EPA-910/9-76-026 A
ENVIRDNMENTAL QjTTAT.TTY PROFILiE 1976
ALASKA
-------
SUPPLEMENT
1976 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PROFILE
FOR ALASKA
-------
This report has been reviewed by EPA Region X
and is approved for publication. Approval does
not necessarily signify that the contents reflect
the views or policies of the Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade
names or commercial products constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation for use.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. AIR QUALITY PROFILE 2
Regional Air Quality Profile 2
Air Quality In Alaska 4
Pollutants In Excess Of Health Standards 5
Severity Of Pollution 7
Pollutant Sources 9
Carbon Monoxide 9
Particulate And Sulfur Dioxide 11
Air Pollution Trends 13
Near Term Outlook 15
III. WATER QUALITY PROFILE 16
Regional Water Quality Profile 16'
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Page
1 Days Exceeding Health.Standards
by Pollutant 6
2 Days Exceeding Health Standards
by Severity 8
3 Carbon Monoxide Emissions 10
4 Point and Area-Source Particulate
Emissions 12
5 Attainment Status and Trends in
Air Pollution 14
6 Mainstem Average Water Quality
per River Mile - Principal Rivers
in Region X 17
7 Region X River Water Quality Status 19
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number • Page
1 Region X States - Concentrations
Exceeding Standard 2
2 Principle Cities - Concentrations
Exceeding Standard 2
3 Auto-Related Violation Days 3
4 Threshold Pollutant Concentrations 7
5 Percent of Regional Rivers Exceeding _
Criteria 20
6 Water Quality Trends of Regional
Rivers 20
-------
1976 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PROFILE SUPPLEMENT
FOR ALASKA
INTRODUCTION
State, federal, and local environmental quality control agencies
maintain monitoring networks to scientifically measure the quality of
our environment. These monitoring networks are invaluable in-deter-
mining where pollution problems exist and to measure the success or
failure of. abatement and pollution prevention programs.
The Seattle Regional Office of the Environmental Protection Agency
annually evaluates all data collected by northwest pollution control
agencies and submitted to the EPA computer data storage systems. V/e
feel the public should be made aware of the results of these evalua-
tions. This document and similar future documents are designed to report
on the present status of northwest air and water quality, trends in that
quality, an analysis of the causes and effects of observed pollution
problems and our view of the near term outlook for solving these problems.
This report is a technical supplement to the 1976 Regional Environmental
Quality Profile and is designed to inform the reader about the.general
status of the environment within the-state.
The reader may find a few inconsistencies between this supplement
and the 1976 Regional Environmental Quality Profile due. to the continual
profile upgrading process which includes improvement of evaluation and
presentation techniques. These changes are the result of our readers
comments and suggestions. Formulating useful and accurate indices of
environmental quality is a difficult task. Additional suggestions for
improving the information presented in this document would be appreciated.
Please direct your comments to the Office of the Regional Administrator,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
Washington 98101.
-------
REGIONAL AIR QUALITY PROFILE
OVERVIEW
Air pollution — as pollutant concentrations in excess of those estab-
lished by National health-related air quality standards — occurs in every
State in Federal Administrative Region X.. Standards for four of the most
widespread pollutants were exceeded in the State of Washington for the
three year period ending in 1974. Alaska and Idaho exceeded standards for
two of the four. Three standards were exceeded in Oregon. Frequency of
excessive pollutant concentrations, as measured by number of violation-days,
was greatest in sparsely populated Idaho, least in Oregon. (A violation-
day, for the purposes of this report, was established whenever a standard
was exceeded in a county.) More serious "alert level" pollutant concen-
trations were recorded most often in Alaska, least often in Oregon.
TABLE 1 - REGION X STATES
Concentrations Exceeding Standard
Carbon Photo Particulate Sulfur
Monoxide Oxidants Matter Dioxide
Violation-Days
Standard . Alert
Exceeded 'Level
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
446
301
368
174
149
40
48
Excessive pollutant levels were concentrated in nine Region X com-
munities that together accounted for 72 percent of all violation-days and
74 percent of all alert level violation-days. The core cities of the
Region's seven standard metropolitan statistical areas were responsible
for just under half of all violation-days and just under two-fifths of
all .alert level violation-days. But two fairly small communities, Fair-
banks, Alaska and Kellogg-Wallace, Idaho, exceeded any of the larger
cities in numbers of times excessive pollutant concentrations were
recorded, and were responsible for almost half of all recorded pollutant
concentrations above the alert level.
