Protection Agenc" Rsgion 10
-------
Foreword
This report demonstrates results-oriented
^aaagement of Federal and State programs
to address public health and environmental
(concerns in the Pacific Northwest. Our
approach is to describe and rank the main
environmental problems in Region 10 and to
draw a. clear line between those problems
and programs under way to solve them.
For the past several years, this approach has
been a fundamental, underlying—and
successful—principal in the development of
annual agreements between EPA and the
States. These agreements describe
management priorities for synergistic Federal,
State and local work on health and
environmental concerns. The agreements
also provide measurements by which the
effectiveness of government actions and
programs can be gauged.
Evidence of the cooperative approach that is
followed in developing these agreements is
the letter from Pacific Northwest Governors
that accompany this Foreword.
The report is in three parts. Section I
describes problems and accomplishments for
the general reader, and outlines State plans
for actions to be taken during Fiscal 1984.
Section II is intended to help State, national
and regional program managers assess
problems and action plans, allocate
resources, and devise further actions to
protect and enhance the environment of the
Northwest. Attachment A includes graphics
and tables that present the environmental
status for all geographic areas in Region 10
for which data are available.
A major concern of EPA and the States in
the Pacific Northwest is economic
development. Close work between Region 10
and the States is needed to assure that
industrial and population growth will be
accommodated in a manner that preserves
the unique environmental amenities of the
Northwest.
It is also necessary to address the unique
environmental public health problems of the
area. The toxic contamination of surface and
ground waters, for example, has lately
emerged as a high priority problem that
requires new strategies different from the
conventional point-source-control strategies
of the past.
This report is submitted to the public and
environmental program managers to advance
efforts to evaluate regional problems in the
context of national environmental goals. We
believe it will contribute to a greater
awareness of the distinctive character of the
challenge faced by the Environmental
Protection Agency in Region 10.
L. Edwin Coate
Acting Regional Administrator
-------
JOHN V. EVANS
GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
STATE CAPITOL
BOISE 8372O
April 20, 1983
Dr. L. Edwin Coate
Acting Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Dr. Coate:
Thank you for providing an opportunity for my staff and the
Division of Environment to review the EPA Region X draft
Environmental Management Report. The report accurately high-
lights the most notable environmental problems and improvements
in Idaho and describes quite clearly the actions being taken at
the federal, State and local levels to deal with those matters.
I commend your effort to display environmental information in a
reasonably nontechnical format such that the document might
serve the dual purpose of program planning and public education.
The agencies of the State of Idaho will continue to assist you in
the development of useful environmental management information.
Sincere!
TORN V. EVANS
GOVERNOR
JVE:chh
cc: M. Lynn McKee, EPA - IOO
-------
VICTOR ATIY&H
GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
STATE CAPITOL
SALEM. OREGON 973IO
Dr. L. Edwin Coate
Acting Regional Administrator
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle WA 98101
Thank you for the opportunity my staff had to review the 1983 Environmental
Management Report prepared by Region X. I believe the report will be
useful to the public, along with state and local officials, in
understanding the close-mesh of the federal/state relationship in
protecting our natural resources, yet avoiding regulatory duplication.
I was interested to note the emphasis on managing for environmental
results. I am pleased to see actual scientific data used as project
success indicators. I believe this system will more clearly communicate
to our constituents, the residents of Oregon and of the Pacific Northwest,
where environmental problems remain and the types of environmental
improvement that can be expected—a much more valuable indicator than
dollars expended in FY 83, FTE's or number of regulatory actions.
I look forward to our continued work together.
Si
Governor
VA:k
FK1873
-------
State of Washington
JOHN SPELLMAN, Governor OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
April 18, 1983
Dr. L. Edwin Coate
Acting Regional Administrator, Region X
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Dear Dr. Coate:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the 1983 Environmental
Management Report prepared by Region X. We appreciate your cooperation
in responding to our comments on the draft report.
I am pleased to see a clear relationship drawn in the report between the
environmental problems in our state and the Federal, state, and local
programs. We need to protect and maintain a healthful, clean
environment and to accommodate economic growth. I believe the report
makes a persuasive case for continuation of the Federal/state
partnership in environmental protection programs and for responsible
allocation of Federal program assistance, both technical and financial,
to Washington State and the rest of the Pacific Northwest.
I congratulate you on your success in explaining environmental problems
and responsive programs in nontechnical terms and in providing
measurements or indicators that elected officials, program managers, and
the public can use to evaluate our joint efforts. Managing for
environmental results is a worthwhile concept resulting in an excellent
Environmental Management Report, and I trust your agency will continue
to develop the concept as a management and information tool.
With best wishes,
Sincerely,
JohnABpellman
Governor
Legislative Building • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (206) 753-6780 • (Scan) 234-6780
-------
Table of Contents
Section I: Overview and State Priorities
Introduction to Section I 1
Overview 1
State Priorities 5
Washington 5
Oregon 7
Idaho 9
Alaska 10
Section II: Priority Regional Problems
Introduction to Section II 13
Priority Regional Problems 13
Exposure to Hazardous Wastes 13
Water Supply:
Contamination of Ground Water and Drinking Water Systems.... 15
Ground Water 15
Drinking Water Systems 19
Toxic and Hazardous Materials in
Marine and Estuarine Waters 20
Pesticides and Toxic Substances 23
Air Pollution: Carbon Monoxide and Ozone 25
Air Pollution: Particulate Matter 28
Microbiological Contamination of Estuarine
and Shellfish Areas 30
Fishery Damage from Contaminated Waters 32
Tables
1. Ground Water Protection Problem Areas Identified in Region 10.. 16
2. Ground Water Protection Activities to Date and
Strategies in Region 10 18
3. Contaminated Marine Estuarine Embayments in Region 10 21
4. Contaminated Marine Estuarine Waters:
Past Actions and Control Strategies 22
5. Partial List of Region 10 Carbon Monoxide
and Ozone Nonattainment Areas 25
6. Carbon Monoxide and Ozone Nonattainment Areas
with Post-1982 Attainment Dates: Control Strategies 26
7. Ambient Air Quality Problems in TSP Nonattainment Areas 28
8. Particulate Emissions 28
9. Contaminated Estuarine Shellfish Areas in Region 10 30
10. Contaminated Estuarine Shellfish Areas:
Existing Actions and Control Strategies 31
11. Contaminated Fishery Waters in Region 10 31
12. Contaminated Fishery Waters: Existing Actions
and Control Strategies 37
Attachment A
-------
Section I
Introduction to Section I
T.Ke first section of this report is a "report
card" to residents of Region 10 on progress
and plans for addressing their environmental
and public health concerns. The overview is
in two parts, the first a broad scale
assessment of the state of the environment
in the Pacific Northwest, and the second a
description of State priority plans for actions
in Fiscal 1984,
The second part of the overview is expected
to be of greater interest to citizens of
Northwest States than to managers and
planners concerned with national
environmental programs. The Environmental
Protection Agency works closely with State
governments to coordinate short- and long-
term planning so Federal and State programs
will directly support one another. This
planning in Region 10 is based on an
assessment of the importance of problems
described in this report. It is generally
understood that priorities may differ with the
seriousness of each problem in any State.
The results of cooperative planning,
described in the second part of the overview,
are incorporated in State/EPA agreements
describing tasks to be accomplished in the
following year.
Overview
Overview
Public concern about the environment of the
Pacific Northwest has traditionally been very
high.
A February 1982 survey by the Public
Agenda Foundation indicated that 70-80
percent of the employed people in the Puget
Sound area regard clean air, clean water,
unspoiled natural beauty, and outdoor
recreation (hiking and fishing) as very
important to their quality of life. Other
findings were that 78 to 89 percent say these
values are well protected at this time and 66
percent say preservation of the environment
should take precedence over new economic
growth. (Economic Development Council of
Puget Sound, Interim Report: 1983.) The
survey group included people in the work
force and working more than 20 hours a
week. Retired people, homemakers,
students, the unemployed, and those who
worked only intermittently were excluded.
Thus, although the sample was not
representative of Puget Sound or the
Northwest as a whole, the responses are
suggestive of the public attitude.
Environmental programs existed in Northwest
states ahead of many other parts of the
country. This confirms the public concern
indicated in the Puget Sound poll. However,
extended recession has reduced the capacity
of these States to maintain their programs.
Budgets and staffing have been cut along
with State revenues. As a result,
environmental monitoring and program
activities have fallen below former levels and
there is increased reluctance to take on
additional responsibilities to meet
requirements under Federal laws. The most
tangible evidence of the reduction in
resources to date has been some States'
inability to provide their share of Superfund
cleanup costs, and the unwillingness of local
governments to build water-supply
improvements.
Air: Gains May Be Temporary
With respect to clean air, the public
perception that the environment is well
protected is generally confirmed by available
data. Air quality is generally good and
getting better —although changing energy-
use patterns and other factors raise
questions about that trend. Compliance with
major clean-air regulations by industrial
facilities in the region was 95 percent in
1982, compared with 91 percent in 1981.
Health-related air quality standards are met in
all but 13 places in the region, most of them
urban. There is no place monitored in Region
10 where sulfur dioxide or nitrogen dioxide
now imperil health. Ambient concentrations
of carbon monoxide and ozone are generally
declining, as are particulate levels. Excessive
levels of carbon monoxide primarily are due
to motor vehicle emissions. Elevated
concentrations of ozone (smog) are
attributed to hydrocarbon emissions from
motor vehicles and stationary sources. Ozone
is created in the environment by the
interaction of hydrocarbons and nitrogen
oxides in sunlight. Significant cleanup of
auto related pollution has been recorded in
communities that have mandatory programs
to ensure that emissions controls
manufactured in the vehicles are working
properly. Reduction in emissions from both
stationary and vehicular sources has resulted
in cleaner air.
Notable achievements in ambient carbon
monoxide and ozone improvement include
the following:
• A mandatory motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance (I/M) program was begun in
Portland, Oregon, in 1975. The net overall
air quality benefit is estimated to be
approximately 15 percent. Tailpipe
emissions from vehicles repaired due to
the program have been reduced 42 percent
for hydrocarbons and 47 percent for
carbon monoxide.
• A mandatory I/M program was initiated in
the Puget Sound area on January 2, 1982.
Public support has been strong. Initial
testing shows that carbon monoxide from
cars and trucks tested under the program
has been reduced 28 percent, while
hydrocarbons have been reduced 26
percent.
• Carbon monoxide concentrations in Salem
and Eugene, and ozone concentrations in
Salem and Medford have been reduced to
near or below ambient standards. These
areas may be eligible for redesignation to
"attainment," subject to analysis of recent
data.
Paniculate air pollution problems in Region
10 have been more difficult to solve. EPA
and the States are continuing efforts to
reduce particulate emissions. Several
communities have completed or are carrying
out plans to reduce "fugitive" dust from
roads and parking lots. Current EPA-State
strategies aimed at limiting total suspended
particulates are likely to be supplanted in
1983 by issuance of a new national ambient
air quality standard to control very small,
inhalable particles believed to be more
closely related to human health problems.
Major programs to reduce particulate
emissions were recently completed at
industrial facilities in Lewiston, Idaho, and
Vancouver, Washington. Emission reductions
of approximately 50 percent and 85 to 90
percent respectively were obtained. Based on
these reductions —and corresponding
improvements in ambient particulate
levels—Lewiston (plus neighboring
Clarkston, Washington) and Vancouver may
qualify, in calendar 1983, for redesignation to
attainment or nonattainment for secondary
standards only.
-------
Even so, changes in power-generation and
home-heating trends may raise new
problems. Region 10 has little opportunity to
develop more large new hydroelectric power
generation, and recent nuclear power plant
projects have encountered serious financial
and political barriers. An increase in fossil-
fuel, particularly coal, power generation may
occur as conservation alternatives are
exhausted. The Regional Office recently
issued its first permit to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality downwind of a
major new coal-fired power plant. Activities
also are under way to reactivate and develop
coal mines and a coalport for the Pacific-rim
export trade. These developments raise the
potential for more air and water pollution.
Electricity remains the prime home-heating
medium in Western Washington, and second
most common in Western Oregon. There is
growing concern, however, regarding the
increasing use of wood as a replacement or
supplemental fuel for home heating, due to
rising slectric-power rates.
Particulates from wood stoves are already a
barrier to attainment of the health-related air
quality standard for particulates in Medford,
Oregon, and are one of Portland's most
important air pollution problems. (The 1983
Oregon Legislature is considering a bill to
allow only clean-burning wood stoves to be
sold in the State.) Looking ahead,
diminishing supplies and rising prices for
wood fuel have led to predictions that coal
will replace wood in residential heating. This
development could result in serious
degradation of air quality, especially in urban
areas.
The problem of airborne toxic pollutants is
gaining attention with the discovery of lead,
cadmium and arsenic as air contaminants at
two hazardous waste sites investigated for
Superfund in Seattle and Tacoma. More
such investigations are underway.
Environmental concerns about possible long-
range transport of air pollutants are receiving
increasing public attention in the Northwest.
Preliminary data from a monitoring study in
progress at the University of Washington
indicates that acid deposition may be
stronger than previously thought. A major
concern is how the acid deposition may
affect wilderness lakes, forest productivity,
corrosion of structures, and speed the
leaching of contaminants from soil. Satellite
photos tend to support allegations that
emissions from a smelter in northern Russia
may cause atmospheric haze in the arctic
regions of Alaska. More monitoring and
research are needed.
State implementation plans to protect
visibility —a prized asset among Pacific
North westerners — will require greater
emphasis on ways to control forest burning,
agricultural field burning, and urban plumes.
New regulations on burning may be needed.
Finally, additional air pollution may occur as
a delayed result of recent recessions. During
the downturns, industries postponed
maintenance and deferred upgrading existing
facilities and building new plants. Some
facilities also got economic-hardship
extensions to compliance schedules. When
old, poorly maintained plants begin to push
production to capacity, industrial emissions
may substantially increase. This potential
problem also should be investigated.
Water: More Problems Than
Solutions
Northwest surface and drinking water quality
issues are in some respects those of the
Nation in microcosm. Region 10 includes
areas of moderate to heavy rainfall, like
those in regions east of the Mississippi River,
and arid lands more typical of the West and
Southwest.
Violations of water quality standards,
impairments of intended uses and significant
perils to human health are caused by both
point and nonpoint sources. In Region 10 the
majority of point-source controls required
under the Clean Water Act are in place and
compliance by point sources with discharge-
permit limits on conventional pollutants is
increasing. But serious water quality
problems persist. The point-source controls
have barely allowed EPA and the States to
do more than stay even with pollution
problems, especially in the face of past
growth Attention to point sources is still
needed in the light of projected population
growth and the development of newly
discovered abundant natural resources in the
Pacific Northwest and Alaska.
Nonpoint sources are those, like irrigation
return flow and stormwater runoff, that do
not discharge wastewater from a discernible,
confined, discrete source, as do industrial
facilities and municipal sewage treatment
plants. An estimated 60 percent of the
Region's water quality problems originate
with nonpoint sources. This fact is one
reason why parts of so many of the major
rivers in Region 10 have marginal water
quality in relation to Federal goals, and the
overall nine-year trend has shown little
improvement in water quality despite
significant reductions in point-source
loading. In many cases further progress will
not be possible unless nonpoint sources can
be effectively controlled. In general, we
anticipate that many nonpoint sources will be
controlled through State water quality
management planning and appropriate
management practices. For example, each
State in Region 10 has a Forest Practices Act
and rules that have been analyzed for their
impact on water quality. Also, the State of
Idaho has developed a highly successful,
State-funded, cost-sharing program in
agriculture to provide up to $50,000 per
farmer to implement best management
practices to protect water quality.
Nonpoint sources are those, like irrigation
return flow and stormwater runoff, that do
not discharge wastewater from a discernible,
confined, discrete source, as do industrial
facilities and municipal sewage treatment
plants. An estimated 60 percent of the
Region's water quality problems originate
with nonpoint sources. This fact is one
reason why parts of many of the major rivers
in Region 10 have marginal water quality in
relation to Federal goals, and the overall
nine-year trend has shown little improvement
in water quality despite significant reductions
in point-source loading. In many cases
further progress will not be possible unless
toxic contaminants and nonpoint sources can
be effectively controlled.
EPA and the States have traditionally
focused on control of point sources. The
Clean Water Act provides comprehensive
statutory and regulatory authority to control
pollution from point sources to remedy
existing water quality problems and prevent
future degradation. By comparison, there is
relatively little authority to cope with
nonpoint-source pollution. This was
appropriate in the past when untreated
municipal and industrial waste discharges
were common.
In Region 10 the majority of point-source
controls required under the Clean Water Act
are in place, but serious water quality
problems persist. The point-source controls
have barely allowed EPA and the States to
do more than stay even with pollution
problems, especially in the face of past
growth. High priority attention to point
sources is still needed in the light of
projected population growth and the
development of newly discovered abundant
natural resources in the Pacific Northwest
and Alaska. For example, projections show
an increase of 16 percent in Alaska's
population by 1985.
Ground Water and Drinking Water
One emerging problem in Region 10 is
contamination of ground water by toxic and
hazardous materials. Growing concern over
this contamination is based partly on the fact
that half of the public water supplies in
Region 10 rely on ground water as their main
source.
-------
Several of the more highly populated areas in
Region 10 rely on ground water for their
.public and private drinking water supplies,
jartd these are the areas where much of the
.contamination has been discovered, so far.
Work to prevent ground water contamination
is urgent because, once wells have to be
closed, there may be little to do except look
for other sources or install costly treatment
facilities.
In terms of our drinking water, 67 percent of
the water systems in the Region, serving 89
pecent of the population served by public
systems, provide water that fully meets
bacteriological standards; however, the
incidence of waterborne disease in the
Northwest is among the highest in the
country. Small water systems use untreated
surface water sources that have been
overtaken by growth, population pressures
on the surrounding lands, and related
environmental problems.
The basic strategy for improving drinking
water quality has shown considerable
success. Significant improvements have
occurred in water-system compliance with
drinking water regulations in Region 10.
Compliance is up from 1980 data showing 46
percent compliance. In Fiscal 1980
insufficient monitoring data were available to
determine the compliance status for 34
percent of the water systems. This
percentage has now dropped to 19 percent
having insufficient compliance data. Thus,
there has also been a significant
improvement in the systems' participation in
the program.
Water systems have taken many actions to
improve the quality of drinking water
supplied to their customers. A few typical
examples:
• In late 1983, the City of Everett,
Washington, will have its new $40 million
filtration plant in operation, where
chlorination was the only treatment
previously provided. The State worked
with the city for many years to be able to
finance and build this plant.
• Lincoln City, Oregon, uses a surface
source for drinking water and had trouble
meeting the Federal standard for coliform
and turbidity. Several cases of illness
among community residents apparently
were caused by Giardia in the drinking
water. Because of work by EPA and the
publicity associated with the turbidity and
the Giardia, Lincoln City obtained local
funds to build a new treatment plant
capable of consistently providing safe
drinking water to its customers. The new
plant is to be operational by December
1983.
• The City of Union, Oregon, frequently
violated bacteriological and turbidity
standards because of inadequate treatment
of water from a surface source. As a result
of EPA efforts, the City of Union has
drilled a new well capable of supplying
plenty of safe drinking water. All
customers are to be connected to the new
source by summer 1983.
Surface Waters
Toxic pollution of marine and estuarine
waters at various places along the
35,819-mile shoreline of the Pacific
Northwest has increasingly become a public
concern because of recent studies
documenting the Contamination of Puget
Sound and its urban, industrial bays.
Alarming rates of abnormalities among
bottomfish and contamination of fish tissues
have been discovered in the studies in the
Sound. This has led concerned local health
officials to issue warnings regarding the
consumption of these fish and has raised
questions about the continuation of the sport
fishery.
Also of concern are what happens to the
contaminants and what long-term effect they
may have. So far, no one has the answers to
such questions — and public officials face
urgent decisions about closing areas for
fishing, permitting new sources, and waivers
from the secondary-treatment requirements
of the Clean Water Act. State and Federal
officials have initiated cooperative efforts to
give them adequate information to make the
appropriate decisions at the appropriate
times.
One related question yet unanswered is how
recent "red tide" occurrences, which imperil
unwary consumers of shellfish, relate to
water pollution. The danger in this situation
is paralytic shellfish poisoning, which is
potentially fatal to humans. This concern
also will receive additional attention in the
next several years.
Bacterial contamination of marine estuarine
areas is a related problem threatening some
of the most productive commercial and
recreational shellfish rearing and harvesting
areas in the country. Over the past few years
these areas have been closed to harvesting
on many occasions due to pollution from
point and nonpoint sources. The
consumption of contaminated shellfish is a
serious potential threat to public health.
One example of accomplishment is in
Tillamook Bay on the Pacific Ocean in
Oregon. There, a memorandum of
understanding that includes an alarm system
has been developed with sewage treatment
plants to minimize plant failures that might
result in shutdown of the shellfish beds.
Dairy farmers and the Tillamook Creamery
Association also are implementing best
management practices to prevent animal
wastes from entering the bay. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Rural Clean Water
funds have been provided to help farmers
implement the cleanup program. The Federal
Food and Drug Administration has fully
certified Oregon's program. Additional Rural
Clean Water program funds will be devoted
to this area and monitoring will be conducted
to document the success of the program.
Additionally, a broad spectrum of aquatic
and fisheries resources—both fresh and
saltwater—are affected by toxic materials,
solids and nutrients from point and nonpoint
discharges associated with the major
industries that support the Northwest
economy, including agriculture, silviculture,
mining, seafood processing, and oil and gas
development.
Control of the point sources focuses on
building municipal sewage treatment plants
and developing and enforcing water cleanup
permits. An example of progress resulting
from the cleanup of a point source is the
inner part of Bellingham Bay, known as the
Whatcom Waterway. This waterway was
one of the most highly polluted bodies of
water in Washington State. While municipal
and industrial dischargers contributed, the
prime source of the problem was the
Georgia-Pacific pulp, paper, and chemical
complex on the eastern bank of the
waterway. Georgia-Pacific installed a new
secondary waste treatment plant in 1979.
Dramatic improvements in the water quality
of the inner bay have been achieved. Marine
life is returning. We are still uncertain as to
whether subtle biological effects persist. The
State has reclassified the water quality
standard to reflect improvements in dissolved
oxygen, temperature, fecal coliform,
turbidity, and aesthetic values as measured
in the water column. Studies are beginning
to determine potential toxics problems in the
sediments of the bay.
Potential water quality problems associated
with offshore oil and gas development and
development of other large and valuable
mineral deposits in Region 10 can be further
minimized with active involvement of all
appropriate regulatory agencies in providing
technical assistance and in building an open
working relationship.
Several success stories tell how Region 10
works early with mining companies to
identify potential environmental problems
and help companies design operating plans
that are economically viable and minimize
enviromental degradation. The Thompson
Creek molybdenum mine in Idaho was
described in The Wall Street Journal as a
-------
project able to minimize potential
environmental degradation, get through the
environmental permitting process
successfully and meet its development
schedule. The mine is under construction.
Hazardous Waste: A "Ticking Time
Bomb?"
An estimated 2.7 million tons of hazardous
wastes were disposed of in Region 10
between 1940 and 1975. Disposal practices
during that period are now known to have
been generally inadequate to prevent
unintended after-effects that may imperil
human or environmental health. Such
practices are believed responsible for much
of the ground water contamination now
coming to light.
The expense of transporting hazardous
wastes from nearly 2,000 generators, mostly
in urban areas of the region, to distant
disposal sites creates special problems in
Region 10. The high costs of such
transportation and the distances covered
raise unique enforcement problems. In
Alaska, for example, there is no hazardous
waste disposal site and hazardous wastes
must be transported for very long distances
for proper disposal.
Poor or abandoned storage sites have been
found to pose threats to human health,
requiring public action to clean up and
remove the wastes to approved sites. Such
sites are the focus of the Federal
"Superfund." Superfund is the common
name for the program set up under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act.
Fifteen sites on the nationwide preliminary
Superfund priority list are in Region 10.
These are EPA-designated places where past
practices were suspected of having left
problems severe enough to warrant remedial
cleanup by the Federal Government or the
responsible parties. In some cases,
enforcement actions are in progress. Of the
15 sites in the region, five are associated
with hazardous organic compounds, four
with toxic metals, two with pesticides, and
one each with cyanide and radioactive
waste. Investigations and remedial action, as
appropriate, are underway at these and other
sites.
The Federal hazardous waste program is still
getting up to speed, and the Superfund
process begins anew with the designation of
each specific and unique site. In the
meantime, Federal and State authorities are
taking preventive measures to ensure the
safety of present disposal practices, cleaning
up emergency situations as they occur or are
discovered, and developing long-term
programs to prevent future problems.
Some notable achievements to date include
the following:
• The State of Washington removed 350
barrels of hazardous materials stored
dangerously on property next to a grade
school in Tacoma.
• After extensive negotiations and
enforcement actions failed to prompt a
Tacoma recycler to cleanup a hazardous
waste site, and after a major fire at the
site. Region 10 did the necessary cleanup.
About 350 barrels of stored material and
contaminated soil were sent to a licensed
disposal facility.
• Precedent-setting enforcement actions
including orders under Sections 3008 and
3013 of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act were taken at a hazardous
waste management facility in Kent,
Washington. This activity is still underway.
Region 10 also has moved under the
Superfund law to prevent deposition of
new wastes at the facility and has taken
steps to secure the site.
• Following the discovery at a site in
Pocatello, Idaho, of more than 500 electric
capacitors containing polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), transformer parts, and
deteriorated drums, the Region 10
emergency response team secured the
site, removed and incinerated the
capacitors, removed and disposed of
contaminated soil and stabilized the
situation. Tests of the ground water in the
area indicated no further problems at this
time. Further testing will be conducted.
• Region 10 identified the source of gasoline
from underground storage tanks in
Nampa, Idaho, and helped the city clean
up a downtown incendiary peril resulting
from the gasoline-contaminated aquifer.
• The Trans-Alaska pipeline, an operation
with the potential for extensive
environmental damage, has had less
leakage and fewer spills than predicted. No
significant spills have been reported for
more than a year.
• The Regional Office and the State of
Oregon negotiated the voluntary cleanup
of a hazardous waste recycling and
storage facility where more than 1,500
drums and materials in bulk tanks had to
be removed for proper disposal.
• A major chemical firm sent hundreds of
barrels of chlorinated solvents to a
reprocessor and moved thousands of cubic
yards of contaminated soil to an approved
landfill.
Toxic Substances: Potpourri
Region 10 also manages Federal programs tcr
minimize the risk to environmental health
from agricultural chemicals, asbestos,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and other
toxic substances.
The diverse agriculture of Region 10 includes
many small crops such as hops, mint,
cranberries and wine grapes, for which
pesticide developers do not find it
economical to test and register chemicals. As
a result, farmers customarily require special
authorization for chemical uses on such
crops. Efforts to avert or correct human
health or environmental concerns resulting
from such uses present unusual problems.
Investigation of reports of misuse of
pesticide products and appropriate
enforcement of use requirements is a State
responsibility in Region 10. Problems with
pesticide products include atmospheric
damage to neighboring sensitive crops by
herbicides, considerable contamination of
wildlife by persistent chemical residues, rare
instances of contamination of commodities,
and exposure of humans.
Federal Food and Drug Administration
inspectors and EPA inspectors routinely
check food processing facilities to ensure
that transformers containing PCBs in such
establishments are not leaking. Federal law
requires that all such transformers be
removed by October 1, 1985. EPA also has
developed a memorandum of understanding
to prevent environmental contamination from
PCBs at the largest hydroelectric dam in the
Region. This understanding will result in the
total phaseout of 32,000 gallons of PCBs at
the dam by 1986; other dams also are
beginning similar programs.
The Region 10 staff works with public and
private schools in the Northwest and Alaska
to assess and correct problems resulting
from human exposure to friable asbestos.
-------
State Priorities
The information in this Environmental
JWitnagement Report is used by Region 10 and the
four Pacific Northwest States to set priorities for
actions to address environmental problems.
Following are summaries of high priority problems
covered in State/EPA Agreements being
developed by Region 10 and the four States to
cover problem solving actions in Fiscal 1384.
Washington State—Problems and
Programs
People in Washington State enjoy a
healthful, high quality environment in
comparison with most other parts of the
country. Accommodating growth while
retaining this highly valued environment is a
responsibility of local. State, and Federal
government.
Existing laws provide a framework for agency
actions to prevent problems associated with
desirable growth. This summary focuses on
actions to define and correct problems in the
state. These problems affect the physical and
economic health of many persons. A few
examples:
• Unhealthful levels of air pollution were
recorded in communities housing more
than 2.2 million people in 1982. The air
pollution situation, however has been
improving for several years.
• Ten of the 15 hazardous waste sites
nominated in Region 10 for Superfund
cleanup are in the state of Washington.
• Although 97 percent of the population is
served by bacteriologically safe drinking
water, contamination of ground water
used for human and industrial
consumption has been recorded at a few
points in aquifers serving more than a half-
million people.
• In spite of improvements in recent years,
the viability and value of the ualmon
fishery is still affected by environmental
pollution, and important new problems
have come to light.
Compliance with environmental laws and
regulations is high in the State of
Washington. Ninety-seven percent of the
stationary sources of air pollution are in
compliance and about 90 percent of the
major municipal and industrial dischargers
are in compliance with clean-water rules.
A top priority of EPA and the State of
Washington is the continuation of basic
State environmental programs in all program
areas for which EPA and the State have
responsibility, including pesticides
(Department of Agriculture), drinking water
(Department of Social and Health Services)
and water quality, air quality and hazardous
waste (Department of Ecology). Recent
reductions in program funding together with
an increasing workload require management
to focus resources more directly on high
priority needs. This focus on managing for
environmental improvement will be assured
through careful planning, budgeting and
tracking.
Air Pollution
Three pollutants are of concern in
Washington: carbon monoxide, ozone and
particulates.
The health-related national air quality
standards for carbon monoxide were to have
been achieved in most places by the end of
1982; however, an extension through 1987
was allowed for Seattle, which adopted a
mandatory inspection and maintenance
program to reduce motor vehicle emissions.
Further compliance efforts —and Federal
sanctions if required —will be used to correct
violations of the health-related carbon-
monoxide standard in Tacoma, Spokane and
Yakima.
Seattle, Tacoma and Vancouver have until
1987 to meet the ozone standard and are
expected to do so. Controls manufactured
into new cars have reduced emissions of
hydrocarbons from motor vehicles. That has
raised the relative significance of
hydrocarbon emissions from stationary
sources. As of 1980, such sources accounted
for 56 percent of the emissions in the
Seattle-Tacoma area and 52 percent in the
Portland, Oregon-Vancouver, Washington,
area, where Portland's motor vehicle
inspection and maintenance program has
reduced hydrocarbon emissions.
The health-related standard for total
suspended particulates was to have been
achieved throughout Washington by the end
of 1982. Of the remaining areas listed as
"nonattainment," Vancouver and Clarkston
may have met the mark; future assessment
of monitoring data will tell for sure. Problems
with fugitive dust, such as road and parking-
lot dust still bar achievement of the standard
in Seattle, Tacoma and Spokane.
Issuance of a new particulate air quality
standard for small inhalable particles likely
would provide relief from the present
requirement to control dust on roads and
parking lots, and would make it possible to
reassess the "nonattainment" status of
Seattle, Tacoma and Spokane. These cities
might then be moved into the "clean-air"
category in regard to particulates.
Two sites nominated in Washington for
emergency cleanup under the Federal
"Superfund" law—Harbor Island in Seattle
and the nearshore Tideflats in Tacoma —pose
significant air pollution problems. These
sites, which touch on several kinds of
environmental problems, are discussed
separately in this summary.
Water Supply
Ground water is the major source of
drinking water in Washington. This use is
being imperiled in several areas because of
contamination. Such contamination has been
identified near Tacoma and Spokane and is
suspected in Kent, Yakima and near
Vancouver.
Problems in the Spokane Aquifer (Spokane
County) and the Chambers Creek/Clover
Creek Aquifer (Pierce County) are a result of
septictank drainfields, urban stormwater
runoff and industrial waste handling and
disposal practices. Four major municipal
drinking water wells have been taken out of
service in Pierce County because of industrial
solvent contamination. Several private wells
have been closed in Pierce and Spokane
counties because of industrial waste
contamination.
In Spokane and Pierce Counties, sewerage
projects are underway as an alternative to
septic tanks. In Pierce County construction is
well along and in Spokane County the
project is in the planning stage. State and
local agencies are studying the Chambers
Creek/Clover Creek Aquifer to find remedies.
Local implementation of the Spokane County
water quality management plan is
continuing.
Actions to prevent further deterioration of
ground water include hydrogeologic studies
to improve understanding of ground water
systems and pollution routes, water quality
management planning to identify and
eliminate pollution from nonpoint sources,
aquifer protection under the Federal Safe
Drinking Water Act, and the improvement of
waste disposal facilities and practices. State
officials are seeking authority to manage the
Federal underground injection control
program, which would strengthen regulation
of these particular waste disposal practices.
The Federal "Superfund" program is one of
the main resources available to treat or
remove sources of contamination. Additional
efforts will be made to treat or replace
sources of drinking water. Nine of the 10
Washington state sites nominated for
Superfund consideration were so ranked
because of their effect on ground water.
These sites are discussed separately in this
report because many of them contribute to a
variety of environmental problems.
-------
Drinking Water. Ninety-seven percent of
Washington's population is served by
drinking water systems that consistently
comply with EPA's bacteriological drinking
water standards.
To continue this level of service and to raise
the quality of water provided by all water
supply systems, the State monitors drinking
water quality and provides financial
assistance for needed improvements, training
of system managers and certification of
operators, coordination among water
suppliers and monitoring of drinking water
quality.
