NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF STATE BIOLOGICAL DATA SECOND DRAFT REPORT SCS ENGINEERS STEARNS, CONRAD AND SCHMIDT CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. ------- NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF STATE BIOLOGICAL DATA SECOND DRAFT REPORT EPA Contract No. 68-03-3028-WD8 Prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office Of Water Regulations and Standards Monitoring and Data Support Division Washington, D.C. Prepared by: SCS Engineers 11260 Roger Bacon Drive Reston, Virginia 22090 (703) 471-6150 September 30, 1981 ------- TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 SUMMARY 2 APPROACH 3 Information Collection 3 Biological Assessment 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 6 State Programs . . 6 Assessment of Biological Conditions and Trends ... 7 Case Studies 8 APPENDIX A - CONTACTS FOR ACQUIRING BIOLOGICAL DATA APPENDIX B - STATE BIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS APPENDIX C - STATE 305(b) REPORTS REVIEWED AND BIOLOGICAL DATA REPORTED APPENDIX D - ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX E - NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF THE WATER QUALITY OF RIVERS AND STREAMS USING BIOLOGICAL DATA ------- INTRODUCTION The Clean Water Act is a leading source of requirements for water quality assessments. Goals, objectives and timetables are established by the Act to guide the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the States efforts to achieve cleaner waters. Section 305(b) of the Act obligates EPA to report biennially on the progress towards cleaner waters. To measure progress towards achieving cleaner waters, EPA established the Basic Water Monitoring Program (BWMP) in 1977. The program requires collecting, analyzing and interpreting chem- ical, physical, bacteriological and bioaccumulation information through an ambient monitoring program and intensive surveys. The information gathered through this program helps to define water quality conditions and trends. A proposed Biological Monitoring Program (Pilot Program) is described in the 1977 Basic Water Mon- itoring Program (BWMP) guidelines. The proposed biological pro- gram is not a requirement of BWMP but States are encouraged to implement the program. In the past little national attention has been focused on State biological programs, the program findings and the uses of the information in defining the progress towards cleaner waters and the goals of the Act. The focus to date has been on defining water quality conditions and trends via chemical constituents of the nation's waters. Chemical constituents reflect environmental conditions at one point in time in a dynamic system. The compo- sition and structure of biological communities, however, reflect environmental conditions which have existed over the life span of the organisms. The objectives of this study are to: 1) describe State bio- logical programs; 2) collect and review available biological data indicating water quality conditions; 3) assess the biological conditions and trends of the nation's waters; and 4) provide an annotated bibliography of publications containing biological data. The information collected is to be used by EPA for the bi- annual report to Congress on the quality of the nation's waters (Section 305(b), Clean Water Act). The results of these activities are presented in the follow- ing format: first, an overall summary of the study; and second, the approach to data collection and biological assessment. Next, the State programs and an assessment of the biological conditions of the nation's waters are discussed. Finally, the appendices contain a list of State contacts, a list of State 305(b) reports reviewed, State program descriptions, an annotated bibliography and the results of the 'national assessment. ------- SUMMARY The objectives of this study are to: 1) describe State bio- logical programs; 2) collect, review, and provide an annotated bibliography of available biological data on the nation's waters; and 3) assess the biological conditions and trends of the na- tion's waters. These objectives were accomplished by reviewing State 305(b) reports and contacting the States and other organi- zations to acquire information in addition to that contained in the 305 (b) reports. Most States conduct biological monitoring beyond the bioac- cumulation information which is required by the Basic Water Moni- toring Program. The program structure varies from State to State depending on needs and resources, but includes an ambient fixed station network and/or intensive studies. The biological param- eters studied also vary among the States but are largely communi- ty studies of one or more trophic levels. The national assessment of the biological quality has been limited to rivers and streams with readily available benthic ma- croinvertebrate and/or periphyton data. Eighty percent of the basins or stations assessed were 1n "fair" or "good" biological health and 20 percent in poor condition. Trends were assessed for about one-third of the basins or stations. Stable or improv- ing trends were the rule rather than the exception. ------- APPROACH The approach to meeting the specific objectives is organized in two sections. The first section presents the methodology and sources utilized in finding and acquiring biological data. The second describes the methodology used to define the biological condition and trends of the nation's waters. INFORMATION COLLECTION The initial step in the collection of the State biological data was a review of the 1978 and 1980 State 305(b) reports to Congress. The primary objective was to collect available biolo- ?ical monitoring information from these reports. The State 305 b) reports reviewed and a summary of the biological data report- ed are presented in Appendix C. In many cases, the States did not specifically address their biological programs; therefore, each State was contacted directly to discuss its monitoring programs, the accessibility of its findings and information on any additional data sources. The main objectives of contacting the States were to obtain readily available biological data and a program description. If biologi- cal data were not readily available, the contact was to asked to rate the biological health of the waters of the State at the hy- drologic/geographic level he/she felt appropriate. River basin commissions were also contacted to determine their participation in biological programs. A list of State and river basin commis- sion contacts is presented in Appendix A. As requested by EPA, Federal and State fisheries personnel were not contacted for the effort. Comments received from State and Regional reviews of the report "1980 National Water Quality Report to Congress Biological Assessment" prepared in August 1980, by SCS Engineers were also incorporated into this report. BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT The scope of the assessment is limited to rivers and streams with readily available data. After a preliminary review of the data, it was found some States routinely assess the water quality of rivers and streams using biological data; therefore, a nation- al assessment of these water bodies could be accomplished within the resources allocated to this study. Lakes and coastal areas are also important aquatic environments and perhaps can be as- sessed in the future. The primary biological parameter used for water quality as- sessment of rivers and streams by the States who performed as- sessments are the composition and diversity of the benthic macro- invertebrate and periphyton communities. Other States also col- lect this data but do not necessarily interpret the data in terms of water quality. Therefore, given the abundance and availabil- ity of this type of data, the biological conditions and trends ------- are based largely on the benthic macroinvertebrate and periphyton communities. The interpretation of the data and subsequent categorization of the biological condition and trends for this study was based on either: • States interpretation or professional opinion; or t Interpretation of data and categorization by the contrac- tor. The assessment of biological conditions and trends using community data is usually based on the following community char- acteristics: t Number and types of taxa; and • Number of organisms. This information is frequently summarized using numerical indices such as the Biotic Index and Shannon-Weaver or Brillouin diversity indices. The numerical value of these indices plus other community information is then used to classify the condi- tion of a stream. Ohio, for example, uses the pollution toler- ance of the organisms, the number of taxa and the Shannon-Weaver index to classify the streams as "excellent", "good", "poor" or "fair". The stream condition categories and criteria for each cate- gory used by Ohio are as follows: • Class I "excellent" streams have an abundance of sensi- tive species. Intermediate and tolerant species are pre- sent in low numbers. The number of taxa exceeds 30 and the Shannon-Weaver index exceeds 3.0; •• Class II "good" streams have sensitive and intermediate species present in moderate numbers. Tolerant species may be present in low numbers. Usually, the number of taxa ranges from 25 to 30 and the Shannon-Weaver index 2.5 to 3.0. Many Class II streams have mild organic pol- lution; • Class III "fair" streams have intermediate species pres- ent in abundance with tolerant species present in moder- ate numbers. Sensitive species may be present in low numbers. The number of taxa usually ranges from 20 to 25 and the Shannon-Weaver index 2.0 to 2.5; and 0 Class IV "poor" streams may have tolerant species in abundance, intermediate species in low numbers or absent, and no sensitive species present. All types of organisms may be absent if extreme toxic conditions exist. The ------- number of taxa will be less than 20 and the Shannon-Weav- er Index less than 2.0. The biological condition of river and streams are designated "good", "fair" and "poor" for this assessment. Stream conditions reported by the States as "excellent" were combined into the "good" category. When the State provided only diversity indices and no judgment of the condition, the contractor used the diver- sity index to determine the biological condition. The interpre- tation, therefore, is very subjective. If the Shannon-Weaver diversity index was used to define the conditions, the classifications were generally as follows: • "Good" - Shannon-Weaver index exceeds 3.0; • "Fair" - Shannon-Weaver index is 2.0-3.0; or • "Poor" - Shannon-Weaver index is less than 2.0. / Trends in the health of the biological community were classified as "improving", "degrading", "stable" or "unknown". The date of the study and the cause of a particular condition or trend is provided where the information is available. No attempt was made to define the extent of a river basin for which a condition exists. In some cases, the biological mon- itoring was conducted above and below point source dischargers and the data may or may not be representative of the segment or basin. The location of the biological sampling is provided where available. The contractor attempted to locate each sampling site within a USGS Hydrologic Cataloging Unit. Locational informa- tion, however was not sufficient in some cases for locating the sampling site in a USGS Hydrologic Cataloging Unit. Many other types of biological data are available for rivers and streams but were not used in this assessment, such as fisher- ies community data, fish tissue data, fish kill records, phyto- plankton and zooplankton information. Fish tissue data is organ- ism-specific data and does not directly relate information on the community health. Phytoplankton and zooplankton communities are not commonly surveyed in lotic ecosystems but are important com- ponents of lentic ecosystems. Also, the study resources limited the amount and type of data which could be reviewed and evaluat- ed. ------- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This section discusses the State programs and the biological conditions and trends of the nation's rivers and streams. Two case studies are also presented showing improvements in biologi- cal health with the implementation of pollution abatement con- trols. STATE PROGRAMS A brief description of each State's program is provided in Appendix B. Most States (48) and the District of Columbia per- form biological monitoring either as a part of the ambient fixed station network or through intensive surveys or both, under the Basic Water Monitoring Program. One objective of ambient fixed station monitoring is to collect baseline data so future trends can be assessed. Intensive surveys, on the other hand, are con- ducted to answer specific questions such as the effect of a point source discharger and pollution control efforts or to assess the effects of non-point source runoff. Biological data are not fre- quently used by the States for determining stream use classifica- tions. River basin commissions typically do not perform actual stream monitoring. Instead, they tabulate and summarize existing data on the condition of a watershed to aid member States and Federal agencies in the planning, development and protection of the basin water quality. In some cases, biological data is used to assess the biolo- gical health of an aquatic system. Other times, biological data is used in conjunction with chemical and physical data to assess water quality. For example, the Interstate Commission on the Po- tomac River Basin includes biological parameters along with chem- ical parameters in a numerical scoring of the values which is translated to a station status of "excellent", "good", "fair" or "poor". Biological information collected by the States includes com- munity studies of fish, benthic macroinvertebrates, periphyton, phytoplankton, zooplankton, macrophyton, and toxic metal and or- ganic compound content of fish/shellfish tissue. Benthic macro- invertebrate and periphyton communities are most commonly studied in running waters, whereas phytoplankton, zooplankton and macro- phytons are often included in lake surveys. Data generated from State biological programs are not readi- ly available in a national centralized location, except for fish tissue data which are stored in STORET. Each State maintains its own data and the availability at the State level ranges from files to published reports. BIOSTORET was originally conceived by EPA as a repository for biological information but to date has not received funding for implementation beyond the pilot stage. ------- Some States do include biological survey results biannually in 305(b) reports. The biological information contained in the 1978 and 1980 reports is shown in Appendix C. Appendix D is an anno- tated bibliography of the reports and data received from the States and river basin commissions. The availability of fisheries data is not well documented in this report since fisheries personnel were not contacted. Fish- eries studies, particularly management, are usually not conducted by the same State department or division that oversees other bio- logical studies. It appears funding is a major factor determining the scope of a State's program. The biological staff of many States is limited. Besides a few States which are only now implementing programs, the general trend seems to be towards cutting back and streamlining current programs. Many of the programs are structured to serve as partial ful- fillment of Section 106 of the Clean Water Act and receive EPA funding in addition to State funding. The Clean Lakes Program has been the vehicle, whereby many of the lakes studies have been conducted. Other work is being performed to determine the ef- fects of non-point source runoff under Section 208. ASSESSMENT OF BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS AND TRENDS The results of the assessment of biological conditions and trends are presented in Appendix E for rivers and streams with readily available data. Thirty-one of 50 States are represented in this assessment for data collected between 1972 and 1980. To summarize the results, 37, 43 and 20 percent of the basins or stations (N=973) which were assessed were rated as "good", "fair" and "poor", respectively. This does not imply 37 percent of the waters in the United States are in good condition, it only shows that 37 percent of the stations or basins assessed are in good condition. Many of the stations are located upstream and down- stream of point source dischargers. In most cases, it is difficult to pin-point a specific envi- ronmental factor affecting a population. The effects of pollu- tion are generally related to organic enrichment, toxicants or changes in the physical environment. Generally, when an environ- mental stress is confined to nutrient enrichment, the more sensi- tive taxa are eliminated while the survivors or tolerant forms, free of competition and with a possible additional food source, increase in numbers. Toxic substances, on the other hand, usual- ly reduce the number of taxa and number of organisms present. Physical alterations to the aquatic environmental such as silta- tion, channelization, dams and flow alterations, can also reduce the availability of suitable habitats for supporting healthy com- munities. ------- All three of these factors were found to be causes of less than healthy conditions in this assessment. Of the documented or suspected causes (Appendix E), nutrient enrichment from sewage treatment plants, agricultural runoff, etc. seems to be a major cause of less than healthy communities but also may be a reflec- tion of sampling locations and historical concerns with this problem. Toxic substances, metals, pesticides, residual chlorine ammonia and phenols were also documented causes of "fair" or "poor" biological conditions. Sources of the toxic pollutants include both point sources (industrial and municipal facilities) and non-point sources (agricultural and mining runoff). Silta- tion channelization, flow alterations and other physical habitat modifications were also cited as affecting biological communi- ties. Trends were assessed for about one-third of the basins or stations. Again, these trends should not be extrapolated to the nation's waters as a whole. Figure 1 shows the percentage of basins/stations with stable, improving, degrading or unknown trends, by biological condition. Information was not available for determining the biological trends at many of the locations for which biological condition was assessed. For the biological conditions of "good", "fair", and "poor", trends could not be as- sessed for 69, 63, and 73 percent of the basins or stations, re- spectively. Other than unknown trends, more stations or basins were stable or improving than degrading. The biological health was found to be degrading in less than 10 percent of the stations or basins for each condition category. Factors preventing im- proving condtions include nutrient enrichment, pesticides, silta- tion, flow alteration, urban and agricultural runoff and indus- trial and sewage treatment plant effluents. These results sug- gest continued pollution control efforts are needed before im- provement in biological health can be expected. CASE STUDIES Two case histories of the effects of pollution and pollution abatement on the biological community are presented below. In the case of the Naugatuck River, Connecticut, pollution abatement has been successful in improving the biological health of that ri ver. The second describes the minor recovery of the biological community of the Ottawa River, Ohio, after pollution control pro- grams were implemented and the need for further control efforts. Nauqatuck River. Connecticut The Naugatuck River is a tributary to the Housatonic River in western Connecticut. Historically, its water quality has been poor throughout much of its length due to discharges of untreated or inadequately treated municipal and industrial wastes. 8 ------- Biological Condition = Good Improving 4%(N=I3) Degrading 4%(N = I4) Biological Condition = Fair Improving 9% ( N=39) Degrading 7%(N = 27) Biological Condition = Poor Stable 12% (N=23) Improving IO%(N = I9) Degrading 5%(N=II) Figure 1. Percentage of basins/stations reporting stable, improving, degrading or unknown trends, by biological condition ------- By the 1950's, a stretch of the river below Torrington was so polluted that according to State biologists, no living organ- isms could survive. Installation of wastewater treatment equipment by industrial dischargers and upgrading of municipal sewage treatment facili- ties have significantly Improved the river's water quality. Al- though much progress is still needed before the Naugatuck River can continuously meet its fishable/swimmable standards, fish and other aquatic life have returned to the same stretches that could support no life in the 1950's. A fish sample taken during the summer of 1975 revealed that smallmouth bass, bluegills, bull- heads, and other fish were living in one stretch of the river. Invertebrate sampling on the Naugatuck also revealed large num- bers of clean water indicator species such as dragonfly larvae, dobsonfly larvae, worms, and sow bugs. The biological condition of the Naugatuck continues to be fair but improving. Ottawa River. Ohio A dramatic improvement in the chemical and biological qual- ity of the Ottawa River below Lima has occurred since 1960, al- though severe water quality problems still exist. Improvement in the water quality has been observed between 1974 and 1977 as a result of large-scale improvements in the Lima Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) and industrial dischargers. Biologically, the stream is still stressed, being dominated by pollution tolerant fish and macroinvertebrates. In 1960, fish were absent from the entire Ottawa River downstream from Lima. Although water quality improved dramatically after the com- pletion of improvements to the Lima STP in 1977, biologically, the river remained degraded at this location, primarily because of excessive chlorine levels in the STP effluent. The water quality of the river segment from Lima to the Allentown Dam is extremely poor with frequent water quality standards violations. No improvement has been observed in the biological communities. Fish are extremely rare in this segment and the macroinvertebrate communities are dominated by pollution tolerant species. The wa- ter quality of the river improves downstream, although the biolo- gical community remains stressed. Near the confluence of the Ot- tawa River with the Auglaize River, the biological communities have recovered to a near healthy state. It is believed with con- tinued reduction of pollutants, especially ammonia from industri- al dischargers, the Ottawa River should return to a healthy bio- logical state. 10 ------- APPENDIX A CONTACTS FOR ACQUIRING BIOLOGICAL DATA ------- This appendix lists contacts for acquiring biological data. It is broken down into two parts; the first section gives names at State agencies and the second provides contacts at river basin commissions or interstate agencies. The inventory by State or river basin lists agency personnel, usually a water quality bio- logist, who could provide a biomonitoring program description or biological data. The alternate names may be of some help in fu- ture efforts in case the primary contact cannot be reached. In instances where more than one agency is given for a State, the first agency is the one responsible for producing its State 305 (b) report. ------- STATE AGENCIES Alabama Timothy Forester, Fishery Biologist Alabama Water Improvement Commission State Office Building Montgomery, Alabama 36130 (205) 277-3630 Alternate: E.-John Willlford, Chief Biologist Alaska Richard McComaghy Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Pouch 0 Juneau, Alaska 99801 (907) 465-2616 American Samoa PatI Fatal, Executive Secretary Office of the Governor Environmental Quality Commission Pago Pago, American Samoa 96920 Arizona Tim Love, Water Quality Technician Bureau of Water Quality Control Arizona Department of Health Services 1740 West Adams Street Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 255-1174 Alternate: Ed Swanson, Water Quality Technician (602) 255-1173 Scott Roger Arizona Game and Fish Department 2222 West Greenway Road Phoenix, Arizona 85023 (602) 942-3000 Arkansas John Glese Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology P.O. Box 9583 8001 National Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72219 (501) 371-1701 California John Ladd, Senior Water Quality Biologist California Water Resources Control Board P.O. Box 100 Sacramento, California 95801 (916) 322-3583 Colorado Dennis Anderson Water Quality Control Division Colorado Department of Health 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 (303) 320-8333 Connecticut Charlie Fredette, Senior Sanitary Engineer Water Compliance Unit Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection 122 Washington Street Hartford, Connecticut 06115 (203) 566-2588 ------- Delaware Greg Mitchell Division of Environmental Control Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Edward Tatnall Building Dover, Delaware 19901 (302) 736-4771 O.C. David Con)In Bureau of Air and Water Quality Environmental Health Administration 614 »H" Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20002 (202) 767-7370 Florida Landon Ross, Chief Biologist Division of Environmental Programs Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 487-2245 Alternate: Douglas Jones, Biologist Georgia Marshall Gaddls, Chief Biologist Environmental Protection Division Georgia Department of Natural Resources 270 Washington Street, SW Atlanta, Georgia 30334 (404) 656-4934 Alternate: Edward Hall, Jr. (404) 656-4905 Guam Rlcardo Duenas Guam Environmental Protection Agency P.O. Box 2999 Agana, Guam 96910 (671) 646-8863 Alternate: James Branch, Deputy Administrator Hawaii Melvln Koizumi, Deputy Director for Environmental He Hawaii State Department of Health P.O. Box 2999 Honolulu, Hawaii 96801 (808) 548-7404 ilth Idaho Steven Bauer Water Quality Planning and Standards Section Idaho Department of Health and Welfare Statehouse Boise, Idaho 83720 (208) 334-4250 Illinois Ken Rogers, Chief Division of Water Pollution Control Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 2200 Church i11 Road Springfield, 111Inols 62706 (217) 782-3362 ------- Indiana Lee Bridges, Chief Biologist Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board 1330 West Michigan Street I nd I anapo Ms, I nd I ana 46206 (317) 633-0799 I ova CIndy Cameron Chemicals and Water Quality Division Iowa Department of Environmental Quality Henry A. Wallace Building 900 East Grand Street Des Molnes, Iowa 50319 (515) 281-8950 Kansas Don 6111 Hand Water Quality Management Section Kansas Department of Health and Environment Forbes Field, Building 740 Topeka, Kansas 66620 (913) 862-9360, Extension 250 Kentucky Robert Logan, Environmental Supervisor Division of Water Quality Kentucky Department of Natural Resouces and Environmental Protection 1065 U.S. 127 Bypass South Century Plaza Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 (502) 564-7793 Louisiana Lewis Johnson Division of Water Pollution Control Louisiana Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 44396 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804 (504) 343-4046 Alternate: Frank Thomas (504) 342-6363 Maine Matt Scott, State Biologist Maine Department of Environmental Protection State House Augusta, Maine 04330 (207) 289-2591 Maryland James Allison, Senior Biologist Office of Environmental Programs Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene 416 Chlnuapln Round Road Annapolis, Maryland 21406 (301) 269-3677 Alternate: David Pushkar (301) 269-3558 Massachusetts Warren Klmball, Principal Sanitary Engine Division of Water Pollution Control Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering P.O. Box 545 Westhorough, Massachusetts 01581 (617) 366-9181 Alternate: Gerry Szal ------- Michigan John HartIg Environmental Protection Bureau Comprehensive Studies Section Michigan Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 30028 Lansing, Michigan 48905 (517) 373-2867 Alternate: Jack Wuycheck, Biology Section (517) 373-0927 Minnesota Marvin Hora, Biologist Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 1935 West County Road - 82 Rosevllle, Minnesota 55113 (612) 296-7255 Alternate: Harold Wagner Howard Korsch Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Centennial Office Building 658 Cedar Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 (612) 296-2835 Mississippi Phillip Bass, Lab Supervisor Bureau of Pollution Control Mississippi Department of Natural Resources 121 Turn-Powe Plaza Pearl, Mississippi 39208 (601) 354-6053 Missouri John Ford, Environmental Specialist Water Pollution Control Missouri Department of Natural Resources Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 (314) 751-3241 Ron Crunkllton, Water Quality Specialist Missouri Department of Conservation 1110 College Avenue Columbia, Missouri 65201 (314) 449-3761 Joe Marshal I, Environmental Specialist Soil Conservation Service 555 Vandlver Drive Columbia, Missouri 65201 (314) 442-2271, Extension 3161 Montana Loren Bah I Water Quality Bureau Montana Department of Health and Environmental Services Capitol Station 555 Fuller Street Helena, Montana 59601 (406) 449-2406 Nebraska Terry Marat, Environmental Specialist Water and Waste Management Division Nebraska Department of Environmental Control P.O. Box 94877 Statehouse Station Lincoln, Nebraska 68509 (402) 471-2186 Alternates: Gale Hutton, Mike Swiggart ------- Nevada Harry Van Drlelen Division of Environmental Protection Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 201 South Fall Street Carson City, Nevada 89710 Alternates: Dick Thomas, Alan Blaggl Ne» Hampshire Bob Estebrook, Biologist New Hampshire Supply and Pollution Control Commission Hagen Drive P.O. Box 95 Concord, New Hampshire 03301 (603) 271-3414 Alternates: Terry Frost, Ronald Towne New Jersey Robert Runyon, Chief Bureau of Monitoring and Data Management Division of Water Resources New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection P.O. Box 2809 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 (609) 292-0427 New Mexico Gerald Jacob! Water Pollution Control Section Environmental Improvement Agency P.O. Box 968 - Crown Building Santa Fe, New Mexico 87503 (505) 827-5271 Alternate: Dave Tague New York Karl Simpson, Research Scientist III Division of Laboratories and Research New York State Department of Health Tower Building Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12201 (518) 474-7779 Edward Horn New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, New York 12233 (518) 457-6178 North Carolina Steve Tedder, Chief Biologist Division of Environmental Management North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development Box 27687 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 (919) 733-2136 or 733-7120 Alternate: David Penrose, Biologist (919) 733-6946 North Dakota Mike Sauer Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control North Dakota Department of Health Bismarck, North Dakota 58505 (701) 224-4579 ------- Northern Mariana Carl Goldstein Division of Environmental Quality Department of Public Health and Environmental Services Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands Sal pan, Northern Mariana Islands 96950 Alternate: Patricia Mack Ohio John Estenlk Office of Wastewater Pollution Control Ohio Environmental Protection Agency P.O. Box 1049 361 East Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43216 (614) 466-9092 Oklahoma Fred Walker State Water Quality Lab Oklahoma State Department of Health P.O. Box 53551 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73152 (405) 271-5240 David Martinez Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation P.O. Box 53465 1801 North Lincoln Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73152 (405) 521-3851 Oregon Ed Quan Oregon Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 1760 Portland, Oregon 97207 (503) 229-6978 Bob McHugh, Aquatic Biologist Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Lab 1712 Southwest 11th Street Portland, Oregon 97207 (503) 229-5983 Pennsylvania James Ulanoskl Bureau of Water Quality Management Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources P.O. Box 2063 Harrlsburg, Pennsylvania 17120 (717) 787-9614 Alternate: Bob Frye Puerto Rico Carl Soedenberg P uerto Rico E nvIronmentaI Qua 11ty Boa rd P.O. Box 11785 1550 Ponce de Leon Avenue Santurce, Puerto "RI co 00910 (809) 725-0717 Rhode Island Bob Richardson Division of Water Resources Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management 75 Da Irs Street Providence, Rhode Island 02908 (401) 277-2234 Alternate: Phil Albert ------- South Carolina Russell Sherer, Director Division of Biological, Stream and Facility Monitoring and Emergency Reponse South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bui I Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 (803) 758-5496 or 758-3944 Alternate: Harry Gay iron. Environmental Quality Manager (803) 758-3944 South Dakota Duane Murphey DIvIsIon of Water Qua 11ty South Dakota Department of Water and Natural Resources Joe Foss BuiIdlng Pierre, South Dakota 57501 (605) 773-4067 Tenn Harold Mull lean