EPA 910 9 78 049A
SEPA
             United States
             Environmental Protection
             Agency
             Region 10
             1200 Sixth Avenue
             Seattle WA 98101
Washington
Environmental Quality
Profile
1978

      • If* ;•#
      •

-------
                                PREFACE

 This is a report for the people of the State of Washington. Its purpose is to describe
 progress in restoring and safeguarding an environment that is the envy of the nation.

 Through technology, much progress has been made in recent years in reducing air and
 water pollution from industrial and municipal sources. While problems remain, the long-
 term challenge to a healthy and clean environment lies in the way we manage our
 resources, in our forestry and agricultural practices, in urban land use and water planning,
 and in the types of transportation systems we use.

 While Federal agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have important
 responsibilities, the prime responsibility for solving environmental problems has been
 assigned to the States by Federal law. Keeping the faith of the businesses, industries and
 municipalities that have voluntarily met their environmental responsibilities requires a
 vigorous enforcement effort against  those polluters that would unfairly profit by  not
 assuming theirs.

 Looking ahead, it is clear that the Northwest must accommodate a growing population
 and that this must be accomplished  while maintaining a reasonable balance between
 economic benefits and the need for  healthful air, clean water, and the other unique
 qualities of life that characterize the  Northwest.

 This report provides information gathered from a number of sources — State
 environmental agencies, local government, various Federal agencies, and universities. The
 assistance of these persons, institutions, and agencies is gratefully acknowledged.
 Additional technical information can  be provided by the Region 10 Office of the U.S.
 Environmental Protection Agency and is availalbe to any person who may wish to explore
 a particular topic in greater  depth. The Region 10 Office of EPA intends to issue future
 reports with improvements and expansions on the information as appropriate. Comments
 and suggestions for improvements are welcome.
Donald P. Dubois
Regional Administrator, Region 10
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Seattle, Washington

December, 1978

-------
                   WASHINGTON  ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PROFILE
                                                 CONTENTS
AIR QUALITY PROFILE	

WATER QUALITY PROFILE ..
    Rivers and Streams	
    Lakes 	
    Marine Water	
    Drinking Water 	

NOISE PROFILE  	

SOLID WASTE PROFILE	

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES

SUMMARY	
                                                           . 2

                                                           .12
                                                           ..12
                                                           ..23
                                                           ..27
                                                           ..29

                                                           .30

                                                           .31

                                                           .32

                                                           .33
Exhibits

Health Effects of Air Quality Standards
    Violations (Table 1)
Air Quality Status Map - by County (Figure 1)
Annual Average Number of Days Health Standard
    Exceeded-by Pollutant (Figure 2)
Annual Average Number of Days Health Standard
    Exceeded - by Severity (Figure3)
Percent of Total Air Quality Violation Days
    Attributable to Automobile Emissions
    (Table 2)
Air Quality Status in Selected Urban Areas
    (Table 3)
Air Quality Status and Trends (Figure 4)
Point and Area Sources - Paniculate
    Emissions (Figure 5)
Point and Area Sources - Sulfur Dioxide
    Emissions (Figure 6)
Point and Area Sources - Carbon Monoxide
    Emissions (Figure?)
Point and Area Sources - Hydrocarbon
    Emissions (Figure 8)
Criteria/Parameter Groups For the Water
    Quality Index (Table 4)
Water Quality Map of Principal Rivers
    in Washington (Figure 9)
Water Quality Status of Principal Rivers
    in Washington (Figure 10)
Principal Rivers in Washington - Average
    Water Quality Index (Figure 11)
Water Quality Trends - Washington (Figure 12)
Trends of Federal Criteria Violations
    (Figure 13)
Principal Region 10 River Basins - Average
    Water Quality Per River Mile (Figure 14)
Page   Exhibits
   2
   4
   7
   8
  10

  11

  11

  12

  13

  14

  15
  16

  17

  18
Water Quality Status of Principal Region 10
    River Basins (Figure 15)
Water Quality Map of Principal Region 10
    River Basins (Figure 16)
Water Quality Trends - Region 10 (Figure 17)
Suspended Solids Loading Graphs (Figure 18)
Factors for Evaluating Impairment of
    Lakes (Table 5)
Trophic Status of Washington  Lakes and
    Reservoirs (Table 6)
Trophic Status of Major Recreational Lakes
    (Figure 19)
Impairment Status of Recreational Lakes
    (Figure 20)
Principal Washington Lakes and Reservoirs-
    Impairment of Highest Beneficial Use
    (Table 7)
Marine Waters of Washington: Status of
    Classified Shellfish Growing Areas
    (Figure 21)
Marine Waters of Region 10: Status of
    Classified Shellfish Growing Areas
    (Figure 22)
Washington Drinking Water Status
    (Figure 23)
Percent of Washington Population Covered
    by Noise Ordinances (Figure24)
Percent of Region 10 Population Covered by
    Noise Ordinances (Figure25)
Percent of Population Served by State-
    Approved Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
    (Figure 26)
Status of Resource Recovery Projects and
    Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites in
    Region 10 (Figure 27)
Page


  19

  20
  20
  21

  23

  24

  25

  25


  26


  28


  28

  29

  30

  30


  31


  32

-------
 AIR QUALITY
 AIR  QUALITY

 Improving air quality in the Northwest has been a cooperative effort
 among  Federal, State and local environmental agencies, industry,
 and a concerned and informed public. Since the 1970 Clean Air Act
 Amendments, there has been a considerable expenditure of time and
 money to find solutions to the most pressing air pollution problems.

 National air quality standards have been established to ensure that
 the goal of a clean and healthful environment is attained. The States,
 with Federal assistance, have developed a variety of regulatory,
 enforcement, and administrative programs in an attempt to reduce
 pollutants to such a level that these air quality standards would be
 attained and maintained. State efforts have been augmented by
 Federal  regulation of pollutants from stationary sources such as
 power plants and factories and by the Federal program to reduce air
 pollution emissions from motor vehicles.

 Throughout the Northwest, State, Federal and local environmental
 quality control agencies maintain monitoring networks to scientifically
 measure air quality. The Seattle Regional Office of the Environmental
 Protection Agency annually evaluates data submitted by these air
 pollution control agencies. This analysis allows an assessment of the
 degree to which the air quality of the Northwest has been changing
 and the degree to which air quality standards are being achieved.

 Overall,  air quality in Washington, as well as the other states in
 Region 10, has improved during the past five years.
                          TABLE 1

    HEALTH  EFFECTS OF AIR  QUALITY
           STANDARDS VIOLATIONS
 Pollutant
 Total Suspended
   Particulates
   (TSP)
 Sulfur Dioxide
   (S02)
 Health Effect at Concentrations
 above the Primary Standard
 Aggravation of asthma and chronic
 lung  diseases,  increased  cough,
 chest discomfort, restricted activity,
 aggravation   of  heart   and  lung
 disease  symptoms  in  the elderly,
 increased death rate;
Aggravation of asthma, aggravation
of heart and lung disease symptoms
in the elderly, increased lung illness,
increased death rate;
Air Quality Standards

The Clean Air Act of 1970 directed EPA to establish ambient air
quality standards for the principal and most widespread classes of air
pollutants as shown in Table 1. The standards are divided into two
categories: primary standards which are set at levels required to
protect the public health; and more stringent secondary standards
which are set at levels which would reduce other undesirable effects
of air pollution. The primary standards were established by evaluating
medical data and are designed to reduce adverse health effects from
paniculate matter, sulfur oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide,
photochemical oxidants, and nitrogen oxides. The health effects  of
hydrocarbons are not listed in Table 1 because hydrocarbons, in
themselves, do not pose a direct health problem. Rather, they react
in sunlight to form oxidants.  For this reason, the standards for
hydrocarbons serve as a way of controlling oxidants and for attaining
the oxidant standard.

Some pollutants exhibit both chronic and acute effects depending on
the duration of exposure and the concentration of the pollutant.  For
this reason, the standards for some pollutants require the
concentration of the pollutant in the air to be averaged over various
lengths of time.
Carbon Monoxide
   (CO)
Photochemical Oxidants
  (03)
Oxides of Nitrogen
  (NOX)
Interference  with  mental  and
physical activity,  reduced capacity
in persons suffering from heart and
other circulatory disorders;
Aggravation of asthma and chronic
lung disease, irritation of the  eye
and  of  the   respiratory  tract,
decreased vision, reduced heart and
lung capacity;
Increased chronic bronchitis.

-------
                                                                                                                AIR QUALITY
Measuring Air Quality

The average number of days per year in which the primary air quality
standards were exceeded in the period 1974 to 1976 has been used in
this report to characterize air quality. A three-year running average is
used to project trends because it minimizes year-to-year deviations
due to weather and climate.

For various reasons, including sampling technique requirements and
the cost of collecting air quality samples, data is not collected for all
days of the year, at all monitoring stations, and for all pollutants.
However, there is sufficient data to make reliable estimates of the
total days of standards violations for most types of pollutants.

Monitoring stations selected in each county for the three-year
average are those showing the greatest number of days exceeding
the standard. Accordingly, the figures are not representative of the
entire county in which the station is located. Attainment of the
secondary standards were not addressed in this report since the
major emphasis in most areas of the Northwest is still on attainment
of the primary health standards.
WASHINGTON AIR QUALITY

Figures 1, 2, and 3 on the next pages show various aspects of
Washington air quality.

In Figure 1, all the counties of the State have been color coded
according to the degree to which standards are being violated in at
least one monitoring site within the county. Counties shaded yellow
are exceeding one or more of the primary standards, while the
counties shaded blue are attaining all standards. Counties with green
shading are not currently being monitored.

Figure 2 on page 5 shows how often the primary standards were
exceeded. During the three-year period ending in 1976, data from
monitoring stations  showed that  17 of Washington's 39 counties had
concentrations of pollutants that exceeded the primary air quality
standards.

Particulate matter (TSP) violations were the most widespread.  The
sulfur dioxide standard (SO2) was exceeded in Clallam and Pierce
Counties.  Spokane and King Counties recorded  carbon monoxide
(CO) violations 28 and 24 percent of the time. Pierce, Yakima,  and
Clarke Counties also recorded CO violations but for only a very small
percentage of the time. Oxidant (03) violations occurred in King,
Pierce, Clark and Spokane Counties.

