Surface Water Quality: Have the Laws Been Successful? [Course Book ed.] 9781400862771

Table of contents :
Contents
List of Illustrations
List of Tables
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
Preface
Chapter 1. What is Happening To Our Surface Waters?
Chapter 2. Impacts of Human Society on the Riverine System — Past and Present
Chapter 3. The Impacts of Population Growth and Movement
Chapter 4. Changes in Societal Activities and Demands
Chapter 5. Federal and State Laws, Regulations and Management
Chapter 6. Effects on Pollution of Laws and Regulations Versus Voluntary Efforts
Chapter 7. How Have Our Surface Waters Changed?
Chapter 8. Options for the Future
Bibliography
Subject Index

Citation preview

SURFACE WATER QUALITY: HAVE THE LAWS BEEN SUCCESSFUL?

Surface Water Quality: Have the Laws Been Successful?

BY RUTH PATRICK With Faith Douglass, Drew M. Palavage, and Paul M. Stewart

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS

Copyright i 1992 by Princeton University Press Published by Princeton University Press, 41 William Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08540 In the United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, Oxford AH Rights Library

Reserved

of Congress

Ca I a loging-m-Publication

Data

Patrick, Ruth. Surface water quality : have the laws been successful? / Ruth Patrick with Faith Douglass, Drew M. Palavage, Paul M. Stewart, p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 0-691-08769-5 (cl) 1. Water quality — United States. 2. Water — Pollution — Law and legislation — United States. 3. Water quality management — United States. 4 Water quality — Delaware River Estuary. 5. Water quality — Sabine-Neches Estuary (La. and Tex.) 6. Water quality — Georgia — Flint River. 7. Freshwater f a u n a — United States — Effect of water pollution on. 1. Title. TD223.P369 1992 363.73 ' 9456'0973 — dc20 92-7077 This book has been composed in English Times Clothbound editions of Princeton University Press books are printed on acid-free paper, and binding materials are chosen for strength and durability. P a p e r b a c k s , although satisfactory for personal collections, are not usually suitable for library rebinding Editorial and production services by Fisher D u n c a n , 10 Barley Mow Passage, London W 4 4 P H Printed in the United Kingdom

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

PAIR>

32101 020765598

Contents

List of Illustrations

vii

List of Tables

ix

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

xi

Preface

xiii

Chapter 1

What is Happening To Our Surface Waters?

1

Chapter 2

Impacts of Human Society on the Riverine System — Past and Present

5

Chapter 3

The Impacts of Population Growth and Movement

20

Chapter 4

Changes in Societal Activities and Demands

28

Chapter 5

Federal and State Laws, Regulations and Management

62

Effects on Pollution of Laws and Regulations Versus Voluntary Efforts

96

Chapter 6 Chapter 7

How Have Our Surface Waters Changed?

115

Chapter 8

Options for the Future

152

Bibliography

158

Subject Index

187

List of Illustrations

The study area of the Delaware River. The study area of the Neches River, Texas. FIGURE 2.3 The study area of the Flint River, Georgia. FIGURE 3.1 Population of the Upper Delaware Estuary. FIGURE 3.2 Population of the Lower Delaware Estuary. FIGURE 6.1 CBOD loadings for the Delaware River Estuary. FIGURE 6.2 BOD5 loadings for the Neches River Estuary.

FIGURE 2.1 FIGURE 2.2

FIGURE 7.1 FIGURE 7.2 FIGURE 7.3 FIGURE 7 . 4 FIGURE 7.5 FIGURE 7.6 FIGURE 7.7 FIGURE 7.8 FIGURE 7 . 9 FIGURE 7.10 FIGURE 7.11 FIGURE 7 .12 FIGURE 7.13 FIGURE 7 .14

Delaware Estuary Multiple Station Plots: Five Year Averages Dissolved oxygen. Five-day biochemical oxygen demand. Total nitrogen — ammonia. Total nitrate. Total phosphorus. Fecal coliform. Total cadmium. Total chromium. Total copper. Total iron. Total lead. Total mercury. Total nickel. Total zinc.

Delaware Estuary: Ratio of Pollution-tolerant to Natural Water Species FIGURE 7.15 Algae. FIGURE 7 .16 Macroinvertebrates. FIGURE 7.17 Fish.

FIGURE 7.18 FIGURE 7.19 FIGURE 7.20 FIGURE 7.21 FIGURE 7.22

Delaware Estuary: Juvenile Shad Runs and Commercial Catches of Blue Crab and Oyster Juvenile shad runs: Delaware water gap. Juvenile shad runs: Phillipsburg-Easton. Juvenile shad runs: Byram. Juvenile shad runs: Trenton. Commercial blue crab catch (Delaware Estuary).

VHl

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURE 7.23 Commercial oyster catch (Delaware Estuary).

FIGURE 7.24 FIGURE 7 . 2 5 FIGURE 7 . 2 6 FIGURE 7 . 2 7 FIGURE 7.28

Neches Estuary Multiple Station Plots: Five Year Averages Dissolved oxygen. Total nitrate. Total ammonia. Total phosphate. Fecal coliform.

Neches Estuary: Ratio of Pollution-tolerant to Natural Water Species FIGURE 7.29 Algae. FIGURE 7.30 Macroinvertebrates. FIGURE 7.31 Fish. Flint River: Ratio of Pollution-tolerant to Natural Water Species FIGURE 7.32 Algae. FIGURE 7 .33 Macroinvertebrates. FIGURE 7.34 Fish.

List of Tables

TABLE 2.1 TABLE 2.2 TABLE 3.1 TABLE 3.2 TABLE 4.1 TABLE 4.2 TABLE 4.3 TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE

4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8

TABLE 5.1 TABLE 6.1 TABLE 6.2 TABLE 6.3 TABLE 6.4 TABLE 7.1

Municipal sewage treatment facilities existing in 1938 (Delaware River watershed). Minimum standards of purity for effluents discharged into Delaware River Waters. Delaware River population by drainage region. Population of communities in the Neches River Estuary (Texas). Pesticides reportedly used in Southwest Georgia agricultural areas in recent years (Flint River watershed). Erosion rates (tons/acre/year) in the southern coastal plain of the Flint River watershed. Estimated long-term delivery factors by land resource area for nonpoint source pollutants in Georgia. Neches Estuary manufacturing, 1967. Neches Estuary manufacturing, 1982. Electric utilities water use in the Delaware Estuary. Significant spills in the Delaware Estuary. Consolidated statement of waterborne commerce in the Sabine-Neches waterway, 1968-1986 (in short tons). Comparison of effluent quality requirements in the Delaware Estuary. Percentage of wastes treated at municipal facilities originating from industrial plants on the Delaware Estuary. Pollution loads to the Delaware Estuary from point sources. Estimated sediment yields (tons/year) reaching water bodies in the Flint River study area. Neches River tidal segment BOD5 loadings. Freshwater and saltwater criteria used for determining violations.

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

ANSP ASCS BAT BMP BOD BPCTCA BPT CAFRA CBOD CEQ COD CSO CWA DDD DDE DDT DER DNREC DRBC FIFRA FmHA FWPCA GA EPD GA DNR GAO GDA GSWCC Incodel LAS LNVA MFM/FCBR mg/1 MSX

Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia Agricultural and Soil Conservation Service best available technology best management practices biochemical oxygen demand best practicable control technology currently available best practicable treatment Coastal Area Facilities Review Act carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand Council on Environmental Quality chemical oxygen demand combined sewer overflow "Clean Water Act" of 1972 dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (insecticide, DDT metabolite) dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (insecticide, DDT metabolite) dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (insecticide) Department of Environmental Resources Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Delaware River Basin Commission Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Farmers Home Administration Federal Water Pollution Control Administration Georgia Environmental Protection Division Georgia Department of Natural Resources General Accounting Office Georgia Department of Agriculture Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Committee Interstate Commission on the Delaware River Basin Land Application System Lower Neches Valley Authority membrane filter method/fecal coliform broth milligrams per liter multi-nucleated sporozoan X

xii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

N NCWQ NJ DEP NPDES P PA DER PCB SCS SS STORET SWCD TDS TDWR TWC ^g/kg US Dept. Commerce USC US DHEW USDA US EPA USPL US SCS WPC Act 2,4-D

nitrogen National Commission on Water Quality New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection National Pollution Discharge Elimination System phosphorus Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources polychlorinated biphenyls Soil Conservation Service suspended solids STOrage and RETrieval (US EPA Computerized Water Quality Data Base) Soil and Water Conservation District total dissolved solids Texas Department of Water Resources Texas Water Commission micrograms per kilogram United States Department of Commerce United States Congress United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare United States Department of Agriculture United States Environmental Protection Agency United States Public Law United States Soil Conservation Service Water Pollution Control Act (Federal) dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (herbicide)

Preface

In recent years the public has become increasingly concerned about the quality and quantity of surface waters. This book was written to examine the uses of surface waters by society and the effects of the resulting perturbations. Future policy options are discussed. The pollution of surface waters has steadily increased. This is because the direct domestic use by the rapid, increasing population and the products required for their lifestyle require more water. The consumptive use of water has also greatly increased, because of the greater demand for irrigation and cooling. The water uses of the increasing population have continually changed over time and have produced perturbations that were often not anticipated and have sometimes proved very difficult to measure. The populations have shifted and the waste products of the service industries and agriculture that serve them have changed continually. Great expansion in the use of boats for recreation has caused a severe pollution problem in many of our lakes, streams, and estuaries. Transcontinental shipping, which brings food and other commodities from all over the world, enters our estuaries and often causes severe pollution of these waters. Whereas, we have made definite attempts to control point sources of pollution, nonpoint source pollution remains a severe problem and one that is very difficult to control. In many of our surface waters nonpoint pollution is now our greatest problem. In order to control water pollution, many laws, both Federal and State, have been passed. The enforcement of these laws through regulations has largely been in the hands of the states, the exception being interstate rivers, which the Federal government also has a part in controlling. Laws have been passed and regulations have been made to control pollution, but often they have not been effectively enforced for some period of time after these regulations were put on the statute books. Billions of dollars of private and public monies have been spent to control pollution. Many questions are now being asked. How effective have these laws and regulations been? Should we change our approach toward solving the problems of water pollution? Amendments in the Clean Water Act are now actively being considered by Congress — should definite changes be made in order to improve the control of pollution, or should the same

XlV

PREFACE

pattern of previous laws be followed? In this book we hope to answer some of these questions. In the past, pollution control has been largely monitored at the end of a discharge pipe, as this was the point at which regulations were enforced. Relatively little attention has been paid to the effect of these effluents on receiving bodies of water. Monitoring has been intermittent and often rather ineffective. The thoroughness with which monitoring has been carried out has also varied greatly. Thus, it is very difficult to determine how effective the Clean Water Act and its amendments have been in controlling pollution, and in allowing our surface waters to support aquatic life, and be acceptable for potable and recreational use — in other words, "fishable and swimmable." It has been difficult to find bodies of water that have been subjected to various uses and have been monitored to determine the effects of these uses on the chemical characteristics of the water and the aquatic life. There are very few surface waters for which there have been sufficient data to evaluate change from before the Clean Water Act to the present. Can changes be correlated with various laws and regulations aimed at improving the condition of our surface waters? Analyses of the available data have shown that it would be virtually impossible to subject the data to rigorous mathematical analysis. This is because over time the procedures in collecting chemical samples and analyzing them have varied so much between different laboratories. The instruments used have also been very variable as to their accuracy and limits of determination. Furthermore, there has been a great deal of variation in the methods of collecting biological data from 1967 to the present. For example, to statistically analyze the biological data and compare it over time, it is important that organisms are identified to species and that similar methods of collecting are used. It is usually at the species level that one can determine whether shifts in species can be correctly correlated with shifts in pollution. The correlation of changes in biology with changes in chemistry, and hence with laws and regulations, has presented many challenges. One must consider the uses of the watershed and hence its impact on surface waters if one is to correctly evaluate and correlate changes in surface waters with pollution loading. Some examples of shifts in water quality that must be correlated with factors outside the rivers, lakes or estuaries, are as follows. If a population decreases in an area, the pollution entering the river in this area would probably also decrease. Therefore, it is necessary to know population movements. Reduction in water use and pollution may be attributed to better treatment, when it has in reality been caused by the shift of population and the fact that very few people are now using the water.

PREFACE

xv

Shifts in products manufactured by industries occur in watersheds. Thus a toxic pollution might be reduced in the receiving body of water because of a change in the products that are made by a plant in the watershed, rather than by any forward steps in pollution control. Our concerns have also changed about what, how and where analyses of pollution should be made. In the late 1960s there was little concern about very small amounts of organic substances such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Indeed, they were seldom analyzed. Trace metals were rarely determined. Today we realize that these are among our most serious problems. Similarly in the 1960s, emphasis was placed on the analysis of the water column, whereas today we know that the sediments often are the storehouses of toxic materials. Health problems of man may be caused by these sediments that are eaten or taken in by various aquatic organisms that are fish food. Whereas previously the public and government were generally concerned at controlling pollution at the end of the pipe, today the concern is mainly on the functioning of the whole ecosystem and whether or not it can maintain its condition or is very fragile and probably will be destroyed. Such studies require very different types of analyses. As stated above, very little attention in the past has been paid to monitoring the functioning of the ecosystem, the kinds and types of species present, and the chemical environment of the water in which they live. With the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act, many questions arise. Should the same procedures be used to determine the presence of various chemicals in water or how should they be modified? Today our goals are waterways that can sustain healthy aquatic ecosystems and be swimmable. This requires a very different approach than one that simply measures conditions at the end of a pipe. Recent studies have shown that pollution may not only come from a pipe but also from surface runoff, groundwater, and even fallout from the atmosphere. Thus to determine change it is not enough to measure the source, but rather it is important to measure the overall effects. In this book we will discuss changes that have taken place and will address some of the future needs that must be considered when answering the questions as to what is the state of our surface waters and what conditions we want in the future. The writing of this book has demanded a great deal of research. Often, papers or accounts of surface waters are found in very obscure journals or in reports to state agencies. These had to be ferreted out. The data have been very difficult to analyze. New approaches have had to be adopted in some cases in order to examine whether improvement has or has not taken place. We have tried to find reliable ways of comparing data but because of the reasons stated above only very general trends have been able to be identified.

XVl

PREFACE

Many people and institutions have been very helpful in bringing t o g e t h e r the data necessary for writing this book. We wish to thank the Environmental Protection Agencies, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the United States Geological Survey, DRBC, the Texas Water Control Administration, the Georgia Fish and Wildlife for their help in identifying information which would help us reconstruct the fauna and flora or give us data concerning the chemical characteristics of a particular body of water that was concerned. We particularly want to thank Mr Richard Albert of the DRBC for the time he devoted to reading and making suggestions about this manuscript, and to Mr Richard J. Woodward of the DuPont Company who has spent a great deal of time in the technical editing of this book. We would like to thank those who helped us with obtaining the scientific and factual information for this book: Mike Kaufman, Pennsylvania Fish Commission; Art Lupine, New Jersey Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife; Joseph Miller, United States Fish and Wildlife Service; Richard J. Seagraves, Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife; Rick Cole, Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife; Jonathan Sharp, University of Delaware; Kent Price, University of Delaware; Harold Haskin, New Jersey Oyster Research Laboratory, Rutgers University; Susan Ford, New Jersey Oyster Research Laboratory, Rutgers University; Selwyn Roback (deceased), Academy of Natural Sciences; Richard Horwitz, Academy of Natural Sciences; Victor J. Schuler, Environmental Consulting Services, Inc.; John O'Herron, T. Lloyd Associates; Edwin T. Hall Jr., Georgia Department of Natural Resources; Richard C. Harrel, Lamar University, Texas; Henry Stewart, Henry Stewart Co.; Delaware Port Authority. Others who also assisted in locating data sources were: Craig Billingsley, Pennsylvania Fish Commission; Jim Ulanowski, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources; Donald K. Knorr, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources; Micahel Chezik, United States Fish and Wildlife Service; Roy Miller, Delaware Fish and Game Commission; Michael Pence, Philadelphia Water Department; Susan Panzitta, Philadelphia Water Department; Steve Friant, Academy of Natural Sciences; J. Richardson, Academy of Natural Sciences; Fred Lewis, Lewis commercial shad fisher; Olaf Hanson, STORET (user assistance); J. Leonard Ledbetter, Georgia Department of Natural Resources; Jack Dozier, Georgia Department of Natural Resources; Russ Ober, Georgia Department of Natural Resources; Stephen P. Quinn, Georgia Department of Natural Resources; Bill White, United States Soil Conservation Service, Georgia; Marsha Reynolds, United States Soil Conservation Service; and various members of the Texas Water Commission, Water Quality Division. We are also greatly indebted to the Environmental Assessment Council and the Academy of Natural Sciences who sponsored the writing of the book. The members of the Council are: Robert G. Dunlop, Caryl Haskins,

PREFACE

XVll

Richard Ε. Heckert, George Lamb, Charles F. Luce, Glenn Paulson, William Reilly, Harlan Snider, and M. Gordon Wolman. We also appreciated the technical advice given by the Advisory Committee of the Environmental Assessment Council who were: Edwin Clark II, Joseph V. D'Ambrisi, James Marum, Harold F. Elkin, Richard D. Johnson, Thomas E. Lovejoy III, Glenn Paulson, John Quarles, James C. Hildrew, John R. Cooper, George Wills. Particular thanks goes to the PEW Charitable Trust and to the DuPont Company, without whose financial and technical help this book could not have been written. Also assisting were the Sun Oil Company, the Mobil Oil Company and W. Alton Jones. Ruth Patrick Philadelphia December, 1991

Dedicated to The Clean Water Year 1991-1992

What is Happening To Our Surface Waters?

Many laws, both Federal and State, have been enacted to improve the quality of our nation's surface waters. Since 1972, when the Clean Water Act was passed, a great deal of public and private money has been spent to achieve these ends. With what result? Has the quality of our waters improved, and if it has, does the improvement correlate with the enforcement of the laws, or is it haphazard? Most laws have been directed toward controlling municipal and industrial wastes, and control of agricultural pollution has been voluntary except where direct discharge of effluents was involved. Cross-compliance provisions and agricultural education programs have stimulated efforts at conservation farming, and some state laws have been directed toward control of upland erosion or prevention of toxic substances from entering surface waters. However, we have found no state regulations aimed directly at preventing pesticides or nutrients from fertilizers from entering the streams. With what result ? To what degree have the chemistry and biology of our surface waters been affected by agriculture? To evaluate the changes that may have occurred in our streams, many factors must be considered. Climatic changes have been important, and in addition to new laws and regulations, many social changes have taken place that influence the type and quantity of effluents. Significant shifts in populations have occurred. The nation's population has increased steadily and is concentrating along the coasts. Also, there has been a movement from New England and the Midwest toward the Southeastern States and populations in Arizona, New Mexico, and parts of Utah and in California have grown rapidly. In many of these areas, water supplies are limited. With the movement of populations has come new industry and services, and agriculture has expanded even in areas where water is limited. Local movements within a watershed also have important effects on water quality. For example, in the first part of this century most of the population of the Delaware River Basin was concentrated on the shores of the Upper Estuary. Today, people are rapidly moving to the Lower Estuary. Another effect of population on pollution is the growth of two-wage earner families. This means that less time is available for household chores, and chemical solutions are widely used in cleaning floors, ovens and clothes.

2

CHAPTER ONE

These solutions were not available in the first part of this century. A l s o , we are demanding more packaged foods so that meals can be prepared quickly. This means more plastics and foils to present these foods in a safe, healthy form. Increased manufacturing often means increased wastes. Our diets have also changed. Where people can afford them, fresh vegetables are demanded all year. This means a great deal more irrigation, and in the last 10 years irrigation has more than doubled in the eastern seaboard states. Irrigation has become a severe problem in areas where the available water is almost entirely groundwater. For example, the water table in the Ogallala aquifer in parts of Texas and Nebraska has dropped 40 feet in the last 10 years because withdrawals greatly exceed recharge. Many more pesticides are being used in agriculture than 30 to 40 years ago because people demand perfect fruits and vegetables. They do not like wormholes, or a bit of black spot on their vegetables. In an effort to meet consumer demands, some farmers grow three or more crops per year on the same parcel of ground. This can be accomplished only by irrigation, and by the increased use of fertilizers and pesticides, together with new breeds of seeds that mature more rapidly. Our foods are more manufactured than they were at the turn of the century. We want them in a form that can be prepared within a few minutes; we have "minute rice" for dinner and "30-second oatmeal" for breakfast. The recreation habits of the population also have changed. Golf is more popular than it was 30 years ago, and the number of golf courses is increasing rapidly. Maintenance of these courses means fertilization, irrigation, and the use of pesticides, most of which eventually reach streams or groundwater. Many people are less interested in active sports, and have turned to television or computers for amusement. Businesses want more rapid communication; thus computers are found in most business offices and in many homes. These devices require silicon discs, made through a process which produces deleterious wastes. The groundwater in California's Silicon Valley is so contaminated with toxic materials that it probably cannot ever be used without a great deal of treatment. The location of the sources of pollution are also different, and have spread into some fragile environments. Our increased population has caused us to destroy many natural environments that have great inherent capacity to assimilate wastes. I refer particularly to the wetlands. Thus our changing way of life and increasing population have greatly increased our waste production. Indeed, if some large industries had not been constantly trying to reduce wastes, the problems would be even greater. Construction of sewage and waste treatment plants for municipal and industrial discharges has been greatly increased in recent years. Have these treatments brought about improvement in our streams and rivers? Or, has

WHAT IS HAPPENING

TO OUR SURFACE WATERS?

3

the constantly increasing volume of waste been too great to control? Have changes in waste disposal practices caused the contamination of ground­ water, whereas in former times only surface waters were contaminated? We try to answer some of these questions in this book. In order to correlate changes in the chemistry and biology of our rivers with the enforcement of pollution control laws, several factors must be weighed. First, we must examine the changes in quantity and type of pollution load that has entered each river. Then, we must determine whether the pollution in the water column has been removed completely, or simply has settled into the sediments. Are the wastes biodegradable? If so, a larger amount of waste might be safely discharged. However, a nonbiodegradable waste that accumulated in the river's living organisms or in its sediments could cause severe damage to aquatic life, even though the amount discharged was very small. To answer these questions, we have studied parts of three watersheds, located in various parts of the country, that have been subjected to different types of wastes, and reflect the influence of different laws and regulations. The economically important Delaware River Estuary was selected because an impressive amount of information about its water quality is available. (Information about most of our riverine systems is strikingly limited, and its absence poses a great problem in a study of this sort.) The Delaware River receives a wide mixture of industrial, municipal, and agricultural discharges. Agriculture is the major activity in the upper watershed. Urbanization and erosion from construction sites pose severe problems. The second river analyzed, the Neches Estuary, is primarily affected by effluents from the petroleum industry. Some municipal and agricultural wastes are present, but any improvement in water quality would be due largely to the efforts of the petroleum industry. A reach in the Flint River in Georgia was selected for study because, according to state authorities, the effects of agriculture are dominant. Our choices also were influenced by the availability of long-term data on changes in chemical constituents that are related to water quality, such as hardness, biological oxygen demand, acidity, ammonia and conductivity. Data for trace metals, however, are more difficult to find, and few measurements of trace organic substances are available. Information about fish populations was fairly complete for some waters, but invertebrate data were less detailed. Data for algae were scarce and often of poor quality. Using all of the information we could get, we have made some estimates of change. To do this it was important to know the functioning of all groups of organisms in the stream, in order to understand the cycling of nutrients and the ability of the stream to cleanse itself. We have attempted to examine all types of aquatic life, including bacteria.

