4
Causes of Water Quality Impairment

Chapter 3 provides an overview of water quality standards and the types of water quality problems in southwestern Pennsylvania. In this chapter the causes of impairments to waters that prevent their designated uses are discussed with an emphasis on those caused by improper human waste disposal methods.

Waters can be impaired for any of their designated uses and by a variety of contaminants. Any waterbody that does not meet ambient water quality standards pertaining to its designated use after elimination of point source pollution through applicable technology is considered impaired. Table 4-1 summarizes designated uses and the parameters used for evaluating impairment in Pennsylvania. It should be noted that some causes of aquatic life use impairment are not susceptible to physical or chemical analysis of water samples, including siltation, other habitat alteration, and flow alteration or variability. When these are the primary causes of water quality degradation, bioassessment protocols (discussed in Chapter 3; see also Box 5-2) must be used in lieu of chemical analyses. For other causes of aquatic life impairment that might be measured by physical or chemical analysis of water samples, no water quality criteria exist (e.g., suspended solids, turbidity, oil and grease). Conversely, some water quality criteria exist for which no related cause of impairment is obvious, including color and alkalinity. Thus, there is rarely a one-to-one correlation between impairments and parameters that can be measured by chemical analyses.

Whereas the list of potential pollutants and conditions that cause impairment for aquatic life use is long, single causes of impairment exist for recreational use and for human health use in Pennsylvania. The recreational use of water is impaired by the presence of microbial pathogens, for which fecal and total coliforms are used as indicators.1 Because surface waters are presumed to be treatable for the production of potable water, the health aspect for human use is not drinking water but rather fish consumption. In other words, waters are not considered “impaired” for use as drinking water sources because of the extensive treatment that is routinely performed on these sources, particularly surface water. It should be noted that private well owners are not required currently by state or federal regulations to monitor for contaminants or to treat their drinking water.

1  

Waters containing high levels of indicator organisms are sometimes termed “impaired for pathogens,” although this usage can be misleading. The intent is that these waters exceed the surface water standards for a specific stream segment classification based upon fecal indicator monitoring, such as fecal coliforms, Escherichia coli, and/or enterococci. The relationship of indicator counts to pathogen presence depends on the source of pollution resulting in the indicator standard exceedence, such as sewage, agricultural runoff, or nonpoint source contamination from feral animals (see NRC, 2004, for further information).



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 100
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania 4 Causes of Water Quality Impairment Chapter 3 provides an overview of water quality standards and the types of water quality problems in southwestern Pennsylvania. In this chapter the causes of impairments to waters that prevent their designated uses are discussed with an emphasis on those caused by improper human waste disposal methods. Waters can be impaired for any of their designated uses and by a variety of contaminants. Any waterbody that does not meet ambient water quality standards pertaining to its designated use after elimination of point source pollution through applicable technology is considered impaired. Table 4-1 summarizes designated uses and the parameters used for evaluating impairment in Pennsylvania. It should be noted that some causes of aquatic life use impairment are not susceptible to physical or chemical analysis of water samples, including siltation, other habitat alteration, and flow alteration or variability. When these are the primary causes of water quality degradation, bioassessment protocols (discussed in Chapter 3; see also Box 5-2) must be used in lieu of chemical analyses. For other causes of aquatic life impairment that might be measured by physical or chemical analysis of water samples, no water quality criteria exist (e.g., suspended solids, turbidity, oil and grease). Conversely, some water quality criteria exist for which no related cause of impairment is obvious, including color and alkalinity. Thus, there is rarely a one-to-one correlation between impairments and parameters that can be measured by chemical analyses. Whereas the list of potential pollutants and conditions that cause impairment for aquatic life use is long, single causes of impairment exist for recreational use and for human health use in Pennsylvania. The recreational use of water is impaired by the presence of microbial pathogens, for which fecal and total coliforms are used as indicators.1 Because surface waters are presumed to be treatable for the production of potable water, the health aspect for human use is not drinking water but rather fish consumption. In other words, waters are not considered “impaired” for use as drinking water sources because of the extensive treatment that is routinely performed on these sources, particularly surface water. It should be noted that private well owners are not required currently by state or federal regulations to monitor for contaminants or to treat their drinking water. 1   Waters containing high levels of indicator organisms are sometimes termed “impaired for pathogens,” although this usage can be misleading. The intent is that these waters exceed the surface water standards for a specific stream segment classification based upon fecal indicator monitoring, such as fecal coliforms, Escherichia coli, and/or enterococci. The relationship of indicator counts to pathogen presence depends on the source of pollution resulting in the indicator standard exceedence, such as sewage, agricultural runoff, or nonpoint source contamination from feral animals (see NRC, 2004, for further information).

OCR for page 100
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania TABLE 4-1 Parameters Found in Water Quality Standards to Measure Impairment of Aquatic Life, Human Health, and Recreational Water Use in Pennsylvania Designated Use Impairment Causes in 303(d) Report Water Quality Parameter to Determine Impairment Aquatic life Metals Iron, manganese   Acidity pH Nutrients Nitrite plus nitrate Salinity, total dissolved solids, chlorides Total dissolved solids, chlorides, osmotic pressure Other inorganics Sulfate Organic enrichment Dissolved oxygen Thermal modification Temperature Toxicity Ammonia nitrogen, fluoride, phenolics Excess algae growth Not listed Siltation Not listed Other habitat alteration Not listed Suspended solids Not listed Turbidity Not listed Flow alteration; water or flow variability Not listed Oil and grease Not listed Chlorine Not listed Pesticides Not listed Human health Chemicals in fish Federal food and drug standards used Recreation Pathogens (surrogate) Fecal coliforms, total coliforms   SOURCE: PADEP, 2002. As explained above, impairment of waters for designated uses can be determined by comparison of water quality to standards for specified uses or by bioassessment protocols. Causes of impairment may be determined by physical, chemical, or biological analysis of water samples; bioassessment protocols; or observation of environmental conditions in a reach of a stream or river. Causes of impairment are identified by descriptors such as siltation, metals, pH, low dissolved oxygen, and nutrients. However, the 2004 Pennsylvania Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report (PADEP, 2004a) does not present data on concentrations of impairment-causing contaminants or data on the degree to which water quality is impaired. Without detailed data for each reach of stream or river, it is not possible to determine how severely surface waters are impaired, even when impairment is caused by one or more pollutants. According to the most recent assessment of surface water by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (PADEP, 2004a), 83,161 miles of streams (82 percent of total) in Pennsylvania have been assessed, and the remaining 15,182 stream-miles (18 percent) are scheduled for assessment. Of those assessed, 57,801 river-miles (82 percent) support their aquatic life and fish use designations, and 10,762 (18 percent of the assessed and 13 percent of the total stream-miles) are classified as impaired. The two largest sources of impairments specified are abandoned mine drainage (4,040 miles impaired) and agriculture (3,903 miles impaired). Three sources related to runoff (urban runoff, road runoff, and small residential runoff) account for an additional 3,007 miles impaired. Four sources related to wastewater handling and treatment (municipal point sources, on-site wastewater, combined sewer overflows, and package plants) account for 744 miles impaired.

