1.402.8 5.784.3
81.3 390.4
855.0 2,959.5
154.4 1,085.8
203.2 971.1
0.2 0,9
122.0 5530
538.7 2,6142
329.7 5.158.1 14,345.4
600,6 2.721.4
1.189,8 6.854.9
150.5 803.1
113.2 691.9
85.7 425.1
10.1 131.5
36.3 406.1
0.9 36.6
10.2 200.2
170.7 958.1
-
-
455.8 1,790.8
0.0 0.2
30,1 242.0
69.4 3.694.3 10,959.6
77,3 335.3
419.9 1.925.5
17.5 121.6
3.3 11.8
0.7 16.8
881,6 3.220.9
84.8 311.8
ft 1
U. 1
-
*M POPULATIONS USING OTHER Mi
SURFACE WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
60.0 5293
504.3 2.052.7
27.9 133.7
301.3 1,036.6
58.0 405,2
83,7 3956
0.1 0.5
184.1 8898
104.7 1,641.7 4,534.6
2382 1.037.1
4080 2.409.3
47.4 278,5
40.2 243.4
27.6 135,1
3.2 41.3
10.8 121.0
0.3 12.8
3.3 64.3
61.0 346.2
1603 6223
» fi fi n 4
v.w 0. 1
10.7 84.8
24.9 1,342.6 3,929.8
32.4 137.4
161.2 753.8
• 96 66 3
Id K K
l.w o,5
0.2 5-5
357.6 1,261.7
30.4 10R8
2.2 9.8
0.1 0,7
n K t 1
0,5 2,2
ANS OF WASTE DISPOSAL TO'
BAY'WATER
MIN MEAN MAX
168.9 797.3
8.2 60.9
55.5 190.5
89 68,3
1,8 8.3
*
-
1.2 12.5
6,2 84.5
0.8 380
9.3 191.5
10.4 97.2
-
»
31.6 180.8
0.0 1,0
1.6 17.2
»2.5 1,155.0
58.4 242.0
338 207.3
»
0.8 19.8
»e.1 993.8
42.3 164.0
76.4 419.4
0.8 5.9
13.1 51.2
64.6 240.1
18.5 69.3
. - 7.2 237
i
231.6
2.078.0
117.5
1.211.7
221.3
288.7
0.2
181.0
722.8
8,797.8
838.8
1.577.8
197.6
153.5
113.3
14.5
S3.3
2.0
22.7
242.1
*
647.8
01
42.4
5,319.4
166.0
614.9
27.1
5.2
1.8
1,525.3
157,5
18,8
0.9
13.1
65.1
16.5
2
i
it
190,477,9
691,5581
342,765.0
28.763.7
432,593.8
879,880.4
282,119.4
1T5.709.4
30,227.8
76,912.4
312,2915
639,480.2
294,853.5
8r0.9455
117,644.4
541,300.2
83,646.7
H 546.9
90,632.4
55,3139
17,361.8
18,836.8
66,0928
28.8755
17,777.8
220,669.8
358,3229
62,4091
136,840.4
199,199.8
551,303.8
30,318.1
228.908.5
129.1633
207,3003
34,696.7
343,569.8
16,701,6
?3,796.6
8,966.4
4,936.0
12.043.0
5,242.1
Tibia 13
-------
Compilation Of Literature On
Individual Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems And
Methods To Estimate Their Nitrogen Loading To
Surface And Ground Waters
National Center for Resource Innovations-Chesapeake
• Janice Wiles, Consultant
July, 1995
r
V.
This document -was prepared as part of the National Center for Resource Innovations (NCEI) -
Chesapeake'; project: The Potential for Nutrient Loadings from Septic Systems to Ground and Sur&ce Water
Resources and the Chesapeake Bay. It is intended to ofier contacts and relevant information for NCRI-Chesapeake to
use in the development of a model to estimate nitrate loading to ground and surface water in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed.
238
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Interview Notes.
' - '•- 3
Published Literature.....
Unpublished Literature (reports, documents, models) f f
List of Reviewers.......
.„„. _ jg
Alternative Systems Review... *-
"*••••"•—........... ID
Inventory of State Regulation Documents. 17
Attachments:
Questionnaire
Contact List
Memorandum from J. Hearn, Water Management Administration of MaryJand Deoartmeni of th»
Enwonment on Alternative Onste Sewage Disposal Systems. Sijt iJiSJ Departmert °f the
Baimore Metropolitan Council-Reservoir Technical Group Focus on Septic System Issues
Alternative and innovative Septic Systems
239
-------
INTER VIEW NOTES
Telephone interviews were conducted with the majority of the following people. A questionnaire
was developed (see Appendix I) to assist with these interviews. All of the professtonals that were
contacted are listed in Appendix H
Entire Chesapeake Bay Watershed and Outside
1 Ross Mandel, Interstate Commission for the Potomac River Basin, Rockville, MD - Prior to
working for the Commission Mandel was a graduate student at Cornell under D. Haith and co-
authored The Impact of Septic Systems on Surface Water Quality (see Section HI for document
description),
Mandel thinks mat more focus should be placed on modeling failing systems, and consideration of
" derutrificatioa With regard to denitrilcation aad septic systems he referenced Metcalf & Eddy
(their Study of denitrificatiou rates), J.A. Cherry, and Reneau (research on shallow systems).
2 Jim Kaap, SCS Water Quality Specialist, Madison, Wisconsin - He sent document on using
NLEAP to model nitrate loading-
3 Hans Zarbock, Coastal Environmental, Florida - He is working on the final draft for Charlotte
Harbor Florida. In their estimation they used a 2,000 ft maximum zone of impact for sandy
soils. This was based on empirical data collected by well sampling for Mike Heyl's project to
determine retention and sorption.
The project had a detailed survey of the number of septic tanks. They used 2.3 people/household
and data on per capita water use and were able to estimate hydraulic load. They found me effluent
quality below Ac drain field to be 39ppm N and 11 ppm P. They used a linear decay equation
from a block centroid to the shoreline and found 80% N removal and 95% P removal irrespective
of location (w/in 2,000 ft maximum zone of impact). From bom Charlotte Harbor studies and
Tampa Bay stadies'lhe septic tank loading of N is about 2-3% of all N loading.
See document sent from Gerold Morrison: "Charlotte Harbor Watershed Diagnostic Assessment".
•Zarbock recommended that we contact Tony Janicki of Coastal Environmental Services (410)
684-3324. CES has done GIS work in the Chesapeake Bay.
4 Dave Tamasco, Florida National Estuarine Program- Florida National Environmental
Program developed a water budget, split the difference between high and low NO3 loading
estimates, estimated there is a 2040% loss of N from drainfield to groundwater table; looked at
loading using Ostendorf (default) decay rate and found the plume diffuses; there is not enough
organic matter to foel denitrificarion. Organic matter as low as 1% might help dentrify NO3.
They found in some cases mat 11% of stream flow is septic tank effluent. They put the decay rate
with horizontal transport rate to find delivery rates for the sub-basin. They found that off one
creek 30% of the effluent flow is from septic tanks. Yet the plume of septic diffuses in the sandy
soils SO that there is not high reading of NO3 at any one point.
The National Environmental Program took a different approach and looked at bacterial and viral
counts and their inputs correlate directly with septic tank concentration.
240
-------
See paper.
5, Ed Eicher, Cape Cod Commission - The regulations for onsite wastewater management systems
on Cape Cod are based on N loading models. See literature in Section m.
6. Doug Haith, Cornell University - The GWLF models stream flow, sediment yield and N & P
loading. There must be data on the numbers and types of systems. County health departments in
NY state have been quite forthcoming with such data. Haith is not convinced that maintenance is
a factor in such a loading estimate.
1. Scott Stevens, South Florida Water Management District, Tampa Bay, National Estuary Program -
Steven's questions reliability of census data for septic tanks. For die Tampa Bay he used a GIS
layer of census tract data on septic tanks and put it over sub basins and land use in the St Pete area
where he knew there were 2,000 septic tanks. He compared with census data and found mat the
census data overestimated the number by 32% - so in their model they decreased the number of
septic tanks by 32% for the entire bay region.
Toe SFWMD-Tampa Bay eliminated land uses (in GIS) where septic tanks couldn't be put and
then calculated the distance form centroid to stream or hydro feature. They used the distribution
of distances to make a linear regression to determine distance.
8. Mike Sevener, Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) - Sevener is doing a literature
review on septic systems and meir impacts. He is concerned with Montgomery and Prince
Georges county; and will share data and literature with us.
Pennsylvania
1. Milton Lauch, Pennsylvania Department of Environment - He Pa DER tried to estimate loadings
several years ago; they assumed 45ppm N at base of adsorption area, and used census data to
estimate the number of septic systems. M. Lauch thought that the data they used were not good
enough to determine loading accurately.
PA DER proposed regulations for septic tank maintenance, which were not passed. However, the
state recently gave out some money to counties to enforce and encourage maintenance.
Maryland
1. Deborah Wetter, Maryland Office of Planning - The Planning Office used the Hydrologic
Loading Planning Function Model wim census data and loading coefficients (33, 53, and 67) in
the Paruxent, actual and literature watershed-level (no plot study) data and estimate that model
determined N & P loading are within 5% of actual loading. Weller said mat transport is "built
into" the loading coefficients used. They were using natural soil groups yet will begin using
STATSGO soon. (Dawn DiStefano in MD Office of Planning is developing their GIS data base.)
The Patuxent River Demonstration Project Workgroup is EPA-supported. The work group is
looking into: how to improve meir N & P load estimation, ways to reduce loading, the regulations
and potential use of alternative systems (see Jay Prager, MD Department of the Environment).
The work group is concerned wim rural clustering.
The Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission has supplied the Patuxent River Project with data
(see Mike Sevener, WSSC).
241
-------
2. Jane Gottfredson/Jay Prager, Maryland Department of the Environment, Residential Sanitation
Division, Septic and Wells Program - When working for the National Association of Home
builders J, Gottfredson helped develop a mass-balance model for N loading from septic systems.
Alternative systems are being used and looked at more so now in the state of Maryland, There has
been a surge in their use since 1988 and 89 due to increased technical assistance and funding for
their development and improvement Jay Prager explained that alternative systems fall within
prescribed criteria and are newly constructed on existing land (see Appendix D. Innovative
systems are described as those put in where there is a failing septic system, where there is some
literature on the system to rely upon, and where a homeowner is aware of the risks and helps to
monitor the system's hydraulic performance. In Anne Arundel County there were 100-150
recirculating sand filter systems installed. Sand mounds are used conventionally in permeable
soils.
