OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY FINAL REPORT TO THE OHIO RIVER COMMITTEE VOLUME II (OF THREE VOLUMES) FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY U. S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE CINCINNATI, OHIOUNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN PRAIRIE RESEARCH INSTITUTEFEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY U. S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE CINCINNATI, OHIO 1942 OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY FINAL REPORT TO THE OHIO RIVER COMMITTEE VOLUME II (Of Three Volumes) MAJOR TRIBUTARY BASINS ALLEGHENY MONONGAHELA BEAVER MUSKINGUM HOCKING KANAWHA LITTLE KANAWHA BIG SANDY GUYANDOT Prepared at the request of the War Department by the U. S. Public Health Service in cooperation with the Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army.FINAL REPORT - OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY CONTENTS Volume I. Page Introductory and General Sections........ 1 Main Ohio River................. 77 Minor Tributary Basins.............145 Volume II, Allegheny River Basin..............189 Monongahela River Basin.............245 Beaver River Basin ..............................297 Muskingum River Basin..............333 Hocking River Basin..................367 Kanawha River Basin...............387 Little Kanawha River Basin ......................423 Big Sandy River Basin..............439 Guyandot River Basin..............469 Volume III. Scioto River Basin ..............................485 Miami River Basin................517 Little Miami River Basin ........................563 Kentucky River Basin ............................587 Licking River Basin...... ........613 Salt River Basin................635 Wabash River Basin.............. • 653 Cumberland River Basin ..........................703 Green River Basin................735 Tennessee River Basin..............755 Supplements A. Collection of Data on Sources of Pollution B. Laboratory, Organization and Methods C. Acid Mine Drainage D. Industrial Waste Guides E. Epidemiological Studies F. Biological StudiesINTRODUCTION TO DRAINAGE BASIN SUMMARIES The basic information of the Ohio River Pollution Survey has been presented in summaries covering the main Ohio River, minor tributary basins and the nineteen major tributary basins. An effort has been made to have each summary complete in itself* Certain explanations, applicable to each, have been made in this section to avoid repetition* Insofar as possible, information for each basin is pre-seted in as near identical form as possible, according to the following general outline: Syllabus and Conclusions Description Presentation of Field Data Presentation of Laboratory Data Hydrometric Data Discussion Accompanying the text are a cumber of tables, maps and charts. 7/ith the exception of the division on the main Ohio River, similarly numbered tables and figures cover similar material in each basin summary* In the tabulations of costs (Table 1) the annual charges are based on interest rates of for municipal and 5% for industrial construction and periods for amortizations of 40 years for interceptors, 20 years for municipal treatment plants and 10 years or less for industrial corrective measures* Studies of interest rates and life of treatment facilities have indicated that these figures represent about the average experience of municipalities and industries. Cost estimates of individual projects are not shown except in a few cases where they are based on engineering surveys. Since most of the estimates are not based on detailed studies of each situation they may be considerably in error in individual instances* Grouped for an entire basin, the probability of error is greatly reduced and it is believed that the figures shown are an accurate indication of the cost of the suggested pollution abatement program. Costs of providing lateral sewers or for the extension of sewers to areas now lacking them are not included in the estimates. The urgency of the individual projects for which cost estimates have been made is far from uniform. Some projects are needed to correct critical pollution conditions while in othercases the need and justification for the expenditure is less outstanding. The basin summaries place stress on the more critical and larger sources of pollution where effects are not confined to local areas* However, cost estimates presented apply not only to the urgent situations but to a complete program of pollution control such as might take place during the course of the next 10 to 20 years* In the special case of a stream highly acid from the effects of mine drainage, expenditure of public funds for acid reducing measures should precede or at least parallel expenditures for sewage and organic pollution abatement* Cost estimates are based on average experience from 1928 to 1940* Costs for 1942 would be considerably higher and future costs will probably be subject to further change depending upon fluctuation in construction costs for this type of work. Throughout the report quantities of organic industrial wastes have been expressed as "sewered population equivalent (E.C.D.)".* Extensive measurements have shown that the average oxygen demand of domestic sewage is *168 pound (5-day,20°Co) per capita per day and this factor has been used to convert industrial waste loads to a readily understandable basise In the tabulations of sources of pollution (Table 3), the column "Sewered Population Equivalent (B.O.D.), Untreated” represents the total of the population connected to sewers plus the population equivalent of industrial wastes discharged at each locality* The difference between this column and the adjacent column "Sewered Population Equivalent (B.O.D.), Discharged" represents the reduction in the pollution load due to treatment in a municipal treatment plant* V»here accurate laboratory results of treatment plant operation were available, these were used to determine the pollution load both before and after treatment. In the absence of such records reductions of 35% by primary treatment and 85% by secondary treatment v/ere assumedo V On the other hand, the season for distillery operations in most cases is during the winter months when the effects of oxygen depleting pollution are less seriouse ICowhere in the report has a quantitative statement been made as to the reduction in the industrial waste pollution load due to treatment, recovery, or other measures at the industrial plant. Such a statement would necessitate a definition of the strength of untreated industrial wastes from each type of industry. This is impracticable since the strength of the wastes depends to a large degree on plant practices which vary widely. For instance, in some meat packing plants all blood, paunch manure and offal are recovered and in others these materials are discharged to the plant sewers. Wastes discharged from vegetable canneries have been found to vary by as much as 400% due to differences in "housekeeping" methods. Wastes from paper mills vary depending on the use of save-alls, recirculating systems and other pollution reduction measures. At some plants reduction in pollution is inadvertent and is brought about by the recovery of valuable by-products or prevention of waste of raw materials* At others expense is incurred which produces nothing but a reduction in pollution discharges. Tabulations of industrial wastes (Table 4) shows the number of plants that have taken steps of either kind which result in some reduction in the pollution load from the plant*Final Report to the Ohio River Committee Ohio River Pollution Survey U. S, Public Health Service Cincinnati, Ohio 1942Contents Page Contents........................................189 Syllabus and Conclusions........................191 Description......................................196 Presentation of Field Data............198 Presentation of Laboratory Data..........203 Hydrometric Data................................212 Discussion........................216 List of Tables A-l Cost Estimates of Remedial Measures. . . . 195 A-2 Surface Water Supplies ....•••••• 200 A-3 Sources of Pollution......................201 A-4 Industrial Wastes................202 A-5 Selected Laboratory Data..................205 A-5a Selected Laboratory Data(Chemical Results) 206 A-6 Monthly Mean Summer Flows. ........ 214 A-7 Summary of Laboratory Results..............220 A-7a Summary of Laboratory Results on Acid Streams......................242 List of Figures A-l Map - Sources of Pollution....... % * 190 A-2 Chart - Sources of Pollution and Selected Laboratory Data (Facing)........ . 202 A-3 Map - Coliform Results ...................207 A-4 Map - Dissolved Oxygen Results............208 A-5 Map - Biochemical Oxygen Demand Results. . 209 A-5a Map - B.O.D. Results (Southern Portion of Basin)..............................210 A-5b Map - pH Results .........................211 A-6 Chart - Summer Low F}.ow Frequency Curve. . 215ALLEGHENY* BASIN SOURCES OF POLLUTION 'Sc I 0000 m Ohio river pollution survey U. S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 1941 SCALE OF MILESSyllabus and Conclusions Syllabus The Allegheny River drains 11,730 square miles in western Pennsylvania and New York and joins the Monongahela River at Pittsburgh to form the Ohio River. The southern part of the basin is an important coal mining area and the streams there are polluted by acid mine drainage. The Kiskiminetas is the most strongly acid large stream in the Ohio Basin. A major portion of the sewage and industrial wastes in the basin enters the Allegheny in the vicinity of Pittsburgh, The Clarion River is grossly polluted by industrial wastes and greatly Improved treatment techniques will be required to abate the pollution. The larger communities depend generally on surface water for municipal supplies and a number of these, particularly in the vicinity of Pittsburgh, are seriously affected by acid mine drainage, untreated sewage and industrial wastes. Considerable progress has been made toward pollution abatement in streams not subject to acid pollution and, in general, these streams are relatively clean. A program of municipal and industrial waste treatment is outlined which, together with a basin-wide program of mine sealing supplemented by low-flow regulation Incidental to floodcontrol operations at reservoirs already built or authorized by the Congress, seems to offer the most practicable method of pollution abatement. Conclusions (1) Of 225 public water supplies, 31, including those serving most of the larger communities, are from surface sources. (2) Sewage from about 920,000 people, industrial wastes equivalent in oxygen demand to sewage from an additional 630,000 people, and about 375*000 tons of mine acid per year enter the streams of the basin. About IS percent of the sewage is treated. (3) Laboratory data indicate that the major pollution problems are due to acid rather than to organic wastes although organic wastes cause gross pollution in a number of streams not affected by acid. (4-) Mine sealing has reduced the original acid load by about eight percent from 4-05,000 to 375>°°0 tons (to phenolphthalein - hot) per year and although the present load throughout the Allegheny Basin is only about 32 tons per square mile per year, the tributary Kiskiminetas Basin receives 164 tons of acid per square mile per year, or an intensity greater than the Monongahela or Youghiogheny, the next most strongly acid streams. (5) A program for acid control including mine sealing supplemented by flow regulation is outlined in the section of the report on Acid Mine Drainage. Expenditures to date for mine sealing in the basin are estimated at Ttie next step in the mine seal- ing program is completion of sealing of mining areas not connected to active ventilation systems at mines where sealing costs will not exceed $10.00 per ton of acid sealed per year. The total estimated cost of this program in the Allegheny River Basin is $1,460,000.(6) Acid conditions can be further improved and mine sealing supplemented by flow regulation from storage of a least 210,000 acre-feet in the Allegheny River Basin. This storage could be provided incidental to or in conjunction with flood control in reservoirs already built or authorized by the Congress. (7) The problem of municipal sewage treatment at Pittsburgh is discussed in the section of the report on the main Ohio River. Low-flcw regulation from reservoirs in the Allegheny River Basin will be of value in reducing treatment costs, notably at Pittsburgh and Cincinnati. (£) Primary sewage treatment should be adequate at cities on the Allegheny River with the exception of Olean, New York (which now has primary treatment) and Coudersport, Pennsylvania. Effluents from existing and suggested plants near water intakes, notably those on the lower 30 miles of the Allegheny, should be chlorinated to reduce bacterial loadings on the water plants. (9) Justification for treatment and the degree of treatment of sewage and organic industrial wastes in many cases is dependent upon the status of mine acid reduction measures. The situation varies with the degree of acidity of the stream and the amount of organic pollution discharged. At some places the need for waste treatment is urgent at present and at others the first expenditures of public funds can be made to best advantage toward furthering the acid reduction program. In general, cost estimates presented apply to a comprehensive program that will be Justified in parallel with extensive acid control measures. (10) Secondary treatment is indicated at six communities in addition to Coudersport, the largest ones being Bradford and DuBois. All of these communities are located on alkaline streams subject to extremely low flows. (11) Additions or improvements to existing sewage treatment plants are indicated at seven places, the largest ones being Jamestown and Olean, New York. At Jamestown the necessary degree of treatment depends to some extent on the method of operation of the dam at the outlet at Lake Chautauqua.(12) Industrial waste pollution is particularly severe along the Clarion River. Any major improvement in conditions there will require the development of better waste treatment techniques if plant operations continue at the present level. (13) Cost estimates of a suggested program of sewage and industrial waste treatment are summarized from Table A-l as follows : Treatment Capital Cost Annual Cost Existing I 5,^60,000 $ H-10,000 Suggested Additional 10,660,000 1,155*000 Estimated additional costs, over existing charges, of programs involving uniform treatment throughout the basin are: Primary, all places 10,010,000 1,065,000 Secondary, all places 13,880,000 1,5^5,000195 Table A-l Allegheny River Basin - Estimated Cost of Existing and Suggested Minimum Corrective Measures for Sewage and Industrial Wastes, with Comparative Costs for Primary and Secondary Treatment. Number of Plants Prim.Sec. Population Connected to Sewers Capital Investmen t (Dollars) Annual ( Amort. & Interest Charges (Dc Operation 8r Main. >11ars) Total Existing Sewage Treatment 22 19 164 ,?00 5,14.60,000 310,000 100,000 14.10,000 Suggested Minimum Correction Sewage Treatment Plants Required Interceptors Independent Industrial Waste Correction Total 86 7 712,200 mm 6.350.000 3.670.000 660,000 i|.50,000 170,000 90,000 305,000 li|.0,000 755.000 170.000 230,000 10,680,000 710,000 1^1.5,000 1,155,000 Comparative Cost Primary Treatment All Waste Secondary Treatment All Waste As Suggested 10,010,000 13,880,000 10,680,000 660,000 930,000 710,000 h.05,000 615,000 1^5,000 1,065,000 1.514.5.000 1.155.000 NOTE: Costs shown above do not include the cost of interceptors or treatment works for the city of Pittsburgh or its suburbs whose wastes would probably be treated at a plant along tiie Ohio River.Description The Allegheny River drains 11,730 square miles, of which 9,775 are in western Pennsylvania and 1,955 are in southwestern New York. The area is, for the most part, hilly or mountainous with steep slopes rising several hundred feet above the narrow stream valleys. In the northern and western portions of the basin, which have been glaciated, the topography is less rugged. The main stream rises in Potter County, Pennsylvania and flows in a northwesterly direction into New York where, after flowing west for about 30 miles, it turns southwest and flows back into Pennsylvania. The Allegheny River, about 325 miles long, joins the Monongahela River at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to form the Ohio River. The principal tributaries of the Allegheny River are: Miles above Drainage Area Tributary Stream Mouth (Square Miles) Kiskiminetas River JO.2 1,892 Mahoning Creek 56.2 ^17 Red Bank Creek b^.9 586 Clarion River 86.1 1,2J2 French Creek 126.6 1,246 Oil Creek 13^.1 jkO Tionesta Creek 15^.2 485 Conewango Creek 192.0 898 The Kiskiminetas Basin is an important bituminous coal mining area and smaller amounts are mined in the Crooked Creek, Cowanshannock Creek, Mahoning Creek, Red Bank Creek and Clarion River Basins. Although coal underlies much of the area farther north, it is not of great economic importance. Oil is found in the northern part of the basin. Production in the Oil Creek area, the first developed oil field in the country, is decreasing and most of the oil comes from the newer fields to the east. Although almost -all of the virgin forests which originally covered about 90 percent of the basin are gone, a large part of the basin is covered with second growth timber. The more level lands in the glaciated portion of the basin support a stable and prosperous agriculture. The steel industry in the basin is concentrated around Pittsburgh and at Johnstown, which is also the center of the coal producing area of the Kiskiminetas Basin. The greatestconcentrations of population are at these two places. The populations of the basin and its larger cities, excluding the city of Pittsburgh, are shown below: Populations Principal Cities I9l0 1920 1930 1940 Johnstown, Pa. 55,482 67,327 66,993 66,668 Jamestown, N.Y. 31,297 38,917 45,155 42,638 New Kensington,Pa. 7,707 11,987 16,762 24,055 Olean, N.Y. 14,743 20,506 21,790 21,506 Oil City, Pa. 15,657 21,274 22,075 20,379 I*leadville, Pae 12,780 14,568 16,698 18,919 Bradford, Pae 14,544 15,525 19,306 17,691 Entire Basin Rural 654,456 659,607 666,109 713,148 Urban 365.270 471.689 527.388 523,546 Total 1,019,726 1,131,296 1,193,497 1,236,694 Water Uses - The lower 70 miles of the Allegheny River have been Improved for navigation by eight low-lift locks and dams which with backwater from the Emsworth Dam on the 0hi,o River, provide a navigable depth of nine feet, A considerable amount of coal, coke, sand, gravel and limestone moves on this waterway* One hydroelectric project has been built by private interests, the Finey project, on the Clarion River. Construction of four flood-control reservoirs has been virtually completed by the Corps of Engineers. These are on Tionesta Creek, Mahoning Greek, Crooked Creek and Loyalhanna Creek and are part of a system of reservoirs on the Allegheny and Monongahela River and their tributaries intended primarily for the protection of the Fittsburgh metropolitan area. In addition to serving this purpose, it would be physically possible to utilize a portion of their capacity to increase stream flow in the Allegheny and in the tributary streams below the reservoirs during low-flow periods. Four additional reservoirs have been authorized by the Congress for flood control» The largest one would be on the Allegheny River above Warren, Pennsylvania, and has been planned to include storage for low-flow regulation. The cleaner streams in the rather sparsely populated mountainous section north of the mining area are used extensively for recreation. A considerable part of the land in this section is in State Forests. Chautauqua Lake, Conneaut Lake and other smaller lakes in the basin also are widely used for recreation*Presentation, of Field Data Figure A-l shows the location and magnitude of the more important sources of pollution in the basin. Figure A-2 shows similar data and, in addition, the location of water supply intakes from polluted streams and laboratory data on coliform organisms, dissolved oxygen and B.O.D. Public Water Supplies - Of the 225 public water supplies in the Allegheny River Easin, which serve about 1,545,000 people,* 91 are from surface sources. Only 21 of these are from polluted streams, the other 70 being from impounding reservoirs or small streams draining rural areas, but the 21 supplies include most of the largest ones. Table A-2 shows data on the surface water supplies of the basin. The chemical quality of surface waters in this area is generally excellent except as it is modified by mine drainage, brines or other pollutants. The alkalinity and hardness are low, particularly in the mountainous area. In the glaciated portion of the basin the water .is somewhat harder and more alkaline and the taste, odor and color troubles are often experienced due to algae growths and decomposition of organic matter in the numerous swamp areas and lakes. The alkalinity of the streams in this area, while considerably higher than Monongahela basin upland streams, is still quite low and makes the effects of acid mine drainage more serious than in other streams such as the Muskingumj Kentucky and Big Sandy where alkalinities are higher. Sewerage - About 920,000 people in the basin are served by sewers. Only about 10 percent of the sewage is treated. Table A-3 shows data on sources of pollution and sewage treatment. More than half of the sewage is discharged untreated to the lower Allegheny in the vicinity of Pittsburgh and the Conemaugh and its tributaries in the vicinity of Johnstown, Pennsylvania. Industrial Wastes - Table A-4 summarizes data on sources of industrial wastes by type of industry and method of disposal. These wastes are equivalent in oxygon demand to sewage from about 680,000 people. A small amount of industrial waste is treated in municipal plants. No single industry is responsible for a major part of this pollution. Textile, pulp and paper, meat, by-product coke plants, tanneries, canneries and breweries all are large contributors to the industrial waste load. About 40 percent of the wastes are discharged to the Allegheny in the 30-mile * Includes entire population served by Pittsburgh municipal supply and Pennsylvania Water Company, taken from Allegheny River. Fart of population served is in Monongahela Basin and along the Ohio River.stretch below the mouth of the Kiskiminetas. The by-product coke plants are at Johnstown, much of the textile Industry is around Jamestown, oil refineries are scattered but the greater number are around Oil Creek. The upper Clarion River and its tributaries receive a large part of the pulp, paper and tannery wastes. The significance of the steel industry as a source of pollution is due almost entirely to the discharge of spent acids, acid salts, and rinse waters from pickling operations. About 27,000 pounds of free acid per day are discharged by steel mills in the basin.' These mills are located along the lower Allegheny and Kiskiminetas Rivers. The acids from pickling operations represent only a small portion of the total acid load including that from mine drainage which affects these streams. Acid Mine Drainage - The Kiskiminetas River is the most heavily acid large stream in the Ohio Basin. Smaller amounts of mine drainage enter other tributaries of the Allegheny River nortn of tne Kiskiminetas. The estimated acid load in tne Allegneny River basin, as presented in the section of the Ohio River Pollution Survey report on Acid Mine Drainage, is shown below: Allegheny River except Kiskiminetas " Tot al— Allegheny River Drainage Basin Kiskiminetas River Original Acid Load: Active Mines Marginal Mines Abandoned Mines Total Per Square Mile Sealed Mines Removed by Sealing Present Load Per Square Mile Additional Removal (1) Future Residual (2) Per Square Mile Acidity in Tons per Year (to Phenolphthaleln - Hot) 26 Ml 6,760 50,2% 83,14.61 & VT. T 6.6 2,330 773BT 223,896 23,805 IMSf 321,689 170.0 20,270 10/ m:.. 161+.2 132,630 T78,l#5 250,353 3p,565 121^,232 I4.05.x50 1^,310 29,70^ 375. W? 52.0 16k,960 17.9 ■2T (1) Economical to remove in addition by sealing under 19^0 restrictions with a cost limitation of $10.00 per ton of acid per year and sealing only In areas not connected to active ventilation systems. (2) Capable of further reduction (possibly and additional 50 percent) by extended program.Treat- ment (2) Supply Source Mile (1) Populat5 on Served (I4. ) Cons. M.G.D. Supplies Below Community Sewer Outfalls Pennsylvania (3) Pittsburgh Allegheny River 8.0 PD (10600,000 80.30 Penn. Water Co. tt it 8-5 PD (li.) 167,200 11.00 Pox Chapel tt 11 10.0 PD j,S00 O.llj. Oakmont M II 12.8 PD lb,500 2.50 New Ke n s ing t on II II 21.0 FD 35,000 3.60 Tarentum II II 21.7 LD 13,000 0.90 Brackenridge It It 22.5 PD 6,300 0.80 Natrona ft tt 2I4..6 PD 12,000 047 Freeport tf tt 29.3 PD 3,300 0.35 Cadogan tt tt 38.5 PD 700 o.ou Kittanning tt tt PD 7,500 1.25 Furnace Run #1 tt tt 56.5 PD 600 0.02 Parker City tt tt 81+.0 PD 900 0.08 Emlenton tt tt 91.6 PD 1,000 0.07 Saltsburg Conemaugh River 57-5 LD 1,000 0.10 Indiana Two Lick Cr.- Ramaey Run-We11s 93-0 PD 10,000 0.65 Hooversville Stony Creek- Impounded 151. LD 1,1+00 0.03 New Bethlehem Red Bank Creek 88.5 PD 2,000 0.20 Franklin French Creek- Wells-Spring 128.5 PD 34,000 2.20 Cambridge Spgs. French Creek 17k- PD 2,200 0.1|0 New York Olean Olean Creek 260. PD 2l+,000 2.50 Total - Below Sewer Outfalls 920,100 107,60 70 Otner Surface Supplies 3k5,hoo 31.78 Total - Surface ifVater Supplies 1,265,500 139.38 (1) Miles above mouth of Allegheny River. (2) P - Coagulated, settled, filtered; L - Lime-soda softened; D - Chlorinated. (3) Slow sand filters. (Ij.) Part of population served is outside Allegheny River Basin.Table A-3 Allegheny River Baaln - Sources of Significant Pollution Including Industrial Wastes Expressed as Sewered Population Eaulvalcnt (B.O.D.). Municipality State Receiving Stream Miles Above Mouth of Population Connected Sewage Treatment Sewered Population Equivalent (BOD) Allegheny to Sewers Untreated Discharged (3) Pittsburgh and Suburbs Verona Oakmont Springdale Arnold Pa. If tt tt ft Allegheny River tt tt tt tt tt tt 0 to 8 11 12 17 19 320,500 3,^00 6,200 5,000 10,900 None tt tf tt 597,200 3,500 7,400 5,000 10,900 597,200 3,500 7,400 5,000 10,900 New Kensington Tarentum Brackenrldge Natrona Freeport tt tt tt tt tt tt tt tt tt tt tt tt tt tt 20 22 22 23 29 20,700 16,300 6,900 5,000 2,700 tt tt tt 21,100 17,500 6,900 5,000 2,700 21,100 17,500 6,900 5,000 2,700 Shenley Logansport Ford City Kittanning Franklin It tt tt tt tt tt tt tt tt tt tt tt tt tt 32 S 46 125 5,900 7,500 13,000 None tt Primary 14.000 2,800 5,900 7,500 24.000 14,000 2,800 5,9oo 7,500 19,500 Oil City West Hickory Warren Salamanca Olean tt tt tt N.Y. tt tt tt tt tt tt tt ti tt tt tt 134 l6l 192 235 259 20,000 15,000 9.500 24,000 None None tt Primary 21,400 12,000 18,1+00 17,000 28,500 21.400 12.000 18.400 17.000 19.000 Port Allegheny Coudersport Leechburg Vandergrlft Apollo Pa. tt tt tt tt it tt tt Kiskiminetas R. tt it tt tt 285 302 3 I* 2,300 2,200 4,300 11,400 3,200 None tt tt tt tt 2,600 5,800 4,300 11,400 3,200 2,600 5,800 4,500 n,4oo 5,200 Latrobe Elalrsvllle Johnstown and Suburbs Derry Westmont tt tt tt tt tt Loyalhanna Cr. Conemaugh River tt tt McGee Run Stony Creek 80 77 109 85 110 8,400 5.000 70,700 3.000 4,200 tt tt Sec. (1) None 12,700 5,000 160,600 3,000 4,200 12,700 5.000 160,600 3.000 4,200 Ferndale Wlndber-Paint East Conemaugh Portage Cresson tt tt tt tt tt tt tt Paint Creek L.Conemaugh R. n n ti 115 122 112 130 140 2,700 10,700 4,800 3,000 2,500 tt tt 2,700 10,700 4,800 3,100 2,500 2,700 10,700 4,000 3,100 2,500 Punxsutawny Brookvllle Reynoldsvllle DuBols Rldgway tt tt tt tt ti Mahoning Creek Red Bank Creek Sandy Lick Cr. n n n Clarion River 110 113 130 & 8.600 4.300 3.600 12,000 6.300 tt tt tt tt 13,800 4,400 3,600 13,800 25,300 13,800 4A00 3,600 13,800 25,300 Johnsonburg St. Marys Wilcox Meadvllle Cambridge Springs tt tt tt it tt Elk Creek W.Br.Clarion R. Fronch Creek it n 189 191 S 174 4,600 7,800 20,000 2,200 tt tt Secondary Primary 96,600 16,000 3,5°° 29,800 3,300 96,600 16,000 3.500 12,800 2.500 Rousevllle Titusville Kayburg Kane it tt tt Oil Creek ti n Tlonesta Creek E.Br.Tlonesta Cr.-Hubert Run 138 150 175 210 1,000 8,100 6,300 None None 5,800 11,100 9,600 6,300 5,800 11,100 9,600 6,500 Ludlow Corry Jamestown Falconer Chautauqua tt N.Y. tt tt Two Mile Run Hare Creek Cassadago Cr. ti it Chautauqua Lake 200 207 216 217 236 500 7,000 42,500 1,200 15,000 tt Primary tt Septic Tk 4.700 7.200 67,800 2S,200 15,000 4,700 7,200 52,400 27,300 15,000 South Dayton Mt.Jewett Bradford 122 Smaller Sources tt Pa. tt N.Br.Conewango Klnzua Creek Tunungwant Cr. 237 235 252 200 1,400 18,000 118,200 None tt tt (2) 8,600 7,000 20,900 130,600 8,600 7,000 20,900 94,400 Total - New York Pennsylvania 110,500 809,300 186,700 1.411.500 155,600 1.558.800 Total - Entire Basin 919,800 1,598,200 1,514,400 (1) Treatment plant Ineffective. (2) Eighteen primary and seventeen secondary sewage treatment plants. (J) Pollution loads from Pittsburgh and Suburbs are distributed to Allegheny and Monongahela Basins and Main Ohio River as follows: Pittsburgh and Suburbs Pa. it n Allegheny River Monongahela R. Ohio River 0-8 9-10 0-4(below) 520,500 510,500 261,700 None tt tt 597,200 458,500 278,600 597,200 458,500 278,600 Total it - - 901,700 - 1,334,300 1,334,300Table A-1+ Allegheny River Easin - Summary of Industrial Wastes not Discharging to Municipal Treatment Plants, with Total of Entire Industrial Waste Load in the Basin. Industry Number of Plants Industrial Waste Disposal At Least Minor Corrective Measures Taken Estimated Sewered Population Equivalent (B.O.D.) Munic. Sewers Private Outlets Brewing 7 7 0 5 55,800 By-Product Coke 2 0 2 2 8l+,000 Canning 3 0 3 2 57,900 Chemical 7 0 7 6 9,600 Distilling 3 0 3 3 19,600 Meat 15 10 5 11 90,600 Milk m 11+ 30 13 17,900 Oil 25 0 25 23 3^900 Paper 3 0 3 2 94,400 Steel 27 6 21 11 - Tanning 11 0 11 6 63,700 Textile 8 2 6 k 12lj.,300 Miscellaneous kl 12 29 5 21,500 Waste iJot Connected Munic. Treatment 196 51 1^5 93 673,200 Waste Discharged to Municipal Treatment 5,200 Total Industrial Waste in the Basin 678,400 By States - New York Pennsylvania 76,200 602,200Presentation of Laboratory Data Laboratory results indicate that the most serious pollution is caused by acid mine drainage which affects tributaries throughout most of the southern part of the basin and the Allegheny River below the mouth of the Kiskiminetas. Industrial wastes discharged to the upper Clarion River and untreated sewage and industrial wastes from the Pittsburgh area near the mouth of the river also cause serious pollution. The greater part of the main stream and most of the tributaries not affected by acid were found to be in good sanitary condition. A summary of laboratory results are shown in Table A-7, acid results are in Table A-7A, and selected date are in Tables A-5 and A-5A. Observations in the Allegheny River basin were made by mobile laboratory units during the period from August to December, 19^0. In general, observations in the southern part of the basin were more extensive than in the northern part. Figures A-3, A-4, A-5, A-^a and A-'jb show graphically the coliform, dissolved oxygen, oxygen demand and pH results. Oxygen demand results in the portion of the basin south of Mahoning Creek are shown on an enlarged map (Figure A-^a) because of the large number of stations and the acid conditions in this area. These maps show average results at stations observed for periods of less, than one month and most unfavorable monthly averages at stations observed over periods of more than one month. Stream flows at the time of sampling were generally representative of normal low-water conditions. Bacteriological data indicate the effect of acid in reducing coliform densities. Approximately one-third of the sampling stations were on acid streams and 92 percent of these stations had average coliform counts of less than $0 per ml. Less than three percent showed counts greater than 200 per ml. On "‘he normal streams only 57 percent of the stations averaged less than ^0 coliform organisms per ml. and 24 percent averaged more than 200 per ml. Data in Table A-7 on the lower Allegheny, which was affected by acid during part of the sampling period, also indicate the effect of acid on coliform counts. Eighty-two percent of the stations on normal streams and 25 percent of those on acid streams showed average dissolved oxygen contents of more than 6.5 p.p.m. About 11 percent of the normal stream stations and 5 percent of the acid stations had average dissolved oxygen contents of less than 5-0 p.p.m.Zero dissolved oxygen was not found consistently at any station although it was approached below Corry, Johnsonburg, Kane, Eradfcrd and Latrobe. Relatively low temperatures prevailed during much of the sampling period, so the dissolved oxygen results show more favorable conditions than would have been found during the warmer months. Because of the effect of acid on normal biochemical oxidation, the B.O.D. tests on acid stream samples were carried out in duplicate; one portion being incubated in the acid state as collected and the other being incubated after neutralization with sodium hydroxide and seeding with filtered sewage. In general the results of the two portions were either of the same order of magnitude or the acid portion showed a higher B.O.D. than the neutralized portion. Approximately 75 percent of the stations on both normal and acid streams had average oxygen demands of less than 3*° p.p.m. About 15 percent of the stations on normal streams and 5 percent of those on acid streams showed average demands over 5*0 p.p.m. The worst conditions were found on tributaries below Kane, St. Marys, Johnsonburg, DuBois, Derry and Ridgway. Considerable self-purification was indicated by laboratory results on the normal tributaries. Most of these streams were in good sanitary condition at their confluence with the Allegheny River. Biological Summary - The plankton population of the Alle-gheny was found to be around 2,000 p.p.m., and the stream supports a good fish population. The Kiskiminetas was too acid to support fish life or much plankton. The Clarion River, contaminated by industrial wastes, contained a good plankton and fish population but the fish are said to be unsuitable for food due to the taste of the flesh.River ALLEGHENY R I V E R Location above Olean, below N.Y. above Warren below Pa. at Oil City, below Pa. above Franklin Pa. River Miles Above! Kouth of Allegheny Period - 19I4.O 261 Aug. LPN si 1 c\j < 1 191+ Sept. 184.5 Sept. 134.2 Oct. 132 Oct. 127 Oct Number of Samples 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Plow in c.f.s.: Sampling Days Water Temperature °C. 105 13.8 % 658 16.2 1,250 15.7 1,270 12 2 1 ,550 11.5 954 11. 8 Collforms per ml. 7 92 2 8 Z ~ 5 51 Zi Dissolved oxygen ppm. 6.8 4.0 8.5 8.8 10 1 10.1 9 3 B.O.D., 5_day, p.p.m. 2.1 4-5 1.1 2.1 1 0 1.4 l 2 PH 7.1 . . 7-2 7.5 . 7 4 _____i-_ 7-4 ,. .......... 7-5 River ALLEGHENY RIVfeR ............ Location below Franklin Lock #b Templeton Lock #5 Freeport Lock Brackenridge Lock #3 Springdale Lock #2 Pittsburgh near Mouth River liiles Above: Mouth of Allegheny Period - 1940 Number of Samples Flow in c.f.s.: Sampling Days Water Temperature °C. Collforms per ml. Dissolved oxygen ppm. B.O.D., 5*day, p.p.m. PH 124.5 Oct. 3 1,502 11.5 39 9.2 7.4 52.6 Sept. 3 3,100 19.3 3*1 8.8 1.7 7*3 30.4 Sept. 3 3.550 n 19.8 57 0 7.8 1.3 ..........7-3 24.2 Sept. 3 3,760 19.8 ~ 3 8.1 0.7 . , 6.3 17 Sept. ~ 5" 4,400 22.5 25S 8.4 0.9 6.8 6.7 Sept. 3 3.510 21.3 Kh 1.7 Sept. 2 3,24° 20.8 1,420 3.*5 li River Location Tunungwj above Brad! int Cr. below 'ord Hubert Run below Kai West Run below le Lake (jhau-tauqua abv. Jamestown Chadakoln R. at Falconer Cassadago Cr. below Jamestowh River Miles Above: Conf. with Allegheny Mouth of Allegheny Period - 1940 Number of Samples Flow in c.f.s.: Sampling Days Water Temperature °C. Collforms per ml7 — Dissolved oxygen ppm. B.O.D., 5-day, p.p.m. PH 10.5 254.5 Aug. 3 iiU ---1E~ 9.2 1*3 ......7-2 , 5-5 249.5 Aug. 3 33 15.7 “ 2,340 “ 2.0 6.0 7.1 27 229 Sept. 3 3 13.7 120,300 “ 4:2 .... 7-0 51 205 Sept. 5 4 12.0 " "99 “ 7*5 li 51 223 Sept. 3 16.8 ---2£- 9.8 S’3 8.2 26 218 Sect. 3 ' n 23.5 215.5 Sept. 3 297 17.0 191" “ 7.6 4.2 7.5 River Location Hare Creek below Corry oil Creek above below Titusville French Cr. above below Meadville Sandy Lick Cr. below DuBols McGee Run below Derry River lilies Above: Conf. with Allegheny Mouth of Allegheny Period - 1940 Number of Samples Flow in c .f .s.: Sampling Days Water Temperature °C. Collforms per ml. Dissolved oxygen ppm. B.O.D., 5-day, p.p.m. EH . 22 206 Sept. 3 11 14.0 38,200 0.2 16.6 ... 7.1 IS 153 Oct. 3 8 11.0 4 10.7 1.4 . 7.5 15 149 Oct. 3 10 10.8 42 10.3 1.5 7.5 55 I6I.5 Oct. 3 122 13.1 5 9-5 3-2 5_ 26 152.5 Oct. 3 164 13.6 523 2:1 ... 7-2 73-5 158.5 Sept.-Oct. 5 19 9.5 51'30?.6 57.9 4 Oct. 1 2 15.0 24,000 4.2 33.1 River Location in John-sonburg C L A R above Ridgway ITTTX R I below Ridgway rr r....... at Cooksburg at St. Petersburg felk Creek below St. Marys Crooked Creek Reservoir fciver talles Above: Conf. with Allegheny Mouth of Allegheny Period - 1940 Number of Samples Flow in c.f.s.: Sampling Days Water Temperature °C. Collforms per ml. Dissolved oxygen ppm. B.O.D., 5-day, p.o.m. PH 101 I87 Sept.-Oct. — Z - 60 19.4 ” 5,910 -0.5 190 7.2 96.5 182.5 Sept.-Oct. ---Z - 82 9-5 5.950 " 2.8 55.8 ..... 7-1 95 179 Sept.-Oct. — Z - ic4 10.1 kl:l 51 157 Oct. ” 5 219 11.6 " "32 " 7-4 12.1 7.1 4.5 90.* Oct. ~ 3 ~ 271 11.3 2 ~ 9-9 1.2 7.2 104 190 Sept.-Oct. 3- ~ 4 10.3 “1+7850" “ 6 #6 40.2 . 8.5 49 Nov. 1 9.0 "2 9-7 6 *.9 River Mahoning Stony “time..... Conemaugh toyalhanna Cr. Kiskimine- Location Cr. below Cr«e* Conemaugh below above below tas near Punx'twny abv.Johnstown Johnstown Latrobe Mouth Kiver Miles Above: Conf. with Allegheny 53 85.5 83 78 52.5 48 0.8 Mouth of Allegheny 109 113.5 113 108 82.5 78 31 Period - 1940 Oct. July-Aug. July-Aug. July-Aug. Oct. Oct. Sept. Number of Samples 3 3 3 5 1 1 3 Flow in c.f.s.: Sampling Days 41 248 62 460 14 15 690 Water Temperature °C. 10.5 20.8 23.5 29.5 15.0 15.0 19.5 Collforms per ml. I 37 1 59 * * Dissolved oxygen ppm. 11.1 7.8 7.0 4.6 9.1 1.8 7.6 B.O.D., 5-dey, p.p.m. 1.1 1.0 0.6 5.6 0.7 5.1 1.3 " 5-day ppm.(neut- ralized ft seeded) 1.6 0.6 0*5 2.0 0.4 1.5 0.8 PH 6.0 3.0 2.8 4.1 4-5 _________l-I...... . ____2-9 * Less than one.903 Table A-5A Allegheny River Basin - Selected Laboratory Chemical Data River Location Allegheny River Mouth Lock & Lock & Pittsb’gh Dam #3 . Dam |. Kiski- minetas Mouth Loyal- hanna Mouth Crabtree Creek Mouth Conemaugh Mouth ftiver Miles Above; 28 1+2 28 Conf, with Allegheny - #■4 - 1. Mouth of Allegheny 1.7 17 2I4..2 31 58 , 72 58 , Period - 19^0 0ct*9 Oct.21 Oct. Oct. Octollj. 0ct.29 Oct.llj. Number of Samples 1 1 2 5 1 1 1 Flow in c.f.s.: 1+19 Sampling Days 2,760 2,750 2,560 36 13 275 Minimum Month mm - 90 16 to* - PH 5.7 5.6 2.9 2.6 3*1 2.8 Acidity p.p.m.: k 176 Methyl Red 3 5 200 k9k 608 1,910 Phenolphthalein(Hot) 10 10 13 282 2,930 2k?, Iron total p.p.m. 2J4. 0.7 __ 2*5 9.8 i 79 k9l+ 26 River Location Blacklick Creek below So.Br. Blackl’k Mouth Stony Creek Johnstown Cowan- shannock Creek Mahoning Creek Punx•t * ny Clarion Portland Mills Toby Cr. Portland Mills River Miles Above: 76 Conf. with Allegheny 51 79.5 11.5 52.8 86.9 85*9 Mouth of Allegheny 81 106 IO9.5 60 109 173 172 Period - 19^4-0 Oct.llj. Aug. July Oct.2l4. Oct.2 Oct.9 Oct.9 Number of Samples 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 Plow in c.f.s.: Sampling Days l^o 16 i+30 2 36 135 26 Minimum Month 30 - pH 2.II 2.6 3»o 2.9 5.2 iw7 3.0 Acidity p.p.m.: 612 811# 78 2l].8 Methyl Red - 32 Phenolphthalein(Hot) 788 1,014.7* !l!t 398 3k- 2ll Iron total p.p.m. 222 66 25 . k .. .. . . 4___ 6 * One sample.Fi g . A-3 ALLEGHENY BASIN LEGEND Average Coliform Results at Sampling Stations. c mhfti Most probable y number per ml. O ---------under 25 0 ----------26- 50 (J ---- 51-100 ^ ____ 101-200 A---- Over 200 CONIFORM RESULTS 10 H10 RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY U. S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ______ 1941 SCALE OF MILESunioyeiiey Uakewoodc#!' fAMESK .Port villa CORRY ion City Port Allegany Cambridge Clorendon CENTERVILLE MEADVILLE TITUSVILI Conntout Loht Johnson-i burg f Brockway St.P«t«rabur{ Brookville. Summ«rvill« LGelleneburg Clymer> Freeport I Leechburg BRACKENRIDGE TARENTUMB Springdale joAKMONT Verona 1TTSBUR6H ■South Fi •Ferndale .Igonler LE6EN0 Average Dissolved Oxygen Results at Sampling Stations- Symbol Dissolved Oxygen p.p.m. £) ----- Over 6.5 0 ----- 5.1 to 6.5 ----- 3.1 to 5.0 Stoyttown ALLEGHENY BASIN DISSOLVED OXYGEN RESULTS OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY U. S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE _.1941 SCALE OF MILESEllicettville LittlejWelley SALAMANCA Jlegany lAMESTC Bolivar Bradford; CORRY Corryvlll Smefhport Port Allegany Cambridge Coudersf CENTERVILLE MEADVILLE fJohnson i burg Brockway ■ Brookvillej '^SaTT, Freeport I Leechburg BRACKENRIDGE TARENTUMB ''Homer City Springdale JL AOAKMONT 2 B Verona Soltfburg. ITTSBURGH LEGEND Avtragi B.O.D. R«sult* at Sampling Station!. Symbol (Nermel Samples) Stoyitown ALLEGHENY BASIN BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY U. S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ■_19U_Le*cr T ARE I VANDERGRIFT* NEW KENSINGTON - 'ESTVIE' 'URGH South Fork JOHNSTOWN Q LATROBE Qucmohontng Rt$trvoir«ari OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY U. S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ___ 1941_ Fig. A-5o ALLEGHENY BASIN SOUTHERN PORTION BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND LEGEND Average B.O.D. Results at Sampling Stations.Little^Velley SALAMANCA IAMEST( Bolivar ,Portvill« BRADFORD. Eldred CORRY Smethport Port Allegany Combr Coudersf CENTERVILLE MEADVILLE TITUSV1LI fjohnson-i I »“r9 I Brockway Eml«nton1 Strattonvill* Brookville Summtrvill* Fall* Cr««k Freeport' Clymer, Xeechburg BRACKENRIDGE \y £ TARENTUMS^j^pqp,^ I. . Lnewkensin ' Spnngdale^p ^ MOAKMONT >> p Verona SaltsburQ, Black) BLAIRSVILLE ITTSBUR6H South Fork jUOHNS'fj -Ferndale| Fig. A-5 b ALLEGHENY BASIN pH RESULTS OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY U. S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE _!£±J_ LEGEND Average pH Results at Sampling Stations SymbolEighteen stream gaging stations are now in operation in the Allegheny River Basin. Several of the stations have records of 30 years or more. Table A-6 shows mean monthly flows at 16 stations during the dryest summers of record. Figure A-6 indicates the frequency with which minimum monthly mean summer flows have occurred at two stations with long records. Station Minimum Monthly ¥e an Summer Flows in Cubic Ft. per Sec. that May Be Expected Once in 2 Years 5 Years 10 Years Minimum Allegheny River at Kittaning, Pa, 2200 llj-50 1200 930 Kiskiminetas River at Avonmore, ?a. 550 320 230 90 Flow Regulation - The following reservoirs in the Allegheny River Basin are a part of the authorized program for flood control primarily for the protection of Pittsburgh. Each of the reservoirs is named for the stream on which it is located. Reservoir Mile (i) Status Net Capacity Acre-feet Flow Available with Regulation c.f.s.(2) Crooked Cr# ki Completed 89,500 97 Tionesta 155 78 n 125,600 188 Mahoning Cr. tt 69,500 107 Loyalhanna Cr. 62 ti 93,500 llj.6 Conemaugh R. 65 Proposed 270,000 Natural flow Allegheny R. 201 n 1,105,000 1 , 927 Red Bank 93 11 159,000 226 French Cr. 171 11 117,000 230 (1) Location of dam in river miles above mouth of Allegheny River. (2) Maximum dependable flow at dam site during drought period July to November 1930 under one possible plan of reservoir operation, with the exception of the Allegheny River reservoir, present plans contemplate operations for flood control only.Studies in progress indicate the desirability of substituting a system of small reservoirs for the large French Creek reservoir. Among the projects receiving consideration in this connection are reservoirs on Sugar Creek (mile 13&*)> Lake Creek (mile 14-0*) and Sandy Creek (mile 134 ). The first two are tributaries of French Creek, the last is a tributary of the Allegheny about 10 miles downstream from French Creek. Studies have indicated the economic feasibility of a multiple -purpose reservoir project on the Clarion River at the Mill Creek site, 121 river miles above Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The flows shown in the above table are those which could be maintained below the dam sites during the period July to November, 193°* the lowest flow period of record at Pittsburgh, by using a portion of the flood control storage for flow regulation after the end of the flood season, except in the cases of the Conemaugh River and Allegheny River reservoirs. At the Conemaugh River site the storage capacity would be limited by physical considerations so that it is undesirable to use any of it for low-flcw regulation even during the normally dry season. At the Allegheny River site ample storage capacity would be available and it is proposed to provide 195*000 acre-feet of storage expressly for low-flow regulation in addition to capacity which would be available seasonally as an incidental feature of flood control operations. In addition to these large projects a smaller one has been studied by the U. S. Engineer Department primarily for local protection at Jamestown, New York. The project involves improvements to the channel of the Chadakoin River (the outlet of Lake Chautauqua) and a better scheme of operation of the existing dam which regulates the outflow from Lake Chautauqua. The proposed operating scheme would limit the outflow to about 5 c.f. s. during the summer months. *Location of dam in river miles above mouth of Allegheny River.Table A-6 Allegheny Rlvor Ba3in - Monthly Mean Summer Flows for Years In Which Lowest Summer Flows have Occurred. River Location Allegheny R. Larabee, Pa. Allegheny R. Red House, N.Y. Allegheny R. Franklin, Pa. Allegheny R. Kittanning, Pa. Chadakoin R. Falconer, N.Y. River Miles Above: Conf.with Allegheny - - - _ 25 Mouth of Allegheny 276 227 126 46 217 Drain.Area Sq.Mi. 54i 1,6Q0 5,982 9,010 194 Period of Record 1925-39 1903-39 1918-39 1904-28 1935-39 Year 1930 1932 1930 1909 1936 June c.f.s. 26s 809 3,030 12,014 54 July " 64 553 1.140 5,234 38 Augus t 21 178 uu+ 1,421 32 September " 24 118 435 934 23 Year 1932 1930 1932 1908 1939 June " 301+ 1,030 2,510 9,522 35 July " 122 337 2,080 9,105 42 August 35 119 754 2,743 46 September " 23 122 531 996 29 Year 1934 193U 1934 , 1923 1935 June 99 299 1,106 3,61+0 n? July 34 150 555 1,600 124 August 144 639 1,400 i?9 September " 83 233 821 1 •1 ? 0 .. 43 River Location Brokenstraw Cr. Youngs-vllle.Pa. Oil Creek Rousevllle, Pa. French Creek Saegerstown, Pa. Clarion R. Piney, Pa. ftedbank 6r. St. Charles, Pa. River Miles Above: Conf.with Allegheny 3 36 26 15 Mouth of Allegheny 188 137 163 132 80 Drain.Area Sq.Mi, *04 500 629 980 528 Period of Record 1909-59 1909-59* 1521-39 1924-39 1909-39 Year 1934 1950 1934 1525 1518 June c.f.s. 62 130 85 601 1,234 July 38 71 48 552 122 August 52 51 178 15 September " 32 54 36 81 57 Year 1956 , 1954 1530 1930 1930 June l4Q 75 295 471 176 July " 59 38 115 ?h 265 Augua t 37 3? 41 .88 34 September " 32 34 7° 87 46 Year 1930 19^2 1936 1952 1952 June 315 117 136 452 247 July 57 112 79 431 510 Augus t 50 45 60 118 94 September " ______32 ________3.5..... 48 88 45 River Location Mahoning Cr, Dayton, Pa. Crooked Cr, Ford City, Pa. Stony Creek Johnstown, Pa. Loyalhanna Cr.New Alexandria, Pa . Kiskiminetas Avonmore,Pa. River Miles Above: Conf.with Allegheny 28 5 81 40 22 Mouth of Allegheny 84 *46 111 70 52 Drain.Area Sq.Mi. 521 280 467 265 1,723 Period of Record 1916-59 1909-59 1914-55 1919-59 1907-57 Year 1930 1930 1922 1952 1908 June c.f.s. up 91 210 80 1,134 July % 20 170 43 608 Augus t " 18 2.7 62 26 558 September " 23 4.0 50 16 90 Year 1939 1932 1925 1939 1910 June 194 45 221 122 2,825 July " 171 7| 232 127 697 August 56 8.3 90 33 192 September ” 27 3.2 52 22 695 Year 1925 1925 3914 , , 1930 1909 June 137 32 446 489 2,494 July 157 155 250 50 451 August 70 26 66 24 397 September " 29 . . 6.3 ......& 51 ... ____217........ * From 1909-51 Station located 2 miles downstream, drainage area 53O square miles.Monthly Mean Discharge in c.f.s. FIGURE A-6 2000 4000 < 1000 I YR. SUMMER LOW FLOW FREQUENCY CURVE KISKIMINITAS RIVER AT AVONMORE, PA. 1908 TO 1936 INCL. ALLEGHENY RIVER AT KITTANNING, PA. 1905 TO I92& INCL. FREQUENCY THAT FLOW OCCURS-ONCE IN 2 YR. 5 YR. 10 YR. 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Percent of Years Minimum Monthly Mean Discharge Equaled or Exceeded (Only June-July-August-September considered) 100 U.S.E.D. - O.R.D.Discussion The major pollution problems in the Allegheny River Basin are: (1) control of acid mine drainage, (2) abatement of industrial wastes, particularly in the Clarion Basin, and (3) treatment of domestic sewage, particularly in the vicinity of Pittsburgh. In addition, there are a number of other problems of a more local nature. Control of acidity can best be accomplished by a program of Including mine sealing supplemented by flow regulation. This matter is more fully discussed in a separate section of this report on "Acid Mine Drainage.” It is estimated that reservoir capacity of at least 210,000 acre-feet in this basin will be required for low-flow regulation. Of this, a portion could be made available at the four reservoirs already completed The entire amount could also be provided in the proposed Allegheny River reservoir where the water quality would be good. One of the completed reservoirs, Loyalhanna Creek, is on a stream so heavily polluted with acid mine drainage that low-flow regulation by it might have a deleterious effect on the water quality of the Allegheny River. Although Mahoning Creek and Crooked Creek, on which two of the other completed reservoirs are located, also receive some acid mine drainage, they are less acid than Loyalhanna Creek and low-flow regulation by these two reservoirs would be beneficial. Pittsburgh and Vicinity - More than 400,000 people discharge untreated sewage to the Allegheny River in the lower 30 miles below the mouth of the Kiskiminetas. Industrial wastes add a population equivalent of about 280,000. Most of this pollution enters the lower eight miles below the nine public water supply intakes on the Allegheny but sewage from about 50,000 people enters the stream above the intakes of the two largest water supplies in the basin. Primary treatment and cnlorination of all municipal sewage in this area seems Justified. All or most of the wastes entering the lower eight miles of the Allegheny probably could be most economically treated, with wastes from other parts of Pittsburgh, at a large plant on the Ohio River. The problem of the city of Pittsburgh is discussed and cost estimates are included in the report on the main Ohio River.Kiskiminetas River - This stream is the most highly acid large stream in the entire Chio River Basin. While great improvement 1s possible, a comprehensive program of mine sealing could probably not restore it nor many of its tributaries to an alkaline condition until concentrated active mining moves, at least in part, to other areas. Sewage from about 185,000 people and industrial wastes equivalent in oxygen demand to sewage from an additional 95#000 enter the streams in this area. The largest city is Johnstown, located at the junction of the Little Cone-maugh River and Stony Creek, about 70 miles above the mouth of the Kiskiminetas. Almost all of the Industrial waste load and about 45 percent of the sewage enters the streams in Johnstown and vicinity. Justification of organic pollution abatement at most of the communities on highly acid streams is doubtful in the absence of effective acid control and, in general, the present need for sewage treatment at such places is not urgent. The immediate need is for a program to reduce the acidity of the streams. In conjunction with such a program, in some instances primary, and in other instances secondary treatment of sewage and organic industrial wastes will be necessary depending on the particular situation and on the degree of acid reduction attained. At Derry, located on a small stream not affected by acid, secondary treatment is indicated. Allegheny River above Kiskiminetas - This section of the Allegheny River is relatively clean and always alkaline. The largest cities on the stream are Olean, New York and Oil City, Warren, and Franklin, Pennsylvania. Olean and Franklin have recently completed primary sewage treatment plants and the remaining large communities have taken steps toward treatment. Warren, Oil City, Ford City and Kittanning, Pennsylvania are building or have completed interceptors and a number of smaller municipalities have made similar progress. Laboratory data indicate the need for more complete treatment at Olean if the stream is to be maintained in good condition at all times. At Coudersport, Pennsylvania, near the source of the Allegheny, secondary treatment is indicated. Primary treatment of sewage and organic industrial wastes should be adequate at other sources of pollution on this stretch of the Allegheny. Clarion River - This stream and its tributaries receive wastes with a population equivalent of 1^7>000, of which more than 80 percent is from a pulp and paper mill and several tanneries located in the upper part of the drainage area. In the past, downstream water plants on the Allegheny have experiencedtaste, odor and color troubles, apparently due to these industrial wastes, at times when a rapid drawdown at Piney Reservoir coincided with a low-flow period on the Allegheny. An understanding with the power company which operates the Piney project, regarding rapid release of water, together with improvements in waste disposal methods at the industrial plants, have improved conditions at downstream water plants in recent years.. The Clarion River itself is still grossly polluted, however, Local oxygen depletion is common during the warm months as far downstream as Piney Dam. Although the stream was found to have a good plankton and fish population at the time of the laboratory survey, the fish are said to be inedible because of the obnoxious taste of the flesh. All of the industries have taken steps to reduce pollution and the pulp and paper plant has spent large sums on treatment of its wastes. Continued intensive research leading to the development of better methods of disposal is not only amply justified but essential if the Clarion River is to be restored. From the standpoint of its effect on the quality of the water in the Allegheny, the proposed flood control and power project on the Clarion, which has been studied by the U. S. Engineer Department, does not seem desirable as an Initial development. Although low-flow regulation by the reservoir would be valuable for neutralization of acidity in the lower Allegheny and upper Ohio Rivers, the possible deleterious effects of the polluted water at times of low flow in the Allegheny would more than outweigh the beneficial effects. Further reduction in the pollution of the Clarion River and low-flow regulation by other reservoirs which would reduce the proportion of the Allegheny flow contributed by the Clarion would make the proposed reservoir more desirable. Other Tributaries - Most of these streams are relatively clean"! Mahoning Creek, Crooked Creek and Cowanshannock Creek are affected by acid mine drainage. Considerable progress has been made toward pollution abatement in streams not affected by acid. A program for the treatment of all wastes discharged to French Creek snd its tributaries is nearing completion. Serious local nuisances still occur below Bradford, Corry, DuBois, Kane and a few other communities.Secondary treatment is indicated at these places. Primary treatment should "be sufficient at a number of other communities where pollution is less severe. At Jamestown and Falconer, New York, the Chadakain River and Cassadago Creek are rather heavily polluted by textile wastes and municipal sewage. The cities have constructed primary treatment plants but most of the industrial wastes are discharged directly to the Chadakain River. Either secondary waste treatment or low-flow regulation from storage in Lake Chautauqua is indicated to improve conditions. Cost - Estimates of the cost of existing sewage treatment facilities and of a suggested pollution abatement program are shown in Table A-l.OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS Sompling Point Mileog* From Mouth Dot* 191+0 Avwog* j t„ ! J 5 Day ! Coliform* Dischoro*: »r • ! _ . ; B. O. D. ! M. P. N. cU I ] 1 7«Sa'- | p. p. n. ! P«f ml. ■n ! Tvrbidity p. p. m. Alkalinity j p.p . j Hordnws p. p. m. Allegheny River at cit, limits,Pt.Ailegh. A 285.5 Aug.23 11 j15.5 I 7.3 72.5 1 1.0 i U 7.0 ! 35 | it « It " .28 82 j15.0 i 8.0 79-2 | 2.3 I 110 7.0 j » M II " 30 30 j17.5 i 8.3 86.1 ! 1.1 i 9 7.1 j i iii i i 1 i Allegheny Hirer 1^" ml. below Pt.Allegheny,Pa A 283.5 Aug.23 18 ;16.0 i 5.2 52.1 j 2.9 ! 2,U00 7.° I 35 ; u « If " 28 106 jlU.5 | 8.1 78.8 i 2.9 ! 2,U00 : 7-0 ; 15 uu » H tt " 30 uu j17-0 ; 8.2 84.0 i O.U ; 36 | 7.2 I 32 i i 1 | ! i | Marvlh Creek,W.^ity limits,SmethportjPa. ApoM 289.8 Aug.28 21 |1U.0 j 9.1 87 4 | 1.2 i 150 I 7.0 j 13 i 24 U6 • m it " 30 7 • 17-5 1 8.1 83.7 I 1.3 93 i 7.x i I j UU i ! j i | i j i j Potato Creek I-37U" mi. above Smethport, Pa. APo 291 Aug.23 6 j15.0 j 8,1 79.7 j 0.7 9 j 7.1 j 26 j it tt • « 28 22 Uu.o • 9.2 88.3 i 0.6 2U0 i 7.0 1 1 n it it " 30 28 117.5 1 6.7 69.2 1 l.U 1 2U0 | 7.1 ! | i | i j i i j Potato Cr. 2 mi. belovi Smettoort, Pa. APo 286 Aug.23 lU j 16.5* 6.0 61.4 1 2.0 23 i 7.0 10 i 29 i 5U it it H » 28 65 j 1U.5 j 8.2 79.8 I 2.U 1,100 1 7.1 « tt It • 30 28 ; 17.51 6.7 i 69.2 S l.U 2U0 1 7.1 i « I j j | j j j ! j Potato Cr. 1 mi. above mouth APo 279 Aug.28 83 I 15.0i 6.2 1 60.6 j 10.U 2U0 i 7.0 Uoo 1 36 i U2 it ti tt " 30 55 j 18.0! 6.5 ! 67.8 i 1.1 93 ! 7.1 3 I j 8U i i i ! j | Xlleg&eny H. 'J ml. above Xldred, Pa. A 276 Aug.23 33 j 16.0’ 6.U j 6U.3 ! 1.1 9 I 7.2 10 39 i n tt N " 27 3U 1 13.5j 7.U 1 71,1 0.7 U ! 7.1 i n « N " 29 179 i 16.01 7.8 j 78.2 l.U 150 ! 7.1 1 1 • [ i 1 i ; I ; Allegheny R. 1$ mi. below Eldredj Pa. A 269.5 Aug.23 UU • I6.0! 8.0 i 80.2 1.9 2U0 1 7*1 ! 