TABLE 2 - PRINCIPAL CITIES
Concentrations Exceeding Standard
CarbonPhotoParticulate Sulfur
Monoxide Oxidants Matter Dioxide
Seattle
Portland
Spokane
Tacoma
Anchorage
Boise
Eugene
Salem
Fairbanks
Kellogg -Wallace
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Violation-Days
Standard Alert
Exceeded Level
149
165
82
43
142
11
56
23
203
217
16
30
3
5
90
6
2
1
73
69
2,
-------
A great deal of Region X's air pollution can be attributed to the
automobile. Just under half of Alaska's violation-days can be traced to
the automobile and the bulk of Oregon's and Washington's problems (in
violation-days) can be traced to the automobile. The bulk of Oregon's
and Washington's standards violation problems were due to carbon monoxide
and photochemical oxidant concentrations that occurred around the largest
cities of the two States. Those pollutants could be traced almost entirely
(i.e., 80 to 90 percent) to automobile exhausts. Because well over half of
the Region's population lives in and around the six cities in which such
pollution occurs, population exposure to risk as a consequence of auto-
mobile emissions is a significant public health problem of the Pacific
Northwest and Alaska.
TABLE 3 - AUTO-RELATED VIOLATION DAYS
Alaska 42.2$
Anchorage 16.9%
Fairbanks 77.8%
Idaho No Data
Oregon 85.0%
Portland 97.6$
Eugene 85.7%
Salem 100.0$
Washington 66.8$
Seattle 99.3$
Spokane 82.9$
Tacoma 46.5$
Region X -45.1$
-------
AIR QUALITY IN ALASKA
Under the Clean Air Act of 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency
has established National standards that specify maximum permissable levels
of pollutant materials in air.
Standards for the principal and most widespread pollutants—total
suspended particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, photo-
chemical oxidants, and oxides of nitrogen—are divided into two catego-
ries. Primary standards are set at levels intended to protect human
health.Secondary standards are set at levels intended to protect against
other forms of damage caused by air pollution.
The material that follows is an attempt to describe simply what is
known about air quality in the State of Alaska in terms of its adher-
ence to National primary air quality standards. Those standards have been
established to protect against the following specific health effects that
have been demonstrated to stem from the particular pollutant:
Total suspended particulates—aggravation of asthma and chronic
lung diseases, increased cough, chest discomfort, restricted .
activity, aggravation of heart and lung disease symptoms in
the elderly, increased death rate;
Sulfur dioxide—aggravation of asthma, aggravation of heart and
lung disease symptoms in the elderly, increased lung illness,
increased death rate;
Carbon monoxide—interference with mental and physical activity,
reduced capacity in persons suffering from heart and other
circulatory disorders;
Photochemical oxidants—aggravation of asthma and chronic lung
disease, irritation of the eye and of the respiratory tract,
decreased vision, reduced heart and lung capacity;
Oxides of nitrogen—increased chronic bronchitis.
The material is presented in graphic form. It is intended to depict:
1) where, and how often, primary standards were exceeded in 1974,
2) location and frequency of severe concentrations of health dam-
aging pollutants in 1974,
3) indicated trend of pollutant concentrations in the period 1972
to 1974, and
4) sources of the principal pollutants found to be in excess of
the primary standard in 1974.
-------
POLLUTANTS IN EXCESS OF HEALTH STANDARDS
During the three year period ending in 1974? eight of Alaska's twenty-
nine census divisions experienced recorded concentrations of pollutants
that exceeded the allowable maxima specified by primary air quality stan-
dards. The census divisions are ranked in the chart (Figure l) according
to the average number of days per year in which a standard was exceeded.
Particulate matter was the most widespread cause of an exceeded stan-
dard. Concentrations above the primary standard occurred in seven census
divisions, and the total number of days in which the particulate standard
was exceeded among all census divisions summed to 226.
