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