Maryland has no mandate for septic system, maintenance. MDE works to educate homeowners
and Prager believes that children will be key to educating families and adult septic system, users to
the importance of regular maintenance. J. Prager is trying to get a video produced for school and
rural library use.
There are many old (20-30 years) systems in Maryland. MDE believes mat systems dont fail
when newer than 20 years old. MDE is very strict about site condition compliance prior to
installation of septic Systran. To install a conventional system the percolation rate must be 30
mm/inch and there must be a soil test to learn soil texture and landscape position. Many counties
believe that deeper systems are better, Prager believes that septic systems, are installed too
deeply.
All of the eastern shore counties - with the exception of Kent - have assessed groundwater and
have found reduced treatment zones.
3. Jack Anderson, Baltimore Metropolitan Council - Jack held a special session with the BMC to
discuss septic system issues. The minutes are forthcoming. The flier announcing the special
session is attached to this document (see Appendix ffi).
4. RoberttShedlock, U.S.G.S., Towson, MD - Dr. Shedlock co-authored the NAWQA study on the
Delmawa. He is currently trying to track septic effluent with the MD DNR. Joel Dysatt (410)
512-4837 is working most closely (under Shedlock) on the geochemical signatures project
Delaware
1. Judy Denver, U.S.O.S., Dover - Dr. Denver participated in the NAWQA study of the Delmarva
Peninsula She is using ehlorofloroearbon dating to determine groundwater flux in the Delmarva.
They are now seeing 20 year old ground water entering the Bay. She estimates ?# N/person/yr as
input to septic system and of this amount 64% is lost to ground water and the rest votatizes to
atmosphere.
2. Blair Yenables, Delaware State Department of Natural Resources, Dover - Venables helped to
install the septic systems around Red Mill Pond, where field studies of nitrate loading were done.
3. Ian Co/man, Delaware State Department of Natural Resources, Dover - Cofinan measured
nutrient gradients and has some dam on N down and up gradients.
242
-------
Nanicote *" ° ****' ^^ ' *** d°ne ^^ °f
5. Rodney Wyatt, Section Manager, Ground Water Discharge Unit, Water Resources division, DNR,
Delaware - Wyatt is in charge of issuing state septic system permits The 1985 Delaware
regulations are based on soils. The DNR is looking at the effectiveness of alternative systems.
Currently their system for recording septic system licensing and location is manual. The DNR
(am Wyatt) entered into an agreement with Xerox to use email and computers to eliminate
administrative burden and improve compliance, and to evaluate emerging technologies and
maintenance. (There is a state technology fund of $20 million that DNR is trying to get support
trom). They will use groundwater data and wiU require a 1 -3 year maintenance pump.
(NCR! has sent information to Wyatt on CBDSS and expects to receive regulations and literature
on alternative septic systems In use and under study in Delaware).
West Virginia
1 . Phil Jones, West Virginia Department of Environment - Jones works on regulations and design.
West Virginia currently has no ongoing testing/maintenance program for septic tanks. Counties
have kept ledgers on permitting since July 1, 1970, and those should be available for Jefferson,
Morgan and Berkeley counties. There are no maintenance requirements, yet the DE does give out
a brochure on septic tank maintenance. Shallow systems are required - with 30" maximum
trench.
Phil Jones referred me to Dave Watkjas, Department of Environmental Protection (304) 558-
2108. Watkins deals with larger systems designed for 20+ people.
Virginia
1. Kathy Baird, Department of Environmental Health, Chesterfield County, Virginia - Chesterfield
County has established a low cost inspection system mat complies with Coastal Zone
Management Plan for the region. The County has developed a software package in Fox Pro which
helps track compliance by noting date, location depth, drainage, and pumping regularity. There is
35% compliance; when they sent out questionnaires regarding me program (before it was
implemented) they got a greater than 50% response. Many repairs are done without health
departments permit; people might be reluctant to get a permit because the health department
might find that costly repairs and perhaps drain fields are necessary. Chesterfield County has
recently hired a media specialist to remind the public about upkeep on their systems.
Other people to talk to: 1) Robert Bowers (804) 748-1692; he is an inspector who wants to
redesign the program 2) Dr. William Nelson, Director of Health Department (804) 748-1743 to
give history of program.
2. Alan Knapp, VA Department of Health - Mr. Knapp works on VA regulations. Dramfield loading
maximum is 1200 gal/day acre, which has encouraged spreading them out There is no regulation
for septic tank depth, decisions are based on soil type.
243
-------
3. Daryf Glover, Shawn Smith, Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department (CBLAD) - The
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (of 1989-90) established requirements to impose an ordinance
for 5 year clean out for all counties east of 1-95 (those in CBW) modeled after the state law. The
problems found thus far are that haulers don't notify government when they are done, and there is
no place to put the pump-out material.
4, Virginia Water Project, Blacksburg, VA
5. Robert Croonenberts, Director, Division Shellfish Sanitation, VA Department of Health -
He used a com-puter model to decide if DEQ should allow discharge from sewage that
might affect shellfish. They have constructed some wetlands, and have collected water quality
data VA is using a lot of recircukting sand filter systems.
Croonenberts works with Roger Cooley (a technical staff person) who might be a good person to
contact for more information.
6. t Raymond Reneau, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State College, Department of Crop and Soil
Environmental Sciences - Dr. Rcueau has doue a lot of field research on septic systems and in
1991 co-authored a report for the Virginia Department of Health: Potential for Contamination of
Ground and Surface Waters from On-Site Wastewater Disposal Systems. He has a lot of data and
would be an excellent resource and reviewer.
Published Literature
The following articles were selected because of aspects which are pertinent to calculation of N
loading from septic systems in the CBW and to provide an idea of die types of studies done on septic
systems. This Mterature list is not intended to be a complete compilation of literature about septic
systems. There is a large reference list k the unpublished document by Stolt and Reneau Potential for
Contamination of Ground and Surface Waters from On-site Wastewater Disposal Systems, There are also
a series of books which might be useful references during the model-development process. Copies of
these are not provided. References for these books are given in this list.
American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 1984 (see also 1989 and 1994). On-site wastewater
treatment. ASAE Proceedings.
Batman, B.J. and WM. Schqfer. Estimating Ground-Water Quality Impacts from On-Site Sewage
Treatment Systems. This article presents a model to analyze and examine ground-water pollution
potential from septic systems. See Table 2 (pg 293) for internal and external factors to consider when
evaluating the impact of septic systems on ground-water quality. The model does not attempt to
accurately predict ground-water nitrate levels. Hie model developers attempted to create a simplified
model that help decision-makers, unfamiliar with modeling, understand the natural system and mechanics
of interaction, among components. The authors point out that cumulative impact and density of septic
systems and dilution capacity of ground-water should be considered.
Brown, K, W. andJ.C, Thomas. Nov-Dec 1978, Uptake of N by Grass from Septic Fields in Three Soils.
Agronomy Journal, Vol 70, pp 1037-1040. The study was done to determine the capacity of vegetation
for removal of N from soil around septic systems. Results show that the largest fraction was taken up
form soil which received the least amount of effluent. This study was done to provide data on how much
N might be
sequestered by vegetation growing over a septic field.
Canter, Larry 1987. Ground water quality protection. Lewis Publisher.
244
-------
Canter, Larry 1985. Ground water pollution control. Lewis Publisher.
Canter, Larry 1985 Septic tank system effects on ground water quality. Lewis Publisher.
- °f 1922' M anajysis of septic tank survival data in Fairfax County, Virginia for 1952-
n frlS? 1? *e 24A ^^ Nati°nal WatCT WeU Association Convention k Atota
Data from 1952-72 on septic tanks were analyzed. Tie author found that septic tanks systems
"d installed mdet faMy wdl conlroUed conditions
*e Fairfax County Hea Department
test "H"* detemine if «a » ^ducive to absorption and infiltration and
n 1984 Fieldperfom»«of Conventional and Alternative Septic Systems
m Wet Sods.. Jounud of Environmental Quality, Vol 13, no 1 pp 137-142. This was a field evaluation of
15 septic systems, including alternative systems: four low pressure pipe (LPP) systems two soil
replacement systems, and two pressure-dosed mounds. Researchers looked for all spp of nitrogen, P and
tecal colifbtm ui ground water, and measured water tables monthly. Contaminant levels decreased 'with
-------
Gnld, AJ. RK Lamb, GW Loomis, JR Boyd, VJ Cabetti. CG McKiel, Oct-Dec 1992, Wastewater
Renovation in Buried and Recireulating Sand Filters, Journal of Environmental Quality, Vol 21, no 4, pp
720-725 (sent by G. Loomis)
Haiift, D.A., M ASCE, LJ. Tubbs. Feb 1981 Watershed Loading Functions for Nonpoint Sources.
Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil
Engineers, Vol 107 no EEL
Haifh, D.A. andLL Shoemaker. June 1987. Generalized Watershed Loading Functions for Stream Flow
Nutrients. Water Resources Bulletin Vol 23, No 3 pp 471-478.
Lamb, BE, AJ Gold, GW Loomis, CG McKiel, 1990, Nitrogen Removal for On-Site Sewage Disposal: A
recirculating Sand Filter/Rock Tank Design, ASAE Vol 33, no 2, pp 525-531, (sent by G, Loomis).
Lamb, BE, AJ Gold, GW Loomis, CG McKiel, 1991 Nitrogen Removal for On-Site Sewage Disposal:
Field Evaluation of Buried Sand Filter/Greywater Systems, ASAE Vol 34, no 3, pp 883-889, (sent by G.
Loomis).
Magetle, W.L., RjL Weismiller. 1987-88. Septic Tank-Soil Absorption Systems. Water Resources,
Cooperative Extension Service, University of Maryland System No 24. This publication describes the
structure, function and maintenance requirements of an onsite individual wastewater treatment system.
Murphy, Eileen A. 1992. Nitrate in drinking water weEs in Burlington and Mercer Counties, New Jersey.
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 47 (2), pp 183-187. An analysis of nitrate levels in drinking water
wells in two regions (one in aquifer system of Atlantic Coastal Plain and another in aquifer systems of
Coastal Plain and glacial till). Distance of well from septic tank and depth of well are studied.