Carbon monoxide standards were not consistently met in either Ancho-
rage or Fairbanks. Total violation-days for:the two communities amounted
to 182; _and in Fairbanks, the primary standard was exceeded on 158 days, or
almost 45% of the entire year.
Sulfur dioxide concentrations in excess of the standard were confined
to Sitka, and occurred on four days.
Pollutant concentrations in excess of the health standards were con-
centrated in the two principal cities. Together, Anchorage and Fairbanks
produced 345 standard violation-days, the rest of the State of Alaska'only
67.
-------
250-tr
200-4f
oe.
<
LU
LU
Q.
1504^
100-
50-
Figure 1
ALASKA
DAYS EXCEEDING HEALTH STANDARD
BY POLLUTANT
158
PARTICULATES
:i::: CARBON MONOXIDE
PHOTO OXIDANTS
SULFUR DIOXIDE
29
I *_._•._._•. m
PRIMARY (HEALTH) STANDARD NOT EXCEEDED
to
^
z
<
CO
a
<
cc:
O
I
u
z
Q
OL
Z
D
I
u
O
ZCQ
00
00
a:
LU
I
O
-------
SEVERITY OF POLLUTION
Primary air quality standards include three degrees of risk, accord-
ing 'to level of pollutant concentrations. The nature of potential health
damage is the same at each level, but the probability of damage and the
proportion of the population that is predisposed to health impairment
increases as the amount of pollutants in air increases. There are dis-
tinct thresholds that indicate the degree of risk that is believed to be
associated with certain pollutant concentrations, and these are recognized
in the primary air quality standards. As the higher concentrations occur,
the enhanced danger of the consequent pollution is designated by an air
quality standard category. "Alert" level pollutant concentrations are
thought to be significantly more serious than lower concentrations exceed-
ing the primary standard. "Warning" levels are thought to be significantly
more serious than alert.
TABLE 4
Threshold Pollutant Concentrations
(per cubic meter of air)
.Pollutant Standard Alert Warning
Particulates (24 hour) 260 micrograms 375 625
Sulfur dioxide (24 hour) 365 micrograms 800 1,600
Carbon monoxide ( 8 hour) 10 milligrams 17 34
Oxidants (1 hour) 160 micrograms 200 800
In 1974 (Figure 2), at least 174 of the 412 instances in which health
standards-were exceeded in Alaska involved concentrations at or above the
alert level. The proportion of alert level, or higher, concentrations in
cases in which primary standards were exceeded must have been among the
greatest—-if not actually the greatest—in the nation.
-------
200- -
a:
OJ
C£
UJ
Q.
i^
150- •
100- •
50--
Figure 2
ALASKA
DAYS EXCEEDING HEALTH STANDARD
••»
1 •
•
•
•
••MM^H
73
Tlo"
90
-— •
52
kS W k V k IX 1
ABOVE ALERT
1 | ABOVE PRIMARY
5
F] 3 3
J. . .IB.. .EL .n _m. J±L
6
PRIMARY (HEALTH) STANDARD NOT EXCEEDED
-
z
<
-:
--
2
5
-------
POLLUTANT SOURCES: CARBON MONOXIDE
The graph in Figure 3 indicates the estimated distribution of sources
of carbon monoxide in Fairbanks and Anchorage, where the primary standard
for carbon monoxide was exceeded on a number of occasions in 197-4. Although
point sources were of minor significance, area sources produced almost all
of the recorded carbon monoxide. Automobiles and other kinds of transpor-
tation equipment—designated mobile sources on the graph—were estimated to
produce 92% of all carbon monoxide generated in Anchorage, and 70% .of that
occuring in Fairbanks.
9
-------
Figure 3
ALASKA
CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS
POINT-AREA-MOBILE SOURCES
100
UJ
Of.
UJ
Z
o
CO
O
Z
3
O
X
• POINT SOURCES
•:•:•: AREA SOURCES
000- MOBILE SOURCES
(ONLY SHOWN IN COUNTIES
EXCEEDING PRIMARY STANDARD)
7541-
25
0.6
0.2
FAIRBANKS
ANCHORAGE
-------
POLLUTANT SOURCES: PARTICULATE AND SULFUR DIOXIDE
Figure 4 indicates the estimated distribution, of sources of partic-
ulate matter in those Alaskan census districts in which a primary air
quality standard was exceeded in 1974.