4

CHAPTER ONE

After identifying changes in water quality, we attempted to rJate these to various human activities. This should provide some insight into the effectiveness of the laws and regulations. The book concludes with the presentation of some options regarding the future of these waters.

Impacts of Human Society on the Riverine System—Past and Present

Before the arrival of European settlers, the three watersheds that are examined in this book were occupied by Native Americans. These people did not build permanent habitations and the pollution that they generated was relatively small in volume. With the arrival of Europeans and the establishment of stable habitations, the pollution impact became greater. THE DELAWARE

The Delaware was discovered by Henry Hudson in 1609 and he described it as "one of the finest, best and pleasantest rivers in the world" (Wildes 1940) (Fig. 2.1). On his first sight of it, the river was pristine. Indian tribes lived along the shores, fishing the river, hunting in the nearby woods and growing corn, squash, beans, sweet potatoes, and tobacco (Wildes 1940). These uses had no noticeable impact on the river. The first European settlers were attracted by the natural resources of the area: the forests that provided wood for building and heating; the fertile soil; the abundant water supply; the plentiful wildlife, fish and oysters, and native vegetation. Numerous communities were established along the Delaware Bay and River and the settlers traded furs, lumber, and grain for necessities from Europe (US Public Health Service 1952a). Quaker settlers, who came to the Delaware Valley in 1678, established tanneries, brickyards, and glassworks (CEQ 1975). As the immigration continued, additional industries were instituted. Forges and furnaces were built to smelt and shape the iron ore that was found in the area. Grain mills were built to grind corn, wheat, and rye grown in the hinterland. Lumbering became a major industry in the Delaware Basin, and communities on the Bay supplied wood to shipyards and papermills near Wilmington (CEQ 1975). Pines and hemlocks, cut in the Catskill Mountains of New York, were floated downstream to Philadelphia and Wilmington for use in shipbuilding, which was also a thriving industry in the Estuary. Oaks and maples were cut in the Kittatinny Mountains of New Jersey, and Pennsylvania's Poconos. Some logs were floated only as far as Easton, where they were cut for use in buildings and shipped to New York or inland. Others were transported downstream to paper mills below Philadelphia (Wildes 1940).

CHAPTER TWO

6

POINT PLEA3ANT/YARDLEY AREA

TRENTON BELOW TRENTON AREA Burlington -

PHILADELPHfA > CHESTER

WILMINGTON

Bristol Bridge

CHESTER AREA WILMINGTON- P E NN 3 Q R O V E AREA

Pea Patch Island

APPOQUINIMINK SMYRNA RIVER AREA

Mahon River— DELAWARE BAY

delineates DRBC Study

Zones 1

Fi g 2.1 The study area of the Delaware River.

Commercial fishing also thrived. The waters were rich with shad, sturgeon, striped bass, herring, white perch and other species, which were cut and exported. Oystering was so extensive that it became the economic mainstay of many communities on the Bay (CEQ 1975). As a result of this activity, the Delaware Valley became a center of trade with England during colonial times. However, this was not without a price. By the time of the first Continental Congress in 1774, there was noticeable

HUMAN IMPACTS ON THE RIVERINE SYSTEM

7

water pollution in the Delaware. At first, most of the pollution was confined to the area of docks and properties bordering the River (US Public Health Service 1952a). The first water quality survey on the Delaware, in 1799, reported that wastes were entering the River from numerous sources in the Philadelphia area (Albert 1982a). At first, the wastes dumped in the Delaware were of a volume that could be readily assimilated. The uses of the River coexisted with each other. The water was drinkable; fisheries prospered; industry and river traffic did not interfere with recreational uses (CEQ 1975).

Nineteenth Century The 1800s brought changes. Cities and industries grew rapidly after the development of municipal water systems which provided large quantities of fresh water. Construction of canals and railroads linked the River with the hinterlands, and the greater availability of coal and iron fueled the expansion of numerous industries. Small shops and cottage industries disappeared and craftsmen went to work for large manufacturers. Immigrants came to the communities along the Delaware in large numbers to take jobs in factories. After yellow fever epidemics in 1793 and 1797, Philadelphia was forced to develop a public water supply to eliminate the use of contaminated well water. By 1801 a system had been constructed to transmit fresh water from the Schuylkill to the city (Columbia University School of Law 1982). Other communities also built municipal water systems, drawing water from the Delaware and its major tributaries. By 1860, most residents of Philadelphia, Camden, Trenton, Easton, and other cities were drinking river water (DRBC 1988b). Many industries were built or relocated on the waterfronts to be near the water needed for manufacturing, and the ships that delivered supplies and took finished products to market. Construction of canals permitted the transportation of coal, which had replaced water as an inexpensive energy source, to markets along the Delaware River at a cost well below that of overland transportation. Iron furnaces and mills grew with the use of coal. Glassblowing and silkweaving factories expanded; kilns for pottery and porcelain were constructed. In the early 1800s, Ε. I. du Pont, a French chemist, established the first gunpowder mills in the United States on the Brandywine Creek just above Wilmington (CEQ 1975). The availability of large amounts of water helped make possible the successful growth of these mills, which became the basis of a worldwide industrial enterprise. The availability of iron spurred the growth of numerous other manufacturing interests in the Delaware Estuary. Iron replaced wood as the primary shipbuilding material, brought more wealth to the cities, and

8

CHAPTER TWO

accelerated the demise of small Bay towns where wooden shipbuildii " n a d been important. Iron also became the chief raw material for locomotives built at the riverside by the Baldwin Locomotive works in Eddystone, Pennsylvania. Nailmaking, originally mechanized in Philadelphia, became an important local industry (CEQ 1975). As the cities grew the demand for food increased, and farming became more profitable. Railroads and canals made the use of wheat grown farther west cheaper than that grown locally. New Jersey and Pennsylvania farms prospered in dairy, poultry and meat production. Delaware's peach orchards, and later apples, thrived as the demand increased (Wildes 1940). The Civil War brought even greater wealth to the Basin. Manufacturing continued to grow, especially the wool trade and the heavy industries that prospered from Army orders. Munitions plants expanded to meet the demand for weapons (Wildes 1940). During the 1800s, the fishing industry in the Delaware served an international market. Shad, sturgeon, whitefish, bass, and oysters were shipped as far as China (FWPCA 1966). Delaware River sturgeon also supplied an extensive caviar market (FWPCA 1966). Although the fishing industry remained substantial throughout the nineteenth century, declines in the populations of many species were reported. A decrease in the abundance of shad was noticed in the 1840s, and by the 1870s was significant enough to appreciably reduce hauls (Howell and Slack 1871 in Kiry 1974). Striped bass reportedly began to decline in 1855, although they were still fairly abundant near Trenton around 1875 (Abbott 1878 in Kiry 1974). Haul catches of sturgeon began to decline on the Delaware in the 1890s (Cobb 1900 in Kiry 1974). The Delaware, however, remained the leading sturgeon stream in the nation for a number of years afterwards (Smith 1915 in Kiry 1974). Catfish vanished almost completely and the population of oysters in the Bay also began to decline (Wildes 1940). Overfishing and the construction of dams, which prevented upstream migration, were probably responsible for much of the decrease in fish populations (Kiry 1974). However, it is likely that water pollution also contributed to the decline. The rapid growth of cities and industries along the Delaware resulted in greater amounts of waste to be disposed. Wastes from Philadelphia and other communities were disposed in the Delaware and other streams both by design, through street gutters or sewers, and by accident, through poorly constructed privy vaults (Columbia University School of Law 1982). By 1854, sewers were being constructed in Philadelphia to carry the used water supply away from the city streets (US Public Health Service 1952a). Other communities along the Delaware also began building sewer systems (US Public Health Service 1952a).

HUMAN IMPACTS ON THE RIVERINE SYSTEM

9

While these sewers removed wastes from human sight, another problem was created. The sewage and industrial waste discharged from Philadelphia and other communities was contaminating the water supplies, and by the end of the Civil War city dwellers were dying from waterborne diseases such as typhoid (DRBC 1988b). Philadelphia, in particular, was plagued by typhoid until the end of the century (Columbia University School of Law 1982). In response, Philadelphia began construction of the world's largest slow sand filtration plants in 1899 (DRBC 1988b). Other cities along the river, including Easton and Trenton, also established filtration plants. The city of Camden abandoned the Delaware as its water supply, and in 1897 drilled over 100 wells into the aquifers underlying southern New Jersey (DRBC 1988b). Twentieth Century In an attempt to mitigate the increasing problem of water pollution, New Jersey and Pennsylvania passed laws in 1899 and 1905. However, these laws had little effect. After the passage of the Pennsylvania "Purity of Waters Act" in 1905, the city of Philadelphia opened a small sewage treatment plant at the mouth of the Pennypack Creek in 1912, which was intended to protect the water supply taken from the Delaware 1 mile upstream (US Public Health Service 1952a). In 1923, a larger treatment facility began operation in northeast Philadelphia. Other plants were proposed, but never constructed. A few other communities along the Delaware followed Philadelphia's lead, but these minimal attempts at pollution control were negated by continued municipal and industrial growth during the early part of the twentieth century. When trucks partially replaced railroads for transporting goods between cities, manufacturing plants were constructed along the highways. The growing availability of fast, inexpensive motor transport encouraged people to move out of the cities to settle in previously rural areas, establishing a pattern that has continued for several decades (CEQ 1975). After decades of rapid population and industrial growth, the water quality of the Delaware River was reportedly at its worst from 1930 to 1950, particularly in the Estuary. Water quality surveys in 1929 and 1937 indicated that the Estuary from Trenton to below Wilmington was "substantially polluted" (Incodel circa 1940 in Albert 1982). Substantial pollution also was reported in the Delaware below Port Jervis, near the Stroudsburgs, and below the confluence with the Lehigh River (DRBC 1988b). The excessive pollution of the Delaware had been caused by the discharge of large amounts of municipal and industrial wastes. Before World War II, most wastes were discharged with little or no treatment (Table 2.1), and

10

CHAPTER TWO

T A B L E 2 .1 Municipal Sewage Treatment Facilities Existing in 1 9 3 8 ( D e l a w a r e River Watershed) Existing facility

Municipality Hancock, New York Port Jervis, New York Easton, Pennsylvania Phillipsburg, New Jersey Trenton, New Jersey Florence, New Jersey Burlington, New Jersey Bristol, Pennsylvania Beverly, New Jersey Riverside, New Jersey Riverton, New Jersey Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Camden, New Jersey Chester, Pennsylvania Central Delaware County Communities, Pennsylvania Gloucester, New Jersey Lower Delaware County Communities, Pennsylvania Wilmington, Delaware New Castle, Delaware Bellefont, Delaware Delaware City, Delaware Salem, New Jersey

None None Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary None Primary for about 20% of sewage flow Primary for about 20°7o of sewage flow Primary None None None None None None None None

Source: incodel 1938.

this severely depleted the dissolved oxygen supply in the water. Although both Camden and the northeast section of Philadelphia operated primary sewage treatment plants, only 20% of the total sewage from these cities was treated (Incodel 1938). In 1941, 31 raw sewage discharge points were identified between the Burlington-Bristol Bridge and Pea Patch Island (Kelly 1941 in Kiry 1974). Industrial dischargers added to the problem. In Philadelphia alone, over 200 industries discharged 90,000 tons/year of solid and semisolid wastes either directly to the River or through sewers (Incodel 1941 in Albert 1982a). As the wastes discharged to the river were decomposed by bacteria, the dissolved oxygen in the water was depleted. This caused noxious hydrogen sulfide gases to form, and as early as 1934 residents along the waterfront in

HUMAN IMPACTS OS THE RIVER1\E SYSTEM

11

Philadelphia wrote to President Roosevelt complaining about odors from sewer gas (hydrogen sulfide) (Kiry 1974). During World War II, fumes of hydrogen sulfide corroded the metal used for naval radar equipment while it was still on the assembly line (Selby 1946). Steamship crews would quit after one night aboard, complaining of the foul-smelling gases, and dockworkers suffered from sore throats as a result of breathing the fumes (Kiry 1974). A tale of questionable authenticity asserts that naval pilots flying over Philadelphia could smell the gases at an altitude of 5,000 feet (Selby 1946). The water in the Estuary was so dirty that it clogged ships' engines, necessitating expensive repairs (Incodel 1938; CEQ 1975). Industries refused to plan for postwar reconstruction because of the water pollution (Incodel 1938). Philadelphia's drinking water smelled and tasted foul (CEQ 1975). Fishing, as an industry and a sport, declined drastically as a result of the pollution. The waste discharges destroyed spawning grounds and, through decomposition, reduced the dissolved oxygen content of the water in some areas to levels that were hazardous to fish for long periods of time (Kiry 1974). Many fish species decreased substantially, forcing commercial fisheries to go out of business. Annual finfish catches after 1930 were onetenth of the 1900 catch, or less (CEQ 1975). Commercial shad fishing essentially disappeared, declining from 13.4 million pounds in 1901 to annual catches of less than 500,000 pounds throughout the 1940s (DRBC 1966). Oyster harvests declined to less than one-fifth of their former size (CEQ 1975). The location of factories, refineries, railways, and highways limited human access to the River and made the waterfronts unpleasant, particularly in the cities, and pollution limited the recreational use of the river. Bathing beaches and boating remained popular along the Bay until the early 1950s when people became aware of the health hazards associated with water pollution (CEQ 1975). The water quality of the Delaware River, and in particular the Estuary, appeared to improve in the 1950s. Part of this change is attributable to Incodel (Interstate Commission on the Delaware River Basin), an organization cooperatively financed and managed by New York, New Jersey, Delaware and Pennsylvania. Created in 1936, Incodel's goal was to encourage the clean-up of the Delaware River, but it had no legal authority. Incodel merely provided technical advice to local and state officials (Selby 1946), but in so doing it recommended minimum water quality standards that all of the member states eventually ratified (Incodel 1940). (Table 2.2 summarizes these standards.) Persuaded by Incodel, communities along the most polluted stretches of the river spent more than $10 million to build sewage collection and treatment facilities between 1936 and 1942 (Selby 1946). By 1946 the City

Suspended solids Organic substances

Coliform organisms

1 cm 3 in 10% of 85% BOD reduction Not noticeable and not over 50 ppm; samples. IOOcm 5 in any single sample shall not reduce dis­ solved oxygen content by more than 5%

Turbidity

Odors and tastes

Not inimical to fish or aquatic life Same as above

Not to menace public Free of odors health through use of and substances water supplies, for re­ producing creation, bathing, agri­ taste in water supply culture, and other purposes;

Acids, alkalis

Not Practically noticeable free

Same as above 1 cm 3 in 25% of 85% BOD reduction Not noticeable and not over 100 ppm; samples. IOOcm 3 in any single sample shall not reduce disdissolved oxygen con­ tent by more than 10% Not to menace public Practically free Reduction necessary Must be treated with Not Substantially Not a germicide if dis­ health through water noticeable free; substantial to restore BOD of supplies or render unfit water to at least 50% charged within 2 reduction miles of waterworks for industrial purposes, of at least or harmful to fish life intake 55% Practically free Not to menace public Not Same as Not Such treatment as may Must be effectively noticeable above substantial be needed to prevent treated with a germicide health through water supplies or render unfit a nuisance if discharged within prejudicial influence of for commercial fishing, shellfish culture, rewater intake, or re­ recreational, industrial, creational areas, or shellfish grounds or other purposes

Not Practically noticeable free

Floating solids

"According to the interstate agreement, now in effect, the effluent from each municipal and industrial plant must meet the standards outlined above, by all seven tests, for the zone of the river into which the effluent is discharged. Source: Incodel 1940.

1

Zone

Τλβι t 2.2 Minimum Standards" of Purity for Effluents Discharged into Delaware River Waters

HUMAN

IMPACTS ON

THE RIVERINE SYSTEM

13

of Philadelphia had initiated an $80 million sewer improvement and treatment program (Baxter 1964 in CEQ 1975). The level of treatment at Philadelphia's Northeast Treatment Plant, operating since 1923, was upgraded. The Southwest Treatment Plant began operations in 1954 and the Southeast plant in 1955, both providing primary treatment (35% removal of biological oxygen demand) (CEQ 1975). Steps also were taken to control industrial pollution. In 1937, a year after Incodel was formed, Pennsylvania passed the Clean Streams Law which brought industrial wastes under legal control (PA DER undated) As a result, by 1961, 71 % of the industries in Pennsylvania treated their wastes before discharging them to rivers compared with only 8% in 1941. The fact that many industrial plants were able to dispose of their wastes directly to municipal sewage facilities was instrumental in achieving this rate of increase (CEQ 1975). This is not to say that the treatment was adequate, but it was a step toward improving the water quality of the Delaware. Pennsylvania's 1937 Clean Streams Law originally exempted the coal industry, and coal silt continued to be carried down the Schuylkill into the Delaware River, causing excessive turbidity and harming aquatic organisms. Even after this exemption was removed in 1944 (PA DER undated), little progress was made toward controlling coal silt runoff. Using Federal funds, provided in 1956, and additional monies from the states, construction of sewage treatment plants continued into the early 1960s. By 1964, all municipalities along the Estuary had at least primary treatment facilities (FWPCA 1966). The dissolved oxygen content appeared to improve, but other indices (pH, suspended sediment, metals, and biological organisms) indicated no significant improvement in water quality (Kiry 1974). In 1961, the newly created Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) replaced Incodel as the interstate agency responsible for the correction and control of water pollution in the Delaware River. Initially, DRBC adopted the old Incodel standards — significantly, however, DRBC had legal authority to seek enforcement against violators. In 1967 the water quality standards were made more stringent, necessitating a minimum of secondary treatment of all wastes before discharge to basin waters (DRBC 1967b). Where secondary treatment was not sufficient to maintain water quality standards, DRBC had authority to impose stricter requirements. This was necessary in the Estuary because the discharges were of an amount that could not be readily assimilated by the receiving waters (DRBC 1977a). To protect and upgrade water quality, dischargers were allocated a maximum rate of discharge of first stage (carbonaceous) oxygen demand. To determine this maximum rate, the assimilative capacity of each zone of the Estuary was determined, 10% of this capacity was set aside for a

14

CHAPTER

TWO

reserve, and the remainder was divided among the dischargers in that zone, assuming equal waste reduction by all dischargers (DRBC 1976). Allocations initially were assigned to 98 dischargers of organic wastes along the Estuary (DRBC 1967a).

Today Water quality in the Delaware appears to have improved substantially in the past 40 years, and particularly since 1980, despite the fact that it remains one of the most heavily used rivers in the country. The Delaware drains approximately \ °Io of the land area of the United States, but serves about 10% of the nation's population (Marrazzo and Panzitta 1984). Not only does it serve more than 7 million people living in the Delaware River Basin, it is also the major water source for an additional 8 million people in the City of New York. The dissolved oxygen has improved enough to allow the passage of migratory fish in the spring and fall and to maintain some acquatic life in all sections of the River (DRBC 1988b). The pollution in the nontidal Delaware, below Port Jervis, the Stroudsburgs, and the lower Lehigh Valley, has largely been cleaned up (Albert 1982a). Most of the floating wastes and odors have been eliminated from the River (Albert 1982a). The Delaware Estuary continues to be the site of one of the world's greatest concentrations of heavy industry. Although manufacturing has been declining in importance (DRBC 1988b), the area is home to one of the largest complexes of petroleum refining and petrochemical plants in the United States. Other major industries include papermaking, chemical manufacturing, shipbuilding, metal processing and food processing (DRBC 1988b; US Dept. Commerce 1985). In combination, the ports along the Estuary form the largest freshwater port in the world, the largest United States port in terms of international tonnage handled, and the second largest United States port in total tonnage (DRBC 1988b). Both commercial and sport fishing appear to be reviving in the Delaware River. A resurgence of shad has been noted as the Estuary has become cleaner and in recent years spawning has been reported in the nontidal section of the River (DRBC 1988b). Small commercial fisheries are centered around the shad and American eel migrations (DRBC 1988b). Other fish species of importance in the Upper Delaware and Estuary include trout, pickerel, bass, herring, alewife, yellow and white perch, and catfish. In the Lower Estuary, blue crabs and oysters are found. Shortnosed sturgeon, a Federally designated endangered species, have been reported in large numbers in the upper part of the Estuary (DRBC 1988b). Commercial fishing in the Delaware Bay has declined over the past 75 years primarily as a result of overfishing (DRBC 1988b), but is still important to the area. Shellfish of commercial importance are oysters, blue

HUMAN IMPACTS ON THE RIVERINE SYSTEM

15

crabs, lobsters, mussels, and clams (DRBC 1988b), the first two being the most significant. Finfish of commercial and sport fishing importance in the Bay include weakfish, bluefish, Atlantic menhaden, white perch, striped bass, summer flounder, shad, Atlantic sturgeon, alewife, and American eel (DRBC 1988b). The Delaware is one of the most intensely used recreational estuaries in the United States (DRBC 1988b) and boating, canoeing, rafting, and sailing seem to thrive in all areas. Wildfowl hunting is important in the brackish wetlands surrounding the Bay. Swimming is limited along the Estuary due to pollution, primarily from combined sewer outflows, and safety concerns about boating and limited access to the waterfront, especially in the cities, limit some types of recreation. Agriculture still is widely practised in counties bordering the upper part of the River, particularly in New York, with extensive dairying and poultry farming. The counties of New Jersey and Delaware along the lower Estuary and the Bay are heavily farmed, with substantial income generated from fruit and vegetables and from poultry farming in Delaware. THE NECHES ESTUARY

We do not know exactly when the Neches River in Texas was first visited by Europeans (Fig. 2.2). It is recorded that between 1816 and 1821, cowboys unlawfully went into the area to round up wild cattle and horses. Slave traders used the hidden bays and river mouths as holding stations for slaves being smuggled into the United States, and smuggling of various commodities remained a major activity until after the Civil War (US Army Corps of Engineers 1982). The settlements that are now the cities of Beaumont, Orange, Sabine, and Sabine Pass were established between 1840 and 1860, when a railroad line was laid from New Orleans through Orange and Beaumont, with a spur to Sabine Pass. By 1860 the area around Sabine Lake was rapidly increasing in population, with lumbering and shipping as major activities (US Army Corps of Engineers 1982). Although the Sabine Lake area had promised to become a major port in Texas, it was isolated during the Civil War by a Federal blockade that significantly reduced the amount of shipping and destroyed the economy of the area (US Army Corps of Engineers 1982). By 1875, the shipping industry in Beaumont and Orange was again thriving, and lumbering was the central economic activity. The economy was broadened by irrigation projects, cottonseed oil mills, and experiments with large-scale rice farming. Ln 1875 the United States Army Corps of Engineers began building port facilities, jetties, and deepwater channels in the area of Sabine Lake and within twenty years Beaumont, Orange, Sabine, and Sabine Pass were

CHAPTER

16

TWO

Pine Island Bayou Salt Water Barrier

Paper Mill Outfall HWY 10

BEAUMONT

Mobil Canal

Gulf States Utilities Canal Port Neches Park Star Lake Canal HWY 87

SABINE LAKE

F I G 2.2 The study area of the Neches River, Texas. After Harrel 1987.

classified as deepwater ports. The community of Port Arthur was established in 1896 and a canal extending from the town to the Gulf of Mexico was completed by 1899 (US Army Corps of Engineers 1982). About 1895, Patillo Higgins convinced Anthony Lucas to test drill for oil on a salt dome just south of Beaumont. After years of failure, a test well later called Spindletop first produced oil on January 10, 1901 (US Army Corps of Engineers 1982). The growth of oil refining and related industries encouraged the development of port facilities by local interests, and the Corps of Engineers enlarged the existing waterway. However, rice farming and the lumber industry prevailed as the major economic activities in the area until after World War I. By 1940, the economic base of Jefferson and Orange Counties had shifted to petroleum (US Army Corps of Engineers 1982) which continues to dominate the economy. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 significantly strengthened the Federal government's position on water

HUMAN IMPACTS OS THE RIVER ISE SYSTEM

17

pollution control. The amendments required that municipal sewage treatment facilities provide a minimum of secondary treatment and that industries provide "best practicable control technology currently available" by 1977 (CEQ 1975). All potential point source dischargers were required to obtain permits and as part of the application procedure had to file an abatement schedule approved by either the United States Environmental Protection Agency or the appropriate state agency.

