A COORDINATED EFFORT

Coordination among agencies andorganizations is an integralpart ofthe NAWQA Program. We thank thefollowing agencies andorganizations who contributed to the design ofthe studies andhelpedto review data presented in this report: oAcademy ofNatural Sciences oAlliance for the oMaryland Department ofthe Environment oMaryland Geological Survey oPennsylvania Department ofAgriculture oPennsylvania Department ofEnvironmental Protection oPennsylvania Department ofConservation and Natural Resources oPennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission oPennsylvania State University-Environmental Resources Research Institute oSusquehanna River Basin Commission oTri-County Regional Planning Commission oU.S. Army Corps ofEngineers oU.S Environmental Protection Agency oU.S. Department ofAgriculture-Agricultural Research Service oU.S. Department ofAgriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service oU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Division ofEcological Services oUniversity ofMaryland-Water Resources Research Center This report summarizes work by a number ofdedicated USGS scientists and technicians. It was based, in part, on USGS reports written by thefollowing authors: Scott W. Ator, Mark R. Beaver, Tammy M. Bickford, Matthew H. Daly, Andrew J. Gavin, Robert A. Hainly, Joan M. Kahn, Connie A. Loper, Dennis W. Risser, and Steven F. Siwiec. Thefol• lowing are names ofadditional USGSpersonnel responsiblefor implementing the NA WQA Program in the Lower Susque• hanna River Basin: Steven J. Bogush, Jodi S. Brandt, Harry L. Campbell III, Erika J. Clesceri, Christina L. Harwood, Christine M. Herbert, Scott A. Hoffman, Michael D. Lichte, Jonathan A. Peahl, David M. Pennise, Christine A. Sand• erson, Steven J. Semick, and Naomi J. Weisbeker. This report was editedby Kim L. Wetzel, Robert J. Olmstead, Edward J. Swibas, Michael Eberle, Betty Palcsak, and Chester Zenone. The manuscript was preparedby Kim L. Shank. The tables on pages 30-34 were designed and built by Sarah Ryker, Jonathan Scott, and Alan Haggland. Front cover photograph: An aerial view looking north showing the at Harrisburg, Pa. The Harrisburg met• ropolitan area is part ofa rapidly developing corridor ofhistorically agricultural land through the middle ofthe study area. Harrisburg is situated in the Great Valley Section ofthe Ridge and Valley Physiographic Province. (Reprinted from Alan R. Wycheck and published with permission.) Back cover photographs: Agricultural settings in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin (left to right)-Bachman Run flowing through a part ofthe Lebanon Valley, Lebanon County, Pa.; Cumberland Valley in Cumberland County, Pa. (Reprinted from Harrisburg-Hershey-Carlisle Tourism and Convention Bureau and published with permission); Valley in Centre County, Pa. (by Albert E. Becher). FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE NATIONAL WATER-QUALITY ASSESSMENT (NAWQA) PROGRAM:

Lower Susquehanna River Basin Study Unit, contact: Chief, NAWQA Program District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Division Water Resources Division 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, M.S. 413 840 Market Street Reston, VA 20192 Lemoyne, PA 17043-1584

Information on the NAWQA Program is also available on the Internet via the World Wide Web. You may connect to the NAWQA Home Page using the Universal Resources Locator (URL): http://wwwlVares.er.usgs.gov/nawqa/nawqa_home.html The Lower Susquehanna StUdy Unit's Home Page is at URL: http://wwwpah20.er.usgs.gov/projects/lsus/ Water Quality in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin, and , 1992-95

By Bruce D. Lindsey, Kevin J. Breen, Michael D. Bilger, and Robin A. Brightbill

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 1168

CONTENTS National Water-Quality Assessment Program 1 Summary ofmajor issues and findings 2 Environmental setting and hydrologic conditions 4 Major issues and ~dings 6 Nitrate in ground water and streams 8 Trends in nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations 11 Pesticides in ground water and streams 12 Bacteria in grou)lli water 15 Volatile organic compounds in ground water 16 Radon in ground water 17 Trace elements in fish tissue and streambed sediment 18 Pesticides and other organic compounds in fish tissue and streambed sediment 19 Biological communities and stream habitat 22 Water-quality conditions in a national context 24 Study design ~d data collection 28 Summary of compound detections and concentrations 30 References 35 Glossary 37 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Thomas J. Casadevall, Acting Director

The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constiti.Jteehdbrsernent by the U.S. Government

1998

Free on application to the U.S. Geological Survey Information Services Box 25286 Federal Center Denver, CO 80225

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publications Data·

Water quality in the lower Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and Maryland: 1992-95 I by Bruce D. Lindsey ... [et.al.]. - p. em. -- (U.S. Geological Survey circular; 1168) ISBN 0-607-89155-6 1. Water quali!y--Susquehanna River Watershed. I. Lindsey, Bruce D., 1962- . II. Series. TD225.S895W38 1998 363.739'42'09748--dc21 98-11347 CIP NATIONAL WATER..QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

"Actual water-quality data shows us where our efforts EXPLANATION to protect the environment ~ BEGAN IN 1991 are successful and what m BEGAN IN 1994 still needs to be done to ~ BEGAN IN 1997 EEl NOT SCHEDULED prevent pollution. We YET depend on this valuable partnership with the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with our K.nowledge of the quality of the Nation's streams and aquifers is important communities, as we because ofthe implications to human and aquatic health and because ofthe sig• continue our work to nificant costs associated with decisions involving land and water management, conservation, and regulation. In 1991, the U.s. Congress appropriated funds for protect and restore the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to begin the National Water-Quality Assess• Pennsylvania's ment (NAWQA) Program to help meet the continuing need for sound, scientific watersheds;' information on the areal extent ofthe water-quality problems, how these prob• James M. Seif lems are changing with time, and an understanding of the effects of human Secretary, actions and natural factors on water-quality conditions.. Pennsylvania The NAWQA Program is assessing the water-quality conditions ofmore than 50 Department of ofthe Nation's largest river basins and aquifers, known as Study Units. Collec• Environmental tively, these Study Units cover about one-half of the United States and include Protection sources ofdrinking water used by about 70 percent ofthe U.S. Population. Com• prehensive assessments ofabout one-third of the Study Units are ongoing at a given time. Each Study Unit is scheduled to be revisited every decade to evaluate "Because the changes in water-quality conditions. NAWQA assessments rely heavily on exist• Susquehanna River ing information collected by the USGS and many other agencies as well as the. provides 90 percent of the use ofnationally consistent study designs and methods ofsampling and analysis. freshwater flow to the Such consistency simultaneously provides information about the status and upper Chesapeake Bay, trends in water-quality conditions in a particular stream or aquifer and, more maintaining and improving importantly, provides the basis to make comparisons among watersheds and water quality in the river is improve our understanding of the factors that affect water-quality conditions key to the bay restoration regionally and nationally. efforts. We hope this report This report is intended to summarize major findings that emerged between 1992 will be used by and 1995 from the water-quality assessment of the Lower Susquehanna River government, industries, Basin Study Unit and to relate these findings to water-quality issues ofregional and others to improve and national concern. The information is primarily intended for those who are water quality in the river, as involved in water-resource management. Indeed, this report addresses many of well as the bay." the concerns raised by regulators, water-utility managers, industry representa• tives, and other scientists, engineers, public officials, and members ofstakeholder PaulO. Swartz groups who provided advice and input to the USGS during this NAWQA Study• Executive Director, Unit investigation. Yet, the information contained here may also interest those Susquehanna River who simply wish to know more about the quality ofwater in the rivers and aqui• Basin Commission fers in the area where they live.

Robert M. Hirsch, ChiefHydrologist

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1168 SUMMARY OF MAJOR ISSUES AND FINDINGS• Lower Susquehanna River Basin Study Unit

Water from 30 percent of the wells sampled and about 20 percent ofthe streams sampled would exceed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for nitrate-nitrogen of 10 mg/L as N (milligrams per liter as nitrogen) if not properly treated before use as drinking water (p. 8).

o Water from wells in agricultural areas underlain by limestone and crystalline bedrock commonly exceeded the USEPA MCL for nitrate in drinking water. Water from wells in urban areas underlain by limestone bedrock and in forested and agricultural areas underlain by sandstone and shale had nitrate concentrations that seldom exceeded the MCL. o Streams in agricultural areas underlain by limestone had nitrate concentrations that, ifnot lessened by appropriate treatment before use as drinking water, commonly would exceed the USEPA MCL. Streams in other areas did not. o The highest nitrate concentrations in streams were generally in the winter and spring.

Nitrate concentrations in the Susquehanna River at Harrisburg were generally less than 2 mg/L, which is considerably below the MCL for nitrate in drinking water of 10 mg/L (discussed above) (p. 8). o Concentrations ofnitrate at these levels, when multiplied by the large flows ofthe Susquehanna River, contributed large amounts ofnitrate to the Chesapeake Bay when compared to other rivers entering the bay. o Streams from agricultural areas underlain by limestone bedrock contributed large amounts ofnitrate per unit area to the Lower Susquehanna River when compared to streams in areas with other land uses and bedrock types.

The main nitrogen source in the Study Unit is animal manure used as an agricultural fertilizer (p. 9).

o The data collected in this study provide a baseline to evaluate the effectiveness ofthe Pennsylvania Nutrient Management law, which requires concentrated animal operations to develop and have approved nutrient-management plans by 1998. o Manure-application rate may be the most important factor controlling nitrate concentrations in streams in agricultural basins underlain by limestone.

The concentration of total nitrogen in the Susquehanna River's inflow to the Chesapeake Bay has decreased in the 1985·96 time period (p. 11).

o The concentration ofnitrate (one component oftotal nitrogen) has remained unchanged during this period.

o The specific environmental circumstances that would explain the lack ofchange in nitrate concentration during a time of downward trends in total nitrogen could be related to the nitrate in streams that originates in ground water or to other nonpoint sources.

Concentrations of pesticides In water from the wells and streams sampled rarely exceeded levels established as drinking-water standards (p. 12-14).

o Although drinking-water standards, human-health advisory levels, and aquatic-life criteria were rarely exceeded, these criteria have not been established for many ofthe pesticides that were sampled for. In addition, mixtures and degradation products were not considered in developing the human-health criteria. Therefore, only a limited range ofpotential effects of the occurreJ?ce ofpesticides in drinking water has been assessed. o On the basis ofanalyses of577 samples collected from 169 shallow wells and 155 streams, pesticides were frequently detected in ground water and streams; usually, more than one pesticide was detected at a time. More than 60 percent ofwell• water samples in which pesticides were present contained more than one detectable pesticide. o The most commonly detected pesticides were the herbicides used primarily on com: atrazine, metolachlor, simazine, prometon, alachior, and cyanazine. • Detections ofpesticides in water were related to pesticide use, pesticide-leaching potential, and bedrock type. Pesticides were most likely to be detected in samples from agricultural and urban areas. Limestone areas were far more likely to have pesticides in well water than areas underlain by sandstone and shale. • Seasonal variations in pesticide concentrations in water from streams are affected by the timing ofpesticide application and the type ofbedrock. The highest concentrations ofpesticides in streams were seasonal pulses lasting up to several months. o Concentrations ofpesticides in the Susquehanna River were generally less than 1part per billion. The pesticides detected in the Susquehanna River were similar to those detected in water from streams in agricultural areas throughout the Lower Susquehanna River Basin.

2 Water Quality in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and Maryland, 1992-95 SUMMARY OF MAJOR ISSUES AND FINDINGS• lower Susquehanna River Basin Study Unit

Total coliform bacteria were detected in water from nearly 70 percent of the household wells sampled, indicating that the water should not be used for drinking without treatment (p. 15). • Fecal coliform and Escherichia coli, bacteria that indicate contamination from human or animal feces, were detected in water from 25 and 30 percent, respectively, ofthe wells tested. • Few household wells from which water was sampled were grouted, and few had sealed, sanitary caps at the top ofthe casing. Lack ofthese protective features can enable the entry ofbacteria into well water. It is uncertain whether bacteriological contamination ofwell water is caused by inadequate protection ofwells from surface runoff, septic-system failure, application ofanimal manure to fields, or other causes. • The presence ofbacteria in water from rural wells is one ofthe most important water-quality issues related to human health in the Study Unit.

None of the concentrations of the volatile organic compounds detected in samples from wells used as drinking-water supplies exceeded the MCLs or Lifetime Health Advisory Levels established by the USEPA (p. 16). • In the Great Valley near Harrisburg, Pa., volatile organic compounds were detected more frequently in an urban area than in an agricultural area.

Radon, a product of the radioactive decay of uranium, is present in ground water throughout the Lower Susquehanna River Basin (p. 17). • Radon activities in 86 percent ofthe 165 ground-water samples tested for radon were greater than a previously proposed standard, now under review by the USEPA, of300 pCi/L (picocuries per liter, a measurement ofradioactivity). • More than 30 percent ofthe 165 ground-water samples tested for radon contained radon at activities greater than 1,000 pCi/L. The area ofthe Study Unit underlain by crystalline rocks ofthe Piedmont Physiographic Province had the highest median ground-water radon activities, but variation in radon activities within most subunits is large.

Correlations were found between the concentrations of trace elements in streambed sediments and the concentrations in livers of bottom-feeding fish for only 3 of 1~ elements regarded as common contaminants (p.18). • The highest concentrations ofarsenic, beryllium, cadmium, cobalt, iron, manganese, nickel, selenium, and zinc in streambed sediments were at sites affected by mine drainage.

No organic contaminants were detected in whole fish at levels considered harmful to human health; however, some contaminants in streambed sediment were detected at levels harmful to aquatic life (p. 19-21). • Organic compounds were detected in whole-body fish tissue and streambed sediment at all 20 sites sampled, which represented a variety ofsettings. Ofthe 28 compounds analyzed for, 12 were detected. Although some ofthe detected compounds are known human health risks, an interagency work group on fish-tissue contaminants reviewed the data collected by the USGS, compared the data to U.S. Food and Drug Administration action levels, and concluded that no public health advisories were warranted for the fish species (white sucker or smallmouth bass) collected at any ofthe sampling sites. • PCBs in fish tissue were associated with urban and industrial land use. DDT and chlordane and their degradation products in fish tissue showed an association with agricultural land use. • The fish-tissue data indicate that DDT and chlordane have degraded over time and that no recent influx ofthese compounds has occurred. At four sites, concentrations oftotal DDT or total chlordane in streambed sediment exceeded USEPA Tier 1 guidelines for protection ofaquatic life. Tier 1 guidelines for total PCBs were not exceeded at any ofthe sites. • Concentrations ofsemivolatile organic compounds in streambed sediment exceeded the USEPA Tier 1 guidelines for protection ofaquatic life at 4 ofthe 21 sites.

