EPA 910 9-78 049C
6EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle WA 98101
Oregon
Environmental Quality
Profile
1978
-------
PREFACE
This is a report for the people of the State of Oregon. Its purpose is to describe progress in
restoring and safeguarding an environment that is the envy of the nation.
Through technology, much progress has been made in recent years in reducing air and
water pollution from industrial and municipal sources. While problems remain, the long-
term challenge to a healthy and clean environment lies in the way we manage our
resources, in our forestry and agricultural practices, in urban land use and water planning,
and in the types of transportation systems we use.
While Federal agencies such as the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency have important
responsibilities, the prime responsibility for solving environmental problems has been
assigned to the States by Federal law. Keeping the faith of the businesses, industries and
municipalities that have voluntarily met their environmental responsibilities requires a
vigorous enforcement effort against those polluters that would unfairly profit by not
assuming theirs.
Looking ahead, it is clear that the Northwest must accommodate a growing population and
that this must be accomplished while maintaining a reasonable balance between economic
benefits and the need for healthful air, clean water, and the other unique qualities of life
that characterize the Northwest.
This report provides information gathered from a number of sources—State environmental
agencies, local government, various Federal agencies, and universities. The assistance of
these persons, institutions, and agencies is gratefully acknowledged. Additional technical
information can be provided by the Region 10 Office of the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency and is available to any person who may wish to explore a particular topic in greater
depth. The Region 10 Office of EPA intends to issue future reports with improvements and
expansions on the information as appropriate. Comments and suggestions for
improvements are welcome.
Donald P. Dubois
Regional Administrator, Region 10
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Seattle, Washington
December, 1978
-------
OREGON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PROFILE
CONTENTS
AIR QUALITY PROFILE
WATER QUALITY PROFILE ..
Rivers and Streams
Lakes
Marine Water
Drinking Water
NOISE PROFILE
SOLID WASTE PROFILE
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
SUMMARY
2
12
.12
.23
.27
.29
30
31
32
33
Exhibits
Health Effects of Air Quality Standards
Violations (Table 1)
Air Quality Status Map by County
(Figure 1)
Annual Average Number of Days Health Standard
Exceeded — by Pollutant Type (Figure 2)
Annual Average Number of Days Health Standard
Exceeded — by Severity (FigureS)
Percent of Total Air Quality Violation Days
Attributable to Automobile Emissions (Table 2)
Air Quality Status in Selected Urban Areas
(Table 3)
Air Quality Status and Trends (Figure4)
Point and Area Sources — Paniculate Emissions
(Figure 5)
Point and Area Sources — Carbon Monoxide
Emissions (Figure 6)
Point and Area Sources — Hydrocarbon
Emissions (Figure 7)
Criteria/Parameter Groups For the Water
Quality Index (Table 4)
Water Quality Map of Principal Rivers in Oregon
(FigureS)
Water Quality Status of Principal Rivers in Oregon
(Figure9)
Average Water Quality Index (Figure 10)
Trends of Federal Criteria Violations (Figure 11)
Principal Region 10 River Basins — Average Water
Quality Per River Mile (Figure 12)
Water Quality Status of Principal Region 10
River Basins (Figure 13)
Page Exhibits
5
6
8
9
11
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Water Quality Map of Principal Region 10
River Basins (Figure 14)
Water Quality Trends — Region 10 (Figure 15)
Suspended Solids Loading Graphs
(Figure 16)
BOD Loading Graphs (Figure 17)
Criteria for Evaluating Impairment of Lakes
(Table 5)
Trophic Status of Oregon Lakes and Reservoirs
(Table 6).
Trophic Status of Major Recreational Lakes
(Figure 18)
Impairment Status of Recreational Lakes
(Figure 19)
Principal Oregon Lakes and Reservoirs —
Impairment of Highest Beneficial Uses
(Table 7)
Marine Waters of Oregon: Status of Classified
Shellfish Growing Areas (Figure 20)
Marine Waters of of Region 10: Status of Classified
Shellfish Growing Areas (Figure 21)
Oregon Drinking Water Status (Figure 22)
Percent of Oregon Population Covered by Noise
Ordinances (Figure 23)
Percent of Region 10 Population Covered by Noise
Ordinances (Figure 24)
Percent of Population Served by State-Approved
Solid Waste Disposal Facilities (Figure 25)
Status of Resource Recovery Projects and
Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites in Region 10
(Figure 26)
Page
19
19
21
22
23
24
25
25
26
28
28
29
30
30
31
32
-------
AIR QUALITY
AIR QUALITY
Improving air quality in the Northwest has been a cooperative effort
among Federal, State and local environmental agencies, industry, and
a concerned and informed public. Since the 1970 Clean Air Act
Amendments, there has been a considerable expenditure of time and
money to find solutions to the most pressing air pollution problems.
National air quality standards have been established to ensure that the
goal of a clean and healthful environment is attained. The States, with
Federal assistance, have developed a variety of regulatory,
enforcement, and administrative programs in an attempt to reduce
pollutants to such a level that these air quality standards would be
attained and maintained. State efforts have been augmented by
Federal regulation of pollutants from stationary sources such as power
plants and factories and by the Federal program to reduce air pollution
emissions from motor vehicles.
Throughout the Northwest, State, Federal and local environmental
quality control agencies maintain monitoring networks to scientifically
measure air quality. The Seattle Regional Office of the Environmental
Protection Agency annually evaluates data submitted by these air
pollution control agencies. This analysis allows an assessment of the
degree to which the air quality of the Northwest has been changing
and the degree to which air quality standards are being achieved.
Overall, air quality in Oregon, as well as the other states in Region 10,
has improved during the past five years.
Air Quality Standards
The Clean Air Act of 1970 directed EPA to establish ambient air
quality standards for the principal and most widespread classes of air
pollutants as shown in Table 1. The standards are divided into two
categories: primary standards which are set at levels required to
protect the public health; and more stringent secondary standards
which are set at levels which would reduce other undesirable effects
of air pollution. The primary standards were established by evaluating
medical data and are designed to reduce adverse health effects from
particulate matter, sulfur oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide,
photochemical oxidants, and nitrogen oxides. The health effects of
hydrocarbons are not listed in Table 1 because hydrocarbons, in
themselves, do not pose a direct health problem. Rather, they react
in sunlight to form oxidants. For this reason, the standards for
hydrocarbons serve as a way of controlling oxidants and for attaining
the oxidant standard.
Some pollutants exhibit both chronic and acute effects depending on
the duration of exposure and the concentration of the pollutant.
For this reason, the standards for some pollutants require the
concentration of the pollutant in the air to be averaged over various
lengths of time.
TABLE 1
HEALTH EFFECTS OF AIR QUALITY
STANDARDS VIOLATIONS
Pollutant
Health Effect at Concentrations
above the Primary Standard
Total Suspended
Particulates
(TSP)
Sulfur Dioxide
(S02)
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
Photochemical Oxidants
(03)
Oxides of Nitrogen
(NOX)
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;
Aggravation of asthma, aggravation
of heart and lung disease symptoms
in the elderly, increased lung illness,
increased death rate;
Interference with mental and
physical activity, reduced capacity
in persons suffering from heart and
other circulatory disorders;
Aggravation of asthma and chronic
lung disease, irritation of the eye
and of the respiratory tract,
decreased vision, reduced heart and
lung capacity;
Increased chronic bronchitis.
-------
AIR QUALITY
Measuring Air Quality
The average number of days per year in which the primary air quality
standards were exceeded in the period 1974 to 1976 has been used in
this report to characterize air quality. A three-year running average is
used to project trends because it minimizes year-to-year deviations
due to weather and climate.
For various reasons, including sampling frequency requirements and
the cost of collecting air quality samples, data is not collected for all
days of the year, at all monitoring stations, and for all pollutants.
However, there is sufficient data to make reliable estimates of the
total days of standards violations for most types of pollutants.
Monitoring stations selected in each county for the three-year
average are those showing the greatest number of days exceeding
the standard. Accordingly, the figures are not representative of the
entire county in which the station is located. Attainment of the
secondary standards was not addressed in this report since the major
emphasis in most areas of the Northwest is still on attainment of the
primary health standards.
OREGON AIR QUALITY
Figures 1, 2, and 3 on the next pages show various aspects of
Oregon air quality.
In Figure 1, all the counties of the State have been color coded
according to the degree to which standards are being violated in at
least one monitoring site within the county. Counties shaded yellow
are exceeding one or more of the primary standards, while the
counties shaded blue are attaining all standards. Counties with green
shading are not currently being monitored.
Figure 2 shows in more detail where and how often;the primary
standards were exceeded in monitoring counties. During the three-
year period ending in 1976, 9 of Oregon's 36 counties experienced
recorded concentrations of pollutants that exceeded the allowable
maximum specified by primary air quality standards.
Particulate matter (TSP) was the most widespread cause of an
exceeded standard. Concentrations above the primary paniculate
standard occurred in all but one county in which the standards were
not met. The carbon monoxide standard (CO) was exceeded in
Marion, Lane, Jackson and Multnomah Counties. The standard was
exceeded 15 percent of the days in a year in Multnomah County and
5 percent of the days in a year in Jackson County. The oxidant
standard (03) was exceeded in Marion, Lane, Jackson, Multnomah
and Clackamas Counties. Violations occurred in Jackson County on
about 8 percent of the days in a year and in Clackamas County on
about 3 percent of the days in a year.
