r/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water Planning
and Standards
-------
This report was prepared pursuant to
Section 305(b) of PL 92-500, which states:
"(b) (1) Each State shall prepare and submit to the Administrator by
January 1, 1975, and shall bring up to date each year thereafter, a
report which shall include—
"(A) a description of the water quality of all navigable waters in
such State during the preceding year, with appropriate supplemental
descriptions as shall be required to take into account seasonal, tidal,
and other variations, correlated with the quality of water required by
the objective of this Act (as identified by the Administrator pursuant
to criteria published under section 304(a) of this Act) and the water
quality described in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph;
"(B) an analysis of the extent to which all navigable waters of such
State provide for the protection and propagation of a balanced popu-
lation of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and allow recreational activities
in and on the water;
"(C) an analysis of the extent to which the elimination of the dis-
charge of pollutants and a level of water quality which provides for
the protection and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish,
fish, and wildlife and allows recreational activities in and on the water,
have been or will be achieved by the requirements of this Act,
together with recommendations as to additional action necessary to
achieve such objectives and for what waters such additional action
is necessary;
"(D) an estimate of (i) the environmental impact, (ii) the economic
and social costs necessary to achieve the objective of this Act in such
State, (iii) the economic and social benefits of such achievement, and
(iv) an estimate of the date of such achievement; and
"(E) a description of the nature and extent of nonpoint sources of
pollutants, and recommendations as to the programs which must be
undertaken to control each category of such sources, including an
estimate of the cost of implementing such programs.
"(2) The Administrator shall transmit such State reports, together
with an analysis thereof, to Congress on or before October 1, 1975,
and annually thereafter.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
October 31, 1978
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Dear Mr. President
Dear Mr. Speaker
I am transmitting to the Congress the National Water Quality Inventory Report for 1977,
as required by Section 305(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972 (Public Law 92-500). The Clean Water Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-217) amended
Section 305(b) so that these reports are now required only every other year, beginning
with the 1976 report. However, by the time PL 95-217 was passed, the States had com-
pleted their 1977 reports. I am therefore transmitting those reports along with our sum-
mary and analysis of them.
The State reports are continuing to improve with respect to the amount of water quality
information provided, in terms of both geographic coverage and problem definition. This
year we have been able to use the information in those reports to provide a summary of
pollution problems and the sources of those problems for approximately 250 hydrological
basins covering almost the entire United States. Problems with bacteriological contamina-
tion, oxygen depletion, and excess nutrient levels continue to be widely reported, with both
point sources and nonpoint sources of these types of pollution affecting portions of well
over half of the basins across the country. In addition, as more information on toxic pol-
lutants becomes available, the States are reporting problems related to them in more and
more areas. Portions of 44 percent of the basins across the country had some type of
problem with toxic pollutants from point sources, principally from industrial discharges. In
the Northeast and the Great Lakes regions, 63 percent of the basins were affected. Non-
point sources including urban runoff, mining, and agricultural activities also contribute
toxic pollutants such as heavy metals and pesticides in many areas.
While the State reports focused on identifying water quality problem areas, they also
continued to provide examples of situations where pollution abatement programs have pro-
duced significant improvements in water quality. The National Water Quality Inventory
Report for 1976 described 17 such cases.
Finally, the report briefly describes the major provisions of the 1977 Clean Water Act.
This Act has increased the emphasis on controlling toxic pollutants and provided som^jjsef ul
procedural changes, while maintaining the basic structure and gqptfof rJL 92-50^
ours
. Costle
Honorable Walter F. Mondale
President of the Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Honorable Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
-------
Acknowledgement
This report is based primarily on submissions from the individual States and other jurisdictions
of the United States. The Environmental Protection Agency greatly appreciates the time and effort
expended by State and local agencies and by regional commissions in preparing these reports.
The following individuals from EPA also made significant contributions during the preparation of
this report: William Nuzzo (Region I); Harry Allen (Region II); Gerald Pollts (Region III); David Hill
(Region IV); Michael MacMullen (Region V); Tom Reich (Region VI); Dale Parke (Region VII);
Patrick Godsil (Region VIII); Daniel Collier (Region IX); William Schmidt (Region X); Robert An/in,
Adelaide Lightner, Alec McBride and Jonathan Pawlow, Monitoring and Data Support Division; and
others too numerous to mention who were, nevertheless, instrumental in contributing to the final
product.
-------
Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Scope 1
Causes and Effects of Traditional Pollution Problems 1
Causes and Effects of Toxic Pollution Problems 3
Pollution Control Programs 3
INTRODUCTION 7
CHAPTER I: WATER POLLUTION
PROBLEMS FROM POINT SOURCES
Industrial Discharges 9
Municipal Discharges 11
Combined Sewer Overflows 12
CHAPTER II: WATER POLLUTION
PROBLEMS FROM NONPOINT SOURCES
Agriculture 16
Urban Runoff 16
Construction 18
Hydrologic Modification 18
Silviculture 18
Mining 18
Solid Waste Disposal 22
Individual Disposal 22
CHAPTER III. WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL PROGRAMS
Point Source Controls 25
Nonpoint Source Control 26
iii
-------
TABLES
Table
1 Water Quality Reports Submitted
Under Section 305(b) of PL 92-500 8
1-1 Point Sources of Pollution 11
I-2 Effects of Point Sources of Pollution 11
11-1 Nonpoint Sources of Pollution 15
H-2 Effects of Nonpoint Sources of Pollution 16
FIGURES
Figure
E-1 Basins Affected by Bacteriological Contamination 2
E-2 Basins Affected by Excess Suspended Solids 4
E-3 Basins Affected by Toxic Pollutants 5
1-1 Basins Affected by Industrial Discharges 10
I-2 Basins Affected by Combined Sewer Overflows 13
11-1 Basins Affected by Pollution From
Agricultural Activities 17
H-2 Basins Affected by Hydrologic Modifications 19
II-3 Basins Affected by Pollution
From Silvicultural Activities 20
II-4 Basins Affected by Pollution
From Mining Activities 21
II-5 Basins Affected by Pollution From
Individual Disposal Systems 23
APPENDIX A: POLLUTION PROBLEMS AND
SOURCES BY HYDROLOGIC BASIN
Methodology A-3
IV
-------
APPENDIX B: EXCERPTS FROM 1977
STATE AND JURISDICTIONS. REPORTS
State of Alabama B-4
State of Arizona B-10
State of Arkansas B-14
State of Connecticut B-18
State of Delaware B-22
District of Columbia B-26
State of Florida B-28
State of Georgia B-30
Guam B-34
State of Hawaii B-38
State of Idaho B-42
State of Indiana B-44
State of Kansas B-46
State of Kentucky B-48
State of Louisiana B-50
State of Maine B-52
State of Maryland B-56
State of Massachusetts B-60
State of Michigan B-62
State of Minnesota B-66
State of Mississippi B-70
State of Missouri B-72
State of Nebraska B-76
State of New Hampshire B-78
State of New Jersey B-84
State of New Mexico B-88
State of New York B-92
State of North Carolina B-96
State of Ohio B-98
State of Oklahoma B-100
State of Oregon B-102
State of Pennsylvania B-104
Puerto Rico B-110
State of Rhode Island B-112
State of South Carolina B-116
State of Tennessee B-118
State of Texas B-122
Trust Territory of The Pacific Islands B-124
State of Vermont B-126
Virgin Islands . . B-130
State of West Virginia B-134
State of Wisconsin B-136
State of Wyoming B-138
-------
Executive Summary
Scope
This report, the fourth in a series of National Water Quality Inventory reports, was prepared
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and is based on water quality reports to Congress
submitted by the States and other jurisdictions of the United States. The 1977 submissions from
38 States and five other jurisdictions are being transmitted to Congress in their entirety under
separate cover. These reports have been prepared annually pursuant to Section 305(b) of PL
92-500.
The major focus of this year's national overview of water quality is to identify, based on informa-
tion provided by the States, water pollution problems and the sources of those problems in 246
hydrological drainage basins covering almost the entire country. It should be noted that in some
cases, particularly with regard to toxic pollutants, the fact that a problem is not identified may be
due to a lack of monitoring data and not because the problem does not exist. Also, the identification
of a problem does not necessarily mean that the entire basin is affected; in many cases only a
small percentage of the stream miles are impacted.
The report also describes the major provisions of national water pollution control programs and
discusses the implementation of those programs. In addition. Appendix B provides summary material
excerpted from each of the State reports.
Causes and Effects of
Traditional Pollution Problems
Different types of pollution produce different forms of water quality degradation. Traditionally,
pollution control efforts have focused on the most noticeable forms of pollution. These include:
Bacterial contamination which can make waters unsafe for contact recreation and for shellfish har-
vesting; oxygen depletion which can cause fish mortality if too much dissolved oxygen is consumed
in the oxidation of organic wastes; nuisance growths of algae and other aquatic plants due to excess
discharges of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus; and excess levels of suspended solids
which can destroy aquatic habitats through sedimentation and can cause direct damage to fish as
well as aesthetic degradation.
Bacteria, oxygen-demanding loads, and nutrients are widespread problems due to both point
sources and nonpoint sources (Figure E-1). The percentages of basins affected by point source dis-
charges of these pollutants are 78 percent for bacteria, 79 percent for oxygen-demanding loads,
and 69 percent for nutrients. In the heavily populated Northeast and Great Lakes regions these
percentages are even higher, with point source contributing to excess bacteria levels in 86 percent
of the basins and to oxygen depletion and excess nutrients in 89 percent and 74 percent of the
basins respectively. Bacteria and nutrient problems are generally related to municipal discharges
and combined sewer overflows, while oxygen depletion is usually due to municipal and industrial
discharges.
Across the country, nonpoint sources contribute to excess bacteria in 61 percent of the basins,
to oxygen depletion in 51 percent of the basins, and to excess nutrients in 56 percent of the basins.
The primary nonpoint sources which cause these and other problems are: Agricultural runoff, which
affects 68 percent of the basins; urban runoff, which affects 52 percent of the basins; and individual
disposal systems, which affect 43 percent of the basins.
1
-------
FIGURE E-l
BASINS AFFECTED* BY BACTERIOLOGICAL CONTAMINATION
From Point Sources
From Nonpoint Sources
* In whole or in part
Note: Affected basins are shaded
-------
Problems from suspended solids are more often due to nonpoint sources, although in the North-
east point sources are a major contributor of suspended solids (Figure E-2). For the country as a
whole, nonpoint sources contribute to excess suspended solids in 54 percent of the basins, while
point sources are a significant contributor in only 35 percent of the basins. Runoff from urban,
agricultural, and mining areas are the major nonpoint source contributors of suspended solids.
Causes and Effects of Toxic Pollution Problems
Increasing concern has developed over the last few years regarding the effects of toxic pollutants
such as heavy metals, pesticides, and other chemical compounds including phenols, cyanides and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). There are several reasons why these substances cause particular
problems in their detection and control. First, the number of chemical compounds in common use
today is enormous, approximately 60,000 with 1,000 more being developed each year. Second,
many of these substances can have toxic effects on humans or aquatic life in concentrations which
are below levels which can be detected using readily available measurement techniques. Third, many
of these substances are highly persistent in the environment. They tend to concentrate in bottom
sediments from which they enter the aquatic food chain and eventually bioaccumulate in fish and
other higher forms of aquatic life. They also can contaminate groundwaters through deep well injec-
tion of industrial wastes or leachates from landfills, landspreading, and impoundments. Fourth, many
of these substances are generally not removed by conventional municipal treatment technology, so
that some industries discharging to municipal facilities must pretreat certain toxic wastes. Other
potential problems, such as possible synergistic effects, canot yet be fully evaluated due to lack of
information.
Heavy metals such as cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, mercury, and zinc can be toxic
to various fish populations at very low concentrations. In addition, cadmium has been known to cause
lethal kidney and bone diseases in humans, and instances of severe brain damage from lead and
mercury have been observed. Organic toxics including many pesticides can also be lethal to aquatic
life or can cause long-term effects by imparing growth or reproduction. Many of these substances
are also suspected to be carcinogenic or otherwise harmful to humans.
Problems with toxic pollutants from point sources are generally due to industrial discharges, either
directly to the receiving waters or to a municipal sewer system. Across the country, 44 percent of
the basins were affected by toxics from point sources, with the most widespread impacts being in the
Northeast, North Central and Great Lakes regions where 62 percent of the basins were affected
(Figure E-3).
The most widely reported problems with toxic pollutants from nonpoint sources were pesticides
in runoff from agricultural areas and heavy metals in runoff from urban areas and in runoff or
leachates from mining areas. Across the country, 22 percent of the basins were affected by pesti-
cides, with most of them being located in the North Central, South Central, and Southeast regions
(Figure E-3). Other toxics, principally metals, from nonpoint sources affected 32 percent of the basins
across the country, with most of the impacts being in urban and mining areas (Figure E-3).
These discussions of toxic pollutants generally do not describe potential problems from harmful
organic contaminants, since significant monitoring for these pollutants has begun only recently.
The 1978 report will have more information on the nature and extent of pollution due to organic
toxics.
Pollution Control Programs
This past year marked the passage of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-217). The 1977 Act
provided a series of modifications to the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972 (PL 92-500); however, the basic principles and framework of PL 92-500 remained intact. Point
source dischargers must still meet technology-based standards, and more stringent controls are still
to be applied if they are needed to meet water quality standards. Continued funding for municipal
sewage treatment plant construction has been authorized at the rate of $4.5 billion for 1978 and
$5 billion per year for 1979-1982, with the States being given additional authority in managing the
-------
FIGURE E-2
BASINS AFFECTED* BY EXCESS SUSPENDED SOLIDS
From Point Sources
From Nonpotnt Sources
* In whole or in part
Note: Affected basins are shaded
-------
FIGURE E-3
BASINS AFFECTED* BY TOXIC POLLUTANTS
From Point Sources
From Nonpoint Sources (Pesticides only)
From Nonpoint Sources (Toxics other than
pesticides)
In whole or in part
Note: Affected basins are shaded
5
-------
program. The Section 208 Water Quality Management Planning program, which is the primary
merchanism for developing best management practices for controlling nonpoint sources, has also
been authorized continued funding.
The major changes involved details of how the next series of industrial technology-based standards
would be developed and implemented, and provisions which increased the EPA's flexibility and
authority in dealing with toxic pollutants. A discussion of these changes is presented in Chapter III.
-------
Introduction
This report is the fourth in a series of National
Water Quality Inventory reports prepared by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for sub-
mittal to Congress. The 1977 report is based on
water quality reports to Congress which have
been prepared for the last three years by the
States under Section 305(b) of PL 92-500.
Table 1 lists all of the State reports which have
been submitted to date. The Clean Water Act of
1977 (PL 95-217) amends Section 305(b) such
that after 1978 these reports will be prepared
on a biennial rather than an annual schedule.
This year's national overview of water quality
focuses on identifying, based on information
provided by the States, water pollution problems
and the sources of those problems in 246 hydro-
logical drainage basins covering almost all of
the country. A listing and a map of those basins
is provided in Appendix A, as is a detailed de-
scription of the methodology used in developing
the summary information. The report also de-
scribes the major provisions of national water
pollution control programs and discusses the
implementation of those programs.
The report does not cover topics which were
discussed in earlier reports in the series and
for which no new significant national informa-
tion was provided in the 1977 State reports.
These topics include projections of water quality
relative to the goals of the Act, water quality
trends, and the economic and social costs and
benefits of achieving the goals of the Act.
The 1976 report summarized the compari-
sons provided by 14 States of current water
quality conditions with projected water quality
conditions after implementation of the point
source control requirements specified in the Act.
The comparisons indicate that most of these 14
States expect significant additional improve-
ments from further point source controls.
National trend evaluations were done by the
EPA for 22 major rivers in the 1974 report and
were summarized from the State submittals in
the 1975 report. These two reports concluded
that, in general, water quality was improving
across the country. In addition, the 1976 report
provided brief descriptions of 17 areas which
had experienced significant improvements in
water quality.
Both the 1975 and 1976 reports provided
summaries and analyses of the States' discus-
sions on the costs and benefits of water pollution
control programs. The major conclusions from
these reports were that the State estimates for
control of industrial discharges were generally
less than the estimates provided by national
economic models, and that the costs of control-
ling nonpoint sources were generally not known
but were expected to be considerable.
In addition to summarizing the State reports,
the 1975 and 1976 national overviews also pre-
sented the results of some special studies. The
1975 report included a summary of the results
from the EPA's National Eutrophication Survey
of lakes and a discussion of water quality varia-
tions with land use patterns, utilizing results from
the EPA's National Water Quality Surveillance
System. The 1976 report included a summary of
water quality conditions in the Great Lakes and
a discussion of oil spills.
-------
TABLE I
WATER QUALITY REPORTS SUBMITTED UNDER SECTION
305(b) OF PL 92-50O
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas '
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Trust Territories of the Pacific
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
1975
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1976
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1977
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8
-------
Chapter I
Water Pollution Problems
from Point Sources
The distinction between point sources and
nonpoint sources of pollution is not always clear.
Point sources are generally described as those
which discharge to the receiving waterbody
through a discreet pipe or ditch. However, this
definition can encompass a very wide range of
discharges since runoff from almost any type
of area can eventually reach the receiving water-
body through some type of culvert, ditch, or
gully. Therefore, in this discussion, point sources
will be defined as industrial discharges (including
large feedlot discharges but not including dis-
charges from other agricultural activities or from
mining and silviculture areas), municipal sewage
treatment plant discharges, and combined sewer
overflows.
Across the country, a total of 91 percent of
the basins were affected to some degree by point
source discharges (Appendix A).
Industrial Discharges
Pollution problems commonly associated with
industrial discharges include oxygen depletion,
excess suspended solids, oil and grease, heavy
metals, and toxic chemicals. Thermal pollution
and pH problems from point sources are also
generally attributed to particular types of indus-
trial effluents. For example, cooling water dis-
charges from electric power plants can elevate
receiving water temperatures to levels which
significantly affect aquatic life.
The extent to which industrial discharges
affect water quality varies considerably across
the country, as does the type of impact. The
Northeast and Great Lakes regions are the most
affected by industrial discharges, as would be
expected (Figure 1-1). In these two regions, 88
percent of the basins were impacted by industrial
discharges as compared to 65 percent for the
rest of the country (Table 1-1). By contrast, in
the Southwest region only 23 percent of the
basins were affected by industrial discharges.
The type of water pollution problem from in-
dustrial point sources also varies according to
geographic region. In the Northeast, Great Lakes
and North Central regions, where heavy indus-
tries such as steel manufacturing have tradition-
ally been located, point source related problems
from pollutants such as toxic heavy metals and
other industrial chemicals are much more exten-
sive than in the Southeast and Northwest re-
gions, where much of the industrial activity is
related to food and timber processing. The
wastes from these latter industries are more
organic in nature and are therefore more likely
to cause problems with oxygen demand and
excess nutrients, although the pulp and paper
industry does discharge some toxic materials.
The summary of pollution problems by region
strongly illustrates this point. In the Northeast,
Great Lakes, and North Central regions 55 per-
cent of the basins are affected by heavy metals
from point sources, and 42 percent are affected
by nonmetal toxics (Table I-2). For the rest of
the country, only 23 percent of the basins have
point source related problems with heavy
metals, and only 1 5 percent have problems with
nonmetal toxics. The relative magnitude of toxics
problems in the "heavy industry" regions is much
greater than would be expected by simply com-
paring the percentages of basins affected by
-------
FIGURE 1-1
BASINS AFFECTED* BY INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES
* In whole or in part
Note: Affected basins are shaded
-------
industrial discharges between the different
regions.
Municipal Discharges
When States describe problems with munici-
pal discharges, they are generally referring to
inadequately treated sewage. In situations where
a municipal plant discharge is causing a problem
because an industrial discharge into that plant
has not received adequate pretreatment, the
States usually describe this as an industrial dis-
charge problem. Problems from combined
sewer overflows are discussed in the following
section.
Municipal discharges were reported to impact
water quality in 89 percent of the basins across
the country (Table 1-1). As would be expected,
the more heavily populated regions generally
had a higher percentage of basins affected,
although even in the sparsely populated South-
west, 64 percent of the basins had some prob-
lems from municipal discharges. Most of these
problems were due to inadequate treatment or
overloaded plants, and the States expected that
most of them would be resolved as construction
grant funding became available (see Chapter III)
and the facilities could be upgraded.
The pollutants in municipal discharges that
most often cause problems are fecal coliform
bacteria, oxygen-demanding loads, and nutri-
ents such as phosphorus and nitrogen. These
TABLE 1-1
POINT SOURCES OF POLLUTION
Percentage of Basins Affected* by Type of Point Source
Region Combined sewer
(Number of basins) Industrial Municipal overflows
Northeast (40)
Southeast (47)
Great Lakes (41)
North Central (35)
South Central (30)
Southwest (22)
Northwest (22)
Island (9)
95
74
80
74
70
23
55
89
95
91
95
86
100
64
73
100
60
17
37
6
0
0
14
0
Total (246)
72
89
21
* In whole or part.
pollutants cause the most widely reported water
quality problems from point sources (Table I-2).
Bacteria and nutrient problems are generally
related to municipal discharges and combined
sewer overflows, while oxygen depletion is usu-
ally a problem from municipal and industrial dis-
charges although combined sewer overflows
also can contribute. For many of the basins, the
State reports attributed the degraded water
quality conditions from excess bacteria, nutri-
ents, oxygen-demanding loads, and suspended
solids to a combination of different types of
point source discharges.
TABLE 1-2
EFFECTS OF POINT SOURCES OF POLLUTION
Percentage of Basins Affected* by Type of Pollution Problem from Point Sources
Region Thermal Bacteria Oxygen Nutrients Suspended Dissolved pH Oil and Heavy Nonmetal
(Number of basins) depletion solids solids grease metals toxics
Northeast (40)
Southeast (47)
Great Lakes (41)
North Central (35)
South Central (30)
Southwest (22)
Northwest (22)
Islands (9)
33
11
24
11
3
5
0
33
93
77
80
89
73
50
68
89
93
89
85
80
87
36
55
78
78
70
71
74
83
41
55
56
70
26
44
23
30
14
23
33
13
9
27
20
30
23
5
11
15
17
24
14
10
5
5
0
35
6
34
0
13
5
0
44
58
26
51
57
43
9
5
22
43
28
59
23
7
5
14
11
Total (246)
15
78
79
69
35
17
14
16
38
28
'In whole or in part.
11
-------
Combined Sewer
Overflows
Combined sewer overflows occur when ex-
cessive rainfall runoff is added to normal sewage
flows in systems where storm and sanitary
sewers are combined. The resulting overflow
results in a discharge containing pollutants from
both the sewage (principally bacteria, nutrients
and oxygen-demanding loads), and the urban
runoff (principally suspended solids, heavy
metals, and oil and grease). These discharges
can cause extremely severe water quality degra-
dation.
Combined sewers are generally located in
older cities, and problems from combined sewer
overflows are therefore found primarily in the
Northeast and Great Lakes regions (Figure 1-2).
Almost half the basins in those regions have
problems from combined sewers, as compared
to only eight percent for the rest of the country
(Table 1-1). Some Northeast and Great Lakes
States report that combined sewer overflows
cause the most serious water quality problems in
certain basins.
12
-------
FIGURE 1-2
BASINS AFFECTED* BY COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
In whole or in part
Note: Affected basins are shaded
-------
Chapter II
Water Pollution Problems
from Nonpoint Sources
The effects of nonpoint sources of pollution on
water quality conditions are not as well under-
stood and documented as are point source
effects. Even the definition of nonpoint sources
is not clear, since several States refer to prob-
lems such as urban runoff, agricultural return
flows, and runoff from mines as point sources
for purposes of issuing discharge permits.
Nevertheless, the States generally did agree that
nonpoint sources were often a significant prob-
lem, affecting 87 percent of the basins across
the country (Appendix A), and that greater
efforts should be expended to determine the
extent of nonpoint sources effects and to
develop procedures by which they can be con-
trolled.
The State discussions of nonpoint source
problems fell for the most part into eight cate-
gories: Urban runoff, runoff from construction
sites, hydrologic modifications, runoff (including
irrigation return flows), runoff from silvicultural
areas, runoff from active and abandoned mining
areas, agricultural runoff, runoff and leachates
from solid waste disposal sites, and runoff and
leachates from individual disposal systems such
as septic tanks. Other problems such as pol-
lutant washout from the air during rainfall, trans-
portation-related spills, and vessel wastes were
TABLE 11-1
NONPOINT SOURCES OF POLLUTION
Percentage of Basins Affected* by Type of Nonpoint Source
Region Urban runoff Construction Hydrologic Silviculture Mining Agriculture Solid Waste Individual
(Number of basins) modification disposal disposal
Northeast (40)
Southeast (47)
Great Lakes (41 )
North Central (35)
South Central (3O)
Southwest (22)
Northwest (22)
Islands (9)
70
57
54
54
50
23
23
67
15
2
7
6
O
0
23
67
20
21
2
3
23
18
23
22
10
30
15
6
13 .
5
27
0
20
15
41
40
53
36
23
0
55
62
59
89
87
73
55
78
35
9
15
9
13
0
9
22
63
40
39
29
40
35
32
89
Total (246)
52
15
15
30
68
14
43
'In whole or part.
15
-------
described by a few States, but these were not as
widely discussed as the eight categories listed
above.
Agriculture
Agricultural activities are the most widespread
cause of nonpoint source problems, affecting
over half of the basins in each geographic region
(Table 11-1). The most affected regions are the
North Central, South Central, Southwest, and
the Islands (Figure 11-1). A total of 83 percent
of the basins in these regions are affected, as
compared to 58 percent for the rest of the
country.
Pollution due to agricultural activities can
come from runoff or from irrigation return flows.
Runoff will generally result in increased levels of
bacteria, suspended solids, nutrients, and pesti-
cides; while irrigation return flows will pri-
marily increase dissolved solids, nutrients, and
pesticides. Of the four regions listed above, agri-
cultural runoff problems would be expected to
provide significant impacts in the North Central
region (from spring snow melting) and in the
Islands (from heavy rains). In fact, these two
regions do have a higher percentage of basins
than the rest of the country with nonpoint source
problems from bacteria (73 percent vs 58 per-
cent), suspended solids (84 percent vs 48 per-
cent), nutrients (59 percent vs 55 percent), and
pesticides (39 percent vs 18 percent) (Table
II-2).
The heavily irrigated agricultural areas are in
the Southwest, South Central, and North Central
regions; and these regions are considerably
more affected by dissolved solids problems from
nonpoint source than is the rest of the country
(62 percent of the basins affected vs 13 per-
cent). Pesticide and nutrient problems were
widely reported in the North and South Central
regions but not in the Southwest region.
Urban Runoff
Urban runoff is cited as a primary cause of
water quality degradation in heavily populated
areas. Almost every type of pollutant is found
in urban runoff, with the most severe effects
generally coming from suspended solids and
toxics, particularly heavy metals. Bacteria,
oxygen-demanding loads, nutrients, and oil and
grease are other pollutants frequently men-
tioned in discussions of urban runoff.
Across the country, 52 percent of the basins
were affected by urban runoff (Table 11-1). As
would be expected, the highest percentage of
affected basins (70 percent) is in the densely
populated Northeast region, while the lowest
percentages were in the Southwest and North-
west regions (23 percent).
It is difficult to determine the extent to which
each category of nonpoint sources contributes
to a particular type of pollution problem, since
the problem often results from a combination of
these sources (that is, nutrients from urban and
agricultural runoff, heavy metals from urban
runoff and solid waste leachates). However, non-
point source problems with bacteria, oxygen-
demanding loads, pH, oil and grease, and toxics
TABLE 11-2
EFFECTS OF NONPOINT SOURCES OF POLLUTION
Percentage of Basins Affected* by Type of Pollution Problem from Nonpoint Sources
Region
(Number of basins)
Total (246)
Bacteria Oxygen Nutrients
depletion
Suspended Dissolved
solids solids
pH Oil and Toxics
• grease
61
51
56
54
30
18
32
Pesticides
Northeast (40)
Southeast (47)
Great Lakes (41 )
North Central (35)
South Central (30)
Southwest (22)
Northwest (22)
Islands (9)
70
66
51
69
53
36
64
89
53
74
54
66
43
14
18
44
63
57
44
63
63
45
55
44
65
34
56
80
37
32
64
100
1O
4
27
51
70
68
14
0
18
9
37
20
23
14
9
0
15
4
20
0
3
14
5
0
33
11
34
51
47
27
32
22
18
23
15
37
4O
0
0
44
22
* In whole or part.
16
-------
FIGURE ll-l
BASINS AFFECTED* BY POLLUTION FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES
* In whole or in part
Note: Affected basins are shaded
-------
are generally more widespread in the regions
where urban runoff is of major concern (Table
11-2).
Construction
Runoff from construction sites can contribute
large loadings of suspended solids and sedi-
ments to nearby waters. While many States dis-
cussed the potential problems from construction
site runoff, only a few of them described areas
which had been significantly impacted (Table
11-1). Most States which discussed the problem
also pointed out the control measures for con-
taining the runoff before it reaches the stream
are required at construction sites.
Hydrologic Modification
Problems from hydrologic modification result
when alterations in stream flow patterns cause
adverse effects on water quality. These modifi-
cations are generally in the form of stream bed
channelization and dam construction. Excessive
water withdrawals, while they can cause signifi-
cant water quality degradation by reducing
stream flow and assimilative capacity, are not
considered in this discussion.
Steam bed channelization, which is done to
maintain navigation channels, to reduce flooding
potential, or to facilitate irrigation flows, can
result in high levels of suspended solids and
excessive sedimentation which destroys aquatic
habitats in the stream. This problem was de-
scribed in some detail in the Arkansas and
Tennessee reports, and it affects many streams
in the Lower Mississippi River Basin (Figure II-2).
The construction of dams can result in both
beneficial and adverse effects on water quality.
On the positive side, dam impoundments can act
as retention basins where excess suspended
solids and nutrients settle out, thereby reducing
the levels of those pollutants in downstream
waters. Dam impoundments also can be used to
regulate stream flows and to maintain the
minimum flow at a level which will provide suffi-
cient assimilative capacity for downstream
waste loads, although this flow regulation should
not be considered as an alternative to adequate
waste treatment.
On the other hand, in addition to other en-
vironmental damage, dams can cause serious
water quality problems for two reasons. First,
water descending over the dam spillways can
become supersaturated with dissolved gases
(oxygen and nitrogen) which can be fatal to fish
by causing gas bubble disease. This problem is of
particular concern in the Snake and Columbia
Rivers in the Northwest region (Figure II-2),
where the dams also act as barriers to the migra-
tory runs of salmon and other fish. Second,
water released from the lower portions of many
reservoirs contains high levels of nutrients and
suspended solids and low levels of dissolved
oxygen and temperature due to stratification of
the water in the reservoir. The poor quality of
water released from reservoirs was described by
several of the States in the Southeast region,
where the dams were generally constructed to
provide hydroelectric power. These downstream
problems are in addition to the eutrophication
that often occurs within the reservoir due to
nutrient buildup.
Silviculture
Forestry activities can result in severe erosion
problems from logging roads and denuded areas
on steep hillsides. Runoff from these areas
causes high levels of suspended solids and exces-
sive sedimentation. Oxygen-demanding loads,
nutrients, and pesticides can also be carried
along with the runoff. Widespread problems
from silvicultural activities are found primarily
in the Southeast and Northwest regions (Table
11-1, Figure 11-3).
Mining
Across the country, 30 percent of the basins
are affected by runoff or drainage from active or
abandoned mines (Table 11-1, Figure II-4). In
most areas, abandoned mines cause the most
severe control problems, since today, active
mining activities are generally regulated. The
extent and type of problem varies considerably
with geographic region. In the Ohio River basin
portion of the Great Lakes region, mining activity
is principally for coal. The most severe impact
from coal mining is acid mine drainage, which is
caused when exposed sulfur-bearing rock re-
acts with air and water to form sulfuric acid
which then leaches or runs off into nearby
streams. Excess suspended solids from erosion
are also associated with coal mining. In the Great
Lakes region, 41 percent of the basins are af-
fected by mining activities, and acidity problems
from nonpoint sources affect 37 percent of the
18
-------
FIGURE 11-2
BASINS AFFECTED* BY HYDROLOGIC MODIFICATIONS
* In whole or in part
Note: Affected basins are shaded
-------
FIGURE 11-3
BASINS AFFECTED* BY POLLUTION FROM SILVICULTURAL ACTIVITIES
NJ
O
* In whole or in part
Note: Affected basins are shaded
-------
FIGURE 11-4
BASINS AFFECTED* BY POLLUTION FROM MINING ACTIVITIES
ro
* In whole or in part
Note: Affected basins are shaded
-------
basins, which is more than double the percent-
age for the rest of the country (Table 11-2).
In the North Central, South Central, and
Southwest regions, which have considerable ore
mining activity, heavy metals are the principal
problem. In addition, oil and gas extraction,
which often causes salinity problems, and coal
mining take place in the South Central and North
Central regions respectively. The effect of metals
mining can be illustrated by comparing the per-
centage of basins with nonpoint source prob-
lems from toxics (principally metals) in these
three regions (44 percent) with the percentage
for the rest of the country (26 percent) Table
11-2). This difference is even more notable since
the regions with metals mining are less impacted
overall by urban runoff, which is the other prin-
cipal nonpoint source of heavy metals.
Solid Waste Disposal
Problems associated with pollution from solid
waste disposal generally concern runoff or
leaching of toxic materials such as heavy metals
and PCBs from landfills or dumps into nearby
surface waters and groundwaters. This problem
is a potentially critical one; a groundwater
aquifer, once polluted by a persistent toxic
material, may take decades or even centuries to
purge itself. To date, very little is known about
this problem, and only in the Northeast region
did a significant number of States discuss it
(Table 11-1).
Individual Disposal
Pollution from individual disposal systems was
widely reported by the States, with 43 percent
of the basins across the country being affected
(Table 11-1, Figure II-5). In most cases, the prob-
lems result from inadequate or malfunctioning
septic systems in rural or recreation areas with
a resulting contamination of surface waters or
groundwaters by the leachate from the system.
Overcrowding and soil conditions which are not
suitable for septic systems are also major con-
tributing factors. In some cases, particularly in
the Islands where individual disposal is a wide-
spread problem, the contamination is the result
of direct sewage discharges by individual homes.
The major pollutants associated with indi-
vidual disposal problems are bacteria and, to a
lesser extent, nutrients. In the Islands and the
Northeast regions, where these problems were
most widely reported, 73 percent of the basins
were affected by bacteria from nonpoint sources
as compared to 58 of the basins in the rest of
the country. It should be noted that bacteria
are also contributed by several other major non-
point sources, including urban and agricultural
runoff, so that evaluating the specific impact
of individual disposal systems is difficult.
22
-------
FIGURE 11-5
BASINS AFFECTED* BY POLLUTION FROM INDIVIDUAL DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
ro
* In whole or in part
Note: Affected basins are shaded
-------
Chapter III
Water Pollution Control Programs
In December, 1977, Congress passed the
Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-217). This Act
consisted primarily of a series of modifications
to the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments (PL 92-500), which had provided
much of the impetus and direction for the recent
substantial efforts in controlling water pollution.
The 1977 Act did not alter the basic provisions
of PL 92-500; instead it provided some shifts
in emphasis and some procedural changes
which the experiences of the State and Federal
agencies in implementing the 1972 Act showed
to be desirable.
Point Source Controls
Prior to PL 92-500, control of pollution
sources was based on receiving water quality.
Each State was required to adopt water quality
standards for its waterways, and pollutant dis-
charges were to be limited to the extent that
those standards would be met. On the surface,
this concept appears to be an economically
efficient one, allowing water quality objectives
to be met without utilizing resources for imple-
menting overly stringent treatment require-
ments. However, in practice this approach can
be very difficult to carry out. The technical prob-
lems of determining the pollutant load which a
complex hydrological system can assimilate and
then distributing or allocating that load to the
often large number of municipal and industrial
dischargers in the area can be enormous. Also,
discharge limitations based on receiving water
quality can cause widespread inequities among
different plants within an industry and can lead
to geographic dislocations of industrial plants.
For these and other reasons, in PL 92-500
Congress required all point source dischargers
to meet effluent standards based on specific
treatment technologies for each category of dis-
charger. These requirements would apply
regardless of receiving water quality, unless they
were not stringent enough to allow the receiving
stream to meet its water quality standards. In
that case, more stringent controls would apply.