Fish communities inhabiting the seven streams in long-term monitoring basins were related to the bedrock type (p.22-23). • The habitat characteristics that proved most influential in defining fish communities were mean channel width, mean water temperature, mean canopy angle, and suspended sediment. • Fish populations were healthier in the three freestone streams than in the four limestone streams. The fish population was influenced by agricultural activity in the agricultural settings, but the influence ofagriculture on fish communities is related to habitat degradation rather than nutrients in the water.

u.s. Geological Survey Circular 1168 3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS

EXPLANATION LAND USE III Urban or bUilt-up land IW Agrleulturalland III Rangeland III Forest land III Water III Wetland III Barren land - PHYSIOGRAPHIC BOUNDARY

o 50 MILES 01-1--.,...... 0.'-...-....1 L.I-,---'-5""'0-KI-LO...JM-E-T-E-'RS

Agricultural activity on the land surface is one important factor affecting water quality in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin.

In the Lower Susquehanna River ofthe population and some ofthe most Major water issues in the Study Unit Basin Study Unit, land use is productive agricultural land in the include the effects ofagricultural land 47 percent agricultural, 47 percent for• Nation. These agricultural and urban use on water quality and ground-water ested, and 4 percent urban; 2 percent areas commonly are areas underlain by contamination in areas underlain by ofthe area is water bodies or barren carbonate (limestone) bedrock. limestone bedrock. These issues were land (Mitchell and others, 1977; see The study area was subdivided on used to prioritize the selection ofmajor map above). The well-drained areas the basis ofland use, physiography, environmental settings for study (Ris• with rolling hills and valleys in the and bedrock type to assess the effect of ser and Siwiec, 1996). southern part ofthe basin contain most these characteristics on water quality. Water used for public supply is largely from surface water, and only about 25 percent ofthe water used for public supply comes from ground• water sources (see graph at left). In 1990, more than 1.2 million people used public-supplied water. In addi• tion, 800,000 rural homeowners depended on water from wells for domestic (household) supply. Thermo• electric cooling, industrial and mining, and public-supply withdrawals are the major uses ofwater. Withdrawals for thermoelectric cooling are much greater than withdrawals for other uses. The water-quality degradation in return flows from water used for cool• ing primarily involves increases in water temperature.

4 Water Quality in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and Maryland, 1992-95 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS

Mean annual precipitation in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin Study Unit ranges from 38 to 48 inches (see figure at right). The precipitation is generally less in the center ofthe basin because ofstorm patterns; however, the entire Study Unit receives enough rainfall so that irrigation is not common except in periods ofdrought. The precipita• tion is distributed fairly evenly throughout the year. About 45 percent ofthe precipitation is contributed by storms in May through September during the growing season, and much ofthis precipitation is used byplants. Most ofthe remaining 55 percent occurs when vegetation is dormant; there• fore, this precipitation is more available to infiltrate into bedrock and enter ground-water systems. The hydrologic conditions during the study were variable, including wet and dry years. This information is important in the interpretation of the water-quality data collected. For example, the nitrate loads were cal• culated for 1994, a wet year, and may provide a higher estimate for loads than would have been calcu• lated during a year with more normal flow. The spring of1993 and 1994 and the summer of 1994 were record high average streamflow of burg was 42 percent greater than periods ofgreater than normal pre• 250,100 cubic feet per second from the normal. The summer of 1993 and most cipitation and streamflow (see Susquehanna River to the Chesapeake of 1995 were dry periods. Drought dec• figure belc;>w). Heavy winter snow• Bay during April ofthat year. Higher larations were in effect for most ofthe storms in these years caused high than normal flows were observed counties in the Study Unit in September flows in the spring. The snowmelt throughout 1994, when streamflow in 1995. from the winter of 1993 caused a the Susquehanna River at Harris-

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1168 5 MAJOR ISSUES AND FINDINGS

Water quality in the Lower Susque• tection Agency, 1996b) and other chemistry, samples were collected hanna River Basin is affected by measures were used to assess the eco• monthly to weekly at each ofthe seven diverse geologic conditions and land• logical health ofthe streams. Selected long-term monitoring sites for a total use factors. The intense agricultural ecological data for invertebrates and of316 samples over the study period. activity, in conjunction with the impor• algae have not been analyzed and are Most ofthe samples were collected tance ofthe Lower Susquehanna River n6t included in the major findings. when flow was low and dominated by Basin as a major source offreshwater Major findings for nutrients, pesti• ground water (base flow). Relatively to the Chesapeake Bay, makes runoff cides, selected contaminants in ground few stormflow samples were collected ofnitrogen one ofthe most important water, contaminants in fish tissue and at the long-term monitoring sites; water-quality issues. Contamination of streambed sediment, fish-community therefore, issues such as the transport stream water and ground water by pes• structure andhealth, and stream habitat ofphosphorus and ammonia, which ticides and other organic chemicals, are presented to illustrate the quality of are predominantly transported during which are used in agricultural and the water resources. storms, cannot be assessed. The first urban areas, is another important issue. 3 years ofdata collection are not suffi• The study was designed to address Much ofthe rural population, which cient to detect trends in the water• relies on ground water for household natural and human factors affecting water quality. The design was an inte• quality conditions, but these data serve water supply, is in areas underlain by as a baseline for future studies. limestone bedrock. The shallow lime• grated assessment ofwater quality including stream-water chemistry, Detailed ecological studies offish, stone aquifers in valleys ofprimarily invertebrates, and algae also took place agricultural land use are vulnerable to stream-water ecology, and ground• water chemistry. Some assessments at each ofthese seven long-term moni• contamination by activities on the land toring sites. The structure and health of surface. The effect ofurban and min• involved large geographic areas ofthe Study Unit (basinwide studies), the fish community were assessed, and ing land uses on water quality are also characteristics ofthe stream habitat important issues. whereas other assessments focused on specific environmental settings (sub• were analyzed. Drinking-water standards unit studies). From the 14 major Basinwide studies were done to (U.S. Environmental Protection environmental settings based on land determine ecological conditions and Agency, 1996a) apply only to waters use, bedrock type, and physiography, the occurrence ofcontaminants. used for public supply that have been 7 subunits (see table below and map on Streambed-sediment samples were filtered and treated (finished water). page 7) were selected to provide the collected at 21 sites, and fish-tissue The NAWQA Program is designed to basis for assessing the effectS ofland samples were collected at 20 sites. assess natural waters, not finished use and bedrock type on water quality. waters. The standards were only used These sites (see map on page 28) in this report to place the observed Long-term monitoring sites (see included all ofthe long-term monitor• concentrations in samples from wells table below and map on page 7) were ing sites except for Bobs Creek and used as household drinking-water sup• established in one stream in each ofthe Cedar Run. Studies ofbiological com• plies and samples from streams into a seven subunits to evaluate the temporal munities and stream habitat were done common frame ofreference. Aquatic• variation in stream-water chemistry at an additional 45 sites (see map on life criteria (U.S, Environmental Pro- and ecology. To assess stream-water page 28).

Physiographic Long-term Environmental subunit Bedrock Dominant Ground-water province monitoring basin name and number type land use study type (section) (stream type) Piedmont Igneous and metamorphic Agriculture Muddy Creek Subunit survey (crystalline) (freestone) Piedmont Limestone and dolomite Agriculture MillCreek Land-use study (limestone) Ridge & Valley Limestone and dolomite Agriculture Bachman Run Land-use study (Great Valley) (limestone) Ridge & Valley Limestone and dolomite Urban Cedar Run Land-use study (Great Valley) (limestone) Ridge & Valley Limestone and dolomite Agriculture Kishacoquillas Land-use study (Appalachian Mountain) Creek (limestone) Ridge & Valley Sandstone and shale Agriculture East Mahantango Subunit survey (Appalachian Mountain) Creek (freestone)

Ridge & Valley Sandstone and shale Forest Bobs Creek Sampled as part (Appalachian Mountain) (freestone) ofsubunit 6 survey

6 Water Quality in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and Maryland, 1992-95 MAJOR ISSUES AND FINDINGS

Synoptic studies were done to eval• geographically on individual subunits the forested and agricultural areas of uate the conditions ofa selected area or on basinwide issues. the sandstone and shale subunit survey during a specific time period. Subunit were considered separately to allow Synoptic studies ofthe chemical studies also enhanced the understand• comparisons to the seven surface• and bacterial quality ofground water ing ofprocesses such as those that were done in the subunits by collecting water subunits. Not all issues were influence the relation between ground• well-water samples at 169 sites. studied in each subunit; for example, water quality and stream-water quality. Ground-water sampling was done as a bacteriological studies were not done The subunit-synoptic sampling sites land-use study (collecting samples in the urban subunit. Moreover, not all were located within the colored areas from an area ofa single land-use type) analyses were done at each ofthe 169 on the map below; individual sites for or as a subunit survey (collecting sam• sites, so the number ofsamples avail• ground-water and stream-water synop• ples from all land uses within a able for data analysis varies. tic studies are shown on the site maps selected aquifer). The sandstone and on page 28. Wells or streams within shale subunit survey was limited geo• An outline ofthe sampling plans is the subunits were sampled to deter• graphically to the eastern area ofthe given in the table on page 29. Details mine the variations in water quality basin and included parts ofthe forested ofthe sampling for studies ofwater among areas ofdifferent bedrock type, and agricultural subunits. Only six quality are given in Siwiec and others land use, and physiography. Synoptic subunit-synoptic studies ofground (1997). Data from this study are pub• studies ofstream-water chemistry took water were done. For data-analysis lished in Durlin and Schaffstall (1994, place at 187 sites and were focused purposes, however, the samples from 1996, 1997).

76'00' 70'30' 41'00' + +

(I...t' . Appalachian Mountain Seellon Seellon Ridge and Valley Province

10 20 30 40 50 MILES r---.-~1"'-IO...JI'-2"'-IO -3.,-'I'-4'-'O---"5O'-'-KIL-O-METE..J.I_RS_--JO D EXPLANATION 30'30' + SUBUNIT NAME AND NUMBER Piedmont crystalline (1) IliiilI Appalachian Mounleln PHYSIOGRAPHIC II) g limestone agricultural (5) BOUNDARY Chuapeau Bay III PI:~~:U7~~i~\one Appalachian Mounleln SruDYAREA III sandstone and shale BOUNDARY I"8:jI Great Valley IImeslone agricultural (6) ~ LONG·TERM MONITORING agricultural (3) AppalachIan Mounleln SITE AND SUBUNIT NUMBER III sandstone and shale Great Valley limestone forested (7) II urban (4) The study design was based on a combination of land use, physiography, and bedrock type. This map and table (page 6) illustrate and describe the subunits that formed the basis of the study. The subunits are the colored areas; streams used as long-term monitoring basins are labeled.

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1168 7 MAJOR ISSUES AND FINDINGS• Nitrate in Ground Water and Streams

Wells and streams in the Lower Sus• andagricultural areas underlain by quehanna River Basin Study Unit were sandstone andshale hadnitrate con• sampled, and the waters were analyzed centrations that seldom exceededthe for nitrate and other fonus ofnitrogen. MCL. Nitrate was the dominant fonn of Streams in agricultural areas nitrogen in the water. Nitrate was underlain by limestone hadnitrate detected in 98 percent ofthe samples, concentrations that, ifnot lessened by and 92 percent had concentrations of appropriate treatment before use as nitrate that were above 0.3 mg/L (mil• drinking water, commonly would ligram per liter as N, or part per exceed the USEPA MCL. Streams in million). In addition to human health other areas did not. Some streams in effects ofdrinking water with nitrate limestone areas have nitrate concentra• concentrations greater than 10 mg/L, tions of 10 mg/L or more year-round. nitrate can stimulate excessive growth In limestone areas, streams were com• ofalgae in lakes and streams at con• monly fed by springs that discharged centrations as low as 0.3 mg/L. The ground water containing high concen• nitrate studies focused on describing .the samples representing sources of trations ofnitrate. Water from the concentrations in seven major sub• drinking water were the samples col• tributaries in limestone areas, such as units (Lindsey, Loper, and Hainly, lected from wells used for household Mill Creek (see graph on bottom of 1997). Nittl1.tel1.lialyseS from 161 wells supply. Ground waters in agricultural page 10), had nitrate concentrations and 156 stream sites were completed areas ~ere most likely to have nitrate near 10 mg/L with some seasonal fluc• for this study. Data from other studies concentrations that exceeded drinking• tuation. In limestone and other areas, ofnitrogen in the Susquehanna River water standards, though not all agricul• the highest nitrate concentrations were (Hainly and Loper, 1997) were used to tural areas were the same. Land use generally in the winter andspring. supplement USGS data to describe and bedrock type accounted for most Seasonally high concentrations of trends in concentrations. ofthe variation in nitrate concentra• nitrate are an issue for some water sup• tions in ground water (see graph on pliers. Suppliers ofdrinking water Spatial Distribution of page 9). Ground-water nitrate concen• regularly monitor nitrate Nitrate Concentrations trations were highest in agricultural concentration. Waterfrom 30percent ofthe wells areas underlain by limestone, where Nitrate concentrations in the Sus• sampled andabout 20percent ofthe 45 percent ofthe samples exceededthe quehanna River at Harrisburg were streams sampledwouldexceedthe U.S. MCL. Waters from 36percent ofthe generally less than 2 mg/L, which is Environmental Protection Agency wells in agricultural areas underlain considerably below the MCLfor (USEPA) Maximum Contaminant by crystalline bedrock also hadnitrate nitrate in drinking water of10 mglL. Level (MCL) for nitrate-nitrogen concentrations greater than 10 mg/L. Concentrations ofnitrate at these lev• of10 mg/L ifnotproperly treated Water from wells in urban areas els, when multiplied by the largeflows before use as drinking water. Most of underlain by limestone and inforested ofthe Susquehanna River, contributed

Ground-water and stream-water quality are related to manure management and application rates. Best-management practlces, like the manure-storage structure (concrete structure with chain-link fence) on this farm in Lancaster County, Pa. (left), help keep manure from being applied to the fields In the winter when nitrate is more likely to enter streams and ground water (above, photograph by Dennis W. Risser, U.S. Geological Survey). 8 Water Quality in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and Maryland, 1992-95 MAJOR ISSUES AND FINDINGS• Nitrate in Ground Water and Streams

provide large amounts ofnitrate to the Susquehanna River. The main nitrogen source in the Study Unit is animal manure usedas an agricul• turalfertilizer. High manure-application rates showed a strong association with ele• vated nitrate concentrations in areas of specific land uses and bedrock types. Nitrogen in manure and fertilizers added to agricultural land is essential to plant growth; however, concentrated animal operations can produce more manure than the crops grown on that farm can use. The number ofconcentrated animal operations is increasing in some parts ofthe basin. Improper or excess application can cause nitrate and other forms ofnitrogen to enter the ground water or streams. Recently, through the efforts ofthe Chesapeake Bay Nitrate concentrations in ground water are highest in agricultural areas underlain by lime• Restoration Program, many agricultural stone bedrock, where almost half of the samples collected exceed 10 mg/L ofnitrate. operations have voluntarily taken advan• Shallow bedrock depth and highly fractured bedrock in valleys underlain by limestone can allow nitrate from manure and fertilizer to infiltrate rapidly into the ground water. tage ofnew technologies to manage manure more efficiently. The data col• large amounts ofnitrate to the Ches• dominated by ground water (base lected in this studyprovide a baseline to apeake Bay when compared to other flow) showed that streamsfrom agri• evaluate the effectiveness ofthe Pennsyl• rivers entering the bay. Although cultural areas underlain by vania Nutrient Management law, which safe for human consumption after fil• limestone bedrockcontributed large requires concentrated animal operations to develop andhave approved nutrient• tration and water treatment, the amounts ofnitrate per unit area to water flowing from the Susque• managementplans by 1998. the Lower Susquehanna River when hanna River into the Chesapeake The nitrate data from the seven subunits compared to streams in areas with Bay still contained enough nitrate to were compared to determine factors that other land uses and bedrock types. stimulate algae growth and affect the affect nitrate movement and concentration. bay ecosystem. Estimates ofloads However, streams in agricultural Nitrate concentrations were higher in and yields ofnitrate for 1994 from areas underlain by sandstone and stream water in areas underlain by lime• samples collected when the flow was shale and crystalline bedrock also stone than in areas underlain by other