OCR for page 100
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania Pennsylvania has 215 significant lakes totaling 98,942 acres.2 A total of 75,543 acres have been assessed, with 30,346 (40 percent) supporting their designated aquatic life use and 45,197 (60 percent) showing impairment. Of 28,665 lake-acres assessed for fish consumption use, 99 percent are impaired with unacceptable concentrations of mercury and/or polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). A total of 64,588 lake-acres have been assessed for contact recreation, with 98 percent supporting this use. Only 1,237 lake-acres are impaired due to pathogens (1,150) and nutrients (174). Major sources of impairments for lakes were agriculture, “other,” and “unknown.” Human waste-related sources including on-site sewage treatment and disposal systems (OSTDSs or “septic systems”), municipal point sources, and runoff were responsible for smaller areas of lake impairment. In addition to assessing streams and lakes for specific impairments, Pennsylvania also monitors the concentrations of several toxicants in fish tissue. Nationally, 28 percent of assessed lake-acres and almost 14 percent of river-miles in the United States are under restricted consumption advisories (EPA, 2003a). In Pennsylvania, a statewide advisory for all surface waters was recently issued for mercury in fish.3 Specific fish consumption advisories in southwestern Pennsylvania include an advisory on high PCB levels in fish caught in the region’s three main stem rivers as well as in the Beaver River, Chartiers Creek, Little Chartiers Creek, and the Mahoning and Shenango Rivers. Advisories on the pesticide chlordane were issued for the Monongahela River, Chartiers Creek, Little Chartiers Creek, and the Cheat River. SOURCES OF POLLUTION As described above, the major causes of surface water quality impairment within the state of Pennsylvania are (1) acid mine drainage, (2) agriculture, (3) urban and stormwater runoff, and (4) wastewater. Likewise, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program (as reported in Anderson et al., 2000; see also Appendix B) identified the following causes of surface water quality impairment in the Allegheny and Monongahela River basins: (1) coal mine discharge, (2) urban runoff, and (3) agricultural runoff. However, the NAWQA study did not include pathogen or indicator organism data collection, which could have implicated wastewater as a major source of surface water contamination. Evaluation of water quality data in the region by this committee (discussed in Chapter 3) indicates that wastewater-related impairment of surface waters is a significant source of microbial loading to surface waters. HUMAN AND OTHER WASTE DISPOSAL As discussed in Chapter 2, human waste disposal methods in southwestern Pennsylvania have developed over time to include individual home on-site sewage treatment and disposal systems (OSTDSs), decentralized small systems, and centralized collection sewers and treatment 2   An additional 146 public waterways are used as lakes but do not have the 14-day retention time required for designation as a “lake.” These are monitored but not included in the totals above. 3   For further information, see http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/Wqp/WQStandards/FishAdvis/fishadvisory04.htm.

OCR for page 100
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania systems. All of these systems, if not operating or maintained properly, have the potential to adversely affect the region’s water quality. The most critical effect of improperly treated human waste is the release of pathogenic microorganisms to waterways; however, human waste also contains suspended solids, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and nutrients that can adversely affect water quality if released improperly. Centralized wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are utilized in the region’s urban areas, while OSTDSs are commonly used in more sparsely populated (rural) areas where the cost of conveyance to a centralized treatment plant is often prohibitive. Figure 4-1 shows the distribution of WWTPs and OSTDSs in southwestern Pennsylvania. Of the 1,172,274 households in southwestern Pennsylvania reported in the 1990 U.S. census,4 76 percent were on public sewers connected to WWTPs, while 23 percent were utilizing some sort of on-lot septic systems. Notably, 11,289, or 1 percent, reported neither sewers nor on-lot disposal; these homes may use cesspools or straight pipes that discharge directly to surface water or groundwater, they may be served by older substandard or unknown treatment systems that pre-date permitting programs, or they may simply represent the residents’ lack of knowledge about the treatment system. FIGURE 4-1 Human waste disposal methods by county in southwestern Pennsylvania. NOTE: Black (centralized WWTP); gray (on-site systems); white (“other;” e.g., cesspools, straight pipes). SOURCE: Data from WSIP, 2002. 4   Notably, the 2000 census did not include a question regarding the mode of wastewater treatment for the household as in previous years.

OCR for page 100
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania As shown in Table 4-2, there are more than 1,100 industrial, municipal, and nonmunicipal sanitary sewage dischargers in the area that have been granted National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP). Of these, 96 are classified as “major sources,” including 32 industrial sources, 63 municipal sources, and 1 nonmunicipal sanitary sewage source. Industrial sources are classified as major based on a combination of flow and quality criteria as established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A nonindustrial source is classified as major if the permitted discharge rate exceeds 1 million gallons per day. About 50 percent of the NPDES permits are for nonmunicipal sanitary sewage wastewater disposal, although only one of these is classified as a major source. How well these systems are operated would require further investigation, but the general problem of operating small wastewater disposal systems in compliance with permit requirements is well known (see, for example, EPA, 2003b). Wastewater Treatment Plants Centralized wastewater collection and treatment systems convey wastewater from individual homes and businesses to a wastewater treatment plant where multiple-stage treatment removes total suspended solids (TSS), BOD, nutrients, and pathogenic microorganisms (and their microbial indicators), such that the effluent from wastewater treatment plants is significantly less contaminated than the influent and meets NPDES discharge requirements. Nutrient levels can be further reduced with tertiary biological treatment when necessary. Table 4-3 summarizes influent and effluent parameters for typical domestic sewage through primary (settling) and secondary (biological) treatment. In addition to indicator organisms (such as fecal coliforms, included in Table 4-3), specific pathogens are common in raw sewage and in wastewater effluents. For example, Chauret et al. (1995) reported an arithmetic mean of 1,730 Cryptosporidium oocysts per 100 L in untreated domestic sewage at Ottawa, Canada. Madore et al. (1987) examined sewage in TABLE 4-2 Number of Permitted Wastewater Dischargers in Southwestern Pennsylvania by Countya and Classification County Industrial Municipal Nonmunicipal Other All Major All Major All Major All Major Allegheny 97 10 48 21 80 0 225 31 Armstrong 21 2 14 3 35 0 70 5 Beaver 51 8 21 14 51 0 123 22 Fayette 19 0 28 2 62 0 109 2 Greene 8 1 11 1 22 0 41 2 Indiana 23 3 28 1 46 0 97 4 Somerset 17 0 25 1 52 0 94 1 Washington 32 5 30 9 75 0 137 14 Westmoreland 53 3 37 11 134 1 224 15 Total 321 32 242 63 557 1 1,120 96 aDoes not include Butler and Lawrence Counties of southwestern Pennsylvania (see Box 1-2). SOURCE: Compiled from data provided by Renee Larry, PADEP, July 2004.

OCR for page 100
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania TABLE 4-3 Influent and effluent Parameters for Typical Domestic Sewage Source 5-Day BOD5(mg/L) TSS (mg/L) Total N (mg/L) Total P (mg/L) Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100 mL) Influent 110-400 100-350 20-85 4-15 107-109 Effluent from secondary treatment <5-30 <5-30 15-25 <1-5 <200 NOTE: CFU = colony forming units. SOURCES: Adapted from Metcalf and Eddy, 1991 and WEF, 1999. Arizona and found 85,000 to 1,370,000 oocysts per 100 L in raw sewage. Studies have also demonstrated that although conventional sewage treatment can achieve greater than 90 percent removal of Cryptosporidium oocysts, treated wastewater effluent can still contain measurable concentrations of oocysts (Chauret et al., 1995; Desvousges et al., 1987). Similarly, Giardia cyst removal can be greater than 90 percent in conventional sewage treatment (Caccio et al., 2003; Sykora et al., 1986). Sewage typically contains a variety of chemical contaminants disposed of by consumers and industries. Toxic chemicals released to the sewage system are believed to be partially removed through wastewater treatment; however, the EPA estimates that 25 percent of these toxic substances pass through sewage treatment to receiving waters (EPA, 1997). More than 1.4 billion pounds of toxic chemicals were sent to sewage treatment plants in the United States between 1992 and 1996—50 percent more than the amount directly released to waterways during that same period (Puchalsky and LaPlante, 1998). The preceding discussion suggests that although treated wastewater effluent continues to contain indicator microorganisms, pathogens, and chemicals that may escape treatment or removal, the major water quality concern is when downstream drinking water treatment fails or such systems become overloaded. When this occurs, as it did in Mckeesport, Pennsylvania, in 1983-1984 (see Box 3-4), untreated or inadequately treated drinking water can be supplied to consumers, which constitutes a distinct public health threat. Small Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Failures Many small wastewater treatment entities in isolated, low-income rural counties in the Central Appalachians struggle to operate and maintain facilities, make necessary repairs, and maintain financial health. In many of these rural areas, water quality problems are in part attributable to these facilities. For example, Kentucky’s PRIDE assessment project5—a coalition of government, academic, and volunteer groups addressing regional water pollution problems in 38 counties in southeastern Kentucky—has identified small municipal wastewater treatment plants and small package treatment plants, in addition to straight pipes and failing septic systems, as major pathogen sources in the area’s watersheds. Many of these facilities have malfunctioned because of improper operation and maintenance. South of southwestern Pennsylvania, the Morgantown (West Virginia) Utility Board is beginning a sewer extension project to serve White’s Run, a tributary to Cheat Lake, a popular recreational waterbody in the area.6 Water quality in White’s Run has been adversely affected not only by failing OSTDSs but also by nine 5   For further information, see http://pride.uky.edu/pollutionsources.cfm. 6   More information on this project is available on-line at http://www.mub.org/eng.htm.

