Managing Nonpoint
Source Pollution
Final Report to Congress
on Section
the Clean	Water
APPENDICES
January 1992

-------
APPENDIX A
Assessment Data
State Totals for Designated Uses Impacted by Waterbody Type and Use Support Status ...	A-3
State Totals for Monitored Versus Evaluated Waters by Waterbody Type and Use
Support Status 	A-31
State Totals for Pollutant Impacts by Waterbody Type and Use Support Status	A-38
State Assessment Data Used in Developing National Summaries 	A-87
State Totals for Agricultural Impacts by Waterbody Type and Use Support Status 	A-89
State Totals for Silvicultural Impacts by Waterbody Type and Use Support Status . . . .	A-117
State Totals for Construction Impacts by Waterbody "type and Use Support Status 	A-131
State Totals for Urban Impacts by Waterbody Type and Use Support Status		A-145
State Totals for Mining Impacts by Waterbody Type and Use Support Status		A-166
State Totals for Land Disposal Impacts by Waterbody Type and Use Support Status ...	A-187
State Totals for Hydromodification Impacts by Waterbody Type and Use Support Status . .	A-208
State Totals for Other Source Impacts by Waterbody Type and Use Support Status ....	A-229
A-l

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR DESIGNATED USES IMPACTED
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
TOTAL
FISH ft WILDLIFE
FISHERY

1 Trt

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPOR1




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












ALABAMA
COAST (MI.)
5
•
•
5
5
•
•
5
•
•
•
•

ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.1
0
50

50
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
•

LAKES (AC.)
1,850
103,100
30,200
135,150
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

RIVERS
(MI. )
599
1,019
11
1,629
361
431
10
802
.
.
•
•
ARIZONA
RIVERS
(MI. )
2,084
3,479
104
5,667
1,839
2,107
60
4,006
224
1,270
44
1,537
ARKANSAS
RIVERS
(MI. )
1,324

326
1,650
22

0
22
49

49
99
CALIFORNIA
COAST (MI.)
1,982
.

1,982
13


13
0


0

ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
94


94
67


67
13


13

LAKES (AC.)
988,409
0

988,409
957,505


957,505
850,346


850,346

RIVERS
(MI. )
4,202
#

4,202
4,200


4,200
4,010


4,010

METLANDS
(AC. )
25,435


25,435
19,855


19,855
11,274


11,274
COLORADO
LAKES (AC.)
25,877
•

25,877
•


•
•


•

RIVERS
(MI. )
3,342


3,342
.


.
.


•
CONNECTICUT
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
1
158
10
169
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

LAKES (AC.)
.
10,828
7,882
18,710
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
48
150
237
435
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR DESIGNATED USES IMPACTED
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
TOTAL
FISH ft WILDLIFE
FISHERY

TYPE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












DELAWARE
RIVERS
(HI. )
299

127
426
.
.
.
.
•
•

•

WETLANDS
(AC. )
850
.

850
.
.

.
.
.

ฆ
GEORGIA
LAKES (AC.)
5.373
.

5,373
0
•

0
0
•

0

RIVERS
(HI. )
14
176

192
0
0

0
0
0

0
HAWAII
COAST (AC.)
39,179
.

39,179
35,254
•

35,254
17,013
•

17,013
IDAHO
LAKES (AC.)
11,036
.

11,036
•
•

•
-
•

•

RIVERS
(HI. )
18,957


18,957
.
•

.
.
•

•
ILLINOIS
LAKES (AC.)
56,896
49,847
35,480
142,223
56,896
49,788
28,162
134,845
0
71
709
781

RIVERS
(HI. )
453
792
4,620
5,865
453
792
4,620
5,865
0
0
0
0
INDIANA
GREAT LAKES
(Sq.MI.)
241
#

241
241
.
.
241
0


0

LAKES (AC.)
11,048
•
•
11,048
11,012
•
•
11,012
36


36

RIVERS
(HI. )
2,229

.
2,229
2,034
.
.
2,034
0


0
IOMA
LAKES (AC.)
1,459
52,092
18,688
72,239
843
19,907
18,100
38,850
•


•

RIVERS
(HI. )
900
6,467
317
7,685
900
6,467
317
7,685
12


12

WETLANDS
(AC. )
3,640
14,201
6,761
24,602
3,640
14,201
5,326
23,167
.


.
KANSAS
LAKES (AC.)
140,361
•
•
140,361
140,361
•
•
140,361
0


0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR DESIGNATED USES IMPACTED
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HA
TYPE
TERBODY
TOTAL
FISH t WILDLIFE
FISHERY


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPOR1

TOTAL

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY
3.034


3,034








KENTUCKY
RIVERS
(MI. )
LOUISIANA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
120
1,274

1,394
.
•
.
.
.

.
•
COAST (AC. )
•
424,320
.
424,320
•

ฆ
•
•

•
•
LAKES (AC.)
.
178,337
87.034
265,371
ฆ

•
•
•

•
•
ESTUARY
(MI. )

198
54
252
.

.
.
.

.
•
RIVERS
(MI. )
604
1,665
69
2,338
.

.
.
.

.
•
MAINE
LAKES (AC.)
32,984
•
4,739
37,723
32,984

4,739
37,723
0

0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
967

51
1,018
604

0
604
0

0
0
MARYLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
2,482
#

2,482
.

.
.
.

•
.
LAKES (AC.)
2.590
.
•
2,590
•

•
•
•

ฆ
•
RIVERS
(MI. )
722


722
.

.
.
.

.
.
MASSACHUSE-
TTS
ESTUARY
(SO.MI.>
0
84

84
0
84
.
84
0
0
ฆ
0
RIVERS
(MI. >
160
419

599
180
419
.
599
0
0
.
0
MINNESOTA
LAKES (AC.>
167.233
65,494
313,845
546,572
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
1.434
142

1,576
•
.
.
.
.
•
•
•
MISSOURI
LAKES (AC.)
615
1,469
12,388
14.472
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED I

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR DESIGNATED USES IMPACTED
BY NATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND WATERBODY
TOTAL
FISH t WILDLIFE
FISHERY

lift

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBODY












MISSOURI
RIVERS
(MI. )
75
1,154
8,243
9,471

.
.

.
.

•
MONTANA
LAKES (AC.)
34,065
.
129,350
163,415




•


•

RIVERS
(MI. 1
7,247

55
7,302








NEVADA
LAKES (AC.)
1.250
•
16
1,266









RIVERS
(MI. )
663
222

665








NEM MEXICO
LAKES (AC.)
57,25a
•

57,258









RIVERS
(MI. )
1,135


1,135








NEW YORK
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
155


155
2


2
150


150

GREAT LAKES
(sq.ni.)
3,568


3,566
0


0
3,560


3,560

COAST (AC.)
67,760
.

67,780
0


0
0


0

LAKES (AC.)
272,449
16,734
36,313
329,496
52,125
2,317
0
54,442
160,829
1,146
19
161,994

RIVERS
(MI. )
904
248
153
1,305
312
102
58
472
496
40
37
573
NORTH
CAROLINA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
4
244
10
257
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
•

RIVERS
(MI. )
1,464
6,946
253
10,663
1,319
6,715
161
8,195
41
1,648
130
1,820
NORTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
90,293
.
.
90,293
108
•
•
108
25,482
•
•
25,482
RIVERS
(MI. )
6,359
.
.
6,359
4,013
•
•
4,013
3,509
•
-
3,509
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR DESIGNATED USES IMPACTED
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBOOY
TOTAL
FISH & WILDLIFE
FISHERY

1 Trfc

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
UATERBODY












OHIO
LAKES (AC. )
73,430
•
•
73,430


•
•
•

•
•

RIVERS
(MI. )
14,779

1,873
16,652


.
.
•

•
•
OKLAHOMA
LAKES (AC.)
0
238,864
419,148
658,011


133,218
133,218


42,318
42,318

RIVERS
(MI. )
620
2,306
5,302
8,227


1,061
1,061


1,061
1,061
PENNSYLVAN-
IA
RIVERS
(MI. )
2,630
#

2,630








PUERTO RICO
COAST (MI.)
144
-

144









ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
109
#

109









LAKES (AC.)
7,171
•

7,171









RIVERS
(MI. )
2,615
.

2,615








RHODE
ISLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
8
10
8
26
8
10
8
26





LAKES (AC.)
•
673
•
673
•
386
ฆ
386





RIVERS
(MI. >
66
6
226
298
48
5
56
109




SOUTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC. )
125
100,802
558,800
659,727
125
86,799
558,765
645,689
125
99,593
558,765
658,483
RIVERS
(MI. )
584
835
2,531
3,951
0
557
2,045
2,602
504
629
1,843
2,975
TENNESSEE
LAKES (AC.)
31,287
48,820
75,792
155,899
31,287
16,631
39,869
87,787
-
•
•
•

RIVERS
(MI. )
977
2,218
1,605
4,799
2,010
2,218
1,605
5,832
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOB DESIGNATED USES IMPACTED
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HA
TYPE
TERBODY
TOTAL
FISH & HILDLIFE
FISHERY


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

(J
SE SUPPORT

TOTAL

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
TEXAS
HATERBODY
ESTUARY
(S3.MI.)

96

96

96

96





LAKES (AC.)
.
232,552

232,552

10,679
•
10,679


•


RIVERS
(MI. )
192
431

623

.
.
.


•

UTAH
LAKES (AC.)
198.036
.

198,036

•
•
•


•

RIVERS
(MI. )
167
13,878

14,045


.
.


•

VERMONT
LAKES (AC.)
49,134
.
150,258
199,392
0

0
0
0

0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
624

435
1,059
0

0
0
0

0
0
VIRGIN
ISLANDS
COAST (MI.)
0
2

3
#

.
.
.

•
•
VIRGINIA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
90
101
270
460


.
.
.

•
•
LAKES (AC.)
2,027
10,074
•
12,101
•

•
•
•

•
ฆ
RIVERS
(MI. )
785
1,271
2,459
4,515
.

.
ฆ
.

•
•
WASHINGTON
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
56
57
256
369
7
46
104
157
30
10
96
136
LAKES (AC.)
290
33,104
65,961
99,355
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI. )
586
1,411
1,217
3,215
82
154
483
719
318
658
442
1,417
WEST
VIRGINIA
RIVERS
(MI. )
22,618

#
22,618
.
.
.
.
-
•
•
•
WISCONSIN
LAKES (AC.)
•
119
76
195
•
•
•
•
ฆ
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR DESIGNATED USES IMPACTED
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
TOTAL
FISH ft WILDLIFE
FISHERY

TYPE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

L
SE SUPPORT




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY












WISCONSIN
RIVERS
(MI. )
745
7,212
10,739
18,696
.
.
.
•
•
•
•
-
WYOMING
LAKES (AC.)
.
27,979
75,070
103,049
•
•
•
•
•
27,202
75,040
102,242

RIVERS
(til. )
.
2,660
889
3,550
.
.
.
.
.
2,480
709
3,189
TOTAL
COAST (MI.)
2,131
2
•
2,133
18
•
•
18
0
•
•
0

ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
3,120
2,074
553
5,747
85
235
111
432
192
10
96
299

GREAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)
3,809


3,809
241
•
.
241
3,560
•
•
3,560

COAST (AC.)
106,959
424,320
•
531,279
35,254
•
•
35,254
17,013
•
•
17,013

LAKES (AC.)
2,262,545
1,172,887
2,023,039
5,458,471
1,283,246
186,506
782,853
2,252,605
1,036,819
128,012
676,851
1,841,682

ESTUARY
(MI. )
.
198
54
252
.
.
.
.
.
•
•
•

RIVERS
(MI. I
107,228
57,109
41,842
206,179
18,378
19,966
10,475
48,819
9,163
6,724
4,314
20,201

WETLANDS
(AC. )
29,925
14,201
6,761
50,887
23,495
14,201
5,326
43,022
11,274
•
•
11,274
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR DESIGNATED OSES IMPACTED
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
SHELLFISH
DRINKING
AGRICULTURE

TYPE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












ALABAMA
COAST (MI.)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•

ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)

.
#

#
.
•
.
.
.
.
•

LAKES (AC.)
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

RIVERS
(MI. )
.



.
180
.
180
71
46
•
117
ARIZONA
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
1,444
875
104
2,423
2,063
3,209
104
5,376
ARKANSAS
RIVERS
(MI. )
0

0
0
308

0
308
0

0
0
CALIFORNIA
COAST (MI.)
1,981


1,981
0


0
36


36

ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
92


92
23


23
13


13

LAKES (AC.J
.


•
344,161


344,181
703,637


703,637

RIVERS
(MI. )
13


13
3,161


3,161
2,364


2,364

WETLANDS
(AC.)
7,562


7,562
12,227


12,227
10,144


10,144
COLORADO
LAKES (AC.)
.


•
•


•
•


•

RIVERS
(MI. )
.


#
.


.
.

.
•
CONNECTICUT
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

LAKES (AC. )
.
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR DESIGNATED USES IMPACTED
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND WATERBODY
SHELLFISH
DRINKING
AGRICULTURE

1 Irt

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBODY












DELAWARE
RIVERS
(MI. 1

.

•
.
.
.
.
.
•

•

WETLANDS
(AC. )



.
.
.

.
.
.

•
GEORGIA
LAKES (AC. )
0
•

0
0
•

0
0
ฆ

0

RIVERS
(HI. )
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
HAWAII
COAST (AC.)
.
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
IDAHO
LAKES (AC. )
•
ฆ

•
•
•

•
•
•

•

RIVERS
(III. )



.
.
.

.
.
.

.
ILLINOIS
LAKES (AC. )
0
0
8,714
6,714
12,895
37,222
28,258
78,374
98
413
9
520

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
INDIANA
GREAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0
.

0
0


0

LAKES (AC.)
0


0
154
•

154
0


0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
25
•

25
0


0
ZOU A
LAKES (AC.)
.


•
•
31,700

31,700
*


•

RIVERS
(MI. )
.



.
.

.
.


.

WETLANDS
(AC. )



.
,
.
.
.
.


.
KANSAS
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
140,361
•
•
140,361
140,361


140,361
(CONTINUED 1

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR DESIGNATED USES IMPACTED
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
SHELLFISH
DRINKING
AGRICULTURE
1IKL

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY












KENTUCKY
RIVERS
(MI. )
#

.
.
.
.
.
.
•
•
•
•
LOUISIANA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)




.

.
.
.
.
•
•

COAST (AC. )
•

•
-
•

•
•
•

•
•

LAKES (AC.)
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•

ESTUARY
(MI. )




.

•
.
.

.
•

RIVERS
(MI. )




.

.
.
.

.
•
MAINE
LAKES (AC.)
0

0
0
32,984

4,739
37,723
0

1,705
1,705

RIVERS
(MI. )
0

0
0
513

0
513
585

0
585
MARYLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
m


.
.

.
.
.

.
.

LAKES (AC.)
.

.
.
.

•
•
•

•
•

RIVERS
(MI.)




.

.
.
.

•
•
MASSACHUSE-
TTS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
83

83
0
0
•
0
0
0
.
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
43
59

101
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
MINNESOTA
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
.
.
.
#

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
MISSOURI
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR DESIGNATED USES IMPACTED
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND WATERBODY
SHELLFISH
DRINKING
AGRICULTURE

TYPE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

U
SE SUPPORT




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












MISSOURI
RIVERS
(MI. )







•


•
•
MONTANA
LAKES (AC. >
•


•



•


•
•

RIVERS
(MI. )
.


.







•
NEVADA
LAKES (AC.)
.


•







•

RIVERS
(MI. )



.







•
NEW MEXICO
LAKES (AC.)
•


-







•

RIVERS
(MI. >
.


.







•
NEW YORK
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0


0
0


0

GREAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0


0
0


0

COAST (AC. )
66,180


66.180
0


0
0


0

LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
243
11,054
9,833
21,130
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
22
13
34
68
0
0
0
0
NORTH
CAROLINA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI. )



.
.
.
.
.
•
•
•
•

RIVERS
(MI. )
12
197

209
93
966
43
1,102
349
751
.
1,099
NORTH
LAKES (AC.)
.
.
-
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DAKOTA
RIVERS
(MI. )
.
•
•
•
1,485
•
•
1,485
1,197
•
•
1,197
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR DESIGNATED USES IMPACTED
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
TYPE
SHELLFISH
DRINKING
AGRICULTURE
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












OHIO
LAKES (AC.)
RIVERS
(III. )




.





•

OKLAHOMA
LAKES (AC.)












RIVERS
(111. )












PENNSYLVAN-
IA
RIVERS
(MI. )












PUERTO RICO
COAST (MI.)












ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)












LAKES (AC.)












RIVERS
(MI. )












RHODE
ISLAND
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)




1
0

1
' 1
0

1
LAKES (AC.)




•
448

448
•
326

326
RIVERS
(MI. )




39
.
94
133
24
.
36
60
SOUTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC. )
0
0
0
0
125
7,622
552,630
560,777
125
100,602
556,765
659,692
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
288
268
0
557
2,421
2,976
TENNESSEE
LAKES (AC. )
.
.
.
•
14,805
14,966
36,924
68,695
•
1,650
346
1,997
RIVERS
(MI. )
.
.
.
.
146
917
671
1,933
65
510
211
607
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR DESIGNATED USES IMPACTED
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MA
TYPE
TERBODY
SHELLFISH
DRINKING
AGRICULTURE


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

TOTAL

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












TEXAS
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)

LAKES (AC.I
.




221,873
•
221>873

•
•


RIVERS
(MI. )
.




88
.
88


.

UTAH
LAKES (AC.)
.





ฆ
•


•

RIVERS
(MI. )
.





.
.


.

VERMONT
LAKES (AC.)
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
RIVERS
(MI.) ,
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
VIRGIN
ISLANDS
COAST (MI.)
.


.
.


.




VIRGINIA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)




.


.




LAKES (AC.)
.


•
•


•




RIVERS
(MI. )
.


.
.


.




WASHINGTON
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
2
0

2
0


0




LAKES (AC. )
.
•

•
•


•




RIVERS
(MI. )


50
54
.


.




WEST
VIRGINIA
RIVERS
(MI. )



.
.

.
.
.



WISCONSIN
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•



(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR DESIGNATED USES IMPACTED
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODT
SHELLFISH
DRINKING
AGRICULTURE

TTrfc

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPOR1




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODT












WISCONSIN
RIVERS
cm.)


.
.
.
.
.
.
•
•
•
•
WYOMING
LAKES (AC.)
•
-
•
•
-
•
•
•
•
459
30
489

RIVERS
(til. )
.


.

301
90
391
.
449
29
476
TOTAL
COAST (MI.)
i >981
•
.
1,961
0
•
•
0
36
•
•
36

ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
94
63
0
178
24
0
0
24
14
0
0
14

GREAT LAKES
(Sq.MI.)
0

#
0
0
a
•
0
0
.
.
0

COAST (AC.)
66,160
•
•
66,160
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0

LAKES (AC. )
0
0
8,714
6,714
545,749
325,085
634,583
1,505,416
844,221
103,649
560,857
1,508,727

ESTUARY
(MI. )



#

.
.
.
.
.
.
•

RIVERS
(MI. )
71
256
50
377
7,235
3,340
1,523
12,096
6,737
5,522
2,801
15,060

WETLANDS
(AC. )
7,562
•
•
7,562
12,227
•
•
12,227
10,144
•
•
10,144
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR DESIGNATED USES IMPACTED
BT MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
INDUSTRIAL
RECREATION
NAVIGATION

1 IKt

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












ALABAMA
COAST (MI.)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)



.
.
•
.
.
.
.
.
.

LAKES (AC.)
.
•
•
•
-
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

RIVERS
(MI. )
10


10
151
101
.
252
.
.
•
•
ARIZONA
RIVERS
(MI. 1
0
0
0
0
1,737
3,271
44
5,052
0
0
0
0
ARKANSAS
RIVERS
(MI. )
0

0
0
1,093

277
1,370
0

0
0
CALIFORNIA
COAST (MI.)
1.981


1,981
1,982


1,982
1,981


1,981

ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
74


74
94


94
73


73

LAKES (AC.)
247.806


247,808
960,568


960,568
4,308


4,308

RIVERS
(MI. )
1.468


1,468
4,200


4,200
308


308

WETLANDS
(AC. )
15,356


15,356
20,055


20,055
2,112


2,112
COLORADO
LAKES (AC.)
-


•
•


•
•


•

RIVERS
(MI. )



.
.


.
.
•

•
CONNECTICUT
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

LAKES (AC.)
ฆ
0
0
0
•
10,828
7,882
18,710
•
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. >
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR DESIGNATED USES IMPACTED
BY UATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MA
TYPE
TERBODY
INDUSTRIAL
RECREATION
NAVIGATION


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

TOTAL

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












DELAWARE
RIVERS
(MI. )
WETLANDS
(AC. )
.
.


,
.

.
.
.

•
GEORGIA
LAKES I AC. )
0
.

0
5.373
•

5,373
0
•

0
RIVERS
(III. )
0
0

0
14
176

192
0
0

0
HAWAII
COAST (AC.)
242
•

242
12,204
•

12,204
•
•

•
IDAHO
LAKES (AC.)
.
.

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
RIVERS
(MI. )
.




.

.
.
.

•
ILLINOIS
LAKES (AC.)
644
5,721
4,619
11,184
56,896
49,776
25,215
131,887
1,333
0
0
1,333
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
INDIANA
GREAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0
•
.
0
0


0
LAKES (AC. )
0


0
1,749
•
•
1,749
0


0
RIVERS
(MI. >
0


0
767
•
.
767
0


0
IOMA
LAKES (AC.)
.


•
•
•
•
•
•


•
RIVERS
(MI. )
m



255
2,078
35
2,367
.


-
WETLANDS
(AC. )




.
.
.
.
.


.
KANSAS
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
140,361
•
•
140,361
0


0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOB DESIGNATED USES IMPACTCD
BT WATERBODr TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HA
TYPE
TERBODY
INDUSTRIAL
RECREATION
NAVIGATION


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

I
SE SUPPORT

TOTAL

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY












KENTUCKY
RIVERS
(MI. 1
LOUISIANA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
.
m
.

.

.
.
.
.
•
•

COAST (AC. )
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•

LAKES (AC.)
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
ESTUARY
(MI. )




.

.
.
.

•
•
RIVERS
(MI. )
.


,
.

.
.
.

.
•
MAINE
LAKES (AC.)
32,984

3,034
36,016
32,984

3,034
36,018
0

0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
181

0
161
604

0
604
0

0
0
MARYLAND
ESTUARY
(SO.MI.)
.

#

.

.
.
.

.
•
LAKES (AC.)
.

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
RIVERS
(MI. )



.
.

.
.
.

.
ฆ
MASSACHUSE-
TTS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
#
0
0
84
.
84
0
0
.
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0

0
207
419
.
626
0
0
.
0
MINNESOTA
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
167,233
65,494
313,845
546,572
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
.
#


.
.
•
.
.
.
.
.
MISSOURI
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
-
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR DESIGNATED USES IMPACTED
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
INDUSTRIAL
RECREATION
NAVIGATION
11 rt

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












MISSOURI
RIVERS
(MI. )






.
.
.

•

MONTANA
LAKES (AC.)
-






•
•




RIVERS
(MI. )







.




NEVADA
LAKES (AC.)







•





RIVERS
(MI. )







.




NEW MEXICO
LAKES (AC.)







*





RIVERS
(MI. )







.




NEW YORK
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
3


3
0


0

GREAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
8


a
0


0

COAST (AC.)
0


0
1,600


1,600
0


0

LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
63,264
4,217
28,461
95,962
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
73
64
25
162
0
0
0
0
NORTH
CAROLINA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
#
m
#
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

RIVERS
(MI. )




24
265
32
321
.
.
.
•
NORTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
.
•
•
•
75,903
•
•
75,903
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI. )
231
.
.
231
3,251
•
•
3,251
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR DESIGNATED USES IMPACTED
BY UATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HA
TYPE
TERBODY
INDUSTRIAL
RECREATION
NAVIGATION


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

TOTAL

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
HON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
UATERBODY












OHIO
LAKES (AC.)

RIVERS
(MI. )






.
.




OKLAHOMA
LAKES (AC.)






203,359
203,359




RIVERS
(MI. )






1,124
1,124




PENNSYLVAN-
IA
RIVERS
(MI. )






.
.




PUERTO RICO
COAST (MI.)






•
•




ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)






.
.




LAKES (AC.1






•
•




RIVERS
(MI. )






.
.




RHODE
ISLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
6


6
8
10
8
26




LAKES (AC.)
.
60

60
•
386
•
386




RIVERS
(MI. )
26

27
53
48
5
56
109




SOUTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
548>000
548.000
125
100,802
558,800
659,727
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
83
83
101
.626
2,505
3,232
0
0
0
0
TENNESSEE
LAKES (AC.)
.
.
•

31,287
16,649
39,869
87,805
-
-
-
•
RIVERS
(MI. )
13
5
24
42
931
2,099
1,605
4,634
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR DESIGNATED USES IMPACTED
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
INDUSTRIAL
RECREATION
NAVIGATION
1 TfC

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
HON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY












TEXAS
ESTUARY
(S9.MI.)
#

.

•
.

.
.
.

•

LAKES (AC.>
.

•

-
•

•
•
•

•

RIVERS
(MI. )




44
5

49
.


.
UTAH
LAKES (AC.)
.

•

•


•
•


•

RIVERS
(MI. )




.


.
.


•
VERMONT
LAKES (AC.)
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
VIRGIN
ISLANDS
COAST (MI. )











•
VIRGINIA
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)











.

LAKES (AC.)











•

RIVERS
(MI. )











.
WASHINGTON
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)











ฆ

LAKES (AC.)











•

RIVERS
(MI. )











.
HE ST
VIRGINIA
RIVERS
(MI. )


.
.


.

.


.
WISCONSIN
LAKES (AC.)
•

•
•
•

•

•


•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR DESIGNATED USES IMPACTED
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
INDUSTRIAL
RECREATION
NAVIGATION

TYPE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

L
SE SUPPORT




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












WISCONSIN
RIVERS
(MI. )
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
•
•
•
•
WYOMING
LAKES (AC. )

•
-
•
•
488
30
518
•
•
•
•

RIVERS
(HI. )



.
.
485
111
596
.
•
•
•
TOTAL
COAST (MI.)
1,981
.
.
1,961
1,982
•
•
1,982
1,981
•
•
1,981

ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
80
0
0
80
106
93
8
207
73
0
0
73

GREAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)
0
.

0
8
.
.
8
0
.
.
0

COAST (AC.)
242
.
.
242
13,804
•
•
13,804
0
•
•
0

LAKES (AC.)
281,636
5,781
555,653
843,070
1,535,763
248,639
1,180,495
2,964,897
5,641
0
0
5,641

ESTUARY
(MI. >

#
.
.
.
.
.
.
•
.
.
•

RIVERS
(MI. )
1,929
5
134
2,066
13,500
9,615
5,812
28,927
308
0
0
308

WETLANDS
(AC. )
15,356
-
•
15,356
20,055
•
•
20,055
2,112
•
•
2,112
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR DESIGNATED USES IMPACTED
BY HATERBODr TYPE AMD USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
HIGH QUALITY/NONDEGRADATION
i ire

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY




ALABAMA
COAST (MI.)
•
•
•
•

ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
.
,
•
.

LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
•

RIVERS
(HI.)
.
.
.
.
ARIZONA
RIVERS
(III.)
0
0
0
0
ARKANSAS
RIVERS
(MI. )
0

0
0
CALIFORNIA
COAST (MI.)
1.982


1,982

ESTUARY
(Sq.MI. )
94


94

LAKES (AC. )
4X4,033


414,033

RIVERS
(MI. )
3,338


3,338

WETLANDS
(AC.)
19,209


19,209
COLORADO
LAKES (AC.)
•


•

RIVERS
(MI.)
.
.

.
CONNECTICUT
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0

LAKES (AC. )
•
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR DESIGNATED USES IMPACTED
BT WATERBODY TYPE AMD USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
HIGH
qUALITY/UOHDEGRADATION
1 1 rc

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY




DELAWARE
RIVERS
(MI. )
.
.
.
.

WETLANDS
(AC. )
.
•
.
.
GEORGIA
LAKES (AC.1
0
•
•
0

RIVERS
(MI. >
0
0
.
0
HAMAII
COAST (AC.)
•
•
•
•
IDAHO
LAKES (AC. )
•
•
-
•

RIVERS
(MI.)
.
.
.
.
ILLINOIS
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(HI. )
0
0
0
0
INDIANA
GREAT LAKES
(SQ.HI.)
0


0

LAKES (AC.)
0


0

RIVERS
(HI. )
0


0
IOMA
LAKES (AC. )
•


•

RIVERS
(HI. )
.


.

METLANDS
(AC. )
.
.

.
KANSAS
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
•
0
(CONTINUED I

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR DESIGNATED USES IMPACTED
BY NATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBOOY
HIGH QUALITY/NONDEGRADATION
11 re

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBOOY




KENTUCKY
RIVERS
(MI.)
.
.
.
.
LOUISIANA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
.
•
.
.

COAST (AC.)
•

•
•

LAKES (AC. )
•

•
•

ESTUARY
(MI. )
.

.
.

RIVERS
(MI.)
•

.
.
MAINE
LAKES (AC.)
0

0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
11

0
11
MARYLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
,

.
.

LAKES (AC.)
•

•
•

RIVERS
(MI. )
,

.
.
MASSACHUSE-
TTS
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
0
0
.
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
.
0
MINNESOTA
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
.
.
.
.
MISSOURI
LAKES (AC.)
•
ฆ
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR DESIGNATED USES IMPACTED
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
HIGH
QUALITY/NONDEGRADATION
I I re

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY




MISSOURI
RIVERS
(MI. )
.

.
•
MONTANA
LAKES ( AC. )


•
•

RIVERS
(MI. )




NEVADA
LAKES (AC.)





RIVERS
(MI. )




NEH MEXICO
LAKES (AC.)





RIVERS
(MI. )




NEW YORK
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0

5REAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)
0


0

COAST (AC.)
0


0

LAKES (AC. )
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
NORTH
CAROLINA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
.
.
.
.

RIVERS
(MI. )
z
48
217
267
NORTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI. )
.
•
•
•
( CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR DESIGNATED USES IMPACTED
BY HATERBODY TYPE AIO) USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
HIGH QUALITY/UONDEGRADATION
i irt

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY



.
OHIO
LAKES (AC.)

RIVERS
(MI. )

.
.
.
OKLAHOMA
LAKES (AC.)


312.994
312,994
RIVERS
(MI. )


609
609
PENNSYLVAN-
IA
RIVERS
(III. )




PUERTO RICO
COAST (HI. )




ESTUARY
(SQ.M. )




LAKES (AC.)




RIVERS
(MI. )




RHODE
ISLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)




LAKES (AC.1




RIVERS
(hi. )




SOUTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
TENNESSEE
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI. )
.
.
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR DESIGNATED USES IMPACTED
BY UATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HA
TYPE
TERBODY
HIGH QUALITY/NOHDEGRADATION

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
HON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY




TEXAS
ESTUARY
(SQ.fll. )
LAKES (AC.)

•

•
RIVERS
(MI. )



.
UTAH
LAKES (AC.)




RIVERS
(MI. >



.
VERMONT
LAKES (AC.)
0

0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0

0
0
VIRGIN
ISLANDS
COAST (MI.)



•
VIRGINIA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)



•
LAKES (AC.)



•
RIVERS
(MI. >



.
WASHINGTON
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)



•
LAKES (AC.)



•
RIVERS
(MI. )



.
NEST
VIRGINIA
RIVERS
(MI. )



•
HISCONSIN
LAKES (AC.)



*
(CONTINUED)

-------
suit Tonus FO'-i JtSIGNATE.? '.jE!
BY MaTiERBOOY TYHE AND 'JSE ~-'PPCRT
STATE AND MATERBODY
HIGH QUALITY/NONDEGRADATION
i ire

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY




WISCONSIN
RIVERS
(til. >
•
.
.
.
WYOMING
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
•

RIVERS
(HI.)
.
•
.
.
TOTAL
COAST (MI.)
1,982
•
•
1,982

ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
94
0
0
94

GREAT LAKES
(sq.Mi.)
0
•
.
0

COAST (AC.)
0
•
•
0

LAKES (AC.)
414.033
0
312.994
727,027

ESTUARY
(MI. )
.
.
.
.

RIVERS
(MI. J
3,351
40
626
4,224

WETLANDS
(AC. >
19,209
.
•
19,209

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR MONITORED VS. EVALUATED HATERS
BY HATERBODr TYPE AMD USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND WATERBODY
TOTAL
MONITORED
EVALUATED

1 TKL

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

L
SE SUPPORT




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBODY












ALABAMA
COAST (MI.J
5
•
•
5
5
•
•
5
0
•
•
0

ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
50

50
0
0
.
0
0
50
.
50

LAKES (AC.)
1,650
103,100
30,200
135,150
1,650
103,100
0
104,950
0
0
30,200
30,200

RIVERS
(MI. )
599
1,019
11
1,629
276
175
11
462
323
844
0
1,167
ARIZONA
RIVERS
(MI. )
2,064
3,479
104
5,667
347
911
0
1,256
1,737
2,569
104
4,409
ARKANSAS
RIVERS
(MI. )
1,324
m
326
1,650
469

326
795
855

0
855
CALIFORNIA
COAST (MI. )
1,982
-

1,982
1,982

•
1,982
0


0

ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
94
.

94
71

.
71
23


23

LAKES (AC.)
968,409
0

988,409
470,879

•
470,879
517,531


517,531

RIVERS
(MI. )
4,202


4,202
1,790
ซ

.
1,790
2,413


2,413

WETLANDS
(AC. )
25,435


25,435
21,120

.
21,120
4,315


4,315
COLORADO
LAKES (AC.)
25,877
.

25,877
13,718

•
13,716
12,160


12,160

RIVERS
(MI. )
3,342


3,342
2,617

.
2,617
725


725
CONNECTICUT
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.>
1
158
10
169
0
0
0
0
1
158
10
169

LAKES (AC.)
.
10,828
7,882
18,710
•
0
0
0
•
10,826
7,682
18,710

RIVERS
(MI. )
46
150
237
435
0
0
0
0
46
150
237
435
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOB MONITORED VS. EVALUATED WATERS
BY MATERBOOY TYPE AMD USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
TOTAL
MONITORED
EVALUATED
1 Trfc

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBODY












DELAWARE
RIVERS
(MI. )
299

127
426
0
.
0
0
299
•
127
426

WETLANDS
(AC. )
850


850
0
.
.
0
850
.

850
GEORGIA
LAKES (AC. )
5,373
.

5,373
5,347
•
•
5,347
26
•

26

RIVERS
(MI. )
14
178

192
14
178
•
192
0
0

0
HAWAII
COAST (AC.)
39,179
ฆ

39,179
34,109
•
•
34,109
5,070
•

5,070
IDAHO
LAKES (AC.)
11,036
.

11,036
0
•
•
0
11,036
•

11,036

RIVERS
(HI. )
16,957


18,957
0
.
.
0
18,957
.

18,957
ILLINOIS
LAKES (AC.)
56,896
49,847
35,480
142,223
19,099
35,922
25,121
80,142
37,796
13,925
10,360
62,082

RIVERS
(MI. >
453
792
4.620
5,865
436
663
3,750
4,849
17
129
870
1,016
INCIANA
GREAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)
241


241
241
.
.
241
0
.
.
0

LAKES (AC.)
11,048
.
•
11,048
4,633
•
•
4,633
6,415
•
•
6,415

RIVERS
(MI. )
2,229
#

2,229
1,533
.
.
1,533
697
.
•
697
IOWA
LAKES (AC.)
1,459
52,092
IS,688
72,239
0
15,300
0
15,300
1,459
36,794
18,688
56,941

RIVERS
(MI. )
900
6,467
317
7,685
873
532
243
1,648
27
5,936
74
6,037

WETLANDS
(AC. )
3,640
14,201
6,761
24,602
0
0
0
0
3,640
14,201
6,761
24,602
KANSAS
LAKES (AC.)
140,361
•
•
140,361
0
•
•
0
140,361
•
-
140,361
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR MONITORED VS. EVALUATED HATERS
BT WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND WATERBODY
TOTAL
MONITORED
EVALUATED

1 IPC

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBODY












KENTUCKY
RIVERS
(MI. )
3.034

.
3,034
0

.
0
3.034
.
.
3,034
LOUISIANA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
120
1,274

1,394
.

•
.
120
1,274
.
1,394

COAST (AC. )
•
424,320
•
424,320
•

•
•
-
424,320
•
424.320

LAKES (AC.)
•
178,337
87,034
265,371
•

•
•
•
178,337
87,034
265,371

ESTUARY
(MI. )

198
54
252
.

.
.
.
198
54
252

RIVERS
(MI. )
604
1,665
69
2,338
.

.
.
604
1,665
69
2,338
MAINE
LAKES (AC.)
32,984
•
4,739
37,723
32,984

4,739
37,723
0
•
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
967
.
51
1,018
226

0
226
741
.
51
792
MARYLAND
ESTUARY
(SO.MI.)
2,462
.
.
2,462
0

.
0
2,482
.
.
2,482

LAKES (AC.)
2.590
•
-
2,590
0

•
0
2,590
•
•
2,590

RIVERS
(MI. )
722
.