38 ! 66 n tt tt » 27 Ug I 13.51.7-9 j 75.7 1.8 2U0 ! 7.0 tt tt H " 29 287 | 15.5j 6.7 ! 66.8 3.5 U60 ! 7.1 Tram Hollow Run $ ml. above Duke CentertPa. AKnT 276 Aug.23 •* j 15.5 j 7.U j 73.1 0.9 2U | 7.U 7 1........ ■ ! 120 ! 272 it H It " 27 1 | 12.0 | 7.7 ! 71.2 2.2 2U i 7.U 3 256 it N It " 29 •* 1 15.0j 8.1 179.5 1.5 2U0 1 7.U 8 284 iii! i II i Knapp "Cr. J mi. above Duke Center^ Pa. AKn 276 Aug.23 1 | 1U.5 ; 8.2 i 79.6 . 1.3 2U ; 7.6 « tr n " 27 1 ! 12.0! 8.8 i 81.3 1.1 2U i 7.5 « n n It 25 1 j 15.0; 8.4 I 83.0 1.9 2U 1 7.U j ! 1 | 1 | 1 1 |i Knapp Creak below ..Duka Center, Pa. AXn 27^.5 Aug.23 2 j 15.0 j 5.6 155.3 1.7 U60 i 7.3 2 ! iiu j 284 n N ■ 27 2 | 12.5j 6.9 ! 6U.5 1.1 2U0 | 7.3 1 5 j ; 268 ti H IT It 25 3 j 15.0 j 7.6 j 75.3 1.2 2U0 i 7.3 5 I > 296 1 i ! j 1 | ! j i Oewago Cr. 1 mi. above Shin^lehousei Pa. A Ob 276 Aug.19 15 j 20.5 j 7.2 j 79.6 1.9 2U i 7.0 33 I it tt " " 26 16 | 13.5 I 8.9 | 85.1 1.5 U ! 7.2 ill! 1 ! j i i • ! ; ! j S ; ' ' OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS Milaoge Fraa Mouth Dal* 1940 Average ; Dlscharg* I clL 1 j | DtMolvod Oxyo*n ! *C j p. p. a. ! % Sal. | 5 Day ! B.O.D. ! p. p. m. j ColifoHM M. P. N. P« ml. Turbidity P. p. M. ! Alkalinity ! | P- P- *• j Hardn*M P - P . IB Oswago Cr. 2 ml. below ShinglehouBe_, Pa. AOs 271.5 Aug. 19 28 ! 20.0 j 7.2 78.7 j 2.3 i 110 7.0 ! 10 1 ** i 56 N a a " 26 24 1 13.0 j 8.8 83.1 j 1.0 i 460 7.1 1 1 j j ! ! | J ! i Ganeesee Cr. i mi. AOsO 278 Aug.21 1 ] 13.5i 7.7 73.8 j 1.2 ; 46 t 7.0 ! 66 | n * a " 26 1 I 12.0j 7.0 64.5 ; 1.0 j 46 ; 7.0 a - a Sept.4 1 j 16.5 • 8.4 85.4 i 1.5 i 9 ; 7.2 ;j|! I | Geneseee Cr. 3 mile* below Bolivar j N. T. AOsO 273.5 Aug.21 4 116.0: 6.0 i 59.9 : 2.0 j 43 j 7.3 3 i 66 i 192 a a a a 26 5 j 13.0 | 6.1 1 57.7 i 1,7 i 240 i7,2 14 i 190 a a * Sept.4 4 18.5! 6.2 ; 66.0 2.0 23 ! 7.3 7 188 : j i ! i | Oswago Cr. ®r. TRoute 16, Mill Grovet N.T. AOs 266 Aug.26 26 14.0 i 8.5 i 82.1 1.2 4 i 7.2 4 1 38 i 58 | j S i j i ! Allegheny "S. "J ml. above Portsville.H.Y A 265 Aug.16 51 20.0! 7.2 i 78.4 1.7 2 ! 7-1 4o j a a n a 19 53 19.5! 6.3 i 67.6 1.8 46 i 7.0 ! ! II a » a 27 57 12.51 7,4 1 69.4 1.2 46 ! 7.1 | Allegheny S. 2 ml. below Portsville^.Y. A . 263 Aug.16 94 20.0 j 6.0 ! 65.9 2.1 15 \ 7.1 i 41 | ■ a ■ a 19 97 20.0 ! 6.0 ! 65.4 2.2 46 ! 7.0 - a n a 27 io4 13.0 j 7.4 ! 70.0 1.6 93 I 7.2 2 ! 96 | i ; j j I Allegheny B. 3 ml. a-bove Olean, N. T. A 261 Aug. 16 99 20.0 | 6.4 ! 69.8 2.1 9 i 7.1 43 1 a a • a 19 105 20.0 i 6.1 j 66.2 2.7 4 : 7.0 a a tt a 21 122 16.5 ! 8,0 ; 81.6 1.5 8 I 7.2 i lachua 5*. 374 mi. above Trankllnvllle.NY A01I 282 Aug.21 12 10.0 i 9.0 ! 79.5 1.5 24 ! 7.5 j 131 1 a a ■ " 26 12 U.5 i 8.5 i 77.4 0.5 24 i 7.6 - a • a Sej>t.4 8 15.5 i 7,7 i 77.0 1.8 _______ | 7.6 iii i j j lachua Cr. J ml. beiow Franklinville, N. Y. A01I 280 Aug.21 15 13.0 i 7.4 170.3 4.2 4 ! 7.4 8 ! 107 ! 114 " a " " 26 19 12.5 ! 7.6 | 75.7 2.8 2 ! 7.4 8 118 " a It Sept.4 19 17.0 • 7.0 | 72.1 12.4 24 ! 7.4 3 124 Oil Creek, J mile above Cuba A010 275 Aug.21 2 11.0 I 5.0 ! 44.9 1.7 24 1 7.4 | 131 i a » N ■ 26 1 12.0 i 5.9 ! 54.5 2.3 23 1 7*U ! a a ft Sept.4 2 14.0 ; 4.6 | 44*1 1.8 23 1 7‘2 i 1 {I; { j j j j Oil Creek 2 miles below Cuba, N. Y. A010 272 Aug.21 6 11.5i 5.2 ! 47.0 2.9 1,100 i 7,1 10 j 98 j 104 a a It " 26 6 12.5 1 4.4 ! 41.2 2.5 430 ! 7.2 : 5 ! i 108 a a It Sept.4 19 14.5 j 6.6 ! 64.5 2.9 430 i 7.2 10 | 102 i i Clean Cr. Olean fiater-works, Olean, H. Y. A01 261.5 Aug.16 34: 21.0; 7.1 ! 78.8 2.3 4 1 7-4 14 I 4l ; a a s a 19 36 i 19.5 • 6.8 173.3 2.1 4 i 7.4 ! 3 S ' 94 « a a Sent ._J ____te. 1.18*0 j 1 96,4 1.6 . . 24 ! 7 4 6 88 a a • a U 55 ! 18.0! 8.7 i 91.6 1.6 9 1 7.5 16 i 1 i j i ; ! ! | Allegheny S. 1 mile below Oleanj N. Y. A 256.5 Aug.16 113 j 19.0 j 2.2 i 23.9 4.3 15 i 7a 77 i * * " a 19 118 ! 20.0; 1.0 i 11.0 6.4 240 i 7.0 i 90 !" a 21 142 j 17.0 | 8.6 ! 88.8 2.8 23 ! 7.3 ; ss OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS Saapling Point Mil«ao« From Mouth Dot* 19UO Averoo* \ T-„ i ' )ischarg»; or- ' • ! — - ! t|.t ; | p. p. i*. ; % Sol. , 5 Da/ 1 B.O. D. j p. p. m. | Coliform ; M. P. N. | Par ml. ! pH ; Turbidity p. p. m. ! Alkalinity j | p. p. «. ; Hardness p. p. m. Allegheny S’. J mi. above Allegheny, N.Y, ▲ 25U.5 Aug.16 130: 2.6 u.i i U3 i 7.1 : 72 j it ti • » 20 1U3 j 16.0: U.O ! UO.U 2.U i 23 i 7.1 : • tt ft it gg 131i 1U.5; 5.0 i Us.6 2.8 ; 15 : 7*1 i ! 1 i ! 1 ! 1 1 1 1 Allegheny R. £ mile below Allegheny^N.Y. A 253.5 Aug. 16 159 : 19.5 | U.7 ; 50.6 2.5 i 93 i 7.1 | j 69 j 82 « n » " 20 166 j 17.01 3.9 ! Uo.U 2.8 U3 j 7.1 i 76 it ■ - n 22 iug i 15.01 u.9 ; U8.7 2.0 ; 9 j 7.0 | 3 98 I' I I i i II | ! Tunungwant Or. 1 mi. above Bradford,Pa. ATu 25U.5 Aug.22 2 i 1U.0 i 9.U i 90.8 1.5 15 ; 7.2 | i ^2 i » - tt it 27 2; 13.0 j 9.0 i 85.u 1.6 2U i 7.2 i it It tt .....29.. ______8 I 15.5.1.9,1. 1.90.9. 1.0 9 7.1 j j j | ! i ¥.Br.Tunungwant (Jr. 1 mi.abv^Bradford,Pa. ATuE'b 255 Aug. 22 8 j lU.O'l 8.8 j gU.8 2.2 9 i 7.2 i 5 i 53 i 312 » » It H 27 . 8! 13.0! 8.7 | 82.3 1.6 2U0 7.2 I 8 25U . it ■ II « 29 2U; 16.0 1 8.5 ; 85.8 2.U 93 7.2 ! 7 30U Tunungwant Cr. l£ mi. below Bradford,Pa. ATu 2^9.5 Aug. 22 21 j15.0 i 0.1 : 1.2 7.9 U,6oo 7.1 21 i 82 i 25U n n It 27 21 115.0 ; 1.2 | H.5 5.0 930 7.2 13 260 it it tt n 29 58 117.0 i U.6 j U6.7 1.9 .1.500 7.1 11 2UU i j j i j tunungwant Cr. 2 mi. above mouth,IrvineMill ATu 2U6 Aug.28 101 ; 15.5 ju.o j Uo.o 10.6 2,UOO 6.9 220 : 30 i 1UU n * tt » 30 CVJ ITV VO rH VjD j 2U.7 1.3 2U0 7.0 7 ! | 192 i I • ; • i Allegheny R» 1 mi. a-bove Salamanca, N. T. A 236.5 Aug. 20 317 j16.5 ;6.0 j 60.u 2.U U 7.1 ! 7U j it If n 29 991 |i7.5 i 7.1 173.9 3.7 U60 7.2 : h II it Sept. 3 600 !18.0 j6.8 171.0 1.6 U 7.2 1 ! » ! ' S Great Valley Cr. 2 mi. above IllicottvilletNT AGv 2U9 Aug.20 2 11U.5 i 9.2 i 89.5 •3.1 9 7.3 77 i n ■ " Sept. 3 8 j17.0 ;8.7 i 89.5 1.2 2U 7.2 i ii it it n I* 8 116.5 i7.5 i 76.0 1.5 8 7.0 | Great Talley Cr.2^ mi. below IllicottvllleNY AGv 2U5.5 Aug. 20 3 | l5.5i 9.U j 93.6 1.3 2U 7.3 82 j it n N Sept. 3 lUj 15.5 j 8.6 j 85.6 0.7 15 7.2 i it tt If it lj 8| 16.5; 8.U i 85.7 1 1*3 lU 7.2 1 8U i j j j ; j ! Great Talley Cr.l mi. above Gr.Valley,N.T. AGv 2U3 Sept. 3 lU 1 16.5 1 8.8 i 89.7 l.U 2.U00 7.3 • i i i j J » j TJreat Valley fir. 2 mi. below Or.Talley, N.T. AGv 2U1 Sept. 3 29 j 16.0 i 8.9 : 89.8 i 1.0 U 7.2 86 i ! i i ; ; j j Great Taiiey ^r .¥£ mi. above Salamanca,#.Y. AGv 238 Aug. 20 7115.5; 9.7 i 96.3 i 1.6 9 7.U 85 i 96 n tt It it 22 6 i 12.0; 8.7 j 80.0 1 1.9 9 7.U i 80 n it - Sept. 3 3o| 17.51 9.1 i 9U.1 i 1.7 U3 7.3 : |i| j j • ! i i little ValTey "Cr. 2 mi abv.L. Talley, N.Y. ALv 2U3.5 Aug. 20 l j 17.5 | 9.3 i 96.U l.U U6 7.2 i 5S : tt N It it 22 ** ] 11.5.1 7.5 j 68.5 2.2 2U 7.1 i It N ■ Sept. 3 lj 17.5 j 9.1 i 9U.7 ! 1.1 U 7.3 1 iii; i ; ; 1 OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS Sampling Point Milooga From Mouth Dot* 19U0 Average j )ischarge i c. f. s. : _ ! Dissolved Oxygen ! I«"*P- j.......7........| •C- 1 p. p. n. i % Sal. j 5 Day B. O. D. p. p. m. ! Coliforms ; : M P. N. ; > Per mi. ! pH i Turbidity p. p m. ! Alkalinity ! | P p. m. ; Hardnra p. p. m. •■Trm'rrairry TF:-r'm'L below L.Valley,N.Y. ALv 2U0 Aug. 20 2 i 16.0| 9.2 92.1 i 1.3 1 u3 j 7.2 : 3 72 | 82 n " " " 22 1! n.oi 9.3 8U.3 : 1.1 9 7.3 | 3 8U " . . " Sept. 3 1! l“.7i 9.5 92.8 | 1.3 9 7.3 | 9 I 60 i ' i • 1 j i i i Allegheny R. 3 ®i. below Salamanca, N. Y. A 228 Aug. 20 365; 16.51 5.5 55.8 | i U6o 7.U | : 81 | n " " 29 l.lUoi 17.01 6.6 68.1 | 1.3 U3 7.U 19 i i 100 " " " Sept. 3 6su; 17.0; 6.8 69.9 i 2.U I 23 7.2 i 2 62 ! i ! i ! i S i "Cool Spring Cr. 2 mi. above Steamburg, N. T ACoS 226 Sept.17 9! 13.01 10.0 91*.u | 1.3 1 15 7.2 33 j " » tt 23 2; 15.5: 9.6 95-2 i 0.9 9 7.2 I | ' ! • ! | ! | | Cool Spring Cr. 1^ mi. ACoS 223.5 Sept.17 10 i 13.0 i 8.6 81.0 i 2.3 | U60 7.2 2 : 27 1 1*0 " tt tt 23 2: 17.01 0.0 00.0 i 19.6 | 2,1*00 7.2 18 : 62 ; i | | ; i j ]| Kinzua Cr. 1 ml. above Mt. Jewett, Pa. AKi 236 Aug. 28 8 1 1U.5 | 9.U 91.5 | 1.1 9 6.9 17 : " " 30 6 I 17.0; 8.9 91.5 i 0.6 i 2U 6.9 j i UTinzua Cr. 3 °i• below Mt.Jewett, Pa. AKl 231 Aug. 28 11 ; 1U.5 | 9-1 88.3 2.2 j U6o 7.1 3 i 3U 92 * - - 30 8: 17.0: 8.7 89.3 1.0 I U3 7.2 23 120 | 1 I 1 1 j i Hubert Run, 1 mi. above Xane,. Pa, AK1H 231.5 Sept. 9 1 j 1^.51 9.3 90.5 1.7 i 2U 6.3 9 1 - * " 12 ** s 9.5 iio.U 90.3 1.1 *• 6.3 n 11 " 19 ** ' 12.0]10.3 | 95-5 1.0 ** 7.1 I i i | | i j i Hubert Run. J mile below Kane, Pa. AE1H 229 Sept. 9 31 15.0; 5.1 | 50.3 38.3 ; 11,000 6.9 32 i 56 76 " " " " 12 21 12.0: 0.6 ! 5.U 70.0 1110,000 6.8 31* i 78 " " * " 19 21 1U.0 i 0.0 : 00.0 100.0 |2U0,000 7.2 16 i 56 ! i ! J ! ; : Kinzua Cr. Br. on &t. 219, at mouth AKl 203 Sept. 12 1+6 j 12.5 iio.6 i 98.5 1.1 u 7.2 8 31 38 N n » 19 3U I 16.5 |l0.2 I103.7 2.6 1 7.0 2 Uo Allegheny R. Br. on ■ - 16 670 i 15.01 8.9 i 87.6 1.2 1 7-U » - - . " 20 .........550!, lG.oi S.8 i 88.2 0.9 i 1 7.2 : Little Sonewango Cr. Br.St.lj,abv Randolph ACoLc 225 Sept. 11 Uo i 12.5! 7.6 : 71.3 1.8 i U6 i 7.2 1 72 I - « " 17 1*0 1 12.5: 8.2 1 76.5 1.1 U3 7.2 - " - 23 28 j 1U.5! 7-U I 72.1 1.2 2U0 7.3 ■ i i *■ 1 i ! Little Conewango Cr. If mi.bel.Randolph,HY ACoLc 223 Sept. 11 1*2 13.01 7.5 ; 71.0 1.6 i 23 i 7,2 13 i 75 78 • « - 17 Uo 13.01 8.0 1 75.6 l.U j 21 : 7.2 ! 18 50 11 - It 23 37 15.5: 7.1 1 70.5 0.9 i 39 | 7.2 1* 8U 1 ! 1 I i I ■ j Lake Chautauqua,Cel ero Park, Celeron, H.Y ACoChLc 225 Sept. 11 16.0 | 7.2 : 72.8 2.5 i 110 i 7.2 U9 i 11 - - 17 16.51 9.5 i 96.8 2.0 u I 8.7 11 - " 23 19.5: 8.7 I 93.5 1.9 2 i 8.1 ! 1 1 1 i i Lake Chautauqua,City ACoChLc 223 Sept, U 15.51 8 -3 i 82.7 2.2 U i 7.8 8 : Us 50 11 It ' 17 16.0; 10.8 1108.1 2.5 1 u3 : 8.7 3 50 " It It 23 19.0; 10.51112.2 2.1 2k i 8.2 ! 3 58 | III:! | OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS Sampling Point Mileage From Mouth j Avorao* I T : Dat» iOitcl.j.-ae! or i ' - 19U0 | c. f. .. ! jP-P "-; %Sal. liforms P. N. «r ml. •n 1 Turbidity p. p. m. Alkalinity j Hardness p. p. m. j p. p. m. dhadakain fi. Off fit. 17 Falconer, N. Y. ACoCh 218 Sept.11 | 16U j 15.5] 7-9 78.8 110 7.2 i U6 | 11 If 11 17 332 i 16.0: 9.1 91.9 2U0 7.3 j 18 i 5U N n tt • 23 300 • 17.0; 8.u 86.2 2U0 7.6 i | I ! i j ! Cassadaga Cr. Br. on Ht, 17t Levantj N. T. ACoCa 217 Sept.11 31 j 15.51 7.1 70.5 9 1 7.2 : 15 78 | su n tt it " 17 30 j lU.5| 7.8 76.H 2 7.2 i i it tt " " 23 26 j 17.0; 7.1 73.0 U I 7.2 i i i j i j j j Cassadaga Cr. S.of Ht. 17, Levant, N. Y. ACoCa 215.5 Sept.11 200 | 16.5; 6.5 66.1 240 j 7.2 ! 57 1 “ n 11 " 17 36U j 16.O! 8.U 8U.U 2U0 1 7.8 I 23 i 56 « 11 tt 23 326 1 18.5j 7.9 83.8 93 1 7.U j 7 62 i | | i ! > j : Conewango Cr.5th St. Br. Warrenj Pa. ACo 193 Sept.10 600 i 16.5; 7.3 7U.2 75 j 7-2 i U2 U5 j 52 » « ft " 16 610 j 15.5: 7.U 73.8 23 i 7.2 lU i 72 11 tt " 20 UOO ; 1U.5; 8.5 82.6 U60 i 7.2 17 i 72 Allegheny R. U mi. be-low Warren, Pa. A ISU.5 Sept. 10 1.3U0 j17.0 i 7.3 i 75.U 150 ! 7.2 38 tt it « " 16 1,320 i16.0 !7.9 79.8 93 I 7.3 5 it it it " 20 1,090 jlU.O ill.l jl07.2 15 I 7.6 7 iii; i Hare Cr. $ mi. above Corry, Pa. ABrH 210 Sept. 13 10 112.0 j 9.6 i 88.3 9 i 7.2 H 11 tt " 18 6 ;12.5 18.9 i 83.2 U 17.3 « it ft it 2U 7 jlU.5 j2.5 i 2U.2 2, Uoo i 7.1 Hare' Cr. 1 mi. below Corry, Pa. ABrH 208 Sept. 13 18 112.0 i 3.2 i 29.U 1,500 j 7.1 23 " it ■ " 18 8 j11.5 i 0.6 i 5-6 2,UOO i7,1 n tt tt it 7 jiU.5 j2.5 i 2U.2 2, UOO 17.1 i ; ! ! | Hare Cr. } mi. below Corry, Pa. ABrH 206 Sept. 13 18 j12.5 I 0.6 i 6.0 230 | 7.0 it 11 tt " 18 8 jlU.O IO.D ioo.o U.300 17.2 lU 11 it ■ it 2U 7 115.5 |0.0 ioo.o 110,000 i 7.2 15 1 Mathews Run, 2 mi. above Youngsville.Pa. ABrM 188.5 Sept. 10 6 i 16.0 i 9.5 i 95.1 u • 6.8 U " 11 " " 16 3 | lU.O j 9.9 : 95.i u i 7.2 tt 11 it » 20 3 j 1U.0 i 9.9 | 95-U 2 i 7.2 | I ! i | II "Brokenstraw Cr.l mi. above Youngsville, Pa ABr 189 Sept. 10 112 i 16.5 i 9.3 1 9U.3 U6 17.6 it 11 It " 16 128 i lU.O ! 8.7 i 83.7 U i 7.U " H " " 20 82 ; 15.0 i 11.6 ’II3.9 2 i 8.1 i i i i | i I Brokenstraw fir. Br. Rt 6, Youngsville, Pa. ’ABr 187.5 Sept. 10 120 i 16.5 j 9.8 i 99.6 U3 i 7.6 8 it n » 16 1321 ifc*5j 7.3 1 70.7 9 1 7.U n tt n " 20 85 I 15.5 j 11.6 jll5.8 2 i 7.7 __________i iii i 1 1 Brokenstraw Cr. Br. on OS 6, Irvinet Pa. ABr 18U Sept. 10 i 17.01 9.3 | 95.6 2U i 7.5 it tt " 16 13U i 15.0 i 8.5 i 83.3 15 i 7.U 5 n tt tt " 20 87 i 15.0 i 11.8 1116.0 15 : 8.2 U ill! i | OHIO RIVE' POLLUTION SURv'EY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS Sampling Point Mileage From Mouth Date I9I+O Average J t—__ 1 Duiolvod Oxygen j 5 pgy • Coliform* Discharge! or ' ! _ , (B.O.D. ! M. P. N. c.f. 1 : ^ : %So'- • P.P.«. j p««i. •n 1 Turbidity p. p. m. ! Alkalinity ! | p. p. m. ; Hordneo p. p. m. West Run, city limits, Kane, Pa. ATiEbW 207 Sept. 9 ** j 15.0 j 8.9 j 87.6 j i.3 i 9 7.1 1 ! 35 | » n tt it 12 •* ; 10.0110.0187.9 i 0.8 i 4 7.1 | : « tt ti 19 ** i 11.5 i 9.1* 185.9 j 0.9 1 2 6.9 | ( ! ! ; j j j ii j j West Run 2 miles below Kane, Pa. ATiEbW 205 Sept. 9 6 115.0 | 7.1| 70.0 | 3.9 j 240 6.5 \ 12 ; 20 | 50 it H n it 12 4 i 10.0 j 8.3 i 73.1 i 3.2 | **3 7.0 ; 2 i 46 a n ti 19 3 i 11.0 | 7.1i 64.2 | 3.2 i 15 6.8 ; 1 | i | i j i i j j Iwo Kile Sun, Ti mi. above Ludlow, Pa. ATiT 200 Sept. 9 11 i 1U.01 9.51 91.8 1,2 46 ! 7.0; I J-7 i n N it " 12 8 i 9.5 | 10.6 ! 92.U 1.6 9 ! 7.1 i i ; n II . tt 19 8 i 10.5 | 10.5 i 94.0 0.9 4 : 7.1 1 I 1 I 1 1 j !| li Two Mile Run, 1 mile '.elow Ludlow, Pa. ATiT 198.5 Sept. 9 17 j lU.5 ; 8.9 | 86.8 2.0 240 | 7.0 ; 16 : 19 i 3** » - tt tt i2 10: 10.0; 9.2! 81.6 3.0 1,100 I 7.1 I 7 i 36 II ti It n lg 8 I 11.0 1 9.11 82.1 2.3 460 | 7.2 i 4 | 40 Two Mile Run, at mouth Shetfiieid, *a# ATiT 19U Sept. 10 1+0 | 15.0 j 8.U i 82.9 2.0 46o ; 6.6 ; 11 1 28 ; 76 tt ti II 16 161 13.51 10.01 95.U 2.7 240 i 7.1 i 3 i 28 « tt II « 20 12 j 14.0; 9.l| 87.7 2.1 4,600 1 6*3 j ■j 32 j I i i | || j : Tionesta Cr. 1 mi. above Sheffield, Pa. ATi 19W Sept. 10 65:15.5; 7.6:75.4 1.7 46 | 6.4 ; I 21 i it it It 16 26; lU.oj 9.3 ; 89.8 1.0 8 i 7.0 | j i » it N " 20 25j lU.oj 8.7 ; 83.8 1.4 24 i 7.0 i | j I 1 i 1 1 lj | 1 Tionesta Cr. l£ mi. below Sheffield, Pa. ATi 192.5 Sept. 10 1C8 | 15.0; 8.1 i 79.7 2.1 240 | 6.6 i 23 i 2? | 28 " n " « 16 uu j 11+.0; 9.7 • 93.u 1.9 1,100 ; 7.o i 9 | | 24 - n It " 20 ...._37l.lMi __ 8.6l 83,3 _ 2.1 240 I 6.9 1 10 J { 3.0 | ; i j | ; j | | Allegheny R. State St. Bridge,Oil City, Pa. A 134.2 Oct. 3 1.550! 15.0; 9.3191.9 0.3 *• i 7.4 i 1 47 i it ti II 15 1,160; 13.5; 9.5 1.91.0 1.5 9 1 7.4 j | n " It 11 24 1,1101 8.0jll.U I q^lj 1.2 4 j 7.3 j : ; Oil Cr. 1 mi. above Titusville, Pa. AOi 153 Oct. 3 8 113.0 ; 10.9 ;102.7 1.4 .4 : 7.5 : 73 It n 11 It 15 8 i 12.0 I 9.5 ; 87.1+ 2.0 8 : 7.U i | II ti " It 24 9 | 8.0 ; 11.9 j 100.1 0.8 ** I 7.6 | | i | ; | | | !| | I Oil Croelt, if mi. beiow Titusville^ Pa. AOl 1U9 Oct. 3 8 113.0 i11.3 :106.9 : 1.1 43 i 7.8 | : ; 78 n - It " 15 12 i 11.5 i 8.8 1 80.1+ 2.6 75 1 7.3 | : ■ " it tt it 2l+ 10 I 8.0 i10.8 ; 91.1 0.9 7 | 7.5 | i i » ' i i s i ' Oil Creek, J mi. above Rouaeville, Pa. AOl 139 Oct. 3 55 i13.0 jio.5 199.2 ! 0.7 * + i 7.5 i 45 it ■ " 15 71 I13.0 | 8.3 ;77.9 i 2.1 4 j 7.3 { | n " ■ " 2U 78 i 9.0 ; 9.9 185.2 i 1.4 1 17.4 ; J i | j | | ; | Oil Creek ^ mile below Rouseville, Pa. AO* 138 Oct. 3 58 ;15.0 ; 8.1+ 182.7 i 3.7 i 43 ; 7.8 I 73 N tl II 15 74 il4.5 i 7.1 |68.9 i 5-3 460 i 7.2 i n It " It 2U 80 1 9.5 j 8.0 169.9 1 3.3 3 1 7.4 | OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS Sampling Point Mileage from Mouth Date 1W j Dissolved Oxygen ! >. 1 ----- , ; p. p. m. j % Sat. i 5 Day B.O.D. | p. p. m. Ccli forms ; M. P. N. J PH Per ml. | Turbidity p. p. m Alkalinity p. p. m. Hardnou p. p. m. Oil Creek, Bridge Sen-* AOl 135 c6. 3 5j 5-01 53.1 j 3.5 2U0 i 7.U 7 71 102 n n 11 15 oj 3.1 30.5 i U.2 2U0 j 7.2 23 100 - tt n 2U oj u.ui 38.8 ; 1.7 9 i 7.3 8 108 ! i 1 j j Allegheny River, 2 mi. below Oil City, Pa. A 132 ct. 3 0; 9.8| 9U.1 1.2 U6 | 7-U 8 U7 60 » ,1 15 0! 9.U 88.3 1.7 U3 i 7.3 5 7U ■ it 11 2U 51 H.2 93.1 1.1 u i 7.U 5 6U j Allegheny R. 1 mi, above Franklin, Pa. A 127 ct. 7 0: 8.7 89.7 1.6 U6 j 7.U 29 n n it 16 5! 9.1 79-3 0.5 U3 ! 7.2 " 11 n 25 0! 10.2 87.9 l.U 93 1 7.U 1 ■ i j French Cr. above town Union City, Pa. AFrSb 197 ept.13 5; 9.3 86.6 1.3 2 ; 7.1 89 ■ II M 18 5; 8.8 8U.0 1.1 2 j 7.U " ,, 2U 5| 8.0 80.9 0.9 U \ 7.5 Frencii “r. l£ ml. Ye- AFrSb 195 " 11 it 18 l : 8.6 83.3 1.6 230 j 7.2 2 88 » „ 2U l 16.3 163.9 2.2 U30 | 7.5 8 96 i ! French Cr. Bridge U.S. bj Cambridge Spgs. Pa :AFrSb I7U pt. 13 | 8.8 85.9 0.9 2 ; 7.U 87 " II If 18 I 9.2 91.3 l.U U ; 7.U II : n II 2U j 8.6 91.3 0.9 8 i 7.5 ; Trench Cr. 3 mi. below Cambridge Springs,Pa. AFrSb 172 pt. 13 i : 9-7 93.9 1.3 9 17.5 13 85 8U " i it n 18 l : 9.0 91.9 1.9 U ; 7.U 7 82 " : 11 n 2U 17.6 80.2 1.6 2,Uoo ;7.U 23 92 : j Cussewago Cr. 3 miles above Meadville, Pa. jAFrC 158.5 t. 15 ■7-3 67.u 1.9 1 i 7-2 lU 68 " i it tt 2U • 6.9 60.5 2.1 •1 j 7.2 2 80 French Creek, 3 miles above Meadville, Pa. AFr 161.5 t. 3 l iio.7 106.3 0.8 u 17.9 85 " it it 15 l i 9.u 67.8 1.2 9 i 7-U t! it if 2>4 1 i 8.5 77.7 7.6 ** j 7-U 1 French ®r. 2 miles below Meadville, Pa. |AFr 152.5 t. 3 ! U.U UU.6 2.7 230 :7.2 lU 81 86 it it n 15 : 1.7 16.7 6.U 2U0 ; 7.2 102 it n it 2U ! U.g uu.o U.3 1,100 •7.3 15 96 ! | French Cr. 13th St. Br - 16 | 9.8 8U.U l.U U | 7.U 8U » 11 it 0 ; 10,2 88.2 2.0 110 :7.U 8 7U i Allegheny River 1 mi below Franklin, Pa. AFr 12U.5 t. 7 i 8.3 •85-2 1.6 93 :7.U 5 66 60 " II II 16 0 j 9.U j80.8 1.5 23 :7-2 j 72 11 II ft 25 : 9.8 ’83.8 2.0 u 17.6 6 90 j | : j OHIO RIVER. POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS Sampling Point lower Two Kile Sun H mi.abv mod.Iranklin.Pa Mileage From Mouth ALO 125.5 Date ......ia®.........j Oct. 16 Average Di>cK»j'ge c. f. s. 3 Temp ' ' ®C. ; p. p. m. ! % Sot. | 5.5 |i2.2 196.5 | S Day B. O. D. P-,P-,»- 1.2 Coliform* M. P. N. Per ml. u 7-2 Turbidity p. p. m. Alkalinity p. p. m. 130 Hardnott p. p. m. 170 Sulfur Sun. 'Sr. on St. 62, Stoneboro, Pa. ASaS 135 Oct. 7 ** lU.o 9.1 i 87.8 j 2.6 93 7.2 26U it it it ** 6.5 11.6 I 93.8 ! 1.2 2 7.9 ■ 0 11 8 25 | + + 8.5 10.5 i 89.8 1 1.7 2 7.6 III: ' 1 I i Sulfur Run Br. near HR eta. Stoneboro, Pa. ASaS 13^.5 Oct. 7 *• ; 15.0 5.U i53.2 i 2U.0 6,000 U5 210 2UU 11 11 it ■ 16 ! 1 7.0 9.8 j 80.U I 3-7 1.500 7.5 292 it 11 25 1 i 8.5 8.3170.9 j 5.2 U.300 7.9 lU 32U | J j ! 1 1 Sandy Cr. Bridge Rt. 62 Sandy Lake., Pav ASa 133.5 Oct. 7 5 ;15.5 j10.1 i00.8 j 1.5 u 7.6 78 __________Li_________ Sandy Cr, 1 mi. below Sandy Lake, Pa. ASa 132 Oct. 7 5 115.0 7.617U.6 j 1.2 15 85 it ■ - " 16 5 1 7.0 8.7 ; 71.7 j 1.1 9 10U Sandy Cr. Off Rt. 62 Polk, Pa. ASa 123.5 Oct. 7 6 i16.5 9.9 ; 100.9 i 1.0 l 73 n It it " 16 5 i 6.5 n.7 | 95.2 I l.U 1 7.U it II n It 25 6 | 8.0 n.3 | 95.5 I 1.5 2 7.2 | | | | 1 1 • 1 Sandy Creek ^ mi. below Polk, Pa. ASa 121 Oct. 7 10; 16.0 9.1 j 91.8 i 1.2 150 3 68 102 n tt n " 16 10 | 7.0 U.U | 93.7 | 1.3 u 7.2 it ti 11 i. 25 10 j 8.0 11.0 1 92.8 i l.S 9 22 9U • i • i > 1 _________________!...... Little Sandy Cr. Br. Rt. 62, Polk, Pa. ASaL 123.5 Oct. 7 u ;16.0 9.6 196.u i 3.3 9 7.3 53 58 » „ 1" 16 u 1 7.5 11.2 i 93.6 i 3.7 ** 60 11 i u I.JU5. 10,1:87.6 i u-3 ** 10 £U Allegheny R. Bridge Rt 38, Emlenton, Pa. 91.6 [Oct. 10 1,7^0 j11.0 9*9 : 89.0 i 1.2 *• 7.3 55 11 1! 11 !" 23 1,760 | 7..0 11L.897.U j 2.5 1 7.U Allegheny River 3 “1. below Emlenton, Pa. A 87.2 Oct. 10 1,780 i 11.5 9.5 1 86.7 i 0.7 8 56 « it 11 .1 23 1.790 i 7.0 11.9 ; 98.0| l.U 2 7. ! iii! W. Br. Clarion R. § mi. above Wilcox^ Pa. AClWb I9U.P Sept. 9 26 I 15.5 | 9.5 1 9**.3 | 1.7 2U0 22 it " 11 12 12 j 11.5i 11.0 I 100.7 i 0.9 u 7.2 ■ ! " n n lg 10 : 15.0 1 lO.Ui 37.7! 1.5 9 1 W, Br. Clarion R. 1 mi. below Wilcox, Pa. AClVfb 193 Sept. 9 59 i 15.51 8.51 8U.3; 3.5 2U0 35 2’4 88 n n it it 12 26 i 12.01 10.U | 96.31 3.0 150 7. 5 9U tt II it it lg i 19 | 12.5 : 9.8 i 91.U; 2.5 93 7 82 W. Br. Clarion R. Brid^ it !" tt Oct. 8 22 i 13.51 8.8i 83.sj 2.8 U60 6.8 3 70 it 11 11 ii : II II " 28 i 23 | 8.0 i n.5i 97.11 l.U U30 it I II 11 " JO 1 20 I 7.5 i 11.8! 98.3i 1.8 93 it ! II n " 31 1 21 | 8.0; 11.6 j 98.1! 2.3 2U0 7. 1 II. ! * 1 1 OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS Sampling Point Mileage From Mouth Dal* Average | Discharge \ c. f. *. ! 00 ! Dinotvod Oxygen 1 9. p. m. ] % Sol. : 5 Day 1 B.O.D. p. p. m. Coliform* { M P. N. • Per ml. ! i Turbidity p. p. m. j Alkalinity j Hardnen | p. p. m. | p. p. m. 2.Br.Clarion R. 1st Ave* tciib 188 Sept.30 Uo : 30.5 i U.1 i 53-8 j 5.2 ! 2U0 i 7.2 1 5 : 39 i 50 • . Oct. 8 36 j13.0 j 8.1 i 76.8 ; 1.7 I 93 : 6.9 : 3 i U6 » 11 - " 18 uo i 8.5 i 12.u | 105.7 i 3-1 ! u i 6.8 i : 66 II H « " 28 29 i 6.0 j LI.8 j 95.0 j 1.8 u ] 7.2 j : : • S Clarion &. Bridge in town,Johnsonburg,Pa. Aa 187 Sept. 30 61 i 21.0 ; 0.0 :00.0 • 159 210 ! 7.3 i 65 122 i - n " Oct. 8 58 i 27.0 i 0.0 I 00.0 • 292 11,000 i 7.2 i i If » " " 18 62 20.0 i 0.0 i 00.0 j 268 2.uoo | 7.1 j ; II - It " 28 53 i 15.8 j 3.0 1 30.U i 128 2.2U0 j i,.6 ; : » » tt 30 62 ;17.0 j 0.0 i 00.0 ; 77.5 6,700 ! 7.0 i | ti - tt •.....J-1— 62 j 16.0 i 0.0 i 00.0 j 216 930 7.0 i ; i 1 I | j | 1 Clarion E. 1 mi. below Johnsonburg, Pa. ACl is6 Sept• 30 65 i18.0 : 6-.i i 63.5 ; 17.5 U30 • 6.6 ; : 7U i " “ " joct. 8 60 i1U.5 i 0.0 i 00.0 j 7U.U 11,000 6.9 j 1 i II 11 " " 18 63 | 9.5 i 0.0 i 00.0 i 117 2, Uoo 7.0 : ^ j ■ n . " 28 ...........5UilP«l.i U..7 ' ui -r : ......J*;*. .....JLS&..... : « II • Oct. 30 63111.31 0.0; 00.0 i 35.2 9,800 7.2 | : it H II 31 6Ui 10.3: 1.9 1 17.2 85.7 2, UOO 7.8 1 i i i Clarion H. City limits. Ridgeway^ Pa% aci 182.5 Sept. 30 87 i 12.0 i 7.6 | 69.7 16.5 U60 6.6 1 52 ! n n N Oct. 8 80 i 15.5 1 5.2! 51.2 27.5 11,000 7.0 ; i n n " " 18 7U j 8.0; 0,6; U.6 99-8 U.300 7.1 i j 11 n 11 . 28 7U 7.5 | 0.0i 00.0 2.8 2, Uoo 7.2 ; | « ii »tt « 30 87 7.5 | o.oi 00.0 8.U 930 7.2 - n It » 31 88 ; 8.5 | 3.7 i 31.7 59.2 U,6oo 7.3 i i j j Ilk Cr. Br. off Rt. 120 St, Mary's, Pa. AC1K 193-5 Sept. 27 2 10.0; 10.8 i 9U.9 •a ** 3.1 ; 190 » - » Oct. 8 2 13.5 | 8.0; 76.5 2 3.1 : uoo " " II " 18 2 8.0 i 9.8 i 82.5 5.8 ** 3.1 ; U50 • i • i 1 ! 1 1 1 Ilk Cr. J- mi. below St. Marys^ Pa. ACl I 190 Sept, 27 u 10.5 i 9.6 j 85.u 17.9 ! U,6oo 6.1 U iu ; 10U " » Oct. 8 u liiSj- 5s1.L^i!L_ .......3?.i 2,Uoo. .6.5 j - - . Oct. 18 ! 5 7.0 | u.6 i 37.9 72.6 ; 7.500 6.2 190 | |..... Ilk Cr. at mouth, Ridgeway, Pa. AC1I 181 Sept.30 2U 10.0; 10.3 I 90.6 1.1 U6 6.3 2 | U j 36 11 11 It " Oct. 8 i 18 12-5 j 9.U| 87.3 1.7 2U0 7.0 7 i 32 ,, - tt " 18 | 7U 6.5: 9.9 | 80,5 6.0 j U3 7.1 6 | 98 i» n It ft ■ 30 2U 6.5: U.5i 93-5 o.u 1 1,100 6.9 16 i U8 ' Clarion R. 1 mi. beiow Ridgeway, Pa. ACl 179 Sept.30 112 1U.0; 6.6; 63.9 13.0 j U30 7.2 16 i 67 i tt n tt 11 Oct. 8 1 98 1U.0 ! 6.3; 60.8 8.0 ; 1,500 7.2 18 98 n it ■ II Oct. 18 | 90 9.0: 0.6 i 5.3 125. : U.300 7-U 38 1 350 tt n 41 ft Oct, 28 99 7.51 1.0: 8.0 2.1! 3.350 8.2 1 it n It tt * 30 | 110 7.0 i 3.Uj 28.3 9.3 i 2,Uoo 7.U U8 i 32U n i " tt " 31 111 9.0: 'U.9! U2.2 8U.U; 3,500 7-U 65 i 276 Mill Creek, fit. 358 at mouth AC1M 178 Sept.30 6 12.5 9.7: 90.1 1.0 2 7.0 16 is : ti it ft 11 Oct. 8 ■1 13.01 9.6: 90.U 1.5 U 7.0 7 I 32 i ................ i . i 1 ! j |! OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS Sampling Paint Mileage From Mouth Date 19U0 Avorage ; )i*chorge c. f. ». Temp. S °C j Dinolvad Oicygen p. p| % Sol. 5 Day | B.O.D. ! p. p. m. j Coliform* M P. N. Per ml. ; *>h ; Turbidity p. p. m. Alkalinity j p. P. •• { HardiMM p. p. m. little Toby Cr. 1 mi. above Brockway, Pa. MlToL 18U.5 Sept.27 2U 7-5 | 10.8 i B9.7 .......O'*"’:" 1.1 i ** i 3.2 I 11 it n « Oct. 9 18 7.5 i 10.2 ; 18 W \ ** i 3.0 i 8 2lU « 11 V tt * 17 20 5.5 ii2.0 i 9U.7 "0.5*'i 1.3 i ** i 3.1 i 15 260 I 1 1 | 1 | i j Little Toby Cr. City IClToL 182.5 Sept.27 30 7.5 10.6 188.1 1.1* j 2.3 ! 2U i 3-U j 8 it n » tt Oct. 8 22 8.0 ; ..9,2 j 8115... 6.9* i ** i 3.o i 11 ■ it tt * 17 22 6.5 i 9.U 1 76.5.. 0.9* i 1.2 : ** j 3.i | j : 228 i • ; i ! i i | i Toby Cr. Bridge Route 9U9, at mouth AClTo 17U Sept.30 26 11.0 10.6 195.2 o.V ; 1.2 1 ** ; 3.2 J 3 12U 11 n . it Oct, 9 26 7.0 jll.U :93-9 1.1* : 1.2 j ** ! 3.0 | 5 I i .156...... it it N ____.17___ 25 7.5 j12.8 i106.8 0.1* 1 .0.7..:. ** i 3.2 I 8 i i .1.30..... | j ! i ; ! ; I | Clarion River, above Portland Mills ACl 173 Sept.30 lU2 13.0 5.1 :us.u 12.2 j ?1 j 6.1 j 35 i 16 i 158 „ « ft Oct. 9 135 9.0 7.6 165.6 U.3* i —2t7„.i. U3 1 U.7 j ! ! 13U . - * 17 126 8.0 U.5 i 37-6 58.8 j 2U0 : 6.5 | i . ft ft ________22...... 92 5.0 6.0 ;!•:?.a 6.1 | 2U i 6.6 I : i R R II • Oct. 31 185 6.5 8.9 i 72.U 17.91 U6 ! 7*1 i iii: : j j i i Clarion R. Bridge in ACl 168 Oct. 1 175 11.0 6.3 : 56.9 6.6 j 15 i 6.8 i 27 n n n tt " 9 157 10.5 U.8 I U2.U 2U.1 j 2U0 1 6.6 It H - 17 137 8.5 U.8 i Ul.3 187 j 1,100 : 6.3 11 n N It 1. 29 98 6.0 6.1 i U8.6 8.8 i 93 i 6.8 ti tt « tt 31 215 6.0 7.6 i 60.6 31.U j 2U ! 7.0 i j 1 Clarion R. Br. Rt.3'f8f MUl«*Pne,. .??>............ ACl 150 Oct. 1 196 ill.5 6.6 :60.5 ! 6.2 j 2U i 7*1 I 29 » tt 9 160 111.5 5.0 j U5.9 23.2 i 93 1 6.9 ! « It tt " 17 150 ’ 9.»Q : - - II " 29 119 i U.o 7.5 ! 57.U 3.0 ■ 15 I 7.0 N tt ■ •1 31 2U5 i 6.0 8.5 | 67.9 ! i8.u | U6 i 6.9 i i I i ; | ; i Clarion R. Bridge Rt. Clarington^ Pa. ACl 1UU.5 Oct. 1 2>*7 i 12.0 6.5 j 59.6 i 6-8 i U6 17.0 i 31 n it II - 1 9 181 i 11.5 5i5;5Qi 1 15.8 | 2U0 : 7.0 1 ! n n • ■ °ct. 17 163 : 8.5 6.7 j57.0 : 38.0 i 23 1 6.9 j “ j it n » tt " 29 135 i u.o 7.3 I 55.8 i U.2 ; 9 i 7.1 tt n It tt Nov. 1 278 i 6.0 : 8.6 i 69.2 j 18.U i 2U0 i 7.1 ; ! j j j j ; Clarion R. Bridge Rt. J6, Cookiburg, Pa. ACl 135 Oct. 1 286 i13.0 7.2 | 67.9 7.5 i U6 : 7.1 28 j 11 ■ tt ■ " 9 190 j12.0 : 6.0 j 55.2 1 25.3 1 U3 i 7.0 i | ■ ti ■ 17 176 : 23.0 ! 7.2 | 83.1 I 13.7 I 23 j 7.0 : 82 n 11 tt • 29 IU7 | U.o ; 7.8 I 59.5 1 7.1j 2 : 7.2 N tt tt tt Nov. 1 298 i 6.0 i 8.8 : 70.2 6.8 : U6 : 7.0 ! Clarion ft. 1 mile above Cooksburg, Fa. ACl 137 Nov. 1 300 | 6.5 i 8.8 j 71.U : 7.0! U6 | 7.o i ! j J } * 2 | ! ! Clarion R. 3 mi* eouth of Scotch Hill, Pa, ACl 132 Oct. 9 198 ; 13.5 j 6.5 i 62.0 i 11.8 ! 93 : 7.i i | n .. « 29 152 | U.5 : 8.2 i 62.9 : 2.81 U i 7.2 1 76 II 11 - « Nov. 1 310 ! 6.5 i 8.9 i 72.2 ! 7.7 i 9 1 7.1 : 218 i i i i i i I ! j ! • ! { 1 ; ; OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS Sampling Point Mileage From Mouth Date iq4o Average DischnrQO Temp. °C. Ji“Lv^. QxVS!*!' i 5 Day ! Ccliforml j j T„,, . 1 B.O.D. ! M.P.N. pK T"Wd“v p.p.m. | % Sot. | ppm ; porm, , . P-P-m. Alkalinity p. p. m. Hardneis p. p. m. Mill Cr. fi'ney Reser- AClMi 123 Oct. 1 45.0 5.6 j 55.2 ! u.i i 43 I 7.2 i 7 39 94 ! j j j | "Clarion River,Piney Res. Mill Cr, Pa. ACl 122 Oct. 1 13.5 7.u i 71.0 I 3.0 j ?4 i 7.0 i 29 ■ j j j i Toby C", Bridge off Rt. AClTob 118 Oct. 1 16.5 1.5 i 15.4 ; 2.0 i 4 i 6.6 ! 4 32 98 I I 1 { Clarion S. Bridge Rt. ACl 112 Oct. 9 16.0 2.1 i 20.7 i 3.0 ; 4 I 6.6 | 15 78 ! i ! 1 Clarion P.. Bridge Rt. 378,Callensburg, Pa, ACl 101 Oct. 1 263 15.5 8.5 i 8U.3 | 1.0 j 8 j 7.1 | 32 11 n 11 tt 23 233 10.0 8.6 i 75.5 | 1.9 ! 1 j 7.1 i i ; i | | Clarion E. Bridge south ACl 9O.5 Oct. 1 290 15.5 9.3 ! 92.7 i 0.7 ; 2 i 7.2 ; 8 28 84 11 itt " 10 248 10.5 9.7 i 86.9 i 1.7 j 4 j 7.2 : 2 32 90 » II II 23 274 s.o 10.8 I 90.8 I 1.3 j ** i 7.2 ; 12 88 Allegheny R. 3ridge Rt. bSjParkers Landing,Pa A S3 Oct. 10 2,020 11.0 10.1! 91.U j 1.1 j 4 • 7.3■ 5^ 11 11 11 11 23 2,070 7.0 ii.3: 92.6; 1.6 | 2 j i.k\ ill Allegheny R. Bridge Rt. 68,East Bradyj_ Pa. A ' 70.7 Oct. 10 2,100 13.0 9-7 i 91.2j 1.0 I l | 7.U| 42 11 11 11 " 23 2, ISO 8.5 11.6 ’ 100.7' 1.3 ! 4 i 7.4i 9 78 i i i i Sandy Lick Creek above DuBois, Pa. AReS lUl.5 Sept.27 2U 13.5 10.7 101.7j 0.6 j 15 ; 6.4; 80 tt 11 it Oct. 11 14 7.5 10.2 84.8j 1.5 j 4 I 6.6| 1 i • Sandy Lick Creek,below AReS 138.3 Sept.27 25 13.5 8.2 78.3; 17.2 ; 24,000 ; 6.5; 22 89 52 « tt n Oct. 11 15 8.5 5.6 U7.9I 6l,6 i 24,000 i 6.7! 64 It : II II n 21 16 6.5 6.0 48.9! 35.0 ' 46,000 I 7.1; ! i ! Jails Creek 1 mi. above ?F.lis Creek, Pa. ; AReST 139 Sept.27 2 11.5 10.8 98.4; 1.6 | 4 ; 6.5; 17 n | It II Oct. 11 2 S.O 10.5 88.5i 1.0 j 2 ! 6.9j Falls Creek,Bridge Rt. AReSF 138 Sept.27 10 11.5 11.0 100.6; 1.3 j 4 ; 6.4; 20 20 24 tt n w Oct. 11 6 8.0 10.1 84.8j .2.7 j no ; 6.9 i 32 ! I j j Soldiers Run, 3W above Reynoldsville.Pa. AReSS 132 Oct. 2 ** 8.5 10.5 89.5! ifl 1 j 3.1 j ^ 4l0 « it it Oct. 11 ** 5.0 10.5 .......'! t;t»;........-!--;-....... 82.3! 1.5 i ** ! 3.0! 520 ! | ; I i ; Sandy Lick Cr. Bridge Rt .J^^ReynoldsvillejPa AReS 131.5 Oct. 2 23 10.5 7-7 68.4j 1.5 i 9 ] 6.5 26 ti tt 11 it u 19 6.0 8.8 70.9| 1.8 | 15 j 6.5 ! ! Sandy lick Cr.City lim- AReS 130 Oct. 2 24 10.5 7.2 64.2\ 2.2 : 4 ! 6.2 3 21 86 » n " 11 20 8.0 7.0 59.3: 2.0 i 9 i 6.3 72 : { Sandy Lick Creek,city limits, Brookville.Pa. AReS 115.5 Oct. 4 39 12.0 9.5 88.oj 1.0 ; ** I 6.4 6 12 124 ft tt Oct. 14 35 9.5 9.9 86.2; 0.9 i 1 j 6.9 5 88 ! - . ..... i ! ! OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DAfA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS Sampling Point Mileoge From Mouth 5 Dole 1540 ! Average 3ischc.rge c. f. s. Temp. ! °C i Dissolved Oxygen I p. p. in. j % Saf. ! 5 Day ! B.O.D. ! p. p. in. ! Coliforms j M. p. n. ; Por ml. ! p*H ! Turbidity p. p. m. Alkalinity p. p. m. Hardness p. p. m. Hf.i’ic.'SedBank Creek,^T. { AReNf 113.5| Oct. 4 1 6 11.5 | 10.0! 0.3 I 50.8: U ! 7.2: 10 60 66 it „ « 14 | 7 8.0 ; 10.2 j 1.1 i 85.8 | 1 : 7-3! 10 28 1 1 j 1 1 | 1 ! Red Bank Cr. City lim- j ARe 112 Oct. 4 1 46 : 12.0 j 9.7 i 1-7 I 89-9 i 2.400 j 7.2 i 25 ii It it it 14 j 42 i 8.51 9.6 i 1.6 ! 82.1 ! 430 j 7.0 j 3 ii D it n 22 } 31 i 7.01 15.3 j 2.6 ' 125.7| 430 ; 7-U i jllj j j i Bed Bank ^"r. \ mi. abv. Summerville, Pa. ARe 103 Oct. 4 j 55 i 10.0i 10.6 1 0.9 ! 93.6 j u 1 7-2! 22 it 11 tt " 14 j 5Q | 9.oi 10.0 j 1.0 ! 86.5; ’ -2 i 7-11 n it 11 It 22 52 1 6.01 13-5! 1.7 i 108.1! ** i 7.3! i i i j i j I Red Bank Cr. City lim- ARe 101.5 Oct, 4 55 i 10.5 i 11.0 ; 0.6 i 98.5 i 23 1 7.2 i 14 23 74 it tt " 1 tt 14 50 I 8.51 10.2 ! 1.0 ; 87-2; 46 i 7.1 i R 11 it tt 22 52 i 4.0 14.5 j 2.4 i 110.5; 240 : 7.31 Red Bank Cr. lj mi. above New BethlehemjPa. ARe 87.5 Oct. 14 58 ; 10.0 10.2 ; 0.7 ; 90.4 i 1 { 6.9 i 66 » it 11 . 22 59 ! “+.5 13.0 j l.U ! 100.0 I 1 ! 7.1 i Hed Bank" Creek, 5 mile below Kew Bethlehem,Pa. ARe 86.5 Oct. 14 59 ! H.5 10.6! 97-0 j 1.1 i 93 7.o| 64 11 11 it » 22 62 | U.5 12.8 | 98.91 2.3 I 93 6.9! 70 ! J ! ; j ! ! Red Bank ^r. 3 mi.sou. of Lawsonhamj Pa. ARe 70.5 Cct 10 49 | 11.0 11.5 ! 103.9' 0.5 i 2 7-2: 21 68 11 it it " 14 64 ! 11.5 10.9! 99-11 1.4 ! •* 6.9! 3 82 “ " ft n 23 76 1 8.0 12.6; 106.3; 0.7 j ** 7.1 i 15 80 1 1 | 1 1 | I Allegheny River, lock No. A 62.2 Oct 10 2,150 I 16.0 8.9: 89.3i 0.6 i 2 7-3! 7 49 78 : ; ; 1 ; I i Sugar Camp Sun,off Rt. 119, Sykesville, Pa. AMaStS 127.! Oct 11 1 i 10.0 6.31 55.4|' 0.7*1 3.9 ; •* 6.3 368 - it „ it 1.0*j *+ 6.2 388 I | | j j i i Stump Creek, ?&*.__________ AMaSt 127. Oct 11 6 | 7.0 5-8 j 47.8; 3.9 i •• 6.4 n tt " I 21 5 ! 6.0 11.6! 93.2! —‘170*j 6.2 ; •• 5.S 260 Stump Creek, 1 mi. below Sy^esville^ Pa. AMaSt 126 Oct. 2 8 ! 9.0 3.2 ! 27.8 i 0.0 ; • • 6.1 150 21 420 it tt tt " 11 8 i 6.5 5.8 i 25.0 j 0.2 : *• 6.6 ; 184 n it " 11 21 ! 7 ! 6.0 12.1 ! 97.1 i "T.T*! 4.2 ■ ! •* 6.1 38 204 Stump ®r. bridge off Rt | | j | j ; j i Stump Cr. 3 ml. below Sykesville, Pa. AMaSt 124 Oct 2 9 ! 9*5 11.0 i 96.0 i 3.7 i »» 3.2 58 520 Mahoning "Cr. 1 ml. abov Punx tatawaey ,Pa. *A*a 113 Oct 2 33 : 11.0 i 10.4 i 94.1; —T5.-JT*! i.3 j 1 U.5 270 N If II it 10 44 113.5 ! 10.2 ; 97.6 j 2.4* 1 0.8 ; ** ' 4.8 114 If ,, n it 22 27 1 7.0! 12.5; 102.81 2.2* ! 1.7 ! •• 5.5! 130 j i ; j ; j | Mahoning Oreek, Bridge Rt • lrg j Punxsa tawnejr, Pa, AMa 109 Oct 2 36 i 11.01 10.5; 9U.5 j 1.6* ; 0.9 ! *• 5.2 34 230 M it n it 10 57 j 13*5 1 10.7 j 102.2 i 1.1 ; 1 6.4 15 It it it 11 22 31 1 7.0 j 12.0; 98.8| 1.4 ; 24 6.5 i i . ! ! i i OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS Sampling Point Mileoge From Mouth Dot* 191*0 Average \ )i* charge | cu ; T ; DiMolvad Oxygon , | p. p. m. ! % Sot. | 5 Day ! B.O. D. ; p- p-» 1 Coliforms M.P.M Per ml. pH j Turbidity p p. m. ! Alkalinity j | p. p. m. j Hardneu ppm. Mahoning Creek AMa 63 Oct. 22 Uq j 3.5 | L3.0 ! 98.0 I 0.1 : ** 6.4 i 178 Mahoning Creek at mouth AMa 56.5 Oct. 10 jlb.O j 9.4 j 94.2 : 1.1 j ** 7-3 I 23 : **5 1 56 1 ! I i 1 |j i 1 Allegheny Lock and Dam No, 8 A 52.6 Aug. 20 830 125.5 j 8.1 : 97.6 i 1.4 | 4 7.4 i i 56 i it n If It 28 1.990 i 21.5 | 8.6 i 96.7 I 1.2 i 7.4 j \ 55 | it " » Sept.12 4,040 j 20.0 j 9.01 97.9 i 1.5 | 4 7.3 i | 49 i - tt " - 20 2,680 i 18.5 i 8.71 91.9 i 1.6 i 7 7.3| I 5i ; - tt It it 23 2.580 ; 19.5 i 8.6 i 92.7 | 2.1 ! 1 7.3! i 50 : it " Oct. 3 2,610 ; 15.0 i 9-8 ; 96.5 | i.4 ; 9 7.5 j ] 50 j it " " it 7 2.170 ; 16.5 i 9.4 i 95.7 i 1*9 • 2 7.3; 1 “»3 j " » - - 16 1,800 : 14.5 i 9.9 | 96.5 ! 1.2 | 4 7.5 i i 48 j » ft If n 21 1,800 1 n.5 | 10.4 : 95.3 1 1.5 | 2 7.4; j 59 I it It - » 31 2,200 : 9-0 i n.2; 96.5: 1.5 ! 3 7.3i i 60 i " II " Not. 5 7,400 ; 9.0: 12.1 ; io4.2 • 1.7 i 4 7.3 | 1 50 ! » It H ■ 22 11,000 i 4.0 1 13.5 i 103.1j 0.9 ; 24 7.1 j 1 39 i - II It - 25 12,400 | 6.0 1 13.2 i 105.4 i 1.4 j 15 7.2 1 1 33 I . Dec. 6 11,700! 0.0 i i4.6: 99.7 i 1.3 i 46 7.1: 26 a - tt » 11 27.80CJ 1.0: 14.1 i 99.2 S 3.0 ! 100 6.9' 23 j j j | ! i ! I ; Craig Run at mouth Rural Valley, Pa. ACoC 62.5 Sept.10 ** 115.0 j 7.8 i 76.8 i x.b*: 3.7 | •• 3.i! 70 610 n It - Oct. 2U ** 10.0 | 7.4 i 64.9 j «*! ** 2.8 I 6 625 it tt ft Hot. 14 6 : 9.0 i 9.3! 80.1 I •* 3.3 i 78 638 | | | i | j I |j Cow&nshannock Cr.,Upper edge Rural Valleyt Pa. ACo 63 Sept.10 3 16.5 i 6.9 j 69.7 : 2.0* : 4.3 •• 2.9! i » tt It Oct. 24 l.i 11.0 i 8.8; 79.0 i l:n •* 2.8: " ■ » Nov. 14 9 4.5 : 11.71 90.1: 1.0* 2^3 ! •• 3.3: i 1 1 1 I 1 I j II Cowanshannock ^r. l/2 mi'.belov Yatesboro, Pa, ACo 60 Sept.10 5 117.5 i 5.4 ; 56.5 1 1.0* 2.5 •• 3*2 1 68 365 ti II " Oct. 24 2 j 11.5 i 6.4 1 58.1 i 2.1* 4.5 •• 2.9l 60 : 524 11 » II Not. 14 16 5.5 110.9 i 85.9 | 0.7* 3-8 4 3.5i 22 320 | ! j ! ! Xilegiieny Stiver, Lock Se Dam if 7 * Kit tanning, Pa. ! I ! I ! { s s s A 45.7 Aug 20 1 1.750 25.0 7.8: 93.3| 1.1 4 1 7.3| i 51 tt n " " 28 1 2.030 21.0 8.3: 92.0: 0.7 4 i 7.3: 52 It » It Sept.12 I 4,670 20.0 8.7: 95.3! l.S 4 1 7*3| ! 53 " « " it 20 I 2,860 18.5 8.6: 9l.5i 1.0 2 i 7.5: 1 52 II " " 11 23 [ 2,490: 19.5 8.4| 90.8! 1.0 2 i 7.2! 45 It » It Oct J ! 2,880 15.0 9.7) 95.8| 1.5 2 ; 7'.4j j 49 - II ■ 7 j 2,490; 16.5 9.6! 97.i; 1.5 1 i 7.4] i “5 It tt tt it 16 1 2,080 14.5 9.6; 93.2! 1.2 •• 1 7.5| j 46 II • - » 21 | 2,080 ll.o io.4i 93.5j 1.3 1 ! 7.2! ! 48 N it tt it 31 1 2.350 8.5 11.2I 95.1; 1.6 4 | 7.3i I 59 It it n Kov • 5 I 7.500 9.0 11.7! 100.8! 1.7 6 | 7.2! : 48 N it - - 22 111,200 4,0 13.5! 102,7! 1.1 4 ! 7,3| : 37 tt ■ - 11 25 112,600 6.0 12.8] 102.3; 1.4 15 1 7i3: 39 " " n Dec . 6 111.900 0.0 14.9! 101.7; 1.4 110 i 7.2i 33 ■ ■ • 11 11 [28,300 1.0 14.2! 99.8i 2.2 24 j 6.9j 1 25 L.....J_i_____1 1 1 L I 1 i OHIO RIVER POLLL7ICN SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS Sampling Point MiSeoge From Mouth Dot© 19*» Average j Discharge c.f. ». ; Diuolvod O*yo«n ! 5 Day J?5' 1 1 ' B. O. D. °C | p. p. m. | % Sol. 1 p p m Coliform* M. P. N. P*r a.:. | Turbidity j Alkalinity ! Hordnets *” ; p. p. m. 1 p. p. m. ! p. p. m. N. Br. Plum Cr..upper ACrPlNb 78 Sept. 10 3 119.0 j 7.0 j 74.3 1 i‘X 2 ! 3.2 j it it ii Oct. 24 1 9.5 I 9.9 | 86.4 I 2:5* ** 2.9; ii n it llov. 14 5 ! ,1 i 1.3* 5.0 111.6 ! 90.3 1 1#J ** 4.0i j ! j j 8. 'fir. Plum ^r. 3/^* mi. below Sagamore, Pa. ACrPlNb 77 Sept. 10 4 17.0 j 7.41 76.01 no 3.2 • 45 ] i 145 n it n Oct. 24 1 ! 0.9* 10.0 ! 7.3 I 64.7 ; 4.9 •• 3.6 j 14 ] i 316 it it 11 Nov. 14 5 1 O'. 9* 5.5 I 11.2 ; 88.8 ; 2.5 •* 3.9 | 6 j I 152 j j I i i ' ' Crooked Cr. Crooked Cr. Res.Above Dam (10'depth ACr U9 Bov. 7 9.0 ’] 9.7 i 83.3 j 1.3 2 6.9 j 6 ] i8 ; 126 " (351 depth) ti it 11 • 8.5 i 9.7 : 82.4 i 1.0 4 7.0 j 15 ! 18 ] 140 S ; S i i i Crooked Cr. Keservoir above Cam ACr 49 Oct. 24 12 1 1.3 6.9 ] ] 8 ] I { ! i i i Crooked Cr. Reservoir below dam ACr 46 Oct. 24 5 j 1.2 7.1 i 3 i 21 i 109 Allegheny *. Jjock & Dam »5. IVee'oort, Pa. A 30.4 Aug. 20 1,830 25.0 i 7.2 ] 86.4 i 0.7 4 6.7] | 35 ! n tt tt " 28 2,120 21.5i 7.5j 84.51 0.9 24 7.2 j I 52 j " It tt Sept.12 4,920 20.0; 8.2 j 89.11 1.2 43 7.3] I 54 j ■ II 11 " 20 3.020 19.5 i 7.1* j 79.U: i.4 23 7.3: 1 ^5 i tt It tt 23 2,120 20.0j 7.8i 85.0; 1.2 25 7-31 i 52 j tt tt It Oct. 3 3.050 16.0 | 9.1] 91.21 1.1 23 7.5; 1 52 1 tt tt It 3,010 II If It " 16 2,200 14.5 j 9.0; 87.9j 3*8 46 7.3! l ^6 | II It It " 21 2,200 12.0; 9.4; 87.2; 2.0 9 7.3; ] 45 ] H M If 2t450 11.0; 10.2 i 5I.8j 1.4 46 701 ] 60 ] „ ■ tt tt n 22 11,200 4.0 i 12.7 ; 96.4! 1.1 25 7.3• j 37 i N tt tt " 25 13,000 6.0; 12.41 99.6; l.l 24 7.4j ! 37 ] " If ft Dec. 6 12,200 0.0i 14.4j 98.8! 1.5 110 7-3 i i 32 i " - " 11 30,700 -1.0 j 14.7 i 103.4; 2.5 46 6.9] i 24 j ’Conemaugh R. below all sewage, Cressor.j Pa^ AKiCo l4l July 19 4* 15.0 ■ 8.3 j 81.6] 1.9 75 7-3 i | 69 I * ft tl * 31 ** 16.5; 7.1! 72.5: 2.7 460 7.2; ! 86 ] " It tt Aug. 8 ** 17.0] 6.4] 66.1] 4.6 240 7.3] j 97 j I ' ' ] j Conemaugh R. Upper edge of Lllleyt Pa. AliCo 136.! July 19 1 17.51 7-5 j 78.0; ** 3-5! II ft If 31 1 ; 0 4* 19.0 ; 5.6 j 6o.4 ; 15 3.4] It If ft Aug. 8 1 21.5 j 5.0] 56.5; Iff* 9 4.11 j | I j j ; | ] j Conemaugh "Hirer, J mi. below all Seu^L|llyAPac AliCo 135.5 July 19 4 : • '14* 19.0 j 8.6 ; 92.0 j 2)3 9 3.11 N if « July Jl 3 18.5 ! 7.6; 80,81 ®»|* l 3.1] It n tt Aug. 8 2 ; , 1 ; 2.0* 23.5 : 6.1 ! 70.7i 2.4 4 3-3! Conemaugh Upper edge of Portage, Pa, AKiCo 131 July 19 12 1 0.3* 20.0 ; 8.6 ; 94.3 ; 0.7 ** 3.1 i tt 11 N 31 11 ' o.s* 18.5: 8.5; 89.7 1 o'l 2.9 j 11 Iii! S1 s * OHIO RIVER FOLT UTION SURVEY LABORATORY DaTA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL- RESULTS .....................................................................? Mileoro From : Month | Average ; Temp. [■ °C ! Dissolved Oxygen 1 5 Day ! Coliforrr.s ; Turbidily ! p. p. m. j Alkalinity ■ p. P- m. ; Hardness p. p. m. Sampling Point 1$0 Discharge1 c.f... 1 p.p.m. ; % Sat. i B.O.D. | p. p. m. j M. P. N. J Per ml. ! pH : T.-out Rue at mouth | Port-ifc-e, ?a. - i AKiCoT 129 I July 19 I 2 I 19.0 j 7.8 : 83.9 I 1.7*; -.-1*9--! ♦* ! 2.6 i 20 | „ >1 II i 1.9*: ** ! i | j : ; i Conemaugh ~R. below town; Portage, Pa. AKiCo 128.5! July IQ [ 14 19.5 i 8.5 i 91.4 I 1.0* i i.5 : 0 : 3.2 : 32 i i " n it | 31 ; 12 ! 18.5 i 8.1 i 86.2 | 0.6* 1 0.8 : ** : 2.9 : 54 i ; II ii u I Aug. 8 j *3 ■ 22.0 ; 7.7 ; 87.0 i 2:1*} 1 | 3.0 j i I j j j ; i ] j N. Fk. Conemaugh R. 100: ; it ii j " 31 1 2 i 20.0 i 7.1 j 77.5 1 i.4 i 240 i 7.3 i i 59 : - ; it tt j |Aug. 8 ^ 2 j 19.0 i 4.2 ; 45.2 i 51.4 : 24,000 ; 7.1 | : 105 ; 1 ' i I'.Fk.Conemaugh R. at LAXiCoNf 127 1 s„ . ! !11 31 i 2 2U.0 i 8.2 ; 96.5 ; 0.9 ! 24 : 7.3 : 4 1 53 : 57 " I" !Aug. 8 2 i 27.0 i 10.0 ! 123.5 i 1.3 i 24 i 7.5 I 8 i 63 i 61 Conemaugh River, above South Fork,_ Pa. j AKiCo 123 I 1 July 22 j 33 i 19.5 j 7.s| .83.8 i w* ; 0.0 1 ** ! 2-71 tt . ; 11 II ! " 30 1 20 | ! 22.5; 7-3: 83-3 0.4*! :____S.7„i 2 j i 3.1 i » In it ! Aug. 7 ! 33 i ! 20.5! 7.3: 80.1 ; 0.5* : 1.0 ** 1 2.9: j ! i ! ; ! ! ; j Conemaugh River,below S FkjCr.Bel.S.Fk^Pa. t i I'AKlCo 122 | j July 22 j 75 22.0; 7.8 | 88.6 : 0.8* j 1-9 ** 2.9: it i it it ! " 30 ! 60 ; 21.5j 6.8 • 76.3 0;if* : 0.3 1 : : 2.8: ii 1 ii it ! Aug. 7 I 52 j 21.0.' 7,3 i 80.9 : 0.7* : 1.0 ** ! 3.0: i : South Fork Cr. above ] AKiCoSf 129 1 July 22 1 8 i 18.5| 8.6; 91.6 : 0.7 : 2 : 6.9! : i4 ! | tt j " 30 | 6 ! 24.0; 8.4 98.1 : 0.4 2 : 6.8; I 15 " | n tt I *ug. 7 j 6 i is.0; 8.6: 90.1 : 0.6 2 1 7.0; • 17 j i | : i : 1 ; South ?ork ^reek above town, South Fork, Pc. | AKiCoSf 124 i luly 22 1 33 : 18.51 7.7 81.1 j II ** 2.8; 67 i 11 I II 11 | » 30 ; 2U i 24.5i 7.5: 88.4 o.Ti* : 2t6 ** ! 2.7! 88 ; " { » ! Aug. 7 ! 19 1 18.5 7.8j 82.5 : 1.9* ! 4.1 ** 2.7! 80 ! Shade Creek below town, Central City, Pp. \ AKiCoStS 13^ i July 18 1 6 : 15.5 i 8.8 ! 87.9 : 1.6* 0.4 1 ! M 1 i » ; II II 1 " 29 I i4 ! 23.5 i 7.4 86.0 : 0.6* i 0.5 24 ! 3.8 II : II II 1 Aug. 9 1 7 : 17.0 8,2 : 83.7 : 0.2 4 : 4.0 I j II \ it n | " 29 I 6U i 22.5 7.9; ; 90.4 ; o.Ti* I 0.7 *« ! 3.o 8.4 ; i 85.7 ; 1.1 i ** ! 2.8 ! ; ! : 1 : 2.8 i : 5 n | n it i" 29 | 140 ! 22.5 i 7.5; ! 85.4 : 0.9 • 21 ! 3-4 42 " : »t II Stoney Cr. Bridge or Rt Stoyestown, Pa. [30 (AKiCoStl35.5j July 17 j 65 ; 17.0 i 9.oi 92.6 : 0.7 i 43 ! 6.9! 17 " I it it !" 26 1101 ! 22.5 i 7.7! 88.5 I 1.0 : 1,100 : 6.7: 19 ! " : II n \ Aug. 12 i 13 i i 19.0 1 8.3 i 89.2 0.1+* : 0.4 ** I 3-6! 1 i : i .. i i j j i OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS Milooge From f _ 11 ; Dat« Mou,h I 1940 i T who. ! ; °c. | Dissolvod Coli forms J Turbidity p. p. m. Alkalinity p. p. m. Hardness p. p. m. Sampling Point discharge c. f. s. p. p. m. j O. D. ! p. p. m. ; M. P. N. J P®r ml. ! pH Stoney 2r. upper edge ! Hooversville, ??.. AKiCoStl31.5= July 1? I :18.0 i 9.0 ! O O 110 i 5.2 » it n | it 26 147 j 22.5 : 7-7 | 1.1 ; 93 j 6.1 15 H " " [Aug. 12 | 13 i 19.5 ; 8.1 i o.2»: 0.6 | *» i 3.5 1 I 1 ■ j j j j Stoney Cr. Bridge J mi.i below Hooversville, Pa. AKiCoStl29.5|July 17 80 13.8.5 j 8.91 0.6* ! 0.7 i 3 i 5.0 " " " j " 26 152 i 23.5 7.5 i 0.7* i 0.7 ! 24 ; 4.2 n " " j Aug. 12 j 13 j 2i.o 8.2 i "o;'2"*'i 0.3 ; 1 i 3-3 i j | | i ! IJuemaKonlng Cr. Upper edge Boswell, Pa, AKiCoStQ133 | July 17 50 i 17.5 8.3 j U.6* ! 0.5 : 24 ; 4.1 ; " It It | It 26 20 : 22.0 7.2 ; 0.2* : 0.4 : 9 : 3.0 * it " |Aug, 12 18 i 20.0 7.4 j 0.3* : 0.5 : ** 2.9 I I III 1 1 Quemahoning Cr. j rti, below sewers,BoswelltPa AKiCoStQ132 |July 17 4g 117.5 8.3 ! 0 .7* , 0.9 i 15 ! 4.8 i " « « ! h 26 22 I 22.5 7.11 ■a;4,r: 0.7 i 9 ; 3-0 j " " " \ Aug. 12 17 i 20.5 5.7 ! -~ow\ 0.7 : ** 2.9 ! Quemahoning Cr. at mouti fiolsoujpie, Pa. AKiCoStq 125{July 17 9 •18.0 6.3 1 1.2 93 6.6 55 i 28 92 ii it n 1« 26 - 1 1 24.5 7.0 i 0.8 93 6.8 13 ! 25 106 H " " l-Aug. 12 1 : 21.5 6.5 | 0.7 9 6.9 17 ! 43 93 l|l ; i Stoney Cr. Upper edge AKiCoSt 124 |July 17 91 ; 19.0 8.9 ! 0.5* 2 4.4 ! " " " i" 26 154 124.5 7.5 : 0.7* 0.9 46 4.1 ! tt " " I Aug. 12 13 i 21.5 F.i i ** 3.3 Stoney ^reek \ ml. below Holsopple, Pa. ; i 0.4 | AKiCoSt 123 {July 17 93 ;i9.5 8.71 4 4.7 2 i it " " |" 26 160 125.5 7.4 j 0.4* 0.6 23 4.2 27 n « n 1 12 . 13 • 22.5 7.9! 0.2* 0.6 4 3.4 j j ; : ; i Paint Creek, above town WindberL Pa. AKiCoStP 1251July 18 5 119.5, 8.2 ! 0.4* o.3_ •• 3.9 i " ti tt j. 29 4 121.5 7-6 | §:r 2 3.4 i it " " !Aug. 9 1 j 18.0 8.4 ; o°-r • * 3.6 ! Paint Creek at mouth Sc&ip Levelj Pp.. AKiCoStP119j July 18 11 j 19.5 8.5: .2,3... 1 2*9 3° | H n n | n 29 1 V i 20.5 8.0] 1.2 1 2.8 40 ] II M H f Aug• 9 j 7 i i8.5 8.5 1 i.U* 2.8 •* 2.9 31 i § | I i ! ; i Stoney ^reek above mou | 0.3* | 1 * j " 29 i 254 j 22.5 7.4| 0.9* 1.1 240 3.4 * H M ! Aug. 9 ; 40 i 23.0 7*9; °*r o,6 ** 2.9 i 1 ! 1 "Stoney "Cr. above ?ern-dale and Johnstown,Pn. | AKiCoStll3.3 July 29 6o4 5 ?2.0 7.2! o.s* 1.6 110 3.4 n | " " ! Xu6" 9 i 88 i 19.5 8.4 j 0.6* 1.0 •• 2.9 n i i " it | it 12 52 i 21.0 7.8! 0.3* 0.4 ** 2.8 i 1 i ! j Stoney or. at mouth, AKiCoStl09.5 July 18 170 i 22.5 8.9I 1.2* 8 3.1 14 j n it it ] » 29 ! 689 : 23.5 4.9 j v.r 24 2.8 290 i tt 0.7* [_________________________j____________ ! j : i i j i ! OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS Sampling Point Mileage From Mouth 1 ! If | { Avarog* j T i DiscSarg* I or ' I c 1 , ! : p p.m. ; % Sal. 5 Day 8.0.0. p. p. m. Coliforms ; M. P. N. • Per m\ ! *H 1 Turbidity p. p. m. Alkalinity j Hardness p. p. IB. ; p. p. m. Conemaugh R. upper edge of Johnstown, Fa. AKiCo 113 July 22 60 125.0 : 7.0 83.8 0.5* .0^5....! * * 2.9 : « - tt " 30 75 !23.5 1 6.6 77.2 8:f ** 2.8 ! » tt * Aug. 7 5° i 22.0 | 7.3 83.O o.§* 0.7 ** 2.8 ! ! ! 1 • Conemaugh R. above moutk of Stoney Creek AEiCo 110 July 22 237 i 34.5 i 3-6 51.1 1.1* 2.6 *» i 4.3 | ii tt " « 30 208 | 33.5 | 3.8 53.5 2."4* 2.6 4 ; 4.0 ; | ti « tt Aug. 7 183 | 32.0 :3.i 42.0 1.6 •0 4.1 i Conemaugh R. KR bridge below Johnstown, Pa. AKiCo 108 July 22 1*15 i 31.0 4.5 : 59*7 2.1* 3-7 4 | 4.5 | 108 i « It tt » 646 129.0 ; 5.5 ; 70.5 i'l.Ti*'" j 2.2 110 i 4.0 i 105 | It tt « Aug. 7 320 ;28.0 4.0 50.5 i 2-3* i 4 i 3.9 i 175 ! i j j 1 1 j 11 Conemaugh R. Bridge a-bove Seward, Pa. AKiCd 101 July 23 360 27.5 ! 4.0 : 50.1 i 1.3* | 3.2 •• 3.8 i * it IT Aug. 1 275 125-5 6.8 : 81.3 ; 0.6* ; o.g 1 ; 3.7 j i " n n 5 282 26.0 6.0 : 72.7 : o.i* : 0.7 ** 3.6 1 i Conemaugh H. 3r. on Rt. 259. Bolivar, Pa. AKiCo 87 July 23 570 j 27.5 7.0 i 87.7 • r-v£> 0*0 9 i 3*7 i 3 » « It Aug. 1 436 :26.5 i 7.1 1 87.5 j ?:r ** 3-5 j 10 tt it « " 5 370 26.0 7.5 : 90.8 j 0.5* ** 3.3 j 5 ; III; j j II Conemaugh R. upper edge of. B laAMXi Ii.® . _ ?®: •_____ AIlCo 79 Aug. 26 3«3 I8.5 8.1 ! 86.0 ! 0.5* : 0.8 9 ! 3.11 i * n " Oct. l4 243 15.0 8.3 : 81.6 •• 3.5 i » - tt Nov. 19 550 4.5 11.2 ; 86.0 i 2.0* : 2.8 ** 4.6 i i i ! ! || II Conemaugh R. 500 yds. AKiCo 76 Aug. 26 388 • 18.5 7.8 i 82.3 •0:5* I 0.7 9 3-1 1 n n H Oct. l4 245 j15.5 8.4 ; 83.6 i sir 1 3.51 | i n ■ It Nov. 19 550 4.5 11.2 ! ; 1.5 : 86.4 i 2.6 ** 4.6 j ; j j ; ;l j! McGee Run,upper edge of_JQflrry_-Eb-...........— AKiCoM 87 Sept. 9 •• 13.0 9.6 j 90.1 i 0.3 ** 6.91 28 n It Oct. 15 ** 13.0 9.3 1 87.5 ! 2-3 9 7.2 i 1 33 i | III! J j | j ScSee T?un,l/V ml. Velow Derry, Pa. AKiCoM 84 !Sept. 9 1 17.5 4.7 i 40.2 j 14.0 24,000 7.2 i 18 | 72 i 115 « ■ N !"..... "Oct. 15 2 115.0 4.2 ; 41.4 i 33.1 24,000 7.2 I 15 87 I 100 S. Branch Bl&cklick Cr. $ mi. above Hanty Glo.Pfl AKiCoBlSb 11 July 23 25 22.5 5.9 j 67.1 i 0.8 ** 2.7 i N it It Aug. 1 2 13.0 14.2 ;134.4 ! 0.9* i 1.3 ** 3.01 II ■ It » 5 2 14.0 7.6 1 72-9 ! 0.6* : 0.0 ** 3.0 i I { • S i j S. Branch Blackllck Cr. lj mi .below Nantj£ Glo AKiCoBlSbllO July 23 26 20.5 6.0 • 65.7 i l.V i 1.6 ** 2.6 ! | a ■ tt Aug. 1 21 17.0 6.3 j 64.8 i 0.5* I.JWL. •• 2.6 | | i • 0 It 5 22 18. 5 6.4 | 67.7 ; 0.2* i i.i ** 2.6 ! j i j S.Br. Blacklick Cr. -YinAopdalju MiCoBlSbl06 July 2J 27 22.5 7.8 1 89-7 | O* | 0.7 •* 2.4 ; 4 j | N H N Aug. 1 20 18.0 8.6 i 90.0 : 0.8* i °.J ** 2.6 j 9 it tt » 5 13 19.5 8.1 1 87.9 : 0.6 ** 2.6 | 6 i i J J 1 j i S. Br .Blacklick Cr. Ab ov e . t1A15R4? Aft_.. AKlCoBl 10U July 23 18 21.5 7.3 ! 82.3 1.7* : 1.8 •• 2.6 j 22. n tt Aug. 1 11 18.5 ...1:1 ! 87.5 | 0.9* ! 1.1 •* 2.8 1 13 OHIO RIVER PC'-OmON SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS Sampling Poinl Mileage From Mouth Date 19U0 ! Average )ischarge c. f. ». • Temp. ! : °c | Dissolved Oxygen ! p.p.m. | % Sat. ! 5 Day 1 B.O. D. : p. p. «• ; Coliform* j M. P. N. Per ml. *n 1 Turbidity p. p. m. Alkalinity j p. p. m. > Hardrwa p. p. HI. H.Br.Siackiicit . abovi town,Vintondale, Pa. AKiCoBl 104 Aug. 5 10 j18-5 ! 8.0 | 85.3 j 6.1* ; o.8 • ee 2.7 i 17 Blacklick Creek, below Vintondale^ Pa, AKiCoBl 10U July 23 | 45 122.0 | 7.0 i 79-5 i "1.8* • J*2....i ** 2.5 i 18 ■ - Aug. 1 31 j 3.9-5 j 8.1 i 87.0 ! 0.9* ! 0.7 i ** j 2.5 j 15 tt tt tt " 5 31 119.0 i 7.U | 79.1 i 0.4* : 0.3 i ** 2.6 ! 27 ' ! ' S ' ' ! { J Dixon Run £ mi. below Dixonville,. Pa, 109.5 AKiCoBlTD Sept. 10 j 3 13.6.5 I 7.6 i 77.2 i 3.** i 2,400 7.1 i 32 i 37 I 139 a « it Oct.24 ** ! 3.0.5 1 8.2 j 73.2 1 1.5 1 4_30 .7.A.i. L.6S.„j n it it Nov. 14 u |5.5 j11.0 i 87.3 | 1.8 230 7.0 i I 34 ; Dixon Run at mouth Clymer, Pa. AKiCoBlTD102 Sept. 10 5 •16.0 i 8.1 i 84.9 | 5.4* i 5.4 i 46 3.7 | i i a n a Oct. 24 1 •3.0.0 • 8.4 74.4 i 0.4* ! • 2.8 : 1 3.3 i 10 408 n a a Nov. 14 5 1 5.5 | 11.2; 89.0 i 0.8* ; 1.9 i 2 >*.3 | 18 258 j | 1 j ; j j j j Marsh Run, at upper edge of Indiana, Pa. mcoBiw 95 Sept. 11 ** 13.0.5 | 7.9 70.2 1 2.4 j 240 7.i 1 i 69 | - a Oct. 25 4141 1 8.5 j 6.7 57.2 i 6.4 i 150 7.3 i i 85 i N It tt Nov. 14 *• j 6.0 9.2 74.0 i 1.8 i 7 7.0 i i 46 • It a Sept.11 ** ; 12.0 8.7 80.3 1.1 21 7.0 I 10 | 54 j 73 . N It Oct. 25 ** | 8.5 7.8 66.5 4.8 4 7.0 i 7 1 52 ; 63 * tt tt Nov. 14 +* i 5.0; 10.0 77.7 1.2 1 6.9 1 5 1 50 i 77 j i j i j j \ 1 j Marsh -^un below mouth of White Run AKiCoBl 92 Sept. 11 ** : 12.5 7.0 65.0 1.8 460 7.1 ; 13 79 ! 158 " H ft Oct. 25 *# i 8.5 6.8 57-5 1.8 36 7.3 i 7 i 93 : 287 It It It Nov. 14 ** j 6.5 8.6 70.0 2.3 75 7.2 • 8 i 75 144 i j j : 1 Two tick Creek mi. above Homer City, Pa. AKiCoBIT 88 Sept. 11 19 • 3.5.0 9.2 90.4 1.0* 1.0 ** i 3.11 1 " ti tt Oct. 25 7 j 8.5 9.9 84.7 1.5* 1.5 ** j 3.7: i ■ tt it Nov. 14 31 i 5.5 11.7 92.7 1.1* 1.3 ** i 3.7 i i 1 i i i i i Two Lick Cr. l/ii mile below Homer City, Pa. AKiCoBIT 37 Sept. 11 1 33 : 19.0 8.1 86.2 1.1* 1.3 2 1 3.01 ■ it it Oct. 25 14 i 13,0 8.7 82.5 tr 2 1 3-3: i " it i« Sov. 14 1 45 i 12.5 8.0 75.2 1.1* 1.2 240 1 3.8 ; j Yellow Cr. water plant below dam,Homer Clty,Pa AKiCoBlY 88 Sept. 11 i 13 127.5 6.8 85.4 0.8* •* 1 3-3 i 22 ! 240 " tt tt Oct. 25 i 6 i 29.5 6.1 79.7 0.9* 1.2 2 i 3-1* i 9 ! 278 ii it it Nov. 14 I 14 118.5 8.5 90.0 O.Q* 1.1 1 I 3.7 1 16 252 Two" IlcR’Cf;" af mouthi Josephine, Pa. I 1 i i i AKiCoBIT 83 Sept. 11 I 38 j 17.0 8.6 88.0 ?:r • * i 3.i j : 330 it tt Oct. 25 i x9 : 10.5 9.3 83.3 • * i 2.9 1 4 ! 483 n it tt Nov. 14 S **7 ! 7.5 10.8 89.4 i:r ** i 3.U | 4 ; 307 | j 1 | j. j | || BTaclcEIcTc ®r. upper edge Blacklick, Pa. AKiCoBl 81 Aug. 26 1 la • 16.5 8.8 89.6 0.9 •• ! 2.6 i i ii tt it Oct. 14 I 40 j 12.5 9.1 84.9 V.o* **•9 »• 1 2.6 1 S » N If Nov. 19 1 155 Lwl 12.4 0.4* 1.0 • * j 30 : i low Blacklick, Pa. AKiCoBl 81 Aug. 26 { 124 116.5 8.9 90.4 0.8 • * i 2.7 • 7 426 it it it Oct. 14 ! 4o j 12.5 9-5 89.0 4,8 *• i 2,4 i 9 462 tt tt it Nov. 19 I 160 ! 1.0 13.0 91.2 if • • i 3-2 | 120 246 i S iii i * i ■ ohio river ryj:in ion sur . » LABOR/;! ORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS Sampling Point Milooo© From Mouth Dale = 19U0 1 AvGrago J Discharge c. f. s. ! _ ! Dissolved Oxygen ! 5 [w, | Temp. -------7-------i _ oC ; B. O. D. ! <-• j p.p.m. . % Set. , p p m ; \ pH ' | Turt>idi,r : Alto ,n,,v Per ml. 1 | j P- P- »• Hardnoss p. p. m. Conemaugh it. we ter | »lant_intake,abv.Salts-! AKiCo 58 ug. 26 I 507 i 18.5 i 8,Uj 89.11 °;y* ! ** 1 2.9 j 5 | 356 II ct. lU | 275 j : i ! 6,g~* : lU.5 ! 9.0 ! 87.2, 0.8 ; ** i 2.8 I 6 | 37*+ 11 it a ov, 19 ! 7U0 i 3.0 ! 12.01 88.9 i o.|* | ** i 3.9 i 65 i 166 i | | j i | j j Mill Creek at mouth, | AKiLoM 91 ept. 9 1? i 18.5 i 7-9 : 83.5i i 9 i 2.9 j 8 ; 295 it it n ct. 15 1 3 i lU.O ! 8.1 ; 77.8 j I ; 2.91 5 i 37U | 1 j j j j j | Loyalhanna Cr. above : all camps, Ligonier, Pa_ AKiLo 91.5 ept. 9 ? 26 | 18.0 j 8.9 ! 93.1 j 0.8 ; U60 i 7.3; | 27 : i 1 i | j ! I Loyalhanna Cr. above, | AKiLo 91.5 ct. 15 I 3 13.5 | 8.3; 79-31 1.8 ; u ; 7.31 i j I ' i i i i • AKiLo 89.5 ept. 9 Ui 19.0: 6.9! 73-8; i 9 | Mi it . Oct. 15 8 1U.51 U-5j “3-91 \‘Jj i 2 : 3-3 j io j 232 j j I 1 : j j Loyalhanna Cr. 1 mi. above Latrobe^ Pa. AKiLo 82.5 Sept. 9 230 18.5 j 8.5 i 89.71 0.9 2 j 6.1! j 9 11 II II Oct. 15 lU • i ; o.V 15.0! 9.0; 89.2; 0.7 ** 1 U.5j ; Saxman Run, upper edge Bradenville, Pa. AKiLoS 85 ept. 9 1 16.5 i 8.7 ! 88.6 i 8 i U.3 j " „ ct. 15 1 1U.5 | 8.5 j 63.1 j hi* 3 i 3.5 : i I • Saxman Run, 1/2 mile below Bradenville, Pa. AKiLoS 8U ept. 9 1 16.5 | 8.7 : 88.u j 9 i U.2 1 18 i. 2U6 ■ it n ct. 15 1 ! Q ff* 1U.5 ! 8.5 1 82.7 | 1)5 2 : 3.6 | 8 j 305 • ! ! IToyalhanna Cr. below Saxman Run,below Latrob< AKiLo 78 ept. 9 23U 18.5 i 5.3 j 56.U : ^5* 110 ; 3.5 j IC9 " 11 it ct. 15 15 15.0 j 1.8 i 17.7 ; *;3* ** j 3.1 i 12 ; i • i i ; j Crabtree Cr. upper edge of Crabtree, Pa. AKiLoC 73 Sept. 18 ** 12.5 j 9.5 ; 88.5 j ** j u.o i • it 11 ct. 29 ** i i.i* 8.0 110.1 ! g^.O 1 l.U 2 i U.2 i j 1 : j j i Crabtree Cr. l[2 mi, be- AKiLoC 72 Sept. 18 12 .....j...— -------; 1U.5 j 9.^ ! 91.3 i 5.6 ** j 2.6 i 135 i ,26U » n it Oct. 29 13 11.51 5,1* i ^9.3; a|;i* ** i 3.1 i 15 | , 17U SaltRourgj Pa. AKiLo 58 Aug. 26 51 17.0i g.s: 89.9 i 0^9 ** i 2.6; 8 ! 6U9 « ti n Oct. lU 36 12.5: 9.8 i 91.U j ol9* ** i 2.6; 7 j 558 it 11 it Sov. 19 I 120 ! O.f* 0.5i 13.1: 90.7; 5.6 ** • 3.3i 125 1 275 1 ! : Kiskiminetas R. 100 yds AKi 58.5 Aug. 26 | 560 ig.5 i g.U; gg.U: •* i 2.9i u i 355 tt n « Oct. lU f 311 1U.5! s.9: S6.9: 5:2* ** | 2.3; 5 j . U01 " n n Nov. 19 860 ■ 0.8* 1.0! 13.01 91.0! 2*1 ** : 3.3| UO i 203 Harper Run, below Iselin, Pa. AKiBlH 6l Aug. 26 1 1,' 1 ; I."U* 1U.5: 9-2: 89-5; i.k 2U i U.3j 150 j 192 » j n n Oct. lU * . i 9.5 j 10.3; 90.0I l[l* ** j 2.9j 5 j 63U N ; n it Nov. 19 1 1 i oJi* ; 3.0; 12.0; 89.U: 0.5 ** ; 75 | • U22 : : j | i Kiskiminetas "R. "Hgwy, Br. above Avonmore, Pa. ! AKi 52, Aug. 29 jl,l60 ; 6.U* j 21.0 j 8.0: 89,3; o!u *• ! 3,2! " n 11 Sept.30 | U02 i 13.5; 9.oj 86.01 ** i 3.0! j n 11 Nov. 29 [1,620 1 0.5| 1U.3; 98.9; u 1 3*9| ! ! ! 1 i i 1 OHIO RIVER POLLUTION AjaVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS Sampling Point Miloage From Mouth Date l^UO Avemg. ; T#mp L> ix. urge, of~ cl.i 1 Dissolved Oxygen ! p. p. m. | % Sal. J 5 Day B. O. 0. p. p. m. Coliformi M. P. N. Per ml. pH Turbidity p. p. m. Alkalinity p. p. m. Hardness p. p. m. Kiskimineta* River, AKi 50 Aug. 29 1,180 | 21.0 7.7 85.2 ; 0.5* ** 3.0 i ! n it ii Sept.30 U03 i 1U.0 9.0 F56.5 i 0.5* -O.a.— ** 2.8 | ! * n n Hov. 29 1,680 i x*5 12.6 89-9 i IV 4 3.5! ! i i | j | i Kiskiminetas R. Yfz mi. below Salina, Pa. AKi 1*9 Aug. 29 1.170 1 21*5 i 7,7 86.5 j 0.4* 1.2 ** 3.0 i j it it ■ Sept.30 403 i 1U.5 1 9.0 87-9 i 0.1** 1.2 ** 2.9 i | • n ti Nov. 29 1,700 i 1.5 i 13.1 93.1* i T.1* 2.6 1* 3-7! !|i 1 i j ! Kiskiminetas R. above Apollo, Pa. AKi U5 Aug. 29 1,180 i 21.5 : 7.9 88.2 j 0.8* 1.1* ** 2.91 ; " „ Sept.30 423 i 1U.5 j 9-0 87.8 i 0.7* 1.1 ** 2.9! j ’ - It Nov. 29 1.910 1 i*5 ! 13.7 : 0.6* 97.31 2.6 1* 3.7 j ! j i ! ; ! i Kiskiminetas P.. above AKi 40.5 Aug. 29 1,280 : 22.0 i 7,2 81.1 i 0.8* ** 2.9 | ! n . Sept.30 U25 j 1U.5 1 9.1 88.9 i 0.6* 0,7..... ** 2.8 i [ it " n Nov. 29 2.090 | 1.5 : ii*.o 99.5 j l.V 2.5 21 3'7I netr Erady Run.Leechbg. AKi 36.5 Aug. 29 1,310 j 22.0 j 7.0 78.7 i o.u* 2.0 ** 3.0 13 I 349 ■ II II Sept.30 U38 i15.5 i 8.6 85.3 i 0.6* 2.1 ** 2.9 10 360 n * tt Nov. 29 2,210 | 1.0 513.7 96.1* | 1.3 u 4.1 38 170 | ; irisJcirlnetas "R. near Hyde Pgrk, W. Leech- AKi 3**«5 Aug. 29 1.300 i 22.5 i 7.9 90.5 ! i:? - 3.1 ! » II » Sept.30 **35 i 15.0 i 8.7 86.0 1 0.8 1 3.0 1 » II " Bov. 29 2,170 I x*5 i 13.7 97.9 j g 3.9 | ; ! j ; i JffskTminetas S. at mouth, Freeport, Pa. AKi 31 Aug. 20 465 |25.0 i 7.5 89.0 | 1.6 3 7.4 10 **5 98 " - « " 28 1,470 119.5 1 7-3 76.5 j 1.2 ** 2.9 10 324 » „ II "lYI* II - » » 20 U50 ; 20.0 1 7-U 80.2 0.5* 1.7 «* 2.9 7 301 » « " Sept.23 440 i 21-5 : 7.3 81.7 i kV ** 2.8 6 329 II " » Oct. 3 403 j16.c : 8.1* 84.2 i 0.9* 2.8 ** 3.0 5 356 » « » 7 367 !18.5 : 8.1* 89.3 * * 2.9 7 315 • N . Cct. 16 335 i i4.o ; 8.1* 80.8 I u.i ** 2.8 6 386 II " II " 21 362 1 7.5 : u.o 91.2 : 1.8 ** 2.8 5 428 tt " 31 630 ;10.5 j 9.7 86.2 j l.U* .J-i... e* 3.0 5 403 II Hov. 5 1.1*00 110.5 j 9.9 88.3 ; ?:r 1 3.5 8 225 » n n ............. 1.2* ee • n ■ 25 -1.150 : 6.0 1 9.2 78.8 o'. 9* 1.9 1 3.3 5 282 II I" Dec. 6 =2,000 | 0.0 113.6 93.0 -0:7*” 2.1 1 3.6 5 175 " !" ■ " 11 ^3,1*80 i u.o 112.1* 9>*.7 0.5'* 2.3 1 3.6 6 198 1 I 1 j j Allegheny River, Took and Dam Bo. U, BxecJsicjciage,. JP&j.________ La 2U.2 >ug. 20 2.340 j25-5 i 7.1 85.1 * * ^•3 " I" 11 " 28 U.170 j 21.0 i 8.3 92.3 CM OO ** II : II " Sept.12 15.760 j 19.5 i 8.5 91.6 0.8 ** 6.1 I 10 II 1 H ■ |" 20 2,970 ;19.5 i 8.2 88.8 0.6 3 6.4 j 13 " \n «• |M 23 !2.550 ; 20.5 1 7.8 85.“ 1.1 24 6.4 i 14 " |. Oct. 3 13.^70 j 16,5 i 9.2 92.9 0.6 23 6.9 i 29 ! j j OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS Mileage Fro* w .Dtaojve n5n°r> Coliform M.P. N. pH Turbidity Alkalinity Hordnea IS-w 00 p.p.». % Sat. p. p.* Per ml. P. P m r A 2U.2 Oct. 7 3.050 17.0 9.2 94.4 0.7 2 6.6 20 ft * - - 16 2.560 14.7 8.8 86.4 ......... ..is.?... ** 5.5 N tt If " 21 2.56c 11.5 9.1 83.2 §:?• ** 5.7 It tt It " 31 3,100 U.O 10.0 90.3 0.8 ** 6.5 19 tt tt ■ Nov. 5 9,000 u.o 10.5 95.0 1.2 15 7.0 45 it It 11 » 22 12.300 5.0 12.3 96.0 0.9 9 6.9 31 n It - tt 25 iU.500 6.0 12.1 96.6 1.2 43 7.2 29 it tt It Dec. 6 iU,5oo 0.5 14.2 98.3 1.6 46 7.0 28 it " It n 11 34,500 1.0 14.4 101.5 2.4 46 6.9 22 Xllegheny Slver.i'ock & Dam #3,Sprin«iale. Pa. A _____}1... Aug. 20 2.360 28.0 6.8 76.8 0.5*' 0.8 .. 4.4 It It It 28 4,210 24.5 7.9 94.0 &r ** 4.3 It It It Sept.5 6,000 24.0 8.6 100.2 0.8 240 6.7 24 tt " " n 12 5,310 21.0 8.8 98.3 1.1 . 102 6.7 10 25 111 II - - " 20 3.200 22.0 8.4 95.1 0.8 24 6.7 10 21 116 It . 23 3,110 23.0 8.0 92.5 1.3 93 6.7 12 16 120 R N * Oct. 3 4,000 19.0 9.0 96.6 1.2 460 6.9 8 31* 110 It It It Oct. 17 3.110 19.0 8.8 94.4 1.0 43 6.8 10 26 119 II - - N 16 2.750 18.0 9.0 94.1 1.1 9 6.8 7 15 111 It H It It 21 2.750 14.5 9.0 88.0 1.2* ...1.2... 1 5.7 4 ....123 H tt It " 31 3.H0 14.0 10.0 96.6 1.5 2 6.5 6 14 131 It It II Nov. 5 9.200 10.5 U.2 99-9 1.7 43 6.7 5 26 120 It tt - - 22 •12,500 6.5 12.4 100.4 1.2 46 6.8 10 2fi 91 n II - . 25 as. 500 6.0 12.8 102.6 1.8 110 7.2 12 31 82 N It » Dec. 6 -15.100 1.0 14.2 99.8 1.2 24 7.0 8 22 63 tt - II tt 11 37.500 1.5 14.6 103.8 1.5 46 6.9 12 21 64 Allegheny R. Lock i Dan *?..l..... A 6.7 Aug. 20 2.380 27.0 6.8 84.5 1.5 2,400 6.6 6 9 130 It " - It 28 4,240 24.0 8.1 94.6 tr 36 4.4 3 It N - Sept.5 6,050 23.0 8.6 98.7 1.3 460 6.5 7 12 130 It II • It 16 2.700 20.0 8.6 93.3 x.o 460 6.7 14 It H 25 3.790 21.0 8,2 91.1 2.1 443 6.8 17 - N II Oct. u 3.240 16.0 9.1 91.7 1.2 >*3 6.8 33 H It n II 9 2.760 18.0 8.9 93.6 1.5 240 6.9 26 II It it 11 18 2,800 15.5 9.3 92.3 2.9 460 6.9 19 tt N it - 23 2,800 13.0 9*1* 88.8 1.5 240 6.7 13 tt N tt Nov. 1 9,300 13.5 9.7 92.8 2.5 460 6.8 14 tt It ti H 6 8,660 10.5 12.0 107.0 1.8 37 7-0 24 It II " tt 13 9.300 7-5 12.5 104.2 1.9 240 7.0 33 tt It ti » 27 15.200 6.5 12.4 100.6 A;3 .....15? 6.8 28 It It tt Dec 4 22.700 0.5 15.9 110.0 2.5 838 6.8 22 It tt it it 10 39.800 1.0 15.0 105.1 1.9 93 6.6 25 Allegheny R. at mouth, ?Att«buf£hJ_ Pa._.......... A 1.7 Sept . 16 2.700 20.0 5.9 63.9 3.0 363 6.8 10 23 118 It - - m 25 3.790 21.5 2.0 22.7 5.8 2,400 6.8 8 21 . 123 tt tt - Oct 4 3.240 18.0 3.1 32.1 5.4 .....930. 6.7 12 40 102 N N 11 it 9 .2x760 19.0 ..40,1 1.8 .....?40_ 4.7 .....10 . 112 ■ " - n 18 2,800 16-.0 2.6 26.0 7.0 930 6.8 10 23 ........IL2......OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS Soapllng Point Mileage Fra* Mouth Dote w ; SOoy ; Mm | ; TuAtd| j AMM* ! Hardness ^ST\ ^ j p-p-- i *** ! i \ I p-p-* : ***• j Allegheny River, at mouth, >itt8burght Pa. A 1.7 Oct. 23 2,800 ji3.5 ; U.U i 1*2.1* i U.i j 230 i 6.5 i 7 I 17 J 116 - n n Nov* 1 9,300 113.5 i 5.5 i 52.9 i U.i i 763 I 6.9 ; 6 1 lU i 12U ■ . « 6 8,660 jio.5 [10.9 j 97.U j 2.1 | 230 i 6.9 i 6 i is j 130 • If II 13 9,300 j 8.5 |11.6 1 98.5 i 2.1 j 230 j 7.0 j 16 j 35 i 100 n II H " 27 5,200 i 6.0 ;13.5 i108.3 i 2.3 j U30 j 7.0 i 12 i 27 j 90 N n n Bee. U 12,700 i 1.0 115.8 i110.8 j 1.6 i 36 ; 6.7 : 12 | 19 i 71 • n n » 10 19,800 ; 1.5 iiu.8 i 105.6 i 1.8 : U3 i 6.7 | 90 : 22 1 76 ! ! j 1 j I j ! ! * Seeded and neutralized. 111!! i i ! i ** Lee* than one iii* i i i i i iji!! I j I j ill!! 1 i ! i ! i 1 I i | ! j i 1 I j I 1 j i 1 i j j | ! j | j ! ! j. I ! 