United States ""::':. ":''
Environmental Protection
Agency . : ..-. •'•.;
:-;:''•'*: Off ice of Water '::' :
Washington DC 20460
EPA 440-4-90-003;
April 1990
National Water Quality
Inventory
1988 Report to Congress
. . - - ....,.... ^'"^fff;----- ^f'^^ji. -^r} --•?
^-..
" ** •"
A-iaM»*«
-------
This report was prepared pursuant to Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act, which states:
"(b)(l) Each State shall prepare and submit to the Administrator by April 1, 1975, and shall
bring up to date by April 1, 1976, and biennially thereafter, a report which shall include—
"(A) a description of the water quality of all navigable waters in such State during the
preceding year, with appropriate supplemental descriptions as shall be required to take
into account seasonal, tidal, and other variations, correlated with the quality of water
required by the objective of this Act (as identified by the Administrator pursuant to
criteria published under section 304(a) of this Act) and the water quality described in
subparagraph (B) of this paragraph;
"(B) an analysis of the extent to which all navigable waters of such State provide for the
protection and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and
allow recreational activities in and on the water;
"(C) an analysis of the extent to which the elimination of the discharge of pollutants and
a level of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of a balanced
population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife and allows recreational activities in and on the
water, have been or will be achieved by the requirements of this Act, together with
recommendations as to additional action necessary to achieve such objectives and for
what waters such additional action is necessary;
"(D) an estimate of (i) the environmental impact, (ii) the economic and social costs
necessary to achieve the objective of this Act in such State, (iii) the economic and social
benefits of such achievement; and (iv) an estimate of the date of such achievement; and
"(E) a description of the nature and extent of nonpoint souces of pollutants, and
recommendations as to the programs which must be undertaken to control each category
of such sources, including an estimate of the costs of implementing such programs.
"(2) The Administrator shall transimit such State reports, together with an analysis thereof,
to Congress on or before October 1, 1975, and October 1, 1976, and biennially thereafter."
All photographs are courtesy of individual and or organization listed.
Cover photo by Steve Delaney
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Dear Mr. President:
Dear Mr. Speaker:
As required by Section 305(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, I am transmitting to the Congress the
1988 National Water Quality Inventory Report. This report is the seventh in a series of national water-quality
assessments published since 1975. It is based primarily on reports submitted by the States in 1988; in some cases,
State-reported information has been supplemented by data developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). Although EPA has analyzed and summarized the water quality information in the State reports, the views and
recommendations presented are those of individual States, not those of EPA or the Administration. The individual
1988 State reports are being transmitted to the Congress in their entirety.
The message presented by the States in these reports is that many point source-related surface water-quality
problems, such as bacteria and oxygen-demanding materials discharged by sewage treatment plants, appear to be
diminishing as a result of poUution control programs. At the same time, the pollution problems that are most difficult
to assess and control—e.g., sedimentation, nutrient enrichment, polluted runoff from farmlands, and toxic
contamination of fish tissue and sediments—are becoming more evident.
About 30 percent of U.S. river miles, 40 percent of lake acres, and 70 percent of estuarine square miles were
assessed by the States in 1988, a significant increase.over previous years. Of these assessed waters, most are
supporting the uses for which they have been designated by the States. These uses, such as drinking water supply,
swimming, and the propagation of aquatic life, were found to be supported in 70 percent of assessed river miles,
74 percent of assessed lake acres, and 72 percent of assessed estuarine square miles.
A variety of pollution problems remain in the Nation's waters. The leading causes of poUution cited by the States
in impaired rivers and lakes are siltation and nutrients; in impaired estuarine waters, nutrients and fecal coliform
bacteria are most commonly cited. Agricultural activities are the most extensively reported source of pollution in
rivers and lakes, and municipal discharges are cited as the leading source of poUution in estuaries. Wetland loss is also
a significant problem reported by the States. Land development for residential or commercial uses is cited as the
leading cause of loss of wetland acreage.
Major threats to ground-water quality, as reported by the States, include underground storage tanks, septic
systems, agricultural activities, municipal landfills, surface impoundments, and abandoned hazardous waste sites.
Nitrates, pesticides, volatile organic compounds, petroleum products, metals, and brine are cited as the leading
contaminants of concern in ground water.
Nevertheless, as this report shows, the Nation's water poUution control programs have achieved significant
results. Expenditures to construct and upgrade sewage treatment facilities have substantiaUy increased the
population served by higher levels of treatment. Municipal and industrial facilities are at a high rate of compliance
with the conditions of their permit limits. A variety of State and Federal programs have led to progress in reducing the
impacts of diffuse sources of poUution such as agricultural runoff. The States are engaged in a number of ground-
water protection activities such as development of wellhead protection programs and ground-water mapping.
In addition, under the impetus provided by the Water Quality Act of 1987, the States have identified specific
waters with impairments due to toxic contaminants and diffuse sources of poUution. EPA and the States are beginning
to develop and implement control programs for these waters. In future editions of this report, EPA wiU be reporting on
the progress achieved by these programs.
EPA is continuing to work with the States to improve the consistency and comprehensiveness of the Section
305(b) reporting process. A computerized data system has been-developed to better manage State water-quality
assessments and facilitate State reporting. EPA is developing guidance for the States to help them buUd effective,
forward-looking monitoring programs. Future reports in this series should reflect these improvements.
Sincerely,
William K.Reilly
Honorable J. Danforth Quayle
President of the Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Honorable Thomas Foley
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
-------
Acknowledgments
This report is based primarily on water quality assessments submitted to EPA by the States,
Territories, and Interstate Commissions of the United States. The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) wishes to thank the authors of these assessments for the time and effort spent
in preparing these reports and reviewing the draft of this national assessment. Additional
thanks go to the water quality assessment coordinators from all ten EPA Regions who work
with the States.
This document was written and edited by Alice Mayio of the Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (OWRS), under the direction
of Bruce Newton, Chief, Monitoring Analysis Section. Key contributions were also made by
the following individuals in other EPA program offices: Mary Lou Soscia, Office of Marine and
Estuarine Protection; Caryle Miller, Office of Ground-Water Protection; John Maxted, Office
of Wetlands Protection; Sandy Braswell, Office of Municipal Pollution Control; Brett Snyder,
Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation; and Ed Bender and Kathryn Smith, Office of Water
Enforcement and Permits.
Data analysis, technical assistance, graphics, and word processing were provided by Versar
Incorporated under Contract No. 68-02-4254. Design, typesetting, illustration, and graphics
were provided by Research Triangle Institute, Research Services Department, under Contract
No. 68-C9-0013.
-------
Page
Highlights iv
Figures v
Tables vii
Part One: Introduction
Executive Summary xi
Introduction xxi
Background .... xxi
Methodology xxii
Part Two: Surface Water Quality
1 Rivers and Streams 1
Support of Designated Uses 1
Causes of Impairment 3
Sources of Impairment 7
Attainment of the Clean Water Act Goals 11
2 Lakes and Reservoirs 17
Support of Designated Uses ;... 17
Causes of Impairment 18
Sources of Impairment 22
Attainment of the Clean Water Act Goals . . . 26
Trophic Status of Lakes 26
EPA's Clean Lakes Program 30
3 The Great Lakes 33
Support of Designated Uses 33
Causes and Sources of Impairment 34
Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals 35
The Great Lakes: A Narrative Assessment 38
4 Estuaries and Coastal Waters 49
Estuaries 50
Support of Designated Uses 50
Causes of Impairment 51
Contents
-------
Page
Sources of Impairment 54
Attainment of the Clean Water Act Goals 57
Understanding Estuarine Water Quality: The Chesapeake
Bay Perspective 59
Ocean Coastal Waters 68
Support of Designated Uses 68
Causes and Sources of Impairment 69
Attainment of the Clean Water Act Goals 69
New Initiatives for Estuarine and Coastal Waters 77
5 Wetlands 79
Types of Wetlands 79
Wetland Values 80
Overview of State Reporting 83
Wetland Resources 83
Wetlands Protection Programs 89
6 Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns 101
Total Size of Waters Affected by Toxics 102
Fish Consumption Advisories and Bans 106
Sediment Contamination 110
Fish Kills Caused by Pollution 114
Bathing Area Closures 116
Part Three: Ground-Water Quality
Introduction 119
7 Ground-Water Quality 121
Current Ground-Water Use 121
Ground-Water Quality 122
8 Ground-Water Protection Programs 129
State Programs 129
Federal Ground-Water Protection Programs 136
Part Four: Water Pollution Control Programs
Introduction 143
9 Point Source Control Program 145
Toxics Control: Section 304(0 of the Clean Water Act 145
Treating Municipal Wastewater ....; 148
Treating Industrial Wastewater 152
Permitting 155
Compliance and Enforcement 155
New Initiatives in Point Source Control 157
-------
Page
10 Nonpoint Source Control Program 161
The Water Quality Act of 1987 164
The State Section 319 Reports 164
The NFS Agenda Task Force 165
New Directions 165
11 Surface Water Monitoring 167
Goals of the Water Monitoring Program 168
The Need for Change 169
New Water Monitoring Initiatives 171
Outlook for Water Quality Monitoring 172
12 Costs and Benefits of Pollution Control 177
Costs 177
Benefits 180
13 State Recommendations 185
References 189
Appendix - Excerpts from the State reports A-1
-------
Highlights
Sources of Pollution Reported by the States
Making Assessment Decisions
Green Bay/Fox River Mass Balance Study
The Potomac River: The Muitidecade Recovery of a
Chesapeake Bay Tributary
Coastal Protection in the Mid-Atlantic Bight
Port Townsend Bay
Red Tide in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico
National Wetlands Policy Forum
The National Wetlands Inventory
Citizen-Based Surface Water Monitoring
Washington's Centennial Clean Water Program ....
Page
. . 10
14-15
42-44
. . 62-65
. . 66-67
. . 70-71
. . 74-76
. . 92-93
. . 96-97
174-175
. . . 183
iv
-------
No Title
Page
1-1 Designated Use Support in Assessed Rivers and Streams ................ 3
1-2 Percent of Impaired River Miles Affected by Each Pollution Cause .......... 6
1-3 Percent of Impaired River Miles Affected by Each Pollution Source ......... 7
1-4 Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in Assessed Rivers and Streams ...... 13
2-1 Designated Use Support in Assessed Lakes and Reservoirs . . ............ 18
2-2 Percent of Impaired Lake Acres Affected by Each Pollution Cause .......... 22
2-3 Percent of Impaired Lake Acres Affected by Each Pollution Source ......... 23
2-4 Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in Assessed Lakes and Reservoirs ..... 26
3-1 Designated Use Support in Assessed Great Lakes ..................... 34
3-2 Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in Assessed Great Lakes ............ 36
4-1 Designated Use Support in Assessed Estuaries . . ...................... 51
4-2 Percent of Impaired Estuary Square Miles Affected by Each Pollution Cause . . 53
4-3 Percent of Impaired Estuary Square Miles Affected by Each Pollution Source . 56
4-4 Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in Assessed Estuary Square Miles ..... 57
4-5 The Chesapeake Bay Watershed ............. ...................... 59
4-6 Average Summer Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations in Chesapeake
Bay: 1985-1986 .......................... , ...................... 60
4-7 Percent of Maryland Chesapeake Bay SAV Ground Survey Stations
with Vegetation Present ........................................... 61
4-8 Designated Use Support in Assessed Oceans ......................... 69
4-9 Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in Assessed Oceans ................ 72
5-1 Extent of Wetlands in the Lower 48 States ............................ 80
5-2 Original and Remaining Acreages of Wetlands in the Lower 48 States ....... 83
5-3 Major Causes of Wetland Loss and Degradation ....................... 83
5-4 Wetlands Acreage Distribution Nationwide ............................. 96
6-1 Fishing Restrictions Nationwide .................................... 106
6-2 Fish Kills Distribution Nationwide ................................... 114
7-1 Percentage of State and Territory Populations Served by Ground Water
for Domestic Supply ............................................. 122
-------
No. Title Page
7-2 National Breakdown of Ground-Water Withdrawals 122
7-3 National Use of Ground Water 1950-1985 123
7-4 Frequency of Reported State and Territory Concern with Ground-Water
Contamination Source 126
7-5 Priority Ranking of Ground-Water Contamination Sources 127
7-6 Priority Ranking of "Other" Ground-Water Contamination Sources 127.
7-7 Number of States and Territories Reporting Ground-Water Contaminant
as a Concern 128
9-1 Status of Permit Compliance for Municipal Facilities 157
11-1 States with Citizen Monitoring Programs (CMPs) 174
vi
-------
Page
1-1 Designated Use Support in Rivers and Streams ........................ 2
1-2 Impaired River Miles Affected by Causes of Pollution .................... . 4
1-3 Impaired River Miles Affected by Sources of Pollution .................... 8
1-4 Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in Rivers and Streams ............... 12
1-5 EPA-lssued Guidelines on Making Use Support Decisions ................ 15
2-1 Designated Use Support in Lakes and Reservoirs ....................... 19
2-2 Impaired Lake Acres Affected by Causes of Pollution ..................... 20
2-3 Impaired Lake Acres Affected by Sources of Pollution .................... 24
2-4 Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in Lakes and Reservoirs .............. 27
2-5 General Characteristics of Traditional Lake Trophic Status Classifications ...... 28
2-6 Trophic Status of the Nation's Lakes .................................. 29
3-1 Designated Use Support in Great Lakes .............................. 34
3-2 Impaired Great Lakes Shoreline Miles Affected by Causes of Pollution ....... 34
3-3 Impaired Great Lakes Shoreline Miles Affected by Sources of Pollution ....... 36
3-4 Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in Great Lakes ................... . . 37
4-1 Designated Use Support in Estuaries ................................ 50
4-2 Impaired Estuary Square Miles Affected by Causes of Pollution ............. 52
4-3 Impaired Estuary Square Miles Affected by Sources of Pollution ............ 54
4-4 Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in Estuaries ....................... 58
4-5 Historical Record of Oyster Harvest from the Chesapeake Bay ............. 65
4-6 Designated Use Support in Oceans .................................. 68
4-7 Impaired Ocean Coastal Miles Affected by Causes of Pollution . . ............ 72
4-8 Impaired Ocean Coastal Miles Affected by Sources of Pollution ............. 72
4-9 Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in Oceans ............. ........ .... 73
5-1 Summary of State Permit and Other Selected Nonpermit Programs ......... 91
5-2 Estimated Wetland Area by State ..................................... 97
6-1 Size of Surface Waters Affected by Toxic Substances ..................... 104
6-2 Fishing Restrictions Reported by the States ....... ...................... 107
6-3 Pollutants Associated with Fishing Restrictions ......................... 108
6-4 Sources Associated with Fishing Restrictions ........................... 108
VII
-------
No. Title Page
6-5 Fish Kills Caused by Pollution 115
6-6 Pollutants Associated with Fish Kills 116
6-7 Sources Associated with Fish Kills 116
9-1 Levels of Municipal Wastewater Treatment (1984-1988) 148
9-2 Needs for Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities 150
9-3 Status of Permit Issuance 155
9-4 National Composite Rates of Facilities in Significant Noncompliance 156
12-1 Spending for Water Pollution Abatement and Control 178
12-2 Distribution of 1986 State Expenditures for Water Quantity/Quality Programs . . 179
12-3 Distribution of State Water Quality Program Expenditures 1988 and
1988-1990 Estimated Incremental Needs 181
vlii
-------
Introduction
-------
-------
Executive Summary
The State Section 305(b)
reports have become increas-
ingly comprehensive water
quality assessments. More
and more information is
becoming available on waters
that were previously
unassessed; on the specific
causes of impairment and
sources of pollution; on
public health and aquatic life
impacts such as fishing advi-
sories; on ground-water
conditions; and on efforts
under way to evaluate and
address water quality
problems.
However, in reviewing the
information presented, the
reader should keep in mind
that not all waterbodies have
been assessed. Because gov-
ernmental monitoring efforts
tend to focus on problem
areas, it is likely that
unassessed waters are not as
polluted as assessed waters.
Many States are just begin-
ning to study nonpoint
source impacts that may
affect areas that have been
thought to have good water '
quality. The reader should
also keep in mind that this
1988 report summarizes
water quality data collected
by the States in 1986 and
1987.
The information presented
in this report reveals that
many point source-related
surface water quality prob-
lems—for example, conven-
tional pollutants such as
bacteria and oxygen-demand-
ing materials discharged by
sewage treatment plants-
appear to be diminishing as a
result of pollution control
programs. On the other hand,
problems that are harder to
assess and control, such as
sedimentation, nutrient
enrichment, runoff from
farmlands, and toxic contam-
ination of fish tissue and
sediments, are becoming
more evident. Some of these
problems may be on the rise.
Others may just be more
evident as point sources
xi
-------
Executive Summary
come under control and as
we develop improved
monitoring capabilities to
identify them. To some
extent, it is certainly true
that the more we look, the
more we find.
What Do the
States Report on
the Quality of
Their Rivers?
Nearly 520,000 river miles
were assessed by 48 States,
Territories, and jurisdictions
in 1988. This reflects 29
percent of the total river
miles in the U.S., or 45
percent of the total river
miles in the States that
reported. This is an increase
of nearly 150,000 miles over
the number of river miles
assessed in 1986. States used
chemical/biological monitor-
ing and other types of data
such as surveys of fisheries
biologists, predictive water
quality models, and informa-
tion from citizens to assess
their waters.
The States designate their
waterbodies for beneficial
uses (such as drinking water
supply, contact recreation,
and warm and cold water
fisheries) as part of their
EPA-approved water quality
standards. Among the States
that reported on support of
these beneficial uses, a
combined total of about
360,000 river miles were
found to support beneficial
uses, or 70 percent of the
river miles assessed
in these States (see Figure
ES-1). Including unassessed
waters, it might alternatively
be stated that 31 percent of
the total river miles in
these States were known to
support uses, 14 percent
were known to be impaired,
and the remaining 55 percent
were not assessed. These
numbers should be inter-
preted with care and should
not be compared to those of
previous reporting cycles, as
wide variations exist among
States in methods used to
determine support of bene-
ficial uses.
The most extensive causes
of impairment in the Nation's
rivers are siltation (affecting
42 percent of impaired river
miles), nutrients (affecting
27 percent), fecal coliform
bacteria (affecting 19
percent), and organic enrich-
ment/low dissolved oxygen
(affecting 15 percent). Agri-
cultural runoff is by far the
most extensive source of
pollution, affecting 55
percent of impaired river
miles. Other sources include
municipal discharges (affect-
ing 16 percent of impaired
waters), resource extraction
and hydrological habitat
modification (each affecting
13 percent), and storm
sewers/runoff (affecting
9 percent) (see Table ES-1).
River Miles*
Partially
Supporting
(104,632)
Fully
Supporting
(361,332)
Not
Supporting
(53,449)
Unassessed
(1.28 million)
Fully
Supporting
(12,021,044)
Lake Acres*
Partially
Supporting
(2,701,577) Not Supporting
(1,591,391)
Estuary Square Miles**
Not
Supporting
(1,488) Unassessed
Partially \ (8,300)
Supporting
(6,078)
. Fully Supporting
(19,110)
Source: 1988 State Section 305(b) reports.
•Total water based on State-reported information in America's Clean Water; The States' Nonpoint Source Assessment, ASIWPCA, 1985.
"Total US estuary square miles based on 1988 State-reported 305(b) data and excludes Alaska and Island Territories.
Figure ES-1. Degree of Designated Use Support in the Nation's Assessed Waters
-------
Executive Summary
What Do the
States Report on
the Quality of
Their Lakes?
About 16 million lake acres
(excluding the Great Lakes)
were assessed by 40 States,
Territories, and jurisdictions
in 1988. This reflects 41
percent of the total lake
acres in the U.S., or 73
percent of the total lake
acres in the States reporting.
This is an increase of about
3.8 million lake acres over
the number assessed in 1986.
Among the States that
reported on support of desig-
nated beneficial uses, a
combined total of about 12
million lake acres were found
to support those uses, or 74
percent of the assessed lake
acres in those States (see
Figure ES-1). Including
unassessed waters, it might
alternatively be stated that
about 53 percent of the total
lake acres in those States are
known to support uses, 19
percent are known to be
impaired, and the remaining
28 percent were not
assessed.
Table ES-1. Leading Causes and Sources of Impairment
The most extensive causes
of use impairment in lakes
are nutrients (affecting 49
percent of impaired acres),
siltation (affecting 25
percent), and organic enrich-
ment/low dissolved oxygen
(also affecting 25 percent)
(see Table ES-1). Nutrients
such as phosphorus and
nitrogen are the main cause
of cultural eutrophication—
a major alteration of lake
ecology characterized by the
excessive growth of aquatic
weeds and algae. The States
reported that about a third of
all lakes assessed for trophic
status are classified as
eutrophic. The most exten-
sive sources of pollution in
! lakes are agriculture (affect-
ing 58 percent of unpaired
lake acres), hydrologic/
habitat modification (affect-
ing 33 percent), storm
sewers/runoff (affecting 28
percent), land disposal
(affecting 26 percent), and
municipal discharges (affect-
ing 15 percent) (see Table
ES-1).
Type of
Waterbody
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Leading
Causes*
Siltation
Nutrients
Nutrients
Siltation
Nutrients
Pathogens
Leading
Sources*
Agriculture
Municipal Discharges
Agriculture
Hydro/Habitat Mod.
Municipal Discharges
Resource Extraction
About 4,500 Great Lakes
shoreline miles were assessed
by six of the eight Great
Lakes States in 1988. This
reflects 87 percent of the
total Great Lakes shoreline
miles in the U.S. and all the
shoreline miles in these six
States. This is the first time
sufficient use support
information has been avail-
able for the Great Lakes. A
combined total of about 370
Great Lakes shoreline miles
were found to support desig-
nated beneficial uses, only 8
percent of assessed shoreline
miles. This low rate of use
support is attributed largely
to fish consumption restric-
tions in place throughout
nearshore waters of the
lakes. The most extensive
causes of nonsupport are
synthetic organic chemicals,
metals, and nutrients.
Agricultural activities are the
most extensive sources of
pollution in lakes.
•Determined by size affected.
Source: 1988 State Section 305(b) reports.
XIII
-------
Executive Summary
What Do States
Report on the
Quality of Their
Estuaries and
Coastal Waters?
About 26,700 square miles
of estuaries were assessed by
23 States, Territories, and
jurisdictions in 1988. This
reflects about 76 percent of
the estuarine area assessed
in these States. Roughly
9,000 more estuarine square
miles were assessed in 1988
than in 1986.
Among the States that
reported on support of
designated beneficial uses,
a combined total of about
19,000 square miles were
found to support uses, or 72
percent of estuarine square
miles assessed in those States
(see Figure ES-1). Including
unassessed waters, it might
alternatively be stated that
54 percent of total estuarine
square miles in these States
are known to meet desig-
nated uses, 21 percent are
known to be impaired, and
the remaining 25 percent
were not assessed.
The most extensive causes
of use impairment in estu-
aries are nutrients and
pathogens (affecting 50
and 48 percent of impaired
square miles, respectively)
and organic enrichment/low
dissolved oxygen (affecting
29 percent). The most exten-
sive sources of pollution in
estuaries, as cited by the
States, are municipal
discharges (affecting 53
percent of impaired
estuarine square miles),
resource extraction (affect-
ing 34 percent), and storm
sewers/runoff (affecting 28
percent) (see Table ES-1).
Coastal shoreline water
quality is reported separately
from estuarine water quality.
Nearly 3,800 coastal shore-
line miles were assessed by
12 States and Territories in
1988. This reflects only about
20 percent of the Nation's
19,200 miles of ocean coast-
line, and 73 percent of the
coastline miles in these
States. The 1988 reporting
cycle is the first time suffi-
cient use support informa-
tion has been available for
the Nation's coastal shore-
line. Among the States that
reported on support of
beneficial uses, a combined
total of about 3,300 miles
were found to fully support
uses, or 89 percent of
coastline miles assessed in
these States.
Baltimore's Inner Harbor.
xiv
-------
Executive Summary
What Do the
States Report on
the Status of Their
Wetlands?