722
0

.
0
722
.
.
722
MASSACHUSE-
TTS
ESTUARY
(SO.MI.)
0
84

84
0
84
.
84
0
0
.
0

RIVERS
(MI. 1
lfiO
419

599
180
417
•
597
0
2
.
2
MINNESOTA
LAKES (AC.)
167,233
65,494
313,845
546,572
65,862
33,725
105,368
204,955
101,371
31,769
208,477
341,617

RIVERS
(MI. )
1,434
142
.
1,576
1,434
142
.
1,576
0
0
.
0
MISSOURI
LAKES (AC.)
615
1,469
12,368
14,472
0
0
0
0
615
1,469
12,380
14,472
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR MONITORED VS. EVALUATED HATERS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
TOTAL
MONITORED
EVALUATED
1 IKt

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












MISSOURI
RIVERS
(MI.)
75
1,154
8,243
9,471
0
0
0
0
75
1,154
8,243
9,471
(10NTANA
LAKES (AC.)
34,065
•
129,350
163,415
0

129,350
129,350
34,065

0
34,065

RIVERS
(MI. )
7,247
9
55
7,302
4,568

0
4,568
2,679

55
2,734
NEVADA
LAKES (AC.)
1,250
•
16
1,266
1,250


1,250
•

16
16

RIVERS
(MI. )
663
222

885
590
222

812
73

.
73
NEW MEXICO
LAKES (AC. )
57,258
.
•
57,258
0


0
57,258

•
57,258

RIVERS
(MI. )
1,135
#

1,135
0


0
1,135

.
1,135
NEW YORK
ESTUARY
(SO.MI.)
155


155
0


0
155

.
155

GREAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)
3,568
#

3,568
0


0
3,568

.
3,568

COAST (AC.)
67,780
.
•
67,780
0


0
67,780

•
67,780

LAKES (AC. )
272,449
18,734
38,313
329,496
0
0
0
0
272,449
18,734
38.313
329,496

RIVERS
ซMI. )
904
248
153
1,305
0
0
0
0
904
248
153
1,305
NORTH
CAROLINA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
4
244
10
257
0
0
0
0
4
244
10
257

RIVERS
(MI. )
1,464
8,946
253
10,663
1,125
5,411
121
6,657
339
3,535
133
4,007
NORTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
90,293
.
.
90,293
81,043
•
•
81,043
9,250
•
•
9,250
RIVERS
(MI. )
6,359
.
.
6,359
4,895
.
•
4,895
1,464
•
•
1,464
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR MONITORED VS. EVALUATED HATERS
BY MATERBODY TYPE At ID USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
TTPF
TOTAL
MONITORED
EVALUATED


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












OHIO
LAKES (AC.)
73,430
•
•
73,430
0
•
•
0
73,430
.
.
73,430

RIVERS
(MI. )
14,779
.
1,873
16,652
10,562

0
10,582
4,198
a
1,673
5,070
OKLAHOMA
LAKES (AC.1
0
236,964
419,148
656,011
•
222,516
2,392
224,909
•
16,346
416,756
433,102

RIVERS
(MI. )
620
2,306
5,302
6,227
615
2,130
221
2,966
5
177
5,080
5,262
PENNSYLVAN-
IA
RIVERS
(MI. )
2,630


2,630
2,344


2,344
286


266
PUERTO RICO
COAST (MI.)
144


144
0


0
144


144

ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
109


109
0


0
109


109

LAKES (AC.J
7,171


7,171
0


0
7,171


7i 171

RIVERS
(MI. )
2,615


2,615
0


0
2,615


2,615
RHODE
ISLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
a
10
8
26
8
10
8
26



m

LAKES (AC. J
•
673
•
673
•
562
•
582
•
91

91

RIVERS
(MI. )
66
6
226
296
58
6
110
174
6
.
116
124
SOUTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
125
100,802
558,800
659,727
0
0
548,000
548,000
125
100,802
10,800
111,727
RIVERS
(MI. )
584
835
2,531
3,951
463
397
2,347
3,227
101
438
164
724
TENNESSEE
LAKES (AC.)
31,287
48,620
75,792
155,899
16,679
12,593
67,999
97,271
14,606
36,227
7,793
58,628

RIVERS
(MI. )
977
2,216
1,605
4,799
509
724
652
1,865
468
1,493
952
2,914
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR MONITORED VS. EVALUATED MATERS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
TOTAL
MONITORED
EVALUATED

I Trfc

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
HON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












TEXAS
ESTUARY
(SQ.hl.)
.
96

96
.
96
.
96
.
•

•

LAKES (AC.)
.
232,552

232,552
•
232,540
•
232,540
•
12

12

RIVERS
(HI. )
192
431

623
192
431
.
623
.
.

•
UTAH
LAKES (AC.)
198,036
.

198,036
0
•
•
0
0
•

0

RIVERS
(III. )
167
13,878

14,045
0
0
.
0
0
0

0
VERMONT
LAKES (AC.)
49.134
•
150,258
199,392
48,133
•
148,460
196,593
1,001
•
1,798
2,799

RIVERS
(HI. )
624

435
1,059
141
.
106
247
483
•
329
812
VIRGIN
ISLANDS
COAST (HI.)
0
2

3
0
1
.
1
0
1
.
1
VIR6INIA
ESTUARY
(sq.m.)
90
101
270
460
45
55
135
235
44
46
135
225

LAKES (AC.)
2,027
10,074
•
12,101
0
2,001
•
2,001
2,027
8,073
•
10,100

RIVERS
(MI. )
785
1,271
2,459
4,515
568
1,011
935
2,514
216
261
1,523
2,001
WASHINGTON
ESTUARY
(SQ.HI.)
56
57
256
369
56
57
187
300
0
0
68
69

LAKES (AC.)
290
33,104
65,961
99,355
290
33,104
64,061
97,455
0
0
1,900
1,900

RIVERS
(MI. )
586
1,411
1,217
3,215
460
1,095
962
2,517
127
316
255
698
WEST
VIRGINIA
RIVERS
(MI. )
22,618
#
#
22,618
0
.
.
0
22,618
.
.
22,618
WISCONSIN
LAKES (AC.)
•
119
76
195
•
•
•
•
•
119
76
195
(CONTINUED >

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR MONITORED VS. EVALUATED WATERS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
TYPE
TOTAL
MONITORED
EVALUATED


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












WISCONSIN
RIVERS
t nx.)
745
7.212
10,739
10,696
99
1,237
538
1,874
646
5,976
10,201
16,823
WYOMING
LAKES ( AC.)
•
27.979
75,070
103,049
•
25,239
60,025
85,264
•
2,740
15,045
17,785

RIVERS
(MI. )
.
2,660
889
3,550
.
1ป441
214
1,654
.
1,220
676
1,895
TOTAL
COAST (HI.)
2,131
2
•
2,133
1,987
1
ฆ
1,988
144
1
.
145

ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
3,120
2.07$
553
5,747
181
302
330
812
2,939
1,772
224
4,934

GREAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)
3,809
.
.
3,809
241
.
•
241
3,568


3,568

COAST (AC.)
106,959
424,320
•
531,279
34,109
•
•
34,109
72,850
424,320
.
497,170

LAKES (AC.)
2,262,545
1,172,367
2,023.039
5,458,471
761.766
716,623
1,155,514
2,633,903
1,302,743
456,266
867,526
2,626,534

ESTUARY
(III. )
.
196
54
252
.
.
.


198
54
252

RIVERS
(MI. ป
107,226
57,109
41,642
206,179
37,422
17,121
10,537
65,080
69,639
26,110
31,104
126,853

WETLANDS
(AC. )
29)925
14,201
6.761
50,887
21,120
0
0
21,120
8,805
14,201
6,761
29,767

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY WATERBOQY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND WATERBODY
TYPE
UNKNOWN TOXICS
PESTICIDES
PRIORITY ORGANICS
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY
0


0
0


0
0


0
ALABAMA
COAST (MI.)
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI. )
0
0

0
0
7
a
7
0
7
.
7
LAKES (AC.1
0
0
0
0
0
43.671
0
43.871
0
0
10,067
10.067
RIVERS
(HI. )
2
0
0
2
22
66
0
108
1
2
0
3
ARIZONA
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
13
0
13
10
0
0
10
24
32
0
56
ARKANSAS
RIVERS
(MI. )
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
CALIFORNIA
COAST (MI.)
0


0
492


492
0


0
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
3


3
0


0
LAKES (AC.)
96.406


96.406
7.457


7.457
0


0
RIVERS
(MI. )
13

•
13
443


443
3


3
WETLANDS
(AC. )
215

•
215
962


962
0


0
COLORADO
LAKES (AC.)
0

•
0
0


0
0


0
RIVERS
im.)
0

•
0
0


0
0


0
CONNECTICUT
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.I
.


.
.



.


.
LAKES (AC.)
•


•
ฆ


•
•


•
RIVERS
(MI. 1
.


.
.


.
.

.
.
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY UATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND UATERBODY
TYPE
UNKNOWN TOXICS
PESTICIDES
PRIORITY ORGANICS
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IHPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
UATERBODY
0

0
0
21

0
21
34

e
42
DELAWARE
RIVERS
(HI. )
WETLANDS
(AC. )





.

.
.
.

.
GEORGIA
LAKES (AC.)
0
•

0
0
•

0
0
•

0
RIVERS
(HI. >
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
HAWAII
COAST (AC.)
0
•

0
605
•

805
0
ฆ

0
IDAHO
LAKES (AC.)
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
RIVERS
(HI. )
.
.

.
.
•

.
.
.

.
ILLINOIS
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
026
807
1,109
2,742
469
294
in
674
RIVERS
(HI. )
0
0
0
0
1
0
10
10
6
21
16
43
INDIANA
GREAT LAKES
(SQ.HI.)
0
.
,
0
121
,

121
121
,
.
121
LAKES (AC.)
64

•
64
67
•
•
67
67
•
•
67
RIVERS
(MI. )
4
.
.
4
508
.
.
508
317
.
.
317
IOWA
LAKES (AC.)
0
6
0
6
478
13,757
5,018
19,253
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(HI. )
0
0
0
0
192
1,982
73
2,248
3
13
0
16
WETLANDS
(AC. )
0
0
0
0
44
3,310
981
4,336
0
0
0
0
KANSAS
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
•
0
36.036
•
•
36,036
0
•
•
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY HATERBOOr TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND UATERBODY
TYPF

UNKNOWN
TOXICS

PESTICIDES

PRIORITY
ORGANICS



USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
UATERBODY












KENTUCKY
RIVERS

-------
STATE T0TAL3 FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY UATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AM) UATERBODY
TYPE
UNKNOWN TOXICS
PESTICIDES
PRIORITY ORGANICS
USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IHPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
UATERBODY
0
0
0
0
0
814
165
979
0
0
0
0
MISSOURI
RIVERS
(MI. )
MONTANA
LAKES IAC.)
0

0
0
0

0
0
a

0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
55

0
55
0

0
0
0

0
0
NEVADA
LAKES (AC.)
•


•
ฆ


•
•


•
RIVERS
(MI. )








.


.
NEW MEXICO
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0


0
0


0
RIVERS
(MI. I
0


0
0


0
7


7
NEW YORK
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
a


0
145


145
GREAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0


0
3.560


3.560
COAST (AC.)
0


0
0


0
0


0
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
79,011
0
0
79.011
102,060
0
0
102,060
RIVERS
(MI.)
16
0
0
16
5
0
0
5
270
0
0
270
NORTH
CAROLINA
ESTUARY
(sq.Mi.)
1
59
3
62
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
22
157
0
179
0
IB
0
16
0
0
0
0
NORTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
•
ฆ
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(HI.)
.
.
.
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
TYPE
UNKNOWN TOXICS
PESTICIDES
PRIORITY 0R6ANICS

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IHPACTED
USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY
•









.

OHIO
LAKES (AC.)
RIVERS
(HI.)
ป



.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
OKLAHOMA
LAKES (AC.)
*
619
773
1,592
•
24>498
76.660
101,159
•
10,983
11,228
22,210
RIVERS
(til.)
39
284
122
446
62
331
1,177
1,590
0
69
53
122
PENNSYLVAN-
IA
RIVERS
(MI.)
0


0
169


169
0


0
PUERTO RICO
COAST (HI. 1












ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)












LAKES (AC.)












RIVERS
(MI. )












RHODE
ISLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.HI.)












LAKES (AC.)












RIVERS
(HI. )












SOUTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
TENNE3SEE
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,920
880
4,125
7,925
RIVERS
(MI. I
6
2
0
a
17
51
0
68
29
58
12
99
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY UATERBOOY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HA
TYPE
TERBODY
UNKNOWN TOXICS
PESTICIDES
PRIORITY ORGANICS


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

L
SE SUPPORT

TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
UATERBOOY


ซ

•







TEXAS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)

LAKES (AC.)
.
.
•

•


•
•


•

RIVERS
(HI. )
.






.
.


•
UTAH
LAKES (AC.)
.






•
•


•
RIVERS
(MI. )







.
.


•
VERMONT
LAKES (AC. )
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
VIRGIN
ISLANDS
COAST (MI.)
.



•

.
.
.

•
•
VIRGINIA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
3
3
21
0
36
57
0
0
0
0
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
RIVERS
(MI. >
0
0
0
0
5
2
45
52
19
13
14
47
WASHINGTON
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
5
1
3
9
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
6,621
0
6,621
36
0
1,898
1,934
RIVERS
(MI. )
1
0
0
1
8
21
8
37
13
27
6
46
NEST
VIRGINIA
RIVERS
(MI. )
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
•
•
•
•
WISCONSIN
LAKES (AC.)
•
•

ฆ
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED >

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND WATERBODY
TYPE
UNKNOWN TOXICS
PESTICIDES
PRIORITY 0R6ANICS

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
I
JSE SUPPOR1

TOTAL
IMPACTEO
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBODY












WISCONSIN
RIVERS
(HI.)
WYOMING
LAKES (AC.)
.
182
.
182
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI.)
.
.
.
•
•
31
72
103
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND NATERBODY
TYPE
NONPRIOHITY 0R6ANIC3
METALS
AMMONIA
USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBOOY
0


0
0


0
0


0
ALABAMA
COAST (HI.)
ESTUARY
(Sq.MX.1
0
7
,
7
0
0

0
0
0

0
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
463
9,671
0
10,334
0
9,671
0
9,671
RIVERS
ih:. )
u
7
0
23
49
49
3
Ml
50
61
c
111
ARIZONA
RIVERS
(HI.)
0
94
0
94
175
261
0
456
5
0
0
5
ARKANSAS
RIVERS
(MI. )
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
CALIFORNIA
COAST (MI.1
0


0
500


500
0


0
ESTUARY
(30.HI.J
0


0
16


16
0


0
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
173,686


173,666
0


0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
646


646
0


0
WETLANDS
(AC.)
0


0
12>716


12,716
0


0
COLORADO
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
970


976
0


0
RIVERS
(Ml. )
0


ซ
1.219


1,219
D


0
CDHHECTICUT
ESTUARY
(3D.MI.)
.


.
.


,




LAKES (AC. )
•


•
•


•
<


.
RIVERS
(MI. )
ฆ


.
.


.
.


,
(CONTINUED I

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HA
TYPE
TERBODY
NONPRIORITY ORGANICS
METALS
AMMONIA


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

L
SE SUPPORT

TOTAL
IHPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
UATERBODY
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
DELAWARE
RIVERS
cm.)

WETLANDS
(AC.)





.
.
.
.
.

•
6E0RGIA
LAKES (AC.)
0
.

0
0
•
•
0
0
•

0
RIVERS
(HI. )
.
0

0

0
.
0
.
0

0
HAWAII
COAST (AC.)
0
.

0
805
•
•
805
0
•

0
IDAHO
LAKES (AC.)
.
.

.
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
RIVERS
(HI. )

.



•
.
.
.
•

•
ILLINOIS
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
2 >052
550
1.369
3,971
118
0
0
118
RIVERS
(HI. )
1
0
0
1
14
58
49
121
10
34
9
53
INDIANA
6REAT LAKES
(S3.MI.)
0
.

0
0
.
.
0
0
.
•
0
LAKES (AC.)
0
.
.
0
142
•
•
142
0
•
•
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
4


4
42
.
.
42
4
•
•
4
IOHA
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
2
0
2
171
235
49
455
0
0
0
0
HETLANDS
(AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
0
27
KANSAS
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
•
0
3 >353
•
•
3.353
0
•
•
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY UATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND UATERBODY
TYBC
NONPRIORITY ORGANICS
METALS
AMMONIA


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
UATERBODY












KENTUCKY
RIVERS
(Ml.)
•

.

.





.
.
LOUISIANA
ESTUARY
(SQ.HI. I
.

.

.



.




COAST (AC. I
•

•

•

•
•
•

.
.

LAKES (AC.)
•

•

•

•
•
•

•
.

ESTUARY
(MI.)
.

.

.

.

.




RIVERS
(MI. )
3
31
.
34
5

.
5
.



MAINE
LAKES (AC.)
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0

RIVERS
(hi.)
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
MARYLAND
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
0


0
0


0
0


0

LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0


0
0


0

RIVERS
(MI.)
0


0
0


0
0


0
MASSACHUSE-
TTS
ESTUARY
(sq.m.)
0
0

0
0
1

1
0
0

0

RIVEPS
(MI.)
0
0

0
17
13

29
1
0

1
MINNESOTA
LAKES (AC.)
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

.

RIVERS
(MI. )
.
.

.
.
.



.
#

MISSOURI
LAKES (AC.)
0
90
0
90
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY UATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND UATERBODY
TYPE
NONPRIORITY ORGANICS
METALS
AMMONIA
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTEO
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
UATERBODY
0
0
0
0
17
33
7
57
0
2
0
e
MISSOURI
RIVERS
(MI. )
MONTANA
LAKES (AC.)
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
•
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. >
0

0
0
346

0
346
0
.
0
0
NEVADA
LAKES (AC.)
•


•
•


•
625
•
•
625
RIVERS
(MI.)
*



51


51
3
.
.
3
NEH MEXICO
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0


0
0
•
•
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
4


4
97


97
85
.
•
85
NEW YORK
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0


0
0
.
.
0
GREAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0


0
0
.
.
0
COAST (AC.)
0


0
0


0
0
*
•
0
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
326
0
0
326
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(HI. I
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
NORTH
CAROLINA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MZ. )
0
0
0
0
70
369
7
466
60
196
0
256
NORTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI. )
.
.
.
.
364
.
.
364
.
.
.
.
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND WATERBODY
TYDF
NONPRIORITY ORGANICS
METALS
AMMONIA


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IHPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












OHIO
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
.
.
.
•

RIVERS
(HI. )
.
•

.
,







OKLAHOMA
LAKES (AC.)
•
2,130
2.130
4 >260
•
23,211
16,467
41,670
•
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI.)
0
66
4
91
U
37
223
271
3
0
2
5
PENNSYLVAN-
IA
RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
756


756
0


0
PUERTO RICO
COAST (MI.)




•
•

ฆ



•

ESTUARY
(SQ.HI.)




,
,







LAKES (AC.)




•
•

ฆ



.

RIVERS
(MI. )




.
.

.




RHODE
ISLAND
ESTUARY
(S4.MI.)




3
.

3





LAKES (AC.)




•
155

155



•

RIVERS
(MI.)




29
1
17
46




SOUTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
64
92
137
293
TENNESSEE
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
2,814
2,956
6,241
14,011
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
2
3
4
104
102
43
249
22
59
3
64
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AM) HATERBODT
TV DP
NONPRIORITY ORGANICS
METALS
AMMONIA


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTEO


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBODY












TEXAS
ESTUARY
f SQ.MI.)






•


.



LAKES (AC.)





•
•
•

.
.


RIVERS
(MI. 1





156
•
156


.

UTAH
LAKES (AC.)
•




•

-


•


RIVERS
(MI.)
ซ











VERMONT
LAKES (AC.)
0

0
0
0
•
0
0
0

0
0

RIVERS
(MI.)
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
0

0
0
VIRGIN
ISLANDS
COAST (MI.)
.


,

.


a

.

VIRGINIA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
C
0
22
0
39
60
0
0
0
0

LAKES (AC.)
0
0
•
0
0
ฃ41
•
241
0
0
.
0

RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
13
13
151
146
265
562
0
0
0
0
HASHINSTON
ESTUART
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
1
5
17
3
25
0
0
1
1

LAKES (AC.)
36
0
1.698
1,934
36
6,621
41.396
48.055
0
6.621
0
6.621

RIVERS
(MI. )
9
0
0
9
51
ฃ46
14
312
13
3
6
23
WEST
VIRGINIA
RIVERS
(MI.)
.
,






.

.
.
WISCONSIN
LAKES (AC. )
•
•
•
•
•
•
ฆ
•
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BT WATERBODY TYPE AMD USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND UATERBODY
TYPE
NONPRIORITY ORGANICS
METALS
AMMONIA
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBODY












WISCONSIN
RIVERS
(MI. )
WYOMING
LAKES (AC.)
•
ฆ
•
•
•
•
•
.
.
.
.
.
RIVERS
(MI. )
•
•
•
•
•
.
.
.
.
.
.
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HA
TYPE
TERBODY
CHLORINE
OTHER INORGANICS
NUTRIENTS


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

U
SE SUPPORT

TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY
0


0
0


0
0
#
.
0
ALABAMA
COAST (MI.)

ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
0
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
7
•
7

LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9.871
10.067
19,938
RIVERS
(MI.)
1
0
0
1
3
2
0
4
59
120
0
178
ARIZONA
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
67
206
12
364
98
270
3
370
ARKANSAS
RIVERS
(MI.)
0

0
0
213
.
0
213
0

0
0
CALIFORNIA
COAST (MI.)
0


0
492
•
•
492
0


0
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
11
.
.
11
10


10
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
96.937
•
•
96,937
154.249


154,249
RIVERS
(MI.)
0


0
663
,
.
663
240


240
WETLANDS
(AC.)
0


0
52
.
.
52
949


949
COLORADO
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0
•
•
0
20.727

•
20,727
RIVERS
(MI.)
0


0
6
,
.
6
268

•
268
CONNECTICUT
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)




.
,
.
.
.


•
LAKES (AC.)
.


•
•
•
•
•
•


•
RIVERS
(MI.)
.
.
.
•
•
•
•
ฆ
•


•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AM) HATERBODY
TYPE
CHLORINE
OTHER INORGANICS
NUTRIENTS
USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBODY
0

0
0
0

0
0
46

35
03
DELAWARE
RIVERS
(MI.)
WETLANDS
(AC.)




ซ


.



•
GEORGIA
LAKES (AC.)
0
-

0
0
•

0
2.687
•

2.687
RIVERS
(MI. )
ป
0

0
•
0

0
.
0

0
HAWAII
COAST (AC.)
0
•

0
0
•

0
20 >680
•

20,680
IDAHO
LAKES (AC.)
•
•

-
•
•

•
•
•

•
RIVERS
(MI. )
.
.

•
.
.

.
.
.

.
ILLINOIS
LAKES (AC.)
110
0
0
116
0
0
0
0
16.634
12.861
9,091
38,586
RIVERS
(MI.)
3
18
10
31
0
0
74
75
369
226
1.959
2.553
INDIANA
GREAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)
0
.
.
0
0
.
.
0
0
.
.
0
LAKES (AC.)
0
ฆ
•
0
0
•
•
0
4.899
*
•
4.899
RIVERS
(MI. )
a
•
.
0
ฃ
.
.
2
20
.
.
20
IOWA
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
478
15.059
5,069
20.605
RIVERS
(MI. )
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
193
1.975
73
2.241
WETLANDS
(AC. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44
4.919
981
5.945
KANSAS
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
76.699
•
•
76.699
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
TYPE
CHLORINE
OTHER INORGANICS
NUTRIENTS
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IHPACTED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY












KENTUCKY
RIVERS
CMI.)
LOUISIANA
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.1
.

.
.
a
.
.
8
21
142

163
COAST (AC.)
•

•
•
•
•
ฆ
.
.
•
.
.
LAKES (AC.)
•

•
•
•
15,465
•
15,465
.
41,943
971
42,913
ESTUARY
(MI. )
.

,
.

1
2
3

10

10
RIVERS
(MI.)
.

.
.
3
135
.
138
149
218
14
380
MAINE
LAKES (AC.)
0

0
0
0
•
0
0
0
.
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
0
m
0
0
MARYLAND
ESTUARY
(SO.HI.)
0

•
0
0
.

0
1,604
m

1,604
LAKES (AC.)
0

•
0
0
•

(I
2,575
•

2,575
RIVERS
(MI.)
0

.
0
0
.

0
238


238
MASSACHUSE-
TTS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
.
0
0
1

1
0
1

2
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
•
0
2
2

4
18
46

63
MINNESOTA
LAKES (AC.)
•
ฆ
•
•
•
•

.
•
•

.
RIVERS
(MI.)
.
,
,





693
60

753
MISSOURI
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
no
1,150
6,138
7,398
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBQDY
TYPF
CHLORINE
OTHER INORGANICS
NUTRIENTS


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPDRT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBOOY












MISSOURI
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
4
40
7
50
0
ฃ
41
43
MONTANA
LAKES (AC.)
0

0
0
3.475
•
0
3 >475
6.045
•
64,675
70,720

RIVERS
(MI. )
0

0
0
61

0
61
8S6

0
886
NEVADA
LAKES (AC.)
•


•
•

5
5
•
•

.

RIVERS
(MI. )
13


13
5


5
212
25

237
NEM MEXICO
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0


0
42,684
•

42,684

RIVERS
(MI. )
3


3
1


1
122


122
NEW YORK
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0


0
0


0

GREAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0


0
6


6

COAST (AC.)
0


a
0


0
0
ฆ

0

LAKES (AC.)
525
0
0
525
0
0
0
0
37,322
6,360
30,356
74,038

RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
26
23
52
NORTH
CAROLINA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
23
0
23
6
145
10
161
NORTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
ฆ
•
ฆ
•
•
26,731
•
.
28,731
RIVERS
(MI. )
244
.
.
244
.
.
.
.
2,711
.
.
2,711
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
TV DC
CHLORINE
OTHER INORGANICS
NUTRIENTS


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY












OHIO
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
•
.
.
ซ
.
.
.
.
.

RIVERS
(HI. )
.
•

•
.
.
•
.


.

OKLAHOMA
LAKES (AC.)
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
55.906
95.653
151.759

RIVERS
(MI.)
0
10
0
10
0
113
0
113
27
371
963
1.362
PENNSYLVAN-
IA
RIVERS
(HI.)
1


1
0


0
231


231
PUERTO RICO
COAST (MI.)



•




•
.

•

ESTUARY
(SQ.HI.)



.






•


LAKES (AC.)



.




•
•
•
•

RIVERS
(HI. )



.






•

RHODE
ISLAM)
ESTUARY
(SQ.HI.)



.




0


0

LAKES (AC.)



•




•
65

65

RIVERS
(HI.)








1
1
67
69
SOUTH
OAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
42
32.063
16
32.142
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
1
1
1
66
75
130
270
0
107
0
107
TENNESSEE
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
2,809
318
441
3.567
6 >266
14,843
18.183
39.291

RIVERS
(HI. )
1
17
10
26
147
337
69
553
88
252
58
398
ICONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS F03 POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND WATERBODY
TYPE
CHLORINE
OTHER INORGANICS
NUTRIENTS
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBODY












TEXAS
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
LAKES (AC.)

0

0
•

•
•
•
•

ฆ
RIVERS
(HI. )

0

0
7

.
7
22
23

45
UTAH
LAKES (AC.)

-

•
•

•
•
•
•

•
RIVERS
(HI. )

.

,
•

•
.

•

,
VERMONT
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
0
0
0

0
0
0
•
90,006
90,008
RIVERS
(MI. )
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
VIRGIN
ISLANDS
COAST (MI.)
•
.
.

•

•
.
.

.
.
VIRGINIA
ESTUARY
(sq.m.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
27
66
135
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
1,117

•
5,611
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
129
187
647
963
WASHINGTON
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6,621
12,743
19,364
RIVERS
(MI. )
1
4
0
5
0
0
0
0
46
53
71
170
WEST
VIRGINIA
RIVERS
(MI. I


#
.
,
.
.
.
.
.

•
WISCONSIN
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
TYPE
CHLORINE
OTHER INORGANICS
NUTRIENTS

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
I
ISE SUPPOR1

TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












WISCONSIN
RIVERS
(III. )
WYOMING
LAKES (AC.)
•
.
.
.
•
•
•
•
•
6.282
11,743
18.024
RIVERS
(HI. )
.
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY UATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND UATERBODY
TYPE
PH

SILTATION
ORGANIC ENRICHMENT/D.
0.



USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
UATERBODY












ALABAMA
COAST (HI.)
0
•
•
0
0
.
.
0
5


5

ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
.
0
0
0

0
0
7

7

LAKES (AC.)
463
0
0
463
463
9,871
0
10,334
463
9,871
10.067
20,401

RIVERS
(MI. )
84
54
3
142
111
302
3
416
97
207
1
304
ARIZONA
RIVERS
(HI. )
90
125
0
215
1 >485
1,655
75
3,214
44
148
3
195
ARKANSAS
RIVERS
(MI. J
55
.
0
55
0

49
49
0

0
0
CALIFORNIA
COAST (MI.)
0


0
0


0
0


0

ESTUARY
(SQ.I1I.)
0
.

0
1


1
0


0

LAKES (AC.)
61.211
•

61,211
211.761


211,761
252


252

RIVERS
(MI. )
40
•

40
966


966
47


47

WETLANDS
(AC.)
0
.

0
3.498


3,498
0


0
COLORADO
LAKES (AC.)
0
•

0
3,474


3,474
0


0

RIVERS
(MI. )
40
.

40
1,112


1,112
0


0
CONNECTICUT
ESTUARY
(sq.rn.)
•
.

.
.


.





LAKES (AC.)
•
•

•
-


.
.




RIVERS
(MI. )
•
•

•
•


.
.


•
(COMTINUEO)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
PH
SILTATION
ORGANIC ENRICHMENT/D.C
.
TYPE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPOR1




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NDN-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBODY












DELAWARE
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
#
0
0
57
.
37
94
45
.
0
45

WETLANDS
(AC. )

.



.

.
.
.

•
GEORSIA
LAKES (AC.)
0
•

0
0
•

0
2,687
ฆ

2,687

RIVERS
(MX. )

0

0
.
0

0
.
1

1
HAWAII
COAST (AC.)
0
•

0
10i774
•

10,774
0
•

0
IDAHO
LAKES (AC.)
•
•

.
•
•

•
•
•

•

RIVERS
(MX.)
.



.
•

.
.
.

•
ILLINOIS
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
16,758
13,795
9,452
40,004
15,212
12,531
8,916
36,659

RIVERS
(MI.)
3
7
18
28
16
171
1.968
2,155
12
106
106
225
INDIANA
GREAT LAKES
(SQ.MX.)
0

#
0
0
.
.
0
0
.
•
0

LAKES (AC.)
124
•
•
124
4.605
•
•
4,805
603
•
•
603

RIVERS
(MI.)
ฃ71


271
466
.
.
466
144
.
.
144
IOWA
LAKES (AC.)
1
0
0
1
490
13,349
4.907
18,746
0
3,632
2,248
5,880

RIVERS
(MI.)
1
18
0
19
189
1,986
73
2,248
46
195
14
255

WETLANDS
(AC.)
0
0
0
0
1.100
5,614
4,774
11,487
0
143
25
168
KANSAS
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
•
0
15.664
•
•
15,664
3,804
•
•
3,804
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
TYDF
PH
SILTATION
ORGANIC ENRICHMENT/D.O.


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBODY












KENTUCKY
RIVERS
(MI.)
.
.







.
.
.
LOUISIANA
ESTUARY
(S9.MI.)
.


.


,

21
142

163

COAST (AC.)
•

•
•

•
•
.
•
•
-
•

LAKES (AC.1
•

•
•

IV.350
ฆ
19.350
•
11.137
41.920
53.057

ESTUARY
(MI. )
.

.
.

.
.

#
15
#
15

RIVERS
(MI. >
.

,
.
122
294
14
429
159
316
14
491
MAINE
LAKES (AC.)
0

0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0

RIVERS
(MI.)
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
0

0
0
MARYLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0
.

0
560
.

560

LAKES (AC.)
0


0
IS
•

15
0
•

0

RIVERS
(MI. )
98


98
147
•

147
29
.

29
MASSACHUSE-
TTS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
1

1

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0

0
5
5

10
40
75

115
MINNESOTA
LAKES (AC.)
•
•

•
•
•

.
•
•

.

RIVERS
(MI. )
.
.

.
416
56

472
324
27

351
MISSOURI
LAKES (AC.)
0
12
50
62
110
30
6.127
6.267
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUEDป

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
TYPE
PH
SILTATION
ORGANIC ENRICHMENT/D.0.
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY
*9
68
9
126
5
193
7.932
6.130
0
0
41
41
MISSOURI
RIVERS
(MI.)
MONTANA
LAKES (AC.)
0
.
0
0
6.911
•
64.675
73.586
0

0
0
RIVERS
(HI.)
56
p
0
58
2.969
.
16
2.967
30

0
30
NEVADA
LAKES (AC.)
625
.

625
•
.
5
5
•


•
RIVERS
(MI. )
132
52

184
124
26
.
150
19


19
NEH MEXICO
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
9.643
•
•
9.643
4.191


4.191
RIVERS
[HI.)
52


52
202
,
.
202
0


0
NEM YORK
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.>
0


0
0
,
.
0
2


2
6REAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0
.
.
0
0


0
COAST (AC.)
0


0
0
•
ฆ
0
0


0
LAKES (AC.)
16.569
0
0
16.569
123
11.604
2.229
14.156
306
0
0
306
RIVERS
(HI.)
66
0
0
66
186
99
116
400
5
11
0
16
NORTH
CAROLINA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
6
2
133
5
140
RIVERS
(HI. )
90
50
0
140
440
2.962
17
3.439
165
509
0
673
NORTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
.
•
.
.
22.354
•
•
22.354
25.085
•
•
25.065
RIVERS
(MI. )
.
.
.
.
1.403
.
-
1.403
325
•
•
325
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOB POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
TYPE
PH
SILTATION
ORGANIC ENRICHMENT/D.0.
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY


•









OHIO
LAKES (AC.)
RIVERS
(MI.)
.

•

•
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
OKLAHOMA
LAKES (AC.)
•
26
4,432
4,456
•
66i115
129,366
197,461
•
21,476
26,122
47,599
RIVERS
(MI. )
15
59
375
449
37
391
1,134
1,562
4
75
77
157
PENNSYLVAN-
IA
RIVERS
(MI. )
665


665
539


539
18
.

18
PUERTO RICO
COAST (MI.)




•


ฆ
•
•

•
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)




.


.
•
.

.
LAKES (AC.)




•


•
•
•

•
RIVERS
(MI. )







.
.
.

.
RHODE
ISLAND
ESTUARY
(S3.HI.)




0

1
1
0
.

0
LAKES (AC.)




•
6
•
8
•
•

•
RIVERS
(MI.)




7
.
49
56
7
.

7
SOUTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
42
26,450
16
26,509
0
7
0
7
RIVERS
(MI. )
25
70
77
173
257
327
367
951
7
32
16
56
TENNESSEE
LAKES (AC.)
1,967
0
0
1,967
3,904
10,475
14,160
28,559
5,507
13,912
12,366
31,807
RIVERS
(MI. )
67
99
57
223
200
501
295
996
139
292
90
521
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND UATERBODY
TYPE
PH
SILTATION
ORGANIC ENRICHMENT/1). 0.
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
UATERBODY












TEXAS
ESTUARY
(SQ.tll.)
LAKES (AC. I
.




11.944

11.944

•

•
RIVERS
(MI.)







.

41

41
UTAH
LAKES (AC.)
.






•



•
RIVERS
(MI. )







.



.
VERMONT
LAKES (AC.)
0

2.593
2.593
0

0
0
0

0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
VIRGIN
ISLANDS
COAST (MI.)






•
.
.

.
ฆ
VIRGINIA
ESTUARY
tsq.m. i
0
22
9
32
1
23
15
39
0
22
14
37
LAKES (AC.)
70
1.006
-
1.076
463
791
•
1.254
377
3.404
•
3.781
RIVERS
(MI.)
51
130
27
209
103
169
647
919
4
42
50
97
WASHINGTON
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
0
0
0
0
3
0
25
26
1
4
11
16
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.S57
2.857
36
0
14
50
RIVERS
(HI. )
31
30
0
61
71
299
187
558
56
39
106
202
ME ST
VIRGINIA
RIVERS
(MI.)




#

,
.
.
.
.
.
WISCONSIN
LAKES (AC.)
'
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
TYPE
PH
SILTATION
ORGANIC ENRICHMENT/D.C
).
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPP0R1

TOTAL
IMPACTEO
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












WISCONSIN
RIVERS
(til. )
HY0MIN6
LAKES (AC.)
.
.
•
•
•
14,609
41>170
55.767
•
3.163
19.206
22.371
RIVERS
(HI. )
.
•
•
•
•
1.646
557
2.203
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
TVDP
SALINITY
THERMAL MODIFICATION
FLOW ALTERATION


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTEO
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












ALABAMA
COAST (HI.)
0
•
•
0
0
•
.
0
0
.
•
0

ESTUARY
(SO.MI.)
0
0
.
0
0
0
#
0
0
0

0

LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
7
21
7
1
28
ARIZONA
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
too
le
112
0
17
0
17
ARKANSAS
RIVERS
(MI. )
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
CALIFORNIA
COAST (Ml.)
0


0
0


0
0


0

ESTUARY
(Sq.Ml.)
0


0
0


0
0


0

LAKES (AC.)
0


0
694


894
17,586


17,588

RIVERS
(MI. )
0

•
0
126
*

126
6


8

NETLANDS
(AC.)
0

•
0
0
•

0
0


0
COLORAOO
LAKES (AC.)
590

•
590
0
a

0
0


0

RIVERS
(MI. )
682


682
0


0
0


0
CONNECTICUT
ESTUARY
(S3.MI.)
,












LAKES (AC.1
•


•
•


•
•


*

RIVERS
(MI. )
.
.

.
.

.
.
.
.
.
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOB POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND WATERBODY
TYPE
SALINITY
THERMAL MODIFICATION
FLOW ALTERATION



J3E SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












DELAWARE
RIVERS
(HI. )
0
.
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0

WETLANDS
(AC. )
.
.

.
.


.




GEORGIA
LAKES (AC.)
0
•

0
0
•

0
0
.
•
0

RIVERS
(HI. )
.
0

0
•
0

0

0

0
HAWAII
COAST (AC.)
0
•

0
0
•

0
0
.
.
0
IDAHO
LAKES (AC.)
•
•

•
•
•

.
.
.
.
.

RIVERS
(HI. )
.
.

.
•
.

.
.



ILLINOIS
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
16
401
620
1,037
0
15
0
15

RIVERS
(HI. )
0
5
22
27
0
0
0
0
0
1
139
140
INDIANA
GREAT LAKES
(SO.MI.)
0
.
.
0
0


0
0


0

LAKES (AC. I
0
•
•
0
0
•
.
0
0
.
.
0

RIVERS
(HI.)
0
.
.
0
0
.

0
14


14
IOWA
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
10

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

WETLANDS
(AC. 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
KANSAS
LAKES (AC. )
4 ,783
•
•
4.783
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
TYPE
SALINITY
THERMAL MODIFICATION
FLOM ALTERATION
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












KENTUCKY
RIVERS
(MI. )
LOUISIANA
ESTUARY
(sq.m.)
16
146
.
164
.