Surface Waters
The State's goal is to retain and secure high
quality in all its waters. Cooperative local.
State and Federal efforts have stopped the
deterioration of some bodies of water and
restored others for recreational use, but
much remains to be done.
Toxic pollution of marine and estuarine
waters is a major concern, along with
microbiological contamination of shellfish
beds and pollution of streams where
anadromous fish spawn, grow, or traverse.
Puget Sound is the recipient of innumerable
rivers, streams, municipal, industrial and
ground water discharges. Significant
contamination has recently been documented
in Commencement Bay, Elliot Bay, and
Everett Harbor—all urban, industrial
embayments.
The long-term, cumulative effects of the
discharges to Puget Sound are of concern
because of the importance of the Sound for
recreation, fish, and shellfish. Actions
already taken to control pollution of the
Sound include the construction of municipal
and industrial wastewater treatment facilities,
the issuance and enforcement of permits to
limit discharges from point sources, control
of stormwater runoff and the development of
improved management practices for nonpoint
sources.
Recent studies by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration have alarmed
the public and raised questions about the
adequacy of past actions to protect Puget
Sound. State and Federal governments are
cooperating in an effort to develop a long-
term water quality management process for
the Sound. Actions to be taken during Fiscal
1984 include:
• Set up a management structure involving
the State Department of Ecology, EPA,
and possibly an interagency advisory group
to oversee, recommend, and coordinate
environmental control activities in the
Sound.
• Define the nature, severity, and causes of
contamination in urban industrial bays.
This work will be on a priority basis,
starting with Commencement Bay, Everett
Harbor and Elliot Bay. Where necessary
and feasible, cleanup actions will be taken.
• Study of the cumulative, long-term effects
of Puget Sound pollution.
Microbiological contamination of shellfish
beds threatens part of the extremely
productive Northwest shellfish industry and
private recreational shellfishing. The problem
is focused in the southern part of Puget
Sound and Grays Harbor, and is generally
due to inadequately treated or bypassed
waste from sewage treatment plants,
stormwater runoff and drainage from
feedlots, pastures and septic tanks. The
State already has a concept plan to pursue
the protection of shellfish areas. This plan is
one of three major elements of the Puget
Sound water quality management program.
The plan would set priorities to direct
monitoring, planning and permitting activities
affecting shellfish beds in conjunction with
activities under the Coastal Zone
Management Plan.
The Spokane River has experienced
considerable improvement in water quality
since the Spokane sewage treatment plant
was upgraded to provide advanced treatment
of wastewater in 1977. There have been no
recent violations of State water quality
standards; however, these gains may be in
jeopardy due to larger or more frequent
overflows of storm water and urban runoff.
The quality of water in Long Lake,
downstream from Spokane, is unstable and
summertime algal blooms cause concern.
The amount of phosphorus in the system has
nearly reached capacity. Controls of this
nutrient will be closely monitored. Waste
loading to the river may be curtailed during
the critical June-October season. Ammonia,
chlorine, and heavy-metals discharges also
may be curtailed. A wasteload-allocation plan
involving sources in Washington and Idaho
will be started in Fiscal 1984, with
completion expected the following year.
Concern about fisheries resources in
Washington is based on toxicity,
sedimentation, and nutrient loadings in
streams where fish spawn, are reared, or
traverse. In principal rivers of the State, 70
to 85 percent of the pollution problem is
believed to come from nonpoint sources,
now that most point sources are controlled.
Dryland and irrigated agriculture and
silviculture activities—all nonpoint
sources—are the chief contributors of the
pollution. The challenge to government is to
encourage farm and forest operators to
improve their management practices to
protect and enhance the fishery.
Main problem areas in this regard include
West Coast streams that pass through forest
lands where improved industry practices are
relied upon to bring continued improvement,
and the Yakima River where agricultural
practices and improvements in sewage
treatment plants are counted on for
correction. Also of concern are the lower
Snake, the Palouse, Hangman Creek and
many other small streams in Eastern
Washington.
Hazardous Wastes
Hazardous wastes in Washington state come
largely from electroplating operations,
petroleum refineries and manufacturers of
pesticides, other chemicals, and metals.
Most of these sources are concentrated
around Puget Sound; however, many areas
of the state are potentially affected.
In implementing the hazardous waste
program, the State's emphasis this year will
be on issuing permits for treatment, storage
and disposal facilities, evaluating compliance
by major handlers of hazardous wastes, and
providing technical assistance to
transporters, storers and disposers, and to
local governments concerned with the siting
of hazardous waste disposal facilities.
More than 400 uncontrolled sites that may
contain hazardous wastes —in addition to the
10 "Superfund" sites known to contain such
wastes —have been identified in Washington.
The State is to evaluate at least half of these
400 sites during Fiscal 1984, using special
EPA funds. As appropriate, significant
problems will be referred to EPA for
determination as to eligibility for Superfund
assistance.
The 10 Superfund sites proposed in
Washington are:
• Commencement Bay Nearshore
Tideflats (Tacoma) —This has been an
industrial area for more than 50 years.
Occupants include chemical companies,
refineries, an aluminum plant, a pulp and
paper plant, and a smelter. Nearshore
Waterway sediments are contaminated
with chemicals. Industrial waste was
dumped as fill throughout the Tideflats.
The Pierce County Health Department has
issued warnings on fish consumption.
The State and EPA have negotiated a
cooperative agreement on investigation of
known and suspected problems and
corrective measures.
-------
.South Tacoma Channel —The sfte has
been a light industrial and business district
for nearly 80 years and includes areas of
ground water contamination, uncontrolled
dumping and disposal, and a city landfill.
Part of the Tacoma Aquifer is
contaminated. Chlorinated organics have
caused the closure of two city drinking
water wells and a third is threatened. A
swamp was investigated because of
known disposal in the area. Investigations
are underway to characterize the landfill
and to further identify waste sources
around Well 12A, the most contaminated
well. Plans aim at correcting the problem
at Well 12A so it can be on line in time to
meet peak summer demands.
• Lakewood/Render's Corner
(Tacoma) —In 1981, two major drinking
water wells of the Lakewood Water
District were closed due to contamination
by synthetic organic compounds. More
than 30,000 people are served by this
water district.
The water district is waiting for field-
investigation results to determine the final
disposition of the wells. EPA is conducting
a hydrogeologic study of the
contamination. This study, intended to
identify sources and assess the problem, is
to be completed in 1983. Future options
include permanent closure or the
installation of treatment units to cleanse
the water and restore the wells to use.
Ground water monitoring is expected to
continue for the foreseeable future.
• Western Processing (Kent)—This
industrial waste recycling and reclamation
company has impacted local surface water
with heavy metals and solvents. Work is
underway under Federal law to identify
ground water and soil contamination and
to determine if pollutants are migrating off
the site. In addition to actions under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
the Regional Office invoked the Superfund
law to prevent deposition of additional
wastes and to secure the site. If
Superfund must be used for the cleanup,
the State would have to pay 10 percent of
the cost.
• Harbor Island, (Seattle) —High levels of
lead have been measured in surface dust
on Harbor Island, an island in the
Duwamish River in an industrial area of
Seattle. Heavy accumulation of lead in
soils and dust have resulted in lead runoff
into surface water, percolation of lead into
unused ground water, and exposure via
ambient air for some 6000 workers in the
immediate industrial area.
The City of Seattle and industries are
paving areas known to contain lead-laden
dust. It must be determined to what extent
the lead problems on Harbor Island are
caused by current emissions as opposed to
the re-suspension of soil and dust.
• Frontier Hard Chrome, Inc.
(Vancouver) —Process waste from this
chrome-finishing plant contains high
concentrations of chromium, which has
been drained to the ground, contaminating
the soil. This contamination threatens the
major aquifer serving Vancouver. A full
field investigation to develop a remedial
action plan would involve 10 percent State
funding.
• FMC Corporation (Yakimal —Agricultural
pesticides and herbicides were dumped in
an unlined pit on the company's property.
The pit contains at least 36 cubic yards of
mixed chemicals and residues, and the
surrounding soil appears contaminated. A
high potential exists for contamination of
ground water, which is the source for
private domestic wells in the area. The
plan is to have the company clean up the
site.
• Pesticide Experimental Laboratory
(Yakima)—Wastes from the laboratory,
sent into a septic tank drainfield, have
permeated the soil and may have
contaminated ground water. The site is
about 3 miles from backup sources for the
Yakima drinking water supply. Irrigation is
now the primary use of downstream
surface and ground water. The site
operator is responsible to investigate and
conduct necessary cleanup.
• Colbert Landfill (Spokane
County) —This county-owned landfill is 10
miles north of Spokane. For five years,
liquid solvent wastes were buried here in
unlined pits in permeable soil.
Some drinking water wells nearby are
contaminated by liquids chemically
identical to those that were dumped.
Similar contaminants have been detected
in ground water down-gradient from the
dump site. The contaminants are
considered toxic and persistent. In drinking
water, some are suspected of being health
risks.
The rural area near the landfill is
dependent on ground water for drinking
and irrigation. No other supply is readily
available. The State and local government
are expected to pay up to half the
estimated $50,000 cost of a study of
cleanup alternatives.
• Kaiser Aluminum (Mead) —Old pot liner
wastes piled on site have been identified
as the source of cyanide contamination of
ground water. The company has
implemented a ground water monitoring
program and source control. All known
affected water supplies (27) have been
connected to alternative water. The
company will oversee the ground water
investigation and prepare a remedial action
plan.
Pesticides
A top environmental priority in Washington
is investigation and enforcement against
misuse of pesticides. Pesticide drift is one
kind of misuse of particular concern in
Washington. In Eastern Washington,
vineyard owners complain of crop damage
from 2,4-D drifting from neighboring wheat
farms. The State is continuing to pursue
solutions to these problems.
Oregon State—/Vo6/e/ns and
Programs
Oregon's air is generally clean, its water is
generally of good quality and progress is
being made in dealing with the most
significant remaining problems. Although
population growth slowed during the recent
recession, efforts to protect and improve the
quality of Oregon's environment continue to
require high levels of public investment and
sound management.
Among the significant problems still
remaining:
• Unhealthful levels of air pollution in
Portland and Medford. Air quality in both
cities is improving. Unfavorable
meteorology at Medford still permits
excessive buildup of pollution from motor
vehicles, and wood-stove smoke is a
serious new problem.
• The quality of drinking water in many
small Oregon communities still does not
meet Federal standards, in spite of EPA
efforts to date. The State is concerned
about adverse effects on ground water
resources from residential subsurface
disposal of wastewater.
Oregon and the EPA are committed to a firm
environmental enforcement program seeking
informal resolution of routine violations
within a limited timeframe—generally less
than 60 days—as an alternative prior to
initiating formal enforcement.
-------
Air Pollution
Two Oregon cities, Salem and Eugene, are
very close to attaining the health-related
national standards for carbon monoxide and
ozone. Analysis of recent monitoring data is
expected to confirm that the standards were
met in these cities last year. By 1985, the
carbon monoxide standard is expected to be
met in Portland, where a mandatory
inspection and maintenance program has
reduced motor-vehicle emissions. !n
Medford, where an inspection and
maintenance program is to be initiated under
the State clean-air plan, attainment of the
carbon monoxide standard is expected by
1987.
The health-related air quality standard for
ozone also is expected to be met in Portland
by 1987, as a result of the motor-vehicle
maintenance program and of controls on
hydrocarbons emissions from stationary
sources. Stationary sources accounted for
more than half the hydrocarbon emissions in
the Portland, Oregon-Vancouver,
Washington, area in 1980.
Wood-stove emissions have a significant
impact on Oregon's air quality. Studies have
demonstrated that they are major
contributors to atmospheric loadings of total
suspended particulates and to the emission
of very small inhalable particles that are
believed to be associated with human-health
effects. With the expected issuance by EPA
in 1983 of a new national ambient air quality
standard for fine particulates, wood stoves
will be a major concern in planning control
strategies to correct violations of the
standard and provide room for future
industrial expansion. The State's approach
consists of four major elements:
• Certify stoves prior to marketing. This
would require legislative approval.
• Explore the potential for retrofitting
existing stoves to reduce emissions.
• Provide public information to describe the
economic and environmental benefits of
voluntary actions to reduce emissions.
• Continue to study the effect of wood-
stove air pollution to improve the data
base for air quality management decisions.
Water Supply
Drinking Water. The Environmental
Protection Agency is responsible for carrying
out the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act in
Oregon, since to date the State has declined
to assume this responsibility. While much
has been accomplished by EPA's program
over the past few years, there is clear
evidence of a continuing serious public
health problem caused by inadequately
treated water and aging water supplies.
Oregon ranks among the top few states in
the country in the number of waterborne
disease outbreaks. The rate of violations of
drinking water standards remains well above
the national average and rose 40 percent in
1982.
EPA believes that a strong, well funded
State and local program, focusing on
preventing and correcting local problems, is
the most effective and efficient way to solve
Oregon's serious drinking water problem.
Until the State is prepared to assume full
responsibility for safe drinking water, EPA
will make every effort to address the existing
situation. The major elements of EPA's
drinking water program in Oregon are:
• Vigorously enforce reporting and water
quality requirements with Federal
prosecution of persistent violators.
• Increase efforts to identify actual or
potential outbreaks of waterborne disease
and ensure prompt response in disease
events.
• Raise public understanding and awareness
of the serious drinking water problem in
specific communities and in Oregon at
large.
• Continue to encourage the State to
assume responsibility for safe drinking
water in Oregon.
Ground Water. The State will continue in
Fiscal 1984 to emphasize protection of
ground water from contamination by surface
activities or underground waste disposal.
Because of its concern, the State in 1981
adopted a ground water protection policy.
Several aquifers, including areas near
Florence, LaPine, River Road/Santa Clara
near Eugene, and Clatsop Plains, already
have been adversely affected by the
increased density of residential subsurface
disposal systems. The State is concluding
studies of these areas and will develop and
implement aquifer-protection programs in
Fiscal 1984. The State also will work to
develop sewage collection and treatment
facilities in east Multnomah County to
protect the aquifer as a drinking water
source for suburban Portland.
Oregon also expects to begin establishing
standards to protect ground water and to
implement the Federal underground injection
control program in Fiscal 1984.
Surface Waters
Stream quality in Oregon has improved
during the past 10 years, though many
streams, estuaries and lakes still do not meet
the State water quality standards. The State
has an effective water quality management
program based on monitoring, prioritization
of problems, and control of all sources of
waste. To accommodate recent budget cuts,
the State will concentrate on management of
the existing base-level water quality
programs, such as permits, construction
grants and monitoring.
Economically important commercial shellfish
operations on the Pacific Ocean coast of
Oregon have been impaired by bacterial
contamination in Tillamook, Coos and
Yaquina bays. During the past few years, the
State developed a comprehensive,
cooperative local program to control
Tillamook Bay pollution from agricultural,
municipal and industrial sources. An
evaluation of the Coos Bay problem is
leading to development of a program to
safeguard shellfish beds. An assessment of
the results at Tillamook and Coos bays and,
possibly, the start of a problem evaluation at
Yaquina Bay are high priority projects for
Fiscal 1984.
The Clean Water Act requires States to
review and update their water quality
standards every three years. Oregon's water
quality standards were last reviewed and
updated in 1979. The State expects to review
standards and update basin plans during
Fiscal 1984 on a priority basis, focusing on
river basins where water quality is
deteriorating. The South Umpqua River
already has been identified as being in this
category. Depending on available resources,
the State will conduct a survey there in
Fiscal 1984 as the basis for subsequent
review of the water quality standards and the
basin plan. Based on detailed water quality
management planning and data collection
and analysis, the State also plans to review
water quality standards for the Malheur River
and to revise the standards to reflect
changes in the designated uses of the river
system.
Stream water quality standards in Oregon are
based in part on the need to protect the
State's fishery. Toxicity, sedimentation, and
nutrient loadings are of concern in streams
where fish spawn, are reared, or traverse. It
is estimated that 70 to 85 percent of the
current pollution problem in Oregon streams
is from nonpoint sources, now that most
point sources are controlled. Dryland and
irrigated agriculture, dairies, and silviculture
activities—all nonpoint sources —are of
concern.
-------
Water quality management plans have been
developed to address these problems;
however, best management practices defined
in "cooperation with farmers and foresters
either are not enforceable or are difficult to
enforce, and significant water quality
improvement may be impossible until the
operators of nonpoint sources find it in their
interest to implement such practices.
Hazardous Wastes
Effective implementation of the hazardous
waste program rates high priority in Oregon.
Under its Phase I delegation, the State
devotes about 50 percent of its hazardous
waste program resources to inspect and
monitor facilities, review manifests, and
ensure compliance with reporting
requirements. High priority also is given to
ensuring that hazardous waste facilities
comply with ground water monitoring and
financial assurance requirements. Also, the
State will continue monthly inspections of
the Arlington hazardous waste disposal site.
Over the past several years, EPA and the
State have developed an inventory of 159
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Many of
these have been closed after investigation
and work is continuing on the others.
Cooperative EPA-State efforts are expected
to reduce the number of uncontrolled sites
by half in Fiscal 1984.
Two sites in Oregon —Teledyne Wah Chang
in Albany and Gould, Inc., in Portland —are
on the proposed national priority list for
"Superfund." In the case of the Gould site,
the company is expected to undertake the
cleanup. At Teledyne Wah Chang Albany,
the EPA is expected to develop a Remedial
Action Master Plan as a basis for initiating
any required cleanup in Fiscal 1984.
Toxics Monitoring
There is an important emerging awareness of
environmental contamination by toxic
substances. Better data is needed in air,
water quality, and hazardous waste programs
in order to address toxics contamination.
Additional monitoring capabilities are needed
for dealing with abandoned dump sites and
spills. Although Oregon has implemented
EPA rules on hazardous air pollutants, there
remains a need to identify, assess, and
possibly control additional airborne toxics.
Also of concern are toxic residues as well as
substances in the atmosphere and
substances that have leached into surface
waters or ground water.
A rapid, effective means of identifying toxics
problems is needed as a basis for protecting
the public health.
Idaho State —Problems and
Programs
Idaho has a longstanding reputation for areas
with pristine air and water. Many of its
residents were attracted to the state because
of this perception. Less publicized however,
are certain areas within the State that have
very serious environmental problems. Solving
these problems is the continuing thrust of
State, Federal, and local cleanup efforts.
Resource constraints are a major barrier to
early and complete success.
Air Pollution
Two air pollutants are of concern in Idaho at
this time: carbon monoxide and particulates.
Environmental controls at the J. R. Simplot
plant in Pocatello and the closing of the
Bunker Hill lead smelter in Kellogg due to
unfavorable economic conditions have
brought sulfur dioxide concentrations in
those areas within the public health
standard.
The Federal Clean Air Act called for the
attainment of the health-related standard for
particulate pollution in all parts of the
country, including Idaho, by the end of 1982.
Violations of the health standard for total
suspended particulates still occur in the
Pocatello and Soda Springs/Conda areas. It
appears that the Lewiston area has met the
deadline; however, further assessment of
monitoring data is needed to confirm this.
EPA is expected in 1983 to propose a" new
particulate standard focusing on small
airborne particles that can be inhaled deep
into the lungs, and which are believed to be
associated with human health effects. The
eventual promulgation of such a standard
will lead to the reassessment of the
"nonattainment" status of the Pocatello and
Soda Springs/Conda areas.
Agricultural field burning in Northern Idaho
has become a serious and controversial
issue. Particulates from such burning are
usually in the very small size range. The
State will revise its program for smoke
management and the control of such burning
during Fiscal Year 1984.
The Clean Air Act also calls for the
attainment in all areas of the health-related
standard for carbon monoxide air pollution.
The law allowed the Environmental
Protection Agency to extend the deadline for
communities that could not meet the 1982
date, but were taking effective measures to
meet the standard by a final deadline in
1987. Sanctions against communities that
failed by 1982 to take adequate steps to
protect the public health against carbon
monoxide air pollution are required under
Federal law.
The health-related standard for carbon
monoxide is exceeded during winter
months in Ada County, which houses 18
percent of Idaho's population. In 1982 local
government adopted ordinances to address
this problem by requiring annual emission
tests and maintenance to insure that controls
built into vehicles are working properly. This
program is currently not being implemented,
and the possibility of Federal sanctions being
applied in 1983 is real.
Water Supply
Drinking Water. Noncompliance with State
and Federal drinking water regulations
presents a significant potential threat to
public health. Some water suppliers have
never been inspected by the State, which
has primary responsibility for implementing
the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act. The
State will take steps during Fiscal 1984 to
assure facility and operational improvements
for water systems that do not comply with
bacteriological standards.
Ground Water. A large part of Idaho's
population is dependent on ground water as
a source of drinking water. The agricultural
community and particularly the trout rearing
industry in Idaho require large volumes of
high quality ground water.
State and local agencies are implementing
programs to protect aquifers against future
problems, and a statewide ground water
policy is to be developed in Fiscal 1984. Also
the EPA will administer work in Idaho to
control underground injection of wastes
during Fiscal 1983 and 1984. On-site
subsurface disposal, such as septic tanks,
are a growing problem.
Surface Waters
Control of industrial and municipal point
sources of pollutants has measurably
improved surface water quality in Idaho.
Problems still exist, however, including
inadequate wastewater treatment and
overloading of facilities from ground water
and/or stormwater. A new potential problem
is geothermal and small hydropower
development, which are expected on a
significant scale.
The most significant remaining deterrent to
high quality surface waters in Idaho are the
nonpoint-source problems. These types of
problems typically include dryland and
irrigated agriculture runoff, silviculture (forest
harvesting) practices, and past and present
mining activities. Water quality management
plans have been developed and actions taken
by local and State agencies to address these
concerns; however, significant problems
remain. Best management practices have
been developed in many areas in cooperation
-------
with farmers and the State has a cost-
sharing program to help farmers implement
these practices on a limited basis. Difficulties
also arise from the State's lack of resources
to enforce agreements with the forest
industry and the instability of the mining
economy.
Seasonal fluctuations in river flow result in
certain parts of Idaho's major rivers achieving
only marginal quality. Levels of bacteria,
nutrients, heavy metals, sediments and
temperature are the water quality criteria
most often exceeded. Attention is focused
on those river segments that have the more
severe pollution problems, with the exception
of the South Fork Coeur d'Alene River. Due
to past mining practices, and the
contaminants leached from tailings piles the
South Fork of the Coeur d'Alene has been
severely damaged. Some control of point
sources has measurably improved the
situation but further improvements in
nonpoint-source controls are not now
regarded as cost-effective.
Idaho discharges to the Spokane River,
along with those in Washington state, carry
excessive amounts of phosphorus that adds
to pollution problems in Long Lake in
Washington. To correct this problem, a
wasteload allocation plan affecting sources in
Idaho and Washington will be started this
year, with completion expected next year.
Hazardous Wastes
Idaho has a relatively small regulated
community under the hazardous waste
program. Idaho has one of the two major
hazardous waste disposal complexes in
Region 10. A significant problem due to
improper disposal of electrical equipment
containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
was recently discovered in Pocatello, and
EPA is proceeding with cleanup and other
actions. There have been a few other
instances of improper management of
hazardous wastes, one in which wastes
disposed of in a municipal landfill imperiled
an employee. There may be other situations
that could lead to contamination of ground
water due to leaching of chemicals.
Idaho has adopted legislation to enable the
State to assume primary responsibility for
Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act programs. The State is to develop
regulations and submit an application for
final authorization by July 1984. Local health
departments are expected to continue taking
part in a hazardous waste surveillance
program. Also the State will continue to
develop oil- and hazardous-spill response
capabilities.
The inventory of uncontrolled hazardous
waste sites in Idaho numbers 109. Several of
these have been closed after investigation
and work is continuing on the others. Those
that cannot readily be cleaned up or closed
will be considered for formal listing under
Superfund.
Idaho has three sites on the proposed
national Superfund priority list. One site may
be eliminated from further consideration
because the indicated environmental hazard
does not appear as significant as it first
seemed.
Alaska State—Problems and
Programs
Alaska's environment, like so much about
the largest state, has to be described in
superlatives. It boasts the largest expanse of
clean air and pristine water in the United
States. Its 586,412 square miles include the
world's largest molybdenum deposit, oil, coal
and gold, immense forests and a highly
productive fishery resource. As a
consequence of its size, its climate, and its
wealth of resources, Alaska also has some of
the Nation's most difficult environmental
problems.
• Frigid temperatures worsen urban air
pollution in wintertime. High
concentrations of carbon monoxide from
motor vehicles threaten public health in
both Anchorage and Fairbanks, and
commuter traffic adds to an "ice fog"
problem in Fairbanks.
• Rivers too remote to be regularly
monitored at reasonable cost may be
seriously polluted by natural-resource
development activities that are equally
difficult to monitor and inspect.
• Oil and gas exploration and development
in Arctic and subarctic waters may affect
bowhead and gray whales and other
endangered species. Wastes discharged
from fish-processing plants may affect the
propagation and rearing of herring and
other fish and shellfish for human
consumption. And in the Southeast,
timber harvesting practices and mine
development may impact a rich salmon
fishery.
Air Pollution
Most communities in Alaska are generally
free of significant air pollution. Carbon
monoxide pollution from motor vehicles
continues to be a serious problem in
Anchorage and Fairbanks, and the increasing
use of wood stoves for residential heating o-
has recently begun to cause problems such
as those documented in the Mendenhall
Valley near Juneau. High particulate levels
from wood-stove emissions were experienced
during the winter of 1982-83. The State plans
to work with local officials to develop a long-
term plan to improve air quality and allow for
future development of the capital city.
Final revisions to transportation-control plans
to meet carbon monoxide standards in
Anchorage and Fairbanks are expected to
require mandatory inspection and any
needed tuning of motor vehicles. These
actions would ensure the effectiveness of
emissions controls that were manufactured
into the vehicles. Implementation of these
plans is anticipated during Fiscal 1984, with
attainment of the health-related standard by
1987.
Water Supply
Although only 81 community water supply
systems provide water that is known to fully
comply with the national bacteriological
standard and monitoring requirements for
drinking water, these systems serve 53
percent of the population of Alaska. Most
systems do not conduct monitoring activities
required under the Federal Safe Drinking
Water Act or State law. Consequently, little
is known about the safety of drinking water
served to many people in Alaska.
The State will increase fieldwork and
compliance/enforcement actions in Fiscal
1984 to improve the frequency of monitoring
at water systems serving more than 200
people, either residents or patrons.
Surface Waters
Alaskan surface waters face pollution
problems from both natural and manmade
sources. Some streams exceed normal
turbidity guidelines due to natural conditions
such as glacial ice breakup and snowmelt,
which continues from spring to early fall.
In some cases, however, excessive turbidity,
suspended-solids pollution, and
contamination with heavy metals are the
result of human activities, such as mining,
construction, and timber harvesting. It is
estimated that half of the pollution of
Alaskan waters related to human activities
originates from point-source discharges, such
as mines, municipalities, or other industrial
developments. The rest is from nonpoint
sources, such as silviculture.
10
-------
The EPA administers the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System point-source
control program in Alaska by issuing and
enforcing limits on the discharge of
pollutants. EPA and the State are
cooperating in implementing long-range
strategies to reduce pollution from several
hundred mechanized gold placer-mining
operations. Specific topics to be addressed
include an economic analysis of the industry
and available treatment technology, and
gathering more data to develop a general
permit calling for the best available treatment
of water discharged to streams. Other issues
to be addressed include applications for
stream-use reclassification and a unified
enforcement policy.
EPA also is working with the State to assure
compliance by the seafood processing
industry with Federal guidelines and State
water quality standards. A general
wastewater permit is being developed for
many of the fish processors in 1983. Seafood
waste discharges at Duch Harbor also are to
be addressed by individual permits to be
issued in the near future.
Increased offshore oil and gas exploration
and development activities in the Beaufort
Sea, Norton Sound and other lease areas will
require EPA and the State to visit worksites
to ensure compliance with general permits
being developed by Region 10. Other
developmental activity, such as gravel
extraction, island and causeway
construction, and the building of access
roads also must be monitored to ensure the
protection of natural habitat and ecosystems
on the North Slope.
Major permitting decisions also will be made
in Fiscal 1984 bearing on increases mining
activities in Alaska. Of immediate concern
are the US Borax molybdenum mine in the
Misty Fjords National Monument area, the
Noranda Greens Creek mine on Admiralty
Island near Juneau and the Cominco zinc
and lead mine east of Kotzebue. Issues such
as marine disposal of tailings and
performance standards for new sources of
water pollution will be addressed in
environmental impact statements and
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permits.
Decisions on applications from coastal
communities for waivers from the secondary-
treatment requirements of the Clean Water
Act also are expected to require a major
focus of Federal and State attention during
Fiscal 1984.
Hazardous Wastes
EPA administers Federal Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act programs to
control hazardous waste problems in Alaska.
Although Alaska has few generators of
hazardous waste, military stockpiles of
equipment contain polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) and other hazardous and toxic
substances. These stockpiles are several
thousand miles from the nearest approved
disposal sites located in the contiguous 48
states.
EPA and the State will continue to inspect
important facilities containing hazardous
wastes and monitor the movement of such
wastes within and out of the state. Special
attention will be focused on the military
installations.
The State has drafted regulations as part of
a hazardous waste program scheduled for
adoption in summer 1983. Alaska will apply
for EPA authorization to run a State
hazardous waste program instead of the
present Federally run program. The State
also will continue to have lead responsibility
for response and cleanup of PCS spills.
11
-------
Introduction to Section II
Section II of this report is intended to serve
as a management tool. It describes high
priority environmental problems in Region 10,
their causes and effects and current plans to
solve them. It establishes the link between
environmental problems and actions. In
addition, Section II is intended to help
Agency program managers in the Regional
Office and at EPA Headquarters assess
present plans, allocate resources and devise
national programs to further protect and
enhance the environment of the Pacific
Northwest. Much of this report has been
organized with these purposes in mind.
Problems have been ranked in groups
according to the following criteria:
Priority 1:
Problems of concern because of possible
adverse health effects to humans.
Priority 2:
Problems of concern because of possible
adverse ecological affects.
Information on each problem is organized as
follows:
• Problem characterization.
• Sources of contamination.
• Program implications.
a. Done to date.
b. Barriers to correction of problems.
• Proposed Strategies.
a. Region 10 actions needed.
b. Headquarters actions needed.
• Expected Results—Programmatic and
Environmental, and Proposed Indicators
of Progress.
Priority I: Potential Human Health
Effects
Priority Regional Problems
Priority II: Potential Ecological
Effects
•Exposure to Hazardous Wastes
•Water Supply: Contamination of
Ground Water and Drinking Water
Systems
•Toxics and Hazardous Materials in
Marine and Estuarine Waters
•Pesticides and Toxic Substances
•Air Pollution: Carbon Monoxide and
Ozone
•Air Pollution: Particulate Matter
•Microbiological Contamination of
Estuarine and Shellfish Areas
•Fishery Damage from Contaminated
Waters
Exposure to Hazardous Wastes
Problem Characterization
An estimated 2.7 million tons of hazardous
waste were disposed of in Region 10
between 1940 and 1975. Generation of
hazardous waste in the Region now is
estimated at up to a million tons a year.
Without proper management, such wastes
pose a significant public health and
environmental peril by direct exposure and
indirect exposure through contaminated
ground water or the food chain. Ground
water contamination is of particular concern
in Region 10 because of increasing reliance
on this source for public and private drinking
water.
The risk of direct human exposure to
hazardous waste begins at the point of
generation and continues through all phases
of management, including transport, storage,
treatment and disposal. Inadequately secured
storage and accidental or intentional spills
pose a potential threat to human health and
safety. New cases occur frequently that
require public supervision of the removal of
hazardous material to licensed disposal sites.
Historically, hazardous waste generation and
disposal occur predominantly in the most
populated and industrialized areas. In Region
10 these areas coincide with those of high
annual precipitation and low evaporation
rates. This characteristic wet climate results
in high leachate generation and resulting
migration of hazardous constituents into
relatively high ground water tables. In the
Puget Sound area of the State of
Washington, several public and private
drinking water wells recently have been
taken out of service due to ground water
contamination by toxic organic compounds.
The wet climate also results in surface runoff
and leaching of hazardous materials from
contaminated soils into the abundant surface
waters of the Pacific Northwest and Alaska.
Several marine embayments and estuaries
have accumulated lead, arsenic, and other
hazardous materials to the point where the
tissues and organs of bottomfish and
shellfish exhibit abnormalities. Local health
officials have issued health advisories
cautioning persons who rely on this marine
life for a food source.
In recent years, disposal sites in Region 10
have been established in dry areas; however,
this "solution" to the wet-climate problem
increases risks of another kind. The sites (in
Arlington, Oregon, and Grand View, Idaho)
are remote from many industrial areas,
particularly those in Washington and Alaska.
This means transportation costs are high and
the likelihood of accidental spills increases
with haul distances.
Hazardous waste problems in Alaska are
unique. Although the number of handlers
and the quantities of hazardous waste
generated are relatively small, the
management problems are substantial.
No commercial hazardous waste disposal
facility exists in Alaska. Generators must
either dispose of wastes on-site or pay very
high costs to transport the wastes to
facilities in Oregon, Washington or Idaho. As
a result, hazardous materials that were
13
-------
formerly sent to local landfills are now being
"managed" on-site—often in ways that do
not conform to the requirements of law.
Waste management practices at military
facilities —principally in Alaska —also present
problems, particularly in regard to the
disposition of excess property. Equipment
containing hazardous materials unwittingly
has been sold as surplus, and these materials
sometimes end up being released into the
environment.
