^440/9-75-014
NATIONAL
WATER
QUALITY
INVENTORY
975 Report
to Congress
Wlg^F
OFFICE OF WATER PLANNING AND STANDARDS
WASHINGTON,D.C. 20460
-------
This report was prepared pursuant to
Section 305(b) of PL 92-500, which states:
"(b) (1) Each State shall prepare and submit to the Administrator
by January 1, 1975, and shall bring up to date each year thereafter, a
report which shall include—
"(A) a description of the water quality of all navigable waters in
such State during the preceding year, with appropriate supplemental
descriptions as shall be required to take into account seasonal, tidal,
and other variations, correlated with the quality of water required
by the objective of this Act (as identified by the Administrator
pursuant to criteria published under section 304(a) of this Act) and
the water quality described in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph;
"(B) An analysis of the extent to which all navigable waters of
such State provide for the protection and propagation of a balanced
population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and allow recreational
activities in and on the water;
"(C) an analysis of the extent to which the elimination of the
discharge of pollutants and a level of water quality which provides
for the protection and propagation of a balanced population of
shellfish, fish, and wildlife and allows recreational activities in and
on the water, have been or will be achieved by the requirements of
this Act, together with recommendations as to additional action
necessary to achieve such objectives and for what waters such
additional action is necessary;
"(D) an estimate of (i) the environmental impact, (ii) the
economic and social costs necessary to achieve the objective of this
Act in such State, (iii) the economic and social benefits of such
achievement, and (iv) an estimate of the date of such achievement;
and
"(E) a description of the nature and extent of nonpoint sources
of pollutants, and recommendations as to the programs which must
be undertaken to control each category of such sources, including an
estimate of the cost of implementing such programs.
"(2) The Administrator shall transmit such State reports, together
with an analysis thereof, to Congress on or before October 1, 1975, and
annually thereafter.
-------
AlmttJtistrator
Dear Mr. President:
Dear Mr. Speaker:
I am pleased to transmit the National Water Quality Inventory Report for 1975, as required by Section 305(b) of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Public Law 92-500). It is the second in a series of
reports prepared by EPA in cooperation with the States and other Federal agencies. It includes this year, for the first
time, reports from the States and other jurisdictions of the United States. Reports from all but three States have been
received and are being transmitted.
The report provides an initial assessment of the overall extent of water pollution. Despite reported improvements,
many severe problems exist, especially in populated areas. However, 23 out of the 32 States which attempted an
overall evaluation report that, even with these problems, most of their waters are of good quality or already meet the
1983 goals of the Act.
The report also gives an indication of the progress of cleanup efforts. From the State reports, and from our own
analyses, it appears that we are achieving notable results in cleaning up the major pollution problems stemming from
municipal and industrial point source discharges. For instance, our study last year of 22 major rivers showed
improvements in oxygen-demanding loads and coliform bacteria, both of which have been the focus of our point
source control programs. This year, the States generally confirm these improvements, and some of them also report
reduced levels of certain harmful chemicals because of controls on industrial discharges.
At the same time, our studies show (and several States confirm) a worsening situation with regard to nutrients, the
substances which can trigger accelerated aging of lakes and estuaries. In about three-fourths of the 22 rivers studied
last year, nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient levels were increasing. Out National Eutrophication Survey showed that
phosphorus concentrations in 73 percent of 298 eastern lakes surveyed are high enough to cause eutrophication
problems. The State reports also express concern about eutrophication. The causes of the eutrophication problem are
not easily correctable, even with the authorities available in the 1972 Act, because they usually involve urban and
rural runoff as well as dissolved components of sewage effluent. These problems; together with other nonpoint source
problems, are a major focus of the second phase (1977-1983) pollution control effort.
The States raise a number of questions which EPA and Congress should address with regard to the 1983 goals
expressed in the 1972 Act:
• Several States consider the 1983 goal of fishable and swimmable water wherever attainable to be unrealistic for
some waters. For those waters the reduction of pollution to the levels required to meet the goal is said to be
either technologically or economically infeasible.
• For certain drainage areas, some States report that the costs of making waters fishable and swimmable may
greatly outweigh the benefits. This is especially true in areas where the water is primarily used for irrigation.
• Several States believe current Federal funding levels for municipal treatment facilities are insufficient to meet
the 1983 goals. EPA believes that major administrative problems in obligating construction grant funds have
been solved.
I commend this report to your attention, particularly for the background information it provides as we jointly
review the Federal legislative basis for water pollution control efforts. We also look forward to next year's report,
which should provide an improved basis of information from the States, and more detailed technical analyses of
national pollution problems.
Sincerely yours.
Russell E. Train
Honorable Nelson A Rockefeller
President of the Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Honorable Carl B. Albert
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
-------
Acknowledgement
The major portion of this report is based on the submissions from 47 of the 50 States and from six
other jurisdictions of the United States. The Environmental Protection Agency greatly appreciates
the time and effort expended by the State and local agencies and by regional commissions such as the
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission, the Interstate Sanitation Commission, and the
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin in preparing their reports.
The following individuals from EPA also made significant contributions during the preparation of
this report: William Butler, William Nuzzo (Region I); Patrick Harvey, Sal Nolfo (Region II); William
O'Neal (Region III); John Hagan (Region IV); Chris Potos (Region V); Roger Hartung (Region VI);
Dale Parke (Region VII); Patrick Godsil (Region VIII); Thomas Jones (Region IX); Robert Coughlin,
Richard Bauer (Region X); and others in EPA's regional offices; Robert Arvin, Jane Baluss, James
Berlow, Arnold Edelman, Susan Frederick, Frederick Leutner, Adelaide Lightner, Alexander
McBride, John Richey, William Robertson, and Phillip Taylor, Monitoring and Data Support Division;
King Boynton, William Chisholm, Henry Cooke, Jeffrey Goodman, Walter Groszyk, David Lincoln,
Susan Mertz, Mary Nolan, and Michael Steinitz, Water Planning Division; Robert Payne, Office of
Research and Development; Jack Gakstatter, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon;
and others too numerous to mention who were, nevertheless, instrumental in contributing to the
final product.
-------
Contents
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
CHAPTER I: CURRENT WATER QUALITY AND RECENT TRENDS
Summary 3
Water Quality Conditions and Trends 3
Monitoring and Reporting Procedures 8
CHAPTER II: WATER QUALITY GOAllS
Summary 11
National Attainment of 1983 Goals 11
Control Programs 15
Issues Raised in State Reports .' 15
CHAPTER III: COSTS AND BENEFITS OF MEETING WATER QUALITY GOALS
Summary 17
Methodologies 17
Results of State Analyses 18
CHAPTER IV: NONPOINTAND DIFFUSE SOURCES
Summary 23
Agricultural Nonpoint Sources 24
Silvicultural Nonpoint Sources 24
Mining Nonpoint Sources 24
Construction Nonpoint Sources 26
Hydrologic Modification Nonpoint Sources 26
Urban Nonpoint Sources 27
CHAPTER V: NATIONAL WATER QUALITY SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM
Summary 29
Description of System 29
Limitations of Data 29
Magnitude of Problems for Different Parameters 31
Variations in Water Quality With Land Use 31
CHAPTER VI: NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
Summary 35
Limitations of Survey Data 35
Limiting Nutrient 36
Lake Condition and Restorative Potential 37
Impact of Land Use on Nutrient Levels 42
in
-------
Page
TABLES
1-1 Water Quality Problem Areas Reported by States 4
I-2 Water Quality Parameters Commonly Monitored by States 5
I-3 Overall Water Quality Evaluations by States 5
I-4 Statewide Water Quality Trends Reported by States 6
I-5 Data Reporting Techniques Used by States g
li-1 Reasons Cited by States for Not Attaining 1983 Goal 12
II-2 Natural Causes Cited by States as Reasons for Not Attaining Fishable and Swimmable
Waters . . 14
111-1 Municipal Treatment Costs ' 18
III-2 Industrial Control Costs as Reported by States 20
III-3 Nonpoint Source Control Costs 21
IV-1 Annual Phosphorus Load for Selected Iowa River Basins 23
IV-2 Annual Nitrogen Load for Selected Iowa River Basins 23
IV-3 Nonpoint Source Problems Discussed in State 305(b) Reports 25
IV-4 Sediment Yields from Various Land Uses in Rhode Island 26
V-1 Summary of Criteria Exceptions of Selected NWQSS Parameters 32
V-2 Criteria Violations with Land Use 32
V-3 Medians of Downstream Median Values 33
V-4 Medians of Downstream Minus Upstream Median Values 33
VI-1 Selected National Eutrophication Survey Lakes with Median Phosphorus Concentrations
Greater than 0.025 mg/1 36
VI-2 Algal Assay Results from Selected National Eutrophication Survey Lakes 37
FIGURES
V-1 National Water Quality Surveillance System Station Locations 30
VI-1 Distribution of Lakes and Reservoirs Sampled by National Eutrophication Survey .... 38
VI-2 Frequency Distribution of Percent of Annual Total Phosphorus Load Received by 234
Lakes in 22 Eastern States From Municipal Point Sources With No Phosphorus
Removal 39
VI-3 Frequency Distribution of Percent of Annual Total Phosphorus Load Received by 234
Lakes in 22 Eastern States From Municipal Point Sources With 50 Percent
Phosphorus Removal 40
VI-4 Frequency Distribution of Percent of Annual Total Phosphorus Load Received by 234
Lakes in 22 Eastern States From Municipal Point Sources With 80 Percent
Phosphorus Removal 41
VI-5 Vollenweider Model Applied to 133 Eastern U.S. Lakes and Reservoirs Impacted by
Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant Effluents 43
VI-6 Vollenweider Model Applied to 23 Eastern U.S. Lakes and Reservoirs Unimpacted by
Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant Effluents 44
VI-7 Distribution of Stream Sampling Sites Selected for Drainage Area Studies by National
Eutrophication Survey 45
VI-8 Mean Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen Concentrations in Streams Draining
Different Land Use Categories 46
VI-9 Mean Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen Export by Streams Draining Different Land
Use Categories 47
iv
-------
APPENDIXES
APPENDIX A: NATIONAL WATER QUALITY SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM
APPENDIX B: NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
APPENDIX C: STATE AGENCY ADDRESSES
-------
Executive Summary
Scope
This report, the second in the series of National Water Quality Inventory reports, was prepared
jointly by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and by 47 of the 50 States and six other
jurisdictions of the United States. The submissions from the States and other jurisdictions, which
were prepared for the first time this year, are being transmitted to Congress in their entirety under
separate cover. This report summarizes the State submissions (with one exception which was not
received in time for inclusion) and provides a national overview of water quality. The report was
prepared pursuant to Section 305(b) of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
(Public Law 92-500) (see inside front cover).
This report represents the first opportunity for the States to summarize their water quality and
report on related programs to EPA and the Congress. Most States provided useful reports. As an
initial effort, however, there are inevitable gaps in the information provided. Future submissions
should expand the comprehensiveness of the report coverage.
The State information was supplemented by two studies performed by EPA:
• An analysis of data from the National Water Quality Surveillance System (NWQSS), a
nationwide stream monitoring network of 188 stations.
• A summary of results from the National Eutrophication Survey (NES), which analyzed
conditions in 812 lakes in 48 States.
Summary
Current Water Quality Conditions
Despite reported improvements, many severe problems still exist, especially in highly populated
areas. The parameters most frequently mentioned as being problems are dissolved oxygen (46 out of
52 reports analyzed), coliform bacteria (45 out of 52 reports), and nutrients (43 out of 52 reports).
The NWQSS analysis (Chapter V) indicates significant numbers of observations outside criteria limits
for all the parameters mentioned above with the exception of dissolved oxygen, where the criterion
used was less stringent than most of the State standards. The NES summary (Chapter VI) shows that
phosphorus concentrations in 73 percent of the 298 eastern lakes surveyed are high enough that
symptoms of eutrophication would be expected. However, 23 of the 32 States which attempted an
overall evaluation reported that, even with these problems, most of their waters were of good quality
or already met the 1983 goals of the Act.
Recent Trends in Water Quality
Last year, EPA concluded in the 1974 National Water Quality Inventory report that the pollutants
receiving widespread control (such as oxygen-demanding loads and coliform bacteria) were showing
nationwide improvement, while the nutrient parameters (nitrogen and phosphorus) were showing
worsening trends. This year, the State reports generally agree with these conclusions, although several
also noted improvements in nutrient levels. The improvements for all parameters were attributed to
the implementation of control measures by municipal and industrial dischargers. In addition, some
States reported reduced levels of certain harmful chemicals because of controls on industrial
discharges.
-------
Major Pollution Problems
The major pollution problems and their sources vary with geographical location and land use.
• The Northeastern and Great Lakes States report that their problems with low dissolved oxygen,
high nutrient concentrations, and excess coliform bacteria are primarily due to municipal and
industrial sources, including urban runoff. The central and southwestern States generally
identified sources such as agricultural runoff as the major causes of these problems.
• The central and southwestern States identified turbidity and salinity as particular problems,
while industrial States around the Great Lakes reported problems from chemical wastes.
* Waters in several areas of the country were of poor quality due to natural conditions. Many
central and southwestern States report high background levels of salinity and turbidity, while
several southern States describe low dissolved oxygen levels due to swamp conditions.
The IMWQSS analysis generally supports the conclusions with regard to land use, showing higher
levels of fecal coliform bacteria and nutrients in areas with high municipal/industrial activity, and
higher nutrient levels in areas with high agricultural activity. The NES summary also indicates high
nutrient runoff from agricultural areas, and significant phosphorus loadings from municipal effluents.
Some of the high nutrient loadings from agricultural areas probably are due to naturally fertile soil
conditions in those areas.
Future Program Emphasis and 1983 Goals
The States generally agreed on the need for increased emphasis to control both urban and rural
runoff, the primary concerns for most States which expected some of their waters would not attain
the 1983 goals of the 1972 Act.
Costs and Benefits of Achieving 1983 Goals
None of the States was able to conduct a quantitative analysis of the costs versus the benefits of
water quality programs. However, eight States conclude from qualitative analyses that the large
expenditures required to meet the effluent limitations imposed by the 1972 Act cannot be justified
in certain areas because the effluent reductions would not noticeably improve water quality in those
areas. Also, three States propose that expenditures to make the waters suitable for fishing and
swimming should not be required for streams used primarily for irrigation.
Most States provide estimates for the costs of municipal wastewater treatment, and 13 of them
also estimate industrial control costs. Ten of the 13 States estimating industrial costs reported those
costs to be less than 25 percent of their municipal treatment costs.
-------
Chapter I
Current Water Quality and Recent Trends
The 1974 National Water Quality Inventory
report to Congress studied water quality con-
ditions and trends for 22 of the nation's major
rivers, which were divided into 36 segments.
This year, each State prepared an analysis of its
own waters. This report represents a summary of
the State analyses.
Summary
Despite recent improvements, many severe
problems still remain. However, 23 of the 32
States which attempted an overall evaluation
reported that, even with these problems, most of
their waters were of good quality or already met
the 1983 goals.
The 1974 report concluded that oxygen
demanding loads and coliform bacteria levels
were improving, even though significant prob-
lems did remain. The report also concluded that
nutrient levels were increasing across the coun-
try. The 1975 report shows that the States in
general agree with those conclusions, although
several report improvements in nutrient levels.
In addition, some States noted improvements in
the levels of certain harmful chemicals from
industrial wastes.
An evaluation of the State reports leads to the
following general conclusions for the major
pollutant categories.
• Levels of harmful substances such as heavy
metals and various chemical compounds
have improved in some areas as a result of
municipal and industrial waste treatment.
However, significant problems from heavy
metals and harmful chemicals still exist,
primarily in the industrial States in the
Northeast and around the Great Lakes.
Also, several central and southern States
report problems from pesticides.
• Some western and southern States have
reported increases in temperature and tur-
bidity from stream modifications for flood
control and irrigation.
• Most States report high levels of phos-
phorus and nitrogen indicating eutrophi-
cation potential. In addition, the nutrient
parameters were the only ones for which a
significant number of States report worsen-
ing trends, although a larger number do cite
improvements.
• Mining areas across the country reported
problems with acid mine drainage. High
salinity levels from various sources were
also reported for many areas.
• Many States noted improvements in dis-
solved oxygen levels over the last five years,
although almost all States did report that
their water quality standards for dissolved
oxygen were violated in some areas.
• Almost all States also listed health hazards
as indicated by high coliform bacteria
counts as a significant problem. Excess
coliform bacteria levels caused by munici-
pal discharges have been reduced in many
States following installation of adequate
treatment facilities.
Water Quality Conditions and Trends
All of the States report at least one type of
water pollution within their borders, and most
of them have problems with several different
pollutants. The most widely discussed problems
were low dissolved oxygen levels (46 of 52
reports), health hazards from excessive coliform
bacteria counts (45 of 52 reports), and high
nutrient concentrations (43 of 52 reports)
(Table 1-1). Other widespread pollution con-
ditions may exist, but would not be noted by as
many States because the parameters used to
identify those conditions were not as widely
monitored (Table I-2).
Despite these widespread problems, 23 of the
32 States which attempted an overall evaluation
reported that most of their waters are of good
quality or already meet the 1983 goals of the
Act (Table 1-3).
-------
TABLE 1-1
WATER QUALITY PROBLEM AREAS REPORTED BY STATES*
Number Reporting Problems/Total
Middle
Atlantic,
Northeast
Harmful 6/13
substances
Physical 7/13
modification
Eutrophi- 11/13
cation
potential
Salinity, 3/13
acidity,
alkalinity
Oxygen 11/13
depletion
Health 11/13
hazards
* Localized or statewide
Great
South Lakes
6/9 5/6
3/9 3/6
6/9 6/6
6/9 2/6
9/9 6/6
8/9 5/6
problems discussed
Middle Atlantic, Northeast:
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maine
Maryland
New Hampshire
New Jersey
South:
Alabama
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Great Lakes:
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
New York
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia
Louisiana
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Central Southwest West Islands
4/8 4/4
8/8 3/4
8/8 2/4
6/8 4/4
6/8 4/4
8/8 3/4
by the States in their reports.
Central:
Colorado
Iowa
Kansas
Montana
Southwest:
Arizona
New Mexico
West:
California
Idaho
Nevada
Islands:
American Samoa
Guam
Hawaii
2/6 3/6
6/6 5/6
6/6 4/6
4/6 2/6
6/6 4/6
5/6 5/6
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
Wyoming
Oklahoma
Texas
Oregon
Utah
Washington
Puerto Rico
Trust Territories
Virgin Islands
Total
30/52
35/52
43/52
27/52
46/52
45/52
-------
TABLE 1-2
Harmful Substances
WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
COMMONLY MONITORED BY STATES*
Parameter
Number of states
Flow
Dissolved oxygen
Coliform bacteria
Nitrogen (any form)
Phosphorus (any form)
pH
BOD/COD/TOC
Water temperature
Turbidity
Solids (any type)
Metals (any type)
Chlorides
Alkalinity
Conductivity
Color
Sulfate
47
47
45
39
35
35
27
29
26
27
17
19
15
16
11
14
*Only parameters specifically mentioned as being part
of the State's monitoring program are counted. Only
parameters listed by at least 10 States are included.
TABLE 1-3
OVERALL WATER QUALITY
EVALUATIONS BY STATES
Most waters now meet 1983 goals
Most waters are of good quality
Most waters do not meet goals
No overall evaluation made
Number of States
10
13
9
20
52
The parameters which had the most wide-
spread problems were also the ones where the
largest number of States noted improvements.
Nineteen States noted improvements in dis-
solved oxygen levels while 16 reported lower
coliform bacteria levels and 10 reported lower
nutrient levels (Table 1-4). However, five States
noted worsening trends for nutrients, the only
parameters for which any significant degrada-
tions were noted. Finally, four States noted
improved levels of harmful substances, primarily
because of controls on industrial dischargers.
The presence of heavy metals in the waters of
the highly urbanized and industrialized areas of
the Northeast and Great Lakes regions is a
serious problem because of the detrimental
effects these metals can have on various forms of
aquatic life. Industrial discharges from a variety
of manufacturing plants and urban runoff seem
to be primarily responsible for these high
concentrations. Unacceptable heavy metal con-
centrations are also reported in some parts of
the West as a result of mining operations. The
metals most frequently mentioned as presenting
a problem are mercury, cadmium, manganese,
lead, and iron.
Although some improvements have been
reported, unacceptable levels of harmful chem-
ical wastes from industrial processes and of
pesticides remain a problem in many States,
with the Northeast and Great Lakes areas being
primarily concerned with industrial wastes, and
the central and southern States having problems
with pesticides. Polychlorinated biphenols
(PCB's) and phenols from industrial wastes and
pesticides such as DDT and dieldrin have forced
several States to limit the consumption of fish
from some of their waters.
Concentrations of un-ionized ammonia which
can be harmful to fish present a problem in
many areas of the country, especially during low
flow conditions. In addition to industrial
sources, many older secondary treatment plants
do not provide enough ammonia reduction.
Thus, when effluent from these treatment plants
is a significant portion of the stream flow,
ammonia toxicity can pose a threat to aquatic
life. Installation of newer treatment facilities is
helping to reduce this problem.
Spills of oil and other petroleum products
from pipelines and manufacturing plants pose a
threat to water quality across the country. Many
States are taking action to confront this problem
by setting up emergency investigative and
cleanup staffs.
Two of the Great Lakes States express
concern over the concentrations of asbestos or
asbestos-like fibers, which may be carcinogenic,
in portions of Lake Superior used for drinking
water supplies. These States report that the
fibers are apparently being discharged in the
waste from a Reserve Mining Company opera-
tion.
-------
TABLE 1-4
STATEWIDE WATER QUALITY TRENDS REPORTED BY STATES*
Number Reporting Trend/Number Reporting Problem
Middle*
Atlantic, Great
Northeast South Lakes
Central Southwest West Islands Total
Harmful substances
Improving 2/6 0/6 1/5 1/4
Constant 4/6 6/6 4/5 3/4
Degrading 0/6 0/6 0/5 0/4
Physical modification
Improving 2/7 0/3 0/3 1/8
Constant 5/7 3/3 3/3 7/8
Degrading 0/7 0/3 0/3 0/8
Eutrophication potential
Improving 4/11 0/6 2/6 2/8
Constant 5/11 5/6 3/6 5/8
Degrading 2/11 1/6 1/6 1/8
Salinity, acidity, alkalinity
Improving 0/3 0/6 0/2 0/6
Constant 3/3 6/6 2/2 5/6
Degrading 0/3 0/6 0/2 1/6
Oxygen depletion
Improving 9/11 2/9 3/6 3/6
Constant 2/11 7/9 3/6 3/6
Degrading 0/11 0/9 0/6 0/6
0/4
4/4
0/4
0/3
3/3
0/3
0/2
2/2
0/2
0/4
4/4
0/4
0/4
4/4
0/4
0/2
2/2
0/2
0/6
6/6
0/6
2/6
4/6
0/6
0/4
3/4
1/4
1/6
5/6
0/6
0/3
3/3
0/3
1/5
4/5
0/5
0/4
4/4
0/4
0/2
2/2
0/2
1/4
3/4
0/4
4/30
26/30
0/30
4/35
31/35
0/35
10/43
28/43
5/43
0/27
25/27
2/27
19/46
27/46
0/46
Health hazards
Improving
Constant
Degrading
9/11
2/11
0/11
2/8
6/8
0/8
1/5
4/5
0/5
3/8
5/8
0/8
0/3
3/3
0/3
1/5
4/5
0/5
0/5
5/5
0/5
16/45
29/45
0/45
*Only States indicating a water quality problem area in Table 1-1 are considered in that category for Table 1-4.
Improvement, constancy, or degradation are listed as specifically discussed on a Statewide basis in each State report.
A constant condition was assumed when a water quality problem was discussed but a statement of the Statewide
trend was omitted.
+ Same groupings as in Table 1-1.
Physical Modification
The effects of physical modifications to
streams are evident in many areas of the Nation.
Temperature alterations are reported to be a
major problem in many areas, especially the
West, with the primary causes being the
withdrawal and discharge of water for irrigation
and industrial cooling, and the impoundment
and release of water at dams. The heated water
can severely affect biological communities.
Turbidity problems which can reduce the
light penetration necessary for adequate aquatic
plant growth exist in almost every State. In
some cases the turbidity is considered to be
natural, while in many cases runoff due to
human activities is suspected, if not confirmed,
to be the cause of the problem. The runoff is
6
-------
from urban areas, farmlands, and from logging
and mining operations. Other sources of
turbidity include municipal and industrial
discharges.