OCR for page 100
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania privately owned package wastewater treatment plants, many of which were failing or overloaded beyond capacity. Throughout Pennsylvania, many small communities experience problems with antiquated sewage treatment facilities and, particularly in southwestern Pennsylvania, older systems that are overloaded during heavy rainfalls (Strawley, 2002). Within the Redbank Creek watershed in the Allegheny River basin, a package plant was implicated in water quality impairment of Fivemile Run (WRAS, 2003a). The Pennsylvania infrastructure Investment Authority (PENNVEST) lists a number of loans to small communities during 2002 and 2003 to correct these types of problems.7 Even with new or upgraded facilities, communities must be able to support adequate operation and maintenance of their systems, a need that can be difficult for small utilities to meet. For this reason, several programs have been targeted for assisting small wastewater facilities in Pennsylvania. Section 104(g)(1) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) authorizes funding for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator On-Site Assistance Training Program. This program provides on-site operator training, financial management, troubleshooting, and other operation and maintenance assistance to small underserved communities through a network of operator training personnel, peer trainers, EPA regional office coordinators, state and regional training centers, and state programs. The PADEP’s Division of Technical Training and Outreach has administered not only this program but also a Drinking Water and Wastewater Operator Information Center, resources to assist local governments, and a variety of financial assistance programs. Due to budgetary and staffing concerns, PADEP plans to discontinue regularly scheduled basic operator training courses during 2004; instead, these will be offered by approved academic, association, and private sector providers. The division will continue to provide outreach and technical assistance for small community systems. Several nonprofit organizations help small rural utilities with many of the aforementioned challenges. The Pennsylvania Rural Water Association (PRWA), a member-supported nonprofit organization and state associate of the National Rural Water Association, provides training, technical assistance, and “circuit-rider” assistance in operation, maintenance, and management to its small water and wastewater utility members. The PRWA also assists communities in developing and adopting groundwater protection plans and is a partner in the Pennsylvania Water Well Owner Network. The Rural Community Assistance Program (RCAP) provides guidance, training, and technical assistance for a variety of rural concerns, from community and leadership development to rural housing and health care. Through a partnership agreement with EPA, RCAP supports assistance programs for small water and wastewater facilities through the Small Community Wastewater Project.8 In a study of small, rural Appalachian communities in Tennessee, teams from the University of Tennessee and Tennessee Technological University found that inadequate wastewater treatment was associated with a variety of socioeconomic factors distinctive of isolated communities (MTAS, 1997). Box 4-1 reviews these factors, many of which are commonly found in southwestern Pennsylvania’s rural areas, and thus are important to consider in crafting solutions to the region’s wastewater problems (Ann Bargerstock, Greene County Planning Commission, personal communication, 2002; Barbara McMillen, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service, personal communication, 2002, 2003). 7   See PENNVEST press releases 11/20/02, 05/07/03, 07/23/03, 11/19/03, available on-line at http://www.pennvest.state.pa.us/pennvest/cwp/browse.asp?A=11&BMDRN=2000&BCOB=0&C=43125. 8   Further information about this program can be found on-line at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mab/smcomm/1rcap.htm.

OCR for page 100
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania BOX 4-1 Small Rural Communities Study In an EPA-funded study examining environmental justice issues in wastewater services, research teams from the University of Tennessee’s Municipal Technical Advisory Service and Tennessee Technological University’s Center for Management, Utilization, and Protection of Water Resources conducted an intensive in-field study of socioeconomic factors in 12 small, rural Tennessee communities (including 2 control communities), selected because of one or more negative wastewater impacts of health risks, water quality violations, or aesthetic problems. Results of the study dispel many common myths about isolated rural communities, while documenting in detail the distinctive challenges faced in achieving proper wastewater management in similar communities. Populations in the study communities ranged from 200 to 6,000. Local employment and economic base varied widely: manufacturing, timber, food processing, and commuting to jobs located from 12 to 70 miles away. One community had a high percentage of elderly residents; another had a very high local unemployment rate. Local water supplies included private wells, community wells and springs, a community-owned and operated water treatment plant (surface water), and purchase of water from another utility. Sewage treatment included on-site systems, central activated sludge plants, a central trickling filter plants, central oxidation ditch plant, and central aerated lagoon plants. Lessons learned from this study provide a snapshot of characteristics common to many small rural communities in the Central Appalachians. Residents were mostly white, and only one of the communities had a high school graduation rate that met the state average of 67 percent (most ranged from slightly above 40 percent to slightly more than 50 percent). Seven of the communities had poverty rates above the state average of 15.7 percent (ranges were from 20 to more than 40 percent). All but one of the communities met or exceeded the statewide average (17.1 percent) for population over 60. Researchers found that six of the eight communities with central wastewater treatment systems charged rates below the statewide average. In addition, the state’s Wastewater Financing Board had cited these six communities for failure to adequately fund sewer operations. Communities in the survey used grants to build and upgrade systems, not because of advance planning and budgeting, but because a grant funding source was brought to their attention. Furthermore, centralized wastewater operations were understaffed; in five of the eight plants surveyed, operators worked alone. Three of these five operators were responsible for the water treatment and distribution system, and several also handled lab work and grounds maintenance. Such understaffing may reflect attempts to save money or difficulty in finding and retaining qualified staff to work in isolated rural locations. Operators had few opportunities for adequate training or for sharing ideas with other operators, because they had to travel a long distance for training and often had trouble getting away from the plant to attend training. Because of these factors, some had difficulty completing the training needed to retain certification. However, local operators were often very resourceful in coping with limited budgets, aging facilities, and design oversights; they kept plants functioning by rebuilding parts and devising repairs and improvements from locally available materials. Engineers’ design mistakes and lack of attention to community resources and concerns accounted for many of the problems that communities and operators experienced with their wastewater systems. For example, Inflow/infiltration, overflows, and bypasses were found to be widespread problems. Community residents did not like the government and outsiders telling them what to do, and often felt that outsiders did not bother to understand their needs. Growth and change came slowly to these communities and residents sometimes lived with problems (e.g., odor, sewage on the ground) because they felt helpless to change the situation. Many residents stated that their communities were good places to live and did want to change the community itself—even if wastewater problems presented a documented health threat. These residents did without many common services and amenities; as a result, wastewater-related problems ranked low on their list of concerns, and those affected tended to blame, deny, minimize, or not recognize the problems. In several communities