Municipal dischargers were to achieve second-
ary treatment by 1977 and best practicable
waste treatment technology (since defined as
being equivalent to secondary treatment) by
1983. Industrial dischargers were to achieve
best practicable control technology currently
available (BPT) by 1977 and best available tech-
nology economically achievable (BAT) by 1983.
In addition to imposing these requirements. Con-
gress also authorized $18 billion for municipal
sewage facility construction grants.
Despite some initial delays in awarding con-
struction grants and in developing effluent
guidelines, significant success was achieved in
meeting the 1977 deadlines. Almost 90 percent
of the industrial dischargers achieved BPT, while
about one-third of the municipal dischargers
achieved secondary treatment or better (the
lower achievement percentage for municipalities
is due in part to the generally larger size of the
facilities involved, which often results in longer
construction times). As treatment facilities were
installed, concurrent improvements in water
quality were noted (see the 1976 National Water
Quality Inventory], due to the provisions of
PL 92-500 and other State and Federal laws
and regulations.
As the observed and projected water quality
improvements due to the implementation of BPT
25
-------
and secondary treatment became realized, dis-
cussion arose regarding whether the higher
level of technology-based industrial treatment
requirements (BAT) was really needed. In a
report and series of recommendations to Con-
gress, the National Commission on Water
Quality (NCWQ), which was authorized in
PL 92-500, recommended that BAT imple-
mentation be postponed for five to ten years
until the full effects of meeting BPT and second-
ary treatment requirements could be evaluated.
However, the recommendation that BAT be
postponed came into direct conflict with the
strategy the EPA had developed for controlling
toxic pollutants. This strategy, described in the
1976 National Water Quality Inventory, relies
on the use of BAT effluent guidelines to effi-
ciently control large numbers of potentially
harmful substances.
Also, there was some disagreement over the
extent to which full implementation of BPT and
secondary treatment would achieve the water
quality goals of PL 92-500 with regard to con-
ventional pollutants. The NCWQ believed that
these requirements would achieve water quality
objectives for all except a limited number of
waterbodies, and that water quality standards
could be used to achieve the goals in those
areas. Information in the Commission staff
report did indicate that almost all water would
achieve minimum standards for dissolved
oxygen after application of BPT and secondary
treatment. However, another study from the
Commission report indicated that BPT and
secondary treatment alone would not allow
many waters to support game fish populations,
which are part of the balanced and indigeneous
aquatic community that the Act is intended to
protect or restore. This study indicates that
going to BAT levels of treatment would signifi-
cantly increase the numbers of areas suitable
for game fish.
As a result of these and other considerations,
including discussions presented in some of the
State reports, the 1977 Act contained a number
of compromises on controlling industrial dis-
charges. The implementation of BAT for 65 toxic
pollutants specified in the Act is required by
July 1,1984 (a one-year delay from PL 92-500).
Additional toxic pollutants must have BAT con-
trols implemented within three years of the date
on which effluent guidelines for them are pro-
mulgated.The EPA was given greater flexibility in
designating toxic pollutants, and was also given
authority to regulate handling and disposal prac-
tices for those substances.
For conventional pollutants, initially defined
as biological oxygen demand, suspended solids,
fecal coliform, and pH, the 1977 Act requires
that best conventional pollutant control tech-
nology (BCT) be implemented by July 1, 1984.
Congress forsees BCT requirements as being no
less stringent than BPT requirements and no
more stringent than BAT requirements. Other
pollutants may be designated as conventional
pollutants by the EPA.
For all other pollutants, BAT must be imple-
mented within three years of the date on which
the limitations are established, or by July 1,
1984, whichever is later, but in no case later
than July 1, 1987. For these pollutants, a dis-
charger can obtain a modification of BAT re-
quirements if he can demonstrate that his dis-
charge will not cause any significant adverse
water quality effects.
The 1977 Act also authorizes continued fund-
ing for the municipal sewage facilities construc-
tion grants program. The authorizations total
an additional $24.5 billion through the 1982
fiscal year. In addition, the Act provides for con-
tinued funding of research on improved waste-
water treatment and control systems.
Nonpoint Source
Control
The processes of controlling pollution from
nonpoint sources are not as well defined as are
point source control processes. The 1972 and
1977 Acts leave the development and imple-
mentation of specific control regulations up to
the State and local governments, recognizing
that the effectiveness of different nonpoint
source control methods, unlike point source con-
trols, varies greatly from one type of area to
another. To assist the States in developing non-
point source control procedures, the EPA con-
ducts research to provide improved methods for
assessing and managing nonpoint source pollu-
tion and allocates grants to States and local
governments under Section 208 of the Act.
These grants are for development of areawide
and Statewide water quality management plans,
which are intended to coordinate and integrate
both point source and nonpoint source controls
to ensure that water quality objectives are
achieved. Section 208 (j), which was added in
the 1977 Act, authorizes the Department of
Agriculture to provide grants for controlling
agricultural pollution problems in areas or States
with approved 208 plans.
26
-------
The State have used various procedures for
controlling nonpoint sources. For example,
active mining operations are generally required
to have discharge permits, as are irrigation
return flows in some States. Several States have
programs for reclaiming abandoned mining
areas and reducing acid mine drainage. Control
of pollution from mining activities will be
strengthened considerably by the implementa-
tion of the Surface Mining Control and Reclama-
tion Act of 1977.
Erosion control laws covering runoff from
construction sites are common, as are regula-
tions dealing with individual disposal systems.
The States, in conjunction with the Department
of Agriculture's Soil Conservation Service, have
developed regulations or assistance programs to
deal with soil erosion and runoff of other pol-
lutants from agricultural and silvicultural areas.
Detailed studies of urban runoff problems and
prevention alternatives have been undertaken in
a number of areas. Part of the purpose of the
Section 208 Water Quality Management Plans is
to assure that these various programs are ade-
quately coordinated.
One of the parts of the 1972 and 1977 Acts
which does provide specific authority in control-
ling nonpoint source problems is Section 404,
which is designed to protect waters and wet-
lands from environmental degradation resulting
from the discharge of dredged or fill material.
Protecting these aquatic systems is a vital com-
ponent of the overall water pollution control
effort since these areas are highly productive
ecosystems, provide fish and wildlife habitat,
reduce flood damage, serve as storage basins,
and serve other useful functions.
The dredge and fill program operates through
a combination of case-specific permits and more
general blanket permits or best management
practices for certain, specified activities. Prior
to passage of the 1977 Act, the issuance of
permits was administered by the Corps of
Engineers with technical support and review by
the EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),
and to a lesser extent other government
agencies. The 1977 Act provides for a transfer
of program authority to qualified States for those
waters and wetlands other than actually navi-
gable or tidal waters and their adjacent wetlands.
In addition, the new law provides exemption
from Section 404 permits for certain classes of
activities, and for those major Federal projects
which are specifically authorized by Congress
and for which an appropriate environmental
impact statement following EPA guidelines has
been filed with the Congress. The EPA will retain
an overview role and the FWS will retain an im-
portant review, comment, and assistance role
even after transfer of the program to a State.
27
-------
APPENDIX A
Pollution Problems and Sources
by Hydrologic Basin
-------
METHODOLOGY
The State reports were reviewed to determine what water quality information had been provided
for each of the EPA designated hydrological drainage basins across the country (Figure A-1).
Information was available for all basins except for a number of the smaller ones in the northern
Great Lakes area and several others in Alaska. Because of the manner in which the States presented
their findings, certain basins were combined so that the report provides summary data for 246
drainage basins as identified in Tables A-2 through A-9. These basins have been aggregated into
eight geographic regions (Table A-1).
If one or more States identified a problem within any portion of a basin, that problem's cause and
effect were checked in the appropriate columns in Tables A-2 through A-9. Problems were not
checked if they were described as "minor" or insignificant"; however, identified problems do not
necessarily mean that water quality standards were violated. This is because, for some parameters
such as nutrients, standards do not generally exist, and because in some cases significant degrada-
tion, such as a sharp drop in dissolved oxygen levels, can occur and can affect aquatic life without
violating standards.
It should be noted that, if a problem is not identified, that does not necessarily mean that the prob-
lem does not exist. In some cases, particularly with regard to toxic pollutants or for localized con-
ditions, monitoring data may not be adequate to identify a problem. Also, the fact that a basin may
not have any identified ambient water quality problems does not necessarily imply that all dischargers
in that basin are meeting their permit requirements.
It is also important to recognize that the States used a number of different analytical methods and
reporting formats in preparing and presenting their information. Therefore, that information can
only be summarized qualitatively. As new guidance for these reports is developed for use by the
States, it is expected that more precise national summaries will become possible.
A-3
-------
FIGURE A-l
EPA DESIGNATED HYDROLOGICAL DRAINAGE BASINS
m
z
n
X
-------
APPENDIX A
TABLE A-1
MAJOR RIVER BASINS WITHIN GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS
Region Major Basins
Northeast
Southeast
Great Lakes
North Central
South Central
Southwest
Northwest
Islands
Northeast
North Atlantic
Southeast
Tennessee River
Great Lakes
Ohio River
Upper Mississippi River
Missouri River
Hudson Bay
Lower Mississippi River
Western Gulf of Mexico
Colorado River
Great Basin
Southern California
Pacific Northwest
Alaska
Northern California
Hawaii
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Pacific Territories
A-5
-------
TABLE A-2
POLLUTION PROBLEMS
Region: Northeast (Northeast and North Atlantic Basins)
>
0>
Point Sources
Type of Problem
Basin code Basin
0101 Quinnipiac River and Western Connecticut Coastal
0102 Housatonic River
01 03 Pawcatuck River and Eastern Connecticut Coastal
01 04 Connecticut River
0105 Thames River
0106 Blackstone River
01 08 Massachusetts Coastal
0109 Merrimack River
0110 Piscatagua River and New Hampshire Coastal
01 1 2 Saco River and South Maine Coastal
01 14 Presumpscot River and Casco Bay
0115 Androscoggin River
0116 Kennebec and Sheepscot Rivers
0117 Penobscot River
0118 North Maine Coastal
0119 St. Croix River
0120 St. John's River
0121 Lake Memphremanog
0124 LakeChamplain
01 25 St. Lawrence River
01 26, 01 36, 01 37 Lake Ontario Shore, Oswego River to St. Lawrence River
01 27, 01 35 Niagara River and Lake Erie Shore
01 28 Genesee River
0129 Oswego River
01 30 Mohawk River
Upper and Middle Hudson River
0133 Lower Hudson River
0134 New Jersey Coast
01 38 St. Regis River
Thermal
V
S
\S
S
\s
s
•
\/*
I/1
lt>
\s
v>
V*
v>
V*
iS
v>
Nutrients
»^
^
S
S
s
S
S
S
S
tS
s
iS
s
s
S
s
s
t*
V*
>S
Suspended solids
S
S
S
S
-------
0203 Delaware River— Zone 1
0204 Lehigh River
0205 Schuylkill River
0206 Delaware River— Zone 2
0207 Delaware River— Zone 3 n
0208 Delaware River— Zone 4
021 2 Susquehanna River
021 3 Upper Chesapeake Bay, Delaware-Maryland Coastal
0214 Potomac River
021 5 Rappahannock and York Rivers, Virginia Coastal
0216 James River
*x
V*
\S
\S
*x
»X
»x
lX
|X
lX
»x
lX
lX
lX
lX
.X
(X
»x
vX
»x
|X
»x
*x
tX
iX1
lX
»x
>x
|X
|X
•X
lX
lX
(X
»x
>x
lX
•X
>x
|X
*x
»x
tX
lX
»x
»x
|X
(X
lX
|X
.X
|X
tX
|X
|X
|X
lX
tX
»x
»x
>x
(X
lX
.X
lX
>x
tX
(X
tX
»x
»x
|X
lX
*x
»x
lX
*x
»x
*x
|X
»x
»x
lX
|X
X
»x
lX
»x
.X
>x
tX
•
lX
lX
*x
lX
lX
»x
|X
»x
tX
lX
»x
*x
>x
|X
lX
|X
>x
tX
tX
|X
*x
»x
lX
|X
>x
»x
lX
>x
tX
lX
*x
iX
lX
lX
tX
lX
,x
iX
(X
|X
•X
iX
|X
(X
lX
lX
lX
»x
lX
kX
v"
lX
|X
>x
lX
lX
(X
^
iX
|X"
»x
(X
iX1
>x
|X
lX
lX
lX
»x
lX
lX
iX
iX
iX
|X
ix-
tX
lX
|X
(X
(X1
»x
tX
>x
lX
lX
>x
iX
ix-
|X
tX
»x
*x
^
tX
|X
iX1
IX-
kX
»x
lX
»x
,/*
|X
^
I/*
iX
tX
tX
tX
lX
,x
|X
.X
lX
|X
(X
>x
|X
,x
lX
lX
,x
ix-
D
X
-------
TABLE A-3
POLLUTION PROBLEMS
Region: Southeast (Southeast and Tennessee River Basins)
00
Point Sources
Type of Problem
Basin code Basin
0301 Chowan River
0302 Roanoke River
0303 Tar River
0304 Neuse River
0305 North Carolina Coast
0306 Cape Fear River
0307 Yadkin-Pee Dee River
0308 Catawba-Wateree, Congaree Rivers
9 Edisto-Combakee River
0313 Savannah River
0314 Ogeechee River
0315 Oconee River
0316 Ocmulgee River
0317 Altamaha River
0318 Satilla River
031 9 St. Mary's-Nassau River
0320 St. John's River
0321 Suwannee River
0322 Ochlockonee-St. Mark'sfliver
0323 Withlacoochee River
0324 Tampa River
0325 Peace River
0326 Kissimmee River
0327 Florida East Coast
0328 Lower Florida Area
0329 Flint River
0330 Chattahoochee River
0331 Apalachicola River
0332 Choctawhatchee River
Thermal
(X
^
Bacteria
S
|X
»x
iX
\S
iX
(X
»x
»x
.X
iX
\S
\s
^
>x
ix
>x
lX
lX
iX
S
lX
ix
lX
Oxygen demand
V
|X
|X
|X
|X
|X
|X
|X
(X
IX
|X
|X
»x
lX
»x
lX
lX
.X
|X
|X
lX
»x
>x
|X
lX
jX
Nutrients
>x
|X
lX
|X
lX
.x
(X
|X
lX
lX
lX
lX
»x
»x
lX
lX
|X
»x
(X
|X
iX
*x
lX
.X
Suspended solids
|X
|X
*x
lX
Dissolved solids
*x
»x
I
a
.X
*x
|X
Oil and grease
•x
Heavy metals
»x
lX
|X
»x
|X
lX
•x
Source
Non-metal toxics
»x
lX
lX
>x
•x
|X
lX
Industrial
*x
»x
X1
lX
tX
lX
*x
*x
>x
kX
lX
|X
lX
*x
»x
VX
^
lX
>x
lX
(X
jX
Municipal
»x
|X
»x
lX
>x
lX
lX
»x
»x
lX
.X
tX
>x
*x
lX
»x
»x
|X
tX
*x
lX
lX
lX
lX
lX
lX
lX
Combined sewer
>x
>x
(X
lX
>x
Nonpoint Sources
Type of Problem
Bacteria
*x
>x
|X
lX
lX
»x
>x
»x
•
»x
lX
»x
tX
lX
|X
lX
*x
lX
lX
|X
lX
jX
Oxygen demand
*x
lX
lX
(X
lX
|X
»x
»x
|X
lX
lX
tX
tX
>x
|X
lX
lX
lX
lX
lX
|X
tX
|X
jX
Nutrients
*x
lX
lX
lX
lX
>x
>x
lX
lX
>x
|X
|X
kX
lX
.X
»x
lX
»x
>x
^
lX
^
Suspended solids
lX
|X
(X
|X
lX
lX
>x
(X
lX
lX
Dissolved solids
iX
a
lX
Oil and grease
>x
Heavy metals, toxics
lX
lX
Pesticides
>x
lX
|X
Urban runoff
lX
iX
tX
»x
lX
(X
lX
lX
.X
|X
lX
tX
*x
>x
»x
»x
»x
*x
|X
»x
*x
Construction
Hydrologic modification
>x
lX
»x
lX
Source
Silviculture
lX
»x
^
*x
x
lX
|X
O)
c
'c
i
lX
*x
>x
Agriculture
(X
iX
lX
iX
»X
^
*x
.X
lX
kX
»x
lX
lX
lX
lX
»x
*x
lX
»x
lX
^
Solid waste disposal
Individual disposal
iX
jX
lX
>x
vX
(X
lX
»x
|X
iX
»x
»x
.X
,x
Other or undefined
(X
lX
13
TJ
m
Z
g
x
-------
0333 Perdido-Escambia River
0334 Tallapoosa River
O335 Coosa River
0336 Cahaba River
0337 Alabama River
0338, 0340 Tombigbee River
0339 Warrior River
0341 Mobile Bay
0342 Pasacagoula River
0343 Pearl River
0401 Clinch River
0402 Holston River
0403 French Bread River
0404 Little Tennessee River
0405 Hiwassee River
0406 Elk River
0407 Duck River
0408 Tennessee River Mainstem
.x
•*
.X
X
tX
iX
S
\S
iX
iX
iX
»x
*x
•X
iX
•
tX
»X
jX
iX
*x
iX
•
iX
•
|X
(X
.X
.X
iX
IX
»x
IX
s
s
\s
iX
»x
(X
IX
IX
|X
IX
lX
.X
.X
•X
IX
IX
vX
|X
iX
|X
iX
iX
lX
tX
tX
»x
*x
iX
»x
»x
^
iX
iX
•
iX
.X
»x
|X
>x
|X
iX
1^
s
tX
iX
»x
*x
»x
•
»x
»x
•
iX
(X
tX
>x
iX
tX
•X
|X
iX
>x
»x
iX
^
iX
iX
iX
iX
>x
iX
|X
tX
iX
iX
|X
(X
iX
»x
»x
tX
tX
>x
iX
^
|X
^
|X
iX
iX
.X
|X
iX
••
|X
iX
|X
|X
^
iX
iX
iX
iX
iX
iX
iX
iX
iX
|X
>x
iX
iX
iX
iX
|X
(X
iX
(X
iX
iX
|X
*x
.X
>x
iX
iX
|X
pX
iX
iX
X
iX
|X
^
•X
iX
iX
iX
kX
^
iX
iX
iX
iX
(X
|X
»x
iX
iX
iX
^
CO
m
z
D
X
-------
TABLE A-4
POLLUTION PROBLEMS
Region: Great Lakes (Great Lakes and Ohio River Basins)
Point Sources
Type of Problem
Basin code Basin
0501 Allegheny River
0502 Monongahela River
0503 Beaver River
0504 Muskingum River
0505 Little Kanawha River
0506 Hocking River
0507 Kanawha River
0508 Guyandot River
0509 Big Sandy River
0510 Scioto River
051 1 Little Miami River
0512 Licking River
0513 Miami River
0514 Kentucky River
0515 Salt River
0516 Green River
0517 Wabash River
0518,0519 White River
0520 Cumberland River
0521 Ohio River Mainstem
0601 Maumee River
0602 Sandusky River
0603 Cuyahoga River
0604 Lake Erie, Maumee River to Sandusky River
0605 Lake Erie, Sandusky River to Cuyahoga River
0606 Lake Erie, Cuyahoga River to New York State Line
0611 Raisin River
0613 Detroit River
0614 Clinton River
Thermal
•
•
iX
iX
iX
iX
iX
»X
Bacteria
.X
S
iX
S
\s
»x
lX
ix
lX
lX
•X
s
s
lX
lX
lX
lX
>x
lX
lX
»x
*x
lX
»x
ix
Oxygen demand
»X
.X
iX
»x
iX
iX
*x
»x
*x
lX
\s
»x
s
|X
lX
tx
lX
»x
ix
>x
V*
»x
lX
lX
.X
Nutrients
>X
»x
S
\S
iX
tX
ix
lX
ix
lX
^
\s
S
S
S
s
iS
s
\s
X
•
>X
»X
^
iX
Oil and grease
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
iS
s
s
Heavy metals
iX
•
•
•
•
»X
•
»X
^
•
^
^
•
»X
^
iX
V
Source
Non-metal toxics
^
i^
»x
•
i^
iX
K*
|X
|X
•
»x
iX
•
»x
|X
ix
»x
•
Industrial
»X
»x
»x
»x
»x
^
|X
lX
|X
•
|X
>x
|X
iX
»x
|X
|X
|X
(X
»x
|X
*x
»x
|X
lX
Municipal
|X
|X
|X
»x
|X
*x
*x
|X
lX
lX
»x
|X
lX
lX
*x
»x
lX
»x
»x
»x
»x
|X
|X
|X
|X
lX
»x
lX
»x
Combined sewer
|X
^
iX
|X
iX
»x
lX
»x
lX
|X
V
lX
|X
Nonpoint Sources
Type of Problem Source
Bacteria
»x
*x
»x
jX
»x
>x
»x
iX
»x
»x
•X
lX
iX
|X
|X
X
lX
|X
Oxygen demand
tX
*x
>x
lX
lX
iX
»x
iX
(X
»x
lX
lX
|X
>x
lX
*x
X
Nutrients
iX
*x
X
iX
lX
lX
lX
lX
|X
iX
»x
iX
lX
^
1
c
(/)
(X
(X
*x
|X
lX
X
.X
»x
»x
|X
*x
|X
*x
*x
lX
lX
X
|X
|X
|X
a>
2
Si
6
tX
|X
lX
lX
>x
iX
IS
s
lX
|X
|X
a
|X
(X
lX
|X
tX
>x
»x
(X
tX
lX
tX
lX
lX
(X
>x
Oil and grease
tX
»x
|X
>x
iX
jX
lX
Heavy metals, toxics
lX
»x
lX
lX
lX
lX
>x
lX
|X
x
Urban runoff
|X
|X
»x
>x
lX
»x
|X
|X
lX
|X
»x
»x
tX
(X
|X
lX
»x
»x
.X
Construction
»x
|X
lX
Hydrologic modification
lX
Silviculture
*x
lX
X
X
lX
|X
O)
c
'Ł
i
|X
>x
lX
»x
»x
lX
X
(X
>x
•X
|X
iX
lX
>x
lX
lX
Agriculture
lX
lX
|X
lX
|X
»x
|X
>x
»x
>x
iX
|X
lX
lX
lX
|X
jX
|X
|X
Solid waste disposal
•X
•X
(X
|X
(X
(X
Individual disposal
iX
lX
|X
lX
lX
»x
lX
|X
»x
•X
lX
tX
lX
|X
Other or undefined
(X
-o
TJ
m
Z
D
X.
-------
0803, 0824 Menominee River, Western Green Bay
O814 Pine River
08 1 6 Boardman River
0825 Fox River and Wolf Creek
0826 Western Lake Michigan
0827 Muskegon River
0828 Grand River
0832 St. Joseph River
0849 Calumet-Burns Ditch Complex
2104 Saginaw River
2108 AuSable River
2223 Lake Superior (Wisconsin and Minnesota)
V*
IS
iS
*••
•
•
•
•
tS
\s
V*
I/"
•
^
S
\s
\s
s
S
tS
s
S
s
\s
iS
s
s
S
s
\s
V*
\s
s
s
s
V*
•
IS
V*
\S
*s
V
\s
s
S
S
iS
s
s
S
\s
\s
s
S
S
s
\s
V*
s
iS
iS
\s
-------
TABLE A-5
POLLUTION PROBLEMS
Region: North Central (Upper Mississippi, Missouri, and Hudson Bay Basins)
10
Point Sources
Type of Problem
Basin code Basin
0703 Upper Mississippi River (upper portion)
0704 Minnesota River
0705 St. Croix River
0706 Upper Mississippi River (lower portion)
0707 Wisconsin River
0708 Mississippi-Wapsipinicon and Tributaries
070.9 Rock River
071 0 Mississippi-Cedar-Iowa Rivers
071 1 Mississippi-Oes Moines-Skunk Rivers
0712 Mississippi-Salt Rivers
07 1 3 Chicago-Calumet Reservoir-Des Plaines River
0715 Kankakee River
0716 Fox River
0717 Illinois River
0718, 0719,0722 Mississippi River— St. Louis, Cape Girardeau
0720 Kaskaskia River
0721 Big Muddy River
0901 Upper Missouri River to Milk River
0902 Yellowstone River
0903 Missouri River, Milk River to Spring Creek
0904 Missouri River, Spring Creek to Niobara River
0905 Niobara River
0906 James River
0907 Big Sioux River
0908 Platte River below North Platte River
0909 North Platte River
09 1 0 South Platte River
0911 Kansas River
091 2 Missouri River below Niobara River
091 3 Grand-Chariton Rivers
091 4 Orange-Gasconade Rivers
2301 Red River of the North
2302 Rainy River
2303 Devil's Lake
2304 Souris River
Thermal
•
S
iS
\s
m
'C
\S
\S
V*
tS
^
v*
Oxygen demand
S
v"
\S
S
S
S
s
s
i/
s
••
s
V*
S
iS
\s
\s
\s
\s
v>>
s
\s
iS
\s
V*
iS
\s
,/•
Nutrients
S
S
tS
V*
v>>
\S
S
S
S
S
iS
s
s
s
s
V*
V
\s
s
\s
iS
\s
s
\s
v*
\s
Suspended solids
V*
S
v*
V*
^
\S
S
iS
Dissolved solids
S
S
v*
S
v*
V*
v*
a
S
S
V*
S
S
Oil and grease
Heavy metals
V*
s
iS
**
S
iS
\s
s
s
s
•
•
s
*s
\s
V*
\s
iS
*s
\s
Source
Non-metal toxics
V*
S
I/*
^
1^
(^
^
(^
Industrial
•
•
•
S
S
V*
\S
S
s
s
s
\s
s
s
s
V*
V*
\S
S
V*
V*
\S
\S
tS
S
if
Municipal
>S
S
v*
V*
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
iS
\s
V*
s
V*
\S
o.
S
S
S
\s
V*
\S
S
Oil and grease
Heavy metals, toxics
•
•
•
c
'c
I
IS*
\s
\s
iS
\s
-------
TABLE A-6
POLLUTION PROBLEMS
Region: South Central (Lower Mississippi and Western Gulf Basins)
>
*
Basin code Basin
1001 Arkansas River above Kansas-Colorado State Line
1 002 Arkansas River, Kansas-Colorado State Line to Tulsa
1003 Verdigris River
1 004 Grand Neosho River
1005 White River
1 006 Mississippi River, Cairo to Helena
1 007 Cimarron River
1 008 North Canadian River
1 009 Arkansas River, Tulsa to Van Buren
1010 Arkansas River below Van Buren
1011 Yazoo River
1012,1013 South Canadian River
1014 Washita River
1015 Upper Red River
1016 Lower Red River
1017 Ouachita River
1018 Big Black River
1019 Atchafalaya River
1 020 Calcasieu River
1 02 1 Mississippi River below Natchez
1201 Sabine River
1202 Neches River
1 203 Trinity River
1 204 Brazos River
1 025 Colorado River
1 206 Guadelupe Lavaca and San Antonio Rivers
1207 Nueces River
1208 Pecos River
1 209 Upper Rio Grande
1210 Lower Rio Grande
Point Sources
^pe of Problem
Thermal
»X
Bacteria
|X
iS
|X
iX
S
»x
iX
»X
»X
»X
,X
iX
|X
^
iX
,X
|X
,x
,x
if
,x
(X
Oxygen demand
tX
»x
V*
iX
»x
\S
\S
•X
V*
S
S
\s
»x
»x
,X
»x
|X
lX
»x
,x
(X
(X
,x
,x
(X
*x
Nutrients
»x
*x
v"
V*
(X
*x
iX
lX
>x
»x
»x
lX
vX
|X
lX
lX
,x
iX
,x
,x
^
,x
yf
lX
yt
Suspended solids
|X
>x
»x
lX
lX
»x
•
»x
tX
Dissolved solids
v"
lX
••
*x
>x
,x
^
^
jX
Source
I
»x
lX
lX
Oil and grease
»/*
»x
lX
lX
J2
n
a
ii
a
»X
•
•
*x
lX
*x
|X
X
lX
,x
lX
^
^
Non-metal toxics
t^
i^
Nonpoint Sources
Type of Problem Source
Industrial
|X
••
lX
|X
>x
(X
lX
»x
|X
lX
,x
jX
jX
^»
!X
jX
,x
lX
iX
-X
•X
TO
c
'C
'1
i
t^
V*
lX
•X
t^
|X
>x
»x
>x
•»
lX
(X
lX
»x
^
|X
tX
^x
^
tX
,x
,x
^
lX
jX
^>
,x
,x
,x
lX
Combined sewer
Bacteria
!/•
iX
i^
|X
X
lX
«x
(X
lX
»x
1^
jX
,x
>x
x
(X
Oxygen demand
V*
*x
»X
(X
»x
,x
X
jX
^
(X
X
,x
>x
Nutrients
iX
*X
•
^
lX
|X
»x
(X
k*
lX
jX
(X
|X
(X
X
,x
,x
^
X
Suspended solids
lX
•
•
\S
•
lX
*x
!X
•"
x
Dissolved solids
i^
•*
^
(X
(X
lX
lX
>x
lX
lX
X
lX
X
x
X
^
x
^
x
>x
I
tX
>x
^
^
x
X
V
a
n
S
T
c
a
6
x
(a
<.
'x
c
*-
V
"n
?
e
>.
>
a
V
I
»x
iX
|X
iX
|X
•X
»X
|X
»x
lX
X
X
x
Pesticides
iX
»x
lX
lX
>>
»x
lX
X
X
,/•
Urban runoff
V*
»X
»x
>X
»x
lX
|X
lX
lX
(X
lX
x
lX
X
X
Construction
Hydroloqic modification
lX
kX
lX
,x
>x
lX
x
Silviculture
»x
lX
(X
lX
?
Ł
I
|X
|X
^
lX
lX
(X
^x
,x
X
x
X
X
x
X
x
X
Agriculture
|X
lX
•X
|X
lX
\s
(X
lX
lX
>x
kX
lX
^x
tX
^
X
X
X
x
X
X
x
x
X
x
^
Solid waste disposal
lX
lX
x
x
Individual disposal 1
|X
lX
^
X
,x
x
X
^r
X
X
X
X
Other or undefined |
x
TJ
-0
m
Z
g
x
-------
TABLE A-7
POLLUTION PROBLEMS
Region: Southwest (Colorado River, Central and Southern California, and Great Basins)
_J>
*>
Point Sources
Type of Problem
Basin Code Basin
1101 Lower Colorado River
1 1 02 Middle Colorado and San Jaun Rivers
1 1 03 Upper Colorado River
1104 Gila River
1105 Little Colorado River
1106 Green River
1120-1129 Dead Basins
1404 Central Coastal
1405 Santa Clara River
1 406 Los Angeles River
1407 Santa Ana River
1 408 San Diego Coastal
1 41 0 San Joaquin River
1411 King and Kerns Rivers, Tulare Lake
1 501 Northwestern Lahontan
1 502 Humboldt River
1 503 Central Nevada
1 504 Owens River
1 505 Mojave River
1 506 California Portion of Colorado River
1507 Great Salt Laker
1 508 Sevier River
Thermal
*»
i Bacteria
•X
|X
iX
•
•
iX
»x
»x
iX
V"
\s
\ Oxygen demand
\S
V*
*x
•
iX
»X
^
iX
Nutrients
X
•
^
•X
S
S
S
S
S
Suspended solids
S
S
\S
5
%
a
S
!/•
\s
s
s
a
•
Oil and grease
*x
Heavy metals
*•
S
Source
| Non-metal toxics
•
! Industrial
^
^
•*
•
•
Municipal
•
•
•
•
•
iX
•
•
•
•
lX
•
ix
Combined sewer
Nonpoint Sources
Type of Problem Source
Bacteria
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Oxygen demand
f
•
•
Nutrients
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Suspended solids
•
•
*X
»X
»X
•
b
•
•
•
•
•
tX
•
•
^
•
t^
»x
|X
•
Q.
s
s
\s
Oil and grease
•
»X
Heavy metals, toxics
\S
V*
V
V
S
V*
1
Ł
Urban runoff
\S
\S
iS
\S
iX
Construction
Hydrologic modification
»X
iX
\S
iX
Silviculture
»X
?
I
|X
•X
»X
|X
S
\S
\S
\s
Agriculture
»X
•
iX
»X
•
•
•
•
•-
•
|X
iX
•X
iX
iX
•
Solid waste disposal
Individual disposal
iX
|X
•
»X
iX
•X
iX
iX
Other or undefined
13
TJ
m
z
g
x
-------
TABLE A-8
POLLUTION PROBLEMS
Region: Northwest (Pacific Northwest, Northern California, and Alaska Basins)
>
01
Po nt Sources
Type of Problem
Basin code Basin
1301 Kootenai River
1302 Clark Fork, Pend Oreille River
1 303 Spokane River
1304 Yakima River
1 305 Columbia River above Yakima River
1306 Upper Snake River
1 307 Central S nake River
1 308 Lower Snake River
1 309 Willamette River
1310 Columbia River below Yakima River
1311 Puget Sound
1312 Washington Coast
1313 Oregon Coast
1401 Klamath River
1 402 Northern California Coastal
1403 San Francisco Bay
1 409 Sacramento River
1603 Yukon River
1 605 Bristol Bay, Nuskagak and Mulchatna River
1 608 Kenai and Knik Arm Rivers
1 609 Kodiak Island
1612 Southeastern Alaska
Thermal
Bacteria
.X
lX
|X
tX
»x
lX
lX
|X
lX
»x
lX
»x
lX
•
•
Oxygen demand
lX
lX
K»
|X
»x
|X
lX
lX
tX
s
s
s
Nutrients
»X
tX
|X
tX
»x
|X
.X
|X
|X
•
lX
tX
Suspended solids
*x
|X
>x
iX
,x
Dissolved solids
•x
i
a
•
Oil and grease
Heavy metals
lX
Source
Non-metal toxics
>x
|X
lX
Industrial
lX
lX
*x
•
•
.X
|X
|X
lX
tX
•
•
Municipal
*x
lX
|X
>x
»x
lX
>x
(X
lX
lX
>x
|X
»x
|X
lX
»x
Combined sewer
•x
lX
|X
Nonpoint Sources
Type of Problem . Source
[ Bacteria
»x
V
»x
.X
>x
*x
iX
lX
»x
lX
»x
»x
|X
iX
j Oxygen demand
*x
lX
lX
•
j Nutrients
(X
»x
|X
lX
•
|X
*x
|X
lX
•
lX
»x
| Suspended solids
lX
•
lX
lX
•
(X
lX
lX
tX
|X
lX
lX
»x
*x
| Dissolved solids
•
|X
lX
r
a
»x
•x
| Oil and grease
|X
| Heavy metals, toxics
•
|X
|X
|X
•
lX
|X
| Pesticides
| Urban runoff
lX
>X
lX
iX
»^
| Construction
f
•
|X
•
I Hydrologic modification
"
lX
|X
•
I Silviculture
lX
lX
|X
•
•
O)
c
'c
ii
lX
•
•
lX
| Agriculture
"
"
^
•
lX
^
lX
lX
•
•^
•.
| Solid waste disposal
|X
^
| Individual disposal
**
^
^
»x
|X
^
1/1
1 Other or undefined
|X
13
TJ
m
Z
g
x
-------
TABLE A-9
POLLUTION PROBLEMS
Region: Islands
>
Point Sources
Type of Problem
Basin code Basin
1701 Hawaii
1702 Oahu
1 703 Kauai
1 704 Maui
1800 Puerto Rico
1 900 Virgin Islands
2001 Guam
2002-2007 Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
2008 American Samoa
Thermal
|X
.X
»x
Bacteria
tX
•X
•X
»x
>x
lX
|X
lX
Oxygen demand
|X
|X
|X
lX
»x
jX
|X
Nutrients
>x
|X
»x
»x
|X
10
S
S
1
w
|X
»x
(X
Dissolved solids
iX
a
Oil and grease
>x
>x
>x
K"
Heavy metals
»x
|X
Source
Non-metal toxics
»x
Industrial
,X
»x
|X
>x
•
,x
tX
•^
Municipal
S
S
S
,x
^
•
lX
•
•
Combined sewer
Nonpoint Sources
Type of Problem Source
Bacteria
•
»x
iX
•
>x
•
,x
•
Oxygen demand
»x
,x
,x
(X
Nutrients
»x
,X
•
^
Suspended solids
>x
>x
»x
^
(X
,x
^
^*
1^
Dissolved solids
I
a
Oil and grease
Heavy metals, toxics
S
V*
Pesticides
^
^
,X
Urban runoff
^
^
^x
,X
^
^
Construction
^
S
S
iS
S
S
Hydrologic modification
^
^
Silviculture
'c
I
Agriculture
,x
^.
jX
,,*
^
^
^
Solid waste disposal
^
^
Individual disposal j
•X
»X
>X
(X
jx
lX
lX
lX
Other or undefined j
,x
lX
x
TJ
m
z
g
x
-------
APPENDIX B
Excerpts From 1977 State and
Jurisdictional Reports
-------
Appendix B provides excerpted summary (if available) or introductory sections from the 1977
reports submitted by the States and other jurisdictions. The reader can obtain more complete infor-
mation by writing to the applicable agency listed with the report excerpt.