1 i 1 )Stream Sampling Point Month 19U0 No. Sam- ples pH ACl D I T Y P.P.M. IRON P.P.M. Methyl Phenolphthalein Ferrous Total Red Hot Cold Elk Creek Mile 181 Abv. St. Marys, Pa. Mile 193.5 Sept. Oct. Nov. 1 1 1 3-1 3.1 3.1 118 198 1+28 236 322 1+86 188 278 1+72 6 9 15 60 80 100 Toby Creek Mile 172 Abv. Brockway, Pa. Mile I8U.5 Sept. Oct. Nov. 1 1 1 3.2 3-0 3-1 9§ 108 92 118 102 102 88 1.1+ a tt 1+0 Bel. Brockway, Pa. Mile 182.5 Mouth - Mile"172 Sept. Oct. Nov. Sept. Oct. Nov. 1 1 1 1 1 1 3-U 3.0 3.1 3T2 3.0 3.2 66 136 13I+ r ^ 21+J+ 170 182 160 166 11" 28I+ 178 liio 166 135 256 202 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.5 18 25 22 -5- 12 Clarion River Mile 86.1 Portland Mills, Pa. Mile 173 Oct. 1 4-7 32 56 1+8 0.2 1+ Soldiers Run Mile 129 Abv. Reynoldsville,Pa. Mile 132 Oct. 2 3.0 295 379 358 3.0 109 Sugar Camp Run Mile 127 Sykesville, Pa. Mile 127.5 Oct. 1 6.3 H+1+ 228 208 50 175 Stump Creek Mile 121 3 Mi. bel. Sykesville, Pa. - Mile 121+ Oct. 1 5.8 ll+6 262 262 9 75 Mahoning Creek Mile 56.2 Abv. Punxsutawney, Pa. Mile 113 Oct. 1 U.7 55 l+o 0.2 2 Bel. Punxsutawney, Pa. Mile 109 Oct. 1 5.2 3U 31+ 0.1+ 1+ Craig Run Mile 62.5 Mouth, Rural Valley,Pa. Mile 62.5 Sept. Oct. Nov. 1 1 1 2.8 3*3 197 253 m 317 312 292 6.0 K-5 •8 Cowanshannock Cr. Mile I4.8.5 Abv. Rural Valley, Pa. Mile 63 Sept. Oct. Nov. 1 1 1 2.9 2.8 3-3 300 351+ ui 2g 1+82 8 20 13 57 !25 1+2 Bel. Yatesboro, Pa. Mile 60 Sept. Oct. Nov. 1 1 1 3.2 2.9 3-5 162 21+8 21+9 393 216 3? 15 31+ u N.Br.Plum Cr. Mile 73 Abv. Sagamore, Pa. Mile 78 Sept. Oct. Nov. 1 1 1 3.2 2.9 U.o 6L 10I+ 0* $ 21+ 1.3 2 8 1+ Bel. Sagamore, Pa. Mile 77 Sept. Oct. Nov. 1 1 1 3-2 3.6 3.9 102 87 138 ' 205 129 172 67 6.5 35 16.5 lS **? 21+ Conemaugh R. Mile 57.0 Abv. Lilly, Pa. Mile I36.5 July Aug. 2 1 ia 1+5 ** 26 108** 67 67 1+5 5.8** 2.1+ Bel. Lilly, Pa. Mile I35.5 July Aug. 2 1 3.0 3.0 112 178 U+5 106 8.2** 11 12 Abv. Portage, Pa. Mile 131 July Aug. 2 1 3.0 3.0 199 3H+ 21+9 328 6.2** 2.2 3 Trout Run Mile 130 Mouth, Portage, Pa. Mile 129 July Aug. 2 1 2.6 2.7 5*+l 855 ■ 687 7-5 7 $ Conemaugh R. Mile 57.O Abv. Portage, Pa. Mile 131 July Aug. 2 1 2.6 2.7 202 318 208 236 1+.1+ 2.3 32 30 Abv. South Pork, Pa. Mile 123 July Aug. 2 1 2.9 2.9 272 “1+Ti 32 77.5** 120** 11.5 Bel. South Fork, Pa. Mile 122 July Aug. 2 1 2.8 3.0 230 3U7 285 299 22 1+2 37 South Pork Cr. Mile 122 Abv. South Pork, Pa. Mile 12U July Aug. 2 1 2.8 2.7 14-06 650 5l+5 675 65 17 $ Shade Creek Mile 122 Bel. Central City, Pa. Mile 13U July Aug. 2 1 1+.1+ l+.o 9 22 20 16 U Bel. Ritz, Pa. Mile 132 July Aug. 2 1 138 21*8 171 290 a 11 Mouth, Seanor, Pa. Mile 123 July Aug. 2 1 lie 50 85 72 151 11 ll+ Stony Creek Mile IO9.5 Stoyestown, Pa. Mile I35.5 Aug. 1 3.6 27 3.3 Abv. Hooversvllle, Pa. Mile 131.5 July Aug. 1 1 5.2 3.5 12 6 35 1.8 2.6 Bel. Hooversvllle, Pa. Mile I29.5 July Aug. 2 1 1+.6 3.5 6** 20 67 3.5 2.8Stream Sampling Point Month 191+0 No. Sam- ples PH ACl D I T Y P.P.M. IRON p.p. M„ Methyl Red Phenolphthalein Ferrous Total Hot Cold Quemahoning Cr. Abv. Boswell, Pa. July 2 3.6 59 93 76 6 Kile 125 Mile 135 Aug. 1 2.9 170 22 Bel. Boswell, Pa. July 2 3.9 1+7 58 70 7 Mile 132 Aug. 1 2.9 212 26 Stony Creek Abv. Holsopple, Pu. July 2 U.2 8 19 m 3 Kile IO9.5 Mile 124 Aug. 1 3-3 63 2. 6 Bel. Holsopple, Pa. July 2 l+.l* 7 18 15 2. 8 Mile 123 Aug. 1 3.1+ 58 2. 6 Paint Creek Abv. V.'indber,Pa. July 2 3.6 75 59 2. 7 Mile 119 Mile 125 Aug. 1 3.6 69 23 Mouth, Scalp Level, Pa. July 2 2.8 _222_ ~3l+0~ ' 28£ “ Ye,- ' 38“ — — Mile 119 Aug. 1 2.9 365 7 61+ Stony Creek Abv. Mouth Paint Cr., July 2 3.4 31 50 1+2 2.3** 11 Mile IO9.5 Scalp Level,Pa.-Mi.119 Aug. 1 2.9 121 17 Abv. Ferndale,Johns- July 1 3-4 25 1+3 36 26 town, Pa.-Mile II3.5 Aug. 2 2.8 191 15 Mouth, Johnstown, Pa. July 2 3-0 78 lli+ 9l+ 1.8** 66 Mile IO9.5 Aug. 1 2.9 167 50 — - — — — —— — — — — - -- -- - - ' — - - — - — — — - — - - — - - — - — ----- «. _ Conemaugh River Abv. Johnstown, Pa. July 2 2.3 21+3 375 302 12.6** 28 Mile 57.O Mile 113 Aug. 1 2.8 362 125 Abv. Mouth Stony Creek July 2 1+.2 51 123 95 13.2 Vs Mile 110 Aug. 1 l+.l 98 t; j Bel. Johnstown, Pa. July 2 1+.2 31 61+ S2 7-6 28 Mile 108 Aug. 1 3.9 .89 1+.2 26 Abv. Seward, Pa. July 1 3.8 82 165 127 8.6 10 Mile 101 Aug. 2 3-6 39** 9I+** 79 3.6** 9 Bolivar, Pa. July 1 3-7 57 120 96 2. s Mile 87 Aug. 2 3.1+ 39** 77* 72 1+. 1+ Abv. Blalrsvllle, Pa. Aug. 1 3.1 61+ 116 83 1.3 8 Mile 79 Oct. 1 52 112 79 2. 8 Nov. 1 k.t 1+8 7.8 12. 0 Bel. Blalrsvllle, Pa. Aug. 1 3.1 65 111+ 85 12 Mile 76 Oct. 1 63 110 72 0.5 8. 8 Nov. 1 1+.6 1+2 10.5 16. 0 South Branch Abv. Nanty Olo, Pa. July 1 2.7 550 765 652 122 Blacklick Creek Mile 113 AUg. 2 3.0 li+00** 31+10** 3295 1275 1600 Mile IO5 Bel. Nanty"*GTo7 PfT “ July ~ 1 ~ 2.6 ~6H3“ “9^8“ ~ ~ S5K ~ 21T7 “220“ -- Mile 110 Aug. 2 2.6 71+6 ** 1012** 1001 38 235 Abv. Vlntondale, Pa. July 1 2.L 813 1132 1062 17.5 21+5 Mile 106 Aug. 2 2.6 810** 101+7** 1017 2.7 222 North Branch Blacle- Abv. Vlntondale, Pa. July 1 2.6 657 871 796 21 160 lick Cr. - Mi.105 Mile 105 Aug. 2 2.8 270** 377** I+18 1+.7** 67 Blacklick Creek Bel. Vlntondale, Pa. July 1 2.5 702 916 806 0 152 Mile 73-5 Mile 10l+ Aug. 2 2.6 I+32** 602** 60I+ 8** 102 Dixon Run Mouth, Clymer, Pa. Sept. 1 3-7 -33 68 1+8 6 25 Mile 102 Mile 102 Oct. 1 3-3 126 21+8 175 2? 2l+ Nov. 1 4.3 52 14.5 23 Two Lick Creek Abv. Homer City, Pa. Sept. 1 3.1 112 ll+8 131 1 Mile 85 Mile 88 Oct. 1 3-7 98 197 127 5 Nov. 1 3-7 58 6 Bel. Homer Citv, Pa. Sept. 1 3-0 101 121 118 7 Mile 87 Oct. 1 3.3 100 11+1+ 128 10 Kov. 1 3.8 35 7 Yellow Creek Water Plant-Romer City, Sept. i "3-3" '102' "125" 111+ ----- I2" - - Mile 88 Pa. - Mile 88 Oct. 1 3.6 60 99 7l+ 3 Nov. 1 3.7 29 12 Two Lick Creek Mouth. Josephine, Pa. Sept . 1 3.1 li+1 195 162 21 Mile 83 Mile 63 Oct. 1 2.9 191 298 236 35 Nov. 1 3.6 101 1.8 19 Blacklick Cr. Abv. Blacklick, Pa. Aug. 1 2.6 395 559 1+58 0.8 110 Mile 73.5 Mile 82 Oct. 1 2.6 585 780 703 2.8 93 Nov. 1 3.3 199 7.1+ 23 Bel. Blacklick, Pa. Aug. 1 2.7 1+22 572 511 1.6 US Mile 81 Oct. 1 2.1l 612 788 739 2.0 98 Nov. 1 3.2 208 8.0 23 Stream Sampling Point Month 1940 No. Sam- ples PH A C I D I T Y P.P.M IRON P.P.M. Methyl Red Phenolphthalein Ferrous Total Hot Cold Conemaugh River Water Plant-Saltsburg, Aug. 1 2*2 146 219 174 22 Mile 57.O Pa. - Mile 58 Oct. 1 2.8 176 21+2 205 26 Nov. 1 3.9 69 6.4 20 Mill Creek Kouth, Llgonler, Pe. Seat. . 1 2.9 87 !2{+ 101 13 Mile 90 Mile 91 Oct. 1 2.9 210 294 255 2.6 35 Loyalhanna Creek Bel. Llgonler, Pa. Sept. 1 4.7 3 14 3 Mile 57 Mile 89.5 Oct. 1 3-3 90 li+8 122 3-4 16 Abv. Latrobe, Pa. Mile 82.5 Oct. 1 4*5 12 27 20 3 Saxman Run Abv. Bradenvllle, Pa. Sept. 1 4.3 25 41 59 7 Mile 82 Mile 85 Oct. 1 3.5 62 100 81 6 Bel. Bradenvllle, Pa. Sept. 1 4.2 19 42 32 7 Mile 81+ Oct. 1 3.6 53 99 75 2.6 Loyalhanna Creek Bel. Latrobe, Pa. Sept. 1 3.5 94 128 118 22 46 Mile 57 Mile 78 Oct. 1 3.1 217 469 452 87.4 110 Crabtree Creek Abv. Crabtree, Pa. Sept. 1 4.0 223 328 276 4 Mile 71 Mile 73 Oct. 1 4.2 143 21+2 196 2 Bel. Crabtree, Pa. Sept. 1 2.6 23E0 3110 301° 59,1 Mile 72 Oct. 1 3-1 1910 2930 2460 180 494 Loyalhanna Creek Mouth, Saltsburg, Pa. Aug. 1 2.6 s°6 756 612 175 Mile 57 Mile 58 Oct. 1 2.6 494 608 571 72 Nov. 1 3-3 197 28 38 Kiskiminetas River Bel. Saltsburg, Pa. Aug. 1 2-2 143 225 idk 16 Mile J0.2 Mile 56.5 Oct. 1 2.8 170 2l+2 215 55 Nov. 1 3.3 113 15.2 13 Harper Run Bel. Iselln, Pa. Aug. 1 4.3 16 44 55 6 Mile 59 Mile 61 Oct. 1 2.9 338 413 388 70 Nov. 1 3.4 158 12 Kiskiminetas River Abv. Avonmore, Pa. Aug. 1 3.2 100 171 iu S.2 14 Mile 30.2 Mile 52.5 Sept. 1 3.0 146 249 1S1 4.0 16 Nov. 1 3.9 58 1.3 18 Abv. Sallna, Pa. Aug. 1 5-0 119 173 i4f 2.6 13 Mile 50 Sept. 1 2.8 157 236 196 3.0 16 Nov. 1 3-5 63 17 Bel. Sallna, Pa. Aug. 1 3.0 118 172 146 3.4 13 Mile 1+9 Sept. 1 2.9 159 21+0 1S9 4.0 16 Nov. 1 3.7 56 0.7 19 Abv. Apollo, Pa. Aug. 1 2.9 119 167 151 2.6 18 Mile 1+5 Sept. 1 2.9 163 226 189 2.5 16 Nov. 1 3-7 67 2.6 18 Abv. Vandergrlft, Pa. Aug. 1 2.9 126 173 159 6.6 Mile I+0.5 Sept. 1 2.8 J.58 230 0.4 17 Nov. 1 3.7 68 8.5 20 Leechburg, Pa. near Aug. 1 3.0 127 203 178 10.4 22 Brady Run - Mile 36.5 Sept. 1 2.9 129 193 1.2 11 Nov. 1 4.1 84 8.5 13 West Leechburg, Pa. Aug. 1 3.1 122 197 176 12.1+ 22 Hyde Park - Mile 3I+.5 Sept. 1 3.0 128 199 160 12 Nov. 1 3.9 82 13.0 21 Mouth, Freeport, Pa. Aug. 1 2.9 177 252 221 2.3 22 Mile 31 Sept. 3 2.9 166 221 194 2.7* 30 Oct. 5 2.9 200 282 278 9.8 38 Nov. 3 3.3 74 1.38 107 6.1 27 Dec. 2 3.6 43** 80** 60 3.7 32 Allegheny River Lock & Dam #1+ Aug. 2 4.3 14 33 3,0 0.5 Mile 21+.2 Oct. 2 5.6 5 13 14 6** 7.5 Lock Sc Dam #3 Aug. 2 4.4 10 29 20 0.5 Mile 17 Oct. 1 5.7 3 10 12 0.7 Lock 4 Dam #2 Aug. 1 4.4 9 24 18 0.2 Mile 6.7 Mouth, Pittsburgh, Pa. Oct. 1 4.7 4 10 11 2.5" Mile 1.7 ** One sample. * Two samples.Final Report to the Ohio River Committee Ohio River Follution Survey U. £• Public Health Service Cincinnati, Ohio 1942Contents Page Contents..........................................245 Syllabus and Conclusions..................247 Description......................252 Presentation of Field Data................254 Presentation of Laboratory Data ..................259 Hydrometric Data..................................267 Discussion........................................271 List of Tables Mo-1 Cost Estimates of Remedial Measures. . . . 251 Mo-2 Surface Water Supplies .... ............255 Mo-3 Sources of Pollution ...................256 Mo-4 Industrial Wastes..........................257 Mo-5 Selected Laboratory Data..................261 Uo-5a Selected Laboratory Data (Chemical Results) 262 Mo-6 Monthly Mean Summer Flows..................269 Mo-7 Summary of Laboratory Results..............275 Mo-7a Summary of Laboratory Results on Acid Streams ...................293 List of Figures Mo-1 Map - Sources of Pollution ........ Mo-2 Chart - Sources of Pollution and Selected Laboratory Data.........(Facing) Mo-3 Map - Coliform Results ........ Mo-4 Map - Dissolved Oxygen Results .... Mo-5 Map - Biochemical Oxygen Demand Results Mo-5a Map - pH Results ........... Mo-6 Chart - Summer Lov/-Flow Frequency Curve 246 256 263 264 265 266 270EBNSBURG [RLER< J^FayittV ^ City V-j ' jrRotco* alifornia >1^ Vanderbill bfKT&NSVILLE C ok • b u Rich«yvill«(5) )NNELLSVH.LE ;onnellsvU1« [Rockwood rAYNESBURG Nerr/ocolin\^ §®Masontown. X 0 Meyersdoli 'Confluence < Youghiogheny River < Reservoir jT^ Lake Lynn MORGANT< Ba rrackvill Monongo Irmont Ihinnston QRAFTOI >Rowlesburg Tygart R. Rt -^Bridgeport, !KSBURG UUter Fort ilington luckhannon LEGEND Areas of Circles Proportional to Population Equivalent of Wastes Before Treatment As Discharged Population Equivalent --500000 -400000 SCALE OF MILES OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY U. S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE _ 1941_ Fi g. M o -1 V Fig. Mo - I MONONGAHELA BASIN SOURCES OF POLLUTION Fig. MoSyllabus and Conclusions Syllabus The ivionongahela River drains about 7,380 square miles in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and a small section of Maryland. The area is rugged and includes a number of large cities and an important coal mining industry. The main stream is extensively used for navigation. Flood-control reservoirs on Tygart (operated since 1938) and Youghiogheny (under construction) Rivers are used also to increase minimum flows. The distinguishing characteristic of this basin is the high acidity of the streams due to coal mine drainage. Almost half of the basinTs total organic pollution load enters in the lower 15.6 miles. Surface water is used as a source of all major water supplies. The high acidity of the stream has served as a deterrent to the abatement of organic and bacterial pollution and the amount of sewage treated is negligible. With sewage treatment and no acid control, the streams would be suitable for only limited use. Damage caused by mine drainage is substantial and the demonstrated success of acid control at the mine by sealing has indicated a promising line of attack. Flow regulation is a valuable supplementary oontrol measure. A mine sealing - flow regulation acid control program for the areaabove the Ohio - West Virginia - Pennsylvania line is summarized in the Acid Mine Drainage section of the report. Conclusions (1) Of 153 water supplies, 98, including all of the larger supplies, are from surface sources. Acidity from coal mine drainage presents corrosion and water treatment problems at the major supplies. (2) Sewage from 862,000 people, industrial waste equal to the sewage from an additional 426,000 people and 646,000 tons of mine acid per year or about 1,770 tons per day enter the streams of the basin. Of the combined organic pollution load, 49 percent enters the stream in the lower 15.6 miles below the Youghiogheny River. Municipal sewage treatment reduces the total pollution load from 1,288,500 to 1,254,700, about 2.6 percent. (3) Laboratory data indicate that the major problem is one of acid mine drainage rather than one of organic pollution. However, at the time of sampling, organic pollution appeared to be a factor at Clarksburg and Weston, West Virginia, and Mt.Pleasant, Waynes-burg, Jeannette (industrial waste) and Greensburg (one outlet), Pennsylvania. (4) The original acid load from mine drainage is estimated at 920,000 tons per year (to phenolphthalein-hot), of which 274,000 tons per year or nearly J>0 percent has been removed by sealing, leaving 646,000 tons per year. The acid concentration of 87.5 tons per square mile per year in this basin is greater than in any other major Ohio River tributary basin. (5) A program for acid reduction involving mine sealing supplemented by flow regulation is outlined in the section of the report on Acid Mine Drainage. Expenditures to date for mine sealing in this basin are estimated at .Jl,820,000. The next step in the mine sealing program is completion of sealing of mining areas not connected to active ventilation systems at mines where sealing costs will not exceed ^10.00 per ton of acid sealed per year. Estimated costs of this program total $1,600,000.(6) Acid conditions can be further improved and mine sealing supplemented by flow regulation from a storage of 370,000 acre-feet in the Monongahela Basin. (7) The free acid from waste pickle liquor from the steel industry exclusive of acid iron salts totals 23 tons per day or only 1.6 percent of the mine acid load. Iron salts increase the acid effect to some extent. Cost estimates include part time treatment of these wastes and this expenditure will be justified after success is attained in reducing mine acid. (8) The problem of municipal sewage treatment at Pittsburgh is discussed in the section of the report on the main Ohio River. Low-flow regulation from reservoirs in the Ivlonongahela River basin will be of value in reducing treatment costs, notably at Pittsburgh and Cincinnati. (9) Justification for treatment and the degree of treatment of sewage and organic industrial waste in many cases is dependent upon the status of mine acid reduction measures* The situation varies with the degree of acidity of the stream and the amount of organic pollution discharged. At some places the need for waste treatment is urgent and at others the first expenditures of public funds can be made to best advantage toward furthering the acid reduction program. In general, cost estimates apply to a comprehensive program that will be justified in parallel with extensive acid control measures. (10) In conjunction with an effective acid control program, primary treatment is indicated at the cities along the Monongahela River to improve conditions at the sewer outfalls by eliminating floating matter and preventing sludge deposits, and to protect the many downstream public water supplies. In some instances the need is urgent regardless of acid control. (11) At Elkins, Clarksburg and Weston, 7/est Virginia, acidity is low and secondary treatment appears justified regardless of the status of an acid control program. At Greensburg, Uniontown and a number of additional smaller communities on highly acid streams, secondary treatment will ultimately be required but primary treatment, now installed at Uniontown, is all that is justified in the absence of acid control.(12) Cost estimates of remedial measures, exclusive of mine sealing and reservoir construction and exclusive of the Pittsburgh district are given in Table Mo-1. These costs are based on treatment justified with a parallel program of acid control. Lack of an acid control program will greatly limit possible stream restoration. Table Mo-1 is summarized as follows : Treatment Capital Cost Annual Cost Existing $1,500,000 § 115,000 Suggested additional 13,250,000 1,455,000 Estimated additional costs, over existing charges, of programs involving, uniform treatment throughout the basin, are: Primary, all places 12,710,000 1,385,000 Secondary, all places 15,950,000 1,785,000Table Mo-1 Monongahela River Basin - Estimated Cost of Existing and Suggested Minimum Corrective Measures for Sewage and Industrial Wastes, with Comparative Costs for Primary and Secondary Treatment. Number of Plant3 Trim.Sec. Population Connected to Sewers Capital Investment (Dollars) Annual C> Amort. & Interest larges (DoI Operation & Main. Liars) Total Existing Sewage Treatment 13 7 66,100 1,500,000 90,000 25,000 115,0C0 Suggested Minimum Correction Sewage Treatment Plants i Required Interceptors M Independent Industrial Waste Correction i Total 66 16 76 776,200 6,270,000 5.870.000 1.110.000 lji|0,000 275,000 150,000 2.70.000 320.000 710,000 275,000 )4.70,00C 13,250,000 865,000 590,000 1,1*55,000 Comparative Cost Primary Treatment All Waste Secondary Treatment All Waste As Suggested l?.,710,ooo 15.950.000 13.250.000 830,000 1,055,000 865,000 555.000 750.000 590.000 1,385,000 1,785,000 1,14.55,000 1\CTE: Costs shown above do not include the cost of interceptors or treatment works for the city of Pittsburgh or its suburbs whose vestas would probably be treated at a plant along the Ohio River*Description The Monongahela River originates in northern West Virginia at the confluence of the Tygart and West Fork Rivers, and flows in a northerly direction to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvani where it joins the Allegheny River to form the Ohio River. T drainage basin comprises a total of 7,380 square miles, of which 57 percent is in West Virginia, 38 percent is in Pennsylvania and 5 percent is in Maryland. The basin lies entirely in the Appalachian Plateau region and is characterized by rugged topography with narrow stream valleys several hundr feet below the level of the uplands. Most of the cities are in the valleys. Populations exclusive of Pittsburgh proper but including the Monongahela Basin portion of Allegheny Coun are as follows: Populations - 1940 State West Virginia Pennsylvania Maryland Urban 107,154 477,977 0 Rural 241,028 423,869 14,646 Total 348,182 901,846 14,646 Populations Larger Cities Clarksburg,V/.Va. Fairmont, W.Va. Duquesne, Pa. McKeesport, Pa. Wilkinsburg, Pa. Uniontown, Pa. Monessen, Pa. Pittsburgh, Pa. 1910 1920 1930 194-0 9,201 27,869 28,866 30,579 9,711 17,851 23,159 25,105 15,727 19,011 21,596 20,695 42,694 46,781 54,652 55,555 18,924 24,405 29,659 29,855 15,544 15,692 19,544 21,819 11,775 18,179 20,268 20,257 - Not included - Total Basin Urban Rural Total Major Tributaries Youghiogheny River Cheat River Tygart River V/est Fork River 546,843 479,905 564.953 614.457 911,776 1,094,340 River Kile 15.6 89.1 128.1 128.1 578,209 585,151 646,575 679.545 1,224,784 1,264,674 Drainage Area (Square Miles) 1,768 1,424Resources - Natural resources of the basin consist of tillable land, coal deposits and water power* Industries - Most important of the industries is the mining of coal, followed by the production of steel. Other industries include breweries, distilleries, meat and dairy plants and chemical works* Water Uses - The Monongahela is canalized for its entire lengtH by fourteen low lift locks and dams which provide navigable depths of eight feet throughout the lower 90 miles and seven feet for the remaining 38 miles* This river is one of the most intensively used inland waterways in the world* Three artificial reservoirs are intensively used for recreation as are many clean streams in the eastern part of the basin* Two large hydroelectric projects, on tributary streams, have been constructed by private interests*Presentation of Field Data Figure Mo-2 shows graphically the main stream and tributaries, waterworks intakes, dams, all major sources of organic pollution, their magnitude and reduction by present treatment and other pertinent information,) This figure does not show pollution of inorganic origin such as acid mine drainage, pickle liquor or chemical wastes* Selected laboratory data on the main Monongahela and West Fork Rivers also are shown* Public V/ater Supplies - Of 153 public water supplies, 5 are in Maryland, 90 in Pennsylvania and 58 in V/est Virginia. Table Mo-2 show3 a total of 98 surface supplies serving 811,200 persons 27 in Pennsylvania and 20 in V/est Virginia from streams below community sewer outfalls* There are 55 ground water supplies serving 67,000 persons, indicating that surface sources are used as major supplies. The acidity of surface waters presents unusual problems In treatment and corrosiveness* Cn the main stream 20 surface supplies have an average pK of 4*0 to 5.0 in the raw water* Sewerage - Of the 145 sewered communities in the basin, 13 have primary and 7 secondary treatment for their domestic sewage* Treatment serves’ only about 8 percent of the total sewered population and reduces the total organic pollution load about 2*6 percent* Table Mo-3 summarizes the sources of significant organic pollution including industrial wastes expressed as equivalent sewered population* Industrial Wastes - Table Mo-4 summarizes pertinent information on waste producing industries in the basin# The coke by-product industry produces by far the largest organic pollution load* Distilling and brewing also produce significant organic waste loads* About one-third of t-he industries discharge all or part of their industrial waste to city sewer systems* Only one industrial waste receives treatment at a municipal treatment plant* Twenty-six industrial plants have taken at least minor corrective measures to reduce pollution, twenty of these being of an important and effective nature* Metal industries are important chiefly because of pickle liquor discharges* In the Monongahela River Basin, free acid discharge from this source is estimated at 57,000 pounds or over 28 tons per day* This is only 1.6 percent of the mineSupply State Source Mile (1) Treat- ment (2) Popu- lation Served Cons . M.G.D. Sup pi ties Belov/ Community Sewer Outfalls S.Pittsburgh W.Co. Pa. Monongahela R. l*..o LD 250,000 I3o00 Braddock ti ti ti IO.5 LD 18,$00 l.$0 McKeesport » 11 "k Youghiogheny 16 0 6 LD 61^,000 6.00 Elizabeth 11 Monongahela R. 23.0 FD $0,000 2,60 Charleroi it ti 11 1*2.5 FD 1+0,000 1.51 Trotter Water Co.nCn w 11 11 77.1 FD 15,000 1.60 Morgantown W.Va. ” -Impounded 10$.0 FZD $0,000 1.25 Uniontown Pa. Youghiogheny & Impounded 61.5 FD $0,000 1.60 Trotter Water Co."A" 11 Youghiogheny 62.0 FD 12,000 2.00 Connellsville ti ” & Creeks 62.1 FD 16,000 2.00 Fairmont yy.Va. Tygart River 128. k FD $0,000 2.29 Grafton n tt n 150.0 FD k ,000 1.50 Elkins n tt tt 210.0 FD 8,500 I.II4. Clarksburg 11 VJ. Fork River 160.0 FZD $5,000 2.90 28 Smaller Supplies Pa. Various — Various 81,000 1R !l " W.Va. it — it 20,800 1.2$ Total - Below Sewer Outfalls 68k,$00 50.$8 Other 126,900 ?.01* Total - Surface Water Supplies 811,200 59.1+2 (1) Mile3 above mouth of Monongahela River. (2) P - Coagulated, settled, filtered; L - Lime-soda softened; Z - Zeolite softened; D - Chlorinated.Table M0-3 Monongahela Elver Basin - Sources of Significant Pollution Including Industrial Waste Expressed as Sewered Population Equivalent (B.O.D.) Miles Above Population Sewered Population Municipality State Receiving Stream Mouth of Connected Treatment Equivalent (B.O.D.) Monongahela to Sewers Untreated Discharged Pittsburgh(3) (1) Pa. Monongahela River 0-10 319,500 None 1+58,500 1+58,500 Braddock (1) tt< ft ff 10.5 32,600 tf 32,600 32,600 Duquesne (1) fl n ti» 12.0 21,100 ft 21,100 21,100 McKeesport It « « lk.2 55,000 tf 61,700 61,700 Qlassport II ff tf lS 8,700 tt 8,700 8,700 Clairton tt tf- ft 20 16,000 tf 156,000 156,000 Monongahela City II. ft VI 7,800 tfl 7,800 7,800 Donora If tf ft 36 X 13,000 tt 1*000 15,000 Monessen II fl tt £+o.o 18,000 tt 18,000 ii,ooo Charleroi fl II It UP 10,500 tt 10,500 10,500 Brownsvilie II II It 56 7,000 ff 7,000 7,000 Masontown II II If 79.1 3,000 ft 3,000 3,000 Morgantown W.Va. II II 100.9 16,100 ft 16,100 16,100 Fairmont n tf II 126.7 20,000 tt 27,500 27,500 East Pittsburgh Pa. Turtle Creek 12.0 17,300 tf 17,300 17,500 Turtle Creek it It! II 12.5 9,600 ff 9,600 9,600 Wilmerding tt It tt ll+.o 5,500 ft 5,500 5,500 Pitcairn tf tt tt 15 *5 6,100 ft 6,100 6,100 Trafford ti II tt 16.5 3,600 tt 3,600 3,600 Irwin ti II II 2k.0 3,1+00 tt 3,1+00 3,1+00 Jeannette Wi tt tl 2? , li+,500 Secondary li+,500 2,200 Port Vue tt Youghiogheny R. lo .6 3,600 None 3,600 3,600 Connellsville ti tt II 60 12,90c tt lL+,300 14,500 Ruffsdale ii Sewickley Creek 1+9 0 it 3,100 3,100 S. W. Greensburg 11 ti ti 55 3,000 tt 3,000 3,000 Greensburg ti tt it 5 6 16,000 tt 16,14.00 16,14.00 Scottdale 11 Jacobs Creek 5k 6,300 ti 6,500 6,300 Mt. Pleasant u tt n 60 5,000 ti 5,600 5,600 Somerset ti Casselraan River lid 5,1+00 Primary 11,100 9,1+00 Large ii Peters Creek 23.5 0 None 90,000 90,000 Uniontown ti Redstone Creek P 25,000 Primary 27,000 17,500 Waynesburg 11 Ten Mile Creek 85 4,500 it l+,500 2,900 Parsons W.Va. Cheat River 167.5 2,000 None 12,900 12,900 Mannington ft. Buffalo Creek Uj2 3,100 ti 3,100 3,100 Grafton ff Tygart River 150 3,800 it 3,800 3,800 Elkins ff 11 11 209 8,100 ti 23,100 23,100 Buckhannon w Buckhannon River 20S l+,300 it r+,300 4,300 Clarksburg tf West Pork River I58.8 29,000 it 29,00c 29,000 Weston ft n n 11 191+ 5,000 H 5,000 5,000 Smaller (2) Sources (108) 116,900 Various 120,900 93,000 Total - Pennsylvania 727,800 1,120,300 1,089,900 West Virginia 131,14.00 165,200 161,800 Maryland 3,000 5,000 3,000 Total Basin 862,200 1,288,500 1,251+,700 (1) Includes waste from adjoining communities that reaches .same outfall sewers. (2) Excluding places of under 500 population or equivalent. (5) Pollution loads from Pittsburgh and Suburbs are distributed to Allegheny end Mononrahela Basins and Main Ohio River as follows: Pittsburgh and Suburbs Pa. 11 1, Allegheny River Monongahela River Ohio River 0-8 0-10 0-l4.( below) 520,500 319,5^0 261,700 None tl It 597,200 1+58,500 278,600 597,200 11.53,500 278,600 Total - - - 901,700 - l,35i+,300 l,53l+,300SEWERED POPULATION OR EQUIVALENT B . 0 . D. I N THOUSANDS OHIO RIVEr pollution survey U-S-Rustic HEALTH SERVICE 1941 LE6EN0 k Navigation Dom I Wotar Supply Intaka ™ I Ovar 1.0 M. 6.0. Raiarvolr Dam rlndicotai Foliation I Wat(r Supply IntoM ramavatf ky Treatment I UB<,r |.0 *o.D. MONONGAHELA RIVER SOURCES OF POLLUTION AND SELECTED LABORATORY DATAMonongahela River Easin - Summary of Industrial Wastes not Discharging to Municipal Treatment Plants with Total of Entire Industrial Waste Load in the Basin. Industry Number industrial Walffce Disposal At Least Minor Estimated Sewered of Plants MuniCo Sewers Private Outlet Corrective Measures Taken Population Equivalent (B.O.D,) Brewing 5 k 1 0 14.9,100 By-Froduct Coke 3 0 3 2 2l).0,000 Chemical 3 0 3 0 _ Distilling 3 0 3 2 9k.000 Meat 6 k 2 k 6,100 Milk Steel 2I I 2 22 2 12 3,300 Tanning 2 0 2 2 25,000 Textile 2 0 2 0 1,000 Miscellaneous 31 6 25 2 5,800 wastes Unconnected Munico Treatment 86 21 65 26 k2k,300 Waste Discharged to Municipal Treatment 2,000 Total Industrial Waste in the Basin 1+26,300 By States - Maryland Pennsylvania West Virginia 0 392,500 33,800acid load. Acid iron salts, having an acid effect, are not included in this figure and the comparison, although the best that can be made from the data available, involves acid figures which are not strictly comparable. However, it is apparent that acid mine drainage is by far the more important problem® Mine Drainage - Acid mine drainage discharge in this basin has the greatest intensity in annual tons per square mile of all the major tributary basins of the Ohio River. Estimated acid loads as presented in the Acid Mine Drainage section of the Ohio River Pollution Survey Report are as follows: Description Monongahela River except Youghiogheny Youghi ogheny River Only ‘ " Total...... Monongahela River Original Acid Load: Active Mines Marginal Mines Abandoned Mines Total Per Square Mile Sealed Mines Removed by Sealing Present Load Per Square Mile Additional Removal' (1) Future Residual (2) Per Square Mile Tons per year (to Phenolphthalein - Hot) 1+38 ,27k 39.06L 225,65!+ lUl,735 25,609 52,51+0 580,009 61+, 67 3 275,971+ 700,972 121+.1 580,026 251,900 219,6814. 126.8 29,270 22,71+2 920,656 121+.7 1+09,296 274.61+2 Wj-9,072 79.5 _ USjfcO..... 196,91+2 115.7 85.050 614.6,0114. 87.5 198,680 333 M2 59.0 115,892 65.8 1+1+7,531+ 60.6 (1) Economical to remove in addition by sealing under 19^0 restrictions with a cost limitation of $10*00 per ton of acid per year and sealing only in areas not connected to active ventilation systems* (2) Capable of further reduction (possibly an additional 50 percent) by extended program*Presentation of Laboratory Data Complete summaries of routine laboratory results for the Monongahela River Basin are presented in Table Mo-7* Summaries of special acid and chemical determinations are shown in Table Mo-7A* These data were obtained in part from operations of mobile laboratories connected with the present survey and in part from the West Virginia State Water Commission, Observations were carried out during the period May to December 1940* Selected average analytical results at some of the principal points in the basin are tabulated with stream flows on sampling days and with the minimum flows of record in Table Mo-5, Selected results have been chosen for low dissolved oxygen, high coliform or low pK findings and, in general, represent the most unfavorable conditions during the sampling period. Selected average acid and chemical results are presented in Table Mo-5A* Figures Mo-3, Mo-4, Mo-5 and Mo-5A show graphically the concentration of coliform organisms, dissolved oxygen, oxygen demand and pH, respectively, at various sampling points throughout the watershed* These data are presented as averages of all the results where the sampling period was less than a month and as the most unfavorable monthly averages where observations extended over more than one month. Stream discharges on the Monongahela varied from 62,000 second-feet in May to 830 second-feet in August at mile 850 During the May-July period, flows in the West Fork River at Clarksburg were 800 to 1,000 second-feet and the Tygart River discharges during the sampling period in June at Grafton were about 5,000 second-feet* Discharges from August to December were generally in the nornal low-water ranges* It appears, from an examination of the laboratory data, that the main problem in the Monongahela Basin is one of acid mine drainage rather than one of organic pollution. Organic pollution appeared to be a factor at Jeannette, Greensburg, Mt« Pleasant and Waynesburg, Pennsylvania, and East Salem, Clarksburg and Weston, West Virginia, Of these, Waynesburg has a sewage treatment plant under construction. The Cheat and Tygart Rivers were in generally good sanitary condition during the sampling period* As indicated by bacteriological findings, about 71 percent of the sampling stations above towns on normal streams (85 percenton acid streams) showed coliform organism concentrations of less than 200 per ml. The effect of acid stream conditions, as compared to normal stream conditions was, in general, to reduce the coliform counts. The dissolved oxygen results show quite general average concentrations of 6.5 p.p.m. or more and 78 percent of all stations in the basin fall into this group. Oxygen depletion was observed only below Jeannette, Pennsylvania in October and near depletion below Waynesburg, Pennsylvania in August* pH values were above 7*0 at both points* Over 70 percent of all stations had average oxygen demands of less than 3.0 p.p.m. under the most unfavorable conditions observed. Abo* 1 percent of all stations sampled had oxygen demands in e 3.0 p.p.m* Because of the effect of acid on normal bio^-.uxoal oxidation, the B.O.D. tests on acid stream samples were carried out in duplicate; one portion being incubated in the acid state as collected and the other bein^ incubated after neutralization w*th sodium hydroxide and seeding with filtered sewage. In genera„, the results of the two portions were either of the same order of magnitude or the acid portion showed a higher B.O.D., in a few cases a great deal higher, than the neutralized portion. Ferrous iron may exert a chemical demand to further complicate interpretation. The results *of acid stream examinations on Table Mo-7A show pH values ranging from 2.8 to 6.9, acidities from nearly zero to about 5,000 p.p.m., and total iron from less than 1*0 p.p.m. to over 2,000 p.p.m. The presence of acid wastes makes the interpretation of much of the sanitary data gathered along the Monongahela Basin somewhat difficult and complicates the evaluation of the effects of the self-purification process. There was a general tendency for the acidity to decrease with increased stream discharge* This appeared to be the case both on the larger and the smaller streams. Increased stream discharges also tended to increase the coliform and dissolved oxygen concentrations and to decrease the oxygen demands in the SDBller streams but apparently had little efiect, so far as these factors are concerned, on the larger streams in the discharge ranges observed* Biological Summary - The acid condition of the main stream of the Monongahela renders it nearly devoid of plankton or fish life, except where clean tributaries join the main stream. The tributaries, Ten J^ile Creek and Pigeon Creek, support a fair plankton and fish population.River Location Mouth Pitts- burgh Dam #2 Pittsburgh Above Youghio- gheny ' t)am #3 McKeesport Dam #4 Charleroi Dam #5 Brownsville Dam #6 River Miles Above: Mouth of Monongahela .05 11.2 16.4 23.8 1+1.5 56.5 68.3 Period - I9I4.O Sept. Aug. Aug.-Sept. Sept. Aug. Aug. Sept. Number of Samples 2 2 1 2 2 1+ Flow in c.f.s.: Sampling Days 2,340 3,200 1,600 2,100 l,3l+0 1,170 1.570 Minimum Month 398 249 Water Temperature °C. 22 22 23.8 22 21+.2 21+.3 21.1 Collforms per ml. 27 23 1 •* 1 3 «• Dissolved oxygen ppm. 3.0 5.7 ^.0 8.1 7.8 7.6 8.0 B.O.D.,5-day,p.p.m. 2.1 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.8 PH 4.7 3-9 4.0 3.7 3.3 3.6 3.6 River Location Dam #7 Dam #8 Pt.Marion Star City Morgan- town, W.Va. Lock #ll Morgantown Below Fairmont Fairmont River Miles Above: Mouth of Monongahela 81+.8 90 97.7 100.9 101+.3 121+.2 126.7 Period - 191+0 Sept. May June June June June June Number of Samples 4 1 1+ 1+ 1+ 3 3 Plow in c.f.s .: Sampling Days 1,090 38,000 6,750 6,700 6,600 l+,230 1,787 Minimum Month - - 1+3 V.'ater Temperature °C. 21.6 16.0 22.7 22.5 22.7 23.0 23.O Collforms per ml. * 8 25 6 10 34 38 Dissolved oxygen p.p.m. 8.2 9.6 8.0 7.8 8.0 7.0 7.3 B.O.D.,5-day,p.p.m. 1.0 0.8 0.2 1.2 0.8 0.4 0.7 PH 3.1+ 5.0 4.4 4.9 1+.8 '+•5 4.6 River Location Youghiogheny near below Con- below below Mouth nellsville Confluence Oakland Casselman near Mouth Casselman abv. Mey-ersdale Cheat near Mouth kiver Miles Above: Conf.withMonongahela Mouth of Monongahela Period - 1940 Number of Samples Flow in c.f.s.: Sampling Days Minimum Month Water Temperature °C. Collforms per ml. Dissolved oxygen ppm. B.O.D.,5-day,p.p.m. PH 0.7 16.3 Aug. 2 1,810 l2i.e 1.2 3.5 3lJ* 57 Aug. 1 2,490 19.5 2,400 8.4 2.0 6.7 68.9 84.5 July 3 640 23.8 21 7.9 0.6 5.1 111.9 127.5 June 3 299 18.0 8.2 0.7 5.0 S7lJ* July 3 219 22.2 L 0.5 3.6 100.4 116 July 3 72 20.5 38 7.6 1*5 3.6 • 9 90 June 3 13,400 19.3 11 8.6 1.0 5.5 River Location Cheat R. bel. Holly Meadows Tygart R. near "outh Tygart R. below Grafton Tygart R. below Elkins West Fork River near below above Mouth ClarksburK Weston River Miles Above: Conf.with Monongahela Mouth of Monongahela Period - 1940 76.4 I65.5 June 3.9 132 June 18.6 146.7 June 77.1+ 205.5 July • 9 129 June 29.9 I58 June 66.9 195 June Number of Samples Flow in c.f.s.: 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 Sampling Days Water Temperatiire °C. 2,8*50 16.7 5,220 19.9 5,210 19.5 18.8 97? 24.0 1,057 23.0 116 21.7 Collforms per ml. Dissolved oxygen ppm, B.O.D.,5-day,p.p.m. PH 20 8.6 n 23 9.0 0.5 6.7 3° 9.6 0.6 6.7 825 7*? 1.6 6.9 12 6.9 .7 3.9 881 8 49 7.7 0.6 7.1 * Leas than one.Z9Z River Mononga- Monongahela abv. Mononga- Mononga- Mononga- Mononga- Mononga- hela Location hela Yough- hela hela hela hela below Mouth iogheny Lock NoJj. Lock No,6 Lock No.8 Lock No. 11 Fairmont River Miles Above: Mouth of Monongahela .05 16.)+ 1+1.5 68.5 90.6 101+.1 12k *2 Period_- I9I4.O Number o7 sampTes Oct, Aug.-Sept “U Oct, 5 Sejpt. Nov, -% June June j Plow in c.f.s.: lj.,230 Sampling Days 2,710 1,600 1,920 1,570 3,070 6,66o Minimum Month 398 21+9 mm - k3 - pH (1270*) - - 5.7 - - '376" ysr _ i7l?*L ---Co5 Acidity p.p.m,z 26 16 Methyl Red 22 3k 7 9 Phenolphthaleln(Hot) k3 37 35 £5 15 19 20 Iron total p,p.nw 5 .. . . .1.5. 1.5 —_______-LlL. ........ 1-2 1.6 River Location Youghio- gheny Mouth Youghiogheny bel, Oakland, Md. Casselman Mouth Cheat Mouth Black- water Mouth West Fork Mouth West Fork above Zeising, W.Va. River Miles Above: Mouth of Monongahela 16.3 127.5 87 90 172 129 H4.9.8 Conf .with Monongahela .7 111.9 7U4 .9 82.9 .9 21,7 Period - 19^0 Oct. June July 2 June June June July ---2 - Humber o7 Samples - - 5 - - 2 2 2 3 Flow in c.f.s,: Sampling Days 627 382 385 2,1+75 625 936 1+69 Minimum Month 113 «■* - PH 5.5 5.3 3.9 5.Q "1+T8T 3.9 5.2 Acidity p.p.m.: 16 Methyl Red m 15 11 25 17 Phenolphthale in ( Hot ) .......If - ...........Hk- 28 32 22 ___________!*£.. PITTSBUI jeannet; rGREBMSBURG Young\»r6o< Monongoh«to< [LEA SANT JHARLERI CoKtburg* ^CONNELLS VK-LE SXonnellsvme ISVILLE, UlWONTOWN WAYNESBUR6 Tconflutnc* Youghiogheny Rii Lake Lynn MORGANTOWN* rAIRMONT Monongoh1 inat°ry> GRAFTON1 ,RKSBURG Philippi LEGEND Average Coliform Results at Sampling Stations _ . , Most probable l,m 0 number per ml. O ----------Under 25 ----------26- 50 (J ----------51-100 ^ __________101-200 A --------Over 200 Fig. Mo-3 MONONGAHELA BASIN COLIFORM RESULTS 10_0_ 10_20 SCALE OF MILES OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY U. S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 1941PITTSBUI rofford ^ ^JEANNET/ ISBURG CLAIRTJ 'Young*6o< Monongahela* MT^LEASANT ;harler< Vanderbill isville/ ^CONNELLSVM.LE S.ConnellsvMne somerset) ‘UlfcONTOWN WAYNESBURG Gar rat' Meyersdalej MORGANTOWN1 Kingwood, 'Shinnston Lumber poi 'Rowleeburg Tygart R. Ri .RKSBURG Philippi .Belington Buckhannon Dailey OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY SCALE OF MILES U. S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 1941 LEGEND Average Dissolved Oxygen Results at Sampling Stations. Symbol Dissolved Oxygen p.p.m. Q ----- over 6.5 (3 ----- 5.1 to 6.5 (J ----- 3.1 to 5.0 £ ----- 0.1 to 3.0 @ ----- 0.0 Fig Mo-4 MONONGAHELA BASIN DISSOLVED OXYGEN RESULTSLEGEND Average B.O.D. Results at Sampling Stations Acid Stream Samples (-Neutralized Seeded) Fig. Mo-5 MONONGAHELA BASIN BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND SCALE OF MILES OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY U. S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 1941PITTSBUI GRE^fcjSBURG CLAIRTJ >mithdal( nroungyoot Monongahelo* .EASANT ;harler< Jcnt ley vil le O%C0NNELLSV14.LE J- FS.Conneljsvi^e ISVILLE SOMERSET! ‘UHJONTOWN WAYNESBURG rasontoj ^--G° Meyer [Confluence \Youghiogheny Rivet Reservoir 'Lake Lynn MORGANTOWN1 •AIRMONT Monongahj ’Shinnston GRAFTON1 .CUARKSBURG ■ Philippi Buckhannoiv LEGEND Average pH. Results at Sampling Stations Symbol pH. ----- Over 8.3 O----- 6.6 to 8.5 ----- 4.0 to 6.5 ----- under 4.0 OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY U. S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 1941 Fig.Mo-5a MONONGAHELA BASIN pH. RESULTS 0 10 SCALE OF MILESTwenty-two stream gaging stations with records of consequence have been maintained in the Monongahela River Basin at various times, of which 19 are currently in operation. Table Mo-6 shows monthly mean summer flows at eight stations for three dry summers during the period of record. Flows on the Monongahela River and the lower Tygart River have been affected by Tygart Reservoir completed in 1938* Figure Mo-6 indicates that the frequency with which minimum monthly mean summer flows have occurred and would have occurred with regulation by Tygart and Youghiogheny Reservoirs are as follows: Minimum Monthly Mean Summer Regulation feet per second that may be Flov^s in expected cubic once in Status 2 Years 5 Years 10 Years Minimum Youghiogheny River at Connellsville, Pa. Unregulated 480 270 180 83 Regulated by Youghiogheny Dam 1340 990 800 600 Monongahela River at Charleroi, Pa. Unregulated 3130 1300 730 250 Regulated by Tygart Dam 3330 1330 930 400 Low-flow Regulation - There are two private reservoirs of consequence on the basin used for power. Lake Lynn on the Cheat River below the proposed Cheat River reservoir has a capacity of 72,300 acre-feet. Deep Creek reservoir on a headwater stream of the Youghiogheny River has a capacity of 106,000 acre-feet. 3oth of these reservoirs are operated to produce peak load power and are of limited benefit to the pollution problem. The normal fluctuating flows below peak power reservoirs are undesirable from a standpoint of pollution abatement.The following reservoirs in the basin have been built, are under construction or have been studied by the U. S. Engineer Department in connection with the authorized program for Ohio River flood control. Reservoir Stream Status Storage Acre-Feet Tygart River Tygart R. Completed 278,800 Youghiogheny Youghiogheny R. Under construction 249,000 Cheat River Cheat R. Proposed 890,000 West Fk. above Clarksburg Brownsville V/est Fork it ii Proposed Proposed 61,200 101,300 Elk Creek Elk Creek Proposed 114,300 The Tygart Reservoir is being operated to provide low-flow control and the Youghiogheny Reservoir will be so operated. The major value to pollution cbatement of these reservoirs and of the proposed reservoirs is in supplementing mine sealing for the control of acidity. The value of such flow regulation is discussed in the section of the report on "Acid Mine Drainage.'1 In addition, they could aid in abating pollution in the Ohio River below Pittsburgh due to sewage and other organic wastes. Except for the reservoirs on the V/est Fork and Elk Creek above Clarksburg, flow augmentation by the proposed projects would have no appreciable tangible value for the abatement of organic pollution within the Monongahela River basin. The West Fork Reservoir could also be of value in ensuring the adequacy of ClarksburgTs public water supply, which suffered a serious shortage in 1930.Table Mo-6 Monongahela River Basin ~ Monthly Mean Summer Flows for Years in Which Low Summer Flows have Occurred* River Location Monongahela Charleroi Pa. turtle Cr* Trafford Pa. Youghiogheny Connellsville Pa. Cheat R» Parsons W.Va, River Miles Above: Conf.with Mon. R* 5*5 144 78.lt- Mouth of Mon# R* k2 16.5 60 167.5 Drain* Area Sq.Mi. 5,213 5i*8 1,326 719 Period of Record 1933-59 1916-.59 1909-59 1913-59 Year ■m mmm mmm T9J6- " - " 1952---- 19^9“ --- T930 June c.f.s* 1,314.5 3.59 1,971+ 573 July tf 1,337 2.57 1.571 89.3 August tt 2,372 *96 285 34.9 September tt 911 .56* 85 *2* 23.3* Year"* 19314.---- 1930~ ~ ~ “ 1910 1932 „ June tt 1,009 U8.9 5,229 U96 July tt It-, 296 1+.57 575 1,560 August ft 1,501 •95 100 576 September tt 475* 1*22 218 87.9 Year 1939 , (l) 1922 1911*- 1936 June n 7,U88 1,230 305 July tt 7,14-7! 58.8 536 1,514.0 August tt 2,280 2.1*9 323 475 September tt (1) Regulated by Tygart Reservoir* River Cheat R. West Fork West Fork tfygart R* Location Pisgah, Enterprise Clarksburg Belington W.Va. W.Va* W.Va* W.Va* Klver Miles Above r Conf.with Mon. R, 18 15.0 30*7 61*9 Mouth of Mon* R* 107*1 141.1 158.6 190 Drain* Area Sq.Mi. 1.360 759 581+ 1+08 Period of Record 1928-39 1907-16 1923-59 1907-59 Year --- T930- 7 " ~ - 1930----- 1950---- June c.f.s. 1,144-0 157 15.6 151 July n 251, 162 5.2k 21 August n 714-.ll. 105 4.95 2,5 September n 14.3.U* 19*8* 4.55 .65* Year T&r - - - T9T0---- J932----- 1932“ June * tt 665 798 16.9 205 July n 1.960 3 £2 176 812 Augus t n 544 254 57.8 160 September n 115 1+5^ 5.89* 12*9 Year T&6---- 1956---- T956----- T9TJ8---- June tt WU 3,0*7 7.48 388 July August tt n 254 136 75.5 107 391 83*8 September 221 38.5 1 26.2 17*2 * Minimum Month* 269 - I ro ->i 0 1 2000- FIGURE MO-6 SUMMER LOW FLOW FREQUENCY CURVE YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER AT CONNELLSVILLE, PA. MONONGAHELA RIVER AT CHARLEROI, PA. 1917 TO 1940 INCL. 0) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent of Years Minimum Monthly Mean Discharge Equaled or Exceeded (Only June-July-August-September considered) U.S.E. D.-O. R.D. Fig. Mo-Discussion The major problem in this basin is the control of acidity from acid mine drainage which enters the streams. The demonstrated success of acid control at the mine by sealing has indicated a promising line of attack on the mine acid problem. In addition, flow regulation is a valuable supplementary control measure. A discussion of this problem, concluding with the presentation of a mine sealing - flow regulation acid control program for the area above the Ohio - West Virginia -Pennsylvania line, will be found in the acid mine drainage section of the Report.' Stream restoration requires control of all types of pollution and up to the present time uncorrected acid mine pollution has served as a deterrent to organic pollution abatement. The germicidal and chemical coagulating action of the acid and iron salts may greatly reduce acute odor and nuisance conditions during normal times and this point has been the subject of considerable discussion. However, sludge deposits, visual nuisance from floating sewage materials, and odors are present at and below- sewer outlets. Water supplies from the river below have no dependable safeguard because of fluctuations in acidity and the possible sudden elimination of nearly all acid during high flows. Damages from acid conditions in the upper Ohio Basin are estimated at over ^2,000,000 per year, excluding unevaluated and intangible damages believed at least to equal the tangible damages. In considering stream restoration in mine acid areas, mine acid control and organic pollution abatement should be carried on as parallel programs. Both measures are necessary if complete restoration is to be obtained. A single measure may be amply justified in individual cases but maximum benefits are possible only when the two programs are carried on in parallel. The suggested program of sewage and industrial waste treatment outlined herein will be fully justified only in conjunction with a comprehensive acid reduction program. Pittsburgh and Vicinity At present, nearly all of the sanitary sewage and industrial wastes from Pittsburgh and vicinity are discharged directly into the creeks and rivers, causing unsightly and malodorous conditions along all water fronts. This area re-ceives the largest pollution load in the basin, aggregating a total of about 460,000 sewered population equivalent. The Pittsburgh problem is discussed and cost estimates are included under the Main Ohio River. Effective chemical treatment at a site or sites, chiefly on the Ohio River, appears feasible, or primary treatment, plus maintenance of increased summer flow below Pittsburgh, offers a promising alternate solution. Youghiogheny River This stream receives a total pollution load of 106,000 sewered population equivalent. Of the 5 treatment plants, the largest is at Somerset, Pennsylvania, and serves 5,400 persons. Laboratory findings show low' coliform, biochemical oxygen demand and pH results while the dissolved oxygen results are fairly high. The largest sources of pollution are at Greensburg, Connellsville and Somerset, Pennsylvania. Primary treatment should be adequate at G-reensburg and at other communities on highly acid streams, pending rather complete acid control. With such control, secondary treatment will be required at Greensburg and at smaller communities located on headwater streams, subject to zero or near-zero flow Main Monongahela River (Except Pittsburgh) McKeesport, Clairton, Belle Vernon, Charleroi, Morgantown and Fairmont are the more important cities located on the main stream. None of these places have waste treatment plants. Industrial wastes are of minor importance except at Clairton and vicinity where there is an industrial waste concentration. Uniontown, located on Redstone Creek, has primary treatment of domestic sewage for 25,000 persons and for equivalent industrial waste of 2,000. This is the largest treatment plant in the basin. The treatment is adequate at the present time but,should acid in Redstone Creek be controlled, supplementary secondary treatment facilities would be required. Jeannette, Pennsylvania, on Turtle Creek, has secondary treatment viiich has been unable to handle all industrial wastes Pretreatment of these wastes with discharge to the municipal treatment plant is required if full corrective benefits are to be obtained.Although the laboratory findings indicated generally acceptable conditions at the time of sampling, except for acidity on the main Monongahela River, sewage treatment should be installed to improve conditions at the sewer outfalls, eliminate floating materials, prevent sludge deposits and protect the many water plants located short distances downstream. Primary treatment should be adequate. Although there has already been considerable activity toward correcting industrial waste pollution in the Clairton area, certain minor additional steps are indicated and continued effort toward reducing this pollution is justified. Cheat River This stream is generally in good sanitary condition and show little acidity. Recreational use of the stream is important. The largest source of pollution is found at Parsons, West Virginia, on the headwaters and is principally due to industrial waste. In view of the present condition of the stream, primary treatment of waste seems justified to remove settleable solids and floating material to prevent local nuisances . Tygart River Sanitary conditions are generallj^ good in this stream and acidity is not now a problem, largely because of past mine sealing activities. This stream is used extensively as a source of water supply. Elkins, West Virginia, with a sewered population of 8,100 and industrial waste equivalent of 15,000 additional, is the largest source of pollution on this stream. The domestic sewage is untreated but the industrial waste at Elkins is so treated that a reported reduction of 90 percent in settleable solids is obtained and oxygen conditions are generally improved. A high degree of treatment is justified in this area, not only to improve the stream locally but also to protect the waters of Tygart Reservoir. West Fork River Clarksburg, West Virginia, with a sewered population equivalent of 29,000, is by far the largest source of pollution on this stream and its effect is clearly evident in thelaboratory findings. The dissolved oxygen is reduced and the biochemical oxygen demand and coliform organisms are increased. In general, the main stream is not highly acid except near the mouth where many tributary creeks with low pH values discharge acid mine drainage. Two sewage treatment plants are located on this stream. Secondary treatment of sewage at Clarksburg appears advisable to reduce oxygen demand and coliform counts. At least primary treatment is necessary at all other communities. Y/eston will require secondary treatment to reduce bacterial pollution. A summary of costs of the remedial program discussed is shown on Table Mo-1.OHIO RIVER POI.I'JTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS Sampling Point Mileage From Moulh Dale .........1ali.9......1 Average Discharge c. f. ». Temp. °C Dissolved Oxygen ! p. p. m. j % Sal. J 5 Day B. O. D. p. p. m. I Conforms i M. f’. N. ! Per ml. ■n i ity Alkalinity ' p. p. m. | Hardncn p. p. m. West Fork River MoWf 195 | June I1* ; 27-0 7.3 : 90.2 : 0.7 i 15 7.0 j 36 : II N ti " i ........ “ 26 125 119.5 7.7 : 83.6 ; 0.6 i 93 7.0 i 38 j it tt ti | July 2 107 j 18.5 8.1 | 85.8 i 0.6 1 39 7.2 j ! 1 ! : • 1 : • : West Fork River MoWf 193.5 June lU ■26.0 6.6 j 80.2 | 0.3 | 93 6.9 • 33 j ii n ti H " 26 127 119.5 7.0 j 75.7 : 0.8 | **3 6.9 i 29 i ii ti ti ii July 2 109 118.5 7.3! 77.6 i 0.5 I 93 7.0 ; i j j i i : • West Fork River A>ov£_ PoD? Qjieefc. MoWf 183.2 June 17 119 ■ 23.5 6.7 j 77.6 j 1.0 | 2,UOO 7.° : U7 : ii it it ii " 26 130 i 20.5 7.3 I 80.0 I l.U i 2,uoo 6.9 : U 2 ; ti ii ti n July 2 110 :19.0 7.7 ! 82.u i 1.6 i U30 7.0 ; i ! 1 Polk Creek at mouth MoWfP 193-5 June lU i 26.5 3,U I U2.U ; 3.7 : 930 6.9 : k7 i *♦7 n ii " K " 26 8 j 18.5 5.5 j 58.5 : 1.8 ; 1.100 7.0 : 52 U6 tt tt ii ii July 2 19 j 18.0 7.1 | 7U.5 i l.U i 2,Uoo 7.° j Ul Stone Coal Creek at Mouth Vfcstonj W. Va,. MoWfS 19U June lU 127.0 5.“* j 66.U ; 0.7 : 230 6.9 i UU U2 ii it ti tt " 26 UU jis.5 7.6 j 81.0 ; 0.8 • 2U0 7.0 ; uu 37 11 N it It July 2 57 j 17-5 7.9 i 81.5 i 0.9 i 93 7.1 i Ui West York fciver, ‘below Stone Coal Creek oelow MoWf 192 ............ June lU ;26.5 6.0 ; 7^.0 j 1.8 ; U60 6.8 ! 35 it ii - " » 26 190 f 17-5 7.1 j 73.7 : 1.2 1.100 7.0 i 50 35 it ii ■ • July 2 190 |19.O 7.6 1 81.3 | 1.1 j U60 7.! 1 • ! ; ! i | I | j West Fork River -Bjp X.QV. A a£Js8 on. MIX..... MoWf 189 June lU ! 28.0 5-7 j 71.7 i 0.8 ; >*3 7.0 ; ^3 35 ii it II tt " 26 197 120.0 6.5 | 71.1 ; 0.9 ; U60 6.9 | U8 it tt It ft July 2 195 :2o.o 6.8 ! 7U.0 : 1.3 i U60 7.0 j *3 j ; | | • i i • i Wes't Tork River "beTow ....... MoWf 180.3 June 17 220 : 22.5 : 6.2 i 71.3 | 0.9 ; 23 7.0 j Ul ti it it it « 27 210 : 20.5 i 7.0 j 77.6 ; 0.5 j 23 7.1 i Ui ii it n ■ July 3 359 119.5 7.5 | 81.3 | 1-5 ! 2UO 7.2 : West Fork River Jfe&t. Mi HoriU _ UL. _ 7a* _. _ IMoWf 17* June 17 2UU (22.5 7.° i 79.1* : 0.9 : **3 : 7.0 : 21 n it it tl " 27 22U 121.0 7-6 ! 8U.2 | 0.8 | *+3 7.1 i 39 n n n II July 3 U15 120.0 7.8 : 85.2 i 1.0 : «»3 7.2 ! i | 1 j | 1 1 j i West Fork River lfntt er.. Fort #. >L _ y.a*____ ■MoWf 167 June 17 268 |23.5 7.1 i 82.2 : 1.0 ! **3 7.1 j 39 *+5 II H it It .. 27 238 120.5 7.U i 81.6 ; O.U i 9 7.1 i 5* UU it n B II July 3 U72 120.5 7-9 | 87.2 i 0.8 ; 93 7.2 1 Uo i i i i i | i | i Brown Creek at mouth Xvn Link, W. Y*......... MoWfB 166 June 17 10 120.5 7.7 j 8U.9 | j 1 3.0 i 520 ii tt it tt » 27 3 i 17-5 8.2 ! 8U.6 i 1.6 s ** 2.8 j 660 n n H tt July 3 7 j 20.5 8.1 ; 88.9 1 3.5 I 2 3.2 I III:! 1 1 West Fork River above Clarksburg, V. Yn. MoWf 161 May 20 695 i 20.0 7.2 j 78.5 1 0.2 ! 1 6.0 : 28 N tt " ■ n 27 935 : 18.0 8.0 j 83-9 i 3.2 ! 2 6.7 | i tl It ,, " 30 235 ; 18.0 8.2 j 86.0 i 0.8 : 2 6.0 i i ! i i j i i OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS Sampling Point Miloage From Mouth Date ........jtato..... £V<*°S* | T»mp. 1 )ischorg« i oq j c f. *. j ; Dittolvod Oxygon ! p. p. A. j % Sot. | 5 Day ! B.O.D. j p. p. n. ; Coliform | M P. N. J Per ml. J JH i Turbidily p. p. m. 1 Alkalmrty ! p. p. m. ardnsss p. K. West Pork River above MoWf l6l June l4 595 123.0 i 6.1 j 70.3; 1.0 i 9 : 6.6 i j 20 + 1.2 ; ...1,6?.: 11 3.1: ii tt w " July 1 12 ! 20.0 8.2; 89.4 1.4 j : 6.3! 20 j j | ! Elk Creek W. Pike St. Pjri4ge Clarksburg W.Va MoWfE 159 July 10 : 23.0 5.6 i 63.9 6.0 • 9.6*: 73o| 4.6! 7 ! ■ ! ; j ; | Elk Creek at mouth MoWfE 158 May 20 17U i 20.0 5.21 56.7 1.2 : ...2,3*. i 1,100 i 6.2 | i 20 tt ti " 27 235 1 19.0 8.0 | 85.6 0.6 ; 150 j 6.5 i 16 tt n it tt " 30 60 i 18.0 8.4 i 88.1 3.2 : 931 6.0: | 26 it tt tt tt June l4 150 i 23.0 j 6.9 : 79-5 1.3 | 150 j 6.8 ! 20 ii n n it B 20 370 I 21.0 6.9! 76.8 tt-) «* • 6.7 I ! 22 R It it n " 28 73 1 21.0 3.31 36.7 2!0 j 5.8 i | 18 ti it ti it July 2 283 j 7.4 j 5.0* i 230: 6.6: ! 24 ti ti « a " 10 24 j 24.0 i l.U ! 16.4 2.3' 1 2.8* i 360 j 5*2! 10 12 : j ! Limestone Run at _ -mouth--Cl arksbur^rW^-Ya. tt it MoWfl 157 May 28 13! 21.0 9.° I 100.1 2.4 ! .-.4,6!.; 21 4.4 j i It tt June 6 11; 23.0 8.6! 99.1 3.8 i 4.0* ! 9: 4.8! ti n " tt " 13 90 j 24.0 1 7-8i 91.4 2.0 : 1,8* j 15: 1 9 » It it " 19 21i 21.0 i 8.0 j 89.0 2.2 : 2.4* 1 240! 6.1 i I 18 n it " tt " 27 51 21.0 j 8.0; 89.O 2.0 | 2.4*: 2 j 4.6: it tt II tt July 1 18; 21.0 i 8.0: 89.0 0.6 i _..i.6* i 21 • 5.6 i ! 16 i • i j j | ! West Fork Elver MoWf 158 May 20 895:20.0; 5.8 i 63.2 **•7 i 4.8*: 4: 6.1; j 34 it n ti it 27 1,200 i 19.0 i 8.2; 87.7 1.2 • 211 6.7: i 12 ti n n tt " 30 315 j 17.0 1 7.8 80.1 2.Ti I 0.4*: 240; 6.1! j 16 u tt ti ti June 14 I 765 i 24.0 j 7-4 j 86.8 5.1 i 93: 6.71 18 II It " " " 20 12,100123.0: 7.0 80.6 3.6' : 3.2*: 150: 6.6 j 18 II II n it “ 28 | 306 i 22.0 : 6-^ 72.5 2,400; 6.7! 20 OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS Sampling Point Mileage Fran Mouth } Av«og. j T Date e D^Kvjrge i i ........19U.Q......!.............J. Dissolved Oxygen ! x p. m. | % Sot. ! 5 Day i B.O.D. j p. p. m. j Colilomi ; M. P. N. ; p«f ml. ; •n ! Turbidity i Alkalinity j Hordnen p. p. m. | p. p. m. j p. p. m. "Wes t fork Elver MoWf 158 July 2 858;22.0 ! 7.**S 83.8 j M : „j^3-*~i 24o i 6.0 | ; 24 : it n H It “ 10 j2U.O j 6.2! 72.5 : 2.U j 2,300 i 6.6 i 1 19 I j i j i j |i| j ffesi TorlE River Perry Mine below MoWf 155 May 20 895!20.0 j 5.*j 63.2 j 0.8 ; 240 j 6.3 | j 26 : n n tt tl n 27 1,200;19.0 | 8.oi 85.6 ; U.o j 9 1 6.4 | 1 16 j ti n tt tt " 30 315il7.0 j s.o: 82.1 i 2.0 : 460 i 6.2 ; 18 1 tt it tt " June 14 765:21+.0 • 6.4! 75.0 j 6.2 • 240 I 6.8 : 1 19 i it ti it II " 20 2,100;22.0 i 7.0; 79.3! 1.2 i 150 ; 6.7 | : is ! n tt n II " 28 306i22.0 | 6.3! 71.3 i 750 : 6.3 I .........i.....*!............ H H ii - July 2 858:22.0 | 7-Uj 83.8 : 2.1 ; 240 i 6.1 i i * i tt H it It " 10 ■ 24.0 i 3.8! UU. 3 ; 2.6 i 2,300 i 6.3 : i 18 i ill: i 1 ! i ! West Fork River MoWf 149.8 May 20 900:21.0 i 6.2 i 69.0 i 2.6 i ** : 5.4 i : 6 S tt ti it tl " 27 1,210 U9.0 i 8.0; 85.6 i 0.8 ; 21 i 6.2 i : 16 : tt it ti II " 30 330118.0 | 7.4; 77.6 i 2.0 j •* : 5.5 i 1 !4 | tt it it It June l4 730; 23.0; 6.6; 76.0 ; 3.0 i 7 6.4 j j 11 i n tt it ■ " 20 2,100j 22.0i 6.8; 77.o ! 0.8 | 30 6.6 i is ; it tt n II " 28 306; 22.ol 6.1! 69.1 1 24 6.3 : 6! it ti * It July 2 858! 21.o| 7-*M 2.3 i 240 6.3 : 20; it it it H " 10 so; 25.5; 5.8i 69.3 —lvo—, 1.1* 4 4.! | i4 i i | i | i 1 j i j Simpson Creek above .. B?idj£ e£0 rtx. W.__ V a t _ _ _ _ MoVfS 162 May 28 78; 17.0i 9-2; 94.5 4.2 ! 5-0* • * 2.9 i { 1 i j i ; j : j i | Simpson Creek above IMoWfS 162 June 6 65; 22.0; 9.0:101.9 1.4 2.8 i 1 ; n tt it H " 13 425; 20.0; 8.5; 92.7 3-1 1.1* 1 3.2 ; | ; tt tt " tl n 19 125; 20.0; 7-7| 84.0 1.3 1.2* 21 3.2 i I ! tt tt ti It h 27 22: 18.oi 7.8; 81.8 0.0 0.8* • • 2.8 i ; it tt n it July 1 38**: 17.0; 7.**i 76.0 0.2 1.8* 110 3.4 j j ! Simpson Cr. Bridge bel* MoWfS 156 May 28 33! 