Sources
Under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA or "Superfund"), EPA identified
approximately 760 sites where past disposal
practices were deemed to create potentially
hazardous situations. Of these, all were
screened and 15 were recently identified on
EPA's national priority list for Superfund
designation. The remaining sites from the list
of 760 are to be investigated in Fiscal Years
1983 and 1984.
Of the 15 sites on the proposed Superfund
list, five are associated with hazardous
organic compounds, four with toxic metals,
two with both organics and metals, two with
pesticides, and one each with cyanide and
radioactive waste.
Current information gathered under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) indicates that, of the firms now
handling hazardous waste in the Region,
1,960 are generators, 560 are transporters,
and 150 are treatment, storage, or disposal
facilities (TSDs). No specific information is
available as to the total quantity of
hazardous waste generated, treated or
disposed of at or by these facilities; however,
annual reports from facilities in all Region 10
states will be available to begin compiling
this information during Fiscal 1983.
Of the 15 sites on the proposed Superfund
list, five are associated with hazardous
organic compounds, four with toxic metals,
two with both organics and metals, two with
pesticides, and one each with cyanide and
radioactive waste.
Current information gathered under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) indicates that, of the firms now
handling hazardous waste in the Region,
1,960 are generators, 560 are transporters,
and 150 are treatment, storage, or disposal
facilities (TSDs). No specific information is
available as to the total quantity of
hazardous waste generated, treated or
disposed of at or by these facilities; however,
annual reports from facilities in all Region 10
states will be available to begin compiling
this information during Fiscal 1983.
Program Implications
Done to Date: The Region 10 hazardous
waste and Superfund programs are well
under way. The nomination of 15
Northwest sites to the Superfund priority
list followed investigations, studies or
evaluations at many of the 365 sites
considered as possible candidates for the
list. Cleanup was accomplished at several
problem sites and is underway at major
Superfund sites including Commencement
Bay (Tacoma, Washington), Pocatello,
Idaho and Western Processing (Kent,
Washington). Major achievements are
described in Section I.
Extensive field studies were conducted to
better define problems and facilitate
development and implementation of cost-
effective remedial actions. Region 10
trained State and Federal staff in permit
compliance, requirements for the
transportation of hazardous materials and
emergency response procedures. The
Regional Office responded effectively to
several major emergencies having the
potential to seriously imperil public health.
In addition, an effective inspection and
compliance program required active
facilities to determine whether ground
water was being contaminated.
Barriers: (1) Information is inadequate to
define the extent of the hazardous waste
problem in Region 10. (2) State and local
agencies may be unable to meet the
requirement that they put up 10 to 50
percent matching funds for participation in
Superfund. There is also little State or
local money to pay for hazardous waste
program development, planning and
coordination. (3) Technical expertise
(geology and ground water hydrology) and
staff of Federal, State and local agencies
are limited and only permit response to the
most pressing cleanup issues. (4)
Superfund contracting mechanisms, in
certain cases, are too complex to achieve
the most effective and timely solutions. (5)
High costs are a deterrent to meeting
ground water monitoring requirements
under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act. (6) Existing hazardous
waste sites are remote from many
generators, particularly those in
Washington and Alaska, and new sites are
costly to develop. (7) Extensive safety
training and equipment is required for
many field activities on hazardous waste
sites. (8) The lack of necessary statutory
and regulatory authority at the State level
hampers high priority work by EPA to
authorize programs in some Region 10
states. (9) EPA lacks sufficient funds for
RCRA activities.
Proposed Strategy and Expected Results
Prevent accidents and direct human
exposure: (1) Continue to inspect facilities
for compliance with spill prevention and
containment regulations. (2) Maintain
emergency response readiness through
training of State and EPA personnel and
continue support of the Region 10
emergency response team.
Abate problems of hazardous wastes
in ground water and the food chain: (1)
Clean up the contaminated municipal
water supply well in Tacoma. (2) Negotiate
with the States to correct hazardous waste
problems at the 15 sites on the Superfund
list. Provide technical assistance to assess
and inspect sites, conduct responsible-
party searches, and collect information to
characterize problems. By the end of Fiscal
1984, complete investigations at 12 of the
sites, and complete remedial measures for
five. (3) Negotiate remedial work plans and
cooperative agreements with the States.
The Commencement Bay Nearshore
Agreement with the State of Washington
is now being developed. (4) Help States
and/or take Federal actions to achieve
voluntary cleanup at Superfund sites. With
the shortage of State matching funds for
Superfund, voluntary cleanup at some
sites is essential. (5) Secure memoranda of
understanding with Federal facilities to
clean up waste problems. (6) Provide
States with special Superfund financial
help to complete assessments of sites with
problems from past waste disposal
practices. Supplement State activities with
EPA resources to eliminate the backlog of
investigations needed at such sites. (7)
Remedy ground water contamination
identified through inspections or other
means.
Prevent new hazardous waste
problems and exacerbation of existing
ones: (1) Delegate Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act program responsibilities
to all States by January 1985. Provide
financial and technical assistance for
permitting and enforcement activities. (2)
In the interim, continue aggressive Federal
inspection and enforcement.
• Conduct approximately 350 inspections
to identify violators.
• Take enforcement actions as
necessary.
• Call for permit applications for land
disposal facilities. Environmental
concerns and size would be the basis for
ranking facilities for permitting.
• Issue 24 hazardous waste permits,
eight permits for land disposal facilities,
and one permit for a hazardous waste
incinerator.
14
-------
• Assure that ground water monitoring
networks are in place at all applicable
facilities.
• Assess compliance with regulations on
manifests.
• Assist military facilities in Alaska and
other Region 10 states to improve
hazardous-materials management
practices of Defense Property Disposal
Offices.
Water Supply: Contamination of Ground Water
and Drinking Water Systems
Ground Water
Problem Characterization
Ground water resources in Region 10 are
significant and will play an extremely large
role in the Region in the future. Withdrawals
of fresh water from all surface and
underground sources are increasing — with a
potential to rise from 30 billion gallons a day
in 1970 to 60 billion gallons a day in 2020. By
1975 the withdrawal of ground water had
increased 70 percent over that in 1970 and
accounted for 22 percent of total freshwater
withdrawal. While much of the withdrawal is
presently used for irrigation, projections by
the U.S. Geological Survey indicate that
municipal needs for ground water will
increase by more than 160 percent over the
1970 levels. The amount of ground water in
"recoverable" storage is estimated at 179
trillion gallons. The average regionwide rate
of ground water withdrawal in 1975 was
7,300 billion gallons a day (Geological Survey
Professional Paper 13-S, 1979).
Region 10's ground water contamination log,
which lists ground water contamination
problems reported to the Regional Office,
shows a marked increase in reports in 1981
and 1982. In the decade of the 1970's there
were 31 ground water contamination reports.
In contrast, in 1981 and 1982 alone, more
than 46 concerns were reported. Most
significant is the fact that the logging of
these incidents is not the result of a routine
consistent monitoring program, but rather
represents problems that came to our
attention without an aggressive problem-
identification program.
As more data are collected more evidence of
ground water contamination is found. This is
of great concern as several of the more
highly populated areas of the Region use
ground water as a principal source of public
and private drinking water. More importantly,
these highly populated areas are where the
contaminants of greatest concern are being
discovered. Significant contamination is
occurring in ground waters in Tacoma,
Washington, the Spokane Valley/Rathdrum
Prairie Sole Source Aquifer in Idaho and
Washington, the Chambers Creek/Clover
Creek Aquifer in Pierce County, Washington,
the Snake Plain Aquifer in Idaho, and East
Portland, Oregon.
Historically, the Region has encountered
ground waters contaminated by
microbiological organisms, nitrates and other
inorganic compounds. More recently, volatile
organic chemicals (VOC's), which are highly
toxic and considered to be highly persistent
in aquifer structures, have become
contaminants of major concern. Both public
and private drinking water wells have
recently been closed due to the high levels of
VOC's in the ground water. Ground water
contamination from septic tanks and
drainfields and shallow water-table aquifer
contamination from gasoline and other
petroleum products, primarily from leaks in
subsurface tanks and plumbing, are being
found more frequently.
Sources
The sources of ground water contamination
vary by area. In many cases, the direct
correlation between specific sources and the
contaminants is hard to establish. For some
existing ground water contamination, the
sources are unknown. Contamination does,
however, result from sources such as
landfills, septic tanks and drainfields,
drainage and disposal wells, disposal sites
and industrial activity occurring over
aquifers. Shallow-water-table aquifer
contamination from gasoline and other
petroleum products results from leaks in
subsurface tanks and plumbing. Nonpoint
sources, such as urban runoff, are also of
concern.
Table 1 briefly describes the major areas of
concern, the contaminants present and the
sources suspected of causing the problems.
15
-------
Table 1
Ground Water Protection Problem Areas Identified in Region 10
Problem Area
Population, Area, and Beneficial
Uses Affected
Contaminants Present
Source
South Tacoma Channel'
Commencement Bay, Washington
Ponder's Corner Lakewood*
Commencement Bay, Washington
Spokane and Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer
and Tributaries, Idaho and Washington
Chambers Creek-Clover Creek Aquifer,
Washington
Snake Plain Aquifer. Idaho
Potential Areas of Concern
Troutdale Aquifer
Vancouver, Washington
Kent, Washington
Yakima. Washington
195,000 people Public and private drinking
water. City wells 12-A and 9-A closed.
30,000 people. Public and private drinking
water. City wells H-1 and H-2 closed.
350,000 people. Public and private
domestic, irrigation and industrial water
supply. Private wells closed. No public
wells closed
Pierce County residents. Public and private
drinking water.
200.000 people. Drinking water recharge
for surface water and irrigation. No wells
closed
Ground water.
Ground water and drinking water for Kent
Ground water and back-up drinking water.
1, 1, 2, 2 tetrachloroethane, 1. 2
transdichloroethylene. trichloroethylene,
tetrachloroethylene.
!, 2 transdichloroethylene,
trichloroethylene. tetrachloroethylene.
1, 1, 1 trichloroethane. trichloroethylene,
tetrachloroethylene, 1, 2
transdichloroethylene. dieldrin, heavy
metals (zincl, chloride, nitrate/nitrogen
Nitrates, chlorides, poor bacteriological
quality
Coliform bacteria, turbidity. 2,4-D.
pentachlorophenol. dieldrin.
pentachloronitrobenzine, chlordane.
nitrates, chromium, tritium
Hexavalent chromium.
Organic toxicants and heavy metals
Pesticides, poor bacteriological quality.
Under investigation
Under investigation
Lead smelter, electrolyte zinc plant, dry
cleaners, aluminum plant, county and
private land fills, septic tank leachate,
river-aquifer interchange, and waste oil
recycling.
Septic tanks and others unknown.
Probable: irrigation water disposal wells.
and industrial waste from ponds and
injection wells at energy laboratory.
Frontier Hard Chrome
Western Processing
FMC Corporation. Pesticides experimental
lab Septic tanks and waste-pile leachate.
'These two areas are technically within the Chambers Creek/Clover Creek Aquifer
Program Implications
Done to Date: Region 10 currently has a
two-pronged approach to deal with ground
water contamination. The first is
preventive, the second is remedial. Region
10's emphasis on preventing ground water
contamination relies on: (1) Water quality
management planning to assist in
identifying and solving primarily nonpoint-
source related problems. Several Section
208 grants were originally directed at
preventing toxic contamination of ground
water from urban runoff. (2) The "sole-
source" aquifer designations to protect
unique sources of drinking water. There
are three aquifers in Region lO that have
been designated as sole-source aquifers.
The Region is currently reviewing a
petition for a fourth designation for the
Snake Plain Aquifer. In these areas,
construction projects with polluting
potential and which receive Federal
financial assistance are subjected to a
special EPA review to make sure
contamination does not occur. (3)
Permitting and monitoring activities under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) to ensure that ongoing
activities in generating and storing
hazardous wastes will not contribute to
future ground water contamination. A
ground water monitoring network is
required as a permit condition at active
solid and hazardous waste facilities that
might impact ground water. (4) Limited
spot monitoring of ground water resources
in highly populated areas to ensure that
contamination is not occurring. However,
the Region does not have a well
established routine monitoring program to
provide a consistent early warning system.
(5) Solid waste planning and management
as conducted by Stale agencies. The
Region relies on the States' solid waste
management programs to anticipate and
prevent ground water contamination from
solid waste handling. (6) Sewage
treatment plant construction and adequate
operation and maintenance. Sewer
systems are being built over vulnerable
aquifers, such as the Spokane and
Chambers Creek/Clover Creek aquifers.
These systems will minimize leaching of
toxic chemicals into the ground water. (7)
The underground injection control program
is just getting underway. Because there
are 20,000 or more Class V (unregulated)
wells in the Region, their potential for
ground water contamination is of great
concern. Region 10 is delegating the
underground injection control program to
Oregon and Washington and has begun to
set up EPA-run programs for Alaska and
Idaho, and for Indian lands throughout the
Region.
In terms of remedial actions, the Region
relies on limited site-specific monitoring to
identify problems. Once contamination has
been documented, the Region initiates
follow-up either under Superfund or other
statutory authority. When appropriate, the
Superfund program pursues case
development, enforcement, remedial
action and treatment to correct the
problem in each case. Region 10 has 15
sites that were ranked among the 418 sites
proposed for Superfund. In 11 of the 15,
ground water contamination was a major
reason for the high ranking. EPA works
closely in all cases with local and State
agencies to develop cooperative
agreements to ensure adequate protection
of public health and to find additional
sources of drinking water where shortages
may occur as a result of well closures.
Intensive monitoring and cooperative
investigations involving local health
departments, State agencies and EPA
have been conducted in Washington and
Idaho.
EPA funding and technical assistance have
been provided for well drilling in several
areas to determine the extent and sources
of ground water contamination.
The Superfund list is viewed as dynamic,
to be updated routinely so remedial actions
will be taken as needed. Superfund
strategies are being developed and
implemented for the Tacoma, Kent and
Yakima, Washington, ground water
problems and the Troutdale Aquifer in
Vancouver, Washington. A comprehensive
description of Superfund activities is
provided in the section on "Exposure to
Hazardous Wastes."
16
-------
The Region also maintains a ground water
contamination log identifying reported
cases, possible causes and follow-up
actions. This allows us to keep a historical
record of problems as well as to track the
effectiveness of follow-up activity.
Barriers: The implementation of an
effective ground water protection program
faces many varied barriers that require
concentrated effort to overcome. These
barriers are briefly summarized below.
Prevention:
• The lack of a clear, well understood
national policy on ground water. The
Regional Office has been reluctant to
develop a ground water strategy until
the national policy is published to ensure
consistency with the national direction.
A particular problem is the lack of an
agreed definition of who has jurisdiction
over ground water resources and a lack
of understanding on the part of elected
officials and other decisionmakers of the
need for preventive management
approaches to ground water protection.
• Available staff expertise in ground
water hydrology and geology at the
Federal, State or local levels only
permits response to the most pressing
cleanup issues rather than to prevention
of problems.
• Reductions in funding levels and
priority of water quality management
planning. The reduced funding levels
hamper the States' ability to develop
site-specific plans and nonpoint-source
controls for important ground water
areas.
• The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act program is complicated
and difficult to administer. The
complexity of the program has kept it
from getting up and running quickly.
Limited resources at the State and local
levels have delayed delegation of the
program.
• The lack of a routine ground water
monitoring program impedes consistent
identification of problems. To set up a
routine monitoring program would be
extremely costly and would require more
resources than are available at the State
and EPA levels.
• EPA has no program to address
ground water contamination problems
caused by conventional solid wastes.
• The underground injection control
program has developed slowly.
Consequently, little has been done to
assess and regulate pollution from Class
V wells. Also, the absence of specific
programs to control pits, ponds and
lagoons hinders Federal control of these
potential sources of contamination.
Remedial:
• There are no EPA standards for
organics in drinking water; hence there
is no benchmark for evaluating the
severity of the problem.
• The sources of pollutants are difficult
to trace and to link to aquifer
contamination. In addition, the costs of
exploration, well monitoring, case
development and enforcement are high.
Therefore, activities to determine the
sources of pollutants and develop
remedial actions often cost more than
State and local agencies can afford. The
States also have difficulty meeting
match requirements for the Superfund
program.
• Restrictions on the use of Superfund
contractors, in certain cases, limit the
most effective and timely solutions to
the problems. In some instances,
solutions could be better developed
using a local contractor rather than the
national level-of-effort contractor.
Regional Offices do not have the
freedom to do this.
Proposed Strategy
Regional Actions: Region 10's proposed
strategy for ground water protection
follows the existing two-pronged approach
of concentrating on prevention and on
cleaning up existing problems. The Region
intends to provide more coordination
between the individual programs by
forming an interdivisional ground water
coordination team with representatives
from the involved programs. This team will
meet routinely to review progress and
program activities for effectiveness,
consistency and compatibility.
Region 10 will develop, with States,
ground water strategies based on a
national ground water policy. The Region
asked in its Fiscal 1984 guidance that
ground water strategies be developed or
updated in each State. These State
strategies will be incorporated into a
Regional ground water strategy to be
completed by the end of Fiscal 1984.
Region 10 will continue to work in
individual program areas to prevent
contamination of ground water: (1) Annual
implementation reviews will be conducted
on water quality management plans to
make sure that control programs are being
implemented and are working. New water
quality management funds available under
Clean Water Act Sections 205(j) and 106
may be directed toward high priority
ground water areas. (2) Region 10 will act
on the Snake Plain sole-source aquifer
petition and will review federally aided
projects that might contaminate
designated aquifers. (3) Region 10 wilt
work expeditiously to delegate the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
programs to the States and to get these
programs up and running as quickly as
possible. (4) Region 10 will analyze
existing monitoring programs, seeking to
develop a systematic ground water
monitoring program that will help identify
problems early. The Region will provide
technical assistance, particularly in
laboratory analysis, to municipalities that
collect ground water and drinking water
samples. The emphasis will be placed on
municipalities that serve large numbers of
people with drinking water from ground
water sources. (5) The Region will supply
technical assistance, as requested, to
State solid waste programs in high priority
areas such as the Kent Highlands. (6)
Region 10 will work with Oregon and
Washington to develop an effective
delegated underground injection control
(UIC) program. The Region will be
responsible for developing and managing
the UIC program in Alaska and Idaho.
Permits, where required, will be issued in
1984. The Region will conduct an
inventory and a thorough assessment of
the water quality impacts from Class V
wells, as necessary. The State agencies in
Oregon and Washington will conduct this
assessment during Fiscal Years 1984-1986.
For remedial actions, the Region will rely
heavily on Superfund to pay for cleanup
activities. Individual control strategies will
be implemented for each designated
Superfund site. As necessary, site-specific
enforcement action will be taken. For
contamination problems not related to
Superfund sites, the Region will help State
and local agencies determine the extent of
the problem and the causes. Technical
assistance in the form of laboratory
analysis and on-site reviews will be
provided as resources allow. Region 10 will
petition Headquarters to establish
alternatives to the level-of-effort
contractors when a local solution can be
justified as cost effective and more timely.
Table 2 provides a brief summary of site-specific
actions and control strategies for the high priority
areas identified in Table 1.
17
-------
Table 2
Ground Water Protection Actions to Date and Strategies in Region 10
Problem Area
Existing Actions
Control Strategy
South Tacoma Channel
Commencement Bay. Washington
Ponder's Comer Lakewood
Commencement Bay, Washington
Spokane and Rathdrum Prairie
Aquifer and Tributaries, Idaho and
Washington
Chambers Creek -- Clover Creek
Aquifer, Washington
Snake Plain Aquifer, Idaho
Potential Areas of Concern
Troutdale Aquifer
Vancouver, Washington
Kent, Washington
Yakima, Washington
Designated Superfund site. Sampling and pump testing. Drilled nine
shallow wells, one deep well. Remedial feasibility investigation for
well 12-A. Surface investigation of sources.
Proposed Superfund site. Monitoring wells drilled; customers advised
of potential water shortage.
Designated sole-source drinking water aquifer Management plan
developed under Clean Water Act Section 208. Three proposed
Superfund sites: Arrcom Corporation. Kaiser Aluminum, Colbert
landfill. $80,000 spent under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act to analyze problems associated with Colbert landfill, and $30,000
spent for ground water monitoring. (29 wells in 1979). Comprehensive
waste management plan with Environmental Impact Statement by
EPA.
Grants for Pierce County sewage treatment facility construction
program under Section 201 of the Clean Water Act. Public drinking
water program. Aquifer assigned high priority under State-EPA
Agreement. Hydro-geologic study initiated by Pierce County under
$400,000 State grant.
Considering designation as a sole-source aquifer. State Department of
Water Resources is developing alternatives to irrigation disposal well
practices.
Proposed Superfund site
Proposed Superfund sue
Continue source identification effort. Develop enforcement cases.
Remedial Action: Well 12-A this summer will receive additional
treatment.
Follow up on proposed Superfund designation. Determine possible
action in cooperation with local and State agencies. Detailed strategy
being developed.
Follow up on proposed Superfund designation. Determine possible
action in cooperation with local and State agencies. Detailed strategy
being developed.
High-priority water-quality area identified in State-EPA Agreement.
Construct sewage system, implement management plan, act on
proposed Superfund site, continue cooperative cleanup efforts with
industry (Kaiser!. Develop State underground injection control
program State to review on-site waste management system, develop
statewide ground water management strategy to be coordinated with
State waste discharge and solid and hazardous waste disposal
permits. Conduct ground water monitoring network.
Coordinate with Superfund activities in South Tacoma Channel and
Lakewood County is conducting a hydro-geologic study of aquifer
and will design an on-going data collection program. Action to be
determined after study is published.
Act on sole-source designation. Energy laboratory is studying
alternative to waste disposal.
For all cases, act on proposed Superfund designation. Investigate
problem and take appropriate action
Two proposed Superfund sues
Headquarters Action Needed: (1)
Publish a policy, clearly laying out EPA and
State responsibilities for protecting ground
water and defining relationships between
Federal, State and local agencies.
Headquarters action also is necessary to
resolve the conflict with Superfund
regulations on the future uses of ground
water, determine the appropriate lead EPA
office and identify how the effort will be
budgeted. (2) Develop a process to
provide an expedited evaluation of Class V
wells under the underground injection
control program, along with mechanisms
for control in problem areas. (3) Develop
drinking water standards for volatile
organic chemicals. (4) Refine design
parameters for application of treatment
methods such as aeration towers and
granular activated carbon to remove
volatile organic contaminants. Design
considerations such as multiple
contaminants and intermittent operation
need to be addressed. (5) Establish
mechanisms to let Regional and State
agencies develop appropriate uses of
contractor support on a case-by-case
basis.
Expected Results
Region 10 expects to delegate the
underground injection control program to
Oregon and Washington and establish an
EPA-managed underground injection
control program in Alaska and Idaho. The
Region also will develop ground water
strategies with the States and act on a
petition seeking sole-source designation for
the Snake Plain aquifer in Idaho.
Progress in the ground water area would
be measured by the number of injection
wells brought under permits, reduction in
the number of persons served unsafe
drinking water from ground water sources,
and the continued availability and use of
ground water as a source of drinking
water.
18
-------
Drinking Water Systems
Problem Characterization
Region 10 historically has been blessed with
plentiful sources of raw water suitable for
drinking without the need for extensive
treatment.
As a consequence, large public and private
investment in water filtration and disinfection
facilities has not occurred. As the population
and economic activity of the Region have
grown, so has the incidence of
contamination of water sources.
The incidence of waterborne diseases in the
Northwest is among the highest in the
country, according to the USPHS
Communicable Disease Center. Water
supplies heretofore considered safe are now
known to be contaminated with potentially
harmful microorganisms and/or chemical
contaminants.
In some cases this problem can be and has
been alleviated by switching to alternate
uncontaminated raw-water sources.
Increasingly, however, this option is
disappearing and the installation and
operation of treatment facilities has become
a necessity to assure safe water supplies.
Considering the Northwest's long history of
minimal treatment, EPA's task of convincing
the public and its elected officials of the
necessity to appropriate funds for safe
drinking water purposes sometimes is
difficult. Weak economic conditions in the
Northwest compound this problem.
Consistent with EPA policies, Region 10's
basic approach to dealing with unreliable
water systems and potentially unsafe water is
to help the States build aggressive programs
to solve drinking water quality problems.
Three States —Alaska, Idaho and
Washington —have achieved delegation and
are now receiving technical and financial
assistance from EPA and are making good
progress to date. Oregon has chosen not to
accept delegation of the drinking water
program. As a result, direct EPA action has
been necessary in Oregon since 1977.
Sources
The source of major health problems in this
program are inadequate treatment or
protection of raw and finished water and
inadequate operation and maintenance of
water systems.
A more detailed analysis of state-by-state
compliance is provided in Attachment A.
Program Implications
Done to Date: The Region 10 and State
strategy for improving drinking water
quality varies according to the situation in
each State. The public water supply
program has been delegated to the States
of Alaska, Idaho and Washington. EPA
manages the program in Oregon. Major
accomplishments in this effort are
discussed in Section I.
Actions to date in the drinking water
supply program have concentrated on
several program areas to ensure adequate
health protection. These include: (1)
Municipal funding programs (grants
and/or loans) now are available in Alaska,
Oregon and Washington. Idaho lacks such
a program. Region 10 also has been able
to influence other Federal granting
agencies, i.e., the Farmers Home
Administration and the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, to
provide money for improvement of water
systems. (2) Enforcement is getting more
attention. Administrative and/or judicial
enforcement actions in Fiscal 1982 totaled
179 regionally. (3) Programs for operator
training and certification are operating in
all four states. (4) Region 10 and the
States encourage the use of the highest
quality raw water and source protection,
wherever possible, rather than
sophisticated treatment. (5)Monitoring and
surveillance activities are being increased
to identify systems with water quality
problems. (6) Regionalization of water
systems is being encouraged. This would
result in the creation of larger systems
with greater capability to afford facility
improvements and proper management
and operation.
Barriers: The major barriers differ
somewhat state-by-state; however, in
general, concerns are in four areas: (1)
Limited financial capability to make system
improvements. (2) Unwillingness on the
part of the system owners to make
improvements. (3) Untrained or insufficient
numbers of system operators. (4) High
operation, maintenance and laboratory
costs.
Proposed Strategy
Regional Actions: The control strategy to
ensure compliance with drinking water
regulations concentrates on continuing an
effective program planning and annual
review process through the State/EPA
Agreement and work planning. EPA will
continue to emphasize the need for each
State to have an aggressive program.
Annual strategies are implemented with
Alaska, Idaho and Washington under the
State/EPA Agreement. Where violation
rates continue high, EPA will strengthen
overview of State programs.
Region 10 has also developed a strategy
for the drinking water program in Oregon.
It consists of three major approaches: (1)
Identify and obtain commitments to
upgrade all substandard and potentially
dangerous water systems in the state. (2)
Help the State develop an improved
drinking water program with emphasis on
data handling, disease investigation and
reporting, operator training and
certification, laboratory quality assurance,
and technical and administrative program
development. (3) Conduct a public
information program by issuing press
releases on persistent water quality
violators and emergency advisories,
developing reports on statewide drinking
water quality, and responding to inquiries
on the status of EPA's program and the
requirements for delegation.
Headquarters Action Needed: (1)
Research into drinking water treatment
technology for small water systems to
emphasize "low technology" and energy
efficiency. The small populations served by
many of the water systems that violate the
national drinking water standards generate
limited revenues. This makes low-cost,
simple-to-operate technology mandatory if
these systems are to provide treatment
necessary to assure safe drinking water.
(2) Revise drinking water regulations to
reduce low priority water quality
monitoring requirements. With several
years of water quality history now
available, it seems reasonable to reduce
monitoring requirements for several
noncritical contaminants. This would let
systems use their resources to solve
problems and monitor for newly identified
contaminants.
Expected Results
Region 10 will improve water system
compliance with drinking water regulations,
giving highest priority to the most serious
threats to public health; extend the coverage
of the trihalomethane regulation to water
systems serving over 10,000 persons and
ensure that the microbiological quality of the
water is fully protected in the process; and
encourage greater commitment by the State
of Oregon to safe drinking water by urging
the State to: (a) establish a more aggressive
drinking water program, and (b) assume
primary responsibility for the program.
Progress would be measured by
improvement in the percentage of systems
that meet drinking water standards, the
decrease in population exposed to excessive
bacterial levels (22,000 in 1982) and the
decrease in population exposed to excessive
turbidity levels (113,000 in 1982).
19
-------
Toxics and Hazardous Materials in Marine and
Estuarine Waters
Problem Characterization
The Region 10 shoreline of Oregon,
Washington and Alaska runs 35,819 miles.
Much of the economy of the Northwest
depends directly or indirectly upon marine
resources. The quality of Northwest lifestyle
also is heavily dependent on marine water.
Toxic contamination of urbanized marine and
estuarine areas along this shoreline is a major
concern. The present focus of this concern is
the Puget Sound area of Western
Washington. This is the most urbanized
coastal area in the Region. Problems found
in the Sound are expected to be found in
other areas of urban-industrial development,
in varying degrees. Recent studies conducted
by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) have documented
alarming rates of abnormalities among
bottomfish and shellfish from marine waters
adjacent to areas of concentrated urban and
industrial development in Puget Sound.
(Source: "Chemical Contaminants and
Abnormalities in Fish and Invertebrates from
Puget Sound:" Malins et al: NOAA Technical
Memorandum OMPA-19. As an example,
English sole in Commencement Bay were
found to suffer liver neoplasms at an 8-12
percent rate and necrotic lesions at an 18-20
percent rate. Background in all cases is
zero.) The flesh of these fish was found to
be tainted with toxic and carcinogenic
substances. Additionally, bioassays of
bottom sediments from these areas show
increased toxicity to marine benthic
organisms.
The public has become alarmed by these
findings. Concerned health officials have
issued warnings regarding the human
consumption of bottomfish and must decide
whether or not to allow sport fishing in
contaminated areas. State and EPA officials
are faced with the problem of identifying the
sources of toxic contaminants and
controlling them. Also of concern to
environmental officials are possible longterm,
cumulative effects of toxic contaminants.
Available data indicate a large number and
wide range of contaminated sources
discharging to marine waters (e.g., municipal
and industrial discharges, storm runoff,
atmospheric deposition, rivers, ground water
inflows, etc.). Complicating the problem is
the knowledge that physical and chemical
processes in the Sound redistribute
contaminants from their original point of
entry. Where they ultimately accumulate is
not known for certain, but evidence to date
strongly suggests they are not being carried
out to the open ocean.
Another problem associated with marine
water pollution is the inadequacy of our
present water quality monitoring system.
Until recently, marine water quality data
collected by environmental control agencies
focused primarily on traditional pollutants
such as bacteria and oxygen-demanding
wastes. As a consequence, the emerging
toxics problem largely went unrecognized.
The chemical and biological data needed to
establish well defined cause-effect
relationships are inadequate.
All the while, circumstances are forcing
decisions on regulatory officials. Should
fishing be banned in certain areas? Should
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permits be revised to include more
stringent limitations on toxics? What should
be limited? To what level? Should waivers
under Section 301 (h) of the Clean Water Act
be granted? (We have received 24
applications in Puget Sound.) What
provisions should be included if the waivers
are granted? To what extent are past
practices responsible for the pollution?
Where should enforcement be pursued? A
process of optimization is clearly needed
given the inherent complexity of the
problems, a sparcity of data and resources
available and the short time available before
decisions must be made.
Pollution control and prevention actions until
recently focused on traditional approaches,
controlling municipal and industrial
discharges by building wastewater treatment
facilities, correcting sewer overflows, setting
permit limits on discharges and developing
management practices to control urban
runoff. The effectiveness of these abatement
and control programs needs to be
reevaluated in light of the growing awareness
and concern about toxics contamination. It
may be necessary to adjust the existing
programs or develop new approaches.
Sources
Puget Sound is the recipient of innumerable
discharges —municipal, industrial, nonpoint,
natural and ground water. Many of these
discharges contain toxic and hazardous
materials. The long-term, cumulative impact
of these discharges to Puget Sound is of
grave concern to the Regional Office. White
each bay area and industrial discharge is
analyzed separately, they must also be
viewed in total.
The significance and severity of the problem,
in part, result from the fact that the major
industrial bays in Puget Sound are in major
metropolitan areas such as Seattle and
Tacoma. Contaminants range from highly
toxic and very persistent materials such as
polychlorinated biphenyls to heavy metals.
Toxics and hazardous material problems in
urban bays generally can be attributed to the
following categories of sources:
• Nonpoint-source, surface runoff, or
leachate from river delta filling. Many
industrial dischargers are on fills.
• Past and/or present point-source
industrial discharges from major industries
such as pulp and paper, chemical
manufacturers and oil refineries.
• Disposal of contaminated dredge
material.
• Point-source municipal discharges.
• River inflow.
• Combined sewer overflows.
Table 3 briefly describes the major urban
industrialized bay areas in Puget Sound presently
under intensive investigation in Region 10.
20
-------
Table 3
Contaminated Marine Estuarine Embayments in Region 10
Problem Area
Population, Area, and Beneficial
Uses Affected
Contaminants Present
Sources
Commencement Bay. Washington
Duwamish/Elliott Bay. Washington
Evered Harbor, Washington
150,000 people
Inner Bay: Fish migration and rearing;
oyster, clam, mussel harvesting.
Outer Bay: Above uses plus shellfish
spawning, rearing and commercial
harvesting
500,000 people. Fish migration, rearing,
spawning; harvesting shellfish; recreation,
waterborne commerce.
Impaired Uses; Primary contact recreation,
fish rearing. Low dissolved oxygen. Fish
abnormalities.