State reporting on their
status in 1988 was sparse and
uneven. Roughly one-quarter
of the States and Territories
provided information on
wetland acreage, causes of
loss, wetland legislation, and
State programs. Further-
more, even where informa-
tion was provided, it was
often incomplete. States
generally did not report on
wetland quality (i.e., support
of designated uses).
This incompleteness can be
attributed to the complexity
and expense of wetland
monitoring, the lack of
a complete data base on
wetland acreage, the lack of
State water quality standards
for wetlands, and insufficient
EPA guidance on wetland
reporting. Future State
305(b) reporting on wetlands
should be improved as
activity increases in all these
areas.
By far the most often cited
cause of wetland loss
reported by the States is land
development for residential
or commercial purposes.
Second-home development
and urban encroachment are
commonly cited. Other
reported causes include
agricultural and resource
extraction activities; agri-
culture is reported as a major
historical cause of wetland
loss but appears to be a lesser
current threat.
A variety of State wetland
protection legislation and
programs are discussed by
the States. In many cases,
these State efforts appear to
be effective in protecting
wetlands and halting their
destruction and degradation.
What Public
Health/Aquatic
Life Impacts Are
Reported by the
States?
In general, the information
reported by the States shows
that toxic substances are
somewhat less prevalent, in
terms of areal extent, than
other types of pollution prob-
lems such as siltation and
nutrients. However, where
they occur, toxic substances
can cause or contribute to
locally severe public health
and aquatic life impacts.
Our understanding of the
prevalence of toxic sub-
stances, exposure routes, and
levels of concern is limited by
the difficulty and expense of
monitoring and conducting
long-term health effect
studies. Nevertheless, we
have gained considerable
experience over the last
decade in monitoring for
Wetlands provide many
benefits including food and
habitat for fish and wildlife.
xv
-------
Executive Summary
toxic substances and in tar-
geting monitoring to areas
most likely to be contami-
nated. In 1988, the number
of States providing data on
toxic substances in their
waters increased substan-
tially compared to previous
reporting cycles.
States provided specific
information on toxic
substances in their rivers,
lakes, wetlands, estuaries,
and coastal waters; in the
bottom sediments of these
waters; and in the tissue of
fish and shellfish. Toxics-
related impacts such as fish
consumption advisories and
other public health or
aquatic life impacts (such as
fish kills and beach closures)
were also discussed by the
States.
Where States monitored
for toxic substances (usually
a subset of waters most likely
to have problems with
toxics), they were asked to
report on the extent to which
elevated levels were found.
These elevated levels are
defined as exceedances of
State water quality stand-
ards; criteria developed by
EPA under Section 304(a) of
the Clean Water Act; Water
Quality Advisories developed
by EPA; or "levels of State
concern" where numeric cri-
teria do not exist. The States
reported elevated levels of
toxics in one-third of moni-
tored river miles, lake acres,
and coastal waters. About a
fourth of monitored estua-
rine waters and 90 percent of
Great Lakes shoreline miles
were reported as having ele-
vated levels of toxics.
Forty-seven States and
Territories reported on
fishing advisories and bans;
586 fishing advisories and
135 bans were identified.
PCBs, chlordane, mercury,
dioxin, and DDT were the
most commonly cited causes;
industrial discharges and
land disposal were the most
common sources of contami-
nation leading to fishing
restrictions.
Sediment contamination
by toxics was discussed by
37 States. Five hundred
thirty-three incidents were
reported, primarily caused
by heavy metals, PCBs, and
pesticides.
Nearly a thousand pollu-
tion-caused fish kills were
reported by 35 States, with
roughly 36 million fish killed.
Biochemical oxygen demand-
ing substances/low levels of
dissolved oxygen, oil and gas,
pesticides, temperature
changes, ammonia, and
chlorine were leading
causes cited by the States.
Commonly cited sources
include agriculture, spills,
and municipal and industrial
discharges.
Information on the closure
of swimming areas due to
pollution is limited in the
State reports. Over 200 beach
closure incidents were
reported, most of short-term
duration and attributed to
pathogen indicators such as
fecal coliform bacteria from
sewage treatment plants,
combined sewer overflows,
urban runoff, and spills.
XVI
-------
Executive Summary
What Do the
States Report on
Ground-Water
Quality?
Ground water is a vital
natural resource that is
withdrawn for drinking
water, irrigation, industrial
use, and livestock watering.
In many parts of the United
States, ground water is the
only reliable source of water.
As result of a growing aware-
ness of the important nature
of this resource and its
vulnerability, many States
and Territories are develop-
ing and expanding legisla-
tion, regulations, and
programs to protect ground
water. Ground-water protec-
tion is especially important
because of the difficulty and
expense involved in cleaning
up contaminated aquifers,
providing alternative water
supplies, or adding treatment
to public water systems.
Many States and Territories
are engaging in studies to
better understand the
quality of their ground water,
identify and map their
ground-water resources,
identify potential sources of
contamination, and deter-
mine the vulnerability of the
resources to pollution. Many
States have also begun
developing more innovative
approaches to ground-water
protection, such as Wellhead
Protection (WHP) Programs.
Over half of the States and
Territories classified under-
ground storage tanks, septic
systems, agricultural activ-
ities, municipal landfills,
surface impoundments, and
abandoned hazardous waste
sites as major threats to
ground-water quality. With
very minor differences, these
are the same sources of
concern reported in the 1986
State Section 305(b)reports.
More than half of the States
and Territories identified
nitrates, pesticides, Volatile
organic compounds, petro-
leum products, metals, and
brine as contaminants of
concern (see Table ES-2).
Other contaminants reported
include bacteria, solvents,
acids, and tanning wastes.
These findings generally
parallel the findings of the
1986 reports except for a
reduction in the number of
States reporting ground-
water impacts from sewage.
What Is the Status
of Ground-Water
Protection
Programs?
The States and Territories
are currently engaged in a
number of ground-water
protection activities to
address identified contami-
nants and their sources. At
least 49 States and Territories
have developed or are in the
Table ES-2. Leading Sources and Contaminants Affecting
Ground Water
Leading Sources of
Ground-Water Contamination
Leading Ground-Water
Contaminants of Concern
Underground Storage Tanks
Septic Systems
Agricultural Activities
Municipal Landfills
Surface Impoundments
Abandoned Hazardous
Waste Sites
Nitrates
Pesticides
Volatile Organic Compounds
Petroleum Products
Metals
Brine
Source: 1988 State Section 305(b) reports.
XVII
-------
Executive Summary
process of developing
Ground-Water Protection
Strategies. Many of these
State Strategies have also
been accompanied by
changes in State laws or
regulations to bolster
ground-water protection
activities. At least 31 States
have adopted specific
ground-water protection
legislation. Other States rely
on generic water or public
health statutes. This legisla-
tion has led to the promulga-
tion of regulations, which,
in many States, stipulate
controls for the management
of specific sources of
contamination and standards
for ground-water quality
protection. Sources of
ground-water contamination
have historically been regu-
lated by many different
agencies within the States.
Coordinating the activities of
these agencies to ensure an
effective ground-water
protection program is a
priority in at least 12 States.
Since the reauthorization
of the Safe Drinking Water
Act in 1986, many State and
local governments have been
actively moving to develop
and implement WHP
Programs. Section 1428 of
the Safe Drinking Water Act
specifies that each State
must prepare a WHP
Program and submit it to
EPA by June 19,1989. Many
of the States and local
governments are already
conducting specific WHP
activities. Twenty-seven
States submitted WHP
programs by the deadline,
and additional States are
pursuing other wellhead
protection initiatives.
Over 40 States and
Territories report active
programs to classify their
ground waters and to map
vulnerable sources of
ground-water supply. Many
of the State classification
programs have been designed
to support the application
of ground-water quality
standards.
In recent years, the Federal
Government has joined the
States in their efforts to
protect the Nation's ground
water through programs
mandated by the Clean
Water Act, the Safe Drinking
Water Act, the Resource
Conservation and Recovery
Act, the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability
Act, and the Federal Insecti-
cide, Fungicide, and Rodenti-
cide Act. In 1984, EPA
developed a Ground-Water
Protection Strategy that
provides an approach to
integrating source-specific
control and cleanup
programs into a comprehen-
sive policy and institutional
framework for protecting the
resource from unacceptable
levels of contamination. EPA
is also working to strengthen
ground-water data manage-
ment through activities such
as developing a minimum set
of data elements for ground
water, thus facilitating entry
and' retrieval of ground-water
data.
Abandoned hazardous waste
sites are among the many
threats to ground-water quality.
xviii
-------
Executive Summary
Are the Nation's
Surface Water
Pollution Control
Programs
Working?
The Clean Water Act (CWA)
of 1972 provided the basic
framework for Federal and
State programs to regulate
point and nonpoint sources
of pollution. Although
revised by amendments in
1977, 1981, and 1987, the
basic framework embodied in
the original Act continues to
guide the Nation's water
pollution control programs.
Point sources of pollution
are regulated through
permits issued by either EPA
or the States. These permits
contain limits on the amount
and types of pollutants that
may be discharged.
To control pollution from
municipal dischargers, the
CWA authorized EPA to
provide grants and loans to
the States. Expenditures
under the construction
grants program have
produced significant gains
for wastewater treatment. In
1972, 85 million people were
served by secondary treat-
ment or better; today, treat-
ment facilities serving 144
million people have second-
ary or more advanced levels
of treatment. According to
EPA data, 87 percent of the
Nation'S'inunicipal sewage
treatment plants were in
compliance with existing
permit limits as of July 1,
1988. The States provide a
number of examples of water
quality improvements
resulting from municipal
construction and upgrading.
The Water Quality Act of
1987 includes a number of
provisions to further improve
municipal wastewater treat-
ment. For example, control
strategies must be developed
for plants contributing to
toxic problems in surface
waters; EPA is directed to
develop numerical limits for
toxic pollutants of concern in
sludge, the residual material
from the wastewater treat-
ment process; timetables
were established for EPA to
develop permits for storm
water management; and a
State Revolving Fund
program was developed as a
new financing mechanism
for wastewater treatment.
In the early 1980s,
significant backlogs of
unissued permits for indus-
trial dischargers had an
adverse effect on water
quality in the United States.
EPA data reveal that efforts
to remedy these backlogs
have been largely successful;
a 13 percent backlog cur-
rently exists for major
sources. The data also show
that industrial permittees
have achieved a higher rate
of compliance than munici-
pal permittees: 93 percent of
major industrial facilities
were meeting their permit
limits as of December 1988,
compared to 87 percent of
major municipal facilities.
Nonpoint sources of
pollution are primarily
addressed through programs
at the State and local levels
of government. Nonpoint
source (NFS) management
activities focus primarily on
pollution prevention, as
opposed to restoration.
Approaches range from land
use management to the
implementation of structural
and cultural practices
designed to reduce the
environmental impacts of
human activities. Examples
xix
-------
Executive Summary
of NFS management activ-
ities include preserving
wetlands; managing
nutrients and pesticides on
farms; creating wet deten-
tion basins in urban areas;
controlling stream acidifi-
cation caused by abandoned
coal mines; protecting
salmonid fisheries from
sediment entering streams
from logging areas; and
protecting and reestablishing
riparian habitats. These
activities may be imposed
through regulatory or
voluntary programs and are
generally developed and
applied on a site-specific
basis.
Section 319 of the Water
Quality Act of 1987 included
provisions for the assessment
and management of nonpoint
sources. In its second NFS
report to Congress entitled A
Report to The Congress:
Activities and Programs
Implemented Under Section
319 of the Clean Water Act-
Fiscal Year 1988, EPA
reports that a variety of State
and Federal activities have
led to progress in reducing
the impacts of NFS in
specific waters. At the same
time, several States have
identified constraints
affecting the implementation
of NFS programs.
In January 1989, EPA
completed a National NFS
Agenda that will serve as the
framework for the Agency
NFS program over the next 5
years. The goal of the Agenda
is to protect and restore the
quality of U.S. waters
through strong National
leadership and by helping
State and local governments
overcome barriers to the
successful implementation
of NFS measures.
EPA has also initiated an
NFS Agenda Task Force to
explore new and creative
approaches to achieving the
goal of the Agenda. Likely
approaches include raising
public awareness of NFS;
providing States and local
governments with informa-
tion on NFS solutions and
incentives for their imple-
mentation; and developing
water quality criteria and
monitoring protocols
specifically designed to
assess NFS problems and
evaluate NFS control
activities.
XX
-------
Introduction
Background
The Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act (commonly
known as the Clean Water
Act or CWA) has been the
primary regulatory force
protecting the Nation's water
resources. A number of other
statutes—for example, the
Safe Drinking Water Act, the
Marine and Estuarine Protec-
tion Act, and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery
Act—also directly address
water quality issues. The
objective of the Clean Water
Act is to "restore and
maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological
integrity of the Nation's
waters." An interim goal
established to achieve this
objective is that "wherever
attainable... water quality
which provides for the
protection and propagation
of fish, shellfish, and wildlife
and provides for recreation
in and on the water be
achieved by July 1, 1983."
In response to the Act, in
the early 1970s the Federal
government and the States
developed new water pollu-
tion control programs and
strengthened existing efforts
to deal with the myriad
sources adversely affecting
water quality. The problems
were daunting: industries
and municipalities were
discharging inadequately
treated or raw wastes into
rivers, lakes, and estuaries;
the disposal of hazardous
materials in landfills and
dumpsites occurred without
regulation or control; and
little or no consideration was
given to methods to control
surface runoff of pesticides,
fertilizers, and sediments.
XXI
-------
Introduction
Significant progress was
achieved under the CWA in
the 1970s and 1980s in clean-
ing up the most pressing and
obvious pollution problems.
Industries and municipal
sewage treatment plants
were brought under regula-
tion and achieved increas-
ingly more stringent levels of
control. State water pollu-
tion abatement and assess-
ment programs grew more
comprehensive. Yet along
with the rising sophistication
of these efforts came the
realization that some
problems were not being
adequately addressed.
Among these problems were
sources of pollution that
were difficult to identify and
manage, such as runoff from
agricultural lands and city
streets; toxic contaminants
for which methods of detec-
tion and control were highly
expensive; and degradation
of waters such as lakes,
estuaries, and wetlands,
which, because of their
characteristics and uses,
required unique approaches
to pollution control.
Amendments to the Clean
Water Act, passed in 1987,
sought to address these
problems. Among other
things, the amendments
require identification of
specific degraded waters,
development of strategies to
control pollution in those
waters, and application of
additional resources to
impaired estuaries and lakes.
First-stage results of these
new initiatives are included
in this report.
Methodology
Section 305(b) of the Clean
Water Act requires States to
report to EPA on the extent
to which their surface waters
are meeting the goals of the
Act and to recommend how
the goals can be achieved.
EPA, in turn, is to analyze
these reports and transmit
them and this national report
to Congress. This report
summarizes the States' 1988
reports, which contain data
collected in 1986-1987.
A number of variables are
involved in defining water
quality, collecting monitoring
data, and compiling and
reporting on that informa-
tion. EPA seeks to establish
consistency among these
variables by preparing guide-
lines for States' use in
reporting water quality
information. For example,
these guidelines promote the
use of a consistent measure
of water quality based on the
degree to which a waterbody
is in compliance with the
State water quality standards
established for that water-
body. State water quality
standards consist of the
water quality objective,
expressed as the "beneficial
use," and numeric and narra-
tive "criteria" designed to
ensure maintenance of the
beneficial use. EPA's Section
305(b) reporting guidelines
require that States report on
water quality in terms of the
degree that beneficial uses
are supported. Degree of use
support is divided into four
categories: fully supporting,
fully supporting but threat-
ened, partially supporting,
and not supporting uses.
Limited criteria for defining
these categories have been
developed, but States have
considerable discretion in
determining exactly how
decisions about the degree of
use support are made. Thus,
the data reported by the
States should be considered
to represent State judgments
about water quality.
xxii
-------
Introduction
Another method of defin-
ing water quality, as
mentioned above, is by
determining progress toward
the goals of the CWA—that
waters be of fishable and
swimmable quality. EPA
guidelines encourage report-
ing on this measure and seek
to establish baseline defini-
tions of f ishability and
swimmability.
Ideally, the State assess-
ments should contain two
types of water quality infor-
mation: waterbody—specific
and summary. This dual
approach allows the State
reports to serve various
functions. The identification
of specific problem areas and
pollutants increases the
usef ulness of the reports in
determining State manage-
ment needs and pollution
control priorities; summary
data permit a "big picture"
of State and national water
quality to be drawn. In
general, it is the State
summary information that
has been extracted and
analyzed for this 1988
National Water Quality
Inventory. In future 305(b)
reporting cycles, consider-
ably more emphasis will be
placed on waterbody-specific
information that will be
managed using a computer-
ized data system.
Some of the major data
elements that were used in
this report include the
following:
• Total sizes of assessed
waterbodies (in river miles,
lake acres, estuarine square
miles, coastal and Great Lake
shoreline miles) per State
that are fully, partially, or
not supporting designated
beneficial uses, and those
that are threatened;
• Major causes of use
impairment (i.e., pollutants
or processes such as siltation
causing degradation);
• Sources of pollution in
those waters not fully
supporting their uses; and
• Number of waters
adversely affected by toxic
pollutants.
Although many States have
provided most or all of the
summary data requested in
the guidelines, others have
not done so. For example, out
of the 53 States, lerritories,
and jurisdictions that
submitted water quality
assessments in 1988 in time
for their inclusion in this
report:
• 48 provided information
that could be used to derive
the overall degree of desig-
nated use support for 519,412
stream miles, or 45 percent
of the stream miles in these
States;
• 40 provided information
on designated use support
for 16,313,962 acres of lakes
and reservoirs, 73 percent of
lake acres in these States;
• 23 out of 27 coastal States
provided information on
designated use support for
26,628 square miles of
estuaries, 76 percent of the
estuaries in these States;
• 15 States provided infor-
mation on their existing
wetland acreage and State
wetland programs (no States
assessed the quality of their
wetlands);
• 38 reported on causes
of nonsupport in unpaired
rivers, 33 reported on causes
hi impaired lakes, and 16
reported on causes in
impaired estuarine waters;
• 37 reported usable infor-
mation on sources of pollu-
tion in impaired rivers,
28 reported on sources in
impaired lakes, and 14
reported on sources in
unpaired estuaries;
• 12 States reported on the
extent of their wetland
resources and the factors
affecting those resources,
10 reported on their wetland
protection programs; and
The goal of the Clean Water
Act is that the waters of
the U.S. be fishable and
swimmable.
XXIII
-------
Introduction
• 35 provided data on the
total number of river miles
affected by toxics; 28
reported on the number of
lake acres affected by toxics,
and 13 reported on the
number of estuarine square
miles affected by toxics.
However, despite incom-
plete reporting, the contin-
uing effort to improve and
better manage water quality
date is succeeding. In 1988,
the States provided more
data on many topics of
concern than in previous
years. The number of waters
assessed by the States has
risen significantly. Current
State and EPA initiatives to
further improve water moni-
toring and reporting include
implementing a computer-
ized water quality data
system to manage State
information on the causes,
sources, and magnitude of
degradation in individual
waterbodies, and developing
more cost-effective monitor-
ing techniques. EPA is also
in the process of examining
EPA and State monitoring
efforts as part of planned
revisions to program
guidance for monitoring.
Nevertheless, the absence
of data for some States limits
EPA's ability to analyze the
data over time and creates
gaps in our understanding of
water quality conditions
nationwide. Another obstacle
arises because of inconsis-
tencies among States in how
these data were generated.
These inconsistencies are
themselves the result of
different State approaches to
monitoring, different pollu-
tion problems and program
needs, and the lack of
generally accepted assess-
ment methodologies.
For example, as mentioned
previously, the standard
measure for evaluating water
quality is the degree to
which designated uses are
supported in a given water-
body. Determining the
degree of use support
involves a considerable
amount of judgment,
particularly for the aquatic
life uses. It also may involve
going beyond examination of
the specific chemical criteria
contained in State water
quality standards. Such
criteria are designed to
support the use but are often
incomplete compared to the
range of potential pollutants
and phenomena that
adversely affect water
quality and, ultimately, the
degree of use support.
A wide degree of variation
is evident among States in
the number of river miles,
lake acres, and estuarine
square miles assessed for
designated use support (see
Table 1). Some States
provided rather low esti-
mates of their total number
of waters; therefore, their
percentages of total waters
The number of waters
assessed by the States has
risen significantly.
xxiv
-------
Introduction
Table 1. Percentage of Waters Assessed for Rivers, Lakes, and Estuaries*
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
State
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River
Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Total
Miles
40,600
6,671
11,508
26,970
14,655
8,400
500
206
36
12,659
20,000
349
14,080
90,000
18,300
19,791
18,465
14,180
31,672
9,300
10,704
36,350
91,944
15,623
19,630
20,532
10,212
14,544
3,500
70,000
37,378
11,284
43,917
981
19,791
90,000
50,000
5,373
724
9,900
9,937
19,124
80,000
5,162
27,240
40,492
28,361
19,437
1,150,482
Percent
Assessed
28
34
36
37
68
10
93
100
72
63
100
100
92
6
45
35
47
60
100
100
15
100
5
100
100
95
56
9
33
100
89
87
16
100
47
31
26
100
80
38
38
49
17
100
13
11
50
100
45
•Based on State estimates of total waters.
Total
Acres
504,336
1,417,540
265,982
82,900
377
2,085,120
417,730
247,188
104,540
81,400
175,189
228,385
713,719
994,560
17,448
840,960
3,411,200
500,000
288,012
756,450
145,300
151,000
126,500
750,000
305,367
625,503
117,323
610,808
11,146
; 16,520
525,000
1,598,285
538,657
1,410,240
229,146
161,562
613,582
19,171
971,000
427,219
22,486,365
— Not reported.
Percent
Assessed
97
76
47
26
36
45
100
74
100
99
99
94
73
100
100
50
42
100
100
88
59
99
95
100
100
99
77
83
100
97
78
41
100
100
99
100
26
100
100
100
73
Source:
Total
Sq. Miles
625
NA
NA
1,598
NA
601
866
6
4,298
594
134
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7,656
1,633
1,981
171
NA
NA
133
NA
NA
NA
27
420
NA
1,564
3,200
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
192
2,155
NA
NA
1,990
NA
29
2,382
2,943
NA
NA
NA
35,198
Percent
Assessed
8
NA
NA
69
NA
100
100
100
62
100
100
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA.
64
100
100
100
NA
NA
100
NA
NA
NA
63
62
NA
100
100
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
100
29
NA
NA
100
NA
100
76
72
NA
NA
NA
76
1988 State Section 305(b) reports.
XXV
-------
Introduction
assessed may appear high by
comparison with other
States. Some States actually
assessed a very high percent-
age of their waters because
they used best professional
judgment, information from
citizens and other State
agencies, and computer
modeling to supplement
actual chemical, biological,
and physical monitoring
data. Other States assessed a
smaller percentage of their
total stream miles because
they preferred to rely almost
exclusively on actual water
quality monitoring data such
as chemical and biological
information from fixed
stations and special surveys,
and may have excluded
supplemental sources of
information.
Why do State monitoring
strategies vary? Clearly, some
States have more funds than
others for these activities,
just as some have more
waters to deal with and some
have more severe water
quality problems. States
heavily affected by diffuse
and difficult-to-locate
nonpoint sources may have
to rely on other than tradi-
tional fixed station monitor-
ing of chemical pollutants
to determine water quality
conditions.
On the other hand, States
with high concentrations of
industries and cities may find
it more effective to rely on
biological surveys and
various chemical monitoring
methods to assess water
quality. Traditionally, then,
each State weighs its needs
and judges how it can best
use its monitoring resources.
One drawback of this
approach is that it results in a
relatively small percentage
of the Nation's waters being
assessed. We assume that
since States generally focus
their monitoring resources
on waters most likely to have
problems—e.g., urban waters
or those that are intensively
used for recreational
purposes—the remaining
unassessed waters may be of
better quality. EPA is encour-
aging increased water quality
assessment in order to verify
this and gain a more accurate
picture of the Nation's waters
as a whole. EPA has also
asked States to identify
which of their waterbodies
were assessed using biolog-
ical or chemical data (termed
"monitored") and which
were assessed using other
types of data (termed
"evaluated").
In addition to the problem
of variations in the number
of waters assessed, there are
basic inconsistencies involv-
ing how support of desig-
nated uses is determined.