Figure 3 shows the severity of violations for these same counties.
The degree of risk from exposure to pollution varies according to
both the concentration and the length of exposure time. As the
concentration increases above the primary standard, it eventually
reaches what is called the "alert" level, at which there is a
significantly higher health risk. Figure 3 shows that  approximately 17
percent of all instances in which  health standards were exceeded in
Washington, the concentrations were at or above the alert level.
Almost  half of the violations at the alert level occurred in the more
populated or industrialized counties of King, Pierce  and  Spokane.
About 60 percent of the state's population live in these counties.
                                                                                              \

-------
AIR QUALITY
          COUNTIES MEETING PRIMARY
          AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

          COUNTIES NOT MEETING PRIMARY
          AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

          COUNTIES WITHOUT CURRENT
          MONITORING DATA
                                              FIGURE 1
                                            AIR QUALITY STATUS MAP — BY COUNTY
CLALLAM
                SAN JUAN
                              JEFFERSON

                        GRAYS HARBOR
                                                                SKAGIT
                                  WHATCOM
                        PACIFIC

                      LEWIS
                                         CHELAN
                 WAHKIAKUM
   MASON
          KITTITAS
                                                                                    SPOKANE
                                                                              WHITMAN
                        ADAMS
           — LINCOLN

         (EXCERPTED FOR CLARITY)

-------
                                           AIR QUALITY
                    FIGURE 2

ANNUAL AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS HEALTH STANDARD
EXCEEDED — BY POLLUTANT
oc
Ul
a
tO

a
         COUNTIES NOT MEETING AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
                    FIGURES

ANNUAL AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS HEALTH STANDARD
EXCEEDED — BY SEVERITY
a.
LU
cc
>
a
                      CO O, TSP SO,
                             EXCEEDS PRIMARY
                            | EXCEEDS ALERT
    /\ LI   ^^B ^ r * M  ^^^ 	  ^^^^*^ ^^^ *"^^* ^^ ^^ ^^^^™
     £>^6-$-   A/  ^  >  g & £ £  &
    w///*//// *
                     .^
/
                    r
         COUNTIES NOT MEETING AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
 /// /
/// »*
 v

-------
  AIR QUALITY
 A REGIONAL OVERVIEW

 As shown in Table 3 on the facing page, air quality violations occur
 in every State in Region 10. Standards for four of the major
 pollutants were exceeded in the State of Washington for the three-
 year period ending in 1976. Idaho and Oregon exceeded standards for
 three of the major pollutants and Alaska exceeded standards for two.

 Region 10 has relatively few heavily populated urban centers. There
 are only 6.5 million total residents in the four states combined.
 Where there are major  urban centers, air pollution problems exist.
 Violations in the 14 Region 10 communities shown in Table 3
 accounted for 79 percent of all violation-days and 74 percent of all
 alert level violation-days in the Region. While pollution is not
 confined to urban areas, it is most severe where human activity is
 heavily concentrated.

 Much  of Region 10's air pollution can be attributed directly to
 automobile exhaust as shown in Table 2 on this page. Eighty percent
 of standards violations  in Oregon, 65 percent in Washington, 23
 percent in Idaho and 50 percent in Alaska were due to carbon
 monoxide and/or photochemical oxidants in urban areas. In turn,
 80% to 90% of these pollutants can be traced to automobile
 exhausts. Because over half of the Region's population lives in or
 near the cities shown in Table 2, automobile exhaust must be viewed
 as a significant public health problem in the Pacific Northwest and
 Alaska. EPA is working closely with the States of Alaska, Idaho,
 Washington and Oregon to reduce both emissions from vehicles and
 the number of vehicle miles traveled in urban centers having high
 carbon monoxide pollution levels.

 Both western Oregon and Washington have oxidant concentrations
 over the health standard. Control efforts in this area are just
 beginning, because the  creation of oxidants is an extremely complex
 phenomena, involving reactions of hydrocarbons and other chemicals
 to sunlight.

 The suspended paniculate problem is widespread and results from
 both industrial and non-industrial sources such as dust from roads
 and streets, and home oil heating. Controls for suspended
 particulates have been installed on many industrial plants, and some
 plants are scheduled to  reduce emissions in  the near future. When
 new facilities are constructed, the best available pollution controls are
 required. Many localities need to reduce particulates from non-
 industrial sources, but in some cases, solutions are technically or
 economically difficult to achieve. Examples include grass burning in
 western Oregon and eastern Washington, wind-blown dust, dust
 from dirt roads, and the re-suspension of dust from paved roads. The
 automobile is a significant, indirect contributor to some of these
 problems.

 In communities such as  Tacoma, Washington, and Kellogg, Idaho,
air pollution is largely attributable to industry. Heavy metals and
 particulate emissions from smelters have long been problems in these
areas.

Sulfur dioxide (S02) pollution  is primarily caused by emissions from
large stationary sources, and controls are being installed as required
by law.
                      TABLE 2

    PERCENT OF TOTAL AIR QUALITY
  VIOLATION DAYS ATTRIBUTABLE TO
             AUTO EMISSIONS *
 Alaska
     Anchorage
     Fairbanks
 Idaho
     Boise
Oregon
     Portland
     Salem
     Medford
Washington
     Seattle
     Spokane
     Tacoma
     Yakima
Region 10
 50%
 68%
 88%
 23%
 96%
 80%
 96%
100%
 77%
 65%
 99%
 80%
 55%
 75%
 54%
'assumes all CO and  Ox violation days result  from
automobile-related  emissions  but  excludes auto
related particulates

-------
                                                   AIR QUALITY
                 TABLE 3




AIR QUALITY STATUS IN SELECTED URBAN AREAS
Pollutants Exceeding Standards Total Violation Days

Urban Areas
Carbon Photo Suspended Sulfur Primary
Monoxide Oxidants Particulates Dioxide Standard
Alert
Level

Alaska
Anchorage
Fairbanks
Sitka
Idaho
Boise
Kellogg
Pocatello
Soda Springs
Twin Falls
Oregon
Eugene
Medford
Portland
Washington
Seattle
Spokane
Tacoma
• • 240
• • 37
• • 108
• 24
• • • 467
• • 112
• 133
• • 83
• 65
• 29
... 169
• • • 18
• • • 57
• • • 55
... 355
• • • 98
• • 131
.... 22
69
6
28
10
143
23
17
50
32
7
43
3
26
8
62
8
19
2
                                      \

-------
AIR QUALITY
AIR  QUALITY TRENDS IN WASHINGTON

The trend in air quality is an indication of whether air pollution
control activities have been effective. Figure 4 shows trends in each
Washington county based on air monitoring records for the period
1974 through 1976. An upward arrow indicates that measured
concentrations of the specified pollutant appear to be increasing. A
downward arrow indicates that concentrations appear to be
decreasing. A horizontal arrow depicts unchanging conditions.

Overall, Washington's air quality improved between 1974 and 1976.
Where trends could be established, 11 counties showed worsening
air quality while 30 were either improving or remaining the same.
Figure 4 also shows whether air quality standards are being violated
in each Washington county. Blue boxes indicate that there is no
evidence that the specified air quality standard has been exceeded.
Yellow boxes indicate that a standard has been exceeded without
concentrations reaching the alert level, and red boxes show areas
where the alert level was exceeded. Where circles occur within the
box, the degree of attainment of standards was deduced from a
knowledge of pollutant sources rather than actual measurements. By
employing an extrapolation technique which uses population and
industrial concentrations from similar counties where standards
violations occur, three more counties (Columbia, Garfield and Ferry)
are added to the 17 listed  in Figures 2 and 3 as having exceeded one
or more primary standards.
                                                     FIGURE4

  AIR QUALITY STATUS  AND  TRENDS
  COUNTY
                    /0it0A

ADAMS
ASOTIN
COLUMBIA
GARFIELD
GRANT
LINCOLN
SPOKANE
WHITMAN
CLARK
COWLITZ
LEWIS
SKAMANIA
WAHKIAKUM
CHELAN
DOUGLAS
FERRY
OKANOGAN*
PEND OREILLE
STEVENS
CLALLAM
GRAYS HARBOR

o
0
0
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
o

0

o



o
o
0
o
o
o
0
o

o
o
o
o
0
o
o
0
0
0
o
o
o
o
0
o
0
o
o
o

0
0
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
ISLAND
0
o
o
o
0
o
0
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0

o
f\
0
o
0
o
o
o
0
0
o
o
o
o
o
°1
LEGEND

™
o
°'l
o
o
o
o
o
o
/-v
0



                                                   NO EVIDENCE PRIMARY
                                                   STANDARD EXCEEDED
                                                    EXCEEDS PRIMARY LEVEL
                                                   EXCEEDS ALERT LEVEL
                                                   DESIGNATION BASED
                                                   ON JUDGMENT
                                                   DECREASING STANDARDS
                                                   VIOLATIONS


                                                   LEVEL OR NO
                                                   APPARENT TREND


                                                   INCREASING STANDARDS
                                                   VIOLATIONS

                                                   INSUFFICIENT DATA
                                                   TO DETERMINE TRENDS
            COUNTY

 'Okanogan County's annual geometric mean for TSP exeeded the primary standard shown in Table 1, but did not have any single concentrations
 In excess of the 24-hour standard.

-------
                                                                                                         AIR QUALITY
SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTION IN
WASHINGTON

The previous charts have expressed air quality in terms of the days of
standards violations. Another way of describing the problem is in
terms of the amount of pollution being put into the air and from
where it is coming.

Figures 5 through 8 show emissions in those Washington counties
which exceed standards. The emission totals are based on the latest
emission inventory information. In preparing these charts, emissions
from some sources had to be estimated and some of the smaller
sources have not been included. Also, emissions attributed to a
particular county may affect air quality in an adjoining county
because the source is located close to the county boundary. Overall,
however, the charts provide a good perspective as  to the extent,
location, and sources of air pollution.
Suspended Participates

Sources of particulate emissions can be grouped into two major
categories: point sources, which are large stationary sources such
as factories and power plants; and area sources, such as from the
heating of homes and buildings, from transportation, and from wind-
blown dust. To date, particulate emissions have been controlled
mainly by installing equipment on industrial plants, reducing the
burning of the higher ash-content fuels, and paving roads to reduce
exceptional dust problems.

Figure 5 shows the distribution of particulate matter emissions by
source category. Point sources accounted for the bulk of particulate
production in two thirds of the counties, amounting to about 44,000
of the more than 68,000 total tons generated.

Area sources were responsible for the remaining 24,000 tons of
particulate matter and a  large portion of this is due to "fugitive
dust". This includes such things as wind-blown dust, dust from dirt
roads and suspended dirt from paved roads.
                                                        FIGURES

               POINT AND AREA SOURCES — PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
                    15,000
                  cc

                  Ul
                  >•
                  CC
                  UJ
                  Q.
                      5,887
                      5|674  I	1 POINT SOURCES
                       ~1   I	1 (Top Figure)

•                                AREA SOURCES
                                (Bottom Figure)
                                         4,221
                                         1,556
                                           NOTE:

                                           Fugitive diut emissions not Included
                                           COUNTIES NOT MEETING AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

-------
 AIR QUALITY
 While point sources of participates may be controlled with reliable,
 relatively inexpensive technology, fugitive dust is responsible for a
 large share of Washington's particulates problem. Thus, even though
 the further control of point sources will reduce the frequency and
 severity of violations, air quality violations will continue until area and
 fugitive dust sources are also controlled.
 Sulfur Dioxide

 The principal causes of sulfur dioxide are the combustion of sulfur-
 containing fuel in generating electricity and in certain industrial
 operations. Sulfur dioxide emissions have declined due to the
 substitution  of lower sulfur fuels and installation of control equipment
 at the sources. Curbing certain types of industrial production, when
 weather conditions prohibit adequate dispersion of the pollutant, has
 also been effective.