Fish migration, rearing, spawning,
waterborne commerce
Inner Bay: Polychlonnated biphenyls
(PCB's), hexachlorobutadiene. toxic
chemicals and metals, arsenic, excessive
fecal coliform, other unidentified organics
In all pans of the inner bay. fish have
been found to have tumors
Outer Bay: Toxic metals (lead, arsenic,
cadmium, mercury, nickel, PCB's.
chlorinated butadienes, arsenes)
Arsenic, copper, mercury, cadmium, lead,
PCS's. polynuclear aromatics, un-ionized
ammonia, heat.
Chromium, copper, nnc, organic
contaminants, many unidentified
Municipal: One
Industrial: 23
Nonpoint Contaminated soil, fill, and
urban runoff. Others unidentified.
Municipal: One. (It constitutes one quarter
of the Duwamish River at low flow.)
Industrial: 32
Nonpoint: Contaminated fill and urban
runoff
Municipal: Two
Industrial: Seven
Nonpoint: Agricultural and urban runoff.
Program Implications
Done to Date: Work on toxic
contamination of urbanized marine and
estuarine areas has focused on bays in
Puget Sound as examples of problems
expected to be found elsewhere. EPA and
the State of Washington recently began a
Puget Sound Study to help direct multi-
agency resources toward identifying and
solving problems, as well as looking at
cumulative impacts of pollution on Puget
Sound.
Several actions have been taken so far in
urban industrial bays in Puget Sound to
develop solutions to the problems of toxic
and hazardous materials in marine and
estuarine waters. EPA has detailed an
employee to the State of Washington to
coordinate the Puget Sound study. Its
findings also will assist the State and EPA
in future 301(h) permit reissuance
decisions.
Barriers:
Resources
• Technical expertise and staff resources
of Federal, State and local agencies are
inadequate.
• Funding to develop and implement
control programs are inadequate.
Institutional
• There is a very large number of State,
Federal, and local agencies involved
because of the size of Puget Sound as
well as the differing jurisdictions. We
haye not, to date, reached agreement
on who has responsibility for what.
Technical
• EPA and other agencies are only on
the fringe of understanding the technical
cause-and-effect relationships associated
with toxic contaminants in the estuarine
environment.
• Complexity of marine, estuarine
environmental factors complicates the
limited technical understanding of the
numerous interactions occurring.
Proposed Strategy
Regional Actions: A two-pronged
strategy for dealing with toxic
contaminants in Puget Sound is proposed.
The first deals with problems of managing
waste discharges and new development to
minimize future problems with the
cumulative effects of toxic contaminants
on the Sound as a whole. The
management approach involves assessing
existing contaminant levels and
wasteloads, developing improved tools for
predicting impacts of future activities, and
establishing an appropriate set of
standards or interim target levels for
chemical contaminants and/or biological
effects against which projected impacts
will be evaluated. EPA and the State
Department of Ecology have begun work
to summarize all available information on
these subjects. This study will identify
gaps in data and available models relative
to future water quality management needs.
Based on this evaluation, work will begin
to plug these gaps. The total time to
completion is two to three years.
Proposals for a longer-term interagency
monitoring program will also be developed
in this period.
Water quality monitoring and management
in Puget Sound involves agencies at all
levels. Effective coordination and
integrated planning are essential to get the
most benefit from the limited resources
available. In addition to its technical work,
the State will establish an interagency
framework for technical and management
coordination.
The second part of the toxic-contaminant
strategy deals with existing problems in
urban industrial bays and reflects several
developments of urgent public concern.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration has found elevated levels of
diseased fish and shellfish in these areas.
Sediments in these bays are heavily
contaminated with a wide variety of
organic and inorganic pollutants. There is
significant concern about potential human
health effects due to consumption of
contaminated fish, and about the effects
of contamination on the marine resources
of the Sound.
To address these problems, priority
embayments have been identified. In
Commencement Bay and Elliot Bay, a
significant amount of work on problem
definition and waste-source identification
has been completed or is already
underway. In other areas only minimal
information is available. For each of these
bays a coordinated, interagency action
plan will be developed taking into account
the current status of information and
regulatory action. First priority will be to
clearly define the extent and nature of
contamination and current waste
discharges. If current discharges are
significant, appropriate regulatory actions
by the State or EPA will be initiated. If
historical discharges are the primary
problem, the feasibility of appropriate
remedial actions will be evaluated.
The lack of water quality standards for
toxic substances and the lack of sediment
21
-------
standards hinders the establishment of
clear target levels to guide waste-treatment
and remedial action decisions. During the
next year EPA, the State Department of
Ecology, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration and other
agencies will develop criteria for
establishing interim standards or targets.
Efforts will be made to determine
background levels and then set appropriate
targets in relation to these levels.
To deal with questions of health risk, the
Department of Ecology will work with the
State Department of Social and Health
Services and local agencies to improve the
current information base. As a first step an
evaluation of catch and consumption
patterns will be conducted. This work will
help tell whether tissue contamination data
is needed in other areas.
To manage both the cumulative-effects
and the urban-bays parts of this strategy,
the State and EPA have a steering
committee of top managers to direct the
work. The overall strategies are
interagency in nature, however, and major
involvement by other key agencies in both
the planning and implementation phase is
anticipated for bays where there is
biological-impact data. There are several
other urban bays where similar problems
are suspected. Next on the schedule for
investigation are Bellingham Bay and
Sinclair Inlet.
Individual area control strategies are listed in Table 4.
Table 4
Contaminated Marine Estuarine Waters: Past Actions and Control Strategies.
Problem Area
Existing Actions
Control Strategy
Commencement Bay, Washington
Duwamish/Elliott Bay,
Washington
Everett Harbor. Washington
Inner Bay designated as Superfund sue; cooperative agreement with
State being developed. Extensive chemical and biological monitoring,
ground water studies, major industrial sources surveyed. Past
practices surveyed. Investigations in industrial waterways. Notice to
responsible parties Control combined stormwater overflow Act on
Tacoma 301 (hi waiver Develop implementation strategy
Harbor Island designated as proposed Superiund site. Developed
Section 201 wastewater management plan. Seattle Metro's Section
208 pollutant inventory and clean water plan and Metro's Section 201
toxicant-pretreatment planning study. Fish hatchery study by National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Intensive surveys
Developed stormwater utility to control tunofl Local agency
(SNOMET) developed Section 208 waler quality management plan
Sample and characterize pulp wastes
Complete cooperative agreement with State, Scoping of agreement in
March. Cooperate with industry as appropriate on remedial actions.
Monitoring to identify other organic contaminants
Based on Metro report, develop appropriate strategy with State, act
on Harbor Island. Propose permit limits. Develop nonpoint-source
controls. State to develop guidelines on dredging. Work with involved
industries for site-specific investigations.
Continue morutonng Coordinate with State and National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration on intensive surveys Snohomish
County to develop comprehensive drainage plan
Headquarters Action Needed: (1)
Commitment from the EPA Office of
Research and Development (ORD) for
research and technical assistance in Fiscal
1983 and beyond. (2) Emphasis on
research on the effects of trace
contaminants in fisheries, and health
effects. (3) Provide contract dollars to let
the Region support, complement and
cooperate in areas identified in the
State/EPA integrated strategy for Puget
Sound. As the strategy develops, EPA
must be able to carry its share. (4) Provide
water quality management funding to
develop nonpoint-source controls and to
support chemical and biological
investigations.
Expected Results
In addition to the bay-specific actions
described in Table 4, Region 10 expects to
participate in and implement the
recommendations of the Puget Sound Study.
Environmental indicators would include:
• Reduced fish abnormalities and reduced
health warnings for fish consumption.
• Reduced toxics contaminants levels in
urban industrial embayments,
• Prevention of long-term cumulative
impacts on Puget Sound.
• Maintenance of healthy ecosystems and
biota.
22
-------
Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Problem Characterization
Agriculture and silviculture are major
employers in the Pacific Northwest. One in
every six jobs in the region, on the average,
is tied to agriculture or silviculture —and this
is three times the rate for the U.S. as a
whole. These industries are intensive users of
chemicals. The EPA's pesticide program is
intended to ensure that the use of pesticides
does not adversely effect human health, and
that other harmful environmental impacts are
minimal. Because of the variety of chemicals
and types of sources covered by the
pesticides and toxic substances programs in
Region 10, and the difficulty of describing
them generically, this paper provides a
sampling of representative problems with
which the Regional Office deals regularly.
An extraordinarily large number of chemicals
used in Region 10 are applied with special-
commodity exemptions under Section 18 of
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). About 75 such
exemptions were in effect for chemicals used
in Region 10 this year. Efforts to avert or
correct adverse human health or
environmental effects from such uses present
varied and unusual problems.
Adding to the complexity is the fact that
relatively unrestricted land-use development
places suburban homes immediately
adjacent —without buffering —to orchards
and other farmland where these chemicals
are used.
The herbicide 2,4-D is widely used for weed
control on wheat. During the past decade,
grape growing has increased significantly in
Washington in conjunction with a rapidly
expanding wine industry. Vineyards are often
in the same general locale as wheatfields,
usually east of the Cascade Range. The
sensitive grapes are damaged each year by
long-range drift of 2,4-D in the general air
mass of the Columbia Basin and lower
Yakima Valley. One of the most frequent
complaints addressed by the Washington
State Department of Agriculture has been
this sort of damage.
Another problem related to crop damage in
Region 10 is caused by drift of Dinitro and
other dessicants onto nontarget crops. These
compounds are used for weed control and
crop cultivation, but affect other plants with
which they come in contact.
Wildlife contamination is a serious problem in
some areas. Monitoring of upland game birds
by State and Federal agencies has revealed
that quail and other game birds near
orchards in Eastern Washington often
contain high residues and suffer significant
mortalities from the pesticide endrin. This
pesticide is used by orchardists to control
mice that destroy trees by eating their bark
during winter when other food is scarce.
Raptors and other predators also suffer from
endrin contamination. In a 1982 U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service study, 91 dead birds of
18 species were collected near Wenatchee
orchards. When the brains of 73 of these
birds were analyzed for pesticide residues, 47
percent had lethal levels of endrin (greater
than .8 parts per million) and 8 percent were
in the danger zone above .6 parts per
million.
Persistent organochlorines have been found
at alarming levels in wildlife in the Columbia
Basin, according to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and other monitoring
programs. Until recently, heptachlor was
used on seed grains for wireworm con-
trol—and was being found in water-
fowl—but recent State restrictions on
heptachlor use appear to be correcting this
problem. The origin of other birds' contact
with various persistent substances is difficult
to determine, due to their migratory habits.
Migratory waterfowl and other birds typically
spend their winter in Mexico or Central
America, and spend the summer in Canada,
passing through Region 10 only during the
fall. An inference as to the source may be
drawn from studies in Washington, Oregon
and Nevada of the black-crowned night
heron. These birds have been studied during
the past decade as an indicator species. The
heron, the whiteface ibis and numerous
species of West Coast insect-eating birds
recently have been found to have extremely
high levels of DDT in their tissues (up to 230
parts per million in the brain, 50 ppm in
eggs). This finding is directly correlated with
declining reproductive success. These birds
are believed to get most of the DDT during
winter in Mexico and Central America.
Other episodes of acute wildlife poisonings
are usually due to agricultural uses of
organophosphate insecticides. During the
spring and summer of 1982 alone,
poisonings were attributed to the use of
methamidophos (hundreds of rare sage
grouse in south central Idaho), misuse of
diazinon (Canada geese and songbirds in the
Yakima, Washington, area and elsewhere)
and parathion (geese near Ontario, Oregon).
Coumaphos has been implicated in the death
of hundreds of widgeons. Chemicals used to
control starlings at cattle feedlots have killed
thousands of nontarget birds since 1976.
The carbamate insecticide furadan also is
implicated in large-scale waterfowl killings
throughout the country. Nongame birds also
are affected by use of pesticides. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that,
since the introduction in 1968 of the organo-
phosphate famphur to kill cattle grubs, the
Western population of magpies has declined
by more than 45 percent. A toxic metabolite
of famphur is believed to reach the magpies
through the cattle feces, in which the
magpies scavenge.
Contamination of edible or marketable
commodities may be caused by the feeding
of contaminated materials to livestock. More
subtle causes are improper use of pesticides
or an insufficient period between application
of the pesticide and harvest. Other sources
can be transportation related, as in the case
of a recent episode involving the tainting of a
candy shipment with leaking polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) during transit. Another
situation would be the Pierce Packing
incident in Region 8, in which PCBs from a
transformer contaminated large quantities of
poultry feed shipped into Region 10. The
result was a multi-agency, nationwide task
force to identify and confiscate PCB-
contaminated feed, poultry, eggs, and
processed foods.
PCBs also pose a potential threat to the
Northwest environment. PCBs and organo-
chlorines have been reported by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service in Columbia River
sturgeon. While more needs to be learned
about sturgeon, PCB levels found in the
sturgeon eggs would have been lethal in
salmonid eggs. The PCB levels were found
to increase as samples were taken upriver to
McNary Dam. PCBs also are believed by the
Fish and Wildlife Service to be responsible
for the decline of Columbia River mink and
otter.
The difficulty in responding to the unusually
specific mention of PCB control in the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) is apparent
from the speed with which EPA can be
certain that these chemicals have been
removed from the environment. The universe
of sites considered for PCB inspections is
more than 15,000, including food and feed
facilities, Federal installations, utilities, scrap-
metal dealers, and a variety of other
industries that use large amounts of electric
power. At the present rate of inspections, it
could be several hundred years before all
presumed sources of PCB contamination in
Region 10 will be inspected.
There are more than 4,000 public schools in
Region 10 and an undetermined number of
private and parochial schools that must
comply with regulations requiring inspection
for asbestos. The Regional Office also is
aware of about 80 facilities that are primary
producers or processors of asbestos. The use
of friable asbestos poses a direct exposure to
a known human carcinogen.
23
-------
Sources
The sources of pesticide contamination
include farmers and operators of agriculture-
and silviculture-related activities, the users,
applicators, transporters, and formulators of
chemicals intended to kill specific target
species. These activities are virtually
everywhere in Region 10, geographically the
largest of EPA's regions, and not all of the
problems are caused by misuse as it is
currently defined.
The general problem of improper use of
pesticides and toxics can be attributed to
human error, such as spills, improper mixing,
and so forth. The problem can be divided
into four subsets:
• Damage to sensitive crops from
herbicides
• Contamination of wildlife by persistent
chemical residues.
• Contamination of edible or marketable
commodities by chemical residues.
• Exposure of human populations either
directly or indirectly through the food
chain.
PCBs, as noted, are found at facilities that
use relatively large amounts of electric
power. Asbestos that concerns EPA is
principally found in schools.
Program Implications
Done to Date: Most enforcement of the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act \s carried out by the State
lead agencies (usually departments of
agriculture), which have authority to be
more stringent than Federal regulations
require. The Washington State
Department of Agriculture, in an attempt
to decrease grape damage induced by
2,4-D, has placed stringent restrictions on
the herbicide. Oregon is making selective
attempts to limit high volatile esters of
2,4-D in counties that adjoin Washington.
Washington State University and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture Extension
Service have conducted residue monitoring
for atmospheric 2,4-D for many years. In
1982, EPA's Corvallis Research Lab
conducted a chamber microcosm study
that mimicked conditions and 2,4-D
applications in the Columbia basin. The
Corvallis study showed that even the low
volatile 2,4-D may still be causing
problems. Data from this study may
support changes in registration of the
product.
State actions to reduce wildlife
contamination include the recent additional
restrictions on many uses of endrin by the
Washington State Department of
Agriculture. The State Department of
Social and Health Services, at the
suggestion of the State Department of
Agriculture, has issued precautions for
eating certain types of upland game birds
and waterfowl from areas where endrin
may be a problem.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is
conducting research to identify and
quantify contamination due to orchard use
of endrin, as well as other rodenticides
such as diphacinone.
Several actions have been taken to
minimize the danger of chemical
contamination of foodstuffs. Regulations
prohibit the use of PCB transformers in
food processing facilities after October 1,
1985, and require routine monitoring of
such transformers until then. Food and
Drug Administration inspectors check for
PCB contamination during routine
inspections, and EPA is including food
processing facilities in its schedule of PCB
inspections.
Compliance monitoring at utilities,
hydroelectric dams and various industries
have noted and eliminated violations that
could result in environmental
contamination from PCBs.
The Region also provided extensive formal
training on PCB inspections under the
Toxic Substances Control Act to 23 EPA
employees in Seattle and in EPA's
operations offices in each of the four
states of Region 10. The resulting
integrated inspection program allowed the
Region to increase total PCB inspections
by a factor of three during Fiscal 1982.
The Regional Office worked with the
military command in Alaska to bring
voluntary correction of numerous PCB
violations at Army and Air Force facilities.
The Department of Defense is improving
its systems and EPA will monitor the
systematic phaseout of PCBs from Alaska
commands.
Regional staff also worked with public and
private schools to assess and correct
problems that previously resulted in
exposing students and faculty to asbestos
particles from deteriorating building
materials.
Barriers: (1) Lack of manpower at the
field inspector level to ensure compliance
with various laws, and to provide technical
assistance, both at the Federal and State
levels. (2) The need to fight "brushfires"
of public concern regarding specific use of
a pesticide or other toxic substance, rather
than addressing problems more
systematically. (3) Funding cutbacks in
laboratories capable of pesticide residue
analysis. EPA has discontinued support for
the Idaho and the Washington
Epidemiologic Study and Pesticide
Monitoring laboratories. It is often difficult
to find a laboratory sufficiently
sophisticated to monitor these chemicals.
(4) Little monitoring of State program
effectiveness due to insufficient resources.
(5) Lack of coordination among agencies
involved with a given chemical event.
Because EPA has primary authority in such
matters, usually it should take the lead,
but guidance is lacking. Headquarters
should develop guidance on interagency
coordination. (6) Public and community
reaction that demands a certain action by
the agency, even if it is scientifically
unjustified. (7) Public and media
opposition to a tracer study of 2,4-D
transport. Use of tritium labeled 2,4-D has
aroused fears of radioactivity.
Proposed Strategy
Regional Actions: (1) Increase monitoring
and evaluation of State programs to
establish benchmarks for future planning.
(2) Continue the Federal inspection and
enforcement program, visiting at least 120
sites to identify violations. Take
enforcement actions where necessary.
Give greater emphasis to Federal facilities.
(3) Continue to reduce the market
availability of problem pesticides or those
that are inadequately labeled for particular
uses. (4) Issue necessary permits for
disposal of PCBs.
Headquarters Actions: (1) Better testing
and anticipation of the environmental
behavior of pesticides. This information
should be included in use labels reflecting
differing conditions of use. Herbicides
(especially the various volatile formulations
of phenoxies), and persistent insecticides
such as endrin, heptachlor, and so forth
are the chief categories requiring special
attention. (2) Increased emphasis on
interagency, interdisciplinary contacts to
enhance program effectiveness at little
additional cost. Such agencies as the U.S.
Customs Service and the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Animal and Plant
Inspection Service should be involved.
These agencies also deal with toxic
substances, but their personnel need
additional training and resources. Cross-
training between agencies in hazardous
chemical problems should be continued
and intensified, as a partial solution to the
problem of inadequate resources. (3)
Better and more thorough monitoring
programs for pesticide residues and other
contaminants, through increased funding
of laboratories. (4\ Better screening o1
Special Local Needs and Emergency
24
-------
Exemptions for bioaccumulation potential,
wildlife impacts, etc. (5) Background levels
for various residues should be established
as guidance for Agency policy, by
establishing benchmarks for assessing
environmental progress. This would entail
obtaining and analyzing data from the
Food and Drug Administration,
Department of Agriculture, Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the States and
Regional Offices.
Expected Results
Region 10 believes these actions would
improve the effectiveness of State
programs, as measured by a decline in the
number of misuse reports, complaints and
investigations.
Over the long term, Region 10 expects a
decline in levels of persistent pesticides
and other toxic chemicals in wildlife,
plants, and the food chain.
Air Pollution: Carbon Monoxide and Ozone
Problem Characterization
National clean-air standards for carbon
monoxide and ozone are exceeded in the
Northwest; however, carbon monoxide is by
far the more significant. As measured by
both magnitude and frequency, carbon
monoxide problems in Region 10 are among
the worst in the United States. (Sources:
"National Compilation of Air Quality
Statistics by SMSA, 1980-82;" also "Air
Quality Data-1981 Annual Statistics Including
Summaries with Reference to Standards;"
EPA-450/4-82-007.)
Carbon monoxide problems are almost
entirely due to motor vehicle emissions and
poor meteorological mixing. Emissions have
been significantly reduced by the Federal
motor vehicle control program and local
transportation control strategies. Ambient
ozone standards are exceeded infrequently,
and then only in the most populated
airsheds.
Carbon monoxide (CO) and ozone (03>
problem areas were identified on the basis of
nonattainment designations. Region 10 has
eleven areas where the carbon monoxide
standard is not met and four areas where the
ozone standard is not met. Three carbon-
monoxide areas (Yakima, Washington, and
Salem and Eugene-Springfield, Oregon,) and
two ozone areas (Salem and Medford,
Oregon) may be reclassified to attainment on
the basis of recent data.
Table 5 characterizes the extent of the ambient air
quality problem for each of the remaining nine
carbon monoxide areas and two ozone problem
areas.
Table 5
Partial1 List of Region 10 Carbon Monoxide and Ozone Nonattainment Areas: Air Quality Summary
CO (mg/m3)
Standard-10 for eight-hour
average
SMSA
Population
Second High
1980 1981
Number Over Standard
1980 1981
0., (ppm)
Standard-0.12 for one-hour
average
Second High Number Over Standard
1980 1981 1980 1981
Carbon Monoxide
Washington
Seattle
Tacoma
Spokane
•MBMHBMBMMBI&- Yakirna
Oregon
Medford
Idaho
Boise
Alaska
Anchorage
Fairbanks
Ozone
•• Seattle and Tacoma
Portland, Or. /Vancouver Wa,
1,400,000
402.000
267,000
173,000
133,000
173,000
174,000
23,000
1.800.000
1 ,243,000
137
•M3.5
14 0"
9,8
18.1
14.1
30.2
18.4
15-7
MB 17.5
128
11.4
14 "i
166
13.7
18.7
17.1
15
•B 14
11"
1
1Q
83
29
73
42
22
23
11
2
48
15
80
30
•
0.14"
0.14
••po
0
4"
5
Reported air quality data was obtained from SAROAD unless otherwise noted
1 Does not include those areas originally designated nonattainment, but which may be eligible tor attainment status based on 1982
date.
• No exceedances ol the standard in calendar year 1980
" Value from valid monitoring site, but data not in SAROAD
25
-------
Sources
Carbon Monoxide:
Ambient carbon monoxide concentrations
in most Region 10 areas are due almost
entirely to mobile sources. They account
for 90 to 95 percent of the emission
inventories for all of the Region's
nonattainment areas, except Medford and
Boise. In these two areas, local agencies
attribute 15 to 20 percent of the carbon
monoxide emissions to wood-stoves and
other space heating sources.
Ozone:
Stationary-source emissions play a much
greater role in ambient ozone levels. In the
Seattle-Tacoma and Portland-Vancouver
ozone nonattainment areas, 1980
emissions data (base-year emissions from
control strategies) show the stationary
source contribution of hydrocarbons
(precursors of ozone) is 56 and 52 percent,
respectively. As motor vehicle controls are
implemented, hydrocarbon emissions from
vehicles are expected to decline at a faster
rate than emission from stationary sources.
Thus, emissions at the proposed date of
attainment show a greater relative
contribution to the ozone problem from
stationary sources than in 1980. The
stationary-source contribution in Seattle-
Tacoma and Portland-Vancouver in 1987 is
expected to increase to 61 percent and 60
percent respectively.
Program Implications
Done to Date: EPA approved attainment-
date extensions beyond 1982 for six of the
nine carbon monoxide nonattainment areas
and for both of the ozone nonattainment
areas. Attainment plans were required for
each of these eight areas by July 1, 1982
and all have been submitted. The status of
these plans, their characteristics, and
current problems are shown in Table 6. As
can be seen, Region 10 expects to
complete approval of 1982 carbon
monoxide and ozone SIPs by mid-1983
with "future needs" limited primarily to
inspection and maintenance (I/M)
activities.
Table 6
Carbon Monoxide and Ozone Nonattainment Areas with Post-1982 Attainment Dates: Control Strategies
1982 Attainment Plans Percem Emission
Reduction
Submitted Status of Approval Required
Strategy
I/M'
Other
TCM's"
Attainment
Date
Future Needs
Carbon Monoxide
Seattle
Portland
ft '
Medford
Boise'"
H^HHHMMHi
Anchorage
Fairbanks
Ozone
Seattle
Tacoma
Portland, Or.
Vancouver, Wa.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Draft
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Approved
Approved
7/15/83
Projected
Approval
7/10/83
Proiected
Approval
9/15/83
Projected
Approval
9/15/83
Projected
Approval
Approved
Approved
36%
10%
53%
49%
47%
45%
22%
26%
V*
»*
1*
•r
S
i*
S
>s
>s
V
V*
V
**
»•
f
V*
1986
1985
1987
1986
1987
1987
1984
1987
Continue I/M, pursue
antitampenng
Continue I/M, pursue
antitampering
Follow I/M schedule
Follow I/M schedule
Complete METFAC study -follow
I/M schedule
Same as Anchorage
Continue I/M; enforce controls of
volatile organics
Same as Seattle Tacoma
"Motor vehicle inspection and maintenance programs
' 'Transportation control measures
' "Status of the Boise carbon monoxide plan is uncertain and subject 10 change
Three of the nine carbon monoxide
nonattainment areas were required to meet
national standards by the end of 1982.
These areas continue to exceed standards.
Approvable strategies for bringing these
areas into attainment need to be
developed (See discussion in Barriers
section).
Barriers:
Barriers focus on either Clean Air Act
requirements or national EPA policy.
Spokane and Tacoma, Washington, are
cities without extensions that are now
projected to be nonattainment past
December 31, 1982. Without official
extensions, these cities are prime targets
for sanctions. Approvable plans to attain
the standards need to be developed.
However, existing Clean Air Act
constraints may frustrate this objective.
The Act currently requires that plans
demonstrate attainment by the end of 1982
in order to be approvable. This is now an
impossible requirement. Relief is
anticipated through Clean Air Act revisions
which will, in part, extend the statutory
attainment date.
Other barriers are associated with national
policies. Among these are: (1) Congress
and EPA granted automobile
manufacturers delays in meeting auto
emissions standards. Current carbon
monoxide control technology is less
effective in cold-climate cities, which also
have high ambient carbon monoxide
levels. Anchorage and Fairbanks are
26
-------
examples. This problem would be
exacerbated by further waivers or
relaxation of the carbon monoxide
emission standard. (2) Headquarters EPA
has had difficulty in expeditiously
processing State implementation plan
(SIP) revisions due to their complexity and
the necessity to maintain national
consistency.
Proposed Strategy
Regional Actions: (1) Region 10 will
complete ongoing approval actions for
attainment plans. (2)Region 10 also will
continue to work with Medford, Boise,
Anchorage and Fairbanks to meet I/M
schedules. (3) The Regional Office will
apply sanctions as necessary to Boise,
Spokane and Tacoma. To the extent
practical, EPA will work with these areas
to develop approvable SIPs to control
carbon monoxide. (4) Compliance
assurance activities will be initiated with
States to control volatile organic
compounds from stationary sources.
Monitoring and enforcement action, when
needed, are critical parts of Region 10 and
State programs and must continue to
receive high priority in order to achieve
environmental objectives. (5) States will be
encouraged to establish programs to
reduce motor vehicle tampering and fuel-
switching. (6) EPA will continue to provide
technical assistance to States working on
wood-stove-emission control programs.
Headquarters/Congressional Actions
Needed: (1) Headquarters must expedite
SIP processing. (2) The Clean Air Act
needs to be revised to incorporate an
equitable time frame to deal with cities
(without attainment date extensions) that
did not attain the carbon-monoxide
standards.
Expected Results
Region 10 expects to approve plans (and
see successful implementation) in all cities
with attainment-date extensions. All these
plans show attainment between 1985 and
December 31, 1987. I/M programs are in
place or anticipated in Portland, Seattle,
Medford, Anchorage and Fairbanks.
SIP deficiencies for Boise, Spokane and
Tacoma will be corrected when the law
allows.
Region 10 anticipates continued air quality
improvement to allow the following
redesignations from nonattainment to
attainment in calendar 1983:
For carbon monoxide —Salem and
Eugene-Springfield, Oregon
For ozone —Salem and Medford, Oregon
The remaining two ozone nonattainment
areas are predicted to attain standards
between 1984 and 1987. Reasonable
further progress toward the national
standards will be tracked via annual
reports on emission reductions and two
principal environmental indicators: (1) the
number of violation days, and (2) the
severity of violations.
27
-------
Air Pollution: Particulate Matter
Problem Characterization
The most significant problem areas were
identified on the basis of not attaining health
standards. Eight areas are designated
Table 7
Particulate Non-Attainment Areas
TSP (ug/m3)
Primary Standard—75 for Annual
Geometric Mean
Annual Geometric
Mean
"nonattainment" for total suspended
particulate (TSP) primary standards. Table 7
characterizes the extent of the ambient air
quality problem for each area.
Primary 24-hour Standard —260
Days Over Primary
24-hour Standard
SMSA
Population
1980
1981
1980
1981
1982"
Seattle
E Spokane
Tacorna
Vancouver
Medford
Pocatello
Soda Springs
LewistonClarkston
1,400,000
267,000
402,000
130,000
133,000
53,000
4,000
35,000
84
182'
101
list*
83
97
127
103
87
142
94
114
76
97
111
81
1
19'
4
12-
3
2
8
4
6
9
1
5
0
1
4
2
1
4
0
4
0
1
0
0
Particulate air pollution problems in the
Northwest arise from a diverse mix of
emission sources. Contributors to high
concentrations of total suspended
particulates vary from area to area, but
generally include both industrial facilities and
sources of "fugitive dust," such as unpaved
roads, parking lots and construction
activities. Emissions from wood burning
devices for residential space heating are a
relatively recent and growing addition to the
mix of significant sources, and already are a
dominant factor in some areas. Most
industrial emissions now are meeting control
requirements, but much needs to be done to
control area-source emissions, which include
both sources of fugitive dust and space
heating.
Reported air quality data was obtained from SAROAD
"Data biased by ash from Mt St Helens eruptions
"First two quarters Only
Sources
Table 8 provides an emission inventory
overview for each of the eight areas where
the particulate standard has not been met.
Total emissions in tons per year is shown as
well as the percent contributed by point and
area sources. Where an area is dominated by
a single point source or the control strategy
relies primarily on control of a single source,
annual emissions for that source are shown
in the column entitled "Single Source."
Program Implications
Done to Date: After designating the
above areas nonattainment for the primary
standards for particulates, the States of
Washington and Idaho adopted —and EPA
approved —strategies to bring the areas
into attainment by the statutory deadline
of December 31, 1982. The plan for
Medford, Oregon, submitted in late April
1983, includes steps to reduce emissions
from wood stoves used for home heating,
a serious and growing problem there and
in other areas of the Northwest.
Generally, each control strategy reflects
already-adopted controls on traditional
sources and focuses on either fugitive dust
(area source) or additional single point-
source controls. Plans that rely primarily
on control of road and parking-lot dust are
Table 8
Particulate Emissions
Base Year
(1977-1979)
Base Year (1982
Projected)
Tons Tons
Per Percent Percent Single Per Percent Percent Single
Year Area Source Source Year Area Source Source
Seattle
Spokane
Tacoma
Vancouver
Medford"'
Pocatello
Soda Springs
LewistonClarkston
8,020
8,580
8,290
2,900
9,175
16,000
6,880
4,900
81%
81%
-18%
20%
64%
39%
33%
51%
19%
19%
52%
80%
36%
61%
67%
49%
2.300
7,430
2,500
2,265
4.545
5,970'
5,771
1.250"
11,419
4.351
3,900
73%
74%*
36%
70%
57%
44%
64%
27%
26%'
64%
30%
43%
56%
36%
275"
1,430
550
1.173
Unless otherwise noted, emissions information is taken from the attainment plans developed pursuant to Part D ol the Clean Air Act
Both "base year" 11977 19791 data is shown as well as "projected" emissions for 1982
'Data based on 1982 report on reasonable lurther progress
"Control progfarn recently completed Emission reductions have not been calculated, only estimated
'"Data from dratt SIP, projected emissions are for 1984
those for Seattle, Tacoma, and Spokane.
Plans for Lewiston, Pocatello, and Soda
Springs, Idaho, and for Vancouver,
Washington, each focus on controlling a
single large stationary source. Half of the
emission reductions called for in the
Medford primary standard plan would
come from wood stoves.
Barriers: (1) EPA has worked for years to
develop an inhalable particulate (IP)
standard to modify the existing standard
for total suspended particulates. The new
standard is to focus on small airborne
particulates that can be inhaled deep into
the lungs. The present standard
encourages control of particles that may
be too big to reach the lungs. State and
local officials have anticipated this new
standard for some time. As a result, they
and EPA have been hesitant to commit
large sums of money to new control
28
-------
measures. EPA hopes to propose an
inhalable-particulate standard in 1983. It
appears almost certain that a modified
standard, rather than the status of current
nonattainment areas, will drive
management and budget decisions in 1984
and beyond. (2) From July 1981 to July
1982, EPA operated a minimal clean-air
program in Idaho in the absence of a
State-run program. Since August 1982,
Idaho has been gradually staffing its new
air program. As a result, current emissions
and recent particulate-emission reductions
in Idaho's TSP nonattainment areas are
still being evaluated. (3) Increased use of
wood stoves for residential space heating
has resulted in a new area-source problem
in several nonattainment areas. The
contribution of wood-stove emissions to
ambient paniculate levels is not known for
all nonattainment areas. Further,
enforceable measures to control these
emissions are not readily available.