THE FLINT RIVER BASIN

The Flint River was discovered by the Spaniard Hernando de Soto, who ventured into southwest Georgia in 1540 (Fig. 2.3). It was more than a century, however, before permanent settlement was attempted. In 1686 the British established a trading post in central Georgia from which settlers migrated outward to build trading posts and small villages (USDA 1982a). The main tribes until the early 1800s were Creek Indians, and Wooten Station (now called Leesburg) in Lee County was established early in the century near Chehaw, one of the six most important Creek towns in the area. Fort Early was founded in 1812, 11 miles south of the present location of Cordele in Crisp county (Middle South Georgia SWCD 1980). Albany, in Dougherty County, was founded in 1836. At that time, the surrounding area was a virgin pine forest. Most people who settled in Albany came from the town of Palmyra, 5 miles to the north. Palmyra, long since missing from the map, was once the largest community in the area (Flint River SWCD 1980); now Albany is the largest city in the area. During the Civil War, an artillery manufacturing plant, Dixon & Nelson, was established in Dawson in Terrell County (Lower Chattahoochee River SWCD 1980). After the Civil War many people found a new start in southwest Georgia with the construction of railroads, the advancement of new technologies, and the development of lumber and turpentine industries. Around 1870, settlers began to harvest large expanses of the forest, and once the trees were cut, the land was cleared for plowing and planting, primarily with cotton. Railroads were built into the area, followed by light industries and skilled tradesmen. Timber products and cotton became the major industries of the area, and supported the growth of stable towns along major rivers and railroads (USDA 1982a). Both cotton and timber remained important to the area into the twentieth century, but cotton declined after 1916 and later suffered substantial losses as a result of boll weevil infestation. About this time, peanuts became important to the economy of the region (USDA 1982a). Other crops grown during the early 1900s for sale to northern markets were corn, oats, cowpeas, velvetbeans, sweet potatoes, sugarcane, and

CHAPTER TWO

18

HOMASTON

P*rsiLteA Cf

MONTEZUMA

LAKE BLACK SHEAR.

LAKE WORTH

ALBANY F I G

2.3 The study area of the Flint River, Georgia.

various vegetable crops. The principal hay and forage crops were crimson clover, alfalfa, wheat, rye, and barley. Major fruit crops were cantaloupes, pecans, peaches, pears, plums, figs, and watermelon (USDA 1981). Better cultivation methods, improved varieties, and seed selection contributed to successful early agricultural development. Records indicate that as early as 1910, large amounts of commercial fertilizer were used to increase yields (USDA 1981).

HUMAN

IMPACTS ON

THE RIVERINE SYSTEM

19

By the late 1920s, most of the major forests of southwest Georgia had been cut over. The remaining woods were harvested to produce pitch and turpentine to be used in the construction of ships (USDA 1982a). The economic depression of the early 1930s led to misuse of the land, which resulted in increased erosion on many soils. Soil fertility was not sustained and fields producing low crop yields were abandoned (USDA 1981). The State of Georgia recognized the need for soil conservation to prevent erosion and maintain fertility and passed legislation in 1937 creating soil conservation districts. The need to use land according to its capabilities was acknowledged. Seriously eroded, sloping fields were planted with grass or trees, and terraces, ponds, and grassed waterways were introduced as means of controlling erosion and ultimately improving productivity (USDA 1981). World War II encouraged industrial development in the area, and increased activities at military installations brought an economic boost to the region (USDA 1982a). The 1940s also brought major changes in agricultural practices, and the use of bulldozers, and the cultivation of grasses such as "Bahia" and "Coastal Bermuda" became important to the creation of pasture land. The amount of land devoted to orchards and vineyards increased from 1964 to 1967, and the raising of cattle, hogs, and poultry became more important within the region. Many areas were reforested under the Soil Bank Program, the extreme erosion from the early part of the century was gradually healed, and soil conservation practices were used to reduce current erosion (USDA 1982a). The mixture of land uses established in the 1940s — livestock production, cropland, orchards and woodlands — remained relatively stable for three decades. Then, in the early 1970s, agricultural production, including orchards, was encouraged as export markets increased. Combined with the increased availability of irrigation systems, the growth of agricultural markets resulted in the conversion of large acreages of timberland and pasture to cropland (USDA 1982). T H E Delaware, Neches, and Flint Basins developed in very different

ways. The Delaware became industrialized at a much earlier date than the Neches, and in the Delaware region industry was highly diverse, whereas in the Neches Estuary it centered about a single industry. In all three areas, agriculture predominated during the early periods of settlement and remains prominent to this day, but only in the area of the Flint River has it continued to be a major industry. Not surprisingly, these varying patterns of development have produced very different impacts on water quality.

The Impacts of Population Growth and Movement

Patterns of population growth and resulting nonpoint pollution have varied markedly in the three study areas. In the earlier years nonpoint source pollution was minor compared to industrial pollution. Today, nonpoint sources often are the primary source of pollution because much stricter controls have been leveled against point sources. It also is noteworthy that in the earlier years most of the nonpoint source pollution was organic waste material, arising from households, farms and so forth. Today, due to changing human lifestyles and the increasing use of commercial fertilizers and pesticides, many more toxic substances are present in this nonpoint source pollution. In contrast, because industrial pollution has been strictly regulated, there has been great reduction both in organics and in toxic materials. (However, it should be pointed out that control of toxics came much later than the control of carbonaceous oxygen demand, biochemical oxygen demand, and nutrients.) THE DELAWARE

Over time, the population of the Delaware Estuary area has shifted away from older urban centers toward the suburbs of Philadelphia and Camden — and often toward areas that offer recreational opportunities. Service industries and manufacturing establishments have moved in a similar pattern. In 1940, 3.9 million people lived in the 4,550 square miles (Kiry 1974) of the upper and lower Delaware Estuary. During the next 30 years the population growth was rapid: from 1940 to 1950 the growth rate was 13.63%; from 1950 to 1960, 16.56%; and from 1960 to 1970, 10.30%. Between 1970 and 1980, the population of the Estuary declined 3%, reflecting a substantial population decrease in the Philadelphia-Camden metropolitan area, but growth resumed in the years 1980-1984 (Table 3.1). The majority of the people continue to live in and around Philadelphia, Camden, and Wilmington (Figs 3.1, 3.2), although the populations of the central cities have been in decline since the 1950s. Despite the decline in the cities, the populations of the three metropolitan areas (Philadephia-Camden, Trenton, and Wilmington) continued to increase because of a movement from rural areas to the suburbs, and the "baby boom" of the 1950s and early 1960s.

POPUL ATlON GROWTH AND MOVEMENT TABLE 3.1 Delaware River Population by Drainage Region

Average annual increase Population

since previous census

Estuary 1940

3,856,232

1950

4,382,015

1.36%

1960

5,107,871

1.66%

1970

5,634,101

1.03%

1980

5,464,647

-0.30%

1984

5,512,505

0.22%

Bay 1940

154,527

1950

185,415

2.00%

1960

253,767

3.69%

1970

301,334

1.87%

1980

362,893

2.04%

1984

373,235

0.71%

Upper Basin 1940

711,977

1950

769,372

0.81%

1960

891,711

1.59%

1970

1,024,021

1.48%

1980

1,185,433

1.58%

1984

1,234,019

1.03%

Sources: DRBC 1985a; US Dept. Commerce 1986.

Since 1940 the population of the Bay area has more than doubled from 154,527 to 373,235 in 1984 (DRBC 1985; US Dept. Commerce 1986). Approximately 3% of the Basin population lived within the 1,435 square mile drainage area of the Bay in 1940. In 1984, approximately 6% of the total Delaware Basin population lived here. Trends in Counties Impacting the Estuary and Bay In general, since 1960, population growth in communities that are located directly on the River and Bay has not been as substantial as the growth in communities that are located away from the River, but within the drainage basin. For example, in the 1960s Philadelphia and the portion of Delaware County that faces the River (including the industrial Chester-Marcus Hook area) declined in population. Meanwhile, the population of the inland area of Delaware County increased by approximately 12% (Fig. 3.1). Since 1970 there also has been a population decrease in certain riverfront communities of northern Delaware (New Castle County) and the New Jersey

FIG

Y ~ __

,

I " . -c o

\ 'U!

I

~~ .

1 -'

f'

~

I ;

...

Wilmingt0'e

J;.2.--..,.

: L. '

/'"

'\

I Delaware

/

~

~

r

I ,

\

>

, /\ /

River drainage basin boundary

\ Delaware

3,\ Population of the Upper Estuary of the Delaware River.

.

~~ ; ~; :'fl

e HE STER

/

...

H----.

-

~

t ~-

/ ·---....':0! . 1 IIr Pennsylvania '>1\ I-

/'

' ,leo

MON T GO Mr'R

,/

I-

~

~l~~

-

--

_

L~)

0

.0 00

.00 0

75. 000

100 .000

12 5 .000

1 5 0 .0 00

1 75. 00 0

20 0 .0 00

2 25.000

25 0.0 0 0

27 5 .000

30 0 .0 00

Numb er

Q.U'~.o~

- County boundary - _.. County subdivision boundary

1970 1984

I i 1960

Year

POPUL

ATION

GROWTH

AND

MOVEMENT

23

FIG 3.2 Population of the Lower Estuary of the Delaware River. counties of Mercer, Burlington, C a m d e n , and Gloucester. Conversely, the inland populations of all these counties have been increasing steadily since 1960, with the greatest growth occurring in the rural areas of Burlington, C a m d e n , and Gloucester counties (US Dept. C o m m e r c e 1986). Bucks C o u n t y in Pennsylvania, which is partly in the Estuary and the Upper Basin, experienced a 66% population increase between 1960 and

24

CHAPTER THREE

1984. Chester and Montgomery Counties, which are in the drainage area of the Estuary but do not border directly on the River, also increased significantly in population after 1960 (60% and 25%, respectively). The area of Montgomery County near Philadelphia increased slightly in population between 1970 and 1984 (33,919). Salem County in New Jersey, which borders partly on the Estuary and partly on the Bay, increased approximately 12% between 1960 and 1984. The counties impacting on the Bay — Kent, Sussex and the lower part of New Castle County in Delaware, and Cumberland and Cape May Counties in New Jersey — increased in population by 37% (approximately 75,000 people) from 1960 to 1984. On the New Jersey side most of the growth took place in the 1960s, although it continued in the 1970s and 1980s. On the Delaware side of the Bay, most of the growth has occurred since 1970 (US Dept. Commerce 1986). THE NECHES ESTUARY

In contrast to the varied forces that have stimulated population movements along the Delaware, the inhabitants of the Neches Estuary Basin have moved largely in response to the development of a single industry. After the discovery of oil in 1901, the populations of both Jefferson and Orange Counties grew rapidly until 1960, averaging a growth rate of nearly 24% per year. Growth slowed considerably in the 1960s, and the population even decreased slightly in Jefferson County, but rose once again in the 1970s. In Jefferson County the greatest concentration of population borders the Neches River. The two largest cities, Beaumont and Port Arthur, are partially located in the Neches Estuary and both cities have followed growth patterns similar to the county as a whole, though in the 1960s they experienced a more significant population decrease. The industrialized communities of Port Neches and Nederland have continued to grow, however, partly as a result of annexations. During the early part of this century the population growth in Orange County was not quite so rapid or consistent as in Jefferson County, but still averaged 15% annually between 1900 and 1960. Since 1960 the growth rate in Orange County has slowed considerably, to an average of 1.8% annually. The small communities in Orange County, located completely or partially within the drainage basin, have continued to grow steadily. The exact population of the Neches Tidal Area is hard to determine, because the counties of Orange and Jefferson and many of the cities and towns are located only in part within the drainage basin. The population of the drainage area is not necessarily indicative of the impact that the communities exert on the Estuary, because water supply and waste treatment facilities also provide services for the out-of-basin population.

25

POPUL ATION GROWTH AND MOVEMENT

Ta b l e 3 . 2 P o p u l a t i o n o f C o m m u n i t i e s i n t h e N e c h e s R i v e r E s t u a r y ( T e x a s ) 1920

1930

1950

1940

I960

1970

1980

Orange County, total (P) Bridge City Pine Forest Rose City (P) Vidor

15,379

15,149

258,532 123,356

5¢

OO

Jefferson County, 73,120 133,391 145,329 195,083 245,659 244,773 250,938 total (P) Beaumont 40,422 57,732 50,061" 94,014" 119,175" 115,919 118,102" _e Griffing Park 1,344 2,096 2,267 2,075 1,802 17,304° (P) Groves 18,067 17,090 Lakeview d 3,091 3,849 3,567 3,805° 12,036" (P) Nederland 16,810" 16,855" 1,198° Pear Ridge d 2,029 3,470 3,697" (P) Port Arthur 22,251 50,902 46,140 c 57,530" 66,676" 57,371 61,251" 8,696"·' 10,894 (P) Port Neches 2,327 2,487 5,448 13,944" -

1984

17,382

40,567

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,136

60,357 4,677 344 -

4,938

71,170 5,865 512 -

9,738

?

16,865 -

17,005 -

64,092 14,333

639 663°

89,931 7,818 755 697

12,117"

13,134

83,838 7,667°·"

Source: US Dept. Commerce 1942, 1982, 1986.

(P) means that only part of the community is located within the Estuary drainage basin. The population given is for the entire community, not just the part located within the basin. ° Incorporated since previous census. " Experienced annexations since previous census. ' Experienced detachments since previous census. '' Annexed to Port Arthur between 1970 and 1980. '' Incorporated in 1929, but census data not returned separately in 1930.

The combined population of Jefferson and Orange Counties was 334,776 in 1980, of which Twidwell (1986) estimated 65,000 to 70,000 to be living in the area that drains to the tidal segment of the Neches River. By 1984, the population of the two-county area had grown by approximately 4% (Table 3.2).

TH E FL I N T RI V E R BA S I N

The area of the Flint River is mainly agricultural land with a rural population. In contrast to the Delaware Basin, population movement has been toward towns where industrial employment was available. In spite of fewer farms, agricultural productivity has continued to grow. The population of the 14 counties in the study area increased by 38°7o between 1930 and 1984, to 267,299. This is low compared to population growth within the entire state of Georgia, which exceeded 100% in the same

26

CHAPTER THREE

time period. The difference in growth rates can be attributed primarily to the rurality of the study area and the shortage of employment opportunities. The farm population of the counties in the study area has declined continually since the early 1900s, while the population of the urban and rural nonfarm sectors has grown (Flint River SWCD 1980; Lower Chattahoochee River SWCD 1980; Middle South Georgia SWCD 1980). Prior to 1970 the decrease in the farm sector population in many counties exceeded the growth in other sectors, resulting in a net loss of residents. The decline was attributed to farm mechanization and to a shift from row crop production to livestock and poultry production, which required less labor (Lower Chattahoochee River SWCD 1980). Additionally, there was a lack of other types of jobs in the area and many who left the farms moved to Columbus, Atlanta, and the city of Macon, where jobs were available (Lower Chattahoochee River SWCD 1980). Prior to 1970 most of the population increase in the urban and rural nonfarm sectors occurred around Albany in Dougherty County (Flint River SWCD 1980). The population of Albany grew more than 400% between 1930 and 1970; Dougherty County grew 302%. People were attracted to this area because of job opportunities. The area also is accessible to metropolitan Tallahassee for commuters. Other areas of substantial and steady growth include the communities near Interstate 75 in Peach County, a major route to the Macon metropolitan area (Middle South Georgia SWCD 1980), and more recently, Americus and the surrounding region in Sumter County. This growth has been attributed to development of industries and residential areas for commuters to Columbus, and to the growth of Georgia Southwestern College in Americus (Lower Chattahoochee River SWCD 1980). The population of Crisp County has remained relatively steady since the early 1900s, due primarily to the availability of jobs within the Cordele area (Lower Chattahoochee River SWCD 1980). Accessibility to other centers of employment has helped to maintain a steady population. Since 1970 the populations of the other counties, excluding Webster, have begun to increase. This has been attributed to the rise in employment opportunities resulting from manufacturing and commercial development (Flint River SWCD 1980; Lower Chattahoochee River SWCD 1980) and the residential desirability of the region to people working in metropolitan Atlanta, Columbus, Macon, Valdosta, and Tallahassee (Flint River SWCD 1980). The numerous national and state highways that run through the region provide excellent access for commuters. A number of communities in the area, including Ellaville in Schley County, Leesburg in Lee County, and Dawson in Terrell County, have become residential areas for Albany and Americus. Growth is predicted to continue as more agricultural, commercial, and industrial businesses are established, and the accessibility

POPUL ATION GROWTH AND MOVEMENT

27

of transportation to Macon, Atlanta, Columbus, and Tallahassee improves (Lower Chatahoochee River SWCD 1980; Middle South Georgia SWCD 1980). This increase in population is expected to create greater amounts of nonpoint pollution, and to make it more difficult to separate these amounts from pollution created by farming activities.

Changes in Societal Activities and Demands

Over time, many changes have occurred in the agricultural, industrial, and recreational uses of the Delaware and Neches Estuaries, and part of the Flint River. This chapter examines the nature of these changes, and the resulting impacts on water quality. AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS

Agriculture, which was dominant along the Delaware in years past, now has relatively little effect on the river except in the Lower Estuary, where there is some impact from cropland and orchards in Delaware and southern New Jersey, and in the freshwater portions of the river in New York State, where the poultry industry remains active. The Flint River area presents a much higher level of agricultural activity. Indeed, it was the agricultural use of this watershed that we particularly wanted to study. In the Neches Estuary Basin the petroleum industry is dominant, but agriculture continues to have an impact in terms of water diversion, soil erosion, pesticide residues, and nutrients in the surface waters.

The Delaware Pollution from agricultural activities is traceable to runoff from crops, fields and orchards, and from feedlots, barns and poultry ranges. The most important pollutants are various forms of nutrients and pesticides. For example, phosphorus, ammonia, nutrients in fertilizers, and chemicals such as lime and trace metals, may run off and contaminate the river. Pesticides are serious contaminants in runoff. Feed lots, barns, and poultry ranges contribute runoff from manure piles, and liquid manure from horses and cattle. They also contribute pesticides which are used in controlling insects around barns and poultry ranges. For these reasons, agricultural activities can be important sources of pollution. Agriculture has been an important activity in the lower Delaware River Basin since the 1700s, when grain and produce grown in the area were exported to east coast cities and the West Indies (Weslager and Heite 1988; Jenkins 1903 in Sage and Pilling 1988). The region remains a major source of poultry, mushrooms, tomatoes, apples, peaches, blueberries, and feed

SOCIETAL ACTIVITIES AND DEMANDS

29

grains for markets in the United States and overseas: agricultural activities are still a major land use in many counties along the lower Delaware. As people and industries have moved out of the cities, suburbanization has increased and land formerly used for crops and pasture has been developed for human habitation. However, the decrease in agricultural land use has not brought a corresponding decrease in agricultural production. This is due primarily to the use of improved crop varieties, fertilizers, and pesticides; the mechanization of farming; and the discontinued use of marginal agricultural lands. As a result of the high agricultural production in the area, there were in years past a substantial number of canneries both on the New Jersey and Delaware sides of the Bay (US Public Health Service 1953). There were also numerous meat and dairy processing plants, and other food industries. The number of food industries has decreased in recent years, but total employment in the region has increased, except in Philadelphia, Camden, and heavily urbanized areas of Mercer and New Castle Counties (US Dept. Commerce 1985). Upper Estuary. For the purposes of this discussion the Upper Estuary refers to the heavily built-up counties surrounding the cities of Philadelphia, Camden and Trenton. This includes Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia Counties in Pennsylvania; Burlington, Camden, Gloucester, and Mercer Counties in New Jersey. Not all of these counties are completely within the Estuary, nor are all areas of the counties equally impacted by agricultural pressures, but our discussion is limited by the fact that agricultural data is reported only on the county level. As recently as the early 1950s, the counties adjacent to Philadelphia and Camden were intensely cultivated, producing poultry and dairy products, vegetables, and fruit (US Public Health Service 1952a). Some of the product was consumed locally, and much was processed for shipment to other regions. By this time, little forest land remained in these counties (US Public Health Service 1952a). Between 1945 and 1982, almost 200,000 acres of pasture and nearly 250,000 acres of cropland were lost to suburban development in these counties. This accounts for 80-95% of the pastureland and 12% (Chester County) to 77% (Delaware County) of the cropland that had existed in 1945, Gloucester and Burlington Counties lost 22% and 23%, respectively, of their cropland; and Bucks, Montgomery, Mercer, and Camden Counties each lost approximately 50%. Most of this farmland was developed during the 1950s and 1960s when the growth rate of suburban communities was at its highest and large numbers of people and industries were moving out of the older urban areas. Loss of farmland is still occurring, but at a slower rate. Because of the

30

CHAPTER FOUR

movement of the people into coastal areas, little agricultural land is left in close proximity to the Estuary. The majority of the farms and pasturelands are inland. Despite the loss of farmland, agricultural activities are still a major source of income in this area and the predominant land use in most of the counties. Chester County ranks among the top 50 counties in the United States in terms of income generated from agricultural products and is second only to Lancaster County in Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania Agricultural Statistics Service 1988). Agricultural revenue in Chester County is derived from dairying, livestock, poultry, grains, soybeans, tobacco, and notably from the culturing of mushrooms in the Brandywine Valley. Dairying and livestock raising are still important in the area, particularly on the Pennsylvania side of the Delaware Estuary, although the number of animals kept has decreased considerably. The New Jersey counties of Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester are still a major source of fruits and vegetables; most importantly apples, peaches, blueberries, cranberries, tomatoes, and sweet potatoes. Soybeans are also a major source of income in the Upper Estuary. Lower Estuary and Bay Area. This area includes New Castle, Kent, and Sussex Counties in Delaware; and Salem, Cumberland, and Cape May Counties in New Jersey. The upper parts of New Castle and Salem Counties are generally considered to be in the Upper Estuary; however, the agricultural trends in these counties resemble those in the Bay Area and, therefore, are discussed in this section. The Lower Estuary and Bay areas are still heavily used for agriculture. Below Liston Point, on both sides of the River, farming has remained the primary land use (NCWQ 1976; US Dept. Commerce 1985, DRBC 1988b). In 1945, 73.5% of the land in Delaware was used for agriculture (US Public Health Service 1953) and, by 1982, this use had decreased to 53.0% (US Dept. Commerce 1985). Salem, Cumberland, and Cape May Counties in New Jersey had 280,345 acres in agricultural use in 1945 (nearly 40% of the total land area). By 1982 this had decreased to 185,766 acres, or 26.4% of the total land area (US Dept. Commerce 1985). Since the late 1940s, milk products have been the main source of income in the Brandywine Valley of northern Delaware, although crops were also important (US Public Health Service 1953). In Kent and Sussex Counties, Delaware, poultry, fruit, and truck farms remained the major agricultural activities into the 1980s. Crop and poultry production have predominated on the New Jersey side of the Lower Estuary and Bay (US Public Health Service 1953). Today, Salem County produces large amounts of soybeans, corn, Irish and sweet potatoes; and Cumberland County raises nearly half of the produce for