Variability exists among
States in defining the charac-
teristics a waterbody must
have to be fully, partially, or
not supporting its uses and
even what those uses should
States use a variety of methods
to monitor their waters.
XXVI
-------
Introduction
be. In part, this variability
arises from the range of
methods the States use to
assess water quality. In many
cases, biological, chemical,
and evaluative data must all
be weighed before a use
support decision can be
made. Other factors contrib-
uting to inconsistencies
include widely divergent
natural conditions among
States and vast differences in
the States' monitoring capa-
bilities and resources. Tb
address these problems, EPA
is working with the States to
develop improved guidance
on making use support deci-
sions. This guidance should
greatly increase the consist-
ency of State assessments of
water quality. Other EPA
activities include developing
a consistent and accepted
baseline of total State waters
and encouraging the use of
the Section 305(b) reporting
process as a tool in managing
toxicants, nonpoint sources,
and lake/estuary/wetland
protection programs.
Tb further improve the
Section 305(b) reporting
process and to manage the
various new assessments
required by the Water
Quality Act of 1987, EPA has
developed a data system for
managing water quality
information for specific
waterbodies. Design of the
system—called the Section
305(b) Waterbody System
(WBS)—began in 1986. The
system was partially
completed in late 1987, and
eight States were able to use
the WBS for their 1988
reports. Those States
reported that the system was
useful for organizing and
analyzing their information
and simplified the prepara-
tion of waterbody listings
required by the Water
Quality Act.
XXVII
-------
-------
Surface
Water
Quality
-------
-------
1
Rivers and Streams
Support of
Designated Uses
The standard measure of
water quality reported by the
States is the degree to which
waters support the uses for
which they have been desig-
nated, such as high-quality
cold water fishery, contact
recreation, or drinking water
supply. In their 1988 State
Section 305(b) reports, 48
States, Territories, jurisdic-
tions, and Interstate Commis-
sions (referred to, hereafter,
as States) provided this
information (see Table 1-1).
These States assessed a total
of 519,413 river miles—45
percent of the total stream
miles estimated for these
States and 29 percent of the
Nation's estimated 1.8 million
stream miles.*
Of those assessed waters,
361,332 miles, or 70 percent,
were found to be fully
supporting their designated
uses. Ten percent of those
fully supporting waters, or
36,038 stream miles, were
identified as threatened
waters that could soon
become impaired if pollution
control actions were not
taken. Twenty percent of
assessed waters, or 104,632
miles, were reported as
partially supporting uses,
and 10 percent, or 53,449
stream miles, were reported
as not supporting uses (see
Figure 1-1). Thirty-eight
States specified the basis of
their assessment decisions. In
these States, 60 percent of
assessed waters were eval-
uated using mathematical
models, citizen complaints,
questionnaires, etc., and
•Estimate from ASIWPCA, America's Clean Water: The States'Nonpoint
Source Assessment, 1985.
-------
Rivers and Streams
Table 1-1. Designated Use Support in Rivers and Streams
State
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming
Totals
Total
River
Miles
40,600
6,671
11,508
26,970
14,655
8,400
500
206
36
12,659
20,000
349
14,080
90,000
18,300
19,791
18,465
14,180
31,672
9,300
10,704
36,350
91,944
15,623
19,630
20,532
10,212
14,544
3,500
70,000
37,378
11,284
43,917
981
19,791
90,000
50,000
5,373
724
9,900
9,937
19,124
80,000
5,162
27,240
40,492
28,361
19,437
1,150,482
Percent Percent
Total Evaluated Monitored !
11,174
2,279
4,107
9,885
10,000
880
467
206
26
7,943
20,000
349
12,970
5,181
8,235
6,888
8,653
8,483
31,672
9,300
1,646
36,350
4,443
15,623
19,630
19,505
5,690
1,331
1,152
69,988
33,275
9,850
7,045
981
9,248
27,738
13,242
5,373
581
3,795
3,750
9,428
13,998
5,162
3,532
4,621
14,301
19,437
519,413"
85
46
54
33
0
0
27
66
28
23
28
75
57
63
84
0
0
87
77
85
77
95
45
44
0
17
36
39
67
43
0
18
0
83
0
22
46
67
15
54
46
68
100
100
73
34
72
77
72
25
43
37
16
100
100
13
23
15
23
5
55
56
100
83
64
61
33
57
100
82
100
17
100
78
54
33
Miles Miles Miles
Fully Miles Partially Not
Supporting Threatened* Supporting Supporting
10,118
1,583
1,714
6,578
8,605
582
280
194
0
5,287
19,443
265
5,783
3,519
69
3,994
6,176
5,730
31,278
8,635
713
35,567
1,553
13,850
10,147
12,261
3,244
950
576
53,394
22,375
6,834
2,256
0
3,306
12,546
9,642
2,459
489
2,824
1,387
5,976
12,169
4,534
1,210
2,295
2,862
16,080
361 ,332
400
403
238
0
0
172
636
69
3,994
719
141
359
359
3,740
10,427
5,992
2,442
478
271
484
1,598
0
908
1,269
128
811
36,038
625
207
29
2,219
708
239
156
0
0
2,021
383
80
7,001
982
6,503
760
878
2,146
0
504
598
0
564
1,331
9,445
6,630
1,202
210
554
8,087
9,152
3,016
1,501
981
3,512
8,497
1,770
1,143
14
395
1,260
2,484
0
379
1,401
1,608
10,107
3,350
104,632
431
489
2,364
1,088
687
59
31
12
26
635
174
4
186
680
1,663
2,134
1,599
607
394
161
335
783
2,326
442
38
614
1 ,244
171
22
8,507
1,748
0
3,288
0
2,430
6,695
1,830
1,771
78
576
1,103
968
1,829
249
921
718
1,332
7
53,449
*Mifos Threatened Is a subset of Miles Fully Supporting.
— Not reported.
Source: 1988 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Rivers and Streams
40 percent were monitored
using ambient chemical and
biological data (see Making
Assessment Decisions for
further discussion).
Table 1-1 illustrates some
of the inconsistencies that
hamper the Section 305(b)
reporting and assessment
process. First, ten States
failed to provide usable
information on support of
designated uses. Second, of
those States that provided
data, variations exist in the
percent of total State waters
assessed and in the methods
of assessing use support. For
example, four States assessed
10 percent or less of their
total waters, while ten States
reported that they assessed
all or nearly all of their
waters. Similarly, miles fully
supporting uses ranged from
zero to 99 percent of assessed
State waters, a variation
more likely attributable to
the portion of the State's
Not Supporting
(10%)
Partially Supporting
(20%)
Fully Supporting
(70%)
Assessed Miles (519,413)
Source:! 988 State Section 305(b) reports.
Figure 1-1. Designated Use Support in Assessed Rivers
and Streams
waters assessed and different
methodologies than to radi-
cally different water quality.
Caution should therefore
be used in interpreting these
numbers: they should not
be compared to those of
previous 305(b) reporting
cycles, nor should they be
used to draw comparisons
among States. Differences in
any given State's summary
information from one year to
the next may be due to the
State's reporting on different
waters or to changes in
methods of assessing use
support.
Causes of
Impairment
States were asked to iden-
tify the causes of nonsupport
in waters not fully support-
ing uses. Causes of non-
support are those pollutants
(such as pesticides or
nutrients) or pollution
processes (such as habitat
destruction) that are impair-
ing the waterbodies. In 1988,
38 States provided data on
the number of stream miles
affected by the different
causes of nonsupport (see
Table 1-2).
Any given stream mile can
be affected by many causes.
Therefore, States were asked
to include each stream mile
under each of the cause
categories that contributes to
impairment, also assigning a
degree of impact, reported
here as major or moderate/
minor. (Data from States that
did not specify degree of
impact are depicted in Figure
1-2 as "unspecified." In Table
1-2, they are included under
the "Major" heading.) There-
fore, a single river mile is
counted under several cate-
gories if it is affected by
multiple causes. The values
reported are the total
number of river miles
affected by a particular
cause of impairment, accord-
ing to whether the cause is
a major or moderate/minor
contributor to impairment.
The relative extent of each
cause of nonsupport can be
determined by dividing the
Sediments and nutrients, both predominantly from diffuse
sources such as agriculture, are leading causes of impairment
in streams.
-------
Rivers and Streams
Table 1-2. Impaired River Miles Affected by Causes of Pollution
State
Alabama**
Arkansas
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware**
District of Columbia
Florida**
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Minnesota**
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
New Hampshire
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina**
North Dakota
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma**
Oregon**
Pennsylvania**
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina**
South Dakota
Tennessee
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming
Total
Impaired
Waters*
1,056
2,393
1,395
298
187
26
2,656
557
7,187
1,662
8,166
2,894
2,477
2,753
665
2,890
1,773
9,483
7,244
381
i 576
16,594
10,900
3,016
981
5,942
15,192
3,600
2,914
92
971
2,363
3,452
628
2,322
2,326
1 1 ,439
3,357
Siltation
Major
57
376
129
14
6,751
724
157
1,870
415
6
394
108
126
6,299
1,396
2,804
1,260
224
110
1,426
342
425
846
Mod/Min
—
12
I
6,660
167
1,408
35
126
22
16
181
8,299
6,441
313
44
748
981
151
275
952
123
376
4,405
2,623
Nutrients
Major
879
119
126
992
375
82
42
100
513
259
1,567
595
310
31
8
1,286
2,582
745
368
91
16
245
205
238
383
Mod/Min
44
7,095
173
8,107
49
4
808
93
911
2,895
193
151
1,725
368
4
232
969
122
251
1,602
Pathogens
Major
1,759
176
112
144
7
376
9
147
413
1,190
1,238
969
405
102
2,196
79
136
11
15
77
289
162
1,180
885
194
383
20
618
150
546
64
820
805
57
Mod/Min
199
505
64
18
183
241
375
141
741
1,451
144
28
410
232
71
144
1,110
26
—
228
33
1,003
831
174
1,016
865
363
273
Organic
Enrichment
Major
931
56
21
85
76
990
163
155
192
25
81
300
514
43
1,999
78
1
22
69
66
115
210
518
603
278
34
17
321
504
132
20
184
627
Mod/Min
71
192
1,270
320
1,431
406
114
1,086
42
423
58
92
62
122
156
250
283
18
161
1,224
256
90
364
2,948
Totals 142,808 26,259 34,358 12,157 25,796 15,734 10,869 9,430 11,439
Combined Totals 60,617 37,953 26,603 20,869
Percent of Impaired Waters 42.4% 26.6% ' 18.6% 14.6%
'The sum of partially and nonsupporting river miles (Table 1-1).
* 'These States did not specify the degree of impact (i.e., Major or Moderate/Minor); river miles were placed in the "Major"
column for national reporting purposes.
-------
f?/Vers and Streams
Metals
Suspended
Pesticides Solids Salinity
Habitat Thermal
Flow Alteration Modification pH Modification
Major
51
527
69
24
24
280
23
66
2,358
114
370
26
—
83
284
82
11
246
255
981
684
834
12
70
11
87
10
187
1,308
7
9,084
Mod/Min Major
— —
767 —
29 —
— 19
0
8 —
908 —
194 68
213 545
125 28
5 —
306 162
24 —
606 —
35 —
88 5
321 31
— 2,381
— 52
— 175
33 14
4 —
— —
548 60
17 —
632 120
1,544 —
6,410 3,660
15,494
10.8%
Mod/Min Major
I I
— —
— —
131 —
232 —
7,603 —
103 339
13 —
628 —
883 —
47 —
— 1,041
981 —
— 1,969
— 544
86 —
— 772
205 848
43 224
2 —
130 —
11,087 5,737
14,747
10.3%
Mod/Min Major
— —
11 —
— 259
,
— 800
— 158
646 18
— 11
— 140
— 56
— 9
363 426
— 1,154
— 1
964 —
706 8
469 —
— 80
3,159 3,120
8,896
6.2%
Mod/Min
15
—
—
—
18
141
50
323
—
5
2,981
13
459
—
11
58
648
811
5,533
8,653
6.1%
Major
155
—
—
4
89
—
—
231
72
56
234
22
1,355
300
—
144
168
201
356
3,387
Mod/Min
701
13
294
22
7
_
2,312
30
95
100
—
—
1
250
89
65
538
347
4,864
8,251
5.8%
Major
—
10
—
371
14
3
111
—
275
—
1,480
43
113
259
289
135
3,103
Mod/Min Major
— 21
— 56
101 —
— 16
— —
1,242 14
— 44
86 92
— 22
20 185
— 49
— 354
180 15
1,510 614
108 27
— 60
— 48
— 22
— 455
— 730
— —
— 2
172 150
150 16
— 81
26 135
724 1,031
741 —
5,060 4,239
8,163
5.7%
Mod/Min
62
—
7
—
141
113
30
—
67
172
40
97
60
—
—
656
336
3
256
136
866
3,042
7,281
5.1%
Major
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
213
103
__
1,320
16
—
5
14
116
248
94
2,129
Mod/Min
—
—
—
6
—
20
—
—
1,441
10
—
4
39
358
39
874
665
3,456
5,585
3.9%
— Zero or not reported.
Source: 1988 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Rivers and Streams
total number of miles
affected by each cause
category by the total miles
impaired (see Figure 1-2).
Figure 1-2 illustrates that
siltation, the smothering of
stream beds by sediments
(usually from accelerated
soil erosion), is the most
commonly reported cause of
nonsupport in the Nation's
rivers and streams, affecting
42 percent of impaired river
miles. Nutrients, the second
most commonly reported
cause, affect 27 percent of
impaired river miles and
most often consist of
phosphorus and nitrogen
compounds such as those
used in agricultural fertil-
izers. Both siltation and
nutrients are predominantly
from diffuse sources.
Fecal coliform bacteria are
organisms commonly moni-
tored as indicators of possible
pathogen contamination of
waters. Pathogen contamina-
tion (cited as the third
leading cause of impairment
nationwide) may impair
drinking water supply and
contact recreation uses. Such
contamination may come
from inadequately treated
sewage or runoff from
pastures, feedlots, and urban
areas. These pathogen indi-
cators were found to affect
19 percent of impaired
waters.
The next most common
cause is organic enrichment/
low dissolved oxygen, affect-
ing 15 percent of impaired
river miles. This cause may
be closely linked to sewage
treatment plants, feedlots,
and nutrients. Nutrients can
stimulate the growth of
algae, which often leads to a
drop in levels of dissolved
oxygen.
The fifth and sixth most
commonly reported causes of
impairment are metals (such
as lead, copper, and mercury)
POLLUTION CAUSES
Siltation
Nutrients
Pathogens
Organic Enrichment
Metals
Pesticides
Suspended Solids
Salinity
Flow Alteration
Habitat Modification
Unspecified
Moderate/Minor Impact
Major Impact
I
10 20 30 40
Impaired Miles Affected (%)
50
Source; 1988 Stata Section 305(b) Reports.
Figure 1-2. Percent of Impaired River Miles Affected by Each Pollution Cause
6
and pesticides (such as chlor-
dane, dieldrin, and DDT),
respectively. Other signif-
icant causes include
suspended solids, salinity,
flow alteration, other habitat
modification, pH, and
thermal modification.
These national summary
figures should be interpreted
with care, as a close look at
Table 1-2 reveals that certain
States are reporting a large
proportion of the impact
from these causes of impair-
ment. For example, Iowa
alone accounts for over half
of the total river miles
affected by pesticides, and
Montana accounts for about
a third of all stream miles
affected by salinity and flow
alteration. Reporting incon-
sistencies influence these
findings.
Twenty-nine States speci-
fied the degree of impact
(i.e., major or moderate/
minor) of the causes affect-
ing their rivers and streams.
For most categories of
causes, there were more
waters in which the cause
was a moderate/minor
contributor to impairment
than a major contributor.
For only two categories
of causes—metals and
suspended solids—did major
impacts outweigh moderate/
minor impacts. In 52 percent
of the waters, affected by
metals, the impact of metals
was.considered major, as was
the impact of suspended
solids in 51 percent of
affected waters.
Other causes with a high
percentage of major impact
include pathogens (major
impact in 48 percent of
affected waters), pH (major
impact in 46 percent), and
siltation (major impact in 28
percent).
-------
Rivers and Streams
Sources of
Impairment
In their 1988 State Section
305(b) reports, 37 States
provided information on the
various sources of pollution
contributing to use impair-
ment in rivers, such as
municipal discharges and
agricultural runoff. Sources
of impairment are those
activities that contribute
pollutants or result in
harmful processes such as
siltation (see Highlight-
Sources of Pollution Reported
by the States). Table 1-3
displays the categories of
sources and the size of
waters affected by each.
As with causes of impair-
ment, any given stream mile
can be affected by many
sources. Therefore, States
were asked to include each
stream mile under each
source category that contrib-
utes to impairment, also
assigning a degree of impact,
reported here as major or
moderate/minor. (Data from
States that did not specify
degree of impact are
depicted in Figure 1-3 as
"unspecified." In Table 1-3,
they are included under the
"Major" column heading.) As
a result, a single river mile
will be counted under several
categories if it is affected by
multiple sources. The values
reported are the total number
of river miles affected by a
particular source of impair-
ment according to whether
the source is a major or
moderate/minor contributor
to impairment. The relative
extent of each source of
nonsupport can be deter-
mined by dividing the total
number of miles affected by
each source category by the
POLLUTION SOURCES
Agriculture
Municipal
Resource Extract
Hydro/Habitat Mod
Storm Sewers/Runoff
Silviculture
Industrial
Construction
Land Disposal
Combined Sewers
0 10 20 30 40
Impaired Miles Affected (%)
Q Unspecified
[j| Moderate/Minor Impact
I Major Impact
_J I
50
60
Source: 1988 State Section 305(b) Reports.
Figure 1-3. Percent of Impaired River Miles Affected by Each Pollution Source
total miles impaired (see
Figure 1-3.)
Some ambiguity occurs
when defining the source
categories used in Table 1-3.
For example, States were
asked to report separately on
stream miles affected by
storm sewers and miles
affected by urban runoff
(primarily surface runoff).
Some States made this
distinction, while others did
not and chose to report only
in the urban runoff category.
Since separate storm sewers
are designed to convey urban
surface runoff, it is very
difficult to distinguish
between storm sewer
discharges and urban runoff.
Therefore, for purposes of
analysis, these numbers were
combined into one category
reflecting waters affected by
storm sewers/runoff. Entries
in this category in Table 1-3
may also reflect additional
information provided by
some States subsequent to
their 305(b) submission. This
problem has been corrected
for the next reporting cycle.
Table 1-3 reveals that the
most extensive source of
pollution reported for the
Nation's rivers is agricultural
runoff, which affects 55
percent of impaired river
miles. Other extensive
sources include municipal
dischargers, affecting 16
percent; resource extraction
and hydrologic/habitat
modification, affecting 13
percent; and storm sewers/
runoff, industrial discharg-
ers, and silviculture, each
affecting about 9 percent of
impaired river miles.
As was the case with
causes of impairment, this
source information should be
-------
Table 1-3. Impaired
State
Alabama**
Arkansas
California**
Connecticut
Delaware**
District of Columbia
Florida**
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Maryland
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska**
New Hampshire
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina**
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma* *
Oregon**
Pennsylvania**
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina**
South Dakota
Tennessee
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming
River Miles
Total
Impaired
Waters*
1,056
2,393
3,307
298
187
26
2,656
557
7,187
1,662
8,166
2,894
665
1,773
9,483
7,244
2,446
381
576
16,594
10,900
3,016
4,789
981
5,942
15,192
3,600
2,914
92
971
•2,363
3,452
628
2,322
2,326
11,439
3,357
Totals 143,835
Combined Totals
Percent of Impaired Waters
Affected by Sources of Pollution
Agriculture Municipal
Major
35
1,722
395
146
1,711
144
47
7,395
918
172
933
420
1,394
36
33
5,559
1,539
917
350
3,986
7,605
464
294
16
364
1,187
1,289
510
453
1,049
517
2,192
43,792
Mod/Min
174
102
I
__
6,964
934
753
677
133
288
8,267
5,603
____,
374
22
1,472
1,724
280
684
2
1,022
1,269
801
564
2,748
734
35,591
79,383
55.2%
Major
694
294
51
212
35
4
785
140
371
285
524
512
33
135
16
43
441
92
34
153
635
12
2,831
1,062
378
79
18
170
11
628
86
229
143
535
6
11,677
Mod/Min
__,
52
—
189
2,405
217
828
546
94
345,
58
118
190
130
1,339
929
34
32
43
924
145
694
2,281
110
11,703
23,380
16.3%
Resource
Extraction
Major
76
117
301
—
464
14
49
229
49
22
319
—
37
1
19
649
350
2,302
2,280
1,775
—
360
42
27
645
54
10,181
Mod/Min
85
44
—
—
1,211
121
103
12
84
88
1,385
21
16
255
328
280
—
—
—
62
700
—
54
2,953
770
8,572
18,753
13.0%
Hydrologic/
Habitat
Modification
Major
160
10
880
223
89
19
171
196
87
97
1,228
931
1,103
31
49
2
847
326
522
220
569
7,760
Mod/Min
—
69
3
—
3,526
86
280
5
189
1,299
—
13
41
589
1,203
—
—
—
1,102
—
581
1,501
378
10,865
18,625
12.9%
•The sum of partially and nonsupporting river miles (Table 1-1).
* 'These States did not specify the degree of impact (i.e., Major or Moderate/Minor);
reporting purposes.
river miles were placed in the "Major" column for national
-------
Rivers and Streams
Storm Sewers/
Runoff
Major
69
99
1,786
9
38
145
680
37
15
46
27
24
1
274
12
503
150
853
49
302
62
157
47
252
55
87
354
489
10
6,632
Mod/Min
„
148
26
183
112
112
1,234
13
108
97
154
61
98
31
883
223
9
215
796
69
103
1,133
282
6,090
12,722
8.8%
Silviculture
Major
—
—
63
—
44
—
3
48
9
20
7,580
—
4
76
23
100
426
58
8,454
Mod/Min
—
—
806
76
32
29
...
64
138
2,728
65
3,938
12,392
8.6%
Industrial
Major
406
115
8
69
37
1
578
24
14
165
219
124
2
103
49
38
28
159
1,061
368
201
58
1
55
11
191
16
48
113
856
334
5,452
Mod/Min
39
48
11
1,201
225
221
92
214
10
233
36
90
91
629
126
69
386
13
246
2,674
169
6,823
12,275
8.50/0
Construction
Major
6
—
4
792
26
5
3
79
9
271
1,420
16
4
110
142
239
446
362
3,934
Mod/Min
—
16
1
470
56
16
762
87
32
85
—
26
822
89
1,769
858
5,089
9,023
6.3%
Land
Disposal
Major
—
13
—
947
14
12
3
22
22
3
62
59
243
666
169
208
16
14
32
201
224
2,930
Mod/Min
I
111
13
I
16
1
165
1
154
92
15
133
—
977
—
466
2
26
155
I
228
878
3,433
6,363
4.4%
Combined
Sewers
Major
—
126
69
I
113
386
~
~
~
10
36
I
10
1,675
39
15
78
—
12
428
2,997
Mod/Min
—
11
26
I
692
130
I
12
I
78
70
I
26
—
1
3
22
4
31
1,233
2,339
5,336
3.7%
— Zero or not reported.
Source: 1988 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Rivers and Streams
Sources of Pollution Reported by the States
Point and nonpqint source
categories of pollution are
J,; ...... gotclearly defined, in ajl "'
«"casfe ^a
• Are subject to permits
issued by'the:State or EPA'"."
that limit allowablei amounts
Source Categories
Used in This
Report
ies have significant point
and nonpoint elements. For
example, storm sewers/
runoff and resource extrac-
tion are sources that may be
addressed both via point
source control measures
(i.e., permits) or nonpoint
source best management
plans. The following cate-
gories were used in the
analysis of State data and
are not intended as legal
definitions.
Point Sources
• Discharge into waterways
via a discrete "point" such
as a pipe or ditch.
' of poEutants.
• Are also subject to
enforcement action if their
permit limits are violated.
Nonpoint Sources
• Enter waterways generally
as runoff from widespread
(i.e., "nonpoint") areas.