Oxidant problems which are detected in one county may originate in
another. Hydrocarbons, which are converted to oxidant by sunlight
in the atmosphere, may be emitted in an area upwind of the
monitoring site. The atmospheric conversion of hydrocarbons to
oxidants takes place as the pollutants are transported downwind. For
example, an oxidant problem in Clackamas County may be a result of
hydrocarbon emissions in Multnomah County on a day the wind is
from the north.
Figure 3 shows the severity of violations for these same counties.
The degree of risk from exposure to pollution varies according to
both the concentration and the length of exposure time. As the
concentration increases above the primary standard, it eventually
reaches what is called the "alert" level, at which there is a
significantly higher health risk. Figure 3 indicates that approximately
one-quarter of all instances in which health standards were exceeded
in Oregon involved concentrations at or above the alert level. All of
the more serious conditions occurred in the more populated or
industrialized counties located in the valleys between the coastal and
Cascade mountains.
-------
AIR QUALITY
FIGURE 1
COUNTIES MEETING PRIMARY
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
COUNTIES NOT MEETING PRIMARY
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
COUNTIES WITHOUT CURRENT
MONITORING DATA
AIR QUALITY STATUS MAP —
BY COUNTY
CLATSOP,
TILLAMOOK"
COLUMBIA
WASHINGTON
MULTNOMAH
HOOD RIVER
WASCO
SHERMAN
GILLIAM
MORROW
UMATILLA
BENTON
DESCHUTES
CROOK
UNION
WALLOWA
(EXCERPTED FOR CLARITY)
-------
AIR QUALITY
FIGURE 2
ANNUAL AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS HEALTH STANDARD
EXCEEDED — BY POLLUTANT
UJ
tr
UJ
Q-
>
Q
60
45
30
15
CO
TSP
NOTE:
Carbon Monoxide
and Oxldant values
for Jackson County
were not adjusted to
annuallzed values be-
cause all the monitoring
took place during the
most pollution-prone
season.
COUNTIES EXCEEDING AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
FIGURES
ANNUAL AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS HEALTH STANDARD
EXCEEDED — BY SEVERITY
60
50
40
30
CC
2
tr
UJ
a.
V)
>
10
NOTE:
Carbon Monoxide and Oxldant values
lor Jackson County were not
adjusted to annuallzed values
because all the monitoring took
place during the most pollution-
prone season.
CO QJ TSP
[T~[ [T~1 EXCEEDS PRIMARY
|T~l IT I EXCEEDS ALERT
COUNTIES EXCEEDING AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
-------
AIR QUALITY
A REGIONAL OVERVIEW
As shown in Table 3 on the facing page, air quality violations occur
in every State in Region 10. Standards for four of the major
pollutants were exceeded in the State of Washington for the three-
year period ending in 1976. Idaho and Oregon exceeded standards for
three of the major pollutants and Alaska exceeded standards for two.
Region 10 has relatively few heavily populated urban centers. There
are only 6.5 million total residents in the four states combined.
Where there are major urban centers, air pollution problems exist.
Violations in the 14 Region 10 communities shown in Table 3
accounted for 79 percent of all violation-days and 74 percent of all
alert level violation-days in the Region. While pollution is not
confined to urban areas, it is most severe where human activity is
heavily concentrated.
Much of Region 10's air pollution can be attributed directly to
automobile exhaust as shown in Table 2 on this page. Eighty percent
of standards violations in Oregon, 65 percent in Washington, 23
percent in Idaho and 50 percent in Alaska were due to carbon
monoxide and/or photochemical oxidants in urban areas. In turn, 80
percent to 90 percent of these pollutants can be traced to automobile
exhausts. Because over half of the Region's population lives in or
near the cifigs shown in Table 2, automobile exhaust must be viewed
as a significant public health problem in the Pacific Northwest and
Alaska. EPA is working closely with the States of Alaska, Idaho,
Washington and Oregon to reduce both emissions from vehicles and
the number of vehicle miles traveled in urban centers having high
carbon monoxide pollution levels.
Both western Oregon and Washington have oxidant concentrations
over the health standard. Control efforts in this area are just
beginning, because the creation of oxidants is an extremely complex
phenomenon, involving reactions of hydrocarbons and other
chemicals to sunlight.
The suspended paniculate problem is widespread and results from
both industrial and non-industrial sources such as dust from roads
and streets and home oil heating. Controls for suspended particulates
have been installed on many industrial plants, and some plants are
scheduled to reduce emissions in the near future. When new facilities
are constructed, the best available pollution controls are required.
Many localities need to reduce particulates from non-industrial
sources, but in some cases, solutions are technically or economically
difficult to achieve. Examples include grass burning in western
Oregon and eastern Washington, wind-blown dust, dust from dirt
roads, and the re-suspension of dust from paved roads. The
automobile is a significant, indirect contributor to some of these
problems.
In communities such as Tacoma, Washington, and Kellogg, Idaho,
air pollution is largely attributable to industry. Heavy metals and
particulate emissions from smelters have long been problems in these
areas.
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) pollution is primarily caused by emissions from
large stationary sources, and controls are being installed as required
by law.
TABLE 2
PERCENT OF TOTAL AIR QUALITY
VIOLATION DAYS ATTRIBUTABLE TO
AUTO EMISSIONS *
Alaska
Anchorage
Fairbanks
Idaho
Boise
Oregon
Portland
Salem
Medford
Washington
Seattle
Spokane
Tacoma
Yakima
Region 10
50%
68%
88%
23%
96%
80%
96%
100%
77%
65%
99%
80%
55%
75%
54%
*assumes all CO and Ox violation days result from
automobile-related emissions but excludes auto
related particulates
-------
AIR QUALITY
TABLE 3
AIR QUALITY STATUS IN SELECTED URBAN AREAS
Pollutants Exceeding Standards
Total Violation Days
Urban Areas
Carbon Photo Suspended Sulfur Primary
Monoxide Oxidants Particulates Dioxide Standard
Alert
Level
Alaska
Anchorage
Fairbanks
Sitka
Idaho
Boise
Kellogg
Pocatello
Soda Springs
Twin Falls
Oregon
Eugene
Medford
Portland
Washington
Seattle
Spokane
Tacoma
• • 240
• • 37
• • 108
• 24
• • 467
• • 112
• 133
• • 83
• 65
29
169
• • • 18
• • • 57
• • • 55
• • • • 355
• • • 98
• • 131
.... 22
69
6
28
10
143
23
17
50
32
7
43
3
26
8
62
8
19
2
-------
AIR QUALITY
AIR QUALITY TRENDS IN OREGON
The trend in air quality is an indication of whether air pollution
control activities have been effective. Figure 4 shows trends in each
Oregon county based on air monitoring records for the period 1974
through 1976. An upward arrow indicates that measured
concentrations of the specified pollutant appear to be increasing. A
downward arrow indicates that concentrations appear to be
decreasing. A horizontal arrow depicts unchanging conditions.
Oregon's air quality improved between 1974 and 1976. Of those
counties exhibiting a trend, all but one is either improving or
remaining the same.
Figure 4 also shows whether air quality standards are being violated
in the Oregon counties. Blue boxes indicate that there is no evidence
that the specified air quality standard has been exceeded. Yellow
boxes indicate that a standard has been exceeded without
concentrations reaching the alert level, and red boxes show areas
where the alert level was exceeded. Where circles occur within the
box, the degree of attainment of standards was deduced from a
knowledge of pollutant sources rather than actual measurements.
FIGURE 4
AIR QUALITY STATUS AND TRENDS
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
INSUFFICIENT DATA
TO DETERMINE TRENDS
-------
AIR QUALITY
SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTION IN OREGON
The previous charts have expressed air quality in terms of the days of
standards violations. Another way of describing the problem is in
terms of the amount of pollution being put into the air and from
where it is coming.
Figures 5 through 7 show emissions in those Oregon counties which
violate standards. The emission totals are based on the latest
emission inventory information including 1976 data where available.
In preparing these charts, emissions from some sources had to be
estimated and some of the smaller sources have not been included.
Also, emissions attributed to a particular county may affect air quality
in an adjoining county because the source is located close to the
county boundary. Overall, however, the charts provide good
perspective as to the extent, location, and sources of air pollution.
FIGURES
POINT AND AREA SOURCES — PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
10,0001
10,647
8,101
D
POINT SOURCES
(Top Figure)
AREA SOURCES
(Bottom Figure)
Note:
Fugitive dust emissions not Included
3.707
2,063
/ /
f /
COUNTIES EXCEEDING AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
-------
AIR QUALITY
Suspended Particulates
Sources of paniculate emissions can be grouped into two major
categories: point sources, which are large stationary sources such
as factories and power plants; and area sources, such as from the
heating of homes and buildings, from transportation, and from wind-
blown dust. For the period from 1970 to 1975 particulate emissions
were reduced mainly by installation of control equipment on
industrial processes, reductions in open burning, and through control
programs such as the field burning smoke management program.
Figure 5 shows the distribution of particulate matter emissions by
source category. Point sources accounted for most particulate
emissions in only four of the counties, indicating the importance of
controlling area sources. Point source particulate emissions amounted
to about 26,000 tons of the more than 54,000 tons emitted.
A large portion of the particulate emissions to the atmosphere stems
from a group of area sources referred to as "fugitive dust." These
sources include such things as wind-blown dust, dust from dirt roads
and re-suspended dirt from paved roads. It is difficult to correctly
assess their impact. However, the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality has completed several studies which suggest
that most of the violation-days in Klamath, Umatilla and Washington
Counties are attributable to wind-blown or natural fugitive dust.