SOCIETAL ACTIVITIES AND DEMANDS

31

fresh markets and processing that are grown in New Jersey (Wypyzinski 1986). In the western portion of Cape May County, where most of the agricultural land in the county is located, the primary activities are hog raising and the cultivation of corn and soybeans. Most of the agricultural land that was lost between 1945 and 1982 had been pasture and woodland. Only Cumberland and Cape May Counties experienced a substantial decline in cropland. The amount of cropland in New Castle and Salem Counties has remained roughly the same since 1945, with minor fluctuations. Cropland in Kent and Sussex Counties has increased by 90,000 acres (US Dept. Commerce 1946, 1984). The amount of pastureland has declined substantially in all counties. The Flint River Basin Agriculture is one of Georgia's largest industries (Agriculture/Irrigation Technical Task Force Report 1978), producing roughly $3 billion from the sale of agricultural products in 1987 (US Dept. Commerce 1989). In southwest Georgia, where most of our study site is located, agriculture is the economic mainstay and the area often is referred to as the "breadbasket" of the state (USDA 1982a). It has a higher percentage of land in cultivation than any other region of Georgia (GSWCC 1983b). In 1987, land in farms accounted for almost 48% of the study area, a decrease of 565,394 acres of 18.5% since 1964. The decline has been relatively steady over the 23 years, and the loss of 501,779 acres of woodlands had accounted for most of it. Total cropland remained virtually the same between 1964 and 1987, with a difference of only 1.5%. Most of the cropland, including orchards, is located in the southernmost counties of the study area and in 1964 765,323 acres of cultivated cropland accounted for 22.1% of the total area. Through the 1970s, the amount of cropland increased to a high of 885,258 acres, but unfavorable economic and climatic conditions contributed to a substantial decline in the 1980s (Georgia Agricultural Statistics Service 1989). Between 1982 and 1987, the amount of cultivated land decreased by 21.3%. Most of the lost cropland had been in soybeans, which declined by nearly 200,000 acres, and wheat, which decreased by approximately 100,000 acres. The counties with the largest amounts of cultivated cropland from 1964 to 1987 remained the same: Worth, Sumter, Terrell, Dooly, and Crisp. In general, the counties with the most significant decreases in cultivated land were those in the northern part of the study area, where the land is less suitable for this use, and Dougherty, the most populated county in the area. Crops. Peanuts are the most important crop in study area, accounting for roughly a fourth of cropland and a third of agricultural income. Almost

32

CHAPTER FOUR

one-third of the peanuts produced in Georgia are grown in this 14-county area. The amount of land planted in peanuts has been increasing since early in the century. In general, yield per acre from peanut crops nearly doubled between the mid-1960s and late 1980s, although yields do fluctuate from year to year. A significant amount of acreage traditionally has been planted in field corn, but yields were low until hybrids, adapted to southern climates, were introduced after World War II. Improved fertilization, mechanical harvesting, and increased irrigation have also helped (GDA 1986; Georgia Agricultural Statistics Service 1989) and since the mid-1960s, average yield per acre has more than doubled. Acreage planted in corn has declined over the past two decades. In the 1800s and the early part of this century, cotton was an important crop in this area. Yields were significantly reduced after a boll weevil infestation in the 1930s and the Depression further decreased demand. As a result, farmers planted less acreage in cotton (GDA 1986). In recent years, cotton acreage has varied significantly. In general, the yield per acre has increased one and a half times since the mid1960s. In 1982, soybeans (326,303 acres) were the most widely planted crop within the study site. After 1982, soybean acreage steadily declined. By 1987, the amount of land in soybeans in the study area was 60% less than the acreage in 1982. The average yield per acre in 1982 was the highest reported. Other major crops in the area include wheat, sorghum, rye, and oats. The amount of land planted in grains, especially wheat, increased dramatically in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Since then, the amount planted within the study site has been declining. Yields have not changed significantly since the mid-1960s. The amount of truck crops grown within the study area declined in the 1960s and early 1970s, but has been increasing since. The most important truck crops, financially, are tomatoes and sweet potatoes. Sweet corn, snap beans, field peas, butterbeans, cabbage, cantaloupes, watermelons, and onions are also grown in the area. In 1964, the amount of land in orchards and vineyards was 68,273 acres with little change in 1987 to 66,504 acres, although there were declines and increases in the total acreage during the intervening years. The amount of orchards ranged from a low of 52,026 acres in 1974 to a high of 76,948 acres in 1967. Roughly 40% of the orchards in the State are in this area. Nearly three-fourths of the orchards in the study area are pecans. Pecan production is centered in Dougherty County, which ranks first in the nation in the number of pecan trees (GDA 1986). The remaining orchards are predominantly peaches and apples.

SOCIETAL ACTIVITIES AND DEMANDS

33

Weather conditions throughout the year are critical to the production of fruits and nuts (Georgia Agricultural Statistics Service 1989) and also affect the introduction of diseases and pests into the region. The amount of cropland reported as idle nearly doubled between 1964 and 1987, from 83,892 acres to 162,257 acres, with less acreage being reported in the intervening years for which there are data. The loss in the amount of cultivated cropland and the increase in idle cropland acreage has probably been influenced by a variety of factors, including greater yields per acre which would allow less land to be planted for the same production, and decreased market demand. Climatic variations from year to year would also affect the amount of cropland cultivated. Permanent pastures and other land used for grazing — some cropland and woodland — have declined since 1964, although there have been fluctuations in the intervening years. Early in the century, livestock production and dairying were significant activities in the area, but they declined as the human population declined. The livelihood of the study area became more dependent upon crop production. After World War II, livestock production increased in the area (Lower Chattahoochee River SWCD 1980; Flint River SWCD 1980), as have poultry raising and dairying. Fluctuations in reported pastureland may be a result of these activities attempting to gain a viable foothold in the economy of the region. The counties in the northern part of the study site are more dependent upon livestock, poultry, and dairy for agricultural income than are the more southern counties, where the amount of cropland is greater. Many of the southern counties, however, do produce more livestock and dairy products than the northern counties. The exception is broilers, which are produced in greater amounts in Crawford, Macon, Marion, and Taylor Counties (Georgia Agricultural Statistics Service 1986, 1989). Permanent pastures are commonly planted in bahia grass, common and coastal bermuda grass, and legumes (Lower Chattahoochee River SWCD 1980). Fall and winter grazing of grain cover crops are supplemented by hay (USDA 1982a). In 1987, the sale of crops and livestock, produced within the study site, had a market value of $277.5 million, 9.9% of the total value of agricultural products grown within the State. This is a decline from the market value of $314 million, 11.3% of the state income, generated in 1982 (US Dept. Commerce 1989). The loss in revenues over this time period occurred primarily from the decline in soybeans, wheat, and other small grains. Within the study site as a whole, roughly three-fourths of the income from agricultural products is from crops. The distribution varies throughout the site as would be expected. Counties in the northern section are more dependent upon livestock production for income than the southern counties, which receive almost all their agricultural income from crops.

34

CHAPTER FOUR

Southwest Georgia has a higher percentage of irrigated cropland than any other region of the State (GSWCC Committee 1983b). Within the study area, the amount of cropland irrigated has increased nearly 30-fold from 4,521 acres in 1964 to 135,200 acres in 1987. The greatest increase occurred between 1974 and 1978, with an average annual growth of 143% or a total of 70,379 acres. As would be expected, there is more irrigated land in the southern counties, where the amount of cropland is also greatest. Within the study area, irrigation is applied to a wide range of crops, including grains, cotton, peanuts, truck crops, and pecan, peach, and apple orchards. Irrigation has been a major factor in increasing productivity in the area and maintaining it during drought years. The majority of soils in the study area are sandy and low in natural fertility, necessitating the high inputs of fertilizer to achieve optimum productivity (USDA 1982a; GDA 1986). However, due to lack of records pertaining to application rates, it is difficult to conclude whether or not the total amount of fertilizer used has increased. According to census data for 1964, 1969, and 1974, for which amounts of fertilizer were reported, the average application rate was 0.29-0.30 tons/acre. According to census data, the amount of land to which commercial fertilizer is applied has followed the same trends as changes in cropland acreage within the study site as a whole. Between 1964 and 1978, the amount of land receiving fertilizer inputs increased. After 1978, the acreage declined. If it is assumed that the fertilizer was applied only to cultivated cropland, then the proportion of cultivated land receiving inputs remained relatively constant, ranging between 75 and 80% for the reported years. Between 1964 and 1978, the amount of lime used within the study site and the number of acres to which it was applied increased three-fold. Between 1978 and 1982, the total amount applied and the acreage which was limed declined by nearly half. The decrease in lime usage continued through 1987. Application rates over this time period range from 0.91 tons/acre in 1987 to 1.03 tons/acre in 1978 (US Dept. Commerce 1981, 1989). The total amount of pesticides used has also been difficult to determine, because the amount used per acre has not been reported. The land to which pesticides are applied within the study site has increased from the mid-1960s, with the greatest increase occurring during the 1970s. The acreage to which all types of pesticides are applied has decreased since 1982 (Georgia Agricultural Statistics Service 1989). Most of the acreage treated with pesticides is located in the southern portion of the study site, where most of the cropland is located. According to the Environmental Protection Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA EPD, undated c), seven counties within our study area use more than 100,000 application-acres of

SOCIETAL ACTIVITIES AND DEMANDS

35

insecticide/herbicide each year. (An application-acre symbolizes one application of insecticide or herbicide to one acre of land. Some crops require multiple applications.) Three counties use between 50,000 and 100,000 application-acres and the rest use less than 50,000 application-acres yearly. The amount of land to which chemicals are applied for defoliation, growth control, or thinning of fruit has remained relatively constant. These chemicals are used over a much larger acreage in Dooly County than in other counties. Agricultural Pollutants of the Flint River. The greatest amount of pollution from agricultural activities is the erosion of soils and the runoff of fertilizer and pesticides into groundwater and surface water. Because of the very slow movement of these chemicals through the groundwater, they are just beginning to show up in the tributaries of the Flint River. Some have been found in the Flint River, probably resulting mainly from surface runoff. Agriculture is reported to be the most pervasive of nonpoint sources of pollutants, and is believed to be impacting more than two-thirds of the nation's river basins (US EPA 1980, 1983, in US EPA 1984). Although the impact of agriculture on water quality has been reported to be considerably less than that of urban development (GP EPD 1985), agricultural land use is significantly greater. The predominance of the agricultural land use is compounded by the intensity with which it is used. There are, however, few quantitative data available measuring pollutants from agricultural nonpoint sources, due to the fact that there has been little water quality monitoring on streams in predominantly agricultural areas that are not influenced by industrial or municipal point sources. Awareness of the extent of agricultural pollution is based largely upon first-hand reports from water quality agencies. Agriculture affects water quality through erosion, runoff, and sediment transport. Agricultural nonpoint pollution sources can be classified into four basic categories, which affect water quality differently. These are: (1) nonirrigated cropland, including row and field crops; (2) irrigated croplands; (3) animal production on rangeland and pastureland; and (4) livestock facilities. Sediment, nutrient, and pesticide pollutants are generated from cropland. Irrigated cropland is the principal agricultural source of excess salts and metals. Runoff from livestock facilities (barnyards, feedlots) can contribute nutrients, organic matter, ammonia, bacteria and other microorganisms to water bodies. Overgrazing of pastures reduces the ground cover increasing the erodibility of the land, increasing sedimentation during runoff periods. Livestock wastes also contribute to pollution through runoff (US EPA 1984).

36

CHAPTER FOUR

On agricultural land, the type and degree of nonpoint source pollution generated is influenced not only by land use, but also by crop types, tillage practices and other management techniques. Row crops, such as corn, for example, result in significantly more sediment than nonrow crops, such as wheat, because less natural cover is provided by the plants to protect the soil from erosion caused by rainfall or sprinkler irrigation. Row crops also tend to result in increased levels of phosphorus, nitrogen, and pesticides in runoff (US EPA 1984). Use of large farm machinery exacerbates the problem. Environmental factors including soil characteristics, degree and length of slope, and quantity and intensity of precipitation, also affect the level of nonpoint source pollution generated from agricultural lands (Agriculture/Irrigation Technical Task Force 1978).

Sediment. By volume, sediment from erosion is the largest surface water pollutant (GSWCC 1982). Sediment consists primarily of mineral fragments resulting from soil erosion, from agricultural lands, and may also include crop debris and animal wastes. Some sediment is required to maintain channel stability, but excessive amounts entering water bodies can smother aquatic organisms, interfere with photosynthesis by reducing light penetration, destroy wildlife habitats and spawning areas, increase water treatment costs, and accumulate to fill reservoirs and stream channels, resulting in increased flooding and eventually requiring dredging. Sediment indirectly affects water temperature and turbidity, which can result in changes in the aquatic life (US EPA 1984). Eroded sediment is not only the largest potential pollutant by volume and weight, but also transports other pollutants, such as nutrients and pesticides. A high percentage of the nitrogen and phosphorus lost from agricultural lands is associated with sediment lost primarily in the first two months after planting (Agriculture/Irrigation Technical Task Force 1978). In addition, the loss of sediment causes damage on the land, often affecting crop production. Therefore, the key to stopping or reducing pollutants from agricultural land is to control erosion and runoff. Land use and the amount of associated vegetative cover is an important factor in determining erosion rates. The relationship of a soil's exposure to the quantity and intensity of precipitation directly affects erosion rates. In Georgia, precipitation from rainfall and aerial irrigation is the primary concern. As raindrops hit the soil, they detach soil particles which may have adsorbed chemicals and nutrients. As the amount of water increases, these materials, less the amount that infiltrates, moves downslope as runoff. Irrigation, while helping the farmer maintain a viable yield, can result in increased rates of erosion. The high cost of irrigation often forces farmers into overly intensive use of cropland. Increased erosion results on sloping lands where irrigation systems increase runoff on unprotected soils.

SOCIETAL ACTIVITIES AND DEMANDS

37

Conservation practices, such as contours, that would mitigate the damage, are not adopted because they would interfere with the use of the two most popular irrigation systems, the pivot and cable tow (Flint River SWCD 1980; Middle South Georgia SWCD 1980). Center pivot irrigation systems require large amounts of space for operation, often including steep, sloping areas and wetlands. To make irrigation easier, fences are removed and fields with erosive soils are converted to cropland. With less vegetative cover protecting the soil, increased runoff and erosion result and fields are more susceptible to wind damage. Although this has not been a problem in this region of Georgia, wind damage to young plants is a financial loss (USDA 1983b; 1984a). Pesticides. Pesticides used for agricultural purposes include herbicides, insecticides, nematicides, and fungicides and may be soluble or insoluble (Table 4.1). They reach water bodies primarily through surface runoff, but also through groundwater. Once in the water, pesticides can inhibit photosynthesis; can interfere with reproduction, respiration, growth and development of aquatic species; can kill aquatic species not intended to; and can bioaccumulate in tissues of fish and other aquatic species and eventually move through the food chain, also creating a health hazard to higher organisms (US EPA 1984). Pesticides reach a water body through: (1) attachment to eroded sediment; (2) dissolution in runoff water; (3) volatilization and redeposition; (4) accidents; and (5) incorrect container disposal. The amount of pesticides entering a water body is affected by the means of application, solubility and volatility of pesticides. The majority of pesticide con­ tamination reaches a stream through erosion and runoff. Pesticides that are insoluble and strongly adsorbed to sediment are transported from a field almost completely with eroded soil and moderately adsorbed pesticides are transported with both eroded soil and runoff water. The proportion of pesticide pollutants transported in water solution, compared to that moved with sediment, is dependent upon the ratio of soil to water in the runoff stream (Agriculture/Irrigation Technical Task Force 1978). Of pesticides substantially transported with sediment, only the chlorinated hydrocarbons toxaphene and endrin are used in significant amounts in Georgia, primarily on cotton (Agriculture/Irrigation Technical Task Force 1978). Nutrients and Organic Wastes. Since earliest times, nutrients have been added to agricultural lands to increase productivity. Nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) are the principal nutrient pollutants. A shortage or surplus of either can limit primary aquatic productivity.

38

CHAPTER FOUR

TAB L E 4.1 Pesticides Reportedly Used in Southwest Georgia Agricultural Areas Recent Years (Flint River Watershed)

In

Herbicides Acifluorfen Alachlor Ametryn Atrazine Benefin Bentazon Bromoxynil Butylate Chloramben Chloroxuron Cyanazine Dalapon Daminozide Dicamba Dinoseb Diuron EPTC Ethalfluralin Fluazifop-butyl

Glyphosate Hexazinone Imazaquin Linuron Metribuzin Metolachlor Naptalam Norfluorazon Oryzalin Paraquat Pendimethalin Prometon Sethoxydim Simazine Toxaphene Trifluralin Vernolate 2,4-D 2,4-DB

Insecticides AC 217,300 Acephate Aldicarb Azinphos-ethyl Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.) Bendiocarb Carbaryl Carbophenothion Carbofuran Chlordimeform Chlorpyrifos Cyfluthrin Cypermethrin Demeton Diazinon a Dicofol Dicrotophos Diflubenzuron Dimethoate Disulfoton Endosulfan EPN Fenbutation-oxide

Fensulfothion Fenvalerate Fluvalinate Fonofos Isofenphos Malathion Metam-sodium Methomyl MethoxycIor Methyl parathion Monocrotophos Parathion Penncap-Mu Permethrin Phorate Phosalone Phosmet Propargite Propoxur Sulprofos Terbufos Thiodicarb Tralomethrin Trichlorfon

SOCIETAL

ACTIVITIES

A N D

DEMANDS

39

T ^ B L E 4 . 1 ( continued)

Fungicides Benomyl Captan Carboxin Chlorothalonil Dicloran Dodine Fenarimol

Metalaxyl Quintozene Thiophanate methyl Triphenyltin hydroxide

Nematicides Carbofuran Dibromochloropropane

Ethoprop Terbufos

Sources: Adams et al. 1987; Bishop 1987, personal communication; Cooperative Extension Service undated; French 1986; Georgia Agricultural Statistics 1986; Swann 1986a,b; Womack 1987. •Trade names.

In southwest Georgia, commercial fertilizers are the primary source of additional nutrients, with manures second. It is difficult, however, to identify the source from which these originate once in the stream. Statistics indicate that roughly 100 pounds/acre of combined active nitrogen and phosphorus are added to Georgia's agricultural land yearly from applications of fertilizer and manure (Agriculture/Irrigation Technical Task Force 1978). Nitrogen and phosphorus may also reach a water body through precipitation, with eroding sediments, municipal and industrial effluents, urban storm water drainage, and natural organic and inorganic materials. Excess nutrients in a water body can reduce the quality of the water supply, and, in particular, nitrates (NO 3 ) can cause health problems in infants. Excess nutrients can also accelerate eutrophication or the premature aging of lakes and estuaries, which reduces dissolved oxygen levels and alters habitats and food sources, resulting in changes in the composition of aquatic life found there (US EPA 1984). The primary organic pollutants from agricultural activities are animal wastes and crop debris. Animal wastes contain large amounts of soluble carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus compounds, which can be easily lost if runoff occurs before the manure is assimilated into the soil. Since it is difficult to calculate the amount of nitrogen added through manure and the rate at which it will become available for plant uptake, too much waste may be applied resulting in nitrate leaching (Agriculture/Irrigation Technical Task Force 1978). Animal wastes also add to the amount of bacteria in the water, creating a health hazard, and result in additional treatment costs in making the water safe for drinking (US EPA 1984).

40

CHAPTER FOUR

Research has demonstrated that 10-20 tons/acre of dairy cattle manure can be incorporated into the top 6 inches of a sandy loam soil without having a detrimental impact on water quality or the soil. Poultry litter can be added to established coastal bermuda grass at a rate of 10 tons/acre/year and to fescue grass at 4 tons/acre/year without significant water quality impacts (Agriculture/Irrigation Technical Task Force 1978). As with pesticides, some nutrients are transported almost exclusively in water solution and others adsorbed to sediment. The percent in solution compared to that in sediment is directly related to the sediment concentration in runoff water. Particulate organic nitrogen and phosphorus, insoluble inorganic phosphorus, and exchangeable and fixed ammonium nitrogen are transported to a water body primarily by sediment. Nitratenitrogen is weakly adsorbed by sediment, and consequently is transported almost entirely in runoff. Phosphate transport is complex and can occur in solution or in sediment phases, depending upon a wide range of conditions, including soil properties, solution and sediment concentrations, and erosion rates (Agriculture/Irrigation Technical Task Force 1978). Studies on south Georgia agricultural watersheds indicate that of the nitrogen transported to water bodies, 80% is transported through subsurface compared to 20% in surface runoff. Estimated losses of 4-40 pounds/acre/year of nitrogen and 0.2 pounds/acre/year of phosphorus were reported from leaching. Losses through surface runoff were estimated at 0.1-10 pounds/acre/year of soluble nitrogen and 0.07-7.0 pounds/ acre/year of soluble phosphorus (Agriculture/Irrigation Technical Task Force 1978). Losses of nitrogen associated with eroded sediment were estimated at 1-70 pounds/acre/year. Between 78 and 94% of the nitrogen loss in surface runoff from cropland was associated with particulate matter. Nitrogen loss increased as the crop cover density decreased (Agriculture/Irrigation Technical Task Force 1978). Ninety-five percent of phosphorus reaching water bodies is transported through direct runoff with sediments. Measurements range from 1 to 70 pounds/acre/year (Agriculture/Irrigation Technical Task Force 1978). Mineral Salts. When agricultural waters are not soundly managed, the natural leaching of salts from the plant root zone can create water quality problems in both the surface and groundwaters. The problem becomes more critical when irrigation water originally contains dissolved solids which become more concentrated as the plants use the water (Agriculture/ Irrigation Technical Task Force 1978). Increased salts in the water can affect drinking water quality, destroy habitat and food sources, and result in changes in the composition of aquatic species and wildlife (US EPA 1984).

41

SOCIETAL ACTIVITIES AND DEMANDS

Erosion rates. The amount of sediment eroded and carried downslope in the runoff is the gross erosion which in agriculture is referred to as the erosion rate in tons/acre/year. It has been estimated that a developed soil in Georgia can sustain a loss of between 1 and 5 tons/acre/year, depending upon soil type, without significantly reducing agricultural production potential (GSWCC 1982, 1984). The Council on Environmental Quality recommended that water quality criteria for sediment concentration be 80 ppm (mg/1). Assuming that this was applied to a cropland watershed with a sediment delivery ratio of 0.155 (Georgia average), the erosion rate could not exceed 0.8 tons/acre/year (Agriculture/Irrigation Technical Task Force 1978). Surprisingly, in the Southern Coastal Plain Major Land Resource Area, the erosion rate on irrigated cropland has been estimated to be less than on nonirrigated cropland in 1982 and 1987 (Table 4.2) (USDA 1989). This may be because cropland is irrigated as needed, depending upon rainfall, and not used as routine, as in many areas of the country. Irrigation encourages more rapid growth of plants, which protect the soil sooner than in nonirrigated areas. Irrigated cropland is better managed than nonirrigated and also tends to be on land best suited for cropland. Sediment Delivery Rates. In Georgia, small drainage basins that produce a perennial stream have a statewide average sediment yield of approximately 0.484 tons/acre/year from all sources and from agricultural land of 0.553 tons/acre/year. Sediment yields in the Southern Coastal Plain range from 0.003 to 0.2 tons/acre/year (Agriculture/Irrigation Technical Task Force 1978). T A B L E 4.2

Erosion Rates (tons/acre/year) in the Southern Coastal Plain of the Flint River Watershed

All cropland Cultivated cropland Irrigated cropland Nonirrigated cropland Pasture All forestland Grazed forest Nongrazed forest Homesteads, other land in farms, and other rural land

1979

1982°

1987

5.81

5.88 (5.90) 6.17 (5.67) (5.97) 0.24 (0.22) 0.13 (0.14) 0.15 0.13

5.65 5.15 5.81 0.24 0.18

3.09 (6.97)

10.07

0.76 0.24

3.50

Sources: USDA 1982a,b, 1989. a Values

in parentheses are from the 1987 National Resources Inventory.