 Figure 6 shows that approximately 82 percent of all sulfur dioxide
 emissions in the  counties exceeding standards come from point
 sources.  Sixty-six percent of the total sulfur dioxide is emitted in
 Pierce County and most of this comes from the smelting and refining
 operations in Tacoma.
 Carbon Monoxide

 Figure 7 shows the carbon monoxide emissions for Washington. The
 private automobile is responsible for more than 90 percent of carbon
 monoxide in those counties where the standard is not met. Carbon
 monoxide emissions will be reduced as old autos are replaced with
ones that incorporate improved pollution control devices. Reducing
traffic in high density traffic corridors, reducing peaks in traffic,
improving vehicle maintenance, and reducing total vehicle miles
traveled through increased use of mass transit and carpooling, are
other means of lowering carbon monoxide levels.
Photochemical Oxidants and Hydrocarbons

Hydrocarbon emissions and nitrogen oxides are critical factors in
establishing the cause of photochemical oxidants in the environment.
Photochemical oxidants (measured as ozone) are the product of
atmospheric reactions between hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen
in the presence of sunlight.  Figure 8 shows hydrocarbon  emissions.
Hydrocarbons, like carbon monoxide emissions, come mostly from
mobile or transportation sources, and these sources account for 57
percent of the total hydrocarbons emitted. The balance comes from
sources such as solvent and gasoline evaporation.
Nitrogen Oxides

Nationally, nitrogen oxides emissions have increased mainly because
of increased emissions from electric utility plants, and increased
industrial power generation. Emissions from electric utilities and
industrial sources have risen due to increased power demands and
little equipment has been installed on these sources specifically to
control nitrogen oxides. Emissions  of nitrogen oxides from vehicles
have remained essentially constant since 1972 because control
devices have counterbalanced the increase in total miles traveled.
                                                            FIGURES
                POINT AND AREA SOURCES — SULFUR  DIOXIDE EMISSIONS
                     100,000
                                                                                        95,727
                                                        AREA SOURCES
                                                        (Bottom Rgure)
                                          COUNTIES NOT MEETING AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
10

-------
                                                                  AIR QUALITY
                              FIGURE?

POINT AND AREA SOURCES — CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS
oc
UJ
Q.
CO
    360,000
                            (Top Figure)
                            AREA SOURCES
                            (Bottom Figure)
                   COUNTIES NOT MEETING AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
                              FIGURES

POINT AND AREA SOURCES — HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS
    100,000
I                                                  POINT SOURCES
                                                  (Top Figure)
                                                   \
                                                   AREA SOURCES
                                                   (Bottom Figure)
                  COUNTIES NOT MEETING AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
                                                                             11

-------
  RIVER WATER QUALITY
  RIVER WATER QUALITY

  In 1972, the United States Congress enacted amendments to the
  "Federal Water Pollution Control Act" which stimualted new
  cooperative Federal, State and local water quality improvement
  programs. Since 1972, various regulatory, enforcement, grant, and
  administrative programs have been developed to reduce pollutants
  entering the Nation's waters. This section of the report provides
  information on the current status and trends in water quality in the
  State of Washington.
 Ways of Measuring River Water Quality

 Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the States
 established water quality standards to protect the public water supply
                                     and the quality of water for wildlife, recreation, navigation,
                                     agriculture, industry, and the propagation of fish and shellfish. The
                                     Washington Water Quality Standards, like those of the other States
                                     in Region 10, specify levels for parameters such as temperature,
                                     dissolved oxygen, bacteria and turbidity in river water.

                                     In order to provide a means for reliably measuring and comparing
                                     water quality in the Northwest, a standardized set of parameters and
                                     associated criteria has been selected. These criteria,  termed "Federal
                                     water quality goals" in the following discussion, are a synthesis of
                                     the State standards, national criteria, information in  the technical
                                     literature, and professional judgment. The eleven parameters used to
                                     measure river water quality in this report are listed and explained in
                                     Table 4.
                                                         TABLE 4

                   CRITERIA/PARAMETER GROUPS1 FOR THE WATER QUALITY INDEX
 Criteria/
 Parameter Group
 Temperature
 Dissolved Oxygen
PH
Bacteria
Trophic
            Explanation
 Temperature  of  water  influences
 both the nature of life forms and the
 rate  of  chemical  reactions.  Ex-
 cessively  high  temperature  is
 detrimental to cold water fish.

 Oxygen  dissolved  in  water  is
 essential to  the  life   of  aquatic
 organisms including fish. Low levels
 of oxygen  can  be detrimental to
 these organisms.

 Measure of acidity  or  alkalinity of
 water. Extreme levels of either can
 imperil fish life and speed corrosion.

 Bacteria indicate probable presence
 of  disease-related organisms  and
 viruses not  natural to water.

 Indication of the level of algal activ-
 ity in water.  Excessive activity is
 characterized by very murky, turbid
water and nuisance-levels  of algae
which impair recreational  uses of
water. Algal decomposition process
can   adversely  affect  dissolved
oxygen levels in water bodies.
Criteria/
Parameter Group
Aesthetics
                                                               Solids
                                                              Total Dissolved Gas
                                                              Radioactivity
                                                              Organic Toxicity
                                                              Inorganic Toxicity
           Explanation
 Refers to detectable oil, grease and
 turbidity which is visually unpleas-
 ant.

 Dissolved and suspended material in
 water.  Excess  dissolved  solids
 adversely  affect  water taste, in-
 dustrial and  domestic  use.  Excess
 suspended solids adversely affect
 fish feeding  and spawning  habits.

 Measure of concentration  of gases
 in water. Can affect the metabolism
 of aquatic life forms.

 May  be  in  water resulting from
 radioactive  waste discharges or
 fallout. Excess  levels could result in
 a direct threat  to aquatic and other
 life forms.

 Includes   pesticides   and  other
 poisons that  have the same effects
 and persistence as pesticides.

 Heavy metals and other elements.
 Excess   concentrations   are
 poisonous to aquatic and other life
forms.
   total of 80 criteria/parameters were evaluated and condensed to the eleven shown here. More detailed information will be provided as requested.
12

-------
                                                                                         RIVER WATER QUALITY
While water quality can be discussed in terms of the degree to which
each of these eleven parameters deviate from the selected criteria, it
is helpful to be able to express the quality of a stream or river by
means of a single, overall measure. In order to accomplish this, a
"water quality index" (WQI) has also been formulated. This index is
simply an aggregation of the eleven parameters shown in Table 4 and
provides index numbers ranging from 0 to 110. The way the WQI is
calculated is described in the insert on page 14. An index number
from 0 to 4 means the river water essentially meets Federal water
quality goals. A number between 4 and 11 means the river
provisionally meets goals, while a number above 11 means the water
fails to meet goals. In the graphs shown in this section of the report,
these index number ranges are colored blue, yellow and red
respectively.
                                     THE QUALITY OF WASHINGTON'S PRINCIPAL
                                     RIVERS

                                     With some exceptions, water quality in the rivers and streams in
                                     Washington meets the goals of the Federal Water Pollution Control
                                     Act.  Figure 10 shows that only four of the 22 rivers evaluated do not
                                     meet the Federal water quality goals in at least part of their reaches.
                                     Another eight have some reaches which  provisionally meet the goals.
                                     Washington's water quality monitoring program is one of the most
                                     complete in the Region, and the status of most of the principal  rivers
                                     in the State is known.

                                     Figure 11 expresses water quality in terms of the Water Quality  Index
                                     described above. Water quality tends to  improve progressively from
                                     east to west. Portions of four streams east of the Cascade
                                                      FIGURES

                                        WATER QUALITY STATUS OF PRINCIPAL RIVERS
                                        IN WASHINGTON
     UPPER COLUMBIA  It. Crab Cr.
              FAILS TO MEET
              FEDERAL QUALITY GOALS

              PROVISIONALLY MEETS
              FEDERAL QUALITY GOALS

              MEETS  FEDERAL QUALITY GOALS

              UNKNOWN. DUE TO INSUFFICIENT DATA

                                      MAJOR SURFACE WATERS
     RIVER
  la. Pend Oreille R.
  Ib. Spokane R.
  Ic. Okanogan R.
  Id. Wenatchee R.
If. Yakima R.
 2. LOWER  COLUMBIA RIVER
2a. If alia Walla R./Touchet R.
2b. Lewis R.
2c. Cowlitz R.
 3. LOWER SNAKE RIVER
3a. Palouse R.
 4. Nooksack R.
 5. Skagit R.
 6. Stillaguamish R./N. & S. Fk.
SELECTED STREAM REACH LIMITS



 8.  Green-Duwamish R.
 9.  Puyallup R.
 10.  Nisqualh R.
 11.  Chehalis R.
 7. Snohomish R./Skykomish R./Snoqualmie R. 12. Willapa R.
                                                                                                                     13

-------
 RIVER WATER QUALITY
                                                THE WATER  QUALITY INDEX (WQI)
         The WQI compares measured water quality during the last five
         years with the recommended Federal criteria. The data used to
         make this comparison come from various Federal, State and
         local agencies and are stored in EPA's computer systems. A
         number is calculated for every water quality sampling station
         with sufficient data. Seventy-nine Washington stations were
         used in this evaluation. Seasonal and other temporal data
         biases are significantly reduced by time-weighting the WQI
         calculation for each station. The final index number for each
         station is a summation of standard violations for each
         criteria/parameter group which are also weighted by the
         severity of the violation. The station WQI number spans a scale
         that may run  from 0.0 (no measured evidence of pollution) to a
         theoretical maximum level of 110.0 (severe pollution in all
         eleven criteria/parameter groups at all times). Individual
reaches of most Northwest rivers fall below a WQI of 30, and
the average WQI for entire rivers is still lower.

Based on professional judgement as to the significance of the
values and known water quality  status of regional streams, the
entire scale of 0 to 110 is divided into several ranges. An index
number greater than 11.0 (shown as red in the Figures) is
considered to be characteristic of streams that do not meet the
goals of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. An index
number less than 4.0 (blue) is considered to be equivalent to
minimally impaired conditions (meets goals of the Act). An
index number between 4.0 and 11.0 (yellow) is indicative of
streams which provisionally meet the goals of the Act. The
color green is used in the charts when the water quality status
is unknown due to an inadequate data base.
                                                               FIGURE 10

                  WATER QUALITY STATUS OF PRINCIPAL RIVERS  IN WASHINGTON
                  V)
                  UJ
                  oc
                  UJ

                  E
                         400
                         300
                         200
                         100
                                  NOTE:

                                  Except where indicated, the river
                                  miles shown are for the mainstem
                                  of each stream only.
•                DOES NOT MEET FEDERAL
                QUALITY GOALS

            (—I PROVISIONALLY MEETS FEDERAL
            LJ QUALITY GOALS
                MEETS FEDERAL QUALITY GOALS


               I UNKNOWN
14

-------
                                                                                                RIVER WATER QUALITY
 Mountains—Crab Creek, Palouse, Walla Walla, Touchet and
 Spokane Rivers (with an average index number greater than 11.0) do
 not meet Federal goals for propagation of native fish and unrestricted
 recreational use. However, approximately two-thirds (15) of the 22
 streams evaluated meet Federal goals. Eleven of these streams are
 located west of the Cascades and discharge directly into Puget
 Sound or the Pacific Ocean. Three additional streams, the Lower
 Columbia, Lower Snake and Yakima, have only a slightly higher
 index number.

 Generally, rivers on the  east side of the Cascades show higher
 concentrations of phosphorus and solids as well as higher
 temperatures than those on the west side.  This results, in part, from
 intensive land use and agricultural water use. Crab Creek and  the
 Palouse,  Walla Walla and Touchet Rivers lie mainly in agricultural
 areas. During heavy runoff periods, problems occur from land
 erosion. Low summer flows  during the irrigation season account for
 increased temperature and nutrients.  The Spokane River, which
 flows into Washington from Idaho, received a high Index rating
 because of excessive heavy metals, bacteria and nutrient
 concentrations. Sources in Idaho account for the heavy metals and
                                       part of the phosphorus; however, the major portions of nutrients and
                                       bacteria originate from the City of Spokane.