Division of Water Quality Control Tennessee Department of Public Health 727 Cordell Hull Building Nashville, Tennessee 37219 (615) 741-6655 Mick Dick Texas Department of Water Resources P.O. Box 13087 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 (512) 475-5695 Alternate: David Barker Dennis Palafax Texas Parks and Wildlife Agency 4200 Smith School Road Austin, Texas 78744 (512) 475-4831 Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands Nachsa Siren, Executive Secretary Environmental Protection Board Department of Health Services Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands Salpan, Northern Mariana Islands 96950 Utah Russ HInshaw Bureau of Water Pollution Control Utah Department of Health P.O. Box 2500 150 West North Temple Salt Lake City, Utah 84110 (801) 533-6146 AIternate: MarvIn Maxwe11 Carl Page! Department of Water Resources Vermont Agency of Environmental Conservation State Office Building Montpeller, Vermont 05602 (802) 828-3340 Alternate: Wallace McLean (802) 828-2753 ------- Virginia Thomas Felvey, Chief Biologist Virginia State Water Control Board P.O. Box 11143 2111 North Hamilton Street Richmond, Virginia 23230 (804) 257-0943 Alternate: Richard Ayers Virgin Islands Robert Vanderpool Division of Natural Resources Management Virgin Islands Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs P.O. Box 578 St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00801 (809) 774-3411 Alternate: Donald Francois, Director (809) 774-6420 Washington Dick Cummlngham Washington Department of Ecology P.O. Box 829 Olympla, Washington 98504 (206) 753-2845 Alternate: Harry Tracy (206) 753-6880 West Virginia Ell McCoy West Virginia Department of Natural Resources 1201 Greenbrler Street Charleston, West Virginia 25300 (304) 348-2837 Alternate: B. Douglas Steele (304) 348-5904 Wisconsin Jim Bachhuber, Environmental Specialist Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 7921 Madison, Wisconsin 53707 (608) 266-9269 Alternate: Joe Ball (608) 266-3221 Wyoming John Wagner Water Quality Division Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Hathaway Building Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002 (307) 777-7781 ------- Delaware River Basin Commission Great Lakes Basin Commission Great Lakes Commission Great Lakes Fishery Commission International Joint Commission RIVER BASIN COMMISSIONS AND INTERSTATE AGENCIES Dick Albert Delaware River Basin Commission 25 State Police Drive Box 7360 West Trenton, New Jersey 08628 (609) 883-9500 ' Includes: Dataware, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania Thomas Heldtke, Water Science Engineer Great Lakes Basin Commission P.O. Box 999 3475 Plymouth Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 (313) 668-2312 Includes: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Penn- sylvania and Wisconsin James Fish, Executive Director Great Lakes Commission 5104 I.S.T. Building 2200 Bon Isteel Boulevard Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 (313J 665-9135 Alternate: A. G. Bal lent Includes: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Penn- sylvania and Wisconsin Carlos Fetrerolf Great Lakes Fishery Commission 1451 Green Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 (313) 662-3209 Alternate: Bruce Manny Great Lakes Fishery Lab (313) 994-3331 Includes: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Penn- sylvania and Wisconsin Mike ScanI on International Joint Commission 1717 »H» Street, NW Washing-ton, D.C. 20440 (202) 296-2142 Includes: United States-Canadian Boundary States and Provinces Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin Jim Rasln, Aquatic Biologist Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 1055 First Street Rockvllle, Maryland 20850 (301) 340-2661 Includes: D.C., Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia ------- Missouri River Basin Commission Joe Mansky, Biologist Missouri River Basin Commission Suite 403 10050 Regency Circle Omaha, Nebraska 68114 (402) 397-5714 Includes: Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Ne- braska, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming New England Interstate Mater Pollutlon Control Commission Jenny Bridge New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission 607 Boylston Street Boston, Massachusetts 02116 (617) 437-1524 or 437-1156 Includes: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Is- land and Vermont New England River Basins Commission David Shlpp, Resource Planner New England River Basins Commission 141 Milk Street, Third Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02109 (617) 223-6244 Includes: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Is- land and Vermont Ohio River Basin Commission Ohio River Valley Mater Sanitation Commission Steve Thrasher Ohio River Basin Commission Suite 208-20 36 East Fourth Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 (513) 684-3831 Includes: Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland. New York, North Carol- ina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virgin- John Keyes, Senior Surveillance Specialist Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) 414 Walnut Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 (513) 421-1151 Includes: Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission Dave Kent Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission 1 Columbia River Vancouver, Washington 98660 (206) 696-7551 - Washington (503) 285-0467 - Oregon Includes: Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington and Wyoming Susquehanna River Basin Commission Stanley Rudlsill, Environmental Specialist Susquehanna River Basin Commission 1721 North Front Street Harrlsburg, Pennsylvania 17102 (717) 238-0427 Includes: Maryland, New York and Pennsylvania ------- Upper Colorado River Upper Colorado River Commission Coralssion 355 South 4th East Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 (801) 531-1150 Includes: Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming Upper Mississippi Ken Buckeye River Basin Upper Mississippi River Basin Commission ConnIssIon 7920 Cedar Avenue South, Suite 210 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55420 (612) 725-4690 Includes: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri and Wisconsin ------- APPENDIX B STATE BIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS ------- This appendix provides a brief description of the biological monitoring programs in each State as interpreted from the 1978 or 1980 305(b) reports and/or conversations with State agency offi- cials. Work being conducted for the Clean Lakes program is not discussed here although many States are conducting surveys to de- termine lake restoration needs. STATE: Alabama The Alabama Water Improvement Commission (AWIC) collects ma- croinvertebrate samples yearly from 10 river basins encompassing 32 stations. This program was initiated in 1975 to determine wa- ter quality conditions and trends. The data are not published and to date has not been discussed in 305(b) reports. Tim Fores- ter of the AWIC maintains the data [telephone (205) 277-3630]. Fish tissue analyses are conducted on fish collected from nine stations. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is responsible for any sampling in the Tennessee River in Alabama. The AWIC indicated that TVA conducted periphyton, fish tissue, phytoplankton, and zooplankton sampling. STATE: Alaska The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation stated in the "Alaska Water Quality Status Report, 1979" that no biolo- gical monitoring is conducted in the State. STATE: Arizona The State of Arizona Department of Health Services does not conduct any biological sampling. The universities perform some biological work. The Department of Fish and Game conducts fish tissue sampling and fisheries surveys. STATE: Arkansas The Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology monitors aquatic organisms at 42 river stations. The biological monitoring of these stations consists of annual macroinvertebrate and periphyton collections. In addition, these stations are mon- itored monthly for chlorophyll a.. The Department entered into an agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to place 24 of these stations into the Basic Water Monitoring Program for the monitoring of fish tissue residues for 16 toxic pollutants. The results are summarized in the 1980 305(b) report. ------- STATE: California The California State Board of Water Resources Initiated a Statewide screening program for toxic substances in surface wa- ters in 1976. Fish and invertebrates are collected from 28 Pri- ority I, Primary Network streams annually and analyzed for se- lected toxic elements, pesticides, and other organic compounds. The California State Mussel Watch was established in 1977 to collect baseline data on toxic pollutants in marine/estuarine or- ganisms and to monitor Areas of Special Biological Significance. The Mussel Watch program consists of 31 coastal and seven estu- arine stations. The results of both the toxics monitoring pro- gram for streams and the State Mussel Watch are published annual- ly by the State (see Appendix D). STATE: Colorado Macroinvertebrate sampling conducted by the State of Colora- do Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division, is per- formed in conjunction with special studies. These site-specific studies are geared to problem situations or to answer specific questions. The results are compiled into report form except for "one-shot" samples collected for the purpose of revising stream classifications. In addition, fisheries data is maintained by the Division of Wildlife. STATE: Connecticut The Connecticut Biological Monitoring program is managed by the Water Compliance Unit of the Department of Environmental Pro- tection. This program contains two basic parts, ambient or trend monitoring, and intensive monitoring of critical or short-term problems. • Ambient Monitoring - The Water Compliance Unit currently maintains a network of 14 ambient biological monitoring stations in selected streams throughout the State. This program is intended to monitor water quality trends by examination of the benthic macroinvertebrate and periphy- ton communities. Sampling frequency is twice a year, once in the spring and one in the fall. The program ini- tially consisted of 30 freshwater and marine stations which were monitored for a two-year period beginning July 1974 under contract with a private consulting firm. Due to fiscal constraints and staffing problems, the program was practically discontinued when the contract expired in 1976. The program was resumed on a reduced basis in the fall of 1978 when sampling began at the current 14 sta- tions, five of these stations correspond to the old net- work. The Water Compliance Unit planned to collect sam- ples for heavy metal analysis of fish flesh at selected ------- STATE: Connecticut (Continued) stations during the summer of 1980. The ambient biologi- cal monitoring stations are as follows: French River: Mechanicsvil1e - Quinebaug River: Pomfret Landing - Quinebaug River: Putnam - Still River: Winsted - Still River: Winsted (Nelson's Corner) Blackberry River: North Canaan - Five Mile River: New Canaan - Norwalk River: Ridgefield/Redding Norwalk River: Norwalk Naugatuck River: Thomaston Naugatuck River: Ansonia - Quinnipiac River: Southington - Quinnipiac River: Cheshire/Meriden Pequabuck River: Plainville • Intensive Biological Monitoring - The Water Compliance Unit also conducts intensive biological monitoring stud- ies for special purposes as needed. These purposes may include evaluation of specific waste treatment systems, in-place pollution problems, or minor pollution episodes. A study was recently conducted to determine the lead con- centrations in the biological systems and sediment in a segment of the Mill River in Fairfield. This study con- firmed suspicions of significant residual contamination from a former industrial discharge. Studies are current- ly underway to determine PCB concentrations in the macro- invertebrate community in the Upper Housatonic River, and to monitor the long-term effects of a groundwater lea- chate plume from an industrial chemical dumping site on the Mill River in Plainfield. During the summer of 1980, the unit conducted a biological study to examine the ef- fects of the recent installation of AST at the Vernon STP on the Hockanum River. Two studies to examine the ef- fects of chlorinated STP effluent on the respective re- ceiving streams were conducted during the summer of 1980. Intensive biological monitoring stations are as follows: - Mill River: Plainfield (industrial chemical dumping site) - Mill River: Fairfield (residual industrial contamina- tion) - Housatonic River: Canaan, Cornwall, New Milford (re- sidual PCB contamination) - Blackberry River: Norfolk (chlorinated STP discharge) Pootatuck River: Newtown (chlorinated STP discharge) ------- STATE: Connecticut (Continued) Hockanum River: Vernon, Manchester (advanced secon- dary treatment installation) The information collected from the Connecticut Biological Monitoring program has not been compiled into published reports Charlie Fredette of the Water Compliance Unit provided the biolo- gical assessments presented in Appendix E from his knowledge of the data and waters of Connecticut. STATE: Delaware The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environ- mental Control samples the macroinvertebrate and periphyton com- munities of streams to determine trends in the biological commu- nities and to assess the impact of point-sources, including POTWs on aquatic biota. Three U.S. Environmental Protection Agency BWMP stations are surveyed annually at a minimum. Fish tissue sampling is also conducted at eight BWMP stations. Coastal bio- logical communities are not routinely surveyed. District of Columbia Biological monitoring by the District of Columbia, Depart- ment of Environmental Services, is intended as a primary means of evaluating the impact of environmental stresses on river environ- ments. Biological sampling which began in 1977 is conducted at 19 stations on the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers and Rock Creek. The groups of biota which are examined include phytoplankton, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish. Data on fish species di- versity and concentration of toxic substances in fish tissues were collected once in FY 80, at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency BWMP monitoring stations. STATE: Florida In accordance with Section 106 of the Federal Water Pollu- tion Control Act Amendments of 1972, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation established the Permanent Network System (PNS). One part of this network includes a biological monitoring program. The main objectives of the PNS are to measure ambient water quality, to detect trends in water quality, and to deter- mine the general effectiveness of pollution abatement programs. The PNS is not a point-source monitoring program focusing on spe- cific discharges or pollutants. The monitoring network is com- prised of 250 stations, of which 75 are primary stations. The primary and secondary stations are sampled for the parameters and frequency listed on the next page. ------- FLORIDA PARAMETER SAMPLING SCHEDULE: FY 79-80 Primary Biological Stations Secondary Stations Parameters Mac roin vertebrate (Artificial Substrates) Freshwater Summer Winter Marine None Lakes None All Waters once annually* Macroinvertebrate (Natural Substrates) Macroinvertebrate (Qualitati ve) Periphyton (Artificial Substrates) Plankton Macrophytes (Areal Coverage) Bottom Sediments Fish and Clam Tissue (Toxicity) Summer, Fall Winter. Spring Fall Spring Winter None Summer, Fall Winter, Spring None Winter Fall Fall Spring None Winter Fall Spring once annually once annually once annually once annually* once annually* * Secondary biological stations are sampled once a year for one of the above listed macro- invertebrate parameters. The method used is the one which is most valuable in evaluating the body of water and remains consistent at each station from year to year. ------- STATE: Georgia The biological program of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, consists of survey- ing U.S. Environmental Protection Agency BWMP stations for macro- invertebrates, periphyton, phytoplankton, chlorophyll a and fish tissue residue on a 1, 2, or 3 year rotation. River~"and estu- arine stations are sampled. Much of the data collected from the biological monitoring network has been compiled in internal re- ports. Special studies are also conducted to answer specific questions concerning rivers, lakes, and estuaries. Two major special study subject areas include wasteload allocation model- ling studies and impact studies. Twenty-four intensive studies are planned for FY 82 to justify the degree of treatment for POTWs. The parameters measured during special surveys vary with the study. STATE: Hawaii The Hawaii Department of Health conducts biomonitoring of toxic substances found in edible fish and shellfish. The program objectives are to identify sources of pollutants, establish base- line levels, and determine trends in toxic substances. Data col- lected from 1977-1979 is summarized in the 1980 305(b) report. Most studies conducted in Hawaii are coastal. Point source stud- ies have dealt with ocean sewer outfalls. STATE: Idaho The macroinvertebrate and periphyton communities are moni- tored at 35 Basic Water Monitoring Program Trend Stations by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environment. The 1978 and 1979 data have been compiled into report form. STATE: Illinois The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency monitors BWMP stations as a part of a national program developed to determine baseline water quality trends. The BWMP network in Illinois con- sists of 41 stations. Two components of the BWMP network in Il- linois are 1) trace organic and metals analyses of fish tissue; and 2) the Basic Biological Monitoring Program for which the State surveys the macroinvertebrate communities. The 1978 and 1979 data collected from these two programs are presented in the Illinois Water Quality Report. 1978-1979 Volume I. Macroinverte- brates and fish are also monitored during intensive surveys to supplement the baseline water quality data provided by the ambi- ent network. Trace organic and metal analyses of fish tissue are conduct- ed annually at all BWMP stations, part of a cooperative fish ------- STATE: Illinois (Continued) flesh monitoring network consisting of 12 lake and 65 stream sta- tions. Data are evaluated to determine concentrations above U.S. Food and Drug Administration action levels for contaminants in fish flesh. Macroinvertebrates are sampled once per year at all of the BWMP stations in Illinois. The stream environments are classi- fied as balanced, inbalanced, semi-polluted or polluted based on the numbers and types of organisms and diversity indices. STATE: Indiana The Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board conducts macroin- vertebrate and fish tissue monitoring at 19 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency BWMP stations. The stations have been sampled annually since 1979. The written summary of this data was not completed at the time of this writing. STATE: Iowa As a part of its intensive survey work, the Iowa Department of Environmental Quality samples macroinvertebrate communities to characterize water quality. The Iowa "Water Quality Report" pre- pared pursuant to Section 305(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) Amendments of 1972 summarizes the intensive survey data. STATE: Kansas The Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Division of Environment, initiated a biological stream sampling program in 1972 and currently monitors 47 stations annually. The macroin- vertebrate community is sampled to evaluate biological conditions and trends. In addition, more detailed biological information is collected in each river basin approximately once every five years, during intensive river basin surveys. A program of intensive chemical and biological evaluations for Kansas lakes was initiated in 1975. The program includes 65 lakes (1980) with a survey frequency of once every three years for each Federal reservoir and once every five years for each smaller county or State lake. Biological parameters may include plankton, periphyton, macrophyton, macroinvertebrates, bioassays, and primary production. The results of both the stream and lake surveys are summarized in the "Kansas Water Quality Inventory Re- port, 1980" prepared in compliance with Section 305(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) Amendment of 1972. ------- STATE: Kentucky The Kentucky Division of Water Quality developed a biomoni- toring program to establish a baseline of biological data, to de- tect trends in water quality, and to determine the general effi- ciency of pollution abatement programs. Seven U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Basic Water Monitoring Program (BWMP) stations are monitored annually. Biological information utilized to char- acterize streams includes the community structure and diversity of macroinvertebrate, fish, phytoplankton and periphyton popula- tions. Results are summarized in the 1980 305(b) report. STATE: Louisiana The Louisiana State Pesticide Monitoring Network was initi- ated in 1964 to measure pesticides in water, aquatic weeds, sedi- ments and fish. The Water Pollution Control Division works jointly with the Louisiana Department of Health and Human Re- sources and Louisiana Department of Agriculture in the semi-annu- al analysis of fish flesh from 72 fixed stations. Post-1976 re- sults are discussed in the "Louisiana Water Quality Inventory, 1980 . Louisiana's biological program does not include sampling of the benthic macroinvertebrate community. STATE: Maine The Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Water Quality Control, conducts biological sampling at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Water Quality Surveil- lance System (NWQSS) stations in the Primary Monitoring Network (PMN) once each year. Maine has proposed to use benthic macroin- vertebrate species diversity as one criteria for determining the use designation of streams. The Maine Department of Marine Resources conducts research on fish and shellfish, provides information and assistance to the State's commercial fishing industry and to the general public, and promotes the seafood industry. The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife devel- ops long-range species management programs, conducts monitoring and research program's, promotes State fish and wildlife resourc- es, and provides technical assistance. The University of Maine at Orono houses the Maine Coopera- tive Fishery Research Unit and the Maine Cooperative Wildlife Unit. These units are cooperative State, Federal, and university research efforts. ------- STATE: Maryland The Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of Environmental Programs, manages the State biological monitor- ing program. Although the biological program is structured around macroinvertebrate sampling, fish, plankton and rooted aquatics studies are also included in the program. The U.S. En- vironmental Protection Agency Basic Water Monitoring Program (BWMP) and State Trend Network stations have been monitored year- ly since 1977. In addition, biological data have also been col- lected during intensive surveys. Twenty-nine BWMP stations are also sampled for toxics in fish tissue. This program was initiated in 1977. Biological program results are available from the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Studies pertaining to the Potomac River basin may be obtained from the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. STATE: Massachusetts The Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control imple- mented a general water quality monitoring program to comply with the Massachusetts Clean Waters Act, 1966, and the 1977 amendments to the Federal Clean Water Act. As a part of this program, bio- logical sampling was established in 1973 to survey the benthic macroinvertebrate communities of all major river basins in the Commonwealth on a five year rotation. The objectives of the pro- gram are to: 1) determine the suitability of aquatic environ- ments for supporting health and diverse indigenous communities; 2) provide accurate taxonomic baseline data on benthic organisms for future comparative water quality evaluations; 3) provide data useful in the detection of the presence of hazardous or toxic substances in the aquatic environment; and 4) establish reliable and consistent methods of data analyses to define the water qual- ity responses of benthic macroinvertebrate communities. The Di- vision has published reports on a number of surveys (Appendix D). The following is a list of surveys for which the results have not been published: • 1975; Rumford - Three Mile River Survey: Rumford River, Three Mile River, Wading River, Robinson Brook Taunton River Survey: Taunton River, Assonet River, Nemasket River, Segregansett River, Muddy Cove - Other Biological Surveys: Mill River, Matfield River, Salisbury Plain River, Trout Brook, Beaver Brook, Coweset Brook, Satucket-Schumatuscacant River, Town River, Winnetuxent River ------- STATE: Massachusetts (Continued) • 1976; French and Quinebaug River Surveys • 1977; - Blackstone River Survey • 1978; Housatonic River Survey 0 1979; - Millers River Survey In addition to macroinvertebrate sampling, phytoplankton analyses are conducted for each of these intensive river surveys. Chlorophyll a. is analyzed monthly from fixed stations of the Na- tional Water Quality Surveillance System. Fisheries data are collected by the Massachusetts Division of Fish and Wildlife. Biological analysis of coastal waters is conducted by the Divi- sion of Marine Fisheries. The PCB analysis of fish tissue is al- so conducted for rivers. STATE: Michigan The Michigan Department of Natural Resources currently has no routine biological monitoring program. However, its Compre- hensive Study Section is in the preliminary stages of designing a thorough and systematic approach, entitled the "Fish Contaminant Monitoring Plan", for monitoring toxics in fish from the Great Lakes and tributaries. This ambient monitoring program is sched- uled to begin in 1982, resources permitting. The final report giving details on the new program is not presently available. The Comprehensive Study Section of the Department of Natural Resources just recently released a report on its Salmon Contamin- ant Monitoring Program. With Federal funds from the Office of Coastal Zone Management under the National Oceanic and Atmospher- ic Administration, the program examines toxics in salmon from seven tributaries of Lakes Michigan, Huron and Erie. The Depart- ment of Natural Resources plans to continue monitoring on an an- nual basis only if additional funding can be obtained. The Com- prehensive Study Section also conducts health advisories with in- ternal State monies to detect trends in toxics in fish. The Biology Section of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources samples aquatic organisms, also, but only on an inten- sive survey basis. Due to a limited staff and declining funds, ------- STATE: Michigan (Continued) fixed stations are no longer sampled. The Biology Section stud- ies concentrate on special problem areas, which it considers to be their State "ambient monitoring" program. For these intensive surveys, all trophic levels are sampled; macroinvertebrates, fish and macrophytes are emphasized. Any fish tissue analyses done for intensive surveys are performed in conjunction with the Com- prehensive Study Section. STATE: Minnesota Macroinvertebrate communities are monitored at 21 stations in seven river basins by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The 1977 and 1978 data are summarized in the 1980 305(b) report. The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, St. Paul, Minnesota, has also conducted some biological monitoring on the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers. Parameters monitored included periphy- ton, macroinvertebrates, zooplankton and phytoplankton. STATE: Mississippi The Mississippi Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Pollution Control, conducts biological monitoring at fixed sta- tions which are part of the State Water Monitoring Program. Twenty-three biological monitoring sites are sampled annually for such parameters as periphyton, phytoplankton, macrophyton, macro- invertebrates and fish. Coastal areas are also sampled yearly for the above parameters. Fish/shellfish are collected annually for tissue analysis of toxic substances. STATE: Missouri The 1980 "Missouri Water Quality Report" describes biologi- cal programs in Missouri. Several organizations perform biologi- cal sampling in the State. Programs include: • Macrobenthic Sampling - Three agencies measure water quality in streams and lakes through sampling of certain aquatic plants and animals which serve as pollution indi- cators. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources initiated a sampling program in 1978 with funds from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Basic Water Monitor- ing Program (BWMP). In addition to the 10 Statewide sta- tions sampled once in 1978, locations downstream from se- lected sewage treatment plants were sampled four times. In 1979 and 1980, however, only five Statewide stations were surveyed. The Missouri Department of Conservation prepares special reports describing the macrobenthos in areas with known pollution problems. Funding is provided through the Missouri Dingel1-Johnson Program, a project ------- STATE: Missouri (Continued) performed in conjunction with the Missouri Clean Water Commission and the Missouri Geological Survey and initi- ated in 1961 to determine the water quality of all Mis- souri streams. The Soil Conservation Service also per- forms biological sampling as part of watershed projects. Quarterly benthos sampling is done for one year on se- lected water sheds. Areas studied in this program and identified as being possibly adversely affected by toxic pollutants include: Logan Creek: heavy metals - Saline Creek and Little St. Francis River: als heavy met- West Fork of chlorophenol Prairie Creek and Cowskin Creek: penta- - Southeast Ozark Mining Area: heavy metals Fish Flesh Quality - Three organizations in Missouri mon- itorforaccumulation of potentially toxic substances such as mercury, PCBs and certain pesticides in fish flesh. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources, the Missouri Department of Conservation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service monitor fish tissue for toxics. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources collected data at 10 stations in 1980, the first year of ambient program sampling. An 1981, the Department of Natural Resources monitored 18 stations. Areas studied in this program and identified as being possibly adversely affected by toxic pollutants include: Peruque Creek Watershed: mercury, PCB - Mississippi County Spillway: mercury, toxaphene STATE: Montana The Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, Environmental Science Division collects macroinvertebrate and periphyton community samples seasonally at 85 stream and river sites. The results of samples collected between 1977 and 1979 were utilized in the 1980 305(b) report to characterize water quality. Collections were planned again for 1980 and are sched- uled for subsequent even-numbered years. After the 1980 round of sampling, enough data should be available for trend analysis. ------- STATE: Nebraska A biological program was initiated in 1981 by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Control, Water and Waste Management Division, Surveillance and Analysis Section. Macroinvertebrate and periphyton communities and fish flesh analysis will be col- lected seasonally at five U.S. Environmental Protection Agency BWMP stations. Reports on special studies focusing on three bas- ins have been prepared and are available. STATE: Nevada The Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Protection, conducts ambient biological monitoring at approximately 20 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Basic Water Monitoring Program (BWMP) stations in the State. Priority toxics in fish and crayfish tissue collected from four major river systems and Lake Tahoe are analyzed once a year. In addition, 10 to 20 special problem sites are chosen an- nually for analysis of toxics in fish flesh. A few intensive surveys also examine macroinvertebrate communities. The Desert Research Institute, part of the University of Nevada at Reno, has done some sampling on Lake Lahonton for plankton, zooplankton, and possibly fish tissue. STATE: New Hampshire The New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commis- sion conducts very little biological sampling on streams due to limited funding resources. The University of New Hampshire per- forms some monitoring of aquatic organisms. STATE: New Jersey The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Divi- sion of Water Resources, began a fixed station ambient biomoni- toring program in 1977. The 30 stations selected are part of the national network designed to evaluate the biological integrity of the nation's waters. The results of the sampling of macroinver- tebrate and periphyton communities in 1977 are discussed in the "New Jersey 1980 State Water Quality Inventory Report to Con- gress" [Section 305(b)]. The Office of Cancer and Toxic Substances collects and anal- yzes fish and macroinvertebrate tissue for PCBs, heavy metals and pesticides to ascertain danger to the public health. In addi- tion, the Division of Fish, Game and Shel1fisheries collects bio- logical data in connection with fisheries management programs. ------- STATE: New Mexico The New Mexico State Biological Water Monitoring Program conducted by the Environmental Improvement Agency consists of sampling benthlc macrolnvertebrate communities at eight locations covering three rivers (Pecos, Rio Grande, and San Juan). Collec- tions have been made on an annual basis since 1978. This program is conducted as a part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agen- cy Basic Water Monitoring Program. Gerald Jacobi, of the Water Pollution Control Section, provided the 1979 data, but suggested no water quality assessment should be made without the 1980 sam- pling results. STATE: New York The New York biological programs are described in "New York Water Quality, 1980 Executive Summary" [Section 305(b)]. New York supports extensive biological monitoring programs which are implemented by the New York Department of Health and New York De- partment of Environmental Conservation. Major programs include.' • Biological Stream Monitoring Project - This project is funded by the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency under Section 106 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The project was initiated in 1972 and encompasses 15 riv- er sections, three of which are surveyed each year. The water quality of each river is evaluated by sampling the macroinvertebrate communities at various locations, us- ually above and below major waste discharges. To help evaluate changes in water quality through time (and thus determine the effectiveness of pollution abatement prac- tices), each river stretch included in the network will be resurveyed at five year intervals. The second round of sampling began in 1977. Areas studied in this program and identified as being possibly adversely affected by toxic pollutants include: - Mohawk River between Rome and Utica: cooper Mohawk River below Schenectady: phenols Allegheny River below Olean: ammonia Genessee River: unknown Erie Canal: unknown Buffalo River: unknown Cayuga Creek: unknown Niagara River: unknown t Toxic Substances Monitoring Program - This program was established to monitor and establish trends for organi- chlorides and heavy metals in fish flesh. Over a three year period, 106 locations are sampled. Contaminant lev- els in wildlife and macroinvertebrates are also measured ------- STATE: New York (Continued) from selected locations. Other surveys of toxic in tis- sue include: Hudson River PCB Analysis Project Urban Fishery Toxicant Survey Lake Ontario Synoptic Survey and Trend Analysis Lake Champlain Synoptic Survey Analyses of Mummichog from the Marine District Areas studied in this program and identified as adversely affected by toxic pollutants include: Lake Ontario: mirex Hudson River: PCBs - Onondaga Lake: mercury Foundry Cove, Hudson River: cadmium, nickel • Lake Surveillance Program - This program is divided into three activities: Eutrophication Classification Ambient Monitoring Intensive Survey An on-going program "Lakes of New York State", provides a series of detailed monographs on particular lakes, giving the results of biological investigations and analytical studies. New York maintains a computerized information system. Water Quality Library, for historical information on water bodies in- cluding the results of physical, chemical, and biological sampl- ing. STATE: North Carolina North Carolina has had no regular biological monitoring at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency BWMP network stations in the past. However, the 37 BWMP stations in the State will be re- gularly monitored during the 1980-1982 period. The program dur- ing 1978 and 1979 consisted entirely of special investigations and studies of particular problems. Biological communities sur- veyed include benthic macroinvertebrates, phytoplankton, and periphyton. Many of these studies were conducted to determine the extent of non-point source pollution. Some fish tissue anal- yses were also conducted. ------- STATE: North Dakota A biological monitoring program was established by the North Dakota State Department of Health in 1980. Periphyton and chlor- ophyll a, are measured at nine streams and five lake stations. STATE: Ohio Benthic macroinvertebrate communities have been used by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency as indicators of water qual- ity since 1974. The State has 30 fixed biological monitoring sites, 20 of which are used for major discharge impact assess- ments. Stations are located near entities found on the Ohio Ma- jor Dischargers List, and stations included in the National Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN) or the National Ambi- ent Water Quality Monitoring Network (NAWQMN). Biological sampl- ing is also included in intensive surveys (approximately six are conducted each year). The Ohio River Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) assesses the Ohio River main stem water quality. Biological monitoring in- cludes fish tissue analysis for heavy metals and organic com- pounds and fish population surveys. STATE: Oklahoma The Oklahoma Surface Water Quality Ambient Trend Monitoring Program conducted by the Oklahoma State Department of Health and the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Pollution Control Coordination Board, consists of approximately 100 stream sites sampled throughout the State since 1976. Of these 100 sites, there are 22 biotrend monitoring stations which are sam- pled once every summer. The community structure, composition, and diversity of fish and benthic macroinvertebrate and the con- centration of toxics in fish tissue are analyzed at each site to assess water quality conditions. In addition, special investiga- tions have been done around POTWs located on rivers. The State began a toxics monitoring program for lakes, which includes analysis of the water column, sediment and fish tissue, in the summer of 1979. Oklahoma hopes to continue this program on an annual basis. The first round of monitoring looked at 28 major lakes. Before the toxics monitoring program started, only special intensive surveys were conducted on lakes. STATE: Oregon The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality is in the process of designing an ambient biological monitoring program which may begin in 1982, resources permitting. It is anticipated that the macroinvertebrate communities in 13 basins will be ------- STATE: Oregon (Continued) surveyed over a period of several years (perhaps two basins per year). The information gathered will be correlated with water chemistry data. The current program consists of intensive surveys of point- sources and ambient station sampling of metals and pesticides in fish/shellfish tissue. During intensive surveys, fish and macro- invertebrates are collected to study the toxicity of wastewater effluents. Fish and shellfish are collected from 13-20 stream stations and 5-6 coastal stations yearly for heavy metals and pesticides analysis. Phytoplankton and zooplankton communities are surveyed at least four times a year in two lakes as part of the ambient program. Studies are also conducted in mixing zone areas to correlate fish and benthic organisms with water chemistry. These mixing zone studies are done in response to requests from the U.S. Envi- ronmental Protection Agency Regional Office and pertain to the NPDES permitting program. STATE: Pennsylvania The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources has been performing ambient biological monitoring at the U.S. Envi- ronmental Protection Agency BWMP Network stations since 1975. Benthic macroinvertebrate and fish communities are sampled either annually or once a season. In addition, toxics in fish tissue are analyzed once a year at the BWMP stations. The Department of Environmental Resources also conducts intensive surveys utilizing the same biological parameters as the ambient program. The Delaware River Basin Commission and the Susquehanna Riv- er Basin Commission study the aquatic communities from the Dela- ware River and the Susquehanna River, respectively. STATE: Rhode Island The limited use of biological methods in evaluation of water quality has been on-going in Rhode Island since 1974. These studies are being used to supplement physical and chemical water quality monitoring data and, more specifically, to establish con- sistent methods that can be used in determining long-term trends in water quality to reflect water pollution abatement efforts and/or needs. Benthic macroinvertebrate samples are collected yearly at the same stations used for chemical sampling. The sam- pling network was comprised of 12 stations in 1974 but has since been reduced to six stations. All reports are on file at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region I, Boston, Massa- chusetts office. The 1978 and 1980 305(b) reports summarize the data. ------- STATE: South Carolina The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control biological monitoring activities on rivers, streams, and lakes include both ambient monitoring and intensive surveys. Biological parameters studied include fish/shellfish, benthic ma- croinvertebrate, periphyton and photoplankton communities; chlorophyll a,; and heavy metal and pesticide residue in fish/ shellfish tissue. In coastal waters, South Carolina maintains ambient stations and conducts intensive surveys. The communities presently stud- ied include benthic macroinvertebrates, periphyton, phytoplank- ton, macrophytes and chlorophyll. Fish/shellfish tissue is also analyzed for metals and pesticides. South Carolina has been actively entering biological data into the BIOSTORET pilot study program. Limited resources, how- ever, prevent the preparation of reports from BIOSTORET. Impact studies and bioassay reports relating to POTWs can be requested from the Division of Biological, Stream and Facility Monitoring and Emergency Response, Department of Health and Envi- ronmental Control. STATE: South Dakota Biological monitoring performed by the South Dakota Depart- ment of Environmental Protection is limited to site-specific studies dealing with particular problems or programs. Examples of the studies are: • Whitewood Creek - Macroinvertebrate surveys and bioassays were conducted to determine the effects of the reclama- tion of a mining operation; t Rapid Creek - This project was performed as part of the National Urban Runoff Program; and • Missouri River - Metals in fish tissue were measured to determine effects of mining operations. STATE: Tennessee The Tennessee Department of Health does some biological mon- itoring, mainly in conjunction with intensive surveys around point-source discharges. The results are contained in many re- ports prepared by the Division of Water Quality Control. Fish tissue analyses are conducted yearly on fish collected at ambient stations located on large streams and reservoirs. ------- STATE: Texas Water quality parameters measured at Statewide ambient sta- tions in Texas depend on the problems associated with the parti- cular area. Biological parameters, surveyed by the Texas Depart- ment of Mater Resources may include benthic macroinvertebrates, phytoplankton, zooplankton, periphyton, macrophytes, and nekton. In addition, annual fish and shellfish tissue samples for analy- ses of metals, pesticides and other organic chemicals are col- lected in areas where these compounds pose a past or potential problem. Texas also conducts some biological sampling in conjunction with special surveys performed for waste load allocation studies. Fourteen of these special surveys are scheduled for 1981; two are planned at reservoirs and the remaining 12 at stream and estu- arine sites. STATE: Utah The Utah Department of Health samples macroinvertebrate com- munities once a year to make a biological assessment of water quality. In 1981, 15 stream stations were sampled. The data is stored on a computer under contract with Bringham Young Univer- sity in Provo, Utah. The 1977 and 1979 data have been summarized in report form (see Appendix D). STATE: Vermont The Vermont Department of Water Resources, Agency of Envi- ronmental Conservation performs biological studies on rivers and streams to answer specific questions utilizing macroinvertebrate, and periphyton information. Much of the data is in raw form and unpublished. Two reports in preparation deal with 1) periphyton and waste load allocation studies; and 2) the impact of chlorine on macroinvertebrates and periphyton. STATE: Virginia The biological monitoring network administered by the Vir- ginia State Water Control Board consists of 148 Statewide sta- tions. Many stations are located upstream and downstream of point source dischargers. Control stations are also monitored. Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling commenced in 1978 and is con- ducted twice yearly. Chlorophyll, periphyton, plankton and toxic substances in fish tissue are monitored at 42 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency BWMP stations. ------- STATE: Washington The Washington Department of Ecology collects fish/shellfish tissue samples at stations in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Basic Water Monitoring Program Network. The macrophyte milfoil has been surveyed for the past several years at certain lakes and rivers as part of the Aquatic Plant Management Program in the State of Washington to prevent and control the spread of heavy aquatic plant growth. Other biological monitoring is con- ducted in response to specific problems. STATE: West Virginia The West Virginia Department of Natural Resources began col- lecting benthic macroinvertebrate samples in 1978. Forty-two stations are monitored annually in seven river basins, including the main stem of the Ohio River. Chlorophyll analyses were con- ducted at four stations in the Potomac Drainage, from 1977 to 1979. The monitoring of fish tissue and populations on the Ohio River main stem is conducted by the Ohio River Sanitation Commis- sion (ORSANCO). STATE: Wisconsin Biological monitoring in the State of Wisconsin is conducted in conjunction with intensive surveys. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources conducted an ambient biomonitoring network during 1977 and 1978 but found the results were not reflective of stream conditions and therefore abandoned the program. In 1979, the University of Wisconsin began sampling macroinvertebrate com- munities at several hundred sites. STATE: Wyoming Macroinvertebrate communities are sometimes surveyed in con- junction with intensive surveys conducted by the Wyoming Depart- ment of Environmental Quality. In 1980, one such study was per- formed. The River Basin Commissions The river basin commissions coordinate the member States and Federal agencies in the planning, development, and protection of the basin water quality. These commissions typically do not per- form actual stream monitoring; instead, they tabulate and summar- ize existing data on the condition of a watershed. Of the 15 in- terstate agencies contacted (Appendix A), eight commissions (Del- aware River Basin Commission, Great Lakes Commission, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, International Joint Commission, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, New England River Basins ------- The River Basin Commissions (Continued) Commission, Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission, and Sus- quehanna River Basin Commission) were able to provide water qual- ity reports. However, only the Delaware River Basin Commission and the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin sent in- formation which could be used in the biological assessment. All of the river basin commissions are good sources of additional contact names, including university professors and State or Fed- eral officials. ------- APPENDIX C STATE 305(b) REPORTS REVIEWED AND BIOLOGICAL DATA REPORTED ------- This appendix lists the State 305(b) reports reviewed for the assessment and gives a brief description of biological data provided in each report. The description of biological data does not include lakes data or fish kill data which was commonly re- ported. The review included a total of 35 1978 reports and 56 1980 reports, out of a possible 57 reports from the States and territories. ------- State Alabama Alaska American Samoa Arizona Arkansas Cal Ifornla Colorado Connecticut Delaware D.C. Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois 1978 X X X X X X X X X X 1980 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Biological Data (Year of Section 305(b) Report) None None None None Macrol nvertebrate diversity and chlorophyll a concentration at 42 river stations; toxics In fish tissue at 24 of the 42 river stations (80) Toxics In fish tissue (78 Appendix B); toxics In mussels from 1971-1978 at 31 coastal and 7 estuarlne stations (80) None None None None Macrol nvertebrate diversity and phytoplankton 31 river basins (78, 80) None None Toxics In fish/shellfish tissue from coastal waters (78. 80) Macrol nvertebrates (qualitative) at special (78) ^ Toxics In fish from EPA CORE Network lake and population for and estuarl ne study stations stream stations Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan X X X X X X and from Intensive survey sites; macro!nvertebrate community structure and diversity (qualitative and quantitative) fron CORE stream stations and from Intensive survey sites (80) Toxics In fish tissue (qualitative) at Ohio River stations during 1978-1979 (80) Macrolnvertebrate community structure (qualitative) at Inten- sive survey sites since 1974 (78, 80) Community structure and diversity (qualitative) of macro! n- vertebrates, perlphyton, phytoplankton, and macrophytes and chlorophyl I _a_ for 47 stream sites and 65 lakes In 1980 report and 53 lakes in 1978 report (78, 80) Community structure and diversI1y (qualitative) of macro!n- vertebrates, fish, phytoplankton, and perlphyton for 7 EPA Basic Water Monitoring Program stations (80) Pesticides In 12 aquatic weed samples and 134 fish/shellfish tissue samples collected since 1976 from rivers and lakes (80) None None None Toxics In fish from the Great Lakes and tributaries (78, 80) ------- State Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Northern Mariana Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Trust Territories of 1978 1980 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 Biological Data (Year of Section 305(b) Report) Macro invertebrate diversity and equltablllty at 21 stations from 9 of the 11 major river basins (80) None Reductions In fish divert sty and numbers (qualitative) for streams after 1900 (78) Macro! nvertebrate and perlphyton diversity at 85 river and stream stations (80) None None None Macro! nvertebrate community structure and diversity, perlphy- ton autotrophlc Index, and chlorophyll a in plankton and perfphyton (at 30 fixed stations during 1977 (80) None Macro! nvertebrate community structure (qualitative) for spe- cial Investigations on 4 major river systems in 1977 and 1978; PCBs In Hudson River macrol nvertebrates from 1976-1979; and toxics in fish from the Great Lakes and tributaries, Onondaga Lake, and several rivers and streams during the 1970's (80) Macrol nvertebrate, perlphyton, phytoplankton and macrophyte composition at 104 stream stations (78); macro! nvertebrate diversity and Blotic Index at 24 stream stations (80) None None Pesticides and PCBs In fish (78); macrol nvertebrate community data from 1974-1978 for streams and rivers (80) Community structure and diversity of fish and macrol nverte- brates; toxics In fish tissue for streams and rivers (78, 80) None None None Macro Invertebrate community data since 1974 on major rivers (78, 80) Community structure of macro! nvertebrates (lakes and streams), periphyton (streams), and phytoplankton (lakes) since 1975 (78, 80) Mercury In fish from Cheyenne River basin (80) None None None the Pacific Islands Utah ------- State 1978 1980 Biological Data (Year of Section 305(b) Report) Vermont Virginia Virgin Islands Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming X None X None X X None X X Toxics In shellfish (qualitative) from Port Gardner estuarlne waters from 1972-1975 (78); macrophyte growths (qualitative) In Lake Washington, Sammamlsh and Osoyoos. and the Pend Or- el lie River (80) X Macrolnvertebrate composition and diversity at 42 EPA GORE Network stations during 1978 and 1979; chlorophyll a In perl- phyton at 5 CORE stations from 1977-1979; chloropTiyll a In phytoplankton at 4 CORE stations during 1978; and toxic!* In fish tissue at 23 CORE stations during 1978 (80) X X Macrol nvertebrate and perl phy ton communities (qualitative) In the Oconto River near abandoned Scott Paper Company pulp mil 1 before and after 1978 closure (80) X X None ------- APPENDIX D ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY ------- An annotated bibliography of the reports and data collected during this study are presented in this appendix. The bibliogra- phy is arranged by State and alphabetically by author within a State. Reports received from River Basin Commissions are pre- sented at the end. The specific information to be extracted from the reports was requested by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Not all reports contained answers to all questions. "POTW-related" refers to whether the study or part of the study was conducted around publicly owned treatment works or other sew- age treatment facilities. ------- STATE: Alal ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY Alabama Water Improvement Commission. Unpublished. Results from the Trend Stations Sampled for Macro!nvertebrates In Alabama, 1977-1980. Montgomery, Alabama. 48 pp. SPONSOR: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, funded under Section 106 of the FWPCA LOCATION: Entire State of Alabama (32 trend stations In 1980) STUDY TERM: 1977-1980 BIO PARAMETERS: Macro!nvertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: N/A POTW RELATED: N/A REMARKS: These biological monitoring results from river systems In Alabama are not In report form. The 1979 and 1980 data have been analyzed using the Shannon-Weaver Species Diver- sity Index. Since macro!nvertebrates were not Identified to genus and species In 1977 and 1978, the diversity could not be calculated. SOURCE: Timothy Forester, Biologist, Alabama Water Improvement Commission, Montgomery, Ala- bama, (205) 277-3630 STATE: Arizona Bllnn, D. W., A. Frederlcksen, and V. Korte. 1980. Colonization Rates and Community Structure of Diatoms on Three Different Rock Substrata In a Lotlc System. Br. Phycol. J. 15:303-310. LOCATION: Oak Creek, Coconlno County, Arizona STUDY TERM: 1979 BIO PARAMETERS: Diatom communities ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: N/A POTW RELATED: N/A REMARKS: This study was designed to evaluate the Interactions between rock substrata and as- sociated algae In a moderately hardwater mountain stream In Northern Arizona. SOURCE: Dean Bllnn, Associate Professor of Biology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, (602) 523-4107 S Bllnn, D. W., T. Tompklns, and L. Zaleskl. 1977. Mercury Inhibition on Primary Productivity Us- ing Large Volume Plastic Chambers In Situ. Journal of Phycology. 13:58-41. SPONSOR: Partially funded by the Navajo and KaIparowIts participants LOCATION: Lake Powell, Colorado River Impoundment, Arizona STUDY TERM: 1974-1975 BIO PARAMETERS: Phytoplankton ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: YES TOXICS: Mercury POTW RELATED: NO ------- REMARKS: This experimental study was designed to examine the effects of elevated mercury concentrations on seasonal In situ primary production In Lake Powell. SOURCE: Dean Bllnn, Associate Professor of Biology, Northern Arizona University. Flagstaff, Arizona, (602) 523-4107 Johnson, R., R. Richards, and D. W. Bllnn. 1975. Investigations of Diatom Populations In Rhl- thron and Potanon Communities In Oak Creek, Arizona. SWest. Nat. 20:197-204. LOCATION: Oak Creek, Coconlno County, Arizona STUDY TERM: 1972 BIO PARAMETERS: Diatom communities ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: N/A POTW RELATED: N/A REMARKS: The purpose of this study was 1) to describe the major diatom species In a Northern Arizona mountain stream; and 2) to examine the effect of temperature and current velo- city on the distribution of the algal components. SOURCE: Dean Bllnn, Associate Professor of Biology, Northern Arizona University. Flagstaff, Arizona, (602) 523-4107 Sommerfeld, M. R. 1980. Results of Aquatic Studies, Physlco-chemlstry, Bacteriology and AI go logy Within the Glla River Complex. Chapter from BLM Report. 255 pp. SPONSOR: Bureau of Land Management LOCATION: Glla River Complex, Arizona (26 stations) STUDY TERM: 1977-1978 BIO PARAMETERS: Benthlc diatom communities REMARKS: This study evaluates the water quality of the major and minor streams of the Glla River complex and numerous springs and seeps based on physico-chemical, bacteriological and algologlcal sampling. SOURCE: Cindy Sanders, Bureau of Land Management, Safford, Arizona, (602) 428-4040 Stewart, A. J., and D. W. Bllnn. 1976. Studies on Lake Powell, USA: Environmental Factors In- fluencing Phytoplankton Success In a High Desert Warm Moncmlctlc Lake. Arch. Hydroblol. 78: 138—64. SPONSOR: Partially funded by the Navajo and Kalparowlts participants LOCATION: Lake Powell, Colorado River Impoundment, Arizona STUDY TERM: 1972-1973 BIO PARAMETERS: Phytoplankton ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: N/A POTW RELATED: N/A REMARKS: The objective of this baseline study was to discover any relationships between al- gal populations and environmental factors In the second largest man-made reservoir In the United States. SOURCE: Dean Bllnn, Associate Professor of Biology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff. Arizona, (602) 523-4107 ------- STATE: California McCleneghan, K.f M. Melnz, N. Morgan, 0. Crane, W. Castle, and T. Lew. 1980. Toxic Substances Monitoring Program - 1979. State of California, State Water Resources Control Board. 63 pp. LOCATION: 28 streams STUDY TERM: 1979 BIO PARAMETERS: Tissue concentrations of selected trace metals and synthetic organic con- pounds ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: YES TOXICS: Fish from eight of 28 streams contained mercury, DDT, toxaphene, or chlordane In concentrations exceeding MAS guidelines but were below FDA tolerance levels POTW RELATED: NO REMARKS: This report presents the results of the fourth year of monitoring of toxic sub- stances In freshwater organisms from California streams. The results for 1980 were ex- pected to be available In August 1981. SOURCE: John Ladd, Senior Water Quality Biologist, State Water Resources Control Board, P.O. Box 100, Sacramento, California 95801, (916) 322-0214 McCleneghan, K., and H. J. Rectenwald. 1979. Toxic Substances Monitoring Program - 1978. Water Quality Monitoring Report No. 79-25. State of California, State Water Resources Control Board. 82 pp. LOCATION: 26 streams In California STUDY TERM: 1978 BIO PARAMETERS: Tissue concentrations of selected trace metals and synthetic organic con- pounds ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: YES TOXICS: Elevated levels of As, Cd, Cu, Pb, Hg, Nl, Zn, Aldrln, Dleldrln. DDT and Its meta- bolites, Toxaphene, and PCB's were detected In the tissue of organisms from some streams POTW RELATED: NO REMARKS: This report presents the results of the third year of monitoring of toxic substanc- es In freshwater organisms from California streams. SOURCE: John Ladd, Senior Water Quality Biologist, State Water Resources Control Board, P.O. Box 100, Sacramento, California 95801, (916) 322-0214 Rlsebrough, R. W., B. W. deLappe, E. F. Letter-man, J. L. Lane, M. Flrestone-GII Us, A. M. Spring- er, and W. Walker II. 1980. California Mussel Watch, 1977-1978: Volume III - Organic Pol- lutants In Mussels. Mytllus calIfornIanus and M. edulls. Along the California Coast. Water Quality Monitoring Report No. 79-22.Report of Bodega Marine Laboratory to California State Water Resources Control Board. 108 pp. LOCATION: Oregon Coastal - Mexico Border (32 stations) STUDY TERM: 1977-1978 BIO PARAMETERS: Organic pollutant concentrations In mussel tissue ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: YES TOXICS: Poly nuclear aromatic compounds OTHER POLLUTANTS: Petroleum compounds POTW RELATED: NO ------- REMARKS: Petroleum compounds and synthetic organic pollutants were measured In mussels In order to 1) obtain a data base on present levels of petroleum pollution that might serve to detect future changes; 2) determine the present distribution and concentrations of a number of synthetic organic pollutants; 3) catalogue pollutants that are presently un- identified but which may be of potential concern and Importance; and 4) obtain any other data useful In protecting the health of the California coastal zone. SOURCE: John Ladd, Senior Water Quality Biologist, State Water Resources Control Board, P.O. Box 100, Sacramento, California 95801, (916) 322-0214 Stephenson, M. D., M. Martin, S. E. Lange, A. R. Flegal, and J. H. Martin. 1979. California Mus- sel Watch, 1977-1978: Volume II - Trace Metal Concentrations In the California Mussel, Mytl- lus callfornlanus. Water Quality Monitoring Report No. 79-22. California State Water Re- sources Board.110 pp. LXATION: Oregon Border - Mexico Border (32 coastal stations) STUDY TERM: 1977-1978 BIO PARAMETERS: Trace metal concentrations In mussel tissue ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: YES TOXICS: Silver, lead, zinc, cadmium POTW RELATED: NO REMARKS: The goal of the State Mussel Watch marine program Is to provide the State with a system to document and assess long-term trends In selected Indicators of the quality of coastal and marine waters. One or more metals exceeded FDA proposed Interim alert lev- els for the protection of shellfish harvesting at 10 of the 32 stations In 1978. SOURCE: John Ladd, Senior Water Quality Biologist, State Water Resources Control Board, P.O. Box 100, Sacramento, California 95801, (916) 322-0214 STATE: Colorado Anderson, R. D. 1978. Summary Report on the Water Quality Investigation of the South Platte Riv- er, July 1, 1976 - June 29, 1977. Colorado Department of Health, Denver, Colorado. 90 pp. SPONSOR: Requested by the Joint Budget Committee of the Colorado General Assembly LXATION: South Platte River and major tributaries In Denver, Colorado (19 stations) STUDY TERM: 1976-1977 BIO PARAMETERS: Benthlcs (special sampling) ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: POSSIBLY TOXICS: Copper, lead, zinc POTW RELATED: N/A REMARKS: The primary purpose of this one-year water quality sampling program was to deter- mine the recreational suitability of the South Platte River In the Denver Metropolitan area. Some special sampling of benthlcs was done as a result of problems pointed out by routine physical and chemical monitoring. SOURCE: Dennis Anderson, Colorado Department of Health, Denver, Colorado, (303) 320-8333 Mars, P. J. 1979. Investigation of the Water Quality of the Upper Dolores River, May 1978 through August 1978. Colorado Department of Health, Denver, Colorado. 49 pp. SPONSOR: Colorado Department of Health ------- LOCATION: Upper Dolores River (7 stations) and tributaries (20 stations) STUDY TERM: 1978 BIO PARAMETERS: Macrolnvertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: NO POTW RELATED: NO REMARKS: The aim of this study was to establish baseline chemical, biological and bacterio- logical data on the Upper Dolores River above the -town of Dolores, Colorado. The survey also focused on effluents from the Rico Argentine Mine and the Dolores WWTF. SOURCE: Dennis Anderson, Colorado Department of Health, Denver, Colorado, (303) 320-8333 Mars, P. J. 1978. Water Quality Investigations of the Cache La Poudre River, May through July 1977. Colorado Department of Health, Denver, Colorado. 56 pp. SPONSOR: Colorado Department of Health LOCATION: Cache La Poudre River from below confluence with Joe Wright Creek to Greeley, Col- orado (23 stations) STUDY TERM: 1977 BIO PARAMETERS: Macrolnvertebrates (qualitative only) ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: N/A OTHER POLLUTANTS: Organic matter POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: The objectives of this study were to assess 1) the water quality of the Cache La Poudre; and 2) the effects of waste loading by the various wastewater treatment plants discharging Into the river. SOURCE: Dennis Anderson, Colorado Department of Health, Denver, Colorado, (303) 320-8333 Mars, P. J. 1979. Water Quality Investigations of Gore Creek, August 1977 through January 1978. Colorado Department of Health, Denver, Colorado. 