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1168 9 MAJOR ISSUES AND FINDINGS• Nitrate in Ground Water and Streams

nants from the agricultural land use, but contaminants may be absorbed by vegetation or diluted as the water passes under the forested areas on the way to the stream. Temporal Variation in Nitrate Concentration in Streams Temporal variation in nitrate con• centrations in streams during periods when storm runoffis absent (base flow) and flow is dominated by ground-water flow was determined from the analyses ofsamples collected throughout the year at seven long-term monitoring sites (see map on page 7). Nitrate concentrations were commonly higher in the winter months than in the bedrock tYPes; however, these areas movement ofnitrate into the ground summer months. An example plot for generally had the highest manure• water. Conditions in these aquifers also Mill Creek is shown below. applicationrates. When an agricultural were such that nitrate could change area underlain by limestone and an chemically to other forms ofnitrogen Statistical analysis showed that high agricultural area underlain by sand• (denitrification) and potentially leave flows in the streams were related to stone and shale with similar manure• the water system and enter the atmo• high nitrate concentrations. This varia• application rates were compared, sphere. The sandstone and shale tion may have been caused by the nitrate concentrations in streams were subunits had the lowest median nitrate seasonal change in the amount of not significantly different. Manure• concentrations in streams and ground water that flows through the ground application rate may be the most water compared to the other subunits. and carries nitrate to the streams (more importantfactor controlling nitrate water transports more nitrate). Other concentrations in streams in agricul• The relation oftopography and land possible explanations for this variation tural basins underlain by limestone. A use is important in understanding include the seasonal cycle in plant comparison of41 basins in agricultural nitrate occurrence. In the Ridge and uptake ofnitrogen and seasonal fluctu• areas underlain by limestone shows Valley Physiographic Province, where ations in uptake ofnitrate by algae in that the manure-application rate is agricultural areas are in the valleys and streams. Because no information was strongly correlated with nitrate con• forested areas are on the ridges, the available about the time for ground centration (see graph above). ground water under the valleys may be water to travel from land surface to mixed with water from the ridges, streams, interpretation ofthis temporal Nitrate concentrations were higher which dilutes agricultural contami• variation was not conclusive. Nitrate in ground water than in streams in nants. In areas ofthe Piedmont concentrations in stream base flow are agricultural areas underlain by lime• underlain by crystalline bedrock, agri• unlikely to change quickly in response stone bedrock and in agricultural areas cultural land use is commonly on the to land-management practices because underlain by crystalline bedrock. Con• hilltops, and the steep hillsides are for• it may take years for ground water now ditions in these areas allow much of ested. There, the ground water under in aquifers underlying the basin to flow the agriculturally applied nitrogen to the agricultural land contains contami- into streams. enter the ground water. Under certain conditions, forested areas near streams (riparian buffers) can remove nitrate from the ground water before it flows into the stream. Nitrate concentrations were higher in streams than in ground water in urban areas underlain by limestone. Streams in urban areas were affected by point-source discharges. Nitrate concentrations were also higher in stream water than ground water inboth agricultural and forested ar~as under• lain by sandstone and shale. The conditions in the sandstone and shale aquifers are not favorable for the

10 Water Quality in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and Maryland, 1992-95 MAJOR ISSUES AND FINDINGS• Trends in Nitrogen and Phosphorus Concentrations

Because the stream samples pri• marily were collected when the flow was low and dominated by ground water (base flow), the occur• rence and trends ofphosphorus and other forms ofnitrogen such as ammonia are difficult to detennine from the NAWQA data. These nutrients generally are associated with stonn runoffand would not be well characterized by an analysis of base-flow data. Therefore, data from an ongoing study ofthe Sus• quehanna River (Langland and others, 1998) was used to show trends for these nutrients. The study showed that the concentration of total nitrogen in the Susquehanna River at Conowingo Dam, the river S inflow to the Chesapeake Bay, decreased in the 1985-96 time period The concentration ofnitrate (one component oftotal nitrogen) remained unchanged during this period. The downward trends in total nitrogen (see map and table at right) are probably the result oflarge decreases in concentrations of ammonia and organic nitro• gen---other components oftotal nitrogen. The decreases in concen• trations ofammonia and organic nitrogen, and subsequent decreases in total nitrogen, are attributed to improvements in sewage-treatment ':::i:1; plants and implementation ofagri• culturalbest-managementpractices. The specific environmental circum• """""-=''-'''-''''-'-''-.1::,):: stances that wouldexplain the lack ofchange in nitrate concentration during a time ofdownward trends in total nitrogen couldbe related to the nitrate in streams that origi• nates in ground water or to other nonpoint sources. Further study would be needed to detennine the causes ofthese opposing trends. Studies ofphosphorus show that ;,.~;",!,:;;,.:.'~~'~.:E)~~!~,,~~~~~~1~~J~~~:.~b".,' trends in concentration have '. decreased throughout the basin. ;'.::::::'" "·i.. , These trends are attributed to a ban on phosphate detergents as well as improvements in sewage-treatment plants and implementation ofagri• cultural practices that decrease surface runoff.

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1168 11 MAJOR ISSUES AND FINDINGS• Pesticides in Ground Water and Streams

Wells and streams in the Lower Sus• quehanna River Basin Study Unitwere The timing and rate of agricultural sampled and the waters analyzed for pesticide applications (below) were many ofthe most commonly used pes• important factors in describing the ticides in the United States. The seasonal and spatial concentration pesticides analyzed for are soluble in patterns detected in ground water and streams. water. The samples were collected to provide information on the spatial dis• tribution ofpesticides in ground water and streams, as well as the seasonal patterns ofpesticides in streams (Breen and others, 1995; Hainly and Kahn, 1996; Hainly and Bickford, Indicators of residential, commercial, 1997). and industrial pesticide use (above) helped to explain concentration Concentrations ofpesticides in patterns of pesticides not used extensively for agricultural purposes. waterfrom the wells andstreams sam• pledrarely exceededlevels established as drinking-water standards. Only 10 Guidelines for protection ofaquatic exceeded, these criteria have not been ofthe measured concentrations in life were exceeded in samples from establishedfor many ofthe pesticides untreated waters from streams nine streams. Concentrations of that were sampledfor. In addition, mix• exceeded a level established as a drink• malathion, chIorpyrifos, and methyl• tures anddegradation products were ing-water standard. Seasonal factors, azinphos exceeded guidelines for pro• not considered in developing the such as storm runoffofpesticides dur• tection ofaquatic life (U.S. human-health criteria. Only a limited ing the major application period in the Environmental Protection Agency, range ofthe potential effects ofpesti• spring, contribute to high concentra• 1991). Although no guidelines have cides in drinking water has been tions ofpesticides in streams. Very few been established in the United States assessed Therefore, it is important to storm samples were collected for this for atrazine, cyanazine, and meto• evaluate pesticide occurrence and study; however, 8 ofthe 10 exceed• lachIor, these pesticides exceeded the trends even though current standards ances were measured in storm-affected Canadian guidelines for protection of were rarely exceeded. samples. More work would be needed aquatic life (Canadian Council of Spatial Distribution of to understand fully the high-concentra• Resource and Environment Ministers, Pesticide Concentrations tion pulses ofpesticides in stormflow. 1996). Pesticides were detectedfrequently None ofthe samples collected from in ground water andstreams; usually, household-supply wells had concentra• Although drinking-water standards, more than onepesticide was detected tions that exceeded drinking-water human-health advisory levels, and at a time. Spatial and seasonal patterns standards. aquatic-fife. 9riteria were rarely ofpesticide concentrations were docu• mented using 577 samples that were tested for 47 herbicides or insecticides. A subset ofthe stream-water samples and all ground-water samples were tested for an additional 38 pesticides. In total, nearly 40,000 analyses ofcon• centrations for individual pesticides were made on waters from 155 stream sites and 169 shallow wells from 1993 to 1995. For this study, shallow wells were defined as those less than 200 ft deep. In more than 90 percent ofthe sam• ples collected, at least one pesticide was detected, and two or more pesti• cides per sample were frequently detected. More than 60 percent ofwell• watersamples in whichpesticides were

12 Water Quality in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and Maryland, 1992-95 MAJOR ISSUES AND FINDINGS• Pesticides in Ground Water and Streams

streams and the spatial patterns observed in water from streams and wells. Indicators ofnonagricultural use helped to explain concentration pat• terns ofpesticides not used extensively in agriculture. Detections ofpesticides were related to pesticide use, pesticide• leachingpotential, and bedrock type. Pesticides were most likely to be detected in samplesfrom agricultural andurban areas. Limestone areas werefar more likely to havepesticides in well water than areas underlain by sandstone andshale. Bedrock type influences the movement and dis• charge ofground water and affects spatial patterns ofpesticide concentra• tions, as shown in the graph to the left and in the figure below. Some com• monly used pesticides with low leaching potential (low potential to present contained more than one detected with atrazine. Metolachlor infiltrate into the ground with the detectable pesticide. In general, mea• was detected in 95 percent ofthe water), such as alachlor and cyanazine, sured concentrations ofindividual stream samples and in 53 percent of were detected in streams more often pesticides were very low; only 22 sam• the ground-water samples. Nearly half than in wells because they are more ples ofstream water and 2 samples of ofall the pesticides analyzed for were likely to be transported in surface ground water had concentrations that not detected in any sample. Dfthe 45 runoff. exceeded 2 J.Lg/L (micrograms per liter, pesticides that were detected at least To help understand how differences or parts per billion). once, only 5 were detected in more in bedrock type control concentrations than halfofthe samples collected. ofhighly soluble pesticides in stream The most commonly detectedpesti• base flow, Study Unit personnel com• cides were the herbicides used Average annual pesticide use for pared atrazine concentrations in primarily on corn: atrazine, meto• agricultural purposes and nonagricul• streams during the dry times ofthe lachlor, simazine, prometon, alachlor, tural (residential, commercial, and year, when the flow is low and domi• andcyanazine (see graph on page 12). industrial) pesticide-use indicators nated by ground water (base flow), to Metolachlor and atrazine are the two were related to patterns ofpesticide concentrations in ground water from most used agriculturalpesticides in the concentrations in waters from wells shallow wells. Results differed consid• Study Unit. Atrazine was detected in and streams. The timing and rate of erably between limestone systems and 98 percent ofthe stream samples and agricultural pesticide applications for non-limestone systems. In subunits in 74 percent ofthe ground-water sam• the high-use pesticides described a with limestone bedrock, atrazine con• ples. Desethylatrazine (a breakdown major part ofthe seasonal concentra• centrations in waters from streams and product ofatrazine) was usually tion patterns observed in water from shallow wells were similar, indicating

The amount ofwater that runs off the land surface or infiltrates into the ground depends on factors such as slope and how easily water can flow through the soil and bedrock material. In areas of limestone bed• rock, where water can readily infiltrate into the ground, pesticides were commonly detected in ground water. The same pesticides detected in ground water were 'usually detected in streams during times when the flow in the streams is sustained by flow from ground water. In areas of sandstone and shale, where water does not easily flow through the soil and bedrock material, the easiest pathway for the water is to run off over the land. Pesticides were rarely detected in ground water in these areas.

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1168 13 MAJOR ISSUES AND FINDINGS• Pesticides in Ground Water and Streams a system ofground-water flow through large fractures and springs to the streams. In the sandstone and shale subunit, atrazine concentrations in well waters were lower than concentrations in the streams, indicating that water reaching the stream may be flowing from the aquifer to the stream through a system offractures in a shallower layer ofthe aquifer than the layer pen• etrated by the wells. The graphs to the right illustrate the differences between pesticide concentrations in streams in limestone settings and sandstone and shale settings. Temporal Variation in Pesticide Concentrations in Streams Seasonal variations in pesticide concentrations in waterfrom streams are affected by the timing ofpesticide application andthe type ofbedrock. The highest concentrations ofpesti• cides were seasonalpulses lasting up to several months (see graph at right). Peak concentrations were smaller in a streamflow is supplied from ground similar to those detected in waterfrom limestone stream compared with a water are lower in East Mahantango streams in agricultural areas through• stream in a sandstone and shale area. Creek than in Mill Creek. out the Lower Susquehanna River Elevated concentrations in streams Basin. were related to the seasonality ofagri• Pesticide Concentrations in the Pesticides were not detected in sam• cultural-use applications. The seasonal Susquehanna River ples collected during synoptic studies variations in climate also were an Concentrations ofpesticides in the at the main-stem Susquehanna River at important factor in explaining seasonal Susquehanna Riverwere generally less Danville and were detected in low con• patterns. than 1 IlgIL. Analyses of 11 water centrations in the West Branch Mill Creek, a limestone stream, samples from the Susquehanna River Susquehanna River at Lewisburg shows a slight rise in atrazine concen• at Harrisburg from June 1994 to (upstream from the Lower Susque• tration after the major application August 1995 indicated that mixtures of hanna River Basin). This pattern period because some atrazine is in run• pesticides and their degradation prod• indicates that the pesticides present in off. Some atrazine infiltrates into the ucts were frequently present in the the Susquehanna River at Harrisburg ground water and provides constant river but at concentrations generally are most likely introduced by the tribu• levels ofatrazine to the stream for the less than I Jlg/L (see table below). The taries in the Lower Susquehanna River rest ofthe year. This is a limestone pesticides detected at this site were Basin. stream pattern. Levels ofatrazine remain between 0.1 and 0.2 1lg!L Pesticide concentrations in the Susquehanna River at Harrisburg, 1994-95, were generally because groundwater provides most of less than «) 1 microgram per liter. the water to the stream. Minimum Maximum Median concentration concentration concentration The pattern at East Mahantango Compound Creek, a stream in an area ofsandstone micrograms per liter (parts per billion) and shale, shows a pulse or increase in Alachlor <0.002 0.730 <0.002 atrazine concentration after applica• Atrazine .014 1.20 .037 tion, followed by lower concentrations Atrazine, desethyl .015 .118 .027 throughout the rest ofthe year. Topog• Cyanazine <.004 .280 <.004 raphy and soils in this basin favor Metolachlor .007 2.30 .018 runoffofatrazine over leaching to the Prometon <.018 .035 <.018 ground water. The levels ofatrazine Simazine <.005 .124 .009 after the application period when the

14 Water Quality in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and Maryland, 1992-95 MAJOR ISSUES AND FINDINGS• Bacteria in Ground Water

Samples from 146 household• ,.-,.- ,..• :.: -.,\:;;; .. supply wells were analyzed for organ• isms indicative offecal contamination, including total and fecal coliform bac• teria (Bickford andothers, 1996). Total coliform bacteria were detected in waterfrom nearly 70 percent ofthe householdwells sampled, indicating that the water shouldnot be usedfor drinking without treatment. Fecal coliforms were present in waterfrom about 25 percent ofthose same wells. In an 88-well subset. approximately 30percent hadwaters containing Escherichia coli bacteria (E. coli). Fecal streptococcus bacteria were present in water from about 65 percent ofthe wells sampled. Bacteriological contamination was more likely to occur in water from wells in agricul• tural areas than in water from wells in nation or local factors. In most other pathogens offecal origin to be forested areas. Water from wells in counties in Pennsylvania, testing and present in the drinking water. Gas• areas underlain by limestone had treatment ofprivate wells is not trointestinal diseases related to wells higher concentrations ofbacteria than required. It is uncertain whether bacte• used for household-water supply have areas with other types ofbedrock. riological contamination ofwell water symptoms such as diarrhea and stom• Few householdwellsfrom which is caused by inadequate protection of ach cramps and commonly go water was sampledwere grouted, and wellsfrom surface runoff, septic-sys• unreported. With watersfrom nearly few hadsealed, sanitary caps at the tem failure. application ofanimal 70 percent ofthe wells sampledshow• top ofthe casing. Lack ofthese protec• manure to fields. or other causes. tivefeatures can enable the entry of ing one or more bacteriological bacteria into well water andmay have Although samples were not tested indicators, the presence ofbacteria in contributed to the number ofdetec• for protozoan pathogens, such as Giar• waterfrom rural wells is one ofthe tions ofbacteria. It is uncertain dia lamblia and Cryptosporidium, the most important water-quality issues whether the bacteria detected were the presence offecal bacteria indicates the related to human health in the Study result ofwidespread aquifer contarni- potential for these protozoans and Unit.