Point sources—large, recognizable features such as factories—were
responsible for less than half of aggregate particulate production in the
eight census districts not meeting primary standards. In total, point
source particulate emissions amounted to about 6,500 tons of the more
than 14,000 tons of particulate matter produced in 1974.
Area sources—space heating, transportation devices, brush burning,
wind blown dust, etc.: the variety of small, intermittent sources of
pollutants too numerous, changeable, and insignificant in themselves to
be cataloged—though in combination they may generate large volumes of
pollutants—were responsible for more than 7,500 tons of particulate
matter. Most of that production occurred in Anchorage and Fairbanks,
where the bulk of days exceeding the particulate standard were registered.
Sulfur dioxide concentrations in excess of the primary standard in
Sitka were entirely attributable to a point source.
11
-------
Figure 4
ALASKA
POINT AND AREA SOURCE
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
•:£:: POINT SOURCES
• AREA SOURCES
-------
AIR POLLUTION TRENDS
The chart in Figure 5 shows indicated trends of pollutant concentra-
tions in Alaska census divisions, as those trends may be derived from the
air monitoring record for the period 1972 through 1974.
Blue boxes indicate that there is no evidence that the specified air
quality standard has been exceeded. Where the circles occur within
the box, the presumed compliance with standards is not based on measure-
ments, but is derived from judgment and a knowledge of pollutant sources.
Yellow boxes indicate that a standard has been exceeded, without
concentrations reaching the alert level. An upward pointing arrow indi-
cates that measured concentrations of the specified pollutant appear to '
be increasing—that the propensity for pollution to occur is rising. A
downward pointing arrow indicates that concentrations appear to be receding.
Red boxes are used where a pollutant concentration has exceeded the
alert level. Again, the arrow within the box indicates the apparent-
direction of the pollutant's concentration.
The period 1972-1974 seems to have been marked by conflicting trends.
In general, particulate levels were—with a couple of exceptions—declining.
On the other hand, carbon monoxide problems in both Anchorage and Fairbanks
seem to have been growing worse; and in a couple of instances, sulfur
dioxide concentrations show signs of evolving into problems. Because of
the enormous influence of meteorological conditions, apparent trends based
on only three years of air quality data may be deceptive; but the Alaskan
situation seems less optimistic than that of other Region X States.
While the central feature of the display is its preponderance of
blue, the intensity and duration of pollutant concentrations exceeding
'primary standards is worrisome, particularly in view of the small popula-
tion that causes those relatively serious effects, and the rapid rate of
growth of that population. There is evidence that the severe climate
creates atmospheric conditions that will make it more than usually diffi-
cult .to relieve existing air pollution in Alaska, as well as make it
difficult to protect against the future degradation of the State's gen-
erally good quality air.
13
-------
ELECTION DISTRICT
ALEUTIAN
ISLANDS
ANCHORAGE
ANGOON
BARROW
BRISTOL BAY
BOROUGH
BRISTOL BAY
CORDOVA-
McCARTHY
FAIRBANKS
HAINES
JUNEAU
KENAI-COOK
INLET
KETCHIKAN
KOBUK
KODIAK
KUSKOKWIM
MATANUSKA-
SUSITNA
NOME
OUTER
KETCHIKAN
PRINCE OF
WALES
SEWARD
SITKA
SKAGWAY-
YAKUTAT
Figure 5
ATTAINMENT STATUS
AND
TRENDS
IN
AIR POLLUTION
ALASKA
NO EVIDENCE PRIMARY
STANDARD EXCEEDED
EXCEEDS PRIMARY LEVEL
EXCEEDS ALERT LEVEL
DESIGNATION BASED ON JUDGMENT
DECREASING STANDARDS
VIOLATIONS
LEVEL OR NO APPARENT TREND
INCREASING STANDARDS
VIOLATIONS
ELECTION DISTRICT
SOUTHEAST
FAIRBANKS
UPPER YUKON
VALDEZ-CHITINA
WHITTIER
WADE HAMPTON
WRANGELL-
PETERSBURG
YUKON-
KOYUKUK
«*
O
o
o
0
• c-V
o
0
0
o
o
v&
o
o
0
0
0
o
^\4C
°l
0
0
o
o
0
-------
NEAR TERM OUTLOOK
Paradoxically, some areas of Alaska—a virtual frontier with the
lowest population density among the fifty States—appears to have the worst
air pollution problems in Federal Administrative Region X. Air quality
trends are currently favorable with respect to particulates, unfavorable
with respect to carbon monoxide, and uncertain for sulfur dioxide. And the
combination of rapid rates of population and industrial growth with a
physical environment that seems, because of the severe winter inversion
phenomenon, particularly vulnerable to air pollution makes it most diffi-
cult to project air quality conditions for Alaska.