While point sources of particulates may be controlled with reliable,
relatively inexpensive technology, fugitive dust is responsible for a
large share of Oregon's particulates problem. Thus, even though the
further control of point sources will reduce the frequency and
severity of violations, air quality violations will continue until area and
fugitive dust sources are also controlled.
Nitrogen Oxides
Nationally, nitrogen oxides emissions have increased mainly because
of increased emissions from electric utility plants and increased
industrial power generation. Emissions from electric utilities and
industrial sources have risen because of increased power demands
and little equipment has been installed on these sources specifically
to control nitrogen oxides. Emissions of nitrogen oxides from vehicles
have been essentially constant since 1972 because control devices
have counterbalanced the increase in total miles traveled.
Carbon Monoxide
Nationally, some three-fourths of the carbon monoxide emissions
comes from transportation sources, but as in many other urban
areas, transportation is responsible for almost all of the emissions in
the urban areas in Oregon. Carbon monoxide emissions have
decreased partly because of the Federal emission standards on motor
vehicles and because of less burning of solid waste. A reduction of
over 14 percent in 1976 is credited to the Portland Inspection and
Maintenance Program. This program requires a mandatory inspection
of all light duty vehicles registered within the Portland Metropolitan
Service District (approximately 550,000 vehicles). Each vehicle must
successfully pass this exhaust emission test prior to renewal of the
vehicle's registration. Some industrial emissions also have been
reduced because of decreases in production, and the phasing-out of
some obsolete processes.
Figure 6 shows the carbon monoxide emissions. Almost all of the CO
emissions in Lane, Jackson, Marion and Multnomah Counties, those
counties exceeding the ambient CO standard, stem from area sources
and are primarily due to automobiles. The private automobile is
responsible for more than 90 percent of carbon monoxide in those
counties where the standard is not met.
Carbon monoxide emissions will be reduced as old autos are replaced
with ones that incorporate improved pollution control devices.
Reducing traffic in high density traffic corridors, reducing peaks in
traffic, improving vehicle maintenance, and reducing total vehicle
miles traveled through increased use of mass transit and carpooling,
are otrTer means of lowering carbon monoxide levels.
Oxidants and Hydrocarbons
Figure 7 shows the hydrocarbon emission inventory. Since
hydrocarbon emissions are converted to oxidants, it is evident that
the area sources are a primary cause of the oxidant problem. As in
the case of CO, mobile or transportation related sources are
significant contributors to hydrocarbon emissions. Other area
sources, however, such as solvent evaporation and gasoline
evaporation also make up a large portion of the hydrocarbon sources.
In fact, the point sources and the evaporation sources mentioned
above account for almost one-half of the emitted hydrocarbons in the
state.
Significant reductions have been obtained from highway vehicles
both as a result of the Federal emission standards and the Oregon
Transportation Control plan. The Oregon control plan reduced
hydrocarbon emissions about 7 percent in its first year of operation.
10
-------
AIR QUALITY
FIGURES
POINT AND AREA SOURCES — CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS
240,000
200,000 -
160,000 -
UJ 120,000
Q.
(A
80,000 -
40,000 -
AREA SOURCES
(Bottom Figure)
COUNTIES EXCEEDING AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
FIGURE?
POINT AND AREA SOURCES — HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS
60,000
50,000 -
-. 40,000 -
UJ 30,000
Q.
W
o
20,000 -
10,000 -
AREA SOURCE
(Bottom Figure)
COUNTIES EXCEEDING AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
11
-------
RIVER WATER QUALITY
RIVER WATER QUALITY
In 1972, the United States Congress enacted amendments to the
"Federal Water Pollution Control Act" which stimulated new
cooperative Federal, State and local water quality improvement
programs. Since 1972, various regulatory, enforcement, grant, and
administrative programs have been developed to reduce pollutants
entering the Nation's waters. This section of the report provides
information on the current status and trends in water quality in the
State of Oregon.
Ways of Measuring River Water Quality
Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the States
established water quality standards to protect the public water supply
and the quality of water for wildlife, recreation, navigation,
agriculture, industry, and the propagation of fish and shellfish. The
Oregon Water Quality Standards, like those of the other States in
Region 10, specify levels for parameters such as temperature,
dissolved oxygen, bacteria and turbidity in river water.
In order to provide a means for reliably measuring and comparing
water quality in the Northwest, a standardized set of parameters and
associated criteria has been selected. These criteria, termed "Federal
water quality goals" in the following discussion, are a synthesis of
the State standards, national criteria, information in the technical
literature, and professional judgment. The eleven parameters used to
measure river water quality in this report are listed and explained in
Table 4 below.
TABLE 4
CRITERIA/PARAMETER GROUPS1 FOR THE WATER QUALITY INDEX
Criteria/
Parameter Group
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
PH
Bacteria
Trophic
Explanation
Temperature of water influences
both the nature of life forms and the
rate of chemical reactions. Ex-
cessively high temperature is
detrimental to cold water fish.
Oxygen dissolved in water is
essential to the life of aquatic
organisms including fish. Low levels
of oxygen can be detrimental to
these organisms.
Measure of acidity or alkalinity of
water. Extreme levels of either can
imperil fish life and speed corrosion.
Bacteria indicate probable presence
of disease-related organisms and
viruses not natural to water.
Indication of the level of algal activ-
ity in water. Excessive activity is
characterized by very murky, turbid
water and nuisance-levels of algae
which impair recreational uses of
water. Algal decomposition process
can adversely affect dissolved
oxygen levels in water bodies.
Criteria/
Parameter Group
Aesthetics
Solids
Total Dissolved Gas
Radioactivity
Organic Toxicity
Inorganic Toxicity
Explanation
Refers to detectable oil, grease and
turbidity which is visually unpleas-
ant.
Dissolved and suspended material in
water. Excess dissolved solids
adversely affect water taste, in-
dustrial and domestic use. Excess
suspended solids adversely affect
fish feeding and spawning habits.
Measure of concentration of gases
in water. Can affect the metabolism
of aquatic life forms.
May be in water resulting from
radioactive waste discharges or
fallout. Excess levels could result in
a direct threat to aquatic and other
life forms.
Includes pesticides and other
poisons that have the same effects
and persistence as pesticides.
Heavy metals and other elements.
Excess concentrations are
poisonous to aquatic and other life
forms.
1A total of 80 criteria/parameters were evaluated and condensed to the eleven shown here. More detailed information will be provided as requested.
12
-------
RIVER WATER QUALITY
While water quality can be discussed in terms of the degree to which
each of these eleven parameters deviate from the selected criteria, it
is helpful to be able to express the quality of a stream or river by
means of a single, overall measure. In order to accomplish this, a
"water quality index" (WQI) has also been formulated. This index is
simply a weighted aggregation of the eleven parameters shown in
Table 4 and provides index numbers ranging from 0 to 110. The way
the WQI is calculated is described in the insert on page 14. An index
number from 0 to 4 means the river water essentially meets Federal
water quality goals. A number between 4 and 11 means the river
provisionally meets goals, while a number above 11 means the water
fails to meet goals. In the graphs shown in this section of the report,
these index number ranges are colored blue, yellow and red
respectively.
THE QUALITY OF OREGON'S PRINCIPAL
RIVERS
Figures 9 and 10 show that of 19 Oregon rivers, eight are partly
polluted and another seven have some or all of their reaches only
provisionally meeting Federal quality goals.
The lower reaches of the Malheur River and Owyhee River, with an
average Index number greater than 11.0 (Figure 9) are probably too
polluted to meet Federal goals for water quality sufficient for
propagation of salmonid fish and unrestricted recreational use. Ten
streams, nearly one-half of those evaluated, provisionally meet
Federal water quality goals. Portions of five of those streams,
mainstem Middle Snake, Klamath, Bear Creek, Umatilla, and Tualatin
Rivers, have poor water quality. However, better water quality
FIGURES
WATER QUALITY STATUS OF PRINCIPAL RIVERS
IN OREGON
c.l
/. LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER
la. Umatilla R.
Ib. John Day R./N.Fk & M.Fk.
1<. Deschutes R.
Id. Willamette R.
le. Tualatin R.
FAILS TO MEET
FEDERAL QUALITY GOALS
PROVISIONALLY MEETS
FEDERAL QUALITY GOALS
MEETS FEDERAL QUALITY GOALS
UNKNOWN. DUE TO INSUFFICIENT DATA
MAJOR SURFACE WATERS
SELECTED STREAM REACH LIMITS
//. Santiam R./N.Fk. & S.Fk.
Ig. McKenzie R.
Ih. Willamette R. Middle Fork
li. Willamette R. Coast Fork
2. MIDDLE SNAKE RIVER
2a. Owyhee R.
2b. Malheur R.
2c. Powder R.
3. LOWER SNAKE RIVER
3a. Grande Ronde R.
4. Umpqua R.
4a. Umpqua R. North Fk.
5. Rogue R.
5a. Rear Cr.
6. Klamath R.
tia. H'il/iamson R.
fib. Sprague R.
13
-------
RIVER WATER QUALITY
The Water Quality Index (WQI)
The WQI compares measured water quality during the last five years
with the recommended Federal criteria. The data used to make this
comparison come from various Federal, State and local agencies and
are stored in EPA's computer systems. A number is calculated for
every water quality sampling station with sufficient data. Sixty
Oregon stations were used in this evaluation. Seasonal and other
temporal data biases are significantly reduced by time-weighting the
WQI calculation for each station. The final index number for each
station is a summation of standard violations for each
criteria/parameter group which are also weighted by the severity of
the violation. The station WQI number spans a scale that may run
from 0.0 (no measured evidence of pollution) to a theoretical
maximum level of 110.0 (severe pollution in all eleven
criteria/parameter groups at all times). Individual reaches of most
Northwest rivers fall below a WQI of 30, and the average WQI for
entire rivers is still lower.