                                       The lower Yakima River receives wastes from both agricultural and
                                       urbanized areas. Excessive bacteria, nutrients, and solids account for
                                       its "provisional" rating. The heavily populated Yakima urban areas
                                       and the lower Yakima Valley irrigation return flows are mostly
                                       responsible for these conditions.

                                       Dissolved gas supersaturation is the most serious problem in the
                                       Lower Columbia and the Snake Rivers during high flows because of
                                       its catastrophic and widespread effect on salmonid populations.
                                       Although this condition occurs naturally in some reaches, it is
                                       worsened by discharges over the spillways of dams.

                                       Streams located in the more populated, western part of the State
                                       generally have good water quality.  Nevertheless, some exhibit
                                       excessive bacteria and turbidity concentrations during various times
                                       of the year. Glacial runoff accounts for  the high turbidity  levels which
                                       periodically occur  in some Puget Sound streams but in others the
                                       source is erosion from forest and agricultural land.
                                                           FIGURE 11

                PRINCIPAL RIVERS IN  WASHINGTON -
               AVERAGE WATER QUALITY INDEX
                    20.0
                    18.0-

                    16.0-

                    14.0-
                <   12.0H
                     8.0H

                     6.0-

                     4.0-

                     2.0-
T,
        ft
NOTE:

1) The Water Quality Index (WOI) la an
   average value over a stream length,
   calculated only from those stream
   portions where data is available.
2) Except where indicated, those portions
   Included in the WQI value are on the
   mainstream of each stream, only.
o
DOES NOT MEET FEDERAL
QUALITY GOALS

PROVISIONALLY MEETS
FEDERAL QUALITY GOALS

MEETS FEDERAL QUALITY
GOALS
15

-------
 RIVER WATER QUALITY
 RIVER WATER QUALITY TRENDS

 Data from 38 water quality sampling points equally distributed in
 rivers throughout the State have been used for water quality trend
 evaluations. Trends in the data from these stations are considered to
 be representative of the general water quality in the State of
 Washington. As shown in Figure 12, water quality in rivers
 throughout Washington for the period of 1972 through 1976 appears
 to be generally improving. Improvements seem to be concentrated in
 those streams which are classified as "Provisionally Meeting Federal
 Goals." Little apparent improvement has occurred yet in those
 steams which previously have been failing to meet the goals.

 The majority of stations consistently meeting Federal criteria are
 located in three major areas—the coastal rivers, upper portions of
 Puget  Sound rivers, and most tributaries to the Columbia River
 Basin,  where population is sparce  and silviculture is the major
                                          activity. The majority of the water quality stations that provisionally
                                          meet Federal criteria or do not meet these criteria are located in the
                                          semi-arid eastern portion of the State, where high intensity of water
                                          and land use for agricultural purposes exists.

                                          Figure 13 provides details for eleven broad parameter classes
                                          described in Table 4. The blue color indicates that measurements for
                                          the indicated parameter produced no evidence of a violation of
                                          Federal criteria for water suitable for fish, wildlife, and recreation.
                                          Yellow and red indicate minor and major violations of the criteria.
                                          The green indicates that there was inadequate information for making
                                          a judgment. An upward-pointing arrow within a box indicates that
                                          the concentrations of the contaminant are rising, or that the
                                          frequency of violations is increasing. A downward-pointing arrow
                                          indicates declining problems and a horizontal arrow  indicates that no
                                          significant change has occurred over the five-year period. The trends
                                          represent the average condition of the river evaluated.
                                                           FIGURE 12


                WATER QUALITY TRENDS — WASHINGTON
                U)
                O
                •z
                cc
                o

                O
                5
                H

                UJ
                O
                CC
                UJ
                Q.
                       100 r-
                        80
60
                        40
20
DOES NOT MEET
FEDERAL QUALITY
GOALS


PROVISIONALLY
MEETS GOALS
                                                                         MEETS GOALS
                                1972
16

-------
                                                                                    RIVER WATER QUALITY
A decrease in heavy metals (INORG TOX) and bacteria levels
(BACTERIA) is the main reason for improved water quality in
Washington rivers and streams. Most of this reduction is the result of
pollution control efforts in the State. The aesthetics category
(AESTH) which includes oil, grease and turbidity appears to be
increasing mainly in Puget Sound streams. While these increases are
due in part to land use activities, a significant amount of turbidity is
due to runoff from glacial areas.

Generally, the most common violations come from excessive nutrient
concentrations, highly turbid waters and high bacteria counts.
However, dissolved gas supersaturation is the most serious form of
pollution in the Lower Columbia and Snake Rivers. While this
condition has been prevalent during the last few years, low river
waterflow in 1977 kept the levels to a minimum. Violations of trophic
criteria (TROPHIC) are more common in eastern Washington waters;
bacteria and heavy metals violations are found in western
Washington, and the Spokane and Yakima areas. Aesthetic problems
appear in eastern Washington and Puget Sound.

It is likely that many categories shown as having inadequate data
would meet Federal water quality goals if data were available.
However, the lack of pesticide data (ORGANIC TOXICITY), as shown
in Figure 13, is of concern, especially in agricultural areas where
pesticide application is prevalent.
                                                  FIGURE 13
 TRENDS OF  FEDERAL CRITERIA VIOLATIONS
                        £
  RIVER
                                  t
                                                                                        4•
f/*////////
          RIVER
//*////////
                                            LEGEND
                                                MEETS FEDERAL
                                                QUALITY GOALS
                                                PROVISIONALLY MEETS
                                                FEDERAL QUALITY GOALS
                                                DOES NOT MEET FEDERAL
                                                QUALITY GOALS
                                                UNKNOWN DUE TO
                                                INSUFFICIENT DATA
                                                NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS
                                                INCREASING
                                                NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS
                                                DECREASING
                                                CONDITION STABLE
                                                                                                               17

-------
 RIVER WATER  QUALITY
 A REGIONAL OVERVIEW

 A Water Quality Index (WQI) is used in Figure 14 to compare 25
 major Pacific Northwest River Basins within Alaska, Idaho, Oregon,
 and Washington.

 Figure 15 depicts the water quality by river mile for each river basin
 and Figure 16 shows similar information on a regional map.

 As Figure 15 indicates,  portions of approximately one-third or nine of
 the river basins do not meet Federal water quality goals and another
 four only provisionally meet them. Most streams in Alaska fall into
 the unknown category.  However, many of these waterways are
 located in remote areas unaffected by man. Future reports will show
 the results of water quality monitoring programs now in progress in
 Alaska.
                  Regional water quality appears to be worse in the more arid and
                  agriculturally-oriented parts of the Region. Of the nine rivers which
                  do not meet Federal water quality goals (Klamath, Bear, Spokane,
                  Lower Columbia, Willamette, Yakima, and the three Snake Basins)
                  only the Spokane and Willamette Basins owe their high rating to
                  industrial activities.  In the Spokane Basin, water quality is affected by
                  intense mining and  smelting in the Coeur d'Alene, Idaho area and a
                  municipal discharge in the Spokane,  Washington vicinity. Water
                  quality in the Willamette River Basin  is affected by municipal and
                  industrial discharges in the small Tualatin River tributary; however, its
                  average WQI rating is so close to 4.0 that the Basin is considered to
                  be meeting Federal  water quality goals. Major coastal and Puget
                  Sound rivers and the northeast river  basins. Upper Columbia, Clark
                  Fork/Pend Oreille, and Kootenai have relatively good water quality,
                  with a few exceptions.
                                                      FIGURE 14
               PRINCIPAL REGION 10 RIVER BASINS -
               AVERAGE WATER QUALITY  PER RIVER MILE
                  14.0
12.0-


10.0-


 8.0


 6.0-


4.0-


 2.0-
                       ©©
                             ©0
                                    ©
                                       ©
NOTE:

The Water Quality Index (WQI) is an
average value over a stream length,
calculated only from those stream
portions where data \s available
o
                                          ©©
DOES NOT MEET FEDERAL
QUALITY GOALS
PROVISIONALLY MEETS FEDERAL
QUALITY GOALS

MEETS FEDERAL QUALITY GOALS

INSUFFICIENT DATA, HOWEVER PRE-
SUMED MEETING FED. QUALITY GOALS
                                                            Sfts
18

-------
                                                                                                  RIVER WATER QUALITY
Although it is known that some streams in Alaska have localized
water quality problems near major population centers and in the more
remote areas where placer mining activities are occurring, data for
most areas is non-existent.  The WQI, therefore, is somewhat
conservative for the State since the calculations do not include these
localized pollutants. The vast majority of fresh water in Alaska is
considered to be of good quality.

The most prevalent criteria violations in Region 10 are:  excessive
concentrations of phosphorus and nitrogen, high nutrient levels
resulting in eutrophication; suspended solids; temperature; and low
dissolved oxygen levels associated with agricultural activities within
the Region. High suspended solid levels from natural origins such as
glaciers,  mostly in Washington and Alaska, add to the  difficulty in
determining the actual causes of violations. High bacteria levels and
pollutants that affect aesthetics (oil, grease and turbidity) account for
most violations in the vicinity of large population areas.

Inorganic toxicants in the form of heavy metals are extremely high in
the Spokane River Basin and are also present in moderate amounts
in the Upper Snake Basin tributaries. Supersaturation of dissolved
gas periodically occurs in the Lower Snake and Columbia Rivers from
high riverflows passing over dams.  Because of reduced riverflow, this
problem has been less severe in the last few years.

An overall review of water quality trends in Region 10, shown in
Figure 17, indicates some improvements in streams that provisionally
met Federal goals between the years 1972 and 1976, and minimal
improvements in streams identified  as not meeting the goals. Alaska
rivers are not included in the trend  evaluation since adequate water
quality data does not exist at this time.

