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

-------