Based on professional judgment as to the significance of the values
and the known water quality status of regional streams, the entire
scale of 0 to 110 is divided into several ranges. An index number
greater than 11.0 (shown as red in the Figures) is considered to be
characteristic of streams that do not meet the goals of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act. An index number less than 4.0 (blue) is
considered to be equivalent to natural or minimally impaired
conditions (meets goals of the Act). An index number between 4.0
and 11.0 (yellow) is indicative of streams which provisionally meet
the goals of the Act. The color green is used in the charts when the
water quality status is unknown due to an inadequate data base.
FIGURES
WATER QUALITY STATUS OF PRINCIPAL RIVERS IN OREGON
UJ
I
cc
UJ
E
400
300
200
100
H DOES NOT MEET FEDERAL QUALITY GOALS
~] PROVISIONALLY MEETS FEDERAL QUALITY GOALS
I MEETS FEDERAL QUALITY GOALS
• UNKNOWN, DUE TO INSUFFICIENT DATA
NOTE:
Except where Indicated,
the river miles shown
are (or the mainstem of
each stream only.
14
-------
RIVER WATER QUALITY
throughout the remaining portions of these rivers gives an Index
value slightly lower than the more impaired reaches. The seven
remaining rivers, mostly located in sparsely populated areas where
the predominant land use is forestry, have the best water quality.
The most common causes of pollution in the Oregon rivers that were
analyzed are high solids concentrations, low dissolved oxygen, and
nutrient concentrations capable of causing nuisance growths of
algae. These types of contamination are common to many of the
rivers in the eastern, agriculturally oriented portion of the State, the
more populated areas of the Willamette River system, and in Bear
Creek. High temperatures occur mainly in waters of the State where
intensive land use for irrigation exists and low summer flows are
prevalent.
Organic toxicity from pesticides and inorganic toxicity in the form of
heavy metals have a serious adverse affect on aquatic life. There is a
lack of organic toxicity data on Oregon streams, even though
pesticides are used in both agriculture and forestry activities
throughout the State.
RIVER WATER QUALITY TRENDS
Figure 11 depicts the presence and trends of the 11 broad classes of
water pollutants described in Table 4 for 1972 through 1976. Each
pollutant trend represents the average condition of the river
evaluated.
The blue box indicates that measurements for the indicated class of
pollutant produced no evidence of violation of Federal criteria for
water suitable for fish, wildlife, and recreation. Yellow and red boxes
FIGURE 10
PRINCIPAL RIVERS IN OREGON-
AVERAGE WATER QUALITY INDEX
27.0
"TJ
21.0-
18.0-
111
D15.0-I
25.6
" 0
NOTE:
1) The Water Quality Index (WOI) Is an
average value over a stream length,
calculated only from those stream
portions where data Is available.
2) Except where Indicated, those portions
Included In the WQI value are on the
malnstem of each stream, only.
o
o
DOES NOT MEET FEDERAL
QUALITY GOALS
PROVISIONALLY MEETS FEDERAL
QUALITY GOALS
MEETS FEDERAL QUALITY GOALS
TTTfft.
15
-------
RIVER WATER QUALITY
indicate minor and major violations of the criteria. The green box
indicates that adequate water quality information is not available and
no evaluation has been made.
An upward pointing arrow within the box indicates measurements
that show either that the concentration of a particular pollutant is
rising or that the frequency of criterion violations is increasing. A
downward pointing arrow indicates a decline in measured pollutants.
A horizontal arrow indicates that no significant change has occurred
over the five-year period.
The most common criteria violations in Oregon are for temperature,
dissolved oxygen, bacteria, suspended and dissolved solids, and
excessive nutrient concentrations. Violations of these criteria occur
mostly in eastern Oregon streams and other streams near high
population centers. Toxic concentrations of heavy metals occur in
several rivers of the State.
Dissolved gas supersaturation is the most serious pollutant in the
Lower Columbia and Snake Rivers because of the potential
catastrophic and widespread impact on salmonid fish populations.
Gas supersaturation, which is primarily dependent upon high river
flows and dam spillway discharges, has been prevalent over the last
few years although low flows in 1977 kept the levels to a minimum.
Pesticide data (Organic Toxicity) does not exist even for agricultural
areas where pesticide application is prevalent. Radiation information
is also absent; however, except where shown otherwise, no criteria
violations are expected.
Of the 209 individual river/criteria combinations shown in Figure 11
(19 evaluated rivers and 11 pollutant classes) 59 are unfavorable. In
six of these cases (upward pointing arrow) pollution appears to be
increasing; in ten it appears to be declining. The status of 63 are
unknown at this time.
FIGURE 11
TRENDS OF FEDERAL CRITERIA VIOLATIONS
,y
RIVER
ftt IIIIHi/
,
-------
RIVER WATER QUALITY
A REGIONAL OVERVIEW
The Water Quality Index (WQI) is used in Figure
12 to compare 25 major Pacific Northwest River Basins within
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.
Figure 13 depicts the water quality by river mile for each river basin
and Figure 14 shows similar information on a regional map.
As Figure 13 indicates, portions of approximately one-third or nine of
the river basins do not meet Federal water quality goals and another
four only provisionally meet them. Most streams in Alaska fall into
the unknown category. However, many of these waterways are
located in remote areas unaffected by man. Future reports will show
the results of water quality monitoring programs now in process in
Alaska.
Regional water quality appears to be worse in the more arid and
agriculturally oriented parts of the Region. Of the nine rivers which
do not meet Federal water quality goals (Klamath, Bear, Spokane,
Lower Columbia, Willamette, Yakima and the three Snake Basins)
only the Spokane and Willamette Basins owe their high rating to
industrial activities. In the Spokane Basin, water quality is affected by
intense mining and smelting in the Coeur d'Alene, Idaho area and a
municipal discharge in the Spokane, Washington vicinity. Water
quality in the Willamette River Basin is affected by municipal and
industrial discharges in the small Tualatin River tributary; however, its
average WQI rating is so close to 4.0 that the Basin is considered to
be meeting Federal water quality goals. Major coastal and Puget
Sound rivers and the northeast river basins, Upper Columbia, Clark
Fork/Pend Oreille, and Kootenai have relatively good water quality,
with a few exceptions.
Although it is known that some streams in Alaska have localized
water quality deterioration near major population centers and in the
more remote areas where placer mining activities are occurring, water
quality data for most areas is non-existent. The WQI, therefore, is
somewhat conservative for the State since the calculations do not
include these localized pollutants. The vast majority of fresh water in
Alaska is considered to be of good quality.
FIGURE 12
PRINCIPAL REGION 10 RIVER BASINS -
AVERAGE WATER QUALITY PER RIVER MILE
14.0
12.0-
10.0-
UJ
g 6.0-
4.0-
2J>-
9©
NOTE:
The Water Quality Index (WQI) Is an
average value over a stream length,
calculated only from those stream
portions where data Is available
DOES NOT MEET FEDERAL
QUALITY GOALS
PROVISIONALLY MEETS FEDERAL
QUALITY GOALS
MEETS FEDERAL QUALITY GOALS
INSUFFICIENT DATA, HOWEVER PRE-
SUMED MEETING FED. QUALITY GOALS
TlTTtt
ttfttft
17
-------
RIVER WATER QUALITY
The most prevalent criteria violations in Region 10 are: excessive
concentrations of phosphorus and nitrogen, major nutrients
responsible for eutrophication; suspended solids; temperature; and
low dissolved oxygen levels associated with agricultural activities
within the Region. High suspended solid levels from natural origins
such as glaciers, mostly in Washington and Alaska, add to the
difficulty in determining the actual causes of violations. High bacteria
populations and pollutants that affect aesthetics (oil, grease and
turbidity) account for most violations in the vicinity of large
population areas.
Inorganic toxicants in the form of heavy metals are extremely high in
the Spokane River Basin and are also present in moderate amounts
in the Upper Snake Basin tributaries. Supersaturation of dissolved
gas periodically occurs in the Lower Snake and Columbia Rivers from
high river flows passing over dams. Because of low river flows, this
problem has been less severe in the last few years.
An overall review of water quality trends in Region 10, shown in
Figure 15, indicates some improvements in streams that provisionally
met Federal goals between the years 1972 and 1976, and minimal
improvements in streams identified as not meeting the goals. Alaska
rivers are not included in the trend evaluation since adequate water
quality data does not exist at this time.
Changes in Regional water quality over the last five years seem to
indicate that programs to control municipal and industrial waste
discharges have been effective in reducing the level of bacteria and
oxygen degrading materials. However, dissolved gas saturation,
suspended solids, temperature, nutrients, organic and inorganic
toxicants which make up the majority of the problems, are relatively
unaffected by these programs. An effective program to identify and
control nonpoint sources within the Region must be implemented
before further significant improvements in Regional water quality can
be expected.
FIGURE 13
WATER QUALITY STATUS OF PRINCIPAL REGION 10
RIVER BASINS
UJ
i
a:
>
cr
DOES NOT
MEET FEDERAL
QUALITY GOALS
Only the significant streams
within each basin are Included In
the mileage totals shown.