-------
State of Alabama
Complete copies of the State of Alabama 305(b)
Report can be obtained from the Agency listed
below:
Alabama Water Improvement Commission
State Office Building
Montgomery, AL 36104
-------
APPENDIX B
Introduction
Alabama's 1976 water quality report to Congress will
essentially parallel the same format used in the 1975
water quality report.
As stated in the 1974 water quality report to Con-
gress, the Alabama Water Improvement Commission
originally established 53 trend or permanent stations
which could be used as a continuing data source to
detect positive or negative trends in water quality.
This number was increased to 59 stations in 1975 and
was continued at this level in 1976.
Although over 21 chemical-physical parameters are
currently measured at each station, this report is
limited to the consideration of four basic parameters
which are common to the State's criteria for all water
use classifications, i.e., water temperature, dissolved
oxygen, turbidity, and pH. A fifth parameter, bio-
chemical oxygen demand (BOD) is also included since
it is indicative of organic pollutional loading.
Fish condition factors (Kn) for selected stations were
again incorporated in the 1976 report.
Also included in this report is a brief summary of the
Commission's efforts in the monitoring for potychlorin-
ated biphenyls (PCBs) in fish samples collected from
Weiss Lake, an impoundment of the Coosa River in
Northeast Alabama. A high priority was given to this
monitoring as a result of the discovery of elevated PCB
concentrations in fish collected from the Coosa River
below Rome. Georgia.
Water Quality
Trend station data collected in 1976 were compared
to data collected in 1974 and 1975. An increase of 20.8
percent of stations meeting current water quality ob-
jectives was experienced in 1976 as compared to 1975.
In 1975, 43.6 percent of the trend stations met water
quality objectives while 64.4 percent met objectives in
1976. This improvement in water quality will be covered
in various sections of this report.
Many of the trend stations in Alabama were chosen to
monitor specific problem areas in the State, and the
data collected at these locations cannot be used to
evaluate water quality on a statewide basis. The ef-
fectiveness of pollution abatement control shoulQ be
reflected as a gradual increase in the quality of water
at these stations. Additional trend stations have been
added to the Alabama network, and most of those
added were found to meet water quality objectives
in 1976.
At the conclusion of 1976, the State of Alabama had
8,925 miles of classified waters. In excess of 96 per-
cent of these waters had classifications indicative of
water quality equal to a greater than that necessary
to protect fish and aquatic life.
Although there appears to be a vast improvement in
water quality from 1975 to 1976, insufficient data have
been collected thus far to predict any long-term trends.
As the 1975 report stated, approximately five to ten
years of data will be necessary to produce data which
can be used to provide statistical evidence of improved
water quality.
Figure 1 shows the total number of trend stations and
stations meeting water quality objectives.
Nonpoint Source Pollution
The primary objective of the Commission is to deal
with point source pollution. Poor water quality resulting
from nonpoint source pollution has not received a great
amount of study.
Designated areas for the Section 2O8 planning pro-
cess are well under way and are expected to reveal
areas of nonpoint sources and also to provide costs
associated for the attainment of water quality goals
where control of nonpoint source pollution is involved.
The statewide Section 208 planning process was as-
sumed by the Commission in 1976 and is expected to
provide needed information outside the designated
Section 208 project areas.
B—4
-------
APPENDIX B
FIGURE 1
WATER IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
TREND MONITORING STATIONS AND
WATER QUALITY STATUS
1974
1975
1976
Total number of stations
I I Stations meeting water quality objectives
NOTE: Trend stations were chosen to monitor problem areas in
the State and data obtained at these stations are not
indicative of the overall status of the water quality
in the State.
B—5
-------
APPENDIX B
Silviculture
Forest practices guidelines were adopted in 1975
and were continued in 1976 in an effort to address
water quality problems involved in silvicultural-type
operations. In conjunction with these guidelines, the
Commission instigated a program beginning in the sum-
mer of 1975, and carrying through the entire year of
1976. in an effort to generate data which will be help-
ful in gaining some insight into problems associated
with sitvicuttural operations. This program is antici-
pated to continue through 1978.
The Commission has also joined with the State For-
estry Commission in initiating a statewide educational
program designed to make use of radio, television,
newspapers, and training sessions in an effort to edu-
cate all concerned with best management practices in
the silviculture area.
Construction
All State Highway projects which cross State streams
or rivers are reviewed by the Commission's staff during
the early planning stages. Recommendations and sug-
gestions are offered in an effort to mitigate potential
water quality problems which could result from re-
stricted circulation due to highway construction.
The Commission also works jointly with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to review all construction activities.
including dredge and fill projects which may result in a
discharge into State waters. Each project applicant must
obtain a water quality certification from the Commission
before a Federal permit can be issued by the Corps of
Engineers.
All review processes are performed to ensure that any
construction in or contiguous to the waters of the State
will not violate applicable water quality standards either
during construction or as a result of construction.
PCBs and Mercury
In 1976, the Commission continued to monitor levels
of mercury in fish and sediment samples collected in the
Mobile delta. At the present time, mercury levels are
continuing to remain fairly constant since the ban on
commercial fishing was lifted in 1972.
In the late summer of 1976, the Commission's atten-
tion was directed toward PCB concentrations in fish
from the Coosa River following the discovery of high
PCB concentrations in fish collected below Rome.
Georgia. The General Electric Company's plant at Rome,
which began operation about 1954, is the known
source of PCBs to the environment in the Rome area
according to information furnished by Georgia's
Department of Natural Resources.
In August 1976, the Commission's technical staff
collected fish samples from Weiss Lake and, in October,
established a routine monitoring program in the lake.
Fish samples collected from three locations in Lake
Weiss (Alabama-Georgia state line. Cedar Bluff, and
above the dam) revealed higher values in commercial
species and lower values in gamefish. Thirty-seven
pieces of data collected in August, September, and
October can be categorized as that applicable to game-
fish, commercial species, and a combination of gamefish
and commercial species. These data were derived by
compositing the fish samples to produce the average
concentrations which were reported. Six of twenty-one
values applicable to game species exceeded the FDA
tolerance limit of 5 ppm, eleven of thirteen values ap-
plicable to commercial species exceeded the limit, while
none of the three values applicable to a combination of
game and commercial species exceeded the limit.
After reviewing the data, the State Health Department
issued an advisory that "those taking fish from the
Weiss Reservoir should be aware that most recent
analysis of some fish samples from the area had re-
vealed concentrations of PCBs considerably in excess
of the 5.0 ppm recommendation promoted by the Fed-
eral Food and Drug Administration, and individuals
should adjust their consumption accordingly".
The Commission will continue to monitor PCB levels
in fish collected from Weiss Lake, and analytical re-
sults generated by this effort will be forwarded to ap-
propriate governmental agencies for their information
and use.
Fish Mortality Associated
With Nonpoint Source
Pollution
During 1976, thirty fish kills were investigated by the
Commission's staff. Of this number, three were attribut-
able to nonpoint source pollution (Table 1), while during
1974 and 1975, eleven and seven fish kills respectively
were attributable to this same cause. The reduction for
1976 is manifested in the continued reduction of the
number of pesticide-related kills, and it is considered
to be indicative of an increased awareness by commer-
cial applicators of the problems which can result with
the careless use of economic poisons. As the users of
these economic poisons become more aware of the
hazards involved, it is hoped the number of pesticide-
related fish kills will be drastically reduced, if not com-
pletely eliminated.
B—6
-------
APPENDIX B
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF 1976 FISH KILLS BY RIVER BASIN AND CAUSE
Suspected Industrial Industrial and
Number Pesticides Waste Municipal Natural Unknown
Alabama
Cahaba
Coosa
Escambia
Lower Tombigbee
Mobile
Tallapoosa
Tennessee
Warrior
Total
2
2
3
1
1
7
3
932
2
30 3 2
2
1 1
3
1
1
1 1 5
3
4
2
1 2 22
B—7
-------
State of Arizona
Complete copies of the State of Arizona 305(b)
Report can be obtained from the State agency
listed below:
Bureau of Water Quality Control
Division of Environmental Health Services
Arizona Department of Health Services
1740 West Adams St.
Phoenix, AZ 85007
-------
APPENDIX B
Introduction
This report is prepared by the Bureau of Water Quality
Control (BWQC), Arizona Department of Health Serv-
ices, for submission to Region IX. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) in fulfillment of the requirements
set forth in Section 305(b) of Public Law 92-500.
The format of this report follows the suggested guide-
line for the FY 78 report when the Section 305(b) re-
quirement may be merged with other reporting require-
ments.
The document describes the status of the waters of
Arizona during the calendar year 1976. Information
relating to periods prior to this time has been reported
in previous reports. Future reports will cover times sub-
sequent to December 1976.
The report lists the stream segments, by basin with
the designated use assignments, and hence the water
quality standards applicable to each stream segment.
The monitoring activities on the various stream seg-
ments are described and a tabulation shows all observed
violations of the water quality standards. Some discus-
sion is given relative to the violations and some present
any future problems are identified.
In Sections IV and V of this report we discuss the
1983 goals and give our analyses of the administration
of PL 92-500 by the EPA as it impacts Arizona and the
attainment of the 1983 goals.
Section V—Analysis and
Recommendations on Program
This section is written to communicate to the EPA
certain practices in its administration of Public Law 92-
500 that appear to be counter-productive to the ful-
fillment of the intent of the Act. These comments,
based on observations of water quality-related problems
in Arizona, should not be taken as complaints. Rather,
they are given as constructive criticisms in the hope
that where the criticism has foundation, and some
remedy or consideration can be given the apparent
problem, an improvement can be made which will have
a beneficial effect on the quality of the waters of
Arizona.
1. The data base available to the Bureau for a basis of
use designation, standard assignment and for the
determination of water quality, is deficient for many
stream segments. This is partly a result of restric-
tions imposed on the Bureau by the EPA grant
conditions and the direction of the program from
a point not within Arizona. The national objectives
may very well be appropriate on a broad national
scale, but they may not be appropriate on a local
level. We feel that the objectives of the Federal
program within the State should .reflect the needs
as specified by the State. This could be accom-
plished by allowing the State to direct more of the
monitoring effort to specific data needs.
2. The State monitoring program lacks continuity due
to the changing emphasis of the national objec-
tives. In the past four or so years, the emphasis
has changed from intensive surveys to fixed sta-
tion and now back to intensive surveys. A sampling
program designed to gather data on trends or long-
term changes should be maintained for a long
enough period to complete the intent of the pro-
gram. At the same time, there should be a capa-
bility to respond to the need to monitor a problem
area on an appropriate time scale.
3. The nonpoint source permit system or control
methodology appears to not be forthcoming from
EPA. This has a strong negative impact on the
quality of surface waters in Arizona. With the in-
creased control of point source discharge of pol-
lutants, the main major source of pollutants re-
maining is the nonpoint source category.
Closely allied to the nonpoint source problem is
the mining process of acid leaching where sulfuric
acid is sprayed over an area which contains oxide
ore of copper. The copper is leached out of the ore,
the pregnant solution drains to a low point where
it is collected, and the copper solution recovered
for further processing. It is essentially impossible
to collect and recover all the solution. In some
cases, the solution finds its way into the ground-
water, in other cases into the surface waters. In
both cases, pollution of State waters occur from a
definable source. Even though the source is de-
finable, it appears that control of the serious source
of pollution is not controllable via the NPDES per-
mit system.
4. At this time, enforcement of the NPDES permit
system lies within the EPA. It is apparent from the
viewpoint of the State that adequate and timely
enforcement of the permit conditions by the EPA
does not exist. The most obvious lack of enforce-
ment is related to the discharge monitoring report
(DMR) requirement. If this requirement were ful-
filled, and the obvious violations given prompt at-
tention, the overall pollutant discharge from point
sources could be reduced significantly.
5. The southern boundary of Arizona is common
with Mexico. Some of the streams in Arizona enter
the State from Mexico where water quality stand-
ards are not as well protected as they are in Arizona
and as a result, significant pollutants enter the
State from Mexico in these surface waters. The
only apparent organization through which control
of these pollutants can be achieved is the Inter-
national Boundary and Water Commission. It is
suggested that the EPA take a more active role in
this process.
6. During some of the special studies conducted by
BWQC and in the review of standards on Arizona
streams, it is apparent that the criteria used to es-
tablish water quality standards for Arizona waters
were largely established elsewhere in the nation.
To some extent this is a valid procedure; however,
it is a procedure that in some cases results in non-
attainable standards in Arizona and standards that
may be needlessly stringent. The EPA takes the
stand that these standards are sacred and are not
to be compromised. We suggest that in consider-
B—10
-------
APPENDIX B
ation of many factors relevant to the waters of
Arizona (hardness, turbidity, high pH, flood condi-
tions) that may not be relevant to the water con-
ditions from which standards criteria were de-
veloped, the EPA at least consider deviations from
the "national" criteria where valid background data
support standards different than the national
criteria.
This same consideration should apply to the total
impact of the water pollution control program.
Local impacts, where well documented and sub-
stantiated, should be considered on that basis and
not from criteria and decisions made on a national
basis.
7. In looking forward to attaining the goals of PL 92-
50O, there are a few concepts that are ambiguous
and at present not defined adequately for a work-
ing concept. One such concept or term is "naviga-
ble streams". The EPA has a definition of this term
which is different than the U.S. Corps of Engineers
and apparently different than Arizona's "Water of
the State". Inasmuch as there is considerable inter-
face between these three organizations, and the
impact can be significant, a consolidation of needs
based on these definitions should be made. Arizona
feels the need to protect all surface waters, for
which standards are set. This means in some cases
that our definition include dry washes that could,
in case of heavy rain runoff, contribute to a viola-
tion of a perennial stream and cause damage to a
designated user of the stream.
Another concept that needs deviation or definition is
stated in the goals of the Act in the language of "... dis-
charge of pollutants into navigable waters be eliminated
by 1985." What does the EPA consider "discharge of
pollutants"? Is it the discharge of pollutants in an
amount that would cause a violation of the surface
water standards? A policy on this concept would be
helpful in planning and implementing our pollution con-
trol program.
B—11
-------
State of Arkansas
Complete copies of the State of Arkansas 305(b)
Report can be obtained from the State agency
listed below:
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and
Ecology
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, AR 72209
-------
APPENDIX B
Summary
The most significant conclusion from the analysis
of current water quality is that substantially all of
the waters located in the highly agriculturalized Mis-
sissippi Delta Region of Arkansas do not now meet
the 1983 aquatic life and recreational water quality
goals of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972. Further, due to the nature
of the problems, it is considered unlikely that the
goals will be met in these waters by 1983 or any
time in the foreseeable future.
With the exception of the main stem of the White
River, none of the major Arkansas Delta streams meet
all of the water quality requirements for swimming
and for propagation of desirable species of fish and
aquatic life. In most cases, several of the appropriate
parameters are substantially in violation of the mini-
mum requirements. In particular, widespread violations
of fecal coliform, dissolved oxygen and turbidity
standards occur and significant concentrations of
a variety of pesticides are found—including endrin,
diekdrin, DDT and its metabolites and toxaphene.
In the remainder of the State's waters, 1983 water
quality goals are now being met or, with a few notable
exceptions, are expected to be met by 1983. A num-
ber of streams or segments outside the Delta are not
now meeting the goals due to fecal coliform or dis-
solved oxygen problems related to point source
discharges of inadequately treated municipal sewage.
These problems are expected to be cleared up by
1983. Greatest improvements are still expected in
the main stem of the Arkansas River, which has
already shown substantial water quality gains in re-
cent years. Current control programs by industries
involving acid mine drainage should significantly im-
prove long standing problems in a portion of the
state's waters. Whether the streams involved will
improve to the point of meeting the 1983 goal is not
yet definite. Oil field brine problems are sporadic and
widespread. Without a stringent control program,
minimal improvements will be achieved.
In streams where industrial waste discharges occur,
the improvements that have been, or will be, noted
by implementation of the best practicable control
technology (BPT) requirements of PL 92-500 are
often quite significant, but incremental improvements
expected by going from BPT to BAT (best available
control technology) will often be obscured because
of nonpoint source pollutant input to receiving waters.
We now have available the results of the National
Eutrophication Survey. Out of the 16 Arkansas lakes
studied in this project, 8 have been classed as eutrophic
and 8 as mesotrophic. Also, algal assays were used to
determine the limiting nutrient in each lake. The existing
annual phosphorus loading is compared to the relation-
ship proposed by VoltenwekJer (1975).
Regular water quality monitoring is presently
performed on approximately 6,139 miles of the State's
potentially fishabte, swimmabte streams. From a purely
water quality standpoint, all of these streams would
be suitable for the above uses in the absence of man's
influence. However, considering the present effects
of man's influences on the quality of these waters,
it is projected that 4,537 miles or 74 percent will meet
the 1983 goals of PL 92-5OO. This leaves 1,602 miles
or 26 percent that will not meet the goals, generally,
because of nonpoint source pollution.
In 1976, an updated sewerage works "needs" survey
for Arkansas was completed. The total projected ex-
penditure needed for the correction of all categories of
sewage problems was calculated to be $633,917,OOO.
There are 349 Arkansas towns—without any type
of sewer system—which represent a population of
77,065. Approximately 33 of these communities
either have plans completed or construction projects
underway for new sewage collection and treatment
systems.
Very little data have been collected as yet on the type
of treatment needed and costs necessary to meet BPT
and BAT requirements for industrial dischargers in
1977 and 1983, respectively.
There are three major groups of industries in Arkan-
sas that are significant both for the number of people
employed and for their polluting potential. These include
the food products industry, the forestry-related pro-
ducts industry, the chemical products industry, and the
petroleum refining industry. Rough treatment costs esti-
mates were made on various segments of these indus-
tries; however, these at best provide only vague indica-
tions of total cost.
The EPA has made recent proposals relative to permit
requirements for point source discharges from concen-
trated feedlots, silvicultural activities and agricultural
operations—including irrigation return flows. As yet, we
have no information on control costs for these point
sources. It might be noted, however, that the establish-
ment of permit requirements for agricultural discharges,
such as irrigation return flows and fish farming opera-
tions, will have considerable impact in terms of admin-
istrative costs alone in a highly agriculturalized state
such as Arkansas with concomitant benefits being
rather unlikely.
Information on nonpoint source control cost is
totally lacking. The implementation of Section 208 plan-
ning should produce such information.
An assessment of social and economic benefits result-
ing from pollution control programs must first consider
the many aspects of recreation found in and on the
waters of the State. There are approximately 10,OOO
miles of fishable streams and 600,000 acres of man-
made and natural lakes in Arkansas. During 1976,
504.298 resident fishing licenses were sold in the State.
Also in 1976, 91,005 trout stamps were issued. The
State ranked 7th nationally by selling 243,275 non-
resident fishing licenses.
There are 32 state parks in Arkansas, most of which
feature water-based recreational facilities. Visitors num-
bered 3,919,083 in these parks in 1976. There are an
estimated 300,000 boats on Arkansas' waters, with
boating activities including fishing, sailing, waterskiing
and canoeing. During 1976, over 31.8 million people
visited the 25 U.S. Corps of Engineers projects in the
State. It is obvious that water-based recreation provides
B—14
-------
APPENDIX B
vast economic and social benefits to the people of Ar-
kansas and that preventing and controlling water pol-
lution is a significant factor in preserving and enhancing
these benefits.
Evaluating nonpoint source water pollution in Arkan-
sas and developing control programs for the various
categories of such pollution is now underway following
the areawide wastewater management planning provi-
sions of Section 208 of PL 92-500.
As has been mentioned, agricultural nonpoint source
pollution is the most significant category in Arkansas.
The erosion control programs of the U.S. Soil Conser-
vation Service, if completely implemented, would result
in considerable improvement in the quality of runoff
from agricultural watersheds, but it is questionable if
this program alone would allow water quality goals to be
met. This would, however, be an important step and the
solution of the financial problems that have retarded
implementation of this program would be welcome.
The severity of nonpoint source pollution from wide-
spread silvicultural activities in Arkansas is an area of
considerable question and controversy. Representatives
of all aspects of forestry interests as well as the general
public have considered the problem and recommended
specific steps to define and control the problems that
are found to exist. The formation of a research task
force for this and other areas of nonpoint source pol-
lution is being considered as a part of the Section 208
planning program.
Information on nonpoint source pollution related to
construction activities and urban runoff will be forth-
coming following the completion of Section 208 studies
planned, or in progress, for the areas designated as
having substantial water quality control problems as a
result of urban-industrial concentrations, or other
factors. These designated areas are Texarkana-Miller
County, Little Rock-North Little Rock, Fort Smith and
Pine Bluff.
Additionally, Statewide Section 2O8 studies are be-
ginning for the nondesignated areas of the State. The
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology
is the designated agency for performing these studies.
B—15
-------
State of Connecticut
Complete Copies of the State of Connecticut
305(b) Report can be obtained from the State
agency listed below:
Division of Water Compliance and Hazardous
Substances
Department of Environmental Protection
165 Capitol Avenue
Hartford,CT06115
-------
APPENDIX B
Summary
Water Quality Monitoring
The State of Connecticut presently operates two
types of monitoring programs. These two programs are
dissimilar in nature because they have been established
for different purposes.
The first program is the short-term intensive water
quality program which generates a large volume of
water quality data during a relatively short period of
time (several days). The purpose of these data is to pro-
vide a "complete description" of water quality in a cri-
tical stream segment during critical conditions (low flow
and high temperature). The value of this program is that
with the data generated by this monitoring program,
mathematical representations of water quality reactions
can be used to predict treatment levels which will result
in achieving or maintaining water quality standards.
The second program is the long-term or trend moni-
toring program. This program monitors water quality
over a long period so that water quality trends may be
discerned. The value of this program is that document-
ation of water quality changes provides the basis of
evaluating the effectiveness of water pollution control
programs, and indicates a need to redirect or expand
current water pollution control efforts.
Long-Term Trend Monitoring
A long-term trend monitoring network or primary
monitoring network was established in 1967. This net-
work consisted of 96 stations throughout the State.
Sample collection and analysis were accomplished
during the spring, summer, and fall for a total of three
samples per station per year. Parameteric coverage con-
sisted of physical, chemical, and bacteriological para-
meters. This network was replaced by a new monitoring
network which was initiated in July, 1973.
The monitoring network started in July of 1973 con-
sisted of 42 stations throughout the state. Samples
were collected monthly and were analyzed for physical
chemical and bacteriological parameters. Additionally,
sediment samples were analyzed once a year.
It was expected that this minimum program could
eventually be increased to 90 stations as additional
funding became available. Unfortunately, due to severe
budget restraints, the program was cut back again in
August, 1976. These changes provide for monthly
sampling at 35 stations and quarterly sampling at three
stations. Two stations were eliminated from the pro-
gram. An added benefit was gained, however, in that
the U.S. Geological Survey agreed to supply data on
instream loadings of various parameters as well as
concentrations.
Linear Regression Analysis
In March, 1977, the data gathered by the State's
long-term trend monitoring network were used to make
an analysis which would discern any statistically valid
trends over the period of record. The linear regression
analysis uses a time-dependent variable (along with
other variables such as flow and temperature), to iden-
tify trends in the data.
The findings of this study overwhelmingly indicate
that water quality in the State of Connecticut is improv-
ing. Of the 92 tests performed, 67 or 73 percent show
signs of improvement. Of these 35, 40 percent show
improvement at the 90 percent level of confidence; and
35 tests show that the rate of improvement is significant.
Also of importance is the finding that of 92 tests per-
formed only 5 percent show signs of degradation.
As the data base improves and expands in terms of
the number of measurements, it is expected that the
data will show stronger trends. Most of these trends are
already in the direction of improvement. As more meas-
urements are available the trend of improvement should
be strengthened.
Most of the improvement which this study reveals is
due to the control of point source pollution through the
application of best practicable wastewater treatment
technology. As the State Water Pollution Control Pro-
gram progresses to application of advanced waste treat-
ment systems and, as necessary, control of nonpoint
source pollution, additional improvements in Water
quality can be expected.
Basin Planning—Section 303(e)
The draft Phase I basin plans were submitted to EPA
in June 1976. These plans included loading allocations
for wastes quality limited segments where feasible. Load
allocations for more complex systems, or systems with
incomplete data bases are still being analyzed. Much of
the remaining analysis will be incorporated into the
Phase II basin plans now under preparation as indicated
in the annual state strategy for water pollution control.
It should be noted that if the November 1978 court
stipulated deadline for submission of Phase II plans is
not extended, the Phase II plans will become shallow
documents perpared to meet the requirements and not
a comprehensive planning tool as originally designed,
Areawide Waste Treatment Manage-
ment Planning—Section 208
In 1976, the EPA awarded Connecticut a $1,000,000
grant to conduct Section 208 planning on a statewide
basis. This program as conceived in the Section 208
application consists of studies dealing with land use/
water quality, lake eutrophication, groundwater con-
tamination, erosion and sedimentation, agricultural
runoff, and disposal of sludges from wastewater
treatment facilities. The Project Control Plan which
established the study structures and goals of the
$1,000,000 Section 208 program will be submitted to
EPA in March 1977.
It should be noted that a statewide Section 208 pro-
gram cannot be completed with the present level of
funding. Latest estimates indicate that an additional
$4,000,000 is necessary to conduct a complete and
comprehensive Section 208 program in Connecticut.
The Statewide 208 Board has sued the EPA for fail-
ure to provide sufficient funds for the Connecticut pro-
B—18
-------
APPENDIX B
gram because of the impoundment of the 137 million
dollars of Section 208 monies. Connecticut and the EPA
have signed a stipulated agreement which will provide
the statewide board with an additional 3.5 million dol-
lars if the impounded funds are released. Even if the
additional monies are approved, it is extremely doubtful
that a Section 208 plan can be completed by November
1978.
Facilities Planning—Section 201
The general cost breakdown for Section 201 con-
struction grants is given in Figure 3-1 of the report.
Specific grants by municipality are given in Appendix E
of the report, the Construction Grants List. Advanced
waste treatment grant allocations reflect load allocation
analysis from complete Section 303(e) plans.
NPDES Permit Program-
Section 402
In 1976, 39 NPDES Permits were issued. This brings
the total issued since 1975 to 628. Following the re-
moval of chlorination as an intergal part of "secondary
treatment" the State plans to modify extending NPDES
permits to require chlorination as necessary to meet
water quality. Year-round chlorination of effluents dis-
charged to small receiving streams will be required, but
seasonal chlorination between May 1 and October 1 of
each year will be allowed for effluent discharges to
major streams. This policy will take effect on October
1,1977.
Past Activities
Connecticut began a statewide program of compre-
hensive water pollution control in 1925 when it estab-
lished the State Water Commission. This commission
established a pollution abatement program in con-
junction with the State Department of Health. In 1957,
the State Legislature superceeded this commission with
the Water Resources Commission. Connecticut drafted
the Clean Water Act in 1967. This act called for the
restoration of water quality consistent with the uses and
wishes of the States's citizens. The subsequent water
quality standards prepared by the State in 1967, were
approved in total by the Federal Government in 1970.
These stream classifications were revised in 1973 by
the State to reflect water quality improvements. The
Water Resources Commission acted as the State Water
Pollution Control Agency until the present Department
of Environmental Protection (DEP) was established by
the General Assembly in 1971.
The State's water quality goals, prior to 1972, did not
require a minimum standard of "B" for every stream in
Connecticut. The new goals, in part a result of the 1972
Amendments, will have effects on future growth and
development patterns, due to the cost of attaining and
maintaining these goals. State programs for clean water
have attempted to address water quality problems
which result from many sources including septic system
failures, the discharge of inadequately treated domestic
sewage and industrial wastes, periodic raw sewage dis-
charge resulting from combined storm and sanitary
sewer systems, and the effect of groundwater and
surface water inflow and infiltration to sewers as well
as those of urban runoff and other sources. Much of
the momentum gained under Connecticut's Clean Water
Program initiated in 1967 was reduced when the State
could no longer pre-finance water pollution control
projects. The momentum was further reduced due to
several procedural requirements of PL 92-500.
Progress
In 1976, the DEP's Water Compliance Unit conducted
a survey to determine the progress made in upgrading
water quality. The survey found that since 1967, 165
stream miles or 25 percent of all State streams requiring
upgrading have been improved to comply with the
1983 water quality goals. These improvements are
mainly attributable to the success of the State's pro-
gram in expanding and upgrading treatment plants to
secondary treatment providing extensions of sewer ser-
vice where needed, eliminating or providing appro-
priate treatment of industrial waste discharges, and
eliminating a number of raw sewage discharges caused
by sewer system infiltration and combined storm and
sanitary sewer systems.
A summary of the water quality inventory (Table 2-1
of the report) indicates that all basins suffer from non-
point source pollution in varying degrees. Large river
basins with water quality limited segments like the Con-
necticut River Basin are hampered in improvement
efforts because of combined sewer and nonpoint source
problems. The Draft Phase I Section 303 (e) basin plans
have developed strategies for meeting future water
quality needs. The progress of improving water quality
will depend largely on the levels of Federal construction
funding realized for this purpose, especially with respect
to allocations for combined sewerage facility correction
which are presently non-existant, and where adminis-
tration requirements limit the ability to realize project
goals with the available funds.
B—19
-------
State of Delaware
Complete copies of the State of Delaware 305(b)
Report can be obtained from the State agency listed
below:
Division of Environmental Control
Department of Natural Resources and Environmen-
tal Control
Tatnall Building, Capitol Complex
Dover, DE 19901
-------
APPENDIX B
Executive Summary
Delaware's streams are generally in very good con-
dition. As reported last year, ten stream segments are
already meeting the 1983 goals of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Amendments of 1972. All streams
should be able to meet these goals by 1983.
Most of Delaware's streams support the propagation
and maintenance of fish and wildlife. The major area
where this is not the case is the Delaware River from the
State Line to the vicinity of the Chesapeake and Delaware
Canal where pollution prevents some, though not all,
species from flourishing. Improvements in this section of
the river remain dependent upon the upgrading of major
industrial and municipal treatment facilities upstream in
the States of Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
The elimination and/or control of point sources in the
stream basins have highlighted the significance of non-
point sources which include man-made pollution from
urban and industrial areas, and natural pollution from
wildlife and waterfowl. During the remainder of this de-
cade, Delaware will concentrate on quantifying the effect
of the nonpoint source problems and implement control
strategies. Completion of areawide waste management
planswillassisttheStateinthiseffort. Table 1 summarizes
Delaware'swaterquality.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has dele-
gated to the Department of Natural Resources and Envi-
ronmental Control (DNREC) the authority to issue
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits. These permits establish a timetable for
meeting State and Federal requirements of best prac-
ticable control technology by July 1, 1977. Permit re-
quirements have also eliminated a number of minor dis-
charges which are presently connected to wastewater
collection and treatment systems or converted to
another type of discharge, that is, spray irrigation.
Delaware's Water Quality Management Program is a
continuing program. It recognizes that issuance of per-
mits alone does not mean achievement of all standards.
It takes years for plans and programs to be fully imple-
mented, and additional time for stream segments to
recover. In some estuaries it may not be possible to meet
shellfish and swimming criteria for total and fecal coliform
bacteria because of the substantial migratory bird pop-
ulation.
The State has a continuing concern with ground water
quality degradation and is taking forceful action to pre-
vent it. The experience with landfills that have resulted in
aquifer contamination has led to the establishment of
strict, new standards for such disposal methods. Accord-
ingly, both their location and their construction are care-
TABLE 1
1976 SEGMENT EVALUATION
Segment
description
Naaman's Creek
Brandywine Creek
White Clay Creek
Upper Christina
Lower Christina
Red Lion Creek
Chesapeake & Delaware Canal
Blackbird-Appoquinimink
Chesapeake Drainage System
Smyrna River
Leipsic River
St. John's River
Choptank River
Murderkill River
Mispillion River
Cedar Creek
Broadkill River
Nanticoke River
Indian River
Little Assawoman
Buntings Branch
Segment
number
1
2
3
4
4
. 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Classification
WQL/EL
EL
EL
EL
WQL
EL
WQL
WQL
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
WQL
WQL
WQL
EL
EL
State priority
15
12
7
1
1
1O
9
4
19
11
14
6
20
13
16
17
8
3
2
5
18
Delaware River— River Mile 78.8 to River Mile 59.5
59.5 to River Mile 48.2
Delaware Bay
Atlantic Ocean
Evaluation of
water quality
III
1
II
II
III
II
1
II
1
II
II
II
1
II
II
II
III
1
1
II
III
III
II
1
1
NOTE: A detailed assessment of each segment is provided in the text of this report.
KEY:
I —Waters of good to excellent water quality which basically meets all water quality criteria with only minor, infrequent violations
of water quality standards.
II —Waters of fair to good water quality which periodically have some problems in one or more water quality criteria.
Ill—Waters in which there is a perennial problem in meeting one or more water quality criteria. Most of these are tidal waters
impacted by the natural process of the estuarine system.
B—22
-------
APPENDIX B
fully regulated.
The expanding population of Delaware has also in-
creased the demand for septic tank use and this, too, is
being carefully scrutinized and regulated.
Delaware also faceseutrophication problems in most of
its lakes and ponds. The Department has cooperated with
the EPA in the National Eutrophication Survey of Se-
lected Ponds in the State of Delaware.
Another problem enumerated last year is the encroach-
ment of urban development along the shores of the inland
bays. The growth rate of such development has been
slowed because of economic conditions, but the potential
exists for accelerated growth with the improvement of
the economy.
Cost estimates for wastewater treatment facilities con-
tinue to be high. Many water and related land use activities
will, it is hoped, reduce the total costs through non-
structure control programs.
In order to provide a uniform basis for various planning
activities, a special consortium of planners representing
all interested parties was created to study population
projection procedures. This effort has resulted in a new
population forecast for the coming decade which will be
used by all agencies.
This summarizes Delaware's problems and its plans to
cope with them as we move to make all of our water
quality compatible with the goals established by
Congress.
B—23
-------
District of Columbia
Complete copies of the District of Columbia 305(b)
Report can be obtained from the State Agency listed
below:
Department of Environmental Services
Water Resources Management Administration
415-12th St. NW Room 307
Washington, D.C. 20004
-------
APPENDIX B
Current Water Quality And
Recent Trends
Potomac and Anacostia Rivers
Both the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers are tidal with-
in the D.C. area, although the average difference between
high and low tide during the summer is only 2.5 feet.
However, the water is fresh, that is, less than 0.5 parts per
thousand (0.5 ppt or 5,000 mg/l) total salinity. Period-
ically, according to the very limited sampling which is
discussed in the report in more detail, the so-called "fish-
able, swimmable" water quality standards were violated
in the three existing Potomac River segments and also
the single Anacostia River segments within D.C. (If the
proposed revisions of the water quality standards are
approved, the Potomac River segments will be reduced
from the existing three to two.)
However, if fishing itself can be considered biological
monitoring, the Potomac River within the D.C. area has
become "fishabte" even for largemouth bass, which nor-
mally thrive only in water of reasonably good quality. The
twelve members of the Potomac Bassmasters of Virginia
held their first Potomac bass fishing tournament in Nov-
ember 1976. During this tournament 33 pounds of large-
mouth bass were caught.
Small Tributaries of The Potomac
and Anacostia Rivers (D.C. Area)
Rock Creek, Single Branch, Kimble Branch, Mickey
Run, Watts Branch, Brackma Branch and Oxon Run are
small streams in the densely developed D.C. urban area.
These streams are affected by all of the contaminants in
urban storm runoff as well as the sewage portion of
overflows from the combined sewer system. During and
immediately after storms, they tend to be turbid, par-
ticularly Rock Creek and Oxon Run, with silt from ero-
sion of soils, some of which comes from upstream in the
Maryland suburbs. Rock Creek and Oxon Run are both
classified for fish and wildlife propagation, and Rock
Creek is designated for wading as a future use. The water
quality monitoring program for these streams is insuf-
ficient to generalize, but during and after storms they
probably do not meet so-called "fishable-swimmable"
water quality standards.
