EPA 910/9-88-181
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle WA 98101
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Management Division
Policy Planning & Evaluation
January 1988
Region 10
Environmental Indicators
FY '87 Summary
-------
FOREWORD
I am pleased to present the FY 87 annual summary of environmental
Indicators. This report is an essential step in a long term endeavor to track
environmental data and represents a solid commitment to manage for
environmental results.
Clearly these indicators do not describe the whole picture. Within this
summary, it is common for program managers to caution that the indicators
listed are incomplete or do not adequately describe their program's progress.
Like all measurements, they describe only one (hopefully meaningful) facet of
an issue. However, they are important tools, providing managers with insight
for creating strategies to address current and emerging environmental problems.
Over the past year, water, air, hazardous waste, pesticides and toxics
program staff worked to produce this report. Much of this has been done as
additional work to their programmatic duties. I would like to thank the
authors for their extra efforts. I would also like to acknowledge Dick Bauer,
Deputy Regional Administrator, for his informed, consistent and enthusiastic
support for this initiative, and the Pol icy, Wanning and ^valuation Branch
for their unstinting committment to the conjyi eh on o
.Roblie G\ Russe/ll
Reg Tonal ^dwrni strator
-------
Table of Contents
Foreword
Table of Contents
Development of Environmental Indicators in Region 10
Approach
Figure 1
Figure 2
Table 1
Table 2
Organization of the Report
FY 87 Annual Summaries and Modifications for FY 88 and Beyond
Water
Air
Toxics
Pesticides
Chapter 1 Surface Water
Chapter 2 Puget Sound
Chapter 3 Construction Grants
Chapter 4 Drinking Water
Chapter 5 Wetlands
Chapter 6 Ground Water
Chapter 7 Air
Chapter 8 PCBs
Chapter 9 Asbestos
Chapter 10 Pesticides
Hazardous Waste
Chapter 11 RCRA
Chapter 12 Superfund
-------
Development of Environmental Indicators in Region 10
Background
EPA HQ and the regipns have struggled with
the development of environmental indicators for
more than a decade. The agency has done a
good job of developing and tracking surrogate
measures, e.g., number of enforcement actions
taken, permits written, and construction grant
dollars obligated, but we have yet to answer the
very basic and essential question: "/s the
environment getting cleaner?"
Region 10 began its struggle to answer this
question in 1976 with publication of our first
Environmental Profile which attempted to show
trends primarily in air and water quality. Work
continued on and 9ff, and in 1983 we published a
more comprehensive assessment of
environmental problems with our Environmental
Management Report. In 1985 the EMR update
included the results of regional brainstorm
sessions to suggest environmental indicators.
Participants of these sessions grappled with
questions such as, "If a given program is perfectly
executed, what results would we expect to see in
the real world?" Boosted by these preliminary
efforts, the process began in earnest in February,
1986 when development of environmental
indicators became a regional priority.
During FY 86 each program was provided a
summary of past and current efforts within the
Region, EPA HQ, and other regions to develop
environmental indicators for that program. This
was followed by small group meetings with
program managers and staff. As a result, each
program either chose ambient or surrogate
environmental indicators or proposed a strategy
to develop indicators.
In FY 87, the development process continued.
The next steps for each program—whether to
implement chosen indicators or to further the
search and selection process—were outlined and
incorporated into the Regional Accountability
System (RAS). Each program committed to
producing a first annual summary of their results
by the end of FY 87.
Current Status
The environmental indicator summaries through
FY 87 are presented in this report. Each program
presented the content of their summary in
individual briefings for the DRA during November
and December, 1987. A thorough discussion of
all measures resulted in approval of proposed
indicators, further refinement of measures, and/or
commitments to prepare specific additional
environmental indicators. Decisions resulting
from the briefings were put into writing and signed
by both the programs and the DRA. The results
are summarized at the end of each chapter on the
pages entitled "Environmental Indicators,
FY 88 and Beyond".
Next Steps and New Directions
Throughout FY 88 programs will track and
summarize their chosen environmental indicators
and pursue the agreed upon improvements and
additions. At the end of FY 88, each program will
prepare a second annual summary of results. We
expect this will be an ongoing process for the
forseeable future.
While raw data, tables and graphs are useful for
displaying change over time, pictures can often
be worth many numbers. As a new dimension,
the DRA has encouraged programs to develop
and maintain photographic records of
environmental problems and improvements to
document changes overtime. This may be
particularly useful, for example, to show progress
at Superfund sites, to document changes in water
quality and biota in problem water bodies, or to
portray wetland losses or gains over time.
Lessons Learned
The following tools and lessons learned are
offered for the benefit of others attempting to
develop environmental indicators:
1.A strong coordinating office: The Region
10 Policy, Planning and Evaluation Branch,
Management Division, working on behalf of
the RA/DRA, provided guidance,
encouragement, incentives and tangible
support to program offices. This ranged from
brainstormmg sessions to hiring and
supervising college students to crunch
numbers and help analyze data.
2. Ownership of the measures: Program
managers and staff were guided and assisted
throughout the process, but the ultimate
selection of environmental indicators was
theirs.
3.Start small: This can be an overwhelming
project unless participants are encouraged to
tackle it one step at a time. Expectations
were ambitious but realistic. We felt it was
more important that we come up with useful
measures rather than perfect measures.
4. Accountability for results: Accountability
measures for each program were included in
the Regional Accountability System (RAS),
Senior Staff performance agreements, and
discussed in quarterly reviews with division
directors and branch chiefs.
S.Top management support: The DRA in
Region 10 has made environmental indicators
one pf his top priorities. His strong,
consistent and informed support for this
project has been critical to its success.
in
-------
Approach
The framework used for developing environmental
indicators is shown in Figure 1. We employed the
concept that EPA and state programmatic activity
affect polluter behaviour; that polluter behavior in turn
affects ambient pollution levels in the environment; and
that ambient levels of pollution have an effect upon
health and ecological integrity. Thus, we have
encouraged programs to develop measures on more
than one level (see Figure 2), realizing that the easiest
to produce but most limited in scope are the activity
measures; the most desireable but often most difficult
to acquire are those reflecting environmental quality.
Table 1 displays each program's FY 87
environmental indicators according to the hierarchy of
preferred data; Table 2 lists those for FY 88 and
beyond. Though "true" environmental indicators are
the ideal measures, all levels of indicators, though
surrogate in nature, are considered valuable, if not
essential, to overall program management.
Figure 1
Developing Environmental Indicators
Managing for Environmental Results
Conceptual Framework
ORD:
Ambient Standards
(Something must be measured in the absence of standards, e.g., achieving beneficial
uses; non-upper percentile; presence/absence of problems, abnormalities, etc.)
Pollutant Loadings
State Actions
(Attempts to modify polluter behavior; clean up; preventatlve activities)
EPA Actions
(Oversight or direct)
Figure 2
Levels of Environmental Data
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Level 6
Actions by States/
EPA
Actions by
Sources
Emission/
Discharge
Quantities
Ambient
Concentration
Uptake/Body
Burden
Health Effects
Ecological Effects
Other Effects
Preferred Data
iv
-------
Table 1
Environmental Indicators In Region 10
FY87
Program
Water Division:
Surface Water
Puget Sound
Level 1
Actions by
States/EPA
NPDES:
-# permits w/
biomonitoring
-# WQ-based permits
(vs. BAT permits)
-# WQ-based permits
w/ toxics limits
Level 2
Actions by
Sources
-Pollutant loadings
to WQL segments
Level 3
Emission/
Discharge
NPDES:
-Total loading
limits for toxics
Level 4
Ambient
Concentrations/
Quantities
-Track for problem water
bodies:
-Listing of waterbody status
-Listing of WQL segments
-Limiting parameters for WQL
segments
-Permits allowing discharges
to WQL segments
-WQL segments for which all
WQ-based controls have been
implemented
-Aerial lakeshore analysis
for N. ID lakes
-Status of classified shell-
fish areas
-Water Quality Index
Level 5
Uptake/
Body Burden
Level 6
Health Effects;
Ecological Effects;
Other Effects
-PNW Rivers Study
database
-Basin Pilot Projects
Yakima River Basin:
- # smolts produced
- Temperature
- Nutrient levels
- Riparian vegetation
- Toxics concentratns
Tualatin River Basin:
- DO levels
- Nutrients/
chlorophyll a
Chehalis River Basin/
Grays Harbor:
- % ocean catch
- Na-ATPase levels in
smolting salmon
- Coho smolt productn
- Coho escapement
-Summary of waters
fully, partially, or
not supporting uses
Chemical contamination, bacterial contamination, and habitat loss and
degradation as described by the following:
-Available w/ final
Monitoring Plan
-Everett Harbor, Elliott
Bay, Lake Union Ship Canal
studies
-Puget Sound Atlas: maps &
narrative
-Monitoring Plan Inclusions:
Water Quality; Sediment
Quality; Biological
Conditions; River
Monitoring; Habitat Types;
Ancillary Data
-Puget Sd. characterization
reports (existing historical
data) on (1) WQ Water Column
Trends since the 1930's; and
(2) Toxics or problems
in non-urban bays since the
1890's
-Available w/ final
Monitoring Plan
-Toxics & bacteria
in shellfish & edible
macroalgae
Monitoring Plan
Inclusions:
Biological Conditions
-Available w/ final
Monitoring Plan
-Risk Assessment
report on seafood
consumption
-------
Table 1 (continued)
Environmental Indicators in Region 10
FY87
Program
Water Division:
Construction Grant:
Drinking Water
Wetlands
Ground Water
Level 1
Actions by
States/EPA
-# of enforcement
actions by states
& EPA to address
SNCs
-Types actions tak-
en to gain compli-
ance
-# & % SNCs ad-
dressed by each
type action
-Acreage of impact-
ed wetland that is
mitigated for
-Staff time spent
on major vs. minor
wetland projects
-% projects w/ sub-
stantive comments
-# signif. envmti.
issues raised & #
resolved
-# enforcemt action
& # resolved
-# permits denied
due to EPA comments
Level 2
Actions by
Sources
-# & % surface
systems using
filtration or
equivalent
-% PWS in compliance
w/ IvVR for bacti &
turbidity
-# PWS in SNC w/
bacti & turbidity
MCLs & M/R
Level 3
Emission/
Discharge
-BOD & SS improve-
ments @ completed
projects initiat-
ing operation in
FY88
-Cu. yds. dredged
material allowed
in-water & up-
land in Columbia
R. &Puget Sound
Level 4
Ambient
Concentrations/
Quantities
-Acres wetlands lost
-Acres wetlands impacted
-Acres wetlands protected
by project modification,
w/drawal or permit denial
-Linear ft shoreline im-
pacted by state
-Developing and activating a Region 10 GW data system for Environmental Indicators database
Air & Toxics Division:
Air
-CO: Status of non-
attainment area
control strategies
-State & local
activities to
control air toxics
-Asbestos: #of
inspections
-Asbestos: #of
notifications for
removal/renovation
Asbestos: #of
notifications of
NESHAPs violations
Enforcement: #of
significant
violators & return
to compliance
-O3: VOC
emissions (ozone
precursors)
-CO & O3: # attainment vs.
non-attainment areas
-Ambient concentrations for
criteria pollutants
-PM,n ambient concentratns
10
—Working to develop environmental indicators for Air Toxics, Radon, and Asbestos —
Level 5
Uptake/
Body Burden
-# & % population
served by systems in
SNC & in compliance
Level 6
Health Effects;
Ecological Effects;
Other Effects
-------
Table 1 (continued)
Environmental Indicators in Region 10
FY87
Program
Level 1
Actions by
States/EPA
Level 2
Actions by
Sources
Level 3
Emission/
Discharge
Level 4
Ambient
Concentrations/
Quantities
Level 5
Uptake/
Body Burden
Level 6
Health Effects;
Ecological Effects;
Other Effects
Toxics
Pesticides
-Compliance rates
for PCB inspections
-Equipment (trans-
formers, capacitors,
other) removed from
service early due to
settlemt negotiatns
-Asbestos compliance
rates for EPA
inspections
-Amount of asbestos
in schools abated
due to settlement
agreements
Data search & evaluation in progress. Will report on feasibility of using data for indicators in the following areas:
-Pesticides in DW data
-Specific pesticides in the
envmnt
-PCB residues in biota
Hazardous Waste Division:
RCRA
Superfund
-Preliminary As-
sessmts completed
-Site investiga-
tions completed
-Emergency removal
actions
-Orders issued for
emergency removals
•RI/FS initiated
•RD/RA initiated/
completed
•Orders issued for
RI/FS.RD/RA
•$ cost recovered
•Alternative
technologies used
-Estimated $ value
for PRP action
(emergency removal)
-Estimated $ value
for PRP action
(RI/FS, RD/RA)
-GW Quality: Detection &
remedy of haz. constituent
releases at RCRA facilities
—both regulated & non-
regulated units
-Aquifers made useable or
other envmti improvements
due to Superfund action
(optional)
-Pesticides illness
incidents: human,
wildlife
-------
Table 2
Environmental Indicators in Region 10
FY 88 & Beyond
Program
Water Division:
Surface Water
Puget Sound
Level 1
Actions by
StatesfcPA
NPDES:
-# & % permit
w/ biomonitoring
-# WQ-based permits
(vs. BAT permits)
-# WQ-based permits
w/ toxics limits
Construction Grants
Level 2
Actions by
Sources
-Pollutant loadings
to WQL segments:
pt and non-point
Level 3
Emission/
Discharge
NPDES:
-Total loading
limits for toxics
-NPDES contaminant
loading
-BOD & SS improve-
ments @ completed
projects initiat-
ing operation in
FY88, w/ possible
enhancements of
1) more historic
data;
2) O&M results;
3) decreases in
residual
chlorine;
4) toxics removed
5) before &
after moni-
toring cases
Level 4
Ambient
Concentrations/
Quantities
-Track for problem water
bodies:
-Listing of waterbody status
-Listing of WQL segments
-Limiting parameters for WQL
segments
-Permits allowing discharges
to WQL segments
-WQL segments for which all
WQ-based controls have been
implemented
-Aerial lakeshore analysis
for N. ID lakes
-Status of classified shell-
fish areas
-Water Quality Index
-Sediment Chemistry
-Dissolved oxygen
-Turbidity
-Nutrients
-Chlorophyll
-Pathogen Indicators
-Wetland habitat quality &
quantity
-Wetland mitigation success
Level 5
Uptake/
Body Burden
-Sediment Bioassays
-Chemicals in fish
tissue
-Chemicals in shellfish
tissue
-Bacteria in shellfish
Level 6
Health Effects;
Ecological Effects;
Other Effects
-PNW Rivers Study
database
-Basin Pilot Projects
Yakima River Basin:
- # smolts produced
- Temperature
- Nutrient levels
- Riparian vegetation
- Toxics concentratns
Tualatin River Basin:
- DO levels
- Nutrients/
chlorophyll a
Chehalis River Basin/
Grays Harbor:
- % ocean catch
- Na-ATPase levels in
smolting salmon
- Coho smolt productn
- Coho escapement
-Summary of waters
fully, partially, or
not supporting uses
-Maps showing WQ trends
-Benthic community
analyses
-Fish Abundance
-Fish disease
-Shellfish abundance
-Effluent & near-
source biomonitoring
-------
Table 2 (continued)
Environmental Indicators in Region 10
FY 88 & Beyond
Program
Water Division:
Drinking Water
Wetlands
Ground Water
Level 1
Actions by
States/EPA
# & % SNCs for
which "return to
compliance" action
has been taken
# state & EPA
enforcemt actions
% SNC addressed by
enforcemt action
Acreage of impact-
ed wetland that is
mitigated for
Staff time spent
on major vs. minor
wetland projects
% projects w/ sub-
stantive comments
# signif. envmtl.
issues raised & #
resolved
# enforcemt action
& # resolved
-# permits denied
due to EPA comments
Measure of GW
cleanup in UST
program to be
developed
# & % of state
registered pesti-
cides which are
considered teach-
ers by EPA
Level 2
Actions by
Sources
-# PWS in SNC
-% PWS in compliance
w/ bacti & turbid-
ity M/R & MCLs
-# & % community
systems w/ surface
water sources which
use filtration or
equivalent
-# & % of non-
community systems
w/ surface water
sources which use
filtration or
equivalent
-UST: #&%of
corrosion-protected
tanks in use
Level 3
Emission/
Discharge
-Cu. yds. dredged
material allowed
in-water & up-
land in Columbia
R. & Puget Sound
-Quantity of
leachable pesti-
cides in use in
vulnerable GW
areas
Level 4
Ambient
Concentrations/
Quantities
-Acres wetlands lost
-Acres wetlands impacted
-Acres wetlands protected
by project modification,
w/drawal or permit denial
-Linear ft shoreline im-
pacted by state
-% DW & monitoring wells w/
nitrates above a level of
concern
-# & % PWS in violation of
MCLs
-# & % of HW sites w/ GW con-
tamination above a health
advisory or MCL & moving
off site
Level 5
Uptake/
Body Burden
-it persons served by
systems in SNC & % of
total population
served by PWS
-# persons served by
systems in full com-
pliance & % of total
population served by
PWS
-Population at risk
from PWS in violation
of MCLs
-Population at risk
from HW contaminants
approaching & in DW
wells
Level 6
Health Effects;
Ecological Effects;
Other Effects
-------
Table 2 (continued)
Environmental Indicators in Region 10
FY 88 & Beyond
Program
Air & Toxics Divis
Air
Toxics
Pesticides
Level 1
Actions by
States/EPA
iion:
-Air Toxics: Re-
view state evalu-
ation & control of
point sources
-Asbestos: track
notifications.
inspections & NOVs
-SIPs: track rule-
makings/SIP ap-
provals by pollu-
tant
-Radiation: track
public education &
results
-AHERA Indicators
(to be developed)
-Asbestos-in-School
Summary Report,
i.e., compliance
levels over time,
% school districts
& students covered,
% in compliance w/
settlement agrmts,
asbestos abatement
by school settling
complaints, etc.
Level 2
Actions by
Sources
-Track significant
violators
-Compliance rates
for PCB inspections
-Equipment (trans-
formers, capacitors,
other) removed from
service early due to
settiemt negotiatns
-Amount of asbestos
in schools abated due
to settlement agrmts
-Public Complaint
Data (state logs —
not health agency)
Level 3
Emission/
Discharge
-Criteria Pollu-
tants: emission
inventory data
-Air Toxics: Track
annual changes to
baseline inven-
tories for
selected pollu-
tants
Level 4
Ambient
Concentrations/
Quantities
-Criteria pollutants:
ambient concentrations
-Try to link enforcemt action
i.e., reduced emissions, w/
ambient concentrations
-Radiation: compare baseline
levels w/ future measuremts
-Radiation: explore use of
ERAMS
-Pesticides in DW data
(EPA's National DW Well
Survey)
Level 5
Uptake/
Body Burden
-PCB residues in biota
-Pesticides in biota
(EPA's National
Bioaccumulation Study)
Level 6
Health Effects;
Ecological Effects;
Other Effects
-------
Table 2 (continued)
Environmental Indicators in Region 10
FY 88 & Beyond
Program
Level 1
Actions by
States/EPA
Hazardous Waste Division:
RCRA
Superfund
-Preliminary As-
sessmts completed
-Site investiga-
tions completed
-Emergency removal
actions
-Orders issued for
emergency removals
-Rt/FS initiated
-RD/RA initiated/
completed
-Orders issued for
RI/FS.RD/RA
-$ cost recovered
-Alternative
technologies used
Level 2
Actions by
Sources
-Estimated $ value
for PRP action
(emergency removal)
-Estimated $ value
for PRP action
(RI/FS, RD/RA)
Level 3
Emission/
Discharge
Level 4
Ambient
Concentrations/
Quantities
-GW quality at RCRA regulated
LDFs
-GW quality/Soils quality at
RCRA regulated TSFs other
than LDFs (incineration,
storage & treatmt facilities
-GW cleanup (NPL sites)
-Soils cleanup (NPL & non-NPL
removal sites)
-Surface materials cleanup
(NPL & non-NPL removal sites)
Level 5
Uptake/
Body Burden
Level 6
Health Effects;
Ecological Effects;
Other Effects
-------
Organization of the Report
This document is a C9mpilation of reports presented The programs' reports are organized according to air,
by the program offices in Regipn 10 under the direction water and (and media, realizing that there are obvious
of the Deputy Regional Administrator and the Policy, cross-media concerns for all programs. Programs'
Planning and Evaluation Branch. Each program was measures were not necessarily developed in isolation
given maximum flexibility to describe their work in of other programs. For example, the Office of Ground
developing environmental indicators. However, each Water worked actively with hazardous waste, drinking
summary includes certain basic components: water, pesticides, and Environmental Services Division
staff to formulate their environmental indicators.
1 .A statement describing (or choosing) the
indicator(s); For conformity, the FY 87 environmental indicators
(which are the measures discussed in the summary
2. A narrative explaining how the indicator does a reports) are listed at the beginning of each chapter.
good job of describing environmental quality or Following each report is a list of the modified indicators
progress and how it falls short; to be used for FY 88 and beyond.
3.Graphs/tables/maps to display data; and
4. Plans for modification of present indicators and/or
development of future ones. Each program is
responsible for reporting on the measures which
they have selected with the assistance, in many
cases, of the Environmental Services Division.
xil
-------
Chapter 1: Surface Waters
During FY 87, the Office of Water Planning agreed to The following paper describes the process and rationale
review all possible data sources revealed through a surface by which surface water indicators have been selected,
water monitoring survey conducted earlier (as well as those presents the selections, and describes modifications for FY
subsequently discovered) for the purpose of selecting the 88 and beyond.
best possible set of environmental indicators.
Surface Water Environmental Indicators
FY 87 Selections
A. General
1. Summary of Waters Fully, Partially, or not Supporting Uses
2. Waterbody Tracking System
a. Listing of waterbody status
b. Listing of water quality-limited segments
c. Limiting parameters for WQL segments
d. List of all permits allowing discharges to WQL segments
e. Listing of WQL segments for which all water quality-based controls have been implemented
3. NPDES Permits
a. Number/percentage of permits with biomonitoring requirements
b. Number of water quality-based permits issued
c. Number of water quality-based permits with toxics limits
d. Total loading limits for toxics
4. Aerial Lakeshore Analysis for North Idaho Lakes
5. Status of Classified Shellfish Areas
6. Water Quality Index
7. Pacific Northwest Rivers Study Database
(Includes Information on Resident Fish, Wildlife, and Recreational Resources, and Natural and
Cultural Features)
B. Basin Pilot Projects
1. Yaklma River Basin
a. Number of salmonid smoits produced
b. Temperature
c. Nutrient levels
d. Riparian vegetation inventory
e. Toxics concentrations
2. Tualatin River Basin
a. Dissolved oxygen levels
b. Nutrients/chlorophyll a
3. Chehalis River Basin/Grays Harbor
a. Percent catch in ocean fishery
b. Na-ATPase levels in smolting salmon
c. Coho salmon smolt production
d. Coho salmon escapement
-------
Chapter 1: Surface Waters
introduction
There is a recognized need to establish better indicators of
the "health" of environmental systems. Such indicators are
important in assessing the current status and trends of
pollution in surface waters, in evaluating the effectiveness of
environmental programs in controlling pollution, and in
determining priorities and directions for future water quality
management efforts.
Current tracking of regulatory actions and environmental
issues by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
state water quality agencies is primarily based upon a
"program" orientation. As a consequence, current measures
tend to reflect whether, or the degree to which, programs
are being Implemented (e.g., SPMS measures).
Environmental indicators should, however, be based upon
an "environmental problem" orientation, and should be useful
in identifying actual or potential problems and subsequently
tracking whether problems are increasing or decreasing in
severity. This "problem" tracking should also indicate
whether environmental control programs are effective in
addressing problems, and the relative merit of various
programs. All programs involved in addressing a particular
problem should be concerned with this tracking as a
measure of progress towards achieving water quality goals.
The program orientation which EPA and the states
currently have has prevented the development of an
effective institutional mechanism for focusing on problem
oriented environmental indicators. We have therefore used
a two-fold approach to develop an array of indicators which
both evaluate water quality on a Region-wide basis, while at
the same time tracking specific environmental problems_of
concern.
Role of the Office of Water Planning
(OWP)
We believe that the role of the OWP is to help direct and
guide the states' efforts to protect and maintain the physical,
chemical, and biological integrity of surface waters. Implicit
in this role is helping to develop processes to identify the
magnitude and scope of environmental problems, set
management priorities, and track progress in resolving
problems. Our role is not necessarily to perform these
functions for the state, but to ensure that they are
accomplished. Environmental indicators should play a key
role in accomplishing these functions. Thus our role is to
ensure that appropriate environmental indicators are used
by the states to carry out these processes.
Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act requires that states
produce biannual reports (referred to as 305(b) reports) to
assess the quality of each state's surface waters. We
believe that the 305(b) reports represent the appropriate
(and congressionally mandated) vehicle for compiling
information on environmental indicators. Unfortunately, past
305(b) reports have not been useful in assessing progress in
improving water quality or defining future directions for
management programs. This is because 1) the reports
have focused on general measures which do not provide
specific information on problem sources or waterbodies, and
2) states have developed widely differing approaches to
compiling information and classifying waters based on their
current status. It is clear that the 305(b) reports will need to
be modified extensively to provide adequate information to
assess and guide water quality management programs. To
achieve this, the OWP is focusing on revising state input into
the 305(b) reports. In addition, the OWP will continue to
develop new approaches to tracking the progress of
environmental management programs. These approaches
will be tested on a pilot basis to provide examples to states
of their feasibility and usefulness, and, where appropriate, to
encourage state or other federal agencies to focus their
monitoring programs on more meaningful measures. As
new indicators are developed, specific tasks may need to be
identified in the State-EPA Agreements (SEAs) requiring
states to compile and evaluate the information. The
information would subsequently appear in the next 305(b)
report.
The Water Quality Act (WQA) of 1987 defined a number
of new directions for states which involve extensive
application of environmental indicators. Several of these
new directions affected the OWP and our effort to develop
environmental indicators during the last year. Of particular
concern are the many assessments (e.g., for waterbodies,
toxics problems, lakes status, and nonpoint sources) which
states are required to complete. Each of these assessments
is a major undertaking. The OWP had been pushing the
states to complete scaled-down versions of these
assessments before passage of the WQA. The results of
these scaled-down assessments were to have played a
significant role in our effort to develop indicators. The WQA,
however, will require significantly more comprehensive
assessments, and set specific time frames for their
completion in FY89. This in effect extended many of the
deadlines which we had set. We did not have the resources
or the support money to push the states ahead of the
Congressional time frames. As a result, the "indicators"
used to assess toxics and NPS problems, the status of
lakes, and for tracking waterbodies may be significantly
modified as states complete these statutory requirements
during FY89.
Major Accomplishments to Date
To meet the goal of developing a set of environmental
indicators which belter reflect the health of environmental
systems, the OWP has accomplished a number of activities
during the past year, as discussed below. We recognize
that the development of new approaches to problem
assessment and the emergence of new environmental
problems necessitate the continued development and
refinement of environmental indicators. Therefore, we have
also Initiated a number of actions which will hopefully
improve the quality and value of environmental indicators, as
well as their application in the decision-making process.
Significant actions to date include:
- A baseline set of environmental indicators has been
developed which addresses both the overall status of
water quality in the Region and specific water quality
problems in localized geographic areas. Specific,
problem-oriented indicators were developed for three
pilot areas (the Yakima, Tualatin, and Chehalis River
basins).
-------
Chapter 1: Surface Waters
- Where available, Information is presented on the status
of each Indicator. This information provides a baseline
of existing conditions. Future updates and comparison
with the baseline conditions will allow EPA and other
regulatory/resource agencies to evaluate the
effectiveness of their pollution control programs.
- A new position has been created In OWP; this will allow
reassignment of duties to address the establishment, in
consultation with responsible land/resource managers,
of the following for selected waterbodles:
• realistic management/regulatory goals
• major factors limiting achievement of those goals
• major actions needed to achieve goals
• means by which progress to achieving goals will be
measured (It is the means by which progress in
attaining goals will be measured that will constitute
the environmental indicators for the selected
waterbodies.)
There has been great difficulty in the past in defining
environmental indicators which reflect the pollutants,
particularly sediments, generated from NPS activities.
Since sediment is the major pollutant generated in the
Region, accounting for approximately 70 percent of all
pollution, this has been a major concern. In order to
address this concern, the OWP has completed the
following steps:
• Negotiation of a $50,000 contract with HQ to identify
viable environmental indicators for measuring the
success of NPS control programs in the Pacific
Northwest. The measures identified will be critical in
tracking activities conducted under Section 319 of the
Water Quality Act, and will provide the basis for
reporting to Congress on the effectiveness of NPS
programs in 1991.
• Development of an initiative to establish monitoring
plans for each national forest to provide data on
actual impacts of timber harvesting on the "fishery
production potential" of representative streams. The
lack of proper monitoring in the past made it very
difficult (if not impossible) for the forests to ensure
that fishery resources will be protected to the level
mandated by the CWA.
- Funding for a near coastal waters pilot project was
obtained from HQ to help define the information needed
to properly manage the newly established near coastal
waters initiatives. This includes measures to define how
programs' environmental impact will be measured.
- A guidance document to assist States in producing the
1988 305(b) report will be completed during fall of 1987.
This document will define many of the indicators which
the state will be expected to include in the report. The
report will then hopefully provide much of the
information to be used in future Environmental
Management Reports.
- Two major efforts were undertaken which involved the
use of environmental indicators to identify, prioritize,
and track resolution of significant environmental/
regulatory problems, as follows:
Grays Harbor:
An environmental indicator showing reduced survival
of smolting coho salmon from the Chehalis River and
inner Grays Harbor was used to identify a major
problem within the Region. The indicator generated the
information necessary to 1) garner $100,000 in funding
and In-kind support to study the cause of the problem in
1987; 2) obtain $400,000 from the Washington
legislature to support future study of the problem by the
Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF); and 3)
encourage regulatory agencies to set a high priority on
performing water quality studies in the Chehalis River
and Grays Harbor in support of the WDF studies (the
total resources committed by regulatory agencies could
be in excess of $300,000).
The indicator, as discussed later in this report, will be
used to track future progress towards alleviating the
cause of the reduced survival.
Idaho Antidegradation:
The state of Idaho developed a proposed procedure
to use a stream data base to implement water quality
standards in the state. The data base, which we have
proposed as an environmental indicator, was created
through funding by the Bonneville Power Administration
(under the mandate of the Northwest Power Planning
Act). Tracking of the data base in the future will allow
evaluation of the effectiveness of the water quality
standards (specifically the antidegradation policy) in
protecting the aquatic life and recreational resources in
Idaho's surface waters.
Existing Indicators
Indicators of surface water quality currently incorporated
into state 305(b) reports focus on the number of stream or
coastline miles and the number of acres/square miles of
lakes or estuaries fully supporting, partially supporting, or not
supporting designated beneficial uses. Also recorded are
the total miles or areas surveyed or inventoried as part of
state-wide monitoring efforts. Most states also list the
percentage of waters affected by major types of activities.
Two shortcomings of this approach have already been
mentioned (the lack of site- or problem-specific information
and the varying criteria by which states classify waters).
Before discussing new indicators which address these
shortcomings, it is important to fully understand why the
existing indicators are inadequate.
Lack of Specificity:
The mechanisms in the CWA which force the identification
and management/regulation of pollution sources are directed
at problem- or site-specific approaches. Simple listings of
the percentage of waters partially or not supporting uses
does not indicate the major types of pollution problems
states are facing, the magnitude or frequency of criteria
exceedances (and thus the level of use impairment), or
geographic areas where a number of activities threatening or
impairing uses are concentrated. While some states have
supplied lists of "problem" waterbodies, they have failed to
-------
Chapter 1: Surface Waters
indicate which waterbodies are truly water quality limited,
which waterbodies could meet water quality standards with
implementation of BAT/BCT and cost effective and
reasonable best management practices, and which
waterbodies are of concern because of potential threats to
uses. There has also been no effort to track progress in
resolving actual or potential problems in these waterbodies
over time. The result has been that many states still identify
as major environmental concerns the same problems
identified 10 years ago, with little apparent progress towards
resolution. The reports have thus failed to be useful in
evaluating environmental programs through time or in
providing an effective basis for prioritizing management
efforts.
Criteria for Classification:
States have developed vastly different criteria for
classifying waters as fully, partially, or not supporting
beneficial uses. EPA HQ has tried to be more specific in
providing guidance on how waters should be classed;
however, problems still remain. For example, the HQ
guidance states that waters are to be listed as fully
supporting uses if greater than 90 percent of measurements
for a particular parameter comply with water quality criteria.
Based upon this guidance, monthly D.O. sampling may show
that a water body complies with a state's D.O. criteria 11 of
12 samplings, and therefore fully supports a use. However,
if every August the D.O. drops to 2.0 mg/L, significant
impairment of the beneficial use could result. Unfortunately,
a state could still classify that waterbody as fully supporting
a use. Although this is an extreme example, it illustrates the
type of classification problem which can occur.
Another major problem with the existing reporting
requirements is that criteria for classification are based upon
water quality criteria, which focus almost entirely on water
column measures. Yet the CWA provides a mandate to
protect the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the
nation's waters. This would necessarily include
considerations of the habitat quality needed to support
beneficial uses. There are numerous examples of situations
where criteria applying to the water column were apparently
not exceeded, but extensive damage to beneficial uses
resulted from habitat degradation. This has occurred in
streams adjacent to road construction and timber harvesting
operations, where sedimentation has degraded both
spawning and rearing habitat for salmon and trout. This has
also occurred where toxic contaminants have built-up in the
sediments of Puget Sound, even though there were few or
no exceedances of water quality criteria in the water column.
These examples suggest the need for a more holistic
approach to regulating pollution in surface waters, as well as
in documenting the status of pollution through the use of
environmental indicators.
Proposed Indicators
The new environmental indicators being proposed are
intended to address the concerns discussed above. We are
also proposing to continue using the existing indicators. The
combination of new and old indicators will hopefully offer the
following advantages: '
1) Provide general measures which reflect the overall
status of surface water quality in Region 10.
2) Identify specific waterbodies or watersheds experiencing
water quality problems. This would include identification
of water quality limited segments, and the parameters of
concern in each segment.
3) Identify the major types of pollution problems in each
state and the Region as a whole.
4) Provide a more holistic approach to the protection of
beneficial uses by considering essential habitat
components.
5) Provide indicators which more closely relate to particular
types of pollution, thus providing more specific tools for
tracking the results of pollution control efforts.
6) Include measures which reflect the success of society's
overall efforts to control pollution effects, rather than
focusing only on controls developed under the authority
of the CWA.
7) Provide information on the existing and emerging
pollution sources of greatest environmental and human
health concern as a means of guiding future water
quality management direction.
The proposed indicators are:
1. Waters Fully, Partially, or Not Supporting Uses
This indicator will continue to be compiled as part of the
305(b) reports. While the limitations of this indicator have
been discussed at length, it still provides a general overview
on the status of water quality within the Region. In addition,
this is one of the few indicators which EPA HQ consistently
compiles on a national basis. The indicator will be improved
by providing a more consistent basis for classifying water,
and by requiring a more detailed breakdown of the pollution
sources preventing attainment of beneficial uses. The most
recent information compiled is presented in Table 1. Future
updates will be provided by states in their 305(b) reports. A
major emphasis in future management actions will be to
increase the amount of waters assessed. The management
goal for this indicator is to have all waters listed as fully
supporting the designated uses.
2. Waterbody Tracking System
The water quality data used to report to Congress on the
status of the nation's water is typically disorganized,
inconsistent in format, and widely dispersed. This seemingly
reasonable and easy requirement has become, therefore,
extremely difficult to satisfy.
In response to the apparent disorganization in water
quality data, EPA has developed a computerized Waterbody
Tracking System (WTS). This system is being actively
promoted as a means of organizing and cataloging water
quality information for waterbodies nationwide. The software
should be finalized in November 1987, and pilot studies for
several states, including Washington, are underway. In
1988, all states will be required to present assessment data
for the 305(b) reports in a format that is compatible with the
WTS, and in subsequent years, states will be required to
input assessment data directly into the system.
-------
Table 1. Summary of waters supporting, partially supporting, or not supporting designated uses in
Region 10. Data are arranged by state and and waterbody type.
REGION: 10
WATERBODY TYPE1: Rivers
I
-p.
CD
AK
DESIGNATED USE
SUPPORT:
Total area 365,000
Area assessed 5,025
Supporting 2,662
Part, supptg. 1,447
Not supptg. 916
Unknown
ID
15,720
7,310
6,046
572
692
STATE
OR WA
90,000 40,492
27,715 UNK
9,665 UNK
1,915 UNK
275 UNK
15,860
REGIONAL DATA
TOTAL SOURCE2
511,212 A, B
40,050
18,373
3,934
1,883
15,860
^Waterbody type: Rivers (miles); Lakes (acres); Estuaries (sq. miles); Coastal Waters (miles); Great Lakes (shore miles).
2Data source: A - 1986 State 3U5(b) report; B - ASIWPCA NPS Assessment; C - Other
-------
REGION: 10
WATERBODY TYPE: Rivers
Table 1. ( cont. )
NONPOIOT SOURCE
IMPACTS:
Assessed for NPS
Area with use im-
pairments due to:
Agriculture
Res . extract .
Urban runoff
Hydromod.
Land disposal
Construction
Silviculture
Other
TOTAL area w/use
1
AK
1,614
13
1,221
88
25
89
178
UNK
UNK
1,614
ID
7,070
2,097
380
0
UNK
208
576
UNK
757
4,018
STATE
OR
22,500
9,289
33
93
31
0
0
4,808
50
14,304
WA
3,920
600
40
100
UNK
130
UNK
30
1,060
1,960
REGIONAL DATA
TOTAL SOURCE
35,104 B
11,999
1,674
281
56
427
754
4,838
1,867
21,896
imp. due to NPS
-------
REGION: 10
WATERBODY TYPE1: Lakes
Table 1. (cont.)
r • • — — — — — — — — ^— ^— — ——_————_——______
STATE .REGIONAL
TOTAL
AK OR ID WA
DESIGNATED USE
SUPPORT:
Total area 12,787,200 500,000 508,180 613,582 14,408,962
Area assessed 27,513 192,000 362,718
Supporting 17,278 112,700 362,624
Part, supptg. 10,235 75,200 94
Not supptg. 0 4,100 0
Unknown \.
K 582,231
492,602
85,529
4,100
/
DATA
SOURCE2
A,B
^Waterbody type: Rivers (miles); Lakes (acres); Estuaries (sq. miles); Coastal Waters (miles); Great Lakes (shore miles).
2Data source: A - 1986 State 305(b) report; B - ASIWPCA NFS Assessment; C - Other
-------
Table 1. (cont.)
REGION: \Q
WATERBODY TYPE:
NONPOIOT SOURCE
IMPACTS:
Assessed for NPS
Area with use im-
pairments due to:
^ Agriculture
o.
Res. extract.
Urban runoff
Hydromod.
Land disposal
Construction
Silviculture
Other
TOTAL area w/use
imp. due to NPS
1
AK
15,352
UNK
5,600
1,302
UNK
3,550
4,900
UNK
UNK
15,352
ID
465,449
46,737
0
0
UNK
130,000
21,093
UNK
0
197,830
STATE
OR
191,798
34,918
0
3,682
1,286
210
0
0
38,904
79,000
WA
613,582
125,070
UNK
143,720
0
6,860
UNK
16,780
270
292,700
IM3IONAL DATA
TOTAL SOURCE
1,286,181 g
206,725
5,600
148,704
1,286
140,620
25,993
16,780
39,174
584,882
-------
Table 1. (cont.)
REGION: 10
WATERBODY TYPE1: Estuaries
n>
-&K_
DESIGNATED USE
SUPPORT:
Total area UNK
Area assessed 126
Supporting 98
Part . supptg . 26
Not supptg. 2
Unknown
STATE REGIONAL DATA
TOTAL SOURCE2
-DE. WA_
71 2,669 2,740
66.5 UNK 192.5 A, B
3.8 UNK 101.8
62.7 UNK 88.7
0 UNK 2
^Waterbody type: Rivers (miles); Lakes (acres); Estuaries (sq. miles); Coastal Waters (miles); Great Lakes (shore miles).
2Data source: A - 1986 State 305(b) report; B - ASIWPCA NPS Assessment; C - Other
-------
Table 1. (cont.)
REGION: 10
WATERBODY TYPE: Estuaries
NONPOIOT SOURCE
IMPACTS:
Assessed for NPS
Area with use im-
pairments due to:
Agriculture
— «
-h
— Res. extract.