OCR for page 100
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania with failing and improperly operating septic systems, residents stated that “people take care of their septic systems,” that the house was on public sewer, are that they did not know about any problems. The mayor of one of these communities confided that there were many problems with septic systems, but that there were concerns that small lots allowed no room for repairs, that the community lacked the money for centralized treatment, and that even if funds could be obtained for a central system there would be nobody to oversee it. Citizens and local government leaders were uneducated about how to solve their wastewater problems. They did not know how to access help, obtain funding, select an engineer who understands small community issues, select treatment technologies compatible with community resources, and estimate long-term operation and maintenance costs. Many existing wastewater treatment problems have resulted from one or more of these deficiencies in education and preparation for making decisions. Although communities may have learned how to obtain grants, they often do not have the knowledge to target the funding toward correcting the problem. Finally, community leaders, consultants, and technical assistance providers had difficulty obtaining information, at both state and local levels, to identify problems and craft solutions. Records were typically inconsistent, poorly organized and maintained, and not in electronic form. Recommendations related to this study, for policy makers, regulators, educators, and technical assistance providers who work with similar communities, are discussed in Chapter 5 (see also Boxes 5-3 and 5-5). SOURCE: MTAS, 1997. Combined Sewer Overflows While small treatment systems may suffer from maintenance and operational failures, all systems have the potential to suffer from problems associated with excessive flows. When flows exceed the capacity of the collection or treatment system, overflow events are triggered. Seven hundred and seventy-two communities in 32 states throughout in the United States have combined sewer systems or dedicated sanitary sewer systems that are linked hydraulically to combined systems. These systems were designed in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to convey wastewater to treatment plants and to convey mixed stormwater and wastewater partially to the treatment plant and partially to nearby waterways (rivers and streams) during significant precipitation events (see also Chapter 2 and 5). Inherent in the design were diversion structures that release mixed rainwater and sewage to surface waters when flows exceed the capacity of the sewer collection or wastewater treatment system (combined sewer overflow structures, or CSOs). When heavy rains lead to high flows in the collection system, a gate or relief system diverts flow away from the sewage treatment plant and to surface waters. This diversion of high flows prevents sewage from backing up in the collection system (e.g., flooding basements or streets) and prevents damage to the wastewater treatment plant from flows that exceed design capacity. Figure 4-2 shows a schematic of combined and separate sewers and how they contribute to wet weather-related surface water pollution. EPA has estimated that there are CSO discharges of 1,260 billion gallons per year in the United States through 9,471 outfall locations regulated through 859 NPDES permits (EPA, 2001a). Notably, Pennsylvania has the highest number of CSO structures of any state (1,671). Figure 4-3 shows the distribution of CSOs in Pennsylvania and their concentration in

OCR for page 100
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania FIGURE 4-2 Illustration of urban wet weather flows, including combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows. SOURCE: http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/cso/images/uww.jpg. southwestern Pennsylvania. Tables 4-4 and 4-5 summarize the distribution of CSOs in southwestern Pennsylvania by county and by major authority or agency in the region. Figure 4-4 shows specific CSO outfall locations and water intake locations for the major drinking water providers in Allegheny County. CSOs are considered point sources of pollution and are subject to NPDES permitting, compliance, and enforcement. In May 1997, PADEP revised its CSO strategy and began implementation following EPA approval in July 1997. As noted previously, water released during CSOs is a mixture of dilute raw sewage and primarily urban surface runoff. The chemical and microbial constituents of CSOs have been studied less than those of stormwater. Initially during a rainfall event (the “first flush”), CSO effluents resemble raw sanitary sewage. When high flows scour the sewer pipes the first flush can contain higher levels of suspended solids and BOD than typical raw sewage (Larsen et al., 1998). After the first flush, stormwater dilutes the raw sewage, and pollutant concentrations in CSO effluents decline. The major contaminants in CSO discharges include suspended solids, BOD, chlorides (typically in winter months from the application of road salt), nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), fecal bacteria and other microorganisms, and various chemicals. A recent study of Canadian waters found stormwater and CSOs to be similar in solids concentrations, but CSOs had higher concentrations of BOD and nutrients and lower concentrations of heavy metals and anthropogenic organic compounds (e.g., pesticides) (Chambers et al., 1997). Table 4-6 compares typical concentrations of several chemical and biological parameters for CSOs and urban runoff. With respect to microorganisms, Burm and Vaughan (1966) found that a combined sewer system

OCR for page 100
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania FIGURE 4-3 Distribution of CSOs in Pennsylvania. NOTE: This figure shows the locations of the agencies that hold the 155 CSO permits. SOURCE: EPA, 2002a, Appendix B. TABLE 4-4 Distribution of CSOs in Southwestern Pennsylvania by County County CSO Structures/Outfalls Allegheny 414 Armstrong 18 Beaver 14 Butler 0 Fayette 72 Greene 2 Indiana 22 Lawrence 1 Somerset 7 Washington 79 Westmoreland 126 Total 755   SOURCE: Adapted from PADEP Combined Sewer Overflow Listing, http://www.dep.state.pa.us/eps/docs/extras/TG/Finals/wswm/CSO_LIST.xls.

OCR for page 100
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania BOX 4-6 Dunkard Creek Watershed: A Snapshot of Agricultural and Rural Land Practices Dunkard Creek watershed, a tributary of the Monongahela River, straddles the Pennsylvania-West Virginia state boundary and lies within Greene County, Pennsylvania, and Monongalia County, West Virginia. The main stem of the creek originates approximately 2.5 miles west of Blacksville, West Virginia, at the confluence of the Pennsylvania Fork and the West Virginia Fork of Dunkard Creek. From there, it flows 17 channel-miles eastward, crossing the state boundary several times and discharging to the Monongahela north of Point Marion, Pennsylvania. The watershed acreage is almost evenly divided between the two states, with 71,350 acres in West Virginia and 75,000 acres in Pennsylvania. Population in the watershed is estimated at 18,000. Blacksville, West Virginia, and Mt. Morris and Bobtown, Pennsylvania, are the major towns, although none have more than about 200 residents. Coal mining has dominated the watershed’s economy, and is responsible for AMD-impaired stream listings in both states, as well as other water quality problems in the watershed. Although diverse and stable employment opportunities in nearby Morgantown, West Virginia, have tempered the effects of downturns in mining and other rural employment, U.S. Census statistics and U.S. Department of Agriculture programs for limited resource farmers indicate that limited incomes and poverty are common in the watershed area. Water quality efforts in the watershed have involved formal interstate cooperation, and collaborative citizens’ watershed groups, the Dunkard Creek Watershed Association (West Virginia) and the East Dunkard Watershed Association (Pennsylvania), are very active in education, remediation, and grant-seeking. During the past several years, these groups have won several awards and more than $1 million in grants, including more than $900,000 for treating AMD and a large EPA Watershed Initiative Grant. A 1999 watershed assessment of the upper watershed by the West Virginia Conservation Partnership (1999) and a Rivers Conservation Plan (Greene County Conservation District, 2000) by the Greene County, Pennsylvania, Soil Conservation District reviewed water quality problems affecting the watershed. Woodlands (60 percent) and grassland (20 percent) are dominant land uses, particularly in the upper West Virginia watershed. Although agricultural land use and water quality problems are found predominantly in this part of the watershed, similar problems have been observed where agriculture is prevalent in the lower watershed. These problems may also be typical of some of the other agricultural lands in the 11-county study area, especially those where livestock agriculture is predominant. Many of the steeply sloping farmlands in the watershed are used as pasture. Pasture and grasslands within the watershed have an average slope of 25-30 percent, even though 20 percent of the floodplain areas exist as grassland. Approximately 75 percent of the grassland is eroding at a rate of T or greater, where T is the soil erosion tolerance factor, or the maximum amount of erosion the soil can sustain and still serve as a medium for plant growth, retain water and plant nutrients, and allow the entry of air and water while protecting the underlying soil from erosion (NRCS, 1999). The soil erosion factor in this area of West Virginia and Pennsylvania is approximately 3 tons per acre (Jeffrey Skousen, West Virginia University, personal communication, 2004). Common management of pasture and grassland in the watershed is continuous grazing and mechanical brush control, with application of lime and fertilizer every 6-10 years. Grassland areas with horses exhibit a lower biosolids are required to obtain a permit that specifies quality criteria, management practices, site restrictions, monitoring, and reporting. Biosolids generators and land appliers must also receive approved training. Land application sites are regulated under a general permitting system based on biosolids quality, with more stringent site restrictions for application of non-exceptional quality biosolids. Regulations mandate management practices and restrictions for application sites, depending on