• Are addressed via volun-
tary controls, best manage-
ment practices, incentive
programs, demonstration
programs, and to some extent
by regulatory programs at
State or local level.
Industrial (e.g., pulp and
paper mills, chemical manu-
facturers, steel plants, textile
manufacturers, food process-
ing plants, etc.);
Municipal (e.g., publicly
owned sewage treatment
plants which may receive
indirect discharges from
small factories or
businesses);
Combined Sewers
(storm and sanitary sewers
combined, which may
discharge untreated wastes
during storms);
Storm sewers/runoff
(runoff from streets, paved
areas, lawns, etc., that enters
a sewer, pipe, or ditch before
[_"' Agricultural (e.g.,_crop__ _
production, pastures,
rangeland, feedlots);
Silvicultural (e.g., forest
management, harvesting,
road construction);
Construction (e.g., highway
building, land development);
Resource extraction
(e.g., mining, petroleum
drilling, runoff from mine
tailing sites);
Land disposal (e.g., leach-
ate or discharge from septic
tanks, landfiEs, hazardous
waste disposal sites); and
Hydromodification
(e.g., channelization,
dredging, dam construction,
streambank modification).
10
-------
Rivers and Streams
interpreted with care; a close
look at Table 1-3 reveals that
some States appear to
predominate over others in
the number of miles with
impacts due to the various
sources. For example, 61
percent of the river miles
with silvicultural impacts are
in Oregon alone.
Twenty-seven States
specified the degree of
impact (i.e., major or
moderate/minor) of the
pollution sources affecting
their rivers. For no source
category did major impacts
outweigh moderate/minor
impacts. The two sources
that had the greatest
percentage of miles with
major impacts are municipal
and agricultural sources,
with 39 and 38 percent,
respectively. In 35 percent of
the miles with storm sewers/
runoff impacts, these
impacts are considered
major, as they are in 34
percent of the miles in the
industrial category. Other
sources with a high percent-
age of major impacts include
combined sewer overflows
and hydrologic/habitat modi-
fication, with major impacts
in 34 percent and 33 percent
of impaired river miles,
respectively.
Attainment of the
Clean Water Act
Goals
As stated at the beginning
of the Clean Water Act, "It
is the national goal that,
wherever attainable, an
interim goal of water quality
which provides for the
protection and propagation
offish, shellfish, and wildlife
and provides for recreation
in and on the water be
achieved by July 9,1983."
Most U.S. waters are classi-
fied to reflect these bench-
marks, which are commonly
referred to as the fishable
and swimmable goals of the
Clean Water Act (CWA).
Support of CWA goals is
considered a separate and
independent criterion from
the degree of designated use
support.
Meeting the fishable goal
is defined by EPA for the
purpose of the 305(b) process
as providing a level of water
quality consistent with the
goal of protection and propa-
gation of a balanced popula-
tion of shellfish, fish, and
wildlife. Fishing advisories,
consumption bans, and high
incidences of fish abnormali-
ties are indications that
waters are not supporting
healthy aquatic populations
and do not support the fish-
able goal. Meeting the swim-
mable goal is defined by EPA
as providing a level of water
quality that allows for
recreational activities in and
on the water.
In some cases, the
achievement of the CWA
goals is precluded by physical
constraints, irrevocable
water quality impacts, and
severe socioeconomic
impacts. In these cases, State
water quality standards may
exclude the fishable or swim-
mable goal based on the
results of a special study of
use attainability. Thus, there
are three possible outcomes
for any waterbody when the
question of CWA goal support
is considered, as follows:
• Fishable and/or swim-
mable goals are supported;
• Fishable and/or swim-
mable goals are not supported
but are attainable; and
• State water quality
standards do not include
fishable and/or swimmable
uses (i.e., the CWA goals are
not attainable).
In their 1988 water quality
assessments, 44 States
provided data on the attain-
ment of the fishable and
swimmable CWA goals in
their rivers and streams (see
Table 1-4). A total of 480,503
river miles were assessed for
the fishable goal; 86 percent
were found to be attaining
the use, 11 percent were
currently not attaining but
could sometime in the
future, and 3 percent were
determined to be "not
attainable" (see Figure 1-4).
Progress toward the CWA
swimmable goal was assessed
in 414,923 stream miles.
Eighty-five percent were
found to be attaining the
swimmable goal, 11 percent
were currently not attaining
11
-------
Rivers and Streams
Table 1-4. Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in Rivers and Streams
Fishable Goal (miles)
State
Alabama
Arkansas
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming
Totals
— Not reported.
12
Assessed
11,174
10,820
10,823
880
467
206
26
7,943
20,000
349
12,970
5,181
8,235
6,910
8,633
8,483
31,672
9,300
1,646
15,622
19,630
19,505
5,690
1,331
1,867
576
70,000
33,275
9,851
981
19,791
27,738
13,242
5,373
581
3,795
3,750
11,081
13,998
5,162
3,532
4,637
14,340
19,437
480,503
Meeting
9,925
10,581
8,960
738
349
206
0
7,308
19,443
349
12,488
4,089
6,714
6,590
7,841
8,458
31,377
8,660
1,498
15,200
10,147
18,891
4,476
1,160
1,463
554
53,700
22,375
9,389
941
18,834
26,197
9,642
3,687
465
3,477
2,840
10,857
13,843
4,990
1,210
3,168
13,005
19,430
415,515
Not
Meeting
801
239
1,040
140
118
0
26
600
557
0
482
1,015
1,497
320
792
25
295
640
148
422
1,037
614
1,214
171
404
22
15,000
10,900
462
40
436
1,541
3,600
1,359
27
318
910
224
155
172
2,322
1,469
1,335
7
52,896
Not
Attainable
448
823
2
0
0
35
0
0
77
24
0
0
8,446
0
0
0
1,300
0
0
521
327
89
0
0
0
0
0
12,092
Assessed
11,174
10,099
10,000
880
467
206
26
7,943
349
2,994
5,181
8,235
5,079
2,406
8,483
31 ,672
9,300
1,646
15,622
19,630
19,505
2,264
1,331
592
576
70,000
33,275
9,851
981
19,791
27,738
13,242
5,373
581
3,795
939
11,081
13,998
5,162
3,532
4,637
14,340
947
414,923
Swimmable Goal (miles)
Meeting
9,925
8,107
9,474
682
309
194
0
7,308
349
730
4,269
1,638
4,027
1,308
8,390
31,377
9,286
760
14,785
10,147
19,505
810
950
91
576
69,200
22,375
9,287
819
17,663
26,772
9,642
3,650
465
2,199
659
10,420
12,616
4,787
1,210
2,898
13,005
947
353,61 1
Not
Meeting
801
1,992
526
196
158
12
26
600
0
2,189
835
580
1,052
1,098
93
295
14
886
837
1,037
0
1,454
334
501
0
800
10,900
564
162
2,128
966
3,600
1,151
27
1,596
280
661
1,382
132
2,322
1,739
1,335
0
45,261
Not
Attainable
448
0
2
0
35
0
75
77
6,017
0
0
8,446
0
47
0
0
0
0
0
572
89
0
243
0
0
0
16,051
Source: 1988 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Rivers and Streams
the swimmable goal but could
sometime in the future, and
4 percent were categorized
as "not attainable" (see
Figure 1-4). Fewer waters
were assessed for the swim-
mable goal than for the
fishable goal, at least in part
because some States do not
include swimming uses in
their standards.
From these figures, it
appears that proportionately
more waters meet each Clean
Water Act goal than fully
support their designated
uses. This may be because
some States are reluctant to
indicate that a waterbody is
not fishable or swimmable
when impacts in that water-
body are slight or moderate.
Clearly, definitions of CWA
goal attainment vary among
States as widely as do
definitions of use support:
the percent of waters
meeting goals varies from
zero to 100 percent. For
example, some States do not
adhere to EPA's definition of
fishability and consider
waters fishable if they
support aquatic life (thereby
excluding fish consumption
considerations). EPA is
working to better define
attainment of the CWA goals
for future reporting.
Eleven States reported that
the fishable goal was not
attainable in 12,092 stream
miles, and 11 States found
the swimmable goal not
attainable in 16,051 miles.
Reasons cited include
naturally occurring physical
limitations and extensive
land uses such as row crop
agriculture that would be
prohibitively expensive to
control.
Not Meeting
(11%)
Not Attainable
(3%)
Not Meeting
(11%)
Not Attainable
(4%)
Meeting
(86%)
Fishable Goal
(480,503 Assessed Miles)
Meeting
(85%)
Swimmable Goal
(414,923 Assessed Miles)
Source: 1988 State Section 305(b) reports.
Figure 1-4. Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in Assessed Rivers and Streams
13
-------
Rivers and Streams
Making Assessment Decisions
How do we know what it
means for a waterbody to
support or not support its
designated uses? What kinds
of data are used? How are
these data interpreted? Do
all States use the same
methods?
The answers to these ques-
tions are key to understand-
ing the water quality findings
reported by the States and
summarized in this docu-
ment. In many cases, the
answers are not simple: State
methodologies vary widely
and may not be clearly
documented. However, EPA
is engaged in efforts to
catalog State methodologies
and develop recommended
guidelines which, if followed,
should result in more uniform
water quality assessments
among States.
States collect a broad range
of information on conditions
in their rivers, lakes, and
estuaries. EPA asks the
States to report based on two
categories of assessment
data. Monitoring data can
be provided by networks of
chemical or biological
sampling stations located
near dischargers or at other
strategic points along water-
bodies, and by short-term or
one-time intensive or special
surveys designed to provide
water quality "snapshots"
for discrete areas or to
answer questions about
specific problem sources or
conditions. The data
collected may be chemical
(e.g., the concentration of a
given pollutant in water,
sediment, or fish/shellfish
tissue) or biological (e.g.,
counts of the number of
certain indicator species in a
given sample or testing the
toxicity of river or waste-
water samples). Their
common elements are that
they are scientifically
collected by the State
pollution control agency,
local governments, or Federal
authorities using quality
control procedures and
involve actual observations
and water/sediment/tissue/
organism samples from
aquatic sites.
Evaluative data, on the
other hand, are collected
from a variety of sources that
may not use quality control
procedures or involve site-
specific sampling. Examples
of this type of data include
information provided by
citizens, reports of pollution-
caused fish Mils, predictive
modeling based on knowl-
edge of sources, land use
types, etc., surveys of
fisheries personnel, and
certain kinds of volunteer
monitoring.
The degree to which States
use these different types of
data varies greatly. Some
States rely almost exclusively
on fixed station monitoring
data or a combination of
fixed station and intensive
survey data. Other States
may use rotating basin
surveys in which a limited
number of basins are studied
intensively. Others with
limited monitoring resources
may find that their evalua-
tive data provide a more
realistic picture of water
quality conditions than does
a small network of infre-
quently sampled stations.
Most States use a combina-
tion of data types to reach
their assessment decisions.
Designated use support
information for rivers shows
that in the 38 States that
specified data types, 386,530
stream miles were assessed,
40 percent using monitoring
data and 60 percent using
evaluative approaches. Of
the 258,060 miles supporting
uses in these States, 67
percent were evaluated and
14
-------
Rivers and Streams
33 percent were monitored.
However, nearly the reverse
of this applies in the 41,147
miles not supporting uses:
32 percent of waters were
evaluated and 68 percent
were monitored. Two differ-
ent conclusions could be
drawn from these findings:
that States concentrate their
monitoring efforts in their
most degraded waters or that
where States monitor they
tend to find problems. Many
States have indicated that
the former argument is true.
Faced with diminishing
resources for monitoring,
States have traditionally
focused monitoring stations
arid intensive surveys on
those areas most likely to
have problems. Nevertheless,
perhaps a combination of the
twojnay apply, since reliance;
on models, questionnaires,
and citizen complaints may
fail to reveal certain types of
water quality problems. In
any case, EPA continues to
support both types of assess-
ment activities as the best
available and most practical
way to expand coverage of
the Nation's waters.
Table 1-5. EPA-lssued Guidelines on Making Use Support
Decisions*
Basis for Full, Partial, or Nonsupport of Uses
Assessment Determined by:
Evaluative Presence of sources and predictions, based on
Data professional judgment, as to whether sources
impair uses.
Chemical Percentage of criteria exceedances and the
Monitoring mean of the measurements (i.e., whether or
Data not the mean is less than or greater than the
criteria). - - .
Biological Whether or not evidence exists that the
Monitoring biological community in a waterbody has
Data suffered slight or substantial modification.
•Derived from 1986,1988, and 1990 guidelines. ------
Once data are collected by
the States, they must be
analyzed using established
criteria in order for decisions
to be made on support of
designated uses. In an
attempt to encourage consis-
tency among States in how
these decisions are made,
EPA has issued general
guidelines on criteria States
might use to determine
degree of use support. Tkble
1-5 illustrates key elements
of these guidelines, which
were developed jointly with
the Association of State and
Interstate Water Pollution
Control Administrators for a
1984 assessment of trends in
water quality ,
State adoption of these
guidelines has been limited.
A preliminary survey of the
; 1988 State; Section:3_05(b).;:..:-,
reports shows that about 15
States used these guidelines,
numerous States used
variants of these guidelines,
and a handful did not specify
whichlcriteria they used in
making their use support
decisions. Many States feel
that these criteria are too
rigid and do not lead to
accurate overall judgments
about water quality condi-
tions. Clearly, the EPA
guidelines do not allow for
much flexibility in making
determinations where
chemical data alone are
used; do not address the.
issue of how to weigh contra-
dictory evidence (e.g., results
of biological studies that
disagree with the results of
chemical analyses); and do
not address how many data
points are actually required
before a decision can be
made. Until more widely
acceptable and comprehen-
sible guidelines are devel-
oped and adopted by the
States, State-to-State
inconsistencies in use
support determinations will
doubtless continue to
hamper national analyses.
EPA is taking steps to
develop assessment guidance
that williprovide a basis for
greater consistency. Several
new developments have
occurred that need to be
considered, such as toxico-
logical specifications for the
duration and frequency of
concentrations of chemicals;
the increased use of toxicity
testing and biological moni-
toring; and a greater aware-
ness of the prevalence of
impacts caused by habitat
alterations.
15
-------
-------
2
Lakes and Reservoirs
Support of
Designated Uses
In their 1988 State Section
305(b) reports, 40 States,
Territories, and jurisdictions
(referred to hereafter as
States) provided information
on support of designated
uses in their lakes and reser-
voirs (see Table 2-1). A total
of 16,314,012 acres were
assessed, 73 percent of the
lake acres estimated for
these States and 41 percent
of the Nation's total
39,400,000 acres.
Of those assessed lake
acres, 12,021,044 acres, or
74 percent, were found to be
fully supporting their desig-
nated uses. Of these,
2,897,711 acres are threat-
ened and may not fully
support uses in the future if
action is not taken to control
pollution sources. Seventeen
percent of assessed lake
acres, or 2,701,577 acres,
partially support uses, and 10
percent, or 1,591,391 acres,
do not support uses (see
Figure 2-1).
Thirty-two States specified
the basis of their assessment
decisions. In these States,
11,844,582 acres were
assessed. Sixty-eight percent
were monitored; the remain-
ing 32 percent were eval-
uated. (See Making
Assessment Decisions for
further discussion.)
As for rivers and streams,
these data should be inter-
preted with caution because
of inconsistencies in data
analysis and reporting. First,
a number of States did not
provide usable summary
information on designated
use support in lakes. Second,
the percentage of total lake
acres assessed varies widely
among States, from a quarter
of total acreage to all State
acreage. Third, the percent
of assessed lake acres
supporting designated uses
also shows wide variations
17
-------
Lakes and Reservoirs
among States, ranging from
zero to nearly 100 percent.
These variations should
probably be attributed more
to different State methodol-
ogies than to wide differ-
ences in lake water quality.
Causes of
Impairment
In 1988, 33 States provided
data on the causes of non-
support in their lakes (see
Table 2-2). As described in
Chapter 1 for rivers, any
given acre of lake can be
affected by many causes (i.e.,
specific pollutants or
pollutant processes). There-
fore, States were asked to
include any given lake acre
under each of the cause
categories that contribute to
impairment. This allows a
single lake acre to be counted
multiple times if it is affected
by multiple causes. The
values reported are the total
number of lake acres
affected by a particular
cause of impairment,
according to whether the
cause is a major or
moderate/minor contributor
to impairment. (Data from
States that did not specify
this degree of impact are
included under the "major"
column heading in Table 2-2.)
The relative extent of each
cause of nonsupport can be
determined by dividing the
total number of acres
affected by each cause
category by the total acres
impaired (see Figure 2-2).
The most commonly
reported cause of use
impairment hi lakes is
nutrients, which affect 49
percent of impaired lake
acres. Nutrients, in turn, can
lead to organic enrichment
and low levels of dissolved
oxygen, which were identi-
fied as affecting 25 percent
of impaired lake acres.
Siltation also affects 25
percent, and salinity, the
fourth most commonly
reported cause, affects 14
percent. Habitat modifica-
tion, pathogens, and priority
organics affect approxi-
mately 11, 9, and 8 percent
of impaired lake acres,
respectively.
Partially Supporting
(17%)
Not Supporting
(10%)
Fully Supporting
(74%)
Assessed Acres (16,314,012)
Source: 1988 Slate Section 305(b) reports.
Rgure 2-1. Designated Use Support in Assessed Lakes and
Reservoirs
18
-------
La/res and Reservoirs
Table 2-1. Designated Use Support in Lakes and Reservoirs
State
Alabama
California
Colorado
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oregon
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Number
of Lakes
43
4,955
4,069
6,000
8
7,712
175
2,940
560
282
232
92
101
5,779
59
35,000
12,034
362
4,018
412
1,300
7,500
1,500
216
2,500
6,095
38
113
1,418
789
117
5,700
719
248
808
94
14,998
2,629
131,615
Acres
of Lakes
504,336
1,417,540
265,982
82,900
377
2,085,120
417,730
247,188
104,540
81,400
175,189
228,385
713,719
994,560
17,448
840,960
3,411,200
500,000
288,012
756,450
145,300
151,000
126,500
750,000
305,367
625,503
117,323
610,808
11,146
16,520
525,000
1,598,285
538,657
1,410,240
229,146
161,562
613,582
19,171
971,000
427,219
22,486,365
Percent Percent
Total Evaluated Monitored
491,566
1,076,891
124,973
21,701
136
947,200
417,730
183,572
104,540
80,249
173,911
214,483
517,476
994,560
17,448
424,021
1,435,554
500,000
288,012
663,363
85,518
149,854
119,666
750,000
305,367
619,333
90,771
504,928
11,146
16,089
410,407
662,532
538,657
1,410,240
227,121
161,089
156,518
19,171
971,000
427,219
16,314,012
'2
•"91
39
0
13
0
41
39
81
8
0
93
45
54
51
81
0
52
11
12
5
85
52
29
0
17
0
3
64
2
0
85
98
9
61
100
87
100
59
61
19
92
100
7
55
46
49
19
100
48
89
88
95
15
48
71
100
83
100
97
36
98
100
15
Acres
Fully
Supporting
405,486
568,739
123,300
9,312
0
309,760
412,357
22,931
104,361
26,801
116,655
179,335
376,335
958,080
14,838
304,185
1,198,709
481 ,740
285,701
345,367
82,304
130,708
72,358
454,668
293,470
571,208
30,936
374,303
3,801
14,688
409,242
567,812
452,009
1,225,629
177,915
147,352
122,834
0
249,000
396,815
12,021,044
Acres
Threatened*
7,172
8,176
0
140
22,455
18,902
116,655
152,544
87,034
4,606
161,894
—
129,500
4,603
29,942
50,330
570,170
25,733
1,745
11,425
548,000
75,828
332,145
153,319
116,210
0
179,300
89,883
2,897,711
Acres
Partially
Supporting
0
95,505
1,673
12,389
0
536,320
5,347
100,591
63
52,058
48,141
31 ,471
141,141
36,480
2,603
62,834
67,622
18,260
2,311
305,396
2,779
18,756
47,308
267,343
2,075
48,125
50,988
58,918
4,240
787
840
17,984
50,830
0
37,713
13,737
33,104
17,441
478,000
30,404
2,701 ,577
Acres
Not
Supporting
86,080
412,647
0
0
136
101,120
26
60,050
116
1,390
9,115
3,677
0
0
7
57,002
169,223
0
0
12,600
435
390
0
27,989
9,822
0
8,847
71 ,707
3,105
614
325
76,736
35,818
184,611
11,493
0
580
1,730
244,000
0
1,591,391
'Acres Threatened is a subset of Acres Fully Supporting.
— Not reported.
Source: 1988 State Section 305(b) reports.
19
-------
Lakes and Reservoirs
^•"^g^ggUJifc^^j Table 2-2. Impair
if ~rf"*t— •* .- ... Ir ^ ™* ™
l^^^gB^S^J^f1 Alabama"
|F*'^?!^railPiJEi : Colorado
District of Columbia
Florida"
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky**
Louisiana
Maryland
Minnesota**
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
New Hampshire
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina**
North Dakota
Oregon**
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina**
South Dakota
Tennessee
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming
ed Lake A<
Total
Impaired
Waters*
86,080
1,672
12,389
136
637,440
5,373
160,641
179
53,448
57,256
35,148
141,141
2,610
236,845
18,260
2,311
317,996
19,146
47,308
295,332
11,897
48,125
130,625
7,345
1,401
1,165
94,720
86,648
49,206
13,737
33,684
19,171
30,404
Totals 2,658,839
Combined Totals
Percent of Impaired Waters
:res Affected by Causes of Pollution
Organic
Nutrients Siltation Enrichment Salinity
Major
—
9,612
75,520
5,373
44,552
122
19,048
7
6,707
2,610
236,845
—
5,750
95
2,338
101,663
2,015
37,467
115,965
1,448
246
75,190
35,383
2,953
1,236
782,145
Mod/Min
—
500
2,777
—
108,699
12
34,278
3,491
121,262
18,260
17,449
4,281
40,346
27,928
10,555
447
13,574
35,647
9,089
12,518
33,104
2,933
17,749
514,899
1,297,044
48.8%
Major
—
—
812
171,520
69,364
46,112
10
4,517
15
724
19,022
1,178
707
6,288
15,594
135
60
55,629
21,123
1,102
2,047
415,959
Mod/Min
—
—
7,914
90,500
2,268
34,736
986
—
17,060
5,600
8,665
3,507
12,800
5,287
30,445
16,184
2,698
9,136
12,919
260,705
676,664
25.4%
Major Mod/Min Major
—
—
1,462
175,360
56,645
82
44
—
—
306
1,900
11,984
69,147
891
50
130
34,655
684
—
353,340
— —
650 —
8,930 —
— 272,000
90,484 —
52 —
16,815 —
— 9,230
42,548 —
— —
— —
— 13,250
61,103 —
30,663 5,000
581 348
—
28 —
43,575 —
13,878 —
8,001 —
580 —
642 —
53 —
318,583 299,828
671,923
25.3%
Mod/Min
—
—
—
—
—
13,167
46,394
—
1,200
14,509
2,944
1,750
—
—
—
—
580
459
81,003
380,831
14.3%
•The sum of partially and nonsupporting lake acres (Table 2-1).
•"These States did not specify the degree of impact (i.e., Major or Moderate/Minor); lake acres were placed in the "Major'
" column
20
-------
Lakes and Reservoirs
Priority Suspended Flow
Habitat Mod Pathogens Organics Solids Metals Pesticides pH Alteration
Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Win Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min
_ _ _
_ _ _
— — 640
— — 2,437
— — 45
222 — 15,300
— _ _
— 84,230
— 105
136 —
4,845 2,937
89 27
I I
100,352 —
— — . — 1,850
— — — 102
_ .