Urban runoff
Hydromod.
Land disposal
Construction
Silviculture
Other
TOTAL area w/use
1
AK_
UNK
UNK
UNK
UNK
UNK
UNK
UNK
UNK
UNK
UNK
UNK
STATE
OR
66
22
0
0
0
18
0
0
5
45
WA
2,669
UNK
UNK
UNK
UNK
UNK
UNK
UNK
UNK
148
RtmONAL DATA
TOTAL SOURCE
2,735 o
22
0
0
0
18
0
0
5
193
imp. due to NFS
-------
Table 1. (cont.)
REGION:
10
WATERBODY TYPE^:
1.
Coastal Waters
STATE REGI
AK OR WA TCT
ONAL DATA
AL SOURCE2
DESIGNATED USE
SUPPORT:
Total area -*
33,9400 362 994 -25,296 B
Area assessed
UNK UNK UNK UNK
Supporting
Part, supptg.
Not. supptg.
Unknown .
' \
' \
\
/
Iwaterbody type: Rivers (miles); Lakes (acres); Estuaries (sq. miles); Coastal Waters (miles); Great Lakes (shore miles).
2Data source: A - 1986 State 3U5(b) report; B - ASIWPCA NPS Assessment; C - Other
-------
Table 1. (cont.)
REGION: JQ
WATERBODY TYPE: Coasta1 Waters
1 STATE REGIONAL DATA
AK OR WA TOTAL
SOURCE
NONPOINT SOURCE
IMPACTS:
Assessed for NPS UN|< Q 994 gg4 g
Area with use im-
pairments due to:
i Agriculture
r
^f
Res. extract.
Urban runoff
Hydromod.
UNK 0 0
Land disposal
Construction
Silviculture I
Other 1
TOTAL area w/use
imp. due to NPS NK
V
(
/ \
3 (
)
-------
Chapter 1: Surface Waters
The WTS is expected to fill the niche of preparing status
reports on the nation's waters. It will not, however, provide a
means of tracking progress or trends in water quality.
Because of this weakness, the WTS will likely become "dust
covered" except during 305(b) report preparation.
The OWP will be modifying the WTS so that It can become
a more viable tool. We propose to add two memo fields to
the software. The first memo field will contain background
information on each waterbody, such as its location, water
quality problems, land use history, and any other pertinent
information. This can be used to (re-)familiarize a person
with the waterbody and also to prepare briefing material
when necessary. The second field will contain waterbody
tracking information such as progress made implementing
management actions. This could be updated periodically
and would serve a dual purpose of providing basic tracking
information and illustrating overall waterbody-specific
environmental progress.
OWP will guide the states in implementing the WTS. We
will also work with Washington and Oregon to identify four to
five waterbodies on which to conduct pilot tracking initiatives.
For these waters, we will require quarterly progress to be
entered into the WTS by either the OPS offices or by the
states. We will then use this information to prepare quarterly
progress reports for distribution to Interested parties.
Eventually, this effort will be expanded to cover a greater
number of waters, such as those that are water quality-
limited (WQL), within all four states (Table 2). Section 303
of the CWA requires that water quality-based controls, or
total maximum daily loads (TMDLs)/waste load allocations
(WLAs), be implemented on all WQL segments. The
number of WQL segments in our Region on which water
quality-based controls have been implemented is not tracked
and is unknown.
WQL segments are those waters not meeting water
quality standards following implementation of best available
technology. For such segments, water quality-based
permits, versus technology-based permits, must be written
using careful analysis, and, in some instances, sophisticated
modeling.
Table 2
Water quality-limited segments in Region 10 as of 11-16-87.
Abbreviations are as follows: BOD=biological oxygen demand, AMM=ammonia, SS=suspended solids, NIT=nitrogen,
PHOS=phosphorus, TEMP=temperature, FCOL=fecal coliform bacteria, TURB=turbidity, CHL A=chlorophyll a,
NUT=nutrients, MET=metals, PRI POLL=priority pollutants, DO=dissolved oxygen, and CHL=chlorine.
Regional Water Quality Limited Segments
Segment
Waterbody Number
Idaho
Boise River (lower) SWB-270
Clearwater River CB-20
Payette River, N.F. SWB-324
Pend Oreille River PB-30P
Portneuf River USB-420
Snake River SWB-30
Snake River USB-60
Spokane River PB-40S
Spokane River PB-50S
Oregon
Bear Creek
Calapooia River
Coquille River
Garrison Lake (Acres)
Grande Ronde River
Klamath River
Pudding River
South Umpqua River
Tualatin River
Umatilla River
Yamhill River
Water Quality
Limited Parameters
BOD, AMM
BOD, Toxics
BOD, S3
BOD, AMM
NIT, PHOS
BOD, AMM, TEMP
BOD, AMM, TEMP
PHOS
PHOS
DO, pH, FCOL, TURB
DO, TURB
DO, TURB
CHL A
pH, FCOL
DO, CHL A, pH, AMM
DO, TURB
DO, pH, FCOL, AMM
DO, CHL A
PH
FCOL, TURB
Segment
Waterbody Number
Washington
Budd Inlet 06-13-03
Chehalis River 10-23-13
Columbia River 26-00-01
Columbia River 26-00-04
Hoko River 09-19-09
Inner Grays Harbor 1 0-22-04
Okanogan River 22-49-02
Palouse River 16-34-01
Excepting South Fk.
S.F. Palouse River 16-34-02
S.F. Stillaguamish River
03-05-05
Salmon Creek & Tribs 13-28-03
Ship Canal & Lake Union
04-08-01
Spokane River & Tribs
NUT
Spokane River (Lower)24-54-01
Weaver Ck. 13-28-03
White River & Tribs 05-1 0-05
Wildcat Ck. 10-22-10
Yaklma R. & Tribs 1 8-37-01
Yakima R. & Tribs 1 8-37-02
Water Quality
Limited Parameters
NUT
BOD
FCOL, NUT, MET, PRI
POLL
MET
TURB
BOD, Toxics
Toxics?
FCOL, pH, NUT, TURB
FCOL, NUT, TURB,
AMM
FCOL, TURB (Natural)
NUT, TEMP (Natural)
FCOL, PRI POLL
24-57-04
NUT
FCOL, DO, NUT
FCOL, TURB (Natural)
NUT
AMM, CHL
FCOL, NUT
-------
Chapter 1: Surface Waters
Interest in controls on WQL segments has been growing
nationwide. In response, Headquarters has begun requiring
each region to submit, on a quarterly basis, the number of
both water quality-based permits issued and WQL segments
for which all controls have been implemented.
The state is responsible for fulfilling Section 303
requirements. Therefore, WQL tracking should be compiled
at the state level and transmitted by the region to
Headquarters. OWP will therefore require states to provide
the following:
a) For each WQL segment, determine the following
Information:
• The parameters for which the segment is limited;
• All permits whose discharges include WQL
parameters;
• Permit expiration dates;
• Whether or not the permits contain water quality-
based controls;
• Date water quality-based controls were implemented
in permit;
• Allowable loading under permits.
b) Submit, on a quarterly basis, a list of any segments
for which all water quality-based controls have been
Implemented.
The desired management goal, following identification of
WQL segments, will be to implement all required water
quality-based controls for each segment.
3. NPDES Permits
While not providing a direct measure of ambient
conditions, a set of "indicators" has been developed which
will allow tracking of those permit requirements reflecting
efforts to control adverse effects to water quality. The items
to be tracked are:
a. Number of major permits with blomonitorlng
requirements.
(See Table 3.)
b. Number of water quality-based permits issued.
(See Table 4.)
c. Number of water quality-based permits with toxics
limits.
(See Table 4.)
d. Total loading limits for toxics.
(See Table 5.)
As water quality concerns are more closely considered in
permit development, the number of permits containing
biomonitoring requirements or water quality-based limits will
be expected to increase. A compilation of total loading limits
will help address concerns that even though the
concentrations of toxic pollutants in effluent discharges have
generally decreased significantly, production increases
resulting from facility expansions and new sources have
resulted in increases in total loadings.
Weaknesses with these "indicators" are that they do not
address whether all dischargers needing water quality-based
controls are known, and what percentage of needed water
quality-based controls have been implemented. They also
do not indicate whether the controls incorporated into the
permits are adequate to fully protect water quality. Use of
the WTS should help address these concerns.
Currently, there is no vehicle for readily obtaining the
NPDES permitting information which we wish to track. While
some of the information compiled for this report was
available on the Permit Compliance System (PCS), the vast
majority of information had to be dug out of permit/
compliance files or the memories of permit writers. This
proved to be an inefficient and time-consuming process.
Therefore, a draft checklist was developed which will
hopefully be completed for each major permit issued in
Region 10 by regional personnel writing or reviewing the
permits (see Appendix 1). The information will then be
entered into either PCS or an OWP data base tracking
system. This will allow ready access to summary
information on these indicators, some of which are also
tracked as SPMS commitments.
Biomonitoring:
The number of permits issued in Region 10 which
currently contain biomonitoring requirements are listed in
Table 3. This data is current as of June, 1987. A
reasonable management goal for this indicator would be to
require biomonitoring by each major discharger. Facilities
consistently showing no toxicity could be allowed to eliminate
or reduce the frequency of biomonitoring, depending upon
their individual circumstances.
It would be of value to know the results of the
biomonitoring tests conducted by permittees as a measure
of the effectiveness of current controls. Unfortunately, this
information was not available without investing an inordinate
amount of resources to obtain it. This "indicator" will be
evaluated further in the future for possible use by the OWP-
We will also attempt to track the percentage of permits
containing biomonitoring requirements in the future.
Table 3
Number of permits in Region 10 containing
biomonitoring requirements as of June, 1987.
Alaska
No. Permits 3
State
Idaho Oregon Washington Total
4 16 37 60
Water Quality-Limited Permits:
Tracking implementation of water quality-based controls
should be a particularly useful environmental indicator
When used in association with the WTS, it will indicate when
all point sources are controlled on segments with serious
water quality problems. It will alert managers that
management activities on such segments should shift to
monitoring and, as necessary, to nonpoint source controls
-------
Chapter 1: Surface Waters
OWP has begun tracking issuance of water quality-based Total Pollutant Loading Limits:
permits on WQL segments (Table 4). The Region has not Information on the total loading limits for toxics was
yet, however, determined how many or what type of permits difficult to obtain. This information generally had to be
exist for each WQL segment. We approach each permit as calculated by hand after pulling out both the new (issued in
it comes up for renewal on an individual basis. We therefore FY87) and old permits. Calculations were made only for
do not know when all water quality-based permits for all (or major permits with limits for toxic pollutants (we included
any) of our WQL segments have been written. both ammonia and chlorine, since these "conventional
pollutants" can also cause toxicity) in both the old and new
Implementing water quality-based controls is a state permits. Loading limits as such did not always exist, and
responsibility, and, if the states default, a regional were often computed from flow and concentration limits. As
responsibility. Unless the states begin to track such can be seen from Table 5, total loadings often increased
implementation, or EPA completes the work in their stead, despite a general trend towards lower allowable
we will have no way of knowing when our mutual concentrations. A statutory goal of zero discharge is
responsibilities under Section 303 have been fulfilled. The mandated in the CWA; an interim management goal might
OWP will include this task in the SEA or 305(b) regional be a reduction in the total loading of toxic pollutants. It
guidance to the states. should be noted, however, that this indicator reflects
allowable loading under permit limits, and not the actual
loading by each facility.
Table 4
Water quality-based permits issued in Region 10 during FY87.
(No permits were issued in FY87 which were water quality-limited specifically for toxic pollutants.)
State Permittee Issue Date Receiving Water Parameters
Washington Prosser 5/13/87 Yakima River NH4,Chlorine
Idaho Ore-Ida Foods 3/31/87 Snake (Payette) River BOD,NH4,Temp.
JRSimplotCo. 3/31/87 Snake (Burley) River BOD.NH Temp.
West Boise 3/01/87 Boise River BOD,NH4
Lander 3/01/87 Boise River BOD,NH4
Table 5
Tptal pollutant loading limits for toxics (including chlorine and ammonia), in selected Region 10 permits.
Limits are expressed as kg/year.
Facility Parameter Old Limits New Limits
Boise, Lander Street NH4 279,127 248,565
Chlorine 1,402* 823
Boise, West NH4 235,201 166,133
JRSimplot NH4" 137,224 159,675
City of Everett Chromium 1,387 2,584
Copper 1,387 775
Zinc 1,387 10,852
Chevron Pert. N4 108,077 108,077
(Columbia River) On and Grease 350,400 350,400
Ore-Ida Foods, Inc. NH4" 119,455 139,042
City of Kitsap Chlorine 1,682 1,682
City of Prosser NH4 19,802 137,204
METRO, Renton NH4 854,337 1,856,559
Cadmium 399 502
Chromium 5,762 12,043
Copper 5,161 4,014
Lead 2,638 5,018
Mercury 721 301
Nickel 4,949 4,014
Zinc 7,765 5,018
Oil and Grease 756,864 1,505,318
• Limit was 8,410 kg/yr before 9/84
" Loadingrates for old and new permits were thesame; 1987 permit limits reflect a longer discharge season.
-------
Chapter 1: Surface Waters
4. Aerial Lakeshore Analysis for North Idaho Lakes
Our Region has received $65,000 from HQ to fund a
survey of North Idaho lakes (Pend Oreille, Hauser, Priest,
Hayden, Twin, Cocollala, and Spirit Lakes) using aerial
remote sensing by multi-spectral photoanalysis and
interpretation. This technique is very useful in pin-pointing
failing septic systems, point and nonpoint source discharges,
and potential point and nonpoint toxic sources from
shorelines of lakes. The project will be completed by
December 31,1987.
We believe significant benefits related to environmental
indicators will result from this effort:
•EPA and Idaho will gain valuable insight into an area of
mutual environmental concern; nutrient enrichment of
North Idaho lakes from septic leachate and land use
practices.
• A cost-effective means for rapid assessment of point
and nonpoint source impacts to lakes will be evaluated.
• This technology could become readily available in the
Northwest if, during this study, it is demonstrated to be
effective for Northwest environments.
•The photographic data collected can be used in
educational seminars to point out problems to homeowner
groups, for targeting further data collection for
enforcement effects, and as a record of current conditions
for purposes of future comparisons.
•Field work can be spent working with known and
suspected sources of pollution. In the case of a vast
system like Lake Pend Oreille this can be a great time
saving service.
5. Status of Classified Shellfish Area:
The direct measurement of the quality of marine/estuarine
waters is a complex and expensive task. Shellfish such as
oysters, clams, and mussels can concentrate disease
causing bacteria and viruses as well as certain toxic
pollutants , radionuclides, and biotoxins (e.g., paralytic
shellfish poison, known commonly as PSP). Consequently,
shellfish can be used as practical
long-term indicators of water quality and the effectiveness of
pollution control efforts.
The criteria used to classify shellfish growing waters were
established by state health agencies and the shellfish
industry in consultation with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration under the national Shellfish Sanitation
Program. Waters that are free from fecal contamination
industrial wastes, radioactive elements, and biotoxins are
classified as "approved for commercial shellfish harvesting."
"Conditionally approved" waters may be closed when
seasonal increases in population, freshwater runoff
containing contaminants at certain times of the year, or
temporary malfunctioning of wastewater treatment plants
result in failure to meet the criteria. Waters found to be
contaminated or suspected of being contaminated, which
would produce shellfish unsafe for human consumption, are
classified as "closed."
The trend data contained in Figure 1 (on the following
page) suggests that environmental programs aimed at
protecting commercial shellfish beds have had limited
success. This is particularly true in Washington State,
where fewer acres were approved for shellfish harvest in
1985 than in 1970,1974, and 1980. This does not indicate
that individual control programs directed at specific shellfish
areas have not been successful. However, any individual
successes have apparently been offset by the appearance
of new problems in other areas. Any new closures occurring
during recent years may simply be due to the stresses
caused by a growing population, and the recent spread of
PSP.
Most of the closures in Washington and Oregon are due to
bacterial contamination, whereas most closures in Alaska
result from naturally high levels of paralytic shellfish poison.
Many of the bacterial sources in Washington and Oregon
result from NPS activities. As EPA and state water quality
agencies focus more strongly in the future on NPS controls,
it is expected that the number of acres (or percentage) of
shellfish beds classed as approved would increase. It may
also be valuable in the future to track the production of
shellfish per acre for approved or conditionally approved
areas to determine if productivity decreases, increases, or
remains constant.
Table 6 (on the following page) provides a more detailed
description of the status of shellfish production areas by
state for 1985. The National Shellfish Register, which was
the source of this information, is currently being updated.
The update will be completed in 1989.
6. .Water Quality Index (WQI)
The WQI developed by Region 10, and incorporated into
the March 1983 Environmental Management Report, should
continue to be used as a measure for determining river
segment status. The value of using this index is that it
integrates information on a number of different parameters
reflecting the overall condition of the segment.
There are three major drawbacks to using this index.
First, the time and resources needed to compute the index
make it impractical to calculate for all water segments.
Therefore, it will be necessary to use the index only on
"indicator" segments. This is not a major concern, as long
as the index is calculated for segments of exceptional
ecological value , segments which have recognized pollution
problems (e.g., water quality-limited segments), and
segments which are representative of those not in either
category above.
The second drawback is that the index primarily focuses
on water quality criteria, which tend to reflect water column
measures. The index thus does not consider habitat
condition (for example, the suitability of a stream reach for
salmonid spawning or rearing). This drawback could be
overcome by using the WQI in association with a habitat
condition index. While no generally accepted habitat
condition index exists, the OWP will continue to explore this
possibility through contact with fishery resource agencies.
The third drawback is that the general public has no
intuitive understanding of the WQI. This creates difficulty in
-------
STATUS OF SHELLFISH GROWING AREAS
1
<
Classified Areas In Oregon
196O
YEAR
CONDfTIONAL
1935
CLOSED
< jj
fc
260
STATUS OF SHELLFISH GROWING AREAS
Classified Areas in Washington
197O
APPROVED
1974
1980
YEAR
CONDITIONAL
1985
CLOSED
Figure 1.
Trends in the status of classified shellfish growing areas in
Washington and Oregon.
8(a)
-------
Chapter 1: Surface Waters
Table 6
Status of Classified Shellfish Beds in Washington State, 1985
Values are in acres.
Ant Approved Prohibited Conditional Restricted Totals Area Approved
Strait of Georgia
Bellingham Bay
Samish Island
Similk Bay
Portage Island
Lumrni Bay
Drayton Harbor
Point Roberts
Westcott Bay
East Sound
Henry Island
Shoal Bay
Totals
Strait of Juan de
Dungeness
Port Angeles
Sequim Bay
Totals
Admiralty Inlet
Livingston Bay
Skagit Bay
Penn Cove
Discovery Bay
Port Townsend
Hadlock
Oak Bay
Kilisut Harbor
LJplip Point
Olele Point
Useless Bay
Everett
Mats Mats
Colvos
Squamish
Case Shoal
Sisters
Thomdyke
Prohibited Conditional Restricted
Totals
Admiralty Inlet (continued)
0
2424
2616
510
2487
0
191
255
140
149
276
9048
Fuca
1183
0
2080
4263
6120
8242
0
9139
459
31
367
1112
306
50
571
0
15
204
82
112
112
245
Toandos Penninsula2142
Big Beef
Lone Rock
Misery
Stavis
Triton Cove
McDaniel Cove
Ouckabush
Sylopash
Quilcene
Bolton Penninsula
Little Boston
Indianola
408
255
40
459
204
82
214
612
918
143
286
469
1723
0
0
0
51
0
0
0
0
0
0
1774
0
2275
337
2612
2550
0
1020
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2999
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
204
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
319
0
0
0
0
0
319
0
0
0
0
0
0
439
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1723
2424
2616
510
2538
319
191
255
140
149
240
11,141
1183
2275
3417
6875
8670
8242
1459
9139
459
31
367
1112
306
50
571
2999
15
204
82
112
112
245
2142
408
255
40
459
204
82
214
612
1122
143
286
469
Suquamish
Agate Point
Port Orchard
Brownsville
Liberty Bay
Elliott Bay
Totals
Puget Sound
Burfey Lagoon
Miller Creek
Fox Island
Filucy Bay
Nisqually Reach
Wilson Point
McMichen
Oakland Bay
Allen Bank
Dolphin Point
Glen Acres
Sinclair Inlet
Ostrich Bay
Elliot Bay
Olympia
194
122
2183
30
0
0
35,928
0
0
51
60
122
316
40
82
153
306
143
0
0
0
0
Commencement Bay 0
Glen Cove
Wyckoff Shoal
Nisqually Flats
LJIIiwaup
Musquett
Annas Bay
Case Inlet
Vaughn Bay
Oakland Bay
McLane
Dougall Point
Henderson
Peale Passage
Eld Inlet
Oyster Bay
Hood Canal
Squaxin Passage
Totals
Grays Harbor
Willapa Bay
Columbia River-
0
592
520
153
214
979
1387
275
71
20
0
0
500
31
2907
520
979
10,421
0
87402
65
0
0
0
0
2417
1907
11,097
480
93
0
0
0
0
0
1224
0
0
0
3233
836
1196
1081
5579
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
194
163
0
0
0
0
0
14,125
16761
2552
0
0
0
0
0
224
0
663
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
602
43085
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
194
122
2183
30
2641
1907
47,688
480
93
51
60
122
316
40
1306
153
306
143
3233
836
1196
1081
5579
46
592
520
153
214
979
1387
275
71
20
194
163
500
633
2907
520
979
25,148
59,846
89,954
65
Destruction Island
its use as a means of conveying to the public the nature and
extent of water quality problems. This drawback can be
partially overcome by using the WQI in association with
other indicators with which the public can more readily
identify.
ESD will be assisting in generating WQI values for key and
representative stream reaches for inclusion into future
Environmental Management Reports. The management
goal for this indicator would be maintenance or improvement
of water quality in each segment, with no exceedances of
water quality criteria for any of the parameters used in
computing the index.
7. Pacific Northwest Rivers Study
The Pacific Northwest Rivers Study generated a major
data base which should be used as a Region-wide indicator
(excluding Alaska, which was not included in the study). The
study was initiated to assess the significance of river
segments for a variety of environmental values. The
express purpose of the study was to identify environmental
and institutional considerations which might have a bearing
on hydropower development in the Pacific Northwest.
Information produced through this study will provide input
into a variety of regional and state power planning and
resource management activities. The inventory covered
resident fish resources, wildlife resources, natural features,
cultural features, and recreational resources. Of primary
concern to EPA are the resident fish, wildlife.and
recreational resources. In addition, BPA, which funded the
-------
Chapter 1: Surface Waters
study, is currently developing a comparable data base for
anadromous fish.
Once completed, responsibility for keeping the data base
current will be left up to state resource agencies. Funding
from BPA grants will initially help states to maintain and
update the data base.
Information from the data base can be analyzed over time
to determine if the value of these resources are increasing,
decreasing, or maintaining the status quo over time. A
short-term management goal would be the maintenance or
improvement of resource values, with a long-term goal of
attaining potential resource values in each segment.
Resource values have not yet been identified, however.
The information base developed during this study is
available on diskettes and has been obtained by the Region.
The output is extensive, thus the entire data base will not be
included in this report. Instead, one page from the summary
of the information on resource values for the state of Idaho
is used as an example of the type of information available,
and of the types of uses to which the information may be put
(Appendix 2).
The rationale for using Idaho as a case example is that
the recreational and resident fishery values have been
proposed for use in that state to implement the water quality
standards. Idaho has for the last two years been under
pressure from EPA to adopt an antidegradation policy which
meets minimum federal requirements. Before adopting a
new policy, however, a task force consisting of
representatives from state and federal agencies, the forest
products industry, the agricultural community, environmental
groups, and Indian tribes, has attempted to develop
workable implementation procedures. One of the major
issues facing the task force was to identify "high quality"
waters which would be subject to the requirements of the
new policy. Eventually, the task force decided to use the
resource values resulting from the Pacific Northwest Rivers
Study as the best indicator of where high value resident
fishery and recreational uses exist. The result was
development of a proposed classification system that, if
used by the state, may have a profound effect on water
quality management decisions.
Basin Pilot Projects
Many of the potential indicators considered by OWP were
very specific to certain types of pollution problems. These
indicators would not be valuable when applied to the Region
or a state as a whole, but may be the best parameter to
track in terms of observing the results of pollution control
efforts in a particular waterbody (whether that waterbody is
an entire estuary, a small embayment, a river basin, a
stream reach, or whatever).
To explore the concept of using indicators which reflect
the particular environmental problems present In a specific
basin, and as an opportunity to test the use of innovative
indicators, the OWP developed sets of indicators for the
Yakima and Tualatin River basins. In defining the indicators
to be used in these basins, we have attempted to focus on
those factors limiting the full attainment of beneficial uses.
This "limiting factor approach will provide the focus for
future OWP development of environmental indicators. The
OWP expanded the pilot basin effort to also include the
Grays Harbor estuary and Chehalis River basin. The Grays
Harbor/Chehalis River effort will not be complete, however,
until the Fall of 1989, when the Washington Departments of
Fisheries and Ecology complete their joint studies on the
cause of reduced survival in coho salmon originating in the
Chehalis River basin.
Yakima River Basin
Numerous human activities in the Yakima basin potentially
affect beneficial uses. These activities cause increased
sedimentation, removal of streambank vegetation, lowering
of streambank stability, temperature increases, nutrient
increases, elevated levels of toxic pollutants, and other
impacts.
Indicators:
1. Number of Smolts Produced
Yakima Indian Nation fishery biologists have compiled
statistics on the total number of wild anadromous fish smolts
produced in the basin. This indicator reflects the overall
production of the basin relative to its estimated production
potential, and thus integrates concerns on the physical,
chemical, and biological integrity of the system. This
measure should be of great social and economic interest to
the public, with people able to readily grasp its significance.
Therefore, it is potentially a good indicator for use on a
Region-wide basis. Unfortunately, information on smolt
production is not presently available throughout the Region.
If the Yakima pilot evaluation demonstrates that this is a
useful indicator, state water quality agencies and EPA may
wish to encourage other agencies to obtain more
widespread information on smolt production.
Production of salmon smolts will vary not only in response
to natural phenomena, but also to a broad range of human
activities ranging from logging and agricultural activities, to
hydropower projects, to ocean harvest strategies. As such,
it serves as an indicator of society's overall effort to restore
and maintain surface water resources. While this makes it
more difficult to assess the results of any single pollution
control program, it also provides insight into the relationship
of EPA programs to those of other agencies. This may
affect how states and EPA conduct and prioritize pollution
control efforts. For example, if hydro developments are the
limiting factor to smolt production in one basin, it may not
make sense to undertake large-scale agricultural control
programs in that basin, even though agricultural pollution
degrades water quality. It may be more beneficial to focus
efforts in another basin where water quality is less impacted
by, as an example, past mining practices, but where greater
resource returns are possible because the mining impacts
are the factor limiting smolt production.
Estimates of the number of wild Chinook and steelhead
smolts produced in the Yakima River basin are available for
1983 through 1986 (Figure 2). Also presented are the
number of spring chinook returning to the Yakima River
basin between 1957 and 1986 (Figure 3), and the total
estimated egg deposition for chinook salmon in the basin for
10
-------
Chapter 1: Surface Waters
1981-1986 (Figure 4). This latter information is included as
it in part helps explain the pattern of smolt production. It is
estimated that the production capability for the basin is
upwards of 2,000,000 smolts. The desired management
objective would be to attain this level of smolt production.
2. Temperature
Rearing juvenile salmon are typically absent from the
lower 108 miles of the Yakima River in July and August.
This is reportedly due to high temperatures. Temperature
increases above natural levels primarily result from loss of
streambank vegetation, reductions in water volume during
the summer months, and irrigation return flows.
While temperature can easily be tracked over time to
determine trends, it is a surrogate in that it does not directly
measure impacts to beneficial uses. Temperature data
collected during a 1986 U.S.G.S. synoptic survey of water
quality in the Yakima River is presented in Figure 5.
Temperatures above 19-20°C can adversely affect trout and
salmon. The Washington Water Quality Standards allow
temperatures of 21 °C in the lower Yakima River (this is a
special condition in the standards). As can be seen from the
figure, temperatures in the lower Yakima River exceed both
the levels which adversely affect salmonids and the
Washington Water Quality Standards. The management
objective for this indicator should be the reduction of
temperature to levels below those known to adversely affect
salmonids wherever possible.
3. Nutrients
Significant sources of nutrients to the Yakima are irrigation
return flows, sewage treatment plant discharges, and urban
and agricultural runoff. The profound impact of the irrigation
return flows is evident from the nutrient trend data compiled
by the U.S.G.S. during their 1986 synoptic survey. The
sudden and drastic increase seen in the downstream
portions of the river are the direct result of major return flows
(Figures 6-10).
The high nutrient concentrations in the lower Yakima River
contribute to excessive growths of algae and macrophytes.
This may result in impairment of aesthetic and recreational
enjoyment of river waters. The management goal for this
indicator should be the reduction of nutrients to levels which
no longer adversely affect beneficial uses.
Since the nutrients come primarily from irrigation waters,
nutrient concentrations in the river waters may correlate with
concentrations of pesticides used for agricultural purposes.
The U.S.G.S. is pursuing efforts to establish such a
relationship.
U.S.G.S. is proposing to conduct long-term monitoring of
both temperature and nutrient concentrations In the Yakima
basin as part of its National Water Quality Assessment.
Thus these indicators can be tracked over an extended time.
4. Riparian Vegetation Inventory
While available only for portions of the Yakima River
basin, the status of riparian vegetation can be a valuable
indicator of the quality of stream habitats. Logging,
uncontrolled grazing, and urbanization along streambanks
can significantly degrade the quality of streamside habitat by
destroying the vegetative cover. Destruction of riparian
vegetation will reduce streambank stability, causing
increased sedimentation and changing stream morphology.
Shallower, wider streams may result, which are more
susceptible to high temperatures, flooding, and erosion.
Increased sedimentation also adversely affects salmonid
spawning areas, and may fill in pools and other valuable
habitat. Bank overhangs and overhanging vegetation are
lost, resulting in less protection from predators and less food
for rearing fish.
On the Yakima River, the Washington Department of
Fisheries (WDF) has conducted some limited surveys of
riparian habitat. Tracking the riparian vegetation overtime
will allow evaluation of the effectiveness of efforts to restore
the quality of instream habitat. Efforts to map riparian
vegetation have focused on identifying areas which have
been disturbed, and are still incomplete at this time. As a
result, the data from WDF has not been put on a map for
inclusion in this report. However, OWP is strongly
encouraging WDF and USGS to complete and compile this
information, as a critical component of aquatic life habitat.
5. Toxics Concentrations
The importance of agriculture in the Yakima basin has
resulted in widespread application of pesticides to protect
crops. Surveys by the Washington Department of Ecology
have shown that, despite a ban on the use of DDT,
significant quantities of DDT and its metabolites, along with
RGBs, are still present in the sediments and organisms of
the Yakima River in high concentrations relative to other
areas of the state of Wahington (Figures 11-15). These
contaminants, and the pesticide dieldrin, are at or close to
levels which impair aquatic life (they often exceed EPA's
chronic criteria for aquatic life in tributary streams) and which
may be of concern to humans eating fish from the river and
its tributaries (see Figures 16-18).
Pollutant concentrations increase downstream, and are
higher during the irrigation season, reflecting their
agricultural origin. Continued measurement of pesticide
levels will indicate when inputs of these pesticides to the
river decline to levels at which there are no longer any
aquatic life or human health concerns. It will also provide a
baseline and early warning system should levels of other
toxic pollutants still being used begin to reach levels which
threaten aquatic life or human health.
11
-------
Q
Z
O
C/)
KjE
UJ O
CD
D
OUTMIGRATION OF WILD SALMONIDS
At Prosser Dam, 1983—1986
170
1983
1984
1985
1986
YEARS
FALL CHINOOK
SPRING CHINOOK + FALL CHINOOK O
Figure 2. Estimated outmigration of wild salmonids at Prosser Dam, 1983-1986.
STEELHEAD
-------
'J~) ^
—f 4/)
~l
o N
U v,
< c
6 -
4 -
3 -
2 --
0
57
ESTIMATED SPRING CHINOOK RUNS
YAKIMA RV. ADULT VS. REDD COUNT
60
H 1 H-1-
~T~
63
~T~
66
T~
69
~T
72
YEARS
ADULT
~I r~
75
REDD
~T~
78
•>—r
81
-i 1 r
84
Figure 3. Estimated spring chinook runs and total number of redds in the
Yakima River Basin, 1957-1986.
-------
o
U
U_
°^
C o
UJ .2
in =
o
EGG DEPOSITION IN THE YAKIMA BASIN
1981-1986
1981
1982
1983
YEAR
+ NACHES R.
1984
1985
D AMERICAN R. + NACHES R. O YAKIMA R.
Figure 4. Estimated total egg deposition in the Yakima River Basin, 1981-1986.
198S
-------
NAWQA SYNOPTIC SAMPLING
YAKIMA RIVER — AUGUSt 1986
25
2-H
g 23 H
LJ
O
LJ
ce
O
LJ
Q 21
LJ
o:
1
££
LJ
Q_
ce
20 H
17 ^
16-
1615,
1430
500
1600
1140
1400
1000
0830
200
180
160
120
80
140 120 100
RIVER MILES, ABOVE MOUTH
60
40
20
Figure 5. Temperature measurements for the Yakima River during the August 1986
synoptic sampling by the U.S.G.S. The synoptic survey was part ot the
U.S.G.S. National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Pilot Survey of the
Yakima River basin. Numbers represent sampling times { 2400 Hrs ).
-------
NAWQA SYNOPTIC SAMPLING
YAKIMA RIVER — AUGUST 1986
CD
0.06
I
0.05-
Q:
0.04-
O
^ 0.03H
< 0.02
2
O
0.01-
^
0.00-
I/ \
^ I ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
\ I \/ \
200 180
—I—
160
—I—
140
120 100
—T~
80
60
~T~
40
20
RIVER MILES, ABOVE MOUTH
Figure 6. Ammonia concentrations in the Yakima River during the U.S.G.S.
August 1986 synoptic survey.
-------
SYNOPTIC SAMPUNG — AUGUST, 1986
200
120 100 80
YAKIMA RIVER MILE
60
40
20
Figure 7. Organic and ammonia nitrogen concentrations in the Yakima River
during the U.S.G.S. August 1986 synoptic survey.
-------
SYNOPTIC SAMPLING — AUGUST, 1986
1.4
*-*•
o
1 -
0.8 -
0.6 -
hi 0.4 -
0.2 -
o-e e—o o
200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
YAKIMA RIVER MILE
Figure 8. Nitrite + Nitrate concentrations in the Yakima River during the U.S.G.S
August 1986 synoptic survey.
-------
SYNOPTIC SAMPLING — AUGUST, 1986
0.20
a
Q.
0.15
Q."
sa
o
CL
-------
SYNOPTIC SAMPLING -- AUGUST, 1986
0.06
0.05 -
Q.
00
0.04 -
o
3
0.03 -
O
0.02 -
0.01
200
140 120 100 80
YAKIMA RIVER MILE
60 40
20
Figure 10. Ammonium concentrations in the Yakima River during the U.S.G.S. August
1986 synoptic survey.
-------
(D
(,1
z
o
o
h-
Q
Q
TOTAL DDT LEVELS IN PREDATOR SPECIES
1984 BWMP SAMPLING PROGRA.M - WA STATE
26
24 -
22 -
2O -
1B -
1 6 -
14 -
12 -
1O -
S -
6 -
4 -
2 -
0
Skagit R.
Green R.
Yakirna R. Yakima R.
at at
Birchfield Kiona
i "—1 r~
Lake Chelan Columbia R. Walla Walla R.
Wenatchee R. Okanagon R. Palouse R.
EDIBLE TISSUE
RIVER LOCATION
LIVER TISSUE
Figure 11. Total DOT levels in predator fish species in rivers sanpled as part of the state
of Washington's 1984 Basic Water Monitoring Program (BWMP).
-------
I
o
LJ
£
ti
db
z
o
0
Q
Q
I
TOTAL DDT LEVELS
GRAZER SPECIES
15
14
13
12
1 1
10
7 ~
6 ~
5 -
4 -
3 -
2 -
1 -
19S4 BWMP SAMPLING PROGRAM - WA STATE
\
i x I \ I
SKAGFT GREEN YAKIM1 YAKIM2 WEN AT CHELAN OKANOG COLUMB PA LOUS WALLA
RIVER LOCATION
EDIBLE TISSUE
LIVER TISSUE
Figure 12. Total DDT levels in grazer fish species in rivers sanpled during Washington's
1984 BWMP.
-------
PCB LEVELS IN PREDATOR SPECIES
1984 BWMP SAMPLING PROGRAM - WA STATE
z -
1.9 -
1 .8 -
1 .7 -
^ 1.6 -
H 1.5 -
I
0 1 .4 -
LI
£ 1.3 -
^~£ 1.1 -
£"§
11 2 0.9 -
•~^> •»-
^C r\ ~7
o u-'
0 0.6 -
m
0 0.5 -
0.
O.4 -
0.3 -
0.2 -
0.1 -
~?~ I — <-.
^
^
1
s
^
1
//
\
X
^
//
\^
X
\\
X
\
1
k
1
^
\\
X
v \
1 / X. 1 | / \. i } i
1 1 1 1
SKAGfT GREEN YAKIM1 YAKIM2 WENAT CHELAN OKANOG COLUMB PALOUS WALLA
V/\ EDIBLE
RIVER LOCATION
LIVER
Figure 13. Tbtal PCB levels in predatory fish species in rivers sampled during Washington's
1'984
-------
I-
UJ
T]
o
z
o
o
m
o
CL
G.9 -
0.8 -
0.7 -
O.6 -
0.5 -
0.4 -
0.3
0.2
0.1 -
O
PCB LEVELS
GRAZER SPECIES
1984 BWMP SAMPLING PROGRAM - WA STATE
SKAGIT GREEN YAKIM1 YAKIM2 WEN AT CHELAN OKANOG COLUMB PA LOUS WALLA
RIVER LOCATION
EDIBLE P\
LIVER
Figure 14. PCB levels in grazer fish species in rivers sampled during Washington's
1984 BWMP.
-------
m
Q.
Q.
O
z
O
O
Q
I
TOTAL DDT LEVELS IN WASHINGTON SEDIMENT
110
1QQ -
90 -
8Q -
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
O
1 984 BWMP SAMPLING PROGRAM
T
i i i r ' ' fi
SKAGHT GREEN YAKIM1 YAKIM2 WENAT CHELAN QKANQG COLUMB PALOUS WALLA
RIVER LOCATION
Figure 15. Total DDT levels in sediment from rivers sampled as part of the state of
Washington's 1984 Basic Water Monitoring Program (BWMP).
-------
0 O
z
O
O
I
O
O
PESTICIDE/PCB RESIDUES IN RESIDENT SPP.
Muscle Tissue — Yakima River 1985
5QG
4QQ -
300 -
200 -
1OO -
O
CLE ELUM
WYMER
I
BUENA
I
KIQNA
t-DDT
CONTAMINANT
"\1 Dieldrin
PCB
Figure 16. Pesticide and PCB concentrations in the muscle tissue of resident aquatic organisms
from four locations in the Yakiraa River during 1985. Stations are arranged sequentially
from upstream ( on the far left ) to downstream ( on the far right ).
-------
<—\
+->
V
I?
3 C
I—• tl
3
o
I-
<
o
o
PESTICIDE/PCB RESIDUES IN RESIDENT SPP.
Whole Tissue — Yakima River 1985
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1 .4
1 .3
1 2 -
1 1
1
O.9
O.S
O.7
O.6
0.5
O.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
—I
CLE ELUM
WYMER
T~
BUENA
KIOMA
t-DDT
CONTAMINANT
\] Dieldrin
PCB
Figure 17. Pesticide and PCB concentrations in resident aquatic organisms from four locations
in the Yakima River during 1985. Values shown reflect whole tissue .concentrations.
-------
INCIDENCE OF PESTIC.JE CONTAMINATION
Water Samples From Yaklma River
1— '
I— »
-O
D
u.u/ —
0.06 -
~ 0.05 -
N,
3
^ 0.04 -
U
z
0
o
UJ 0.03 -
Q
O
P
LJ
Q. 0.02 -
0.01 -
0 -
1
v • — • — • — — — — • '
D
I
A
S D
A
+ + n
X
X
X
]
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
RIVER SITES
6/24 + 6/24 0 7/2 A 8/5 X 8/5 V 8/21
T-DDT Dieldrin T-DDT T-DDT Dieldrin T-DDT
Figure 18. Concentrations of total DDT and dieldrin in water from the Yakima River and selected
tributaries and irrigation return drains, June - October, 1985.