Perkins, R. J. Septic Tanks, Lot Size and Pollution of Water Table Aquifers. Journal of Environmental
Health, V 46 (6) 298-304. This paper looks at the issnes involved in permitting and regulating septic
system use (setbacks, lot size). Four models are looked at for predicting nitrate concentrations. See
generalizations on page 302.
Perkins, Richard. 1989. Onsite wastewater disposal. Lewis Publisher.
Postma, FB. AJGold GW Loomis, Sept-Oct 1992, Nutrient and Microbial Movement from SeasonaUy-
Used Septic Systems Journal of Environmental Health, pp 5-10 (sent by G. Loomis).
Reneau, R.B, Jr. 1977. Changes in Inorganic Nitrogenous Compounds from Septic Tank Effluent in a
Soil with a Fluctuating Water Table. Journal of Environmental Quality, Vol 6 no 2 pp 173-178. This
study monitors changes in N species from effluent in Virginia Coastal Plain soil where mere are seasonally
high water tables, and sandy soils underlain by a less permeable layer, (facilitating horizontal flow and
recharge). See Table 2 for correlation between distance from absorption field of septic system and
concentration of species of N in soil.
Robertson, F.N. July-Aug 1979. Evaluation of Nitrate in the Ground Water in the Delaware Coastal
Plain. Ground Water Vol 17 no 4 pp 328-337, This study was done to examine ground-water quality and
possibly
determine the source of any ground-water source In peril. The occurrence of nitrate was closely linked to
land use, soil permeability, depth to water table and the geochemistry of the aquifer. Most of the 19
problem areas were found in well-drained Evesboro soil series with depths to water table > 10 feet (and
distances where oxidizing is more likely to occur). Lower nitrate values were found in woodlands and
246
-------
poorly-drained soils with water table depths from 0-5 feet (and where denitfification is more iikely to
occur).
Robertson, W.D. and J.A. Cherry. Jan-Feb 1995. to Situ Denitrification of Septic-System Nitrate
Reactive Porous Media Barriers: Field Trials Ground Water Vol 33 No 1 pp 99-1 II. This paper studies
two design options for denitrification using organic carbon (saw-dust). Foun field trials are discussed
using the two designs: one as a horizontal barrier, the otter as a vertical barrier for oitratcs. Bofc burners
showed 60-100% success at attenuating nitrate levels of up to 125 mg/I N over the course of 1 year.
Sand filters (a commonly used alternative) have shown a 40-90% attenuation,.
Robertson, W.D., J.A. Cherry, E.A. Sudicky. January-February 1991. Ground-Water Contamination from
Two Small Septic Systems on Sand Aquifers. Groundwater Vol 29 No 1 pp 82-92.
SMtock R, P. Hamilton, J. Denver, P Phillips, 1993, Multiscak Approach to Regional ^d-Water-
Quality Assessment of the Delmarva Peninsula (reprinted from Regional Ground-Water Quality, ed by
William Alley, USGS), (sent by R. Sbedlock, USGS, Towson, MD)
Simmons, RC.AJ Gold, PM Groffinan, Oct-Dec 1992, Nitiate Dynamics to Riparian Forests:
Groundwater Studies, Journal of Environmental Quality, Vol 21, no 4, pp 659-665 (sent by A. Gold).
Small Flows. Winter 1995 Gloucester first to construct onsite project alternatives Vol 9 No I. National
Small Flows Clearinghouse. This and attached Small Flows contain other articles on the Nation^ Onsite
Demonstration Project (NODP). There are two project sites within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
Anne Arundel County and Dorchester County, Maryland.
Stuart, L.W. and R.B, Rmeau, Jr. 1988. Shallowly Placed, I^w Pressure Distribution System to Treat
Domestic Wastewater in Soils with Fluctuating High Water Tables Journal of Enwonmental Q^Vd
17 no 3 pp 499-504 Putting an OSWDS in a biologically active soil honzon and above an unsaturated
zone should help reduce P and bacterial movement However nitrate is not so easily removed or
ctogS 7TUr£*£"» that a low Pressure distribution system could be effective at promotog
Sfication aSTecreasmg trim*, in ground water in soil with high season^ flux _m water t*£
Denittification could be fueled by soil OM, carbon from grass over the OSWDS and carbon «n the
effluent
Waldorf Lawrence, 1982. Individual onsite wastewater systems. National Sanitation Foundation.
Walter, W.G., J. Bouma, D.R. Keeney, F.R. Magdoffi 1973 Nitrogen Transformations Duri^
Subsurface Disposal of Septic Tank Effluent in Sands: I Soil Transformations. Journal of Environmental
Ouairy Vol2no4. PP475^80. Tbis study looks at the physical and chemical properties of sods in five
S 4nk seeptage beds to find out what happens to effluent N. This study might provide some
background material.
Walker WG J Bouma D.R Keeney, P.O. Okott 1973. Nitrogen Transformations During Subsurface
Ssd of Septic TaTfefflSntm Sands: U. Ground Water Quality. Journal of En^onm^tal Quahty,
vS 4 pp 521-525. The research studies N removal from septic system effluent through use of md
Data from Sis study suggest that only increased dilution from uncontammated ground water is able to
lower nitrate content.
Walker WH Sept-Oct 1973. Ground-Water Nitrate Pollution in Rural Areas Ground Water Voll 1 No
fppl9-22 ^Sartide is reaUy focused on nim** in ground-water from ogrioult^ and •«^""^
wS little mention of septic systems. However there are some interestmg aspects on nitrate transport,
Seasonal and vegetativeTutrient attenuation which might be useful to this septic system analysis .
-------
.
Unpublished Technical Documents and Reports
1.
3.
5.
assessment includes a baseline i
See Section 4.4 (pg J3) for description
, .
Newaric, Delaware for Delaware
DE, June 1990 (sent by Dr. W.F. Rier)
°f
Control, DoVWf
Monthly groundu-ater samples were collected armm^f s „„ »•,
ammonia, nitrates, organic nitrogen Morid^ f- "'Sltefast™alersy**™ and tested/or
nSl^ S- J^' conductMty> fi** «W»* and fecal
^^^,^1^ Ah°' **^ *"»***»,
Demtrification and On-^jte Wastewater T
iuSTfor Water Resources Section, Dciw
DE (sent by W.F. Rider) F<™i
The documented nitrate contamination in grounAvater
w. septic system spurred revision
K, D v t. ,.
? R°b"cEastbuni ««
Resources and Environmental Control,
e
Seecnapter7
M/roe/i and phosphorus loads were calculat
248
-------
See page 50 for septic tank loading rate estimate. See page 52 for nifrogen budget calculation
for septic tanks.
6, Nutrient. Budgets for the Appoouinimink Watershed by William Ritter and Mary Ann Levan for
fte Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (sent by W.F. Ritter).
In this study the unit loading rate method was used to develop N & P budgets from non-point
sources. N loading is described on pgs 17 and 18. Assumed no variation in N loading from
septic tanks for dry, normal or wet season. See page 40 for discussion of role of ponds in N
removal during certain times of the year. On page 46 see discussion of alternative land uses
which states "If 50% of the cropland was changed to urban-law density development, the ...
nitrogen loads would be increased by approximately 55,600 Ib/yr because of septic tank effluent.
7. Effectsof Agricultural Practices and Septic-System Effluent on the Quality of Water in the
Unconfined Aquifer in Parts of Eastern Sussex County. Delaware, by Judith M. Denver, Delaware
Geological Survey Report of Investigations No 45, June 1989 (sent by Judith Denver).
The section on pgs 43-47 Comparison of Natural Water Chemistry and Chemistry of Water
Affected bySeptic-System Effluent and Agricultural Practices seems relevant to this project. They
look at nitrate concentrations, specific conductance in water and percentages of major ions in
water samples. Section on pg 42 Effects of Septic-System Effluent on Ground-Water Chemistry is
a good summary.
8, Nitrogen Loading, prepared by Eduard Eichner and Thomas Cambareri of the Water Resources
Office for the Cape Cod Commission, Technical Bulletin 91-001, April 1992 (sent by Ed
Eichner)
This bulletin presents the methodology used by the Cape Cod Commission Water Resources
Office to evaluate cumulative nitrogen loading. The method assumes that I) recharge and
sources of nitrogen are well mixed before entering ground water in the study site; 2) no nitrogen
is lost from the system once it enters the ground water. This study recognized the need to study
nitrogen sensitive embayments. Page 7 clarifies some of the differences in results based on soil
characteristics, percolation rate, loading rate, distance to impervious strata, and distance to
water table.
9. Sampling and Analysis Results for the Period of August1992 through February 1993: Onsite
Wastewater Treatment Utilizing Constructed Wetlands^ Suffolk. VA prepared by David D. Effert,
Technical Services Chief, Division of Onsite Sewage and Water, Virginia Department of Health,
June 25, 1993 (sent by Allen Knapp, Enforcement Chief, Division of Onsite Sewage and Water
Services, Department of Health, Main Street Station)
This study looked at the usejulness of wetlands (constructed for the study) in treating sewage
effluent.
10. Point/Non-Point Source Pollution Loading Assessment Phase I. Sarasota bay National Estuary
Program,-January 10, 1992, Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (sent by Michael G. Heyl, M.S.,
Principal Scientist)
See Section 3 which presents the methods used and assumptions made in estimating pollution
loading to Sarasota Bay. The relationship between rain/alt and stream flow, and selection of
nonpoint pollution loading factors are discussed See Section 3.5.1 Failing Septic Tanks and
249
-------
3'5"2 WorkinZ SePtic Tanks- Also see Appendix B: Technical memorandum on .S>»/,> rank
Literature Review and Analysis, —
1 L Hgee Rivers Health District Seotaee Disposal StnHv Final Report to die Chesapeake Bay Local
Assistance Department, Dec. 8 1994, prepared by C. Duncan, et al for Department of Crop and
Soil Environmental Sciences, VPI (sent by CBLAD)
This study was designed to study the impact of a once-every-ftve-years mandatory septic system
pump out as mandated by the Chesapeake Say Local Assistance Department.
12. An Assessment of Potential Septic System Impacts on Surface Water Reservoirs in the Uotier
Patuxent River Basin of Montgomery Cn.mty MB fDRAFTV presented by Ayres Associates to
toe Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, Laurel, MD (sent by Michael A. Sevener, PE of
tDC \TT SSC)
WSSC via Ayres Assoc. performed a literature survey of potential impacts of septic systems on
ground and surface waters. To do this over 200 professional papers were reviewed and
investigators in the field of septic systems were contacted. See summary of report's findings on
page 2 of Septic Systems Concerns regarding their Impacts on the Patuxent Reservoirs.