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1168 15 MAJOR ISSUES AND FINDINGS- Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground Water

Water samples for analysis ofvola• highest chlorofonn concentration tile organic compounds (VOCs) were detected in a water sample was collected from 118 ofthe 169 wells 6lllg/L. used in this assessment; at least I com• The presence ofVOCs in limestone pound was present in water from 26 of aquifers in the Great Valley near Har• the 118 wells (Daly and Lindsey, 1996; risburg, Pa., is affected by land use as Lindsey, Breen, and Daly, 1997). Anal• illustrated by the graph below. VOCs yses for 60 VOCs at detection levels were detected morefrequently in the ranging from 0.2 to 1.0 ~g/L revealed urban area (subunit 4) than in the the presence of23 compounds. These agricultural area (subunit 3). Within compounds are present in commonly the urban area, analyses ofsamples used industrial solvents and degreasers from wells, springs, and a spring-fed or are components ofgasoline. stream indicate that contaminated ground water flows from springs into None ofthe concentrations ofthe the streams. VOCs detected in samplesfrom wells used as drinking-water supplies The frequency ofdetections of exceeded the MCLs or Lifetime Health VOCs in urban areas is likely to be a Advisory Levels established by the result ofthe numerous urban sources rJSEPA.. Methyl tert-butyl ether, a gas• ofVOCs, including spills, leaks from oline additive, was the most commonly underground tanks, improper disposal, detected compound. Concentrations of atmospheric deposition, runofffrom Underground storage tanks that contain methyl tert-butyl ether, detected in II pavement, and leaking sewerlines. gasoline and other fuels can be a source of ofthe 118 wells, ranged from 0.2 to In the rural areas in the Appalachian VOCs in ground water. The drill rig shown above is used to install monitoring wells so the ~g/L. 51 The 51 Ilg/L ofmethyl tert• Mountain subunits, no VOCs were property owner can determine whether butyl ether, detected in a monitoring detected in well water (see graph leakage or contamination has occurred. well, exceeded the lower limit ofthe below). The low population densities compound's Lifetime Health Advi• in rural areas and fewer sources of sory Level. Chlorofonnwas the second VOCs are likely explanations for the most commonly detected compound. lack ofdetections ofVOCs. In rural Chlorofonn is a byproduct ofusing areas, leaking storage tanks, septic sys• chlorine as a disinfectant. Chlorofonn tems, improper disposal, and also is present in septic-system efflu• atmospheric deposition are potential ent, and it has industrial uses. The sources ofVOCs.

16 Water Quality in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and Maryland, 1992-95 MAJOR ISSUES AND FINDINGS• Radon in Ground Water

Radon, a product ofthe radioactive decay ofuranium, is present in ground water throughout the Lower Susque• hanna River Basin (Lindsey and Ator, 1996). Airborne radon has been cited by the Surgeon General ofthe United States as the second leading cause of lung cancer, and the USEPA has iden• tified ground-water supplies as possi• ble contributing sources ofindoor radon. Radon activities in 86percent ofthe 165 ground-water samples testedfor radon were greater than a previouslyproposedstandard. now under review by the USEPA, of300 pCiIL (picocuries per liter, a measure• ment ofradioactivity). More than 30percent ofthe ground-water 165 Piedmont Physiographic Province had than 1,000 pCi/L) were measured in samples testedfor radon contained the highest median radon activities in ground water in subunits underlain by radon at activities greater than ground water (greater than limestone. The median activity in 1,000pCiIL. 1,000 pCiIL), but variation in radon ground water in the subunit underlain The subunit ofthe Study Unit under• activities within most subunits is large. by sandstone and shale also was less lain by crystalline rocks ofthe Lower median radon activities (less than 1,000 pCi/L; however, the maxi• mum activity was higher than the maximum activity in any ofthe sub• units underlain by limestone. Land use generally does not affect radon activity. Although the ground water in some areas has higher activities ofradon rel• ative to other areas, the only way to be sure ofthe radon activity in water from a well is to have it tested. In homes where high indoor radon levels are measured and where water is supplied by a well, the USEPA recommends testing well water as a potential con• tributing source ofradon. For every 10,000 pCi/L ofradon in water, about 1 pCi/L ofradon is released to the air, in addition to any airborne radon that may enter a home through the base• ment (only 1 ofthe 165 ground-water samples contained greater than 10,000 pCi/L ofradon). Ifa large percentage ofthe radon in the house is from the water, the USEPA recommends that installation ofa water-treatment sys• tem to remove radon be considered. Homes and water supplies both can be treated to reduce radon levels.

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1168 17 MAJOR ISSUES AND FINDINGS- Trace Elements in Fish Tissue and Streambed Sediment

Streambed sediments and liver tis• sues offish were analyzed for selected trace elements. Trace-element analy• ses were not done for ground water or Livers were removed surface water. Trace elements are from fish and analyzed for trace elements. present naturally in water and sedi• ments at concentrations that depend on the type ofrock where sediments origi• nate (Hainly and others, 1994). Concentrations can be elevated above natural levels as a result ofdischarges from wastewater-treatment plants, industrial activity, or mining. Sedi• ment samples from 21 sites were analyzed. Livers from bottom-feeding fish (white sucker) from 20 sites also were analyzed. Livers from bottom• tions do not imply direct cause and affected by mine drainage. Streambed feeding fish species (white sucker) and effect relations, they may indicate that sediment from the Susquehanna River predator fish species (smallmouth bass) these elements travel pathways through at Danville had high to moderately were collected at 3 ofthe 20 sites. the aquatic system in a manner different high concentrations ofall ofthese ele• Streambed sediments were analyzed from the other elements. ments. Tributaries such as the West Branch ofthe Susquehanna River and for 27 trace elements; 24 were Trace-element concentrations inliver are affected by mine detected. Liver tissues offish were ana• tissue from a predator species (small• drainage and have the highest concen• lyzed for 22 trace elements; 18 were mouth bass) and a bottom-feeding trations ofberyllium, cadmium, cobalt, detected. species (white sucker) were determined manganese, nickel, and zinc. The high• for samples from three sites. The liver Human-health issues were not the est concentrations oflead were at sites tissue ofsmallmouth bass had higher focus ofthe trace-element studies. on and Quittapahilla concentrations ofaluminum, cobalt, Because trace-element concentrations Creek downstream from urban and iron, mercury, selenium, strontium, and were determined only for fish livers industrial areas. Lead is also present in vanadium. The liver tissue ofwhite and not for edible portions, no state• high concentrations in streambed sedi• sucker had higher concentrations of ments about suitability offish for ment from Mahanoy Creek. Sediment copper, manganese, and silver. These human consumption can be made. The from some sites in basins in the Pied• differences indicate that the two fish U.S. Food and Drug Administration mont Physiographic Province that have species may have different bioaccumu• (FDA) action level for mercury is no industrial or mining activity also lation mechanisms for these elements. 1 part per million in the edible portion contained elevated concentrations of (fillets) offish. Mercury concentrations The bioavailability oftrace elements nickel, indicating that the bedrock in in fish livers at four sites were close in the sediments is not clearly under• that area may be a natural source of enough to the FDA action level to sug• stood but is known to depend on such nickel. gest a need for further study of local factors as concentration ofdis• To better understand transport of mercury. Liver tissue from smallmouth solved solids and dissolved organics, trace elements to the Susquehanna bass in the Susquehanna River at Dan• pH, hardness, and sediment load, which River from a tributary affected by mine ville and the West Branch Susquehanna also influence the prevailing chemical drainage, Study Unit personnel col• River at Lewisburg and white sucker in forms oftrace elements in aquatic sys• lected samples from Mahanoy Creek• Codorus Creek and the Frankstown tems (Neilson, 1994). Therefore, the including streambed sediment, water, Branch had mercury con• trace elements present in the streambed coatings on rock surfaces, and liver tis• centrations that ranged from 0.5 to sediment may not have been bioavail• sue from white suckers-and analyzed 0.7 part per million. able for uptake by fish. Moreover, the all these substances for trace elements sediment samples may not have been Correlations werefound between the (Breen and Gavin, 1995). Most trace collected in that part ofthe stream concentrations in streambedsediments elements being transported down• channel where the fish were most and the concentrations in livers ofbot• stream were in the form ofsuspended actively in contact with the streambed. tom-feedingfishfor only 3 of11 particles or colloids. The coatings on These factors may help explain the lack elements regarded as common contam• rock surfaces contained high concen• ofcorrelation between the concentra• inants. Arsenic, chromium, copper, trations oftrace elements, and the tions detected in streambed sediments lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, and coatings could be dislodged from the and the concentrations ofthe same ele• zinc were not significantly correlated. rock surfaces during storms. Calcula• ment detected in the liver tissue offish. Concentrations ofcadmium, silver, and tions showed that the transport oftrace vanadium in livers from white sucker The highest concentrations of elements dislodged from rock surfaces and the concentrations ofthese trace arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, cobalt, during a storm would be small relative elements in streambed sediments were iron, manganese, nickel, selenium, and to the daily transport from suspended correlated. Although these associa- zinc in streambedsediment were at sites particles and colloids.

18 Water Quality in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and Maryland, 1992-95 MAJOR ISSUES AND FINDINGS• Pesticides and Other Organic Compounds in Fish Tissue and Streambed Sediment

Organochlorine Pesticides and 3. Predator species of fish PCBs in Fish Tissue and fish-eating wildlife Some pesticides and organic com• 1. Contaminants consume prey that have taken up pounds were in widespread use for are washed into stream contaminants. nearly 40 years until banned or with sediment. restricted in the 1970's and 1980's (Smith and others, 1988), when it was learned that many ofthese compounds are toxic and also accumulate in the food chain. These compounds include organochlorine pesticides (such as DDT and chlordane) and polychlori• nated biphenyls (PCBs, formerly used as electrical insulators). Because ofthe low chemical reactivity, resistance to oxidation, and resistance to other degenerative processes, residues of Contaminants on the land surface can be washed into streams, commonly attached to these compounds have been shown to sediment. The contaminants can enter the food chain and bioaccumulate in predator species. be persistent in the environment (Great Lakes Basin Commission, 1975). smallmouth bass were collected at 5 tion, Pennsylvania Fish andBoat These compounds generally are not sites. Organic compounds were Commission, andPennsylvania soluble in water but can accumulate in detected in whole-bodyfish tissue and Department 0/Health) reviewed the the tissues oforganisms that live in the the streambedsediment at all 20 sites data collected by the USGS, compared water. As a result, tissue samples of sampled, which representeda variety of the data to FDA action levels, andcon• fish are collected and analyzed for the settings. Ofthe 28 compounds analyzed cludedthat no public-health advisories presence ofthese compounds. for, 12 were detected. were warranted/or thefish species (white sucker or smallmouth bass) col• Twenty sites were sampled from Although some ofthe detected com• lected at any ofthe sampling sites. 1992 to 1995 to determine the occur• pounds are known human-health risks, Concentrations in the whole body of rence and distribution ofselected an interagency workgroup onfish• fish and the edible portions (fillets) are organochlorine compounds. Whole• tissue contaminants (composed o/rep• not directly comparable. Nevertheless, body tissue samples ofwhite sucker resentatives ofthe Pennsylvania the FDA action level for human con• were collected at 19 ofthe 20 sites and Department ofEnvironmental Protec- sumption for total chlordane [300 Ilg/kg (micrograms per kilo• gram)], total DDT (5,000 Ilg/kg) (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 1992), or total PCBs (2,000 Ilg/kg) (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 1995) in the edible portion was not exceeded in the whole-body tissues at any ofthe sample locations. The col• lection ofwhole fish and fillet data in future studies would aid in identifying problem sites and evaluating the need for fish-consumption advisories.