.
•
.


.
COAST (AC.)
.
•
ฆ
•
ฆ

•
•
•

•
•
LAKES (AC.)
•
17.75S
41.920
59.676
•

-
*
*

•
•
ESTUARY
(MI.)
•
33
27
60
.

.
.
.

.
.
RIVERS
(MI.)
23

.
167
.

.
.
.

.
.
MAINE
LAKES (AC.)
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
MARYLAND
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
0


0
0


0
0


0
LAKES (AC.)
0
•

0
0


0
0


0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
•

0
0


0
6


6
MASSACHUSE-
TTS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
MINNESOTA
LAKES (AC.)
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
ฆ

•
RIVERS
(MI.)





.

.
.
.

.
MISSOURI
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND UATERBODY
TYPE
SALINITY
THERMAL MODIFICATION
FLOW ALTERATION
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MISSOURI
RIVERS
(MI.)
MONTANA
LAKES (AC.)
12,871
•
0
12,871
907
•
0
907
0

0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
1.019
.
0
1.019
515
.
18
533
732

18
750
NEVADA
LAKES (AC. )
•
•
•
•
•
*

•
ฆ

5
5
RIVERS
(MI. )
,


#
42
118

161
.


.
NEH MEXICO
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
•
0
200


200
0


0
RIVERS
(MI.)
72
.
,
72
121


121
64


64
NEW YORK
ESTUARY
(39. MI.)
0
.

0
0


0
0


0
GREAT LAKES
(SQ.m.)
0
.

0
0


0
0


0
COAST (AC.)
0
•
ฆ
0
0


0
0


0
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33,877
0
0
33,877
RIVERS
(MI. )
34
0
0
34
100
18
0
117
53
0
0
53
NORTH
CAROLINA
ESTUARY
(39.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
15
0
15
0
31
4
35
0
0
0
0
NORTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
•
15
ฆ
•
15
14,108
•
•
14,108
RIVERS
(MI. )
.
.
.
.
.
•
•
•
115
•
•
115
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOB POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND UATEHBODY
TVDt
SALINITY
THERMAL MODIFICATION
FLOW ALTERATION


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IHPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBODY












OHIO
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
.
•
•
•

RIVERS
(HI. )
.
.
.
•
.
.
,
.
.

,
#
OKLAHOMA
LAKES (AC.)
•
733
3.32B
4,062
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
4B
79
258
364
0
0
0
0
0
22
0
22
PENNSYLVAN-
IA
RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
5


5
0


0
PUERTO RICO
COAST (HI.)



•









ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)



•









LAKES (AC.)


•
•

•







RIVERS
(HI. )


•
ft

*






RHODE
ISLAM)
ESTUARY
(SQ.NI.)


•
.

•







LAKES (AC.)













RIVERS
(HI. )



.








SOUTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,623
0
2,623
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
91
21
155
267
0
0
0
0
TENNESSEE
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
B52
2,845
3,697
1,967
2,636
14,056
16,663

RIVERS
(MI. )
6
3
0
9
2
7
25
34
20
114
54
166
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
TYPE
SALINITY
THERMAL MODIFICATION
FLOW ALTERATION
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTEO
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY












TEXAS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
LAKES (AC.)

209.942

209.942




•


•
RIVERS
(HI. )

15

15




.



UTAH
LAKES (AC.)

•

•




•


•
RIVERS
{HI. )

.

.








VERMONT
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
VIRGIN
ISLANDS
COAST (MI.)

.
.
.
.

.
.
.


.
VIRGINIA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
•
0
0
67
•
67
0
0
.
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
3
0
0
3
3
4
0
7
3
4
13
20
WASHINGTON
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
1
0
30
31
Q
0
0
0
LAKES (AC.)
36
0
0
36
36
0
1.398
1.934
36
0
833
869
RIVERS
(MI.)
7
0
0
7
96
210
546
852
13
32
1
47
WEST
VIRGINIA
RIVERS
(MI. )
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.



WISCONSIN
LAKES (AC.)
•

•
•
•
ฆ
•
•

•
•
•
(CONTINUED >

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
Br UATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
TYPE
SALINITY
THERMAL MODIFICATION
FLOW ALTERATION
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
UATERBODY












HISC0N9IN
RIVERS
(HI. )
WYOMING
LAKES (AC.)
ฆ
459
30
469
•
•
•
•
•
3.140
2,912
6 >052
RIVERS
(HI. )
.
353
14
367
.
.
41
41
•
144
•
144
(CONTINUED I

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY INTERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
OTHER HABITAT
MODIFICATION
PATHOGENS
RADIATION

TTrE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBOOY












ALABAMA
COAST (HI.)
0
.
•
0
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0

ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0

0
0
7
.
7
0
0
-
0

LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
9.871
0
9.871
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI.)
18
27
0
45
60
83
0
143
0
0
0
0
ARIZONA
RIVERS
(MI.)
2
i
0
3
59
274
0
333
25
1
0
26
ARKANSAS
RIVERS
(MI.)
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
0

0
0
CALIFORNIA
COAST (MI.)
0

.
0
7
•

7
0


0

ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
42
.

42
0


0

LAKES (AC.)
0


0
103.663
•

103.663
0


0

RIVERS
(MI.)
28


28
363
•

363
0


0

WETLANDS
(AC. )
0


0
6.892
.

6.892
0


0
COLORADO
LAKES (AC.)
0

•
0
108
•

108
0


0

RIVERS
(MI.)
0

.
0
15
.

15
0


0
CONNECTICUT
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)


.
.
.
.

.
.


.

LAKES (AC.)
.

.
•
•
•

•
•


•

RIVERS
(MI.)
.
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

•
ฆ
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
TYPE
OTHER HABITAT MODIFICATION
PATHOGENS
RADIATION
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY
10

9
19
84

3d
122
0

0
0
DELAWARE
RIVERS
(MX.)
WETLANDS
(AC. )
.
..


.




4

a
6E0RSIA
LAKES (AC.)
0
•

0
0
•

0
0
•

0
RIVERS
(MI.)
.
0

0
.
15

15

0

0
HAMAll
COAST (AC.)
0
•

0
6,115
•

6,115
0
.

0
IDAHO
LAKES (AC.)
•
•

-
•
•

•
•
•

ฆ
RIVERS
(MX. )
.
•

.
•
.

.

•

,
ILLINOIS
LAKES (AC.)
1,339
0
0
1,339
439
473
553
1,465
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
10
97
202
309
7
31
27
65
0
0
0
0
INDIANA
GREAT LAKES
(Sq.HI.)
0
.
,
0
0
.
.
0
0
.
,
0
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
•
0
276
•
ฆ
276
0
•
•
0
RIVERS
(MX.)
S3
.
,
63
345
,
.
345
0
.

0
IOWA
LAKES (AC.)
3
73
0
76
0
2,950
0
2,956
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MX. )
1
21
0
23
103
39
34
177
0
0
0
0
WETLANDS
(AC.)
2,452
186
0
2,639
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
KANSAS
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
•
0
22
•
•
22
0
•
•
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
OTHER HABITAT
MODIFICATION
PATHOGENS
RADIATION

TTPE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

L
SE SUPPORT




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPDRT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












KENTUCKY
RIVERS
(MI.)
#


a
•
.
.
.
•

•
-
LOUISIANA
ESTUARY
(SQ.HI.)
.



45
570
.
615
.

.
•

COAST (AC.)
.

.
•
•
64.000
•
64,000
•

•
•

LAKES (AC.)
.

ซ
•
•
44,864
1.253
46.117
•

•
•

ESTUARY
(MI. )




#
68
.
68
.

•
•

RIVERS
(MI.)



,
112
297
14
423
.

•
•
MAINE
LAKES (AC.)
0

0
0
0
•
0
0
0

0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
0

0
0
MARYLAND
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
0


0
318
.
.
318
0

-
0

LAKES (AC. )
0


0
0
•
•
0
0

•
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
193
.
.
193
0

.
0
MASSACHUSE-
TTS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0

0
0
79
.
79
0
0
•
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0

0
88
255
.
343
0
0
.
0
MINNESOTA
LAKES (AC.)
.
.

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

RIVERS
(MI. 1



.
.
.
.
.

•
•
•
MISSOURI
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
51
0
51
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BT WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
TYPP
OTHER HABITAT
MODIFICATION
PATHDSENS
RADIATION


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBODY












MISSOURI
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
41
41
0
1
0
1
MONTANA
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
0
0
1.656
*
0
1.856
0

0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
437

0
437
125
•
0
125
1

0
1
NEVADA
LAKES (AC.)
•


•
•
•
.
•
.


.

RIVERS
(MI. )
.


.
62


62




NEW MEXICO
LAKES (AC.)
210


210
0
•
•
0
0


0

RIVERS
(HZ. )
217


217
58
.
#
58
16


16
NEU YORK
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0
.

0
0


0

GREAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0
.
,
0
0


0

COAST (AC.)
0


0
67.780
•
.
67.780
0


0

LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
697
570
5.728
6.995
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
4
32
1
37
0
0
0
0
NORTH
CAROLINA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
1
31
1
33
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
89
426
4
520
0
0
0
0
NORTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
ฆ
•
.
•
•
.
•
.
.
RIVERS
(MI.)
-
•
.
.
1.152
.
.
1.152
.
.
.
.
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AMD USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
TYPE
OTHER HABITAT MODIFICAT
ION
PATHOGENS
RADIATION

USE SUPPOR
T

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PAHTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY

,
.









OHIO
LAKES (AC.>
•
RIVERS
(MI.)
•
.
.
.


.





OKLAHOMA
LAKES (AC.)
•
0
0
0
•
22a
226
455
.
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
331
66
134
551
0
0
0
0
PENNSYLVAN-
IA
RIVERS
(MI. I
0
.

0
141

.
141
0


0
PUERTO RICO
COAST (MI.)
•
•


•
•
•
.
.



ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
•
•


.
.






LAKES (AC.)
•
•


•
•
-
.




RIVERS
(MI. 1
•
•


.
.






RHODE
ISLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
•
.


5
10
6
21




LAKES (AC.)
•
•


•
445

445




RIVERS
(MI. )
•
•
4
4
22
5
69
96




SOUTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
14
0
14
73
65
177
334
0
0
0
0
TENNESSEE
LAKES (AC.1
5
0
0
5
3,062
1.747
0
4,630
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
31
59
66
15b
84
241
126
452
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BIT HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND WATERBOOY
TYPf
OTHER HABITAT
MODIFICATION
PATHOGENS
RADIATION


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTEO


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY












TEXAS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
.
.



96

96


.


LAKES (AC.)
•
•


•
10,667

10.667
.

.
.

RIVER9
CMI.)
.
.


42
186

228
116


116
UTAH
LAKES (AC.)
•
•


•
•

.
-

.
.

RIVERS
CHI. )
.
.










VERMONT
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0

0
0

RIVERS
CMI. )
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0

0
0
VIRGIN
ISLANDS
COAST (MI. )
.
•
.

.
,




.

VIRGINIA
ESTUARY
CSQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
22
6
68
97
0
0
0
0

LAKES (AC.)
0
0
•
0
0
46
•
46
0
0
.
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
316
541
637
1.493
0
0
0
0
WASHINGTON
ESTUARY
621
2.374
9,031
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
13
56
a
76
149
305
113
647
0
0
0
0
WEST
VIRGINIA
RIVERS
CMI. )
.
.
,

.
,


.
.


WISCONSIN
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
ฆ
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY UATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND UATERBODY
TYPE
OTHER HABITAT MODIFICATION
PATHOGENS
RADIATION

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
L
ISE SUPPOR1

TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
UATERBODY












WISCONSIN
RIVERS
(MI. )
UYOMINS
LAKES (AC.)
.
.
.
.
•
145
•
145
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI. )
.
366
125
491
•
104
ae
185
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HA
TYPE
TERBOOY
OIL & GREASE

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IHPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY
0


0
ALABAMA
COAST (MI.)

ESTUARY
(S9.HI.)
0
7
•
7
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
5
7
0
12
ARIZONA
RIVERS
(HI.)
0
0
0
0
ARKANSAS
RIVERS
(HI.)
0

0
0
CALIFORNIA
COAST (HI.)
492


492
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
6


6
LAKES (AC.)
30,710


30,710
RIVERS
(HI. )
44


44
WETLANDS
(AC. )
75


75
COLORADO
LAKES (AC.)
0
•

0
RIVERS
(HI.)
0
•

0
CONNECTICUT
ESTUARY
(SQ.HI.)
.
•

.
LAKES (AC.)
•


•
RIVERS
(MI. )
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
OIL & 6REASE
i fee

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IHPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY




DELAWARE
RIVERS
(HI.)
0
.
0
0

WETLANDS
(AC. )
ซ
.

.
6E0R6IA
LAKES (AC.)
0
•

0

RIVERS
(HI. )

0

0
HAWAII
COAST (AC.I
0
•

0
IDAHO
LAKES (AC. )
•
•

•

RIVERS
(HI. )
•
.

.
ILLINOIS
LAKES (AC.)
50
125
0
175

RIVERS
(HI. )
2
16
11
29
INDIANA
GREAT LAKES
(Sq.HI.)
0
.
.
0

LAKES (AC.)
0
•
•
0

RIVERS
(HI.)
5
.
.
5
IOWA
LAKES (AC. )
0
3.257
1,446
4,703

RIVERS
(HI.)
0
0
0
0

WETLANDS
(AC. )
0
0
0
0
KANSAS
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
•
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY UATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND UATERBODY
OIL & GREASE
1 Trfc

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
UATERBODY




KENTUCKY
RIVERS
(MI. )
.
.

.
LOUISIANA
ESTUARY
(SQ.HI.)
a
27*

262

COAST (AC.)
•
360>320

360.320

LAKES (AC.)
ฆ
26.592

26,592

ESTUARY
(MI.)
.
63

63

RIVERS
(MI.)
22
176

211
MAINE
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
0
0

RIVERS
(MI.)
0
.
0
0
MARYLAND
ESTUARY
(S3.MI.)
0
.

0

LAKES (AC.)
0
•

0

RIVERS
(MI.)
0
.

0
MASSACHUSE-
TTS
ESTUARY
(SQ.HI.)
0
0

0

RIVERS
(HI.)
2
0

2
MINNESOTA
LAKES (AC.)
•
•

•

RIVERS
(MI.)
.
.
.
.
MISSOURI
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
OIL & GREASE
i the

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY




MISSOURI
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
MONTANA
LAKES (AC.)
0

0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
13

0
13
NEVADA
LAKES (AC.)
•


•

RIVERS
(MI. )



.
NEU MEXICO
LAKES (AC.)
0


0

RIVERS
(MI. )
14


14
NEW YORK
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0

GREAT LAKES
(SQ.MI. )
0


0

COAST (AC.)
0


0

LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI.)
3
0
0
3
NORTH
CAROLINA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI.)
0
1
0
1
NORTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI. )
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY MATERBOOY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MA
TYPE
TERBODY
OIL ft GREASE

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY




OHIO
LAKES (AC.)

RIVERS
(MI. )
•
.
.
.
OKLAHOMA
LAKES (AC.)
•
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
4
24
15
43
PENNSYLVAN-
IA
RIVERS
(HI.)
0
.

0
PUERTO RICO
COAST (MI.)
•
•


ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
.
•


LAKES (AC.)
•
•


RIVERS
(MI.)
.
.


RHODE
ISLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
I
1
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•

RIVERS
(MI.)
.
•
2
2
SOUTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(HI.)
0
0
0
0
TENNESSEE
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
5
18
4
26
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MA
TYPE
TERBODY
OIL & GREASE

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBOOY




TEXAS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)

LAKES (AC.)

•
•
•

RIVERS
(MI. )

11
.
11
UTAH
LAKES (AC.)

•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI. )

.
.
.
VERMONT
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
.
0
0
VIRGIN
ISLANDS
COAST (MI.)
•
.
.
.
VIRGINIA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
•
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
WASHINGTON
ESTUARY
(sq.MI.)
1
0
21
22
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
7
7
RIVERS
(MI. )
6
2
0
8
NEST
VIRGINIA
RIVERS
(MI. )
.
.
.
.
WISCONSIN
LAKES (AC.)
-
•
ฆ
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR POLLUTANT IMPACTS
BY UATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND UATERBODY
TYPE
OIL & GREASE
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
UATERBODY




WISCONSIN
RIVERS
(HI.)
WYOMING
LAKES (AC.I
•
ฆ
•
•
RIVERS
(MI.)
•
•
•
•

-------
STATE ASSESSMENT DATA USED IN
DEVELOPING NATIONAL SUMMARIES
STATE	TYPE OF ASSESSMENT DATA
A LAB ANA	DETAILED LIST - EPA SUMMARY
ALASKA	NO DATA
ARIZONA	DETAILED LIST - EPA SUMMARY
ARKANSAS	DETAILED LIST - EPA SUMMARY
CALIFORNIA	DETAILED LIST - EPA SUMMARY
COLORADO	DETAILED LIST - EPA SUMMARY
CONNECTICUT	DETAILED LIST - EPA SUMMARY
DELAWARE	STATEWIDE - STATE SUMMARY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA	NO DATA
FLORIDA	NO DATA
6E0HGIA	DETAILED LlSt - EPA SUMMARY
HAWAII	DETAILED LIST - EPA SUMMAHY
IDAHO	STATEWIDE - STATE SUMMARY
ILLINOIS	DETAILED LIST - EPA SUMMARY
INDIANA	DETAILED LIST - EPA SUMMARY
IOWA	DETAILED LIST - EPA SUMMARY
KANSAS	DETAILED LIST - EPA SUMMARY
KENTUCKY	STATEWIDE - STATE SUMMARY
LOUISIANA	DETAILED LIST - EPA SUMMARY
MAINE	DETAILED LIST - EPA SUMMARY
MARYLAND	STATEWIDE - STATE SUMMARY
MASSACHUSETTS	DETAILED LIST - EPA SUMMARY
MICHIGAN	NO DATA
MINNESOTA	STATE SUMMARY AND DETAILED LIST
MISSISSIPPI	NO DATA
MISSOURI	DETAILED LIST - EPA SUMMARY
MONTANA	OETAILED LIST - EPA SUMMARY
NEBRASKA	NO DATA

-------
STATE ASSESSMENT DATA 0320 IN
DEVELOPING NATIONAL SUMMARIES
STATE	TYPE OF ASSESSMENT DATA
NEVADA	DETAILED LIST - EPA SUMMARY
HEW HAMPSHIRE	NO DATA
NEM JERSEY	NO DATA
NEU MEXICO	STATEWIDE - STATE SUMMARY
NEM YORK	DETAILED LIST - EPA SUMMARY
NORTH CAROLINA	DETAILED LIST - EPA SUMMARY
NORTH DAKOTA	DETAILED LIST - EPA SUMMARY
OHIO	DETAILED LIST - EPA SUMMARY
OKLAHOMA	DETAILED LIST - EPA SUMMARY
OREGON	NO DATA
PENNSYLVANIA	DETAILED LIST - EPA SUMMARY
PUERTO RICO	DETAILED LIST - EPA SUMMARY
RHODE ISLAND	DETAILED LIST - EPA SUMMARY
SOUTH CAROLINA	NO DATA
SOUTH DAKOTA	DETAILED LIST - EPA SUMMARY
TENNESSEE	DETAILED LIST - EPA SUMMARY
TEXAS	DETAILED LIST - EPA SUMMARY
UTAH	STATEWIDE - STATE SUMMARY
VERMONT	DETAILED LIST - EPA SUMMARY
VIRGIN ISLANDS	DETAILED LIST - EPA SUMMARY
VIRGINIA	DETAILED LIST - EPA SUMMARY
WASHINGTON	DETAILED LIST - EPA SUMMARY
WEST VIRGINIA	STATEWIDE - STATE SUMMARY
WISCONSIN	DETAILED LIST - EPA SUMMARY
WYOMING	DETAILED LIST - EPA SUMMARY

-------
STATE TOTALS FOB AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS
BY HATERBOOY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AM) HATERBCDY
ALL A6RICULTURE
NONIRRIGATED CROPLAND

IRRIGATED
CROPLAND

TTrE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
ป



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












AUBAMA
COAST (MI.)
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0

ESTUARY
(sq.Ml.)
0
17
#
17
0
17
.
17
0
0
•
0

LAKES (AC.)
0
23.033
15.100
38.133
0
5.758
0
5.758
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(HI.)
254
449
0
703
54
166
0
220
1
32
0
33
ARIZONA
RIVERS
(MI.)
930
650
39
1.819
0
0
0
0
31
130
9
169
ARKANSAS
RIVERS
(MI.)
1.222

326
1.548
0

0
0
0

0
0
CALIFORNIA
COAST (MI.)
0

•
0
0


0
0

•
0

ESTUARY
(SO.MI.)
9


9
0


0
3

•
3

LAKES (AC.)
169.272

•
189.272
0


0
103.805

•
103.805

RIVERS
(MI.)
1,078


1.078
0


0
558

.
558

WETLANDS
(AC.)
18.961

.
18.961
0


0
1.167

•
1,167
COLORADO
LAKES (AC.)
16.006

•
16.006
0


0
14.456

•
14.456

RIVERS
(MI. )
1.809

.
1.809
47

.
47
556
.
•
556
CONNECTICUT
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

LAKES (AC.)
.
393
1.174
1.567
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI.)
2
27
69
98
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
ALL AGRICULTURE
NONIRRIGATED CROPLAND

IRRIGATED
CROPLAND

TYPE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

U
SE SUPPOR1




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IHPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IHPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY












OELAUARE
RIVERS
(HI.)
156
#
66
222
0
.
0
0
0
•
0
0

WETLANDS
(AC.)
0


0
0


0
0
•
•
0
GEORSIA
LAKES (AC.)
0
•

0
0
•

0
0
•

0

RIVERS
(HI.)
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
HAWAII
COAST (AC.)
15.715
•

15,715
2,103
•

2,103
7,325
•

7,325
IDAHO
LAKES (AC.)
0
•

0
0
•

0
0
•

0

RIVERS
(HI.)
7,728
.

7,728
0
•
.
0
0
•

0
ILLINOIS
LAKES (AC.)
16,405
13.119
fi,109
37,633
16,190
12.702
7,687
36,579
0
44
0
44

RIVERS
(HI.)
364
322
3,486
4,172
210
207
1,073
1,489
0
0
0
0
INDIANA
6REAT LAKES
(SQ.HI.)
0

•
0
0
•
.
0
0
•
•
0

LAKES (AC.)
6.748
•
•
6,748
5,979
•
•
5,979
0
•
•
0

RIVERS
(HI.)
397
•
•
397
330
•
.
330
0
•
ป
0
IOHA
LAKES (AC.)
1.436
38,115
12,390
51,940
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVER3
(HI.)
423
5,460
181
6,064
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

WETLANDS
(AC.)
1,147
13,541
6,711
21,399
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
KANSAS
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBOOY
ALL AGRICULTURE
NONIRRIGATED CROPLAND

IRRIGATED
CROPLAND

TTre

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPOR1




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTEO


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












KENTUCKY
RIVERS
(MI.)
427

,
427
0
.
.
0
0
.
•
0
LOUISIANA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)



.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
•

COAST (AC.)
.
•
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

LAKES (AC.)
.
36>390
27,947
64,337
•
960
•
960
•
960
27,947
28,907

ESTUARY
(MI.)


8
8

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

RIVERS
(MI.)
273
412
17
702
90
22
•
112
90
22
.
112
MAINE
LAKES (AC.)
87,327
.
4,739
32,066
0
•
0
0
0

0
0

RIVERS
(MI.)
599
.
10
609
0
.
0
0
0

0
0
MARYLAND
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
0


0
0
.

0
0


0

LAKES (AC.)
1.154
.

1,154
0
ฆ

0
0


0

RIVERS
(MI.)
305
#

305
0
.

0
0


0
MASSACHUSE-
TTS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
1

1
0
0

0
0
0

0

RIVERS
(MI.)
0
14

14
0
0

0
0
0

0
MINNESOTA
LAKES (AC.)
.
.

•
•
•

<
•
•

•

RIVERS
(MI. )



.
.
.
.
.
.
•

•
MISSOURI
LAKES (AC.)
178
1,300
0
1,478
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
ALL AGRICULTURE
N0NIRRI6ATED CROPLAND

IRRIGATED
CROPLAND

TYPE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT


SE SUPPORT




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY












MISSOURI
RIVERS
(HI.)
0
203
7.507
7,710
0
0
0
0
0
0
120
120
MONTANA
LAKES (AC.)
31.945
.
0
31,945
14.018

0
14.018
6,533
•
0
6,533

RIVERS
(MI.)
4.280

28
4,308
623

0
623
1,422
.
9
1.432
NEVADA
LAKES (AC.)
.
.
•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•

RIVERS
(MI.)
209
79

287


.
.
102
54

156
NEW MEXICO
LAKES (AC.)
31.890
.

31,890
0

•
0
0
•

0

RIVERS
(MI. )
456


456
0

.
0
0
•

0
NEU YORK
ESTUARY
(SQ.HI.)
0
.

0
0

.
0
0
.

0

SREAT LAKES
(SQ.HI.)
3


3
0

.
0
0
.

0

COAST (AC.)
0
.

0
0

•
0
0
•

0

LAKES (AC.)
32.698
13.184
3,964
49.846
109
13,158
3,932
17,199
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI.)
71
91
69
231
35
35
33
103
0
0
0
0
NORTH
CAROLINA
ESTUARY
(SQ.HI.)
1
134
5
141
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
519
5,409
37
5,965
69
707
3
779
2
101
0
103
NORTH
LAKES (AC.)
41.033
.
.
41.033
20.622
•
•
20.622
•
•
•
•
DAKOTA
RIVERS
(MI.)
2.792
.
.
2,792
1,468
•
•
1.468
5
•
•
5
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AW WATER BODY
TYPE
ALL AGRICULTURE
N0N1RRI6ATED CROPLAND

IRRIGATED
CROPLAND




USE SUPPOR
r

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IHPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY












OHIO
LAKES (AC.1
*
•
•
•
•
•
.

.
.
#


RIVERS
(MI. )
4,422
.
0
4,422
1,461

0
1,461
0

0
0
OKLAHOMA
LAKES (AC.)
•
75,144
220,556
295,700
•
0
0
0
.
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
360
832
1,990
3,181
0
0
40
40
0
0
0
0
PENNSYLVAN-
IA
RIVERS
CHI. I
480

.
480
0
,

0
0


0
PUERTO RICO
COAST (MI.)
0

•
0
0
•

0
0

.
0

ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
9

.
9
0
•

0
0


0

LAKES I AC.1
1.8X8

*
1,818
0
•

0
0

.
0

RIVERS
(HI.)
978

.
978
0
.

0
0


0
RHODE
ISLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.I
.

.
.
.
.


.




LAKES (AC.)
•

•
•
•
-

•


.
.

RIVERS
(MI.)
3

34
37
,

9
9




SOUTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
63
74,638
35
74,736
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
286
594
612
1,492
69
65
156
291
6
9
15
30
TENNESSEE
LAKES (AC.)
7,707
15,455
9,649
32,811
2,840
128
292
3,260
0
128
0
128

RIVERS
(HI. )
165
ฃ69
281
1,115
28
145
6
179
0
49
0
49
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AM> HA
TYPE
TERBODY
ALL AGRICULTURE
NONIRRIGATED CROPLAND
IRRIGATED CROPLAND


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

1
SE SUPPORT

TOTAL
IHPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IHPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IHPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
UATERBODY

46

48








TEXAS
ESTUARY
(sq.m.)
LAKES (AC.)
.
5,339
.
5.339
•
•

•
•
•

•
RIVERS
(MI. )
167
38

205
.
a

.
.
.

•
UTAH
LAKES (AC.)
.
.
.
•
•
•

•
ฆ
•

•
RIVERS
(MI. )
40
4,057

4.097
0
0

0
0
0

0
VERMONT
LAKES (AC.)
0
.
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
RIVERS
(hi. )
0

0
0
0
•
0
0
0
.
0
0
VIRGIN
ISLANDS
COAST (MI.)
0
0
#
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
•
0
VIRGINIA
ESTUARY
(SO.HI.)
19
36
86
141
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
LAKES (AC.)
965
2,617
.
3.581
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
RIVERS
(HI.)
386
647
1 >551
2.584
1
84
240
325
0
0
0
0
WASHINGTON
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
10
3
47
60
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LAKES (AC.)
0
8.276
2.154
10.430
0
0
0
0
0
4.138
453
4.591
RIVERS
(HZ.)
148
447
185
780
0
1
0
1
19
92
73
184
WEST
VIRGINIA
RIVERS
(HI. )
0
.
.
0
0
,
.
0
0
.
.
0
WISCONSIN
LAKES (AC.)
•
59
•
59
•
22
ฆ
22
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
TYPE
ALL AGRICULTURE
NONIRRIGATED CROPLAND
IRRIGATED CROPLAND

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT

I
I3E SUPPOR1

TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTEO
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY
447
5.112
6.924
12.464
156
1.770
S. 114
4.042




WISCONSIN
RIVERS
(MI.)
WYOMING
LAKES (AC.)
.
6.662
21,346
30.008
•
•
•
•
•
2.731
10.666
13.419
RIVERS
(HI.)
.
991
459
1.450
•
56
1
57
•
336
67
403
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AM) HA
TYPE
TERBOOY
SPECIALTY CROPS
PASTURE
RANGELAND


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

L
SE SUPPORT

TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY
0


0
0


0
0


0
ALABAMA
COAST (MI.)

ESTUARY
(SQ.HI.l
0
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
0
•
0

LAKES (AC.)
0
5.758
0
5,75a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
21
5
0
ฃ5
4
1
0
5
7
2
0
9
ARIZONA
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
693
720
30
1,643
ARKANSAS
RIVERS
(MI. I
238

0
238
0

0
0
0

0
0
CALIFORNIA
COAST (MI.)
0


0
0

•
0
0

•
0
ESTUARY
(Sq.hl.)
0


0
0

.
0
0

•
0
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
28.693

•
26,693
0

•
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
•

0
2B9

.
289
0


0
WETLANDS
(AC. >
0
•

0
14

.
14
a

.
0
COLORADO
LAKES (AC.)
0
•

0
0

ฆ
0
368

•
368
RIVERS
(MI.)
0


0
0

.
0
509

.
509
CONNECTICUT
ESTUARY
(SO.MI. I
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
LAKES (AC.)
.
24
0
24
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND UATERBOOY
TYPF
SPECIALTY CROPS
PASTURE
RANSELAND


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IHPACTEO


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY












DELAWARE
RIVERS
(HI.)
0
.
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0

METLANDS
(AC.)
0
.

0
0
.

0
0
m

0
6E0R6ZA
LAKES (AC.)
0
•

0
0
•

0
0
.

0

RIVERS
(HI.)
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
HAWAII
COAST (AC.)
0
•

0
6.088
•

6,088
199
-

199
IDAHO
LAKES (AC.)
D
•

0
0
•

0
0
.

0

RIVERS
(MI.)
0
.

0
0
.

0
0


0
ILLINOIS
LAKES (AC.)
0
8
0
8
90
245
397
731
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
151
43
245
439
0
0
0
0
INDIANA
GREAT LAKES
(Sq.HI.1
0
.
.
0
0
•
.
0
0
#

0

LAKES (AC.)
1
•
•
1
18
•
•
18
0
•
•
0

RIVERS
(HI.)
0
.
.
0
6
.
.
6
0


0
IOHA
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

METLANDS
(AC. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
KANSAS
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS
BY WATERBOOY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MA
TYPE
TERBODY
SPECIALTY CROPS
PASTURE
RANGELAND


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

I
SE SUPPORT

TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY
0


0
0


0
0


0
KENTUCKY
RIVERS
(MI. )
LOUISIANA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)

.



.
•
.
.

•
•
COAST (AC.)
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
LAKES (AC. )
.
.
•
-
•
352
•
352
•

•
•
ESTUARY
(MI.)



#


.
.
.

•
•
RIVERS
(MI.)
.
16

18
*
15
.
15
.

•
•
MAINE
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0

0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0

0
0
0
•
0
0
0

0
0
MARY LAKH)
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0


0
0

.
0
LAKES (AC.)
0
ซ

0
0
•

0
0

•
0
RIVERS
(MX. )
0
•

0
0
•

0
0

.
0
MASSACHUSE-
TTS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
•
0
RIVERS
(HI.)
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
•
0
MINNESOTA
LAKES (AC.)
.
.

.
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(HI.)

.

#

•
.
.
.
•
•
•
MISSOURI
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS
BY MATERBOOY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBOOY
TYPE
SPECIALTY CROPS
PASTURE
RANGE LAND
USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBOOY
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MISSOURI
RIVERS
(MI.)
MONTANA
LAKES (AC.)
0

0
0
0

0
0
2.381
~
0
2,361
RIVERS
(MI. )
0

0
0
0

0
0
670
.
9
679
NEVADA
LAKES (AC.)
•


•
•


•
•
•

ฆ
RIVERS
(MI. )



,
•


•
97
25

122
NEH MEXICO
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0


0
0


0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
0


0
0


0
NEW YORK
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
0


0
0


0
0


0
GREAT LAKES
(Sq.MI.)
0


0
0


0
0


0
COAST (AC.)
0


0
0


0
0


0
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
c
3
11
0
14
0
0
0
0
NORTH
CAROLINA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
16
22
14
52
1
47
0
47
0
0
0
0
NORTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC. )
•
*
•
p
3.965
•
•
3.965
349
•
•
349
RIVERS
(MI. )
.
.
ฆ
.
297
•
.
297
466
.
.
466
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS
BY UATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
9TATE AND UATERBODY
TYBF
SPECIALTY CROPS
PASTURE
RANGELAND


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IHPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
UATERBODY












OHIO
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
•
•
•
.
•
•
.
.
.

RIVERS
(HI. )
7
•
0
7
381
.
0
361
10

0
10
OKLAHOMA
LAKES (AC.)
•
3.225
3.225
6.450
•
0
0
0
.
0
0
0

RIVERS
(hi.)
0
9
9
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PENNSYLVAN-
IA
RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
0

#
0
0


0
PUERTO RICO
COAST IHI.)
0


0
0

.
0
0


0

ESTUARY
(SQ.HI.)
0


0
0

.
0
0


0

LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0

~
0
0


0

RIVERS
(HI.)
0


0
0

.
0
0


0
RHODE
ISLAND
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
*


.
.

.






LAKES (AC.)
•


.
•

.
.
.


.

RIVERS
(HZ. )
•
.
5
5
.



.



SOUTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
9
0
10S
0
10a
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
13
33
85
131
149
26
165
343
TENNESSEE
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
5.524
5.524
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
7
109
107
223
0
2
0
2
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBOOY
TYBP
SPECIALTY CROPS
PASTURE
RANGELAND


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












TEXAS
ESTUARY
(S9.MI.)
.
.


#



.
48

48

LAKES (AC.)
•
•

•
•
ฆ

•
•
5.333

5.333

RIVERS
(MI. )
.
.

•
22
.

22

38

38
UTAH
LAKES (AC.)
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
.

.

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
VERMONT
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0

0
0
VIRGIN
ISLANDS
COAST (MI.)
0
0
.
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
#
0
VIRGINIA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

LAKES (AC.)
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
.
0

RIVERS
(HI. )
0
0
0
0
7
78
199
284
0
0
0
0
HASHINGTON
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
6
3
29
37
0
0
0
0

LAKES (AC.)
0
4.136
305
4.443
0
0
253
253
0
0
453
453

RIVERS
(MI. )
4
2
0
6
50
66
31
167
6
4
6
16
WEST
VIRGINIA
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
,
•
0
0
.

0
0


0
WISCONSIN
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
-
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
(CONTINUEDi

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
TYPE
SPECIALTY CROPS
PASTURE
RANGELAND

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
I
JSE SUPPOR1

TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY












WISCONSIN
RIVERS
(HI.)
WYOMING
LAKES (AC.)
.
.
•
•
•
1 >573
176
1,749
•
4,358
10,394
14,752
RIVERS
(HI. )
.
.
.
.
•
249
130
379
•
309
172
431
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HA
TYPE
TERBODY
FEEDLOTS
AQUACULTURE
ANIMAL HOLDING AREAS


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

U
SE SUPPORT

TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
ALABAMA
WATERBODY
COAST CHI.)
0


0
0


0
0


0

ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
0
•
0

LAKES (AC.)
0
5(758
7.550
13,308
0
0
0
0
0
5.756
7.550
13.308

RIVERS
(MI. )
90
123
0
213
0
2
0
e
78
116
0
194
ARIZONA
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ARKANSAS
RIVERS
(MI. )
0

0
0
0
•
0
0
320

145
465
CALIFORNIA
COAST (MI.)
0


0
0
•
•
0
0


0
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
0


0
0

.
0
6


6
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0
•
•
0
0


0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0


0
0
.
.
0
129


129
WETLANDS
(AC.)
0


0
0
.
.
0
5.055


5.055
COLORADO
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0
•
•
0
0


0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
0
.
.
0
0
•
•
0
CONNECTICUT
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LAKES (AC.)
.
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
71
71
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOB AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
TYPE
FEEDLOTS
AQUACULTURE
ANIMAL HOLDING AREAS
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPGRT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
DELAWARE
RIVERS
(HI. I
WETLANDS
(AC. )
0


0
0


0
0
.

0
GE0R6IA
LAKES (AC.I
0
.

0
0
~

0
0
•

0
RIVER3
(HI. )
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
HAWAII
COAST (AC.)
0
.

0
0
•

0
0
*

0
IOAHO
LAKES (AC.)
0
.

0
0
•

0
0
ฆ

0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0


0
0
•

0
0
.

0
ILLINOIS
LAKES (AC.)
105
90
20
215
0
0
0
0
0
31
5
35
RIVERS
(HI. )
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
INDIANA
GREAT LAKES
J 39.MI.)
0
,

0
0
.
.
0
0
.
.
0
LAKES (AC.)
360

•
360
0
•
•
0
33
•
•
33
RIVERS
(HI. )
17
.
.
17
0
.
•
0
0
.
.
0
IOWA
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WETLANDS
(AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
KANSAS
LAKES 1 AC.I
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
0
•
ฆ
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOP AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND UA
TYPE
TERBODY
FEEDLOTS
AQUACULTURE
ANIMAL HOLDING AREAS


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

I
ISE SUPPOR1

TOTAL
IMPACTEO

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY
0


0
0


0
0


0
KENTUCKY
RIVERS
(MX.)
LOUISIANA
ESTUARY
(SQ.HI.)
.
.




•
.
.

