EPA 600/2-81-025
February 1981
NATIONWIDE ASSESSMENT OF RECEIVING
WATER IMPACTS FROM
URBAN STORMWATER POLLUTION
Volume I: Summary
By
James P. Heaney
Wayne C. Huber
Melvin E. Lehman
Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611
Grant No. R805663
Project Officer
John N. English
Wastewater Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
NOTICE
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED
FROM THE BEST COPY FURNISHED US BY
THE SPONSORING AGENCY. ALTHOUGH IT
IS RECOGNIZED THAT CERTAIN PORTIONS
ARE ILLEGIBLE, IT IS BEING RELEASED
IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING AVAILABLE
AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE.
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
ll'lcasc read /uunu'lifins mi llic ri'r>'rsc before campli lint;/
1. REPORT NO.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Nationwide Assessment of Receiving Water Impacts
from Urban Stormwater Pollution
Volume I: Summary
5. REPORT DATE
January 1981
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
James P. Heaney, Wayne C. Huber, and Melvin E. Lehman
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611
11. 'GRANT NO.
R8055663
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory-Gin, OH.
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection.Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer: John N. English 513/684-7613
16. ABSTRACT
Results of this nationwide search for documented case studies of »
impacts of urban runoff on receiving waters indicate that well-documented cases
are scarce. Impacts previously attributed to urban stormwater runoff may be
point source impacts in disguise, or they may be masked by greater contributions
from other sources. .The lack of documentation and clear definition of urban
stormwater impacts makes the task of assessing the importance of this pollution
source even more difficult. Results for every urbanized area in the United
States have been summarized by the quantity or urban runoff, the available
dilution capacity in the primary receiving water, the number of times the
urban area was cited as having a "problem", the type of receiving waters, the
impaired beneficial uses, and the problem pollutants.
The results indicate that numerous definitions of "problems" are being used.
Accidental or deliberate discharges from point sources under wet-weather conditirns
are often the primary cause of wet-weather impacts. The findings suggest the
need to intensify monitoring programs so that receiving water impacts can be
more realistically evaluated. The present data base is poor.
DESCRIPTORS
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
|li. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDEDTERMS
Rainfall
^Surface Water Runoff
Combined Severs
Water Pollution
*Water Quality
Receiving Water
Impacts
Urban Areas
c. COSATI Held/Group
13B
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to public.
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report/
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
153
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for
publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does any mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increasing
public and government concern about the dangers of pollution to the
health and welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul water, and
spoiled land are tragic testimony to the deterioration of our natural
environment. The complexity of that environment and the interplay
between its components require a concentrated and integrated attack on
the problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in problem
solution and it involves defining the problem, measuring its impacts,
and searching for solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory develops new and improved technology and systems for the
prevention, treatment, and management of wastewater and solid and hazard-
ous waste pollutant discharges from municipal and community sources, for
the preservation and treatment of public drinking water supplies, and to
minimize the adverse economic, social, health, and aesthetic effects of
pollution. This publication is one of the products of that research, a
most vital communication link between the researcher and the user community.
This report assesses the nature and extent to which urban runoff is
a documented cause of deleterious receiving water impacts. Few documented
cases were found. Receiving water quality is still dominated by the
continuing or residual influence of relatively large point source discharges,
Urban runoff is actually an umbrella term for all unaccounted for residuals.
As such its characteristics vary widely and quantification of its impacts
must be done on a case by case basis.
Francis T. Mayo
Director
Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory
iii
-------
PREFACE
Urban stormwater runoff has been recognized as a potentially signifi-
cant source of pollution. Studies have shown urban stornwater runoff
constituents comparable in concentration to secondarily treated sewage
and often comprising a majority of constituent loads to some receiving
waters. Nationwide estimates of the cost of controlling urban stormwater
run into the billions of dollars.
The prohibitive costs of treating all stormwater outflows have made
it necessary to take a more in-depth look at the receiving waters on a
case-by-case basis. What are the impacts of stormwater runoff?
Concentrations and loads are high, but what actual impairments of
beneficial use occur? What documentation exists? These questions have
been the impetus for undertaking this nationwide assessment.
This report summarizes the findings of the study. The detailed
city summaries are presented in Volume II.
iv
-------
ABSTRACT
Urban stormwater runoff has been recognized in recent years as a
potential major contributor of pollution of receiving water bodies.
Assessments of urban stormwater runoff pollutant quantities and character-
istics have been made for several years throughout the Unites States,
the most ambitious being the Environmental Protection Agency's 208 Areawide
Wastewater Management Planning Program. Price tags for abating urban
stormwater pollution (through elimination or reduction of discharges)
range in the billions of dollars. Projections of high costs have forced
a look beyond abatement of discharges to the receiving water bodies for
insight as to what are the impacts, where are they, and are they sig-
nificant?
Results of this nationwide search for documented case studies of
impacts of urban runoff on receiving waters indicate that we11-documented
cases are scarce. Impacts previously attributed to urban stormwater
runoff may be point source impacts in disguise, or they may be masked by
greater contributions from other sources. In some cases they are offset
by hydrological, biological, or geological attributes of the receiving
water body.
The lack of documentation and clear definition of urban stormwater
impacts makes the task of assessing the importance of this pollution
source even more difficult. Efforts to address this aspect include
relating sources of pollutants and pollutant types to receiving water
characteristics and effects on desired water uses. Characteristics such
as stream or lake bed hydraulics, present and potential water uses,
established stream standards, ecological data and water quality information
have been summarized for 248 urbanized areas. Results of these analyses
have been summarized by the quantity of urban runoff, the available
dilution capacity in the primary receiving water, the number of times
the urban areas were cited as having a "problem", the type of receiving
waters, the impaired beneficial uses, and the problem pollutants.
The results indicate that numerous definitions of "problems" are
being used. Relatively little substantive data to document impacts have
been collected. Impacts are most noticeable in small receiving waters.
Impacts from urban runoff are difficult to isolate from other sources
such as municipal and industrial wastes. Also, accidental or deliberate
discharges from point sources under wet-weather conditions are sometimes
the primary cause of wet-weather impacts. The findings suggest the , ,-,.
need to intensify monitoring programs so that receiving water impacts , r
can be more realistically evaluated. The present data base is poor.
-------
This work was submitted in fulfillment of Grant No. R-805663-01 by
the University of Florida under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. This report covers the period June 20, 1978 to March
.20, 1980, and work was completed as of May 23, 1980.
vi
-------
CONTENTS
Disclaimer ii
Foreward iii
Preface iv
Abstract v
Figures viii
Tables ix
English to Metric Conversion Units x
Acknowledgements xi
1. Introduction 1
2. Summary 2
3. Conclusions 6
4. Recommendations 8
5. Impacts Defined 10
6. Search for Impacts 19
7. Results 41
References 59
Appendices
A. Summaries of Demographic, Flow and Dilution Ratio Data 62
B. Summaries of Types of Receiving Water Impacts, Beneficial
Uses, and Problem Pollutants 119
vii
-------
FIGURES
No. Page
1 Single Purpose and Multiple Purpose Stormwater Pollution
Control Costs for United States 14
2 See-Saw Effect of Changing Approaches to Environmental
Management 15
3 1:500,000 Scale Map of Gainesville, Florida and Environs 23
4 1:250,000 Scale Map of Gainesville, Florida 24
5 1:24,000 Scale Map of Part of Hogtown Creek in Western
Gainesville, Florida 25
6 1:1,200 Scale Map of Rattlesnake Branch of Hogtown Creek
in Gainesville, Florida 26
7 Schematic of Land Use and Measured Drainage Density ... 29
8 Areas Covered by U.S.G.S. Surface Water Records 35
9 1:500,000 Scale USGS Hydrologic Map of the Tampa, Florida
Area 40
10 Monthly Distribution of Fish Kills as a Percentage of Total
Fish Killed 47
11 Observed Relationship Between Diurnal Dissolved Oxygen Concen-
tration and Storm Events for the Scioto River at Chillicothe,
Ohio 50
12 Large Rivers in the United States 54
Vlll
-------
TABLES
No. Page
1 Standards for Inclusion of Intermittent Streams on Topo-
graphic Maps of United States Mapping Agencies 27
2 Effect of Map Scale on Drainage Density 28
3 Problem Description for 208 Area Listing Urban Runoff as a
Priority Problem - Cincinnati, Ohio Area 33
4 Monthly and Annual Streamflow Summary for the Hillsborough
River near Tampa, Florida 37
5 Distribution of Problem Categories for Urbanized Areas in the
United States 42
6 Distribution of Primary Receiving Waters for Urbanized Areas
in the United States 42
7 Summary of Numbers of Stormwater/Storm-Sewer Related Fish-
Kill Reports, U.S. EPA Data, 1970 to May, 1979 By Cause of
Kill 44
8 Causes of Water Quality Related Beach Closings in the United
States 48
9 Major Waterway Rankings: Percent of Parameters Exceeding
Reference Levels 53
10 Regional Summary of Receiving Water Impact Information ... 56
11 Urbanized Areas with Four, Five and Six Urban Runoff Problem
Citations 58
ix
-------
ENGLISH TO METRIC CONVERSION UNITS
cfs x 0.0282 = m3/s
ft x 0.3048 = m
in x 2.54 = cm
mile x 0.609 = km
sq. mile x 2.590 = km2
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report is based on research sponsored by the Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. John
English, the Project Officer, provided valuable in-house information on
receiving water impacts. Mr. Dennis Athayde, his staff, and consultants
provided information on EPA's Nationwide Urban Runoff Program. Dr. Tim
Stuart and his staff were very helpful in providing access to EPA's
fish-kill data. Mr. Richard Field and Mr. Doug Ammon kept us current on
the activities of EPA's Storm and Combined Sewer Section in Edison, New
Jersey. Mr. David Ziegler of EPA's Washington Office provided current
208 project statements.
Several University of Florida students put together the detailed
city by city summaries. Mr. Michael Hartnett (now with EPA Region IV)
set up the maps for the entire U.S. and did many of the dilution ratio
calculations. Ms. Amy Alford drew many of the maps and helped prepare
the final summary tables. Ms. Terese Dicicco obtained the stream flow
data and prepared some of the summary tables. Mr. Hal Scarle and Angelo
Masullo prepared the city maps. Their help was invaluable and we thank
them for their perseverance and good humor.
Ms. Linda Trawick patiently typed the report and the lengthy city
summaries.
XI
-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
A previous nationwide assessment indicated urban runoff and combined
sewer overflows can be viewed as causing problems since, on a nationwide
average, the quantity (13.4 in/yr) is approximately equal to the quantity
of sewage (12.8 in/yr), and the annual BOD,, per acre from a sewage
treatment plant with a removal efficiency of 90 percent is 59.4 pounds
as compared to 43.6 pounds from urban runoff and combined sewer overflows
(1). Loads per acre from combined sewer overflows are approximately
four times as large as loads per acre from urban runoff. Furthermore,
the cost of controlling these wet-weather flows appears to be competitive
with the cost of additional removal of pollutants in sewage. Consequently,
if further reductions in pollutant loads are needed, then wet-weather
controls as well as further waste treatment should be evaluated carefully.
The anticipated high price tag for such control programs has prompted
decision makers to take a harder look at the seriousness of the problem.
This report presents the results of a search through published and
unpublished literature, 201 and 208 project documents, EPA-furnished
project materials, agency data and permit files, and other miscellaneous
data sources to characterize urban wet-weather impacts on receiving
waters.
The next three sections present the summary, conclusions and
recommendations respectively. Section 5 summarizes the numerous ways in
which impacts have been defined during this century. Then Section 6
outlines the major sources of specific information on impacts. National,
regional, and local summaries are presented in Section 7. More detailed
information is presented for every urbanized area in the United States
in appendices A and B, and the detailed city summaries are presented in
a separate Volume II of the same title.
-------
SECTION II
SUMMARY
A nationwide study was undertaken to inventory documented receiving
water impacts from urban runoff. The search for documentation included
published and unpublished literature, Section 201 and Section 208 projects
(PL 92-500), EPA furnished project materials, EPA fish kill data files,
Nationwide Urban Runoff Program Proposals, and miscellaneous water
quality reports and permit files. Major findings are summarized below:
1. Impacts are not clearly defined. Rather they are a composite
of the perspectives of professionals from several branches of
engineering and science, environmental interest groups, citizens
committees, etc. The prevailing philosophical definition of
impacts during the past decade was based on a broad-based
ecological framework. However, the past year has witnessed a
shift back towards the more traditional public health perspective
with more interest in cost effectiveness. Against this rather
fuzzy backdrop, impacts were tabulated in this report in
several ways as viewed by these different groups. From a
technical point of view, impacts should be more severe if the
dilution capacity of the receiving water is not too large.
Thus, dilution ratios were calculated for each of the 248
urbanized area in the United States. Otherwise, "impacts"
were estimated by the number of times the urbanized area was
cited in any of twelve categories of special studies, e.g.,
the urbanized area listed urban runoff as a high priority
problem in its 208 planning study. Admittedly, this approach
is subjective but it appears to be reasonable due to the
paucity of available information.
2. Receiving waters are not well defined. The literature contains
studies of receiving waters ranging from the smallest of ponds
and creeks to major rivers, estuaries, and the ocean. Lacking
a clear definition of receiving waters, 1:500,000 USGS Hydro-
logic Maps were used for all urbanized areas. A dilution
ratio calculation was performed for the primary receiving
water(s) that is contiguous to the urbanized area. In many
cases, receiving waters of notoriety in the literature, e.g.,
Lake Eola in Orlando, Florida, do not even appear on these
maps.
3. Almost 85 percent.of the primary receiving waters contiguous
to urbanized areas are rivers. The majority of these rivers
have an average flow of less than 10,000 cfs. Lakes comprise
five percent of the receiving waters and the remaining ten
-------
percent are estuaries or oceans.
4. Over 10,000 fish kill reports for 1970-1979 were reviewed.
Less than three percent of these fish kills listed urban
runoff as the direct cause.
5. Water quality problems exist at 449 out of a total of 3521
beaches throughout the United States. While urban runoff was
not listed as a separate category in this study, it may be a
significant factor since almost 50 percent of the closings
were due to undefined sewage contamination or unknown causes.
6. Studies of continuous dissolved oxygen records downstream of
urbanized areas indicate that worst case circumstances occur
after storms in approximately one third of the cases studied.
This lowered D.O. is probably due to combined sewer overflows,
urban runoff, and storm caused resuspension of benthal materials.
7. Thirty cities are presently conducting intensive studies of
urban runoff under joint sponsorship of the city and EPA's
Nationwide Urban Runoff Program. Several of these studies
will try to document the deleterious receiving water impacts
that are caused by urban runoff. There is little direct
evidence at this time to document this cause-effect relationship.
8. The National Water Quality Inventory studies indicated that
twelve out of twenty six water quality constituents have
higher concentrations during higher flow periods. These
studies were done for major (>10,000 cfs) rivers which comprise
only 19 percent of the primary receiving waters for urbanized
areas.
9. Urban runoff was listed as a high priority problem in 88
urbanized areas. However, this prioritization was done with
relatively little scientific/technical information.
10. The 1978 NEEDS Survey proposed water quality criteria for wet-
weather flows and compared these criteria to the results of
computer simulations. However, these criteria are admittedly
arbitrary and the model does not include the capability to
incorporate the resuspension of benthal deposits. Based on
the evaluations of D.O. data described in summary item 6, this
factor is very important.
11. The 1979 Congressional Hearings related to urban runoff discussed
the disturbing fact that existing treatment plants are being
operated poorly. In many of these cases, the results of plant
breakdowns, spills, etc. are manifest as urban runoff problems
because the discharges are made during wet-weather periods.
-------
12. A total of 120 urbanized areas have combined sewers. Most of
these cities are located in the eastern United States. In
these areas, the combined sewer overflow problem is more
significant than direct urban runoff.
13. The most popular theme of other studies of urban runoff quality
was to predict water quality changes in stormwater detention
ponds. The primary purpose of these ponds is drainage control.
Concern exists that these ponds may have serious water quality
problems and act as mosquito breeding areas.
14. On the national level, about 150,000,000 people live in urban
areas in the United States. The average annual precipitation
in these areas is 33.4 inches. The annual volume of urban
runoff is 4 percent larger than the annual volume of sewage.
The median receiving water has an annual flow of approximately
fifteen times the sum of the urban runoff and sewage. The
median number of problem citations per urbanized area is 1.6.
15. Unexpectedly, the number of problem citations per urbanized
area increases as the dilution ratio increases. One would
expect the opposite to occur since increased dilution capacity
should reduce the number of problem citations per urbanized
area. Overall, no obvious regional trends in dilution ratio
were apparent.
16. Neglecting those states not having at least three urban
areas, the following seven states do not have a dilution ratio
greater than 10:
Connecticut (3.0) Utah (5.1)
North Carolina (3.5) Massachusetts (6.2)
Colorado (3.5) Ohio (7.2)
California (3.7)
At the other extreme, the following three states have dilution
ratios greater than 1000:
Arkansas (1040)
West Virginia (1525)
Kentucky (2409)
17. The following nineteen cities have four to six problem cit-
ations.
-------
Citations per Urbanized Area(s)
Urbanized Area
6 Philadelphia, PA.
5 Boston, MA, Chicago, IL, Detroit,
MI, Lansing, MI, Milwaukee, WI,
New York, NY, Seattle, WA, and
Washington, B.C.
4 Atlanta, GA, Baltimore, MD,
Cleveland, OH, Denver, CO, Des
Moines, IA, Mobile, AL, Richmond,
VA, Savannah, GA, Syracuse, NY,
and Youngstown, OH.
-------
SECTION III
CONCLUSIONS
Based on this nationwide search to document receiving water impacts
from urban runoff, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Documented case studies of impacts of urban runoff combined
sewer overflows on receiving water are scarce. Several reasons
may be given for this situation.
a. Under the anti-degradation philosophy espoused by PL 92-
500 in 1972, there was less need to devote resources to
receiving water impact assessment. Urban runoff did not
become widely recognized as a problem until after 1972.
Thus, little attention was given to this problem.
b. Impacts of sewage effluent, industrial wastes, and other
discharges mask the impacts of urban runoff. Even when
other sources have been reduced or eliminated, their
residual impacts in terms of benthal deposits are often
still evident.
c. The increased reliance on mathematical models for assess-
ing receiving water impacts reduced the level of effort
in field sampling programs.
d. The greatly enhanced emphasis on broad-based environmental
impact assessments diverted effort from the more traditional
sanitary survey approach to assessing impacts. These
studies produced relatively little hard information on
impacts from urban runoff.
e. The cost of sampling programs is relatively high due to
the intermittent nature of storm events, wide variations
in flow and concentration, and general inexperience with
this type of activity.
f. Expected impacts from urban runoff are relatively subtle
and do not cause obvious large-scale problems. Thus,
more refined and longer-term sampling efforts are needed
to develop reliable cause-effect information. Indeed, if
experience in the related area of sediment transport in
receiving waters is any indication, it may be many years
before these cause-effect relationships are understood.
-------
2. Numerous definitions and interpretations of the word "impact"
exist. Thus, it is difficult, if not impossible, to devise
meaningful rankings of impacts without an accepted definition
of terms.
3. Receiving waters range from the smallest of creeks and ponds
to the ocean. No clean line of demarcation exists to distinguish
the urban drainage system from the receiving water.
4. Some evidence exists that urban runoff is a cause of fish
kills and beach closings. However, this data base is weak.
5. The studies of dissolved oxygen records downstream of urban
area have produced the most definitive information regarding
the impact of wet-weather flows. This analysis clearly shows
how stormwater discharges dampen the diurnal fluctuations in
dissolved oxygen and can reduce the overall dissolved oxygen
levels. In these cases the causes are some unknown blend of
combined sewer overflows, urban runoff, benthal deposits,
treatment plant spills, etc. These studies strongly suggest
that worst case conditions may not occur during the usually
assumed low flow period.
6. Urban runoff is being given greater attention in the newly
developing areas of the United States. These areas are more
concerned with retaining the present high quality environment
in or near their development. On the other hand, the receiving
waters in the older, established parts of the county have long
been polluted. Thus, urban runoff is viewed as a minor source
compared to the more traditional domestic and industrial waste
discharges. In these older areas, local citizens have accepted
the relatively poor water quality. This is in sharp contrast
to some of the new areas where a very strong anti-degradation
philosophy prevails.
-------
SECTION IV
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations for future studies are listed below:
1. If receiving water impacts are to be evaluated in a meaningful
manner for environmental decision making, then a problem
solving framework is needed. During the past several years,
emphasis has been placed on broad-based "impact" assessments
and inventories. These scientifically oriented studies have
provided relatively little directly usable cause-effect infor-
mation. Unless a well defined problem solving scenario is
used, it is difficult, if not impossible, to decide what is
important to study. Using a problem solving focus, the problem
is first identified, say, a beach is closed. Then, the next
question is to find out where the contaminants are coming
from. Then, alternative methods of control are explored and
the appropriate control is implemented. Lastly, the effectiveness
of the control is evaluated relative to whether it accomplishes
the desired objective, opening the beach, in this example. By
this inductive reasoning, a sufficient number of case studies
could be developed to present a sound technical and legal
basis for more general control guidelines. By contrast, the
broad-based ecological approach relies on deductive reasoning
which promulgates specific regulatory guidelines based on
abstract analysis of ecological principles. However, these
theories are incomplete. The result is a hodge podge of
opinions and value systems all purporting to tell us what is
right.
2. Regulatory agencies need to establish guidelines for distin-
guishing urban drainage systems from receiving waters.
3. Careful follow-up studies should be conducted using the
continuous dissolved oxygen data base for several cities. The
specific focus of these studies should be to document cause-
effect relationships.
4. Serious efforts should be made to develop improved receiving
water quality standards. Continuing to assume that the "worst
case" occurs during the one in ten year low flow period is
simply not meaningful. This study has indicated that worst
case conditions are some complex combination of known point
source discharges, combined sewers overflows, urban runoff,
deliberate or accidental treatment plant spills, illicit
8
-------
industrial wastes, etc. These composite sources cause more
severe problems to occur at times other than the accepted
critical low flow period. These standards need to include
provision for continuous monitoring. At present, these data
only exist in a few areas of the United States. Simulation
models are not a suitable substitute for these monitors since
they cannot, by themselves, represent the complexities of
local circumstances.
5. A data base should be established to preserve the results of
these studies for future analysis. This information is very
costly to acquire and every effort should be made to assure
that it is widely available.