Summer flow reductions due to impound-
ments have resulted in elevated temperatures
and low dissolved oxygen levels in several
western States. The reduction in the dilution
capacity of the streams also pushed nutrient and
organic material concentrations to unacceptable
levels in several cases.
Some western and southern States report that
stream channel alterations caused by dredging
and bank modifications affect the velocity of
flow in the stream. The permanance of such
changes offers very little chance for improve-
ment of their detrimental effects, which include
increased temperature and turbidity.
Interference with the spawning activities of
migratory fish caused by dams constructed for
power production and flow control is reported
in the west. Some improvement has been noted
as various remedies for this problem have been
found.
In general, the most prevalent problems in
this category, elevated temperature, high tur-
bidity, and flow reduction persist because of the
permanence of large public works projects and
the difficulty and expense of controlling
sediment loads from runoff. Many States are
trying to improve this facet of their water
quality, but few reported significant successes.
Eutrophication Potential
The data provided by several States show
eutrophication potential, which is the potential
for accelerated aging of lakes and streams, to be
increasing at a noticeable rate. Localized
improvements have been made through im-
proved phosphorus and nitrogen removal proc-
esses at various municipal treatment plants.
However, municipal effluents remain one of the
primary sources of these nutrients because of
the difficulties in removing them from waste-
waters. Combined sewer overflows and runoff
from urban areas also contribute to eutrophica-
tion potential. In nonurban areas the States
point to agricultural runoff of fertilizers,
discharges from feed lots, and leached nutrients
from septic tanks as major sources contributing
to increased eutrophication potential.
The results of high eutrophication potential
are noticeable. Fish kills can often be traced to
algal depletion of oxygen. Algal slimes and
nuisance odors have been reported in many
areas. The States are seeking to reduce this
degradation, but measures required for control
are often expensive and difficult to implement.
Another obstacle is that the concentrations of
certain nutrients, especially phosphorus, re-
quired to stimulate massive algal growth are so
small that it is often difficult to identify and
control the source or sources. Some States
report that eutrophication problems may have
been somewhat neglected in the past in favor of
other serious problems more readily solved.
Salinity, Acidity, and Alkalinity
Salinity, acidity, and alkalinity are reported at
unacceptable levels in several States. Salinity
problems are found in some coastal areas
because of saltwater intrusions resulting from
increased industrial, agricultural, and municipal
consumption of surface and ground waters or
from excessive drainage of freshwater recharge
areas. The disposal of brines from oil fields is an
important contribution to the salinity of the
water in numerous southern and western States.
The central and western States are also
confronted with the problem of irrigation return
flows and runoff carrying large quantities of salt
from agricultural lands, while States in colder
climates mention highway deicers as a significant
source. Since solutions to the salinity problem
are not always economically acceptable, progress
in this category has been very slow.
Acidity is a source of water quality
degradation in the industrial northeastern States
as well as in mining areas located in many other
parts of the Nation. The industrial sources of
acidity have shown improvement in recent years,
while runoff from mining areas has continued to
be a serious problem.
Excessive alkalinity occurs in several areas of
the Southwest. This alkalinity usually can be
traced to groundwater and runoff flow through
natural alkaline deposits. However, some excess
alkalinity is being contributed by irrigation
activities in this region. Due to the fact that the
problem is largely a result of natural conditions,
very little can be done about it. Also, very little
control over alkalinity from irrigation return
flows has been undertaken to date.
Oxygen Depletion
Depletion of oxygen from surface waters has
historically been one of the most widely noted
-------
water quality problems. This concern is because
fish require certain minimum levels of dissolved
oxygen to survive. Most States reported
violations of dissolved oxygen standards for one
or more stream segments.
The sources of oxygen-demanding materials
leading to reductions in dissolved oxygen levels
are numerous. Municipal and industrial dis-
charges are a major source of BOD (biochemical
oxygen demand) and COD (chemical oxygen
demand) loads. The reduction of dissolved
oxygen levels caused by combined sewer
overflows is reported for most large urban areas,
especially in the densely populated areas of the
Northeast and around the Great Lakes where the
seWer systems are older. The completion of a
large number of municipal construction projects
and the issuance of discharge permits to
industrial polluters have resulted in significant
improvements in dissolved oxygen levels over
the last five years. However, many problems
related to point sources still remain.
Runoff from cities and agricultural areas
deposits large quantities of oxygen-demanding
materials in streams. Development of econom-
ically feasible control techniques for these
sources has been difficult, and abatement efforts
have proceeded very slowly.
Physical modification of streams and lakes has
also helped to reduce dissolved oxygen levels.
Decreased flow rates result in reduced turbu-
lence which in turn decreases the reaeration rate
of the water. Also, increased temperature will
lower the saturation concentration of oxygen in
the water, which results in a reduction of the
dissolved oxygen available to biochemical and
chemical demand. These problems are also
especially difficult to correct.
Health Hazards
Health hazards in the form of infectious
pathogens are generally assumed to be present
when evidence of animal fecal matter as
measured by fecal coliform bacteria is found in
the water. While these pathogens can be
removed from drinking water supplies by
chlorination, their presence in surface waters can
make those waters unfit for contact recreation.
The presence of potential health hazards based
on excessive coliform bacteria counts is listed in
almost all State reports. Significant sources of
bacteria which are coming under control include
poorly treated or untreated effluents from
municipal outfalls and, to a lesser degree, runoff
from livestock feedlots. Improvements in water
quality due to these controls have already been
noted in many areas.
Other sources of bacterial contamination
which are more difficult to identify and control
include runoff from urban and rural areas, and
in some cases, contamination of groundwaters
from septic tank drain fields.
Monitoring and Reporting Procedures
The State water quality assessments are
primarily concerned with determining water uses
relative to the 1983 goals of PL 92-500 and do
not generally discuss drinking water problems,
except for some descriptions of groundwater
contamination. The reports also provide very
little information on marine water quality,
except for some discussions of shellfish harvest-
ing areas.
The State monitoring programs vary in
complexity from very limited parameter cover-
age in States with recently implemented
programs to highly comprehensive monitoring
procedures, including bioassays, in those States
with more experience in this field. Dissolved
oxygen and flow are measured by almost all
States, while coliform bacteria, nitrogen, phos-
phorus, pH, oxygen demand, and water
temperature are monitored in more than half the
States (Table 1-2). A few States did not mention
any specific parameters. The monitoring
schedule used by most States consists of
monthly samples taken at fixed stations
throughout the year, weather and flow con-
ditions permitting. Almost every State reports a
need for increased monitoring to help identify
specific pollution sources in problem sreas, but
most of them feel that the existing programs are
adequate enough to provide a relatively accurate
assessment of overall water quality.
The reporting procedures used by the States
follow five basic patterns, of which one or more
was employed by each State (Table 1-5).
Aggregation of water quality data by river basin
was the most popular procedure. Many States
also present river profiles showing variations in
water quality parameter values along the length
of a stream or stream segment. A third
procedure is to identify the specific water
quality problem areas in the State. The
classification of streams by current and pro-
posed uses for each segment is used by several
Northeastern States as the basis for evaluating
8
-------
their current water quality. Finally, five States
assess the quality of their waters through the use
of three different water quality indexes. Each
index is based on a weighted average of selected
water quality perameters, with the differences
between them being the parameters used and the
relative weight assigned to each parameter.
TABLE 1-5
DATA REPORTING TECHNIQUES
USED BY STATES*
Technique
Number of states
Problem area
identification only 13/52
Use classification
(all segments) 7/52
River profiles for selected
parameters and segments 26/52
Aggregating data by basin 38/52
Water quality indices 5/52
* A State may use more than one technique.
9
-------
Chapter II
Water Quality Goals
As established in the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, the
national goal to be achieved by July 1, 1983,
wherever attainable, is "water quality which
provides for the protection and propagation of
fish, shellfish and wildlife, and provides for
recreation in and on the water." This goal is a
step toward achieving the long-term objective
to "restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the
Nation's waters." The States were asked to
report what portion of their waters presently
meets the 1983 goal.
While specific definition of the goal in terms
of physical, chemical, and biological param-
eters has not yet been formulated, EPA is in
the final stages of preparing water quality
criteria, which will define conditions that will
allow for different uses, including those
prescribed by the 1983 goals.
Summary
Forty-five States and other jurisdictions
report that some portion of their waters will
not be able to meet the fishable and
swimmable criteria of the 1983 goal. The few
States which attempt to estimate what
percentage of their waters will not achieve
those criteria report that, in terms of stream
miles or number of stream segments, less than
10 percent of their waters will not be fishable
and swimmable. Furthermore, an undeter-
mined portion of the waters not projected to
meet the goal will satisfy part of it—most often
providing for protection and propagation of
fish and wildlife, although not allowing contact
recreation.
The States listed point sources, nonpoint
sources, and administrative problems (including
funding) as reasons for not meeting the 1983
goals. This discussion uses the terms "point
source" and "nonpoint source" in the same
context as most of the States used them. The
terms are descriptive and do not imply any
legal categorization of various sources. The
northeastern and Great Lakes States had the
most problems with point sources, especially
urban runoff, while most of the other States
listed nonpoint sources as the primary reasons
for not being able to attain the 1983 goals.
Insufficient funding and administrative delays
caused by requirements of the Act and EPA
were cited by several States as other reasons
why the goals of the Act could not be met, at
least by 1983. Twenty-one States reported that
some waters cannot be made fishable and
swimmable because of natural conditions.
Current pollution control efforts are primar-
ily concerned with point source abatement
through issuance of discharge permits to
municipal and industrial dischargers and the
awarding of municipal construction grants. For
the future, the States believe more emphasis
should be placed on controlling nonpoint
sources.
Policy issues raised by the States include:
Federal funding levels, lack of definition of the
1983 goals, and the appropriateness of uniform
effluent standards and of the 1983 water
quality goals for all waters.
National Attainment of 1983 Goals
Forty-five States reported that some of their
water would not be able to meet the 1983 goal
of the Act. The reasons for the Nation's
projected failure to completely achieve fishable
and swimmable waters by 1983 lie in four main
categories (Table 11-1). They are: point sources
(30 States), nonpoint sources (37 States),
natural conditions (21 States), and administra-
tive problems (20 States).
Point Sources
Thirty State reports claim that some water-
ways within their State would violate the 1983
goal because of point source pollution, either
from urban stormwater runoff released through
storm or combined sewer systems, or from
municipal and industrial discharges.
Combined sewer overflows are a problem
11
-------
TABLE 11-1
REASONS CITED BY STATES FOR NOT ATTAINING 1983 GOAL
State
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Point
sources
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Nonpoint
sources
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Natural
conditions
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
,
X
X
X
X
X
Administrative
problems
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Total (45) 30 37 21 20
12
-------
primarily in the Northeast and around the Great
Lakes where the sewer systems are generally
older. For example, Illinois reports that 45
percent of the pollution in the Chicago
waterways is due to combined sewer overflows.
New York State says that combined sewer
overflows will be the chief obstacle to
attainment of the 1983 goal in certain
metropolitan areas. New Jersey states that even
after the application of stringent advanced
wastewater treatment technology for most
sources, combined sewer problems cannot be
sufficiently alleviated to achieve water quality
goals by 1983.
The Northeast and Great Lakes areas also
report that municipal and industrial dischargers
will be a major factor in preventing certain
stream segments from meeting the 1983 goals,
even after installation of wastewater treatment.
These stream segments are generally small in
comparison to the volume of waste discharged
into them. For example, Indiana describes
segments of the White River and the Indiana
Harbor Canal which, during dry weather periods,
have flows composed almost entirely of
municipal and industrial effluents. Several
southern States also report that complex urban
and industrial discharges to small streams will
probably result in noncompliance with the 1983
goals.
Although the central States generally regard
nonpoint sources as their main reason for
nonattainment of the goal, point sources are also
a contributing factor. In the South Platte River
of Colorado, for example, the 1983 goal will be
achieved only with greatly improved control of
point source discharges; especially from sewage
treatment plants.
Of the western States, Washington alone has
included municipal and industrial discharges in
specific problem areas as a reason for nonattain-
ment of fishable and swimmable waters by
1983.
Nonpoint Sources
Nonpoint sources and their predicted effects
on waterways in 1983 are of concern to 37
States. The main categories of nonpoint sources
of pollution discussed by the States are:
• Agricultural activities—including soil ero-
sion and runoff containing nutrients,
pesticides, and heavy metals.
• Silvicultural activities
• Mining and acid mine drainage
• Land development and urbanization
• Runoff from abandoned oil fields
In the central States, with their emphasis on
agricultural activity, the major reasons for
projected noncompliance with the 1983 goal are
nonpoint sources. For example, agricultural
runoff is expected to interfere with goal
achievement in the Missouri River tributaries,
the White River and the South Platte River of
Nebraska. In Kansas, it is estimated that runoff
will cause standards for body contact recreation
to be exceeded 30 to 60 percent of the time.
Nonpoint sources of pollution in the north-
eastern and middle Atlantic States, though not
as numerous as in the Midwest, contribute to
nonattainment of the goal. For example, the
major reasons that some of Maryland's water-
ways are not meeting the 1983 goal are
nonpoint sources such as agricultural runoff and
seepage from septic tanks.
Nonpoint source pollution problems in the
southern States are associated with agriculture,
silviculture, erosion from construction and
mining, and acid mine drainage. Uncertainty as
to extent, cause, and prevention methods of
nonpoint sources and related water quality is an
underlying theme in most of the State reports.
Data sufficient to make an accurate quantita-
tive analysis of nonpoint sources of pollution—
and the resultant failure of waterways to meet
the 1983 water quality goal—are not available
from State reports. However, two categories of
nonpoint pollution are addressed to some
extent: acid mine drainage and runoff from
abandoned oil fields, including oil seeps.
Specifically, acid mine drainage will cause
violations in Illinois, Kentucky, Ohio, West
Virginia, Alabama, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and
Montana. Low pH readings resulting from past
and present mining activities indicate current
problems, which are projected to continue
through 1983. The Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources estimates that approx-
imately one-half of those streams projected not
to meet the 1983 water quality goal are affected
by abandoned mine drainage.
Runoff from abandoned oil fields and oil
seeps are nonpoint sources that will interfere
with attainment of the goal in Oklahoma, Texas,
and Arkansas. The Red River and its tributaries
in these States are affected by oil field runoff
due to insufficient control methods. Leaching
from oil drilling activities arid oil brines causes
salt accumulation in the streams, which
eventually destroys shoreline habitats.
13
-------
Natural Conditions
Administrative Problems
In 21 State reports, natural conditions are
cited as a reason for not attaining fishable and
swimmable waters (Table II-2). Two different
types of situations are described by the States
under the term "natural conditions". The first is
where conditions which occur without the
influence of human activity preclude either
recreation in and on the waters or the protection
and propogation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife.
Some of these conditions are low dissolved
oxygen levels in swamps, natural hot springs,
toxic metals dissolving from rocks into streams,
and naturally high levels of nutrients, turbidity
or salinity. Since the Act calls for water quality
which provides for fishing and swimming only
"wherever attainable", natural conditions which
prevent these uses do not in themselves preclude
achievement of the overall objective of the Act,
which is "to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's
waters."
The second type of situation referred to as a
natural condition is where seasonal low flows
provide insufficient dilution of wastewaters to
allow water quality standards to be met. Since
the pollutants are not naturally occurring in
these situations, the water quality problems are
not due to natural conditions.
Administrative problems of varying natures
have impeded progress toward meeting the 1983
goal. Twenty States mention that the Act
directly interferes with State pollution control
efforts and has actually interrupted progress
toward cleaner waters. A few States cite
problems resulting from what they perceive to
be poor organization of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The
NPDES program requires all waste dischargers to
have both a permit for such activities and a
schedule of improvements to be made in
effluent quality. EPA has initial responsibility
for the permit program. However, where States
are able and willing to conduct the permit
program, the responsibility has been delegated
to them. Though only three States refer directly
to problems in executing the NPDES program,
other States allude to difficulties in controlling
point source effluents. New York listed several
areas of difficulty in administering the program:
permit issuance problems, missed compliance
dates, inadequate data management, and "unen-
forceable imposed limits issued in haste to beat
the clock." Kentucky stresses its inability to
police effectively all point source dischargers.
(However, at the time their reports were
prepared, New York and Kentucky had not
TABLE II-2
NATURAL CAUSES CITED BY STATES
AS REASONS FOR NOT ATTAINING FISHABLE AND SWIMMABLE WATERS
State
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Indiana
Kansas
Maryland
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Oklahoma
South Dakota
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Wyoming
Natural Salinity/ Toxic Seasonal Estuary Low DO Natural Wildlife Natural
erosion/ mineralization metals low flow salinity/ swamp eutrophication bacteria hot
siltation pH conditions springs
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X
XX X
X
X
Total
14
-------
assumed responsibility for permit issuance.)
Several States refer to the long delays in
obtaining permits for effluent discharges and the
resulting delays in pollution control efforts.
Many States project that monetary problems
will be a severe handicap in attaining the 1983
goal. By law, EPA provides 75 percent of the
monies required for approved projects for
construction or updating of publicly owned
treatment works. The State and/or locality must
provide the other 25 percent. States reported
fiscal problems on both the Federal and
State/local levels with at least six States
reporting that the 1983 goal will be attained
only if funds for needed planning programs and
construction activities are available. Washington
and Rhode Island state that achievement of the
goal would depend on the availability of
municipal construction funds and State grant
money. Rhode Island reports having difficulty in
raising the local portion of the monies, as the
citizens have voted down proposed expenditures
for construction or renovation of sewage
treatment plants.
Utah cites Federal interference with State
programs and legislation, charging that the
inefficiency of the grant program has halted
construction of many sewage treatment plants
for months, thus aggravating pollution problems.
Oregon argues that the Federal funds are
"conditioned to so many restrictive conditions
and regulations that it is very difficult for the
State to get the intended job done."
Control Programs
The Act provides for programs to deal with
the control and elimination of both point and
nonpoint pollution problems. Point sources of
pollution are currently being regulated through
NPDES, as called for by the Act. Many States
also recently adopted statutes requiring testing
and certification of wastewater treatment plant
operators in order to assure that their facilities
operate efficiently.
Under Phase II (1977-1983) of the program,
greater emphasis will be placed on control of
nonpoint sources of pollution. The majority of
the States anticipate that nonpoint source
pollution will be identified and managed as a
consequence of the development of areawide
and Statewide waste treatment plans under
Section 208 of the Act. Additional quantifica-
tion of nonpoint source pollution wilj come
with implementation of Sections 303(e) and
15
208(b), which provide for preparation of State
Water Quality Management Plans.
Several States have adopted pollution control
programs and laws in addition to those provided
in the Act. These programs are largely geared
toward identification and control of nonpoint
sources of pollution. Indiana, for example,
undertakes prompt investigation of all pollution
complaints, including alleged nonpoint source
problems. A follow-up of each confirmed
pollution problem results in the enforcement of
necessary control measures. Connecticut has
implemented a wide variety of nonpoint source
control programs dealing with wetlands, special
wastes handling, farm wastes (including pesti-
cides), and watercraft pollution. Maryland's
1970 Abandoned Mine Drainage Act provides
funding for reclamation of surface mined and
orphaned lands. A unique Erosion and Sediment
Control Law in Virginia is aimed at controlling
erosion on construction sites.
In instances where a river flows through more
than one State, the affected States have found it
beneficial to conduct joint programs, several of
which have been in effect for a number of
years. The Delaware River Basin Commission is
the result of one such multistate effort. It is
charged with monitoring the numerous Delaware
River segments and providing detailed assess-
ment data to the concerned States. Similar
commissions are in operation on the Potomac
and Ohio Rivers. The States containing or
bordering the Colorado River have formed the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum,
for the purpose of maintaining the river's
salinity concentration at or below the 1972
level.
Issues Raised in State Reports
Several issues have been raised by the States
regarding attainment of the 1983 water quality
goal. Some of these issues, such as Federal
funding levels and appropriateness of the 1983
goals for all waters, have already been
introduced. Other issues include lack of
definition of the 1983 goal and uniform effluent
standards for all dischargers, regardless of
receiving water quality.
Funding
Eight States reported that meeting the 1983
goal of the Act is contingent upon future
-------
Federal funding. Both funding levels and
availability of funds were cited as possible
reasons for not meeting the goal.
EPA has solved major administrative problems
in obligating construction grant funds. This is
evidenced by the fact that the Agency obligated
$3.6 billion in construction grants during fiscal
year 1975.
Lack of Definition of 1983 Goal
Eleven States report that EPA has to date
given no formal guidance on the definition of
water quality which provides for protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and
recreation in and on the water where attainable.
As a result both misunderstandings and misinter-
pretation of the 1983 goal have occurred.
Water quality criteria, revised under Section
304(a) of the Act, are in the final stages of
review. These criteria will help the States assess
the 1983 goals by defining water quality condi-
tions that will allow for different uses. In
addition, EPA has published regulations to
provide guidance in revising water quality stand-
ards.
Effluent Limitations and Water Quality
Eight States assert that effluent limitations
required by the Act may be more stringent than
necessary to protect water quality; specifically,
secondary treatment for municipal facilities or
best practicable control technology for indus-
tries may not be necessary in all cases to meet
the 1983 goal.
Congress, after thorough deliberation, re-
quired through the Act that EPA set national
technology-based effluent guidelines independ-
ent of receiving water quality for municipal
treatment facilities and industrial dischargers.
Desirability of the 1983 Goal
Seven States report that they desire parts of
their waters to be used primarily for irrigation
and as receiving water for industrial waste
streams. Where these uses are incompatible with
protection and propagation of aquatic life and
recreation in and on the water, the States
question the desirability of meeting the 1983
goal.
EPA believes that Congress, EPA, and other
interested parties should jointly review the
desirability of the 1983 goal for all waters using
information from the State reports, from the
National Commission on Water Quality report,
and from other sources.
16
-------
Chapter III
Costs and Benefits of Meeting Water Quality Goals
Assessing the costs and benefits of achieving
the 1983 water quality goals of the Act has been
a very complex and difficult task. For a
complete discussion of EPA's studies, the reader
is referred to the Cost of Clean Water reports to
Congress, and to the annual reports of the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The
State reports for the National Water Quality
Inventory provide at least some rough qualita-
tive assessments of the relationships between
costs and benefits for specific areas. In addition,
they present some indications of how the costs
and economic impact will be distributed across
the country.
Summary
Almost all States attempted to provide at
least some qualitative estimates of what the
costs arid benefits of meeting water quality goals
might be. The following general conclusions are
drawn from the State discussions:
• The greatest estimates of costs involved in
meeting water quality goals are for
construction of municipal treatment facili-
ties and controlling urban stormwater
problems. The total State reported esti-
mates from the 1974 "Needs Survey",
which was referenced by most States, was
$121 billion for all categories except
stormwater control. Stormwater control
estimates totalled $235 billion.
• Costs of industrial pollution abatement are
estimated to be considerably less than the
costs of municipal treatment, even exclud-
ing stormwater control, for the great
majority of States which provided a basis
for comparing the two.
• Costs of controlling what the States
identified as nonpoint sources are espe-
cially difficult to assess. For eastern States,
quantitative estimates for erosion control
are considerably lower than estimated
municipal costs, while quantitative esti-
mates from the Midwest farm belt States
showed erosion control costs to be of the
same order of magnitude as municipal
costs. Many western States comment that
nonpoint source control costs, even though
they could not yet be quantified, might be
considerably higher than municipal costs.
These States generally have comparatively
lower municipal facility needs than the
eastern States.
Pollution control benefits are generally said
to outweigh costs in most of the States
which attempted to compare them. Many
of the States which discuss the topic report
that, for certain stream segments, the
benefits would not be worth the costs of
meeting water quality goals. Several
western States comment that potential
benefits definitely did not justify the costs
of controlling runoff in agricultural areas.
Methodologies
Since most States considered capital invest-
ment costs only, all references to costs in this
chapter will be limited to investment costs, even
though the 1974 CEQ report indicates that over
a 10-year period total operating and mainte-
nance costs are almost as high as the investment
costs. Another qualification is that the cost
estimates supplied by the States for municipal
wastewater treatment are of those costs the
States project as being necessary to meet all
requirements of the Act. If current Federal
funding levels are maintained, only about one
third of those expenditures will have been made
by 1985.