Changes in Regional water quality over the last five years indicate
that programs to control municipal  and industrial waste discharges
have reduced the level of bacteria and oxygen degrading materials.
However, dissolved gas saturation,  suspended solids, temperature,
nutrients, organic and inorganic toxicants which make up the
majority of the problems, are relatively unaffected by these programs.
Programs to identify and control nonpoint sources within the Region
must be implemented before further significant improvements in
Regional water quality can be expected.
                                                            FIGURE 15

                WATER QUALITY STATUS OF PRINCIPAL REGION 10
                RIVER BASINS
                                                                                                     DOES NOT
                                                                                                     MEET FEDERAL
                                                                                                     QUALITY GOALS
                                                              1.  Only the significant streams
                                                                 within each basin arc Included In
                                                                 the mileage totals shown.
                                                              2.  The color green represents
                                                                 Inadequate, or no water quality
                                                                 data. It can be assumed, however,
                                                                 that the vast majority of Alaska
                                                                 stream miles identified on this
                                                                 chart meets Federal quality goals.
                               .	, PROVISIONALLY
                                 J MEETS FEDERAL
                               *—' QUALITY GOALS
                                   MEETS FEDERAL
                                   QUALITY GOALS
                                                                                                                                19

-------
  RIVER WATER QUALITY
 MAJOR SURFACE WATERS
  AND DRAINAGE AREAS
 1. ARCTIC SLOPE DRAINAGE
 2. NORTHWEST ALASKA DRAINAGE
 3. UPPER YUKON RIVER
 1. TAN AN A R.
 5. LOWER YUKON R.
 6. KUSKOKWIM R.
 7. BRISTOL BAY DRAINAGE
 8. KENAIKNIK DRAINAGE
                                                           FIGURE 16
                                                              WATER QUALITY STATUS OF PRINCIPAL
                                                              REGION 10 RIVER BASINS
                                                               NOTE: Stat* of Alctka it r«pr*t*nt«d at approximately 30% of true seal*
                                     9. SUSITNA R
                                    10. COPPER R.
                        DOES NOT MEET FEDERAL QUALITY GOALS
                        PROVISIONALLY MEETS FEDERAL QUALITY GOALS
                        MEETS FEDERAL QUALITY GOALS

                        UNKNOWN. DUE TO INSUFFICIENT DATA
 MAJOR SURFACE WATERS
 1. KLAMATH R.
 2. BEAR R.
 3. UPPER SNAKE R.
 4. PORTNEUF R.
 5. MIDDLE SNAKE R.
 6. BOISE R.
 7. OWYHEE R.
 8. MALHEUR R.
 9. PAYETTE R.
10. LOWER SNAKE R.
11. SALMON R.
12. GRANDE RONDE R.
13. CLEARIVATER R.
14. UPPER COLUMBIA R.
IS. ST. JOE R.
16. COEUR D'ALENE R
17. SPOKANE R
18. YAKIMA R.
19. LOWER COLUMBIA R
20. UMATILLA R.
21. JOHN DAY R.
22. DESCHUTES R.
23. WILLAMETTE R.
24. SANTIAM R.
                                    25. COWUTZ R.
                                    26. ROGUE R.
                                    27. UMPQUA R.
                                    28. W1LLJPA R.
                                    29. CHEHAUS R.
                                    30. SNOHOMISH R.
                                    31. GREEN/DUWAMISH R
                                    32. SKAGIT R.
                                    33. NOOKSACK R
                          I SELECTED STIEAM IEACH UNITS
                                                          FIGURE 17
                 WATER QUALITY TRENDS-REGION 10
                V)
                g
                I
                UJ
                O
                tr
                HI
                a.
                                                                                 DOES NOT MEET
                                                                                 FEDERAL QUALITY
                                                                                 GOALS

                                                                                 PROVISIONALLY
                                                                                 MEETS FEDERAL
                                                                                 QUALITY GOALS

                                                                                 MEETS FEDERAL
                                                                                 QUALITY GOALS
                                                                           NOTE:
                                                                           Data based upon evaluation
                                                                           of 84 monitoring stations
                                                                           within Region 10 (excluding
                                                                           Alaska).
                                1972
                               1973
                                                        1974
                                                                   1975
                                                                  1976
20
                                                             YEAR

-------
                                                                                           RIVER WATER QUALITY
SOURCES OF RIVER WATER POLLUTION IN
WASHINGTON

The previous charts show that suspended solids, plant nutrients, and
oxygen-consuming materials have the most significant impact on
water quality in Washington's streams. The causes of these problems
are varied. All occur naturally, and under certain conditions the
natural contribution can be the major cause of the pollution.
However, they are also generated by man's activities such as point
source  discharges from urban or industrial  areas or as nonpoint
sources from various land use activities. The contributions from all of
these sources, and the resulting effects, can be significantly altered
by seasonal changes in streamflow, water temperature, and other
factors.
                             Suspended Solids

                             Suspended solids are a general class of both organic and inorganic
                             materials, such as algae, having a specific gravity very close to that
                             of water. This characteristic prevents rapid settling of the material
                             and promotes suspension and transportation over long distances. In
                             excessive quantities, these materials can discolor the water, reduce
                             light penetration, and, with gradual settling, smother fish-spawning
                             areas.

                             The organic portion of the suspended solids is degradable and often
                             leads to excessive oxygen demands. Suspended solids frequently
                             carry high concentrations of nutrients and toxic materials, such as
                             pesticides, which are ultimately released to the water.
                                                       FIGURE 18

   SUSPENDED SOLIDS LOADING  GRAPHS
   State  of  Washington
           GREEN RIVER
      CHEHALIS RIVER
                                                                    SPOKANE RIVER
   560-
   oc

   o
   09
   Q. 40.
                                     JFMAMJJASONO
co
a «.
                                                                  J FM AM J J A S O ND
                                                             *
               YAKIMA RIVER
        LEGEND

        MEAN MONTHLY AMBIENT LOADINGS

        MEAN FLOW
         | PS/NPS CURVE - This curve gives a general indica-
          tion of the point source vs. nonpoint source loadings
          expressed as a percentage.
                NOTE
Note that me logarithmic scale tends to greatly de-
emphasize the variations shown, thereby demanding
considerable care In Interpreting the graph*.
                                                                                                                       21

-------
  RIVER WATER QUALITY
  Streamflow and erosion play a major role in creating suspended
  solids. Figure 18 presents graphical comparisons of four rivers for
  1976. Total suspended solids in the streams were compared on a
  monthly basis with those suspended solids contributed by municipal
  and industrial sources.

  The pattern that emerges from this comparison emphasizes the
  strong influence streamflow and geology have on amounts of
  suspended  solids.  Three of the four rivers evaluated contain a  high
  volume of suspended solids throughout the year. High riverflows and
  erosion appear to  be responsible. The highest flows and suspended
  solids levels occur in the areas where agriculture and silviculture
  activities are the predominant land use. Extreme flows do not occur
  on the Green/Duwamish River; therefore, the erosion process  is not
  as great as  the other streams evaluated.

  In the streams studied, direct industrial and/or municipal waste
  discharges are an insignficant source of suspended solids. The
  exception to this occurs in the Green/Duwamish River where
  suspended solids loadings from municipal and industrial sources
  account for approximately 20 percent of suspended solids in the river
  during October and November.
 Nutrients

 High concentrations of plant nutrients, primarily nitrogen and
 phosphorus, can lead to excessive growths of floating and attached
 algae which clog small streams, deplete oxygen when they decay,
 and generally create aesthetic and nuisance conditions. These effects
 can be especially severe in smaller bodies of water. For the most
 part, only the eastern, agriculturally-oriented streams in Washington
 have phosphorus levels that exceed Federal criteria. As with
 suspended solids, there are a variety of point,  nonpoint, and natural
 sources which contribute to the overall nutrient levels. Irrigation
 return flow and other agricultural uses are primarily responsible for
 high phosphorus levels in the Palouse River, Walla Walla River, and
 Crab Creek. A mixture of municipal, industrial  and agricultural
 activities contribute to high phosphorus levels  in the Yakima  and
 Spokane Rivers.
 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)

 The consumption of oxygen by bacteria feeding on organic wastes
 has historically been a major source of water pollution both in
 Washington and throughout the country. BOD is used as a measure
 of either the pollution potential of a waste or the pollution load in  a
 stream. Excessive BOD concentrations result in diminished oxygen
 levels in steams and lakes with adverse impacts on fish populations
 and other biological activity. A variety of point and nonpoint  sources
 can contribute to BOD loadings.

 The oxygen levels in most of the Washington streams evaluated in
 this report are not currently adversely affected by high BOD
 concentrations.  In the past, however, dissolved oxygen depresssions
 caused by organic discharges have occurred in the Palouse, Yakima,
.Spokane and Chehalis Rivers.  Municipal waste discharges were
 mostly responsible in the Spokane and Chehalis Rivers. Municipal
 discharges were partly responsible for the organic load in the Palouse
 and Yakima Rivers; irrigation, livestock, and septic tank drainage
 contributed much of the remainder.

 Past water quality control efforts in Washington have concentrated
 largely or elimination of point sources of organic pollution. With
 some localized exceptions, these discharges have been reduced
 significantly or eliminated. For example, new waste treatment
 controls presently under construction and a proposed new collection
 system installed, should dramatically improve dissolved oxygen levels
 in the Spokane River. Further efforts to improve oxygen levels in
 streams and reservoirs must focus on reducing nonpoint source
 contributions of organic matter and plant nutrients.


 THE  RIVER WATER QUALITY OUTLOOK FOR
 WASHINGTON

 Some improvements can be anticipated in the next three to five
 years.

 A reduction in pollutants entering the Spokane River should occur
 within the next few years, resulting from a combination of advanced
 waste treatment for the City of Spokane and additional waste
 treatment which is going into effect on the Idaho side of the border.
 Additional improvements in water quality may be anticipated  later
 with the control of stormwater overflow for Spokane.

 An improvement in water quality should also occur in the Yakima
 River due to upgraded treatment for municipal and industrial
 discharges. A reduction in the dangerously high levels of dissolved
 gas supersaturation should occur in the Lower Snake and Columbia
 Rivers as the result of spillway modifications at many of the major
 dams on these rivers.

 Additional improvement in the quality of rivers east of the Cascades
 is doubtful  in the  near future since most of the remaining pollutants
 are associated with intense land and water use,  reservoir conditions
 and natural runoff. Steps to solve these problems remain to be
 defined, but programs are presently underway to identify the
 improved management practices needed. However, several years will
 be required to implement these programs.

 The outlook in the western portion of the State is more diffiuclt to
 assess. The effects of increased  population, the need for additional
 treatment of municipal and industrial waste discharges,  the presence
 of toxic substances, and increased potential for  oil spills occurring in
 the marine waters of Puget Sound, lead to the conclusion that little
 improvement in overall water quality for western Washington is in
 the offing for the  near future. Localized areas, however, should
 continue to show  improvements.

The major goals of water quality management in Washington at this
time are protection and preservation of the existing good water
quality while developing and implementing methods which will
continue to effect improvements in poor quality areas.
22

-------
                                                                                              LAKE WATER QUALITY
LAKE  WATER QUALITY

Lakes and reservoirs play a major and vital role in Washington's
water quality picture. They affect the State's economy through
recreational uses such as fishing, swimming, and boating, as well as
through agriculture and water supply. Power, navigation, irrigation
and flood  control are major benefits derived'from dams and reservoirs
constructed throughout Washington to support and protect the life
and livelihood of its inhabitants.
Measuring Lake Water Quality

Although a numerical "water quality index" has not been developed
for lakes as for rivers, lake quality can be characterized in two ways:
trophic status and the degree of impairment of beneficial use.

While eutrophication, the process of aging, occurs naturally in lakes
and impoundments, man's activities may accelerate this process,
resulting in "cultural eutrophication". Highly eutrophic bodies of
water are characterized by dense algal blooms, floating mats of
vegetation, and a murky  appearance. Algae are naturally found in
every body of water; however, when stimulated by abundant
nutrients, sunlight, and warm temperatures, they multiply rapidly to
become a nuisance to recreational users and seriously affect water
quality for other uses.
                                     Plant nuisances may directly curtail or eliminate water recreation
                                     activities such as swimming, boating, and fishing; impart tastes and
                                     odors to water supplies; and hamper industrial and municipal water
                                     treatment. These nuisance growths can also cause toxic conditions
                                     which adversely affect other aquatic life in the lakes. Possibly the
                                     greatest effect of eutrophication on water quality is the consumption
                                     of dissolved oxygen when algae die, sink to the bottom of the lake,
                                     and are decomposed by bacteria. This process reduces dissolved
                                     oxygen levels and can adversely affect fish and other aquatic
                                     inhabitants.

                                     Water bodies with very little algae are said to be oligotrophic (often
                                     called pristine). Lakes are said to be mesotrophic if they have
                                     moderate algae productivity and meso-eutrophic if they are
                                     approaching fully eutrophic conditions.

                                     In the case of use impairment, swimming, fishing, boating and
                                     aesthetics may be considered. An evaluation system which yields an
                                     impairment score is shown in Table 5.