-------
SECTION V
IMPACTS DEFINED
Several interrelated views on impact assessment may be gleaned from
a review of the literature. Traditionally, two perspectives, public
health and sanitary engineering, were of prime importance. The public
health approach focused on prevention, whereas sanitary engineering took
a cost-effectiveness approach (2). An example from the turn-of-the-
century is the controversy over whether cities should be required to
treat their waste to reduce downstream water treatment costs. Sanitary
engineers argued that the assimilative capacity of the rivers should be
considered, and treating the intake water is much more cost-effective
than spending larger sums (approximately ten times more) on upstream
waste treatment. Cooperative efforts between these two groups led to
the development of receiving water standards. Within this context,
"impacts" can be defined in terms of whether the "standards" have been
violated.
This approach prevailed until 1972 when the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments established the following basic water quality
goals and policies for the United States (3,4).
1. The discharge of pollutants into navigable waters should be
eliminated by 1985.
2. Wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality, which
provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shell-
fish, and wildlife and for recreation in and out of water,
should be achieved by July 1, 1983.
3. The discharge of pollutants in toxic amounts should be prohibited.
These amendments represented a shift towards the early public health
philosophy of anti-degradation with relatively little consideration
being given to the cost of attaining these goals. However, the emphasis
went beyond anti-degradation for the primary purpose of protecting
public health to restoring and maintaining the "integrity" of the Nation's
waters.
EPA sponsored a 1975 symposium titled "The Integrity of Water" (5).
Distinguished technical people attempted to define "integrity" from
physical, chemical, biological, and overall perspectives. The mood of
the meeting was that a holistic ecological approach was needed, e.g.,
10
-------
1. Legislative Requirements, Kenneth M. MacKenthun, EPA.
MacKenthun quotes from Aldo Leopold's classic 1949 work "A
Sand County Almanac".
"Examine each question in terms of what is ethically and
aesthetically right, as well as economically expedient. A
thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity,
stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong
when it tends otherwise."
2. Incorporating Ecological Interpretation into Basic Statutes,
Thomas Jorling, Director, Center for Environmental Studies,
Williamtown, Massachusetts.
"The new program has a different underpinning. It assumes
that man is a component of the biosphere and that relationship
we seek to achieve with the environment is what some have
called 'harmony1. Under this view, man is an integral, if
dominant, part of the structure and function of the biosphere.
The intellectual roots of this perspective are found in the
study of evolution. The objective of this concept is the
maximum patterning of human communities after biogeochemical
cycles with a minimum departure from the geological or background
rates of change in the biosphere."
3. A Conservationist's View-Ronald Outen, Natural Resources
Defense Council, Inc. Washington, D.C.
"The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
contain a basic philosophical shift in water management from
one of standards (technological approach) to one of integrity
(ecological approach). This is a significant achievement."
"The fact is you cannot effectively implement the '72 law
using 1965 assumptions. Consider the old law. It was premised
on the anthropocentric idea, as Mr. Jorling pointed out, that
aquatic ecosystems exist for the use of man."
"This assumption leads one quickly to one perverse result
after another. The first order of business becomes the design-
ation of the 'best use'. Next comes the creation of water
quality criteria . . . Underpinning this process is the ecolog-
ically questionable notion of assimilative capacity. Involving
the theory of assimilative capacity one is led to the
device of defining a mixing zone. . . . Use of this sprawling
regulatory scheme to actually abate a source required the
execution of a load allocation. . . . Even if by great good
fortune and Herculean toil this much were accomplished, the
regulator found himself up against a whole series of enforcement
delays, conferences, and admonitions that he not cause the
unfortunate polluter an economic hardship. ..."
11
-------
"Note that all the steps in the process flowed logically
from the first assumption, that the aquatic ecosystem exists
for the use of human society. With the 1972 Amendments, on
the other hand, we have for the first time in the Nation's
history, a water pollution control law that takes a holistic
view of the aquatic ecosystem. . . . The question, 'How much
cleanup is necessary' becomes a meaningless question."
"We must recognize that the field of economics is unequiped
to deal with the broad questions of ecosystem structure and
functions and therefore the quality of life we want a century,
two centuries from now. . . . Rather than responding to individual
treatment crises on an ad hoc basis, rather than taking action
and then measuring its effect, we must elucidate fundamental
ecological principles, then guide all human behavior by those
principles".
4. Industry's View, R.M. Billings, Director of Environmental
Control, Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Neenah, Wisconsin.
"1 believe it is meaningless to talk of 'maintaining the
integrity of water'-the integrity of an inanimate thing?
Rather we should be stating it as 'integrity in the use of
water1. . . . the integrity of the whole can then only be
judged as it relates to people. . . . Far too many regulations
are being proposed today on the basis of data demonstrating
them to be attainable rather than data demonstrating them to
be needed."
The above comments indicate the strong feeing at that time that a
holistic, ecological approach was needed. However, literal interpreta-
tion of this perspective typically led to the conclusion that the only
"safe" course of action was to do nothing lest the ecosystem be harmed
in some way. Other attempts to define related general measures of
welfare such as "environmental quality" and "quality of life," e.g., an
anthology of readings from an EPA sponsored symposium on this subject,
indicate that this is, at best, a very nebulous subject (6). In the
latter 1970's the swing back towards an anthropocentric perspective
became more apparent for at least four reasons:
1) No consensus appears to exist on how value criteria such as
"integrity" can be defined in an operational sense. Related value
criteria such as ecosystem stability have been proposed. However,
Ehrenfeld points out that no consensus exists as to the optimal amount
of diversity, or the nature of the loss function if the system is modified
by man (7). Of course, man depends on the natural system for survival
so its value is imputed in terms of its importance in protecting man's
well being.
2) An anthropocentric view permits comparison of the efficacy of
additional expenditures on water pollution control vs. other investments
designed to enhance man's physical and mental health. Along these
lines, Eisenbud feels that too much money is being invested in air and
12
-------
water pollution control programs in New York and that these monies would
be better spent on other public health controls, e.g., rat eradication
programs, public health clinics (8). Dallaire makes a similar argument
with regard to New York City. He points out that the water supply for
New York city is carried by two massive water tunnels which are quite
old (built in 1917 and 1936) and need to be inspected (9). If one of
the two tunnels collapses about one half of the water supply would be
lost with catastrophic consequences. This project is receiving lower
priority than constructing wastewater treatment facilities because no
federal funds are available.
3) The projected costs of controlling the remaining water pollution
as espoused by a more literal interpretation of PL 92-500 are staggering-
hundreds of billions of dollars for stormwater alone (10,11). Later
studies showed that this cost could be reduced substantially by estimating
the cost of control over the entire range of removals and selecting a
"reasonable" compromise solution, e.g., 70% control in Figure 1 (1,12,13).
This point is popularly called the "knee of the curve." Earlier national
assessments had asked the cities what they "needed" to control stormwater
pollution. Many of these cities used the 2 year, 5 year, or 10 year
design storm to size their control units. As is evident from Figure 1,
it does not seem reasonable to spend several times more money to go from
70% control to 80+% control. But one can still ask whether it is even
reasonable to spend the amount required to reach the "knee of the curve".
The current (1980) inflationary trends in the U.S. economy heighten the
interest in more cost-effective solutions.
4) A corollary to the result that costs are staggering as one
approaches total control of pollutants is the notion of risk in engineering
design. Starr addresses the question of risk in engineering design in
which people individually, e.g., making travel plans and/or collectively,
e.g., flood control works, assess the riskiness of various courses of
action (14). Wilson describes the results of attempts to implement a
public policy which eliminates the risk to cancer at any cost (15). As,
an example, he cites a proposed OSHA program which would cost $300 x 10
for every life saved, about one fourth of the lives that would be lost
implementing the proposed controls (15). Related examples have appeared
in flood control wherein the expected number of construction workers
killed building a flood control reservoir exceeds the expected loss of
life from flooding (16). Recently, a tragic accident killed 54 workers
constructing a cooling tower to control thermal pollution in West Virginia.
Similar concerns have been expressed about the wisdom of controlling
organics in drinking water (17). Krenkel presents a comprehensive
critique of the present philosophy of establishing water quality criteria
based on ecological rather than public health concerns (18). Heaney and
Waring summarize methods for quantifying water quality benefits (19).
It is apparent from the above discussions that a see-saw effect has
been present for many years in the environmental movement as shown below
in Figure 2.
13
-------
540O
SINGLE PURPOSE i STORAGE - TREATMENT
ONLY
MULTIPLE PURPOSE : PORTION OP STORAGE
TREATMENT COSTS ASSIGNED TO OTHER
PURPOSES
SINGLE PURPOSE i STORAGE-TREATMENT
AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
SINGLE PURPOSE i STORAGE-TREATMENT
ONLY - RESULTS FOR COMBINED
SEWERED AREAS
U.S. URBAN POPULATION 149 XIO
U.S. DEVELOPED URBAN AhEA > (6.6 XI06 oc
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% BOD REMOVAL , R,
Figure 1. Single Purpose and Multiple Purpose Stonnwater Pollution
Control Costs for US (1, 12, 13).
-------
ANTI - DEGRADATION
COST- EFFECTIVENESS
/VX
/77
Figure 2. See-Saw Effects of Changing Approaches to Environmental
Management
15
-------
The 1972 Amendments have caused a shift to an anti-degradation
philosophy. However, emphasis now has again shifted to cost-effectiveness.
Thus, the heated discussions of the early 1900's remain unresolved. Nor
is it reasonable to expect that they will be resolved in the next few
.years because the root issue is one of values and societal goals, neither
of which can be defined unambiguously nor are they static. Sinden and
Worrell recently published a book describing numerous ways to estimate
environmental values (20). While the book catalogs many of the available
methods it does not prescribe a "best" way to analyze these difficult
problems. The authors state in the preface that this book is addressed
to managers, planners, policy analysts, and policy makers. However, in
view of the overall uncertainty about this problem, it is hard to imagine
a single coherent method emerging which would be useful for such a
diverse audience.
The search for impacts was conducted against this backdrop.
Referring to Outen's description of the anti-degradation philosophy of
the 1972 Amendments, if this line of reasoning is followed then it is
unnecessary to assess impacts since this question is no longer relevant.
Unfortunately, for the purpose of this study, this attitude resulted in
relatively few attempts to seriously assess impacts during the middle
and later 1970's. This posture represented a significant departure from
the major water quality studies conducted by the U.S. Public Health
Service and its successor agencies in the 1960's, e.g., studies of the
Delaware River, Potomac River, Great Lakes, Colorado River, San Francisco
Bay.
To avoid the accusation of parochialism in adopting, a priori, any
one or a combination of the above systems for assessing stormwater
"impacts," the literature search was approached with an open mind. How-
ever, the need for a more precise definition of an "impact" became
apparent early. Definitions of "impact" are almost as numerous as there
are investigators, congressmen, regulators, and citizen review committees
of urban stormwater problems. The range of impact definitions includes
specific cause-effect statements, comparisons of constituent concentrations
to numerical standards, sensory perceptions such as odor and color
problems, and "perceived" impacts from citizens. All are applicable and
valued, with respect to the level of action or understanding desired.
However, for a "standard" definition by which to conduct comparative
studies at the environmental regulatory agency (EPA) level, a stormwater
impact was defined as one which resulted in "loss of beneficial use."
Beneficial uses considered are those listed in local, state, and federal
water laws, which include drinking water use, fishing and shellfishing,
swimming, boating, manufacturing process water use, etc.
The following summary relates "impact level" to "loss of use" in a
general overview:
16
-------
Impact Level Loss of Use
Policy or Management Planning Is considered possible or is
implied.
Standards or Criteria Violations Is implied, may be imminent, or
can actually occur through
restriction of use.
Documented Cases of Cause-Effect Actually occurs.
Policy or Management PlanningAt this level the loss of beneficial use
is implied but has not actually occurred. Use of a receiving water body
for stormwater discharge may violate (or be in contrast to) a comprehen-
sive plan, environmental agency philosophy, coastal zone management
policy, area-wide water use classification system, or some other indicator
of intended use.
Standards or Criteria ViolationsThis is the level at which impact
typically has been assessed. The usual approach is to measure constituents
of storm or receiving waters, compare measured values with local, state,
or federal standards (criteria, or guidelines), and then directly equate
impact with the number of constituent standards violated, or the number
of days a constituent standard is violated. This same approach is used
in cases where key concentrations have not been identified or developed.
The presence or absence of a constituent (e.g., EPA list of 129 priority
pollutants) is often considered an impact.
The loss of use at this level can be implied, may be imminent, or
can actually occur. Whether or not an impact actually occurs is relative
to the basis on which a standard is promulgated. In the absence of
supporting data, standards are usually set conservatively, so many docu-
mented violations of standards imply impact, rather than actually indicate
impact (e.g., oxygen standards are violated, but fish kills do not
occur). Standards or criteria violations may be considered "paper"
impacts.
Documented Cases of Cause-EffectThis was considered the impact level
where loss of beneficial use was actually documented. Site-specific
evidence of fish kills, beach closings, loss of water supply, citizens'
complaints of odor, floating debris, medical records of water-use related
disease, and other effects (impacts) caused by or related to stormwater
runoff were reviewed. This nationwide survey focused on this level.
Documentation of extreme or unusual events is often easier than
identification of trends or subtle changes, especially where complex
systems of man and nature are concerned. Questions arise as to the
cause of an impact (such as a fish kill). Was it due to an event such
as a toxic substance being flushed, or was it due to bioaccumulation (to
lethal levels) of a series of events establishing a trend? In general,
17
-------
pulsed (event-driven) systems are under examination when addressing
stormwater issues, so causes of impacts considered were short-term. The
impact itself, being event- or trend-induced can be manifested quickly
or over a long period, and finally, the manifested impact may have short
or long-term significance.
The next section summarizes the major sources of information on
receiving water impacts. Then the national, state, and local results
are presented.
18
-------
SECTION VI
URBAN AREA SUMMARIES
LITERATURE REVIEW
The category-by-category search and review of literature sources
included the following major sources:
1) EPA Cincinnati in-house files (21).
2) EPA's Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) (22). EPA Head-
quarters personnel and a team of consultants visited every re-
gional office at least once. During the initial visit, the
regional personnel were asked to identify which of these 208
studies indicated that urban runoff was a "problem". Next,
the group was asked which areas had receiving water data doc-
umenting that an impact existed. They were asked to indicate
whether the "problem" related to violation of water quality
standards, impairment of beneficial use(s), aesthetics, or
other cause(s). Lastly, each regional group was asked to sug-
gest candidate cities for further study. Ideally, these
cities should have a clearly identified urban runoff problem,
and sufficient interest in solving it to finance 25 percent of
the cost of the study. Based on this procedure, 30 cities
were selected for further study.
3) EPA's 208 Master Computer File on all urban areas that identified
urban runoff as a "priority problem" (23).
4) Computerized Literature Searches
a. Water Resources Scientific Information Catalog (WRSIC)
system of U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Water
Research and Technology.
b. Smithsonian Scientific Information Exchange (SSIE)
lists of on-going research projects.
c. University of Florida's State Technologies Application
Center (STAC) information retrieval system which is tied
into the NASA system of about 20 million publications.
5) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Fish-Kill Data (24).
Approximately 10,000 individual fish-kill reports were surveyed
(See ref. 25 for a general summary).
19
-------
6) Studies for the National Commission on Water Quality on beach
closings (26).
7) 1978 NEEDS Survey (27).
8) Sutron Corp. case studies on relationships of rainfall, stream
flow, and dissolved oxygen (28).
9) Abstracts for EPA National Conference titled Urban Stormwater
and Combined Sewer OverflowImpact on Receiving Waters,
November 1979.
10) Environmental Protection Agency, Nationwide 201 and 208
Technical Documents and Wastewater Management Plans.
11) North American Water Project (29).
12) 1974 EPA National Water Quality Inventory (30).
13) 1979 Congressional Hearings on Nonpoint Pollution (31).
PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS BY URBAN AREA
According to the Scope of Work, the results of the literature
review are to be organized in terms of the following:
-Characteristics of the urban area as it related to types and
quantities of pollutants
-Characteristics and types of receiving waters
-Uses of receiving waters and water quality standards
-Kind of impact whether ecological or public health
-Characteristics of impact such as short-term dissolved oxygen
sags versus longer term benthic effects
-Key pollutant or pollutants causing the impact
The results from the previous chapter indicate that the whole
question of "impacts" remains unclear because of lack of agreement on
definition of terms. After several futile attempts to organize the
results in different ways, it was decided to present the findings for
every urban area in the United States using consistent definitions of
key terms such as urban area, urban runoff, and receiving water impacts.
A general description of these urban area summaries is presented in this
section. The actual summaries are continued in a separate volume. The
results for each urban area are then summarized at the state and national
level. These results are presented in the next section. The urban area
summaries are partitioned into the following categories:
1) Demographic data
2) Hydrologic background
3) Waste sources
4) Receiving waters
a) Classification
20
-------
b) Dilution ratio
c) Special studies
d) References to "Other studies" category
e) 1:500,000 USGS State Hydrologic Map for Urban Area
and environs
f) Ten years of monthly and annual flow data for primary
receiving water(s).
Each of these categories is discussed in the subsections to follow.
Then an example urban summary for Tampa is presented.
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
The 248 urbanized areas included in this study are as defined by
the Bureau of the Census of the U.S. Department of Commerce in the 1970
census (32). They are generally characterized as having:
A central city or urban core of 50,000 or more inhabitants.
Closely inhabited surroundings, consisting of unincorporated
places of 100 housing units or more; and small unincorporated
parcels with population densities of 1,000 inhabitants per
square mile or more; and
other small unincorporated areas that may eliminate enclaves,
square up the geometry of the urbanized area or provide a
linkage to other enumeration districts fulfilling the overall
criteria within 1 1/2 miles of the main body of the urbanized
area.
For each urban area, the 1970 population, the developed portion of
the urbanized area (mi ), and % combined sewers were tabulated. This
information was taken from Heaney et al. (1). Hydrologic background was
available for 222 cities based on earlier work by Schneider (33). His
summary was included for these cities. Lastly, the annual precipitation,
sewage flow, and urban runoff measured in inches/year were included.
This information was taken from Heaney et al. (1).
HYDROLOGIC BACKGROUND
Schneider (33) summarized the hydrologic background for 222 cities
in 1968. This information is included to provide a general perspective
regarding these urban areas. The precipitation data are from Heaney et
al. (1).
WASTE SOURCES
The estimated annual volume of sewage and urban runoff is reported
in inches over the developed area. The data are from Heaney et al. (1).
This unit is selected to permit direct comparison to precipitation data.
RECEIVING WATERS
21
-------
Classification
Receiving waters can be conveniently classified into four major
categories: estuaries (E), lakes (L), oceans (0), and rivers (R).
Little ambiguity exists in identifying estuaries or oceans as receiving
waters due to their relatively large size. However, rivers can include
very small intermittent streams. Small lakes are referred to as ponds.
It is not always clear where the urban drainage system ends and the
receiving water begins. Some would argue that, from a federal perspective,
interest should be restricted to interstate waters, thereby eliminating
from consideration many of the smaller receiving waters. At the opposite
end of the spectrum, one could argue that all waters, even those flowing
through very small open channels, are "receiving waters."
One approach to this question is to define as receiving waters -
those waters which appears on maps with a name. However, the extent to
which the receiving waters appear on maps depends on the scale of map
and the purpose for which the map was drawn. For example, Figure 3
shows the Gainesville, Florida area on the USGS State Hydrologic Map
(1:500,000). No receiving waters are shown. On the 1:250,000 scale
USGS map of the same area, an unnamed river system which drains the
western portion of the urban area is shown in Figure 4. A 1:24,000
scale USGS map (see Figure 5) shows a portion of the Hogtown Creek
drainage system with the name of the creek indicated. Lastly Figure 6
shows the Rattlesnake Branch of Hogtown Creek at a scale of 1:1200. The
general question is "What are the receiving waters for Gainesville?"
Drummond, in an article titled "When is a Stream a Stream," summarizes
the criteria used by the major map making organizations in the United
States (34). The results are shown in Table 1.
Drainage density is the. ratio of the length of streams to the
drainage area, or
Dd = L/A _± (1)
where D = drainage density (miles ),
L = stream length (miles!, and
A = drainage area (miles ).
Huber et al. determined drainage density as a function of map scale for
the Lower Kissimmee River Basin in Florida (35) . The results are shown
in Table 2 along with the results for Gainesville, Florida using Figures
3 to 6.
22
-------
?SANTA
17
0
CM
00
£
29022'
GAINESVILLE
SCALE 1:500,000
t 10 MILES ,
Figure 3. 1:500,000 Scale Map of Gainesville, Florida and Environs.
23
-------
-'- 0
* v_ ' \
Ok-
'*.
R 19 E
R 20 E
SCALE 1:250,000 (USGS-J954)
1979 CORP. CITY LIMITS
R 21 E
SQUARE MILES = 560sq.mi
RIVER MILES = I08.4mi.
Figure 4. 1:250,000 Scale Map of Gainesville, Florida.
24
-------
R 19 EJR20 E|
67
SffALE t'24000
NE/4 ARREDONOO IS* OUAORANOLE
GAINESVILLE.FLA.
Figure 5. 1:24,000 Scale Map of Part of Hogtown Creek in Western
Gainesville, Florida.
25
-------
Figure 6. 1:1,200 Scale Map of Rattlesnake Branch of Hogtovm Creek
in Gainesville, Florida.
26
-------
Table 1 . Standards for Inclusion of Streams on Topographic Maps of U.S. Mapping Agencies.
NJ
-J
Perennial
.
A coney
Katie Srali-A (> 1:75.000)
Date of Information
U.S. Geological Survey
1:2-1 000 I:3I,CKO 1:48.000
1U69 1:62.5001:63.360
U.S. Army Topographic
Command
1 : 12.500 1:25.000 1:50,000
j £70
Tennessee Valley Authority
1:21.000
1 O~flj
1 J » U
Bureau rf Land Management
1:31.6501:63.360
1070
fore*! Scr\*icc
1:21.000
1970 .
Soil Comrrv.ition Service
1:15.8401:20.000 1:24.000
1COJ
Oust anil CJc.xIclic Survey
I:4i).0t-0 1:50.000 1:51,000
1060
(Vi-anoci ai'hic Office
Dfpl. of ilir Navy
Various Scales
1970
. Ijike Survey Center
Dr|it. of Commerce (since 1970)
. Various Scales from 1 :2.500
1070
Datic
Inclusion
Criteria
All
Perennial
Streams
All
rerennial
Streams
N'nl Distin-
Kiii\hcil frum
Intermittent
Streams
All
Flowing
Streams
AJI
Flowing
Streams
All
. I'ercnni.ll
Streams
All
rereiiuinl
Strcnms
Aid to
Navigation
All
Perennial
Streams .