42

CHAPTER FOUR

TABLE 4.3 Estimated Long-term Delivery Factors by Land Resource Area for Nonpoint Source Pollutants in Georgia Land resource area I II III IV V VI VII

Sand Mountains Southern Appalachian Ridges and Valleys Blue Ridge Southern Piedmont Sand Hills Southern Coastal Plains Atlantic Coastal Flatwoods

Sediment

Delivery factor Pesticide N and P

0.17

0.05

0.18

0.21 0.28 0.24 0.08 0.10 0.08

0.45 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.02 0.01

0.16 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.12 0.10

Source: Agriculture/Irrigation Technical Task Force 1978.

The average statewide delivery ratio* for sediment from all sources for small drainage basins is 0.222 and 0.155 from agricultural lands. All values given for sediment delivery ratios and yields are from long-term averages, not a single year or event (Agriculture/Irrigation Technical Task Force 1978). The long-term delivery ratio or factor for sediment from all types of land uses is 0.10 in the Southern Coastal Plain, where most of the study area is located. In the Sand Hills resource area, the delivery factor is 0.08 for sediment from all sources (Table 4.3) (Agriculture/Irrigation Technical Task Force 1978). The Soil Conservation Service estimated that I l 0 Z o o f eroded sediment from all land uses in southwest Georgia reached water bodies. The delivery ratio from cropland and pasture was estimated to be 0.10 (USDA 1982a). Pesticide Delivery Ratios. Pesticide delivery rates vary depending upon crop adsorption rates, the tendency of the chemical toward water or sediment-attached transport, rainfall, slope, soil type, and the distance to a water body. The long-term average delivery rate for pesticides in the Southern Coastal Plain and Sand Hills resource area is 0.02 (Agriculture/Irrigation Technical Task Force 1978) (Table 4.3). Nutrient Delivery Factors. The long-term average delivery rates for nitrogen and phosphorus in the Southern Coastal Plain and Sand Hills are 0.12 and 0.20, respectively (Agriculture/Irrigation Technical Task Force 1978) (Table 4.3). *The delivery ratio or factor is the difference in the amount eroded from the total drainage area and that transported to a selected point.

SOCIETAL ACTIVITIES

AND

DEMANDS

43

Reports and Potential. The Agricultural/Irrigation Technical Task Force, established as part of the water quality management process in Georgia, con­ ducted a statewide county by county assessment analyzing the potential for nonpoint source pollution from agriculture. The analysis considered density of tilled cropland and pastureland livestock waste producing density, irrigation, fertilizer use, and pesticide use. It was assumed that animal waste was used in the county where it was produced and that commercial fertilizers were applied in the county where purchased. However, animal waste from large feeding and confining operations was considered a point source and not in­ cluded in this evaluation (Agriculture/Irrigation Technical Task Force 1978). The Task Force did not identify any water quality problems that could be attributed to agriculture, but did conclude that the greatest potential for agricultural nonpoint source pollution was in the Southern Coastal Plain, particularly the Southwest area. Dooly County, which is in the study area of this project, was ranked as having the greatest potential for agricultural nonpoint source pollution of 159 counties in the State. The major factors determining this rank was the density of row crop acreage, 45% of the total county area (the highest in the State), the total amount of pesticides applied (also the highest in the State), and the density of nutrient application. The high pesticide usage was due to the fact that cotton, which requires substantial pesticide application, is the main crop in the county (Agriculture/Irrigation Technical Task Force 1978). Of the other counties ranked in the top twelve for agricultural nonpoint source pollution potential five, Crisp (3rd), Peach (4th), Terrell (9th), Sumter (IOth), and Worth (12th), are within the study area. High row cropland density was a factor affecting the high pollution potential in all these counties. Pesticide applications were estimated to be very high in alt, except Peach, although the application rates were significant. These counties all had high nutrient application rates, particularly in Crisp and Peach Counties. Sumter was the only one with a significant livestock density (Agriculture/Irrigation Technical Task Force 1978). The other counties in the study area were ranked between 23rd and 89th (Agriculture/Irrigation Technical Task Force 1978). In a soil survey published in 1983, Dooly was judged to have the greatest potential of all Georgia counties for degrading water quality through agricultural nonpoint source pollution. This evaluation was based on the high percentage of cropland, the fact that the principal crops are peanuts and cotton, which require significant chemical inputs for optimum yields, and erosion averages 10 tons/acre/year in the county (USDA 1983 in ANSP 1984). The greatest total amount of erosion occurs in the Southern Coastal Plain resource area, where an average of 35% of the total land area is in crops (GSWCC 1984).

44

CHAPTER FOUR

A 1987 statewide assessment of the potential for water quality problems generated by agriculture, the Southern Coastal Plain, particularly the southwest, again exhibited the greatest potential as a result of intense cultivation. Dooly, Lee, Peach, Sumter, and Worth were included in the 30 counties determined to have the highest composite agricultural pollution potential (US SCS and GSWCC 1987 in GA EPD 1989a). In 1989, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division ranked Gum Branch Creek in Crisp County among water bodies given first priority for management and demonstration projects administered under the agricultural nonpoint source pollution control program. Camp Creek in Dooly County was among those given second highest priority. The potential water quality threat from both these areas is intensely cultivated cropland and related fertilizer and pesticide use. Although there are few reports of water pollution from agricultural sources in southwest Georgia, the majority of these accounts cite pesticides as the contaminant. In 1975, at the Plant Mitchell intake in Albany, 13.20/tg/kg of DDT was detected in sediment from the Flint River. Also detected in the sediment were 4.70 /*g/kg of DDD and 4.00 /ig/kg of DDE, both breakdown products of DDT (GA EPD 1976). The following year, at the same location, 0.80 ^g/kg of DDD and 0.50 μ-g/kg of DDE were detected in the sediment. DDT was not detected (GA EPD 1977). Excessive nutrient loads in the Flint River have been attributed to nonpoint sources (US EPA 1975). In 1982, 9.0 Mg/kg dry weight of DDT were detected in sediment samples taken from the Flint River at Georgia Highway 27 near Vienna in Dooly County. The sediments were also sampled for aldrin, chlordane, dieldrin, endrin, toxaphene, and PCBs, none of which were detected (GA EPD 1982). In 1983, DDE and DDD, breakdown products of DDT, were detected in sediments of the Flint River and a number of tributaries within the study area. The predominant contaminant was DDE, with DDD found in much smaller amounts. The highest single sample of DDD was 18/*g/kg dry weight, detected in sediments from Spring Creek in Sumter County (ANSP 1984). The detection of these metabolites of DDT, however, do not provide any information about the impact of recent agricultural practices, but they show that there is potential contamination of the Flint River from these tributaries. The use of DDT has been banned since 1972 (GAO 1981) and the breakdown product, DDE, has an estimated half-life of 20 years (ANSP 1984). Other chlorinated organic pesticides, PCBs, and 2,4-D were also sampled for in the survey, but were not detected (ANSP 1984). All but three — 2,4-D, toxaphene, and endosulfan — had been banned or severely restricted in use by the time of the sampling (GAO 1981).

SOCIETAL ACTIVITIES AND DEMANDS

45

Agricultural Land Needing Erosion Control. In a study of southwest Georgia published in 1982, the Soil Conservation Service stated that only minor progress had been made toward controlling cropland erosion since the passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in 1972 (USDA 1982a). Comparison of cropland status in 1967 and 1979 for southwest Georgia indicated progress in meeting the conservation needs in the area, although much remained to be done. Although the number of acres needing treatment rose in a few counties as a result of an increase in cropland acreage, all eight counties within our study area (Crisp, Dougherty, Lee, Schley, Sumter, Terrell, Webster, and Worth) included in this comparison realized reductions ranging from 1 to 34% in the proportion of cropland within their boundaries needing erosion control or a permanent change in land use (Flint River SWCD 1980; Lower Chattahoochee River SWCD 1980; Middle South Georgia SWCD 1980). Cropland acreage had increased within southwest Georgia, resulting in some land being cultivated without consideration for drainage restrictions. The use of irrigation also increased dramatically during this time and the inflexibility of the pivot and cable tow irrigation systems, which often necessitated marginal lands being used with good farmland, added to the problem (Flint River SWCD 1980; Lower Chattahoochee River SWCD 1980; Middle South Georgia SWCD 1980). As the amount of utilized cropland declined, less marginal land was cultivated and the amount of cropland needing improvement declined. By 1982, 298,700 acres of cropland statewide needed better drainage and by 1987, only 269,700 acres did (USDA 1984b, 1989). In the Southern Coastal Plain, in 1982, treatment was recommended for 276,600 and was not feasible for 1,200 acres of pastureland. Treatment was needed on 32,500 acres and was not considered feasible for 900 acres in the Sand Hills. Of the pastureland requiring treatment, 92,400 acres throughout the State, 41,500 acres in the Southern Coastal Plain, and none in the Sand Hills specifically needed erosion control (USDA 1984b). By 1987, the amount of pastureland requiring some form of conservation treatment, including erosion control, had been reduced to 946,600 acres, 31.1 % of the total statewide. Throughout the State, 56,600 acres specifically required erosion control (USDA 1989). The following chart lists estimated sediment yields from cropland and pastureland in the study area reaching a water body. The sediment delivery ratios used were taken from the Agriculture/Irrigation Technical Task Force Report (1978): 0.10 for the Southern Coastal Plain and 0.08 for the Sand Hills. The other data used is specified in the chart. Agricultural land to which conservation practices, particularly conservation tillage, are applied appears to have increased over the past 20 years, although not consistently. In 1969, minimum tillage was applied

46

CHAPTER FOUR

to 1,487 acres statewide. By 1975, this had risen to 34,775 acres. Land in conservation tillage in 1977 totalled 139,058 acres, increasing to 667,855 acres in 1982 (USDA 1986). In 1982, conser\ ation practices were applied to 949,800 acres of cropland and 87,900 acres of pasture in the Southern Coastal Plain and to 33,900 acres of cropland and 16,200 acres of pasture in the Sand Hills (USDA 1984b). Conservation practices were not reported in 1987; conservation tillage is listed above. Agriculture and Forestry in the Neches Estuary Basin Agriculture and forestry impact the Estuary because of runoff of nutrients and pesticides as well as soil erosion. Humates and other organics also have an impact. In Jefferson and Orange Counties, cropland, rangeland, and forest remain the predominant land uses in terms of acreage (US Armv Corps of Engineers 1982). Jefferson County is dominated by cropland and rangeland, which comprise slightly more than 49% of the land area in the county (US Dept. Commerce 1989), with small areas of forest in the middle of the county and along the southern bank of Pine Island Bayou. Most of Orange County is still in forest with some cropland and rangeland (21 r o of the area) in the southeastern portion of the county [US Armv Corps of Engineers 1982 (US Dept. Commerce 1989)]. In both counties, there is roughly twice as much pasture/rangeland as cropland. Although the total farmland acreage and the total income generated from agricultural activities has been on the decline in recent years, agriculture remains important within the area surrounding the lower Neches River (US Dept. Commerce 1989). The average size of farms, amount of cropland harvested, and number of people dependent on farming for their livelihood has been decreasing since 1940 in Jefferson and Orange Counties. Rice, for which large quantities of water are withdrawn from the Neches for irrigation, is the dominant crop grown in the southern portion of the Basin (Hughes and Leifeste 1965). In 1974, rice reportedly accounted for 20 r o of agricultural land use, in 1982, ll°7o, and in 1987, 8% [US Army Corps of Engineers 1982 (US Dept. Commerce 1984, 1989) ]. Nearly all rice fields, within the two-county area, are in Jefferson County. Rice has remained the primary agricultural commodity produced within the two counties, although its importance is declining. In 1974, 80% of the income from the sale of agricultural stock produced in the area was from rice (US Army Corps of Engineers 1982). By 1982, approximately 65 r o of the agricultural income was from the sale of rice and by 1987, it had declined to less than 60% of the total agricultural income (US Dept. Commerce 1989). The decline in percentage is attributable primarily to the facts that less land is being planted in rice and less income generated through the sale of rice, rather than to an increase in other farm activities.

SOCIETAL ACTIVITIES AND DEMANDS

47

Rice fields account for almost all the irrigated farmland within the area. The amount of farmland irrigated in 1987 is less than half that irrigated in 1969 (US Dept. Commerce 1977, 1989). Livestock production is the second most important agricultural activity in the two-county area. In 1974, it generated roughly 11% of the total agricultural income for the area, and in 1987, roughly 30% (US Dept. Commerce 1989). Most of this income was produced in the beef cattle industry with relatively small portions contributed by poultry farming and other livestock activities (US Army Corps of Engineers 1982). Livestock production has continued to be one of the principal agricultural activities in the area and appears to be growing, particularly in Orange County. In the early 1960s, fruit and truck-farm products were important crops grown in the lower Neches Basin (Hughes and Leifeste 1965). By the late 1970s, hay, soybeans, and small grains had largely replaced the earlier fruit and truck farms. Crawfish farming has also become a principal agricultural activity in the lower Neches region. Lumbering is also important to the economy of the region, particularly in Orange County, which contains large expanses of forests. Hardwoods and southern yellow pines traditionally have been processed in large quantities by sawmills in the area (Hughes and Leifeste 1965). INDUSTRIAL IMPACTS

Introduction Industrial impacts on the Delaware River come from a variety of industries making a wide range of products. In contrast, industrial activity in the Neches Estuary centers on oil refining and petrochemicals. As a result, pollution is more varied in the Delaware than in the Neches. As will be seen from the analyses of the biology and the chemistry of these waters, toxic pollutants seem to have been the cause of reduced aquatic life in certain reaches of the Neches, whereas low dissolved oxygen was the main cause in the Delaware. At no time were all benthic species of invertebrates and fish absent in the Delaware, but this was true for certain areas in the Neches Estuary. The improvements in these areas, which will be discussed later, probably are related to differences in the amounts of nonpoint sources, municipal waste, and industrial pollution that enter these waters. The Delaware In the Delaware Estuary, industries traditionally have located near the water in order to use it both in the production process and as a means of transportation. The types of industrial activity have changed over time, and always have been diverse. As a result, many different pollutants have entered the Estuary.

48

CHAPTER FOUR

Although laws and regulations have been aimed specifically at reducing the carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD), they also have affected the discharges of organics and metals and have prompted changes in chemical forms. For example, ammonia has been reduced and nitrates increased. It is important to consider the trends in the types and sizes of industries, and in the amount of pollution generated, judging whether laws and regulations have been effective in reducing pollution. Upper Estuary. The area surrounding the Upper Delaware Estuary is home to the greatest and most varied concentration of manufacturing industries within the Basin. Since the years just after World War II, when water quality was deemed to be at its worst, the number of industries in the area has not changed significantly. However, the location of factories has shifted, as have the types of industries and the number of people employed in manufacturing. In 1947, the number of manufacturing industries in the nine counties surrounding the Upper Estuary was 7,801 (US Dept. Commerce 1950). By 1967, about the time that water pollution control efforts were being intensified, the number of industries had risen to 8,564 (US Dept. Commerce 1971). In 1982, there were 7,949 industries in the nine-county area (US Dept. Commerce 1985). In 1947 most manufacturers were located in Philadelphia, Camden, and Trenton with approximately 65% in Philadelphia. However, industries were moving away from these cities to outlying rural areas where relatively cheap land was available and taxes were lower. By 1982, less than one-third of the industries in the Upper Estuary were located in the three major cities, with approximately 28% of the total in Philadelphia (US Dept. Commerce 1950, 1985). Although the number of manufacturing industries was not significantly different in 1947 and 1982, other changes had occurred. The number of industries and employees had increased initially, but after 1967 had steadily decreased. Manufacturing employment in 1982 was nearly 25% below 1947 and nearly 30% below 1967. In reality, the number of manufacturing employees had decreased even more, because supportive industries were located in other areas, and often served more than two establishments (US Dept. Commerce 1950). In 1947 the leading industries in the Upper Estuary were food processing and packing, textiles and apparel, printing and publishing, fabricated metal products, machinery, chemical products, petroleum refining, and trans­ portation equipment. Nearly all industries continued to expand until the late 1960s and early 1970s, when manufacturing began to decline. The only major industry that has continued to increase is printing and publishing. Others that remained important in the Upper Estuary in 1982

SOCIETAL ACTIVITIES AND DEMANDS

49

were chemicals, petroleum refining, fabricated metal products, machinery, and food processing and packing. Between 1947 and 1982 the number of chemical manufacturers in the Upper Estuary decreased from 428 to 337, although employment decreased by only 2,700, indicating that some of the remaining firms were larger than before. The number of petroleum and coal processors increased from 39 in 1947 to more than 60 in 1982. Petroleum refineries, the dominant subcategory in terms of employment, increased from 8 in 1947 to 14 in 1982 (US Dept. Commerce, 1950, 1985). Although employment has decreased, the Delaware Estuary continues to be one of the largest petroleum processing centers in the nation. Other industries that increased in number between 1947 and 1982 include electrical and electronic machinery, from 125 to 467; manufacturers of rubber and miscellaneous plastics products, from 47 to 317; and manufacturers of instruments (medical, scientific, etc.) and related products, from 120 to 301 (US Dept. Commerce 1950, 1961, 1971, 1976, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1985). Instrument manufacture was the only one still experiencing increases in employment in 1982. Lower Estuary and Bay Area. Counties in the Lower Estuary and Bay are not as industrialized as those further north, and detailed data are unavailable, but certain trends are evident. The area experienced a general growth in manufacturing through the late 1960s and early 1970s, and then began to decline. Employment increased in auxiliary industries and administrative offices while total manufacturing employment decreased, as was the case in the Upper Estuary. On both sides of the Lower Estuary and Bay, farming continues to be the dominant economic activity and numerous industries exist to process and package agricultural products. For the region as a whole, food processing and packaging was the primary industrial activity in 1947 and remained so in 1982, although other industries may be more important at a local or county level. The greatest concentration of manufacturing industries in the Lower Estuary and Bay traditionally has been centered around Wilmington, and this has not changed. This area (northern New Castle County) draws its raw materials, food, and labor from the rest of Delaware and nearby counties in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland. In 1947, New Castle County contained over 52% of the manufacturing industries in Delaware and employed 70% of the state's industrial wage earners. The chemical industry was the major manufacturing industry at this time. Other important industries in 1947 were food processing, nonelectrical machinery, textile finishing, chemicals, vulcanized fiber and leather

50

CHAPTER FOUR

manufacturing, automobile assembly, and shipbuilding (US Public Health Service 1953). By 1967, chemical manufacturing continued to dominate the economy of New Castle County. Petroleum refining and printing and publishing had increased while food processing, textile products, leather processing, and shipbuilding had begun to decrease in importance. In 1982 the chemical industry was still dominant, printing, publishing, and nonelectrical machinery remained important, and production of rubber and miscellaneous plastics had become a major industry. On the east side of the River in New Jersey, glass manufacturing, which relied on large local deposits of silica sand, was important in the late 1940s and early 1950s in both Salem and Cumberland Counties (US Public Health Service 1953). Glass has remained the dominant industry in Cumberland County. The chemical industry has long been the largest employer in Salem County. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, needle and sewing trades (apparel) were growing in Cumberland County, especially in the cities (US Public Health Service 1953). The industry has declined since the late 1960s. It remains second in importance to glass manufacture within the county. Food processing remains dominant throughout the rest of the area.

The Neches Estuary In the Neches Estuary the "Golden Triangle," the cities of Beaumont, Port Arthur, and Orange, is so named because of its heavy concentration of industry. Industrial facilities are concentrated along the south side of the Neches River channel inland to Beaumont, and on the northwest edge of Sabine Lake at Port Arthur (US Army Corps of Engineers 1982). Oil was discovered at Spindletop, just south of Beaumont, in 1901. By 1940 petroleum refining and production were the principal economic activities of the area (US Army Corps of Engineers 1982) and a number of petrochemical-related industries came into existence. By 1967, when the State of Texas took action to clean up its rivers, there were 269 manufacturing industries in Jefferson and Orange Counties (Tables 4.4, 4.5). The majority of these industries were located in the communities bordering the Neches, with over 40% located in Beaumont. By 1982 the number of manufacturing firms in the two counties had increased to 319, mostly located in the Neches tidal area and over 40°7o still in Beaumont. The area is home to one of the largest concentrations of petroleum-related industries in the world (US EPA 1978). Although the production of crude petroleum in the area has declined in recent years, there were 11 petroleum refineries in Jefferson County in 1982 (nine of them located in communities bordering the Neches). They employed 46°7o of the manufacturing work

51

SOCIETAL ACTIVITIES AND DEMANDS

T A B L E 4 . 4 Neches Estuary Manufacturing, 1 9 6 7

Number of industries Jefferson Co. Orange Co.

Total

Industry Food and kindred products Tobacco manufacturers Textile mill products Apparel and related products Lumber and products, excluding furniture Furniture and fixtures Paper and allied products Printing and publishing Chemicals and allied products Petroleum and coal products Rubber products and miscellaneous plastics Leather and leather products Stone, clay and glass products Primary metal industries Fabricated metal products Machinery, except electrical Electrical machinery Transportation equipment Instruments and related products Miscellaneous manufacturers Administrative and auxiliary Total

33 0 1 4

3 0 0 0

36 0 1 4

8 4 1 23 19 14

7 2 3 8 11 0

15 6 4 31 30 14

2 1

1 0

3 1

15 5 32 21 2 9

3 0 6 4 1 6

18 5 38 25 3 15

2 7 9

0 2 0

2 9 9

212

57

269

500 3,400 13,100

100 4,800 0

800

0

1,200 600 8,200 13,100 400 400 2,900 500 3,900 800

24,700

8,500

33,200

Employment in manufacturing industries Food and kindred products Printing and publishing Chemicals and allied products Petroleum and coal products Stone, clay and glass products Primary metal industries Fabricated metal products Machinery, except electrical Transportation equipment Administrative and auxiliary Total employment all industry:

52

CHAPTER FOUR

T A B L Ε 4.5 Neches Estuary Manufacturing, 1982

Number of industries Jefferson Co. Orange Co.

Total

Industry Food and kindred products Tobacco manufacturers Textile mill products Apparel and related products Lumber and products, excluding furniture Furniture and fixtures Paper and allied products Printing and publishing Chemicals and allied products Petroleum and coal products Petroleum refining Rubber products and miscellaneous plastics Leather and leather products Stone, clay and glass products Primary metal industries Fabricated metal products Machinery, except electrical Electrical machinery Transportation equipment Instruments and related products Miscellaneous manufacturers Administrative and auxiliary Total

18 0 1 5

5 0 0 0

23 0 1 5

7 5 0 33 16 16 11

2 0 3 10 8 0 0

9 5 3 43 24 16 11

7 0 15 3 40 28 4 15

7 0 4 3 13 10 2 7

14 0 19 6 53 38 6 22

3 10 9

2 4 2

5 14 11

235

82

319

700 700 5,400

4,300

so

u and Restoration of the Delaware River Basin, edited by S. K. Majumdar. E. W. Miller, and L. E. Sage, 386-400. The Pennsylvania Academy of Science. Lafayette College, Easton, PA. Mason, W. T. Jr., P. A. Lewis, and Anderson. J. B. 1971. Macroinvertebrate Collections and Water Qualit> Monitoring in the Ohio River Basin 1963-67. March. Nlarrazzo. W. J.. and S. Panzitta. 1984. Progress on the Delaware River Clean-up Program. American Water Resources Association. Maurer, D. and G. Aprill. 1979. Intertidal benthic invertebrates and sediment stability at the mouth of the Delaware Bay. Int. Rev. Ges. Hydrobio!. 64 (3): 379-403. Maurer. D., and L. Watling. 1973. Studies on the oyster communities in Delaware: the effects of the estuarine environment on the associated fauna. Int. Rew Ges. HydrobioI. 58(2): 161-201.