Almost all States provide estimates of
municipal wastewater treatment costs very close
to those reported in the 1974 "Needs" Survey
report to Congress. The "Needs" Survey,
prepared by EPA, was conducted to determine
municipal costs by State for different categories
of wastewater collection and treatment.
Several approaches are utilized to estimate the
costs of controlling industrial pollution. They
include survey questionnaires, extrapolation of
unit costs for municipal treatment to industry,
and the use of cost estimates from development
documents which were prepared in support of
EPA's industrial effluent guidelines. A few
17
-------
States supply gross estimates without explaining
how they are derived. Despite the variety of
techniques, only about 25 percent of the States
are able to arrive at a total cost estimate for
industrial pollution control, although other
States do present examples of costs for certain
sample plants or for key industries.
The discussions of costs for controlling
nonpoint sources are generally not quantitative.
A few eastern and midwestern States presented
some specific costs for controlling erosion and
acid mine drainage. The estimates of erosion
control costs are attributed to the Soil
Conservation Service. The western States report
that they do not know what the costs will be,
but they do make qualitative comments
concerning the estimated order of magnitude.
Results of State Analyses
Municipal Costs
Thirty-nine States used their 1974 "Needs"
Survey submissions with some slight modifica-
tions as the basis of their cost estimates for
municipal wastewater treatment (Table 111-1).
Eleven States report no complete cost estimates.
Of the reports using the "Needs" Survey figures,
several States believe that the survey over-
estimates the costs of achieving the requirements
of the Act because of overly high projections of
tertiary treatment requirements. In addition,
there may have been a general tendency to
include as many costs as possible because the
survey was to be used as an allocation basis for
federal construction grants. On the other hand, a
few States believe that the survey estimates are
low because certain requirements were not
considered eligible under the provisions of the
"Needs" Survey.
Oregon and Montana provide estimates of the
costs of the municipal treatment facilities
required to meet the water quality goals of the
1972 Act as well as their "Needs" Survey
estimates. Their assumptions concerning levels
of treatment and overall facility requirements
are therefore different from those used in the
Survey. Montana estimates that $19.5 million
would be required for municipal facilities to
meet water quality goals. Its "Needs" Survey
estimate, excluding stormwater control, is $111
million, and its estimate for stormwater control,
also from the "Needs" Survey, if $625 million.
Oregon also reports cost estimates much less
than its "Needs Survey figures. Its estimate of
municipal treatment facility costs to meet water
quality goals is $204 million. Its "Needs"Survey
total, excluding stormwater control, is $1,144
million, and its estimate for stormwater control
is $838 million.
TABLE 111-1
MUNICIPAL TREATMENT COSTS
("Needs" Survey Categories I-V, Municipal Treatment and
Conveyance System Costs; Stormwater Control Excluded)
REGION I
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
REGION II
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
REGION III
Delaware
Maryland
Virginia
West Virginia
Pennsylvania
District of Columbia
REGION IV
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
REGION V
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
305(b)
Report
(milli
1,605
—
—
820
516
—
4,610
17,421
603
57
548
3,911
2,128
4,225
5,579
—
819
3,568
1,584
—
—
1,531
—
1,318
6,440
3,004
8,900
1,335
7,647
2,291
"Needs"
estimate
Survey
(1974)
State EPA
ions of dollars)
1,588
575
2,964
740
447
204
4,894
15,302
603
44
546
3,642
1,884
2,360
5,454
1,052
778
2,704
1,519
1,824
494
1,480
977
1.210
6,234
2,903
8,102
1,330
7,773
2,044
1,598
589
3,285
861
478
215
5,010
17,421
604
45
547
3,932
5,128
4,225
5,730
1,053
819
3,526
1,595
1,862
495
1,531
1,028
1,301
6,301
2,968
8,199
1,387
7,920
2,291
18
-------
TABLE 111-1 (Continued)
"Needs"
estimate
Survey
(1974)
305(b)
Report State EPA
(millions of dollars)
REGION VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Texas
Oklahoma
REGION VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
REGION VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
REGION IX
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
American Samoa
Guam
Trust Territories
of the Pacific Islands
REGION X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Total
1,344
-
151
2,982
2,000
990
2,086
-
924
—
20*
204
109
—
—
612
6,997
520
316
45
—
190
—
_
204*
2,371
898
1,283
155
3,222
1,484
911
1,783
2,298
924
523
127
189
75
291
84
500
6,208
523
209
52
93
195
405
393
1,081
1,836
107,438
1,503
1,536
156
3,752
3,664
965
2,348
2,399
977
716
128
195
78
294
133
597
7,156
520
316
55
117
197
412
471
1,144
2,371
121,171
•State estimate from "Needs" Survey also reported.
These comments and examples illustrate the
difficulties of estimating realistic costs for
municipal treatment facilities. The final State
estimates as reported by the "Needs" Survey for
all municipal requirements excluding stormwater
control totaled $121 billion. The discussion
above suggests that this figure is somewhat high.
The combined State estimates for urban
stormwater control is even higher, $235 billion.
However, despite some exceptions such as the
State of Washington, very few States believe that
their numbers for this category are reliable. The
State of Florida, commenting on its stormwater
control cost estimate of $4.23 billion, says that
"Due to the elementary state of the art of this
category, this estimate may be off a magnitude
of ten or a magnitude of one hundred."
Industrial Costs
Most of the States do not provide an estimate
of costs for reducing industrial pollutant
discharges to the levels called for in the Act by
1983. Of the 13 States that do estimate total
industrial costs (Table 111-2} about half base
their estimates on the "best practicable"
treatment levels required by 1977, while the
other half include estimates for "best available"
treatment required by 1983. In addition, many
excluded thermal discharges and small plants
from their analysis. For these reasons, the
figures may underestimate industrial expendi-
tures needed to meet the 1983 goals.
To provide a reasonable basis of comparison
for industrial costs among States, these costs are
presented as a percentage of the estimated
municipal treatment costs. In addition to the
quantitative estimates, two States comment on
the order of magnitude of industrial costs as
related to municipal costs. Alabama reports that
industrial costs "will greatly exceed the
projected municipal costs on the basis of volume
alone", while Colorado states that "the indus-
trial costs would be considerably less than the
municipal total". Of the 13 quantitative
industrial cost estimates, 10 are less than 25
percent of their State's projected municipal
costs, while two, Tennessee and Texas, are over
100 percent. There is no ready explanation for
this variability. These two high ratio States, plus
Alabama, used different estimating methods,
and their methods were also used by other
States reporting low industrial/municipal cost
ratios. None of the three States can be
considered highly industrialized.
The State estimates are generally lower than
the preliminary compilations for theCosf of Air
and Water Pollution Control (1976-1985) report
in which EPA estimates that industrial invest-
ment expenditures to meet the 1983 goals will
be approximately one-half of the State-reported
municipal needs, excluding stormwater control.
The probable reasons that this estimate is higher
than the State estimates of industrial costs are
exclusion of thermal controls and small plants
by some States and use of the 1977 standards
19
-------
TABLE 111-2
INDUSTRIAL CONTROL COSTS AS REPORTED BY STATES+
State
Total industrial
cost estimate
(millions of dollars)
Municipal costs,
excluding
stormwater control
(millions of dollars)
Industrial/municipal
+ These figures were not developed by EPA.
*Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (1977 level treatment).
**Best Available Control Technology Economically Achievable (1983 level treatment).
Delaware* *
Georgia*
Illinois*
Indiana*
Iowa*
Kansas**
Michigan*
New York**
North Carolina**
Ohio*
Tennessee**
Texas**
Virginia*
100
45
800
1,136
50
156
1,200
1,000
353
386
1,567
3,315
47
548
1,584
6,440
3,004
990
2,086
8,900
17,421
1,531
7,647
1,318
2,982
2,128
18
3
12
38
5
7
13
6
23
5
119
111
2
rather than the 1983 standards by about half the
States.
Nonpoint Source Control
Very few States estimated costs for control of
what they identified as nonpoint sources. Penn-
sylvania, Kansas, and Illinois estimated costs for
controlling mine drainage (Table III-3). These
estimates are $1 billion for Pennsylvania, $22
million for Kansas, and $346 million for Illinois
(31 percent, 1 percent, and 5 percent respec-
tively of estimated municipal costs).
Seven States (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Tennes-
see, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, and New York)
present Statewide estimates of erosion control
costs, generally from information provided by
the Soil Conservation Service (Table III-3). For
the four States to the north and east of the
Midwest farm belt these estimates ran from 1
percent of projected municipal needs excluding
stormwater control (New York) to 23 percent
(Tennessee). In contrast, Iowa, Kansas, and
Nebraska report erosion control costs to be of
the same order of magnitude as municipal costs.
In addition, many western States report that
agricultural nonpoint source control costs would
probably be much higher than municipal costs,
although they mention no specific figures.
Some other States provided costs for pilot
programs for control of local, generally small-
scale nonpoint sources, but no other efforts to
estimate costs statewide are attempted.
Benefits
No States attempt to quantify specifically the
benefits to be derived from improving water
quality, although several do present figures on
local expenditures for recreation, tourism, sport
and commercial fishing, and other water related
activities. However, the States are not able to
assess the incremental increases that would
occur in these activities if the 1983 goals were
met.
Other economic benefits from clean water
mentioned by the States are increased property
values, lower pretreatment costs for municipal
water supplies and for industry, human health
effects, greater agricultural value for animals and
for irrigation, and improved navigation. Almost
all States discussing potential benefits mention
the difficulty of quantifying them.
20
-------
TABLE 111-3
NONPOINT SOURCE4" CONTROL COSTS
State
Rural Erosion
Costs Percent*
(millions of dollars)
Costs
(millions of dollars)
Mine wastes
Percent*
Illinois *
Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Nebraska
New York
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Wisconsin
1,677
1,539
300
733
210
309
168
169
74
22
79
1
23
7
346
22
1,000
5
1
18
+As identified by the States.
*Nonpoint source/municipal (excluding stormwater control).
Comparison of Costs and Benefits
Most States realize that a comprehensive
review of the potential costs and benefits of
achieving the goals stated in the 1972 Act is
necessary, given the expected level of expendi-
tures. However, in addition to the difficulties in
quantifying costs and benefits, the States also
have problems applying a single set of criteria to
all waters.
The overall tendency is to categorize the costs
and benefits by different classes of waterbodies.
For example, Colorado believes that the benefits
of achieving fishable, swimmable waters would
outweigh the costs in the mountain resort areas,
but not in the agricultural areas where the
primary water use is irrigation. Other States
point out that some of their waters would never
be suitable for fishing or swimming because of
natural flow conditions or other natural prob-
lems. For these waters a high level of pollution
control expenditures could not be justified.
Therefore, while States voice general agree-
ment with the goals of the 1972 Act, most think
that cost/benefit analyses of achieving those
goals should be applied separately to different
types of waterbodies.
21
-------
Chapter IV
Nonpoint and Diffuse Sources
Concern has increased during the past few
years over the role of nonpoint source pollution
as one of the primary causes of water quality
problems. However, the quantification of this
problem is not easy, and only a few reports
attempted it. Most States only provided general,
qualitative descriptions of the problems with
little or no discussions of control measures.
Again, the term "nonpoint source" is descriptive
and does not imply legal categorization.
Summary
Almost all of the States in their 305(b)
submissions indicate that a greater emphasis is
needed to determine more accurately the
amounts, causes, effects, and control of non-
point sources. As an example of the importance
of these problems, Iowa estimates that for most
of its river basins, nonpoint sources contribute
over 90 percent of the annual phosphorus and
nitrogen loads (Tables IV-1, IV-2). Several
States, including Vermont, New Hampshire, and
Texas have developed or are developing overall
nonpoint source strategies, but most feel that
more research is required before effective pro-
grams can be implemented.
The different human-related nonpoint sources
of pollution are of varying degrees of concern
depending on which areas of the country are
being studied.
TABLE IV-1
ANNUAL PHOSPHORUS LOAD FOR SELECTED IOWA RIVER BASINS
River
Floyd
Little Sioux
Chariton
Des Moines
Iowa
Cedar
Total
(Ibs/year)
720,207
1,851,632
879,916
5,621,007
1,723,975*
5,099,507
Point sources
(Ibs/year)
29,807
129,088
48,203
586,015
103,445*
1,526,775
Nonpoint sources
(Ibs/year)
690,400
1,722,544
831,713
5,034,992
1,620,530*
3,572,732
Percent of total
from nonpoint sources
95.9
93.0
94.5
89.6
94.0
70.1
*0rthophosphorus.
TABLE IV-2
ANNUAL NITROGEN LOAD FOR SELECTED IOWA RIVER BASINS
River
Floyd
Little Sioux
Chariton
Des Moines
Iowa
Cedar
Total
(Ibs/year)
1,705,984
9,609,556
1,585,427
41,334,897
2,075,830
6,804,881
Point sources
(Ibs/year)
65,171
85,308
24,795
695,235
91,287
1,552,334
Nonpoint sources
(Ibs/year)
1,640,813
9,522,248
1,560,632
40,639,662
1,984,543
5,252,547
Percent of total
from nonpoint sources
96.2
99.1
98.4
98.3
95.6
77.2
23
-------
• Agricultural activities affect streams across
the nation but are of primary concern in
the southern, central, and western States.
• Erosion from silvicultural activities is a
problem in several southern and western
States.
• Acid mine drainage and other problems
associated with mining activities, such as
erosion and contamination from metals
were noted by States in the Appalachian
and Rocky mountain areas. Several south-
ern and southwestern States described
problems associated with oil drilling.
• Urban runoff was referred to as both a
point source and a nonpoint source.
Because of its diffuse nature, it is discussed
in this chapter. While 39 States described
this problem, the most severe impacts from
urban runoff are in the Northeast and the
Great Lakes area.
Agricultural Nonpoint Sources
Agricultural nonpoint sources of pollution as
identified by the States include: Cultivated crop
fields, forage crop fields, orchards, vineyards,
range land, pasture land, confined animal feed-
lots, and aquaculture project areas producing
algae, shellfish, and finfish.
Activities associated with crop and livestock
production resulting in nonpoint source pollu-
tion were reported by 43 States (Table IV-3).
When forests or grass lands are cultivated,
erosion is increased. Crop fertilization provides
nutrients, principally phosphates and nitrates,
which are transported into lakes and streams,
thereby accelerating eutrophication. Extensive
irrigation in western areas leaches salts out of
the soil, and as a result, the irrigation return
flows have contributed to very high stream
salinities. Pesticides are also transported into the
surface waters. The runoff from range lands in
the central and southwestern States, from pas-
ture lands, and from feedlots (for beef, dairy,
pork, and poultry) carries loads of suspended
solids, nutrients, coliform bacteria, oxygen-
demanding materials, and salts.
Control programs vary from State to State,
although conservation programs to control ero-
sion have been carried on in all States for a
number of years, assisted by the Department of
Agriculture. Vermont has sponsored nonpoint
source pollution control workshops. In Virginia,
the Soil Conservation Service has been alerting
farmers to runoff problems and listing alter-
native controls—for example, controlling live-
stock access to streams in coastal shellfish areas.
Indiana and a number of other States have
passed confined feeding control laws. The Inter-
state Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Forum is investigating irrigation problems in the
Colorado basin. In addition, many State agencies
and universities are engaged in nonpoint source
assessment studies.
Silvicultural Nonpoint Sources
Silvicultural activities associated with harvest-
ing, log transport, and forest regeneration result
in nonpoint source pollution, particularly in
southern and western States (Table IV-3). Re-
moving the forest canopy along stream banks
and lakes causes water temperatures to rise.
Timber harvesting increases surface runoff,
which then transports suspended solids, BOD,
and dissolved solids to surface waters. Log
transporting activities also increase runoff and
suspended solids. Fertilizing and pest control
processes can load surface waters with nutrients
and toxicants.
Several States are working on ways to deal
with these problems. In New Hampshire, for
example, regulations covering logging opera-
tions, if properly enforced, can largely control
nonpoint source problems associated with silvi-
cultural activities. Vermont has held nonpoint
source workshops dealing with forest practices.
In Virginia, financial assistance for stabilization
of logging roads is available to forest landowners
through Federal programs administered by the
Soil Conservation Service, and technical assist-
ance is provided in the field by the Virginia
Division of Forestry. A number of other states,
such as Oregon and Washington, have passed
comprehensive forest practice acts.
Mining Nonpoint Sources
Mining nonpoint sources include: Active and
abandoned subsurface mines, spoil and tailing
deposits, washing process areas, primary acid
treatment process areas, surface mines, quarries,
overburden deposits, oil shale process areas,
active and abandoned wells, holding ponds, and
secondary and tertiary extraction process areas.
24
-------
FIGURE IV-3
NONPOINT SOURCE PROBLEMS DISCUSSED INSTATE 305(b) REPORTS
Npnpoint source problems
Alabama
Alaska*
American Samoa
Arizonat
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Territory of Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts*
Michigant
Minnesota
Mississippi*
Missouri*
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakotat
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon t
Pennsylvania
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Trust Territories
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Agricultural
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Silvicultural
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
'c
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Construction
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Hydrologic
modification
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
A
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Residual
waste
disposal
X
x
x
X
x
J\
x
X
X
Salt water
intrusion
X
X
X
X
Proposed
energy
development
X
X
X
Total
44
21
27
25
40
*State report was not received in time for inclusion.
tNot discussed by category
25
-------
Subsurface mining activities in eastern and
western mountain States (Table IV-3) cause
runoff to be loaded with suspended solids, acids,
salts, and metals. Aquifer water pressures and
groundwater flows are disturbed. Pathways may
be created between saline and fresh water
aquifers, resulting in salt water intrusions.
Groundwater may also be loaded with acids and
metals.
Surface mining activities increase runoff,
reduce aquifer recharge, and load runoff and
leachates with acids, salts, and metals.
Runoff from oil wells in several southern and
southwestern States are loaded with drilling
chemicals, suspended solids, and petroleum
products. Leachates from unlined holding ponds
carry drilling chemicals and salts into ground-
waters. Wells may create pathways between
saline and fresh water aquifers, resulting in salt
water intrusion.
Some States have enacted legislation to regu-
late mining activities which cause pollution. One
example is Virginia; its Coal Surface Mining Law
provides funds for reclamation of coal surface
mines and for sediment control. The State of
Maryland's Abandoned Mine Drainage Act
(1970) allots $5 million to study and improve
facilities for dealing with similar problems. The
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency has
been involved in developing a comprehensive
strategy to prevent further water quality degra-
dation from active mines, and has also carried
out a statewide assessment of abandoned mines.
Construction Nonpoint Sources
Construction nonpoint sources described by
25 States include: devegetated slopes, areas with
petroleum and other chemical spills, building
materials and chemical storage deposits, and
fresh concrete and asphalt surfaces.
Runoff is often increased and aquifer recharge
is reduced as a result of construction activities.
Construction-site runoff may carry loads of
suspended solids, nutrients, BOD, pesticides,
herbicides, petrochemicals, and construction
material wastes. Figures for Rhode Island indi-
cate the magnitude of erosion and sedimentation
problems from construction sites (Table IV-4).
Although they do not cover very large areas,
construction Sites contribute a substantial por-
tion of total sediment yields.
Some States have enacted sediment control
laws. Michigan passed a Soil Erosion and Sedi-
ment Act in 1973, and Virginia enacted its
Erosion and Sediment Control Law in 1974.
Hydrologic Modification Nonpoint Sources
Although dam construction, dredging and
other channel activities result in nonpoint source
pollution, only nine States mention these prob-
lems (Table IV-3). Minnesota has problems
associated with dredge spoil material in the
upper Mississippi and in the Duluth-Superior
TABLE IV-4
SEDIMENT YIELDS FROM VARIOUS LAND USES IN RHODE ISLAND*
Land use
Acres
Annual sediment yields
(tons)
Construction sites
Pasture
Woodland
Cropland
treated now
needing treatment
Urban land
Road banks
Streambanks
Open land formerly cropped
Orchard, bush fruit,
horticulture
6,393
18,294
387,605
17,151
24,375
114,688
2,447
10
22,952
852
228,363
9,943
129,209
34,301
273,000
164,792
36,009
3,995
21,555
1,088
'Data developed by The Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
26
-------
Harbor. Indiana has similar problems in the
Indiana Harbor Ship Canal, and Texas lists the
Sulfur, Trinity, Nueces, and Rio Grande River
basins as areas with problems related to dredg-
ing.
Urban Nonpoint Sources
Urban nonpoint sources described by 3,9
States are the extensive impervious (paved and
roofed) surfaces. These areas increase runoff and
reduce aquifer recharge.
A study of urban runoff constituents in
Wisconsin, which provided much greater detail
than did most States, identified the following:
oil, street litter, salt and other ice control
chemicals, animal droppings, insecticides, dust,
industrial wastes, BOD, suspended solids, phos-
phates, nitrates, and heavy metals. The runoff
from the 669,300 urban acres in Wisconsin load
receiving waters with 1,338,600 to 5,354,400
pounds per day of BOD and 4,685,100 to
16,063,200 pounds per day of suspended solids.
Wisconsin also reports that urban runoff from a
typical moderate sized city will load receiving
waters with 100.000 to 250,000 pounds per year
of lead and 6,000 to 30,000 pounds per year of
mercury.
27
-------
Chapter V
National Water Quality Surveillance System
The National Water Quality Surveillance Sys-
tem (NWQSS), a nationwide network of stream
monitoring stations, began1 operating in 1974.
NWQSS was established under Section 104(a)
(5) of the 1972 Act for the purpose of "moni-
toring the quality of the navigable waters and
ground waters and the contiguous zone and the
oceans ..." Initial efforts are concentrated at
188 stations in 104 areas representative of land
uses within the continental United States. For
this report, data were analyzed for 108 stations
in 56 areas. The station locations and the
complete data for each downstream station are
presented in Appendix A.
Summary
A comparison of the NWQSS data with EPA's
proposed water quality criteria levels shows that
most parameters fall within these criteria levels
most of the time. (At the time this report was
prepared, the proposed criteria levels had not
been formally published. Therefore, the final
criteria may differ from those used for this
analysis.) However, some parameters, in par-
ticular iron, manganese, and fecal coliform
bacteria, consistently exceed their criteria. (It
should be noted that the total heavy metal
measurements which were used include some
metal which occurs in suspended form and is not
as damaging to aquatic life or human health as is
dissolved metal. The main reasons the criteria
were developed for total metal rather than
dissolved metal concentrations is that some of
the suspended material may dissolve under
certain conditions.) The percentage of observa-
tions where criteria were exceeded (criteria
exceptions) was 53 percent for iron, 84 percent
for manganese, and 67 percent for fecal coliform
bacteria. Mercury levels were also measured at
most stations, and, although the laboratory
techniques used are not accurate enough to
measure mercury at the criteria levels, there
were strong indications of significant mercury
concentrations. The data also show that:
• Higher levels of both municipal/industrial
activity and agricultural activity are corre-
lated with increased levels of nutrients and
fecal coliform bacteria. These pollutant
levels are more strongly related to
municipal/industrial activity than to agri-
cultural activity.
Oxygen-demanding loads, dissolved oxygen,
and turbidity were not as strongly corre-
lated with land use activity.
Description of System
The basic monitoring procedure was to estab-
lish pairs of stations upstream and downstream
from particular drainage areas of interest. The
drainage areas were selected to represent a cross
section of different levels of land use. The
station locations were selected jointly by the
States, EPA Regional Offices, and EPA Head-
quarters. Most of the monitoring is being done
through a contract with the U.S. Geological
Survey.
The primary analytical emphasis for this year
is to investigate possible relationships between
land use characteristics and water quality mea-
surements. The purpose of this analysis is to
provide a basis for assessing the effects of water
pollution control programs in different types of
areas.
The first year in operation has provided a data
base consisting of over 30 water quality param-
eters measured every two weeks in 56 areas
representative of the major land use character-
istics across the country (Figure V-1). This data
base will be the starting point against which
future measurements can be compared in order
to determine national trends in water quality.
The land use characteristics of these areas have
been quantitatively defined with respect to
population density, manufacturing activity, and
agricultural activity.
Limitations of Data
Before presenting the results, it is necessary to
point out the limitations of the data base being
used. The small number of areas being con-
29
-------
FIGURE V-1
NATIONAL WATER QUALITY SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM
STATION LOCATIONS.
-------
sidered increases the possibility that the system
may be biased toward certain characteristics
which could affect water quality. The effects of
stream size and geographical location were
investigated, and it was found that taking these
effects into consideration had no significant
impact on the results.