Proposed Strategy
Regional Actions: (1) Barring any
relevant change in the Clean Air Act,
Region 10 will continue to focus on the
Administrator's program to deal with all
primary-standard nonattainment areas that
did not attain standards by the end of
1982, obtaining improved and current
emissions inventory data, and developing
data on reasonable further progress. (2)
Once the Agency proposes a health-related
standard for inhalable particulates, Region
10 plans to proceed as quickly as possible
with such activities as preliminary
identification of nonattainment areas,
design of an ambient monitoring network,
and development of control strategies. (3)
Region 10 also expects to develop an
improved data base for wood-stove
emissions, and devise needed control
strategies. Recent evidence indicates that
the increased use of wood stoves for
residential space heating may be causing
significant air quality problems. In Oregon,
a significant wood-stove contribution to
ambient paniculate concentrations in
several locales is documented. At least one
local strategy has been developed to
reduce these emissions. The State of
Alaska also has adopted measures to
reduce wood-stove emissions. However,
more information is needed to quantify the
problem and, if necessary, promote the
development of additional State/local
control measures. More research may be
needed. (4) State implementation plans
work only if sources comply with
regulatory emissions limits. Compliance
monitoring and enforcement action to
assure compliance, where needed, are a
critical part of EPA Region 10 and State
programs. These activities will continue to
receive high priority in order to achieve our
environmental objectives.
Headquarters Actions Needed: (1)
Provide policy and guidance on particulate
control strategies and sanctions. If
Congress fails to amend the Clean Air Act
what will the sanction policy be?
Regardless of the legislative outcome,
what will be required with respect to
control strategies for total suspended
particulates while the inhalable-particulate
standard is being finalized? Will we
continue to require some kind of
"reasonable further progress" for total
suspended particulates? Will non-
traditional fugitive-dust control efforts be
required where needed for attainment? (2)
Publish an inhalable-particulate standard.
Expected Results
With the anticipated adoption of an
inhalable-particulate standard, Region 10
expects that the number of primary-
standard nonattainment areas will be
reduced. Nonattainment areas most likely
to become attainment under a new
inhalable-particulate standard are those
with marginal violations of the present
standards due mostly to fugitive dust
emissions. Further, Region 10 expects to
achieve attainment within allowable time
frames in those areas found to be
nonattainment for inhalable particulates.
Reasonable further progress toward the
standards will be tracked via annual
reports on emission reductions and the
two principal environmental indicators for
air pollution: (1) the number of violation
days, and (2) the severity of violations
(both short term and annual standards).
Region 10 projects the following
accomplishments through FY 1984.
FY 1983:
1. Continue with the Administrator's
program for dealing with those
nonattainment areas that fail to attain
primary standards for total suspended
particulates by the December 31, 1982
statutory attainment date.
2. Process the State implementation
plan to control particulates in Medford,
Oregon.
3. Following EPA proposal of a standard
for inhalable particulates:
• Complete an initial determination of
areas likely to be nonattainment for
inhalable particulates.
• Update emissions inventories for
nonattainment areas.
• Start redesigning ambient
monitoring networks to measure
inhalable particulates.
• Begin development of control
strategies, including the preliminary
evaluation of the impact of wood-
stove emissions on probable
nonattainment areas.
4. Attain primary standards for total
suspended particulates in Lewiston-
Clarkston, and Vancouver.
FY 1984:
Following promulgation of the inhalable-
particulate standard:
1. Publish a list of nonattainment areas.
2. Complete substantial work on draft
plans to reach attainment.
29
-------
Microbiological Contamination of Estuarine and
Shellfish Areas
Problem Characterization
Region 10 has some of the most productive
commercial shellfish rearing and harvesting
areas in the country. In 1981, the Oregon
and Washington State fisheries departments
reported an annual gross production of 61.1
million pounds of shellfish valued at $39.1
million dollars. Alaska produced 129 million
pounds of shellfish in the first 10 months of
1982 with an associated value of $249.3
million. (Much of the Alaskan output is not
presently threatened by microbiological
contamination.) Shellfish beds in Oregon and
Washington are in estuarine waters subject
to bacterial contamination from point and
nonpoint sources. Shellfish such as oysters,
clams and mussels can concentrate disease-
causing bacteria and viruses as well as
certain toxic chemicals, radionucleides and
biotoxins. (Paralytic shellfish poisoning, or
PSP, results from a naturally occurring toxin
produced by a group of one-ceiled marine
algae.) Over the past few years these
areas—both commercial and recreation-
al—have been closed many times due to
microbiological contamination that might
cause illness in humans. There also have
been reported cases of human illness due to
the consumption of shellfish.
Sources
Pollution problems generally are caused by
inadequately treated or by-passed sewage
and nonpoint sources, such as agricultural
(animal) practices, on-site waste disposal and
stormwater runoff.
Shellfish-area closures are used as a
surrogate measure of status and predictors
of further problems in these marine areas.
Table 9 briefly describes major areas of concern.
Table 9
Contaminated Estuarine Shellfish Areas in Region 10
Problem Area
Population, Area, and Beneficial
Uses Affected
Contaminants Present
Sources
South Pugei Sound
Washington
Grays Harbor
Washington
Tillamook Bay
Oregon
Coos Bay
Oregon
Area: 11,700 acres approved for
harvesting. 30% of the commercial
shellfish growing area 13.400 acres) is
closed to harvesting 1,700 acres
conditionally approved.
Inner Bay: 11,700 acres closed to
commercial harvesting.
Outer Bay: 35,000 acres where harvesting
is conditionally approved.
North and South Bays: 23,000 acres
approved for harvest.
2,065 acres, 540.000 clams/year.
24.700 pounds shucked meat/year
145 acres. 50% of the growing area closed
to commercial harvesting.
Bacteria, fecal coliform
Fecal conform, low dissolved oxygen, high
temperature during low-How periods,
some toxics in water and sediments
Coliform bacteria 31% of samples exceed
total -conform standards and 16% exceed
fecal coliform standards Some pesticides.
Coliform bacteria and low dissolved
oxygen. 25% of the samples exceed
bacteria standards. 12% of the samples
exceed the standard for dissolved oxygen.
Municipal Ten
Industrial: 26
Nonpoint: Onsite waste disposal,
agricultural li.e , animal) practices, and
stormwater runoff
Municipal: Three
Industrial: 16
Nonpoint: Agricultural runoff.
Municipal: Five 15%)
fmfusma/: Ten (5% I
Nonpoint. Dairy Farming, other agriculture
175%) Septic tanks 115%) tPercentages
shoH relative magnitude. >
Municipal: Six
Industrial: 21
Nonpoim: Isolated ponds problems, log
storage.
Program Implications
Done to Date: Both Washington and
Oregon State environmental agencies have
taken a strong lead role in determining
sources of shellfish-bed problems and
planning to correct and prevent bacterial
pollution in estuarine areas. In both states,
the main focus has been on protecting
commercial shellfish harvesting.
The States have relied on five programs:
(1) Upgrading sewage treatment plants
with Federal and/or State grant programs.
(2) National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permits and
enforcement. (3) Water quality
management funding to identify problems
and develop control plans, particularly best
management practices for nonpoint
sources. (4) Environmental assessments
through the Clean Water Act Section 404
dredge-and-fill permit program. (5) Coastal
Zone Management and Shoreline
Management programs.
The State of Washington developed an
initial concept paper on protecting shellfish
areas in Puget Sound. This initial plan is
being built into the Puget Sound Study as
one of its three major elements and is
being coordinated by the Department of
Ecology with the State Department of
Social and Health Services, county health
departments, and local coastal zone
management agencies. The State also has
programmed some of its Clean Water Act
Section 205(j) water quality management
funds in two important shellfish areas.
In addition, the State has worked closely
with local and Federal agencies to develop
a Grays Harbor Management Plan for that
Pacific Coast area, where extensive
environmental assessments have been
carried out under the Section 404 dredge-
and-fill permit program. The State also
worked closely with industries in the area
to institute industrial pH controls and to
provide State and Federal dollars to build
municipal sewage plants. The Department
of Social and Health Services runs a
shellfish monitoring program.
In Oregon, the State directed Federal
funds to local agencies in Tillamook and
Coos bays to improve options for sewage
treatment plants and management
practices for identified nonpoint sources.
Barriers: (1) Inability to precisely
determine the causes of problems and/or
the relative severity or loading of point and
nonpoint sources. (2) Inadequate State,
local and Federal resources to monitor,
develop or implement control programs, or
encourage the voluntary use of best
management practices. (3) Competition
with other needs for available monitoring
resources to conduct follow-up "cause-
and-effect" and "before-and-after"
studies. (4) Lack of information on the
critical growth factors of the algae that
cause paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP).
30
-------
Proposed Strategy
Regional Actions: The States will
continue to rely on permit and
enforcement programs, where applicable,
to control point-source discharges in these
areas. State and Federal construction
grant monies, as available, will be directed
to the municipalities affected,
Oregon and Washington are developing
water quality management plans for high
priority problem areas and will attempt to
meld point and nonpoint source controls
Table 10
Contaminated Estuarine Shellfish Areas:
to remedy the problem. They are working
with the Federal Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) to ensure that their
activities will meet FDA health-related
requirements.
The State of Washington is developing a
plan for shellfish protection for all of Puget
Sound. This plan will direct monitoring,
planning and permitting activities in the
larger Puget Sound Study. This is being
done in conjunction with coastal zone
management programs. Resource
constraints may play a large part in the
implementation of this plan. EPA will
participate with the State through the
Puget Sound Study to develop and
implement a comprehensive shellfish
protection strategy. EPA will facilitate
program and technology transfer between
Washington and Oregon. EPA also will
provide monitoring and technical
assistance to the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality through State/EPA
Agreement negotiations bearing on the
Tillamook and Coos Bay areas.
A summary of actions underway and planned for
improving water quality in the economically
important shellfish-raising and harvesting areas is
presented in Table 10.
Existing Actions and Control Strategies.
Problem Area
Existing Actions
Control Strategy
South Puge! Sound
Washington
Grays Harbor
Washington
Tillamook Bay
Oregon
Coos Bay
Oregon
State concept paper on shellfish protection will help guide the Puget
Sound Study. It calls for monitoring, for best management practices
development, and point-source controls
Management plan developed. Control pH of industrial discharges;
State/Federal grants to build municipal sewage treatment facilities.
State shellfish monitoring program.
Best management practices identified in Clean Water Act
Implementation funded by U.S. Department of Agriculture
Memorandum of understanding and alarm system with sewage
treatment plants. National shellfish sanitation program.
Water quality management planning under Section 208 of the Clean
Water Act.
Shellfish area definition, intensive monitoring, water quality
management plan to be developed for Burley Lagoon and Winter Bay,
Washington, using the Clean Water Act Section 206(j) planning
funds.
Rely on permit enforcement for industrial discharge. Upgrade sewage
treatment plants using State and Federal grants. State to expand
shellfish-protection concepts to cover areas outside Puget Sound.
Monitor to verify watBr quality and shellfish harvest improvements
Compfete and implement water quality management planning.
Sewage treatment plant construction under Section 201.
Headquarters Actions Needed: (1)
Support flexibility in using available funds,
such as those allocated for Clean Water
Act Section 205(j), to develop nonpoint-
source controls and additional water
quality monitoring. (2) Provide guidance
on water quality criteria and standards for
toxics and other conventional parameters
in marine estuan'ne waters. (3) Support
research into the growth requirements of
the algae responsible for paralytic shellfish
poisoning.
Expected Results
Region 10 will help implement the shellfish
part of the Puget Sound Study. In 1984,
the Coos Bay water quality management
plan should be completed and further data
reports on the Tillamook Bay
implementation activities will be prepared.
The Grays Harbor management plan will
be finished. Results would be measured in
the number of acres certified for shellfish
harvesting (32,038 in 1981).
31
-------
Fishery Damage from Contaminated Waters
Problem Characterization
Commercial and sport fishing are historically
important economic activities in the Pacific
Northwest and Alaska. Over the past 50
years, however, a combination of
overfishing, pollution, and loss of habitat has
severely depressed the Region's fish
resources. Demand for sport fishing and fish
products has remained strong, driving prices
to the point where a food that once was a
dietary staple now has become a luxury.
Public demand for enhancement of the
fishery is growing. Hundreds of millions of
dollars of public and private investment has
been made in fishery research, fish
hatcheries, and fish-passage ladders on large
dams. Congressional concern over the
Northwest fishery was reflected in the
Northwest Power Act of 1980, which
directed the Northwest Power Council to
establish a program to protect and restore
fish and wildlife resources damaged by the
construction of hydroelectric dams.
For the public investment in the fish resource
to be successful, clean water is a
prerequisite. The early interest of the
Northwest States in water quality
enhancement was a timely reflection, in part,
of the growing public concern for restoration
of a vigorous, healthy fishery. Although
many problems have been addressed,
lowstream flows, high temperatures,
obstructions, and residual chlorine still block
the passage of fish in streams, and those
that manage to reach spawning grounds
often find spawning gravels covered by
excessive siltation. Recent growth and
impending development make it imperative
to strengthen State programs to achieve the
fishery-protection objectives of the Clean
Water Act.
Toxicity, high levels of solids, and excessive
nutrient loadings that degrade water for fish
are associated with other major industries
supporting the Northwest economy. Mining,
seafood processing, oil and gas
development, agriculture —both dryland and
irrigated —and silviculture are the primary
sources of heavy metals, solids and nutrients
in many areas. The challenge is to develop
operating procedures that allow economical
operation of these industries while
minimizing damage to existing fisheries or
other designated beneficial uses.
Region 10 has large mineral deposits under
exploration and development. Past mining
practices and the sensitivity of mining to
economic forces makes toxics contamination
a continued threat. Several waterways and
bodies of water within the region have
suffered significant use impairment due to
the discharge or leaching of heavy metals
from active or abandoned mines. The
potential for increased exploration and
development of mineral resources throughout
the Region argues for high priority for this
problem.
In Alaska alone, there were 70,431 active
mining claims in 1981. A year later there
were calculated to be 80,000 claims, based
on 8,409 new claims filed. Of 700 licenses
issued in 1981, 60 percent were for placer
mining and 40 percent were for hard-rock
mining. Hardrock and coal mining projects
have been estimated to be able to create
1000 to 6000 jobs and from $577 million to $3
billion in wages and purchases to the state.
In 1981 gold mining yielded 134,400 troy
ounces of gold and contributed $55 million to
Alaska's economy, coal mining contributed
$15.5 million and the hard-rock exploration
industry contributed approximately $100
million. (Alaska Construction & Oil,
September 1982.)
Examples of major projects under exploration
and/or development are US Borax Quartz
Hill molybdenum mine (Potential: 1.5 billion
tons), Red Dog ore mine (85 million tons),
Beluga coal field (20 million tons per year)
and Usibelli coal mine (about 240 million tons
of reserves).
While Idaho mine reserves may not be as
extensive as those in Alaska, in 1981 the
major mines produced more than 18 million
ounces of silver, 2800 tons of copper and
various quantities of zinc and lead from more
than 1 million tons of ore. This production
was developed at a time when the
downsliding economy had severely affected
the mining industry and one of the major
producers in the Silver Valley in Idaho
(Bunker Hill) was closed for the entire year.
Also, the Yankee Fork Ranger District in the
Challis National Forest in Idaho has more
mining activity than any other unit of the
Forest Service in the country.
Seafood processing also is a major economic
activity. Waste disposal practices in this
industry have the potential to reduce fish and
shellfish resources in the Region, particularly
in Alaska. Out of about 300 seafood
processors in the Region, 225 are in Alaska.
The plants are widely dispersed throughout
the western and southern coastal reaches of
the state. Hundreds of millions of pounds of
fish and shellfish are processed each year.
Several areas such as Kodiak, Dutch Harbor
and Petersburg have significant
concentrations of seafood processing
facilities. In Dutch Harbor, the second-largest
processing center in Alaska, 11 processors
processed approximately 72 million pounds
of shellfish in 1976. This figure has dropped
in recent years due to lower harvests. Of the
total harvest weight processed, about two-
thirds is waste that is discharged to marine
waters following grinding. Accumulation of
these wastes smothers the benthos causing a
major water quality problem.
Offshore oil and gas exploration and
development represents another concern
primarily from a solids-disposal standpoint.
Most offshore oil and gas activities will occur
in Alaska. The U.S. Geological Survey and
Bureau of Land Management, in
environmental impact statements and other
reports estimate that 920 million acres
offshore could be offered for lease in Alaska
from 1982 to 1986. Presently, only 2 million
acres have been leased. Undiscovered
reserves in potential lease areas are roughly
estimated at 12.3 billion barrels of oil and
64.4 trillion cubic feet of gas. Most current
concerns center on discharges of muds,
cuttings, and other related oil-rig discharges
from exploration activities. The major
problem associated with oil and gas
exploration is deposition of solids on the
ocean floor with potential smothering affects
to the benthos. Development of these areas
for production is expected to follow.
Discussions are underway on the proposed
Endicott development project, which could
contain up to 240 wells and four gravel
islands. Construction of the gravel islands
and operation of the drilling rigs, if not
properly conducted, may affect migrating
fish.
Silvicultural and agricultural activities are
significant, too. Region 10 has more than 65
million acres of commercial forest land.
Erosion from improperly built or maintained
logging roads is the major concern in logging
operations. It has been estimated that up to
8000 miles of new logging road yearly and
3800 miles rebuilt per year, could be
constructed depending on the economic
situation in the Region. (USEPA, 1975
Logging Roads and Protection of Water
Quality, Region 10). Log storage and transfer
activities are of concern as they relate to the
valuable ecosystems and vitality of wetland
areas with which they are associated.
Admiralty Island, in Alaska, is one area of
major controversy at this time.
Agricultural cropland in Region 10 totals
about 19.4 million acres. Excessive soil
erosion on this cropland amounts to
2.2 million acres. Severe soil erosion is
defined here as erosion at 5 tons per acre or
greater. (USDA-SCS 1980 RCA Inventory)
Irrigation return flow is also a major source
of pollution in several major rivers in the
Region. The Yakima and Palouse rivers in
Washington, the Owyhee, Malheur and
Klamath basins in Oregon and the Boise,
Portneuf, Weiser and Payette rivers and
Rock Creek in Idaho suffer significant
nonpoint-source pollution. The Region
32
-------
includes several other areas where water
quality is of serious concern to EPA and the
States, but these areas are not easily
Classifiable into a generic pollutant category.
These areas are subjected to point and
nonpoint sources of pollution including
municipal, industrial,, agriculture, urban
runoff and others such as combined sewer
overflows. Waters identified as high priority
by both the States and EPA are the Spokane
River, the Yakima River, the Boise River and
the South Umpqua River.
The traditional approach to dealing with
water pollution problems, i.e., focusing on
point-source permitting and compliance, has
Table 11
Contaminated Fishery Waters in Region 10
been responsible for improvements so far
achieved in cleaning the fishable waters of
the Pacific Northwest and Alaska; however,
because these waters are so extensively
affected by nonpoint-source pollution a
different strategy emphasis now is required
by both EPA and the States.
The problems of each individual area are discussed
m Table 11.
Beneficial Use Summary
Contribution Summary
Geographical Area or
Water Pollution Issue
Category
Level of Use
Parameters of
Concern
Estimated
Relative
Magnitude
Source Category
Comments
Alaska Placer Mining:
Fairbanks, Alaska
Livengood, Alaska
Circle, Alaska
Chicken, Alaska
Talkeeina, Alaska
McGrath, Alaska
Blackbird Creek. Idaho
South Pork of the Coeur
D'Alene River, Idaho
Hardrock Mining:
Quartz Hill, Alaska
Red Dog, Alaska
Greens Creek, Alaska
Surface Coal Mining:
Beluga, Alaska
Healy, Alaska
Seafood Processing:
Kodiak, Alaska
Dutch Harbor, Alaska
Akutan, Alaska
Petersburg, Alaska
Ketchikan, Alaska
Cordova, Alaska
Bristol Bay, Alaska
Kenai Peninsula, Alaska
Offshore Oil and Gas
Exploration:
Norton Sound, Alaska
Beaufort Sea, Alaska
Cook Inlet, Alaska
Gulf of Alaska, Alaska
Diapir Field, Alaska
St. George Basin, Alaska
Shelikof Strait, Alaska
Growth and propagation of
aquatic life
Domestic Water Supply
Secondary Contact
recreanon
Cold water biota
Secondary contact
recreation
Cold water biota, salmonid
spawning and primary
contact recreation
Secondary contact
lecreation
Growth and propagation of
aquatic life
Domestic water supply
Growth and propagation of
aquatic life
Domestic water supply
Growth and propagation of
aquatic life
Water supply, seafood
processing
Growth and propagation of
aquatic life
High
Medium
Reserved for future
use
Protected for the
future from its
mouth to Mullan,
Idaho
Low
High
Medium
High
Medium
High
High
High
Turbidity.
sedimentation
Dissolved metals
Heavy metals
Heavy metals
Phosphorus
Fecal coliform
Sedimentation,
dissolved metals
Process reagents in
mill wastewaters
Sedimentation, add
drainage
Leaching of
potentially
toxic materials
Dissolved oxygen
Oil and grease,
solids
Fecal coliform.
drilling muds,
dissolved
hydrocarbons.
oil field brines
5095%
550%
30%
50%
20%
40",
50%
90%
5%
20%
70-90%
85-95%
5-10%
1-5%
Industrial
Background
Industrial
Nonpoint
Natural
Industrial
Industrial
Industrial
Industrial
Municipal
Nonpoint
Industrial
Municipal
Background
Mining operation
Estimate that as many as 800
active placer mines discharge to
about 500 streams Scarcity of
ambient water quality monitoring
data prohibits anything other than
a gross estimate of relative
contributions
Noranda treatment plant discharge
Tailings/teachings
Background surface runoff and
groundwater recharge.
Bunker Hill tailing and leakage and
Other inflows attributed to Bunker
Hill and other mine discharges and
teachates above Bunker Hill.
Bunker Hill tailing pond leakage.
Bunker Hill permitted discharge
from treatment plant.
Municipal sewage treatment
plants.
Septic systems
Environmental assessment and
preliminary development activities
underway. Production expected to
commence within 3-5 years.
Environmental assessment and
preliminary development activities
underway Production expected to
commence within 5-10 years
Seafood processing wastewater
33
-------
Table 11 (continued)
Contaminated Fishery Waters in Region 10
Beneficial Use Summary
Contribution Summary
Geographical Area or
Water Pollution Issue
Category
Level of Use
Parameters of
Concern
Estimated
Relative
Magnitude Source Category
Comments
Onshore Oil Production and
Exploration:
Kenai, Alaska
Valdez, Alaska
Endicot, Alaska
Prudhoe Bay, Alaska
Silviculture:
West Coast of Oregon and
Washington, Central Idaho,
Southeast Alaska
Spokane River, Washington
Yakima River, Washington
Sunnyside Dam to its mouth
Boise River
below Boise, Idaho
Growth and propagation of
aquatic life
Growth and propagation of
aquatic life
Salmonid tearing,
spawning
Spawning and rearing of
warm water gamefish
Recreation : Water contact,
boating/fishing, aesthetics
Water Supply:
Agricultural, Industrial
Salmonid migration
Salrnonid rearing
Spawning and rearing of
warm water garne fish
Recreation:
Boating/fishing, aesthetics
Water Supply: Industrial,
Agricultural
Agricultural water supplv
Cold water biota
Salmonid spawning
Primary and secondary
contact recreation
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Low
Medium
Low
Low
Medium
Medium
Low
High
High
Medium/High
(Reserved for
Future Use below
Caldwell)
Low (Reserved for
Future Use)
High
High
Oil and grease, solids
Dissolved
hydrocarbons
Sediment, turbidity
Phosphorus
Phosphorus
Phosphorus
Heavy metals
Low dissolved oxygen
Temperature
Nutrients
Fecal coMorrn
Solids, turbidity
Nutrients
Fecal coliform
Chlorine
Temperature
Solids
Pesticides in fish
70-90%
Under 20%
Under 10%
90%
60%
40%
70-90%
Under 20%
8090%
80-90%
Under 20%
Under 10%
70-90%
Under 20%
Under 20%
100%
80-90%
Under 20%
Municipal
Nonpoint
Nonpoint
Nonpoint
Industrial
Nonpoint
Nonpoint
Natural
Nonpoint
Municipal
Industrial
Nonpoint
Municipal
Nonpoint
Nonpoint
Municipal
Nonpoint
Nonpoint
Municipal
Nonpoint
Municipal
Nonpoint
Nonpoint
Nonpoint
Nonpoint
Nonpoint
In Idaho. Oregon. Washington 65
million acres ol Commercial forest.
8,000 miles of new logging roads
and 3,300 miles of rebuilt logging
roads each year
5 municipal sewage treatment
plants, combined sewers — runoff
(Spokane)
Hangman Creek— agriculture
Septic systems
Idaho mining activities
Oxygen problem is caused by
phosphorus and related algae
problems (see abovel
Irrigation
Natural low flow
Irrigation
Irrigation, animal wastes
Municipal sewage treatment plains
Irrigation
Irrigation
Municipal - Boise treatment plant
Urban runoff
Agricultural runoff, animal wastes
Municipal
Urban runoff
Municipal sewage 'treatment plants
Agriculture (irrigation)
Hydromodifications
Agriculture (irrigation)
Urban runoff
Agriculture - need current data
34
-------
Table 11 (continued)
Contaminated Fishery Waters in Region 10
Beneficial Use Summary
Contribution Summary
Geographical Area or
Water Pollution Issue
Category
Level of Use
Parameters of
Concern
Estimated
Relative
Magnitude Source Category
Comments
Lower Malheur River, Oregon
These uses are found in the
Snake River segment of the
Malheur Basin 'which is the
receiving water of the Malheur
River).
Klamath River, Oregon
Tualatin River, Oregon
River Mile 0-39
Agriculture
Livestock watering
Warm water fishery
Agriculture
Livestock watering
Cold water fishery
Warm water fishery
Contact recreation
Aesthetics
Agriculture
Warm water fishery
Cold water fishery
Aesthetics
Livestock watering
Contact recreation
Cold water fishery
Warm Water fishery
Anadromous fishery
Agricultural
Contact recreation
Livestock watering
High
High
Medium
High
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
High
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
High
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
Suspended solids
Total phosphorus
Total nitrogen
Cohform bacteria
Total phosphorus
Total nitrogen
Low dissolved oxygen
Total nitrogen
Low dissolved oxygen
6575%
10-20%
10-20%
65-75%
10-20%
10-20%
75-85%
10-20%
5-10%
70-80%
20-30%
60-75%
25-40%
1-5%
50-70%
25-45%
1-5%
6080%
10-20%
5-10%
5-10%
Nonpomt
Nonpomt
Background
Nonpomt
Nonpomt
Background
Nonpomt
Nonpomt
Background
Nonpomt
Background
Background
Nonpoint
Municipal
Background
Nonpoint
Municipal
Municipal
Nonpoint
Nonpoint
Background
Return flow resulting from
intensive irrigation (River Mile
0-21)
Mixed agriculture/livestock (River
Mile 21-49)
Upstream input (River Mile 49)
Irrigation return flow IRiver Mile
0-21)
Mixed agriculture /livestock (River
Mile 21-491
Upstream input (River Mile 49)
Irrigation return flow (River Mile
021)
Mixed agriculture/livestock (Rivet
Mile 2 1-49)
Upsueam input (River Mile 49)
Mixed agriculture/livestock (River
Mile 0-49)
Upstream input (River Mile 49)
Input Irom Klamath Lake
Agricultural runoff
Input from Klamath Lake
Agricultural runoff
Due to combination of
nitrification, algal demand, and
low stream velocities resulting
from impoundments. (Segment of
Concern is upstream of John C.
Boyle Dam.) Dissolved oxygen
generally returns to higher levels
after release from impoundment.
Agricultural runoff
Miscellaneous runoff from
residential land use
Due to combination of
nitrification, sediment oxygen
demand, low hydraulic gradient,
and low summer sueamflows.
35
-------
Table 11 (continued)
Contaminated Fishery Waters in Region 10
Beneficial Use Summary
Contribution Summary
Geographical Area or
Water Pollution Issue
Category
Level of Use
Parameters of
Concern
Estimated
Relative
Magnitude Source Category
Comments
South Umpqua River
Contact recreation
Aesthetics
Warm water fishery
Agricultural
Livestock watering
Cold water fishery
Anadromous fishery
High
High
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
Coliform bacteria
Total phosphorus
(June-October)
Total nitrogen
(June-October)
Biochemical oxygen
demand
(June-October)
Low dissolved oxygen
40-60%
25-35%
10-20%
10-20%
50-70%
15-35%
10-15%
30-50%
30-50%
20-30%
30-50%
30-50%
20-30%
Municipal
Nonpoint
Nonpoint
Background
Municipal
Nonpoint
Background
Municipal
Nonpoint
Background
Municipal
Nonpoint
Background
Overflows and sewage treatment
plant deficiencies
Animal wastes and agricultural
runoff
Log storage ponds and runoff
Agricultural runoff
Agricultural runoff
Agricultural runoff
Due to a combination of
carbonaceous oxygen demand.
nitrification, algal demand
(including periphyton), and low
summer stream flows (sometimes
below 100 cfs.).
Program Implications
Done to Date: Actions to reduce or
prevent contamination by toxic
substances, particularly heavy metals, and
to control the release of solids and
nutrients generally involve correction of
past practices and building proper design
and safeguards into proposed activities.
Control actions have been designed for
individual cases and have centered on
traditional programs: (1) Point source
control through National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permits,
compliance inspections and
enforcement— EPA and State
environmental agencies use permit
procedures to identify problems and
improper past practices. National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permits limit
heavy metals and solids discharges. (2)
Point-source control of nutrients through
construction and upgrading of sewage
treatment plants where necessary, and
compliance inspections and enforcement.
(3) Nonpoint-source controls through
funding of water quality management
plans under Section 208 of the Clean
Water Act. Agricultural and silvicultural
water quality management plans have
been developed for each State in Region
10. Forest practices acts and rules and
regulations have been adopted by each
State. (4) Monitoring and intensive surveys
to define the problem and verify that
controls are working. (5) Participating in
the scoping process to develop liason prior
to the development of environmental
impact statements and preparing new-
source environmental impact statements.
For new developments, the Region
primarily relies on work on environmental
impact statements and new source permits
to ensure that appropriate safeguards are
designed into the proposals from the start.
We are encouraging better environmental
assessments and environmental impact
statement for new sources, as appropriate.
(6) Evaluating and commenting to the
Corps of Engineers on Clean Water Act
Section 404 dredge-and-fill permit
activities.
Barriers: (1) Ownership and liability is
difficult to assess, particularly for
abandoned/closed mines. (2) Long
processing times at Headquarters for
approval of the general permits for placer
mining, oil and gas development and
seafood processors. Issuance of general
permits will bring many more sources
under regulatory control. Many sources
now have either outdated permits or lack
permits entirely because of administrative
delays that would be eliminated under the
general permits. (3) Amount of time and
data necessary for a 403(c) determination
is extensive and precludes fast tracking
projects. (4) Inability of States and EPA to
provide sufficient resources for nonpoint-
source control programs. State resources
are barely adequate to maintain existing
point-source control programs. (5) Best
management practices, even when
generally agreed upon, are difficult to
enforce as standards to reduce pollution.
Economic pressures push farmers,
foresters, miners, and others away from
adherence to such standards because they
are viewed as unproductive, add-on costs.
(6) Water quality management funding
under Section 205(j) of the Clean Water
Act may not be sufficient to adequately
deal with all of the problems and allow
development of effective best management
practices for all areas. (7) Federal and
State funds to implement nonpoint-source
controls, such as the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Rural Clean Water Program
funds to help farmers carry out best
management practices, are inadequate.
Proposed Strategy
Regional Actions: The diversity of fishery
problems requires that individual control
strategies be developed for each particular
area. The Region's basic strategy,
however, can be generalized as follows:
(1) Use the State/EPA Agreements to
identify high priority water bodies critical
to fisheries enhancement. Clean Water Act
water quality management funding under
36
-------
Section 205(j) could be allocated for work
1n these areas. (2) Bring non-permitted
existing sources that affect these waters
under permit as soon as possible and
monitor compliance. General permits
would be used when appropriate to
expedite administrative processing. (3)
Assure compliance with existing permits.
Use the State/EPA Agreement to
negotiate a more efficient distribution of
the compliance workload. (4) Use the
environmental-impact-statement process to
minimize and require mitigation of the
effects of new sources. (5) Ensure that best
management practices are required in land-
Table 12
use contracts covering Federal and State
lands. (6) Establish a public information
program to show the long-term benefit to
landowners and users to be achieved
through improved management practices
that also enhance water quality. An
example of such a benefit would be the
fact that placer-mine settling ponds catch
significant amounts of fine gold that can
be recovered. (7) Periodic reviews with
States focusing on progress in priority
water bodies.
General permits are being developed as
appropriate for placer mining, seafood
processing and oil and gas exploration.
Region 10 also will comment on proposed
effluent guidelines affecting these
activities. The Region is negotiating a
municipal compliance strategy in each
State through the Fiscal 1984 State/EPA
Agreement. Region 10 also is coordinating
with Headquarters to develop a national
nonpoint-source strategy that will
incorporate identified needs for nonpoint
source controls. And as resources allow,
Region 10 will conduct water quality
monitoring and intensive surveys to better
identify problems and develop wasteload
allocations on high priority waters.