1 = Cle Elum 2 = Wilson Crk. 3 = Naches River 4 = Birchfield drain 5 = Wide Hallow Crk.
6 = Ahtanum Crk. 7 = Parker 8 = Granger drain 9 = Marion drain 10 = Tbppenish Crk.
11 = Satus Crk. 12 = Sulphur Crk. 13 = Spring/Snipes Crk. 14 = Kiona
-------
Chapter 1: Surface Waters
Tualatin River Basin
The Tualatin River serves as an Important resource to a
growing population. Industries use the river for
manufacturing. Farmers use the river for crop irrigation.
Anglers and boaters use the river for recreation. The
Tualatin provides drinking water to Forest Grove, Hlllsboro,
and Beaverton. These uses depend on good water quality.
The Tualatin's water quality, however, is a growing
concern. Low dissolved oxygen caused by ammonia
discharges from sewage treatment plants threatens aquatic
life. Heavy algae growth in the slow-moving river is "fed" by
nutrients, such as fertilizers, and discourages recreational
use. There is also a concern about toxics in the river as new
industry moves into the area.
Population in the Tualatin River basin has increased
dramatically in recent years from 60,000 in 1950 to 250,000
today. Population is projected to reach 350,000 by the year
2000. Without taking significant actions to reduce pollution
in the basin, the population growth alone will cause further
degradation of water quality. The proposed indicators in the
Tualatin River track known pollution problems. While a
number of management actions have been taken in the past
to reduce pollutant loadings, problems still remain. New
indicators will probably be developed in the future, as new
problems become evident. A current study by the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality included collection of
sediment and fish tissue samples for analysis of toxic
pollutants. Since the large population growth anticipated is
likely to result in increased loading of toxics to the river, it
would seem prudent to add the baseline levels of toxics as
an additional indicator, once this information is available.
1. Dissolved Oxygen Levels
Fishing is a popular sport in the basin. Trout and bass
need adequate levels of oxygen to live. Low levels of
dissolved oxygen can eventually kill off fish and other
aquatic life. The stretch of the Tualatin River below Rock
Creek violates dissolved oxygen standards during the
summer, when the river water level is low and temperatures
are warm (Figure 19).
The low dissolved oxygen (DO) levels observed in the
lower Tualatin River primarily result from the discharge of
oxygen-demanding ammonia from two sewage treat plants.
Intensive studies of the water quality problems In the
Tualatin River are currently underway. A major goal of the
study is to identify appropriate levels of ammonia which the
river can assimilate without damaging aquatic resources.
The relationship between DO and ammonia
concentrations is illustrated in Figure 19. The large inputs of
ammonia from the two sewage treatment plants create
obvious increases in ammonia concentrations in the river.
These increases in ammonia, especially near the Rock
Creek Treatment Plant, contribute heavily to the observed
DO depression. As ammonia inputs to the river are reduced
in the future, the DO levels should show a corresponding
increase. The goal in reducing ammonia inputs would be to
prevent levels of DO below the water quality criterion.
2. Nutrients/Chlorophyll a:
Excessive nutrient inputs to the Tualatin River cause
blooms of algae and macrophytes, which in turn affect use
of the river for recreation. Figure 20 indicates that the two
sewage treatment plants also are major contributors of
nutrients to the river. Other sources include agricultural and
urban runoff.
Oregon recently adopted a chlorophyll a action level.
Measuring chlorophyll a indicates the amount of
phytoplankton in the river. As nutrient inputs become
excessive, the amount of phytoplankton in the water also
becomes excessive. This is reflected by the measurements
of chlorophyll a concentrations in the Tualatin River during
summer of 1986 (Figure 20). As nutrient inputs to the river
are reduced in the future, chlorophyll a levels would be
expected to remain below the state's action level.
12
-------
Z
5°
O) •<
— a:
o
z
o
o
WATER QUALITY DATA (TMDL) - TUALATIN R.
11
1O -
9 -
8 -
7 -
6 -
5 -
4 -
3 -
T _
JUNE-SEPT 1986
Dissolved Oxygen Profile
Rock Creek WTP
D.O. Criterion 6mg/l
Averaged values from
ambient and intensive surveys
for the Tualatin River
during the low flow period of
June-September 1986
Durham WTP
Total N
Ammonia as N
<»—o
Nitrite + Nitrate as N
80.0
60.0
40.0
RIVER MILE
20.0
0.0
Figure 19. Dissolved oxygen and nutrient concentrations in the lower Tualatin River
during June-September, 1986.
-------
3
O
d
Q_
O
o:
z
O
WATER QUALITY DATA - TUALATIN RIVER
CHLOROPHYLL a CONCENTRATIONS - 1986
27
25
23
21
RIVER MILE
Figure 20. Chlorophyll a. concentrations in the lower Tualatin River during July - September,
1986, relative to the action level specified in Oregon's Water Quality Standards.
-------
Chapter 1: Surface Waters
Chehalis River Basin/
Grays Harbor Estuary
Recent studies have shown that juvenile coho salmon
migrating to sea via the Chehalis River/Grays Harbor in
Washington State only survive to adulthood at half the rate
as juvenile coho salmon from other coastal rivers. The loss
to the commercial and recreational fishery is estimated at
one million dollars per year. Although not quantified, the
impacts to the Chinook salmon and steelhead trout fisheries
are believed to be greater. This resource loss represents
one of the major environmental problems faced by
Region 10.
If the problem is found to be toxics-related, as is
suspected, these studies may have enormous implications
for both state and EPA toxics control programs. Smolting
salmon are typically much more sensitive to toxics than are
other organisms (including rainbow trout) routinely used in
biomonitoring tests. Initial priority pollutant scans in Grays
Harbor, however, have not detected any criteria violations.
It is thus possible that EPA may be faced with the need to
control toxics in effluents much more stringently than
previously thought necessary.
While point source dischargers to the lower river and
harbor (primarily pulp mills and municipal treatment facilities)
have been accused of causing the problem, the actual cause
is unknown at this time. Other factors potentially causing or
contributing to the reduced survival are nonpoint source
activities (agriculture, forest practices, urban runoff, landfills)
and potential Superfund sites.
Local, state, and federal agencies have joined together
with industry, tribal groups, and others to Identify the cause
for the poor salmon survival. An Initial pilot study of the
nature of the problem has already begun. Funding and in-
kind support provided to date exceed $100,000. Legislative
Interest is also high, resulting in a recent appropriation of
$400,000 to the Washington Department of Fisheries to fund
a comprehensive study to determine why fish from the
Chehalis River basin suffer the reduced survival. Additional
funding aimed at identifying and characterizing point and
nonpoint pollution sources, conducting bioassays using
smelting salmon, and characterizing ambient water quality,
will be conducted to identify any necessary regulatory
controls.
The initial information which documented the salmon
survival problem was based upon the rates at which fish
from the Chehalis River basin and an adjacent, undeveloped
river basin (the Humptulips River basin) are caught in the
ocean fishery. This was determined by tagging outmigrating
smolts from both river basins, and later recovering tags from
the ocean fishery catch. The Humptulips River, which flows
into the outer, unpolluted portion of Grays Harbor, provides
a suitable control site. If the mortality problem in Chehalis
River coho salmon is due to anthropogenic effects, the rate
at which fish are caught in the ocean fishery will be a
valuable environmental indicator of relative survival, and will
be useful in tracking positive effects of any future
management actions to control pollution sources
(Figures 21-22). The management goal for this indicator
would be to produce comparable survival rates in fish
emanating from the two basins, unless the reduced survival
is found to result from natural or uncontrollable conditions.
13
-------
Chapter 1: Surface Waters
The pilot studies conducted during 1987 indicated that
Na-ATPase levels in fish migrating downstream from the
Chehalis River become depressed upon reaching inner
Grays Harbor (Figures 23-24). Normally, Na-ATPase levels
increase as juveniles prepare to migrate downstream, and
continue to rise as the smolts migrate into and through
estuaries. Fish migrating down the Humptulips River show
this typical pattern. Fish migrating down the Chehalis River,
however, show a significant depression in Na-ATPase when
they reach the head of the estuary (at Cow Point/Rennie
Island). Levels then begin to rise again as the fish continue
to move farther out into the estuary. Na-ATPase levels are
known to be sensitive to certain pollutants, such as
chlorinated phenols and copper, which are present in Grays
Harbor. Lowered Na-ATPase levels would be expected to
reduce the ability of smolts to adjust to seawater.
Physiological effects associated with lowered levels include
decreased liver function, increased red blood cell fragility,
increased reticulocyte counts, and decreased energy levels.
Na-ATPase levels may thus be a sensitive indicator of
pollution control efforts.
The major concern with the use of this Indicator is that
there is not presently an established relationship between
Na-ATPase levels and decreased survival of smolts.
Hopefully, this relationship will be more closely established
(or refuted) during the two-year study.
Smolt production in the Chehalis River basin should also
be a valuable indicator of the effectiveness of environmental
control programs. This information is available for the upper
basin (above the Black River) for four years (Table 7). This
indicator will not be affected by any pollution controls
affecting the lower Chehalis River and Grays Harbor.
However, it will reflect any changes in the production
capabilities of the upper watershed. Estimates of coho
salmon escapement to the basin are also included as they
help explain variation in smolt production (Table 8). The
management goal for smolt production in the upper Chehalis
River basin should be to reach the estimated production
potential of 1,000,000 smolts.
Table 7
Coho salmon smolt productipn in the upper Chehalis River basin (upstream of the Black River).
Estimated production potential is 1,000,000 smolts.
Smolt Production
1976
116,000
Year
1977
47,000
1986
700,000
1987
*400,000
'Due to the low escapement of fish in 1985, and thus a low production of eggs, 3,000,000 coho fry were planted in the upper
Chehalis basin.
Table 8
Estimates of
Escapement
recent coho salmon escapement to
1984
110,000
the Chehalis River basin.
Year
1985
10,000
1986
6,000-35,000
14
-------
Oi
o
o
o
D
<
o
UJ
O
o:
LJ
CL
2.4
2.2 -i
PERCENT CATCH IN OCEAN FISHERIES
Hatchery Coho Salmon
198Q
I
1981
\
1982
\
1983
YEAR
CHEHALIS R.
|\\j HUMPTULIPS R.
Figure 21. Relative survival of hatchery coho salmon from the Chehalis and Hurtptulips Rivers,
1980-1983, as indicated by the percentage of tagged fish caught in the ocean fishery.
-------
a
o
o
I-
o
D
<
O
LJ
O
o:
LJ
Q.
PERCENT CATCH IN OCEAN FISHERIES
Wild Coho Salmon
4
3.5 -
3 -
2.5 -
1 .5 -
1 ~
0.5 -,
O
19SG
1981
YEAR
CHEHALIS R.
1982
HUMPTULIPS R.
1983
Figure 22. Relative survival of wild coho salmon from the Chehalis and Hunptulips Rivers,
1380-1983, as indicated by the percentage of tagged fish caught in the ocean fishery.
-------
COHO SALMON: SODIUM ATP-ase LEVELS
CHEHALIS RIVER/INNER GRAYS HARBOR
4O -I
-P=«
O
00
4)
tt
0
I
CL
D
a
o
(f)
10 -
O
I
STILL TR
I
MAIN CHE
COW/REN
MOON IS
I
S. CHANN
LOCATION
Figure 23. Sodium ATP-ase levels in Coho salmon migrating from the Chelialis River Basin through
inner Grays Harbor, May 1987. Stations sampled were : Still Tr = Stillinan Creek,
Main Che = mainstream Chehalis River at RM. 35, Cow/Ren = Cow Point/Rennie Island,
Moon Island, and S. Chann = South Channel.
-------
COHO SALMON: SODIUM ATP-ase LEVELS
HUMFTULIPS RIVER/NO. BAY GRAYS HARBOR
50 -
00
CD
4)
M
0
I
2
Q
O
CO
4O -
3Q -
20 -
10 -
O
STEVN TR
ESTU UP
ESTU MID
ESTU LOW
LOCATION
Figure 24. Sodium ATP-ase levels in echo salmon migrating from the Hunptulips River basin
through North Bay of Grays Harbor, May 1987. Station locations were at Stevens
Creek, and in the upper, middle, and lower portions of North Bay.
-------
Chapter 1: Surface Waters
Surface Water Environmental Indicators
FY '88 and Beyond
There appeared to be general agreement that the surface
water environmental indicators presented to Dick Bauer by
the Office of Water Planning for FY 87 were appropriate and
would provide useful information on the status of water
quality in the region. Specific indicators suggested for
inclusion in future annual summaries were
(1) The percentage of permits issued containing
biomonitoring requirements; and
(2) The loadings of pollutants to WQL segments broken
down into point and nonpoint source components.
In addition, it was requested that
(3) Stream maps showing the trend of water quality (as
improving, degrading, or maintaining status quo) be
developed; and
(4) That the desired management goal for each indicator
be identified.
Item number 4 was done, with the goals incorporated into
the FY 87 annual report. Also discussed throughout the FY
87 report are future actions on environmental indicators by
the Office of Water Planning. Most of the significant actions
are summarized below as commitments for FY 88.
a. Submit 305(b) guidance to states.
b. Manage contractor effort to identify environmental
indicators for NPS.
c. Produce monitoring plans for national forests.
d. Develop near coastal water strategy for Oregon.
e. Pilot projects in two watersheds to identify management
goals, limiting factors, needed management actions,
and environmental indicators.
f. Evaluate adequacy of newly submitted 305(b) reports
and describe needed improvements.
g. Prepare status reports listing WQL segments and
pollutants of concern, and status of permits discharging
to WQL segments.
h. Pilot project for aerial lakeshore analysis in northern
Idaho.
15
-------
APPENDIX 1
-------
NPDES PERMIT CHECKLIST
NPDES # Facility Name
Receiving Water Flow Limits: Average
Waterbody Segment No. Max
Major Minor
I. Is b i onion i tor ing required as a permit condition?
YES NO
If so, check species used:
Rainbow trout Ceriodaphnia Fathead minnow
Selanastrum Oyster larvae Echinoderm larvae
Others(s) (please specify: )
Bioassay type: acute chronic Length of test:
Target effect: Lethality Other (Please specify:_
Does the permit contain effluent toxicity limits?
YES NO
If yes, what are the limits? (e.g. 80% survival at 657. effluent)
II. Is this permit contain water quality based limits?
YES NO
If yes, for which parameters?
Ammonia Chlorine
Zn pH
Other(s) (please specify:
Cu
DO
As
Temperature
)
III. Please indicate which (if any) toxic pollutants are limited (include
ammonia and chlorine):
New Permit Limits Old Permit Limits
Total Total
Pollutant Concentration Loading Concentration Loading
-------
IV. Was adequate ambient monitoring Information available to determine permit
limits?
YES NO
If not, what additional information is needed?
Will the permittee be required to collect ambient data?
YES NO
If so, what?
-------
APPENDIX 2
-------
16O1O1O2 BEAR RIVER (ABOVE WARDBORO)
SEGMENT 1 STREAM
SEGMENT
273.00 BEAR R
274.00 THOMAS FORK CR
275.00 PREUSS CR
276.00 DRY CR
277.00 GIRAFFE CR
16010201 BEAR RIVER
SEGMENT 1 STREAM
SEGMENT
252.00 ALEXANDER RES
253.00 BEAR R
254.00 SODA CR
255.00 BAILEY CR
256.00 EISHTMILE CR
257.00 PEARL CR
258.00 STAUFFER CR
259.00 COOP CR
260.00 GEORGETOWN CR
261.00 OVID CR
262.00 HONTPELIER CR
263.00 HONTPELIER RES
264.00 HONTPELIER CR
265.00 SNONSLIDE CR
266.00 PARIS CR
267.00 BLOOHINGTON CR
268.00 ST CHARLES CR
269.00 LITTLE CR
270.00 FISH HAVEN CR
16O102O2 BEAR RIVER
SEGMENT I STREAM
SEGMENT
230.00 THOMAS CR
231.00 BEAR R
231.01 LAHONT RES
231.02 JOHNSON RES
231.03 FOSTER RES
231.04 GLENDALE RES
232.00 BEAR R
233.00 BEAR R
234.00 ONE I DA NARROWS RES
235.00 BEAR R
236.00 BEAR R
LONER
BOUNDARY
MARDBORO
BEAR R
THOMAS FK
THOMAS FK
THOMAS FK
UPPER RE
BOUNDARY
WYOMING LINE
WYOMING LINE
HEADWATERS
HEADWATERS
HEADWATERS
SIOI
FISI
3
3
1
1
1
(ALEXANDER RES. TO WARDBORO)
LOWER
BOUNDARY
ALEXANDER RES
BEAR R
BEAR R
BEAR R
BEAR R
BEAR R
STAUFFER CR
BEAR R
BEAR R
BEAR R
HONTPELIER RES
HONTPELIER CR
BEAR R
REFUGE
REFUGE
BEAR LK
BEAR LK
(UT LINE TO
LOWER
BOUNDARY
BEAR R
UTAH LINE
HIGHWAY 91
MINK CR
ONE IDA RES
COVE POWER PLANT
UPPER RE
BOUNDARY
WARDBORO
HEADWATERS
HEADWATERS
HEADWATERS
HEADWATERS
HEADWATERS
HEADWATERS
HEADWATERS
HEADWATERS
HONTPELIER RES
HEADWATERS
HEADWATERS
HEADWATERS
HEADWATERS
HEADWATERS
ST CHARLES CR
HEADWATERS
ALEX.RESERV. )
UPPER RE
BOUNDARY
WYOMING LINE
HIGHWAY 91
MINK CR
ONE I DA DAM
COVE POWER PLANT
ALEXANDER DAM
SIDE
FISt
3
3
4
2
2
2
U
2
2
2
2
2
3
SID
FIS
U
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
3
1
NATURAL
WILDLIFE CULTURAL FEATURES RECREATION
NATURAL
WILDLIFE CULTURAL FEATURES RECREATION
NATURAL
WILDLIFE CULTURAL FEATURES RECREATION
U
1
U
U
U
U
2
[
3
3
2
U
4
U
U
U
U
2
2
U
4
2
-------
Chapter 2: Puget Sound
Puget Sound Estuary Program
Environmental Indicator Monitoring Strategy
Environmental Quality: Problem Statement
The quality of Puget Sound Is a gauge of our success in
environmental protection. Programs to control and prevent
water pollution, protect marine fish and shellfish, and
minimize risks to public health have long been In place In the
region. As a result, substantial progress has been made
toward controlling the discharges of many conventional
pollutants, and much of the estuary remains relatively
healthy and capable of supporting a broad range of
beneficial uses. However, continuing urban growth and
development are imposing ever-increasing demands upon
the Sound. There is growing evidence that serious water
quality problems remain.
Chemical Contamination: During the past few years,
high concentrations of priority pollutants and other potentially
harmful chemicals have been identified in the sediments of a
number of urban/industrial bays in Puget Sound. Relatively
little is known about the ways in which exposure to specific
chemicals affect marine life, however, recent surveys have
found increased frequencies of tumors and other
abnormalities in bottom-dwelling fish and invertebrates.
Data also indicates that significant levels of known
carcinogens are accumulating in the tissue of marine birds
and mammals. It is unclear to what extent humans are at
risk in consuming seafoods harvested from Puget Sound.
Bacterial Contamination: In recent years, the ability to
grow and harvest shellfish in Puget Sound has also been
increasingly affected by water quality problems. Although
recreational harvesting is still allowed, the entire eastern
shore of the estuary has been classified as uncertifiable for
commercial shellfish harvesting due to high levels of fecal
coliform bacteria in the water. The coliform bacteria are
generally harmless, however, they indicate the potential
presence of viruses and other harmful pathogens.
Habitat Loss and Degradation: The loss and
degradation of valuable habitat, including wetlands and fish
nursery areas, has occurred over the past several decades
in the Puget Sound region at an alarming rate. The full
impact of this loss on the biological productivity and the
stability of the estuary is not known, although experiences in
other parts of the nation indicate that impacts may be
substantial.
Background: The Puget Sound Estuary Program
As mandated in the Clean Water Act, the primary
function of the Puget Sound Estuary Program (PSEP) is to
characterize past and current environmental conditions,
facilitate development of a comprehensive management
strategy to address current pollution related problems, and
facilitate development of a long term, Sound-wide monitoring
program. In response to this mandate, PSEP has
sponsored a wide range of studies since 1985. The results
of these studies have added to our ability to characterize
current environmental conditions, and to understand the
nature, extent, and significance of pollution impacts on
estuarine resources. In addition, they provided the basis for
a variety of the recommendations contained in the Puget
Sound Water Quality Authority's (PSWQA) 1986 State of the
Sound Report and the PSWQA 1987 Comprehensive
Management Plan.
Although additional studies to characterize past and
present conditions will continue, Increased emphasis is now
being placed on the development of a program that can be
used to monitor future changes in environmental quality and
to track the effectiveness of pollution control efforts. The
following pages outline strategies by which environmental
conditions in the Sound can be monitored. Both a preferred
and an alternative strategy are presented (environmental
indicators, and proposed FY 88 commitments are identified
for each).
It will not be known until the fall of 1988 whether funds
will enable implementation of the preferred strategy, or
whether implementation of the alternative program will be
required. The preferred strategy proposes comprehensive
monitoring of a wide range of environmental indicators. This
strategy is currently being developed by PSWQA and the
Puget Sound Estuary Program, for implementation by the
State. The alternative approach, on the other hand,
proposes monitoring of only a limited number of
environmental parameters. Monitoring of "key
environmental indicators" would be the responsibility of the
Office of Puget Sound; monitoring of "supplementary
indicators" would be the responsibility of other agencies or
offices within EPA. Although reduced in scope, the
alternative strategy will enable the agency to track long-term
changes in environmental quality, and the effectiveness of
regulatory and management programs.
16
-------
Chapter 2: Puget Sound
Preferred Environmental Monitoring Strategy
In March 1988, PSEP and PSWQA will complete the
design of a comprehensive monitoring program for Puget
Sound. Currently in draft form, the program proposes
routine monitoring of a wide variety of physical, chemical,
and biological variables. The plan, which will build on and
augment existing programs at the federal, state, and local
level, will utilize standard protocols developed by PSEP.
Because it now appears unlikely that available funds will
enable annual monitoring of all proposed indicators, It is
anticipated that the final monitoring plan will recommend
phased implementation and periodic, rather than annual,
monitoring of certain variables. Periodic monitoring of
certain parameters is acceptable because changes will not
be detectable in a short period of time, even if all sources of
chemical pollution are eliminated.
Summary of Proposed Ambient Monitoring
Parameters
Sediment Monitoring
• Sediment Chemistry *
• Bioassays *
• Benthic Community Analysis *
Water Column Monitoring
Temperature
Salinity
Dissolved Oxygen *
Turbidity *
Nutrients •
Chlorophyll *
Pathogen Indicators *
Odors, Floatables, Spills
Biological Monitoring
Fish Abundance -
Toxics Chemicals in Fish *
Fish Disease *
Shellfish Abundance"
Toxics in Shellfish
Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning
Bacteria in Shellfish *
Marine Mammals
Birds
River and Stream Monitoring
• River Mouth Sediments
• River Mouth Water Column Parameters
• River and Streams Programs
Habitat Monitoring"
Ancillary Data
* Environmental Indicators
Alternative Environmental Monitoring Strategy
If sufficient funds are not available to support a
minimally acceptable state sponsored program, PSEP
proposes implementation of an alternative monitoring
strategy beginning in spring FY89. The proposed alternative
program includes a reduced number of environmental
indicators and will provide only limited geographic coverage,
however, it should enable the Agency to determine whether
management and regulatory programs are addressing
priority environmental problems. Both "key" and
"supplemental" environmental indicators are identified. Key
indicators primarily address problems associated with
chemical contamination. It is proposed that monitoring of
key indicators be the responsibility of the Puget Sound
Estuary Program and ESD. Supplemental environmental
indicators address additional chemical concerns, bacterial
contamination, and habitat degradation. The Office of Puget
Sound cannot guarantee the routine availability of data
pertaining to supplemental indicators. Therefore, other
responsible agencies or offices within EPA are identified.
I. Key Monitoring Parameters/Environmental
Indicators
1. Sediment Chemistry: provides an indirect measure
of changes in contaminant loading over time and
foresight regarding sediment toxicity.
2. Sediment Bloassay: laboratory measure of acute
toxicity to benthic organisms.
3. Benthic Community Structure: empirical measure
of chronic effects, provides additional protection
against impacts unaccounted for by single species
bioassay or limited chemical analysis.
It is recommended that five sites be monitored at
each of two urban/industrial bays in Puget Sound (with a
limited number of samples collected in "clean" reference
areas. Elliot Bay and Everett Harbor are recommended
as logical urban sites because they represent locations
of aggressive pollution control programs currently being
implemented by EPA and other agencies.
It is proposed that all samples be collected by Region
10's Environmental Services Division. Sediment and
fish tissue analyses, and amphipod bioassays could be
conducted at the EPA laboratory at Manchester.
Benthic community evaluation and sediment
conventional analyses would have to be conducted at
either the EPA laboratory in Newport, or at a contract
lab facility.
17
-------
Chapter 2: Puget Sound
The following activities would supplement the
environmental indicator data collected by PSEP and ESD
under the alternative monitoring strategy. All of these
activities, with the exception of #1 (comprehensive point
source monitoring), are already being conducted on a
sufficient scale by federal, state, or local agencies.
1. Point Source Monitoring: EPA, Permits and
Compliance Branch; it is recommended that EPA
and the Dept. of Ecology make chemical loading
reporting, and effluent and ambient biomonitoring,
requirements of all revised and newly issued
NPDES permits.
2. Habitat/Wetlands Monitoring: EPA, Environmental
Evaluation Branch; it is recommended that EEB
monitor wetland mitigation success, and
cumulative changes in the quality and quantity of
wetland habitat areas.
3. Water Column Monitoring: Metro will continue
routine monitoring of bacteria and water quality
parameters at two stations in the central Sound.
4. Bloaccumulation Monitoring: NOAA, Mussell
Watch Program, will continue annual monitoring of
four stations.
5. Fish Disease Monitoring: NOAA, Benthic
Surveillance Program, will continue annual
monitoring of four stations.
6. Shellfish Monitoring: Department of Social and
Health Services, will continue to conduct surveys
of commercial and recreational shellfish
harvesting beaches for both chemical and
bacterial contamination.
Puget Sound Environmental Indicators
FY 88 and Beyond
1. Sediment Indicators
• Sediment Chemistry
• Sediment Bioassays
• Benthic Community Analyses
2. Water Column Indicators
Dissolved Oxygen
Turbidity
Nutrients
Chlorophyll
Pathogen Indicators
3. Biological Indicators
Fish Abundance
Chemicals in Fish Tissue
Fish Disease
Shellfish Abundance
Chemicals in Shellfish Tissue
Bacteria in Shellfish
4. Habitat Indicators
• Wetland/Habitat Quality and Quantity
• Wetland Mitigation Success
5. Short-Term Toxics Control Indicators
• Effluent and Near-source Ambient Biomonitoring
• NPDES Contaminant Loading
18
-------
Chapter 2: Puget Sound
FY 88 Commitments for
Environmental Indicators Initiative
Office of Puget Sound
It is anticipated that actual full-scale Implementation of
the preferred monitoring program will not begin until the
spring of 1989. However, in 1988, a variety of preliminary
events will occur. It is proposed that items two through four,
below, be entered into the Regional Accountability System
as means of tracking PSEP progress in FY88.
1. Participating State and local agencies will develop
detailed workplans to fulfill monitoring program
assignments. If funds are available, the agencies will
conduct preliminary baseline field surveys beginning
in the summer of 1988.
2. PSEP will conduct a comparison of bioassays to
evaluate the relative sensitivities of test organisms
and to identify the most appropriate bioassay for
long-term monitoring.
3. PSEP and PSWQA will design a database system to
provide the State with monitoring program analytical,
reporting, and data management capabilities.
4. PSEP and PSWQA will Initiate a scoping study to
examine methods of linking the monitoring program
data management system and the Puget Sound
Environmental Atlas database, so that monitoring
information can be used to provide future updates to
the Atlas and the State of the Sound Report.
5. PSWQA and PSEP will produce and issue an
updated State of the Sound Report.
Although not an identified component of the
Comprehensive Monitoring Program, both the Puget Sound
Water Quality Authority and Puget Sound Estuary Program
strongly recommended that EPA and the Dept. of Ecology
make chemical loading reporting and effluent and ambient
biomonitoring requirements of all revised and newly issued
NPDES permits. Monitoring near point sources will provide
short-term measures of changes in environmental quality
and the effectiveness of regulatory controls.
It is not proposed that RAS commitments addressing
the alternative monitoring strategy be incorporated for
tracking FY 88. Implementation of the alternative program
will be necessary only if funds are unavailable to support the
preferred program. If it is determined in the summer/fall of
1988 that alternative monitoring is required, monitoring will
begin in the spring of 1989 (the Puget Sound Protocols
require that benthic invertebrates be samples during the
early spring).
19
-------
Chapter 3: Construction Grants
In FY 87, the Construction Grants program agreed to develop a proposed environmental indicator for future use. Their
FY 87 report, then, describes this proposal. The FY 88 indicator will be the proposed FY 87 measure, and will include any
successful enhancements which the program agreed to attempt for FY 88.
FY 87 Proposed Environmental Indicator:
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids improvements at completed construction grants projects
initiating operation during FY88
Environmental Indicator for FY 88 and Beyond:
Same as above, but the program will look into expanding the measure to address the following areas:
1) pushing the baseline back in time;
2) adding a measure of the results achieved by operation and maintenance efforts;
3) estimating decreases in residual chlorine;
4) adding a measure of toxics eliminated, and
5) reviewing potential candidates for before and after monitoring.
20
-------
Chapter 3: Construction Grants
A Proposed Environmental Indicator For The
Construction Grants Program Using the Needs
Survey Data Base
The Needs Survey was mandated by Congress in the
Clean Water Act. Conducted every two years, this survey
requires states to collect data on all planned and operating
wastewater treatment systems. Because it has been used
as the basis for allocating appropriated funds among the
states, the emphasis of the survey has been on
documenting funds needed for proposed construction. The
survey also includes data on current and projected flows,
populations, treatment methods and permit limits. (See
Attachment I for a list of technical data contained In the
Needs Survey.) One of the goals of the 1988 Survey, which
the states are preparing for now, is to improve the quality of
this technical data, which has not been emphasized in past
surveys.
Headquarters has also been working to improve access
to this data through development of an in-house software
system. We now have on-line access to the 1984 or 1986
survey record for any Region 10 facility. In the future, we are
supposed to have the ability to create reports and to link the
survey data with the data on federal grant awards contained
in the Grants Information System (GIGS). By comparing the
data in GICS to the actual and projected data contained in
the needs survey, we should be able to calculate theoretical
improvements resulting from the completion of construction
grants projects.
The Needs Survey data will not provide a true measure
of environmental benefit, but will provide an indicator of
potential environmental benefit. It is the closest we can
come with the data available to us. There is no requirement
for grantees to do before and after monitoring, ambient
monitoring stations are often not close enough to the plant to
pick up changes, and the contribution of a municipal
wastewater plant is often masked by other discharges or
non-point sources.
Our intention was to develop measures of estimated
changes in quantities of pollutants released to the
environment. Our proposed measure for treatment plants is
estimated pounds of BOD or suspended solids removed by
new or improved treatment works. The environmental
benefits of interceptors, collectors, infiltration/inflow
correction, sewer rehabilitation and sludge projects cannot
be estimated as easily since these do not have a single
discharge. We do not recommend developing separate
measures for them. These areas are discussed briefly at
the end of this paper.
New Plants and Improvements: New plants and
improvements to existing plants account for over 70% of
construction grant funded projects. Our proposed indicator
for these projects Is discussed generally below. Sample
calculations, accounting for both new and improved plants,
follow.
The first step in our analysis was to review the quality of
the technical data currently contained in the Needs Survey.
Data In the survey for flows and pollutant loadings were
compared to the permit and daily monitoring report (DMR)
data contained in the Permits Compliance System (PCS) for
major discharges. In most cases, the current and future flow
limitations and limits for BOD and suspended solids specified
by the permit were accurately reflected in the Needs Survey
database. Information on actual current pollutant levels and
flows, which is naturally more variable, did not correspond as
well to the DMR data contained in PCS. In many cases the
data were missing from the Needs Survey. Therefore, it will
not be possible to use actual loadings in our calculations.
Instead, we will depend entirely on the usual permit limits for
primary and secondary treatment, realizing that some plants
will get better treatment than required after improvements,
and that the pre-construction plants may have gotten either
better or worse treatment than required, depending on the
circumstances.
For upgrades we compare pre-construction limits
(usually primary) to post-construction limits (secondary or
advanced treatment) for BOD and suspended solids,
multiplying the difference by the plant design capacity.
For expansions, we decided to account for the
treatment gained in the septic tanks being replaced. That is,
we presume that the new flows in excess of the
pre-construction design capacity would have the
approximate net effect of the difference between primary
and secondary treatment. This is a very conservative
estimate in that some of the replaced septic tanks are failing
and some of the "future" septic tanks which need not be
installed would no doubt have exceeded the absorption
capacity of the area (building bans not accounted for, of
course). We are, therefore, calculating the BOD and
suspended solids removals in terms of going from primary to
secondary or advanced treatment, and multiplying these
figures by the increase in flow capacity.
For projects which provide both upgrade and expansion,
the theoretical pollutant removals will be the sum of the two
calculations above.
21
-------
Chapter 3: Construction Grants
Similar to the calculations for expansions, for new plants
we are calculating the difference from primary to treated
strengths and multiplying by the new capacity of the plant.
Obviously, these are rough calculations. The changes
in BOD and suspended solids are estimates of the amounts
that, without construction, would have been discharged into
the environment at some point, not necessarily at the plant
or into a specific waterbody. There is no way to separate
immediate from future benefits, since current flows can
either fall above or below the pre-constructlon design
capacities. Nor is there any way to separate the portion of
the capacity we are funding from the reserve capacity
funded locally, since the funded capacity is always higher
than the existing flows (it includes capacity for existing
population which has not yet been connected to the system).
Collectors and Interceptors
About 20% of construction grants funds go to collector
and interceptor projects, often to transport waste flows from
areas with failing septic tanks, which may pollute surface
and ground waters and are often significant public health
threats. While we could calculate a theoretical decrease in
BOD or suspended solids levels attributable to these
projects (as with plant expansions), we would be, in most
cases, double-counting the pollution removals associated
with plant expansions. We might Instead be able to
calculate the increased population receiving collection as a
separate measure. Data for both the current and future
situations would be taken from either the needs survey or
the facility plan, depending on whether more than one grant
was used to fund interceptors or collectors for a particular
community.
Other Construction Grant Projects
The two measures discussed above account for about
90% of construction grant projects. Sludge projects, pump
station projects, infiltration and inflow correction, sewer
rehabilitation and combined sewer overflow correction
projects account for the remaining funds. Because (1) they
represent a small fraction of total construction funds, (2)
they would require a separate data gathering effort, and (3)
may not be summarized in a meaningful way, we have not
developed separate measures to account for them.
Limitations on Use
The measure we have proposed is only an Indicator of
potential environmental benefit, based on discharge levels
allowed by permit. Actual discharge levels will vary. And, in
the environment, these improvements in treatment plant
discharges may be masked by other discharges.
Our proposed measure is Intended only for use as a
regional indicator of potential environmental benefits. It is
not intended as a commitment. Because the calculations
are based on assumptions about levels of pollutants allowed
by permit, rather than actual operational levels, the data is
not meaningful if it is disaggregated. For any given plant,
the levels we have assumed are likely to be incorrect, either
too high or too low. But when taken together for a large
group of plants, these differences tend to balance one
another.
For this reason we propose that the data be reported
just twice a year, at mid-year and year-end, for the region as
a whole. We would include in our calculations all plants that
have initiated operation during the year. If a project is
segmented, we would count it only when the entire plant
change is effected, that is that all needed segments are
operational. Interceptors and collectors would also be tallied
as they become operational, usually separately.
Future Improvements
Data quality should improve with the FY88 data
collection effort. Headquarters is also working on a number
of enhancements to the computerized database, which could
allow us to conduct more refined analyses. If these
enhancements are available, we will apply them to the
year-end numbers.
22
-------
Chapter 3: Construction Grants
Sample Calculations for New Plants and Improvements
Needs survey data and sample calculations for three hypothetical plants needing construction are shown below.
Standard influent levels of 200 mg/l have been assumed for both BOD and suspended solids.
A. Survey data and a calculation for a project being upgraded from primary to
secondary are shown here:
Permit/Design Limits
Suspended
BOD Solids Flow
Current 140 mg/l 100 mg/l 1.0 MGD
Planned 30 mg/l 30 mg/l 1.0 MGD
Avoided Discharge = A concentration, Ibs./million Ibs. x flow, Ibs./day
A Concentration = current level - planned level.
A Concentration, BOD = 110 mg/l
= 110 Ibs./million Ibs. water
A Concentration, SS = 70 mg/l
= 70 Ibs./million Ibs. water
Flow, lbs./day = 1.0 million gal/day x 8.34 Ibs./gal
= 8.34 million lbs./day
Avoided BOD = 110 Ibs./million Ibs. water x 8.34 million IbsVday
= 917lbs./day BOD
Avoided SS = 70 Ibs./million Ibs. water x 8.34 million lbs./day
= 584 Ibs./day Suspended solids
B. Data and a calculation for an expansion project (without change in treatment level)
are shown below:
BOD Limit SS Limit Flow
Current 30 mg/l 30 mg/l 1.8 MGD
Planned 30 mg/l 30 mg/l 3.2 MGD
The difference in flow between the planned and current levels, 1.4 MGD, is assumed to be currently receiving treatment
equivalent to primary: 140 mg/l BOD and 100 mg/l suspended solids.
Avoided discharge = A concentration, Ibs/mlllion Ibs x D flow, Ibs/day
A concentration = primary permitted level-secondary permitted level
= 140 Ibs. BOD/million Ibs. water
= 100lbs. SS/million Ibs. water
Flow, lbs./day = 1.8 million gal/day x 8.34 Ibs./gal
= 15.01 million lbs./day
Avoided discharge = 2,100 Ibs/day BOD and 1,500 Ibs/day suspended solids
23
-------
Chapter 3: Construction Grants
C. Data and calculations for a project involving increases in both treatment level and
capacity are as follows:
Permit/Design Limits
Current
Planned
BOD
60
30
Suspended
Solids
70
30
Flow
.26 MGD
.37 MGD
The difference between current and planned flows, .11 MGD, is assumed to be receiving equivalent to primary
treatment: 140 mg/l BOD and 100 mg/l suspended solids.
