Table 9.

Comparison of potential sources of chemical contaminants in study catchments within the Potomac river drainage and the Gauley River

Site	Human densitya	WWTPno.b	WWTP flowc	% Agd	AFOe	Animal numbersf	Animal densityg	Intersexh
Gauley River	0.06	0	0	0.5	0	464	0.03	11.3%
								0.02 (0.07)
South Branch Petersburg	0.07	3	0.95	16.4	296 (296)	1,450,120	6.59	74.3%
								0.97 (0.95)
South Branch Moorefield	0.07	4	1.43	15.2	497 (496)	7,384,685	23.44	54.5%
								0.50 (0.50)
South Branch Springfield	0.08	5	1.93	15.2	565 (562)	8,719,093	22.82	82.2%
								1.02 (0.76)
Shenandoah North Fork	0.28	50	1.59	32.7	1,174 (960)	11,757,596	48.79	90.0%
								1.16 (0.78)
Shenandoah South Fork	0.56	19	20.84	35.9	2,029 (1,176)	14,788,173	46.21	100.0%
								1.83 (0.65)
Shenandoah Mainstem	0.43	101	25.66	32.6	3,655 (2,539)	33,928,442	43.94	93.0%
								1.64 (0.93)
Conococheague Creek (lower)	0.69	13	8.31	50.3	10 (1)	1,819,225	12.51	87.5%
								1.03 (0.78)

^aHuman population/catchment area or number of people/hectare (from Table 1)

^bNumber of permitted sewage system dischargers in catchment, from EPA’s permit compliance system

^cPermitted average flow rate (million gallons per day) from sewage dischargers in catchment

^dPercent agriculture from Table 1

^eAnimal Feeding Operations including poultry (from USGS Leetown Science Center Aquatic Ecology Branch Google Earth/air photo mapping originally map in 2009, updated in 2010), dairy, beef, swine, and others (Shenandoah sites from the State of Virginia, DCR, all others from Google Earth mapping). Numbers in parentheses are poultry houses

^fNumbers of animals including poultry (except broilers sold), cattle, sheep, and swine reported by county in the Agricultural Census of 2007, adjusted by area of county in catchment draining sample site

^gTotal number of animals/catchment area in hectares (from Table 1)

^hIntersex prevalence (percent) with severity below presented as mean and (standard deviation) of data from spring 2006 and 2007 combined, if available