A summary presentation of past actions and
proposed strategies for each priority area is in
Table 12.
i avio i«-
Contaminated Fishery Waters in Region 10: Existing Actions and Control Strategies
Problem Area Existing Actions
Control Strategy
Alaska Placer Mining:
Northern Region
South Central Region
Southeast Region
Blackbird Creek, Idaho
South Fork of the Coeur D'Alene River, Idaho
Other potential mining areas:
Quartz Hill, Alaska
Red Dog, Alaska
Beluga Coal, Alaska
Seafood Processing:
Kodiak, Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
Petersburg, Alaska
Cordova, Alaska
Remote Areas
Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration:
Norton Sound, Alaska
Beaufort Sea, Alaska
Diapir Field, Alaska
Si Georges Basins, Alaska
Gulf of Alaska, Alaska
Shelikof Straits, Alaska
Lower Cook Inlet, Alaska
Morth Aleutian Shelf, Alaska
Onshore Oil Production and Exploration:
Kenai, Alaska
Valdez, Alaska
Endicot, Alaska
Prudhoe Bay. Alaska
Silviculture:
West Coast of Oregon and Washington, Central Idaho,
Southeast Alaska
Spokane River, Washington
770 miners operate under compliance orders issued under
Clean Water Act Section 309 Monitoring and inspections
have been conducted Regional Office is preparing general
permits and conducting enforcement activities
Mine owner proposed opening and operating a
wastewater treatment plant to process effluent from the
mine. Diversions of drainage from the mine and tailings
piles. Environmental Impact Statement coordination and
review of water discharge permit.
State and EPA have identified this in the State-EPA
Agreement as a high-priority water quality problem EPA
intensive survey. Silver valley coordination plan, tailings
pond leakage-control plan. Permits, enforcement Mine
closed from strikes and economy Bunker Hill mine is
Superfund site (Number/Group 1)
Environmental impact statement coordination. Permits
coordination.
Permits issued to some but not others Draft general per-
mit being prepared. Environmental assessment at Trident
in Aleutians Dive reports from field surveys Enforcement
action based on inspections. Six compliance orders under
Clean Water Act Section 309, one referral to Head
quarters.
Two general permits drafted (exploration only). Completed
two determinations under Clean Water Act Section 403
(c).
NPDES permit and 404 permit issued EIS's were prepared
on each site.
Pour states have forest practices acts, rules and regula-
tions defining and requiring best management practices,
all developed as a result of work under Clean Water Act
Section 206.
Analysis of county's wastewater management plan, with
Environmental Impact Statement. Total maximum daily
load prepared using Clean Water Act Section 208 funds.
Section 201 funding of advanced treatment at Spokane
sewage treatment plant. Combined stormwater overflow
correction under Section 208 water quality management
planning.
Issue individual permits. Resume monitoring and inspec-
tion m 1983 Develop and issue some individual permits
based on best professional judgments. Issue permits re
quiring best available treatment by placer miners in 1984.
If the mine operates, reissue discharge permit with ap-
propriate limits. Potential superfund site. Opera-
tional/closure plan developing with company.
Act on proposed Superfund designation. Implement mine-
spoils reclamation plan (subject to availability of funds);
remedial action or correction under Superfund Combined
stormwater overflow correction
Complete Environmental Impact Statement Issue water
discharge permits.
Issue general permit for 158 processors. Issue individual
permits in Kodiak (II, Cordova (3). Reissue Dutch Harbor
permits Issue permit based on water quality to Trident in
the Aleutians. Environmental assessment for new sources
in Aleutians Issue permits for 15 seafood processors in
Aleutians in March 1984 Continue enforcement in Fiscal
'83.
Develop and issue general permits for exploration in six
more lease areas. Review industry data and establish
monitoring process and use this data in the development
of oil- and gas-production permits.
EIS beginning on new water flood projects. Requiring
special monitoring of industries through permitting pro-
cesses.
Rely on water quality management plans, continue
monitoring to determine effect of best management prac-
tices.
Phosphorus attenuation study under Clean Water Action
Section 205(j) followed by modification in descharge per-
mit limits. Zinc study leading to possible revision in water
quality standards.
37
-------
Table 12 (continued)
Contaminated Fishery Waters in Region 10: Existing Actions and Control Strategies
Problem Area Existing Actions
Control Strategies
Yakima River, Washington
Sunnyside Dam to its mouth
Boise River. Idaho
Lower Malheur River, Oregon
Klamath Basin, Oregon
Tualatin River, Oregon
South Umpqua River
Intensive surveys. Sewage treatment plant. Construction
grants from State. Best management practices defined tor
dairy farming and water quality management plan
developed under Clean Water Act Section 208 program
for irrigated-agncultural water.
Upgrade sewage treatment plants, permits and enforce-
ment. Best management plans for agriculture developed
under Clean Water Act Section 206 program Environmen-
tal Impact Statement by EPA.
Water quality management plan for Malheur River
developed under Clean Water Act Section 208 program
Use attainability analysis
Clean Lakes Grant, statewide water quality management
plan.
Advanced waste treatment to correct phosphorus problem
at both sewage treatment plants Water-quality 10 year
summary by State Department of Environmental Quality
on the Tualatin.
Summarize existing monitoring data
Upgrade two municipal sewage treatment plants, imple-
ment nonpoint-source controls, rely on State water quali-
ty management plan.
Dechlorination at Boise, Rely on State to enforce best
management practices.
Rely on Statewide water quality management plan Revise
water quality standards m Malheur to reflect actual uses.
Rely on Statewide water quality management plan,
Additional study and analysis before future decisions are
made as to ammonia treatment Mathematical modelling
may be appropriate
Continue with planned supplemental studies, correct
sewage treatment plant deficiencies. Investigate options
related to proposed reservoir tor tow-flow augmentation.
Headquarters Action Needed: (1)
Support and cooperate in issuing the
general permit for placer miners, oil and
gas exploration and seafood processors.
(2) Act early to develop effluent guidelines
associated with the above issues. (3)
Continued support for mission contracts to
prepare new-source environmental impact
statements and assist in EPA participation
as a cooperative agency for environmental
impact statements. (4) Approve flexibility
in using water quality management
funding to continue development and
upgrading of nonpoint-source controls. (5)
Support funding for implementation of
nonpoint-source controls for agriculture
problems, i.e. Rural Clean Water Program
funds. (6) Provide resources and technical
support to allow a better determination of
nonpoint-source loadings and to conduct
monitoring surveys.
Expected Results
During Fiscal 83, Region 10 will issue 880
individual permits for placer miners in
Alaska, eight general permits for oil and
gas exploration activities and a general
permit for 158 seafood processors in
Alaska.
A Spokane River phosphorus-attenuation
study will be completed with Clean Water
Act Section 205(j) funds. The Region also
will complete the environmental impact
statement on the US Borax Quartz Hill
molybdenum mine development with EPA
participating as a cooperating agency, and
issue the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit for
U.S. Borax. The Region will complete the
environmental impact statement and an
NPDES permit for the Red Dog lead/zinc
mine, with EPA serving in a colead role
with the Department of the Interior.
Progress will be measured in terms of river
miles impaired for fisheries, or where
fisheries are threatened. The Region
expects to maintain or improve water
quality and reduce use impairment for
fisheries. We will be working during the
year to develop a measure to indicate
possible reestablishment of fisheries.
38
-------
Introduction to Attachment A
The primary objective of this section is to Attachment A discusses the general Attachment A is not intended to present
.present the environmental status, by media, methodology used to analyze and present nor discuss program-related information,
for all geographic areas in Region 10 for data. Where there are exceptions to the with the exception of Radiation and
which data are available. State and local general methodology, qualifications to the Pesticides programs, that is not addressed in
agency monitoring networks provide the data information presented, or specific Section II.
presented graphically in this section. information which is applicable only to a
particular graphic or table, that information is
highlighted. Additionally, where appropriate,
the sources of data and information are
identified.
39
-------
Hazardous Waste
Figure 1
Potential Hazardous Waste Sites in
Region 10
NUMBERS INSIDE THE COUNTY OR BOROUGH BOUNDARIES
INDICATE THE NUMBER OF SITES WHICH MAY CONTAIN
HAZARDOUS WASTES WITHIN EACH COUNTY OR BOROUGH
The graphics shown provide an overview of
hazardous waste generation and disposal in
Region 10. From 1940 through 1975 a total
of 2.6 MMT of hazardous waste was
generated.
The map, Figure 1, shows the counties with
disposal sites in the region. The numbers
inside the county or borough boundaries
indicate the number of disposal sites most
likely to contain hazardous wastes. These
sites are concentrated in the more densely
populated counties of Western Washington.
-------
Fig we 2
Hazardous Wastes Generated
1940-1975
' Other " 5%
Manufacturers
Chemical 14%
Manufacturers
Metals 81%
Manufacturers
Total:
0.1 Million Metric Tons
-------
Air
The following graphic displays provide an in-
depth picture of air quality for the region.
Maps show the geographic distribution of
areas with air quality measurements in
excess of National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQSK Bar graphs are used to
show frequency of standard exceedances
and air quality trends. Information provided
in the air graphics is based on data through
1981 only, the last full calendar year for
Air Quality
which air quality data is available. The
severity determinations are based upon
comparisons of highest recorded values with
NAAQS and EPA's recommended "alert"
levels as shown below.
POLLUTANT
TSP
CO
°3
S02
UNITS
ug/m3
ug/m3
mg/m3
ug/m3
ppm
ug/m3
AVERAGING
TIME
annual geometric mean
24 hour average
8 hour average
1 hour average
1 hour average
annual arithmetic mean
24 hour average
3 hour average
SECONDARY
STANDARD
60
150
10
235
0.12
1,300
PRIMARY
STANDARD
75
260
10
235
0.12
80
365
ALERT
LEVEL
375
17
392
0.2
800
43
-------
Air Quality
Total Suspended Participates
The TSP air quality map (Figure 4) shows
the general areas in each state which, in
1981, exceeded ambient air quality standards.
In areas where there is more than one
monitor, the exceedance information
represents the worst site. It should be noted
that an exceedance is not necessarily a
violation since the standards allow for one
exceedance of a short term standard in each
calendar year. Color codes provide
information on the relative severity of highest
recorded concentrations.
Note: Kellogg. Idaho air quality has SfgmticantJv changed since
1981. A lead and zinc smelter which has dominated the paniculate
matter emission inventory ceased operating between late 1981 and
early 1982. Corresponding improvements in air quality have been
noted.
Additionally, the status of TSP in Olympia, Washington, as shown
in Figures 4. 5 and 12 are biased by the impact of building fires on
the two days during calendar year 1981 when secondary standards
were exceeded.
Note:
• This map reflects 1981 Air Quality Data and nut n>.: ^s.tn'1, t),L. Lljrrt;nt Malus of nunattamnv.?;-:- ;. ; r
• See the accompanying narrative lor a tlwus^on o' KiHIoqg kiaho'^ i
Figure 4
Regional
Air Quality Status
Total Suspended
Particulates
.'.-. )ARD Al i .\l\Sl> OR
AREA CONSIDfRI ' •'• " " 'VJ S ' AVAR!)
OR
SfCONDAff. S'ANUA-v v EEDI
I!.'!'
Al I HI II Vtl i XCE' I'! D
D.M MOI.it? O
ANM.JAL S
D.v, HOUR OH
ANNUAl t'HiVAHv STANDARD • XI
HI -A • , GlllVf Dl S' A--'- A'
'Standards exceeded Uui :'".Mf.! .is j
ri'A's Rur.il F'liuitiv" Dust i'."" i
-------
Air Quality
Total Suspended Particulates
Areas where exceedances of either the
secondary and/or primary NAAQS for TSP
occurred in 1981 were selected for analysis.
All TSP monitoring sites within a given area
were divided, as appropriate, into one of
three categories: commercial/industrial (C/l),
residential (R) or rural (r). Data from all sites
in each category were pooled and master
files created containing each category's
maximum value for every day sampled. Each
category's file of daily maximums was then
searched to yield the total number of days
during 1981 when an exceedance of the
24-hour NAAQS for TSP was observed.
A simple percentage of observed exceedance
days to all sample days was calculated for
each category of sites within the subject
area. The results are presented in Figure 5.
Bar lengths are scaled to correspond to the
percentage of exceedance days to all
sampled days. Some of the bars have as
many as three different colored sections
representing the severity of the exceedances
and are color coded as per the legend.
Where exceedances have been attributed
solely to rural fugitive dust the entire bars
have been colored blue-brown.
It should be noted that the percent
exceedance data displayed are not adequate
to define the spatial extent and severity of
areas in violation of standards. Region 10
and the states are presently conducting
intensive special studies in some areas for
this purpose.
It should be noted that air pollution "alerts"
are called on the basis of both measured air
quality and the prediction that these high
pollution concentrations will continue. Thus,
even though alert levels are reached, an air
pollution alert is not announced if
meteorological predictions indicate that
pollutants will be dispersed within 24 hours.
Figure 5
Percent of Observed Days
Total Suspended Particulates
Exceeded Standards
Alaska
Anchorage
Fairbanks
Idaho
Pocatello
Boise ;
c
Conda/
Soda Springs
Coeur D'Alene c
Kellogg
OBSERVED DAYS EXCEEDED {%)
20 40 60
J
1
.4 61'
16.531
15 5H
119/611
40
•V
Lewiston
H
C/l
?
i^
II
1
rii
3
•
19/581
15/601
15/471
126/561
I3-5D
14-581
18 '451
112-621
(13/611
15/511
(4/501
Medford/ c '
Ashland
Portland c
3
D
14/591
lt> 611
Washington ° 20 « «» 8°
Seattle c/i
Clarkston R
C/l
Longview
R
Olympia c i
II
I
l
1
3
1
•
161 /348I
13/581
(6/611
13/541
12'fiOI
(33/591
Spokane
Tacoma
Vancouver
NOTE: Number in pareniheses represents loial number of days
exceeding standards per number of observation days
C/l COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL
R. RESIDENTIAL
r: RURAL
"1 24-HOUR SECONDARY STANDARD EXCEEDED
I 24 HOUR PRIMARY STANDARD EXCEEDED
ALERT LEVEL EXCEEDED
D
STANDARDS EXCEEDED IN
RURAL FUGITIVE DUST AREA
45
-------
Air Quality
Figure 6
Regional Air Quality Status
Carbon Monoxide
The CO air quality maps (Figure 6) show the
general areas in each state which, in 1981,
exceeded National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. In areas where there is more than
one monitor, the exceedance information
represents the worst site. It should be noted
that an exceedance is not necessarily a
violation since the standards allow for one
exceedance of a short term standard in each
calendar year. Color codes provide
information on the relative severity of highest
recorded concentrations.
Note:
• This map reflects 1981 Air Quality D SI A.NDARD I \fl
ftl.Efil LEVEI : KCI : Dl C
-------
Carbon Monoxide
Areas where exceedances of the primary
8-hour NAAQS for CO (primary and
secondary standards are identical) occurred
in 1981 were selected for further analysis. All
CO sites within each subject area were
grouped, as appropriate, into one of two
categories: commercial/industriat (C/l) or
residential (R), Data from all sites within
each category were pooled and master files
created containing each category's maximum
8-hour average concentration for every day
monitored. Each category's file of daily
maximums was then searched to yield the
total number of days when an exceedance of
the 8-hour NAAQS for CO was observed.
The percentage of observed exceedance days
to all monitored days was calculated for each
category of sites within the subject area. The
results are presented in Figure 7.
Bar lengths are scaled to correspond to the
percentage of exceedance days to all
monitored days. Some bars have two
different color sections coded per the legend
which represent the severity of the
exceedances.
The Clean Air Act provides states the option
of establishing both their own air quality
standards and monitoring data interpretation
techniques so long as healthful air quality is
protected. As a result, there may be
differences between state and EPA counts of
standards exceedances.
It should be noted that the percent
exceedance data displayed are not adequate
to define the spatial extent and severity of
areas in violation of standards. Region 10
and the states are presently conducting
intensive special studies in some areas for
this purpose.
It should be further noted that air pollution
"alerts" are called on the basis of both
measured air quality and the prediction that
these high pollution concentrations will
continue. Thus, even though alert levels are
reached, an air pollution alert is not
announced if meteorological predictions
indicate that pollutants will be dispersed
within 24 hours.
Figure 7
Percent of Observed Days
Carbon Monoxide
Exceeded Standards
OBSERVED DAYS EXCEEDED (%)
Alaska £_ « eo
Anchorage
Fairbanks
Air Quality
3
137 '3611
110/355)
125/2921
Idaho
Boise CM
0 20 40 60
u
118 2431'
C/l COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL
R RESIDENTIAL
r RURAL
PRIMARY STANDARD EXCEEDED
ALERT LEVEL EXCEEDED
Oregon
Medford/
Ashland
Portland C
R
Salem c
Washington
H
p
1
I4L355)
123/3561
12/350)
(I' 3491
Seattle c/i
Spokane
R
Tacoma c/i
Yakima c/i
u
1
j
J
]
134/3621"
113 '3641
12/3391
115-3541
13/3431
NOTE: Number in parentheses represents total number of days
exceeding standards per number of observation days
'May not be representative of lotal problem Less than 75% of
loial observation days reported
"Bellevue was considered together with Seattle
47
-------
Air Quality
Ozone
The Ozone air quality maps (Figure 8) show
the general areas in each state which, in
1981, exceeded National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). In areas where there is
more than one monitor for a given pollutant,
the exceedance information represents the
worst site. It should be noted that an
exceedance is not necessarily a violation
since the standards allow for one exceedance
of a short term standard in each calendar
year. Color codes provide information on the
relative severity of highest recorded
concentrations.
Ozone typically impacts areas well-removed
from the plumes' origin. For example,
elevated ozone levels measured in the greater
Tacoma area are thought to reflect the
cumulative impact of Tacoma and Seattle
plumes. The greater Seattle area experiences
its own ozone impacts on a lesser scale than
Tacoma and of uncertain origins. Similarly,
Salem's ozone impacts are attributed in part
to Portland's urban plume.
Figure 9 identifies the areas where
exceedances of the 1-hour primary NAAQS
for 03 (the primary and secondary NAAQS
are identical) occurred. All 03 monitoring
sites within each area were grouped, as
appropriate, into one of three categories:
commercial/industrial (C/l), residential (R),
or rural (r). Data from all the monitoring sites
in each category were pooled and master
Figure 9
Percent of Observed Days
Ozone
Exceeded Standards
OBSERVED DAYS EXCEEDED (%l
Oregon 0123
Portland <
Eugene/ R
Springfield
Salem
Washington
Seattle <
Tacoma R
• : .r
HI
0
H
11/3391
1 1 , ?()')!
2 3
1 1 '2431
1 13/270!
NOTE: Number in parentheses represents total number ol days
exceeding standards per number of observation days
C/l. COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL
R: RESIDENTIAL
r RURAL
Figure 8
Washington and Oregon
Air Quality Status
Ozone
D
PRIMARY STANDARD EXCEEDED
ALERT LEVEL EXCEEDED
Note:
• This map reflects 1981 Air Quality Data and not
files created containing each category's
maximum 1-hour concentration for every day
monitored. Each category's file of daily
maximums was then searched to yield the
total number of days when an exceedance of
the NAAQS for 03 was observed. The
percentage of observed exceedance days to
all monitored days was calculated. The
results are shown in the bar charts.
Bar lengths are scaled to correspond to the
percentage of exceedance days to all
monitored days. The bar for Portland has
two different colored sections corresponding
to the severity of the exceedances and color
coded as per legend.
The Clean Air Act provides states the option
of establishing both their own air quality
standards and monitoring data interpretation
techniques so long as healthful air quality is
protected. As a result, there may be
differences between state and EPA counts of
standards exceedances.
I STANDARD All AINFD OR
ARfA CONSIOFHEO TO ATTAIN STANDARD
D
1 HOUR PRIMARY STANDARD LXCl I 1)1 I)
ALLHI LfVtL EXCLlllin
It should be noted that the percent
exceedance data displayed are not adequate
to define the spatial extent and severity of
areas in violation of standards. Region 10
and the states are presently conducting
intensive special studies in some areas for
this purpose.
It should be further noted that air pollution
"alerts" are called on the basis of both
measured air quality and the prediction that
these high pollution concentrations will
continue. Thus, even though alert levels are
reached, an air pollution alert is not
announced if meteorological predictions
indicate that pollutants will be dispersed
within 24 hours.
48
-------
Air Quality
Picture 10
Idaho Air Quality Status
Sulfur Dioxide
Ketchu
CAMAS?
U BLAINE
Sulfur Dioxide
The sulfur dioxide air quality map (Figure 10)
shows the general areas in Idaho which, in
1981, exceeded National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). In areas where there is
more than one monitor for a given pollutant,
the exceedance information represents the
worst site. It should be noted that an
exceedance is not necessarily a violation
since the standards allow for one exceedance
of a short term standard in each calendar
year. Color codes provide information on the
relative severity of highest recorded
concentrations.
Note that Kellogg, Idaho air quality has
significantly changed since 1981. A lead and
zinc smelter which has dominated the S02
emission inventory ceased operating between
late 1981 and early 1982. Corresponding
improvements in air quality have been noted.
Figure 11 shows the areas in Idaho where
exceedances of the 24-hour primary and
3-hour secondary NAAQS for S02 occurred
Note:
•This fTiap reflects 1981 Air Quality Data and not necessarily the current status of nonattamnit-m di-sK|M,itions
•See the accompanying narrative for a discussion of Ketlorjg Idaho's air quality status
I STANDARD ATTAINED OR
AREA CONSIDERED TO ATTAIN STANDARD
n
D
SECONDARY STANDARD EXCEEDED
PRIMARY STANDARD EXCEEDED
in 1981. All S02 monitoring sites within each
area were grouped, as appropriate, into one
of two categories: commercial/industrial
(C/l) and residential (R). Data from all sites
within each category were pooled and
master files created containing each
category's maximum 3-hour and 24-hour
average concentrations for every day
monitored. Three-hour and 24-hour daily
maximums were separated within each
category and then searched to yield the total
number of days during 1981 when an
exceedance of either the 24-hour primary or
3-hour secondary NAAQS for S02 was
observed. The number of both secondary
and primary exceedance days were summed
to yield the total number of exceedance
days. A simple percentage of observed
exceedance days to all monitored days was
calculated for each category of sites within
the subject area.
The bar lengths are scaled to correspond to
the percentage of days during which either
the primary or secondary standards or both
were exceeded compared to all monitored
days.
Two of the three bars have two different
colored sections corresponding to the
severity of the exceedances and are color
coded consistent with the legend.
It should be noted that the percent
exceedance data displayed are not adequate
to define the spatial extent and severity of
areas in violation of standards. Region 10
and the states are presently conducting
intensive special studies in some areas for
this purpose.
Figure 11
Percent of Observed Days
Sulfur Dioxide
Exceeded Standards
OBSERVED DAYS EXCEEDED (%)
Idaho
Kellogg
H
Conda/ Ol
Soda Springs
0123
71
ZD
1 1
i4 :8n
ll.'imr
,,,..-...i . in pafenthosss irpfi'sonts tui.il numbtn of dxi'tNH.1n
standiifrts poi numbm ol obsoiv;ni«n days
[In? iiMif ,ind /ifn^ srnfillRt which donmiiilfxl the Kt.'lldijij sultuf
C&Oxfdfl efTitss^of? »tvf^)io// ihrotwjh rnos( o' 1^)8' fJ,*)S cwtswf
npt'f.iiion Area now desiQfiftlcd "UnrlassiltfllilR"
*M
-------
Air Quality
Air Quality Trends
Figure 12 identifies the general areas within
each state in Region 10 which exceeded
National Ambient Air Quality Standards in
1981 for at least one pollutant. The graphics
also indicate the areas where air quality is
changing and the direction of that change.
The suspected source(s) of the air quality
problem(s) in each area are shown. The
sources are generally categorized as follows:
mobile (e.g. automobile primarily for CO,
NO2 and O3), area (e.g. windblown dust.
space heating, etc. primarily for TSP) and
point (e.g. industrial facilities primarily for
TSP and SO2).
Two rank order correlation statistics were
used to test for trends. Spearman's rho
tested for trend in annual averages, and the
Sen test recommended by Farrell (1980)
tested for trend for short term averages. The
Sen test was used for short term averages
becauses it includes a procedure for
removing seasonal effects. Both tests use
ranks (e.g., first, second, third. . . ) rather
than measured values in their calculations, so
they are insensitive to departures from
normality.
A trend was declared if the statistic was
significant at probability equal or less than
0.20, two tailed. This is a generous
significance level, and there is a real
possibility that some of the observed
"trends" are simply the result of random
fluctuation. On the other hand, the generous
significance level reduces the chances of
missing any real changes. Three years of
data were required.
Note: The dark blue ft'gend includes areas where monuonmj data
shows no exceedances of standards and areas where no monitoring
was attempted Areas where no monnonnq was attempted are
considered to attain standards
C/I
R
n
n
D
COMMERCIAL IMDUS TRIAL
RESIDENTIAL
RURAL
STANDARD ATTAINED OR
CONSIDERED TO ATTAIN STANDARD
SECONDARY STANDARD EXCEEDED
PRIMARY STANDARD EXCEEDED
ALERT LEVEL EXCEEDED
FUGITIVE DUST AREA
IMPROVING TREND
DETERIORATING TREND
NO SIGNIFICANT IRFND
DATA INSUFFICIENT
TO CALCULATE TREND
'Trends not indicated tor Rural Fugitive Oust Areas
Figure 12
Air Quality Trends (1976-1981)
STANDARDS
AREAS
MONITORED
Alaska
Anchorage"
Fairbanks'
Idaho
Boise'
Pocatello
Conda/
Soda Springs
Lewiston
Kellogg
Oregon
Medford/
Ashland
SHORT TERM
TSP S02 CO O3
TSP SO, NO-,
A
A
Washington
Clarkston - .
CAUSE OF PROBLEM
Mobile & Area Sources
Mobile & Area Sources
Mob>!e h Area Sources
','.>; '•• Lj Arpo Sources
'•' ' • .-r
Sources
Pom! & ArOd Sources
Pomi ft Aiea Sources
Pomt & Area Sources
Pom! & Are*) S
Pomt & Arej Sources
Toi-ii (j Ar..\) Sou'CeS
Point fy Area Sou'ces
Point
Yakima* c/i
Olympia c/i
i Sources
Mobile, Area & Pomt
Area Sources
Mobile. Po'fM in AMM S • •••
V ibile A'tM & Point Sou i cos
MuMilt- Sources
Mobile Souri.e:s
Mobile Sources
Mobile tl An1,) SonTi's
Mobiio. Point h AI«M Sour.1.'",
Pom! & Aroa Sources
Point fri AMM Su'.no^s
Poml ft Aro.i Sou'- t;s
Mohilo. Alt'.! h Pij'MI SiuMri-i
Mobile Soutcfis
Mobile. Area & Pomi Sources
Mobile & Point Sources
Mobile. Area & Point Sources
Mobile & Area Sources
Mobile Sources
Mobile & Area Sources
50
-------
Air Quality
The colors represent the status of each area
with respect to TSP, S02, CO, N02 and03
compared with short-term (averaging time
less than or equal to 24 hours) and annual
standards, where applicable. The arrow in a
box shows if air quality is improving,
deteriorating, or changing very little for the
period 1976-1981. The status and trends are
displayed for the three categories of
monitors: commercial/industrial, residential
and rural.
Air quality with respect to TSP is generally
improving or changing very little in Alaska
and Idaho. Only the Conda/Soda Springs
area in Idaho shows a deteriorating trend.
Most of Oregon shows improvement or little
change in all areas. Monitors in several areas
in Washington show either a deteriorating
trend or little change in TSP pollution over
the period of study; only Port Angeles
indicated improvement in TSP values.
The bulk of the region is characterized by
S02 levels well under the ambient standards.
Those few and largely isolated areas in the
region exhibiting levels exceeding the
NAAQS, do so only marginally.
CO standards were exceeded in several areas
in 1981. Most areas in Region 10 show
improvement or little change in CO pollution.
Ozone pollution is restricted to the densely
populated areas of Washington and Oregon.
Ozone values are decreasing or changing
very little in all areas.
It should be noted that while the ozone
standard is indexed to an hourly average
actual compliance is determined with respect
to the average number of expected
exceedances per year considering the three
most recent.years of data.
The status of NO2 in Washington, specifically
Seattle, is still uncertain due to difficulties in
compiling an adequate monitoring data base
from which to ascertain compliance with the
standard.
51
-------
Drinking Water Quality
Figure 13
Important Aquifers in Region 10
1. Nooksack Valley
2. Whidby Island
3. Camano Island
4. Bainbridge Island
5. Duwamish Valley
6. Tacoma
7. Vancouver
8. East Portland
9. French Prairie
10. Clatsop Plain
11. Florence
12. Coos Bay-North Bend
13. Bend —Redmond
14. Lapine
15. Boardman
16. Walla Walla-Milton Freewater
17. Boise
18. Snake Plain
19. Yakima
SAN JUAN
PRINCE/
Of
WALES
20. Columbia Basin
21. Pullman —Moscow
22. Spokane Rathdrum Prairie
23. Kenai
24. Anchorage
25. Matanuska Valley
26. Fairbanks
27. The Dalles Pool
BUTTE LIWFWSON
POWER \BANNOCK
ONEIDA
BEAR
LAKE
-------
Drinking Water Quality
The drinking water supplied to most
residents of the Pacific Northwest is
considered safe, but waterborne disease
outbreaks occasionally occur. In 1981, there
were two outbreaks in Region 10; 300
persons became ill from these two incidents.
The Safe Drinking Water Act, passed in
1974, gave EPA primary responsibility for
establishing drinking water standards, but
intended that the states implement programs
ensuring public water systems' compliance
with standards.
In Region 10, Alaska, Idaho and Washington
have assumed primary responsibility for
working with public water systems to
implement drinking water standards. Oregon
has chosen not to assume primary
responsibility. Consequently, since July 1977,
EPA has worked directly with Oregon's
public water systems to implement the
provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The national drinking water standards
address finished water quality characteristics,
as measured in periodic tests. EPA
recognizes that these are minimum standards
and are not adequate in themselves to
protect public health. Therefore, EPA
encourages states to implement
comprehensive programs that go beyond just
addressing finished water quality.
Fiscal year 1981 represented the fourth full
year of implementation of the national
drinking water standards. The bacteriological
data from 1981 are presented in the graphics.
Table 1 shows the degree of compliance in
each state while Figure 14 summarizes
regional compliance. Compliance is shown
both in terms of water systems and
population served by the systems.
A significant percentage (19 percent) of
Region 10's 4,600 community water systems
are not yet conducting adequate
bacteriological water quality monitoring, but
the total population served by these systems
is relatively small (4 percent) This indicates
that the systems serve predominately small
numbers of people.
Fourteen percent of the Region's water
systems, which serve approximately 7
percent of the population, experienced either
major or minor bacteriological standard
violations during FY 81. Likewise, these are
predominately the Region's smaller public
water systems.
Approximately half the population in Region
Drinking Water Quality
Table 1
Compliance with EPA Drinking Water Standards
a. Community Water Systems
IN COMPLIANCE WITH
BACTERIOLOGICAL
INSUFFICIENT DATA
TO DETERMINE
MINOR VIOl ATION OF
BACTERIOLOGICAL
i :"••-.' A'.1 V-V . ! '. '• .
MAJOR VIOLATION OF
BACTERIOLOGICAL
CONTAMINANT LEVEL
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
81 (17%)
413 (48%)
855 (90%)
1,742 (75%)
394(81%)
205 (23%)
34(4%)
249(11%)
9(2%)
230 (26%)
51 (5%)
310 (13%)
b. Persons Served by Community Water Systems (In Thousands)
IN COMPLIANCE WITH
BACTERIOLOGICAL
STANDARDS
INSUFFICIENT DATA
TO DETERMINE
COMPi IANH '
MINOR VIOLATION OF
BACTERIOLOGICAL
CONTAMINANT IFVfi
MAJOR VIOLATION OF
BACTERIOLOGICAL
;W .'.'.' \AV . •: v I .
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
199(53%)
439(64%)
1,817 (94%)
3,820(93%)
170 (46%)
36 (5%)
47 (2%)
25(1%)
4(1%)
175 (25%)
52(3%)
211 (5%)
0(0%)
42(6%)
4(1%)
1C 14 n/_ \
10 I I TDf
Figure 14
a. Regional Summary Based on
Percentage of Community Water
Systems
b. Regional Summary Based on
Population Served by Community Water
Systems
13%
67%
19%
89%
6%
*Pip segment illustrated at
fof
ol (
D
•
D
IN COMPLIANCE WITH BACTERIOLOGICAL CONTAMINANT IEVHS
MINOR II 3 MONTHI VIOl ATION 01 CONTAMINANT I I Vi I
MAJOR I10H MORF MONTHSI VIOl ATION OF CONTAMINANT 11 VEI
SUFFICIENT DATA NOT AVAILABLE TO PHFRMINf COMPI IANCF
10 uses surface water as the source of water
supply, with the remaining population relying
on ground water. Almost 90 percent of the
community water systems, however, use
ground water, demonstrating the importance
of this resource. Major municipalities in
Region 10 such as Seattle, Portland and
Anchorage use surface water in whole or in
part, while Spokane, Boise and Fairbanks
use ground water.