The color green represents
Inadequate, or no water quality
data. It can be assumed, however
that the vast majority of Alaska
stream miles Identified on this
chart meets Federal quality goals
PROVISIONALLY
MEETS FEDERAL
QUALITY GOALS
MEETS FEDERAL
QUALITY GOALS
18
-------
RIVER WATER QUALITY
MAJOR SURFACE WATERS
AND DRAINAGE AREAS
;. ARCTIC SLOl'K DRAINAGE
'2. NORTHWEST ALASKA DRAINAGE
I ( 'PI'ER YUKON RIVER
1 TANAS.! R
!,. LOWER YUKON R
6. KUSKOKWIM R
7. BRISTOL BAY DRAINAGE 9. SUSITNA R.
8. KENAIKN1K DRAINAGE 10. COPPER R.
DOES NOT MEET FEDERAL QUALITY GOALS
PROVISIONALLY MEETS FEDERAL QUALITY GOALS
I MEETS FEDERAL QUALITY GOALS
i UNKNOWN, DUE TO INSUFFICIENT DATA
MAJOR SURFACE WATERS
1. KLAMATH R
2. BEAR R.
;<. I 'PI'ER SNAKE R
4. PORTNEUF R.
r,. MIDDLE SNAKE R.
I, HO/SK R
7. OWYHEE R.
8. MALHEUR R.
!>. PAYETTE R.
III. LOWER SNAKE R
11. SALMON R.
12. GRANDE HONDE R
13. CLEARWATER R.
H UPPER COLUMBIA R.
IS. ST. JOE R.
16. COEUR D'ALENE R
17. SPOKANE R
IS. YAKIMA R.
19. LOWER COLUMBIA R.
20. UMAT1LLA R.
21. JOHN DAY R.
22. DESCHUTES R.
23. WILLAMETTE R.
24. SANT1AM R
FIGURE 14
WATER QUALITY STATUS OF PRINCIPAL
REGION 10 RIVER BASINS
2.5. COWUTl R
26. ROGUE R.
27. UMPQUA R.
28. WILUPA R.
29. CHEHAUS R
30. SNOHOM1SH R
31. GREEN/DUWAM1SH R
32. SKAGIT R.
33. NOOKSACK R.
I SELECTED STREAM (EACH LIMITS
NOTE: Slot* of Alaika it r*pr«t*nl»d at approximately 90% of tru* tcaU
FIGURE 15
WATER QUALITY TRENDS-REGION 10
o
<
u.
O
O
tr
LU
a.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
DOES NOT MEET
FEDERAL QUALITY
GOALS
PROVISIONALLY
MEETS FEDERAL
QUALITY GOALS
MEETS FEDERAL
QUALITY GOALS
NOTE:
Data based upon evaluation
of 84 monitoring stations
within Region 10 (excluding
Alaska).
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
YEAR
19
-------
RIVER WATER QUALITY
SOURCES OF RIVER WATER POLLUTION IN
OREGON
The previous charts show that suspended solids, plant nutrients, and
oxygen-consuming materials have the most significant impact on
water quality in Oregon streams. The causes of these problems are
varied. All occur naturally, and under certain conditions the natural
contribution can be the major cause of the problem. However, they
are also generated by man's activities such as point source
discharges from urban or industrial areas or as nonpoint sources from
various land use activities. The contributions from all of these
sources, and the resulting effects, can be significantly altered by
seasonal changes in stream flow, water temperature, and other
factors.
Suspended Solids
Suspended solids include both organic and inorganic materials having
a specific gravity very close to that of water. This characteristic
prevents rapid settling of the material and promotes suspension and
transportation over long distances. These materials can discolor the
water, reduce light penetration, and, with gradual settling, smother
fish-spawning areas.
The organic portion of the suspended solids is degradable and often
leads to excessive oxygen demands. Suspended solids frequently
carry high concentrations of nutrients and toxic materials, such as
pesticides, which are ultimately released to the water.
Figure 16 shows total suspended solids in the streams compared on a
monthly basis with suspended solids contributed by municipal and
industrial sources. Most of the rivers evaluated carry large volumes of
suspended solids resulting from land erosion during high river flows.
Western Oregon streams (Willamette, Santiam, Umpqua and Rogue)
are examples. However, high suspended solids in the Klamath and
Tualatin Rivers, which are in predominantly agricultural areas, cannot
be accounted for by the erosional process due to high river flow only
(the lower reach of the Tualatin River lies in a highly populated area).
Thus, direct industrial and municipal waste discharges do not
contribute significantly to suspended solids in Oregon streams, and
erosion is the main source of the problem. The exception to this
occurs in the Willamette River and to a lesser.degree in the Santiam
and Tualatin Rivers.
Nutrients
High concentrations of plant nutrients, primarily nitrogen and
phosphorus, can lead to excessive growths of floating and attached
algae that clog small streams, deplete oxygen when they decay, and
generally create aesthetic and nuisance conditions. These effects can
be especially severe in smaller bodies of water. Data previously
presented show that most of the Lower Columbia and Coastal
Oregon streams do not have high phosphorus levels. The streams in
the Willamette Basin and southern and eastern Oregon, have
phosphorus levels that exceed Federal criteria. As with suspended
solids, there are a variety of point, nonpoint, and natural sources that
contribute to the overall nutrient levels. In eastern Oregon, for
example, a major source of phosphorus appears to be from
agriculture and natural occurrences. Runoff in this area contributes a
majority of the phosphorus in the mainstem Snake River and its
tributaries.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
The consumption of oxygen by bacteria feeding on organic wastes
has historically been a major source of water pollution both in
Oregon and throughout the country. BOD is used as a measure of
either the pollution potential of waste or the pollutant load in a
stream. Excessive BOD concentrations result in diminished oxygen
levels in streams and lakes with significant adverse impacts on fish
populations and other biological activity. A variety of point and
nonpoint sources can contribute to BOD loadings.
Figure 17 presents comparisons of instream BOD flows and point
source BOD contributions for seven Oregon streams evaluated in this
Profile. These comparisons bring out several interesting points. First,
there is a wide variation in BOD levels directly related to stream flow.
A major portion of oxygen-demanding material results from runoff
during high river flows. In high flow periods, municipal and industrial
waste represent a relatively small portion of the total load; however,
during low flows, when the streams are unable to assimilate organic
wastes effectively, municipal and industrial discharges account for a
greater percentage of these wastes. In five of the seven rivers
studied, the Umpqua, Tualatin, Umatilla, Willamette and Santiam,
the highest municipal and industrial waste-related oxygen demand
occurs during low flow periods. In the remaining two rivers (Rogue
and Klamath), these waste discharges are less significant. They
account for less than 30 percent of the total BOD during low flow
periods. Even though municipal and industrial discharges account for
much of the observable BOD in these rivers during low flows, most
organic matter in these rivers results from runoff associated with
urban and rural lands, and other natural and man-caused nonpoint
sources.
Past water quality control efforts in Oregon have concentrated largely
on elimination of point sources of organic pollution. With some
localized exceptions, these discharges have been reduced
significantly or eliminated, with resulting improvements in water
quality. The remaining problem point sources are on schedules to
install treatment. Further efforts to improve oxygen levels in streams
and reservoirs must therefore focus on reducing nonpoint source
contributions of organic matter and plant nutrients.
WATER QUALITY OUTLOOK
It appears that little significant change can be anticipated in the next
three to five years.
With a few exceptions, the major water quality problems of Oregon
do not stem from municipal and industrial waste discharges, which in
the past were the primary focus of water pollution abatement
programs. Water pollution in rivers and lakes in the State results
from intense land and water use, reservoir conditions, and natural
runoff. Waste treatment is already well advanced in the State;
however, some water quality problems, especially in the more
densely populated western portion of the State, still exist due to
inadequate waste treatment. Further improvement in Oregon's waste
treatment program is needed to achieve water quality in these areas
as well as the main coastal areas where shellfish harvesting is
jeopardized by bacteriological contaminations. Measures to reduce
the water quality impacts from runoff, stream regulation, and
improper land management largely remain to be defined, although
programs are presently underway to determine the extent and
magnitude of these impacts.
20
-------
RIVER WATER QUALITY
FIGURE 16
SUSPENDED SOLIDS LOADING GRAPHS
State of Oregon
UMATILLA RIVER
10- 01
JFMAMJJASOND
11
WILLAMETTE RIVER
KLAMATH RIVER
10- at
o
JFMAMJ JASOND
SANTIAM RIVER
i •
J FMAMJ J ASOND
UMPQUA RIVER
o
Uio-«
JFMAMJJASOND
!S»H
cc
o
I
i
ROGUE RIVER
J FMAMJ JASOND
TUALATIN RIVER
J FMAMJ JASOND
.:
B«H
MEAN MONTHLY AMBIENT LOADINGS
MEAN FLOW
PS/NPS CURVE — This curve gives a general Indica-
tion of the point source vs. nonpolnt source loadings
expressed as a percentage.
NOTE
Note that the logarithmic scale tends to greatly de-
emphasize the variations shown, thereby demanding
considerable care in Interpreting the graphs.
-------
RIVER WATER QUALITY
FIGURE 17
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND LOADING GRAPHS
State of Oregon
UMATILLA RIVER
WILLAMETTE RIVER
SANTIAM RIVER
UMPQUA RIVER
ROGUE RIVER
TUALATIN RIVER
LEGEND
MEAN MONTHLY AMBIENT LOADINGS
MEAN FLOW
I PS/NPS CURVE — This curve glvn • general Indica-
tion of the point source vs. nonpolnt source loadings
expressed as a percentage.
NOTE
Note that the logarithmic scale tends to greatly de-
emphasize the variation* shown, thereby demanding
considerable care In Interpreting the graphs.