Avoided Discharge = current flow x (current concentration-planned concentration) + A flow x (primary
concentration-planned concentration)
Current Flow, Ibs/day = .26 million gal/day x 8.34 Ibs./gal
= 2.17 million lbs./day
A Flow, Ibs/day = .11 million gal/day x 8.34 Ibs./gal
= .92 million gal/day
Avoided BOD = 2.17 million lbs./day x 30 Ibs./million Ibs. water - .92 million gal/day x 110 Ibs./
million Ibs. water
= 166 Ibs. BOD
Avoided SS = 2.17 million lbs./day x 40 Ibs./million Ibs. water - .92 million lbs./day x 70 Ibs./milllon
Ibs. water
= 151 Ibs. suspended solids
24
-------
NEEDS SURVEY DATA DICTIONARY (ALPHABETIC LISTING)
Element Name
Description
ABANDON Date abandoned
AUTHNAM Authority name
•CEXEFBO Existing effluent BOD (mg/L)
•CEXEFNH Existing NH3 effluent (mg/L)
•CEXEFP Existing P effluent (mg/L)
*CEXEFSS Existing effluent SS (mg/L)
*CFDEFBO Future design effluent BOD (mg/L)
*CFDEFNH Future design NH3 effluent (mg/L)
*CFDEFP Future design P effluent (mg/L)
*CFDEFSS Future design effluent SS (mg/L)
*CHGELE Percent change in numeric value to 86 Survey
•CITYNAM City name
•CNGDIST Congressional district
*CNTYNAM County name
*CNTYNUM State plus county number
COLLPOP 1972 population requiring collection
COMMENT Comment codes (four one-character codes)
COMPCOM Compliance comment
COMPDAT Compliance date
•COMPMM Facility located on major or minor reach
COMPNON Compliance status
•COMPSCR Compliance status source
CONCEXE Existing concentration, effluent (mg/L)
CONCEXI Existing concentration, influent (mg/L)
CONCFUE Future design concentration, effluent (mg/L)
CONCFUI Future design concentration, influent (mg/L)
CONCLIN Concentrations line number (4,5,..8,9,A,B)
CONCPRE Present design concentration, effluent (mg/L)
CONCPRI Present design concentration, influent (mg/L)
•CPDEFBO Present design effluent BOD (mg/L)
•CPDEFNH Present design NH3 effluent (mg/L)
*CPDEFP Present design P effluent (mg/L)
•CPDEFSS Present design effluent SS (mg/L)
CSOAREA Combined sewer area (acres)
CSOPOP Combined sewer area service population
*CSORTYP CSO Receiving water type
•CSOURB CSO Urbanized area number
•DELETED Deleted facility flag
•DISCHRG Discharges flow to (A/F I)
DISPCHG Projected liquid effluent disposal change
*DISPDSP Method of liquid effluent disposal
24(a)
-------
NEEDS SURVEY DATA DICTIONARY
(continued)
Element Name
Description
•DISPLIN Disposal of liquid effluents line
•DISPOSE Status of liquid effluent disposal
DOCAUTH Documentation author
DOCCOM1-5 Documentation comments (5 lines)
DOCDATE Date of source documentation
*DOCI Documentation type, category I
Element Description
*DOCII Documentation type, category II
*DOCIIIA Documentation type, category IIIA
*DOCIIIB Documantation type, category IIIB
*DOCIVA Documentation type, category IVA
*DOCIVB Documentation type, category IVB
DOCTITL Documentation title
*DOCV Documentation type, category V
DUNBRAD Dun & Bradstreet number
*EFFPRES Present effluent level
*EFFPROJ Projected effluent level
CFFREA1 Reasons why advanced treatment is necessary
ELENUM Element number within group
F19TOT 1990 Total design flow (monthly average, mgd)
*FACCHNG Type of facility change
*FACID State/authority/facility number
•FACNAME Facility name
*FACSTAT Operational status of facility
*FEXDOM Existing domestic percapita flow (gpcd)
*FEXIND Existing industrial flow (mgd)
•FEXTOT Existing total flow (mgd)
*FFDDOM Future design domestic per capita flow (gpcd)
•FFDIND Future design industrial flow (mgd)
*FFDTOT Future design total flow (mgd)
*FPDDOM Present design per capita Clow (gpcd)
•FPDIND Present design industrial flow (mgd)
•FPDTOT Present design total flow (mgd)
GICS GICS number associated with facility
GRPKEY Multirecord groups key
HCHANG Old value
HRCODE Historic review code
•IICODE Rehabilitation method for I/I
IIFLOW Estimate of excess I/I flow
*HECELIG EPA current eligible S (sum CAT I,II,IIIA,IVB)
•NECI EPA current year $ (CAT I)
*NECIAII EPA current year trt S (sum CAT I,II)
•NECII EPA current year $ (CAT II)
24(b)
-------
NEEDS SURVEY DATA DICTIONARY
(continued)
Element Name
Description
•NECIIIA
•NECIIIB
•NECIVA
•NECIVB
•NECTEXV
•NECTOT
•NECV
*NEDELIG
•NED I
•NEDIAII
•NEDII
•NEDIIIA
*NEDIIIB
•NEDIVA
•NEDIVB
•NEDTEXV
•NEDTOT
•NEDV
*NPDES
NRSFUTR
NRSPRES
•NSCELIG
•NSC I
•NSCIAII
*NSCII
*NSCIIIA
*NSCIIIB
•NSCIVA
•NSCIVB
•NSCTEXV
•NSCTOT
*NSCV
•NSDELIG
*NSDI
•NSDIAII
•NSDII
•NSDIIIA
•NSDIIIB
•NSDIVA
•BSDIVB
•NSDTEXV
EPA design year $
EPA design year $
EPA design year $
EPA design year $
EPA current year $ (CAT IIIA)
EPA current year $ (CAT IIIB)
EPA current year $ (CAT IVA)
EPA current year $ (CAT IVB)
EPA design year $ totals (All categ except V)
EPA current year $ total (sum all categories)
EPA current year $ (CAT V)
EPA current year $ (sum CAT I.II,IIIA,IVB)
EPA design year $ (CAT I)
EPA design year trt $ (sum CAT I,II)
EPA design year $ (CAT II)
(CAT IIIA)
(CAT IIIB)
(CAT IVA)
(CAT IVB)
EPA design year $ totals (All CAT except V)
EPA design year $ total (sum all categories)
EPA design year $ (CAT V)
NPDES number of facility
Future non-resident pop (EPA-1 column)
Present non-resident pop (EPA-1 column)
State current eligible $ (sum CAT I,II,IIIA,IVB)
State current year $ (CAT I)
State current year trt $ (sum CAT I, II)
State current year $ (CAT II)
State current year $ (CAT IIIA)
State current year $ (CAT IIIB)
(CAT IVA)
(CAT IVB)
State current year $ total (All CAT except V)
State current year $ total (cum all categor)
State current year $ (CAT V)
State design year elig S (cum CAT I,II,IIIA,IVB)
State design year $ (CAT I)
State design year trt $ (cum CAT I,II)
State current year $
State current year $
State design year
State design year
State design year
State design year
State design year
(CAT II)
(CAT IIIA)
(CAT IIIB)
(CAT IVA)
(CAT IVB)
State design year $ totals (All CAT except V)
24(c)
-------
NEEDS SURVEY DATA DICTIONARY
(continued)
Element Name
Description
*NSDTOT State design year $ total (sum all categor)
•NSDV State design year $ (CAT V)
NUMGRP Group number
*PFNCANC Future non-res pop expected to be sewered
•PFNTANT Future non-res pop expected to RCV treatment
*PFRCANC Future res pop expected to be sewered
*PFRNC Future res pop not expected to be sewered
*PFRNT Future res pop not expected to RCV treatment
*PFRRC Future res pop expected to be sewered
*PFRRT Future res pop expected to RCV treatment
•PFRTANT Future res service pop (sum RCV + NOT RCV trt
*PHYSCST Cost estimate for proposed sewers
PHYSDIA Diameter of pipe (inches)
PHYSLEN Length(ft)/capacity(mgd) of pipe
PHYSTYP Type of pipe (CS,IS,PS,FM, etc)
PHYSLIN Physical/Cost dat for sewers (EPA-1 form)
PL92500 PL92-500 subsequent funding (Y/N)
PLACE Place code (US Census)
POPROW Population row number
*PPNCANC Service area non-res pop (RCV + NOT RCV COL)
*PPNTANT Service area non-res pop (RCV + NOT RCV TRT)
*PPRCANC Service area res pop (RCV * NOT RCV COL)
*PPRNC Present resident NOT RCV COL population
•PPRNT Present residents NOT RCV treatment pop
•PPRRC Present resident RCV collection pop
*PPRRT Present resident RCV treatment pop
*PPRTANT Sum present res RCV * NOT RCV TRT pop
•PRESNAT Coded description of existing facility
PRETRT Industrial flow require pretreatment? (Y/N)
PR1082 Do wastewaters originate before 10/18/72?
*PBOJNAT Coded description of future facility
PSCOST Eligible project cost for grandfathered needs
PSDATE Date of step 3 funding
PSGICS GICS * that grandfathered project
PSI Grandfathered category (I)
PSII Grandfather category (II)
PSIIIA Grandfathered category (IIIA)
PSIVB Grandfathered category (IVB)
PSLINE Phased/Segmented EPA-1 line number
•PSSTAT Grant award status
24(d)
-------
NEEDS SURVEY DATA DICTIONARY
(continued)
Element Name
Description
•PSYORN Phased/segmented project? (Y or N)
•RCODE Current review code
RCOM1 Review comment line 1
RCOM2 Review comment line 2
RCOM3 Review comment line 3
RCOM4 Review comment line 4
RCOM5 Review comment line 5
RECEIVE Receives discharge from (A/F I)
•REGION EPA Region code
*REHAB Major sewer rehabilitation method
RES1990 1990 resident population RCV COLL
RINITS Initials of State/EPA Region/Headquarters reviewer
RTIME Review date/time from 1900 clock
RWDBASN Subbasin number
KWDLAT Latitude location of facility
BWDLOC Location code
RWDLONG Longitude location of facility
*RWDRCH Reach number
RWDRCHM Reach miles
•RWDUSE Generic stream use classification
SMSA SMSA number
•STACD "S" or "D" plus state abbreviation
STARTUP Start up date of new facility
•SUBCODE Submission code
*TOXCODE Toxic code
*TEEATCH Projected unit process change code
*TREATTR Unit process description code
•TREATUS Unit process use code
*TBEATLN Unit process line
TZFACS Time zero facility count
TZNEEDS Time zero needs totals (in thousands)
ZIPCODE Zip code
24(e)
-------
Chapter 4: Drinking Water
Drinking Water Environmental Indicators
FY87
1. Public Water Systems (PWS) In Significant Noncompllance (SNC)
• Number of PWS in SNC with bacteriological and turbidity maximum contaminant level (MCL) and monitoring
requirements
• By state, the types of actions taken to return PWS to compliance and the number and percentage of SNCs being
addressed by each type action
2. Drinking Water Enforcement
• Number of enforcement actions by states and EPA to address SNCs
3. Compliance Trends
• By state, show trends In percentage of PWS in compliance with monitoring and reporting for bacteriological
contaminants and turbidity
4. Population at Risk
• Number and percent of population served by systems in SNC and in full compliance
5. Treatment of Surface Water
• Number and percent of surface water systems using filtration or equivalent
25
-------
Chapter 4: Drinking Water
Drinking Water Environmental Indicators
I. Public Water Systems in Significant Noncompliance
(SNC)
A.SIgniflcant Noncompliance Report
I.This indicator tells us the number of public water
systems (PWS) defined as being in significant
noncompliance (SNC) with bacteriological and
turbidity maximum contaminant level (MCL) and
monitoring requirements. It also shows, by state, the
types of actions that are being taken to return these
PWS to compliance and the number and percentage
of SNCs being addressed by each type action.
2. The SNC list is generated from the Federal Reporting
Data System (FRDS) which contains all PWS violation
data submitted by states. The SNC list is distributed
to the Regions on a quarterly basis forfollowup.
SNCs may be returned to compliance by state actions
or by EPA action if states fail to respond in a timely
and appropriate manner. Actions other than formal
enforcement may be successful in returning a SNC to
compliance. This report tracks the number and
percentage of SNCs for which each category of action
has been taken, including "no appropriate action".
SNCs in this latter category are evaluated to
determine appropriateness of direct EPA action. This
report is broader than the "Number of Enforcement
Actions" indicator and does not specifically show that
number. The goal is to have zero SNCs and this
report tracks quarterly progress toward that goal.
This report does not provide any information about
PWS which are in violation of MCL and monitoring
requirements, but for which violations are not severe
enough to be considered SNC.
B. See Table 1
Table 1
Region 10 Accountability System - Drinking Water Enforcement
A.2. Gross number of SNCs reported by Headquarters, 3 quarter lag.
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Totals
1st
T "02" A
95 95
8 8
38 38
57 57
2nd
T "03" A
93
8
31
55
198 198 187
3rd
T"04"A
88
8
16
50
162
4th
T"01"A
84
7
15
48
154
Total
TA
84
7
15
48
154
A.3. Number of gross SNCs (B.2) returned to compliance, on a compliance schedule, in receipt of state issued
order, state civil referred or criminal filing, or erroneously listed. (No Targets)
1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total
T"02"A T"03"A T "04" A T"01"A TA
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Totals
A.4. Number of none of previous (Unresolved, B.2 - B.3) SNCs receiving acceptable state action. (No Targets)
1st
T"02"A
2nd
T"03"A
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Totals
A.5. SNCs with no acceptable action to date
3rd
T"04"A
4th
T"01"A
Total
TA
1st
T"02"A
2nd
T"03"A
3rd
T"04"A
4th
T"01"A
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Totals
T = Target A = Actual
Total
TA
26
-------
Chapter 4: Drinking Water
C. Future Improvements
No changes in the format or content of this report
are envisioned at this time.
II. Drinking Water Enforcement
A.Number of Enforcement Actions
1 .This indicator provides quantification of the
enforcement activity by the states and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response
to significant noncompliance (SNC) with drinking
water regulations.
2. Although this indicator tells us how much formal
enforcement activity is occurring, it does not tell us
how much activity is occurring at a less formal level or
the portion of the total systems in SNC being
addressed. This indicator also assumes that formal
enforcement is the best approach for all cases of
SNCs, which may not be true for many small water
systems that have very limited technical and financial
resources. Some of the states have lamented the
inability to do a comparative measurement of the
effectiveness of technical assistance/plan and
specification review versus enforcement; ie, the
preventive approach versus enforcement for small
systems. The goal of the drinking water program is to
ensure that public water systems provide consumers
with drinking water that does not Impose a risk to their
health. This can probably be best achieved over the
long term by having competent people concerned
about the quality of drinking water distributed with
enough enforcement to convince all system operators
that they need to be concerned. There is some
apprehension that enforcement may be more oriented
toward short term fixes in that the respondents will
focus on alleviating the immediate problem which
precipitated the enforcement, rather than maximizing
the quality of their drinking water in the long term.
Enforcement is also very expensive in terms of
regulatory agency resources.
B.Total Enforcement Actions by State
State FY85 %SNCs* FY 86 %SNCs* FY 87 %SNCs*
AK 4 38 17+8 BY EPA 26
ID 3 17 29 322**
OR 1 BY EPA 7 13 32
WA 23 45 17 28
Plus 18 compliance schedules spread over 3 fiscal years
Percentage of total SNCs addressed by enforcement actions. SNC list not produced prior to FY87. Percentage based
on SNCs as of end of previous calendar year; i.e. FY87 based on SNCs as of 12/31/86.
* Enforcement actions may be initiated for violations not yet classified as SNC.
C. Future Improvements
A potential change to this environmental indicator
would be an attempt to evaluate the relative
effectiveness of enforcement versus technical
assistance or other activities in various situations.
This could be especially useful in deciding which
technique would be most effective for a particular
case and also in applying limited resources in the
most efficient manner.
27
-------
Chapter 4: Drinking Water
I. Compliance Trends
A. Monitoring and Maximum Contaminant Level
(MCL) Trend Lines
LThis indicator tells us the percentage of Public Water
Systems (PWS) that report monitoring and MCL
results for bacteriological contaminants and turbidity.
These charts graphically show the trend in monitoring
and MCL compliance by quarter for each state.
2. These charts are generated from numbers extracted
from the Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS)
which contains all PWS violation data submitted by
states. These trend lines represent compliance
information for only two of approximately thirty that
are now regulated, but they are considered two of the
most important. It can also be seen that compliance
by very small PWS, those serving 100 or fewer
persons, tends to be lower than for PWS serving
more than 100 persons. Other population
breakdowns could be selected, but in general small
PWS are less sophisticated and have fewer resources
than larger PWS. This usually results in lesser ability
to understand and routinely comply with
requirements.
3. For Alaska the compliance rates for bacteriological
MCLs may be artificially high because corresponding
monitoring compliance rates are relatively low; ie
MCLs will not be detected without monitoring.
However, it should not be assumed that MCLs will
increase disproportionately with improvements in
monitoring compliance. There is also a discrepancy
between the way Alaska defines bacteriological MCLs
and the way EPA defines bacteriological MCLs. The
Alaska method results In fewer MCLs and Is an issue
that is being reviewed with ADEC staff.
B. Attached charts
C. Future Improvements
Other population breakdowns could be selected to
address some specific issue or additional
contaminants could be added in the future. No
changes are envisioned at this time.
28
-------
PUBLIC UBTER SUPPLY
ALflSKfl COmJNITY"SYSTEMS
X COHPLIRNCE
IBB
48
28
BftCTI H/R POP > 100
POP < 168
TURB. fVR POP > 160
POP < 108
(XXX) SYSTEHS REPORTING
83
(413
I I I I I I I I I i I I I
84 85 86
FISCAL YEAR BY OUftRTER
87
PUBLIC UBTER SUPPLY
IDAHO GOrtUNITY SYSTEMS
48
28
(18)
BflCTI fVR POP > 160
—-j POP < 108
i-TURB. H/R POP > 108
1 POP < 100
<» SYSTEMS REPORTING
j I
j i
I i i i I
83
84 85 86
FISCAL YEAR BY DUflRTER
87
28(a)
-------
PUBLIC UflTER SUPPLY
OREGON COrtUNITY SYSTEMS
X COrFLIflNCE
100
88
68
48
20
BflCTI (VR POP > 188 ia0 (115)
POP < 108 (28)
COCO SYSTEMS REPORTING
I I i
I I I I I I I I
83
84 85 86
FISCAL YEAR BY QURRTER
87
PUBLIC UfiTER SUPPLY
UftSHINGTON COmUNITY SYSTEMS
t COrFLIfiNCE
100
80
60
BflCTI tVR POP > 108 (11S0)
POP < 168 (1888)
TUR8. (VR POP > 108 (91)
POP < 188 (3Q,
(XXX) SYSTEMS REPORTING
-J 1—I—I 1—I—I I I I I I I I I I I I I
83
81 85 86
FISCftL YEAR BY QUflRTER
87
28(b)
-------
PUBLIC UflTER SUPPLY
flLflSKfi COrttJNITY SYSTEMS
« corf
100
88
60
43
20
UfiNCE
-
-
—
BflCTI rtCL . M" «OT AVAILABLE
TURB. MCL POP > 108 (105 •
POP < 100 (41,
(XXX) SYSTEMS REPORTING
1 I I
S7
FISCAL YEAR BY OUflRTER
PUBLIC LBTER SUPPLY
IDAHO COITUNITY SYSTEMS
x corf
100
88
60
48
28
LIflNCE
—
-
BflCTI MCL POP > 100 (393)
POP < 108 (134)
TURB. MCL POP > 108 (58)
POP < 108 (18)
~ (XXX) SYSTEMS REPORTING
1 1 1
87
FISCAL YEAR BY OUflRTER
28(c)
-------
PUBLIC UflTER SUPPLY
OREGON COrtUNITY SYSTEMS
X COHPLIflNCE
180
68
•BflCTI MCL POP > 180 (567)
40 L_ POP < 180 (435)
0 r- TUR8. MCL POP > 180 (145)
POP < 180 (£8)
CXXX3 SYSTEMS REPORTING
28
87
FISCAL YEAR BY QUARTER
PUBLIC UBTER SUPPLY
DASHING™ cortiiNiTY SYSTEMS
X COrFLIfllHCE
180 ~
88
68
48
BflCTI MCL POP > 180 (1208)
POP < 100 (1190)
TDRB MCL POP > 100 (94)
POP < 108 (30)
(XXX) SYSTEMS REPORTING
87
FISCAL YEAR 8Y QUARTER
28(d)
-------
Chapter 4: Drinking Water
IV. Population at Risk
A.Population Served by Systems In Significant
Noncompllance (SNC) and In Full Compliance
LThis indicator tells us the population and percentage
of population served by PWS consuming drinking
water from systems known to be in SNC and those in
full compliance. SNC is currently defined as having
exceeded the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for
coliform or turbidity for four or more months in any
twelve consecutive months or having done no
monitoring for coliform or turbidity for twelve
consecutive months. Full compliance Is defined as
having no violations of either MCLs or monitoring
requirements.
2. This indicator requires some interpretation to tell us
the number of individuals exposed to contaminated
drinking water. There are two major reasons for this.
First, only systems which have exceeded the MCL for
four or more months are included in the SNC
category. Many more systems may exceed the MCL
for three or fewer months, thus exposing consumers
to contaminated drinking water for shorter periods of
time. Second, those systems which are in SNC for
monitoring are not necessarily serving contaminated
drinking water. Without monitoring, no one knows
what they are serving. It is also important to
understand that the correlation between consuming
water from a system in SNC and the risk to health is
not clearly defined. It is safe to presume that health
risk is higher when contamination is known to be
present or when monitoring has not been conducted
to demonstrate that contamination was not detected.
The goal for this indicator is zero, but only systems
with rather gross noncompliance are classified as an
SNC. The health risks associated with lesser degrees
of noncompliance can be roughly assessed by looking
at the portion of PWS not addressed by this indicator;
i.e. all PWS that are not in SNC or full compliance
have had some degree of violation with associated
potential health risk.
B.1. Population and Percentage of Population Served
By Systems In SNC
State
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Total
Population*
16,450
650
42,150
57,400
116,650
Previous column as
percent of
total population
served by PWS
5%
2%
2%
2%
Numbers have been rounded and apply to the compliance
period ending June 1987
2. Population and Percentage of Population Served
by Systems in Full Compliance
State
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Total
Population*
114,008
636,928
1,901,422
2,700,591
5,352,949
Previous column as
percent of
total population
served by PWS
32%
89%
92%
71%
71%
Numbers have been rounded and apply to the compliance
period ending in June 1987
C. Future Improvements
SNC may be redefined in the future to be more
restrictive. It might also be possible to track the
population served by water systems that were not in
complete compliance as well as those that were in
SNC. Other possibilities would be to differentiate
between SNC for MCL and SNC for monitoring
because, presumably, there is higher risk from
consuming water known to be contaminated than in
consuming water that has not been monitored and
may or may not be contaminated.
29
-------
Chapter 4: Drinking Water
V.A.Treatment of Surface Water
B.Number and Percent of Surface Water Systems
Using Filtration or Equivalent
1. Filtration is known to be an effective method of
removing participate matter, including cysts, bacteria
and viruses, from drinking water. Ideally, all public
water systems using surface water sources would
provide filtration. Therefore, this indicator is a
measure of how near we are to achievement of this
goal.
2. In some cases other treatment techniques can
provide health protection believed to be equivalent to
that provided by filtration. These cases, which will
probably include Seattle, Tacoma and Portland, all
with large populations served, would not be reflected
by the subject indicator. This indicator would also
assume that filtration systems, once installed, would
be properly and continuously operated. Because this
assumption may not be justified, this indicator could
imply that drinking water produced by all systems with
filtration is always safe. Statistics on incidences of
waterborne disease outbreaks confirm that improperly
operated filtration systems are sometimes at fault. If
a measure of the effectiveness of filter operation were
added, a more realistic picture would be provided.
Operator train ing and certification could be considered
a surrogate measure for the effectiveness of filter
operation. Because state review and approval of
plans and specifications for installation of filtration
systems would be required, this indicator can be
assumed to measure the capability of surface water
systems to produce safe drinking water, given
competent operation.
B. Number and Percent of Systems With Filtration of
Surface Source
State Community Systems Non-Community Systems
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Indian
#
66
39
58
57
2
53
51
34
49
40
#
39
34
8
46
0
25
29
5
46
0
C. Future Improvements
This indicator currently shows only those systems
using filtration because the determinations of
"equivalent treatment" have not yet been made on a
system by system basis. As "equivalent treatment"
determinations are made, beginning in FY90, these
numbers can be included with the systems having
filtration. There may also be some attempt to
measure the quality of operation for those systems
with filtration.
30
-------
Chapter 4: Drinking Water
Drinking Water Environmental Indicators
Modifications for FY 88 and Beyond
The following measures reflect compliance, enforcement and treatment. In FY88 we will also attempt to develop a
"Drinking Water Quality Index" which would provide a concise, general indicator of compliance trends in the program. The
decision to use such an index is pending whether our data systems currently have the ability to generate the needed data, or
can be easily modified to generate the needed data.
1. Public Water Systems in Significant Non-compliance
(SNC)
• By state, number of systems in SNC
• By state, number and percentage of SNCs for which
various "return to compliance" actions have been taken
2. Drinking Water Enforcement
• By state, total number of state and Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) enforcement actions
• Percentage of SNC addressed by enforcement actions
3. Compliance Trends
• By state, graphically show percentage of PWS in
compliance with bacteriological and turbidity monitoring
requirements
• By state, graphically show percentage of PWS In
compliance with bacteriological and turbidity MCLs
4. Population at Risk
• By state*, number of persons served by systems in SNC
and as percentage of total population served by public
water systems
• By state*, number of persons served by systems In full
compliance and as percentage of total population
served by public water systems
5. Treatment of Surface Water
• By state*, number and percentage of community
systems with surface water sources which use filtration
or equivalent
• By state*, number and percentage of non-community
systems with surface water sources which use filtration
or equivalent
* Indians as a group treated as an additional state.
31
-------
Chapters: Wetlands
Wetlands Environmental Indicators
FY87
1. Acres of wetland lost
2. Acres of wetland Impacted
3. Acres of wetland mitigated for
4. Acres of wetland saved due to project modification, withdrawal or permit denial
5. Acres of wetlands lost, Impacted, and mitigated by wetland type
6. Acres of wetland Impacted and mitigated for by project type
7. Linear feet of shoreline Impacted by state
8. Cubic yardage of dredged material allowed In-water and upland In Columbia River and Puget Sound
9. Time expenditure of EPA personnel on major and minor wetland projects
10. Percentage of projects upon which EPA had substantive comments
11. Number of significant environmental Issues raised by EPA personnel and number of resolutions
12. Number of enforcement actions and number of resolutions
13. Number of permits denied as a result of EPA comments
Environmental Indicators of Effectiveness
from the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Wetlands Protection Section in
Region 10; 1987
Purpose
This report was prepared in response to the obvious need
to begin to measure the effectiveness (impact) of EPA's
efforts to protect wetlands in Region 10. Through the
analysis of the data on EPA activities, wetland status, and
trends we hope to better focus our attention on those areas
where we can be most effective in protecting our regions
valuable wetland resources. In addition, we hope to identify
new techniques for measuring effectiveness and approaches
for protecting the aquatic resource. Our goal is to make the
best use of agency resources toward meeting the wetland
protection requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Acknowledgements
I wish to acknowledge the efforts of the following people in
the preparation of this document: Steve Waag and Yun
Chong Hwang for their invaluable assistance in data entry
and presentation (Steve was especially helpful in the
programming aspects of this study); Kathy Kunz, Mike
Rylko, and Elaine Somers for providing the excellent data on
mitigation trends (Kathy developed the entry datasheet,
started the database, supervised both data entry and the
mitigation trends study); Bill Riley and Ron Lee for their
support of the concept and review of the draft documents;
Jayne Norton for her efficiency in typing and editing.
Trends Assessment
A. Data Limitations
This assessment is an attempt to observe trends in
wetlands losses over time by wetland type1 and to relate
these trends to EPA activities. The assessment is
based upon over 2,300 records of EPA evaluations of
Corps of Engineers Public Notices for activities requiring
a permit under Section 404 of the CWA or Section 10 of
the Rivers and Harbor Act for Oregon, Washington, and
Idaho. Before presenting these data, it is essential to
identify their limitations and the general shortcomings of
this analysis.
' There are five wetland types:
Marine—open ocean and the high energy coastline
Estuarine—deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands,
including emergent saltwater marshes
Riverine—all wetland and deepwater habitats within a channel
Lacustrine—wetlands and deepwater habitats contained within a
depression (i.e., lakes)
Palustrine—non-tidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, and
persistent emergent vegetation (e.g., wet meadows, freshwater
marshes)
The database chosen for analysis was limited due to
time (i.e., necessity of report preparation by October 1,
1987) and resources (i.e., personnel were available to
enter and arrange data only in the month of September).
As a result, the data chosen for analyses are taken from
the period of October of 1983 to September of 1987 (not
quite four fiscal years). Due to filing irregularities, the
1983 data are limited to a fraction of the projects reviewed
for the fourth quarter of that year and thus have little
meaning in terms of absolute numbers. However, they
are still useful in helping to define trends. When
completed, the entire database will consist of over 8,000
records extending back to 1979. A thorough analysis of
these data will be conducted during FY88. Time
constraints also prevented us from including the state of
Alaska in our analysis. This is significant as at least 40%
of EPA's review of 404 public notices are for projects in
32
-------
Chapters: Wetlands
Alaska and Alaskan projects generally involve much
greater wetland acreage than those in the other three
states. These reviews will also be included in the FY88
environmental indicators report.
The data does not include a consistent number of
project outcomes (i.e., the final disposition of the permit by
the Corps: issued, denied, issued with conditions, etc.).
We have attempted to factor in likely project outcomes but
this is especially difficult with the more recent projects.
For this reason, the 1987 data generally show a larger
acreage of wetlands lost and lower amounts of mitigation2.
This is less a reflection of reality than it is an Indication of
uncertainty with regard to final disposition. We fully expect
most of these projects will be mitigated and that net loss
will be less than in 1986. Most data from the other years
also reflect only proposed acreage impacted and
proposed mitigation acreage. The actual acreage will be
calculated for the FY88 report. We do not anticipate that
this will affect the wetlands trends analysis.
The trends assessment is also hampered by inadequate
quality control (again, a time-related factor). Thus, we see
an anomolous gain in riverine wetlands in the state of
Oregon in 1985. This will be rectified in the FY88 report.
We have corrected several major errors in the data and
feel that the trends are accurate.
We have little data on present wetland acreages in
Washington, Oregon, and Idaho or historical losses in
these states to compare with these data. We will need
such data if we are to draw meaningful conclusions about
current losses. This is especially important if we are to
concentrate wetland protection efforts in areas where
cumulative losses may be seriously threatening the
resource.
These data cover only those wetland impacting projects
which require a Corps permit. There are many activities
lying outside Corps jurisdiction which have substantial
adverse impacts on wetlands (e.g., draining wetlands,
using wetlands for normal farming practices). In addition,
all impacts on isolated wetlands or wetlands adjacent to
streams above the headwaters (streams with average
annual flows of less than 5 cfs) are excluded from this
analysis before 1986 as they were not regulated by
individual Corps permits. Wetland losses of less than one
acre for such wetlands are still not regulated by the Corps
and are thus excluded from the database.
'Mitigation, for the purposes of this report, is defined as the
creation of wetlands or the substantial enhancement or rehabilitation
of degraded wetland areas.
Finally, we should stress that simply looking at acreage
loss or gain is not the best way to evaluate wetland
impacts. In order to properly assess impacts, we must
look at wetland functions and values. We currently do not
possess the data to evaluate such losses or gains. This is
something EPA will evaluate through the development of
its mitigation database.
Due to these data limitations we feel all of these
"findings" must be considered preliminary. Until we have
completed data quality control, we recommend these
findings not be quoted as final.
B. Analysis of Trends
For the purpose of this report, we have concentrated on
net wetland acreages lost by wetland type, activity, and
state by subtracting proposed mitigation acreage from the
acreage proposed to be impacted. Also, we have also
evaluated linear feet of shoreline affected (largely due to
bank protection projects), in-water disposal of dredged
material (by volume), EPA time expenditure on project
categories (major, important, and minor projects) and
percentage of substantive comments provided. We have
evaluated the trends associated with mitigation
requirements/success and EPA enforcement activity.
Table 1 and graphs 1 through 15 present the data on
acres of wetlands to be impacted, mitigation acreage and
net loss by wetland type and state. Two trends are
evident from these data. It is obvious that there is a
downward trend in net wetland loss from 1984 to 1986.
Total regional losses for the year 1986 were under 100
acres. The 1987 data indicate an increase in wetland
losses but this is largely due to unresolved mitigation for a
few major projects.
The data indicate a total wetland loss to the region of
over 1,150 acres in four years, with approximately 56%
occurring in Oregon, 42% in Washington, and 2% in Idaho
(this calculation includes projects not listed in the table or
referenced on the graphs, see below). Oregon accounts
for approximately 95% of the palustrine losses (over 600
acres) and 25% of the riverine losses (over 70 acres).
Washington accounts for roughly 90% of the estuarine
losses (over 250 acres) and 70% of the riverine losses
(over 200 acres). The Oregon palustrine losses are due
largely to 2 large industrial projects adjacent to the
Columbia River. Mitigation for one of these projects will
reduce net losses by at least 10%. The reason for the
substantial estuarine losses in Washington (which
occurred primarily in 1984 and 1987) are as yet
undetermined. One would expect these losses to
decrease substantially as project outcome is confirmed
with the Corps of Engineers.
Statistics not shown on the tables and graphs are
important for the trends assessment. There were about
235 acres of wetlands saved as a result of permit denial,
project reduction in scope, or project withdrawal. In
addition, over 1,600 acres of habitat enhancement
projects have occurred or are proposed in the state of
Oregon; 1,300 acres of palustrine wetlands enhancement
by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife at Summer
Lake near the Ana River, 200 acres of enhancement of
estuarine wetlands by the U.S. Forest Service on the
Salmon River, 68 acres of estuarine and lacustrine
wetland enhancement by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers near Coos Bay, and 32 acres of enhancement
of estuarine wetlands by the Oregon Division of State
Lands near Astoria. While these enhancement projects
may not increase overall wetland acreage substantially,
they do contribute to a net gain in wetland functions and
values.
33
-------
Chapters: Wetlands
The second major trend noted in the data Is the
increase in mitigation acreage in the last four years. This
is a reflection of several factors. All applicants for permits
are aware that any unavoidable adverse wetland Impact
must be mitigated. This is a result of a concerted state
and federal effort to insist upon mitigation as an
appropriate requirement for development. The state of
Oregon has regulatory mitigation requirements and
Region 10 has had a wetland mitigation policy requiring in-
kind habitat replacement (if feasible) since 1984.
The Increased use of mitigation was the stimulus for a
1987 EPA study (Kunz, Rylko and Somers, unpublished,
1987) entitled "Implications of Wetland Mitigation Practices
Pursuant to Section 404 Permitting Activities in
Washington State." Several findings in this report are
relevant to this trends assessment. In evaluating
mitigation projects from 1980 to 1986 (none were
identified prior to 1980) Kunz, et. al., discovered that
mitigation provided substantially less functional
replacement than had been anticipated.
In terms of trends, the mitigation acreage proposed in
404 permits went from a low in 1982 of 25% of acreage
impacted to 67% in 1986. The percentage of permits
incorporating contingency plans rose from zero to a high
of 22% in 1986 and the percentage containing
maintenance requirements rose from zero to a high of
11% in 1986. The overall acreage replacement for the 7
year period was only 51% and only 20% of all mitigation
plans contained a statement of objectives. Overall the
habitat types offered fell short by 33% of those to be
impacted, but even this 67% habitat mitigation only
proposed to replace 57% of all wetland functions. The
distribution of mitigation percentages among wetland
types is especially interesting as estuarine habitats were
proposed for replacement at 97%, whereas palustrine and
riverine habitats were offered at replacement rates of only
40 and 33% respectively.
What is significant about these figures is that they are
the result of a paper exercise (i.e., all data were generated
from project file information). One can imagine the field
results would lower those percentages considerably. In
addition, these data do not take into account time delays
between project construction and habitat replacement
which can result in a net wetland functional loss for
several growing seasons.
The number of projects examined by Kunz, et. al.,
constituted less than 2% of all projects permitted by the
Corps during that time period. Since all projects have
some impacts, the other 98% resulted In an unmitigated
net loss of wetlands.
Preliminary analysis of information gathered during an
investigation of mitigation projects (joint effort by Region
10 and Corvallis Environmental Research Lab) indicates
that most mitigation projects are generally not successful.
Although the majority of sites examined were under two
years old, it appears likely that most will not be able to
replace the functions and values of the original wetlands.
The lack of success may be attributed to the following:
1. The resource agencies have not been successful in
negotiating for mitigation plans designed to fully
compensate for wetland values lost over time and
space. There is a hesitancy on the part of regulators to
"force" applicants into complicated and potentially
expensive creation/restoration plans. Until methodology
can be develop to attribute economic benefits to
wetlands preservation, cost will continue to be a limiting
factor in most mitigation plans.
2. The science of wetlands creation and restoration is far
behind the regulatory use of its techniques. Often,
projects are approved without fully understanding if a
particular creation/restoration technique is valid. For
example, many projects fail due to a lack of
understanding of the hydrologic regime necessary to
achieve project goals; lack of adequate water is a
common cause of project failure. Also, the
establishment of a "successful" project is difficult as we
lack the methodologies to determine if an artificial
wetland is functioning in a similar fashion to a created
one.
Table 2 indicates the impacts of various project activities
on wetlands. The major activities affecting wetlands are
fills for fast land, fills for riprap and bank stabilization and
small shoreline structures, road building, and dredging.
The entities with the largest impact on wetlands are the
state Departments of Transportation, the Corps of
Engineers, Ports, and large industrial developers. With
the exception of the Corps, all of these applicants have
agreed to provide mitigation where feasible for all
unavoidable adverse effects. The Corps has agreed only
to avoid or minimize impacts and not to provide
replacement habitats.
Table 3 and graphs 16 and 17 indicate the impacts of
404 activities on shorelines. It is difficult to discern any
trends in this data except that shoreline protection projects
in Puget Sound and the Columbia River contribute a
substantial portion of the total affected shoreline, although
not as much as one might anticipate. The substantial
activity in 1986 is inexplicable at present. These data
indicate that we are affecting over 14 miles of shoreline
(within Corps jurisdiction) per year in Washington, Oregon,
and Idaho.
Table 4 and graph 18 indicate the disposition of dredge
material in upland versus in-water disposal for the
Columbia River and Puget Sound. Trends are not
apparent here except for the shift from 1986 to 1987. The
increase in upland disposal in Puget Sound may be the
result of disposal site restrictions and the failure of
material to pass testing criteria. The Columbia River data
reflect large developments on Hayden Island and in
Rivergate for which substantial fill is required. It is
important to note that while the agency has concentrated
on the impacts of in-water disposal of dredged material in
Puget Sound, the amount of such material being
deposited in the Columbia River system is substantially
greater.
34
-------
Chapters: Wetlands
Table 5 and graph 19 illustrate the time expenditure of
EPA personnel in the project categories developed by
EPA headquarters (i.e., major, important, minor).
Basically, the data illustrate that EPA hours are allocated
as they should be on a per project basis. For the 4 year
span EPA personnel were spending an average of over 7
hours per major project, 3.4 hours per important project,
and 1.5 hours per minor project. The actual times spent
working on major and important projects are greater as
the accounting system does not adequately reflect effort
(employees often do not include time spent in
preapplication meetings or telephone discussions with
applicants in their estimates of hours expended).
Eighty-two percent of all permits reviewed are for minor
projects (e.g., small dock installation), 10% are important
and 8% are major projects (e.g., fills of greater than 5
acres). EPA's comments on these project categories
appropriately reflect our level of concern. EPA objects to
permit issuance for 24% of major projects, 16% of
important projects, and 2% of minor projects. EPA staff
recommends conditions for 33% of major projects, 26% of
important projects, and 7% of minor projects. The
percentage of projects for which EPA actually asks for
conditions is greater then indicated as many of the
projects objected to are approved after appropriate
conditions are added.
Table 6 indicates the distribution of EPA comments by
state and wetland type and graph 20 summarizes the data
by indicating the percent of EPA responses which are
substantive (i.e., recommend the permit be held in
abeyance, denied, or conditioned). The data show that for
Oregon in 1986 and 1987, and for Idaho and Washington
in 1987, the trend is toward increasing the percentage of
substantive comments. We believe the reason these
figures are increasing is a result of the location of 404
personnel in the EPA operations offices in Portland and
Boise beginning in 1986. Our increased ability to get into
the field and to become more familiar with the complexities
of each project have lead to an increase in substantive
input to the Corps. From 1983 to 1987, EPA had
substantive comments on 71% of the major projects, 56%
of the important projects and 10% of the minor projects.
For the four fiscal years, EPA personnel reviewed an
annual average of 629 public notices; 299 for Washington,
260 for Oregon and 62 for Idaho.
SPMS data for 1986 and 1987 indicate the following: of
1,256 public notices reviewed by Region 10 staff in FY86,
223 raised significant environmental issues, 129 were
resolved, leading to 26 permit denials and 4 permits being
issued over EPA objections; of 714 public notices
reviewed by Region 10 staff in 3 quarters of 1987, 103
raised significant issues, 75 of which were resolved
leading to 13 permit denials and 4 permits issued over
EPA objections. Region 10 is currently facing the
possibility of having 3 more permits issued by the Corps
over EPA objections. The trend has been for EPA and the
Corps to come into conflict over project compliance with
the 404(b)(1) Guidelines on a more frequent basis. We
most often disagree on smaller projects where some
mitigation is provided by the applicant.