Channel
Criteria
Est.iblislii.-d
Chaiim-U
Normal l-'low
Channels Are-
Shown
Ettat>lilc
Streams: Limited to
Navi^iilion Aids
Any
Permanent
Chaiuiel
Minimum Stream
Length
(grimiid) (map) '
No
Li iitilat ions
as to Length
tt Im h ( Well-
Watered Areas)
l/i Inch
(Arid Areas)
1.000 Feet
No
Limitations
as to Length
Not a
Limiting
Criterion
V, Inch
No
Limitations
as lu Length
No
Limitations
as to Length
A Inch
(Well-Watered
Areas)
Headwaters
Termination
(ground)
(map)
1,000 Feet
from
Divide
>/& Inch
from
Divide
1 .000 Feet
from
Divide
~~ " ~
' ...
To
Source
of Stream
1,000 Feet
from
Divide
To
Stream
Source
Basic
IniluMon
Criteria
All
Intermittent
Streams
Maximum
Nnmhcr of
Drainage
Features
Not Distin-
guished from
Perennial Streams
Every
Channeled
Stream
Some
Nonchanncled
Drainage Shown
Aid to
Navigation
"
Intermittent
Channel
Criteria
"Dry \Va«h"
Inclusion in
Arid Aieas
Normal Flow
Channels Are
Shown
Eil.ihlishcd
Channels
EMahlnhed
Channels and
Washes
All
Established
Channels
All
Established
Channels
Established
Channels
Nonnavigable
Streams:
Limited In Nav-
igaliou Aids
Any
Permanent
Channel
Minimum
Stream Length
t Ground)
(Map)
2.000 Feet
i Inch (\\cll-
Walcrrd Areas)
<; Inch
(Arid Areas)
1.000 Feet
14 Mile
Nut a
Limiting
Criterion
'4 Inch
2.000 Feet
No
Limitations
s to Length
1.6 Inch (Well-
Watered Areas)
U Inch
(Arid Areas)
lle:itl*A'.ttert
Termination
1 Cround )
(Mjpj
1 .000 Ki-et
from Divide
'.i Inch
from
Divide
1 .000 Feet
from Divide
To
Source
of Stream
1.000 Feet
from Divide
(From Drummond, 1974,
p. 35-36.)
-------
2
Drainage Density (mi/mi ) for two
Scale Areas in Florida
Lower Kissimmee Hogtown Cr. in
River Gainesville
1:1200
1:24000
1:126700
1:250000
1:500000
1.82
1.12
0.45
10.61
1.5
0.19
0.06
Table 2. Effect of Map Scale on Drainage Density for Two Areas
in Florida.
Including the actual drainage network, i.e., pipes and channels, in
the calculations yields much higher densities as shown in Figure 7 (35).
For example, the urban drainage density is 17.0 miles/mile .
For this national assessment, it is important that the selected
scale of maps be published by a single organization which uses standardized
procedures for labeling maps. Fortunately the U.S. Geological Survey's
map series satisfy this criterion. Also, it is desirable to use maps
which display the urban area relative to its immediate hydrologic units.
It is also helpful to show nearby political units because water pollution,
from a Federal perspective, is an undersirable off-site impact imposed
on a downstream user. For example, if urban runoff from a city is
polluting its water supply, then no externality exists because the
problem is within a single political jurisdiction and it is obviously in
the community's best interest to control this pollution. On the other
hand if urban runoff from city A is contaminating downstream city B's
water supply, than an externality exists and intervention by a higher
level of government is appropriate. Based on these criteria, the recently
completed USGS State Hydrologic Unit Maps (1:500,000 scale) were selected.
Further information regarding these maps is presented in this section.
Receiving waters were divided into two classes: primary and other.
The primary receiving water(s) was used to calculate the dilution ratio.
The selected receiving water(s) are contiguous to the urbanized area.
Other receiving waters listed are those which show on the map as being
in or contiguous to the urbanized area and those receiving waters listed
as having "problems" in the "special studies" section. For example,
referring to Figure 3, the 1:500,000 scale map indicates no primary
receiving water for Gainesville. Thus, a zero dilution ratio would be
used. In most cases the primary receiving water was evident. Where it
wasn't, the city typically was drained by relatively small receiving waters,
28
-------
i i i I'M
mrtrtiftrirhl....
_IJ. LI I ' I } i j-1 i I [ ' ; '
U.J_H-iJ-i.i-i
11
URBAN
D =17.0 MI/SQ Ml
i i! i i i i i ii i i'-i;
ll&
iJLLj.i
IMPROVED (DITCHED) PASTURE
D = 33.0 MI/SO Ml
*.}*.
UNIMPROVED PASTURE
D = 1.2 MI/SQ Ml
FOREST, MARSH 8 SWAMP
D = 0.8 MI/SO Ml
mi
LLJ_U
nmrrrnf
11111111111
iTTiTi'iTi"!"!
HI
!-|
i i !
MiJj
CITRUS CROPLAND
D = 29.0 mi/sq mi
NATURAL DRAINAGE
MODIFIED DRAINAGE
J4 M. MARSH
&Q: FOREST
Figure 7. Schematic of Land Use and Measured Drainage Density.(35)
29
-------
Dilution Ratio
A dilution ratio was calculated for each city as follows:
1) Rivers and Estuaries
a) USGS gage(s) available.
The average annual discharge for the river, denoted q , , where the
abed subscript denotes the station number, is converted from ft /sec.
to inches per year averaged over the urban area using equation (2).
h = K q . ,/A (2)
rec Habcd u ^ '
where h = annual depth of receiving water flow averaged over the
developed portion of the urbanized area (in/yr) ;
3
K = conversion factor = 13.57 to convert from ft /sec to
in-mi /yr; 3
q , , = long-term average river discharge (ft /sec) ; and
abed «
A = developed portion of urbanized area (mi ) .
For example, for Gadsden, Alabama, the primary receiving water is
the Coosa River whose average discharge (qoA) is 9070 ft /sec. The
0n
15.
wed to accumulate o
year, its depth would be
developed portion of the urban area, A , is 15.3 mi in area. Thus, if
this flow rate were allowed to accumulate onto the urban area for one
h = 13.57 (9070) /15.3
rec
h = 8040 in/yr.
rec J
The dilution ratio is defined as
h
, rec
d'r'
h +h
ur s
where d.r. = dilution ratio (dimensionless) ;
h = annual depth of receiving water flow averaged over
developed portion of urban area (in/yr) ;
h = annual depth of urban runoff (in/yr) , and
h = annual depth of sewage (in/yr) .
S
For Gadsden, Alabama, h =19.2 in/yr., and h =9.3 in/yr. Using
equation (3) yields
, 8040
d.r. ~
19.2+9.3
d.r. = 282
30
-------
b) No flow data available.
Sometimes, receiving water flow data are not available especially
for smaller receiving waters. In this case, an approximate dilution
ratio is calculated as follows
d.r. = A /A
c u
where d.r. = dilution ratio (dimensionless)
(4)
A = area of upstream catchment (mi ) measured from USGS
State Hydrologic Map, and
A = area of developed portion of urbanized area from Heaney et
u al. (1).
2) Lakes
The dilution ratio when lakes are the receiving water is calculated
in the same manner as for ungaged rivers, i.e.
d.r. =
(5)
1
Oceans
= lake area, mi .
where A,
3)
The dilution ratio for ocean disposal is assumed to be greater than
1000.
Special Studies
The next section for each urban area is a tabulation of special
studies which have been divided into the following twelve categories:
31
-------
1) 208 urban runoff priority area - This category includes a
printout from EPA files of all urban areas which felt that urban runoff
is a "priority problem". The print outs were run in early 1980 (23).
However, most of the reports are three or four years old. Nevertheless
they represent the best available local estimates of what types of urban
runoff problems exist in their areas. A sample print out is presented
in Table 3.
2) Fish kill reports - The U.S. Public Health Service began
reporting fish kills on June 1, 1960 (25). This is a voluntary program.
Thus, many fish kills go unreported. Also, it is very difficult to
determine the exact cause of the kill. Over, 10,000 fish kill reports
for 1970-79 were reviewed (24). Copies of those reports which related
to runoff from urban areas were extracted and filed by urban area or as
"other" in the state summary. The fish kills for each state are indicated
on the state maps.
3) Beach closings - Battelle Memorial Institute, in a study for
the National Commission on Water Quality, tabulated beach closings for
the United States (26). These results were reviewed and those areas for
which the cause of the closing was related to runoff were identified in
the urban area or state summary. The beach closings are indicated on
the state map. As with fish kill reports, this represents only a sample
of the total beach closings. Also, the listed cause of the closing is
sometimes only a guess.
4) EPA's Nationwide Urban Runoff Program Test City
5) City cited in Sutron Corp. dissolved oxygen study
6) City listed in 1978 NEEDS Survey case studies
7) City cited in National Commission on Water Quality study
8) City cited in National Eutrophication Survey
9) City cited in National Water Quality Inventory Studies
10) City cited in 1979 Congressional Hearings
11) Combined sewer area
12) City cited in other studies
32
-------
Table 3. Problem Description for 208 Area Listing Urban Runoff
as a Priority Problem.
***** PROBLEM DESCBIPTIOS ***** (Tuscaloosa, AL)
IHE URBAN STORMWATEB IN THE TUSCALOOSA AREA IS SUSPECTED OF
CAUSING PROBLEMS IN HATEB QUALITY IN THE TRIBUTARY STREAMS AND
POSSIBLY IN THE HABBIOB BIVEB. IT IS KNOWN THAT SEDIMENT IS A
PROBLEM, HOWEVER, THE DEGREE OF PBOBLEH FROM METALS, COLIFOBH
BACTERIA ADC OXYGEN CONSUMING HASTE IS NOT KNOWS. HOHEVEH,
HATES QUALITY STANOAHOS ABE DEFINITELY EXCEEDED DURING STOBHS.
DURING STOBB EVENTS THESE POLLUTANTS HAY BE GBEATEB THAN THE
DISCHARGE OF POLLUTANTS FBOH POINT SOURCES AND COULD OVEfiSHADOi
A NX ADDITIONAL TBEATHENT PROVIDED FOB THE POINT SOUBCES.
THE BABBIOB EIVEB IS PBESENTLI USED FOB BOATING IN CEBTAIN
BEACHES. HO ESTIMATE CAN BE BAB! OF THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF
SOLUTION OF 1HIS PBOBLEH, HOWEVER, IT IS KNOWN 1HAT AT LEAST
ONE-THIRD OF THE POPULATION IS AFFECTED BY IT DIRECTLY
BY THE LOSS OF RECREATIONAL USES AND THREATENED HATER SUPPLIES.
IT IS IEPORIANT TlUT THE MAGNITUDE OF THE PBOBLES FROM URBAN
STORaWAlER RUNOFF BE EVALUATED TO DETERMINE THE DEGREE OF PROTECTION
NEEDED. THESE POLLUTANTS 3AY BE INTERFERING WITH FISH
AND VILELIFE USES OF THE TRIBUTARY STREAMS. IF NO ACTION IS
TAKEN TCHAED CORRECTING THESE PROBLEMS, FUTURE GROHTH IB THE
AREA HILL CAUSE THE PROBLEMS TO BECOME HOBE SEVERE HITH TIDE
TO THE EOINT THAT MANY OPTIONS HAY BE FOREGONE. THE HIGH QUALITY
HATER OF LAKE TUSCALCOSA USED FOB RECREATIONAL PURPOSES AND
PUBLIC HATER SUPPLY, IS BEING THREATENED BY FUTURE URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AND RESULTANT EUNOFF PHCBLEHS. 11/76
***** STUDY OVERVIEW *****
AN EVALUATION OF THE EXISTING PEOBLE3S CAUSED BY URBAN STORHHATER
RUNOFF IS BEING KADE BY EXTENSIVE SAMPLING DURING STORM EVENTS IN
TBIBUTAFY STREAMS. THE SAMPLING HILL EVALUATE THE ABOUNT OF
POLLUTAtiTS EEING WASHED OFF FECM DIFFERENT TYPES OF LAND USES. ALSO,
1'HE SAMPLING HILL DETERMINE THE CONCENTRATIONS CF POLLUTANTS KITHIN
THE RECEIVING STREAM. THIS INFORMATION HILL THEN BE USED AS INPUT
INTO DYNAMIC MODELS WHICH HILL SIHULATE STOBNS UNDER VABIOUS
CONDITIONS AND EVALUATE THE HATER QUALITY EFFECTS OF THESE STORMS.
THE DATA ANC MODELS HILL BE USED TO EVALUATE THE MAGNITUDE OF THE
PROBLEMS ANC DETERMINE WHAT IMPROVEMENTS CAN BE BADE BITH DIFFERENT
fYPES OF CCKTHOL MEASURES.
ALTERNATIVE CONTROL STRATEGIES FOB UKdAN RUNOFF POLLUTANTS HILL BE
EVALUATED. THESE ALTERNATIVES HILL INCLUDE BOTH STRUCTURAL AND
NONSTRUCTURAL MEANS TOR REDUCING CERTAIN TYPES OF POLLUTANTS.
EXISTING ANC FUTURE REGULATORY AND MANAGEMENT AGENCIES FOR'
COIITKOLIING THE URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTANTS HILL BE EVALUATED. IT IS
EXPECTED THAT LOCAL ORDINANCES FOR CONTROL OP SOIL EROSION AND STORB
DRAINAGE WHL BE PROPOSED. SO FAR, THO ALTERNATIVES HAVE BEEN
PRESENTED: CNE HITH SEVERAL SHALL TREATBENT FACILITIES, AND
ANOTHER WHICH HCULD AGGREGATE FLOH TO ONE CENTRAL* TREATBENT
FACILITY.
SOME EFFOBT HILL BE RADE TO PASS A LOCAL ORDINANCE FOR STORM
DRAINAGE CONTROL, BUI NO PROMISES CAN BE HADE AT THIS TIME,
SINCE OBDINANCES ABE SUBJECT TO LOCAL POLITICAL PRESSURES.
TIMING IS KEY, AND NOT SUBJECT 10 EASY PREDICTION. 11/76
33
-------
MAPS
The cities and receiving waters were drawn exactly as shown on the
1:500,000 maps. Receiving waters were identified in capital letters if
they were identified on the 1:500,000 map. These distinctions are
important to maintain a relative perspective regarding receiving waters
throughout the U.S. The USGS does not have a completely unambiguous way
to select which receiving waters are labeled, e.g., sometimes the receiving
water is not labeled because there is not room on the map. Nevertheless,
this is the most consistent method that proved to be feasible. A summary
of this map series, extracted from a USGS brochure, is presented below.
This map series shows Hydrologic Units that are basically
hydrographic in nature. The Cataloging Units shown will supplant
the Cataloging Units previously used by the U.S. Geological Survey
in its Catalog of Information on Water Data (1966-72). The previous
U.S. Geological Survey Catalog-Indexing System was by map number
and letter, such as 49M. The boundaries as shown have been adapted
from "The Catalog of Information on Water Data" (1972), "Water
Resources Regions and Subregions for the National Assessment of
Water and Related Land Resources" by the U.S. Water Resources
Council (1970), "River Basins of the United States" by the U.S.
Soil Conservation Service (1963, 1970), "River Basin Maps showing
Hydrologic Stations" by the Inter-Agency Committee on Water Resources,
Subcommittee on Hydrology (1961), and State planning maps.
The Political Subdivision Code has been adopted from "Counties
and County Equivalents of the States of the United States" presented
in Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 6-2, issued
by the National Bureau of Standards (1973) in which each county or
county equivalent is identified by a 2-character State code and a
3-character county code.
The Regions, Subregions and Accounting Units are aggregates of
the Cataloging Units. Regions and Subregions are currently (1974)
used by the U.S. Water Resources Council for comprehensive planning,
including the National Assessment, and as a standard geographical
framework for more detailed water and related land-resources planning.
The Accounting Units are those currently (1974) in use by the U.S.
Geological Survey for managing the National Water Data Network.
STREAMFLOW DATA
For each urban area, the average annual receiving water discharge
was estimated using the long-term average discharge listed in a series
of U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Papers presenting monthly and
annual summaries of streamflow and reservoir data for the period from
October 1, 1950 to September 30, 1960. The series of reports is a
condensation of the annual series of daily records. The results are
summarized in the twenty volumes listed below: Figure 8 is a map of
these areas.
34
-------
Note.--Records for Alaska and Hawaii are
contained in separate volumes for
those States.
Figure 8. Areas Covered by U.S.G.S. Surface Water Records.
35
-------
WSP Part Area
1721 1-A North Atlantic slope basins, Maine to Connecticut.
1722 1-B North Atlantic slope basins, New York to York River.
1723 2-A South Atlantic slope basins, James River to Savannah
River.
1724 2-B South Atlantic slope and eastern Gulf of Mexico basins
Ogeechee River to Pearl River.
1725 3-A Ohio River basin except Cumberland and Tennessee
River basins.
1726 3-B Cumberland and Tennessee River basins.
1727 4 St. Lawrence River basin.
1728 5 Hudson Bay and upper Mississippi River basins.
1729 6-A Missouri River basin above Sioux City, Iowa.
1730 6-B Missouri River basin below Sioux City, Iowa.
1731 7 Lower Mississippi River basin.
1732 8 Western Gulf of Mexico basins.
1733 9 Colorado River basin.
1734 10 The Great Basin.
1735 11 Pacific slope basins in California.
1736 12 Pacific slope basins in Washington and upper Columbia
River basin.
1737 13 Snake River basin.
1738 14 Pacific slope basin in Oregon and Lower Columbia
River Basin.
1739 -- Hawaii.
1740 -- Alaska.
A sample station is shown in Table 4. This monthly and annual streamflow
summary is included so that the interested reader can examine seasonal and
extreme flows.
36
-------
Table 4. Monthly and Annual Streamflow Summary for the Hillsborough
River near Tampa, Florida. Source is USGS Water Supply
Paper 1724.
miles nor*1
Location.--Lat 28«0"l_'25", long 82°25'40", In sec.29, T.28 S., R.19 E., on left bank JUP*
Gage.--Water-stage recorder. Datum of gage Is at mean sea level, datum of 1929 (city .
Tampa bench mark). Prior to Oct. 1, 1945, at site 1.4 miles up
upstream from spillway of Tampa reservoir dam, at Thirtieth Street,
of Tampa, Hillsborough County.
Drainage area.--650 sq ml, approximately.
Records available.--October 1938 to September 1960.
higher.
upstream at datum 0.66
Average discharge.--22 years (1938-60), 685 cfs (495,900 acre-ft per year), adjusted for
diversion. '
Extremes.--1938-60: Maximum discharge, 14,600 cfs Mar. 21, 1960; maximum gage height,
ZTTSS" ft Aug. 2, I960; no flow Nov. 30 to Dec. 2, 1945.
Maximum stage known, 25.6 ft Sept. 7, 1933, at former site and datum, from flood-
marks, affected by backwater prior to failure of Tampa power dam, 1.4 miles below
former gage. A discharge of 16,500 cfs was measured Sept. 9, 1933.
Remarks.--Flow regulated by Tampa reservoir since Oct. 1, 1945. Capacity of reservoir
Insufficient to affect monthly figures of runoff. Diversion at point lj miles above
station for water supply by city of Tampa. Records of chemical analyses for the period
November 1956 to September 1958 are published In reports of the Geological Survey.
Monthly and yearly mean discharge, in cubic feet per second a/
Water
year
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1956
1959
1960
Oct.
615
751
787
2,795
268
191
742
1,348
144
1,957
Nov.
236
221
391
640
109
197
172
157
170
805
Dec.
364
358
141
1,795
129
120
46.1
119
134
217
Jan.
353
185
188
850
125
83.1
34.8
414
887
231
?eb.
234
169
321
250
216
174
49.4
466
417
464
Mar.
199
521
171
177
76.6
42.9
366
1,975
3,082
4,926
Apr.
406
598
1,065
103
65.1
13.9
759
847
2,022
1,358
May
166
80.1
217
97.8
33.1
14.8
388
204
740
154
June
52. 4
257
170
327
34.3
8.48
318
74.5
l£53
220
July
144
226
469
723
215
31.5
528
494
2.7CF.
1,200
Aug.
498
644
1,965
1.199
800
35.9
1,834
an
2,738
4,713
Sept.
697
429
4,371
308
1,099
324
1,790
238
3,597
4,276
The year
333
371
852
781
264
102
588
601
1,546
1,718
a Unadjusted for diversion by city of Tampa.
Monthly and yearly discharge, in acre-feet
Water
year
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
Oct.
37,830
46,180
48,410
171,900
16,500
11,730
45,640
82,870
8,850
120,400
Nov.
14,040
13,160
23,240
38,070
6,510
11,730
10,250
9,350
10,110
47,900
Dec.
22,400
22,000
8,680
110,400
7,940
7,370
2,830
7,320
8,230
13,370
Jan.
21,710
11,390
11,590
52,280
7,660
5,110
2,140
25,440
54,530
14,230
Feb.
13,010
9,700
17,820
13,880
11,980
10,030
2,750
27,000
23,160
26,700
Mar.
12,240
32,030
10,490
10,860
4,710
2,640
22,490
121,500
189,500
30!, 900
Apr.
24,160
35,560
63,360
6,150
3,870
830
45,140
50,380
120, 300
80,840
May
11,410
4,920
13,320
6,010
2,040
908
23,880
12,520
45,520
9,440
June
3,120
15,270
10,140
19,440
2,040
505
18,920
4,440
110,200
13,070
July
8,870
13,910
28,830
44,450
13,190
1,940
32,470
30, 380
166,300
73,770
Aug.
30,600
39,620
120,900
73,720
49,190
2,210
112,800
49,890
168,300
289,800
Sept.
41,450
25,550
260,100
18,310
65,400
19,280
106,500
14,170
214,000
: 54, 400
The year
240,800
269,300
616,900
565,500
191,000
74,280
425,800
435,300
1,119,000
1,247,000
Note.--Figures given herein prior to October 1956, not previously published.
Yearly discharge, in cubic feet per second
1950
1951
195?