.
•

COAST (AC.)
.
.
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
LAKES (AC.)
.
.
-
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
ESTUARY
(MI. )






.
.
.

.
•
RIVERS
(MI. )

53

53


.
.
.

•
•
HAINE
LAKES (AC.)
0
.
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
MARYLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
.

0
0

.
0
0


0
LAKES (AC.)
0
-

0
0

•
0
0


0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
.

0
0

.
0
0


0
MASSACHUSE-
TTS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
0

0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
0

0
MINNESOTA
LAKES (AC.)
.
.
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
RIVERS
(MI.)
.
#


.
.
.
.
.
•
.
•
MISSOURI
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,300
0
1,300
(CONTINUEO)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
FEEDLOTS
AQUACULTURE
ANIMAL HOLDING AREAS
TYPE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPOR1




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
UATERBODY












MISSOURI
RIVERS
(HI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
12
14
MONTANA
LAKES (AC.)
0

0
0
0
•
0
0
0

0
0

RIVERS
(MI.)
5

0
5
0
.
0
0
89

0
89
NEVADA
LAKES (AC.)
.

•
ฆ
•
•

•
•


•

RIVERS
(MI.)
9

•
9
.
.

.
.


•
NEU MEXICO
LAKES (AC.)
0

•
0
0
•

0
0


0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
0
•

0
0


0
NEM YORK
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0
.

0
0


0

GREAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0
.

0
0


0

COAST (AC.)
0

.
0
0
•

0
0


0

LAKES (AC.)
71
0
0
71
1,000
0
0
1,000
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(HI. )
0
10
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NORTH
CAROLINA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
4
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
24
82
2
108
0
12
3
14
23
209
15
247
NORTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
3,577
.
.
3,577
.
•
•
•
12,519
•
•
12,519
RIVERS
(MI. )
434
.
.
434
.
•
•
•
122
•
•
122
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FDR AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AM) UA
TYPE
TERBODY
FEEDLOTS
AQUACULTURE
ANIMAL HOLDING AREAS


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

I
SE SUPPORT

TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY







.
.

.

OHIO
LAKES (AC.)

RIVERS
(MI. )
0

0
0
0
•
0
0
585
.
0
585
OKLAHOMA
LAKES (AC.)
.
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PENNSYLVAN-
IA
RIVERS
(MS. )
0


0
0
.
.
0
0


0
PUERTO RICO
COAST (MI.)
0


0
0
•
•
0
0


0
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0
•
.
0
0


0
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0
•
•
0
0


0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
0
.
.
0
0


0
RHODE
ISLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
.



.
.
.
.
.


•
LAKES (AC.)
.


-
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
RIVERS
(MI. )




.
.
.
.
.

20
20
SOUTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
0
15.157
0
15,157
0
0
0
0
0
400
0
400
RIVERS
(MI. )
13
36
65
13*
0
0
0
0
6
26
78
no
TENNESSEE
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3>832
3>632
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
11
0
11
0
0
0
0
4
93
51
148
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBOOY
FEEDLOTS
AQUACULTURE
ANIMAL HOLDING AREAS

TYPE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

U
SE SUPPORT




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBOOY












TEXAS
ESTUARY
(sq.Ml.)

#
.
.
.
•
.
•
•
•

•

LAKE3 (AC.)
•
•
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•

RIVERS
(MI.)




.
*
.
.
136
•

136
UTAH
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
.
.
•
•
•
•
•
•

•

RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
0

0
VERMONT
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
.
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
VIRGIN
ISLANDS
COAST (MI.)
0
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
0
•
0
VIR6INIA
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

LAKES (AC.)
0
0
.
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0

RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
5
5
0
0
0
0
7
76
201
266
WASHINGTON
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
16
21

LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
453
453
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI.)
6
z
2
10
0
0
0
0
23
103
49
175
WEST
VIRGINIA
RIVERS
(HI.)
0

.
0
0
•
.
0
0
•
•
0
WISCONSIN
LAKES (AC.)
•
18
•
le
•
•
ฆ
•
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
TYPE
FEEDLOTS
AQUACULTURE
ANIMAL H0LDIN6 AREAS

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IHPACTED
I
ISE SUPP0R1

TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBODY
120
1,726
1,966
3.817








WISCONSIN
RIVERS
(HZ. )
WYOMING
LAKES (AC.)
.
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
88
88
RIVERS
(HI. )
.
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
23
17
40
I CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY

STREAMBAHK
EROSION

UNSPECIFIED AG

TTrE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IHPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY








ALABAMA
COAST (HI.)
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0

ESTUARY
(SQ.HI.)
0
0

0
0
0
.
0

LAKES (AC.)
0
, 0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(HI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ARIZONA
RIVERS
(HI.)
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
7
ARKANSAS
RIVERS
(HI.)
0

0
0
664

181
845
CALIFORNIA
COAST (HI.)
0


0
0


0

ESTUARY
(SQ.HI.)
0


0
0


0

LAKES (AC. )
1,630


1.630
55.145


55.145

RIVERS
(HZ.)
27


27
74


74

METLANDS
(AC.)
1.993


1.993
10.732


10.732
COLORADO
LAKES (AC.)
1.183


1.183
0


0

RIVERS
(HI.)
648


648
49


49
CONNECTICUT
ESTUARY
(SQ.HI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

LAKES (AC.)
.
0
0
0
•
369
1.103
1.472

RIVERS
(HI.)
0
0
0
0
2
27
69
98
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR AGRICULTURAL IMPACT3
BY UATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MA
TYPE
TERBODY
STREAMBANK EROSION
UNSPECIFIED AG

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
UATERBODY
0

0
0
1S6

66
222
DELAWARE
RIVERS
(MI.)

WETLANDS
(AC.)
0


0
0
.
•
0
6E0R6IA
LAKES (AC.)
0
.

0
0
•

0

RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0

0
0
0

0
HAWAII
COAST (AC.)
0
•

0
0
•

0
IDAHO
LAKES (AC.)
0
.

0
0
•

0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
.

0
7.726
.

7,728
ILLINOIS
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
19
0
0
19
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
3
71
2.167
2,241
INDIANA
6REAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)

.
.
•
0
.
.
0
LAKES (AC.)
.
•
•
•
357
•
•
357
RIVERS
(MI.)


.
.
44
.
•
44
I OKA
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
1.436
38.115
12.390
51,940
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
423
5,460
181
6.064
WETLANDS
(AC.)
0
0
0
0
11147
13.541
6.711
21.399
KANSAS
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND UA
TYPE
TERBODY
STREAMBANK EROSION
UNSPECIFIED A6


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBOOY
0


0
427


427
KENTUCKY
RIVERS
(HI. >
LOUISIANA
ESTUARY
(SO.MI.)
#

,
•
.
.
.
•
COAST (AC.)
•
-
•
•
•
•
•
•
LAKES (AC.)
.
•
•
•
•
34.118
•
34,118
ESTUARY
(MI. 1


,
.
•
.
8
8
RIVERS
(HI.)


.
.
93
281
17
392
MAINE
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
0
0
27,327
•
4,739
32.066
RIVERS
(HI.)
0

0
0
599
.
10
609
MARYLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI. >
0


0
0
.

0
LAKES (AC.)
0
•

0
1ป 154
•

1,154
RIVERS
(MI.)
0


0
305
.

305
MASSACHUSE-
TTS
ESTUARY
(SO.MI.)
0
0

0
0
0

0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0

0
0
14

14
MINNESOTA
LAKES (AC.)
.
.

•
•
•

•
RIVERS
(MI.)
.

.
.
.
.

•
MISSOURI
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
178
0
0
178
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS
BT WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBOOY

STREAHBANK
EROSION

UNSPECIFIED AG
I Yrfc

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBOOY








HISSOURZ
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
0
eoe
7ป375
7,577
MONTANA
LAKES (AC.)
0

0
0
9,012
•
0
9,012

RIVERS
(HI. )
649

9
658
822
.
0
822
NEVADA
LAKES (AC.)
.

•
•
•
•
•
•

RIVERS
(MI. )


.
.
.
.
.
•
NEW MEXICO
LAKES (AC.)
0

•
0
31,690
•
•
31,890

RIVERS
(MI. )
0

•
0
456
.
.
456
NEM YORK
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0

.
0
0
.
.
0

6REAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)
0

#
0
3
.
.
3

COAST (AC.)
0

•
0
0
•
•
0

LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
31.518
26
32
31,576

RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
33
35
36
104
NORTH
CAROLINA
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
0
0
0
0
1
131
5
137

RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
384
4,228
0
4,612
NORTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
.
•
•
•
•
•
-
•
RIVERS
(MI.)
.
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AM) HA
TYPE
TERBODY
STREAMBANK EROSION
UNSPECIFIED AG


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY





.

#
OHIO
LAKES (AC.)

RIVERS
(MI.)
0
#
0
0
1,978
.
0
1,978
OKLAHOHA
LAKES (AC.)
•
0
0
0
•
71,919
217,331
289,250
RIVERS
(HI.)
0
0
0
0
360
823
1,942
3,124
PENNSYLVAN-
IA
RIVERS
(MI.)
0

.
0
480


480
PUERTO RICO
COAST (III.)
0


0
0


0
ESTUARY
(SO.HI.)
0


0
9


9
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
1,816


1,818
RIVERS
(HI.)
0


0
978


978
RHODE
ISLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)



•
.


•
LAKES (AC.)
•


•
•


•
RIVERS
(HI.)


.
.
3


3
SOUTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
63
58,965
35
59,062
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
28
397
28
453
TENNESSEE
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
4,867
15,200
0
20,067
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
126
259
118
503
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS
BY UATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MA
TYPE
TERBODY
STREAMBANK EROSION
UNSPECIFIED AG

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IHPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IHPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY
•

•


•


TEXAS
ESTUARY
(SQ.HI.)

LAKES (AC.)
.
•
•
•
•
6

6

RIVERS
(HI.)



.
7
.

7
UTAH
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
•
•
•

•

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
.
0
40
4 >057

4,097
VERMONT
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
RIVERS
(HI.)
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
VIRGIN
ISLANDS
COAST (HI.)
0
0
•
0
0
0
.
0
VIR6INIA
ESTUARY
(SQ.HI.)
0
0
0
0
19
36
B6
141
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
•
0
965
2>617
•
3.581
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
370
407
906
1.684
NASHIN6TON
ESTUARY
(SQ.HI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
237
237
RIVERS
(HI. )
0
0
0
0
41
157
23
221
WEST
VIR6INIA
RIVERS
(HI. )
0


0
0
.
.
0
WISCONSIN
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
•
•
19
•
19
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS
BT NATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
TYPE
STREAMBANK EROSION
UNSPECIFIED AG

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY




169
1.614
2.843
4.626
WISCONSIN
RIVERS
(MI. >
WYOMING
LAKES (AC.)
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI.)
.
.
.
•
•
17
72
69

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR SILVICULTURAl IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
ALL SILVICULTURE
HARVESTIN6
ACTIVITIES
FOREST MANA6EMENT

TYPE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

U
SE SUPPORT




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY












ALABAMA
COAST (HI.)
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0

ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0

LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
25
51
5
61
13
25
3
40
0
0
0
0
ARIZONA
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
75
0
75
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ARKANSAS
RIVERS
(MI.)
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
CALIFORNIA
COAST (MI.)
0


0
0


0
0

•
0

ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0


0
0

.
0

LAKES (AC.)
17,143


17.143
0


0
0

•
0

RIVERS
(MI.)
669


6S9
0


0
0

.
0

WETLANDS
(AC.)
0


0
0


0
0

.
0
COLORADO
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0


0
0

•
0

RIVERS
(MI.)
43


43
0


0
0

•
0
CONNECTICUT
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

LAKES (AC.)
.
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR SILVICULTURAL IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AM) WA
TYPE
TERBODY
ALL SILVICULTURE
HARVESTING ACTIVITIES
FOREST MANAGEMENT


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPOR1

TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY
0

0
0
0
•
0
0
0

0
0
DELAWARE
RIVERS
(MI. )

WETLANDS
(AC.)
0
.

0
0
•

0
0
.
•
0
GE0R6IA
LAKES (AC.)
0
.

0
0
•

0
0
•
•
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
.
0
HAWAII
COAST (AC.)
2.699
.

2.699
2.699
•

2.699
0
•
•
0
IDAHO
LAKES (AC.)
0
.

0
0
•

0
0
•
•
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
2.632
.

2.832
0
.

0
0
.
.
0
ILLINOIS
LAKES (AC.)
0
15
26
41
0
15
0
15
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
INDIANA
GREAT LAKES
(SO.MI.)
0


0
0
•
.
0
0
.
•
0
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0


0
0
.
.
0
0
•
.
0
IOMA
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WETLANDS
(AC. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
KANSAS
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR SILVICULTURAL IMPACTS
BY UATERBQDY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
ALL SILVICULTURE
HARVESTINS
ACTIVITIES
FOREST MANAGEMENT

TTPE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

U
SE SUPPORT




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY












KENTUCKY
RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
0

.
0
0

•
0
LOUISIANA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)




.

.
.
.

•
•

COAST (AC.)
.

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•

LAKES (AC.)
.

-
•
•

•
•
•

•
•

ESTUARY
(MI. )




.

.
.
.

.
•

RIVERS
(MI.)
.



.

.
.
.

•
•
MAINE
LAKES (AC.)
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0

RIVERS
(MI.)
69

6
97
0

0
0
0

0
0
MARYLAND
ESTUARY
(SO.MI.)
0


0
0


0
0


0

LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0


0
0


0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
0


0
0


0
MASSACHUSE-
TTS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0

RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
MINNESOTA
LAKES (AC.)
.
.

•
•
•

•
•
•

•

RIVERS
(MI.)

.
#

.
.
.
.
.
•

•
MISSOURI
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR SILVICULTURAL IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
ALL SILVICULTURE
HARVESTING
ACTIVITIES
FOREST MANAGEMENT

TTrfc

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

(J
SE SUPPOR1




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY












MISSOURI
RIVERS
(MI. 1
0
0
79
79
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MONTANA
LAKES (AC.)
0

1,117
1.117
0

558
556
0
•
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. 1
413

0
413
39

0
39
15
.
0
15
NEVADA
LAKES (AC.)
.


•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

RIVERS
(MI. )
.



,


.
.
•
•
•
NEU MEXICO
LAKES (AC.)
596


596
0


0
0
•
•
0

RIVERS
(MI.)
94


94
0


0
0
.
•
0
NEH YORK
ESTUARY
(SO.MI.)
0


0
0


0
0
•
•
0

6REAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0


0
0
.
.
0

COAST (AC.)
0


0
0


0
0
•
•
0

LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NORTH
CAROLINA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
29
67
22
117
a
27
0
35
2
5
0
7
NORTH
LAKES (AC.)
.
.
.
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DAKOTA
RIVERS
(MI. )
.
.
.
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR SILVICULTURAL IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND NATERBODY
ALL SILVICULTURE
HARVESTINS
ACTIVITIES
FOREST MANAGEMENT

TYPE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IHPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IHPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












OHIO
LAKES (AC.)
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

RIVERS
(hi. )
169
.
0
169
73
.
0
73
13
.
0
13
OKLAHOMA
LAKES (AC.)
.
7.100
13,417
20,517
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0

RIVERS
(HI. )
0
5
83
as
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PENNSYLVAN-
IA
RIVERS
(HZ. )
0
.

0
0


0
0


0
PUERTO RICO
COAST (hi.)
0
•
•
0
0


0
0


0

ESTUARY
(SQ.MX.)
0
.

0
0


0
0


0

LAKES (AC.)
0
•
.
0
0


0
0


0

RIVERS
(HZ.)
0
.
#
0
0


0
0


0
RHOOE
ISLAND
ESTUARY
(SO.HI.)

.

,



.
.


•

LAKES (AC.)
.
.
•
•
•


•
•


•

RIVERS
(HI.)
.



.


.
.


•
SOUTH
LAKES (AC.)
0
51
0
51
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DAKOTA
RIVERS
(MI.)
19
0
19
37
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TENNESSEE
LAKES (AC.)
650
24
0
674
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(HI.)
13
22
49
84
4
8
25
36
0
7
10
17
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR SILVICULTURAL IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
TYPE
ALL SILVICULTURE
HARVESTING ACTIVITIES
FOREST HANAGEMENT
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IHPACTEO
USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IHPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IHPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY












TEXAS
ESTUARY
(sq.m.)
LAKES (AC.)
-
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
RIVERS
(HI. )







,
.
.

.
UTAH
LAKES (AC.)
.
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
RIVERS
(HI.)
0
28

26
0
0
.
0
0
0

0
VERMONT
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
#
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
VIRGIN
ISLANDS
COAST (HI.)
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
VIRGINIA
ESTUARY
(SQ.HI.)
0
28
13
41
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LAKES (AC.)
0
130
.
130
0
0
.
0
0
0
•
0
RIVERS
(HI.)
3
70

199
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WASHINGTON
ESTUARY
1 SQ.HI.)
3
0
ฃ
5
3
0
2
5
0
0
0
0
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
57
57
0
0
19
19
0
0
20
20
RIVERS
(HI.)
I
74
17
91
0
26
2
30
1
12
1
14
WEST
VIRGINIA
RIVERS
(HI.)
0


0
0
.
.
0
0
.
.
0
WISCONSIN
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR SILVICULTUHAL IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
TYPE
ALL SILVICULTURE
HARVESTING ACTIVITIES
FOREST MANAGEMENT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPOR1

TOTAL
IHPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












WISCONSIN
RIVERS
CHI.)
MYOMING
LAKES (AC.)
.
.
•
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(hi. )
•
57
80
137
•
27
40
67
•
2
36
3d
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR SILVICULTURAL JMPACT3
BT HATERBODY TYPE AMD USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
ROAD CONSTRUCTION
UNSPECIFIED SILV

TTrt

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IHPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IHPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY








ALABAMA
COAST (HI.)
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0

ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0

LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI.)
13
25
3
40
0
0
0
0
ARIZONA
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
45
0
45
0
30
0
30
ARKANSAS
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
CALIFORNIA
COAST (HI.)
0
•

0
0
•

0

ESTUARY
(SQ.HI.)
0


0
0
.

0

LAKES (AC.)
0
.

0
17.143
•

17,143

RIVERS
(HI.)
0


0
689
•

669

WETLANDS
(AC.)
0
.

0
0
.

0
COLORADO
LAKES (AC.)
0
.

0
0


0

RIVERS
(HI.)
43
.

43
0
.

0
CONNECTICUT
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0

0

LAKES (AC.)
.
0
0
0
•
0
0
0

RIVERS
(HI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR SILVICULTURAL IMPACTS
BY UATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MA
TYPE
TERBODY
ROAD CONSTRUCTION
UNSPECIFIED SILV

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY
0

0
0
0

0
0
DELAWARE
RIVERS
(MI.)

WETLANDS
(AC. )
0


0
0
.
.
0
6E0RSIA
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
HAWAII
COAST (AC.)
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
IDAHO
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0

•
0
2 >832
.
.
2,632
ILLINOIS
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
26
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
INDIANA
6REAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)
0
.
,
0
0
.
.
0
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
.
•
0
0
.
.
0
IOWA
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WETLANDS
(AC. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
KANSAS
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR SILVICULTURAL IMPACTS
BY UATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MA
TYPE
TERBODY
ROAD CONSTRUCTION
UNSPECIFIED SILV

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
UATERBODY
0


0
0


0
KENTUCKY
RIVERS
(MI.)
LOUISIANA
ESTUARY
(SO.MI.)


.
•
.

.
•
COAST (AC.)
•

•
•
•

•
•
LAKES (AC.)
.

•
•
•

•
•
ESTUARY
(MI.)


.
•
•

.
•
RIVERS
(MI.)


,
•
*

.
•
MAINE
LAKES (AC.)
0

0
0
0

0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0

0
0
69

6
97
MARYLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.HI.)
0


0
0


0
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0


0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0


0
0


0
MASSACHUSE-
TTS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0

0
0
0

0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0

0
0
0

0
MINNESOTA
LAKES (AC.)
.
•

•
•
•

•
RIVERS
(MI.)


.
.
.
.
.
.
MISSOURI
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR SILVICULTURAL IMPACTS
BY MATERBOOY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBOOY
ROAD CONSTRUCTION
UNSPECIFIED SILV
TYPE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBOOY








MISSOURI
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
79
79
MONTANA
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
558
558
0
•
0
0

RIVERS
(MI.)
41

0

317
.
0
317
NEVADA
LAKES (AC.)
.
.

•
•
•
•
•

RIVERS
(MI.)

.

.
.
.
•
•
NEU MEXICO
LAKES (AC.)
0
•

0
596
•
•
596

RIVERS
(MI.)
0
.

0
94
.
.
94
NEH YORK
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0
.
.
0

6REAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)
0
.

0
0
.
.
0

COAST (AC.)
0
•

0
0
•
•
0

LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D

RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NORTH
CAROLINA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI.)
0
6
5
11
18
30
17
65
NORTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI. )
.
•
•
•
•
-
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR SILVICULTURAL IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND WA
TYPE
TERBODY
ROAD CONSTRUCTION
UNSPECIFIED SILV


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY








OHIO
LAKES (AC.)

RIVER3
(MI.)
4

0
4
60
.
0
80
OKLAHOMA
LAKES (AC.)
•
0
0
0
•
7.100
13.417
20.517

RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
5
63
88
PENNSYLVAN-
IA
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
.

0
0


0
PUERTO RICO
COAST (HI.)
0
.

0
0


0
ESTUARY
(SQ.HI.)
0


0
0


0
LAKES (AC.)
0
.

0
0


0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0


0
0


0
RHODE
ISLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.HI.)




.


.
LAKES (AC.)
.
.

•
•


•
RIVERS
(MI.)

.
•
.
.

-
•
SOUTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
0
11
0
11
0
40
0
40
RIVERS
(HI.)
0
0
0
0
19
0
19
37
TENNESSEE
LAKES (AC.)
0
24
0
24
650
0
0
650
RIVERS
(MI.)
4
7
14
25
5
0
0
5
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR SILVICULTUPAL IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MA
TYPE
TERBODY
ROAD CONSTRUCTION
UNSPECIFIED SILV

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBODY








TEXAS
ESTUARY
(SQ.HI.)

LAKES (AC.)
.
•

•
•
•
•
•

RIVERS
(MI. )



.
.
.
•
•
UTAH
LAKES (AC.)
.
•

•
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0

0
0
2d
.
28
VERMONT
LAKES (AC.)
0
.
0
0
0
•
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
#
0
0
0
.
0
0
VIRGIN
ISLANDS
COAST (MI.)
0
0
,
0
0
0
•
0
VIRGINIA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
28
13
41
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
•
0
0
130
•
130
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
5
70
124
199
WASHINGTON
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
19
19
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
20
2
22
0
13
12
26
WEST
VIR6INIA
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
,
#
0
0
.
•
0
WISCONSIN
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR SILVICULTURAL IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
TYPE
ROAD CONSTRUCTION
UNSPECIFIED SILV

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY








HISCONSIN
RIVERS
(MI.)
WYOMING
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(hi.)
.
26
4
32
•
•
•
•

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
BY UATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MA
TYPE
TERBODY
SUM OF S30
HIGHWAY/ROAO/BRIDSE
LAND DEVELOPMENT


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY
0


0
0


0
0

.
0
ALABAMA
COAST (HI.)

ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
0
•
0

LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
5
52
0
57
1
20
0
21
4
32
0
36
ARIZONA
RIVERS
(MI.)
5
69
0
74
0
0
0
0
5
64
0
69
ARKANSAS
RIVERS
(MI.)
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
CALIFORNIA
COAST (MI.)
0


0
0


0
0


0
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
0


0
0


0
0


0
LAKES (AC.)
17,653


17,853
0


0
0


0
RIVERS
(MI.)
24


24
0


0
0


0
WETLANDS
(AC. )
825


825
0


0
0


0
COLORADO
LAKES (AC.)
4.366

•
4,366
0


0
0


0
RIVERS
(MI. )
19


19
4


4
0


0
CONNECTICUT
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LAKES I AC. )
.
1.879
893
2,772
•
244
223
467
•
1,635
670
2,305
RIVERS
(MI. )
6
5
5
16
2
2
0
4
4
3
5
12
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
BY NATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND UATERBOOY

to
i
O
$30

HI6HMAY/R0AD/BRIDGE
LAND DEVELOPMENT

TYPE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

t
SE SUPPORT




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTEO


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
UATERBOOY












DELAWARE
RIVERS
(HI.)
ฃ0
#
IS
35
0
ฆ
0
0
Q
•
0
0

WETLANDS
(AC. 1
0


0
0
.
•
0
0
•

O
GEORGIA
LAKES (AC.)
0
.
.
0
0
•
•
0
0
•

0

RIVERS
(MI. J
0
0
#
0
Q
0

0
0
0

0
HAWAII
COAST (AC.)
6,066
.
.
6.06S
2,985
ฆ
•
2.985
3.003
•

3.083
IDAHO
LAKES (AC.)
0
.
•
0
0
•
-
0
0
•

0

RIVERS
(HI.)
1.425

.
1,425
0
.
.
0
0
•

0
ILLINOIS
LAKES (AC.)
1.534
652
354
2.540
329
194
1
525
1.205
458
353
2.016

RIVERS
(til.)
11
70
ฃ5
105
0
6
0
6
11
64
25
99
INDIANA
GREAT LAKES
(S9.MI.)
0


0
0
.
.
O
0
•
•
0

LAKES (AC.)
751
.
•
751
0
•
•
0
751
•
•
751

RIVERS
(MI.)
32


32
0
•
.
0
32
•
•
32
IOMA
LAKES (AC.)
10
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

WETLANDS
(AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
KANSAS
LAKES (AC.)
0
*
•
O
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
O
I CONTINUED 1

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR CONSTRUCTION IMPACT3
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY

SUM OF
S30

HIGHHAY/ROAD/BRID6E
LAND DEVELOPMENT

lift

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPOR1




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBODY












KENTUCKY
RIVERS
(MI.)
0

a
0
0

.
0
0

•
0
LOUISIANA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
#
#

#
•

.
.
.

.
•

COAST (AC.)
•
•
.
•


•
•
•

•
ฆ

LAKES (AC.)
•
-
•
•


•
•
•

•
•

ESTUARY
(MI.)
.





.
.
.

.
-

RIVERS
(MI.)

7
#
7


.
.
.
7
.
7
MAINE
LAKES (AC.)
5.019

0
5.019


0
0
5.019

0
5.019

RIVERS
(MI.)
39

0
39
0

0
0
0

0
0
MARYLAfฉ
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0


0
0


0

LAKES (AC.)
0
•

0
0


0
0


0

RIVERS
(MI.)
0
#

0
0


0
0


0
MASSACHUSE-
TTS
ESTUARY
(sq.m.)
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
MINNESOTA
LAKES (AC.)
.
.

•
•
•

•
ฆ
•

•

RIVERS
(MI. )



.
•
.
.
.
.
•
.
•
MISSOURI
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOB CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
BY NATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY

SUM OF
S30

HIGHWAY/ROAD/BRIDGE
LAND DEVELOPMENT

TYPE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

U
3E SUPPORT




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
UATERBOOY












MISSOURI
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
28
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MONTANA
LAKES (AC.)
0
.
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
347

0
547
84

0
84
0

0
0
NEVADA
LAKES (AC.)
.
.
.
.
•

•
•
•

•
•

RIVERS
(MI. )
eo
10
.
30



.
.

•
•
NEU MEXICO
LAKES (AC.)
400
.
•
400
0


0
0

•
0

RIVERS
(MI.)
75

ซ
75
0


0
0
•
•
0
NEU YORK
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
0
.
•
0
0


0
0
•
•
0

6REAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)
0

.
0
0


0
0
•
•
0

COAST (AC.)
0
.
.
0
0


0
0

•
0

LAKES (AC.)
19
1.191
0
1,210
0
45
0
45
19
1,146
0
1,165

RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
11
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
11
NORTH
CAROLINA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
152
455
20
626
11
9
0
19
90
166
20
275
NORTH
LAKES (AC.)
•
.
.
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DAKOTA
RIVERS
(MI. )
.
.
.
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
-
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE ATS) HATERBODY
TYPE
SUM OF 330

HIGHHAY/R0AD/BRID6E
LAND DEVELOPMENT



USE SUPPOR
T

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTEO
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTEO


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY












OHIO
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
•
•
.
.
•


.


RIVERS
(HI. )
185
.
0
185
0

0
0
0

0
0
OKLAHOMA
LAKES (AC.)
•
6,926
7,359
14i285
•
0
0
0
.
0
375
375

RIVERS
(HI.)
0
29
42
70
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
PENNSYLVAN-
IA
RIVERS
(HI.)
0
.

0
0
m

0
0


0
PUERTO RICO
COAST (HI.)
0
•

0
0
.

0
0


0

ESTUARY
(SCJ.MI.)
0
.

0
0


0
0


0

LAKES (AC.)
0
•

0
0
.

0
0


0

RIVERS
(MI.)
0
.

0
0
#

0
0


0
RHOOE
ISLAND
ESTUARY
(SO.HI.)
.
.
1
1









LAKES (AC.)
•
29
•
29
•
'

.
.
29

29

RIVERS
(HI.)
4
.
34
38
•
#
5
5


12
12
SOUTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(HI. )
0
0
7
7
0
0
3
3
0
0
3
3
TENNESSEE
LAKES (AC.)
2,840
25
9,366
12,230
0
0
0
0
2,190
25
9,366
11,680

RIVERS
(HI.)
62
176
174
412
4
54
61
119
25
76
60
161
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HA
TYPE
TERBODY
SUM OF S30
HI6HHAY/R0AD/BRIDGE
LAND DEVELOPMENT


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

I
I3E SUPPORT

TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY
•











TEXAS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)

LAKES (AC.)
•
.

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•

RIVERS
(HI.)
.



.
•
.
.
.
.

•
UTAH
LAKES (AC.)
.
.

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
RIVERS
(MI. >
8
277

265
0
0
.
0
0
0

0
VERMONT
LAKES (AC.)
0
.
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
RIVERS
(MX.)
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
VIRGIN
ISLANDS
COAST (MI.)
0
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
0
•
0
VIRGINIA
ESTUARY
(sq.ni.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
.
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
RIVERS
(HI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WASHINGTON
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
6.027
6.027
0
0
0
0
0
0
6.027
6.027
RIVERS
(HI.)
26
43
1
70
1
2
0
3
25
41
1
67
WEST
VIRGINIA
RIVERS
(HI.)
0
.
#
P
0
0
.
•
0
0
.
•
0
WISCONSIN
LAKES (AC.)
•
16
•
16
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
TYPE
SUM OP S30
HIGHHAY/ROAD/BRIDGE
LAND DEVELOPMENT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPOR1

TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY
24
191
60
302








WISCONSIN
RIVERS
(MI. )
WYOMING
LAKES (AC.)
.
3.166
17,172
20.33d
•
3.128
17.172
20.300
•
38
•
38
RIVERS
(MI. )
.
352
76
428
•
295
71
367
•
57
5
62
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR CONSTRUCTION IMPACT9
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND UA
TYPE
TERBODY
RAILROADS
UNSPECIFIED CONS


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY




0
.

0
ALABAMA
COAST Chi.)

ESTUARY
(SQ.MI. )




0
0
•
0

LAKES (AC.)




0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(HI.)




0
0
0
0
ARIZONA
RIVERS
(MI.)




0
6
0
6
ARKANSAS
RIVERS
(MI.)




0
.
0
0
CALIFORNIA
COAST (MI.)




0
•
•
0
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)




0
.
.
0
LAKES (AC.)




17,853
•
•
17,853
RIVERS
(MI.)




24
.
.
24
WETLANDS
(AC.)




625
.
.
825
COLORADO
LAKES (AC.)




4.366
•
•
4,366
RIVERS
(MI.)




16
.
.
16
CONNECTICUT
ESTUARY
(sq.m.)




0
0
0
0
LAKES (AC.)




•
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
.

•
•
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HA
TYPE
TERBODY
RAILROADS
UNSPECIFIED CONS

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBODY




20

15
35
DELAWARE
RIVERS
(MI. 1

WETLANDS
(AC.)




0
.

0
6E0R6IA
LAKES (AC.)




0
•

0

RIVERS
(MI.)




0
0

0
HAWAII
COAST (AC.)




0
•

0
IDAHO
LAKES (AC.)




0
•

0
RIVERS
(MI.)




1,425
.

1,425
ILLINOIS
LAKES (AC.1




0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )




0
0
0
0
INDIANA
GREAT LAKES
(Sq.MI.I




0
.
.
0
LAKES (AC.)




0
•
•
0
RIVERS
(MI. 1




0
.
.
0
IOWA
LAKES (AC.)




10
0
0
10
RIVERS
(MI.)




0
5
0
6
WETLANDS
(AC.)



.
0
0
0
0
KANSAS
LAKES (AC.)



ฆ
0
•
•
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MA
TYPE
TERBODY
RAILROADS
UNSPECIFIED CONS

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY
•



0


0
KENTUCKY
RIVERS
(MI.)
LOUISIANA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)




.

.
•
COAST (AC.)




•

•
ฆ
LAKES (AC.)




•

•
•
ESTUARY
(MI.)




.

.
.
RIVERS
(MI.)




.

•
•
MAINE
LAKES (AC.)




0

0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)




39

0
39
MARYLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)




0

.
0
LAKES (AC.)




0

•
0
RIVERS
(MI.)




0

.
0
MASSACHUSE-
TTS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)




0
0
.
0
RIVERS
(MI.)




0
0
•
0
MINNESOTA
LAKES (AC.)




•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(HI.)

#
#
.
.
.
.
•
MISSOURI
LAKES (AC.)

•
•
•
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUEO)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AW) MA
TYPE
TERBODY
RAILROADS
UNSPECIFIED CONS


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY




0
0
28
28
MISSOURI
RIVERS
(MI.)
MONTANA
LAKES (AC.)



•
0
•
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)




263
.
0
263
NEVADA
LAKES (AC.)




•
•

•
RIVERS
(MI.)




20
10

30
NEW MEXICO
LAKES (AC.)




400
•

400
RIVERS
(MI.)




75
.

75
NEH YORK
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)




0
.

0
GREAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)




0
.

0
COAST (AC.)




0
•

0
LAKES (AC.)




0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)




0
0
0
0
NORTH
CAROLINA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)




0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)




51
280
0
331
NORTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)




•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI.)
.


•
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
RAILROADS
UNSPECIFIED CONS
i irt

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTEO
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY








OHIO
LAKES (AC.)



ฆ
•
•
•
•

RIVERS
(hi.)




165
.
0
185
OKLAHOMA
LAKES (AC.)




•
6,926
6,984
13,910

RIVERS
(HI.)




0
29
3d
66
PENNSYLVAN-
IA
RIVERS
(MI.)




0
.
.
0
PUERTO RICO
COAST (MI.)



•
0
•
•
0

ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)



•
0
.
.
0

LAKES (AC.)



•
0
•
•
0

RIVERS
(MI. I




0
.
•
0
RHODE
ISLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)




.
.
1
1

LAKES (AC.)




•
•
•
•

RIVERS
(MI.)




4
.
17
21
SOUTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)




0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(HI. )




0
0
0
0
TENNESSEE
LAKES (AC.)




650
0
0
650

RIVERS
(HI.)
.


•
33
46
53
133
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
BY HATERBODT TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AMD HATERBODT
TYPE
RAILROADS
UNSPECIFIED CONS
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBODY








TEXAS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.1
LAKES (AC. )




•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI.)




.
.
.
.
UTAH
LAKES (AC.)




•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI. I




0
277
.
265
VERMONT
LAKES (AC.)




0
•
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)




0
.
0
0
VIRGIN
ISLANDS
COAST (MI.)




0
0
.
0
VIRGINIA
ESTUARY
oq.fil.)




0
0
0
0
LAKES (AC.)




0
0
•
0
RIVERS
(MI.)




0
0
0
0
WASHINGTON
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)




0
0
0
0
LAKES (AC.)




0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. I




0
0
0
0
WEST
VIRGINIA
RIVERS
(Ml.)




0
.
.
0
WISCONSIN
LAKES (AC.I




•
IS
•
16
(CONTINUED!

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
BY UATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND UATERBODY
TYPE
RAILROADS
UNSPECIFIED CONS
USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IHPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
UATERBODY




24
191
as
S02
WISCONSIN
RIVERS
(MI.)
WYOMING
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
•
•
ฆ
•
•
RIVERS
(MI.)
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

-------
STATE TOTALS FOB URBAN IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND WA
TYPE
TERBODY
ALL URBAN
STORM SEWERS
COMBINED SEWERS


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
UATERBODY
0


0
0


0
0


0
ALABAMA
COAST (MI.J

ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
17
#
17
0
8
•
8
0
0
.
0
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
13
50
0
63
6
12
0
18
1
0
0
1
ARIZONA
RIVERS
(MI. )
41
47
0
89
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
5
ARKANSAS
RIVERS
(MI. )
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
CALIFORNIA
COAST (MI.)
is


18
0


0
0
•

0
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
47


47
0


0
0
.

0
LAKES (AC.)
37,719


37,719
0


0
0
•

0
RIVERS
(MI. )
229


229
0


0
0
.

0
WETLANDS
(AC. )
1,755


1,755
0


0
0
.

0
COLORADO
LAKES (AC.)
4,366


4,366
0


0
0
•

0
RIVERS
(MI. )
73


73
0


0
0
.
.
0
CONNECTICUT
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
40
0
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LAKES (AC.)
.
1,808
1,232
3,040
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
17
25
13
55
5
9
2
16
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED )

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR URBAN IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
ALL URBAN
STORM SEWERS
COMBINED SEWERS
TYPE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPOR1




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY












DELAWARE
RIVERS
(MI. )
23

7
30
0
.
0
0
0
•
0
0

WETLANDS
(AC.)
0


0
0
•
.
0
0
.

0
6E0R6IA
LAKES (AC.)
0
•

0
0
•

0
0
•

0

RIVERS
(MI.)
14
176

192
0
0

0
0
25

25
HAWAII
COAST (AC.)
13,243
-

13,243
6,382
•

6,382
0
•

0
IDAHO
LAKES (AC.)
0
.

0
0
•

0
0
•

0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
0
•

0
0
.