— — — 41,600
2,228 74,401 83,665 5,196
...-.- - 15
_ _ _ 9,040
— — — 23,584
— — 22,490 —
410 160
— —
— —
17,355 13,395
45 12
757 —
—
— 1,850
— 11,520
1,070 —
— 30
49,400 1
1,229 —
— — —
136 — —
— — —
— — —
— 10 —
— 3 5,694
. ,
• — . — — — — — —
— — —
— 284,000 1,423
10 200 —
— — 3,355
67 — —
— — 13,248
300 16 354
— —
1,300 —
22,939 102,060
— —
137 —
— — — —
434 — — 326
— — — 9,680
— 220 — —
— 836 251 47
— —
9,750 —
7,597 24,716
— —
— —
17,060 —
561 —
— - 296
— 16,569
— —
— 81,365
350 141
20 — —
5,135 — —
— 33,877 600
— 40 —
— — 5,469
10 — —
— — 966 — — __,_._——. — ——— —
— — 865 — — — — — — _..•_•_— — — —
16 — —
7,205 9,318 741
— — 580
25,130 18,508
131 —
129 —
33,104 580
— 359 593 —
6,149 383 17,041 69
— — — —
— — — 580
— — — 2,930
29,257 —
1,034 —
33,104 —
3,475 —
— 69
— 44
79 —
33,104 —
— 2,973
— — 79
11,924 — 24,905
69 1,887 4,173
2,810 — —
580 —
1,761 — —
— — 9,420
7,820 293,53439,954 188,292 208,447 8,811 76,199 124,040 95,019 102,784 38,283 102,853114,858 21,86536,397 50,340
301,354 228,246 217,258 200,239 197,803 141,136 136,723 86,737
11.3o/0 8.6% 8.2% 7.5% 7.4% 5.3% 5.1% 3.3%
— Zero or not reported.
for national reporting purposes. Source: 1988 State Section 305(b) reports.
21
-------
Lakes and Reservoirs
Care should be taken in
interpreting these figures, as
a close look at Table 2-2
reveals that certain States
report a large proportion of
the impacts from these
causes of impairment. For
example, Florida alone
accounts for 71 percent of
the lake acres affected by
salinity; New York accounts
for 47 percent of the acres
affected by priority organics
and 40 percent of the lake
acres affected by flow
alteration; and Louisiana
accounts for 44 percent of
the lake acres affected by
pathogens. Reporting incon-
sistencies influence these
findings.
Twenty-six States specified
the degree of impact of the
various causes of nonsupport
in their lakes and reservoirs.
As in rivers, for most cause
categories there were more
lake acres in which the cause
was a moderate/minor
contributor to impairment
than a major contributor. Of
the leading causes, only the
priority organics category
showed more major than
minor impacts: in 93 percent
of the lake acres affected by
priority organics, their
impact was considered major.
Among the other causes of
use impairment, those with
the greatest percentage of
major impacts include pH
(major impact hi 48 percent
of affected acres), siltation
(major impact in 46 percent),
flow alteration (major impact
in 42 percent), and nutrients
(major impact in 40 percent).
Sources of
Impairment
Information on the various
sources of pollution contrib-
uting to use impairment in
lakes and reservoirs was
provided by 28 States. Table
2-3 displays the categories of
sources and the size of
waters affected by each.
Since an acre of lake can be
affected by many sources of
pollution, States were asked
to include any given lake
acre under each of the
source categories that
contribute to impairment.
This allows a single lake acre
to be counted multiple times
if it is affected by multiple
sources. The values reported
are the total number of lake
POLLUTION CAUSES
Nutrients
Siltation
Organic Enrichment
Salinity
Habitat Modification |'; L">'?.-"'.Lr J
Pathogens
Priority Organics
Suspended Solids
Metals
Pesticides
Q Unspecified
Moderate/Minor Impact
Major Impact
0 10 20 30 40
Impaired Acres Affected (%)
50
Source: 1988 State Section 305(b) Reports.
Figure 2-2. Percent of Impaired Lake Acres Affected by Each Pollution Cause
22
-------
Lakes and Reservoirs
acres affected by a particular
source of impairment,
according to whether the
source is a major or
moderate/minor contributor
to impairment. The relative
extent of each source of
nonsupport can be deter-
mined by dividing the total
number of acres affected by
each source category by the
total acres impaired (see
Figure 2-3).
As with rivers, certain
ambiguities apply to the
"definitions" of sources of
pollution in lakes (see discus-
sion on p. 7). Table 2-3
shows that agricultural
runoff is reported as the
most extensive source of
pollution, affecting 58
percent of impaired lake
acres. Other leading sources
in lakes include hydrologic/
habitat modification
(affecting 33 percent of
impaired lake acres), storm
sewers/runoff (affecting 28
percent), land disposal
(affecting about 26 percent),
and municipal dischargers
(affecting 15 percent).
These numbers should be
interpreted with care, as a
close look at Table 2-3 reveals
that certain States predom-
inate in the number of lake
acres they report as affected
by the various sources of
pollution. For example,
Florida alone accounts for 85
percent of the total number
of lake acres affected by
storm sewers/runoff and 82
percent of the lake acres
affected by land disposal.
Twenty-two States speci-
fied the degree of impact
(i.e., major or moderate/
minor) of pollution sources in
their lakes. Only in the
agricultural category did the
number of acres with major
impacts exceed those with
moderate/minor impacts
(major impact in 51 percent
of impaired lake acres).
Other source categories with
a high percentage of major
impact include combined
sewers (major impact in 45
percent of affected lake
acres) and municipal
dischargers (major impact
in 25 percent).
POLLUTION SOURCES
Agriculture
Hydro/Habitat Mod
Storm Sewers/Runoff
Land Disposal
Municipal
Industrial
Resource Extraction
Construction
Siliviculture
Combined Sewers
Q Unspecified
HI Moderate/Minor Impact
| Major Impact
0 10 20 30 40
Impaired Acres Affected (%)
50
60
Source: 1988 State Section 305(b) Reports/
Figure 2-3. Percent of Impaired Lake Acres Affected by Each Pollution Source
23
-------
Lakes and Reservoirs
Table 2-3. Impaired Lake Acr
Total
Impaired
State Waters*
Alabama**
California**
Colorado
District of Columbia
Florida**
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Maryland
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
New Hampshire
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina**
North Dakota
Oregon**
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina"
South Dakota
Tennessee
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming
86,080
508,152
1,672
136
637,440
160,641
179
53,448
57,256
2,610
18,260
2,311
317,996
19,146
47,308
295,332
11,897
48,125
130,625
7,345
1,401
1,165
94,720
86,648
13,737
33,684
19,171
30,404
Totals 2,686,889
Combined Totals
Percent of Impaired Waters
es Affected by Sources of Pollution
Hydro/
Agriculture Habitat Mod
Major
107,922
616,320
115,534
12
48,264
10
1,162
2,979
12,600
20
28,205
2,056
37,729
98,145
948
—
83,628
15,520
^
76
28,513
1,199,643
Mod/Min Major
I I
148 —
— 437,760
43,791 1,329
85 40
3,774 229
34,769 3
14,081 —
18,322 —
47,058 —
93,991 33,877
6,677 665
870 —
103 —
1,516 1,209
45,813 9,221
7,925 —
33,104 580
5,047 —
7,665 —
364,739 484,913
1,564,382
58.2%
Mod/Min
—
I
40,388
5,734
1,730
284,000
60
6,453
—
50
7,868
31,559
27,005
404,847
889,760
33.1%
Storm
Sewers/Runoff Land Disposal
Major
15,930
I
631,680
35
4,822
415
2
34
1,314
2,055
22
10,866
1,505
111
25
99
33
580
12
669,538
Mod/Min Major
— —
1,000 325
27 —
— 582,400
— 6,056
67 —
12,529 7
16 —
561 —
— 150
68 —
3,720 2,844
— 1 ,900
5,951 —
— 13,129
782 25
566 —
— 12,731
41 ,481 —
7,856 —
27 —
25 —
74,676 619,567
744,214
27.7%
Mod/Min
—
—
19,629
—
I
—
5,420
48,829
—
378
103
9,272
7,800
—
~
91 ,431
710,998
26.5%
'The sum of partially and nonsupporting lake acres (Table 2-1).
"These States did not specify the degree of impact (i.e., Major or Moderate/Minor); lake acres were placed in the "Major" column for national
reporting purposes.
24
-------
Lakes and Reservoirs
Resource Combined
Municipal Industrial Extraction Construction Silviculture Sewers
Major
160
I
252,160
6,046
99
35
Mod/Min Major
— 68,300
500 160
— 62,720
62,403 2,631
— 15
10,400 —
360 —
Mod/Min Major
— 1 ,850
— 31,082
— 105
— 32,000
10,972 43
— 30
— 190
Mod/Min Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min
— —
410 —
— 42,240
22,831 1,352
— 12
— —
125 43
14,273 —
— —
— —
— —
— 45
— —
—
—
12
—
_ _ — — — 1,200 — — — ' — — —
20 —
~
15,468
1,900
485
62
142 —
8,203 —
— 9,680
9,299 —
— 895
15 —
7,800 —
112 —
2,100 —
— 2,042
172 —
.
— —
590 —
35 —
— 450
— 2,755
3,200 —
879 —
3,180 2,944
2,986 —
— —
—
—
—
—
_ . _ 250 — — — — — — — — —
1,870
14,600
—
12
292,897
9,556 —
102 —
— 580
2,684 2,930
8,300 —
1 1 1 ,949 148,161
404,846
15.1%
40,391 1,993
137 —
3 3,111
59,430 70,404
207,591
7.7%
— 49
— —
6,320 114
9,520 —
42,573 45,809
112,977
4.2%
— 162
15,500 —
— —
41 137
' 11,506 —
42,070 3,547
87,879
3.3%
463 —
4,550 —
130 —
— 580
6,099 —
21,487 3,569
25,034
0.9%
4,400
—
—
4,412
7,981
0.3%
— Zero or not reported.
Source: 1988 State Section 305(b) reports.
25
-------
Lakes and Reservoirs
Attainment of the
Clean Water Act
Goals
The Nation's lakes and
reservoirs, like its flowing
waters, are also traditionally
measured in terms of their
ability to support fishing and
swimming, basic goals of the
Clean Water Act. In 1988,35
States reported this informa-
tion for lakes (see Table 2-4).
A total of 12,155,998 lake
acres were assessed for fish-
ability; of these, 95 percent
fully attained the fishable
goal, 5 percent did not
currently attain it but might
in the future, and less than
1 percent (3,886 acres) were
determined to be "not attain-
able" (i.e., suffering from
irrevocable impacts and/or
not designated for the use).
Approximately the same
number of lake acres
(12,013,438) were assessed
for swimmability. Similar
proportions were found to
apply to swimmability as to
fishability: 96 percent of
assessed acres fully attained
the swimmable goal, 4
percent were not currently
attaining it, and less than
1 percent (3,703 acres) were
categorized as "not attain-
able" (see Figure 2-4). As
with rivers, the States
reported higher levels of
attainment of the CWA goals
than designated uses. This
difference may be the result
of State reluctance to declare
moderately or slightly
impaired lakes as not fishable
or swimmable.
Trophic Status
of Lakes
Lakes naturally change
over time, filling with
sediments and organic
matter that alter many basic
characteristics such as
average depth, biological
productivity, oxygen levels,
and water transparency. This
natural aging process is
known as eutrophication.
Human activities can accel-
erate eutrophication by
increasing the loadings of
nutrients and organic
substances through runoff,
sewage discharges, septic
tank leachate, and similar
sources. These substances
can overstimulate algae,
plant, and weed growth,
creating choked conditions
that adversely affect
swimming, boating, and the
health and diversity of
indigenous fish populations.
This major change in lake
ecology due to human activi-
ties is known as cultural
eutrophication.
Not Meeting
(5%)
Meeting
(95%)
Not Meeting
(4%)
Meeting
(96%)
Fishable Goal
(12,155,998 Assessed Acres)
Swimmable Goal
(12,013,438 Assessed Acres)
Note: The "not attainable" categories are less than 1 percent for both goals.
Source: 1988 State Section 305(b) reports.
Figure 2-4. Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in Assessed Lakes and Reservoirs
26
-------
Lakes and Reservoirs
Table 2-4. Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in Lakes and Reservoirs
Fishable Goal (miles)
Swimmable Goal (miles)
State
Alabama
Colorado
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
New Hampshire
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oregon
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming
Totals
— Not reported.
Assessed
491,566
124,973
21,701
136
947,200
417,730
183,572
104,540
80,249
173,884
214,483
517,476
994,560
17,448
500,000
288,012
663,363
149,854
47,308
750,000
305,367
619,334
504,928
11,146
16,089
410,407
662,532
538,657
1,410,240
225,350
160,985
156,518
19,171
427,219
12,155,998
Meeting
405,486
123,111
18,826
0
846,080
412,357
166,248
104,424
79,534
173,809
214,483
517,390
979,558
17,442
500,000
285,701
650,763
149,854
47,308
537,000
295,687
608,657
504,928
6,395
14,443
410,107
662,532
496,337
1,410,240
222,772
147,248
122,834
17,441
427,219
11,576,214
Not
Meeting
86,080
1,862
2,875
136
101,120
5,373
17,324
116
712
75
0
86
15,002
6
0
2,311
12,600
0
0
213,000
9,680
9,792
0
2,581
1,122
300
0
42,320
0
2,274
13,737
33,684
1,730
0
575,898
Not
Attainable
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
885
2,170
524
0
304
0
0
0
0
3,886
Assessed
491,566
124,973
21,701
136
947,200
417,730
183,572
104,540
80,249
173,884
214,483
517,476
994,560
17,448
500,000
288,012
663,363
149,854
47,308
750,000
305,367
619,334
100,259
504,928
11,146
16,089
410,407
662,532
538,657
1,410,240
203,647
121,777
156,518
19,171
245,311
12,013,438
Meeting
405,486
124,973
21 ,701
0
846,080
412,357
77,176
104,361
77,350
173,809
214,483
517,390
958,080
17,446
500,000
288,012
663,363
149,854
47,308
670,000
303,180
614,067
21,799
504,928
6,395
14,443
408,742
662,532
521 ,235
1,408,585
202,808
121,648
155,938
19,171
245,31 1
11,480,011
Not
Meeting
86,080
0
0
136
101,120
5,373
106,396
179
686
75
0
86
36,480
2
0
0
0
0
0
80,000
2,187
5,267
78,460
0
3,915
1,122
1,665
0
17,422
1,655
838
0
580
0
0
529,724
Not
Attainable
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,213
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
836
524
0
1
129
0
0
0
3,703
Source: 1988 State Section 305(b) reports.
27
-------
Lakes and Reservoirs
The eutrophication
progression can be described
by a series of trophic states:
• Oligotrophic—clear
waters with little organic
matter or sediment and
minimal biological activity;
• Mesotrophic—waters
containing more nutrients
and therefore exhibiting
more biological productivity;
• Eutrophic—waters
extremely rich in nutrients,
with high biological produc-
tivity; and
• Hypereutrophic—murky,
highly productive waters,
closest to the wetland status.
Dystrophic is also a lake
classification but not
necessarily a part of the
eutrophication progression.
Dystrophic systems are often
low in nutrients yet are
highly colored with dissolved
humic organic matter.
Sphagnum bogs are examples
of such dystrophic systems.
Table 2-5 displays the
general characteristics of
lakes in the various trophic
classifications.
Although changes in lake
water quality may be tracked
by monitoring for trophic
state, experience has shown
that the trophic state of a
lake does not always define
its use. Some States believe
that advanced eutrophica-
tion does not necessarily
eliminate a lake's designated
recreational uses, nor is an
oligotrophic lake always best
for recreational activities.
These States have recognized
this apparent disparity
between positive recrea-
tional uses and the negative
connotations associated with
eutrophic conditions,
adjusting the ways they
determine trophic status to
reflect desired use (such
as warmwater fishing) and
public perceptions in addi-
tion to measurable physical,
chemical, and biological
parameters. In addition,
many lakes (particularly in
the Midwest and Southeast)
are naturally eutrophic.
Trophic status by itself is
not an indication of water
quality but must be eval-
uated against the natural
status of the lake.
Section 314 of the Water
Quality Act of 1987 required
States, in their Section 305(b)
reports, to identify their
lakes by trophic status. As
with other results reported
by the States, there is prob-
able sampling bias in the
lakes represented by the data
on trophic status. If the lakes
were assessed in response
to a problem or public
complaint or because of their
easy accessibility, there is
probable bias in the reported
information. It is therefore
likely that the more remote
and/or pristine lakes are
underrepresented in some
State assessments.
Table 2-6 displays the
results of the State evalua-
tions of trophic status. States
reported that 30 percent of
all lakes assessed for trophic
status were either eutrophic
or hypereutrophic; 23
percent were mesotrophic;
14 percent, oligotrophic;
and less than 2 percent,
dystrophic. Trophic status for
the remaining 30 percent
assessed was unknown.
Table 2-5. General Characteristics of Traditional Lake Trophic Status Classifications
Characteristics
Oligotrophic
Mesotrophic
Source: Report to Congress: Water Quality of the Nation's Lakes, 1989.
Nonpoint Sources Branch, OWRS.
28
Eutrophic
Nutrient Level
Organic Matter Content
Biological Productivity
Lake Age
Water Transparency
Oxygen Depletion
Hypolimnion
Average Depth
Low
Low
Low
Young
High
No
Deep
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Yes
Moderate
High
High
High
Old
Low
Yes
Shallow
-------
Lakes and Reservoirs
Table 2-6. Trophic Status of the Nation's Lakes
State*
Lakes Oligo- Meso- Hyper- Dys-
Assessed trophic trophic Eutrophic eutrophic trophic Unknown
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Totals
34
71
459
82
160
31
2
91
554
412
404
114
193
92
101
59
478
682
1,409
127
1,880
23
9
415
3,340
144
216
74
204
37
17
54
40
119
127
719
248
140
2,153
15,514
4
0
114
9
34
0
0
57
0
2
75
0
0
14
0
2
133
98
167
0
452
0
1
161
85
11
0
5
46
1
0
4
0
21
33
19
20
58
605
2,231
15
59
39
35
78
0
1
19
55
25
144
0
68
27
0
13
289
367
439
0
428
1
4
172
132
21
0
49
78
29
3
41
0
33
44
72
49
24
746
3,599
11
4
12
38
17
31
0
13
499
239
67
114
125
51
101
44
56
217
536
33
371
12
4
82
84
25
216
8
69
7
14
9
39
55
50
28
120
45
802
4,248
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
146
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
267
0
0
10
0
0
0
9
0
12
11
0
0
0
1
10
0
0
0
0
0
468
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
118
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
127
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
1
0
0
265
4
8
292
0
31
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•o
94
502
0
0
0
3,039
70
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
589
58
13
0
4,703
* States not listed in the table either did not report the information or reported in a way that was inconsistent with the format
of the table.
29
-------
La/ces and Reservoirs
EPA's Clean Lakes
Program
History of the
Program
Widespread public support
for preserving and protecting
the Nation's lakes gave rise to
the Clean Lakes Program in
1972. Initiated under the
Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, the Clean Lakes
Program set ambitious goals
for defining the causes and
extent of pollution problems
in the lakes of each State and
for developing and imple-
menting effective techniques
to restore and protect lake
resources. The Clean Lakes
Program provided financial
assistance to the States to
carry out the provisions and
objectives of the Act.
Promulgation of the Clean
Lakes Regulations in 1980
focused the program by
Scooping algae from a eutrophic lake.
30
establishing a comprehensive
grant assistance program
that included grants to the
States for the preparation of
Classification Surveys, as
well as for Phase I diagnostic/
feasibility studies and Phase
II implementation projects.
The purpose of the State lake
classification survey was to
identify and classify the
publicly owned lakes within
each State according to
trophic conditions. This
activity set the stage for the
award of Phase I grants by
defining a universe of
potential lake water quality
projects in each State and by
serving to assist in setting
priorities for potential
funding assistance.
Phase I studies were
intended to determine the
causes and extent of pollu-
tion in particular lakes of
each State, to evaluate
possible pollution control
mechanisms for them, and to
recommend the most feasible
and cost-effective methods
for restoring and protecting
lake water quality. Up to 70
percent of the total cost of
the project could be awarded
by the Federal government,
with a maximum of $100,000
awarded to any one study.
The award of Phase II
Federal assistance grants
translated Phase I lake
restoration and protection
recommendations into
action. Funds provided for
Phase II projects were
intended for actual imple-
mentation of in-lake restora-
tion practices and best
management practices in the
lake watersheds. Phase II
projects required at least a
50 percent non-Federal
match. Since 1976, EPA has
funded over 350 projects at a
total cost of $102 million.
In the last 2 years, these
Clean Lakes projects have
produced environmental
results. For example, in
Panguitch Lake, Utah, stream
banks have been resloped
and revegetated, 3,000 feet
of juniper tree revetments
have been installed in highly
eroded areas, seven check
dams and a sedimentation
pond have been built, and
fences have been installed to
keep out cattle. The result has
been a significant decrease
in sediment and phosphorus
loadings and a marked recov-
ery of the lake. Another
example is the Baton Rouge
University Lakes in Louis-
iana. Hydraulic and mechan-
ical dredging, sewer rehabil-
itation, runoff diversion, and
shoreline stabilization have
significantly improved water
quality and thereby reduced
fish kills in the lakes.
With the passage of the
Water Quality Act of 1987,
new directions for the Clean
Lakes Program were estab-
lished within the broader
context of State water
quality management.
The Water Quality
Act of 1987
Section 314 of the Water
Quality Act of 1987
reauthorized the Clean Lakes
Program and mandated a
number of new initiatives
and requirements. First, in
order to remain eligible for
Clean Lakes Program grant
funds, each State is required
-------
Lakes and Reservoirs
to submit biennially to EPA
the following:
• A revised Lake Classi-
fication Report;
• A list of lakes that do not
meet water quality standards
or will require controls to
maintain standards;
• Lake pollution control
procedures;
• A restoration plan for
degraded lakes;
• Methods and procedures
to mitigate the harmful
effects of acidity in lakes;
• An assessment of the
status and trends of lake
water quality; and
• A list of threatened and
impaired lakes.
As required by the Act, the
State Section 305(b) report
will be the mechanism for
reporting this information.
Second, under the new
Act, EPA was authorized to
establish a Clean Lakes
demonstration program to
enhance current scientific
understanding of the causes
of lake degradation and the
effectiveness of various lake
restoration techniques. This
includes a study of the
causes and extent of lake
acidification nationwide and
should result in the develop-
ment of mitigation tech-
niques for affected lakes.
Third, EPA was required to
develop a lake restoration
guidance manual and distrib-
ute it to the States and others
interested in lake manage-
ment, restoration, and
protection. The manual has
been completed, and nearly
10,000 copies have been
distributed nationwide.
Finally, in accordance with
Section 518(e) of the Water
Quality Act of 1987, EPA's
Administrator is authorized
to treat qualified Indian
tribes as States.
In implementing the CWA
reauthorization, States are
encouraged to develop inte-
grated water quality strate-
gies that include lake and
reservoir management,
restoration, and protection
activities. EPA will develop
technical support materials
to strengthen State programs.
These materials focus on
developing closer ties
between lake management
interests and other water
quality programs. As part of
this technical support effort,
EPA will continue to encour-
age national and interna-
tional lake management
conferences as well as
regional and State lake
management workshops.
Section 314 of the Water Quality Act of 1987 mandated a number of new initiatives to study, protect, and restore the Nation's lakes.
31
-------
Lakes and Reservoirs
In addition, in 1987-1988,
EPA worked to improve coor-
dination with other Federal
agencies such as the U.S.
Department of Agriculture;
prepared a Report to
Congress on the status of
water quality in lakes; and
initiated a long-term citizen's
information and education
program.
Also, in 1988-1989, the
Agency awarded over 100
new Clean Lakes Program
grants to States and eligible
Indian tribes for the study
and restoration/protection of
lakes. Forty States and 12
Indian tribes received grants
to assess lake water quality.
In addition, 43 Phase I
Diagnostic/Feasibility Study
grants were awarded to
determine the causes and
sources of pollution to
specific lakes and to develop
feasible restoration plans.
Ten Phase II Restoration
Implementation grants were
awarded to implement
approved restoration plans,
and Phase III Post-Restora-
tion Monitoring grants were
awarded to determine the
longevity and effectiveness
of previously completed
restoration activities.