22
-------
LAKE WATER QUALITY
LAKE WATER QUALITY
Lakes and reservoirs play a major and vital role in Oregon's water
quality picture. They affect the state's economy through recreational
uses such as fishing, swimming, and boating as well as through
agriculture and water supply. Power, navigation, irrigation and flood
control are major benefits derived from dams and reservoirs
constructed throughout Oregon to support and protect the life and
livelihood of its inhabitants.
Measuring Lake Water Quality
Although a numerical "water quality index" has not been developed
for lakes as for rivers, lake quality can be characterized in two ways:
trophic status and the degree of impairment of beneficial use.
While eutrophication, the process of aging, occurs naturally in lakes
and impoundments, man's activities may accelerate this process,
resulting in "cultural eutrophication". Highly eutrophic bodies of
water are characterized by dense algal blooms, floating mats of
vegetation, and a murky appearance. Algae are naturally found in
every body of water; however, when stimulated by abundant
nutrients, sunlight, and warm temperatures, they multiply rapidly to
become a nuisance to recreational users and seriously affect water
quality for other uses.
Plant nuisances may directly curtail or eliminate water recreation
activities such as swimming, boating, and fishing; impart tastes and
odors to water supplies; and hamper industrial and municipal water
treatment. These nuisance growths can also cause toxic conditions
which adversely affect other aquatic life in the lakes. Possibly the
greatest effect of eutrophication on water quality is the consumption
of dissolved oxygen when algae die, sink to the bottom of the lake,
and are decomposed by bacteria. This process reduces dissolved
oxygen levels and can adversely affect fish and other aquatic
inhabitants.
Water bodies with very little algae are said to be oligotrophic (often
called pristine). Lakes are said to be mesotrophic if they have
moderate algae productivity and meso-eutrophic if they are
approaching fully eutrophic conditions.
In the case of use-impairment, swimming, fishing, boating and
aesthetics may be considered. An evaluation system which yields an
impairment score is shown in Table 5.
TABLE 5
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING IMPAIRMENT OF LAKES
Degree of Impairment
Relational None
Use Criteria Score
Swimming Very low bacteria 1
Moderate
Criteria Score
Moderate bacteria 2
Significant
Criteria Score
Unhealthy bacteria 3
Fishing
Boating
Aesthetics
levels (Fecal coli-
forms geometric mean
less than 50 per
100 ml)
No adverse condi-
tions. Healthy
fish population.
Less than 10% of
surface area affected
by aquatic weeds
Objects visible in
water to depth of
10 feet or more and
low phosphorus
(Secchi Disc at 10
feet; total phosphorus
of less than 10 ug/1)
levels (Fecal coli-
forms 50 to 200 per
100 ml)
1 Slightly adverse
conditions. Slight
reduction in fish
population.
1 10% to 30% affected
Objects visible from
1.5 to 10 feet and
moderate phosphorus
level (Secchi Disc
at 1.5 to 10 feet;
total phosphorus
10 to 20 ug/l)
levels (Fecal coli-
forms greater than
200 per 100 ml)
Adverse conditions.
Significant reduction
in fish population.
More than 30%
affected
Objects not visible
beyond 1.5 feet or
high phosphorus level
(Secchi Disc at less
than 1.5 feet; total
phosphorus greater
than 20 ug/l)
SCORE
(No uses impaired)
5-8
(All uses moderately
impaired)
9-12
(All uses significantly
impaired)
23
-------
LAKE WATER QUALITY
In this report, lake water quality has been assessed by totaling the
individual use ratings shown in Table 5. The rating for each factor for
minimum or no impairment is one, and the most severe impairment is
rated three. Final ratings range from a low of four (minimum or no
impairment), to a high of twelve (significant impairment).
Professional judgment was used to determine the degree of
impairment where data were not available.
TROPHIC CONDITIONS OF OREGON'S LAKES
High phosphorous contributions from sewage and industrial
discharges and from fertilizers applied to surrounding lands, which
reaches rivers and lakes during high runoff periods, have accelerated
the natural lake eutrophication process in Oregon. Of the 15 lakes
and reservoirs in Oregon (Table 6) which have at least 10 square
miles of surface area (6,400 acres), five already are eutrophic and two
more are meso-eutrophic—well on the way to becoming eutrophic.
One lake is oligotrophic (relatively pristine) and two more are
mesotrophic (moderate algal productivity). Five eastern Oregon lakes
are too saline for trophic classification. Six of the seven lakes
classified as eutrophic or mesotrophic are located in the semi-arid
eastern and southern portions of Oregon where agriculture is the
predominant land use. The other, Fern Ridge Reservoir, is a shallow
body of water located west of the Cascades. Municipal, industrial,
and agricultural discharges in the Upper Columbia and Snake Rivers
share responsibility for eutrophication of the remaining reservoirs on
these rivers.
USE IMPAIRMENT
In addition to excessive algae, other forms of pollutants such as
bacteria, turbidity and oil also impair the beneficial uses of lakes and
reservoirs. Table 7 depicts the degree of impairment of recreation
lakes in Oregon. Of the 30 most-used Oregon recreation lakes and
reservoirs, four have a significant or moderate degree of impairment.
The remaining 26 lakes appear to be relatively pristine. Three of the
four lakes and reservoirs classified as severely or moderately polluted
are located in agricultural areas of the State. The other is Fern Ridge
Reservoir, which experiences a moderate degree of impairment. It is
located in a forested area of the State. The majority of more pristine
lakes are deep and are located at high elevations in the less
developed portions of the State. No treated domestic or industrial
wastes are discharged to Oregon lakes.
A REGIONAL OVERVIEW
There are 145 lakes and reservoirs within Region 10 that equal or
exceed 10 square miles in surface area and thousands of other
smaller lakes and reservoirs. Each plays an important role in the
ecosystem of the Pacific Northwest and Alaska.
Many Regional lakes and reservoirs are at or approaching a level of
eutrophication unsuitable for their intended uses. Exceptions are the
Alaska lakes, most of which are in remote areas.
Figure 18 presents a summary of trophic status of the Regional lakes
by state.
Alaska, the least populated state, has the largest percentage of non-
eutrophic (oligotrophic) lakes and even the moderately eutrophic
lakes are probably the result of natural causes. About one-third of
Idaho's lakes and reservoirs are still non-eutrophic; however, the
remaining lakes are either moderately eutrophic or eutrophic because
of intense land and water use in the more populated and
agriculturally oriented portions of the State. Oregon and Washington,
the most populated states in Region 10, have the lowest percentage
of the non-eutrophic lakes and reservoirs. Even though the eutrophic
TABLE 6
TROPHIC STATUS OF OREGON LAKES AND RESERVOIRS 10 SQUARE MILES
(6400 ACRES) OR GREATER
Lake or
Reservoir
Surface
Area in
Square
Miles
Eutrophic
Trophic Status
Meso
Eutrophic Mesotrophic Oligotrophic
Upper Klamath Lake
Lake Abert*
Malheur Lake*
Goose Lake*
Harney Lake*
Summer Lake*
Lake Umatilla
(John Day Reservoir)
Owyhee Reservoir
Crater Lake
Wickiup Reservoir
Fern Ridge Reservoir
Bonneville Reservoir
Lake Wallula
(McNary Reservoir)
Agency Lake
Brownlee Reservoir
92
57
77
47
41
32
41
22
21
17
16
16
15
14
12
Source of data: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
EPA Environmental Research Laboratory
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Too saline for classification
24
-------
LAKE WATER QUALITY
FIGURE 18
TROPHIC STATUS OF MAJOR RECREATIONAL LAKES
50.0
MODERATELY
EUTROPHIC (MESOTROPHIC)
NON-EUTROPHIC
(OLIGOTROPHIC)
ALASKA
IDAHO
OREGON
WASHINGTON
FIGURE 19
IMPAIRMENT STATUS OF RECREATIONAL LAKES
D
UJ
tr
I
5
UJ
3
u.
0
-------
LAKE WATER QUALITY
condition of some of these bodies of water may result from natural
causes; intense recreational use, residential development, and
agricultural use east of the Cascade Mountains, has accelerated the
eutrophication process.
A review of the 120 lakes within Region 10 that have the highest
recreational use in each state indicates that most have only limited
recreational impairment. Figure 19 shows the impairment breakdown
by state. The water quality of only two lakes in the State of
Washington is considered to be significantly impaired with 75 percent
showing little or no impairment.
In Idaho 30 percent, and in Oregon 12 percent of the lakes show
moderate impairment of the highest beneficial uses. Most of the
impaired Oregon lakes and reservoirs are in the semi-arid portion of
the state. Those in Idaho are in the southern portion of the state.
In almost every case, moderate or significant impairment is the result
of intense recreational use of lakes which are near populated areas.
The more pristine lakes and reservoirs are situated away from these
areas, many times in the higher elevations. The challenge for the
future will be to maintain the existing good quality lakes while
upgrading the poorer quality ones.
TABLE 7
PRINCIPAL OREGON LAKES AND RESERVOIRS
IMPAIRMENT OF HIGHEST BENEFICIAL USES
Name
Upper Klamath Lake
McKay Creek Res.
Owyhee Reservoir
Fern Ridge Res.
Waldo Lake
Crescent Lake
Chinook Lake
Crater Lake
Surface
Area
(Acres)
59,000
1,200
14,000
10,000
5,500
3,500
2,500
13,000
Recreational Use Impaired
Swimming Fishing Boating Aesthetics
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
Final
Rating
7
6
6
5
4
4
4
4
Diamond Lake
Siltcoos Lake
Detroit Res.
Green Peter Res.
Prineville Res.
Timothy Lake
Lake Paulina
East Lake
Crane Prairie Res.
Lake Wallowa
Ochoco Res.