Enforcement trends demonstrate a similar increased
activism on the part of EPA. Since Region 10 hired an
enforcement coordinator in 1984, the enforcement actions
have increased as indicated in table 7 below:
Table 7
Region 10 Enforcement Activity
FY83 FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87
Activity
Site Inspections
Administrative Orders
Referrals to DOJ
Consent Decrees
Trials
Resolutions
1
2
1
1
1
46 107
22 8
4
1 1
1
12
12
35
These data reflect the logical evolution of the
enforcement program and demonstrate that if we select
cases carefully, we can be effective in obtaining
resolution. This program can only function effectively with
good field support and a commitment of the Office of
Regional Counsel. So far we have had an excellent effort
on the part of our Operations Office personnel and
regional attorneys. EPA has also conducted an
enforcement workshop with all Corps districts in the
Region except Walla Walla. A trend not reflected in the
data is a steady increase in voluntary compliance. This
results in a more efficient use of agency personnel by
substantially reducing the time requirements of both field
personnel and Regional attorneys.
In summary, it is possible to discern several trends from
this preliminary data. There has been a general decrease
in net loss of wetlands since 1984 for Washington,
Oregon, and Idaho accompanied by a corresponding
increase in mitigation acreage. The total wetland acres
impacted shows no obvious trend. There has also been
an increasing trend of EPA requiring more mitigation and
more detailed mitigation plans for projects with
unavoidable adverse wetland impacts. This has been a
steady trend since 1984 when EPA instituted its Regional
Mitigation Policy. In addition, the data indicate that over
200 acres of wetlands have been "saved" from destruction
over the past 4 years. This corresponds to a more
aggressive posture on the part of EPA regarding project
compliance with the 404(b)(1) Guidelines. While it is
difficult to draw any conclusions about a cause/effect
relationship between EPA actions and the observed
trends, it is reasonable to conclude that EPA has played
some role in these rather positive results.
One note of caution in interpreting these data relates to
mitigation. Since it has been recognized that mitigation
projects generally do not provide the amount of wetland
functional replacement claimed, it is likely that net losses
are greater than calculated. While this may not affect the
trend toward a reduction in the rate of wetland loss, it does
affect absolute acreage values and Is of considerable
concern to this agency.
There are 3 areas where EPA has been a recognized
leader in the last 3 years. One is in interpreting the
application of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines to wetland fill
projects. This has led to requests for permit denial on
-------
Chapters: Wetlands
several projects and inevitable conflicts with the Corps.
EPA's insistence on thorough alternatives analyses has
reduced wetland Impacts due to resulting project
modifications and permit denials or withdrawals.
Secondly, we have taken the lead In all three states on
examining the utility of mitigation as a method to minimize
wetland losses. This has resulted In an increase both In
mitigation requirements being incorporated in conditions of
404 permits and in the improvement in the quality of
mitigation plans submitted by applicants to the resource
agencies. In addition, we have developed an ongoing
program to monitor the success (or failure) of existing
mitigation projects. This is complemented with an
interagency effort to improve the level of knowledge
necessary to accurately assess mitigation plans and to
reduce the likelihood of inadequate mitigation
requirements.
Thirdly, the increase in EPA enforcement activity has
resulted in the restoration of several wetland habitats
which may otherwise have remained in a degraded state.
EPAs actions on enforcement have encouraged the Corps
to become more aggressive in their own enforcement
efforts. The Corps and EPA now view each other as
cooperating agencies with a common enforcement goal.
Program Status and Direction
The following sections are provided to discuss the other
aspects of the Region 10 404 program as they relate to
Environmental Indicators.
A.Mitigation
The trends assessment indicates that mitigation is
becoming increasingly important in project permitting. At
the same time we know from Kunz, et. al., and others that
we are not doing a good job of evaluating mitigation plans
or of following up to ensure adequate replacement of
wetland functions and values. To address these issues
EPA is developing a wetland mitigation database to track
mitigation projects in cooperation with other resource
agencies. In addition, EPA is insisting that mitigation
plans contain at least the following elements: an adequate
characterization of the wetland functions and values to be
lost, a clear statement of mitigation goals, criteria for
measuring success, a monitoring plan and a contingency
plan (if the mitigation effort should fail). We are also
insisting that either a mitigation agreement be signed with
the appropriate state and federal resource agencies (with
a performance bond) or that the Corps require mitigation
as a condition of the permit.
Mitigation banking is a relatively new concept which is
becoming more attractive to applicants who foresee
several future projects involving wetland impacts. The
Astoria Mitigation Bank was created this year to establish
an area for use by the Port of Astoria (and other
developers in the area) as mitigation for projects which are
otherwise permittable under Section 404 of the CWA.
EPA was a signatory to the mitigation bank agreement. It
assures the Port and resource agencies of an appropriate
mitigation site thus providing some certainty regarding
future Port development plans.
The Idaho Department of Transportation is also
Interested in developing a mitigation bank for some of its
projects. EPA Is involved in this effort as one of many
resource agencies. A conceptual framework has been
agreed upon but the bank has not yet been established.
One substantial problem concerning mitigation has
arisen recently. The Corps of Engineers has stated that
they are under no obligation to provide compensatory
mitigation for any operation and maintenance project
which results in wetland losses. This position has resulted
in the unmitigated destruction of over 103 acres of
palustrine wetland near the mouth of the Cowlitz River.
This fill is the largest unmitigated wetlands fill In Region 10
in the last five years. EPA has vigorously protested this
policy as it has obvious significant adverse effects on the
404 wetlands protection program.
EPA will be assessing the potential for habitat
enhancement on the thousands of acres of diked tidelands
in the estuaries of Oregon and Washington. Successful
dike breaching projects offer the best opportunity for
redressing historical losses of estuarine habitat. Several
completed or on-going projects in this Region offer EPA
the opportunity to study the results of dike breaching so
that recommendations can be made on future projects.
The best opportunity to obtain federal funds for such
projects is through the Corps' O&M dike maintenance
program. Due to the economic benefits (primarily from
salmon rearing) of returning diked areas to the estuary,
the option of purchasing land and breaching dikes is one
which is more attractive to Corps planners.
B. Enforcement
The success of EPA's enforcement program is the
result of very dedicated field personnel and Office of
Regional Counsel attorneys. The critical measure of
success in this program is the return of wetlands to
functional status. This inevitably involves fill removal and
site restoration. We have been especially pleased with
several developments in this area. We successfully
obtained the removal of a 1 1/2 mile long dike which was
draining over 600 acres of wetlands in Miller Lake near
Klamath Falls, Oregon. This was done via administrative
order. It was successful largely because of the
cooperation of the state of Oregon, EPA, and the Corps in
ordering the restoration. We obtained fill removal and
ditch plugging in an area determined to contain a rare
prairie grass community type near Corvallis, Oregon. This
action restored the hydrology to over 13 acres of wetland.
This was also a cooperative state and federal effort. We
obtained via a consent decree a substantial penalty, fill
removal, and off-site mitigation for 3 violations by the
same company in Idaho. This was the first penalty
obtained by EPA for a fill violation and established our
agency as a real presence in the state of Idaho. We
recently (July, 1987) obtained a substantial penalty and/or
mitigation for a violation in Big Lake, Alaska via a trial.
This is the first successful litigation for EPA concerning a
404 violation since the Region 10 Wetlands Protection
Section has become actively involved in enforcement.
The most important aspect of our enforcement program
is the cooperative way in which we approach violations.
36
-------
Chapters: Wetlands
Our relationship with all 4 Corps Districts is very good. All
Corps Districts have requested EPA assistance and in
every case we have obtained a successful resolution of
the violation. We have obtained voluntary compliance
when the Corps asked our assistance in 6 cases in
Oregon and 1 in Washington. We have provided warrants
for on-site inspections in Idaho and have joined the Walla
Walla district in a referral which will allow protection of the
largest bog in the state of Idaho.
Future success depends on our working very closely
with the Corps in taking formal legal action and in
educating the public. Most of the violators encountered
are not knowledgeable about the 404 program.
EPA will be taking on new responsibilities under 404
enforcement as it is now be possible to levy administrative
penalties (1987 CWA amendments). Since EPA is
responsible for all administrative penalties associated with
unpermitted discharges (i.e., most violations), this new
statutory authority has the potential to quickly overwhelm
agency personnel unless we develop strict criteria for
applying such penalties. This will require extensive
cooperation with the Corps as they often will have the lead
in civil cases.
The draft national enforcement MOA with the Corps
encourages the development of field level agreements
between EPA regions and Corps districts for implementing
the enforcement program. We intend to enter an
agreement with the North Pacific Division on enforcement
cooperation as soon as the national MOA is finalized.
Finally, we will conduct an enforcement workshop with the
Walla Walla district this fiscal year.
C. Advanced Identification
Region 10 is involved in several programs to identify
wetland areas that are potentially suitable and unsuitable
for development in locations where such development is
inevitable. Using section 230.80 of the 404(b)(1)
Guidelines, we work with the Corps and local governments
in a planning process which protects sensitive or
especially valuable wetlands and helps direct development
to less sensitive areas. Projects may be permitted In
these less sensitive areas only if they comply with all
regulatory requirements (including the necessity to provide
mitigation).
The Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan, begun in
1976, was the first advanced identification (ADID) effort of
its kind in the nation. The final environmental impact
statement was completed this year and it is now being
adopted by local governments in the Grays Harbor Area.
We are also Involved in ADID efforts in Juneau, Alaska (to
be completed next fiscal year), the Colville Delta, and
Puget Sound (for dredge material disposal). In addition,
we have Identified areas in Oregon and Idaho which may
qualify for ADID.
As a part of this effort, EPA is conducting a threat
assessment to look at wetland areas in Oregon, Idaho,
and Washington which may be experiencing considerable
development pressure or will be in the near future. This
assessment will help to focus our public education efforts.
A logical extension of the ADID process is the use of
Section 404(c) of the CWA for denying or restricting the
use of aquatic sites for placement of fill material. The
Region will be exploring the possibility of using this
regulatory mechanism to protect aquatic sites (including
wetlands).
D. Education
We are developing an outreach program which targets
appropriate audiences for education on wetlands benefits
and regulations. It is essential that local governments
become more aware of the requirements of the 404
program to reduce conflicts between local land use plans
and 404 requirements. Education will not only lead to
local support for wetlands protection but will also assist
our enforcement efforts. Most violators are only aware of
the local permit requirements (e.g., building permits). With
assistance from the Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
Branch, we hope to prepare a brochure explaining the 404
program. This brochure would be distributed to all local
government planning departments for inclusion in building
permit information kits. We also would like to develop a
talk/slide show presentation which can be modified to
meet the needs of each audience. Based on the results of
the trends assessment and the threat assessment, key
audiences (mostly local governments) will be targeted for
presentation.
E. Dredged Material Disposal
Region 10 EPA personnel have been involved
extensively in the development of evaluation procedures
and interpretive guidelines for the disposal of dredged
sediments in Puget Sound. It is necessary to develop
such procedures for in-water disposal of sediments in
fresh water (e.g., Columbia and Snake Rivers) and in the
coastal estuaries of Washington and Oregon. We will
undertake such an effort in FY88 with the cooperation of
the Corps and the States of Oregon and Washington.
As part of the anticipated ADID efforts for contained
disposal of contaminated dredged material, EPA will be
coordinating with the Corps and the Washington
Department of Ecology to develop evaluation procedures,
interpretive guidelines, facility design, and treatment
requirements.
In a related area, the Wetlands Protection Section will
provide technical assistance for managing existing and
future marine Superfund sites (e.g., Commencement Bay,
Eagle Harbor, etc.). These efforts will involve the
application of knowledge gained from ongoing evaluation
procedures development, disposal site investigations, and
development of new dredging technologies.
37
-------
Chapters: Wetlands
Wetlands Environmental Indicators
Modifications for FY 88 and Beyond
The indicators will be the same for FY 88 as for FY 87, but the database will be expanded to include Alaska public notices
and all public notices prior to 1984.
The activities required to obtain the Environmental Indicators are as follows:
1. Enter Alaska data Into computer database and analyze data
2. Analyze older data (pre 1984) for all states
3. Update analyses with more accurate information on project outcomes In coordination with the Corps Districts
4. Conduct quality control on database
5. Evaluate all SPMS data
6. Establish a separate Dredged Material Disposal database and update data on dredged material
7. Establish a mitigation database
38
-------
TOTAL WETLANDS IMPACTED,
MITIGATION PROVIDED. AND NET LOSS
600 -
700 -
600 -
500 -
400 -
MO -
200 -
100 -
173
7~7~l r-m
//
j
^
1983 1964
fTTl IMPACTED l\n urr
Hn
I
1
n
i
J
1989 1966 1967
YEAR
ICA.TCD lZZ/% NET LOSS
PALUSTRINE WETLANDS IMPACTED,
umCATKJN PROVtOCD. AND NET LOSS
38(a)
-------
EST'JARINE WETLANDS IMPACTED,
umOATION PROVIDED. AND NET LOSS
200 -
160 -
,40 -j
I
120 -
i
100 -j
'I
60 -
40 -
20 -
0
I
mt
I
1X/I IMPACTED
YEAR
umCATED
170
ISO -
150 -
140 -
130 -
120 -
110 -
100 -
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
30 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
0 -E
RIVERINE WETLANDS IMPACTED,
umCATION PROVIDED. ANO NET LOSS
I
A
.
I/ /I IUPACTE3
YEAR
UmOATED
1986 1987
VTA NET LOSS
38(b)
-------
TOTAL WASHINGTON WETLANDS IMPACTED,
MITIGATION PROVIDED. AND NET LOSS
i
r
I9«*
1983
1771 IMPACTED
YEAR
UITIGATEO
WASH. PALUSTRINE WETLANDS IMPACTED,
210
200 -
190 -
ISO -
170 -
160 -
1*0 -
130 -
120 -
110 -
100 -
90
,0-j
701
60 -4
30
20
10-,
1983
IMPACTED
UmCATION PROVIDED. AND NET LOSS
TEAR
MITIGATED
38(c)
-------
' Graph 7
220
200 -
160 -
160 -
140 -
120 -
100 -
60-
60-
40 -
20 -
WASH. ESTUARINE WETLANDS IMPACTED,
1771 IM^UJTED
MITIGATION PROVIDED. AND NET LOSS
YEAR
MITIGATED
1916 1967
UTTI NET LOSS
140 - -
130 -
120 -
110 -
100 -
90 -
50 -
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
WASH. RIVERINE WETLANDS IMPACTED,
umOTION PROVIDED. AND NET LOSS
K
I
\7~7\ IMPACTED
YEAR
MITIGATED
1906 1967
VTA NET LOSS
38(d)
-------
TOTAL OREGON WETLANDS IMPACTED,
MITIGATION PROVIDED, AND NET LOSS
L
IV3 MITIGATED
1906 1907
t/TZI NET LOSS
ORE. PALUSTRINE WETLANDS IMPACTED,
umCATlON PROVIDED. AND NET LOSS
1905
YEAR
1986 1907
ITTTX NET LOSS
38(e)
-------
ORE. ESTUARINE WETLANDS IMPACTED,
WmGATION PROVIDED. AND NET LOSS
1983
IMPACTED
YEAR
UmCATED
1906 1997
^^ NET LOSS
Cr«fh 12
ORE. RIVERINE WETLANDS IMPACTED.
umcxnoN PROVIDED, AND NET LOSS
\
50 -
to -
30 -
20 -
10 -
10 -
I
I
1993 1994
1771 IMPACTED £3
t
V/////////S
I
1995
YEAR
UTIGATED
1986 1997
Cg/3 NET LOSS
38(f)
-------
24 -
22 -
20 -
18 -
16 -
14 -
12 -
10 -
a -
a -_
/
* •/
/
i - /
TOTAL IDAHO WETLANDS IMPACTED,
UmCATION PROVIDED. AND NET LOSS
%L
1883
IMPACTED
§
1983
YEAR
1966 1987
PZZI NET LOSS
IDAHO PALUSTRINE WETLANDS IMPACTED.
umCATlON PROVIDED. AND NET LOSS
1771 IMPACTED
umCATED
38(g)
-------
IDAHO RIVERINE WETLANDS IMPACTED,
PROVIDED. AND NET LOSS
177
193,3
1771 IMPACTED
YEAR
lOTUATED
LINEAR FEET OF SHORELINE AFFECTED
1983
[//] WASHINGTON
38(h)
-------
LINEAR FEET OF SHORELINE AFFECTED
,
22 i
20-j
18 -i
16 -
1* —
1 2 ~i
10 -
a -<
6 —
p-
4 1 /
/
2 4 /
i /
1963
SNO IVJ co
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
1
IL
T^ft
914
_
X
X
X
X
X
y
E
^
Y
Y/
Y!
SZJ WI
M^
190.
.AR
a
^5
1
i
^
7
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
3
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
N,
1
EC
^JS)
M&
96C
ISC
7
,/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
>
y
S
/
E
^
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
s
\
\
\
s,
i
3
K^
967
] SNAKi
UPLAND AND IN-WATER DISPOSAL
OF SEDIUENTS
I
II
1771 P.S. UP
1994
P.S. IN
1985
YEAR
M
^
1966 1967
COL UP ESS COL W
38(i)
-------
E.PA AVERAGE TIME EXPENDITURE
FOR PROJECT CATEGORIES
YEAR
UPCKTANT
E.P.A. SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS
BY STATE
90 -
e "-
Z
* 70-
i
u
u 60 '
£
I 50-
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
0 — ^
%
I
•fir*
J
_K
P7v
^^
I
1963 1984
I/XI WASHINCTON
J
^^
I
1983
vk
I
1986
IXM OREOON t/P/3
777;
V/
1987
IDAHO
38(j)
-------
TABLE 1
tP -
Acres of Wetlands Impacted/Mitigation Provided/Net Lose
Palustrine, E - Estuoririe, H - Marine, L - Lacustrine. R - Riverine]
STATE
UA
TOTAL =
OR
TOTAL
00
ID
TOTAL =
PE
IMPACT
P
E
M
L
R
P
E
H
L
R
I
P
E
H
L
R
0.00
8.40
O.OO
0.30
0.20
8.90
0.50
6.01
O.OO
O.OO
1.55
8.06
2.17
O.OO
0.00
0.2O
3.10
5.47
1983
MIT.
O.OO
0.00
O.OO
O.OO
0.00
O.OO
O.OO
6.01
O.OO
0.00
O.OO
6.01
O.OO
O.OO
0.00
0.10
O.OO
0.1O
NET
O.OO
8.40
0.00
O.30
O.2O
8.90
O.5O
0.00
O.OO
0.00
1.55
2.05
2.17
O.OO
O.OO
0.10
3.10
5.37
IMPACT
14. 5O
216.11
O.OO
5.46
135.79
371.86
451.34
0.12
O.OO
2.50
21.26
475.22
4.65
O.OO
0.00
O.30
6.66
11.61
1984
MIT.
O.OO
67.50
O.OO
0.00
5.60
73.1O
1301.14
2O1 .21
O.OO
0.10
O.1O
1502.55
O.75
0.00
O.OO
O.10
0.00
0.85
NET
14.50
148.61
O.OO
5.46
13O.19
298.76
-849. SO
-2O1 .09
0.00
2.40
21.16
1027.33
3.9O
O.OO
O.OO
O.20
6.66
1O.76
IMPACT
1.36
33.18
O.OO
5.96
59.42
99.92
51.68
1.85
O.OO
0.00
16.28
69.81
7.26
O.OO
0.00
5.44
6.64
19.34
1985
MIT.
O.OO
11.00
O.OO
O.1O
7.40
18.50
16.95
O.OO
O.OO
2.0O
34. 4O
53.35
6. 2O
0.00
0.00
O.OO
0.86
7.O6
NET
1.36
22.18
O.OO
5.86
52.02
81.42
34.73
1.85
O.OO
-2.00
-18.12
16.46
1.O6
O.OO
0.00
5.44
5.78
12.28
IMPACT
206.70
41.84
0.00
4.78
24.72
278.04
134.43
6O.23
0.23
2.03
13.59
210.51
2.92
0.00
O.OO
1.12
7.67
11.71
1986
MIT.
202 . 80
31.17
O.OO
2.41
1.75
238.13
110.16
31.90
0.00
1O.8O
0.97
153.83
2.20
O.OO
0.00
0.44
6.01
8.65
NET
3.90
1O.67
0.00
2.37
22.97
39.91
24.27
28.33
0.23
-8.77
12.62
56.68
0.72
O.OO
O.OO
O.68
1.66
3.06
IMPACT
33.22
144.38
O.19
0.73
7.10
185.62
112.22
6.35
0.11
0.11
56.51
175. 3O
21.20
O.OO
O.OO
0.38
3.33
24.91
1987
MIT.
29.31
46. 05
0.00
0.00
1.84
77.20
3.65
5.31
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
8.96
18.00
O.OO
O.OO
O.O1
3.01
21.02
NET
3.91
98.33
0.19
0.73
5.26
108.42
108.57
1.O4
0.11
0.11
56.51
166.34
3. 2O
O.OO
O.OO
0.37
0.32
3.89
GRAND TOTAL
22.43
6.11
16.32
858.69 1576.5O -717.81
189.O7
78.91 110.16
500.26 400.61
99.65
385.83 107.18 278.65
-------
TABLE 2
Effect of Various Activitiee
ACTIVITY
CO
co
TYPE
P
E
R
H
L
P
E
R
M
L
P
E
R
H
L
P
E
R
M
L
P
E
R
H
L
P
E
R
H
L
P
E
R
H
L
P
E
R
H
L
P
E
R
H
L
O
1O
5
0
8
O
O
3
O
0
1
O
O
O
2
O
3
13
0
2
O
3
10
O
4
2
1
0
0
0
O
4
3
0
O
0
1
1
0
0
O
2
3
O
O-
983
MPACT
0.00
0.20
O.OO
O.OO
0.10
O.OO
O.OO
0.00
O.OO
0.00
O.5O
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
0.10
0.00
O.3O
O.8O
0.00
O.2O
O.OO
0.21
2.50
0.00
O.4O
O.67
0.10
0.1O
0.00
O.OO
O.OO
6.10
1.00
O.OO
O.OO
0.00
8.0O
0.00
O.OO
O.OO
0.00
a.oo
O.1O
O.OO
O.OO
MIT.
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
0.00
O.OO
0.00
O.OO
O.1O
O.OO
0.00
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
O.01
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
0.00
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
6.OO
O.OO
0.00
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
0.00
O.OO
PROJS.
2
79
65
O
72
2
13
12
O
3
O
16
9
O
3
8
29
1O2
O
10
3
25
81
O
16
13
4
13
O
7
2
19
47
1
6
1
1
28
O
0
0
11
11
0
O
1984
IMPACT
O.1O
2. SO
28.10
O.OO
1.2O
0.59
1.7O
2.20
O.OO
0.30
0.00
0.85
1.5O
O.OO
0.1O
5.35
4.47
38.77
O.OO
3.56
3.10
2.42
5.51
O.OO
3.60
454.99
0.59
38.25
O.OO
3.66
0.09
1.82
2.41
O.OO
0.4O
5.OO
65.00
73. 7O
O.OO
0.00
O.OO
0.15
O.05
O.OO
O.OO
MIT.
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
0.00
O.2O
0.39
O.OO
0.00
O.OO
O.OO
0.00
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
0.00
O.OO
0.10
0.00
O.OO
0.00
O.OO
0.00
O.OO
O.1O
0.39
O.OO
0.00
0.00
O.OO
O.14
1.21
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
l.OO
65. OO
5.0O
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
0.00
O.OO
O.OO
:OJS.
1
96
86
O
64
2
14
1O
O
1
1
8
18
0
5
5
13
77
O
7
6
20
66
O
10
10
5
11
O
3
2
19
4O
0
a
1
2
3
1
O
O
16
7
0
3
1985
IMPACT
0.00
0.96
1.78
O.OO
5.35
5.20
3.3O
O.93
O.OO
O.OO
1.00
O.4O
2.61
O.OO
O.2O
6.4O
2.91
6O.32
O.OO
5.39
25.39
3.37
11 .67
O.OO
O.64
15.32
12.65
6.68
O.OO
5.20
2.80
0.42
2.21
0.00
0.46
20.OO
0.00
0.01
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
3.40
8.29
O.OO
O.O1
MIT.
0.95
O.OO
0.87
O.OO
O.OO
5.3O
O.OO
0.03
O.OO
O.OO
0.95
O.OO
0.87
O.OO
O.OO
5.50
O.OO
0.53
O.OO
O.OO
5.5O
O.OO
33.53
O.OO
O.OO
6.O9
O.OO
2.87
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
0.00
O.OO
0.00
O.OO
O.OO
0.00
O.OO
0.00
O.OO
PROJS.
2
88
92
0
57
1
7
9
O
3
0
10
8
O
5
11
22
154
3
10
7
24
118
3
13
11
6
13
0
5
3
28
48
1
10
1
9
4
0
1
O
8
7
1
O
1986
IMPACT
0.10
4O.32
1.57
O.OO
0.46
1.50
15.04
4.54
O.OO
2.45
0.00
O.O7
2.81
O.OO
0.03
15.39
45.36
11.60
0.21
2.02
0.96
2.09
11.18
0.21
1.45
26.65
11.98
3.82
O.OO
2.10
46.35
15.40
4.46
O.01
0.70
46. OO
85.71
17.21
0.00
0.01
O.OO
2.50
O.34
O;O1
O.OO
MIT.
0.00
17.50
0.2O
O.OO
O.OO
1.5O
4.OO
4.51
O.OO
2.40
2.00
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
9.85
26.40
1.29
O.OO
5.3O
2.26
O.OO
O.68
O.OO
O.41
5.OO
5.17
O.OO
0.00
1.51
46.25
4.00
O.O2
0.00
0.00
47.00
47.72
0.00
0.00
O.OO
0.00
O.OO
O.O1
JO . 00
O.OO
!OJS.
4
50
58
1
23
3
7
13
0
O
2
5
1O
1
3
14
13
90
3
6
7
14
48
3
5
39
5
11
O
3
4
18
52
2
2
2
4
8
0
0
1
8
12
O
O
1987
IMPACT
1.15
95.03
1.55
0.05
O.47
O.O1
44.02
3.16
O.OO
O.OO
l.OO
9O.52
1.38
O.05
0.15
18.99
1O8.44
12.21
0.24
O.54
4.56
1O.98
5.16
O.24
0.81
144. O4
44.41
38. 4O
0.00
0.43
71.82
98.46
38. 9O
O.OO
0.22
0.20
38.41
1.O3
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
2.08
15.23
O.OO
O.OO
MIT.
0.00
4.40
O.OO
0.00
O.OO
0.29
36.70
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
11.17
9.96
3.10
0.00
0.01
11. SO
1O.6O
0.1O
O.OO
O.OO
24.51
36.70
3.OO
0.00
O.OO
0.28
8.15
0.00
0.00
O.OO
O.OO
38.40
0.00
O.OO
0.00
O.OO
1.05
0.00
O.OO
o.oo
-------
TABLE 2 (cent.)
GO
00
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
P
E
R
M
L
P
E
R
M
L
P
E
R
M
L
P
E
R
N
L
P
E
R
M
L
P
E
R
M
L
P
E
R
M
L
P
E
R
M
L
P
E
R
N
L
P
E
R
M
L
o
0
0
0
0
0
o
1
0
o
o
o
o
0
0
o
1
0
o
o
2
o
0
o
0
0
0
4
o
1
o
0
6
0
O
0
o
1
o
0
0
1
1
o
o
o
0
0
o
0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
o.oo
0.00
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
o.
0.
0.
o.
0.
o.oo
6.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
2.OO
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
0.00
1.70
0.00
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
1.O5
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0,00
0.10
o.oo
o.oo
o.
0.
0.
0.
0.
o.
0.
o.
0.
0.
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
o.oo
6.00
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
o
1
1
0
0
3
o
12
o
o
0
0
1
o
o
o
4
6
0
2
9
2
22
0
3
0
4
5
0
o
5
1
20
0
1
0
0
14
0
2
2
14
9
0
o
o
0
1
o
0
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.30
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
O.1O
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
65. 1O
7.80
o.oo
0.10
7.85
O.5O
5.59
O.OO
0.10
0.00
1.60
0.11
O.OO
O.OO
8.10
14O.OO
5.90
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
0.70
O.OO
0.10
O.OO
0.20
1 .90
0.00
O.OO
0.00
O.OO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
65. OO
0.00
o.oo
0.00
O.50
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
200.00
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
o
2
o
0
0
o
1
28
0
o
0
1
1
o
1
o
1
2
o
o
10
0
30
o
0
1
2
4
o
3
0
1
11
o
o
3
o
14
o
1
0
15
3
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
O.40
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
l.OO
o.oo
5.00
0.00
0.05
O.44
0.00
o.oo
17.47
o.oo
1.73
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.05
O.OO
O.1O
o.oo
O.1O
4.71
O.OO
O.OO
2.7O
O.OO
45.71
O.OO
0.00
O.OO
5.00
0.50
0.00
O.OO
O.
O.
O.
0.
O.
O.OO
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
12.05
o.oo
0.65
o.oo
2.OO
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0.1O
o.oo
0.00
O.96
o.oo
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.30
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
o.
0.
o.
0.
0.
0
3
o
0
0
0
o
19
0
1
0
1
0
o
1
o
4
1
o
o
9
7
48
O
2
0
o
17
O
O
4
2
18
O
O
1
1
10
O
2
0
15
5
O
1
O
1
O
0
0
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.2O
0.00
2.00
O.OO
28. 1O
O.OO
0.00
0.60
O.OO
43. 9O
O.OO
0.00
O.OO
18.17
32. 02
7.38
O.OO
0.01
0.00
0.00
1.47
0.00
O.OO
246.11
O.28
4.35
O.OO
O.O1
O.1O
O.O1
0.09
0.00
0.01
O.OO
O.OO
2.70
0.00
0.00
O.OO
0.20
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
2.00
o.oo
17.50
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
22.13
0.00
0.00
o.oo
11.15
27. 9O
4.47
O.OO
4.80
0.00
O.OO
0.1O
O.OO
O.OO
246.00
0.10
1.92
O.OO
4.OO
O.OO
0.00
0.01
O.OO
O.O1
0.00
0.00
O.1O
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
O.2O
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
0
o
o
1
o
1
0
6
o
0
0
1
0
o
0
1
1
4
0
o
7
1
43
0
O
0
1
4
1
3
2
O
8
O
0
0
0
11
0
3
2
5
3
0
2
0
0
0
o
o
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
o.oo
0.15
0.00
O.04
0.00
O.O1
o.oo
4.40
O.OO
o.oo
0.00
1.50
9.00
0.00
0.00
O.OO
13.62
1.41
4.54
O.OO
O.OO
0.00
90.50
O.02
O.14
0.35
2.40
O.OO
1 .52
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
O.O6
O.OO
O.04
0.01
O.1O
2.00
0.00
O.OO
0.
0.
0.
O.
0.
o.oo
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
4.40
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
2.70
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
1.98
O.O1
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
o.
0.
0.
0.
0.
-------
TABLE 2 (cont.)
to
03
2O
21
22
23
24
P
E
R
M
L
P
E
R
H
L
P
E
R
M
L
P
E
R
H
L
P
E
R
H
L
0
o
o
o
o
0
1
o
o
o
o
0
6
o
0
o
1
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
0.
0.
o.
o.
o.
o.oo
0.1O
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
2.65
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0.
0.
o.
o.
0.
0.
0.
0.
o.
o.
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
0.
o.
0.
0.
o.
o
o
o
o
o
o
1
2
o
o
2
o
10
o
0
o
2
5
0
0
0
3
9
o
o
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.oo
O.1O
O.1O
o.oo
o.oo
2.00
o.oo
4.4O
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
O.1O
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
67.50
0.7O
0.00
o.oo
0.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
l.OO
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
3OO.OO
67. 5O
0.7O
0.00
o.oo
o
o
o
o
o
o
1
0
o
o
2
o
13
o
0
0
1
2
o
1
4
1
10
o
1
0.
0.
o.
o.
o.
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
5.1O
o.oo
3.03
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
5.47
11.00
5.20
O.OO
0.10
o.
o.
0.
o.
o.
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
5.3O
0.00
0.03
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
0.00
o.oo
5.71
11.00
5.20
O.OO
0.10
o
o
0
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
0
o
12
0
o
1
0
3
O
1
6
5
16
O
5
0.
O.
0.
0.
o.
o.
o.
0.
o.
o.
o.oo
o.oo
0.79
O.OO
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.05
0.00
O.O3
53.50
52.92
5.32
0.00
4.23
0.
0.
O.
O.
O.
0.
O.
O.
O.
0.
O.OO
O.OO
0.51
O.OO
O.OO
O.OO
o.oo
0.05
O.OO
0.00
53,50
42.22
5.32
O.OO
4.33
O
0
0
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
0
O
6
O
0
O
0
1
o
o
5
6
10
O
1
O.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
0.
o.oo
o.oo
2.96
0.00
0.00
O.OO
o.oo
0.00
0.00
o.oo
27.61
44.51
1.75
0.00
0.01
O.
O.
0.
O.
0.
O.
0.
0.
0.
O.
O.OO
O.OO
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
29.31
38.60
4.75
O.OO
O.O1
1. small piers, docks, floats, wharves, piling
dolphins, buoys
2. outfall pipes, cilverts, tldegates
3. boat-ramps, lifts and marine ways, seaplane
ramps, ferry terminals, navigation locks
4. riprap
5. fills for small shoreline structures
6. fills in wetlands for fast land, new land
7. dredging—upland disposal
8. dredging—contained in-water disposal
9. dredging—uncontained in-water disposal
10. dredging—ocean disposal
11. dredging—commercial sand and gravel, clam
disposal
12. major shoreline facilities
13. major marina construction or expansion
14. road, railroad fills, bridges and causeways
15. jetties, breakwaters, and groins
16. dams, dikes, berms, levees, weirs
17. water intake structures, water diversion
structures
18. aqua culture facilities, fish traps,
artificial reefs
19. solid waste disposal
20. ocean disposal (other than dredged material)
21. log handling facilities
22. stream channelization
23. submarine cables, utility lines
24. resources/habitat enhancement
-------
TABLE 3
Linear Feet of Shoreline Affected
CO
00
"cT
STATE/AREA 1983 1984 1985 1986
WASHINGTON 648. O 35. 349. O 1O.892.O 33.879.1
OREGON 3.640.0 16, 572. O 2.105.O 71, 343. O
IDAHO 2,874.0 7,296.0 14,186.1 38,492.1
TOTAL FOR
ALL STATES • 7.162.O 59. 217. O 27.183.1 143.714.2
PUGET 566.0 4,659.0 3,447.0 14,656.0
SOUND
COLUMBIA 0. 21. 294. O 1,255.0 9.679.O
RIVER
WILLAMETTE 92O.O 495. O 1.4OO.O 2,105.0
RIVER
SNAKE 1OO.O 5.5OO.O O.O 2.5OO.O
RIVER
BOISE O.O 300. O 1.95O.O l.OOO.O
RIVER
1987
22,781.0
27,784.0
8,774.0
59.339.O
10,148.0
11.O55.O
O.O
1,016.0
95O.O
-------
TABLE 4
Dredging - Total Cubic Yards and Total Number of Projects by Disposal Method
Disposal Method: 7- Upland Disposal, 8- Contained In-Water Disposal, 9- Uncontained In-Water Disposal
11- Commercial Sand and Gravel, Clam Dredging
REGION
TYPE
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
PROJS.
C.Y.
PROJS.
C.Y.
PROJS.
C.Y.
PROJS.
C.Y.
PROJS.
C.Y.
oo
00
^r
PUGET
SOUND
TOTAL FOR
COLUMBIA
RIVER
TOTAL FOR
GRAND TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
7
8
9
11
869-
7
8
9
11
8 & 9 -
FOR 7 -
8 & 9 «
2
O
1
0
1
O
O
0
0
0
2
1
4,4OO
O
15,6OO
O
15.6OO
O
O
O
O
O
4.400
15.6OO
14
O
6
O
6
11
13
6
2
19
25
25
211,075
O
115.144
0
115,144
2,078,700
5,727.525
525,750
1, 2OO.OOO
6,253,275
2,289,775
6,368,419
11
O
13
0
13
18
3
6
2
9
29
22
105,375
O
255.600
0
255, 6OO
1,303,680
5O1,O5O
1,156,O8O
78O.OOO
1,657.130
1,409,055
1.912.73O
15
4
5
O
9
17
2
1
3
3
32
12
242,330
3,339.743
93.3OO
O
3.433,043
331,985
245, 1OO
139
3,170.000
245.239
574,315
3,678,282
11
1
7
O
8
17
1
1
0
2
28
10
752,255
180
291,000
0
291,180
6.119,932
35.0OO
1,000.000
0
1.035.OOO
6,872.187
1,326.180
-------
TABLE 5
PROJ CAT
MAJOR
GO
00
MINOR
TYPE
IMPORTANT
Hours Spent on Major/Important/Minor Projects by Comment Type
(H - Hold, V - Adviaory, O - Object, C - Conditional)
1984
PROJ TOTAL AVERAGE
HOURS HOURS
H
V
O
C
0
2
1
3
O
7
8
9
...
3.5
8.0
3.0
9
10
6
15
181
24
64
103
20.1
2.4
10.6
6.8
5
14
5
25
36
43
32
74
7.2
3.0
6.4
2.9
4
12
12
8
17
71
54
176
4.2
5.9
4.5
22.0
4
2
21
13
18
2
100
190
4.5
1.0
4.7
14.6
TOTAL
H
V
O
C
TOTAL
PROJ
0
2
1
3
6
3
7
2
2
14
1
45
1
11
1983
TOTAL
HOURS
O
7
8
9
24
19
24
16
24
83
5
72
3
32
AVERAGE
HOURS
•".
3.5
8.0
3.0
4.0
6.3
3.4
8.0
12.0
5.9
5.0
1.6
3.0
2.9
4O
372
9.3
H
V
O
C
ITAL =
3
7
2
2
14
19
24
16
24
83
6.3
3.4
8.0
12.0
5.9
11
41
8
1O
70
46
75
28
45
194
4.1
1.8
3.5
4.5
2.7
9
38
O
15
62
38
145
0
53
236
4.2
3.8
* • •
3.5
3.8
9
13
19
21
62
25
28
53
63
169
2.7
2.1
2.7
3.0
2.7
3
14
14
20
51
10
60
33
97
2OO
3.3
4.2
2.3
4.8
3.9
58
112
1.9
8
473
9
27
517
30
582
24
129
765
3.7
1.2
2.6
4.7
1.4
PROJ
4
12
12
8
36
9
13
19
21
62
4
533
8
44
1986
TOTAL
HOURS
17
71
54
176
318
25
28
53
63
169
12
787
20
116
AVERAGE
HOURS
4.2
5.9
4.5
22.0
8.8
2.7
2.1
2.7
3.0
2.7
3.0
1 .4
2.5
2.6
PROJ
4
2
21
13
40
3
14
14
20
51
4
264
8
36
1987
TOTAL
HOURS
18
2
100
190
310
10
60
33
97
2OO
5
400
29
59
AVERAGE
HOURS
4.5
1.0
4.7
14.6
7.7
3.3
4.2
2.3
4.8
3.9
1.2
1.5
3.6
1.6
520
812
1.5
589
935
1.5
312
493
1.5
GRAND TOTAL
78
219
2.8
627 1,331
2.1
631 1,233
1.9
687 1,422
2.0
403 1,O03
2.4
TOTAL
H
V
O
C
4
54
4
16
24
103
27
65
6.0
1.9
6.7
4.0
28 257
524 681
23 116
52 277
9.1
1.3
5.0
5.3
18
530
18
65
87
885
68
193
4.8
1.6
3.7
2.9
17
558
39
73
54
886
127
355
3.1
1.5
3.2
4.8
11
28O
43
69
33
462
162
346
3.0
1.6
3.7
5.0
-------
0
O
O
O
1
O
16
O
9
5
0
3
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
2
O
5
O
1
6
8
155
0
79
7O
3
8
O
4
1
3
3
1
1
8
1
3
O
1
3
2
139
0
71
68
1
8
O
1
0
1
7
1
1
4
0
O
0
O
2
4
153
0
69
58
3
3
0
0
8
1
6
0
2
2
0
3
0
1
2
11
64
3
27
47
4
3
0
0
2
1
6
O
0
7
TABLE 6
Environmental Protection Agency - Comments
STATE TYPE 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987
HVOC HVOC HVOC HVOC HVO
P
WA E
H
L
R
TOTAL = 1 3O 3 2 12 312 16 16 8 28O 1O 14 2 284 14 11 6 152 9 14
P 2OOO 2124-3727 457 13 15 11 11
OR E 0203 2 14 23 11907 5 16 56 11313
M OOOO OOOO OOOO 0202 O1O2
L OOOO O421 'OOOO 12O1 OO12
R O 11 O O 9 157 1 21 2 184 2 36 4 205 12 35 2 95 13 4O
TOTAL = 2 13 O 3 13 176 7 29 6 210 4 5O 14 23O 24 57 4 114 26 58
CO
oo P
^ ID E
x--•** M
L
R
TOTAL = 1 1O 1 11 4 41 1 13 5 43 4 7 1 46 3 11 3 23 12 6
TOTAL FOR
ALL STATES = 4 53 4 16 29 529 24 58 19 533 18 71 17 56O 41 79 13 289 47 78
O
0
0
O
1
O
O
O
2
8
1
O
O
O
O
2
O
O
1
8
2
O
O
0
2
1
0
0
12
28
O
0
O
0
1
2
0
0
1
10
1
O
O
1
3
4
O
O
14
25
O
O
O
0
4
3
0
0
1
3
0
O
0
1
O
7
O
O
17
22
1
O
O
O
2
2
O
O
2
7
1
O
O
O
2
8
0
O
6
9
8
1
O
O
3
2
0
O
1
3
-------
Chapter 6: Ground Water
Ground Water Environmental Indicators
FY '87, FY1 88 and Beyond
Ground water environmental Indicators for 1987 are summarized below. These indicators represent both area-wide and
site-specific measures. Since no national or regional indicators for ground water currently exist, our newly developed
indicators for FY87 will serve as a baseline against which similar measures in future years can be judged.