B—26
-------
State of Florida
Complete copies of the State of Florida 305(b)
Report can be obtained from the State Agency
listed below:
Department of Pollution Control
2562 Executive CenterCircle
Tallahassee, FL32301
-------
APPENDIX B
Summary
The water resources of Florida are among the most
unique, valuable, and widespread of any State in the na-
tion. The shoreline of Florida fronts on the Gulf of Mexico
and the Atlantic Ocean. Including salt-water rivers, islands,
bays, and sounds, the shoreline extends for nearly 11,000
linear miles. Inland waters include 1,711 named streams
ranging in length from 0.4 miles to 818 miles. There are
7,712 named and unnamed lakes ranging in size from one
acre to almost one- half million acres. The only living coral
reef in the continental United States forms the eastern
barrier of the Florida Keys.
The wildlife resources of Florida waters are numerous
and diverse. Commercially valuable fisheries harvest
shellfish andfinfish. Water sports, including sport fishing,
in conjunction with the mild climate, act as attractions to
the millions of tourists who visit Florida annually.
Freshwater streams are being considered as potential
sources of potable waterforthe rapidly growing metropo-
litan areas of southern Florida, and these streams are
being proposed for impoundment and industrial develop-
ment. Maintaining the quality of its waters must be a high
priority of the State, since the economy of Florida, more
than that of most other states, relies on activities which
depend upon the aesthetics and the natural resources as-
sociated with plentiful supplies of clean, high quality water.
Even though clean waters are an economic asset of
considerable value to the people of Florida, considerable
stresses have been placed on the aquatic systems of Flo-
rida by industrial development and by the rapid, recent
population increase. (Florida's population has increased
by the greatest absolute number of any State in the past
few years, and it has been projected to grow substantially
by 1985). Florida waters are polluted from several sour-
ces. Industrial polluters include agricultural processors,
chemical plants, paper mills, and electrical power plants.
Domestic wastes from households and wastes from smal-
ler commercial operations are discharged to the waters of
the State by sewage treatment plants, ocean outfalls, and
septic tank drainage. Pollutants not attributable to speci-
fic sources include storm runoff from urban areas; drain-
age from farms, forests, and mines; intrusion of salt-
water into depleted freshwater aquifers; and discharges
from ports and marinas. Another major source of pollu-
tion in Florida is dredge and fill activities involving the
destruction of submerged lands and wetlands, disposal
of dredged spoil, and shoreline alteration.
This latter source of pollution is a particular problem in
Florida. Large numbers of people from other parts of the
country are retiring here or building vacation houses.
This influx of people has contributed to large demands
for water-front property. This has been met by land
developments in which canals have been filled, and canal-
front lots constructed. These land use practices have
stressed the aquatic ecosystem by eliminating natural
drainage and allowing poor water quality conditions to
develop, by removing productive wetlands from the eco-
system, by reducing the habitat available for larval fish
and shellfish,and by reducing the capacity of the wetlands
to filter pollutants from runoff. These problems, taken
together, make uncontrolled proliferation of canal sys-
tems and shoreline alteration a serious long-term Florida
water quality problem. In the long term, these activities
may have the potential to damage or to destroy many of
the aesthetics and natural resources which originally at-
tracted retirees and vacationers to Florida.
More immediate water quality problems are related to
cultural eutrophication, the human aided and abetted in-
crease in the rate of aging of a body of water. Data pre-
sented in this report show that the levels of nutrients
(nitrogen and phosphorus) in almost every basin segment
in Florida are higher than the accepted norms. Secondary
water quality problems demonstrated by data in this re-
port include low levels of dissolved oxygen and high
populations of coliform bacteria. More rarely, high levels
of phytoplankton are found.
The State of Florida has responded to the problem of
water pollution by adopting and implementing a number
of environmental protection statutes (for example. Chap-
ters 253,373, and 403, F.S.). In Florida, the Department
of Environmental Regulation is the administering agency
for programs under the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act of 1972 (PL 92-500). The goals of the Federal and
State programs are to manage discharge of domestic and
industrial waste, to control nonpoint source pollution, and
to regulate alteration of bottoms and shorelines of State
waters. The State has also adopted minimun conditions
for the quality of its waters and has established a water
quality classification based on the uses of water bodies.
Point discharges of domestic and industrial wastes are
permitted under State and Federal (NPDES) programs.
Nonpoint source pollution will be managed by the State
and by the areawide Section 208 programs and by man-
agement practices to reduce pollutants in runoff. The
State has a well-developed permitting system to require
permits for construction projects affecting submerged
lands and wetlands. Such projects are evaluated for im-
mediate and long-term impacts on the aquatic ecosys-
tem. These programs are discussed in more detail in
Chapters II and III of this report.
In 1976, ten bodies of water in the State did not consis-
tently meet the Class III water use criteria (safe for recrea-
tion and fish and wildlife). Six of these waters are expected
to be consistently within these criteria by 1985. Maintain-
ing and enhancing water quality in the waters of the State
will require more advanced treatment of domestic wastes,
control of nonpoint sources of pollution, and greater pro-
tection of wetlands. These programs are necessary to
maintain the quality of the Florida environment, and they
will become even more urgent if the population increases
as rapidly as has been projected.
B—28
-------
State of Georgia
plete copies of the State of Georgia 305(b)
>rt can be obtained from the State agency listed
w:
ronmental Protection Division
irtment of Natural Resources
270 Washington St., S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30334
-------
APPENDIX B
Summary
Monitoring Trends in Georgia's
Waters
In order to monitor trends in water quality in Georgia's
streams, reservoirs and coastal waters, the State main-
tains 120 water quality monitoring stations. These are
located on major water bodies at sites which reflect
much of the human impact on the State's waterways.
Information from intensive surveys, special studies and
operating reports from wastewater treatment facilities
is used along with data from the trend stations to pro-
vide an adequate reflection of the quality of the State's
waters.
Several lengths of streams improved in water quality
during 1976. The Cattahoochee River downstream
from Atlanta continued to improve as a result of up-
grading of treatment at the R. M. Clayton wastewater
treatment facility. Similar improvements occurred in
the Chattahoochee River downstream from the City of
Columbus. Water quality also continued to improve in
the Conasauga River downstream from the City of
Dalton, a highly industrialized area.
No worsening of water quality was documented at
any of the trend monitoring sampling sites during 1976.
Water Quality Standards
During 1976, Georgia conducted a review of its
water quality standards. As a result, twenty-six of the
thirty-seven stream segments having a classification
lower than fishing were reclassified to fishing. Seven
additional stream segments had their classification up-
graded to fishing with specific conditions of exception.
Most of Georgia's waters met applicable water quality
criteria during 1976. Most violations were related,to
municipal or industrial wastewater discharges or urban
runoff; the most significant violations were in the
Atlanta vicinity. Fecal coliform bacterial density con-
tinued to be the most violated criterion. As new waste-
water treatment facilities are constructed and operation
and maintenance improves there should be a reduction
in water quality violations.
Water Quality Management
During 1976. the requirements of PL 92-500 Sec-
tions 3O3(e), (continuing planning) and 208 (area-wide
planning) were combined. Thus, the State's continuing
planning and areawide wastewater treatment manage-
ment planning.
In June, EPA approved Section 208 grant applica-
tions for the State and three designated areawide agen-
cies totaling 62.313,250. These grants provide 75
percent Federal funding.
In 1976, Georgia developed a detailed work plan for
Statewide water quality management. The work plan
relies heavily on the fifteen first edition river basin
plans completed in 1975. Phase 2 water quality manage-
ment plans will include areawide wastewater treatment
management with four areawide management plans.
State water quality management strategy, second edi-
tion river basin management plans, and nonpoint pol-
lution control best management practices.
The Environmental Protection Division continued its
participation as one of four voting members of the
Atlanta Water Resources Study. During 1976, a waste-
water treatment management plan was completed and
adopted by the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC)
and concurred with by the State.
Other water quality management projects conducted
in 1976 included a low-flow requirements study for the
Coosa River at Rome, the City of Savannah water re-
sources study (conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers), and areawide wastewater treatment man-
agement planning in the Chattanooga area.
Facility Status
At the present time in Georgia, 124 of 132 "major"
industrial facilities are considered to be capable of
providing best practicable control technology currently
available (BPT). Of the 413 "minor" discharges, over
half are providing BPT treatment. Many of the remain-
ing minor discharges are non-contact cooling water and
boiler blowdowns. During 1976. many industrial dis-
chargers were in the process of major construction pro-
jects to upgrade their systems. These projects included
expansions of activated sludge systems, complete re-
cycle systems, installation of filter systems, and land
application systems.
Over 99 percent of the municipal wastewaters in
Georgia are now receiving some form of secondary
biological treatment. In many cases, however, this is
still insufficient to meet water quality standards in
receiving streams. In those cases, treatment facilities
must be upgraded. In 1976, 41 facilities had con-
struction projects completed which have a total design
flow of almost 42 million gallons per day. In addition,
seventeen inadequately treated discharges were elimi-
nated and the flow diverted to adequate treatment facil-
ities. As more facilities are upgraded there will be more
emphasis on facility operation and adequate industrial
pretreatment.
Permits
The State of Georgia has had the authority to ad-
minister the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System in Georgia since June 1974. Since that time,
737 NPDES permits have been issued: 284 to municipal
dischargers, 347 to industrial dischargers, and 106
to private and institutional dischargers. During 1976,
14 municipal, 121 industrial and 1 private and institu-
tional NPDES permits were issued. The problem of
issuing five-year permits to municipalities which cannot
meet the July 1, 1977, effluent deadlines specified in
PL 92-500 is primarily responsible for the small number
of municipal permits issued in 1976. Approximately 6
percent of the total wastewater volume in Georgia re-
mains to be permitted.
B—30
-------
APPENDIX B
Compliance, Operation and
Maintenance, Enforcement
To maintain compliance with applicable State laws,
regulations, and permit conditions, the Environmental
Protection Division (EPD) employs several methods.
These include review of self-monitoring data, facility
inspections, effluent sampling, complaint investigations,
technical assistance, and enforcement actions. Com-
pliance sampling inspections were made at many facil-
ities during the year and the results compared with
permit requirements. The EPD attempts to sample every
major discharge at least once a year. In addition com-
prehensive operation and maintenance (O & M) in-
spections were completed at 120 municipal facilities.
All major industrial discharges were inspected. The
0 & M inspections at municipal facilities have shown
the major problems to be: Significant infiltration and
inflow to sewer systems; inadequate manpower and
training of operators; little or no pre-treatment of
industrial wastes; and, inadequate budgets to operate
and maintain the systems.
As a result of the sampling and operation and main-
tenance inspections, eight administrative and consent
orders or fines were issued to enforce water quality
requirements in 1976.
Abatement Costs
Funds for constructing municipal systems in Georgia
come from several sources. In 1976, approximately
62.5 percent was received through the Environmental
Protection Agency's construction grants program. Local
governments provided 20.6 percent, and the remainder
came from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, the Farmers Home Administration, the
Appalachian Regional Commission, and State grants.
In 1976, another municipal Needs Survey was com-
pleted which estimated $1.29 billion for construction of
sewers, force mains, pumping stations and wastewater
treatment plants. An additional need of $342 million
was estimated to correct infiltration and inflow prob-
lems, construct new collector sewers, and to correct
problems from combined sewer overflows. In 1976, ap-
proximately $136 million was spent for wastewater
projects. Most of this money—77 percent—was spent
in Georgia's urban areas and the rest went to smaller
communities; however, more grants were awarded to
smaller municipalities.
The operational costs for municipal facilities are very
significant. These costs are rising rapidly, especially for
energy requirements.
Since Federal funds are not involved, costs estimates
for construction and improvements in industrial sys-
tems are not as reliable as those for municipal facilities.
However, to meet the 1977 Federal effluent guidelines,
it is estimated that $50 million in capital expenditure
would be necessary to install or upgrade industrial
systems. The expenditure which will be required to meet
the 1983 Federal effluent guidelines is very uncertain.
Since promulgation of best available technology eco-
nomically achievable (BAT) effluent limitations have had
a constantly fluctuating status, little detailed planning
has been done. The best estimate of these costs is
about $200-250 million.
The accomplishment of the national water quality
goal for 1983, to have all waters meet "fishable"
or "swimmable" water quality, is uncertain at this time
in Georgia. Hundreds of streams are subject to urban
runoff; water quality data exist on only a few of them.
In addition, there are many industries and municipalities
that are discharging to small streams where very high
degrees of treatment would be required. Although
facilities planning is in progress at this time, it may not
be financially or administratively possible for all the
municipalities to implement the necessary programs. If
Federal grant-allocations to Georgia of about $100 mil-
lion per year are made for the next five years, nearly
every stream receiving discharges could probably meet
fishing standards by 1983.
Nonpoint Source Pollution
Nonpoint source pollution control in Georgia is being
carefully studied and evaluated as a part of areawide
(Section 208) planning. Seven categories of potential
nonpoint source pollution have been identified for study.
Task forces will be established to make an assessment of
these sources and develop practices for controlling
them. In 1976 the State Soil and Water Conservation
Committee prepared a document entitled Manual for
Erosion and. Sediment Control in Georgia. Other agen-
cies involved in nonpoint source pollution control are
the Land Reclamation Section and the Groundwater Use
Program of the Environmental Protection Division, and
the Coastal Marshlands Protection Committee of the
Department of Natural Resources.
Emergency Pollution
Approximately 156 oil and hazardous material spills
were reported to the Environmental Protection Division
in 1976, 40 percent of which were greater than 500
gallons. Most of the reported spills were of petroleum
products which reached a waterway. Most spills did not
occur during transportation of the spilled material.
A total of $9,500.00 was assessed and collected from
persons responsible for hazardous material spills dur-
ing 1976.
Operator Training
In order to improve operation and maintenance of
water supply and wastewater treatment facilities and to
assist operators in development and in passing State
certification examinations, the State conducted sixteen
courses at the water and wastewater institute, four
short schools, and four on-the-job training courses.
Total attendance was 511.
During 1976, the Georgia Water and Wastewater
Technical School at the South Georgia Vocational Tech-
nical School at Americus was terminated and the Georgia
Water and Wastewater Institute was established at West
B—31
-------
APPENDIX B
Georgia College in Carrollton. One acre of land, adjacent
to a Carrollton wastewater treatment facility, has been
donated to the State by the City of Carrollton and will be
the site of a new training center. This new facility, to be
built with Federal Section 109(b) funds, will be designed
during 1977 and construction will be completed in
1978.
Public Participation
During 1976, the State continued its contract with
the Georgia Conservancy which included: Publication
of the monthly newsletter entitled Georgia Waterline;
conducting a one-day public seminar in Atlata to dis-
cuss the State water quality control program activities,
the State program plan, and the State program goals.
accomplishments, and objectives; and conducting a
series of ten public meetings at various locations
throughout the State to discuss the State program.
State program plan and local problems with the public
and local officials. Each of these activities was very suc-
cessful and the contract was renewed for FY 1977.
Additional activities to encourage public participation
included: The placement of draft copies of the FY 1977
Georgia Water Quality Control Program Plan in each of
the Division's regional offices, in the Georgia Con-
servancy offices, and in four college libraries for public
reference and review; a public hearing on FY 1976-
FY 1977 Project Priority Funding list; a public hearing
on the review of water quality standards and water use
classifications; and, a public meeting to discuss the
State Continuing Planning Process.
B—32
-------
Guam
Complete copies of the Guam 305(b) Report can
be obtained from the State agency listed below:
Guam Environmental Protection Agency
Box2999
Agana, Guam 96910
-------
APPENDIX B
Water Quality Assessment
Coastal Waters
Coastal waters surrounding Guam are often referred
to as recreational waters where people enjoy swimming,
fishing, diving, surfing, etc. These waters are of con-
siderable value as long as they remain clean and useful,
provide numerous benefits to the Island people, and
attract many tourists. Another value of Guam's coastal
waters (not apparently understood by many people) is
that they serve as a nursery for the offspring of many
species of marine life.
The Guam Environmental Protection Agency (GEPA)
routinely collects samples from our coastal waters and
analyzes them for fecal coliform bacteria. The presence
of these organisms in high concentrations indicates that
the sampled area has been polluted by the fecal dis-
charge from warmblooded animals, including humans.
As such, the area is to be considered unsafe for human
contact. The GEPA designates the areas where the fecal
coliform count is between 500 to 1,000 per 100 milli-
liters of the sample as "moderately polluted'' areas. If
the count exceeds 1,000 then the area will be termed as
"heavily polluted." The "polluted" areas are published
weekly in the PDN to guide people in recreational use of
surface waters.
Table 1 shows the results of the bacterial examina-
tion of our coastal waters from March through Decem-
ber 1976. The 16 stations have an average frequency
of pollution slightly less than 8 percent; 40 percent of
this occurred in three days; March 31, May 12, and
July 19. On these days, many areas showed moderate
to heavy pollution. This is associated with heavy rainfall
and the subsequent stormwater discharge into the
coastal waters. In its journey towards the sea, the
stormwater transports pollution from the watershed
area, failing leaching fields and, to a certain extent, over-
flowing sewer lines. One station. Sleepy Lagoon, has a
combined frequency of pollution of 21 percent result-
ing from the overflow of the sewer fringing the bay
because of the inflow of the stormwater into the public
sewer system. The other bad areas are Agat/Gaan
Point. Santos Memorial Park, and the War Memorial
Park, each of which had a combined frequency of 18
percent.
TABLE 1
BACTERIOLOGICAL EXAMINATION OF COASTAL WATERS
MARCH 1976-DECEMBER 1976
Station
Agana Boat Basin
Agat-Gaan Pt.
Inarajan Pool
Ipan Public Beach
M. Aflleje Memorial Park
Marine Yacht Club
Marine Laboratory Intake
Merizo Boat Pier
NAS Storm Drain
New Agana Storm Drain
P'rti Park
Santos Merial Park
Sleepy Lagoon
Turtle Cove
War Memorial Park
Ypao Beach
Total
Sample
exam
17
28
45
39
4O
39
19
44
43
19
39
40
43
15
40
42
552
Moderately
polluted
—
2
—
—
—
—
—
1
1
—
3
3
3
—
2
—
16
Frequency
—
7%
—
—
—
—
—
2%
2%
—
8%
8%
9%
—
5%
—
Heavily
polluted
—
3
1
—
1
—
—
1
2
3
1
1
4
5
5
—
27
Frequency
—
11%
2%
3%
3%
—
—
2%
5%
15%
3%
10%
12%
—
13%
—
Rivers and Estuaries
Guam's rivers and estuaries are highly productive
aquatic environments that need to be protected from
pollution. The estuaries serves as a nursery for a variety
of marine life.
The GEPA's monitoring of these waters for pollution
include analysis for fecal bacteria. Table 2 shows the
results of the analysis conducted during the March
through December 1976 period. The number and fre-
quency of polluted samples was much greater than in
our coastal waters. By far. the most seriously polluted
area was the Pago River. There were two monitoring
stations on the Pago River; one at the river mouth and
the other at the outfall. The outfall station, adjacent to
the Pago River Bridge, is the discharge point for the
package sewage treatment plant constructed as an in-
terim measure to treat sewage from the village of Yona.
Due to poor plant design, equipment failure, and poor
maintenance, the plant has been polluting the river ever
since it became operational in 1974. Water samples taken
near the outfall were found to be heavily polluted 88
percent of the time and moderately polluted for another
3 percent. As sewage moves downstream from its point
of discharge, there is usually a decrease in the degree of
pollution due to dilution and the natural die-off of
organisms. We found the water quality at the mouth of
the Pago River not much improved. It was still showing
heavily polluted samples; those in excess of 1.OOO
colonies per 100 millilrters were found 65 percent of
the time and moderately polluted another 8 percent.
The only other stations which showed an unusually
B—34
-------
APPENDIX B
high occurrence of pollution were the Asan River Mouth
and the Umatac River Mouth. Fecal coliform levels ex-
ceed 1 ,OOO colonies per 100 milliliters in 40 percent of
the Asan River samples. This river showed moderate
pollution during another 8 percent of the samples for a
cumulative frequency of pollution of 48 percent. This
degree of pollution was unexpected, since most of the
village of Asan is served by public sewer. Apparently, a
number of animal wastes and a number of faulty indi-
vidual sewage disposal facilities exist along this water-
shed.
The sampling station at the mouth of the Umatac
River was expected to show high counts. The village
does not have a public sewer available and faulty indi-
vidual sewage disposal systems are not uncommon in
this area. Wastes from pigs and other animals also have
an easy access to the river. The water discharging from
this river into Umatac Bay was found to be heavily
polluted in 35 percent of the samples and moderately
polluted in 23 percent, indicating a cumulative frequency
of pollution of 58 percent. The average combined fre-
quency of pollution for the remainder of the rivers and
estuaries is less than 17 percent.
TABLE 2
BACTERIOLOGICAL EXAMINATION OF RIVERS AND ESTUARIES
MARCH 1976—DECEMBER 1976
Station
Agana River Mouth
Asan River Mouth
Fonte River Mouth
Inarajan Bay
Pago River Mouth
Pago River Outfall
Talofofo Surf Area
Umatac Bay
Umatac River Mouth
Ylig River Bridge
Total
Sample
exam
40
40
40
39
40
40
44
44
40
40
4O7
Moderately
polluted
3
3
5
—
3
3
3
2
9
4
33
Frequency
8%
8%
13%
—
8%
3%
7%
5%
23%
10%
Heavily
polluted
6
16
7
2
26
34
4
2
15
3
115
Frequency
15%
40%
18%
5%
65%
88%
9%
5%
35%
8%
Metals Analysis
In November, the GEPA assisted a research team
from Wakayama University in Tokyo. The team worked
under a grant from the U.S. National Institute of
Neurological and Communicable Disease and Stroke,
as part of a Pacific-wide study of the possible correla-
tion of high concentrations of manganese and nickel
in drinking water and the occurrence of certain neuro-
logical disorders. Locally, Litigo and Bodig are of con-
cern.
"The research team, headed by Dr. Yoshiro Yase,
obtained water samples from 39 streams, springs, wells
and distribution systems.
The samples were analysed for amounts of twelve
heavy metals, including lead, copper, iron, manganese
and zinc. Calcium and magnesium hardness was also
determined. Following initial analysis in the GEPA labor-
atory, the samples were taken to Japan for special
analysis with sophisticated scientific instruments.
Tentative impressions of the group were:
• Well samples were very high in calcium and mag-
nesium hardness due to the nature of the limestone
northern plateau;
• Samples from springs and rivers in southern Guam
had little calcium or magnesium hardness due to the
volcanic nature of the rock; and,
• Manganese and nickel concentrations were gen-
erally high in all samples particularly from the Chalan
Pago-Ordot-Mangilao wells.
Manganese and nickel are found in large amounts in
the volcanic rock that makes up southern Guam and
underlie the limestone of the northern plateau.
The authors have not yet published final results and
conclusions.
B—35
-------
State of Hawaii
Complete copies of the State of Hawaii 305(b) Re-
port can be obtained from the State agency listed
below:
Environmental Health Division
Department of Health
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, HI 96801
-------
APPENDIX B
The following information is abstracted from the
State's previous 305(b) Report on water quality in the
State of Hawaii. Because there are no changes from
the last submittal, this report summarizes the problem
of nonpoint source pollution considered as the major
water quality concern in the State today.
The threat of nonpoint source pollution is identified
throughout our coastal and inland areas. Soil erosion
and runoff from agricultural activity; subdivision, land
and highway development; shoreline alteration; con-
struction; cesspool seepage; urbanization; and natural
wind and water erosion are the major categories of
nonpoint sources affecting water quality and the envi-
ronment. The pollution problems and sources are wide-
spread and vary with geographic location and land use.
In spite of localized improvements for water quality
parameters, achieved through control measures by
municipal dischargers, problem areas affected by non-
point source pollution are yet to show significant trends
of improved water quality. The State Section 208
Planning Program is addressing these problems.
The parameters of water quality most often not meet-
ing State standards are nutrients (nitrogen and phos-
phorus) and coliform bacteria. Although coliform vio-
lations in general appear less frequently than either
nitrogen or phosphorus violations, they appear more
widely distributed geographically and are frequently
associated with inputs from fresh water sources
(streams and rivers).
Intensive surveys are in progress to establish base-
line concentrations of heavy metals and pesticides in
water column and sediments from selected State basins.
A brief summary of preliminary findings on heavy metals
in nearshore marine sediments is discussed.
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF HEAVY METALS
FOUND IN NEARSHORE MARINE SEDIMENTS
Mg/Kg Dry Weight
State basin As Cd Cr Cu Pb Hg Ni Zn
Kaneohe Bay
Kahana Bay
Hilo Bay
Hanapepe Bay
Ala Wai Canal
Honolulu Harbor
24.4
19
103.4
19.3
24.5
16.7
4.9
12.1
5.0
3.5
3.6
6.5
105
19.3
200
211.8
218.4
126.3
71
14.8
72.1
59.8
265.8
272.9
34
75.3
101.9
35.3
562
391.9
0.17
0.14
1.4
ND'
1.6
1.1
145
64.3
79.7
4OO
168.5
100.1
120
43.7
107.6
116.1
425.3
523.4
•Not detectable.
Analyses of sediments from the Ala Wai Canal show
that mean concentrations of mercury are slightly lower
last year than the previous year. The highest level is
5.1 ppm found near a boat dry dock and is lower by a
two-fold margin from the previous year, also. Mercury
concentrations were once believed to be as high as 85
ppm according to reports published in 1972. Sediments
also show higher concentrations in lead at the Ala Wai
Canal than at other sites in the State Basin. However.
this level is found similar to that found in the previous
year. Kaneohe Bay. where the only other basin for
which data is available from a previous survey, shows
no change from last year and are found comparable with
background levels elsewhere.
Analysis for the first time on sediments from Hilo Bay
shows that arsenic concentrations are exceptionally
high. Although definite sources are not known, the use
of herbicides and a former industrial processing plant
are two possible contributing factors now under evalu-
ation. Where concentrations of parameters are found
notably higher in certain locations than in others, in-
tensive surveys will be expanded to study the condi-
tions more closely. Mean concentrations for other heavy
metals in general fall within ranges found throughout
the State Basins.
BASELINE SURVEY ON HEAVY METALS AND
TRACE ORGANICS FOUND IN WATER COLUMN AND
SEDIMENTS OF THE NEARSHORE MARINE ENVIRONMENT
State basin
Survey completion dates
Kahului Bay
Kaneohe Bay
Kahana Bay
Hilo Bay
Hanamaulu Bay
Hanapepe Bay
Ala Wai Canal and Yacht Harbor
Honolulu Harbor
Kaiaka Bay
Pearl Harbor
8/10/76
8/24/76
9/ 7/76
9/22/76
1O/18/76
10/19/76
11/ 9/76
11 /30/76
•Scheduled for 6/28-30/77.
INTENSIVE SURVEY COVERAGE OF BASELINE
PARAMETERS FOR STATE BASIN AREAS
Physical/chemical
Temperature
PH
Salinity
DO
Turbidity
TDS
KjeWahl nitrogen
Nitrate-nitrite nitrogen
Total nitrogen
Total phosphorus
Microbiological
Total coliform
Fecal coliform
Fecal strep
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Organics
DDT
DDE
DDD
Dieldrin
Lindane
Chlordane
PCP
PCS
B—38
-------
APPENDIX B
Table 1 is a summary of water quality standards
violations. Indicated in the summary are locations and
their observed percentage violation of specific water
quality parameters. Table 2 shows existing water quality
from last year. The estimated values given are essenti-
ally similar with conditions this year and therefore pre-
sented for review only.
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY VIOLATIONS
Percent
violation
range*
Location
Water quality
parameter
85-100 Ala Wai Drainage Canal, Oahu
(401) Kaneohe Bay, Oahu
Keehi Lagoon, Oahu
Kaiaka Bay, Oahu
Kahului Harbor and Bay, Maui
Hilo Bay and Harbor Shoreline, Hawaii
Hanamaulu Beach, Kauai
Honaunau Bay Shoreline, Hawaii
Kailua Pier, Hawaii
Keauhou Bay Shoreline, Hawaii
Mahukona, Hawaii
Punaluu, Hawaii
50-85 Kahana Bay Shoreline, Oahu
(838) Ahua Pt., Oahu
Kaneohe Bay Shoreline, Oahu
Keehi Lagoon, Oahu
Ala Wai Drainage Canal, Oahu
Waikiki Beach. Oahu
Kahului Harbor and Bay, Maui
Kalaeloa Harbor. Molokai
Puhi Bay Shoreline, Hawaii
Milolii Shoreline, Hawaii
Kailua Pier. Hawaii
Honaupo, Hawaii
Honaunau Bay Shoreline, Hawaii
10-50 Sand Island, Oahu
(1,006) Honolulu Harbor, Oahu
Waikiki Beach, Oahu
Kewalo Basin, Oahu
Ala Moana Beach, Oahu
Kaiaka Bay. Oahu
Wailuku Breakwater. Maui
Kalaeloa Harbor, Molokai
Hilo Bay and Harbor Shoreline, Hawaii
Honolii Cove Shoreline. Hawaii
Kealakekua Bay Shoreline. Hawaii
Keauhou Bay Shoreline, Hawaii
Puako Beach Shoreline, Hawaii
Nitrogen
Nitrogen and phosphorus
Phosphorus
Nitrogen and phosphorus
Nitrogen and phosphorus
Phosphorus
Nitrogen and phosphorus
Nitrogen and phosphorus
Phosphorus
Nitrogen and phosphorus
Nitrogen
Nitrogen and phosphorus
Nitrogen, phosphorus and coliform
Nitrogen and phosphorus
Nitrogen and coliform
Nitrogen and coliform
Coliform
Nitrogen
Coliform
Nitrogen
Nitrogen and phosphorus
Coliform
Coliform
Coliform
Coliform
Coliform
Nitrogen, phosphorus and coliform
Phosphorus
Coliform
Phosphorus
Coliform
Coliform
Phosphorus
Coliform
Coliform
Coliform
Coliform
Coliform
•Percentage figures are based on more than 2,200 analyses of samples obtained from the given
locations since 1973. More than 13,000 analyses were performed on samples from throughout
the State in the same period. The value in parenthesis indicates the total analysis of samples for
each percent range.
Source: Department of Health, 1977.
B—39
-------
TABLE 2
EXISTING WATER QUALITY
Water quality
segment
Mamala Bay
(70sq.mi.)"
Pearl Harbor
(132sq.mi.)
Kahului Bay
(10.5 sq. mi.)
Kaneohe Bay
(33.2sq.mi.)
Hilo Bay
(261 sq. mi.)
Port Allen
(27.2 sq. mi.)
Hanamaulu Bay
(8.5sq.mi.)
Kaiaka Bay
(76sq.mi.)
Kahana Bay
(8.4sq.mi.)
S. Molokai
(131 sq. mi.)
Classification
of water uses
(a)
A, B
AA,A, B
A,B_
AA.B
A.fi
B
A
A
AA
AA, A. B
Estimated
land use, %
Agriculture <1
Open space 63
Urban 36
Ag. 35
Open space 38
Urban 12
Ag. 29
Open space 65
Urban 6
Ag. 16
Open space 63
Urban 21
Ag. 10
Open space 85
Urban 5
Ag. 34
Open space 65
Urban <1
Ag. 51
Open space 47
Urban 2
Ag. 33
Open space 64
Urban 3
Ag. 2
Open space 97
Urban <1
Ag. 10
Open space 89
Urban <1
Estimated total pollutant
discharges on receiving
waters, Ib./day
BOD
425
124,000
1,300
45,000
250
9,000
680
2,000
4.380
30,000
1,000
200
138
Total
nitrogen
70
14,000
210
3,800
40
600
110
830
700
No data
160
340
22
Total
phosphorus
6
2,200
20
985
4
150
15
400
64
No data
15
12
2
Ins gnificant amount
288
1,500
370
46
1,300
60
4
350
6
Insignificant amount
440
70
6
Insignificant amount
Water quality data (b)
Total-N,
mg/l
.160-.370
.121 -.288
.260-.47O
.010-.430
.020-.340
.020-. 140
.300-.470
.320-.680
.120-.460
.170-.280
Total-P,
mg/l
.015-.O61
.027-.247
.054- .385
.026-.075
.018-.057
.008-.028
.046-.064
.024-.321
.01 9-.050
.O05-.027
Fecal coliform,
MPN/100ml
5-12,800
5-430
26-6,800
217-24,000
3-460
2-170
2-1,300
2-930
23-1,300
2-790
Total-N,
mg/l
AA 0.10
A 0.15
B 0.20
State water quality standards
Total-P,
mg/l
AA 0.020
A 0.025
B 0.030
Fecal coliform,
MPN/IOOml
AA-essentially
zero
A 200
B 400
'Numbers in parenthesis are land areas in segments.
(a) Underlined is predominant class.
(b) Data from Water Quality Monitoring Data, Department of Health, State of Hawaii, 1974-75 ranges
(c) Data from U.S. Navy's Pearl Harbor stations RW 39, 41, 23, and 71.
TJ
T)
m
g
X
CO
-------
State of Idaho
Complete copies of the State of Idaho 305(b)
Report can be obtained from the State agency
listed below:
Department of Health and Welfare
Statehouse
Boise, ID 83720
-------
APPENDIX B
Summary
This report updates the Water Year 1975 Water
Quality Status Report.
Water quality data presented indicate that signifi-
cant reductions in municipal and industrial point source
pollutant loads over the past few years have had a mea-
surable effect in some streams. It is also apparent that
nonpoint source pollutant loadings have a major impact
on stream water quality so that water quality standards
and goals may not be achieved for many streams until
such sources are considerably reduced.
Considerable progress has been made in developing
a nonpoint source pollution control program, which is
expected to benefit substantially from the Statewide
Section 208 program. Eight major categories of non-
point source pollution are described along with methods
of control and abatement. The extent of nonpoint
source pollution is not expected to decrease without
application of best management practices. Numerous
agencies have varying degrees of authority to control
pollution from nonpoint sources. With some refinement,
these authorities can become the means to apply best
management practices.
The State of Idaho has completed the first effort of
planning related to PL 92-500 by completing Section
303(e) planning for the State's six hydrologic basins.
Now. with fiscal assistance from the EPA, the State has
begun a new phase of planning required by Section 208
of PL 92-500. This planning will compliment previous
work by taking developing plans to the point of imple-
mentation. Section 208 planning will give special con-
sideration to the reduction of water pollution from non-
point or diffuse sources.
B—42
-------
State of Indiana
Complete copies of the State of Indiana 305(b)
Report can be obtained from the State agency
listed below:
Water Pollution Control Division
Indiana State Board of Health
1330 West Michigan Street
Indianapolis, IN 46206
-------
APPENDIX B
Introduction
This part of the report largely focuses on the State's
major streams and the waters near most of our largest
cities. The report's objectives are to outline the extent
to which these water bodies meet established water
quality criteria and to indicate which criteria are violated.
Data Sources
The major portion of the data included in this report
has been obtained from a fixed station monitoring pro-
gram which was initiated in 1957. The original moni-
toring program included collecting bi-weekly samples
from a network of 49 stations from major Indiana
streams scattered throughout the State. Since 1957,
the network has been expanded to include 95 stations
and the number of parameters analyzed have been
greatly increased. However, the fixed monitoring sta-
tions, established primarily at bridges or at waterworks
intakes are not always located at points which would
show maximum areas of effect of certain dischargers,
nor reflect the extent of improvement that has resulted
from past water pollution abatement programs that
have brought about a improvement in localized areas
of major streams or their tributaries.
In addition to the data obtained from the fixed station
monitoring program, data from 8 intensive segment sur-
veys conducted in 1974 and 1976, as well as a few
other intensive surveys, have been included to further
characterize stream quality. Discussion of intensive
segment surveys is largely limited to the major stream
in the segment, unless it is necessary to discuss tributary
loading to explain a significant change in water quality
of the major segment stream.
B—44
-------
State of Kansas
Complete copies of the State of Kansas 305(b)
Report can be obtained from the State agency
listed below:
Division of Environment
Department of Health and Environment
Topeka, KS 66620
-------
APPENDIX B
Summary
Long-term averages of water quality data from major
rivers in Kansas yields the following general character-
ization: Turbid streams, moderately mineralized, well
buffered, with good oxygen characteristics, low organic
loading, high nutrient levels, and high bacterial levels.