The maps on the facing page, Figure 13,
show the most important drinking water
aquifers in the region. While most of these
aquifers yield high quality ground water,
contamination has occurred in such aquifers
as the Spokane-Rathdrum Prairie, Tacoma,
and East Portland aquifers.
Three aquifers in the region, Spokane-
Rathdrum Prairie, Whidbey, and Camano
have been designated as "sole source"
aquifers. Designation of a fourth, the Snake
Plain, is pending. After designation takes
place, construction projects receiving federal
financial assistance that have the potential
for polluting the aquifer would be subject to
a special EPA review to make sure such
contamination does not occur. Since
cleaning up a contaminated aquifer is so
difficult, preventive actions like sole source
project reviews are particularly important.
53
-------
River Water Quality
River Water Quality
How River Water Quality is Determined
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of
1972 set as a national goal - "fishable,
swimmable" waters by 1983. The states in
Region 10 have adopted that goal. These
Region 10 states established water quality
standards to protect the quality of state
waters for a variety of uses, including public
water supply, wildlife, fish and shellfish,
recreation, navigation, agriculture, and
industry. Each water use depends on certain
characteristics, such as temperature,
concentration of dissolved oxygen, or
absence of bacteria, which can be measured
and used to evaluate water quality. They
vary with the chemistry of the stream being
measured, the season and other factors.
To compare water quality on a regional
scale, EPA Region 10 developed a
standardized set of parameters and
associated criteria and segregated them into
ten related groups (Table 2). These criteria
are a synthesis of Region 10 state water
quality standards, recommended Federal
criteria for parameters where no state
standards exist, information in technical
literature, and professional judgment. Like
the state water quality standards this more
comprehensive set of criteria is intended to
define water quality levels necessary to
protect human and aquatic life and the
desired recreational uses of river and stream
waters, and thus represents regional water
quality goals. More than one criteria value
based on water use may be associated with
certain parameters. For example, most of the
region's streams are managed to support
cold water game fish species such as trout
and salmon; however, some are managed as
warm water fisheries, supporting bass,
bullhead, etc., which require less stringent
criteria.
The water quality/beneficial use status for
the stream segments in Region 10 were
made by comparing water quality data
measured from October 1979 through
September 1982 with the parameter
categories shown in Table 2. This data is
collected by various Federal, state and local
agencies and stored in EPA's STORET
computer system. Status was calculated per
stream segment for each of the 10 parameter
categories. Separate judgments of
impairment were made based upon the
severity and duration by which the criteria
for various uses were exceeded. In addition,
an overall status was generated for the
segment by an aggregation of the ten
categories. The status for the stream
segments were divided into four color
ranges:
Dark blue—Beneficial use protected.
Light blue—Beneficial use generally
attained.
Light brown —Beneficial use threatened.
Dark brown —Beneficial use impaired.
Water quality status of principal rivers fo.r
each of the four states in Region 10 are
shown in the maps (Figures 15, 19, 22 and
24). Each map displays the major river
segments and their associated beneficial use
status through the use of the four color
ranges. This status was determined by an
aggregation of the 10 parameter categories
per segment. A judgment was also made
regarding the most sensitive use and/or the
worst three consecutive months. This
approach provides an indication of worst
case water quality problems occurring on a
seasonal basis.
Box chart displays for major stream
segments in each state are also presented.
The water quality/beneficial use status for
each of the 10 parameter categories per
stream segment are shown according to the
most sensitive use and/or the worst three
consecutive months. In addition, where
possible an arrow indicating whether a
statistically significant trend of improving or
deteriorating status was present is displayed
based upon the last five to nine years of
water quality data.
54
-------
River Water Quality
A Water Quality Index (WQI) developed by
Region 10 was used as the major input for
the determination of river segment status in
Washington. State standards were used in
the WQI calculations where appropriate in
lieu of Federal criteria.
The box charts (Figures 16, 17 and 18)
represent 97 segments covering
approximately 4,230 stream miles. The overall
status for 11 of the segments could not be
determined due to the lack of sufficient
water quality information.
Modified turbidity and suspended solids
criteria were used in the determination of the
segment status for glacial fed rivers such as
the Nooksack, Sauk, Puyallup, White and
Nisqually.
The deteriorating trend and impaired status
for the aesthetic (turbidity) and solids
categories in the Toutle and Cowlitz River
segments are a result of the volcanic debris
from the 1980 Mt. St. Helens' eruption.
D
BASED UPON THE MOST SENSITIVE BENEFICIAL USE
BENEFICIAL USE PROTECTED
BENEFICIAL USE GENERALLY ATTAINED
BENEFICIAL USE THREATENED
BENEFICIAL USE IMPAIRED
NO DATA
Figure 15
Water Quality Status of
Washington's Principal Rivers
Table 2
Criteria Categories for River Water Quality
Temperature—Water temperature influences the type of fish and other aquatic life that can survive in a river. High temperatures can be detrimental to
fish spawning and rearing.
Dissolved Oxygen—Fish and aquatic life must have certain levels of oxygen in the water to survive. Low oxygen concentration or saturation levels can
be detrimental to these organisms.
pH—pH is the measure of the hydrogen ion concentration in water and determines whether the water is acidic or basic. Extreme levels of either can
imperil fish and aquatic life.
Bacteria—Bacteria indicate probable presence of disease-related organisms and viruses from human sewage or animal waste.
Trophic—Indicates the extent of algae or nutrients in water. Nutrients promote algae growth. When algae flourish they make the water murky and the
growths make swimming and fishing unpleasant. Decomposition of dead algae can decrease dissolved oxygen concentrations to levels harmful to fish.
Aesthetics—Refers to oil, grease, turbidity and algae blooms which are visually unpleasant. Generally this group is represented by either turbidity or
chlorophyll a. Turbidity is a measure of the clarity of the water. Chlorophyll a provides a measure of suspended algae in the water.
Solids—Dissolved minerals or suspended material such as mud or silt. Excess dissolved minerals interfere with agricultural, industrial and domestic use.
Excess suspended solids adversely affect fish feeding and spawning.
Metals Toxicrty—Excess concentrations of heavy metals such as arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury and zinc are toxic to human,
aquatic and other life forms.
Organic Toxicity—Excess concentrations of pesticides, herbicides, RGB's and other organic substances that are toxic to humans, mammals, birds, fish
and other aquatic life forms.
Ammonia Toxicity—Excess concentrations of ammonia in its un-ionized form are toxic to fish and other aquatic life forms.
55
-------
River Water Quality
Figure 16
Washington
River Water Quality Categories
Current Status and Trends
*J NO CHANGE/NOT SIGNIFICANT
T | DETERIORATING
A IMPROVING
n
BENEFICIAL USE PROTECTED
BENEFICIAL USE GENERALLY ATTAINED
BENEFICIAL USE THREATENED
BENEFICIAL USE IMPAIRED
DATA
Based upon the Seasonal/Sensitive Use status during the Water
Year 1980-82 period.
RIVER SEGMENT
Nooksack R.
IRM 37-01
Sumas R.
IRM 23 121
Skagit R. - Hamilton to
Mouth IRM 40 01
Samish R.
IRM 30 5)
Skagit R. - Ross Dam to
Hamilton IRM 100 401
Baker R.
IRM I-01
Sauk R.
(RM 40-01
Stillaguamish R.
(RM 18-01
N.F. Stillaguamish R. - Squire Cr to
Mouth IRM 31-0!
N.F. Stillaguamish R. - Source to
Squire Cr (RM 48 311
S.F. Stillaguamish R. Canyon Cr to
Mouth IRM 34 181
S.F. Stillaguamish R.-Source to
Canyon Cr (RM 70341
Snohomish R.
(RM 2051
SkYkomish R. - May Cr to
Mouth IRM 41 20'
Skykomish R. - Source to
May Cr (RM 75411
Snorjualmie R. • Confl N M
6 S F to Mouth (RM 45 0>
Pilchuck R.
(RM 3501
Sammamish R.
IRM 150)
Cedar R
(RM 3501
Green R. - Flaming Geyser
S P to Renton (RM 42 10>
Green R. - Source lo
Flaming Geyser S P (RM 90 421
Duwamish R.
(RM 10 3)
Puyallup R. King's Cr lo
River Mile 1 (RM 32 1)
Puyallup R. - Source to
King's Ci (RM 50 321
White R. Mud Mountain Dam to
Mouth IRM 300)
White R. - Source to
Mud Mountain Dam IRM 50 3O1
Nisqually R.
IRM 7bOI
Deschutes R.
IRM 40 01
Elwha R,
IRM 40 01
Hoh R.
IRM 30-01
Queets R.
No data P M 45 6 I RM 6 01
Quinault R.
(RM 50 01
Humptulips R.
IRM 2801
Wishkah R.
IRM 3001
Wynoochee R.
IRM 52 01
Satsop R.
IRM 3001
ChehBlis R. Porter Cr to
Cosmonolis IRM 33 3)
Chehalis R. — Newaukum R lo
Scammon Cr IRM 75-66)
Newaukum R.
IRM 40-01
Chehalis R. - Source to
Newaukum R IRM 120-75)
Chehalis R. - Scammon Cr to
Porter Cr (RM 66 331
Willipn R.
(RM 40 101
Cowlitz R. - Source to
Toutle R IRM 130-85. 52-20)
Cowlitz R. - Toutle R to
Mouth (RM 20-0)
2U7
U>
^ O
X
o
w 3
9 <
- I
Q Q
z
o
5
14
< ot
OC LO LO
!" UJ UJ
O Wl W
0
o
o
0
0
0
o
o
0
_._
__
—
o
o
.
-rttaH
-*^
O
o
0
o
o
o
0
- ^
— fc
o
o
to
__ Bfc_
-«_
•«^
A
O
o
o
0
o
0
0
— fc
o
0
•*»
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
J^
o
0
4»
^
o
o
o
o
o
0
0
f
_„_
o
o
***
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
»
_^^
^.^
— fc
o
0
**•
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
f
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
0
o
0
o
o
o
o
n
**
o
**
41*
o
o
^^
^^
^p
*»
o
^
o
JJJ
o
o
o
0
o
1
«J
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
P
1
o
0
J
0
o
o
o
o
o
ol
56
-------
River Water Quality
Figure 17
Washington
River Water Quality Categories
Current Status and Trends
z
2 < S
o 1 « t
a t- 0. H
RIVER SEGMENT £ <2 i < § L£
t- O Cl m H <
Hangman Cr.
Spokane R. Idaho Border to
South Fork & Main Skokomisfi R. i
IBM 35-01 1
Columbia R. Willamette R k> —
Estuary (RM 100-201 | U
Columbia R. - Bonnevilte Dam to
Bonneville Dam IRM 325 145) \J
Columbia H. - Okanogan R 10
Columbia R. - Canadian Border to
Snake R, Lower Granne Pool
Snake R. Oregon Border to s~\
Lower Granite Pool IRM 175 1401 ^
i**! NO CHANGE/NOT SIGNIFICANT
I y I DETERIORATING
1 A 1 IMPROVING
Figure 18
Washington
River Water Quality Categories
Current Status and Trends
RIVER SEGMENT
Toutte R.
IRM 55-01
Cispus R.
IRM 2001
Lewis R. Below Merwin Dam
No data R M 9060 IRM 2001
E.F. Lewis R.
(RM400I
Kalama R.
IRM 45 0>
Washougal R.
IRM 3001
Wind R.
(RM 30-01
White Salmon R.
IRM 40 -0>
<" Klickitat R.
x H u, No data KM 75-.?0 IRM 20 01
X P H ^ D Walla Walla R. - Conll Touchet R
0 . Jjj « ^m to Mouth IRM 21 -01
,„ to 0 5 li Zp Walla Walla R. Above Conl!
0 « 2 a °S Touchet H IRM 45-21)
i fc i 1 > 25 Touchet R. -Below Dayton
« 5 o < °
4k
~""
o
-*»
0
•*»
-*»•
•«»
_*^
«»
•*
«*>
«»
4»
*»•
O
••»
Y
0
__ fc
*
i
o
o
,
«•>
•»
^^
•
— .
«fr
•*•
A
i
*»
M^
O
*»•
i
0
A
A
1
«»
**
^ ^
^B.
Ah
«*
ll>
*•
A
A
*»
Y
o
-«».
-
0
*»•
«*•
*
^_ ^
«••
•**
—-_
- _
4*
4*
<•»
^*-
«•»
»
O
0
O
o
o
o
o
0
• o
H
^ ^,
*••
«»
— ^
^^
itfM
^H
*»
•»
**
o
0
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
A
A
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
<•»
*»
*»
0
•*
»
«*
*»
o
•»
-»
*»
*»
*•
••
-»
4»
*»
*»
^*
-w
4»
•w
••»
«*»
-»
«»
r*
*»
•»
ff»
M»
-^
*
a OVERALL STATUS
SEASONAL/
SENSITIVE USE
o
o
Ml I X
-
0
o
1
— •
57
-------
River Water Quality
Figure 19
Water Quality Status of
Oregon's Principal Rivers
(Based on the most sensitive beneficial use)
D
D
BENEFICIAL USE PROTECTED
BENEFICIAL USE GENERALLY ATTAINED
BENEFICIAL USE THREATENED
BENEFICIAL USE IMPAIRED
BENEFICIAL USE THREATENED OR IMPAIRED DUE TO NATURAL CAUSES OR PARAMETER GROUP NOT SIGNIFICANT IN
THE EVALUATION OF SEGMENT USES
NO DATA
Segment Selection
The State of Oregon has nearly 90,000 miles
of rivers and streams contained within 19
river basins. Recognizing that constrained
resources prohibit effective assessment of
every stream mile within the state, the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) has developed a "rivers of special
interest" list. At present, the primary
purpose of the list is to provide a foundation
for conducting beneficial use evaluations, for
directing monitoring efforts and for reporting
the status of water pollution control
strategies.
Segments which appear in Figures 19, 20
and 21 were extracted from the "rivers of
special interest" list. Streams are included in
this list if they meet one or more of the
following criteria:
• Represents a major basin.
• Average flow is greater than 1,000 cfs.
• Drains an area greater than 1,000 square
miles.
• Described in the state's Construction
Grant Priority List.
• Above or below major urban area or ma-
jor discharge.
• Discharge to major lake or estuary.
The map and box charts (Figures 19, 20,
and 21) represent 89 segments covering
almost 3,500 stream miles. This represents 50
percent of the stream miles identified in the
"rivers of special interest" list and approx-
imately 4 percent of all stream miles in the
State of Oregon.
Data Analysis
General guidelines used for determining
stream status are described in the introduc-
tion to river water quality. Several
refinements to the standard regional pro-
cedure were employed in order to integrate
the data summaries in Figures 19, 20, and
21 with state reporting activities. Included in
this process were:
• Parametric Screening —The primary
purpose of this task was to isolate
geographic areas and chemical consti-
tuents which would require a more detail-
ed analysis. The Water Quality Index
(WQI) developed by Region 10 was used
as a tool to group segments into general
status categories.
• Beneficial Use Evaluation —A Beneficial
Use Index rating developed by Oregon
DEQ was used extensively for the deter-
mination of segment status. This rating
describes the season and level of each
beneficial use for segments which appear
in the "rivers of special interest" list. DEQ
has combined this rating with information
from Figures 20 and 21 to produce state
beneficial use status maps,
• Detailed Data Review —Focusing on key
segments and parameters, a comprehen-
sive technical assessment was performed.
Included were: 1) a graphic review of
statistical distributions for individual con-
stituents, 2) an analysis of impacts from
point sources and from characteristic land
use around the segment through mass
balance analyses, 3) a graphic review of
hydrographs to highlight
streamflow/parametric relationships and
4) a refined evaluation of water quality in-
teractions such as the effect of nitrifica-
tion on dissolved oxygen levels. Nitrifica-
tion is the process in which ammonia and
organic nitrogen are oxidized to nitrite,
then to nitrate which requires oxygen.
• Trends —Water quality trends for Oregon
rivers and streams were determined using
a combination of analytical tools. Time
series displays of raw and deseasonalized
ambient monitoring data collected during
the water year 1976-1982 period were
generated. A nonparametric statistical test
(SEN) was also calculated to determine
trend significance. In addition, a regres-
sion analysis was performed in order to
compare precision and accuracy of
parametric measurements with observed
values.
58
-------
River Water Quality
Figure 20
Oregon
River Water Quality Categories
Current Status and Trends
NO CHANGE/NOT SIGNIFICANT
t DETERIORATING
I IMPROVING
D
D
BENEFICIAL USE PROTECTED
BENEFICIAL USE GENERALLY ATTAINED
BENEFICIAL USE THREATENED
NO DATA
Based upon the Seasonal/Sensitive Use status during the Water
Year 1980-82 period
X
o
O
F
x
o
in 3
9 <
x
o
RIVER SEGMENT
Nehalem R. - Near
Foss IRM II8-12'
Wilson R.- Above
Tillamook IRM 33 7i
Tillamook Bay
Nesfucca R. - A:
Cloverdale IRM 15-0)
Silet* R. - Near
Siietz (RM 72-231
Yaquina R, - Above
Chitwood IRM 52-191
Yaguina R. - At
Toledo (RM 19-0)
Afsea R. - Near
Tidewater (RM 43-121
Siuslaw R. - At
Maoleton IRM 22-01
Coos Bay
Coquille R. - At
Coquilte IRM 360)
Sixes R.
IRM 31-0)
Elk R.
IBM 29-01
Chetco R.-Above
Brookmgs IRM 18-01
Umpqua R. - Near
Umoqua IRM 112-28)
Umpqua R. - Near
Scotlsburg IRM 28-0)
S. Umpqua R. - Above
Canyonville IRM 10347)
S. Umpqua R. At
Winston IRM 47 151
S. Umpqua R. Below
Roseburg IRM 15-01
N. Umpqua R. - Near
Winchester IRM 30 Oi
Calspooya Cr. Near
Umpqua IRM 36 0)
Cow Cf, - Near
Riddle IRM 8! 0>
Rogue R. - Near
Prospect IRM 215 1571
Rogue R. -Below
Mcteod (RM 157-1321
Rogue R. - Near
Gold Hill IRM 132-111)
Rogue R. - Near
Giants Pass IRM 111 951
Rogue R. -Above
Agness IRM 95 2;i
Rogue R. Near
Gold Beach IRM 2/01
Little Butte Cr. - Near
Eagle Point (RM 17-01
Bear Cr. - Near
Medlord IRM 27-01
Evans Cr. - Near
Rogue R IRM 37 01
Applegate R. Above
Wildoivillc IRM 47-0)
Illinois R. - Near
Kerby IRM 57 461
Illinois R, Above
Agness (RM 46 Oi
Willamette R. - Near
Sprmglield IRM 187 175)
Willamette R. Near
Harnsburg IRM 175 1331
Willamette R. - Near
Albany IBM 133-1081
Willamette R. - Near
Independence IRM 10888)
Willamette R.-Below
Salem IRM 88-63)
Willamette R. - Near
Newburg IRM 63 451
Willamette R. -Near
Canby IRM 45 261
Willamette R. - At
Portland IRM 26-0)
Coast Fork Willamette R. - Below
Cottage Grove (RM 29-01
< "J
.
o
>
o
o
o
o
o
^1
<*»
o
-
_t
o
— ta
^^
0
*»"•
0
— fc
.—
o
— fc
^^
_-fc
^.^
o
^»
_
o
o
r
____
0
**
o
.
«p
^»
0
"*
h-
o
••*•
o
1
~^*"
o
1
4»
o
**
o
'-**
4
A
4
*
O
—
^
o
0
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
(-)
{J
0
Pi
o
o
p.
p\
p.
0
"**
•»
**
0
•»•
4*
O
O
~
0
o
o
0
o
o
59
-------
River Water Quality
Figure 21
Oregon
River Water Quality Categories
Current Status and Trends
RIVER SEGMENT
M.F, Willamette R. Near
Jasper IRM 17-0)
McKenzie R. - Near
Coburq (RM 90-01
Long Tom R. - Near
Monroe (RM 25-0)
Mary's R.-A|
Corvalhs (RM 17-0) I
Santiam R.-At
Jefferson IRM 11-01 |
N. Santiam R. Near
Stayton IRM 46-0) |
S. Santiam R. -Neat
Waterloo IRM 37.18)
S. Santiam R, Below
Lebanon IRM 18-01
N. Yamhill R. Above
McMinnville IRM 19 01
S. Yamhill R. - Near
McMinnville IRM 25-41
Molalla R.-- Above
Canbv IRM IbOl
Pudding R. - Near
Canby (RM 30 0)
Tualatin R. - Near
Forest Grove IRM 83-39)
Tualatin R. - Near
Tualatin IRM 39 0)
Qackamas R. - Near
Gladstone IRM 30 0)
Sandy R. - Near
Corbet! IRM 190!
Hood R.- At
Hood R IRM 14 01
Deschutes R. Above
Bend IRM 252 1641
Deschutes R. - Below
Bend IRM 164 100)
Deschutes R. - Near
Biggs IRM 100 0)
Crooked R. - Below
Prineville (RM 70 01
John Day R. - Above
Davville IRM 284-1551
John Day R. Near
Rufus IRM 155 Ol
S.F. John Day R. -Above
Davville (RM 60 01
N.F. John Day R. - Above
Kimberly IRM 112 Oi
es
0-
UJ
1-
o
IDISS. OXYGEN
0
Jfc^
— fc.
— ta
I
a
O
____
*"
IBACTERIA
0
^
—
ITROPHIC
o
I AESTHETICS
O
mm
^*
^
'mm
• SOLIDS
A
o
1 METALS TOX.
O
O
o
X
0
o
CC
0
o
o
o
o
p)
0
0
0
p.
y
lAMMONIA TOX.
•«•
O
*»
• OVERALL STATU
o
I SEASONAL/
SSENSITIVE USE
O
RIVER SEGMENT
Umatitla R, - Above
Pendleton IRM 8957)
Umatilla R. -Below
Pendlelon (RM 57 351
Klamath R. N«r
Keno iRM 250-2241
Klamath R. Below
John C Boyle Dam (RM 224 210)
Williamson R. Near
Cniloqum IRM 9201
Link R.-At
Klamath Falls (RM 255-2601
Klamath Strait Near
Midland (RM 10-0i
Lost R. Above
Merrill iRM 655'
Grande Ronde R. Abovt>
La Grande IRM 209 160i
Grande Ronde R. Near
Elgin IRM 160821
Wallowa R. - Near
Minam IRM 500!
Minam R. - Near
Minam IRM 5001
Powder R. Below
Baker (RM 131 691
Powder R, Near
Richland (RM 6901
Burnt R. - Near
Huntington IRM 42 01
Malheur R. - Ahove
Vale IRM 6942)
Malheur R. -At
Ontario IRM 4201
Willow Cr. - Near
Vale IRM 27 01
Bully Cr. - Near
Vale IRM 14-01
Owyhee R. - Above
Owyhee IRM 180)
Donner Und Blitzen R. - Near
Frenchmen (RM 450)
t*M NO CHANGE/NOT SIGNIFICANT
I y I DETERIORATING
nn IMPROVING
BENbUCIAl USE PROTECTED
BENEFICIAL USE GENERALLY ATTAINED
BENEFICIAL USE THREATENED
BENEFICIAL USE IMPAIRED
NO DA1A
BENEFICIAL USE THREATENED OR IMPAIRED DUE TO
NATURAL CAUSES OR PARAMETIH GROUP NOT
SIGNIFICANT IN EVALUATION Of SEGMFNT USES
Based upon lha Seasonal/Sensitive Use status during the Water
Year 1980 82 period.
60
-------
River Water Quality
Figure 22
Water Quality Status of
Idaho's Principal Rivers
BASED UPON THE MOST SENSITIVE BENEFICIAL USE
I BENEFICIAL USE PROTECTED
~j BENEFICIAL USE GENERALLY ATTAINED
J BENEFICIAL USE THREATENED
I BENEFICIAL USE IMPAIRED
I NO DATA
62
-------
River Water Quality
Figure 23
Idaho
River Water Quality Categories
purrent Status and Trends „_•
RIVER SEGMENT
Bear R. Wyoming Bolder to
Bear Lake Canal (RM 275-2201
Bear R, Bear Lake Canal
Conll to Soda Springs IRM 220 175)
Bear R. Mink Ci lo
Utah Boidei IRM 120951
Snake R. - Salmon R Confl to
L Granite Pool (RM 188 145-
Selwav R. Source to Mouth
IRM 9501
Lochsa R- Source to Mouth
IRM 80 Oi
M.F. Clearwater R.
IRM 98 751
S.F. Clearwater R
IRM 62-01
Clearwater R. S F Confl to
N F Conll (RM 75-401
N.F. Clearwatet R.
-Below Dworshak Dam IRM 2-01
Clearwater R. N.F Conll to
Stack Water (RM 40-51
Palouse R. - Princeton to
Washington Border IRM 150 120)
S.F. Palouse R.
IRM 50301
Kootenai R.
IRM 172-1051
Clark Fork R.
(RM 150-1391
Pent) Oreille R.
(RM 120881
Coeur d'Alene R. - Source 10
S F Contl (RM 235 1681
S.F. Coeur d'Alene R. Wallace to
Mouth IRM 20-01
Coeur d'Alene R. - S F Conll to
Mouth IRM 168-130!
St. Joe R. Calder to
Mouth IRM 42-01
Spokane R.
IRM 110961
Salmon R.- Below S F
Salmon R (RM 134 Oi
Salmon R. - Above S F
Salmon R IRM '100-1341
Snake R. Buhl to
Strike Res IRM 595-4901
Sruneau R. - Hot Springs to
Mouth (RM 20-0)
Snake R. - Strike Dam to
Boise R (RM 490-390)
M.F. Boise R. - Source to
Mouth (RM 135-97)
Boise R.--Confl N.F to
Lucky Peak Dam IRM 97-63)
Boise R. - Lucky Peak Dam to
Boise IRM 63501
Boise R. Boise to
Caldwell IRM 50-221
Boise R. Caldwell to
Moulh IRM 22 0)
Indian Cr. - Above Nampa
IRM 25 10)
Indian Cr. - Below Nampa
(RM 10-0)
Snake R. Boise R to
Brownlee Dam (RM 390 2851
S.F. Payette R. Source to
Mouth IRM 13673)
N.F. Payette R. - Source to
McCail IRM 93 75)
N.F. Payette R. - McCail to
Cascade Dam IRM 75401
N.F. Payette R. Cascade Dam to
Mouth (RM 40 0)
Payette R. - S F N F Conll to
Black Canyon Dam (RM 73401
Payette R. Black Canyon
Dam !o Moulh IRM 40 0)
Weiser R. - Motivate to
Moulh IRM 350!
Snake R. Hells Canyon Dam to
Salmon R Conll IRM 247 188)
Snake R. Wyo Border to
Heis« IRM 900-850)
Snake R. Heise to
Roberts IRM 8508151
Henri's Fork Source to
island Pafk Res (RM li;9J>
Henry's Fork Island Park Darn to
Mouth IRM 920)
Snake R. Roberts to
American Falls Res (RM 815 7151
Blackfoot R, Source to
Bldckloot Res (RM 15085)
Blackfoot R. Blackloot Res to
Equalling Res (RM 85 16'
Blackfoot R. Equali/inq Res to
Mouth IRM 160)
Portneuf R. Source to
Marsh Cr IRM 50 331
Marsh Cr.
IRM 500)
Portneuf R. Marsh Cr to
Mouth IRM 33-0)
Snake R. Aim-neon Falls Dam to
M:r..ihA.l Dam IRM 715 6751
Snake R. Minidoka Oam to
BurleyHcyhiitn Br iRM 6756521
Snake R. Burloy'Huvburn Br to
Buhl IRM 6525801
Rock Cr. Source to
Rock Creek (town) (RM 50 301
Rock Cr. Rock Creek (town) lo
Mouth IRM 30-01
Salmon Falls Cr.
(RM 45 01
Big Wood R. Source to
M.-lijir Hes IHM 96601
Big Wood R- Malad R M.iyic Darn to
Mouth (RM 600)
Little Wood R. Souico to
Mouth IRM 90-01
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
y
K
i
x
o
o <
I-
<
< ot
EC t/3 W
"J UJ UJ
O W
O
O
o
o
o
*»•
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
*»
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
"*) NO CHANGE/NOT SIGNIFICANT
JM DETERIORATING
A IMPROVING
The Water Quality Index (WQI) developed by
Region 10 was used as the major input for
the determination of river segment status in
Idaho. State standards were used in the WQI
calculations where appropriate in lieu of
Federal criteria. The box charts (Figure 23)
represent 62 segments covering
approximately 3,020 stream miles. The overall
status for 16 of the segments could not be
determined due to the lack of sufficient
water quality information.
D
D
BENEFICIAL USE PROTECTED
Bl Ni t IGA1 USE GENERAL I Y AT TAINCD
BENEFICIAL USF THHl.AUNED
BENEFICIAL USE IMPAIRED
NO DATA
Based upon the Seasonal/Sensitive Use status during the Water
Yoar 1980 82 period
63
-------
River Water Quality
BASED UPON THE MOST SENSITIVE BENEFICIAL USE
1 BENEFICIAL USE PROTECTED
J BENEFICIAL USE GENERALLY ATTAINED
Figure 24
Water Quality Status of
Alaska's Principal Rivers
D
BENEFICIAL USE THREATENED
BENEFICIAL USE IMPAIRED
BENEFICIAL USE THREATENED OR IMPAIRED DUE TO NATURAL CAUSES OR PARAMETER GROUP NOT SIGNIFICANT IN
THE EVALUATION OF SEGMENT USES
NO DATA
-------
River Water Quality
Figure 25
Alaska
River Water Quality Categories
Current Status and Trends
RIVER SEGMENT
Canning R.
INo RM Designation)
Saganavirktok R.
INo RM Designation)
Kuparuk R.
INo RM Designation!
Colville R.
(No RM Designation!
Kobuk R.
(No RM Designation)
Squirrel R.
INo RM Designation)
Noatak R.
INo RM Designation!
Koyuk R.
(No RM Designation)
Kuzitrin R.
(No RM Designation)
Fortymile R.
(No RM Designation)
Mosquito Fork Foriymile R.
(No RM Designation)
Walker Fork Fonymile R.
INo RM Designation)
Upper Yukon R.
(No RM Designation)
Birch Cr.
INo RM Designation)
Chandalar R.
INo RM Designation)
Porcupine R.
INo RM Designation)
Sheenjek R.
(No RM Designation)
Middle Yukon R.
INo RM Designation)
Melo2itn3 R,
(No RM Designation)
Lower Tanana R. - Near Nenana
INo RM Designation)
Middle Tanana R.
(No RM Designation)
Upper Tanana R.
(No RM Designation)
Kamishna R.
(No RM Designation)
Tolovana R.
INo RM Designation)
Chatanika R.
INo RM Designation)
LivengoOd Cr.
(No RM Designation)
Nenana R.
(No RM Designation)
Cnena R. - Near Fairbanks
(No RM Designation)
Figure 25 displays the status and trends of
Alaska's water quality. Because most of
Alaska is remote and inaccessible, water
quality information is scattered, as well as
difficult and expensive to obtain. Therefore,
many of the state's principal streams cannot
be evaluated.
Many river stations exceed recommended
Federal guideline criteria for solids,
aesthetics, and metals on an intermittent
RIVER SEGMENT
Salcha R,
INo HM Designation!
Delta K.
iNo RM Designation)
TokR.
i No RM Designation!
Koyukuk R.
INo RM DesuMaw-i
Lower Yukon R. Near Pilot Station
iNo RM Designation!
Innoko R.
(No RM Designation]
Kuskokwim R.
INo HM Designation)
Kisaralik R.
iNo RM Designation!
Kanektok R.
(No RM Designation!
Naknek R.
INo HM Designation)
Nushagak R. Near Ekwok
• Nil HM Designation!
Karluk R.
i No HM Designation)
Susitna R. Near Susnna Station
iNo RM Designation!
Middle Susitna R. Near Gold Creek
INo HM Designated)
Upper Susitna R. Neai Denali
iNo HM Designation)
Ysnma R.
l No RM Designation!
Talkeetna R.
INo RM Designation!
Chuitna R.
INo RM Designation)
Copper R. Near Chilina
(No RM Designation)
Gulkana R. Near Sourdough
(No RM Designation!
Skagway R. Ai Skagway
tNo RM Designation)
Stikine R.
INo RM Designation)
Keia R.
INo RM Designationl
basis. Most of these high levels are due to
natural causes, such as ice breakup or runoff
from snowpack and glaciers. This also holds
true for low dissolved oxygen levels in the
winter months resulting from ice cover.
Consequently, an attempt was made to
separate these phenomena from human
impacts, such as placer mining, through the
use of the color gray in the matrix box.
HINI HCIAl. USE PROHCIED
BENEFICIAL USE GENERAUY ATTAINED
UINKHCIAL USE IHRtAltNi 11
IHNtllCIAl USE IMPAIRED
NO OAIA
BENEHCIAL USE IHRLA I tNl D OH IMPAIRED IJUI 10
NATURAL CAUSES OR PARAMETER GROUP NOT
SIGNIFICANT IN EVALUATION OF SEGMENT USES
Based upon the Seasonal/Sensitive Use status during the Watoi
Year 1980-82 period
o
-------
Marine Water Quality
Figure 27
Status of Classified Shellfish Areas
in Washington
Willapa Bay BT
Grays Harbor
Northern Puget Sound
& Strait of Juan de Fuca
Central Puget Sound
Southern Puget Sound
Hood Canal
Pacific Beaches (65 acres approved)
How Marine Water Quality is
Determined
The direct measurement of the quality of
marine waters is a complex and expensive
Figure 28
Water Quality Map of Oregon's Commercial
Shellfish Growing Areas
THOUSAND OF ACRES
Figure 26
Water Quality Map of Washington's
Classified Commercial Shellfish
Growing Areas
» Wheeler
NEHALEM BAY
.TILLAMOOK BAY
NETABTS BAY
Newport
YAOUINA BAY
• Coos Bay
' COOS BAY
task. Shellfish such as oysters, clams and
mussels can concentrate disease causing
bacteria and viruses as well as certain toxic
chemicals, radionuclides and biotoxins.