18.oi 9.4; 98.5 2.4 • » 3.1 ; I ! ! ; ; 2.0 J tt it it " • j n it It H 13 U50: 21.oi 7-o| 77-9 0.2 0.0* 2 3.4 i 1 » I tt tt II " « 19 125: ii.oi 7.6; 84.5 0.1 i.y 24 3.5 | n tt It 11 " 27 22; 19.oj s.u; 39.8 0.2 0.8* 1 2.9 j it tt II It July 1 384; 17.oj 7.2; 73-9 0.6 0.2* 110 3.4 i j 1 1 I | j I j j j Salem Fork ...... MoWfTS*l68.5 May 28 ui 20.0: 2.6; 28.4 9-6 210 7.i ; i 130 i tt tt - June 6 9; 2U.0: 3.0; 35.2 10.4 430 6.8 ; j ! 1 ! 1 ! ! 1 i i Salem Fork En«t. Spl ftmt W. 1Ef|T MoWfTSal68.5 June 13 70: 25.0; J 7.6 8- K* 150 6.8 i I 62 ! n tt It tt " 19 18; 21.01 5-8: 64.5 3.5 6.9 ! 32 : it n It tt " 27 | 21'°l 3.2* 93 7.0 j i 72 i tt tt 1 n 11 July 1 ioj 19. oi 6.4 68. k 4.8 930 6.4 ; i 24 i 1 i ! | j ! | ! j j I | i j i i i j i j OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS Average J Discharge \ c. f. *. ! Dissolved Oxygen | Turbidity p p. m. Alkalinity p. p. m. Hardness p. p. m. Sampling Point Mouth Date ..........ifiki..... •c. : % Sat. ! D. O. D. p. p. m. M. P. n. ; Per ml. | pH i Salem Pork "below MoWfTS May 28 121 17.0; 80.1 ; 3.8 .--7. 2*.' 210 ; 7.0 ; 12 it n June 6j 10* 24.0! 56.3 i 2.2 2,4* 29 i 6.6 i 42 n ti tt n 13; 74; 25.0; 23.9 i 4.8* 24 ; 6.9 i 6 it ti tt if " 19! is; 21.0! 66.7 i 3.6 ...3.2*. 240 i 6.7 ; 2 it n ti tt 27 : 21.0! 46.7 j 1.2 2,4* 360 j 7.0 ; 6 ii tt July 1 10 i 19.0; 70.6 ; 2.6 1,100 j 6.4 ! 23 • i i ; i j Ten "Mile Creek' Above lumberport VoWfT l4g May 29 560: 18.0; 90.1 ! 0.2 .4 i 5-8; 9 ii n tl II June 7 43i 19.0; 77.0 0.2 ..JJ.4*. 1; 6.0 i 8 n it II II " IS 581; 23.0! 80.6 9 i 6.1; 12 Ten MiJ,e Creek Above Lumberport MoWfT 148 June 21 92: 19.0! 83.4 1.2 24 i 6.6 i 21 ii • ii 29 61: 22.0! 81.5 1.2 460 i 6.2 i 16 tt ii ii ii July 3 116: 17.0| 84.2 0.8 93 : 6.1 i 30 At mouth below Lumberoortj W. Va. MoWfT 146.5 May 29 570: 18.0; 9b.4 1.0 ** 1 4.6 i 9 it ii H June 7 47; 24.0! 82.1 2.6 2j 8* ** ! 4.8 ; ii it « 11 18 58ii 22.0; 70.2 4.0 4.2* 3 ! 6.3 i ii ti II tl it 21 92: 19.0! 83.4 1.3 QiS*- 24 j 6.5 ; 18 ti tt II H 29 61: 21.0! 79.0 0.9 93; 6.1 i l4 it it II II July 3 H7i 22.0! 88.3 0.1 24 ; 5.6 i 20 ! ! West Fork ‘River Urlcfge !& Va. MoWf 145.5 June 7 i 23.0; 62.2 0.2 ** ! 3.2 i ii II « 18 610; 23.0! 79.5 0.9 150 j 3.4 i II It ii tt it 21 1,430! 20.0! 77.4 1.5 1.2* 43 i 4.7 I n ii ii " 11 29 525! 22.0; 83.8 0.4' 0.2* 24 i 3-3 i II II it II July 3 4,370; 18.0| 75.5 0.6 1.8* 240 i 4.4 i i, j West Fork River below MoWf 1U3.5 May 29 700; 19.0; 94.1 9 i 3-5 ; •i .. : June 7 370! 25-Oj 74.0 0.6 0j2* ** s 3-2 i ti tt ii II n 18 710: 23.oi 73-7 0,9 .....1. 93 | 3.4 i ii it it ii June 21 1,320! 20.0; 80.7 0.9 43 ; 4.8 | ii tt n it H 29 5251 22.oj 81.5 0.0 ..1,2.*_ 43 i 3-4 i it tt h n July 3 | 4,370! 19.oi 79.1 3.3* i 4.6 West Fork River Bridge abv. Worthington, W.Va. MoWf 138 May 21 4,950! 19. oi 81.3 1.0* 6 I 5.7 ■ it It June 12 | 780! 27.o| 94.2 1.4* 9- j 3-5 it it it II ! ■ 26 I 755j ! 0.6* 93 i 3-8 S { S i ; West Fork R.Highway Br. MoWf 2.0 ti it tt tt i *’ 24 600 j 20.Oi 78.5 1.0* 24 ; 3.6 1^ ii tt " " June 4 1.250: 19.oi 81.3 2 ! 3.3 : tt " ; fl 12 800; 27.0! 81.8 0.2* 24 : 3.5 j it ti tt " : I* ________ 26 759! -■Q-y- 0.1* 24 i 3.8 : j ! 1 | 1 j ; West Fork River at mouth Fairmontt W. V&, I MoWf 129 iM^r 21 5.250; 19.0; 77.0 ! 0.4 0.8* 5 i 5.4 j 10 ti it " i " 2k 64o| 21.o! 57.8 oM 2 • 4 it i 2 OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS ................ .........Z _ ' Dissolved : Turbidity ! Alka p. p. m. ! p. p inlty 1 Hardness m. | pp. m. Sampling Point Mouth Dale .......194jQ.......! )ischorge | C.f.1. S •C. j P. P. HI. j m. p. n. : Per ml. ! pH | West Fork River at MoWf 129 June 4 I 1,300 j 19.oi 8.0 j 2 ; 4-3 i n it ■ tt 11 12 850 i 28.d 5.8 I 2 i 3.6 i it it tt II ■ -26 788 j j 6.9 | 23 : 3.9 j 1 • ! 1 1 1 I ! • ■ 1 1 ME?**. MoTy 211 June 13 ! 13.51 7.9 j 1,100 : 6.9 | 3°; " it " 21 770 j 16.5! 8.4 j 23 i 7-0 | 39 i ft II it H July 1 388 i 19.0 8.1 j 43 j 7.2 i II II n * tl 9 196 j 21.0; 8.4 j 750 i 7.3: | j | j j | ; Tygart River "U miles below Elkins, V. Va. MoTy 205-5- June 13 22.Oi 7.2 ! 2,400 1 6.8 j 28: . ii It ■ 21 790 i I6.OI 8.2 i 210 j 6.9 j 31: « it it it July 1 1*10 i I7.5i 7-5 j 460 i 6.9j u ii ii II ti 9 215; 20.0; 6.2 j 230 i 6.9! i S : i : • iii i Grassy Run at mouth MoTyG 202 July 9 1 16.q 8.2 i •* : 2.5 i 5 1 Tygart River 7 miles MoTy 201.5' July 9 226 j 20.Oi 7.0 ; 150 : 7.1 ; S ' 1 1 1 J 1 1 * ! 1 1 1 • 1 J J 1 Tygart R. 8 mi. below MoTy 201.3 June 13 22.0!7.5 2,400 i 6.9 i 27 i ii tt it it it 21 950 16.0! 8.5 930 7.0 j 30 i it it it " July 1 U90 18.017.8 110 j 7.1 j n tt ti ii n 9 238 21.5! 7-2 7-2 i 13 | : ^3 ! 1 J | S { ’ mm ¥oZU edge of Btilineton, W. Vn. MoTy 192 June 13 23.5i 8.0 1,100 6.9 i 200 1 32-; 30 it ti it 21 1,100 l4.5; 9.0 240 6.s : 18 ; 25 i 30 tl It " 11 Jtily 1 592 17.oj.8.4 230 6.8 i 22 i : 39 ! ! : I j : i j j Middle Fork River ftjmt.£ridge«_.V.._Ya^____ MoTyMf 198 ! June 13 23.5i 8.2 3 6.8 i 7 i is i 15 n it tt 11 n 21 250 13.5|9.5 46 6.7 i 8 1 13 i 12 n n ti ti July 1 210 16.5:8.8 7 6.7 i 6 i : 12 Buckhannon River MoTyBu 206 June 13 24.0; 7.4 46 6.7 : 17 i II tl ii N " 21 350 15.5; 8.8 **3 6-7 i !9 i II H tt tt July l 2U0 17.oi 8.5 93 6.7 i Buckhannon River below Buckhannont W. Va, MoTyBu 201.5 June 13 25.5: 7,0 150 6,7 i 35 24 i 20 it it ti II 11 21 550 16.0: 8.4 43 6.71 13 23: 24 ii it tt II July l 46o 18.0; 8.0 93 6.7 i 28 j ! 20 Buckhannon River MoTyBu 180 June 12 | 25.5:7.2 210 6.6 i 500 23 ! 22 tt ii ti II " 20 1,450 i 19.0:8.3 240 6.6 24 : 21 j 19 tt ii ■ H 11 28 366 : 21.0:8.3 9 6.8 I 23 1 : 21 ! ! ! • S * ! ' • I j ' { 1 { | Tygart River above CUJLtiuU.Jfi.Xaft_________ MoTy 174.5 June 12 i 27.0:7.7 150 6.8 j 42 j tt ti it " 20 4,500 j 18.0 j8.8 460 6.7 23 1 it it It II tt 28 980 j 20.5:8.2 4 6.6 i 1 ' 1 « 1 ' ' 1 : ' 1 ! • ! • OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS Sompllng Point Mileage From Mouth Date . 1.240....... Averogv Discharge c. f. 1 Tamp. ! •c- I Dinolved Oxygen p. pm. 1 '%Sa 1. 5 Day ao. d. p. p. m. Coliformi M P. N. Per ml. <*■ | Turbidity p. p. m. ! Alkalinity j Hardness p. p. m.1 | p. p. m. Tygart River MoTy 166.5 June 12 e?,0 i 7,6 94,5 e,5 23 6,9 j 28 ; " ii it fi 20 8,000 17.51 8.7 89.8 1.4 93 6.8 ! ! 27 j fl II ii " 11 28 1,000 21.51 8.2 92.0 0,4 4 6.8 i i j | i| j i feSte above MoTy 150 June 12 21,5 | 10,2 114,1 0.3 2 6.6 j i is: II II it 11 " 20 8,400 17.0 1 10.3 105.7 0.7 4 6.6 ! ! 18 j tt ii ii ii 11 28 1.550 20.0 i 9.5 103.7 0.4 23 6.8 ! ; ! ; 1 j j i i j I ' “TfcYg 6* 'TbYS.r *Cr eSR" % mile above mouth MoTyTf ll*9.5 June 12 ! 26.0 | 8.1 98.4 O O -J VJl * 43 5-6 i 2 16; 52 II 11 11 20 432 16.0 ! 9-3 93-7 0.5 240 6.6 I 23 ! 20 i 35 ii ii II n it 28 70 21.5 j 8.2 92.6 i.8 1.5* 43 5.8 I 8 i 57 | i i I 1 II ¥ftf! 50 MoTy 146.7 June 12 21.0 I 9-5 .05.6 0.4 23 | 6.7 j 151 « tt 20 8,800 17.0 j 10.1 103.3 0.7 43 | 6.6 j j 16; ff tf 11 " n 28 1,620 20.5 j 9.3 .02.4 0.6 23 6.8 i ; ! 2? os^bov'e mouth MoTy 132 June 12 i 22.5! 8.9 101.3 ! 0.4 ; 23 • 6.6 i 14 17 j 30 II H it it - 20 8,800 16.5; 9.7 98.6 i 0.6 ! ■ 23 ! 6.6 i 27 j 19 1 26 . it 11 11 28 1,630 20.5! 8.4 92.8 ! 0.6 ! 23 i 6.8 ! 20 27 | i i 1 i i ! I ■ Monongahela R. Highway .BrA4ge..Falmaat...¥.ya. Mo 126.7 May 21 6,520 18.0! 7.6 79.7 ! 0.0 i 0.2* • * i 5.0 ! 1 10! - It II 11 " n 24 2,420 18.0| 8.8 92.2 ; 2.6 : 2.4 ! 3 j 4.4 i I ^ 1 It * » June 4 7.540 19.0| 8.2 87.7 ; i 93 I 5-4 1 i 12 i II tt it n " 12 2,400 27.0 6.4 79-3 1 ! 3-9 | i i tl II " n 26 2,420 \ ! 7.4 i"i.T‘“ i 0.8* 2! 1 4.5 j i 4 ! i | j j "Buffalo TTreelE Bridge above MoBc 145 May 29 30 | 19.0 6.8 72.7 150 i 6.6 i 32 i ii ti " " June 7 22 1 25.0: 7.2 85.9 ! O.Ti i 0.8* ! 24 I 7.0 j i 20 ■ ■ • n " 18 32 ! 22.0 6.6 74.7 i 0.9 93 6.3 j i 28 i H II " " " 21 21 | 18.0 7.8 81.8 ! 0.8 15 6.9 i 24 ! It II II * n 29 32 ; 23.0 6.3 72.6 I 1.3 93 6.9 j i 26 i If fl It » July 3 33 i 19.0| 8.0 85.6 I 2.4 43 5.9 i 26 j Buffalo Cr* Foot Br.bel. MannAg£k9iU.w,__yju........ MoBc i4o.7 May 29 115! 20.0 7.4 80.7 200 i 6-u i [ 32 | II tl it It June 7 45 ! 25.0| 5.2 62.1 2.6 I.J2.&*.... ** I 7.0 : i 26 j tf tt tt II it 18 118 23.0 6.3 72.6 1.9 930 6.3 i 28 j It tf * It 11 21 75 18.0 7.8 81.8 0.8 i..Q»8L*.... 210 6.91 i 26 j tl It n ■ H 29 62 I 22.0 6.0 68.0 3.2 A,a*.... 750 6.8 ! 28 j tt It it N July 3 94 18.0 8.0 83-9 1.0 240 5.8 1 26 i | I Buffalo Cr. R.R. Br. at aouth. Jalxnojit... .. Ho Be 127 34ay 21 5751 18.01 7.8 81.8 1.6 1 5.4 1 12 i it it a It " 24 70 21.0! 7.2 80.1 2.2 2,4* 110 6.2 ; i 12 i n ti n It June 4 150 | 20.0j 8.0 87.2 43 5.2 | ! 10 i ii ti n II n 12 98 ! 26.0i 7.2 87.6 2.8 4.0* 4 7.0 ; 48 I ti ti it " it 26 76 7.6 2.8 O.S* 75 6.9 1 ! 64 i Monongahela R. R.R. Br. Wo 124.2 *ay 21 7,100 | 19.0 8.2 87.7 1.0 1,2*, ** 10 i n n " If a 24 2,500; 18.0 1 8.6 90.1 1.6 2 6.6 • 8 : ................................................... _____________ ............ 1.......! i i II II OHIO RIVER rOLLUTiCN SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS Sampling Point Milaogo From Mouth Dot* .............. Avoroa* ; T„ ; p«ytl»n_ i>lscharge! or ' « 0* r c. 1.1 i ; p-p-*-1 5 Day | B.O.D. | p. p. m. | Coliforms M P. N. Per ml. (t J Turbidity : p.p.™. ! Alkalinity j Hardnett p. p. m. j p. p. m. Monongahela H. H.R. Br. Mo 12U.2 June 4 7,700; 19.0; 8.4 89.8 ! 9 5-2 i ! 12 ! n tt n it " 12 2,500; 27.0i 6.6 81.8 0.2 ; -0.J1?--: 1 3.9 j it it - « 26 2,500; i 7.4 0.6 : .CU2* : 93 4.5 j 4 : III! i | j ; j KononiraHela River feU&fVTXa........ Mo IOU.1 May 16 1,030: 16.0; 8.8 88.4 : •* 3-5 | 50 | It II It it 23 3,200; 20.0 j 8.6 93.8 1.4 ,JUS*_J ** 4.5 : 8 j ii n It ti June 3 11,300; 19.0! 8.2 87.7 0.4 : 0.6* : •• 5.2 i 4 i tt tt II ti " 11 3,000; 26.0! 7.8 94.9 o.4 ; _oa6?... ; 1 4.0 : it it It - 17 3,000; 23.0; 8.0 92.2 2.0 : : 2 4.9 | tt ti " " 25 9.350; j 8.1 •0.5 ; 0,4* : 4 5.1 i 6 i I i 1 ! ! 1 s 1 j Deckers Cr. Br* above MoDe io4 June 3 50; 15.0 j 9.6 94.6 1.4 : .1.8*....! •• 5.4 j 4 : ii ti II ft " 11 15j 25.0; 7.6 90.7 1.6 .2*5!— i 2 4.5 I it ii " 11 17 45; 23.0; 7.6 87.6 i.\ i .fi»6.*..J 2 3.9 I ; it it " " n 25 49: i 7.9 0.2 ; •Q.J,!....: 1 4.6 i DSdK'iFs I reek Shirt Factory Bridge AfcoY.fi. Mnrganlnum*. X -Vault n MoDe 103 May 16 10 I 16.0 j 8.8 88.4 43 ! 4.li ! 6 ! N It 11 gj 20 i 19.0; 9.0 96.3 2.0 1 ! 5.1: ; 6 f n ti ■ " June 3 55; 15.0 j 9.4 92.6 0.6' ..uz?.. 1 5.2 j 4 ! tt ii II tl " 11 20j 25.0 i 7.4 88.3 1.6 15 4.5: j ! tl fl " tl " 17 30 j 23.0 I 7.8 89.9 2.0 24 ! 3.9: i i II It II It " 25 54 i I 8.0 0.6 1.7* 9 4.6; ; 2 j • ! ' S j ! ! ' j jt mouth MoDe 101 May 16 15 i 16.0; 8.0 80.4 110 i 4.5! ; : II II ti tt " 23 25! 20.0 | 8.0 87.2 1.4 2.n* 150 ; 4.9; 1 6 j » it H June 3 60; 16.0 i 9.4 94.5 3.4 ! 3.n* 7 : 5.2; i 6 I II tt « II " 11 25; 25.0; 7.4 88.3 i 4.0 ; 7.R* 24 : 4.6; ; ; It II « « B 17 35; 23.01 6.8 78.3 : 6.0 : J2.£* 15 : 4.5; : tt It - II » 25 ^4 j ; 7.8 : 2.6 : 4.o* 930 ; 5-3: 1 5 i I : i I ! j i i l?WHK3i.ttw Mor^antown,. W.. Ya- Mo 100.9 May 16 1,050; 16.0 j 8.0 80.4 : •• i 3.5; | 34 i ti n It ■ • 23 3,250 j 20.0 i 8.8 96.0 : i.4 ;_.2,0*..... 1 I 4-4; : 6 ! n ii II II June 3 n,4oo; 19,0; 8.2 87.7 : 2.0 : ij 8* 4 i 5.0: ] 6 1 it ti " 11 3.050 i 25.5; 7.8 94.0 ; 1.0 4 i 4.4; it tt " II " 17 3,000:23.0 • 7.4 85.3 : 0.6 N 4 i 4.8; it it tt " " 25 9,400j ; s.o : 1.2 9 i 5.4; i 6 : j | j j KonongaKela "filver SSfifeL.au_________ Mo 97.7 May 16 1,070: 17.0! 8.8 90.3 1 •• I 3.5I 1 36 | It R n " " 23 3,300; 20.0: 8.2 89.4 : i.4 1 1 5.2; ! 11 ! " " " June 3 11,400; 19.0i 8.8 ! 94.1 : 0.2 2 ; 4.3: N II H II " 11 3,050: 26.0; 7.8 i 94.9 ; 0.2 2 I 4.2 j tl tl It II " 17 3,000; 23.0 j 7.8 ; 89.9 i 0.1 2 1 4.4; | i - tt II " 25 9.450I j 7.6 : 0.3 93 i u-6i ! 2 ! Monongahela River Sam Hc.Z.J’t*.Marian, Pa. . Mo 90 May 31 38,000; 16.0; 9.6 ; 96.5 ! 0.8 8 1 5.°; s ; • » it II June 10 3,250; 21.0j 7.6 : 84.5 ; 0.8 8 1 3.9; | 15 i tt tl ii " * 22 6,790; 19.0: 8.2 | 87.7 : 0.0 24 : 5.1; i 4 ! | | | j | | | j j i j j • j | 1 II OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS Sampling Point Mlleoge From Mouth Dale J2&.......1 Avorogo 1 x 1 Dmolvsd O«yo»n ! Discharge! ^P> ! 1 ] c. 1. 1 ! ■ p 0 " ; %Sal. | 5 Day i B.O.D. ! p. p. m. | Coliform* ; M. P. N. ; Pe* ml. J pH Turbidity p. p. m. Hardness p. p. m. Monongahela River Dam f Mo 90 Aug. 19 { U50; 26.5 i 7-3; 90.0 i 0.5* ; ___i ** ! 3-3 ti ii „ " 27 450; 23.5; 8.2; 9U.9 : 0.4* ! e* J 3-2 n ii ii ti Sept. 4 j 1,010! 23-5! 7.8! 91.3 i 1.1 0.6* * * | 3-5 ti ti tt 11 " 13 ! 8U5! 21.0; 8.U: 93.1 ; 1*3 ** ! 3.2 ii ti tt it " 17 j SU5: 20.5 i 8.4; 92.6 ; 1.1 o.s* ** | 3.4 it II n ti " 2k { 3Uoi 21.5; 7.8; 87.0 ; i.i .04!.. * * 2 3.5 H It 11 ti Oct. 2 | 1,770: 17.0 j 9.2: 94.5 i 0.6 0.6* 4 ; 4.3 It tl ,1 " 8 ; 1,370! 17.5; 9-1; 9U.1 i 0.8 ...o.J*. 1 i 3-8 It II 11 it " 17 j 630; 16.0 i 9.2; 92.3 ; 1.0 o.s* ** i 3-5 It tl 11 11 n 22 | 630; 13.0 i 9-71 91.5 i 1.2 ..0-9*. ** ! 3.5 II II 11 n " 30 j 1,050: 13.5i 10.0; 95.1 ; 2.4 1.8* ** 3-7 II It 11 it Nov. U u.iuo; 12.5; ll.l| 103.3 ; 1.1 1.1* I 4.6 " tt 11 « 12 1 1,830; 11.5 i 10.8; 98.8 ; 0.9 0.4* ** 4.1 » it ti * 20 2,110! 7.5; 11.5; 95-9 : 1.2 -i.-I!. ** ; 4.3 " 11 11 " 26 4.190i 7.5 j 12.2:101.9 ; 0.6 O.5* 2 4.2 » 11 11 Dec. 5 U,000; U.O! 13.1; 99-9 ; 0.6 1 4.1 ii n 11 it 9. U.500; U.O; 12.7; 96.u ; 0.8 ** 4.1 1 i i | | i SEaver 'Port miles above Parsons MoChS 168 June 19 2,800! 15.5j 8.6: 86.0 | 1.2 9 6.6 27 23 tl It tt tl n 25 U30: 18.5; 8.5; 89.9 0.3 15 6.9 u 25 II tt tt II July 5 380; 16.5: 8-9: 90.u 0.5 U 6.8 3 1 2U i | i ; SS^ffifis^State MoChDfBl-180 June 19 600 i 18.0; 7.8 81.2 1.6 150 6.5: 22 ; II If 11 11 « 25 135; 16.5j 8.U «.8 0.9 120 6.9 3° ; II It „ July 5 325i 15.0: 8.6 8U.8 1.9 43 6.7: | | j j 1 g.Tlc.BTaclcwaler "Slver Bridge Above jMoChNBl 18 June 19 64: 17.0; 6.7; 68.6 0.7 43 5.6; 17 ! ii n \ 11 11 " 25 29 i 16.5: 7.6 77.0 0.2 0,4* U 5.5: 20; ii ti j 11 11 July 5 37; 1U.5; 7-5 72-9 0.5 0,4* 23 5-5: N.Fk.Blackwater R. ;MoChNbL-180 June 19 64j 17.5; 8.1 8U.0 1-3 93 6.3 : 23 UU it t« 11 11 h 25 29: 18.oj 8.0 83.9 0-5 9 4.7 : 20 80 " it July 5 j 38: 15-5; 8.5 84.6 0.5 4 5-3 : 25 ; i ! ! I I : 1 i flackvater R. Bridge ChDfBl-17 July 19 1 1,000; 18.5: 8.3 88.2 1.2 46 5-3 35 26 n it II N i. 25 1 250: 16.5; 8.7 88.6 0.5 43 4.U 34 39 ii ii II II July 5 1 520; lU.O; 9.2 88.4 0.8 OJ* 9 U.6 28 [ ; Dry Fork River ChDf 17 June 19 1 1,800; 16.5: 9.0 91.0 0.7 23 7.2 II tf 11 t 11 25 ! 530: 17.5: 8.8 91.7 0.4 23 7.3 If ft " July 5 1 530; 15.0; 9-3 91.6 0.4 ; 9 6.9 Dry Fork River Bridge MoChDf 16 June 19 j 2,800; 18.5: 8.7 91.9 1.1 23 6.9 25 34 1 " 25 } 780: 16.5; 7.6 87.1 0.4 23 6.6 22 30 tt tt fl July 5 } l,100l 1U.5: 9.1 89.0 0.5 9 6.6 15 30 j j : | j j | j ; 1 > : ! i i : OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL- RESULTS Sampling Point Mileage From Mouth Data .........ista...... Average J T Discharge! oq Dissolved Oxygen 5 Day B. O. D. p. p. m. Conforms M. P. N. Per ml. »h Turbidity p. p. m. Alkalinity p. p. m. Hardness p p. m. p. p. m. % Sot. S^ifTes^tSIov Parsons MoCh 165.; June 19 5,6oo! 17.5 g.7 89.9 0.8 23 6.9 28 28 29 II II II II n 25 1,380| 17.5 8.4 86.7 0.3 15 6.8 16 33 27 II It It II July 5 1,7001 I5.O 8-9 88.6 0.3 23 6.7 14 26 i Cheat ffiver 5 miles helow Parsons MoCh 15S June 18 4,000; 20.5 8.1 88.9 0.5 39 6.9 22 26 45 II It 11 n tt 2U 1,500! 21.0 8.1 89.7 0.6 9 6.9 17 23 33 n it 11 11 July 8 990i 18.0 8.6 90.1 0.4 46 6.9 13 30 j below MoCh 133 June 18 4,300; 22.0 8.1 91.4 0.7 120 6.9 24 II II 11 11 it 2k 1.550i 23-0 8.2 94.9 0.3 23 6.9 28 tt It it 11 July 8 1,250! 21.0 8.7 96.9 0.8 23 6.8 i ! Cheat Elver - 1 mile fcsh?f Ki^rood MoCh 120.; June 18 4,6ooi 21.0 8.3 92.7 0.6 23 6.8 22 tt tt it 11 11 2k 1,600; 20.5 8.3 91.6 0.3 9 6.9 29 ii ii it 11 July 8 1,120; 20.0 8.7 94.9 0.3 4 6.8 Green Run Creek 3^-j^e^n^Kingwo^d and MoChGr 118.5 June 18 19i 20.0 8.4 91.6 o.s 110 3.6 30 44 " it n n 2k si 19.5 8.3 90.1 0.4 4 3.5 13 47 H 11 11 July 8 5! 17.5 9.0 93.6 0.7 ** 3.3 18 1 Cheat Lake MoCh 100.5 May 31 32,00(3 13.0 10.2 96.2 1.6 15 6.5 8 June 10 2,40Cj 21.0 7.4 82.3 1.6 2t0* 75 6.1 10 » it ti ii n 22 1,22C| 20.0 7.4 80.7 0.4 21 6.5 8 1 'CMTat HiVer Bridge at mouth Pftioj-_KaEioiu.-Pa.-......- MoCh 90 May 31 35,300 16.0 9-8 98.5 0.8 1 6.4 10 n it 11 11 June 10 3.73C1 21.0 8.6 95-7 1.0 1.0* 9 3.9 it it n 11 11 22 l,22Ct 21.0 7.4 82.3 0.6 24 6.1 8 j fib’nongaKela River Lock X Dam #7 Mo 8U.0 May 31 61.90Q 15.0 9.2 90.6 0.8 9 5-7 8 II II » June 10 4,o6ci 21.0 7.4 82.3 1.4 lt4* 24 3-9 ii 11 11 it 22 9,23Cj 18.0 8.4 88.1 0.5 0.6* 24 5.3 j 7 tt tl . Aug. 19 6U0; 26.0 7-5 91-5 0.6* *» 3.4; II 11 . n 27 1,020 ; 22.0 8.6 97.1 0.6* *• 3.2: It II 11 11 Sept. 4 1,480; 22.5 8.3 94.7 0.6 • • 3.8: II II • 13 1,020 ; 20.5 8.0 87.6 1.0 *• 3.6; tl tt ti 11 17 1,020; 20.5 8.3 91.4 1.5 ** 3«3i It II 11 11 11 2k 830 i 21.5 8.2 92.1 0.5* .. 3« 5 i n n 11 11 Oct. 2 1,940i 16.5 9.7 98.2 0.5 2 4.3; ti tt 11 11 " 8 i,48o ; 17.0 9-1 93.8 0.7 2 3.8; ii ti ti 11 17 1,240 ; 15.5 9.3 92.7 1.0 • • 3.7 j ti it n it ti 22 1,240 i 13.0 10.1 95-0 1.4 *• 3.7i ti it 11 11 " 30 1,480 ; 13.0 10.3 96.9 2.6 •• 3.71 ii tt 1. Not. 4 5.740; 12.0 10.8 99.7 1.4 1>£* 4 4.7; ti ii It It " 12 2,020 ; 11.0 11.2 101.1 0.8 •• 6.5; 3 H 11 i. ■ 20 2,630: 7.5 12.0 99.8 0.7 *• 6.1 j 4 " " . " 26 5,740 ; 6.5 12.2 99-4 0.8 1 4.4; ; ! I OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTSOHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTSOHIO RIVER POUUT1CN SURVEK LABORATORY data SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS Sampling Point Miloag® From Mouth Dais Average ; discharge | c. f. i. : ^ ; Disiolved Oxygen ! °c- J p.p.m. ; % Sal. j S Day ! b. 0. d. ; I .P- P;. "- .,,; Coliform! ; M. P. n. ; Par ml ; jh ; Turbidity 1 p. p. *. j Alkalinity j p. p. m. | Hardnew p. p. m. Dunlap Cr. jt mile MoDu 65 Aug. 23| 8; I7.O! 0.1 ; 1.1 i 8.0 ! 230 ! 6.5; 103: II II . Oct. llj loi 12.5! U.3 ;39.9 ; 10.2 : 36 i 6.2; 55; ii n II ■ Dec. 3 26; U.oi 8.2 ;62.8 i 2-3 i —_U3* ! U3 i 6.9; 85 1 103: ! j i j j j ! j Redstone Credc MoRe 76 Aug. 22; **i 16.0! 8.1 ! 81.6 j 0.9 j 3 i 6.3! i id ii it Oct. 10 **; 3.5! 10.0 j 85.3 j 1.0 j ** ! 6-5: i it ii „ Nov. 15! i 5.0; 11.3 j 88.U i 1.3 i 2 ! 6.7: 21; ! i i i ! i i : j TJecTstone 'CreeS Above Treatment Plant MoRe 73 Aug. 22 Ui 15.0; 3.9 138.0 j U.I ! ** s 2-9: i II II ,, Oct. 10 6' 10.0; 7.2 163.8 i O.U* ! ** ! 3-2i i II II II tt Nov. 15 15 8.0! 7.9 |66.8 ; 3>M i 4.9* : ** s 3-3i j j I | i i §li”ow°?reafment Plant MoRe 71 Aug. 22 8 16.0; 9.9 j99-3 ; 9.2 —£.6.*. * * ! 3-i; 130 ; i 1,1S0 II II it It Oct. 10 8 6.5; 6.7 j5U.0 lU.U .11.6.*. ** i 3-li 155 ! j 972 II II it II Nov. 15 25 7.5: 7-9 ;66.l i 23.9 ...5-7*. 1 j 3-5: 180 ; : 776 Cove Run at mouth MoReC 72.5 Aug. 22 1 15-oi 3-7j 36.2 17-5 u,6oo; 7.6; 17 i 202 i 195 n it II Oct. 10 1 8.5! U,oi 3U,U 5,0 2,Uooi 7.5i 8 170 | 178 ii ii n II Nov. 15 7 U.5j 8.5' 65.2 | 3.9 2,Uooi 7-li 5 89 i 1U8 ! ; j ; ; ftoriongah^ia T&iver Mo **1-5 Aug. 19 760; 26.0! 7.2 i 87.7 0.8 0.5* xi 3-3! ti n ii ii " 27 1,910; 22.5; 8.U i 96.5 1.0 2i 3.31 ii ii ii " Sept. U 2,900 21.5; 8.2 i 92.1 l.U 75: 6.3: 6U 2U ! 82 it ii tt ii " 13 1,680 20.0; 8.6 i 93.2 0.9 2: 3.9: 20 : ti ii tt ■ 17 1,380! 19.5! 8.U | 91.I 0.7 ...ait **: 3-7; 6 i ti n " II " 2U 900 21.0! 7-9 i 87.3 0.8 2U i 3.7; 8 i it ii ii II Oct. 2 2,550 17.5I 9.0 i 93.3 1.3 ii 3.8; 8 i ii ii ■ " 8 2,220 17-2! 8.8 ! 91.2 1.1 3| 3-6; 7 i 168 ii ti tt tt ii 17 1,010 15.0; 9.U ; 92.1 0.8 2; 3-5! 5 : 80 ii ii it tl it 22 1,650 11.5110.2 i 93-5 1.0* —liU . 2; 3-5! 6 i 92 n it ti " » 30 2.150 12.0; 8.U ! 77.2 2.2 U; 3-5: 5 81 a a tt ii Nov. U {11,600 12.5! 10.0; 93.7 1.2 ** U.6 U i 67 it it tt II " 12 ! 2,570; lO.O; 10.7: 9U.2 1.2 1 J 6.1 8 i u 79 it it ■ - " 20 1 U.650: 7.0; 11.Ui 93.3 0.3 ** U-3 5 80 " ■ II « 26 j 10,600j 7,0; 11.2; 92.2 1.2 ...JL1*.. u U.i ; 16 ! 87 . n * Dec. 5 j 5.910I u.5! 12.5; 96.3 l.U ** 5-7 j 10 i 72 ii * it II 9 | 6,oUo; U.oj 12.1; 91.9 0.8 1.1* 1 ; U.6 ; 8 : 88 \ • ! j Pigeon Cr. 37^ mi"ie jMoPi **3-5 Aug. 21 § * * 17.0; 8.6; 88.1 2.0 2U0 ; 7.6 ; : iUi II H 1 tl !......... " Sept 27 1 9-5; 10-5! 92.0 2.0 93 ; 7.6 i i 137 n ii ! " ■ Nov. 8 2; U.5; ii.9! 91.6 l.U U3 j 7.7 i | 123 1 I i | i ! ! ; ; Pigeon Cr. upper edge i MoPi U2.5 Aug. 21 2\ 18.5! u.u; U6.3 1.8 9 i 7.5 i i 127 H tl 1 II II Sept 27 } 5i 9.5i 8.8; 76.7 2.1 7.6 i i 125 n tt i " " Nov. 8 | 5; 5.5i 10.ui 82.0 2.3 9 j 7-3 i : 122 j \ s's ; ! j j i i i i i OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY or INDIVIDUAL RESULTS Sampling Poinl Mllaogo From Mouth Date ...........mo Avorage J 5iicharge | c. f. 1. : Temp. ! «c 5 Dissolved Oxyc«n p. p. m. ! % Sot. 5 Day B. O. D. p. p. m. Coliform* M. P. N. Per ml. »H Turbidity p. p. m. Alkalinity p. p. m. Hardnoss p. p. m. Pigeon Cr. upper edge MoPi k2 Aug. 21 1 3; i?,5i 8.4 86.6 2.5 1.10C 7.6! 125 ii it " it Sept. 27 9.5; 9.4 81.6 3.0 24C 7-5 150 . » " Kov. 8 * 5 -i 10.9 86.2 2.0 46C 7.4j 126 ; 1 : j i j ! Tiifeon, Creek Below Last Sewer MoPi 37.5 Aug. 21 3 15.3 8.7 86,3 1,9 24c 7*1 8 114 231 ii ii » 11 Sept.27 I 5j 9.a 9-9 35.1 3.0 1,10C 1.6 17 118 202 " " Nov. 8 j 9i 5»oi 11.3 83.0 2.0 23c 7**i 37 108 178 i | 1 IT.Tk. Pigeon Creelc At mouth . MoPiNf Uo Aug. 21 *« 15-cs 7.3 77.2 C.5 4 6.<5 76 232 250 „ Sept 27 ij 8.51 8.1 68.8 7.1 —2Jit *4 4.€ 120 954 “ „ Nov. 8 i 4.512.1 93.3 2.1 7-5 12 139 153 ; 1 j j Monongahela River _ figfogjWx.-Fiu________ Mo 23.8 Sept 25 2,ioq 22.0| 8.1 91.7 0.9 • * 3.1, II II II » Oct. 4 2,20q 17.5 8.6 •33.9 1.6 1-.2* I 3-7 II II tt - " 9 2,23a 17.CI 8.6 88.3 1.3 3-5 „ " • Oct. 18 1,900; 15.01 9-1 89.3 1.1 1.2* ■** 3.5 i j II II " it 23 1,900 12.5! 8.9 83.4 1.6 ..lfl?„ ** 3.5 ; » * " Kov. 1 8,360: 13-0 j 9.8 92.8 1.9 1.4* *• 3-1* i II ' II " II " 6 8,200 12.0 ! 9.7 89.6 1.8 2 6.2 5 II II " - n 13 3,250! 10.0! 10.2 90.2 1.0 0.8* *• 4.6 ; II II II " 27 22,600 7.01 11.2 91.6 1.8 1,0* 8 5.5 ! II II " It Dec. 13,600 3.0; 12.4 92.0 0.9 4 6.2 i 7 II II ■ " 10 21,100 5.0: 12.3 96.2 T.V 1.1 1 5-5 ; j Monongahela Ri^rer Eridge above mouth of Y.QU^ni . HI vex....... Mo 16.4 Aug. 19 780 28.0! 2.3 29.0 0.5 *• 3-9 ; ii it it ti I " 27 1,960 23.5! 3.U 39.5 1.2 0.4* 2 3.7 it ti " Sept. 5 2,950 23.0 | 7.2 82.4 0:6 -_o._5*. 2 ^.5 ,i n it " 16 | 720 20.5 i 7.2 79-2 1.1 0.8* »* 3-9 Snowy Creek KoYoS 135 : June 18 86 19.0: 7.8 83.1 1.5 1,6* 1,100 5-5 77 19 31 | " tl j n 24 18 17.5: 8.3 85.8 0.5 240 6.1 22 20 33 „ , " j July 8 21 l4.5 | 9.3 90.4 0.4 91 6.2 14 24 TougHogKbny "Hi ver Bricgo at J.^w3P edge of M0Y0 ........ 127.5 June " 18 24 374 390 20.0 ] 1S.0 i 7.6 8.2 82.4 86.1 0.5 .0*3* 0.4 .OjJI*..- 93 >+3 5.1 5.5 38 14 16 17 i 31 ; 36 .. " " ____ July 3 | 133 16.0 ; 3.7 37.8 0.6 9 4.4 10 Youghiogheny Hiver M0Y0 38 July 16 378 20.5 ; 8.4 |92.3 0.8 0.4* ** 5.1 s i n n " » 25 258 24.0 i 7.8 91.7 0.2 0.3* 1 5.6 ! " Aug. 6 291 25.0 ; 7.3 86.9 0.3 0.4* 15 4.6 ' 1 ! ! : Bridge aabove town MoYoCa 116 July 15 61 18.5 : 8.1 ;86.2 1.5 ** 3.3 i n ii " " 11 24 122 •21.5 j 7.4 :83.4 0.4 110 U.5 n ii " n ’ 33 !21.5 ; 7.3 ! 81.6 1-9 0^3* 4 3.1 I i ! ! 1 i t mile below MoYoCa 113 July 15 73 ;18.0 j 8.6 :89.9 1.0 _fli4.* 9 3.0 ! It It " 24 125 i21.5 ; 7.4 183.2 O.b 46 3.6 ! « n It II Aug. 2 35 20.0 • 8.3 190.9 0.7 4 3.1 i ! ! : ; - 287 - l*n OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS Sampling Point Milooge From Mouth Casselman River Above Garrett. Pa. IMoYoCa 111 Dale .........,12^0..... July 15 £si t^- b5^d. j ssft i ^ j i f. t ; I P- "• ! % s*- ! p, p. «. I P«r ml. | I p. p. m. | p ** : 3.0 i 82 i 19.0 ! 8.2 : 88.0 i 0.U i *• ; .....!.......!.......!........1 .jjjtf s...........!. Hardness p. p. m. 2k 1U0 i 21.5 I 7.3 j 82.3 : °;£, I “+6 i 3.U Aug. 38 j 20.5 i 7.6 I 8U.0 i °-j|, I U i 3.0 Buft alo" TTr e elc ’ At mouth Garret.t,-£a.— MoYoCaB-111 July 15 13 j 17.0 j J.O i 92.2 j °*7 it 2k Aug. 2 ! ! 0.5 13 I 21.5 ! 8.2 j 92.1 I lt2* ......i.......i j'o.T 6 ;17.5 : 8.9 ; 92.5 _ i p.j* 2U0 ; 3.5 __75 jua 93 i 3.8 Casselman Fiver 2 miles below Garrett, Pa. MoYoCa 109 I July 15 1 96 ■ 19-5 i 8.U j 90.9 ‘i 2 J ! • ! O.b* ** j 3.2 _n.0J3.5_ k i 3.0 2k | 150 ; 22.5 j 7.6 ; 86.9 ! Aug. 2 I V* • 20.5 ; 8.2 i 90.6 I 0! Casselman River Above. -RocJcwood£a.- MoYoCa 105.5 July l6 | tt 25 Aug. 6 250 i 19.5 | 8.U 190.7 I o!5* : 9 ! 3.*+ i .39:A.j._p.-i*..j.....**.J A*.?. Uo 123.0 j 7.9 j 91.2 j °9:l i ** j 2.9 j 19.5 | 6.U i 69.2 ; 0.8 j 150 i 6.6 Coxes Creek Abava.-Trjiatment-Plant. MoYoCaC-llU July 15 » 2k Aug, 2 9 i 23.0 ; 0.9:10.8 ; 3.U ; 2,Uoo j 6.3 1 j 19.5 | 10.0 il07.9 i 0.7 j 23 i 7.U 26 38 35 Ccfxe s' ‘Cre6k“.............. Below Treatment Plant Somar&et^—Ptu-_____;______ MoYoCaC-lU July 15 8 j 20.5 j 6.9 i 76.1 | 1.3 it 2U Aug, 2 10 ; 23.5 I 1.8 i 20.5 | 2.9 2:19.5: 1.6 ! 17.7 i *»7.»» 91; 6.7 2,Uoo ’ 6.U U,6oo i 6.8 18 135 80 2U ! 71 UU | 77 87 : Coxes Creek at mouth Rodtvood,. -Ea.------------ MoY oCaC 10U.5; July 16 93 I 19.0 i 8.8 : 9U.2 i °"9 .....!.......:.......:........i..o^.5?. 11 25 Aug, 6 32 : 23.5 i 8.1; 9^.3 j 0.5 U j 21.5 j 7.6 j 85.1 j °J, 231 5.2 93; 6.8 U6i 3.6 8 ; 23 i 6S Casselman Riv^r Br town Rockwood, Pa. MoYoCa 10U July 16 ,F " 25 Aug. 6 Casselman River at mouth CpjnfluencOj__Pft.._________ MoYoCa 87 July 16 25 Aug. 6 3U3 : 20.0 • 8.6 : 93.2 • 1.0 ........i_______:_______•........ 17U ; 25.0 • 7.9 i 93-9 : 0.5 ........:.......j.......:........i„jQ.2* **5 j 23.5 i 8.11 93.8 i _322j _20.0 i__8.6 j 93.8 2Us i 23.0 : s.o i 92.6 i 0*3 ........j.......1......;.........i n 3» 87 123.5: 7.9:91.5 j 2>»; 3.9 46 j 3.8 ** j 2.9 9 j 3-9 2 j 3.9 •• i 3.7 Laurel Hill Tire a At mouth _ Caoflaeofi.e.-Pji... MoYoLa 86.5 July 16 230; 19.0: 8.7 j 93.4 i 0.7 75 j 23.5 ! 8.2:95.8 j 0.3 32 i 22.5 ■ 7.8; 89.3 • 0.2 U60 j 7.0 u ; 7.0 u i 6.9 23 j 31 17 j 28 Aug. 17 i 31 WWliIV“r " onfluence.t. Pa...... M0Y0 8U.5 July 16 930 j 21.0 j 8.4 j 93.0 i U6 ; 5.1 U j 5.6 15 ! 4.7 7 : " 25 Aug. 6 581125.01 7.9j 94.3 I _4l0 j 25.5 | 7. 3 | .88.3 | J!j. AboYe..CoJinellsviIlii^Pa^ M0Y0 59 Aug. 30 2.U70 i 19.0 ; 8.8 ; 93.8 i 0.6 Oct. 1 Nov. 18 308 113.0 : 9.5 I 89.8 j 0.5 1,005 : 2.0 ; 13.2 i 95.1 j 1.1 2U : 6.8 ** ! 6.9 8 : _6_i_ 8 : : 7.1OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTSOHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS Sampling Point Miloag© From Mouth Dale .........m,..i Avorcge Discharge c. f. *. Temp. 1 00 i )issolved Oxygen p. p. m. ! % Sat. j 5 Day ! | D. O. D. ; ! j* P; * ! ^ Coliform* | m. p. n. ; Per ml. | °IH j Turbidity i p. p. m. ! Alkalinity ! p. p. m. ; Hardneu p. p. m. Jacks' Bun = 0Y0SJ 58 ept. 18 | 6 16.0 ! 22.4(224.6 1 3.3 i ** J 2.7 • | ii ii ct. 29 | •* 8.5 | 6.1 52.0 i 17.4 : !...4.2* !. *# ! 2.9 ! | 1 i ; { j i j j i Jacks Sun above moufB Slate Creek _ loYoSJ 53-5 )ct. 15 ! 10 15.5i 12.^127.3 :i6o. 8 ; !.22.Q*-.;. 36; 3.5 j 220 ; 2,400 . II 25 i 12.5 j 5-3 “*9.5 |l40.0 ! :.Z4.Q*..; 36; 3-5 i 180 i 2,820 - - " Nov. 11 10i 13.5| O.Q 00.0 •161.O 1 :i7Q.0*._.i, 240,000i 6.3 ! 950 j 51 ! 296 tl tt - » 7 1 10 11.0 j 9.2 83.1 :i48.4 ; i 5I..4*..: 23; 3-5 j 180 ; 2,260 116.0 i 2! 3-5 i 190 ; 2,510 II tl ii ii n 22 9 15.0 ! 13.2130.0 ^•38.8 1 i 2 3.5 j 150 2,380 II H 11 28 19 ; 6.5 I 7.7t 62.8 i 72.0 j 360; 4.4 j 7° 1,540 II II Dec. 2 18 ! 5-5 i 10.6; 83.6 h.12.8 i J.H.JS* : 23 4.1 I 110 1,670 ; j j ! ; : Slate Creek MoYoSJS 5U.5 )ct. 15 1 | 13.5 j 0.0! 00.0 145.9 j 15,000 7.2 ; 75 107 101 „ 25 ! 9-5: 2.4! 21.2 i 29.6 i 9.300 6.9 1 80 86 99 tt . n » • Hov. 1 6 j 10.5 j 6.6; 58.9 j 26.8 i 2,400i 6.9 ; 70 59 96 ■ II II » 7 6 I 8.5! 10.4; 88.8 1 6.8 | 4301 70 | 10 50 80 ti ii It II Nov. 15 3 j 5.0 : 10.5 i-81.9 j lU-5 ! 11,000 | 6.9 9 57 136 tt it tt II 11 22 3 12.0 | 8.6 ; 79.2 i 14.8 4,600 | 7.2 32 66 i 116 ii ii " " 28 23 i 3.5 i 11.8 i 88.8 | 4.8 i 390 1 6.9 22 j 27 88 ii ti " « Dec. 2 5 i 2.5 12.0 ; 87.6 j 17>9 ! 1.500 j 7.0 24 I U6 • i i ! j ; SK5S fee Run .Pa_____ M0Y0SJ 53 Sept. 18 11 13.0 6.8 ; 64.1 1 i*.6 : i,6* *» : 3.1 320 j . ti 2k • 7 lU.5 6.6 j 64.3 i 5. S' 1 4.6* 1 i 3.5 125 798 II II " " » 2k 7 ji9.o 0.0 ; 00.0 ! 184. S' ' 138.4* 2,400 1 4.7 1,500 ; 384 It tt » It II 21 8 10.5 7.1; 62.9 : 6.8 : ...5O*. »* • i 30 90 1 1,810 It tt " tl 27 7 17.5 i 10.6 109.9 i 4.7 .; ...6,5!. 4 i 3-3 : 72 | : 2,o4o " II II Oct. 29 U ili.o 5.6 ; 50.4 i 3T-2 : 32.0* 4 ! 30 145 ; i 852 III! 1 j I i Jacks Run upper edge of YoungwoodjL Pa. {M0Y0SF 52.5 Sept. 3 13 j.6.5 0.9 ; 8.8 ; 12.9 ......J.6. 1 6.3 :......5 i ti ti ! » 26 16 10.0 8.6 | 75-7 ! IT. 6 ! 7.8* 24 : 6.0 j 19 ; | • | i i 1 ! Jacks Run below sewer Youngwood. last Pa. M0Y0SJ 51 Sept 3 15 ! 16.5 1.0; 9.6 1 I3il 1,500 • 6.4 j 88 j 3 1 316 ii it H 26 17 j 10.0 9-0 i79.l i 9.0 .!___2.4* 93 i 6.0 i .... 125 i 12 472 i j j j j i | | Sewickley Creek A Dove mouthyJack :s Run M0Y0S 51 Sept 3 28 i 15.5 7.8:77.3 7.2 1*.7* ** ! 3-3 190 : tt ti " - ■ " 26 36 i 10.0 9.6:84.7 8.6 „!____2^2* •* ! 3-7 | 200 i j i j i j j i Xoo gjieny Elver Iriage &Dove M0Y0 20 Sept 19 865 i 18.0 7.8;si.8 : 0.7 -i cu6* 2 i 3-8 i ii it II ft Nov. 7 3,210 i 6-5 io.6;s6.4 | 1.3 16 j 7.0 8 i » II II Dec. 2 -5.770 i 1.5 12.2186.9 ; c.2 21 • 6.2 i 9 : ; ! 1 i j i i ; ; Tou^xifogfieny Si ver’ 1 mile oelow K0Y0 18 Sept 19 865 j 18.5 j 7.6 |so.5 ! 0.6 .' 0.6* 2 1 3.8 j ; it it n it Nov. 7 3.210 i 6.5 10.4 ;s4.7 j 1.8 4 I 7.1 i 5 i it n tt Dec. 2 5.780 i 2.0 12.2 :s8.i ! 0.7 24 i 6.2 : 8 !OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS . “............... Temp. “C 5 Day C I formi Turbidity p. p. m. Alkalinity p. p. m. Sampling Point From Mouth Deis 1940 Disehurja C. 1. i. pp. m. %Sal. B. O. D. p. p. m. M. P. N. Per ml. phi Hordnett p. p. m. i’o'JLg^logEeny ft'iver at MoYo 16.3 Aus. 19 1+25 25.0 6.2 73.7 l.U 2 3.5 17 i " 2? 3.200 18.5 7.2 76.1 i 1.0 : 8 3*5 75 I tl II M | 0.2 ; ! II II . j II 16 875 18.0 7.6 79-1 i l.U i 110 U.o lU j . » 25 1*90 17.0 7.2: 7U.0 | 1.2 : 2 3-U 7 II It » - Oct. l*| 383; 15.0 8.6 i 3U.5 i 1.1 : 1 3.1 20 ; II II " 9 olO 14.5 s.u S1.5 i 1.1 ; CU5*: ee 3.3 8 i 220 If II II II " 18 530 11.0 8.6 77.7 ! 3-5 i ...1.2*: 2U 3.6 lUc i » " ! 23 1*85 9.5 10.1 88.2 • l.U ! •* U.o lU ; 186 . » ■ I Hov. 1 2.550 10.5 9.7 S6.9 i i.s ; u U.6 18 i 9* II II " « 6 2,800 S.o 10.6 91.7 : 1.0 ! 2 6.9 lU 6 i 66 ,, II II " 13 1,1*80 7-5 9-5 79.3 ; 0.8 : 0-7* ' 2 U.5 lU 1 ii n " " 27 5,880 9.0 10.6 91.6 : i.u ; 15 6.2 105 13 90 - * " Dec. 4 3,1*20 0.0 13.1 39.6 i 0.6 ; 2 6.2 55 9 I 118 „ II II " 10 3.830 5.0 12.1 9U.7 j 0.6 i U 6.2 50 10 i 124 Brash Creek upper edge of Jeanette., Pa. MoTuB 31 Sept. 18 1 17.0 9.5:97.3 0.8 15 7.7 UU j ii ii * ■ Oct. 29 ** 8.5 10.3:87.9 6.1 U6 7.3 58 ; I 1 i : i i Brush Creek Above Treatment Plant MoTuB 28 Oct. 29 2 16.5 2.1; 21.0 85.8 2U.000 7.9 95 146 111 Brush "CreeTc 200T below Treatment Plant MoTuB 27.5 Sept. 18 7 22.0 1.0! 11.1 53-3 U6.000 7.1 Ui l4i 110 it tt n ii Oct. 29 5 113.5 o.oi 00.0 50.7 110,000 7.3 j 182. | I j j j ; j Brush Creek Above. Irvin, _ Pa.___________ ;MoTuB 25 Sept. 19 13 18.0 7.91 82.6 "6.8 ** 3.2; ii n Hov. 7 12 0.5 10.gj 87.9 2,f. 2U 3-3 i it n n n |............... Dec. 2 30 2.5 11.8 86.u 2.1 2U0 3-5! Brush Creek \ mile MoTuB 23 Sept. 19 15 16.5 7.7! 78.U 6.2 2 3-6 225 ! 557 ii n ! " ! Nov. 7 18 8.0 ; 10.3 85.8 15.U 5.7* 8 3-U 190 ! 704 si ti | " | Dec. 2 ! 38 U.5 ; 11.4; 87.7 9.1 240 3.8 150 1 382OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS Sampling Point Milaoge From Mouth Dot* _.....i&q..... Average ] Discharge ] c. f. s. T*mp. ! •C. j Diwolved Oxygen p. p. m. I % Sot. 5 Day ! B.O.D. I P- P- »■ j O>liforms J M P. N. J Per ml. ! pH j Turbidity p. p. m. Alkalinity j p. p. m. ! Hardnm p. p. m. LUi-’ti'e Creek upper edge (4oTu 14.5 Sept. 6 53 19.0 I 4.1 ;44,2 S.O J L.5,-9*.;. ** ! 2.9 i n n II " Oct. 28 31 9.5 ; 9-7 !84.9 10.8 ; ** 2 2.9 i it ii " » Hov. 28 314 2.5 j12.3 190.0 i 2.1 j 1,100 i 6.2 i 8 : i ! 1 : i 1 i t^mHe alove mouth MoTu 12 Sept. 6 56 24.0 i 2.8 | 33.2 ; 5.1 ! 4 i 2.9 I 47 451 It tt . Oct. 28 3* 13.0 j 5-5 151-9 i 12-7 ! i i4,6* i 2 ] 3.2 i 65 ; 478 It tl ■ ■ Kov. 28 321 3.0 j 11,6 185.7 3.3 j 36 i 6.2 i 65 9 1 199 III | ! i ! I Monongahela Hiver Dam Mo U.2 Aug. 19 1,200 19.0 i 5.** 157-5 1 0.6 : 1 ot2* ; 1 : 3-5 i 8 ! II tl II It ■ 27 5.200 24.0 | 6.0 | 70.0 i 0.7 j i-0..5*-: 46 i 3-7 ! 3 . II It Sept, 5 4,o6o 23.5j 7.3 j 84.7 i 1.3 • |..JL,o? : 4 ] 3.9 8 It II N tl it 16 1,650 i 21.0 7.1 179.3 i 1.4 9 3-9 It M II II n 25 2,620 1 23.0 6.0 ; 69.5 1 1.7 1 9 u.o .. » .. Oct. 4 3.090 19.0 7-3 i 78.4 ; 1.4 1 2 3.7 ■ „ « 9 2,840 1 20.0 6.1 i 66.5 i i.U i 3 3.8 ; 159 n » | „ " 18 2,450 18.5 6.4 f 67.9 ! 2,2 ! t a-** 1 2 3-7 1. " II Oct. 23 2.45d 13.5 7-§ 72.1 ! 1.8 ; •* 3.7 tt II " II Hov. 1 12,4ocj 13.5 9.1 86.5 | 2.4 : 2U 3.4 ; tt tl . » 6 1 11,13c! 12.5 9.H 88.0 I 1.1 : 6.7 1 5 i It It It II » 13 4,80Cj 10.7 9.1 81.4 ! 1.8 ■ lU U.2 ; ! tl II | „ " 27 29,500 6.5 10.1! 86.9 j 1.5 : u 5-3 : ii It - Dec. 4 ! 17,600 3.5 12.q 90.2 j 1.7 i u 6.U 1 10 1 It It ! » ■ » 10 25.90cj 5.5 11.6 91.9 i 2.8 ; 19 6.1 ! 11 ! j Nine Mile Run upper edge Of WilkinsfcuTjg* Pa. MoNl 10 Sept 6 *1 17-0 8.6 82.k ; i.*+ i 1,100 7-U | 103 j tt it " It Oct. 28 12.0 7-d 69-7 i 2.0 j 230 7-7 1 125 i tt n " II Hov. 28 2 6.5 10.6 86.0 ! x*5 2U0 7-5 i i i j j j ! | j i i Eine Mile Ran U mile MoNi 6.5 Sept 6 * 17.0 6,4 61.7 • 2.7 u 9.6 5 ! 97: 176 it tt It It Oct, 28 1 1 U.O 4.ij 43.0 ! 7.8 15 9.6 15 i ?8 \ 178 it if ti It Hov. 28 2 ! 9.5 7-3 65.8 ! 7.2 7.0* 1,100 9.U 571 | ! j ! ! ' ! | i Monongahela River at Mo 0.05 Sept. 16 1,650 : 20.0 4.6 j 49.9 j 1.0 ! 0.8* U3 5.5 55 i j 137 n it „ " 25 2,620 ! 24.0 1.3 j 15.7 11 M 6 n ti tt n Oct. 4 3.090 | 15.5 5.2j 55-8 ! l.U* j it M l4 ; n tt ii it 9 2,840 i 19.5 3.8 j 41.3 j 1.6 ! ; 1.7* 2U0 4.4 12 j 143 it n if it it 18 2,450 I 18.5 3.6; 38.6 : 2.2 23 3-9 12 14 if n » « « 23 2,450 I 17.0 3.9 : 39.8 I 3.i 1 • i.8* : u 3-9 4 j ; 94 it it ti tt Nov. 1 12,400 : 15.0 7.9; 77.9 • 2.9 ! 1.8* ; u 3.5 U i 142 » - n tt 6 11,130 j 12.5 : 10.1i 93.9 ! 1.3 9 6.6 4 5 ! 76 it ti it tt - 13 4,800:12.0: 7.7; 71.0 : '2-9 ; 2.6* U6 “*•3 18 1 ; 100 ,, it n n 27 £9,500 j 7.0 i 9.6179.0 I 3-0 U6 6.1 16 8 : 103 If It « - Dec. 4 17,600 1 4.0 12.2 1 92.8 ; 2.4 9 6.3 4 i 10 : 68 t. - tt n 10 25,900 i 4,0 11.3 j 86.1 ! 1.8 2 6.3 5 i 18 j 82 i j i j j i i * Seeded and neutra Hi zed ! • I j ! i ! ** Less than j ; j i j j j i ; ! * ! j Brown Creek Sampling Point. Mouth-Two Lick, W.Va. Mile 166 Month 19U0 June July No. Sam- ples PH 2.9 5.2 ACIDITY P.P.M. "Methyl Phenolphthalein Red ™ Hoi" | CblS' ' 252 U06 3§U 161*. IRON P.P.M. Ferrous 6.7 l^.O Total 75 SO VVe3t Pork R. Abv. Clarksburg, W.Va. Mile 160 June July 6.2 6.7 6.r, 11 6 2 Elk Creek Abv. Nutter Port, W.Va. Mile I67 May June July 6.8 tl 11 2 Arwiore Creek Bel. Anmore, W.Va. Milo I65 May June July V. 60 106 122 151 108 107 2 3 U.O Elk Creek West Pork R. W.Pike St.Br..Clarksburg, W.Va.-Mile I59 Mouth, Clarksburg,W.Va. Mile 158 July 18 37 May June July 6.2 6.k 5*9 35 15 10.7 iU-5 Adamston 3r.,Clarksburg W.Va. - Mile 158 June July 6.3 6.7 6.0 12 6.U 2.0 3.0** 3.6* 2.6 U. 0** U.O Limestone Run Bel. Milk Plant,Clarksburg,W.Va. - Mile I57 May June July u.u 5.0 5.6 9 17* 12 83** S 12 o.6-“* 15 22 12 West Pork River Perry Mines, W.Va. Mile I55 May June July ti 6.1 15 7 2 Abv. Zeising, W.Va. Mile 150 May June July 1:1 5.2 17** 10** Ui»* 15 5.6** 3.8 3.7 Simpson Creek Abv. Bridgeport,W.Va. Mile 162 May June July 2.9 3-0 3.1 182 302 38 305 3^0 US 252 3iu 47* Bel. Bridgeport,W.Va. Mile 156 May June July 3.1 5*,2 3-U 110 1U8 UU 178 226 52 iliU 202 U8 s 35 20 22 Uo Ten Mile Creek Bel. Salem, W.Va. Mile 168.5 May June July Bel. East Salem,W.Va. Milo I67.5 May June July I:? 6.U 14 12 2 Adv. Lumberport, W.Va. Mile 1U8 May June July Mouth, Lumberport,W.Va. Mile 1U7 May June July 1:1 6.U 5-9" h -1,76- 1:1 9.5 2 6 6.2 6.0 6** 16** 1.6** l.U** 7.0** 0.5 3.0+ 1.U We3t Pork River Mile 128.1 3el. Ten Mile Creok Kile 1U5 Bel. Shinnaton, W.Va. Mile 1U3 June July May June July & I U2 10 105*- 68 16 12 ,17 Ul 52 66 13 Abv. Worthington, W.Va. Mile 138 May June Pal. Monongah, W.Va. Mile 132 May June Mouth, Pairmont, W.Va. Mile 12R May June 1:1 \7e‘ 3^5 U.9- 3-9 26 30 5U 16 U2 30** 32 % & 25 20** U6 16** 39 6 11 8 _7_ _ 7-5* i.U* 800 0.67 Grassy Run (Tygart River) Mouth, Norton, W.Va. Mile 202 July 2-5 1318 3.2 Three Forks Creek Monongahela Rivor Grafton, W.Va.-Mi.lU9.5 June 5.7 u** U.5 Buffalo Creek Mile 125.0 Kwy. Br. in Fairmont, W.Va.-Mile 126.7 Abv. Mannington, W.Va. Mile 1U5 May June May June July Bel. Mannington, W.Va. Mile lUO.7 May June July ti 6.8 $-9 ft' 5.8 18** 33 21 U-5 2 0.2 o.U** Mouth, Pairmont, W.Va. Mile 127 May June >.u 22** 2U** 9 7-3Stream Sampling Point Month 191+0 No. Sam- ples pH ACID i t y P.P.M. IRON P.P.M. Methyl rted Phenolphthalein Ferrous Total Hot Cold Monongahela River K.f*.Bridge Bel. Fair- May 2 6.6** . 13 12 mont, W.Va .-Mile 12U.2 Juno 5 U.5 lU** 20 16 1.6* Lock and Dam #11,Morgan May 2 U.o 60** 53 UU town,W.Va.-Mile lOU-l June U U.8 9* 19 12 1.3* Deckers Creek Abv. Sabraton,'.V.Va. Mile 101.0 Mile ICI4. June U U.6 9* 21 13 0.2** Bel. Shirt Fac.,Morgan- May 2 U.6 12 ** 23 16 town, W.Va.-Mile 103 June U U.6 13* 26* 20 0.2** Mouth, M0rgantown,W.Va. May 2 U.7 6** 16 11 Mile 101 June U U.9 6* 21 lU 0.2** Monongahela River Br. in Morgantown,W.Va. May 2 U.o 52** U6 35 Mile 100.9 June U U-9 7* 15 1.6** Star City (Ferry) W.Va. May 2 u.u U7 Uo 1 Mile 97.7 June U u.u 7* 26+ 17 1.8* Lock % Dam #$, Pt. May I 5.0 12 ... . Marion,Pa.-Mile 90*6 June 2 U.5 16 I.I4 Aug. 2 3-3 37 53 U6 10 Sept. u 3-U 55 m U3 1.6 Oct. 5 3-5 IS 21 20 1.3 Kov. u U.3 7 15 lU 1.7* Dec. 2 U.i 7*» 22** lS 2.2 Blackwater R. Davis, W.Va.-Mile 183 June 2 6.7 0.79 (Cheat R.Basin) July 1 6.7 0.66 Mile 170.9 Abv. Thomas, W.Va. June 2 5.6 10 8 1.22 Mile 181 July 1 5-5 9 Bel. Thomas, W.Va. June 1 5.5 12 3U 26 3.8 Mile 180 July 1 5.3 13 5-U Mouth, HerxfrJcks, W.Va. June 2 U.8 11** 22 17 3.P Mile 171 July 1 U.6 1.7 Green Run Creek Between Kingwood & Al- June 2 3.6 " 5C 52 U5 U.o bright ,W.Va . -Mile 118.5 July 2 3.3 33 0.30 Cheat River Ices Ferry, W.Va. May 1 6.*; 6 Mile 89.I Mile IOO.5 June 2 6.3 U Mouth. Pt. Marion, Pa. May 1 _ _e_ - Mile 89.I June 2 5.0 16** 32** 13 1.7 Monongahela River Lock Sc Dam fJ-7 May 1 5-7 16 Mile 8U .8 June 2 U.i 20** 35** 19 U.o** Aug. 2 3*3 3U US- U3 2-5 Sept. u 25 35 31 i.U Oct. 5 5.8 11 21 16 1.9 Nov. 2 U.5 U 11 9 1.6 Dec. 2 U.2 6** 20** IS 2.2 Muddy Creek Abv. Fairchance, Pa. Aug-. 1 3-9 26 U8 Uo i.U Mile 96.0 Oct. 1 5-3 12 26 15 3-3 Nov. 1 5-3 12 J+-5 Georges Creek Bel. Smithfield, Pa. Aug. 1 3.6 U5 75 60 0.6 Mile 91.5 Oct. 1 U.2 20 67 37 1*5 Doc. 1 5.6 16 ui Jacobs Creek Greensboro, Pa. Oct. 2 5.5 60** 75 66 8.0** 22 Mile 8I4. Cats Creek Bel. Masontown, Pa. Aug. 1 2.5 3.073 296 2510 103 397 Mile 81 Oct. 1 2-5 1870 27 3U 237U 127 367 Dec. 1 2.9 2061+ 90 3U5 Monongahela River Lock & Dam #6 Aug. 2 3*3 up 60 5U 2.3 Mile 68.5 Sept. u 3.U 3U U5 U9 1*5 Oct. 5 3-6 2a 30 27 1.2 Nov. 5 U.3 10 20 1.7 Dec. U-9 2** 15** lU 1.1 Lock & Dam #5 Aug. 2 3.6 22 33 30 1.2 Mile 56.5 Sept. u U.2 22 + 3U+ 32 0.9 Oct. 5 ?*9 lU 23 19 i.U Nov. 2 U-5 7 21 15 2.2 Dec. 1 5-7 3 16 12 1-5 Dunlop Creek Bel. New Salem, Fa. Mile 56 Milo 67 Oct. 1 7-0 37 12 2U.6 Bel. Republic, Pa. Oct. 1 6.2 2 172 237 78.3 133 Mile 6l Dec. 1 6.9 90 12 56 Redstone Creek Abv. Uniontown,Pa. Aug. 1 2.9 533 1016 965 162 U25 Mile 55 Mile 7U Oct. 1 3.2 1076 1682 1416 155 361 Nov. 1 3.3 1180 286 U.2 8 Bel. Uniontown, Pa. Aug. 1 3.1 308 759 6S0 159 310 Mile 75 Oct. 1 3.1 35U 786 650 136 3.75 Nov. 1 3.5 6U0 16U 258 Monongahela River Lock & Dam #U Aug.. 2 3.3 U3 69 55 2.U Mile lj.1.5 Sept. j 5.3 20 3U 27 1.9 Oct. 5 3.6 22 35 29 1.5 Nov. 3 U.3 c 18 20 p.i Dec. 2 5-1 11** 11 uStream Sampling Point Month 191+0 No. Sam- ples PH ACID I T Y P.P.M. IRON P.P.M. Methyl Phenolphthalein Ferrous Total Red Hot Cold N.Fk. Pigeon Creek Ko\jth, BeRtleyvilIe,Pa. Mile 1+0 Sept. 1 1+.6 65 U35 U67 158 159 Monongahela River Lock & Daip #3 Mile 23.8 Abv. Kouth Youghiogheny Kile 16 Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Aug. Sept. 1 1+ 3 1 2 2 u 5.5 5.8 U.2 19 19 13 26 7 3U 30 23 55 18 28 3 18 U3 27 1.8 i.U a 3.1 3-U Snowy Creek (Youghiogheny) Corinth, W.Va. Mile I35 June 1 5.5 7 8 3.8 Youghiogheny River Bel. Oakland, Md. Mile 128 Abv. Confluence, Pa. Mile 86 June July July Aug. 2 1 2 1 li It lU 9 13 17 " 6 " 3 U.3 1.3 04 2.1+ Casselman River Abv. Meyersdale, Pa. Kilo 116 Bel. Kcyersdale, Pa. Mile 113 Abv. Garrett, Pa. Mile 111 July Aug. July Aug. July Aug. 2 1 2 1 2 1 3.9 3.1 3.5 3.1 3.2 3.0 63** 60 52 110** 91 “ Bo“ 103 112 79 116 67 100 V 5-7 2.2 0.68** 27.5 7 26 9 11 Buffalo Creek Mouth, Garrett, Pa. Mile 111 July Aug. 2 1 1:1 20 Uo 29 19 1.9** U Casselman River Bel. Garrett, Pa. Mile 109 Abv. Rockwood, Pa. Mile IO5.5 July Aug. July Aug. 2 1 2 1 34 3-0 34 2.9 U2 36 68 65 1? 51 121 0.1** U.6 U.2 1:1 Coxes Creek Mouth, Rockwood, Pa. Mile 10I+.5 July Aug. 1 1 5*f 3-6 12 U3 9 1.2 3.8 9 Casselman River Mile 85.5 Bel. Rockwood, Pa. Kile 10l+ Mouth, Confluence, Pa. Kile 87 July Aug. July Aug. 2 1 2 1 3.8 2.9 3.9 3.7 20 15 U3 28 32 119 22 32 5.0 1.2 2.8 Youghiogheny River Bel. Confluence, Pa. Kile 31+.5 July Aug. 2 1 E:? 8 6 3 1.1 1.2 Dickerson Run W.Br. Dickerson Run Upper edge,Vanderbilt, Pa. - Mile 53.5 Upper edge,Vanderbilt, Pa. - Kile 53.5 Oct. Dec. 1 1 U.6 5.6 38 80 56 22 ..... 8.0 u.u Washington Run Kile Bel. Star Junction, Pa. Mile I+9.5 Aug. 1 1+.3 3 3U 30 2.8 6.6 Jacob Creek Kile Il2 Bel. Scottdale, Pa. Mile 53 Sept. 1 54 2 20 18 U.6 Youghiogheny River Abv. West Newton, Pa. Mile 35 Bel. We3t Newton, Pa. Mile 33 Sept. Sept. 1 1 U.5 U.5 7 J u 12 10 7 10 3-7 7 7 J Jacks Pun Abv. Greensburg, Pa. Milo 58 Abv. Mouth Slates Creek Greensburg, Pa.-Mi.55.5 Bel. Mouth Slates Creek Mile 53 . Abv. Youngwood, Pa. Mile 52.5 Sept. Oct. Oct. Nov. Dec. Sept. Oct. Sept. 1 1 " 2 5 1 T 1 2.7 2.9 "S" U.i 3.6 3-3 6.0 U990 850 15H0- 795 1100 “783" “ 580 8720 1U00 3710" 1966 2520 1737- 1220 1U3 8U20 1560 3^92 1772 2900 1659 1010 168 22U7 105 933 608 698 U22 131 56 21+06 193 998 61+3 700 Hf" 63 Bel. Youngwood, Pa. Kile 51 Sept. 1 6.0 151 163 55 62 Sewickley Creek Mile 33.I Abv. Kouth Jacks Run Youngwood, Pa.-Mile 51 Sept. 2 3.5 190 385 3!4 56 1U3 Youghiogheny River Mile 1%6 Abv. Versailles, Pa. Mile 20 Sept. 1 3.8 19 37 30 6.2 Bel. Versailles, Pa. Mile 18 Sept. 1 3.8 19 3U 28 3*3 Kouth, McKeesport, Pa. Mile 15.6 Aug. Sept. Opt. Nov. 2 i 2 5-5 35 22 Ug Uo 2U 55 11 20 1.8** 0.8** 2U 5.2** 7 ?*9 6.0+ 16Stream Sampling Point Month 19U0 No. PII ACID I T Y p.r.M. IRON r.p.M. Sam- ples Methyl Phe no1phtha1e1n Total Red Hot Cold Brush Creek Abv. Irwin, Pa. Sept. 3.2 U52 605 5U5 U.o 127 (Turtle Creek) Mile 25 Oct. 1 3-3 2^5 35? 1.6 75 Nov. 1 3-5 150 228 183 o.U 51 Bel. Irwin, Pa. Mile 23 Sept. Oct. 1 1 3-6 54 ff' _ar ir' 77 72 121 ” 118 Nov. 1 3.8 150 302 300 60 82 Turtle Creek Abv. Export, Pa. Scot • 1 2.8 1120 38! 1360 93 1R2 Kile 11.0 Kile 28 Oct. 1 3.1 990 12U9 2U 37U Bel. Export, Pa. Sept. 1 2.Q 65O 890” ~8Uo“ " ~ 99 ~ Mile 25.5 Oct. 1 3.1 650 1350 839 8 175 Abv. Trafford, Pa. Sept. 1 3.9 139 179 1.59 9 Mile I8.5 Oct. 1 3.2 215 300 48 2U Bel. Trafford, Pa. Sept. 1 3.3 98 1I+2 3.35 7 12 Mile I7.5 Oct. 1 3-5 151 235 19U 5 16 Abv. Pitcairn, Pa. Sept. 1 3-3 239 313 29k 5-5 " “Uo " Mile 16 Abv. Turtle Creek, Pa. Oct. Sept. 1 1 3-2 "2.9 365 lS6 623 -£7- U98 233 35 6.5' 130 --31 - Kile 11*.. 5 Oct. 1 2.9 300 1+22 367 28 70 Bel. Turtle Creek, Pa. Sept. 1 2.9 157 231+ 223 37 Mile 12 Oct. 1 3-2 220 365 318 5U 72 - - - - - - “ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - - — — - — — — — — — — — - - — - - - - - - - Monongahela River Lock & Dam #2 AU£. 2 3.6 3U 65 U9 2.7 Mile 11.2 Sept. 3 3-9 15 29 25 U.3 Oct. U 26 43 33 0.8** 5 Nov. 3 6.3 13 27 21 5.6 Mouth - Mile .05 Sept. 2 U-U 8 22 22 2.1«* U.2 Oct. U U.o 18 30 3.5** 3.7 Nov. 2 3.6 17 3^ 31. 5.8** 5.0 ■»* One Sample * Two Samples ♦ Three SamplesFinal Report to the Ohio River Committee Ohio River Pollution Survey U. 3. Public Health Service Ciucinnati, Ohio 1942Contents Page Contents. .................................297 Syllabus and Conclusions..........................299 Description......................................303 Presentation of Field Data.............305 Presentation of Laboratory Data ..................309 Hydrometric Data..................................316 Discussion........................................320 List of Tables B-l Cost Estimates of Remedial Measures .... 302 B-2 Surface »Vater Supplies......................306 B-3 Sources of Pollution.............307 B-4 Industrial Wastes..................308 B-5 Selected Laboratory Results ................311 B-5a Laboratory Results of Taste and Odor Survey 312 B-6 Monthly Mean Summer Flows..................318 B-7 Summary of Laboratory Data..................323 List of Figures B-l Map - Sources of Pollution..................298 B-2 Chart - Sources of Pollution and Selected Laboratory Data........ . .(Facing) 306 B-3 Map - Coliform Results......................313 B-4 Map - Dissolved Oxygen Results..............314 B-5 Map - Biochemical Oxygen Demand Results . . 315 B-6 Chart - Summer Low-Flow Frequency Curve . . 319298-Syllabus and Conclusions Syllabus The Beaver River drains 3,145 square miles in Ohio and Pennsylvania. The population of the area is 728,000, roughly 230 per square mile, of which almost two-thirds are in urban communities. The largest city, Youngstown, Ohio (167,720) is the center of the third largest steel producing area in the country. The streams and reservoirs of the basin are intensively used as sources of municipal and industrial water supply and for recreation. About 42 percent of the sewage is treated and more than 95 percent of the untreated wastes enter the Mahoning River in the Youngstown district (V.'arren to Lowellville). Ex-cept for the Beaver and sections of the Mahoning and Shenango Rivers, the streams of the basin are relatively clean. Abatement of pollution in the Youngstown district can be most economically effected by a combination of waste treatment and stream flow regulation. Reservoir sites have been investigated by the U. S. Engineer Department with a view toward providing needed additional flow for both pollution abatement and industrial water supply. Further industrial development in the Youiigstown district should be predicated on obtaining additional water from sources not now considered.Conclusions (1) Eighteen of the 50 public water supplies in the basin are from surface sources. Twelve of these, serving 430,000 people are from streams or reservoirs subject to pollution. (2) Sewage from 515,000 people, industrial wastes equivalent to sewage from an additional 165,000 people and about 32 tons of acid per day enter the streams of the basin. Thirty-3ix plants treat about 42 percent of the sewage and several of the industrial plants have installed waste treatment facilities. (3) Laboratory data show the Mahoning River, particularly in the Youngstown district, to be grossly polluted. The Beaver River is moderately polluted and the Shenango is in fairly satisfactory sanitary condition. Smaller tributary streams are relatively clean. (4) The major pollution problem of the basin is in the Youngstown district. More than 95 percent of the untreated wastes in the entire basin enter the Mahoning River in the 25 miles from Warren to Lowellville. (5) Industrial water use in this stretch, principally for cooling purposes, is about 20 times the minimum stream flow. The resulting high water temperatures intensity the effects of pollution and increase industrial costs. (6) Chemical treatment of sewage plus low-flow control by reservoirs offers the most economical method of organic pollution abatement in the Youngstown district. Low-flow augmentation alone, or without a parallel program of sewage treatment, will actually have a detrimental effect on the Beaver River because of decreased time of flow. Local conditions and river temperature will, of course, be improved. (7) Primary treatment, the minimum that can be considered satisfactory under the most favorable circumstances, is indicated at four other communities where stream flows are adequate including Newton Falls, Ohio and New Brighton, Pennsylvania. The latter city, being near the mouth, is primarily an Ohio River problem. Secondary treatment is indicated at five small towns in Ohio located on streams subject to very low flows. Additions or improvements to treatment facilities are needed at eight places and progress is being made toward completion of the improvements in most of these cases.(8) Industrial treatment is needed principally to reduce phenol discharges at by-product coke plants and to reduce the acid load on the stream. This can be accomplished by methods now in use at other plants. (9) A summary of cost estimates of remedial measures from Table B-l follows: Treatment Capital Cost Annual Charges Existing Suggested additional $4,760,000 6,000,000 * 415.000 865.000 Estimated additional costs, over existing charges, of programs involving uniform treatment throughout the basin are: Primary, all places Secondary, all places 5,830,000 10,680,000 845,000 1,265,000302 Table B-l Beaver River Basin - Estimated Cost of Existing and Suggested Minimum Corrective Measures for Sewage and Industrial Wastes, with Comparative Costs for Primary and Secondary Treatment, Number of Plants Prim,Sec# Populatlon Connected to Sewers Capital Investment (Dollars) Annual Amort, & Interest Charges (I Operation & Main* )ollars) Total Existing Sewage Treatment 17 18 218,14 00 11,760,000 300,000 115,000 14.15,000 Suggested Minimum Correction Sewage Treatment Plants Required Interceptors Independent Industrial Waste Correction Total 1b 5 mm 297,100 2,970,000 1,990,000 1,014.0,000 210,000 95,000 135,000 190,000 235,000 14.00,000 95,000 370,000 6,000,000 1414.0,000 14.25,000 865,000 Comparative Cost Primary Treatment All Waste Secondary Treatment All Waste As Suggested 5,830,000 10,680,000 6,000,000 14.25,000 710,000 1414.0,000 14.20,000 £55,000 425,000 8115.000 1,265,000 865.000Description The Beaver River is formed by the confluence of the Mahoning and Shenango Rivers near New Castle, Pennsylvania, and flows southward for 20 miles to its junction with the Ohio River 25 miles below Pittsburgh. It drains an area of 3,145 square miles, of which 1,360 are in Ohio and 1,785 in Pennsylvania. Much of the land is flat, particularly in the northern half of the basin but the southeastern portion is quite hilly. The principal tributaries of the Beaver River are: Tributary Connoquenessing Cr. Mahoning River Shenango River Distance above Mouth of Beaver 12.4 20.7 20.7 Drainage Area Square Miles 830 1,100 1,080 The basin is densely populated (230 per sq.mi.) and about two-thirds of the population is in the 22 urban communities. The populations of some of the larger cities and of the basin as a whole are shown below. Principal Cities Youngstown,Ohio T9l0" 79,066 New Castle, Pa. 36,280 Warren, Ohio 11,081 Sha ron, Pa . 15,270 Butler, Pa. 20,728 Alliance, Ohio 15,083 Beaver Falls, Pa. 12,191 Niles, Ohio 8,361 Farrell, Pa. 10,190 Campbell, Ohio 4,972 Ellwood City, Pa. 3,902 Struthers, Ohio 3,370 Entire Basin Rural 178,013 Urban 251*086 Total 429,099 Population 1920 1930 1940 132,358 44,938 27,050 21,747 23,778 169,912 48,674 41,062 25,908 23,568 167,720 47,638 42,837 25,622 24,477 21,603 12,802 13,080 15,586 11,237 23,047 17,147 16,314 14,359 14,673 22,405 17,098 16,273 13,899 13,785 8,958 5,847 12,323 11,249 12,329 11,739 189,950 389.343 220,208 480.079 251,101 477.267 589,293 700,287 728,368Almost all of the cities experienced a period of rapid population increase during the first 30 years of this century Vvhich saw the region develop into a major center of steel production. This period of rapid growth ended in 1930 and most of the cities lost population during the next 10 years. The rural population continued to increase however. Water Uses - None of the streams are navigable at present except for the lower mile of the Beaver which is affected by backwater from the Ohio River. A proposal to connect the Ohio River and Lake Erie by a canal using the Beaver, Mahoning and Grand Rivers has been studied by the U. S. Engineer Department and considered by the Congress a number of times but has not been authorized. There are no hydroelectric power storage reservoirs and no sites where the development of hydroelectric energy appears to be economically feasible at the present time. No flood-control reservoirs, as such, have been built but a number of reservoirs built for other purposes have undoubtedly aided in reducing flood heights. The largest of these are the Pyrna-tuning Reservoir, Lake Milton and Meander Reservoir. Pymatuning Reservoir on the upper Shenango has a capacity of 192,000 acre-feet and a surface area of 17,880 acres. It was built by Pennsylvania primarily to regulate stream flow to insure an adequate supply of water for downstream cities and industries. Lake Milton on the Mahoning River above Warren was built by the city of Youngstown and private interests to increase the flow of the stream during dry weather. It has been useful in this respect but its small capacity of 28,100 acre-feet has limited its utility. Both Pymatuning Reservoir and Lake Milton are used extensively for recreation. Meander Reservoir on Meander Creek was built by the Mahoning Valley Sanitary District to provide public water supplies for Youngstown and Niles. Its capacity is 32,400 acre-feet. Fifteen other reservoirs with capacities of from 100 to 4,600 acre-feet have been built for water supply, recreation or flow regulation. The Berlin Reservoir on the Mahoning above Lake Milton is now (1942) under construction by the U. S. Engineer Department in connection with the authorized program for Ohio River flood controlc In addition to controlling floods, the reservoir will provide storage for low-flow control.Presentation of Field Data Figure B-l shows the location and magnitude of the more important sources of pollution in the basin. Figure B-2 shows similar data and, in addition, the location of public water supply intakes from polluted streams and selected laboratory data on coliform organisms, dissolved oxygen and B.O.D. Public Water Supplies - Fifty public water supplies in the basin served 5$4,±06 people* Eighteen supplies serving almost 500,000 people are from surface sources and twelve of these are from streams or reservoirs subject to sewage pollution. Table B-2 shows data on the surface water supplies of the basin. The supplies from the Beaver River are the most seriously polluted and the most complete treatment of these supplies often fails to produce a palatable water. Sewerage - Sewage from 515,700 people is discharged to the streams of the Beaver 3asin. About 42 percent of this waste is treated. In the Pennsylvania section of the basin practically all sewage is treated, the principal exception, New Brighton, discharging only about one mile from the mouth and being primarily an Ohio River problem. On the other hand, in the Ohio section of the basin, 285,800 out of 321,500 discharge sewage without treatment. Almost all of this waste enters the Mahoning River in the 25-mile stretch from Warren to Lowellville. There are 35 sewage treatment plants in the basin, 17 of which provide primary treatment and 18 of which provide secondary treatment. Twenty-six of the plants are in Pennsylvania and only 9 are in Ohio. Industrial Wastes - Table B-4 summarizes data on the sources of industrial wastes by type of industry and method of disposal. The population equivalent of these wastes does not reflect the magnitude of the industrial waste problem since the steel mill wastes have no significant B.O.D. The disposal of waste pickle liquor from steel mills in the basin is summarized as follows: Free Acid# in Waste Pickle Liquor - Pounds per Day State Total Neutralized Discharged Without Neutralization Ohio Pennsylvania Total 63,000 18,600 1 O Oi OO 0 co 60,000 3,800 81,600 17,800 63,800 # Exclusive of FeSOj^ which exerts some acid effect.Municipality State Source Mile (1) Treat- ment (2) Popu- lation Served Cons e M»GeD 0 Supplies Below Community Sewer Outfalls New Brighton Beaver Falls V/est Pittsburgh Nev/ Castle Sharon Pa0 it it tt tt Beaver River it n ti tt Shenango River tt it 3*6 5*2 18,0 25*8 FD FD FD FD FD 22,500 25,000 koo 58,000 50,000 1.75 2o30 0o07 4.25 3 080 Warren Alliance Sebring Ellwood City Mercer Ohio it tt Pa# tt Mahoning River it tt tt ti Slippery Rock Cre Otter Creek 56*5 101 105 21*5 48.5 LD FD FD FD FD 42,800 22,1+00 3,900 12,000 2,200 3.98 3.50 0*50 2*00 0 a 12 Youngstown Niles Ohio tt Meander Cr0 Res* it n tt 52.5 52.5 LD LD 175,000 16,200 10.7 2 „60 Other Surface Supplies Zelionople Evansburg Butler Pae tt ti Impounded-Scholar Run Wells-Likens Run Connoquenessing Creek 61 FD F FD 2,000 1,600 30,000 0*18 0„ 12 3o30 Greenville Struthers Campbell ti Ohio ti Impounded-Tribc of Le Shenango Irapounded-Yellow Creek tt it tt FD FD FD 8,500 13,000 13,700 o„50 0065 0*56 Total - Below Sewer Outfalls Other 1+30,Loo 68,3oo 3%57 Total - Surface Water Supplies 1+99,200 1+0 0 88 (1) Miles above mouth of vor ?.5ver0 (2) L - Lime-coda softened; D - Chlorinated; F - Coagulated, settled, filtered,,SEWERED POPULATION OR EQUIVALENT (B.O.D.) IN THOUSANDSTable B-J Beaver River Basin - Source of Significant Pollution Including Industrial Wastes, Expressed as Sewered Population Equivalent (B.O.D.) Municipality State Receiving Stream Mile (1) Population Connected to Sewers Treat- ment (2) Sewered Population Equivalent (B.O.D.) Untreated Discharged Kew Brighton Pa. Beaver River 9,000 None 9,000 9,000 Beaver Palls ii tt tt u. 10,000 Pri, 10,000 12,14.00 Farrell ii Shenango River UU ill.,000 11 1/4,000 9,100 Sharon it tt tt 27,000 tt 27,000 17,500 Sharpsvilie It tt tt U9 5,000 Sec. 5,000 700 Greenville It tt tt 69 8,500 Pri, 8,700 5,600 New Castle tt Mahoning River 22 50,000 " D. 57,500 37,500 Struthers Ohio tt tt 3U 11,700 None 11,700 11,700 Polard C.S.D, (5) tt tt tt 35 U,ooo tt U,ooo U,000 Campbell tt n tt 36 13,?00 tt 13,700 13,700 Youngstown tt tt tt 178,700 tt 260,c00 260,500 Girard tt tt tt UU 0,700 tt 6k,700 61 l, 700 N1 les tt it tt 50 16,200 tt 16,200 16,200 Warren tt tt tt 14.2,800 ff 56,800 56,800 Newton Falls tt tt tt 76 3,100 tt 3,100 5,100 Alliance tt tt tt 101 22,000 Sec<» 22,000 2,200 Ellwood City Pa« Oomocuenessing CrD 1U 10,500 Pri«Do 10,500 6f 800 Butler tt tt * tt tt 27,000 Sec, 31,100 l+,700 Crove City tt Wolf Creek 7,000 tt 7,000 1,000 Mercer tt Neshannock Creek ua 2,500 Pri 2,500 1,600 Hubbard Ohio Little Yankee Creek U8 U, 100 it U,ioo 2,700 Sebring tt Pish Creek 107 3,500 Sec. 3,500 500 33 smaller sources 26,700 (U) 28,500 16,1400 Total - Ohio 321,500 14.72,800 14144,300 Pennsylvania 19U,200 207,300 11U, 100 Total 515,700 680,100 558,1400 (1) 5,'iles above mouth of Beaver River,, (2) Pri,-Primary; Sec*-Secondary; D-Chlcrination (3) County Sewer District (I4.) Ten primary and 11 secondary treatment plantsAs in the case of domestic sewage, the bulk of the organic industrial wastes and of the acid is discharged to the Mahoning River in the Youngstown area. Industrial Water Supply - About 780 m.g.d* of water are used by the various industries in the basin and about 630 m.g.d* of tills are drawn from the Mahoning River in the 25~nille stretch from Warren to Lowellville. Relatively small amounts of this industrial water supply are used as boiler feed and in manufacturing processes. Almost all of it is used as cooling water and 3 returned to the streams unchanged except for its increased ;smperature. Since this water demand exceeds even the average flow of the stream, the water must be reused and the temperature increases tend to pyramid* During periods of low stream flow the water temperature below Youngstown has risen often to over 110°F# Table B-v weaver River Basin - Summary of Industrial Wastes not Discharged to Municipal Treatment Plants, with Total of Entire Industrial Waste Load in tte B8sin» Number industrial Waste Disposal At Least Minor Estimated Sewered Industry of Plants MuniCo Sewers Private Outlets Corrective Measures Taken Population Equivalent (B.O.D.) Brewing 2 1 1 2 5,?oo By-product coke 4 c=» k 3 8o„4oo Che rule el 4 1 3 2 pm Meat 2 2 pm 2 7,200 Milk 3 1 2 2 3,4-00 Steel Mill 39 1 38 2U Miscellaneous 22 3 19 10 56,300 Waste Unconnected 76 67 45 152,600 Munic * Treatment 9 Waste Connected to Municipal Treatment 11,800 Total Industrial Waste in Basin 164,400Table B-7 summarizes laboratory data on the Beaver River. Table B-5 shows selected data at some of the more important points. Except for the observations at the mouth of the Beaver, all the results were obtained by a mobile laboratory during June, July and August, 1940, The mouth of the Beaver was sampled in October, November and December, 1940 by the laboratory boat Kiski. In cooperation with the State Health Departments of Ohio and Pennsylvania, taste and odor problems in the Beaver Basin were studied in November and December, 1940 and January, 1941. Laboratory facilities at Mineral Ridge, Ohio were made available through the courtesy of the Mahoning Valley Sanitary District. Results of this work are summarized in Table B-5A. Figures B-3, B-4 and B-5 show graphically the coliform, dissolved oxygen and B.O.D. results. These results represent the most unfavorable monthly averages. The laboratory data indicate clearly the grossly polluted condition of the Mahoning River in its lower 25 miles. The Beaver River is also polluted and the Shenango is in somewhat better sanitary condition. Considering the high degree of industrial development, the large urban population, and the low stream flows, the situation might well be worse. With the exception of the small community of Linesville, (which has passed a bond issue for sewage treatment) all of the towns in the Shenango Valley have sewage treatment. The most unfavorable results in this valley were obtained below Sharon where about half of the sewage was being bypassed at the time samples were collected during remodeling activities at the sewage treatment plant. The area flooded by Pymatuning Reservoir was formerly a large swamp and the unstable organic matter in the swamp imparts an appreciable B.O.D. to the impounded water. In the Mahoning Valley, the addition of iron coagulants in the form of waste pickle liquors probably tends to coagulate and settle pollution in the river. In addition, multiple industrial reuse of the river water, causing higher water temperatures and increased time of flow, affords excellent conditions for self-purification. During periods of increased flow and lower temperature, much higher coliform counts and somewhat higher3.C.D.fs than those observed would probably be found in the Mahoning and the Beaver. In fact, some of the highest coliform counts were the fall and winter observations made at the mouth 1 of the Beaver. In spite of the amount of pickle liquor discharged in the district, very few pH values found in the district were below 6. Only two pH values below six were observed in the June, July, August period of observation and two more below 6.0 were observed in the November, December, January period when the taste and odor study was being made. In all cases these pH values were well above 5.0. Hardness in streams of the Shenango Basin and in the eastern tributaries of the Beaver v/as generally of the order of magnitude of 100 p.p.m. In the Mahoning valley hardness values up to 350 p.p.m. were observed. Taste and Odor Survey - The data (Table B-5A) have been divided into two sections on the basis of the appearance of phenol in the Beaver at Beaver Falls. During the first period, phenol was present in the Mahoning River in the Youngstown area but self-purification had removed this pollution before the stream reached Beaver Falls. During the second period, due to lower temperatures and shorter times of flow, self-purification failed to remove the phenol from the river before it reached Beaver Falls, where it caused great difficulty in the production of a palatable water. The laboratory determinations show that large quantities of phenol were entering the Mahoning River in four different sections where by-product coke plants are located.River Location Mahoning above below Alliance Mahoning Waterworks below Warren Mahonfng above McD.Via Niles ~ Mahoning Libert St. Girard River Miles Above: Conf. with Shenango 83 76 35-5 3k 30.2 29.2 ?