Water quality trends since 1967 on nine major Kansas
rivers indicate that 66 key parametric averages have
shown water quality improvement or no significant
change, and 24 key parametric averages have shown
water quality deterioration. Water quality in Kansas
streams in the last two decades has been primarily in-
fluenced by nonpoint sources, point source contribu-
tions having had their greatest impact during the period
of the 193O's through the 1950's. At present, instream
quality is determined almost entirely by flow regime.
During low flow periods, the most significant quality
influence is the entrance of mineral inflow from natural
sources. During high flow periods, most Kansas surface
waters display their poorest quality, with significant
increases in BOD, nutrients, bacterial numbers, and
turbidity from nonpoint source contributions.
Monitoring programs for toxic substances in Kansas
have accelerated in recent years due to increased con-
cern over these substances in our waters. No signifi-
cant concentrations of heavy metals have been found
in major Kansas streams or lakes, except for iron and
manganese which are common in major streams. Iron,
zinc, copper and lead are found to varying degrees in
small tributary southeastern Kansas streams which
drain the coal and ore mining areas. No significant con-
centrations occur in mainstem streams. No significant
concentrations of pesticides have been found in Kansas
streams at standard detection levels during normal
surveillance, nor during special studies or irrigation
return flow. New criteria for monitoring pesticides at
much lower standard detection levels are being pro-
posed in the 1977 revised Kansas Water Quality Stand-
ards. The surveillance program is being expanded and
more sophisticated laboratory equipment is now avail-
able to better monitor these proposed, lower pesticide
standards.
Biological quality in Kansas is monitored through two
programs: The stream biological network with samp-
ling stations; and the lake network at 33 major lakes.
Accounts of the organisms collected at biological samp-
ling network stations and river basin survey stations
over the five years of program operation, indicate that
virtually all streams and rivers in Kansas support ade-
quate populations of stream-dwelling organisms. Limit-
ing factors in streams are usually unsuitable substrate
or velocity patterns. It is generally found that where a
diversity of substrate is present, the river supports a
well-balanced mac'roinvertebrate community containing
organisms typically associated with clean water. There
is, at the present time, no evidence to indicate any prob-
lems of eutrophication of lakes due to the addition of
algal nutrients. The major water quality problem of state
reservoirs and other lakes appears to be periodic high
suspended silt loads. It appears that the general shallow-
ness of the lakes coupled with the frequent, moderate
velocity winds and high turbidity of feeding streams
will continue to make high levels of suspended solids
the major limiting factor in productivity of Kansas lakes
in the future.
B—46
-------
State of Kentucky
Complete copies of the State of Kentucky 305(b)
Report can be obtained from the State agency
listed below:
Division of Water Quality
Department for Natural Resources and Environ-
mental Protection
275 East Maine Street
Frankfort. KY 40601
-------
APPENDIX B
Summary
The quality of water in Kentucky is the result of the
interactions of rain waters contacting the earth, flowing
over the land, soaking into and passing through the soil,
over minerals, dissolving minerals into the waters and
the waters transporting materials to the streams. The
materials with which water contacts on its way to a
stream or lake will dictate what these waters contain
once they reach a stream or lake. Inorganic materials
(soil constituents, calcium, sulfate, chloride, etc.) will
make up the bulk of the dissolved solids and will deter-
mine a water's hardness, acidity/alkalinity and other
characteristics. Organic materials carried in the waters
will affect to some degree the level of dissolved oxygen
in the water through physical and biological processes
in these waters.
As you read the different sections of the complete
report, each written for a particular river basin, the
characteristics of a river basin which have an effect on
water quality will become evident. The size of a basin
will determine how sensitive or insensitive to inflow and
quality a river basin is. A small basin like the Salt River
will react quickly to rains, while a large impounded basin
like the Tennessee is relatively stable and slow to
change.
The geology in a basin will affect the type of water
produced. For example, within the Kentucky River
Basin, Figure H-2 North Fork Kentucky River, Page 231
of the report shows waters which have contacted dis-
turbed earth in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Fields. This
water is hard, high in dissolved solids, high in sulfate,
high in acidity at times and high in chlorides. In contrast,
the Red River, Pine Ridge in the same river basin (Figure
H-4, Page 233 of the report) shows waters which have
had few dissolved solids added, are relatively soft, have
normal alkalinity and are of generally high quality.
The hydrology of each river basin has been presented.
The term hydrology is used here to mean a summary
of the important aspects of the amount of water which
has been discharged past a measuring location on a
stream. Table 1 shows the relative amount which eight
of the ten river basins discharge during an average year.
TABLE 1
AVERAGE DISCHARGE FROM RIVER IN KENTUCKY
Ohio River
Tennessee River
Cumberland River
Upper Cumberland River
Green River
Salt River
Kentucky River
Licking River
Big Sandy
262.OOOcfs'
64,OOOcfs
27,500 cfs
9,1OOcfs
11.000 cfs
3.300 cfs"
7.2OO cfs
4,15Ocfs
4,450 cfs
The population within a river basin will have an effect
on streams due to the location and concentration of
organic loads imposed on these streams. Table 2 shows
the population within each basin.
TABLE 2
POPULATION IN KENTUCKY
Basin
Mississippi
Ohio
Tennessee
Lower Cumberland
Upper Cumberland
Green
Salt
Kentucky
Licking
Big Sandy
Total
Population
1 970 census
56,637
993,001
68,412
92,380
260.OOO
426.0OO
507,233
534.0OO
211.0OO
112,000
3.261.O72
Drainage
area
Kentucky
1,250
6,090
1,000
1.90O
5.077
8.821
2,932
7,033
3,700
2,285
40,088
Population
density
no./sq.mi.
45.3
163.1*
68.4
48.6
51.0
48.3
173
105"
57.0
49.5
81.3
'Louisville, Owensboro
"Lexington
Table 3 shows the point source loads on streams
which are predicted to depress the dissolved oxygen
below 5.0 mg/l as a result of the population distribution
within each basin. This table shows the effect of all
treated effluents on streams in Kentucky in relation to
the predicted dissolved oxygen content during design
flows. Table 3 also shows that municipalities in Ken-
tucky contribute 35 percent, industries contribute 7
percent, and small discharges contribute 58 percent of
the organic point source loads which may cause dis-
solved oxygen to be less than 5.0 mg/l in Kentucky
streams.
TABLE 3
POINT SOURCE LOADS IN KENTUCKY STREAMS'
Basin
Mississippi
Ohio
Tennessee
Lower Cumberland
Upper Cumberland
Green
Salt
Kentucky
Licking
Big Sandy
Total
Stream
miles
studied
275
431
248
360
752
1,670
596
868
1.000
560
6.760
Dissolved Oxygen Predicted
Total Less Than 5.0 mg/l
miles
84
85
59
62
167
214
160
145
384
250
1.609
Municipal
13
36
15
40
25
173
61
119
89
10
570
Industrial
26
8
14
0
0
6.8
8
O
46
5
114
Other
45
41
30
22
151
34.5
91
26
249
235
925
'1975 Wasteload allocation from Section 303(e) River Basin
plans.
NOTE: These are the most downstream stations in each basin.
'Cubic feet per second.
"Sum of the two mains streams. Rolling Fork and Salt River.
B—48
-------
State of Louisiana
Complete copies of the State of Louisiana 305(b)
Report can be obtained from the State agency
listed below:
Louisiana Stream Control Commission
P.O. Drawer FC, University Station
Baton Rouge. La. 70803
-------
APPENDIX B
Summary
This report was prepared by the Louisiana Stream
Control Commission pursuant to Section 305(b) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972 (PL 92-500).
Water Quality data used to prepare this report were
collected from the State's Ambient Water Quality Moni-
toring Network operated by the Division of Water Pollu-
tion Control, Louisiana Wild Life & Fisheries Commission
and the Bureau of Environmental Services, Louisiana
Health and Human Resources Administration, and other
State and Federal agencies participating in the United
States Environmental Protection Agency's STOrage
and RETrieval (STORE!) Computer System.
The report is organized in detail by monitoring sta-
tions. Data from the three-year period 1974 through
1976 were used in an attempt to reflect short-term
trends. These trends are temporary changes in water
quality that occur during unusual natural phenomena
such as high water and floods.
This third annual report on water quality will serve
as a continuing review process to monitor, control and
improve where possible the current water quality condi-
tions of the streams and other surface water in Louisiana.
Data from each station in the State's Ambient Water
Quality Monitoring Network for 1976 were compared
with the 1974 and 1975 data that were included in the
previous years' Section 305(b) Report in a further
attempt to identify short-term trends. Sixteen of the
stations in the monitoring network recorded no water
quality criteria during 1976, while four of the stations
were without violations for the entire three-year period.
The incidence of stations without violations for 1976
would probably have been higher had it not been for
below-average flows across the State. Records of the
U.S. Geological Survey indicate that the stream flows
throughout the State were below average for the 1976
Water Year.
Review of the data included in the report indicates
that no major changes in the water quality of the State's
streams occurred during 1976.
The body of the report is divided according to desig-
nated Water Quality Management Planning River Basins.
A basin map and description is followed by a presenta-
tion of the data for the individual stations within the
basins.
No attempt has been made in this report to rank or
compare all streams/stations against each other as was
included in last years' report. The state is reviewing
several index type programs that will provide for a rank-
ing of similar streams and will include such a system in
the report when an adequate index and data base is
available. In the interim, the "Summary of Water Quality
Violations" sheet that is presented for each station
where violations occurred will allow the reader to make
a fairly rapid evaluation of current stream conditions
as compared to the individual water quality parameters
included in the present Louisiana Water Quality Criteria.
B—50
-------
State of Maine
Complete copies of the State of Maine 305(b)
Report can be obtained from the State agency
listed below:
Division of Water Quality Evaluation and Planning
Bureau of Water Quality Control
Department of Environmental Protection
Statehouse
Augusta, ME 04330
-------
APPENDIX B
Summary
Water quality within the State of Maine has continued
to improve througout 1976. While not all treatment
facilities met the October 1,1976 deadline for adequate
treatment a great many of them did come on line last
year. The overwhelming majority of those that did not
were held up for lack of Federal funds. Because these
efforts continue the upward trend-in improving State
water quality, additional Federal funds are needed if
these trends are to continue.
Table 1 lists the State streamwater quality classifi-
cation system and the parameter considered. It has
been proposed that Maine's lakes be placed under a new
system and classified GP-A or GP-B. This new system
has been proposed because it takes into account the
trophic status of a given lake, whereas the old classifi-
cation did not. The entire proposed changes to Maine's
water quality program including the standard of classifi-
cation are listed in Appendix A of the report.
Table 2 gives the present water quality status within
the State's major river basins. As yet it is too early to
measure the extent of the lasting benefits that have
derived from the introduction of waste abatement
facilities put into operation last year. Some portions of
the State's rivers are under proposal for upgrading this
year; this is reflected in Table 2. Two Water Quality
Class Segments (WQS) will be upgraded. The Prestile
Stream, once a very high quality stream noted for its
fishing and, more recently, highly degraded from indust-
rial discharges, has been upgraded to B-2. This was
possible because the Vahlsing and Maine Sugar dis-
charges have now terminated and Triple A Sugar and
McCain's will use subsurface land disposal. The other
WQS, a portion of the Aroostook River from the Wade-
Washburn town line to Presque Isle Stream, has also
been reclassified as B-2. The segment on the Aroostook
River from Presque Isle Stream to the Canadian border
still remains a WQS. This upgrading was enabled by the
discharge from Taterstate now being treated by flood
irrigation.
TABLE 1
STATE STREAM WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Stream
Classification
Water uses
Parameter
Standard
A Recreational purposes
Water contact recreation
Water supply (after treatment)
Fish and wildlife habitat
B-1 Recreational purposes
Water contact recreation
Water supply (after treatment)
Fish and wildlife habitat
B-2 Recreational purposes
Water contact recreation
Water supply (after treatment)
Fish and wildlife habitat
Recreational boating
and fishing
Fish and wildlife habitat
Dissolved oxygen >75% saturation
Dissolved oxygen
Fecal coliform
Chromium
Dissolved oxygen
Fecal coliform
Chromium
Dissolved oxygen
Fecal coliform
>75% saturation or
>5 ppm
<6O per 100 ml
<50 ug/liter
>60% saturation or
>5ppm
<2OO per 100ml
<50 ug/liter
>5 ppm (unless nat-
urally occurring)
but in no case <4 ppm
< 1000 per 100ml
Power generation
Navigation
Industrial process waters
Dissolved oxygen
Fecal coliform
>2ppm
numbers which will
not cause undue
health hazard
B—52
-------
APPENDIX B
TABLE 2
STATE OF MAINE—305(b) WATER QUALITY INVENTORY SUMMARY
1
River basin or
coastal drainage
(including main-
stem and major
tributaries)
Penobscot
Kennebec
Androscoggin
St. John
Salmon Falls
Piscataqua
Saco
St. Croix Main Stem
and Monument Brook
Presumpscot
Mousam
2
Total
miles
379
325
320
351
157
230
87
58
23
3
Miles now
meeting
Class B
(fishable/
swimmable)
180
200
150
269
120
212
47
21
5
4
Miles
expected to
meet Class
B by 1983
364.4
263.2
313.7
308.2
157
227.5
77
58
10.9
'Column 7-Water Quality Problems: 1 . Harmful substances;
3. Eutrophication potential; 4.
5
Miles now
meeting
State WQ
standards
364.4
263.2
313.7
289.3
157
227.5
77
51.3
10.9
2. Physical
6
Miles not
meeting
State WQ
standards
14.6
61.8
6.3
61.7
—
2.5
10
6.7
12.1
modification
Salinity, acidity, alkalinity; 5. Oxygen depletion; 6. Health
7*
Water
quality
problems
4,5,6
4,5
1,2,5,6
2,5,6
5,6
1.5,6
5,6
5,6
3,5.6
(suspended
hazards.
8
Point source
causes of WQ
problems
M = Municipal
l = lndustrial
M.I
M
M.I
M.I
M
M.t
I
M.I
M
9
Nonpoint
source
causes of
problems
1=Major
2=Minor
3=N/A
3
1
2
1
2
2
3
2
2
solids, temperatures, etc.);
Other classification changes are given in Appendix A
of the report.
Water Quality Management Planning under Section
208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1972 has done much in the way of investi-
gating causes and ways of improving the water quality
in the State. The two-year program undertaken by the
five designated areas is due for completion this summer
and the Statewide program which covers the rest of the
State is just getting underway. If the full value of the
discoveries and investigations undertaken by these
agencies along with the processes necessary to properly
implement the completed plan are to be realized, more
Federal funds are going to be needed. Studies that were
undertaken by the designated agencies will be utilized
and applied by the Statewide agencies for their respec-
tive areas. This will be necessary due to the greatly re-
duced level of funding available for planning in the
remainder of the State. The completion of the Section
208 plans and the implementation of its recommenda-
tions should greatly improve water quality in Maine.
In the past, nonpoint source pollution has been largely
ignored as a source of water quality degradation. Its
existence had been accepted, but little investigation
had been done due to the difficulty of identifying it and
the problems associated with its correction. Recently
however, an increased effort has been taken towards
the nonpoint source problem primarily through the
Section 208 program. The chief contributions to the
problem come from agricultural, silvicultural and con-
struction activities, along with malfunctioning private
septic systems which contaminate ground and surface
waters. Continued effort is needed in these areas to en-
able the State to effectively carry out its actions to im-
prove the State's water quality so that 1983's goals
can be met wherever possible and, at the same time,
apply fair and equitable treatment to Maine's citizens
and its industry.
B—53
-------
State of Maryland
Complete copies of the State of Maryland 305(b)
Report can be obtained from the State agency
listed below:
Maryland Environmental Service
Tawes State Office Building
Annapolis, MD 21404
-------
APPENDIX B
Current Water Quality Trends
and Control Programs
Tables A-1 through A-18 of the report provide a brief
description and analysis of water quality by basin. For
segments with problem areas, water quality is described
in reference to the intended use.
The first, or left-hand column, of each table presents
a listing of segments violating fishable and swimmable
standards, cites the specific violation, and states appli-
cable water quality severity scores. The water quality
scores are measures of the severity of pollution in each
segment. The highest score (50) indicates a severe
standard violation or that a water use has been pre-
cluded. The second highest score possible is 30, which
indicates occasional or not extensive standards violation.
A segment can also receive a score of 10 or 0 but these
ratings were not used in Table A. The segments were
scored by the Planning Section (Water Resources Ad-
ministration) as an on-going part of the Phase I and
Phase II Water Quality Management Planning Effort
pursuant to Sections 303(e) and 208 of PL 92-500,
respectively.
The second column outlines probable reasons for not
meeting fishable and swimmable standards. The reasons
are separated into point and potential nonpoint source
contributions. The third column. Control and Inventory
Program, is also divided into point and nonpoint cate-
gories. A breakdown of land uses in the segment by
percentages is included in the nonpoint category. Phase
II Water Quality Management Plans will address in
detail nonpoint controls and inventory procedures. The
goal of Phase II Water Quality Management Plans is to
assess nonpoint sources and to define Best Manage-
ment Practices (BMP) for land uses in order to control
pollution from those sources. Definitions of Best Man-
agement Practices will evolve during the Phase II plan-
ning period. For this section of the report it will suffice
to note that BMP's will need to be determined and im-
plemented for the land uses listed in each segment.
The most frequently employed point source control
measure listed is municipal sewerage upgrading. The
vast majority of municipalities and sanitary districts are
utilizing Section 201 construction grants projects funds
to finance this upgrading. Under this arrangement, the
Federal government funds 75 percent of a project, with
the State and applicant each funding 12.5 percent of
the costs. There are three distinct steps in the develop-
ment of sewerage projects. Step One is the facilities
planning phase, which considers various sewerage
alternatives. Areas experiencing failing septic systems
are addressed in Step One. Step Two is the design of
the chosen sewerage alternative and Step Three is the
actual construction.
All domestic wastewater treatment facilities are re-
quired by discharge permit and regulation to maintain a
DO of not less than 4.0 mg/l (5.0 mg/l in some cases),
a coliform not to exceed 200 mpn/100 ml fecal or 70
mpn/100 ml total depending on the location of the dis-
charge, and total residual chlorine not to exceed .01
mg/l to 0.5 mg/l depending upon the location and
size of the discharge. In specific cases, the State has
specified effluent limits more stringent than the EPA's
definition of secondary treatment in order to meet water
quality standards. In some of these cases phosphorus
and/or nitrogen limits have been included.
The State requires more than Best Practical Tech-
nology for industrial discharges when necessary to
meet water quality standards. Upon revision of NPDES
permits, the State will be requiring, by 1983, Best Avail-
able Treatment in all cases.
The final column, titled 1983 Forecast, briefly de-
scribes expected water quality improvement and related
control measures.
Water Quality Goals
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972, the law that initiated this report, states that:
The objective of this Act (PL 92-500 is to restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integ-
rity of the nation's waters. In order to achieve this
objective, it is hereby declared that, consistent with
the provisions of this Act—
(1) It is the national goal that the discharge of pollut-
ants into the navigable waters be eliminated by
1985; and,
(2) It is the national goal that wherever attainable, an
interim goal of water quality which provides for
the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish,
and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on
the water be achieved by July 1, 1983.
The "Maryland Water Quality-1977" report addresses
the 1983 interim goal of fishable and swimmable waters.
In determining if a water segment was fishable and
swimmable a cross section of data was utilized. The
data sources employed can be categorized into four
groups: (1) Promulgated Maryland water quality stand-
ards; (2) results of sampling conducted by the Water
Quality Services Section; (3) observations and findings
recorded by the Planning Section, local officials, and
citizens; and (4) information provided by Planning staff
members assigned to the water-use specialty categories
of water supply, water contact recreation, finfish, shell-
fish, and wildlife. In most segments the determination of
fishable and swimmable water was arrived at by the
synthesis of these data sources.
Where applicable. Regulation 08.05.04.03. Specific
Standards for Water Quality, prepared by the Maryland
Water Resources Administration, was used extensively.
In Maryland, each navigable body of water has been
classified according to the most critical use for which it
must be protected as follows:
Class): Protected for contact recreation, for fish and
other aquatic life, and for wildlife (such pro-
tection is sufficiently stringent to protect for
use as water supply).
Class II: Protected for shellfish harvesting.
Class III: Protected as natural trout waters.
Class IV: Protected as recreational trout waters (waters
capable of holding adult trout for put-and-take
fishing).
B—56
-------
APPENDIX B
For each of these water-use classes, specific stand-
ards have been set to delineate maximum or minimum
allowable levels of fecal coliform bacteria, dissolved
oxygen, temperature, pH, and turbidity. These are dis-
played in Table 1-1 of the report. As yet, there are no
generally applicable standards for nutrients, heavy met-
als, pesticides, and numerous other potential pollutants.
Federal law requires that these standards be reviewed
at least once every three-year period following the date
of enactment of PL 92-500 so that they may be refined
as knowledge of water and human ecology improves.
In the context of this report, if a water segment does
not meet all of the Class I standards it is considered in
violation of swimmabie or water contact recreation
standards. Thus, a segment can contain excellent water
quality overall yet have standard violations in one trib-
utary and thereby be designated as non-swimmable. In
Maryland, bacteria is the Class I standard or parameter
violated most often. Bacteria is also the primary para-
meter investigated when determining if the water qual-
ity of a bathing beach is a threat to public health.
If a Class I standard violation is known to also stress
a segment fishery, it is so recorded. Class I violations for
temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and turbidity will
often stress or preclude fishing activities. However, if a
Class I standard has been violated yet the fishery is not
stressed, the segment is specified only as non-swimmable.
The bacteria standards for Class II or shellfish waters,
must be more stringent than Class I because viruses and
bacteria are retained in shellfish, which are frequently
eaten uncooked. The Maryland Environmental Health
Administration is directly responsible for monitoring and
making determinations on shellfish water closures or
openings. This determination is based on the bacterio-
logical analysis of those waters. Water sampling and
shoreline surveys are conducted on a continuing basis
and areas are closed if the water quality does not meet
prescribed standards for shellfish harvesting. Con-
versely, when water quality again reaches prescribed
standards and criteria, areas previously closed are re-
opened and remain open as long as shellfish water
quality standards are met. If a portion of a water seg-
ment contains shellfish closures, the entire segment is
specified as violating fishable standards.
Except for more stringent dissolved oxygen and tem-
perature parameters, the Class III (Natural Trout Wa-
ters) and Class IV (Recreational Trout Waters) standards
are identical to the Class I standards. If a Class III or IV
water segment exceeds DO or temperature standards,
the segment is designated as non-fishable.
The Water Quality Services Section conducted trend
sampling work in every sub-basin and intensive surveys
in selected segments during 1976. In segments which
received intensive surveys, the sampling analysis served
as the primary data source. For the segments not sam-
pled, data were provided by previous 305(b) reports.
As previously indicated, the Maryland Water Quality-
1975 report was very detailed and provided informa-
tion foreach segment. The Maryland Water Quality-1976
was simply an update of the previous year's report and
not nearly as detailed.
Sampling work and subsequent analysis conducted by
the Water Quality Services Section served as the data
base for Section 9-Water Quality Analysis in the Phase I
Water Quality Management Plans. The plans have been
extensively used by State agencies, representatives of
local governments, and citizen members of the Public
Advisory Council in each sub-basin.
B—57
-------
State of Massachusetts
Complete copies of the State of Massachusetts
305(b) Report can be obtained from the State
agency listed below:
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Water Resources Commission
Leverett Saltonstall Building
Government Center
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202
-------
APPENDIX B
Summary
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is divided into
twenty-seven major drainage basins for the purpose of
water quality management planning. Together, these
basins drain some 9,645 square miles and comprise
1,462 major river miles. There has been a great deal
of improvement throughout the State over the past
year. However, evaluation of these improvements is not
possible at this time due to data constraints. This is best
indicated by the fact that only 32.2 percent of Massa-
chusetts' major river miles are now known to be meet-
ing state water quality standards—an improvement of
only 1.4 percent over last year's figure.
Although the present quality of many of the State's
streams is below desired levels, the causes of degrada-
tion are known and the necessary abatement measures
have been given high priority so that 1983 fishable/
swimmable goals can be met. Costs for construction of
publicly-owned wastewater treatment facilities to help
reach these goals have been assessed at $3,400,433,000"
according to the 1976 needs survey.
It appears from analysis of preliminary data that non-
point sources are a significant source of water pollu-
tion in many of Massachusetts' river basins. Evaluation
of the extent and methods of controlling these sources
will be addressed in the Areawide Wastewater Manage-
ment Plans currently being prepared.
* A copy of the 7977 Facilities Needs Survey will be
appended to this report when it becomes available.
TABLE 1
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 305(b) WATER QUALITY INVENTORY SUMMARY
Drainage basin River basin or Total
coastal drainage miles
(main stem and major assessed
tributaries)
Blackstone
Boston Harbor
Buzzards Bay
Charles River
Chicopee
Connecticut
Deerfield
Farmington
(total)
(Mass.)
French and Quinebaug
Hoosic
.
Housatonic
Ipswich and Parker
Merrimack
Millers
Nashua
North River
Suasco
Taunton
Ten Mile
Westfield
Total
% of total miles
(total)
(Mass.)
(total)
(Mass.)
(total)
(Mass.)
(total)
(Mass.)
Sudbury
Assabet
Concord
328
350
265
720
2,949
666
602
149
241
713
165
1.950
500
5.OOO
1.2OO
390
350
530
105.4
381
169
175
27
530
49
517
9,995.4
106.8
43.7
44.5
8O.O
111.5
67.5
69.9
18.4
56.6
42.6
96.3
66.4
115.4
57.5
103.7
206
86.1
134
38.1
114.2
1,474.1
Miles now Miles expected Miles now
meeting to meet class meeting state
class B B by 1 983 WQ standards
35.7
0.0
16.5
1.4
49.4
5.5
38.3
18.4
19.1
17.3
26.4
33.6
0.0
17.3
5.4
11.6
0.0
18.0
3.8
68.7
386.4
26.2%
35.7
6.9
37.0
1.4
72.2
5.5
44.3
18.4
23.1
19.6
30.9
33.6
0.0
17.3
5.4
11.6
0.0
35.2
3.8
73.4
475.3
32.2%
Miles not
meeting state
WQ standards
71.1
36.8
7.5
79.4
39.3
62.0
25.6
0.0
33.5
23.0
65.4
32.8
115.4
40.2
98.3
9.0
86.1
98.8
34.3
40.3
998.8
67.8%
'Information not available at this time. As it becomes available, it will be included in the appropriate annual update of the Section
305(b) submittal.
B—60
-------
State of Michigan
Complete copies of the State of Michigan 305(b)
Report can be obtained from the State agency
listed below:
Environmental Protection Bureau
Department of Natural Resources
Stevens T. Mason Building
Lansing, Ml 48926
-------
APPENDIX B
Summary and Conclusions
What is the Present State of
Michigan's Water Quality?
Streams
Stream water quality is good, on the average, through-
out much of the State. Water quality declines somewhat
in the southern portion of the Lower Peninsula due to
urban and agricultural activity. Still, there are several
areas in this part of Michigan which are not subject to
degradation from point source discharges, and remain
in the good water quality range.
Long-term trends for selected rivers show gradual to
marked improvement, as measured by the water quality
index. Phosphorus decreases are primarily due to de-
creased point source inputs.
Inland Lakes
Approximately 40 percent of all Michigan lakes are
experiencing accelerated aging (eutrophication). The
major cause of eutrophication is excessive nutrient input
to lakes, from both point and nonpoint sources. It is
important to note that these inputs can come from the
entire lake watershed, not just from shoreline inputs.
Great Lakes
Toxic materials continue to have a major effect on
fisheries programs in Michigan waters. There has been
a decline in DOT concentrations in Lake Michigan
chubs, coho salmon, and lake trout. But Dieldrin con-
centrations in chubs and lake trout from Lake Michi-
gan have increased. Although Michigan point source
inputs have been greatly reduced, PCB concentrations
in Great Lakes fish fail to show any significant decline.
Water and biological quality in the nearshore Michi-
gan waters of the Great Lakes is generally good to
excellent. There are a few localized areas where enrich-
ment or degradation due to waste discharges has low-
ered this high overall quality.
There has been a general improvement in the quality
of the Detroit River during the past ten years. Corrective
programs have brought about significant reductions in
pollutant inputs from point source discharges. This has
resulted in improved Detroit River water quality and
reduced pollutant inputs to Lake Erie.
How is Michigan's Pollution
Abatement Program Working?
Industrial
Since 1929, most of the effort for pollution control
has been directed at improving the quality of point
source discharges. Voluntary Stipulations, Orders of
Determination, and now, NPDES Permits have provided
the driving force to industries and municipalities to stop
or reduce polluting discharges. Most dischargers will be
required to meet final NPDES Permit limits in the third
quarter of 1977. At the end of 1976, 40 percent of the
principal industrial dischargers had met their limits.
Michigan feels most industries will achieve the required
effluent quality on time. However, individual facilities
which cannot achieve best practical control technology
by July 1,1977 may require an extension.
Pollution Incident Prevention Plans require measures
which have reduced the number of accidental losses of
oil and other hazardous materials. The Pollution Emer-
gency Alert System has resulted in more spills being
reported. Consequently, more of the spills have been
dealt with, and more of the material recovered than
ever before.
Municipal
Municipal point source pollution is being reduced by
construction of new or improved treatment works.
Also, the State is assisting treatment works operators
to run their plants at top efficiency. However, more
effort is needed in this area. Construction of treatment
works is promoted through the Construction Grants
Program. Local communities provide 20 percent of the
cost, with the State and Federal governments supplying
the rest. Federal regulations slow down the allocation
of these funds, resulting in delays in construction.
These delays cause much of the money to be lost to in-
flation. Michigan proposes to be delegated most of the
program responsibility in order to speed up this process.
Despite funding problems, many municipal plants
have improved the quality of waste discharged. Total
phosphorus and BOD leadings from these plants con-
tinue to decrease despite larger volumes of raw sewage
being treated.
Phosphorus Control
Phosphorus is a key nutrient in the aging (eutrophi-
cation) process of lakes. Michigan has addressed this
problem by requiring 80 percent phosphorus removal
at municipal wastewater treatment plants. Currently the
80 percent goal is being met at municipal plants serving
only 20 percent of the State's population. Construction
grant delays are primarily responsible. In addition to
phosphorus removal, Michigan has proposed a ban on
phosphorus in household laundry detergents. These
detergents contribute 40 percent of the total phos-
phorus in raw sewage. By reducing this, the treatment
plants will have less phosphorus to remove.
Toxic Materials Programs
New programs are now underway to control toxic
materials in the environment. These include the PCB
Control Act, creation of the Office of Toxic Material
Control, the Critical Materials Register, Pollution Inci-
dent Prevention Plans, and sludge disposal guidelines.
Water Quality Standards
In order to better attain the national water quality
goals of 1983 (fishableand swimmable water), Michigan
has proposed new water quality standards. Minimum
dissolved oxygen levels would be raised to provide
greater protection for aquatic life. Also, all State waters
would be designated for total body contact, except for
some locations downstream of wastewater treatment
plants or combined sewer overflows.
What Are the Costs of These
Programs?
Municipal Costs
Municipalities will generally be required to meet sec-
ondary treatment requirements, pass and enforce sewer
B—62
-------
APPENDIX B
ordinances, regulate industrial wastes in their system,
revise user charges, and establish cost recovery pro-
grams. These costs, which total S6.6 billion cannot
possibly be met without a continuation of the Con-
struction Grants Program.
Industrial Costs
Industries are required to meet effluent limitations,
sample and analyze their wastewater, and report regu-
larly to the pollution control agencies. To meet these
limits considerable costs are incurred. These costs
are borne directly by the dischargers themselves, who
are not eligible for government grants. The result, in
most cases, is the raising of prices.
Agency Costs
Regulatory agencies must issue and enforce permits,
award construction grants, conduct studies, and moni-
tor receiving waters. Thus almost everyone is paying
for the cost of water pollution control, through both
taxes and higher prices for products.
B—63
-------
State of Minnesota
Complete copies of the State of Minnesota 305(b)
Report can be obtained from the State agency
listed below:
Division of Water Quality
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
1935 West County Road B-2
Roseville, MN55113
-------
APPENDIX B
Summary
•Water quality conditions of 26 rivers plus Lake
Superior are assessed in this report. The rivers are
grouped and presented according to the eleven basins.
The study utilized chemical and physical data from a
total of 75 state monitoring stations for the water year
1976. Primary network monitoring stations used in
this report are normally located at points representa-
tive of the most critical reaches in a stream. Therefore,
the average water quality of the stream as a whole will
generally be better than the quality at specific monitor-
ing stations.
The existing water quality in each basin was compared
with the national goal of "fishable", "swimmable"
water which is to be achieved by July 1, 1983. In lieu
of any further clarification by the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) of what is meant by this objective,
this goal is commonly equated to class 2B in the
State of Minnesota water quality standards. Thus, the
frequency of violations of the State water quality stand-
ards is indicative of which areas and to what extent this
goal has been achieved in Minnesota.
This study indicated that the majority of the rivers in
the State are currently in conformance with this goal.
However, large areas of particular rivers and a sub-
stantial number of localized areas presently appear to be
in noncompliance with applicable water quality regula-
tions and the interim goal. A total of 23 percent of the
75 water quality monitoring stations assessed in this
report are considered to currently be in noncompliance
with either the "fishable" and/or the "swimmable" as-
pect of the 1983 goal. Rivers or reaches of rivers
placed in this category are the Mississippi River below
Minneapolis-St. Paul. Zumbro River below Rochester.
Cedar River below Austin, Buffalo Creek below Glencoe,
Center Creek below Fairmont, and the headwater tribu-
taries of the Missouri and the Des Moines rivers.
Assuming that the current grant programs are con-
tinuing at existing funded levels, it is expected that the
Missouri and the Des Moines rivers headwater tribu-
taries and the metro segment of the Mississippi River,
or 11 percent of the total 27 waterways assessed, will
not conform with the interim goal by 1983. The reason
for this projected inability of these rivers to conform
with the goal by 1983 is primarily money. In the Des
Moines and Missouri rivers headwater tributaries, in-
creased funding is necessary to both upgrade inade-
quate municipal treatment facilities and implement
rigorous nonpoint source regulatory controls. These
two watersheds have particularly acute nonpoint source
problems attributable to both agricultural activities and
natural conditions. In the Twin Cities metro segment of
the Mississippi River, it appears that massive amounts
of funds would be required to control or eliminate com-
bined sewer overflows, to control urban runoff, and to
better insure the removal of pathogens from municipal
treatment plants so that the fishable-swimmable goal
can be met.
. Even if all industrial and municipal point sources are
brought into compliance, nonpoint loadings will continue
to cause and contribute to many water quality problems
in Minnesota. This is particularly apparent in the water-
sheds where agricultural activities are the dominant
land use. There is a potential that agricultural activities
may be adversely affecting the water quality in much of
the State. The highest potential areas are the south cen-
tral and southwestern sections of the State. In the
Minneapolis-St. Paul Twin Cities metro area and in the
other urban centers of the State, urban storm water
runoff is a major water quality problem. Other signifi-
cant types of nonpoint sources which impact water
quality in Minnesota include silviculture, mining, residual
waste disposal, construction activities, and dredging.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is actively in-
volved in continuing statewide planning to develop pro-
grams for the control or abatement of nonpoint source
pollution. Key programs in this effort include Section
208 areawide planning, in the Twin Cities metro area,
and outstate, and the ongoing activities of the many
local. State, and Federal agencies which have tradition-
ally been involved in programs related to nonpoint
source control.
Many municipal treatment facilities with construction
needs are being delayed until Federal funds can be ob-
tained by the community. Current levels of Federal fund-
ing for municipal wastewater treatment plants and the
control of nonpoint sources are hopelessly insufficient
when considered in relation to the total estimated needs
in Minnesota. The 1974 Municipal Needs Survey of
Minnesota indicated that the total municipal needs, ex-
cluding storm water treatment, are approximately
S1,608,000,000 (1976 dollars).
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) estimates the
cost to adequately control nonpoint sources of pollution
from cropland and pastureland would total approxi-
mately $320 million (1975 dollars) and would result in
an estimated 45 percent reduction in waste loadings.