1. Drinking Water Quality Indicator:
• percent of drinking water and monitoring wells with nitrates above a level of concern (6 mg/l NO3)
• number and percent of public water systems in violation of MCLs
• population at risk from public water systems in violation of MCLs
2. Hazardous Waste Indicator
• number and percent of sites with ground-water contamination above a health advisory or MCL and moving off site
• population at risk from contaminants approaching and in drinking water wells
3. Pesticides Indicator
• number and percent of state registered pesticides which are considered leachers by EPA (for 1987, state of
Washington data used as pilot—to be expanded to all states in 1988)
• surrogate measure of the quantity of leachable pesticides in use in vulnerable ground-water areas is still under review
and will be pursued in 1988
4. Underground Storage Tank Indicator
• number and percent of corrosion-protected tanks in use
• a measure of ground-water cleanup through the leaking underground storage tank program will be developed in 1988
39
-------
Chapter 6: Ground Water
Ground Water Environmental Indicators
Narrative Description
FY87 has been targeted as the year to develop a first
cut of indicators covering several Regional Office ground-
water related programs and to develop the baseline of
information for these indicators. Overall program progress
would be judged by evaluating data in subsequent years
against this baseline information.
This project has been carried out in combination with
the development of Region 10's Ground-Water Data System
Pilot Project. Both the Management Committee and Ground
Water Task Force have participated in the development of
the indicator evaluation system. After considerable debate,
Committee members concluded that no singular indicator or
pictoral display would be usable by all ground-water related
programs. Consequently, separate indicators have been
developed for drinking water, CERCLA/RCRA, pesticides,
and underground storage tanks. A narrative descriptive of
each currently identified indicator is provided below. Charts
and tables are attached.
1. Drinking Water Environmental Indicator: Water
quality information readily available from the Region
10 portion of the Federal Reporting Data System
provides a measure of the ambient ground-water
quality in the Region. Maximum contaminant level
(MCL) violations from public water systems using
ground water as a source are tabulated for various
types of contaminants, i.e. nitrates, metals, solvents,
pesticides. The number of systems in violation in
each category will be presented as well as the
percentage of systems with violations.
Corresponding population at risk figures will also be
presented.
Limitations: There are several limitations to use of
the data. Among these are: (1) the data only
represent public water systems—private wells,
irrigation wells, monitoring wells, etc. are not Included
in the data base; (2) not all systems are reporting on
a regular basis; (3) contaminant violations are
reported on samples taken at the point of distribution
to the water utility customer—not from the source of
supply—therefore we must assume that
contaminants noted are present in the ground water
and not added during water treatment, storage or
distribution (a valid assumption for the chemicals
targeted); (4) ground-water contamination at
concentrations less than the MCL, but significantly
above detection levels, are not reported to EPA by
the state and are not readily available for
assessment.
40
-------
Chapter 6: Ground Water
Ground Water Program
Environmental Indicators
Data Summary
Regional (Ambient) Ground Water Quality as Measured by Violations of Drinking Water Standards for
Public Water Systems using ground water as a source.
State
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Totals
Number MCL
Violations
11
8
1
10
30
Base Year 1986
Percent Systems
w/Vlolations
0.9
0.3
0.04
0.2
0.3
Population
Served
9923
737
76
4180
14916
Types of Violations
State
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Totals
Nitrates
0
8
0
10
18
Metals
10
0
1
0
11
Solvents
1
0
0
0
1
Pesticides
0
0
0
0
0
Totals
11
8
1
10
30
Alaska
Oregon"
Idaho
Washington
Total Region
Ambient Ground Water Quality as Measured by Areawide Sources:
Approx # Wells
In State/Region
425
3100
1100
2230
6885
Nitrates
Base Year 1986
NO,-N*
per
i •**g • • M**I
6to10mg/l cent
2
95
18
69
184
0.5
3.0
1.6
3.1
2.7
N03-N
mg/l
3
23
8
41
75
per
cent
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.8
1.1
Includes total NO3 with appropriate correction factor
Includes approximately 2900 wells stored in the Regional Oregon public water supply database that had been
managed by L Worley
41
-------
ENUIRONrENTAL INDICATORS'
HCL UIOLflTIOISS
NUMBER OF SYSTEMS
: OOOO
1OOO
100
10
:37-
-
j& in 4.50 EZ5ZZJ TOTAL SYSTEMS
g E2S^ UNKNOWN'
g EZZ2I SYSTEMS W/VIOLATIONS
K* * The unknown category 1nd1c«tet the nunt>er of rvs
K thtt h4ve not reported *n*lytk*l
-------
AMBIENT GROUND WATER QUALITY
MEASURED BY AREA WID-E SOURCES: NITRATES
NUMBER OF WELLS
10.000
1 .OOO
100
10
E-
r;
~r
SI 688 5
88
gg E222I TOTAL # WELLS
88 EZZ2# WELLS 6-10 mg/l
XS cggagaf WELLS gtr 1 Omg/l
1
•SS^^S1: TC.
^Xjssjl /0
1
rtAKi
1986 1987 1988
41(b)
-------
Chapter 6: Ground Water
2. Hazardous Waste Environmental Indicator:
Superfund and RCRA sites lend themselves to an
Indicator which measures the degree to which
contaminants in ground water have traveled to place
persons at risk. Sites will be categorized In a range
from having no known ground-water contamination
to those with documented off site ground-water
contamination of a drinking water well. The number
and percent of these sites In the Region will be
Identified. For each source status category, the type
of contaminant, ranges of contaminant concentration
and population affected will be compiled.
Limitations: To obtain this information with minimal
resource expenditure, brief personal interviews or a
short checklist will be completed by each site project
manager. This process provides the opportunity for
interpretation variances or other inconsistencies in
response. Likewise, grouping sites Into categories or
contaminants into ranges of concentration values
provides generalizations, but are not considered to
be major Impediments to the value of this indicator as
a measure of progress in ground-water protection.
42
-------
GROUND WATER PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
RCRA
SUMMARY TABLE
SOURCE STATUS
NUMBER OF RCRA LDFs1
TOTAL LDFs WITH NO
KNOWN GW CONTAMINATION
GW CONTAMINATION
WITHIN LDF BOUNDARIES
GW CONTAMINATION
BEYOND LDF BOUNDARIES
UNKNOWN
KNOWN
GW CONTAMINATION IN 3
DRINKING WATER
# OF LDFs
45
25
20
2
7
LDFs
ABOVE LOC2
0
0
0
POPULATION
AT RISK
NOTES:
1.
2.
3.
LDFs are RCRA regulated Land Disposal Facilities.
LOC Contaminants identified above a Level of Concern (above
health advisory or drinking water standard).
Data not available at this time.
42(a)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
RCRA LDFs WITH GW CONTAMINATION
RCRA REGULATED LDFs
4-O
20
1O
MM TOTAL RCRA LDFa
•••WITHIN LOP BOY
tmmm KNOWN BEYOND LDF
E2ZZ3UNKN. BEYOND LDF
^••IN OFF SITE DW
1987
1988
YEARS
1989
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
REGULATED SITES WITH GW CONTAMINATION
REGULATED SITES
90 86
80
70
SO
50
•AO
3O
20
1O
MM TOTAL SITES
ummm ON SITE GW CONT.
••••OFF SITE GW. CONT.
\' / .-'IUNKN. SITES GW. CO
••••IN OFF SITE DW
1937
1988
YEARS
1989
42 (b)
-------
GROUND WATER PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
CERCLA
SUMMARY TABLE
SOURCE STATUS
TOTAL NPL SITES ]
NPL SITES WITH NO
KNOWN GW CONTAMINATION
GW CONTAMINATION
ON NPL SITES
GW CONTAMINATION
OFF NPL SITES
UNKNOWN
KNOWN
GW CONTAMINATION IN
NPL OFF-SITE
DRINKING WATER
# OF
NPL SITES
41
5
36
6
17
7
# NPL SITES
ABOVE LOC2
23
1
16
7
POPULATION
AT RISK
503,000+
20,000+3
NOTE:
1. The NPL Sites category includes both proposed and final NPL
sites.
2. LOC: Level of Concern (above health advisory or drinking
water standard.)
3. 99% of the population originally at risk now provided with
an alternative water supply.
42(c)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
NPL SITES WITH GW CONTAMINATION
NPL SITES
41
TOTAL NPL SITES
ON SITE
KNOWN OFF SITE
UNKNOWN OFF SITE
IN OFF SITE DW
1987
1988
YEARS
1989
42(d)
-------
GROUND WATER PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
CERCLA AND RCRA
SUMMARY TABLE
SOURCE STATUS
TOTAL SITES ]
TOTAL SITES WITH NO
KNOWN GW CONTAMINATION
GW CONTAMINATION
ON SITE
GW CONTAMINATION
OFF SITE
UNKNOWN
KNOWN
GW CONTAMINATION IN
OFF SITE DRINKING WATER
# OF SITES
86
30
56
8
24
7
ABOVE
LOG 2
23
1
16
7
POPULATION
AT RISK
503,000+
20,000+ 3
NOTES:
1 .
2.
3.
Sites: RCRA regulated Land Disposal Facilities and CERCLA NPL
Sites (proposed and active).
LOG: Contaminants identified above a Level of Concern (above
health advisory or drinking water standard).
99% of population originally at risk now provided alternative
water supply.
42(e)
-------
Chapter 6: Ground Water
3. Pesticides Environmental Indicator: A
combination of ground-water monitoring data from
special EPA studies and administrative information
on pesticides usage are being considered as
measures of program progress in protecting ground
water. Information for projects recently completed in
the state of Washington are used as a pilot to test
the practicality of these measures as environmental
indicators.
Three separate assessments were made using
information from EPA Region 10's recently
completed "Survey of Pesticides Used in Selected
Areas Having Vulnerable Ground Water In
Washington State." Information from this report on
both vulnerable ground-water areas and leachable
pesticide usage was combined with pesticide water
quality data for EPA sampling surveys during the
period 1973 to 1984. A fourth assessment measured
the proportion of the total pesticides registered for
crop, lawn and garden use which are categorized by
EPA as leachers to ground water. These
assessments are described below.
Findings and Limitations: Pesticide monitoring
data were evaluated to determine if the designated
vulnerable ground-water areas could be correlated
with positive findings of pesticides in ground water.
Although data are limited to a small sample size,
there does appear to be promise that such
designations can be a useful management tool and
should be pursued.
Pesticides considered by EPA to have the greatest
potential for leaching into ground water were
compared to a list of pesticides currently in use in
Washington. This listing was then evaluated against
the pesticides compounds monitored for in special
EPA studies during the period 1973-1984. None of
the 31 "leachable pesticides" currently in use in
Washington was monitored for by EPA. However,
six of eight leachers not in current use were tested
for and found in ground water. Our historical data
appear to be of extremely limited value in judging the
vulnerability of ground water to leachable pesticides
or for developing a base line of information against
which to evaluate program progress.
A third area considered was the creation of a
measure we titled "Leacher-Area". This indicator
may be likened to that of a "body burden" of
pesticides in a given geographical area. Although
there are no pesticide use quantity figures available,
we have calculated leacher acres for each county in
Washington by multiplying the number of leachable
pesticides in use in that county on various crops, by
the acreage of those crops grown in that county.
This measure holds some promise as a base line
against which future similar assessments of
leachable pesticide usage can be judged. We will
continue to pursue this type of indicator in
Washington and obtain data from Oregon.
At present the only measure of pesticides in ground
water for which data are reasonably available is the
proportion of the total number of state-registered
agriculture, lawn, and garden use pesticides which
are categorized by EPA as leachers to ground water.
While the number of these registered pesticides is
not limited to use in vulnerable ground-water areas,
this measure can detect over time the change in
pesticide use patterns as well as the increase in
restricted use pesticides related to ground-water
concerns. Data from the state of Washington for
1986-87 are used as a pilot for this baseline study.
This indicator will be expanded to other Region 10
states during 1988 and other concepts for pesticides/
ground-water indicators will be explored.
43
-------
TABLE I: WELL SITES USED FOR PESTICIDE SAMPLING IW GROUND WATER
Well Site Located Well Site Located
Inside Designated Outside Designated
Vulnerable Area Vulnerable Area
Contamination Found 26 5
No Contamination Found 0 26
43(a)
-------
TABLE II
PESTICIDES CONSIDERED BY EPA TO HAVE THE
GREATEST POTENTIAL FOR LEACHING TO GROUND WATER
Pesticide1
t\
Currently Used in Wa
Tested For"
In Ground Water
Acifluorfen
*Alachlor
*Aldicarb
Aldicarb sulfone
Aldicarb sulfoxide
Ametryn
*Atrazine
Atrazine, dealkylated
Baygon
Bentazon
*Bromacil
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
Chlorothalonil
Butylate x
Carbary 1
*Carbofuran
Carbofuran-30H
Carboxin
Carboxin sulfoxide
Chloramben
X
X
X
*Cyanazine
Cycloate
2,4-D
Dalapon
*Dibromochloropropane
1,3-DichloropropanQ
X-DCPA
DCPA acid metabolites
Diazinon
Dicamba
5-Hydroxy Dicamba
3,5-Dichlorobenzoic acid
*1,2 Dichloropropane
Dieldrin
Diphenamid
*Dinoseb
Disulfoton
Disulfoton sulfone
Table II is continued on the next page.
* EPA has national monitoring data showing that these pesticides have
leached to ground water as a result of normal use.
1 List is from the National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking Wateer Wells;
July 6, 1987, Table 5-1.
2 From "Survey of Pesticides Used in Selected Areas Having Vulnerable
Ground Water in Washington State", July 1987.
3 Conducted by EPA Region 10 from 1973 to 1984.
4 Refers bo finding's above detection limits used by EPA laboratory.
43(b)
-------
TABLE II continued
Pesticide1 Currently Used in Wa2 Tested For3 In Ground Water4
Disulfoton sulfoxide
Diuron x
Endrin x x
*Ethylene Dibrornide5 x x
ETU
Fenamiphos
Fenamiphos sulfone
Fenamiphos sulfoxide
Fluormeturon
Heptachlor x x
Heptachlor epoxide x x
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexazinone x
Methomyl x
Methoxychlor
Methyl paraoxon
*l")etolachlor x
*Metribuzin x
Metrabuzin DA
Metribuzin DADK
Metribuzin DK
Nitrates
*0xamy1
Pentachlorophenol
Pichloram
Prometon
Pronamide
Pronamide metabolite, RH24, 580 x
Propachlor
Propazine x_
Propham x
*Simazine x
2, 4, 5-T
2, 4, 5-TP
Tebuthiuron x
Terbacil _L
Terbufos
Trifluralin
* LPA has national monitoring data showing that these pesticides have leached
to ground water as a result of normal use.
1 List from the National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking Water Wells;
July 6, 1987, Table 5-1.
2 From "Survey of Pesticides Used in Selected Areas Having Vulnerable
Ground Water in Washington State", July 1987.
3 Conducted by EPA Region 10 from 1973 to 1984.
4 Refers to finding's above detection limits used by EPA laboratory.
5 Ethylene Dibromide has been sampled in all western Washington counties
since 1984. The sample information is in separate files and not yet
inserted into the STORET database.
43(c)
-------
GROUND WATER PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
Ground Water Protection as Measured by State
Registered Leachable Pesticides in Washington
(Estimate, 1987)
REGISTERED PESTICIDES
OJ
Q.
NOTES:
1.
2.
LEACHABLE
NON-LEACHABLE
Pesticides include those used for agriculture,
lawn, and garden.
Pesticides listed as potential leachers in the
EPA National Pesticide Survey, 1987.
-------
Chapter 6: Ground Water
4. Underground Storage Tank Environmental
Indicator: Two major causes of release from
underground tanks into the environment are tank
failures from corrosion of bare steel tanks and piping
failures from improperly installed fill and product
dispenser lines. Use of data on each of these
sources of potential contamination as environmental
indicators for ground-water protection have been
evaluated and are described below.
Documentation of the number, type, and severity of
piping failure incidents is highly variable and
dependent on the completeness of violation
reporting, which historically has been sporadic at
best and has occurred primarily at local, not state or
federal levels. These anecdotal data are not
considered adequate to serve as good indicators of
either problem status or as measures of change in
environmental program progress.
Conversely, the tank notification requirements of
RCRA, Subtitle I, have provided a baseline of
information on tank type, age, material, size, etc.
From these data we are able to determine the
number and percent of bare steel tanks (likely
leachers over time) as compared to other protected
steel or fiberglass tanks. Reductions in the number
of bare steel tanks can be measured periodically by
accessing state data bases. This reduction in the
number of high risk tanks can serve as a good
measure of both success in achieving program
objectives and in environmental protection. Baseline
data against which program progress will be judged
are shown in Figure 1.
Limitations: There are four primary limitations to
the use of this approach. First, not all tank owners/
operators have completed notification requirements.
The universe is sufficiently large, however, to be
representative. Second, each state in Region 10
utilizes a similar but different inventory form. Thus,
we will be making several assumptions to develop
uniformity of the data across the Region.
Thirdly, a large number of notifiers, particularly in the
state of Washington, listed their tank material as
"unknown." Since the newer, more recently installed
fiberglass or protected steel tanks should have been
known to the tank owner, we have assumed that all
tanks listed as unknown are the older, bare steel
construction.
Finally, previously existing tanks comprise about 96%
of the current tank universe, with approximately 4%
being replaced each year. There are no
requirements for systems which upgrade to notify the
state or EPA of changes in their tank status. In
addition, under currently proposed regulations, tank
owners will not be required to install corrosion
protection until 10 years after the effective date of
the regulations. Therefore, the proposed indicator
will measure primarily new system additions. Despite
these limitations, the proposed measure should be
used while other additional measures are explored.
44
-------
GROUND WATER PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
Ground-Water Protection as Measured by
Underground Storage Tank Materials of Construction in Region 10
Underground Storage Tanks - Region 10
(71,877 Total)
Unprotected Steel (85%)
Corrosion Protected (15%)
Protected Steel
Fiberglass
Concrete
Composite
Other
44(a)
-------
Chapter 6: Ground Water
New Directions
No environmental Indicators have existed for ground
water in the past. We are breaking new ground both here in
Region 10 and at Headquarters, where a concurrent
development phase is underway. We have provided
Information on the status of development of our measures to
this national program effort.
A number of different approaches have been
considered. Some show great promise; others are marginal.
The process should be continued, with additional data
entered to complete the base line measures for each
program area.
45
-------
Chapter 7: Air
Air Environmental Indicators
FY '87, FY '88 and Beyond
Criteria Pollutants
Ambient air quality data and analyses for PM10, NO2, CO, O3, lead, SO2
CO: Status of nonattalnment area control strategies
CO: Number of attainment vs. non-attainment areas
O3: VOC emissions (ozone precursors)
O3: Attainment areas vs. non-attainment areas
2. Air Toxics
• State and local activities to control air toxics
3. Asbestos
• Number of notifications of NESHAPs violations
• Number of inspections
• Number of notifications for removal/renovation
4. Radiation
• Public education
5. Air Enforcement
• Number of significant violators and return to compliance
Introduction
This is the first Annual Report of Region 10's Air
Programs Branch of the Air and Toxics Division. The Branch
is responsible for regional air pollution control, air toxics,
NESHAP (asbestos) and radiation programs. An overview
of our work in these areas, and a general prognosis of the
region's air quality through 1986 is summarized and
displayed in the text and graphs which follow.
The report includes a discussion of each criteria
pollutant (its program status and environmental indicators),
statistical analyses including trends in air quality for each
pollutant, a description of air quality planning and
enforcement activities, and a summary of the air toxics,
NESHAP (asbestos), and radiation programs.
We hope this report will be useful to anyone interested
in understanding the status of these environmental issues in
Region 10. The information included in this report is current
only through December, 1987; the 1988 version will be
completed by September, 1988.
Population Trends in Region 10
Between 1980 and 1985, the population in Region 10's
metropolitan areas has increased by an average of 8.2%.
Whether this influx of residents will have a negative impact
on the region's air quality or not remains a question.
Region 10 Metropolitan Areas
Area
Seattle, WA
Portland, OR
Eugene, OR
Salem, OR
Anchorage, AK
Boise, ID
Yakima, WA
Tacoma, WA
Richland, WA
Olympia, WA
Medford, OR
Bellingham, WA
Bellevue, WA
Everett, WA
Spokane, WA
Pocatello, ID
Vancouver, WA
Longview, WA
Fairbanks, AK
Klamath Falls, OR
Grants Pass, OR
Population figures based upon I985 U.S. Bureau of
Census estimates.
Percent increase (+) or decrease (-) since 1980.
Population figures based upon 1984 U.S. Bureau of
Census data.
1985 Population
2,247,400
1,353,800
261,300
258,800
235,900
191,500
182,100
159,435*
148,400
142,700
138,000
112,300
78,597*
56,766*
56,300
45,334*
43,398*
29,455*
26,614*
17,030*
15,699*
% Change
+7.4
+4.3
-5.1
+3.6
+35.5
+10.6
+5.5
+0.5
+2.8
+14.8
+4.2
+5.2
+6.4
+4.3
+4.2
-2.1
+1.3
-5.I
+14.9
+2.1
+4.4
46
-------
Chapter?: Air
Criteria Pollutant Standards
The following is a list of the current federal standards for
each of the pollutants governed by EPA.
National Standards
Primary Secondary
Sulfur Oxides
Annual Average 0.03 ppm (A)
24 hour average 365 ug/m3 (B)
3 hour average 1300 ug/m3 (B)
Carbon Monoxide
8 hour average 9.0 ppm (B)
1 hour average 35.0 ppm (B)
Ozone
1 hour average 0.12 ppm 0.12 ppm (C)
PM-10
Annual Average 50 ug/m3 50 ug/m3
24 hour average 150 ug/m3 150 ug/m3 (D)
Nitrogen Dioxides
Annual Average 0.05 ppm 0.05 ppm (A)
Lead
Calndr qtr avg. 1.5 ug/m3 1.5 ug/m3 (A)
(A) Never to be exceeded
(B) Not to be exceeded more than once per year
(C) Standard attained when expected number of days per
year with maximum hourly average above 0.12 ppm is
equal to or less than one
(D) Not to be exceeded more than three times in three
years
47
-------
Chapter 7: Air
Paniculate Matter (PM10)
Environmental Indicators
Programs to reduce emissions of participate matter
have not progressed significantly since the early eighties.
This is due in part to the shift in EPA's concern away from
Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) toward the respirable,
particulate fraction. Major revisions to the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and accompanying
implementation regulations were signed by Lee Thomas,
EPA Administrator, on July 1,1987. The TSP standard was
replaced with a standard designed to restrict particulate
matter measuring ten microns or less in diameter (PM10).
Since this standard has just been promulgated, and State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) will not be submitted for
approval until after April 30,1988, it will be impossible to
determine whether mitigation activities have reduced
ambient concentrations. However, once the SIPs are
approved, state and local agencies and the areas currently
in violation will have three years to meet those standards.
The Agency's new regulations were intended to shift
concern about particulate pollution from the larger fraction to
the smaller, more potentially hazardous particles. The
smaller (10 um or less) particles are deamed more
hazardous because of their ability to pass into the lower
regions of the lungs. The agency has concluded that the
new regulations will better protect public health.
Fine particles are generated In a number of ways, and
can be emitted directly, resuspended, or transformed in the
atmosphere. Typical sources include woodstoves,
fireplaces, factories, power plants, construction and
agricultural activities, motor vehicles, prescribed fires (slash/
field burning), and natural windblown dust. Atmospheric
transformation of emitted gases such as sulphur dioxide and
volatile organic compounds cause formation of these
respirable particles as well.
The new regulations became effective July 31,1987.
The 24-hour primary, or health-based standard limits
ambient concentrations of PM]0 to 150 micrograms per cubic
meter (ug/m3). In addition to the 24-hour standard, a new
annual standard was set at 50 ug/m3.
The decision was made by the Agency to establish the
secondary, or welfare-based, PM10 standards at the same
level as the primary standards. Secondary standards
protect the public from adverse soiling and nuisance effects.
While the agency considered the possibility of setting a
secondary TSP standard in addition to the PM 0 standards, it
was decided that the recommended primary PM10 standards
would provide adequate protection, due to the fact that air
pollution control equipment is designed to capture both large
and small particles.
The welfare effects of particulates also include the
potential impairment of visibility. This effect is most strongly
related to fine particle (less than 2.5 microns) levels. The
Agency has been evaluating alternative approaches to
address the visibility problem. One possibility is to establish
a separate fine particle standard designed specifically to
protect visibility. Visibility is a major issue in Region 10
where slash burning is a common practice. Each of the
states in Region 10 has an approved visibility SIP with
control measures to protect specific vistas.
State and local agencies, working with Region 10 staff,
began developing a PM1Q monitoring network in 1983. With
all the existing data, Region 10 undertook an analysis which
classified all counties in the region into three groups based
on their probability of attaining the new PM]0 standard.
Group I consists of those areas with a 95% or higher
probability of not immediately attaining the standard. Group
II consists of those where the air quality data was not
sufficient to determine whether the standard would be
attained. Group III consists of areas determined to have a
high probability of attaining the standards.
Areas identified as Group I are required to submit new
PM10 SIPs with complete PM10 control strategies including a
demonstration of attainment and maintenance of the
standard. Attainment will be required within the statutory
timeframes established by the Clean Air Act (three years - or
five years if a Section 110(e) extension is granted). States
with areas designated Group II must submit SIPs, but the
SIPs need not contain full control strategies or include
demonstrations of attainment and maintenance; instead,
these states can submit "committal SIPs" which supplement
existing TSP strategies with enforceable plans to collect and
analyze PM data. Upon discovery that a Group II area is
violating the PM10 standards, a full SIP revision will be
required. Both groups are required to submit SIPs within
nine months after July 31,1987. For areas designated
Group III, EPA requests that states submit the existing
control strategies for review and assessment of their
implementation, enforceability, and ultimate effectiveness in
maintaining the standards. SIP revisions for both Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and monitoring plans are
required for all three groups and must be submitted within
the nine month timeframe.
There are currently eighteen Group I areas and nine
Group II areas in Region 10 (see map and PM10 groupings
chart). The sources causing PM.0 problems are
woodstoves, fireplaces, industrial point sources, re-entrained
road and fugitive dust, and possibly slash/field burning and
agricultural activities. Figure 1 suggests the sources that
may be causing the PM10 problems in each area.
Particulate matter has been a regulated pollutant since
the early 1970's and progress has been made in reducing
ambient levels. Industries have been required to install
equipment which has effectively reduced emissions of
particulate, however, additional controls may be required on
sources in areas exceeding the standards.
48
-------
Chapter 7: Air
All of the states In Region 10 have woodstove
regulations at one or more levels of government. The
following list explains the current woodstove programs
region-wide:
Alaska
State State regulation establishes requirements during
air quality alerts and maintains separate
requirements for "wood smoke control areas".
City Juneau City and Borough ordinance requires sale
of only Oregon certified woodstoves. They have
an opacity standard and a curtailment program
that goes into effect during episodes of air quality
impairment.
Idaho
City Boise city ordinance with a short term/long term
control approach;
Certification program effective July 1, 1987;
Incentives for upgrading existing woodstove to an
Oregon certified woodstove (low interest loans);
Curtailment program during air quality alert;
Idaho Power offers reduced electric rates to
qualified customers (woodstove owners) who
applied.
Pinehurst—City initiated an education program.
County Ada County and Treasure Valley Communities
(Nampa, Garden City, Emmett and Eagle)—
certification program and low interest loans
incentive program implemented in all of these
areas as well as in Boise.
Oregon
State Oregon has the first program of its kind in the
nation. Requires certification of residential wood
combustion units before sale;
City/ Medford and Jackson County submitted
County ordinances which were approved by the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality and EPA in
1984. These ordinances contained a variety of
mitigation measures for controlling woodstove
pollution.
Eugene and Springfield have a voluntary
curtailment program which is implemented during
periods of air quality impairment.
Washington
State Washington State legislature passed bills in 1987
requiring the Department of Ecology to develop a
regulation by January, 1988. This legislation
stipulates provisions be included in the regulation
for:
« Sale of Oregon certified woodstoves;
• Opacity standards;
• Prohibition on burning of garbage and other
substances not specifically designated as a
woodstove fuel;
• Education program;
• Curtailment of woodstove use during episodes
and periods of air quality impairment.
City Yakima has a regulation which sets opacity limits,
prohibits burning garbage and other substances
producing noxious fumes.
County Okanogan County (specifically the Methow
Valley)-The County approved an ordinance which
limits the number of new woodstoves allowed in
dwellings and other buildings; allows the sale of
only Oregon certified woodstoves, and
establishes a curtailment program during periods
of air quality impairment.
49
-------
SIP APPROVALS BY POLLUTANTS
COUNTY
ALASKA
Anchorage
Fairbanks
IDAHO
Ada
Bannock
Caribou
Nez Perce
Power
OREGON
Cl ackamas
Jackson
Josephine
Lane
Marion
Multnomah
Polk
Washington
WASHINGTON
Asotin
Clark
Cowl i tz
King
Pierce
Snohomi sh
Spokane
Yak i ma
CITY
Anchorage
Fairbanks
Boise
Pocatello
Soda Springs
Lewis ton
Pocatello
Portland
Medford-Ashland
Grants Pass
Eugene-Spr i ngf i el d
Salem
Portland
Salem
Portland
Clarkston
Vancouver
Longview
Bellevue
Kent
Ren ton
Seattle
Tacoma
Everett
Spokane
Yak i ma
CO
11/14/86
11/14/86
08/05/85
06/22/73
02/13/87
1
06/22/73
06/22/73
04/29/83
04/29/83
12/14/80
«.— .
03
2
08/04/86
04/12/82
2
04/12/82
2
02/15/83
04/29/83
04/29/83
__ —
S02
3
3
3
—
3
NOx
4
4
4
4
PM10
5
5
5
5
TSP
04/12/82
08/15/84
04/12/82
04/12/82
04/12/82
Pb
03/06/8
03/11/8
07/18/8:
07/09/84
1. The final rulemaking activity approving the Grants Pass CO strategy has been
forwarded to Headquarters for final processing.
2. The State of Oregon has submitted a revision to the SIP for 03. However, EPA is
awaiting data before disapproving the revision in light of the recent post-87
attainment strategy for 03.
3. All States have approved S02 rules; there are no S02 nonattainment areas.
4. Region 10 has no NOx sources.
5. The newly promulgated PM10 standard was published July 1, 1987. The States have
nine months to submit PM10 plans for EPA approval. Anticipate Region 10's SIPs by
the end of April 1988.
47(a)
-------
Fairbanks
Anchorage
REGION 10
GROUP I and GROUP II AREAS
FOR PH.
Juneau
Seattle; Kent Bellevue Yakima
GROUP I
GROUP II
Tacoma
Spokane
Sandpoint
Pinehurst
Eugene/
Spring-/ I
field J~
Cakridg
Conda
Grants Medford Klamath Falls
Pass White City
Bend
Boise
49(a)
-------
PM10 AREA GROUPINGS
SfAff
ALASKA
IDAHO
OREGON
l£>
CT
WASHINGTON
fOUNTY OK BOROUGH [CtTY)
ANCHORAGE (ANCHORAGE)
JUNEAU (JUNEAU)
FAIRBANKS (FAIRBANKS)
ADA (BOISE)
SHOSHONE (PINEHURST)
BANNOCK/POWER
(POCATELLO)
BONNER (SANOPOINT)
CARIBOU (CONDA)
LANE
(EUGENE & SPRINGFIELD)
(OAKRIOGE)
JOSEPHINE (GRANTS PASS)
JACKSON (MEOFORO)
(WHITE CITY)
KLAMATH (KLAMATH FALLS)
OESCHUTES (BEND)
UNION (LA GRANDE)
HULTNOHAH (PORTLAND)
PIERCE (TACOMA)
KING (SEATTLE 4 KENT)
THURSTON (LACEY)
YAKIMA (YAKIHA)
SPOKANE (SPOKANE)
WALLA WALLA (WALLULA)
BENTON (KENNEWICK)
KING (BELLEVUE)
AREA
GROUPING
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
II
1
II
I
I
I
I
II
II
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
POTENTIAL
CAUSE!51
Mobile source re-entralnment, woodstoves
Woodstoves
Re-entrained fugitive dust sources
Woodstoves, re-entrained fugitive dust sources
Woodstoves, re-entrained road dust
Industrial point sources, fugitive dust sources,
woodstoves?
Woodstoves, Industrial point sources, possibly
field/slash burning
Industrial point sources, re-entrained fugitive
dust sources
Woodstoves, Industrial point sources
Woodstoves
Industrial point sources, woodstoves
Woodstoves, Industrial point sources
Industrial point sources, woodstoves
Woodstoves, Industrial point sources?
Woodstoves
Woodstoves
Re-entrained fugitive dust sources
Industrial point sources, re-entrained
fugitive dust sources, woodstoves
Industrial point sources, re-entrained fugitive
dust source woodstoves
Woodstoves
Woodstoves
Industrial point sources, woodstoves. re-entrained
and unpaved road dust, field burning?
Industrial point source
Re-entrained road dust, agricultural activities
Re-entrained road dust, woodstoves
-------
Chapter 7: Air
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
The national ambient air quality standard for nitrogen Nitrogen dioxide has not been a regional priority—in
dioxide has not been exceeded in Region IO over the past fact, Region 10 Is encouraging Headquarters to consider
several years. Current monitoring efforts are sustained in reducing ambient monitoring of NO2 in order to better
order to identify ozone precursors. The Portland/Vancouver support other criteria pollutant programs. There is only one
district is the only ozone nonattainment area in Region 10. N02 nonattainment area in the country and that is the Los
Angeles basin.
50
-------
1986 AIR QUALITY DATA ANALYSIS
SPENARD & BENSON - ANCHORAGE. ALASKA
8-HR SECOND MAXIMUM CO READINGS
CONCENTRATION (PPM)
30
• NUMBERS ON TOP OF BARS - STANDARD EXCEEDANCES
! SOLID LINE - MEDIAN OF TEN HIGHEST READINGS
- DASHED LINE - CO STANDARD O.S PPM)
1982
1986
1986 AIR QUALITY DATA ANALYSIS
FEDERAL BUILDING - FAIRBANKS. ALASKA
8-HR SECOND MAXIMUM CO READINGS
3ATION
-------
United States map of the highest annual arithmetic mean nitrogen dioxide
concentration by metropolitan statistical area, 1985.
Seattle 1985 highest concentration ~ .034 ppm
Portland 1985 highest concentration -- .018 ppm
Source: National Air Quality Trends Report, 1985.
50(b)
-------
Chapter 7: Air
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Environmental Indicators/Program Status
Carbon monoxide concentrations are evaluated in
various ways. The severity of a CO problem Is measured by
both the magnitude of the second-highest concentration for
a given year at a given monitor and the frequency with which
the area violates the standard. EPA allows the highest
recorded CO concentration to be disregarded to account for
"flukes," but allows no subsequent violations. A
nonattainment area must provide data from eight
consecutive quarters in order to demonstrate attainment.
Regionally, the CO problem can be evaluated by
comparing the number of locations with healthful CO levels
to the number of designated nonattainment areas. Region
10 currently has twelve areas which do not regularly attain
the national standard. Violations generally occur during the
winter season, when colder temperatures cause vehicles to
burn fuel less efficiently, and weather inversions cause
emissions to concentrate close to ground level. The
improvements in these areas are due for the most part, to
the implementation of control measures, as well as an influx
of cleaner burning automobiles due to the Federal Motor
Vehicle Emission Control Program (FMVECP).
Because these are measurements taken over a
relatively short period of time, these indicators (monitoring
data, number of nonattainment areas, operational control
measures, etc.) fail to reflect the exceptional events which
can exacerbate CO concentrations over time; for example,
Seattle has had increased traffic congestion as a result of
the construction of its bus tunnel in the downtown area—the
temporary increase in traffic intensifies CO concentrations in
the area.
Seven areas in Region 10 have CO problems severe
enough to warrant a vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/
M) program to control automobile emissions. These
programs inspect cars to ensure that only well-tuned and
properly operating vehicles drive in nonattainment areas.
These programs have helped to achieve significant
reductions in CO concentrations.
The following Is a brief description of Region lO's
CO nonattainment areas.
51
-------
en
Attainment Plans
WTTAINMENT AREA
I/M
CONTROL STRATEGIES
Area Submitted?
Anchorage, AK
Fairbanks, AK
Boise, ID
Seattle, HA
Spokane, WA
Tacoma, WA
Yak 1 ma, WA
Eugene, OR
Grants Pass, OR
Medford, OR
Portland, OR
Salem, OR
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Approved?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Start-up date Antl-tamperlng* Other Strategies**
July, 1985
July, 1985
August, 1984
July, 1982
July, 1985
no
no
no
no
January, 1985
July, 1975
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
FMVECP.TCMs
FMVECP, TCMs
FMVECP, TCMs
FMVECP, TCMs
FMVECP, TCMs
FMVECP.TCMs
FMVECP, TCMs
FMVECP, TCMs
FMVECP, construction
of 3rd bridge over
river
FMVECP, TCMs
FMVECP, TCMs
FMVECP, TCMs
* Antl-tamperlng check conducted during I/M Inspection
** FMVECP=Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Control Program; TCMs=Transportat1on Control Measures
-------
Chapter 7: Air
Washington Nonattainment Areas
Seattle, Spokane, Tacoma, and Yakima
Seattle's CO problem is made up of four smaller area
"hot spots" specifically in Bellevue, the University District, the
downtown Central Business District, and the Rainier Avenue/
Dearborn corridor. A centralized I/M program was begun in
1982; however, due to various circumstances such as
meteorological conditions and major construction activity,
Seattle has not achieved the CO standard.
Spokane's I/M program has produced excellent results
for the city's air quality. Unfortunately, the monitoring data
does reflect areas within the nonattalnment boundary which
record markedly higher concentrations than the other
monitors (i.e., the Hamilton/Sharp Street monitor). Although
Spokane will not attain by the December 31,1987 deadline,
it is projected that with a revised CO plan, attainment will be
achieved in the near future. Tacoma and Yakima continue
to fluctuate just above and below the standard. Projections
indicate that neither city will attain by the December, 1987,
deadline; however, with updated CO plans, compliance can
be achieved.
Oregon Nonattainment Areas
Eugene, Portland, Grants Pass, Medford, Salem
Carbon monoxide trends have decreased in Oregon, as
they have in Washington. Portland has had an I/M program
since 1975, and has not recorded a violation of the standard
since 1985. Eugene, Oregon generally measures
concentrations of CO below the 9.0 ppm standard; state and
local officials are currently working on a redesignation
request to attainment for Eugene. Carbon monoxide levels
in Medford have also declined. Since
Oregon I/M programs are biennial, the full benefits of its I/M
program may not be realized until the end of 1987.
Grant's Pass, Oregon was designated nonattainment in
1985; EPA has approved their CO control plan, and
projections show that Grants Pass will attain the standard by
December, 1990.
Idaho Nonattainment Area
Boise is the only CO nonattainment area in Idaho.
Monitoring indicates that Boise is very close to meeting the
standard, possibly within a year. The I/M program in Boise
will continue through March, 199O.
Alaska Nonattainment Areas
Anchorage and Fairbanks
Alaska's CO problems are the most severe in the
region. Because of cold wintertime temperatures, Fairbanks
and Anchorage both experience high concentrations of CO.