20 pp. SPONSOR: Colorado Department of Health LOCATION: Gore Creek, Eagle County, Colorado (5 stations) STUDY TERM: 1977-1978 BIO PARAMETERS: MacroInvertebrates, fish ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: N/A OTHER POLLUTANTS: Organic matter POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: This report Investigates waste loading from the Vail wastewater treatment plant to determine 1) If the waste load allocation for the facility was justifiable; and 2) the effects on water quality and aquatic life In Gore Creek. SOURCE: Dennis Anderson, Colorado Department of Health, Denver, Colorado, (303) 320-8333 Wood I Ing, J. D. 1977. Investigations of Point Sources of Acid Metals Mine Drainage Locations and Water Quality Effects In the Upper An Imas River Basin. Colorado Department of Health, Den- ver, Colorado. 16 pp. SPONSOR: Colorado Department of Health ------- LOCATION: Upper An Imas River (12 stations) and 3 tributaries (44 stations), San Juan County, Colorado STUDY TERM: 1977 ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: N/A TOXICS: Heavy metals from mining. Including zinc, copper, cadmium, and sliver POTW RELATED: NO REMARKS: An Intensive survey of the Upper An I mas River basin was conducted to refine an ear- lier study which pln-polnted the area as "affected" by metal-mine drainage. Physical and chemical data collected from the study area revealed that the waters would prove acutely toxic to any trout species. SOURCE: Dennis Anderson, Colorado Department of Health, Denver, Colorado, (303) 320-8333 STATE: Delaware Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Unpublished. Bio-Surveys, 1979. Division of Environmental Control, Dover, Delaware. LOCATION: Upper Christina River, Brldgevllle Branch, Fan Tax Ditch, Morris Mill Pond, Red Clay Creek, White Clay Creek STUDY TERM: 1979 BIO PARAMETERS: Macro!nvertebrates, perlphyton ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: NO OTHER POLLUTANTS: Organic matter POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: Biological sampling was conducted to either 1) determine what changes may have oc- curred since 1978; or 2) determine the Impact of point source discharges. SOURCE: Greg Mitchell, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, P.O. Box 1401, Dover, Delaware 19901, (302) 736-4771 STATE: Florida Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. 1979. Biological Aspects of Water Quality In Florida, Parts I-IV. Technical Series, Vol. 4, No. 3. L. T. Ross and D. A. Jones (Editors), Tallahassee, Florida. LOCATION: Part I - Escambla-Perdldo, Choctawhatchee, Apalachtcola, Aucilla-Ochlockonee-St. Marks and Suwanee; Part II - Nassau-St. Marys, St. Johns, and East Coast drainage bas- ins; Part III - Wlthlacoochee, Tampa Bay, Peace, and Klsslmmee; and Part IV - Lower Florida (250 stations total) STUDY TERM: 1973-1978 BIO PARAMETERS: Macrolnvertebrates, algae, bacteria ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: N/A POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: The Biological Monitoring Program Is part of the Florida Permanent Network System which was established to measure ambient water quality, to detect trends In water qual- ity, and to determine the general efficacy of pollution abatement programs. SOURCE: Frank Andrews, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Tallahassee, Florida, (904) 488-4807 ------- STATE: Georgia Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Unpublished. Water Quality Investigations of Estuaries of Georgia. Environmental Protection Division, Atlanta, Georgia. REMARKS: This annual report was not In print at the time of this report. It Is expected to be available by end of 1981. SOURCE: Gene B. Welsh, Chief, Water Protection Branch, Department of Natural Resources, At- lanta, Georgia. (404) 656-6593 Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Unpublished. Water Quality Monitoring Data for Georgia Streams. Environmental Protection Division, Atlanta, Georgia. REMARKS: This annual report was not In print at the time of this report. It Is expected to be available by end of 1981. SOURCE: Gene B. Welsh, Chief, Water Protection Branch, Department of Natural Resources, At- lanta, Georgia, (404) 656-6593 STATE: Kentucky Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection. 1981. Division of Water FY 81 106 Program Plan. Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protec- tion, Frankfort, Kentucky, approximately 420 pp. SPONSOR: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, funded as a Section 106 grant LOCATION: 7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency BWMP stations In 1979 STUDY TERM: On-going BIO PARAMETERS: Macro!nvertebrates, perlphyton ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: N/A POTW RELATED: N/A REMARKS: This document describes the plan to prevent, abate, and control water pollution In the Commonwealth of Kentucky during FY 81. SOURCE: Donald Chal(man. Environmental Specialist, Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, Frankfort, Kentucky, (502) 564-3410 STATE: Maine Adamus, P. R. 1980. Benthlc Invertebrates as Indicators of Water Quality and their Potential for Utilization by Atlantic Salmon In the St. Crolx River, Maine. Center for Natural Areas, South Gardiner, Maine. Prepared for Maine Department of Environmental Protection. SPONSOR: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through the International Joint Commission and Maine Department of Environmental Protection LOCATION: St. Crolx River: Woodland, Maine to Mil(town, Canada (9 stations) STUDY TERM: 1979 BIO PARAMETERS: Macro!nvertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: POSSIBLY TOXICS: Heavy metals from pulp and paper effluent ------- POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: The objective was to assess the aquatic Invertebrate communities, emphasizing their changes since earlier studies and their value as Indicators of potential for successful re Introduction of Atlantic Salmon. SOURCE: Matt Scott, State Biologist, Department of Environmental Protection, State House Station 17, Augusta, Maine 04333, (207) 289-2591 Courtemanch, D. L., and K. E. GIbbs. 1980. Short- and Long-Term Effects of Forest Spraying of Carbaryl (Sevln-4-OII) on Stream Invertebrates. Can._Ent. 112:271-276. SPONSOR: Maine Forest Service, Department of Conservation, Augusta, Maine; Marine Life Sci- ences and Agriculture Experiment Station, University of Maine LOCATION: Fish River drainage STUDY TERM: 1975-1976 BIO PARAMETERS: Macrolnvertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: YES TOXICS: Carbaryl (Sevln-4-OII) POTW RELATED: NO REMARKS: Aerial spraying of carbaryl to control spruce budworm was found to have short- and long-term Impacts on stream macro!nvertebrates communities. SOURCE: Matt Scott, State Biologist, Department of Environmental Protection, State House Station 17, Augusta, Maine 04333, (207) 289-2591 Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Bureua of Water Quality Control. 1977. Impact of Chlorinated Wastewater on Aquatic Life In Maine. 9 pp. LOCATION: Maine (Greely Pond Brook, Tommy Brook, Prestlle Stream, Seven Mile Stream, Sandy River) STUDY TERM: 1974-1976 BIO PARAMETERS: Perlphytlc algae, macrolnvertebrate, fish ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: NO POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: A limited study of five treatment plants was conducted to demonstrate the type and magnitude of Impact caused by chlorinated municipal effluent. It was concluded that chlorinated effluents are detrimental to most aquatic life. SOURCE: Matt Scott, State Biologist, Department of Environmental Protection, State House Station 17, Augusta, Maine 04333, (207) 289-2591 Rabenl, C. F., and K. E. GIbbs. 1977. Benthic Invertebrates as Water Quality Indicators In the - Penobscot River, Maine. Department of Entomology, University of Maine, Orono, Maine. 75 pp. SPONSOR: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, the Land and Water Resources Institute, UMO, and the Faculty Research Fund, UMO LOCATION: Penobscot River: Mllllnocket to Old Town, Maine (11 stations) STUDY TERM: 1974 BIO PARAMETERS: Macrolnvertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: POSSIBLY ------- TOXICS: Unknown OTHER POLLUTANTS: Municipal and paper and pulp wastes POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: The goal of this study was to develop a method of using benthlc macrolnvertebrates as water quality Indicators In a large, deep river. Among other conclusions. Inverte- brates were shown to be better Indicators of certain types of pollution than standard physical and chemical methods. SOURCE: Matt Scott, State Biologist, Department of Environmental Protection, State House Station 17, Augusta, Maine 04333, (207) 289-2591 STATE: Maryland Allison, J. T. 1980. Trappe Creek, A Biological Assessment of Water Quality and Waste Discharge Impact, YEAR: 1977. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, Maryland. 42 pp. LXATION: Trappe Creek STUDY TERM: 1977 810 PARAMETERS: Benthlc macrolnvertebrates and plankton ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: NO OTHER POLLUTANTS: Organic matter, suI fides POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: This study evaluates the Impact of stream use on water quality based on benthlc ma- crol nvertebrates and plankton studies combined with historical data. SOURCE: David J. Pushkar, Department of Natural Resources, Tawes State Office Building, An- napolis, Maryland 21401, (301) 269-3558 Butler, W. L. Unpublished. Summary Statistics for the 1980 Macrolnvertebrate Sampling In the Po- tomac River. Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Baltimore, Maryland. 2 pp. SPONSOR: Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene LOCATION: Potomac River basin STUDY TERM: 1980 810 PARAMETERS: Macrolnvertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: N/A POTW RELATED: N/A REMARKS: These summary statistics of 1980 benthlc macrol nvertebrate sampling In the Potomac River are not In report form. The number of organisms, number of taxa, and diversl.ty Index Is reported for each of the 14 stations located In and adjacent to the State of Maryland. SOURCE: V. James Rasln, Aquatic Biologist, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, Rockvllle, Maryland, (301) 340-2661 Herman, G. H. 1980. Basic Water Monitoring Program Report of Fish Tissue Analysis 1977, 1978 and 1979. Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of Environmental Programs, Baltimore, Maryland. 16 pp. STUDY TEW: 1977-1979 BIO PARAMETERS: Organic compounds and heavy metals In fish tissue ------- REMARKS: The reports presents the results of a part of the Federally-mandated Basic Water Monitoring Program conducted by the State of Maryland. All of the fish tissue data ga- thered by the Maryland Water Resources Administration's Field Operations Division from 1977-1979 are given In this report. SOURCE: Paul W. Slunt, Jr., Division of Technical Analysis, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 201 West Preston Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21201, (301) 383-4244 Tsal, C., and S. L. Golemblewskl. 1979. Changes In Fish Communities In the Upper Patuxent River from 1966 to 1977. Center for Environmental and Estuarlne Studies, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland. 39pp. SPONSOR: Water Resources Administration, Department ot Natural Resources, State of Maryland, Annapolis, Maryland LOCATION: Upper Patuxent River Including the main stem, the Little Patuxent River, the Mid- dle Patuxent River, Hammond Branch and Dorsey Run STUDY TERM: 1966 and 1977 BIO PARAMETERS: Fish species and numbers ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: NO POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: Objectives were 1) to make an Inventory of resident freshwater fishes In 1977 and assess the changes In the fish community structure since 1966; and 2) to augment data collected by the Maryland Water Resources Administration for the purpose of defining problem areas. SOURCE: David J. Pushkar, Department of Natural Resources, Tawes State Office Building, An- napolis, Maryland 21401, (301) 269-3558 STATE: Massachusetts Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control. 1974. Blacks-tone River, 1973, Water Quality Analysis, Part C. Westborough, Massachusetts. 118 pp. LOCATION: Blackstone River (14 stations); Kettle Brook (8 stations); Mumford River (7 sta- tions); West River (5 stations); and Mill River (7 stations) STUDY TERM: 1973 BIO PARAMETERS: MacroInvertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: NO POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: This report contains chemical and biological water quality analyses. The biologi- cal program objectives are: 1) to provide baseline data for future comparative evalua- tions; 2) to provide a useful third parameter. In addition to the physical-chemical ap- proach for assessing water quality; and 3) to establish methods so that a biological ap- proach to water quality might serve as an accurate and useful Indicator. SOURCE: Joy Acker-man, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Water Resources Commission, Divi- sion of Water Pollution Control, P.O. Box 545, Westborough, Massachusetts 01581, (617) Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control. 1974. Millers River, 1973, Water Quality Analysis, Fart C. Westborough, Massachusetts. 72 pp. LOCATION: Millers River (6 stations); and Otter River (1 station) ------- STUDY TERM: 1973 BIO PARAMETERS: Macrolnvertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: NO POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: This report contains chemical and biological water quality analyses* The biologi- cal program objectives are: 1) to provide baseline data for future comparative evalua- tions; 2) to provide a useful third parameter. In addition to the physical-chemical ap- proach for assessing water quality; and 3) to establish methods so that a biological ap- proach to water quality might serve as an accurate and useful Indicator. SOURCE: Joy Acker-man, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Water Resources Commission, Divi- sion of Water Pollution Control, P.O. Box 545, Westborough, Massachusetts 01581, (617) 366-9181 Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control. 1975. Farmlngton River, 1974, Water Quality Analysis and Water Quality Management Plan, Parts C and D. Publication No. 8767-114-25-3-76- CR. Westborough, Massachusetts. 68 pp. SPONSOR: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, Division of Water Pollutlon Control LOCATION: Farmlngton River (7 stations) STUDY TERM: July 1974 BIO PARAMETERS: Plankton, macro!nvertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: NO POTW RELATED: YES - chemical NO - biological REMARKS: This report contains chemical and biological water quality analyses. The biologi- cal program objectives are: 1) to provide baseline data for future comparative evalua- tions; 2) to provide a useful third parameter, in addition to the physical-chemical ap- proach for assessing water quality; and 3) to establish methods so that a biological ap- proach to water quality might serve as an accurate and useful Indicator. The Farmlngton was scheduled to be sampled again In 1980. SOURCE: Joy Ackerman, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Water Resources Commission, Divi- sion of Water Pollution Control, P.O. Box 545, Westborough, Massachusetts 01581, (617) 366-9181 Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control. 1975. French and Qulnebaug Rivers, 1974, Wa- ter Quality Analysis, Part C. Publication No. 10026-124-50-10-77-CR. Westborough, Massachu- setts. 122 pp. SPONSOR: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, Division of Water Pollutlon Control LOCATION: French River (14 stations); and Qulnebaug River (10 stations) STUDY TERM: 1974 BIO PARAMETERS: Macrolnvertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: NO POTW RELATED: NO REMARKS: This report contains chemical and biological water quality analyses. The biologi- cal program objectives are: 1) to provide baseline data for future comparative evalua- tions; 2) to provide a useful third parameter. In addition to the physical-chemical ap- proach for assessing water quality; and 3) to establish methods so that a biological ap- proach to water quality might serve as an accurate and useful Indicator. ------- SOURCE: Joy Ackerman, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Water Resources Commission, Divi- sion of Water Pollution Control, P.O. Box 545, Westborough, Massachusetts 01581, (617) 366-9181 Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control. 1975. Housatonlc River, 1974, Water Quality Analysis. Westborough, Massachusetts. 115 pp. LOCATION: Housatonlc River - main stem (26 stations); West and Southwest Branch, Goose Pond Stream; Williams River, Green River, and Hubbard Branch (1 station each) STUDY TERM: 1974 BIO PARAMETERS: Macro!nvertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: NO POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: This report contains chemical and biological water quality analyses. The biologi- cal program objectives are: 1) to provide baseline data for future comparative evalua- tions; 2) to provide a useful third parameter. In addition to the physical-chemical ap- proach for assessing water quality; and 3) to establish methods so that a biological ap- proach to water quality might serve as an accurate and useful Indicator. SOURCE: Joy Ackerman, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Water Resources Commission, Divi- sion of Water Pollution Control, P.O. Box 545, Westborough, Massachusetts 01581, (617) 366-9181 Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control. 1976. Merrlmack Rivers, 1974, Water Quality Survey, Benthlc Macrolnvertebrate Analysis. Publication No. 9015-31-100-7-76-CR. Westbor- ough, Massachusetts. 29 pp. LOCATION: Merrlmack River, Massachusetts to New Hampshire Line (6 stations) STUDY TERM: 1974 BIO PARAMETERS: Macrolnvertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: POSSIBLY POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: This report contains chemical and biological water quality analyses. The biologi- cal program objectives are: 1) to provide baseline data for future comparative evalua- tions; 2) to provide a useful third parameter. In addition to the phy si cat-chemical ap- proach for assessing water quality; and 3) to establish methods so that a biological ap- proach to water quality might serve as an accurate and useful Indicator. SOURCE: Joy Ackerman, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Water Resources Commission, Divi- sion of Water Pollution Control, P.O. Box 545, Westborough, Massachusetts 01581, (617) 366-9181 Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control. 1977. Charles River and Charles River Basin, 1973-1976, Water Quality Analysis, Part C. Publication No. 10, 115-174-57-12-77-CR. Wes-f- borough, Massachusetts. 173 pp. LOCATION: Charles River - main stem (11 stations); Mine Brook (1 station); Stop River (1 station); Bogastow Pond (1 station); Charles Basin (7 stations); and Muddy River - Back Bay Fehs (6 stations) STUDY TERM: 1973 BIO PARAMETERS: Plankton, macrolnvertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: POSSIBLY POTW RELATED: YES ------- REMARKS: Tnls report contains chemical and biological water quality analyses. The biologi- cal program objectives are: 1) to provide baseline data for future comparative evalua- tions; 2) to provide a useful third parameter. In addition to the physical -chemical ap- proach for assessing water quality; and 3) to establish methods so that a biological ap- proach to water quality might serve as an accurate and useful Indicator. SOURCE: Joy Ackerman, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Water Resources Commission, Divi- sion of Water Pollution Control, P.O. Box 545, Westborough, Massachusetts 01581, (617) 366—9181 Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control. 1978. Nashua River, 1977, Macrol nvertebrate Water Quality Survey. Publication No. 1 0988-5 1-100-10-78-CR. Westborough, Massachusetts. 45 pp. LOCATION: Nashua River (12 stations); Whitman River (1 station); and Nlssltlsslt River (3 stations) STUDY TERM: 1977 BIO PARAMETERS: Macrol nvertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: NO POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: The objectives of the study were In 1) determine suitability of habitat for sup- porting healthy and diverse communities; 2) provide baseline data for future compari- sons; 3) provide data useful In detection of the presence of hazardous or toxic sub- stances; and 4) establishing reliable methods to define the water quality responses of benthlc macrol nvertebrate communities. SOURCE: Joy Ackerman, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Water Resources Commission, Divi- sion of Water Pollution Control, P.O. Box 545, Westborough, Massachusetts 01581, (617) 366—9181 Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control. 1980. The Westfleld River Basin, 1978, Water Quality Analysis. Publication No. 11, 775-121-80-2-80-CR. Westborough, Massachusetts. 121 pp. LOCATION: Westfleld River (6 stations); and Little River (1 station) STUDY TERM: 1978 BIO PARAMETERS: Macrol nvertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: NO POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: The objectives of the study were 1) determine suitability of habitat for supporting healthy and diverse communities; 2) provide baseline data for future comparisons; 3) provide data useful In detection of the presence of hazardous or toxic substances; and 4) establishing reliable methods to define the water quality responses of benthlc macro- Invertebrate communities. Included Is a summary of fisheries data collected by the Mas- sachusetts Division of Fish and Wildlife at 65 stations and reported In the Stream Sur- vey of the Westfleld River System. 1977-1978 by David B. Hal dwell. - SOURCE: Joy Ackerman, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Water Resources Commission, Divi- sion of Water Pollution Control, P.O. Box 545, Westborough, Massachusetts 01581, (617) Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control. 1980. White Island Pond Water Quality Sludy, August 1976-May 1978. Publication No. 1 200-4-92- 100-7-80-CR. Westborough, Massachusetts. 92 pp. LOCATION: White Island Pond, Plymouth County, Massachusetts STUDY TERM: 1976-1978 BIO PARAMETERS: Phytoplankton, aquatic macrophytes ------- ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: NO POTW RELATED: NO REMARKS: Objectives were: 1} to estimate and characterize the lake's trophic level and lim- nology; and 2) to collect data for the State's lake classification and restoration/pre- servation program. SOURCE: Joy Acker-man, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Water Resources Commission, Divi- sion of Water Pollution Control, P.O. Box 545, Westborough, Massachusetts 01581, (617) 366-9181 STATE: Michigan Michigan maintains a bibliography of biological studies conducted by the State. This bibliography and these reports can be requested from the Michigan Water Resources Commission. SOURCE: John Hartlg, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, P.O. Box 30028, Lansing, Mi- chigan 48905, (517) 373-2867 STATE: Minnesota Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 1975. Analysis of the Composition of Fish Populations In Minnesota's Rivers and Streams. Investigatlonal Report No. 335. Division of Fish and Wildlife, Environmental Section, St. Paul, Minnesota. BIO PARAMETERS: Historical records of electroshocklng results ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: NO POTW RELATED: NO REMARKS: The objective of this report was to determine how the diversity index and related Ideas can be used to analyze fish species compositions. SOURCE: Howard Krosch, Department of Natural Resources, Centennial Office Building, 658 Ce- dar Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155, (612) 296-2835 STATE: Missouri Oieffenbach, W., and F. Ryck, Jr. 1976. Water Quality of the Elk, James and Spring River Basins of Missouri, 1964-1965. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri. 25 pp. SPONSOR: Missouri Department of Conservation and Missouri Geological Survey LOCATION: Elk, James and Spring River basins (8, 20 and 24 stations, respectively) STUDY TERM: 1964-1965 BIO PARAMETERS: Benthic Invertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: POSSIBLY TOXICS: Unknown OTHER POLLUTANTS: Sewage and Industrial wastes POTW RELATED: YES ------- REMARKS: The objective of this survey was to determine water quality based on density, di- versity and composition of bottom-dwelling Invertebrate communities In several southwest Missouri river basins. SOURCE: Ron Crunkllton, Biologist, Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, Missouri, Duchrow, R. 1974. Water Quality of the Current, Jack's Fork, Eleven Point, Little Black and Warm Fork of Spring River Basins of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, Mis- souri. 120 pp. SPONSOR: Funded through the DingelI-Johnson Program LXATION: 5 watersheds In the Ozark Highlands, Missouri (51 stations) STUDY TERM: 1974 BIO PARAMETERS: Benthlc Invertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: NO OTHER POLLUTANTS: Organic wastes from STP, agricultural runoff, effluent from wood preserv- ing plant and gravel operations POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: The objective of this baseline survey was to determine existing water quality con- ditions and locate pollution sources of several river basins, as part of a continuing project to survey all streams In Missouri. SOURCE: Ron Crunkllton, Biologist, Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, Missouri, Duchrow, R. M. 1974. Water Quality of the North, Salt, and Culvre River Basins. Missouri De- partment of Conservation, Columbia, Missouri. 55 pp. SPONSOR: Missouri Clean Water Commission, Missouri Geological Survey, and Missouri Depart- ment of Conservation LXATION: North, Salt, and Culvre River basins In northeast Missouri (57 stations) STUDY TERM: 1969-1970 BIO PARAMETERS: Benthlc Invertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: POSSIBLY TOXICS: Unknown OTHER POLLUTANTS: Agricultural runoff, organic wastes from STP POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: The purpose of this survey was to obtain baseline data on bottom dwelling Inverte- brates for future management and conservation efforts In north Missouri streams. SOURCE: Ron Crunkllton, Biologist, Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, Missouri, Duchrow, R. M. 1976. The Effects of Barlte Tailings Pond Dam Failure Upon the Water Quality of Mill Creek and Big River, Washington County, Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, Missouri. 48 pp. SPONSOR: Funded through the DingelI-Johnson Program LXATION: Mill Creek and Big River (2 and 3 stations, respectively) STUDY TERM: 1975-1976 ------- BIO PARAMETERS: Benthlc Invertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: N/A OTHER POLLUTANTS: Sedimentation POTW RELATED: NO REMARKS: The objective of this biological study was to evaluate damage to tenthIc Inverte- brates caused by a dam failure at the Dresser Minerals Corporation No. 4 mine on August 15, 1975. a SOURCE: Ron Crunkllton, Biologist, Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, Missouri, (314) 449-3761 Duchrow, R. M. 1978. Water Quality of the West Fork of Prairie Creek and Cowskln Creek, Douglas County, Missouri, During 1976. Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, Missouri. 7 pp. SPONSOR: City of Ava, Missouri, funded through the DlngelI-Johnson and Design for Conserva- tion Programs LOCATION: Prairie Creek Watershed (3 stations - West Fork of Prairie Creek; 2 stations - Cowskln Creek) STUDY TERM: 1976 BIO PARAMETERS: Benthlc Invertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: YES TOXICS: Pentachlorophenol POTW RELATED: NO REMARKS: This report discusses the detrimental effects on aquatic life caused by the Sentin- el Wood Treating discharge and describes pollution abatement measures. SOURCE: Ron Crunkllton, Biologist, Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, Missouri, (314) 449-3761 Duchrow, R. M. 1980. The Effects of Lead Mine Tailings on the Water Quality of Logan Creek, Rey- nolds County, Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation. 29 pp. SPONSOR: Missouri Department of Conservation and Design for Conservation funds LXATION: Logan Creek, Reynolds County, Missouri (3 stations) STUDY TERM: 1977-1978 BIO PARAMETERS: Benthlc macro!nvertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: YES TOXICS: Heavy metals OTHER POLLUTANTS: Sedimentation POTW RELATED: NO REMARKS: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of discharges from a lead mine tailings pond upon the rater quality of Logan Creek. Dam failures occurred on three separate occasions between March 1977 and March 1978. SOURCE: Ron Crunkllton, Biologist, Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, Missouri, (314) 449-3761 ------- Duchrow, R. M. 1980. The Effects of Lead Mine Tailings on the Water Quality of Saline Creek and the Little St. Francis River, Madison County, Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, Missouri. 21 pp. SPONSOR: Missouri Department of Conservation and Design for Conservation funds LOCATION: Saline Creek and Little St. Francis River, Madison County, Missouri (5 stations) STUDY TERM: 1977-1978 BIO PARAMETERS: Benthlc macro!nvertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: YES TOXICS: Heavy metals OTHER POLLUTANTS: Sedimentation POTW RELATED: POSSIBLY REMARKS: This study was Initiated to evaluate the effects of a lead mine tailings pond fail- ure during March 1977 on the water quality of Saline Creek and the Little St. Francis River. SOURCE: Ron Crunkllton, Biologist, Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, Missouri, (314) 449-3761 Duchrow, R. M. Unpublished. Water Quality of Bryant and Hunter Creeks. Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, Missouri. 2 pp. SPONSOR: Funded through the DlngelI-Johnson Program LOCATION: Bryant and Hunter Creeks, Douglas County, Missouri (2 stations) STUDY TERM: 1976-1977 BIO PARAMETERS: Benthlc Invertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: N/A OTHER POLLUTANTS: Sanitary landfill wastes POTW RELATED: NO REMARKS: The objective of this performance report was to Investigate effects of the Ava san- itary landfill on benthic Invertebrate communities In Bryant and Hunter Creeks. SOURCE: Ron Crunkllton, Biologist, Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, Missouri, (314) 449-3761 Duchrow, R. M. Unpublished. Water Quality of Prairie, Cowskln, and Beaver Creeks, Douglas Coun- ty* Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, Missouri. 21 pp. SPONSOR: City of Ava, Missouri, funded through the DlngelI-Johnson Program LOCATION: Prairie Creek watershed (15 stations - 4 creeks) STUDY TERM: 1974-1975 BIO PARAMETERS: Benthlc Invertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: YES TOXICS: Pentachlorophenol POTW RELATED: NO ------- REMARKS: This progress report contains preliminary findings of a baseline survey 1o deter- mine the water quality of Prairie, Cowskln, and Beaver Creeks. Unpolluted Hunter Creek was sampled as an experimental control. SOURCE: Ron Crunk11 ton, Biologist, Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, Missouri, (314) 449-3761 Envlrodyne Engineers, Inc. 1979. Biological and Water Quality Assessment of Grindstone, Lost, and Muddy Creek Watershed, Missouri. Contract, Soil Conservation Service, Columbia, Mis- souri . 115 pp. SPONSOR: Soil Conservation Service LOCATION: Watershed In northwestern Missouri STUDY TERM: 1978 BIO PARAMETERS: Fish, fish tissue, benthlc organisms ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: NO OTHER POLLUTANTS: Agricultural runoff POTW RELATED: NO REMARKS: The objective of this Inventory and assessment was to provide baseline Information for planning and managing watershed programs. Fish and benthlc organisms were collected at nine stations; fish tissue was analyzed at one site. SOURCE: Joe Marshall, Environmental Specialist, Soil Conservation Service, Columbia, Mis- souri, (314) 442-2271 Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. 1977. An Assessment of Water Quality and Stream Bio- logy, Little Wyaconda-Sugar Creek, Upper and Lower Middle FabIus, Grassy and Troublesome Creek Watersheds. Contract No. AG29SCS-00506, Soil Conservation Service, Columbia, Missouri. 374 pp. SPONSOR: Soil Conservation Service LOCATION: Five watersheds In northeastern Missouri STUDY TERM: 1975-1976 BIO PARAMETERS: Fish, benthlc macro!nvertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: N/A OTHER POLLUTANTS: Agricultural runoff POTW RELATED: N/A REMARKS: The objective of this one-year study was to evaluate water quality and aquatic pop- ulations within five watersheds In northeastern Missouri. Fish and benthlc organisms were collected at five and 13 sites, respectively. SOURCE: Joe Marshall, Environmental Specialist, Soli Conservation Service, Columbia, Mis- souri, (314) 442-2271 • Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. 