In the "Assessment" see page 17 for estimate of N contribution from wastewater (6-17
gmfcapfday OR .8-13.7 -.bsfcapfyr)., and pages 21-2 for fate and transport ofN in soils and
ground\vater.
The reference list (see pg 78+) should be reviewed far literature and contacts.
13' Charlotte Harbor Diagnostic Watershed AmcamiH*, i.,*^ pTnrt _
prepared by: Coastal Environmental, me for the Southwest Florida Water Management District
(sent by Gerold Morrison, PhD, SFWMD)
See Section 4 for loading estimation and model development. This document should be very
useful for development of a CBW septic system loading model.
I4* IPPact of the Use of Subsurface Disposal System on Ground Water Nitrate Nitrogen Levels
(discussion paper), Bureau of Water Quality Management, PA DER (sent by Milton Lauch)
Section HI Subsurface Disposal Systems and Nitrate Generation traces loading of nitrate to
groundwater. and Section IV discusses Treatment to Reduce Nitrate Nitrogen Concentrations.
If interested in alternative systems see articles listed in Section IV on treatment to reduce nitrate
concentrations .
15* NLEAP Application for Developing Municipal Wellhead Protection Strategies in die Central
Wisconsin Sand Plain by JD Kaap et al (sent by Jim Kaap USDA Natural Resources and
Conservation Service, Madison, Wise)
See page four for explanation of inputs to NLEAP for nitrates from septic systems.
l6- Fhat is the Significance of Nitrogen Loading from Septic. T«iA«9 presented at the Chesapeake
Bay Conference by AJ Gold and GW Loomis, Univ. of Rhode Island, April 1994 (sent by
Professor Arthur Gold) .
250
-------
Long term studies (with replication) on N removal septic systems need to be done. The Pinelands
Commission of New Jersey and the State of Wisconsin (see references) are doing this.
The authors caution against studies that solely rely on groundwater monitoring to assess
performance. They say that "plumes are often difficult to locate and N removal estimates are
confounded by the effects of dilution and dispersion in the groundwater". They recommend year-
round monitoring, and field studies over laboratory.
17. Perspectives in Nonpoint Source Research in the Chesapeake Basin, Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee, CBP, Richmond VA (sent by Arthur Gold)
The agenda and contacts from a meeting held in 1994 by STAC - CBP.
18. Nitrogen Removal during Wastewater Infiltration as Affected bv Design and Environmental
Factors. Robert L. Siearist and Peter D. Jenssen, Proceedings from the 6th Northwest On-Site
Wastewater Treatmenfshort Course, Sept 18-19, 1989, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
(sent by Art Gold, Univ. of RI)
This paper revie\vs soil infiltration systems , the method each has of enhancing removal of
nitrogen, and the concepts and experiences with N removal in these systems,
19. Generalized Watershed Loading Functions (GWLF) Usefs Manual. (Version 2.0) plus Ground
Water Loading Function Model on diskette), Douglas Haim, Ross Mandel and Ray Shyan Wu,
Dept of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Cornell University, Dec 1992 (sent by Doug
Haith).
This manual describes the GWLF model input and output files, structure and options, as well as
three examples of lis use. Appendices show mathematical design of the, model, how the
parameters are estimated, validation results and examples of input and output files.
20. The Impact uf Septic Systems on Surface Water Quality by Ross Mandel and Douglas Haith,
Department of Civil and Envt Engineering/Department of Agricultural and Biological
Engineering, Cornell Univ, Ithaca, NY, Nov 1992 (sent by D. Haith)
This report explains the use of GWLF model component to estimate nutrient loading from septic
systems. See Chapter 3: Modeling the Contribution of Septic Systems to N and P Loads in
Surface Water. Conventional and 3 alternative systems are looked at.
21. Potential for Contamination of Ground and Surface Waters from Onsite Surface Disposal Systems
(final report to the Virginia Department of Health) by Mark Stolt and Raymond Reneau of VPI,
June 1991 (sent by Dr. Reneau)
This paper explores hath conventional and alternative on-site wastewater disposal systems. The
most relevant work is on nitrogen pg 41-75. The reference list is usefitl.
11. An Assessment of the Impact of Septic Leach Fields. Home Lawn Fertilizer, and Agricultural
Activities on Ground Water Quality by Kirk Brown for The Pinelands Commission, 1980 (report
#4, to be sent by Maureen Cook).
This document describes a mass balance dilution model used to determine lot size sufficient for
septic system placement. The diskette is available and referenced as $38.
251
-------
23" &ntr9mng Nutrient PoOution from Non-Point Sources in Pennsylvania ffi-t OTU_
^ °D Non-Pote ^^ Nu^rMm^Lent) Dece 20 1990^
&e Pages II and 12 for information on septic system in Pennsylvania.
24- Fo-FlowToil^ from the State Regulations, March 1995. National Small Flows
West Virginia University, P.O. Box 6064, Morgantown, WV.
A compilation of state regulations on toilets and individual onsite sewage treatment
List of Reviewers
Dr. Judy Denver, U.S.G.S., Dover, Delaware
f^/fl^Tf age°Cf!e ^ W? onSoi"8^ound^ater research projects in the Delmarva. She
quite helpfitl, particularly with regard ta N loading in the coastal plain,
Art GoM, Professor, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI
Dr. Gold has extensive knowledge and research time investigation on-site waste treatment facilities.
Doug Haith, Professor, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Dr. Haith has extensive experience with ffWLF Model
' AgriCUltee ^^^g Department, University of Maryland,
wT^T" ^^^-^ m
. Weismtller) have expertise using GIS and modeling.
Ross Mandel, Interstate Commission for Potomac River Basin
Mr. Mandel used GWLF and wrote masters thesis on septic system loading of nutrients to surface water.
MvS°nrd Jf ^ /c ' Prff^°r' "fcP"11"-* °f Crop and Soil Environmental Sciences, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA ^cuwa, v irgmia
DHewouMUhehTn d°™exl*"sileftelast«d™ 0" *l»c system and mentioned that he has available data
He would be an excellent technical review person, although he does not work with models.
Dr. William Ritter, Professor, University of Delaware-Dover
*"*** » ** ™lers> ******* « »&
conventtonal ty**™ ** 'heir impacts on surface and ground water
Additional Reviewers Requested by Russ Mader of the Nonpotat Source Subcommittee of the
252
-------
Lewis Linker
EPA-CBPO
410 Severn Ave., Suite 109
Annapolis, MD 21403
Lynn Shuyler
EPA-CBPO
410 Severn Ave., Suite 109
Annapolis, MD 21403
Jim Cox
VA DCR/DSWC
Suite 206
203 Governor Street
Richmond, VA 23219-2094
Bob Summers
MDE, Ches. Bay & Watershed Mgmt Admin.
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
Gaiy Peterson
Environmental Resources Research Institute
Pennsylvania State University
104 Land and Water Research Building
University Park, PA 168024900
Milton Lauch
Bureau of Water Quality Management
PADEP
Market St. State Office Building, I0th Floor
P.O. Box 8465
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8465
Alternative Systems Review
Conventional on-site wastewater disposal systems are often unsuitable for use in certain soils, or
areas where high water tables occur, where there is slow percolation, shallowness to bedrock, and an
impediment to infiltration. Several alternatives have been studied and some used. These were initially
reviewed by the US. EPA in 1980, and a discussion of these is included in document #21 of unpublished
literature (Potential for Contamination of Ground and Surface Waters form On-Site Wastewater Disposal
Systems). The alternative systems discussed are: mounds, low pressure distribution, aerobic units, sand
filters, electro-osmosis, evapotranspiration, and spray irrigation.
The Maryland Department of the Environment (Jay Prager) provided a "Menu of Practices to
Improve Performance of Septic Systems". MDE provides 19 practices, the purpose of each, its cost and
expected N reduction (see Appendix H).
The Washington Suburban Sanitaiy Commission (WSSC) piovidcd a document on Septic System
Best Available Technologies. It gives a description of some of die conventional system components,
some modifications to them, and some alternatives to their components.
253
-------
Many of the literature cited throughout this report has review and investigation of alternative
onsite sewage treatment systems,
Inventory of State Regulation Documents
State regulations for septic tank construction and maintenance are available for New York,
Pennsylvania and Delaware. Regulations for Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia are coming. Also for
Virginia is a Septic System Ordinance Study and maintenance requirement documents for Chesterfield
County and the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act /Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department. There
are some educational materials for Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania.
254
-------
National Center for
Resource Innovations
Questionaire Regarding Septic Systems
in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
to be used to gather Information for tht NCR/ project ,po(€niiat fgr' NutrleM
Loadings from Septic Systems to Ground and Surface Water Resources and the
Chesapeake Bay"
Have you used any models to help determine nutrient septic loading? If so-
• What was the goal of the model? Is the model descriptive or predictive?
• What are the variables considered? '
• Does model consider vulnerable areas like those with karst topography
sandy and ponded soils? "
• Does the model account for seasonal variation in rainfall? monthly
variation? annual temperature?
» Does model cover specific geographic location for application, or is there an
area where it does not apply?
• What assumptions were made?
• What are the parameters for the variables?
» Has the model changed overtime?
• Does the model account for variations in design, maintenance and
multiple use? (is design: gravity flow, pumped or mound?)
• Did the model consider septic tank age {construction date) and pre-existing
lack of 3-5 year maintenance requirement?
• Does the model consider that mounding may occur where many septic
systems are buil^ close to one another? "
* Does it use differential water use tables?
* How are minimum and maximum N-loading estimated?
Wha t data are available on septic systems?
* Are water use data available that reflect census data with respect to: urban
vs. rural use, family size, working families vs. families at home, age of
residents, households using public (not well) water, and communal above
ground systems? Has anyone tried to correlate effluent amount as affected
by water use?
• Are data available on soil permeability, and If so is it useful for study of
septic tank loading of nutrients?
• Are data available on the use of rural alternatives (pipes, cesspools sink
holes) in your state? Is the number important enough to use?
• Are data available on septic system nos. and construction dates?
255
-------
page2 questionajre
ma^are Ihe regulations which affect septic tank design, maintenance, and
« Doesyour state require an update on septic systems where areas are
converted from "recreational" use to 'residential" use?