Because of greater interest in more populated
areas, the NWQSS sample has a majority of
stations in areas of higher land use activity than
the national average. Therefore, the results
probably overstate the absolute levels of pollu-
tants found across the country. The results are
also biased towards areas located on larger
streams, since 66 percent of the streams in the
NWQSS sample have flows greater than 1,000
cubic feet per second (cfs), while only 10
percent of the stream miles in the United States
have flows greater than 1,000 cfs. This bias may
also affect the validity of using absolute levels to
describe national water quality conditions. How-
ever, the data do provide clear indications of
which parameters are presenting significant
problems and how land use activities affect
pollutant levels.
Magnitude of Problems
for Different Parameters
For the 16 NWQSS parameters for which
water quality criteria are being set by EPA, eight
apparently have widespread problems, both
from the percentage of criteria exceptions and
from the number of stations with at least one
criteria exception. Four of them (total lead,
total zinc, ammonia, and nitrites plus nitrates)
have criteria exception rates of between 10
percent and 50 percent, while another three
(total iron, total manganese, and fecal coliform
bacteria) have criteria exception rates of over 50
percent (Table V-1).
The percentage of criteria exceptions for
mercury was difficult to determine because the
laboratory techniques used to measure mercury
concentrations are only accurate to 0.1 or 0.2
micrograms per liter (ug/l), whereas the criteria
level is 0.05 ug/l. Approximately one-half the
readings indicate that some mercury is present,
but that the concentration is below the 0.1 or
0.2 ug/l measurement accuracy limit. Therefore,
for these readings it is not known if the criteria
level was exceeded. Of the remaining readings,
22 percent were reported to be zero and 78
percent were reported to be above the criteria
level.
Five parameters (total arsenic, total cadmium,
total chromium, dissolved oxygen, suspended
solids) showed relatively few problems (Table
V-1). That is, they exceed their criteria 5
percent of the time or less. (The reason most
States found dissolved oxygen levels to be a
significant problem (Chapter 1) is that their
standards are generally higher than the 4 milli-
grams per liter (mg/l) criteria used for this
analysis.) The other three criteria parameters
(pH, chlorides, sulfates) have exception rates
higher than 5 percent, but most of the excep-
tions are in only one or two specific areas (Table
V-1). Thus, these parameters also do not indi-
cate widespread problems.
Variations in Water Quality
with Land Use
The percentage of criteria exceptions for
un-ionized ammonia, nitrites plus nitrates, and
fecal coliform bacteria is consistently higher in
areas affected by high municipal/industrial
activity than in areas of low municipal/industrial
activity (Table V-2). The criteria exception rates
in percent are as follows:
Municipal/Industrial Activity
High Low
Ammonia 15 8
Nitrites + nitrates 30 17
Fecal coliform
bacteria 79 52
The differences are all statistically significant at
the .05 level, meaning that the probability of
these differences occurring due to chance is less
than 5 percent.
On the other hand, only nitrites plus nitrates
and fecal coliform bacteria show significantly
higher percentages of exceptions below high
agriculture areas than below .low agriculture
areas (Table V-2). The relationship between
agricultural activity and criteria exceptions for
nitrites plus nitrates is more pronounced (35
percent for high vs. 11 percent for low agricul-
tural activity) than is the relationship between
municipal/industrial activity and nitrites plus
nitrates. However, fecal coliform bacteria ex-
ceptions appear to be less dependent on agricul-
tural activity (72 percent for high vs. 61 percent
31
-------
TABLE V-1
SUMMARY OF CRITERIA EXCEPTIONS OF SELECTED NWQSS PARAMETERS
Parameter
Basis Criteria Number of
for level observations/percentage
criteria of exceptions
Number of
stations/percentage
with at least one exception
Physical modification
Suspended solids
Harmful substances (metals)
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Zinc
Salinity, acidity,
alkalinity
PH
Chlorides
Sulfates
Eutrophication potential
Ammonia
Nitrites and nitrates
Health hazards
Fecal coliform
bacteria
Oxygen depletion
Dissolved oxygen
AL* 400 mg/1+
WS*
AL
AL
AL
WS
WS
AL
AL
WS
WS
AL
AL
50 ug/1
4 ug/1*
300 ug/1
1000 ug/1
50 ug/1
50 ug/1
70 ug/1
6.5-9.0
250 mg/1
250 mg/1
0.025 mg/1
1.1 mg/1
100/200 ml
AL 4 mg/1
791/5
397/1
454/1
463/1
744/53
471/16
424/84
577/44
1,168/8**
680/6++
645/18**
844/11
897/24
907/67
1,120/4
44/39
33/3
36/11
39/3
50/86
35/51
37/92
46/87
56/30
53/9
53/15
52/40
52/48
47/89
52/21
* Aquatic life support—1975 proposed EPA criteria.
tWater supply-1975 proposed EPA criteria.
WRecreation—1975 proposed EPA criteria.
+Supports poor fisheries.
$30 ug/1 in hard water areas.
**4% for all stations outside North Carolina.
tt3% for all stations except Salt Creek, Nebraska.
:H:5% for all stations except Colorado River at Mexican border.
(Over 50 observations, all exceeding criteria, were made at
this station.)
TABLE V-2
CRITERIA VIOLATIONS WITH LAND USE
(Percentage of Observations Exceeding Criteria)
Un-ionized
ammonia
Nitrites
plus
nitrates
Fecal coliform
bacteria
High population density (>200/sq. mi.)
Low population density (<200/sq. mi.)
High manufacturing activity (>$150,000/sq. mi.)
Low manufacturing activity «$150,000/sq. mi.)
High agricultural activity (>$15,OOQ/sq. mi.)
Low agricultural activity «$15,000/sq. mi.)
Total
14
8
15
8
13
9
11
30
17
30
17
35
11
24
78
57
79
52
72
61
67
32
-------
for low agricultural activity) than on municipal/
industrial activity.
The results for ammonia, nitrites plus
nitrates, and fecal coliform bacteria are sup-
ported by observing downstream median con-
centrations as a function of land use (Table
V-3). In addition, total phosphorus, chemical
oxygen demand, and total organic carbon levels
were also found to be related to both
municipal/industrial and agricultural activity.
Similar conclusions are reached using a statis-
tical rank order correlation procedure. The
stations are ranked according to both their land
use values and their water quality parameter
measurements, and those rankings are compared.
Significant correlations (at the .05 level) are
found for fecal coliform bacteria, total phos-
phorus, nitrites plus nitrates, total Kjeldahl
nitrogen, ammonia, and COD with both popula-
tion density and manufacturing activity. Fecal
coliform bacteria and total phosphorus are also
correlated with agricultural activity.
Finally, the 32 areas for which both upstream
and downstream data are available were ana-
lyzed by taking the difference in the upstream
and downstream median values of selected
parameters for each area. The median of those
differences was notably higher in areas of high
TABLE V-3
MEDIANS OF DOWNSTREAM MEDIAN VALUES
Parameter
High
manufacturing
activity
; >$150.000/sq.mi.)
Low High
manufacturing agricultural
activity activity
I <$150,000/sq.mi.) (>$15,000/sq.mi.)
Low
agricultural
activity
«$15,000/sq.mi.)
Turbidity (JTU)
Iron (^g/1)
Conductivity (fiMHOs)
Ammonia (mg/1 )
TKN (mg/1)
N02 + N03 (mg/1)
Total phosphorus (mg/1 )
Dissolved oxygen (mg/1)
COD (mg/1)
TOG (mg/1)
Fecal coliform bacteria
(per 100ml)
15
2.400
260
.22
.90
.67
.31
9.0
24
10
1,200
15
620
410
.12
.64
.16
.17
9.3
15
5.8
450
15
1,600
260
.15
.83
.55
.26
8.9
24
10
700
15
800
340
.16
.70
.29
.14
9.3
15
6.1
500
TABLE V-4
MEDIANS OF DOWNSTREAM MINUS UPSTREAM MEDIAN VALUES
Parameter
High
manufacturing
activity
(>$150,000/sq.mi.)
Low
manufacturing
activity
«$150,000/sq.mi.)
Urban
Rural
Turbidity (JTU)
Conductivity (jzMHOs)
Ammonia (mg/1)
TKN (mg/1)
N02 +N03 (mg/1)
Total phosphorus (mg/1)
Dissolved oxygen (mg/1 )
COD (mg/1)
TOG (mg/1)
Fecal coliform bacteria (per 100 ml)
1
30
0.18
0.33
-0.01
0.15
-0.2
1
0
370
5
31
0.04
0.13
0.03
0.07
0.1
2
0.9
236
1
30
0.17
0.28
0.03
0.10
-0.5
2
.0.3
370
7
0
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.3
0
0.5
4
33
-------
municipal/industrial activity for fecal coliform
bacteria, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, ammonia, and
total phosphorus; while areas of low
municipal/industrial activity showed greater in-
creases in turbidity, probably because of greater
erosion from the unpaved land areas (Table
V-4). The same results are found when these
areas are characterized as urban or rural depend-
ing on whether or not a town is located in the
area (Table V-4). This categorization also shows
that dissolved oxygen levels decrease more
through urban areas than through rural areas.
The results from the different methods of
analyzing water quality variations with land use
indicate some definite conclusions. The nutrient
parameters (phosphorus and nitrogen) increase
with both municipal/industrial activity and agri-
cultural activity, although the increases with
municipal/industrial activity are more consistent
across all of the parameters and analysis
methods. Bacteria levels also show a strong
relationship to municipal/industrial activity and
a less strong one to agricultural activity.
34
-------
Chapter VI
National Eutrophication Survey
Early in 1972 EPA initiated the National
Eutrophication Survey (NES) to identify and
study lakes and reservoirs impacted by nutrients
from municipal sewage discharges. After the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1972 were passed, the survey was
broadened to include lakes impacted primarily
by nonpoint sources, and to assist in developing
water quality criteria. Overall, however, the
sample of lakes is biased toward those impacted
by municipal wastes. Therefore, the conclusions
concerning limiting nutrients and lake restora-
tion potential are not necessarily representative
of conditions in all of the Nation's lakes and
reservoirs.
Summary
The survey found that, for the lakes studied,
phosphorus is the element which usually needs
to be controlled to slow the rate of eutrophica-
tion. Phosphorus is the nutrient directly limiting
algal production in 67 percent of those lakes.
Although nitrogen is the limiting nutrient in 30
percent of the surveyed lakes, this condition
frequently is the result of excessive phosphorus
inputs from municipal sewage treatment plants.
Of the 298 lakes surveyed in 22 States east of
the Mississippi River, 218 or 73 percent have
average total phosphorus concentrations greater
than 0.025 milligrams per liter (mg/l) and would
therefore, according to an EPA study, be ex-
pected to exhibit symptoms of eutrophy (Table
VI-1). Of those 218 lakes, 186 or 85 percent
were impacted by municipal sewage treatment
plants.
Similar relationships were found between
total phosphorus loadings and lake trophic
conditions. Of the lakes impacted by municipal
effluents, 82 percent are being loaded with
phosphorus at rates potentially high enough to
cause eutrophication problems. For those lakes
not receiving identifiable point source contribu-
tions, only 30 percent are loaded at a eutrophic
rate.
Eutrophication problems in many of the
surveyed lakes could be remedied or reduced by
control of phosphorus input from municipal
wastes and other point sources. For example, 17
percent of the lakes currently receiving munici-
pal effluents and being loaded at a eutrophic
rate would have their loading rates reduced to
mesotrophic (moderate algal growth potential)
or oligotrophic (negligible algal growth poten-
tial) following an 80-percent removal of phos-
phorus from identifiable point source discharges.
This is in addition to the reduction in number
and intensity of nuisance algal blooms which
would be expected at other lakes being loaded at
eutrophic rates.
Land use is one of several drainage area
characteristics influencing nutrient levels in sur-
face waters. Geological and climatic characteris-
tics are also important. Strictly in terms of land
use, however, streams draining agricultural areas
have a mean total phosphorus concentration
nearly 10 times greater, and a mean total
phosphorous export nearly four times greater,
than streams draining forested areas. Total nitro-
gen concentrations in agricultural areas are
approximately five times higher than in forested
areas, while nitrogen export is more than twice
as high. Therefore,- lakes and reservoirs located
in predominantly agricultural areas might be
expected to become eutrophic without the
benefit of any control of nutrient runoff.
Investigation of the significance of drainage area
characteristics other than land use is continuing
as part of the survey efforts.
Limitations of Survey Data
The lakes and reservoirs included in the NES
are biased towards those waters impacted by
municipal sewage effluents. For that reason, the
results should not be interpreted as representa-
tive of conditions .in all United States lakes and
reservoirs. Usually only municipal sewage treat-
ment plants within 25 miles of each water body
are specifically identified as contributing to the
total nutrient loads of that water body. The
nutrient inputs of municipal plants outside that
25-mile limit are included in the total nutrient
load to the lake but are not identified by origin.
35
-------
TABLE VI-1
SELECTED NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY LAKES
WITH
MEDIAN PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS GREATER THAN 0.025 mg/l
State
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Total
No. of lakes
with P loading
estimated
8
6
15
22
21
9
4
5
32
33
5
4
24
16
18
16
2
12
6
8
4
28
298
No. of lakes
exceeding
0.025 mg/1
8
6
7
21
13
2
1
5
25
33
5
2
12
9
18
6
2
8
0
6
1
28
218
No. of lakes
exceeding 0.025 mg/1
and impacted by sewage
treatment plants
7
4
7
17
7
2
1
5
23
30
5
2
10
7
16
5
1
6
0
6
1
24
186
Therefore, the percentage of the total nutrient
load attributed to municipal sewage treatment
plants is underestimated for those lakes receiving
significant input from beyond the 25-mile limit.
Conversely, the nonpoint source nutrient load is
overestimated.
Nutrient inputs from industrial sources gener-
ally are included in total loadings to each lake,
but not identified by origin. Consequently,
where industrial sources do supply significant
nutrient loads, nonpoint source contributions
are overestimated.
Limiting Nutrient
The limiting nutrient concept, as applied in
the algal assay procedure, is based on Liebig's
Law of the Minimum which states that:
"Growth is limited by the substance that is
present in minimal quantity in respect to the
needs of the organisms." In surface waters
unimpacted by human activities, phosphorus is
normally the nutrient which limits algal produc-
tion.
However, even when nitrogen is the limiting
nutrient, reducing the eutrophication problem
still usually depends on controlling phosphorus
inputs. This is because the nitrogen limitation is
often the result of excessive phosphorus inputs
from point sources, primarily municipal sewage
treatment plants, but occasionally industrial
dischargers as well. The overall effects are both a
change in the limiting nutrient and an increase in
the algal population. Effluents from municipal
sewage treatment plants without phosphorus
removal are particularly detrimental because
36
-------
they contain, on the average, nitrogen and
phosphorus in a ratio of about 2.5 parts nitrogen
(N) to 1 part phosphorus (P) by weight, whereas
algae usually require nitrogen and phosphorus in
the ratio of 14N to 1P. Surface waters unim-
pacted by point sources normally have a ratio in
excess of 15N to 1P, even in areas where
agricultural land use predominates. Therefore,
municipal sewage effluents, as well as industries
with phosphorus discharges, might change the
natural limiting-nutrient condition, as well as
increase the overall level of algal productivity.
On the other hand, nutrient inputs from agricul-
tural lands, as an example, could be expected to
increase the level of algal production without
necessarily shifting the limiting nutrient from
phosphorus to nitrogen.
The algal assay, as used to determine the
limiting nutrient in each sampled lake, reflects
conditions existing in each lake, including the
effects of both point and nonpoint waste
sources. The algal assay results which have been
done for the 623 water bodies surveyed in the
37 States east of the Rocky Mountains demon-
strate that, even with human impact, most lakes
and reservoirs are still phosphorus limited (Table
VI-2).
If municipal and industrial point source con-
tributions to the nitrogen-limited water bodies
were eliminated, many of these lakes would
revert to the phosphorus limited condition.
Lake Condition and
Restorative Potential
The field sampling of 812 lakes and reservoirs
in the United States is now more than 80
percent completed (Figure VI-1). These lakes
were not all sampled in the same year; therefore,
the data are in various stages of analysis, and the
information presented here represents only a
portion of what will be available by the end of
the Survey in late 1976.
Two criteria are used to determine whether a
lake or reservoir is subject to the problems
associated with nutrient enrichment. A lake or
reservoir is expected to have a potential problem
if:
• The median total phosphorus concentra-
tion in the water body exceeds 0.025 mg/l,
or
TABLE VI-2
ALGAL ASSAY RESULTS
FROM
SELECTED NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION
SURVEY LAKES
Limiting nutrient Number of lakes % of lakes
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Other
Total
417
186
20
623
67
30
3
100%
• The total annual phosphorus load input to
the water body exceeds the loading rates
proposed by Vollenweider, whose model
was used to relate phosphorus loadings to
trophic conditions.
Because both criteria have limitations and
exceptions, they are intended only as guidelines
to determine which lakes might have or develop
eutrophication problems.
Of the 298 lakes for which phosphorus
concentrations have been determined, 218 (73
percent) exceed the total phosphorus criterion
of 0.025 mg/l (Table VI-1); and 186 (85
percent) of these are impacted by municipal
sewage plant effluents. This does not imply that
in every case municipal effluents alone are
responsible for the trophic condition of the lake,
because industrial or nonpoint source nutrient
contributions also may be significant. In some
cases municipal sewage plant effluents contri-
bute a major part of the phosphorus load, but in
other cases contributd a relatively minor por-
tion. Of the 234 lakes for which the loading
analysis has been completed, 135 (58 percent)
receive more than 20 percent of their annual
total phosphorus load from municipal sewage
treatment plant effluents (Figure VI-2). Assum-
ing 50 percent reduction of the point source
phosphorus load, 82 (35 percent) of the lakes
would still receive more than 20 percent of their
annual total phosphorus load from municipal
sources (Figure VI-3). Assuming 80 percent
reduction of point source phosphorus, only 9
percent of the lakes would still receive more
than 20 percent of their annual total phosphorus
load from point sources (Figure VI-4).
37
-------
FIGURE VI-1
DISTRIBUTION OF LAKES AND RESERVOIRS SAMPLED BY NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
NUMBER OF LAKES S YEAR SAMPLED
I975-I52
GRAND TOTAL- 8I2
I973-250
38
-------
FIGURE VI-2
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PERCENT OF ANNUAL TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOAD RECEIVED BY 234
LAKES IN 22 EASTERN STATES FROM MUNICIPAL POINT SOURCES WITH NO PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
200 r
175
{3 150
u.
O
125
100
cc
UJ __
OD 75
13
Z
50
25
0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100
PERCENT OF TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOAD FROM MUNICIPAL POINT SOURCES
39
-------
FIGURE VI-3
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PERCENT OF ANNUAL TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOAD RECEIVED BY 234
LAKES IN 22 EASTERN STATES FROM MUNICIPAL POINT SOURCES WITH 50 PERCENT
PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
200
175
2 150
125
100
cc
LU -,(-
CD '5
50
25
0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100
PERCENT OF TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOAD FROM MUNICIPAL POINT SOURCES
FOLLOWING 50% REMOVAL
40
-------
FIGURE VI-4
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PERCENT OF ANNUAL TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOAD RECEIVED BY 234
LAKES IN 22 EASTERN STATES FROM MUNICIPAL POINT SOURCES WITH 80 PERCENT
PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
200
175
{2 150
125
-------
The results of these load reductions would be
a noticeable change in the condition of a
significant number of lakes. Of the 133 lakes
receiving sewage effluents, 109 (82 percent)
receive total annual phosphorus loadings at rates
characterized as eutrophic (Figure VI-5, and
Appendix B, Table B-2). If 80 percent of the
phosphorus were removed at the point sources,
the loadings to 18 of the lakes would be reduced
to either a mesotrophic or oligotrophic rate.
Seven lakes with mesotrophic loading rates now
would have oligotrophic rates following 80
percent phosphorus removal. That removal rate
would also substantially reduce the number and
intensity of nuisance algal blooms in many
eutrophic lakes. The nitrogen-limited lakes are
generally eutrophic because the nitrogen limita-
tion frequently is caused by excessive phos-
phorus loads from point sources, particularly
municipal sewage treatment plants.
In contrast, trophic conditions are apparently
better in 23 lakes impacted only by nonpoint
sources, including septic tanks (Figure VI-6, and
Appendix B, Table B-3). Only 7 (30 percent) of
these lakes received phosphorus loadings at rates
characterized as eutrophic. However, four others
have symptoms of eutrophy even though the
total phosphorus loadings are below the eutro-
phic rate proposed by Vollenweider. The inci-
dence of nitrogen limitation is also lower in
lakes impacted only by nonpoint sources than in
those impacted by municipal sewage—17 percent
compared to 36 percent.
In summary, both point and nonpoint sources
contribute to the total phosphorus load and
resulting trophic condition of a lake. However,
the data presented here suggest a significant
correlation between eutrophic conditions and
impacts by municipal sewage treatment plant
effluents. If the phosphorus contributions from
municipal sewage and other point sources could
be substantially reduced, a significant improve-
ment would be anticipated in many of our lakes
and reservoirs.
Impact of Land Use on Nutrient Levels
Land use, geology, soils, climate, and other
geographic factors are important in determining
nutrient levels in rivers and lakes. The IMES
presented a unique opportunity to study these
relationships on a nationwide scale. Nearly all
the approximately 1,000 drainage areas selected
for the land use study are included in the
approximately 4,200 sampled drainage areas
tributary to the Survey lakes.
Results for Eastern States
The relationships between land use and aver-
age stream nutrient concentrations have been
determined for the 473 drainage areas studied in
the eastern United States (Figure VI-7). The
mean annual nitrogen and phosphorus concen-
trations have been determined for six land use
categories:
1. Forest; other types negligible—areas com-
prising greater than 75 percent forest (in-
cluding forested wetland), less than 7
percent agricultural use, and less than 2
percent urban.
2. Mostly forest; other types present—areas
comprising greater than 50 percent forest
but not meeting the criteria for the forest
category.
3. Mostly agriculture; other types present-
areas comprising greater than 50 percent
agricultural use, but not meeting the cri-
teria for the agriculture category.
4. Agriculture; other types negligible—areas
comprising greater than 75 percent agricul-
tural use, and less than 7 percent urban.
5. Urban; areas comprising greater than 39
percent urban.
6. Mixed.
Streams draining areas classified as agricul-
tural have total phosphorus concentrations of
0.135 mg/l compared to 0.014 mg/l for streams
draining forested areas—almost a ten-fold differ-
ence (Figure VI-8). The differences in total
nitrogen concentrations between the two land
use categories are not as marked—4.170 mg/l in
streams draining agricultural lands, or 4.9 times
higher than the average of 0.850 mg/l for
streams in forested areas.
The export of phosphorus and nitrogen gener-
ally follows the same pattern as for stream
concentrations—that is, forested areas export the
least amount of nutrients, and agricultural areas
the greatest. (Figure VI-9). However, the
nutrient exports from forested and agricultural
areas do not differ as much as nutrient concen-
42
-------
FIGURE VI-5
VOLLENWEIDER MODEL APPLIED TO 133 EASTER U.S. LAKES AND RESERVOIRS
IMPACTED BY MUNICIPAL SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENTS
100.0 r
I I urn 1—I I i inn 1. i MI mi 1—i " i inn 1
O = Ohgotrophic
A = Mesotrophic
D - Eutrophic
Open Symbols = P-limited
Solid Symbols = N-limited
Present Load
Present Load Minus 50% MSTP Load
Present Load Minus 80% MSTP Load
I I I I Mill I I I I Mill | | | | Mill 1 I I I Mill 1 I I I
10.0 100.0
MEAN DEPTH (m)
HYDRAULIC RETENTION TIME (yrs)
1000.0
43
-------
FIGURE VI-6
VOLLENWEIDER MODEL APPLIED TO 23 EASTERN U.S. LAKES AND RESERVOIRS
UNIMPACTED BY MUNICIPAL SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENTS
*£, lo-°
\
CM
E
X,
O>
UJ
a:
1.0
z
Q
V)
ID
cr
o
£ O.I
o
X
o.