Reducing streambank erosion would require multi-
million dollar expenditures, while corrective measures
on lakeshore erosion are estimated at $400 million
(1975 dollars). Similarly, the SCS estimated the cost of
programs to correct erosion in roadside right-of-way
areas at $ 15 million (1974 dollars).
Annual cost estimates have also been developed for
control of runoff from urban construction sites. State-
wide annual costs are estimated at $6 million (1975
dollars), of which approximately $3.8 million is attribut-
able to construction activities in the Twin Cities metro
area.
Recommendations
1. If the interim goal of the Act for swimmable waters is
to be achieved on a statewide basis in Minnesota by
July 1, 1983 or, for that matter, by any later date,
adequate funding must be allocated for the planning
and the construction of municipal wastewater treat-
ment plants, corrective programs for nonpoint
sources and the administration of existing State
programs.
2. In recognition of the water pollution control improve-
ments which have been achieved and the initiative
B—66
-------
APPENDIX B
which has been demonstrated by the State regulatory
agencies, it is recommended that the implementation
of the provisions of the Act continue to be adminis-
tered on the State level in conjunction with and in
support of existing State programs.
3. The State 305(b) reports should be required on a
biennial basis rather than on the current yearly basis.
State efforts could more profitably be channeled into
direct pollution abatement activities while still report-
ing progress every two years.
4. Additional funding should be allocated by the Federal
government to the States for expanding additional
monitoring activities.
5. In order to meet the interim and subsequent goals of
the Act throughout the entire State of Minnesota,
local and Federal funds will have to be used for the
control of nonpoint sources. An adequate nonpoint
source control program will require a close working
relationship and increased funding for the many
regulatory governmental agencies which are directly
involved in the control of nonpoint sources.
6. Nonpoint source (NFS) pollution control is, to a great
degree, dependent upon an informed populace. Both
urban and rural NFS pollution could be significantly
lessened if each citizen understood how his actions
ultimately affect the State's water quality.
7. Funds should be allocated to support the Section
314 "Clean Lakes" program as outlined in the Act.
B—67
-------
State of Mississippi
Complete copies of the State of Mississippi 305{b)
Report can be obtained from the State agency
listed below:
Mississippi Air and Water Pollution
Control Commission
P.O. Box 827
Jackson, Ml 39205
-------
APPENDIX B
Summary and
Recommendations
It has been stated that "it is the national goal that
wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality
which provides for the protection and propagation of
fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation
in and on the water be achieved by July 1.1983".
The water referred to here is defined as meaning any
and all surface water systems which are confined, im-
pounded, or free-flowing, and containing water for any
period of the year. This literally includes tens of thou-
sands of lakes, streams, ditches, and drainage canals,
the majority of which are dry or nearly dry except during
periods of heavy rainfall. Although these waters are re-
quired and projected to meet "fishable, swimmable"
standards, it is ridiculous to believe that anyone is going
to be able to fish and swim in a ditch which contains
only a few inches of water.
Nevertheless, there are about 500 streams in the
State, including these small streams, tributaries, and
ditches, which are not considered to be meeting the
"fishable, swimmable" standards. If it is assumed that
there are at least 25,000 streams, lakes, tributaries, and
ditches within the State, then 98 percent of these wa-
ters are currently meeting "fishable, swimmable"
standards.
However, if the small tributaries and ditches which
have no potential for fishing or swimming are excluded
from this estimate of total streams, the list
contains only about 1 ,OOO bodies of water. Of this list,
only about 78 (about 8 percent) are considered to be
not meeting "fishable, swimmable" standards. These
streams should be the major focus of attention in future
control programs, although it will be the goal to address
the entire BOO streams not meeting applicable standards.
There are indications of streams in the State in which it
can definitely be said that the violations of water quality
are not man-made. These streams include the upper
reaches of the Jourdan River and Black Creek in south
Mississipi. Measurements of pH have been recorded with
values ranging from 3.5 to 5.5, all of which are below the
pH standard for fish and wildlife streams.
Since there are no discharges into this segment, the
unusually low pH measurements have been attributed to
the low pH of groundwater, highly acidic soil conditions,
and the runoff from swampy areas where tannic acid pro-
duction isallowed to build up. Indeed, the lowest pH values
recorded have been during and after a heavy rainfall
incident.
Acidic soil conditions and dense pine tree forest are
quite common throughout the southern portion of
Mississippi, causing most streams in this area to be
naturally acidic. However, no other stream other than
the Jourdan River is known to be so consistently and
grossly in violation of the normal pH values. This one
case constitutes about 0.1 percent of the total streams
in the State in which natural conditions alone cause
violations in water quality standards.
The State of Mississippi has been in the past, and is
now, basically a rural State. The urban-industrial com-
plex, with which massive pollution is most often asso-
ciated, exist only in one area of the State; that being the
eastern portion of the Mississippi Gulf Coast. Although
several urban type areas exist within the State, pollution
problems resulting from this urbanization are relatively
insignificant.
B—70
-------
State of Missouri
Complete copies of the State of Missouri 305(b)
Report can be obtained from the State agency
listed below:
Clean Water Commission
Capital Bldg.. Box 154
Jefferson City, MO 65101
-------
APPENDIX B
Summary
The 1977 report contains seven major sections:
1 .A summary.
2. An introduction.
3. A review of surface water quality in each of the
eight major basins of the State, and a discussion
of groundwater quality.
4. A discussion of water pollution control activities
in Missouri.
5. Assessment of nonpoint water pollutants.
6. A statement on attaining the 1983 goals of PL
92-500.
7. A discussion of the environmental impacts, costs,
and benefits of water pollution control activities
in Missouri.
The introduction discusses the hydrology and stream
classification system in Missouri. The great differences
in geology within the State have led to the development
of stream systems which have great range of hydro-
logic characteristics. Northern Missouri is glaciated, has
a high percentage of fines in its soils, and along with
western Missouri is underlaid by impermeable Penn-
sylvanian deposits which restrict the downward move-
ment of water to recharge the aquifers of the area. The
Ozarks have coarser, thinner soils, and no Pennsyl-
vanian deposits. Consequently, infiltration of water
through the soil to the limestone and dolomite bedrock
is rapid. Therefore, while north Missouri stream flows
rely mainly on rainfall, and groundwaters recharge very
slowly, in the Ozarks the groundwater is recharged rap-
idly and emerging groundwaters (springs) sustain
stream flow between rains. These hydrologic differ-
ences and their attendant water quality differences are
reflected in the stream classification system which
recognizes the management potential of these different
systems.
The water quality assessment discussed three aspects
of surface water quality in each of eight major basins
within the State. These three were a listing of known
violations of Missouri's proposed water quality stand-
ards during 1976, a discussion of basin-wide water
quality problems and a discussion of specific water
quality problems in particular streams or stream seg-
ments. The State of Missouri, in its water quality stand-
ards, recognized 14 beneficial uses of water in the
State. Three of these uses had water quality criteria
which were known to be violated during 1976. This
information is summarized in Table 1. It should be noted
that some nonpoint source pollutants such as sediment
do not have an established standard and are therefore
not reflected in Table 1, even though problems may
exist.
Specific water quality problems usually manifest
themselves only locally and the impact of the problem is
felt only in one stream or one segment of a stream. This
report identifies strip mine acid seepage, drainage or
seepage from abandoned lead and zinc mines, effluent
discharges from sewage treatment plants and active
heavy metal mining and milling and heated effluents
as specific problems.
Basin-wide problems identified in this report include
the undersirable hydrologic characteristics of northern
Missouri streams and the organic loading of most
streams by cities and towns. The hydrologic problems of
high runoff rates cause high concentrations of sus-
pended sediments, phosphorus and fecal coliforms in
streams during high flows and the inability of the
groundwater to sustain flow between rains. These prob-
lems are geologic in origin and are aggravated by land
use practices which encourage runoff or leave the soil
unprotected. Since almost every stream of any size in
the State of Missouri receives treated and/or untreated
domestic or industrial wastes, the loading of these
streams with effluents, particularly organics, is a basin-
wide problem. The problem becomes most severe in
those basins where base flows are low and the addition
of oxygen demanding wastes seriously depletes the
stream of its dissolved oxygen supply.
Groundwater quality is largely a reflection of geology
in the State. In the northern and western parts of the
State, groundwater recharge is slow due to the pre-
sence of impermeable Pennsylvanian deposits. These
groundwaters not only have low yields, but are high in
salts. In the Ozarks, groundwater yield and quality are
high, but studies by geologists and hydrologists have
shown that surface water quality problems can be rap-
idly transferred to the groundwater. Furthermore, the
movement of groundwaters in the soluble limestone
bedrock of the Ozarks is much more complex than the
movement of surface waters. Groundwaters cross sur-
face watershed divides so that water quality problems
originating in one basin can be manifested in another.
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS VIOLATIONS IN 1976
Proposed Standards Violated by
Use Classification
Basin
Des Moines
Salt
Grand-Chariton
Lower Missouri
O sage Gasconade
Grand Neosho
White
St. Louis
Meramec
Cape Girardeau
Area
St. Francis/
Little
Aquatic
life
Dieldrin
Mercury
Ammonia
Dissolved
oxygen
Temperature
PCS
Mercury
Dieldrin
Dissolved
oxygen
Cadmium
Cadmium
Mercury
Propagation
Drinking of coldwater
water fisheries
Iron
Manganese
Iron
Manganese
Manganese
Dissolved
oxygen
B—72
-------
APPENDIX B
Several kinds of water pollution control activities are
currently underway in Missouri. In the area of municipal
waste, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources,
Water Quality Program, administers a grants program
which reviews plans and allocates funds for wastewater
treatment related construction. The department also
administers a wastewater treatment operator training
program and has a laboratory program which system-
atically monitors the quality of effluents from municipal
wastewater treatment plants.
Discharges to the waters of the State, including all
municipal discharges, are included in a permit program,
also run by the Department of Natural Resources. Table
2 shows the status of the program.
TABLE 2
STATUS OF NPDES PERMITS IN MISSOURI, JANUARY 1, 1977
Major
municipal
Minor
municipal
Major
non-municipal
Minor
non-municipal
Number of permits
in force
Number of above
permitees not in
compliance with
permit limitations
Number of permits
with final limits
in effect by
Jan. 1, 1977
80
24
600
14
44
6O
22
2.000
45
219
The Department of Natural Resources also regulates
the disposal of solid wastes to insure that all such areas
are maintained in a sanitary condition and that the en-
vironment is protected, including surface and ground-
waters. An animal waste management program, also
run by the department, stresses no discharge facilities
by disposing of all wastes on cropland or pasture.
The section of the report on nonpoint pollution
sources indicates the importance of sediment in regu-
lating water quality, particularly in the predominantly
agricultural north and western parts of the State. The
direct relationship of sediment concentration and total
phosphorus concentration is shown for several streams
in Missouri. Available information on pesticide concen-
trations in streams within Missouri is given. In some
cases it is possible to demonstrate that the highest con-
centrations of herbicides 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T occur at
high stream flows and therefore appear to be associated
with surface runoff.
Heavy metal problems come from both point and non-
point sources. Most nonpoint metals problems are asso-
ciated with low base flows and lack of dilution.
The status of Missouri's ability to meet the PL 92-500
goals of fishable, swimmable waters by 1983 is re-
flected in Missouri's stream classification system. Ex-
cept where small size excludes swimming, all Class A
waters meet these goals. Class B waters are unaccept-
able for swimming. Most of the permanent flow streams
of northern Missouri are Class B streams due to turbid-
ity, low summer flows, and the loss of deep pools to
sediment. As mentioned before, the causes for the Class
B rating are the geology and soils of the area aggravated
by present land use. A list of all streams and lakes now
meeting the 1983 goals and location maps are given in
the introduction. At present no evidence points to a
change in status of any of these streams prior to 1983.
The final section of the reports suggests that the ad-
verse environmental impacts of water pollution control
are not sufficient to override the beneficial impacts.
This opinion is made in view of the acceptability of such
environmentally controversial projects as the Truman
Reservoir, the Meramec Reservoir, and the Callaway
County Nuclear Power Station. No new information on
costs or benefits of water pollution control are in-
cluded in this report.
B—73
-------
State of Nebraska
Complete copies of the State of Nebraska 305(b)
Report can be obtained from the State agency
listed below:
Water Quality Section
Water Pollution Control Division
Department of Environmental Control
P.O. Box 94653
State House Station
Lincoln. NB 68509
-------
APPENDIX B
Summary
Water quality was assessed in each of Nebraska's
thirteen river basins. Assessment in most basins was
predominantly based on low-flow conditions and may
not be indicative of actual water quality trends or
pollution abatement success in 1976. The four approach-
es used to determine water quality trends include:
Instream assessment; comparison to historic data;
comparison to Water Quality Standards; and an evalua-
tion of the attainability of the 1983 goals.
Low-flow conditions existed throughout Nebraska
during 1976. Numerous fish kills, along with unusual
parameter concentrations, resulted from reduced flows
and dewatered streams. An average annual precipita-
tion deficit, along with excessive surface-water pumping
for irrigation, caused the flow problems. Generally,
water quality changes which occurred from the upper
to the lower reaches of streams throughout the State
were similar to changes in the past. Low-flow conditions,
nonpoint source runoff, grazing activities, small feeding
operations, and irrigation return flows appear to have
contributed most dramatically to the increased para-
meter concentrations.
Generally, surface water quality throughout the State
improved as compared to the quality which existed
before 1973. Historic comparisons revealed water
quality parameter improvements in 17 percent of the
samples studied. Of the samples studied, 6 percent
showed parameter degradation, while the remaining
77 percent of the samples appeared to be relatively
unchanged. Only three basins (Big Blue, Little Blue and
Republican) in the State experienced more parameter
degradation than improvement.
The parameters showing the most consistent im-
provement throughout the State were dissolved oxygen
(37 percent), sodium (37 percent) and turbidity (24
percent). The parameters showing the greatest degra-
dation were total dissolved solids (11 percent) and
chlorides (19 percent). When considering the entire
State, all parameters studied exhibited greater improve-
ment than degradation. Improvement in pollution abate-
ment practices were evident throughout the State,
but are not the only explanation of improved quality;
fewer rainfall events and less runoff were also factors.
A comparison of 1976 data to both the general and
specific numeric criteria listed in Nebraska's Water
Quality Standards was made to determine the para-
meters in most frequent violation. The parameters
used for the comparison were dissolved oxygen, pH,
conductivity, chloride, total dissolved solids and fecal
coliforms. Results of this comparison are found in
Appendix B of the Report. Throughout the State, fecal
coliform violations were most prevalent (19 percent).
These bacteria counts may be contributed by point
source discharges, riparian grazing activities and feed-
lot runoff.
A water, quality which will support indigenous fish
and wildlife populations is anticipated in 97 percent of
the State's surface water segments by 1983. The attain-
ability of the desired criteria for safe swimming by 1983
in many areas is unknown due to the paucity of the fecal
coliform data. It is anticipated that 49 percent of the
surface water segments will attain the swimmable goal
by 1983. Seven percent of the segments appear in-
capable of meeting this goal. The remaining 44 percent
of the State's surface water segments are extremely
questionable as to whether they meet a safe swimming
criteria within the remaining time allotment. Attainment
of this goal by the segments in question are dependent
upon the needs discussed in Water Uses Relative to
Achieving Goals, Page 249 of the report. Bacteria levels
as indicated by fecal coliform values are the most press-
ing problem in the State relative to meeting the 1983
goals.
Last year, point source control programs made con-
siderable gains in restoring and maintaining Nebraska's
water quality. The July 1, 1977 goal of secondary treat-
ment for publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities
is being met by approximately half of the State's munici-
palities. The availability of monies through the construc-
tion grant program was the greatest limiting factor for
the facilities unable to achieve secondary treatment.
Only two of 215 industrial wastewater treatment facil-
ities are unable to meet best practicable control tech-
nology at this time.
Because of the large number of feedlots in Nebraska,
not all livestock waste control facilities are in compliance
with the July 1, 1977 goal. Nearly 75 percent of the
feedlots requiring control facilities have completed
construction.
The Department of Environmental Control recom-
mends that several changes be made in the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(PL 92-500). Maximum recycling and recovery of water
and wastewater components should be the ultimate
goal rather than zero pollutant discharge. In addition,
all planning efforts should be consolidated under one
section of the Act to insure continuity in all programs
and additional funding of the Title II (construction grant)
programs must be authorized and appropriated by
Congress.
Pollution control abatement programs for nonpoint
sources are still in the early developmental stages in
Nebraska. To insure that progress is made in establish-
ing and implementing these programs, the Department
of Environmental Control recognizes a need for further
study in all aspects of nonpoint source pollution
control. The Section 208 Water Quality Planning Pro-
cess will continue to be giving nonpoint pollution
sources the attention they deserve.
B—76
-------
State of New Hampshire
Complete copies of the State of New Hampshire
305(b) Report can be obtained from the State
agency listed below:
Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission
105 Loudon Road
Prescott Park
Concord, NH 03301
-------
Introduction and Summary
Authority
This report is an assessment of the water pollution
control program of the State of New Hampshire, as of
April 1, 1977. It is prepared in response to Section
305(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500), hereinafter referred
to as the Act.
Objectives
The objectives of this report are:
1. To present the existing water quality of the main
streams and lakes of the State based on the latest
data available (Figure 1, Table 1).
2. To compare the existing quality with the desired
quality as stated in the legislatively-mandated
stream classification {Figure 2, Table 1).
3. To outline the current and projected water uses
relative to 1983 goals (Figure 3, Table 1).
4. To form a baseline for evaluation of future prog-
ress toward reaching the desired goal of achieving
water in New Hampshire "which provides for the
protection of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and pro-
vides for recreation in and on the water."* This goal
will hereinafter be loosely referred to as "fishable
and swimmable".
5. To present approximate costs required to achieve
these future intended uses.
6. To address the State's nonpoint source control
strategy.
•Quoted from Section 1O1(a) (2) of the Act.
TABLE 1
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 305(b) WATER QUALITY INVENTORY SUMMARY
River basin or
coastal drainage
(including main-
Stem and major
tributaries
Androscoggin
Connecticut
Merrimack
Oiscataqua and
coastal
Saco
Total
%of
total assessed
Total
miles
assessed
64.7
470.3
488.3
18O.5
94.0
1 .297.8*
100
Miles now
meeting
Class B
(fishable/
swimmable)
standards
or better
42.1
103.6
261.7
89.7
94.0
591.1
45.5
Miles
expected
to meet
Class B or
better by
1983
5O.4
451.8
462.6
180.5
94.0
1,239.3
95.5
Miles now
meeting
State WO
standards
42.1
103.6
266.6
89.7
94.O
596.0
45.9
Miles not
meeting
State WQ
standards
22.6
366.7
221.7
90.8
0
701.8
54.1
Water
quality
problems'*
2,5.6
2.5.6
2.5,6
2.5.6
—
Point source
causes of WQ
problems
D=Domestic
l=lndustrial
CS=Combined
sewer
D.I.CS
D.I.CS
D.I.CS
D.I.CS
—
Nonpoint
source
causes of WQ
problems
1 =Major
2=Minor
2
2
2
2
2
•Represents 8.9% of 14.544 miles of identified streams in New Hampshire.
"Column 7-Water Quality Problems: 1. Harmful substances; 2. Physical modification (suspended solids, temperature, etc.);
3. Eutrophication potential; 4. Salinity, acidity, alkalinity; 5. Oxygen depletion; 6. Health hazerds (coliform).
Present and Future Water Quality
As a result of the water quality problems listed in the
report, the present quality of many of the larger sur-
face waters are below desired levels. Figure 1 delineates
the approximate present or existing quality of the rivers
of New Hampshire. Figure 2 indicates the legal class-
ification of surface waters and represents the desired
water quality of the rivers in New Hampshire. The uses
assigned to each class are outlined in Table II A, Page 15
of the report. Note that over 99 percent of the rivers of
New Hampshire are required by State statutes to meet
the goals of "fishable", or "swimmable" waters intended
in the Act. Several segments on principal rivers are
presently degraded to less than C quality. The causes of
point source degradation are known and the necessary
abatement measures are given high priority so that the
goals of the Act will be attained.
Abatement Measures
All known significant point sources of pollution have
been issued National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits. These permits indicate the
necessary abatement measures to be taken to meet the
required water quality goals of both the State and
Federal governments. Continued emphasis is on con-
struction of municipal and industrial water pollution
control facilities. Major emphasis is also placed on the
subdivision and subsurface systems programs. This
program involves review and approval of systems to
protect the surface waters and groundwater of the
State.
Lakes
Most lakes of New Hampshire are "B" quality or
better and are "fishable-swimmable". At present there
are 23 lakes of twenty acres or more that are classified
as eutrophic. In the future there is to be no discharge
of any point sources of nutrients into the lakes of New
Hampshire. Where possible, nonpoint sources will
also be controlled by appropriate preventive measures.
Nonpoint Source
Within the State, identified nonpoint source problems
relate to:
• Agriculture practices (pesticides, nutrients);
• Silviculture practices (erosion, nutrients);
B—78
-------
APPENDIX B
FIGURE 1
WATER QUALITY INVENTORY
S C * L C
m.ES
"~ S Jo
EXISTING WATER QUALITY
A QUALITY
B QUALITY
C QUALITY
WORSE THAN C QUALITY
APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY SEPARATING
SEGMENTS H/MNG DIFFERENT EXISTING
W.TER OUAUTY
Note- aasEO ON LATEST MTA COLLECTED
THROUGH 1976
B—79
-------
APPENDIX B
FIGURE 2
CLASSIFICATION
2W!
OF SURFACE WATERS* /^$H&\
,*>'A'ii?TS\\\
dSSFH)
NEW HAMPSHIRE WATER SUPPLY
POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION
a==/'VM
~-wis
* By act of the
legislature
B—80
-------
APPENDIX B
FIGURE 3
WATER QUALITY INVENTORY OF SELECTED STREAMS
0 S ft
LEGEND
• SEGMENTS CURRENTLY MEETING THE GOftL
OF FSHAa.E/S\1i!*Ma.E AS VLELL AS THE
STATE VASTER QUALITY STANQWDS
• SEGMENTS NOT OJRRF.NTLY MEETMG THE
GOAL OF FISHflBLE/SWWMOfiLE
I SEGMENTS WHCH MX NOT ^ET THE GOAL "^. ""JJ™ _
OF FtSHOSLEySWIMMASLE BY 1983
B—81
-------
APPENDIX B
• Mining activities (sediment, pH, metals);
• Urban runoff (bacteria, nutrients);
• Construction activities (sediment);
• Individual subsurface disposal system (nutrients,
leachate); and,
• Solid waste disposal (leachate).
At present no formal nonpoint source control pro-
gram exists within the State. However, State statutes
do regulate silviculture, pesticides and erosion control.
The magnitude and severity of the nonpoint source
problem is being investigated under Section 208(b)
[F-K]. Planning for control of nonpoint sources will.
therefore, be forthcoming at the conclusion of this
investigation and be incorporated into a future Section
305(b) report.
For additional information, refer to the State's Non-
point Source Pollution Control Strategy, Staff Report
No. 71. Also refer to Appendix A, 1976 National Water
Quality Inventory Report to Congress.
Cost of Achieving Future Goals
The approximate costs for publicly-owned waste-
water treatment facilities required to achieve the future
intended uses of the streams of New Hampshire are
outlined in Appendix B of this report.
The summary of costs by river basins are:
Androscoggin River Basin $ 37,833,000
Merrimack River Basin 578,284,000
Connecticut River Basin 11 2.402.OOO
Piscataqua River and Coastal N.H. Basins 131,982,000
Saco River Basin 21,493,000
Total for the State $881,994,000
B—82
-------
State of New Jersey
Complete copies of the State of New Jersey 305{b)
Report can be obtained from the State agency
listed below:
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection
P.O. Box 1390
Trenton. N.J. 08625
-------
APPENDIX B
Summary
Table I provides an overview of the various water
quality trends for stream segments throughout the State.
Each symbol represents the combined data from several
points on each stream. The overall trend for each quality
parameter was assigned by averaging the trends for the
individual stations. Trends indentified in Table I there-
fore represent trends which exist at more than one-half
of the monitoring sites on each stream. Violations of the
criteria are not averaged. A segment will appear as
violating a criterion if the criterion is exceeded at any
site within the segment.
Although the table presents generalized water quality
information, it provides the following information:
• The parameters which are violated most frequently;
• Identification of those segments with numerous
criteria violations; and,
• An average of water quality trends throughout the
State.
TABLE 1
STATEWIDE WATER QUALITY TRENDS FOR NEW JERSEY'S SURFACE WATERS
River segment
Wallkill River
Flatbrook River
Paulinskill River
Musconetcong River
Peguest River
Delaware River Tributaries
in Runterdon County
Assunpink Creek
Doctors Creek
Crosswicks Creek
Assicunk Creek
Rancocas Creek N.B.
Rancocas Creek, Mainstem
Rancocas Creek, S.W.B.
Pennsauken Creek
Cooper River
Newton Creek
Big Timber Creek
Mantua Creek
Raccoon Creek
Oldmans Creek
Salem River
Alloway Creek
Cohansey River
Maurice River
Cedar Creek
Tuckerhoe River
Tuckerton Creek
Mill Creek
Oyster Creek
Forked River, N.B.
Great Egg Harbor River
Pine Barrens
Toms River
Metedeconk River. S.B.
Metedeconk River. N.B.
Manasquan River
Shark River
Raritan River. S.B.
Raritan River. N.B.
Raritan River. Mainstem
Millstone River
Stony Brook
Lawrence Brook
South River
Drainage
Area Fecal
(sq. mi.) coliform
210.1 4-A
65.7 0
177.4 o
157.6 +
1 58.7 +
116.9 +
89.6 +
26.7
139.2 +
45.3 +
167.0 +
346.0 +
78.0 +
35.4 4.*
42.0 +
4.A
59.3
51.2 +
32.2 +
44.4 -
113.6 +
62.1 +
105.4 4- A
386.4 4.^
O
102.O +
11.9 8
19.7 4-
. 74.0 0
142.0 TA
338.0 +
2,000.0
191.0 i*.
35.0
31. 0 4.-.
80.0
16.9
276.5 4-A
190.0 8
1.105.3 4-«.
283.O 4.-.
4.5 4*.
132.8 1^
Dissolved
oxygen
t
O
O
+
t
4.^
4
+
-
+
+
+
+
+
tA
O
i
-
+
+
O
t
T
O
t
4
O
t*
4-A
t
t^
8
+
t.*.
-
t^.
4.*.
t
+
T
Biochemical
oxygen Suspended
demand solids
4 t
t -
- -
o -
+
o o
+ -
o +
+ -
- -
t TA
t +
1* O
t*. TA
4.A t*.
O TA
+ o
t^ o
4- O
+ +
+
+ O
t*. 4.
t,..
o -
t A t A
T t^
t*. t*.
TA O
t*.
4. 4.
t*. t^.
4- 4-
O
-
8 TA
8 t^.
t^ tA
t-. t^
4. t^
t-. t^
t*. 4
Total
dissolved
solids
—
O
-
—
-
-
-
-
-
-
O
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8
8
8
8
8
-
O
8
4-
8
O
O
Phosphorus Nitrate
TA. 8
— —
8 -
+ -
+ -
8 -
TA 0
+ -
O +
8 -
+
+ +
+ -
8 t A
8 +
+ TA
4..*. +
+ O
+ O
O O
+ +
+ +
tA O
o o
-
- -
t~ 4.
t*. O
t^ r
8 +
t^. t*
8 8
4.A 0
4--A. 8
+
+
4-A 4,
4.A. 8
I*. t^
I*.
4.A TA
+ T
t^ +
PH
O
—
+
O
0
-
t
o
o
t
o
T
t
O
t
4.
O
O
O
o
-
4.^
8
-
t A
t^
t
t
B—84
-------
APPENDIX B
Passaic River Freshwater
Whippany River
Rockaway River
Ramapo River
Pequannock River
Wanaque River
Passaic River, Tidal
Peckmans River
Hackensack River
772.9
71.1
137.2
48. 0
90.0
84.0
202.O
4, ^
t-.
4. A
4-
O
4- A
4- A.
1*.
4- A
t-.
t A
t
t
O
$
IS
t A
4. A
s
O
0
O
4-
4-A
t^
TA O
tA 1
4.
1 0
T S
|
4, A -
TA
t-.
4,A
4. ^
4-A
4- A.
TA.
t^.
+
4--*.
s
s
4-A
s
1
I
TA
i
4. A
s
O
O
O
tA
r
TA
t
t^.
KEY TO SYMBOLS
t better than the criterion and improving
4- better than the criterion and degrading
T A. worse than the criterion and improving
I A. worse than the criterion and degrading
+ worse than the criterion, insufficient data for determining trend
— better than the criterion, insufficient data for determining trend
O better than the criterion, and stable
S worse than the criterion, and stable
blank = insufficient data.
B—85
-------
State of New Mexico
Complete copies of the State of New Mexico 305(b)
Report can be obtained from the State agency
listed below:
Water Quality Section
Environmental Improvement Agency
P.O. Box 2348
Santa Fe, NM 87501
-------
APPENDIX B
Introduction
The goals and objectives for water quality manage-
ment adopted by the New Mexico Water Quality Con-
trol Commission in 1976 are unchanged. While signi-
ficant progress has been achieved in several portions
of the State's water quality management program,
water quality management is a long-term function which
does not generally result in immediate drastic or
dramatic changes in water quality. Comprehensive
statewide ground water regulations have been adopted
and a two-year statewide nonpoint source planning
program is underway.
Status of Water Quality and
Water Quality Programs—May
1976 to May 1977
Water Quality
Stream Quality
Studies were completed to determine the rate of re-
covery of a twelve-mile reach of the Cimarron River
damaged by a diesel fuel spill. The spill occurred in
October 1972 when approximately 7,000 gallons of
diesel fuel flowed into the river following a truck accident.
Sampling after the spill showed a 60 to 100 percent
fish loss and decimation of aquatic invertebrate popula-
tions. The study conducted by the Game and Fish De-
partment, with assistance from the Environmental
Improvement Agency, indicated that invertebrate popu-
lations showed near recovery after one year and that
brown trout increased to about 54 percent of prespill
numbers within three years.
Reservoir Quality
Intensive sampling of Elephant Butte and Cochiti
Reservoirs is continuing. In the second summer fol-
lowing establishment of the Cochiti Reservoir perma-
ment pool (1976), massive blooms of blue-green
filamentous algae were observed. It remains to be seen
whether this characteristic is attributable to initial
leaching of nutrients from inundated land or whether it
will be a persistent problem. Algal assay and chemical
studies indicated that the Cochiti system remained
primarily limited by phosphorous.
At Elephant Butte Reservoir, relatively low algal bio-
mass and nutrient levels were found in the lower pool
throughout 1976. Field studies to obtain the physical
data necessary to apply nutrient loading models to
Elephant Butte are continuing.
Standards and Regulations
Development
Stream Standards
Revised stream standards were adopted on February
8, 1977, including additional numerical standards for
total residual chlorine, ammonia and nitrate nitrogen
for many high quality mountain streams. These stand-
ards were adopted following a statewide sampling pro-
gram and a public hearing in October, 1976 and are
consistent with the Commission's water quality manage-
ment goal to: . . ."maintain and improve the quality
of existing surface waters such as mountain streams .. .
which are still capable of supporting natural life support
systems."
Ground Water Regulations
The nation's first set of comprehensive statewide
ground water regulations was adopted on January 14,
1977, and became effective February 18, 1977. The
regulations are designed to protect ground water for
domestic and irrigation use by establishing ground
water quality standards and a system which controls
discharges to the subsurface. They are the result of a
three year process which included several public hear-
ings as well as technical advisory committee meetings
involving State agency staff and representatives of
groups affected by the regulations. Sources to be con-
trolled under these regulations include animal confine-
ment and domestic wastewater disposal lagoons,
tailings ponds, injection wells and land application of
wastewaters. Specifically exempted is irrigated agri-
culture pending better knowledge of the problem and its
possible solutions. The regulations require submission
and approval of discharge plans and monitoring of
ground water quality as appropriate. Although the
regulations are currently being appealed by members of
the uranium and power generation industries. New
Mexico has significantly progressed towards one of its
water quality management goals: "To protect the quality
of all ground water which has a natural concentration
of 10.OOO mg/l or less total dissolved solids for present
or future use as domestic and agricultural water supply"
Enforcement
Permit Adjudication
The NPDES permit program administered by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency is the principal regu-
latory tool to protect the quality of New Mexico's
surface waters. The State's Water Quality Control Com-
mission regulations provide that State regulations to
protect surface waters will not apply until Federal pro-
cedures have been exhausted. The EPA enforces permit
conditions, with the exception of those subject to
adjudication, which are "stayed". The EPA's authority to
require permits has been challenged and adjudication
has been requested by a majority of the largest mining
and milling dischargers in the State for whom permits
have been issued, including all but one of the uranium
companies and the largest copper producer in the State.
A lengthy adjudicatory process is anticipated which
must be completed before the permit conditions will
be enforceable against those major dischargers.
Ground Water Regulation Appeal
The regulations to protect ground water quality
adopted by the Water Quality Control Commission in
January, 1977 have been appealed by nine uranium
companies and six power generation companies. The
regulations are now in effect, but the extent to which
the regulations can be enforced against those com-
B—88
-------
APPENDIX B
panics appealing is not clear. The scope of the appeal
and the time involved in resolving it are unknown at
this point.
Special Studies
Nonpoint Source Planning
A statewide water quality planning program has been
initiated under Section 208 of the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act, Amendments of 1972. The focus
of the two-year program in New Mexico is on nonpoint
sources of water pollution. Major studies being carried
out under this program include: A statewide assessment
of sediment-producing sources; an evaluation of silvi-
culturally-related nonpoint sources; investigations of
the presence and biomagnification of toxic substances
in food chains along the Rio Grande; the impacts of
irrigated argiculture on surface water quality along the
Rio Grande and the nitrogen and phosphorous cycles
in the Rio Grande; a regional evaluation of the cumu-
lative effects of uranium industry activities on water
quality in the Grants Mineral Belt; and the collection
and evaluation of existing ground water quality data
statewide using a computerized data base. The final
form of the plan will be determined by the water quality
problems identified.
B—89
-------
State of New York
Complete copies of the State of New York 305(b)
Report can be obtained from the State agency
listed below:
Division of Pure Waters
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Albany, NY 12301
-------
APPENDIX B
Summary
Water quality, in general, continues to improve, as
evidenced by trends in traditional parameters usually
associated with organic oxygen-consuming wastes,
infectious agents, nutrients, and sediment/mineral
pollution. These improvements are most evident during
summer and fall low stream flow periods and are there-
for indicative of the effectiveness of point source
controls.
Major water quality problems, currently, are asso-
ciated with toxic substances, combined sewer over-
flows, urban runoff, nutrient enrichment, and oil and
hazardous substance spills, with lesser problems in
the categories of sediment/mineral pollution. These
problems can generally be associated with the higher
ranges of stream flow and are, conversely, more indica-
tive of nonpoint source activities. Toxic substances and
nutrients can also be attributed to point sources.
Table I presents a statewide summary of basin water
quality problems/priorities as a function of seven tradi-
tional categories of pollution. Priorities are indicated
in the table as H-high, M-medium, L-low, and represent
a subjective basin wide assessment. The significance
of these seven major pollutant categories is also pre-
sented in terms of related water quality impacts, water
use impairment and associated contributing factors.
Resources deployment during FY 77-78 will continue
to emphasize the following: The massive municipal
treatment facilities program now underway; identifica-
tion, track-down and control of toxic substances;
tightening up of N/SPDES permit enforcement; pre-
venting, controlling and containing oil and hazardous
substances spills; completing and coordinating water
quality management programs; and, appropriate review
and modification, where warranted, of water quality
criteria and/or use classifications.
These priorities and deployments are necessarily
subject to the uncertainty of availability of Federal and
State funding and may be constrained commeasureately.