*•§ Mouth of Beaver 10U 97 56.5 55 51.2 50.2 U5.9 Period - 191+0 July July July-Aug. July-Aug. July-Aug. July-Aug. July Number of Samples 2 2 5 5 5 5 k Flow In c.f.s.: ; Sampling Days U 20 235 237 2k3 , 290 355 Water Temperature °C. 26.5 26.0 23.9 25.8 25 -U 2U.6 2k. 1 Collforms per ml. 25 n Qp 16 7,100 86 2,UOO 3ki Dissolved oxygen ppm. U. 8 U.5 7.7 2.5 2.0 l.U 5-3 B.O.D.,5“day,p.p.m0 2.2 3-U 2.6 5-7 2J+ 2.0 2.2 River Location Mahoning Division Center Street Street Youngstown Mahoning Sheet & Bridge Tube Lowell-Campbell ville Mahoning Bridge Bridge Edinburg Mahoning-town near Mouth River Miles Above: Conf. with Shenango 22 16 15 10.5 5*5 1.5 0.5 Mouth of Beaver k3 37 36 31.5 26.5 22.5 21.5 Period - I9U0 July-Aug. July-Aug. July-Aug. July-Aug. July-Aug. July-Aug. July-Aug. Number of Samples 8 8 8 8 8 7 u Plow in c.f.s.: Sampling Days 29U 260 280 291 307 367 21U Water Temperature °C. 27.2 29.6 30.0 29.2 26.1 25.9 23.9 Collforms per ml. 1+50 11,Uoo 6,100 186 62 71 31 Dissolved oxygen ppm. U.o 1.6 °.7 1.6 3.1 3.7 u.3 B.O.D.,5-day,p.p.m. 1.8 10.0 12.1+ 3.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 River Location Shenango Riverside . , Hotel below Greenville Shenango Mercer Clark St. St. Sharpsville Shenango below Sharon- Farrell Shenango above New Castle below River Miles Above: Conf. with Mahoning U8 U6.5 31 29.3 21 6.5 0.5 Mouth of Beaver 69 65.5 52 50.3 U2 27.5 21.5 Period - I9I4.O July-Aug. July-Aug. July-Aug. July-Aug. July-Aug. July-Aug. July-Aug. Number of Samples 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 Flow in c.f.3.: Sampling Days 122 133 226 262 268 27U 325 'Water Temperature °C. 20.8 21.3 22.k 22.6 23.7 22.7 21.1+ Coliform3 per ml. Ul 280 233 22 1,800 98 58 Dissolved oxygen ppm. 7.6 6.6 7.8 6.9 u.u 5-9 6.8 B.O.D.,5-day,p.p.m. 3.6 U.I 3-U 3.3 5.0 6.9 6.U River Location Beaver bel.New Castle Beaver Eastvale, B*r Falls Beaver near Mouth Neshan Cr below Mercer Connoquenessing Creek at below at Butler Renfrew River Miles Above: Mouth of Beaver 15.5 5-5 l.U U6.5 ' 57-5 5U.0 U9 Period - 19^0 July-Aug. July-Aug. Oct. Aug. July July July Number of Samples 6 6 11 2 2 2 2 Flow in c.f.s.: Sampling Days 502 750 n 633 11 10 20 30 Water Temperature °C. 2U 23.8 15.2 20.2 2U.5 26.0 25.5 Collforms per ml. U37 ie 802 330 5 13 58 Dissolved oxygen ppm. 6.8 8.3 5.0 5.0 3.U 6.6 B.O.D. ,5-day, p.p.m. 8.5 U.O 2.6 2.3 1.1 6.1 3.6Table - Beaver River Baain - Laborstory Reoultc of Taste and Odor Survey of Mahoning and Beaver Rivers from Warren, Ohio to mouth. River Location of Sampling Point River Mile (1) Number of Samples Temp« C O Period op self-purification "Fbenol-parts per billion Max, fMi'n, |Ave, « rnTVAD'-WJAO) threshold Odor Value lax.[Min.|Ave, Iron p.p.m. Mahoning Above VVarren B14-.5 _ TT5— 3.9 2 0 0.2 16 2 6 7.1* 2.8 fl " Niles 51.2 1+ 4.0 2S0 80 is 6 16 8 10 6.5 27 tt Below " 50.2 10 6.3 220 70 141 16 k 8 6.5 17 tl (Division St* (+3.0 10 7.6 II4.O 2 87 16 k 8 6.L. 11 Youngs-( Mahoning Ave. 10 12.2 320 5 1614. 32 1+ 13 6.6 6 ol+ tl town (Center_S_t._ TfampbeTl at Youngs- _32»o __5_ _ 10_,8_ _2k°. - 20 -12° _ 16 _ _1+ _ I1 6.6 16 _ _ town Sheet & Tube Br* 36.0 10 14.2 1600 30 777 256 16 80 6.3 18 tf Struthers Bridge 3I+.6 0 tt Lowellville Bridge 31.5 8 15*2 1000 38 502 61+ 8 29 6.2 19 tl Mt.Jackson Hwy.Br. 22.5 8 7.8 800 10 156 32 8 15 7.3 1.3 Shenango New Castle Viaduct 23.0 8 ?*2 0 0 0 16 2 6 6.9 5*5 Beaver Above Beaver Falls ■ -BBBTAt'' ArS—T 5.5 8 rpt—WTVUTWT'l 4.1 2 0 0.2 8 2 k 6.7 y y 5-3 Beaver River at Beaver Fal Mahoning Above Warren &+.5 13 2.1 2 0 .15 8 y 0J. m S* 1 2 ► 3 ?.o 1.1 tt " Niles 51.2 13 1+.0 600 0 iii 16 2 8 6.U 18 tl Below " 50.2 13 3.6 180 0 °3 16 2 6 6.1+ 12 II (Division St. town "(Mahoning Ave. L3.0 13 1+.3 120 0 61 8 2 5 6.k 13 II tt 1+0.5 13 5.6 800 10 223 8 1+ 6 6.1+ 13 11 _ (Center_St. Campbell-aE" Youngs- -31.0 _ 13_ _ _6^9_ _i+00 _ 20 _l£9 _ & __1+ _ £7 J* 5 11__ town Sheet & Tube Br. 36.0 13 7.1+ 1000 60 570 128 16 l+l 6.)+ 13 tt Struthers Bridge 31+.6 10 8.5 2000 90 %2? 256 16 59 6.5 16 ff Lowellville Bridge 31.5 11 8.0 1800 160 §2L 128 16 41 6.5 16 II Mt.Jackson Hwy. Br. 22.5 11 8.3 1800 50 685 128 8 29 6.6 9 Shenango New Castle Viaduct 23.0 10 15 0 3*5 8 0 3 608 2.1+ Beaver Above Beaver Falls . 5.5 11 Lj * O 230 __.?5 108 61+ 2 ll 6.7 2,3 ofI OI oi I-314-315-Twenty-one stream gaging stations have been maintained in the Beaver River Basin at various times and II4. are currently in operation. Table B-6 shows monthly mean summer flows at eight stations for the three driest summers of record. Stream flow at Sharon and Wampum have been affected by the Pymatuning Reservoir since 1933 30 the records shown in Table B-6 for these stations do not represent conditions likely to recur* Figure B-6 shows the effect of the reservoir on the flow at Sharon. It also shows the flow in the Mahoning at Youngstown based on 18 years of record and the flow as it would be regulated by the proposed Berlin Reservoir. Figure B-6 indicates that the frequency with which minimum monthly mean summer flow? have occurred is as follows? Location Minimum Monthly Mean Summer Plows In Cubic Ft. per Sec. that may be expected once in 2 Years 5 Years 10 Years Minimum Mahoning at Youngstown 133 94 75 47 Mahoning at Youngstown Regulated by Berlin Res. I83 I65 162 160 Shenango at Sharon (Unregulated at Pyma-tuning) 54 33 21 7 r’ Proposed Stream Control - The Corps of Engineers has deter-mined four sites to be most nearly satisfactory for flood contro: and allied reservoir development in connection with the program for Ohio River flood control as follows:Reservoir Stream River Miles Above Mouth of Beaver River Storage Acre-Ft. Supplemental Flow Made Available c.f.s. Approx. Minimum Regulated Summer Discharge at Project Sites-c.f.s. Shenango Shenango R. 54 127,000 100 (i) 300 Berlin (2) Mahoning R. 94 71,000 113 (3) 160 Eagle Cr. Eagle Creek 65 48,100 31 Mosquito Cr. Mosquito Cr. 59 50,000 34 35 (1) Includes effect of Pymatuning. (2) Under construction - 1942. (3) Ultimate at Youngstown. It is assured that low-flow control will be made available In the near future by the Berlin Reservoir project, and, during the present national emergency, it is proposed to operate the reservoir primarily for low-flow control with flood control as an incidental feature. Plans for ultimate operation contemplate its use for flood control, with secondary low water regulation. The Berlin project, operated in conjunction with existing Milton Reservoir several miles downstream, will permit sustaining a minimum flow of about 25O second-feet in the Mahoning River at Youngstown, Ohio, during the national emergency period, and about loO second-feet under the ultimate plan of operation. Tin Eagle and Mosquito Creek projects would be capable of further augmenting discharge in the ruin river as well as increasing minimum flows in their respective tributary channels. The Shonango project, if provided, would be operated with due regard for flow regulation originating in the Pymatuning Reservoir, which is situated further upstream. Proposed operations contemplate increasing the regulated flow of the Shenango River by 100 second-feet during the months of June to September, inclusive. Minimum regulated discharge at Sharon, Pennsylvania, which would reflect operation of both reservoirs, would approximate 300 second-feet during these months.Table B-6 Beaver River Ba.3in - Monthly Mean Summer FUows for Years in Which Low Summer Flows have Occurred, River Location Mahoning R. Warren, Ohio MahonTng R. Youngstown, Ohio Shischarge c. f. s. Temp. ! °c ; Dissolvod Oxyp®n p. p. m. j % Sot. 5 Day B. O. D. p. p. m. Coliform* M. P. N. Per ml ! dH Turbidity p. p. m. Alkalinity p. p. m. Hardness p. p. m. Fish Run 3 oiles 'below § 3MaF 104 June 281 1 20.0 i 5.0 55.1 1.9 91 7-2 26 101 252 ii ii ii n 1 j Mahoning River 1 mile BMa 104 June 28 i 36 20.5; 7.4 81.1 1.3 93 ! 7.U I 117 ii »t ii j July 101 3 ?u.o I 5-9 69.2 1.2 u I 7.6 I ii ii ,i j 29 i 6 27.01 3-7 U5.5 3.2 U6 i 7-3 1 i j i Mahoning River 5 miles BMa 97 June 28 i 42 21.0 i 5->* 59-8 3.6 U30 7-5 37 136 17U ii July 10 j 7 24.0 U.2 U9.8 3.3 73 7-b 23 194 ■ » ] 29 I 31* ; 27.0 U.8 59-2 3-1* 93 7.3 32 156 j 1 ; Mahoning River 3 miles 15 132 22.0 8.9 101.0 1.8 2 „ n n 22 130 25.0 7-9 9U.0 1.0 2U 7.2 >1 II II It July 30 j 8?: 27.5 7-0 87-5 3.0 2U 7-3 •1 II ,, | Aug. 5 86 £p.O 7-4 88.1 2.6 2U 7-3 Mahoning River lower edge of Newton FallSj 0, BMa 76 July 1 16.0 7-2 72.U 1.9 230 7-U 49 „ „ " 22 167 25.0 6.9 82.8 2.2 2U0 7.2 » n ft It 30 90 i 26.5 | 5-5 67.u 3.8 U60 7.2 j » . Aug. 5 SO 1 2U.5 6.3 75-0 U.2 93 7.2 i I j j j Mahoning River 4 miles BMa 72 July 1 1U7 j 16.0 7.9 i 79-2 1.3 36 7-U 58 11 22 213 i 27.5 i 6.7 i 34.4 1.6 9 7-5 | i . 30 10*+ i 26.5 5-3 I 65.U 2.3 2 7.2 | . Aug. 5 101 i 2U.5 6.6 ! 73.5 1.9 24 7-2 i : i 1 i 1 i 1 i Silver Cr. 2 miles abv. Gprrett8viT.!1et Ohio | Bl'aSS 32 June 27 | 11*.5 ; 9.0 i 87.5 0.5 U 7-U 94 - | " July 29 11 25.0 3.9 jlOo.l 0.8 2 7-8 5 12o Sagle Cre?k 2 niles abv. Garrettsvilie, Ohio BMaJE 82 June 27 i 16.5 8.5 i 86.U 2.2 i 36 7-U : 27 | 75 i 104 If u tt II July 11 3 i 21.0 7.0 i 73.0 1 0.9 j 2 7-U • h it . 29 3 i 24.0 6.6 | 77.3 i U.7 | Uo 7-U j I ; j ! 1 Eagle Creek 2 miles bel. Garrettsville, Ohio BMaE 78 July 11 20 i 23.c 1 7.4 | 85.0 i i.U 1 93 7.8 18 : : 138 it n „ 29 9 | 26.5 6.5 : 80.2 i 1.6 1 23 7-7 : 12 1 144 1 • i ; I • i ! ! li&otef LssyJuijikuEg.- .Qhia........ BMa 64.5 July 1 *+77 ! 15*0 8.5 183.5 i 1-7 I 150 7-3 : 55 i II II ft tl 15 2U? : 21.0 8.5 : 9M i 150 7-U II II tt n " 22 206 j 26.0 7.6 : 92.8 I 1.9 9 7.5 i II It It N 30 105 ! 27.0 1 7.5 : 92.u 1 i 2U0 ! 7-6 j " , Aug. 5 112 j 24.5 1 7-7 j 90.7 : 2.0 u 7-3 i 15 i 116 j ! ; i j ! | j ; '{ater works intake .............. BMa 56.5 July 1 | 567 117.0 i 7-7 : 79.5 i 2.U i 36 7-3 : j U7 i 196 n n | 11 it j " 15 1 20U i 21-5 : 8.U i 9U.2 ! 1.8 : 9 7.6 i 23 i ; 116 i 1 5 j ■ I i i i OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTSOHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTSOHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTSOHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTSOHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS Sampling Point [;im'rTaiffi'£e"CTeek'..... 4 piles below Hiiatara,.-Ohia Mildago Front Mouth BShL 47.0 Data :.......mo,. June 27 July 11 Aug. Turbidity 1 Alkalinity i p. p. m. ! p p m 1 p. p. m Avorag® ; t--. I.j 5 Doy J Colifoms ; Discharge I | B. O. D. ! M. ?. N. • „H J f.r; j »»-•! %Sot- j p.p.,. !......Jj*.....;........! 30 j 19.O j 9.7 I 104.0 i 1.0 • 36 j 7-U | 5 j 55 78 6:20.5! 7-21 79.■+i l.l : 43 j 7.4; 30 78 3 | 23.5 i 5-9 j 68.5! 1.7 i 150 i 7-3 i i 90 Yankee Eun BShY 4U.5 July 28:19.0; 9-3 i 99-0 i l.U j 2 j 7-31 7 : Us -72 8:23.5! 7-2 j 84.1 ! 1.6 j 24 I 7.2 j 20 j ! 7U 18 24 1! 71 25.0 i U.4! 52.9: 1.7 j 460 j 7-1 i 38 1 i 21.0 j 5.6j 62.1 ! 2.4 ; 93 j 7.1j 32 •* j 21.51 5-0 i 55.6 j 2.3 ; 2U0 I 7.2; 13 88 84 92 Aug. 8 Shenango Hiver U miles bAlSMt-SfaarfiJi.-Jia......... BSh U2 July U17 376 19.5: 25.0 i 6.8 ; 6.0 i 73-3| 71-7 2.9 i 150 2.7 I 24o 7-3; 7-1 i 59 190 128.0! 2.8! 3U.8j U.5 | 1,500 ; 7-0! 23 202 ! 24.0 i 3.21 37.6 j 10.1 j U.600 i 7.0; 30 Aug. I5U | 22.0 i 3.2! 36.5 ; U.9 ! 2,400 ! 6.9: 25 U01 j 16.0 ! 6.2 j 62.5! 1.3 i ; 7.2! 84 Shenango Hiver 3 miles a&q Y.&. flaw. Gas tJLe._JEa.__. BSh 27.5 July 5U ! 367 236 2U.0 26.0 5-U j 5.8 63-2 | 71-0 ! 2-7 6.0 93 : 7-3j U3 I 7-U ! Aug. 215 267 159 22.5 22.0 25-5 5-U 7.1 I 5.31 61.5 80.5 63.7 12.7 11.0 7-6 23 i 7-1; 93 | 7-3 i 20 2U0 i 7.1j Neshannock Creek Bridge Pa. !;8 Morcer, Pa. BShS U7.5 July U U5 ; 17.5 i 8.U ! 87.2! 1.9 2 i 7-3 i 2U j 7.2 | 68 39 i 20.0 ! 6.8; 7U.2 j 1.6 29 i 2U.5 | 6.6 : 77.6 I 1.7 2U0 : 7.U U60 ! 7-2 2U0 i 7.U Aug. 1 " 8 U | 20.3 j 7-1 j 77-7 j 7.6 11 ! 21.0 i 7-5 j 83.8 i 2.4 Neshannock Creek 1 mile be law. Itercax.. £a.......... BShN 46.5 July 52 | 18.0 j 8.2 ! 85.7 j 1.6 " 18 July 2U U3 ! 20.0 j 5.6 j 61.1 j l.U 35:25.0; U. 1 • 49.3! 1.9 2U0 : 7-U j 5 ; 65 ; 10U 930 j 7-2 i 18 j j 10U U30 j 7-0 i U30 ; 7-2 i 230 I 7.21 Aug. 1 12 j 20.0; 5.0 i 5U.1; 2.6 12:20.5! 5.1 i 56.1! 2.0 Neshannoclc 'CreeTc..... ^n8^tep#.Led.6e..°f.. BShN 2U.5 July 5 iU9 i 15.5 } 8.*» I 83.3 i 1.8 85:23.0! 8.2 i 9U.61 3.2 U ! 7.5! u 2 : 7.5: 8 71 110 llU 29.0: 8.7j 112.2i 2.6 23.0 • 8.2; 9U.8; 3.2 22.5: 9.uj 107.9; 2.3 2U i 7-9: 2 i 7.5i 168 11U r " 19 | Aug. 1 U3 j 8.3! 2 j 7-si 192 17U 23-0 j 9-Uj 108.5 j 2.3 13.0 i 10.5! 98.8 i 1.3 •• | 6.7: 2 ! 6.5i 5 j 9U 3 j 105 7.0 j 10.9 i 89.7! 1.1 10.0! 10.5: 92.5j 0.9 11 i 7.0; 6 i 102 U6 i 6.8: 3 : 63 2U0 : 6.6: 10 j U7 U3 j 6.1I 6 j 3U ] Nov. 15 | " 28 I Dec. 10 95 i 260; 278 i 3-5 i 12.3; 92.5! 0.8 3.5 i 13-8! 103-8 j 2.6 3.5; 13.U j 100.51 0.7OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTSOHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTSOHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS Sampling Point Mileage From Mouth Dot* 19U0 Average Discharge | c. f. ». Temp. ! °c : Dissolved Oxygen p. p. m. ; % Sat. 5 Day ! B.O.D. ; p. p. m. | M. P. N Per ml. i Turbidity p. p. m. Alkalinity ! p. p. m. ; Hardness p. p. m. M^lFMdge 3 5-5 July 8 1,050 25.5 9-0 108.7 u.u | 9 7.6 ; 6i i " 17 880 22.0 7.U ; 83-9 3.9; 9 7.3 ; 18 150 " . ” 25 690 25.0 5-9 j 70.9 2.5 i 9 7-2 i 13 i 15U " I, Aug. 2 6U0 23.0 5-1 i 58.6 3.8 ; 2U 7.2 i !5 i lUo " ” “ 7 690 23.0 6.1; 69.8 3.2 u 7,1 i 7 170 " ■1 " 12 570 2U.0 7.3 i 86.0 6.1 ; u 7.3; 16 ; i 162 ! ! | J 3eaver Hiver At Mouth B l.U Oct. 2 620 18.0 8.U i 88.3 2.1 1,100 6.5; 11 3U ; n n , " u 575 17.0 8.u; 86.2 1.6 U30 6.2 | 12 2U ; . . " 8 6U0 18.0 8.5; SQ.O 2.6 930 6.1; 9 2U ; II II - - » 10 6U0 17.0 8.5; 86.9 2.U U60 6.0; 10 iU | « lU 6U0 17.0 8.5; 87-7 3.8 150 6.2 ; 8 u'7 i . » ■ Oct. 16 620 16.5 6.u; 6U.7 2.8 U60 6.2 ! 12 u5 i . ■ " 18 6U0 15.0 7.81 77i 0 1.9 930 6.2 i 12 27 i ■ I. - 22 660 12.0 j 8.7; 80.1 3.0 930 6.0: 13 27 ; . . " 2U 6U0 12.0 9.0; 83.3 2.2 2, UOO 6.3j 11 21 ; , . Oct. 28 575 ;12.0 9.3 SU.9 3.9 230 6.U 12 58 ; . . - - 30 710;13.0 7-9i 7U.6 1.9 i 6.U 37 U2 i . - « Nov. 1 910 12.5 9.U| S7-9 2.8 2U0 6.U 12 50 „ » . n c . It - " 7 1,150 10.0 10. d 90.3 1.1 2U 6.5 U2 U3 , 13 2,130 9.0: 11.oj 9U.5 1.8 110 6.8 2U U7 It 11 H 15 1,690 8.0 11.2 9U.5 1.3 U3 6.6 16 35 . II It « 19 1,150 5.0 12.3 95-3 1.8 150 6.6 20 37 . » « 25 1.3U0 9.0 10.7i 92.5 1.3 75 6.6 25 36 . - 27 2,650 7.0 11.2 92.3 1.6 U60 6.6 30 35 . - » n jg 3.830 5.0 12.9( 100.9 1.9 91 6.2 35 3U . „ Dec. 3 u.ooo : 2.0 13.3 95-U 2.1 U60 7.0 50 35 „ » • - 5 2.3U0 i 2.0 13.u; 97.1 2.8 93 6.5 23 28 . „ » 9 U.700 i u.o 13.2 100.7 2.5 CO VO 0 30 30 . . • 11 3.050 ; 5.0 12.3 95. U 2.0 2U0 6.3 23 28 „ » " 13 6,200 I 6.5 ! 12.fi 97-5 2 3 93 6.U 20 30 . « n Dec. 17 10,200: 6.0 i 12.21 97.5 : 3,7 1,100 i 7.0 110 28 , . ■ 19 5.930; u.o : 12-9; 98.1 i 2.1 U30 i 6.8 50 26 II II - 23 3.630; 5.5 ; 12.5 98.7 ; 1.6 150 : 6.3 22 31 . n « 27 2.730; 7.0 ; 11.8! 97.3 i 1.0 1,100 | 7.0 23 33 . - " 31 19.500 5.0 1 n.ei 90.5 I 6.U 150 ; 6.8 170 33 n » " I9U1 15,800; 5.5 I 12.6 99.*» i 3.3 210 i 6.6 70 28 * Seeded and NeutrallzaiFinal Report to the Ohio River Committee Ohio River Pollution Survey U. S. Public Health Service Cincinnati, Ohio 19U2MUSKINGUM HIVSR EaSIN Contents Page Contents. .........................................333 Syllabus and Conclusions..............................335 Description ...... ..............................338 Presentation of Field Data............................340 Presentation of Laboratory Data ......................344 Hydrome tr ic Data......................................349 Discussion............................................352 List of Tables Mu-1 Cost Estimates of Remedial Measures............337 Mu-2 Surface Water Supplie..........................341 Mu-3 Sources of Pollution..........................342 Mu-4 Industrial Wastes..............................343 Mu-5 Selected Laboratory Data......................345 Mu-6 Monthly Mean Summer Flows......................350 Mu-7 Summary of Laboratory Data ...................355 List of Figures Mu-1 Map - Sources of Pollution....................334 Mu-2 Chart - Sources of Pollution and Selected Laboratory Data (Muskingum River) . .(Facing) 342 Mu-2a Chart - Sources of Pollution and Selected Laboratory Data (Tuscarawas River). .(Facing) 342 Mu-3 Map - Coliform Results...............346 Mu-4 Map - Dissolved Oxygen Results................347 Mu-5 Map - Biochemical Oxygen Demand Results. . . . 348 Iv!u-6 Chart - Sumner Low-Flow Frequency Curve. . . . 351Muskingum Conservancy Reservoirs 1 Atwood 2 Beach City 3 Bolivar 4 Charles Mill 5 Clendening 6 Dover 7 Leesville 8 Mohawk 9 Mohiconville 10 Piedmont Pleasant Hill 12 Senecaville 13 Tappan 14 Wills Creek Fig. - Mu-I MUSKINGUM —HOCKING BASINS SOURCES OF POLLUTION SCALE OF MILES OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY U. S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 1941Syllabus and Conclusions Syllabus More than 800,000 people live in the S,0U-0 souare miles in eastern Ohio drained by the Muskingum River. About ^00,000 are in urban communities. Forty-six percent of the urban ponulation is in the heavily industrialized portion of the basin drained by the upper Tuscarawas River ana Sandy Creek. In spite of the extensive efforts made to abate pollution throughout the basin, a problem remains on the upper Tuscarawas and some of its tributaries. The lower Muskingum River and certain tributaries are considered excellent fishing streams. Natural lakes and the conservation pools at the recently completed flood control reservoirs afford unusually good facilities for recreation. One of these, the Senecaville reservoir, might be used to augment low flows for pollution abatement below Cambridge. The larger streams, except the ur>per Tuscarawas, can be restored to or maintained in excellent condition at a reasonable cost. Further limited improvements in the auality of the more heavily polluted Tuscarawas and some of Its tributaries seem economically Justified.(1) All but nine of the 9^ public water supplies in the basin are derived entirely from underground sources. Only four of the surface supplies are from streams subject to pollution. (2) Sewage from U-22,600 people and industrial wastes with a sewered population equivalent (B.O.D.) of about 321,000 enter the streams of the basin. About two-thirds of the sei^age is treated, most of it receiving secondary treatment and 56 industrial plants have taken some step to reduce pollution from Industrial wastes. (3) Laboratory studies indicate that the most heavily polluted streams are in the northeastern part of the basin in the vicinity of Canton, Massillon and Barberton. (U) Primary treatment of domestic sewage and removal of settleable solids from industrial wastes should suffice to maintain satisfactory stream conditions below g of the 10 urbaji communities now discharging untreated sewage. At Newark and Cambridge secondary treatment is indicated. (5) Primary treatment seems Justified at 16 and secondary treatment at 18 smaller rural communities now without sewage treatment facilities. (6) Improvements or additions to existing sewage treatment plants are indicated at Canton, Mansfield and seven other communities. (7) If the Senecaville reservoir can be used for low-flow control, primary treatment may suffice at Cambridge. (g) The following summary of cost estimates are from Table Mu-1. Treatment Capital Cost Annual Charges Existing 550,000 $U40,000 Suggested additional 5>1&0,000 535,000 Estimated additional costs, over existing charges, of programs involving uniform treatment throughout the basin are: Primary, all places $U,37°,000 $^50,000 Secondary, all places 6,200,000 6§0,000337 Table Mu-1 Muskingum River Basin - Estimated Cost of Existing and Suggested Minimum Corrective Measures for Sewage and Industrial Wastes, with Comparative Costs for Primary and Secondary Treatment. Number of Plants Prim.Sec. Population Connected to Sewers Capital Investment (Dollars) Annual Cl Amort. Sc Interest larges (Do! Operation & Main. Liars) Total Existing Sewage Treatment 13 18 285,600 ij.,550,000 287,000 155,000 kko, 000 Suggested Minimum Correction Sewage Treatment Plants Required Interceptors Independent Industrial Waste Correction Total 23 20 156,600 2,650,000 2,220,000 510,000 185,000 105,000 i|.0,000 105,000 100,000 290,000 105,000 11+0,000 5,180,000 530,000 205,000 555,000 Comparative Cost Primary Treatment All Waste Secondary Treatment All Waste As Suggested 1*.,370,000 6,200,000 5,180,000 270,000 1^00,000 550,000 180,000 260,000 205,000 11.50.000 660.000 555.000Description The Muskingum Hiver Basin comprises 3,0^0 square miles of eastern Ohio. The main stream is formed by the Junction of its two principal tributaries, the Tuscarawas and Walhonding Rivers at Coshocton in about the center of the basin and flows south for 110 miles to its Junction with the Ohio River at Marietta. The larger tributaries are: Distance above Drainage Area Tributaries Mouth of Muskingum R. Square Miles Licking River 75 79° Wills Creek 99 350 Walhonding River 110 2,250 Tuscarawas River 110 2,590 There are twenty-five urban communities in the basin and the population density is slightly more than 100 per square mile, The populations of the larger cities and of the basin as a whole for the past 3° years are tabulated below. _Populations Larger Cities T?10 lgTST 19W lWT Canton 50,217 87,091 104,906 10g,401 Zanesville 2S,02b 29,569 36,440 37,500 Mansfield 20,768 27,g24 33.525 37,15^4- Newark 25,404 26,712 30,596 31,4g7 Massillon 13,879 17,'42g 26,4oo 2 6,644 Barberton 9,4-10 lg,gll 23,934 24,02g Entire Basin Rural 3gl,g40 3g4,46o 3&1,&19 4i3,57g Urban 239.011 317,620 389.6g7 39g.45Q Total 620,g51 702,OgO 777,566 gl2,02g Much of the basin, particularly in the northern and western parts, is fertile agricultural country. The eastern and southern portions of the area are more hilly and agriculture is less prosperous. Coal mining is Important in these sections although production is generally on the decline. The principal manufactured products are steel and other metals, metal products, machinery and clay products.Water Uses ~ The Muskingum has been canalized by the const rucTIorT'oF’TT locks and dams which maintain a navigable depth •of five feet for 91 miles from Marietta to Dresden* The facilities are not used extensively* There are no important hydroelectric developments in the basin. A system of fourteen reservoirs, primarily for flood control, constructed by the U* S« Engineer Department for the Muskingum Conservancy District at a co3t of $14.5,000,000 was completed in 1938o It has since been taken over by the Federal Government and will be operated as part of the system of reservoirs for flood control on the Ohio River and its tributaries* Eleven of the reservoirs have permanent pools* These pools and adjoining land have been leased to the Ohio Division of Conservation for development as fishing and recreational areas. Data on the capacity of the reservoirs and the area of the conservation pools are tabulated below* No. Reservoir Stream Storage-Acre Feet Area of Conservatio: Pool-Acres Total Conservation 1 Atwood Indian Fork 14.9,700 23,600 1,^.0 2 Beach City Sugar Creek 71,700 1,700 £20 3 Bolivar Sandy Creek 149,600 0 0 k Charles Mills Black Fork 88,000 7,14.00 1,350 5 Clendening Brush Fork 54,000 27,900 1,800 6 Dover Tuscarawas R* 203,000 1,000 350 7 Leesville McGuire Creek 37,4oo 19,500 1,000 8 Mohawk Walhonding River 285,000 0 0 9 Mohicanville Lake Fork 102,000 0 0 10 Piedmont Stillwater Creek 65,000 33,600 2,270 11 Pleasant Hill Clear Fork 87,700 13,500 850 12 Senecaville Seneca Fork 88,500 43,500 3*550 Tappan L*Stillwater Cr* 61,600 35,100 2,350 4 Wills Creek Wills Creek 196,000 6,000 _________900 _ These conservation pools, together with Buckeye Lake in the southwestern part of the basin and the numerous lakes in the vicinity of Akron, furnl3h the area with unusually good water recreation facilities. Some of the streams also are used extensively for recreation* The lower Muskingum and Wakatomica Creek are considered outstanding fishing streams*Presentation of Field Data Figure Mu-1 shows the location and magnitude of each source of pollution of consequence in the basin# Figure Mu-2, shows similar data and, in addition, the location of water supply intakes subject to pollution and laboratory data on coliform organisms, dissolved oxygen and biochemical oxygen demand. Public Water Supplies - Eighty-five of the 94 public water supplies in the. is in are from underground sources. These supply almost 75 percent of the total population of 471,200 served by water supplies. The underground water is generally satisfactory in quality although it is usually hard and sometimes must be treated to remove iron. Of the nine surface water supplies, only four are from streams subject to pollution. Table Mu-2 shows data on the surface water supplies of the basin* A number of the communities which now use underground water exclusively are having difficulty in securing adequate supplies0 Outstanding among these are Canton and Mansfield* In both instances heavy industrial drafts on the underground supply complicate the problem. Both of these cities may be forced to develop water supplies from surface sources* Sewerage - Table Mu-3 shows the sewered population at each of the more important sources of pollution in the basin. About two-thirds of the total sewered population of 422,600 are served by sewage treatment plants. Thirteen primary treatment plants serve 78,700 people and 18 secondary treatment plants serve 206,900 people. The largest communities without sewage treatment are Zanesville, Newark, Cambridge, New Philadelphia and Coshocton* Industrial Wastes - Four strawboard and paperboard plants account for almost "percent of the total population equivalent of 280,500 of all the industrial wastes in the basin not treated at municipal plants. The larger steel plants, concentrated in the northeastern part of the basin around Canton and Massillon have taken steps to dispose of waste pickling liquors. An alkali • plant at Barberton discharges large quantities of inorganic «alts which greatly increase the hardness of the Tuscarawas River. Table Mu-4 shows data on the industrial waste producing plants.Municipality Source Mile (1) treat- ment (2) Population Served Con- sumption M.G.D. Supplies Below Community Sewer Outfalls Newark Cambridge Dennison Marietta N. Fk. Licking R. Wills Creek Stillwater Creek Muskingum R.& Wells 107 155 160 2 LD FD FD LD 35.000 15.000 10,000 34,500 3.20 1.25 2.00 1.60 Other Surface Supplies Ashland Crooksvllle New Concord Massillon Barberton Jerome Cr.-Long Cr. Impounded Crooked Creek (4) Wells & Newman Cr. Impounded 185 ¥m P(3) FD D ILD FD 12,000 2,300 1,000 26,600 24,000 0.75 0.10 0.08 1.50 1.50 Total ~ Below Sewer Outfalls Total - Other 74,500 65,900 8.05 3*93 Total ~ Surface Water Supplies 140,400 11*98 (1) Miles above mouth of Muskingum River# (2) I *- Iron Removal, L - Lime - Soda softened, P - Coagulated, settled, filtered, D - Chlorinated. (3) Softening plant under construction. (4) Infiltration gallery.342 Table Mu-5 Muskingum River Basin - Sources of Pollution, Including Industrial Wastes, Expressed as Sewered Population Equivalent (B»0.D»), Miles Above Population kewered. Population Municipality Stream Mouth of Connected Treatment Equivalent (B«0.D«) Muskingum R* to Sewers Untreated Dlschargea McConnellsville Muskingum River 48 1,700 None 5,14-00 3,400 Zanesville n n 75 30,000 tt 36,300 36,300 Dresden tt tt 92 800 ti 81,000 81,000 Coshocton n it 109 10,000 it 128,100 128,100 Newcomerstown Tuscarawas River 132 Moo it li,000 4»ooo -114.714 70- “ flew FhTladelphTa- «— ir — T6E Tl, 000 i£,troTs Dover n it 168 9*000 H 11,000 11,000 Massillon it n 198 28,000 Chemical 37,200 23,200 Barberton it 11 219 21,^00 n 50,500 19,800 Newark Licking River 105 29,000 N°ne_ L2.000 - - iTranviTle Raccoon Oreelc "* “ " IlJ ~ ~ - -2T5C0- 'Secondary ~ ^7500“ Cambridge Crooked Creek 15k 12,000 None 12,000 12,000 Wooster Killbuck Creek I69 10,200 Chemical 10,200 5,100 Mto Vernon Kokosing River 160 9,500 Primary 9,700 6,300 Ashland Mans?i"el3 Jerome Pork Rocky Pork 1 1 0000 1 1 o«o *1 CVJ O' 1 Secondary Secondary 12,100 " IT279T50” _ _,1j.900_ _ n+,900 Shelby Black Pork 225 6,000 it 6,000 900 Dennison Little Stillwater Cr 159 4,300 None 4,300 4,300 Uhrichsville Stillwater Creek 160 6,200 n 6,200 6,200 Canton rouisvTlTe “ Nlmishlllen Creek EoPretfTmTsEiHen Cr* 203 ~ ~ 211 ~ ~ 119,000 “ “3,5^0- Secondary 161,300 “ ~3730o- _ £9^500 ilOO Minerva Sandy Creek 209 2,700 Primary 2,700 1,800 Marshallville Red Run 220 100 None 6,000 6,000 Rittman River Styx 221 2,800 Secondary 18,000 15,600 Wadsworth Blockers Creek_ 22k 6,200 H 6,200 1,000 OrrvTlIe ElTtTe cEippewa "SrT “ “ ?3l " " - -U75S0- n - Tot 130" ~ “17500“ “ Chippewa Lake Chippewa Creek 232 2,500 •1 2,500 4°° 63 smaller sources 33,300 (1) J^390 30,800 Total kz2,600 714.3,200 1+92,200 -..........Oxygen p.p.m. jl Jk <* -4 J_l__|_.J_1- o g 5 8 fe o o § Coliforms (M.P.N.)per ml. SEWERED POPULATION OR EQUIVALENT (B.O.D.) IN THOUSANDS -t-1-H—-1 <0 ° U r <« y> H £ c/> m m o m o co o c o m co (= CO r > CD O o JO *0 > O H r- o r~ jo c -< H o o > z O o e> c* < m ;o 1 > 4 L. J. & ~~7 “ 1 / i i 1 1 1 i a i /» i 1 1 1 1 c M : / >/ « / 1 1 I / * i 1 1 1 1 i i t \ , / \ / $ / f \ 1 MILES t I / N 1 1 ; / TO M 0 U T l s /' X o •n Z j; ( / /' « ( U S K 1 N G U \ i 1 t i \ v U RIVER _ j 1 \ \ % \ i > t f 1 1 / / r • \ 1 • ! April-Moy - 1940 1 1 1 i1 • ! i o m o • a. 1 i i it O o 1; i i 1 • 1 1 Quaker City New Concord Johnstown Granville Crooksvllle Roseville Me. Connelsville Malta *■^1 Beverly I Waterford °* 1^1 Lowell Oxygen p.p.m. u> — ro Coliforms (M.P.N.) per ml. SEWERED POPULATION OR EQUIVALENT (B.O.D.) IN THOUSANDSOxygen SEWERED POPULATION OR EQUIVALENT (B.O.D.) IN THOUSANDS Coliforms (M.P. NJ p«r ml. SEWERED POPULATION OR EQUIVALENT (B.O.D.) IN THOUSANDSTable Mu-4 Muskingum River Basin - Summary of Industrial Wastes not Discharged to Municipal Treatment Plants with Total of Entire Industrial Waste Load in the Basin* Industry Number of Plants Industrial Waste Disoosal At Least Minor Corrective Measures Taken Estimated Sewered Population Equivalent (B.O.D#) Munic# Sewers Private Outlet Brewing 3 3 3 7,100 By-Product Coke 2 ** 2 2 14,200 Meat 8 1 7 7 17,500 Milk 28 •* 28 2h 6,300 Oil Refining 2 2 2 11,400 Paper it. m 4 2 210,000 Steel 11 1 10 5 Miscellaneous 26 10 16 11 14,000 Wastes Unconnected Munic# Treatment au 15 69 56 280,500 Wastes Connected to Municipal Treatment uo,ioo Total Industrial Waste in Basin 320,600 Acid Mine Drainage - Moxahala Creek is the largest acid stream in the basin. Some of the small streams in the* eastern part of the basin also are acid. The mine sealing program has reduced the amount of acid entering the streams of the Muskingum and Hocking Basins from about 215*000 tons per year to about 125,000 tons per year0 Most of the abandoned mines have been sealed#The results of the dissolved oxygen and B.O.D. tests In 1 the Muskingum River Basin shoved generally good conditions at the time of sampling. Average dissolved oxygen contents were usually over 6.5 p.p.m. and 5-&ay B.O.D. generally less than I 3.0 p.p.m. Coliform organisms were high, averaging over 100 per ml. throughout most of the basin. Summaries of the laboratory data are presented in Table Mu-7 selected data on the main stream and its tributaries are shown in Table Mu-5* Observations were made at the mobile laboratory during April, May and June, 19^0, supplemented by j observations from the laboratory boat Kiskl in May to September, 19*1-0 in the lower end of the basin. Figures Mu-3, Mu-^ and Mu-5 show the average coliform, dissolved oxygen and B.O.D. results at various stations. Where observations at any point extended over more than thirty days, the most unfavorable monthly average is shown. Average dissolved oxygen results of 5*0 p.p.m. or less were found only below Canton and Mansfield and along the Tuscarawas River from Barberton to Massillon. High B.O.D.1s were observed below Barberton, Rittman, Canton, East Sparta and Mansfield. Coliform averages of over 100 per ml. prevailed throughout the basin at the time of sampling except along the main extremities of the Licking River and Wills Creek. Moxahala Creek was found to be acid with pH values of 2.5 to ll-.O and phenolphthalein acidities as high as 290 parts per million. Throughout most of the basin the alkalinity of the stream waters averaged between 100 and 200 p.p.m., and the hardness was generally in the same range although below Barberton hardnesses of several thousand parts per million were found. Stream flows were generally high during the time of the laboratory survey except in August and September. These stream flow conditions undoubtedly tend to make the dissolved oxygen and B.O.D. results appear more favorable, and the coliform results more unfavorable than would have been the case had the laboratory observations been made during the low flow and high temperature months. Biological Summary - The plankton volume of the entire watershed is fairly high, ranging from 1,000 to 10,000 p.p.m. in the main stream to somewhat less in the principal tributaries. The streams support a good mixed fish population.River Location Muskingum at Marietta Muskingum below McConnells vllle Muskingum below Zanesville Muskingum below Dresden Muskingum below Coshocton Tuscarawas at Coshocton Tuscarawas below Newcomers- town River Miles Above: Mouth of Muskingum 0.2 1+7 71 86.5 107 110 128.5 Period - I9I4.O Aug. Aug. May Apr11-May May May May Number of Samples 11 k 3 3 2 3 3 Flow in c.f.s.: Sampling Days 2,050 3.}hp 6,117 17.U33 3,215 1,520 1,14.30 Minimum Month - 1+9U 227 Water Temperature °C. 26 .I4 2U.9 15.0 12.5 3.7.3 16.7 17.8 Hardness p.p.m. - 10I4. 256 350 2hk Coliforms per ml. 13 85 89 16 kl 55 Dissolved oxygen ppm. 7.5 7.5 2.6 9.5 9.8 8.8 8.I4 8.8 B.O.D., 5-day p.p.m. 2.0 2.2 1.8 2.3 6.1 1.5 River Location Tuscarawas below above New Philadelphia Tuscarawas above Dover Tuscarawas above Navarre Tuscarawas above Massillon Tuscarawas below Barberton 'Tuscarawas above Barberton River Miles Above: Mouth of Muskingum 159 166 170 191 202.5 217 223 Period - 191+0 May-June May-June May-June May-June May-June May-June May-June Number of Samples 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Flow in c.f.s.: Sampling Days 2,395 2,395 618 569 259 259 Minimum Month - _ Water Temperature oc. 18.8 19.2 18.3 18.8 17.7 21;. 3 22.8 Hardness p.p.m. 275 - - - 1,1450 - Coliforms per ml. 19£ 389 llk 1,14.80 M5p 889 380 Dissolved oxygen ppm. 8.5 9.1 8.2 6.1 U.o L.l 6.8 B.O.D.,5-day p.p.m. 1.9 2.2 1.9 2.6 2.3 6.2 3.2 River Location River Styx below Wadsworth Chippewa Creek below Rittman L.Chippewa Creek below Orrvllle " Nlmishil-lcr. Creek below Canton Stillwater Creek above below Dennison Erichs-vllle Rocky Pork below Mansfield Elver Miles Above: Mouth of Muskingum 221 217.5 229.5 193 165 156.5 181+ Period - I9I4.O July May-June May-June May-June May-June May-June June Number of Samples 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 Flow in c.f.s.: Sampling Days 31 29- 2 129 657 891+ 51 Minimum Month - _ 27'k 0 10.6 Water Temperature °C. 18.0 20.8 20.2 20.2 19.5 19.5 20.8 Coliforms per ml. 2I4O 8,220 8,97,0 6,650 96 70 15,700 Dissolved oxygen ppm. 7.7 3.6 k.7 3.5 7-9 7.6 5.0 B.O.D.,5-day,p.p.m. 7.6 10.5 7-k 11.2 1.2 1.6 11.7 River Location Jerome Fork below Ashland Kokosing River below Mt .Vernon Klllbuck Creek below Wooster Wills Creek above below Cambridge N. Fork Licking above Newark Licking below Newark River Miles Above: Mouth of Muskingum I8O.5 155.5 I65 156.5 11*9 107.5 101 Period - 1914.0 June June May-June May May April-May April-May Number of Samples 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 Flow in c.f.s.: Sampling Days 5k 628 3<30 387 1+72 33 373 Minimum Month - - 18.1 Water Temperature °C. 19.5 20.8 18.8 15.3 16.0 13.5 11.0 Coliforms per ml. 161 337 853 103 551 , k 313 Dissolved oxygen ppm. 1+.2 7.2 6.3 7.5 6.1+ 10.6 9.2 B.O.D.,5-day p.p.m. l.k 2.2 2.J+ 2.3 3.0 2.3 2.1SWADSWORTH lARBERTON Porto, Lakes ASHLAND CANTO MASSILLON DOVERW; f NEW N§ I PHILADELPHIA .Frederickto' Dennison kUhrichf*jll« Centcrburg Tuscarawas coshocton] Newcomerstown .NEWARK) ^CAMBRIDGE I*10 b ZANESVILLE Buckeye ^ Laka ,S«n#cavill« New Lexington Giouster ATHEN! Muskingum Conservancy Reservoirs 1 Atwood 2 Beach City 3 Bolivar 4 Charles Mill 5 Clendening 6 Dover 7 Leesville 6 Mohawk 9 Mohicanville 10 Piedmont 11 Pleosant Hill 12 Senecaville 13 Tappan 14 Wills Creek LEGEND Average Coliform Results at Sampling Stations. Symbol Mo4t probable ’ number per ml. Q ----------Under 25 0 ----------26- 50 3 ----------51-100 ^ --------101-200 --------Over 200 Fig. Mu-3 MUSKINGUM —HOCKING BASINS COLIFORM RESULTS 10 0 10 20 SCALE OF MILES OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY U. S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE _L2±!__Fi g. M u -4 MUSKINGUM —HOCKING BASINS DISSOLVED OXYGEN RESULTS 10 0_10_20 Muskingum Conservancy Reservoirs 1 Atwood 2 Beach City 3 Bolivor 4 Charles Mill 5 Clendening 6 Dover 7 Leesville 8 Mohawk 9 Mohicanville 10 Piedmont 11 Pleasant Hill 12 Senecaville 13 Tappan 14 Wills Creek LEGEND Average Dissolved Oxygen Results af Sampling Stations. Symbol Dissolved Oiygen p.p.m O — °vsr 6 5 (3 ----- 5.1 to 6.5 (J ----- 3.1 to 5.0 A ----- 0.1 to 3.0 SCALE OF MILES OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY U. S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE K 1941Fig. Mu-5 MUSKINGUM —HOCKING BASINS BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND SCALE OF MILES OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY U. S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 1941Forty stream gaging stations have been maintained in the Muskingum River Basin for varying lengths of time and 3^ of them are currently in operation. Many of these have been established recently in connection with the activities of the Muskingum Conservancy District. Table Mu-6 shows mean monthly summer flows during some of the low-flow years at eight selected stations. Proposed Stream Control - Three reservoir sites, in addition to the 14- already used, have been studied by the U. S. Engineer Department in connection with the authorized program for flood control on the Ohio River and its tributaries. These sites are on Klllbuck Creek, Wakatomlka Creek and the Licking River. The existing reservoirs are not being used at present for low-flow regulation. At those reservoirs with conservation pools, regulation is limited to the maintenance of conditions approximating those that prevailed before the construction of the dams. At those without conservation pools, passage of low flows is unimpeded. The reservoirs could be used for low-flow regulation but the feasibility of such use is doubtful in view of existing recreational facilities which might be damaged by attendant fluctuations in reservoir levels.Table Mu-6 Muskingum River Easin - Monthly Mean Summer Flows for Years in Which Low Summer Flows have Occurred# Hiver Location Mver Miles Above: Mouth of Muskingum Drain.Area Sq#Mi. Period of Record Year June CofoS. July 11 Augus t ” September 11 Yeir------- June ” July 11 Augus t " September Year June " July 11 August 11 September 11_ 'Tuscarawas River near Dover 169 1,598 I9#-"52 III 258 188 T950;--- U09 25,1 20k 217 1939“ " 789 6^8 574 232 Muskingum River at Dresden i1 5,982 1922-59 T930- -1,550 7 V1 19 jS*- ' 1,180 1,600 776 55°. _ T939 3,581 2,876 1,622 682 NImi.shillen Creek at N» Industry 1 19 199 175 22-I9_ 2 1*4.9 52.0 28.0 30.0 T950--- 55.8 31.4 37.5 51*I T934“ .65.5 0.5 8.5 90.9 ii Stillwater Creek at Uhrichsville 160 567 1922-59 T950- - z -H4..2 4.6 0 0 1959“ "," ' 274 152 69.6 5.0 1932---- 31.2 42.2 20.8 _isL River Location Kokosing River at Millwood River Miles Above: Mouth of Muskingum ,143 Drain. Area Sq.Mi* 472 Period of Record 1922-£9_ T93O Year June c«f.s. 102 July 11 57.7 August 11 46.1) September " Year _ T932 29.0 June 11 July " 82.5 Augus t " 48.9 September " Year ~ 46.9 1934- " June 11 89.8 July ” 88.9 Augus t ” 89.0 September ” 48 J* Klllbuck Cr, at Killbuck Wills Creek at Birds Run Licking R, at Toboso (1) 1932 as 192^-32 7! 101 .1 1930' W 106 52.8 35.6 . 19.1_ 228 126 71.7 1*2.9 127 72° o 1928-58 T930--- 27.1 9.9 55.5 1932- 2'~ T936' 75.7 .24.2 29.3 56.1 1M. ,93 672 1922-52 I9J0 96.0 59.8 51.6 13.8 T932 “ “ 138 265 70.5 62.7 1925--- 159 223 120 63.0 (1) From 1924 to 1930 station was downstream, drainage area 507 at Layland, seven miles square miles.<0 u o cr < x o (0 2 < LJ 2 5 X z o 2 U.S.E.D. -O.R.D. Percent of Years Minimum Monthly Mean Discharge Equaled or Eyceeded (Only June-July-August-September considered) Fig. Mu-Discussion In general, the streams of the basin, except some of those in the densely populated northeastern part of the basin and a few receiving acid mine drainage, can be restored to relatively high standards of water quality with available treatment methods at a cost which seems Justified by the prospective benefits. In the northeastern section of the basin high standards of water quality cannot be achieved generally at economically Justified costs with available methods of treatment. Lower standards of quality adequate to prevent serious nuisance seem practicable* Completion of the mine sealing program will effect further reductions in the acidity of the streams. The bulk of the acid load is from active mines which would not be affected until sealing activities are modified to bring acid from worked out sections of active mines under control. Primary treatment is indicated at 23 places and secondary treatment at 20 places as well as improvements or additions to 10 existing plants. Tuscarawas River - The greatest concentration of population and industry and the most heavily polluted streams are in the northeastern part of the basin where Canton, Massillon and Barberton are located. The larger communities in this area have sewage treatment plants but the residual pollution after treatment, together with the industrial waste load, grossly pollutes the rather small streams that drain the area. The alkali plant at Barberton has the most far-reaching pollutional effect of any industry in the basin. The waste salts discharged increase the hardness of the Tuscarawas River to several thousand p.p.m. in its upper reaches and make the river throughout its length so saline as to render it undesirable as a source of water supply. A paper plant manufa.cturlng paperboard is located at Rittman where the receiving stream is very small. In spite of intensive efforts to reduce pollution which have resulted in recirculation of over SO percent of the wastes and almost 90 percent reduction in the B.O.D. loading, the receiving stream is still heavily polluted. Steps should be taken to reduce the waste load further, after which continued effort to develop more efficient pollution control measures is amply Justified. The Barberton and Massillon sewage treatment plants provide only partial treatment and although the quality of theTuscarawas River could be improved by more refined treatment, the additional expenditure r*oes not seem economically justified until effective steps are taken to abate Industrial pollution. Present water uses along the upper Tuscarawas do not demand very high standards of water duality. At Canton the sewage treatment plant, though probably adequate to treat the municipal wastes, is bypassed freauently because of breakdowns in the long trunk sewer leading to the plant. Methods of insuring the continuous flow of wastes to the plant are being studied and corrective measures should be undertaken quickly. It may be found desirable to construct a new plant nearer the city. At New Philadelphia, Dover, Dennison and Uhrichsville stream flows are higher and primary treatment of sewage and removal of settleable solids from industrial wastes should suffice to maintain satisfactory stream conditions. Muskingum River - At the communities along the Muskingum, where sewage is being discharged untreated, stream flows are large enough to permit the disposal of wastes with only primary treatment. At Zanesville, Dresden and Coshocton primary treatment of sewage and removal of settleable solids from industrial wastes should be adequate. Three of the four paper plants, which account for two-thirds of the oxygen demand load from industrial wastes, manufacture strawboard and are located on the Muskingum River at Coshocton and Dresden where stream flows are relatively large. Recirculation systems or other measures to eliminate the discharge of settleable solids should be sufficient to maintain a satisfactory standard of water quality. Miscellaneous Pollution - In spite of the relatively new and complete sexvage treatment plant at Mansfield, the receiving stream, Rocky Fork, a tributary of the Mohican River, is heavily polluted. General plans for the correction of the situation have been prepared involving additional sewers and increased plant capacity. At Newark, on the Licking River, and Cambridge, on Wills Creek, secondary treatment is indicated. Plans and estimates have been prepared for a complete treatment plant at Newark. Secondary treatment is also indicated at certain small communities where wastes are discharged to streams which are practically dry during a considerable part of the year.A large number of small cheese plants are located In the area drained by Sugar Creek and Killbn^k Creek. Only a few of these are accessible to municipal eewers and a number of small industrial treatment plants will be recuired. Low-flow Regulation - Cambridge, on Wills Creek, is the only community requiring secondary treatment located below one of the existing or rroposed flood, control reservoirs. The Senecaville reservoir, about 3° miles above Cambridge, has the largest conservation pool of any of the Muskingum Conservancy District Reservoirs. If the entire conservation capacity were used for low-flow control, it could provide a flow of 100 c.f.s. at the reservoir and somewhat more than that at Cambridge (see Table Mu-6) during the dryest year of record. Use of the entire conservati^.; oool for flow regulation does not seem feasible in view or che recreational and other development which has taken place at the reservoir. These developments require a reasonably constant reservoir level during the summer season .and operation for flow regulation would conflict with this requirement. The determination of how much, if any, of the conservation storage might justifiably be used for flow regulation will require an appraisal of the damages which would be caused by fluctuating the reservoir level during the low-flow season. Table Mu-1 shows the estimated cost of the suggested pollution abatement program, of the work done to date, and of programs for primary and for complete treatment of all wastes.OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTSOHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS Sampling Point MilooQe From Mouth Date ......... Average | T )ischaroo| oq Dissolved Oxygon ! p. p. A. ] % Sat. | 5 Day I b. 0. d. : p. p m. : Coliform* ] M.P.N. | Por ml. pIH i Turbidity p. pm. 1 Alkalinity | j P p. ». | Hofditm p. p. m. ftisc ar aw'sis' Si v e r 5 miles below MuT 207 May 17 139|12.5 2.2 i 20.U i 3.0 i 1.500 7.U j 12 | 126 1 n h " 20 131118.5 2.3 : 2U.5 : 2.U I U3 7-5 ; II It n ti June 13 1,220121.5 3.7 i U1.8 : 3.0 ; 1.500 7.5 : : | ! ! J ! j j Tuscarawas R. 3 miles MuT 202*5 May 17 159il2.5 U.O i 37.5 1 2.5 j 11,000 7-5 1 1 x56 1 II tt tt n " 20 lUsiig.o U.8 50.8 ! !*5 1 230 7.5 ! | . tt n June 13 1,Uooi21.5 3-3 37.U 1 2.9 i 930 7.5 275 ; i i i | j j i ! j Tuscarawas "fi. "5 mile teiiafc...... MuT 197 May 17 173; 11-5 6.8 61.7 1 2.6 ; 280 7.5 : 158 i It H ■ 20 162:19.5 ;10.2 109.9 : 2.U ; 2U0 7.6 : ti it II II June 13 1,520;22.5 U.2 U8.5 i 1.8 i 230 7-3 : 330 * : j i j ■» ; : Tuscarawas River City limits above MuT 191 May 17 173': 12.0 5-9 5U.U 2.1 930- 7.3 : 136 : w ti ] u n “ 20 162:19.0 8.U 89.7 2.0 i .1,100 7-6 j i . it 11 June 12 1,520:25.5 3-9 U6.9 3-9 2, Uoo 7-3 I 1 MuT 188 May 17 173:13.0 8.0 75.1 1.7 U30 7.5 7 i 15U ; 1.U70 » 11 11 » 20 162; 19.0 10.6 113.8 2.2 2U0 7.8 12 16U » " June 12 1,520:25.5 3.8 U6.3 3.6 750 7.3 280 j ; 322 i j • i ; | i Clear Tt". o'f S.-uody Cr. 1 mi. g.bv. hi nerve, 0. MuTSaCl 210.5 June 11 37; 25.0 7.6 90.6 0.9 U3 7.2 35 i 72 ! I i \ i j Clear Tk. or Sandy "Cr. 3-7.3- jnl ,AtvvKiner7ft May 2** 39; 16.5 8.3 83-9 2.7 2U0 7-3 53 : 71 : 120 • 29 22:17.5 9-5 99.0 U.6 U3 7.2 15 I 58 i 108 ! ; '• 1 | I Still >k. of Sandy Cr. 2 mi.abv.Minerva,Ohio KuTSaS 211 June 6 33:26.0 : 7-9 96.2 1.0 15 i 7.2 1 64 „ . ■ 11 is: 2U.5 I 6.3 7U.8 1.1 23 i 7.2 | | | ! ; i i i Still Fk. of Sandy Cr. MuTSaS 210 May 29 35| 17.0 i 8.7 89.5 8.6 U3 : 7.1 : i : • : i : j Sandy Creek V mile MuTSa 208 May 2U 39; 16.5 : 7-3 7U.U 8.5 U,6oo i 7-3 U5 i 87 • 156 " " 29 22; 18.0 ; 8.7 90.9 3.5 9.300 : 7.3 25 1 | 96 ft tt H It June 6 is; 25.5 i 8.0 96.0 1.2 U30 1 7.3 22 1 I 7U . tl II " 11 37 i 23.5 : 6.6 76.3 1.2 930 : 7.2 i - 55 66 III 1 II II Sandy Cre’k l£ miles R&OTA .MaIys.to, _ J5W.Q..... MuTSa 205.5 June 11 123 ; 23.5 ; 6.u j 7U.3 l.U U3 1 7.2 : : iii; | j I j j Pipe Kan 1 mile above MuTSaP 205.5 May 2U 11 i 16.0 : 7.5 1 75.6 2.7 2U0 i 7.0 i : Ui j . . June 11 10 | 23.0 : 6.8 78.3 0.9 36 1 7.2 j 23 62 Sandy Creek 3 miles below. .Malvern*. OMo..... MuTSa 201 May 2k 1U1 i 16.0 i 7.6 76.0 j 1.6 93 i 7-3 Uo 1 89 j 200 " n n June 11 I33j 2^.5 j 6.8 j 80.6 1.7 150 : 7.5: 52 i : 7U 1 1 I 1 i II Sandy Creak City limits MuTSa 201 j May 2U 330 ; 15.5 j 7.5 : 7U.U : 0.7 2U 1 7.2 i i 105 : j j ! • | | j j Sandy Cr. miles bel,Wfjjnesburgi Ohio j MuTSa 197 ! Mny 2U 36U; 1U.5 j 8.3j 81.0 1.7 U3 j 6-9 I 37 : Us i 232OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS Sampling Point Milaog* From Mouth Dot* 19U0 Avttrag. j T ;_^h^ O*yg.n }ischara«! or ' ! „ c. 1.«. ! ! P-P-®- ; % Sot. 5 Day ! B.O.D. ; p. p. m. | Coliform* | M.P.N. J Per ml. | -n Turbidity p. p. m. ! Alkalinity j p. p. HL | Haidrwn p. p. m. tfin'iehilien Cr. X. Br. § m’lc ?.oove Loui sv.1 iASj. -Qbi.«......... MuTNiE 211.5 May 21 lj 19-0 ! 9.6: 102.6 2.5 : 93 | 7.6 152 ■ it n 11 . 11 « 29 16117.0 i 11.21114.5 1.4 i **3 | 7.8 | - n ti June 6 13i 23-0 j 9,0:104.3 0.6 : 43 1 7.6 i | I 5 i j j j j. Nimiskiilsn Cr. X. Br. 3 miles below T./vnl mri "| Ohio . ....... MuTNiE 206.5 Mny 21 ij19.0 10.4j111.3 1.5 ! 3 i 7.2 j 22 116 ; 400 II II tt it it 29 16:17.5 j 5.2| 53.5 1,2 1 110 i 6.9 ! 1*8 330 II II 11 11 Juno 6 I3j 23* 5 10.2! 119.2 0.4- j 4 i 7.6 | 7 280 HTiTsmTe£'crr':ia'(i:w:' 1 m\ TflhirTCftntAnt OMo i||i | i j ] MuTNiM 206.5 May 21 13! 18.5 10.2:107.9 2-7 | 93 i 8.0 7 169 i 330 n It tt 11 n 29 26:16.5 8.8! 89.4 0.9 j 43 i 7-8 j 20 1 280 " n it June 6 19; 24.0 9.8! 114.3 2.0 : 93 : 7.7 i 8 270 1 1 1 i 1 ! j ii MmfsKfllen V. Sir. • clitSiifMl0.:?........... MuTNiW 205.8 May 21 9:15.5' 9.0; 89.9 1.0 i 9 i 7.6 12 i 130 i 340 it n tl H 11 29 20; 16.0 9.9i 99.6 0.4 I 9 i 7.6 5 | 310 n n It tt June 6 15j 24.0 10.5; 123.0 0.6 ; 9 1 7-9 ! 5 250 Saxon Run at mouth HuTKiSx t 262.U Kay 21 9 I2U.5 | 6.4 : 76.2 14.7 ! 2 i 7.0 42 [ x96 | 450 n ti n tt tt 29 32 120.0 5.6 j 60.7 22.0 j 15 1 6.7 150 1 115 I 44o it it H It June 6 * :23.5 6.1 1 71.4 4.7 j 46 7.3 13 | : 340 iii; jii 1 i HI ml sHf 11 e n, "Cre’efc A 7 miles oelow Canton ....... MuTNi 193 May 21 92 122.5 4.1 : 46.6 21.0 | 4,600 1 7.“ 18 i 188 ! 410 tt N it it 11 29 171 i16.0 5.2 I 52.2 6.8 360 ; 7.3 14 : ; 400 » tl N June 6 125 j 22.0 1.2 | l4»0 5.8! 15,000 I 7.2 10 | 340 1 1 | j ! 1 I 1 Indian Tork Creek Carrollton?V8hio..... MuTCoI 198 Kay 2U 13115.5 8.3 82.7 4.9 240 7.1 1 58 1 it tt 11 it June 7 6 126.0 9.6 116.7 0.51 23 i 7.9 | | it n tt N • 11 12 !22.0 7.4 i 84.1 0.6 3 7-4 ; i j i j i CarroIltonl Ohio MuTCoI 195 May 24 20 ;15.5 6.3 62.8 14.9 2,400 7.1 160 | 57 : 112 tt H it « June 7 8 125.5 10.9 131.2 1.7 36 8.6 6 i 76 tt tt M II it 11 18 j22.5 6.9 78.4 1.7 430 7.4 14 i i 78 Tuscarawas Elver 2 miles above MuT 170 May 23 44oji9.o 9.3 99.0 2.0 93 7.8 us ; tt tt 11 tt - 31 4,620jl4.0 8.4 80.8 2.2 210 7.2 n n 11 11 June 7 1,160 j22.0 7.0 79.6 ! 1.6 39 7.4 , ! ! j : ; || i Sugar "tfreek l’ mile abv. Brewster, Ohio MuTSu 185 May 17 36|10.5 10.4 93.2 I 1.6 24 7.6 90 I 128 ; 270 n it ti it ti 20 4ljl8.0 10.1 106.0 1 0.7 1 7.8 1 j n ti II N June 13 362!27.5 1 4.1 51.7 1 2*3 460 7.0 i | : | ! I | : | j Ilm Sun 3/^ mile abv. Brewster* Ohio MuTSul 185 May 20 **iis.5 U.9 126.0 1 !»2 9 8.0 ! 5 j 128 ! 664 it it tt n June 13 5;20-5 7-7 84.5 : 1.2 240 * 7.1 ! 75 ’j j 112 5 i | ' j s s | Sugar Creek 1 mile MuTSu 183 *»y 17 36:10.5 iio.o 89.0 i 1.7 i 93 7.6 1 131 j 11 11 it tt 11 20 Uij X8.5 I11.7 123.5 I 1,1 23 8.0 : 16 I 740 It N 11 it June 13 362i28.0 1 3.5 44.7 1 2.3 4,600 6.8 ; 310 : 100 ill* * i 1 * * OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS Sampling Point Miiaago From Mouth Dole 19U0 Avcsrcge • Discharge i c. f. t. ”C° Dissolved Oxygen p. p. m. i % Sol. 5 Day B. O. D. p. p. m. Coliforms M. P. N. Per rat. Turbidity p. p. m. Alkdinity p. p. m. Hardness p. p. m. v?aTnut'"'Creelc......JTVnHiT" south of '•IuTSuSW^^q May 27 4 15.0 9.8 96.7 1.8 240 55 ti tt „ June 4 1 20.5 8.8 97.5 1.2 75 : 1 i 1 Goose Creek \ milo norti MuTSuSG__ May 27 2 ;i4.5 10.1 98.7 1.1 240 14 47 96 June ’4 1 !20.5 10.5 j 115.2 0.5 9 10 116 j ; 1 1 Walnut Creek 2^ miles MuTSwSW May 27 7 15.0 9.6 94.9 o.s 430 22 49 100 »i it June 4 2 21.0 8.6 95.3 7.8 91 29 108 1 SpulK,He. Sugar Creek 1 mile above MuTSuS 191.5 May 27 11 1S.0 8.9 93.6 3.7 240 37 ii ti ,, June 4 8 21.5 8.9 99.6 0.9 43 27 80 ,, „ ,1 12 11 25.5 7.4 89.0 2.3 75 I 1 i South Tk. "Sugtr Creek 3 miles below ‘MuTSuS 171.5 May 27 15 16.5 9.2 93-3 1.3 43 32 20 96 :H It June 4 11 22.0 8.2 93-1 1.0 43 31 84 . .11 12 16 25.0 7.7 91.9 0.6 150 85 74 Sugar Creek i mile „ 31 801 14.5 8.5 83.0 0.7 110 11 ■ June 7 116 21.0 6.8 75.9 0.4 4 i j i Sugar Creek I4 miles be 1 oy_ Strfisbux^,_.Ohio.._ MuTSu 171.5 May 23 46 17.0 8.1 83.4 1.1 23 7 118 200 H . 31 301 14.5 8.5 83.0 1.3 240 43 188 „ n June 7 116 20.5 7.0 76.5 0.4 9 14 160 ; , : : : Tuscar^w^s River City Limits above MuT 166 May 23 Ug6 20.0 10.7 116.8 2.3 23 89 . 