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
-
1204
1234
1274
1334
1384
1434
1504
1554
1624
1704
Water year ending Sept. 30
Observed
Maximum day
Discharge
-
1,500
1,900
6,830
b2,890
1,980
810
3,810
3,180
7,390
c 14, 600
Date
-
Sept. 24,25,1951
Apr. 5, 1952
Sept. 30, 1953
July 31,1954.
Sept. U, 1955
Sept. 28, 1956
Aug. 10,1957
3ct. 6,1957
tor .23,344959
Mar. 21,1960
linl-
day
-
24
28
37
28
30
6.4
20
31
84
17
-
333
371
852
781
264
102
588
601
1,546
1,718
_
240,800
269,300
616,900
565,500
191,000
74,280
425,800
435,300
1,119,000
1,247,000
Adjusted a/
ean
-
361
399
882
810
296
138
623
638
1,586
1,760
Per
mile
-
0555
.614
l.lfi
l.?S
.455
.212
.958
.982
2.44
2.71
tunon
inchei
-
7.53
8.36
18.42
16.91
6.16
2.91
13.01
13.34
33.11
36.84
Calendar year
Observed
498
342
370
1,183
381
264
141
645
501
1,759
-
360,700
247,900
268,300
856,900
276,000
190,900
102,200
466,600
362,900
1,274,000
Ad Justed a/
526
370
398
1,213
411
296
179
681
539
1,799
-
lunoff
Inches
10.99
7.74
8.33
25.33
8.57
6.18
3.73
14.20
11.27
37.57
- '
SUMMARY
* Not previously published.
a Adjusted for diversion by city of Tampa; diversion records furnished by city of Tampa Water
Department.
b Maximum dally discharge for flood event whose crest occurred in the water year indicated.
Maximum dally discharge, 6,600 cfs Oct. 1, 1953, on the recession from the crest that occurred in
the preceding water year.
Q Momentary maximum.
The above information was compiled for every urbanized area. These
summaries are contained in Volume II of this report. The summary for
Tampa, Florida is presented below for illustrative purposes.
37
Reproduced from
copy
-------
Example of Urban Area Summaries
TAMPA
Demographic data
1970 population - 369,000; Urbanized area - 68.8 sq. mi., % combined
sewers - 0
Hydrologic background (Schneider, 1968) (33).
The municipal and industrial supplies for the Tampa area come
chiefly from the Hillsborough River. Because of seasonal distribution
of rainfall and the limited storage capacity of the city reservoir, this
source is inadequate during dry periods, and a supplemental supply from
a large spring (Sulphur Spring) is utilized. Adequate quantities of
water are available from the Floridan aquifer to meet the future water
requirements of the area.
Much of the metropolitan area is subject to hurricane damage because
of its location near sea level and because of extensive residential
development along the waterfront. Tampa, which is in the lower reaches
of the Hillsborough River, is subject to flood damage during periods of
excessive rainfall. However, this problem will be alleviated in the
near future as flood regulation reservoirs and bypass channels are
completed upstream from the city. Other problems of major importance
are encroachment of saline water on fresh ground-water supplies, disposal
of municipal waters, and the effects of the metropolitan complex on the
coastal waters.
Precipitation - 52.0 in/yr
Waste sources
Sewage - 11.2 in/yr.; Urban runoff - 19.3 in/yr
Receiving waters
Primary - Hillsborough River
Mean annual flow - 135.3 in/yr (Q/c)
Dilution ratio - 4.4
Other - Hillsborough and Tampa Bays
Special studies
The Hillsborough River is the primary river draining the Tampa
area. The upstream portion of this river is used as a water supply
source for the City of Tampa. It receives urban runoff. The lower
38
-------
portion of the river moves through the City of Tampa where it receives
inputs from a variety of sources including landfill leachate, water
treatment plant alum sludge, and overloaded sanitary sewers. The discharge
from the Hillsborough River enters Hillsborough Bay. The bay has serious
water quality problems and extensive sludge accumulations due to the
discharge of primary treatment plant effluent until very recently.
Tampa is one of the EPA Nationwide Urban Runoff Program study areas.
Tampa was one of three cities selected as case studies of estimating
the impact of improved water quality on beach closings. (Battelle,
1976) (26). The results are summarized below.
Tampa-St. Petersburg, Florida. The population region for this study
case included Pasco, Pinellas, Hillsborough, and Manatee Counties with a
combined 1970 population of 1,185,664. In addition to the resident
population, there are an estimated 4,432,000 businessmen, vacationers,
and other travelers coming to this area each year. Many of these individ-
uals come expressly for the purpose of swimming on their vacations. It
is estimated that over 80 percent of the tourists participate in the
winter and about 60 percent in the summer.
In recent years, six smaller beaches in Pinellas County have been
closed intermittently as a result of high coliform counts following
heavy rainfall. In Hillsborough County, a beach along the Hillsborough
River has been closed permanently since 1972 as a result of bacterial
contamination. These areas total 2,450 frontage feet or 1.4 percent of
the estimated 178,320 feet of beach frontage in the four-county area.
Because of the availability of abundant high quality beaches, the
effect from storm runoff on estimated total resident and tourist swimming
activity days is negligible. For the specific beaches that were inter-
mittently affected by high coliform counts, assuming that swimmers avoid
them completely, an annual increase of 1 percent in resident and .12
percent tourist activity days as estimated. Because these estimates
assume complete seasonal closure, actual loss in activity days would be
lower assuming individuals use these beaches intensively when water
quality is acceptable. Also, no determination of the specific type and
level of use of the affected beaches was obtained during the course of
data collection.
References
Federal Water Pollution Control Admin. 1969. Problems and Management
of Water Quality in Hillsborough Bay, Florida. NTIS PB-217 147,
U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Springfield, Va. 94 pp.
Lopez, M.A., and D.M. Michaelis. 1979. Hydrologic Data from Urban
Watersheds in the Tampa Bay Area, Florida, USGS Water-Resources
Investigations 78-125. 51 pp.
39
-------
HILLSBOROUGH RIVER
5
0TAMPA
a
ST. PETERSBURG
27*41'
SCALE =I:500,DOO
. 10 MILES .
Figure 9. 1:500,000 Scale USGS Hydrologic Map for the Tampa, Florida
Area.
40
-------
SECTION VII
RESULTS
NATIONAL
The national results present summary statistics based on the urbanized
area reports. General information regarding population, land use,
precipitation and runoff, and wastewater flows is presented elsewhere
(1). This section emphasizes receiving water impacts. As mentioned
earlier, no single definition of impacts can be used. An urban area is
viewed as having an actual or potential urban runoff "problem" if any of
the following conditions apply.
1) The local or state 208 agency viewed urban runoff as a priority
problem. (24.1%)
2) Runoff related fish kills have been reported during 1970-79.
(12.8%)
3) A runoff related beach closing was reported. (4.6%)
4) It is a National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) study area.
(7.7%)
5) The urbanized area was selected by the Sutron report as having
a potential dissolved oxygen problem. (3.7%)
6) The urbanized area was listed in the 1978 NEEDS Survey case
studies. (2.8%)
7) The urbanized area was studied in the National Commission in
Water Quality Studies. (0.7%)
8) The urbanized area was mentioned in the National Eutrophication
Survey. (0.0%)
9) The urbanized area was mentioned in the 1974 National Water
Quality Inventory. (0.1%)
10) The urbanized area was mentioned in the 1979 Congressional
Hearings. (4.9%)
11) The urbanized area has combined sewers. (27.5%)
12) The urbanized area was mentioned in other studies. (11.1%)
The percent of the problems by category are shown in parentheses. Thus
any urbanized area may have a "problem" as defined by these twelve
conditions some of which are interrelated. Table 5 shows the distribution
by percent of the 248 urbanized area according to whether they had zero,
one, two through six problem citations. Table 5 indicates that almost
two-thirds of the urbanized areas had zero or one citation; about 30
percent had two or three citations; and the remaining cities had four,
five, or six citations. The nineteen cities which had four to six
citations are generally older and larger than average.
41
-------
DILUTION RATIO
Table 6 shows the percentage of urbanized areas that discharge into
Number
ed as
of Times Urbanized Area was Cit-
Having an Urban Runoff Problem.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total
Percent of
Total
29.0
33.3
20.6
9.5
4.0
3.2
0.4
100.0
Table 5. Distribution of Problem Categories for Urbanized Areas
in the United States
Category % of Urban
Areas
A. Rivers
1. Creeks and shallow streams (0-100 cfs) 19.8
2. Upstream feeders (100-1000 cfs) 21.3
3. Intermediate channels (1000-10,000 cfs) 24.4
4. Main drainage rivers (10,000-100,000 cfs) 15.1
5. Large rivers (>100,000 cfs) 3.9
Sub-total, Rivers 84.5
B. Lakes
1. Small ponds, back waters 0.4
2. Lakes 4.7
Sub-total, Lakes 5.1
C. Estuaries and Ocean
1. Shallow estuary or bay (d<10 feet) 0.4
2. Medium depth estuary or bay (1030) 2.7
4. Open ocean or beach 5.0
Sub-Total, Estuaries & Oceans 10.4
Total, A, B, and C 100
Table 6. Distribution of Primary Receiving Waters for Urbanized
Areas in the United States
42
-------
each of 11 categories of primary receiving waters. The results indicate
that about 84 percent of the discharge is to rivers, 5 percent to lakes,
and 11 percent to estuaries or oceans. However, this distribution can
be misleading because many of the impacted areas of major significance
are not the primary receiving water. For example, the primary receiving
water for Cincinnati, Ohio is the Ohio River. However, the 208 problem
statements identifies the Little Miami River as having runoff related
water quality problems.
FISH KILLS
Fish In Urban Areas
Urban receiving water bodies, for a variety of reasons other than
stormwater runoff (e.g., habitat alteration, multi-source pollutants,
temperature), may not have abundant fish populations. In fact, abundance
of aquatic life in general is most often inversely proportional to the
degree of urbanization. However, many fish kills have been related to
stormwater runoff, combined sewer overflows (CSO's), storm sewers, or
rainfall events. Table 7 summarizes storm-water/storm-sewer related
fish-kill reports in the EPA files (24) for the period for January 1970
to May 1979. It gives the number of fish kills reported for a given
year relative to the seven categories listed. A brief description of
each category is presented in order of appearance in the table.
Pollutant Spilled into Storm Sewer
The pollutant in this category may or may not have been flushed by
a rainfall event (not indicated on fish kill report). Typically this is
a human event-type impact where someone dumps a toxic substance into a
storm drain, or a toxic substance accidentally spills and drains into a
storm sewer.
Storm Sewer Discharge from Rainfall Event
This is distinguished from the previous category in that the person
filling out the fish-kill report stated that the kill was due to dis-
charge during a storm event. This category overlaps the previous one in
instances where residuals of a spilled toxic substance remain in the
storm sewer until adequate flushing occurs.
Combined Sewer Outfall
Fish kills occur downstream of identified combined sewer overflows
(CSO's).
Rainfall-Runoff Related to Land Use
This fish-kill category includes reports which do not specify
drainage ways, storm sewers, or sheet flow but document fish kills
following rainfall-runoff events. The attempt to classify relative to
land use is a very rough estimate. Fish-kill reports are not detailed
43
-------
TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF NUMBER OF STORM-WATER/STORM-SEWER RELATED FISH-KILL REPORTS,
U.S. EPA DATA, 1970 to MAY, 1979 BY CAUSE OF KILL*
Year
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
Total
Pollutant
Spilled into
Storm sewer
7
4
1
-
6
6
2
5
1
-
32
Storm Sewer
Discharge
From Rainfall
Event
4
2
2
2
3
-
2
2
2
1
20
Combined
Sewer
Outfall
3
3
3
1
1
3
1
-
-
-
15
Rainfall-Runoff Related
to Land Use
Comn/Ind
3
3
1
3
3
3
2
3
-
1
22
Resident ial/
Suburban
7
11
4
7
5
5
6
3
1
-
49
Agric.
4
12
9
4
15
5
7
2
5
1
64
Acid Mine
Drainage-
Storm Event
Related
3
2
5
3
2
-
-
2
-
-
17
Landfill
Leachate-
Storm Event
Related
2
2
8
5
1
1
1
1
-
2
23
Other
3
7
1
4
-
1
4
2
1
-
23
Coiran = commercial land use
Ind = industrial land use
Agric = agricultural land use
*Source: Raw Data from EPA (24)
-------
enough to identify the specific sources of runoff, or how the runoff
actually gets into the receiving water body.
Acid Mine Drainage-Storm Event Related
Acid mine drainage, a nonurban stormwater problem, was included in
the table for two reasons: the mining activity may be borrow material
for roads, or a town built around a mine; and it is useful to compare
the number of acid mine related fish kills to those related to stormwater
/storm sewers. Acid mine drainage is a fairly well documented problem;
the numbers of reported kills are comparable.
Landfill Leachate Storm-Event Related
Most landfills are products of urban activity, even though many are
located in agricultural or fringe areas.
Other
This category includes fish-kill reports not suitable under the
other headings but of interest due to location (a receiving water body
under stormwater runoff study, e.g. Trinity River in Texas), or apparent
stormwater-related kill (indicated, not directly stated).
Some general comments pertinent to the survey of the fish-kill data
are:
1. Because many urban streams are grossly polluted from a variety
of sources, no fish'remain. Hence, no fish kills are reported.
2. Very few of the reports (a total of 20 for the period 1970-
1979) state stormwater runoff directly as the cause of fish
kills.
3. There are several instances of storm water flushing pesticides,
sewage deposits, herbicides, dumps of oil, etc.
4. In several instances accidental dumps of toxic substances into
storm sewers are flushed prematurely by rainfall events. A
good example is a hotel or drug store fire where fire department
runoff goes into a storm drain.
5. Many citations indicate fish kills due to "eutrophication," or
"natural causes." General water quality deterioration or
nutrient enrichment, could in part, be due to stormwater
runoff. However these were not included in Table 7.
6. The EPA instructions for filling out fish-kill reports group
sewerage, storm water, and CSO's into a single category (sewerage
system). If the person filling out the form does not specify
the type of system, it is anyone's "best guess" as to which
45
-------
type of system caused the kill. The Sewerage System category
contains the largest number of fish kills. Unless CSO's or
storm sewers were specifically cited, they were not counted
and recorded in Table 7. For this reason, Table 7 understates
the actual number of CSO or storm sewer-related kills.
7. In a true urban stream, the resident fish population may be
adapted to pollutant loads, and/or pulses; or the population
may become dominated by more pollutant tolerant species. The
fish-kill data do have some information concerning species of
fish killed, but no historical information is available.
8. Fish-kill frequency data are relative. If an area experiences
a severe kill that wipes out the fish population, subsequent
events do not record kills. Conversely, a severe kill could
wipe out a resident population, but in-migration from a nearby
water body would mask reduction in the local population on a
longer term basis.
9. Fish-kill reports are prepared by people with a variety of
positions and backgrounds. The inherent variability in such a
nationwide reporting system makes numbers and statistics for
this type of data base very subjective and less reliable.
The monthly distribution of fish kills as a percentage of the total
number of fish killed and the total number of reports is shown in Figure
10. As expected, relatively more kills occur during the warmer months
of the year.
BEACH CLOSINGS
The National Commission on Water Quality placed heavy emphasis on
attempting to evaluate the benefits associated with water pollution
control (26). A total of 3,521 beaches throughout the United States
were surveyed. Of these beaches, 449 had water quality problems. Table
8 shows the proportion of the closings due to various causes. While
urban runoff is not identified as a separate category, the majority of
the closings may be attributable to this cause. For example, within the
coliform related problem category, almost 50 percent of the total closings
are due to undefined sewage contamination or unknown causes.
LOW DISSOLVED OXYGEN
The Sutron Corp. (28) in an EPA sponsored national assessment,
related the magnitude of dissolved oxygen (D.O.) deficits and the presence
of storm runoff downstream of urban areas. Based on a initial screening
of over 1,000 D.O. monitors located throughout the United States, over
100 water quality monitoring sites in and downstream of urban areas were
selected. Approximately one-third of these monitors indicated at least
a 60 percent probability of a higher than average dissolved oxygen
deficit occuring at times of higher than average streamflow.
46
-------
I
50
40
o
H-
H
O
P
20
10
LEGEND
FISH KILLED
REPORTS
i
JFMAM J J A
N
MONTH
Figure 10. Monthly Distribution of Fish Kills as a Percentage
of Total Fish Killed.
47
-------
TABLE 8. Causes of Water Quality Related Beach Closings
in the United States.
Cause
Algae, Scum
Turbidity
High Coliform or Fecal Coliform Count Due To:
Flood, Wind, Heavy Rainfall
Agricultural Runoff
Sewage Treatment Plant Malfunction,
Spills, Overflows
Undefined Sewage Contamination or Unknown
Other
Unknown
Total
Number
11
13
41
10
42
337
71
80
605
Percent
Total
\
1.8 )
2.2 '
1
6.8
1.7
6.9
55.7
11.'
13.
IOC
*Source: Raw Data From Battelle (26).
48
-------
Of the areas where a low D.O. , high streamflow correlation was observed,
a more detailed hourly analysis was performed. These results were
striking! During steady-state, low-flow conditions the D.O. fluctuates
diurnally between 1 and 7 mg/1. However, after a storm begins, the
diurnal fluctuations are completely dampened. The minimum wet-weather
D.O. is 1 to 1.5 mg/1 lower than the dry-weather minimum, and remains
that way for 1 to 5 days. As the impact of the storm dissipates, the
D.O. resumes its original cyclic behavior. This relationship, for the
Scioto River at Chillicothe, Ohio, (downstream of Columbus, Ohio) is
shown in Figure 11. It suggests the need to reexamine the traditional
approach to defining "critical" conditions in receiving waters based on
receiving water quality during an extended dry period. For example, the
most popular critical period is the one in ten year seven day low flow
in the receiving water.
In this study (28), the two most severe cases of low D.O. were the
Trinity River near Dallas, Texas and Wilsons Creek near Springfield,
Missouri. The authors' independent analysis indicates that both of
these receiving waters have large deposits of sludge from primary sewage
treatment plants. Thus, a significant part of the problem is attributable
to resuspension of this benthal material.
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM CASE STUDIES
This detailed evaluation of urban runoff problems in cities throughout
the United States yielded 30 case studies. Each of these applicants
indicated that they have a "problem" and that they were willing to do
something about it. However, little definitive evidence was presented
to support the contention of a receiving water problem. Descriptions of
the receiving water problem for some of these projects are presented
below for illustrative purposes.
1. Baltimore, MarylandStudies by Olivieri and his co-workers
(37) appear to be the best available source of information on
the bacteriological quality of urban stormwater. Their results
indicate that "urban runoff" is really a composite of all
unaccounted for residuals leaving an urban area via the water-
courses. It includes illicit industrial waste, cross connections
with the sanitary sewer system, septic tank seepage, landfill
leachate, etc. Thus, sanitary surveys of local receiving
waters are needed to characterize the actual problems that
exist, e.g., unauthorized or unknown cross contamination.
2. Myrtle Beach, South CarolinaBacteriological contamination of
the city's beaches occurs after heavy rains. Urban runoff is
the alleged cause although it might be illicit interconnections
with the sanitary sewer system.
3. Tampa, FloridaDeterioration of the City of Tampa surface
water supply in the Upper Hillsborough River appears to be
partially attributable to urbanization of the riparian lands.
Water quality in the Lower Hillsborough River and Hillsborough
49
-------
o>
d
a
SATURATION DO LEVEL
TJ
O
o
O
u
c
-------
Bay is degraded by landfill leachate, contaminated spring
water, sanitary sewer system overflows, zoo runoff, as well as
the more general forms of urban runoff. These receiving
waters have been seriously impacted by sewage and water treatment
plant sludges, industrial wastes, incinerator leachate, and
other problems. The relative importance of urban runoff is to
be determined.
4. Milwaukee, WisconsinMilwaukee has very serious combined
sewer overflow problems and a large accumulation of sewage
sludges.(38) The problem is relatively well documented and
the City of Milwaukee is committed to take remedial action.
5. Austin, TexasTown lake, a water supply source for the city,
has received urban runoff for a number of years. Urbanization
is proceeding upstream along the lake. There is general
evidence that water quality in the lake has deteriorated but
the exact extent is unknown. Are stringent controls on urban
runoff needed and/or should the City of Austin move its water
supply further upstream?
6. Bellevue, WashingtonThe City of Bellevue seeks to preserve
the salmon runs. Efforts are being made to prevent deterioration
of the local streams. This requires effective ordinances and
extensive monitoring. What would such a program cost and how
effective will it be?
NATIONAL WATER QUALITY INVENTORY
The National Water Quality Inventory (30) is a compilation of
reference level violations in major waterways. The causes of these
violations were not segregated so the contribution of storm water is not
known. The frequency of violations is of interest in that many of the
water bodies have been identified relative to storm-water/receiving
water bodies.
Parameters addressed were:
Suspended solids* Sulfates
Turbidity* Alkalinity
Color* pH*
Ammonia* Dissolved oxygen
Nitrite BOD *
Nitrate (as N) COD (.025N)*
Nitrate (as NO )* Total coliforms*
Nitrite plus nitrate* Fecal coliforms*
Organic nitrogen Phenols
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen Odor
Total phosphorus*
Total phosphate
Dissolved phosphate
51
-------
Dissolved solids (105°C)
Dissolved solids (180°C)
Chlorides
* Higher pollutant levels in periods of high flow.
Table 9 shows the percentage of these parameters exceeding reference
levels. These receiving waters are relatively large and do not provide
a good representation of the mix of urbanized area receiving waters
shown in Table 6. Figure 12 shows a map of large rivers of the United
States. Thirty of thirty five of these receiving waters show on the map
as large rivers. Based on the dilution calculations, these receiving
waters would not be expected to have serious problems from wet-weather
flows from urban areas.
208 PRIORITY PROBLEM AREA
Urban runoff was identified as being a "priority problem" in 88
urbanized areas throughout the United States. Based on reviews of
numerous 208 studies and inquiries to EPA regional coordinators, very
few of these problem areas have extensive sampling data to support the
allegation that urban runoff problems exist. Rather the problem assessment
is based on areas where deterioration is evident and urban runoff appears
to be a cause of the problem. Nevertheless, this is probably the best
single source of information on impacts as viewed at the local level.
1978 NEEDS Survey
Simulated receiving water impact studies were done for fifteen
urban areas. The "problem" assessment is in terms of comparing calculated
receiving water concentrations to prespecified standards. Some calibration
data were available. The unique part of this study was the use of
criteria for three levels of water quality: 1) aesthetics, 2) fish and
wildlife, and 3) recreation. No measure of aesthetics was used. For
fish and wildlife, requiring a minimum dissolved oxygen of 2.0 mg/1 for
four consecutive hours determines the required level of treatment. One
violation per year was permitted. Similar criteria were established for
other constituents.