Particulates, the broa'dest form of pollutants in excess of the stan-
dards, would appear to offer the best prospects for immediate improvement.
Though excessive particulates are widespread, the frequency and duration
of concentrations in excess of the standard are slight, except in Fairbanks
and Anchorage. Point sources predominate outside of the two'principal
cities; and the combination of source identification with the availability
of control technology indicates that abatement of pollutional conditions
is likely.
Sulfur dioxide, a potential problem for Alaska, does not seem to be
an imminent one. Availability of point source controls and the near com-
plete absence of concentrations in excess of standards seem sufficient to
override the disadvantage of extended periods of inversion. But the pace
of industrialization indicates that careful monitoring is necessary.
Carbon monoxide excursions beyond the standard present distinctly
less optimistic prospects. The private automobile is responsible for a
significant share of carbon monoxide production in both Fairbanks and
Anchorage; and the extreme inversion conditions make other area sources
of carbon monoxide highly significant. Thus the very number of sources
to be controlled presents a formidable barrier to standards attainment.
Moreover, there are no feasible techniques available for control of carbon
monoxide originating from area sources other than the mobile ones. Carbon
monoxide reduction devices are, of course, an integral component of all
recent model year autos, but their effectiveness in an artic climate remains
to be proven. If they work as designed, reductions of carbon monoxide from
mobile sources is essentially a matter of gradual replacement of the exist-
ing1 stock of autos with newer units that incorporate the control technology
—a long term probabilistic process that is retarded by growth in total
automobile usage. In view of rapid growth, particularly in Fairbanks, and
the significance of other area sources of carbon monoxide, there must be
some question as to the capability of auto exhaust controls alone to effec-
tuate a sufficient improvement in carbon monoxide concentrations to satisfy
public health requirements within the next three to five years.
15
-------
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY PROFILE
OVERVIEW
Relative pollution of the non-marine waters of major Pacific North-
west rivers is indicated on the accompanying graphs. Figure 6 depicts
the degree of pollution in each major regional river reach, and Figure 7
shows the location of the river reaches. Similar determinations are not
available for Alaskan- waters due to a lack of necessary data. EPA and
the State of Alaska are currently working together toward the develop-
ment of a water quality monitoring program that will provide the same
depth of information that is available in other Region X States.
The basis of comparison between waters of the Pacific Northwest is
an eleven part Water Quality Index (WQI) that compares measured water
quality conditions during the last five years with National criteria
recommended by the National Academy of Sciences.2/ Measured water
quality constituents from various Federal, State and local agencies are
stored in EPA's data -storage and retrieval system called STORET. The
National water quality criteria are recommended threshold concentrations
in water which are considered suitable for propagation of fish, the use
by wildlife, and for recreation. The eleven criteria groups' considered
.in the index are listed in Table 5.