1978. Inventory of Water Quality and Aquatic Biol- ogy, Peruque Creek Watershed. Contract, Soil Conservation Service, Columbia, Missouri, 250 pp. SPONSOR: Soli Conservation Service LOCATION: Peruque Creek Watershed In St. Charles and Warren Counties, Missouri STUDY TERM: 1977-1978 ------- BIO PARAMETERS: Fish, fish tissue, benthlc macro!nvertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: POSSIBLY TOXICS: Mercury, PCB OTHER POLLUTANTS: Agricultural runoff POTW RELATED: N/A REMARKS: The objective of this one-year Inventory was to assess biology and water quality of the Peruque Creek watershed. Fish and macrolnvertebrates were sampled at 10 and 11 lake and stream sites; fish tissue was measured at one site on Lake St. Louis. SOURCE: Joe Marshall, Environmental Specialist, Soil Conservation Service, Columbia, Mis- souri, (314) 442-2271 Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. 1978. Inventory of Water Quality and Aquatic Biol- ogy, Mississippi County Spillway Watershed and Peafleld Drainage. Contract No. AG29SCS- 00638, Soil Conservation Service, Columbia, Missouri. 179 pp. SPONSOR: Soil Conservation Service LXATION: Watershed In eastern Mississippi County, Missouri STUDY TERM: 1977-1978 BIO PARAMETERS: Fish, fish tissue, benthlc macrolnvertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: YES TOXICS: Mercury, toxaphene OTHER POLLUTANTS: Agricultural runoff POTW RELATED: NO REMARKS: The purpose of this study was to obtain a one-year Inventory and assessment of the biology and water quality In the Mississippi County Spillway Watershed and Peafleld drainage. Fish, fish tissue, and benthlc organisms were sampled at five, one, and six stations, respectively. SOURCE: Joe Marshall, Environmental Specialist, Soil Conservation Service, Columbia. Mis- souri, (314) 442-2271 Esterla, D., et al. 1975. Environmental Assessment of the Chemical, Biological, and Archeologi- cal Resources In the Mozlngo Creek Watershed, Nodaway County, Missouri. Northwest Missouri State University, Maryvllle, Missouri. 89 pp. SPONSOR: City of Maryvllle, Nodaway County Court, Soil Conservation Service LOCATION: Mozlngo Creek Watershed In northwest Missouri STUDY TERM: Fall 1974 BIO PARAMETERS: Fish, benthlc organisms ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: N/A POTW RELATED: N/A REMARKS: The purpose of this project was to perform an Inventory and analysis of the natural resources of an area with a proposed Impoundment, the Mozlngo Creek basin. Fish and benthlc organisms were collected at 10 and four sites, respectively. SOURCE: Joe Marshall, Environmental Specialist, Soil Conservation Service, Columbia, Mis- souri, (314) 442-2271 ------- Funk, J.t and J. W. Robinson. 1974. Changes In the Channel of the Lower Missouri River and Ef- fects on Fish and Wildlife. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri, 52 pp. SPONSOR: Funded through the Commercial Fisheries and DlngelI-Johnson Programs LOCATION: Lower Missouri River from Rulo, Nebraska to mouth STUDY TERM: 1884-1974 BIO PARAMETERS: Fish ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: NO OTHER POLLUTANTS: ChannelIzatlon POTW RELATED: NO REMARKS: This publication documents changes made In the Missouri River channel over a 90 year period and evaluates losses In fish and wildlife habitat from those changes. SOURCE: Ron Crunk!I ton, Biologist, Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, Missouri, (314) 449-3761 Kangas, D. A., and R. W. Crawford. 1977. Water Quality and Biological Assessment of the Big Creek Watershed, Harrison and Davless Counties, Missouri. Northeast Missouri State Univer- sity, Klrksvllle, Missouri. 294 pp. SPONSOR: Soil Conservation Service LXATION: Big Creek Watershed In Harrison and Davless Counties, Missouri STUDY TERM: 1976-1977 BIO PARAMETERS: Fish, benthlc fauna, phytoplankton, macrophytes ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: N/A OTHER POLLUTANTS: Agricultural runoff, organ Ics from STP, Illegal dumping POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: The objectives of this study were to describe water quality of the Big Creek water- shed, to Identify possible pollution sources, and to evaluate various management plans for the area. Biological parameters were sampled at 19 stations. SOURCE: Joe Marshal I, Environmental Specialist, Soil Conservation Service, Columbia, Mis- souri, (314) 442-2271 Mid-Missouri Engineers, Inc. 1980. Big Creek and Hurricane Creek Watersheds, Inventory of Water Quality and Aquatic Biology. Contract No. 53-9424-9-00025, Soil Conservation Service, Colum- bia, Missouri. 123 pp. SPONSOR: Soil Conservation Service LOCATION: Two watersheds In Carroll and Livingston Counties, Missouri STUDY TERM: June 1979-March 1980 BIO PARAMETERS: Fish, fish tissue, benthlc Invertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: NO OTHER POLLUTANTS: Agricultural runoff, channelIzatlon POTW RELATED: N/A ------- REMARKS: The objectives of this survey were to evaluate water quality of Big and Hurricane Creeks and to Identify pollution sources affecting these streams. Biological parameters were measured at six sites. SOURCE: Joe Marshall, Environmental Specialist. Soil Conservation Service, Columbia, Mis- souri, (314) 442-2271 Midwest Research Institute. 1974. Environmental Assessment on the Little Black River Watershed. Contract, Soil Conservation Service, Columbia, Missouri. 308 pp. SPONSOR: Soil Conservation Service LOCATION: Little Black River Watershed In Missouri-Arkansas STUDY TERM: 1974 BIO PARAMETERS: Fish, benthlc macro!nvertebrates, plankton ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: N/A POTW RELATED: N/A REMARKS: The purpose of this report was to assess the environmental Impact of a multiple purpose reservoir In the Little Black River watershed. Biological parameters were mea- sured at nine sampling stations. SOURCE: Joe Marshall, Environmental Specialist, Soil Conservation Service, Columbia. Mis- souri, (314) 442-2271 Missouri Department of Conservation. 1978. An Inventory of Point and Non-Point Water Pollution Sources In Missouri with Notes Regarding Their Impact Upon Fish and Other Aquatic Life. Mis- souri Department of Conservation, Columbia, Missouri. 160 pp. SPONSOR: Funded by Missouri Department of Natural Resources LOCATION: All river basins and subbaslns In Missouri STUDY TERM: 1961-1971 surveys were used primarily BIO PARAMETERS: Aquatic flora and fauna ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: N/A POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: Information from biological pollution surveys, fish kills, and Interviews with field personnel provided results for this Statewide Inventory of point and non-point sources. The location of the stream, the primary pollution source, and major detriment- al effects are summarized In table form. SOURCE: Ron Crunk11 ton, Biologist, Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, Missouri, (314) 449-3761 Missouri Department of Conservation. 1981. Available Technical Publications. Missouri Depart- ment of Conservation, Fish and Wildlife Research Center, Columbia, Missouri. 6 pp. SPONSOR: Missouri Department of Conservation LOCATION: State of Missouri STUDY TERM: 1950-1981 reports BIO PARAMETERS: Fish, shellfish, benthlc macro!nvertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: N/A POTW RELATED: N/A ------- REMARKS: This publication provides a listing of current technical reports available from the Missouri Department of Conservation Division of Fisheries. SOURCE: Ron Crunk!I ton. Biologist, Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, Missouri, (314) 449-3761 Ryck, F. M., Jr. 1974. Missouri Stream Pollution Survey. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri. 37 pp. SPONSOR: Missouri Department of Conservation LOCATION: 63 counties In Missouri STUDY TERM: 1967-1971 BIO PARAMETERS: Benthlc Invertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: YES TOXICS: Mining wastes OTHER POLLUTANTS: Municipal, Indus-trial and agricultural wastes POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: This statewide pollution survey covers only counties In Missouri with seriously polluted streams. Physical, chemical and biological data were used In classifying the streams. (Separate reports were written for each county.) SOURCE: Ron Crunk! I ton. Biologist, Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, Missouri, (314) 449-3761 Ryck, F. M., Jr. 1974. Water Quality Survey of the Southeast Ozark Mining Area, 1965-1971. Mis- souri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri. 28 pp. SPONSOR: Missouri Clean Water Commission, Missouri Geological Survey, and Missouri Depart- ment of Conservation LOCATION: Black, Meramec, and St. Francis River basins In the Ozark Uplands, Missouri (23 stations) STUDY TERM: 1965-1971 BIO PARAMETERS: Benthlc Invertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: YES TOXICS: Heavy metals from lead mining and milling operations, Including lead, zinc, copper, sliver, and cyanide POTW RELATED: NO REMARKS: The purpose of this survey was to document varying degrees of stream degradation from the development of a new lead mining and Industrial complex In the southeast Ozarks of Missouri. SOURCE: Ron Crunk!I ton. Biologist, Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, Missouri, (314) 449-3761 STATE: Mississippi Mississippi Bureau of Pollution Control. 1981. Mississippi Water Pollution Control Program Plan, Section 106. Jackson, Mississippi. 119 pp. SPONSOR: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, funded as a Section 106 Grant ------- LXATION: Selected sites from the ambient monitoring network (total of 23 fixed stations) and Intensive surveys STUDY TERM: On-going BIO PARAMETERS: Perlphyton, phytoplankton, macrophyton, macrolnvertebrates, fish and fish tissue ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: N/A POTW RELATED: N/A REMARKS: This document describes the basic strategy for water pollution control In Missis- sippi during FY 81. It also summarizes FY 80 efforts. SOURCE: Michael Lev I, 106 Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, At- lanta, Georgia, (404) 881-4450 STATE: Nebraska Maret, T. R., and C. C. Christiansen. Unpublished. Water Quality Survey of the Big Blue River, Nebraska. Nebraska Department of Environmental Control, Lincoln, Nebraska. 30 pp. SPONSOR: Nebraska Department of Environmental Control LXATION: Big Blue River, Headwaters to Lower Reaches, Nebraska (6 stations) STUDY TERM: 1978-1979 BIO PARAMETERS: Macro!nvertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: POSSIBLY TOXICS: Unknown OTHER POLLUTANTS: Organic matter POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: This baseline study evaluated water quality of the Big Blue River In southeastern Nebraska, based on physiochemlcal, bacteriological and biological conditions. Some sam- pling sites were located below specific municipal and Indus-trial effluents. This study will be published In Vol. IX of Trans. Neb. Acad. Scl. In August 1981. SOURCE: Terry Maret, Environmental Specialist, Nebraska Department of Environmental Control, Lincoln, Nebraska, (402) 471-2186 Maret, T. R., and E. J. Peters. 1980. The Fishes of Salt Creek Basin, Nebraska. Trans. Neb. Acad. Scl. VI11:35-94. SPONSOR: University of Nebraska-Lincoln LXATION: Salt Creek basin In southeastern Nebraska (152 stations) STUDY TERM: 1977 BIO PARAMETERS: Fish ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: POSSIBLY TOXICS: Unknown OTHER POLLUTANTS: Slltatlon, channelization, organic matter POTW RELATED: YES ------- REMARKS: This baseline report Investigated the distribution of stream fishes from the Salt Creek basin In Nebraska. Relatively little work has been done to evaluate the responses of fish to man's activities In Nebraska. SOURCE: Terry Maret, Environmental Specialist, Nebraska Department of Environmental Control. Lincoln, Nebraska, (402) 471-2186 Peters, E. J. 1978. The Effects of Irrigation Return Flow on the Biota of Nine Mile Creek. Scotts Bluff County, Nebraska. University of Nebraska-Lincoln. 31 pp. SPONSOR: IANR, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, Nebraska Water Resources Commission, and University of Nebraska-Lincoln LOCATION: Nine Mile Creek, Scotts Bluff County, Nebraska (8 stations) STUDY TERM: 1977-1978 BIO PARAMETERS: Benthlc Invertebrates, fish ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: N/A OTHER POLLUTANTS: Slltatlon POTW RELATED: NO REMARKS: The objective of this study was to determine the Impact of Irrigation return flow on the fish and benthlc faunal communities of Nine Mile Creek. The stream was chosen because It serves as a spawning area for rainbow trout. SOURCE: Dr. Edward J. Peters, University of Nebraska - East Campus, Lincoln, Nebraska, (402) 472-2188 STATE: New Hampshire New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. 1979. 1979 Annual Report, Division of Inland and Marine Fisheries. Concord, New Hampshire. 107 pp. SPONSOR: Funding from Fishing License Fees LXATION: New Hampshire BIO PARAMETERS: Fisheries ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: NO POTW RELATED: NO REMARKS: This report summarizes the hatchery operations and the progress of research and management projects of both Inland and marine programs. SOURCE: Ted Spurr, New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, Fisheries Division, 34 Bridge, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, (603) 271-2501 STATE: New Jersey Soldwedel, R. H. Unpublished. Classification of New Jersey Trout Waters, Interim Report. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, New Jersey. 19 pp. SPONSOR: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection LXATION: All of New Jersey (65 drainage areas) STUDY TERM: Pre-1978 classification ------- BIO PARAMETERS: Fish (trout) ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: N/A POTW RELATED: N/A REMARKS: These classifications of New Jersey trout waters were based solely on electroflsh- Ing results. Drainage areas In the State were classified as either 1) trout production waters; 2) trout maintenance waters; or 3) non-trout waters. SOURCE: Walter Murawskl, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Fish, Game and ShelIfishertes, Lebanon Fisheries Lab, Lebanon, New Jersey, (201) 236- STATE: New Mexico Jacob!, 6. Z. 1980. Benthologlcal Monitoring at Ambient Stream Stations on the Pecos, Rio Gran- de, and San Juan Rivers, New Mexico In 1979. Environmental Improvement Division, Water Pol- lution Control Bureau, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 22 pp. LOCATION: Pecos River (2 stations); Rio Grande River (5 stations); and San Juan (1 station) STUDY TERM: 1979 BIO PARAMETERS: Macrolnvertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: N/A POTW RELATED: N/A REMARKS: This report summarizes an Initial effort to collect benthlc macro!nvertebrate from several New Mexico river sites. No attempt was made to characterize water quality on the basis of the survey results. Work was conducted as part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-State Basic Water Monitoring Program. SOURCE: Dave Tague, Water Pollution Control Bureau, P.O. Box 968, Crown Building, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87503, (505) 827-5271 STATE: New York Bode, R. unpublished. Biological Survey of the Genesee River, 1974. New York State Department of Health, Albany, New York. 10 pp. SPONSOR: New York State's Biological Stream Monitoring Project, funded by the U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency under Section 106 FWPCA LOCATION: Genesee River from Avon to Lake Ontario (8 stations) STUDY TERM: 1974 BIO PARAMETERS: Macrolnvertebrate species and numbers ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: POSSIBLY TOXICS: Unknown OTHER POLLUTANTS: Organic matter POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: The purpose of the survey was to obtain baseline data on the macrolnvertebrates present, and to detect and assess changes In these communities In relation to water quality. SOURCE: Karl W. Simpson, State of New York, Department of Health, Division of Laboratories and Research, Albany, New York, (518) 474-7779 ------- Bode, R. W., and K. W. Simpson. Unpublished* Macrolnvertebrate Survey of the Black River, 1976. New York State Department of Health, Albany, New York. 22 pp. LOCATION: Black River - main stem. Moose and Beaver Rivers (17 stations) STUDY TERM: 1976 BIO PARAMETERS: Macrolnvertebrate species and numbers ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: YES TOXICS: Pulp and paper mill effluent OTHER POLLUTANTS: Organic matter POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: The objectives were to evaluate the relative biological health of the river and to provide baseline data for monitoring future changes In the health of the river. SOURCE: Karl W. Simpson, State of New York, Department of Health, Division of Laboratories and Research, Albany, New York, (518) 474-7779 Schumacher, 6. J., and U. B. Wager. 1973. A Study of the Phytoplankton In the Delaware River Basin Streams In New York State. State University of New York at Blnghamton. 56 pp. SPONSOR: Research Foundation of the State University of New York and the Delaware River Bas- in Commission LOCATION: Upper Delaware River Basin, New York (25 stations) STUDY TERM: 1971-1972 BIO PARAMETERS: Phytoplankton ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: NO POTW RELATED: NO REMARKS: The major objective of this project was to provide qualitative and quantitative data concerning the planktonlc algae of major streams of Delaware River Basin In New York. The data would provide a data base against which later Investigators could evalu- ate the effects of any future environmental modifications. SOURCE: Richard Albert, Delaware River Basin Commission, West Trenton, New Jersey, (609) 883-9500 Simpson, K. W. 1976. A Water Quality Evaluation of the Hudson River, Based on the Collection and Analysis of Macrolnvertebrate Communities. In: Proceedings of 4th Symposium on Hudson River Ecology, 1976, Hudson River Environmental Society (Editors). LOCATION: Upper (12 stations) and Lower Hudson River (20 stations) STUDY TERM: 1972-1973 BIO PARAMETERS: Macrolnvertebrate species and numbers ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: NO POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: The objectives were to evaluate the relative biological health of the river and provide baseline data to evaluate changes In water quality over time. (Re-evaluation In 1977 noted Improvement below Glen Falls.) SOURCE: Karl W. Simpson, State of New York, Department of Health, Division of Laboralorles and Research, Albany, New York, (518) 474-7779 ------- Simpson, K. W. 1976. Biological Survey of Gooseberry and Schoharle Creeks above and below the Tannersvllle Sewage Treatment Plant. Technical Memorandum. New York State Department of Health, Albany, New York. 28 pp. LOCATION: Gooseberry Creek (3 stations); and Schoharle Creek (2 stations) STUDY TERM: 1975 BIO PARAMETERS: Macro!invertebrate species and numbers; and perlphyton ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: NO OTHER POLLUTANTS: Chlorine POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: The purposes of this survey were to determine blotlc changes caused by existing discharges; duration of condition; and what chemical and/or physical conditions caused changes. The Information wl 11 be used In planning the type of treatment needed for fu- ture discharges. SOURCE: Karl W. Simpson, State of New York, Department of Health, Division of Laboralorles and Research, Albany, New York, (518) 474-7779 Simpson, K. W. 1980. Macro!nvertebrate Survey of the Allegheny River, New York - 1975. Environ- mental Health Report No. 9, New York State Department of Health, Albany, New York. 39 pp. SPONSOR: New York State's Biological Stream Monitoring Project, funded by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Section 106 FWPCA LOCATION: Allegheny River, main stem between Portvllle and Red House; Olean and Tunungwant Creeks (9 stations) . STUDY TERM: 1975 BIO PARAMETERS: Macro!nvertebrate species and numbers ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: YES TOXICS: Unknown OTHER POLLUTANTS: Ammonia, organic wastes from STP; nitrogenous wastes from Indus-trial sources; and oil from non-point sources POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: The objectives of the survey were to evaluate the relative biological health of the river upstream and downstream of the major waste loadings and to generate baseline data for assessing future changes from Improved wastewater treatment. SOURCE: Karl W. Simpson, State of New York, Department of Health, Division of Laboralorles and Research. Albany, New York, (518) 474-7779 Simpson, K. W. 1980. Macrolnvertebrate Survey of the Buffalo River System, 1976. Environmental Health Report No. 8, New York State Department of Health, Albany, New York. 31 pp. SPONSOR: New York State's Biological Stream Monitoring Project, funded by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Section 106 FWPCA LXATION: Buffalo River; Cayuga, Cazenovla, and Buffalo Creeks (7 stations) STUDY TERM: 1976 BIO PARAMETERS: Macrolnvertebrate species and numbers ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: YES TOXICS: Industrial Indirect discharger wastes ------- OTHER POLLUTANTS: Organic wastes and non-point runoff POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: The objectives were 1) to determine the macrolnvertebrate communities occurring In the Buffalo River and tributaries; and 2) to Identify and assess differences In the faunas at various stations. The results will serve as baseline data for assessing changes In the future. SOURCE: Karl W. Simpson, State of New York, Department of Health, Division of Laboratories and Research, Albany, New York, (518) 474-7779 Simpson, K. W. 1980. Macrolnvertebrate Survey of the Mohawk River - Barge Canal System, 1972. Environmental Health Report No. 10, New York State Department of Health, Albany, New York. 43 pp. SPONSOR: New York State's Biological Monitoring Program as mandated by FWPCA LOCATION: Mohawk River-Barge Canal System from above Rome to the mouth at Cohoes (30 sta- tions over 190 km) STUDY TERM: 1972 BIO PARAMETERS: Macrolnvertebrate species and numbers ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: YES TOXICS: Copper; phenolic compounds; ammonia; and chromium OTHER POLLUTANTS: Organic wastes; D.O.; non-point; channelization; and Impoundment POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: The objectives were to evaluate the relative biological health of the system and generate baseline data for monitoring future changes In the river. (Re-evaluated 1978; some Improvement had occurred but still adversely affected by Cities of Rome, Utlca, and Schenectady.) SOURCE: Karl W. Simpson, State of New York, Department of Health, Division of Laboratories and Research, Albany, New York, (518) 474-7779 Simpson, K. W. 1980. Macrolnvertebrate Survey of the Niagara River, 1976. Environmental Health Report No. 11, New York State Department of Health, Albany, New York. 29 pp. SPONSOR: New York State's Biological Monitoring Program, funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Section 106 FWPCA LOCATION: Niagara River, main stem between Buffalo and Youngstown (9 stations) STUDY TERM: 1976 BIO PARAMETERS: Macrolnvertebrate species and numbers ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: YES TOXICS: Unknown, possibly heavy metals, phenols and/or oil POTW RELATED: NO REMARKS: The objectives were 1) to determine the macrol nvertebrate communities occurring In the river; and 2) to Identify and assess the differences among faunas at the various stations. SOURCE: Karl W. Simpson, State of New York, Department of Health, Division of Laboratories and Research, Albany, New York, (518) 474-7779 ------- Simpson, K. W. Unpublished. Biological Survey of the Seneca-Oswego River System from Cross Lake to Lake Ontario, 1972. New York State Department of Health, Albany, New York. 12 pp. LOCATION: Seneca-Oswego River system from Cross Lake to Lake Ontario (11 stations - main stem; 3 stations Oswego Harbor) STUDY TERM: 1972 BIO PARAMETERS: Macro I nvertebrate species and numbers ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: NO OTHER POLLUTANTS: Organic matter POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: The objectives were 1) to evaluate the relative biological health of the system. Including the effects of major tributaries and waste discharges; and 2) to provide base- line data for monitoring future changes. (Re-evaluated 1978; results were similar to 1972 survey.) SOURCE: Karl W. Simpson, State of New York, Department of Health, Division of Laboratories and Research, Albany, New York, (518) 474-7779 Simpson, K. W. Unpublished. Biological Survey of New York State Barge Canal System from Roches- ter to Weed sport, 1974. New York State Department of Health, Albany, New York. 16 pp. LOCATION: Erie Canal (9 stations); Seneca-Cayuga Canal (6 stations); and Ganargua Creek (4 stations) STUDY TERM: 1974 BIO PARAMETERS: MacroInvertebrate species and numbers ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: NO OTHER POLLUTANTS: Organic matter POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: The objectives were to evaluate the relative biological health of the river and to provide baseline data for monitoring future changes. SOURCE: Karl W. Simpson, State of New York, Department of Health, Division of Laboratories and Research, Albany, New York, (518) 474-7779 Simpson, K. W. Unpublished. Biological Survey of the New York State Barge Canal form North Tona- wanda to Rochester, 1975. New York State Department of Health, Albany, New York. 20 pp. LOCATION: New York State Barge Canal from North Tonawanda to Rochester (12 stations) STUDY TERM: 1975 BIO PARAMETERS: Macro!nvertebrate species and numbers ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: POSSIBLY TOXICS: Unknown OTHER POLLUTANTS: Organic matter POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: The objectives were to evaluate the relative biological health of the river and to provide baseline data for monitoring future changes. SOURCE: Karl W. Simpson, State of New York, Department of Health, Division of Laboratories and Research, Albany, New York, (518) 474-7779 ------- Other river surveys which have been conducted by the New York State B lemon I tor Ing Project but for which a manuscript was not acquired Include: River Orlskany Creek from Orlskany to Mohawk River Susquehanna River from Blnghamton to Waver ly Chemung River from Painted Post to Waver ly Seneca-Cayuga Canal from Waterloo to Monte- zuma Delaware River from Deposit to Port Jervls Date of Study 1972 1973, 1979 1973, 1979 1974 1974 No. of Stations 5 10 10 7 16 St. Lawrence River from Cape Vincent to Massena 1977 17 SOURCE: Karl W. Simpson, State of New York, Department of Health, Division of Laboratories and Research, Albany, New York, (518) 474-7779 STATE: North Carolina Lenat, D. R., D. L. Penrose, and K. W. Eagleson. 1979. Biological Evaluation of Non-Point Source Pollutants In North Carolina Streams and Rivers. Biological Series No. 102. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Raleigh, North Carolina. 163 pp. SPONSOR: State of North Carolina LOCATION: Numerous streams and rivers In North Carolina STUDY TERM: 1977-1978 BIO PARAMETERS: Macroinvertebrate species and numbers ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: YES TOXICS: Metals, pesticides postulated POTW RELATED: NO REMARKS: The Information generated Is Intended to Influence the development of water quality management plans. The objectives were to 1) Identify areas of water quality problems resulting from non-point sources; 2) evaluate the magnitude of the problems; and 3) evaluate Best Management Practices (BMP's) currently In use. SOURCE: David Penrose, Biologist, North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Commu- nity Development, Division of Environmental Management, Raleigh, North Carolina, (919) 733-6946 STATE: Ohio Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. An Evaluation of the K&S Circuits Effluent and Its Impact on Brush Creek, Montgomery and Miami Counties, Ohio. Technical Report OEPA 79/2. Of- fice of Wastewater. Division of Surveillance and Water Quality Standards. Columbus, Ohio. 20 pp. LOCATION: Brush Creek (3 stations) STUDY TERM: 1979 BIO PARAMETERS: Fish, macro!nvertebrates, bloassay ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: YES ------- TOXICS: Copper POTW RELATED: NO REMARKS: This report presents the findings of an Investigation by the Ohio EPA to determine the Impact of K&S circuits discharge upon Brush Creek. SOURCE: Or. John F. Estenlk, Ohio EPA, Division of Surveillance and Standards. 361 East Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, (614) 466-9092 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Water Quality Study of the Ottawa River, Allen and Putnam Counties, Ohio. Technical Report OEPA 79/1. Office of Wastewater, Division of Sur- veillance and Water Quality Standards, Columbus, Ohio. 33 pp. LOCATION: Ottawa River, Auglalze River STUDY TERM: Fisheries: 1976-1977; and Macro!nvertebrates: 1974, 1976-1977 BIO PARAMETERS: Fisheries, macro!nvertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: YES TOXICS: Chromium, phenols OTHER POLLUTANTS: Chlorine, ammonia, MBAS POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: The biological and chemical quality of the Ottawa River was evaluated between 1974 and 1977 In order to assess the Impacts of Improvements In wastewater treatment from the City of Lima and Indus-trial discharges In Lima. SOURCE: Dr. John F. Estenlk, Ohio EPA, Division of Surveillance and Standards, 361 East Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 4321S, (614) 466-9092 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Water Quality Study of Mill Creek, Union and Dela- ware Counties. Technical Report No. OEPA 80/1. Office of Wastewater Pollution Control, Di- vision of Surveillance and Standards, Columbus, Ohio. 57 pp. LXATION: Mill Creek (17 stations) STUDY TERM: 1978 BIO PARAMETERS: Macro I nvertebrates, fish, and perlphyton communities; static bioassays with effluents ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: YES POTW RELATED: YES TOXICS: Cyanide, copper, nickel OTHER POLLUTANTS: Ammonia; chlorine; and low D.O. REMARKS: The primary objective of this study was to establish baseline chemical/physical and biological water quality In anticipation of facility upgrading of the Marysvllle WWTP and Increased capacity required to accomodate additional wastewater flow from the New Honda of America motorcycle plant. SOURCE: Or. John F. Estenlk, Ohio EPA, Division of Surveillance and Standards, 361 East Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, (614) 466-9092 ------- STATE: Pennsylvania Brezlna, E. R., Editor. Revised 1980. PCBs In Pennsylvania Waters. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Harrlsburg, Pennsylvania. BWQM Publication No. 51. 114 pp. SPONSOR: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources LOCATION: 36 waterways encompassing 40 counties In Pennsylvania for biological monitoring (61 fish collection stations) STUDY TERM: Ambient monitoring: water - 1974-1975; fish tissue - 1975-1979 studies (5 Penn- sylvania Department of Environmental Resources (DER) studies; 1 DER/ORSANCO study; 2 CR- SANCO studies; 1 EPA study; and 1 Erie County Health Department study); water supply monitoring - 1974-1976; Industrial waste source monitoring - 1975-1977; sewage waste source monitoring - 1975-1977; and solid waste source monitoring - 1977-1978 BIO PARAMETERS: Fish tissue ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: YES TOXICS: PCBs POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: This report provides Information and results from various studies conducted In Pennsylvania to determine the extent and level of contamination of water and fish by PCBs. It attempts to determine Industrial and municipal sources of PCB contamination. Potential "hot spot" problem areas Include the Schuylklll River, lower Delaware River, Chartlers Creek, Ohio River and Lake Erie. Regulatory efforts to control PCBs In the State are also described. i SOURCE: Bob Fray, Biologist, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Harrlsburg, Pennsylvania, (717) 787-9633 Brezlna, E. R., and M. V. Arnold. 1977. Levels of Heavy Metals In Fishes from Selected Pennsyl- vania Waters. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Harrlsburg, Pennsylvania. BWQM Publication No. 50. 50 pp. SPONSOR: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources LOCATION: 36 waterways encompassing 40 counties In Pennsylvania (61 fish collection sta- tions) STUDY TERM: 1976 BIO PARAMETERS: Fish tissue (only the edible portion) ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: YES TOXICS: Heavy metals (As, Cd, Cu, Cr, Hg, Mo, Nl, Pb, Sb, Se, and Zn) POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: This study provided results from the first year of a Statewide monitoring program to determine the extent of heavy metal contamination of edible fish In Pennsylvania. Isolated potential problem areas were Identified. Additional objectives were to deter- mine 1) If heavy metal levels vary significantly In different species of fish; and 2) if a potential health hazard would result from human consumption of contaminated fish. SOURCE: Bob Frey, Biologist, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Harrlsburg, Pennsylvania, (717) 787-9633 Brezlna, E. R., K. K. Sheaf fer, J. T. Ulanoskl, M. V. Arnold, R. Hug hey, and T. P. Cllsta. 1980. Lower Susquehanna River Basin Water Quality, 1976. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Harrlsburg, Pennsylvania. BWQM Publication No. 54. 