* ft MrSZA ^Delaware: Ho* is your state dealing with septic fields on
the Delmarva Peninsula? 6 r n
* ^yPfstatercSulationsvaiybyphysiographic region? byeounty?
• What doesyourstaterequire fora septicsystem permit? What is the
a|?proval process (try to assess how stringent it is}?
* £^Z°^Sllare any Written documents with data, regulations and model
information, any bibliographies on the subject, and any contacts in the
'0 <
, , n c
cm 'ti0^ <*Slde °f ^ that 3re d°'ns W0rk " or are
ThanJcyuu.
256
-------
Contact Ust
Name and Title
RossMandel
Mike Sevener
Principal Water
Resources Engineer
Tanya Spano
Senior Envt Engineer
Judy Denver
Geocfiemist
Rick Green
Water Quality
Assessment Branch
PWe Hamilton
Or. Wffliam Rtttet
Professor
Agricultural Engineering
Oept
Rodney Wyatt,
Section Manager
Ground Water Discharge
Unit, Water Re* Div
Maureen Cook
EdEichner
Resource Protection
Program
Art Gold
Professor
Douglas Haith
Professor
George Heuselder
Michael G. Heyl, MS
Principal Scienti*
Arish Jarrtraru'a, Phd
In-House Consulting
Engineer for Gloucester
Onsite Project u
Jim Kaap
Water Quafity
Specialist
Karen Mand
Gerold Morrison, Phd
Environmental Scientist
Surface Water
Improvement and
Joe Neafsey
Water Quality Specialist
Dick Otts, Author
0< th« EPA Onsite
Wastewater Sewage
Organization/address
Interstate Commission for
Potomoae River Basin
RockvBe, MD
Washington Suburban sanitary
Commission (WSSC)
MetropoBan Water Commission
National Agricultural Lfcr
afln Janet Dombrowski,
Water Quality
open8am-4pm
uses
Dover, DE
DNREC
PO Box 1*01
89 Kings Highway
Dover, DE 19903
USC3S
University of Delaware
Dover, DE
DNREC
PO Box 1401
89 Kings Highway
Dover, DE 19903
The Pinetands Commission
POBe*7
New Lisbon, NJ 08064
Cape Cod Commission
3225 Main Street
PO Box 226
Bamstabfe, MA 02630
University of Rhode Island
336 Woodward Hal
Kingston. Rl 02S8f
Cornea University
Agriculture and Biological
Engineered)
308RBeyRobbHaI
Ithaca. NY
Bamstable Health Dept
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
201 Montgomery Avenue
Sarasota, FL 34243
SoH Conservation Service
651 5 Watts Rd Suite 200
Madision,W»c 53719-2726
Agricultural Engirt Dept
Ohio State University
Southwest FKMMa Managernt
District
7601 Highway 301 North
Tampa, FL 33637
State Office in Storre, CT
AyersAssoc
Madkion, Wsc
l^tone^oc
301 984-1908
ext119 OR
at home: 202 244-
5368
301 206-6084
301 504-5755
302 573-€241 .
302 439-4590
804820-1535
302 831-2468
302 739-4761
609 894-9342
508 3S2-3828
401 792-2903
607 255-2802
508 362-2511
813 351-7100
far 355-5311
508 281-9773
608-264-5341
614 292-OHIO
813 905-7481
203 487-4017
notes
D. Tamascos's sister
worked on NAQWA Dclmarva etydy
He issues septic System permits.
referred by Robert Zanpella of TPC send
$36 for rpt and diskette
see Small Flows Clearing House, West
Virginia
sent NLEAP paper
kmancl@magnus.acs.ohicstate.edu
not contacted for this project
257
-------
Contact List
Name and Title
Pispoaal System
Design Manual
Scott Stevens, Project
Manager for 2nd eval
of ss and sludge for
Tampa Bay
Hans Zarbock
Mark FBnt, Prqj Mgr)
Bob HarreJ
Raymond Reneau
Professor
Jack Anderson
Jane Gottfredson
Septic/WeBs Program
(& Jay Prager,
Alternative/Innovative
Onsite f
Jim HannewofeT
omist
Tom Milter. Cooperative
attention Agent
JeffMoffatt
Mike Permenter
Chesapeake Bay
Program Coordinator
Robert Shedtocfc
Hydrotogist
Ed Singer
Coastal Environmental Consulting
Vjrginia Dept of HeaHn
Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance
Department (CBLAD)
Richmond, VA
Center for Innovative Teehn
Tidewater Community College
Chesapeake Campus, VA
Virginia Dept of Health
Virginia Water Resources
Department
VrgWa Polytechnic Institute and
State CoSege
339 Smyth Hal
iiacksburg,VA
Baltimore Metropolitan
Council/Reservoir Tech Grp
601 North Howard Street
Baltimore. MD 21201
MD Dept of Environment
Residential Sanitation Division
2500 Boeming Hwy,
Baltimore, MD
Chesapeake Bay Program
Maryland Cooperative Erf-
Agency, Keedysville, MD
Ajanee for the Chesapeake Bay
813 985-7481
JP4 748-1610"
804 2254440
804 S4S-5241
Charlotte Harbor watershed diagnosis"
assessment
703 231-9779
e 231-3431
USOA, Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Centreville. MD
USGS "
208 Carroll BkJg
8600 LaSale Rd
n. MO 2T286
Carroll County Health Dept
Environmental Health Division,
Maryland
£0^1750*17
rax: 659-1260 sepfic systems as topic for discussion at
recent meeting.
410 631-3779
410 267-5751
1267-5771
301. 432-7172
' 301 791-1404
410377-3270
410757-0861"
410512-4837
410876-2152
Joel Dysart to send information.
Tom Tapley
Debbie Welter,
Milton Lauch, Chief
On-Lot Systems and
Alternative Techiiatoq
Steve Carpenter
MO Dept of Envhwifflent
2500 Boeming Hwy,
_|aiamore,MD
MDE/Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Protection Program
Maryland Office of Plarrtig
301 West Preston, 11th fl
BalBmefe, MD
160 E. 7th Street
Chester. PA 19013
PA Dept Envt Resources
Bureau of Water QuaWy Mgmt
Lancaster County. PA
Natural Resource Conservation
Service
Mofflantown. West VA
"410631-3680
410631^902'""
2254500
610 490-6062
fax: 610-490-6009
717 787-3481
has done modeKhg of septic system
Watershed Planning Modelling
304 2914151
modeled seepage (rom sept sys & built CIS
Jefferson Co.
West Virginia Heaim and
Human Services
gulaflons and Stnds
National Small Flows
304 558-23981
1-800-624-8301
see Smal Flows artktea on the HtMmST
258
-------
Contact List
Clearinghouse
West VfcsWa University
PO Box 6064
Morgantown. VW 26506-6064
Dept of Envt Protedion
HHS
260
-------
..,,,—-.s iViAKSi-AiVD: DcPAK'l^NT OF THE £I>\lJiON.tfENT
\/f]~\C; 2-*° Botaing Highway * Baltimore, Mary Land 21224
LVLLJC, (410) 631.30M
William Donald Schaefer David A.C. Carroll
Governor Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO: HeaUIi Officers and Directors of Eirwnmio.entaJ Health
FROM: (j- Hearn, Director
/ Water Management Administration
SUBJECT: Alternative Oasite Sewage Disposal Systems
DATE: SEP 2 8 1§94
Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) currently recognizes two categories of on-sfte
sewage disposal system: conventional and non-conventional Conventional on-site sewage disposal
systems are those systems that meet current regulations. All non-conventional systems, also referred
to as innovative and alternative (I/A) systems, are considered experimental and since June of 1991
their use has been restricted to existing developed sites that have no indoor plumbing or are served
by a failing sewage disposal system. Within the Department, the Individual Septic Systems and Wells
Program (ISSWP) evaluates I/A technologies to determine when and if they can be converted to
conventional use.
Based on ISSWP experience with certain I/A technologies, as well as the available literature, we are
now establishing an alternative category of technology, transitional between non-conventional and
conventional technologies. This alternative category will permit the most promising experimental
technologies to be installed on existing lots of record within the confines of the Innovative and
Alternative Septic System Program. The establishment of an alternative systems category will
provide local health departments the opportunity to gain experience with new technologies prior to
their conversion to conventional use.
The Department recognizes that approval and installation of these systems requires more intensive
site evaluation and increased inspection than most conventional systems. Also, it is understood that
manpower levels differ among counties. Therefore, counties may vary in the extent to which they
will be able to apply the alternative category to undeveloped properties. The ISSWP will assist
counties in evaluating potential sites, to the extent manpower resources are available . As always,
solving existing health hazards remains a priority use of manpower and resources.
The conditions for approving alternative systems are as follows:
1. The primary responsibility for providing manpower for the approval of alternative systems will
rest with the counties, MDE personnel will assist when possible, or as otherwise required.
259
ga
"Together We Can Clean Up" ^
TOD FOR THE DEAF (410! 631-3009 R**e«
-------
"~~2* Iiie i»w cvsiuauon ior eacn applicant should include tie following: ~ : —•—•
• A. Soil classification from USDA Soil Survey;
B. Depth to groundwater and/or bedroclq
C Appropriate sofl percolation rates, inffltrometer rates, or hydraulic conductivftv
measurements; **»«/
D. Detailed USDAsofl profile descriptions;
E. Topography and surface drainage information; and
F« Technology proposed.
3' re«SH °/the site evaluatl011 md Plans should be submitted to the ISSWP
isswp should be notified 48 hours prior to the start of construction.
4. New construction is permitted only for existing lots of record.
5. New construction is not grant eligible.
6. ^SWPwffiprovide generalized des^
systems wffl comprise the alternative category: Bowing
SYSTEM RATECmin/in)
At-grade mound 2-60
Sand mound 60-120
Enhanced pretreatment 30-60 :- .
.,. T: '-- '.t :•'.•/
Waterless Toflet/Graywater "30-60 • y i'n«Vjrv"
Shallow Low Pressure Distribution 30-60 '•' '"*?1 'l!> '••-"'
Shallow Alternating Trench 30-60 "•••::•!.-•:":.