OCR for page 100
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania percentage of ground cover due to equine habits of “spot grazing.” These areas are very vulnerable to higher erosion rates. More than half of the area experiences problems with increased sediment and nutrient loads in streams due to winter feeding locations and lack of improved animal watering facilities. A common practice of many agricultural land users is to feed and/or confine cattle to low-lying areas in winter, in close proximity to the farmsteads, which commonly exist near small streams. Most animal waste is stacked nearby or spread on fields throughout the year. There are no large confined animal feeding operations in the watershed, and approximately 90 percent of the cattle operations are part-time farmers with small beef cattle farms. Due to lack of improved watering facilities, cattle commonly have direct access to streams, and in many areas, livestock have denuded streamside vegetation. Cropland is a small portion of the total agricultural acres, with corn as the major crop and small acreages of oats, soybeans, and tobacco. Most cropland is 8-15 percent slope with soils of moderate fertility, and manures and fertilizers are applied at estimated rates. Management is generally crop rotation, both conventional and no-till. Limited water quality sampling by both states during 1996-1997 earned surface water quality designations of “moderate” by West Virginia and “good” by Pennsylvania. Aside from mining impacts, sampling results indicated that the main stem of Dunkard Creek in West Virginia periodically failed to meet the state’s fecal coliform standards. Recent upgrades and installations of sewage treatment plants in Bobtown, Mt. Morris, and Blacksville have eliminated many raw sewage problems. However, there have not been subsequent detailed investigations to determine the relative contributions of problematic livestock practices and faulty septic systems or straight piping of household wastewater. Along with acid mine drainage, stream bank erosion and sedimentation are major concerns among local watershed association members and other citizens. Erosion and sedimentation result from a combination of natural factors (meandering streams, highly erodable soils, steep terrain), agricultural practices, timber management practices on small-scale logging operations, mining, and dirt and gravel roads. Average annual stream bank erosion was estimated to be 24,000 tons per year on the main stem in West Virginia and an additional 20,000 tons on the tributaries. Since 1976, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission has extensively sampled the fish populations of Dunkard Creek and had documented the stream as one of the highest-density smallmouth bass populations in a warm-water stream in southwestern Pennsylvania. In the stream’s lower reaches, acid mine drainage and metals have severe adverse impacts on the fish and macroinvertebrate populations (including a widespread fish kill in 1998), but even in areas not severely effected by AMD, the local fishery has experienced problems. Declines in the quality of this fishery in the late 1980s to early 1990s were attributed to overfishing, and catch-and-release regulations were implemented in 1995 on a portion of the creek. Studies at a catch-and-release site and a control site with standard regulations indicated trends of continued decline from 1984-2000 at both sites. Researchers suspected habitat and/or water quality deterioration and determined that erosion and sedimentation have deleterious impacts on the fish population (58 PA Code § 65.24). As part of the watershed corrective measures in the Pennsylvania portion of the watershed, the Greene County Conservation District provides technical assistance and cost share funds for agricultural BMPs such as stream bank fencing, stabilized crossings, riparian buffers, rotational grazing, off-stream livestock watering facilities, and barnyard or feedlot area improvements (see http://www.county.greenepa.net/secured/gc/depts/pd/conserv/prog.htm for further information). the particular biosolids being applied. Application sites must have an implemented farm conservation plan or erosion-sedimentation control plan. Application rates are established by agronomic rates of crops, and cumulative metals loading at the application site is subject to regulatory limits. Soils must be sampled and analyzed for metals concentrations prior to application of non-exceptional quality biosolids at a site (exceptional quality biosolids have sufficiently low metals concentrations that cumulative loading rates do not apply). Regulations

OCR for page 100
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania specify injection and incorporation requirements and site restrictions for food, feed, and fiber crops, as well as turf, animals, and public access (PADEP, 2001; Stehouwer, 1999a). Research conducted by Pennsylvania State University agronomists found that between 1978 and 1999, biosolids quality, in terms of metals concentrations, greatly improved and that more than 95 percent of Pennsylvania biosolids have metals concentrations well below the state’s most stringent regulatory limits (Stehouwer, 1999b). Because the composition of individual biosolids will vary from values examined in their assessment, that report recommended continuing to monitor cumulative loading whenever biosolids are applied to soil. According to the PADEP Region V biosolids coordinator, some sites in the region have had 20 years of biosolids application with no increases in regulated metals (William Graham, PADEP Region V, personal communication, 2004). Pennsylvania State University agronomists conducted a three-year assessment of the effects of biosolids utilization on soil and crop quality. The assessment, involving 20 farms in 18 counties, compared land application agricultural sites with control sites having similar soils, crops, and management practices. A site in Beaver County, which received a total biosolids application of 45.3 tons per acre between 1984 and 2001, was the only southwestern Pennsylvania location. Statewide results showed that crop yields, nutrient contents, and trace element contents were similar in the biosolids and control plots, indicating no adverse effects of biosolids on crop quality and no increase of trace elements entering the food chain. At the end of the growing season, soils in the biosolids fields had higher nitrate levels, leading researchers to suggest that winter cover crops be planted to take up excess nitrogen and reduce the potential for nitrate leaching or runoff. Similar to animal manures, repeated application of biosolids led to increased soil phosphorus levels, and researchers recommended that the environmental significance of phosphorus be examined as the state moves to phosphorus-based nutrient management (Stehouwer, 2003). For reclamation use at active permitted mining sites, the PADEP District Mining Office approves actual land application of biosolids. Biosolids used must come from a publicly owned wastewater treatment facility meeting regulatory biosolids criteria and having a permit issued by the Biosolids Division of the regional office. SUMMARY The relative contribution of different sources to microbial loading to surface and groundwaters in southwestern Pennsylvania cannot be determined with available information. However, sufficient information is available to determine that improperly managed wastewaters resulting from human activities are degrading the microbiological water quality in the region. Wet weather biological water quality in the main stem rivers is demonstrably worse than dry weather biological water quality, suggesting that stormwater and sewer overflows may be important contributors. Biological water quality in many tributaries does not meet standards in either wet or dry weather, suggesting that failing on-site treatment and disposal units may be important contributors. The contribution of agriculture to pathogen loading in rural areas of southwestern Pennsylvania could not be determined, but this is a well-known pathogen source in other regions, and many livestock management practices in the study region are likely to contribute pathogens to streams. Relative nonpoint contributions of human and nonhuman pathogen sources in both urban and rural watershed are not known.