                                     In this report, lake water quality has been assessed by totaling the
                                     individual use ratings shown in table 5. The rating for each factor for
                                     minimum or no impairment is one, and the most severe impairment is
                                     rated three. Final ratings range from a low of four (minimum or no
                                     impairment), to a high of twelve (significant impairment).
                                     Professional judgment was used to determine the degree of
                                     impairment where data were not available.
                                                          TABLE 5

                           CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING IMPAIRMENT OF LAKES
Recreational
Use
Swimming

None
Criteria Score
Very low bacteria 1
Degree of Impairment
Moderate
Criteria Score
Moderate bacteria 2

Significant
Criteria Score
Unhealthy bacteria 3
            Fishing
            Boating
            Aesthetics
levels (Fecal coli-
forms geometric mean
less than 50 per
100ml)

No adverse condi-
tions. Healthy
fish population.


Less than 10%  of
surface area affected
by aquatic weeds

Objects visible in
water to depth of
10 feet or more and
low phosphorus
(Secchi Disc at 10
feet; total phosphorus
of less than 10 ug/l)
                                                       levels (Fecal coli-
                                                       forms 50 to 200 per
                                                       100 ml)
1     Slightly adverse
      conditions. Slight
      reduction in fish
      population.

1     10 % to 30 % affected
      Objects visible from
      1.5 to 10 feet and
      moderate phosphorus
      level (Secchi Disc
      at 1.5 to 10 feet;
      total phosphorus
      10 to 20 ug/l)
                                     levels (Fecal coli-
                                     forms greater than
                                     200 per 100 ml)
Adverse conditions.
Significant reduction
in fish population.
More than 30%
affected
Objects not visible
beyond 1.5 feet or
high phosphorus level
(Secchi Disc at less
than 1.5 feet; total
phosphorus greater
than 20 ug/l)
            SCORE
                                     (No uses impaired)
                                                  5-8
                                     (All uses moderately
                                           impaired)
                                                         9-12
                                         (All uses significantly
                                               impaired)
                                                                                                                          23

-------
 LAKE WATER QUALITY
 TROPHIC CONDITIONS OF WASHINGTON'S
 LAKES

 Of the 19 lakes and reservoirs in Washington (see Table 6) which
 have at least 10 square miles of surface area (6,400 acres), one
 already is eutrophic and another nine are meso-eutrophic—well on
 the way to becoming eutrophic.  These waters are all located in the
 eastern part of the State in either agricultural areas (Moses Lake and
 Potholes Reservoir),  or are part of the Columbia and Snake River
 reservoir systems. These lakes and reservoirs are sinks for natural and
 manmade nutrients.

 Nine other  lakes are either oligotrophic (relatively pristine) or
 mesotrophic (moderate algal  productivity). Lake Chelan and Ross
 Lake, classified as oligotrophic, are located high in their respective
 watersheds, where population is sparse and land use activity is
 minimal. The  remaining  lakes and reservoirs, classified as
 mesotrophic, are experiencing a small degree of algal activity but at
 this time are not considered to have serious problems.

 High phosphorous contributions from sewage and industrial
 discharges and from fertilizers applied to surrounding lands have
 accelerated the natural lake eutrophication process in Washington.

 USE  IMPAIRMENT

 Table 7 depicts the degree of impairment of recreational lakes in
 Washington. Of the 30 most-used Washington recreation lakes, eight
                                          have a significant or moderate degree of impairment while the
                                          remaining 22 have little impairment.

                                          In general, lakes and reservoirs classified as severely or moderately
                                          impaired are receiving  municipal, industrial,  or agricultural wastes.
                                          Some are also showing effects from shoreline residential growth.

                                          The majority of the more pristine lakes, with the exception of Lake
                                          Washington and Lake  Sammanish, are located in the less developed
                                          portions of the State—usually at high elevations in their respective
                                          drainage basins.


                                          A REGIONAL OVERVIEW

                                          There are 145 lakes and reservoirs within Region 10 that equal or
                                          exceed 10 square miles in surface area and thousands of other
                                          smaller lakes and reservoirs. Each plays an important  role in the
                                          ecosystem of the Pacific Northwest and Alaska.

                                          Many Regional lakes and reservoirs are at or approaching a level of
                                          eutrophication unsuitable for their intended uses. Exceptions are the
                                          Alaska lakes, most of which are in remote areas.

                                          Figure 19 on page 25 presents a summary of trophic status of the
                                          Regional lakes by state.
                                                        TABLE 6

                       TROPHIC STATUS OF WASHINGTON LAKES & RESERVOIRS
                                    (AT LEAST 10 SQUARE MILES IN  AREA)
    Lake or
    Reservoir
               Surface
               Area in
               Square
               Miles
                      TROPHIC STATUS1

                 Meso-
Eutrophic     Eutrophic    Mesotrophic   Oligotrophic
    Lake Roosevelt                 123
      (Grand Coolee Reservoir)
    Lake Wallula                    53
      (McNary Reservoir)
    Lake Chelan                    52
    Potholes Reservoir              44
    Banks Lake                     39
    Lake Umatilla                   41
      (John Day Reservoir)
    Lake Washington               35
   Wanapum Reservoir             23
    Ross Lake                      18
    Little Goose Reservoir           16
    Lake Entiat                     15
      (Rocky Reach Reservoir)
   Wells Reservoir                 15
   Ice Harbor Reservoir             13
   Rufus Woods Lake              12
   Priest Rapids Reservoir          12
   Lake Ozette                     12
   Lower Granite Reservoir         11
   Moses Lake                     11
   Lower Monumental
      Reservoir                     10
  1    Source of Data:
1. National Reservoir
2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3. EPA, Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory
4. Washington State University
              5. University of Washington
              6. Grant County PUD
              7. Chelan County PUD
24

-------
                                                               LAKE WATER QUALITY
                                 FIGURE 19

TROPHIC STATUS OF MAJOR RECREATIONAL LAKES
     50.0
     18.0
(0

S 12.0
CC
0
Z 10.0

X
Z  8.0
  £  6.0

  SU  4.0
  _J
     2.0
                  44.7
                                                       EUTROPHIC
                                                      I MODERATELY
                                                  |	| EUTROPHIC (MESOTHOPHIC)
                                                       NON-EUTROPHIC
                                                       (OLIGOTROPHIC)
                                                       UNKNOWN STATUS
                ALASKA
                               IDAHO
                                             OREGON
                                                        WASHINGTON
                                 FIGURE 20

IMPAIRMENT STATUS OF RECREATIONAL LAKES
O
£
<
a
1
UJ
§
u.
0
OC
UJ
ED
Z
<
0
H
u.
0
UJ
0
CC
UJ
a
100

90


80
70
60


50
40
30


20
10




                                                         SIGNIFICANT IMPAIRMENT
                                                         MODERATE IMPAIRMENT
                                                         LITTLE, OR NO
                                                         IMPAIRMENT
                                                         UNKNOWN CLASSIFICATION
                                                    Data based upon evaluation
                                                    of 120 Region 10 lakes.
            ALASKA
                       IDAHO
                              OREGON  WASHINGTON
                                                                                      25

-------
 LAKE WATER QUALITY
  Alaska, the least populated State, has the largest percentage of non-
  eutrophic (oligotrophic) lakes and even the moderately eutrophic
  lakes are probably the result of natural causes. About one-third of
  Idaho's lakes and reservoirs are still non-eutrophic; however, the
  remaining lakes are either moderately eutrophic or eutrophic because
  of intense land and water use in the more populated and
  agriculturally-oriented portions of the State. Oregon and Washington,
  the most populated states in Region 10, have the lowest percentage
  of the non-eutrophic lakes and reservoirs. Even though the eutrophic
  condition of some of these bodies of water may result from natural
  causes, intense  recreational use, residential development,  and
  agricultural use  east of the Cascade Mountains has accelerated the
  eutrophication process.

  A review of the  120 lakes within Region  10 that have the highest
  recreational use  in each state indicates that the majority have only
                                   limited recreational impairment. Figure 20 shows the impairment
                                   breakdown by state. The water quality of only two lakes in the State
                                   of Washington is considered to be significantly impaired with
                                   seventy-five percent showing little or no impairment.

                                   In Idaho 30 percent, and in Oregon 12 percent of the lakes show
                                   moderate impairment of the highest beneficial uses. Most  of the
                                   impaired Oregon lakes and reservoirs are in the semi-arid portion of
                                   the State.  Those in Idaho are in the southern portion of the State.

                                   In almost every case, moderate or significant impairment is the result
                                   of intense  recreational use of lakes which are near populated areas.
                                   The more pristine lakes and reservoirs are situated away from these
                                   areas, many times in the higher elevations.  The challenge for the
                                   future will  be to maintain the existing good quality lakes while
                                   upgrading  the poorer quality ones.
      Name

      Silver Lake
      Moses Lake
      Liberty  Lake
      Lake Wapato
      Lake Sacajawea
      Green Lake
      Capitol  Lake
      Potholes Reservoir
      Lake Quinault
      Lake Cushman
      Crescent Lake
      Lake Whatcom
      Ozette Lake
      Merwin Lake
      Lake Tapps
      Lake Washington
      Lake Sammamish
      Ross Lake
      Lake Chelan
      Lake Wenatchee
      Kachess Lake
      Keechelus  Lake
      Cle Elum Lake
      Baker Lake
      Osoyoos Lake
      Lake Roosevelt
        (Grand Coulee  Res.)
      Banks Lake
      Lake Wallula
        (McNary Reservoir)
      Park Lake
      Deep Lake
                              TABLE 7
PRINCIPAL WASHINGTON LAKES AND RESERVOIRS
          Impairment of Highest Beneficial Use
            Surface                    Recreational Use Impaired1
             Area
            (Acres)	Swimming    Fishing     Boating    Aesthetics
             3,000
             7,000
               700
                28
                61
               256
               270
            28,000
             3,700
             4,000
             5,100
             5,000
             7,800
             4,000
             2,300
            22,000
             5,000
            11,500
            33,500
             2,500
             4,500
             2,500
             4,800
             3,600
             3,000
            79,000

            25,000
            19,000

              350
               66
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1

1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1

1
1
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1

1
1
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1

1
1
                                                   Final
                                                  Rating
9
9
6
6
6
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

4
4

4
4
           Source of Data:
           1. National Reservoir Research
           2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
           3. EPA, Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory
                          4. Washington State University
                          5. University of Washington
                          6. Grant County PUD
                          7. Chelan County PUD
26

-------
                                                                                               MARINE WATER QUALITY
 MARINE WATER  QUALITY

 Its vast coastal and estuarine waters make the State of Washington
 one of the most flourishing commercial and recreational areas in the
 country. The majority of the State's urban centers and industrial
 development occurs on or near these marine water areas, primarily
 on the southeastern shore of Puget Sound and in the Grays Harbor
 vicinity.

 Marine waters of the State support international shipping, shellfish
 production and recreational uses such as boating and fishing. It is
 important that the quality of these waters be maintained.
 Measuring Marine Water Quality

 Marine water quality determinations are based upon specific
 microbiological, chemical and toxicological criteria established by the
 U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the National Shellfish
 Sanitation Program. Waters free of fecal contamination, industrial
 waste, radionuclides and biotoxins are considered safe for edible
 shellfish production, and are classified as "Approved for Commercial
 Shellfish Harvesting." Waters which generally meet the criteria but
 are subject to occasional closure resulting from seasonal increases in
 population, freshwater runoff,  or temporary malfunctioning of waste
 treatment facilities are classified as "Conditionally Approved." Waters
 found  to be contaminated, or suspected of being contaminated,
 which  would produce shellfish unsafe for human consumption are
 classified as "Closed to Commercial Shellfish Harvesting."