?* ^,^"ff6? ^ E"*""111 ™f bt•*?* ** ^ P^63'recorded ** ^e ^d records and "
returned to the local Approving Authority. The Agreement and Easement establishes the "'
regulatory conditions associated with the experimental project and provides monitoring access
tor State and County personnel. e
The me of alternative technologies wffl not change the requirements for set-back distances, recovery
areas or unsaturated treatment zones, u^umccs, recovery
* ?l **?*• hope of the Department that the alternate* category wfll lead to a greater nnmber of
imtaHaions using alternative technologies, whfle providing the opportunity for county pnmrtai*
contactors to familiarize themselves with the technologies before they become cSSSt fc
most instances, the protection of ground water will be enhanced with the use of alternative systems. •
If you have any questions or comments please feel free to contact Jay Prager, at (410) 631-3779.
JLH:]e
261
-------
ALTERNATIVE ONSIKE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
In accordance with the attached memorandum the following technologies may be -used as
alternative systems for new construction on existing lots of record. Onsite sewage disposal
technologies were selected that we believe will hydraulically function while reducing the load
of nutrients from septic systems to ground and surface waters. These systems require
maintenance that may need to be performed on a regular basis. Property owners should be
required to maintain a maintenance contract for the life of the system,'
At.Grade Mmind
Based on THE WISCONSIN AT-GRADE SOFT. ABSORPTION SYSTEM FOR SEPTTP
TANK EFFLTFHNT by Converse, Tyler, and Peterson. This is basically a pressure dosed
elevated bed system. The system is designed and constructed similar to a sand mound, but
no sand is used. The bed is placed directly on the surface of the ground which has been
plowed. The use of a roto-tffier is not permitted. Leaching chambers such as the
Infiltrator® may be used. Particular care must be taken not to disturb the plowed area.
Unlike a sand mound there is no sand placed on the plowed surface to protect it from
compaction. Also, the initial and recovery sewage disposal areas must be protected from
compaction before, during, and after construction.
Permeability - .2 to 60 minutes per inch in the most restrictive horizon in the top 30
inches of soil as measured in an inffltrometer.
Vertical Permeability (min/in) Design Loading Rate (gpd/ft1)
2 to 15 0.8
16 to 30 0.6
31 to 60 (U
Linear Loading Rate (gpd/ft of bed length) - < 9
The effective absorption area is that area in the gravel or leaching chamber directly down
gradient from the distribution pipe. The system should be designed to maximize the length
of the bed perpendicular to the slope. Accurate as-builts are necessary so that the ends of
the distribution laterals can be recovered for future maintenance. Lateral turn-ups should
be cut off at grade and/or shielded to protect from breakage. We have consistently had
turn-ups broken by lawn mowers. See the State of Maryland DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION MANUAL FOR SAND MHTTND SYSTEMS for the design of a
pressure distribution system.
262
-------
Sand Mound
Sand mounds In permeable soil have been conventionally used in Maiyland since 1985.
Sand mounds with vertical permeability slower than 60 minutes per inch have remained non-
conventional. The Department has been monitoring over twenty sand mounds with vertical
permeability rates between 60 and 120 minutes per inch. None of these systems have
experienced seepage of effluent to the ground surface. Our experience with sand mounds
(both conventional and > 120 min/in) indicates that landscape position and surface drainage
are frequently indicated as factors in failing systems. In addition, the initial and recovery
sewage disposal areas must be protected from compaction before, during, and after
construction.
Permeability - 60 to 120 minutes per inch in the most restrictive horizon in the top 30
inches of soil as measured in an infiltrometer.
Design Loading Rate (gpd/ft1) - 0.25
Linear Loading Rate (gpd/ft of bed length) - < 6
The effective absorption area is- that area directly beneath and down gradient of the
absorption bed. The system should be designed to maximize the length of the bed
perpendicular to the slope. Accurate as-builts are necessary so that the ends of the
distribution laterals can be recovered for future maintenance. Lateral turn-ups should be
cut off at grade and/or shielded to protect.from breakage. We have consistently had turn-
ups broken by lawn mowers. See the State of Maryland DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
MANUAL FOR SAND MOUND SYSTEMS for additional information.
Enhanced Pretreatment/Nitrogen Reduction
We are considering two means of enhanced pretreatment for the alternative category:
recirculating sand filters and NSF approved individual home aerobic wastewater treatment
plants. We are also interested in constructed wetlands, but because of limited experience
have yet to gain confidence in this technology.
Recirculating Sand Filters
We recommend a design loading rate of 5 gpd/ft2 forward flow with sand that has an
effective size approximately between 0.9 and 1.0 mm. Enclosed is a sample design for a
recirculating sand filter. The recirculating sand filter can discharge to a gravity trench
system.
Permeability - 30 tn 60 min/in in a standard percolation test as measured at the
depth the trench is to be installed.
Design Loading Rate (trench) - 0.5 gpd/ft*
263
-------
Individual Home Aerobic Waste Water Treatment Plants
We recommend using N5F approved units. Service contracts and warranties' should b«
available through the dealer or installer. An advantage to these systems is hat se^ice
contracts and guarantees are available. The disadvantage 2, that should a oHnpaw^S
OL business, service and parts may become unavailable. Systems should be selected that can
reduce nitrogen levels typically found in septic tank effluent. Before a permit is issued^
performance standard should be established for the system. '
Permeability - 30 to 60 mm/in in a standard percolation test as measured at the
depth the trench is to be installed.
Design Loading Rate - 0.5 gpd/ft'
Waterless Tollet/firavwarer ,
We recommend using only NSF approved units. Service contracts and warranties should
clan± 6 thr°U§h Ae talf f f? tallen Waterless toile*' somelime* refer d™
compost systems require j ^higher level of homeowner maintenance than other technologist
Even though Ae Maryland Annotated Code allows for waterless toilets, certain issues have
« J£T ^ f ^ °0t 2ddreSSed Whether the end Product should be ^dressed
as septage, compost, sludge or something else such as soil conditioner. We have also not
addressed who determines when the end product could be removed from the unit and who
- f detemflftion- Pr°spective users of this technology should present a plan for
r
f MVE>
-------
Shallow Low Pressure Distribution
Maximum trench depth = 3 ft
Permeability - 30 to 60 mln/in in a standard percolation test as measured at the
depth the trench is to be installed < 120 min/in in the 24 inches of
soU beneath the trench bottom.
Design Loading Rate - 0,4 gpd/ft2 (bottom area only)
Sec the State of Maryland pESTGN AND ^.QNSTRlJ^rnDN MANUAL FOR SAND
MOUND SYSTEMS for the design of a pressure distribution system. On sloping sites the
perforation spacing must be varied to equalize the flow between trenches. The flow should
be equalized to within 10% for any 2 perforations and 10% for any two laterals. Accurate
as-builts are necessary so that the ends of the distribution laterals can be recovered for
future maintenance. Lateral turn-ups should be cut off at grade and/or shielded to protect
from breakage. We have consistently had turn-ups broken by lawn mowers.
Shallow Alternating Trench
Maximum trench depth = 3 ft
Permeability - 30 to 60 min/in in a standard percolation test as measured at the
depth the trench is to be installed. < 120 min/in hi the 24 inches of
soil beneath the trench bottom.
Design Loading Rate - Q27 gpd/ft2 (bottom area only)
This is a low technology gravity fed system. The system should be valved such that only
50% of the system is used at any given time. The valve should be switched once a year;
however, should this be neglected and one side of the system run until failure, the valve
provides for a built-in repair. Using a 0.27 gpd/ft' loading rate provides for a 150%
installation. We recommend that sufficient sewage disposal recovery area be provided for
a minimum of two complete 150% installations.
265
-------
f i
RESERVOIR TECHNICAL GROUP
Notice of Meeting
Thursday, April 13, 1995
1:30 to 3:00 p.m.
Baltimore Metropolitan Council
601 North Howard Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
AGENDA
FOCUS ON SEPTIC SYSTEM ISSUES
The Action Strategy includes a number of items related to septic tank maintenance, correction
of failing systems, etc. The Chesapeake Bay Program is sponsoring a Bay-watershed wide"
analysis by NCRI of potential loads from septic systems. Our 1994 Public Awareness Survey
provided added insight into the prevalence of septic systems and maintenance practices. In
responding to a number of questions, BMC has done some recent work in pinpointing the location
and extent of septic systems. Today we will highlight a number of these efforts.
COMPLETING THE 1994 ACTION REPORT
AND PREPARING FOR UPCOMING MEETING OF
THE RESERVOIR WATERSHED PROTECTION SUBCOMMITTEE
Baltimore and Carroll County have made the following appointments to the Subcommittee:
Councilman Mclntire (Baltimore County) and Commissioner Brown (Carroll County). A
Subcommittee meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, April 27, 9:30 to 11:30 at BMC.
We need to finalize our draft 1994 Action Report Today we will focus on a revised draft of the
Executive Summary.
OTHER BUSINESS- BRIEF PROGRESS REPORTS/STATUS HIGHLIGHTS
o Public awareness efforts in support of the reservoir watershed program
- Upcoming Spring 1995 Workshops- progress report from our planning
workgroup and Save Our Streams (see enclosed worksession reminder)
- 1994 Public Awareness Survey- distribution of report
- Environmental Education Project w/ Baltimore and Carroll County Schools--
o Brief Status Reports: Issues in the Watershed
o Legislation from the 1995 General Assembly that affects the Reservoir Watershed
Protection Program
o Coordination with related state/local watershed efforts- trib strategies, local
- - - • watershed efforts, NPDES, "Friends of the Watershed," etc.
o GIS and Modeling issues-- progress on preparing Landsat basemap
266
-------
''••''' WORKSHOP PLANNING GROUP '-•"' \ - • ":
Save Our Streams/Reservoir Watershed Protectioa Program
Meeting Reminder
Thursday, April 13,1995
Noon to 1:30 p.m.
Baltimore Metropolitan Council
601 North Howard Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
This worksession will precede our usual Reservoir Technical Group meeting.
Lunch will be provided. . . •;••''!:' .-"
This is another in our series of Workshop planning sessions. SOS incorporated
the editing suggestions made at our last meeting in the brochure/announcement
Copies of the printed brochure will be available at today's meeting. SOS has been
working with BMC, county reps and others to finalize plans for publicity and
distribution. SOS will begin publicizing the workshops next week.
Remember the cfates and places:
f M§v 13 Carroll Community College
Liberty Reservoir Watershed focu|
Saturday, June }f)
Saturday, June 17
Prettyboy Elementary School ': "-'•'' •''••.