This approach is limited by the facts that: 1) the simulation
models do not adequately predict the receiving water response as evidenced
by the data of Keefer et al. (28); 2) the dose-response information is
very weak; and 3) no local assessment of problems is included. It is
highly improbable that a simple simulation model could realistically
portray local problems.
NORTH AMERICAN WATER PROJECT
This report presents summary information on twenty one studies of
lakes throughout the United States (29). Five of these studies relate
urban runoff loadings to receiving water quality in four cities: Minn-
eapolis, Minn.; Lake George, New York; Madison, Wise.; and Seattle,
Wash. Of these five studies, Lake Wingra in Madison, Wise, is the only
52
-------
Table 9. Major Waterway Rankings-Percent of Parameters
Exceeding Reference Levels*.
0 to 7
7 to 17
Over 17
Upper Missouri River
Columbia River
Lower Tennessee River
Snake River
Willamette River
Boston Harbor
Upper Mississippi River
Yukon River
Chicago Area-Lake Michigan
Upper Tennessee River
Detroit Area-River
Rio Grande River
Alabama-Coosa Rivers
Upper Ohio River
Susquehanna River
Upper Red River
Lower Colorado River
Potomac River
Detroit Area-Tributaries
Scaramento River
Lower Red River
Brazos River
Upper Colorado River
Hudson River
Delaware River
Middle Mississippi
River
Lower Arkansas River
Lower Ohio River
Lower Mississippi
River
Middle Ohio River
Lower Missouri River
Chicago Area-
Tributaries
Mississippi near
Minneapolis
Upper Arkansas River
Middle Missouri River
*Based on the number of parameters having medians which exceed reference
levels selected for comparative purposes.
Source: Data from EPA (30 )
53
-------
I
20,000 cfs
50,000 els
100,000 cfs
ib0,000 el,
i'00,000 els
R.vers sho*n ore ''XJse whose
o! ir>e mourn 15 i 9,000 c(s or m,
wage flow
Figure 12. Large Rivers in the United States (39),
54
-------
lake in which urban runoff is the primary input. There is an extensive
data base for Lake Wingra based on long-term studies at the University
of Wisconsin. No major problems are evident.
1979 CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS
The recent Hearings reflect the changing attitude toward water
pollution control, i.e., the growing concern over the high cost of
advanced waste treatment (AWT), and the influence of nonpoint pollution
in preventing achievement of the 1983 goal of fishable/swimmable waters.
Case studies of Dallas and Minneapolis demonstrated the need to examine
water quality criteria on a case by case basis. Also, the question of
defining fishable/swimmable waters arose. Lastly, attempts to document
successes to date revealed how little substantive impact information is
available. Another disturbing fact was the reported poor performance of
the newly installed treatment plants.
COMBINED SEWERED AREAS
A total of 120 out of 248 urbanized areas include combined sewer
systems. Most of these cities are located in the eastern U.S. (96 out
of 120 are in EPA's eastern regions 1 to 5). These urban areas remain
the higher priority wet-weather pollution control problems.
OTHER STUDIES
The primary impetus for the other urban runoff studies was local
concern over the quality aspects of on-site stormwater detention ponds
which are very popular in new urban developments. Sufficient concern
exists in some areas to justify studies to assess the impact of urban
runoff on domestic water supplies. It is especially in these newer
areas with excellent environmental quality, e.g., the Sun Belt, that
public support for installing environmentally sound drainage systems is
very high. By contrast, the receiving water quality problems in older
parts of the U.S. are already dominated by more traditional waste sources.
Thus, they are not as enthusiastic about urban runoff quality control.
REGIONAL SUMMARY
The summaries for the cities and states were aggregated for each of
the ten EPA regions. The results, presented in Table 10, provide these
indicators of wet-weather receiving water impacts: the ratio of wet-to-
dry weather flow, the median dilution ratio, and the average number of
problem citations per city. Comparison of the wet-to-dry-weather flow
ratio indicates, as expected, that urban runoff is of greater relative
importance in the wetter parts of the U.S. However, the receiving water
flow in the wetter parts of the country tends to be larger. Thus, the
impact of urban runoff may be significant in arid parts of the U.S. due
to less dilution capacity. Region 9, which covers much of the arid
southwestern United States, has the lowest median dilution ratio of any
of the ten regions. However, one should not use the median dilution
ratio as a strong basis for ranking the problems in the ten regions.
55
-------
Urban
EPA No. of Precipitation Population Wet/Dry Median Problems
Region Urbanized , in/yr. 1000?s Flow Dilution Citations
Areas Ratio Ratio Per Urbanized
Area
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total/Avg.
25
10
24
43
52
40
15
11
21
7
248
41.1
40.5
42.1
49.6
32.7
35.3
31.9
17.4
16.9
26.9
33.4
9050
21983
16203
18745
32610
14753
7291
3735
20731
4265
149366
1.39
0.86
1.21
1.69
0.99
1.20
1.09
0.49
0.42
1.09
1.04
4.8
83
29.5
100
15.2
13.9
124
6.8
1.0
112
15.2*
1.3
2.0
1.6
1.6
1.7
0.7
1.4
1.1
1.0
2.1
1.6*
(a)
Urbanized areas are as defined in U.S. Census. See reference 1.
Table 10. Regional Summaries of Receiving Water Impact Information.
*Urbanized area weighted regional median.
Annual wet-weather runoff from urbanized area divided by annual sewage flow.
-------
For some regions, e.g., region 8, the sample size is small. As mentioned
earlier, the "primary" receiving water is often not the one: in which urban
runoff "problems" are observed. The distribution of dilution ratios
within a region varies widely. Thus, the median dilution ratio may
mislead the casual reader to perceive a normal distribution about the
median. It is not possible to make any simple generalizations regarding
the regional nature of the urban runoff problem.
The average number of problems per city ranges from a low of 0.7 in
region 6 to a high of 2.1 in region 10. Comparison of problems per city
to median dilution ratio indicates wide variability. However there is
a generally positive trend, i.e., the number of problems per city increases
as dilution ratio increases. One would expect the opposite to occur
since increased dilution capacity should reduce the number of problem
citations per urbanized area.
STATE SUMMARIES
Whereas the regional summaries did not indicate any apparent regional
trends with regard to dilution ratios, the state summaries do help
indicate the general ranking of states which might be expected to have
relatively severe urban runoff problems. Neglecting those states not
having at least three urban areas, the following seven states do not
have a dilution ratio greater than 10.
Connecticut (3.0) Utah (5.1)
North Carolina (3.5) Massachusetts (6.2)
Colorado (3.5) Ohio (7.2)
California (3.7)
At the other extreme, the following three states have median dilution
ratios greater than 1000.
Arkansas (1040)
West Virginia (1525)
Kentucky (2409)
However, Kentucky with the highest median dilution ratio, contains
Lexington, a head-water city with a dilution ratio of about zero. Thus,
caution needs to be exercised in attempting to generalize regarding
state summary information.
LOCAL SUMMARIES
The results for all urbanized areas in the United States are summarized
in two types of tables. The first type summarizes the demographic, flow
and dilution ratio data, and number of problem citations. The second
type indicates whether the city is in a 208 area and has identified
urban runoff as a priority problem; the type of receiving waters; and
the type of impacts, beneficial uses, and problem pollutants. The first
set of tables is presented as Appendix A. The entries in this set of
tables give specific quantitative measures of potential problems, e.g.,
57
-------
the dilution ratio and number of problem citations. The second set of
tables, presented as Appendix B, is softer information but does provide some
general indication of areas of concern.
The most direct measure of the relative importance of urban runoff
is to examine the number of citations per city for the 248 urbanized
areas. As Table 5 indicated, 7.6 percent of the urbanized areas have
four to six citations. Table 11 lists these nineteen urbanized areas
along with the number of citations.
Citations per Urbanized Area(s)
Urbanized Area
6 Philadelphia, PA.
5 Boston, MA, Chicago, IL, Detroit, MI, Lansing,
MI, Milwaukee, WI, New York, NY, Seattle, WA,
Washington, B.C.
4 Atlanta, GA, Baltimore, MD, Cleveland, OH,
Denver, CO, Des Moines, LA, Mobile, AL, Rich-
mond, VA, Savannah, GA, Syracuse, NY, and
Youngstown OH.
Table 11. Urbanized Areas with Four, Five and Six Urban Runoff
Problem Citations.
Based on this extensive national search for impacts, the hope was
that general trends and correlations might become apparent, e.g., heavy
metals problems are most common in the southeastern United States.
However, overall analysis of the data base indicates that it would be
counter-productive to place much faith in these data because they were
not really collected in a systematic, scientific manner. Using heavy
metals as an example, it is doubtful that few, if any, of the cities
listing heavy metals as a "problem" could substantiate this connection
with proper scientific evidence. Rather, the information was probably
based on reading the literature and noting the general concern regarding
pollution from heavy metals.
The significance of stormwater impacts on receiving water bodies
cannot be assessed at this time. The sparseness of documented cases,
the lack of detailed data, and the general focus of stormwater investiga-
tions into water quality dynamics (and away from actual impacts) do not
provide a substantial basis for determinations.
Nationwide attention has been focused on impact documentation.
Thus, the data bases are just now beginning to be extensive enough to
address scientific correlation of constituents with respect to impacts,
and because some possible sources of impact documentation have not been
searched at site-specific levels, the amount of documentation identified
is probably much less than what exists. In other words, documentation
is only beginning to be found because the search has just begun.
58
-------
REFERENCES
1. Heaney, J.P., et al., Nationwide Evaluation of Combined Sewer
Overflows and Urban Stormwater Discharges, Vol. II: Cost Assessment
and Impacts. EPA-600/2-77-064, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1977. 364 pp.
2. Tarr, J.A. and F.C. McMichael, Historic Turning Points in Municipal
Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal, 1850-1932. Civil Engineering,
Vol. 47, No. 10, Oct. 1977. pp. 82-86.
3. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, PL 92-500,
92nd Congress, S. 2770, October 18, 1972.
4. Canter, L.W., Environmental Impact Assessment. McGraw-Hill Book
Co., New York, 1977. 331pp.
5. Environmental Protection Agency, The Integrity of Water, Proc. of
a Symposium, U.S. GPO Stock Number 055-001-01068-1, Washington,
D.C., 1975.
6. Environmental Protection Agency, The Quality of Life Concept, U.S.
EPA, Washington, D.C. 1972.
7. Ehrenfeld, D.W., The Conservation of Non-Resources. American Scientist,
Vol. 64, 1976. pp. 648-656.
8. Eisenbud, M., Environment, Technology and Health, New York U.
Press, New York, 1974.
9. Dallaire, G., Do Federal Grants Force Cities to Build The Wrong
Things?, Civil Engineering, Vol. 49, No. 9, Oct. 1979. pp. 79-81.
10. Environmental Protection Agency, Cost Estimates for Construction of
Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities. 1974 NEEDS Survey,
USEPA, Washington D.C., Feb. 1975.
11. Black, Crow and Eidsness,Inc., and Jordan, Jones and Goulding,
Inc., "Study and Assessment of the Capabilities and Cost of Technology
for Control of Pollutant Discharge from Urban Runoff. Final Report
to the National Commission on Water Quality, Washington, D.C.,
Oct. 1975.
12. Heaney, J.P., et al., Nationwide Cost of Wet-Weather Pollution
Control. Jour. Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol 51, No. 8,
Aug. 1979. pp. 2043-2053.
59
-------
13. Heaney, J.P., Economic/Financial Analysis of Urban Water Quality
Management Problems. U.S. EPA Grant No. R802411, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati,
Ohio, 1980.
14. Starr, C., Social Benefit Versus Technological Risk, Science, Vol.
165, 1969. pp. 1232.
15. Wilson, R., Regulations for Cancer Risk? Yes, But a Rational
Approach, Gainesville Sun, July 30, 1978.
16. Hirshleifer, J. et al., Water Supply; Economics, Technology and Policy,
U. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 111. 1960.
17. Pendygraft, G.W. et al., Organics in Drinking Water: A Health
Perspective, Jour. American Water Works Association, Vol. 21, 1979.
pp. 118-126.
18. Krenkel, P., Problems in the Establishment of Water Quality Criteria.
Jour. Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 51, No. 8, Aug.
1979. pp. 2168-2188.
19. Heaney, J.P., and E. Waring, Methods for Quantifying Water Quality
Benefits, Florida Water Resources Research Center Publication No.
47, U. of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 1980.
20. Sinden, J.A. and A.C. Worrell, Unpriced Values-Decisions Without
Market Prices, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1979.
21. English, J.N., In-House Files on Receiving Water Impacts, U.S.
EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio 1978.
22. Athayde, D., Manager of EPA's Nationwide Urban Runoff Program,
Personal Communication, Washington, B.C. 1980.
23. Zeigler, D., EPA 208 Program Specialist, Washington, D.C. 1979.
24. Biernacki, E., In-House Files on Fish Kills, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 1979.
25. Anonymous, Fish Kills Caused by Pollution, Fifteen-Year Summary:
1961-1975. EPA-440/4-78-011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. 1979.
26. Battelle Memorial Institute, Benefits from Water Pollution Abatement:
Beach Closings and Reopenings, Final Report to National Commission
on Water Quality. NTIS No. PB-251 222, Washington, D.C., 1975.
27. CH2M-Hill, 1978 NEEDS Survey, Cost Methodology for Control of
Combined Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Discharge. EPA 430/9-79-
003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 1978.
60
-------
28. Keefer, T.N., et al. Dissolved Oxygen Impact from Urban Storm
Runoff, EPA-600/2-79-156, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1979.
29. Seyb, L., and K. Randolph, North American Project. A Study of U.S.
Water Bodies. EPA-600/3-77-086. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Corvallis, Oregon, 1977.
30. Environmental Protection Agency, National Water Quality Report to
the Congress. EPA-44019-74-001 and 002. Vols. 1 and 2. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1974.
31. House of Representatives, Implementation of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (Nonpoint Pollution and the Areawide Waste
Treatment Management Program), Hearings, 96 Cong., First Sess.,
Washington, D.C., 1979.
32. U.S. Bureau of the Census, County and City Data Book, 1972, US GPO,
Washington, D.C., 1972.
33. Schneider, W.J., Water Data for Metropolitan Areas, U.S. Geological
Survey Water Supply Paper 1871, US GPO, Washington, D.C., 1968.
34. Drummond, R.R., When is a Stream a Stream?, Prof. Geographer, Vol.
21, No. 1, 1974, pp. 34-37.
35. Huber, W.C. et al., Environmental Resources Management Studies in
the Kissimmee River Basin, Final Report to Central and Southern
Florida Flood Control District, West Palm Beach, FL. 1976.
36. U.S. Geological Survey, State Hydrologic Maps-Brochure, Reston,
Va., Undated.
37. Olivieri, V.P., et al. Microorganisms in Urban Stormwater, EPA-
600/2-77-087. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Edison, New
Jersey, 1977.
38. Meinholz, T.L., et al. Verification of the Water Quality Impacts
of Combined Sewer Overflows. EPA-600/2-79-155, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 1979.
39. Large Rivers of the United States, U.S. Geological Survey Circular
44, US GPO, 1949.
61
-------
APPENDIX A
SUMMARIES OF DEMOGRAPHIC, FLOW, AND DILUTION RATIO DATA
The following tables present information on annual precipitation,
1970 population and land area, annual wet-weather flow, sewage flow,
primary receiving water flow, dilution ratio, and number of problem
citations for every urbanized area in the United States. Results are
summarized by State and EPA region. Detailed descriptions of each
column are presented in the main body of the report.
62
-------
State Connecticut
DEMOGRAPHIC
, FLOW, AND
DILUTION
RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
PRECIPITATION 1970
URBAN AREA
Bridgeport
Bristol
Danbury
Hartford
Meriden
New Britain
New Haven
Norwalk
Stamford
Waterbury
Other
Total/Avg.
in/yr
42.0
43.0
42.0
42.0
45.0
43.0
45.0
44.0
45.0
46.0
43.7
43.7
POPULATION
1000 ' s
413
72
67
465
98
131
348
107
185
157
301
2344
1970
DEVELOPED
AREA, mi2
77.3
15.2
15.1
80.1
21.6
23.0
61.4
20.8
35.4
29.7
56.2
435.8
WET
WEATHER
15.5
15.4
14.6
16.0
15.7
16.2
16.9
16.1
16.5
16.9
16.1
16.1
SEWAGE
11.2
10.1
9.3
12.2
9.4
12.0
11.8
10.9
11.0
11.0
11.3
11.3
PRIMARY
RECEIVING
WATER
8.8
78.9
38.2
2830
129
100
91.8
16.5
111
85.4
DILUTION
RATIO
0.33
3
1.6
100
5.2
~0
3.5
3.4
0.6
4
3.2
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
11,2
0
0
11
2,3
0
3,11
11
0
11
2,3
0.9
-------
State Maine
DEMOGRAPHIC, FLOW, AND DILUTION RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
URBAN AREA
Lewis ton
Portland
Other
Total/Avg.
PRECIPITATION
in/yr
44.0
43.0
43.5
43.5
1970
POPULATION
1000 's
65
106
336
507
1970
DEVELOPED
AREA, mi2
15.3
22.2
73.4
111
WET
WEATHER
15.1
15.3
15.2
15.2
SEWAGE
9.0
10.1
9.6
9.6
PRIMARY
RECEIVING
WATER
5240
411
2900
DILUTION
RATIO
218
16
117
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
11
11
1
1.0
-------
State Massachusetts
DEMOGRAPHIC, FLOW, AND DILUTION RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
URBAN AREA
Boston
Brockton
Fall River
Fitchburg
Lawrence
Lowell
New Bedford
Pittsfield
Springfield
Worchester
Other
Total/Avg.
PRECIPITATION 1970 1970 WET
in/yr POPULATION DEVELOPED WEATHER
1000's AREA, mi2
43.0
45.0
45.0
46.0
41.0
40.0
41.0
44.0
45.0
46.0
43.6
43.6
2652
149
139
78
200
183
134
63
514
247
454
4813
434.3
27.9
25.2
17.6
39.6
33.9
22.3
13.8
103.8
45.7
79.3
843.4
16.6
16.6
16.9
16.0
14.9
14.8
15.8
15.4
16.2
17.1
16.4
16.4
PRIMARY
SEWAGE RECEIVING
WATER
12.8
11.2
11.8
9.3
10.7
11.4
12.8
9.5
10.4
11.4
12.0
12.0
11.8
5.7
156
2530
2870
110
2190
71.2
176
DILUTION
RATIO
0.5
0
0.2
6.2
98.7
110
>1000
7.9
82
2.5
6.2
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
1,4,6,10,11
1,10
11
1,5,11
11
1,11
5,11
0
5,4,11
1,11,5
10,3,2
2.4
-------
State New Hampshire
DEMOGRAPHIC, FLOW, AND DILUTION RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
URBAN AREA
Manchester
Nashua
Other
Total/Avg.
PRECIPITATION
in/yr
40.0
42.0
41.0
41.0
1970
POPULATION
1000 ' s
95
61
261
417
1970
DEVELOPED
AREA, mi2
18.6
13.0
52.3
84.1
WET
WEATHER
14.5
14.9
14.7
14.7
SEWAGE
10.7
9.9
10.4
10.4
PRIMARY
RECEIVING
WATER
3890
5900
4920
DILUTION
RATIO
154
238
196
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
11
11
10
1.0
-------
State Rhode Island
DEMOGRAPHIC
, FLOW, AND DILUTION
RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
URBAN AREA
Providence
Other
Total/Avg.
PRECIPITATION
in/yr
40.0
40.0
40.0
1970
POPULATION
1000 fs
795
31
826
1970 WET
DEVELOPED WEATHER
AREA, mi2
141.1 15.0
5.4 15.0
146.5 15.0
PRIMARY DILUTION PROBLEM
SEWAGE RECEIVING RATIO CITATIONS
WATER
11.8 76.9 2.9 1,11
11.8 0
11.8 76.9 2.9 2
-------
State Vermont
DEMOGRAPHIC, FLOW, AND DILUTION RATIO DATA
URBAN AREA
for Region 1
FLOW in/yr
PRECIPITATION 1970 1970 WET PRIMARY DILUTION PROBLEM
in/yr POPULATION DEVELOPED WEATHER SEWAGE RECEIVING RATIO CITATIONS
1000's AREA, mi2 WATER
No Urbanized Areas
Total/Avg.
Total/Avg.
35.0
40.5
143
9050
27.6
1648.4
12.8
18.2
11.0
21.2 105
0
3.5 1.32
oo
-------
State New Jersey
DEMOGRAPHIC, FLOW, AND DILUTION RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
PRECIPITATION 1970
URBAN AREA
Atlantic City
New York City
Metro
Philadelphia Metro
Trenton
Vineland
Other
Total/Avg.
in/yr
42.0
43.0
43.0
42.0
44.0
42.0
42.8
POPULATION
1000 's
134
5688
202
274
74
6372
1970
DEVELOPED
AREA, mi2
27.7
1067.7
32.2
44.2
17.4
1189.2
WET
WEATHER
15.0
15.9
16.7
16.4
15.1
15.9
15.9
SEWAGE
10.2
11.2
13.0
13.1
8.9
11.2
11.2
PRIMARY
RECEIVING
WATER
4930
3700
136
3390
DILUTION
RATIO
>1000
83
166
125
5.7
125
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
0
1,11,3
1,11
1,5
0
1
1.4
-------
State New York
DEMOGRAPHIC
, FLOW, AND
DILUTION
RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
PRECIPITATION 1970
URBAN AREA
Albany
Binghampton
Buffalo
New York City
Rochester
Syracuse
Utica
Other
Total/Avg.
Total/Avg.
in/yr
38.0
36.0
36.0
43.0
32.0
38.0
44.0
38.1
38.1
40.5
POPULATION
1000 's
486
167
1086
10519
601
376
180
2196
15611
21983
1970
DEVELOPED
AREA, mi2
87.1
29.6
158.4
379.3
96.6
61.7
35.3
139.3
987.3
2176.5
WET
WEATHER
14.2
13.5
14.4
29.8
12.3
14.6
16.0
18.2
18.2
18.2
SEWAGE
11.8
11.8
14.4
58.2
13.0
12.7
10.7
33.2
33.2
21.2
PRIMARY
RECEIVING
WATER
2160
2950
47500
448
390
25.8
296
792
296
DILUTION
RATIO
83
116
1650
5.7
15.4
0.95
11.1
15.4
83
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
11
11
11
1,4,6
3,10,11
4,6,12,11
1,6,12
11
11
2
2.4
2.0
for Region 2
-------
State Delaware
URBAN AREA
Wilmington
Other
Total/Avg.