Davis Lake
Wickiup Res.
Cultus Res.
Blue River Res.
Cottage Grove Res.
Dorena Reservoir
Foster Reservoir
Olallie Lake
Cougar Reservoir
Hill Creek Res.
Odell Lake
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,700
3,000
850
1,400
1,200
1,500
1,800
1,100
1,600
11,000
1,300
1,000
1,000
1,800
1,200
800
1,200
2,700
3,300
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Numbers in columns represent the degree of recreation impairment per category for each lake—minimum impairment per category is 1
and highest is 3; therefore, final rating ranges from 4 for little or no impairment to 12 for maximum impairment of all recreation cate-
gories.
Does not support fish population because water is too soft to produce sufficient food. This condition is not pollution-related.
26
-------
MARINE WATER QUALITY
MARINE WATER QUALITY
Oregon's coastal and estuarine waters are economically important.
Major industrial development as well as medium-sized population
centers are located in these areas, mainly in the Coos Bay, Tillamook
Bay and Yaquina Bay areas of the Coast.
Marine waters of the state support international shipping, shellfish
production, and recreational boating and fishing. It is important that
the health of these waters be maintained.
Measuring Marine Water Quality
Marine water quality determinations are based upon specific
microbiological, chemical and toxicological criteria established by the
U. S. Food and Drug Administration for the National Shellfish
Sanitation Program. Waters free of fecal contamination, industrial
waste, radionuclides, and biotoxins are considered safe for edible
shellfish production, and are classified as "Approved for Commercial
Shellfish Harvesting." Waters which generally meet the criteria but
are subject to occasional closure resulting from seasonal increases in
population, freshwater runoff, or temporary malfunctioning of waste
treatment facilities are classified as "Conditionally Approved." Waters
found to be contaminated, or suspected of being contaminated,
which would produce shellfish unsafe for human consumption are
classified as "Closed to Commercial Shellfish Harvesting."
Assessing water quality in marine water is a difficult, time-consuming
and expensive task due to the complexities of tidal variations,
fluctuating currents and unpredictable mixing patterns. However, the
condition of shellfish such as oysters, clams, and mussels can be
used to assess marine water quality. Shellfish concentrate disease-
causing bacteria and viruses as well as toxic chemicals, radionuclides,
and biotoxins from the waters in which they live. Since shellfish
reflect concentrations of domestic, industrial, and agricultural wastes,
they can be used as practical long-term indicators of water quality
and the effectiveness of pollution control efforts at specific locations.
OREGON'S MARINE WATERS
Approximately 28,100 acres of commercial shellfish growing waters in
the State of Oregon have been classified by the Oregon State Health
Division (Figure 20) as growing areas which meet specific
microbiological, chemical, and toxicological criteria.
Only those areas where sanitary surveys have been conducted and
classifications have been made are included in this report. Twenty-
five percent (7,080 acres) of the areas surveyed are currently
classified as "Approved for Commercial Harvesting," 28 percent
(7,960'acres) are "Conditionally Approved," and shellfish in 47
percent (13,300 acres) are considered to be unsafe for human
consumption.
Coos Bay, Tillamook Bay, and Yaquina Bay are the most important
shellfish growing waters in the State. Most of these waters are either
closed or conditionally approved for the commercial harvest of
shellfish. Only a small portion of Coos Bay (South Slough) is
classified as.approvedSRestrictions on shellfish harvesting result
primarily from high bacterial levels due to municipal sewage
treatment plant discharges or seasonal increases in freshwater runoff
from agricultural and logging areas.
A REGIONAL OVERVIEW
A total of 349,300 acres of commercial shellfish growing area (Figure
21) has been classified by agencies in Oregon, Washington, and
Alaska. This represents approximately two percent of the classified
growing waters in the nation. Seventy-three percent of the regional
growing area (254,100 acres) is classified as approved; nine percent
(32,900 acres) conditionally approved; and 18 percent (62,300 acres)
closed.
Most of the closed growing areas are due to fecal contamination or
the great potential for such contamination resulting from nearness to
municipal sewage treatment facilities serving populated areas. The
conditionally approved areas are primarily characterized by excessive
fecal contamination occurring as a result of seasonal increases in
freshwater runoff from agricultural and logging activities, as well as
the occasional malfunctioning or bypassing of sewage treatment
plants.
Population growth and associated sewage wastes appear to pose the
greatest threat to approved shellfish growing areas in Region 10.
Because of the small size of Oregon's shellfish industry and the
generally undeveloped nature of Alaska's clam resources, changes in
Washington State's shellfish growing area classification would
probably have the greatest regional economic impact. The effect of
reductions in the size of Washington's approved growing area may
be mitigated by the industry's ability to maintain current production
levels on somewhat less acreage. Nevertheless, the closure of key
growing areas in southern Puget Sound or Willapa Bay would have
an immediate adverse impact.
-------
MARINE WATER QUALITY
FIGURE 20
MARINE WATERS OF OREGON
STATUS OF CLASSIFIED SHELLFISH GROWING AREAS
in
01
-------
DRINKING WATER QUALITY
OREGON DRINKING WATER
The drinking water coming into most homes in the Northwest today
is generally considered safe, mainly because of the high standards set
by public water supply systems. However, potential contamination of
drinking water supplies by the careless use of chemical compounds
and the unsafe disposal of toxic wastes requires vigilance.
that time. All of the State's 900 community water systems are
required to monitor for bacteriological contamination. Compliance
with this requirement is increasing as shown by data presented in
Figure 22-A. The State's 200 community water systems which utilize
surface water sources are also required to monitor for turbidity. As
with bacteriological monitoring, compliance with this requirement is
increasing, as shown in Figure 22-A.
In 1974, the United States Congress enacted the Safe Drinking Water
Act. The Safe Drinking Water Act requires EPA to establish national
drinking water quality standards. EPA has the primary responsibility
for establishing the standards, and the states are responsible for
implementing programs to ensure the standards are being met. The
State of Oregon does not currently have a drinking water supervision
program, so this leaves EPA also with the responsibility for
implementing the national standards in the State.
The national drinking water standards contain maximum allowable
levels for various contaminants and require water systems to monitor
(sample and analyze) their water on a periodic basis for determining
compliance with these contaminants.
The national standards went into effect in June 1977 and
bacteriological and turbidity monitoring was required to commence at
A complete evaluation to determine Oregon water systems' ability to
meet the contaminant levels cannot be made until all drinking water
systems perform their required monitoring. The water systems which
are presently monitoring for bacteriological and turbidity
contaminants are largely in compliance with the contaminant levels.
This information is presented in Figure 22-B.
As is the case in most states, smaller drinking water systems
experience more obstacles in achieving compliance with drinking
water regulations. This is attributable to many factors, including
limited financial capabilities and difficulties in obtaining qualified
operators. Since the majority of the State's larger public water
systems are now in-compliance with the regulations, additional
regulatory follow-up is being initiated with the smaller systems. A
breakdown by water system size for compliance with bacteriological
monitoring is shown in Figure 22-C.
FIGURE 22
OREGON
DRINKING WATER STATUS
900
KEY
TOTAL NUMBER
OF SYSTEMS
SYSTEMS MONITORING
IN JUNE 1978
SYSTEMS MONITORING
IN SEPTEMBER 1977
KEY
SYSTEMS
MONITORING
SYSTEMS IN
COMPLIANCE
500
1270
500
450
120
KEY
TOTAL NUMBER
OF SYSTEMS
SYSTEMS IN COMPLIANCE
WITH BACTERIOLOGICAL
MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS
300
250
200
BACTERIOLOGICAL
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
TURBIDITY
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
COMPLIANCE WITH BACTERIOLOGICAL AND
TURBIDITY MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
BACTERIOLOGICAL TURBIDITY
CONTAMINANT LEVEL CONTAMINANT LEVEL
COMPLIANCE COMPLIANCE
B
COMPLIANCE WITH BACTERIOLOGICAL AND
TURBIDITY CONTAMINANT LIMITS
THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD
JULY 1977 - JUNE 1978
SYSTEMS SERVING
LESS THAN BOO
SYSTEMS SERVING
MORE THAN 600
COMPLIANCE WITH BACTERIOLOGICAL
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS BY
WATER SYSTEM SIZE
- JUNE 1978
-------
NOISE
NOISE
Sound, so vital a part of our existence, is growing to such
disagreeable proportions within our environment today that it is a
very real threat to health. The problem is not limited to occupational
noise and hearing loss, but also includes community noise, which
affects us physiologically and psychologically by causing nervousness
and tension.
In view of these facts, Congress passed the Noise Control Act of
1972 which gives EPA authority to set standards on new products
that are major sources of noise (cars, trucks, etc.) and existing noise
sources which need national uniformity of treatment (interstate
railroads, trucks and aircraft).
However, the primary responsibility for control of noise rests with
State and local governments.
Technical assistance is available from EPA in areas such as:
developing model legislation; reviewing proposed legislation and
regulations; and training of State and local officials in writing laws
and ordinances and in noise enforcement measurement techniques.
EPA has thus far provided assistance to Oregon and Washington in
developing noise regulations, assistance to the cities of Anchorage,
Seattle and Portland in developing noise control ordinances, and in
the monitoring of noise levels from railroad locomotives, ferries and
auto and motorcycle racetracks.
Oregon has adopted statewide noise control regulations designed to
limit levels of exposure from environmental noise sources such as
commercial or industrial facilities, and to limit the noise emission
levels of motor vehicles. Trucks, motorcycles, recreational vehicles,
racing vehicles, and warning devices are some of the other noise
sources controlled by these regulations.