OCR for page 100
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania Acid mine drainage is a significant cause of water quality impairment in the region, predominately affecting streams and tributaries. This regional water quality issue extends beyond Pennsylvania to encompass much of the Appalachian Range. Presently, this problem is being addressed by multiple jurisdictions including federal and state programs. The continuing flow of financial support to combat this water pollution problem is essential to future environmental water quality improvement. REFERENCES ACHD (Allegheny County Health Department). 2004. ACHD/GSPH Study of River Water Quality and Human Health; Ongoing study of rowers in southwestern Pennsylvania. Pittsburgh, PA: ACHD. Alderiso, K., D. Wait, and M. Sobsey. 1996. Detection and characterization of male-specific RNA coliphages in a New York City reservoir to distinguish between human and nonhuman sources of contamination. In Proceedings of a Symposium on New York City Water Supply Studies, TPS-96-2. Herndon, VA: American Water Resources Association. Anderson, D., R. Otis, J. McNeillie, and R. Apfel. 1994. In-situ lysimeter investigation of pollutant attenuation in the vadose zone of a fine sand. In On-Site Wastewater Treatment: Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural Engineers. Anderson, R., K. Beer, T. Buckwalter, M. Clark, S. McAuley, J. Sams, and D. Williams. 2000. Water Quality in the Allegheny and Monongahela River Basins: Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New York, and Maryland (1996-98). Denver, CO: U.S. Geological Survey. Ashley, R., D. Wotherspoon, B. Coghlan, and E. Ristenpart. 1993. Cohesive sediment erosion in combined sewers. In Procedures of the 6th International Conference of Urban Storm Drainage, J. Marsalek and H. Torno (eds.). Victoria, Canada: Seapoint Publishing. Booth, C. 1984. The hydrogeological impact of deep longwall mining: Appalachian Plateau, Pennsylvania. In Proceedings of the National Water Well Association Conference on the Impact of Mining on Ground Water. Dublin, OH: National Water Well Association. Booth, C. 1990. Hydrogeological significance of subsurface coal mining. In Water Resources in Pennsylvania: Availability, Quality, and Management, S. Majumdar, E. Miller, and R. Parizek (eds.). Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Academy of Science. Borchardt, M., P. Bertz, S. Spencer, and D. Battigelli. 2003. Incidence of enteric viruses in groundwater from household wells in Wisconsin. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 69(2):1172-1180. Burm, R., and R. Vaughan. 1966. Bacteriological comparison between combined and separate sewer discharges in southeastern Michigan. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation. 38:400-409. Burton, A., D. Gunnison, and G. Lanza. 1987. Survival of pathogenic bacteria in various freshwater sediments. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 53(4):633-638. Butler, D., Y. Xiao, S. Karunaratne, and S. Thedchanamoorthy. 1995. The gully pot as a physical, chemical, and biological reactor. Water Science and Technology 31(7):219-228.

OCR for page 100
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania Caccio, S., M. Giocomo, F. Aulicino, and E. Pozio. 2003. Giardia cysts in water treatment plants in Italy. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 69(6):3393-3398. Carver, L., and H. Rauch. 1994. Hydrogeologic effects of subsidence at a longwall mine in the Pittsburgh Coal Seam. In Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Ground Control in Mining. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University, Department of Mining Engineering. Center for Watershed Protection. 2000. Microbes and urban watersheds: Concentrations, sources, and pathways. The Practice of Watershed Protection 3(1):554-565. Chambers, P., M. Allard, S. Walker, J. Marsalek, J. Lawrence, M. Servos, J. Busnarda, K. Munger, K. Adare, C. Jefferson, R. Kent, and M. Wong. 1997. Impacts of municipal wastewater effluents on Canadian waters: A review. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada 32(4):659-713. Chauret, C., N. Armstrong, J. Fisher, R. Sharma, S. Springthorpe, and S. Sattar. 1995. Correlating Cryptosporidium and Giardia with microbial indicators. Journal of the American Water Works Association 87(11):76-84. Cifelli, R., and H. Rauch. 1986. Dewatering effects from selected underground coal mines in north-central West Virginia. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Surface Subsidence Due to Underground Mining. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University. Clark C., L. Price, R. Ahmed, D. Woodward, P. Melito, F. Rodgers, F. Jamieson, B. Ciebin, A. Li, and A. Ellis. 2003. Characterization of waterborne outbreak-associated Campylobacter jejuni. Emerging Infectious Diseases. Available on-line at http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol9no10/02-0584.htm. Accessed June 21, 2004. Curriero, F., J. Patz, J. Rose, and S. Lele. 2001. The association between extreme precipitation and waterborne disease outbreaks in the United States, 1948-1994. American Journal of Public Health 91(8):1194-1199. Desvousges, W., V. Smith, and A. Fisher. 1987. Option price estimates for water quality improvements: A contingent valuation study for the Monongahela River. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 14:248-67. DOC (United States Department of Commerce) and HUD (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development). 1997. American Housing Survey for the Pittsburgh Metropolitan Area in 1995. Current Housing Reports H170/95-13. Washington, DC: DOC Bureau of the Census and HUD Office of Policy Development and Research. Earle, J., and T. Callaghan. 1998. Impacts of mine drainage on aquatic life, water uses and manmade structures. In Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Edwards, D. 1993. Troubled waters in Milwaukee. ASM News 59(7):342-345. Ellis, J. and Y. Wang. 1995. Bacteriology of urban runoff: The combined sewer as a bacterial reactor and generator. Water Science and Technology 31(7):303-310. Environment Canada. 1999. Summary and Update of the 1997 Science Assessment of the Impacts of Municipal Wastewater Effluents (MWWE) on Canadian Waters and Human Health. Available on-line at http://www.ec.gc.ca/etad/default.asp?lang=En&n=36A7F162-11. Accessed April 27, 2004. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1980. Design Manual: Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal System. EPA/625/1-80/012. Cincinnati, OH: Office of Research and Development and Office of Water.

OCR for page 100
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania EPA. 1993. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. Washington, DC: Office of Water. EPA 1997. Response to Congress on Use of a Decentralized Wastewater Treatment System. EPA 832-R-97-001b. Available on-line at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/decent/response/. Accessed June 21, 2004. EPA. 2000. Draft EPA Guidelines for Management of Onsite/Decentralized Wastewater Systems. Federal Register 65(195): 59840-59841. Washington, DC: Office of Wastewater Management. EPA. 2001a. EPA’s Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy. EPA 833-R-01-003. Available on-line at http://cfpub1.epa.gov/npdes/cso/cpolicy_report.cfm?program_id=5. Accessed June 21, 2004. EPA. 2001b. Proposed Rule to Protect Communities from Overflowing Sewers. EPA-833-01-F-001. Washington, DC: Office of Water. EPA. 2002a. Report to Congress on the Impacts and Control of Combined Sewer Overflows and Sanitary Sewer Overflows; Availability of Public Health Experts Workshop Summary. EPA 833-R-02-002. Federal Register 67(248):78802. Available on-line at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/2002/December/Day-26/w32566.htm. Accessed June 21, 2004. EPA. 2002b. Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual. EPA-625-R-00-008. Washington, DC: EPA Office of Water and Office of Research and Development. EPA. 2002c. National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report. EPA-841-R-02-001. Washington, DC: Office of Water. EPA. 2003a. Fact Sheet: National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories. EPA 823-F-03-003. Available on-line at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/advisories/factsheet.pdf. Accessed April 26, 2004. EPA. 2003b. Voluntary National Guidelines for Management of Onsite and Clustered Wastewater Treatment Systems. EPA-832-B-03-001. Washington, DC: Office of Water. Fleeger, G. 1999. The Geology of Pennsylvania’s Groundwater, 3rd Edition. Pennsylvania Geological Survey Educational Series 3. Available on-line at http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/education/es3.pdf. Accessed March 31, 2004. Gannon, J., and M. Busse. 1989. E. coli and enterococci levels in urban stormwater, river water, and chlorinated treatment plant effluent. Water Resources 23(9):1167-1176. Gibson, C., K. Stadterman, S. States, and J. Sykora. 1998. Combined sewer overflows: A source of Cryptosporidium and Giardia. Water Science and Technology 38(12):67-72. Godfrey, A. 1993. Sources and fate of microbial contaminants. In Recreational Water Quality Management, D. Kay and R. Hanbury (eds.). London: Ellis Horwood. Greene County Conservation District. 2000. Rivers Conservation Plan for the Dunkard Creek Watershed. Available on-line at http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/brc/rivers/riversconservation/registry/18fullplan.pdf. Accessed November 30, 2004. Hamilton, J. 2001. Man uses GPS to map dog doo. Associated Press, Boulder, CO. November 29. Health Canada. 2000. Waterborne outbreak of gastroenteritis associated with a contaminated municipal water supply, Walkerton, Ontario, May-June 2000. Canada Communicable Disease Report. Available on-line at http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pphb-dgspsp/publicat/ccdr-rmtc/00vol26/dr2620eb.html. Accessed June 21, 2004.