0
ILLINOIS
LAKES (AC.)
3,196
2,529
3,139
8,865
708
531
122
1,361
0
0
11
11

RIVERS
(MI.)
36
169
99
304
1
5
0
5
1
0
0
1
INDIANA
6REAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0
.
.
0
0
.
.
0

LAKES (AC.)
1,396
.
.
1,396
0
•
•
0
23
•
•
23

RIVERS
(ttl.)
220


220
13
.
.
13
36
.
.
36
IOMA
LAKES (AC.)
0
7,089
6,248
13,337
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
110
496
26
632
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

WETLANDS
(AC. )
0
285
50
335
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
KANSAS
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR URBAN IMPACTS
BT MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HA
TYPE
TERBODY
ALL URBAN
STORM SEWERS
COMBINED SEWERS

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY
211


211
0


0
0


0
KENTUCKY
RIVERS
(MI. )
LOUISIANA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
31
143

174
.

.
.
.
.
.
-
COAST (AC.)
.
•

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
LAKES (AC.)
•
33,952

33,952
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
ESTUARY
(MI. >
.
18

18
•

.
.
.
1
.
1
RIVERS
(MI. )
99
310
17
426
.

.
.
15
57
.
72
MAINE
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
0
0
0

0
0
0
*
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
217
.
33
250
0

0
0
0
•
0
0
MARYLAND
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
0


0
0


0
0
.

0
LAKES (AC.)
412
•

412
0


0
0
•

0
RIVERS
(MI. )
123
.

123
0


0
0
.

0
MASSACHUSE-
TTS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
68

68
0
6

6
0
0

0
RIVERS
(MI. )
65
225

310
6
13

19
19
0

19
MINNESOTA
LAKES (AC.)
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
RIVERS
(MI. )
.


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
•
MISSOURI
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR URBAN IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MA
TYPE
TERBODY
ALL URBAN
STORM SEHERS
COMBINED SEHERS

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MISSOURI
RIVERS
(MI.)
MONTANA
LAKES (AC.ป
0
.
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
31

0
31
15

0
15
0

0
0
NEVADA
LAKES (AC.)
.
•
•
•
•


•
•


•
RIVERS
(MI. )
24
10

34



.
.


•
NEU MEXICO
LAKES (AC.)
0
•

0
0


0
0


0
RIVERS
(MI. )
40


40
0


0
0


0
NEW YORK
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0


0
0


0
GREAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)
0
#

0
0


0
0


0
COAST (AC.)
65,362
•

65,362
5,713


5,713
0


0
LAKES (AC.)
1,490
26
2d,160
29,676
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(HI.)
8
22
6
36
0
4
0
4
0
0
0
0
NORTH
CAROLINA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
1
24
1
25
0
1
0
2
0
10
0
11
RIVERS
(MI. )
420
448
12
880
8
7
0
15
3
13
0
17
NORTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
.
.
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI.)
13
.
.
13
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR URBAN IMPACTS
BY UATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBOOY
ALL URBAN
STORM SENERS

COMBINED
SENERS

TYPE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

U
ISE SUPPORT




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
UATERBODY












OHIO
LAKES (AC. )
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

RIVERS
(MI. 1
609

0
609
125
.
0
125
158
•
0
158
OKLAHOMA
LAKES (AC.>
.
12,844
12,859
25,703
•
0
0
0
-
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI.)
17
200
136
353
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PENNSYLVAN-
IA
RIVERS
(MI.)
48


48
0
.

0
0

•
0
PUERTO RICO
COAST (MI.)
19
~

19
0
•

0
0

•
0

ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
24


24
0
•

0
0

•
0

LAKES (AC.)
2,287
•

2,287
0
•

0
0


0

RIVERS
(MI.)
526


526
0
.

0
0


0
RHODE
ISLAND
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
3
8
3
15
.
0

0
.


•

LAKES (AC.)
.
188
•
188
•
•

•
•


•

RIVERS
(MI. )
30
4
66
100
.
•
0
0
.

.
•
SOUTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
0
16
0
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
29
56
50
134
22
55
30
106
0
0
0
0
TENNESSEE
LAKES (AC.)
4,875
4,173
13,940
22,987
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
159
159
40
358
15
10
0
25
16
2
0
18
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR URBAN IMPACTS
BY MATERBOOY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE ATS) HATERBODY
TYPE
ALL URBAN
STORM SEWERS
COMBINED SEWERS
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY












TEXAS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
LAKES (AC.)
.
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
RIVERS
(HI. )
#
4

4
.
•

.
.
.

.
UTAH
LAKES (AC.)
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

*
RIVERS
(MI. )
5
395

400
0
0

0
0
0

0
VERMONT
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
VIRGIN
ISLANDS
COAST (MI.1
0
0
ป
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
VIRGINIA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
52
37
131
220
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LAKES (AC.1
105
5.106
.
5,213
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
200
285
457
942
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WASHINGTON
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
e
2
8
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LAKES (AC.)
97
8,276
6,470
14,843
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
43
49
4
96
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WEST
VIRGINIA
RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
0
.
.
0
0
.
.
0
WISCONSIN
LAKES (AC.)
•
19
•
19
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
( CONTINUED )

-------
STATE TOTALS FOB URBAN IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
TYPE
ALL URBAN
STORM SEMERS
COMBINED SEWERS

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPOH1

TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY
22
334
58
415








WISCONSIN
RIVERS
(MI. )
WYOMING
LAKES (AC. )
.
6
352
359
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI. )
.
69
13
62
•
3
•
3
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR URBAN IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HA
TYPE
TERBODY
SURFACE RUNOFF
SHIPYARDS
MARINAS & BOAT DISCHARG
E

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY
0


0
0


0
0


0
ALABAMA
COAST (MI.)

ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
a

e
0
0
•
0
0
0
.
0
LAKES (AC.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
5
38
0
44
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ARIZONA
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ARKANSAS
RIVERS
(MI. )
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
CALIFORNIA
COAST (MI.)
0


0
•

•
•
0

•
0
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
.

.
.
4

.
4
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
•

•
•
17,843

•
17,843
RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
.

.
.
0

.
0
WETLANDS
(AC. )
0


0
.

.
.
525

•
525
COLORADO
LAKES (AC.)
4.366


4,366
0

•
0
0

•
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
60
#

60
0
.
.
0
0

.
0
CONNECTICUT
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LAKES (AC.)
.
1,808
1,232
3,040
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOP URBAN IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY

SURFACE
RUNOFF

SHIPYARDS
MARINAS & BOAT DISCHARGE
1 Trt

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBODY












DELAWARE
RIVERS
(HI.)
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0

WETLANDS
(AC. 1
0


0
0
.
.
0
0
.
.
0
GEORGIA
LAKES (AC.)
0
•

0
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
HAWAII
COAST (AC.)
6
•

6
0
•
•
0
948
•
•
948
IDAHO
LAKES (AC.)
0
*

0
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0

RIVERS
(III. )
0


0
0
,
.
0
0
.
.
0
ILLINOIS
LAKES (AC.)
2,399
1.634
1.738
5,771
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(III. )
22
112
63
197
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
INDIANA
GREAT LAKES
(SQ.MI. )
0


0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

LAKES (AC.)
1,373
•
•
1,373
•
•
•
ฆ
•
•
•
•

RIVERS
(MI. )
17
.
.
17
•
.
.
.
.
.
.
•
IOWA
LAKES (AC.)
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
34
262
1
316
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
20

METLANDS
(AC. )
0
285
50
335
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
KANSAS
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR URBAN IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MA
TYPE
TERBODY
SURFACE RUNOFF
SHIPYARDS
MARINAS ft BOAT DISCHARS
E

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

TOTAL
IMPACTEO

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTEO
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY
0


0
0


0
0


0
KENTUCKY
RIVERS
(MI. )
LOUISIANA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
.


#
.


.
.

•
•
COAST (AC. )
.
.
.
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
LAKES (AC.)
.
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
ESTUARY
(MI. )

4
•
A
.

.
.
.

•
•
RIVERS
(MI. )
8
16

24
•

.
.
.

.
•
MAINE
LAKES (AC.)
0
.
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
#
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
MARYLAND
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
0


0
0


0
0


0
LAKES (AC.)
0
.

0
0


0
0


0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
0


0
0


0
MASSACHUSE-
TTS
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
0
36

36
0
0

0
0
26

26
RIVERS
(MI.)
58
209

266
0
0

0
0
4

4
MINNESOTA
LAKES (AC.)
.
.

•
.
•

•
•
•

-
RIVERS
(MI. )
.



.
.

.
.
.
.
•
MISSOURI
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR URBAN IMPACTS
BY MATERBOOT TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MA
TYPE
TERBOOY
SURFACE RUNOFF
SHIPYARDS
MARINAS & BOAT DISCHARE
E

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MISSOURI
RIVERS
(MI. )
MONTANA
LAKES (AC.)
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
15

0
15
0

0
0
0

0
0
NEVADA
LAKES (AC.)
.


•
•


•
•

•
ฆ
RIVERS
(MI. )



#
.


.
.


•
NEU MEXICO
LAKES (AC.1
0


0
0


0
0


0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
0


0
0


0
NEW YORK
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0


0
0


0
GREAT LAKES
(SQ.MI. )
0


0
0


0
0


0
COAST (AC.)
0


0
0


0
0


0
LAKES (AC.)
143
26
0
, 169
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
4
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NORTH
CAROLINA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
11
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
RIVERS
(MI. )
155
92
9
255
8
9
0
18
0
0
0
0
NORTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
.
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI. )
13
.
•
13
•
•
•
-
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR URBAN IMPACTS
BT NATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND UA
TYPE
TERBODY
SURFACE RUNOFF
SHIPYARDS
MARINAS A BOAT DISCHARG
-E

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
UATERBODY








.



OHIO
LAKES (AC.)

RIVERS
(III. )
170

0
170
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
OKLAHOMA
LAKES (AC.)
.
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PENNSYLVAN-
IA
RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
0
.

0
0

.
0
PUERTO RICO
COAST (MI.)
0


0
0
•

0
0

•
0
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0
.

0
0

.
0
LAKES (AC.)
0


, 0
0
•

0
0

•
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
0
.

0
0

.
0
RHODE
ISLAND
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
3
8
3
15
•
•

.
.

.
•
LAKES (AC.)
.
188
•
188
ฆ
•

•
•

•
•
RIVERS
(MI.)
30
4
66
100
.
.
.
.
.

.
•
SOUTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
0
16
0
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
6
0
18
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TENNESSEE
LAKES (AC.)
4,075
2,706
13,940
21,521
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
87
99
30
215
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR URBAN IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HA
TYPE
TERBODY
SURFACE RUNOFF
SHIPYARDS
MARINAS i BOAT DISCHARE
E

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY












TEXAS
ESTUARY
esq.MI.)

LAKES (AC.)
.
.

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
RIVERS
(MI. J
#


.
.
.
.
.
.
.

•
UTAH
LAKES (AC.)
.
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
0

0
VERMONT
LAKES (AC.)
0
.
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
0
•
0
0
VIRGIN
ISLANDS
COAST (MI.)
0
0
#
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
•
0
VIRGINIA
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
1
20
21
0
1
21
21
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
RIVERS
(MI. 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
9
0
0
0
0
WASHINGTON
ESTUARY
(SO.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WEST
VIRGINIA
RIVERS
(MI. )
0

m
0
0
.
.
0
0
.
•
0
WISCONSIN
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR URBAN IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
TYPE
SURFACE RUNOFF
SHIPYARDS
MARINAS ft BOAT DISCHARC
;e
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE suppom

TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY












WISCONSIN
RIVERS
(MI.)
WYOMING
LAKES (AC.)
.
6
352
359
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI.)
.
66
13
79
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR URBAN IMPACTS
BY UATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MA
TYPE
TERBODY
URBAN GROWTH
UNSPECIFIED URB

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY
0


0
0


0
ALABAMA
COAST (MI.)
ESTUARY
(3Q.HI.)
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(HI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ARIZONA
RIVERS
(til.)
0
0
0
0
41
42
0
63
ARKANSAS
RIVERS
(MI.)
0

0
0
0

0
0
CALIFORNIA
COAST (MI.)
0
•
•
0
18


IB
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0

•
0
43


43
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
•
0
19,876


19,876
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
.
,
0
229


229
WETLANDS
(AC. )
0
.
•
0
1.230


1,230
COLORADO
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
•
0
0


0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
.
.
0
13


13
CONNECTICUT
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
40
0
40
LAKES (AC.)
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
12
16
11
39
(CONTINUEO)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR URBAN IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
TYPE
URBAN GROWTH
UNSPECIFIED URB
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBODY
0

0
0
23

7
30
DELAWARE
RIVERS
(HI.)
WETLANDS
(AC.)
0
.

0
0
.
.
0
GEORGIA
LAKES (AC.)
0
•

0
0
•

0
RIVERS
(HI. )
0
0

0
14
154

168
HAWAII
COAST (AC.)
0
•

0
5.907
•

5,907
IDAHO
LAKES (AC.)
0
•

0
0
•

0
RIVERS
(HI.)
0
.

0
0
.

0
ILLINOIS
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
90
364
1,266
1,721
RIVERS
(HI.)
0
0
0
0
12
52
36
101
INDIANA
GREAT LAKES
(Sq.MI.)
.
c
•
•
0
.
.
0
LAKES (AC.)
•
.
•
•
0
•
•
0
RIVERS
(III.)
.
•
.
.
154
.
.
154
IOWA
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
7,087
6,246
13,335
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
76
194
26
296
WETLANDS
(AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
KANSAS
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR URBAN IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
URBAN GROWTH
UNSPECIFIED URB
i let

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY








KENTUCKY
RIVERS
(MI. )
0

.
0
211
•

211
LOUISIANA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
.

.
.
31
143

174

COAST (AC.)
•

•
•
•
•

•

LAKES (AC.)
•

.
•
•
33,952

33,952

ESTUARY
(MI. )


,
•
.
13

13

RIVERS
(MI. )


,
•
76
236
17
330
MAINE
LAKES (AC.)
0

0
0
0
•
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0

0
0
217
.
33
250
MARYLAND
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
0


0
0
.

0

LAKES (AC.)
0


0
412
•

412

RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
123
.

123
MASSACHUSE-
TTS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0

0
0
0

0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0

0
3
0

3
MINNESOTA
LAKES (AC.)
.
•

•
•
•

•

RIVERS
(MI. )



•
.
.
.
.
MISSOURI
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR URBAN IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND U4
TYPE
TERBODY
URBAN GROWTH
UNSPECIFIED URB

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MISSOURI
RIVERS
(MI. 1
MONTANA
LAKES (AC.)
0

0
0
0
•
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
NEVADA
LAKES (AC.)
.

•
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI.)


•
.
24
10
.
34
NEH MEXICO
LAKES (AC.)
0

•
0
0
•
•
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0

,
0
40
.
.
40
NEW YORK
ESTUARY
(sq.Ml.)
0

.
0
0
.
.
0
GREAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)
0

.
0
0
.
.
0
COAST (AC.)
0

•
0
59,649
•
•
59.649
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
1,347
0
28,160
29,507
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
8
14
6
28
NORTH
CAROLINA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
246
326
4
576
NORTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
.
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI.)
.
.
.
.
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR URBAN IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND UA
TYPE
TERBODY
URBAN GROWTH
UNSPECIFIED URB

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY






.

OHIO
LAKES (AC.)

RIVERS
(MI. )
0

0
0
157
.
0
157
OKLAHOMA
LAKES (AC.)
•
0
0
0
•
12,644
12,859
25,703
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
17
200
131
348
PENNSYLVAN-
IA
RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
46


48
PUERTO RICO
COAST (MI.)
0


0
19


19
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
0


0
24


24
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
2,287


2,287
RIVERS
(MI.)
0


0
526


526
RHODE
ISLAND
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
,


•
.


.
LAKES (AC.)
.


•
•


•
RIVERS
(MI. )
.

•
.
.


•
SOUTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
I
1
1
4
TENNESSEE
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
1,467
0
1,467
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
41
49
10
100
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR URBAN IMPACTS
BY MATERBOOY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND WA
TYPE
TERBODY
URBAN GROWTH
UNSPECIFIED URB

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBOOY








TEXAS
ESTUARY
(S9.MI.)

LAKES (AC.)
•
•

•
•
•

•
RIVERS
(MI.)
.
.

.
.
4

4
UTAH
LAKES (AC.)
•
•

•
•
•

•
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0

0
5
395

400
VERMONT
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
53,719
53,719
0
•
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
VIRGIN
ISLANDS
COAST (MI.)
0
0

0
0
0
.
0
VIRGINIA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
52
36
90
178
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
.
0
105
5,108
•
5,213
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
200
285
448
932
WASHINGTON
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
0
0
0
0
8
2
8
18
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
97
8,276
6,470
14,843
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
43
49
4
96
WEST
VIRGINIA
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
.
.
0
0
.
.
0
WISCONSIN
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
•
•
19
•
19
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR URBAN IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
TYPE
URBAN GROWTH
UNSPECIFIED URB
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY




22
334
58
415
WISCONSIN
RIVERS
CMI. )
WYOMING
LAKES (AC.)
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI. )
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR MINING IMPACTS
BY MATERBOOY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
ALL MINING

SURFACE
MINING

SUBSURFACE MININS

TYPE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

U
ISE SUPPORT




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












ALABAMA
COAST (MI.)
0
.
•
0
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0

ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
#
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0

LAKES (AC.)
617
23,033
0
23,650
308
11,517
0
11.825
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
156
216
5
377
51
91
3
145
12
8
0
19
ARIZONA
RIVERS
(MI.)
187
239
0
426
0
16
0
16
0
0
0
0
ARKANSAS
RIVERS
(MI.)
102

0
102
50

0
50
0
•
0
0
CALIFORNIA
COAST (MI.)
0


0
0


0
0


0

ESTUARY
(S3.MI.)
0


0
0


0
0


0

LAKES (AC.)
73,66*


73,664
0


0
0


0

RIVERS
(MI.)
609


609
0


0
0


0

WETLANDS
(AC.)
0


0
0


0
0


0
COLORADO
LAKES (AC.)
978


978
0


0
978


978

RIVERS
(MI.)
1,203


1,203
56


56
1,110
.
.
1,110
CONNECTICUT
ESTUARY
(sq.Ml.)
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

LAKES (AC.)
.
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI.)
4
3
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR MINIMS IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
ALL MINING

SURFACE
MINING

SUBSURFACE MINING

TYPE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

I
SE SUPPOR1




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












DELAWARE
RIVERS
(MI. )
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0

WETLANDS
(AC.)
0
.

0
0

.
0
0
•
•
0
GEORGIA
LAKES (AC.)
0
.

0
0
•
•
0
0
•

0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
0

0
HAWAII
COAST (AC.)
167
•

167
0
•
•
0
0
•

0
IDAHO
LAKES (AC.)
0
.

0
0
•
•
0
0
•

0

RIVERS
(MI. )
1,491
.

1.491
0
•
.
0
0
.

0
ILLINOIS
LAKES (AC.)
470
1,149
2(201
3,820
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
7
35
359
402
5
5
125
135
0
3
3
6
INDIANA
6REAT LAKES
(3Q.MI.)
0


0
0
.
.
0
0
•
•
0

LAKES (AC.)
170
•
•
170
124
•
•
124
0
•
•
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
359
.

359
319
•
.
319
38
.
•
38
IOHA
LAKES (AC.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MX. 1
0
48
0
48
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

WETLANDS
(AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
KANSAS
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR MININS IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
ALL MINING

SURFACE
MINING

SUBSURFACE MINING

TYPE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

I
13E SUPPORT




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY












KENTUCKY
RIVERS
(III. )
1.229

•
1.229
757
•

757
328

•
328
LOUISIANA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
13
274
•
287
.
•

.
.

•
•

COAST (AC.)
.
212.160
.
212.160
•
•

•
•

•
•

LAKES (AC.)
.
50.512
27,947
76.458
•
•

•
•

•
•

ESTUARY
(MI.)
.
60
2
62
.
•

.
.

1
1

RIVERS
(MI.)
20
265
17
302
.
40
17
57
.

•
•
MAINE
LAKES (AC.)
0
.
0
0
0
•
0
0
0

0
0

RIVERS
(MI.)
7
#
0
7
0
.
0
0
0

0
0
MARYLAND
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
0
.

0
0
•

0
0


0

LAKES (AC.)
0
•

0
0
•
•
0
0


0

RIVERS
(MI.)
133
.

133
0
.
ป
0
0


0
MASSACHUSE-
TTS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0

0
0
0
•
0
0
0

0

RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
MINNESOTA
LAKES (AC.)
.
.

-
•
•

•
•
•

•

RIVERS
(MI.)



#
.
.
•
.
.
•
.
•
MISSOURI
LAKES (AC.)
0
12
0
12
0
12
0
12
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED )

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR MINING IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
TYDF
ALL MININS

SURFACE
MINING

SUBSURFACE MINING


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY












MISSOURI
RIVERS
(MI. )
75
133
62
271
51
63
43
177
0
0
0
0
MONTANA
LAKES tAC.)
1.050

0
1 >050
0

0
0
525

0
525

RIVERS
(MI. ป
605

0
605
12

0
12
220

0
220
NEVADA
LAKES (AC.)
•


•
•


•
•

.
•

RIVERS
(hi. )
43


43








NEW MEXICO
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0


0
0


0

RIVERS
(MI. )
68


68
0


0
0


0
NEW YORK
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.I
0


0
0


0
0


0

6REAT LAKES
(Sq.Ml.)
0


0
0


0
0


0

COAST (AC.I
c


0
0


0
0


0

LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI.)
1
6
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NORTH
CAROLINA
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
86
62
0
148
18
7
0
25
0
6
0
6
NORTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
220
•
•
220
220
•
•
220
•
•
.
.
RIVERS
(MI. )
85
.
.
85
•
.
.

.
.
.
.
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR MINING IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
ALL MINING

SURFACE
MINING

SUBSURFACE MINING

TYPE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

I
SE SUPPORT




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY












OHIO
LAKES (AC.)
.
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

RIVERS
(HI.)
2,033
.
0
2.033
817
•
0
817
412
•
0
412
OKLAHOMA
LAKES (AC.)
.
33.506
35.145
68,652
•
4,200
4,416
8,616
•
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI.)
70
196
739
1,005
4
7
223
235
0
0
0
0
PENNSYLVAN-
IA
RIVERS
(Ml.)
1.734


1,734
0
•
.
0
0


0
PUERTO RICO
COAST (MI.)
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
0


0

ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0
•
.
0
0


0

LAKES (AC.)
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
0


0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
.
#
0
0
.
.
0
0


0
RHODE
ISLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.HI.)




.
.
.
.
.


•

LAKES (AC.)
.
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•


•

RIVERS
(MI. )




.
.
.
.
.


•
SOUTH
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DAKOTA
RIVERS
(MI. )
7
18
7
32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TENNESSEE
LAKES (AC.)
388
254
1,080
1,721
388
254
1,080
1,721
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
207
258
234
699
172
181
140
492
17
26
23
67
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR MINING IMPACTS
BY UATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
ALL MINING

SURFACE
MINING

SUBSURFACE MINING

TTrt

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPOR1




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY












TEXAS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)


#
,
.
.

.
•
.
•
•

LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•

RIVERS
(HI. )

17

17
.
.

.
.
•
•
.
UTAH
LAKES (AC.)
•
.
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•

RIVERS
(HI. )
13
677

690
0
0

0
0
0
•
0
VERMONT
LAKES (AC.)
0
.
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
VIRGIN
ISLANDS
COAST (MI.)
0
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
VIR6INIA
ESTUARY
(SO.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

LAKES (AC.)
0
0
.
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0

RIVERS
[MI. )
90
70
167
327
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WASHINGTON
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
14
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

LAKES (AC.)
0
0
39,500
39.500
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
6
10
25
41
4
4
4
12
0
0
0
0
WEST
VIRGINIA
RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
0
.
.
0
0
.
.
0
WISCONSIN
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
ฆ
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR MINING IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE Am HATERBODY
TYPE
ALL MINING

SURFACE MINING
SUBSURFACE MINING

JSE SUPPCR-
r
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY
107
107
17?
392







*
WISCONSIN
RIVERS
(MI. )
WYOMING
LAKES (AC.)
•
1.954
7,625
9.779
•
1.884
.
1.664
.
•
.
•
RIVERS
(MI.)
•
173
41
214
•
65
10
95
.
5
4
9
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR MINING IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
TYDF

PLACER
MINING


DREDGE
MINING

PETROLEUM ACTIVITIES


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
HON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBODY












ALABAMA
COAST (MI.1
0
•
•
C
0
•
ฆ
0
0
.
.
0

ESTUARY
(SU.MI.)
0
0
.
0
0
0
,
0
0
0

0

LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
2
6
0
7
0
0
0
0
ARIZONA
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ARKANSAS
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
52

0
52
CALIFORNIA
COAST (MI.)
0
•

0
0
•

0
0


0

ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
.

0
0
ป

0
0


0

LAKES (AC.)
0
•

0
0
•

0
0


0

RIVERS
(MI.)
0
.

0
0
.

0
0


0

WETLANDS
(AC.)
0
•

0
0


0
0


0
COLORADO
LAKES (AC.)
0
•

0
0
•

0
0


0

RIVERS
(MI.)
15
.
.
IS
0
.

0
0


0
CONNECTICUT
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0

LAKES (AC.)
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
D
0
0
4
3
0
7
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR MINING IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HA
TYPE
TERBODY
PLACER MINING
DREDGE MINING
PETROLEUM ACTIVITIES


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

I
ISE SUPPOR1

TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
DELAWARE
RIVERS
(MI.)
WETLANDS
(AC.)
0


0
0
•
.
0
0
.

0
GEORGIA
LAKES (AC.)
0
.

0
0
•
•
0
0
•

0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
0

0
HAWAII
COAST (AC.)
0
.

0
0
•
•
0
0
•

0
IDAHO
LAKES (AC.)
0
.

0
0
•
•
0
0
•

0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0


0
0
•
.
0
0
•
.
0
ILLINOIS
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
421
0
0
421
0
0
90
90
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
26
121
148
INDIANA
6REAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0
•
.
0
0
.
.
0
LAKES (AC.)
0
.
.
0
46
•
•
46
0
•
•
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
m

0
2
•
.
e
0
.
.
0
IOHA
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WETLANDS
(AC. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
KANSAS
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR MINING IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATU3
STATE AND HATERBODY

PLACER
MINING


DREDGE
MINING

PETROLEUM ACTIVITIES

TYPE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

1
SE SUPPOR1




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTEO


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY












KENTUCKY
RIVERS
(MI. )
0

ซ
0
0

.
0
144
•
-
144
LOUISIANA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)






.
.
13
274
.
287

COAST (AC.)
.

•
•
•

•
•
•
212.160
•
212.160

LAKES (AC.)
.

•
•
•

•
•
•
49*526
27,947
77,472

ESTUARY
(MI. )




.

.
.
.
60
1
61

RIVERS
(MI.)
.



.

.
.
20
225
•
245
MAINE
LAKES (AC.)
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
•
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
MARYLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0


0
0
•

0

LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0


0
0
•

0

RIVERS
(MI.)
0


0
0


0
0
.

0
MASSACHUSE-
TTS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
MINNESOTA
LAKES (AC.)
.
.

.
.
•

•
•
•

•

RIVERS
(MI. )
.



,
.

.
•
.

•
MISSOURI
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR MINING IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY

PLACER
MINING


DREDGE
MINING

PETROLEUM ACTIVITIES

TYPE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

U
SE SUPPORT




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












MISSOURI
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MONTANA
LAKES (AC.)
525
.
0
525
0

0
0
0

0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
81

0
81
46

0
46
21

0
21
NEVADA
LAKES (AC.)
.

.
.
.

•
•
•


•

RIVERS
(MI.)





•
.
.
.


•
NEU MEXICO
LAKES (AC.)
0

.
0
0
•
•
0
0


0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0

.
0
0
•
•
0
0


0
NEM YORK
ESTUARY
(SO.MI.)
0

.
0
0

•
0
0


0

GREAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)
0

.
0
0

•
0
0


0

COAST (AC.)
0

.
0
0

•
0
0


0

LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(HI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
NORTH
CAROLINA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NORTH
LAKES (AC.)
.
.
.
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DAKOTA
RIVERS
(MI. )
.
.
.
•
•
•
•
•
65
•
•
05
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR MINIMS IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
TYPE
PLACER MINING
DREDGE MINIHG
PETROLEUM ACTIVITIES
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
HON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY












OHIO
LAKES (AC.)
RIVERS
(MI.)
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
62?
.
0
627
OKLAHOMA
LAKES (AC.)
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
6,751
6.175
14.927
RIVERS
(HI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ซ
6b

418
620
PENNSYLVAN-
IA
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
.
.
0
0


0
32


32
PUERTO RICO
COAST (HI.)
0
•
•
0
0


0
0


0
ESTUARY
(SQ.Hl.)
0
.
,
0
0


0
0


0
LAKES (AC. )
a
*
•
0
0


ซ

0
.
.
0
0


0
0


0
RHODE
ISLAND
ESTUARY
(S9.HI.I

.
.
.
.


.
.


•
LAKES (AC.)
.
•
•
•
•


•
ฆ


•
RIVERS
I MI. >

•
.
•
•


•
.


.
SOUTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVER9
(HI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TENNESSEE
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
ซ
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. >
0
0
0
0
0
0
9

e
15

27
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FDR MINING IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBOOY
TYPE
PLACER MINING
DREDGE MINING
PETROLEUM ACTIVITIES
USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBODY












TEXAS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
LAKES (AC.)
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
RIVERS
(MI. J
•
,

.





17

17
UTAH
LAKES (AC.)
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
RIVERS
(MI. )
O
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
VERMONT
LAKES I AC.)
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
-
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
•
0
0
0
.
0
0
0

0
0
VIRGIN
ISLANDS
COAST (MI.)
0
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
0
,
0
VIR6INIA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WASHINGTON
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

14
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
WEST
VIRGINIA
RIVERS
(MI. )
0

,
0
0
,

0
0


0
WISCONSIN
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR MINING IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
TYPE
PLACER MININS
DREDGE MINING
PETROLEUM ACTIVITIES

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPOR1

TOTAL
IMPACTEO
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












WISCONSIN
RIVERS
(HI.)
WYOMING
LAKES (AC.)
.
.
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
70
7 >825
7,895
RIVERS
(MI. )
.
5
.
5
•
7
•
7
•
71
28
99
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR MINING IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
TYPE
HILL TAILINGS
MINE TAILINGS
UNSPECIFIED HIN
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY
0


0
0


e
0

•
0
ALABAMA
COAST (HI.)
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
.
0
0
0

0
0
0
m
0
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
306
11,517
0
11>625
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
14
20
0
34
78
92
3
173
0
0
0
0
ARIZONA
RIVERS
(Ml.)
0
0
0
0
46
16
0
64
139
207
0
346
ARKANSAS
RIVERS
(MI.)
0

0
0
0
s
0
0
0
#
0
0
CALIFORNIA
COAST (MI.)
0


0
0
•
•
0
0
•

0
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.>
0


0
0
.

0
0


0
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0
•

0
73,664
.

73,664
RIVERS
(MI.)
0


0
0


0
609


609
WETLANDS
(AC.)
0


0
0


0
0


0
COLORADO
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0
•
•
0
0
•

0
RIVERS
(MI.)
16


16
0
.

0
5


5
CONNECTICUT
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LAKES (AC.)
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
RIVERS
(HI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR MINING IMPACTS
BY UATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HA
TYPE
TERBODY
MILL TAILINGS
MINE TAILINGS
UNSPECIFIED MIN


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

U
SE SUPPORT

TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBOOY
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
DELAWARE
RIVERS
(MI. )

WETLANDS
(AC. )
0
#

0
0
.
.
0
0
•
•
0
GEORGIA
LAKES (AC.)
0
•

0
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
RIVERS
(HI. )
0
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
0
•
0
HAWAII
COAST (AC.)
0
.

0
0
•
•
0
167
•
'•
167
IDAHO
LAKES (AC. )
0
•

0
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
.

0
0
.
•
0
1.491
.
•
1,491
ILLINOIS
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
49
1.149
2,111
3.308
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
0
2
16
16
0
0
94
94
INDIANA
GREAT LAKES
(Sq.MI.)
0


0
0
.
.
0
0
.
.
0
LAKES (AC. )
0
.
.
0
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
0
.
.
0
0
.
•
0
IOHA
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
48
0
48
WETLANDS
(AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
KANSAS
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
0
-
•
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR MINING IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MA
TYPE
TERBOOY
MILL TAILINGS
MINE TAILINSS
UNSPECIFIED KIN


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
L
ISE SUPPOR1

TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBODY
0


0
0


0
0


0
KENTUCKY
RIVERS
(MI.)
LOUISIANA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)




.

.
.
.
•
•
•

COAST (AC.)
.

.
.
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
LAKES (AC.)
.

•
.
•

•
ฆ
•
986
•
986
ESTUARY
(MI.)


.



•
.
.
.
.
•
RIVERS
(MI.)






.
.
.
•
•
•
MAINE
LAKES (AC.)
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
•
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0

0
0
0

0
0
7
•
0
7
MARYLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0


0
0
.

0
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0


0
0
•

0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0


0
0


0
133
.

133
MASSACHUSE-
TTS
ESTUARY
(SQ.HI.)
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
MINNESOTA
LAKES (AC.)
.
.

.
•
•

•
•
•

•
RIVERS
(MI. )




.
•
.
.
.
•
•
•
MISSOURI
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR MINING IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
MILL TAILINGS
MINE TAILINGS
UNSPECIFIED MIN

TYPE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

L
SE SUPPORT




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY












MISSOURI
RIVERS
(HZ. )
7
23
16
46
0
0
0
0
16
28
3
47
MONTANA
LAKES (AC.)
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
•
0
0

RIVERS
(HI.)
lie

0
116
12

0
12
295
.
0
295
NEVADA
LAKES (AC.)
.


.
•

•
•
•
•

•

RIVERS
(HI.)
.



.

.
.
43
•

43
NEH MEXICO
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0

•
0
0
•

0

RIVERS
(MI.)
0


0
0
•
.
0
68
•

68
NEW YORK
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0
•
.
0
0
.

0

GREAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0
•
.
0
0
•

0

COAST (AC.)
0


0
0

•
0
0
•

0

LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
NORTH
CAROLINA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
19
8
0
27
0
0
0
0
34
20
0
53
NORTH
LAKES (AC.)
.
.
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DAKOTA
RIVERS
(MI. )
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
-
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR MINING IMPACTS
BY UATERBOOY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HA
TYPE
TERBODY
MILL TAILINGS
MINE TAILINGS
UNSPECIFIED MIN


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

U
SE SUPPORT

TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY







.


.
.
OHIO
LAKES (AC.)

RIVERS
(MI. )
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
176
•
0
176
OKLAHOMA
LAKES (AC.)
.
0
0
0
•
0
" 0
0
•
22,555
22,555
45,110
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
65
130
PENNSYLVAN-
IA
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
.

0
0


0
1,702
•

1,702
PUERTO RICO
C0A3T (MI.)
0


0
0


0
0
•

0
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0


0
0
•

0
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0


0
0
•

0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
0


0
0
•

0
RHODE
ISLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.HI.)




.


.
.
.

.
LAKES (AC.)
.


.
•


•
•
•

•
RIVERS
(MI. )




.

.
.
-
•

•
SOUTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
18
7
32
TENNESSEE
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
10
4
13
10
23
20
54
0
2
43
45
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR MINING IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MA
TYPE
TERBODY
MILL TAILINGS
MINE TAILINGS
UNSPECIFIED MIN


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY












TEXAS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)

LAKES (AC.)
.
.

•
•
•

•
•
•

•

RIVERS
(MI. )

.

.
.
•

.
.
.

•
UTAH
LAKES (AC.)
.
•

•
-
•

•
•
•

•
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0

0
0
0

0
13
677

690
VERMONT
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
0
•
0
0
VIRGIN
ISLANDS
COAST (MI.)
0
0
9
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
ฆ
0
VIRGINIA
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
.
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
90
70
167
327
WASHINGTON
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
39.500
39,500
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
4
4
0
1
0
1
0
4
17
21
WEST
VIRGINIA
RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
0
.
.
0
0
•
•
0
WISCONSIN
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
-
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR MINING IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
TYPE
MILL TAILINGS
MINE TAILINGS
UNSPECIFIED MIN

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
I
JSE SUPPOR1

TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBODY
ซ



107
107
179
392

•


WISCONSIN
RIVERS
(MI.)
WYOMING
LAKES (AC.)
•
.
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI. )
.
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR UNO DISPOSAL IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND UA
TYPE
TERBODY
ALL LANS DISPOSAL
SLUDGE
WASTEWATER


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

L
SE SUPPORT

TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPOHT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT'
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTEO
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY
0


0
0


0
0


0
ALABAMA
COAST (MI. )

ESTUARY
(Sq.Hl. 1
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
.
0

LAKES (AC.)
0
23,033
0
23,033
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(HI. )
40
68
0
108
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ARIZONA
RIVERS
[MI. )
41
99
13
153
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ARKANSAS
RIVERS
(MI. )
0

0
0
0
•
0
0
0

0
0
CALIFORNIA
COAST (MI.)
0
.

0
0
•
•
0
0

•
0
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI. )
12
#

12
0
•
.
0
0

.
0
LAKES (AC. )
35.160
•

35,180
0
•
•
0
0

ฆ
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
132
.

132
0
.
•
0
0

.
0
WETLANDS
(AC.)
85S


656
0
.
.
0
0

•
0
COLORADO
LAKES (AC.)
163
-

163
0
•
ฆ
0
0

•
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
0
•
.
0
0

•
0
CONNECTICUT
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
13
6
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LAKES (AC.)
.
2,037
1,069
3,106
-
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
12
26
128
166
0
0
ฆ 0
0
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR LAND DISPOSAL IMPACTS
BY UATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY

ALL LAND
DISPOSAL

SLUDGE
'
WASTEWATER

i irt

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
•NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












DELAWARE
RIVERS
(M. )
82
.
34
116
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0

WETLANDS
(AC.)
0


0
0
•
.
0
0
.