PCBs infish tissue were associated with urban and industrial land use. The organochlorine pesticides and their degradation products infish tissue showedan association with agri• culturalland use. Organochlorine concentrations detected in fish tissue Organochlorine pesticides (many ofwhich are now banned) are persistent in the environment. were evaluated in terms ofthe major Trace amounts are present in streambed sediment and fish. Fish are collected for study by a team of biologists using equipment like this barge-mounted electroshocker. (Photograph by land uses present in the basin (agricul• Steven F. Siwiec, U.S. Geological Survey.) tural, forested, urban) as shown in the

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1168 19 MAJOR ISSUES AND FINDINGS- Pesticides and Other Organic Compounds in Fish Tissue and Streambed Sediment graph below. The two sites represent• total PCBs were not exceededat any of The concentration patterns for ing basins with a mixture of the sites. Ofthe 32 compounds ana• streambed sediment and fish tissue agricultural, urban, and industrial land lyzedfor. 15 were detected. The with respect to land use were similar uses had the highest concentrations of highest concentrations were for metab• (see graph below). Sites representing total PCBs, total DDT, and total chlor• olites ofDDT and components oftotal basins with agricultural and mixed dane. DDT and chlordane were chlordane, more specifically, the con• urban and industrial land use had the associated with the highest percent• centrations ofthep,p '- forms ofDDD, highest concentrations oftotal PCBs, ages ofagricultural land use. Tissue DDE, and DDT, trans-nonachlor, and total DDT, and total chlordane. Sites samples from sites whose drainage cis-nonachlor. Further analysis ofthe representing basins with the highest included the greatest percentage of data shows a strong correlation percentage ofagricultural land use urban land use, although never a domi• between the concentrations ofthese showed the highest concentrations of nant land use, had higher total PCB compounds andPCBs in the streambed total DDT and total chlordane. Sites concentrations than those at sites sediments and whole-fish tissues, indi• representing basins with the greatest downstream from less urban use. Sam• cating the possibility ofa direct percentage ofurban and industrial land ples from sites categorized as forest use (though never dominant) had the contaminant pathway. For example, dominant (greater than 50 percent of highest concentrations oftotal PCBs. the highest concentrations oftotal the basin area forested) had the lowest Streambed sediments from the forest• DDT and chlordane in streambed sedi• number ofdetectable organochlorine dominated sites had the lowest concen• ments were in . compounds and the lowest concentra• trations ofall organochlorine The fish-tissue samples at that site also tions overall. compounds and PCBs. hadthe highest concentrations ofDDT The fish-tissue data indicate that and chlordane. Codorus Creek had the DDTandchlordane have degraded At most sites where DDT was over time and that no recent influx of highest concentrations oftotal PCBs in detected, the DDEIDDT ratio was these compounds has occurred. Orga• both streambed sediment and fish greater than 1, indicating long-term nochlorine pesticides such as DDT and tissue. degradation ofthe DDT. At only 3 of chlordane degrade in the environment over time into a series ofbreakdown products called metabolites. The most persistent metabolite ofDDT• p,p '- DOE-made up about 50 percent ofthe total DDT detected in fish tissue. Because the metabolitep,p '- DOE is the most persistent, it can be expected to be the major metabolite present late in the degradation process. The high percentage ofp,p '- DDE indicates no recent influx oftotal DDT within the basin. Concentrations oftwo compo• nents oftotal chlordane, cis-chlordane and trans-nonachlor, were the highest among the chlordane components detected in fish tissue. These are the most abundant and persistent compo• nents ofchlordane. The high concentrations ofmore persistent com• ponents indicate that degradation has taken place. Synthetic Organic Compounds in Streambed Sediment Atfour sites, concentrations oftotal DDTor total chlordane in streambed sediment exceeded USEPA Tier 1 guidelinesforprotection ofaquatic life (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996b). Tier 1 guidelinesfor

20 Water Quality in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and Maryland, 1992-95 MAJOR ISSUES AND FINDINGS• Pesticides and Other Organic Compounds in Fish Tissue and Streambed Sediment the 21 sites did concentrations ofDDT not apparent from the analysis ofDDT industrial land use (see graph below) in the sediment and DDEIDDT ratios in fish tissue. and also have the highest concentra• tions ofPCBs, DDT, and chlordane in indicate a recent influx ofDDT. At six Concentrations ofsemivolatile streambed sediment and fish tissue. ofthe sites, data were available to organic compounds (SVOCs) in Concentrations ofPAHs also exceeded compare concentrations oforganic streambedsediment exceeded USEPA guidelines at , which compounds in sediment detected in Tier 1 guidelinesfor protection of drains an area ofsignificant coal-min• 1974 (Hollowell, 1975) to the concen• aquatic life at 4 ofthe 21 sites. All the ing activity, and at the Susquehanna trations detected in the 1992-95 SVOCs that exceeded the guidelines River at Conowingo Reservoir. NAWQA survey. At most ofthese were polycyclic aromatic hydrocar• sites, total DDT and total chlordane bons (PAHs), a group oforganic The sum ofPAHs was well above concentrations declined between 1974 compounds that result from incom• the NAWQA medians even at sites with and 1995. The concentrations ofthe plete combustion offossil fuels, wood, little urban, industrial, or mining land most persistent metabolite-p, p '• and municipal solid waste or are use. The proximity ofthe Study Unit to DDE- increased at most ofthese present naturally in coal. A nationwide major metropolitan areas ofthe north• sites, illustrating the continued degra• study using NAWQA data (Lopes and eastern United States is a probable dation ofDDT. Concentrations oftotal others, in press) showed concentra• explanation for this fact because PAHs DDT and total PCBs increased signifi• tions ofPAHs were strongly correlated are also distributed regionally by atmo• spheric deposition. The sum of cantly at the Codorus Creek site, with population density, urban land phthalates also was higher than the indicating a recent influx ofthese con• use, and toxic releases·to the air. national NAWQA median at all ofthe taminants. This is also one ofthe sites The sites where concentrations of sites. Phthalates are commonly from where the DDEIDDT ratio indicated a PAHs exceeded Tier 1 guidelines industrial sources. The sum ofphenols recent influx ofDDT. The evidence of include Quittapahilla Creek and ranged from well below the national a recent influx ofDDT at the Codorus Codorus Creek. These basins have median to well above the national Creek site or the other two sites was agricultural land mixed with urban and median. Phenols are used in industrial, agricultural, and sanitation activities and also can occur naturally.

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1168 21 MAJOR ISSUES AND FINDINGS• Biological Communities and Stream Habitat

The fish community and the stream the total fish collected. Statistical anal• buffers can also have increased habitat were evaluated at selected ysis determined that the composition sedimentation. reaches in each ofthe seven long-term offish communities for each stream Freestone streams tend to be fed monitoring basins (see map on page 7) did not differ between years and multi• from runoffand by small feeder-type to determine the distribution offish ple reaches. streams and gain water a little at a populations and the relations offish time. The flow and temperature in populations to stream habitat (Bilger Fish communities inhabiting the these streams is more variable. Free• and Brightbill, in press). Studies of seven streams were related to the bed• stone streams do not have as much fish-community composition were rock type. Limestone and dolomite dissolved calcium as the limestone done annually from June 1993 to June bedrock are associated with limestone streams and are vulnerable to changes 1995. As with other parts ofthe streams (see table on page 6). Sand• in pH. These streams also tend to flow NAWQA study, each basin represented stone, shale, and crystalline rocks are offridges and through areas with hilly an environmental subunit Environ• associated with freestone streams (see topography, making the riparian zones mental characteristics for the selected table on page 6). Limestone streams less likely to be cultivated. Although reaches consisting ofinstream and were located in valley areas and freestone streams do not have the large riparian habitat, hydrology, and water receive much oftheir flow from large springs discharging to the stream, the quality were determined. springs (Shaffer, 1991). Limestone absence ofalterations to the riparian springs discharge cool water to the habitat is favorable for fish A total of33,143 fish were collected stream throughout the year. The lime• communities. from the 28 samples from multiple stolle (calci'lliri. carbol1ate) dissolved in reaches in the 7 basins during the The habitat characteristics that the spring water provides for a stable 3-year intensive sampling period from provedmost influential in definingfish 1993 to 1995. Thirty-nine species were pH. These factors make the conditions communities in the seven long-term collected from eight families. The favorable for sensitive fish such as monitoring basins were mean channel Cyprinidae (minnows) were repre• trout species. Limestone streams are width, mean water temperature, mean sented by the greatest number of known for natural1y low numbers of canopy angle, andsuspendedsedi• species (17), followed by the Cen• fish species and high abundances of ment. These four variables combined trarchidae (sunfishes) with 7 species, aquatic plants and invertebrate life. accounted for about 79 percent ofthe and by the Percidae (perches and dart• The valuable limestone farmland is variation in the stream habitat-species ers) with 4 species. The most abundant commonly cultivated to the edge ofthe relation. and frequently collected species were streambank, leaving little or no ripar• Fish are sensitive to water tempera• the blacknose dace, white sucker, and ian vegetation (canopy cover). This, in ture. Warm-water streams support mottled and slimy sculpins. Together, tum, affects water temperature. Agri• different fish communities than cool• these species made up 49 percent of cultural areas with little or no riparian water streams. Streams with moderate

Freestone streams, such as Stony Creek (right), tend to be supplied by runoff from small streams that flow off ridges. Riparian vegetation provides favorable habitat conditions by shading the stream and reduc• ing sedimentation.

Limestone streams, like Bachman Run (left), are sup• plied by springs that have nearly constant ambient temperatures throughout the year. AgriCUlture is a dominant land use that can degrade habitat conditions by reducing riparian vegetation and increasing sedi• mentation. Habitat degradation can offset the natural benefits of having a supply of cool water from springs.

22 Water-Quality in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and Maryland, 1992-95 MAJOR ISSUES AND FINDINGS• Biological Communities and Stream Habitat water temperatures have species found were warmer and where the banks interrelated factors, such as riparian in both the cooler and warmer streams. were more eroded than at sites that vegetation and canopy angle, which Canopy angle and channel width, were cooler and had more stable affect temperature and sedimentation. which affect water temperature, influ• banks. These factors also influence the The intense agricultural activity in ence the fish species that are able to amount ofoxygen in the stream water. limestone areas can have an influence inhabit a stream. Canopy angle deter• Fish with high oxygen demands typi• on the fish community. The influence mines the amount ofsunlight that cally thrive in cooler waters with little reaches the stream surface. A wide to no erosion and with fairly high oxy• ofagriculture onfish communities is stream can have a well-established gen concentrations. Fish with lower related to habitat degradation rather riparian zone, but the canopy cannot oxygen demands can live in warmer than nutrients in the water. The lime• shade the entire stream; thus, the water waters where lower oxygen concentra• stone agricultural settings appear to temperature is typically higher than for tions are common. adversely affect the fish community in a smaller stream with the same type of The health or general condition of many ways. Although limestone riparian zone. the fish community was determined by streams have many characteristics that Fish were sensitive to suspended examining the populations ofpollu• would support a healthy fish popula• sediment; therefore, erosional bank tion-tolerant and -intolerant species, tion, changes in the land use around conditions also influenced fish com• the numbers ofnonnative species, the the stream can adversely affect the munities. Steep, high banks with little percentage ofomnivores, and the per• native fish populations (Shaffer, 1991). vegetative cover have a greater chance centage of individuals with external The limestone agricultural streams oferosion during storms than lower anomalies; The assessment ofthefish chosen for this study were chosen to banks with more vegetation. Banks community, basedon thesefactors, consisting offiner sediment are more showedthatfish populations were assess the effects ofintense agricul• erodible than banks that consist ofcob• healthier in the threefreestone streams tural activity and do not represent the bles and boulders. The more tolerant than in thefour limestone streams. fish populations ofall limestone fish species were present at sites that This may be the result ofa number of streams.

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1168 23 WATER-QUALITY CONDITIONS IN A NATIONAL CONTEXT Comparison of Stream Quality in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin with Nationwide Findings

Seven major water-quality characteristics were evaluated for stream sites in each NAWQA Study Unit. Summary scores for each characteristic were computed for all sites that had adequate data. Scores for each site in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin were compared with scores for all sites sampled in the 20 NAWQA Study Units during 1992-95. Results are summarized by percentiles; higher percentile values generally indicate poorer quality compared with other NAWQA sites. Water-quality conditions at each site also are compared to established criteria for protection ofaquatic life. Applicable criteria are limited to nutrients and pesticides in water and semivolatile organic compounds, organochlorine pesticides, and PCBs in sediment. (Methods used to compute rankings and evaluate aquatic• life criteria are described by Gilliom and others, in press.)

EXPLANATION

RANKING OF STREAM QUALITY RELATIVE TO ALL NAWQA STREAM SITES-Darker colored circles generally indicate poorer quality. Bold ouUlne of circle indicates that one or more aquatic life criteria were exceeded.

Greater than the 75th percentile Belween the 25th percentile (among the highest 25 percent and the median • of NAWQA stream siles) .Bj~;~r~enm:clian L(;~~~nt~~el;~~F2~c~~~~:nt anclille 0 \U of NAWQA stream sites)

Surface-water long-term monitoring sites and subunit numbers NUTRIENTS in water Comparisons ofscores based on nitrate, phosphorus, and ammonia concentrations in streams showed that the agricultural and urban sites were among the highest ofall NAWQA Study-Unit sites (above the 75th percentile). Animal manure and fertilizer are the primary sources ofthe nitrogen. The forested site was above the 25th percentile nationally, which may be related to atmospheric deposition ofnitrogen or the small part (less than 15 percent) of the basin in nonforested land use.

PESTICIDES in water The scores based on total herbicide concentrations and total insecticide concentrations were higher than the national median at the two agricultural sites~ The score. for total herbicides and total insecticides was slightly lower than the national median at the urban site.

ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES and PCBs in streambed sediment and biological tissue Comparison ofscores based on total PCBs and organochlorines in fish tissue and streambed sediment showed two ofthe agricultural sites to be among the highest ofall NAWQA Study-Unit sites; the other three agricultural sites were between the median and 75th percentile. The Pennsylvania interagency work group composed ofkey agencies compared the data to FDA action levels and concluded that there was no evidence ofconcentrations in fish tissue that would warrant human-health advisories for fish consumption. Although persistent, the major compounds detected showed signs ofdegradation. None ofthe five long-term monitoring sites shown here exceeded the USEPA Tier I sediment guidelines for total DDT, total chlordane, or total PCBs. Two ofthe long-term monitoring sites did not have sufficient sediment or target fish species for sample collection. 24 Water Quality in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and Maryland, 1992-95. WATER-QUALITY CONDITIONS IN A NATIONAL CONTEXT Comparison of Stream Quality in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin with Nationwide Findings

TRACE ELEMENTS in streambed sediment Scores based on trace-element concentrations in streambed sediments at the five long-term monitoring sites where sediment was collected were above the national median for all NAWQA Study Unit sites. The concentrations oftrace elements in sediment were not well correlated with concentrations in fish liver tissue for 8 ofthe 11 trace elements, indicating that the elements in the sediment may not have been bioavailable.

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (SVOCs) in streambed sediment Comparison ofSVOCs showed that the concentrations ofphthalates, PAHs, and phenols at two ofthe sampling sites were among the highest ofall NAWQA Study-Unit sites. Concentrations at the three other sites were above the national median. None ofthe long-term monitoring sites sampled exceeded the USEPA Tier 1 guidelines for SVOCs in streambed sediment.

STREAM-HABITAT DEGRADATION Stream-habitat scores at six ofthe seven sites were ranked between the 25th and 75th percentile nationally. Bachman Run had the poorest stream-habitat score because ofhigh bank erosion and minimal vegetative bank stability; it was ranked as one ofthe most degraded ofall NAWQA StUdy-Unit sites.

FISH-COMMUNITY DEGRADATION Fish c·ommunities at five ofthe seven sites were ranked between the 25th and 75th percentile nationally. East Mahantango Creek exhibited a diverse and healthy fish community and was ranked as having one ofthe least degraded fish communities ofall NAWQA Study-Unit sites. The fish community at Mill Creek scored poorly because ofthe high percentage ofpollution-tolerant and omnivorous species and the high incidence ofanomalies; it ranked among the poorest ofall NAWQA Study-Unit sites.