The I/M programs in both cities, Initiated In 1985, are two of
the most aggressive in the nation. The positive effects on
air quality are obvious. Both cities have experienced a
decreased CO problem in terms of magnitude, and
Anchorage reports less frequent CO problems.
52
-------
1986 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
JAY JACOBS - SEATTLE. WASHINGTON
8-HR SECOND MAXIMUM CO READINGS
CONCENTRATION
-------
1986 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
NORTHGATE APTS - SEATTLE. WASHINGTON
8-HR SECOND MAXIMUM CO READINGS
CONCENTRATION (PPM)
20
. (AMBERS ON TOP OF BARS - STANDARD EXCEEOANCES
. SOLID LINE - MEDIAN OF TEN HIGHEST READINGS
. DASHED LINE - CO STANDARD C9.S PPtO
5 -
1982
1986
1986 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
4TH & PIKE BLDG - SEATTLE. WASHINGTON
8-HR SECOND MAXIMUM CO READINGS
CONCENTRATION (PPM)
20
15
10
NUMBERS ON TOP OF BARS - STANDARD EXCEEDANCES
• SOLID LINE - MEDIAN OF TEN HIGHEST READINGS
- DASHED LINE - CO STANDARD(9.5 PPM)
1986
-------
1986 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
PLAZA PARKING GARAGE - TACOMA. WASHINGTON
8-HR SECOND MAXIMUM CO READINGS
CONCENTRATION (PPM)
20
NUMBERS ON TOP OF BARS • STANDARD EXCEEOANCES
SOLID LINE - MEDIAN OF TEN HIGHEST READINGS
DASHED LINE - CO STANDARD C9.S PPM)
5 -
1982
1986
1986 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
YAK I MA & 2ND ST. - YAK I MA. WASHINGTON
8-HR SECOND MAXIMUM CO READINGS
CONCENTRATION (PPM)
20
' NUMBERS ON TOP OF BARS - STANDARD EXCEEDANCES
' SOLID LINE - MEDIAN OF TEN HIGHEST READINGS
' DASHED LIKE - CO STANDARD(9.5 PPH>
1986
-------
1986 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
HAMILTON ST. - SPOKANE. WASHINGTON
8-HR SECOND MAXIMUM CO. READINGS
CONCENTRATION (PPM)
20
IS
10
MMKRS OM TOT Of MM - XTAMUM)
SOLID UHt - MEDJAM « TEH HIGHEST MAO1MCS 35
OA9«D UHt - ca «TAKumca.s mo
1982
1986
1986 AIR QUALITY DATA ANALYSIS
ODD FELLOWS BLDG. - BOISE. IDAHO
8-HR SECOND MAXIMUM CO READINGS
CONCENTRATION (PPM)
20
IS
10
NUMBERS ON TOP OF BARS - STANDARD EXCEEDAHCES
SOLID LINE - MEDIAN OF TEN HIGHEST READINGS
DASHED LINE - PRIMARY STANDARD (9.5 PPM)
14
1986
-------
1986 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
LANE COMMUNITY - EUGENE. OREGON
8-HR SECOND MAXIMUM CO READINGS
CONCENTRATION (PPM)
20
15
10
. NUMBERS ON TOP OF BARS - STANDARD EXCEEOANCES
. SOLID LINE - MEDIAN OF TEN HIGHEST READINGS
- DASHED LINE - CO STANDARD C9.5 PPM)
1982
1983
1984
YEAR
1985
1986
1986 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
BROPHY BLDG - MEDFORD. OREGON
8-HR SECOND MAXIMUM CO READINGS
CONCENTRATION (PPM)
20
NUMBERS ON TOP OF BARS - STANDARD EXCEEDANCES
SOLID LINE - MEDIAN OF TEN HIGHEST READINGS
. DASHED LINE - CO STANDAROO.S PPK>
1986
52(e)
-------
1986 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
NEWBERRY COMPANY - PORTLAND. OREGON
8-HR SECOND MAXIMUM CO READINGS
CONCENTRATION (PPM)
20
. NUMBERS ON TOP OF BARS - STANDARD EXCEEOANCES
. SOLID LINE - MEDIAN OF TEN HIGHEST READINGS
. DASHED LINE - CO STANDARD 0.5 PPK>
5 •
1982
1986
1986 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
WING BUILDING - GRANTS PASS. OREGON
8-HR SECOND MAXIMUM CO READINGS
CONCENTRATION (PPM)
20 i
15
10
. NUMBERS ON TOP OF BARS - STANDARD EXCEEDANCES
. SOLID LINE - MEDIAN OF TEN HIGHEST READINGS
-DASHED LINE - CO STANDARDC9.S PPM)
1986
-------
Chapter 7: Air
Ozone
Ozone is produced in the atmosphere when nitrogen
oxides and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are exposed
to sunlight. Auto exhaust and stationary source hydrocarbon
combustion are the primary sources of nitrogen emissions.
Auto exhaust, petrochemical industries, and the use of
solvents In manufacturing are the primary sources of VOCs.
Ozone levels are usually the highest about eight hours
transport time (approximately 25 miles) downwind of the
center of an urban area. Ozone impairs the normal function
of the lung. People with chronic respiratory problems seem
most sensitive to ozone.
Environmental Indicators
There are two different environmental indicators for
ozone. First, by looking at the latest three years of
monitoring data, the number of expected exceedances can
be calculated—if that number is less than or equal to one,
the area qualifies as being in attainment. Second, by
tracking the emissions of VOCs, contributing sources can be
pinpointed and controlled on an individual or group basis.
Region 10 has only one ozone nonattainment area—the
Portland, OR/Vancouver, WA Interstate area. Because of
multiple exceedances of the standard in 1984,1985 and
1986, it Is not likely that the standard will be met by the
statutory deadline of December 31, 1987.
The State of Oregon has recently revised the volatile
organic compound regulations for the Portland portion of the
nonattainment area, and these revisions reflect a relaxation
of the rules. EPA's proposed post 1987 ozone strategy
would preclude the approval of rule relaxations In areas
which failed to attain the ozone standard by December 31,
1987.
A special study is being done during the summer of
1987. Ambient ozone monitoring was increased from two
sites to five sites and an additional ambient VOC and
nitrogen oxides site was established. The additional data will
be evaluated to determine the extent and severity of the
ozone problem.
53
-------
tn
CO
o>
Figure 5
OZONE PRECURSORS EMISSION TREND
Portland—Vancouver AQMA (Oregon Portion)
200
79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87
CATEGORY
STATIONARY
MOBILE
RFP UNE
ATTAINMENT
Source: 1986 State of Oregon Reasonable Further Progress Report
-------
1986 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
HIGH SCHOOL - MILWAUKIE, OREGON
OZONE DESIGN VALUES
CONCENTRATION (UG/M3)
0,2
en
oo
NUMBERS ABOVE BARS - VIOLATION DAYS
u DASHED LINE - OZONE STANDARD(.125 PPM)
0, 15
0. 1
0.05
1982
1983
1984
YEAR
1985
1986
-------
OZONE TRENDS 1982-1986
OAKUt tflt - CtAOKAUM 00, ONE
OZONE TRENDS 1982-1686
SAIMC BUM Wt - COUJUBA 00, OK
0&» -
004-
001-
00-
O.W-
0.16-
0.14-
O.W-
0.1 •
OJ54-
6£4-
OUft-
AMROff AA QUAUTT CTMDAftO - 0.126 PfU
NUVBQtS - VIOLATION CAYS
Utotfidl X 2ft4 W
OO4-
ooa-
00-
0.16-
0.16 -
y
& 0.14-
% O.U -
8 0.1-
&08 -
OM •
064-
OM-
a •
HOOff AM OAlAUTf tTXNMH) • 0.1M PfM
NUUBOtt " VIOLATION CAYS
Uj«vlj X 2nd U«
-ltot/10thU«
J 1 I
^^^•^^ l ^
I
67
It
en
Co
o
OO6
004-
ooa-
00-
0.16 -
0.16 -
0.14-
O.U-
0.1 -
0.66 -
0^4-
QM.-
0 •
OZONE TRENDS 1982-1986
lOXAUKIZ OTt - OLAOKAUM 00, OK
fUKBff AR flOAUTf WWOMW • 6,118 PPU
NUWBOtt • VIOUTION OAYI
U«
61
63
68
67
-------
Chapter 7: Air
Lead
Lead emissions are generated primarily by automobile
exhaust and stationary sources such as nonferrous
smelters. Federal programs to reduce the amount of lead in
gasoline have greatly reduced the amount of lead released
into the air.
Environmental Indicator
The environmental indicator for lead is the ambient
measure of the quarterly mean lead concentration. Air lead
levels in Region 10 have rarely exceeded national standards
in the last year. Since this pollutant is regulated under
Section IIO of the Clean Air Act, areas violating the national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) are not only
designated nonattainment, but must have State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) which demonstrate attainment
and maintenance of the NAAQS within three years of
promulgation of the standard (October 5, 1978). All four
states in Region 10 have acceptable lead SIPs.
The meaningfulness of this indicator is limited in that
inhalation is only one route of human uptake. Another route
is ingestion of airborne lead, which is extremely difficult to
estimate and not addressed by EPA.
There have been no violations of the lead standard in
the last three years in Seattle; in fact, ambient air lead levels
have decreased 97% between 1983 and 1986. In Portland,
ambient levels decreased 75%. The closure of primary
nonferrous smelters (Bunker Hill in Silver Valley, ID, and
ASARCO in Tacoma, WA) and secondary lead smelters
(Quemetco in Seattle, WA and Bergsoe in Portland, OR)
have resulted in significant improvements to air quality in
these areas.
54
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS:
LEAD
*SHUTDOWN of major sources
ASARCO, Tacoma, HA
BUNKER HILL, Silver Valley, ID
QUEMETCO, Seattle, WA
BERGSOE, Portland, OR
'FEDERAL REGULATIONS to reduce lead In gasoline
"FEDERAL REGULATIONS to remove lead from paint
* EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM for contractors for removal
of lead based paint in homes
54(a)
-------
1986 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
HARBOR ISLAND TEXACO - SEATTLE. WASHOINGTON
MAXIMUM QUARTERLY MEANS - LEAD
CONCENTRATION OJG/M3)
10
NUMBERS ON TOP OF BARS - PRIMARY STANDARD EXCEEOANCES
|. DOTTED LINE - PRIMARY STANDARD O.S UG/K3
SOUO UNE - ANNUAL MEAN
4
1986
1986 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
N 98TH & STONE AVE N - SEATTLE. WASHINGTON
MAXIMUM QUARTERLY MEANS - LEAD
CONCENTRATION OJG/M3)
1.5
NUMBERS ON TOP OF BARS - PRIMARY STANDARD EXCEEDANCES
DOTTED LINE - PRIMARY STANDARD (1.5 UC/M3)
- SOUO LINE - ANNUAL MEAN
1966
54(b)
-------
1986 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
1-5 AND FAILING ST - PORTLAND. OREGON
MAXIMUM QUARTERLY MEANS - LEAD
CONCENTRATION OJG/M3)
L NUMBERS ABOVE BARS - STANDARD VIOLATIONS
[• DASHED LINE - QUARTERLY LEAD STANDARD
-------
MAX/MUM QUARTERLY MEANS-LEAD
SOwr Ktng School—SDvw VoO«y. 10
rv x
y- 1
r x x x x
1981
1fl(U
1904
1989
1980
Y«or
O
1.7
1.6-
1.5-
1X-
U-
1^!-
1.1 -
1 -
0.9-
0^-
0.7-
MAXIMUM QUARTERLY MEANS-LEAD
Taconra CKy C«nt«r—Tacoma. WA
0.4-
OJ-
0.2-
0.1 -
0
= (.5"
1982
1984
1983
1980
-------
Chapter 7: Mr
Sulfur Dioxide
Environmental Indicators
The environmental indicators for S02 are the monitoring monitored in that area. The present monitoring system
of "second highest 24 hour averages", and "the annual mean indicates that all areas are currently meeting the ambient air
concentrations". These measurements are sufficient to quality standards. In order to determine whether these
characterize the problem; they don't however, reflect short sources and areas are, in fact, in compliance with emission
term exposures. limits and air quality standards, compliance surveys will be
conducted at the major sources of S02 and monitoring
Region 10 has a number of sources of S02 emissions. studies done in selected geographic areas. These studies
Recently, the region has identified two major problem areas, will take place throughout 1987 and will focus on the
and controls will be required for a pulp mill in Cosmopolis, following sources and areas:
WA, and for a phosphate fertilizer plant in Pocatello, ID, to • a power plant in Centralia, WA
reduce emissions. Controls are also being evaluated for a • two refineries in Anacortes, WA
plant in Conda, ID to eliminate violations which have been • monitoring studies in Longview-Kelso, WA; Cherry
Point, WA, and possibly in Sitka-Ketchikan, Alaska
55
-------
SULFUR DIOXIDE
Proposed actions for reducing ambient S02 concentrations:
Sources Identified throughout Region
Cosmopolls, HA
Pocatello, ID
Conda, ID
Compliance surveys planned In:
Central1a, HA
Anacortes, HA
Longvlew/Kelso, HA
Cherry Point, MA
Eugene/Springfield, OR
Sltka/Ketchlkan, AK
55(a)
-------
490
1966 SO2 READINGS-24 HR 2nd MAX
SEWAOE TREATMENT PLWT-POCATEILO. (MHO
400-
XO
£00
£00
190
no
flO-
o
joes
1O63 1061 1OOS
Numttar on tap of bar - # rf 0xe0«dances
70*3
55(b)
-------
Chapter 7: Air
Air Toxics
Environmental Indicators
While ambient monitoring data is routinely available for
"Criteria Air Pollutants", it is not for "Toxic Air Pollutants".
This is due to the cost of collecting samples, the lack of
ambient standards for these substances, the large number
of substances that could be monitored, and the lack of
standard monitoring methods. For these (and other)
reasons, environmental indicators used for air toxics must be
surrogates for actual environmental measurements.
Since state and local agencies report to EPA their major
efforts to control air toxic releases every six months, we
have chosen these reports as a means to obtain surrogate
measures of environmental results. The table below
contains a summary of state and local activities which
address point sources of air toxics.
As the table shows, there is a significant amount of
activity, particularly in Oregon and Washington, which results
in toxics emission control on new and existing air toxics
sources. EPA will continue to monitor these activities and
add other air toxics environmental indicators as they become
available.
Summary of State Air Toxics Activities
For Point Sources
1986
Activity Number of Sources, by State
AK ID OR WA
New Sources
Sources Evaluated 2 4 410
Controls Required 0246
Existing Sources
Sources Evaluated 0 1 6 28
Controls Required 0 0 111
Program Status
Region lO's program is based upon the EPA national air
toxics strategy ("A Strategy to Reduce Risks to Public Health
from Air Toxics." June, 1985). This region's program relies
heavily on state initiatives and EPA to provide both technical
and limited regulatory support.
The national air toxics strategy has its roots in a 1985
EPA study that demonstrated that past efforts to control
common air pollutants like sulfur dioxides and particulates
also resulted in significant reductions In toxic gaseous and
particulate emissions. This study also estimates that current
emissions of air toxics may be responsible for I3OO to I7OO
cancer cases annually in the United States. Progress has
been made in controlling asbestos and air toxics through the
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) program. To date, regulations have been
developed for arsenic, asbestos, benzene, beryllium,
mercury, vinyl chloride, and radionuclides. EPA has placed
increased emphasis on the NESHAP program.
Approximately 36 pollutants are currently undergoing
NESHAP assessment. Limited information exists on the
sources, quantities, and effects of toxic air emissions in the
Pacific Northwest. This data is now being gathered by the
state and local agencies.
Three state agencies and one local agency in Region 10
have hired full-time air toxics coordinators. Alaska has a
staff member who works part time on air toxics. Each of
these agencies has developed Multi-Year Development
P1 ans (MYDP) for air toxics. These plans propose activities
to take the next three to five years that will reduce public
exposure to airborne toxics.
Each MYDP addresses four major issues. First, the
plan specifies how the agency will implement the NESHAP
regulations that EPA has delegated to them. Second, the
plan specifies the approach that will be used to address high
risk point sources of air toxics. Third, the MYDP addresses
high risk urban sources. They include motor vehicles, the
refining and distribution of petroleum products, residential
wood stoves, and dry cleaners. Motor vehicle fuels emit
varying amounts of benzene and ethylene dibromide, both of
which are considered to be carcinogenic. Under certain
conditions, the smoke from combustion of residential wood
stoves can contain high levels of certain polycyclic organic
materials (POM), generally considered to be mutagenic and
in some cases carcinogenic.
The last issue addressed by each MYDP is program
enhancement. EPA, state, and local agencies are striving to
improve their abilities to quantify air toxics risks and to
manage those risks.
56
-------
. Chapter 7: Air
Asbestos
Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral fiber which has
been used in many household and commercial products. Its
unique properties of tensile strength, moldability, as well as
its resistance to thermal and corrosive destruction have
made it valuable for uses in construction, textile, and plastics
industries. However, because of its crystaline structure and
friable nature, asbestos poses a tremendous risk to human
health. The tiny fibers, when airborne, are easily inhaled
and can become lodged in respiratory tissues. Symptoms of
asbestos related disease may appear 20 years after the first
exposure. Asbestos diseases can progress to incurable
stages long before any adverse health effect is detected or
diagnosed. As there is no known safe level of exposure,
EPA has developed a program of asbestos education and
abatement in schools, and maintains a quality assurance
program for all abatement projects.
Environmental Indicators
Success or failure in the asbestos program can be
measured in a number of ways, some of which are better
than others. Measuring accomplishments by the reduction
of cancer rates is necessary but not immediately useful, as
the results of such studies will not be known for another forty
years. Using the number of documented violations as an
environmental indicator or measure of
success may not give an accurate picture, as the number of
reported violations may have little to do with actual
exposures. The number of information requests, telephone
calls received, and notifications of projects, when compared
to enforcement actions taken, is a reliable measure of
program productivity, but not neccessarily linked to
environmental progress, risk etc. It is important to note that
these indicators are not static. It will be necessary for these
environmental indicators to be re-evaluated as the program
progresses.
Current Program Status
Use of asbestos in products has dropped significantly as
a result of EPA's plan under the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA) to prohibit the manufacture, importation and
processing of asbestos In certain products, and to phase out
the use of asbestos in all other products. The decline of
asbestos in products is being helped along as new materials
are developed to replace asbestos, and by the fact that
insurance companies have begun placing liability Insurance
on those products which still contain asbestos.
Companies which manufacture such products are to be
inspected under regulations set forth by the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
program; at this time, not all sources are being adequately
inspected. In Region 10, both Washington and Oregon have
the delegated authority to oversee the inspection
requirements of the NESHAP regulations. Alaska has
recently requested partial authority, and the Idaho plan is still
in the development stage. It is hoped that appropriate
inspections will be made and the regulations fully enforced in
all four Region 10 states In the near future.
In an effort to truly increase the effectiveness of the
asbestos NESHAP enforcement programs among the
regional, state, and local offices, EPA headquarters
developed the Performance Improvement Project (PIP) in
1985. This project was an effort by the three levels of
government to provide increased access to information and
instruction, as well as increased visibility of the program. It
also produced a significant rise in the number of project
notifications received and the number of violations found.
For example, in the second quarter of 1985, the Puget
Sound Air Pollution Control Authority (PSAPCA) received 51
notifications of renovation/demolition. The number of
notifications received by the fourth quarter of 1985 rose to
282, a 450% Increase. The increase is due, in part, to the
reasons outlined above. It is also due to the threat of heavy
penalties for noncompliance. A year later, fourth quarter
1986, the number of notifications increased to 535.
One important component of the Asbestos Compliance
Program is the training of the workers, foremen, and
inspectors of asbestos projects. EPA recently approved two
training courses for the workers and managers (the
"competent persons program") involved in asbestos removal
and demolition. Alaska and Washington currently hold
training programs to certify workers, and Oregon will begin
training courses soon. An inspector training course is
offered by EPA once every six months. One such training
course was held in June, 1987, with more than 30 NESHAP
inspectors participating.
Region 10, also endeavors to provide uniform
information to the public and contractors with the Asbestos
Outreach program. This program is for building owners,
and/or the operators of commercial, industrial, institutional,
governmental, and residential buildings, and is designed to
provide sufficient information so that asbestos exposure can
be minimized. In order to accomplish this, informational
documents are being printed, and consistent policies on
handling information requests have been formulated.
Training sessions and workshops are being scheduled,
written information is being packaged, some of which is
scheduled for publication in trade association publications.
The information provided by this outreach program ranges
from sample collection and analysis to risk assessment and
regulation updates.
57
-------
en 0
4*
0
d
0
d
150
140
130
120
110
100
00
80
70
80
50
40
30
20
10
0
NESHAP ACTIONS—REGION 10
NOTIFICATIONS OP VIOLATION
117
00
61
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
-------
A
o
•rl
4)
0
0
h
0
A
fl
900
800
700
800
000
400
300 -
200 -
100 -
19
NESHAP ACTIONS—REGION 70
INSPECTIONS
338
47
708
838
1983
1984
1985
1988
1987
-------
8
0
•H
o
2.8 -
2.8 -
2.2
2
1.8
1.8
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
NESHAP ACTIONS—REGION 10
NOTIFICATIONS OP REMOVAL/RENOVATION
54
1983
2084
1673
1216
74
1084
/ i
1985
1086
1087
-------
Chapter 7: Air
Radiation
Current Program Status
There are two major Department of Energy nuclear
facilities (the Hanford Reservation and the Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory), a nuclear naval shipyard, and two
power reactors located in Region 10. The regional radiation
program provides technical guidance to the EPA programs
governing these sites.
Radon concentrations have been found in varying levels
throughout the states In Region 10, some of which are over
EPA action limits of 4 pCi/L. There has been increased
interest and activity in all four states with regard to radon
evaluation and mitigation programs. As the states focus
more attention on this issue, Region 10's role as coordinator
between national policy makers and state and local
governments will increase. States will become more involved
in risk assessment, surveys, public education, and
mitigation.
Several state and local agencies are also expressing
concern about radio frequency (RF) radiation, and are
considering regulations to control public exposure to
nonionizing radiation. Region 10 has been active in
assisting agencies in RF measurement studies and
interpreting results. Various areas, such as Multnomah
County and the City of Portland in Oregon, as well as King
County, Washington, have areas with public exposure limits
in place or under consideration.
The region is also involved In the coordination of the
Idaho Radionuclide Study. This study is being managed by
EMSL (EPA's Las Vegas facility) as a multi-year effort to
determine the extent and sources of radiation exposure to
citizens of southeast Idaho, near Pocatello, due to the
phosphate industry located there. The study was initiated as
a result of uncertainty over whether the public living near
elemental phosphorus plants were adequately protected by
the new radionuclide standards which applied to those
plants. Region 10 will assist with the coordination between
the state of Idaho, local agencies, local elected officials,
affected industrial groups, the public, and the media. The
study will try to identify public radiation dose and route of
exposure to determine whether future mitigation actions are
necessary.
At the end of the 18 month study, it will be Region 10's
responsibility to deal with any significant findings.
Environmental Indicators
Environmental indicators or signs of progress toward
reducing human exposure to radiation are difficult to list.
Success might be measured by quantifying EPA's
educational efforts in the community. As radon in homes is
naturally occurring, and cannot be regulated, the educational
effort is an important way for EPA to assist homeowners in
deciding the appropriate course of action to be taken to
reduce their exposure to radon.
The risk of exposure to radiofrequency radiation decreases
as more areas implement regulations to control nonionizing
radiation.
58
-------
PROBABLE AREAS OF
HIGH RADON CONCENTRATIONS
G = Granite soil type
GG = Granitic Gravel soil type
58(a)
-------
RADIATION
Radlofrequency
Region assisting state/local agencies in RF measurement
studies and interpreting results.
Heightened public awareness through education.
Radionuclides
Region has been Instrumental in the Idaho Radionuclide Study
—a multiyear study of extent and sources of radiation
exposure due to phosphate industry.
Radon
Extensive public education program concerning radon
58(b)
-------
Chapter 7: Air
Air Enforcement Program
The goal for the air enforcement program Is to see that
all major stationary sources of regulated air pollutants come
into compliance with their State Implementation Plans and
the Clean Air Act.
Environmental Indicators
The objective of the air enforcement program is to
challenge significant air violators and return them to
compliance. The significant violator program is intended to
identify highest priority sources within the Region, so that the
states can deal with these sources directly. EPA will begin
enforcement activity with a specific source if the state is not
taking appropriate action.
During FY87, all twelve of Region 10's Fixed Base
Significant Violators were brought back into compliance
(resolved). In addition, all three dynamic base significant
violators were resolved, (see graph) In all instances, a
resolution was brought about by the state or local regulatory
agency without EPA assuming the enforcement lead. EPA
provided guidance to the state and local governments, and
tracked the enforcement process with a "monthly significant
violator report".
Source Inspections are conducted each year, and form
a crucial part of the air compliance/enforcement program.
These inspections include both the state/local inspections
and EPA-retained contractor inspections. EPA also
conducts a limited number of inspections, usually in
conjunction with the state.
During FY87, EPA conducted a total of 31 inspections
for the purpose of case development and oversight.
Included in these were two series of source category specific
inspections with EPA visiting a number of pulp mills and oil
refineries throughout the Region.
Each year, states are required to inspect a certain
percentage of their "universe" of sources during the fiscal
year. In FY87, all four states committed to inspecting over
90% of the sources in their state under the categories of A1
SIP, A1 NSPS and all NESHAP sources. Progress toward
meeting the commitments was monitored by EPA and
periodically reported to the Operations Offices for verification.
Although the states are not required to have all data for
FY87 into the Compliance Data System (CDS) until January
1,1988, it is apparent that the states will meet or exceed
their original commitments (see graph).
59
-------
in
Si
-2:
£ I
s
4 -
4 4
/\
\&M
^^
^11
^11
$m
^
BOY
[771 Alaska
87 SIGNIFICANT VIOLATORS
QUARTERLY RESOLUTION
111
1st or R
P
^V%^
£7X%M
/ \^^
X\^^
/\^^
A\V£§^
^^.
A^^
\^^
\%^
^K^
X\%^
x\%^
x\^^
^z^^^
2nd QTR
3rrfarn
Quarterly Accumulative Totals
W& Orego"
VI ^
V ^
v\ $$
Nl»i
Nl i
1
^
V%^
I
^>«
zv
^m
4th GTR
KS3 Washington
-------
Chapter 7: Air
Air Environmental Indicators
Modifications for FY 88 and Beyond
Air Programs Branch intends to adopt and implement or explore the following environmental indicators in FY 88. We
are committed to the adoption and implementation of those environmental indicators for which data or some other known
surrogate measure Is available. As identified in the list, we will explore potential indicators for those programs which do not
have databases. We reserve the right to add, delete or modify this list based on improved data gathering/monitoring
capabilities, etc.
1. Criteria Pollutants
• Ambient air quality data and analyses
• Emission inventory data (for use as a surrogate measure)
Obtained from reasonable further progress reports for non-attainment areas, and SIP submittals for PMIO; future
submittals for CO/O3
2. Air Toxics
• Begin to track annual changes to baseline air toxics inventory for selected pollutants
• Review state evaluation and control of point sources of toxic air pollutants
3. NESHAP (Asbestos)
• Track notifications, inspections and notices of violation
4. SIP Activities
• Track rulemaking actlvities/SIP approvals by pollutant
5. Enforcement
• Track significant violators—NSPS, non-attainment areas, federal facilities, and compliance orders
• Explore the possibility of linking specific enforcement actions (i.e. reduced emission rates) to decreases in ambient
pollutant concentrations
6. Radiation
• Explore the establishment of baseline radon levels based on existing data; compare baseline to future measurements
• Explore the use of ERAMS (Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring System)
• Explore the establishment of a pilot study to track the distribution of homeowners' pamphlets and at a later date,
survey those households to determine if "measures" were taken
60
-------
Chapters: Toxics - PCBs
Toxics Environmental Indicators for PCBs
FY 87 and FY 88
1. Early Disposal
• We will continue to track on a quarterly basis quantities of PCB materials sent for early disposal (i.e., disposed of
prior to end of useful life) as a result of settlement of RGB complaints.
2. PCB Levels In Biota
• During FY 88, we will maintain our relationships with those groups in the environmental community who are involved
in PCB studies, and determine from them on a quarterly basis whether new relevant data are available which would
help identify trends In PCB levels in the biota. We anticipate at a minimum that new NOAA Mussel Watch data will
become available during this fiscal year and that such data will be incorporated into a revised PCB indicator report.
3. Compliance Indicators
• During FY 88, we will examine historical TSCA PCB regulations compliance rates for various categories of violations
and for various industries. We will select at least two indicators of compliance trends and prepare a summary report
by the end of the fiscal year.
61
-------
Chapter 8: Toxics - PCBs
Environmental Indicators For PCBs
Introduction
EPA's program to assess PCB and organochlorine
pesticide concentrations in the environment was initiated to
determine the status and trends of these environmentally
persistant compounds. This report will discuss the
Polychlorinated Biphenyls or PCBs.
Historical and current data relating concentrations of
PCBs and organochlorine pesticides in fish, shellfish, wildlife
and sediments have been compiled and analyzed.
Comparisons of historical and current PCB data yield some
information about changes in the average concentrations of
these compounds and provide some indication of
environmental improvements which in turn may reflect the
effectiveness of EPA's PCB program.
This study reviews previously issued reports and
provides environmental status and trend results from three
monitoring programs: 1) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
National Pesticide Monitoring Program; 2) Sediment
Sampling of Puget Sound by various groups and projects;
and 3) Mussel Monitoring Programs—NOAA's "Mussel
Watch" and a separate EPA mussel sampling and analysis
program.
Because of the diverse sources of data, different
methodologies, purposes, and geographic focuses of the
many studies, the data are in many cases not directly
comparable. This prevents the drawing of broad conclusions
concerning temporal trends of these compounds. The
findings will, however, be useful for establishing the direction
of future analyses.
1. Pesticide Monitoring Project - U.S. Fish and
Wildlife
Recognizing the need to establish a long term
monitoring program to assess levels of persistant
organochlorine pesticides in the environment, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) began monitoring for
organochlorine pesticides in freshwater fish, starlings,
mallards and black ducks in the 1960's. The goal of their
program was to assess average environmental levels of
these contaminants and to provide data to help indicate the
status of environmental conditions.*
The USFWS also collected data on PCB levels. This
report presents only the Washington State PCB data (Tables
1, 2, 3). (The summary data on PCBs were collected from
A. Barren's review of USFWS reports.)
Station
Number
S44
S46
S96
S97
S98
Location
Yakima River at Granger, Washington
Columbia River at Cascade Locks, OR/WA
Snake River at Ice Harbor Dam, Washington
Columbia River, Pasco, Washington
Columbia River, Grand Coulee, Washington
Review of the USFWS data indicates a general
decrease in PCB contamination of those Washington State
species analyzed over the last two decades (see Figures
1,2,3). The USFWS reported Washington State PCB
averages to be similar to or less than average national
levels. Although PCB residues are still common in samples
from rural areas in Washington, the levels since 1981 are
very low, between detection and 0.05 ppm.
'USFWS. Various papers re: monitoring ol organochlorine residues In
freshwater llsh, 1970-1981. Overview prepared by A. Barren
Table 1
PCB Residues in Freshwater Fish
(in ppm, wet weight)
Year
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1976
1978
1980
Station
S44*
.36
.78
1.18
.00
.34
.57
.01
.00
S46
.99
.57
.75
.58
.45
.40
.29
.30
S96
1.32
.35
.38
.48
.11
.32
.05
.00
S97
.79
.55
2.35
.35
.05
.05
.15
.04
S98
.74
.71
2.78
.78
.22
.18
.12
.05
'Average calculated for the 2 samplings at station 44
Table 2
PCB Residues in Wings of
Mallards and Black Ducks
(in ppm, wet weight)
Year
1969
1972
1976
1979
1981
PCBs
.14
.09
.11
.04
.01
Table 3
PCB Residues in Starlings
(in ppm, wet weight)
Year
Pierce
1970 .31
1972 .36
1974
1976
1979
1982
.10
ND*
NA"
.05
County
Yakima Spokane Whitman
.15 .36 .39
.063 .17 .037
.021 .083 .042
ND ND ND
NA
ND
NA
NA
NA
.02
'NA = Not Analyzed; Year 1979 graphed as avg. of 1976 & 1982 data
"ND = Not Detected; graphed as 0.00.
62
-------
Figure 1
ro
il
O
z
O
O
m
o
Q.
2.8
1970
PCB RESIDUES
FRESHWATER FISH
VARIOUS SITES AROUND WA. STATE
S44
YEAR
S96
198O
S97
X S9S
-------
a
a
cr>
6
z
o
o
m
o
CL
Figure 2
PCB RESIDUES
1969
WINGS OF MALLARDS/DUCKS
FOR WASHINGTON STATE
1981
-------
o
•D
5:
a
a.
O
Z
O
o
CD
O
Q.
Figure 3
0.5
0.4 -
0.3 -
0.2 -
0.1 -
197O
D PIERCE
PCB RESIDUES
STARLINGS
VARIOUS COUNTIES AROUND WA. STATE
1972
1974
-H YAKIMA
1976 197S
YEAR
O SPOKANE
19SO
1982
WHITMAN
-------
Chapters: Toxics - PCBs
2. Puget Sound Sediment
The following discussion reviews data which describe
levels of PCBs in Puget Sound sediments and, in a few
cases, the variations of those levels over time. For
purposes of this review, the studies selected were those that
sampled similar sites around Puget Sound.
Many of the sediments analyzed were from highly
contaminated, urbanized areas, such as Seattle's Elliott Bay
and Tacoma's Commencement Bay. Other "reference"
sites, e.g., Admiralty Inlet and Case Inlet, were located away
from large population centers. The locations of the
embayments studied in this report are shown in Figure 4.
Concentrations of PCBs in Puget Sound sediments
varied from area to area and between studies. Sediments
from some stations contained consistently high PCB
concentrations over time, while other stations yielded
samples with concentrations that were usually at or below
detection. The highest concentrations of PCBs in sediment
samples were from the waterways of Commencement Bay
(Tacoma), the Duwamish River, Elliott Bay (Seattle), Sinclair
Inlet (Bremerton), and Everett Harbor.
Sediment samples from Case Inlet, Port Madison
(Admiralty Inlet), Budd Inlet, and the San Juan Islands were
significantly less contaminated with PCBs than sediments
sampled in urbanized areas, but were not completely free of
PCB contamination.
The most highly contaminated areas (maximums on
graphs and tables) include Elliott Bay (both offshore and
near shore), the Commencement Bay waterways, Sinclair
Inlet, and Everett Harbor (Fig. 5). Concentrations of PCBs
In these areas ranged in the thousands and tens of
thousands of parts per billion. Tables 4 and 5 tabulate and
rank the PCB concentrations found in the sediments
sampled.
The sampling and analysis of sediments seems to be a
viable alternative to tissue analysis for the purpose of
characterizing the condition of a given area (environmental
indicator). Although environmental trends of PCBs in Puget
Sound sediments cannot be definitively stated, a general
picture of PCB contamination can be drawn.
The most current Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
(PSWQA) report shows PCB concentrations to be similar to
those reported in 1984. Reports by Malins et al. in 1979 and
the PSWQA in 1984 (Fig. 6) indicate that areas
contaminated by PCBs remained highly contaminated
through those years.
Because the data on PCBs are limited for a variety of
reasons, it is not appropriate to draw strong conclusions
concerning positive or negative environmental trends. There
is, however, little evidence to show that PCB levels in Puget
Sound sediments have declined significantly over the past
decade.
The PSWQA and other groups using standardized
methods are currently producing PCB data which will enable
environmental policy planners to perform trend analyses.
63
-------
PORT MADISON
. .- BREMERTON
SINCLAIR INLETf
INLET
OLYMPIA
Figure 4: Locations of studied embayments in Central and Southern Puget
Sound.
Source: NOAA Technical Memorandum ONPA-2
63(a)
-------
BELLINGHAM BAY
SAMISH BAY
SEOUIM BAY
DISCOVERY BAY
DYES INLET
CARR INLET
49
N
'
SKAGIT BAY
SARATOGA PASSAGE
PORT SUSAN
48-H
PORT GARDNER
:LLIOTT BAY
AST PASSAGE
SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY
A- PRIMARY AREA OF
CONCERN
- SECONDARY AREA OF
CONCERN
124'W
COMMENCEMENT BAY
123*
47.
122
Figure 5: Locations of sediment chemistry primary and secondary areas of
concern in Pirget Sound and northern embayments.
~ Paget Sound Environmental Atlas, February 1987
Evans-Hamilton, Inc.
63(b)
-------
cr>
to
o
Table 4: Observed concentration range, estimated concentrations and burdens of sediment PCBs within each region and
subregion of Puget Sound. Estimated concentrations were rounded to two significant figures and estimated
burdens were rounded to one significant figure.
Source: Puget Sound Environmental Atlas, February 1987
Evans-Hamilton, .Inc. OBSERVED
GEOGRAPHIC AREA
TOTAL PUGET SOUND
SAN JUAN ISLANDS
Bellingham Bay
INNER STRAIT OF
JUAN DE FUCA
ADMIRALTY INLET
WHIDBEY BASIN
Everett Harbor
East Waterway
HOOD CANAL
CENTRAL BASIN
Shilshole Bay
METRO N. Trunk Sewer Outfall
Outer Elliott Bay Nearshore
Outer Elliott Bay Deep
Inner Elliott Bay Nearshore
Inner Elliott Bay Deep
Commencement Bay Nearshore
Commencement Bay Deep
Northwest Sinclair Inlet
Southern Sinclair Inlet
Eagle Harbor
SOUTH SOUND
Budd Inlet
AREA
(SQ.KM.)
4973
1515
2
1129
374
500
5
1
345
642
5
1
4
15
3
11
7
19
4
7
2
362
20
CONCENTRATION
RANGE (PPB)
BDL*-21,600
<20
<20-100
1-20
-
1-200
32-450
84-970
1-20
BDLM580
10-660
13-610
" 35-260
5-1400
2-13,500
2-21,600
7-5200
BDL»-990
28-1670
1250
6-60
BDL*-30
5-19
ESTIMATED
CONCENTRATION (PPB)
20
10
35
10
12
11
89
260
<20
62
48
79
50
200
750
490
130
47
410
190
19
10
10
ESTIMATED BURDEN
(KG)
3000
400
2
300
100
200
10
6
100
1000
7
2
6
80
60
200
200
30
30
30
1
100
6
NUMBER OF
SAMPLES
501
5
8
6
0
5
13
5
4
186
7
9
2
36
33
32
96
21
10
1
4
15
3
Below Detection Limits
-------
a
a.
O
u
O
O
O
1
III
3OO -
800 -
700 -
600 -
500 -
400 -
300 -
200 -
100 -
n —
^v ^v \
^
r /t
1 /
, ' ,
'
^ s.
n
.
'
f 520O ^158O
, J J PCB
N^ ^v
A
In j
" P
]\\\\\
]\\\\\
' '
^
<
i
»
\\
\
s
lr
y ••timated concentration
4
4
ir
I
ir
T maximum concentration
^c no samples taken In
this area
<
T T • "tr
A \\A-^- T ^
\\x inri rrn r?— i rr
i
-1500
-125O
-1OOO
-750
-500
-2SO
-O
a
a
M
U
O
Ul
u
O
O
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1O 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
RANK
RANK
GEOGRAPHIC AREA
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION
(PPB)
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Inner Elliott Bay Ncarshorc
Inner Elliott Bay Deep
Northwest Sinclair Inlet
East Waterway
Outer Elliott Bay Deep
Southern Sinclair Inlet
Commencement Bay Nearshore
Everett Harbor
METRO North Trunk Sewer Outfall
Central Basin
Outer Elliott Bay Nearshore
Shilshole Bay
Commencement Bay Deep
Bellingham Bay
Hood Canal
Eagle Harbor
Admiralty Inlet
Whidbey Basin
San Juan Islands
South Sound
Budd Inlet
Inner Strait of Juan de Fuca
13.500
21.600
1.670
970
1.400
•1.250
5.200
450
610
1.580
260
660
990
100
20
60
NS*
200
<20
30
19
20
* No samples taken in this area.
Tab! e 5: Ranking of regions and subregions of Puget Sound based on
estimated sediment concentrations of PCBs. (•) indicates maximum
concentration found in each area. Place names of ranked areas are
listed below the graph along with the maximum concentration
found in that area.