BIBLIOGRΑΡΗ Y

173

Maurer, D., L. Watling, Ρ, Kinner, W. Leatham, and C. Wethe. 1978b. Benthic invertebrate assemblages of the Delaware Bay. Mar. Biol. 45: 65-78. Maurer, D., L. Watling, R. Lambert, and A. Pembroke. 1978a. Seasonal fluctuation of zooplankton populations in Lower Delaware Bay. Hydrobiologia 61(2): 149-60. Maurer, D., L. Watling, W. Leatham, and P. Kinner. 1979. Seasonal changes in feeding types of estuarine benthic invertebrates from Delaware Bay. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 36(2): 125-55. Maurice, K. R., R. W. Byle, and P. L. Harmon. 1987. Increased Spawning by American Shad Coincident with Improved Dissolved Oxygen in the Tidal Delaware River. Proceedings of Common Strategies of Migratory Fishes. An International Symposium, March 9-13, 1986. Mayer, G. F., ed. 1982. Ecological Stress and the New York Bight: Science and Management. Proceedings of a symposium on the Ecological Effects of Environmental Stress, New York, June 10-15, 1979. McGovern, J. C., and J. E. Olney. 1988. Potential predation by fish and invertebrates on early life history stages of striped bass in the Pamunkey River, VA. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 117: 152-61. McNulty, J. K. 1961. Ecological effects of sewage pollution in Biscayne Bay, Fla.; Sediments and the distribution of benthic and fouling macro-organisms. Bull. Mar. Sci. Gulf Carib. 11(3): 394. . 1970. Effects of Abatement of Domestic Pollution on the Benthos, Volumes of Zooplankton, and the Fouling Organisms of Biscayne Bay, Fla. Studies in Tropical Oceanography No. 9. University of Miami Press, Coral Gables, FL. Meehan, W. E. 1897. Fish, Fishing, and Fishes of Pennsylvania. In Report of the State Commissioners of Fisheries for the Year 1896. State of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, PA. Merrit, R. W., and K. W. Cummins, eds. 1984. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America. Kendall/Hunt Pub. Co. Dubuque, IO. Middle South Georgia Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD). 1980. Resource Conservation Program and Action Plan, 36 pp. Georgia State Soil and Water Conservation Committee, Albany, GA. Milbrink, G. 1979. Oligochaete communities in pollution biology. The European situation with special reference to lakes in Scandinavia. In Aquatic Oligochaete Biology, edited by R. O. Brinkhurst, and D. G. Cook, 433. Plenum Press, New York. Miller, C. 1985. Correlates of habitat favourability for benthic macroinvertebrates at Five stream sites in an Appalachian Mountain Drainage Basin, USA. Freshwater Biol. 15(6): 709-33. Miller, J. P., J. W. Friedersdorf, H. C. Mears, and C. W. Billingsley. 1973. Annual Progress Rept., Delaware River Basin Anadromous Fish Project, AFS-2-6; July 1972-December 1972. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, NJ. Miller, J. P., J. W. Friedersdorf, H. C. Mears, J. P. Hoffman, F. R. Griffiths, R. C. Reichard, and C. W. Billingsley. 1975. Annual Progress Rept., Delaware River Basin Anadromous Fish Project, AFS-2-6; January 1973-January 1974. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, NJ.

174

BIBLIOGRAPH Y

Miller, J. P., F. R. Griffiths, and P. A. Thurston-Rogers. 1982. The American Shad (Alosa sapidissima) in the Delaware River Basin, for the Delaware River Basin Fish and Wildlife Management Coop. Miller, J. P., and A. J. Lupine. 1987. Angler Utilization and Economic Survey of the American Shad Fishing in the Delaware River, for the Delaware River Shad Fishermens Association. May. Miller, R. J., and H. W. Robison. 1973. The Fishes of Oklahoma. Oklahoma State University Press. Miranowski, J., M. Monson, J. Shortle, and L. Zinser. 1983. Effect of Agricultural Land Use Practices on Stream Water Quality: Economic Analysis. US EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, GA. Molzahn, R. F., and Associates. 1975. An Ecological Study of the Delaware River in the Vicinity of the Edge Moor Power Station. Progress Rept. January-May 1974 for Delmarva Power and Light Co. Ichthyological Associates, Inc., Ithaca, NY. Ibid. 1975. Progress Rept. June-November 1974. Morrison, N. J. Ill, and Associates. 1976. An Ecological Study of the Delaware River in the Vicinity of the Edge Moor Power Station. Progress Rept. December 1974-September 1975. Ichthyological Associates Inc., Ithaca, NY. Murawski, W. S. 1969. The Distribution of Striped Bass, Roccus saxatilis. Eggs, and Larvae in the Lower Delaware River. Rept. No. 1M. NJ Division of Fisheries and Game, Bureau of Fisheries. National Commission on Water Quality (NCWQ). 1976. Chap. 4: The Delaware River. In Public Law 92-500 Assessment Regional Impacts Technical Volume. NCWQ, Washington, DC. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1986. Delaware Bay: Issues, Resources, Stats, and Management. NOAA Estuary-of-the-Month Seminar Series No. 2. US Dept. Commerce, Washington, DC. Natural and Historic Research Associates. 1972. Inventory and Evaluation of Information on Delaware Bay. Vol. II, 131-208, for the College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, Newark, DE and the DRBC, Trenton, NJ. Natural and Historic Research Associates, Philadelphia, PA. Natural Resources Defense Council. 1987. Citizen's Hanbook on Water Quality Standards, 32 pp. NRDC, Washington, DC. Nelson-Smith, A. 1968. Biological consequences of oil pollution and shore cleansing. In The Biological Effects of Oil Pollution on Littoral Communities, edited by J. D. Carthy, and D. R. Arthur. Proceedings of a symposium on February 17-19, 1968. Field Studies Council, London. New Jersey Department of Agriculture. 1987. New Jersey Agriculture 1987 Annual Report, Agricultural Statistics. NJ Dept. of Agriculture, Trenton, NJ. . 1988. New Jersey Agriculture 1988 Annual Report, Agricultural Statistics. NJ Dept. of Agriculture, Trenton, NJ. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJ DEP). 1988. Computer printout of effluent data for industrial dischargers along the Delaware Estuary 1986-87. NJ DEP, Division of Water Resources. Trenton, NJ.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

175

NJ Oyster Research Laboratory, Rutgers University. Raw data sheets. Ohio EPA. 1987 (updated 1988). Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life, Vol. II, Doc. No. 0016e/0382E. Oliff, W. D. 1960. Hydrobiological studies on the Tugela River system. Part II. Organic pollution in the Bushmans River. Hydrobiology 16(2): 137. Olson, Τ. A., and F. J. Burgess, eds. 1967. Pollution and Marine Ecology. Interscience Publishers, New York, NY. Ortmann, A. E. 1909. The destruction of the freshwater fauna in western PA. Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc. 48: 90. O'Sullivan, A. J. 1971. Ecological effects of sewage discharge in the marine environment. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B. 177: 331. Overlease, W. R. 1989. Studies on the macro-benthic organisms above and below the Taylor Run domestic sewage disposal plant, West Chester, PA. 1968-1986. J Pa. Acad. Sci. 63(2): 122-6. Palachek, R. M., and J. R. Tomasso. 1984. Toxicity of nitrite to channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), tilapia (Tilapia aurea), and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides): evidence for a nitrite exclusion mechanism. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 41: 1739-44. Parker, R. H. 1975. The Study of Benthic Communities — A Model and a Review. Elsevier Oceanography Series, Vol. 9. Elsevier, New York. Pasch, R. W. 1976. Survey of the Lower Flint River Fishery and Aquatic Community. GA DNR, Game and Fish Division. November. Patrick, R. 1950. Biological measure of stream conditions. Sewage lnd. Wastes 25: 210-14. . 1978. Effects of trace metals in the aquatic ecosystem. Amer. Scient. 66(2) (March-April): 185-91. Patrick R., and W. Whipple, Jr. 1977. Petroleum Industry in the Delaware Estuary. A Report to the National Science Foundation RANN Program, Grant no. ENV7414810 A03. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia and Rutgers University. Patrick, R., and D. M. Palavage (in manuscript). Pollution tolerance of aquatic organisms. Pennock, J. R. 1985. Chlorophyll distributions in the Delaware Estuary: regulation by light limitation. Estuarine, Coastal Shelf Sci. 21: 711-25. Pennock, J. R., and J. H. Sharp. 1986. Phytoplankton production in the Delaware Estuary: temporal and spatial variability. Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser. 34: 143-55. November. Pennock, J. R., J. H. Sharp, and W. J. Canzonier. 1984. Phytoplankton. In The Delaware Estuary: Research as Background for Estuarine Management and Develop­ ment, edited by J. H. Sharp. University of Delaware College of Marine Studies, Lewes, DE. Pennsylvania Agricultural Statistics Service. 1986. 1986 Crop and Livestock Annual Summary. National Agricultural Statistics Service, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. . 1988. Statistical Summary 1987-88 and Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture Annual Report. National Agricultural Statistics Service, US Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

176

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PennsyKania Department of Environmental Resources (PA DER). 1988. Notes taken by F. Douglass and D. Palavage from review of discharge monitoring reports. PA DER, Norristown, PA. . undated. Chronology of Milestones — Pennsylvania's Clean Streams Program 1905-77, 50 pp. PA DER, Bureau of Water Quality Management, Harrisburg, PA. Pennsylvania Department of Environment Resources, and New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 1976. Delaware River Basin Water Quality. September report. Pennsylvania Department of Health, undated. People and Water. PA Dept. of Health, Sanitary Water Board, Harrisburg, PA. Pennsylvania Fish Commission. 1980, 1982, 1983, 1984. Stream Examination Report. Raw data count sheets. Perkins, E. J. 1974. The Biology of Estuarine and Coastal Waters. Academic Press, New York. Persoone, G., and N. DePauw. 1979. Systems of biological indicators for water quality. In Biological Aspects of Freshwater Pollution, edited by O. Ravera. Pergamon Press, New York. Pflieger, W. L. 1975. The Fishes of Missouri. Missouri Dept. of Conservation. Philadelphia Water Department. 1988. Computer printout of discharge data for Philadelphia's water pollution control plants. Philadelphia Water Dept., Philadelphia, PA. Pollison, D. P., and W. M. Craighead. 1968. Lehigh River Biological Investigation. DRBC, PA Dept. of Health, and PA Fish Commission. February. Potter, W. A., D. C. Smith, and P. L. Harmon. 1974a. An Ecological Study of the Delaware River in the Vicinity of the Eddystone Generating Station. Progress Rept. 3, January-December 1973. Ichthyological Associates, Inc., Ithaca, NY. Potter, W. A., D. C. Smith, and P. L. Harmon. 1974b. An Ecological Study of the Delaware River in the Vicinity of the Chester Generating Station. Progress Rept. 1, March-December 1973. Ichthyological Associates, Inc., Ithaca, NY. Preddice, T. L. 1970. A Report on an Ecological Survey in the Vicinity of the Edge Moor Generating Station of the Delmarva Power & Light Co. on October 21 and 28, 1970. Ichthyological Associates, Inc., Ithaca, NY. . 1974. An Ecological Study of the Delaware River in the Vicinity of the Edge Moor Power Station. Progress Rept. January-May 1974 for Delmarva Power & Light Co. Ichthyological Associates, Inc., Ithaca, NY. , and B. J. Dinkins. undated. Fishery Fluctuations. Can we Separate Manmade effects from Natural Effects on the Abundance of Delaware Bay Fisheries? Delaware Estuary Situation Reports, University of Delaware Sea Grant College Program. Princeton Aquatic Science. 1985. Comprehensive Navigational Study. Delaware River, Trenton to the Sea. Biota, Sediment Sampling and Analysis for the US Army Corps of Engineers. Public Health Service. 1963. Water Pollution Surveillance System — Annual Compilation of Data, October 1, 1962-September 30, 1963. North Atlantic Basin, Vol. 2. US Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington, DC.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

177

Public Service Electric and Gas, 1978. Annual Environmental Operating Report Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1: January-December, 1977. March. . 1979. Ibid for January-December 1978. . unpublished data for 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982. In Beck et al 1985. Radtke, D. B., J. B. McConnell, and W. P. Carey. 1980. A Preliminary Appraisal of the Effects of Agriculture on Stream Quality in Southwest Georgia. US Geological Survey. Water Resources Investigations Open-File Rept. 80-771, 40 pp. August. Raney, E. C., V. J. Schuler, and R. F. Denoncourt. 1969. An Ecological Study of the Delaware River in the Vicinity of Artificial Island. Progress Rept. JuneDecember 1968 for Public Service Elec. & Gas Co. Ichthyological Associates, Inc., Ithaca, NY. Reash, R. J., and J. H. Van Hassel. 1988. Distribution of Upper and Middle Ohio River Fishes, 1973-1985. II. Influence of zoogeographic and physicochemical tolerance factors. J. Freshwater Ecol. 4 (4): 459-476. . 1959. An ecological study of pollution in Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbors, CA. Allan Hancock Federation Occasional Papers 22, p. 1. Resh, V. H., and J. D. Uneicker. 1975. Water quality monitoring and aquatic organisms: the importance of species identification. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 47(1): 9-19. Richardson, R. E. 1925a. Illinois River bottom fauna in 1923. Bull. III. State Nat. Hist. Surv . 25(6): 391. . 1925b. Changes in the small bottom fauna of Peoria Lake, 1920 to 1922. Bull. III. State Nat. Hist. Surv. 25(5): 327-89. . 1928. The bottom fauna of the middle Illinois River 1913-1925. Bull. III. StateNat. Hist. Surv. 27: 391. Robins, R. C., R. M. Bailey, C. E. Bond, J. R. Brooker, E. A. Lachner, R. N. Lea, and W. B. Scott. 1980. A List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States and Canada, 4th edn. American Fisheries Society Special Publication No. 12. Rockel, E. G., and D. Rose. 1983. Analysis of Phytoplankton Data in the Nontidal Delaware River. Rept. No. 4. Upper Delaware River Summer Limnological Progress, DRBC. Saether, O. A. 1979. Chironomid communities as water quality indicators. Holarctic Ecol. 2: 65-74. Sage, L. E., and F. B. Pilling. 1988. The development of a nation: the Delaware River. In Ecology and Restoration of the Delaware River Basin, edited by S. K. Majumdar, E. W. Miller, and L. E. Sage, 217-33. The Pennsylvania Academy of Science, Lafayette College, Easton, PA. Salamon, L. 1988. Nuclear power on the Delaware Estuary. In The Delaware Estuary: Rediscovering a Forgotten Resource, edited by T. L. Bryant and J. R. Pennock, 126. University of Delaware Sea Grant College Program, Newark, DE. Sawyer, C. M. 1960. Chemistry for Sanitary Engineers, 367 pp. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York.

178

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Scheier, Α., and P. Kiry. 1973. The Delaware Estuary System. Environmental Impacts and Socio-economic Effects. A Discussion of Certain Potential Toxicants on Fish and Shellfish in the Upper Delaware Estuary. ANSP. Schuler, V. J. 1970. An Ecological Study of the Delaware River in the Vicinity of Artificial Island. January-December 1969 (Vol. II). Ichthyological Associates, Inc., Ithaca, NY. June. . 1971. Ibid for January-December 1970. . 1974. Ibid for January-December 1971. April. . 1974. Ibid for January-December 1972. May. . 1976. Ibid for January-December 1974 (Vol. II). June. . 1977. Ibid for January-December 1976. June. Schuler, V. J., and Associates. 1986. Annual Rept. Aquatic Monitoring Progress (Non-Radiological) January I-December 31, 1985. Salem Generating Station Unit No. 1 and Unit No. 2. For PSE&G Co. March. Scott, Τ. M. 1981a. An Evaluation of Supplemental Stocking of the Shoal Bass as a Management Technique. GA DNR, Game and Fish Division. November. . 1981b. Creel Survey on the Flint River between Lakes Blackshear and Worth. GA DNR, Game and Fish Division. December. Scott, W. B., and E. J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater Fishes of Canada, Bulletin 184. Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Seagraves, R. J. 1981. Annual Report of Catch and Effort Statistics. Office of Coastal Zone Management Part II, NOAA. Doc. No. 40-05/82/04/5. . 1983. Survey of the Sport Fishery of Delaware Bay, April 15, 1982-April 14, 1983. Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife. Doc. No. 40-05/83/03/09. . undated a. Survey of the Sport Fishery of Delaware Bay. Project F-33-R-3 (Dingell-Johnson Rept.). Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife. Doc. No. 40-05/84/04/06. . undated b. Survey of the Sport Fishery of Delaware Bay. Project F-33-R-4 (Dingell-Johnson Rept.). Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife. Doc. No. 40-05/85/06/02. . 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985. Unpublished fish data collected from the upper and lower Delaware Bay. Seidensticker, E. P. (1982) Job A: Existing Reservoir and Stream Management Recommendations. Lower Neches River and its Tributaries, 1981. Federal Aid Project F-30-R-8. Performance Rept. January. Selby, E., and D. Selby. 1946. Clean-up on the Delaware. Reprinting from January 5, 1946 issue of Colliers, 7 pp. Interstate Commission on the Delaware River Basin (Incodel). Philadelphia, PA. Setzler, E. M., W. R. Boynton, K. U. Wood, H. H. Zion, L. Lubbers, Ν. K. Mountford, P. Frere, L. Tucker, and J. A. Mihursky. 1980. Synopsis of Biological Data on Striped Bass Morone saxatilis (Walbaum). NOAA Technical Report NMFS Circular 433. Seltzer-Hamilton, E. M., W. R. Boynton, J. A. Mihursky, T. T. Polgar, and Κ. V. Wood. 1981. Spatial and temporal distribution of striped bass eggs, larvae and juveniles in the Potomac Estuary. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 110, 121-36.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

179

Shapas, Τ. J., and W. L. Hilsenhoff. 1976. Feeding habits of Wisconsins predominant lotic plecoptera, ephemeroptera, and trichoptera. The Great Lakes Entomologist 9(4): 175-88. Sharp, J. H., ed. 1983. The Delaware Estuary: Research as Background for Estuarine Management and Development. A Report to the Delaware River and Bay Authority, 226-54. University of Delaware College of Marine Studies, Lewes, DE. . 1986. Human colonization and development. In NOAA Estuary-of-theMonth Seminar Series No. 2, Delaware Bay: Issues, Resources, Status and Management, edited by D. M. Goodrich, 7-15. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), US Dept. of Commerce. Washington, DC. Sharp, J. H., J. R. Pennock, Τ. M. Church, J. M. Tramontano, and L. A. Cifuentes. 1984. The estuarine interaction of nutrients, organics, and metals: a case study in the Delaware Estuary. In The Estuary as a Filter, edited by V. S. Kennedy. Academic Press, New York. Sheldon, L. S., and R. A. Hites. 1978. Organic compounds in the Delaware River. Environ. Sci. Technol. 12(10): 1188-94. Sheldon, L. S., and R. A. Hites. 1979. Sources and movement of organic chemicals in the Delaware River. Environ. Sci. Technol. 13(5): 574-9. Shuster, C. N. Jr. 1959. A Biological Evaluation of the Delaware River Estuary. Information Series, Publication No. 3. University of Delaware Marine Laboratories. Sinclair, R. M. 1964. Water Quality Requirements of the Family Elmidae (Coleoptera). Tennessee Stream Pollution Control Board Tennessee Dept. of Public Health. Sladecek, V. 1973. System of water quality from the biological point of view. Ergebnisse Limnol. 7: 1-218. Smith, D. C., and P. L. Harmon. 1974. An Ecological Survey of the Delaware River in the Vicinity of Point Pleasant, Pennsylvania, July 1972-December 1973, 85 pp. Ichthyological Associates, Inc., Ithaca, New York. Smith, Η. H. 1915. Sturgeon Fishery of Delaware River, 23. Bureau of Fisheries, Report of the US Commissioner of Fisheries for 1914. Smith, J. E. 1968. "Torry Canyon" Pollution and Marine Life. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Smith, R. N. undated. Survey of selected marine fish populations in Delaware Bay, 1979, 1980. In Marine Fish Populations in Delaware Bay and Selected Shore Zone Areas, Project No. F-31-R. Doc. No. 40-05/80/03/3. Delaware. . 1985. Marine Fish Populations in Delaware Bay. Annual Performance Rept. of the Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife, Dover, Del. Doc. No. 40-05/85/08/01. Smock, L. A., E. Gillinsky, and D. L. Stoneburner. 1985. Macroinvertebrate production in a southeastern US blackwater stream. Ecology 66(5): 1491-503. Springer, J. E., and T. M. Groutage, eds. 1962. The Tristate Fishery Study: A Cooperative Investigation of the Delaware River Fishery, 1959-62. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, NJ Division of Fish and Game, NY Conservation Dept. and PA Fish Commission. Srithavatch, K. 1976. Sabine-Neches Ecosystem Analysis. A Report to Texas Parks and Wildlife. University of Texas at Austin, TX. August.