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1168 25 WATER-QUALITY CONDITIONS IN A NATIONAL CONTEXT Comparison of Ground-Water Quality in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin with Nationwide Findings

Five major water-quality characteristics were evaluated for ground-water studies in each NAWQA Study Unit. Ground-water resources were divided into two categories: (1) drinking-water aquifers, and (2) shallow ground water underlying agricultural or urban areas. Summary scores were computed for each characteristic for all aquifers and shallow ground-water areas that had adequate data. Scores for each aquifer and shallow ground-water area in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin were compared with scores for all aquifers and shallow ground-water areas sampled in the 20 NAWQA Study Units during 1992-95. Results are summarized by percentiles; higher percentile values generally indicate poorer quality compared with other NAWQA ground-water studies. Water-quality conditions for each drinking-water aquifer also are compared to established drinking-water standards and criteria for protection ofhuman health. (Methods used to compute rankings and evaluate standards and criteria are described by Gilliom and others, in press.)

EXPLANATION

SUBUNIT SUBUNIT NAME RANKING OF GROUND-WATER NUMBER QUALITY RELATIVE TO ALL NAWQA Pi~~~nl~~1~~~~ne GROUND-WATER STUDIEs-Darker I" 1 colored circles generally Indicate poorer quality. Bold outline of circle Indicates 2 Piedmont limestone one or more standards or criteria were agricultural exceeded 3 Great Valley limestone agricultural Greater than the 75th percentile Mixed (among the highest 25 percent • Agriculture Great Valley limestone of NAWQA ground-water stUdies) Forest (I) 4 urban Between the median and the Ground-water subunits for Land-use Studies and Subunit • 75th percentile Appalachian Mountain Surveys r.,i·' \ 5 limestone agricultural Between the 25th percenlile - Appalachian Mountain and the median _ 6,7 sandstone and shale ,LeSSthanthe25th percentile (mixed land use) ::':',. (among the lowest 25 percent @, of NAWQA ground-water stUdies) All ofthese subunits represent both shallow ground-water areas and drinking• Insufficient data for analysis water aquifers. For national comparison o purposes, these subunits were compared to the summary scores from other drinking• water aquifers.

RADON Radon activities in limestone and crystalline subunits in the Piedmont Physiographic Province were among the highest ofall NAWQA Study Units. Activities in the remaining subunits were slightly above the 50th percentile when compared to other subunits representing drinking-water aquifers in all NAWQA Study Units.

NITRATE Nitrate concentrations in agricultural areas underlain by limestone bed• rock were among the highest ofall NAWQA Study Units, and numerous drinking-water samples exceeded the drinking-water standard for nitrate. Ground water in the subunits underlain by crystalline bedrock also had high nitrate concentrations. Ground water in the urban subunit and the sub• unit underlain by sandstone and shale had nitrate concentrations closer to the median when compared to all subunits representing drinking-water aquifers in all NAWQA Study Units.

26 Water Quality in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and Maryland, 1992-95. WATER-QUALITY CONDITIONS IN A NATIONAL CONTEXT Comparison of Ground-Water Quality in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin with Nationwide Findings

DISSOLVED SOLIDS Scores based on concentrations ofdissolved solids were above the 50th percentile for all ofthe subunits underlain by limestone. The subunits underlain by crystalline bedrock and the subunit underlain by sandstone and shale had scores for dissolved solids that were among the lowest ofall the subunits representing drinking-water aquifers in all NAWQA Study Units.

VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCs) Scores based on the frequency ofdetections ofVOCs in the Great Valley limestone urban subunit and the Piedmont limestone·agricultural subunit were among the highest ofsubunits representing drinking-water aquifers in all NAWQA Study Units; however, the frequency ofdetectionwas much higher in the urban subunit. No VOCs were detected in the subunits in the Appalachian Mountains, which is the more rural part ofthe Study Unit. The Piedmont crystalline subunit and Great Valley carbonate agricultural subunit also had scores that indicated a low frequency ofdetections of VOCs when compared to national data.

PESTICIDES Pesticides were detected frequently in all the subunits except for the Appalachian Mountain sandstone and shale subunit. The limestone agri• cultural, limestone urban, and crystalline agricultural subunits were ranked as having some ofthe highest pesticide-detection frequencies ofsubunits representing drinking-water aquifers in all NAWQA Study Units; however, none ofthe detections ofpesticides in water from any ofthe wells sampled exceeded drinking-water standards.

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1168 27 STUDY DESIGN AND DATA COLLECTION

An overview ofdata collection is presented here. For details on the design and implementation ofthe study, see Siwiec and others (1997).

7S"30' 7S"00' Stream-Water Chemistry 41"00'+ + EXPLANATION Long-term monitoring sites were sampled periodically to determine the SITE TYPE occurrence and seasonal variability of o Long-term monitoring, contaminants. To determine short• intensive sites term occurrence and distribution of o Long-term monitoring, concentrations over a broad-scale basic sites area, synoptic studies were ofthree I:!. Basinwide or subunit designs: (1) basinwide, to define con• synoptic site centrations and loads ofselected con• Synoptic sites within stituents during periods ofseasonal long-term basins herbicide application; (2) within the subunits, to determine the spatial vari• ability in constituent concentrations and to evaluate the representativeness ofthe long-term monitoring site; or (3) within long-term monitoring-site basins, to describe spatial variability in water quality due to point and non• point influxes ofconstituents. 39"30'+ +

Biological Communities, Stream Habitat, and EXPLANATION Contaminants in Fish SITE TYPE Basic or intensive study Tissue and Streambed ofbiological communities and stream habitat Sediment Fish tissue or streambed Ecological assessments included sediment analysis ofstream habitat, fish com• Synoptic studies of munities, invertebrates, and algae. biological Contaminants in streambed sediment communities and and fish tissue were analyzed at sites stream habitat on the main stem, major tributaries, and selected smaller tributaries to determine the occurrence and distribu• tion ofcontaminants. Data on inverte• brate communities and algae have not been analyzed and are not included in this report.

EXPLANATION SUBUNIT NAME AND NUMBER Ground-Water Chemistry R Piedmont crystalline wliI (mixed land use)(1) The wells shown represent three R.ji" PledJ!lont limestone agricultural land-use studies, one L:illil agricultural (2) urban land-use study, and two subunit Ga." GreatValleylimestone surveys. Most ofthe wells sampled LlliJ agricultural (3) were less than 200 feet deep. Samples GreatValley from these wells generally contain III limestone urban (4) water that has infiltrated through the _ Appalachian Mountain ground in recent years andtherefore wliI limestone agricultural (5) could be used to indicate whether Appalachian Mountain land-use practices have affected III sandstone and shale (6, 7) ground-water quality. All ofthe aqui• fers sampled are used for drinking• SITE TYPE water supply. • Subunltsurvey Agricultural • land-use study " Urban land-use study

28 Water-Quality in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and Maryland, 1992-95 STUDY DESIGN AND DATA COLLECTION

SUMMARY OF DATA COLLECTION IN THE LOWER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN STUDY UNIT, 1992-95

Study component (number of sites) Sampling frequency Types ofsites sampled What data were collected and why and period Stream-Water Chemistry Long-term monitoring, basic sites (4) Occurrence and seasonal variability ofconcentrations. Data included streamflow, Streams draining basins ranging from Monthly plus storms: nutrients, major ions, organic carbon, suspended sediment, water temperature, 7.72 to 71.9 square miles represent- Apr. 1993 -Aug. 1994; specific conductance, pH, and dissolved oxygen. In addition, 47 dissolved pesti- ing four subunits (I, 3, 5, and 7). One site semimonthly to cides during synoptics and, at the site in subunit 4, 47 dissolved pesticides during monthly plus storms: base flow and selected stormflow events. Nov. 1994-Aug. 1995 Long-term monitoring, intensive sites (3) Occurrence and seasonal variability ofconcentrations-Data included all ofthe Streams draining basius ranging from Weekly: Apr. - Sept 1993; above constituents plus 84 dissolved pesticides in all routine base-flow samples 12.6 to 54.3 square miles represent- Semimonthly to monthly: plus selected storm samples until Sept 1994. Data collected through Aug. 1995 ing three subunits (2, 4, and 6). Oct 1993-Sept 1994; at the site in subunit 4 included 47 dissolved pesticides in base-flow and selected One site semimonthly to stormflow events. Six samples for volatile organic compounds analysis were col- monthly plus storms: lected at the site in subunit 4. Nov. 1994-Aug. 1995 Synoptic studies (187) Short-term occurrence and distribution ofconcentrations were studied over a broad- Main-stem and tributary sites for the Summers of 1993, 1994, and scale area-synoptic studies were ofthree designs: (I) basinwide; (2) within the synoptics done in the late spring and 1995. Most sites were sam- subunits; or (3) within long-term monitoring site basins. Data included stream- early summer during periods ofsea- pled once. Selected sites I flow, nutrients, pesticides, major ions, suspended sediment, water temperature, sonal herbicide application. For were sampled two or more specific conductance, pH, dissolved oxygen, and volatile organic compounds other synoptics, sites on streams times as part ofseparate (five sites in subunit 4) during low-flow conditions. draining basins representing the synoptic studies. seven subunits. Biological Communities, Stream Habitat, and Contaminants In Fish Tissue and Streambed Sediment Basic and intensive assessments (7) Structure and function ofmajor aquatic communities-algae, fish, and inverte- Long-term monitoring sites from One reach per site each year, brates-in three habitats (richest, depositional, and multiple) at each site; quanti- stream-water chemistry component 1993, 1994, and 1995. tatively describe habitat. ofthe study design. The three inten- Two additional reaches at two sive long-term monitoring sites were sites in 1994. used for multiple-reach sampling. Three additional reaches at one site in 1994. Synoptic studies (45) Structure and function ofselected aquatic communities-algae and inverte- Sites on main stem, major tributaries, Once during 1993-95. brates-intwo habitats (richest and multiple) at each site; quantitatively describe and selected smallertributaries. Sites habitat. Sites were chosen to match ecological surveys by other agencies in the represented selected subunits and 1970's and 1980's. mixed land uses. Contaminants In fish tissue (20) Occurrence and spatial distribution ofconcentrations ofcontaminants-total PCBs, Sites on main stem, major tributaries, Once at 16 sites in 1992, 5 in 27 organochlorine pesticides, and 22 trace elements-in fish tissue (white sucker and selected smaller tributaries with 1993,5 in 1994, and 4 in and smallmouth bass). Whole fish were analyzed for organic contaminants; fish white sucker present were primary 1995. The 1993-94 sites livers were analyzed for trace elements. choices. also were sampled in 1992. Synoptic studles-streambed sediment (21) Occurrence and spatial distribution ofconcentrations ofcontaminants-total PCBs, Depositional zones on main stem, Once at 17 sites in 1992; once 31 organochlorine pesticides, 63 semivolatile organic compounds, forms ofcar- major tributaries, and selected at 4 sites in 1995 bon, and 27 trace elements. Most sites were selected to match sites sampled for smaller tributaries representing the contaminants in fish tissue. seven subunits plus an area of anthracite coal mining. Ground-Water Chemistry Subunit surveys (59) Occurrence and distribution ofconcentrations in water from wells representing the Wells used for household supply in One sample per well: subunit-nutrients, major ions, 60 volatile organic compounds, 84 pesticides, subunit I and subunits 6 and 7 subunits 6 and 7, 1993; methylene blue active substances, tritium, stable isotopes ofoxygen and hydro- combined. subunit I, 1994. gen, bacteria (total coliform, fecal coliform, fecal streptococcus 1993-95 and Escherichia coli 1994-95), dissolved organic carbon, uranium, and radon. Land-use effects-agrlculture (90) Same as above. Wells used for household supply in One sample per well: subunits 2, 3, and 5. subunit 2, 1993; subunit 3, 1994; subunit 5, 1995. Land-use effects-urban (20) Same as above. Wells in subunit 4. Well types include One sample per well in 1995. monitoring (6), household (13), and public (I).

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1168 29 SUMMARY OF COMPOUND DETECTIONS AND CONCENTRATIONS

The following tables summarize data collected for NAWQA studies during 1992-1995 by showing results for the Lower Susque• hanna River Basin Study Unit compared to the NAWQA national range for each compound detected. The data were collected at a wide variety ofplaces and times. In order to represent the wide concentration ranges observed among Study Units, logarithmic scales are used to emphasize the general magnitude ofconcentrations (such as 10, 100, or 1,000), mther than the precise numbers. The complete data set used to construct these tables is available upon request. The groups ofcompounds analyzed for were selected on the basis of national usage ofpesticides and other criteria. This summary includes compounds that may not be registered for use in Pennsylvania or Maryland. Some ofthe compounds analyzed for have previously been registered in Pennsylvania or Maryland, but either have not been renewed or have had the registmtion revoked. Concentrations of herbicides, insecticides, volatile organic compounds, and nutrients detected in ground water and streams of the Lower Susquehanna River Basin Study Unit. [mg/L, milligrams per liter; Ilg/L, micrograms per liter; pCilL, picocuries per liter; %, percent; <, less than; - -, not measured; trade names may vary] EXPLANATION Freshwater-chronic criterion for the protection ofaquatic life·

;i,;:'i'i:\:~:' l~,~j~gwater sta~::eo:tU::~~~:ater detections in all 20 Study Units !!Il!~~~ Range ofground-water detections in all 20 Study Units \ Detection in the Lower Snsquehanna River Basin Study Unit

Herbicide Rate Concentration, in Ilg/L Herbicide Rate Concentration, in 1J.g/L (Trade or common of· (Trade or common of name) detec- 0.001 0.01 0.1 10 100 1,000 name) detec- 0.001 0.01 0.1 10 100 1,000 tion b tion b Acetochlor 13% 4% lIililllllll.'" :i ••';':! Linuron (Lorox, (Harness, Surpass) 0% Linex) 1%

Acifluorfen (Blazer, 1% . MCPA (SelectyI40,) 1% Tackle 2S) 1% -' 0% Alachlor (Lasso) 34% Metolachlor (!)ual, 89% ...... It! _1+ "::::,1 5% Pennant) 28% ~l_'iiii.~·· I 2,6-Diethylaniline Metribuzin (Lexone, (Alachlor metabolite) Sencor) Atrazine (AAtrex) Napropamide 1% (I>evrinol) 1% Atrazine,I>esethylC Oryzalin (Surfian) 0% (Atrazine metabolite) 1% Benfiuralin (Balan, 2% Pebulate (Tillam) Benefin) <1% Bentazon (Basagran, 0% Pendimethalin bentazone) 2% (prowl) Bromacil (Hyvar X) 0% Prometon (pramitol) 1%

Butylate (Sutan) <1% !,i, .... Pronamide (Kerb, <1% propyzamid) Cyanazine (Bladex) 33% .. Ii.... . ·1IIii.818· "."."', 'iii"',F'·· Propachlor (Ramrod, 4% D~.ifIID propachlore) 2,4-I> (Esteron, 10% Simazine (Aquazine, IUIII i 1.$1 ..;' Weedone) 1% Princep) I iilll!llfu1>. I I>CPA (I>acthal) 5% Tebuthiuron (Spike, 26% 0% Tebusan) 6% I>icamba (Banvel) 1% Terbacilc (Sinbar) 2% ';:...it*...:;',,:, 1% 1% ~ Diuron (Karmex) Trifluralin (Treflan) 4% <1% EPTC (Eptam)