 Assessing water quality in marine water is  a difficult, time-consuming
 and expensive task due to the  complexities of tidal variations
 fluctuating currents and unpredictable mixing patterns. However, the
 condition  of shellfish such as oysters, clams, and mussels can be
 used to assess marine water quality. Shellfish concentrate disease-
 causing bacteria and viruses as well as toxic chemicals, radionuclides,
 and biotoxins from the waters  in which they live. Since shellfish
 reflect concentrations of domestic, industrial, and agricultural wastes,
 they can be used as practical long-term indicators of water quality
 and the effectiveness of pollution  control efforts at specific locations.
WASHINGTON'S MARINE  WATERS

Over the last five years, there have been significant improvements in
marine water quality of Washington as a result of waste treatment
programs. Bellingham Bay has experienced a dramatic reduction in
bacteria levels. Dissolved oxygen levels  in Everett Harbor and Port
Gardner have increased and toxic sulfite waste liquor concentrations
have decreased.  Pacific oyster larvae again can survive in Port
Gardner and  Port Angeles where toxic discharges have been
reduced.

Approximately 229,000 acres of commercial estuarine and marine
shellfish-growing waters in Washington have been classified by the
Washington State Department of Social & Health Services (Figure
21) as potential shellfish-growing areas.

Of the 229,000 acres surveyed, 68  percent are currently classified as
"Approved for Commercial Harvesting," 11 percent are "Conditionally
Approved," and twenty-one percent (49,000 acres) are
classified as "Closed" and cannot be used to produce shellfish for
human consumption. There appears to be a direct relationship
between residential-industrial development and the percentage of
growing waters closed to harvesting. Sizeable percentages of
estuarine and marine waters located in more populated or
industrialized areas—Grays Harbor,  northern Puget Sound, and
central Puget Sound—are closed or only conditionally approved.
Bacteria levels resulting from municipal sewage treatment plant
effluents, septic tanks, poor drainage, and seasonal increases in
freshwater runoff are primarily responsible for restrictions. Most of
Washington's approved waters—Willapa Bay, Hood Canal, Pacific
beaches and parts of other areas—are located in relatively
undeveloped locations.

Certain  northern and ocean beaches are closed each year to sports
harvesting from April 1st to October 31st because of the possibility of
increased levels of paralytic shellfish poison (PSP), a naturally-
occurring biotoxin produced on the West Coast by microscopic
marine algae. This phenomenon is not manmade.

Marine water areas which are currently under waste discharge
abatement programs are:  Inner Bellingham Harbor and Port Angeles
(North Puget Sound); Port Gardner and Elliott Bay (Central Puget
Sound); Inner Commencement Bay (South Puget Sound) and Grays
Harbor (Washington Coast).
THE  REGIONAL OVERVIEW

A total of 349,300 acres of commercial shellfish-growing areas (Figure
22)  has been classified by agencies in Oregon, Washington, and
Alaska. This represents approximately two percent of the classified
growing waters in the Nation. Seventy-three percent of the Regional
growing area (254,100 acres) is classified as approved; nine percent
(32,900 acres) conditionally approved; and 18 percent (62,300 acres)
closed.

Most of the closed growing areas are due to fecal contamination or
the great potential for such contamination resulting from nearness to
municipal sewage treatment facilities serving populated areas. The
conditionally-approved areas are primarily characterized by excessive
fecal contamination occurring as  a result of seasonal increases in
freshwater runoff from agricultural and logging activities, as well as
the occasional malfunctioning or  bypassing of sewage treatment
plants.

Population growth and associated sewage wastes appear to pose the
greatest threat to approved shellfish growing  areas in Region 10.
Because  of the small size of Oregon's shellfish industry and the
generally undeveloped nature of Alaska's clam resources, changes in
Washington State's shellfish-growing area classification would
probably have the greatest regional economic impact. The effect of
reductions in the size of Washington's approved growing area may
be mitigated by the industry's ability to maintain current production
levels on somewhat less acreage. Nevertheless, the closure of key
growing areas in southern Puget  Sound or Willapa Bay would have
an immediate adverse impact.
                                                                                                                                27

-------
 MARINE WATER QUALITY
                                                     FIGURE 21


                    MARINE WATERS OF WASHINGTON
                    STATUS OF CLASSIFIED SHELLFISH GROWING AREAS
   100


    90



«  80
111

O  70



O  6°
10
O  50
Z

W  40

O
X  30


    20


    10
                                   /
                                                              APPROVED FOR COMMERCIAL
                                                              SHELLFISH HARVESTING
                                                              CONDITIONALLY APPROVED FOR
                                                              COMMERCIAL SHELLFISH HARVESTING
                                                              CLOSED TO COMMERCIAL
                                                              SHELLFISH HARVESTING

                                                                 Areas depicted represent only those
                                                                 portions of the total estuarine and
                                                                 coastal areas that have been classified
                                                                 by the Washington State Department of
                                                                 Social & Health Services
                                                                                                O
                                                                                                tc
                                                                                                a.
                                                                                                a.

                                                                                                
-------
                                                                                          DRINKING WATER  QUALITY
WASHINGTON DRINKING  WATER

Public Water System Program

The drinking water coming into most homes in the Northwest today
is generally considered safe, mainly because of the high standards set
by public water supply systems.  However,  potential contamination of
drinking water supplies by the careless use of chemical compounds
and the unsafe disposal of toxic wastes requires vigilance.

In 1974, the United States Congress enacted the Safe Drinking Water
Act. The Act gives EPA the primary responsibility for establishing
national drinking water standards but it is intended that the states
assume responsibility for implementing programs to ensure the
standards are met. The State of Washington assumed this
responsibility  in March 1978. State personnel have been added to
help implement the State's regulations and provide technical
assistance to  operators of the State's approximately 3800 public
water systems which come under jurisdiction of the Safe Drinking
Water Act.
The national drinking water standards contain  maximum allowable
levels  for various contaminants and require water systems to monitor
(sample and analyze) their water on a periodic basis for determining
compliance with these contaminants.

The national standards went into effect in June 1977,  and
bacteriological and turbidity monitoring was required to commence at
that time. All of the State's 2500 community water systems are
required to monitor for bacteriological contamination;  approximately
40 percent of the systems are in compliance with this  requirement. In
addition to bacteriological monitoring, the State's 150 community
water systems which utilize surface water are also required to
monitor for turbidity. About 40 percent of the surface water systems
are in compliance  with this requirement. This information is
presented in Figure 23-A.
As is the case in most states, smaller drinking water systems
experience more obstacles in achieving compliance with drinking
water regulations. This is attributable to many factors, including
limited financial capabilities and difficulties in obtaining qualified
operators. In the future,  additional regulatory follow-up will be
conducted with the smaller systems. A breakdown by water system
size for compliance with bacteriological monitoring is shown in Figure
23-B.
Groundwater Protection Program

The Safe Drinking Water Act has also established a program for
protecting underground sources of drinking water. States with a
significant number of injection wells having a high potential for
groundwater contamination will be required to regulate such wells.
Initially, none of the four states in Region 10 will be designated as
requiring an underground injection  control program; however, in the
future, one or more may be so designated.

Another feature of the national program is referred to as the "sole
source" designation. The Safe Drinking Water Act authorizes EPA to
designate aquifers which are an area's sole or principal drinking water
source for special protection. In February 1978, the Spokane Valley-
Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer was designated for "sole source"
protection. This aquifer provides water for about 40,000 Idaho
residents and 300,000 Washington  residents in the Coeur d'Alene and
Spokane areas.

"Sole source" designation requires EPA to review Federal financially-
assisted projects to ensure that such projects are  designed and
constructed so as to protect the aquifer. Memoranda of
Understanding are being developed between  EPA and the major
Federal agencies providing financial assistance to  projects in the
Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie area. Projects submitted for EPA
review include housing developments and commercial and industrial
facilities, as well as  major projects such as the Northern Tier Pipeline
Project and municipal sewerage projects.
                                                          FIGURE 23
                 2500
                             KEY
                          TOTAL NUMBER
                          OF SYSTEMS
                          SYSTEMS MONITORING
                          IN JUNE 1978
                1000
I                                 150
                                 60
                                                           2000
       KEY

    TOTAL NUMBER
    OF SYSTEMS

    SYSTEMS IN COMPLIANCE
    WITH BACTERIOLOGICAL
    MONITORING
    REQUIREMENTS
                      WASHINGTON
                      DRINKING WATER
                      STATUS
                                                           750
                                                                           500
                                                                           250
       BACTERIOLOGICAL      TURBIDITY                SYSTEMS SERVING    SYSTEMS SERVING
         MONITORING        MONITORING                 LESS THAN 400      MORE THAN 400
         COMPLIANCE        COMPLIANCE                   COMPLIANCE WITH BACTERIOLOGICAL
        A  COMPLIANCE WITH BACTERIOLOGICAL AND  o    MONITORING REQUIREMENTS BY
        M   TURBIDITY MONITORING REQUIREMENTS   °         WATER SYSTEMS SIZE
                                                                - JUNE 1978
                                                                                                                             29

-------
 NOISE
  NOISE

  Sound, so vital a part of our existence, is growing to such
  disagreeable proportions within our environment today that it is a
  very real threat to health. The problem is not limited to occupational
  noise and hearing loss, but also includes community noise, which
  affects us physiologically and psychologically by causing nervousness
  and tension.

  In view of these facts. Congress passed the Noise Control Act of
  1972 which gives EPA authority to set standards on new products
  that are major sources of noise (cars, trucks, etc.) and existing noise
  sources which need national uniformity of treatment (interstate
  railroads, trucks and aircraft). However, the primary responsibility for
  control of noise rests with state and local governments.

 Technical assistance is available from EPA in areas such as:
 developing model legislation; reviewing proposed legislation and
 regulations; and training of state and local officials in  writing laws
 and ordinances and in noise enforcement measurement techniques.
 EPA  has thus far provided assistance to Oregon and Washington in
 developing noise regulations, assistance to the cities of Anchorage,
 Seattle and Portland in developing noise control ordinances, and in
 the monitoring of noise levels from railroad locomotives, ferries and
 auto  and motorcycle racetracks.

 The State of Wash'ngton has passed regulations which establish
 maximum receivable levels of noise originating from designated
 property types. Regulations also exist which limit noise emissions
 from  motor vehicles and motorcycles.

 Several cities including Seattle, Olympia, and Colfax, and counties
 including King and Kitsap have enacted environmental and/or
 vehicular ordinances similar to the Washington State regulations.
 Seattle intends to write future noise ordinances for seaplanes, racing
 vehicles, construction activities and vehicles  which use rails or tracks.
 Other cities are presently considering ordinances of their own.