365 pp. SPONSOR: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources ------- LOCATION: Lower Susquehanna River basin from Sunbury, Pennsylvania to Conowlngo, Maryland (196 total biological-chemical stations) STUDY TERM: 1976 BIO PARAMETERS: Fish, macro!nvertebrates, phytoplankton, zooplankton, macrophytes, pertphy- ton, and chlorophyll a ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: YES TOXICS: Acid mine drainage OTHER POLLUTANTS: Municipal and Indus-trial wastes POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: The purpose of this extensive chemical and biological Investigation of the lower Susquehanna River basin was to Identify significant water pollution problems. Drainage from abandoned coal mines caused the most significant water quality problems In the bas- in; drainage from STPs and Indus-tries created localized pollution problems. SOURCE: Bob Frey, Biologist, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Harrlsburg, Pennsylvania, (717) 787-9633 Kupsky, E. P. 1961. Lackawanna River Survey. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resourc- es, Harrlsburg, Pennsylvania. BWQM Publication No. 57. 50 pp. SPONSOR: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources LOCATION: Lackawanna River, northeastern Pennsylvania (18 macrobenthlc and 9 fish sampling stations) STUDY TERM: 1979 BIO PARAMETERS: MacroInvertebrates, fish ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: YES TOXICS: Acid mine drainage POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: All known major acid mine drainage and sewage treatment discharges to the Lackawan- na River, Its major -tributaries, and the North Branch Susquehanna River were sampled for physlochemlcal and/or biological data (48 total sampling stations) to evaluate pollution abatement needs. SOURCE: Bob Frey, Biologist, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Harrlsburg, Pennsylvania, (717) 787-9633 STATE: South Dakota Sixth District Council of Local Governments. 1980. Urban Runoff Control In Rapid City, South Da- kota, Annual Report, 1980. Rapid City, South Dakota. 100 pp. SPONSOR: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, funded under Section 208 of the FWPCA LOCATION: Rapid City, Pennlngton Counties, South Dakota (6 stations) STUDY TERM: 1980 BIO PARAMETERS: Fish, benthlc macro!nvertebrates, perlphyton, chlorophyll a ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: N/A POTW RELATED: N/A ------- REMARKS: The primary objectives of this project were to 1) assess the Impact of urban runoff Into Rapid Creek; and 2) evaluate the effects of the runoff on a high quality, cold wa- ter fishery. Due to limited funding, biological monitoring results were not Included In the report. SOURCE: Kathy MilIs-Satter, Sixth District Council of Local Governments, Rapid City, South Dakota, (605) 394-2681 7 STATE: Texas Davis, J., and D. 6. Huffman. 1975. The Ecology of the Helminth Parasites of Gambusla afflnls and Gambusla gelserl (Ostelchthyes: Pbeclllldae) In the Area of San Marcos, Texas. Masters Thesis.Southwest Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas. 161 pp. LOCATION: San Marcos, Hays County, Southcentral Texas (8 stations: 3 river, 2 Impoundment, 2 pond and 1 creek sites) STUDY TERM: 1974-1975 BIO PARAMETERS: Fish ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: N/A POTW RELATED: N/A REMARKS: This study describes the parasitic helminths of the mosqultofIsh. Gambusla afflnls. In the San Marcos, Texas area and correlates ecological factors with the prevalence and Intensity of parasitism In this host. SOURCE: Dr. Bobby Whlteslde, Aquatic Biologist, Southwest Texas State University, San Mar- cos, Texas, (512) 245-2284 Schenck, J. R., and B. 6. Whlteslde. 1976. Distribution, Habitat Preference and Population Size Estimate of Etheostoma fontlcola. Cope la. 4:697-703. SPONSOR: Funded In part by a Southwest Texas State University faculty research grant LOCATION: Upper San Marcos River, Hays County, and the entire ComaI River, Comal County, Texas STUDY TERM: 1973-1974 BIO PARAMETERS: Fish ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: N/A POTW RELATED: N/A REMARKS: The objective of this study was to examine the distribution, habitat preference and population numbers of an endangered species of fish endemic only to the spring-fed San Marcos and Comal Rivers. SOURCE: Dr. Bobby Whlteslde, Aquatic Biologist, Southwest Texas State University, San Mar- cos, Texas, (512) 245-2284 Short, R. A., J. V. Ward, H. L. Gary, and P. 0. Currle. 1978. Aquatic Biota of Trout Creek, Man- Itou Experimental Forest, Colorado. General Technical Report RM-54, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station. 13 pp. SPONSOR: Colorado State University, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station LOCATION: Trout Creek (5 stations) and 2 tributaries (4 stations) In Manltou Experimental Forest, Colorado STUDY TERM: 1976 ------- BIO PARAMETERS: Macro!nvertebrates, perlphyton and fish ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: NO POTW RELATED: NO REMARKS: The objective of this study was to survey an existing stream ecosystem prior to an expected expansion In mountain home developments In and around the Manltou Experimental Forest. SOURCE: Or. Bobby Whlteslde, Aquatic Biologist, Southwest Texas State University, San Mar- cos, Texas, (512) 245-2284 Texas Department of Water Resources. 1980. Publications Catalog 80. Austin, Texas. 263 pp. SPONSOR: Texas Department of Water Resources LOCATION: Texas POTW RELATED: N/A REMARKS: This catalog lists publications from the Texas Department of Water Resources, the Texas Water Commission, and the Texas Water Development Board. SOURCE: Barbara Ludeke, Librarian, Texas Department of Water Resources, Austin, Texas, (512) 475-4211 Texas Department of Water Resources. 1974-1977. Water Quality Segment Reports, No. WQS-1 through WQS-25 (WQS-6, -11, -22, -23, -24 not available). Texas Department of Water Resources, Aus- tin, Texas. SPONSOR: Texas Department of Water Resources LOCATION: Segments from the: East Fork of Trinity River; Neches River Tidal; Nueces River; Mission River (above Tidal); Red River; Aransas River (above Tidal); Trinity River; Pe- cos River; Rio Grande; Corpus ChristI Inner Harbor, Colorado River; Sabine River; Cana- dian River; Laguna Madre; San Antonio River; Salt Fork of the Brazos; Lake Fort Phantom HIM; Adams Bayou; Lavaca and Cox Bays; Moses Lake; Dickinson Bayou Tidal; and Houston Ship Channel STUDY TERM: 1974-1977 BIO PARAMETERS: Fish, shellfish, macrolnvertebrates, macrophytes, phytoplankton, and zoo- plankton ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: POSSIBLY TOXICS: (Each report summarizes wastewater discharges and water quality problems) POTW RELATED: POSSIBLY REMARKS: Each report describes prevailing water quality In a segment to provide Texas with a basis for maintaining and Improving Its surface waters. Most of the reports examine only a few biological parameters qualitatively with Information drawn from earlier stud- ies. Some reports do cover areas with regular biological monitoring stations. SOURCE: Barbara Ludeke, Librarian, Texas Department of Water Resources, Austin, Texas, (512) 475-4211 Ward, J. V., and R. A. Short. 1978. Macrolnvertebrate Community Structure of Four Special Lotlc Habitats In Colorado, USA. Verh. Internat. Vereln. Llmnol. 20:1382-1387. SPONSOR: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station, U.S. Forest Service LOCATION: Joe Wright Creek, Trout Creek, South Platte River, and a Springbrook-pond In nor- thern Colorado STUDY TERM: 1975 ------- 810 PARAMETERS: Macro!nvertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: N/A POTW RELATED: N/A REMARKS: The purpose of this study was to compare the macrolnvertebrate communities of four streams regulated by dams and to Identify taxa potentially useful as Indicators of regu- lation. SOURCE: Dr. Bobby Whlteslde, Aquatic Biologist, Southwest Texas State University, San Mar- cos, Texas, (512) 245-2284 STATE: Utah Relchert, M. K., and R. L. Denton. 1980. Macrolnvertebrate Communities In Selected Utah Streams. Utah Department of Health, Salt Lake City, Utah. LOCATION: Sevler River (M stations); Bear River (12 stations); West Desert Area (4 sta- tions); San Pitch River (3 stations); and Fremont River (4 stations) STUDY TERM: 1977-1978 BIO PARAMETERS: Macrolnvertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: NO OTHER POLLUTANTS: Non-point sources and natural conditions POTW RELATED: NO REMARKS: The objective of this study was to provide a biological assessment of water quality based on macrolnvertebrate populations. SOURCE: Or. Marvin Maxwell, Utah Department of Health, 150 W.N. Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah 84110, (801) 533-6146 STATE: Virginia Ayers, R. W. Unpublished. Results of Fall 1980 Biological Monitoring. Virginia State Water Con- trol Board, Richmond, Virginia. Memo. 13 pp. SPONSOR: Virginia State Water Control Board LOCATION: Statewide (148 stations In 6 regions) STUDY TERM: 1980 BIO PARAMETERS: Benthlc Invertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: N/A POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: This memo briefly summarizes the Fall 1980 biological monitoring results for almost all of the 148 Statewide stations. SOURCE: Richard Ayers, Virginia State Water Control Board, Richmond, Virginia, (804) 257- Vlrglnla State Water Control Board. 1980. Baseline Report on the Virginia Nonpolnt Source Water Quality Management Program. Richmond, Virginia. Planning Bull. No. 327. 31 pp. SPONSOR: Funded by Section 208 of the FWPCA (PL 92-500) ------- BIO PARAMETERS: Fish kills, shellfish bed closures ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: N/A POTW RELATED: N/A REMARKS: This baseline report presents the progress made toward attaining the goals of Vir- ginia's non-regulatory nonpolnt source control program. SOURCE: Linda Smith, 208 Information Officer. Virginia State Water Control Board. Richmond. Virginia. (804) 257-0076 Virginia State Water Control Board. 1979. Status Report for Initial Statewide 208 Plan. Rich- mond. Virginia. 23 pp. SPONSOR: Funded by Section 208 of the FWPCA (PL 92-500) ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: N/A POTW RELATED: N/A REMARKS: This document provides the status of water quality management planning for point and nonpolnt sources In Virginia. SOURCE: Linda Smith. 208 Information Officer. Virginia State Water Control Board, Richmond. Virginia, (804) 257-0076 STATE: Washington Mai Ins, D. C., S-L Chan, B. B. McCain, D. W. Brown, A. K. Sparks, and H. 0. Hodglns. 1981. Puget Sound Pollution and Its Effects on Marine Biota. Office of Marine Pollution Assessment. NCAA. Boulder. Colorado. Progress Report. 74 pp. SPONSOR: Office of Marine Pollution Assessment and the National Marine Fisheries Service (both part of NOAA) LOCATION: Elliott Bay, Commencement Bay, and Port Susan In Puget Sound, Washing-ton (12, 11, and 4 stations, respectively) STUDY TERM: 1980 BIO PARAMETERS: Fish/shellfish tissue, macrol nvertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: YES TOXICS: Heavy metals, PAHs, PCBs, CBDs, HCB, and chlorinated pesticides POTW RELATED: N/A REMARKS: This report presents findings on chemical contaminants and their possible effects on biota In central and southern Puget Sound. It attempts to define the frequency, geo- graphic distribution, and pathological characteristics of previously observed abnormali- ties In selected fish and Invertebrates. (This report Is an extension of the 1979 Study listed below in this bibliography.) SOURCE: Sin-Lam Chan, Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Ser- vice, NOAA, Seattle, Washington, (206) 442-7737 Mai Ins, 0. C., B. B. McCain, D. W. Brown, A. K. Sparks, and H. 0. Hodglns. 1980. Chemical Con- taminants and Biological Abnormalities In Central and Southern Puget Sound. Office of Marine Pollution Assessment, NOAA, Boulder, Colorado. Tech. Memo. GMPA-2. 295 pp. SPONSOR: Office of Marine Pollution Assessment and the National Marine Fisheries Service (both part of NOAA) ------- LOCATION: Elliott Bay, Commencement Bay, Budd Inlet, Sinclair Inlet, Case Inlet, and Port Madison In Puget Sound, Washington (16, 15, 4, 4, 2, and 2 stations, respectively) STUDY TERM: 1979 BIO PARAMETERS: Fish/shellfish tissue, macro!nvertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: YES TOXICS: Heavy metals, PAHs, PCBs, CBDs, HCB, and chlorinated pesticides POTW RELATED: N/A REMARKS: This report presents results from the first year of an Investigation to determine the distribution of chemical contaminants and biological abnormalities In the waters of central and southern Puget Sound. The highest levels of chemical contamination In both sediment and biota were associated with urban areas, particularly Commencement and Elli- ott Bays, and Slnclar Inlet. SOURCE: Sin-Lam Chan, Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Ser- vice, NOAA, Seattle, Washington, (206) 442-7737 RIVER BASIN COMMISSION: Delaware Albert, R. C. 1981. Primary Productivity of the Non-Tidal Delaware River, July and August 1980, Report No. 2 Upper Delaware River Summer Limnologies I Program. Delaware River Basin Commis- sion, West Trenton, New Jersey. 34 pp. SPONSOR: Delaware River Basin Commission LOCATION: Delaware River from Hancock, New York to Trenton, New Jersey (10 stations over a 200 mile span) STUDY TERM: 1980 BIO PARAMETERS: Phytoplankton ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: N/A POTW RELATED: N/A REMARKS: The purpose of this study was to gain Insight concerning the health and classifica- tion of the non-tidal Delaware River based on the primary productivity of pnytoplankton. SOURCE: Richard Albert, Delaware River Basin Commission, West Trenton, New Jersey, (609) 883-9500 Brezlna, E. R., K. K. Sheaf far, J. T. Ulanoskl, F. J. Takacs, R. J. Kotch, and R. L. Gordon. 1976. Delaware River Basin Water Quality, 1974. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Harrlsburg, Pennsylvania. BWQM Publication No. 44. 196 pp. SPONSOR: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, New Jersey Department of Envi- ronmental Protection and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency LOCATION: Delaware River and its major tributaries In Pennsylvania and New Jersey (146 total •stations) STUDY TERM: 1974 810 PARAMETERS: MacroInvertebrates, macrophytes, perlphyton, and chlorophyll a ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: YES TOXICS: Heavy metals, acid mine drainage OTHER POLLUTANTS: Municipal and Industrial wastes, agricultural runoff ------- POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: The objectives of this cooperative Investigation were to Inventory physlochemlcal and biological parameters and to delineate major pollution problems In the Delaware Riv- er basin In Pennsylvania and New Jersey. SOURCE: Ed Brezlna, Chief, Division of Water Quality, Pennsylvania Department of Environ- mental Resources, Harrlsburg, Pennsylvania, (717) 787-9637 Delaware River Basin Commission. 1980. Upper Delaware River Basin Llmnologlcal Survey Program, 1969-1979, Background, Water Chemistry Data and Macrolnvertebrate Data. West Trenton, New Jersey. Office Report. 153 pp. SPONSOR: Delaware River Basin Commission LOCATION: Middle and Upper Delaware River and tributaries above Point Pleasant, Pennsylvania (25 Delaware River and 19 tributary stations) STUDY TERM: 1969-1979 BIO PARAMETERS: MacroInvertebrates, plankton, macrophytes REMARKS: This office report describes the Upper Delaware River basin limnologies I survey program and presents baseline chemistry and tenthIc macro!nvertebrate data collected from 1969-1979. These surveys were undertaken In the area to be affected by the then- pending locks Island Reservoir Project. SOURCE: Richard Albert, Delaware River Basin Commission, West Trenton, New Jersey, (609) 883-9500 RIVER BASIN COMMISSION: The Great Lakes Ballert, A. G., Compiler. Great Lakes Research Checklist. Great Lakes Commission, Ann Arbor, Mi- chigan. Semi-annual Publication. SPONSOR: Great Lakes Commission In cooperation with the Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: N/A POTW RELATED: N/A REMARKS: This semi-annual publication lists a bibliography of recent Great Lake studies. SOURCE: Albert Ballert, Director of Research, Great Lakes Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan, (313) 665—9135 Hlltunen, J. K. 1980. Composition, Distribution, and Density of Benthos In the Lower St. Clalr River, 1976-1977. Great Lakes Fishery Lab, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Admin. Report No. 80-4. 28 PP. SPONSOR: Funded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers LOCATION: Lower St. Clalr River from St. Clalr, Michigan to Lake St. Clalr (38 stations) STUDY TERM: 1976-1977 BIO PARAMETERS: Macrozoobenthos ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: YES TOXICS: Oil wastes ------- REMARKS: This purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects on the macrozoobenthos of proposed dredging at the mouth of the St. Clalr River's North Channel. The results re- vealed that dredging would have a detrimental effect on the fish and water fowl, unless the macrozoobenthos, a major source of food, was replaced. SOURCE: Thomas Edsall, Chief, Ecology and Limnology Section, Great Lakes Fishery Lab, Ann Arbor, Michigan, (313) 994-3331 Hlltunen, J. K. 1981. Distribution and Abundance of Macrozoobenthos In the Detroit River and Lake St. Clalr, 1977. Great Lakes Fishery Lab, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Draft Admin. Report No. 81-. 1 p. LXATION: Detroit River and Lake St. Clalr, Michigan STUDY TERM: 1977 BIO PARAMETERS: Macrolnvertebrates ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: N/A POTW RELATED: N/A REMARKS: The objective of this study was to determine water quality In the Detroit River and Lake St. Clalr based on macro!nvertebrate diversities and to compare this data with In- formation from earlier studies for an Indication of water quality trends. (Only the ab- stract was Included In this draft report.) SOURCE: Thomas Edsall, Chief, Ecology and Limnology Section, Great Lakes Fishery Lab, Ann Arbor, Michigan, (313) 994-3331 International Joint Commission. 1980. Seventh Annual Report, Great Lakes Water Quality. Wash- ington, D.C. and Ottawa, Ontario. 101 pp. SPONSOR: International Joint Commission LOCATION: The Great Lakes, United States and Canada STUDY TERM: 1978 BIO PARAMETERS: Fish, fish tissue ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: YES TOXICS: PCT, PCB, DDT, DOE, dleldrln, dloxln, mlrex, mercury and other heavy metals OTHER POLLUTANTS: Organic matter POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: This report gives an overview and a lake-by-lake description of the water quality In the Great Lakes basin during 1978, with notes of broad changes since the 1972 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Problem area dischargers and the status of remedial pro- grams to Improve Industrial and municipal wastes are presented. SOURCE: Mike Scan Ion. International Joint Commission, Washington, D.C., (202) 296-2142 Manny, B. A. 1980. Effects of Turbidity on Aquatic Macrophytes and Water Quality In Fish Habi- tats In Lake St. Clalr. Great Lakes Fishery Lab, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Draft Research Com- pletion Report. 47 pp. SPONSOR: Great Lakes Fishery Lab In response to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Ecological Services requests LXATION: Anchor Bay-St. Clalr Flats area of Lake St. Clalr, Michigan (4 stations each at Belvldere Bay, Little Muscamoot Bay, and Sand Island) STUDY TERM: 1978-1979 ------- ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: N/A POTW RELATED: N/A REMARKS: This report covers part of a series of Investigations Initiated In 1978 and design- ed to assess the environmental effects of man's activities on fish, fish-food organisms, fish habitats and water quality. The objective of this study was to evaluate the poten- tial adverse effects of turbidity and nutrient additions from tributaries on water qual- ity In nearshore fish habitats In Anchor Bay, the most ecologically sensitive part of Lake St. Clalr. SOURCE: Thomas Edsall, Chief, Ecology and Limnology Section, Great Lakes Fishery Lab, Ann Arbor, Michigan, (313) 994-3331 Manny, B. A., and R. W. Owens. Unpublished. Nutrient Additions by the Atmosphere and Tributaries to Nearshore Waters of Northwestern Lake Huron. Great Lakes Fishery Lab, Ann Arbor, Michi- gan. Draft Report. 69 pp. LOCATION: Hammond Bay and 6 tributaries between Cheboygan and Rogers City, Michigan (7 sam- pling stations) STUDY TERM: 1975-1976 ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: N/A POTW RELATED: N/A REMARKS: The objective of this study was to batter understand nutrient addition rates to the Great Lakes, due to the growing concern over the potential effects of acids and nutri- ents In precipitation on water quality and fishery resources. Nutrient addition rates control biological productivity In lakes. SOURCE: Thomas Edsall, Chief, Ecology and Limnology Section, Great Lakes Fishery Lab, Ann Arbor, Michigan, (313) 994-3331 Ogawa, R. 1981. Food Habits of Larval Yellow Perch Collected In the Detroit River, 1977-1978. Great Lakes Fishery Lab, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Draft Research Completion Report. 1 p. LOCATION: Detroit River from Belle Isle to Groose lie, Michigan STUDY TERM: 1977-1978 BIO PARAMETERS: Fish larvae ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: POSSIBLY TOXICS: Unknown OTHER POLLUTANTS: Municipal and Industrial wastes POTW RELATED: YES REMARKS: The objective of this study was to Investigate whether degraded water quality re- duces the feeding activity of larval fish. Data suggested that exposure to pollution may lower feeding rates and thereby reduce the fitness and ability of Detroit River lar- val fish to survive during passage from the relatively clean waters near Belle Isle to the heavily polluted waters near Grosse lie, Michigan. SOURCE: Thomas Edsall, Chief, Ecology and Limnology Section, Great Lakes Fishery Lab, Ann Arbor, Michigan. (313) 994-3331 Poe, T. P., T. A. Edsall, and J. K. Hlltunen. 1980. Effects of Ship-Induced Waves In an Ice En- vironment on the St. Marys River Ecosystem. Great Lakes Fishery Lab, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Admin. Report No. 80-6. 125 pp. SPONSOR: funded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — Detroit District through the Great Lakes Basin Commission ------- LOCATION: United States waters of St. Marys River, Frechette Point and Six Mile Point (20 stations) STUDY TERM: 1979 BIO PARAMETERS: MacroInvertebrates, fish REMARKS: This studied provided a base of Information for evaluating the effects of ship- Induced, under-Ice surge waves, created by vessel passage In the adjacent Ice-covered navigation channel, on fish, fish-food organisms, and fish habitat. However, the significance of the observed phenomenon was not demonstrated with the data collected. SOURCE: Thomas Edsall, Chief, Ecology and Limnology Section, Great Lakes Fishery Lab, Ann Arbor, Michigan, (313) 994-3331 RIVER BASIN COMMISSION: Interstate Coca I ss I on on the Potomac River Basin Rasln, J. V., Jr., and J. S. Lange. 1979. Potomac River Basin Water Quality, 1977. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, Rockvllle, Maryland. 95 pp. SPONSOR: funded by the United States Government, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Signatory bodies to the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin LOCATION: Potomac River Basin In Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, District of Columbia and Pennsylvania STUDY TERM: 1977 BIO PARAMETERS: Benthlc macro!nvertebrates REMARKS: This report evaluates 1977 water quality data of 62 stations from the Baseline Wa- ter Quality Monitoring Network In the Potomac River basin. Based on 9 chemical and bio- logical parameters, the water quality at each station Is rated either "excellent", "good", "fair", or "poor". SOURCE: V. James Rasln, Aquatic Biologist, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, Rockvllle, Maryland, (301) 340-2661 Rasln, J. V., Jr., K. M. Brooks, and K. C. Flynn. 1980. Potomac River Basin Water Quality, 1978- 1979. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, Rockvllle, Maryland. 100 pp. SPONSOR: funded by the United States Government, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the signatory bodies 1o the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin LOCATION: Potomac River Basin In Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, District of Columbia and Pennsylvania (14, 4, 31, 4, and 3 biological monitoring stations, respectively) STUDY TERM: 1978-1979 BIO PARAMETERS: Benthlc macrolnvertebrates, fish, fish tissue ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: YES TCXIC: Unknown OTHER POLLUTANTS: Municipal and Industrial effluent; urban, coal mining, and agricultural runoff REMARKS: This report evaluates 1978 and 1979 water quality data from 72 of the 15? stations that make up the Baseline Water Quality Monitoring Network In the Potomac River basin. Based on 9 chemical and biological parameters, the water quality at each station Is rat- ed either "excellent", "good", "fair", or "poor". SOURCE: V. James Rasln, Aquatic Biologist, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, Rockvllle, Maryland, (301) 340-2661 ------- RIVER BASIN COMMISSION: New England New England River Basins Commission. 1978. Merrlmack River Basin Overview. Boston, Massachu- setts. 120 pp. LOCATION: New Hampshire, Massachusetts BIO PARAMETERS: Fisheries REMARKS: This overview establishes a uniform Information base with respect to demands on wa- ter resources, problems associated with the use of resources, and programs and projects relevant to the management of water. A chapter of this report Is devoted 1o Fish and Wildlife: Existing Conditions; Plans and Programs; Findings and Recommendations. SOURCE: David Shlpp, Resource Planner, New England River Basins Commission, Boston, Massa- chusetts, (617) 223-6244 New England River Basins Commission. 1979. Thames River Basin Overview. Boston, Massachusetts. 138 pp. LOCATION: Massachusetts, Connecticut REMARKS: This report provides an Information base with respect 1o demands on water resourc- es, problems associated with the use of resources, and programs and projects relevant to the management of water. A section of this report Is devoted 1o Fish and Wildlife: Existing Conditions; Plans and Programs; and Findings and Recommendations. SOURCE: David Shlpp, Resource Planner, New England River Basins Commission, Boston, Massa- chusetts, (617) 223-6244 New England River Basins Commission. 1980. Housatonlc River Basin Overview. Boston, Massachu- setts. 169 pp. LXATION: Massachusetts, Connecticut REMARKS: This report provides an Information base with respect to demands on water resourc- es, problems associated with the use of resources, and programs and projects relevant to the management of water. A section of this report Is devoted to Aquatic Habitats and Natural Areas: Existing Conditions; Plans and Programs; and Findings and Recommenda- tions. SOURCE: David Shlpp, Resource Planner, New England River Basins Commission, Boston, Massa- chusetts, (617) 223-6244 New England River Basins Commission. 1980. Plscatagua and New Hampshire Coastal River Basins Overview. Boston, Massachusetts. 144 pp. LOCATION: New Hampshire, Maine REMARKS: This report was developed to assess water and related land resource problems and Issues In these basins. A chapter of the report Is devoted to Fish and Wildlife: Existing Conditions; Plans and Programs; and Findings and Recommendations. SOURCE: David Shlpp, Resource Planner, New England River Basins Commission, Boston, Massa- chusetts, (617) 223-6244 New England River Basins Commission. 1980. Saco and Southern Maine Coastal River Basins Over- view. Boston, Massachusetts. 141 pp. LXATION: Saco and Southern Maine Coastal River Basins, Maine ------- REMARKS: This report was developed to assess water and related land resources problems and Issues In the river basins. A chapter of this report Is devoted to an overview of Bio- logical Resources and Important Natural Areas: Existing Conditions; Plans and Programs; and Findings and Recommendations. SOURCE: David Shlpp, Resource Planner, New England River Basins Commission, Boston, Massa- chusetts, (617) 223-6244 RIVER BASIN COMMISSION: Pacific Northwest Envlrosphere Co. 1980. Columbia River Estuary Data Development Program, Characterization of Wa- ter Quality, Vol. I. Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission, Vancouver, Washington. 