OCR for page 100
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania Herwaldt, B., G. Craun, S. Stokes, and D. Juranek. 1991. Surveillance summaries: Waterborne-disease outbreaks, 1989-1990. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 40(SS-3):1-21. Hopey, D. 2003a. How longwall mining works. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, November 23. Hopey, D. 2003b. Sinking history: Longwall mines put holes in the past. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, November 23. Hopey, D. 2003c. Some legislators hope to toughen mining law. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, November 25. Jefferies, C., K. Young, and I. McGregor. 1990. Microbial aspects of sewage and sewage sludge in Dundee. Water Science and Technology 22(10-11):47-52. Jiang, S., R. Noble, and C. Weiping. 2001. Human adenoviruses and coliphages in urban runoff-impacted coastal waters of Southern California. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 67(1):179-184. Kern, J., D. Falkenstern, and R. Stingelin. 2002. Effects of Longwall Mining on Real Property Value and the Tax Base of Greene and Washington Counties, Pennsylvania. Harrisburg, PA: PADEP, Bureau of Mining and Reclamation. Kimmel, W. 1983. The impact of acid mine drainage on the stream ecosystem. In Pennsylvania Coal: Resources, Technology and Utilization, S. Majundar and W. Miller, (eds.). Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Academy of Science. Kleinman, R., R. Hornberger, B. Leavitt, and D. Hyman. 2000. Introduction and recommendations. In Prediction of Water Quality at Surface Coal Mines. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University, National Mine Land Reclamation Center. Knowles, G. 1998. SepticStats: An Overview. Available on-line at http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/images/SepticStat.pdf. Accessed March 23, 2004. Kohli, K. 2002. Mitigation measures to minimize subsidence damages caused by longwall mining to historic structures and their effectiveness. SME Paper No 02-052. Littleton, CO: Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration. Lambert, D., K. McDonough, and D. Dzombak. 2004. Long-term changes in quality of discharge water from abandoned underground coal mines in Uniontown Syncline, Fayette County, PA, USA. Water Research 38:277-288. Larsen, T., K. Broch, and M. Anderson. 1998. First flush effects in an urban catchment area in Aalborg. Water Science and Technology 37(1):251-257. Lee, S., D. Levy, G. Craun, M. Beach, and R. Calderon. 2002. Surveillance for waterborne-disease outbreaks—United States, 1999-2000. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 51(SS-8):1-47. Lim, S., and V. Olivieri. 1982. Jones Falls Urban Runoff Project: Sources of Microorganisms in Urban Runoff. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins School of Public Health & Hygiene. Luo, Y., and S. Peng. 2000. Long-term subsidence associated with longwall mining—Its causes, development, and magnitude. Presented at Society of Mining Engineering Annual Meeting, Denver, CO, 1999. MacKenzie, W., N. Hoxie, M. Proctor, M. Gradus, K. Blair, D. Peterson, J. Kazmierczak, D. Addiss, K. Fox, J. Rose, and J. Davis. 1994. A massive outbreak in Milwaukee of Cryptosporidium infection transmitted through the public water supply. New England Journal of Medicine 331(3):161-167. Madore, M., J. Rose, C. Gerba, M. Arrowood, and C. Sterling. 1987. Occurrence of Cryptosporidium oocysts in sewage effluents and select surface waters. Journal Parasitology 73:702-705.

OCR for page 100
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania Makepeace, D., D. Smith, and S. Stanley. 1995. Urban stormwater quality: Summary of contaminant data. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 25:93-139. Marino, R., and J. Gannon. 1991. Survival of fecal coliforms and fecal Streptococci in storm drain sediments. Water Resources 9:1089-1098. Marsalek, J., and B. Chocat. 2002. International report: Stormwater management. Water Science and Technology 46(6-7):1-17. McDonald, A., D. Kay, and A. Jenkins. 1982. Generation of faecal and total coliform surges by storm flow manipulation in the absence of normal hydrometerological stimuli. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 44:292-300. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1991. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, Reuse, 3rd Edition, G. Tchobanoglous and F. Burton (eds.). New York: McGraw Hill. MTAS (University of Tennessee Municipal Technical Assistance Service). 1997. Wastewater justice: Its complexion in small places. Doc. R14-1050-36-001-97. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee, Municipal Technical Assistance Service. Nelson, V., S. Dix, and F. Shepard. 1999. Advanced On-Site Wastewater Treatment and Management Scoping Study: Assessment of Short Term Opportunities and Long Run Potential. Prepared for the Electric Power Research Institute, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and the Water Environment Research Foundation. Novotny, V., H. Sung, R. Bannermann, and K. Baum. 1985. Estimating nonpoint pollution from small urban watersheds. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation 57(4):339-348. NRC (National Research Council). 2002. Biosolids Applied to Land: Advancing Standards and Practices. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. NRC. 2004. Indicators for Waterborne Pathogens. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 1999. National Soil Survey Handbook, Title 430-VI. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Olivieri, V., C. Kruse, K. Kawata, and J. Smith. 1977. Microorganisms in urban stormwater. EPA/600/2/77/087. Washington, DC: Office of Research and Development. Ongerth, J., and H. Stibbs. 1987. Identification of Cryptosporidium oocysts in river water. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 53:672-676. OSM (Office of Surface Mining). 2003. Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation: Reclamation of Abandoned Mine Land That Took Place Before the Surface Mining Law was Passed in 1977. Available on-line at http://www.osmre.gov/annualreports/03aml.pdf. PADEP (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection). 1999. The Effects of Subsidence Resulting From Underground Bituminous Coal Mining on Surface Structures and Features and Water Resources. Harrisburg, PA: Office of Mineral Resources Management. PADEP. 2001. Understanding Biosolids Land Application in Your Community. Fact Sheet 3800-FS-DEP 2649. Harrisburg, PA: PADEP. PADEP. 2002. Clean Water Act, Section 303(d) List of Impaired Water Bodies, Draft, Version 5. Harrisburg, PA: PADEP. PADEP. 2003. Frequently Asked Questions About Private Water Wells in Pennsylvania. Fact Sheet 3800-FS-DEP2657. Available on-line at http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wc/Subjects/SrceProt/well/questions/default.htm.