I I I I INI 1—I I I I I III 1—I I I I MM I
I I Mil
"Eutrophic"
O D
GD
"Oligotrophic"
O = Oligotrophic
A = Mesotrophic
O = Ey trophic
Open Symbols - P-iimited
Solid Symbols - N-limited
i i I i i i in i i i i i i in
I i i i i 11 ii
I l I i i u i
1.0
10.0
MEAN DEPTH (m)
100.0
1000.0
HYDRAULIC RETENTION TIME (yrs)
44
-------
FIGURE VI-7
DISTRIBUTION OF STREAM SAMPLING SITES SELECTED FOR DRAINAGE AREA STUDIES
BY NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
DISTRIBUTION OF
N. E. S. LAND USE
STUDY DRAINAGE AREAS
72 73 tind 7a
yt-rm 'nbwktry s
-------
FIGURE VI-8
MEAN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS AND TOTAL NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS IN STREAMS DRAINING
DIFFERENT LAND USE CATEGORIES
NUMBER
OF SUBS
S3 FOREST
170 MOSTLY FOREST
52 MIXED
11 MOSTLY JURBAM
96 MOSTLY AGRIC.
91 AGRICULTURE
MEAN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS
vs
LAND USE
DATA ON 473 SU6DRAINAGE AREAS IN
EASTERN UNITED STATES
O.014
0.135
0.03
MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
0.10
0.15
NUMBED
OF SUBS
53 FOREST
olhfe lypK negligible
170 MOSTLY FOREST
olhft types present
52 MIXED
11 MOSTLY URBAN
otttft (yp«i present
96 MOSTLY A6HIC.
olfitf types presmni
91 AGRICULTURE
other type*
MEAN TOTAL NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS
vs
LAND USE
DATA ON 473 SUBOKAINAGE AREAS IN
EASTERN UNITED STATES
4.170
1.0
2.0
MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
3.0
4.O
-------
FIGURE VI-9
MEAN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS AND TOTAL-NITROGEN EXPORT BY STREAMS DRAINING DIFFERENT
LAND USE CATEGORIES
NUMBER
OF SUBS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS EXPORT
LAND USE
DATA ON 473 SUBDRAINAGE AREAS IN
53
170
52
11
96
91
FOREST
«Mr mi <•****
MOSTLY FOREST<
MIXED
MOSTLY URBAN
MAw MM* fMMM
MOSTLY AGRIC.
AGRICULTURE
(
EASTERM iJMfT£D flTATFtt
"•4
^^^^^R^_.^gE5?^^'^7^J!!1^S'1 "•*
V. . ."^.^.A^" ' , , TA.. -IT^. .11> "- &ItA,if -.", L2ia. ' IT?-?^.S3 'o-1
- -i.. , ,3?.liT^5.TJ ..'< °\, "*.>! 22.7
30.8
1 1 1 I
> 10 20 30 40
KILOGRAMS PER SQUARE KILOMETER PER YEAR
NUMBER
OF SUBS
53 FOREST
at tun tnwf
170 MOSTLY FOREST
52 MIXED
11 MOSTLY URBAN
athur fypai prmun
96 MOSTLV AGRIC.
91 AGRICULTURE
TOTAL NITROGEN EXPORT
LAND USE
DATA ON 473 SUBDRAINAGE AREAS IN
EASTERN UNITED STATES
440.1
\ 449.4
bk....
552.4
J 788.6
BEL
630.5
I
982.3
500
KILOGRAMS PER SQUARE KILOMETER PER YEAR
1OOO
-------
trations from these areas, because, on the
average, rainfall per unit of forested area is
greater than per unit of agricultural area. Stream
flow and the percent of drainage area in forested
land have a significant positive correlation.
Regionally
The geographic distribution of land use char-
acteristics, stream nutrient concentrations, and
nutrient export values has been determined for
the northeastern and north-central study areas.
The northeastern (New England) states are
characterized by relatively low stream nutrients,
low nutrient export values, and a low ratio of
agricultural to forested land areas. On the other
hand, the northcentral States of Minnesota,
Michigan, and Wisconsin are generally character-
ized by high nutrient concentrations, high nu-
trient export values, and a high ratio of
agricultural to forested land areas. Similar deter-
minations for other areas of the United States
should be useful in revealing the regional pat-
terns of surface-water nutrient levels and their
relation -to land use and other drainage area
characteristics.
Soil Type and Stream Nutrients
Preliminary analysis of relationships between
soils and nutrient concentrations in streams has
indicated significant correlations between pH
characteristics in soils and nutrient concentra-
tions, even within drainage areas having similar
land uses. Generally, concentrations are higher
in streams draining areas with soils characteris-
tically high in bases (alkaline) than in streams
draining areas with mostly acid-type soils.
Farm Animal Density and Stream Nutrients
The analysis of data from the northeast and
north-central study areas indicates that animal
density in a watershed significantly influences
stream nutrient levels. The relationships suggest
that total phosphorus concentrations in streams
draining areas with the same proportion of
agricultural land use will increase approximately
28 percent with an increase of 25 animal units
(equivalent to 25 beef cattle) per square kilo-
meter. Total nitrogen concentrations will in-
crease about 12 percent for the same increase in
animal-unit density.
48
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
APPENDIX A
National Water Quality Surveillance System
Appendix A provides a description of the 56
areas studied for the NWQSS analysis and
presents the data for 19 water quality param-
eters measured in those areas.
Figure A-1 is a repeat of Figure V-1, which
shows the station locations on a national map;
the heavy line indicates the South-Central area
of the country where the 1974 report found
overall water quality characteristics to be differ-
ent from those in the rest of the country. Table
A-1 lists the station(s) and their location in each
area. In addition, the drainage area, population
density, and levels of manufacturing and agricul-
tural activity are also provided for each area. For
this analysis, high municipal/industrial activity
areas were those with value added by manufac-
turing greater than $150,000 per square mile,
and high agricultural activity areas were those
with total farm products value greater than
$15,000 per square mile. Table A-1 categorizes
the areas by the size of the stream flowing
through them. Large streams are defined as
those with flows greater than 5,000 cfs; medium
streams have flows between 1,000 and 5,000 cfs;
and small streams have flows less than 1,000 cfs.
Table A-2 lists the stream sizes and param-
eters for the data shown in Figures A-2 through
A-58. These figures graphically present the
median, 15th percentile, and 85th percentile
values for 19 water quality parameters. Each
figure shows the data on one parameter for all
areas within a stream size category. The areas in
the South-Central portion of the country are
listed separately to highlight geographical effects
on water quality.
A-3
-------
FIGURE A-1
NATIONAL WATER QUALITY SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM,
STATION CODE NUMBERS
>
-fs.
D STATION
28 STATION CODE
South Central region
TJ
m
z
o
X
-------
Ol
TABLE A-1
NATIONAL WATER QUALITY SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM
STATION AREA DESCRIPTIONS
(Large streams)
Station
Code
8
17
18
23
25
26
30
39
A
B
A
B
C
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
River and location
Connecticut River, CT
upstream of Hartford
at Middle Haddam
Hudson River, NY
at Glenmont
at Waterford
Mohawk River at
Crescent
Mohawk River, NY
at Crescent
at Schenectady
Susquehanna River, PA
near Hanlock Creek
at Danville
Delaware River, PA
at East Stroudsburg
near Martin's Creek
James River, VA
at Cartersville
near Dutch Gap
Yazoo River, MS
near Yazoo
near Redwood
Pee Dee River, NC
near Rockingham
Latitude
41-46-36
41-32-30
42-35-43
42-47-38
42-48-22
42-48-22
42-49-07
41-11-19
10-57-29
41-02-40
40-47-20
37-40-15
37-23-26
32-51-29
32-29-16
34-56-46
Longitude
72-39-29
72-33-13
73-45-43
73-40-24
73-43-24
73-43-24
73-56-59
76-05-13
76-37-10
75-01-42
75-06-59
78-05-10
77-21-49
90-26-07
90-49-00
79-52-11
Agency
code
112WRD
112WRD
112WRD
112WRD
112WRD
112WRD
112WRD
112WRD
112WRD
112WRD
112WRD
112WRD
112WRD
112WRD
112WRD
112WRD
Drainage
Station area
number (square
miles)
435
01190069
01193050
416
01359560
01335770
01357000
114
01357000
01354490
1010
01537700
01540500
685
01440090
01446550
735
02035000
02038700
3,626
072875000
07288800
4,638
02129000
Popu- Value
lation added by Farm product value
density manufac- ($000/square mile)
(persons/ turing
square ($000 )/ Crops Livestock
mile) square mile)
1,191 673 24.9 10.9
621 601 3.0 11.0
955 1,857 2.6 8.8
234 349 5.7 10.1
155 262 3.3 14.0
454 100 2.2 7.2
50 35 29.0 1.9 >
TJ
TJ
m
O
116 158 3.9 16.8 x
>
-------
TABLE A-1 (Continued)
NATIONAL WATER QUALITY SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM,
STATION AREA DESCRIPTIONS
(Large streams)
Station
Code
61c
64
65
67
81
86
A
B
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
A
B
River and location
Red River, LA
upstream of Shreveport
downstream of Shreveport
Missouri and Mississippi
Rivers, MO
at Herman
downstream of St. Louis
at Alton, 1 L
Kansas River, KA
and MO
Kansas River
near Sugar Creek
Kansas City, MO
Platte and Missouri
Rivers, NE
near La Platte
near Plattsmouth
near Omaha
Missouri River, NO
upstream of Bismarck
downstream of Bismarck.
Yellowstone River, MT
upstream of Billings
downstream of Billings
Latitude
32-53-35
32-00-45
38-42-36"
38-03-54
38-53-06
39-06-00
39-10-20
39-06-00
41-03-24
41-00-04
41-20-37
46-58-51
46-39-22
45-41-37
46-54-15
Longitude
93-49-20
93-21-10
91-26-21
90-29-00
90-10-51
94-42-00
94-23-40
94-35-16
95-55-38
95-51-59
95-57-26
100-49-12
100-44-18
108-38-25
108-19-01
Agency
code
112WRD
112WRD
1117MBR
1117MBR
1117MBR
1117MBR
1117MBR
1117MBR
1117MBR
1117MBR
1117MBR
112WRD
112WRD
112WRD
112WRD
Popu- Value
Drainage: lation added by Farm product value
Station area density manufac-- ($000/square mile)
number (square (persons/ turing
miles) square ($000)/ Crops Livestock
mile) square mile)
1,758 159 75 1.8
07344400
07350500
6,853 217 312 4.2
000459
000457
000458
456 1,757 2203 0.9
000462
000460
000461
1,011 474 658 14.5
000468
000466
000467
4,402 16 4 3.0
06342500
06349700
1,100 64 67 2.4
06214100
06217500
4.5
9.1
1.3
82.6
5.2
TJ
-o
m
10.2 Z
O
X
i>
-------
TABLE A-1 (Continued)
NATIONAL WATER QUALITY SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM,
STATION AREA DESCRIPTIONS
(Large streams)
Popu- Value
Drainage lation added by Farm product value
Station River and location Latitude Longitude Agency Station area density manufac- ($000/square mile)
Code code number (square (person/ turing
miles) square ($000)7 Crops Livestock
mile) square mile)
91 Columbia River, OR 5,568 75
A near Warrendale 45-36-45 122-01-35 112WRD 14128910
B atBradwood 46-11-29 123-26-04 112WRD 14247400
C Willamette River at 21400000 40200
Portland, OR
92 Snake River, ID 210 19
A upstream of Heise 43-37-42 111-41-03 112WRD 13037500
B east of Roberts 42-00-00 112-00-00 112WRD 13057100
95 Spokane River, ID and WA 730 286
A below Post Falls Dam 47-42-10 116-58-40 112WRD 12419000
B at Riverside State Park 47-41-48 117-29-48 112WRD 12424200
97 1.7 5.2
^
3 15.8 7.3
197 8.2 5.6
-Q
TJ
m
O
X
-------
TABLE A-1 (Continued)
NATIONAL WATER QUALITY SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM,
STATION AREA DESCRIPTIONS
(Medium streams)
Station River and location
Code
1 St. Croix River, ME
A Grand Falls Dam
B Milltown
19 Mohawk River, NY
A at Lock 10
B at Tribes Hill
28 Chattahoochee River, GA
> A at Road Paces Ferry
CO B at State Road 2
29 Catawba River, SC
A near Rock Hill
B at Catawba
33 Tar River, NC
at Tarboro
34 Neuse River, NC
at Kingston
35 Neuse River, NC
at Clayton
37 Yadkin River, NC
at Yadkin College
42 French Broad River, NC
at Marshall
43 Haw River, NC
near Hay wood
Latitude
45-16-34
45-10-11
42-55-03
42-56-42
33-51-33
33-39-24
34-59-05
34-51-09
35-53-38
35-15-29
35-38-50
35-51-24
35-47-10
35-38-50
Longitude
67-23-48
67-17-50
74-08-31
74-17-21
84-27-16
84-40-25
80-58-27
88-52-06
77-32-00
77-35-09
78-24-21
80-23-10
82-39-39
79-03-54
Agency
code
11112300
112WRD
112WRD
112WRD
112WRD
112WRD
112WRD
112WRD
112WRD
112WRD
112WRD
112WRD
112WRD
112WRD
Station
number
SCGP
01021050
01354160
01354000
02336000
02337170
02146000
02147000
02083500
02089500
02087500
02116500
03453500
02098200
Drainage
area
(square
miles)
48
90
642
224
2,058
1,507
1,200
2,450
1,313
1,895
Popu-
lation
density
(persons/
square
mile)
12
377
1,012
102
78
115
224
143
139
271
Value
added by
manufac-
turing
($000)/
'square mile)
90
680
1,274
137
58
79
178
398
210
503
Farm product value
($000/square mile)
Crops Livestock
0.7
2.5
0.6
3.5
26.2
32.0
17.9
9.2
4.6
10.7
0.7
31.1
9.1
14.0
5.9
11.8
8.6
23.5
8.7
15.2
-a
m
z
g
X
-------
TABLE A-1 (Continued)
NATIONAL WATER QUALITY SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM,
STATION AREA DESCRIPTIONS
(Medium streams)
Station
Code
55
56
69
70
71
72
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
C
A
B
C
River and location
Rio Grande River, NM
at Angosture Diversion
Dam
at Isleta
San Juan River, NM
at Farmington
at Shiprock
Cedar River, I A
at Palo
at Bertram
Cedar River, I A
at Cedar Falls
at Gilbertville
Raccoon and Des Moines
Rivers, I L
Raccoon River at
Van Meter
Des Moines R. near
Des Moines
Des Moines R. at
Saylorville
Little Arkansas and Ark.
Rivers, KS
Little Arkansas R.
near Valley Center
Ark. R. near Derby
Ark. R. near Hutchinson
Latitude
35-22-45
34-54-23
36-41-12
36-46-32
42-03-00
41-55-33
42-32-21
42-24-57
41-32-02
41-33-06
41-40-50
37-49-56
37-22-34
37-56-47
Longitude
106-29-40
106-41-06
108-05-27
108-41-32
91-46-31
91-33-02
92-26-40
92-13-07
93-56-59
93-31-28
93-40-07
97-23-16
97-16-31
97-46-29
Agency
code
21NMEX
21NMEX
21NMEX
21NMEX
1117MBR
1117MBR
1117MBR
1117MBR
1117MBR
1117MBR
1117MBR
L;; ;.-.. --u
t( r V'M
1117MBR
1117MBR
1117MBR
Drainage
Station area
number (square
miles)
3,100
MRG5
MRG61c
5,850
SJR108
SJR120
568
000481
000480
505
000483
000482
282
000479
000477
000478
424
000456
000454
000455
Popu- Value
lation added by Farm product value
density manufac- ($000/square mile)
(persons/ turing
square ($000)7 Crops Livestock
mile) square mile)
96 27 0.2 2.3
10 1 0.2 0.4
251 624 16.0 48.0
239 531 18.4 23.9
770 1,036 16.5 23.9
^
711 1,317 10.0 13.5 rn
Z
-------
TABLE A-1 (Continued)
NATIONAL WATER QUALITY SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM,
STATION AREA DESCRIPTIONS
(Medium streams)
Station
Code
77
A
B
90
A
B
93
94
A
B
Popu- Value
Drainage lation added by Farm product value
River and location Latitude Longitude Agency Station area density manufac- ($000/square mile)
code number (square (persons/ turing
miles) square ($000)/ Crops Livestock
mile) square mile)
North Platte River, WY 294 136
upstream of Casper 42-50-31 106-21-33 112WRD 06644085
downstream of Cooper 42-51-45 106-13-00 112WRD 06645000
Colorado River, AZ and CA 550 63
at Imperial Dam 32-53-29 114-27-57 112WRD 09429500
at International Boundary 32-43-07 114-43-05 112WRD 09522000
St. Joe's River, ID 1,700 8
Stridge at St. Maries 47-19-02 116-33-38 112WRD 12415075
Coeurd'Alene River, ID 1,551 14
nearMullan 47-28-15 115-46-22 112WRD 12413080
Bridge at Rose Lake 47-32-14 116-28-17 112WRD 12413810
75 0.1 1.4
9 15.4 21.2
10 0.8 0.4
15 0.9 0.6
TJ
-o
m
z
0
-------
TABLE A-1 (Continued)
NATIONAL WATER QUALITY SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM,
STATION AREA DESCRIPTIONS
(Small streams)
Station
Code
22
22a
27
38
45
47
47a
A
B
B
C
A
B
A
B
A
C
C
B
River and location
Monocacy River, MD
at Bridge Port
at Briggs Ford Branch
Monocacy River, MD
at Briggs Ford Branch
at Reigh Ford Branch
Roanoke River, VA
at Lafayette
at Roanoke
Sugar Creek, NC
near Fort Mill
Grand River, Ml
at Lansing Waverly
Road Bridge
at Webster Road Bridge
Blue Earth River, MN
100 miles from mouth
northwest of Winnebago
Blue Earth River, MN
northwest of Winnebago
at mouth
Latitude
39-40-43
39-23-16
37-14-11
37-15-30
35-00-21
42-42-33
42-46-05
43-34-22
43-49-59
43-49-59
44-09-47
Longitude
77-14-06
77-22-40
80-12-34
79-56-20
80-54-09
84-36-10
84-40-08
94-06-08
94-10-13
94-10-13
94-02-20
Agency
code
112WRD
112WRD
112WRD
112WRD
112WRD
112WRD
112WRD
21MICH
21MICH
21MINN
21MINN
21MINN
21MINN
Popu- Value
Drainage lation added by Farm product value
Station area density manufac- ($000/square mile)
number (square (person/ turing
miles) square ($000)7 Crops Livestock
mile) square mile)
360 116 138 9.3
01639000
01641810
262 196 117 4.9
01641810
01643020
259 593 708 2.4
02054500
02055000
265 1,068 1,250 2.4
02146800
477 504 1,244 6.6
230038
230028
975 32 25 25.7
MNBE 100-
BB15E67
MNBE 63-
BB15E55
2,376 43 50 21.6
MNBE 63-
BB15E55
MNBE 00-
BB15E67
39.1
41.6
7.8
3.8
18.8
34.3
26.9 %
TJ
m
z
o
X
. 1*
-------
TABLE A-1 (Continued)
NATIONAL WATER QUALITY SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM,
STATION AREA DESCRIPTIONS
(Small streams)
Station
Code
61b
62
66
74
75
79
76
82
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
River and location
Pecos River, NM
above Carlsbad
6 miles below Carlsbad
James River, MO
near Wilson Creek
near Boaz
Salt Creek, NE
above Beal Slough
near Waverly
Elkhorn River, NE
at Stenton
at West Point
Wood River, NE
at Aida
near Grand Island
White River, CO and UT
downstream of Meeker, CO
near Ouray, UT
Crow Creek, WY
downstream of Cheyenne
Souris River, ND
near Canadian border
near West Hope
Latitude
32-28-55
32-23-00
37-04-35
37-00-25
40-46-13
40-54-18
41-50-25
41-50-30
40-51-10
40-56-05
40-00-08
40-03-54
41-07-09
48-59-24
48-59-47
Longitude
104-15-47
104-08-30
93-22-15
93-21-50
96-43-05
96-35-09
97-13-06
96-42-24
98-28-20
98-16-56
108-05-23
109-38-08
104-45-33
101-57-28
100-57-29
Agency
code
21NMEX
21NMEX
1117MBR
1117MBR
1117MBR
1117MBR
1117MBR
1117MBR
1117MBR
1117MBR
112WRD
112WRD
112WRD
112WRD
112WRD
Drainage
Station area
number (square
miles)
241
LPR200
LPR206
139
000451
000450
565
000472
000471
469
000470
000469
47
000474
000473
4,075
09304800
09306900
275
06756000
6,225
05114000
05124000
Popu- Value
lation added by Farm product value
density manufac- (SOOO/square mile)
(person/ turing
square ($000)/ Crops Livestock
mile) square mile)
89 17 0.1 0.3
317 357 1.0 16.5
287 278 16.0 23.4
16 2 9.4 125.1
681 873 16.1 51.4
2 0.2 0.2 1.4
153 25 0.9 3.0 >
-a
•ng
12 2 6.7 2.4 2
Z
v
-------
CO
TABLE A-1 (Continued)
NATIONAL WATER QUALITY SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM,
STATION AREA DESCRIPTIONS
(Small streams)
Station
Code
83
A
B
85
A
B
88
89
A
B
River and location Latitude
Big Sioux River, SD
upstream of Sioux Falls 43-47-25
downstream of Sioux Falls 43-34-01
Jordan River, UT
upstream of Salt Lake
City 40-38-43
downstream of Salt
Lake City 40-50-31
Las Vegas Wash, NV
near Lake Mead 36-07-20
Truckee River, CA and NV
at Farad, CA 39-25-41
Lockwood Bridge at Vista 39-30-42
Popu- Value
Drainage lation added by Farm product value
Longitude Agency Station area density manufac- ($000/square mile)
code number (square (person/ turing
miles) square ($000)/ Crops Livestock
mile) square mile)
576 153 113 9.5 43.3
96-44-42 112WRD 06481000
96-42-39 112WRD 06482020
192 1,143 1,191 3.5 10.0
111-55-18 112WRD 10167300
111-57-01 112WRD 10172600
171 950 275 0.1 0.2
114-54-15 112WRD 09419800
358 208 74 0.1 0.3
120-01-59 112WRD 10346000
1 1 9-38-48 1 1 2WR D 1 0350050
-o
m
Z
O
X
-------
TABLE A-2
LIST OF DATA FIGURES
APPENDIX A
Figure number
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
A-11
A-12
A-13
A-14
A-15
A-16
A-17
A-18
A-19
A-20
A-21
A-22
A-23
A-24
A-25
A-26
A-27
A-28
A-29
A-30
A-31
A-32
A-33
A-34
A-35
A-36
A-37
A-38
A-39
A-40
A-41
A-42
A-43
A-44
A-45
A-46
A-47
A-48
A-49
A-50
A-51
A-52
A-53
A-54
A-55
A-56
A-57
A-58
Stream size
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Parameter
Conductivity
Total copper
Total iron
Total lead
Total manganese
Total zinc
Turbidity
Total suspended solids
Total dissolved solids
Chloride
Sulfate
Ammonia
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Nitrites plus nitrates
Total phosphorus
Dissolved oxygen
Chemical oxygen demand
Total organic carbon
Fecal coliform bacteria
Conductivity
Total copper
Total iron
Total lead
Total manganese
Total zinc
Turbidity
Total suspended solids
Total dissolved solids
Chloride
Sulfate
Ammonia
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Nitrites plus nitrates
Total phosphorus
Dissolved oxygen
Chemical oxygen demand
Total organic carbon
Fecal coliform bacteria
Conductivity
Total copper
Total iron
Total lead
Total manganese
Total zinc
Turbidity
Total suspended solids
Total dissolved solids
Chloride
Sulfate
Ammonia
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Nitrites plus nitrates
Total phosphorus
Dissolved oxygen
Chemical oxygen demand
Total organic carbon
Fecal coliform bacteria
Parameter number
95
1042
1045
1051
1055
1092
70
530,70299
515,70300
940
945
610
625
630
665
300
335,340
680
31616
95
1042
1045
1051
1055
1092
70
530,70299
515,70300
940
945
610
625
630
665
300
335,340
680
31616
95
1042
1045
1051
1055
1092
70
530,70299
515,70300
940
945
610
625
630
665
300
335,340
680
31616
_ 1
A-14
-------
SOUTH-CENTRAL
30 YAZOO R., MS
61c RED R., LA
64 MISSISSIPPI R., MO
66 MISSOURI R., MO
67 MISSOURI R., N E
OTHER
8 CONNECTICUT R., CT
17 HUDSON R., N Y
18 MOHAWK R., N Y
23 SUSQUEHANNA R., PA
25 DELAWARE R., PA
26 JAMES R., VA
39 SUGAR C., N C
81 MISSOURI R., N D
86 YELLOWSTONE R., MT
91 COLUMBIA R., OR
92 SNAKE R., IO
95 SPOKANE R., WA
Figure A-2
CONDUCTIVITY LEVELS
FOR
STATIONS ON LARGE STREAMS
1974
APPENDIX A
V-l
-e- LEGEND
, ^
•
16th
®~ PERCENT! LE
1 1 1 1
0 2000 4000 6000
f »
1 ggth
MEDIAN PiRCENTILE
1 1
8000 10,000
OR MORE
MICROMHOS
A-15
-------
APPENDIX A
SOUTH-CENTRAL
30 YAZOO R., MS
61 c RED R., LA
64 MISSISSIPPI R., MO
65 MISSOURI R., MO
67 MISSOURI R., N E
OTHER
8 CONNECTICUT R., CT
17 HUDSON R., N Y
18 MOHAWK R., N Y
23 SUSQUEHANNA R., PA
25 DELAWARE R., PA
26 JAMES R., VA
39 SUGAR C., N C
81 MISSOURI R., N D
86 YELLOWSTONE R., MT
91 COLUMBIA R., OR
92 SNAKE R., IO
95 SPOKANE R., WA
Figure A-3
TOTAL COPPER CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON LARGE STREAMS
1974
LEGEND
PERCALE
1—1
I 85t
MEDIAN DCD,M:.