180 pp. SPONSOR: Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission LOCATION: Columbia River Estuary In Oregon and Washington from mouth to river mile (RM) 46, the eastern tip of Puget Island ADVERSE TOXIC EFFECTS ON BIOTA: N/A POTW RELATED: NO REMARKS: The purpose of the Colombia River Esutary Data Development Program (CREDDP) Is -to study the chemical, physical and biological processes of the estuary and to create a data base for managing the estuary's resources. This report covers the Initial phase of work: a review of existing literature and data concerning sediment and water quality. SOURCE: Dave Kent, Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission, Vancouver, Washington, (503) 285-0467 or (206) 696-7551 ------- APPENDIX E NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF THE MATER QUALITY OF RIVERS AND STREAMS USING BIOLOGICAL DATA ------- The following table presents the results of the water qual- ity assessment using biological data. The results are presented by state and numerically by USGS hydrologic unit within state. The water body and location of the biological sampling are in the third column, the biological condition, trend and cause relating to this location. The USGS hydrologic basin codes are supplied only as locational information. The results for any water body and location do not imply that the condition exists throughout the whole basin, especially since some of the results are from data collected above and below point source dischargers. The cause of the condition is presented where it is known or suspect- ed. Assessments of water quality were made for some rivers and streams in all States, except Alaska, California, Georgia, Ha- waii, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming. ------- STATE: Alabama USGS Basin Code 03150105 03150106 03150107 03150109 03150110 03150201 1 03150202 i ' 03150203 03160109 03160111 I 03160112 Hydro logic Basin Basin Name Within Basin Coosa River Chatooga River: Above Weiss Reservoir ! Big Wills Creek Coosa River: South of Gadsden Choccolocco River Coosa River: North of Chlldersburg Tallapoosa River Sugar Creek 1 Soughahtchee Creek Upper Alabama River Alabama River: Near Burkvllle 1 Alabama River: Near Selma Cahaba River Little Cahaba River i Cahaba River: South of Lake Purdy Shades Creek Buck Creek Cahaba River: Shelby County Cahaba River: North of Perry County r Line Lower Alabama River Alabama River: South of Cahaba Black Warrior River Cane Creek \ VI 1 (age Creek Locust Fork Bankhead Lake Mud Creek Valley Creek Condition (Yr of Study) Good (78) Fair (78) Fair (77) Good (78) Poor (79) Poor (79) Poor (78) Poor (79) Good (78) Poor (77) Good (77) Poor (77) Poor (78) Fair (77) Fair (79) Good (77) Poor (77) Poor (77) Fair (77) Fair (77) Poor (77) Fair (77) Trend (Yr of Study) Cause Unknown Stable (79) Stable (78) Stable (79) Unknown Unknown Stable (79) Unknown Unknown Stable (79) Unknown Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Unknown Stable (79) Unknown Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Unknown Stable (79) ------- SIATE: Alabama (Continued) USGS Hydro logic Basin nece 1 v i ng water Mon I Toreu Basin Code Basin Name Within Basin 03160201 Lower Tomblgbee River Tomb Ig bee River: South of Demopolls f 1 Tomblgbee River: South of Pennlngton 03160204 Mobile River Mobile River: North of Mobile ' ' l Chlckasaw Creek: Upstream of Chlckasaw Chlckasaw Creek: Near Chlckasaw Tensaw River: North of Hurricane Tensaw River: South of Hurricane Condition (Yr of Study) Good (77) Fair (79) Poor (77) Fair (77) Poor (79) Fair (77) Fair (77) Trend (Yr of Study) Cause Degrading (79) Unknown Improving (79) Degrading (79) Unknown Stable (78) Unknown ------- STATE: Arizona USGS Hydro logic Basin — " ' Receiving Water Monitored Basin Code Basin Name Within Basin 15040004/ 61 la 15040005 15040004 15040005 J • River 61 la River San Francisco River Eagle Creek Bonlta Creek Hot Springs Canyon Condition (Yr of Study) Fair (78) Fair (78) Good (78) Fair (78) Good (78) Trend (Yr of Study) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Cause Geology Geology Physical ------- STATE: Arkansas USGS Hydrologlc Basin Basin Code Basin Name 08010100 Mississippi River 08020203 St. Francis River 08020204 1 08020302 Lower WhH t 08020303 08020304 e River 08020401 Lower Arkansas River 08020402 1 08040101 Ouachlta R t 08040102 T 08040103 08040201 08040202 08040203 1 08040205 t 1 Iver 08050001 Boeuf River Receiving Water Monitored Within Basin Mississippi: Barf 1 eld St. Francis River: Lake City Right Hand Chute of Little River: Manl la Cache River: Craig head County Cache River: Monroe County White River: Lock and Dam #1 Big Creek: Watklns Corner Arkansas River: Lock and Dam #3 Bayou Meto: Lonoke Ouachlta River: Pencil Bluff Ouachlta River: Blakely Mountain Dam Ouachlta River: Malvern Caddo River: Amity Little Missouri River: Lang ley Smackover Creek: North of Smackover Bayou de L« outre: Near Junction City Saline River: Saline County Hurricane Creek: Sard Is Saline River: Jefferson County Bayou Bartholomew: Ladd Bayou Bartholomew: Jones Boeuf River: Arkansas-Louisiana Line Condition (Yr of Study) Poor (77) Poor (77) Poor (77) Poor (77) Fair (77) Fair (77) Fair (78) Fair-Poor (77) Poor (75) Fair (77) Poor (77) Poor (78) Good (76) Fair (76) Fair (76) Poor (75) Good (78) Poor (75) Fair (77) Fair (77) Poor (77) Poor (77) Trend (Yr of Study) Cause Improving (78) Improving (78) Improving (78) Unknown Unknown Nonpoint sources Improving (79) Unknown Degrading (78) Improving (77) Stable (78) Unknown Unknown Stable (79) Improving (78) Improving (78) Stable (78) Unknown Stable (78) Bauxite Mine Unknown Degrading (79) Improving (78) Unknown ------- STATE: Arkansas (Continued) USGS Hydro! ogle Basin Receiving Water Monitored Basin Code Basin Name Within Basin 11010001 Upper White River Kings River: North of Berryvllle 1 1010003 11010005 11010010 11010011 11010012 ' Crooked Creek: Near Pyatt Buffalo River: St. Joe Spring River: Hardy Eleven Point River Strawberry River: South of Smlthvllle 11070209 Neosho River Spavlnaw Creek: North of Cherokee City 11110103 Upper Arkansas River Illinois River: South of SI loam Springs 11110104 11110105 1 1 1 10207 t 11140109 Red River i 11140201 11140302 Arkansas River: Below Fort Smith Poteau River: South of Bates Arkansas River: Above Little Rock Arkansas River: Lock and Dam #6 Saline River: Lockesburg Little River: Horatio Red River: Ooddrldge t Days Creek: Southeast of Texarkana Condition (Yr of Study) Good (75) Fair (75) Fair (74) Fair (75) Good (75) Good (75) Poor (78) Good (75) Poor (77) Fair (77) Poor (77) Poor (77) Fair (76) Good (76) Poor (77) Poor (75) Trend (Yr of Study) Cause Stable (78) Stable (78) Improving (77) Improving (78) Stable (78) Stable (77) Unknown Stable (78) Improving (78) Degrading (78) Improving (78) Improving (78) Stable (78) Stable (78) Improving (78) Improving (78) ------- STATE: Colorado US6S Basin Code 10190002 10190007 14010001 14030002 Hydro logic Basin Basin Name South Platte River * Colorado River * Receiving Water Monitored Within Basin South Platte River: Denver Cache La Poudre River: Fort Collins Gore Creek: Vail Dolores River: Above Dolores Condition (Yr of Study) Poor (77) Fair-Good (77) Fair (75) Fair-Good (78) Trend (Yr of Study) Unknown Unknown Improving (77) Unknown Cause WWTP WWTP WWTP: Cl and Natural (?) NHj-N ------- STATE: ConnectIcut uses Basin Coda 01080205 t 01080207 01090005 01100001 i 01100002 01100003 01100004 01100005 1 Hydro logic Basin Basin Mama Lower Connecticut River J Connecticut Coastal Thames Rlv i er i Connecticut Coastal Housatonlc River Receiving Water Monitored Within Basin Connecticut River Salmon River Farm Ing ton River Pawcatuck River Qulnebaug River French River Natchaug River Wllllmantlc River Thames River (Tidal Estuary) Qulnnlplac River Naugatuck River Still River Housatonlc River Condition (Yr of Study) Good Good Good Poor Fair Fair Good Good Good Fair Fair Poor Fair Trend (Yr of Study) Stable Stable Stable Stable Stable Stable Stable Stable Improv 1 ng Improving Improving Stable Stable Cause STP STP Point sources Point sources Point sources ------- STATE: Delaware USGS Basin Code 02040205 1 ' 02040207 02060008 02060010 Hydrologlc Basin Basin Name Lower Delaware River \ ' Delaware Bay Nantlcoke River Indian River Receiving Water Monitored Within Basin Upper Christina River: Smal ley's Dam Upper Christina River: West Branch Red Clay Creek: Route 258 - Yorklyn, Route 255 White Clay Creek: Route 7, Route 329 Fan Tax Ditch: Fenton Brldgevllle Branch: Route 13, Route 46 Morris Mill Pond: Georgetown Condition (Yr of Study) Fair (78) Fair (77) Poor (78) Fair (78) Fair-Poor (77) Fair (79) Fair (79) Trend (Yr of Study) Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Unknown Unknown Cause Slltatlon Organ Ics Organ Ics Chicken Processing Plant Effluent STP Nutrients: SIP ------- STATE: Florida uses Basin Code 03070204/ 03070205 * 03080101 03080102 03080103 03080201 03080202 03090101 030902 1 ' 031001 1 I 031002 i Hydro logic Basin Basin Name St. Mary's 1 St. John's ( East Florida Coast 1 Klsslmmee South Florida \ ' Peace 1 1 I Tampa Bay i p Receiving Water Monitored Within Basin St. Mary's River Nassau River Upper St. John's River Oklawaha River Lower St. John's River Upper East Coast Lower East Coast Klsslmmee River Lake Okulhohu/St. Lucle River Caloosahatchee River Broward County-Upper Everglades Dade County-Lower Everglades Peace River Myakka River Coastal -Peace River Basin Withlacoochee River North Coastal -Tampa Bay Area Hlllsborough River Alafla River South Coastal -Tampa Bay Area Condition (Yr of Study) Good-Fair (78) Fair (78) Good (78) Fair (78) Good-Fair (78) Good-Fair (78) Good (78) Good (78) Good (78) Good (78) Good-Fair (78) Good (78) Good-Fair (78) Good (78) Good (78) Good (78) Good (78) Fair-Poor (78) Fair (78) Good (78) Trend (Yr of Study) Unknown Unknown Stable (73) Degrading (73) Unknown Unknown Stable (73) Improving (73) Unknown Unknown Unknown Improving (73) Stable- Degrading (73) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Cause Estuary Estuary Agricultural; Chan- nelization Municipal/Industri- al Wastes Municipal/Industri- al Wastes ------- STATE: Florida (Continued) USGS HydroIogle Basin Basin Code Basin Name Receiving Mater Monitored Within Basin Condition (Yr of Study) Trend (Yr of Study) Cause 031101 J 031102 AuclIla/Waccasassa I Suwanne 03120003 Ochlockonee I 031300 Apalachlcola t t 031401 Florida Panhandle 031402 Choctawhatchee 03140305 Escambla Aucllla River Coastal Waccasassa River Upper Suwannee River Santa Fe River Lower Suwannee Ochlockonee River St. Mark's River Coastal Apalachlcola River Chlpala River Perdldo River Blackwater River Yellow-Shoal River Coastal Choctawhatchee River Escambla River Good-Fair (78) Unknown Good (78) Unknown Fair (78) Unknown Good (78) Unknown Good (78) Unknown Good (78) Unknown Good-Fair (78) Unknown Good (78) Unknown Good (78) Good (78) Good (78) Good (78) Good (78) Good (78) Good (78) Good (78) Fair (78) Unknown Improving (73) Stable (73) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Nature I /1 nd ustr I al Wastes ------- STATE: Idaho USGS Basin Code 16010202 16010204 17010104 17010213 17040201 * 17040207 17040208 170402 17040209 1 17040212 17040213 17050101 17050102 17050103 17050114 17050124 170601 17060209 17060305 17060306 t Hydro logic Basin Receiving Water Monitored Basin Mama Within Basin Bear River Bear River: Border jf Ma lad River Kootenal River Kootenal River: Copeland Pend/Orellle Clark Fork River Upper Snake River Snake River: Helse i Snake River: Menan Blackfoot River: Blackfoot Portneuf River Snake River: Neely Snake River: Bur ley Snake River: Mllner Rock Creek: Twin Falls I Salmon Falls Creek: Hagerman Middle Snake River Snake River: King HIM i Bruneau River Snake River: Mars Ing Boise River: Parma Welser River: Welser Lower Snake River Snake River: Anatone Salmon River Salmon River: Whlteblrd Clear water River South Fork Clearwater River: Stltes iciearwater River: Oroflno Clearwater River: Spaldlng Condition (Yr of Study) Good (79) Fair (79) Good (79) Good (79) Good (79) Fair (79) Fair (79) Poor (79) Poor (79) Poor (79) Poor (79) Poor (79) Good (79) Poor (79) Good (79) Fair (79) Fair (79) Fair (77) Poor (79) Fair (79) Good (79) Good (79) Good (79) Trend (Yr of Study) Stable Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Cause Substrate Slltatlon Pollutant (?); Slltatlon (?) Organlcs Organ Ics Organlcs Organlcs Organlcs Physical Physical ------- STATE: Illinois US6S Hydro logic Basin Receiving Rarer nonirorea Basin Code Basin Name Within Basin 05120109 Wabash River Verml 1 Ion River: Vermilion County 1 Wabash River: White County Little Wabash River: White Count/ 05140203 Ohio River Lusk Creek: Pope County 05140204 J • North Fork Saline River: Saline County Middle Fork Saline River: Saline County South Fork Saline River: Saline County 07120005 Illinois River Illinois River: La Sal le County 07130001 07130003 07130010 07130011 07120006 Fox River II llnols River: Peor la County Illinois River: Peorla/Tazewell Counties La Molne River: Brown/Scuyler Counties i Illinois River: Scott County Fox River: Lake County Fox River: Kane County ' Fox River: La Sal le County 07130006 Sangamon River Sangamon River: PI aft County 07130008 Sangamon River: Sangamon County 1 Y Sangamon River: Menard/Mason Counties 07120001 Kanakas River Kanakee River: Kanakee County f 1 Kanakee River: Will County 07120003 Des Plalnes River - Little Calumet: Lake County, Indiana 1 Lake Michigan f T Chicago River: North Branch Condition (Yr of Study) Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Fair Fair (78) (78) (78) (78) (78) (78) (78) (78) (78) (78) (78) (78) (78) (78) (78) (78) (78) (78) (78) (78) (78) (78) Trend (Yr of Study) Cause Improving (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Improving (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Improving (79) Degrading (79) Stable (79) ------- STATE: Illinois (Continued) uses Basin Code 07120004 Hydrologlc Basin Basin Name Dos Plalnes River - Lake Michigan \ ' 07080101 07080104 07110019 07140106 • 1 I 07140201 07140202 07140204 07090005 t 07090007 \ Mississippi River J 1 Bid Muddy . 1 Kaskaskla J 1 Rock River J 1 I River . ' River ' Receiving Water Monitored Within Basin Sanitary and Ship Canal: Will County Calumet-Sag Canal: Cook County Salt Creek: Cook County Oes Plalnes River: Cook County Mississippi River: Madison County Mississippi River: Hancock County Mississippi River: Whlteslde County Casey Fork: Jefferson County Big Muddy River: Jackson County Kaskaskla River: Coles County Kaskaskla River: Fayette County Kaskaskla River: Randolph County Rock River: Winnebago County Rock River: Henry /Rock Island Counties Green River: Henry County Condition (Yr of Study) Poor (78) Poor (78) Fair (78) Good (78) Fair (78) Fair (78) Fair (78) Fair (78) Fair (78) Good (78) Good (78) Fair (78) Fair (78) Fair (78) Fair (79) Trend (Yr of Study) Cause Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Degrading (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Degrading (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Unknown ------- STATE: Iowa USGS Basin Code 07060001 * 07060002 07060003 07060004 07060005 07060006 i 070801 07080104 07080202 07080205 10230002 10230005 10240010 Hydro logic Basin Basin Name Northeast Iowa t Northeast Iowa (Mississippi River) \ Wapslplnlcon River Mississippi River Iowa/Cedar River Western Iowa (Mississippi River) t Southern Iowa Receiving Water Monitored Within Basin Yel low River Bloody Run Upper Iowa River Sny Magi II Creek Turkey River Catfish Creek Maquoketa River North Fork Maquoketa River Wapslplnlcon River Mississippi River: Fort Madison She II rock River Cedar River: Cedar Rapids Floyd River Maple River Nodaway River Condition (Yr of Study) Good (77) Good (77) Good (75) Good (77) Good (75) Fair (77) Good (75) Fair (75) Fair (74) Fair (77) Good (77) Fair (77) Fair (76) Fair (75) Good (74) Trend (Yr of Study) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Cause Agricultural Wastes Slltatlon Physical Municipal/Industri- al Discharges WWTP Organ Ics Physical ------- STATE: Kansas USGS Hydro logic Basin Receiving narer noniToreo Basin Coda Basin Name Within Basin 1025 Republican Lower Republican River Basin w w Upper Republican River Basin 1026 Smoky HIM Smoky HIM River Basin ) Solomon River Basin I Saline River Basin 102701 Kansas 102702 Big Blue 102901 Osage Kansas River Basin Big Blue River Basin Mara Is Oes Cygnos River Basin 103002 Lower Missouri Missouri River Basin 1103 Arkansas i ' < Upper Arkansas River Basin Lower Arkansas River Basin Little Arkansas River Basin Walnut River Basin 1104 Upper Clmarron Clmarron River Basin 110701 Verdigris 110702 Neosho Verdigris River Basin Neosho River Basin Condition (Yr of Study) Good (77) Good (77) Good (77) Good (77) Good (77) Good (77) Good (77) Good (77) Good (77) Fair (77) Good (77) Good (77) Good (77) Good (77) Good (77) Good (77) Trend (Yr of Study) Cause Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Ammonia, Sulfate Stable (79) Stable (79) Unknown Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) ------- STATE: Kentucky US6S HydroIogle Basin Basin Code Basin Name Receiving Water Monitored Within Basin Cond 11 Ion Trend (Yr of Study) (Yr of Study) Cause 05100204 Kentucky 05140101 05140102 05110006 Green 05130101 Upper Cumberland Lower Ohio-Salt i Kentucky River: Heidelberg Lock and Fair (77) Unknown Dam #14 Red River: Hazel Green Pond River Cumberland River: Above Cumberland Falls Pond Creek: Louisville Poor (77) Unknown Salt River: Shepherdsvllle Fair (77) Unknown Good (76) Unknown Good (78) Unknown Good (77) Unknown Nutrients Physical, Metals ------- STATE: Louisiana USGS Basin Code 031800 080402 080403 080601 080701 080801 1 080802 1 080902 080903 1 I 111402 120100 Hydro logic Basin Basin Name Pearl Lower Ouachlta Lower Red Lower Mississippi- Natchez Lower Mississippi- Baton Rouge Atchafalaya-Verml 1 Ion 1 Ca 1 cas 1 eu-Mermentau 1 Lake Pontchartraln Central Louisiana- Coastal 1 Red-Sa 1 1 ne Sablne Receiving Water Monitored Within Basin Pearl River Basin Ouachlta River Basin Red River Basin Mississippi River: Above Old River Mississippi River: Below Old River Atchafalaya River Basin Verml 1 lon-Teche Basin Cat cas leu River Basin Mermentau Bayou Basin Lake Pontchartraln Basin Baratarla Bay Basin Terrebonne Basin Red River Basin Sablne River Basin Condition (Yr of Study) Good Good Fair Good Good Good-Fair Fair Fair-Poor Fair Good Good Good Fair Good Trend (Yr of Study) Stable Degrading Degrad 1 ng Stable Stable Degrad 1 ng Degrading Improving Degrading Degrading Stable Stab le Degrading Stable Cause Pesticides Slltatlon. Physical Slltatlon, Pesti- cides Agricultural Phenols Agricultural Urban Development Slltatlon, Physical ------- STATE: Maine USGS Hydro logic Basin Basin Code Basin Name Receiving Mater Monitored Condition Within Basin (Yr of Study) Trend (Yr of Study) Cause 01050001 St. Crolx River 01020005 Penobscot River St. Crolx River: Woodland, Maine - Fair (79) Ml 11town, Canada Penobscot RIver: Ml 111nocket-OId Town, Fa Ir (74) Maine Improving (77) SIP, Paper and Pulp Effluents Unknown SIP, Paper and Pulp Effluents ------- STATE: Maryland USGS Hydrologlc Basin •• • Receiving Water Monitored Basin Code Basin Name Within Basin 02060006 Upper Patuxent River Middle Patuxent River i i Little Patuxent River: Above Columbia, Maryland Little Patuxent River: Below Columbia, Maryland Little Patuxent River: Below Savage, Maryland Little Patuxent River: Fort Meade to Mouth Hammond Branch Dorsey Run Patuxent River: Headwaters - Laurel Patuxent River: Laurel -Bowie 02060010 Newport- /Chlncoteague Trappe Creek Bay 0207 i 9002 Potomac Rl 02070003 02070004 1 0207 \ i 1008 \ ver North Branch Potomac River: Pinto, Maryland North Branch Potomac River: Cumberland, Maryland North Branch Potomac River: Oldtown, Maryland Potomac River: Paw Paw, West Virginia Potomac River: Hancock, Maryland Potomac River: Shepherdstown, West Virginia Potomac River: Point of Rocks, Maryland Potomac River: Whites Ferry, Maryland Condition (Yr of Study) Fair (77) Good (77) Fair (77) Poor (77) Fair (77) Good (77) Fair (77) Good (77) Fair (77) Poor-Fair (77) Fair (80) Good (80) Good (80) Good (80) Good (80) Good (80) Good (80) Good (80) Trend (Yr of Study) Stable (66) Stable (66) Degrading (66) Degrading (66) Stable (66) Unknown Stable (66) Stable (66) Stable (66) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Cause WWTP Organlcs; Urbaniza- tion STP STPs STP STPs Municipal/Industri- al Wastes ------- STATE: Maryland (Continued) USGS Hydrologlc Basin Receiving Water Monitored Basin Code Basin Name Within Basin 02070010 Potomac R ' ' } Ivor Potomac River: Little Fal Is Darn, Bethesda, Maryland Potomac River: Woodrow Wilson Bridge Potomac River: Marshall Hall, Maryland r Potomac River: Indian Head, Maryland Condition (Yr of Study) Poor (80) Poor (77) Poor (77) Fair (77) Trend (Yr of Study) Cause Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown ------- STATE: Massachusetts USGS Hydro logic Basin Basin Code Basin Name Receiving Water Monitored Condition Within Basin (Yr of Study) Trend (Yr of Study) Cause 01080207 Farm Ing ton River 01100001 French River 01070004 Nashua River 01070002 Herri mack River 01090001 Charles River 01080206 Westfleld River FarmIngton River: Otls-Sandlsfleld, Massachusetts French River: Leicester-Oxford, Massachusetts French River: Mill Brook-Perryv11le Pond, Webster, Massachusetts French River: Connecticut Qulnebaug River: Sturbridge, Massachu- setts-Putnam, Connecticut Nashua River: North Branch Nashua River: South Branch Nashua River: Main Stem Whitman River: Westminster Nlssltlsslt River Merrlmack River: Massachusetts-New Hampshire Line Charles River: Main Stem Mine Branch: Franklin Stop River: Medfleld Bogastow Pond: Ml 11 Is Charles Basin: Watertown Dam-Charles River Dam Muddy River: Jamaica-Charles Basin Back Bay Fens Westfleld River and East, Middle and West Branches Good (74) Good (74) Fair (74) Fair (74) Fair (74) Fair (77) Fair (77) Fair (77) Good (77) Good (77) Fair (74) Fair (73) Fair (73) Fair (73) Fair (73) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown High BOD Low D,0. Unknown OrganIcs; Amman I a Improving (73) Organ Ics Improving (73) Silt (?) Stable (64) Stable (73) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Fair-Poor (73) Unknown Fair-Poor (73) Unknown Fair-Poor (73) Unknown Good (78) Unknown OrganIcs; Physical; Toxics (?) Organ Ics; Physical OrganIcs Organ Ics Physical OrganIcs; Oil; Toxics (?) Organlcs; Oil Organ Ics; ON ------- STATE: Massachusetts (Continued) USGS Hydro logic Basin Receiving Water Monitored Basin Code Basin Name Within Basin 01080206 Westfleld River Little River 01080202 Millers River Otter River: Templeton 1 J Millers River: Headwaters - Mouth 01090003 Blackstone River Kettle Brook l - i Blackstone River Mumford River: Headwaters to Gil boa Pond Mumford River: Gil boa Pond to Lackey Dam Mumford River: Lackey Dam to Black- stone River West River: Upton-Blackstone River M 1 1 1 R 1 ver : Hopeda 1 e-B 1 ackstone R 1 ver 01100005 Housa tonic River Housa tonic River: Hlnsdale-Plttsf leld i , \ Housatonlc River: Plttsfleld - Below Confluence with West Branch Housatonlc River: West Branch Housatonlc River: Lennox-Great Bar- rlngton Goose Pond Stream Housatonlc River: Great Barrlngton- Shef field Williams River Hubbard Brook Condition (Yr of Study) Good (78) Fair-Poor (73) Fair-Good (73) Good (73) Fair (73) Good (73) Poor (73) Fair (73) Good (73) Good (73) Good (74) Fair (74) Fair (74) Fair (74) Good (74) Fair (74) Good (74) Fair (74) Trend (Yr of Study) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Cause Paper Industry Wastes Otter River Organ Ics; Turbidity High BOD; Low D.O. Recovery Area Organ Ics; Oil; Phosphorus Organ Ics Recovery Area from Upstream Disposal Systems; Agricultural Run- off ------- STATE: Minnesota USGS Hydro logic Basin Basin Code Basin Name 04010102 Northwest Lake Superior 04010201 St. Louis River T 1 07010101 Mississippi River 1 07010103 07010202 07010206 1 07030005 07040006 ' 1 07020007 Minnesota River 07020009 07020012 w ' 07080201 Cedar River 09020104 Red River 08020301 1 09020303 W 09030004 Rainy River 09030008 I Receiving Water Monitored Within Basin Beaver River St. Louis River: Brooks ton St. Louis Bay: Superior, Wisconsin Mississippi River: Itasca Mississippi River: Cohasset Mississippi River: Jacobsen Sauk River: Near St. Cloud Mississippi River: Frldley Mississippi River: Cottage Grove St. Crolx River: Hudson, Wisconsin Mississippi River: LaCrosse, Wisconsin Minnesota River: Morton Blue Earth River: Mankato Minnesota River: Henderson Minnesota River: Bloom Ing ton Cedar River: Austin Red River: Moonhead Red River: Grand Forks Red Lake River: Grand Forks Rainy River: International Falls Rainy River: Baudette Condition (Yr of Study) Good (77) Fair (77) Fair (77) Fair (77) Fair (77) Fair (77) Good (77) Good (77) Fair (77) Fair (77) Fair (77) Fair (77) Good (77) Fair (77) Fair (77) Good (77) Poor (77) Good (77) Good (77) Fair (77) Good (77) Trend (Yr of Study) Cause Stable (76) Improving (78) Stable (78) Stable (78) Stable (78) Unknown Degrading (78) Stable (78) Improving (78) Stable (78) Improving (78) Improving (78) Degrading (78) Stable (78) Stable (78) Stable (78) Improving (78) Stable (78) Stable (78) Improving (78) Stable (78) ------- STATE: Missouri USGS HydroIogle Basin Basin Code Basin Name Receiving Water Monitored Within Basin Condition Trend (Yr of Study) (Yr of Study) Cause 07110001 Bear Creek-Wyaconda River 07110002 North Fablus River 07110003 South FabI us RIver * * 07110004 The Sny 07110005 North Fork Salt River Brush Creek: Clark County Fox River: Clark County Lower Little Wyaconda River: Clark County Little Bridge Creek: Knox County Middle Fablus River: Lewis County Lower Bridge Creek: Scotland County South Fork Fablus River: Scotland County Lower Grassy Creek: Marlon County Lower Troublesome Creek: Marlon County Minnow Creek: Marlon County Bear Creek: Marlon County South Fork North River: Marlon County Sharpsburg Branch: Marlon County North Fork North River: Marlon and Shelby Counties Steer Creek: Adalr County Bear Creek: Adalr County Clear Creek: Monroe County Otter Creek: Monroe County Shelblna Sewer Branch: Shelby County North Fork Salt River Poor (74) Unknown Poor (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (77) Unknown Fair (77) Fair (77) Fair (77) Fair (77) Fair (77) Fair (77) Poor (74) Poor (74) Poor (74) Poor (74) Poor (74) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Poor (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Fair (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Municipal Municipal Agricultural Agricultural Agricultural Agricultural AgrIcuIturaI Agricultural Agricultural Municipal Municipal Agricultural Municipal Agricultural Municipal/Industrial Municipal Municipal Agriculture I Municipal Agricultural ------- STATE: Missouri (Continued) USGS Hydro logic Basin Receiving Water Monitored Basin Code Basin Name Within Basin 07 1 1 0006 South Fork-Sa 1 t R 1 ver Dav 1 s Creek : Audra 1 n County \ \ South Fork-Salt River: Audra In County Macon Sewer Branch: Macon County Middle Fork-Salt River: Macon and Monroe Counties Goodwater Creek: Monroe County Elk Fork-Salt River: Monroe and Ran- dolph Counties Coon Creek: Monroe and Randolph Counties Moberly Sewer Branch: Randolph County 07110007 Salt River Peno Creek: Pike County i • i Spencer Creek: Ral Is County Lick Creek: Rails County Main Stem: Salt River 07110008 Culvre River Hickory Creek: Audra In County i ! Sulfur Creek: Lincoln County Mel star Branch Creek: Lincoln County Lead County: Lincoln County White Oak Creek: Montgomery County Elkhorn Creek: Montgomery County Indian Creek: Pike County Big Creek: Warren County Condition (Yr of Study) Fair-Poor (74) Fair-Poor (74) Poor (74) Poor (74) Fair (74) Fair-Poor (74) Poor (74) Poor (74) Poor (74) Poor (74) Poor (74) Poor (74) Poor (74) Poor (74) Fair-Poor (74) Poor (74) Fair-Poor (74) Fair-Poor (74) Poor (74) Fair-Poor (74) Trend (Yr of Study) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Cause Industrial Agricultural Municipal Agricultural Agricultural Municipal/Agricul- tural Municipal Municipal Municipal/Industrial Municipal Municipal/Agricul- tural Municipal/Agricul- tural Municipal Agricultural Agricultural Agricultural Industrial Municipal Agricultural Industrial ------- STATE: Missouri (Continued) USGS Basin Code 071 10008 1 1 I 07110009 Hydro logic Basin Basin Name Culvre River 1 1 I Peruque Creek-Pi asa — Receiving Water Monitored Within Basin Main Stem: North Fork Culvre River Main Stem: West Fork Culvre River Main Stem: Culvre River Cole Creek: St. Charles County Condition (Yr of Study) Poor (74) Poor (74) Poor (74) Poor (74) Trend (Yr of Study) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Cause Agricultural Municipal/Agricul- tural /Industrial Municipal/Agricul- tural Municipal Creek 07140101 Cahokla Creek-Joachim Creek 07140102 Meramec River Upper Peruque Creek: St. Charles County Fair (78) Unknown County River des Peres: St. Louis County Mill Rock Creek: Crawford County Huzzah Creek: Crawford County Crooked Creek: Crawford County Spring Branch Creek: Dent County Little Dry Fork: Phelps County Flshpot Creek: St. Louis County Poor (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Fair (74) Unknown Fair (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Poor (74) Unknown Agricultural Sam's Creek: St. Charles County Lake St. Louis: St. Charles County Middle Peruque Creek: St County Lower Peruque Joachim Creek: Plattln Creek: Establishment Creek: St. Jefferson Jefferson Creek: Ste . Charles Charles County County County Genev 1 eve Fair Poor Poor Poor (78) (78) (78) (78) Fair-Poor (74) Poor (74) Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Agricultural Agricultural Municipal Municipal Municipal Industrial Mining Municipal Mining Mining Mining Municipal Municipal Municipal ------- STATE: Missouri (Continued) USGS Hydrologlc Basin Basin Code Basin Name Receiving Water Monitored Within Basin Condition Trend (Yr of Study) (Yr of Study) Cause 07140102 07140105 07140107 06020201 I 08020202 1 Meramec River 07140104 Big River Upper Mississippi River-Cape Glrardeau Whitewater River New Madrld-St. Johns River I Upper St. Francis River I Grand Glalse Creek: St. Louis County Meramec River: St. Louis County Maries Creek: Washington County Little Courtols Creek: Washington County Courtols Creek: Washington County Indian Creek: Washington County Big River: Jefferson, St. Francois and Washington Counties Flat River Creek: St. Francois County Spring Branch: St. Francois County Mill Creek: St. Francois and Washington Counties Spring Branch: Perry County Cinque Homines Creek: Perry County South Gabourl Creek: Ste Genevleve County Crooked River: Bo I linger County Mississippi County Spillway Brewers Lake: Mississippi County Big Creek: Iron County Stouts Creek: Iron County Knob Creek: Iron County Poor (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Poor (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Good (74) Unknown Fair (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (76) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Poor (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (76) Unknown Poor (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Poor (74) Unknown Poor (74) Poor (78) Unknown Unknown Poor (78) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Good-Fair (74) Unknown Municipal Municipal Mining Mining Mining Mining Mining Municipal Mining Municipal Municipal Industrial Municipal Agricultural Agricultural Mining Municipal Mining ------- STATE: Missouri (Continued) USGS HydroIogle Basin Basin Code Basin Name Receiving Water Monitored Within Basin Condition (Yr of Study) Trend (Yr of Study) Cause 08020204 10240005 I 10240011 I 08020202 Upper St. Francis River Saline Creek: Madison County Little St. Francis River: Madison County Dexter Ditch: Stoddard County Rock Creek: Atchlson County Davis Creek: Holt County Dill Ion Creek: Andrew County Little River Ditches TarMo Creek-Wolf River I Independence Creek- Sugar Creek 10240012 Platte River 10240013 102 River 10280101 Upper Grand River Contrary Creek: Buchanan County Line Creek: Platte County White Aloe Branch: Platte County Platte River: Buchanan County St. Joseph Sewer Branch: Buchanan County Todd Creek: Platte County 102 River: Buchanan County St. Joseph Sewer Branch: Buchanan County Mozlngo Creek: Nodaway County Gal IatIn Sewer Branch: Davless County Lost Creek: Davless and DeKalb County Grindstone Creek: Davless and DeKalb County East Fork Lost Creek: DeKalb County West Fork Lost Creek: DeKalb County Good-Fair (80) Unknown Fair-Poor (80) Unknown Poor (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Poor (74) Unknown Poor (74) Unknown Poor (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Poor (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Poor (74) Unk Unknown Fair (75) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Fair (79) Unknown Good (79) Unknown Poor (79) Good (79) Unknown Unknown Mining Municipal/Mining Mining Municipal Industrial Municipal Agricultural Municipal Municipal Municipal Municipal Municipal/Industrial Municipal Municipal Municipal Agricultural Agricultural ------- STATE: Missouri (Continued) USGS Basin Code 10280 ( 10280 \ 101 i 103 10280202 1 10280203 \ 10290103 10290104 10290105 1 Hydro logic Basin Basin Name Upper Gran i Lower Gran . d River i d River Lower Char 1 ton River Little Char 1 ton River 1 Little Osage River Marmaton River Harry S. Truman Reservoir 1 Receiving Water Monitored Within Basin Upper Big Creek and Tributaries: Har- rison County Middle Big Creek and Tributaries: Har- rison County Lower Big Creek and Tributaries: Har- rison and Davless Counties Upper Big Creek and Tributaries: Car- roll County Lower Big Creek: Carroll County Hurricane Creek: Carroll County Ye 1 low Creek: Linn County East Fork Locust Creek: Sullivan County Big Creek: Adalr County Davis Creek: Adalr County East Fork Char 1 ton River: Macon County Clay bank Creek: Macon County Sweet Spring Creek: Randolph County Dark Creek: Randolph County Sugar Creek: Randolph County Little Osage River: Vernon County Little Drywood Creek: Vernon County Walnut Creek: Cedar County Clear Creek: St. Clalr County Monegaw Creek: St. Clalr County Condition (Yr of Study) Fair-Poor Fair-Poor Fair-Poor Good-Fair Fair (80) Fair (80) Fair-Poor Fair-Poor Fair-Poor Poor (74) Poor (74) Poor (74) Poor (74) Poor. (74) Poor (74) Poor (74) Fair-Poor Poor (74) Poor (74) Poor (74) (77) (77) (77) (80) (74) (74) (74) (74) Trend (Yr of Study) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Cause Agricultural Agricultural Agricultural Agricultural Agricultural Municipal Municipal/Industrial Municipal Industrial Mining Mining Municipal Mining Mining Industrial Municipal Municipal Municipal Mining ------- STATE: Missouri (Continued) USGS HydroIogle Basin Basin Code Basin Name Receiving Water Monitored Within Basin Condition (Yr of Study) Trend (Yr of Study) Cause 10290106 10290107 10290108 I Sac River r Pomme de Terre River South Grand River 10290109 Lake of the Ozarks I 10290202 Big Plney River 10300101 Lower Missouri River- Crooked River 10300102 Lower Missouri Rlvor- Moreau Creek Horse Creek: Oade County Little Sac River: Greene County Llndley Creek: Dallas County Walnut Creek: Bates County East Branch-South Grand River: Cass County Tebo Creek: Henry County Barker Creek: Henry County Wet Glalse Creek: Camden County Mill Creek: Camden County Dry Auglalze Creek: LaClede County Big Plney River: Texas County Brushy Creek: Texas County Shoal Creek: Clay County Mill Creek: Clay County Indian Creek: Jackson County Blue River: Jackson County Little Blue River: Jackson County Hlnkson Creek: Boone County Flat Branch Creek: Boone County Bear Creek: Boone County Perche Creek; Boone County Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Poor (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Poor (74) Fair-Poor (74) Fair-Poor (74) Fair-Poor (74) Fair-Poor (74) Fair-Poor (74) Fair-Poor (74) Fair-Poor (74) Poor (74) Poor (74) Poor (74) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Poor (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Poor (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Municipal Municipal Municipal Mining Municipal Mining Municipal Agricultural Agricultural Municipal Municipal Municipal Municipal Industrial Municipal Municipal Municipal Municipal/Mining Industrial Municipal Municipal/Mining ------- STATE: Missouri (Continued) USGS Hydro logic Basin Receiving Water Monitored Basin Code Basin Name Within Basin 10300102 Lower Missouri River- Rocky Fork: Boone County Moreau Creek \ i Stlnson Creek: Cal laway County Smith's Branch: Cal laway County Davis Creek: Cal laway County Miller's Creek: Cal laway County Auxvasse Creek: Cal laway County Cedar Creek: Cal laway County Fayette Sewer Branch: Howard County Boone Femme Creek: Howard County Greggs Creek: Howard County Brush Creek: Monlteau County Straight Fork Moreau River: Morgan County 10300103 Lamlne River South Sewer Branch: Pettls County i ' 1 Flat Branch: Pettls County West Sewer Branch: Pettls County North Sewer Branch: Pettls County 10300104 Blackwater River Post Oak Creek: Johnson County i ' ' Bear Creek: Johnson County Graham Branch: Johnson County I Salt Fork: Saline County 10300200 Lower Missouri River Creve Coeur Creek: St. Louis County Condition Trend (Yr of Study) (Yr of Study) Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Poor (74) Unknown Poor (74) Unknown Poor (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Poor (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Poor (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Poor (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Poor (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Cause Mining Municipal/Industrial Industrial Mining Mining Agricultural Mining Municipal Municipal Industrial Municipal Municipal Municipal Municipal Municipal Municipal Municipal Municipal Municipal Municipal Municipal ------- STATE: Missouri (Continued) USGS Hydro logic Basin Race 1 v i ng Water Mon 1 tored Basin Code Basin Name Within Basin 10300200 Lower Missouri River Fee Fee Creek: St. Louis County 11010002 James River Flat Creek: Barry County i ' i Upper Flnley Creek: Christian County Lower Flnley Creek: Christian County Wilson Creek: Christian and Greene Counties Upper James River: Christian and Greene Counties Lower James River: Christian and Stone Counties Pearson Creek: Greene County Sequlota Creek: Greene County Radar Spring Branch: Greene County South Creek: Greene County 11010003 Bull Shoals Lake Cowskln Creek: Douglas County (West Fork Prairie Creek: Douglas County | Prairie Creeks Douglas County 11010007 Upper Black River Black River: Butler County \ \ Neals Creek: Iron County Bee Fork: Reynolds County Strother Creek: Reynolds County Logan Creek: Reynolds County Brushy Creek: Reynolds County Bll Is Creek: Reynolds County Cond 1 1 Ion Trend (Yr of Study) (Yr of Study) Poor (74) Unknown Fair (76) Unknown Good (76) Unknown Fair (76) Unknown Poor (76) Unknown Fair (76) Unknown Fair-Poor (76) Unknown Poor (76) Unknown Poor (76) Unknown Poor (76) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Good-Fair (78) Unknown Poor (78) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Poor (74) Unknown Fair-Poor (74) Unknown Good (80) Unknown Good (74) Unknown Good (74) Unknown Cause Municipal Municipal Municipal Municipal Agricultural Municipal Municipal Municipal Municipal Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Mining Mining Mining Mining Mining Mining ------- STATE: Missouri (Continued) US6S Hydrologlc Basin Basin Code Basin Name Receiving Water Monitored Within Basin Condition (Yr of Study) Trend (Yr of Study) Cause 11010007 Upper Black River West Fork-Black River: Reynolds County 11010008 Current River Pike Creek: Carter County t 1 Big Springs: Carter County Main Stem-Current River: Five Counties Montauk Springs: Dent County Ashley Creek: Dent County South Fork-Buffalo Creek: Rip ley County Fourche Creek: Rip ley County Little Black River: Rlpley County Barren Creek: Shannon County Sinking Creek: Shannon County Round Spring: Shannon County Spring Valley: Shannon County Big Creek: Shannon County Blair Creek: Shannon County Alley Springs: Shannon County Mahan's Creek: Shannon County Shawnee Creek: Shannon County Jack's Fork: Shannon and Texas County Big Creek: Texas County North Prong Jack's Fork: Texas County South Prong Jack's Fork: Texas County Good (74) Good (74) Good (74) Good (74) Good (74) Good (74) Good (74) Good (74) Good (74) Good (74) Good (74) Good (74) Good (74) Good (74) Good (74) Good (74) Good (74) Good (74) Good (74) Good (74) Good (74) Good (74) Unknown Mining Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown ------- STATE: Missouri (Continued) USGS Hydro logic Basin Basin Code Basin Name Within Basin 11010010 Spring River Warm Fork Spring River: Oregon County 1101 1 11071 \ 3011 Eleven Pol l 1207 Spring Rlv i nt River Middle Fork-Eleven Point River: Oregon County Barren Fork-Eleven Point River: Oregon County Spring Creek: Oregon County Greer Spring: Oregon County Hurricane Creek: Oregon County Frederick Creek: Oregon County Eleven Point Creek: Oregon County er North Fork-Spring River: Barton and Jasper Counties Turkey Creek: Jasper County Grove Creek: Jasper County Center Creek: Jasper County Blackberry Creek: Jasper County Spring River: Jasper and Lawrence Counties Shoal Creek: Jasper and Newton Counties Honey Creek: Lawrence County Williams Creek: Lawrence County 11070208 Elk River Little Sugar Creek: McDonald County IBIg Sugar Creek: McDonald County V Indian Creek: McDonald County Condition (Yr of Study) Good (74) Good (74) Good (74) Good (74) Good (74) Good (74) Good (74) Good (74) Poor (76) Poor (76) Fair-Poor (74) Fair-Poor (74) Poor (74) Fair-Poor (76) Good (76) Fair (76) Poor (76) Good (76) Good (76) Good-Fair (76) Trend (Yr of Study) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Cause Municipal Industrial Industrial Industrial Mining Industrial Municipal/Industrial ------- STATE: Missouri (Continued) USGS Hydro logic Basin Basin Code Basin Name 11070208 Elk River * t _ DA«-A 1 1* 1 nn Wn+Ai- ftJrtn 1 +rti-^4 Within Basin Buffalo Creek: McDonald County Elk River: McDonald County Condition (Yr of Study) Good (76) Good (76) Trend (Yr of Study) Unknown Unknown Cause ------- STATE: Montana USGS Hydro logic Basin Receiving Water Monitored Basin Code Basin Name Within Basin 10020001 Jefferson 1 10020002 T 10020003 10020004 10020005 10020006 10020007 | 10020008 * \ 10030101 Missouri R t 10030102 1 10030103 10030104 ' River Red Rock River: Above Lima Reservoir Sheep Creek: Above Muddy Creek Muddy Creek: Near Del 1 Beaverhead River: Twin Bridges Grasshopper Creek: Near DIM Ion Ruby River: Twin Bridges Blghole River: Twin Bridges Jefferson River: Three Forks Boulder River: Below Boulder Madison River: Three Forks West Fork-Madison River: Mouth tEast Gal latin River: Belgrade West Gal latin River: Central Park Iver Prickly Pear Creek: East Holena Prickly Pear Creek: Near Mouth Missouri River: Cascade Missouri River: Fort Benton Smith River: Ulm Muddy Creek: Near Vaughn Sun River: Fort Shaw Sun River: Vaughn 10030203 Marlas-Teton Marias River: Near Shelby . 