PRECIPITATION
in/yr
45.0
45.0
45.0
DEMOGRAPHIC
1970
POPULATION
1000 fs
371.
24.
395
, FLOW, AND DILUTION RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
1970 WET PRIMARY DILUTION
DEVELOPED WEATHER SEWAGE RECEIVING RATIO
AREA, mi2 WATER
64.8 17.0 12.0 128. 4.4
4.6 17.0 12.0
69.4 17.0 12.0 128. 4.4
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
3,11
0
2
-------
State Washington D.C.
DEMOGRAPHIC, FLOW, AND DILUTION RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
URBAN AREA
Washington
Other
Total/Avg.
PRECIPITATION
in/yr
41.0
41.0
41.0
1970
POPULATION
1000 's
757.
757.
1970
DEVELOPED
AREA, mi2
58.6
2.4
61
WET
WEATHER
20.7
20.7
20.7
SEWAGE
26.9
26.9
26.9
PRIMARY
RECEIVING
WATER
2540.
2540
DILUTION
RATIO
53.3
53.3
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
1,4,10
11,12
0
5,10,11
-------
State Maryland
DEMOGRAPHIC, FLOW, AND DILUTION RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
PRECIPITATION 1970 1970 WET PRIMARY DILUTION PROBLEM
URBAN AREA in/yr POPULATION DEVELOPED WEATHER SEWAGE RECEIVING RATIO CITATIONS
1000's AREA, mi/
WATER
Baltimore
43.0
Washington Metro 41.0
Other
Total/Avg.
42.0
42.0
1580
473
1425
3005
229.6 17.3 14.4
22
78.1 15.8 12.8 2540
143.2 16.9 14.0
450.9 16.9 14.0 1280
53.3
26.6
1,3,12,
4
1,4,10,
11,12
1,4.5
-------
State Pennsylvania
DEMOGRAPHIC, FLOW, AND DILUTION RATIO DATA
FLOW In/yr
URBAN AREA
Allentown
Altoona
Erie
Harrisburg
Johnstown
Lancaster
Philadelphia
Pittsburg
Reading
Scranton
Wilkes-Barre
York
PRECIPITATION
in/yr
44.0
44.0
38.0
38.0
45.0
43.0
43.0
37.0
42.0
39.0
39.0
40.0
1970
POPULATION
1000 's
364
82
175
241
96
117
3819
1846
168
204
223
123
1970
DEVELOPED
AREA, mi2
61.3
13.5
28.5
43.8
16.8
21.4
537.2
334.0
26.9
41.8
42.2
22.0
WET
WEATHER
16.8
17.1
14.6
14.2
17.0
16.0
17.5
13.8
16.3
14.0
14.3
15.1
SEWAGE
12.4
13.0
12.8
11.6
12.0
11.5
14.9
11.6
13.0
10.3
11.1
11.9
PRIMARY
RECEIVING
WATER
510
10700
308
240
1370
1300
540
87.4
4570
149
DILUTION
RATIO
17.5
~0
~0
416
10.6
8.7
42.3
51.2
19.5
3.6
180
5.5
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
11,5
11
11
11
11
11,12
1,11,5,
12,6,2
11
0
11
11
0
-------
State Pennsylvania Cont'd
DEMOGRAPHIC, FLOW, AND DILUTION RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
URBAN AREA
Other
Total/Avg.
PRECIPITATION
in/yr
41.0
41.0
1970
POPULATION
1000 's
975
8433
1970
DEVELOPED
AREA, mi2
155.3
2106
WET
WEATHER
15.9
15.9
SEWAGE
13.2
13.2
PRIMARY
RECEIVING
WATER
407
DILUTION
RATIO
14.0
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
2
1.4
Ui
-------
State Virginia
DEMOGRAPHIC, FLOW, AND DILUTION RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
PRECIPITATION 1970 1970 WET
URBAN AREA in/yr POPULATION DEVELOPED WEATHER
1000 's AREA, mi2
Lynchberg
Newport News
Norfolk
Petersburg
Richmond
Roanoke
Washington, D.C.
Metro
Other
Total/Avg.
40.0
45.0
45.0
43.0
44.0
42.0
41.0
42.9
42.9
71
268
668
101
416
157
1251
1
2933
16.5
56.4
134.
19.9
77.5
30.7
138
0
472.1
13.8
16.0
16.3
15.6
16.3
15.3
18.2
16.6
16.6
SEWAGE
9.2
10.0
10.5
10.7
11.3
10.7
19.0
13.0
13.0
PRIMARY
RECEIVING
WATER
2190
Ocean
Ocean
798
1320
169
1100
1415
DILUTION PROBLEM
RATIO CITATIONS
127
>1000
>1000
30.6
47.8
6.5
29.5
47.8
11
0
0
0
1,
1,
1,
11
0,
1.
2,3,11
11,10
4,10,
,12
2
9
-------
State West Virginia
DEMOGRAPHIC, FLOW, AND DILUTION RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
PRECIPITATION 1970
URBAN AREA
Charleston
Huntington
Steubenville Metro
Wheeling
Other
Total/Avg.
Total/Avg. for
in/yr
45.0
40.0
40
39.1
41.0
41.0
42.1
POPULATION
1000 's
158
121
40
93
268
680
16203
1970
DEVELOPED
AREA, mi2
30.8
22.9
10.3
16.5
52.5
132.9
2530
WET
WEATHER
16.5
14.7
13.3
14.7
15.2
15.2
16.3
SEWAGE
10.9
11.0
8.1
11.9
10.8
10.8
13.5
PRIMARY
RECEIVING
WATER
6360
46000
106000
33600
39650
1200
DILUTION
RATIO
232
1790
4980
1260
152.5
36.4
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
11
11
11
11
2
1.0
1.6
Region 3
-------
State Alabama
00
DEMOGRAPHIC
, FLOW, AND
DILUTION
RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
URBAN AREA
Birmingham
Gadsden
Huntsville
Mobile
.
Montgomery
Tuscaloosa
Other
Total/Avg.
PRECIPITATION
in/yr
53.0
55.0
52.0
68.0
54.0
53.0
55.8
55.8
1970
POPULATION
1000 fs
558
68
146
258
139
86
756
2011
1970
DEVELOPED
AREA, mi2
108.7
15.3
33.3
56.5
26.6
17.7
155.4
413
WET
WEATHER
19.4
19.2
18.1
24.1
20.0
19.0
20.3
20.3
SEWAGE
10.8
9.3
9.2
9.6
11.1
10.1
10.2
10.2
PRIMARY
RECEIVING
WATER
17
8040
17200
9160
11700
5800
8450
DILUTION
RATIO
~0
282
630
272
377
201
277
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
2
0
0
1,2
10
0
1
2
1.0
,12
-------
State Florida
VO
DEMOGRAPHIC
, FLOW, AND
DILUTION
RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
PRECIPITATION 1970
URBAN AREA
Ft . Lauderdale
Gainesville
Jacksonville
Miami
Orlando
Pensacola
St. Petersburg
Tallahassee
Tampa
West Palm Beach
Other
Total/Avg.
in/yr
60.0
52.0
53.0
60.0
51.0
63.0
55.0
57.0
52.0
62.0
56.5
56.5
POPULATION
1000 's
614
69
530
1220
305
167
495
78
369
228
1330
5465
1970
DEVELOPED
AREA, mi2
114.1
13.9
116
185.2
60.2
32.1
89.8
14.8
69.2
58.5
242.2
996.1
WET
WEATHER
22.4
19.4
18.7
23.9
18.5
23.2
20.6
21.0
19.3
22.4
21.3
21.3
SEWAGE
11.3
10.7
9.6
13.9
10.6
10.9
11.6
10.9
11.2
10.3
11.5
11.5
PRIMARY
RECEIVING
WATER
Ocean
20
646
Ocean
Small
Lakes
Bay
Bay
Small
Lakes
135
Ocean
748
DILUTION PROBLEM
RATIO CITATIONS
>1000 1,12
<1 12
22.8 0
XLOOO 1,12,2
<1 1,12,2
>1000 1,2
>1000 1,7,3
<1 1,12
4.4 4,12,7,1
XLOOO 1,2
A 2 1 3 12
t,£,J., -> ,-L.£
228 2.0
-------
State Georgia
DEMOGRAPHIC, FLOW, AND DILUTION RATIO DATA
00
o
FLOW in/yr
URBAN AREA
Albany
Atlanta
Augusta
Columbus
Macon
Savannah
Other
Total/Avg.
PRECIPITATION 1970
In/yr POPULATION
1000 's
48.0
47.0
39.0
49.0
44.0
52.0
46.5
46.5
76
1173
149
209
128
164
869
2768
1970
DEVELOPED
AREA, mi2
18.6
222
28.6
43.4
25.1
31.6
539.1
WET
WEATHER
16.3
17.3
14.2
17.6
16.1
19.1
17.1
17.1
SEWAGE
8.5
11.1
10.9
10.2
10.8
10.9
10.8
10.8
PRIMARY
RECEIVING
WATER
4512
189
4900
1950
1420
4900
4548
DILUTION PROBLEM
RATIO CITATIONS
182
0
195
70
52.8
163
116
11
1,11,6
12
11
12,11
1,10
1,10,11
2
2
2.3
-------
State Kentucky
DEMOGRAPHIC, FLOW, AND DILUTION RATIO DATA
00
FLOW in/yr
PRECIPITATION 1970 1970
URBAN AREA in/yr POPULATION DEVELOPED
1000 's AREA, ml2
Huntington Metro
Lexington
Louisville
Owensboro
Other
Total/Avg.
40.0
44.0
41.0
44.0
42.3
42.3
47
160
739
53
516
1687
9.5
26.6
127.1
8.6
117.8
288.8
WET
WEATHER
14.5
17.0
15.6
17.3
15.8
15.8
SEWAGE
10.7
12.8
12.2
13.4
12.3
12.3
PRIMARY
RECEIVING
WATER
110000
15
12200
211000
67200
DILUTION
RATIO
4380
~0
438
6860
2409
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
11
0
1,11
11
2
1.0
-------
State Mississippi
DEMOGRAPHIC, FLOW, AND DILUTION RATIO DATA
00
FLOW in/yr
URBAN AREA
Biloxi
Jackson
Other
Total/Avg.
PRECIPITATION
in/yr
58.0
51.0
54.5
54.5
1970
POPULATION
1000 fs
121
190
676
987
1970
DEVELOPED
AREA, mi2
25.3
36.2
133.8
195.4
WET
WEATHER
20.8
18.8
19.6
19.6
SEWAGE
10.1
11.0
10.6
10.6
PRIMARY
RECEIVING
WATER
908
2050
1408
DILUTION
RATIO
29.4
68.7
49.0
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
0
2
0
0.5
-------
State North Carolina
00
DEMOGRAPHIC, FLOW, AND DILUTION
RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
PRECIPITATION 1970 1970
URBAN AREA in/yr POPULATION DEVELOPED
1000 's AREA, mi2
Asheville
Charlotte
Durham
Fayetteville
Greensboro
HighPoint
Raleigh
Wilmington
Winston-Sal em
Other
Total/Avg.
48.0
43.0
43.0
47.0
42.0
46.0
46.0
52.0
47.0
46.0
46.0
72
280
101
161
152
94
152
58
142
1075
2287
14.8
53.6
20.3
32.5
29.5
19.6
30.5
12.2
28.5
214.2
455.7
WET
WEATHER
17.1
15.8
15.6
17.0
15.3
16.4
16.6
18.7
17.0
16.4
16.4
SEWAGE
10.1
11.0
10.6
10.4
10.8
10.0
10.4
10.2
10.4
10.5
10.5
PRIMARY
RECEIVING
WATER
1880
12
12
1620
12
834
945
6290
1400
94
DILUTION
RATIO
69.2
~0
~0
59.3
~0
3.16
3.5
217
50
3.5
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
1
0
1,10,12
0
0
0
1
0
4
2
.7
-------
State South Carolina
DEMOGRAPHIC, FLOW, AND DILUTION
RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
URBAN AREA
Charleston
Columbia
Greenville
Other
Total/Avg.
PRECIPITATION 1970 1970
in/yr POPULATION DEVELOPED
1000 fs AREA, mi2
47.0
47.0
46.0
46.7
46.7
228
242
157
606
1233
45.1
47.9
31.2
120.7
245.6
WET
WEATHER
17.1
17.1
16.6
17.0
17.0
PRIMARY DILUTION
SEWAGE RECEIVING RATIO
WATER
10.6 XLOOO
10.6 2430 87.7
10.5 34.4 1.3
10.6
10.6 2420 87.7
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
1
1
1
1,4,10
1.0
-------
State Tennessee
oo
DEMOGRAPHIC
, FLOW, AND
DILUTION
RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
URBAN AREA
Chattanoga
Knoxville
Memphis
Nashville
Other
Total/Avg.
Total/Avg.
PRECIPITATION
in/yr
54.0
46.0
48.0
45.0
48.3
48.3
49.6
1970
POPULATION
1000 's
224
190
664
448
781
2307
18745
1970
DEVELOPED
AREA, mi2
46.8
38.2
115.8
100.4
154.2
456.1
3589 :2
WET
WEATHER
19.3
16.6
18.2
15.7
17.3
17.3
18.6
SEWAGE
10.1
10.5
12.0
9.4
10.6
10.6
11.0
PRIMARY
RECEIVING
WATER
10700
4637
53600
2730
7480
945
DILUTION
RATIO
365
171
1770
112
268
99.8
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
1,11
12
11
1
0
1.8
1.58
for Region 4
-------
State Illinois
00
DEMOGRAPHIC
, FLOW, AND
DILUTION
RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
PRECIPITATION 1970
URBAN AREA
Aurora
Bloomington
Champaign
Chicago
Davenport-Metro
Decatur
Joliet
Peoria
Rockford
Springfield
Other
Total/Avg.
in/yr
34.0
36.0
37.0
33.0
34.0
37.0
33.0
35.0
36.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
POPULATION
1000 's
233
69
100
5714
112
100
156
247
206
121
2163
9221
1970
DEVELOPED
AREA, mi2
42.3
12.2
14.5
771
20.5
19.2
28.9
48.7
36.1
21.0
311
1325
WET
WEATHER
12.6
13.6
15.1
13.6
12.7
13.6
12.1
12.6
13.5
13.3
13.4
13.4
SEWAGE
11.5
12.1
15.1
15.6
11.7
11.1
11.3
10.6
12.0
12.2
14.6
14.6
PRIMARY
RECEIVING
WATER
257
13.6
48
13.6
31500
240
2780
3880
1420
37.2
286
DILUTION
RATIO
10.7
<1
1.6
<1
1290
9.7
112
168
55.7
1.5
10.2
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
0
0
4
1,11,4,12,3
1,11
1,11,2
0
1
1,7
11
2
1.5
-------
State Indiana
DEMOGRAPHIC
, FLOW, AND
DILUTION
RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
PRECIPITATION 1970
URBAN AREA
Anderson
Chicago Metro
Evansville
Fort Wayne
Indianapolis
Lafayette
Muncie
South Bend
Terra Haute
Other
Total/Avg.
in/yr
36.0
33.0
41.0
34.0
40.0
35.0
39.0
36.0
41.0
37.2
37.2
POPULATION
1000 's
81
1000
142
225
820
79
90
288
81
565
3371
1970
DEVELOPED
AREA, mi2
31.8
176
24.5
39.8
166
12.5
15.4
54.0
15.3
107
642
WET
WEATHER
10.6
12.4
15.5
12.7
14.4
13.6
14.8
13.2
15.0
13.3
13.3
SEWAGE
5.4
11.9
12.1
11.8
10.4
13.1
12.3
11.2
10.9
11.0
11.0
PRIMARY
RECEIVING
WATER
165
12.4
72400
534
115
6930
192
788
9050
535
DILUTION
RATIO
10.3
<1
4233
22
4.6
260
7.4
32.3
350
22
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
11,12
1,11,4
12
11
11,5
2,11
12,11
11
11
3,2
1.7
-------
State Michigan
DEMOGRAPHIC, FLOW, AND DILUTION RATIO DATA
oo
oo
FLOW in/yr
URBAN AREA
Ann Arbor
Bay City
Detroit
Flint
Grand Rapids
Jackson
Kalamazoo
Lansing
Muskegon
Saginaw
Other
Total/Avg.
PRECIPITATION 1970 1970
in/yr POPULATION DEVELOPED
1000 's AREA, mi2
31.0
28.0
31.0
30.0
31.0
34.0
34.0
31.0
32.0
28.0
31.0
31.0
179
78
3970
330
353
78
152
230
106
148
935
6559
29.5
14.6
612
57.1
68.9
15.7
31.2
41.6
21.6
25.9
153
1071
WET
WEATHER
11.9
10.3
12.1
11.3
11.2
12.2
12.1
11.5
11.4
10.5
11.9
11.9
PRIMARY
SEWAGE RECEIVING
WATER
12.8
11.5
13.6
12.1
10.7
10.4
10.3
11.7
10.2
12.0
12.9
12.9
204
3670
177
217
695
103
365
274
1700
1350
348
DILUTION
RATIO
8.3
168
6.9
9.3
32
4.6
16.3
11.8
93
60
14.0
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
4
11
1,4,6,
11,2
1,11
1,11
1,11
0
1,4,2,
11,12
1
11
2,3
2.0
-------
State Minnesota
00
VO
DEMOGRAPHIC
, FLOW, AND
DILUTION
RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
URBAN AREA
Diluth
Fargo Metro
Minneapolis
Rochester
Other
Total/Avg.
PRECIPITATION
in/yr
29.0
21.0
25.0
29.0
26.0
26.0
1970
POPULATION
1000 fs
105
31
1704
57
630
2527
1970
DEVELOPED
AREA, mi2
23.3
5.7
336
9.9
124
499
WET
WEATHER
10.1
7.8
9.0
11.0
9.1
9.1
SEWAGE
9.6
12.2
10.6
12.6
10.6
10.6
PRIMARY
RECEIVING
WATER
1280
1060
277
141
661
DILUTION
RATIO
64.7
53
14.1
6.0
336
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
11
11
12,11
0
3,2
1.0
-------
State Ohio
VO
o
DEMOGRAPHIC
, FLOW, AND
DILUTION
RATIO DATA
FLOW In/yr
URBAN AREA
Akron
Canton
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Columbus
Dayton
Hamilton
Lima
Lorain
Mansfield
Springfield
Steubenville
Toledo
PRECIPITATION
in/yr
38.0
38.0
34.0
32.0
36.0
35.0
40.0
36.0
35.0
43.0
40.0
40.9
32.0
1970
POPULATION
1000 's
543
244
1110
1960
790
686
91
70
192
78
94
45
488
1970
DEVELOPED
AREA, mi2
104.0
43.6
196
357
139
124
17.7
15.5
40.6
16.1
15.8
7.8
89.8
WET
WEATHER
13.9
14.2
12.7
11.8
13.5
13.0
14.5
12.5
12.4
15.3
15.3
15.2
11.8
SEWAGE
11.0
11.7
11.9
11.5
12.0
11.6
10.7
9.3
10.0
10.1
12.5
12.4
11.4
PRIMARY
RECEIVING
WATER
55.6
32.0
6720
29.2
323
227
2540
134
109
4.3
114
106000
735
DILUTION
RATIO
2.2
1.2
273
1.3
12.7
9.2
101
8.6
4.9
~0
4.1
4980
31.7
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
5, 1,12
1,9,11
1,12,11
1,11,12,5
5,11
1,5,12
11
11
11
0
5,11
11
11,5,12
-------
State Ohio (Cont'd)
DEMOGRAPHIC, FLOW, AND DILUTION RATIO DATA
FLOW In/yr
URBAN AREA
Youngstown
Other
Total/Avg.
PRECIPITATION
in/yr
42.0
37.2
37.2
1970
POPULATION
1000 's
395
1235
8021
1970
DEVELOPED
AREA, ml2
72.2
226
1465
WET
WEATHER
15.7
12.9
12.9
SEWAGE
11.6
11.5
11.5
PRIMARY
RECEIVING
WATER
161
176
DILUTION
RATIO
5.9
7.2
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
1,5,11
12
3
2.2
-------
State Wisconsin
NJ
DEMOGRAPHIC, FLOW, AND DILUTION
RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
URBAN AREA
Appleton
Duluth Metro
Green Bay
Kenosha
La Crosse
Madison
Milwaukee
Oshkosh
Racine
Other
Total/Avg.
Total/Avg.
PRECIPITATION 1970 1970
in/yr POPULATION DEVELOPED
1000 's AREA, mi2
29.0
29.0
27.0
32.0
31.0
31.0
28.0
28.0
32.0
29.7
29.7
32.7
130
33
129
84
63
205
1252
55
117
843
2911
32610
22.8
80
27.8
13.3
11.8
37.5
236
8.4
18.8
156
540
5542
WET
WEATHER
10.9
9.8
9.4
12.6
11.3
11.4
10.2
10.8
12.4
10.5
10.5
12.3
SEWAGE
12.2
8.8
9.8
13.8
11.0
11.4
11.1
13.2
13.1
11.3
11.3
12.4
PRIMARY
RECEIVING
WATER
2500
Lake
2040
Lake
31800
56.1
381
600 .
Lake
2330
300
DILUTION
RATIO
108
>1000
106
>1000
1430
2.5
17.9
25
>1000
107
14.1
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
1,11
0
1,12,11
11
11
1,12
4,12,6,
11,1
1
0
2
1.7
1.66
for Region 5
-------
State Arkansas
OJ
DEMOGRAPHIC
, FLOW, AND
DILUTION
RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
URBAN AREA
Fort Smith
Little Rock
Pine Bluff
Other
Total/Avg.