85th
PERCENT! LE
10
20
30
ug/l
40
50
OR MORE
A-16
-------
APPENDIX A
SOUTH-CENTRAL
30 YAZOO Ft., MS
61 c RED R., LA.
64 MISSISSIPPI R., MO
65 MISSOURI R., MO
67 MISSOURI R., N E
OTHER
8 CONNECTICUT R., CT,
17 HUDSON R., N Y
18 MOHAWK R., N Y
23 SUSQUEHANNA R., PA
25 DELAWARE R., PA
26 JAMES R.,VA
39 SUGAR C., N C
81 MISSOURI R., N D
86 YELLOWSTONE R., MT
91 COLUMBIA R., OR
92 SNAKE R., IO
95 SPOKANE R.. WA
Figure A-4
TOTAL IRON CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON LARGE STREAMS
1974
LEGEND
15th
PERCENTILE
1
I
MEDIAN
85th
PERCENTILE
\J
D 2000
i
4000
i i i
6000 8000 10000
OR MORE
ug/l
A-17
-------
SOUTH-CENTRAL
30 YAZOO R., MS
61 c RED R., LA,
64 MISSISSIPPI R., MO
65 MISSOURI R., MO
67 MISSOURI R., N E
OTHER
8 CONNECTICUT R., CT
17 HUDSON R., N Y
18 MOHAWK R., N Y
23 SUSQUEHANNA R., PA
25 DELAWARE R., PA
26 JAMES R.,VA
39 SUGAR C., N C
81 MISSOURI R.. N D
86 YELLOWSTONE R., MT
91 COLUMBIA R., OR
92 SNAKE R., IO
95 SPOKANE R., WA
Figure A-5
TOTAL LEAD CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON LARGE STREAMS
1974
APPENDIX A
LEGEND
I
PERCENTILE
MEDIAN
85th
PERCENTILE
20
40
60
ug/l
100
OR MORE
A-18
-------
APPENDIX A
Figure A-6
TOTAL MANGANESE CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON LARGE STREAMS
1974
SOUTH-CENTRAL
30 YAZOO R., MS
61 c RED R., LA
64 MISSISSIPPI R., MO
65 MISSOURI R., MO
67 MISSOURI R., N E
OTHER
8 CONNECTICUT R., CT
17 HUDSON R., N Y
18 MOHAWK R., NY
23 SUSQUEHANNA R., PA
25 DELAWARE R.. PA
26 JAMES R., VA
39 SUGAR C., N C
81 MISSOURI R., N D
86 YELLOWSTONE R., MT
91 COLUMBIA R., OR
92 SNAKE R., IO
95 SPOKANE R., WA
LEGEND
0
* 1
15th 1
PERCENT.LE MEDIAN
• 1 • 1
100 200 300 400
1
85th
PERCENT! LE
'
500
OR MORE
ug/l
A-19
-------
APPENDIX A
SOUTH-CENTRAL
30 YAZOO R., MS
61 c RED R., LA
64 MISSISSIPPI R., MO
65 MISSOURI R., MO
67 MISSOURI R., N E
OTHER
8 CONNECTICUT R., CT
17 HUDSON R., NY
18 MOHAWK R., N Y
23 SUSQUEHANNA R., PA
25 DELAWARE R., PA
26 JAMES R..VA
39 SUGAR C., N C
81 MISSOURI R., N D
86 YELLOWSTONE R., MT
91 COLUMBIA R., OR
92 SNAKE R., IO
95 SPOKANE R., WA
Figure A-7
TOTAL ZINC CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON LARGE STREAMS
1974
LEGEND
f
t
15th
PERCENT! LE
MEDIAN
85th
PERCENT! LE
1
0
u
i I i i i
50 100 150 200 250
OR MORE
ug/l
A-20
-------
APPENDIX A
SOUTH-CENTRAL
30 YAZOO R., MS
61 c RED R., LA
64 MISSISSIPPI R., MO
65 MISSOURI R., MO
67 MISSOURI R., N E
OTHER
8 CONNECTICUT R.f CT
17 HUDSON R., N Y
18 MOHAWK R., NY
23 SUSQUEHANNA R., PA
25 DELAWARE R., PA
26 JAMES R.,VA
39 SUGAR C., N C
81 MISSOURI R., N D
86 YELLOWSTONE R., MT
91 COLUMBIA R., OR
92 SNAKE R.. IO
95 SPOKANE R., WA
Figure A-8
TURBIDITY LEVELS
FOR
STATIONS ON LARGE STREAMS
1974
-G-
e
LEGEND
15th
PERCENT! LE
I
I
MEDIAN
85th
PERCENT! LE
e-
e
i i
0 50
I i i i
100 150 200 250
OR MORE
JTU
A-21
-------
APPENDIX A
Figure A-9
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLID CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON LARGE STREAMS
1974
SOUTH-CENTRAL
30 YAZOO Ft., MS
61 c RED R.f LA
64 MISSISSIPPI R., MO
65 MISSOURI R., MO
67 MISSOURI R., N E
OTHER
8 CONNECTICUT R., CT
17 HUDSON R.f N Y
18 MOHAWK R., N Y
23 SUSQUEHANNA R., PA
25 DELAWARE R., PA
26 JAMES R.,VA
39 SUGAR C., N C
81 MISSOURI R., N D
86 YELLOWSTONE R., MT
91 COLUMBIA R., OR
92 SNAKE R., IO
95 SPOKANE R., WA
LEGEND
15th
PERCENTILE
1—I
I asf
MEOIAN
85th
PERCENTILE
100
200
300
400
mg/l
500
OR MORE
A-22
-------
APPENDIX A
Figure A-10
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLID CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON LARGE STREAMS
1974
SOUTH-CENTRAL
30 YAZOO R., MS
61 c RED R., LA
64 MISSISSIPPI R., MO
65 MISSOURI R., MO
67 MISSOURI R., N E
OTHER
8 CONNECTICUT R.f CT
17 HUDSON R., N.Y
18 MOHAWK R., N Y
23 SUSQUEHANNA R., PA
25 DELAWARE R., PA
26 JAMES R.,VA
39 SUGAR C., N C
81 MISSOURI R., N D
86 YELLOWSTONE R., MT
91 COLUMBIA R., OR
92 SNAKE R., IO
95 SPOKANE R., WA
LEGEND
15th
PERCENT! LE
MEDIAN
86th
PERCENTItE
100
200
300
mg/l
400
500
OR MORE
A-23
-------
APPENDIX A
SOUTH-CENTRAL
30 YAZOO R., MS
61 c RED R., LA
64 MISSISSIPPI R., MO
65 MISSOURI R., MO
67 MISSOURI R., N E
OTHER
8 CONNECTICUT R., CT
17 HUDSON R., N Y
18 MOHAWK R., N Y
23 SUSQUEHANNA R., PA
25 DELAWARE R., PA
26 JAMES R.,VA
39 SUGAR C., N C
81 MISSOURI R., N D
86 YELLOWSTONE R., MT
91 COLUMBIA R., OR
92 SNAKE R.. IO
95 SPOKANE R., WA
Figure A-11
CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON LARGE STREAMS
1974
LEGEND
15th
PERCENT! LE
MtDIAN
PERCENTILE
10
20
30
mg/l
40
50
OR MORE
A-24
-------
APPENDIX A
SOUTH-CENTRAL
30 YAZOO R., MS
61 c RED R., LA
64 MISSISSIPPI R., MO
66 MISSOURI R., MO
67 MISSOURI R., N.E
OTHER
8 CONNECTICUT R., CT
17 HUDSON R., N Y
18 MOHAWK R.. N.Y
23 SUSQUEHANNA R., PA
25 DELAWARE R., PA.
26 JAMES R..VA
39 SUGAR C., N C
81 MISSOURI R., N D
86 YELLOWSTONE R., MT
91 COLUMBIA R., OP
92 SNAKE R., IO
95 SPOKANE R., WA
Figure A-12
TOTAL SULFATE CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON LARGE STREAMS
1974
-e-
-©-
e
LEGEND
* t
15th 1
PERCENTILE MEDIAN
0
1
85th
PERCENTILi
50
100
150
mg/l
200
250
OR MORE
A-25
-------
APPENDIX A
Figure A-13
TOTAL AMMONIA CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON LARGE STREAMS
1974
SOUTH-CENTRAL
30 YAZOO R., MS
61 c RED R., LA
64 MISSISSIPPI R., MO
65 MISSOURI R., MO
67 MISSOURI R., N.E
OTHER
8 CONNECTICUT R., CT
17 HUDSON R., N Y
18 MOHAWK R., N.Y
23 SUSQUEHANNA R., PA
25 DELAWARE R., PA
26 JAMES R.,VA
39 SUGAR C., N C.
81 MISSOURI R., N D
86 YELLOWSTONE R., MT
91 COLUMBIA R., OR
92 SNAKE R., IO
95 SPOKANE R., WA
LEGEND
1
I
PERCENTILE
MEDIAN
85th
PERCENTILE
.1
mg/l
.5
OR MORE
A-26
-------
APPENDIX A
Figure A-14
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON LARGE STREAMS
1974
SOUTH-CENTRAL
30 YAZOO R., MS
61 c RED R., LA.
64 MISSISSIPPI R., MO
66 MISSOURI R., MO
67 MISSOURI R., N E
OTHER
8 CONNECTICUT R., CT
17 HUDSON R., N Y
18 MOHAWK R., N Y
23 SUSQUEHANNA R., PA.
25 DELAWARE R., PA
26 JAMES R., VA
39 SUGAR C., N C
81 MISSOURI R., N D
86 YELLOWSTONE R., MT
91 COLUMBIA R., OR.
92 SNAKE R., IO,
95 SPOKANE R., WA
LEGEND
f—I
5th I
15th
PERCENTILE
85th
PERCENTIl
7.0
1.5
mg/l
2.0
2.5
OR MORE
A-27
-------
APPENDIX A
Figure A-15
TOTAL NITRATE PLUS NITRITE CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON LARGE STREAMS
1974
SOUTH-CENTRAL
30 YAZOO R., MS
61 c RED R., LA
64 MISSISSIPPI R., MO
65 MISSOURI R., MO
67 MISSOURI R., N E
OTHER
8 CONNECTICUT R.f CT
17 HUDSON R., NY
18 MOHAWK R., N Y
23 SUSQUEHANNA R., PA
25 DELAWARE R., PA
26 JAMES R..VA
39 SUGAR C., N C
81 MISSOURI R., N D
86 YELLOWSTONE R., MT
91 COLUMBIA R., OR
92 SNAKE R., IO.
•
95 SPOKANE R., WA
LEGEND
f—I
5th '
CKITII C MEDIAN
15th
PERCENT! LE
85th
PERCENTILE
1.0
1.5
mg/l
2.0
2.5
OR MORE
A-28
-------
APPENDIX A
Figure A-16
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON LARGE STREAMS
1974
SOUTH-CENTRAL
30 YAZOO R., MS
61 c RED R., LA
64 MISSISSIPPI R., MO
65 MISSOURI R., MO
67 MISSOURI R., N E
OTHER
8 CONNECTICUT R.. CT
17 HUDSON R., N Y
18 MOHAWK R., N Y
23 SUSQUEHANNA R., PA
25 DELAWARE R., PA
26 JAMES R., VA
39 SUGAR C., N C
81 MISSOURI R., ND
86 YELLOWSTONE R., MT
91 COLUMBIA R., OR
92 SNAKE R., IO
95 SPOKANE R., WA
LEGEND
15th
PERCENTILE
I
I
85th
PERCENTILE
I
10
20
30
mg/l
40
50
OR MORE
A-29
-------
APPENDIX A
Figure A-17
DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON LARGE STREAMS
1974
SOUTH-CENTRAL
30 YAZOO R., MS
61 c RED R., LA
64 MISSISSIPPI R., MO
65 MISSOURI R., MO,
67 MISSOURI R., N E
OTHER
8 CONNECTICUT R., CT
17 HUDSON R., NY
18 MOHAWK R., N Y
23 SUSQUEHANNA R., PA
25 DELAWARE R., PA
26 JAMES R.,VA
39 SUGAR C., NC
81 MISSOURI R., N D
86 YELLOWSTONE R., MT.
91 COLUMBIA R., OR.
92 SNAKE R., IO
95 SPOKANE R., WA
w
r>
LEGEND
1 f t
15th 1 85th
PERCENTILE MEDIAN PERCEIMTILE
18-
6
mg/l
10
12
14
OR MORE
A-30
-------
APPENDIX A
SOUTH-CENTRAL
30 YAZOO R., MS
61 c RED R., LA
64 MISSISSIPPI R., MO
65 MISSOURI R., MO
67 MISSOURI R., N E.
OTHER
8 CONNECTICUT R., CT
17 HUDSON R., NY
18 MOHAWK R., N Y
23 SUSQUEHANNA R., PA
25 DELAWARE R., PA
26 JAMES R.,VA
39 SUGAR C., N C.
81 MISSOURI R., N D,
86 YELLOWSTONE R., MT
91 COLUMBIA R., OR
92 SNAKE R., IO
95 SPOKANE R., WA
Figure A-18
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FOR
STATIONS ON LARGE STREAMS
1974
-e-
LEGEND
15th
PERCENTILE
1—I
I 85t
MEDIAN DEB^C,
85th
PERCENTILE
10
20
30
mg/l
40
50
OR MORE
A-31
-------
APPENDIX A
Figure A-19
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON LARGE STREAMS
1974
SOUTH-CENTRAL
30 YAZOO R., MS
61 c RED R., LA
64 MISSISSIPPI R., MO
65 MISSOURI R., MO
67 MISSOURI R., N,E
OTHER
8 CONNECTICUT R., CT
17 HUDSON R.f N Y
18 MOHAWK R., NY
23 SUSQUEHANNA R., PA
25 DELAWARE R., PA
26 JONES R., VA
39 SUGAR C., N C
81 MISSOURI R., N D
86 YELLOWSTONE R., MT
91 COLUMBIA R., OR
92 SNAKE R., IO
95 SPOKANE R., WA
O
©.
— ft
LEGEND
t ?
15th I
PERCENTILE MEDIAN
1
85th
PERCENTILE
10
15
mg/l
20
25
OR MORE
A-32
-------
CO
CO
S.C.
30
61c
64
65
67
OTHER
8
17
18
23
25
26
39
81
86
91
92
95
10
Figure A-20
FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA LEVELS
FOR
STATIONS ON LARGE STREAMS
1974
till
1 1 I
m
O
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
OR MORE
-------
APPENDIX A
Figure A-21
CONDUCTIVITY LEVELS
FOR
STATIONS ON MEDIUM STREAMS
1974
SOUTH-CENTRAL
55 RIO GRANDE, N M
56 SAN JUAN R., N M
69 CEDAR R., IA
70 CEDAR R., IA
71 DES MOINES R., IA
72 ARKARSAS R., KS
OTHER
1 ST. CROIX R., ME
19 MOHAWK R., N Y
28 CHATTAHOOCHEE R., GA
29 CATAWBA R., SC
33 TAR R., N C
34 NEUSE R., N C
35 NEUSE R., N C
37 YADKIN R., N C
42 FRENCH BROAD R., NC
43 HAW R., NC
77 N. PLATTE R., WY
90 COLORADO R., AZ -CA
93 ST. JOE R., ID
94 COEUR d' ALENE R., ID
L
200
LEGEND
f—?
e*L. •
15th
PERCENTILE
MEDIAN
85th
PERCENTILE
JL
J
400 600
MICROMHOS
800
1000
OR MORE
A-34
-------
Figure A-22
TOTAL COPPER CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON MEDIUM STREAMS
1974
APPENDIX A
SOUTH-CENTRAL
55 RIO GRANDE, N M
56 SAN JUAN R., N M
69 CEDAR R., IA
70 CEDAR R., IA
71 DES MOINES R., IA
72 ARKARSAS R., KS
OTHER
1 ST. CROIX R., ME
19 MOHAWK R., N Y
28 CHATTAHOOCHEE R., GA
29 CATAWBA R., SC
33 TAR R., N C
34 NEUSE R., N C
35 NEUSE R., N C
37 YADKIN R., N C
42 FRENCH BROAD R., N C
43 HAW R., N C
77 N. PLATTE R., WY
90 COLORADO R., AZ -CA
93 ST. JOE R., ID
94 COEUR d' ALENE R., ID
10
LEGEND
f—I—I
15th .._ . 85t
MEDIAN
85th
PERCENTILE
I
20 30
ug/l
40
50
OR MORE
A-35
-------
Figure A-23
TOTAL IRON CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON MEDIUM STREAMS
1974
APPENDIX A
SOUTH-CENTRAL
55 RIO GRANDE, N M
56 SAN JUAN R., N M
69 CEDAR R., IA
70 CEDAR R., IA
71 DES MOINES R., IA
72 ARKARSAS R., KS
OTHER
1 ST. CROIX R., ME
19 MOHAWK R., N Y
28 CHATTAHOOCHEE R., GA
29 CATAWBA R., SC
33 TAR R.r N C
34 NEUSE R., N C
35 NEUSE R., NC
37 YADKIN R., N C
42 FRENCH BROAD R., NC
43 HAW R., NC
77 N. PLATTE R., WY
90 COLORADO R., AZ -CA
93 ST. JOE R., ID
94 COEUR d' ALENE R., ID
<9
LEGEND
•Q _ /~\
-*- t ?
PERCENTILE MED'AN
6._ _._ ,_
1 1 1 1 I
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
I
85th
PERCENTILE
5000
OR MORE
ug/l
A-36
-------
Figure A-24
TOTAL LEAD CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON MEDIUM STREAMS
1974
APPENDIX A
SOUTH-CENTRAL
55 RIO* GRANDE, N M
56 SAN JUAN R., N M
69 CEDAR R., IA
70 CEDAR R., IA
71 DES MOINES R., IA
72 ARKARSAS R., KS
OTHER
1 ST. CROIX R.. ME
19 MOHAWK R., NY
28 CHATTAHOOCHEE R., GA
29 CATAWBA R., SC
33 TAR R., N C
34 NEUSE R., N C
35 NEUSE R., N C
37 YADKIN R., N C
42 FRENCH BROAD R., NC
43 HAW R., N C
77 N. PLATTE R., WY
90 COLORADO R., AZ -CA
93 ST. JOE R., ID
94 COEUR d' ALENE R., ID
20
40
60
LEGEND
MEDIAN
85th
PERCENT! LE
I
80
ug/l
100
OR MORE
A-37
-------
Figure A-25
TOTAL MANGANESE CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON MEDIUM STREAMS
1974
APPENDIX A
SOUTH-CENTRAL
55 RIO GRANDE, N M
56 SAN JUAN R., N M
69 CEDAR R., IA
70 CEDAR R., IA
71 DES MOINES R., IA
72 ARKARSAS R., KS
OTHER
1 ST. CROIX R., ME
19 MOHAWK R., N Y
28 CHATTAHOOCHEE R., GA
29 CATAWBA R., SC
33 TAR R., N C
34 NEUSE R., N C
35 NEUSE R., N C
37 YADKIN R., N C
42 FRENCH BROAD R., NC
43 HAW R., NC
77 N. PLATTE R., WY
90 COLORADO R.. AZ-CA
93 ST. JOE R., ID
94 COEUR d' ALENE R., ID
L
0
— 9
f
15th
PERCENTILE
1 1 1
100 200 300
... /I
LEGEND i
..._
t
PERCALE
1 |
400 500
OR MORE
A-38
-------
Figure A-26
TOTAL ZINC CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON MEDIUM STREAMS
1974
APPENDIX A
SOUTH-CENTRAL
55 RIO' GRANDE, N M
56 SAN JUAN R., N M
69 CEDAR R., IA
70 CEDAR R., IA
71 DES MOINES R., IA
72 ARKARSAS R., KS
OTHER
1 ST. CROIX R.f ME
19 MOHAWK R., N Y
28 CHATTAHOOCHEE R., GA
29 CATAWBA R., SC
33 TAR R., N C
34 NEUSE R., N C
35 NEUSE R., N C
37 YADKIN R., N C
42 FRENCH BROAD R., NC
43 HAW R., N C
77 N. PLATTE R.. WY
90 COLORADO R., AZ -CA
93 ST. JOE R., ID
94 COEUR d' ALENE R., ID
50
LEGEND
n
t I
1 T
PERCENT.LE MEDIAN
85th
PERCENT! LE
I
100 150
ug/l
200
250
OR MORE
A-39
-------
Figure A-27
TURBIDITY LEVELS
FOR
STATIONS ON MEDIUM STREAMS
1974
APPENDIX A
SOUTH-CENTRAL
55 RIO GRANDE, N M
56 SAN JUAN R., N M
69 CEDAR R., IA
70 CEDAR R., IA
71 DES MOINES R., IA
72 ARKARSAS R., KS
OTHER
1 ST. CROIX R., ME 6
19 MOHAWK R., N Y €
28 CHATTAHOOCHEE R., GA
29 CATAWBA R., SC H
33 TAR R., N C 0
34 NEUSE R., N C
35 NEUSE R., N C
37 YADKIN R., N C
42 FRENCH BROAD R., NC
43 HAW R.. N C
77 N. PLATTE R.. WY
90 COLORADO R., AZ -CA Q
93 ST. JOE R., ID 6
94 COEUR d' ALENE R., ID -G-
-&-
50
LEGEND
f—I
e*i_ I
15th
PERCENTILE
MEDIAN
85th
PERCENTILE
100
150
200
250
OR MORE
JTU
A-40
-------
Figure A-28
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLID CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON MEDIUM STREAMS
1974
APPENDIX A
SOUTH-CENTRAL
55 RIO GRANDE, N M
56 SAN JUAN R., N M
69 CEDAR R., IA
70 CEDAR R., IA
71 DES MOINES R., IA
72 ARKARSAS R., KS
OTHER
1 ST. CROIX R., ME
19 MOHAWK R., N Y
28 CHATTAHOOCHEE R., GA
29 CATAWBA R., SC
33 TAR R., N C
34 NEUSE R., N C
35 NEUSE R.. N C
37 YADKIN R.. N C
42 FRENCH BROAD R., NC
43 HAW R., N C
77 N. PLATTE R., WY
90 COLORADO R., AZ -CA -0-
93 ST. JOE R;. ID -6-
94 COEUR d' ALENE R., ID -9-
•' U
•BBHiaHIIIIHIIIgUBt^
r~
15th
PERCENTILE
LEGEND
MEDIAN
85th
PERCENTILE
50
I
100
ISO
200
mg/l
250
OR MORE
A-41
-------
Figure A-29
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLID CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON MEDIUM STREAMS
1974
APPENDIX A
SOUTH-CENTRAL
55 RIO' GRANDE, N M
56 SAN JUAN R., N M
69 CEDAR R., IA
70 CEDAR R., IA
71 DES MOINES R., IA
72 ARKARSAS R., KS
OTHER
1 ST. CROIX R., ME
19 MOHAWK R.. N Y
28 CHATTAHOOCHEE R., GA
29 CATAWBA R., SC
33 TAR R., N C
34 NEUSE R., N C
35 NEUSE R., NC
37 YADKIN R., N C
42 FRENCH BROAD R., NC
43 HAW R., N C
77 N. PLATTE R., WY
90 COLORADO R.. AZ -CA
93 ST. JOE R., ID
94 COEUR d' ALENE R., ID
e
-e-
-e-
-e
e-
200
LEGEND
f—?