B—92
-------
APPENDIX B
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF BASIN WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS/PRIORITIES BY MAJOR POLLUTION CATEGORIES'
Major basin
Lake Erie/ Niagara
Allegheny River
Lake Ontario/minor tributaries
Genesee River
Chemung River
Susquehanna River
Seneca-Onieda-Oswego
Black River
St. Lawrence River
LakeChamplain
Upper Hudson River
Mohawk'River
Lower Hudson River
Delaware River
Newark River-Raritan Bay
Housatonic River
Organic
02 demand
M
M
L
H
H
H
H
M
L
L
H
H
H
M
M
L
Altantic Ocean/Long Island Sound H
Infection
agents
H
L
L
H
H
H
H
M
L
L
M
H
H
M
M
M
H
Nutrients Toxics Thermal
H H
H M
H L
H M
L L
L L
H M
L L
L M
M L
M H
M L
M H
H L
L L
L L
H H
L
L
M
M
M
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
H
L
L
L
M
Sed/mineral
L
M
M
H
H
H
M
M
M
H
L
H
M
H
L
L
L
Oil/hazardous
spills
M
H
M
M
L
L
M
L
H
H
L
M
H
L
L
L
H
Significance of Major Pollutant Categories*
Organic
Concerns 02 demand
A. Water DO. BOD.
quality COD, TOC.
impacts
B. Water Fishing.
usage Propagation,
impairment Bathing
PWS
C.Contribut- Mun. point
ing factors sources
Ind. point
sources
On-lot
disposal
Urban storm
runoff, CSO
Animal
feedlots
Hydro, modi-
fications
Landfill
Leachates
Infection
agents
Total Coli
Fecal Coli
Fecal Strep
SPC
Bathing
PWS
(Pub. health)
Min. point
sources
On-lot
disposal
Urban runoff
CSO
Agriculture
NPS, animal
feedlots
Vessel wastes
Sludge
disposal
Nutrient
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
PH
Bathing
PWS
Esthetics
Ind. point
sources
Urban storm
runoff. CSO
Agriculture
NPS
Animal
feedlots
Sludge
disposal
Toxic
Heavy metals
Halo-organics
N-Compounds
Organo-DOa
Public Health
Fisheries,
Agricultural
Ind. point
sources
CSO, urban
runoff, in-
place pol-
lutants
Sludge
disposal
Thermal
Temperature
Fisheries
Ind. dis-
charges
Power
(utility)
Sediment/
mineral
Turbidity,
Susp. solids
Fisheries,
Bathing,
Navigation,
PWS
Ind. dis-
charges
Construction
NPS
Silv. NPS
Mining NPS
Agricultural
NPS
Salt water
Intrusion
Oil/hazardous
substances
WQA
Taste/odor
Essentially
all uses
Mun. point
sources
Industrial
discharges
Urban runoff
CSO
Vessel wastes
Sludge
disposal
Oil spills
B—93
-------
State of North Carolina
Complete copies of the State of North Carolina
305(b) Report can be obtained from the State
agency listed below:
Divison of Environmental Management
Department 1, of Natural and Economic Resources
Raleigh, NC 27611
-------
APPENDIX B
MOUNTA.NS
COASTAL PLAIN
Summary
The State of North Carolina encompasses an area of
52.712 square miles of which 49.067 is land and
3.645 is inland waters. According to the 1970 census,
the population of the State is estimated at 5,082,000.
There are an estimated 40,000 miles of streams and
1.685 identified surface water dischargers within the
State
North Carolina is divided into three distinct regions,
each of which has its own unique water resource bene-
fits and problems. The Mountain region is characterized
by its high mountain peaks (223 mountains have ele-
vations greater than 5,000 feet), dense woodlands and
relatively sparse population. The water quality in this
region is good with the many spring-fed mountain
streams providing high quality waters which support
many excellent trout fisheries. While the cold turbulent
waters of this region are capable of assimilating much
larger quantities of oxygen consuming materials than
the Piedmont and Coastal waters, protecting sensitive
fish species such as mountain trout requires preventing
even slight degradation of water quality.
The Piedmont region is characterized by much lower
elevations and gently rolling hills. Since this region is
the most populated and industrialized area of the State,
a tremendous demand is placed on water resources.
Not only does the Piedmont region contribute the
heaviest waste load to the waters, but is also has the
greatest demand for clean water for public and indus-
trial consumption and for recreation. As would be ex-
pected, the majority of the State's water quality
problems occur in this region.
The Coastal Plain region is characterized by generally
flat terrain spanning from the higher elevations near
the Piedmont to the low lying swamplands in the east
to the sandy beaches of the coast. The water quality in
this region is generally good except in areas of dense
population. The waters in this region have higher
temperatures and are slow moving and sluggish, thus
they can assimilate much less oxygen demanding sub-
stances. Drainage from the swamplands often cause
naturally occurring low oxygen levels, low pH, and high
color and turbidity in streams in the area. Since the
coastal waters receive the residues from the interior
parts of the State, there is a potential for water quality
problems, especially deposits of harmful substances and
nutrient over-enrichment, in the bays and sounds inside
the Outer Banks. Protecting fish and shellfish in the
coastal waters is an important consideration in this
region, since the harvesting of shellfish and commercial
and sport fishing is a major commercial resource of
the area.
B—96
-------
State of Ohio
Complete copies of the State of Ohio 305(b)
Report can be obtained from the State agency
listed below:
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 118
Columbus. OH 43215
-------
APPENDIX B
Summary
This document is the third annual water quality report
prepared by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(Ohio EPA).
As requested by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, this report concentrates on informa-
tion and data obtained in water year 1976 (October
through September). Earlier data were only included
where significant trends have been noted. For each
water quality situation, a general sketch of the state of
affairs in Ohio is presented.
In general, the comments given are developed from
the data collected from each of the water quality
monitoring stations. The sampling program from which
data are obtained is described in Section 3 of the report,
and a tabulation of the data collected in the Primary
Water Quality Monitoring Network (PWQMN) is pre-
sented in Appendix I. PWQMN data and the individual
basin reports are the principal sources of information
for the body of this report. Summary reports on field
biological investigations and the Ohio Lakes Program
are included. Funds required for the State of Ohio to
meet Federal Water Quality Goals are presented.
B—98
-------
State of Oklahoma
Complete copies of the State of Oklahoma 305(b)
Report can be obtained from the State agency
listed below:
Department of Pollution Control
Box 53504
N.E. 10th & Stonewall
Oklahoma City. OK 73105
-------
APPENDIX B
Introduction
This report was prepared from data generated by
the Surface Water Quality Ambient Trend Monitoring
Program conducted by the Oklahoma State Department
of Health and the United States Geological Survey in
cooperation with the Pollution Control Coordinating
Board. This program consists of monthly monitoring
of approximately 117 stream sites throughout the
State.
Water quality has been assessed by evaluating data at
the most distant upstream sites monitored on the Red
River and the Arkansas River and determining down-
stream quality variations. Monitored tributaries to these
two major drainages have been separately evaluated to
indicate water quality and to identify influence on water
quality variations in the Red and Arkansas Rivers.
This document includes first a general water quality
statement for each stream monitored with each state-
ment being subdivided into nutrients, minerals, and
metals evaluations. Within each sub-division evaluation,
violation of stream standards which may have occurred
during WY 76 have been indicated. Each segment evalu-
ation includes all mean data accumulated for that seg-
ment. This data summary immediately follows each
water quality statement. The amount of raw data ac-
cumulated to prepare this report is too voluminous to be
included as a part of this assessment. However, such
data are available through the EPA's STOrage and
RETrieval (STORET) computer system and may be
retrieved by using Oklahoma State Department of
Health (OSDH) monitoring site numbers included with
each water quality statement on request to the OSDH,
State Water Quality Laboratory.
Data Evaluation
In order to make any evaluation, it is first necessary to
establish, either by general usage, by law, or by defini-
tion, the criteria against which judgements are made.
The report used the following evaluation methods.
Stream Standards
Standards for chlorides, sulfates, total dissolved
solids, pH range, minimum dissolved oxygen concen-
trations, cumulative relationship values (CRV) of toxic
metals, and temperature maximums used herein are
those established in Oklahoma's Water Quality Stand-
ares, 1973. For parameters not found in the Oklahoma
Standards, standards established in Water Quality
Management Plans for Oklahoma, 1975 are used. Such
violations are hereafter referred to as "exceeded maxi-
mum recommended limits."
Indices
• Nutrient Index
This index has been determined for this report for
comparative purposes and is not intended to reflect
any real number indicative of stream conditions, nor
should it be construed to indicate nutrient loading in
any stream segment. The index has been established
by weighting of in-stream concentrations of chemical
oxygen demand, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, dis-
solved oxygen, and pH measurements. The index
number is, in effect, the ratio of observed to ideal
water quality.
• Mineral Index
This index was determined for this report by utilizing
dissolved solids data. Validity or actual calculation of
such data relied upon concentrations of total alkalinity,
chlorides, sulfates, total dissolved solids, and field
measurements of specific conductance, depending
upon which data were available for a particular stream
segment.
Total Versus Dissolved Metals
All metals analyses performed determined total
metals concentrations, in that samples were not filtered
before preservation. Such determinations will reflect
high metals concentrations during or after runoff events,
or if any stream condition is conducive to particulate
suspension. Marked fluctuations in raw data for metals
are a reflection of this condition.
Variations from the Mean
In order to establish for a time period a representative
value for any given parameter, it is necessary to delete
from calculation of the annual mean any value which has
significant variance from a median value. Mean data
included in this report do not indicate deletion of these
deviations, but concentrations used in calculating load-
ings and indices have been calculated on an annual
mean basis with such deletions executed.
Chemical Oxygen Demand
In areas of Oklahoma which are very highly minera-
lized due to chlorides, COD concentrations are less
meaningful in estimating nutrient levels of a stream due
to chloride interferences with analytical determinations.
Although mercuric sulf ate is used to complex the chloride
ion and mitigate its effect on analytical results, very
high concentrations of chlorides in a sample reduce
accuracy of the COD test considerably. This situation
is evident in COD data for the Cimarron River and Salt
Fork of the Arkansas drainages, and in the Salt Fork of
the Red River drainage.
Maps
Two maps are included with this report which depict
mineral and nutrient quality of stream segments in
Oklahoma by color code.
Charts
A chart of nutrient and mineral loadings, flows, and
mineral/nutrient index values are included for each
stream segment in the Appendix of this report, (see
"Variations from the Mean," above).
B—100
-------
State of Oregon
Complete copies of the State of Oregon 305(b)
Report can be obtained from the State agency
listed below:
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
1234 W.Morrison St.
Portland, OR 97205
-------
APPENDIX B
Summary
In 1976, the Department of Environmental Quality
revised its statewide water quality monitoring program
pursuant to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
regulations and established a base network of 74
freshwater monitoring stations. This network consists
of 9 primary and 65 secondary stations. Primary sta-
tions are located at critical points on major streams and
are sampled monthly, every year to establish long-term
trends in water quality. Secondary stations are located
on smaller streams and large tributaries to parent
rivers. These locations are sampled monthly for one
year, every third year. This revised monitoring program
provides a broader range of analyses on fewer samples
and more frequent sampling at selected sites to estab-
lish both seasonal and long-term water quality trends.
The primary stations sampled in 1976 included three
sites on the Willamette River and one each on the Des-
chutes, Umpqua, Rogue, Klamath, McKenzie, and San-
tiam Rivers. In addition, a total of 17 secondary sta-
tions were surveyed as follows: 8 in Rogue Basin, 3 in
Grande Ronde Basin, 2 in Powder Basin, and one each
in Umatilla, John Day. Malheur River and Owyhee
Basins.
Water quality at each of the basins' monitoring
points generally met the established instream standards
in 1976. Some of the observed water quality abera-
tions follow.
PH
The pH standard for each of the basins surveyed is 6.5
to 8.5 except for Malheur River, Owyhee, and Klamath
Basins where the standard is 7.0 to 9.0. Some minor
technical violations included values both above and be-
low the established standards. Those below the standard
most likely resulted from surface runoff during high flows,
whereas those that exceeded the standard were related
to the photosynthetic activity of algal blooms during
seasonal low flows. Neither type of deviation is known to
adversely affect aquatic organisms or the beneficial uses
of water.
Dissolved Oxygen
All basins have a seasonal low flow dissolved oxygen
standard of 9O percent of saturation, except in the
Grande Ronde, John Day. Umatilla, Powder, Malheur
River and Owyhee Basins where it is 75 percent of
saturation. The middle and lower reaches of the Willa-
mette and Klamath Rivers have dissolved oxygen
standards expressed in mg/l. For salmonid spawning.
hatching and rearing waters, the standard in each
basin is 95 percent of saturation. Most of the basins'
streams generally met the established standards for
dissolved oxygen on a year-round basis in 1976, ex-
cept for minor technical violations ranging from 1 to
4 percent below the standard. These deviations were
probably due to analytical error or to natural water
quality conditions. Slight deviations relative to the stand-
ards are not known to affect resident aquatic life or
adversely limit the beneficial uses of water.
MPN Total Conforms
Where bacterial standards have been established for
streams or stream reaches, either 240 total coliform
organisms per 100 ml or 1,000 total coliform organ-
isms per 10O ml is the standard. Although a standard
for fecal coliform concentrations has not been estab-
lished, those organisms were sampled in conjunction
with total coliforms for comparative purposes. The
bacterial standards were met in most basins with
several exceptions. In those stream reaches where the
standards were not met, the following events prob-
ably occurred:
• Land wash runoff during seasonal high flows car-
ried bacterial populations into the streams, thus
causing a violation of the standard.
• Streams receiving irrigation return flows during the
summer season usually yielded relatively high total
coliform concentrations.
• It is the Department's intent to adopt a fecal coli-
form standard to replace the current total coliform
standard when sufficient data has been collected
and evaluated. Until such time, the Department will
continue to use the established MPN total coliform
standards.
In addition to the above parameters relative to wafer
quality standards, several other parameters are influ-
enced by seasonal variation in stream flows. The seasonal
variations in flow cause higher temperatures during the
summer low flow period. Land wash runoff during high
flows generally causes high levels of suspended solids in
the streams.
In general, high flows occur in basins located west of
the Cascade Mountain Range during the months of No-
vember through May and in basins east of the Cascades
during the spring. Those flows primarily correspond to
rainfall and snowmelt runoff patterns in the western and
eastern portionsoftheState. respectively.
For the basins surveyed in 1976, water quality abera-
tions which occured on occasion were associated with
seasonal flow patterns inherent in the basins. They are
not known to have either stressed the aquatic life or limited
the recognized beneficial uses of water. Currently, the
least understood water quality parameter is the fluctuat-
ing coliform bacterial population, its various sources and
its impact on recognized beneficial uses of water. Addi-
tional studies are needed before the Department can pro-
pose replacement of the total coliform standards with
fecal coliform standards.
B—102
-------
State of Pennsylvania
Complete copies of the State of Pennsylvania
305(b) Report can be obtained from the State
agency listed below:
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources
Bureau of Water Quality Management
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg. PA17120
-------
APPENDIX B
Summary
Pollution Sources
Water pollution problems in Pennsylvania are attri-
butable to a variety of sources. These are considered
in two general categories, point and nonpoint sources.
Point sources are those such as sewage discharges,
industrial waste discharges and storm or combined
sewer drainage that are conveyed to a water body in
a pipe or channel. Nonpoint sources include discharges
of polluted ground water, storm water runoff, drainage
from abandoned mines, and agricultural runoff. In
addition to the point and nonpoint source pollutants,
many of which are chronic in nature, acute problems
are caused by the addition of substances in the State's
waters through spills and accidents which are most
often related to storage or transport of materials.
The State of Pennsylvania has a total area of approxi-
mately 45,333 square miles. Pollution problems vary
with population concentration, type of industry or
mineral resources in an area, and very often the geology
and topography of an area. The nearly 12 million people
who live and work in Pennsylvania are not uniformly
distributed over the State and, therefore, the intensity
of population-based pollution problems are not uniformly
distributed.
In areas with heavy industrial and population con-
centrations, sewage and industrial wastes are the major
pollution sources. Storm and combined sewer runoff
add to the pollution problems. In western and parts of
central Pennsylvania, drainage from bituminous coal
mines (primarily abandoned mines) creates serious
water quality problems. The same situation exists in
the anthracite area of northeastern Pennsylvania.
Approximately 2.OOO miles of major streams in Penn-
sylvania are adversely affected by drainage from aban-
doned coal mines. Figure 1 shows the magnitude of the
mine drainage problem in the State's major river basins.
Other pollution sources in Pennsylvania include oil
well operations in northwestern Pennsylvania, con-
struction and other earth-moving operations which have
created serious erosion and sedimentation problems,
and a significant number of power plants scattered
throughout the State which discharge heat—also a
potential pollutant.
A description of the State's water pollution control
program can be found in the annual State strategy and
program plan prepared by the Bureau of Water Quality
Management and submitted to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Assessment of Water Quality
The success or effectiveness of Pennsylvania's water
quality management program can best be measured
by the improvement in quality of polluted or degraded
water and by the adequacy of protection of good
quality waters. From 1972 through 1976, there was a
net increase of 669 miles of the State's streams show-
ing improvement. In 1976, 136 miles of streams im-
proved, while 47 miles were degraded for a net gain
of 89 miles of streams improved during the year. These
improvements were due to upgrading or eliminating
waste discharges, mine drainage treatment and abate-
ment activities, and changes in industrial operations.
Approximately half of the stream degradation was
caused by coal mining operations.
A tabulation of stream quality changes (improvement
and degradation for the years 1972 through 1976) is
summarized by major drainage basin below. A detailed
tabulation can be found in Part I of the State report.
PENNSYLVANIA STREAM QUALITY
(1972-1976)
Drainage
basin
Delaware
Susquehanna
Ohio
Lake Erie
Potomac
Total
Miles
of stream
improved
85
261
430
34
5
815
Miles
of stream
degraded
2
58
77
9
0
146
Net
improvement
83
203
353
25
5
669
Water quality standards were established for Pennsyl-
vania surface water between 1967 and 1973, and were
designed to protect stream uses that would be possible
if there was no pollution. Specific numerical criteria
were assigned to protect these uses. The water quality
standards are currently under review and revision as
required by Section 303(e) of PL 92-50O. This will
ensure that State and Federal legal requirements are
being met and that water quality criteria and indicator
coverage are adequate to protect uses. Public hearings
on these revisions will be held in 1977.
Water quality standards are in effect for all of the
State's waters and are monitored routinely at 235
locations. We do not have monitoring stations or survey
information on every stream. Part II of the State report
includes a stream segment-by-segment evaluation of
miles of major streams meeting water quality criteria
and an identification of the major problems. Major
problems are further defined as to the parameter group
responsible for failure to meet water quality standards.
We have also included in this year's report for the first
time an assessment of the point and nonpoint impact
for each problem area. If there are pollution problems,
an indication of the progress toward correcting the
problems is provided. These estimates are the best
available at present.
Summarized below by drainage basin is a status
report on compliance with water quality criteria. On an
overall basis, approximately 80 percent of the State's
major streams comply with water quality criteria. Major
streams are those with stream quality monitoring
stations and those described in the 1917 Pennsylvania
Gazetteer of Streams.
B—104
-------
LAKE ERIE BASIN
FIGURE 1
TONS OF ACID DISCHARGED PER DAY BY THE
MAJOR RIVER SYSTEMS OF PENNSYLVANIA
SUSQUEHAMN.A
RIVER BASIN
NORTH BRANCH
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVER BASIN
WEST BRANCH
ALLEGHENY-MONONGAHELA RIVER
BASIN
WiIkes-Barre
Wi namsport
OHIO
RIVER
BASIN •
DELAWARE
RIVER
BASIN
Lewistown
•
SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN MAIN STEM
Pittsburgh
Norn stown
Harrisburg
POTOf'AC RIVER BASIN
'
n
g
-------
COMPLIANCE WITH WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
Drainage
basin
Delaware
Susquehanna
Ohio
Lake Erie
Potomac
Miles of Percent of stream miles
major streams meeting criteria
2,370
7.479
3.796
100
418
77
81
73
90
98
At the present time, 2,855 miles, or approximately 20
percent of major stream miles in Pennsylvania, fail to
meet water quality standards. Abandoned mine drain-
age, either by itself, or in combination with other pol-
lution sources, is responsible for approximately 2.OOO
of the total miles degraded.
The chart below summarizes data presented in Part
II. Table 2, Pages 122-124 of the State Report.
Bacteria criteria are not included in water quality
assessments due to lack of good data. In addition, ex-
perience has shown that due to the uncontrolled nature
of nonpoint runoff, bacteria criteria are exceeded in
most streams during some portion of the year.
MILES OF STREAMS NOT MEETING WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS AND TYPES OF POLLUTION RESPONSIBLE
1976—TOTAL 2,855 MILES
Inorganic
831 Miles
(30%)
Combination
1,453 Mites
(50%)
1. ORGANIC pollution includes waste that contains
BOD as well as plant nutrients that create an organic
response. These generally are municipal and industrial
wastes and some farmland and urban runoff.
2.TOXIC1INORGANIC pollution includes industrial
waste, abandoned mine drainage, and oil and gas ex-
traction brines, some farmland and urban runoff, power
generation and construction related pollutants.
3. COMBINATION includes areas that have both
ORGANIC and TOXIC I INORGANIC pollution sources.
The magnitude of nonpoint source impact on water
quality is apparent from compiled data which shows
that 2.012. or approximately 70 percent of the 2.855
miles that do not meet water quality standards, are
APPENDIX B
attributable to nonpoint pollution. These point/nonpoint
degradation data are included for the first time in the
1977 Section 305(b) Report, and are based on best
available information (Part II, Table 4, Pages 128-129
of the State report).
Projecting to 1983, 2,200 miles of major streams in
Pennsylvania will fail to meet established water quality
goals. Mine drainage from abandoned mines, either by
itself or in combination with other pollution sources,
will account for over 90 percent of the stream miles
which are not expected to meet established goals. The
following chart summarizes data presented in Part II,
Table 3, Pages 125-127 of the State report.
MILES OF STREAMS WHICH ARE NOT EXPECTED TO
MEET 1983 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND
STREAM MILES AFFECTED—TOTAL 2,200 MILES
Organic
167 Miles
(8%)
Toxic/Inorganic
925 Miles
(42%)
Combination
1.108 Miles
(50%)
1. ORGANIC pollution includes waste that contains
BOD as well as plant nutrients that create an organic
response. These generally are municipal and industrial
wastes and some farmland and urban runoff.
2. TOXIC I INORGANIC pollution includes industrial
waste, abandoned mine drainage, and oil and gas ex-
traction brines, some farmland and urban runoff, power
generation and construction related pollutants.
3. COMBINATION includes areas that have both
ORGANIC and TOXICIINORGANIC pollution sources.
It is apparent that progress in attaining the 1983
"fishable-swimmable" goals as set forth in PL 92-50O
is being realized. Improved industrial waste treatment
facilities and construction and upgrading of municipal
facilities continues to result in improved water quality
conditions. However, the magnitude of the nonpoint
pollutional sources, especially abandoned mine acid
drainage, will no doubt prevent full achievement of
the 1983 goals in Pennsylvania.
B—106
-------
APPENDIX B
Water Pollution Control Expenditures
Progress in water pollution control is brought about
by investments at the local. State and Federal levels.
Everyone pays for water pollution control through taxes,
sewer bills and the cost of products. The following
table presents capital expenditure and pollution abate-
ment needs that illustrate recent Federal and State
government investments made in grants and abate-
ment projects and some estimates of remaining needs.
Cost figures were not available for the local share
of municipal projects, but most of the grant funds for
sewage treatment plant construction were made on
a 75 percent Federal and 25 percent local basis. Cost
data are not available for industrial investments at the
present time. We expect to have improved estimates
available in the future from the State's COWAMP
program.
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL EXPENDITURES (1972-76)
AND NEEDS (MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
State and Federal
government
expenditures
Estimated
pollution
abatement needs
Chlorinated Hydrocarbon
Monitoring Program
Pennsylvania monitoring and surveillance efforts
were expanded in 1976 with the initiation of a State-
wide monitoring program to determine levels of PCB
and other persistent hydrocarbons in selected species
of fish. The data indicated that PCBs are widespread
throughout the Commonwealth, but in relatively low
concentrations.
Supplemental Water Quality Reports
Summaries of Water Quality Inventory Reports for
the Delaware, Ohio and Susquehanna Rivers as pre-
pared by the Delaware River Basin Commission, Ohio
River Valley Water Sanitation Commission and Susque-
hanna River Basin Commission are included in Appendix
C of the State report.
Sewage collection
and treatment
824
2,984
Abandoned mine
drainage pollution
and abatement
129
1.0OO
Industrial pollution No data No estimate
abatement available available
Erosion and sediment No estimate
control 1.5 available
Storm water
management
Total
No data
available
954.4
3,917
7.901
B—107
-------
Puerto Rico
Complete copies of the Puerto Rico 305(b) Report
can be obtained from the State agency listed below:
Environmental Quality Board
1550 Ponce de Leon Avenue
Santurce. PR 00910
-------
APPENDIX B
Introduction
This report, like the report submitted last year, was pre-
pared in compliance with Section 305(b) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(PL 92-500).
The main objective of this year's Section 305(b) re-
port is to present an evaluation of water quality trends in
Puerto Rico by using data gathered in monitoring sta-
tions throughout the island. Updated cost estimates in-
volved in meeting the goals of the Act are also presented.
Summary
In order to define the changes in the water quality
picture over the years, it was decided to limit the analysis
to the data collected as part of the routine monitoring net-
work of surf ace waters carried on by the U.S. Geological
Survey, and of coastal waters by the Puerto Rico Environ-
mental Quality Board.
General trends noted in the surface waters near the
last three years indicate there have been some improve-
ments in water quality with respect to dissolved oxygen.
Concerning total and fecal coliforms there had been
some increase in number in some stations. A trend analy-
sis was made for 19 surface water stations that have
five-year coliform data. Only 21 percent of the stations
have a definite trend pattern. One station has a down-
ward pattern, meaning improved water quality. Three
stations show an upward trend, or an increase in the
number of coliforms. From this it was concluded that
a year-to-year change in water quality cannot be estab-
lished as an improvement or deterioration.
It was found that the only new treatment plants that
are operating are at Ciales and Naranjito, so that any
improvement in water quality can only be attributed to
abatement measures other than the construction grant
program; probably the NPDES permit system had limited
water pollution discharges.
The extent of the problem is still great, as can be seen
from the fact that 32 of the 58 stations are still in con-
travention of the standard.
The general trends noted in the dissolved oxygen
analysis for coastal water indicate that in almost all cases
where dissolved oxygen data were considered improved
in last years report, had remained the same. Only two
stations were found to have dissolved oxygen mean
values lower than the standard. Increased fecal coli-
forms at two stations may be due to the fact that there
were more sanitary discharges to the beach area and
sampling was done during the time of discharges, or
shortly afterwards.
In terms of existing water quality, it should be noted
that there are still coastal waters in violation of appli-
cable water quality standards. These violations, how-
ever, represent a small percentage of the total stations
sampled.
The bacteriological survey done by The Environ-
mental Quality Board in the Condado beach area proved
that while there were some improvements in water
quality, there is still a health hazard to those who would
use the area. Last year's report indicated that the de-
graded quality of the waters in this area is due to the
large percentage of illegal sanitary sewer connections
to storm sewers. For this reason, the Condado Beach
restoration task force was formed. Since no intensive
study was done during the fiscal year reported, only
the abatement actions done by this group were con-
sidered.
The current waterborne diseases situation in Puerto
Rico is relatively unchanged from what was reported
last year. All of Puerto Rico's surface waters must
still be assumed to harbor Schistosoma mansoni, the
parasite which causes the disease Schistosomiasis.
During a recent survey of the prevalence of Bilharzia
in the eastern part of Puerto Rico, a skin test performed
on fifth grade school children by the Center for Energy
and Environment Research in May, 1976, showed the
high prevalence of this disease in this area. It was also
reported that this disease is even more prevalent in
areas which have no control programs for Bilharzia.
Water Quality Goals
and Control Programs
The situation in Puerto Rico with respect to water
quality goals is basically unchanged since last year's
report. The basic problem is the parasitic disease
Schistosomiasis. It is felt Puerto Rico can attain the
goals of the Act, but whether these goals can be at-
tained by 1983 is another story. It is felt that there will
be a better overview in this regard after the July, 1977
milestone.
Costs and Benefits
Municipal needs were determined to be $1.033
million (1973 dollars) in the 1976 "Needs" survey.
This is a revised cost that was presented in last year's
report. In order to update this figure, the total cost
estimate presented in the most recent priority list was
tabulated to be $910 million. This represents the ma-
jority of projects scheduled for construction, but is
not a complete list since there are certain projects for
which no cost information has been compiled to date.
There is no information presently available concern-
ing the cost involved with applying water quality
management techniques to industrial or nonpoint
sources of pollution.
The benefits to be derived by providing secondary
treatment at regional plants employing long ocean out-
falls are still in question. It seems clear that budgetary
considerations will exercise a strong influence on future
planning of treatment levels in Puerto Rico.
Nonpoint Sources of
Pollution
While no new data have been generated, and very
few observations have been carried out in this respect,
it seems clear that the nonpoint source pollution situ-
ation in Puerto Rico has been changed very little since
last year. The major nonpoint sources are attributed to
rural populations discharging raw wastes to receiving
waters, siltation runoff, pesticide contamination, and
agricultural runoff.
B—110
-------
State of Rhode Island
Complete copies of the State of Rhode Island 305(b)
Report can be obtained from the State agency listed
below:
Division of Water Pollution Control
Rhode Island Department of Health
State Office Building
Davis Street
Providence, Rl 02908
-------
APPENDIX B
Summary
Under Public Law 92-50O, Section 3O5(b), the State is
required to report each year to Congress through the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the progress
being made toward meeting water quality goals. This
report affords each State the opportunity to report to
the people and Congress on progress and problems in
achieving short-term and long-term (1983) goals set for
the water pollution control program. It affords citizens
and Congress an opportunity to see how funds are
spent in achieving these goals and allows the public a
chance to comment where program priorities should be
assigned.
This report seeks to summarize: Existing water quality;
the effect of point sources of discharge; waters which
are expected to meet water quality criteria for 1977 and
1983, with an analysis of conditions possibly preventing
this achievement; and. costs of achieving the objectives
ofPL92-500.
In the discussion of water quality, the basin approach is
taken, incorporating basins established for the Section
303(e) continuing planning process. The report is based
on information contained in the water pollution control
plans for the seven basins for Rhode Island—Blackstone.
Moosup. Moshassuck. Narragansett Bay, Pawcatuck.
Pawtuxet, and Woonasquatucket (Figure 1)—the 1975
Section 305(b) Report, the 1976 Needs Survey, and the
1976 Construction Grant Priority Report. Table 1 pre-
sents a summary by basin of the status of meeting water
quality objectives. More detailed information can be
found in reports listed in the reference section of the
State report.
Rhode Island hasa combined land and inland water area
of 1,058 square miles. It has a salt water shoreline of 419
miles in length. While Rhode Island is the nation's second
most densely populated State, 70 percent remains unde-
veloped. The goal of the State's Statewide Planning Pro-
gram is to retain, through proper land use planning, an
open space at 50 percent of the total land area through
1990.
Rhode Island's economic base has changed significant-
ly from the time the textile industry replaced agriculture in
the middle 19th century as the major industry. In recent
years, jewelry and machine-tool manufacturing has re-
placed the textile industry as the major manufacturing
industries. In 1971 it was estimated that non-manufac-
turing employment provided more than three-fifths of the
jobs available. From 1965 to 1970, employment in manu-
facturing declined by 600 jobs, while employment in non-
manufacturing service industries increased by 25.0OO
jobs.
Many rural communities have sought to increase their
tax base by zoning rural areas for industrial use. Yet, a
recent survey reported that one-quarter of all industrially-
zoned sites in Rhode Island were characterized by
unfavorable soil and topographical conditions. One-sixth
of these sites lacked public water, three-fifths lacked
public sewers, and two-thirds lacked rail service. It is our
intent through the State land use plan and the issuance
of State approvals for treated waste discharges to dis-
courage or prohibit industrial growth in rural areas
where public sewers are not available, especially where
industries require large amounts of water and would
consequently produce large volumes of waste for dis-
posal. Recently-established industrial parks, provided
with public water and sewerage, are still under-utilized.
TABLE 1
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 305(b) WATER QUALITY INVENTORY SUMMARY-APRIL 1977
1
River basin or
drainage
(including main-
stem and major
tributaries)*
Blackstone River
Moosup River
Moshassuck River
Narragansett Bay
Pawcatuck River
Pawtuxet Riverb
Woonasquatucket River
Total river mites
2
Total
miles
88.8
25.2
17.4
117.764ac
115.0
59.7
22.6
327.7
3
Miles now
meeting
Class B
(fishabte/
swimmable)
or better
47.9
25.2
8.2
107.959ac
93.9
28.3
7.9
211.4
4
Miles
expected to
meet Class
Boy 1983
53.7
25.2
9.9
1 1 2.832ac
102.5
29.8
12.8
233.9
5
Mites now
meeting
State WQ
standards
75.5
25.2
14.1
107.959ac
111.0
56.4
19.8
302.0
6
Miles not
meeting
State WQ
standards
13.3
0
3.3
9.805ac
4.0
3.3
2.8
26.7
7
Water
quality
problems*
5,6
5.6
6
5,6
5,6
5.6
8
Point-source
causes of WQ
problems
M=Municipal
l=lndustrial
M.I
M
M.I
M.I
M.I
M
9
Non-point
source-
caused
problems
1 =major
2=minor
3=N/A
2
1
1
unknown
2
1
•Column 7—Water Quality Problems: 1. Harmful substances; 2. Physical modification (suspended solids, temperature, etc.);
3. Eutrophtcation potential: 4. Salinity, acidity, alkalinity; 5. Oxygen depletion; 6. High coliform.
•Does not include Ten Mile River Basin. See Massachusetts River Basin Plan Reports.
bPawtuxet River—Does not include Flat River Reservoir and tributaries thereto (Existing Class A and B).
B—112
-------
APPENDIX B
FIGURE 1
RHODE ISLAND RIVER BASINS
A.BIackstone
B.Moosup
C.Moshassuck
D. Narragansett
E.Pawcaluck
F.Pawtuxet
;2,T' G.Woonasquatucket
B—113
-------
State of South Carolina
Complete copies of the State of South Carolina
305(b) Report can be obtained from the State
agency listed below:
Department of Health and Environmental Control
J. Marion Sims Building
1600 Bull St.
Columbia, SC 29201
-------
APPENDIX B
Summary
Current Water Quality
The conditions of the waters of the State of South Caro-
lina were reviewed using a combination of biological data
and stream water quality data. Generally, the waters were
of good to moderately good quality, in most cases meeting
the present standards. It was seen that currently 84 per-
cent of the State's "swimmable, f ishable" goal showed the
percentages of waters meeting the goal ranged from 9O
percent to 79 percent.
Control Program
Various programs of the State cover a wide range of
activities in pollution control and management. Construc-
tion grant projects for numicipal facilities continue to be
actively processed without compromising their quality.
Facilities plans (Section 201 of Public Law 92-500) have
been approved for 16 areas State construction permit
issuance increased this, reflecting the upgrading of treat-
ment plants and the effectiveness of the NPOES permits.
Under Section 401 (Public Law 92-500) a total of 727
State Water Quality Certifications were issued by the
Department of Health and Environmental Control(DHEC)
during 1975-76 to applicants for Federal permits or
licenses.
A brief description of each Section 208 area is included.
An analysis of the Fiscal Year 1977 Program Plan for
South Carolina showed that many major dischargers are
currently meeting 1977 standards.
Special programs such as oil spill prevention and fish
kill investigation are all contributing to the control of po-
tential pollution problems.
No new areas were closed to shellfishing in 1976. At
present, two million bushels are produced from open
areas, and closed areas have the potential for one million
bushels.
Costs and Benefits
Costs given are taken from the 1976 "Needs Survey".
These costs are broken into five categories and estimates
of each was made.
The benefits of water pollution control are discussed
very generally. Statewide, many programs are too recent
toshow definite waterquality benefits.
Nonpoint Sources
Because of their very nature, nonpoint sources have
not had the recognition, attention, or evaluation that point
sources have received. In the Santee-Cooper basin, non-
point problems were prevalent around urban areas, and
to some degree throughout the basin. The Edisto basin
also showed problems prevalent near urban areas and
somedegree basinwide. Nonpoint sources were not wide-
spread in the Savannah basin, being mostly confined to
urban areas. In the Pee Dee basin, the more severe and
numerous problems occurred around urban areas and
less severe problems in rural areas. Within these problem
areas in each basin, the DHEC will conduct surveys to
locate and identify the type and volume of the nonpoint
source effluents.