180

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Stack, V. Τ. 1972. Biochemical oxygen demand measurement. In Water and Water Pollution Handbook, Vol. 3, edited by L. L. Ciaccio. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York. Starrett, W. C. 1971. A Survey of the Mussels (Unionacea) of the Illinois River: A Polluted Stream. Illinois Natural History Survey, Vol. 30, Article 5. February. Summers, P. 1987. Fish Population Study. DEL USA Project Element 9 DRBC. February. Swann, C. R. (preparer). 1986a. Chemical Weed Control in Peanuts. Bulletin 825, 10 pp. Cooperative Extension Service, University of Georgia College of Agriculture, Athens, GA. . 1986b. Chemical Weed Control in Corn. Bulletin 930, 11 pp. Cooperative Extension Service, University of Georgia College of Agriculture, Athens, GA. Sykes, J. E., and B. A. Lehman. 1957. Past and Present, Delaware River Shad Fishery and Considerations for its Future. Fishery Rept. 46. US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Dept. of the Interior. Tagatz, Μ. E. 1961. Reduced oxygen tolerance and toxicity of petroleum products to juvenile American shad. Ches. Sci. 2(1): 65-71. Tarzwell, C. M. 1965. Biological Problems in Water Pollution, Third Seminar 1962. US Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare. Public Health Service, Cincinnati, OH. Texas Department of Water Resources (TDWR). 1978. Waste Load Evaluation for Segment No. 0601 (Neches River Tidal). Report No. LP-26. TDWR, Construction Grants and Water Quality Planning, Austin, TX. . 1981. Sabine-Neches Estuary: A Study of the Influence of Freshwater Inflows. Texas Dept. of Water Resources Rept. No. LP-116. . 1984a. Water for Texas: A Comprehensive Plan for the Future. Vols 1 and 2. TDWR, Austin, TX. . 1984b. The State of Texas Water Quality Inventory, 7th edn 1984, pursuant to Section 305(b) Federal Water Pollution Control Act (as amended). Report No. LP-59. TDWR, Austin, TX. Texas Water Commission (TWC). 1986a. Texas Surface Water Quality Standards, Informational Copy, 95 pp. TWC, Texas. . 1986b. The State of Texas Water Quality Inventory, 8th edn 1986, pursuant to Section 305(b) Federal Clean Water Act. Report No. LP 86-07. TWC, Austin, TX. . 1986c. Water Quality Management Program Continuing Planning Process. Report No. LP 86-08, 131 pp. TWC, Austin, TX. . 1986d. Computer printout. . 1987a. The Texas Water Commission, 16 pp. Austin, TX. . 1987b. Texas Water Commission — Water Management in Texas: Changes in the State's Role. Biennial report to the 70th legislature. Report No. GP 87-01, 35 pp. TWC, Austin, TX. . 1988a. The State of Texas Water Quality Inventory, 9th edn 1988, pursuant to Section 305(b) Federal Clean Water Act. Report No. LP 88-04. TWC, Austin, TX. . 1988b. Texas Water Quality: Understanding Nonpoint Source Pollution (pamphlet). TWC, Austin, TX.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

181

Texas Register. 1987. Proposed Rule Texas Surface Water Quality Standards SS307.1-307.10. Draft. October, 1987. Thornton, L. L. 1975. Laboratory Experiments on the Oxygen Consumption and Resistance to Low Oxygen Levels of Certain Estuarine Fishes. Masters thesis, University of Delaware. Thurston, R. V., C. Chakoumakos, and R. C. Russo. 1981a. Effect of fluctuating exposures on the acute toxicity of ammonia to rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri), and cutthroat trout (5. clarki). Water Res. 15: 911-15. Thurston, R. V., G. R. Phillips, and R. C. Russo. 1981b. Increased toxicity of ammonia to rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) resulting from reduced concentrations of dissolved oxygen. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 38: 983-8. Thurston, R. V., R. C. Russo, and G. A. Vinogradov. 1981c. Ammonia toxicity to fishes. Effect of pH on the toxicity of the unionized ammonia species. Environ. Sci. Technol. 15: 837-40. Thurston-Rogers, P. A., and C. F. Baren. 1978. Present Configuration of the Delaware River Pollution Block and Its Relationship to Shad Migrations. Special Rept. No. 5. Delaware River Basin Anadromous Fishery Project. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Trautman, Μ. B. 1981. The Fishes of Ohio, revised edn. Ohio State University Press, Columbus, OH. Tsai, C. 1968. Effects of chlorinated sewage effluents on fishes in Upper Patuxent River, Maryland. Ches. Sci. 9(2): 89-93. . 1970. Changes in fish populations and migration in relation to increased sewage pollution in Little Patuxent River, Maryland. Ches. Sci. 11(1): 34-41. Twidwell, S. R. 1986. Intensive Survey of the Neches River Tidal Segment 0601, September 17-18, 1985. Hydrology, Field Measurements, and Water Chemistry. IS 86-95, 75 pp. TWC. Tyrawski, J. M. 1979. Shallows of the Delaware River Trenton, New Jersey to Reedy Point, Delaware. Final Report for the environmental Resources Branch, Philadelphia District, Army Corps of Engineers. Citing: Anselmini 1974; Browell 1976; Chase 1976; Herring 1976; Holmstrom 1973; PE Co. 1977a,b,c,d; Potter and Harmon 1973; Ritson 1974. United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1975. Neches River and Tributaries, Texas. Saltwater Barrier on the Neches River at Beaumont, Texas. Office of the Chief of Engineers, Dept. of the Army, Washington, DC. . 1982. Feasibility Report on Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas — Channel Improvements for Navigation. US Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston, TX. Main report and appendix. United States Congressional and Administrative News. 1973. US Code Congressional and Administrative News, 92nd Congress, Second Session 1972, Vol. 2: Legislative History. From supplemental views of Senator Bob Dole under Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. West Publishing Co., St. Paul, MN. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1970. Georgia Conservation Needs Inventory, 209 pp. USDA, Soil Conservation Service, Athens, GA. . 1981. Soil Surveyof Crisp and Turner Counties, Georgia, 120 pp. USDA, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with University of Georgia, College of Agriculture.

182

BIBLIOGRAPHY

. 1982a. Southwest Georgia Report. Prepared as part of the Southwest Georgia land and water resource cooperative study. USDA Economic Research Service, Forest Service, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with Georgia Department of Natural Resources and Soil and Water Conservation Committee. . 1982b. Basic Statistics 1977 National Resources Inventory. USDA Soil Conservation Service and Iowa State University Statistical Laboratory. . 1983a. Soil Survey of Dooly and Macon Counties, Georgia, 128 pp. USDA Soil Conservation Service. . 1983b. Southwest Georgia Conservation Targeted Area Application, 12 pp. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Athens, GA. . 1984a. Middle South Georgia Conservation Targeted Area Plan, 12 pp. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Athens, GA. . 1984b. 1982 National Resources Inventory. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Athens, GA. . 1986. Land in Conservation Practices. Xerox unpublished data. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Athens, GA. . 1989. 1982-87 National Resources Inventory. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Athens, GA. United States Department of Commerce. 1942. Sixteenth Census for the United States: 1940, Population. Bureau of the Census, US Dept. of Commerce, Washington, DC. . 1946. Census of Agriculture 1945. Bureau of the Census, US Dept. of Commerce, Washington, DC. . 1950. Census of Manufacturers 1947. Vol. Ill, statistics by state; selected general statistics for states, metropolitan areas, counties, and urban places. Bureau of the Census, US Dept. of Commerce, Washington, DC. . 1961. Census of Manufactures 1958. Vol. Ill, area statistics — industry statistics for geographic divisions, states, standard metropolitan statistical areas, counties, and cities. Bureau of the Census, US Dept. of Commerce, Washington, DC. . 1968. Census of Agriculture 1964. State and county data. Bureau of the Census, US Dept. of Commerce, Washington, DC. . 1971. Census of Manufactures 1967. Vol. Ill, area statistics. Bureau of the Census, US Dept. of Commerce, Washington, DC. . 1973. 1969 Census of Agriculture. Georgia state and county data, Vol. 1. Bureau of the Census, US Dept. of Commerce, Washington, DC. . 1976. Census of Manufactures 1972. Vol. Ill, area statistics. Bureau of the Census, US Dept. of Commerce, Washington, DC. . 1977. Census of Agriculture 1974. State and county data. Bureau of the Census, US Dept. of Commerce, Washington, DC. . 1981. Census of Agriculture 1978. State and county data. Bureau of the Census, US Dept. of Commerce, Washington, DC. . 1982a. Census of Population 1980. Part 45, Texas. Bureau of the Census, US Dept. of Commerce, Washington, DC. . 1982b. Census of Agriculture. Bureau of the Census. . 1983. Census of Population 1980. Vol. 1, characteristics of population. Bureau of the Census, US Dept. of Commerce, Washington, DC.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

183

. 1984. Census of Agriculture 1982. Vol. 1, geographic area series, state and county data. Bureau of the Census, US Dept. of Commerce, Washington, DC. . 1985. Census of Manufactures 1982. Geographic area series. Bureau of the Census, US Dept. of Commerce, Washington, DC. —. 1986. Local Population Reports: 1984 population and 1983 per capita income estimates for counties and incorporated places. Bureau of the Census, US Dept. of Commerce, Washington, DC. . 1989. Census of Agriculture 1987. Georgia state and county data. Bureau of the Census, US Dept. of Commerce. Washington, DC. United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 1960. Report on the Comprehensive Survey of the Delaware River Basin, Municipal and Industrial Water Use and Stream Quality. US Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare for US Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia, PA. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1975. Report on Lake Blackshear, Crisp, Dooly, Lee, Sumter, and Worth Counties, Georgia. EPA Region IV, Working paper no. 283, Appendix IIIC, 55 pp. . 1976. Quality Criteria for Water (Redbook). US Government Printing Office: 1977 0-222-904. . 1978. A Water Quality Success Story. The Neches River Tidal Area. EPA Environmental Information Pamplet. EPA, Washington, DC. . 1980a. Turbidity Water Quality Standards Criteria Summaries. A Compilation of State/Federal Criteria. WA-80-A055, 12 pp. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC. . 1980b. Water Quality Management Needs Assessment. FY '80-'84. Draft. US EPA, Water Planning Division, Washington, DC. . 1983a. Chesapeake Bay: A Profile of Environmental Change. Region 3. September. . 1983b. Philadelphia/Camden Port Environmental Enhancement Plan, Vol. 1, Report. US EPA Region III, Philadelphia, PA. . 1983c. US EPA Regional Water Quality Management Coordinators Meeting, Boston, MA, October 14. . 1984. Report to Congress: Nonpoint Source Pollution in the US EPA, Office of Water Program Operations, Washington, DC. . 1985. National Water Quality Inventory, 1984 Report to Congress, 67-72. US EPA, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC. . 1986a and updates to May 1, 1987. Quality Criteria for Water 1986 (Goldbook). EPA-440/5-86-001. . 1986b. Draft — Ambient Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria for Aluminium. February, 1986. Personal communication from Bob Koroncai, EPA Region III Water Quality Standards Coordinator. . 1988. Nonpoint Sources: Agenda for the Future, 26 pp. EPA, Office of Water, Washington, DC. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1971-75. Seine Logs. United States Public Health Service. 1952a. Delaware River Basin Zone 3, A Cooperative State-Federal Report on Water Pollution Control. Federal Security Agency, Public Health Service, North Atlantic Drainage Basins Office.

184

BIBLIOGRA PH Y

. 1952b. Delaware River Basin Zone 2, A Cooperative State-Federal Report on Water Pollution Control. US Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, North Atlantic Drainage Basins. . 1953. Delaware River Basin Zone 4, A Cooperative State-Federal Report on Water Pollution Control. US Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, North Atlantic Drainage Basins. . 1962. Municipal, Industrial and Domestic Water Supplies Pollution Abatement, Public Health, Apalachicola-Chattahoochie-Flint Basin, 175 pp. Public Health Service, Atlanta, GA. United States Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission (GSWCC). 1987. Georgia Agricultural Water Quality Assessment. Athens, GA. University of Georgia, undated a. Georgia Statistical Abstract 1951. College of Business Administration, Bureau of Business Research, Athens, GA. . undated b. Georgia Statistical Abstract 1956. College of Business Administration, Bureau of Business Research, Athens, GA. . 1968. Georgia Statistical Abstract 1968. Graduate School of Business Administration, Bureau of Business and Economic Research, Athens, GA. Van Hassel, J. H., R. J. Reash, W. B. Huntting, J. L. Thomas, and R. C. Mathews Jr. 1988. Distribution of Upper and Middle Ohio River fishes, 1973-1985. I. Associations with water quality and ecological variables. J. Freshwater Ecol. 4 (4): 441-58. Versar, Inc. 1988. Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Striped Bass Spawning Activity in the Delaware River during Spring, 1988, for Delaware Fish and Wildlife. November. Walburg, C. H., and P. R. Nichols. 1967. Biology and Management of the American Shad and Status of the Fisheries, Atlantic Coast of the United States, 1960. US Fish and Wildlife Service Special Scientific Rept. No. 550. Walls, J. G. 1975. Fishes of the Northern Gulf of Mexico. T. F. H. Publications, Inc. Ltd. Hong Kong. Distributed by T. F. H. Publications, Neptune City, NJ. Walton, Τ. Ε. Ill, and R. Patrick, eds. 1973. The Delaware Estuary System, Environmental Impacts and Socio-economic Effects. Delaware River Estuary Marsh Survey. A Report to the National Science Foundation RANN Program. ANSP, University of Delaware and Rutgers University. Wang, J. C. S., and R. J. Kernehan. 1977. Fishes of the Delaware Estuaries: A Guide to the Early Life Histories. Ecological Analysts, Inc., Towson, MD. Warshaw, S. 1974. Water Quality Segment Report for Segment No. 0601 Neches River Tidal. Report No. WQS-2. Texas Water Quality Board, Field Operations Division, Austin, TX. Wass, M. L. 1967. Biological and physiological basis of indicator organisms and communities. Section II: Indicators of pollution. In Pollution and Marine Ecology, edited by T. A. Olson, and F. J. Burgess, 271. Interscience, John Wiley & Sons, New York. Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1956 — Legislative History. 1957. In United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 84th Congress, Second Session 1956, Vol. 2, 3023-36. West Publishing Co., St. Paul, MN., and Edward Thompson Co., Brooklyn, NY.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

185

Watling, L., and D. Maurer. 1972a. Shallow water hydroids of the Delaware Bay region. J. Nat. Hist. 6: 643-9. Watling, L., and D. Maurer. 1972b. Marine Shallow Water Amphipods of the Delaware Bay Area. Crustaceana Supplement 3. Watling, L., and D. Maurer, eds. 1976. Ecological Studies on Benthic and Planktonic Assemblages in Lower Delaware Bay. CMS-RANN-3-76. Rept. to the National Science Foundation. RANN Progress. College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware. October. Watling, L., D. Maurer, and C. Wethe. 1976. Delaware Bay benthic invertebrate assemblages. In Ecological Studies on Benthic and Planktonic Assemblages in Lower Delaware Bay, edited by L. Watling and D. Maurer. College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware. Weber, C. I., ed. 1973. Biological Field and Laboratory Methods for Measuring the Quality of Surface Waters and Effluents. EPA-670/4-73-001. Weisberg, S. B., W. H. Burton, R. W. Chapman, and P. F. Kazyak. 1987. Striped Bass Spawning and Stock Assessment in the Delaware River between Philadelphia, PA and Trenton, NJ, for the Delaware River Basin Fish and Wildlife Management Cooperative. Versar, Inc. Wenger, A. G., and J. R. Singleton. 1969. Job 2A: Pollution Studies. Federal Aid in Fisheries Restoration Act, Project No. F-12-R-14. Job Completion Report. Weslager, C. A., and L. Heite. 1988. History. In The Delaware Estuary: Rediscovering a Forgotten Resource, edited by T. L. Bryant, and J. R. Pennock, 11-29. University of Delaware Sea Grant College Program, Newark, DE. Whipple, G. C. 1947. The Microscopy of Drinking Water, 4th edn, revised by M. Fairand, and M. C. Whipple, 550-5. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., London. Wiersema, J. M., and S. N. James. 1973. Sabine Power Station Ecological Program. Vol. 1 for Gulf States Utilities. Document No. T73-AV-9507-U(R). TRACOR. Wiersema, J. M., P. T. Price, J. Davenport, and R. P. Mitchell. 1976a. Ecological Studies Associated with the Sabine Power Station. Espey, Huston, & Assocs., Inc., TX. Wiersema, J. M., P. T. Price, J. Davenport, and R. P. Mitchell. 1976b. Ecological Studies in Sabine Lake, 1974-1975. Espey, Huston, & Assocs., Inc., TX. November (including appendices). Wildes, Η. E. 1940. The Delaware. J. J. Little and Ives Co., New York, NY. Wilhm, J. L. 1975. Biological indicators of pollution. In River Ecology, edited by B. A. WHitton, 375. University of California Press, Los Angeles, CA. Wilhm, J. L., and T. C. Dorris. 1966. Species diversity and benthic macroinvertebrates in a stream receiving domestic and oil refinery effluents. Amer. Midi. Nat. 76: 427-49. Womack, H. 1987. Peanut Insect Control, Circular 543. Cooperative Extension Service, University of Georgia College of Agriculture, Athens, GA. Wright, J. F., and R. Porges. 1970. Water Quality Planning and Management Experiences of the Delaware River Basin Commission, 17 pp. DRBC, West Trenton, NJ. Wypyszinski, A. W. 1986. New Jersey shore: use and value. In NOAA Estuary-ofthe-month Seminar Series No. 2, Delaware Bay: issues, resources, status and management, edited by D. M. Goodrich, 111-13. National Oceanic and

186

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), US Dept. of Commerce, Washington, DC. Wypyszinksi, A., and A. T. Manus. 1988. Management. In The Delaware Estuary: Rediscovering a Forgotten Resource, edited by T. L. Bryant, and J. R. Pennock, 135-41. University of Delaware Sea Grant College Program, Newark, DE. Wurtz, C. B. 1955. Stream biota and stream pollution. Sewage & Industrial Wastes 27: 1270-8. Yentsch, C. S., S. Gilfillian, and J. R. Sears. 1973. The Fate and Behavior of Crude Oil on Marine Life. University of Massachusetts, Marine Station. Young, F. N. 1961. Effects of Pollution on Natural Associations of Water Beetles. Purdue Univ. Engineering Bull. 15(2): 373-80. Zaneveld, J. S. 1972. The benthic marine algae of Delaware, USA. Chesapeake Sci. 13 (2): 120-38.

Subject Index

agricultural activities 28-47, 153 Delaware River Basin 28-31 Bay area 30-31, 49 current trends 15 historical aspects 8, 19 Lower Estuary 30-31, 49 Upper Estuary 29-30 erosion rates 41 Flint River Basin 31-46, 152, 153 changes in agricultural practices 19 economic aspects 33 historical aspects 17-18, 19 population growth 25, 26 productivity 25 mineral salts 40 Neches Estuary 46-47, 152 nutrient delivery factors 42 pesticide delivery ratios 42 sediment delivery rates 41-42 agricultural pollutants 1 animal wastes 39 crop debris 39 Delaware River Basin 3, 28, 29 Flint River 3, 35-46 Agriculture/Irrigation Technical Task Forceassessment 102-103, 104 changes following voluntary programs 150 food processing industries 29 Neches Estuary 114 nonpoint source pollution 43, 102-103, 104 from animal production on rangeland 35 from irrigated cropland 35 from livestock facilities 35 from nonirrigated cropland 35 runoff pollution 28, 35, 114 health hazard 39 livestock/poultry farming 35 Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) 86 Agriculture/Irrigation Technical Task Force 65, 82, 83 agricultural nonpoint source pollution assessment 102-103 Best Management Practices (BMPs) program 88, 89

reports 43, 105 sediment delivery ratios 105 Albany population growth patterns 26 alewife 14, 15 algae Delaware River Basin Bay area 130 blooms 126 Flint River 150 population data 3 American eel 14, 15 Americus population growth patterns 26 ammonia Delaware River Basin 16 Neches Estuary 113 changes following Clean Water Act 143 animal wastes 36, 39 agricultural runoff pollution 39 bacterial water contamination 39 health hazard 39 nonpoint source agricultural pollution 43 Appoquinimink algae 130 aquatic life, 1980 onwards 131 fish 130 invertebrates 130 aquatic life 3 changes following Clean Water Act 126-138, 143 Delaware River Basin 13,14, 56, 126-138 enhancement of habitats 156 Flint River, changes following voluntary controls 150 industrial impact 47 Neches Estuary 112, 143 pesticide effects 37 sediment pollutants 36 stream channel/habitat disruption 154 treatment facilities effects 13 Arizona population movements 1 arsenic 116, 125 Atlanta population shifts 26 Atlantic menhaden 15 Atlantic sturgeon 15 Bacterial water contamination animal wastes 39 fecal coliforms 116, 143

188

SUBJECT INDEX

bass 8,112 Beaumont aquatic life following Clean Water Act 143 early industrial development 15 fishing 108 population growth pattern 24 port development 15-16 total tonnage shipped 61 Best Management Practices (BMPs), Georgia 84, 88-89 Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPCTCA) 109 Best Practicable Treatment (BPT) 64 biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) Delaware Estuary 116 Neches Estuary industrial waste 107 loadings 110-112 see also carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) biodegradable waste 3 biological changes following Clean Water Act Delaware River Basin 126-138 Neches Estuary 143-146 blue crabs, 14, 15, 131 bluefish 15 Brachionus calyciflorus 126 Brandywine Valley agricultural activities 30 gunpowder mills 7 Bucks County agricultural activities 29 population shifts 23 Burlington County agricultural activities 29 population shifts 23 cadmium in Delaware River 125 California population movements 1 Camden County agricultural activities 29, 30 population shifts 23 sewage treatment facilities 99 Camp Creek 44, 104 canal transportation Delaware River Basin 7, 8 Port Arthur 16 Cape May County agricultural activities 30, 31 population shifts 24 carbonaceous agricultural runoff pollution 39 carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) allocations 96-97

reductions 115 catfish 8, 14 Cedar Creek pesticides pollution 105 cement production 53 chemical industries Delaware River Basin 14, 49, 50, 152 Neches Estuary 53 Chester County agricultural activities 29, 30 algae 126 biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) 116 biological changes 1975-79 130 1980 onwards 131 macroinvertebrates 126, 130 organic waste control following Clean Water Act 116 population shifts 24 Civil War 8 clams 15 clays production 53 Clean Streams Law (1937) 13, 74, 76-77 amendments 75 Clean Sweep 92 Clean Water Act (1972) see Federal Water Pollution Control Act (1972) Clean Water Act (1977) (USPL 95-217) 65, 66, 69 Section 402 66 Clean Water Fund 76 Clean Water Restoration Act (1966) (USPL 89-753) 63 climatic change 1 coal processing 49 coal silt pollution 13 coalfired utilities 54 Coastal Area Facility Review Act (1973) 78, 79 Coastal Zone Act (1971) 81 Coastal Zone Management Program Delaware 81 New Jersey 79 Columbus population shifts 26 computers 2 toxic waste 2 confined animal feeding operations 89 conservation agricultural land treatment 106-107 Conservation Reserve Program (Public Law 99-198) 86 conservation tillage 45-46 Cooperative Extension Service 87 copper in Delaware River 125 corn growing 17 costs 154, 155 water teatment with sediment pollutants 36

SUBJECT INDEX cotton farming Flint River Basin 32 historical aspects 17 pesticide use 43 cotton seed oil mills 15 Council on Environmental Quality sediment concentration criteria 41 cowboys' activities 15 cowpeas 17 Creek Indian settlements 17 Crisp County agricultural activities 31 agricultural nonpoint source pollution 43, 103, 104 pesticides pollution 105 population changes 26 crop debris 36, 39 cropland farming agricultural runoff pollution 28 Delaware River Basin 28 erosion control 45 rate 41 Flint River Basin 17-18, 19, 30-32, 33, 45 population shifts 26 sediment yields 45 nonpoint source agricultural pollution 35, 43 Cumberland County agricultural activities 30, 31 population shifts 24 data sources 115 Dawson population growth 26 DDD pollution, Flint River Basin 44, 104 DDE pollution, Flint River Basin 44,104,105 DDT pollution, Flint River Basin, 44, 104 defoliant chemicals pollution 35 Delaware agricultural activities 29, 30 laws and regulations 80-81 coastal zone program 81 population shifts 24 Delaware Code Title 7 Chapter 62 80-81 Delaware Estuary Comprehensive Study (DECS) 73 Delaware Estuary Settlements 5 Delaware Port Authority 69 DelawareRiver Basin 3, 5-15, 19,76, 115 agricultural activities 8, 19, 28-31 Bay area 30-31, 49 current trends 15 Lower Estuary 30-31, 49 Upper Estuary 29-30 agricultural discharges 3, 28 algae 126, 130 biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) 116

189

allocations 13-14 carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) allocations 96-97 biological changes 56 1968-74 126, 130 1975-79 130 1980 onwards 130 Bay area 130-131 commercial fisheries 131-138 following Clean Water Act 126-138 blue crab fishing 14, 15, 131 canal transportation 7, 8 coal silt pollution 13 enriched conditions 126 fish 6, 8, 11, 14, 126, 130, 154 fishing industry 6, 8, 11, 131-138 glassblowing 7 heavy industrial sites 14-15 historical aspects 18th century 6-7 19th century 7-9 20th century 9-14 agriculture 8, 19 European settlers 5 industrial development 6-7, 8, 9, 13, 19 Quaker settlers 5 waste disposal 8 water pollution 8, 13 Incodel see Interstate Commission on the Delaware River Basin (Incodel) industrial activity 6-7, 8, 9, 19, 47-50, 152 Bay area 49-50 location of factories 48 Lower Estuary 49-50 Upper Estuary 48-49 industrial discharges 3, 115 pollution control 13 invertebrates 126, 130 iron industry 5, 7-8 laws and regulations 69-81 local government control 81 lumbering industry 5 motor transportation 9 municipal pollution 3, 115, 154-155 nitrogen 116 odors 11, 14 organic waste 116 oxygen levels 14, 47 phosphorus 116 population changes 1, 7, 8, 9, 20-24, 152 ports 57 financial conditions 57-58 management 57 pottery kiln 7 public water supply developments 7 railroad transportation 7, 8