EUk. "
15th
PERCENTILE
MEDIAN
85th
PERCENTILE
400
600
800
1000
OR MORE
mg/l
A-42
-------
Figure A-30
CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON MEDIUM STREAMS
1974
APPENDIX A
SOUTH-CENTRAL
55 RIO'GRANDE, NM
56 SAN JUAN R., N M
69 CEDAR R., IA
70 CEDAR R., IA
71 DES MOINES R., IA
72 ARKARSAS R., KS
OTHER
1 ST. CROIX R., ME
19 MOHAWK R., N Y
28 CHATTAHOOCHEE R., GA
29 CATAWBA R., SC
33 TAR R.f N C
34 NEUSE R., N C
35 NEUSE R., N C
37 YADKIN R., N C
42 FRENCH BROAD R., NC
43 HAW R., N C
77 N. PLATTE R., WY
90 COLORADO R., A2 -CA
93 ST. JOE R., ID
94 COEUR d' ALENE R., ID
— e
n
r~
15th
PERCENT! LE
?, ,„
MEDIAN
I
85th
PERCENT! LE
10
20 30
mg/l
40
50
OR MORE
A-43
-------
Figure A-31
TOTAL SULFATE CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON MEDIUM STREAMS
1974
APPENDIX A
SOUTH-CENTRAL
55 RIO" GRANDE, N M
56 SAN JUAN R., N M
69 CEDAR R., IA
70 CEDAR R., IA
71 DES MOINES R., IA
72 ARKARSAS R., KS
OTHER
1 ST. CROIX R., ME
19 MOHAWK R., N Y
28 CHATTAHOOCHEE R.f GA
29 CATAWBA R., SC
33 TAR R., N C
34 NEUSE R., N C
35 NEUSE R.. NC
37 YADKIN R.. N C
42 FRENCH BROAD R., N C
43 HAW R., N C
77 N. PLATTE R., WY
90 COLORADO R., AZ -CA
93 ST. JOE R., ID
94 COEUR d' ALENE R., ID
20
LEGEND
15th
PERCENTILE
?
'
MEDIAN
85th
PERCENTIL
40
60
80
mg/l
100
OK MORE
A-44
-------
Figure A-32
TOTAL AMMONIA CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON MEDIUM STREAMS
1974
APPENDIX A
SOUTH-CENTRAL
55 RIO' GRANDE, N M
56 SAN JUAN R., N M
69 CEDAR R., IA
70 CEDAR R., IA
71 DES MOINES R., IA.
72 ARKARSAS R., KS
OTHER
1 ST. CROIX R., ME
19 MOHAWK R., N Y
28 CHATTAHOOCHEE R., GA
29 CATAWBA R., SC
33 TAR R., N C
34 NEUSE R., N C
35 NEUSE R., N C
37 YADKIN R., N C
42 FRENCH BROAD R., NC
43 HAW R., N C
77 N. PLATTE R., WY
90 COLORADO R., AZ -CA
93 ST. JOE R., ID
94 COEUR d' ALENE R., ID
LEGEND
©.„
e-
i §
0 .2
r
15th
PERCENT! LE
| |
.4 .6
I t
85th
MEDIAN PERCENTILE
1 1
.8 1.0
OR MORE
mg/l
A-45
-------
Figure A-33
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
, STATIONS ON MEDIUM STREAMS
1974
APPENDIX
SOUTH-CENTRAL
55 RIO GRANDE, N M
56 SAN JUAN R., N M
69 CEDAR R., IA
70 CEDAR R., IA
71 DES MOINES R., IA
72 ARKARSAS R., KS
OTHER
1 ST. CROIX R., ME
19 MOHAWK R., N Y
28 CHATTAHOOCHEE R., GA
29 CATAWBA R.f SC
33 TAR R., N C
34 NEUSE R., NC
35 NEUSE R.. NC
37 YADKIN R., N C
42 FRENCH BROAD R., NC
43 HAW R., NC
77 N. PLATTE R., WY
90 COLORADO R., AZ -CA,
93 ST. JOE R.f ID
94 COEUR d' ALENE R., ID.
—O
-e-
-e-
LEGEND
^_
1 1
0 .5
f
15th
PERCENTILE
1 1
1.0 1.5
T f
MEDIAN PERCALE
I
2.0 :
I
2.5
mg/l
OR MORE
A-46
-------
Figure A-34
TOTAL NITRATE PLUS NITRITE CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON MEDIUM STREAMS
1974
APPENDIX A
SOUTH-CENTRAL
55 RIO" GRANDE, N M
56 SAN JUAN R., N M
69 CEDAR R., IA
70 CEDAR R.f IA
71 DES MOINES R., IA
72 ARKARSAS R., KS
OTHER
1 ST. CROIX R., ME 6
19 MOHAWK R., N Y
28 CHATTAHOOCHEE R., GA
29 CATAWBA R., SC
33 TAR R.f N C -€
34 NEUSE R., N C
35 NEUSE R., N C
37 YADKIN R., N C X
42 FRENCH BROAD R., NC
43 HAW R., NC
77 N. PLATTE R., WY
90 COLORADO R., AZ -CA
93 ST. JOE R., ID 0
94 COEUR d' ALENE R., ID 0-
LEGEND
t 1
PERCENT.LE MEDIAN
85th
PERCENTILE
e
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
J
mg/l
5.0
OR MORE
A-47
-------
Figure A-35
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON MEDIUM STREAMS
1974
APPENDIX A
SOUTH-CENTRAL
55 RIO GRANDE, N M
56 SAN JUAN R, N M
69 CEDAR R., IA
70 CEDAR R., IA
71 DES MOINES R., IA
72 ARKARSAS R., KS
OTHER
1 ST. CROIX R., ME
19 MOHAWK R.. N Y
28 CHATTAHOOCHEE R., GA
29 CATAWBA R., SC
33 TAR R., N C
34 NEUSE R., N C
35 NEUSE R., NC
37 YADKIN R., N C
42 FRENCH BROAD R., NC
43 HAW R., N C
77 N. PLATTE R., WY
90 COLORADO R., AZ -CA
93 ST. JOE R., ID
94 COEUR d' ALENE R., ID
e-
e-
^
i i
0 2
w—
r~
15th
PERCENT! LE
, ,
.4 . .6
LEGEND
?,
t
85th
MEDIAN PERCENTILE
, ,
& 1.0
mg/l
OR MORE
A-48
-------
Figure A-36
DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON MEDIUM STREAMS
1974
APPENDIX A
SOUTH-CENTRAL
55 RIO* GRANDE, N M
56 SAN JUAN Ft., N M
69 CEDAR R., IA
70 CEDAR R., IA
71 DES MOINES R., IA
72 ARKARSAS R., KS
OTHER
1 ST. CROIX R., ME
19 MOHAWK R., N Y
28 CHATTAHOOCHEE R., GA
29 CATAWBA R.. SC
33 TAR R., N C
34 NEUSE R., N C
35 NEUSE R., N C
37 YADKIN R., N C
42 FRENCH BROAD R., NC
43 HAW R., NC
77 N. PLATTE R., WY
90 COLORADO R., AZ -CA
93 ST. JOE R., ID
94 COEUR d' ALENE R., ID
(J
LEGEND
T,
istn
PERCENTILE
1 * o
T °
1 85th
HAN pFRrFNTHP _
r>
3
5
1 I
7 9
o
1
11
1
13
OR MORE
mg/l
A-49
-------
Figure A-37
CHEMICAL OXYGeN DEMAND
FOR
STATIONS ON MEDIUM STREAMS
1974
APPENDIX A
SOUTH-CENTRAL
55 RIO'GRANDE, NM
56 SAN JUAN R, N M
69 CEDAR R., IA
70 CEDAR R., IA
71 DES MOINES R., IA
72 ARKARSAS R., KS
OTHER
1 ST. CROIX R., ME
19 MOHAWK R., N Y
28 CHATTAHOOCHEE R., GA
29 CATAWBA R., SC
33 TAR R., N C
34 NEUSE R., N C
35 NEUSE R., NC
37 YADKIN R., N C
42 FRENCH BROAD R., NC
43 HAW R., N C
•
77 N. PLATTE R.f WY
90 COLORADO R., AZ-CA
93 ST. JOE R., ID
94 COEUR d' ALENE R., ID
LEGEND
o
-
1 1
D 10
t 1 t
15th McniAN 85th
PERCENTILE MEDIAN PERCENTILE
1 | | |
20 30 40 50
OR MORE
mg/l
A-50
-------
APPENDIX A
Figure A-38
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON MEDIUM STREAMS
1974
SOUTH-CENTRAL
55 RIO* GRANDE, N M
56 SAN JUAN R., N M
69 CEDAR R., IA
70 CEDAR R., IA
71 DES MOINES R., IA
72 ARKARSAS R., KS
OTHER
1 ST. CROIX R., ME
19 MOHAWK R., N Y
28 CHATTAHOOCHEE R., GA
29 CATAWBA R., SC
33 TAR R., N C
34 NEUSE R., N C
35 NEUSE R., N C
37 YADKIN R., N C
42 FRENCH BROAD R., NC
43 HAW R., N C
77 N. PLATTE R., WY
90 COLORADO R., AZ -CA
93 ST. JOE R., ID
94 COEUR d' ALENE R.f ID
-e-
LEGEND
1
0
Q —
1
5
|
f
15th
PERCENTILE
| 1
10 15
mn/l
T t
85th
MEDIAN PERCENTILE
1 1
20 25
OR MORE
A-51
-------
(71
NJ
S.C.
55
56
69
70
71
72
OTHER
1
19
28
29
33
34
35
37
42
43
77
90
93
94
10
Figure A-39
FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA LEVELS
FOR
STATIONS ON MEDIUM STREAMS
1974
J L
' '—I I I I I I
' i i i i i i
J 1—' ' '' '
100
1,000
J—I—I I I I
m
10,000
100,000
OR MORE
-------
SOUTH-CENTRAL
61b PECOS R., N M
62 JAMES R..MO
66 SALT C., NE
74 ELKHORN R., NE
75 WOOD R., NE
79 WHITE R., CO
OTHER
22 MONOCACY R., MD
22a MONOCACY R., MD
27 ROANOKE R., VA
38 PEE DEE R., N C
45 GRAND R., Ml
47 BLUE EARTH R., MN
47a BLUE EARTH R., MN
76 CROW C., WY
82 SOUR IS R., N D
83 BIG SIOUX R., S D
85 JORDAN R., UT
88 LAS VEGAS WA, NV
89 TRUCKEE R., NV
Figure A-40
CONDUCTIVITY LEVELS
FOR
STATIONS ON SMALL STREAMS
1974
APPENDIX A
-e
-e-
e
f
LEGEND
O
15th
PERCENTILE
MEDIAN
85th
PERCENTILE
J
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
'OR MORE
MICROMHOS
A-53
-------
SOUTH-CENTRAL
61 b PECOS R., MM
62 JAMES R.,MO
66 SALT C., NE
74 ELKHORN R.f NE
75 WOOD R., NE
79 WHITE R., CO
OTHER
22 MONOCACY R., MD
22a MONOCACY R., MD
27 ROANOKE R., VA
38 PEE DEE R., N C
45 GRAND R., Ml
47 BLUE EARTH R., MN
47a BLUE EARTH R., MN
76 CROW C., WY
82 SOURIS R., N D
83 BIG SIOUX R., S D
85 JORDAN R., UT
88 LAS VEGAS WA, NV
89 TRUCKEE R., NV
Figure A-41
TOTAL COPPER CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON SMALL STREAMS
1974
APPENDIX A
C
r~
15th
PERCENTILE
»
LEGEND
©. ,._
I
MEDIAN
I
85th
PERCENTILE
— U
1 1 1 1 1 1
0
10 20 30 40 50
OR MORE
ug/l
A-54
-------
SOUTH-CENTRAL
61 b PECOS R.t N M
62 JAMES R.,MO
66 SALT C., NE
74 ELKHORN R., NE
75 WOOD R., NE
79 WHITE R.f CO
OTHER
22 MONOCACY R., MD
22a MONOCACY R., MD
27 ROANOKE R., VA
38 PEE DEE R., N C
45 GRAND R., Ml
47 BLUE EARTH R., MN
47a BLUE EARTH R., MN
76 CROW C.. WY
82 SOUR IS R., N D
83 BIG SIOUX R., S D
85 JORDAN R., UT
88 LAS VEGAS WA, NV
89 TRUCKEE R,, NV
Figure A-42
TOTAL IRON CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON SMALL STREAMS
1974
APPENDIX A
-©-
1000
LEGEND
15th
PERCENTILE
I
*
MEDIAN
85th
PERCENTILE
2000
3000
4000
5000
OR MORE
ug/l
A-55
-------
SOUTH-CENTRAL
61 b PECOS R., N M
62 JAMES R..MO
66 SALT C.r NE
74 ELKHORN R., NE
75 WOOD R., NE
79 WHITE R., CO
OTHER
22 MONOCACY R., MD
22a MONOCACY R., MD
27 ROANOKE R., VA
38 PEE DEE R., N.C
45 GRAND R., Ml
47 BLUE EARTH R., MN
47a BLUE EARTH R., MN
76 CROW C., WY
82 SOUR IS R., N D
83 BIG SIOUX R., S D
85 JORDAN R., UT
88 LAS VEGAS WA, NV
89 TRUCKEE R.f NV
Figure A-43
TOTAL LEAD CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON SMALL STREAMS
1974
APPENDIX A
20
-e
-e-
e» — — — — — —
LEGEND
t I
15th 1
PERCENTILE MEDIAN
t
85th
PERCENTILE
40
60
80
100
OR MORE
ug/l
A-56
-------
SOUTH-CENTRAL
61 b PECOS R., N M
62 JAMES R.,MO
66 SALT C., ME
74 ELKHORNR..NE
75 WOOD R., NE
79 WHITE R.. CO
OTHER
22 MONOCACY R., MD
22a MONOCACY R., MD
27 ROANOKE R., VA
38 PEE DEE R., N C
45 GRAND R., Ml
47 BLUE EARTH R., MN
47a BLUE EARTH R., MN
76 CROW C., WY
82 SOUR IS R., N D
83 BIG SIOUX R., SD
85 JORDAN R., UT
88 LAS VEGAS WA, NV
89 TRUCKEE R., NV
Figure A-44
TOTAL MAGANESE CONCENTRATIONS
FOH
STATIONS ON SMALL STREAMS
1974
APPENDIX A
©..,._.,_
15th
PERCENTILE
LEGEND
MEDIAN
85th
PERCENTILE
200
400
600
800
1000
OR MORE
mg/l
A-57
-------
APPENDIX A
SOUTH-CENTRAL
61 b PECOS R., N M
62 JAMES R.,MO
66 SALT C., NE
74 ELKHORN R., NE
75 WOOD R., NE
79 WHITE R., CO
OTHER
22 MONOCACY R., MD
22a MONOCACY R., MD
27 ROANOKE R., VA
38 PEE DEE R., N.C
45 GRAND R., Ml
47 BLUE EARTH R., MN
47a BLUE EARTH R., MN
76 CROW C., WY
82 SOUR IS R., N D
83 BIG SIOUX R., S D
85 JORDAN R., UT
88 LAS VEGAS WA, NV
89 TRUCKEE R., NV
Figure A-45
TOTAL ZINC CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON SMALL STREAMS
1974
^y
LEGEND
. 0
L t
PERCENTILE MEDIAN
o
o
i i i i i
0 50 100 150 200
85th
PERCENTILE
250
OR MORE
mg/l
A-58
-------
SOUTH-CENTRAL
61 b PECOS R., N M
62 JAMES R..MO
66 SALT C., NE
74 ELKHORN R., NE
75 WOOD R., NE
79 WHITE R., CO
OTHER
22 MONOCACY R., MD
22a MONOCACY R., MD
27 ROANOKE R., VA
38 PEE DEE R., N C
45 GRAND R., Ml
47 BLUE EARTH R., MN
47a BLUE EARTH R., MN
76 CROW C., WY
82 SOUR IS R., N D
83 BIG SIOUX R., S D
85 JORDAN R., UT
88 LAS VEGAS WA, NV
89 TRUCKEE R., NV
Figure A-46
TURBIDITY LEVELS
FOR
STATIONS ON SMALL STREAMS
1974
APPENDIX A
-e-
20
40
100
OR MORE
JTU
A-59
-------
Figure A-47
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLID CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON SMALL STREAMS
1974
APPENDIX A
SOUTH-CENTRAL
61 b PECOS R., N M
62 JAMES R..MO
66 SALT C., NE
74 ELKHORNR..NE
75 WOOD R., NE
79 WHITE R.. CO
OTHER
22 MONOCACY R., MD
22a MONOCACY R., MD
27 ROANOKE R.f VA
38 PEE DEE R.. N C
45 GRAND R., Ml
47 BLUE EARTH R., MN
47a BLUE EARTH R., MN
76 CROW C., WY
82 SOUR IS R., N D
83 BIG SIOUX R., S D
85 JORDAN R., UT
88 LAS VEGAS WA, NV
89 TRUCKEE R., NV
-e-
-e-
-e-
50
I
15th
PERCENTILE
LEGEND
T
MEDIAN
I
85th
PERCENTILE
100
150
200
250
OR MORE
mg/l
A-60
-------
Figure A-48
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLID CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON SMALL STREAMS
1974
APPENDIX A
SOUTH-CENTRAL
61b PECOS R., N M
62 JAMES R..MO
66 SALT C., NE
74 ELKHORN R., NE
75 WOOD R., NE
79 WHITE R., CO
OTHER
22 MONOCACY R., MD
22a MONOCACY R., MD
27 ROANOKE R., VA
38 PEE DEE R., N C
45 GRAND R., Ml.
47 BLUE EARTH R., MN
47a BLUE EARTH R., MN
76 CROW C.f WY
82 SOURIS R., N D
83 BIG SIOUX R., S D
85 JORDAN R., UT
88 LAS VEGAS WA, NV
89 TRUCKEE R., NV
-e
-e
-e-
LEGEND
—e—
I
PERCENTILE
MEDIAN
85th
PERCENTILE
JL
500
1000 1500
mg/l
2000
3000
OR MORE
A-61
-------
SOUTH-CENTRAL
61 b PECOS R., N M
62 JAMES R.,MO
66 SALT C., NE
74 ELKHORN R., NE,
75 WOOD R., NE
79 WHITE R., CO,
OTHER
22 MONOCACY R., MD
22a MONOCACY R., MD
27 ROANOKE R., VA
38 PEE DEE R., N C
45 GRAND R., Ml
47 BLUE EARTH R., MN
47a BLUE EARTH R., MN
76 CROW C., WY
82 SOURIS R., N D
83 BIG SIOUX R., S D
85 JORDAN R., UT
88 LAS VEGAS WA, NV
89 TRUCKEE R., NV
Figure A-49
CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON SMALL STREAMS
1974
APPENDIX A
LEGEND
r>
u • n
f ?
15th 1
PERCENTILE MEDIAN
85th
PERCENTILE
— V
1
0
1
20
i
40
i
60
i
80
100
OR MORE
mg/l
A-62
-------
SOUTH-CENTRAL
61 b PECOS R., N M
62 JAMES R.,MO
66 SALT C., NE
74 ELKHORNR..NE
75 WOOD R., NE
79 WHITE R., CO
OTHER
22 MONOCACY R., MD
22a MONOCACY R., MD
27 ROANOKE R., VA
38 PEE DEE R., N C
45 GRAND R., Ml
47 BLUE EARTH R., MN
47a BLUE EARTH R., MN
76 CROW C.. WY
82 SOUR IS R.. N D
83 BIG SIOUX R., S D
85 JORDAN R., UT
88 LAS VEGAS WA, NV
89 TRUCKEE R., NV
Figure A-50
TOTAL SULFATE CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON SMALL STREAMS
1974
APPENDIX A
6
e-
LEGEND
15th
PERCENT! LE
1
I
MEDIAN
85th
PERCENTILE
100
200
300
400
500
OR MORE
mg/l
A-63
-------
SOUTH-CENTRAL
61 b PECOS R., N M
62 JAMES R.,MO
66 SALT C., NE
74 ELKHORNR..NE
75 WOOD R., NE
79 WHITE R., CO
OTHER
22 MONOCACY R., MD
22a MONOCACY R., MD
27 ROANOKE R., VA
38 PEE DEE R., N C
45 GRAND R., Ml
47 BLUE EARTH R., MN
47a BLUE EARTH R., MN
76 CROW C.. WY
82 SOUR IS R., N D
83 BIG SIOUX R., S D
85 JORDAN R., UT
88 LAS VEGAS WA, NV
89 TRUCKEE R., NV
Figure A-51
TOTAL AMMONIA CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON SMALL STREAMS
1974
APPENDIX A
•e-
e—
©_
i i
0 1
— ,_, —
LEGEND
t f f
15th 1 85th
PERCENTILE MEDIAN PERCENTILE
j 4 i i
2345
OR MORE
mg/l
A-64
-------
Figure A-52
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON SMALL STREAMS
1974
APPENDIX A
SOUTH-CENTRAL
61 b PECOS R., N M
62 JAMES R..MO
66 SALT C., NE
74 ELKHORN R.f NE
75 WOOD R., NE
79 WHITE R., CO
OTHER
22 MONOCACY R., MD
22a MONOCACY R.f MD
27 ROANOKE R., VA
38 PEE DEE R., N C
45 GRAND R., Ml
47 BLUE EARTH R., MN
47a BLUE EARTH R., MN
76 CROW C., WY
82 SOUR IS R., N D
83 BIG SIOUX R., S D
85 JORDAN R., UT
88 LAS VEGAS WA, NV
89 TRUCKEE R., NV
• — ' — e
LEGEND
i 0
f ?
PERCALE MEDIAN
©.,..