The index number for any river segment is calculated by multiplying
the frequency of criteria violations for each constituent by a severity
weighting function which is based on the magnitude of violation. Indi-
vidual river segment index numbers are multiplied by a ratio of segment
river miles to total river miles, then summed to obtain average WQI for
the total river. The WQI number spans a scale that may run from 0.0
(no measured evidence of pollution) to 110.0 (severe pollution in all
criteria groups at all times); however, most Pacific Northwest streams
fall into a category below the scale of 20.0. General, national criteria
were employed for the particular index construction rather than the spe-
cific State and Federal water quality standards that apply to the various
waterbodies. State water quality standards reflect local natural condi-
tions whereas federal criteria are based upon field and laboratory
studies which have been shown nationally to correlate with biological,
recreational, and health problems. Federal criteria are in some cases
more stringent than state standards. Index values computed from federal
criteria will therefore tend to present a more conservative estimate of
water quality than if actual state standards were applied.
The graphs of water quality indices are divided into three segments
that reflect professional judgment as to the significance of the values.
An index number greater than 6.0 is considered to be characteristic of
streams or stream segments that do not meet the goals of the Federal
I/ EPA R3.033 Ecological Research Series, Water Quality Criteria 1972,
U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1973.
16
-------
20-
18-
16-
14-
12-
10-
8-
6.0-
4-
2-
1'°1
•
FIGURES
MAINSTEM AVERAGE WATER QUALITY PER RIVER MILE
PRINCIPAL RIVERS IN REGION X
O
o
(j)(^\
xL/xTy
W
"
(?)
®
TTfTt??
\UJQ_ LJJ UJ ^ LJJC^^^ LU^^oO ^ ^~ \ -j-
^^l-^oo oo9-) ^
o = i 2
FAILS TO MEET FEDERAL QUALITY
GOALS: POLLUTED
PROVISIONALLY MEETS FEDERAL
QUALITY GOALS
MEETS FEDERAL
QUALITY GOALS
?rf>?W*««*w
LJJ (— ^ I < NLUlLJJUJ<
^g2
- i 9 < 9
^ d
-------
Water Pollution Control Act—bodies of water that are, by Federal stan-
dards, definitely polluted. An index number less than 1.0 is considered
to be equivalent to unpolluted natural conditions. The area between 1.0
and 6.0,, where most Pacific Northwest rivers fall, is generally consistent
with the goals of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, but with local
or seasonal deviations.
r^
The water quality index is used in this report for the purpose of
comparing twenty-six Pacific Northwest rivers within the% States of Idaho,
Oregon, and Washington. In each' major river discussed in this section,
the WQI is a summation of the significant individual stream-'segments that
make up each river. The resultant river WQI is the weighted average of
the individual WQIs within the river and may not reflect local pollution
problems existing in some of the individual segments. For ease of presen-
tation, colors on Figure 7 represent the average WQI range for the main-
stem of each river; however, the actual WQI could change throughout each
river segment.
As Figures 6 and 7 indicate, all but four of the major rivers of the
Pacific Northwest generally,meet the goals of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act; however, three rivers have index numbers that are perilously
close to the 6.0 that indicates unequivocal pollution. It is-, apparent
that the more arid and agriculture oriented parts of the Region have the
worst pollution. The Upper Snake River and its tributaries—the Boise
and Portneuf Rivers—are three of the four worst polluted rivers in the
Region. The fourth river, Spokane/Coeur d'Alene, is located in an inten-
sive mining and smelting area. Other streams that flow through major
agriculture areas include the Middle Snake, Yakima, and Bear Rivers.
These streams have, higher index numbers than most of the remaining rivers
within the Region. Major coastal and Puget Sound rivers, with a few
exceptions, have relatively good water quality. The exceptions, Green/
Duwamish and Chehalis Rivers, flow through major populated' areas.
The most prevalent of the eleven classes of pollution (see Table 5
below) that make up the index are excessive bacterial populations which
indicate the possible presence of disease-related bacteria and viruses
(Pathogenic indicators), excessive concentrations of phosphorus and
nitrogen which have been documented to be the major nutrients responsible
for eutrophication in the Region (Trophic potential), and excessive
presence of suspended materials or oil and grease (Aesthetics). Each
of these three classes of pollution was found to occur in half or more
of the twenty-six Pacific Northwest rivers that were analyzed for this
report; and each at this time appears to be associated predominantly
with runoff rather than waste discharges. High concentrations of toxic
organic compounds such as pesticides, dissolved oxygen deficiencies, and
elevated temperatures are also common. (The latter'two are associated
predominantly with reservoir conditions. ) Supersaturation of dissolved
gasses, heavy metals in toxic concentrations (toxic inorganics), salinity
(dissolved minerals), and excessive acidity, are also found, though they
are rarer forms of pollution in the Pacific Northwest. No excessive
concentrations of radioactivity were measured or suspected in the North-
west waters.