Prettyboy Reservoir ^atershe^ focu| , -
Oregon Ridge Nature Center • v.
Loch Raven Reservoir Watershed focus ':.
Today we will review our progress and continue planning—'fine-tune"the.workshop^.;
•schedule and names of presenters and their responsibilties, work on other workshop •*:
logistics, and review and approve a concept and format for a pocket-sized "personal action •
plan" for reservoir watershed protection.
' ••„"•;•.»"' „>.;••
• •..*/# *.;.;.•
-------
RESERVOIR TECHNICAL GROUP
Meeting
of
March 9, 1994
1:30 to 3:00 p.m.
Baltimore Metropolitan Council
601 North Howard Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
Minutes
*******
Present
Participating Organizations
Rowland Agdebe, MDA
Patricia Bemhardt, Harfurd County
Sherm Garrison, MDE, Chesapeake Bay and Watershed Administration
John Grace, MDE, Public Drinking Water Program
Ed Null, Carroll SCD
Cathy Rappe, Carroll County
Bill Stack, Baltimore City
Jack Anderson, Baltimore Metropolitan Council
Guests »-'
Joe Tassone, Maryland Office of Planning
Barbara Weidman, Director, Business & Education Training, Essex Community College
Rebecca Pitt, Save Our Streams
Susie Wong, Save Our Streams
Polly Wlnh, Save Our Streams
Pat Lane, Coalition for Watershed Protection
Lessons learned in the Patuxent Demonstration Project
Joe Tassone, Maryland Office Planning, gave a presentation on findings resulting from the
Patuxent Demonstration Project relative to land use/growth management as tools for helping
control nonpoint source pollution. He distributed two handouts: (1) an outline of the project's
purpose, key finding, background, history, components, project status, highlights of modeling
results, and graph descriptions; and (2) copies of selected graphs displaying results.
After reviewing the background of the Project, Mr. Tassone summarized the watershed planning
system used in the analysis, refering to a flow chart showing components of the system. He then
summarized each chart, discussing the implications for nonpoint source control. The analysis
focused on the years 1990 and 2010. Refering to a summary chart, "Contribution of Management f
268
-------
Tools to the 40% Nitrogen Reduction Goal," he pointed out that in 1990 the average annual
nitrogen loads were already above the maximum limit or "cap" required to meet the Chesapeake
Bay/mbutary strategy's 40% reduction goal. By the year 2010, assuming no nonpobt controls
or no tools," nitrogen loads are projected to increase substantially. By applying "existing tools "
loads will decrease slightly. By applying "enhanced tools," loads will decrease even more, but
still not enough to attain the nitrogen goal or "cap."
Then Mr. Tassone focussed on the year 2010 and showed the estimated reduction in nitrogen load
resulting ^from each of the following planning and mangement tools: clustering, forest
conservation, development buffers, storm water management, agricultural BMPs, agricultural
buffers, and limiting new development on septic systems. A summary chart, "Contribution of
Managemeat Tools to the 2010 NPS Nitrogen Reduction (Cap)," showed that, of the existing
tools- forest conservation resulted in the largest nitrogen reduction, followed by clustering, storm
water management; agricultural buffers, and development buffers. Enhanced tools that were most
effective in further reducting nitrogen loads were agricultural BMPs and limiting septic systems.
Similar charts displayed results for the portion of each county within the Patuxent Watershed."
The county-by-county results were similar to those for the entire watershed, varying mostly
according to projected 2010 land use within each area.
Mr, Tassone emphasized the key finding, "Land management tools can play an important role in
obtaining and maintaining the 40% nutrient reduction goal (cap), as well as' furthering other
resource and community goals."
Discussion focussed mostly on methodology and the concept of limiting septic systems. In
response to a question on methodology, Mr. Tassone referred the RTG to the 1993 Project
Progress Report where methodology is fully documented. He said the Project is entering Phase
II which is implementation oriented and will result in a watershed strategy for land use and NPS
management.
In response to a number of questions about limiting septic systems, Mr. Tassone explained that
this concept involved redirecting development into sewered areas and away from areas requiring
septic systems. The nitrogen reduction results from fewer septic systems. In response to a
question about the capacity of planned sewerage systems and planned sewer service areas, Mr.
Tassone safe that the additional development can be accommodated on vacant land already
planned for sewer service.
In conclusion, Mr. Tassone said the modeling system is now being applied in the Piney Alloway
Targeted Watershed in Carroll County and in the Winters Run Watershed in Harford County.
Work plans including using the system in conjunction with the Upper Western Shore tributary
strategy team effort. Jack thanked Mr. Tassone on behalf of the Reservoir Technical Group.
Other business— brief progress reports/status highlights
269
-------
The 1994 Action Report and planning for the neyt Subcommittee meeting. No change from last
month's report
- Upcoming Soring 1995 Workshops- progress report from our planning workgroup an^f
Save Our Streams which met at noon today. Draft brochure/announcement was reviewed
and marked up for final draft. Workshop logistics are falling into place, with dates set
as follows: • :
Saturday, May 13 Carroll Community College
Liberty Reservoir Watershed focus
Saturday, June 10 Prettyboy Elementary School
Prettyboy Reservoir Watershed focus
Saturday, June 17 Oregon Ridge Nature Center
Loch Raven Reservoir Watershed focus
Two community colleges are supporting the workshops through their own publicity
channels- Carroll and Essex. Carroll Community College, which is located in Liberty
Reservoir Watershed, is the site for the May 13 workshop. Kathy Monasche is our
continuing education contact at CCC. We welcome Barbara Weidman from Essex
Community College who is present today. We hope to explore other possibilities for
collaboration with the community colleges.
- 1994 Public Awareness Survey- distribution of report Report was distributed, BMC
is jmplementing the survey WorkGoup's "to-do list" in regard to distribution and use of
this report. An article on the survey was published in The Sun. Jack received a letter
from Michael Haire on behalf of Secretary Nashida commenting on the survey and
commending the BMC for its work in coordinating the Reservoir Watershed Protection
Program.
- Environmental Education Proiect w/ Baltimore and Carroll Countv Schools- Planning
is underway for the stafFcurriculum development workshop set for the last week in July.
Issues in the Watershed. An administrative hearing was held on February 22 regarding
the Hampstead wastewater discharge permit. It was reported that contraction has begun
on the Long Quarter project to relieve periodic sewage overflows into Long Quarter
Branch. No change in other issues.
Possible realignment of state environmental functions. The Glendening Administration
has submitted legislation that would realign state environmental functions, moving
Chesapeake Bay and Watershed Management planning/management functions to DNR;
and moving DNR's permit programs to MDE. Implementation of this realignment means
that the Reservoir Watershed Protection Program will have to actively involve DNR.
270
-------
Coordination with related state/local watershed efforts. Shena Garrison note! that the
"Blue Ribbon Report* on financing options for implementing Chesapeake Bay Programs
has been published Jack reported that the "Friends of the Watershed" is establishing its
organizational and committee structure.
GIS and Modeling issues. Cathy Rappe, Rob Ryan, Bill Stack and Jack Anderson met
subsequent to the last RTG meeting and developed a collaborative approach for preparing
a GIS-produced Landsat image map of the reservoir watersheds.
•Next RTG meeting
The next regular meeting of the Reservoir Technical Group will be Thursday, April 13, 1995,
l:30pmatBMC.
The next meeting of the Workshop Planning Group hi collaboration with Save Our Streams will
also be Thursday, April 13, 1995 at 12 noon, preceding the regular RTG meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Jack Anderson
271
-------
Bdlfimofe Metropolitan Council
oOl North Howard Sfreef
BaHimare, Moiyland 21201-4585
T , .
Telephone: (410) 333-1750
Facsimile: (41^659-1260
PAUL FARRACUT
Executive Dlmctar
BolflmamQty
*asa*x» counfy
'
HarforefCr
Members :
Reservoir Watershed
Jack Anderson, Coordina
Reservoir Watershed
April 7, 1995
Subcommittee
Notice of ,^
Thursday, April 27, 1995'
n«l^" 11:3?(.fm' at Baltimore Metropolitan Council
Update on citizen workshops «w-j.j.
We want to welcome new Subcommittee
such
The workshop schedule;
Saturday, May 13
Saturday, June 10
Saturday, June 17
Carroll Community College
Liberty Reservoir Watershed focus
Prettyboy Elementary School
Prettyboy Reservoir Watershed focus
Oregon Ridge Nature Center
Loch Raven Reservoir Watershed focus
272
-------
MENU OF PRACTICES
TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE OF SEPTIC SYSTEMS
PRACTICE
Retrofit low flow
fixtures
Ensure watertight
septic tanks
Require 2 compart-
ment septic tanks
Require septic tank
outlet filters
Mandatory pumpout of
septic tanks
Routine inspection
of septic systems
Shallow systems
Dosing systems
Pressure dosing
systems
Alternating systems
Recirculating
sandfilters
PURPOSE
Reduce flow to
existing systems
Eliminate
infiltration and
exfiltration
Improve solids
separation and
prevent discharge
of solids to
drainfield
Improve solids
separation and
prevent discharge
of solids to
drainfield
Extend life of
system
Identify failing
systems and
maintenance needs
Take advantage of
nutrient uptake
Promote aerobic
degradation of
organ ics, may
prolong life of
system
Uniform
distribution of
effluent may
improve treatment
Prolong 1 ife of
the system
Advanced
pretreatement,
denitrifies, may
extend life of
system
COST'
$250 -
$500
$0 -
$600
$200
$50 -
$150
$50 -
$75 per
year
negli-
gible
$0 -
$1,500
$2,000 -
$4,000
$1,000
$5,000
EXPECTED N
REDUCTION
NA
NA
1
1
7
7
20%
20%
40% (if
shallow)
?
60%
REGIONAL
MAGNITUDE
-------
PRACTICE
Other means of
advanced
pretreatment
Greywater
segregation
Sand mound systems
Sand fill trenches
At-grade systems
Waterless toilets
Establish holding
tank utilities
Education
PURPOSE
Advanced
pretreatement,
denitrifies, may
extend life of
system
Permit irrigation
or re-use of
greywater, or a
Ruck type
denitrification
system
Advanced pre-
treatment, use
uppermost soil
horizons
Provide better
medium than gravel
to treat efluent
Use uppermost soil
horizons
Remove blackwater
from waste stream
Remove sewage to
advanced treatment
plants, eliminate
failing systems
Inform home owners
on proper n«ain-
tenance and oper-
ation of septic
systems, train
regulators,
consultants, and
contractors on
best management
practices
'Over the cost of a traditional septic system
COST"
$4,000 -
$10,000
EXPECTED N
REDUCTION
--" '•' • •
50% -
80%
$2,000 - 50% (Ruck)
$10,000
$6,000
$2,000
50%
$3,000 -
I $4,000
T
$5,000 -
$8,000
\—\
i
40%
-
80%
(depending
on ultimata
disposal of
bl ackwater)
- ••• f !