32
-------
3
The Great Lakes
Support of
Designated Uses
The Great Lakes hold one-
fifth of the world's fresh
water and are so large that in
many ways they might better
be considered as freshwater
inland seas. Major urban and
industrial centers such as
Chicago, Detroit, Gary,
Ibledo, Ibronto, and Buffalo
are located along their
shores. They serve as receiv-
ing waters for the municipal
and industrial dischargers in
many of these urban areas
and are also affected by a
myriad of other sources
including urban and agricul-
tural runoff, hazardous
waste sites, pollution brought
by tributaries, and. atmos-
pheric deposition. Despite
these influences, the Great
Lakes have immense recrea-
tional and commercial value
and are unique, vital natural
resources.
In their 1988 State Section
305(b) reports, six of the
eight Great Lakes States
provided information on the
extent to which their Great
Lakes shoreline miles attain
the uses for which they have
been designated (see Table
3-1). A total of 4,479 miles
were assessed—all of the
shoreline miles in these
States and 87 percent of the
total number of Great Lakes
shoreline miles in the U.S.
Eight percent of assessed
miles, or 372 miles, were
found to be fully supporting
uses, and 4 percent of these
were determined to be
supporting but threatened.
Eighteen percent of assessed
miles (819 miles) were
reported to be partially
supporting uses, and 73
percent (3,288 miles) were
reported as not supporting
uses (see Figure 3-1).
lable 3-1 gives further
evidence of the variability of
State reporting and assess-
33
-------
The Great Lakes
Table 3-1. Desli
S
State
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
New York
Ohio
Totals
gnated Use
Total
horeline
Miles
63
43
3,288
272
577
236
4.479
j Support in Great Lakes
Shoreline Miles Assessed Miles
Percent Percent Fully
Total Evaluated Monitored Supporting
63 0 100 0
43 0 100 0
3,288 0 100 0
272 0 100 272
577 0 100 100
236 — — 0
4,479 372
•Miles Threatened is asubset of Mites Fully Supporting.
—Not reported.
Miles
Miles Partially
Threatened* Supporting
0 63
0 43
0 0
— 0
15 477
— 236
15 819
Miles
Not
Supporting
0
0
3,288
0
0
0
3,288
Source: 1988 State Section 305(b) reports.
ment methodologies. Fish
consumption restrictions are
in place for one or more
species throughout near-
shore waters of the Great
Lakes; as a result, Michigan,
which has portions of four
Fully Supporting
Partially Supporting
(18%)
Not Supporting
(73%)
Assessed Shoreline Miles (4,479)
Great Lakes in its jurisdiction
totaling 3,288 shoreline
miles, reported all of its lake
shore miles as not supporting
uses. Other States have clas-
sified waters with restric-
tions as partially (or even
fully) supporting designated
uses.
It should also be noted that
it is the nearshore waters of
the Great Lakes that are
most likely to be degraded;
Table 3-1 does not address
water quality conditions in
the deeper, cleaner, less
stressed central waters of the
Lakes.
Sources of
Impairment
Priority organics are by far
the most extensive cause
(i.e., specific pollutant or
process) responsible for use
impairment in the Great
Lakes, according to the four
States reporting (see Table
3-2). While all States
reported Great Lakes waters
affected by priority organics,
New York alone accounts for
over 60 percent of those
waters. Metals are also
Table 3-2. Impaired Great Lakes Shoreline Miles Affected by
State
Illinois
Indiana
New York
Ohio
Totals
Combined Totals
Total
Impaired
Waters*
63
43
477
236
819
Priority
Organics
Major
63
—
463
4
530
Mod/Min
—
43
—
188
231
761
Metals
Major
—
—
—
86
86
Mod/Min
—
—
—
129
129
215
Soutco; 1988 Stato Section 305{b) reports.
Rgure 3-1. Designated Use Support in Assessed Great Lakes
34
-------
The Great Lakes
commonly reported, with
nutrients, organic enrich-
ment/low dissolved oxygen,
and pesticides also cited
as contributors to use
impairment.
Three States provided
information on the various
sources of pollution in their
Great Lakes shoreline miles
(see Table 3-3). Land disposal
is cited as the leading source
of impairment; however, all
waters reportedly affected
by land disposal are in one
State (New York). Source and
cause data on the Great
Lakes are limited and are
probably not indicative of
the lake system as a whole.
Attainment of
Clean Water Act
Goals
Five States provided
information on the degree to
which their Great Lakes
shoreline waters meet the
fishable and swimmable
goals of the Clean Water Act
(see Table 3-4).
A total of 1,191 shoreline
miles were assessed for
fishability. Largely because
of fish consumption advis-
ories and bans, only 32
percent of these assessed
waters are meeting the fish-
able goal. The main reason
for these fishing restrictions
is contamination of sedi-
ments by toxic chemicals
such as priority organics that
are, in turn, passed along to
macroinvertebrates and fish.
In none of the assessed Great
Lakes shoreline miles is the
fishable goal considered not
attainable by State standards
(see Figure 3-2). Variations in
State definitions of fishable
goal attainment clearly
account for inconsistencies
in these statistics.
Somewhat fewer shoreline
miles (919) were assessed for
the swimmable goal. A strik-
ing reversal is evident for the
swimmable goal: 98 percent
of assessed shoreline miles
meet the goal, and only 2
percent do not. Again, in
none of the assessed miles is
the swimmable goal of the
Clean Water Act considered
not attainable.
Causes of Pollution
Nutrients
Major
17
—
29
—
46
Mod/Mm
26
—
—
4
30
76
Organic
Enrichment
Major Mod/Min
— —
— 15
— 46
0 61
61
Pesticides
Major Mod/Min
— —
— 43
— —
— —
0 43
43
pH Pathogens
Major Mod/Min Major
— — —
— — —
— 35 —
0 35 0
35
Mod/Min
—
15
—
15
15
Siltation
Major Mod/Min
— —
— 14
— —
0 14
14
35
-------
The Great Lakes
Table 3-3. Impaired Great Lakes Shoreline Miles Affected by Sources of Pollution
Total
Impaired
State Waters*
Illinois 63
Indiana 43
New York 477
Totals 583
Combined Totals
Land
Disposal
Major Mod/Min
— 477
0 477
477
Combined
Agriculture Sewers
Major
14
14
Mod/Min Major
43 —
15 —
58 0
72
Mod/Min
6
43
14
63
63
Storm
Sewers/Runoff
Major
45
45
Mod/Min
14
14
59
'The sum of partially and nonsupporting Great Lakes shoreline miles (Table 3-1).
Source: 1988 State Section 305(b) reports.
— Zero or not reported.
Not Meeting
(68%)
Meeting
(32%)
Not Meeting
(2%)
Meeting
(98%)
Fishable Goal
(1,191 Assessed Shoreline Miles)
Swimmable Goal
(919 Assessed Shoreline Miles)
Note: the "not attainable" categories are less than 1 percent for both goals.
Source: 1988 State Section 305(b) reports.
Figure 3-2. Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in Assessed Great Lakes
The Cleveland lakefront.
-------
The Great Lakes
Resource Hydro/
Construction Silviculture Extraction Habitat Mod
Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min
Industrial
Municipal
43
43
14
0
43
43
0
43
43
0
14
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Table 3-4. Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in Great Lakes
Fishable Goal (shoreline miles)
Swimmable Goal (shoreline miles)
State
Illinois
Indiana
Minnesota
New York
Ohio
Totals
— Not reported.
Assessed
63
43
272
577
236
1,191
Meeting
0
0
272
114
0
386
Not Not
Meeting Attainable
63
43
0
463
236
805
0
0
0
0
Assessed
63
43
577
236
919
Meeting
63
43
563
231
900
Source:
Not
Meeting
0
0
14
5
19
Not
Attainable
0
0
0
0
1988 State Section 305(b) reports.
Sediment contamination is the
main reason for fishing restric-
tions in the Great Lakes.
Contaminants may be passed
along to some fish species.
37
-------
The Great Lakes
The Great Lakes:
A Narrative
Assessment
The Great Lakes are
cooperatively protected by
the U.S. and Canada under
the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement of 1978
as amended in 1987. The
Clean Water Act also applies
to the U.S. waters of the
Great Lakes, incorporating
the Great Lakes Water Qual-
ity Agreement by reference
and providing special Great
Lakes programs under
Section 118(c). The Inter-
national Joint Commission
(IJC), which was established
under the 1909 Boundary
Water Treaty with Canada, is
responsible for identifying
actions needed to maintain
the integrity of the Great
Lakes ecosystems. The
Commission's two boards—
the Great Lakes Water
Quality Board and the
Science Advisory Board-
include members from a
variety of State and Federal
agencies and universities
who work together to
identify problem areas, plan
programs to reduce pollu-
tion, and publish reports on
issues and findings.
The IJC has identified 42
Areas of Concern in the
Great Lakes basin. These are
defined as waterways where
environmental quality is
degraded and beneficial uses
are impaired. The IJC has
developed a system to classify
the Areas of Concern in
terms of the information
available on each and the
stage of development and
implementation of remedial
actions. The IJC's main focus,
in its listing of these problem
areas, has shifted away from
eutrophication and toward
toxic contamination of fish
tissue and sediments. Remed-
ial action plans are required
for waters identified as Areas
of Concern.
Several of these IJC Areas
of Concern are discussed
below: the Niagara River, the
Grand Calumet River-Indiana
Harbor Ship Canal, Wauke-
gan Harbor, and Saginaw
Bay. Other Areas of Concern
are discussed in detail in the
1988 State Section 305(b)
reports.
In their 1988 Section 305(b)
reports, seven States-
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, New York, Ohio,
and Wisconsin—provided
narrative information on the
quality of the Great Lakes
within their jurisdictions.
Some overall conclusions can
be drawn about conditions in
the Great Lakes based on
these assessments:
• Contamination of fish
tissue and sediments by toxic
substances such as mercury,
PCBs, DDT, and other pesti-
cides continues to be wide-
spread. Fish advisories and
bans are in place in many
areas of the Great Lakes.
However, declines are noted
in toxics in fish tissue-
particularly in levels of DDT
and mercury. All the Great
Lakes States appear to be
pursuing aggressive, long-
term monitoring for toxic
substances in fish tissue.
• No improvement is noted
for toxic contamination of
sediments, a major problem
in Great Lakes harbors and
bays. Sediment contamina-
tion, in turn, can affect
aquatic life and serve as a
continuing source of toxics
to the larger lake system.
38
-------
The Great Lakes
• Phosphorus control
programs such as bans on
phosphorus-containing
detergents and improve-
ments to municipal treat-
ment facilities—along with
industrial and nonpoint
source controls, reductions in
combined sewer overflows,
and resource management
actions—have been success-
ful in reducing the levels of
this nutrient in the Great
Lakes. Improvements in the
eutrophic conditions of
nearshore waters are noted
by several States. Nitrogen
levels, however, appear to be
increasing.
• Nearshore waters—
particularly harbors and
river outlets—seem to have
the greatest problems with
sediment contamination,
industrial and municipal
pollution, combined sewer
overflows, and tributary
inputs.
Information from the 1988
State Section 305(b) reports
is summarized below for each
of the Great Lakes.
Lake Superior
Lake Superior, the
northernmost of the Great
Lakes, discharges to the
southeast through the St.
Mary's River into Lake
Huron. In surface area, Lake
Superior is the largest body
of fresh water in the world;
it is also the deepest (1,330
feet) of the Great Lakes.
Lake Superior is classified
as oligotrophic. Water quality
is generally good, with only a
few localized problem areas
along the shoreline. Michigan
reports that atmospheric
deposition appears to be an
important source of pollut-
ants because of Lake
Superior's large surface area
and the relatively low
amount of input from other
sources. Wet atmospheric
deposition may be respon-
sible for as much as 22
percent of the total sulfate
loads and 55 percent of the
total nitrogen loads to the
lake.
In May 1986, the Minnesota
Department of Health, in
conjunction with the Wiscon-
sin Department of Health,
issued a lakewide advisory
for lake trout over 30 inches.
The advisory is most prob-
ably the result of new data
rather than worsening water
quality conditions.
Lake Superior's St. Louis
Bay has been identified as an
Area of Concern by the IJC
because of toxic contamina-
tion of sediments that, in
turn, affect aquatic life. A
remedial action plan is being
developed by Minnesota and
Wisconsin.
39
-------
The Great Lakes
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan drains
eastward through the Straits
of Mackinac into Lake
Huron. Its open waters are
oligotrophic. Nearshore areas
in Green Bay and along the
southern portion of the lake
are more mesotrophic
because of nutrient inputs
from industrial activities and
urbanization.
Of the Great Lakes
surveyed under Michigan's
fish contaminant survey
program, Lake Michigan has
been the most heavily
affected, particularly by
organochlorine compounds.
However, levels of most
contaminants in fish are
declining. Mercury levels
have been declining in the
lake since 1972. The 1984
data showed that contami-
nants in coho salmon, steel-
head, and lake trout less
than 20 inches long
decreased to the point where
90 percent or more of the
fish tested did not exceed
action levels issued by the
U.S. Food and Drug Adminis-
tration (FDA). However, con-
taminant levels remain high
in lake trout over 25 inches
long and in carp and brown
trout. Levels of DDT, diel-
drin, and PCBs are consist-
ently higher in fish taken
from the southern end of the
lake. These higher levels in
fish correspond closely with
higher levels of these
contaminants in the sedi-
ments at the lake's south
end.
Water quality in the
Indiana portion of Lake
Michigan varies widely.
Indiana reports that water
column sampling reveals few
violations of standards.
However, concentrations of
mercury and phenols in the
near shore zone reflect the
effects of wastewater and
tributary contributions from
the watershed. The highest
values consistently appear
near the Indiana Harbor Ship
Canal. High levels of
chlorides in the contiguous
harbor, as well as low
dissolved oxygen and high
un-ionized ammonia values
in Trail Creek, may also be
responsible for some of the
chemical variability in the
Lake.
Since testing began in the
early 1970s, PCBs, chlordane,
DDT, and dieldrin have been
found in fish tissue in Lake
Michigan at levels exceeding
FDA action levels. Indiana
issues a revised fish
consumption advisory for
fishermen and consumers of
these fish each spring.
The two branches of the
Grand Calumet River meet to
form the Indiana Harbor Ship
Canal, which empties into
Lake Michigan. The Grand
Calumet River-Indiana
40
-------
The Great Lakes
Harbor Ship Canal has been
designated as an Area of
Concern by the IJC. Stand-
ards for dissolved oxygen,
chlorides, ammonia, and
fecal coliform are commonly
violated. However, the
number and severity of
violations have been reduced
because of recent upgrades
to area municipal sewage
treatment facilities.
In 1985, EPA prepared a
"Master Plan for Improving
Water Quality in the Grand
Calumet River and Indiana
Harbor Canal." The Master
Plan calls for programs that
will focus EPA and State
water quality control efforts
on problems in these waters.
Programs include tightening
discharger permit limits,
developing pretreatment
programs, and taking
compliance actions (both
municipal and industrial) to
ensure that permit limits are
met. Longer term investiga-
tions to evaluate the effec-
tiveness of existing and new
control programs will be
conducted.
Indiana is also preparing
a remedial action plan to
define activities needed to
improve water quality in the
Grand Calumet River-Indiana
Harbor Ship Canal so that
designated uses for Lake
Michigan are maintained or
restored.
Illinois reports that priority
organics are considered a
major problem along its Lake
Michigan shoreline. PCBs,
chlordane, and dieldrin were
found to exceed FDA action
levels in fish tissue in 1986.
PCBs are also a problem in
sediments of various Lake
Michigan harbors. Improve-
ments are noted for phos-
phorus due to municipal
sewage treatment improve-
ments and a ban on phos-
phate detergents in Indiana.
Major sources of pollutants
along the Illinois shore of
Lake Michigan include
atmospheric deposition,
urban runoff, and in-place
contaminants (sediment
contamination). Waukegan
Harbor, identified as an Area
of Concern by the IJC, is one
of several areas severely
affected by sediment
contamination. PCBs in the
harbor prevent its use for
fish consumption and swim-
ming, and restrict dredging
for navigation channels. A
Superfund Consent Decree
has recently been entered for
the Outboard Marine Corpo-
ration site at Waukegan
Harbor. While it includes a
remedial action plan specific
to the site, the settlement
does not address the harbor
as a whole and should be
considered as a probable
component of the Area of
Concern remedial action
plan. Now that the Super-
fund issue is settled, Illinois
will be able to prepare a
remedial action plan for the
Area of Concern under the
terms of the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement.
41
-------
The Great Lakes
Green Bay/Fox River Mass Balance Study
: Description of'
GeographicalArea
Gregn Bay can be char-
acterized'as a long," relatively'"
shallow extension of north-
western Lake Michigan. The
Green Bay watershed clrains
land surfaces in both Wiscon-
sin and Michigan and
contains about one-third of
the total Lake Michigan
drainage basin. It drains the
Fox River Valley, which
supports extensive agricul-
ture and is heavily industrial-
ized, containing the largest
concentration of pulp and
paper plants hi the world.
Water Quality
Problems
At present, conditions in
" G'feenSay range from hyper-
eutrophic in the southern
portion to mesotrophic-
oUgotrophic near the Lake
Michigan interface. "The
extreme productivity in the
southern portion results in
deposition of organic
material which, in turn,
causes hypolimnetic oxygen
depletion in the central bay.
The presence of toxic .'. ..
organic materials in the
water, sediment, and biota
has adversely affected both
„ jjhejiis^ .fnj, panagement of
the bay's fisheries, The ..
commercial fisheries to the
bay, with the exception ot
yellow perch, are closed
because of PCB eontamina- _.
- tion. Consumption advisories
have been issued to sport
fishermen. Reproductive
failure and increased deform-
ities have been observed in
some fish-eating birds and
are apparently related to
toxic contamination,
Problems with toxic
contamination observed In
Green Bay are similar to
those in other polluted areas
of the Great Lakes and are
representative of the prob-
lem of bioaccumulation of
toxic contaminants in fish in
the Great Lakes at large. The
lower bay and Fox River have
been recognized as a polluted
water system and have been
designated by the Interna-
tional Joint Commission as
one of the 42 Great Lakes
Areas of Concern.
The Green
Bay/Fox River
Mass Balance
Study
EPA's Great Lakes National
program Offic? (GLNPO) is
coordinating and providing
major funding for a mass
balance study of the toxic
contaminants in the Green
Bay ecosystem.
The concept of total load
management in the Great
Lakes Basin is a fundamental
element of the Water Qual*ty
Agreement between Canada
and the United States, of
GLNPO's Five-Year Strategy,
and of the Lake Michigan
Tbxicant Control Strategy.
Great Lakes managers have
recognized that addressing
toxic contaminants in the
Great Lakes system requires
a comprehensive multimedia
evaluation of the point andL
nonpoint source loadings to
the lakes, including less
easily measured sources such
as air, precipitation, soil,
sediments, and ground water.
The mass balance approach,
based on the law of conser-
vation of mass, assumes that
inputs of toxic contaminants
(less quantities stored, trans-
formed, or degraded within
the system) must equal
42
-------
The Great Lakes
outputs. This concept serves
as the framework around
which data are being
gathered to provide a
comprehensive picture—an
ecosystem model—of
contaminant dynamics in
Green Bay.
The overall goal of the
Green Bay/Fox River Study is
ttrdevelop a modeling frame-
work to improve our under- :
standing of the"sources; "•""-'!T
transport, and fate of toxic
compounds, to evaluate the
technplogical capability to
measure multimedia loadings
to the system, and ultimately
to guide and support regula-
tory activity.
Study Scope and
Activities
For the Green Bay/Fox "-- --•'./.'
River Mass Balance Study,
models will be applied to
toxicants of interest. These!
. include PCBs, dieldrin,
cadmium^ and lead. Physical/
chemical models will be
coupled with a food chain
model to allow estimation of
the body burdens in the
target species (carp, brown '.
trout, and walleye) The
'integrated model will then be
used to predict concentra-
tions in the water, sediment,
and biota in response to
differing regulatory and .
remedial action scenarios.
The predictions willinclude
• ;i6fig^emV^xtrap6lation f rbm
: the short-tterm calibration;
The study is concentrating
Bay in order to gather the
data needed to construct and
drive the mass balance
model. Research vessels are
'• traveling the bay to measure .
contaminant levels in water,
sediments, and biota.
Projects to quantify sources _
of toxic contaminants
include: V !-/.": : V :- ;
• A first-of-its-kind network
of aii; monitors to measure
the introduction of airborne
toxicants to Green Bay; .:>-/.
• Sampling programs to
measure toxic input from
major rivers that enter Green
Bay, including the mouth of
the Fox River; and
• An in-depth study of the
-distribution and movement
of contaminants from
polluted sediments.
These activities will tap the
expertise of'a. number of
State and Federal agencies.
.: AsidefromliPA's GLNPO,
:. partjciparits include the
Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources; the
Wisconsin Sea Grant; the
National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration
(NOAA); the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; the U.S.
.Geological Survey; the
Michigan Department of
Natural Resources; the Green
' Bay Remedial Action Plan
Implementation Committee;
EPA laboratories at Duluth,
Minnesota, and Grosse Isle;
: and:EPA Region V's Divisions
of Water and Waste
Management.
r
43
-------
The Great Lakes
Study Schedule and
1988 Status
The study activities are
being conducted during a
4-year period beginning in
1986 and continuing until the
end 9f 1990.
During 1986-1987, a moni-
toring plan was developed,
along with a quality assur-
ance program to be used in
evaluating 'analytical" arid i'""'"
field methods for the project.
Also during this time, model-
ing tasks were scoped out
and assigned to appropriate
Investigators, and some field
recSrth aiSsanCe Was aceoni- ;'"
plished.
During 1988", "the'three"'"' '
atmospheric deposition
monitoring stations were
operating. The 1988 field
season saw the first shake-
dpwn.s.uryeys in the bay.
EPA's research vessel, the
R'~V Roger Simons, was out-
fitted with the necessary
sampling and laboratory
equipment. During the
August, October, and Novem-
ber surveys, methods for
sampling tbxics'in bay and
tributary waters were tested
in preparation for the main
field work year of 1989.
NOAA deployed wave rider
buoys and current meters at
strategic' locations in'"the'"b"ay..
Field work will peak"
during the 1"9'89 field season,
when investigators will
concentrate .their efforts to
provide a comprehensive and
coordinated data set for
describing contaminant
dynamics in the Green Bay
ecosystem. Sample analysis
""arid data evaluation will
proceed through 1990.
Modeling results and a final
report are expected in 1991.
Significance of
the Study to
Great Lakes Water
Quality
Management,
As recommended by the
International Joint Commis-
sion for all of the Areas of
Concern, Wisconsin's Depart-
ment of Natural Resources
has prepared a remedial
action plan "for Green Bay
, ' '>! ,."', 'i.!',J!!"y" i[r.n Mif.iiW-ihN , - -Mi,.,..i»,i| ..hjhjbi, , Srf. , r->'.iniH,, •' 1,1, i An*
arid'' the Lower Fox fiver.
This plan outlines actions the
State intends to carry but to
restore the Say's Beneficial
uses, such as swimming and
mS The plan also points
ilw »»fl»»
-------
The Great Lakes
Lake Huron
Lake Huron receives the
outflow of both Lake
Superior and Lake Michigan
and in turn discharges to the
south through the St. Clair
River, Lake St. Clair, and the
Detroit River, into Lake Erie.
Although Lake Huron is
classified as oligotrophic,
Michigan reports that one
area of the Lake—Saginaw
Bay—is considered eutrophic.
Saginaw Bay has also been
identified by the IJC as an
Area of Concern. Water
quality problems in the bay
include elevated levels of
heavy metals, ;toxic organics,
conventional pollutants, and
contaminated sediments. A
fish consumption advisory is
also in effect in the bay.
Michigan reports that Sagi-
naw Bay's water quality has
improved considerably in
recent years.
Lake Erie
Michigan reports that Lake
Erie's shallowness and warm
temperatures make it suscep-
tible to nutrient enrichment
problems. According to the
International Joint Commis-
sion, remedial programs for
reducing phosphorus load-
ings have led to a 56 percent
decrease in rates of loading
over the last 15 years. This
has contributed to a 44
percent decline in mean total
phosphorus concentrations
in the central basin's upper
water column over the same
period. In recent years,
oxygen depletion rates in the
central basin's lower water
column have decreased and
are less variable, suggesting
an improvement in eutrophic
conditions. On the other
hand, documented increases
in nitrate concentrations are
cause for concern.