 Figure 24 indicates the percent of Washington's population covered
 by noise ordinances, while Figure 25  shows the same  information for
 the Region as a whole. Neither of these charts reflect  the
 effectiveness with which the ordinances are implemented or
 enforced.
                       FIGURE 24
PERCENT OF WASHINGTON POPULATION
COVERED BY NOISE  ORDINANCES
                   POPULATION 3,409,000
z
o
ID
O.
O
Q.
1U
o
cc
UJ
0.
                      FIGURE 25

    REGION 10  POPULATION COVERED
    BY NOISE ORDINANCES
                       POPULATION 6,515,000
                                                                        g
                                                                        i-
                                                                        _i
                                                                        O.
                                                                        O
                                                                        a.
                                                                        Z
                                                                        UJ
                                                                        u
                                                                        cc
                                                                        Ul
                                                                        0.
30

-------
                                                                                                          SOLID WASTE
SOLID  WASTE

Waste management deals with problems ranging from health and
environmental hazards to the efficiency of collection operations. The
diverse nature of wastes (dead animals, mercury-rich industrial
sludges, dredge spoils, abandoned cars, septic tank pumpings,
residential solid waste, infectious hospital wastes, demolition, debris,
feedlot wastes, etc.) makes the challenge of waste management as
complex as its sources.

Improper disposal methods can pollute the land, air or water. For
example, burning dumps contribute to air pollution and some
disposal sites, especially west of the Cascade  Mountains, are so
situated that leachate and drainage waters aggravate the pollution of
rivers and streams.

The long-term solution to solid waste  management  problems lies in
the development of systems that will wisely control the quantity and
characteristics of wastes. This can be done by efficient collection,
creative recycling, recovering energy and other resources, and
properly disposing of wastes that have no further use. In the near
term, the development of environmentally-acceptable methods of
disposal on land is stipulated by Federal law as a national goal.

One  method of measuring progress in this area is to determine the
number of people served by adequate disposal sites. Figure 26
presents this information for the years 1972 through 1976.  In 1976,
                                         some 1,090,900 people or 32 percent of Washington's population was
                                         being served by State-approved solid waste disposal sites. This is an
                                         increase of 100 percent in the past five years.

                                         The recovery of energy and other resources from waste is being
                                         considered and developed by more and more areas as problems and
                                         costs of other acceptable disposal systems have skyrocketed. In
                                         Region 10 some 13 resource recovery projects are planned,
                                         committed or are under construction.  The largest are in the Seattle
                                         and Portland areas where "fuel from refuse" facilities are being
                                         planned. The status and  location of resources recovery projects in
                                         Region 10 is shown in Figure 27.

                                         Washington is planning a State-owned hazardous waste disposal
                                         facility in a low rainfall area in the south-central part of the State.
                                         Resource recovery is also beginning to be implemented within the
                                         State with facilities being planned or under construction at the Naval
                                         facilities in Kitsap  County, in Cowlitz County, Whatcom County.and
                                         at Seattle and Tacoma.

                                         Disposal of hazardous wastes in Region 10 is becoming a significant
                                         problem. Currently there are two State-licensed disposal facilities
                                         within the Region, one in Idaho and the other in Oregon.

                                         Under new Federal legislation (The Resource Conservation and
                                         Recovery Act), only sites which meet EPA or equivalent standards
                                         will be able to receive hazardous wastes for disposal.
                                                         FIGURE 26

                PERCENT OF POPULATION SERVED BY STATE-APPROVED
                SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL  FACILITIES
               o
               H
               Q.
               O
               Q.
               U.
               O
               H
               Ul
               O
               tr
               w
               a.
100


 90


 80


 70


 60


 SO


 40


 30


 20


 10

  0
                                                                                                  1976
                                                                                                                           31

-------
   HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
                                                           FIGURE 27

                                                STATUS OF RESOURCE  RECOVERY PROJECTS AND
                                                HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL SITES IN REGION 10
                                                               NOTE: Slat, of Alaska ii r.pr.i.nted at approximately 30% ol tru> stale
            RESOURCE RECOVERY PROJECTS

                  PLANNING


                  UNDER CONSTRUCTION


            HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL  SITES

                  EXISTING


                  PLANNED
o
 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES

 Chemicals are pervasive in our environment. They are in our food,
 water and air. While chemicals are beneficial, some may produce
 long term, adverse effects if allowed to enter the environment
 improperly.

 The need for vigilance in the Pacific Northwest is highlighted by the
 following:
 •  Lead levels in a school yard in Kellogg, Idaho were so high, that
    soil had to be removed.
 •  Arsenic from a copper smelter near Tacoma, Washington is
    suspected to be  responsible for increased lung cancer in smelter
    workers.
. •  A spill of copper concentrate into the Nisqually  River resulted in
    severe damage to fishery on this major Washington river.
 •  A ruptured transformer spilled over 250 gallons of the dangerous
    chemical Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) into the Duwamish River
    in Seattle, and approximately 800 establishments in Region 10
    currently use PCB containing transformers or capacitators.
 Of increasing concern is the possible relationship between some
 chemicals and cancer. The American Cancer Society reports that at
 least 75% of the cancers in people are induced  by factors in the
 environment.

 Recent Federal legislation has addressed the hazardous substances
 problem. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) provides for

 32
                                                     controlling the manufacture, processing, distribution, use and
                                                     disposal of chemicals. The Resources Conservation and Recovery Act
                                                     provides for proper disposal of hazardous waste. These laws,
                                                     combined with other EPA legislative responsibilities, should reduce
                                                     the potential for future adverse impacts.

                                                     EPA is developing a strategic plan which will focus the Region's
                                                     attention on high priority chemicals. Following the identification of
                                                     chemicals manufactured and used in the Region, impacts and
                                                     methods of control will be assessed. The strategy will utilize Federal,
                                                     state and local control measures.

                                                     This report has addressed environmental quality along media
                                                     lines —air, water, noise and solid waste. Increasingly, actions taken in
                                                     each of these  areas must consider the impacts of hazardous
                                                     materials. For  example, higher levels of treatment of air and water
                                                     waste discharges generate increased volumes of sludges and other
                                                     solid wastes for  disposal on land. These sludges contain toxic and
                                                     hazardous materials as a result of new discharge restrictions and
                                                     pretreatment requirements for industries discharging to municipal
                                                     wastewater treatment systems.

                                                     Data to define the nature and extent of environmental problems in
                                                     the Northwest resulting from toxic and hazardous chemicals are
                                                     lacking; however, EPA is currently gathering data to depict the
                                                     extent of the problem.

-------
                                                                                                                   SUMMARY
SUMMARY

Air Quality: Most of the health-related air quality standards are
being met for many of Washington's counties. Moreover, there has
been an overall trend toward better air quality in recent years.
However, in the more densely populated areas of the State, air
pollution levels frequently exceed the air quality standards. About 60
percent of Washington's population lives in the Seattle-Everett,
Tacoma, and Spokane metropolitan areas where both the primary
health standards and the critical alert level standards are frequently
exceeded. Long-term improvements in participate matter pollution
lie in controlling the  amounts of area and fugitive dust. Even though
point sources such as power plants and factories currently account
for the bulk of participate matter emissions, these emissions can
eventually be greatly reduced through reliable and relatively
inexpensive technology. The non-point sources such as home
heating, transportation,  and wind-blown dust present the greater
long-term challenge.  On the other hand, over 80 percent of the
sulfur dioxide emissions in the State of Washington come from
point sources and most  of this from smelter operations where
controls are needed.  Emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon
monoxide, and nitrogen oxides are, for the most part,  related to
automobile exhaust.  Pollution from these contaminants will be
reduced to the extent that vehicles are better maintained, vehicle use
reduced through mass transit and car-pooling, areas of intense
emissions due to traffic  volume and congestion eliminated, and
emission control devices become more prevalent in the population of
vehicles in use. Hydrocarbon emissions can also be reduced by
reducing the evaporation of petroleum products which account for
over 40  percent of the emissions. The continued installation of
control equipment at electric generating facilities and at certain
industrial facilities will reduce nitrogen oxide emissions.

River and Stream Water  Quality: With some important
exceptions, Washington's river and stream water quality  is meeting
Federal goals, and the State's water quality is among the best in the
Nation. Only four of  the State's principal rivers do not meet these
goals in at least some portions of the river.  Water quality tends to
improve progressively from the eastern to the western portions of the
State. Rivers east of the Cascade Mountains, such as the Crab
Creek, the Palouse, the  Walla Walla, the Touchet, and the Spokane
suffer from high concentrations of  phosphorous,  dissolved solids,
and temperature. Generally speaking, this is the result of intensive
land use or agricultural water use. Excessive levels of suspended
solids, plant nutrients, and  oxygen-consuming materials have the
most significant impacts on Washington's water quality.  For
suspended solids, direct industrial and municipal sewage discharges
are insignificant sources of  the problem in comparison to erosion and
runoff from silviculture and agriculture operations.

Long-term improvements in suspended solid contamination of
Washington's rivers lies  in improved land management practices. In
the case of nutrients, the causes are irrigation return flow and other
agricultural operations and, in some areas, industrial and municipal
sewage discharges. As with nutrients, control of oxygen-
consuming materials must address nonpoint sources. With some
exceptions, the point sources of the past (sewage and industrial
discharge)have been  eliminated. In the eastern part of the State, little
improvement in river quality can be expected until problems
associated with runoff and intensive land and water use are
addressed.  In the western part of the State, increasing population,
increasing use of toxic substances, and oil spill potential must be
overcome before further improvements can be attained. Certain local
areas, however,  will greatly benefit from waste treatment facilities.
Overall, the principal goals of water quality management in
Washington at this time are the protection and preservation of the
existing good water quality while seeking solutions to poor quality
areas.

Lake Water Quality: Lake eutrophication occurs naturally but is
accelerated by man's activities. It is estimated  that, of the 19 lakes
and reservoirs in Washington which have at least ten square miles of
area, one is currently eutrophic and nine others are well on the way
toward being eutrophic. Of the 30 most used recreational lakes in  the
State, eight have at least a moderate degree of impairment. Both
eutrophic conditions and use impairment correlate closely with the
degree of land use in the vicinity of the lake or the existence of
intense recreational use. Implementation of improved land
management  practices for agricultural lands in the vicinity of many of
the lakes would  result in improvements.

Marine Water Quality: Over the past five years, there have been
significant improvements in marine water quality in Washington due
to waste management programs. Still, over 30 percent of the
classified shellfish harvesting grounds in the State are either
considered unsafe or temporarily closed, depending on conditions,
from time-to-time.  Current problems result from municipal sewage,
septic tank seepage, poor drainage, and seasonal fresh water runoff.

Drinking Water Quality: Washington has assumed the
responsibility for implementing the national drinking water
regulations. In June 1977, the national regulations required the
State's 2SOO community water systems to commence monitoring for
bacteriological contamination. As of June 1978,  less than  half of the
systems were in compliance with this monitoring requirement;
however, of those  monitoring, most were in compliance with
contaminant limits.
Noise: The State of Washington, as well as several cities, has
passed regulations which establish maximum levels of noise.
Currently, 30 percent of the State's population is covered by local
noise ordinances that are in keeping with State regulations. This
represents an increase of 100 percent in the last three years.

Solid Waste: Approximately one-third of Washington's population is
served by solid  waste disposal  methods that meet standards for good
solid waste management. This represents an increase of 100 percent
during the last five years. The disposal of highly hazardous wastes
and resource recovery operations are also among the principal
problems to be addressed.

Hazardous Substances: Nearly every area of environmental quality
just summarized is impacted  by the use of chemicals. New laws and
regulations have resulted from  public concern over the adverse health
and environmental effects of hazardous substances; however, it is an
area in need of  better data, research and integrated control efforts.
                                                         •frGPO # 696-829

-------