31 5.420 14.5 8.2 80.6 2.6 1,100 it n . June 7 1,280 |23.0 8.4 96.8 1.5 43 .........i......i Tuscarawas River filaleiphi a*.Qbl&... MuT 159 May 23 486:19.5 8.9 96.1 1.8 240 12 110 328 31 5,420114.0 8.7 84.0 2.3 240 110 236 ii June 7 1,280)23.0 7.9 90.9 1.6 93 28 260 2 r.iles atove 163 Way 11 it „ 31 1381lU.O 8.4 81.0 1.9 110 29 96 11 11 • n June 7 297 i 2U.0 7.5 88.3 2.3 23 17 86 : | i || B* Stillwater Creek 3 miles above MuTBSt 165 May 23 261 19.5 8.2 08.9 1.2 4 94 11 it » 31 1.330 14.0 8.4 80.7 1.1 240 ,, . June 7 380:25.0 7.2 85.8 1.4 43 2 miles below UrixJisyJLlli^-Ohlo........ MuTBSt 156.5 May 23 535 20.5 /• 9 87.0 1.5 23 26 ti ti n n 31 1,470 14.5 8.2 79-8 1.7 93 95 132 „ « 11 June 7 677 23.5 6.6 76.9 1.6 93 28 98 i i ; j • i : Tuscarawas Elver City limits above. MuT 131 May 8 1,770 is. 5 8.4 83.9 1.2 24 73 „ . ■ 14 1,320:20.0 9.1 99.5 1.5 4 II II ,1 16 1,200;14.0 8.8 85.1 1.2 9 i I ■ i : i ; OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS Mileage From ! Moi'th 1 Average | T«mp. Dissolved Ovygsn ; 5 Day Coliform* ' Turbidity p. p m. Allcaite.ity p. p. ». Hardnes* p. p. m. Sampling Poinl Date 1 .......19kQ.....! Discharge! c. f.». ! p.p.m. % Sal. 1 B O 0. p. p. m. M. P. N. Per ml j Tuscrrawp8 Hiver idle below . 1 k^jiwiiacxst nypt. _Qh.Lo.....f MuT 12S.5] Mey 8_ j 1,770 18.5 8.5 90.1 ; l.>* **3 i 7.2 : 10 76 220 „ j " l4 j 1.320 20.0 9.1 99.5 1 1.7 25 : 7.5 : 12 263 . ii ti | " 16 | 1,200 15.0 8.9 87.5 : 1.1* 93 j 7.4 : } 1 * 1 Tuscnraw&s River 1 mile north of MuT 120 j May 8 1,8U0 18.5 8.4 89.1; 2.3 **6 i 7.4 | 77 „ } " 14 1,370 20.0 9.2 100.7 ; 2.0 >* : 7-6 | H i n n ! " 16 ] 1.250 i“*,5 8.8 86.2 l.U >* i 7.4 i ] j j : ; Tuscarawas Hiver MuT 110 May 8 1,880 17-5 8.3 85-9 5.0 >*3; 7.5 : 32 75 k it it ti 14 1.U00 19.5 8.6 92.3 6.>+ >*3 1 7.6 j ii 16 1,280 13.0 8.3 78.6 6.9 **3 i 7-5 1 22 350 i j | i j : Black Fork § mile aoovj, .ShgJUBU. -Oi\lQ....... MuWaMoBl 206 June 18 2 2>t.O 8.2 95.8 1.0 **3 7.8 ; ..IBS... it n ii n "______19 1* 21.5 7.2 80.9 1.8 46o : 7.3 : it it . - 20 2 16.0 7.6 76.9 0.5 460 i 7-5 i Black Fork 1 mile below Shelby^ Ohio MuWaMoBl June 18 5 22.5 7.2 82.1 1.3 91 7.5 14 122 156 Black Fork 2j miles MuWaMoBl _________20JI-. June 19 12 20.5 5-1* 59-7 3.1 2,400 7.1 390 120 II tl it 20 7 15.5 : 6.6 65.5 1.6 4,600 7.2 53 180 ! : : Rocky Fork if miles :MuWaMoBlR 190 June 17 17 19.5 : 7.6 81.5 0.7 75 7.4 152 n it " 18 23 22.0 : 7.0 79-7 2.6 460 7.6 n n n n 11 19 66 21.0 i 5-7 63-7 1.6 460 7.0 : | ; ; : i : Rocky fork 2§ miles below Mansfield, Ohio MuWaKoBIE 184 June 17 24 ;19.5 i 5,1 54.9 1.2 430 7.5 23 : 172 196 n n 11 11 11 i it it tt II » 19 95 |20.5 i 7.0 : 77.6 3.1 750 7.1 290 i 122 * ! ' i ; : Black Fork West edge of Loudenvillej Ohio MuWaMoBl June 14 **71 :23.5 : 6.0 : 69.3 2.6 23 7.5 : ui it ti _________ II II ■ 17 ^26 ::21.5 | 5-8 i 65.3 1.5 460 7.5 : it it II tl ■ 20 459 I19.0 1 6.U : 68.U 2.0 460 7.5 Black Fork 1-jf miles be L. .Loud BflYiiiSj. .OMQ.. MuWaMoBl ..........l&L___ June 14 U71I21.5 I 6.1 j 68.5 3.3 430 7-3 155 i 108 152 . 17 U26I21.5 i 6.0 i 67.5 2.2 430 7.4 143 ! 164 II II •t n . 20 1 >*59:19.0 I 6.1* : 68.1 2.5 430 7.4 75 142 i i ! : 1 1 : • i i : Clear Fork North City Unit s. ^elleTiJLle^ilbiiJ._ MuWaMoCl ........ISO... June l4 1 145:21.5 1 7'9 : 88.8 : 0.9 120 7.7 37 : us 128 it ti it 17 = : 1 131:21.0 1 7.8 | 86.U 0.4 15 7-6 I „ n tt • 19 366:21.0 1 7>1 1 79.3 : 1.8 1,100 7-5 [ill 1 ! j Clear Fork mile* belpw Belleville, Ohio MuWaMoCl .........ift.5 June Ik 1 1>*5;21.5 1 7-5 : 8U.3 : 1.1 >*3 7.6 : 126 it n 11 11 !» 17 131:21.0 i 7.6 I 84.9 i 0.3 9 7.6 152 it it 11 n ! 19 366:21.0 1 5-3 1 58.7 : 2.5 460 7.5 360 110 1 1 Jerome Fork lj miles fthpy.A s Ohi n XuWaKoJjg^ |June Ik ! 78 i20.0 i 7.0 i 76.6 i 0.9 150 7.5 i 125 n it it n 1" 18 ! 33121.5 i 7.3 | 81.6 i 1.0 43 7.6 i • it it I” 20 1 31 |i6.o i 7.6 I 76.4 i 1.1 460 7.5 1 I ill I 1 i ! OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTSOHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS ........................... .... ....... .........*........ " ved Oxygen 5 Day ! Turbidity p. p. m. Alkalinity p. p. M. Hardness p. p. m. Sampling Point Mouth Date .........lQkQ...... % Sol. B. O. D. p. p. m. M.P. N. Par ml. : ^ tfalftonMiig Mver 5 mi lee above Coshoctonj Ohio MuWa 113 May 8 92.2 2.3 2 i 7.8 ho 113 ii tt it » Ik 108.4 8.4 2 I 8.3 ii n it ti II 16 .2.3.. 2 ! 8.0 10 ..121- -20£L„- •S' i ; ; * 1 1 I » I • j Mu 107 May 8 85.1 1.7 1 7-5 32 100 272 11 It ti * 11 Ik 2.5 43 i 7.8 6 240 • ! 1 ! 1 ! 1 1 ________•_______i_______1________ s Seneca Ik. Wills Creek MuWiS 181.5 May 7 118.8 1.7 2 i 7.8 20 83 ii it ti it it 10 76.1 0.6 ** ! 7*5 15 85 . ti n tt 13 91.4 0.7 ** 17.6 22 132 ! Wills Creek ^ mile afcftYfi. -By^ayllla*. -OMo.... MuWi 166.5 May 7 97-9 1.4 46 17.5 56 95 120 it it it ■ ■ 10 72.4 1.6 24 17.5 115 n it ii it ■ 13 89.1 2.1 2 i 7.6 Wills Creek 1 mile below Byesville* OfciQ MuWi 162 May 10 3-3 9 i 7.5 42 117 144 it ti ii ii II 13 84.6 1.4 9 ! 7.4 27 176 it tt » tt II Ik 5-1 240 1 7.0 750 100 S • ! 1 S 1 s Hafirs.......... MuWi 156.5 May 9 86.4 2-3 46 1 7.2 108 tt n tt tt 11 15 63.5 2.9 240 : 7.3 ii n II 11 it 16 74.2 1.6 23 : 7.3 • ! * 1 I ■ ! teatherWood Vreek C«airil|fi^.8hiQ___________ MuWiL 162 May 7 130.2 0.9 2 1 8.3 3 84 II It ii n it 9 1.6 4 ! 7.2 It tt tt ti tt 10 1.2 4 I 7.9 2 104 132 Crooked TfreelE Water works intake above Nev. wQDCQro.*. Ohio........ . MuWiCr^ May 7 111.0 0.9 ** ! 7.6 1 115 160 tt n tt n 11 8 76.3 l.l 3 1 7-5 ii t» it it n 9 72.1 l.l 2 1 7.4 1 Crooked Creek i mile beJLoy. JNex. Cancaxd*. _0hJLo_ MuWiCr ________l£2____ May 8 1.4 93 i 7-3 13 114 148 it n it ti ti 9 65.3 1.7 93 i 7-5 l4o n tt H n it 13 13-9 460 I 7.4 20 118 152 Wills Creek ^ mile below Cambridgej Ohio MuWi 1U9 May 9 74.8 2.8 460 i 7.2 45 106 l4o it tt it it 11 15 59.3 4.1 1,100 i 7*1 550 96 tt tt it ■ H 16 60.0 2.0 93 i 7.2 55 170 • • • » / • Muskingum R. 1 mile east of. Dreji&Q^iJfiSIl«..pwp..._. Mu U8.5 May 27 16,200 j 16.5 j 9.5 j 96.1* j 2.1* ^31 7.2 | 125 70 ! ti n It • June 5 10,600 | 19.5 I 8.7 | 9U.1 1,2 lUl 7.1* i k5 j 68 j ii n ■ ft • lU 16,200: 2U.0 j 7.5 : 88.1* 2.0 | no I 7.2 i 300 67 i . N II n Zk 6,350; 23.01 8.2 I 9U.8 i.U 23: 7.6 | 80 j 90 j „ - - July 2 16,800 j 20.0 i 8.7 j 95.0 : 2.0 | 1,100: 7.0 | 250 67 i II H It II it 19 3,510 i 2>*.5 j 8.0 : 9U.2 2.1 ! { 7.8 i lU 1 107! II tl II ■ » 29 5.950: 28.5 j 7.1 : 90.1* 2.7 7.5 ; 80 i 79 i II tt II tl Aug. 6 1,1*90! 27.51 8.0 I100.8 : 2.7 j : 7.8 i lU : 105 I OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTSOHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS Sampling Point Mileage From I Mouth i Dale 1 19U0 | ! Temp. Tischarg* 1 oj- c. f. •- : D|nolyed_ Oxygdn_ J p. p. m. | % Sal. | 5 Day B.O.D. p. p. m. Coliforms ; M. P. n. ; Per ml. -n 1 Turbidity ! p. p. m. j Alkalinity ! Hardnoss p. p. m. ; p. p. m. K\_s£lng\im "River Mile 0,2-at mouth Mu 0.2 ! July 16 i U,l*90!2'4.5 8.3 j93.3 ! 2.1 2 i 7-U i 12 i 110 | it tt it tf 1 11 18 j 3.730124.5 8.2 !97.U ; 1.7 2 i 7.7 | 15 1 107 ! ft tt j " 22 ! 2,960;27.0 7.7 !95-9 ! 2.1 2 J 7.8 I 12 i 108 : tt if j 11 24 j 2,900!28.0 7.8 j 98.5 ! 2.5 93 ! 7.9 : 12 : 113 1 it ii n " 1 it 26 5,030128.5 7.7 |98.2 i 1.8 36 ! 7.9 i 23 I 116 i ii tt it I! j " 30 6.U5O;29.5 7.7 199-9 ! 2.3 7.7 ! 16 i 93 i . Aug. 1 3,880:28.0 7.9 i 99.7 ! 2.1 1 7.7 | 17 ! 81 I tl 1 II 5 2,080:27.5 8.0 :99.6 ! 2.3 2 i 8.31 12 : 651 tt it tl II H 7 1,620:27.5 7.0 !88,0 ! 2.0 5 7.8 i 13 1 78 | n ii it It « 9 1,950:27.5 l.k !92.6 j 2.1 46 7.31 12 : 85 1 ii ii it » II 13 1,470:22.0 7.k :93.U 2.1 9 7.5 ! 12 ! 105 I » n It " 15 1.370:27.5 7.4 !92,4 2.6 24 7.5 I 13 : 109 j ti ii it ii II 19 1,220:26.5 7.1 I 87.0 1.6 4 7.6 ! 24 ; 124 i if ii if fl ii 21 < 2,320:25.0 : 7.3 i 86.7 1.5 4 7.5 : 18 ! 131: ii it ii It 11 n > • ti 27 1,200:24.5 1.6 4 l.k I 14 1 127 i w it , It Aug. 29 3,490:23.0 ! 7.5 I 86.9 2.3 **3 7.3 ! 500 80 i It It tl tt Sept ------- . U . 6,890:22.0 : 8.6 j 97.k 1-3 23 6.9 i 75 631 - it " ■ 6 3,640122.5 ! 8.4 i 96.0 1.3 9 6.8 55 70 i n it 'tl II it 10 2,210:22.5 I 7.9 I 90.6 1.5 24 6.7 28 78 j it n tt II " 12 2,270:20.5 i 8.1 ! 89.1 1.0 4 6.6 31 83 | ii it n N fi 16 1,790:20.0 i 8.4 i 91.4 1.7 3 6.3 42 104 J iii; i : : i Muskingum River 15111 n it it ti n 17 6.670: 3.5 ! 13.3^1100.2 0.9 ; 240 6.9 26 91 I it n it N » 21 ; 9,060; 1,5 il4.0 ;100.1 1-7 ! 210 7.7 25 92 i ii n tt It 11 23 l.lko] 1.5 iiu.i i100.5 1.2 i 46 7.5 35 85 1 w ii tt ft » 27 10,800: 1.5 j14.3 ;102.0 1.8 ! 75 7.5 65 80 j ti it tt ft 29 I0,500j 0.5 i14.5 j100.6 1.4 1 21 l.k 55 73 1 n tt ii II 11 31 1 9.55oj 1.0 |l4.4 i100.9 1.6 I 46 7.5 25 79 : ii it it ■ m. k 111,700; 0.5 113-9 : 96.7 1-3 • : 150 7.5 4o 77 i ii it . n 6 9,320: 2.0 •13.8 : 99.8 0.9 1 93 7.5 35 75 ! n n ; it n i Mar. 6 |12,500i 1.5 i l4.o! 99.8 1,2 ; 23 : 7.6 35 98 i it u I- 1" 10 | 7,110j 1.5 j l4-0; 99.8 : 2.0 i 240 ! 7.6 110 70 ; it it : ti II !- 12 | 7.600; 2.0 1 13.7! 99.3 1.6 I : 7-5 15 74 ; it ii it II \ n l4 1 9,790! 2.5 | 13.8j 100.6 : 1.2 1 ^3 : 7.6 **5 75 1 n n _ II ■f1 18 | 8,810; 0.0 1 13.9! 95.1 ! 1.1 i 24 ! 7.7 35 7U 1 « !" « ■H 20 | 6,900: 1.0 i l4.oi 98.4 : 1.0 9 ! 7.7 . 35 7*+ : ii ti lit • \ 26 I 5.710* 4.5 ; 12.6; 97-3 i I*2 ! 24 i 7.7 25 121 i n ii ;ft * \ 0 28 | 5.550i 5-5 j 12.4! 98.2 i 1.2 i 4 ! 7.7 14 83 1 \ 1................ \ i • i i ! i • i ' ! j j j 1 j i | 11 ! * Seeded and neutra [lied. 1 !_______i II i 1 II ■ 1 less than one. fFinal Report to the Ohio River Cominittee Ohio River Pollution Survey U. S. Public Health Service Cincinnati, Ohio 1942Contents Page Contents........................367 Syllabus and Conclusions....................269 inscription........................372 Presentation of Field Data. .... ..................373 Presentation of Laboratory Data...............375 Hydrometric Data......................................378 Discussion..............................379 List cf Tables H-l Cost Estimates of Remedial Measures..............371 H-2 Surface Viater Supplies..........................373 K-3 Sources of Pollution.....................374 E-4 Industrial wastes. (Omitted) .......... ... K-5 Selected Laboratory Data........................377 H-6 Ivlonthly Lean Summer Flows. ...................378 H-7 Sumirjary of Laboratory Data ..................380 List of Figures H-2 Chart - Sources of Pollution and Selected Laboratory Data............(Facing) 374Syllabus and Conclusions Syllabus The Hocking River Basin (area 1,185 square miles) lies in the hilly country of southeastern Ohio. Of the total population of 113,000 about 40 percent is in urban communities. Coal mining and agrioulture are the principal industries. None of the 16 public water supplies are taken from polluted streams. Some 48,000 people are served by sewers and about half of the sewage is treated. A number of the tributary streams are strongly acid from mine drainage. Although mine sealing has reduced the acidity, a high degree of restoration of these streams may be delayed until mine sealing activities are modified to bring worked out sections of active mines under control. The remaining pollution problems of the area can be effectively dealt with by known methods of waste treatment. Flow regulation by proposed flood-control reservoirs, while desirable, would not produce appreciable tangible benefits. Conclusions (1) All public water supplies are from underground or upland impounded sources and are not important factors in pollution problems. * For maps of this basin see Muskingum River Basin.(2) Sewage from 48,400 people and industrial wastes with a population equivalent of 8,600 are discharged to sewers. About half of the sewage is treated. The industrial wastes can be treated in municipal treatment plants. (3) Laboratory results indicate stream conditions to be generally good in this basin. Pollution problems occur below Lancaster, Logan and Athens. (4) Primary treatment of all wastes now discharged untreated to the main stream should be sufficient to maintain satisfactory stream conditions. Pending further control of acid mine drainage, primary treatment is probably the limit now justified on certain acid tributaries. (5) Secondary treatment will be required to prevent local nuisances below significant sources of pollution on the remaining minor tributaries. (6) The mine sealing program should be revived and continued as far as practicable. Drainage from active mines constitutes an important source of acid. (7) The estimated comparative costs of pollution abatement programs, as summarized from Table H-l, follow: Treatment Capital Cost Annual Charges Existing | 840,000 $ 70,000 Suggested Additional 620,000 55,000 Estimated additional costs over existing charges of programs involving uniform treatment throughout the basin are: Primary, all places 590,000 50,000 Secondary, all places 760,000 75,000371 Table H-l Hocking River Easin - Estimated Cost of Existing and Suggested Minimum Corrective Measures for Sev/age and Industrial ..'astes, with Comparative Costs for Primary and Secondary Treatment. Number of Plants Prim.Sec. Population Connected to Sewers Capital Investment (Dollars) Annual ( Amort. 3: Interest Charges (Be Operation & Main. jllars) Total Existing Sewage Treatment 2 2 2lj.,000 Sij.0,000 50,000 20,000 70,000 Suggested Minimum Correction Sewage Treatment Plants Required Interceptors Independent Industrial Waste Correction Total 5 2 mm 25,Uoo 380,000 2I4.0,000 27,000 11,000 17,000 Uj.,000 11,000 620,000 38,000 17,000 55,000 Comparative Cost Primary Treatment All Waste Secondary Treatment All Waste As Suggested 590.000 760.000 620.000 35.000 50.000 38.000 15,000 25,000 17,000 50,000 75.000 55.000Description The Hocking River drains 1,185 square miles of hilly-country in southeastern Ohio and joins the Ohio River 15 miles below Parkersburg, W.Va. The populations of the urban communities and of the basin are shown below. Urban Communities Populations 1910 1920 1930 1940 Lancaster 13,093 14,706 18,716 21,940 Athens 5,463 6,418 7,252 7,696 Logan 4,850 5,493 6,080 6,177 Nelsonville 6,082 6,440 5,322 5,368 New Lexington 2,559 3,157 3,901 4,049 G1ouster 2,527 3,140 2,903 2,903 Total Basin Rural 74,729 74,512 63,188 65,422 Urban 34.574 39.354 44.174 48.133 Total 109,303 113,866 107,362 113,555 The population has not increased appreciably during the past 30 years although the urban communities have grown. Agriculture and coal mining are the principal occupations. The coal fields in this area were developed early and production has been declining for some time. Water Uses - The Hocking is not considered a navigable stream. There are no hydroelectric developments. Three small dams at Coolville, Guysville and Athens furnish power for small mills. The upper part of the basin is one of Ohio's noteworthy recreational areas but it depends more on its scenic caves and forests than on its streams for its popularity. A few tributaries not affected by mine drainage and parts of the main river are considered fairly good fishing streams. Two flood-control reservoirs have been studied by the U. S. Engineer Department in connection with the authorized program for Ohio River flood control. These are near the mouth of the East Branch of Sunday Creek and of Clear Creek. Both would be relatively small since the drainage areas above them are only 32 and 84 square miles respectively.Figure Mu-1 shows the location and magnitude of each of the more important sources of pollution in the basin. Figure H-2 shows similar data and, in addition, laboratory data on coliform organisms, dissolved oxygen and B.O*D. Public Water Supplies ~ Fifty-one thousand people are served by the 16 public water supplies. All but two of these are from underground sources and neither of the two surface supplies is subject to pollution. Table H-2 shows data on these surface supplies. Table H-2 Hocking River Basin - Surface Water Supplies Municipality Source Mile (1) Treat- ment (2) Popu- lation Served Con- sumption M.G.D. Corning Impounded-Wells 62 FD 600 0.02 New Lexington Impounded 110 FD $,200 0.11 Total (J) 3,800 0*13 (1) Miles above mouth of Hocking River* (2) FD - Coagulated, settled, filtered, chlorinated. (3) Neither of these supplies is below community sewer outfalls o Sewerage - Table H-3 shows the sewered population at each of the more important sources of pollution. About 14.8,14.00 people are connected to sewers and about half of the sewage is treated before being discharged to the streams« • Industrial Wastes - Two meat packing houses, a brewery, a cheesc factory and a milk receiving station are the only sources of industrial wastes in the basin. The brewery wastes are discharged to a municipal treatment plant and wastes from the milk receiving station are treated on a trickling filter. The other wastes are discharged untreated* Acid Mine Drainage damages many of the tributaries of the Hocking but does not affect the main stream. Most of tho abandoned mines have been sealed to prevent further formation of acid. Figures are not available for the total acid load and the reduction through sealing but the figures for the Muskingum and Hocking Basins together are shown in the Muskingum report.Table H-3 Hocking River Basin - Sources of Significant Pollution Including Industrial Waste Expressed as Sewered Population Equivalent (B.O.D.) Munlcipa I1.ty Receiving Stream Mfles Above Mouth of Population Connected Treatment Sewered Population Equivalent (B.O.D*) Hocking RP to Sewers Untreated Discharged Athens Hocking River 35 7,000 None 11,200 11,200 Atiiens State Hospital ti it 35 2,000 11 2,000 2,000 Nelsonville ii ti 53 U,300 11 W300 Jl-,300 Logan ii ii 67 5,600 n 7,200 7,200 Lancaster (1) i n ii 89 20,000 Secondary 21,^00 3,200 wGlouster ■o Sunday Creek 56 2,000 None 2,000 2,000 , Boys Industrial School Arney Run 95 1,100 Primary 1,100 700 Bremen Rush Creek 96 1,300 None 2,700 2,700 Somerset Mud Run (2) 112 1,100 ft 1,100 1,100 New Lexington Little Rush Cr„ 110 2,700 Secondary 2,700 I4.OO 9 smaller sources 1,300 (3) 1,300 1,200 Total 1+8,14.00 57,000 36,000 (1) Sewage treatment plant under construction at time of laboratory survey. (2) Also drains to Jonathan Creek, tributary of Muskingum River* (3) One primary planto No treatment at 8 other places„State Industrial School for Boys in a z cr < o z O O X S9 a. o m Q uj z w uj 5 _j UJ < CO > 3 o UJ I. E CM k-5 Minimum Month 36.1 36.1 - Water Temperature °C. 22.8 23.3 25.1+ 6.7 7.3 10.5 10.3 Coliforms per ml. 68 5,850 127 , 1 113 2k 530 Dissolved oxygen ppm. 7.8 6.7 7.6 11.1* 11.2 8.5 6.7 B.O.D., 5-day, p.p.m. 1.7 3.9 2.1 3.3 7.0 2.1 br*7Three stream gaging stations have been maintained, on the Hocking River, two of which are currently in operation. Table H-6 shows monthly mean summer flows during the driest years of record at all three of the stations: Table H-6 Hocking River Basin - Monthly Mean Summer Plows for Years in Which Low Summer Flows have Occurred. River Location Mocking River Lancaster, Ohio Enterprise, Ohio HocIEYng* "Hiver Athens, Ohio River Miles AT5ove: Mouth of Hocking R. 89 „ , ?2 V? Drain* Area Sn.Mi. 92.8 i+fcO 9m Period of Record 1525-52 1951-40 191^-uo Year 1950 1956 1950 June c.f.s. 19.8 68.1 77.3 July ” 12.5 88.7 52.? August n 12 „2 98.1 59«6 September ” 15 .9 36.5 uu.s Year 1525 1952 1925 June " 26 112 128 July " 29.8 256 514 August n 56.5 59.9 191 September " 12.5 57-2 51.6 Year IS52 1959 1^56 June 45.9 522 130 July 11 85.8 185 109 Augus t n 17.5 i£o 116 September tf 15.I 40.5 58.0Discussion The Hocking River is not heavily polluted. The largest sources of untreated organic wastes, Athens, Logan and Nelsonville, are on the main stream where stream flows are generally sufficient to prevent gross nuisances from their discharge. Primary treatment should be sufficient to maintain good stream conditions at these points at all times. At G1ouster the receiving stream is acid and, although discharges become very low, the provision of secondary treatment does not seem justified. At Bremen and Somerset, secondary treatment probably will be necessary because of the small size of the receiving streams. The treatment plant at the State Industrial School for Boys is inadequately designed and should be rebuilt. Industrial wastes can be treated at the municipal plants. Further reduction in acid mine drainage can be effected by a renewal of the mine sealing program. A high degree of restoration of acid streams may be delayed until mine sealing activities are modified to bring worked out sections of active mines under control. Increased low flows from the proposed flood-control reservoirs would be desirable but would have no appreciable tangible benefits. The estimated cost of the suggested pollution abatement program is summarized in Table H-l.OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTSOHIO RIVER POU.UTICN SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF. INDIVIDUAL RESULTS Sampling Point Milonn© From Mouth Dote 19U0 Average J Discharge J c. f. s. S T«np. ! °c ; Diaolvod Oxygen p. p.». j % Sol. 5 Day B. O. D. D. p. m. Coliforms M. P. N. Par *1. pH Turbidity ] p. p. m. Alkalinity p. p. m. Hardness p. p. m. ■SBcETSg ’Hl'v'er J mi'Ye abv. Haydenville, Ohio Ho 62.0 July 5 1671 20.0 | 8.1 | S8.2 1.2 230 7.5 35 1 1U1 : tt H I. , 15 102 i 21.0 i 7.9! 87-5 2.1 240 7.7 55 i 142 It H It It » 23 169 i 28.0 | 8.6 108.4 3-6 91’ 8.0 15 180 " " " tl 31 81 27.01 7.8 i 97.0 3-1* 460 7.7 19 : 162 tl It " tt Aug. 8 114 ; 22.51 5.9 67.5 3.8 240 7.6 490 : 102 H It II II " 26 21.0 6.0 67.2 2.2 430 7.4 110 163 it it " " Sept 3 20.0 7.8 84.5 1.1 230 7.1 101 114 it tt It ■ " 11 20.5 8.2 90.9 1.0 24 7.3 13 i 106 N tl II tt 191*1 Jan. 24 2.0 12.9 92.9 2.1 110 7.1* 110 g4 Hocking ^iver beiov sewers Haydenville, 0, Ho 61.g Apr. 23 2,180 10.5 9.8 87.4 1.8 240 6.7 67 it ii " It " 25 1,060 10.0 9-7 85.9 1.6 230 7.4 1 91 : H ii n n 26 85U 11.5 0.6 87.3 1.7 36 7.6 1 107 : i ; | | i 1 Hocking River 1 mile belov Haydenville, 0. Ho 61.0 May 29 **75 17.0 9.2 94.3 0.9 110 7.2 25 111 ** n ti June 7 316 23.5 7.6 88.0 0.7 >+3 7.7 18 j 10g ii tt ii n H IS 502 37.0 7-? *3-7 C.'i 1,100 7.6 260 i .. .2? tt .. II June 26 258 19.0 7.3 78.5 .1:3... 460 7-1* 122 105 ii » July K 167 i 19.0 8.1 86.7 ...2:2.___ l4o 7.5 101 l4o ii tt ii ti . 15 102 21.0 7.6 84.4 1-9 430 7-7 58 142 ti » u 23 169 27.5 8.3 jl04.4 2.7 36 7.9 15 177 n n , " 31 81 27.0 7-3 i 91.0 2.2 “3 7-9 23 156 ii Aug. g 11U i 22.0 5.9 :67.0 4.1 240 7-7 44o 106 n n .. » » 26 i 21.0 7.4 1 81.8 2.0 460 7.4 95 139 i tt ii Sept 3 ; 20.0 7.6 32.9 1.2 460 7.2 ......2i. 107 i it ii » II n 11 i 19.0 7.1* i 79.6 1.9 930 7.3 12 107 ; tt ii „ 1941 Jan. 24 i 1.5 12.9 92.1 2.2 ....152 7.5 lOO gi ""193?'" 11.0 3.2 82.8 1*2 24 7-2 ...... .......I.. 200 „ „ „ 25 ...M. 11.5 9.4 86.0 2.3.- 2 7.5 ...203.. 1. n n n 30 103 6.0 8.8 70.7 3-2 46. 7.4 68 69 165 Hocking R. 1 mile bel. 1939 45 i 11 0 8 7 i 78 8 n it ■ . ! » 25 47 i 12.0 8.4 : 77.9 3.2 430 7.7 7 224 . !■ « n 3C 103 5-5 8.6 68.2 ?.8 240 7-3 71 65 169 Shawnee Creelc 3 miles HoMnSh-72.5 May 28 2 13.0 9-1 95.6 0.3 3-1* 2 ! II 11 " . " June 6 2 17.0 8.7 89.6 0.3 ** 3-5 II II " » " 17 2 17.5 7.7 79-9 2.3 20*. 11 3-7 67 " " " » 25 2 17.0 9.1 93-0 0.3 0.7* k 3-5 1 " " " July 3 1 17.0 9.4 96.8 0.4 0.4* ** 3.** i II H » " it 12 1 17.0 8.8 90.1 0.4 1.4* ** 3.2 9 II tt 11 It 11 22 ** 23.0 8.0 91.8 0.2 0.4* ** 3.5 6 II It tt tt - 30 ** 22.0 7.3 82.5 0.7 3.5 II tl „ Aug. 7 1 20.5 8.2 90.8 0.8 1.2* 3-5 II It " • " 15 *« 22.0 7-1* 83.4 0.6 5 3.5 " " " " 23 17.5 7.8 80.4 o.i 0.8* 2 3.3 2 II It » » . - , It It « 26 1 9-5 10.2 88.8 1.6 4,600 **•5 H It It - 29 1 8.0 10.0 84.5 1.8 .....1.4* 35 4.1, OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA Mileogo From Mouth summary of individual results Djaolved O*yg_on % Sot. i Avorcgo ; 1wnp Date I DiscHarg®; or ' igUO i *.». i : • p'p" 29 5 Drry I Coliform* B. O. 0. ! M. ?. N. p. p. m. « Por ml. | " 36 j 1 ill.5 j 10.3:93.6 ; O.U 1 j g.5 i 10.U;gg.8 j l.U pH |4.6 |U.6 U.5 Alkalinity p. p m. HoHrj€>ss p p. m. 1.U60 1,1*70 1,350 Shawnee Creek ° mile "below Shawnee, Ohio {HoMnSh-63 :Vay 28 |June 6 j « 17 i19.0 ] s.3:83.9 : 1.5 8.o:36.U j 0.6 jU.i ;U.3_ >•3. iu.u 2 119.5 j 8.0!36.U j 0.6 : 2 119.5 ! 8.5:92.0 : 3.4* : — i......i i.......'i'T.TT 2 :20.0 : s.s|95.7 : 2.0* i |Jaiy_3 I " 12 9.7:93.7 9- 1.1 1.6* 1,100 16.U g 200 13 1 :17. ** : 22. .2. 9;i. 1 0.6 0.9* "o.y 0.6* : 5.3 6.2 •5:96.9 .9!S7.7 930 *’ ;21. 1 i 19' 1.0* T.O"" .1:5!. 230 1,100 5.9 6.1 I Aug. 7 ! "' "15 * 5j 91.6 .0188.6 1.1* 1.0* : 6.1 : 5.6 • u.u i **.7 23 :Sept.10 1.......19U1 7:80.8 3' 96.] 1.0 0.8* ..™... .JL1* Uo : **°Je I HoMnSu-b7-5 S Api^ !<§X.§t.tsiAsvJLllfi.».0}lto. _____________ .......... u j 9.5 j 10.3 2 : 9-5 j 9-9i .“* i SUi 2-9 ’• 1 ,.i.r_ 2 j 10.5; 11.3j 100.71 : 3.1* j 3-5 ! 3.3 Surer Cr. 3 mile above liioMnSu-67.5 I May 23 J£3»:.5txaitATille*-ftfcici. i................I___________ 2:19.0: 11.01 117.3 1 : 25.0 j 3.3 98.5 **•5 0.5 2 ; 3.3 'uj 3X 1 ; 20 1 i 22. oi 9.5103.3 5 i 9.a iog.6 2.7 .1,3*. 0.9 . 2,2* 110 : 3.7 • 3.6 ] July 3 ** : 19. 1 j 19 0 • g.91 95.o 5 i 8.7i 91*.! 1.3* 12 : 3.7 46 i 3.U 23 I 3-7 12 j 26 I 25 0 : T,|| 93-2 ,0 i 7.61 90.9 0.7 1,U* 0.3 .0*3*. 30 0.7 ._Q,0.*_ 2.4 -1,0*. **6 j 3-7 ui 3.7 Aug. 7 i 20 I 22 5 j 3.91 93.0 ,0 j 7.4, 39.8 0i 9.1 | 95.7 5 j 8.0i 33.0 15 Aug. 23 | I 1® I 17 0.6 JU2Z 1.s .1 .k* 8 i 3-7 U6 i 3.5 Gif’?1 liriitc below | HoMnSu-65-5 H?i’.ltr*its.TllleJ..0hJ.«.|................. Sept.10 '"W Jan,__2j. Apr. 6, u • 10, 0 : n._5 ; 32.0 0 j 10.2 : S3.7 2 I 10.0 j 10.1i 83.9 0.7 ..0-7?. 1.0 JLJl 1.9 ..3-5.*.. 1.3 1,2* 2.5 ..Qi7*.. ..le. .150.I u j 3.3 **; 3.U 1,390 650 700 26 | 2g I 2 : 10 2 : 19 0 j 11.2 ; 9S.7 51 g.i: 37.g : 3-5 1 i 2.9 Sugrr Cr. 1 Bile bel. !HoMnSu-6U.5 Ki2M.-vtX2±lsyjJ.La.-Uhin ,J________________ Kay 7-0 1 j 21. 1 j 20. 5| 8.7 198.1 0: 9.U :103.0 1.2 XT' .3,3!. **: 3.2 111 3-1* 25 July 3 1 1 23 ** ; 20, Oj 9.9:113.7 0; 8.9 : 97.u 1.0 l,o* 2.1 2.U* 3-2 3.2 1i 19 ** i 27 5 i 9.1; 93.U 5: 3.9 illl.3 0.U 11: 2.9 ! 3.2 1.3 0.8* 0.7 .fiO*. l.l ..9,-5*. 0-3 s.,a* \ Aug. I 26. ! 22. oj g.U :ioi.5 5: 8.0:91.2 .0 : 8.1: 95.0 - 382 - 1 j 3-5 2j 3.5 2 j 3-5OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS Sampling Point Milocoo From 1 Mouth | Oola .......l^.fi....... Avorcigo ] discharge | c.f.*. Tomp. ! °C. ! Dinolved Oxygen ! p. p. m. ! % So I. 5 Day ! o. 0.0. : Coliforms ; M. P. N. ; pH ! Turbidity 1 p. p. m. | Alkalinity p. p. m. Hardnoj* p. p. m. Sugar Creek 1 mile bel.] HoMnSu-6U. 5 | Aug. 23 j 13.0; 9.8; 102.6 : 1.6 : 2 i 3-U : 1 j „ } Sept.10 19.0; 8.3 i 83.3 j 1.1 : n ! 3-0 ; U ; . » ! I9U1 U.O i 12.3 93.5 i 1.0 ** 3-U : 6 j | I | j i Red Fork Cr. 1 mile abx*. .Murray. .City Ohi a n l» HoMnRf-57-5 | Apr. 23 37 6.5 11.2 91.0 3.2 +* ! 3.5 ; H II n 25 21 8.5; 9.2: 78.8 6.0 .1.5-*- +* 3.2 | 570 » " " 26 17 7.5 11.3: 9U.2 2.U ..0.5.*- *• i 3.5 i 35 ! ! lied Fork Creek ......- HoMnHf-55.0 Apr. 23 37 S.O 10.9 91.7 U. 9 u 3.5 i 556 . » 25 21 10.0 8.8 77-7 ** 3.2 50 " " » 26 17 9.0 10.6 91.6 U.3 .OjlU* ** • '3.5 uso j i Snow Creek.2 mile abv. HoMnSw~5^» 5 May £8 10 17.5 3-5 36.u 1.2 3.0 10 " June 6 12 19.5 10.3 111.6 3.1 13 " 17 9 17.5 9'. 8 101.5 U.2 •* 3-0 85 " . « 25 8 19.0 9.6 102.9 3-0 ** 2.9 23 . . July 3 2 17.0 8.6 88.2 2.2 2.8 U6 i . - " 22 ** 20.5 8.2 90.1* 1.0 ..CL.U*- 2.8 7 i „ - " 30 1 22.0 8.U 9U.7 0.7 3.1 5 II 11 ii ii Aug. 7 2 20.0 9.0 98.U O.U 12.9 i 1 " » » 15 1 21.5 8.2 92.1 O.S 2-9 U j . « n " 23 18.0 9.U 98.5 0.8 12.6 i " " Sept.10 ■ ltf.o 8.5 89.1 1.1 2.5 U i „ Ii II 1941 i l;-5 12.9 99-6 2.6 0 u.u 22 i j ; ! Snow Creek 1 mile bel. Murray City^ Ohio HoMnSw-Sl* May 28 10 17.0 5-7 58.3 1.0 2.S 2U ! » H [ June 6 I ' 12 21.5 10.2 llU.i 0.5 2.9 12 ! » II II | ” 17 1 9 i 20.0 8.9 97.** U.8 2.8 12 n ii " " 25 ! 8 ; 22.0 9.0 102.U 5-7 2 2.8 5 * ■ | July 3 2 ; 20.5 8.U 92.2 2-9 i 2.7 5 i " : » " 12 6 ! 20.0 7.6 83.3 2.6 ..... O.U* ** 2.5 5 J " ii it ; July 22 ** i ?2.5 7.1 31.5 j 2.7 6 n ii . j " 30 1 I 26.0 7.3 G8.7 2.U 0.6* i 3.0 3 ii n " " Aug. 7 2 j 23.5 7.5 86.7 1/5 i 2.9 2 it ii » | « 15 | 1 23.5 6.7 78.2 1.3 ! 2.3 2 ii ii ii ii 1 " 23 19.0 7-U 78.6 1.5 0.7* 2.6 ii ii 2.0 ......■"*!.......... i Sglkoabov.e..._-.. HosnTn-65 Apr. 16 ! 38 : 8.5 10.8 92.2 1.7 2.e» »» 6.0 j N II n » | " 18 i 69 : 13.0 10.2 96.6 1.1 u 7.1 j 11 " | " 2U j 20 ; 8.0 10.8 90.6 1.6 2 6.7 1 i ! ! HoSnTn-63 Apr. l6 38 1.2* fa.l U2 196 « n • j | j OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS Sampling Point Milenoo From Mouth Date 1^0 Ml Tomp. ! °c ; Dinolved Oxygen p. p.m. j % Sol. 5 Day B. O. D. p. p. m. Ccliforms M. P. N. Per ml. I * Turbidity p. p. m. Alkalinity j p. p. «. ; Hardnon p. p. m. 'wmme C orni _Ohi_q____________ t: ii HoSn 65 May 28 6j lU.O; 10.2; 98.0 0.6 2 i 7.0 c 57 j it it June 6 3 | 20.0 ! S.7U 9>+,8 O.U 110 1 7.1 59 : tt tt ii n 11 17 6; 21.0; 8.0 88.5 1.3 U60 i 7.“+ 32 65 i it it tt " 2 25 5 j 19.0 i 8.5j 90.9 1.0 110 ; 7.0 92 65 i Sunday Creek mile _ai>3U . Corning,. .Ohio.----- ii it it ii ti July 11 3 12 21 1; 18.0 -19.5! 9.2! 9*6.3 7.6; 82.2 0.6 2.6 150 1,100 i 7*5 ; 6.7 13 350 7h 1 61 ! it n ii n ■ 22 ** ! 22.0! 5-2; 58.7 1.5* i 7.2 20 20 ! ti tt ii n " 30 **: 2U.5! 6.7! 79.2 0.9 15 i 7.1 7 75 i « tt tt ti Aug. 7 *• 1 20.5 i 7.3| 80.3 1.3 110 ; 6.9 12 U9 j «t ii it it 11 15 i| 23.0; U.U; 50.3 2.7 1,100 ; 6.8 2U 71 j ii it ii n « 23 ; 18.5 ! 8.3! 87.7 2.0 91 i 6.7 27 ' 65 i 11 tt i" ti Sept.10 i 18.5! 7.6; 80.7 0.8 210 1 7-1 5 82 ; ii tt it ti Jan 2J : 2.5'i 13.^1 97.8 0.6 93 j 7.0 2U **5 i S-un'uay Creek 1.5 miles HoSn 63 Ma^gB 6i lU.O i 1.2i 11.9 1.0 *• j u.u 25 1 n n it 11 June 6 8i 18.0; 8.8; 92.3 0.2 U6 13.7 23 ! it tt tt 11 11 17 6! 19.5! 6.U; 69.1 ... . O.U* 93 ; 3.6 60 ; it n it N June 25 5| 17.°! 9.1 j 93.3 7.2 0.1* 9 j 3.9 17 ; ; a it it II July 3 2 i 16.0 i 7.U ! 7*+.3 "771 0.0* 9 i 3-5 16 ; tt it » II 11 12 1 i 19.0 i 7.5 | 8O.3 ~r:tr-0.8* 2U ! 3.7 18 i H It * It H 22 ** i 22.oi u.3 ; U8.9 F.2 O.U* 1 3.0 UO ! ,, tt tl 30 **: 20.5 i u.o i uu.i -%\y- 1.0* ! 3.0 ui | tl tt tt H Aug. 7 ** i 18.0 i 5.1 1 53.^ 1.3* i 3.0 22 ! II It tt tt it 15 ! 1 i 18.0; 7.1 | 7U.2 7.7 •* 13.1 12 ! " » It n 23 ! i 16.5 i 6.7 i 67.7 0.9* i 2.8 16 | tt tt tt 1* Sept .10 : 17.5 j U.9 i 51.O 1»8* •• i 2.7 9 ! tt H tt It igui Jan. 23 j 3.0 Jl2.9 | S5-1* 1.0 U6 ! 6.9 »»5 U2 ! | j | i Sunday Creek 1 mile above ^1 ouster,. Ohio HoSn 58 Oct. 20 13 i 12.5! i2.i;ii2.9 7-7 »* j 2.9 12 ; n tt tt » tt 26 10; 15.5! 11.5‘llU.U U.i ** ! 3.? 60 ; tt it n " Nov, 3 0 | 1.0 j 9.9! 69.8 2.7 •• ; u.8 20 UlU Sunday Cr, £ mile bel. HoSn n tt tt tt » 26 10! 1^-5 i 9.1 ■ 88.U 9.1 15 | 3-U 69 i it it " It Nov. 3 8! !.5! 10.Ui 7U.1 2.2 U6 j 6.U 20 i 838 ! ! I i 1 i ; I HocEIiig Tflver above JU&niiHlls Ho 37 Oct. 18 U9; 6.5 i 10.2! 82.6 U.O U i 7.U 36 172 i 163 tt It It tt n 23 55; 13-01 8.6i 80.8 2.9 9 i 7.3 26 167 j II tt tt tt n 31 lU2 ; 9.0 j 8.8i 76.U 2.1 9 1 7.0 17 50 ; I i | | j | i j j Socking Uiver Hity limits Athenst Ohio Ho 37 igtto Apr. 17 U,200 | 12.5 | 9.8 i 91.0 2.8 2U0 ; 6.5 i rt If tt It tt 18 6,310 • 11.0 i 9.7; 87.3 2.5 **3 | 6.5 i tt H tt H 23 6,Uoo; 11.5 i 9.8 i 89.1 1.6 **3 6.2 32 ; i» ti it II tt 29 1,000; 1U.5 j 9.0 j 87.9 2.2 U 6.9 ! tt N tt tt May 29 699; 17.0 j 8.6 ; 88.6 | 0.7 U6 6.6 j 36 52 1 tl It tt It June 7 571 | 23.0 j 7.5 ! 86.1 ; O.S | U6 7.0 I a 66 j It II it H n 18 1,110 ; 23.0 ; 7.9; 91.0 j 0.7 ! U60 6.9 j 160 ; U3 j tt II tt It " 26 U211 19.0 | 8.0 i 85.1 i 0.8 ; 230 6.8 | 78 : 65 I OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTSOHIO RIVER POLLUTION' SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS Sampling f’umt From fl'/iOrth Dai© .......MP...... Avoroae • r ! D'«olvad Oxygon «.., !««n?p. i 7 Discharge; 0r ' « ^ c. I. «. ! 1 p p-m- i % So1' 5 Day B. O. D. p. p. m. ; Turbidity I Alkalinity ! Hardnejs M. P. N. pH 1 Par mt. i ! P P ™ | P P " j p'p "• Hocking Hiver Hockingportj Ohio Ho 0.1 Aug. 28 l.9**o|eU.o i 7.0 | 82.? 1.9 U60 j 7.1 i 255 j 93 j „ „ « " 11 2,6io;20.5 i s.7 1 96.3 1.8 2U ; 6.9 | 12 : 100 i i ; i ; ! : i i ' ) ' i i 1 ! II j j * Seeded and Neutralized | j j i 1 i j ** Less than one 1 • i • i ; ! ! ; ! i ; j j i | i ; i i i ; i ; i ' 1 ; j ! : 1 j ! II i j j j | lj | j j I I j j I i ■ |l j j j i || j 1 j ! i 1 j j j | | 1 ; i | j ; ; ; ! ! 1 I 1 i i ; j ! ; ! J J ! i ; 2 ! 1 i ! i .......I ......j.......|....... j i j ■ J ! • ' ; ; ; : i i I j ; 1 j j | i • i 1 | ; ; j | i ■ : j i j ! I i ; j ! * ♦ ! I *Final Report to the Ohio River Committee Ohio River lollution Survey U. S. Public Health Service Cincinnati, Ohio 1942Contents Page Contents..............................................387 Syllabus and Conclusions..............................389 Description ........ ....... ............393 Presentation of Field Data...................395 Presentation of Laboratory Data ......................399 Kycrometric Data......................................402 Discussion............................................406 List of Tables K-l Cost Estimates of Remedial Measures. ...... 392 K-2 Surface Water Supplies.................396 K-3 Sources of Pollution............................397 K-4 . Industrial Wastes................................398 K-5 Selected Laboratory Data........................401 K-6 Monthly Mean Summer Flows........................404 K-7 Summary of Laboratory Data......................409 List cf Figures K-l Map - Sources of Pollution.......(Facing) 388 K-2 Chart - Sources of Pollution and Selected Laboratory Data............(Facing) 396 K-3 Map - Coliform Results.........(Facing) 400 K-4 Map - Dissolved Oxygen Results.....(Facing) 400 K-5 Map - Biochemical Oxygen Demand Results (Facjng) 400 K-6 Chart - Summer Low-Flov; Frequency Curve..........405LEGEND Areas of Circles Proportional to Population Equivalent of Wastes As Discharged Population Equivalent -300000 -200000 KANAWHA—LITTLE KANAWHA BASINS SOURCES OF POLLUTION OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY U. S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 1941 SCALE OF MILES Fig. K-KANaWHA hiver basin Syllabus and Conclusions Syllabus The Kanawha River drains 12,300 square miles of mountainous country in West Virginia, Virginia and North Carolina. The area is rather sparsely settled except in the rapidly developing industrial area along the Kanawha River in the vicinity of Charleston, W.Va. About 20 percent of the total basin population of 835,000 is urban and about one-sixth of the total population is in the metropolitan area of Charleston. Chemical plants in this section are the principal sources of pollution. Wastes from these and other industries and the untreated domestic sewage from Charleston and its satellites account for more than 90 percent of the pollution load in the basin. As a result, in part, of the Ohio River Pollution Survey, working in cooperation with the State Water Commission and the State Health Department, studies are being made by the industries to determine the most practicable methods for abating this pollution and limited corrective measures have already been taken. Acid mine drainage damages a number of the tributary streams in West Virginia, particularly those south of the Kanawha and New Rivers-. Most of the streams outside the Charleston area are relatively clean and, except in a few places, can be maintained inexcellent condition by the adoption of available methods of waste treatment. This is particularly desirable because of the extensive use of the streams for recreation. Low-flow augmentation by reservoirs above Charleston would be a valuable supplement to waste treatment and recovery practices in correcting the organic constituents of the heavy industrial pollution in the Charleston area. Taste and odor characteristics will be improved to a lesser extent. Increased flow in the Elk River is desirable to insure the adequacy of Charleston’s water supply. The pollution abatement program in the Charleston area will involve sewage treatment and industrial waste correction. Because of the technical and often secret nature of the industrial processes involved, industrial pollution corrective measures are squarely up to the industries themselves. Conclusions (1) Sixty-five of the 180 public water supplies in the basin are from surface sources. Thirty-three of these, serving, more than 150,000 people, are from streams subject to pollution. (2) Sewage from more than 225,000 people and industrial wastes equivalent to sewage from an additional 1,490,000 enter the streams of the basin. Less than 25 percent of the municipal sewage is treated prior to its discharge. (3) Laboratory studies indicate that except for the Kanawha in and below the Charleston area the larger streams are relatively clean. Several bad local situations were found on small tributaries.(4) The major pollution problem in the basin, the reduction of industrial pollution in the Charleston area, is being studied by the industries and limited indicated corrective measures have already been taken. For several of the larger industries, this is a recent development resulting, in part from studies by the Ohio River Pollution Survey working in conjunction with the State of West Virginia. (5) Primary treatment of domestic sewage will be sufficient to maintain satisfactory conditions on the larger streams except in the Charleston area. More refined treatment cannot be justified in this area. (6) Secondary treatment is justified at a number of the communities on small streams such as Princeton, Richwood, Pulaski, Wytheville, and White Sulphur Springs. The streams at these places are subject to extremely low flows. (7) Low-flow augmentation by proposed flood-control reservoirs would improve conditions in the Charleston area. The Bluestone Reservoir, now under construction, will be particularly valuable because of the large increase in flow which it could provide. (8) Because of the uncertainties in regard to details of reducing industrial pollution in the Charleston area, estimates of the cost of pollution abatement may be subject to correction. The following summary from Table K-l includes $1,270,000 for the capital cost and $240,000 for annual operation costs of industrial waste control, the bulk of which would be taken by the chemical plants around Charleston. Treatment Capital Cost Annual Charges Existing $1,300,000 #115,000 Suggested additional 6,270,000 815,000 Estimated additional costs, over existing charges, of programs involving uniform treatment throughout the basin are: Primary, all places $5,890,000 $770,000 Secondary, all places 7,190,000 890,000362 Table K-l Kanawha River Baaln - Estimated Cost of Existing and Suggested Minimum Corrective Measures for Sewage and Industrial Wastes, with Comparative Costs for Primary and Secondary Treatment. Number of Plants Prim.Sec. Population Connected to Sewers Capital Investment (Do 31ars) Annual Amort. & Interest Charges (I Operation k Main. )ollars) Total Existing Sewage Treatment 6 6 49,500 1,300,000 80,000 35,000 115,000 Suggested Minimum Correction Sewage Treatment Plants Required Interceptors Independent Industrial Waste Correction Total 35 16 164,14.00 2,470,000 2,530,000 1,270,000 175,000 120,000 165,000 115.000 240.000 290,000 120,000 405,000 6,270,000 460,000 355,000 815,000 Comparative Cost Primary Treatment All Waste Secondary Treatment All Waste As Suggested 5.890.000 7.190.000 6.270.000 430,000 520,000 460,000 340.000 370.000 355.000 770.000 890.000 815,000Description The Kanawha River is formed by the confluence of the New and Gauley Rivers at Gauley Bridge, West Virginia, and flows in a northwesterly direction 97 miles to its junction with the Ohio at Foint Pleasant, West Virginia. It drains 12,300 square miles of mountainous country, of which 8,450 are in Y;est Virginia, 3,080 in Virginia and 770 in North Carolina. Th9 principal tributaries are: Distance above Drainage Area Tributary Mouth of Kanawha Square Miles Elk River 58 1,540 Gauley River 97 1,440 New River 97 6,920 Greenbrier River* 161 1,500 Seventeen municipalities in the basin have more than 2,500 population. Eleven are in West Virginia and the other six in Virginia. The populations of the larger communities and of the entire basin are shown below: Principal Cities Populate on 5.910 1920 1930 1946 Charleston, W.Va. 22,995 39,608 60,408 67,914 Bluefield, W.Va. 11,188 15,282 19,339 20,641 Beckley, W.Va. 2,161 4,149 9,357 12,852 S.Charieston,W.Va . - 3,650 5,904 10,377 Pulaski, Va. 5,317 5,282 7,168 8,792 Pr in c e t on, W. Va. 3,027 6,224 6,955 7,426 Radford, Va. 4,202 4,627 6,227 6,990 Hinton, W.Va. 3,656 3,912 6,654 5,815 Dunbar, W.Va. - - 4,189 5,266 Richwood, W.Va. 3,061 4,331 5,720 5,051 Entire Basin Rural 468,296 515,079 580,191 659,327 Urban 56,501 98,180 147,858 175.518 Total 524,797 613,259 728,049 834,845 * Tributary of New River. The biggest concentration of population is in the Kanawha Valley in the vicinity of Charleston, West Virginia. Three of the above communities (Charleston, South Charleston and Dunbar) are in this area which h3s develox^ed recently as a major organic chemical manufacturing center. Coal mining is an important industry, the most important coal fields being south of the Kanawha and New Rivers in West Virginie adjacent to the Guyandot ana Big Sandy Basirs. In the western part of the basin, oil, gas and salt brines are produced. Agriculture is handicapped by the lack of level land except in the stream valleys. Forestry, formerly an important occupation, has decreased in importance due to the lack of forest conservation practices. Reforestation is now in progress on some of the timberland. Water Uses - The lower 91 miles of the Kanawha have been made navigable for boats of 9-foot draft by the construction of three locks and dams. In 1959 about 4,000,000 tons of freight moved on the river. Traffic has increased steadily since the completion of the 9-foot project in 1935. There are 10 hydroelectric developments on the Kanawha and New Rivers, the most important ones being near Byllesby, Va. (mile 295), Radford, Va., and Gauley Bridge, W.Va. There are also some small water power developments on tributaries. The Kanawha and New Rivers are among the best power streams in the Ohio Basin. A number of reservoirs have been studied by the U.S. Engineer Department in connection with the authorized program for Ohio River flood control and one project, the Bluestone Reservoir, is under construction. This reservoir, on the New River above Hinton, would aid in flood control in the Kanawha Valley and, in addition, could provide a considerable amount of power and an increase in flow of more than 600 c.f.s, during low-flow periods. A large part of the basin is well suited for recreational uses. The New and most of its tributaries, in Virginia and North Carolina; the Greenbrier, the Gauley, the Elk and the Coal in V/est Virginia are all used extensively for fishing, swimming and boating. There are a number of excellent trout streams. Use of the lower Kanawha River is limited almost entirely to boating because of gross pollution in the vicinity of Charleston.Figure K-l shows the location and magnitude of the more important sources of pollution in the basin. Figure K-2 shows similar data and, in addition, the location of water supply intakes from polluted streams and laboratory data on coliform organisms, dissolved oxygen and B.O.D. Public Water Supplies - There are 180 public water sup-plies in the basin which serve more than 325,000 people. Sixty-five of these are from surface sources and about half of these are from streams subject to pollution. Table K-2 shows data on the surface supplies of the basin. Four of these supplies, those at Charleston, Eelle, St. Albans and Kitro, are owned by one company and are interconnected. They serve almost all of the communities in the most densely populated portion of the basin. The drought of 1930 caused serious damage to the quality of the Charleston water supply. An epidemic of approximately 9000 cases of acute gastroenteritis occurred. During this time, septic conditions prevailed in the Elk River near the waterworks intake due to decomposing garbage and sewage. Bacteriological examinations of the filter plant effluent at the time showed the supply to be meeting the U. S. Treasury Department drinking water standards. The Charleston supply has an emergency intake in the Kanawha River which was installed at that time and has not been used since. The St. Albans supply from Coal River is affected at times by backwater from the Kanawha. The chemical quality of the surface water supplies of the basin is generally good. In addition to serving as a source of municipal water, the Kanawha River furnishes more than 800 m.g.d* for industrial uses. Sewerage - Slightly more than 225,000 people in the Kanawha Basin are served by sewers, almost 200,000 of whom are in V/est Virginia. About one-half of all the sewTage comes from towns along the Kanawha River. Less than one-quarter of the sewage receives treatment prior to discharge. Two of the larger communities, Bluefield and Beckley, have recently installed sewage treatment plants.Supply State Source Mile (1) Treat- ment Popu- lation Cons, (2) Served M.G »P, Supplies Below Community Sewer Outfalls Winfield W.Va. Kanawha River FD 300 0.01 Mitro ti tt it &.2 FD 11,500 1.50 Belle ii ti 11 69.6 FD 9,000 0.30 Chelyan 1! it ti 73-6 FD 800 0.02 Cabin Creek II it tt 7 4-i FD 100 0.01 Cei.cid stream conditions were observed in the vicinity of Pulaski, Virginia, on Peak Creek and along Piney and Beaver Creeks near Beckley, V«. Va., and along Dunloup Creek at lit. Hope. At Pulaski the acidity is due to wastes from a chemical plant while at the other points it is caused by mine drainage. The pK’3 of these streams ranged from 3*0 to 5.9 and phenol-phthalein acidities from about 10 to more than 125 p.p.m. In collaboration with the West Virginia Department of Health and the State Water Commission, a survey of taste and odor problems along the Kanawha and Elk Rivers, with particular reference to the problems existing in the Charleston area, was carried out in the winter of 1939-40 and again in 1940-41. Threshold odor examinations were made of the river waters at stations above, in and below Charleston and of certain industrial wastes. These results show a marked increase in the threshold odor number of Kanawha River water in the vicinity of the Marmet Locks and Dam. Values of 300 to 400 were observed at various times at Marmet, Charleston and South Charleston. On the Elk River the threshold odor numbers were generally below 50. Odor determinations are at best rather crude criteria and are largely dependent upon the observer's ability at detection. Then, too, high intensity transient odors may mask more persistent hut less intense troublesome odors. Odor determinations, both before and after storage under standard conditions, have been suggested as a means of eliminating transient odors. The results as a whole indicate that the odors tend to diminish progressively downstream from Charleston on the Kanawha and that odors along the Elk River tend to diminish from Clendenin to the Charleston intake. Threshold odor determinations made on the effluent from several industrial plants in the vicinity of Charleston and on the Elk River gave results ranging from about 500 to 1,000,000 or more. The odor determinations in themselves should serve more as a guide and should be supplemented with other chemical data before drawing too many conclusions from the results. Further treatment of industrial wastes probably will contribute to overcoming the taste and odor problem in this region. Biological Summary - The flora and fauna of the Kanawha were found to be less than 1,000 p.p.m., which may be due in part to the clean nature of the upper reaches and also the industrial wastes near Charleston and along the Elk River.LEGEND Average Coliform Results at Sampling Stations. Symbol Mos' Pr°b°M® number per ml. O ---------Under 25 0 --------26- 50 ----------51-100 ^ --------101-200 Q --------Over 200 KANAWHA—LITTLE KANAWHA BASINS COLIFORM RESULTS OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY U. S. PUBLIC HEALTH -SERVICE 1941 SCALE OF MILES Fig-sOo/A .CHARLESTON Chalyor JKLEY LEGEND Average Dissolved Oxygen Results at Sampling Stations- Symbol Dissolved Oxygen p.p.n KANAWHA—LITTLE KANAWHA BASINS DISSOLVED OXYGEN RESULTS OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY U. S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 1941KANAWHA— LITTLE KANAWHA BASINS BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY U. S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 1941 SCALE OF MILES Fig-River Location Kanawha near Mouth Kanawha U.S.Lock Winfield Kanawha Bridge St.Albans kanawha Patrick St. Bridge Charleston Kanawha Kanawha City Bridge Charleston Kanawha U. S. Lock Belle Klver Miles Above: Mouth of Kanawha 0.6 31-1 45.6 56.3 60.9 67.7 Period - 12-39 12-39 12-59 12-39 2-41 12-39 Number of Samples 7 3 3 3 2 3 Plow in c.f.a.: Sampling days 3,260 Water Temperature °C. 5.0 8.7 7.7 6.3 0.8 8.3 Coliforms per ml. * 124 257 577 29 72 Dissolved Oxygen ppm. 6.9 5.0 4.6 9.0 12.6 10.2 B.O.D.,5-day, p.p.m. 1.2 4.i 3.9 2.8 3.2 4.1 River Kanawha Kanawha foew River foew River New River New River New River Lo;>ition U.S. Lock Bel. Gnul- above Bridge at below abv.Pear- bel.Bridge London ey Bridge Mouth Hinton Narrows isburg Radford River Milas Above: Mouth of Kanawha 82.8 95 97.1 159 1?9 204 247 Period - 12-39 12-39 12-39 May-June 4-40 4-40 4-40 '40 Number of Samples 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 Plow in c.f.8.: Sampling days - _ _ 13,330 _ 3,260 3,170 Minimum Month - 1,130 1,090 1,090 _ 940 Water Temperature °C. 6.0 4.0 5-5 18.8 11.2 11.8 9.7 Coliforms per ml. 62 7 2 4l 9 7 9 Dissolved Oxygen ppm. n.9 12.0 12.1 8.6 9.9 9.8 10.6 B.O.D.,5“day,p.p.m. 1.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 l.l 1.0 0.8 River Peak Creek Stroubles Creek Brush Creek Bluestone R. Location above below above below above below bel.Blue- _ Pulaski,Va. Blacksburg, Va. Princeton,W.Va. field.Va. River Miles Above: Conf.wlth New River 23.5 22 11 9 27 24.5 69.5 Mouth of Kanawha 268 266.5 244 242 191.5 189 215 Period - 1940 April April April April Apr. & May Apr. & May May Number of Snmples 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Plow in c.f .s. : Sampling Days 68 68 3 3 3 20 30 Minimum Month •H- * Water Temperature °C. 9.0 10.3 12.8 13.2 14.2 13.7 13.5 Coliforms per ml. 16 26 8 4,740 88 970 11 Dissolved Oxygen ppm. 10.8 8.1 10.1 7.4 9.4 5*5 9.0 B.O.D.,5-day,p.p.m. 0.6 •JHf 7.77 3.4 11.6 0.6 2.4 3.0 River Greenbrier River Piney Creek Cherry River Elk River Location above below above below above below bel.Falling Marlinton,W.Va. Beckley, W.Va. Richwood, W.Va. Rock,W.Va. Klver Miles Above: , . . Conf.wlth New River IO6.5 IO3 9-5 9 70 69 16 Mouth of Kanawha 267.^ 264 143.5 143 167 166 74 Period - 5&6 - '4o 5&6 - «4o 5 - '4o 0 -Jt 1 IfN 1&2 - *4o 1*2 - *40 12 - *39 Number of Samples 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 Plow in c.f.s.: Sampling Days 3,800 3,800 18 13 330 330 Minimum Month 10 10 * «• Water Temperature °C. 15.5 16.0 17.0 16.3 0.0 0.0 6.0 Coliforms per ml. 9 125 20 392 1 23 67 Dissolved Oxygen ppm. 9.0 9.1 8.6 8.5 I3.4 13.0 10.8 B.O.D.,5-day,p.p.m. 0.6 0.7 ** 0.8 2.0 1.8 1.2 1.8 * Less than one. ** Acid sample - seeded and neutralized. More than 50 stream gaging stations have been maintained in the Kanawha Bssin at various times and 25 are currently in operation. Table K-6 shows monthly mean summer flows at eight stations for the three driest summers of record at each station. Practically continuous discharge records are available on the Kanawha River at Kanawha Falls (mile 95) f°r the period since l877» one of the longest periods of record in the Ohio Basin. Figure K-6 is a low-flow frequency curve for this stream based on the four summer months (June-September inclusive). A second curve, plotted to the same scale, shows similar information for flows regulated by Bluestone Reservoir. It indicates that the frequencies with which various minimum monthly mean summer flows may be expected, both with and without Bluestone Dam regulation, are as follows: Kanawha R. at Minimum Monthly Mean Summer f^lows in Cubic feet per Second that may be expected once in Kanawha Palls 2 Years 5 Years 10 Years Minimum Unregulated Regulated by Bluestone Res. 3,1+00 U.ioo 2,320 3,120 2,11*0 2,670 1,290 2,000 Proposed Stream Control - The following proposed reservoirs in the Kanawha Basin have been studied by the U. S* Engineer Department in connection with the authorized program for Ohio River flood control: Reservoir Stream Maximum Storage acre-ft. Supplemental Plow Made Available c • f«s« Poca Pocatalico R. 202,000 8 Clendenin Elk River 108,000 70 Birch Birch River 1+3,600 29 Summersville Gauley River 31S,000 13 k Big Bend Greenbrier R. 108,500 7k Moores Perry New River 1,010,000 UnknownThe supplemental flows shown are those that could be made available by use of a portion of the flood-control storage capacity after the end of the flood season. Low-flow regulation by the Moores Ferry Reservoir would depend largely on possible power operations. Consideration is being given to such operation of the reservoirs.Table K-6 Kanawha River Basin - Monthly Mean Summer Plows for Years in which Low Summer Plows have Occurred,, River Location New River at Eggleston, Va. Kanawha R« Kanawha Falls, W.Va. Peak Creek at Pulaski, Va. Bluestone River Lilly, W.Va. River Miles Above: Mouth of Kanawha 217 168 Drain,Area Sq.Mi. 2,941 8,367, 68 43 s Period of Record 1915-37 1877-1940 1927-33 1908-16 Year 1925---- T930---- T9?o---- 1920-40 I9?0- " " 7 June c.f.s. 1,550 2,550 9m 36.4 July 11 1,320 1,290 •-I 27.2 Augus t 11 812 1,520 - 26.2 Se£tember _ ^ Year 351 I9?0" - Tn, b _ I9?5 0.8 T932 1-1 T939" " June " l,7ic 3,57° 14.1 319 July " 999 2,660 2.7 182 August " 1,250 1,390 2.3 90.9 September _ ^ 1,070 1,2.40 1.6 26.2 Year T932- " - - T952- z “ I9Z9 T9T1--- June " 2,660 7,160 221 88.6 July " 1,500 11,300 19.2 !32 Augus t 11 1,230 2,910 8.2 ^•5 September " 1,020 1 5.6 40.2 Greenbrier River Buckeye, W.Va e “ Gauley ft. Summers-ville, W.Va. Elk kiver 0.ueen Shoals , W.Va. River Location River Miles Above: Mouth of Kanawha Drain.£rea So.Mi. Period of Record Coal River, Ashford, W.Va. Year June July Augus t September Year June July August September _ " Year ~ ~ June ” July 11 Augus t " September 11 c.f .s ti tt tt n tt tt tt 26$ 540 1929-40 TSW 191 27.8 21.^ T9?4‘ 26k 896 75.1 _ _5r>.o 149 40.6 5,6.5 234 142 680 1908-16 1929-40 T9J0---- 108 13.3 23.5 2*1 T959" 403 Hli _ _3°»2 90.1 57.1) 78.0 56.1 T956 84 1.^5 1929-40 T9J0- T932 128 17.1 13.1 _ _ 2 •£ T979' 841 7,280 570 _ _52.2 543 1,650 586 39.4 72 393 1930-40 T950' -959' 23.4 6.1, 13.4 _ _ M 1936 196 121 32.9 - _ 8-1 19.6 29.6 36.8405 t 6,000 <0 b. u 0 cc < 1 u (0 o NOTE- FLOW AT KANAWHA FALLS REGULATED BY BLUESTONE DAM WAS DETERMINED BY APPLYING ALGEBRAIC DIFFERENCE OF MONTHLY MEAN REGULATED FLOWS MINUS UNREGULATED FLOWS AT BLUESTONE DAM-SITE TO MONTHLY MEAN FLOWS AT KANAWHA FALLS; THEN FREQUENCY CURVE WAS COMPUTED FROM THESE MODIFIED FLOWS IN THE SAME MANNER AS FOR NATURAL FLOWS. Fig.K-6 KANAWHA RIVER SUMMER LOW FLOW FREQUENCY CURVES KANAWHA RIVER AT KANAWHA FALLS, W. VA 1899 - 1935 U.S. ENGINEER DEPT., OHIO RIVER DIVISION SEPT. 1941 5 4.°00 2 < UJ 5 5 X H Z O 5 2,000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 PERCENT OF YEARS MINIMUM MONTHLY MEAN DISCHARGE EQUALED OR EXCEEDED (ONLY JUNE-JULY-AUGUST-SEPTEMBER CONSIDERED) 100 ~n mmmm «o • r 0)Discussion The major pollution problems of the Kanawha Basin are in the main Kanawha Valley in the vicinity of Charleston. Problems of lesser importance exist on the Elk River below oil and gas plants and on other streams below moderate sized and small municipalities. Charleston and Vicinity - In the vicinity of Charleston, the chemical industry discharges large volumes of wastes which constitute a drain on the oxygen resources of the river and cause objectionable tastes and odors in downstream water supplies. In addition to the industrial wastes, sewage from Charleston and other cities along the river is discharged untreated. Laboratory results during the low-flow period in December, 1939, showed a dissolved oxygen content of 3 p.p.m. in the Kanawha at the Winfield Locks (mile 31.1). This represents a deficiency below saturation of about 8.7 p.p.m. Such a deficiency during the summer would result in the complete exhaustion of all the oxygen in the stream with attendant nuisance conditions and destruction of aquatic life. Because of the unique character of many of the chemical plants, their rapid growth, and the constant changes in processes and products, methods of accomplishing reduction in the strength or quantity of the wastes must be based on a rather complete study of each plant. Because of the technical and often secret nature of the industrial processes involved, pollution corrective measures are squarely up to the industries themselves. Outside assistance must be confined to determining which effluents are damaging and measuring accomplishments after corrective measures have been taken. The Ohio River Pollution Survey, working with the State of West Virginia, has already located the damaging effluents. Several of the plants have undertaken studies and have instituted new practices designed particularly to reduce the discharge of wastes causing tastes and odors in the water supplies taken from the Kanawha River. Intensified efforts on the part of the industrial research technicians as well as the State enforcement agency are necessary to prevent a steady deterioration in the quality of the lower Kanawha River because of the phenomenal growth of the chemical industry. The capital cost of remedial or pollution control measures at the large industrial plants is estimated very approximately to be $1,000,000, and the annual operating cost tobe $160,000. This estimate is much smaller than the cost of correcting an equivalent amount of organic pollution in the form of domestic sewage, and is more in line with the experience of a limited number of large industries confronted with organic and taste and odor pollution problems. The estimate may be subject to reduction with the development of efficient recovery practices. Preliminary survey information on pollution loadings in the South Charleston area and river and industrial effluent quality were released to the State and served as a basis for pollution abatement discussion with the industries. As a result, a start toward pollution control has been, and is being, made by the industries. The program is in its early stages and, although a resurvey was made, no improvement of consequence was noted. This is not an adverse result as industrial activity had increased during the period between surveys and greater pollution might have been expected. Although industrial pollution overshadows sewage pollution in importance on the Kanawha, the municipal wastes from Charleston and vicinity cause heavy bacterial loadings on downstream water supplies. Primary treatment and chlorination at these places seems justified to prevent sludge deposits and to reduce bacterial loadings. Augmentation of low flows in the Kanawha by operation of the proposed flood-control reservoirs would be a distinct help in correcting conditions in the lower Kanawha. Such help would reduce, but would not eliminate, the need for sewage treatment and industrial waste remedial measures. There are probably limits to the effectiveness of industrial waste remedial measures which will necessitate the discharge of large amounts of polluting material even after a maximum of practicable treatment and recovery. Even with a reduction comparable to that effected by a secondary sewage treatment plant, the industrial wastes in the Charleston area would have a population equivalent of more than 200,000. Since continued growth is to be expected, conditions will become worse. The national defense program is causing great increases in production at the chemical plants, both of war materials and of chemicals for synthetic fibers. The increased production will tend to aggravate stream conditions. The Bluestone Reservoir, now being constructed by the U. S. Engineer Department, will increase the flow of the Kanawha by more than 600 c.f.s. or about 50 percent of the lowest summer monthly flow of record. Other reservoirs would supply lessadditional flow and their value for pollution control would be in proportion to the supplemental flow which they could provide. The Poca Reservoir, being downstream from Charleston, would have little value for pollution control. Augmentation of low flows by the Clendenin and Birch Reservoirs would ensure the adequacy of Charleston’s Elk River water supply and obviate the necessity of using the more heavily polluted Kanawha River water during extremely dry years. Increased low flow is practically always a benefit to organic pollution abatement. However, in the case of bacterial and taste and odor pollution, benefits are offset, in part, by the decreased time of flow which reduces the time natural purification agencies have to act. Miscellaneous Pollution - At other communities along the Kanawha and New Rivers, primary treatment will be sufficient to maintain excellent stream conditions. Secondary treatment is indicated at such places as Richwood and Princeton, West Virginia, and Pulaski and Galax, Virginia, where stream flows often become very low. At Richwood pollution from a pulp mill has, until recently, caused serious pollution for some distance downstream in the Cherry River. The industry has now moved and with the treatment of Richwood1s wastes the stream can be again made suitable for fish life. Tastes and odors caused by wastes from the gas and petroleum industry in the Elk Basin give trouble at the Charleston water intake. Studies are being made to determine the best method of solving this problem. Except for the Kanawha River in the Charleston area, and a few of the smaller tributaries, the streams of the Kanawha Basin can be maintained in good condition by the use of available waste treatment methods. The widespread use of the streams as sources of public water supplies and for recreational purposes justifies relatively high standards of water quality. The estimated cost of the suggested pollution abatement program is summarized in Table K-l together with estimates of the cost of existing sewage treatment plants and of programs for primary and for secondary treatment of all wastes.TABLE K-7 KANAWHA RIVER BASIN OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS Sampling Point Mileogs From f Mouth f............... ! 