1 1 I Marias River: Loma Condition (Yr of Study) Good (79) Good (79) Fair (79) Good (79) . Good (79) Good (79) Good (79) Good (79) Good (79) Good (79) Good (79) Good (79) Good (79) Good (79) Fair (79) Fair (79) Fair (79) Good (79) Good (79) Good (79) Good (79) Fair (79) Fair (79) Trend (Yr of Study) Cause Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown ------- STATE: Montana (Continued) USGS Hydro logic Basin Basin Code Basin Name 10030203 Marlas-Teton 10030205 1 1 10040101 Missouri River 10040103 \ ' i 10040201 Mussel she 1 1 10040202 10040205 10050004 Milk River 1 10050005 10050007 10050012 10050014 ' 1 River I 10060001 Missouri River jf 10060002 1 \ Receiving Water Monitored Within Basin Pondera Creek: Chester Teton River: Outton Teton River: Fort Benton Missouri River: Below Judith River Big Spring Creek: Below Lewlston Judith River: Utlca Judith River: Oanvers Judith River: Mouth Mussel she II River: Harlowton Mussel she II River: Bundy Mussel shell River: Delphla Mussel she II River: Mosby Milk River: Havre Milk River: Above Chinook Big Sandy Creek: Near Mouth Lodge Creek: Near Chinook Milk River: Nashua Beaver Creek: Beaver ton Wolf Creek: Stanford Wolf Creek: Denton Redwater River: Circle Redwater River: Near Mouth Condition (Yr of Study) Fair (79) Good (79) Fair (79) Good (79) Good (79) Good (79) Good (79) Good (79) Good (79) Good (79) Good (79) Fair (79) Fair (79) Fair (79) Fair (79) Good (79) Poor (79) Fair (79) Fair (79) Fair (79) Poor (79) Fair (79) Trend (Yr of Study) Cause Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown ------- STATE: Montana (Continued) USGS Basin Code 10060003 1 10060005 10060006 10070002 10070003 10070004 10070006 10070007 10080015 10090102 I 10090207 10090209 10100001 1 10100003 10100004 101 10201 10110204 17010101 17010102 Hydro logic Basin Basin Name Missouri R \ Iver Upper Yel lowstone River \ Bighorn River Tongue River t Powder Rlv 1 Lower Yel 1 ' er [ owstone River Little Missouri River 1 Kootenal River * Receiving Water Monitored Within Basin Box Elder Creek: Wlnnett Poplar River: Poplar Missouri River: Culbertson Big Muddy Creek: Culbertson Yel lowstone River: Livingston Shields River: Near Mouth Yellowstone River: Billings Clark's Fork River: Edgar Yel lowstone River: Hunt ley Bighorn River: Big Horn Tongue River: Brandenberg Tongue River: Miles City Powder River: Broad us Powder River: Locate Armell's Creek: Col strip Yellowstone River: Forsyth Rosebud Creek: Co (strip Yellowstone River: Sidney Little Missouri River: Capitol Beaver Creek: Wlbaux Lake Creek: Troy Fisher River: Mouth Condition (Yr of Study) Fair (79) Poor (79) Poor (79) Poor (79) Good (79) Good (79) Good (79) Good (79) Good (79) Good (79) Good (79) Good (79) Poor (79) Poor (79) Poor (79) Fair (79) Fair (79) Fair (79) Fair (79) Fair (79) Good (79) Good (79) Trend (Yr of Study) Cause Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown ------- STATE: Montana (Continued) USGS Hydro logic Basin Receiving Water Monitored Basin Code Basin Name Within Basin 17010103 Kootenal River Yaak River: Mouth 17010201 Flathead River Clark Fork River: Deer Lodge 1 17010203 17010204 17010205 17010206 17010207 17010208 17010210 * 17010211 17010212 1 Silver Bow Creek: Below Warm Springs Pond Clark Fork River: Below Bonner Dam Little Black foot River: Avon Clearwater River: Mouth Clark Fork River: Huson Bitter root River: Mouth North Fork-Flathead River: Mouth Middle Fork-Flathead River: Mouth Flathead River: Kallspell Stll (water River: Kallspell Whlteflsh River: Kallspell Swan River: Mouth 1 Flathead River: Mouth Condition (Yr of Study) Good (79) Fair (79) Fair (79) Good (79) Good (79) Good (79) Good (79) Good (79) Good (79) Good (79) Good (79) Good (79) Good (79) Good (79) Good (79) Trend (Yr of Study) Cause Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown ------- STATE: Nebraska uses Basin Code 10180009 102702 10200203 Hydro logic Basin Basin Name North Platte River Big Blue River Salt Creek Within Basin Nine Mile Creek: Scotts Bluff County Big Blue River Salt Creek Basin: Saunders-Lancaster Counties Condition (Yr of Study) Fair-Good (78) Fair (79) Fair (77) Trend (Yr of Study) Unknown Unknown Unknown Cause Physical Organ Ics Slltatlon; Munici- pal/Industrial Effluents ------- STATE: New Jersey USGS Hydrologlc Basin Basin Code Basin Name Within Basin 02020007 Hudson River Wai Ikl 1 1 River: Unlonvll le. New Jersey 02030103 Passalc River Rockaway River: Above Boonton \ i i Pequannock River: Macopln Reservoir Passalc River-Main Stem: Slgnac and Elmwood Hackensack River: New Mil ford i 02030105 Rarltan River North Branch Rarltan River: Rarltan i i 1 South Branch Rarltan River: Stanton Ml 1 Istone River: Blackwel Is Ml 1 Is Rarltan River-Main Stem: Victory Bridge 02030104 Delaware River Flatbrook Creek: Flatbrookvl 1 le 02040105 02040202 i i 02040206 , Request River: Request Musconetcong River: Bloomsbury Assunplnk Creek: Trenton North Branch Rancocas Creek: Mount Holly South Branch Rancocas Creek: Halnesport Cooper River: Haddon field ' Salem River: Courses Landing 02040302 Atlantic Coastal Great Egg Harbor River: Folsom Condition (Yr of Study) Fair (77) Good (77) Good (77) Fair (77) Fair (79) Fair (77) Good (77) Fair-Poor (77) Good (77) Good (77) Good (77) Fair-Good (77) Poor (77) Good (77) Good (77) Poor (77) Fair (77) Fair (77) Trend (Yr of Study) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Cause Organlcs Organlcs (?) Chlorine (?) slcal (?) Organlcs; SI Organlcs Organlcs; SI Organlcs Organ Ics Organlcs ; Phy- 1 tat Ion • Itatlon Nutrients; Acidity ------- STATE: New York USGS Hydro logic Basin Basin Code Basin Name 02020003 Upper Hudson 02020004 Mohawk River \ ' 02020005 Schoharle Creek I 1 020200/ Lower Hudson 020301 020401 Delaware River 02050103 Susquehanna River 02050105 Chemung River 04120103 Buffalo River 11 1 ' 04120104 Niagara River 04130001 Southwest Lower Ontario 04130003 Genesee River 04 1 402 Seneca-Oswego 1 I Receiving Water Monitored Within Basin Upper Hudson: Corinth-Troy Mohawk River: Rome-Utlca Mohawk River: Utlca-Schenectady Mohawk River: Schenectady-Cohoes Orlskany Creek Gooseberry Creek at Tanner svl He Schoharle Creek: Below Gooseberry Creek Lower Hudson: Troy-New York City Delaware River: Deposit-Port Jervls Susquehanna River: Blnghamton-Waverly Chemung River: Painted Post-Waver ly Buffalo River Cayuga Creek Cazenovla Creek Buffalo Creek Niagara River: Buffalo-Youngstown Erie Canal: North Tonawanda-Rochester Genesee River: Avon-Lake Ontario Seneca-Oswego: Cross Lake-Lower Ontario Erie Canal: Rochester-Weedsport Seneca Cayuga Canal Cond 1 1 Ion (Yr of Study) Fair (72) Fair (72) Fair (72) Fair (72) Good (72) Poor (75) Fair (75) Fair (73) Good (74) Fair (73) Fair (73) Poor (76) Fair (76) Fair (76) Good (76) Poor (76) Poor (75) Fair (74) Fair (72) Fair (74) Good (74) Trend (Yr of Study) Cause Improving (77) Organ Ics Improving (78) Copper Unknown Organ Ics Improving (78) Phenols Unknown Unknown Chlorine; STP Unknown Organ Ics; SIP Unknown Organ Ics Unknown Unknown Organ Ics Unknown Organ Ics Unknown Organ Ics; Toxics (?) Unknown Organ Ics; Toxics (?) Unknown Organ Ics Unknown Unknown Toxics Unknown Organ Ics; Toxics (?); Physical Unknown Organ Ics; Toxics (?) Stable (78) Organ Ics Unknown Organ Ics Unknown ------- STATE: New York (Continued) USGS HydroIogle Basin Basin Coda Basin Name Receiving Water Monitored Within Basin Condition (Yr of Study) Trend (Yr of Study) Cause 041402 04150101 Seneca-Oswego Black River I 05010001 Allegheny River i Ganargua Creek Fair (74) Unknown Black River: Port Leyden-Lake Ontario Fair (76) Unknown Moose River Good (76) Unknown Beaver River Good (76) Unknown Allegheny River: Pbrtvllle-Red House Fair (75) Unknown Olean Creek Good (75) Unknown Tunungwant Creek Poor (75) Unknown Organ Ics from Canal Organ Ics Ammonia; Organ Ics, Nitrogenous Wastes OH; Sewage ------- STATE: North Carol Ina USGS Hydro logic Basin D___ !..!__ U_.l.__ U__IA___J Basin Code Basin Name Within Basin 03010105 Broad River Saconon Creek 1 1 Tumblebug Creek 03020201 Neuse River Pigeon House Branch 1 1 Rocky Branch 03040101 Yadkln-Pee Dee River Salem Creek < 03040105 i • i Tar Branch Double Creek Warrior Creek Rlcharason Creek Lanes Creek > Gourd vine Creek Wicker Branch 03050101 Catawba River Spainhour Creek 06010105 French Broad River Sweeten Creek • 06010108 L i Boylston Creek Cox Creek Mills River French Broad River Cherry field Creek Morgan Mill Creek North Toe River Brushy Creek Condition (Yr of Study) Fair (79) Fair (79) Poor (79) Poor (79) Poor (79) Poor (79) Fair (79) Good (79) Fair (79) Fair (79) Fair (79) Fair (79) Fair (79) Poor (79) Fair (79) Fair (79) Fair (79) Good (79) Fair (79) Good (79) Fair (79) Poor (79) Trend (Yr of Study) Cause Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Sediment Unknown Unknown Nutrients and Sedi- ment Unknown Unknown Nutr 1 ents Unknown Nutrients Unknown Unknown Unknown Nutr I ents Unknown Pesticides Unknown Sediment Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown ------- STATE: North Carol Ina (ContInued) USGS Hydro logic Basin Basin Code Basin Name 06010108 French Broad River 060102 Little Tennessee River Receiving Water Monitored ,Wlthln Basin Three Mile Creek Cullowhee Condition (Yr of Study) Fair (79) Fair (79) Trend (Yr of Study) Unknown Unknown Cause ------- STATE: Ohio US6S Hydro logic Basin rtnrn 1 u 1 nn lrJ-»+nr Mnn 1 -tnrnrl Basin Coda Basin Name Within Basin 04100007 Western Lake Erie Town Creek, Van Wert (River Mile 3.7) \ ' 04100009 04100010 04100011 i 04110001 Soul-hern I 04110002 1 Ottawa River: Above Lima Ottawa River: Below Lima Maumee River: Watervllle (River Mile 21.0) Portage River: Watervllle (River Mile 27.8) Sardusky River: Fremont (River Mile 23.4) .ake Erie Black River: Elyrla (River Mile 14.9) Black River: Below Elyrla (River Mile 9.4) Cuyahoga River: Independence (River Mile 14.2) 050301 Upper Ohio River Ohio River 05030204 1 ' i 05040001 Musklngum 05040004 1 Hocking River: Enterprise (River Mile 73.4) Hocking River: Athens (River Mile 33.1) Clear Creek (River Mile 2.1) River Tuscarawas River: Mass It on (River Mile 87.4) Mohican River: Greer (River Mile 16.7) Musk ingum River: Coshocton (River Mile 108.1) Musklngum River: Dresden (River Mile 91.1) Condition (Yr of Study) Poor (74) Good (74) Poor (74) Fair (76) Good (77) Good (77) Poor (77) Poor (77) Poor (77) Fair (77) Fair (77) Fair (77) Good (76) Poor (77) Good (77) Poor (77) Fair (76) Trend (Yr of Study) Stable (77) Stable (77) Improving (77) Stable (78) Stable (78) Unknown Stable (78) Unknown Stable (78) Improving (78) Unknown Unknown Stable (77) Unknown Stable (78) Unknown Stable (77) Cause Municipal/ Industrial Effluents ------- STATE: Ohio (Continued) US6S Hydro logic Basin Basin Coda Basin Name Within Basin 05040004 Musk Ingum River Musk Ing urn River: McConnelsvl Me (River IMIle 47.7) Wills Creek: Cambridge (River Mile 58.5) 05060001 Scloto Rl i ' 05060002 1 | 05060003 I 05080001 Great Mlai 05080002 i ' i • /er Scloto River: Prospect (River Mile 169.2) Scloto River: Dublin (River Mile 147.8) Scloto River: Southerly (River Mile 117.3) Olentangy River: Worthlngton (River Mile 12.3) Big Darby River: Darbyvllle (River Mile 13.2) Scloto River: Clrclevllle (River Mile 100.4) Scloto River: Rlchmondale (River Mile 56.2) Paint Creek: Bournevll le (River Mile 21.6) il River Mad River: Dayton (River Mile 9.9) Stll (water River: Dayton (River Mile 1.9) Great Miami River: Dayton (River Mile 87.1) Great Miami River: Mlamlsburg (River Mile 67.7) Great Miami River: New Baltimore (River Mile 22.1) Sevenmlle Creek: Eaton (River Mile 23.2) Condition (Yr of Study) Fair (77) Poor (77) Fair (76) Poor (77) Poor (74) Fair (77) Good (77) Poor (74) Fair (76) Good (77) Fair (76) Good (76) Fair (76) Poor (76) Fair (76) Fair (75) Trend (Yr of Study) Cause Stable (78) Unknown Improving (77) Unknown Stable (77) Unknown Unknown Stable (77) Stable (78) Unknown Improving (77) Stable (77) Stable (78) Stable (77) Stable (77) Stable (77) ------- STATE: Ohio (Continued) USGS HydroIogle Basin Basin Code Basin Name Receiving Water Monitored Within Basin Condition Trend (Yr of Study) (Yr of Study) Cause 05090I/ 050902 Middle Ohio River Ohio River Fair-Poor Improving 05090201 Little Mia 05090202 i ' 05090203 ml River Ohio Brush Creek: West Union (River Mile 16.5) Little Miami River: Old Town (River Mile 80.0) Little Miami River: Spring Valley (River Mile 63.4) Little Miami River: MM ford (River Mile 13.3) Mill Creek: Cincinnati (River Mile 0.6) Good (78) Good (77) Fair (77) Fair (77) Poor (77) Unknown Stable (78) Unknown Unknown Unknown ------- STATE: Oklahoma USGS Hydrologlc Basin Basin Code Basin Name Receiving Water Monitored Within Basin Condition (Yr of Study) Trend (Yr of Study) Cause 11050001 11050003 11060004 11060005 11060006 110701 11100301 11110101 11110104 11110105 111203 11130201 11130202 11130302 11140102 11140103 11140105 11140106 11140107 11140108 Upper Clmarron I Upper Arkansas Verdigris Lower North Canadian Lower Arkansas North Fork-Red River Upper Red River Washlta River Lower Red River Clmarron River: Buffalo Fair (77) Clmarron River: Perkins Good (77) Salt Fork of Arkansas River Fair (77) Chlkaskla River Fair (77) Arkansas River: Ralston Good (77) Verdigris River Fair (77) North Canadian River Fair (77) Arkansas River: Near Sand Springs Fair (77) Arkansas River: HaskelI Fair (77) Arksansas River: Salllsaw to Van Fair (77) Buren, Arkansas Poteau River Good (77) North Fork of Red River Good (77) Red River: Terra) Fair (77) East Cache Creek Fair (76) Washlta River Poor (76) Blue River Good (77) Muddy Boggy Creek Good (77) Klamlchl River Good (77) Red River: Near DeKalb, Texas Good (77) Little River Good (77) Mountain Fork Good (77) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Physical Physical Physical Physical Unknown Unknown Unknown Physical Improving (77) Degrading (77) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown ------- STATE: Pennsylvania USGS Hydrologlc Basin Rru-n 1 u 1 nn Wn+nr Mnn 1 +nrnrf Basin Code Basin Name Within Basin 02040101 Delaware River Lackawaxen River 02040104 I 02040101/ 02040104/ 02040105 0204G 1 105 02040106 Flat Brook: New Jersey Bushkl 1 1 Creek: Monroe County Broadhead Creek Delaware River-Main Stem: DM lion, Pennsylvania-Eastern, Pennsylvania Delaware River-Main Stem: Easton, Pennsylvania Delaware River-Main Stem: Below Easton, Pennsylvania-Trenton, New Jersey Paul Ins' KIM: New Jersey Pequest River: New Jersey Martins Creek Bushkl 1 1 Creek: Northampton County Lopatcong Creek: Mouth Pohatcong Creek: New Jersey Musconetcong Creek: New Jersey Cooks Creek Haklhokake Creek: New Jersey Tohlckon Creek Lehlgh River Condition (Yr of Study) Good (74) Good (74) Good (74) Fair (74) Good (74) Fair (74) Good (74) Fair (74) Fair (74) Fair (74) Good (74) Poor (74) Good (74) Poor (74) Fair (74) Fair (74) Fair (74) Fair (74) Trend (Yr of Study) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Cause Mun 1 c 1 pa 1 / 1 ndustr 1 - al (Organ Ics) Wastes Municipal/Industri- al from Lehlgh River STP (Organ Ics) Natural; Organic Municipal/Industri- al Wastes STP STP; Industrial Wastes Physical Physical STP Municipal/Industri- al Wastes ------- STATE: Pennsylvania (Continued) US6S HydroIogle Basin Basin Code Basin Name Receiving Water Monitored Within Basin Condition Trend (Yr of Study) (Yr of Study) Cause 02050107 Upper Susquehanna River Lackawanna River: Headwaters - Jennyn 1 Lackawanna River: Jenny n - Mouth 02050301 Lower Susquehanna River Penn Creek 02050302 1 i 02050303 02050304 02050305 i 02050301/ 02050305/ 02050306 Shamokln Creek Mahanoy Creek West Mahantango Creek East Mahantango Creek Wl scon 1 sco Creek Powel 1 Creek Little Juanlta River Frankstown Branch Raystown Branch Juanlta River - Main Stem Sherman Creek Paxton Creek Conodogulnet Creek Ye 1 low Breeches Creek Swatara Creek Susquehanna - Main Stem: Sun bur y- Conowlngo Good (79) Poor (79) Fair-Good (76) Poor (76) Fair (76) Good (76) Good (76) Good (76) Good (76) Fair (76) Fair (76) Good-Fair (76) Good-Fair (76) Good (76) Fair (76) Good (76) Good (76) Good (76) Good (76) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown STP; Acid Mine Drainage STP; Construction Acid Mine Drainage Acid Mine Drainage Urban Runoff; Indus- trial/Municipal Wastes Sewage; Paper Mil 1 Waste Dam STP Municipal /Industri- al Effluents ------- STATE: Pennsylvania (Continued) USGS Hydro logic Basin - Receiving Water Monitored Basin Code Basin Name Within Basin 02050306 Lower Susquehanna River Conewago Creek \ • i Conoy Creek Codorus Creek Chi ckles Creek Cones toga River Muddy Creek Pequea Creek Octoraro Creek Condition (Yr of Study) Good (76) Good (76) Good (76) Good (76) Good (76) Good (76) Good (76) Good (76) Trend (Yr of Study) Cause Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown ------- STATE: Rhode Island USGS Hydrologlc Basin Basin Code Basin Name Receiving Water Monitored Within Basin Condition (Yr of Study) Trend (Yr of Study) Cause 01090003 Blackstone River I I 01090004 Narragansett Bay 01090005 Rhode Island Coastal Blackstone River: HIMvll le, Massachu- Fair (76) setts-Manv11le, Rhode Island Branch River: Slatersvllle-Forestdale, Fair (76) Rhode Island Pawtuxent River: River Polnt-Pawtuxent Fair (74) Village, Rhode Island Fry Brook (Hunt River Basin): Route 4 Fair (74) Pawcatuck River: Richmond Landing- Fair (77) Meetinghouse Bridge, Rhode Island Improving (79) STP Stable (79) Toxics (?) Stable (79) Point Sources Improving (79) Dairy Wastes; Heavy Metals Stable (79) Point Sources ------- STATE: South Carolina USGS Hydrologlc Basin Basin Code Basin Name Receiving Water Monitored Within Basin Condition (Yr of Study) Trend (Yr of Study) Cause 03040201 03040202 03040203 03040205 03050101 03050103 03050104 03050106 03050108 03050109 03050112 03050203 03050205 03050206 03050208 03060101 03060103 030601 Pee Dee River Santee River Edlsto-Combahee River Savannah River Great Pee Dee River Lake Robinson-Black Creek Lynches River Lumber River PocotalIgo River Black River Catawba River: Lake Wylle Catawba River: Downstream Lake Wylle Lake Wateree Wateree River: Near Mouth Broad River Enoree River Reedy River Saluda River Santee River North Fork-Ed Isto River Ed Isto River Four Hole Swamp Combahee River Lake Jocassee Lake Keowee Clark HIM Reservoir Savannah River: Downstream -Clark Hill Fair (74) Fair (76) Good (76) Good (77) Poor (77) Good-Fair (77) Poor (77) Fair (77) Poor (77) Fair (77) Fair (77) Good (77) Poor (77) Fair-Poor (77) Fair (77) Fair-Good (77) Fair (77) Fair (77) Good (77) Good (77) Good (77) Fair (77) Fair (77) Organ Ics (?) Stable (77) Stable (77) Degrading (77) Improving (75) Degrading (76) Degrading (75) Stable (75) Unknown Degrading (74) Unknown Physical Improving (76) Unknown Stable (76) Degrading (75) Unknown Degrading (76) Degrading (76) Unknown Stable (76) Stable (76) Stable (77) Unknown Stable (75) ------- STATE: Utah USGS Hydrologlc Basin Basin Code iteceiv Basin Name 160300 Sevler River Sevler River Ing Water Monitored Within Basin Basin 160102 Bear River Bear River Basin 160203 Great Salt Lake Off Spring: \ ' Raft River: Birch Creek: i > Trout Creek: Locomotive Spring Complex Box Elder County Box Elder County Deep Creek Mountains 16030004 San Pitch River San Pitch River 140700 Fremont River Fremont River Condition (Yr of Study) Fair-Poor (78) Good-Fair (77) Good (77) Good (77) Good (77) Good (77) Fair (77) Fair (77) Trend (Yr of Study) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Cause Physical; Sllta- tlon; Salinity Physical; Solids; Nutrients Physical; Sllta- tlon; Nutrients Agricultural and Natural Runoff ------- STATE: Virginia USGS Hydrologlc Basin Basin Code Basin Name Within Basin 02070004 Potomac River Abrams Creak: Winchester \ r 02070005 i i 02070006 1 ' 02070007 02070008 V Opequon Creek: Above Abrams Creek Opequon Creek: Below Abrams Creek Back Creek: Frederick County South Fork-Shenandoah River: Front Royal North River: Mount Crawford South River: Roc king ham County South River: Waynesboro South River: Below Waynesboro Hawksblll Creek: Luray Lewis Creek: Staunton Blacks Run: Below Harrlsonburg Cooks Creek: Dayton North Fork-Shenandoah River: Rocklng- ham-Warren Counties Stony Creek: Rocco Cedar Creek: Chemstone Corporation Shenandoah River: Clarke County Catoctln Creek: Loudoun County Difficult Run: Fairfax County Tuscarora Creek: Leesburg Goose Creek: Loudoun County Condition Trend (Yr of Study) (Yr of Study) Cause Poor (80) Improving STP Good (80) Stable Fair-Poor (80) Degrading Low Flow Good (80) Stable Poor (80) Unknown Good (80) Stable Poor (80) Degrading STP Good (80) Stable Poor (80) Degrading Low Flow Fair-Poor (80) Degrading STP Fair-Poor (80) Improving STP Poor (80) Unknown Good (80) Unknown Good (80) Stable Good (80) Improving Good (80) Unknown Good (80) Unknown Good (80) Stable Fair (80) Degrading Urban Runoff; Sll- tatlon Fair-Poor (80) Improving STP Good (80) Stable ------- STATE: Virginia (Continued) USGS Hydrologlc Basin Basin Coda Basin Name Receiving Water Monitored Within Basin Condition (Yr of Study) Trend (Yr of Study) Cause 02070010 Potomac River Bu11 Run: Loudoun County Bull Run: Fairfax County Cameron Run: Cameron Station Four-Mile Run: Arlington County 02080102 York-Rappahannock River Fox Ml 11 River: Gloucester 02080103 Great River: Fauquler County Tributary to Great River: Fauquler County Mountain Run: Culpeper County Rap Idan River: Culpeper County 02080104 Rappahannock River: Frederlcksburg Good-Fair (80) Degrading Fair-Poor (80) Degrading Poor (80) Improving Fair-Poor (80) Improving Good-Fair (80) Degrading Good (80) Improving Fair-Poor (80) Stable Poor (80) Degrading Good (80) Unknown Poor (80) Degrading Low Flow Construction; Oil Spill; SIP Urban Runoff STP STP STP Slltatlon; STP t 02080105 02080106 \ ' 02080107 02080109 1 Cl a (borne Run: Stafford County Mattaponl River: Caroline County North Anna River: Hanover County Falling Creek: Hanover County Tributary to Falling Creek: Hanover County Contrary Creek: Louisa County Whiteman Swamp: York County Parker Creek: Acconac County Ross Branch: Accomac County Sandy Bottom Branch: Accomac County Fair-Poor (80) Degrading Fair (80) Unknown Good-Fair (80) Stable Fair-Poor (80) Degrading Poor (80) Stable Poor (80) Unknown Poor (80) Degrading Poor (80) Degrading Good (80) Stable Poor (80) Unknown STP STP Municipal/Industri- al Wastes STP STP Acid Mine Drainage STP Perdue Effluent STP (Alum) ------- STATE: Virginia (Continued) USGS Hydro logic Basin Receiving Water Monitored Basin Code Basin Name Within Basin 02080201 James River Jackson River: Below Westvaco 02080203 02080204 02080207 , Cowpasture River: Above Jackson River Conf 1 uenoe James River: Botetourt County Back Creek: Bath County James River: Bedford County Rlvanna River: Albemarle County Tributary to Deep Creek: Nottoway County 03010101 Roanoke River Roanoke River: Dixie Caverns to Roanoke i ' 03010102 03010103 ' Back Creek: Roanoke County Otter River: Bedford County Tinker Creek: Above Roanoke Tinker Creek: Roanoke Ash Camp Creek: Charlotte County Smith River: Henry County 03010201 Chowan River Nottoway River: Southampton County 03010202 1 03010204 1 1 05050001 New River Blackwater River: Nansemond County Spring Branch: Waverly Roses Creek: Alberta Flat Creek: Spring Hill Metcalf Branch: Emporla Crab Creek: Chrlstlanburg Condition Trend (Yr of Study) (Yr of Study) Fair-Poor (80) Degrading Good (80) Unknown Good (80) Unknown Good (80) Stable Good-Fair (80) Unknown Fair (80) Degrading Fair-Poor (80) Improving Good (80) Stable Good (80) Stable Good (80) Stable Good (80) Improving Fair-Poor (80) Unknown Good (80) Stable Good (80) Unknown Good-Fair (80) Unknown Fair-Poor (80) Degrading Poor (80) Degrading Fair (80) Degrading Fair-Poor (80) Degrading Fair-Poor (80) Degrading Good-Fair (80) Improving Cause D.O.; pH STP; Slltatlon STP STP Low Flow; STP Low Flow; STP Industrial Wastes STP ------- STATE: Virginia (Continued) USGS HydroIogle Basin Basin Coda Basin Name Receiving Water Monitored Within Basin Condition (Yr of Study) Trend (Yr of Study) Cause 05050001 New River 05050002 05070202 Big Sandy 06010101 Holston River 06010205 Clinch River Peak Creek: Pulaski Little River: Floyd and Montgomery Counties Dodd Creek: Floyd County Chestnut Creek: Carroll County Stoney Creek: Giles County Levlsa Fork: Buchanan County RusselI Fork: Olckenson County South Fork-Pound River: Wise County North Fork-Pound River: Wise County Cranesnest River: Olckenson County Dismal Creek: Buchanan County Slate Creek: Buchanan County McClure River: Dlckenson County Knox Creek: Buchanan County Beaver Creek: Washington County Beaverdam Creek: Washington County North Fork-Hoiston River: Smyth and Washington Counties Clinch River: Carbo Dumps Creek: Carbo Stock Creek: Scotts County Roaring Fork: Wise County Good-Fair (80) Stable Good (80) Stable Good (80) Stable Good (80) Improving Good-Poor (80) Degrading Fair (80) Unknown Fair-Poor (80) Improving Fair (80) Unknown Good-Fair (80) Improving Good (80) Unknown Good-Fair (80) Improving Fair (80) Improving Good (80) Unknown Fair (80) Improving Good-Fair (80) Stable Good-Fair (80) Stable Good (80) Stable Fair (80) Stable Fair (80) Improving Fair (80) Stable Good-Fair (80) Improving STP Industrial Wastes Coal Mine Drainage Coal Mine Drainage Slltatlon Reservoir; Strip Mines Coal Mines Coal Mines Coal Mines STP Industrial Wastes Coal Mines Industrial Wastes Coal Mines ------- STATE: Virginia (Continued) USGS Hydro logic Basin Basin Code 06010205 06010206 Basin Name Clinch River 1 Receiving Water Monitored Within Basin Straight Creek: Stone Creek North Fork-Powell River: Pennlngton Gap Condition (Yr of Study) Poor (80) Fair (80) Trend (Yr of Study) Unknown Improving Cause Coal Mines Coal Mines ------- STATE: Mast Virginia US6S Hydro logic Basin Receiving Water Monitored Basin Code Basin Name Within Basin 02070001 Potomac Rl> 1 02070004 02070007 . /er South Branch Potomac: Moorefleld South Branch Potomac: Springfield Opequon Creek: Berkeley County Shenandoah River: Harper's Ferry 05020001 Monongahela River Middle Fork-Tygart Valley River: Adolph i ' 05020002 05020003 05020004 i • * 05030101 Ohio River 1 05030201 * 05030202 Tygart Valley River: Beverly Tygart Val ley River: Grafton Tygart Valley River: Col fax Buckhannon River: Hall (Route 119 and Route 3) West Fork River: Enterprise Monongahela River: Star City Blackwater River: Blackwater Fal Is Blackwater River: Near Mouth Shaver's Fork: Parsons Cheat River: St. George Cheat River: Albright Ohio River: East Liverpool, Ohio Ohio River: Above Welrton Ohio River: Pike Island Dam Ohio River: Hannabal Dam Ohio River: Wl Mow Island Dam Ohio River: Bel lev II le Dam Condition (Yr of Study) Fair (78) Fair (78) Fair (78) Fair (78) Fair (78) Fair (78) Fair (79) Poor (78) Fair (79) Poor (78) Fair (78) Fair (78) Poor (79) Fair (78) Poor (78) Poor (78) Fair (78) Fair (79) Fair (78) Poor (79) Poor (78) Fair (78) Trend (Yr of Study) Cause Unknown Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Unknown Stable (79) Unknown Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Unknown Stable (79) Improving (79) Improving (79) Degrading (79) Unknown Stable (79) Unknown Improving (79) Stable (79) ------- STATE: Wast Virginia (Continued) US6S Hydro logic Basin .-.-- f7ai-a 1 u 1 nn Wa+ar Mnn 1 tnr rtH Basin Code Basin Mama Within Basin 05030202 Ohio Rive 05090101 05030203 ' r Ohio River: Add 1 son, Ohio Ohio River: Gal llpol Is Dam Ohio River: Hun ting ton Little Kanawha River: Slate 05050002 Kanawha River Bluestone River: Camp Creek 05050003 t 05050004 1 05050005 05050006 05050007 05050008 1 | 05050009 ' Greenbrler River: Hlllsdale Greenbrler River: Cass New River: Glen Lynn New River: Gauley Bridge Gauley River: Jodie Kanawha River: London Dam Elk River: Coonskln Park Pocatal 1 co River: Lanham Kanawha River: Wlnfleld Kanawha River: Henderson Coal River: Tornado 05070101 Guyandotte River Guyandotte River: Wyoming 05070102 Guyandotte River: Branch land 1 1 Guyandotte River: Hun ting ton 05070201 Big Sandy River Tug Fork: Fort Gay Condition (Yr of Study) Fair (78) Poor (79) Poor (79) Fair (78) Fair (78) Fair (78) Fair (79) Fair (78) Fair (78) Fair (78) Fair (78) Fair (78) Poor (78) Fair (78) Fair (78) Fair (78) Fair (79) Fair (78) Fair (78) Fair (78) Trend (Yr of Study) Cause Unknown Unknown Unknown Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Unknown Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Degrading (79) Stable (79) Improving (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Stable (79) Unknown Unknown Stable (79) Unknown ------- |