30 Water-Quality in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and Maryland, 1992-95 SUMMARY OF COMPOUND DETECTIONS AND CONCENTRATIONS

Insecticide Rate Concentration, in J.tg/L Volatile organic Rate Concentration, in J.tg/L (Trade or common of compound of name) detec- 0.001 0.01 0.1 10 100 1,000 (Trade or common detec- 0.01 0.1 ·1 10 100 1,000 tion b name) tion b. Azinphos-methylC 6% Dichlorodifluoro- - (Guthion) 0% methane (CFC 12) 1% I CarbarylC (Sevin, 14% Dichloromethane - Sevimol) 4% (Methylene chloride) 2% I CarbofuranC 6% Dimethylbenzenes - (Furadan) 2% (Xylenes (total)) 3% -~ 8% Ethylbenzene - Chlorpyrifos -- (Dursban, Lorsban) 0% (phenylethane) 2% I p,p'-DDE (p,p '-DDT <1% Isopropylbenzene - metabolite) <1% (Cumene) 1% Diazinon 6% Methylbenzene - (Spectracide) <1% (Toluene) 2% I Dieldrin (panoram Naphthalene -- D~31,Qt:tal(),,) 1% Ethoprop (Mocap) Tetrachloromethane - 2% .- I Fonofos (Dyfonate) <1% total Trihalo- - 0% methanes 11% ~~UI Malathion(malathon, 3% Trichloroethene - Cythion) 0% (TCE) 5% Methomyl (Lannate, 1% cis-l,2-Dichloro- - Nudrin) 0% ethene 2% Methyl parathion <1 % n-Propylbenzene - (penncap-M) 0% (Isocumene) 1% ~ Terbufos (Counter) <1% p-Isopropyltoluene -- 0% (p-Cymene) 1% .~

Volatile organic Rate Concentration, in J.tg/L Volatile organic Rate Concentration, in J.tg/L compound of compound of (Trade or common detec- 0.01 0.1 10 100 1,000 (Trade or common detec- 0,01 0.1 10 100 1,000 1ll,OOO 100,000 name) tion b name) tion b I,1,I-Trichloroethane Methyl tert-butyl - 7% ethet! (MTBE) 11% I,l-Dichloroethane Tetrachloroethene - 1% (perchloroethene) 7% I,l-Dichloroethene (Vinylidene chloride) 1% 1,2,4-Trimethylben- zene (pseudocumene 2% 1,3,5-Trimethylben- zene (Mesitylene) 2% Benzene 2%

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1168 31 SUMMARY OF COMPOUND DETECTIONS AND CONCENTRATIONS

Nutrient Rate Concentration, in mgIL Other Rate Concentration, in pCiIL (Trade or common of of name) detec- 0.01 0.1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 detec- 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 tion b tion b Dissolved ammonia 90% .It.. 76% I--Rad---:-o-n-2-2-2---[;]L__~_~~·~~j~iii~!!!~"~J~~'.~'~!~;"~"~~'j;~,'.:...- Dissolved ammonia plus organic nitrogen 55% as nitrogen 5%

Dissolved phospho- 70% rus as phosphorus 38% Dissolved nitrite plus 100% nitrate 92%

Herbicides, insecticides, volatile organic compounds, and nutrients not detected in ground and surface waters of the Lower Susquehanna River Basin Study Unit.

Herbicides Norfiurazon (Evital) Phorate (Thimet, Granutox) 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Bromomethane 2,4,5-T (Fruitone A) Picloram (Grazon, Tordon) Propargite (Comite, Omite) 1,2-Dibz:omo-3-chloropro- Chlorobenzene pane (DBCP) 2,4,5-TP (Silvex, Fenoprop) Propham (Tuberite) Propoxur (Baygon) 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB, Chloroethane 2,4-DB (Butyrac) Thiobencarb (Bolero) alpha-HCH (alpha-lindane) Ethylene dibromide) Chloroethene (Vmyl Chlo- Triallate (Far-Go, Avadex) cis-Permethrin (Ambush) Bromoxynil ( Bromotril) 1,2-Dichlorobenzene ride) Triclopyr (Garlon) gamma-HCH (Lindane) Chloramben (Amiben) 1,2-Dichloroethane Dibromomethane Clopyralid (Stinger) Insecticides Volatile organic 1,2-Dichloropropane Ethenylbenzene (Styrene) Dacthal mono-acid (Dacthal compounds 1,3-Dichlorobenzene metabolite) 3-Hydroxycarbofuran (Car- Hexachlorobutadiene bofuran metabolite) 1, I,I,2-Tetrachloroethane 1,3-Dichloropropane Dichlorprop (2,4-DP) cis-I ,3-Dichloropropene Aldicarb sulfone (Standak) I,I,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Dinoseb (Dinitro) Aldicarb sulfoxide (Aldi- 1, I,2-Trichloro-l,2,2-triflu- I-Chloro-2-methylbenzene tert-Butylbenzene Ethalfluralin (Sonalan) carb metabolite) (o-Chlorotoluene) oroethane (Freon 113, CFC trans-l,2-Dichloroethene Fenuron (Fenulon) Aldicarb (Temik, Ambush) 113) I-Chloro-4-methylbenzene Fluometuron (Flo-Met) Disulfoton (Disyston) I,I,2-Trichloroethane (p-Chlorotoluene) trans-l,3-Dichloropropene MCPB (Thistrol) Methiocarb (Slug-Geta) 1,I-Dichloropropene 2,2-Dichloropropane Nutrients Molinate (Ordram) Oxamyl (Vydate L) 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene Bromobenzene Neburon (Neburyl) Parathion (Roethyl-P) 1,2,3-Trichloropropane Bromochloromethane No non-detects

a Selected water-quality standards and guidelines (Gilliom and others, in press). b Rates ofdetection are based on the number ofanalyses and detections in the Study Unit, not on national data. Rates ofdetection for herbicides and insecticides were computed by only counting detections equal to or greater than 0.01 Jlg/L in order to facilitate equal comparisons among com• pounds, which had widely vaz:ying detection limits. For herbicides and insecticides, a detection rate of"

32 Water-Quality in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and Maryland, 1992-95 SUMMARY OF COMPOUND DETECTIONS AND CONCENTRATIONS

Concentrations of semivolatile organic compounds, organochlorine compounds, and trace elements detected in fish tissue and streambed sediment of the Lower Susquehanna River Basin Study Unit. [J.tg/g, micrograms per gram; J.l91kg, micrograms per kilogram; %, percent; <, less than; - -, not measured; trade names may vary]

EXPLANATION Guideline for the protection ofaquatic life e

' ,'" ,"', liI Range ofdetections in fish and clam tissue in al120 Study Units ,.~~a~ Range ofdetections in streambed sediment in all 20 Study Units ~"---- Detection in streambed sediment in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin Study Unit '------Detection in fish tissue in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin Study Unit

Semivolatile organic Rate of Concentration, in J.lg/kg Semivolatileorganic Rate of Concentration, in J.Lg/kg compound detec- compound detec- tion b 0.1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 tion b 0.1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000

Acridine ~.~ I 52% Anthracene 100% Anthraquinone 76% Azobenzene 5% Benz[ a ]anthracene 90% Benzo[ a ]pyrene 100% Benzo[ b ]fluor- anthene 100% Benzo[g,h,i] perylene 81% Benzo[ k ]fluoran- thene 100% Butylbenzylphthalate 81% Chrysene 100% Di- n -butylphthalate 90% ~~----_-/.~-.-.," ~-~ ~-"~~- =2~4~o/c~o[===~~~~~~====J~--- ,-_.. "rD:i-:n:-:oc:etY:l:P:hth:,:al:at:e" Dibenz[ a,h] J anthracene 57% Dibenzothiophene 62% Diethylphthalate 33% Dimethylphthalate 19% Fluoranthene 100%

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1168 33 SUMMARY OF COMPOUND DETECTIONS AND CONCENTRATIONS

Semivolatile organic Rate of Concentration, in J.Lg/kg Organochlorine Rate Concentration, in IJ.g/kg compound detec- compound of tion b 0.1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 detec- (Trade or 0.01 0.1 10 100 1,000 10.000 100,000 common name) tion b

I Endosulfan I (alpha- I endosulfann) 19% WE beta-HCH (beta- 5% ... BHC, beta) 5% ~ gamma-HCH 5% (lindane) 0% fIB 2% .. Heptachlor epoxide 5% r;_ Hexachlorobenzene 2%

PCB, total 83% 5% Pentachloroarrisole 12% 0%

Trace element Rate Concentration, in IJ.g/g of detec- 0.01 0.1 10 100 1,000 10,000 tion b Arsenic 51% 100% Cadmium 90% 100% Organochlorine Rate Concentration, in IJ.g/kg Chromium 67% compound of 100% (Trade or detec- tion b 0.01 0.1 10 100 1.000 10.000 100,000 Copper 100% common name) 100% total-Chlordane 82% Lead 31% 43% 100% DCPA (dacthal, 10% Mercury 74% chlorthal-dimethyl) 0% 100% p,p'-DDE 100% Nickel 56% 81% 100% total-DDT 100% Selenium 100% 86% 100% Dieldrin (panoram 29% Zinc 100% D-31,Octalox) 24% 100%

Semivolatile organic compounds, organochlorine compounds, and trace elements not detected in fish tissue and streambed sediment of the Lower Susquehanna River Basin Study Unit.

Semivolatile organic 4-Bromophenyl-phe• Nitrobenzene Endrin de/ta-HCH (de/ta-BHC) nylether compounds Pentachloronitrobenzene Heptachlor o,p '-Methoxychlor 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol bis (2-Chloroethoxy)meth• Isodrin 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene p,p '-Methoxychlor 4-Chlorophenyl-phe• ane Mirex (Dechlorane) 1,3-Dichlorobenzene nylether trans-Permethrin (Ambush, Toxaphene (Camphechlor) 2,4-Dinitrotoluene Benzo [c] cinnoline Organochlorine Pounce) compounds a/pha-HCH (alpha-BHC, 2,6-Dinitrotoluene C8-Alkylphenol alpha-lindane) Trace elements 2-Chloronaphthalene Isophorone Aldrin (HHDN, Octalene) cis-Permethrin (Ambush, 2-Chlorophenol N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine Chloroneb (Tersan SP) Pounce) No non-detects

34 Water-Quality in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and Maryland, 1992-95 REFERENCES

American Institute for Cancer Research, published 1987, plus 21 appendixes Maryland, 1993-95 [abs.]: EOS, 1992, Everything doesn't cause published through May 1996 (vari• Transactions ofthe American Geo• cancer: Washington, D.C., 4 p. ously paged). physical Union, Supplement with Bickford, T.M., Lindsey, B.D., and Bea• Centers for Disease Control and Preven• abstracts for the 1997 Spring Meet• ver, M.R., 1996, Bacteriological tion, 1996, Surveillance for ing, Baltimore, Md., v. 78, no. 17, quality ofground water used for waterborne-disease outbreaks• p. S135. household supply, Lower Susque• United States, 1993-1994: Hainly, RA, Bilger, M.D., and Siwiec, hanna River Basin, Pennsylvania Atlanta, Ga., Morbidity and Mortal• S.F., 1994, Trace elements in bed and Maryland: U.S. Geological ity Weekly Reports, v. 45, no. SS-1. sediment ofstreams in the Ridge Survey Water-Resources Investiga• Cohn, T.A., Caulder, D.L., Gilroy, E.J., and Valley Physiographic Province tions Report 96-4212,31 p. Zynjuk, L.D., and Summers, RM., ofPennsylvania, Lower Susque• Bilger, M.D., and Brightbill, RA., in 1992, The validity ofa simple sta• hanna River Basin study unit ofthe press, Fish communities and their tistical model for estimating fluvial U.S. Geological Survey's National relation to selected physical and constituent loads-An empirical Water-Quality Assessment chemical characteristics ofstreams study involving n\ltrient loads (NAWQA) Program-A compari• at seven long-term monitoring sites entering Chesapeake Bay: Water son ofsampling methods and in the Lower Susquehanna River Resources Research, v. 289, no. 9, results for selected element concen· Basin, Pennsylvania and Mary• p. 2,353-2,363. trations from the NAWQA and land, 1993-95: U.S. Geological Daly, M.H., and Lindsey, B.D., 1996, National Uranium Resource Evalu• Survey Water-Resources Investiga• Occurrence and concentrations of ation (NURE) Programs [abs.]: _ti0llsReport 98-4004. yol~til~()rganiccompoundsin shal• Abstract Booklet, Mid-Atlantic low ground water in the Lower Highlands Area Ellvi:roririielltal Breen, K..J., and Gavin, A.I., 1995, Monitoring and Assessment Con• Reconnaissance oftrace-metal Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and Maryland: ference, Hershey, Pa., February loadings in Mahanoy Creek-A 23-25, 1994, p. 46-47. tributary to the Lower Susquehanna U.S. Geological Survey Water• River, Pennsylvania, affected by Resources Investigations Hainly, RA, and Kahn, J.M., 1996, Fac• acidic mine drainage [abs.]: EOS, Report 96-4141,8 p. tors affecting herbicide yields in the Transactions ofthe American Geo• Durlin, RR, and Schaffstall, w.P., 1994, Chesapeake Bay Watershed, June physical Union, Supplement with Water resources data, Pennsylvania, 1994: Water Resources Bulletin, abstracts for the 1995 Spring Meet• water year 1993, v. 2, Susquehanna v. 32, no. 5, p. 965-984. ing, Baltimore, Md., v. 76, no. 17, . and Potomac River Basins: Hainly, RA., and Loper, C.A., 1997, p. S133. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Water-quality assessment ofthe Breen, K..J., Gavin, AI., and Schnabel, Report PA-93-2, 361 p. Lower Susquehanna River Basin, RR, 1995, Occurrence and yields __1996, Water resources data, Penn• Pennsylvania and Maryland• oftriazine herbicides in the Susque• sylvania, water year 1994, v. 2, Sources, characteristics, analysis, hanna River and tributaries during Susquehanna and Potomac River and limitations ofnutrient and sus• base-flow conditions in the Lower Basins: U.S. Geological Survey pended-sediment data, 1975-90: Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsyl• Water-Data Report PA-94-2, 418 p. U.S. Geological Survey Water• vania and Maryland, June 1993, in __1997, Water resources data, Penn• Resources Investigations Hill, Paula, and Nelson, Steve, eds., sylvania, water year 1995, v. 2, Report 97-4209, 138 p. Toward a Sustainable Watershed• Susquehanna and Potomac River Hainly, RA., and Siwiec, S.F., 1994, The Chesapeake Experiment, Pro• Basins: U.S. Geological Survey Nitrogen sources and measured ceedings ofthe 1994 Chesapeake Water-Data Report PA-95-2, 518 p. nitrogen loads in streams in the Research Conference, Norfolk, Va., Gilliom, RJ., Mueller, D.K., and Now• Lower Susquehanna River Basin, June 1-3, 1994: Edgewater, Md., ell, L.H., in press, Methods for Pennsylvania and Maryland Chesapeake Research Consortium comparing water-quality condi• [abs.]: EOS, Transactions ofthe Publication 149, p. 312-328. tions among National Water• American Geophysical Union, Sup• Breen, K..J., Hainly, R.A, and Hoffman, Quality Assessment Study Units, plement with abstracts for the 1994 SA, 1991, National Water-Quality 1992-1995: U.S. Geological Sur• Fall Meeting, San Francisco, Calif., Assessment Program-The Lower vey Open-File Report 97-589. v. 75, no. 44, p. 247. Susquehanna River Basin: Great Lakes Basin Commission, 1975, Hollowell, JR, 1975, Results ofinitial U.S. Geological Survey Great Lakes basin framework study, sampling ofheavy metals and pesti• Open-File Report 91-168,2 p. Appendix 8: Ann Arbor, Mich., cides found in stream bottom Canadian Council ofResource and Envi• Great Lakes Basin Commission, sediments in the Susquehanna ronment Ministers, 1996, Canadian p.47-49. River Basin: Harrisburg, Pa., Sus• water quality guidelines: Ottawa, Hainly, RA., and Bickford, T.M., 1997, quehanna River Basin Commission, Ontario, prepared bythe Task Force Factors affecting pesticide concen• 12 p. on Water Quality Guidelines, Cana• trations in streams and shallow Langland, M.J., Edwards, R.E., and Dar• dian Council ofResource and wells ofthe Lower Susquehanna rell, L.C., 1998, Trends and yields Environment Ministers, originally River Basin, Pennsylvania and ofnutrients and sediment and meth-