1° 1 : ^ 1 ! Average [ >ischarge J cl.t 1 T | Dittolved OxY0«n I *C. j p. p. i». ! % Sal. ! 5 Day B. O. D. p. p. m. Coliform. ; M. P. N. ! Per ml. ! •n i inity j Hardness | p. p. m. East Pork, Below KNrEf kl2 April 19 1U5 i 12.5 1 7-9 ; 7U.1 • 9.0 2.U00 j 7.0 • 1 39 » it n 11 23 69 ] 6.5 j 10.U ; 8U.5 i 3.6 9.300 ; i i 35 ii a 11 n 25 Ui : 6.0 i 10.61 8U.7 i 2.7 U.300 j | 39 i Boone Creek, below Boonet N. C. KNrBo U12 April 19 87 12.5! 8.3! 77.5 i 6.5 2U0 ; 7.1 i 1 "51 " it * ■ 23 Ul 6.0 | 9.8 j 82.2 j 8.7 93 ; * i n it tt " 25 25 8.5 j 10.0 | 85.0! 2.8 93 i ! ! j I I 1 j ! j ! Winkler Creek, April 19 58 11.0 ; 9.7 i 87.7 ! 0.8 U6 i 6.9: i - tt tt 23 28 6.0 • 11.0 ; 87.7 j 0.8 U i | " it it " 25 16 6.0 i 11.1 • 89.1 i 0.6 2 i ; ! 1 i 1 | | j j i Little Buffalo ^r. above W. Jeff ersor., W.Va. KNrNfL 375 April 19 2 12.5 | 7.0 ; 65.0 j 6.U 2.U00 ; 7.1; I n n ti " 23 3 7.5 1 9.7 | 8O.9 | 3.0 910 n it ti 25 k 7-5 j 9.8 j 81.U ; 1.9 1,500 i 1 Little Buffalo Cr. below f. Jefferson, W.Va. KNrHfL 37U Apr. 19 2 12.5 j 6.7 j 62.7 | 9.8 i 1,100 7.1 i 63 « - tt 23 3 7.5 j 9.6 ! 79.5 i 3.9 j U30 ! 53 ■ n tt H 25 U 7.5 j 9.8 j 81.6 ; 2.0 ! 2.U00 j 50 j j ; j I | j ! Bledsoe Cr. above Sj>artal N. C* KNrLrB 336 Apr. 19 6 12.0 j 9.U i 86.3 j 0.5 1 2>+ 6.9 | R tt 11 23 8 6.0 i 10.8 i 86.2 0.5 2 ii 11 N " 25 10 6.0 110.8 ; 86.7: 0.5 9 ; i 1 j j j i ! Bledsoe Creek, 200 ft. above mouth KNrLrB 335 Apr. 19 6 12.5 1 9.1* j 88.0 i 1.3 U60 7.1 • ii n tt 23 8 i 6.5 j 10.9 : 88.3 i 0.7 ; U60 i 29 n 11 fl " 25 10 : 6.0 j 10.9 i 87.3 i 0.8 ; 1,100 1 3® ! New River, above Fries, Va. KNr 199 Apr. 22 5.130 i 8.0 j 10.3 i 86 .U i 0.9 ! 2U 6.9 it tt a " 2U J.720 ; 8.5 110.2 i 86.9 ; 0.6 1 *5 ! i n • " 26 ',300 | 9.5 j 9.9 j 86.6 i 0.8 i 15 ; Hew River below Tries, Va, KNr 197.5 Apr. 22 3,130; 8.0 • 10.U ; 87.6 i 1.9 ! 2U0 6.9 i N It it tt " 2U 2,720 ! 8.5 j 10.0 ; 85.2 • 1.0 i i+6o i H ft N N 26 2.300! 9-5 j 9.8 i 85.3 1 1.9 93 i i i j j j !j : Chestnut Cr. waterwks. intakej Galaij Va. KNrC 306 Apr. 22 159 i 9.0 j 10.7 i 92.5 • 0.7 U 6.9 i N II ■ • " " 2U 107 i 7.5 j 10.5; 87.1 i 0.7 i 2U i N It N - 26 105 1 9*51 9-9; 86.6! 0.9 i 21 i 'S'! ! » S I CKestnut Cr. ^elow milkjglantj OalaXjVa. KNrC 305 Apr. 22 159 | 8.5 i 10.9 j 93.0! 2.8 i *+3 6.9 ! It H it It » 2U j 107 i 7.5; 10.5 i 87.1! 1.0 2U0 j n ii it II .......26 L..105 i„3»5.! _.9jt9.i ..86.11 Oti ! ... 23 s i Chestnut Cr. below all sewa£6j Galax, Va. KNrC 30U Apr. 22 159 ; 9.0! 10.8 i 92.8 ! 5.1 ! j 1160 6.9 1 56 it n ■ tt « 2k I 107 i 7.5; 10.U i 86.61 1.2 • * 150 1 37 ■ N N n • 26 I 105 ! 9.51 9.8i 85.U! l.u ; * 2U0 ! 5»» OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS Sampling Point Mileage From Mouth Dale ......i.2(*o........ Average ; discharge J c. f. 1. i ^ J Dissolved Oxygen 1 “C- ; p. p. in. ; % Soi. ; 5 Day b.o.d. ; p. p. "• ! Coliform* M. P. N. Per ml. pH j Turbidity p. p. m. Alkalinity p. p. m. Hardnew p. p. m. ISTew Hi’ver, above AuBtinville, Va. KKr 286 Apr. 22 5,360 ; 8.5 i10.2 [ 87.2 I 1.3 ! 2U 6.9 i 16 » H II 24 3,410 | 9.5 i10.2 j 89.2 : 0.8 j 46 : 16 n it " II * 26 3,U6o i11.0 j10.1 j 91.0 i 0.8 : 24 ill i II New River, bridge on KNr 282 Apr. 22 5,360; s.o i10.3 i 86.9 ! 0.8 i ^3 7*0 i 150 19 *3 ti it it ii • 2U 3,410 i 9.0 j10.3 j 89.2 i 0.6 ! 4 70 24 38 ii it ti ii II 26 3,460 i10.5 |10.3 ! 91.8 i 0.7 j *+3 48 53 ; i i i i Crooked Cr. at mouth, Woodlawn, Va. KNrCr 300.5 j Apr. 24 87 i 7.5 j10.8 i 89.9 i 0.7 ! 9 16.9 : 35 15 29 n n n ii h 26 86 ; 9.0 i 12 i ! S ' ! Reed Cr. above Wythevillet Va. KNrRe 298 Apr. 11 126 ! io.o iio.i ; 88.8 j 2.2 ! 4 17.8 I 71 H II n it 15 | 93 8.0 j11.3 j 9M i 0.8 1 ! 88 II II ti ii " 16 88 12.0 j10.3 j 9M : o.8 ; 24 Reed Creek, below last KNrRe 297 Apr. 11 126 11.5 | 3.2i 28.9 ! 83.2 24,000 ! 7.6 271 ii n tt 15 93 i2.oi 3.0 i 27.4 i 297 46,000 238 it n " 11 16 88 11+.5 j o.o i 00.0! 176 46,000 • Reed Creek - 2 miles KNRRe 296 Apr. 11 126 10.5 j 10.3 ! 92.2 j 1.2 1,100 I 8.2 77 n II H it 15 93 10.5: ii.51 102.2! 1.2 4 12 98 148 ■ " n 11 16 88 13.5i 10.1i 96.4; 1.1 4 7 140 ; | i | ! | Teak Creek, above Pulaski, Va, KNrP 268 Apr. 11 84 10.5 i 10.7; 95-7! 0.8 46 | 7.8! » II II it 15 61 6.0 i ll.U ! 91.2! 0.3 l ! 4 40 101 " H ■ 16 ! 58 10.5! 10.2 j 90.9: 0.7 2 4 103 j i i j i | Peak Creek - below last : , , It II II i " 15 | 61 8.0; 8.9; 75.2 i it' 8 I 2.91 11 it 11 ■ 16 1 58 12.5 i 7.21 66.P i 3.8* 1.9 46 ! 3*0 j Peak creek - below Chen Co. Pulaski, Va, f KNrP 267 Apr. 11 ! 84 13.0 i 9.21 86.7: 0.8 « II ti " 15 1 61 8.5I 9-1| 77.2! "171*" 0.6 ** j 2.8 II \ 11 it 11 16 j 58 12.5! 7.4! 69.2 j 2.0* 0.6 ** I 3.0! \ 1 j I i j j j "New "River, above Radford, Virginia KNr 2U8 Apr. 11 | 2,410 i 10.5; 11.0 i 98.ui 1.4 3 1 17 36 65 n i ti ____ 11 " 15 i 3.030 7.0 j 10.2 j 84.2! 0.8 1 10 42 88 " ! M w II l6 1 3.300! 13.0 j 10.5! 99.3! 1.4 1 j 53 1 1 ! i ! i ! i | Sew P-iver, below Radford, »a. j KNr 2U7 Apr 11 ! 2.720 12.5i 11.2| 10U.9! 1.1 9 : 8.1 44 ti j „ " 15 ! 3,270 7 .0 i 10.U; 85.2! 0.5 4 : 4l it \ . H 16 i 3,520: 10.0 i 10.1 i _ 88.21 0.6 15 : \ 1 ! ' ! ! ! j Crab Creek, above Christiansburg, Va. \ KNrCr 253 •!: \ Apr. 10 ! u 17.0 113.6 i 139-6! 6.1 240 1 8.7! 229 : | 1 i i i i : Srab (Jreek, at creamery Christiansburg, Va. I KNrCi 252.5 4or. 12 j 3 11.5! 3.6 j 33-3: 5.3 230 ! 238 * 1 II It b...... .i.L 2! 13.5I 0.3: 3.2 i 10,7 11,000 1 OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS Sampling Point 1 Milecge From Mouth Date .........19U0..... Average Discharge c. f. $. °C j Dissolved Oxygen 1 p. p. m. j % Sat. ! 5 Day B. O. D. p. p. m. Coliforms M. P. N. Per ml. oH Turbidity p. p. m. Alkalinity ! ! p. p. m. j Hardness p. p. m. Cra'o Cr. below treatmt.l KNrCr 252 1 Anr. 10 ! 4 ;16.0 ! 9.0 i 90.5 ! 4.2 4,600 ; 8.1 238 ; n . i 11 12 3 10.5j 9.2 : £2.2 ; 4.8 .....7.50..j ____5.6 .. 229 ; 270 n tt " 17 2 11.5 j 9.3 j 84.7 i 3.6 210 20 270 i j i | j j i | Stroutles Cr. above sewage piant,31acksbg. KNrSt 2UU Apr. 10 5 11.5 | 9.5 1 87.0 ; 3.2 9 s.o 193 ; " it it - 12 3 12.5 j 9.6 | 89.6 i 3.6 9 205 : n it If II 17 2 14.5 i 11.1 i 107.8 j 3-4 4 ! i Stroubles Cr. below sewage j/lantjBlacksburgj Va 'KNrSt 242 Apr. 10 5 12.0 ; 9.0 : 82.9 i 3.1 930 7.9 201 » tl If « 12 3 13.0 j M I 46.4 1 22.0 11,000 1 261 ; " ■ 11 17 _____2. 14.5 : 8,2: -la.al 9.7 2,300 i : Stroubles Cr. 150 yds. abv.couth,Biacksburg KNrSt 235.5jApr. 10 26 9.5 | 11.6 i 101.3 : 1.6 1.100 7.6 71 •; 11 it n it 12 17 11.5 ; io.4 | 95.1 : 1.6 23 9 98 i 136 ■ 11 ■ 17 13 13.5 j 11.4 i 108.5 ; 2.0 4 4 J 193 New River, 4.2 miles above Pearisburgj V«, KKr 206 Apr. 10 2,320 9.0 j 10.9 i 94.0 j 0.9 46 7.4 I u9 I ’few River - 2 miles KNr H n n 17 2.950 14.0 j 0.8 : 94.4; 0.8 9 ; i J j ! ; ! New River, below Harrows, Vp. KNr 199 Apr. 10 3.170 8.0 j 10.8 i 90.8 i 1.1 15 7.4 4o : 47 ; 71 " " " " 12 3, poo 10.0 j 9.7: 85.3; 1.2 9 18 51 I 97 H 11 n " 17 3.900 15.5 ' 9.1* i 93.1 j 0.9 4 17 i 99 ! ! ! i ! ! • ' Hew River, Sanitary waste. Narrows, Va. KNr 197 Apr. 10 5.0 j g.3 i 66.4 ; 25.3 24,000 7.5 i i 67 I i 1 i I j j i I I New River, Process w&st?s..CelflR&se.-Gors.. . KNr 197 Apr. 10 27.5 i 6.4 i 80.1 ; 35.4 4 7.9 : 65 : Harrows,»a. 11 11 11 » 12 17.5; 8.9 I 9i.9 : 41.3 ** I 64 : n " " " 17 16.5 i 9.1 1 92.8 i 36.2 1 7.9 ; i Rich Creek below Peterstown, Va. KlIrRi 195 Apr. 29 30 11.5: 10.41 94.9: c.9 9 7.9; 13 i 105 i 109 » « .. May 2 2^ io.o : 10.3I 90.6 i 1.5 150 *5 j 74 i 74 • II It • 7 i6j 15.5; 9.8 j 97.4i 0.7 23 11 j : 106 | : i : : >raesy Branch-below RR yds.drain,£luefi eld,W7s KNrErO 209 *pr 29 l 22.5: 6.9; 78.7 j 20.5 360 7.9 230 ; 112 ; 162 ■ I „ May 2 i; 13.5; 8.3: 78. ei 7.9 9 125 : 154 i 113 » » 1 " 7 1: 21.5: 6.0; 67.5; 45.5 230 97 • • 136 i i j East River, at mouth Sleclyn, Va. KNrlr 189 Apr 29 31: 11.01 ' 95.6: 0.7 23 7.9 7 : U3 i 118 " „ May 2 62: 9.0! lO.li 87.4; 0.9 240 21 : 116 i 109 ■ i■ It 1 " 7 4i ; 15-5; 9.0; 89.7: 0.5 9 6 ; 115 ; J j ! j ! • : New River, br^d^e be-lo'.’ 51er.lyn, V.". EJr 189 Apr 29 3,450; 12.C 10.0; 92.6: 0.5 15 7.5 14 : 53 i 69 it „ : toy 2 5.220 : 11.0; 9*7; 87.4; C.7 9 24 : 52 j 52 " 1 " - " 7 4,180 ; 15.5: 9.x; °o.i: 0.6 7 13 i i 63 P • "j : i : : OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS Sampling Point Milearia From Mouth Da;o ......12S2........1 Avoraa© Discharge c f. 1. Temp. | °c. ; Dissolved Oxygon i p. p. m. | % Sat. I 5 Day B. O. D. p. p. m. Coliforms | M. P. N. ! P«r ml. ! +3 17.1 2U I u 5 tl 1 " 31 i 6,010 ;13.0 9.6 •90.7 j 0.7 93 | 7.1 28 ! II u it tl June 5 1.930 i19.0 8.3 189.2 i 0.6 240 17.3 j Howard Creek, below White Sulphur Springs KNrGrH 213.5! May 29 j si j13.5 9.5 i9i.o ; 0.3 U j 7.2 U3 j ii n •• tl June U 52 j15.5 9.0 j89.8 0.4 . 2 1 7.2 U2 • " ii ti ti ■ 6 5S |18.0 8.5 i 88.8 0.1 u 1 i ! Tfoward Creek at nouth KNrGrH 208.5 May 29 121 |12.5 9.5 i 88.9 0.3 23 17.2 3 »*3 i U5 n n ii 11 June U 77 i16.0 9.1 i 91.8 o.u 23 i 7.2 u 38 ; 49 ii it H n 1.0 Ut u ! i i i i j - i i i Greenbrier Ri'-er.water works intakejl* wis'ourg KNrGr 208.5 27 2,320 117.5 9.2 195.1 1.0 2U I7*1 18 2S I 28 n h tt II 31 io.Uoo113.5 9.5 190.6 0.7 110 17.0 170 37 i 31 ■ » It II June 5 S9U I23.5 S.o I10U.3 0.7 u i 7.3 22 38 Greenbrier River, KNrGr 203 May 28 2,580 |17.0 9.2 i 9U.U 0.9 U3 1 7.1 3° j n n tt 11 June 3 1,910; 19.0 i 9.3 i 99.6 0.6 u 1 7.3 33 i . „ 6 1,200 i 23.0 i 9-0 8.03.3 o.u 9 ! 7-3 ‘ ! * ! i ! ! ' ; I j ! | 1! | ; Port Spring Creek, Fort Spring, W. 7a. KNrGrF I9U May 28 163 ii2.5 ; 9.0 i 84.3 0.8 93 S 7.U 52 116 i 104 n n II n June 3 121 iiU.5 j 9.3 j 90.6 1.7 i **3 1 7>5 27 118 1 109 H II It n 6 76 115.0 ■ 8.8 ! 86.7 0.7 i 23 i 7.U 18 123 • i i i j i | | : Greenbrier River,water works intake,Alderson KNrGr 188 IMay 28 2,580 ;16.0 i 8.9 ’89.6 0.9 9 i 7.2 33 j ii n 11 ti June 3 1,910 :18.0 1 9.1 195-6 0.6 I 9 i 7.3 37 | * n „ w ! ! j i i j i j Greenbrier River, beloy Alderson* W, Va, iKNrGr 187 May 28 2,580 |15.0 j 9.9 197.9 0.6 i 15 •7.2 ! 3i i n n n « June 3 1,910 ;16.5 ! 9-0 i 91.2 O.U 1 9 i 7.3 U9 I n « 111 11 6 1,200 ;21.0 ! 8.1 j 90.3 0.3 i 23 ! Greenbrier Hiver KNrGr 161.5 May 28 6.900 ; 15.5 j 9.0 i 90.0 0.6 23 i 7.2 25 1 37 j 36 n n 11 w June 3 5,300 | 16.0 i 9.2 192.0 O.U | 2U0 1 7*3 i 16 U2 j 38 * ■ " n " 6 2,900 | 21.5 i 8.3 i 92.9 O.U i 75 46 i i ! I New River, Hinton, V, Va. KNr 159 May 28 12.600; 16.0 i 8.9 j 89.8 0.9 9 i 7*3 U5 ; Uo • 46 h n " 11 June 3 15,200; 18.5 | 8.8 ; 93.2 0.8 U i 7.U 29 551 46 a n - if » 6 12,200! 22.0 i 8.1; 91.7 0.7 i 110 i 30 57 j j | | j i j | | Glade Creek, above Beckley, W. Va. KNrGl 152.5 May 15 6 | 12.5 i 9.1 i sU.g 0.7 u j 6.8 6 ! 13! 18 « ii ■ 11 » 20 4 I 16.5 I 8.U j 85.4 0.9 2U j 6.7 12 15 i 17 » H tt it .....21.. _____u i 16.0. L.8,6 ! 86^.. 0.5 ! 6.7 U j J { I { S { ! Big Beaver Creek, at -savtA-lsfikAsx*. Xi Jai KNrPiB 1U3 May 15 13116.5 i 9.0 1 90.9 1.8 U6 i 3.9 3 ! 78 h n « 11 " 20 10 j16.0 ! 8.8 j 87.9 2.i 1.2* i U60 ! U.2 U5 1! j 64 if n " it n 33 9 j16.0 i 8.6 I 86.6 0.§ 0.5* ! 23 13-7 10 59 ! i ! i i 1 i i ! OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS Sampling Point Milcoga From f Mouth Dot* Average Discharge c. f. ». ; Dissolved Oxygen I 5 Dgy or | i fff - i B. O. D. °C- j p.p.m. j % Sat. , p p Coliforms J M. P. N. J pH Per ml. { Turbidity p. p. m. in it- Hardness p. p. m. Piney Ri^er, above I treatment pit,Beckley j KNrPi IU3.5! Kay 15 23 ! 0 iS 17.0 j 8.9-: 91-2 ; 1*0* 4 i 5.3 » " " 20 ; 16 ! , ! i.i 17.0 : 8.2 j84.6 ! 1>0. 4b j U.5 « tt tt 23 i l6 17.0 i 8.8 I 89.8 1 0)3* 9 i U.8 i j j I Piney Ei”er, 'below treatment plant, Eeckley IKNrPi IU3 Kay 15 23 .......i !....... 16.0 1 8.6 ! 86.7 ! 3.2* 210 | 5.5 " tt tt tt 20 16 17.0 | 8.2 j 8U.7 j g. 930 : 4.9 H » 23 16 , : : ; 0.9 lo.O j 8.6 1 86.5 ! 1,0* 3bt i U.8 j £. Whitestlck 5r. abovi treatment pit Esckley KNrPiL lUl May 13 3 1U.0 | 9.6 192.1 i 1.5 1,100 i 8.1 tt tt 1: n 16 ! 3 12.0 | 9.6 i 88.2 i 0.9 43 ; 7-5 " it tt tt L. Whitestick Cr.Below trertnerii riant, Beck- KNrPiL I39 May 13 3 115.0 | U.s I W7.1 ; 72.7 24,000 i 7.6 90 126 tt tt ti n " 16 3 j12.5 i 7-5 1 70.U I 6.8 U.300 ; 7.5 9 160 « ,, tt 21 3 13.5 i 8.1 j 77.7 j 3-9 360 i 7.3 lU 86 Mountain atr.'P.m, fobscott, W. Va. KlIrPiM 1U7 May 15 j 16.0 I 7.7 i 77.6 j l.l 23 i 6.7 lU 209 . „ " 18 • , ! | ! O.U 1 1U.5 : 8.5 i 82.9 ! 0.8* U | 5.1 12 189 i Piney- River, above Raleigh, W. Va. KNrPi lU2 May 13 27 17.5 | 8.6 j 89.U j 0.7 u | 6.5 8 72 t - . « " 16 22 1U.5 i 8.7 i su.u i o.u 2 | 6.£ 7 77 it it It II it 21 19 15.5 | 8.7 ] 86.8 j 0.6 24 ; 6.6 27 UU 1 j i i Whitestick Creek at mouth KNrPiV 11+3.^ May 15 6 i8.5 j 8.s i 93.2 ; 1.6 460 j 7.3 U 262 tt 11 it n " 20 5 15.0 i 8.1 1 79.7 i 6.0 2,400 i 7.1 135 110 it it ti 11 23 ** j 15.5 i 8.3 i 82.6 [ U.S 430 i 7.3 12 109 J 1 s I Beaver Cfreek - above Blue Jay, W. Va. KNrPiB 1U7 May 15 11 1U.5 i 8.1 I 79.2 j 0I5* ** 1 3.9 tt ti |. it 20 9 i i , i o.i 14.5 ; 8.1 ; 78.6 1 0.5* 2 i 3.6 it tt !" 23 8 ! 0.2 15.5 17.9 1 79.0 1 C.2* Piney River At mouth McCreery, W. Va. KHrPi I3U May 15 1 ; i ■ * i 59 i17-5 ; 9.0 i 93-8 ! 0.9 ■.......... U 17.0 2 llU tt it " 20 U7 i16.5 | 8.1 181.8 1 3.9 110 |6.8 175 83 n it II II . i" 23 U2 116.5 i 8.9 I90.2 i O.U 9 16.7 3 73 i i i I ! Dunloup Creek, above |KNrD 132 May 15 7 !12.0 i 9.7 189.2 j 0.6 l i 3-7 « 11 it " 17 b j11.5 I 9.8 j 89.3 j olf* l 13-5 tt tt i, i» 22 ! 5 I13.0 i 9.2 186.5 j 8:f- U j 3.7 ; ; ! Dunloup Creek, below : 6.7 it 11 n n 3 :3*6 tt n tt 11 R ■ iis.a J. g*6_!85.C>.1 0.9* .... m>_ .; 3-9. j ! | 1 Dur.loup Creek, below Scax-bi’Oj W. Va. KNrD 127 :May lU lU 117.5 18.7 190.1 ; l.U 1,100 j 8.3 tt 11 11 !n 1? 1 13.5 ■ 9-5 |90.5 j 1.3 1,500 18.2 „ j., I" 22 1 15.0 ! 8.8 |87.1 j 0.6 230 j 7.5 ill I I OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS Sampling Point Mileoge From Mouth Date i .........MG.,..! Average discharge c. f. s. Temp. °C Dinolvod Oxygon p. p. m. j % Sat. ' S Day ; B. O. D. ; pp.*. Coliforms M.P. N. Por ml. i pH j Turbidity p. p. m: Alkalinity ! p. p. HI. j Hardness p. p. ». Dunloup Creek, below i. » 17 16 14.0 9-5 j 91.7 ! 1.4 460 ; 7.5 j 91! tt it tt it tt 22 14 16.5 9.1: 92.8 | 0.3 36 17.0 ; i j | 1 j j j Dunloup Creek P.t mouth KNrD 122.5 May l4 26 16.0 9.2 i 92.6 | 0.6 39 17.3 1 23 44 I 234 n » it » 17 22 14.0 9.8 i 9>M 1- 0.9 U3 i 7.1 | 18 29! 236 it it n n " 22 18 15.5 9.3 i 92.7 • 0.4 23 i 6.8 17 117 • i ' I * • ! Arbuckle Creek - below Mir.dcn, W. 7r. KNrAr 123 Kay 14 7 : 16.0 8.9 i 89.7 ; 4.0 1,100 | 8.1 15 213! 123 it tt it " 17 6 i 14.5 9.2 i 90.2 1 .J.5.5.... 2l400 i 8.1 8 211 j 124 •• tt tt j.17.,5. 8,1 ! 83j$ i 1.5 430 ; 1*3 84 ! Wolf Creek nbove Fayettevillet W. 7a. KNr Vo 110 Hoy 14 6 j13-5 9.1 : 87.2 ! 0.8 4 i 7.5 57 j n tt « 17 4 j15.0 9.9 1 97.7 j 0.8 4 : 7.5 70 ! tt n n ii " 22 4 i 15.5 9.0 i 89.6 I 0.3 9 : 6.7 Br. Lrurel Below KNrWo 109.5 Kay 14 i i?.5 : 9»u i 87.9 ! 0.6 4 I 6.9 4 ! 21 ! 26 ti II 17 ! 13.0 ! 9.3 ! 92.7 j 0.6 1 j 6.S 5 21 i 24 tt n ti ti n 22 : 14.5 i 9.0 1 87.8 i 0.5 9 ! 6.6 11 i 25 ill : | ‘ I ; ! Wolfe Creek - below KNrWo 109 Jfey 14 6 112.5 110.1 : 9U.2 i 0.6 4 I 8.4 3 : 229 i 62 n it n It " 17 ! 4 113.0 i 10.3 : 97.1 j 0.7 2 1 8.5 3 240 ! 49 n n » it 22 1 u ; 16.0 : 9.4 [ 94.8 : 0.8 i 23 i 7-3 8 29 I j { j { j j I s New River at mouth KNr Dec.5'39 1,580 i 5.5 ! 12.0 ; 94.5 ; 0.5 4 : 7.4 8 i 65 i 97 " " tt " i. 7.3g 1.910 i 5.5 : 12.3 :97.0 I 1.2 1 1 7.5 6 ! 65 i Gauley River, above mouth of Cherry River KGa 157.5 Jan. 15 1,170 I 0.0 i 13.3 i 91.0 ; 1.4 ! 46 i 6.0 15 i 6 ! 55 it it ii „ i i j i ; i ; | i Cherry River, at water intake abv.Richwood [KGaC 167 Jan. 15 “*35 i 0.0 j13.4 i 91.3 i 3.1 1 1 5*9 15 5 ! » n ! 11 » Feb. 9 225 ; 0.0 i 13.1* ! 91-3 i 0,5 1 i 6.1 6 1 5 i **3 Cherry River - below Richwood, W. Vtij KGaC 166 Jon. 15 1 U35 i 0.0 i 13.1 j 89.8 j 1.8 i u3 1 5.9 8 ! 6 i n n . Feb. 9 I 225 i 0.0 j 13.0 i 89.0 ! 0.6 4 i 6.3 : 17 ! 8 i 51 i_______•„.....1 ... J ! 1 ! i : Sherry Siver - below KGaC 164 Kay 29 ! 605 i 13.5 : 10.0 ; 95.0 i 0.4 4 j 6.8 6 i 14 ; 19 , " " June 4 1 593 j 17.5 1 9.2 1 95.9 i 0.3 2 : 6.8 35 21 i 26 tl It it " " 7 ! 294 : 20.0 ; 8.9 i 96.8 i 0.3 9 i 1 12 19 | 1 j 1 | 1 below mouth Cherry R. KGa 157 Jen. 15 I 1,680 ; 0.0 i 13.2 ■ 90.2 : 1.2 93 ; 6.0 13 6 ! 49 it it it - Feb. 9 i 1,480 i 0.0 : 13.4 i 91.5 i 0.4 9 i 6.2 5 ! 6 ! 49 | i i 1 | i i > Arbuckle Creek - below KGaJL 143.5 May 29 1 1 i 1U.5 i 9.0 ; 88.1 i 0.6 ! 240 j 6.7 10 it it II June 4 ! 1 i17.0 1 8.5 j 27.7 i 0.1 1 93 i 6.7 20 I 25 i 22 II tt n " " 7 * * i 21-5 ; 7.6 ; 84.8 i 0.7 i 46o ! 14 22 I I i I 1 I III i * ! I ! • ! • ! • • • • • ! • S' • S OHIO RIVER POLLUTIO* ’ 'HJR.V2Y LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS Sampling Point Milocne From Mouth Date 19W | Average | Discharge J c. f. s. J _. ! Dissolved Oxygen °C- { p. p. m. j % Sat. 5 Day 0. O. D. p. p. m. Coliforms M. P. N. Per ml. pH Turbidity p. p. m. Alkalinity p. p. m. Hardness p. p. m. Sewell Creek - above KGaMS 157 I Mry 29 j 56 j 15.5 1 9.7 I 96.8 oj6 u 6.7 17 ii n n n June U 1+3 j 17.0 i 9.1 |93.6 0.2 9 6.8 25 it it it it j " 7 28 -21.5 | 8.5 195.5 0.2 15 i j j ) Sewell Creek - below E. Rflinelies W.Va. KGaMS 155.5| toy 29 116 j15.O j 9.0 ;89.O 1.0 U60 6.7 2U 21 18 n tt it H June U 89 j18.0 j 8.3 187.2 O.U 2.U00 6.7 17 23 19 it it ii It 7 57 122.0 | 7.U I8U.U 0.6 U30 13 { Gauley River at mouth KGa Dec. 5 62 U.5 |12.1 ;93.i 2.6 1,100 6.7 8 15 79 it it n II j j j T&nawha River, water ir 5 Feb. lU it it n St " 20 18300 U.O 112.6 196.1 2.5 9 6.7 11 lU Kanawha River 2 miles K Dec. 5*39 l,6Uo U.O ; 12.1 j 91.8 0.6 9 7.3 11 63 116 it it it .."....I—- 2,110 U.O | 12.0 i 91.5 0.8 U 7.5 6 65 j i i i Mountain Stream, Charleston Height,WVa. K 93 Feb. lU U.O ! 11.8 | 90.3 ! -1.5 ** 6.9 3 23 tt n n tt " 20 i 6.0 I 11.5 | 92.0 0.7 ** 6.7 5 20 ' • Kanawha River -water K «9.7 Feb. lU 16.700 3.5 i 12.6 i 9U.9 ! 0.6 U6 6.9 37 19 it it tt " 20 ! 18'. 300 6.0 ; 12.8 1102.6 i 1.0 **3 6.7 15 16 j | i | Kanawha River, lower V A Kanawha River waterwks intaketMontgomery W Va K 85.6 j Feb. lU i16,700 2.0 i 13.1 ; 9U.9 1 x*3 110 7.1 77 31 it ii ii tt |............ 1 " 20 jl8,300j U.O i 13.? jl00.5 i 0.8 23 6.9 IS 30 Kanawhn River U.S,Lock at London, W. Va. K 82.8 |Dec.39 |1,660 6.5 i 11.8 ; 95.8 : 0.8 150 7.3 9 63 113 it it n it 1 I2.1U0 6.0 1 11.7 1 93.8 i 1.0 23 7.5 7 66 it n it tt | • lU [2,220 5.5 i 12.1 | 95.5 i 2.9 lU 7.3 20 60 it it ti it I Jan.U'UO |1,3U0 0.0 j 13.7 | 93.6 i 0.8 U6 7.2 5 52 ti n n ti 1 " 10 jl,8Uo 2.0 | lU.l >102.0 ; 0.8 9 7.2 5 5U it it it " } " 13 [U,S50 2.0: iu.o 101.1 i 1.1 21 7.2 e 39 f i ! | ! ; Kanawha River water in take Cedar Grove, W.Va * 77.5 j Mar, 12 |6,650 U.O | 13.2 |L00.7 i 0.6 23 7.1 12 29 I ! 1 I i Cabin Creek - at mouth Chelyan, W. Va. K 7U.U | Mar. 12 1 36 U.O I 12.2 ; 93.1 i 1.2 2U0 7.1 u 2U I 1 1 ii! : Kanawha River water in K 73.7 [Feb. lU I16Q00 1.0 ! 13.2 | 92.8 120 it it n » | " 20 !18500 U.5 j 12.7 | Of?.l i 1.5 U6 6.9 19 25 | 1 III 1 1 I I i i i OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS Sampling Point Mileage From Mouth Date Avorage Discharge c. f. s. J Dissolved Oxygen 5 Day B. O. D. p. p. m. Coliforms M. P. N. Par mi. | Turbidity I P- p. m. Alkalinity p. p. m. Hardness p. p. m. • 1 i P. p. IB. % Sat. I>. nawha River, U.S. H It ii " 7 2,090 i 10.2 ?7.2 3-2 150 I 12 69 11 11 n « lU 2,180 j 10.7 89.1 5.6 23 ; 11 80 It It u Jan.U'UO 1,180 j 12.6 91.9 3.^ 8 j 8 51 n ii ti " 10 1,650 i 12.1 87.1 3-3 i I1* 57 ii ii ii " 18 U.930 i 12.9 93.1 2.0 2U j 6 U8 ii it it 31 2,290 j 13.0 93.9 1.5 2U i 18 50 | Kanawha River,Kanawha K Feb.2U'Ul 5.7^0 0 ! 12.6 86.U U.O 15 n Kanawha R. C&O Bridge Charleston, W. Va K 2-2U-U1 5.7UO 5 i 13.0 90.2 2.6 u ti it :i ii Feb. 28 6*300 0 j12.2 88.1 U.l ?3 ! Kanawha R. Patrick ^t. Bridge 2Charleston, VTVa. K 56.3 Dec.8‘39 2,250 0 i 8.6 70.3 3.2 1,100 1 17 73 . It II 11 xu 2,970 5 j 10.1 77.9 3.2 2U0 i 16 53 ti ii n Jsn.U 'UO 1,370 5 ! 11.8 81.8 3.1 313 i 17 *+5 " n tl Jan.10 '1,800 5:11.6 82.8 5-U 1,100 : 22 52 H ii It II Jan 1? = 6,060 5 j 13.1 90.6 1.2 70 : 16 U8 it ii II II " 31 2,520 5 ; 12.3 87.5 2.2 930 > 22 53 H H II II Feb. 2 2,230 0 i 11.6 83.9 5.1 73 : 28 53 n ii II II Feb.2U'Ul 5, 0 112.9 88.1 2.U 2U0 : n n ii n " 28 6.300 0 j 13.2 90.3 0.8 210 ; : Kanawha R. below Capitol Bldg.Charleston K Mar. 12 7.850 0 i12.U 9U.7 91 1 15 33 i fore St. Charleston [K Mar. 12 :7,85o 0 j11.9 90.0 16.9 11,000 i 22 37 ! TKnawha S. foot of Capitol St.,Charleston =K Mar. 12 7,850 0 ! 10.6 8U.8 **3.7 2U.000 : 70 53 Kanawha R, below Trus- K Mr.r. 12 7.850 0 •11.7 88.8 UU.7 2U.000 : U5 UU Elk River waterworks is take,Webster Springs - KE1 198 Jan. 15 52U j 13.u 91.5 2.3 110 | 6U 25 22 i Elk River £ mi.above waterworks Webster Spgl KE1 198.5 Feb. 9 65U i 13.1 9U.3 1.0 9 59 7 23 { iila: K. KK Bridge 100 = ^ds.beiow^forks.Wfcbstef EEl 196.5 Feb. 9 65U ii3.^ 97-9 0.6 23 i U2 10 lU | "Ellc HTver "I/S aYIe below Webster Springs KE1 197 Jan. 15 52U i 13.3 91.2 1.0 U3 j 53 17 11 j Elk Eiver -waterworks intakelSutton1 W.Va. KE1 159 Jan. 15 1.150 i 13-5 93-5 O.U 2 i 57 5 11 ti n 11 II Feb. 9 1,300 j 13.U 96.8 o.u * 1 1+5 15 12 | MOc Elver 1/2 mile ’below Suttor., W. Vc. KE1 157.5 Jan. 15 1,150 ! 13.6 9U.3 1.6 >*3 56 9 12 n n it 11 Feb. 9 1.300 113.3 97.7 0.5 ^3 : 52 12 12 OHiO RiVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS 1 Avefog. J J Di»olv«d Oxygon J 5 Day Coiiform* 1 T bid Alkalinity ! p. p. m. ; Sampling Point Dpte = 194C Discharg.; e. 1. «. : •C. | p.p.®. | % Sot. : B. O. D. p. p. m. M. P. N. Per ml. pH i p. p. m. p. p.». Elk Siver 3/^ mile below G-ftssawpy, W.Va. KEl 152 i Jan. 15 1.150 i 3.0 j13.u ; 99.6 i O.U 75 ;6.3 | 68 8 i 13 n n ■ ; Feb. Q 1,300 I 5.0 i13.1 j102.0 i o.u U3 i 6.U U9 25 i 12 ' i ' II | ! Elk River - above KEl Dec.U* 35 86 i 6.0 ill.U ; 91.6 i 2.5 2U 6.5 5U 13 : 2U n tt " 11 6 138 j 5.5 j11.6 | 51.6 i 0.7 5 j 6.9 8 2! j ; ! | ! II || STit 3'iver - below Clendenin, W. Va. KEl Dec. U 86 1 5.0 i10.6 ; 83.0 : 3.3 1,100 6,9 20 27 ! 72 « II Dec. 6 13s i 6.0 jio.9 i 87.6 ; 1.7 21 6.9 11 26 i i j i | 1 ! * Elk S, 1 oi. below Re- KEl Dec. U 100 i 6.0 ;10.7 i 25.5 i 2.1 110 6.5 8 25 ; 70 it Dec. 6 161 ; 6.0 ilo.s ; 86,9 | l.U 23 6.5 5 26 i j j i i ! ; i Elk River - Bridge at KEl 75-5 Dec. lU 1,080 ; 3.5 in.g : 88.7 ; 1.6 U3 6.9 10 26 ! ti - Jan.U'UO 250 | 0.0 ; 13.9 55*3 | 0.8 5 6.8 7 16 1 H - " " 10 200 i 0.0 ■ 13.u ; 51.5; 0.7 8 6.7 7 16 1 " II ___________ Jan. 18 ............. 1.530 1 0.0 ! 13.5 1 92.6 i 0.5 9 6.7 15 i lU i - 2-2U-U1 u.o j13.U | 102.u ! l.U 2U 7.0 { II It n Feb. 28 i 0.0 • 13.u i 91.9 i 1.2 U 6.5 ! i I i i | : j | Elk River - water intake U mi.abv.Chaston. KEl 75 12-U-39 116 5.0 ; 10.9 1 85.3 j 1.7 2U 7.0 81 7 ; 33 11 it 11 " Dec. 6 186 5.5 j 10.5 j 82.9 i 2.U 9 6.9 10 i 3U i 1 ; | 1 ! 1 • j ! Elk River - filter KEl 71 Dec. U'39 116 ! 5.0 i 10.1 ; 79.0 i 1.7 1,100 7.0 8 i 30 : 75 .1 " " 5 !53 6.0 : 10.2 j 81.5 1 1.8 U60 6.9 7 i 32 • 62 V : Elk River - Coon Skin i i i ; | i Elk River - Virginia St.Bridge.Charleston 1 KEl 6c Jan. U 250 1.0 : 13.8 | 57.0 i 1.3 110 6.7 5 : 16 i „ ! " 10 | 200 0.0 113.5 i 52.5 i 1.0 93 6.7 12 i 17 ! . j " 18 1.530 0.0 ; 13.7 i 53.U j 0.5 23 6.8 17 i 16 i 2-2U-U1 0.5 j 13.9 ; 56.7 | 1.5 U3 6.9 I 1 11 n " II Feb. 28 ! 0.0 : 13.u ; 51.u j 1.6 U60 6,8 j j j 1 j i | Elk River-Washington St.Bridge,Charleston KEl 58 Mar. 12 1.550 | 3.0 i 12.6 | 93.8 i 0.5 “+3 6.9 8 I 13 1 Two "Rile Creek - at mouth Charleston,W.Va. i j j i ! i KTw 55 Mp.r. U 31*0 : 6.5 i 11.2 | 50.5 i 2.2 U30 6.5 110 i 21 j it n n 12 8 j 2.0 i 11.u ; 82.U i 6.6 15 7.1 11 j U6 | ! ' ! i | i | i Kanawha R. Toll Br. K if n " • 8 2,250 i 8.0 j 3.8 ; 32.U ; 2.5 210 7.U 12 ; 72 | « 2,910! ._6to i. 5,3 ■ >2,1 i J-3 13S 7*2 18 69 : M II " It 1-U-Uo 1.370 i 3.0 j 10.6 i 79.0 j 5.8 93 7.0 21 : 35 | 1. n » Jan. 10 1,800 ; 1.01 10.5| 73.91 7.6 60 8.7 27 61 i II II - II " 18 6.060 | 1.0: 12.2 j 85-5 j 3.7 2UC 7.U 12 52 | II It » It 29 1,800 j 0.0 i 11.31 77-6: 7-5 93 7.3 17 U5 f OHIO RiVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS Sampling Point Mileage From Mouth Oat. 19U0 i Average J Discharge | cf. L S Temp. I -c. : Dissolved Oxygen ! p. p. m. ! % Sat. i 5 Day B. O. D. p. p. m. Coliforms M. P. N. Pw ml. ■.Hi i Turbidity p. p. m. Alkalinity p. p. m. Hardness p. p. m. Kanawha River - Toll E U5.6 Jan. 311 2,520 j 2.01 11.7! 8U.5 ! H.9 2U0 7.3 i 21 u* N n it tt Feb. 13! 2,770 i 3*5j 13.2! 98.9 i 1.3 23 7.1 i 120 28 68 it ii it tl II 28: 12700 1 U*5| 12.Uj 95.5! 2.U 150 7.u i 18 33 11 it ti It Mar. lU) 8,050 ; U.5i 11-95 91.8 ; 2.6 93 7.3 i 18 31 Sk it tt tt It Feb.28*Ull l.oi 12.2! 85.8 j 5.6 75 8.1 j | I | Big Coal" R. water intake above Whiteville KBi 97 May 13! io i 13.0| 10.1! 95-2 i 0.5 23 7.3 i 36 n it 1! II it 16 8 i 16.0; io.oi 100.1 j 0.5 21 7-3 | 37 it ii It tl 11 21 10 i i5.oj 9«3j 91.2 i l.l *+3 6.9! 16 III! Eig Coal River Y mile below WhitevilletW.Va. KBi 96 May 10 i lU.O | 10.11 97.1 j 0.6 23 7.3 ! 6 3^ 78 it tt it " it 16 8 i 15.5: 10.2i 101.1 | 0.5 150 7.3 j 9 39 87 tt H it II tt 21 10 j 16.oi 9.3! 93.6 j 0.7 23 6.9 i 82 19 Ui Little Coal R. l/2 mi. KBiLi 82.5 Hay 13 115 i i6.oi 9*6 i 96.3 | O.U U 7.0 : 20 II H ii - it 16 9U 17.0; 9.2*! 95.0 i 0.5 9 6.9 i 18 tt It n 11 tt 21 107 22.0; 8.7; 95.3 i O.U U 7.0 i 20 | | j ; Little Coal R. 3 KBiLi SO May 13 115 15-oi 9-7J 95.7 j o.u 93 6.9 | 8 20 “3 it tt n tt it 16 9U 17.5! 10.0; 103.3 i 0.7 2U0 7.0 i 2 17 U8 ti tt n n tt 21 107 20.5; 9.5! 10U.7 | 0.7 93 7.2 i 3 21 **5 ill : i i Coal” River 3¥ abv. St. Albans, W. Va. KBi U9 Dec.6'39 31 b.Oj 11.2; 89.u 0.8 u 7.3 j 6 65 tt ti n it it 8 28 u.5i 11.uj 88.2 l.U u 7.3 ! 8 65 it ii it it Feb.IJ'UO 656 5.0! 12.0; _.93A 0*3 .....23... i.A-iJ ...70.. 2U 85 tt tt ii n it 28 910 ,u.oi 12.8; 97.U 0.5 9 6.6 j 78 19 it ii ii ti Mar lU U20 5.0; 12.U! 96.5 O.U u 6.5 ; 8 IS 72 Coal River,waterworks intake, St.Albans, WVa KBi 1+6 Dec.6'39 31 7.5 i U.2i 35.U U.8 36 i 7.i i 12 69 16U it it ii tt n 8 2S 7.0 | U.7j 38.5 2.U 7 ! 7.1 i 11 70 it it it n Feb 13 656 3.0 j 12.6i 93.1 1.1 U ! 7.0 j 135 28 88 It M it " H 28 91’0 U.o i 12.7! 96.9 O.U U ! 6.3 j 25 16 It II ii tt Mar lU U20 5.0 i 12.Ui 97.2 o.u U ! 6.U I U 16 76 1 i 5 j ! ! Kanawha River,waterwks intake, Nitro, W. Va. K u3.6 Jan 29 |l,830 0.0 i 11.6i 79.5 7.3 93 i 7.11 15 U6 it it it " ti 31 j2.550 2.0 11.1; 80.1 6.8 >*3 j 7.5 j 18 Us it it ii n Feb 20 126900 3.0 12.3: 91.0 1.7 93 j 6.91 85 21 1 i | j i i i Armour Cr. i/2 mi. abv mouth,Nitro. W. Va. KAr UU.5 Jan 29 I ** 2.0 0.5 3-7 57.8 u.6oo i 6.9 i 50 95 | j 1 ! ! ! Armour Creek,sewage outfall.Nitro, W. Va. •KAr U3.6 Feb 20 ! 5.0 7.8i 61.0 25.9 2.U00 | 6.9 i 110 50 1 | i j i ! ! ; Kanawha £. 5 mi * below Nitro, W. Va. \Y 32.2 Jan 29 U.830 0.0 12.2j 83.u 5.1 15 i 7.2 i lU U6 i I i I i i i OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS Hardness p. p. m. Kanawha R. Winfield, U.S. l£ck, W. Va. E 31.1 Dec.6'39 1,860 j 9.5 | 2. oj 17.1 j 5.8 360 7.0 j 6 i 65 i 208 n tt it tt tt 8 2,280 j 9.0 j 3.U! 29.2 i 2.5 4 7.0 i s i 66 j It it it tt II 14 3.020 j 7.5 j 3.8! 31.4 j 4.1 7 6.9: 6 j 67 i n it n It Jan. 4 1,430 j 2.5 ! 9«5! 69.8 j 2.5 43 7.01 s i 44 i it ii ii It " 10 1,830 1 1.5 I 7.6i 54.1 j 4.6 i 9 6.9 j 10 i 47 i n tt ■ tt tt 18 6,570 I 2.5 1 7.2! 53.1 : 7.6 75 7.2 i i7 j 55 | it ti it ii it 29 1,840 i 0.5 i 10.7: 74.4 j 3.1 1 21 7.0 j 13 49 j it ti it tl Feb. 13 4,490 j 4.0 ; 12.81 97.5 j 2.1 >+3 7.3: 95 j 28 ! tt ■ » It ti 28 .16700 j 6.0 • 12.4! 99.*+: 2.4 240 6.9 1 27 j 30 ! ti it it II Mar lU 8,600 i 4.5 i 11.9! 91.5 i 1.9 150 6.8 ; 16 i 26 : so 1. | j i i | j Hurricane Hurricane, Creek, below V. Va. EH 38 Mar. 28 I 10.0 I 10.3; 91.2 i 0.8 150 6.7 j 25 : 35 | ii it n it Apr. 4 112.5 ! 9.5I 88.8 ! 0.8 **3 6.9 1 47 | 25 , 1 it n 11 Aug. 15 3,140 ; 26.0 ! 7.1: 86.3 j 1.5 15 7.2 i 24 j 28 j tt n it It it 17 4,570 ; 26.0 i 5-oj 60.9 i 2.8 2 7.2 j 32 ! 28 : ii it ii - tt 21 8,4oo i 26.5 i 4.4J 54.2 j 1.6 2 7.2 j 8 i 36 i it ti ti ft n 23 6,150 i 25.5 I 4.1! 49.2 j 1.4 4 7.*! 4 i 39 j tt it ii It ii 29 3,290 j 25.5 ! 5.oj 59.8 i 1.0 1 7.4 6 50 j it it tr tl ii 31 2,940 i 25.0 ; 5.4: 64.1 ; 1.6 2 7.4 i n j 51 ! ti it it It Sept . 6 2,500 i 24.5 j 5.$ 66.8: 1.1 1 7.4! 8 ! 48 i it it it ii 1" 12 2,060 ; 24.5 j 6.cj 70.8 j 1.0 x 7.5 j 7 1 51 : H tt n tl .. 14 2,050 i 25.5 j 6.3 79.2: 0.8 2 7.6 ■ 7 j 53 ! H tt it ■ 18 1.790 j 24.0 j 5.8 67.8 i 0.6 1 7.5; 5 j 50 : 11 tt tt „ ijio ! 23.5: 6.1! 70*6 i 0.8 2 7.5 i 5 i 4q | It ii n II !- 26 1,700 • 23.5 i 6.61 76.4 ! 0.6 ** 7.5| 4 i 50 i - ii . L 28 1,710 j 23.0 I 6.6; 75.** i 0.8 «* 7.6! 4 ! 49 j It ii . ; Oct. 2 2,550 i 20.5 ; 6.7! 73.8: 0.9 4 7.4 j 9 ! 44 j * it n ■ ! Oct. 4 1,900 j19.5 i 7.oj 76.1 j 0.8 • • 7.7: 8 47 : It ti it it : Oct. 10 1,940 j 21.0 i 6.5 : 72.3 ! 0.7 2 7.7 i 6 i 47 j tt tt n It tt 12 1,590 j 20.0 i 6.7 j 73.4: 0.7 • • 1 7.5 : 7 i 44 i tt ti it tl " 16 1,650 1 18.0 j 7.4 i 77.5 j 0.6 5 7.4 j 8 48 i tl it it tt H 18 1,780 1 16.5 I 7.5 : 75.8 j 0.7 4 7.4 j 6 i 46 i It tt ti tt " 24 1,610 ! 15.5 j 7.7 j 76.51 0.7 4 ! 7.3: 4 : 50 i II tt ■ " 1 " 26 i,54o :17.0 1 7.6 j 78.1 • 0.7 4 7.5 i 4 j 47 i It ti it • It 30 1,900! 13.5; 8.2 • 78.2 I 0.8 4 ! 7*3 ; i4 i 44 i It tt n tt I Not. l 2,130 j 13.0 i 7.8 i 73.91 0.9 1 7.4 j 8 56 i N it it tt !». 7 2,100 : 11.0 ; 8.5 j 76.7 s 0.8 2 7.2: 12 ! 53 j tt H ii ' II ! „ 9 2,150 1 9.0 1 8.5 j 73.61 0.9 1 7.21 12 i 56 i It tt it * 13 JU8QQ \_.7.sQ.\ ..?»3! 73.3 i 0.7 2 7.° j 7 j 57 1 II II it - 15 1,600 i 7.5 i 8.R : 73.1! 1.3 2 7.11 6 : 55 i II » it tt i x 21 1,720 I 8.5 ! 8.6 ! 73.7 i 1.1 9 i 7.4 j 7 : 60 ! II It n ii i n 27 1,980 I 5.0 1 8.4 i 65.6! 0.8 1 7.11 6 i 61 : n N it » ; « 29 i,e6o| 5.5! 8.4 j 66.3: 0.9 2 7.2:' 8 j 61 : 1 ill!: 1 1 ! 1 OHIO RIVER POLLiraCN SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS Miloano From = Mouth | Average ! Tomo. ! °c J Dissolved Oxygon | Conforms 1 Turbidify ! p. p. m. j Alkal»nity ! Hardneis p. p. m. ; p. p. m. Sampling Point Da:e | Diic!,arSa; c. (.» : p. p.m. ; % Sat. ; B.O.D. : p. p. B. ! M. r. N. Par n.i pH ; fcmft who River, § K 0.6 | Eec.5’39 | 2,090 i 5.0 i 7.2 ; 56.3 i o.z : ** ; 7.2 : 5 I 61 • « « j " 7 t 2,550 ; 5.0 ; 6.9 i 53.s : 0.3 j i ! 7.1 : 3 ! 61 i " » j " ii j 2.u53 ; 5-5 i 7.1 i 55.9 | 1.0 : ** I 7.0 j 5 i 65 | . . j 13 1 3.17c ; 5.5 : 6.9 i 54.7 | 1.0 I 1 ! 7.1 ; f. • 67 ! . . ! 19 i 2,650 ! 5.0 ! s. 149100 : 7.0 i 10.4 : 85.8 : 2.3 1 93 : 7.0 ; 200 25 : » In « \”.______3... 132800 1 7.0 i 1C ,4 ’. .?5.«.2. : 1,0 46o :..7,z i ....70... : 1? .;........... " |* !■' 9 i16200 ; 10.0 : 9.^ : 82.3 i 1.3 : 23 i 6.7 i 18 i 22 ! . 1" 11 t 2^200 111.0 ' 9.5 ; 86.1 i 1.8 23 : 6.7 1 38 ; 28 ; * Seeded and neutralized. ** Le68 then one. | | 1 | i i j i j i i ! i : ! ! • • i ; • ; j j ; j ! j ] | ! 1 i : j j j j I : i 1 ! ! i 1 : ! j 1 | I i ; 1 1 ; 1 ! | i : j j 1 ! 1 | : i | I j 1 1 j i i 1 j i i i 1 II ; I j j j j | j ; 1 ! | 1 | 1 | 1 I ; j 1 | j ! j i ; i j i j | 1 | i ; i I j | i | j i i | j ; i Final Rer>ort to the Ohio River Qonnlttee Ohio River Pollution Survey U. S. Public Health Service Cincinnati, Ohio 19U2Contents Tape Contents. . . 0 • . .....................42? Syllabus and Conclusions...................425 Description ,........................................427 Presentation of Field Data............................428 Presentation of Laboratory Data . ...................430 Hydrometric Data..........................432 Discussion. ...... ..... . ..................433 List of Tables Lk-1 Cost Estimates of Remedial Measures ...... 426 Lk-2 Surface V^ater Supplies........... . . 428 Lk-3 Sources of Pollution............................429 Lk-4 Industrial Pastes (Omitted, not significant). . --- Lk-5 Selected Laboratory Data.................431 Lk-6 Monthly Mean Summer Flows ..................432 Lk-7 Summary of Laboratory Data......................434 List of Figures Lk-2 Chart - Sources of Pollution and Selected Laboratory Data............(Facing) 428Syllabus and Conclusions Syllabus The Little Kanawha Basin comprises 2,320 square miles of mountainous country in west central West Virginia. The total population is about 9°>000 ajid there are no communities with as many as 2,500 people. The two largest communities have sewage treatment plants. There are no pollution problems that cannot be solved by available methods of waste treatment. Conclusions (1) Sewage from 10,200 is discharged to the Little Kanawha River and its tributaries. About ^5 percent of the sewarre is treated. No industrial wastes enter the stream. (2) Three public water supplies are taken from streams below sources of pollution. (3) Primary treatment of sewage now discharged without treatment should be sufficient to maintain good oxygen conditions in the streams. (*0 A summary of cost estimates of remedial measures from Table Lk-1 follows: Treatment Capital Cost Annual Charges Existing $190,000 $15,000 Suggested additional 210,000 20,000 Estimated additional costs, over existing* charges, of programs Involving uniform treatment throughout the basin are: Primary, all places §210,000 $20,000 Secondary, all places 290,000 25,000 * For maps of this Basin, see Kanawha River Basin. - 425 -426 Table Lk-1 Little Kanawha River Basin - Estimated Cost of Existing and Suggested Minimum Corrective Measures for Sewage and Industrial Wastes with Comparative Costs for Primary and Secondary Treatment* Number of Plants Prim„Sec» Population Connected to Sewers Capital Investment (Dollars) Annual C Amort 0 & Interest Charges (Dc Operation & Main. >llars) Total Existing Sewage Treatment 1 1 lj.,800 190,000 12,000 5,000 15,000 Suggested Minimum Treatment Sewage Treatment Plants Required Interceptors Independent Industrial Waste Correction Total 6 0 5,300 90,000 120,000 10,000 5,000 5,000 15,000 5,000 210,000 15,000 5,000 20,000 Comparative Cost Primary Treatment All Waste Secondary Treatment All Waste As Suggested 210,000 2Q0,000 210,000 15,000 18,000 15,000 5.000 7.000 5.000 20,000 25,000 20,000Description The Little Kanawha River drains 2,320 snuare niles of mountainous country in the west central oart of VJest Virginia and joins the Ohio River at Parkersburg, %\Va. Most of the area is covered with second-growth timber. A little coal is mined in the eastern part of the basin, and some oil and gas is produced but production is declining. Farming is the principal occupation. The area is sparsely populated and the population has not changed greatly during the past *K) years. Year Population 1910 1920 1930 1940 90, Wa i36,797 86,133 92,355 All of the population is classed as rural, the largest community, Spencer, having a population of 2,^97 In 19^0. There are seven other communities with more than 5°0 people. The principal tributary is Hughes River, which joins the Little Kanavha at mile 19 and drains 530 square miles. Water Uses - Five locks and dams maintain a navigable channel for boats of ^1—foot draft as far as Creston, miles above the mouth. The facilities are not used extensively. The Little Kanawha from Creston to Falls Mills and both forks of Hughes River are considered good bass fishing streams and are extensively used for sport fishing. The State of Tfest Virginia maintains a bass hatchery at Palestine.Figure K-l shows the location and magnitude of each source of pollution of consequence in the Basin. Figure Lk-2 shows similar data and, in addition, the location of water supply intakes from streams below sources of pollution and laboratory data on coliform organisms, dissolved oxygen and B.O.Do Public Water Supplies - Of the eight public water supplies in the basin, five "are""from surface sources. These serve 6,600 people, about two-thirds of the total population served by water supplies. Three of the surface supplies are from streams subject to pollution. Table Lk-2 shows data on the surface suppliesc Sewerage - Table Lk-3 shows the sewered population at each source of pollution. Of the 10,200 people connected to sewers, [(.,800 are served by the two sewage treatment plants. Industrial Wastes - There are no sources of industrial wastes in the basin except at Parkersburg, at the mouth. The problem of these wastes is considered with other Ohio River problems. Table Lk-2 Little Kanawha River Basin - Surface Water Supplle Supply State Source Mile (1) Treat- ment (2) Pop. Served Con. M.G.D. Supplies Below Community Sewer Outfalls Grantsville Glenville Cairo W.Va. it n Little Kanawha R. it ii it N.Fk.Hughes R. 78 103 39*5 FD FD CD 1,000 1,14.00 500 0.0]+ 0.05 0.04 Other Surface Supplies Burnsville Spencer W.Va. 11 N.Fk. Hughes R. Imp.& Spring Cr. 122 0 5 59 D FD V>l % vji-t-0 0 0 0 0.02 0.13 Total - Below Sewer Outfalls Other Total - Surface Water Supplies 2,900 -3,700 6,600 0.13 0.15 0.28 (1) Miles above mouth of Little Kanawha River. (2) F - Coagulated, settled, filtered; D - Chlorinated; C - Coagulated, settled.Bunnell Run N. Fork Hughes I River 0.04 M.G.D. S. Fork Hughes River -prmg O T O T Creek 60 50 40 MILES TO MOUTH OF LITTLE KANAWHA RIVER Auguat-1940 Oxygen Dgrnond^ — V) a z a: < o ^ 3 ^ O 3 0- Q 2°i CD O UJ a: z W UJ $ _j LlJ < (/> > 3 o LU 10 1000 — z CL' 2 ■200 " 100 | -50 o LEGEND -Indicates pollution removed by treatment. Water Supply Intake. FIGURE- Lk 2 LITTLE KANAWHA RIVER SOURCES OF POLLUTION AND SELECTED LABORATORY DATA OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE - _L24J_429 Table Lk-3 Little Kanawha River Basin - Sources of Pollution, Including Industrial Wastes, Expressed as Sewered Population Equivalents (B.O.D.) Municipality State Receiving Stream Mile (1) Population Connected to Sewers Tr'e'a't"- ment (2) Sewered Population Equivalent (B.O.D.) Untreated Discharged Elizabeth W.Va. Little Kanawha River 27 600 None 600 600 Grantsville n tt tt it 78 1,300 11 1,300 1,500 Glenville ii ti tt tt 103 1,300 tt 1,300 1,300 Burnsville It tt tv n 122 300 tt 300 300 Cairo tl No# Fk. Hughes River 39 500 tt 500 500 Harrisville II tt it it tt ks 1,300 tt 1,300 1,300 Pennsboro tt Bunnel Run 55 1,1+00 Pri* l,)j.00 900 Reedy tl Reedy Creek Wi. 100 None 100 100 Spencer II Spring Creek 58 3,14.00 Sec.(J 3,koo 500 Total 10,200 10,200 6,800 (1) Miles above mouth of Little Kanawha River. (2) Pri. - Primary, Sec. - Secondary. (3) Treatment plant under construction at time of laboratory survey.Laboratory results for the Little Kanawha River Basin are summarized in Table Xk-7* Selected data are shown in Table Lk-5. All observations were made by the laboratory boat Kiski during the five-month period from Lay to September, 19^0. Ten points were sampled from one to four times monthly. Maps showing the most unfavorable monthly averages of the coliform, dissolved oxygen and oxygen demand results are shown on Figures K-3, K-U. and K-5. The results for i.ay to July are representative of moderately high discharges and those of August and September are representative of moderately low discharge conditions in the basin. High coliform counts were observed at all stations for at least one month. The highest counts were observed below Spencer and Pennsboro and at the mouth. The latter station showed the influence of Parkersburg1s sewage. The dissolved oxygen results were generally better than 6.0 p.p.m. except below Spencer and Pennsboro and at Parkersburg where low monthly averages of about 2.0 p.p.m. were observed at times. Oxygen demand observations were generally less than 2.0 p.p.m. and rarely exceeded 3*0 p.p.m. except below Pennsboro and Spencer where highs of about lo p.p.m. and p.p.m. respectively were observed. Except for i.iore or less uniformly high coliform counts, the Little Kanawha basin d.oes not appear to have any extensive pollution problem. Biological Summary - The plankton population of the Little Kanawha is quite variable with a tendency to low values. Pollution near the mouth depletes the d.issolved oxygen and as a result no fish life exists in this section.431 Table Lk-5 Little Kanawha River Basin - Selected Laboratory Data - Main Stream and Tributaries. River Location Little Kanawha^ at Mouth ^tittle Kanawha above Parkersburg Little Kanawha above below Elizabeth Bunnell Sun below Pennsboro River Miles Above: Mouth of Little Kanawha 0.1 3.5 27 25 63 Period - I9I+O Aug. Aug. Sept. Sept. July Number of Samples 11 k 3 3 3 Flow in c.f.s.: Sampling Days 6 71 i*hk? n k5 1 Water Temperature °C 25.7 26.8 22.0 22.5 21.5 Coliforms per ml. 2,720 117 12 28 7*130 Dissolved oxygen p.p.m. 2.2 6.0 7.2 7.0 B.O.D., 5-day, p.p.m. 2.7 2.0 1.6 3.1+ 15.8 I ftiver Location S'. Fork Hughes R. above below Harrisville N. Fk. Hughes Water Intake Cairo Spring Creek above below Spencer River Miles Above: Mouth of Little Kanawha 1+9 U7 1+0.5 58.5 56.5 Period - 19^0 Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Number of Samples k k k k k Flow in c.f.s. : Sampling Days 2k 2k 39 , Water Temperature °C 23.1 23.0 23.6 22.8 22.8 Coliforms per ml. 15k 70 218 116 3,350 Dissolved oxygen p.p.m. 6.2 5.9 6.0 U . 0 1.7 B.O.D., 5-day, p.p.m. 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.8 5 -hSix stream gaging stations are currently in operation in the Little Kanawha Basin* Table Lk«-6 shows monthly mean summer flows for three of the driest years of record at four of these stationsc Table Lk-6 Little Kanawha River Basin - Monthly Mean Summer Flows for Years in Which Lowest Summer Plows have Occurred, River Location Little Kanawha River Glenville, W.Va* Little Kana-wha River Grantsville, W.Va. Little Kanawha River Palestine, W.Va. Hughes River Clsko, W.Va. River Miles Above: Mouth of Little Kanawha Drain.Area Sq.Mi. Period of Record Year June c.f.s. July " August ” September Year June " July 11 August 11 September 11 __ Year June " July ” August 11 September " 103 386 19294j.0 T950---- 23.9 5.9?. I.75 0.01 1932---- to .h 337 „ 27.8 1*5. T959“ 55.5 197 83.9 II.6 80 913 1929-I1.O T950- - “ " 3^.1 7.22 5.18 0.21 I932---- 130 1,150 , 52.1+ 12.9 T979---- 152 ft 16.9 31 1,513 191245.0 (1) 1925---- 1,170 2,520 318 0 I93°~ " ' " J- 7 7 117 11 28 U53 1915-31 1939 -i+o 1930 5.72 1.01 0.12 0.01 T939--- 235 3ll 3 6.^9 T9?5‘“ Qk 205 26 U4. (1) Accuracy of record fair to poor 1912-37 fair 193tf4+( Proposed Stream Control - The U. S. Engineer Department ha3 determined three reservoir sites to be most nearly satisfactory for flood control storage development; Burnsville on the Little Kanawha River at mile 122*6*, Steer Creek on Steer Creek at mile 85 *3*> and West Fork on West Fork at mile 50.I*. Under the proposed plans of operation, the minimum seasonal flows which could be maintained are 10 c.f.s., 7 c.f.s., and 10 c.f.s., respectively. Although increased stream discharge will be beneficial, it is not sufficient to cause any reduction in the sewage treatment required0 Hence, the low-flow control which could be provided by the projected reservoirs would have slight tangible value. # River miles above mouth of Little Kanawha River. - 432 -Discussion The Little Kanawha River is only moderately polluted. The largest community, Spencer, has recently installed a secondary sewage treatment plant, and the second-largest one, Pennsboro, has a primary treatment plant which needs some improvements. Primary treatment should be sufficient to maintain good stream conditions at the remaining sources of pollution, except during such an extremely dry year as 193°* Provision against such a remote contingency does not seem Justified. Low-flow augmentation by the proposed flood control reservoirs vrould have no appreciable tangible value. The estimated cost of the suggested pollution abatement program is summarized on Table Lk-1, together with the estimated cost of existing works and of a program for secondary treatment of all wastes.OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS Sampling Point Mileoge From Mouth Date ........JU9J+.0.____! Average ! ^isch^rs*! c. f. «. i Tflffip. 12 93 2J.0 ; m 81.5 3-9 37 j n n . " 20 = 27 21.01 ! ! ^ 70.1 0.5 91 i 7.0 43 52 : . » « 28 j lUU 20.0 8.6 93.3 0.7 43 : 7.0 45 30 | . ■ July 9 3 21.5 5-2 58.5 1.5 43 ; 6.8 19 60 I , „ " 17 6 21.5 4.6 52.1 l.U 43 7.1 25 oi : n . 25 U16 24.C 5.3 61.8 3.2 930 1 6.9 1,050 4o : » II IT Aug. 2 16 23.0; 4.2 48.5 1.2 0 i 7.1 51 57 1 II II . " 12 3 24.0; 3.2 37.3 l.U 9 7.1 35 71 : , . " 20 1 21.0 1.9 21.4 2.4 24 7.0 23 80 | " - » 28 70 23.0 6.7 77.2 2.3 430 7.1 4 io 33 i ,, n . n * ■ 13 1 14.0 6.2 b0.1 0.6 23 6.7 14 64 i | Spring Creek - lj mi. LKS 56.5 June 3 15 20.5 0.2 2.3 11 11 June 12 93;22-5 3.9 UU.9 4.1 1,100 6.3 1,600 }4 j . 11 11 « 20 27 ;25*0 0.7 8.1 3.3 2,400 7.0 29 65 : n - 28 144119.5 7.4 80.2 1.1 430 7.0 69 32 I ii n it 11 July 9 3:22.0 2.9 32.7 2.9 36 7.0 13 80 ; . 1 » 17 6;22.5 2.0 23.1 3.8 150 7.1 12 84 ; „ 11 11 | " 25 4l6j24.0 3.6 1*2.1 3.9 1,500 6.8 1,100 44 i . Aug. 2 16124.5 0.1 1.7 6.8 11,000 7.0 105 90 j . n n » 12 3 :24.o 0.7 8.2 6.4 0 7.2 28 114 | - 11 tr " 20 1:21.5 0.7 7-7 4.S 0 7.1 14 157 1 ii ii . " 28 70 22.5 5.** 62.2 3.6 2,400 7.0 710 37 : „ «• Sept. 5 4 20.0 0.7 7.5 3.1 230 6.9 13 78 j » " 13 1 15.0 1.6 16.0 2.7 9 6.7 15 102 i n ii « • 17 1 16.5 U.2 42.7 4.4 9 6.5 13 115 : LlTfle KanawKa Biver = s ; "j *• j ! kjaa!eEFT|. Ya ^ ^ 27 ^ Jun8 3i 3.0201X9.0 ; 9-3 i 99.4 | 1.3 ; 23 ; 7.0; 66 i 20 |OHIO R1VFR PCLLUT.O: SURVEY LABOkA IORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS Milonqe From ft.vulh Avc^ae ; T Otjjh.tja; t.l.l 1 DisJolvod Q*ygen Turbidity p. P m- Alkalinity p. p. m. Hardnew p. p. SI- Sampling Point Dc.e 1^0 P-p m. % Sat. B. O. D. M. P. N. oH Civile ^arip.wha jfiiver SlllafefeCS, ........ LK 25 Jur.e 28 2,790 I 22.0 8.1 91.4 0.8 43 7.2 172 30 104 ! 26 oi Q W a : c . ii » 17 2o2 ; 24.0 j 7.9 92.6 1.4 9 7.2: 8 32 •' « 25 S,250 : 26.0 j 7.6 S2.6 1.7 240 6.9 460 . » » Aug. 2 1,280 j 27.0 6.9 85-9 1.2 20 7.1 255 . - n 12 71 I 23.0 ! 7.6 95.5 2.0 15 7.4 51 .1 II „ ■ 20 16 i £o.0 6.3 77.1 i 1.4 4 7.2 18 : 37 " " 28 1,120: 25.5 6.6 79.5 : 1.6 43 7.0 50 1 48 " * " Sept 5 75: 25.0 7.7 92.0 j 7.0 23 7.2 74 ! 34 " " ] 13 | 35 i 2i.o 6.4 70.8 | 1.2 14 j 6.3 34 : 36 " " " " 17 251 21.5 7.0 79.0 i 2.0 46 ! 6-9, 16 ; 35 1 i ; ! | Bunnell Run - below LKHilfB 63 May 311 25: l’.o 9.1 93.8 i 1.6 110 : 6.5; 33 i 31 » j June 10 2 j 26.0 9.4 in4.7 j 1.5 4b ; 7.6 i 19 j 76 ! ti rt II 11 " 19 I 13; 19.0 8.8 93.6 i 0.6 93 i 7.0! 17 1 40 ; • It II » 27 1 i 1^.5 9.0 95-3 : 0-8 240 7.4: 11 : 77 i - " July 8 ** j 20.0 4.9 53-0 : 1.4 1 100 6.9 8 : 89 - • " 16 •• ; 20.0 0.0 00.0 ] 39-0 11 000 7.0 55 : 263 II It n " II 24 2 i 24.5 6.3 74.3 i 6.9 9 300 7.1 175 j 86 II <1 tt " Aug. 1 2 j 20.5 5.8 63.5 ; 5-3 4 300 7.1 180 j 101 " 11 " - 9 ** ; 22.0 5.4 61.0 j 5-5 u 300 7.1 17 i 115 . " ■ ■ 19 ** i 21.0 6.4 71.5 : 6.1 2 300 7.1 475 ; 69 1 tl tt 11 " - 27 1 | 21.0 j 7-3 80.8 i 7.3 46,000 7.0 56 ; 75 ■ . tt Sept 4 1 j 18.0 9-5 99-5 ; 0.8 0 6.9 10 ; 81 j " ■ " 11 12 **j 15.0 4.0 39-4 | 21.9 11,000 6.7 14 | 136 i ___________ i i ; | • NVfk "Hughes River _______ LKHNf 49 May 31 677: 17.0 j 9.3 95.3 1.5 46 6.7 115 i 21 i . n 11 June 10 50 | 23-5: 6.8 79.2 : 1.8 110 7.4 410 1 ii ti n 19 362 i 2i.o 7-9 87.5 j 0.9 43 7.1 86 39 1 ii ii . n » 27 28 i 19.0 7.2 77.2 0.5 9 7.5 30 ! 43 i II H « July 8 8 i 21.5 : 7.4 83.6 i 0.4 9 7.2 15 i 53 j * ..........M.. ...............5.;: 22,0 c The Big Sandy Basin occupies 4,2.80 square miles in the mountainous section of eastern Kentucky, southern West Virginia, and western Virginia. Coal mining is the only important industry. Less than eight percent of the 410,000 people in the area are in urban communities. Many of the people in rural areas live in mining camps and are served by water supplies. Foor sanitary conditions are found at many places. Sewage causes local nuisances and affects public water supplies. Acid mine drainage damages some small tributaries and coal washeries cause local blackening of several streams. Little progress has been made toward pollution control and there has been slight demand for stream improvement. Techniques are available for abatement of the pollution but the needs of the people in other directions limit present justifiable corrections to the more acute situations affecting larger population groups. Conclusions (1) Fifteen surface water supplies are taken from streams below community sewer outfalls. Some of these supplies are seriously polluted by sewage from the community using the water. (2) Only about 55,000 people are served by sewers and only three communities have sewage treatment facilities. Other than acid mine drainage and coal washery wastes there is no industrial pollution of consequence.(3) Laboratory studies indicate that high coliform counts are a characteristic at most points. Dissolved oxygen is uniformly high and oxygen demand results were quite generally less than 3.0 p.p.m. Acid conditions were found on two small tributaries but not on any of the larger streams. A greater pollution problem is indicated on Tug Fork than on Levisa Fork. (4) Flow regulations by proposed flood-control reservoirs studied by the U. S. Engineer Department would have no appreciable effect on the pollution problem. (5) The two main streams of the Big Sandy Basin, Levisa Fork and Tug Fork, are not heavily polluted. Irimary treatment of wastes discharged to these streams should be sufficient to maintain good oxygen conditions at all points except below Grundy on upper Levisa Fork and 7;elch, '.V. Va. on Tug Fork. (6) Local nuisance conditions are caused by the discharge of untreated sewage to a number of tributary streams. Secondary treatment will be required to prevent such nuisances. Considering the present financial condition of most of the towns, justification for the expenditures beyond partial treatment is questionable. (7) The wastes from coal washeries can be removed by available methods, and the acid mine drainage load can be further reduced by mine sealing. (8) In view of the normal uses of the streams involved, refined treatment at certain sources of pollution vould serve no purpose commensurate with the expenditure. In these instances, lesser treatment appears justified. A summary of cost estimates of remedial measures from Table Bs-1 follows: Treatment Capital Cost Annual Charges Existing $70,000 $ 10,000 Suggested additional 1,240,000 110,000 Estimated additional costs, over existing charges, of programs involving uniform treatment throughout the basin are: Primary, all places $1,190,000 $105,000 Secondary, all places 1,560,000 150,000Table Bs-1 Big Sandy River Basin - Estimated Cost of Existing and Suggested Corrective Measures for Sewage and Industrial Wastes, with Comparative Costs for Primary and Secondary Treatment. Number of Plants Prim.Sec. Population Connected to Sewers Capital Investment (Dollars) Annual Charges (Dollars) Amort. & Interest Operation & Main. Total Existing Sewage Treatment o 3 2,600 70,000 6,000 1*,000 10,000 Suggested Minimum Correction Sewage Treatment Plants Required Interceptors Independent Industrial Waste Correction Total 20 2 1*3,600 7i|0,000 500,000 50.000 25.000 35,000 85,000 25,000 1,21*0,000 75,000 35,000 110,000 Comparative Cost Primary Treatment All Waste Secondary Treatment All Waste As Suggested 1,190,000 1,560,000 1,21*0,000 70.000 100,000 75.000 35.000 50.000 35.000 105.000 150.000 110,000Description The Big Sandy River, only 27 miles long, is formed by the confluence of Tug Fork and Levisa Fork and joins the Ohio River at Catlettsburg, Kentucky. It drains 4,280 square miles, of which 2,280 are in eastern Kentucky, 1,015 in western Virginia and 985 in southern West Virginia. The area is mountainous and most of it is covered with second growth timber. Farming is largely of the subsistence type. Coal mining is the most important industry and this basin includes a large part of the southern Appalachian coal field. Distance Above Drainage Area Major Tributaries Mouth of Big Sandy Square Miles Blaine Creek 19.9 260 Tug Fork 27.2 1,550 Levisa Fork 27.2 2,330 Russell Fork 127.1 680 Urban Communities Populations 1910 1920 1930 1340 Jenkins, Ky. - 4,707 8,465 9,428 Williamson, W.Va. 3,561 6,819 9,410 8,366 Welch, W.Va. 1,526 3,232 5,376 6,2.64 Pikeville, Ky. 1,280 2,110 3,376 4,185 Keystone, W.Va. 2,047 1,839 1,897 2,942 Entire Basin * Rural 198,310 256,110 317,166 380,720 Urban 3,561 14,758 26,627 31.185 Total 201,871 270,868 343,793 411,905 Less than eight percent of the population lives in urban communities. A large part of the rural population lives in villages and mining camps. The area drained by Tug Fork is the most densely populated part of the basin. Water Uses - The Big Sandy throughout its length, the lower 12 miles of Tug Fork and the lower 18 miles of Levisa Fork, have been made navigable for boats of 6-foot draft by the construction of five locks and dams. The facilities are little used except near the mouth of the Big Sandy. The streams are used extensively for recreation by local residents but there are no recreational developments in the area. Some consideration has been given to development of a public park in the scenic area along Russell Fork where it breaks through Pine Mountain at the Virginia-Kentucky border.Figure Bs-1 shows the location and magnitude of each source of pollution of consequence in the basin. Figure Bs-2 shows similar data and, in addition, the location of water supply intakes from streams below sources of pollution and laboratory data on coliform organisms, dissolved oxygen and B.O.D. Public Water Supplies - Of the 120 public water supplies in the basin 18 are wholly or in part from surface sources. These 18 serve 53,800 people, or about 40 percent of the population served by water supplies. Fifteen of the surface supplies come from streams subject to pollution. Table Bs-2 shows data on the surface water supplies. The underground water is limited in quantity and generally of poor quality, hard and often containing objectionable quantities of hydrogen sulfide. A number of the communities use mine drainage as a source of water. Sewerage - Table Bs-3 shows the sewered population at each of the more important sources of pollution in the basin. Of the 55,000 people connected to sewers, only 2,600 are connected to the three sewage treatment plants in the basin. All of these plants provide secondary treatment. Industrial V,Tastes - The only plant in the basin discharging organic industrial wastes is a small meat packing plant at Paintsville. In addition, there are 26 coal washing plants which discharge varying amounts of fine coal particles. All but one of these are in the area drained by Tug Fork. Seventeen of the washeries recirculate wash waters and recover the fines removed by washing. In almost every case black turbidity and deposits on the stream bottom were found below the plants.Supply State Source Mile (1) Treat- ment (2) Popu- lation Served Cons. M.G.D. Supplies Below Community Sewer Outfalls Catlettsburg TAtt Big Sandy River 1.0 FD 10,100 0.50 Louisa II Levisa Fork 27.5 FD 1,600 0.05 Paintsvjlie II tt tt 6^.9 FD U,000 0.17 Prestonburg II tt ii 82.5 PD 2,500 0.09 Pikeville II it tt 115-7 PD 3,800 0.33 Port Gay W.Va. Tug Fork 27.3 PD 5°° 0.02 Kermlt ti ti ti 62.8 PD bOO 0.02 Borderland it ii ti 78. J+ PD 200 0.01 V/illi8Pi3on ti it ti 85.14. FD 10,000 O.55 Matewan ti ti tt 98.1+ FD 500 0.03 Vulcan it tt ti 107 LD 300 0.05 Welch it ” ” -Mine-Wells 161 LD 6,500 O.37 Berwind ti Dry Fork-V*ells l6i*» 5 LD 2,000 O.36 Clinchco Va. McClure River 153 FD 1,000 0.03 Elkhorn City Ky- Russell Pork 139 None 500 0.0*> Other Surface Supplies Freeburn rr-rr I'.y. Peters Cr.