©—
1 1 1 1 J-
01234
85th
PERCENTILE
1
5
OR MORE
mg/l
A-65
-------
Figure A-53
TOTAL NITRATE PLUS NITRITE CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON SMALL STREAMS
APPENDIX A
SOUTH-CENTRAL
61 b PECOS R., NM
62 JAMES R..MO
66 SALT C., NE
74 ELKHORNR., NE
75 WOOD R., NE
79 WHITE R., CO
OTHER
22 MONOCACY R., MD
22a MONOCACY R., MD
27 ROANOKE R., VA
38 PEE DEE R., N C
45 GRAND R.. Ml
47 BLUE EARTH R., MN
47a BLUE EARTH R., MN
76 CROW C.. WY
82 SOUR IS R., N D
83 BIG SIOUX R., SD
85 JORDAN R., UT
88 LAS VEGAS WA, NV
89 TRUCKEE R., NV
1974
el. ....._. ..
e
.,., ,
i i
0 1
LEGEND
t ? t
° I T 1
15th MPniAiu 85th
PERCENTILE M6DIAN PERCENTILE
1 1 1 J
2345
OR MORE
mg/l
A-66
-------
Figure A-54
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON SMALL STREAMS
1974
APPENDIX A
SOUTH-CENTRAL
61 b PECOS R., N M
62 JAMES R.,MO
66 SALT C., NE
74 ELKHORN R., NE
75 WOOD R., NE
79 WHITE R., CO
OTHER
22 MONOCACY R.. MD
22a MONOCACY R., MD
27 ROANOKE R., VA
38 PEE DEE R., N C
45 GRAND R., Ml
47 BLUE EARTH R., MN
47a BLUE EARTH R., MN
76 CROW C., WY
82 SOUR IS R., N D
83 BIG SIOUX R., S D
85 JORDAN R., UT
88 LAS VEGAS WA, NV
89 TRUCKEE R., NV
e
15th
PERCENTItE
LEGEND
©.,
MEDIAN
85th
PERCENTILE
©
J
5
OR MORE
mg/l
A-67
-------
APPENDIX A
Figure A-55
DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON SMALL STREAMS
1974
SOUTH-CENTRAL
61 b PECOS R., N M
62 JAMES R.,MO
66 SALT C.f NE
74 ELKHORN R.f NE
75 WOOD R., NE
79 WHITE R., CO
OTHER
22 MONOCACY R., MD
22a MONOCACY R., MD
27 ROANOKE R., VA
38 PEE DEE R., N C
45 GRAND R., Ml
47 BLUE EARTH R., MN
47a BLUE EARTH R., MN
76 CROW C., WY
82 SOUR IS R., N D
83 BIG SIOUX R., S D
85 JORDAN R., UT
88 LAS VEGAS WA, NV
89 TRUCKEE R., NV
1
0
o
e
15th
PERGENTILE
1 1 1
4 8 12
LEGEND
MEDIAN
1
16
85th
PERCENTILE
|
20
OR MORE
mg/l
A-68
-------
SOUTH-CENTRAL
61 b PECOS R., N M
62 JAMES R.,MO
66 SALT C., NE
74 ELKHORNR., NE
75 WOOD R., NE
79 WHITE R., CO
OTHER
22 MONOCACY R., MD
22a MONOCACY R., MD
27 ROANOKE R., VA
38 PEE DEE R., N.C
45 GRAND R., Ml
47 BLUE EARTH R., MN
47a BLUE EARTH R., MN
76 CROW C., WY
82 SOURIS R., N D
83 BIG SIOUX R., S D
85 JORDAN R., UT.
88 LAS VEGAS WA, NV
89 TRUCKEE R., NV
Figure A-56
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FOR
STATIONS ON SMALL STREAMS
1974
APPENDIX A
0
_
15th
n PERCENT! LE
A
LEGEND
©..,.,
MEDIAN
85th
PERCENTILE
_L
20
40 60
mg/l
80 100
OR MORE
A-E9
-------
Figure A-57
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON CONCENTRATIONS
FOR
STATIONS ON SMALL STREAMS
1974
APPENDIX A
SOUTH-CENTRAL
61 b PECOS R., N M
62 JAMES R,MO
66 SALT C., NE,
74 ELKHORNR..NE
75 WOOD R., NE
79 WHITE R., CO
OTHER
22 MONOCACY R., MD
22a MONOCACY R., MD
27 ROANOKE R., VA
38 PEE DEE R., N C
45 GRAND R., Ml
*
47 BLUE EARTH R., MN
47a BLUE EARTH R., MN
76 CROW C., WY
82 SOURIS R., N D
83 BIG SIOUX R., S D
85 JORDAN R., UT
88 LAS VEGAS WA, NV
89 TRUCKEE R., NV
«
©__
^
©_...,-_
LEGEND
-®- i n
f ?
15th 1
PERCENTILE MEDIAN
III!
0 10 20 30
85th
PERCENTILE
40 50
OR MORE
mg/l
A-70
-------
Figure A-58
FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA LEVELS
FOR
STATIONS ON SMALL STREAMS
1974
S.C.
61c
62
66
74
75
79
OTHER
22
22a
> 27
38
45
47
47a
76
82 (
83
85
88
89
1(
©,_ _
©,
©— ^
0— __^_
9--
I 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 I 1 | | I | I | |
X) 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,
.OR M
m
0
X
000 >
ORE
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
APPENDIX B
National Eutrophication Survey
Appendix B provides a listing of the water
quality characteristics which were measured to
determine the condition of the lakes studied in
the survey (Table B-1). A listing of the lakes for
which a detailed analysis of phosphorus loading
rates were determined is also provided. The lakes
are separated into those impacted by municipal
treatment plants (Table B-2) and those not
impacted by any identifiable point sources
(Table B-3).
Selection Criteria
Freshwater lakes and impoundments in NES
were selected jointly by EPA headquarters, EPA
regional offices, and State pollution control
agencies, as well as related state agencies man-
aging fisheries, water resources, or public health.
EPA established selection criteria to limit the
type and number of candidate water bodies,
consistent with existing EPA water goals and
strategies. For 27 States in the eastern United
States, selected prior to passage of the Act,
strongest emphasis was placed on lakes faced
with actual or potential accelerated eutrophica-
tion problems. As a result, the lakes selected
were 100 acres or larger in size, had mean
hydraulic retention times of at least 30 days,
and were impacted by one or more municipal
sewage treatment plants, either directly or by
discharge to an inlet tributary within approxi-
mately 25 miles of the lake. However, these
criteria were waived for a number of lakes of
particular interest to the States.
In the western States, these criteria were
modified to reflect revised water research man-
dates, and to address more prevalent nonpoint
source problems in agricultural or undeveloped
areas. Thus, each State was requested to submit
a list of candidate lakes that were representative
of the full range of water quality, were in the
recreational, water supply, and/or fish and wild-
life propagation use-categories, and were repre-
sentative of the full scope of nutrient pollution
problems or sources (from municipal waste
and/or nutrient-rich industrial discharges, as well
as from nonpoint sources). The size and reten-
tion time criteria applied in the eastern States
were retained, as was the waiver provision.
In all cases, listings of potential candidate
lakes or reservoirs, prepared with the coopera-
tion of the EPA Regional Offices, were made
available to the States to initiate the selection
process.
In total, the survey will have covered 812
lakes and reservoirs across the contiguous 48
United States when it is completed in 1976.
TABLE B-1
WATER QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS
MEASURED IN NATIONAL
EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
Physical-chemical
Biological
Alkalinity
Conductivity*
pH*
Dissolved oxygen*
Phosphorus:
Ortho
Total
Nitrogen:
Ammonia
Kjeldahl
Nitrate
Secchi depth
Temperature*
Algal assay
Algal count and
identification
Chlorophyll j
* Determined on site with electronic probes.
B-3
-------
APPENDIX B
TABLEB-2
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOADINGS, TROPHIC CONDITION, AND LIMITING NUTRIENT
FOR WATER BODIES IN FIGURE VI-5
Total phosphorus loadings (g/m^/yr)
Water body
Connecticut
Bantam Lake
Eagleville Lake
Lake Zoar
Lake Lillinonah
Georgia
Alltoona Reservoir
Blackshear Lake
Chatuge Lake
Clark Hill Reservoir
Jackson Lake
Sidney Lanier Lake
Nott'eiy Reservoir
Semi hole Lake
Sinclair Lake
Walter F. George Reservoir
Harding Lake
High Falls Pond
Maine
Estes Lake
Mattawamkeag Lake
Range'ley Lake
Sebasticook Lake
Long Lake
Massachusetts
Hager Pond
Harris Pond
Maynard Impoundment
Michigan
Lake Allegan
Barton Lake
Belleville Lake
Ford Lake
Freemont Lake
Jordan Lake
Kent Lake
Macatawa Lake
Muskegon Lake
Randall Lake
Ross Reservoir
Thornapple Lake
Union Lake
White Lake
Mona Lake
Long Lake
Houghton Lake
Strawberry Lake
STORET
number
0902
0904
0910
0911
1301
1302
1303
1304
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1317
1319
2304
2308
2310
2312
2313
2502
2503
2504
2603
2606
2609
2629
2631
2640
2643
2648
2659
2671
2673
2683
2685
2688
2691
2692
2696
2699
Trophic
condition*
E
E
E
E
M
E
M
M
E
M
M
E
E
E
E
E
E
M
0
E
M
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
M
E
Limiting
nutrient
N
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
N
N
P
N
P
P
P
N
P
P
P
P
N
P
P
P
N
N
P
P
P
P
N
N
P
P
Vollenweider
factor
14.3
450.0
535.7
253.2
33.3
129.3
13.2
30.4
81.2
12.2
20.7
136.4
45.5
48.1
247.4
97.4
100.0
32.2
55.1
10.6
4.2
22.7
141.2
400.0
178.9
27.5
89.7
107.3
5.3
8.8
22.2
17.5
111.1
48.2
300.0
143.3
180.0
45.1
19.2
61.2
1.8
186.1
Existing
0.63
54.06
39.22
29.08
2.09
9.57
0.38
1.61
33.38
1.20
0.75
8.82
4.10
4.55
58.74
8.07
9.65
0.59
0.09
0.68
0.12
129.68
10.84
128.02
31.40
2.14
15.74
16.16
2.97
1.14
1.59
6.34
6.86
4.00
17.02
9.23
9.29
1.98
9.63
4.61
0.05
9.18
With 50%
STP reduction
0.60
36.48
37.94
27.15
1.82
9.12
0.37
1.55
22.28
0.89
0.73
8.70
3.99
3.67
58.10
5.50
6.06
0.43
0.08
0.44
0.11
65.43
7.41
72.26
27.74
1.42
8.36
8.70
2.34
1.06
1.16
4.60
5.65
2.88
15.q8
8.92
9.13
1.84
7.30
2.85
0.05
8.42
With 80%
STP reduction
0.59
25.97
37.16
25.99
1.66
8.85
0.37
1.52
15.64
0.88
0.72
8.63
3.93
3.14
57.72
3.95
3.91
0.34
0.08
0.30
0.11
26.87
5.35
38.80
25.54
1.01
3.94
4.21
1.96
1.02
0.90
3.56
4.92
2.22
14.88
8.75
9.05
1.76
5.91
1.82
0.04
8.01
B-4
-------
APPENDIX B
TAB LEB-2 (Continued)
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOADINGS, TROPHIC CONDITION, AND LIMITING NUTRIENT
FOR WATER BODIES IN FIGURE VI-5
Water body
Minnesota
Lake Winona
Wolf Lake
Lake Pepin
Spring Lake
Lake St. Croix
Wagonga Lake
Green Lake
Nest Lake
Lake Le Homme Dieu
Lake Carlos
Lake Andrusia
Mud Lake
Albert Lea Lake
Badger Lake
Bartlett Lake
Blackduck Lake
Blackhoof Lake
Buffalo Lake
Cass Lake
Clearwater Lake
Cokato Lake
Elbow Lake
Embarrass Lake
Fanny Lake
Heron Lake
Leech Lake
Lily Lake
Malmedal Lake
Mashkenode Lake
McQuade Lake
Lake Minnewaska
Pelican Lake
Upper Sakatah Lake
Silver Lake
Six Mile Lake
Swan Lake
Trout Lake
New Hampshire
Powder Mill Pond
Lake Winnipesaukee
Kellys Falls Pond
Glen Lake
New York
Canandaigua
Cayuga Lake
Chautauqua
Cross Lake
Raquette Pond
STORET Trophic
number condition*
27A1
27 A2
27 A4
27 A6
27 A7
27B1
27B2
27B3
27B5
27B9
27CO
27C2
2702
2704
2705
2711
2712
2713
2715
2716
2719
2725
2728
2731
2739
2746
2747
2752
2756
2757
2761
2765
2777
2782
2783
2788
2793
3302
3303
3305
3306
3604
3608
3610
3611
3629
E
E
E
E
E
E
M
E
E
M
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
M
E
E
E
E
E
E
M
E
E
E
E
E
M
E
E
E
M
E
E
0
E
E
0
M
E
E
E
Total phosphorus loadings (g/m^/yr)
Limiting Vollenweider With 50%
nutrient factor Existing STP reduction
N
N
N
N
P
N
P
N
P
P
P
N
N
P
P
P
N
N
P
N
N
N
P
N
N
P
N
P
N
N
P
P
N
N
N
P
N
P
P
P
P
P
P
N
P
P
0.9
84.2
204.0
342.9
139.7
0.9
1.7
8.8
0.8
3.5
61.2
1.9
5.5
4.1
1.4
1.1
6.3
3.1
8.9
3.7
6.7
3.8
43.3
9.7
2.4
0.9
16.4
1.4
19.1
17.3
0.5
0.8
17.4
0.5
19.2
5.0
0.9
138.9
3.3
575.0
425.0
2.6
4.9
4.9
289.5
63.6
1.65
6.43
34.38
107.15
8.89
4.00
0.09
0.79
0.11
0.14
4.02
4.96
6.31
0.63
0.37
0.14
1.22
0.98
0.35
0.67
2.60
7.87
1.70
14.96
1.04
0.37
6.58
0.28
5.38
1.20
0.15
0.06
3.74
0.53
5.09
0.57
0.33
3.25
0.12
28.77
13.13
0.14
0.49
0.27
33.52
0.99
0.84
4.84
27.99
80.69
8.37
2.12
0.07
0.56
0.08
0.11
3.04
2.51
3.67
0.41
0.21
0.11
0.78
0.58
0.28
0.66
2.24
4.00
1.29
12.69
0.83
0.35
4.81
0.19
3.01
0.92
0.09
0.05
3.62
0.30
2.83
0.41
0.18
2.40
0.09
25.62
9.81
0.11
0.38
0.20
30.17
0.94
With 80%
STP reduction
0.37
3.90
24.16
64.82
8.07
1.00
0.06
0.43
0.07
0.13
2.46
1.04
2.09
0.27
0.11
0.09
0.53
0.35
0.24
0.48
2.03
1.68
1.04
11.33
0.70
0.34
3.74
0.14
1.60
0.75
0:07
0.05
3.55
0.16
1.48
0.33
0.10
1.90
0.08
23.82
7.85
0.09
0.32
0.16
28.16
0.91
B-5
-------
APPENDIX B
TAB LEB-2 (Continued)
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOADINGS, TROPHIC CONDITION, AND LIMITING NUTRIENT
FOR WATER BODIES IN FIGURE VI-5
Total phosphorus loadings (g/m2/yr)
Water body
New York (Continued)
Saratoga Lake
Seneca Lake
Swinging Bridge Reservoir
Lower St. Regis
Rhode Island
Slattersville Reservoir
Turner Reservoir
South Carolina
Fishing Creek Reservoir
Greenwood Lake
Hartwell Reservoir
Marion Lake
Robinson Lake
Wateree Lake
Wylie Lake
Keowee Lake
Vermont
Clyde Pond
Harriman Reservoir
Lake Lamoille
Lake Memphremagog
Arrowhead Mountain Lake
Waterbury Reservoir
Wisconsin
Altoona Lake
Lake Butte Des Morts
Butternut Lake
Delavan Lake
Eau Claire Lake
Kegonsa Lake
Koshkonong Lake
Nagawicka Lake
Pigeon Lake
Lake Poygan
Sinissippi Lake
Swan Lake
Tainter Lake
Townline Lake
Wapogasset Lake
Wausau Lake
Lake Winnebago
Wisconsin Lake
Lake Wissota
Tichigan Lake
Big Eau Pleine Reservoir
STORET Trophic Limiting Vollenweider With 50%
number condition* nutrient factor Existing STP reduction
3633
3635
3637
3640
4402
4403
4503
4504
4505
4506
4508
4510
4511
4513
5002
5005
5007
5008
5010
5011
5502
5508
5509
5513
5515
5520
5522
5531
5535
5538
5541
5545
5546
5548
5550
5551
5554
5555
5556
5559
5565
E
M
E
E '
E
E
E
E
M
E
E
E
E
M
E
M
E
E
E
M
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
P
P
P
P
P
N
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
P
P
N
N
N
N
N
19.2
2.6
53.2
16.9
171.4
166.7
304.0
33.8
15.2
33.1
22.7
93.2
65.4
13.8
340.0
48.6
566.7
9.1
310.0
55.9
150.0
112.5
10.8
2.7
85.2
13.9
24.2
6.6
75.0
58.3
15.6
19.9
151.9
5.4
9.9
440.0
6.9
163.6
161.7
36.5
11.1
1.60
0.38
7.07
0.41
5.61
162.98
52.94
8.97
0.78
3.54
0.49
11.08
7.53
0.29
8.31
0.88
25.21
0.50
11.26
1.34
19.90
9.61
0.64
1.12
9.04
1.85
9.87
1.33
6.45
5.55
6.35
2.78
20.30
1.40
0.71
28.40
0.94
15.21
7.64
20.51
1.49
1.19
0.24
4.23
0.38
5.14
133.48
47.89
5.38
0.69
3.53
0.36
11.01
6.02
0.27
7.53
0.75
21.53
0.40
10.15
1.08
19.76
9.55
0.52
0.68
8.45
1.82
9.08
0.93
5.42
5.53
6.00
2.25
20.22
1.00
0.63
25.02
0.84
14.92
7.57
11.92
1.47
With 80%
STP reduction
0.95
0.17
2.53
0.37
4.88
114.19
44.85
3.23
0.64
3.53
0.29
10.98
5.13
0.26
7.08
0.70
19.33
0.34
9.48
0.92
19.68
9.51
0.46
0.44
8.10
1.81
8.60
0.72
4.82
5.51
5.79
1.95
20.17
0.80
0.59
22.99
0.78
14.75
7.53
6.79
1.46
B-6
-------
APPENDIX B
TAB LEB-2 (Continued)
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOADINGS, TROPHIC CONDITION, AND LIMITING NUTRIENT
FOR WATER BODIES IN FIGURE VI-5
Total phosphorus loadings (g/m^/yr)
STORET Trophic Limiting Vollenweider With 50% With 80%
Water body number condition* nutrient factor Existing STP reduction SPT reduction
Wisconsin (Continued)
Rome Pond
Grand Lake
Elk Lake
Beaverdam Lake
5568
5570
5575
5577
E
E
E
• E
N
P
P
N
37.5
40.0
360.0
3.4
3.36
8.57
18.39
0.88
3.22
7.69
16.01
0.82
3.14
7.18
14.59
0.78
E = eutrophic
M = mesotrophic
0 = oligotrophic
B-7
-------
APPENDIX B
TABLE B-3
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOADINGS, TROPHIC CONDITION,
AND LIMITING NUTRIENT FOR WATER BODIES IN FIGURE VI-6
Water body
Georgia
Blue Ridge lake
Burton Lake
Maine
Moosehead Lake
Sebago Lake
Bay of Naples
Michigan
Lake Chemung
Sanford Lake
Crystal Lake
Higgins Lake
Thompson Lake
Minnesota
Budd Lake
Forest Lake
Darling Lake
Lake Bemidji
Madison Lake
New York
Carry Falls Reservoir
Keuka Lake
Schroon Lake
Conesus Lake
South Carolina
Moultrie Lake
Saluda Lake
Wisconsin
Shawano Lake
Willow Lake
STORET
number
1316
1318
2309
2311
2314
2618
2674
2694
2695
2697
27 A8
27A9
27 B4
27C1
2750
3606
3617
3634
3639
4512
4515
5539
5574
Trophic
condition
M
M
0
0
O
E
E
0
0
E
E
E
M
E
E
M
M
O
E
E
E
E
M
Limiting
nutrient
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
N
P
P
N
P
P
P
P
N
P
P
P
N
Vollenweider
factor
38.17
26.98
5.50
5.70
60.56
2.02
120.00
1.27
0.96
6.49
10.23
0.60
7.12
13.35
1.21
51.92
2.90
34.13
5.24
52.73
400.00
2.13
14.11
Total phosphorus
loading (g/m2/yr)
0.91
0.04
0.08
0.08
0.51
0.22
3.92
0.07
0.03
0.41
1.70
0.38
0.19
0.44
0.36
0.71
0.10
0.39
0.38
2.47
16.94
0.07
0.44
B-8
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
APPENDIX C
State Agency Addresses
Chapters 1 through 4 are based almost exclusively on information provided by the Stateis in their
1975 water quality inventory reports. Copies of these reports are available directly from the State
agencies listed below.
Region I
Connecticut
Division of Water Compliance and Hazard-
ous Substances
Department of Environmental Protection
165 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, CT 06115
Maine
Division of Water Quality Evaluation and
Planning
Bureau of Water Quality Control
Department of Environmental Protection
Statehouse
Augusta, ME 04330
New Hampshire
Water Supply and Pollution Control Com-
mission
105 Loudon Road
Prescptt Park
Concord, NH 03301
Rhode Island
Division of Water Supply and Pollution
Control
Rhode Island Department of Health
State Office Building
Davis Street
Providence, Rl 02908
Vermont
Department of Water Resources
Agency of Environmental Conservation
State Office Building
Montpelier, VT 05602
Region II
New York
Division of Pure Waters
New York State Department of Environ-
mental Conservation
Albany, NY 12301
New Jersey
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection
P.O. Box 1390
Trenton, NJ 08625
Puerto Rico
Environmental Quality Board
1550 Ponce de Leon Avenue
Santurce, PR 00910
Virgin Islands
Division of Natural Resources Management
Department of Conservation and Cultural
Affairs
Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, VI 00801
Region III
Delaware
Division of Environmental Control
Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
Tatnall Building, Capitol Complex
Dover, DE 19901
Maryland
Maryland Environmental Service
Tawes State Office Building
Annapolis, MD21404
District of Columbia
Department of Environmental Services
Water Resources Management Administra-
tion
415-12th St. NW Room 307
Washington, D.C. 20004
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources
Bureau of Water Quality Management
P.O. Box 1063
Harrisburg, PA17120
.C-3
-------
APPENDIX C
Virginia
Virginia State Water Control Board
P.O.Box 11143
Richmond, VA 23230
West Virginia
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1201 Greenbrier Street
Charleston, WV 25311
J. Marion Sims Building
2600 Bull St.
Columbia, SC 29201
Tennessee
Tennessee Division of Water Quality Con-
trol
Department of Public Health
621 Cordell Hull Building
Nashville, TN 37219
Region IV
Alabama
Alabama Water Improvement Commission
State Office Building
Montgomery, A L 36104
Florida
Department of Pollution Control
2562 Executive Center Circle
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Georgia
Environmental Protection Division
Department of Natural Resources
270 Washington St., S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30334
Kentucky
Division of Water Quality
Department for Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection
275 East Maine Street
Frankfort, KY 40601
North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management
Department of Natural and Economic
Resources
Raleigh, NC 27611
South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental
Control
Region V
Illinois
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62706
Indiana
Water Pollution Control Division
Indiana State Board of Health
1330 West Michigan Street
Indianapolis, IN 46206
Michigan
Bureau of Water Management
Department of Natural Resources
Stevens T. Mason Building
Lansing, Ml 48926
Minnesota
Division of Water Quality
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
1935 West County Road B-2
Roseville, MN55113
Ohio
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 118
Columbus, OH 43215
Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 450
Madison, Wl 53701
C-4
-------
APPENDIX C
Region VI
Arkansas
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control
and Ecology
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, AR 72209
Louisiana
Louisiana Stream Control Commission
P.O. Drawer FC, University Station
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
New Mexico
Water Quality Section
Environmental Improvement Agency
P.O. Box 2348
Santa Fe, NM 87501
Oklahoma
Department of Pollution Control
Box 53504
N.E. 10th & Stonewall
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
Texas
Texas Water Quality Board
Administrative Operations Division
P.O. Box 13246, Capitol Station
Austin, TX 78711
Region VII
Iowa
Iowa Department of Environmental
Quality
3920 Delaware Avenue
P.O. Box 3326
Des Moines, IA 50316
Kansas
Division of Environment
Department of Health and Environment
Topeka, KS 66620
Missouri
Clean Water Commission
Capital Bldg., Box 154
Jefferson City, MO 65101
Nebraska
Water Quality Section
Water Pollution Control Division
Department of Environmental Control
P.O. Box 94653
State House Station
Lincoln, NB 68509
Region VIII
Colorado
Water Quality Control Division
Colorado Department of Health
4210 East 11th Avenue
Denver CO 80220
Montana
Water Quality Bureau
Environmental Sciences Division
Department of Health and Environmental
Sciences
Cogswell Building
Helena, MT 59601
North Dakota
Division of Water Supply and Pollution
Control
Department of Health
Bismarck, ND 58505
South Dakota
Department of Environmental Protection
Pierre, SD 57501
Utah
Bureau of Water Quality
Environmental Health Services Branch
Division of Health
Department of Social Services
221 State Capitol
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
C-5
-------
APPENDIX C
Wyoming
Water Quality Division
Department of Environmental Quality
State Office Building West
Cheyenne, WY 82002
Region IX
American Samoa
American Samoa Environmental Quality
Commission
Office of the Governor
Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799
Arizona
Bureau of Water Quality Control
Division of Environmental Health Services
Arizona Department of Health Services
1740 West Adams St.
Phoenix, AZ 85007
California
California State Water Resources Control
Board
1416 Ninth St.
Sacramento, CA 95814
Hawaii
Environmental Health Division
Department of Health
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, HI 96801
Guam
Guam Environmental Protection Agency
Box 2999
Agana, Guam 96910
Nevada
Environmental Protection Section
Department of Human Resources
1209 Johnson St.
Carson City, NV 89701 ,
Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Health Services
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
Saipan, Mariana Islands 96950
Region X
Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare
Statehouse
Boise, ID 83720
j
Oregon
Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality
1234 W.Morrison St.
Portland, OR 97205
Washington
Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 820
Olympia, WA 98504
* U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1976 622-813/436
C-6
------- |