OCR for page 100
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania Accessed March 18, 2004. PADEP. 2004a. 2004 Pennsylvania Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. Available on-line at http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/Wqp/WQStandards/303d-Report.htm. Accessed June 21, 2004. PADEP. 2004b. Reclaim PA: Pennsylvania’s Abandoned Mine Reclamation and Well Plugging Program. Available on-line at http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/reclaimpa/reclaimpahome.htm. Accessed June 12, 2004. Peng, F., Z. Sun, and S. Peng. 1994. Disturbance of surface stream due to longwall mining. In Proceedings of the International Land Reclamation and Mine Drainage Conference, U.S. Bureau of Mines Special Publication SP 06D-94. Available on-line at http://www.ott.wrcc.osmre.gov/library/proceed/intl1994/volume4.pdf. Puchalsky, R. and A. LaPlante. 1998. Troubled Waters: A Report on Toxic Releases into America’s Waterways. Available on-line at http://uspirg.org/uspirg.asp?id2=7007&id3=USPIRG&. Accessed June 6, 2004. Rauch, H. 1989. Ground water impacts from surface and underground coal mining. In Proceedings of the Conference on West Virginia Ground Water, 1987, Status and Future Directions. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University, West Virginia Water Research Institute. Rodricks, D. 2003. Unleashed dogs spoil a walk—and topsoil. Baltimore Sun, December 7. Rose, J., H. Darbin, C. Gerba. 1988. Correlations of the protozoa, Cryptosporidium and Giardia with water quality variables in a watershed. Water Science and Technology 20:271-276. Rose, J., S. Daeschner, D. Easterling, F. Curriero, S. Lele, and J.A. Patz. 2000. Climate and waterborne disease oubreaks. Journal of the American Water Works Association 92(9):77-87. Sams, J., and K. Beer. 2000. Effects of coal-mine drainage on stream water quality in the Allegheny and Monongahela River basins—Sulfate transport and trends. Water Resources Investigations Report 99-4208. Lemoyne, PA: USGS, National Water Quality Assessment Program. Scandura, J., and M. Sobsey. 1997. Viral and bacterial contamination of groundwater from on-site sewage treatment systems. Water Science and Technology 35(11-12):141-146. Schiff, K., and P. Kinney. 2001. Tracking sources of bacterial contamination in stormwater discharges to Mission Bay, California. Water Environment Research 73(5):534-542. Simmons, G., Jr., D. Waye, S. Herbein, S. Myers, and E. Walker. 2001. Estimating nonpoint fecal coliform sources in Northern Virginia’s Four Mile Run watershed. In Proceedings of the 2000 Virginia Water Resources Research Symposium. Virginia Water Resources Research Center Special Report SR-19-2000. Blacksburg, VA: VWRRC. Skousen, J. 1995. Acid mine drainage. Green Lands 25(2):52-55. Smullen J., A. Shallcross, and K. Cave. 1999. Updating the U.S. nationwide urban runoff quality database. Water Science and Technology 39(12):9-12. States, S., K. Stadterman, L. Ammon, P. Vogel, J. Baldizar, D. Wright, L. Conley, and J. Sykora. 1997. Protozoa in river water: Sources, occurrence, and treatment. Journal of the American Water Works Association 89(9):74-83. Stehouwer, R. 1999a. Land application of sewage sludge in Pennsylvania: A plain English tour of the regulations. University Park, PA: Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences Cooperative Extension.

OCR for page 100
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania Stehouwer, R. 1999b. Land application of sewage sludge in Pennsylvania: Biosolids quality. University Park, PA: Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences Cooperative Extension. Stehouwer, R. 2003. Land application of sewage sludge in Pennsylvania: Effects of biosolids on soil and crop quality. University Park, PA: Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences Cooperative Extension. Stern, D. 1996. Initial investigation of the sources and sinks of Cryptosporidium and Giardia within the watersheds of the New York City water supply system. In Proceedings of a Symposium on New York City Water Supply Studies. TPS-96-2. Herndon, VA: American Water Resources Association. Steuer, J., W. Selbig, N. Hornewer, and J. Prey. 1997. Sources of contamination in an urban basin in Marquette, Michigan, and an analysis of concentrations, loads, and data quality. USGS Water Resources Investigation Report 97-4242. Reston, VA: USGS. Stiles, J., J. Donovan, D. Dzombak, R. Capo, L. Cook. 2004. Geochemical cluster analysis of mine water quality within the Monongahela basin. Presented at the 2004 National Meeting of the American Society of Mining and Reclamation and the 25th West Virginia Surface Mine Drainage Task Force, Morgantown, WV, April 18-24. Stout, B. 2003. Impacts of longwall mining on the diversity, longevity, and functionality of benthic macroinvertebrate communities in central Appalachian headwater streams. Presented at North American Benthological Society Annual Meeting, Athens, GA. Strawley, G. 2002. Pennsylvania Development: Community’s Growth Troubles Start in Its Sewers. Water Infrastructure Network News. Available on-line at www.win-water.org/win_news/053002article.html. Accessed June 21, 2004. Sykora, J., S. States, W. Bancroft, S. Boutros, M. Shapiro, and L. Conley. 1986. Monitoring of water and wastewater for Giardia. In Proceedings of the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Water Quality Technology Conference. Denver, CO: AWWA. TPRC (Third Party Review Committee). 2002. Third Party Review of the ALCOSAN Regional Long Term Wet Weather Control Concept Plan. Pittsburgh, PA: ALCOSAN. USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1997. Montour Run Watershed, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania: Water Quality and Aquatic Life Resources. Pittsburgh, PA: USACE. USACE. 2000. Nine Mile Run Allegheny County, PA: Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Water Quality and Aquatic Life Report. Pittsburgh PA: USACE. USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1997. U.S. Census of Agriculture. Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service. USDA. 2002. U.S. Census of Agriculture. Pennsylvania State and Country Data. Available on-line at http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/PAVolume104.pdf. Accessed November 16, 2004. Van Metre, P., and B. Mahler. 2003. The contribution of particles washed from rooftops to contaminant loading to urban streams. Chemosphere 52(10):1727-1741. Walker, W., R. NcNutt, and C. Maslanka. 1999. The potential contribution of urban runoff to surface sediments of the Passaic River: Source and chemical characteristics. Chemosphere 38(2):363-377. WEF (Water Environment Federation). 1999. Prevention and Control of Sewer System Overflows. MOP FD-17, 2nd edition. Alexandria, VA: WEF. West Virginia Conservation Partnership. 1999. Resource Assessment for the Dunkard Creek Watershed. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia Conservation Partnership.

OCR for page 100
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania Wood, S., P. Younger, and N. Robins. 1999. Long-term changes in the quality of polluted minewater discharges from abandoned underground coal workings in Scotland. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 32(1):69-79. WRAS. 2001. Watershed Restoration Action Strategy: State Water Plan Subbasin 19D: Lower Youghiogheny River Watershed: Westmoreland and Fayette Counties. Available on-line at http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wc/Subjects/Nonpointsourcepollution/Initiatives/WRASLISTINFO/WrasPlans/WRAS-19D.pdf. Accessed June 21, 2004. WRAS. 2003a. Watershed Restoration Action Strategy: State Water Plan Subbasin 17C: Redbank Creek Watershed (Allegheny River): Jefferson, Armstrong, Clarion, and Clearfield Counties. Available on-line at http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wc/Subjects/Nonpointsourcepollution/Initiatives/WRASLISTINFO/WrasPlans/WRAS-17C.pdf. Accessed June 21, 2004. WRAS. 2003b. Watershed Restoration Action Strategy: State Water Plan Subbasin 19E: Upper Youghiogheny River Watershed (Laurel Creek and Indian Creek): Fayette, Somerset, and Wetmoreland Counties. Available on-line at http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wc/Subjects/Nonpointsourcepollution/Initiatives/WRASLISTINFO/WrasPlans/WRAS-19E.pdf. Accessed June 21, 2004. WRAS. 2003c. Watershed Restoration Action Strategy: State Water Plan Subbasin 20F: Chartiers Creek Watershed (Ohio River): Washington and Allegheny Counties. Available on-line at http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wc/Subjects/Nonpointsourcepollution/Initiatives/WRASLISTINFO/WrasPlans/WRAS-20F.pdf. Accessed June 21, 2004. WRAS. 2003d. Watershed Restoration Action Strategy: State Water Plan Subbasin 18E: Stonycreek River and Little Conemaugh River Watersheds: Somerset and Cambria Counties. Available on-line at http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wc/Subjects/Nonpointsourcepollution/Initiatives/WRASLISTINFO/WrasPlans/WRAS-18E.pdf. Accessed June 21, 2004. WSIP (Southwestern Pennsylvania Water and Sewer Infrastructure Project Steering Committee). 2002. Investing in Clean Water: A Report from the Southwestern Pennsylvania Water and Sewer Infrastructure Project Steering Committee. Pittsburgh, PA: Campaign for Clean Water. Younger, P. 2000. Predicting temporal changes in total iron concentrations in groundwaters flowing from abandoned deep mines: A first approximation. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 44:47-69.