Source: Puget Sound Environmental Atlas, February 1987
Evans- Hamilton, Inc.
63(d)
-------
CTl
GO
tt>
Q
£
cc
CD
0.
CL
O
z
O
O
CD
O
Q_
Figure 6
PCB LEVELS IN PUGET SOUND SEDIMENT
500
700 -
6OQ -
500 -
400 -
300 -
200 -
1OO
SFTE COMPARISON - YRS. 1979 & 1984
1 >• I >•
1—
SINCLR DUWAM BUDD COM BAYCOM WAYSPRT MAD SHILSRE ELLIOTT CASE
LOCATION
/\
HYLEBO
1979
1984
-------
Chapter 8: Toxics • PCBs
3. Mussel Monitoring Programs
Monitoring of mussels is one approach that is being
used to indicate the status of chemical contamination in
marine environments. There are several reasons for using
mussels as indicators of environmental quality: 1) a
correlation is thought to exist between the contaminant
content of the mussel and an average contaminant content
in the surrounding water; 2) mussels are widely distributed
geographically, allowing for repeated sampling of the same
species between areas; 3) mussels remain at a single
location during adult life, making them good indicators of
pollutant status in a given area; 4) mussels are relatively
hearty, surviving in environments where other species may
not.
There have been several mussel monitoring programs
past and present, the most extensive being a National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) effort.
Their National Status and Trends (NS&T) Mussel Watch
Project will provide comprehensive data on chemical
contamination as revealed through mussel tissue analysis.
Two earlier national mussel studies pre-dated the NS&T
program. One was conducted under the direction of P.A.
Butler, National Pesticides Monitoring Program (NPMP),
from 1965to 1972, and a second, EPA's mussel monitoring
program, was headed by E.D. Goldberg (1976-1978).
A concern with the available mussel watch data is that
the results are often non-comparable. Reasons for this
include the following: standardized techniques for analyzing
PCBs in tissue samples were not used; different labs
reported significantly different values for similar samples at
the same sites; some sites were sampled only once, making
trend analysis impossible; and results were reported
variously as wet or dry weights with no indication of percent
moisture. For these reasons, it is difficult to draw
conclusions about Washington State PCB trends using the
currently available mussel watch data.
However, a major new phase of the NOAA Mussel
Watch program which has just been completed for Puget
Sound sites is expected to yield valuable information on
PCBs and provide data that will be comparable to past
mussel watch data. The new information will give
environmental managers an opportunity to examine
variations in PCB levels in mussel tissue over the past
decade.
Conclusions
The USFWS's pesticide studies indicate that there has
been a general decrease in PCB concentrations or levels
reported in animal tissues in Washington State. This
positive trend however, seems to be freshwater related. If
marine regions (sediment studies) are included in the
analysis, less positive conclusions can be drawn. Puget
Sound sediment data indicates that certain areas, "PCB hot
spots", produce samples with consistently high PCB
concentrations overtime. Certainly the high PCB values
reported for various Puget Sound "hot spots" warrant
continued study. A long term monitoring of Puget Sound
sediment will enable environmental managers to more
accurately characterize environmental quality trends for
Puget Sound.
The following is a list of major studies planned and in
progress.
• An urban bay study is currently being completed by
the Corps of Engineers on Elliott Bay and Everett
Harbor. PCB concentrations from bottom fish and
sediment samples will be representative of 1986
environmental conditions and the data will be directly
comparable to past research. This report should be
available in early 1988.
• The Corps of Engineers and PSWQA are currently
conducting surveys of sediments and marine life at
recreational marinas due for future dredging. A
report due spring 1988, will address concentrations
of PCBs, pesticides, and several heavy metals.
• A two year research project involving the chemical
analysis of Puget Sound fish, clams, and seaweed,
under direction of the Department of Social & Health
Services, is currently underway.
Future Directions
An ambitious plan for long term monitoring of the health
of Puget Sound has been prepared by the Puget Sound
Water Quality Authority and has been presented for
approval. Region 10's PCB Program will track the progress
of the comprehensive monitoring effort, and will on an
annual basis extract and consolidate PCB data obtained
from the monitoring. Information obtained is expected to be
superior to other sources of PCB data (for use as
environmental indicators), both because Puget Sound
monitoring will be more comprehensive and because it is
intended to be a long term, continuing program. New
"mussel watch" data will also be analyzed and used to
Indicate environmental progress.
64
-------
Chapter 9: Toxics - Asbestos
Environmental Indicators for Asbestos
FY87
1. Abatement
• Track, by quarter, the quantities and costs of asbestos abatement achieved by schools settling Asbestos-in-Schools
complaints.
2. Compliance
• Compliance rates for EPA inspections
Indicators of Effectiveness
Region 10
Asbestos-in-Schools Program
FY 1986-FY 1987
Introduction
ERA'S Asbestos-in-Schools Program was the result of a
combination of legislative and regulatory actions taken in
response to increased awareness of health risks associated
with asbestos exposure. Most of the health risk data
concerning asbestos has been developed from the high
dose long exposure situations found in manufacturing and
industrial situations. The Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) regulations were promulgated to
protect workers from such exposure.
EPA's early regulatory efforts were aimed at protecting
the quality of ambient air (NESHAPs) and protecting school
children (as they may not be adequately protected by
regulations written to protect adult workers).
There was very little data available to show the health
risks of exposure at the levels and durations experienced by
school children. It is generally agreed by scientific
researchers that there is no known threshhold-level below
which exposure to asbestos Is not a potential health hazard.
There were documented cases where children of asbestos
manufacturing workers developed asbestos diseases when
exposed to levels which could be similar to the exposure a
school child would experience if air-borne friable asbestos
was present due to deterioration, maintenance, damage, or
construction activities in the school. Definitive studies of the
effects of the presence of asbestos in schools may take 30-
40 years to complete because of the long latency periods of
asbestos-related diseases.
For the previously stated reasons, the evaluation of
effectiveness of the Asbestos-in-Schools Program was
inferred through the documentation of reduction of the
potential for exposure which reduces the opportunity
for health risk.
65
The Region's Asbestos-in-School's Program reduces
the potential for exposure in several ways. TSCA
regulations require the schools to inspect for any friable
asbestos-containing material (FACM), analyze samples of
suspect material (or assume, absent testing, that the
material is asbestos-containing), and notify staff and parents
of inspection/analysis results. All 1,543 Region 10 local
education agencies (LEAs) were required to be in
compliance with these regulations by June 1983.
As of the end of fiscal year 1987, the Region had
conducted 792 compliance inspections at LEAs. With rare
exception, all of these LEAs are presently in compliance;
some are in compliance because they responded to the
issued regulation, some because of pending EPA
inspections, some because of pressure from parents, some
because of fear of adverse publicity, and some because of
enforcement efforts by EPA. The overall rate of
noncompliance was 48%. However, only 13% actually
received complaints for significant violations; the remaining
35% were out of compliance for minor violations (such as
failure to complete the form required when no FACM is
present).
In nearly every case, school administrators agreed there
was a need to reduce risk through minimization of human
exposure to friable asbestos-containing material, using
abatement measures such as removal or other methods for
controlling FACM. However, this is not always a high
priority. The major impact of enforcement activities has
been to change the LEA's priorities and thus to reduce
potential exposure sooner than might otherwise happen.
This report examines the environmental effects of
asbestos abatement activities associated with the 43
Asbestos-in-Schools complaint settlements that occurred in
Region 10 during FY 86-87.
-------
Chapter 9: Toxics - Asbestos
Limitation of Indicators
Nearly every LEA with FACM took some action to
reduce exposure during the period of 1979 to 1987. These
actions were primarily a result of: EPA's technical
assistance program, EPA's TSCA compliance program, or
public pressure (a public informed by publicity surrounding
EPA's programs). No data have been compiled regarding
abatement activities other than those activities associated
with enforcement actions. Further, it Is only those
enforcement actions resulting in civil complaints where EPA
has compiled data about exposure reduction. The 43 civil
complaints settled in the 1986-87 fiscal years represent
about 2% of the total Region 10 student population. It
should be clearly understood that this report attempts to
show the effectiveness of only one small part of an overall
program. The actual impact of those complaints has gone
far beyond the schools directly involved, in that many other
LEAs were likely influenced by those actions to undertake
abatement on their own.
Enforcement Element
In cases where an LEA was substantially out of
compliance either at the time of inspection or for at least a
year's period after the June 1983 effective date, EPA issued
a civil complaint with a proposed penalty assessment.
Generally, the proposed penalties for a violative LEA were
$6,000.00 per school out of compliance with an additional
$6,000.00 to a large LEA for failure to bring individual
schools into compliance. In nearly every case, failure to be
in compliance translated into failure to have notified parents
and/or staff of friable material.
Cases were informally settled through negotiations with
the Regional Asbestos Coordinator operating under advice
of office of Regional Counsel; none have proceeded to
hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. The basic
policy, consistent with EPA HQ direction, was to reduce the
proposed penalty to a fixed minimum, based upon the LEA's
agreement to provide at least dollar for dollar abatement for
the amount of reduction of proposed penalty. In those few
cases where the cost of complete abatement was less than
the deferred portion of the proposed penalty, full credit was
given for the deferred amount.
Methodology
Data for the analysis were compiled by phone survey.
Each LEA was asked to estimate the amount of asbestos
abated (encapsulated or removed) to meet the deferred
portion of the settlements. There was a great variation in
the reported cost of abatement due to conditions,
contractors, and methods of financing. Reported costs of
abatement range from less than one-dollar to over forty-
dollars per square/lineal foot.
In those cases where data were incomplete only dollar
amounts or areas of abatement were reported (but not
both), a cost factor of eight-dollars per square/lineal foot was
used for estimation purposes. The eight-dollar figure was
selected on the basis of industry estimates since this was
believed to be more reliable than other options, such as
averaging the wide-ranging data from the rest of our sample.
Conclusions
The forty-three civil complaint settlement cases of FY 86
and FY 87 resulted in proposed penalties totaling $316,100.
Deferred penalties totaled $290,610. The deferment of the
$290,610 was negotiated through informal settlement
conferences in exchange for asbestos abatement including
both removal and encapsulation. Total expenditure for
abatement was $1,251,523 for the 43 settled cases.
Therefore, for every dollar deferred, $4.31 was spent by
LEAs for abatement.
The abatement projects resulted in abatement of
approximately 353,000 square feet of sprayed-on asbestos
and 8,300 lineal feet of pipe wrapping. Ninety-four schools
had asbestos abated resulting in about 27,000 students and
staff benefitting from reduced asbestos exposure.
66
-------
Chapter 9: Toxics - Asbestos
New Directions
With the promulgation of final regulations for the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) on December
14,1987, Region 10 will enter a new phase In the Asbestos Program for schools. Since the new prog ram will require
abatement of all friable asbestos, we can expect large Increases in the amount of hazard removed. The rules require the
abatements to begin by July 1989.
AIS FY 86 & FY 87 Summary of Abatement After Settlement
Number of Number of Proposed Deferred Dollars for Sq. Ft. Lin. Ft. Schools Students
Quarter Schools Students Penalty Penalty Penalty Abatement Abated Abated Abated Affected
1st 27 6,351 29,200 27,200 2,000 115,528 14,441 0 16 3,807
2nd 18 6,227 30,500 28,000 2,500 56,800 1,676 5,439 12 4,691
3rd 4 1,606 2,600 2,410 200 433,736 17 0 4 1,606
4th 34 9,760 82,400 75,600 6,800 410,512 49,555 1,759 22 6,890
FY 87 Totals 83 23,944 144,700 133,210 11,5001,016,656119,884 7,198 54 16,994
FY 86 Totals 90 23,983 171,400 157,400 16,300 234,867232,791 1,145 40 10,273
Grand Total 173 47,927 316,100 290,610 27,8001,251,523352,675 8,343 94 27,267
Total Region 10 Student Enrollment: 1,612,973
67
-------
INDICATORS
$
1O ~Er
A7 66-67 -4
\
x
i 1
•#290,6/0
$3/6, 000
000*000
1.57 M\S.
67(a)
-------
Chapter 9: Toxics - Asbestos
Environmental Indicators for Asbestos
FY 88 and Beyond
1. Abatement
• We will continue to track on a quarterly basis the quantities and costs of asbestos abatement achieved by schools
settling Asbestos-ln-Schools complaints.
2. Asbestos-in-School Summary Report
• As the Asbestos in Schools program draws to a close this year (and we transfer to activities under the Asbestos
Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA)), we will review historical program trends and accomplishments and
present them in a summary report. The types of things highlighted will include: compliance levels overtime, percent
of school districts and student populations covered; percent of respondents in continuing compliance with settlement
agreements; asbestos abatement achieved by schools settling complaints; etc.
3. AHERA Indicators
• The majority of program activities for AHERA will commence in FY 88, as program guidance is made available by HQ
EPA, we will develop appropriate environmental indicators and propose them by Sept. 1988.
68
-------
Chapter 10: Pesticides
Pesticides Environmental Indicators
FY87
In FY 87 the Pesticides Program agreed to examine various data sources for use as possible environmental Indicators.
By the end of FY 87, they were to select environmental indicators based on the results of their search. The following report
describes their findings. It is followed by their selections for FY 88 and beyond.
Use of Pesticides Data as
Region 10 Environmental Indicators
Background
Generally, the FIFRA program can improve the state of
the environment by trying to reduce the risk of pesticide
exposure. Under FIFRA, EPA develops pesticide use
regulations that are intended to reduce exposure or
contamination risks to acceptable levels. Instructions on the
safe use of a pesticide product are communicated to the
public on product labels. Hypothetically, if pesticide products
were applied and disposed of according to label instructions,
unsafe residue levels and other forms of excess exposure
would not occur. Unfortunately, pesticide regulators are
routinely confronted with evidence to the contrary.
Public complaints and independent research findings do
inform EPA about unacceptable, pesticide-related risks in
the environment. Acute exposure accidents and public
complaints suggest that unacceptable levels of risk are
present. Independent research may also reveal
unanticipated environmental exposure risks. In a regional
context, we have the responsibility to share risk exposure
information with EPA Headquarters. We should also use
such information to target state enforcement activities to a
problem area. It is, however, difficult to use these
information resources as environmental indicators.
Public complaints about pesticide misuse are the best
regulatory tool the Regions have to monitor risk levels. To
use complaint data as an indicator, however, requires one to
assume that the types of complaints we hear about are
representative of actual exposure risks. Although
independent research generates "real" environmental data, it
also has shortcomings as an indicator. Few independent
research activities are conducted as long-term monitoring
studies, and FIFRA does not provide funds for
environmental monitoring. Thus, both of these potential
indicators have limited ability to depict real-world risks, and
to help us assess the impact of regional program activities
upon pesticide risk levels.
Public complaint data most accurately reflect short-
term risks from acute exposure episodes. The Regions and
states address such risks through FIFRA enforcement
inspections. Complaint logs contain information about the
frequency, location and type of chemical misused that helps
the program control, to a degree, some unacceptable risks.
The FIFRA program already has a system in place to help
the Regions and the states use public complaint data to
address their most significant exposure problems. The
states set their annual inspection priorities each year based
partly upon the environmental harm caused by each type of
complaint they receive the previous year. Significant misuse
problems with respect to a particular pesticide or type of
applicator are identified through this process.
Unfortunately, regulators have no basis upon which to
assume that public complaints accurately represent real
world risks. More serious risks could remain undisclosed.
For example, a farmer is not likely to complain about drift
damage caused by an applicator who applied an
unregistered herbicide to his neighbor's wheat crop if he also
relies upon that same applicator to treat his wheat crop each
year. Furthermore, the complaint information base does not
help regulators identify chronic exposure or bioaccumulation
problems. Should historical misuse data suggest to
regulators the existence of a long-term contamination
problem, funding would not be available under FIFRA to
study the problem area. Again, the lack of a more
statistically reliable monitoring tool restricts our ability to
evaluate how well FIFRA program activities reduce or control
short-term exposure risks.
When available, a better tool to use as an environmental
indicator would be routine monitoring data. A continuous
data base with information about pesticide residue levels
would help inform regulators about chronic (long-term) or
unanticipated exposure risks. Because the FIFRA program
does not provide any monitoring funds, Region 10 would
need to rely upon other independent studies for this data.
Long-term studies usually focus on persistent
pesticides. They also test primarily for pesticides that have
already been suspended or cancelled, and so fall short of
helping regulators assess what environmental impact current
program activities are having. Should unsafe residuals
levels be discovered, regulators then face the difficult task of
identifying and controlling the original source of
contamination. For example, are high levels of pesticide X
due to an isolated spill, long-term misuse, cumulative effects
of long-term proper use, geographic vulnerability, or a
combination of the above?
We do not receive independent study information
regularly, but must search for this type of data. Were
Region 10 to select such data as an environmental indicator,
we would be relying upon the continued research support of
other agencies for the data we choose to use. However,
routine environmental monitoring data would come much
closer than public complaint data to telling us how whether
product labels are generating acceptable risk levels. This
kind of information base would help us estimate how well the
regulated community is complying with cancelled/suspended
use restrictions. It could also alert us to significant, chronic
effects of a currently-registered pesticide.
69
-------
Chapter 10: Pesticides
Other Pesticides Studies Reviewed for
Potential Environmental Indicator Data
1. Endrln Residues In Upland Game Birds Collected In
Washington Apple Orchards. A monitoring program
was designed by the Washington Department of Game
(WDG) to assess risks of the rodenticide, endrln, to
wildlife using treated orchards. Sampling efforts In
1981/82 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and WDG
revealed lethal endrin levels In a variety of game and
nongame bird species. The monitoring was repeated by
WDG in late 1982 for comparison to the original data.
Between the first and second monitoring, mean endrin
residues in breast and liver tissues decreased 84% and
88% respectively. In the second monitoring, a total of
47% of birds analyzed had detectable endrin residues In
one or more tissues analyzed, compared to 98% the
year before. This significant decrease recorded for
mean breast and liver concentration was undoubtedly
due to lower endrin usage by orchardists during the fall
of 1982. In spite of this decrease, endrln concentrations
presented in the last study still indicate a continued risk
to wildlife using apple orchards after the 1982 endrin
application. The extreme toxicity of endrin to wildlife
has been shown in numerous studies, including
extensive research by Blus, et at. (1983) in eastern
Washington. Potential wildlife health implications from
these concentrations include lowered reproductive
success, secondary poisoning of raptors and other
predators/scavengers, and a potential for direct
mortalities.
2. Pesticides used on grapes In California. Cesar
Chavez of the United Farmworkers Union distributed
literature describing the adverse effects of five
pesticides which the Union wishes to be banned from
use. These pesticides included Methyl Bromide,
Parathion, Phosdrin, Dinoseb and Captan. In California,
these pesticides are used on grapes.
3. U.W. Groundwater Contamination Study. The
University of Washington Department of Civil
Engineering is conducting a research project entitled, "A
Hierarchical Risk-Based Strategy For Assessing EDB
and EDB-like Contamination of Groundwater." This
project has been funded by the State of Washington
Department of Social and Health Services and
Department of Ecology. As of August 21, 1986, they
had begun a second phase of the project, in which they
intended to develop a computer-based methodology for
the optimization of well monitoring based on risk/cost
considerations. This study is available.
Recommended Approach
Public Complaint Data (Short-term, Acute Exposure Data)
We will continue to work with the states each year to
see that frequent incidences of misuse with the potential to
cause unacceptable risk are addressed as priorities in their
grants. (The one-time, independent studies we reviewed are
summarized in Attachment 1).
As available, we will review the annual summaries of
pesticide incidents as reported to the Oregon Pesticide
Analytical and Response Center (PARC). This group
usually describes additional regulatory controls that would
help decrease that likelihood of pesticide-related accidents.
We have asked the Spokane County Health District
for their annual reports when available. They have just
started a program that tests cholinesterase blood levels in
pest control operators. When received, we will review the
data for use as an indicator.
(NOTE: An additional word about pesticide illness claims is
warranted. Public claims of pesticide-related illnesses or
acute exposure accidents are very difficult to document
medically. Furthermore, the nature or frequency of these
complaints cannot be extrapolated to the population at large
because there is no basis upon which to judge how
representative of all actual pesticide accidents the claims
are. Media attention strongly influences the kind and
frequency of illness complaints received. As another
example, it is suspected that most migrant workers are
afraid to report pesticide accidents or poisonings for fear of
losing their jobs or deportation. Farmers who have worked
around pesticides for years will also have a far different
interpretation than an urban gardener about what constitutes
a pesticide accident worthy of medical attention. Thus,
actual exposure risks may be greater on the farm, while
health agency claims may indicate greater exposure
problems in town).
70
-------
Chapter 10: Pesticides
Independent Research Studies (Long-term, Chronic/
Bioaccumulative Data)
Not much useful data is currently available. The next
two or three years should bring us some material to work
with, however. EPA is now funding two studies that we hope
will be ongoing.
With stay-in-school assistance, we will continue to
follow-up on the three organochlorine studies that USFWS
has been conducting for freshwater fish, starlings and
mallards/black ducks. In these studies, levels of dieldrin
and DDT and its metabolites were sampled since 1966.
EPA has banned the use of these insecticides and levels of
these compounds are decreasing in the environment.
Because levels are now barely detectable, samples will be
taken henceforth only every three or four years.
When available (hopefully beginning in 1988), we will
work with ESD to review the results of EPA's National
Bloaccumulatlon Study now underway. Fish tissue will be
analyzed for several pesticides. Sampling sites were chosen
in Washington, Idaho and Oregon that were known to be
areas of intensive agricultural activity and a corresponding
potential threat to human health. Provided that monitoring of
problem areas is continued, this data has good potential for
use as an environmental indicator. We will explore the
possibility of continued monitoring using ESD support for
significant problem areas identified.
We will also review the results of EPA's National
Drinking Water Well survey, and will work with Region 10
states to see that problem areas are addressed. If EPA and
the states decide to perform routine pesticide monitoring at
specific sites, the results could provide our best indicator.
Some Region 10 states are now independently doing their
own well studies. This survey provides us with our best
chance for some long-term influence through state
regulatory programs.
We will work through the Water Program staff to obtain
pesticide monitoring results that are produced as a result of
the Puget Sound initiative, and will review them for utility as
environmental Indicators. We will also work with ESD staff
to survey state surface water monitoring programs for
pesticide data, and collaborate as appropriate with the
Yakima River sampling program being conducted by LJSGS.
When completed, we can review the summary of
estuarine/coastal bivalve data that Alan Mearns is preparing.
This is yet another look at DDT, but might include some
interesting information about the cyclodienes (chlordane
family) and 2,4-D.
Summary
As stated numerous times at the national and regional
levels, there are no really good environmental indicators for
the pesticide program that accurately show how effectively
the program is currently working. However, the potential for
use of routine monitoring of pesticides as an indicator does
exist, especially in the ground water arena.
(NOTE: The FDA Market Basket data is not useful in a
regional context. They take about 12 milk/dairy product
samples per year in random locations. Furthermore, they no
longer sample in the field, but use wholesale distributors and
some supermarkets. So the data base Is Inadequate for our
purposes. Even if a high level of residue was found, it would
be very difficult to link occurrence in an orange in a Portland
supermarket to the orchard where the orange was grown
and misuse occurred).
71
-------
Chapter 10: Pesticides
Pesticides Environmental Indicators
FY 88 and Beyond
1. EPA's National Drinking Water Well Survey
2. EPA's National Bioaccumulation Study
3. Public Complaint Data (Based upon state enforcement logs—not health agency data)
FY88 Activities
1. Work with ESD to review Bioaccumulation Study results when available.
2. Work with ESD and Water programs to review state surface water programs and Puget Sound program for potential
indicators.
3. Monitor the USGS Yakima River study.
FY89 Activities
1. Continue to work with ESD to analyze Bioaccumulation Study results.
2. Begin to analyze National Drinking Water Well Study results.
3. Obtain and review the cholinesterase test results from Spokane County Health District if available.
72
-------
Chapter 11: RCRA
RCRA Environmental Indicators
FY'87
Progress towards protecting groundwater quality at RCRA regulated land disposal facilities (LDFs)—both regulated
and non-regulated units—as measured by the following programmatic steps to detect and remedy groundwater
contamination:
A. Detection (Steps)
The number of RCRA regulated LDFs = Universe
1. The number of LDFs with Interim status groundwater monitoring systems initiated pursuant to 40 CFR Part 265
2. The number of LDFs with interim status groundwater monitoring systems established pursuant to 40 CFR Part
265
3. The number of LDFs for which the aquifer is characterized in order to establish an appropriate groundwater
monitoring system pursuant to Parts 264 and 270
4. The number of LDFs with final groundwater monitoring systems established pursuant to 40 CFR Parts 264 and
270
5. The number of LDFs with known groundwater contamination due to releases from regulated and/or non-regulated
units (SWMUs)
B. Remediation (Steps)
6. The number of LDFs with known groundwater contamination due to releases from regulated and/or non-regulated
units (SWMUs) for which remedial actions have been Initiated
7. The number of LDFs with remedial actions underway for which groundwater contamination has been stabilized
and/or reduced
8. The number of LDFs with remedial actions completed
73
-------
Chapter 11: RCRA
RCRA Environmental Indicator
Annual Summary
Introduction
The FY 87 Summary of the RCRA Environmental
Indicator contains the following components: (1) a
description of the indicator; (2) a short discussion regarding
the limitations of the indicator; (3) a summary of the results
(data) of the indicator, and (4) a discussion of the possible
directions for the indicator in the future.
The RCRA Environmental Indicator
The RCRA Environmental Indicator Is Intended to
convey Information about the progress the region Is
making towards protecting groundwater quality at
RCRA regulated land disposal facilities (LDFs): both
regulated and non-regulated units. Under the RCRA
program, regulated units subject to groundwater monitoring
at LDFs include: surface impoundments, landfills, land
treatment units, and some waste piles. These units
currently receive regulated hazardous wastes or have
ceased receiving regulated hazardous wastes and are
subject to the Interim status or permit performance and
operating standards under Parts 265 and 264, respectively.
Non-regulated units at LDFs Include waste management
units other than regulated units where waste not regulated
as hazardous waste under the Subtitle C regulations had
been placed In the past. These non-regulated units are
commonly called Solid Waste Management Units (SWMUs).
SWMUs that are releasing hazardous waste or constituents
into the groundwater are subject to the corrective action
requirements under Section 3004(u) of HSWA.
Progress for the RCRA Environmental Indicator is
measured by placing counts of specific actions or "steps"
associated with groundwater protection (detection and
remediation) that have been initiated or completed at LDFs.
Specifically, the indicator uses the following parameters to
measure progress in protecting groundwater at LDFs:
A. Detection (Steps)
The number of RCRA regulated LDFs = Universe
1 The number of LDFs with Interim status groundwater monitoring systems initiated pursuant to 40 CFR Part 265
2 The number of LDFs with Interim status groundwater monitoring systems established pursuant to 40 CFR Part 265
3 The number of LDFs for which the aquifer is characterized in order to establish an appropriate groundwater monitoring
system pursuant to Parts 264 and 270
4 The number of LDFs with final groundwater monitoring systems established pursuant to 40 CFR Parts 264 and 270
5 The number of LDFs with known groundwater contamination due to releases from regulated and/or non-regulated
units (SWMUs)
B. Remediation (Steps)
6 The number of LDFs with known groundwater contamination due to releases from regulated and/or non-regulated units
(SWMUs) for which remedial actions have been initiated
7 The number of LDFs with remedial actions underway for which groundwater contamination has been stabilized and/or
reduced
8 The number of LDFs with remedial actions completed
Note: See Definitions in Appendix A for further clarification of the above parameters.
Limitations of the RCRA Environmental
Indicator
The RCRA Environmental Indicator conveys general
information about progress in detecting and remedying
releases to groundwater (the primary environmental pathway
for releases of hazardous constituents from RCRA regulated
facilities). It does not, however, convey specific information
about groundwater quality and corrective action measures
that would allow conclusions to be made about the state of
the environment. For example, the Indicator does not
convey information about the extent and degree of
groundwater contamination nor does it convey information
about the risks to human health and the environment from
such contamination. Additionally, the indicator does not
convey information about the extent to which groundwater
quality has been improved as a result of corrective action
measures.
Summary of Data
See graphs on following pages.
74
-------
60
RCRA Land Disposal Facilities
Groundwater Contamination
50 H
5
!
si
t=
40H
30
30
20 -f
FY85
ZZ fLDF
PT86
PT87
V77X
Y«ar
FY88
STEP 5
GW CONTAMINATION
REM ACTION INT
-------
o
S 3
53
60
RCRA Land Disposal Facilities
Groundwater Monitoring
50 -
40 -
30
20 -
10 -
20
XX
0 0
FY85
\7~7\ fLDF
45
X
38
m
m
zk
21
^M
J&
vm
FY86
FYB7
Stop 1
Y«ar
Step 2
Step 3
—I
FY88
3 Step 4
-------
Chapter 11: RCRA
New Directions
During FY 87, certain aspects of the indicator were revised to more accurately convey information about regional
progress in protecting groundwater quality. For FY 88 and beyond, the indicator may require revision to reflect certain
changes in program emphasis. Potential revisions in the future may include:
• The addition or modification of certain parameters to the existing indicator.
• An Increase in the universe of RCRA regulated entities to be evaluated (i.e., regulated treatment and storage facilities
other than LDFs such as incineration, storage, and treatment facilities since these facilities may also have non-regulated
units requiring corrective action during permitting.
Appendix A
RCRA Environmental Indicator Definitions
1. Interim Status Groundwater Monitoring System Initiated
Indicates the facility has initiated the development and installation of a groundwater monitoring system required under
40 CFR Part 265 at the regulated unit(s) to determine the impact on the quality of groundwater beneath the facility.
2. Interim Status Groundwater Monitoring System Established
Indicates the facility has established an interim status groundwater monitoring program required under 40 CFR Part 265
at the regulated unit(s) to determine the impact on the quality of groundwater beneath the facility. An interim status
groundwater monitoring program consists of the following components:
a. Development and installation of a monitoring system
b. Background monitoring
c. Routine monitoring and evaluation
d. Conducting assessments
e. Reporting requirements
3. Aquifer Characterized
Indicates EPA/State has determined that the facility has satisfied the requirements under 40 CFR Parts 264 and 270 for
the regulated unit(s) regarding protection of groundwater. This includes:
a. A summary of the groundwater monitoring data obtained during the interim status period under 40 CFR part 265.
b. Identification of the hydrogeology beneath the facility, including groundwater flow, direction and rate.
c. A description of any plume of contamination, if any, that has entered the groundwater from the regulated unit.
d. Identification of the concentration or maximum concentration of regulated hazardous constituents in the plume.
4. Final Groundwater Monitoring System Established
Indicates EPA/State has determined that the facility has developed an adequate groundwater monitoring program
necessary for conducting detection monitoring and compliance monitoring, or corrective action as required under 40 CFR
Part 264 at the regulated unit(s). Aspects of the groundwater monitoring program are specified in the RCRA permit issued
to LDFs. An adequate program includes installation of an appropriate monitoring system and demonstration of proper
techniques and procedures for sampling and analyzing monitoring results.
Detection monitoring is conducted to determine if hazardous wastes are leaking from the regulated unit. Detection
activities are similar to those outlined under interim status. If leakage is detected, the facility must institute compliance
monitoring and establish groundwater protection standards. Compliance monitoring is conducted to evaluate the
concentration of certain hazardous constituents in the groundwater to determine if groundwater contamination is occurring.
If compliance monitoring indicates any significant increase in the concentration of certain hazardous constituents, corrective
action must be instituted. Corrective action is conducted to bring the facility contaminating groundwater into compliance.
This can be achieved by removing hazardous waste constituents from the groundwater or treating the groundwater in place.
5. Remedial Action Measures Initiated
Indicates the facility has initiated remedial action measures to remove or treat in place releases of hazardous
constituents to the groundwater from regulated or non-regulated units.
75
-------
Chapter 11: RCRA
RCRA Environmental Indicators
FY 88 and Beyond
In FY 88 and beyond, the RCRA program will expand its management practices are commonly called Solid Waste
focus of RCRA regulated entities to be evaluated. In Management Units (SWMUs) and are subject to the
addition to tracking groundwater detection and remediation corrective action requirements under Section 3004(u) of
accomplishments at Land Disposal Facilities (LDFs), similar HWSA. The indicator parameters for tracking milestone
accomplishments at non-LDFs such as incineration, storage, accomplishments at LDFs and TSFs are depicted in
and treatment facilities (TSFs) will be tracked. Specifically, Measures A and B which follow.
the focus of evaluation at TSFs will be the detection and
remediation of both groundwater and soils contamination The RCRA program met with the Office of Groundwater
resulting from improper waste management practices which in the development of these measures to ensure consistency
occurred at such facilities in the past. These improper waste and continuity between programs.
Measure A Groundwater Quality at RCRA Regulated LDFs:
A. Detection (Steps)
The number of RCRA regulated LDFs = Universe
1. The number of LDFs with interim status groundwater monitoring systems initiated pursuant to 40 CFR Part 265
2. The number of LDFs with interim status groundwater monitoring systems established pursuant to 40 CFR Part 265
3. The number of LDFs for which the aquifer is characterized in order to establish an appropriate groundwater
monitoring system pursuant to Parts 264 and 270
4. The number of LDFs with final groundwater monitoring systems established pursuant to 40 CFR Parts 264 and 270
5. The number of LDFs with known groundwater contamination due to releases from regulated and/or non-regulated
units (SWMUs)
B. Remediation (Steps)
6. The number of LDFs with known groundwater contamination due to releases from regulated and/or non-regulated
units (SWMUs) for which remedial actions have been initiated
7. The number of LDFs with remedial actions underway for which groundwater contamination has been stabilized and/or
reduced *
8. The number of LDFs with remedial actions completed
* This indicator parameter which addresses interim progress in remedying groundwater contamination is subject to
modification. The feasibility of collecting data for this particular element will be assessed during FY 88.
Measure B Groundwater Quality/Soils Quality at RCRA Regulated TSFs Other Than LDFs
(Incineration, Storage and Treatment Facilities):
A. Detection (Steps)
The number of RCRA regulated TSFs = Universe
1. The number of TSFs with assessments completed to determine existence of potential releases
2. The number of TSFs with releases identified
B. Remediation (Steps)
3. The number of TSFs for which remedial actions have been initiated
4. The number of TSFs for which releases have been characterized In order to implement comprehensive remedial
action measures
5. The number of TSFs with remedial actions underway for which groundwater/soil contamination has been stabilized
and/or reduced
6. The number of TSFs with remedial actions completed
Note: This indicator Is subject to modification. Certain parameters contained In the indicator may need to be revised over
time to more accurately depict regional progress in detecting and remedying contamination at these facilities.
76
-------
Chapter 12: Superfund
Superfund Environmental Indicators
FY'87
1. Preliminary Assessments Completed
2. Site Inspections Completed
3. Emergency Removal Actions
4. Orders Issued for Emergency Removals
5. RI/FS Initiated
6. RD/RA Initiated/Completed
7. Orders Issued RI/FS and RD/RA
8. Dollars Recovered from PRPs
9. Estimated Dollar Value of PRP Actions
10. Aquifers Made Usable or other Environmental Improvements due to Superfund Action
11. Alternative Technologies Utilized
77
-------
Chapter 12: Superfund
Superfund Environmental Indicators
FY 87 Data Summary
1. Preliminary Assessments completed 127
2. Site Inspections completed 61
3. Emergency Removal Actions Fund Financed 5
4. Orders Issued for Emergency Removals 2
N.W. Pipeline, Washington
Portable Equipment, Oregon
5. RI/FS initiated Financed
Arrcom, Idaho Fund
Allied Plating, Oregon Fund
Mica Landfill, Washington Fund
Silver Mountain Mine, Washington Fund
Wyckoff CoVEagle Harbor, Washington Fund
Teledyne Wah Chang, Oregon PRP
Hidden Valley Landfill, Washington PRP
FMC Corp. PRP
6. RD/RA Initiated/Completed
RD Initiated:
United Chrome, Oregon Fund
RD Completed:
United Chrome, Oregon Fund
Lakewood (Ponders Corner), Washington Fund
Commencement Bay - So. Tacoma Channel - 12A Fund
Western Processing, Washington PRP
RA Initiated:
Commencement Bay - So. Tacoma Channel - 12A Fund
United Chrome, Oregon Fund
Western Processing, Washington PRP
7. Orders Issued
RI/FS:
Teledyne Wah Chang, Oregon
FMC Corp., Washington
Bunker Hill, Idaho (PRP takeover)
Hidden Valley. Washington (State Order)
RD/RA Consent Decree:
Western Processing, Washington
8. Dollars Recovered from PRPs
Dollars preserved for the fund this year were primarily from PRP actions taken rather than actual cost recoveries.
9. Estimated dollar value of PRP Actions
RI/FS:
Bunker Hill $7,000,000
FMC Corp. 500,000
C.Bay - Tar Pits 75,000
Midway Landfill 2,000,000
Pacific Hide and Fur 150,000
Teledyne Wah Chang 2,000,000
RD/RA:
Western Processing 40,000,000
Removals:
N.W. Pipeline 100,000
Portable Equipment 300,000
Comm.Bay-ASARCO 2,000,000
10 Aquifers made usable or other environmental improvements due to Superfund action:
' Comm. Bay-Well 12A groundwater treatment being initiated
Western Processing groundwater treatment being initiated
11 Alternative Technologies Utilized:
Western Processing in-situ leaching
-------
Chapter 12: Superfund
Discussion
Superfund "Environmental Indicators" for FY 87 are
primarily activity indicators. They describe milestones or
progress through the Superfund process. While activity
indicators are important measures of program performance,
they are not true environmental indicators.
The one exception on the current list is item (k),
"Aquifers made usable or other environmental improvements
due to Superfund action." This item is broad enough to
include all environmental improvements resulting from the
Superfund program; however, it is questionable whether, by
itself, it tells the reader anything.
It is important to keep in mind the nature of the
Superfund process and the long time frames involved. Over
a thousand sites have been identified as having potential
problems in this region. Of those, 38 have been put on the
NPL and about a dozen have been handled as emergency
removals. Superfund Remedial Investigations and
Feasibility Studies typically begin one to two years after a
site is listed on the NPL. The result is an understanding of
the nature and extent of contamination and a proposal about
how to clean it up. That is followed by years of remedial
action, if necessary, to deal with the problems found.
Removals may be done at either NPL or non-NPL sites to
deal with emergencies or health threats, but are often not
the end of our response.
If the goal is to truly indicate improvements to the
environment, perhaps there is a better way. For NPL sites.
once an Rl/FS is complete, a site could be entered on a list
of "environmental problems" and the contamination
described. Then, when remedial design is complete, the
design and cleanup targets could go on the list and annual
assessments (monitoring results) made of progress. For
removals, a preliminary assessment of contamination could
be made when we decide to begin a removal, and then
assessments of the result could follow the removal action.
Simply listing improvements (item k) without some frame of
reference is not very useful.
It is also important to remember that Superfund's
mandate is to protect public health and the environment.
Protection of public health in some cases may be achieved
by "simply" installing a fence. We do not know how to
measure the benefits of such actions, but we know they are
important.
In summary, the current indicators give little true
indication of environmental improvement, and to
meaningfully show such improvement, there must also be
some basis or standard for comparison.
79
-------
Chapter 12: Superfund
Superfund Environmental Indicators
Modifications for FY 88 (& Beyond)
In FY88, our focus will be on groundwater and soils Groundwater to discuss the groundwater environmental
remediation and cleanup of contaminated surface materials. indicator to assure consistency and continuity between the
The following new indicators track progress in cleanup of Groundwater and Superfund programs. We will also
groundwater, soils, and surface materials. Groundwater continue to track milestone accomplishments as depicted by
remediation primarily occurs at NPL sites, while soils and the visual, "Region 10 Superfund Program
surface materials cleanup routinely occurs at both NPL and Accomplishments".
non-NPL removal sites. We have met with the Office of
New Superfund Environmental Indicators
Groundwater Cleanup
(NPL Sites)
1. Number of sites with groundwater contamination
2. Number of sites under investigation
3. Number of sites with remediation in design or construction phase
4. Number of sites with ongoing O&M
Soils
(NPL and Non-NPL Removal Sites)
1. Number of sites with contaminated soil
2. Number of sites under investigation
3. Number of sites with remediation in design or construction phase
4. Number of sites with remediation ongoing
5. Number of sites with remediation complete
Surface Materials
(NPL and Non-NPL Removal Sites)
1. Number of sites where surface accumulation of materials represents public health or environmental exposure problem
2. Number of sites where remediation stabilized or eliminated threats of exposure to the public or to the environment
80
------- |