190

SUBJECT INDEX

Delaware River Basin (Cont) recreational use 154 service industries, Bay area 152 sewage treatment facilities 11,13 upgrade 98, 99, 101 shipping 5 employment 57 imports 57 tonnage shipped 56 silkweaving 7 total waste load allocations 98-99 utilities 53-55, 152 Bay area 152 consumptive loss of water 54 energy sources 54 water demand 152 water budget 55 water quality control 96-102 compliance facilities construction 97-102 costs 155 water quality improvements 14, 126-138 Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) 13, 69, 70, 72-74 CBOD allocations 96-97 Reciprocal Agreement for the Correction and Control of Pollution of the Waters of the Interstate Delaware 72 Delaware River Basin Water Quality Regulations (1987) 73 Delaware Water Pollution Commission 80 Delaware Water Pollution Control Act (1949) 80 Department of Environmental Protection 77-78, 79 Department of Environmental Resources (DER) 76 Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) 81 diatoms 126, 130 dietary change 2 Dooly County agricultural activities 31 agricultural nonpoint source pollution 43, 44, 103, 104 pesticides pollution 105 Doughtery County population growth patterns 26 drinking water 156 du Pont, E. I. 7 electrical machinery manufacturing 49 electronic machinery manufacturing 49 Ellaville population growth 26 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 64, 65, 76, 93

agricultural nonpoint source pollution assessment 103 Neches Estuary water quality standards 108

time extensions for compliance with discharge requirements 67 Environmental Quality Board 76 erosion 153 agricultural activities 35, 41 control 36 farm machinery use 36 Flint River Basin 19, 43, 45-46, 105 irrigation effects 36-37, 41, 45 precipitation 36 rate 41 row/nonrow cropland farming 36 sediment pollutants 36-37 soil characteristics 36 soil slope 36 Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) 87 fecal coliforms Delawetre River Basin 116 Neches Estuary 143 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (1972 Public Law 92-516) 89-90 Federal Laws 1, 62-69 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (1948) 62 Public Law 87-88 (amendments) 63 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (1972) 1, 62, 63, 64-65, 76, 77, 92, 93, 108, 112, 153, 156 amendments 16-17 1987 65 30 USC 1251 et seq. 64 Public Law 91-224 63 CBOD allocations 96 effects of 115 Delaware Estuary 116-139 Neches Estuary 139-146 objectives 153-154, 155 Section 208 65, 82 Section 209 65 Section 303(e) 65 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (1977) 78-79 Federal Water Pollution Control Adminis­ tration (FWPCA) 63, 64 fertilizer production 53 fertilizer use 1, 2 FUnt River Basin 34, 153 pollution changes following voluntary controls 150 health hazards of pollution 39 nonpoint source agricultural pollution 43

SUBJECT INDEX finfish 15 fish changes following Clean Water Act 126, 130, 143 Delaware River Basin 154 1968-74 126, 130 1975-79 130 Bay area 130 Flint River, changes following voluntary controls 150 Neches Estuary 143, 154 population data 3 fisheries Delaware River Basin 14 following Clean Water Act 14, 131-138 historical aspects 6, 8, 11 Neches Estuary 108, 112 Philadelphia 11 Flint River Basin 17-19, 115 agricultural activities 31-46, 152, 153 changes in agricultural practice 19, 26 cropland farming 30-32, 33 crops 31-35 early agriculture 17-18, 19 economic aspects 33 livestock/poultry farming 33 northern counties 33 pastureland 33 productivity 25-27 southern counties 33 agricultural pollution 3 mineral salts 40 nonpoint source pollution 35, 43, 102, 103, 104 nutrient delivery factors 42 nutrients 37, 39-40 organic wastes 37, 39-40 pollutants 35-46, 115 Southern Coastal Plain 43, 44 Southwest area 103 algae 150 conservation tillage 45-46 conservation treatment of farmland 106107 cotton 17 erosion 43, 105 control 45-46 rates 41 Sand Hills 105, 107 Southern Coastal Plain 105, 106, 107 fertilizer use 34 fish 150 historical aspects 17-19 early development 17 industrial development 19 soil conservation districts 19

191

invertebrates 150 irrigation 34, 107, 153 groundwater use 153 laws and regulations 69, 81-90 lumber industry 17, 19, 33 motor transportation 26 permanent land use conversion 106 pesticides use 34-35, 38, 39, 104105 delivery ratios 42 pollution 37, 38-39, 44 population shifts 25-27, 152 railroad transportation 17 reafforestation/Soil Bank Program 19 recreational use 154 sediment pollution 36-37 delivery rates 41-42 delivery ratios 105 turpentine industry 17, 19 water quality control 102-107 changes following voluntary controls 150 flooding 36 Food and Agricultural Act (1981) (Public Law 97-98) 85 food chain contamination 37 food processing industries Delaware River Basin 14, 29, 49, 50 agricultural pollution 29 Food Security Act (1985) 68 forage crops 18 fungicides 37 future options 157 gas fired utilities 55 Georgia Agricultural Stabilization and Conser­ vation Service (ASCS) 86-87 Best Management Practices (BMPs) 84, 88-89 confined animal feeding operations 89 Cooperative Extension Service 87 Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) 87 laws and regulations 81-90 pesticide use 89-90 Soil Conservation Service (SCS) 8486 Soil and Water Conservation Districts 84, 85 voluntary agricultural nonpoint source pollution control program 84 Georgia Association of Conservation District Supervisors 83 Georgia Department of Agriculture (GDA) 87 pesticide use regulation 90

192

SUBJECT INDEX

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 82. 84, 104 Best Management Practices (BMPs) program 88 Georgia Pesticide Use and Application Act " (1976) 90 Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission (GSWCC) 82, 83, 84 glass manufacturing 50 Gloucester County agricultural activities 29, 30 population shifts 23 golf courses 2 gravel production 53 green algae 126, 130 groundwaters fertilizer/pesticide pollution 2, 37 irrigation 2 Flint River agriculture 153 silicon waste pollution 2 waste disposal practices contaminating 3 Gum Branch Creek 44, 104 pesticides pollution 105 gunpowder mills 7 habitat destruction 36 hay crops 18 heavy industrial sites 14-15 herbicides 37 herring 6. 14 Hogcrawl Creek 105 human activities 4, 152 hydrogen sulfide pollution 10-11 Incodel see Interstate Commission on the Delaware River Basin (Incodel) industrial activity 47-53 historical aspects Delaware Rixer Basin 6-7, 8, 9, 19 Flint River Basin 19 industrial waste 1. 155 Delaware River Basin 3, 115 historical aspects 9-10, 13 fertilizer pollution 39 Neches Estuary 107 Best Practicable Control Technology Currentlv Ax ailable (BPCTCA) 109 biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) 107 regional treatment facilities 109 secondary waste treatment 108 State and Federal permit requirements 108. 109 waste treatment systems upgrading 108 water quality standards 108 Pennsylvania 13

Philadelphia 9 pre-discharge treatment 13 treatment plants 2 insecticides 37 instrument manufacture 49 Interstate Commission on the Delaware River Basin(Incodel)Il, 13,69-70 invertebrates Delaware River Basin 126 1968- 7 4 126, 130 1975-79 130 Bay area 130 Flint River 150 Neches Estuary 143 pollution-tolerant 126, 130 population data 3 iron levels, Delaware River 125 iron-related industry Delaware Rixer Basin 5, 7-8 Neches Estuary 53 irrigation 2 effects on groundwaters 2 erosion relationship 36-37, 41 Flint River Basin 19, 153 croplands 34, 107 erosion control 45 Neches Estuaryfreshwater withdrawals 107-108 historical aspects 15 rice farming 46-47, 152 nonpoint source agricultural pollution 35, 43 with soil contouring 37 Jefferson Countypopulation shifts 24, 25 shipment of manufactured products 61 Kent Countyagricultural activities 30, 31 population shifts 24 Kittatinny Mountains 5 Lancaster County 30 Land and Water Conservation and Re­ clamation Fund 75 lead in Delaware River 125 leather manufacturing 50 Lee Countyagricultural pollution 44 population growth 26 Leesburg population growth 26 lifestyle changes 1-2 lime application 34 Line Creek pesticides pollution 105 Liston Point 30 livestock/poultry- farming

SUBJECT INDEX agricultural nonpoint source pollution 35, 43 agricultural runoff pollution 35 Delaware River Basin 28 Flint River Basin 19, 33 population shifts 26 lobsters 15 lumber industry Delaware River Basin historical aspects 5 Flint River Basin 19, 33 historical aspects 17, 19 Neches Estuary 46-47, 53 historical aspects 15, 16 runoff pollution 114 Macon population shifts 26 Marcus Hook, biological changes 1975-79 130 Mercer County agricultural activities 29 population shifts 23 metal processing 14 metal products shipments 61 metals content effect of treatment facilities 13 midwest population movements 1 mineral salts pollution 40 Mobil Canal aquatic life 143 industrial waste 109 monitoring program 35, 153, 157 Montgomery County agricultural activities 29 population shifts 24 motor transportation Delaware River population effects 9 Flint River Basin population effects 26 municipal waste 1, 2, 154-155 Delaware River Basin 3, 9-10 Neches Estuary 17 treatment plants 2, 17 Municipal Wastewater Treatment Construc­ tion Grant Amendment (1981) 67 mussels 15 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan 92 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 66 CBOD allocations 96 natural gas 53 natural resources use 156 Nebraska irrigation effects on groundwaters 2 Neches Estuary 3, 15-17, 19, 115 agricultural activities 46-47

193

changes following Clean Water Act 139— 146 1969-73 142, 143 1975-79 143 1981-85 143 biological changes 143-146 cotton seed oil mills 15 dissolved oxygen 142 fecal coliforms 143 fish 143, 154 fishing 108, 112 historical aspects early industrial activities 15, 16, 19 early port activity 15 Europeans' activities 15 oil-related industries 15-16 industrial impact 47, 50-53, 107 invertebrates 143 irrigation 15 freshwater withdrawals 107-108 laws and regulations 69 lumber industry 15, 16, 46-47 municipal waste 154-155 sewage treatment facilities 17 nitrates 142 petroleum-associated waste 3, 115, 142 phosphorus 143 population shifts 24-25, 152 ports 61 development 15-16 Priority Pollutants Studies (1984) 110 recreational use 110, 154 rice farming 15, 16 water demand 152 shipping 15, 61 toxic pollutants 47 utilities 55, 56 water quality control 107-114 Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPCTCA) 109 BOD loadings 110-112 costs 155 nonpoint source pollution 114 nutrient loading 112-114 State and Federal permit requirements 108, 109 tidal segment classification 112 urban runoff 114 water quality standards 108 Neches Tidal Area industrial waste biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) 107 population shifts 24 Nederland population growth pattern 24 nematicides 37 New England population movements 1

194

SUBJECT INDEX

New Jersey agricultural activities 8, 15, 30 historical aspects 8, 9 laws and regulations 77-79 coastal zone management 79-81 water pollution laws 9 population shifts 24 New Jersey Department of Conservation and Economic Development 77 New Jersey Pollution Discharge Elimination System 79 New Jersey Water Quality Improvement Act (1971) 78 New Mexico population movements 1 New York agricultural usage 15 lumber transport 5 water sources 14 Newcastle County agriculture 30, 31 population shifts 24 nitrates 39 Neches Estuary 142 nitrogen agricultural runoff pollution 39 Delaware River Basin 116 fertilizer 37, 39 nutrient delivery factors 42 transport to water bodies 40 nonbiodegradable waste 3 nonelectrical machinery Delaware River Basin manufacture 49 shipment from Neches Estuary 61 Nonpoint Source Assessment Report 68 Nonpoint Source Management Program 68 nonpoint source pollution 116, 153, 155 agricultural pollution Flint River Basin 35, 43, 102-103, 104 Agriculture/Irrigation Technical Task Force assessment 102-103, 104 Neches Estuary 114 nuclear power plants 54 nutrient loading Neches Estuarv 112-114 ammonia 113 nutrient pollutants agricultural activities 1, 37, 39-40 from cropland farming 35 transport in sediments 36 see also fertilizer use nutrient transport 40 cats farming Flint River Basin 17, 32 occupational aspects 26, 48, 57

odors 11, 14 Ogallala aquifer, irrigation effects 2 oilfield equipment manufacture 53 Orange County early industrial development 15 population shifts 24, 25 port development 15-16 shipment of manufactured products 61 total tonnage shipped 61 orchard farming agricultural runoff pollution 28 Delaware River Basin 28 Flint River Basin 19, 31, 32 organic waste aquatic life 126 changes following Clean Water Act Delaware Estuary 116 from recreational activities 155 oxygen content Delaware River Basin 10-11, 14, 47 current trends 14 effect of treatment facilities 13 Neches Estuary changes following Clean Water Act 142 oxygen demand Delaware River Basin allocations 13-14 see also biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) oysters 5, 6, 8, 11 following Clean Water Act 14, 131 packaged foods 2 paper mills Delaware River Basin 14 lumber transport 5 Neches Estuary 53 pastureland farming Flint River Basin 33 sediment yields 45 Peach County nonpoint source agricultural pollution 43, 44, 103 population growth patterns 26 peanut farming 31-32 Penns Grove 116 Pennsylvania agricultural activities 30 Clean Streams Law (1937) 13 laws and regulations 74-77 historical aspects 9 population shifts 23 Purity of Waters Act (1905) 9 Pennypack Creek 9 pesticides 1, 2 aquatic organisms, effects on 37 bioaccumulation 37

SUBJECT INDEX container disposal 37 in cotton growing 43 delivery ratios 42 Flint River Basin 34-35, 38, 39, 153 pollution 44, 104-105, 150 Georgia 89-90 photosynthesis inhibition 37 pollutants 36, 37, 43, 44, 150 accidental pollution 37 control 104-105 from cropland farming 35 transport in sediment 36, 37 volatilization/redistribution 37 petrochemical plants 14 petroleum byproduct-fired utilities 54 petroleum industry Delaware River Basin 14, 49, 152 pollution 56 Neches Estuary 50 historical aspects 16 ship transport 61 waste 3, 142 pH, effect of treatment facilities 13 Philadelphia agricultural activities 8, 29 historical aspects 8-10 18th century pollution 7 public water supply 7 sand filtration plants construction 9 typhoid 9 waste disposal 8-9 hydrogen sulfide pollution 10-11 industrial discharges 10 nailmaking 8 Northeast Treatment Plant 13, 98, 99 organic waste control following Clean Water Act 116 population shifts 20, 24 Port of 57, 58 sewage treatment 10 facilities 8-9, 13, 98, 99 shipbuilding 5 Southeast Treatment Plant 98, 99 Southwest Treatment Plant 13 discharge allocations 98 water quality 10-11 yellow fever epidemics 7 phosphorus agricultural run-off pollution 39 changes following Clean Water Act 116, 143 Delaware Estuary 116 fertilizer 37, 39 Neches Estuary 143 nutrient delivery factors 42 photosynthesis pesticides inhibition 37

195

sediment pollutants 36 pickerel 14 Pine Island Bayou 110 plastics products manufacturing 49 Poconos 5 Point Pleasant biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) 116 invertebrates 130 Pollution Control Act (35 Pennsylvania Statutes 691) see Clean Streams Law (1937) 74 pollution load 3 population changes 1-2, 20-27, 115, 116 Delaware River Basin 1, 7, 8, 9, 20-24, 152 with employment opportunities 26 Flint JRiver Basin 25-27, 152 agricultural productivity 25, 26 groundwater use 153 growth 7, 8, 9, 156 with motor transport development 9 Neches Estuary 24-25, 152 Port Arthur historical aspects 16 population growth pattern 24 total tonnage shipped 61 Port Neches population growth pattern 24 Ports Delaware River Basin 14, 56-59 management 57 Neches Estuary 61 Sabine Lake 15-16 water quality control 155 pottery kiln 7 poultry farming see Livestock/poultry farming precipitation agricultural nonpoint pollution 36 fertilizer pollution 39 Priority Pollutants Studies (1984) 110 public water supply developments 7 Purity of Waters Act (1905) 9, 74 railroad transportation Delaware River Basin 7, 8 Flint River Basin 17 Neches Estuary 15 reforestation 19 recreational activities 2, 153, 154 Delaware River Basin 11, 14, 15 Neches Estuary 110 changes following Clean Water Act 143 water quality control 155 Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) program 85

196

SUBJECT INDEX

rice farming irrigation requirement 46-47 Neches Estuary 46-47 historical aspects 15, 16 water demand 152 rice milling 53 River Basins program 85 Rivers and Harbors Act (1899) 62 Rural Clean Water Program (Public Law 96-528) 86 rye farming 32 Sabine early industrial development 15 port development 15-16 Sabine Lake early port activity 15 fishing 108 port development 15-16 Sabine Pass early industrial development 15 port development 15-16 total tonnage shipped 61 Sabine-Neches Waterway 61 Salem County agricultural activities 30, 31 population shifts 24 salt mining 53 sand filtration plants 9 sand production 53 Sanitary Water Board of Pennsylvania 74, 75, 76 Schley County population growth 26 Schuylkill River 7 coal silt pollution 13 sediment delivery rates agricultural activities 41-42 delivery ratio, Georgia 42, 105 long-term delivery rate 42 sediment delivery ratios 42, 105 sediment pollutants 3 agricultural activities 35, 36-37 Council on Environmental Quality con­ centration criteria 41 effect of treatment facilities 13 from cropland farming 35, 45 row/nonrow crops 36 from pastureland farming 45 nutrient/pesticide pollutant transport 36, 37 surfacewater pollution 36-37 transport 35 service industries Delaware River Basin 152 Sewage Facilities Act (1966) 75 sewage treatment facilities 2 Delaware River Basin

historical aspects 11, 13 upgrade 98, 99, 101 industrial waste disposal 13 Neches Estuary FWPCA amendment requirements 17 municipal waste 17 Philadelphia 8-9, 10, 13, 98, 99 shad 6 Delaware River Basin 8, 11 following Clean Water Act 131 resurgence 14, 15 shipbuilding Delaware River Basin 5, 14 Neches Estuary 53 shipping Delaware River Basin 56-59 employment 57 imports 57 tonnage shipped 56 Neches Estuary 15, 61 water quality control 155 shortnosed sturgeon 14 shrimp 112 Silicon Valley, groundwaters pollution 2 silkweaving 7 slave traders activities 15 Smyrna algae 130 aquatic life, 1980 onwards 131 fish 130 invertebrates 130 Soil Bank Program 19 soil characteristics agricultural nonpoint pollution 36 soil conservation 37 Flint River Basin districts 19 Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (Public Law 74-46) 84 Soil Conservation Service (SCS) 69, 83, 84-85 Resourse Conservation and Development (RC&D) program 85 River Basins program 85 soil contours 37 soil slope agricultural nonpoint pollution 36 Soil and Water Conservation Districts, Georgia 84, 85 Soil and Water Resources Act (1977) 69 sorghum farming 32 South Jersey Catnden Ports 57, 58 Southeastern States population move­ ments 1 soybean farming 31, 32 spawning area destruction 36 Spill Compensation and Control Act (1976) 78

SUBJECT INDEX Spring Creek, pesticides pollution 104, 105 standards, water quality 155-156 best available treatment (BAT) 64 best practicable treatment (BPT) 64 Delaware River 13, 76 Incodel 11 Neches Estuary 108 Star Lake Canal 109 State Board of Health 80 State Department of Health 77 State Laws 1 State Sewage Act (1899) 77 steel production 53 STORET 115 striped bass 6, 8 Delaware River Basin current revival 15 sturgeon 6, 8 sugarcane 17 sulfur mining 53 summer flounder 15 Sumter County agricultural activities 31 nonpoint source agricultural pollution 43, 44 pesticides pollution 104, 105 surface runoff, pesticides pollution 37 suspended sediment effect of treatment facilities 13 Sussex County agricultural activities 30, 31 population shifts 24 sweet potatoes 17 'swimmable' waters 154 synthetic rubber manufacture 53 tarpon 112 temperature, water 36 Terrell County agricultural activities 31 nonpoint source agricultural pollution 43 population growth 26 Texas irrigation effects on groundwaters 2 Texas Constitution, Article 16 91 Texas Department of Water Resources 92-93, 112 industrial waste treatment 109 Texas laws and regulations 90-95 Department of Water Resources 92-93 stream segment classification 94-95 Texas Water Commission 91 Water Quality Board 91-92 Water Quality Division 93-94 Texas Oil Spill Contingency Plan (1970) 92 Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act (1969) 92 Texas State Health Department 91

197

Texas Surface Water Quality Standards 94 Texas Water Code 93 Texas Water Commission 91 Neches Estuary tidal segment classifica­ tion 112 Water Quality Division 93-94 Texas Water Planning Act (1957) 91 Texas Water Pollution Advisory Council 91 Texas Water Pollution Control Board 91 Texas Water Quality Act (1967) 91 Texas Water Quality Board 91-92, 112 Neches Estuary water quality standards 111-112

regional treatment facilities 109 secondary waste treatment 108 waste treatment systems upgrading 108 Texas Water Rights Commission 92 textile finishing 49 total waste load allocations 98-99 toxic pollutants 155 Neches River 47 silicon waste pollution 2 trace metals Delaware River Basin 116, 125 water quality data 3 trace organic substances 3 transportation effects 156 Trenton aquatic life 1975-79 130 1980 onwards 131 organic waste control following Clean Water Act 116 population shifts 20 sewage treatment facilities 99 water quality surveys 9 trout 14 truck crops 32 turbidity, water 36 Turkey Creek 105 turpentine industry 17, 19 two-wage earner families 1 typhoid 9 United States Army Corps of Engineers 15-16 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 65 urban runoff fertilizer pollution 39 Neches Estuary 114 Utah population movements 1 utilities consumptive loss of water 54 Delaware River Basin 53-55, 152 water demand 152 effects on water quality 53-56

198

SUBJECT INDEX

utilities (Cont) energy sources 54, 55 evaporative losses 55 Neches Estuary 55, 56 vegetable farming 17-18 velvet beans 17 vineyards 32 vulcanized fiber industry 49 waste disposal practices 2-3 water budget 55 Water Pollution Commission 80 water quality 3 change evaluation 3-4 monitoring programs 35, 153, 157 sediment concentration criteria 41 standards see standards, water quality Water Quality Act (1965) 63, 76 Water Resources Planning Act (1965) Public Law 89-80 63 Section 209 63 Waterborne diseases 9 Waterfront Development Act 79 Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (1954) (Public Law 83-566) 85 Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Loans (Public Law 83-566) 87 weak fish 15

Webster County population shifts 26 wetlands 2 Wetlands Act (1970) 78, 79 Wetlands Act (1973) 81 Wetlands Resources Act (1986) 68 wheat farming 32 white perch 6, 14, 15 whitefish 8 Wilmington algae 126 biological changes 1975-79 130 1980 onwards 131 gunpowder mills 7 organic waste control following Clean Water Act 116 population shifts 20 shipbuilding 5 water quality surveys 9 Wilmington Port 57, 58 Worth County agricultural activities 31 nonpoint source agricultural pollution 43, 44 yellow fever epidemics 7 yellow perch 14 zinc in Delaware River 125