PRECIPITATION
in/yr
43.0
49.0
52.0
48.0
48.0
1970
POPULATION
1000 's
76
223
61
602
962
1970
DEVELOPED
AREA, mi2
75
44.2
10.9
121
193
WET
WEATHER
15.0
17.8
19.3
17.4
17.4
PRIMARY
SEWAGE RECEIVING
WATER
9.3 25200
10.6 13000
11.3 5200
10.4
10.4 28900
DILUTION
RATIO
1040
458
1700
1040
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
11
10,4
11
0
1.3
-------
State Louisiana
DEMOGRAPHIC
, FLOW, AND
DILUTION
RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
URBAN AREA
Baton Rouge
Lafayette
Lake Charles
Monroe
New Orleans
Shreveport
Other
Total/Avg
PRECIPITATION
in/yr
60.0
59.0
58.0
50.0
64.0
45.0
56.0
56.0
1970
POPULATION
1000 's
249
78
88
90
962
234
705
2406
1970
DEVELOPED
AREA, mi2
45.6
14.1
17.1
18.3
80.3
45.4
91.4
312
WET
WEATHER
22.4
22.2
21.4
18.1
31.8
16.4
16.2
24.1
SEWAGE
11.4
11.6
10.9
10.5
25.3
10.8
16.2
PRIMARY
RECEIVING
WATER
7100
554
2950
13200
102000
7610
11600
DILUTION
RATIO
0
16.4
91.3
461
1760
280
289
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
2
0
0
0
12
0
2
.5
,3
-------
State New Mexico
DEMOGRAPHIC, FLOW, AND DILUTION RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
URBAN AREA
Albuquerque
Other
Total/Avg.
PRECIPITATION
in/yr
9.0
9.0
9.0
1970
POPULATION
1000 's
297
414
711
1970
DEVELOPED
AREA, mi2
56.4
79.5
136
WET
WEATHER
3.1
3.1
3.1
SEWAGE
11.0
11.0
11.0
PRIMARY
RECEIVING
WATER
272
272
DILUTION
RATIO
19.3
19.3
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
10,12
2
20
VD
Ul
-------
State Oklahoma
DEMOGRAPHIC
, FLOW, AND
DILUTION
RATIO DATA
FLOW In/yr
URBAN AREA
Lawton
Oklahoma City
Tulsa
Other
Total/Avg.
PRECIPITATION
in/yr
30
31.0
37.0
32.7
32.7
1970
POPULATION
1000 's
96
580
371
693
1740
1970
DEVELOPED
AREA, mi2
19.3
124
75.8
716
364
WET
WEATHER
10.7
10.9
13.2
11.7
11.7
PRIMARY DILUTION
SEWAGE RECEIVING RATIO
WATER
10.4 528 25
9.8 16 0.8
10.3 1160 49
10.0
10.0 524 25
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
0
2,10
1
2
1.0
-------
State Texas
vo
DEMOGRAPHIC, FLOW, AND DILUTION
RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
PRECIPITATION 1970
URBAN AREA in/yr POPULATION
1000 's
Abilene
Amarillo
Austin
Beaumont
Brownsville
Bryan
Corpus Christ!
Dallas
El Paso
Fort Worth
Calves ton
Harlingen
Houston
24.0
20.0
33.0
54.0
27.0
39.0
28.0
35.0
8.0
30.0
43.0
26.0
46.0
90.0
127
264
116
53.0
51.0
213
1338
337
677
62.0
50.0
1678
1970
DEVELOPED
AREA, mi2
20.6
25.9
48.0
25.3
9.5
11.1
45.8
276
62.8
144
12
11.1
303
WET
WEATHER
8.2
7.2
12.2
19.1
10.1
13.7
9.8
12.5
2.7
10.5
15.8
9.0
17.2
PRIMARY
SEWAGE RECEIVING
WATER
9.2
10.3
11.6
9.6
12.2
9.6
9.8
10.2
11.2
9.8
11.1
9.6
11.6
411
241
707
3944
7130
290
259
73.9
246
39.7
2570
11
DILUTION PROBLEM
RATIO CITATIONS
23.6
13.9
29.7
137
320
12.4
13.2
3.3
10
2
>1000
138
0.4
0
0
1,4
11
0
0
1,2
1,12
1
0
1,11
0
12
-------
State Texas Cont'd
vo
00
DEMOGRAPHIC, FLOW, AND DILUTION
RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
URBAN AREA
Laredo
Lubbock
McAllen
Midland
Odessa
Port Arthur
San Angelo
San Antonio
Sherman
Texarkana
Texas City
Tyler
Waco
PRECIPITATION
in/yr
19.0
18.0
21.0
14.0
14.0
54.0
19.0
28.0
39.0
46.0
45.0
45.0
32.0
1970
POPULATION
1000 's
70.0
150
91.0
60.0
82.0
116
64.0
772
55.0
58.0
84.0
60.0
119
1970
DEVELOPED
AREA, mi2
12.5
30.9
17.0
12.3
14.6
25.3
13.5
134
11.7
12.3
19.5
11.8
26.8
WET
WEATHER
7.0
6.3
7.6
4.8
5.1
19.1
6.6
10.5
13.7
16.4
15.5
16.4
11.1
PRIMARY DILUTION PROBLEM
SEWAGE RECEIVING RATIO CITATIONS
WATER
11.7
10.1
11.2
10.0
11.8
9.7
10.0
12.1
9.7
10.0
9.0
10.7
9.4
4800 257
0
0
0
0
0
157 9.5
5.6 0.3
0
0
>1000
3.8
1290 62.9
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1,2
0
1
0
1
2
-------
State Texas Cont'd
DEMOGRAPHIC, FLOW, AND DILUTION RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
PRECIPITATION 1970 1970 WET PRIMARY
URBAN AREA in/yr POPULATION DEVELOPED WEATHER SEWAGE RECEIVING
1000 's AREA, mi WATER
Wichita Falls 29.0
Other . 31.0
Total/Avg. 31.0
Total/Avg. 31.0
98.0 19.5 10.4 10.6 229
1990 392 12.3 10.7
8934 1749 12.3 10.7 230
14753 2754 13.4 11.2 243
DILUTION PROBLEM
RATIO CITATIONS
10.9 0
2
10.0 0.6
13.2 0.7
for Region 6
-------
State Iowa
o
o
DEMOGRAPHIC
, FLOW, AND
DILUTION
RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
URBAN AREA
Cedar Rapids
Davenport
Des Moines
Dubuque
Sioux City
Waterloo
Other
Total/Avg.
PRECIPITATION
in/yr
33.0
34.0
31.0
33.0
25.0
32.0
31.3
31.3
1970
POPULATION
1000 's
132
114
225
65
96
113
840
1615
1970
DEVELOPED
AREA, mi2
27.0
25.3
50.6
11.2
20.5
24.3
173
332
WET
WEATHER
11.8
11.8
11.2
12.4
8.7
11.2
11.1
11.1
SEWAGE
10.4
9.4
10.6
12.0
9.7
9.7
10.2
10.2
PRIMARY
RECEIVING
WATER
1540
25600
1020
49211
21800
1320
13400
DILUTION
RATIO
69.6
1210
47
2020
1190
63
630
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
0
1,11
1,6,12
11
0
0
0
0
1.0
-------
State Kansas
DEMOGRAPHIC, FLOW, AND DILUTION
RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
URBAN AREA
Kansas City
Topeka
Wichita
Other
Total/Avg.
PRECIPITATION 1970 1970
in/yr POPULATION DEVELOPED
1000 's AREA, mi2
34.0
34.0
31.0
33.0
33.0
274
132
302
111
1485
49.1
25.7
55.9
143
274
WET
WEATHER
12.7
12.3
11.4
12.1
12.1
PRIMARY DILUTION
SEWAGE RECEIVING RATIO
WATER
11.7 15600 667
10.8 2870 124
11.3 265 11.7
11.4
11.4 2915 124
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
1,4,11
11
0
2
1.3
-------
State Missouri
o
I-O
DEMOGRAPHIC
, FLOW, AND
DILUTION
RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
URBAN AREA
Columbia
PRECIPITATION
in/yr
37.0
Kansas City Metro 34.0
Springfield
St. Joseph
St. Louis
Other
Total/Avg.
41.0
35.0
37.0
36.8
36.8
1970
POPULATION
1000 's
59
828
121
77
1883
2191
3278
1970
DEVELOPED
AREA, mi2
13.1
169
25
22.0
305
55.8
590
WET
WEATHER
12.9
12.1
14.6
11.2
14.3
13.5
13.5
SEWAGE
9.5
10.2
10.1
7.2
13.0
11.6
11.6
PRIMARY
RECEIVING
WATER
152
4450
23100
7780
5020
DILUTION
RATIO
6.8
200
0
1250
285
200
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
2
1,4,11
6,5,2
11
1,4,11
0
2.2
-------
State Nebraska
o
u>
DEMOGRAPHIC, FLOW, AND DILUTION RATIO DATA
URBAN AREA
Lincoln
Omaha
Other
Total/ Avg.
Total/Avg.
Region 7
PRECIPITATION 1970 1970
in/yr POPULATION DEVELOPED
1000 's AREA, mi2
27
26
26
26
31
.0
.0
.5
.5
.9
153
492
268
913
7291
27.9
87.8
48.1
164
1360
FLOW in/yr
WET PRIMARY DILUTION
WEATHER SEWAGE RECEIVING RATIO
WATER
9.9 11.4 107 5
9.7 11.8 4390 204
9.7 11.7
9.7 11.7 2226 104
12.2 11.2 2870 162
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
2
11
0
1.
1.
0
4
-------
State Colorado
DEMOGRAPHIC, FLOW, AND DILUTION
RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
PRECIPITATION 1970 1970
URBAN AREA in/yr POPULATION DEVELOPED
1000's AREA, mi2
Boulder
Colorado Springs
Denver
Pueblo
Other
Total/Avg.
19.0
13.0
14.0
12.0
14.5
14.5
69
205
1047
103
313
1737
10.3
41.1
180
18.0
54.5
304
WET
WEATHER
7.4
4.5
5.1
4.3
5.1
5.1
PRIMARY DILUTION PROBLEM
SEWAGE RECEIVING RATIO CITATIONS
WATER
14.2 131 6 0
10.5 0 1
12.2 17.9 1 1,11,4
10
11.8 542 34 10,11
12.0 -- 1,2
12.0 60 3.5 1.8
-------
State Montana
DEMOGRAPHIC, FLOW, AND DILUTION RATIO DATA
URBAN AREA
Billings
Great Falls
Other
Total/Avg.
PRECIPITATION
in/yr
13.0
15.0
14.0
14.0
FLOW in/yr
1970 1970 WET PRIMARY DILUTION PROBLEM
POPULATION DEVELOPED WEATHER SEWAGE RECEIVING RATIO CITATIONS
1000 's AREA, mi 2 WATER
71 13.4 4.6 11.0 6610 424 0
71 12.6 5.4 11.8 7300 424 0
230 42.6 5.0 11.4 0
372 68.6 5.0 11.4 6550 424 0
-------
State North Dakota
DEMOGRAPHIC
, FLOW, AND DILUTION
RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
URBAN AREA
Fargo
Other
Total/Avg.
PRECIPITATION
in/yr
21.0
21.0
21. .0
1970
POPULATION
1000 's
54
220
274
1970 WET
DEVELOPED WEATHER
AREA, mi2
9.5 7.8
38 7.8
47.5 7.8
PRIMARY DILUTION
SEWAGE RECEIVING RATIO
WATER
12.2 707 35.3
12.2
12.2 707 35.3
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
0
2
0
-------
State South Dakota
DEMOGRAPHIC
, FLOW, AND DILUTION
RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
URBAN AREA
Sioux Falls
Other
Total/Avg.
PRECIPITATION
in/yr
25.0
25.0
25.0
1970
POPULATION
1000 's
75
222
297
1970 WET
DEVELOPED WEATHER
AREA, mi2
14.1 9.1
41.6 9.1
106 9.1
PRIMARY DILUTION
SEWAGE RECEIVING RATIO
WATER
11.2 351 173
11.2
11.2 351 173
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
1,11
4
2
-------
State Utah
o
oo
DEMOGRAPHIC, FLOW, AND
DILUTION
RATIO DATA
FLOW In/yr
PRECIPITATION
URBAN AREA in/yr
Ogden
Provo
Salt Lake City
Other
Total/Avg.
17
13
15
15
15
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
1970 1970
POPULATION DEVELOPED
1000 's AREA, mi2
150
104
479
121
854
29.3
22.7
92.0
23.9
168
WET
WEATHER
6
4
5
5
5
.0
.4
.3
.3
.3
PRIMARY DILUTION
SEWAGE RECEIVING RATIO
WATER
10.
9.
11.
10.
10.
8 85.6 5.1
7 107 7.6
0 69.2 4.2
7
7 81.6 81.6
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
1
0
1
0
1
,4
.3
-------
State Wyoming
DEMOGRAPHIC, FLOW, AND DILUTION RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
URBAN AREA
Total/Avg.
Total/Avg.
PRECIPITATION
in/yr
15.0
17.4
1970
POPULATION
1000 's
201
3735
1970
DEVELOPED
AREA, mi2
38.6
734
WET
WEATHER
5.3
5.6
SEWAGE
11.0
11.5
PRIMARY
RECEIVING
WATER
119
DILUTION
RATIO
6.8
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
1
1.1
for Region 8
o
VO
-------
State Nevada
DEMOGRAPHIC
, FLOW, AND
DILUTION
RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
URBAN AREA
Las Vegas
Reno
Other
0 Total/Avg.
Total/Avg.
PRECIPITATION
in/yr
4.0
7.0
5.5
5.5
16.9
1970
POPULATION
1000 's
237
100
59.0
396
20731
1970
DEVELOPED
AREA, mi2
48.8
18.9
12.1
79.8
3268
WET
WEATHER
1.2
2.3
1.5
1.5
5.5
PRIMARY DILUTION
SEWAGE RECEIVING RATIO
WATER
10.1 0
11.0 489 36.7
10.4
10.4 292 18.4
13.0 1.15 0
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
12
1,12,11
2
2.0
1.0
for Region 9
-------
State Arizona
DEMOGRAPHIC
, FLOW, AND
DILUTION
RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
URBAN AREA
Phoenix
Tucson
Other
Total/Avg.
PRECIPITATION
in/yr
7.0
11.0
9.0
9.0
1970
POPULATION
1000 's
863
294
251
1408
1970
DEVELOPED
AREA, mi2
173
55.0
49.2
277
WET
WEATHER
2.3
3.8
2.7
2.7
SEWAGE
10.5
11.2
10.6
10.6
PRIMARY DILUTION
RECEIVING RATIO
WATER
2.3 <1
3.8 <1
3.6 <1
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
0
1
0
0.5
-------
State California
DEMOGRAPHIC
, FLOW, AND DILUTION
RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
PRECIPITATION 1970
URBAN AREA
Bakers field
Fresno
Los Angeles
Modesto
Oxnard
Sacramento
Salinas
San Bernadino
San Diego
San Francisco
San Jose
Santa Barbara
Santa Rosa
in/yr
11.0
11.0
13.0
25.0
15.0
18.0
15.0
18.0
11.0
21.0
14.0
18.0
30
POPULATION
1000 's
176
263
8351
106
245
634
62
584
1198
2988
1025
130
75
1970
DEVELOPED
AREA, mi2
31.5
46.8
1190
19.4
49.6
122
10.4
122
216
469
173
22.8
15.3
WET
WEATHER
3.9
3.9
5.1
9.2
5.2
6.4
5.6
6.2
3.9
8.1
5.1
10.6
10.6
SEWAGE
11.6
11.9
14.8
11.6
10.4
10.9
13.0
10.0
11.7
13.4
12.4
12.2
10.2
PRIMARY
RECEIVING
WATER
410
90
1100
31.5
2630
Bay
45.5
__
DILUTION
RATIO
26.5
5.7
0
53
2
155
0
0
0
>1000
2.6
>1000
0
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
0
4
4,2,10
0
0
6,11
1
0
1,3,12
12,11,1
12
0
0
-------
State California Cont'd
URBAN AREA
Seaside
SimiValley
Stockton
Other
Total/Avg.
PRECIPITATION
in/yr
16.0
25.0
14.0
17.2
17.2
DEMOGRAPHIC
1970
POPULATION
1000 's
93
160
160
1892
18142
, FLOW, AND
1970
DEVELOPED
AREA, mi2
22.8
11.4
27.9
314
2854
DILUTION RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
WET PRIMARY DILUTION
WEATHER SEWAGE RECEIVING RATIO
WATER
10.6 12.2 >1000
8.9 10.5 0
5.1 12.0 81.6 4.8
5.7 13.4
5.7 . 13.4 70.7 3.7
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
1
0
2
2,3
1.0
-------
State Hawaii
DEMOGRAPHIC, FLOW, AND DILUTION RATIO DATA
URBAN AREA
Honolulu
Other
Total/Avg.
PRECIPITATION
in/yr
23.0
23.0
23.0
FLOW in/yr
1970 1970 WET PRIMARY DILUTION PROBLEM
POPULATION DEVELOPED WEATHER SEWAGE RECEIVING RATIO CITATIONS
1000 's AREA, mi2 WATER
442 73.6 8.7 12.6 Ocean >1000 0
196 32.5 8.7 12.6 -- 0
638 106 8.7 12.6 Ocean >1000 0
-------
State Alaska
DEMOGRAPHIC, FLOW, AND DILUTION RATIO DATA
URBAN AREA
FLOW in/yr
PRECIPITATION 1970 1970 WET PRIMARY DILUTION PROBLEM
in/yr POPULATION DEVELOPED WEATHER SEWAGE RECEIVING RATIO CITATIONS
1000's AREA, md/
WATER
Total/Avg.
30.0
638
No Urbanized Areas
30.6 10.6 10.1
1,12
(Ji
-------
State Washington
DEMOGRAPHIC, FLOW, AND DILUTION RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
URBAN AREA
Seattle
Spokane
Tacoma
M
<" Other
Total/Avg.
Total /Avg.
PRECIPITATION
in/yr
35.0
17.0
39.0
30.3
30.3
26.9
1970
POPULATION
1000 's
1238
230
332
675
2475
4265
1970
DEVELOPED
AREA, mi2
226
42.4
64.2
125
458
789
WET
WEATHER
13.0
6.1
14.3
12.3
12.3
12.4
SEWAGE
11.5
11.4
10.9
11.4
11.4
11.4
PRIMARY
RECEIVING
WATER
742
2350
Bay
3130
2675
DILUTION
RATIO
30.3
132
>1000
132
108
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
1,4,10,11,
11
1,11
1,2
2.3
2.1
for Region 10
Total for U.S.
33.3
149366
24409
13.4
12.8
300
14.1
1.4
-------
State Idaho
DEMOGRAPHIC, FLOW, AND DILUTION RATIO DATA
FLOW in/yr
URBAN AREA
Boise
Other
Total/Avg.
PRECIPITATION
in/yr
11.0
11.0
11.0
1970
POPULATION
1000 's
85
302
387
1970
DEVELOPED
AREA, mi2
16.1
55.8
71.9
WET
WEATHER
3.9
3.9
3.9
SEWAGE
11.4
11.4
11.4
PRIMARY
RECEIVING
WATER
2620
2620
DILUTION
RATIO
171
171
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
1
1,2
1.0
-------
State Oregon
DEMOGRAPHIC, FLOW, AND DILUTION RATIO DATA
FLOW In/yr
URBAN AREA
Eugene
Portland
Salem
00 Other
Total/Avg.
PRECIPITATION
in/yr
38.0
40.0
40.0
39.3
39.3
1970
POPULATION
1000 fs
139
825
93
346
1403
1970
DEVELOPED
AREA, mi2
26.7
150
18.3
63.5
259
WET
WEATHER
13.9
14.9
14.6
14.7
14.7
SEWAGE
10.9
11.6
10.8
11.4
11.4
PRIMARY
RECEIVING
WATER
2790
2730
16800
2690
DILUTION
RATIO
112
103
5.9
103
PROBLEM
CITATIONS
4,11
4,6,11
12
2
2.0
-------
APPENDIX B
SUMMARIES OF TYPES OF RECEIVING WATER IMPACTS,
BENEFICIAL USES, AND PROBLEM POLLUTANTS
The following tables present information on types of receiving
water impacts, beneficial uses, and problem pollutants for every urbanized
area in the United States. Results are summarized by state and EPA
region. In some cases, no entry regarding urban runoff is included
because information was not available. Thus, it is unknown whether such
areas have experienced urban runoff problems.
119
-------
SIK1ARY OF RECEIVING WATER TYPE, IMPACTS, BENEFICIAL USES, AND PROBLEM POLLUTANTS
REGION 1
Urban Area
CT, Bridgeport
CT, Bristol
CT, Oanb'jry
CT1, Hartford
CT. .Veriden
CT, New Britain
CT, New Haven
CT, Norwalk
CT, Stafford
CT, Waterbury
ME, Lewiston
KE. Portland
I'A, Boston
MA, Brockton
KA, Fall River
I
s
X
X
X
< X
«j e
X
Recetvine Hater Tvoes
e
i o
= u
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
1
a)
X
X
X
X
Estuary
i
x
X
X
X
c
V
X
1
o
C Wi
3 01
o ^
u M
*
X
Fish
ind
Wildlife
Esthetics
X
p^,,hi^ p,,i. ,,,rc
o a
o o o
ca o Q
Nutrient.'
c
1
t/!
X
a
>»«-*
? a
^ ^
Dther
Toxics
o
c «
a o)
d S
o e?
X
Coll form
llnctcrlu
X
X
tSJ
. O
O r- > ,-r.
^ \ m
.-f ^ -
Cn O -'
7 "'
o
-------
SUMMARY OF RECEIVING WATER TYPE, IMPACTS, BENEFICIAL USES, AND PROBLEM POLLUTANTS
REGION 1 (continued)
'J-ban Area
MA, Fitchburg
VA, Lawrence
MA, Lowell
yj-.. New Bedford
XA, Pittsfield
MA, Springfield
XA, Worchester
!!K, Manchester
:iH, Nashua
31, Providence
REGION 1 TOTAL
b
O.
0
u a]
IT,
r; ro
r_ f u
--
-------
SUMMARY OF RECEIVING HATER TYPES, IMPACTS, BENEFICIAL USES, AND PROBLEM POLLUTANTS
REGION 2
I'rbin Area
Atlantic
NJ, City
Hew York
NJ, City Metro
Philadel-
NJ, phia Metro
NJ, Trenton
NJ, Vineland
:;Y, Albany
N'Y, Binghamotor
NY. Buffalo
New York
NY. City
NY, Rochester
NY, Syracuse
NY. Utica
REGION 2 TOTAL
n
CO
o
r-:
X
X
X
X
X
X
6
IM -H o
C «*-, I-
C O O J3
£, C * 0
Ui 3 Jj ^
A
X
2
Rereivine Wnter Tvoes
Small
Stream
0
«
X
X
3
02
Estuary
X
X
X
x
X
X
.