-Mine 106 FD 500 0.02 Jenkins ti Impounded-Spring- Wells-Mine - PD 8,500 0.35 Pound Va. Impounded — D 500 0.01 Total - Below Sewer Outfalls 1+4,300 2.61 Other -24S2 0.38 Total - Surface Water Supplies 53,800 2.99 (1) Miles above mouth of Big Sandy River, (2) P - Coegulated, settled, filtered; I - Iron Removal; L - Lime-soda softened; D - Chlorinated.447 Table Bs-3 Big Sandy River Basin - Sources of Pollution, Including Industrial Wastes, Expressed as Sewered Population Equivalent (B.O.D.) Municipality State Receiving Stream Mile (1) Population Connected to Sewer3 Treat- ment (2) Sewered Population Equivalent (B.O.D.) Untreated Dischorged Louisa Ky. Levisa Fk.-Big Sandy 2? 1,600 None 1,600 1,600 Prestonburg tt tt 82 1,900 tf 1,900 1,900 Pikeville »» tt tt 2,900 ft 2,900 2,900 Grundy Va. tt tf 168 1,100 tf 1,100 1,100 Williamson W. V a, Tug Fork 8k 8,000 tt 8,000 8,000 Welch tt !! "-Elkhorn C7** 160 5,900 11 5,900 5,900 Paintsville Ky. Paint Creek 66 2,900 tf 3,300 3,300 Wheelwright ft Otter Creek 116 2,000 Sec. 2, GOO 300 J enkins tt Elkbcrn Creek 159 2,100 None 2,100 2,100 Bartley #1 W • V a . Dry Fork 153 1 1 J. , jKj ^ tt 1,500 l,c.00 War ti i» 11 158 1,100 tt ] , 100 1,100 Caret^a it Barrershe Creek 160 2,700 tt 2,700 2,700 Coalwood ti Clear Fork li*9 3,000 tt 3,000 3,000 Kimball ft Elkhorn Creek 169 1,000 tt 1,000 1,000 Keystone tt 11 tt 175 2,900 tt 2,900 2,900 54. smaller sources llj.,1+00 (3) li+,1+00 li+,14.00 Total - Virginj a '■?,6oo 2,600 2,300 Kentucky 15,900 16,300 li4.,600 We3t Virginia 36,500 36,500 36,1i.OO Total 55,000 55,^oo 53,300 (1) Miles above mouth of Big Sandy River. (2) Sec. - Secondary. (3) Two towns have 3eptic tar, 1:3 pnd subsurface filters. Other places, no treatment.The laboratory data for the Big Sandy Basin are summarized in Table Bs-7. Selected data on the main stream and on the tributaries are shown in Table Bs-5. This basin was covered largely by a mobile laboratory unit operating during the period of October to December, 193 9. Samples in the vicinity of Louisa and at the mouth were analyzed at the laboratory boat Kiski at Ashland during an 11-month period from June, 1939 to April, 1940. The stream flow during the period of operation of the mobile laboratory was low but both high and low discharges were observed during the sampling period covered by the Eiski. Figures Bs-3, Bs-4 and Bs-5 show the location of the sampling points and the coliform, dissolved oxygen and oxygen demand observations. The results thus expressed represent the averages of from one to three individual samples where observations were made by a mobile laboratory unit over short periods of less than one month at each sampling station and represent the most unfavorable monthly average where observations extended over several months. Rather high coliform counts seem to be characteristic of the streams at most of the sampling points. Nearly half of all stations showed counts of more than 200 per ml. and nearly 65 percent of all stations had counts of over 50 per ml. About half of the samples from above towns had coliform counts of over 50 per ml. The dissolved oxygen was uniformly high, being above 6.5 p.p.m. except at six stations and the oxygen demand results were quite generally less than 3.0 p.p.m. Acid stream conditions were observed in Muddy Creek, a tributary of Levisa Fork near Paintsville and along Llate Creek, a tributary of Tug Fork. pH values ranged from 3o9 to 4,8 and phenolphthalein acidities from 39 to 164 p.p.m. None of the larger streams was found to be acid. Except along Elkhorn Creek above Welch there was considerable evidence of self-purification taking place below sources of pollution. Laboratory determinations show marked reductions of coliform organisms and of oxygen demand in the stretches between sources of pollution. Coliform reductions are less marked during times of high discharge.Laboratory data indicate a greater pollution problem on Tug Fork, particularly in the area above Iaeger, than on Levisa Fork. °elf-purification forces appeared to bring about a reasonable clearance of the streams below sources of pollution during the time of this survey so that the acute pollu-tional problems in this basin tended to be largely local in their effects. Biological Summary - Aquatic life is scarce in the Big Sandy for the entire length of the stream. The acid condition of some of the small headwater tributaries is detrimental to the aquatic life in these tributaries and portions of the main stream. Coal washeries have some local damaging effect on plankton. The average plankton volume is less than 1,000 p.p.m. The small towns along the stream do not add sufficient sewage to fertilize the water and the rapid current is not suitable for the development of plankton. Fish are found at the mouth, probably having migrated from the Ohio, but the flesh is contaminated from industrial waste.Table Bs-5 Big Sandy River Basin - Selected Laboratory Data - Main Stream and Tributaries* RTver Big S'arid’y T u g For Lev Isa P 0 r k Location near above Intake below above Intake below Mouth Wi] Lliamson,W, ,Va. Plkevllle,Ky« River Miles Above: Mouth of Big Sandy 0.3 85 «7 81^7 81+ 115 111* 113 Number of Samples 9 3 2 2 3 2 2 Plow In c.f.s.: Sampling Days 10I4. k2 kp ko 16 15 Water Temperature °C. 12.6 5.3 b.5 5.8 J+.3 5«3 Coliforms per ml. 5h 81 350 142 1 2l|.2 6,700 Dissolved oxygen ppm. 6.1 12.1 8.0 10.3 11.2 llj<. 8.6 B.O.D.,5-day p.p.m. 2.1 l.Ji 2.9 2.6 0.9 3-3 13.2 River T Ar* Q f i Tug Pork Elkhorn Cr. bel. Paint Cr. below Elkhorn Cr. bel0 Clear Cr# below Dry Fork below Liv U 0* b 1 UI1 above below •Jenkins, Paints- Kimball, Coalwood, War, Welch,W.Va. Ky. ville,Ky. W.Vae W.Va. W.Va. ftiver Miles Above: Mouth of Big Sandy 161 159 I58 66 168*6 lil-9 157 Number of Samples 3 3 3 k 3 2 3 Plow in c.f.s.: Sampling Days 9 ? ■5* 2 3 «• 7 Water Temperature °C, 6.0 4.0 6.3 2.0 6.3 7.3 Coliforms per ml® 71 607 2 J4.00 3,130 3,860 2,330 763 Dissolved oxygen ppm. 13 »7 10„0 7.2 5*2 10o0 7.6 10.2 B.O.D.,5-day, p.p.m. 2.6 7c5 6.2 12.8 15*9 31+.2 6.9 * Less than one0BIG SANDY-GUYANDOT BASINS K Y COLIFORM RESULTS 10 0 10 20 SCALE OF MILES Fig. Bs-3 LEGEND Average Coliform Results Sampling Stations Symbol Mos’ Probob,« 7 number per ml. Q ----------Under 25 0 ----------26- 50 ----------51-100 ^ ----------101-200 A ----------Over 200 at Fig.Bs-3-452- K Y. BIG SANDY-GUYANDOT BASINS DISSOLVED OXYGEN RESULTS Fig. Bs-4 LEGEND Average Dissolved Oxygen Results at Sampling Stations Symbol Dissolved Oxygen p.p.m (0 ----- Over 6.5 (3 ----- 5.1 to 6.5 ----- 3.1 to 5.0 £ ----- 0.1 to 3.0 Fig. Bs--453- Fig.Bs-5 LEGEND Average B.O.D. Results at Sampling Stations. Symbol p. (Normal Sompltt) O 0 0 ,0 3.0 3 3.1 to 5.0 0 Over 5.0 BIG SANDY-GUYANDOT BASINS BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 10 0 10 20 H~T=T H H H fcs-i i - - _l SCALE OF MILES W. V A. Fig.Bs-5Five stream gagging stations are currently in operation in the Big Sandy Basin and two others v>8ve been discontinued. Table Bs-b shows monthly mean flows during some of the dryest periods• Table Bs-6 Big Sandy River Basin - Monthly Mean Summer Plows for Years in Which Low Sumner Flows have Occurrede River Location Levisa Pork Paintsville, Ky. Tug Pork Kermit, W.Va. River Miles Above: Mouth of Big Sandy 66 £3 Drain. Area Sq. Mi. 2,150, 1,185 Period of Record 1929 - ko 1930 - li.0 Year 1950 1930 June c. f.a. 137 July 11 26.5 Uk-5 AUgU31 11 73.7 September 11 33.2 294 Year 1932 1932 June 11 748 685 July ,f 1,076 79b August 11 119, 177 September ” 30.L 14-0.1 Year 1939 1939 June 11 1,010 612 July M l,5ko 1,090 August 11 345 280 September ” 54-7 60*6 Low-flow Regulation - There are no flood-control or hydro-electric reservoirs in the basin although a number of sites on Levisa Pork and its tributaries have been studied by the tj. s. Engineer Department.The locations of some of the possible reservoirs which might also be used for low-flow regulation are shown below: Name Fishtrap Pound liaysi 7, a yland Dewey Stream Levisa Fork Pound River Russell Fork Right Fork Beaver Cr. Johns Creek Miles Above Mouth of Big Sandy 130 150 153 121 52 Drainage Area Square I.Iiles 395 222 155 67 207 The Dev/ey and Fishtrap projects have been found to be most feasible. Under the proposed plan of operation the minimum seasonal flows could be increased by 2 c.f.s. from Lewey and about 100 c.f.s. from Fishtrap. This added flow would benefit stream reaches below the dam sites but is not sufficient to allow a reduction in the amount of treatment required. Hence, low-flow control originating at these projects would have little tangible value.I’iscussion Because of the extensive use of Tug Fork and Levisa Fork as sources of water supply the need for sewage treatment to reduce bacterial pollution is greater than in many other parts of the Ohio Basin. A number of the water supplies, outstanding among which are Williamson and Fikeville, are subject to pollution from the town’s own sewage. The pollution control problem is particularly difficult because of the-many mining camps which are only partly sewered and for which the provision of interceptors and treatment plants would be quite expensive. The lack of other community facilities, the high indebtedness, and the lack of permanence of many of the communities are factors to be considered. Although there is ample apparent justification for an adequate pollution control program, the difficulty of financing remedial works necessitates careful examination of the relative benefits and costs of each project. At the communities along Levisa Fork below Russell Fork primary treatment of all sewage should be sufficient to maintain excellent dissolved oxygen conditions in the stream. This applies also to Faintsville which would, presumably, intercept the wastes now discharged to Taint Creek and discharge them, after treatment, to Levisa Fork. At 7/i 11 lams on and at the smaller communities along Tug Fork below V.'elch primary treatment should be sufficient. At Grundy on upper Levisa Fork and at V/elch on Tug Fork at the confluence of Elkhorn Creek, as well as at the numerous towns on tributaries of the two main streams, secondary treatment will be necessary if nuisance conditions are to bs eliminated during the dry summer months. The receiving streams at all of these places are subject to flows approaching zero* At the two larger communities, Grundy and Welch, the problem involves a larger population and is more acute. As a logical starting point, installation of secondary treatment is suggested at these two points. As far as the balance of the pollution is concerned, it is suggested that a partial treatment be installed at all places where as many as 500 people are discharging sewage. Such treatment should do much toward reducing the effects of the sewage on downstream water intakes. Secondary treatment facilities can be added at these places as community finances permit.The practice of disposing of garbage and other refuse by dumping it along the stream banks or into the streams is common in this area. Unless this practice is changed, even the provision of sewage treatment will not maintain the streams in good condition. There are also many privies built over the streams or along stream banks where their contents can easily enter the streams. Much progress has been made with V.F.A. assistance in building sanitary privies but the program is not complete. The elimination of pollution by coal washery wastes presents no particular technical problems. Methods now in use in other places permit the recovery of virtually all of the fine material now entering the streams. At the time a demand develops for control of this largely visual pollution, proper corrective measures should be taken. Acid mine drainage does not affect any of the larger streams. Completion of the program of sealing abandoned mines will help to improve conditions in those tributaries which are still acid. Flow regulation by the proposed flood-control reservoirs would have no appreciable effect on the need for the suggested pollution abatement program. The estimated cost of the suggested pollution abatement works for the Big Sandy Basin has already been presented in Table Bs-1.OHIO RIVER POU.UTIUN SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS Miloy?© From I Mouth | \ Avorogo j w | 0 s Discharge; <>£* ■ 2........U:lL..\...............j Dissolved Oxygen | 5 Day Coliforrr.s Turbidity J pi p. m : Alkalinity ! p. p. m. j Hardness p. p. m. Sampling Point Do 1?3 p. p.m. | % Sat. i B. O. D. p. p. m m. r. n. Per ml. pH j Tug Fork, below Jenkinjones, W. Va* | BsT 183 1 Nov. 9 ! 1 7.0] 10.3: 8U.U 13.8 2,U00 7.6 ; lUo ! 101 J 1,062 it it it ii § tt lU | i U.5: 10.5 80.9 ! 10.2 21,000 7.8 i 32 i 118 j I ; j S j ! ! j J Tu^ Fork, below Gary,. W. Va. BbT 166.5 | Kov. 9 j ; 9-0j 11.3! 97.2 i 5.7 2U0 7.6 ! 5 ! 139 • 1,080 „ ii M 1 " lU j ; 5.0! 10.1 78.5! 3.7 2U0 7.7 i 3 ! 121 ! ! 1 1 ! i i i I ■ ! Tug Fork, above BbT 161 Nov. 9 1 j 9.01 ll*.S 127.5 2.6 9 7.5 ! 5 ! 163 i U94 it it II 11 - iu ! i 7.0: 1U.5! 119.2 2.2 110 S.U ! 7 ! 177 1 H H If II » 17 i j 2-0 i 11.9 86.2 3-1 93 7.9 ! 8 i 201 ; I j i i i ; • Elkhorn Creek below North Fork, W. Va. BsTE 176.5 it 9 | | 1.51 11.8 8U.0 11.0 2,U00 8.3 ! 65 J506 ! lj020 " -1 .. 11* ! j 1.5: 11.7 83.3 13.7 7,500 8.3 ! 105 291 ! „ „ « 17 ! j 1.01 12.'4 86.9 8.8 U.300 8.2 | 65 302 j 1 1 l n tt 11* 1 | 1.5! 10.9 77.5 1U.3 3,600 8.3 I 280 287 ! " » » » .17 1 I 3.0: 9.3 68.9 1U.1 2.U00 S.U i 35 .....El.......L....................... Sikhorn *reek liel'ow ii ii ii iu! : i.5; 10.0 71.3 11.9 ; U,6oo i 8.14 U30 ■ 317 j » ii . - 171 : 2.5 10.ui 76.11 9.9 i U,6oo 1 8.U 185 326 1 I i i i | : ji ! Elkhorn ^reek, above BsTE 161 Nov 9 1 i 2.5 ll.U 83.6; 5.1 ! 2U0 i 8.1 93 295 818 n H it ' ■ lUf j 3.0 11.5 85.Uj 6.3 ! U30 : s.U 120 307 j tt » » - 17S i 2.5 11.7 85.U! 5.6 ! 390 i 8.3 91 225 ! 1 1 i i ! i J i I i Tug Fork below Welch, W. Va. BsT 159 Nov 9 j 8.8 ll.U | U60 : 8.1 18 275 1,020 it n tt «» iUJ i 5.5 10.8 85.0 ! U.8 i 930 I 8.1 28 337 n 1. tt '■ 6.2 ! U30 i 8.1 63 27q i j i j i i Clear Fork, below Coalwood^ W. Vat BsTCf 1U9 Nov 101 i 5.0 2-5 j 19.7 j 63.0 i u,3oo ! 7.2 38 275 395 it tt " " 15! i 7.5 12.6! 10U.6 ! 5-3 i 360 1 7-3 25 177 Clear Fork BeTCf 1U1 | Nov 151 1 1.0 ll.U ! 79.8 U.8 ! ** I 7.5 12 1U0 ! " n | " 20j | 9.5 10.3 i 00.1 i 3-2 ** : 7.5 12 133 Tug Fork, above Iaeger, W. Va. BsT 137 Nov. 10 j | 9.5 13.0 ; 113.1! 1.8 21 j 8.U 3 i 2U0 235 ti it " " 15 1 i 1.0 12.6 j 88.8j 2.3 ! 2 18.3 3 1 28U it it ” !" 20 { j 7.5 11.9 i 98.7 i 2.5 i u i S.U 7 2U5 I ; j i i i i i j Dry Fork, above Wart W. Va. jBeTDf 159 [Nov. 10 | i 5.0 12.3 i 96.2 I l.U j u3 1 7.6 127 195 tt it 1- n i „ 15 ! j 6.0 12.5 I 99.8 i 1.2 1 u ! 8.2 7 165 tt 11 ! 1 M to j j 8.5 10.1 1 85.8 j 2.2 j 9 i 8.0 3 ! 13U ! ! _ \ . } j i i j| i Dry Fork below ! I 930- It H i" - 15 1 i 5.0 10.7 i 83.8 ! 5-U ! U30 ; 7.6 2 152 » » i ti ; | 8.U 1 73.6 :11.1 ! 930 i 7.7 ! 1»52 ! 5 J j I Dry Fork, above fBsTDf 15U [Nov. 10 I j 6.5 12.8 j103.9 i U.O I 93 i 8.1 5 ! 211 215 ti it [ tt tt 1" 15 ! i 2.0 10.1 : 72.7 I 6.6 • U60 j 7.9 18 236 it n I" _________________ I" 20 1 i 9.0 11.2 1 96.2 I......... ! 5.8 i U60 | 7.9 220 1 I ! • 1 OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS Sampling Point Mileage From Mouth Dale 1-939 Average Ischarge c. f. 5. Temp. «c. Dillclvsd Oxygon p. p. m. | % Sal. 5 Day B. O. D. p. p. m. Cclifoms M. P. N. Per m:. pH Turbidity p. p. m. Alkalinity p. p. m. Hardness p. p. m. Dry ?ork below S&jsealj W. Va. BsTDf 150 Nov. 10 8.0 11.6 97.7 3.6 2, Uoo S.U 115 2U6 1S5 n h „ 15 2.0 10.7 77.5 6.3 1,500 8.1 7 281 n it A n " 20 10.5 8.1 72.3 U-9 2,300 S.2 ! 215 2U5 .............. Dry Fork, above laeger, W. Va. BsTDf 137 Nov. 10 8.0 12.U 10U.H 2.0 u 8.3 2lU 315 it n 11 15 2.0 12.5 90.5 1.9 1 8.3 2 229 Tug Fork, below laeger, W. Va. BsT 135 Nov. 10 10.0 12.9 llU.i 1.7 36 8.U 10 235 2U5 " t, n 15 2.0 12.2 88.U 2.7 110 8.U 2UU " „ " 20 8.0 ll.U 96.2 3-2 1,100 S.U 5 2U7 Tug Fork, above Matewan, W. Va. BsT 99 Nov. 2U 6.5 11.5 93-7 2.0 u 7-7 5 222 170 ,, ii " 29 3.0 12.U 92.1 2.U 1 7.6 2 198 Kate Creek, above Matewan, W. Va. 3sTM 99 Nov. 2U 7.0 12.1 99.5 1.6 1 3-9 830 Kate Creek, at moutn BsTM 98.5 Nov. 2*+ 6.5 12.U 100.3 1-9 u U.o 8 780 ii ii " 1, 29 1.0 lU.O 98.2 2.0 2 U.i H H „ Dec. U 3-5 11.6 87-3 2:0 1 U.O 2 Tug Fork, below Matewan, Vf. Va. BsT 97 Nov. 2U 6.5 11.3 91.6; 2.U 23C 7.5 7 173 190 n h tt n it 2g 2.5 12.U 90.6; 2.3 7 7.5 8 188 it n „ Dec. U 3.0 11.5 85.5! 1.0 9 7.5 5 192 ; Pond Creek, 1/2 mile below McVeigh^ Ky. BsTP 95.5 Nov. 8 8.5 8.6 73.5; 8.3 2, UOO 7.6 51 196 it ii .1 n 15 2.0 11.8 85.1i 1.6 2, UOO 7.8 6 2U6 Pond Cr. below mouth of Pinson Fk.McAndrew, Ky. BsTP 93.5 Nov. 8 9.0 12.1j IOU.O j 3.5 1,100 7.8 9 226 n n If tl 15 1.5 12.71 90.31 1.7 U3 7.S U 2U7 230 j Pond Creek, 1 mile below Stonet Kentucly BsTP 89.5 Nov. 8 10.0 11.5 101.3! 1.7 93 8.0 6 219 it it 1. 15 2.0 13’1 9U.U 2.0 U3 7.9 5 225 181 Pond Creek, 100 yds. >BsTP 85.3 Nov. 8 7.5 10.5 87.5 1-9 U60 7.U 15 185 Pond Creek, et-jwaith.___________________ BbTP 85.3 Nov. 29 2.0 13.01 93-7 j 2.9 U60 7-U 25 20U 160 II tt it it Dec. U U.O 11.6; 88.3 1.5 U 7.6 12 20U Tug Fork above BsT 85.7 Nov. 29 3-5 12.7: 95-2 • 2.1 ** 7-8 3 17'8 180 tt n ,1 Dec. U 1 u*5 11.6j 89.5 0.8 2U0 7.9 3 190 n n i, " 6 ; 8.0 11-9 j 100.3! l.1* u 7.6 2 182 j | 1 1 Tug Fork, upper edge of Williamson, W.Va. BsT 85.0 Nov. 8 1 7.0 11.6 j 95.0 0.8 u 7.8 5 176 i i i Tug Fork, waterworks intake£ Williamson, BsT 8U.7 Nov. 29 j u.o 1 3.6 27.6 3.1* 2Uo S.U 7 1S8 190 n ii II It Dec. U j 5.0 12.u 96.6; 2.U U60 8.1 5 191 ' : < Tug Fork, below Williamsonj W. ya. BsT 8U Nov. 29 1 i*.51 n.5 88.7! 3.6 U3 7.6 3 168 ISO « n it n _ Dec . U _______________Lm]......2-1 j...... 1.6 2U0 7.6. 2 182 OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS w Dftchcifg*! ar «. f. t. : ! Dissolved Oxygon i T TurbkJity p. Pu ». Alkalinity j Hordnoss | p. p. m. j p. p. m. Soapling Point Mouth Dot* .....1939....... p. p. m. % Sal. ; B. 0. D. p. p. m. ! M. P. N. | Por ml tH i Tug Fork, 1 mile below BsT 83 Nov, 8 : 8.o 8.9 75.3 1 1.6 i 1,100 7.7 1 5 179 | j i : Tug Fork above Kermit, tf. Va. BsT 63 Nov, 2U j 6.0 ! 10.8 86.6 i 2.5 i 2 7.8 j 5 : 153 i 230 tt tt » » it 29 I u*5 12.6 97.1 i 2.5 2 7.6 i 5 158 ; it « » Sec. u j U.5 ill.7 90.0 i 1.1 i 2 7.6 i 5 159 i j j j j ! Tug Fork, below Kermitt W. Va. BsT 61 Nov. 2U ! 6.5 110.8 87.U 1 2.3 36 7.6 | 5 15U i 220 it it It " n 29 I 5.0 112.8 99.8 j 2.7 : u 7.6 ; 3 1U6 ; H It It II Sec. u ; u.o jii.6 88.3 ! 1.6 i 110 7.5 i 152 ! ; i 1 | Tug Fork, Station 3.8 Bam *1 BsT 30.3 June 23 •27.0 I 6.6 81.8 i 2.1 1 75 i 900 3U • " „ Aug. u 127.0 1 7.U 91.7; 0.6 i 2U : n it it H ii 18 i 26,0 1 7.1 86.U ! 75. ! '< ‘ tt ii " » Sept 1 : 2U.0 i 7.2 su.6 : 0.8 23 7.3 i 5 78 i „ " » 15 : 2U.5 j 7.0 82.6 j 0.7 j u i it 29 80.6 i 0.6 1 u ! ; ! „ tt - Oct. 13 i 1U.0 1 9.1 87.6 1.0 j u ! i i it « n - " 27 i 20.0 ! 7.7 8U.0 ! 0.9 I 1 « - •• Nov, 10 ■ 6.0 : ii.u 91 .u 0.5 »* ; • i n it it - » 2U i 7.0 1 ll.U 93.8 1.0 i j it it - II Sec. s i U.5 ; 12.0 92.u 0.6 1 i ,, » " " 29 : 1,5 113.6 97.0 0.9 ! 2 | | j it it It 19H0 Feb. 9 i 2.5 i 13.2 97.0 0.6 : 2 i : i n it ■ " Feb. 13 i 6.5 ! ll.U 92.6 l.U ! 21 ; ! i it it it - Mar. 8 : U.5 i12.0 92.u 0.5 93 i N N - » Apr. 5 i 1U.0 1 9.2 88.7 0.8 i 2U0 | j 1 i ; I j j i i Tug Fork, Station 0*1 Fpj-t Gay.. BsT 27.2 July 7 ! 25.0 j 6.8 81.1 1.2 ! 1,100 7.3 j 260 i 26 ! n tt 11 » - 21 i 22.5 I 7.U 8U.2 l.U ; 2U0 7.2 : 350 : 28 | It H tt it Aug. 1+ : 25.5 i 7.3 87.7 0.6 ! U6 7.5 : 85 U2 • M II „ ■ 18 | 26.0 : 6.5 79.6 1.5 ! U3 7.5 i 220 6U i II II * Sept 1 ________'-J.25.0 1 8.0 .....2,6.1... l.U 1 . 23 j j j • It It " Sept. 15 I 25.0 I 7.5 89.5 0.6 i U 7.9 ; 7 : 85 1 II tl - - » 29 | 23.5 ! 8.2 95.5 0.7 ** 8,0 i 3 1 nu i It It »• 11 Oct. 13 : 19.0 j 8.U 89.3 0.9 i U 8.0 j 8 j i2i : II II « II it 27 : 18.0 i 8.6 89.9 0.8 • 7.8 : 12 j no ! H II II N Nov. 10 ! 7*5 i 9.9 82.1 1.1 21 7.7 1 17 i 89 • II It " " it 2U I 7.5 jio.l 8U.1 1.0 ! U 7-6 i 7 • U3 I N II " " Sec. 8 1 u*5 i 12.2 93.7 0.5 | 1 7.U i 7 | 135 | N II " " " 29 i 2.0 i 13.3 96.0 1.2 i 2 7.u ; 7 76 ! 11 It II i wo Feb’. 9 j 2.0 113.1 9U.8 0.9 »* 6.8 : 21 ! 66 j „ " " " 13 i 6,5 j 11.3 92.P 2.0 1 7.6 j 110 53 | » •' « Mar. 8 i U.5 i12.0 9R%U 0,5 -I......21... L 93 6.5 i -----37... 95 : 2.6 I tt n .. . Apr. 5 113.0 I 9.2 86.7 0.9 L__30 i ; ! i i Levisa Fork, at bridge KAek..-?x*................. BsL 135 Nov. lU | 7.5 | 11.8 98.3 1.9 i u 7.2 i 8 i U3 i 112 : i ! j i : i Levisa Fork, above Russell Fork BbL 128.1 Nov. 6 i 5.5 : 10.7 gU.9 l.U 1 U 7.2 i 30 1 39 1 '• j , t ' - 460 -OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INTDIVIOUAL. RESULTS Sampling Point i Mileage From Mouth Oat* ........1.9.33........ Average ; T ! Di»olvod Oxygon "3rj %*». 1 5 Day • B. O. D. { p. p. M. ! Coliforms J ! M.P.N. ; j Per ml. I i Turbidity p. p. m. i Alkalinity j p. p. m. p. p. 1 no ! 8.2 | U ! 268 j I83 I. Fk.Beaver Cr. lower = BsLELf ll6 1 Nov. 9 i 3.01 11.8 j 87.3 : U.5 j 93 ! 7.7! lU j 191 | | It 11 I " lU | : 3.51 11.31 8U.7 I 5.7 | 2U0 ! 7.8 i 25 j 202 i U67 ! i i I j L.Fk\3eaver Creek, 166j yds. above mouth \ BsLBLf 96.5 j ! Oct. 30: | 10.5 i 10.61 9U.5 i 0.7 i U60 i 7.5 I 28 : 78 I » j 11 11 ; ! Nov. 1 j 8.5 j 11.1: 95.0 i 0.5 | 9 ! 7.U ! 5 I 9U \ | j 1 j j | R.Fk.Beaver Cr. lower 13sL3Rf 113 j ; Oct. 30 i 9.51 9.8; 85.2 • 1.5 i U60 i 7.1 U7 I 52 i if In 11 j I Nov. 1 j 7.5 • g.ui 78.2 : 3.0 • 2,Uoo ! 7.3 i 500 I 51 i j j ; i • ! i J j j R.fic.Beaver ^r. I/U mi.: above Garrett, Ky. 1 BsLBRf 110.7 | Oct. 30 ! • 8.5 i 9.7 i 82.6 i 0.8 j U3 1 7.2j 35 ! 37 ! ti In n ! Nov. 1 ! 7.5 i 10.U! 86.8 i 0.3 j 93 L 7.3: 32 ! 56 1___________ I | j | j j j j j j j R.Tk.Ueaver Creek,lower edge of Garrett, Ky. ! BsLBRf 110 | Oct. 30 i 9.0 i 9-6 I 82.5 | 2.0 j 1,100 I 7-3 i 36 j 5U j " I 11 n | Nov. 1 i s.o j 9.9 ; 83.7 ! 1.9 i U60 ! 7.3 i u° i 87 i Beaver Cr. l/U mile above Martin,. Kjr. [BsLB 96.8 1 !Oct. 30 1 12.0 j 8.U j 77.7 I 2.2 ; U3 | 7.U ; 2U I 77 i it [ n n : \ I Uov. 1 t j 10.0 j 8.6 ; 77.U j 0.9 j 23 | 7.3 ; i8 ! 69 i s Beaver Creek, lower edgi of Martin, Ky. fBsLB 96 [Oct. 30 i 11.5 i 8.2 i 75*0 i 2.8 j 150 ! 7-7 ! 15 I llU ; ■ ! « I Nov. 1 I 9*5 i 8.5 I 7U.3 : 2.5 I 1,100 1 7-3 ! 22 j 81 i i............. j Beaver Creek, at mouth Allen, Ky. jBsLB 92.2 ! Oct. 30 i 11.5 : 9.0 ; 82.U ; 1.3 i 2U0 1 7.7 ; iu j 160 ; ■ ! „ n I Nov. 1 111.0 I 9.U : 65.1 i 1.7 ; 2U0 ! 7.U ! 17 | 95 ! \ I ! i j i j | j| | j Levisa Fork,water plant PrfLS tflfl skurg^. - Ky_ .________ |BsL 83 jNov. 21 j 8.5 i 11.0 j 9U.1 j : 2U0 | 7-1 ! •lU | 87 i it 1 1 ” w \ " 2U i 7.0 i 10.8 | 88.7 i 1.6 | u ! 7.2 17 1 88 ; ti 1 II II 1 ! " 28 i 5.0 j 12.U i 97.0 • 2.3 i u i 7.U ; 15 j 86 ; n i 1 II II [Dec. 1 i 5.5 112.8 aoi.o | 2.0 1 U3 i 7.2 •19 i 80 j I j i j j I j j j : j 1 j j | ! | i j ; j ! ! i ! ! ! ! 1 ! 1 OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS Sampling Point Mileage From Mouth Dale ........19.39....... Avorag Dischurg cU _ ! Dissolved Oxygen {. p. p. m. j % Sat. 5 Day 8. O. D. p. p. ». ColiForms M.P. N. Per ml. .................... Turbidity p. p. m. Alkalinity ! Hardness p. p. t«. ; p. p. m. Levisa Fk. below all sev'a^e,PrestonsburgJ Ky BsL 82 Nov. 21 8.5 i 10.5 i 89.2 1,100 7.0 17 88 i 156 " . ................ it 2U 7.0 j 10.6 i b7.2 1.6 150 7.1 20 86 ; II " II • 28 3.0 | 12.6 j 93.3 2.2 23 7.3 i 12 84 ; ■ ii » Dec. 1 6.0 i 9.9 I 79.0 7.7 93 7.0 27 91 : | ; i S i ! John Creek, at mouth, Auxier, Ky. BsLJ 74 Nov. 21 8.0 ! 10.2 : 85.8 ! 7.2 7 189 : 143 it » | it 24 6.0 i 11.3 | 90.5 0.8 23- 7.4 14 127 : " n " " 28 0.5 ; 13.3 i 92.1 0.9 2 7.4 5 101 1 » " tt 29 2.0 ; 4 i I j ! Miller Creek, at mouth Van Lear, Xy. SsLM 62.9 Nov, 21 s.o : 9.5 i 79.9 j i5 7.4 13 121 i „ | M I tt tt II ” 28 j 0.5 j 12.7 j 87.8 1.0 U 7-7 13 202 ,! i | j Levisa Fk. If miles below Van Lear, Ky. BsL 68 Nov. 22 1 7.0 ; 10.5 i 86.4 2.0 4 7-3 12 87 i » ti It " 29 3.5; 12.0; 90.3 | 1.9 4.0 i 11.31.86.3 I 1.3 ** 7.3 11 89 Levisa Fork, above Paintsville. Ky. BsL 67.5 Nov. 28 8 i 7.4 ; 7 84 ; tt ii ■ - 30 4.0 i 11.9 j 90.3 1.1 9 7-3 8 85 i " it It Dec. 1 6.0112.0 ; 96.1 1.8 2 7.3 7 85 i i j ; i Levisa Fk. above water plant, Paintsville, Ky. BsL 67.2 Nov* 21 s.5 i 10.6 1 90.7 ; 2 7.2 8 89 1 153 tt ■ It • 22 7.5 i 10.4 | 86.6 2.0' 2 7.3 8 S6 j i i ; i Faint Creele, above Paintsville, Ky. BsLP 67.5 Nov. 29 4.0 | 10.7 j 81.5 1.2 46 7.1 17 90 ! j j j Paint Creek, upper edge of Paintsville, Ky. BsLP 67 Nov. 20 9.0 i 9.3 j 80.2 j • 4 7.® 25 I 202 n It tt n 24 6.0 j 8.0 I 63.9 1.1 U 7.0 25 93 j tt " tl n 27 5.5 j 10.0 j 78.7 0.8 9 7.2 20 83 ; " n It Bee. 1 5.0 i 10.7 i 83.7 0.8 U 7.1 22 86 i i j Paint Cr. 100yds. above mouthj Paintsville, Ky. BsLP 66.5 Nov. 20 9.0 j2.3 ; 20.1 j 4,600 7*0 -37 102 j 254 Paint Creek, at mouth Paintsville^. Kyt BsLP 66 Nov. 24 7.0 j1.7 j 14.3 10.9 2.300 7.0 30 104 j it ■ It » 27 5.0 I 5.2 j 40.3 7.8 4,600 7.0 25 103 i ft n tt n 29 1.0 | 6.7 ! 47.4 15.7 4,600 7.1 21 101 ; ii n II Bee. 1 4.5 j 6.6 i 50.7 17.0 930 7.0 32 99 i j j : ! Muddy Branch, at mouth Peintsvillet Ky. B'sLM 65 Nov. 22 7.0 j 11.0 i 90.1 1.6 1 4.8 7 I 154 ■ it H 11 29 0.5 ! 13.2 | 91.3 2.0 2 4.8 6 ! n n n 11 30 5.0 | 11.6 ; 90.5 1.2 2 4.8 6 ! j i Levisa Fork, 'below mout Paint Cr..Paintsville 'BsL 64.5 Nov. 21 8.5 :10.1 j e6.i s 460 7.2 13 89 1 158 n II ■ n 28 4.0 i 11.0 ! 83.7 1.7 240 7.3 12 s6 i ii II tl Bee. 1 5.5 | ll.l | 87.9 3.7 1,100 7.3 18 87 i ! j j i j Levisa Fork, below Paintsville, Ky, BsL 6U Nov. 22 8.0 ; -9.8 i 82.5 2.2 93 7.2 10 87 | it " n • 30 4.5 j U.5 i 88.8 2.6 240 7.3 13 89 i ! j j i I OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS Sampling Point Mileoge From Mouth Dot* .........1939......! ^Avraa9 j T*mp. ; Discharge; <>/- ' c.f. s. ! ; Dissolved Oxygen 1 p. p. m. | % Sal. | 5 Day B. O. D. p. p. m. Coliforms ; M. P. N. ; Per ml. ! pH I Turbidity ppm. ! Alkalinity ! Hardness ! p. p. m. j p. p. m. Shannon Branch 2 mi. be-i ** § j i ! j ! i i Levi6a fk. 2i miles below Georges "r. BsL 39-5 ICov. 22 j : 7.5 iio.U i s6.5 2.0 u i 7.5 j 10 j i°6 i j j i j | | | ; ii Levi si Tk. ^Station 8.2 BsL 35 June 23 123.0 j 6.S j 78.3 1.5 2U0 i 170 : 30 i S • J | j ; Levisa Fork, Sta. 2.7 Wnlbridge Hwy. Bridge BsL 30 Aug. U ! 126.5 6.9 j 8U.7 0.7 U6 i J ; ii n It n IS 126.0 6.5 j 79.1 0.9 2U0 j | 11 n n Sept. 1 j 23.5 6.3 |73.0 1.2 23 | 7.7 1 18 1 5U ! it tt « H 15 j 25.0 7.0 j 83-5 o.U u i » tt It n 2Q _________Is?,5. .It?. | 89,1.. 0.5 1 i j j ii » = - Oct. 13 i 17.5 6.7 169.3 1.0 ! i " " " it 27 ;18.0 8.2 j 85.8 1.0 ** j “ " It Nov. 10 j 7.5 jlO.U j86.9 0.8 2 ! " ■ II " 24 j 8.5 9.0 j 76.9 0.5 ** 1 M » " Dec. 8 ! 5.5 10.8 j85.U 0.6 1 ! | N ■ II Dec. 29 j 2.5 jl3.3 197.5 1.3 I 1 "1 j " • ■ Feb. 9 I 2.5 13.2 j 96.9 0.6 2 ! tt tt II n 13 1 6.5 11.7 j9U.8 0.9 i U6 ! i » it II Mar. 8 j 5.0 U.7 191.5 0.5 39 ! tt tt " Apr. 5 j 1U.0 9.2 | 88.8 0.5 i 93 : j 1 ! i j i j j j EeVIs'a Tk. "Sta. Cf.l Port Gay BsL 27.6 July 7 i 25.0 5.8 i69.2 2.0 j U60 7.3 i 900 | 21 i n n II 21 j 23.0 6.6 j 75.5 1.7 j 2U0 7.1 1 1,000 1 25 i tt it II Aug. U j 27.0 6.9 j85.0 0.6 110 7.5 1 85 : uo i » « « - 18 j 27.0 6.6 | 8I.5 1.1 U3 7.6 ! 200 ! 55 i ■ H H Sept. 1 ......1.25*0. .1.11.56*6.. -Q.fi- i.....93. | » n * it 15 j 25.0 7.0 j 83.1 0.7 j U 7.6 | 7 ! 65 - « II n 29 j 23.5 7.8 j 90.8 ! 1.5 11 7.6 j 5 ; 79 i " K II Oct. 13 117.5 7.9 j 82,1 0.9 U3 7.7 j 12 i 81 ■ ■ " - 27 | 18.0 8.2 ; 86.2 0.8 i U3 7.6 ; 12 j 90 1 tt « .1 Nov. 10 ................ '■ 8.0 |..........Zl .....7.5 19, ! 8U ! tt it Nov. 2U i 7-5 j 9.7 i 80.8 i 0.8 2 ! 7.5 i 8 I 83 I " a It Dec. 8 j 5.0 i u.u j 89.2 j 0.7 2U 7.U i 9 ! 107 j N it tt " 29 ! 1.5 113.5 j 96.1 i 1.1 2 7-2: 7 70 i • « » Feb. 9 i 2.0 i 13.u i 96.5 ! 0.8 2 6.8 j 16 U5 j » tt • it 13 i 5.5 j 11.7 i 92.8 j 1.6 j 110 7.6 j 190 ! 28 j ■ n It Mar. 8 i u.5 j 11.8 ! 91.2 i 0.6 i 21 6.9; 52 i 21 j It ti tt Apr. 5 113-0 i 9.2 1 86.9 j 0.7 i 93 ! 6.61 95 20 i • I i i .1 i i Bs 26.6 June 23 3.930 | 27.0 i 6.u i 79.U ! 2.1 U60 i i 300 : 32 i " It July 7 1.0,200 | 25.5 j 5.9 i 71.1 i 1.9 1 j 7.i j 1,100 ! 21 I tt tt tl n 21 u,3oo j 23.0 j 6.9 ; 75.0 I 1.6 U60 j ! ! It tt » Aug. U 1,590 i 27.0 j 7.1 : 88.0 i 0.6 2U 1 7.U j 50 Ui i It tt It it 18 1,300 j 26.5 j 6.5j 79.3 i 2.2 93 j 7.6 i 300 i 61 i tt it n Sept 1 275 j 25.5 1 7.7 j 92.8 : 1.1 ; 2U0 j 7.8! 7 ! 55 1 . it tt . 15 185 ! 25.5 j 7.U i 89.0 i 1.1 1 75 ! 7.7 i 6 j 68 ! tt » " " 29 95 1 23.0 i 8.1 I 93.1 i 0,5 ! 2U0 : 8.01 12 1 78 iOHIO RIVER POuUrnCN’ SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS Sampling Point Mileage From Mouth Date .......L?39........ w i Discharge j ; c.U | ; Dissolved Oxygen ! p-p-m. j % Sol. ! 5 Day B. O. D. p. p. m. Coliform M.P. N. Per ml. pH j Turbidity i ppm. ! Alkalinity I Hardness ppm. j p. p. m. BJg^Sandy River, Sta. 26.6 below Louisa, Ky, *8 26.6 Oct. 13 102 j19.5 | 8.2 ;88.6 j 0.8 g.o : 7 102 j 1: " " 11 27 72 i13.0 ; 8.5 i 91.1 j 1.3 7.9 I 10 91 ! n " 11 Nov. 10 102 | 7.0 | 10.0 j 82.4 i 0.9 36 7.61 11 91 : n " ■ n 24 g7 | 7.5 j 9.9 182.3 | 1.0 46 7.6 : g ! 90 i it II - Dec. 8 87 i 5.0 | 11.7 j 91.1 i 0.8 93 j 7.31 9 j 115 ! 11 I* " • 29 250 : 2.0 i12.9 ! 93.4 i 1.9 4 7.4 i g | 71 ! " It » Fet>: 13 2,g4o ; 6.0 I 11.4 191.2 | 1.7 24 7.6 : 130 j 46 ! " It N Mar. g 3,640 i 4.0 11.8 190.0 | 0.6 39 6.9 : ■+5 23 i " » » Apr. 5 4,260 ;13.0 9.2 ; 86.6 • 0.6 U3 6.6 i 95 22 : ; i j I : j | j j Big Sandy River Sta. 0.; Dam #1 Bs 0.3 June 1 1,240 j27.0 | 7.5 j 93.2 j 2-9 U3 14 i 39 ; » II " « 5 2,520 ;27.5 7.9 i98.5 • 2.5 23 lg 43 i II II It II 7 2.530 i 26.5 6.2 175.8 i 1.3 U3 ! 230 i *»3 tt » ■ tl 9 2,110 i 27.0 6.5 I 80.2 j 1.2 23 73 i ^5 : II - ■ II 13 2,830 ]25.0 6.8 i 80.9 i 2.0 240 183 3U I 11 » II » 15 1,760 I 25.0 6.9 j 81.9 i 1.1 93 : 185 j 4i ! tl n It June 19 1,310 j 27.0 i 6.4 j 79.4 ; 1.0 75 90 .......r 39 | • n It n 21 5.230 ;27-0 i 7.6 I9U.I j 1.2 240 : 36 42 ; » it II it 23 4,210 j 27.O 1 6.6 ;82.3 : 0.8 240 : 2U0 33 ! It n It 11 27 1,160 ;28.0 | 6.3 j 79.5 1 1.0 93 7.3 j 100 ! 37 i " it tt 11 29 1,500 j 28.5 ! 6.2 j 79.1 j 1.1 23 7-3 | 65 i "3 : ■ fl it tt July 5 9.300 i 27.5 7.3 j 91.5 1 1.2 93 7.8 ; 4o *♦3 I 41 ti ■ n 7 10800 j 25.0 4.6 j 55.O j 3.U 7.0 1 1.250 19 ! N n . - 11 3.330 |26.5 6.6 > 81,6 t l.l 91 7.2 i 240 32 i tt tt - n 13 2,180 j*27. 6.8 j 85.6 j 150 7.5 i 60 ! 33 1 « « It - 17 2,000 j 26.0 9.1 1110.6 I 2.0 23 7.7 i 25 i 40 | tt n tt n 19 1,760 j 26.0 8.5 1103.2 ! 1.7 4 7.5 i 12 ! 38 i - ti » It 21 4,910 •24,0 6.6 j 77.1 i 1.3 24 7.2 : 600 26 • tt n " " 25 2,850 :26.5 7.1 | 87.2 ; 0.6 46 7.2 | 60 ! 39 tt " It It 27 3,190 ! 28,0 6.8 !86.1 I 1.0 46 7.2 | 125 3* It - " " 31 4.330 | 26.0 6.7 I 82.0 : 0.9 75 7.5 i 250 32 1 II • » Aug. 2 3,080 126.5 7.4 191.3 : 0.6 *3 7.3! 75 I 31 1 It it tt Aug. W 1,710; 27.0 ! 7.0; 96.7 j 1.6 93 7.5 80; 37 i ' n II « 8 680j 27.0| 8.11 99.9 j 1.9 9 7.7 ! 28j 47 i II - II tt 10 350! 27.01 g.ijioo.o : 2.1 9 7.4 27: 49 j " 11 ■ 11 14 6l0; 28.0 6.8i 85.8 j 1.5 9 7.7 75! 57 j It n « II 16 820: 28.0 7.2! 91.3 1 l.l 24 7.7 3°; 69 | ■ It It 18 1.370; 29.0 7.2! 92.1 I 1.0 9 7.7 i 23! 74 i II - It II 22 1,010: 26.0 7.41 90.2 1 1.4 9 7.6 ! 3U: 5*» i - it tt « 24 260: 26.0 8.9:108.0 ! 1.7 8 7.7 10! 56 ; - - ■ II 28 325; 26.0 7.0i 85.2 i 1.2 24 7.6 18! 68 ! It - It - 30 340: 25.5 6.1| 74.0 j 1.8 9 7.5 i 101 60 j N » It Sept 1 300: 26.5 7.7; 94.7 I 1.6 240 7.6 14! 61 i It " 11 tt 6 233j 25.5 4.9i 58.4 I 1.1 460 7.1 i 55; 52 i ■ 11 II • 8 262! 26.5 6.0j 73.2 | 1.4 91 7-7 27’: 64 i II 11 II - 12 230! 26.0 6.4! 78.1 j 1.3 430 7.7 io{ 67 | II » » * 14 198! 27.5 6.2j 77.3 j 1.2 91 7.6 10; 74 j tl 11 tt - 18 ins iri M r S| j ......6^1,1.12.2,1 1.0 .....--.251, 7.6 7' _zsi_____OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS Sampling Point Mileocio From \ Mouth f Date = .......iw........i Avorage | discharge | c. f. *. { Temp. ! c ; p. p. m. | % Sat. ! 5 Day 1 B.O.D. | p. p. m. Coliforms M. P. N. ; Per ml. ! »H ; Turbidity i Alkalinity j Hardness p. p. m. S p. p. m. { p. p. m. Big Sandy River Sta. n m fi .. ! n 22 1 134: 2U.0 5.2; 60.7 ! 1.1 ! 75 : 7.5 i 12: 79 i ii n " I " 26 | 134 ; 23.0 6.0; 69.4 j 1.2 i 75 : 7.6 : 10 j 80 j I . j " 28 j 134! 26.0 6.2 i 75.0 ; 1.1 i 240 ; 7.6 : 5j 8i i ii ti » I Oct. 2 I 110: 21.5 68.7 ; 1.0 ; 36 ! f.b • 12 j 81 ; 11 H - ! « 1* | 104 i 22.0 6.5 j 73.3 ; 1.0 ; 91 i 7.7 i 8! 81 • n n . 6 no 21.0 6.1: 67.7 ; 1.0 • 23 | 7.8 ! 12j 86 ; « . | " 10 j no 24.5 7.1 i 83.7 | 1.7 ; 110 ; 7.8 j 7 j 88 ; „ ii ti " 12 j 109 24.5 6.6: 78.3 i 1.0 i 23 i 7.8 i 7; 89 I • . | 16; 93 19.0 6.7; 71.3 i 1.0 : 93 ; 7.6 : 8: 93 i » « „ n VJ? T-J O P ..6.6 7.1 .6B..2-. * i*a.. ......_9i.! -7.7- 1 .........si.....9.3 :.......... it ii „ " 20 93 75.7 ; 1.2 43 i 7.7 8; 96 i • ,, II 2u 93 18.5 6.2 65.8 i 1.3 23 i 7-5 5: 100 ; it ii r: ii " 26 77 20.0 6.4 69.s i 1.4 . 240 1 7.7 97| 15 ; , - 30 130 17.5 5-0 52.1 i 1.5 240 ; 7.3 21; 94 i ■ „ Nov. 1 84 17*5 5-7 1.4 ..............}ill 7.3 17! 96 I ii ii „ Nov. 3 118 11.5 5-9 54.2 1*4 43 7-3 13 i 97 i . - " 7 112 13.5 6.4 60.9 1.6 93 7.2 10; io4 ; - .. 9 111 l4.o 6.5 62.6 1.8 43 7.3 8 i 93 ; - " 13 95 1 U.5 5-3 48.4 2.7 4 7.2 11; 95 | ii n . 15 95 12.5 5-7 53.0 2.4 46 7.3 8 ; 90 i h n it il 17 95 14.0 5.7 55.0 3.6 24 7.2 12; 85 j " ■ 27 79 10.0 6.6 58.0 2.1 93 7.3 8 i 103 i . * 29 95 9-0 7.4 64.0 2.0 93 7.4 9 i 96 i Dec. 1 79 1&.0 ; 8.1 71.6 1.8 23 7.3 n I 99 1 . " " 5 95 10.0 ; 7.8 68.8 2.1 43 7.3 7 | 103 i » . " 7 95 10.5 i 7-7 68.9 2.4 240 7.3 8 i 101 i . |« " U 95 9.0 i 6.9 59-9 2.8 43 7.2 7 ! 100 i it it : ii m 13 95 10.5 j 7.2 63.9 2.5 9 7.4 6 i 98 ; n ii !» I" 15 79 10.5 : 7.3 64.7 2.4 93 7.1 6 j 99 I , i„ j" 19 | 103 10.5 i 7.5 66.9 1.7 23 7.4 7 | 99 | •i ii U I " 21 1 117 ! 10.0 i 7.8 69.1 1.8 43 7.5 8 : 101 | n it - Dec. 26 222 ; 6.0 ; 8.0 63.8 1.6 43 7.7 5l 99 j n it . “ 28 277 ! 7.0 i 8.7 71.6 1.5 43 7.4 6 1 98 i n n ,, i9‘40 Jan. 2 j 483 1 0.5 i 13.3 92.2 1.3 4 7.2 8 ; 83 i » . ;» 12 ! 250 j 3.0 I 10.2 75.8 0.9 110 6.9 25 | 86 j ii n - j" 16 j 884 i 0.5 ; 12.9 89.3 1.2 23 6.9 80 i 49 i . .* | Feb. 15 j4,470 j 2.5 ; 12.4 90.5 1.5 “3 7.0 150; 23 i n n - 1 " 19 j 6,4oo i \ 5.0 j 12.4 90.9 1.8 43 6.9 250; 25 ! , 1 " 21 1 5.900 ; 11.7 91.5 1.0 23 6.9 120i 19 | • | " 23 ! 5,240 : 3.5 ; 11.9 ; 89.7 0.9 15 6.9 55! 19 i " • ! " 27 1 2,000 i 3.5 ; 12.6 94.4 1.5 150 7.1 I 160! 28 : n - 1 " 29 i 3.350 ! 3.5 112.3 i 92.3 l.l : 23 7.0 1001 25 i H 11 . | Mar. 4 ! 10300 | 8.5 :10.6 ! 90.2 1.6 : “3 7.0 I 350: 25 i . „ ! " 6 16,750 i 7.5 j 10.5 i 87.4 0.8 : 15 7.3 ; 170 j 20 ; II II it it I " 8 j4,200 j 6.5 i 11.1 : 90.1 1.1 i U3 6.8 52! 2i : « it it 1 " 12 1 1,830 i 4.5 j 12.2 i 94.1 ! 0.7 7 6.9 34 j 24 j n n j. ! " 14 ! 1.720 i 5.0 : 12.6 I 98.3 0.7 I 460 6,8 21 i 27 IOHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS Sampling Point Milooqo From = _ Mooth i jgj* Average Oischurge c. f. *. Temp. °C Dissolved Oxygen 5 Day B. O. D. p. p. m. Coliforms M. P. N. Per ml. »H Turbidity p. p. m. Alkalinity p. p. m. Hardness p. p. m. p.p.m. % Sat. Big Sandy River, Sta. 0,3, 3am #1 Bs 0.3 } Ifer. 18 4.730 7.5 U.5 96.0 1.0 9 6.8 45 30 ....." I I.:.......?° 4,580 9.0 10.8 93.3 0.9 75 7.1 35 22 tf It i " » | « 22 5.630 g.5 10.8 92.5 0.6 93 6.8 32 23 tf tf ............................. •.......ZFZ- 1,960 4.0 12.1+ 94.5 1.0 9 6.7 20 25 if rt " 28 1,620 7-0 11.9 97.9 0.5 9 6.6 10 27 tt it II It Apr. 1 15730 9.5 9.7 85.O 1.5 110 6.8 260 19 ■ . 3 9.190 12.5 9-3 86.8 1.1 43 7.0 21 65 it tt It It 5 4,?4o 13.0 9.3 88.0 0.7 75 6.5 37 20 tf tt " " 9 3.720 11.5 10.8 98.8 0.6 23 6.7 25 2U tt tt tt tl " 11 3,620 U.5 10.1 92.3 0.6 43 6.7 18 25 * Seeded and neutra lized. ** Less than one ............... . ........ ' .............. .................................. ‘ o ...... ° ................ ' ......... Final Report to the Ohio River Committee Ohio River Pollution Survey U. S. Public Health Service Cincinnati, Ohio 19^2Contents Page Contents............................................469 Syllabus and Conclusions............. • 471 Description .......... ..... ..........474 Presentation of Field Data. .. ....................475 Presentation of Laboratory Data ....................478 Kydrometric Data..........................480 Discussion..........................................481 List of Tables Gy-1 Cost Estimates of Remedial Measures..........47? Gy-2 Surface Water Supplies.............476 Gy-3 Sources of Pollution...................477 Gy-4 Industrial Wastes (Omitted, not significant). --- Gy-5 Selected Laboratory Data......................479 Gy-6 Monthly Mean Summer Flows....................480 Gy-7 Summary of Laboratory Data....................482 List of Figures Gy-2 Chart - Sources of Pollution and Selected Laboratory Data...........(Facing) 476Syllabus and Conclusions Syllabus The Guyandot Basin, comprxsing 1,670 square miles in the mountains of southern West Virginia, is an important coal mining area and is similar to the Big Sandy River Basin to the west. Only about five percent of the total population of 148,000 is urban. Sanitary conditions are poor. Follution is uncontrolled, causes local damage and affects public water supplies. Acid mine drainage and coal washery wastes damage tributary streams. Techniques are available for abatement of the pollution but the needs of the people in other directions limit present justifiable correction to partial treatment. Conclusions (1) There are 17 public water supplies taken from surface sources, of which 5 are from streams receiving sewage from one or more communities above the water intake. At the largest of these, Logan, local sewage affects the water supply. (2) Sewage from a population of 23,900 is discharged without treatment. The Guyandot River is not heavily polluted. The largest sources of pollution are at Logan and Mullens. There are no organic industrial wastes of consequence although coal washery wastes and acid mine drainage damage a few trioutary streams. About half of the acid mine drainage load has been removed by sealing abandoned mines. * For maps of this Basin, see Big Sandy River Basin.(3) Laboratory studies show that the effects of pollution are primarily local and that the Guyandot River at Logan and above presents the major pollution problem. The streams recover rather quickly from the effects of pollution and are in relatively good condition at short distances below the sources of pollution. (4) Low-flow augmentation by flood-control reservoirs would not have any appreciable value for pollution abatement. (5) Primary treatment of all sewage would be sufficient to maintain good stream conditions at most places. At some communities, where stream flows approach zero, secondary treatment would be required to prevent local nuisances. Considering the present financial condition of the towns, justification for the expenditure beyond partial treatment is questionable. (6) A summary of cost estimates of remedial measures from Table Gy-1 follows: Treatment Capital Cost Annual Charges Existing 0 0 Suggested additional £530,000 £45,000 Estimated additional costs, over existing charges, of programs involving uniform treatment throughout the basin are: Primary, all places §530,000 $45,000 Secondary, all places 730,000 70,000473 Table Gy-1 Guyandot River Basin - Estimated Cost of Existing and Suggested Minimum Corrective Measures for Sewage and Industrial Wastes, with Comparative Costs for Primary and Secondary Treatment. Number of Plants Prim.Sec. Population Connected to Sewers Capital Investment (Dollars) Annual Amort. & Interest Charges (Dc Operation & Main. >llars) Total Existing Sewage Treatment - - 0 0 0 0 Suggested Minimum Correction Sewage Treatment Plants Required Interceptors Independent Industrial Waste Correction Total 13 0 19,700 300,000 230,000 20,000 10,000 15,000 35.000 10.000 530,000 30,000 15,000 45,000 Comparative Cost Primary Treatment All Waste Secondary Treatment All Waste As Suggested 550,000 730,000 530,000 30,000 47,000 30,000 15,000 23,000 15,000 45.000 70.000 45.000Description The Guyandot River drains 1,670 square miles of mountainous country in southern 'Vest Virginia and joins the Ohio River at Huntington, 7«'.Va. Its only important tributary is the Mud River which drains 358 square miles and joins the Guyandot seven miles above its mouth, with the development of coal mining the population of the basin has increased as shown below: 1910 1920 1930 1940 Rural 61,630 89,900 117,233 140,065 Urban - 2,998 4,396 8,192 Total 61,630 92,898 121,629 148,257 The only towns of urban size are Logan (population 5,166) and Mullens (population 3,026). Much of the rural population is in mining camps which are concentrated in the vicinity of Logan and in the extreme southeastern part of the basin. V.'ater Uses - The Guyandot is not navigable except near its mouth where it is affected by backwater from the Ohio. There are no hydroelectric power developments nor are there any proposed. No flood-control projects have been built but a reservoir above Milton on Mud River has been considered by the U. S. Engineer Department in connection with the authorized program for Ohio River flood control. The Guyandot and some of its tributaries are considered fairly good bass fishing streams and are extensively used by local residents, but there are no developed recreation areas.Figure Bs-i snows the location and magnitude of each source of pollution of consequence in the basin. Figure Gy-2 shows similar data and, in addition, the location of water supply intakes below sources of pollution and laboratory data on coliform organisms, dissolved oxygen and B.O.D. Public V/ater Supplies - Eighty-nine public water supplies in the basin serve 61,500 people. Only 17 of these are from surface sources and only five of the surface supplies come from streams subject to pollution. Table Gy-2 shows data on the surface supplies. The underground water is usually quite hard and is limited in quantity. A number of the communities use mine drainage as a source of water. Sewerage - Table Gy-3 shows the sewered population at each of the more important sources of pollution in the basin. Less than half of the people served by water supplies are connected to sewers. None of.the sewage is treated. In addition to this sewage, a considerable amount of polluting matter reaches the stream from insanitary privies overhanging the streams or on the stream banks. Garbage and other refuse is commonly dumped into the streams. Industrial Wastes - The only industry in the basin discharging. organic wastes is a small cannery at Milton. Most of the 25 coal washeries in the basin cause some pollution by the discharge of fine coal particles which make the streams turbid and blanket the bottom. The steam-electric power plant at Logan dumps ashes from about 900 tons of coal per day into the Guyandot River. Acid Mine Drainage - causes damage to some of the tributary streams but has no great effect on the main stream. Island Creek receives most of the acid drainage. The original acid load has been reduced by about 46$ by the mine sealing program formerly in operation in the area. Most of the remaining acid comes from active mines.Supply State Source Mile (1) Treat- ment (2) Pop. Served Consumption M 0G0D » Supplies Below Community Sewer Outfall Ls Logan W.Vae Guyandot River 82 FD 9,000 0*50 Man 11 ti it FD 1,000 0 e Oil. Milton ti Mud River 4 FD 1,1+00 0#06 Monaville 11 Island Creek, Mill Creek &b ILD 800 0e0i+ Amherstdale ti Mine-Buffalo Cre 99 D 700 O0O3 Other Surface Supplies Whitman W*Va» Mine-Whitman Cr0 8b FD 1,500 0.06 Shegon tt Well-Mud Fork 85 FD 600 0*0li Holden Mine #22 it " Pine Creek 9b ILD 500 O0O6 Omar (3) tt 11 Little Creek 9 2 D 2,000 0*15 Barnabus (3) 11 it it ti 92 D 200- 0*02 Stirrat (3) tt it tt tt 92 D 1,500 0«08 Slagle 11 Rum Creek-Well 9*4- D 700 0.03 Macbeth tt Mine-Small stream - D ij.00 0o02 Earling tt tt 11 11. - D 700 0o02 Amherstdale (Becco) it 11 i» it - None 800 0a0l+ Covel tt Small stream - (U) 300 0*01 Wacomah tt; 11 11 -Mine — None 100 0*01 Total - Below Sewer Outfalls 12,900 0*67 Other 9,300 0.51+ Total **. Surface Water Supplies 22,200 1.21 (1) Miles sbove mouth of Guyandot River * (2) F — Coagulated, settled, filtered, I — Iron removal, L - Lime-soda softened, D- Chlorinated0 (3) These three towns have separate systems and wells for use during summer. During the winter they are all served by supply from Little Creek above Stirrat* (I4.) Filtered, no coagulants*477 Table Gy~3 Guyandot River Basin - Sources of Significant Pollution Including Industrial Wastes, Expressed as Sewered Population Equivalent (B.O.D.) Municipality Receiving Stream Miles Above Mouth of Guyandot R. Population Connected to Sewers Treatment Sewered Population Equivalent (B.O.D.) Untreated Discharged Merrill Guyandot River 7Z 500 None 500 500 West Logan it II 7g 900 n 900 900 Peach Creek n ”-Peach Cr. I8 500 11 500 500 Logan (1) it "-Island Cr. 81 s,?oo II 5,?00 5,900 Stollings-McConne11 ii n a 83 600 II 6 00 600 Man n, "-Buffalo Cr. ?4 1,100 II 1,100 1,100 Pineville it II 143 700 II 700 700 Mullens ii "-Slab Pork 156 2,300 II 2,300 2,^00 Barboursville Mud River 8 1,400 II 1,400 1.L00 Milton it ii 2b 600 II 800 $00 Hamlin it ii & SCO tt 900 900 Holden Copperas Mine Pork 8k 1,000 II: 1,000 1,000 Holden Mine #22 Pine Creok & 500 II 500 500 Omar Island Cr.- -Pine Cr. &9 1,600 II 1,600 1,600 Helen Winding Gulf Cr.- Berry Branch 165 1,200 II 1,200 1,200 21 smaller sources - 4,200 II. 4,200 4,200 Total 23,900 - 24,100 24,100 (1) Including some adjoining communities.A tabulated summary of the laboratory results is presented in Table Gy-7. Selected data are in Table Gy-5. Laboratory observations in the Guyandot Basin were carried out largely by a mobile laboratory unit during Fovember and December, 1939. Observations at the mouth were made from two to four times monthly during the 10-month period from June, 1939 to April, 1940 by the laboratory boat Kiski from Ashland. The Kiski also made observations at Barboursville and along the Did River. Figures Bs-3, Bs-4 and Bs-5 present graphically on spot symbol maps the results of the coliform, dissolved oxygen and oxygen demand determinations at the several sampling points. The results thus presented are averages of from one to three determinations from those points sampled during a period of less than one month and represent the most unfavorable monthly average where observations were made over a period of several months. The Guyandot River above Logan presents the major pollution problem in the basin. Points below Logan and on the laid River show little pollution except at the mouth where the results are affected by Huntington’s sewage. The coliform and oxygen demand results are in good agreement as to the major sources of pollution - Helen, I.Tullens, !!an, <^mar, Holden and Logan being the more marked sources of pollution. The dissolved oxygen results presented a uniformly good picture. The stream recovered sufficiently between one source of pollution and the next to produce relatively good conditions at those stations above town. Considerable coliform and oxygen demand reduction is apparent in these stretches despite the rather cool weather. Stream flows in general were low during the sampling period except in the area sampled from the Kiski. Acid stream conditions were found along Island Creek and its tributary Copperas Mine Fork, pK values ranged from 4.5 to 5.2 and phenolphthalein acidities from about 20 to more than 200 p.p.m. The laboratory results indicate that the effects of pollution on the Guyandot were primarily local under the low stream flow conditions existing at most stations during the time of this survey. Biological Summary - The Guyandot is heavily polluted in the upper reaches by mine drainage, which renders that portion of the stream unsuitable for aquatic life. The plankton volume of less than 500 p.p.m. indicates that the entire stream is comparatively free from organic pollution.Table Gy-5 Guyandot River Basin - Selected Laboratory Data - Main Stream and Tributaries. River Location Guyandot above Mul] River below Lens Guyandol above Pine'v : River below rille Guyandol above Mt River below in Guyandot above Logan River Miles Above: Mouth of Guyandot I56.5 155.5 1^3*5 142.5 94.5 93.5 82 Period - 1959 Number of Samples 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 Flow in c.f.s.: Sampling Days — — 28 30 — Water Temperature °Ce 1-5 1*5 2«5 2.3 5*7 5.5 5«7 Coliforms per mla 46 66 330 2 242 7 Dissolved oxygen ppm. ^ , 9.6 13.0 11.9 12 „5 !3o5 13 .2 B.O.D.,5-day,p.p.m. 1.6 4«2 1.6 2.5 2.6 4.0 3*6 River Location Guyandot River ^aJ;er below Intake Logan Guyandot below Chapmans-ville Guyandot below Barbours- ville Winding Gulf Cr, below Helen Island Creek below Omar Copperas Mine Fk. below Holden River Miles Above: Mouth of Guyandot 81.5 80 77 7.5 164 « 5 88.5 84 Period - 1939 Number of Samples 3 3 2 1 2 2 2 Flow in c.f.s.: Sampling Days 37 a* p* Water Temperature °C. 5.0 10.3 6.5 1.5 3.5 5.8 7*3 Coliforms per ml« 64 118 ^ , 0 1,750 , 1,670 41 Dissolved oxygen ppm. 1-3.3 7.7 11.4 13.6 9.6 8.I4. 8.9 B.O.D.,5-day,p.p.m. 2.8 3.1 1.6 0.6 26.4 21.2 13.2 * Less than one#Four stream gaging stations have been maintained in the Guyandot Basin at various times and two are currently operated. Table 6y-6 3hows mean monthly flows during the summer months at these two stations for some of the dryer years of record. Table Gy-6 Guyandot River Basin - Monthly Mean Summer Plows for Years in Which Lowest Summer Plows have Occurred. River Location Guyandot River Man Guyandot River Branchiand River Miles Above: Mouth of Guyandot 9k 3k Drain. Area Sq. MI. 762 1,226 Period of Record 1929-I4.0 1929-14.0 Year 1930 3-93° June c.f.s. 53.5 79-8 July " 12.3 1S.1 August 11 L(2.1 i+8.k September 11 9.5 21.8 Year 1932 1932 June 11 923 1 ,l+.6o July ” 956 2,090 Augu st n 186 2h5 , September 11 Year 1939 1939 June 11 730 833 July 11 69O 1,010 August 11 152 25k September n 37 50.5 Low-flow Regulation - There are no flood-control or hydroelect rXTnFeservoiri^TrTTbe basin at present. One reservoir has been authorized by the Congress as part of the comprehensive program for Ohio River flood control. This is on the Mud River above Milton and could be operated to increase the minimum flow below the reservoir by about 22 c.f.s. However, this additional flow would not reduce the degree of treatment required at downstream communities and the benefits would be largely Intangible.Discussion The pollution problems of the Guyandot are primarily local ones. At most of the communities primary treatment of all sewage would be sufficient to maintain good oxygen conditions. At some of the towns on tributaries, stream flows become so low that secondary treatment probably would be needed to prevent local nuisances. At Logan, sewage from the adjoining communities should be intercepted and treated with Logan's wastes. This is particularly desirable in the case of Stollings and McConnell whose sewage enters the Guyandot above Logan’s water intake. Because of the local nature of the pollution problems of the basin and the character of the communities it is suggested that partial treatment of all sewage be provided. Secondary treatment can be added as community finances permit. Most of the coal washeries are equipped to recover the fine particles which now enter the streams at some of the plants. Those washeries not now equipped to recover the sludge should be so equipped and greater care in operation should be practiced to prevent the discharge of coal dust to the streams. The estimated cost of the suggested pollution abatement program is summarized in Table Gy-1.OHIO RIVER POLLUTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS Sampling Point Mileoge From Mouth Date ......l&lft....... Average J Discharge ] c. f. *. ! Temp. °C Dissolved Oxygen ; p. p. m. 1 % Sal. j 5 Day B. O. D. p. p. m Coliforms ; m. p. n. ; Par ml. \ »H Turbidity ! p. p. m. j Alkalinity p. p. m. Hardness p. p. m. Winding Gulf Creek Gy’% 165.5 Nov. 13 **•5 i2.g i 98.8 ; 1.7 46 j 7.9 5 1 173 < ,, • . | it 16 1.0 12.0 j SU.l j 2.3 23 : 7.8 110 j 211 305 ill! 1 j| 1 i finding Gulf Creek GyWg I6U.5 Nov. 13 7.0 10.8 j 88.7 i 38.6 1,100 j 7.7 93: 171 ii ii » » 16 0.0 8.5 ! 57.9 i lU.2 2,1*00 i 7-9 15! 189 295 ; ! ! { J Guyandot River - Above Gy 156.5 Kov. 13 3-0 13.1! 96.9 1 1.5 ; 7.9 5 i 152 1 n ii II II " 16 0.0 j 13.5 1 92.6 1.7 46 j 7.6 12 i 148 195 j j Guyandot River - Below II tt ■ 16 0.0 i 10.0 i 68.2 U.6 39 I 7.6 31 131* 215 ! i i i Guyandot River - Below mouth Barkers Creek Gy 152.5 Nov. 13 2.5 i 10.6-j 77.5 3-7 46o ; 7.7 2 i 1U2 i „ 7.8 8 i 128 175 Guyandot River - Above Gy IU3.5 Nov. 13 u.o i 11-9 i 90.9 1.7 *+ ! 7.8 3 115 II M ■ 11 lb 1.0 : 1U.0: 98.7 1.6 ** ! 7.7 3 106 4oi i i ; i i | I Guyandot River - Below Gy 1U2.5 Kov. 13 3.5 j 10.9i 81.9 2.7 ^3017.7 5 113 ii ii " | " 16 1.0 i 12.8j 90.2 2.U I 230; 7.6 0 l?5 117 ! j ! j S j Guyandot River - Above Gy 9^-5 Nov. 27 5.5 1 13.3:105.3 2.0 7.6 6 i 101 120 tt ii II ■ 11 30 6.0 i i2.2; 98.2 1.0 1 i 7.6 2 ] 103 . n Dec. 5 5.5 1 u>9 93-9 5.0 2: 7.5 2 j 91 III! i j j Buffalo Creek - Above GyB 9**-5 : Nov. 27 2 5.0 1 11,3 ■ 88.0 2.6 ; U6°! 7-** 5 i 44 320 It II n tt " 30 2 6.0 i 11.6 i 93.2 2.4 **3 1 6.9 2 i 50 " II i Deo. 5 2 5.0 1 11.5! 90.0 4.1 : 1*601 7.0 23 i 46 ! 1 1 i Ouyandot River - near Gy 93.5 ! Nov. 30 27 i 5.5 j 12.8; 101.0 2.1 23 j 7.6 0 j 151 it ii [ It tt ! Dec. 5 33 5.5 i 1U.31113.1 5-9 : U60 i 7.7 3 | 97 Guyandot River - below ........-....... Gy 93 Nov. 27 3°' 6.5 ; 13.7 j 111.1 2.4 7 | 7.9 2 95 i 120 i • i • s ! ! Guywidot River - above Logani W. Ye. oy 82 Nov. 27 1 6.0 j 12.U! 99.7 3-1 .. 7.6 0 ! 94 120 n » " | * 30 6.5 : i2i6| 102.1 j ** ! 7-6 0 i 99 n it It ■ I Dec. 5 **•5 1 i^-7; 113.6 4.0 ! 214 I 7.6 2 | 106 . j j i | j j i i (JuyBnilot fiver Qy 81.5 i Nov. 27 6.0 1 13.1 10U.6 3.0 ! 93 ; 7.7 12 1 89 180 " tt ft 1 " 30 *♦•5 i 12.6I 97-1* 1.6 75 i 7.6 3 i 95 It 11 " tt : Dec. 5 **•5 : iU.3 j 109.9 3-8 1 23 I 7.5 2 i 97 i III: i i Islpnd Creek-near sewer Gy I S8.5 ! Nov. 30 i 8.0 j 6-7: 56.2 i 19.9 : 2,4oo i 7.1 18 i 116 n ti " II Dec. 5 3.5 i 10.0; 75.6 22.5 i 930 i 7.1 87 j 105 ! | i j i | i j Island Creek - below Gyl 33.0 i Nov. 27 7.0 111.5: 9^.2 7-2 91 : 7.7 18 i 75 1U0TABLE Gy-7 GUYANDOT RIVSR BASIN OHIO RIVER i'OU.UTION SURVEY LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS Sompiing Point Milooo© From Mouth [Avocob.; Temp IslfTid ffreek - below Monitor, W. Va. ; 5 Day DiichargeJ Tr' • •/>*<» {B.O.D am...i......I....i P:P:"1L, : jts± Coliforms M. P. N. Per ml. | Gyl S5.0 } Nov. 23 } j 1.5 j 11.8 I 84.2 | 2.3 36 pH 6.8 Turbidity I Alkalinity p. p. m. ! p. p. m. S j 26 20 ! 1,800 ; 21 580 ! Dec. l| j 7-5 ;i0.5js7.2 i 4.8 | ** ! " 6 j j 6.0 ! 11.0 j 38.3 ! 1.1 ! 4 5.2 6.4 Copperas Mine Fork Below Holden. W. Va. { GylCm 84 } Nov. 28 | » « | Dec. 1 i 5-0 ! 9.8 ; 76.6 j 15.5 ! **3 I 9.5 I 7.9 I 69.3 j 11.0 | 39 5-2 4.8 260 395 ;2,070 Island Creek At.Jdouii_______ l C5yI 81 | 13ov. 28 | 2 1 1.5 i 10,2 ! 72._3 ! 8.2 | 280 | n n { Dec. l| 3 i 8.0 j 8.0:67.6 | 9-5 I 230 | » « ] " 6j 3 I 6-5 j 9-7 j 73-^ j 3-6 i 91 5.*_ 4.5 M 220 165 520 900 Guysndot Hiver - below { - gQ \ Nov> 2g I 35:9.0 j 8.1170.0 : 1. ..............= ............5 s I 1 ! • [Dec. i\ 34 ii3.o i 6.91 65.5 : 2.3 91 240 23 *+3 7.1 7.1 6.8 .1:1 7.2 20 j 71 75 **5 61 42 I 9.0 i 8.2 j 70.6 : 5.1 13 Guyandot River - Bridge { at Heniawson, W. Va. I ^ Kov. 28 j 35 ; 8.0 j 7-5 j 63.1 j 2.4 32 _ 2 250 :. 1 | 34 ill,5 : 6.6; 60.3 i 1.6 Guyandot River - below CjMPAauLvi He,. _'l. _ V a.... Gy 77 Kov. 28} 35 ; 5.0 j 11.8 ;92.0 i 1.6 Dec. lj 34 i 8.0 j 11.0:92.4 ; 1.6 7.»+ 7.*+ 60 240 Guyandot River - 2 miles Ata.--Sartonrsxi lie ,. M. -Va.. Gy 10 Dec. 15 j j 1.5 ;i3.2i94.2 j 0.6 ! 1940 Jml.__.19. i 1.0 j 13.61 95.7 : 2.0 j 1 0.0 ; 10.3 j 70.6 i 0.6 j *• 6.8 16} i 1.0 j 13-5 i 95-1 • o.6_ j 11 23! j U.5 i 12.3 i 94.7 i 0.6 j tl tt Mar. 15 j j 3-5 i 12.2j 91.9 ! 0.4 ! 23 " 281 | 9.0 | 11.6 |l00.3 i 0.2 i 0 Apr. 4| 116.5 : 9.3:9**.3 ■ o.4 : 15 ------------1 1--------1 ........•..........:■......... Mar. 29 | i 12.5j 10.1 i 94.2 j 0.2 • 23 Apr. 4) i 1U.5 | 9.3 | SO.6 i 0.3 | 15 Hud «iver - 0.1 above Haalin,-J<.__Ya..-St£~-it3- GyM 45 it 11 Mud River - 1.1 mi. belojtSamlij^.iL.Xa. OyM 43 Mar. 29 | j 12.0 j 9-9 j 91.4 j 0.2 j 23 6.8 Apr. 4 | 15.5! 9.0j89.1 i 0.5 | 39 6.9 OyM 25 Mar. 28 } Apr. 4 | 9.5 | 11.1 j 96.9 j 0.3 | **3 13.5 j 9.2|88.3 i 0.8 | 15 Xud River - 1.1 mi. 3p.1nw Milton, W. 7a. GyM 23 Mar. 28 I Apr. 4 I 9.0 i 11.1i 95.6 : 0.5 : 9 14.0 j 9-2i 88.3 I i.o i 43 6.7 30 6.8 33 25 Guyandot R.-Below Corp. Barliauraxille,_Jf-__Ve.-_. Gy 7-5 1939 I 1940 f .Jaa,_..1S.{ Feb. 1.5 i 13.61 96.7 | 0.6 - 0 1.0 : 13.7; 96.3 i 2.4 i 9 7.0 2 ! 0.5 j 10.4 i 72.4 | 0.7 j 2 1.0 i 13.3 j 53.7 | 0.9 i 110 6.9 6.8 6.6 5 | 60 12 j 39 5 | **U 60 : 19 161OHIO RIVER FCU.UTICN SURVEY LABOKaI ORY 'DATA SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL. RESULTS ----------------- Avorage | Discharge J cU ! Turbidity p. p. m. Alkalinity j Hardnen p. p. m. | pp. m. Sampling Point Mouth Date ...........Ida.] ; p.p.*. : % Sol. B. O. D. P p. *. M.P. N. Par ml 1 pH ‘filler tforp. 'i. Y-^ Gy 7.5 Feb. 23 4.0 : 12.3 i 93-6 1.1 9 ! 6.7 70 15 i ir tt Mar. 15 3-5 1 12.2 | 92.0 0.8 9 : 6.6 24 20 i ii n tt » tt 28 9.0 i 11.7 jlOl.O 0.3 4 j 6.6 6 is i tl It ■ « Apr. 4 115.51 9.5' 94.1 0.4 24 1 6.9 9 15 i ! ! ! 1 Guyandot River - Cabell Qy 0.1 420 26.5 I 6.8 84.0 1.3 240 i 7.2 110 23 i tt tt 29 i,6oo i 25.0 i 6.7 79-9 0.8 460 ; 700 16 : „ it It July 7 3.**75 j 25.5 | 6.4 77.1 1.8 11,000 i 7.2 600 19 | tt tt ii " - 13 690:25.5; 7.1 85.6 0.4 240 i 7.5 150 18 j ii it ■ II II 21 2,247 j 23.0 j 7.6 87.3 1.4 460 | 7.2 380 30 : . ti tl tl 27 931 ; 27.0 j 7.2 i 89.0 0.9 93 ! 7.2 15 26 : ti ti ii » Aug. u 674 j 25-5 | 6.8 81.8 1.1 460 : 7-1* 100 26 ! . n tt tt 10 349 25-5 S 6.8 81.3 0.9 240 j 7-3 28 32 1 ti n „ tt 18 515 26.5 j 6.1 74.8 1.2 390 1 7.3 210 44 | . it U ii 24 182 25.5 | 6.8 81.9 1.3 430 i 7-5 22 42 i ii . n n tt Sept. 1 96 24.0! 7.4 86.2 2.2 430 : 7.2 20 46 j » tt • ■ 6 124 23.51 6.0 69.8 1.2 4,600 j 7-3 20 49 i . . ti tl " l4 08 24.5 i 4.1 48.5 2.9 11,000 1 7.^ 10 60 i , ii ti - 20 53 23.0: 6.9 79-** 1.4 2,400 1 6.7 5 44 i . ■ it 28 47 23.0i 0.1 0.9 4.3 4,600 i 7.5 22 62 j n tt it n Oct. 6 58 19.0 i 6.4 68.2 2.1 2,400 | 7.6 18 53 : it tt ■ " - 12 52 20.0 ! 4.5 49.1 1.7 930 : 7.5 8 52 : ii ti tt II " 20 39 16.5 j 5.8 59.1 4.4 4,600 i 7.5 22 45 | tt tt it tl » 24 33 15.0 i 4.5 44.3 7.6 4,300 i 7.2 17 42 : ii tt - Nov. 3 50 10.0 1 8.4 73. S 4.5 930 i 7.2 23 49 : » . " 9 52 9.0 jio.7 92.2 1.4 91 i 7.1 6 3i 1 . ti It " 1? 47 9.0; 9.8 84.7 17.0 11,000 : 6.9 17 49 j ii tt • " " 27 60 7.0 I 9.2 75.3 6.6 11,000 j 7.2 24 63 i it ti « « Dec. 5 83 5.5 ixo.o 79.1 5-2 1,500 I 7.2 12 59 i ii n " n II 15 85 4.5 110.3 79.3 5.8 91 i 7.0 8 59 i • " tt tt " 21 117 6,5 ;10.3 *3.5 150 i 7.4 9 64 | * ■ it Dec. 28 144 1.0 j 12.8 89.6 ! 1.8 .460 i 7.2 9 j 55 1 it n » » 19H0 Feb. 21 4.3*7 5.0 i 11.9 93.1 i 0.8 11 i 6.5 90 ; 17 i n tt « • - 27 3.350 j 3.0 j 12.6 53.8 1.5 460 17.0 42 16 1 ti it - - Kar. 8 2,200 5.0 j 11.6 91.0 j 0.6 23 : 6.9 25 19 I tt ii - - It 12 924 5.0 112.3 96.2 1.5 21 : 6.9 6 17 1 it m it » ■ tl 20 1,860 9.0 i 11.1 96.0 0.8 75 i 7.1 80 21 i . ii » tl 28 756 7.0 j 11.7 96.0 0.4 15 1 6.5 4 !9 j - » - Apr. 5 3.594 13.0 | 9.3 87.8 0.6 93 1 6.5 15 16 : ti tt " • " 11 2.323 11.5 i 10.2 92.8 0.7 93 : 6.6 20 17 :