Depends on
ultimate
disposal
treatment
efficiency
REGIONAL
MAGNITUDE
274
-------
BEST AmXLASLS
Since the 1350 's sanitary engineers have recognised that the conventional
septic conk/soil absorption system can be iiaproved so tbac hydraulic failures are
rSuced iSd tt» oroall treatment efficiency is heightened. Some of the «oro
coawoa • Modifications to the conventional systes include:
Double ccnpasrtaient septic tanks
Dosing siphco.
Outlet tee filter
Alternating drainfields
__ _ _ B . * _ ^ JlJ! ***! J
.TlM*. »•%•«*. Ifcji.* *> JrfM-J) —"— ^
Shallow absorption field
Pressurized distribution system
Much wrk has also been acccoplished with respect to waste flow reductzoa
fflodificatiou, ineludiag use of low flov fixtures, elifflinatica of garbage
disposals, and separation of 'gray- water fro* -black' vmter. ^w flow *«*=««•
ar^Lerally BaSated by updated plying codes. Gray_ trater cw be treated and
reused for toilet flushing or exterior landscape irrigation. Gra/ water
recycling r-duces overall imter constaDticn and leads to utproved on-site system
perforaance by reducing hydraulic loading to both major coyoneats ot ta» W»i»
Se septic tank and the drainfield. Gray water separation is not generally
and the
practiced in Maryland due to our relative abundance of water ^sources,
absence of plunfcing cod* guidance to ensure proper installation of the systems.
Itore advanced aodifications of the septic tank/soil absorption system have
been i^ple-eatedlo address site specific needs such as high groundwater levels,
peLeabilicr, *=* *«*i«ien o€ filfc^at* or phosphate nutrient loading.
types of nodilicatioos include, but are not limited to:
Bvapotranspiratioa beds
Kmirtd sysr*«a
interaittent or recirculating sand filters
' o«aitriryiag sand filters
Alum doaing
erin site evaluatioQ and manageaent techniques are ccnsidered to greatly
reduce SSSS1 o?f atlure and extend drainf ield* lif • ». Since
STSil absorptioa system is » -ajor cost it«, extended life **
cycle cosTzcf the ftcoeowner. la^aoved wugtteat: «ectoiqu«S Delude
SS^cSon of the septic tanked drain field, aided by /"
pipes during system construction or Randatory puap out of the
solids at 3 or 3 year intervals.
. . Following are brief descriptions of the septic t*0
•pwdificatiocs Mentioned above, and a preliminary ass«Bcm«n
applicability within the Patuxent Reservoirs' watershed.
Oi BDJHdQ OS3 DSSn MSU t&'Z 275
-------
pcobla
sepeic tank in a eenvencieaal systan serves to
SSS'S111* *** ^T^1* «*«5als frcTthe .«
lurf~ ' ? lologieal processes lead to ehe anaerobic digestion of the settled
sludge. THe purpose of this initial separation of S0lic5 «m eh. septic
SldS 4SQ P^rnt clogging of tee BOil absorption field that oSrs
rapidly *rtj«i solids or grease are present in ehe effluent Tho
ccBisaxtaent septic tank provides for a iore efficient : Loauition L of J?f
settle^l, and floeabl^rc. the liquid SoSf S2£FS?*Z£
characteristics without increasing tank size. lie double ccTOaitoea
-ay be expected to coat caly slightly more tban tte ,t£L£3S3S
tack. Jta mddxtional benefit ia that cae intensal baffle wall i
»e^nxcal strength of the tank, helping avoid cr*ck3 time ««y ee
grcuncvater to the system, or leak incompletely treated effluent to ^he
grcundvater. The modification is considered widely applicable and especially so
^ eensitzve areas where the consequences of sy a tern failure are ia5r«St V
«y«aeat: o ci« oa-ste xastew
57**1611- Wien the treataent system functions proporly, contaminant*
from wastewacer- throusfe a cc«binatii6 01 siio osa 276
-------
i« a »i=5la device to Balp r«tai= solid*
ssssrajs;
tt»tiTT. on effluent:
Drain Fialda
»M discuss^ pxavioualy, in«»itt«t dosing of
b««ptioa «i*ld i-»«»«». "**STSS3^SltS^
concepts i^ly to the ^"^^^f^J^^^Vto tours for the
a systw is in use in the Oceoqoaa R«s«nroxr wacersH«d,
in contrast to Orl«r strategies where
due to clogging
n contrast o O a
limited due to clogging «f 5h*fgS?d9i'S"t^5Sd ttS SSwS^«xt«d«d
Si 1SSS±" ™y^ b>JSrs±riS»e£SE b- — 1« ^^ii.
coaductivity) .
Field
s
tbe drainf ield percolate
5^s>d-r:
to tite surface, or «hare the B^-f°» JST^ alterScing draiflfields. Since
to CM sonace, «*. """*-*no tectaicjue such aa alternating drain£J.eios. »"»«
hydraulic failure «itigmciB3 .I-'B*1^ '«««-aTi 4r m«v b« eecooaically acvantageous
i.rw.4 cn:?! 277
-------
beds for effluent disposal *nsuni • •««»»
« to groundwater. BM eTapotranspiration bed is
sff , . «i a^snne
effluent frem seeping away. Water ia taken up by plantTand
S?J£-a rate 9f?«** than the hydraulic loal^ rat.. 4Eil
eff active at eliminating adverse impacts. to g?oundwacer, they
06 01 "H1 build ^ ^^ evBatially exceed the pl«c o
°f ?^P?tr«Mpiratioa beds L limited to ttoae areas
„ v*^eMUW»p.i.j.«.b,«.uU v*^uxc3,«nt. cuat is, wa.ee*1 losses exceed rHo
precipitation. . cxceea cne
itocmd Svgfcejn
p,tr,—.4In. areaf where Mgli grpundwater or shallow bedroOc limit the nrcoer
runctiocang of the soil absorption systen, mound systems have f* «**«**.
restorad the on-site wastawater traatawnt syeeeat. The drziiii£i(sld •
aoav». the existing grade by first plowing or otherwise breaking'
BOUflourxace honxoa and, then building the drainficld with 7
aa^erialB such as tiam sands. Th« distribution pipes are
gravel and t*«n the mound is eov«Ke
-------
.c
nitrate ccntuminatac* ia «« SE^r^hicb co-site wastewmcer
extract water from an "^"^^^^iSSglaS filter recirculates
ereaeneat: systeaa discharge effluent. The *™SV^k ^barc aiir«a is n»dti«8d
nitrifSl a»d filter , effluent to «»1«^L 2Tia^S ogous to current BSR
n c^s under aooxic cooditacna. 1*«|~** " but^ desas cot «q«ire
.r«ntali««l T*8*!*1^ "TST^fS? f'hST^egrea of nitrogen
csd inrtru-eatacioo ^or ^f^3^^^*^*^ J5I ru.^«w»l cam alao
With proper Biedaa selec«.co ^^^PrvLflT^ be discharged to a
d. ST saad filter ««a««« SSafS^Sa^- S^Iwges aa
draiafield wbare the »«*»f^SSlt2KfSd I £ilc«r with respect
oorty £« ^ i«^t^ «r««rwl»te^Maa ^^ ^
to «ct*nding draiuf ield ^"^ aSrSSre?^5» «od simple f loat-switeh
- as «w*ic ^^
rs?2sr££sr £°™ -Hs£?ssg'££s££s£
t««^,0 «= *f=«iy "^^^^^^ST^rrSSLSaTi- •*«• *?=» "
?S2^1^'Sir«£irSS3: °^---« -SV—1-<^"15"-
- * -"-
c .
effluent mth reduced f^1^ ff 1 ^£55155^ it is presuaed ctat phosphate
dosing would be triggerad *V fc°£*f ^^Lfor? household black waters would
based detersents wculd not be used, ^^^^f^T^scem ^bich injects a
gTth. HajcTscurca of PtofS°S!;tim t^S SSSxS? drain lime to teen
predaterained guantity of ^""^S? cScSrmSS W to SO*. A «ajort
*1 cale by case bas.s)
at ^c L. °f
prior to dosxire.
process
-------
septic systM hydraulic failure, and continue to be applicable within the
cwsturaczion of ttw soil absorption »ys«e», it la a relativalv
siaple matter- to prcrride one or.,«rroral points of inspection to allow ob*«rvati«i
ofthe-draintUld. Biis can be a *i-ple pipe inserted to the teiinfieid
tcdslist»tay abmre grade with a cap. The pip. itself d
*«M«a«« *5«c docw aHoir «o*«rration o« ponding ccoditicus
«csadicicaa» indicacrro of a Jailare that aigfat
,**•*«» °* ^« if^Peet^a pip« will also sexv. as a reai«3ar
location so that it maty be a-roided by cars or heavy equipment.
JCfcatdateear
<*>• »* the Ommtng c«««e« eC s«ptic t^uX/soil sbaarpcisaa system failure is
neglect of the need to xsanorc accumulated sludge on a regular basis. tSaav
acMowoers arc simply not aware of this seed or forget, since it is only recuixed
. «v«ry thra* y»«ra on airersge. If sludge is aliened to acoamlate to & level
^?P it IB oajexiad out o* fcl»a «scpfcic tank and into the drmiatiald, a rapid
failure due to doggisg can be expected. Drainfiald replacement is exeafli-rei
replacement is i
«ay be entirely circunnnsnted toy hoaaowiero **o hanm been kaovn to aodiry the
septic tank discUarge BO thac effluent is carried . direccly to drainage awales
in^fcHia cas«, xaw 0ewm?e ±m dizaexly diwAasgw! to surface TOtcra. Man
-------
c
U.a Environmental Protection Agency
Chesapeake Bay Program Office
410 Severn Avenue
Annapolis, MD 21403
1-800-YOURBAY
http://www.epa.gov/r3chespk/
------- |