Other indicators of water
quality including water
clarity, measurements of
phytoplankton biomass, and
counts of certain fish species
also suggest that Lake Erie
water quality is improving. In
addition, recent evidence
from municipal water intakes
indicates that concentrations
of ions, such as chlorides and
sulfates, have decreased
since 1970.
Michigan also reports that,
in general, concentrations of
total PCB and other organo-
chlorine contaminants moni-
tored in walleye since 1977
have exhibited year-to-year
variability and no obvious
trend. Levels of mercury in
walleye have decreased since
1977, remaining below FDA
action levels, and concen-
trations of other contam-
inants have also remained
relatively low.
Ohio reports that although
phosphorus loadings and
concentrations have been
decreasing, Lake Erie is still
eutrophic, particularly
throughout the (western
basin and in .nearshore areas.
The nearshore area at the
eastern end of the Ohio
shoreline is the only area of
the State's nearshore waters
in the lake approaching or
attaining mesotrophic status.
Maumee Bay and Sandusky
Bay, the most eutrophic areas
in Lake Erie, are fed by rivers
whose drainage basins are
used intensively for agri-
culture. Although nutrient
levels are elevated through-
out the nearshore and
particularly near river
mouths, water quality
standards are rarely
exceeded. However, viola-
tions of metals standards are
common throughout the
nearshore area, particularly
for cadmium and copper.
Metals violations are the
primary reason that the Lake
Erie nearshore is classified as
only partially supporting its
designated uses.
An exchange of fish moni-
toring data among New York,
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michi-
gan, and the Province of
Ontario revealed concentra-
tions of PCBs in excess of
acceptable FDA levels. This
information led to the 1987
issuance of a whole-lake
advisory warning against
consuming channel catfish
and carp. (New York later
withdrew its lakewide advis-
ory after determining that
levels of PCBs in its Lake
Erie waters did not exceed
acceptable FDA levels.
However, a statewide fish
consumption limit based on
more protective State criteria
does apply to all fresh waters
in New York.) Fish consump-
tion advisories are also in
effect in the lower Black and
Ashtabula Rivers because of
elevated concentrations of
PCBs and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs).
Although Lake Erie supports
the most productive fishery
in the Great Lakes, the
issuance of the advisory
classifies the whole lake as
not supporting the CWA
fishable goal.
45
-------
The Great Lakes
Ohio reports that Lake Erie
harbor areas are .much more
eutrophic and contain higher
levels of contaminants than
any nearshore areas. The
harbors act as natural sinks
for sediments and associated
pollutants delivered by tribu-
taries. Four of the harbor
areas in Ohio (the lower
Maumee, Black, Cuyahoga,
and Ashtabula Rivers) have
been designated as IJC Areas
of Concern, and remedial
action plans are being
developed to return these
areas to conditions support-
ing beneficial uses.
Lake Ontario
The bioaccumulation of
toxic substances is one of
Lake Ontario's major prob-
lems. New York reports that
tributaries to Lake Ontario—
the Niagara, Oswego, and
Genessee Rivers—are often
the major source of these
pollution problems. Atmos-
pheric deposition is believed
to be a significant contrib-
utor of several volatile
organic contaminants,
including PCBs.
Fishing advisories are in
effect in Lake Ontario for a
number of species including
channel catfish, lake trout,
chinook and coho salmon,
rainbow and brown trout,
and white perch. PCBs,
mirex, dioxin, and chlordane
in tissue at levels exceeding
FDA action limits are cited
as the causes of the fishing
advisories.
Toxic substances in the
water column off the major
tributaries are also found at
levels violating standards.
Those that are measured
most frequently in excess of
standards are heavy metals,
specifically cadmium and
zinc.
A steady decrease in
phosphorus loadings to Lake
Ontario has been observed
since 1972. Improving condi-
tions in the lake are indi-
cated by a shift of the open
lake phytoplankton commu-
nity from one containing
mesotrophic forms to one
with species more indicative
of oligotrophic conditions.
However, the concentra-
tion of nitrogen continues to
increase in the lake. The
reasons for this increase
require further investiga-
tion. Environment Canada
compared the rate of
increase in Lakes Ontario
and Huron and concluded
that both lakes are
responding in a similar
manner to a common loading
source.
Eutrophication is also a
problem in two major embay-
ments along the lake,
Irondequoit Bay and Sodus
Bay. The problem is attrib-
uted to local inputs of
nutrients from point and
nonpoint sources.
46
-------
The Great Lakes
Niagara River
The Niagara River drains
the entire Great Lakes
system and all of the
municipal and industrial
discharges entering the lakes
from one of the most highly
industrialized regions of the
United States and Canada.
Because of the huge volume
of flow in the Niagara,
conventional wastes are
readily assimilated and
dissolved oxygen levels are
consistently above minimum
required standards. However,
toxic chemicals in water,
sediments, and fish tissue
pose a persistent problem in
the Niagara River, difficult
to quantify and remedy. A
number of tributaries of the
Niagara River have also been
identified as having water
quality problems related to
toxic substances. These
include Two Mile Creek, the
Black Rock Canal, Black
Creek, Smokes Creek, Bloody
Run Creek, Gill Creek, Berg-
holtz Creek, and Scajaquada
Creek. A fishing advisory has
been issued for several
species in the Niagara River
below the Falls because of
PCB, mirex, and dioxin
contamination, and for all
fish species in Cayuga Creek
because of dioxin contam-
ination.
The International Joint
Commission has identified
the Niagara River as an Area
of Concern. A remedial
action plan to address water
quality problems is being
prepared. The Niagara River
Toxics Committee, a joint
U.S.-Canada work group,
found that data for sedi-
ments and for some sport fish
from the western basin of
Lake Ontario indicated
declines in the uptake of
PCBs, DDT, mirex, and chlor-
inated benzenes between the
early to mid-1970s and 1980.
This was confirmed by the
significant declines in PCBs
and DDT residues since 1975
in spottail shiners collected
at the outlet of the Niagara
River. Mirex levels in these
fish declined since 1978, but
no trends are evident for
chlordane and hexachloro-
cyclo-hexane isomers. Since
1980, levels of PCBs and DDT
in spottails are no longer
declining, but fluctuations
make it difficult to deter-
mine any new trends.
A study completed in 1987
by the New York Department
of Environmental Conserva-
tion found that the total
daily loadings of priority
pollutants from 29 significant
discharges into the Niagara
River had decreased from
2,740 pounds per day to 540
pounds per day since a
1981-1982 baseline study.
The majority of the total
daily loadings are heavy
metals and cyanide, and the
remainder are organic
pollutants.
A view of Niagara Falls.
47
-------
The Great Lakes
A report released in 1986
by the Niagara River Data
Interpretation Group
concluded that ambient
loadings of a number of
substances were consider-
ably higher at the mouth of
the river, at Niagara-on-the-
Lake, than at the beginning
of the river at Fort Erie. This
report summarizes data
collected by Environment
Canada at Fort Erie and
Niagara-on-the-Lake in
1984-1986.
The Group released its
second report in early 1988
covering the period of April
1986 to March 1987. Among
the findings were that eight
organic contaminants and six
trace metals showed statis-
tically significant increases in
loadings or in concentrations
in water or sediment at
Niagara-on-the-Lake.
Twenty-five of the 59
contaminants analyzed were
higher at Niagara-on-the-
Lake than at Fort Erie.
A recent study of organo-
chlorine contaminants in
ducks wintering on the
Upper Niagara River found
that concentrations of PCBs,
dieldrin, hexachlorobenzene,
and heptachlor epoxide
increased in adults between
their late fall arrival and
early spring departure. These
contaminants were present
at levels high enough to be
considered a potential health
risk to humans who might
' consume the birds.
48
-------
4
Estuaries and Coastal
Waters
The States provided far
more information on water
quality conditions in their
estuaries and bays than in
their ocean coastal waters.
In part, this may be because
degradation is more likely
to occur in embayments and
estuaries where polluted
rivers join the sea and human
population has concentrated
for economic and recrea-
tional reasons. Another
reason is that States gener-
ally lack reporting capability
for offshore areas; histor-
ically, EPA and the States
placed little emphasis on
developing this capability.
States are therefore more
likely to devote more
resources to evaluating
estuarine rather than coastal
water quality. Summary
water quality information for
estuaries and coastal waters
presented by the States in
1988 will be discussed below
to the extent that data are
available.
It should also be noted
that information collected
through the National Estuary
Program and the Near
Coastal Waters Program
indicates that some desig-
nated use data reported
below may not accurately
reflect known impairment in
estuaries and coastal waters.
As EPA increases its empha-
sis on estuarine and coastal
water reporting, the accu-
racy and comprehensiveness
of these data should improve.
49
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Estuaries
Support of
Designated Uses
Twenty-three States, juris-
dictions, and Interstate
Commissions (hereafter
referred to as States)
provided use support infor-
mation on their estuarine
waters in their 1988 State
Section 305(b) reports (see
Table 4-1). A total of 26,676
square miles were assessed,
76 percent of the estuarine
waters in these States.
Of these assessed waters,
19,110 square miles, or 72
percent, were found to fully
support designated uses.
About 2 percent of those
estuarine square miles
supporting uses were deter-
mined to be threatened by
pollution and could become
impaired if control actions
are not taken. Twenty-three
percent of assessed square
miles (6,078 square miles)
partially supported uses, and
6 percent (1,488 square
miles) did not support their
designated uses (see Figure
4-1). Nineteen of the estua-
rine States specified the basis
of their assessmem deci-
sions; 23,049 square miles
were assessed in these States,
three-quarters using moni-
toring and one-quarter using
evaluative methods, such as
mathematical models or fish-
eries surveys.
Table 4-1. Designated Use Support in Estuaries
State
Alabama
California
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Delaware River Basin
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Louisiana
Massachusetts
Maryland
Maine
Mississippi
North Carolina
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Totals
Estuary
Square
Miles
625
1,598
601
6
866
4,298
594
134
7,656
171
1,981
1,633
133
3,200
27
420
1,564
192
2,155
1,990
2,382
29
2,943
35,198
square
Miles Asses
sea
Percent Percent
Total Evaluated Monitored
53
1,099
601
6
866
2,655
594
134
4,928
171
1,981
1,633
133
3,194
17
259
1,564
192
663
1,990
1,800
29
2,114
26,676
28
10
0
13
85
0
88
0
0
90
4
0
0
0
48
0
0
0
4
72
90
100
87
15
100
12
100
100
10
96
100
100
100
52
100
100
100
96
'Square Mites Threatened is a subset of Square Miles Fully Supporting.
Sq. Miles Sq. Miles Sq. Miles
Fully Sq. Miles Partially Not
Supporting Threatened* Supporting Supporting
50
1,076
367
0
855
1,549
583
40
2,731
54
0
1,595
126
2,974
7
117
1,151
154
583
1,532
1,604
25
1,937
19,110
— Not reported.
—
8
0
—
0
0
—
6
9
7
0
12
15
0
293
350
Source:
0
0
231
5
0
815
7
94
2,077
111
1,974
38
6
218
0
124
145
18
18
0
105
1
91
6,078
3
23
3
1
11
291
4
0
120
6
7
0
1
2
10
18
268
20
62
458
91
3
86
1,488
1988 State Section 305(b) reports.
50
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
While estuarine reporting
appears fairly comprehen-
sive, seven estuarine States
failed to provide usable
summary information on
designated use support in
their estuarine waters.
Thirteen States claim that
they assessed all of their
estuarine waters in 1988,
and of these, six report that
their assessments were based
entirely on monitoring data.
Much as with rivers and
lakes, the area of estuarine
waters found to be fully
supporting uses varied
widely, from zero to 99
percent of assessed waters,
with nine States finding that
over 90 percent of their
assessed estuarine waters
fully support uses.
Causes of
Impairment
For their estuarine waters,
16 States provided informa-
tion on the causes of nonsup-
port (see Table 4-2). States
were asked to provide the
number of estuarine square
miles under each cause
category that contributes to
impairment and to assign a
degree of impact of major or
moderate/minor. Therefore,
any given square mile may be
counted under several cate-
gories if it is affected by a
number of causes. The values
reported are the total
number of estuarine square
miles affected by a particular
cause of impairment, accord-
ing to whether the cause is
a major or moderate/minor
contributor to impairment.
The relative extent of each
cause of nonsupport is
determined by dividing the
number of square miles in
each cause category by the
total square miles impaired
(see Figure 4-2).
Nutrients and pathogens
are reported by the States as
the leading causes of nonsup-
port in estuaries, affecting
50 and 48 percent of total
impaired square miles,
respectively. Organic enrich-
ment/low dissolved oxygen
was found to affect 29
percent of impaired waters.
This appears to indicate that
eutrophication (caused by
Not Supporting
(6%)
Partially Supporting
(23%)
Fully Supporting
(72%)
Assessed Square Miles (26,676)
Sources: State Section 305(b) reports.
Figure 4-1. Designated Use Supported in Assessed Estuaries High levels of bacteria can lead to shellfishing closures.
51
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
overabundant nutrients) and
high levels of bacteria—
which can lead to shellfish-
ing closures and restrictions
in shellfishing waters—are
the leading threats to the
Nation's estuaries.
Other leading causes
identified by the States were
oil and grease, affecting 23
percent of impaired waters;
metals, affecting 10 percent;
siltation, affecting 7 percent;
unknown toxicity, affecting
5 percent; and priority
organics, affecting 4 percent.
These numbers should be
interpreted with care. As for
all sources and causes in all
waterbody types, certain
States appear to account for
a large proportion of the
impact of various causes of
nonsupport in estuaries. For
example, Louisiana alone
accounts for nearly all those
estuarine waters affected by
oil and grease and over half
of those with pathogen
impacts. Florida accounts for
84 percent of estuarine
waters affected by metals,
about 86 percent of those
with siltation impacts, and
nearly all of the estuarine
waters affected by unknown
toxicity.
Twelve States specified the
degree of impact (i.e., major
or moderate/minor) of the
causes of degradation in
their estuarine waters.
Among these, major impacts
far outweighed moderate/
minor impacts for a variety
of pollutants including
priority organics, nutrients,
and metals. For example,
in 83 percent of waters
impaired by priority organics,
the impact was considered
major, as was the impact of
nutrients in 69 percent of
affected waters and of
metals in 52 percent.
Table 4-2. Impaired Estuary Square Miles Affected by Causes of Pollution
Total
Impaired
State Waters*
Alabama**
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Florida** 1
Georgia
Hawaii
Louisiana 2
Maryland 1
Mississippi
North Carolina**
New Jersey
New York
Rhode Island
South Carolina**
Virginia
Washington
3
234
6
,106
11
94
,197
,981
7
220
142
413
38
80
196
177
Totals 6,905
Combined Totals
Percent of Impaired Waters
Nutrients
Major
3
6
222
62
1,981
135
70
9
—
2,488
Mod/Min
215
5
46
568
2
100
—
936
3,424
49.6%
Pathogens
Major
23
1
1
—
120
13
26
142
251
24
59
90
67
817
Mod/Min
54
5
1,815
396
4
120
16
93
2,503
3,320
48.1%
Organic
Enrichment
Major
3
25
1
203
12
62
700
—
14
8
21
2
1,051
Oil & Grease
Mod/Min Major Mod/Min
182
~
—
568
8
2
99
66
25
950
2,001
29.0%
_ _
— 1
~ ~
25 1,561
— —
— 24
~ ~
1 5
26 1,591
1,617
23.4%
•The sum of partially and nonsupporting estuary square miles (Table 4-1).
"These States did not specify the degree of impact (i.e., Major or Moderate/Minor); estuary square miles were placed in the "Major"
52
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
POLLUTION CAUSES
Nutrients
Pathogens
Organic Enrichment
Oil and Grease
Metals
Siltation
Unknown Toxicity
Priority Organics
Pesticides
PH
Unspecified
Moderate/Minor Impact
10 20 30 40
Impaired Square Miles Affected (%)
Source: 1988 State Section 305(b) Reports.
Figure 4-2. Percent of Impaired Estuary Square Miles Affected by Each Pollution Cause
Metals
Priority
Siltation Unknown Tox Organics
Pesticides
PH
Other
Inorganics
Ammonia
Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min
— 26 —
— 6 —
550 — 398
— 3 —
III
- - ~5
I I
1 —
— 345
46 —
— —
1 —
— — 26 —
— — 1 —
— — — —
— — 2 —
3 — — —
_ ,
— — 5 — — — 6
25
— — — — — — —
_ __._._ — 70 — 70 — — — — — — —
— _— _— 5 145 4— — — _ _ . _ _ —
15 ____ __ __ _. _ __ __ —
40 15 1
605 50 404
655
9.5%
11 —
59 345
463
6.7%
— 21 14 —
8 236 47 70
353 283
5.1% 4.1%
— 2 21 . — — — —
2 — — — — — 5
22 26 25 — — 11
72 28 25 11
1.0% 0.4% 0.4% 0.2%
column for national reporting purposes. — Zero or not reported.
Source: 1988 State Section 305(b) reports.
53
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Sources of
Impairment
In their 1988 State Section
305(b) reports, 14 States
provided information on the
various sources of pollution
contributing to use impair-
ment in their estuarine
waters. This information is
displayed in Table 4-3. States
provided the total number of
square miles under each of
the source categories that
contribute to impairment,
and in some cases assigned a
degree of impact of major or
moderate/minor.
As discussed earlier, any
given square mile may be
counted under several cate-
gories if it is affected by
a number of sources. The
values reported are the total
number of estuarine square
miles affected by a particular
source of pollution, according
to whether the source is a
major or moderate/minor
contributor to impairment.
The relative extent of each
source of nonsupport is
determined by dividing the
number of square miles in
each source category by the
total square miles impaired
(see Figure 4-3).
Table 4-3 illustrates that a
somewhat different water
quality picture exists for
estuaries than for inland
waters. The most extensive
source of pollution cited by
the States in their estuarine
waters is municipal
discharges (affecting 53
percent of impaired square
miles), followed by resource
extraction (affecting 34
percent), storm sewers/
runoff (affecting 28 percent),
and land disposal (affecting
27 percent). To a lesser
extent, agricultural runoff,
construction, industrial
discharges, and combined
sewer overflows are also
cited.
Table 4-3. Impaired Estuary Square Miles Affected by Sources of Pollution
Total
Impaired
State Waters*
Alabama**
California**
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Florida**
Georgia
Louisiana
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina**
Rhode Island
South Carolina**
Virginia
Washington
Totals
Combined Totals
Percent of Impaired Waters
3
23
234
6
1,106
11
2,197
142
413
220
38
80
196
177
4,846
Resource
Municipal Extract
Major
1
1
54
744
82
140
59
64
7
43
84
1,279
Mod/Min Major
„_
169 —
5 —
— 68
1 —
837 25
190 —
29 —
8 —
53 —
1 ,292 93
2,571
53.1%
Mod/Min
—
3
1,561
—
I
1,564
1,657
34.20/0
Storm
Sewers/Runoff
Major
2
1
109
62
140
102
8
17
48
18
21
528
Mod/Min
—
160
5
I
567
71
17
3
29
852
1,380
28.5%
Land Disposal
Major
—
9
571
—
5
9
1
48
643
Mod/Min
—
5
—
559
70
—
51
685
1,328
27.4%
*The sum of partially and nonsupporting estuary square miles (Table 4-1).
"These States did not specify the degree of impact (i.e., Major or Moderate/Minor); estuary square miles were placed in the "Major" column for
national reporting purposes.
— Zero or not reported.
Source: 1988 State Section 305(b) reports.
54
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
States report that discharges from sewage treatment facilities are
the most extensive source of pollution in estuarine waters. f
Agriculture
Construction
Industrial
Combined
Sewers
Hydro/
Habitat Mod
Silviculture
Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Mm Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min
15
181 46
— 1
177
5
555
— 467
324
4
— 205
34
70
— 140
130
28 —
— 112
80 —
11
36
— 21
22
38
841
2
27 —
58 607
899
18.6%
— 7
1 40
1 381
608
12.5%
1 2
9 31
207 228
588
12.1%
1
8
271
499
10.3%
17
223
_
11
11
234
4.8%
_
21
76
1
1
77
1.6%
55
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
These findings should be
interpreted with care. First,
as mentioned previously,
definitions of pollution
sources are ambiguous (see
discussion of Sources in
Chapter One). Second, anal-
ysis of State data in Table 4-3
reveals that several States
appear to account for a
proportionally higher share
of impacts than others. For
example, 96 percent of the
estuarine square miles with
impacts from resource
extraction are in Louisiana,
as are 42 percent of those
with land disposal impacts
and 36 percent of those with
municipal impacts; Connect-
icut accounts for nearly half
of the miles affected by
combined sewer overflows.
Although these findings are
fairly consistent with known
pollution sources in these
States (e.g., oil drilling in
Louisiana offshore waters,
combined sewers in Connect-
icut's older urban areas),
reporting inconsistencies
influence these results to
some extent.
Nine States specified the
degree of impact of pollution
sources in their estuarine
waters. Major impacts out-
weighed moderate/minor
impacts in waters affected by
construction, silviculture,
agriculture, and hydrologic/
habitat modification. For
example, in 69 percent of the
waters impaired by agricul-
ture, the impact was consid-
ered major, as was the impact
of hydrologic/habitat
modification in 62 percent
of affected waters.
POLLUTION SOURCES
Municipal
Resource Extraction
Storm Sewers/Runoff
Land Disposal
Agriculture
Construction
Industrial
Combined Sewers
Hydro/Habitat Mod
Siliviculture
Q Unspecified
[H Moderate/Minor Impact
_L
10 20 30 40 50
Impaired Square Miles Affected (%)
60
Source: 1988 State Section 305(b) Reports.
Figure 4-3. Percent of Impaired Estuary Square Miles Affected by Each Pollution Source
56
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Attainment of the
Clean Water Act
Goals
The basic goals of the
Clean Water Act—that waters
be clean enough to support
fishing and swimming—apply
to the Nation's estuaries as
well as to its rivers and lakes.
Twenty States provided
information on Clean Water
Act (CWA) goal attainment
in 1988 (see Table 4-4).
A total of 22,258 estuarine
square miles were assessed
for the fishable goal of the
CWA. Of these, 86 percent
attained fishing uses, 14
percent did not currently
attain fishing uses but might
in the future, and less than
1 percent (72 miles) were
found to be "not attainable"
(i.e., affected by irrevocable
impacts or not designated by
the State for fishing uses).
Nearly the same number of
estuarine square miles were
assessed for the swimmable
goal of the CWA. A higher
percentage of waters—95
percent of the 21,594 square
miles assessed—were found
to attain the swimming goal.
About 4 percent did not
currently attain the goal, and
less than 1 percent were not
attainable. Figure 4-4 illus-
trates progress toward attain-
ment of the CWA goals in the
Nation's estuaries.
Several States discussed
reasons for significantly
different fishable and swim-
mable figures. In Maryland,
for example, the mainstem of
the Chesapeake Bay gener-
ally meets the swimmable
goal but fails to attain the
fishable goal, primarily as a
result of the loss of aquatic
habitat. Shellfishing and
fishing restrictions may also
be the reason a greater
percentage of estuarine
waters did not meet the
fishable goal in some States.
Not Meeting
(14%)
Meeting
(86%)
Not Meeting.
(4%)
Meeting
(95%)
Fishable Goal
(22,258 Assessed Square Miles)
Swimmable Goal
(21,594 Assessed Square Miles)
Note: The "not attainable" categories are less than 1 percent for both goals.
Source: 1988 State Section 305(b) reports.
Figure 4-4. Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in Assessed Estuary Square Miles
57
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Table 4-4. Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in Estuaries
Fishable Goal (square miles)
Swimmable Goal (square miles)
State
Alabama
Connecticut
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Washington
Totals
— Not reported.