0
GEORGIA
LAKES (AC. )
0
.

0
0
•
•
0
0
•

0

RIVERS
(III.)
0
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
0

0
HAWAII
COAST (AC. )
0
.

0
0
*
•
0
0
•

0
IDAHO
LAKES (AC.)
0
ฆ

0
0
•

0
0
•

0

RIVERS
(HI. )
440


440
0
•
.
0
0
.

0
ILLINOIS
LAKES (AC.)
1,901
1.335
959
4,195
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
5
3
e
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
INDIANA
GREAT LAKES
(SQ.I1I.)
0

#
0
0
.
.
0
0
.
•
0

LAKES (AC.)
1,650
•
.
1,650
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
157

.
137
20
.
*
20
19
•
•
19
IOWA
LAKES (AC.)
0
7
51
58
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
3
50
0
53
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

WETLANDS
(AC. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
KANSAS
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR LAND DISPOSAL IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MA
TYPE
TERBODY
ALL LAND DISPOSAL
SLUDGE
WASTEWATER


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY
190


190
0


0
0


0
KENTUCKY
RIVERS
(MI. )
LOUISIANA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)

215
#
215
.

.
.
.
•
•
•
COAST (AC. )

•
•
/
•
•

•
•
•

•
ฆ
LAKES (AC.)

104
282
386
•

•
•
•

•
•
ESTUARY
(MI. )

24
8
32
I

.
.
.

.
•
RIVERS
(MI. )
89
180
17
287
•
-
.
.
.

•
•
MAINE
LAKES (AC.)
638
•
0
638
0

0
0
0

0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
2

0
2
0

0
0
0

0
0
MARYLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
#

0
0


0
0


0
LAKES (AC.)
0
•

0
0


0
0


0
RIVERS
(MI. )
22


22
0


0
0


0
MASSACHUSE-
TTS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
11

11
0
0

0
0
0

0
RIVERS
(MI. )
35
66

101
0
0

0
0
0

0
MINNESOTA
LAKES (AC.)
.
.

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
RIVERS
(MI. )



.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ฆ
MISSOURI
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR LAND DISPOSAL IMPACTS
BY UATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND UATERBODY
TYPE
ALL LAND DISPOSAL
SLUDGE
UASTEUATER
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
UATERBODY
0
2
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MISSOURI
RIVERS
(MI. )
MONTANA
LAKES (AC.)
1,070

43,117
44,187
0

0
0
0

0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
74

0
74
0

0
0
0

0
0
NEVADA
LAKES (AC.)
417

•
417
•

•
•
•


•
RIVERS
(MI. )
2


2
.
•

.
.


.
NEH MEXICO
LAKES (AC.)
0

•
0
0


0
0


0
RIVERS
(MI. )
21

.
21
0


0
0


0
NEU YORK
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
10


10
0


0
0


0
GREAT LAKES
(Sq.MI.)
5

.
5
0


0
0


0
COAST (AC.)
2.330

.
2,330
0


0
0


0
LAKES (AC.)
5,164
3,937
6,170
15,291
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
132
20
22
174
0
. 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NORTH
CAROLINA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
53
135
8
197
0
6
0
6
23
9
0
32
NORTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
65
.
.
65
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI. )
.
.
.
.
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR LAND DISPOSAL IMPACTS
BT MATERBOOY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HA
TYPE
TERBODY
ALL LAND DISPOSAL
SLUDGE
WASTEWATER


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
NATERBODY






1
.
.

m
#
OHIO
LAKES (AC.)

RIVERS
(MI. )
1,089

0
1,089
6
,
0
6
25
•
0
25
OKLAHOMA
LAKES (AC.)
-
22>926
22,787
45,713
•
0
0
0
•
76
0
76
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
112
176
288
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
20
PENNSYLVAN-
IA
RIVERS
(MI. )
168


168
0

.
0
0


0
PUERTO RICO
COAST (MI. )
46


46
0

1
0
0


0
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
7


7
0

•
0
0


0
LAKES (AC.)
403


403
0

•
0
0


0
RIVERS
(MI. )
674


674
0

t
0
0


0
RHODE
ISLAND
ESTUARY
(SH.MI.)
4
0

4
•

.
.
.


•
LAKES (AC.)
.
185

185
.

•
•
•


•
RIVERS
(MI. )
12
1
53
66
,

.
.
.
.
•
•
SOUTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
0
10,070
0
10,070
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
7
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TENNESSEE
LAKES (AC. )
0
2,600
10,434
13,034
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
9
27
25
61
0
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR LAND DISPOSAL IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HA
TYPE
TERBODY
ALL LAND OISPOSAL
SLUDGE
WASTEWATER


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

U
SE SUPPORT

TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY

48

48








TEXAS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
LAKES (AC.)
.
5.333

5.333
•
•

•
•
•

•
RIVERS
(MI.)
5
5

10

.

.
.
.

•
UTAH
LAKES (AC.)
.
.

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
RIVERS
(MI. )
6
109

115
0
0

0
0
0

0
VERMONT
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
RIVERS
(Ml.)
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
0
•
0
0
VIRGIN
ISLANDS
COAST (MI.)
0
1

I
0
0
.
0
0
0
•
0
VIRGINIA
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
18
0
37
55
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
27
51
28
106
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WASHINGTON
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
11
4
44
59
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
2,697
2.697
0
0
200
200
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
50
62
15
148
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
5
WEST
VIRGINIA
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
.

0
0
.
.
0
0
-
.
0
WISCONSIN
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR LAND DISPOSAL IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AMD USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND UATERBODY
TYPE
ALL LAND DISPOSAL
SLUDGE
WASTEWATER

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












WISCONSIN
RIVERS
(HI. )
WYOMING
LAKES (AC.)
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI. 1
.
10
10
20
•
•
•
•
•
-
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR LAND OISPOSAL IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
LANDFILLS
INDUST. LAND TREATMENT
ON-SITE MASTEMATER

TTrE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SIPPOR1




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












ALABAMA
COAST CMI.)
0
•
.
0
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0

ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
0
0
#
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
•
0

LAKES (AC.)
0
11>517
0
11.517
0
0
0
0
0
11.517
0
11.517

RIVERS
(MI. )
10
33
0
43
0
0
0
0
30
35
0
65
ARIZONA
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
4
47
ARKANSAS
RIVERS
(MI. )
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
CALIFORNIA
COAST (MI.)
0


0
0

•
0
0


0

ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
5

•
5
8


8

LAKES (AC.)
0


0
148

•
148
35.033


35.033

RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
26

.
28
105


105

WETLANDS
(AC. )
0


0
0

-
0
858


858
COLORADO
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0

•
0
163


163

RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
0

•
0
0


0
CONNECTICUT
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
11
6
17

LAKES (AC.)
.
30
0
30
•
0
0
0
•
2.007
1,069
3,076

RIVERS
(MI. )
11
16
92
119
0
0
0
0
1
10
36
47
(CONTINUED )

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR LAND OISPOSAL IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND WATERBODY
TYPE
LANDFILLS
INOUST. LAND TREATMENT
ON-SITE WASTEWATER


.
JSE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBODY












DELAWARE
RIVERS
(MI. >
0
.
0
0
0

0
0
0
.
0
0

WETLANDS
(AC. )
0
.

0
0


0
0

.
0
GEORGIA
LAKES (AC.)
0
•

0
0
*

0
0
•
•
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
.
0
HAWAII
COAST (AC.)
0
•

0
0
•

0
0
•
-
0
IDAHO
LAKES (AC.J
0
•

0
0
•

0
0
.
•
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
.

0
0
.

0
0


0
ILLINOIS
LAKES (AC.1
133
0
0
133
0
0
0
0
1.496
1.292
959
3,748

RIVERS
(MI. ป
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
3
8
INDIANA
GREAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)
0
.
.
0
0
•
.
0
0

.
0

LAKES (AC.)
242
•
•
242
0
•
•
0
1,408
.
•
1,406

RIVERS
(HI. >
46
.
.
46
0
.
.
0
46
m
.
46
IOUA
LAKES (AC. )
0
7
51
58
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. 1
3
13
0
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

WETLANDS
(AC. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
KANSAS
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
0
-
ฆ
0
I CONTINUED I

-------
STATE TOTALS FOP UNO OZSPOSAL IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
LANDFILLS
INDUST. LAND
TREATMENT
ON-SITE WASTEWATER
TYPE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTEO


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












KENTUCKY
RIVERS
(MI.)
0

.
0
0

.
0
190
.
•
190
LOUISIANA
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)



.
.

.
.
.
215
.
215

COAST (AC. )
.
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

LAKES (AC.)
.
•
ฆ
•
•

•
•
•
104
262
366

ESTUARY
(MI. )

5

5
.
•
•
.
.
20
8
27

RIVERS
(MI.)

7
#
7
.
•
0
.
89
139
17
245
MAINE
LAKES (AC.)
68
•
0
68
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
1

0
1
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
MARYLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0


0
0
.

0

LAKES (AC.)
0
•

0
0


0
0
•

0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
#
• .
0
0


0
0
.

0
MASSACHUSE-
TTS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
11

11

RIVERS
(MI.)
10
1

11
0
0

0
25
64

89
MINNESOTA
LAKES (AC.)
.
.

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•

RIVERS
(MI. )




,
.
•
,
.
.

•
MISSOURI
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED )

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR LAND DISPOSAL IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND WATERBODY
LANDFILLS
INDUST. LAND
TREATMENT
ON-SITE WASTEWATER

TYPE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY




•







MISSOURI
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
2
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MONTANA
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
0
0
0

0
0
1,070

43,117
44,187

RIVERS
(MI. )
0

0
0
30

0
30
42

0
42
NEVADA
LAKES (AC.)
.


•
•


•
417


417

RIVERS
(MI. )
.



.


.
2


2
NEW MEXICO
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0


0
0


0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
0


0
0


0
NEW YORK
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
7


7
0


0
3


3

GREAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0


0
5


5

COAST (AC. )
0


0
0


0
2,330


2,330

LAKES (AC.)
26
0
0
26
0
0
0
0
5,158
• ,937
6,170
15,265

RIVERS
(MI. )
63
0
i
64
4
0
0
4
66
20
20
106
NORTH
CAROLINA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
5
35
0
40
3
0
0
3
22
84
8
114
NORTH
LAKES (AC.)
.
.
.
•
•
ฆ
•
ฆ
65
•
•
65
DAKOTA
RIVERS
(MI. )
.
•
.
•
•
•
•
•
-
-
-
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR LAND DISPOSAL IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HA
TYPE
TERBODY
LANDFILLS
INDUST. LAND TREATMENT
ON-SITE WASTEWATER


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY








.


.
OHIO
LAKES (AC.)
RIVERS
(DI. )
69

0
69
5
•
0
5
667
•
0
867
OKLAHOMA
LAKES (AC.)
.
2.761
2,761
5.521
•
0
0
0
•
20,090
20,026
40,116
RIVERS
(MX. )
0
27
132
159
0
0
0
0
0
65
44
109
PENNSYLVAN-
IA
RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
0


0
168
•
•
168
PUERTO RICO
COAST (MI.)
0


0
0


0
0
•
•
0
ESTUARY
(SO.MI.)
0


0
0


0
0
•

0
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0


0
0


0
RIVERS
(MX. )
0


0
0


0
0


0
RHODE
ISLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
.


#



.
4
0

4
LAKES (AC.)
.


•
•


•
•
185

185
RIVERS
(MI. )
3
X
10
14
•


.
9
•
40
49
SOUTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10,070
0
10,070
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
7
TENNESSEE
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
2,600
10.400
13.000
0
0
34
34
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
18
4
22
2
4
1
6
5
0
0
5
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR LAND DISPOSAL IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND WA
TYPE
TERBODY
LANDFILLS
INDUST. LAND TREATMENT
ON-SITE WASTEWATER


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY









48

46
TEXAS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)

LAKES (AC.)
.
.

•
•
•
•
•
•
5,333

5,333
RIVERS
(til. )
.




.
.
.
.
5

5
UTAH
LAKES (AC. )
.
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
RIVERS
mi.)
0
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
0

0
VERMONT
LAKES (AC.1
0
.
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
a
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
.
0
0
VIRGIN
ISLANDS
COAST (MI. )
0
0
#
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
•
0
VIRGINIA
ESTUARY
(Sq.HI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
•
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
•
0
RIVERS
(HI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WASHINGTON
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
e
4
42
55
LAKES (AC.J
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,497
2,497
RIVERS
(MI. )
1
5
0
6
0
0
0
0
42
74
15
131
WEST
VIRGINIA
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
m

0
0
.
.
0
0
•
•
0
WISCONSIN
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR LAND DISPOSAL IMPACTS
BY HATERBOOY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBOOY
TYPE
LANDFILLS
INDUST. LAND TREATMENT
ON-SITE WASTEWATER
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPOR1

TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBODY












WISCONSIN
RIVERS
(HI.)
WYOMING
LAKES (AC.)
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI.)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
10
10
20
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR LAND DISPOSAL IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND UA
TYPE
TERBODY
HAZARDOUS WASTE
UNSPECIFIED OISP

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOT/ L
IMPAC1 ED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE '
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBODY
0


0
0


0
ALABAMA
COAST (MI.)
ESTUARY
(sq.ni.)
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ARIZONA
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
41
56
9
106
ARKANSAS
RIVERS
(MI. )
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
CALIFORNIA
COAST (MI.)
0


0
0


0
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.>
0


0
0


0
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0


0
RIVERS
(MI. >
0


0
0


0
WETLANDS
(AC.)
0


0
0


0
COLORADO
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0


0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0


0
0
.

0
CONNECTICUT
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LAKES (AC.)
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR LAND DISPOSAL IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
HAZARDOUS WASTE
UNSPECIFIED DISP

1 Trc

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY








DELAWARE
RIVERS
(HI.)
0
.
0
0
62
•
34
116

NETLANDS
(AC.)
0

.
0
0
.
.
0
GEORGIA
LAKES (AC.)
0
•

0
0
•
•
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0

0
0
0
.
0
HAWAII
COAST (AC.1
0
•

0
0
•
ฆ
0
IDAHO
LAKES (AC.)
0
•

0
0
•
•
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
.

0
440
.
.
440
ILLINOIS
LAKES (AC.)
271
43
0
314
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
• 0
0
0
0
INDIANA
GREAT LAKES
(SO.MI.)
0
.
.
0
0
.
•
0

LAKES (AC.I
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
6
,
.
6
0
.
.
0
IOWA
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. 1
0
0
0
0
I
37
0
37

WETLANDS
(AC. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
KANSAS
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR LAND DISPOSAL IMPACTS
BY UATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND UATERBODY
HAZARDOUS HASTE
UNSPECIFIED DISP
1 Trt

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
UATERBODY








KENTUCKY
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
.
.
0
0
•
•
0
LOUISIANA
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
#

•
.
.
.
.
-

COAST (AC.)
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

LAKES (AC.)
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

ESTUARY
(MI.)


.
.
.
.
.
•

RIVERS
(MI. )


.
•
.
35
.
35
MAINE
LAKES (AC.)
550

0
550
0
•
0
0

RIVERS
(MI.)
2

0
2
0
.
0
0
MARYLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0

•
0
0
.
.
0

LAKES (AC.)
0

•
0
0
•
•
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0

.
0
22
.
.
22
MASSACHUSE-
TTS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
1
.
1
0
0
.
0
MINNESOTA
LAKES (AC.)
-
•
-
ฆ
•
•
-
•

RIVERS
(MI. )
#
.

•
•
.
.
.
MISSOURI
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR LAND DISPOSAL IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MA
TYPE
TERBODY
HAZARDOUS HASTE
UNSPECIFIED DISP


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MISSOURI
RIVERS
(MI. )
MONTANA
LAKES (AC.)
0

0
0
0
•
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0

0
0
2

0
2
NEVADA
LAKES (AC.)
.


•
•

•
•
RIVERS
(MI. )



.
.


•
NEU MEXICO
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0

•
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0

i
0
21

.
21
NEH YORK
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
0


0
0

.
0
GREAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0

.
0
COAST (AC.)
0

•
0
0

•
0
LAKES (AC. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
I
S. 1
NORTH
CAROLINA
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
1
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
NORTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
.
•
.
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI. )
.
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR LAND DISPOSAL IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
HAZARDOUS WASTE
UNSPECIFIED DISP
i ire

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY








OHIO
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

RIVERS
(MI. )
109
.
0
109
e
.
0
6
OKLAHOMA
LAKES (AC.)
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PENNSYLVAN-
IA
RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
0


0
PUERTO RICO
COAST (MI.)
0


0
46


46

ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
0


0
7


7

LAKES (AC. )
0


0
403


403

RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
674


674
RHODE
ISLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
.


.

LAKES (AC.)
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

RIVERS
(MI.)


3
3
.
.
.
.
SOUTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TENNESSEE
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
2
2
12
16
0
0
9
9
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR LAND DISPOSAL IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MA
TYPE
TERBODY
HAZARDOUS MASTE
UNSPECIFIED DISP

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY








TEXAS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)

LAKES (AC.)
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI. )
5


5
.
.
.
.
UTAH
LAKES (AC.)
•
•

-
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0

0
6
109
.
115
VERMONT
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
RIVERS
(hi.)
0
#
0
0
0
.
0
0
VIRGIN
ISLANDS
COAST (MI.)
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
VIRGINIA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
la
0
37
55
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
27
51
28
106
WASHINGTON
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
2
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
CM. )
3
3
0
6
0
0
0
0
HEST
VIRGINIA
RIVERS
CM. )
0
.
,
0
0
.
.
0
WISCONSIN
LAKES CAC.)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
CCONTINUEO)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR LAND DISPOSAL IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
TYPE
HAZARDOUS HASTE
UNSPECIFIED DISP
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IHPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY








WISCONSIN
RIVERS
(MI. )
MYOMINp
LAKES (AC.>
.
•
ฆ
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI.)
.
•
-
•
•
•
•
•

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR HYDROMODIFICATION IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
ALL HYDROMODIFICATION
CHANNELIZATION
DREDGING
i ire

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












ALABAMA
COAST (MI.)
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0

ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.1
0
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0

LAKES (AC.)
617
0
0
617
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(m.)
18
86
1
104
2
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
ARIZONA
RIVERS
(MI.)
49
476
9
534
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ARKANSAS
RIVERS
(MI. )
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
CALIFORNIA
COAST (MI.)
0


0
0


0
0

•
0

ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0


0
0

.
0

LAKES (AC.)
55,478


55,478
0


0
0

•
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
424


424
0


0
21

.
21

WETLANDS
(AC.)
0


0
0


0
0

.
0
COLORADO
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0


0
0

•
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
5


5
0

.
0
0
.
.
0
CONNECTICUT
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

LAKES (AC.)
.
516
0
516
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
6
10
8
24
3
3
0
6
0
0
0
0
t
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOB HYDR(MODIFICATION IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
TYPE
ALL HYDROMODIFICATIO
u
CHANNELIZATION
DREOGZNS

USE SUPPOR
T

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY


0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
DELAWARE
RIVERS
I MI. )
0
WETLANDS
(AC. )
0
.

0
0


0
0


0
GEORGIA
LAKES (AC.)
0
•

0
0
•

0
0
•

0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
•
0
HAWAII
COAST (AC.)
1.165
•

1,185
0
•

0
0
.

0
IDAHO
LAKES (AC.)
0
•

0
0
•

0
0
.
•
0
RIVERS
(MI. 1
4.107
.

4,107
0


0
0

•
0
ILLINOIS
LAKES (AC.)
14,063
11,009
7,274
32,346
92
37
17
146
474
19
0
492
RIVERS
(MI. )
32
165
610
807
14
75
302
391
1
0
0
1
INDIANA
GREAT LAKES
(SQ.MI. 1
0
•
.
0
0
.

0
0


0
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
•

0
•
~
0
0
.
.
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
101
•
.
101
77
.

77
7


7
IOWA
LAKES (AC.)
10
110
0
120
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
43
0
43
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

WETLANDS
(AC. 1
2.493
375
0
2,866
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
KANSAS
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
•
0
0
•
ฆ
0
0
•
•
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR HYDROHODIFICATION IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
ALL HYDROKODIFICATION
CHANNELIZATION
DREDGING
TYPE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPOR1




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












KENTUCKY
RIVERS
(MI.)
155

•
155
0
.
.
0
0

•
0
LOUISIANA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
.
ฆ .
•



•
.
.

•
•

COAST (AC.)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

LAKES (AC.)
•
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

ESTUARY
(MI.)
.


#
.
•
.
.
.

•
•

RIVERS
(MI. )
2
50

52
.
.
.
.
.

•
•
MAINE
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
0
0
0
*
0
0
0

0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
#
0
0
0
.
0
0
0

0
0
MARYLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0
.

0
0


0

LAKES (AC.)
0
.

0
0
•

0
0


0

RIVERS
(MI.)
5


5
0
.

0
0


0
MASSACHUSE-
TTS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0

RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0

1
0
0

0
0
0

0
MINNESOTA
LAKES (AC.J
.
.

•
•
•

•
•
•

•

RIVERS
(MI. )
.
.
m

.

.
.
.
.
.
.
MISSOURI
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOB HYDROMODIFICATION IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HA
TYPE
TERBODY
ALL HYDROMODIFICATION
CHANNELIZATION
DRED6ING


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBOOY
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MISSOURI
RIVERS
(MI. )
MONTANA
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
42,000
42,000
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
774

28
801
29
•
0
29
0
.
0
0
NEVADA
LAKES (AC.)
.
•
16
16
•
•

•
•


•
RIVERS
(MI. )
116
11

127
•
.

.
.


•
NEW MEXICO
LAKES (AC.1
41
•

41
0
•

0
0


0
RIVERS
(MI. )
119
9

119
0
.

0
0


0
NEW YORK
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0
.

0
0


0
GREAT LAKES
(Sq.MI. )
0
#

0
0
•

0
0


0
COAST (AC.)
0
.

0
0
•

0
0


0
LAKES (AC.)
33,877
0
19
33,896
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
161
48
25
234
0
20
0
20
0
0
0
0
NORTH
CAROLINA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
44
155
0
199
42
103
0
145
2
3
0
5
NORTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
19,068
•
•
19,068
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI. )
1,367
ฆ
•
1,367
295
•
•
295
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR HYDROMODIFICATION IMPACTS
BY HATERSODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
TYPE
i
ALL HYDROMODIFICATION
CHANNELIZATION
DREDGINS
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












OHIO
LAKES Ac.)
RIVERS
(Ml. )
1.161
•
0
1.161
658

0
658
0
m
0
0
OKLAHOMA
LAKES (AC. >
•
20,843
20.729
41,571
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. I
0
181
246
427
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PENNSYLVAN-
IA
RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
0

#
0
0


0
PUERTO RICO
COAST (MI.)
6


6
0


0
0


0
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
3


3
0


0
0


0
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0


0
0


0
RIVERS
(MI. )
49


49
0


0
0


0
RHODE
ISLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.1
.


•
•







LAKES (AC.)
•


•
•


ฆ



.
RIVERS
(MI. )
1

5
5
.

a




#
SOUTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
0
5,393
0
5,393
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TENNESSEE
LAKES (AC.)
6,7ie
5,377
17,799
29,894
650
0
0
650
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
187
486
264
940
23
105
49
177
1
7
43
50
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR HYDROMODIFICATIGN IMPACTS
BY UATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MA
TYPE
TERBODY
ALL HYDROMODIFICATION
CHANNELIZATION
DREDGING


USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
UATERBODY






e





TEXAS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI. )
LAKES (AC.)
.
23,863

23,863
•
•
-
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI. )

17

17
.
•
.
.
.
17
•
17
UTAH
LAKES (AC. )
.
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI. )
13
131

144
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
VERMONT
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
VIRGIN
ISLANDS
COAST (MI.)
0
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
VIRGINIA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
4
6
29
38
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WASHINGTON
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
5
0
9
14
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
LAKES (AC.)
97
0
1,654
1,751
24
0
0
24
0
0
10
10
RIVERS
(MI. )
109
227
357
693
6
10
2
18
8
4
11
22
KEST
VIRGINIA
RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
0
.
.
0
0
•
.
0
WISCONSIN
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR HYDROMODIFICATION IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
TYPE
ALL HYDROMODIFICATION
CHANNELIZATION
ORED6IN6

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT '
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY

1










WISCONSIN
RIVERS
(MI. )
WYOMING
LAKES (AC. )
•
8,330
5,317
13,647
•
35
•
35
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI. )
.
291
20
311
•
97
8
105
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR HYDROMODIFICATION IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATEPBODY
DAM CONSTRUCTION
FLOW REGULATXON/MODIF.
BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION

TYPE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY













ALABAMA
COAST (MI.)
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0

0
•
•
0

ESTUARY

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR HYDROMODIFICATION IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MA
TYPE
TERBODY
DAM CONSTRUCTION
FLOW REGULATION/MODIF.
BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
DELAWARE
RIVERS
(MX. )
WETLANDS
(AC.)
0


0
0
.

0
0
.

0
GEORGIA
LAKES (AC.)
0
•

0
0
•

0
0
ฆ

0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
HAWAII
COAST (AC.)
0
•

0
888
•

888
0
•

0
IDAHO
LAKES (AC.)
0
•

0
0
•

0
0
•

0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
#

0
0
.

0
0
.

0
ILLINOIS
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
182
23
28
233
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
2
8
9
20
5
9
30
44
0
0
0
0
INDIANA
GREAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)
0

.
0
0
•
.
0
0
.
.
0
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
4
#

4
10
.
.
10
0
.
.
0
IOMA
LAKES (AC. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WETLANDS
(AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
KANSAS
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
(CONTINUED )

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR HYDROMODIFICATION IMPACTS
BT HATERBODT TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HA
TYPE
TERBODY
DAM CONSTRUCTION
FLOW REGULATION/MODIF.
BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTEO

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBODY
0


0
0


0
0


0
KENTUCKY
RIVERS
(MI. )
LOUISIANA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)



,
.

.
.
.

•
.
COAST (AC. )
.

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
LAKES (AC. )
.

•
•


•
•
•

•
•
ESTUARY 1
(MI. )




.

.
.
.

.
.
RIVERS
(MI. >
#


,
•

.
.
.

•
•
MAINE
LAKES (AC.)
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
MARYLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0


0
0


0
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0


0
0


0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
0


0
0


0
MASSACHUSE-
TTS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0

0
0
0

1
0
0

0
MINNESOTA
LAKES (AC.)
.
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
RIVERS
(Ml. )



•
.
.

.
•
•

•
MISSOURI
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR HYDROMODIFICATION IMPACTS
BY NATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MA
TYPE
TERBODY
DAM CONSTRUCTION
FLOW REGULATION/MODIF.
BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MISSOURI
RIVERS
(MI. )
MONTANA
LAKES (AC.)
0
.
0
0
0

0
0
0
•
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0

0
0
443

28
470
0

0
0
NEVADA
LAKES (AC.)
.


•
•


•
•

•
•
RIVERS
(MI. )
.



.


.
.

•
•
NEW MEXICO
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0


0
0

•
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
0


0
0

•
0
NEH YORK
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0


0
0

•
0
GREAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0


0
0

•
0
COAST (AC.)
0


0
0


0
0

•
0
LAKES (AC.>
0
0
0
0
33,677
0
0
33,877
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
126
0
0
128
0
0
0
0
NORTH
CAROLINA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. >
0
18
0
18
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
0
NORTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
.
.
.
.
141
•
•
141
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI. >
.
.
.
.
100
•
•
100
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR HYDROMODIFICATION IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MA
TYPE
TERBODY
DAM CONSTRUCTION
FLOW REGULATION/MODIF.
BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY







.
.
#

#
OHIO
LAKES (AC.)

RIVERS
(MI. )
84
#
0
64
0
.
0
0
2
.
0
2
OKLAHOMA
LAKES (AC.)
.
11,538
11,538
23.076
•
614
500
1,114
•
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
26
26
51
0
61
28
88
0
I '
f
0
0
0
PENNSYLVAN-
IA
RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
0


0
0

•
0
PUERTO RICO
COAST (MI.)
0


0
0


0
0


0
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0


0
0


0
LAKES (AC.1
0


0
0


0
0


0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
0


0
0


0
RHODE
ISLAND
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)



.
•


.
.


•
LAKES (AC.)
.


•
•


•
•


•
RIVERS
(MI. )
.

2
Z
.

3
3
.

.
•
SOUTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
5,143
0
5,143
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TENNESSEE
LAKES (AC.)
650
2,555
0
3,204
3,228
162
17,763
21,152
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
2
9
40
51
20
157
61
238
0
11
5
16
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR HYDROMODIFICATION IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
DAM CONSTRUCTION
FLOW RE6ULATION/MODIF.
BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION

TTrE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBOOY












TEXAS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)



.
.
.

.
.
.
•
•

LAKES (AC.1
.
.

•
•
23.863

23,863
•
•
•
•

RIVERS
(til. )




.
.

.
.
.
•
•
UTAH
LAKES (AC.)
.
.

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•

RIVERS
(HI.)
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
-
0
VERMONT
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
VIRGIN
ISLANDS
COAST (hi.)
0
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
0
•
0
VIRGINIA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

LAKES (AC.)
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
0
6
3
9
0
0
0
0
WASHINGTON
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

LAKES (AC.)
0
0
136
136
24
0
140
164
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
42
93
322
457
0
0
0
0
NEST
VIRGINIA
RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
0
.
.
0
0
.
.
0
WISCONSIN
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR HYDROMODIFICATION IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND WATERBODY
TYPE
DAM CONSTRUCTION
FLOW REGULATION/MODIF.
BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPOR1

TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBODY












WISCONSIN
RIVERS
(MI. )
WYOMING
LAKES (AC.)
.
35
•
35
•
5,210
3,112
8,322
•
•
•
ฆ
RIVERS
(MI. )
.
13
.
13
•
64
•
64
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOP HYDROMODIFICATION IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND WATERBODY
TYPE
RIPARIAN DESTRUCTION
SHORE MODIF./EROSION
UNSPECIFIED HYD
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
' SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBODY
0


0
0


0
0

.
0
ALABAMA
COAST (HI.)
ESTUARY
(SQ.m. )
0
0

0
0
0
•
0
0
0
.
0
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
2
3
0
4
0
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
ARIZONA
RIVERS
(HI.)
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
49
340
9
398
ARKANSAS
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0

0
0
CALIFORNIA
COAST (MI.)
0
•
ซ
0
0


0
0


0
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0


0
0


0
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0


0
55.476


55,478
RIVERS
(HZ. )
0


0
0


0
403


403
WETLANDS
(AC.)
0


0
0


0
0


0
COLORADO
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0


0
0


0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
0


0
0

.
0
CONNECTICUT
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LAKES (AC.)
.
0
0
0
.
273
0
273
•
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MX. )
2
2
e
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED>

-------
STATE TOTALS FOB HYDROMODIFICATION IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND WATERBODY
RIPARIAN DESTRUCTION
SHORE MODIF
./EROSION

UNSPECIFIED HYD

TYPE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPOPT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












DELAWARE
RIVERS
(til. )
ฆ 0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
•
0
0

WETLANDS
(AC.)
0


0
0
.
.
0
0
.
•
0
6E0RGIA
LAKES (AC.)
0
.

0
0
•

0
0
•
•
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
•
0
HAWAII
COAST (AC.)
0
.

0
297
•

297
0
•
•
0
IDAHO
LAKES (AC.)
0
•

0
0
•

0
0
•
•
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
0
.

0
4,107
.
.
4,107
ILLINOIS
LAKES (AC.)
67
2
0
66
4,791
10,554
7,230
22,575
a,457
374
0
8,831

RIVERS
(MI. )
3
19
65
87
1
23
22
47
4
30
182
216
INDIANA
GREAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)
0

I
0
0
.
.
0
0
.
.
0

LAKES (AC.)
0
.
-
0
0
•
-
0
0
•
•
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
2


2
2
.
.
2
0
.
.
0
IOMA
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
110
0
120

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
0
43

WETLANDS
(AC. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,493
375
0
2,868
KANSAS
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
-
0
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR HYDROMODIFICATION IMPACTS
BY KATEPBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
TYPE
RIPARIAN DESTRUCTION
SHORE MODIF./EROSION
UNSPECIFIED HYD

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY
0


0
0


0
155


155
KENTUCKY
RIVERS
(MI. )
LOUISIANA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)




.

•
.
.
.
.
.
COAST (AC.)
.

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
LAKES (AC.)
.

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
ESTUARY
(MI.)
#


.
,

.
.
.
.
.
.
RIVERS
(MI. )




.

.
.
2
50
.
52
MAINE
LAKES (AC.)
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
•
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
MARYLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0

#
0
0


0
0
.

0
LAKES (AC.)
0

•
0
0


0
0
•

0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
0


0
5
.

5
MASSACHUSE-
TTS
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
MINNESOTA
LAKES (AC.)
.
.
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
RIVERS
(MI. )
m


.
.
.
.
.
ฆ
.

.
MISSOURI
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR HYDROMODIFICATION IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
RIPARIAN DESTRUCTION
SHORE MODIF
./EROSION

UNSPECIFIED HYD

TTrE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












MISSOURI
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MONTANA
LAKES (AC. )
0

0
0
0

42i000
42>000
0
•
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
23

0
23
276

0
276
3
•
0
3
NEVADA
LAKES (AC.)
.

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
16
16

RIVERS
(MI. )



.
26


26
89
11

100
NEM MEXICO
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0


0
41
•

41

RIVERS
(MI. 1
0


0
0


0
119
.

119
NEW YORK
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
0


0
0


0
0
.

0

GREAT LAKES
(Sq.MI.>
0


0
0


0
0
.

0

COAST (AC.)
0


0
0


0
0
•

0

LAKES (AC.)
0
0
19
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
33
25
0
58
0
0
25
25
0
4
0
4
NORTH
CAROLINA
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
8
0
e
0
4
0
4
0
13
0
13
NORTH
LAKES (AC.)
.
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
18,927
•
•
18,927
DAKOTA
RIVERS
(MI. )
.
•
•
•
971
•
•
971
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR HYDROKODIFICATION IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
RIPARIAN DESTRUCTION
SHORE MODIF./EROSION
UNSPECIFIED HYD
i ire

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












OHIO
LAKES (AC.>
•
•
•
•
•
•
ฆ
•
•
•
•
•

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
#
0
0
48
.
0
48
368
.
0
368
OKLAHOMA
LAKES (AC.)
•
0
0
0
•
1,772
1.772
3,544
•
6,918
6,918
13,837

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
IX
11
0
10
94
104
0
64
88
172
PENNSYLVAN-
IA
RIVERS
(MI.)
0


0
0


0
0


0
PUERTO RICO
COAST (MI.)
0


0
0


0
6


6

ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0


0
3


3

LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0


0
0


0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
0


0
49


49
RHODE
ISLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
#


,
.


.
.


.

LAKES (AC.)
•


.
.


•
•


•

RIVERS
(MI. )



,
.

.
.
1

•
1
SOUTH
OAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
250
0
250
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TENNESSEE
LAKES (AC.)
0
25
37
61
0
0
0
0
2,190
2,636
0
4,826

RIVERS
(MI. )
14
29
17
59
15
48
14
77
113
122
36
271
(CONTINUEO )

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR HYDROMODIFICATION IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
RIPARIAN DESTRUCTION
SHORE MODIF
./EROSION

UNSPECIFIED HYD

1 Trfc

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY












TEXAS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MX. )



.
.
.

.

•
•
•

LAKES (AC.)
.
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•

RIVERS
(MI. )



,
.
.

.
.
•
•
•
UTAH
LAKES (AC.)
•
•

-
•
•

•
•
•
•
•

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0

0
0
0

0
13
131
•
144
VERMONT
LAKES (AC.)
0
.
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
VIRGIN
ISLANDS
COAST (HZ.)
0
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
0
•
0
VIR6INIA
ESTUARY
(SQ.HZ.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

LAKES (AC.)
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
26
29
WASHINGTON
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
3
0
4
7
1
0
5
6
0
0
0
0

LAKES (AC.)
24
0
1,357
1,382
24
0
10
34
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. I
36
78
11
126
16
41
11
68
0
1
0
1
WEST
VIRGINIA
RIVERS
(HI. )
0

,
0
0
.
.
0
0
•
•
0
WISCONSIN
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
-
•
•
•
-
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR HYDROKOOIFICATION IMPACTS
BY MATERBOOY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
TYPE
RIPARIAN DESTRUCTION
SHORE ftODIF./EROSION
UNSPECIFIED HYD

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPOR1

TOTAL
IHPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY












WISCONSIN
RIVERS
(HI. )
WYOMING
LAKES (AC.)
•
.
•
•
•
3,050
2,205
5,255
-
•
•
•
RIVERS
(HI. )
.
11
.
11
•
106
12
110
•
•
•
-

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR OTHER SOURCE IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND WATERBODY

ALL OTHER
SOURCES

ATMOSPHERIC
WASTE STORAGE TANKS

TYPE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IHPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBODY












ALABAMA
COAST CHI.)
5
•
•
5
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0

ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
17
.
17
0
.0
.
0
0
3
•
3

LAKES CAC.)
617
34.000
15.100
49.717
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
88
49
0
137
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
ARIZONA
RIVERS
(MI. )
ia
416
9
443
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ARKANSAS
RIVERS
(HI.)
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
CALIFORNIA
COAST (MI.)
1,956

•
1.958
0


0
1,945

•
1.945

ESTUARY
(Sq.HI.1
5


5
0


0
0

•
0

LAKES (AC.)
128.040

.
128,040
0


0
17.143

•
17.143

RIVERS
(HI. )
436


436
30


30
0

•
0

WETLANDS
(AC.)
2.189


2,189
512


512
936

•
936
COLORADO
LAKES (AC.)
0

•
0
0


0
0

•
0

RIVERS
(HI.)
190

.
190
0


0
0

•
0
CONNECTICUT
ESTUARY
(S9.MI.)
1
104
4
109
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

LAKES (AC.)
.
4,195
3.514
7,709
•
0
826
826
•
0
0
0

RIVERS
(HI. )
1
54
14
69
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I
N>
V0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR OTHER SOURCE IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND WATERBODY

ALL OTHER
SOURCES

ATMOSPHERIC
WASTE STORAGE TANKS

TYPE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

IJ
SE SUPPORT




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBODY












DELAWARE
RIVERS
(MI.)
17

4
21
0
.
0
0
0
•
0
0

WETLANDS
(AC. )
0


0
0
•
.
0
0
.
.
0
GEORGIA
LAKES (AC.)
0
,

0
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
0
•
0
HAWAII
COAST (AC. )
104
.