Consequently, shellfish can be used as
practical long-term indicators of water quality
and the effectiveness of pollution control
efforts.
In this report, the discussion of marine water
quality is based upon the criteria used to
classify shellfish growing waters for the
protection of the health of shellfish
consumers. The criteria were established by
state health agencies and the shellfish
industry in consultation with the U. S. Food
and Drug Administration under the National
Shellfish Sanitation Program. Waters that are
free from fecal contamination, industrial
wastes, radioactive elements and biotoxins
(certain naturally produced poisons) are
classified as "approved for commercial
shellfish harvesting." "Conditionally
approved" waters may be closed when
seasonal increases in population, freshwater
runoff containing contaminants at certain
times of the year, or temporary
malfunctioning of wastewater treatment
plants result in failure to meet the criteria.
Waters found to be contaminated or
suspected of being contaminated, which
would produce shellfish unsafe for human
consumption, are classified as "closed".
Figure 29
Status of Classified Shellfish Growing
Areas in Oregon
D
D
APPROVED FOR COMMERCIAL SHELLFISH HARVESTING
RESTRICTED - DEPURATION ONLY
CONDITIONALLY APPROVED FOR COMMERCIAL
SHELLFISH HARVESTING
CLOSED TO COMMERCIAL SHELLFISH HARVESTING
UNCLASSIFIED AREAS
Coos Bay
Tillamook Bay
Yaquina Bay
Netarts Bay
Nehalem Bay
THOUSANDS OF ACRES
6.0
8.0
10.0
1ZO
-------
Marine Water Quality
Figure 30
Status of Classified Shellfish Growing Areas
in Region 10
THOUSANDS OF ACRES
SO 100 150
200
250
Washington
Alaska
Oregon
D
D
APPROVED FOR COMMERCIAL SHELLFISH HARVESTING
RESTRICTED • DEPURATION ONLY
CONDITIONALLY APPROVED FOR COMMERCIAL
SHELLFISH HARVESTING
CLOSED TO COMMERCIAL SHELLFISH HARVESTING
Note: Depuration is a process shellfish can be subjected to which
reduces bacterial contamination to acceptable levels by utilizing
their natural purification abilities. Commercially grown shellfish from
this area must be so treated before they are harvested for sale to
the public.
The Regional Overview
Approximately 355,000 acres of commercial
shellfish growing area have been classified in
Region 10 (Figure 30). This represents about
2 percent of the classified growing area in
the United States. Of the total classified
acreage in Region 10, 66 percent is classified
as approved, 17 percent is conditionally
approved and 17 percent is closed.
Washington has the largest percentage of
the total classified area (65 percent or
231,000 acres), followed by Alaska (27
percent or 96,4000 acres) and Oregon (8
percent or 28,073 acres).
Although most of the shellfish growing areas
in Region 10 have been classified based on
bacteriological water quality standards, there
are several very important exceptions. For
example, most of the urban and
industrialized areas such as
Commmencement Bay, Elliott Bay and
Everett Harbor have been closed to
commercial shellfishing for years. These
closures were not necessarily based on
known pollution problems. They were based
simply on the health agency's recognition of
the high potential for such problems in
waters adjacent to residential, urban and
industrial activities. Interestingly, it is some
of these same areas that have more recently
been found to be contaminated with a
variety of potentially toxic organic and
inorganic chemicals. These findings
underscore the effectiveness and utility of
the shellfish growing area classification
system.
* PSP is a naturally occurring toxin produced by a group of one-
celled marine algae. Concentrated in oysters, clams and mussels.
high levels of PSP can cause serious illness or death if consumed
by humans.
Regional Summary:
Percentage of the Region's
active shellfish areas that are
open for harvesting
Note: Less than one percent of the classified areas were
cons.dered "RESTRICTED - DEPURATION ONLY" These areas
are placed under "CONDITIONALLY APPROVED" loi the purposes
of this pie Chart
Alaska's Marine Waters
The Alaska State Department of Health and
Social Services has classified approximately
96,400 acres of coastal shellfish growing
waters. These waters are approved for the
commercial harvest of razor clams upon the
issuance of a harvest permit. As shown in
Figure 31, the majority of the approved area
is in the vicinity of Cordova.
The shellfish growing areas that remain
unclassified are considered to be
"administratively closed" only because they
have not been surveyed or monitored for the
presence of paralytic shellfish poison
(PSP).*
Washington's Marine Waters
Approximately 231,000 acres of shellfish
growing area have been classified by the
Washington State Department of Social and
Health Services. Of this acreage, 58 percent
is approved, 21 percent is conditionally
approved and 21 percent is closed of the
commercial harvest of shellfish.
Figure 31
Status of Classified Shellfish Growing
Areas in Alaska
The classification of the larger growing areas
and major embayments is shown in Figure
26. A more detailed breakdown of the status
of these areas is given in Figure 27. Most of
the growing areas in Willapa Bay and Hood
Canal are classified as approved. However, a
significant portion of the areas in northern,
central and southern Puget Sound remain
closed or conditionally approved. All of
Grays Harbor is classified as closed or
conditionally approved.
On occasion, shellfish harvesting in northern
and central Puget Sound has to be restricted
because of increased levels of paralytic
shellfish poison.
Oregon's Marine Waters
The Oregon State Department of Human
Resources has classified 28,073 acres of
commercial shellfish growing area.
Approximately 25 percent of this acreage is
approved, 28 percent is conditionally
approved and 36 percent is closed for the
commercial harvest of shellfish. Eleven
percent of the total acreage is classified
under the special conditional heading
"restricted for depuration only", all within
inner Coos Bay.
The location of Oregon's classified growing
areas is shown in Figure 28, with the status
of each area being presented in Figure 29.
All Netarts Bay and most of the Nehalem
River are approved for harvesting. Of the
important shellfish growing areas in Coos,
Tillamook and Yaquina Bays, only about 3
percent of Coos Bay is classified as
approved. The balance of the acreage in
these areas is classified as closed or
conditionally approved.
THOUSANDS OF ACRES
10 20
30
40
Cordova Sector I
Cordova Sector IV
Swikshak
Polly Creek
Areas depicted represent only those portions of the total
estuarine and coastal areas that have been classified by
the Alaska State Department of Health and Social
Services.
67
-------
Lake Water Quality
Figure 32
Use Impairment Status of
Principal Recreational Lakes
In Region 10
LITTLE OR NO IMPAIRMENT
MODERATE IMPAIRMENT
SIGNIFICANT IMPAIRMENT
STATUS UNKNOWN
Lake Campbell ^
Lake Er.e 9
Lake •
Baker Lake } Ross Lake
•
n Lake
UkeWasl"n9'°n
Jirlt* Lake 9
Hicks Lake Ukc
Feowick Lake
I Lake Tapps
A/apato Lake
ng Lake
Patterson Lake
^Silver Lake
) [•• •,
-------
lake Water Quality
Introduction
The quality of the principal recreational lakes
and reservoirs in Region 10 is assessed by
evaluating their trophic status and degree of
recreational use impairment. These
evaluations are presented in Figures 33
through 36 and were obtained by
interpretation of published reports, from
professional judgments of water quality
specialists, and from water quality data
available to EPA. Where sufficient water
quality data were available, the impairment
evaluation criteria and rating scheme shown
in Table 3 was used.
The principal recreational lakes within the
region are of generally good quality, with
relatively few impairments related to human
activities. Figure 32 shows the location and
impairment status of each lake on a regional
map. Approximately half of the lakes
assessed in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho
and most of the Alaskan lakes for which
there is information, have little or no
recreational impairment. However, some of
these lakes are approaching a level of
eutrophication that interferes with their
desired uses.
The EPA Clean Lakes program has provided
Federal grants to state and local water
quality agencies to improve lake quality. Due
to Federal budget cuts, however, this
program is being phased out. In
Washington, this program is supplemented
by a state lake restoration program which
provide matching funds to local agencies.
Some measures being implemented to
improve lake water quality include dredging
to remove nutrient-containing sediments and
decomposing plant material that consumes
oxygen, flushing, bank erosion control,
aeration, physically removing aquatic plants,
and both chemical and biological control to
prevent eutrophication. Through these
programs, some of the high-use recreational
lakes in the region are being restored and
preserved for future generations.
Lake Water Quality
Table 3
Criteria for Evaluating Impairment
of Lakes
DEGREE OF IMPAIRMENT
RECREATIONAL
USE
NONE
CRITERIA
SCORE
Swimming Very low bacteria levels
(Fecal coliforms geometric
mean less than 50 per
100 ml)
Fishing No adverse conditions
Healthy fish population.
Boating Less than 10% of surface
area affected by aquatic
weeds
Aesthetics Objects visible in water to
depth of 10 feet or more
and low phosphorus
(Secchi Disc* a*. 10 feet or
more; total phosphorus of
less than 10 ua/l")
SCORE
(No uses impaired)
RECREATIONAL
USE
MODERATE
CRITERIA
SCORE
Swimming Moderate bacteria levels
(Fecal coliforms 50 to
200 per 100 ml)
Fishing Slightly adverse condi-
tions Slight reduction in
fish population.
Boating 10% to 30% affected
Aesthetics Objects visible from 1.5 to
10 feet and moderate
phosphorus level (Secchi
Disc at 1.5 to 10 feet:
total phosphorus 10 to
20 ug/l)
SCORE (All uses moderately impaired)
RECREATIONAL
USE
SIGNIFICANT
CRITERIA
SCORE
Swimming Unhealthy bacteria levels
(Fecal coliforms greater
than 200 per 100 ml)
Fishing Adverse conditons. Signi-
ficant reduction in fish
population.
Boating More than 30% affected
Aesthetics Objects not visible beyond
1.5 feet or high
phosphorus level (Secchi
Disc at less than 1.5 feet;
total phosphorus greater
than 20 ug/l)
I
SCORE (All uses significantly impaired)
'A Secchi Disc is a round black and white plate
suspended on a chain and used to determine water
clarity
"ug/l micrograms per liter, a measurement used
for low concentrations of dissolved substances.
-------
Lake Water Quality
Figure 33
The Recreational Impairment and
Trophic Status of the Principal Recreational Lakes
In Washington
NAME iO
(County, Acres of Surface) — w
•Vancouver Lake 1
(Claik Co.. 2,600)
•Moses Lake 1
(Grant Co.. 7,0001
Silver Lake 3. 5
ICowlitz Co . 2.300)
•Hicks Lake 5
(King Co.. 5)
•Lake Sacajawea 1
(Clark Co.. 531
Capitol Lake 2. 7
IThutston Co . 270)
'Long Lake 1
IThurston Co.. 3301
•Patterson Lake 1.11
(Thurston Co., 2701
•Wapato Lake 1
(Pierce Co.. 28)
•Green Lake 1
(King Co.. 2601
Potholes Reservoir 4. 5
(Grant Co . 20.000)
• Lake Stevens 1
(Snohomish Co.. 1.000)
•Lake Campbell 1
(Skagit Co , 370)
•Lake Erie 1
(Skagit Co . 1001
•Kitsap Lake 11
IKitsap Co . 2501
'Long Lake 1
(Kitsap Co.. 3401
•Lake Bal linger 1
(Snohomish Co.. 100)
•Pine Lake 1
(King Co.. 85)
'Fenwick Lake 1
(King Co . 241
•Liberty Lake 1
(Spokane Co . 7001
Park Lake 3 11
(Grant Co.. 350)
Lake Sammamish 6
(King Co.. 5,0001
Banks Lake 6
(Grant Co.. 25,000)
•Medical Lake 1
(Spokane Co.. 160)
5 p £ f O \D o< cc }-
W u. O < t-rEKW
•
Washington Lake Water Quality
Figure 33 shows the extent and major
causes of use impairment for the principal
recreational iakes in Washington. Vancouver
Lake and Silver Lake are considered
significantly impaired in twc or more
respects. Approximately half of the lakes
shown are moderately impaired, generally
due to aesthetic conditions. The majority of
these have received Clean Lakes Grants.
Most of the lakes with water quality
problems receive stormwater runoff and
septic tank seepage from lakeside residential
areas. The large lakes and reservoirs of
Eastern Washington also receive irrigation
return flows and runoff from agricultural
lands that contain fertilizers and animal
wastes which accelerates the eutrophication
processes.
CAUSE OF PROBLEM
Stream-fed Nutrients
Agricultural Runoff/Erosion
Forest Practices
Stormwatef
Stormwater
Storm-water/
Streamfed Nutrients
Internal Nutrient
Recycling
Internal Nutrient
Recycling
Stormwater
Stormwatef 6t
Nearshore Runoff
Agricultural Runoff
Internal Nutrient
Recycling
Internal Nutrient
Recycling
Sto'mwater
Internal Nutnent
Recycling
Sto'mwater
NAME u-o
(County, Acres of Surface) - «
eg
z
P
i
rr i-cn CAUSE OF PROBLEM
Big Lake
(Skagit Co . 5201
Deep Lake 3
IThurston Co . 651
3. It
Lake Quinault 10
(Gravs Harbor Co . 3.7001
Lake Cushman 2
(Mason Co . 4.000)
Crescent Lake 2
ICiallam Co , 5.1001
Lake Whatcom 6. 11
(Whatcom Co . 5.0001
Lake Ozette 6
ICiallam Co . 7.800)
Lake Merwin 2
(Clark Co , 4,0001
Lake Tapps 1 11
(Pierce Co . 2,300)
Lake Washington 4 10
(King Co , 22,0001
Ross Lake 4
(Whatcom Co . 11.500)
Lake Chelan 6
ICheian Co . 33.5001
Lake Wenatchee 2
(Chelan Co . 2,500)
Kachess Lake 2
iKnwas Co . 4.500)
Cle Elurn Lake 2
IKntitas Co . 4.8001
Baker Lake 10
(Whaicom Co . 3.600)
Osoyoos Lake 2. 11
(Okanogan. Fetry 6 Stevens Co . 2.000)
Lake Roosevelt 4
(Lincoln Co . 79.000)
Lake Wallula 8
IBenton Co . 19.0001
n
The quality of some of these lakes have been
significantly improved through local, state
and Federal programs to restore recreational
amenities. Medical lake was treated with
alum to precipitate excess phosphorous to
the lake bottom, to form a layer over the
sediments. This treatment resulted in a 90
percent reduction in phosphorous and
substantially reduced the algal growths.
Liberty Lake was similarly treated, and the
nutrient-rich upper layers of bottom sediment
and aquatic weeds were dredged. Also a
sewage collection system was built to
eliminate septic pollution. Wapato Lake, in
Tacoma, is successfully responding to
dilution by low-nutrient city water. Plans to
improve water quality in Vancouver Lake and
Lake Sacajawea include dredging, dilution,
and control of polluting urban and
agricultural runoff. The dredging in
Vancouver Lake is 75 percent complete.
NON tUTHOPHIC
MODERATELY EUTROPHIC
• EUTROPHIC
• LITTLE OR NO IMPAIRMENT
~j MODERATE IMPAIRMENT
I SIGNIFICANT IMPAIRMENT
ffl STATUS UNKNOWN
"Clean Lakes Grant
INFORMATION SOURCES
1 Clean Lakes Project Reports
2 Washington State Department of Ecology (DOtt.
State/EPA Agreement. FY 1983
3 Washington State DOE, other than 2
4 University o' Washington
b Washington Stale University
6 EPA National Eutrophicalion Survey, '97b
7 """ "
CH,M Hill. 1978
8 Corps of Engineer
9 Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO)
10 EPA Region 10
11 U.S Geological Survey/DDE: "Trophic Classification o*
Washington Lakes." 1982
70
-------
Lake Water Quality
Oregon Lake Water Quality
Figure 34 shows the extent and major
causes of use impairment for the principal
recreational Jakes and other lakes of concern
in Oregon. Eighteen of these lakes are
moderately impaired, mostly due to aesthetic
conditions (algae blooms) and aquatic weed
growths. Nutrients that support the weed
and algal growths are, in some cases,
supplied by bottom muds accumulated from
soil erosion, and in others are due to septic
drainage from recreational and residential
development.
The quality of a few of these lakes has been
at least partially restored. In Diamond Lake,
Douglas County, nutrients from sewage had
accelerated eutrophication. Sewage was
diverted from the lake drainage, and fish-
cleaning and trailer-dumping stations were
installed to further limit nutrients reaching
the lake. Other lakes still have problems.
Blue Lake near Portland, for example, has
high recreational potential, but it is highly
eutrophic with summer blooms of algae. This
is due in part to a nutrient-rich water supply.
On the coast. Devil's Lake experiences rapid
siltation due to stormwater runoff.
Diagnostic/feasibility studies funded by the
Clean Lakes Program have been completed
for the restoration of Devil's Lake, Fern
Ridge Reservior, Sturgeon Lake, Mirror
Pond. Similar studies for Klamath and Blue
Lakes and a state-wide classification study
are scheduled for completion by June 1983.
Prospects for Mirror Pond and Devil's Lake
restoration look very good, due to local
communities' funding support.
NON EUTROPHIC
I i
D
MODERATELY EUTROPHIC
EUTROPHIC
LITTLE OR NO IMPAIRMENT
D
MODERATE IMPAIRMENT
SIGNIFICANT IMPAIRMENT
STATUS UNKNOWN
Figure 34
The Recreational Impairment and
Trophic Status of the Principal Recreational Lakes
In Oregon z
•Claan Lakes Gram
INFORMATION SOURCES
1 Except as otherwise noted, impairment and trophic status
ratings based upon information supplied by Oregon Department
of Environmental Qualify IDEO)
2 Clean Lakes Pro|ect Reports
3 EPA National Eutrophication Survey, 1975
NAME
(County, Acres of Surface)
Willow Creek Reservoir
(Malheur Co , 1,000'
North Tenmile Lake
(Coos Co . 1,0001
South Tenmile Lake
(Coos Co , 1.4001
•Klamath Lake
IKIamath Co . 59,0001
•Devil's Lake
(Lincoln Co . 6801
•Blue Lake
IMulinomah Co , 651
"Mirror Pond
(Deschutes Co . 301
•Sturgeon Lake
[Multnornah, Columbia Co . 1,900-4,8001
Emigrant Reservoir
(Jackson Co . 800)
Siltcoos Lake
(Lane. Douglas Co . 3.000)
McKay Creek Reservoir
(Umatilla Co . 1.2001
Ochoco Reservoir
(Crook Co . 1.1001
Owyhee Reservoir
IMalhew Co , 14.000)
Suttle Lake
Ueffevson Co . 270)
Cleawox Lake
(Lane Co , 1.4001
Tahkenitch Lake
(Douglas Co . 1.5001
Hills Creek Reservoir
(Lane Co . 2.7001
'Fern Ridge Reservoir
(Lane Co , 9.4001
Diamond Lake
(Douglas Co . 2.000)
Chinook Lake
(Jefferson Co . 3,600)
Prineville Reservoir
(Crook Co . 3.0001
Crane Prairie Reservoir
I Deschutes Co . 4,900)
Davis Lake
(Deschuies. Klamath Co . 3.7001
Wickiup Reservoir
(OBSchutesCo . 11,0001
Lake of the Woods
IKIamath Co . 1.200)
Henry Hagg Lake
(Washington Co . 1.1001
Green Peter Reservoir
limn Co . 3,700)
Timothy Lake
(Clackamas Co.. 1.3001
Lake Paulina
I Deschutes Co . 1,4001
Odell Lake
(Klamath Co . 3,300)
Waldo Lake
(Lane Co . 6.7001
Crater Lake
IKIamath Co . 13,0001
Crescent Lake
IKIamath Co , 3,500)
Lake Wallowa
IWallowa Co . 1,8001
Cultus Reservoir
IDeschutes Co.. 1.3001
Olallie Lake
(Jefferson Co . 1801
Detroit Reservoir
ILinn, Marion Co , 3.000)
Blue River Reservoir
I Lane Co . 1.000)
Cottage Grove Reservoir
(Lane Co . 1,000)
Dorena Reservoir
(Lane Co.. 1.800)
Foster Reservoir
(Linn Co . 1.2001
Cougar Reservoir
(Lane Co.. 1.200)
0<
CAUSE OF PROBLEM
Irrigation Withdrawals
Nutrients in Sediments
Introduced Nuisance Weeds
Introduced Nuisance Weeds
Mutnents in Sediments
Nutrients in Influent
Streams and Sediments
Nutrients m Sediments.
Weeds
Stream-fed Nutrients.
Siltanon. Weeds
Siltation
Nutnents in Sediments.
Irrigation Withdrawals
Introduced Nuisance Weeds
Introduced Nuisance Weeds
Irrigation Withdrawals
Nutrients in Sediments
Nutrients in Sediments
Stream fed Nutrients
Septic Tanks
Introduced Nuisance Weeds
Erosion
Turbidity.
Shallow Depth
71
-------
Lake Water Quality
Figure 35
The Recreational Impairment and
Trophic Status of the Principal Recreational Lakes
In Idaho1
NAME £0
(County. Acres of Surface! — <"
Brownlee Reservoir 2. 3
(Washington Co . 15,000)
American Falls Reservoir 2. 3
(Power. Bannock. & Bmgham Co . 56.000)
Wilson Lake
(Jerome Co . 600)
Lake Walcott 2
(Blame. Cassia Co . 12.0001
Portneuf Reservoir
(Caribou Co . 1,500)
Williams Lake
(Lemhi Co . 2001
Crane Creek Reservoir
(Washington Co . 3.300)
Lake Lowell 4
(Canyon Co., 9,600)
Lower Granite Reservoir 3
INez Perce Co.. 8,900)
Oxbow Reservoir 3
(Adams Co . 1.5001
Hells Canyon Reservoir 3
(Adams Co . 2.5001
Paddock Valley Reservoir
(Washington Co . 1.000)
Fernan Lake
IKootenai Co., 300)
Chatcolet Lake
IBenewah Co . 1.7001
Cascade Reservoir ?, 3
(Valley Co.. 30.0001
Henry's LaUe 2
(Fremont Co . 6.600)
Island Park Reservoir:-' 3. 4
IFiemoni Co.. 7.000)
Magic Reservoir 3
(Blame Co . 3.5001
Twin Lakes 3
IKootenai Co . 850)
Cocolalla Lake
(Bonnet Co . 8001
Salmon Falls Creek Reservoir
(Twin Falls Co . 2.4001
Lower Goose Cr. Reservoir
(Cassia Co.. 1.0001
Fish Creek Reservoir
(Blame Co.. 2501
o ^
i 5
« o
u_ CO
CAUSE OF PROBLEM
Upstream Sources
Natural. Agnc Nonpomi
Municipal. Industrial Pt Sources
Upstream Sources
Upstream Sources
Agricultural Runoff
Recreational Impacts.
Grazing
Natural & Agricultural
Runoff
Agricultural Runoff
Upstream Sources
Upstream Sources
Upstream Sources
Natural & Agricultural
Runoff
Septic Tanks
Agricultural Runoff
Agricultural Runoff
Grazing.
Septic Tanks
Recreational Impacts
Septic Tanks
Natural Runoff
Agricultural RunoH
Municipal Point Sources
Septic Tanks
Agricultural Runoff
Agricultural Runoff
Recreaiionat Impacts
z
o
NAME £(
(County, Acres of Surface) - '
Lost Valley Reservoir
(Adams Co . 8001
Palisades Reservoir 2,
(Bonneville Co . 16.000)
Upper Payette Lake
(Valley Co . 3001
Dworshak Reservoir 3
iCiearwater Co.. 17,000)
Sage Hen Reservoir
(Gem Co . 1801
Anderson Ranch Reservoir
(Elmore Co . 4.000)
Alturas Lake
(Blame Co . 1.200)
Lucky Peak Reservoir
(Ada Co . 2.8001
Arrowrock Reservoir
(Elmore. Boise Co , 4,0001
Priest Lake :'
(Bonnei Co . 24.0001
Lake Pend Oreille
I Bonner Co . 94.000)
Lake Coeur d'Alene 2.
(Kootenai Co . 30.000)
Hayden Lake 3
IKootenai Co.. 4.0001
Payette Lake 3
(Valley Co 5.3001
Deadwood Reservoir
(Vallev Co . 3.0001
Redfish Lake
(Custer Co . 1.5001
'Bear Lake 2
(Bear Lake Co . 70.0001
Spirit Lake
(Kootenai Co . 1.3001
Upper Priest Lake
(Bonner Co . '.3001
Bull Trout Lake
(Boise Co . 70)
Mackay Reservoir
iCusler Co . 1.0001
Little Camas Reservoir
(Elmore Co . 1.0001
Little Wood River Reservoir
(Blame Co . 600)
5
5
O
z
<
o
CAUSE OF PROBLEM
Idaho Lake Water Quality
Figure 35 shows the extent and major
causes of use impairment for the principal
recreational lakes in Idaho. Most major
impairments of the principal lakes in Idaho
appear to be due to algal blooms stimulated
by nutrients from agricultural runoff and
septic tanks. Runoff from agricultural non-
point sources entering the Snake River
upstream of Oxbow and Brownlee Reservoirs
has degraded those two water bodies. Lake
Lowell, an off-stream reservoir near Boise,
receives heavy recreational use by residents
of the Boise Valley. Excessive algal growth in
the summer impairs such use. The conditions
are primarily due to nutrients from summer
inflows from agricultural non-point sources
and the large waterfowl population which
utilizes the lake. Because of the significant
impact due to waterfowl, control of the
agricultural sources of nutrients may not
achieve a solution to this problem.
The water quality of American Falls Reservoir
is affected by nutrients from dryland and
irrigated agriculture, winter discharges of
72
treated sewage effluent from Pocatello,
phosphate deposits in the soils and from
many springs in the area.
Many of the lakes in the Panhandle area of
Northern Idaho are presently of high quality.
However, development around the lakes is
increasing and the lakes are extensively used
for recreation. Some of the lakes are
showing signs of degradation. In order to
protect these valuable resources, lake shore
management plans are being developed to
insure that development occurs with minimal
impacts on lake water quality.
Federal funding to deal with lake water
quality problems has been through the 208
and Clean Lakes programs. Idaho presently
has two Clean Lakes grants; one to do a lake
classification analysis (recently completed) to
determine the trophic status of Idaho's lakes
and the other to study pollution sources in
Bear Lake and to develop a restoration plan.
The 208 and Clean Lakes programs,
however, are being phased out because of
cuts in Federal funding.
D
n
NON-EUTROPHIC
MODERATELY EUTROPHIC
EUTROPHIC
LITTLE OR NO IMPAIRMENT
MODERATE IMPAIRMENT
I SIGNIFICANT IMPAIRMENT
I STATUS UNKNOWN
•Clean Lakes Grant
INFORMATION SOURCES
1 Evaluations derived from the Idaho Lakes Classification Protect
and miscellaneous Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
information
Additional Sources:
2 Falter. University of Idaho
3 EPA National Eutrophicanon Survey. 1975
4 US Bureau of Reclamation
-------
Alaska Lake Water Quality
Little is known about most Alaska lakes.
Several of the more readily accessible lakes
near population centers are exhibiting signs
of advancing eutrophication and recreational
use impairment as shown in Figure 36.
Three of these have received Clean Lakes
grants for diagnostic/feasibility studies
(Skater's, Robe and Mirror Lakes) scheduled
for completion by July 1983.
Recently the state studied certain lakes in the
Palmer-Wasilla area, a fertile farming region
near Anchorage which is experiencing rapid
residential development. The Alaska
Department of Fish and Game has found 36
of over 100 lakes with low dissolved oxygen
in the winter, although the cause is
unknown. For many lakes, it may be a
natural condition; however, human activities
may be a contributing factor.
The trophic conditions of four lakes near
Wasilla (Lucille, Wasilla, Cottonwood and
Finger) were studied more intensely. All are
heavily used for recreation, and the public
has expressed some concern about water
quality. Of the four, Lucille is the most
shallow, with a mean depth of 1.7 meters,
and also the most eutrophic. In winter
dissolved oxygen levels drop to almost zero,
and the lake has a history of fish kills. There
is considerable algae growth in the summer,
though not yet to the extent that it interferes
with boating. The lake is not used much for
swimming since it is so shallow. The other
three lakes are deeper and are only
moderately eutrophic, with some algae
growth in isolated portions of the lakes.
Figure 36
The Recreational Impairment and
Trophic Status of the Principal Recreational Lakes
In Alaska
Lake Water Quality
Z
g
< crt
p
NAME "-§
(Acres of Surface) = «
•Robe Lake t
(600)
•Mirror Lake 1
1601
•Skater's Lake I
(111
Lake Lucille 1
13621
Campbell Lake 1
Wasilla Lake 1
(334)
Cottonwood Lake 1
1250)
Finger Lake 1
1362)
Harding Lake 1
Fielding Lake 1
Summit Lake 1
Paxson Lake 1
Big Lake 1
Kenai Lake 1
112.160)
Skilak Lake 1
134.3201
Fire Lake 1
Nancy Lake 1
Gatbraith Lake 1
Lake Clark 1
1/0.400)
Iliamna Lake 7
(640,000)
Lake Minchumina 1
114.720)
Lake Louise 1
114,720)
Lake Schrader 1
Lake Tustumena 1
(74,880)
Ward Lake 1
Blue Lake 1
i
5 C3
£ Z
5 =
8
i-
<
o
, ,
,. !i C/l
-jg 13
<= °-i-
Ht- o<
o< a: h-
i-ci-in
CAUSE OF PROBLEM
Weeds. Low Winter
Dissolved Oxygen
Possible Septic Pollution
Runoff
Woodwaste Leachate
Impaired Fish Passage
Septic Tanks
Sewage Overflow and
Sloimwater Runoff
D
D
•
n
NON EUTROPHIC
MODERATELY EUTROPHIC
EUTROPHIC
LITTLE OR NO IMPAIRMENT
MODERATE IMPAIRMENT
SIGNIFICANT IMPAIRMENT
STATUS UNKNOWN
•Clean Lakes Grant
INFORMATION SOURCES
1 Evaluations based upon information supplied by miscellaneous
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Publications
and Clean Lakes Project Reports.
73
-------
Pesticides
Table 4
EPA Funded 1982 State* Pesticide Enforcement Inspections
MISUSE
INVESTIGATIONS
ROUTINE
SURVEILLANCE
Restricted
Agriculture
158
68
67
293
Non
Agricultural
31
19
36
86
Market
Place
23
39
15
77
Producer
Establishment
30
23
10
63
Use
Pesticide
Dealers
35
24
10
69
Certified
Application
Records
16
20
10
46
Experimental
Use
Permits
5
3
5
13
Imports
0
4
0
4
State
Totals
298
200
163
861
WASHINGTON
OREGON
IDAHO
CATEGORY TOTALS
•Note: Alaska's enforcement program has been loo recently initiated for its efforts to be reflected in these figures
Pesticides
Agriculture and silvaculture are the largest
and second largest industries respectively in
Region 10, Protection of these crops from
pests is therefore an economic priority. The
accompanying graphics quantify enforcement
related activities in the pesticide program
area.
Table 4 shows the number and type of EPA
funded state enforcement actions conducted
for pesticides in 1982. Five categories of
routine surveillance and two categories of
misuse investigations are shown for each
state in Region 10. The largest category of
pesticide enforcement activity was
agriculture misuse.
The pie chart, Figure 37, illustrates the
major areas from which pesticide use
complaints are received and investigations
conducted. Pesticides are shown as either
herbicides or insecticides and uses as either
agriculture (including silvaculture) or non-
agriculture. The chart shows that nearly half
of all complaints received deal with crop
damage from herbicide drift.
Figure 37
State Pesticide Investigations by
Type and Use*
48% Herbicides/Agriculture
16% Insecticides/Agriculture
16% Insecticides/Non-agriculture
(Residential)
15% Herbicides/Non-agriculture
5% Other
'Note: Alaska's enforcement program has been too recently initiated for its efforts to be reflected in these figures
74
-------
Radiation
gure 38
s of Significant Nuclear Activity in Region 10
D URANIUM PROCESSING SITES iKtive or inactive/
O NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNDER CONSTRUCTION
OPERATING NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
A MILITARY INSTALLATIONS WITH NUCLEAR REACTORS
• RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
A NUCLEAR RESEARCH FACILITY
NUCLEAR WEAPONS MATERIAL PRODUCTION
0 PHOSPHATE MINE - Irsdon m slag and ivasre rock)
My )U;MB« (- iWLew»nj-
-^ 1_^ aai»5ion\ SLEW:
1 WALLA WALLA] J } J~~
wallaWau* fASOTiNf
EROMF. IMINIOOK* J POWEB \BANNOCR
Radiation
Figure 38 shows the location of major
nuclear facilities and other sites where
significant quantities of radioactive materials
are either processed, disposed or stored in
Region 10. Commercial, military and
governmental sites are included. Every major
type of nuclear facility and major operation in
the nuclear fuel cycle are present in Region
10, including operating nuclear power plants,
nuclear plants under construction, fuel
fabrication and reprocessing plants, high-
level, low-level and transuranic radioactive
disposal sites, active and inactive uranium
processing mills, nuclear submarine support
facilities and phosphate processing plants.
The two largest and most significant nuclear
facilities are the Hanford facility in
Southeastern Washington and the Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory in
Southeastern Idaho.
There are no significant nuclear facilities in
Alaska.
75
------- |