Portland has a noise ordinance intended to regulate maximum
environmental noise levels and levels of noise emission from other
vehicles. The ordinance establishes a specific program with authority
delegated to a Noise Control Officer and a Noise Review Board.
Other noise sources addressed by the ordinance include home
equipment and power tools, watercraft, motor vehicle racing, noisy
animals and construction activities.
Figure 23 indicates the percent of Oregon's population covered by
noise ordinances, while Figure 24 shows the same information for the
Region as a whole. Neither of these charts reflect the effectiveness
with which the ordinances are implemented or enforced.
FIGURE 23
PERCENT OF OREGON POPULATION
COVERED BY NOISE ORDINANCES
POPULATION 2,091,000
z
g
i_
2
Q.
O
Q.
U.
O
1-
UJ
U
CC
UJ
a
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
FIGURE 24
REGION 10 POPULATION COVERED
BY NOISE ORDINANCES
a
O
a.
UJ
O
oc
UJ
a.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
POPULATION 6,515,000
30
-------
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
Waste management deals with problems ranging from health and
environmental hazards to the efficiency of collection operations. The
diverse nature of wastes (dead animals, mercury-rich industrial
sludges, dredge spoils, abandoned cars, septic tank pumpings,
residential solid waste, infectious hospital wastes, demolition, debris,
feedlot wastes, etc.) makes the challenge of waste management as
complex as its sources.
Improper disposal methods can pollute the land, air or water. For
example, burning dumps contribute to air pollution and some
disposal sites, especially west of the Cascade Mountains, are so
situated that leachate and drainage waters aggravate the pollution of
rivers and streams.
The long-term solution to solid waste management problems lies in
the development of systems that will wisely control the quantity and
characteristics of wastes, this can be done by efficient collection,
creative recycling, recovering energy and other resources, and
properly disposing of wastes that have no further use. In the near
term, the development of environmentally acceptable methods of
disposal on land is stipulated by Federal law as a national goal.
One method of measuring progress in this area is to determine the
number of people served by adequate disposal sites. Figure 25
presents this information for the years 1971 through 1976. In 1976,
some 1,631,000 people or 78 percent of Oregon's population were
being served by State-approved solid waste disposal sites. This is an
increase of 460 percent in five years.
Resource recovery is also beginning to be implemented within the
State with facilities being planned or. under construction in Coos
County, Lane County, the Portland area, Tillamook County and
Union County for the development of solid waste recycling facilities.
Figure 26 shows the status and location of resource recovery projects
in Region 10.
Disposal of hazardous wastes in Region 10 is becoming a significant
problem. Currently there are two State-licensed disposal facilities
within the region, one in Idaho and the other in Oregon.
Under new Federal legislation (The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act) only sites which meet EPA or equivalent standards will
be able to receive hazardous wastes for disposal.
FIGURE 25
PERCENT OF POPULATION SERVED BY STATE-APPROVED
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
o
O.
O
a.
UJ
O
oc
UJ
a.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
YEAR
31
-------
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
FIGURE 26
STATUS OF RESOURCE RECOVERY PROJECTS AND
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL SITES IN REGION 10
NOTE: Slot* of Alaska it r«pr«i«nt«d at approximately 30% of trum icaU
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROJECTS
PLANNING
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
EXISTING
o
A
PLANNED
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Chemicals are pervasive in our environment. They are in our food,
water and air. While chemicals are beneficial, some may produce
long term, adverse effects if allowed to enter the environment
improperly.
The need for vigilance in the Pacific Northwest is highlighted by the
following:
• Lead levels in a school yard in Kellogg, Idaho were so high, that
soil had to be removed.
• Arsenic from a copper smelter near Tacoma, Washington is
suspected to be responsible for increased lung cancer in smelter
workers.
• A spill of copper concentrate into the Nisqually River resulted in
severe damage to fishery on this major Washington river.
• A ruptured transformer spilled over 250 gallons of the dangerous
chemical Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCS) into the Duwamish River
in Seattle, and approximately 800 establishments in Region 10
currently use PCB containing transformers or capacitators.
Of increasing concern is the possible relationship between some
chemicals and cancer. The American Cancer Society reports that at
least 75% of the cancers in people are induced by factors in the
environment.
Recent Federal legislation has addressed the hazardous substances
problem. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) provides for
32
controlling the manufacture, processing, distribution, use and
disposal of chemicals. The Resources Conservation and Recovery Act
provides for proper disposal of hazardous waste. These laws,
combined with other EPA legislative responsibilities, should reduce
the potential for future adverse impacts.
EPA is developing a strategic plan which will focus the Region's
attention on high priority chemicals. Following the identification of
chemicals manufactured and used in the Region, impacts and
methods of control will be assessed. The strategy will utilize Federal,
state and local control measures.
This report has addressed environmental quality along media
lines—air, water, noise and solid waste. Increasingly, actions taken in
each of these areas must consider the impacts of hazardous
materials. For example, higher levels of treatment of air and water
waste discharges generate increased volumes of sludges and other
solid wastes for disposal on land. These sludges contain toxic and
hazardous materials as a result of new discharge restrictions and
pretreatment requirements for industries discharging to municipal
wastewater treatment systems.
Data to define the nature and extent of environmental problems in
the Northwest resulting from toxic and hazardous chemicals are
lacking; however, EPA is currently gathering data to depict the
extent of the problem.
-------
SUMMARY
SUMMARY
Air Quality: Violations of air quality health standards in Oregon
involve carbon monoxide, photo-oxidants, and paniculate matter.
For carbon monoxide, the private automobile is responsible for
more than 90 percent of the emissions in counties where the
standards are not being met. The Portland Inspection and
Maintenance Program has been successful in reducing emissions but
additional efforts are needed. Carbon monoxide emissions will be
reduced through improved vehicle maintenance, by reducing peaks in
traffic and congestion in high density traffic corridors, by reducing
the total miles driven, and through the increasing prevalence of
emission control equipment on vehicles in use. While further
improvements in particulate matter pollution from industrial sources
can be obtained from relatively reliable and inexpensive control
equipment, fugitive dust is responsible for a large share of Oregon's
problem in this area. Photo-oxidants result in part from emission of
hydrocarbons. Improvements lie in reducing hydrocarbon emissions
from vehicles and in reducing the amount of evaporation in the
handling of gasoline and solvents.
Overall, Oregon's air quality appears to be improving. The majority of
the counties of the State have showed declining air quality standards
violations in recent years.
River Water Quality: The most common water quality violations in
Oregon deal with temperature, dissolved oxygen, bacteria, suspended
and dissolved solids, and excessive nutrient concentrations. These
problems occur mostly in eastern Oregon streams and near high
population centers throughout the State. Toxic concentrations of
heavy metals also occur in several rivers of the State.
With a few exceptions, the major water quality problems in Oregon
do not stem from municipal and industrial waste discharges, which in
the past were the primary focus of water pollution abatement
programs. Water pollution in rivers and streams in the State results
from intense land and water use, reservoir conditions, and natural
runoff. Waste treatment is already well advanced in the State.
Measures to reduce the water quality impacts from runoff, stream
regulation, and improper land management largely remain to be
defined, although initial efforts are underway.
The major task in Oregon at this time is to protect and preserve the
excellent water quality that exists in most bodies of water in the
State, while implementing long-term programs to improve water
quality in the remaining waters.
Lake Water Quality: Lake eutrophication occurs naturally but is
accelerated by man's activities. It is estimated that of the fifteen lakes
and reservoirs in Oregon which have at least ten square miles of
area, five are eutrophic and two are on the way toward being so. Of
the thirty most used recreational lakes in the State, four have at least
a moderate degree of impairment. Both eutrophic conditions and use
impairment correlate closely with the degree of land use in the
vicinity of the lake or the existence of intense recreational use.
Implementation of improved land management practices is needed to
ensure future good lake water quality.
Marine Water Quality: Coos Bay, Tillamook Bay and Yaquina Bay
are the most important shellfish growing areas in the State. Most of
these waters are either closed orconditionally approved for the
commercial harvesting of shellfish. Overall, of the total waters
classified for purposes of shellfish harvesting, 47 percent are currently
considered to be unsafe for human consumption and another 28
percent are conditionally approved subject to varying conditions
throughout the year. Population growth and associated sewage
waste appear to pose the greatest threat to marine waters
throughout the Northwest.
Drinking Water: The State of Oregon does not currently have a
drinking water supervision program. Therefore, EPA is taking the
responsibility for implementing national standards. As of June 1978,
55 percent of Oregon's community water systems were monitoring
for bacteriological contamination, up from 30 percent the previous
year. Of those monitoring, 90 percent were in compliance with
bacteriological contaminant limits. Water systems utilizing surface
water sources are also required to monitor for turbidity. Sixty percent
are currently monitoring for turbidity, with 70 percent in compliance
with contaminant limits.
Noise: The State of Oregon has adopted statewide noise control
regulations for commercial and industrial sources and motor vehicles,
based on objective standards of sound intensity. The City of Portland
has similar standards in addition to regulations for residential noise
sources.
Solid Waste: About 80 percent of the State's population is currently
being served by solid waste disposal methods which are non-
polluting. This represents a dramatic increase in the last few years.
Resource recovery projects are in planning or construction stages in a
number of areas in the State.
Hazardous Substances: Nearly every area of environmental quality
just summarized is impacted by the use of chemicals. New laws and
regulations have resulted from public concern over the adverse health
and environmental effects of hazardous substances; however, it is an
area in need of better data, research and integrated control efforts.
•&GPO # 696-939
------- |