104
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
IDAHO
LAKES (AC.)
0
.

0
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0

RIVERS
(MI.)
932


932
0
.
.
0
0
•
•
0
ILLINOIS
LAKES (AC.)
16.767
14.555
8.490
39.820
85
98
60
243
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
4
20
26
50
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
12
INDIANA
GREAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0
.
.
0
0
.
•
0

LAKES (AC.1
329
.
.
329
0
•
•
0
219
•
•
219

RIVERS
(MI.)
67


67
0
.
.
0
3
•
•
3
IOWA
LAKES (AC.)
4
6.749
0
6.753
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
349
365
110
825
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

WETLANDS
(AC. 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
KANSAS
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
•
0
0
•
ฆ
0
0
•
•
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR OTHER SOURCE IMPACTS
BY HATERBOOY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBOOY

ALL OTHER
SOURCES

ATMOSPHERIC
HASTE ST0RA6E TANKS

TYPE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBOOY












KENTUCKY
RIVERS
(MI.)
823

.
823
0
.
.
0
0
*
•
0
LOUISIANA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
60
580

640
.
•
.
.
•
•
•
-

COAST (AC.)
.
212,160
•
212.160
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•

LAKES (AC.)
.
47,044
30,859
77,902
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

ESTUARY
(MI.)

91
37
128
,
•
.
.
.
•
•
•

RIVERS
(MI.)
121
432
.
552
.
.
.
.
.
.
•
•
I1AINE
LAKES (AC.)
0
.
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0

RIVERS
(MI.)
5

0
5
0
.
0
0
0
•
0
0
MARYLAND
ESTUARY
(SO.MI.)
2,482


2,482
0
.
.
0
0
•

0

LAKES (AC.)
1,024
.
.
1,024
0
•
•
0
0
•

0

RIVERS
(MI.)
134


134
0
.
.
0
0
•

0
MASSACHUSE-
TTS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
3
#
4
0
0
.
0
0
0

0

RIVERS
(MI. )
26
63

90
0
0
.
0
7
0

7
MINNESOTA
LAKES (AC.)
.
.
•
ฆ
•
•
•
•
•
•

•

RIVERS
(MI. )



t
.
.
•
.
.
•
•
•
MISSOURI
LAKES (AC.)
0
51
0
51
0
0
0
0
0
51
0
51
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR OTHER SOURCE IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HA
TYPE
TERBODY
ALL OTHER SOURCES
ATMOSPHERIC
HASTE ST0RA6E TANKS


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

U
SE SUPPORT

TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY
0
1
165
166
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MISSOURI
RIVERS
(MI.)
MONTANA
LAKES (AC.)
0
.
43,117
43,117
0

42,000
42,000
0

0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
463
.
0
463
0

0
0
0

0
0
NEVADA
LAKES (AC.)
417

.
417
•

•
•
•

•
•
RIVERS
(MI. >
206
112

320
.

.
.
.

•
•
NEW MEXICO
LAKES (AC.)
21,621
•
•
21,621
0

•
0
0

•
0
RIVERS
(MI. >
255
.

255
0

.
0
0

•
0
NEW YORK
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
145


145
0

.
0
0

•
0
GREAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)
3,560

.
3,560
0

•
0
0


0
COAST (AC.)
es
.
.
68
0

•
0
0

•
0
LAKES (AC.)
94,920
269
0
95,197
16,569
0
0
16,569
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
397
34
20
451
60
0
0
60
0
0
0
0
NORTH
CAROLINA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
30
77
9
115
0
0
0
0
2
22
0
24
NORTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
29,670
.
.
29,070
220
•
•
220
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI. )
2,102
.
•
2,102
7
•
•
7
•
•
•
•
CCONTINUED I

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR OTHER SOURCE IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MA
TYPE
TERBODY
ALL OTHER SOURCES
ATMOSPHERIC
HASTE ST0RA6E TANKS


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

U
SE SUPPORT

TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBODY







.
.

.
.
OHIO
LAKES (AC. >

RIVERS
(MI.)
323

0
323
0
.
0
0
0
•
0
0
OKLAHOMA
LAKES (AC.)
.
43,506
49,162
92,669
•
0
0
0
•
0
2,350
2,350

RIVERS
(MI.)
50
212
263
524
0
0
4
4
0
7
35
42
PENNSYLVAN-
IA
RIVERS
(MI.)
199


199
0
.

0
0


0
PUERTO RICO
COAST (MI.)
51
.
.
51
0
•

0
0


0
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
66

.
66
0
•

0
0


0
LAKES (AC.)
2,344
.
•
2,344
0
•

0
0


0
RIVERS
(MI. )
350
.

350
0
•

0
0


0
RHODE
ISLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
1
4
6
.
0

0
.


•
LAKES (AC.)
.
59
.
59
•
•

•
•


•
RIVERS
(MI. )
10
0
30
41
a
•

.
.

•
•
SOUTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
63
379
553,500
553,941
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
239
134
333
705
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TENNESSEE
LAKES (AC.)
3,244
1,692
3,981
6,917
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
149
169
162
481
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
14
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR OTHER SOURCE IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND UA
TYPE
TERBODY
ALL OTHER SOURCES
ATMOSPHERIC
HASTE STORAGE TANKS


USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPOR1

TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












TEXAS
ESTUARY
(SO.MI.)
LAKES (AC.)
.
196.016

196.016
•
•
•
•
•
•

•

RIVERS
(MI.)
20
122

142
.
40
•
40
20
62

102
UTAH
LAKES (AC.)
.
.

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
RIVERS
(MI.)
02
6.204

8,266
0
0
.
0
0
0

0
VERMONT
LAKES (AC.)
6.706
.
59.102
65.810
0
•
4.620
4,620
0
•
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
169

310
499
0
•
0
0
0
.
0
0
VIRGIN
ISLANDS
COAST (MI.)
0
1

1
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
VIRGINIA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LAKES (AC.)
956
2.219
•
3,176
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
63
113
50
226
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WASHINGTON
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
13
36
77
129
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
6
LAKES (AC.)
97
6.276
7,378
15.750
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
145
206
464
617
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
HEST
VIRGINIA
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
.
#
0
0
.
.
0
0
.
•
0
WISCONSIN
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ฆ
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR OTHER SOURCE IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND WATERBODY
TYPE
ALL OTHER SOURCES
ATMOSPHERIC
WASTE STORAGE TANKS

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
I
ISE SUPPOR1

TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBODY












WISCONSIN
RIVERS
(HI. )
WYOMING
LAKES (AC. )
.
6.612
21,316
26>926
•
•
•
•
ฆ
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI. )
.
598
156
757
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR OTHER SOURCE IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MA
TYPE
TERBODY
HIGHWAY RUNOFF
SPILLS
IN-PLACE CONTAMINANTS


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPOR1

TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY
0


0
0


0
0
.

0
ALABAMA
COAST (MI.)

ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
3

3
0
3
•
3
0
3
.
3

LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
34.000
15.100
49,100
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
14
B
0
22
3
10
0
13
ARIZONA
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ARKANSAS
RIVERS
(MI.)
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
0

0
0
CALIFORNIA
COAST (MI.)
0


0
0
•

0
0

•
0
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0


0
0

•
0
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0
•

0
0

•
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0


0
0
.

0
3

•
3
WETLANDS
(AC.)
0


0
0
.

0
0

•
0
COLORADO
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0
•

0
0

ฆ
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0


0
0
•
.
0
0

•
0
CONNECTICUT
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
9
LAKES (AC.)
.
695
729
1 >624
•
0
0
0
•
597
0
597
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
11
11
0
0
0
0
1
13
3
17
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR OTHER SOURCE IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HA
TYPE
TERBODY
HI6HMAY RUNOFF
SPILLS
IN-PLACE CONTAMINANTS


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBODY
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
DELAWARE
RIVERS
(HI. )

WETLANDS
(AC.)
0
.

0
0
.
.
0
0
•

0
GEORGIA
LAKES (AC.)
0
.

0
0
•

0
0
•

0
RIVERS
(HI.)
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
HAWAII
COAST (AC.)
0
•

0
0
•

0
0
•

0
IDAHO .
LAKES (AC.)
0
.

0
0
•

0
0
•

0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
.

0
0
•

0
0
•

0
ILLINOIS
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
12
12
25
63
7
115
9,247
9,232
5,659
24,138
RIVERS
(HI. )
3
9
2
14
0
0
0
0
1
10
7
18
INDIANA
GREAT LAKES
(SQ.HI.)
0


0
0
a
.
0
0
•
•
0
LAKES (AC.)
0
.
.
0
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0


0
2
.
.
2
27
•
•
27
IOMA
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WETLANDS
(AC. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
KANSAS
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
lONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR OTHER SOURCE IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MA
TYPE
TERBODY
HIGHWAY RUNOFF
SPILLS
IN-PUCE CONTAMINANTS


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

Li
SE SUPPORT

TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY
0


0
0


0
0


0
KENTUCKY
RIVERS
(MZ. )
LOUISIANA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)



0
6

•
6
.
36
•
36
COAST (AC.1
.

.
•
.
67.520
•
67.520
•
40.320
•
40.320
LAKES (AC.)
.

.
.
•
1.017
•
1.017
•
235
•
235
ESTUARY
(MI. )



#
,
3
14
17
.
1
•
1
RIVERS
(MI. )
.



4
18
.
22
5
26
•
30
MAINE
LAKES (AC.)
0

0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
0

0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
MARYLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0
.

0
700
.
•
700
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0
•

0
0
•
•
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
0
.

0
17
•
•
17
MASSACHUSE-
TTS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
•
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0

0
3
0

3
0
0
•
0
MINNESOTA
LAKES (AC.)
.
.

.
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI. )

.

.
.
.

.
.
.
•
•
MISSOURI
LAKES (AC. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR OTHER SOURCE IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HA
TYPE
TERBODY
HIGHWAY RUNOFF
SPILLS
IN-PLACE CONTAMINANTS


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

11
SE SUPPORT

TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBODY
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MISSOURI
RIVERS
(MI. )
MONTANA
LAKES (AC.)
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
16

0
16
8

0
a
0

0
0
NEVADA
LAKES (AC.)
.


•
•

•
•
•

•
•
RIVERS
(MI. )




.

.
.
.

•
•
NEW MEXICO
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0

•
0
0

•
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
0

.
0
0

•
0
NEW YORK
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.1
0


0
0

.
0
145

•
145
GREAT LAKES
(SQ.HI.)
0


0
0

.
0
3,560

•
3,560
COAST (AC.)
0


0
0

ฆ
0
0

•
0
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24•122
26
0
ฃ4,140
RIVERS
(MI. )
68
0
0
68
2
0
0
2
233
0
11
244
NORTH
CAROLINA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
6
15
9
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NORTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
.
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI. )
•
•
-
•

-
•
•
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOB OTHER SOURCE IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
TYPE
HIGHWAY RUNOFF
SPILLS
IN-PLACE CONTAMINANT!

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IHPACTED
1
ISE SUPPOR1

TOTAL
IHPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY








.



OHIO
LAKES (AC.)
RIVERS
(HI.)
0
.
0
0
0

0
0
323
.
0
323
OKLAHOMA
LAKES (AC.)
.
2*,497
25.480
49,977
•
560
560
1.120
•
7,781
10,179
17,960
RIVERS
(HI. )
27
96
101
224
0
28
21
49
24
34
74
131
PENNSYLVAN-
IA
RIVERS
(HI. )
0


0
0


0
0


0
PUERTO RICO
COAST (HI.)
0


0
0


0
0


0
ESTUARY
(SQ.HX.)
0


0
0


0
0


0
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0


0
0


0
RIVERS
(HI. )
0


0
0


0
0


0
RHODE
ISLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.HI.)




.


.
.
.

•
LAKES (AC.)
•


•
ฆ


•
•
30

30
RIVERS
(HI.)


18
18
.


.
8
.
4
12
SOUTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
0
62
0
62
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(HI. )
1
1
4
7
0
0
0
0
9
0
9
18
TENNESSEE
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
388
126
3.981
4,495
0
1,467
0
1.467
RIVERS
(HI. )
0
9
9
17
41
45
61
146
2
0
0
2
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR OTHER SOURCE IMPACTS
BT HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MA
TYPE
TERBODY
HIGHWAY RUNOFF
SPILLS
IN-PLACE CONTAMINANTS


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

11
SE SUPPORT

TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBOOY












TEXAS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)

LAKES (AC.)
•
.
.
•
•
•

•
•
•

•

RIVERS
(MI. )


u

•
.

.
•
•

•
UTAH
LAKES (AC.)
.
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
.
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
VERMONT
LAKES (AC.)
0
.
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0

0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
VIRGIN
ISLANDS
COAST (MI. )
0
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
1
•
1
VIR6INIA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
1
29
54
WASHINGTON
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
1
1
3
5
1
0

15
3
4
2
9
LAKES (AC. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
97
0
0
97
RIVERS
(MI. )
3
6
1
10
1
0
0
1
21
41
6
68
WEST
VIRGINIA
RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
0
.
.
0
0
•
•
0
WISCONSIN
LAKES (AC.)
•
ฆ
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR OTHER SOURCE IMPACTS
BY NATERBODY TYPE AHD USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND WATERBODY
TYPE
HIGHWAY RUNOFF
SPILLS
IN-PUCE CONTAMINANT*

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPOR1

TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
NATERBODY












WISCONSIN
RIVERS
(HI. )
WYOMING
LAKES (AC.)
.
.
.
•
•
•
•
ฆ
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI. )
.
1
12
13
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR OTHER SOURCE IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HA
TYPE
TERBODY
NATURAL
RECREATIONAL
UNSPECIFIED OTH


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
L
SE SUPPOR1

TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBODY
5


5
0


0
0

.
0
ALABAMA
COAST (MI. 1

ESTUARY
(S9.MI. )
0
3
.
3
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
LAKES (AC.)
617
0
0
617
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI. )
70
31
0
101
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ARIZONA
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
174
9
183
9
173
0
182
9
69
0
78
ARKANSAS
RIVERS
(MI. )
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
0

0
0
CALIFORNIA
COAST (MI.)
13


13
0
•
•
0
0


0
ESTUARY
(S3.MI.)
5


5
0

.
0
0


0
LAKES (AC. )
96,289


96,289
14,608
•
•
14,608
0


0
RIVERS
(MI.)
404


404
0
.
.
0
0


0
METLANDS
(AC. )
741


741
0
•
.
0
0


0
COLORADO
LAKES (AC.)
0


0
0
•
•
0
0


0
RIVERS
(MI.)
188


188
0
.
.
0
3


3
CONNECTICUT
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
0
39
0
39
0
0
0
0
1
56
4
61
LAKES (AC.)
.
1,974
1,037
3,011
•
0
0
0
•
729
922
1,651
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
41
0
41
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR OTHER SOURCE IMPACT3
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
NATURAL
RECREATIONAL
UNSPECIFIED OTH

TYPE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

U
SE SUPPORT




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IHPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IHPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY












DELAWARE
RIVERS
(HI. )
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
17
•
4
21

WETLANDS
(AC. )
0
.

0
0
.
.
0
0
•

0
6E0R6IA
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
.
0
0
•
•
0
0
•

0

RIVERS
(HI. )
0
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
0

0
HAWAII
COAST (AC.)
0
•
.
0
98
•
•
98
6
•

6
IDAHO
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
.
0
0
•
•
0
0
•

0

RIVERS
(HI. )
0
.
#
0
0
•
.
0
932
•

932
ILLINOIS
LAKES (AC.1
6.492
1.606
50
8.148
635
3,098
2.513
6.247
285
441
198
924

RIVERS
(HI. )
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
0
1
0
1
INDIANA
GREAT LAKES
(SQ.HI.)
0

.
0

.
•
.
0
.
•
0

LAKES (AC.)
110
.
.
110
•
•
•
•
0
•
•
0

RIVERS
(HI. )
35

.
35
,
•
.
.
0
•
•
0
IOWA
LAKES (AC.)
3
633
0
836
0
0
0
0
1
5.917
0
5.918

RIVERS
(HI.)
263
365
110
738
0
0
0
0
86
0
1
86

WETLANDS
(AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
KANSAS
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR OTHER SOURCE IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
NATURAL
RECREATIONAL
UNSPECIFIED OTH

TYPE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
UATERBODY












KENTUCKY
RIVERS
(MI.)
0

#
0
0

-
0
823
•
•
823
LOUISIANA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
17
148

165
#

.
.
37
396
•
433

COAST (AC.)
.
.
.
•
•

•
•
•
104,320
•
104,320

LAKES (AC. )
.
22,731
27,947
50,676
•

•
•
-
23,061
2,912
25,973

ESTUARY
(MI.)

26
23
49


.
.
.
61
•
61

RIVERS
(MI.)
23
191

213
•

.
•
90
197
•
287
MAINE
LAKES (AC.)
0
.
0
0
0

0
0
0
•
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0

0
0
0

0
0
5
•
0
5
MARYLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0
0


0
1,782
•

1,782

LAKES (AC.)
1.024
.
.
1,024
0


0
0
•

0

RIVERS
(MI. )
117
m
#
117
0


0
0
•

0
MASSACHUSE-
TTS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
3

3
0
0

0
0
0

0

RIVERS
(MI. )
11
49

60
6
14

20
0
0

0
MINNESOTA
LAKES (AC.)
.
.
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•

RIVERS
(MI.)
.


.
.
.
.
.
•
•

•
MISSOURI
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR OTHER SOURCE IMPACTS
BY UATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND UATERBODY
NATURAL
RECREATIONAL
UNSPECIFIED OTH

TYPE

USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

I
SE SUPPORT




NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
UATERBODY












MISSOURI
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
165
166
MONTANA
LAKES (AC.)
0
.
1,117
1,117
0

0
0
0
•
0
0

RIVERS
(MI.)
331
.
0
331
0

0
0
108
•
0
108
NEVADA
LAKES (AC.)
417
•
.
417
•


•
•
•

•

RIVERS
(MI.)
174
54

227
,


.
34
58

92
NEU MEXICO
LAKES (AC.)
0
.
•
0
21,297


21,297
324
•

324

RIVERS
(MI.)
123


123
27


27
106
•

106
NEH YORK
ESTUARY
(Sq.MI.)
0
.

0
0


0
0
.

0

GREAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)
0

.
0
0


0
0
.

0

COAST (AC.)
0
.
.
0
0


0
88
•

88

LAKES (AC.)
53.591
243
0
53,834
0
0
0
0
646
0
0
646

RIVERS
(MI.)
5
34
9
48
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
10
NORTH
CAROLINA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RIVERS
(MI. )
0
11
0
11
0
0
0
0
22
28
0
50
NORTH
LAKES (AC.)
10,318
.
.
10,318
•
•
•
•
19,368
•
•
19,368
DAKOTA
RIVERS
(MI. )
2,095
•
•
2,095
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR OTHER SOURCE IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HA
TYPE
TERBODY
NATURAL
RECREATIONAL
UNSPECIFIED OTH


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

11
SE SUPPORT

TOTAL
IMPACTEO

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE'
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY







.
.


.
OHIO
LAKES (AC.)
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
OKLAHOMA
LAKES (AC.)
.
2ซ166
6 >366
8.537
•
0
0
0
•
8.501
4,225
12,726
RIVERS
(MI. )
0
12
12
23
0
0
0
0
0
35
16
51
PENNSYLVAN-
IA
RIVERS
(MI. )
0


0
0
.
.
0
199
•

199
PUERTO RICO
COAST (MI.)
0


0
0
•
•
0
51
•

51
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.I
0


0
0
.
.
0
66
.

66
LAKES (AC. )
0


0
0
•
•
0
2,344
•

2.344
RIVERS
(MI.)
0


0
0
•
.
0
350
•

350
RHODE
ISLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
.


.
0
1
3
5
0
•
1
1
LAKES (AC.)
•

.
•
.
•
•
•
•
29
•
29
RIVERS
(MI.)
.

6
6
1
•
0
1
2
0
2
5
SOUTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
63
303
0
365
0
0
0
0
0
14
553.500
553,514
RIVERS
(MI.)
229
133
319
681
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TENNESSEE
LAKES (AC.)
2 >656
76
0
2,932
0
24
0
24
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
106
102
10
216
0
0
6
6
0
0
76
76
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR OTHER SOURCE IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MA
TYPE
TERBODY
NATURAL
RECREATIONAL
UNSPECIFIEO OTH


USE SUPPORT

USE SUPPORT

L
SE SUPPORT

TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY












TEXAS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)

LAKES (AC.)
.
196.016
.
196,016
•
ฆ
•
•

•

•

RIVERS
(MI. )
.



.
.
.
.
.
.

•
UTAH
LAKES (AC.)
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•

RIVERS
(MI. )
62
fiป204

6,266
0
0
.
0
0
0

0
VERMONT
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
6,706
•
563
7,271
RIVERS
(MI. )
0

0
0
0
.
0
0
169
•
310
499
VIRGIN
ISLANDS
COAST (MI.)
0
0
#
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
•
0
VIR6INIA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LAKES (AC.)
958
2,140
.
3,096
0
0
•
0
0
62
•
62
RIVERS
(MI.)
40
111
21
172
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WASHINGTON
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
6
1
57
66
0
0
0
0
0
27
0
27
LAKES (AC.)
0
6,276
7,376
15,652
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
74
137
424
636
1
0
0
1
44
23
33
99
WEST
VIRGINIA
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
.

0
0
.
.
0
0
•
•
0
WISCONSIN
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
-
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR OTHER SOURCE IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MATERBODY
TYPE
NATURAL
RECREATIONAL
UNSPECIFIED OTH

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
USE SUPPOR1

TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY












WISCONSIN
RIVERS
(HI.)
WYOMING
LAKES (AC.)
.
5.612
21,316
26,928
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI. 1
.
597
146
7ซ
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR OTHER SOURCE IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
\
STATE AND MATERBODY
TYPE
UNKNOWN
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IHPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY
0


0
ALABAMA
COAST (HI.)

ESTUARY
(SQ.HI.)
0
0
•
0
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
0
0
RIVERS
(HI.)
0
0
0
0
ARIZONA
RIVERS
(HI.)
611
1.208
34
2,053
ARKANSAS
RIVERS
(HI.)
0
•
0
0
CALIFORNIA
COAST (HI.)
7
•

7
ESTUARY
(SQ.ni.)
21
.

21
LAKES (AC.)
434,060
ฆ

434,060
RIVERS
(HI.)
561
.

581
METLAHDS
(AC.)
849


849
COLORADO
LAKES (AC.)
0
•

0
RIVERS
(HI.)
0
•

0
CONNECTICUT
ESTUARY
(SQ.HI.)
0
0
0
0
LAKES (AC.)
•
0
0
0
RIVERS
(HI.)
0
0
0
0
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR OTHER SOURCE IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
UNKNOWN
i ire

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IHPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY




DELAWARE
RIVERS
(hi.)
0
.
0
0

WETLANDS
(AC.)
850
.

850
GEORGIA
LAKES (AC.)
5.373
•

5.373

RIVERS
(hi.)
0
0

0
HAWAII
COAST (AC.)
0
•

0
IDAHO
LAKES (AC.)
11.036
•

11.036

RIVERS
(hi.)
0
•

0
ILLINOIS
LAKES (AC.)
2.560
5.484
4.919
12.963

RIVERS
(HI.)
0
6
13
18
INDIANA
GREAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)
241
.
.
241

LAKES (AC.)
5
•
•
5

RIVERS
(HI. )
916
•
.
916
IONA
LAKES (AC.)
0
23
0
23

RIVERS
(HI. )
15
1
0
15

WETLANDS
(AC. )
0
0
0
0
KANSAS
LAKES (AC.)
140,361
•
•
140,361
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR OTHER SOURCE IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
UNKNOWN
i ir-c

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
INTERBODY




KENTUCKY
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
.
.
0
LOUISIANA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
17
61
.
78

COAST (AC.)
•
•
•
•

LAKES (AC.)
•
10.336
•
10,336

ESTUARY
(MI.)
,
5
.
5

RIVERS
(MI. )
.
9
.
9
MAINE
LAKES (AC.)
0

0
0

RIVERS
(MI.)
9

0
9
MARYLAND
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0


0

LAKES (AC.)
0


0

RIVERS
(MI.)
0


0
MASSACHUSE-
TTS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
1

1

RIVERS
(MI.)
33
50

82
MINNESOTA
LAKES (AC.)
•
•

•

RIVERS
(MI. )
.
.
.
.
MISSOURI
LAKES (AC.)
437
106
12,388
12.931
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR OTHER SOURCE IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AMD USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
UNKNOWN
1 IPC

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY




MISSOURI
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
814
402
1.216
MONTANA
LAKES (AC.)
0
•
0
0

RIVERS
(HI.)
60
•
0
60
NEVADA
LAKES (AC.)
417
•

417

RIVERS
I MI.)
42
.

42
NEH MEXICO
LAKES (AC.)
2,111
•

2.111

RIVERS
(HI.)
6
.

8
NEU YORK
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
.

0

GREAT LAKES
(SQ.MI.)
0
.

0

COAST (AC.)
0
•

0

LAKES (AC.)
104,253
126
0
104.381

RIVERS
(MI. )
136
25
0
160
NORTH
CAROLINA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
2
86
4
91

RIVERS
(MI. )
132
2,131
145
2,408
NORTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI. )
-
•
•
•
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR OTHER SOURCE IMPACTS
BY WATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND WATERBODY
UNKNOWN
l Ire

USE SUPPORT



NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
TOTAL
IMPACTED


SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
WATERBODY




OHIO
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
•

RIVERS
I HI.)
4,784
.
158
4.942
OKLAHOMA
LAKES (AC.)
•
16.058
37,134
53,193

RIVERS
(HI.)
123
538
1,627
2,287
PENNSYLVAN-
IA
RIVERS
(HI.)
0

.
0
PUERTO RICO
COAST (HI.)
22

•
22

ESTUARY
(SQ.HI.)
1

.
1

LAKES (AC.)
319

•
319

RIVERS
(HI.)
39

.
39
RHODE
ISLAND
ESTUARY
(S9.HI.)
1
0
.
1

LAKES (AC.)
•
213
•
213

RIVERS
(HI.)
6
1
4
11
SOUTH
DAKOTA
LAKES (AC.)
0
10,255
5,265
15.520
RIVERS
(HI. )
6
34
1,499
1,539
TENNESSEE
LAKES (AC.)
4,867
19ซ221
9,544
33,632

RIVERS
(HI. )
26
249
375
650
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR OTHER SOURCE IMPACTS
BY MATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND MA
TYPE
TERBODY
UNKNOWN

USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED

NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED

SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
MATERBODY




TEXAS
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI. )

LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
•

RIVERS
(HI. ป
.
230
.
230
UTAH
LAKES (AC.)
•
•
•
•
RIVERS
(MI.)
0
0
.
0
VERMONT
LAKES (AC.)
42,426
•
91.156
133.582
RIVERS
(MI.)
435
.
125
560
VIRGIN
ISLANDS
COAST (HI. )
0
0
.
0
VIRGINIA
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
0
0
0
0
LAKES (AC.)
0
0
•
0
RIVERS
(MI.)
9
30
53
92
WASHINGTON
ESTUARY
(SQ.MI.)
5
10
53
68
LAKES (AC.)
0
6.276
23
0.299
RIVERS
(MI.)
59
273
149
481
WEST
VIRGINIA
RIVERS
(MI.)
22.618
.
.
22.618
WISCONSIN
LAKES (AC.)
•
23
76
99
(CONTINUED)

-------
STATE TOTALS FOR OTHER SOURCE IMPACTS
BY HATERBODY TYPE AND USE SUPPORT STATUS
STATE AND HATERBODY
TYPE
UNKNOWN
USE SUPPORT
TOTAL
IMPACTED
NON-
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
SUPPORT
THREATEN-
ED
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
SIZE
STATE
HATERBODY
145
1.468
3.490
5.103
WISCONSIN
RIVERS
(MI.)
UY0MIN6
LAKES (AC.)
•
249
1.742
1.991
RIVERS
(MI. )
.
94
32
126

-------
APPENDIX B
Methodology for Summarizing
State Assessment Data
EPA extracted and aggregated assessment
data at two levels because of the nature of
the data provided by the states. The first,
more general, level uses statewide information pro-
vided by the states. Quantitative statewide assess-
ment data were extracted for 7 states. For the
remaining 34 states and 2 commonwealths, EPA ex-
tracted quantitative waterbody-specific data.
EPA has extracted data regarding waterbody
type, assessment methodology used, extent of use
impairment, causes of use impairment, and pollu-
tant sources for each waterbody/state summary for
which these data were available.
To facilitate and standardize the process of ex-
tracting this information from state assessments,
EPA developed a data form and a set of rules. The
major rules utilized in this process are:
ฆ	State assessments that did not include mea-
sures of the size of impacted waters were not in-
cluded in the analysis. Thus, EPA's analysis will
result in an underestimation of the extent of the
nonpoint source problem nationwide.
ฆ	If multiple uses were reported for any given
waterbody, then the full size of impairment was
counted against each use (multiple counting).
ฆ	If multiple pollutant sources were reported for
any given waterbody, then the size of impair-
ment was divided equally among each of the
major sources and subdivided equally among
each of the minor sources (subcategories); that
is, no multiple counting. This is likely to under-
estimate the impacts of major sources, while
overestimating the impacts of minor sources.
ฆ	If multiple pollutants were reported for any
given waterbody, then the size of impairment
was divided equally among each of the pollu-
tants; that is, no multiple counting. This is likely
to underestimate the impacts of major pollu-
tants, while overestimating the impacts of minor
pollutants.
ฆ	No distinction was made among high, moderate,
low, or slight impacts, but threatened waters
were counted separately from impaired (non-
support or partial support) waters.
ฆ	If a state reported impaired waters but no par-
tially supporting waters, then non-support was
assumed.
ฆ	If pollutants were not reported but impacted size
and pollutant sources were reported, then "pol-
lutant not reported" was assumed.
ฆ	In cases where a state reported neither "moni-
tored" nor "evaluated" for assessment methodol-
ogy, then EPA assumed this information was
missing. If a state reported this information for
some, but not all, waterbodies, then EPA as-
sumed that "evaluated" applied to those
waterbodies for which the assessment methodol-
ogy was not reported.
In summary, EPA's methodology causes the total
quantity of affected waters to be less than the true
total since waters listed but not assigned a size were
not included in the analyses. EPA's methodology also
has an effect on the characterization of the meuor
nonpoint sources and pollutants because of the equal
apportionment of impacted areas among sources and
B-l

-------
Managing Nonpolnt Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
pollutants for any given waterbody. Similarly, the
multiple counting of impacted designated uses has
an effect on the characterization of uses most im-
pacted by nonpoint sources.
EPA has not quantified the effects of its methodol-
ogy on the results contained in this report, but de-
scribes the approach taken so that the reader may
develop his or her own conclusions regarding the
strengths and weaknesses of EPA's analyses and re-
sulting conclusions.
EPA has also summarized the ground-water data
contained in the assessments, but these data are re-
ported in a very qualitative manner. This reporting
approach is taken since the quality of state ground-
water information varies considerably, ranging from
non-existent to highly detailed. States were not re-
quired to list those aquifers or wells impacted or
threatened by nonpoint sources as part of their sec-
tion 319 assessments, but many states provided
some such information.
B-2

-------
D
APPENDIX C
Comparison of Methodologies of
Sections 305(b) and 319 Reports
The information in this report differs some-
what from that contained in EPA's biennial
section 305(b) reports. However, the general
conclusions concerning the relative significance of
various sources of waterbody impairments are com-
parable.
Quantity of Data
The 1988 section 305(b) report and this section 319
assessment are based on different subsets of report-
ing states and, therefore, on different amounts of
data. For example, the 305(b) report includes data
on use support in rivers from 47 states and Puerto
Rico, covering 519,412 miles; this report includes
data on use support in rivers from 39 states and
Puerto Rico, covering 206,179 miles.
Timing
Although some states submitted their section 319 as-
sessments as part of their section 305(b) reports on
or around April 1, 1988, most submitted their non-
point source assessments several months later, and
EPA approved these reports as recently as January
4,1990.
This 17-month difference combined with the in-
terplay between EPA and the states regarding the
contents of the section 319 assessments has resulted
in different lists of nonpoint source-impacted waters
in the two reports for most states.
Methodology
The methodologies used by states to report data and
thus applied by EPA in generating the two national
reports also differed in cases where multiple sources
affected a waterbody.
ฆ	For the 1988 section 305(b) report, states
were instructed to report the sizes of waters af-
fected by a cause/source regardless of whether
other sources also affected the same water-
body. Thus, if a 30-mile stretch of river was af-
fected by agriculture and, within that stretch,
10 miles were also affected by storm water, the
state would report 30 miles in its sum of agri-
cultural impacts and 10 miles in its sum of
storm water impacts. Threatened waters were
considered to be fully supporting uses and were
not included in these sums.
ฆ	For this section 319 report, instead of re-
porting the waterbody sizes affected by each
cause/source, states reported the size of each
waterbody affected by nonpoint sources and
listed the contributing causes/sources. EPA
then determined the size affected by each
cause/source by dividing the size impaired by
nonpoint sources by the number of causes
/sources listed for that waterbody. Thus, if a
30-mile stretch of river was identified as im-
paired by agriculture and stormwater, 15 miles
would be added to the agriculture sum and 15
miles to the storm water sum. Threatened wa-
ters were included in these sums.
C-l

-------
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
The Statute
Section 305(b) reports include all sources of pollu-
tion, whereas section 319 reports address only non-
point sources of pollution. Section 319 calls for a list
of waters that cannot attain or maintain water qual-
ity standards or meet the requirements of the Clean
Water Act without nonpoint source controls. Section
319 assessments also include the sources of signifi-
cant pollution to each "portion" of the waters con-
tained in the list. The statute also calls upon the
states to develop management programs for address-
ing those waters listed in the assessment.
In short, section 319 assessments required states
to provide a much greater focus on the nonpoint
source problem than is required under section
305(b). It is therefore reasonable to assume that the
states performed a more rigorous nonpoint assess-
ment under section 319 than they had previously
performed under section 305(b). EPA and the states
are currently working to improve integration of 319
assessments and 305(b) reports so that the results of
319 assessments are fully incorporated into future
305(b) reports.
C-2

-------
APPENDIX D
Management Program Methodology
EPA developed a data coding form to summa-
rize selected information from state non-
point source management programs. EPA
chose to perform an objective analysis to determine if
states had included all the information required by
section 319(b) in their management programs.
The following components of management pro-
grams were included in this analysis:
•	The approval/disapproval status of state
management programs
•	Identification of possible state and local
funding sources
•	Identification of implementation milestones
•	List of federal projects/programs chosen for
state review for consistency with the
nonpoint source management program
ฆ Management program approval: Under
section 319(d)(1) of the Clean Water Act, the
administrator of EPA has the authority to ap-
prove or disapprove a management program or
a portion of the management program. Only
approved management programs or program
portions were eligible for funding under section
319(h).
Information on whether the management
program or program portions were approved or
disapproved by January 4,1990, was reported.
Only approved portions were included in the
management program analysis. States gener-
ally developed management program portions
based on the mqjor sources of nonpoint source
pollutants in their state. Management pro-
gram portions were summarized using a four
digit code based on the section 305(b) source
code (see Appendix _).
ฆ	Waterbodies addressed by existing or pro-
posed nonpoint source control pro-grams:
Existing or proposed programs to control non-
point source pollution were sum- marized by
the type of waterbody they were designed to
address. Programs were first defined as either
state or local and either existing or proposed.
Federal programs that do not have state or
local components were not included in this
analysis.
Each program was then listed according to
the type of waterbody it applied to. The list of
waterbodies is as follows:
R 3 Rivers/streams/etc.
L = Lakes
G = Great Lakes
E = Estuaries
C = Ocean coastal
W = Wetlands
U = Ground water
A= All waterbody types
B = No specific waterbody type listed
If a program applied to more than one
waterbody type (e.g., to wetlands and estuar-
ies) both were reported.
ฆ	Funding: States were required to identify
sources of financial assistance in their non-
point source management program. Codes
were developed to analyze state and local non-
point source funding activities. Both funding
sources and types of funding were summa-
rized.
Funding sources were characterized as fol-
lows:
Existing state funding source
Proposed state funding source
D-l

-------
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
Existing local funding source
Proposed local funding source
Federal funding sources for nonpoint source
pollution control programs were not included
in this analysis.
Funding types were also tabulated. The fol-
lowing codes were used to summarize mqjor
types of funding described in the management
programs:
10 = general revenue
20 = earmarked funds (e.g., oil
overcharge funds)
30	= taxes
31	= excise taxes (product-specific)
32	= sales taxes
33	= property taxes
34	= income taxes
35-39 = other
40	= permit fees
41	= building/construction permit fees
42	= solid waste disposal fees
43	= septic tank fees
44-49 = other
Implementation
Milestones
Implementation milestones were summarized in the
following manner:
ฆ by type(s) of nonpoint source control
activity:
1	= Public outreach (education of general
public, schools, media targeted to
homeowners)
2	= Technical outreach (technical information
such as BMP design, includes in-field
assistance)
3	= Technical evaluation monitoring
(evaluation of effectiveness of
implementation activities)
4	= Technical assessment monitoring
(surveys)
5	= Enforcement activities
6	= Reporting activities
7	= Nonpoint source control implementation
activities (structural BMPs, ordinances)
ฆ	by the approved portion of the manage-
ment program: Approved portions were de-
fined by the source they were designed to
address (e.g. agriculture, urban runoff) using
the section 305(b) source list (appendix	). If a
milestone applied to more them one approved
portion, the milestone was reported for both.
If the activity was ground water specific, it was
reported as such.
ฆ	by whether the activity is statewide or
specific to a particular watershed: The
analysis of milestones also included several
qualitative factors. First, each milestone was
evaluated to determine if specific objectives
had been developed and whether the milestone
included measures to quantify the achieve-
ment of the objective. For example, a mile-
stone with an objective and a means to
quantify it would be: the state will develop a
public outreach program to provide education
on means to control urban runoff. The pro-
gram will involve production of 25,000 bro-
chures on urban runoff and distribution to
schools in the state's three metropolitan areas
and production of a video (15 copies) on garden
chemical usage for distribution through the
state's five urban county extension offices.
Second, each milestone was evaluated to deter-
mine if a deadline for the activity was included. In
order to be considered a true deadline for purposes of
this analysis, the deadline had to be specific for indi-
vidual tasks within the milestone.
Milestones were also analyzed to determine if a
source of funding for implementing the activity had
been identified. Funding identification was charac-
terized by one of the following codes:
3 = Yes, funding is specified
2 = No, funding is not specified
1 = No funding specified but funding need
identified
0 = Not clear
Identification of a need for additional staff was
viewed as a proxy for the need for additional fund-
ing.
Finally, milestones were evaluated to determine if
coordination among the participating agencies was
clearly described and whether or not a lead agency
had been designated. Coordination activities in-
cluded identification of cooperating agencies and ex-
isting programs and discussion of existing
MOUs/MOAs.
D-2