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1168 35 REFERENCES

, ods ofanalysis for the Nontidal Neilson, A.H., 1994, Organic chemicals __1996a, Drinking water regulations Synthesis and River Input Pro• in the aquatic environment-Distri• and health advisories: Washing• grams, Chesapeake Bay Basin: bution, persistence, and toxicity: ton, D.C., U.S. Environmental U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Boca Raton, Fla., CRC Press, Protection Agency, Office ofWater, Report 98-17,59 p. 438p. EPA 822-B-96-002, 11 p. Lindsey, B.D., and Ator, S.W., 1996, Risser, D.W., and Siwiec, S.P., 1996, __1996b, The National Sediment Radon in ground water ofthe Water-quality assessment ofthe Quality Survey-A report to Con• Lower Susquehanna and Potomac River Basins: U.S. Geological Lower Susquehanna River Basin, gress on the extent and severity of Survey Water-Resources Investiga• Pennsylvania and Maryland-Envi• sediment contamination in surface tions Report 96-4156, 6 p. ronmental setting: U.S. Geologi• waters ofthe United States: Wash• cal Survey Water-Resources ington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Lindsey, B.D., Breen, K..J., and Daly, Investigations Report 94-4245, Protection Agency, Office ofSci• M.H., 1997, MTBE in water from 135p. ence and Technology, draft report fractured-bedrock aquifers, south• EPA 823-D-96-002, (variously central Pennsylvania [abs.]: Shaffer, L.L., 1991, The limestone paged). American Chemical Society, Divi• streams ofPennsylvania: Harris• sion ofEnvironmental Chemistry, burg, Pa., Pennsylvania Fish and __1997, Chesapeake Bay nutrient Preprints ofExtended Abstracts for Boat Commission, 4 p. reduction reevaluation summary the 213th National Meeting, April report: Washington, D.C., 13-17, 1997, San Francisco, Calif., Siwiec, S.P., Hainly, RA., Lindsey, EPA 903-R-97-030, 37 p. v. 37, no. p.399-400. 13.D., Bilger, M.D., and Brightbill, Water~qUaHtY Lindsey, B.D., Loper, C.A., and Hainly, RA., 1997, assess• U. S. Food and Drug Administration, RA., 1997, Nitrate in ground water ment ofthe Lower Susquehanna 1992, Action levels for poisonous and stream base flow in the Susque• River Basin, Pennsylvania and or deleterious substances in human hanna River Basin, Pennsylvania Maryland-Design and implemen• food and animal feed: Washing• and Maryland: U.S. Geological tation ofwater-quality studies, ton, D.C., 16 p. Survey Water-Resources Investiga• 1992-95: U.S. Geological Survey __1995, Tolerances for unavoidable tions Report 97-4146, 66 p. Open-File Report 97-583, 121 p. poisonous or deleterious sub• Lopes, T.J., Furlong, E.T., and Pritt, Smith, J.A., Witkowski, P.J., and Fusillo, stances: Federal Register, April 1, J.W., in press, Occurrence and dis• T.V., 1988, Manmade organic com• 1995,21 CPR 109.30. tribution ofsemivolatile organic pounds in the surface waters ofthe compounds in stream bed sedi• United States-A review ofcurrent Zaugg, S.D., Sandstrom, M.W., Smith, ments, United States, 1992-95: understanding: U.S. Geological S.G., and Fehlberg, K.M., 1995, Environmental Toxicology and Survey Circular 1007, 92 p. Methods ofanalysis by the Risk Assessment, v. 7. U.S. Geological Survey National Mitchell, W.B., Guptill, S.C., Anderson, U.s. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality Laboratory-deter• K..E., Fegeas, RG., and Hallam, 1991, Water-quality criteria sum• mination ofpesticides in water by C.A., 1977, GIRAS-Ageographic mary: Washington, D.C., C-18 solid-phase extraction and information and retrieval and analy• U.S. Environmental Protection capillary-column gas chromatogra• sis system for handling land use Agency, Office ofWater, Office of phy/mass spectrometry with and lan4 cover data: U.S. Geologi• Science and Technology, Health selected-ion monitoring: U.S. Geo• cal Survey Professional Paper and Ecological Effects Division logical Survey Open-File 1059,16 p. (wall poster). Report 95-181, 49 p.

36 Water Quality in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and Maryland, 1992-95 GLOSSARY

The terms in this glossary were com• by living organisms either through Drainage basin-The portion ofthe sur• piled from numerous sources. Some physical contact or ingestion. face ofthe earth that contributes definitions have been modified and Breakdown product-A compound water to a stream through overland may not be the only valid ones for derived by chemical, biological, or runoff, including tributaries and these terms. physical action upon a pesticide. impoundments. Algae-Chlorophyll-bearing nonvascu- The breakdown is a natural process Drinking-water standard or guide• lar, primarily aquatic species that that may result in a more or less line-A threshold concentration in a have no true roots, stems, or leaves; toxic and a more or less persistent public drinking-water supply, most algae are microscopic, but compound. . designed to protect human health. some species can be as large as vas• Carbonate rocks-Rocks (such as lime• As defined here, standards are cular plants. stone or dolostone) that are U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations that specify the Anomalies-As related to fish, exter• composed primarily ofminerals maximum contamination levels for nally visible skin or subcutaneous (such as calcite and dolomite) con• public water systems required to disorders, including deformities, taining the carbonate ion (COl-). protect the public welfare; guide• eroded fins, lesions, and tumors. Community-In ecology, the species lines have no regulatory status and Aquatic life criteria-Water-quality that interact in a common area. are issued in an advisory capacity. guidelines for protection ofaquatic Concentration-The amount or mass of life. Often refers to U.S. Environ• Ecosystem-The interacting popula• a substance present in a given vol• tions ofplants, animals, and mentalProtection Agency water• ume or mass ofsample. Usually quality criteria for protection of microorganisms occupying an area, expressed as microgram per liter plustbdr physical environment. aquatic organisms. See also Water• (water sample) or micrograms per Environmental setting-Land area char• quality criteria. kilogram (sediment or tissue acterized by a unique combination Aquifer-A water-bearing layer ofsoil, sample). sand, gravel, or rock that will yield ofnatural and human-related fac• Concentrated animal operation-oper• usable quantities ofwater to a well. tors, such as row-crop cultivation or ation where the animal density glacial-till soils. Atmospheric deposition-The transfer exceeds two animal units per acre Eutrophication-The process by which ofsubstances from the air to the on an annual basis as defined for water becomes enriched with plant surface ofthe Earth, either in wet the Pennsylvania nutrient manage• nutrients, most commonly phos• form (rain, fog, snow, dew, frost, ment legislation. An animal unit is phorus and nitrogen. hail) or in dry form (gases, aero• 1,000 pounds oflive weight. sols, particles). FDA action level-A regulatory level Contamination-Degradation ofwater recommended by the U.S. Environ• Background concentration-A concen• quality compared to original or nat• mental Protection Agency for tration ofa substance in a particular ural conditions due to human enforcement by the FDA when pes• environment that is indicative of activity. minimal influence by human ticide residues occur in food (anthropogenic) sources. Crystalline rocks-Rocks (igneous or commodities for reasons other than metamorphic) consisting wholly of Base Bow-Sustained, low flow in a the direct application ofthe pesti• crystals or fragments ofcrystals. stream; ground-water discharge is cide. Action levels are set for the source ofbase flow in most Criterion-A standard rule or test on inadvertent pesticide residues places. which a judgment or decision can resulting from previous legal use or be based. accidental contamination. Applies Bedrock-General term for consolidated to edible portions offish and shell• Degradation products-Compounds (solid) rock that underlies soils or fish in interstate commerce. other unconsolidated material. resulting from transformation ofan Fish community-8ee Community. Best management practice (BMP)-An organic substance through chemi• agricultural practice that has been cal, photochemical, and(or) Herbicide-A chemical or other agent determined to be an effective, prac• biochemical reactions. that applied for the purpose ofkill• tical means ofpreventing or Denitrification-A process by which oxi• ing ofundesirable plants. See also reducing nonpoint source pollution. dized forms ofnitrogen such as Pesticide. Bioaccumulation-The biological nitrate (N03-) are reduced to form Human health advisory level-Guid• sequestering ofa substance at a nitrites, nitrogen oxides, ammonia, ance provided by U.S. Environ• higher concentration than that at or free nitrogen; commonly brought mental Protection Agency, State which it occurs in the surrounding about by the action ofdenitrifying agencies, or scientific organiza• environment or medium. Also, the bacteria and usually resulting in the tions, in the absence ofregulatory process whereby a substance enters escape ofnitrogen to the air. limits, to describe acceptable con• organisms through the gills, epithe• Detection limit-The concentration taminant levels in drinking water or lial tissues, dietary, or other below which a particular analytical edible fish. sources. method cannot determine, with a Insecticide-A substance or mixture of Bioavailability-The capacity ofa high degree ofcertainty, a substances intended to prevent, chemical constituent to be taken up concentration. destroy, or repel insects.

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1168 37 GLOSSARY

Leaching-The removal ofmaterials in Common nutrients in fertilizer with which individuals are distrib• solution from soil orrock to ground include nitrogen, phosphorus, and uted among the various species. water; refers to movement ofpesti• potassium. Species (taxa) richness-The number of cides ornutrients from land surface Occurrence and distribution assess• species (taxa) present in a defined to ground water. ment-eharacterization ofthe area or sampling unit Load-A general term that refers to a broad-scale spatial and temporal material or constituent in solution, distributions ofwater-quality con• Synoptic sites-Sites sampled during a in suspension, or in transport; usu• ditions in relation to major short-term investigation ofspecific ally expressed in terms ofmass or contaminant sources and back• water-quality conditions during volume. ground conditions for surface water selected seasonal or hydrologic Maximum Contaminant Level and ground water. conditions to provide improved (MCL)-The maximum permissi• Organochlorine compound-Synthetic spatial resolution for critical water• ble level ofa contaminant in water organic compound containing chlo• quality conditions. that is delivered to any user ofa rine. As generally used, the term public water system. MCL's are refers to compounds containing Tier 1 sediment guideline-Threshold enforceable standards established mostly or exclusively carbon, concentration above which there is by the U.S. Environmental Protec• hydrogen, and chlorine. Examples a high probability ofadverse effects on aquatic life from sediment con• tion Agency. include organochlorine insecti• cides, polychlorinated biphenyls, tamination, determined by using Median-Themiddle orcentral value in a modified procedures from the distribution ofdata ranked in order and some solvents containing chlorine. U.S. Environmental Protection ofmagnitude. The median is also Agency (1996b). lCilown~as the50tli percentile. Organochfoiineillsectlcid.e--A class of Micrograms per liter {t.lgIL)-A unit organic insecticides containing a Trace element-An element found in expressing the concentration of high percentage ofchlorine. only minor amounts (concentra• constituents in solution as weight Includes dichlorodiphenylethanes tions less than 1.0 milligram per (micrograms) ofsolute per unit vol• (such as DDT), chlorinated cyclo• liter) in water or sediment; includes ume (liter) ofwater; equivalent to dienes (such as chlordane), and arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cop• one part per billion in most stream• chlorinated benzenes (such as lin• per, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc. water and ground water. One dane). Most organochlorine Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)• thousand micrograms per liter insecticides were banned because Organic chemicals that have a high equals 1 milligram per liter. oftheir carcinogenicity, tendency to vapor pressure relative to their Milligrams per liter (mgIL)-A unit bioaccumulate, and toxicity to wildlife. water solubility. VOCs include expressing the concentration of components ofgasoline, fuel oils, Organochlorine pesticide-See Orga• chemical constituents in solution as and lubricants, as well as organic nochlorine insecticide. weight (milligrams) ofsolute per solvents, fumigants, some inert unit volume (liter) ofwater; equiva• Pesticide-A chemical applied to crops, ingredients in pesticides, and some lent to one part per million in most rights ofway, lawns, or residences byproducts ofchlorine disinfection. streamwater and ground water. One to control weeds, insects, fungi, thousand micrograms per liter nematodes, rodents, and other Water-quality criteria-Specific levels equals I mgIL. "pests." See also Herbicide, ofwater quality which, ifreached, Nitrate-Anion consisting ofnitrogen Insecticide. are expected to render a body of and oxygen (N03a). Nitrate is a Point source-A source at a discrete water unsuitable for its designated plant nutrient and is very mobile in location such as a discharge pipe, use. Commonly refers to water• soils. drainage ditch, well, or concen• quality criteria established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Nonpoint source-A pollution source trated livestock operation. See also Agency. Water-quality criteria are that cannot be defined as originat• Nonpoint source. based on specific levels ofpollut• ing from discrete points such as Riparian-The area adjacent to a stream ants that would make the water pipe discharge. Areas offertilizer or river with a high density, diver• harmful ifused for drinking, swim• and pesticide applications, atmo• sity, and productivity ofplant and ming, farming, fish production, or spheric deposition, manure, and animal species relative to nearby industrial processes. natural inputs from plants and trees uplands. are types ofnonpoint source pollu• Species diversity-An ecological con• Yield-The mass ofa material or constit• tion. See also Point source. cept that incorporates both the uent transported by a river in a Nutrient-Element or compound essen• number ofspecies in a particular specified period oftime divided by tial for animal and plant growth. sampling area and the evenness the drainage area ofthe river basin.

38 Water Quality in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and Maryland, 1992-95