X
6
X
1
§
0
o
X
1
Ground-
rater
X
1
Imoacts
-o
(0
S 0
a: K
X
1
h U
.C X
4J O
O p
X
1
o
C 0)
10 DO
3 S
O C5
X
1
CoUfo.-n
li.nctcri.i
X
X
X
4
N>
ro
O F > o-; u -11 r-
^ <~ w ' r'i >
co C [_" O U3 o
rr, m ,-
-------
SUKMARY OF RtCUVING
WATER T\PES, IMPACTS, BENEFICIAL USES, AND PROBLEM POLLUTANTS
REGION 3
Urban Area
D", Wilmington
jC. Washington
KC', Baltimore
,. ;.'; shi ngton
"" O.C. Metro
PA, A'lentown
PA , Al toona
FA, L'rle
PA, Harrisburg
PA, Johnstown
?A, Lancaster
?A, Philadelphia
PA, Pittsburg
?A, Reading
PA, Scranton
PA, liilkes-Barre
n
a
u
<
CO
o
X
X
X
X
X
< >>
" E
^ *n -< .
K
aj
4J
tn
x
X
X
r Tyn
C
41
(J
o
i ^
O u
A *
X
I
a
2 ^
H 1 ,
Jj f-«
U O.
« 3
X
. x
X
Bcnnf
U 1
U **
a 2
5 u
X
CD
k< U
£ X
0.2
X
X
X
a
c a
c9 n
-I S
Su
X
X
e^
C v-
i U
ss
X
v
to
i i
r-: ;. rTi -;
O r J> ,'o Q t-
^ p » ^ m > '
'-^ L. ^ 0 5 p
-------
SUMMARY OF RECEIVING WATER TYPES, IMPACTS, GC>EFICIAL 'J3ES, AND PROBLEM POLLUTANTS
u
REGION 3 (continued)
i-'rban Area
PA, York
VA, Lynchberg
VA, Newport Hews
VA, Norfolk
'.'A, Petersburg
VA, Richmond
VA, Roanoke
... Washington
Vr" D.C. Metro
'..'V, Charleston
WV, Huntington
,,.. Steubenville
_''. Met
'.
T^
o;
X
i*
1
X
X
X
X
x
X
17
>,
VJ
a
4J
in
Ul
X
X
3
C
n
1
I
T3
u
U rH
-r4 | 19
o. c y a
B « -H «
i-j OQ uj *n
x
X
X
I
4
IDD.lCtS
1
I « cd
CO ki o O
4-1 m fH TH
X '
X
X
5
c
u t-«
^ V
§ g
0
X
M iH
ij a.
« ^
X
4
He no
4-t 1
u n
<8
a u
at 4>
Pr y
1
to
(- U
0) -H
5 8
0 t-
X
4
1 «
d a
^ 3
H p
O O
X
X
5
gJS
c y
r U
t5 =
X
3
Ni
CT30
' O ' -"
'^. £ !Z? > rri J> '-
OT ^ m 9 $0
-------
SUMMARY OF RECEIVING WATER TYPES, IMPACTS, BENEFICIAL USES, AND PROBLEM POLLUTANTS
REGION 4
Urban Area
AL, Birmingham
AL, Gadsen
AL, Huntsville
AL, Mobile
'L, Montgomery
AL, Tuscaloesa
rl , Ft- Lauderdoli
FL, Gdiresville
FL, Jacksonville
FL, Miami
FL, Orlando
FL , Pensacola
FL, St. Petersburg
FL , Tallahassse
FL , Tanoa
0}
V
V.
<
OO
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Jrhau
*uno£f A
Priority
Problem
X
Rer
£
-* a
-« w
K: p
& u
!/! to
X
/.
X
X
X
eiv
V
.*
,1
inc
.1-1
.
P^
X
x
VJafe
>v
^
ta
3
4J
in
w
X
""'"
! A
X
X
i
h
X
X
r Tvn
e
OJ
CJ
o
X
X
X
X
Around- r
jater
I
o
a
i-. 1-1
H i «
to a) -H 01
a. c o «
S ,
M >-l
u a.
« 3
re tn
X
Rpnpf
w |
U m
«} QJ
C a O
O « -H
U C£ U
X
X
X
X
Irlal Use
4-> 1
0 to
a
ffl 4J
o a)
z s
X
X
X
X
a)
u u
V T4
JC. X
" °
X
g .
« s
~4 «
v4 M
0 U
. X
Collform 1
Bncterla
X
X
.X
(D <«
-
«
g;
a zp
r»
O
TJ
-------
SUMMARY OF RCCcIVING WATER TYPES, IMPACTS, BENEFICIAL USES, AND PROBLEM POLLUTANTS
REGION 4 (continued)
Urban Area
W. Palm
FL-, Eeac:h
Si, Albany
6 A, Atlarta
GA, Augusta
GA, Columbus
,
u e
UJ T* O
C u- V< ^H
« c o ja
.3 C * G
u 3 u t-
= « =- 0.
X
X
X
X
Rereivlne VJater Tvnes
Small
Stream
X
X
X,
X
X
X
X
X
X
0}
&
3
u
V
>
H
K
X
X
X
A
X
X
Vj
*3
3
' W
«
X
X
)cean
X
Ground-
»rater
Tmoacts
a
QJ
t-i fH
H i *
VJ r-4
tu a
U O.
(O 3
* fyi
X
4J 1
u a)
ra 3
*j t-i n
coo
O 4) -H
o erf w
X
u |
O 0)
,22 =
C C U 0
5 SSTJ
X
X
X
ta
34J
01
ac ^
to
u *-<
£ X
*J o
0 fr-
X
X
-o
C V
a I/I
-. S
ss
X
X
X
X
Collforra
P>nrtcr L;i
X
X
X
NJ
o
--
Q
0)0
-------
SUMMARY OF RECEIVING WATER TYPES, IMPACTS, BtNEFICIAL USES, AND PROBLEM POLLUTANTS
REGION 4 (continued)
Urban Area
NC, Durham
Fayette-
HC, villa
NC, Greensboro
NC, Hiqhpoint
,1C, Raleigh
.'iC, Wilmington
"inston-
:ffi. Sal era
SC, Charleston
SC, Columbia
SC, Greenville
TN, Chattanooga
T'*, Knoxville
TN, Memphis
T.l, Nashville
REGION 4 TOTAL
a
V
14
<
CO
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
27
< >>
tJ £
«ij >j «
£ «J- V- ft
a c o .e
-D C -^ C
u 3 j- ^
5
Rp^eivinp Water Tvnes
Small
Scream
X
X
y
X
X
X
X
21
0)
^
to
X
X
4
kJ
X
_
X
X
X
X
16
Estuary
'
x
-L
7
§
V
u
5
3round-
H V
x> c
p3"
X
2
R.aneMrifll HRPS
M3?
*J O.
°n
X
X
4
U eg
CD OJ
C U O
O 0) -H
X __
x .
X
x
x
. 10
^1 1
U (9
0} :
X
X
X
10
Asthetic:
3
PrnVilom Pnl 1 ttt-anr e
o o
sss
x
"
x
V
X
X
11
iftitrlent!
X
y
X
7
c
VI
X
7
0)
r-s
A 4J
r,r
x
5
O)
S£
J= K
u o
O M
X
a
s«
tO CD
* 3
Su
X
x
4
Coliform
Rncter l;i
X
X
x
9
cr
» ;p
o
o
O
-------
SUMMARY OF RECEIVING WATER TYPE, MPACTS, BENEFICIAL USES, AND PROBLEM POLLUTANTS
REGION 5
Urban Area
!L, Aurora
IL, Sloomington
Champaign -
IL. Urbana
IL. Chicago
Davenport
IL'.8etro
IL, Decatur
IL, Joliet
IL. Peoria
IL, Rockford
IL, Springfield
IN, ^nUerson
IN, Chicago Metro
IN, Evansville
IN. Fort Wayne
in, Indianapolis
a
a
I*
<
00
o
X
X
X
X
"£
n-. -H a
c o o .a
-O C -rt O
U 3 I- J->
^ m c. a.
X
X
X
X
G
I O
C P
E w
vi in
X
X
X
X
X
X
&.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
>,
)-l
fS
3
o
en
UJ
c
a
^H
H 1 (U
sr-t
> a
n u
OJ OJ
^n 5-
X
X
X
O)
u> u
U *»
^: x
u o
0 fi
X
o
C V
-------
SUMMARY OF RECEIVING WATER TYPE, IMPACT, BENEFICIAL USES, AND PROBLEM POLLUTANTS
REGION 5 (continued)
Urban Area
IN, Lafayette
IN, Muncie
IN, South Bend
Iti, Terra Haute
KI, Ann Arbor
MI. Bay City
Kli Detroit
HI, Flint
MI, Grar.d Rapids
Hi, Jackson
HI, Kalamazoo
HI, Lansing
"I, Huskegon
KI, Saginaw
M'i, Culuth
CO
03
CD
X
X
X
X'
X
X
X
X
X
*M f-l 0)
*3 o o ja
J3 C iH O
14 3 U. t-
X
X
Rersivine Water Tvoes
imall
5 t ream
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
<0
3
X
X
Vt
01
H
X
X
x
istuary
"
X j X
X
X
X
C
R)
0>
Sround-
jater
Imoacts
3
lJ iH
aO) -H 0)
C O 41 '
6 0) -^ to
X
X
X
I to m
C TJ r-« C
nj ij o o
u CO -H *H
'
X
X
X
Public
Concern
Beneficial Uspq
M ^H
2 &
rt 3
X
X
Contact
lecrea-
tlon
X
X
X
U rt
CQ 0)
C C U O
o o o -H
X
X
X
Fish
ind
Wildlife
.
Asthetlct
Pro), IP, pnllnf»T,r =
l§8
X
X
Nutrients
X
X
Sediments
X
0)
>> ft
52
0) § o '"'" ^
^ P tn ~ m > --
^ S= m 9 20
-------
SUMMARY CF RECEIVING WATER TYPES, IMPACTS, CENEFICiAL USES, AND PROBLEM POLLUTANTS
REGION 5 (continued)
V:b--in Area
'",', Fargo Metro
;"!, .".inneapolis
Ivi, Rochester
W, Akron
CH, Canton
CH, Cinncinnati
CH, Cleveland
"H, Columbus
OH. Dayton
OH, Hamilton
CH, Lir.a
OH, Lorein
CH, Afield
CH-. Springfield
OH, SUuoer.ville
-------
SUMMRY OF RECEIVING WATER TYPES, IMPACTS, BENEFICIAL USES, AND PROBLEM POLLUTANTS
REGION 5 (continued)
Urban Area
OH, Toledo
OH, Ycungstown
VI, Appleton
«!, Duluth Metro
'«', Green Bay
V/I, Kenosha
MI, La Crosse
WI, Madison
WI, Milwaukee
WI, Oshkosh
WI, Racine '
.7EGIOH 5 TOTAL
rt
V
u
<
CD
O
X
X
X
2]
< X
u s
U-t -r4 QJ
C *4-l U rH
r; O O J3
ja e -H c
lj 3 U Jj
n '< s, o.
X
7
Reccivinc V,';tt:''.r Tvnos
imall
Stream
X
Z4
V
.*
a.
X
X
X
X
X
X
11
l-l
V
>
&
X
X
X
X
X
X
25
Estuary
1
i
)cean
0
Ground-
vater
0
Tmnncts
Tl
1 U ut C
C C U O
0 O Q) f-l
13 [J OS U
y
4
Fish
and
Wildlife
0
dsthecicf
X
1
Prnh1pr> PnlliirTnm
o a
O O O
X
6
U
C
0)
H
tl
u
X
4
s
X
X
7
rleavy
letals
6
m
u u
U *H
.n x
u O
0 f-i
5
1 «
0 CO
- 3
H b
O U
2
Coliform
Bacteria
a
U).;
-it, 1 ' !" ") . "
-'' "' O ;- .
' "
C ^ O ^ g
-------
SUIW.RY OF K£CE(V:NC WATER TYPb", IMPACTS, BEMEFICiAL USES, AND PROBLEM POLLUTANTS
REGION 6
Vrb.na Area
A3, Fort Smith
A3, Little Rock
A?, Pine Bluff
LA, Siton Rouge
LA, Lafayette
LM,. Lake Charles
LA, Monroe
LA, New Orleans
LA, Shreveport
'(!',, Albuquerque
OK, Lawton
Oklahoma
OK, City
OK, Tulsa
"X, Abilene
TX, Arrarillo
a
u
GO
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
d O O .0
.0 C -H 0
X
F'TPivinp V.'.-ircr TVoos
3§
X
X
X
X
(U
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Estuary
X
Dcean
Ground-
cater
Tmnacts
a
Li r-t
H 1 Cfl
« 01 iH M
a. c u a)
^ w ^J «
X
I u
x
X
Public
Concern
Bennfirial Uses
X
v a.
U (0
2 ta
c u o
U a}
m (U
1 W t4 C
c ti o o
0 O
* 3
H ki
O L5
E j:
o T
X
X
-H r- -'i rj r > -^ ;..
--a ;~ u ~ c ;- ' .'
J> ,-; 3; si ^j > -i
-j -' _ is y> ,-> ->
C
-------
SUMMARY OF RECUVING WATER TYPE, IMPACTS, BENEFICIAL USES, AND PROBLEM POLLUTANTS
. REGION 6 (continued)
Urbar. Area
T.*.. Austin
TX, 3°aumont
TX, S.-cwnsville
TX, Bryan
Corpus
TV Chri.sti
TX, Dallas
TX, El Paso
TX, Ft. Worth
TX, Galveston
TX, Harlington
TX, Houston
TX, Laredo
TX, Lubbock
TX, H:Allen
TX, Midland
n
CJ
k.
<
CC
C
X
X
X
X
< >,
" 6
WH 1 CJ
S VJ U -H
o c o j;
.a n -H o
u ^ VJ u
Receiving Water Tvnes
^i
t OJ
E ^
X
X
X
X
5
1
u
X
X
X
X
X
>^
lJ
TO
3
u
en
X
X
c
ra
.
M .-t
R) P
J-> 1
u d
CO O)
C U 0
O V -H
X
X
4J 1
O ifl
(0 V
c c u o
o o rt
(0 U
0) ^, 6 m
"Z. r- us -- ^ >>
in C. r~ O ~o
OT H3 7 m
-------
SUMMARY OF RECEIVING WATKR TYPE, IMPACTS, BENEFICIAL USES, .AND PROBLEM POLLUTANTS
REGION 6 (continued)
.'rban Area
I-'. Odessa
T/, Port Arthur
TX, San Angel 0
TX, San Antonio
TX, Sherman
TX, Texarkana
TX, Texas City
TX, Tyler
TX, Wichita Falls
TX, Waco
REGION 6 TOTAL
rj
O
a
(3 *J
X
X
3
cn
ki U
u o
0 £
X
3
a
c v
0) (D
O O
X
1
E -
O 1-
31
X
6
-^ c,
n '»
-
O
1, !^ CO
> m Q
CO rn
(
co <
r.o TI -^
'" - -!
''c--'
j:. --
-v O
m *"-:
-------
SUMMARY OF RECEIVING WATER TYPES, IMPACTS, BENEFICIAL USES, ANO PROBLEM POLLUTANTS
REGION 7
Urban Area
IA, Cedar Rapids
I;*, Davenport
IA, Oes Moines
IA, Dubuque
!A, Sioux City
IA, Waterloo
vc Kansas City
" ' '-'^tro
KS, Topeka
KS, Wichita
"0, Columbia
MO, Kansas City
"0, Springfield
HO, St. Joseph
KO, St. Lcuis
t!E, Lincoln
a
41
<
CO
O
X
X
X
X
< >.
u e
v^ -r4 o
C *n * *4
n o o £1
J3 C -H O
L. 3 Vl V-
Rpro'f vinH W.itor Tvno*;
B
H (3
-1 4)
t-3 l-(
u
a)
j«
n
!
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
M
a)
>
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Bstuary
DC can
Sround-
vater
TTnnnrts
n
QJ
k. ^H
-H 1 R)
aQ) -H (0
B o a
X
X
X
1
I co 1
O (1)
cd M~I
> (C
eg *J
V U
X
X
X
(0
u u
W -H
SI X
tJ O
a
C 01
CQ CO
_ 2
H I*
C^ill form
n.-ictp.rl.i
X
X
X
U>
Ln
0-JO
n> a>
-
si
-------
i:»WRY OF RECEIVING WATER TYPiS. IMPACTS, BENEFICIAL USES, AND PROBLEM POLLUTANTS
REGION 7 (continued)
Ui ban Area
. !iE, Omaha-
REGION 7 TOTAL
rt
01
u
<
CO
o
4
Jrban
.tunoff A
Priority
Problem
4
* i
H t-t cn
Q. C U 1)
6 oi -H w
3
t W CT)
c -o -( c
to M O O
4J (0 -H -H
3
Public 1
Concern
0
MS
01 O.
j-» a,
5 3
0
'
4J 1
o m
td cJ
*a H C
c a o
0 41 -H
u a£ 4-i
4
w 1
td
3
«
U U
at -H
£ X
0^
0
o
s s
-, 3
it U
O C1
0
E '/, --,' ;
^ ' » ~ i-i f --
-------
SUMMARY OF RECEIVING WATER TYPE, IMPACTS,
REGION
BENEFICIAL USES, AND PROBLEM POLLUTANTS
8
Urban Area
CO, Boulder
Colorado
CO, Springs
CO, Denver
CO, Putblo
KT,' BiHings
;!, Great Falls
MD, Fargo
SO, Sioux Falls
UT, Ogden
iJT, Provo
Salt Lake
i-'T, City
REGION 8 TOTAL
U
<
03
o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
7
< >-
LJ e
d t*j ki -^
a o o .0
-a C f* O
U 3 u n
^3 * c. a.
X
X
2
e
-< o
-< 0)
ra u
,e "
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
7
O
J^
H
0
Ll
r4
Of
X
X
X
X
4
Unte
>,
a
3
4->
O
[>)
0
r Tvn
s
0>
L>
r>
0
Ground- '"
ivater
0
I
a
a
H r-l
rl 1 «
a v -H en
p. c u a)
B .
M tH
V O.
u O.
M ^
0
Contact
Recrea-
tion 5
-t»
X
X
X
3
irifll U«p
u 1
u n
id >~4
> «
n] u
OJ U
Z 5^
0
11 f -qnf «
CO
Li U
V -H
J= X
4J O
0 ^i
X
X
2
o
c u
0) CO
- 3
H Li
O 13
X
X
X
3
K ~
0 '~
w kj
O ^
<
X
1
X
3
10
^ i^} r'
jT rn ;r m >
C. ' LI a;
'
-------
SUMMARY Of- RtCi'iVIKd WATER TYK, IMPACTS, BEKtFICIAL UliES, AND PaOELEM POLLUTANTS
REGION 9
l:rb:'n Area
l-.i, i-noenix
Ai. Tucson
CA, Bakersfield
CA, Fresno
CA. Los Angeles
CA, Modesto
CA, Oxnard
CA, Sacramento
CA, Salinas
San
CA, Bernandino
CA, San Diego
CA, San Francisco
CA, San Jose
CA, Santa Barbara
CA, Santa Rosa
to
0
00
O
r-i
X
X
.Irban
tunoEf A
Priority .
3roblem
Small ~~| 1
Stream |f?|
X
X
X
eiv
a
X
y
x
X
X
A
X
X
X
X
X
u
1-1
x
u
CO
3
u
CO
c
i)
U
O
X
X
3 (U
_M (0
X
I
a
iH | (0
O (U -rt 01
a. c u o
Q Q) -H (A
X
moacts
i
1 (A (0
C T3 ^ C
ia n o o
1J (0 -H -H
... .
X
Public I 1
Concern 1
>,
M iH
(U CX
u O.
Contact
lecrea- Uj
Cion |
X
ton- *
contact ^
Recrea-
tion ?
t>
X
Fish P 1
3nd
Wildlife
X
^stheticsj |
0 0
§8§
X
Nutrients
«
u
C
0)
X
x
tn
X^H
Su
4)
X
X
ca
t-i U
^3
u o
X
X
a
c u
a s
a
.-« 0)
X
E -
C i-
^ i)
i
i
i
i
i
*
X
X
1
i
UJ
oo
0-30
ID (1)
n
o 3
o
C
r,i
-- , IT
O '
-
o
ro i^
-------
SUMMARY OF RECIVING WATER TYPES, IMPACTS, BENEFICIAL USES, AND PROBLEM POLLUTANTS
REGION 9 (continued)
IV:.-;.:! Area
CA, seaside
:»., ?.imi Valley
CA, Stockton
HI, Honolulu
.NV, Las Vegas
UV, Reno
AK, None
REGION 9 TOTAL
1
01
ffl
(0 0)
coo
O 0) -H
O OJ *J
1
irial Use
o to
ra 01
1 4J V, C
c c u o
0 0 0) -H
1
V
H
l|3
X
X
2
I
' ' .'
0
§o
o o
' X
X
2
.
L 1 1
Nutrlenta
0
ScdlmcntsC.
2
2
m
M U
4) V*
C X
*J O
0 &
2
o
1
I V
X
X
2
to
.vO
o
O F
Z '-
co C
m > --
:o Q
-------
SUMMARY Of RECEIVING WATER TYPE, IMPACTS, BENCF.'CIAl. USES, AND PROBLEM POLLUTANTS
REGION 10
l;rban Area
ID, Boise
OR, Eugene
OR, Portland
0?., Salem
'.'A, Seattle
WA, Spokane
WA, Tacoma
REGION 10 TOTAL
a
01
Id
<
CO
X
X
X
X
X
5
* " B
14-1 T* 01
C3 O O J3
.3 C -H 0
X
X
X
3
Rer
B
-H IU
i u
X
X.
1
PIV
o
j*
0
ine
u
X
X
X
4
Wate
X
M
3
u
X
X
2
r TVD
P rH
(3 W -H 0)
X
X
.2
mna^tjp
1
I in ra
c -a -i c
0
jblic 1
jncern
£ 0
X
1
X
M r-t
X
1
Renpf
U 1
o nj
2£c
0 5 U
X
1
irtal Use
4J I
U CO
a «
_=_E
X
1
n
b U
a i-t
o £
0
g *
d to
s S
p u
X
X
2
5 ^
tj -<
-^ ^*
u- -j
L; ^
X
1
*»'
o
O F > ^
. ,
ni
oo C ' O :T) o
01 C" 7 m =n
------- |