-------
Coordination activities were coded as follows:
4 = Coordination described and a lead agency
specified
3 = Coordination described but no lead
agency specified
2 = Lead agency specified but no coordination
is described
1 = No coordination is described and no lead
agency is specified
0 = Not clear
ฆ Federal consistency review: States using
the section 319((k) consistency review proce-
dures were allowed to list federal programs/
projects in their management programs. States
could identify any federal financial assistance
programs or development projects that they
will review for consistency with their manage-
ment programs.
The data coding form was used to collect the
following consistency review information:
•	Whether the state included a list of federal
programs/projects for review
•	Whether the state has an existing Executive
Order 12372 review process
•	Whether the state will use other review
processes to ensure consistency with their
nonpoint source management program.
Information for other review processes was
summarized using the following numerical
codes:

01
NEPA
02
Coastal Zone Management Act
03
A-106
04
Other (list)
05
Other (list)
If the state did not list other review pro-
cesses, no information was coded.
• Appendix F includes a summary of those
federal programs and projects that states
identified as being subject to the consistency
review process.
Appendix D: Management Program Methodology
D-3

-------
APPENDIX E
Relating Assessments and
Management Programs —
Methodology and Results
E
PA has performed two simple analyses
based upon its summaries of the state man-
agement programs and assessments.
Activities Directed
Toward Significant
Sources
In this analysis, EPA looked simply for the presence
of milestone activities related specifically to those
sources that the state identified in its assessment as
causing nonpoint source problems.
EPA determined, for each state reporting, the
fraction of NPS-impacted waters that is impacted by
each of the major source categories (e.g., agriculture,
silviculture, urban). Unknown sources were not in-
cluded in this analysis, and EPA calculated a mean
fraction across all waterbody types. For those source
categories that affected at least one percent of the
impacted waters in each state, EPA looked for mile-
stone activities specifically directed to the source.
The one-percent cutoff for this analysis is arbitrary
but is based upon the simple reasoning that, in most
states, this represents a substantial size of impacted
water resource.
EPA lumped all milestone activities (e.g., water-
shed and state milestones were combined) and in-
cluded those states with only portions of their
management programs approved. (Alaska was not
included.) A state needed only one activity associ-
ated with the source category for it to be added to the
list of states "addressing" identified problem sources.
EPA made no judgments as to the quality or scope of
these activities.
The results are presented in Table 1.
TABLE 1.—Management program activities associated
with Identified problems.
SOURCE
Number & Percent Number & Percent

of States
of States Not

Addressing Source
Addressing Source
Agriculture
37
100%
0
0%
Silviculture
15
88%
2
12%
Urban
26
79%
7
21%
Hydromodlficatlon
19
73%
7
27%
Mining
21
72%
8
28%
Land Disposal
22
71%
9
29%
Construction
17
71%
7
29%
Atmospheric
4
57%
3
43%
Highways
3
50%
3
50%
Recreation
1
20%
4
80%
In-Place
2
14%
12
86%
Storage Tanks
1
14%
6
86%
Natural
3
12%
22
88%
Spills
0
0%
4
100%
E-l

-------
Managing Nonpolnt Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
Correlation of Milestones
Focus with Source
Impacts
In this analysis EPA used regression analysis to find
linear correlations between the fraction of state ac-
tivities directed at a given source (dependent vari-
able) and the fraction of NPS-impacted waters
(independent variable) that is impacted by that
same source (as described above).
The fraction of state activities for each source was
calculated by dividing the number of activities di-
rected at that source by the total number of state ac-
tivities for which sources were clearly indicated by
the states (i.e., not all state activities are included).
For example, if a state reported 100 activities di-
rected at specific nonpoint source categories, and 50
of those addressed agriculture, then agriculture
would be credited with 50 percent of the activities.
The results of this analysis are expected to pro-
vide a rough sense of whether states are focusing
their activities in a manner proportionate to the
source impacts described in the assessments. The
linear regression data in Figures 1-3 are provided for
the interested reader, but are not intended as statis-
tical proof of EPA's findings. In fact, the data may be
in slight violation of the linear regression assump-
tion for homogeneity of variance since percentage
values are used. This is because the variance at the
extremes (0% and 100%) is usually smaller than
elsewhere in the range. Other problems associated
with this analysis are primarily related to the qual-
ity of the data.
Although EPA found the strongest relationship
between the level of activity associated with agricul-
ture and the extent of agricultural problems, only 14
percent of the distribution of activities is explained
by the extent of the agricultural water quality prob-
lem (Figure 1). Four states included in this analysis
(AR, IA, OK, and PA) had only the agricultural por-
tions of their management programs approved, so
100 percent of their activities are related to agricul-
ture. Only six percent of the distribution of activities
is explained if these states are removed from the
analysis. It is more reasonable to assign these four
states the next highest fraction of activities directed
at agriculture (83%) and redo the analysis. Figure 2
shows the results of this arbitrarily adjusted regres-
sion.
Although weak, the agricultural correlation (Fig-
ure 2) is fairly consistent across states. The Y-inter-
cept indicates that states generally address
agricultural sources even if they have no agricul-
tural problems. The slope of the relationship indi-
cates that for every one percent increase in the share
AGRICULTURE
DO
• • ฆ ฆ
8
| 80
•
• •
< BO-
'S
| 40
I -
o-
•
• •

0 20 40 60 60 DO

Fraction of Problem
NOTE: 38 States (r-square ฆ 0.14, F ฆ Bi2)
Flgur* 1.—

AGRICULTURE
100

1 80
• • ฆ •
• •
2 60-
"o
• •
I 401
| 20J
o-
aซ a •
ft , • -
*• *i •ป' •

0 20 40 60 80 DO

Fraction of Problem
NOTE AR/1A/OK/PA adjusted
(r-squaro ฆ OlM, F - GuB)
Figure 2.—
E-2

-------
Appendix E: Relating Assessments and Management Programs
of the problem, states respond with only four-tenths
percent increase in the fraction of activities address-
ing agriculture.
EPA also found a relationship between the focus
on urban activities and the extent of the urban prob-
lem. A quick look at Figure 3, however, shows that a
few states with largely urban problems are mostly
responsible for this correlation. Still, however, only
11 percent of the focus on urban activities is ex-
plained by the share of the nonpoint source impacts
caused by urban sources. The slope of the relation-
ship indicates that the share of activities associated
with urban sources increases by only one percent for
every eight percent increase in the urban share of
the nonpoint source impacts.
EPA did not discover statistical relationships be-
tween activities and the extent of the problem for
any other source categories.
States were given credit for addressing the source
if they have at least one activity addressing the
source Source must account for at least 1 percent of
surface water NPS impacts for state to be included in
analysis. The numbers of states shown in this table
for agriculture and urban sources are less than those
shown in Figures 1-3 because the regression analy-
ses also included states reporting that these sources
accounted for less than 1 percent of the NPS im-
pacts.

URBAN
100-

3
i 80 ~

o
< 60

o

| 40
•
I -
•
o-
ฆ •

0 20 40 60 80 DO

Fraction of Problem
NOTE 28 States (r-square - 0.11, F - 3>W
Figure 3.—
E-3

-------
Appendix F
Summary of Federal Programs
that States will Review for
Consistency with
Section 319 Nonpoint Source
Management Programs
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
(includes Forest Service, Soil Conservation Service,
Agricultural Conservation and Stabilization Service
and Extension Service)
~	Small Watershed Program (PL-566)
~	Colorado River Salinity Control
~	River Basin Surveys and Investigation
~	Rural Abandoned Mine Program
~	Resource Conservation and Development
0 Emergency Watershed Protection Program
~	Emergency Conservation Program
o Water Bank Program
a Agricultural Conservation Program
~	Conservation Reserve Program
~	Sodbuster
~	Conservation Compliance
n Rural Clean Water Program
~	Forestry Incentive Program
~	Accelerated Cooperative Assistance for Forest
Programs
~	Forest Management Plans
~	Research Management Plans
~	State/Private Management Plans
~	Cooperative Forestry Assistance
~	Forestry Incentive Program
~	Forestry Research
~	Range Allotment Management Program
~	Great Plains Conservation Program
~	Technical Assistance and Training Grants
~	Soil and Water Conservation
~	Plant Materials Program
~	Fertilizer and Pesticide Management
~	Soil Survey Program
~	Dairy Indemnity Program
~	Plant and Animal Disease and Pest Control
~	Cooperative Extension Service
o Pesticide Applicator Training
a Integrated Pest Management
~	Soil Test Recommendation
~	Irrigation Scheduling
~	Water Quality Education
~	On-Site Waste Management
o Soil and Hazardous Waste Management
~	Watershed Protection and Flood Protection
Loans
o Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural
Communities
~	Rural Housing Site Loans
F-l

-------
Managing Nonpolnt Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
~	Rural Rental Housing Loans
~	Low to Moderate Income Housing Loans
~	Community Facilities Loans
~	Business and Industrial Loans
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
(includes National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and Coast Guard)
~	Economic Development - Grants and Loans for
Public Works and Development Facilities
~	Economic Development - State and Local
Economic Development Planning
~	State and Local Development Loans
~	Small Business Administration Loans
~	Special Economic Development and
Adjustment Assistance Program
~	Coastal Zone Management - Program
Administration Grants
p Coastal Zone Management Estuarine Research
Reserves
~	Financial Assistance for Marine Pollution
Research
~	Sea Grant Support
~	Commercial Fisheries Research and
Development
~	Fisheries Development and Utilization
~	Fishing Vessel Obligation Guarantee.
~	Fisheries Management Plans
~	Coast Guard Stations/Bases/Light Houses
~	Aid To Navigation Program
~	Anchorages/Lighting/Shipping Lane/Ice
Management
~	Marine Sanctuary Program
~	Anadromous and Great Lakes Fisheries
Conservation
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
(includes Army Corp of Engineers)
~	Military Construction Projects and Facilities
Development
~	Dams and Flood Control Projects
~	Land Acquisition • Spoil Disposal, etc.
a Essential Highway Protection
~	Beach Erosion Control Projects
~	Aquatic Plant Control
~	Channel Maintenance
~	Flood Plain Management Services
~	Navigation Projects
~	Snagging and Clearing for Flood Control
~	Planning Assistance to States
~	404 Permit Reviews
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
(includes Bureau of Reclamation, Office of Surface
Mining, National Park Service, Fish and Midlife
Service, United State Geological Survey, and
Bureau of Land Management)
~	Distribution System Loans
~	Small Reclamation Projects
~	Watershed Projects
~	Mineral Exploration and Development
~	Coaly Oil/Gas Leasing
~	Coal Reclamation
~	Off Road Vehicle Activities
~	Timber Activities
~	Grazing Allotment and Management
~	Chemical/Pesticides Management
~	Area Analysis/Cumulative Impacts
~	Public Watershed Management
~	Wetlands Protection
o Riparian Management Plans
~	Hydrologic Modification
~	Watershed Activity Plans
~	Non-Sale Disposal of Mineral Materials
~	Irrigation Development
~	General Investigations Program
~	National Wildlife Refuge Management and
Acquisition
~	Resource Contaminant Assessment
~	Wildlife Restoration
~	Endangered Species Conservation
d Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
~	Fish Restoration
~	National Park and Seashore Management
~	Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program
~	Historic Preservation
~	Regulation of Coal Mining and Reclamation of
Abandoned Coal Mines
~	Abandoned Mine Land Program
~	Grazing and Cropping Leases
~	Ground-water Monitoring
a Ground Water Hydrology Studies
~	Water Quality Studies
~	Hydrology and Interpretative Studies
a Water Resources Data
F-2

-------
Appendix F: Summary of Federal Programs' Consistency
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
~	Urban Mass Transit Capital Improvement
~	Urban Mass Transit Operating Assistance
~	Public Transportation for Nonurbanized Areas
~	Highway Construction/Reconstruction
~	Federal Aids to Air Navigation
o Airport Improvement Program
~	Development and Promotion of Ports
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
~	Community Development Block Grants
~	Community Development Grants
~	Indian Community Development Block Grants
~	Urban Development Action Grants
~	Mortgage Insurance
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY
COMMISSION
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
~	Comprehensive Estuarine Management
~	State Underground Water Source Protection
~	POTW Construction Grants
a Clean Lakes Program
~	Wetlands Protection Programs
~	State Underground Storage Tanks Program
a Critical Aquifer Protection Area
~	Water Pollution Control
~	Public Water System Supervisor Program
~	Construction Grants for Combined Sewer
Outfalls
~	Wellhead Protection Program
~	State Ground-water Strategy Grant Program
a Sole Source Aquifer
~	State Revolving Funds
o Underground Iiyection Control
~	Environmental Protection Consolidated Grants
Program Support
~	Pesticide Enforcement Program
~	Superfund
~	Hazardous Waste Management State Program
Support
~	TVA - Natural Resources Development
~	TVA • Agricultural Resources Development
~	National Fertilizer Development
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
~	Rural Water System Construction
~	Power and Phone Lines
F-3

-------
APPENDIX G
Section 319 Statute
PUBLIC LAW 100-4—FEB. 4, 1987	101 STAT. 7
Public Law 100-4
100th Congress
An Act
To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide for the renewal of the Feb 4, 1987
quality of the Nation's waters, and for other purposes.	(H.R. 1]
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,	Water Quality
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE: TABLE OF CONTENTS; AMENDMENTS TO FED-
ERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT; DEFINITION OF
ADMINISTRATOR.
(a) Short Title.—This Act may be cited as the "Water Quality 33 use 1251
Act of 1987".	note
SEC. 316. MANAGEMENT OF NONPOINT SOURCES OF POLLUTION.
(a) In General.—Title III is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
33 USC 1329. "SKC. 319. NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.
"(a) State Assessment Reports.—
"(1) Contents.—"Hie Governor of each State shall, after
notice and opportunity for public comment, prepare and submit
to the Administrator for approval, a report whicn—
"(A) identifies those navigable waters within the State
which, without additional action to control nonpoint
sources of pollution, cannot reasonably be expected to
attain or maintain applicable water quality standards or
the goals and requirements of this Act;
"(B) identifies those categories and subcategories of
nonpoint sources or, where appropriate, particular
nonpoint sources which add significant pollution to each
portion of the navigable waters identified under subpara-
graph (A) in amounts which contribute to such portion not
meeting such water quality standards or such goals and
reauiremfents;
' (C) describes the process, including intergovernmental
coordination and public participation, for identifying best
management practices and measures to control each cat-
egory and subcategory of nonpoint sources and, where
appropriate, particular nonpoint sources identified under
subparagraph (B) and to reduce, to the maximum extent
practicable, the level of pollution resulting from such cat-
egory, subcategory, or source; and
G-l

-------
Managing Nonpolnt Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
PUBLIC LAW 100-4—FEB. 4,1987	101 STAT. 53
"(D) identifies and describes State and local programs for
controlling pollution added from nonpoint sources to, and
improving the quality of, each such portion of the navigable
waters, including but not limited to those programs which
are receiving Federal assistance under subsections (h) and
(i).
"(2) Information used in preparation.—In developing the
report required by this section, the State (A) may rely upon
information developed pursuant to sections 208, 303(e), 304(f),
306(b), and 314, and other information as appropriate, and (B) 33 use 1288,
may utilize appropriate elements of the waste treatment 1S13.1314,1315,
management plans developed pursuant to sections 208(b) and 1324-
303, to the extent such elements are consistent with and fulfill
the requirements of this section.
''(b) State Management Programs.—
"(1) In general.—The Governor of each State, for that State
or in combination with adjacent States, shall, after notice and
opportunity for public comment, prepare and submit to the
Administrator for approval a management program which such
State proposes to implement in the first four fiscal years begin-
ning after the date of submission of such management program
for controlling pollution added from nonpoint sources to the
navigable waters within the State and improving the quality of
such waters.
"(2) Specific contents.—Each management program pro-
posed for implementation under this subsection shall include
each of the following:
"(A) An identification of the best management practices
and measures which will be undertaken to reduce pollutant
loadings resulting from each category, subcategory, or
particular nonpoint source designated under paragraph
(1XB), taking into account the impact of the practice on
ground water quality.
"(B) An identification of programs (including, as appro-
priate, nonregulatory or regulatory programs for enforce-
ment, technical assistance, financial assistance, education,
training, technology transfer, and demonstration projects)
to achieve implementation of the best management prac-
tices by the categories, subcategories, and particular
nonpoint sources designated under subparagraph (A).
"(C) A schedule containing annual milestones for (i) utili-
zation of the program implementation methods identified
in subparagraph (B), and (ii) implementation pf the best
management practices identified in subparagraph (A) by
the categories, subcategories, or particular nonpoint sources
designated under paragraph (1XB). Such schedule shall pro-
vide for utilization of the best management practices at the
earliest practicable date.
"(D) A certification of the attorney general of the State or
States (or the chief attorney of any State water pollution
control agency which has independent legal counsel) that
the laws of the State or States, as the case may be, provide
adequate authority to implement such management pro-
gram or, if there is not such adequate authority, a list of
such additional authorities as will be necessary to
implement such management program. A schedule and
G-2
/

-------
Appendix G: Section 319 Statute
101 STAT. 54
PUBLIC LAW 100-4—FEB. 4,1987
3 CFR, 1982
Comp., p. 197.
Reports.
State and local
governments.
33 USC 1288.
33 USC 1285.
commitment by the State or States to seek such additional
authorities as expeditiously as practicable.
"(E) Sources or Federal and other assistance and funding
(other than assistance provided under subsections (h) and
(i)) which will be available in each of such fiscal years for
supporting implementation of such practices and measures
and the purposes for which such assistance will be used in
each of such fiscal years.
"(F) An identification of Federal financial assistance pro-
grams and Federal development projects for which the
State will review individual assistance applications or
development projects for their effect on water quality
pursuant to the procedures set forth in Executive Order
12372 as in effect on September 17, 1983, to determine
whether such assistance applications or development
projects would be consistent with the program prepared
under this subsection; for the purposes of this subpara-
graph, identification shall not be limited to the assistance
programs or development projects subject to Executive
Order 12372 but may include any programs listed in the
most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance which
may have an effect on the purposes and objectives of the
State's nonpoint source pollution management program.
"(3) Utilization of local and private experts.—In develop-
ing and implementing a management program under this
subsection, a State shall, to the maximum extent practicable,
involve local public and private agencies and organizations
which have expertise in control of nonpoint sources of pollution.
"(4) Development on watershed basis.—A State shall, to the
maximum extent practicable, develop and implement a manage-
ment program under this subsection on a watershed-by-water-
shed basis within such State.
"(c) Administrative Provisions.—
"(1) Cooperation requirement.—Any report required, by
subsection (a) and any management program and report re-
quired by subsection (b) shall be developed in cooperation with
local, substate regional, and interstate entities which are ac-
tively planning for the implementation of nonpoint source
pollution controls and have either been certified by the
Administrator in accordance with section 208, have worked
jointly with the State on water quality management planning
under section 205(j), or have been designated by the State
legislative body or Governor as water quality management
planning agencies for their geographic areas.
"(2) Time period for submission of reports and manage-
ment programs.—Each report and management program shall
be submitted to the Administrator during the 18-month period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this section.
"(d) Approval or Disapproval of Reports and Management
Programs.—
"(1) Deadline.—Subject to paragraph (2), not later than 180
days after the date of submission to the Administrator of any
report or management program under this section (other than
subsections (h), (i), and (k)), the Administrator shall either
approve or disapprove such report or management program, as
the case may be. The Administrator may approve a portion of a
management program under this subsection. If the Adminis-
G-3

-------
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
PUBLIC LAW 100-4—FEB. 4,1987	101 STAT. 55
trator does not disapprove a report, management program, or
portion of a management program in such 180-day period, such
report, management program, or portion shall be deemed ap-
proved for purposes of this section.
"(2) Procedure roa disapproval.—If, after notice and oppor-
tunity for public comment and consultation with appropriate
Federal and State agencies and other interested persons, the
Administrator determines that—
"(A) the proposed management program or any portion
thereof does not meet the requirements of subsection (bX2)
of this section or is not likely to satisfy, in whole or in part,
the goals and requirements of this Act;
"(B) adequate authority does not exist, or adequate re-
sources are not available, to implement such program or
portion;
"(C) the schedule for implementing such program or
portion is not sufficiently expeditious; or
"(D) the practices and measures proposed in such pro-
gram or portion are not adequate to reduce the level of
pollution in navigable waters in the State resulting from
nonpoint sources and to improve the quality of navigable
waters in the State;
the Administrator shall within 6 months of the receipt of the
proposed program notify the State of any revisions or modifica-
tions necessary to obtain approval. The State shall thereupon stata and local
have an additional 3 months to submit its revised management governments. _
program and the Administrator shall approve or disapprove
such revised program within three months of receipt
"(3) Failure op state to submit report.—If a Governor of a
State does not submit the report required by subsection (a)
within the period specified by subsection (cX2), the Adminis-
trator shall, within 30 months after the date of the enactment of
this section, prepare a report for such State which makes the
identifications required by paragraphs (1XA) and (1XB) of
subsection (a). Upon completion of the requirement of the
preceding sentence and after notice and opportunity for com-
ment, the Administrator shall report to Congress on nis actions
pursuant to this section.
"(e) Local Management Programs; Technical Assistance.—If a
State fails to submit a management program under subsection (b) or
the Administrator does not approve such a management program, a
local public agency or organization which has expertise in, and
authority to, control water pollution resulting from nonpoint
sources in any area of such State which the Administrator deter-
mines is of sufficient geographic size may, with approval of such
State, request the Administrator to provide, and the Administrator
shall provide, technical assistance to such agency or organization in
developing for such area a management program which is described
in subsection (b) and can be approved pursuant to subsection (d).
After development of such management program, such agency or
organization shall submit such management program to the
Administrator for approval. If the Administrator approves such
management program, such agency or organization shall be eligible
to receive fipancial assistance under subsection (h) for implementa-
tion of such management program as if such agency or organization
were a State for which a report submitted under subsection (a) and a
management program submitted under subsection (b) were approved
G-4

-------
Appendix G: Section 319 Statute
101 STAT. 56
PUBLIC LAW 100-4—FEB. 4, 1987
under this section. Such financial assistance shall be subject to the
same terms and conditions as assistance provided to a State under
subsection (h).
"(f) Technical Assistance for States.—Upon request of a State,
the Administrator may provide technical assistance to such State in
developing a management program approved under subsection (b)
for those portions of the navigable waters requested by such State.
"(g) Interstate Management Conference.—
State and local	"(1) CONVENING OF CONFERENCE; NOTIFICATION; PURPOSE.—If
governments.	any portion of the navigable waters in any State which is
implementing a management program approved under this
section is not meeting applicable water quality standards or the
goals and requirements of this Act as a result, in whole or in
งart, of pollution from nonpoint sources in another State, such
tate may petition the Administrator to convene, and the
Administrator shall convene, a management conference of all
States which contribute significant pollution resulting from
nonpoint sources to such portion. If, on the basis of information
available, the Administrator determines that a State is not
meeting applicable water quality standards or the goals and
requirements of this Act as a result, in whole or in part, of
significant pollution from nonpoint sources in another State,
the Administrator shall notify such States. The Administrator
may convene a management conference under this paragraph
not later than 180 days after giving such notification, whether
or not the State which is not meeting such standards requests
such conference. The purpose of such conference shall be to
develop an agreement among such States to reduce the level of
pollution in such portion resulting from nonpoint sources and to
improve the water quality of such portion. Nothing in such
agreement shall supersede or abrogate rights to quantities of
water which have been established by interstate water com-
pacts, Supreme Court decrees, or State water laws. This subsec-
tion shall not apply to any pollution which is subject to the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act. The requirement
that the Administrator convene a management conference shall
not be subject to the provisions of section 505 of this Act.
"(2) State management program requirement.—To the
extent that the States reach agreement through such con-
ference, the management programs of the States which are
parties to such agreements and which contribute significant
pollution to the navigable waters or portions thereof not meet-
ing applicable water quality standards or goals and require-
ments of this Act will be revised to reflect such agreement Sudh
management programs shall be consistent with Federal and
State Taw.
State and local	"(h) GRANT PROGRAM.—
governments.	"(1) GRANTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF MANAGEMENT PRO-
GRAMS.—Upon application of a State for which a report submit-
ted under subsection (a) and a management program submitted
under subsection (b) iB approved under ' this flection, the
Administrator shall make grants, subject to such terms and
conditions as the Administrator considers appropriate, under
this subsection to such State for the purpose of assisting the
State in implementing such management program. Funds re-
33 USC1285.	served pursuant to section 205(jX5) of this Act may be used to
develop and implement such management program.
43 USC 1571
note.
33 USC 1365.
G-5

-------
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Fined Report to Congress on Section 319
PUBLIC LAW 100-4—FEB. 4, 1987	101 STAT. 57
"(2) Applications—An application for a pant under this
subsection in any fiscal year shall be in such form and shall
contain such other information as the Administrator may re-
quire, including an identification and description of the best
management practices and measures which the State proposes
to assist, encourage, or require in such year with the Federal
assistance to be provided under the grant.
"(3) Federal share.—The Federal share of the cost of each
management program implemented with Federal assistance
under this subsection in any fiscal year shall not exceed 60
percent of the cost incurred by the State in implementing such
management program and shall be made on condition that the
non-Federal share is provided from non-Federal sources.
"(4) Limitation on grant amounts.—Notwithstanding any
other provision of this subsection, not more than 15 percent of
the amount appropriated to carry out this subsection may be
used to make grants to any one State, including any grants to
any local public agency or organization with authority to con-
trol pollution from nonpoint sources in any area of such State.
"(5) Priority for effective mechanisms.—For each fiscal
year beginning after September 30, 1987, the Administrator
may give priority in making grants under this subsection, and
shall give consideration in determining the Federal share of any
such grant, to States which have implemented or are proposing
to implement management programs which will—
"(A) control particularly difficult or serious nonpoint Mines and
' source pollution problems, including, but not limited to, mining,
problems resulting from mining activities;
"(B) implement innovative methods or practices for
controlling nonpoint .sources of pollution, including
regulatory programs where the Administrator deems
' appropriate;
(C) control interstate nonpoint source pollution prob-
lems; or
"(D) carry out ground water quality protection activities Research and
which the Administrator determines are part of a com- ^vฎ(fฃPฎent
prehensive nonpoint source pollution control program,
including research, planning, ground water assessments,
demonstration programs, enforcement, technical assistance,
education, and training to protect ground water quality
from nonpoint sources of pollution.
"(6) Availability for obligation.—The funds granted to
each State pursuant to this subsection in a fiscal year shall
remain available for obligation by such State for the fiscal year
for which appropriated. The amount of any such funds not
obligated by the end of such fiscal year shall be available to the
. Administrator for granting to other States under this subsection
in the next fiscal year.
"(7) Limitation on use of funds.—States may use funds from
grants made pursuant to this section for financial assistance to
persons only to the extent that such assistance is related to the
costs of demonstration projects.
"(8) Satisfactory progress.—No grant may be made under
•. this subsection in any fiscal year to a State which in the
preceding fiscal year received a grant under this subsection
unless the Administrator determines that such State made
G-6

-------
Appendix G: Section 319 Statute
101 STAT. 68
PUBLIC LAW 100-4—FEB. 4, 1987
Reports.
Education.
Science and
technology.
State and local
governments.
Research and
development
Education.
satisfactory progress in such preceding fiscal year in meeting
the schedule specified by such State under subsection (bX2).
"(9) Maintenance of effort.—No grant may be made to a
State under this subsection in any fiscal year unless such State
enters into such agreements with the Administrator as the
Administrator may require to ensure that such State will main-
tain its aggregate expenditures from all other sources for pro-
grams for controlling pollution added to the navigable waters in
such State from nonpoint sources and improving the quality of
such waters at or above the average level of such expenditures
in its two fiscal years preceding the date of enactment of this
subsection
"(10) Request for information.—The Administrator may
request such information, data, and reports as he considers
necessary to make the determination of continuing eligibility
for grants under this section.
"(11) Reporting and other requirements—Each State shall
report to the Administrator on an annual basis concerning (A)
its progress in meeting the schedule of milestones submitted
pursuant to subsection (bX2XC) of this section, and (B) to the
extent that appropriate information is available, reductions in
nonpoint source pollutant loading and improvements in water
quality for those navigable waters or watersheds within the
State which were identified pursuant to subsection (aXIXA) of
this section resulting from implementation of the management
program.
"(12) Limitation on administrative costs.—For purposes of
this subsection, administrative costs in the form of salaries,
overhead, or indirect costs for services provided and charged
against activities and programs carried out with a grant under
this subsection shall not exceed in any fiscal year 10 percent of
the amount of the grant in such year, except that costs of
implementing enforcement and regulatory activities, education,
training, technical assistance, demonstration projects, and tech-
nology transfer programs shall not be subject to this limitation,
"(i) Grants for Protecting Groundwater Quality.—
"(1) Eligible applicants and activities.—Upon application
of a State for which a report submitted under subsection (a) and
a plan submitted under subsection (b) is approved under this
section, the Administrator shall make grants under this subsec-
tion to such State for the purpose of assisting such State in
carrying out groundwater quality protection activities which
the Administrator determines will advance the State toward
implementation of a comprehensive nonpoint source pollution
control program. Such activities shall include, but not be
limited to, research, planning, groundwater assessments, dem-
onstration programs, enforcement, technical assistance,
education and training to protect the quality of groundwater
and to prevent contamination of groundwater from nonpoint
sources of pollution.	...
"(2) Applications.—An application for a grant under this
subsection shall be in such form and shall contain such informa-
tion as the Administrator may require.
"(3) Federal share; maximum amount.—The Federal share
of the cost of assisting a State in carrying out groundwater
protection activities in any fiscal year under this subsection
shall be 50 percent of the costs incurred by the State in carrying
G-7

-------
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
PUBLIC LAW 100-4—FEB. 4,1987	101 STAT. 59
out such activities, except that the maximum amount of Federal
assistance which any State may receive under this subsection in
any fiscal year shall not exceed $150,000.
(4) Report.—The Administrator shall include in each report
transmitted under subsection (m) a report on the activities and
prograips implemented under this subsection during the preced-
ing fiscal year.
"(j) Authorization or Appropriations.—There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out subsections (h) and (i) not to exceed
$70,000,000 for fiscal year 1988, $100,000,000 per fiscal year for each
of fiscal years 1989 and 1990, and $130,000,000 for fiscal year 1991;
except that for each of such fiscal years not to exceed $7,500,000 may
be made available to carry out subsection (i). Sums appropriated
pursuant to this subsection shall remain available until expended.
"(k) Consistency op Other Programs and Projects With state and local
Management Programs.—The Administrator shall transmit to the governments.
Office of Management and Budget and the appropriate Federal
departments ana agencies a list of those assistance programs and
development projects identified by each State under subsection
(bX2XF) for whicn individual assistance applications and projects
will be reviewed pursuant to the procedures set forth in Executive
Order 12372 as in effect on September 17,1983. Beginning not later 3 CFR, 1982
than sixty days after receiving notification by the Administrator, ฃon,P,P-197-
each Federal department and agency shall modify existing regula-
tions to allow States to review individual development projects and
assistance applications under the identified Federal assistance pro-
grams and shall accommodate, according to the requirements and
definitions of Executive Order 12372, as in effect on September 17,
1983, the concerns of the State regarding the consistency of such
applications or projects with the State nonpoint source pollution
management program.
"(1) Collection of Information.—The Administrator shall collect
and make available, through publications and other appropriate
information pertaining to management practices and im-
plementation methods, including, but not limited to, (1) information
concerning the costs and relative efficiencies of best management
Sradices for reducing nonpoint source pollution; and (2) available
ata concerning the relationship between water quality and im-
plementation of various management practices to control nonpoint
sources of pollution.
• "(m) Retorts op Administrator.—
"(1) Annual reports.—Not later than January 1, 1988, and
each January 1 thereafter, the Administrator shall transmit to
the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment
and Public Works of the Senate, a report for the preceding fiscal
< year on the activities and programs implemented under this
1 section and the progress made in reducing pollution in the
navigable waters resulting from nonpoint sources and improv-
ing the quality of such waters.
(2) Final report.—Not later than January 1, 1990, the
Administrator shall transmit to Congress a final report on the
activities carried out under this section. Such report, at a
minimum, shall—	....
"(A) describe the management programs being imple-
mented by the States by types and amount of affected
navigable waters, categories and subcategories of nonpoint
G-8

-------
Appendix G: Section 319 Statute
101 STAT. 60
PUBLIC LAW 100-4—FEB. 4, 1987
33 USC 1251.
33 USC 1281.
Grants.
Ante, p. 52.
33 USC 1285.
State and local
governments.
Ante, p. 52.
sources, and types of best management practices being
implemented;
'(B) describe the experiences of the States in adhering to
^edules and implementing best management practices;
(O describe the amount and purpose of grants awarded
pursuant to subsections (h) and (i) of this section;
"(D) identify, to the extent that information is available,
the progress made in reducing pollutant loads and improv-
ing water quality in the navigable waters;
'(E) indicate what further actions need to be taken to
attain and maintain in those navigable waters (i) applicable
water quality standards, and (ii) the goals and requirements
of this Act;
"(F) include recommendations of the Administrator
concerning future programs (including enforcement pro-
grams) for controlling pollution from nonpoint sources; and
(G) identify the activities and programs of departments,
agencies, and instrumentalities of the United States which
are inconsistent with the management programs submitted
by the States and recommend modifications so that such
activities and programs are consistent with and assist the
States in implementation of such management programs,
(n) set Aside tor Administrative Personnel.—Not less than 5
percent of the funds appropriated pursuant to subsection 0') for any
fiscal year shall be available to the Administrator to maintain
personnel levels at the Environmental Protection Agency at levels
which are adequate to carry out this section in such year.'.
(b)	Policy for Control op Nonpoint Sources op Pollution.—
Section 101(a) is amended by striking out "and" at the end of
paragraph (5), by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (6)
and inserting in lieu thereof "; and", and by adding at the end
thereof the following:
"(7) it is the national policy that programs for the control of
nonpoint sources of pollution be developed and implemented in
an expeditious manner so as to enable the goals of this Act to be
met through the control of both point and nonpoint sources of
pollution. .
(c)Euoibility	op Nonpoint Sources.—The last sentence of sec-
tion 201(gXl) is amended by—
(1)	striking out "sentence," the first place it appears and
inserting in lieu thereof "sentences,";
(2)	inserting "(A)" after "October 1,1984, for"; and
(3)	inserting before "except that" the following: "and (B) any
purpose for which a grant may be made under sections 319 (h)
and (i) of this Act (including any innovative and alternative
approaches for the control of nonpoint sources of pollution),".
(d)	Reservation op Funds.—Section 205(j) is amended by adding
at the end the following new paragraph:
"(5) Nonpoint source reservation.—In addition to the sums
reserved under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall reserve
each fiscal vear for each State 1 percent of the sums allotted
and available for obligation to such State under this section for
each fiscal year beginning on or after October 1, 1986, or
$100,000, whichever is greater, for the purpose of carrying out
section 319 of this Act Sums so reserved in a State in any fiscal
year for which such State does not request the use of such sums,
G-9

-------
Managing Nonpolnt Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
PUBLIC LAW 100-4—FEB. 4,1987
101 STAT. 61
to the extent such sums exceed $100,000, may be used by such
State for other purposes under this title.".
(e) Conforming Amendment.—Section 304(kXl) is amended by
inserting "and nonpoint source pollution management programs
approved under section 319 of this Act" after'208 of this Act".
jftfc jit! NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM.' " 1 ""'"II	.1
(a)	Purposes and Policies.—
(1)	Findings.—Congress finds and declares that—
- (A) the Nation's estuaries are of great importance for
fish and wildlife resources and recreation and economic
opportunity;
(B)	maintaining the health and ecological integrity of
these estuaries is in the national interest:
(C)	increasing coastal population, development, and other
direct and indirect uses of these estuaries threaten their
health and ecological integrity;
(D)	long-term planning and management will contribute
to the continued productivity of these areas, and will maxi-
mize their utility to the Nation; and
(E)	better coordination among Federal and State pro-
grams affecting estuaries will increase the effectiveness and
efficiency of tne national effort to protect, preserve, and
restore these areas.
(2)	Purposes.—The purposes of this section are to—
(A)	identify nationally significant estuaries that are
threatened by pollution, development, or overuse;
(B)	promote comprehensive planning for, and conserva-
tion and management of, nationally significant estuaries;
(C)	encourage the preparation of management plans for
estuaries of national significance; and
(D)	enhance the coordination of estuarine research.
(b)	Management Phocram.—Title III is amended by adding at the
end thereof the following new section:
"SEC 320. NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM.
"(a) Management Conference.—
"(1) Nomination op estuaries.—The Governor of any State
nury nominateto the Administrator an estuary lying in whole
or in part within the State as an estuary of national significance
and request a management conference to develop a comprehen-
sive management plan for the estuary. The nomination shall
document the need for the conference, the likelihood of success,
and information relating to the factors in paragraph (2).
"(2) Convening op conference.—
"(A) In general.—In any case where the Administrator
determines, on his own initiative or upon nomination of a
State under paragraph (1), that the attainment or mainte-
nance of that water quality in an estuary which assures
protection of public water supplies and the protection and
propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shell-
fish, fish, and wildlife, and allows recreational activities, in
and on the water, requires the control of point and
nonpoint sources of pollution to supplement	con-
trols of pollution in more than one State, the Administrator
shall select such estuary and convene a management
conference.
S3 use 1314.
Ante, p. 52; 33
USC 1288.
33 USC 1380
note.
83 USC 1330.
State and local
governments.
Fish and fishing.
Wildlife.
G-10

-------