18
-------
REGION 10
RIVER WATER QUALITY STATUS
FIGURE?
AVERAGE MAINSTEM WATER QUALITY:
< . . 0 FAILS TO MEET FEDERAL GOALS
i——~i PROVISIONALLY MEETS FEDERAL GOALS
«^^M MEETS FEDERAL GOALS
NOTE: Colors denote the overage water quality index value
for the entire river. In actuality, some stream reaches may be
better or worse than indicated
STREAMS/REACHES
1 BEAR RIVER
2 UPPER SNAKE RIVER
3 PORTNEUF RIVER
4 MIDDLE SNAKE RIVER
5. BOISE RIVER
6 PAYETTE RIVER
1 LOWER SNAKE RIVER
8 ST JOE RIVER
9. COEUR D'ALENE RIVER
10. SPOKANE RIVER
11 UPPER COLUMBIA RIVER
12 YAKIMA RIVER
13 UMATILLA RIVER
14 LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER
15 KLICKITAT RIVER
16 WILLAMETTE RIVER
M SANTIAM RIVER
18 COWLITZ RIVER
19 WILLAPA RIVER
20 CHEHALIS RIVER
21 GREEN/DUWAMISH RIVER
22 SNOHOMISH RIVER
23. STILLAGUAMISH RIVER
24 NOOKSACK RIVER
25 UMPQUA RIVER
26 ROGUE RIVER
27 KLAMATH RIVER
Selected stream/reach limits
-------
Table 5 - Percent of Regional Rivers
Not Meeting Water Quality Criteria
Class
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Criteria Group
Bacteria
Trophic potential
Aesthetics
Toxic organics
Dissolved oxygen
Temperature
Dissolved gasses
Toxic inorganics
Dissolved minerals
Acidity/Alkalinity
Radioactivity
Idaho Oregon Washington Regional Avg.
50%
25%
38%
25%
25%
86%
86%
71%
71%
29%
29%
14%
14%
77%
38%
46%
38%
71%
15%
23%
15%
13%
50%
43%
32%
21%
14%
14%
18%
4%
A pattern of change appears to be evolving in the nature of Pacific
Northwest water pollution; though variations in flow, climate, and moni-
toring make any conclusions with"respect to short term trends provisional.
As seen on Table 6 below, those pollutants that have historically been'
associated with waste discharges—bacteria, nutrients, acidity, oxygen
consuming substances, heavy metals from industrial operations—appear to
be progressively less prevalent in Regional rivers. Conversely, pollu-
tants that are associated with runoff, fallout, intense land .use, reser-
voirs, and in-stream chemical reactions—toxic organic compounds, dis-
solved gasses, total dissolved solids—would appear to be increasing in
prevalence and concentrations. Some of .this apparent deterioration may
be due to improved analytical capability in recent years.
Table 6 - Water Quality Trends of Regional Rivers
Class
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Criteria Group
Bacteria
Trophic potential
Aesthetic
Toxic organics
Dissolved oxygen
Temperature
Dissolved gasses
Toxic inorganics
Dissolved minerals
Acidity/Alkalinity
Improving* Deteriorating* No•Change*
2135
1135
4%
4%
11%
7%
7%
25%
7%
7%
7%
68%
82%
86%
89%
Figure represents the precent of streams within the three states which
are improving or deteriorating by criteria/group. One stream may be
improving with respect to one criteria group and deteriorating in
another; therefore, it would be included in each listing. If 7% of the
rivers in one criteria group are improving and 7% are deteriorating
in the same group, then 86% experience no change at all.
20
-------
The impression that may be derived from the data is that contemporary
water pollution strategies based on waste treatment are proving effective
with traditional pollutant sources but the more complex and resistant
kinds of pollution that stem from intensive use of'land and water may be
offsetting some -part of that improvement.
21
•&GPO 796-202
------- |