B—116
-------
State of Tennessee
Complete copies of the State of Tennessee 305(b)
Report can be obtained from the State agency listed
below:
Tennessee Division of Water Quality Control
Department of Public Health
621 Cordell Hull Building
Nashville. TN 37219
-------
APPENDIX B
Introduction and Summary
Section 305(b) of Public Law 92-500, and the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, re-
quires that each State prepare and submit a report
relative to the State position regarding water quality with
respect to attaining the goals of PL 92-500. Since these
requirements were enacted, this is the third such report to
be presented to the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). This report will serve as a
principal part of the State's annual program plan for water
pollution control and hopefully, will additionally serve as
an aid to decision making by the EPA and the U.S.
Congress.
Tennessee's Section 305(b) report herein presented,
represents an attempt to answer—within the constraints
of available information—the following questions.
• What is the quality of Tennessee waters today and
what progress has been achieved in water quality
improvement in the last five years?
• What uses of the water are possible today, and what
water uses will Tennessee waters support when the
provisions of the Federal Water Act (PL 92-500) are
implemented to the extent technically or economic-
ally attainable?
• In what segments of Tennessee waters will these
future intended uses differ from the goals of bio-
support (protection and propogation of fish and
aquatic life) and recreation (recreational activities in
and on the water)?
• What will it cost to achieve these future intended
uses? (This will be addressed more fully in the Sec-
tion 2O8 planning program.)
• What is the nature and extent of nonpoint sources of
pollutants? How can they be controlled, and how
much would it cost? (Extensive nonpoint evaluation
will be done in the 208 planning program.)
Other questions will be answered, but the preceding
representthe integral theme of the report.
Theorganization of the report is based on the 13 hydro-
logic basins as described in Tennessee's Continuing
Planning Process pursuant to Section 303{e) of the Fed-
eral Water Act (Table 1).
TABLE 1
SUMMARY—GOALS OF THE ACT
Basin
Lower Tennessee
Holston
Lower Cumberland
Clinch
Upper Tennessee
Memphis Area
French Broad
Duck
Obion-Forked Deer
Tennessee River-Western Valley
Upper Cumberland
Elk
Hatchie
No. segments
meeting
standards
14
24
64
3O
20
1O
34
20
10
17
33
19
5
1977 goal
possible
14
6
1
1
5
2
5
5
1
—
1
4
1
1983 goal
possible
15
36
8
30
13
28
14
12
46
17
20
7
12
1 983 goal
cannot be
met
5
6
8
—
5
7
—
—
_
7
—
—
Total
segments
designated
48
72
81
61
43
47
53
37
57
34
61
30
18
B—118
-------
APPENDIX B
An overview of water pollution problems in Tennessee
indicates that, in general, the quality of waters in the State
is very good. There are no gross pollution problems en-
compassing lengthy segments of streams; rather most of
the pollution is confined to short segments of streams and
is the result of one or two point source discharges. The
main areas which suffer pollution from multiple dischar-
gers are the Chattanooga area, the Upper Holston River in
the Kingsport area and to some extent, the areas asso-
ciated with Nashville, Knoxville and Memphis.
Point source pollution in Tennessee results from the
discharge of domestic sewage from such sources as muni-
cipalities, schools, hospitals and shopping centers and
from the discharge of industrial waste from such sources
as chemical plants, paper mills and metal plating com-
panies.
A mixture of point source pollution and nonpoint
pollution problems often occurs in and around heavily
populated areas as a result of spills followed by storm
runoff, improperly designed or placed septic tank sys-
tems and construction projects.
Pollution resulting from agricultural activities will be
extensively evaluated in the Section 208 planning pro-
gram. It is currently being investigated through basin
planning efforts and through special monitoring related
to feedlots. Agricultural activities which are known to
affect water quality in Tennessee are confined feeding
operations, plowing areas subject to erosion, use of
chemicals (that is, fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides),
some watershed projects and some drainage projects.
There is a considerable amount of surface mining ac-
tivity in Tennessee, some of which has a very detrimen-
tal effect on water quality. Most of these problem areas
are located in the Upper Cumberland River Basin and in
the Clinch River Basin and are the result of surface min-
ing for coal in mountainous areas. Because of the energy
problems which currently exist, there is likely to be an
increase in strip mining for coal with an increase in
water quality problems and in environmental degrada-
tion. Strong laws and an expanded program in this area
will be necessary to prevent pollution and maintain
water quality. Another energy-related matter that needs
careful and increasing attention is that of nuclear power
plants. Water quality may be threatened by both thermal
discharges and accidental loss of radioactive materials.
State regulatory agencies, as yet, have been given little
control or credited with having much expertise relative
to this rapidly expanding industry.
Eutrophication problems are not extensive, but some
problems do exist in reservoirs receiving a heavy load of
nutrients, when the reservoir has a long retention time.
Nonpoint sources have been categorized in the Sec-
tion 208 Plan of Study for purposes of assessing the
water quality impacts, determining feasible solutions to
NPS control, and formulating an implementation pro-
gram. Utilizing the expertise of more than thirty State,
local, and Federal agencies involved in operating or
managing land-disturbing activities, a sound technical
approach to nonpoint source management will be
determined.
Special emphasis is being directed toward nonpoint
source pollution from land uses which are predominant
in the State: Agriculture, forestry, etc., (Table 2). A sub-
committee of the Statewide Section 208 Technical Ad-
visory Committee has been organized for each of the
planning efforts for agriculture, forestry, and mining.
These sub-committees are comprised of public agency
representatives, citizen groups, and interested individ-
uals who are themselves involved in nonpoint source
activities.
TABLE 2
WATER QUALITY SEVERITY CATEGORIES
Basin
Duck
Elk
Lower Cumberland
Upper Cumberland
Lower Tennessee
Upper Tennessee
French Broad
Holston
Clinch
Obion Forked Deer
Hatchie
Memphis Area
Tennessee Western
Valley
Urban
runoff
III
IV
1
IV
1
III
II
II
III
III
III
1
IV
Construc-
tion
activity
IV
IV
II
IV
III
III
II
III
III
III
III
II
IV
Hydrologic
modifica-
tions
III
III
III
II
II
II
II
II
II
III
III
III
II
Land
disposal
sub-
surface
categories
IV
IV
II
IV
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
II
III
Agriculture
III
III
IV
IV
III
IV
III
III
III
1
II
III
IV
Forestry
III
III
IV
III
III
III
III
II
II
II
III
III
III
Mining
III
IV
III
1
II
IV
IV
III
1
II
III
IV
II
Degree of water pollution service: I (Severe); II (Moderately severe); III Moderate; IV Slight.
B—119
-------
APPENDIX B
The nonpoint source assessment is using existing
water quality data and field surveys to describe the prob-
lems and define their extent. Nonpoint source controls
will be determined for each category, following an eval-
uation of current control measures, both structural (silt
basins) and non-structural (county ordinances), and of
the efficiency of the current measures related to our
water quality objectives. The implementation of nonpoint
source controls will be promoted through a combined
educational-incentive-regulatory evaluation. The conclu-
sions of the implementation program will be based upon
an economic, environmental, and social impact analysis.
This analysis will be completed with the technical assist-
ance of the committees involved, with input from elected
officials, and feedback from the public.
Although the Section 305(b) report is expected to deal
mostly with the problems, some positive points should
be emphasized. Tennessee is blessed with an abundance
of natural resources ranging from its mountains, forests
and fast flowing streams in the east to its fertile crop-
land and low-lying wetlands in the west. Tennesseans
have long valued clean water and partly as a result of
superior water quality, there has developed a large rec-
creation-based industry in Tennessee. One objective of
the recreation industry is to protect and maintain high
water quality. The industry has played a very important
part in supporting the Division of Water Quality Control
during its 30 years of existence and has aided in getting
enacted Tennesses's present Water Quality Control Act
which was signed into Law in 1971 and is undoubtedly
one of the strongest in the United States.
The Tennessee Act. in conjunction with the Federal
Water Act should ensure that water quality will be main-
tained and improved. Unfortunately, the implementation
of the Federal Act has had a negative impact on the
State program by increasing paperwork, complicating
interagency decision-making and causing needless dupli-
cation of effort. Some unnecessary delays have been
experienced, especially with regard to the Federally
funded municipal construction grant program. It is
hoped and expected that this negative impact is tempor-
ary and that the State and Federal Acts will soon com-
plement each other.
One obvious problem in preparing the Section 305(b)
report is the requirement that it be prepared and sub-
mitted on an annual basis. However, updates and revi-
sions to the basin plans are required on two-year inter-
vals. Although basin planning is an on-going process,
substantial changes in the status of particular basin
plans may not be obvious on an annual basis, and there-
fore may reflect little change when viewed in this report.
Duplication of effort is another problem with the Sec-
tion 305(b) Report. Virtually all the information in this
report is available in other planning documents, needs sur-
veys, and computerized data retrieval systems. Because
of this redundancy, the value of this report is doubtful. In
an effort to minimize this problem, numerous figures,
maps and appendices previously included in the Section
305(b) Report will be omitted this year.
Status of Municipal Waste-
water Treatment
The total number of municipal wastewater facilities in
the population served and the treatment criteria being met
at present, are presented in the following paragraphs.
Data forthe previous five years could not be assimilated in
a form which could be realistically compared to present
data, since this is only the third such submittal under the
Section 305(b) requirements. However, subsequent data
will be maintained in a comparable form which will indicate
the progress of wastewater systems in future Section
305(b) plans.
In 1976, 262 municipal wastewater systems were in
operation in Tennessee. These systems served approx-
imately 1,989,500 people or 48 percent of the State
population (Table 3).
Wastewater facilities known to be meeting secondary
treatment standards were 108 facilities representing 41
percent of the total operating facilities. Presently, these
facilities serve 947.200 people or 47.6 percent of the
sewered population or 22.6 percent of the State population.
Wastewater facilities known not to be meeting second-
ary treatment standards are 151 facilities representing
57.6 percent of the total number of facilities. The portion
of the population served by these wastewater facilities is
1.041,493, or 52.3 percent of the sewered population
and 24.9 percent of the State population.
There were three wastewater facilities of unknown per-
formance status representing 1.1 percent of the total number
of facilities. These facilities serve 800 people or 0.04 per-
cent of the sewered population and 0.02 percent of the
total State population.
TABLE 3
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
Treatment
Number % of
of total
facilities systems
Population %of %of
served sewered state
population population*
Facilities known to be meeting
secondary treatment standards
108
41.2
947.208
476
226
Facilities known not meeting
secondary treatment standards
151
57.6
1.041,493
42.3
24.9
Facilities of unknown
performance status
1.1
800
0.04
0.02
•State population=4.187.9O6
B—120
-------
State of Texas
Complete copies of the State of Texas 305(b)
Report can be obtained from the State agency
listed below:
Texas Department
of Water Resources
P.O. Box 13087. Capitol Station
Austin. TX 78711
-------
APPENDIX B
Introduction
The State of Texas Water Quality Inventory for 1977
has been prepared pursuant to Section 305(b) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act to summarize, as
concisely as is practicable, existing water quality condi-
tions in the State.
Information was extracted from basin plans, waste
load evaluations, intensive monitoring surveys, and
water quality segment reports prepared by or for the
staff. In addition, data from the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) and Texas Water Development Board were also
utilized.
Segment descriptions which appear in the report re-
present only the points used to measure stream miles.
Stream miles were measured on 7.5' USGS maps when
they were available. Otherwise, mileage was measured
on 15' maps. Lakes were measured at the
channel except where indicated.
The population densities cited in the report use such
subjective terms as sparse, moderate, dense, etc. This
was necessary due to constantly changing populations
and the resulting lack of totally accurate population fig-
ures. Those areas which are undergoing an inordinately
rapid gain or loss in population are so noted.
Graphs are presented for water quality limited seg-
ments showing the historical progression of the param-
eter for which the segment was in violation of the
stream standard.
Due to time constraints, estuaries and coastal seg-
ments were not addressed in this report. Future reports
will include these segments.
Statewide Summary Sheet
Current Water Quality
1. Total stream miles classified as segments and subject
to State of Texas Water Quality Standards (stream
standards) = 15,731.7
2. Stream miles currently fishable and swimmable =
11.873.1 =75.5 percent
3. Stream miles expected to be fishable and swimmable
by 1983 = 866.3 = 5.5 percent
4. Stream miles not expected to be fishable and swim-
able by 1983 =2,992.3 = 19.0 percent
a. Stream miles not fishable and swimmable due to
natural conditions (includes waterways which are
not intended for fishing and swimming purposes
but are compliant with Stream Standards) = 956.6
= 6.1 percent
b. Stream miles projected not to be fishable and
swimmable by 1983 due primarily to point source
discharges (includes waterways which are not
intended for fishing and swimming but are, never-
theless, degraded by point source discharges) =
1,639.2= 10.4 percent
c. Stream miles projected not to be fishable and
swimmable by 1983 due primarily to nonpoint
sources = 396.5 = 2.5 percent
5. Stream miles currently compliant with Stream Stand-
ards = 13,061.1 = 83.0 percent
6. Stream miles currently not in compliance with Stream
Standards = 2.67O.6 = 17.0 percent
Projected Costs to Achieve 1983
Treatment Levels*
1. Municipal costs (less
stormwater treatment) = $2,814.460.000* *
2. Industrial costs = $3,315,434,000*''
3. Total costs = $6,129,894,000
4. Per capita cost to achieve 1983 treatment levels""
a. Municipal per capita expenditures = $230.00
b. Industrial per capita expenditures = $271 .OO
c. Total per capita expenditures =$501.00
'Best Practicable Treatment economically achievable
for municipal discharges; Best Available Treatment
economically achievable for industrial discharges.
"Based on 1976 Needs Survey.
"•Based on 1976 State of Texas Water Quality In-
ventory.
""Based on 1975 population of 12.237,000.
B—122
-------
Trust Territory
of The Pacific Islands
Complete copies of the Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands 305(b) Report can be obtained from
the State agency listed below:
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Health Services
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
Saipan, Mariana Islands 96950
-------
Summary
The Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands has a total
of 13 identified segments, four of which are fresh sur-
face waters. The quality of waters in these segments
have either improved, due to the elimination of a number
of point and nonpoint sources, or remain in their pre-
vious condition.
Water pollution from municipal sources results in
water below the level of existing standards in most of
the district centers in the Trust Territory and remain a
major public health problem. The Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands recognizes this problem and is proceeding
to construct wastewater treatment facilities and collec-
tion systems in all the major segments of the territory.
Wastewater treatment plants are nearing completion
in the district centers, with three plants now operating
in Saipan and Truk. With the operation of these plants
and collection systems, a considerable improvement in
water quality is expected to occur.
Due to the recent implementation of demonstration
Sanitary Core projects, the public response to con-
necting onto the sewer system has greatly increased.
The Farmers Home Administration loan fund is very
active in providing financing for constructing sanitary
facilities in private houses to replace the present over-
water privies and pit latrines. The cost of these facilities
for urban areas is approximately 52,500, and for rural
areas with septic tanks, 52,000.
APPENDIX B
Rainfall runoff, poor (and management practices,
and the prevalence of simple outhouses in urban and
rural areas contribute substantially to the largely unde-
fined nonpoint source problem. The implementation and
general acceptance of the earthmoving permit regula-
tions has tended to reduce this problem from construc-
tion causes. In 1975, 17 permit applications were
received, 11 from the private sector. This activity also
increases the general revenue, since a $100 application
fee is required from non-government applicants.
Oil pollution incidents in the district center ports
continue to decline with few significant spills reported.
However, offshore oil spills or bitge pumping by vessels
of unknown registry continues to occur. The U.S. Coast
Guard, which is responsible for responding to these
incidents, does not have a sufficient surveillance or
full response capability to patrol Trust Territory waters
to reduce the frequency of these offshore events. A
new contingency plan is now being planned.
The EPA has recently given interim certification for
the district laboratories to perform bacterial analyses.
This will increase the effectiveness of enforcement
based upon the results of these monitoring activities.
A recent study was done on solid waste management.
It included recommendations for land fill sites, collec-
tion systems and a draft regulation. When this regula-
tion is approved, the problems of indiscriminate dumping
and consequent teaching into the adjacent lagoon areas
will be controlled.
B-124
-------
State of Vermont
Complete copies of the State of Vermont 305(b)
Report can be obtained from the State agency
listed below:
Department of Water Resources
Agency of Environmental Conservation
State Office Building
Montpelier. VT 05602
-------
APPENDIX B
Summary
Vermont's water pollution control problems are
significantly different from those of the major urban
areas of the United States. Low density population
centers and the absence of heavy industrialization has
kept the concentration of contaminants in Vermont
waters low. This leaves Vermont in a position to main-
tain or achieve very high water quality standards in the
majority of its waters.
Historically, the decisions concerning the abatement
of water pollution has focused mainly on the construc-
tion of wastewater pollution control facilities to abate
gross pollution such as untreated or partially treated
municipal and industrial discharges. The decisions to
be made in the future are not so clear, and future water
quality planning and decisions will be concerned with
selecting feasible alternative solutions to complicated,
and oftentimes subtle, existing and potential problems.
Vermont will continue to adopt high water quality
objectives, thus striving to maintain a low concentration
of contaminants in its waters. Abatement methodologies
will remain consistent with Federal regulations and
future planning will be necessary to take advantage of
resource opportunities and to set program priorities
in the face of limited financial resources and emerging
needs.
B—126
-------
TABLE 1
STATE OF VERMONT 305(b) WATER QUALITY INVENTORY SUMMARY
fO
Basin
Battenkill
Walloomsac
Hoosic
Poultney
Mettawee
Otter Creek
Little Otter Creek
Lewis Creek
Lake
Champlain
Missisquoi River
Lamoille River
Winooski River
White River
Ottauquechee
Black
West, Williams
Saxtons
Deerfield
Connecticut
Stevens, Wells
Waits,
Ompompanoosuc
Passumpsic
L. Memphremagog
Black
Barton, Clyde
Total
% of total miles
No.
1
2
3
.4
&5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
&13
16
14
15
17
Total
miles
223
176
467
116
245
412
599
452
244
341
155
679
271
315
241
4,936
—
Total miles
with drainage
area of 10
square miles
or greater
90
91
317
54
153
183
255
147
110
167
65
152
1 14
142
104
2,144
43
Total seg-
mented miles*
46
44
83
25
88
90
115
69
65
76
34
238
16
47
67
1,103
22
Total seg-
mented miles
now meeting
Class B (fish-
able, swim-
mable)
25
36
70
19
61
21
72
54
19
71
24
153
6
20
35
686
14
Total seg-
mented miles
expected to
meet Class B
by 1 983
43
40
76
20
82
69
95
59
38
74
34
170
12
28
61
901
18
Total seg-
mented miles
now meeting
State WQstds.
27
38
77
23
20
14
85
59
37
74
16
172
6
25
35
708
14
Total seg-
mented miles
now not
meeting state
WQstds.
19
6
6
2
67
70
30
10
28
2
18
66
10
22
32
388
8
Total non-
segmented
miles'*
177
132
384
91
157
322
484
383
179
265
121
441
255
268
174
3,833
78
Total miles
now meeting
Class B (fish-
able, swim-
mable)
202
168
454
110
218
343
556
437
198
336
145
594
261
288
209
4,519
92
Total miles
expected
to meet
Class B by
1983
220
172
460
111
239
391
579
442
217
339
155
611
267
296
235
4,734
96
"Segmented miles: River miles affected by municipal and industrial discharges.
"Non-segmented miles: River miles without polluting discharges and assumed to be meeting water quality standards.
13
TJ
m
Z
D
X
CO
-------
Virgin Islands
Complete copies of the 305(b) Report for the
Virgin Islands can be obtained from the State
agency listed below:
Division of Natural Resources Management
Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs
Charlotte Amalie. St. Thomas, VI 00801
-------
APPENDIX B
Summary
This report was prepared by the Division of Natural
Resources Management, Virgin Islands Department of
Conservation and Cultural Affairs with data and other
inputs secured by its monitoring program and those of
other agencies of the Virgin Islands Government. It was
prepared as required by Section 305(b) of the 1972
Federal Water Pollution Central Act Amendments
(Public Law 92-500) which calls for a report by each
State assessing the water quality of all navigable waters
and the waters of the contiguous zone.
Estimated cost for control actions to eliminate all
pollution of the coastal waters of the Virgin Islands is:
Segment A—St. Thomas—$18,404,436
Segment B—St. John — 1.920,000
Segment C—St. Croix — 36.703.649
S57.O28.085
All of the coastal waters of the Virgin Islands now
meet Natural Water Quality Standards as well as Virgin
Islands' Water Quality Standards.
All waters of the Virgin Islands are classified as
effluent limited.
The Virgin Islands are in Storet Basin No. 19. The
Basin has been broken down into three segments as
follows:
1. Segment A—St. Thomas. 52.8 miles of shoreline.
2. Segment B—St. John, 49.7 miles of shoreline.
3. Segment C—St. Croix, 70.3 miles of shoreline.
All of the waters in Segments A. B. and C are main-
tained in compliance with the Virgin Islands' Water
Quality Standards.
Monitoring information contained in Appendix B
show that water quality has improved in both Segments
A and C as a result of water pollution control programs
over the last five years. The most improvement has
occurred in the harbor of Charlotte Amalie in Segment
"A". This is a result of the construction of the Charlotte
Amalie Sewerage System, which removed two and a
half million gallons per day of raw sewage from the
waters of the harbor. Three interceptors, two force
mains and two pumping stations are utilized to collect
and transport sewage, previously discharged to the
harbor, to a primary sewage treatment plant. The
treated effluent is discharged through an ocean out-
fall. 2.65O ft. from shore at a depth of seventy feet.
Fecal coliform counts have fallen from a high of
10.000 per 10O ml. to less than 70 per 100 ml. Average
Secchi depth readings have increased from less than
3 meters to four meters. Dissolved oxygen levels have
increased from an average of 6.O ppm to an average
of 6.6 ppm.
Water quality monitoring for Segment B indicates
that water quality which was previously excellent in
this segment, has not changed.
In Segment C. the greatest increase in water quality
has occurred along the south shore of St. Croix.
Dredging activities for developing and maintaining
shipping channels to provide access to facilities owned
by Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corporation in 1966-67, and
Harvey Alumina Virgin Islands Corporation in 1963-64,
distributed fine-grained clay deposits in a manner that
caused extreme turbidity and excessive pollution along
13.8 miles, or about 47 percent, of the south coastline
of the island. Enumeration of inorganic suspended
solids, most assumed to be particles of clay, showed
these particles exceeded densities of 150,000,000 per
liter. Water clarity was reduced as much as 95 percent
in many places in these turbid reaches. Such conditions
caused severe pollution that was almost catastrophic in
scope; it extended seaward from shore up to a distance
estimated to be at least one mile; reefs were not
readily visible, thus endangering navagation; recrea-
tional values were totally lost; sea food animals once
abundant, were decimated to unharvestable levels; and
land values were seriously reduced. These turbid waters
terminated abruptly at Sandy Point near the southwest
cape of St. Croix, where there was a dramatic change
in water clarity.
Water quality adjacent to the industrial complex on
the south shore of St. Croix is presently good. Average
values for all water quality parameters in this area are
approximately equal to average values observed in clean
water elsewhere. Levels of most parameters also fall
within the ranges observed elsewhere.
Those waters outside areas of municipal and indus-
trial development are generally clean. Quality of these
waters is essentially identical around all three islands.
Temperature averages 28.2 degrees Centigrade (82.8
degrees Fahrenheit).
Dissolved oxygen varies from 4.4 to 8.9 mg/l. The
mean dissolved oxygen level of 6.8 mg/l is well within
the 5.5 mg/l required by the approved Federal-State
Water Quality Standards. In Trunk Bay, St. John—
where the standards require that natural conditions be
maintained—the dissolved oxygen level is 6.5 mg/l.
The prevailing total and fecal coliform levels are below
0.5 organisms per 100 ml. Nitrate and total nitrogen
levels average O.07 mg/l and total organic carbon
averages 9.7 mg/l. Dissolved copper, cadmium, chrom-
ium and lead levels are less than 10O mg/l. Zinc and
aluminum levels are approximately 300 mg/l. Mercury
averages only O.23 mg/l. Average levels of copper,
cadmium, zinc, chromium, lead and mercury in bottom
sediments are 13.5. 13.1. 20.0, 7.6, 38 4, and 0.022
mg/kg, respectively (based on dry weight).
In addition benthic communities have recovered sub-
stantially from past damages.
All of the reefs between Hess and Sandy Point were
adversely affected by the high turbidity and suspended
and settling sediment caused by the dredging. All of
the reefs, however, have begun to recover although
recovery is being inhibited by the continued presence
of high concentrations of sediment in the nearshore
waters.
The following sources of pollution of Southshore
waters were also eliminated or modified.
1. Waters from the V.I. Rum Distillery, Ltd. which
were previously discharged at the shoreline were
piped 3,000 feet from shore. Here, the prevailing
B—130
-------
APPENDIX B
ATLANTIC
I
-N-
i
FIGURE 1
BASIN SEGMENTS IN
THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
CARIBBEAN
SEA
SCALE
012345 MILES
SEGMENT "C"
ST. CROIX
Frcilcrtivsicd
B—131
-------
APPENDIX B
currents now carry the brown-colored "lees"
parallel to shore until they are dissipated.
2. The open burning dump and marine landfill was
converted into a sanitary landfill. This eliminated
the discharge of tin cans, bottles, and other float-
ables, as well as teachings from the dump as
sources of pollution.
3. Martin-Marietta Alumina discharges of hot salt-
water from both their process cooling and desalt-
ing plants were eliminated by the installation of a
nineteen acre cooling pond. Changing the main
points of discharge to the deeper water of their
channel from the shallow shoreline on the western
end of their property has also eliminated the con-
stant reintrainment of clay fines deposited by the
previous dredging operations, and those dis-
charged to shore water by runoff during heavy
rains.
4. Construction of a primary sewage treatment plant
and a 9,000-foot ocean outfall removed the dis-
charge of raw sewage from inshore waters.
Present cause of the high turbidity and suspended
and settling sediment near shore (TerEco Corporation
1973), is still the reintrainment of clay fines by wave
action. These clay particles are the result of erosion of
clay soils in the immediate shore areas by wave action
as well as stormwater runoff. Additionally, there is
still leaching by wave action of the lower seaward side
of the dredge-spoil settling basin on the western end of
Cane Garden Bay constructed by Hess during its last
dredging operations. The walls of the basin and jetty
are protected by large boulders, but these do not pre-
vent leaching of the fine material by wave action, ft is
expected that leaching of the fines will gradually cease.
The discharge of 300,000 gallons-per-day of raw
sewage to Frederiksted Harbor ceased in November,
1974, with the activation of the Strand Street Inter-
ceptor and the Frederiksted Pumping Station and Force
Main. The Sewage is now receiving treatment at the St.
Croix Sewage Treatment Plant located at Krause Lagoon
(Figure 12 of the report). Water quality in the harbor,
which was previously good has not changed. However,
the slight sewage slick from the two former discharges
can no longer be seen.
No progress has been made in reducing the moderate
pollution of Christiansted Harbor. However construc-
tion of the system of interceptors, force mains, and
pumping stations to collect and transport all sewage
generated by the town to the St. Croix Sewage Treat-
ment Plant is almost complete (Figure 12 of the
report). The Christiansted Pumping Station, the last
element of the system will be completed in July, 1977.
With the completion of the sewerage system, sedi-
ment pollution from stormwater runoff remains the
Virgin Islands' major water pollution problem. This is
being addressed under the Virgin Islands' Section 2O8
Areawide Wastewater Management Plan.
B—132
-------
State of West Virginia
Complete copies of the State of West Virginia 305(b)
Report can be obtained from the State agency
listed below:
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1201 Greenbrier Street
Charleston. WV 25311
-------
APPENDIX B
Introduction
This report was prepared by the West Virginia Depart-
ment of Natural Resources, Division of Water Resour-
ces, pursuant to Section 305(b)( 1) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Public Law
92-500). The report is an inventory of water quality in
the State and is submitted through the Environmental
Protection Agency Administrator for the Congress. The
chapter on the Ohio River was prepared by the Ohio River
Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) at the request of the
State of West Virginia.
Summary
Total and fecal coliform are in violation of State stand-
ards in most segments of the State's waters. These waters
are generally designated for water recreation, water sup-
ply and the propagation of aquatic life. Required improve-
ments in municipal and some industrial discharges will
minimize the fecal coliform levels in the river basins. Non-
point sources of total and fecal coliform bacteria will be
the primary problem in determining future compliance
with State standards.
The dissolved oxygen levels are of a good quality in all
river basins of the State. Mathematical calculations of
stream loadings indicate that the oxygen level of the seg-
ment of the Kanawha River below Charleston may not
meet State standards during low flow conditions. How-
ever, the oxygen-consuming compounds have been
markedly reduced by improvements in secondary treat-
ment of industrial waste sources and secondary munici-
pal waste treatment.
Common indicators of water quality such as tempera-
ture, dissolved solids, pH, acidity, alkalinity, chlorides,
sulfates, nitrates, and phosphorus are of good quality
throughout the year in most of the State's rivers. One
exception is drainage from the mining industry on the
three major tributaries of the Mononghahela River. These
are the Cheat River, the West Fork River and the Tygart
Valley River.
Acid mine drainage problems in the State have im-
proved generally from 1971 to 1976. This is as expected
and will probably continue in the next few years. However,
conditions will begin to deteriorate in the near future as
more mines are abandoned and treatment of their dis-
charges is discontinued. Strong State requirements gov-
erning acid mine drainage from abandoned facilities
would alleviate this situation. If these requirements are
not forthcoming soon, the problem will reach a point of
no return, beyond which it will be out of control without
major technological and capital investments.
Heavy metals and toxic substances are normally below
State standards. On occasion, cadmium, arsenic, and
lead exceed State standards in several areas. Total iron
and manganese exceed reference levels set for water
supplies in almost all major rivers of the State. The metals
in the water do not appear to be related to point sources,
but more to urban and rural runoff.
Suspended solids in the Big Sandy-Tug Fork, Guy-
andotte, Kanawha, and Monongahela Basins appear to
be associated with mining industry, road construction,
silviculture and urban runoff. Concentrations are gener-
ally seanonal with high solids associated with high win-
ter flows.
In the Potomac Basin, the suspended solids are gener-
ally in an acceptably good quality range.
B—134
-------
State of Wisconsin
Complete copies of the State of Wisconsin 305(b)
Report can be obtained from the State agency
listed below:
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wl 53707
-------
APPENDIX B
Summary
What is happening to Wisconsin's lakes and streams?
How polluted are they? Are they getting better or worse?
The State of Wisconsin report attempts to answer these
questions by reducing the tremendous store of water
quality information available and presenting an interpre-
tation in language easily understood by the interested
and reasonably well informed reader.
Typically, an analysis like this raises as many ques-
tions as it answers. How clean does our water need to
be? National water quality goals and State standards are
outlined. What will it take to meet water quality goals?
Treatment systems being installed by major dischargers
are described. The prognosis for getting systems into
operation within the required time frame is outlined,
and available information on the costs of all this activity
is summarized.
What can we expect to get from our pollution control
efforts? New wastewater treatment systems are being
brought on line as legal deadlines approach, and results
are beginning to show. This report documents signifi-
cant improvements and cites examples showing what
can be expected when pollution control facilities are
installed and properly operated.
Finally, what is the extent of water pollution from
nonpoint sources? The final chapter of the report is a
description of nonpoint problems in Wisconsin and an
outline of programs proposed to alleviate them.
Since the ultimate success or failure of environmental
programs is decided at the grass roots level by people
who demand legislation, keep an eye on implementing
agencies, apply pressure to polluters and invariably pay
the bills for the entire process, it is to these people that
this report is dedicated. Our goal is to provide an under-
standable interpretation of water quality management
information in order to stimulate and to get more people
involved in the management process.
B—136
-------
State of Wyoming
Complete copies of the State of Wyoming 305(b)
Report can be obtained from the State agency
listed below:
Water Quality Division
Department of Environmental Quality
State Office Building West
Cheyenne, WY 82002
-------
APPENDIX B
Summary
Water quality inventories and profiles for FY 1976
show a generally high quality of water in most stream
segments in Wyoming, with no significant degradation
since FY 1975. Twenty segments were documented as
having water quality problems during 1976.
Municipal sewage discharges, in addition to irrigation
diversions and nonpoint sources due to agricultural
activities, constituted the major sources of water quality
degradation. It is anticipated that at least twelve of
these segments will meet the 1983 goals of swimmabte,
fishable waters.
Currently, 13 segments are not meeting Wyoming's
Water Quality Standards, mainly due to fecal coliform
violations. Municipal sewage effluent discharges are the
major point source- pollution problem in Wyoming.
Most municipal discharges surveyed were not meet-
ing secondary treatment standards for fecal coliforms
and biological oxygen demand. Upgrading of many of
these facilities will be contingent upon the availability
of additional Section 201 Construction Grants. In many
areas of the State, rapid population growth associated
with the development of energy resources has sur-
passed the treatment capacity of existing waste water
facilities. Municipal treatment problems are expected
to continue as resource development increases; the
current lack of Section 201 construction grant funding
may be a constraint in alleviating these problems.
Except for produced water from oil field operations,
point source pollution by industrial discharges is not
considered to be a major problem. Twenty-six percent
of the industrial facilities (excluding oil well treaters)
were in non-compliance with Best Practical Treatment
(BPT) Standards. Most of these facilities will meet BPT
requirements in 1977. after facility modifications are
completed.
Forty-two percent of the oil treater facilities moni-
tored were in violation of Wyoming's oil and grease
limitation; approximately ninety-five percent of the vio-
lations were due to improper operation and mainte-
nance of the facilities. However, most violations were
marginal and short-term, and did not occur repeatedly
in the same facilities. Consequently, only one enforce-
ment action by the State of Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality was necessary during FY 1976.
Major nonpoint source pollution problems in Wyoming
are sediments, turbidity and salinity contributed by irri-
gation return flows, natural erosion and man induced
erosion. Eleven of the twenty problem segments were
significantly impacted by irrigation diversions and return
flows. Sewage seepage from individual septic tanks,
package plants and undetected "straight shots" into
streams also degraded water quality in some segments.
Isolated temperature violations were detected in four
segments; in all cases, these occurred in summer
months under natural low flow conditions and were
marginal violations ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 degrees
Centigrade above the limit. Low flow conditions also
resulted in occasional violations of the dissolved oxygen
standard in seven Class I segments; these, too, were
marginal violations.
Ninety-five violations of the existing Wyoming Water
Quality Standard for pH were documented. Most of
these violations were marginal and resulted from na-
tural diurnal variations in pH caused by normal plant
metabolism. Under EPA criteria for aquatic life (6.5 to
9.0) only seven excesses were observed, due mainly to
natural conditions.
Trace metal excesses are common in streams through-
out the State, due to the high metal content of the soils
in many areas. This is particularly true in the North-
east, Green, and Powder River Basins where large coal.
uranium and mineral deposits exist. In most segments,
the excesses are due to natural runoff. One exception
is Haggerty Creek which receives groundwater dis-
charges from an underground copper mine. Although
the original mine was abandoned in 1903, copper ef-
fluents from one of the abandoned mine shafts have
essentially sterilized Haggerty Creek below the point
of discharge. The mine is now being reworked and the
mining company is installing a treatment system to meet
NPDES copper limit of 0.5 mg/l. However, the inac-
cessibility of the mine location during eight months of
the year will prevent maintaining and operating the
system during this period. Hydrogeologic studies are
needed to determine if other methods of mine drainage
control are feasible. Haggerty Creek is considered to be
one of the most serious water quality problems in
Wyoming.
Excesses of gross alpha radioactivity occurred in seg-
ments that drain uranium mining regions where the
soil contains naturally high levels of radioactivity.
These excesses occurred predominantly during runoff
periods. Excessive radioactivity is particularly apparent
in the Medicine Bow and Little Medicine Bow Rivers,
which are considered to be major water quality prob-
lems. It is not known how much of the radioactivity is
contributed by mining activities and what portion is due
to natural loading. During FY 1977. a special study will
be initiated in the Medicine Bow and Little Medicine
Bow Rivers to delineate sources of radioactivity in
these segments.
Only three pollution-caused fish kills were document-
ed in FY in 1976. All of the kills involved non-game
species and were attributed to agricultural activities
including over-fertilization of adjacent lands, water di-
version, and pesticide use. An overall assessment of
water quality in Wyoming indicates that there are few
pollution sources interfering with the production and
maintenance of fish populations, and that Wyoming's
waters are sustaining fish and wildlife suitable for re-
creation.
•tf U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 19780-266-781
B—138
------- |