58
Assessed
53
600
866
6
2,655
594
40
4,928
1,633
1,981
171
133
17
259
1,564
191
663
1,990
1,800
2,114
22,258
Meeting
50
598
845
0
2,364
584
40
4,926
1,595
0
116
132
17
117
1,234
178
640
1,990
1,604
2,008
19,038
Not Not
Meeting Attainable
3
2
21
6
291
10
0
2
38
1,981
55
1
0
124
283
6
23
0
196
106
3,148
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
47
7
—
0
72
Assessed
53
600
866
6
2,655
40
4,928
1,633
1,981
171
133
17
189
1,564
191
663
1,990
1,800
2,114
21 ,594
Meeting
50
570
855
0
2,364
40
4,928
1,623
1,974
79
132
17
117
1,487
178
636
1,990
1,604
1,963
20,607
Not Not
Meeting Attainable
3
30
11
6
291
0
0
10
7
92
1
0
54
30
6
27
0
196
151
915
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
47
7
—
0
72
Source: 1 988 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Understanding
Estuarine Water
Quality: The
Chesapeake Bay
Perspective
The Chesapeake Bay, the
Nation's largest estuary,
historically produced bounti-
ful harvests of oysters, crabs,
and fish. Although crabs are
still abundant, oyster and
fish stocks continue to suffer
serious declines due to
degraded water quality and
harvesting pressure. These
declines have paralleled a
rise in population and the
conversion of forests to
urban, suburban, and agri-
cultural uses. Land use
changes have severely
affected water quality by
increasing the input of
nutrients, sediments, and
toxic materials to the bay.
The decline of the Chesa-
peake Bay became the focus
of national attention in the
early 1980s. In an effort to
restore the bay, top officials
from Virginia, Pennsylvania,
Maryland, the District of
Columbia, and the U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) gathered in
1983 to sign the original
Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
This Agreement marked a
milestone in that the bay
was now to be managed as a
complete ecosystem span-
ning its many political
boundaries (see Figure 4-5).
Under the Chesapeake Bay
Agreement, a Monitoring
Subcommittee was estab-
lished to oversee the devel-
opment and implementation
of a coordinated baywide
monitoring program—a criti-
cal element in guiding the
restoration and protection
of the Chesapeake Bay. The
three basic objectives of this
monitoring program were to:
(1) Characterize current
baywide conditions for key
variables;
(2) Identify long-term
changes in these variables in
response to restoration and
protection management
actions; and
(3) Improve the under-
standing of processes
important to management
strategies, including the
relationship between water
quality and living resources.
Since the signing of the
Agreement, significant
progress has been made in
meeting these objectives.
Within the tidal waters of the
bay, a monitoring network
composed of 150 mainstem
and tributary stations is
operational. This network
provides data on a compre-
hensive suite of physical,
chemical, and biological
water quality parameters
12-20 tunes a year. Signifi-
cant progress has also been
made in characterizing
impacts to the bay's
submerged aquatic vegeta-
tion, wetland, shoreline, and
shellfish resources. The
findings of the water quality
network and efforts to char-
acterize bay resources are
presented below.
Water Quality
Findings
Nutrients
Nitrogen and phosphorus,
nutrients required for phyto-
plankton growth, accelerate
the eutrophication that is the
bay's foremost problem. Ibtal
nitrogen generally increases
in concentration towards the
upper estuary reaches of the
mainstem and its tributaries.
This gradient reflects the
large nonpoint source nitro-
gen inputs entering from the
bay's watersheds and the
gradual dilution downstream
Figure 4-5. The Chesapeake Bay Watershed
59
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
as mixing occurs with nitro-
gen-poor coastal waters.
Point source inputs, usually
located in the upper estuar-
ies, intensify the pattern.
The highest nitrogen concen-
trations (>3 mg/1) are found
in the Back River and the
upper Patuxent River in
Maryland—areas strongly
influenced by sewage treat-
ment plant effluent. The
mainstem above the Chesa-
peake Bay Bridge and adja-
cent to Annapolis, Maryland,
exhibits concentrations
similar to those found in
many of the upper tribu-
taries (1-2 mg/1). The lowest
SUSQUEHANNA
Baltimore
Washington DC
Summer Dissolved
Oxygen Concentrations
[HI Limited (> 5 mg/1)
E53 Moderate (1 -4mg/l)
Hi Severe (<1 mg/l)
concentrations in the bay
system are found in the lower
mainstem as concentrations
decline from about 0.65 mg/1
near the Patuxent River to
about 0.45 mg/1 off the bay
mouth.
Concentrations for total
phosphorus, as for total
nitrogen, generally increase
in an upstream direction
from less than 0.1 mg/1 in the
mainstem to greater than 0.3
mg/1 in the upstream reaches
of several tributaries. This
gradient again reflects the
location of point and non-
point source inputs entering
the upper reaches of the
system. The mainstem,
however, does not fit this
pattern since total phos-
phorus concentrations vary
between about 0.03 and 0.06
mg/1 without a strong
upstream gradient. This
difference may be explained
by the influence of the
Susquehanna River, at the
head of the bay. The Susque-
hanna is dammed at the head
of the bay; sediment contain-
ing much of the river's phos-
phorus load settles behind
the dam and therefore does
not enter the bay mainstem.
Nitrogen, on the other hand,
is in dissolved form and
relatively unaffected by
impoundment. A second
factor accounting for the
Susquehanna's relatively low
phosphorus concentration is
the lack of significant point
sources in the river's lower
reaches as compared to its
freshwater flow.
Dissolved Oxygen
One of the major results of
eutrophication in the bay is
seasonal development of low
dissolved oxygen (hypoxia)
in bottom waters. The most
severe hypoxia (<1 mg/1
dissolved oxygen [DO]) is
found in the mainstem's
"deep trough" region from
the Baltimore-Annapolis area
south to the Potomac River.
More moderate hypoxia
problems (1-4 mg/1 DO) are
observed just upstream and
downstream of the severe
areas and in the lower
reaches of several other
western shore tributaries—
the Magothy, Severn, South,
Patuxent, Rappahannock,
and York Rivers. A few
eastern shore areas—the
lower Chester River, Eastern
Bay, and Little Choptank
Embayment—also experi-
ence moderate hypoxia (see
Figure 4-6).
Figure 4-6. Average Summer Dissolved Oxygen Concentra-
tions In Chesapeake Bay: 1985-1986
60
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Toxic Contaminants
Thousands of potentially
toxic substances enter the
bay, representing a different
and more complex threat to
its resources. Beginning in
1984, a 2-year sediment
sampling survey was con-
ducted to measure both
metal and organic com-
pounds. A class of organic
compounds, polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), was detected in a
consistent pattern during
both years of the study. A
pronounced peak in PAH
concentrations (>7.5 ppm
dry weight) was found in
the vicinity of the Baltimore
Harbor, a heavily populated
industrial center. North and
south of the Baltimore
region, these concentrations
decline (6.5-2.5 ppm). The
lowest concentrations occur
near the mouth of the bay
(<0.5 ppm). The majority of
the PAHs found in Chesa-
peake Bay samples can likely
be attributed to the combus-
tion of fossil fuels. Similar
spatial patterns have emerged
for other toxicants in the
mainstem, and results are
becoming available for
various tributaries.
Abundance of
Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation
The dramatic decline in
the baywide abundance and
distribution of submerged
aquatic vegetation (SAV)
began in the 1960s and has
led to the total disappear-
ance of SAV in many areas
of the bay. Results from a
17-year ground survey
program and the multiyear
baywide aerial survey
program indicated that SAV
coverage dropped to its
lowest recorded levels in
1984 (see Figure 4-7). Since
that year, some measure of
stability and even a small
resurgence in the abundance
and distribution of SAV have
been recorded. Managers and
scientists have concluded
that water quality problems,
particularly those resulting
in eutrophication and
reduced light transmission
(i.e., plankton blooms and
suspended sediments) were
primarily responsible for the
baywide declines of all SAV
species.
30
QI 1 1 1 1 i i 1 1
1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986
Year
Figure 4-7. Percent of Maryland Chesapeake Bay SAV Ground Survey Stations with
Vegetation Present
61
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
The Potomac River: The Multidecade
Recovery of a Chesapeake Bay Tributary
Water quality in the upper
Potomac estuary has improved
substantially over the last
two decades. Large-scale
blooms of blue-green algae
and very low dissolved
oxygen (DO) levels frequently
occurred in the Potomac
fever during the late"i§Ps
but are nowrare.Before the
1980s, submerged aquatic
vegetation (SAV) had almost
disappeared in the tidal
portion of the river. Tbday,
SAV beds have reyegetated
most of the upper tidal river
shoreline and are continuing
to reestablish former habitats
in the lower river. The
Potomac now supports a
healthy and popular recrea-
tional fishery of many fresh-
water and anadromous
finfish species. However,
despite Hie^ wafer quality
and habitat improvements,
discharges from regional
wastewater treatment plants,
nonpoint sources, and
combined sewer 'overflows
have slowed a complete
recovery of the upper
Potomac estuary.
The Blue Plains Treatment
Plant, serving the Washing-
ton, D.C., metropolitan area,
is the largest sewage treat-
ment plant in the upper tidal
Potomac. The plant contrib-
utes about 70 percent of
treated flows to the river.
Over the past 15 years, Blue
Plains has implemented
several advanced-treatment
measure^ to reduce BOD,
suspended solids, and
nutrient loadings to the
estuary. Even though flows
_ of wastewatetliave ^.,__
increased since 1970,
loadings have decreased
dramatically.
The recovery of the upper
Potomac estuary is attrib-
uted to the control of point
sources, particularly at
regional wastewater treat-
ment plants. The correspond-
ing recovery of natural
communities of'submerged
plants^ benthic communities,
and fishery populations is
thought to have strength-
ened the pace of water
quality improvements
through increased filtering
capacity and buffering of
nutrient concentrations
during the summer months.
However, further improve-
ments to the estuary are
possible and, indeed, neces-
sary. A pollutant source still
of concern is the loading of
nutrient-laden sediment
from the upper Potomac
River basin. Also of concern
are pollution inputs from
combined sewer overflows
and stormwater runoff into
the estuary from the Wash-
ington, D.C., metropolitan
area.
62
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
The Anacostia
River; Severe
Problems Remain
Unlike the Potomac River,
its tributary, the Anacostia
River, still suffers severe
pollution problems. Pollutant
sources include excessive
nonpoint source sediment
loadings from abandoned
gravel and sand operations
and urban areas, as well as
bacterial and BOD loadings
from combined sewer over-
flows (CSOs).
Fecal coliform concen-
trations frequently exceed
the District's water quality
standard for secondary
contact recreation in the
tidal Anacostia. Dissolved
oxygen levels are extremely
low, often resulting in fish
kills in the tidal Anacostia.
Water clarity is also
extremely poor. Turbidity
occurs because of high sedi-
ment loadings from the
upper Anaeostia watershed.
Streambank erosion, resus-
pension of sediment in the
tidal reaches, and CSOs
in the District may also
contribute to the problem.
Tb correct these problems,
the District of Columbia and
Maryland signed the Anacos-
tia Watershed Restoration
Strategy Agreement. This
Agreement calls for the
cleanup of the Anacostia
River through CSO abate-
ment measures within the
District and implementation
of soil erosion control meas-
ures in the watershed.
In 1984, the District began
a two-phase CSO abatement
program for the Potomac
and Anacostia Rivers. After
completion, these abatement
measures should reduce the
frequency of CSO events by
33 percent. In addition,
the District is planning a
nonpoint source monitoring
program to quantify NFS
pollutant loads prior to the
development of NFS control
measures. Local jurisdictions
have also begun to establish
stormwater management
regulations.
Combined sewer overflows
and storm-water runoff from
metropolitan areas affect
tributaries of the Chesapeake
Bay.
. CHESAPEAKE DR/4IN/4GF
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Status of Estuarine
and Inland Wetlands
A1987 survey of wetland
types indicated that there
are 1.2 million acres of
wetlands—one-fifth estua-
rine and three-fourths
inland—within the Chesa-
peake Bay drainage basin.
Prom the mid-1950s to the
late 1970s, destruction of
estuarine wetlands, typically
coastal marshes, occurred at
an overall rate of 6.3 percent
in Virginia and 9 percent in
Maryland. Loss of coastal
wetlands to estuarine waters
was the most significant
factor. This resulted from a
combination of human and
natural actions, including
coastal impoundments,
dredging projects, and the
natural rise of sea level.
Urban development was
responsible for about one-
fifth of the coastal wetlands
losses. Since protective
legislation was enacted in
Virginia and Maryland in the
early 1970s, losses of coastal
wetlands have been essen-
tially eliminated. State laws
were also strengthened by
the Federal Section 404
regulatory program.
During this same period
(mid-1950s to late 1970s),
inland vegetated wetlands in
the Chesapeake Bay experi-
enced even more dramatic
losses. Maryland's inland
wetlands decreased by 15.1
percent, while Virginia lost
57 percent of its inland
vegetated wetlands. Agricul-
ture and other development
(mainly channelization
related to farming) were
equally responsible for
nearly 60 percent of the
inland vegetated wetland
losses. Pond and lake
construction were also
significant; urban develop-
ment had less impact. These
losses of inland wetlands
have continued virtually
unabated to date, although
wetland protection appears
to be gathering both legisla-
tive and executive support.
Shoreline Erosion
A Chesapeake Bay
Shoreline Erosion Study is
being conducted by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers in
cooperation with Maryland
and Virginia. Through this
study, the average rate of
shoreline erosion for the
Chesapeake Bay has been
estimated as 1 foot per year.
Rates as high as 10 feet per
year have been identified in
some areas. About 4.7 million
cubic yards of material—
slightly more than half of the
sediment entering the bay
from all sources combined-
are eroded from the shore-
line in a typical year. This
study also involves the
construction and monitoring
of field modeling projects to
determine cost-effective
shore protection measures.
Six projects are planned for
construction and will be
monitored for 2 years.
Efforts to protect wetland areas
within the Chesapeake Bay
drainage area appear to be
gaining support.
64
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Declining Shellfish
Harvest
The Chesapeake Bay has
become world renowned for
its oysters—historically the
bay's most bountiful harvest.
In recent years, however, a
number of factors, including
degraded water quality,
sedimentation, harvesting
pressure, and disease, have
resulted in a declining oyster
harvest. In the early 1980s,
the total annual Maryland
and Virginia oyster harvest
was over 3 million bushels.
The harvest dropped to
approximately 2 million
bushels in 1983 and was
down to less than 1 million
bushels in 1988 (see Table
4-5).
Future Directions
During the 1980s, monitor-
ing and assessment efforts
focused on the Chesapeake
Bay have provided water
quality managers and the
public with a better under-
standing of the problems
endangering this valuable
estuary. With this increased
awareness has come the
challenge to implement
needed control actions. In
December 1987, a new
Chesapeake Bay Agreement
was signed committing the
Governors of Pennsylvania,
Maryland, and Virginia, the
Mayor of the District of
Columbia, the EPA Adminis-
trator, and the Chairman of
the Chesapeake Bay Commis-
sion to a detailed set of
objectives and commitments
including a timetable for the
development of specific
baywide management plans.
The centerpiece of the
Agreement is the commit-
ment to achieve a 40-percent
reduction in total nitrogen
and total phosphorus inputs
to the bay by the year 2000.
Along with these ambitious
targets for nutrient control,
the 1987 Chesapeake Bay
Agreement emphasizes the
need to integrate the bay's
living resources component
into the overall management
of this ecosystem. Measures
are being developed to eval-
uate the success of pollution
control and abatement
programs in restoring the
estuary's living resource
habitats. These measures
will enable managers to focus
water quality restoration
programs on those regions of
the bay most critical to its
living resources and vital to a
healthy, productive estuary.
Table 4-5. Historical Record of Oyster Harvest from the Chesapeake Bay
(in millions of bushels)
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
Virginia
Maryland
Total
0.88
2.53
3.41
0.70
2.31
3.01
0.55
1.48
2.03
0.60
1.08
1.68
0.63
1.14
1.77
0.82
1.56
2.38
0.44
0.98
1.42
0.58
0.35
0.93
65
-------
i nh i'iLi J'aiiiii dyv1 iiin^
" i II' liiiiu !>>!! iiii1 ii™ If J.^
'F ilHii;!'". I;|''' ;ni,, ,i Ti i"' in II i,' /1- i .' i '<,it i 'ir liiS'i', iilB!';; i H: i !i«:!!: illll1'!!1 '': i?'!' it 'I IT,! "Hi1* i,i!! i« 'ni M"^^ !j d
"I "1 lllfjtp" , 1 jjj* [ " ' ' 'I'J I* II (III IH 6 " 1 !
II II II I IIII
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Asa result, all four disposal
sites were successfully
phased out as environmen-
tally acceptable land-based
alternatives were developed.
EPA Begion in conducted
baseline surveys in and
around the dumpsite used
for disposal of sewage sludge
from Philadejphia and Cam-
den, A variety of impacts
on the marine environment
were found. These impacts
included accumulations of
heavy metals in organisms
and sediments, the appear-
ance of sludge deposits on
the ocean bottom, the
presence of sewage bacteria,
changes in the benthic
community with the loss of
sensitive species, and the
occurrence of necrotic
lesions and riielariization of
gUls in rock crab. After
closure of the disposal sites,
followup monitoring revealed
systematic recovery of the
benthic and fish species and
improvements in water and
sediment quality.
Monitoring
Program
There are no active ocean Mlu-AtlantlC
dumpsites in EPA Begion HI. Initiative
As a result, monitoring
Becognizingthat ocean
pollution problems are
^Seldom localized, EPA Begion
HI initiated an effort to
develop a broad-based Mid-
Atlantic Initiative that would
address coastal problems as a
whole rather than from a
regional or State-level
perspective.
The Mid-Atlantic Initiative
is a joint proposal involving
EPA Begions I, II, HI, and IV
programs have been modi-
fied over the years to reflect
changing utilization and
stresses on the living
resources in the area. In
1987, EPA's regional monitor-
ing activities were again
expanded in response to new
concerns: dolphin mortality,
atypical algal blooms, fish
diseases, and floatable
debris.
EPA Begion HI is pursuing
additional strategies to better
understand coastal pollution
problems and take a more
proactive approach to coastal
protection. Baseline monitor-
ing and surveillance work
has been expanding. This
includes coastal eutrophi-
cation and public health
surveys in the area adjacent
to the mouth of the Delaware!
Bay, down the Delmarva
Peninsula to the region off
the Virginia coast south of
the Chesapeake Bay. In addi-
tion to water and sediment
sampling, a marine mammal
watch and floatable or plas-
tic pollution watch are
included as part of routine
surveillance activities.
to Florida) as a first step
toward addressing common
concerns in the Mid-Atlantic
Bight and near coastal
waters. The purpose of the
initiative is to better define
coastal problems, reorient
existing EPA and State
programs to more effectively
address common high-
priority problems, provide
suggestions for solving these
problems, and implement
consistent ocean and estua-
rine policies where they are
lacking in major regulatory
areas.
Environmental
Rapid Deployment
Team
In 1988, EPA Begion m
organized an environmental
rapid deployment team, Its
"purpose is to give EPA the
ability to respond quickly to
any new environmental or
public health problems in
Begion Hi's near coastal
waters. This effort includes
active participation by State
and Federal agencies such as
the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Marine Fisheries
Service, National Park
Service, and the States of
Maryland, Virginia, and
Delaware. Local governments
and citizens who have timely
information on current or
abnormal;environmental
conditions in their coastal
communities are encouraged
to take part in these
activities.
(including States from Maine
67
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Ocean
Coastal
Waters
Support of
Designated Uses
Ten States and two Terri-
tories (hereafter referred to
as States) reported on the
degree to which their ocean
coastal waters support the
uses for which they have
been designated (see Table
4-6). These States assessed
3,755 coastal miles, 73 per-
cent of their total miles but
only about 20 percent of the
Nation's estimated 19,200
miles of ocean coastline.*
Of those assessed coastal
miles, 3,324 miles (89
percent) were found to fully
support their designated
uses. About 2 percent of
these miles (73 miles) were
determined to be threatened
and likely to become impaired
if pollution control actions
were not taken. Eight .
percent of assessed coastal
miles (307 miles) were identi-
fied as partially supporting
uses, and 3 percent (124
miles) were found to be not
supporting uses (see Figure
4-8). Ten States specified the
basis of their assessment
decisions (i.e., whether
monitored data or evaluative
information). In these ten
States, 2,679 miles were
assessed, 50 percent using
evaluative information and
50 percent using monitoring
data.
While these figures may
satisfactorily portray coastal
conditions in these 12 States,
they are not necessarily
representative of the Nation
as a whole because they
apply to so few waters.
Problems with inconsistent
reporting and assessment
methodologies apply as well.
For example:
• One State assessed only
4 percent of its coastal
waters, while nine States .
report that they assessed
100 percent;
• Five States relied
exclusively on evaluative
data, and two States used
only monitoring data; and
'Estimate excludes figures for Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Alaska.
Table 4-6. Designated Use Support in Oceans
State
Alabama
California
Rorida
Hawaii
Maryland
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New York
Puerto Rico
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Totals
Ocean
Coastal
Miles
50
1,840
1,291
824
32
81
18
130
434
112
173
163
5,148
Coastal Miles Assessed
Miles Miles
Percent Percent Fully Miles Partially Not
Total Evaluated Monitored Supporting Threatened* Supporting Supporting
50
1,069
835
824
32
81
18
130
434
112
7
163
3,755
100
16
62
100
0
100
0
71
100
100
0
84
38
0
100
0
100
29
0
50
1,009
761
824
32
40
18
60
250
112
5
163
3,324
—
0
40
18
0
15
0
0
73
0
0
74
0
0
30
0
70
132
0
1
0
307
0
60
0
0
0
11
0
0
52
0
1
0
124
•Miles Threatened is a subset of Miles Fully Supporting.
— Not reported.
Source: 1988 State Section 305(b) reports.
68
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
• Six States reported that
all their assessed coastal
waters supported designated
uses, while in three States
about half of the assessed
waters supported uses.
Causes and
Sources of
Impairment
Two States and one Terri-
tory provided information on
the causes and sources of
nonsupport in ocean coastal
waters not fully supporting
uses (see Tables 4-7 and 4-8).
Because these cause and
source data include only a
small proportion of ocean
coastal waters, they may not
be representative of coastal
pollution influences
Attainment of the
Clean Water Act
Goals
Ten States provided infor-
mation on the extent to
which their ocean coastal
waters attain the fishable
and swimmable goals of the
Clean Water Act. Table 4-9
displays this information.
The same number of
coastal miles were assessed
for the fishable goal as for
the swimmable goal. Figure
4-9 reveals that 97 percent
of the 2,679 assessed coastal
miles attained the fishable
goal and 3 percent did not
currently attain the goal but
might in the future. No
coastal miles were deter-
mined to be not attainable—
i.e., irrevocably affected by
pollution or not designated
for fishing.
A slightly smaller percent-
age of miles—92 percent-
were found to attain the
swimmable goal. Only
1 percent of the miles were
found to be not meeting the
goal, but in 7 percent, the
swimmable goal was deter-
mined to be not attainable
(see Figure 4-9). This 7
percent comes exclusively
from Puerto Rico, which did
not identify the reason for
nonattainability in its coastal
waters.
Partially Supporting
(8%)
Fully Supporting
(89%)
Not Supporting
(3%)
Assessed Coastal Miles (3,755)
Source: State Section 305(b) reports.
Figure 4-8. Designated Use Supported in Assessed Oceans
69
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
8 .......
l
Geographic Area
Port Townsend Bay Is an
embayment in the northeast
corner of the Olympic Penin-
sula in Washington State. Its
large northern outlet opens
to Admiralty Inlet, which
connects the Strait of Juan
de Fuca (and the Pacific
Ocean) to Puget Sound. At
the southern end, a narrow
connection to Puget Sound
restricts exchange of water.
Between the bay's two
islands, Indian and Marrow-
stone, lies Kilisut Harbor.
The bay (excluding Kilisut
Harbor) has a surface area of
30 square kilometers and a
r-*
mean depth of 17.4 meters.
-Its shoreline is 20 percent
urban (Port Ibwnsend), 20
percent county urban/
suburban, 30 percent conser-
vancy/natural uses, and 30
percent U.S. Naval Reserve
(Indian Island).
A variety of biological
resources can be found in
and around Port Ibwnsend
Bay. The glacous-winged
gull, pelagic cormorant,
pigeon guillemot, and black
oystercatcher use the area
for nesting. Commercial
fishermen operate just north
of the bay in Admiralty Inlet.
The bay itself supports sport
salmon fishing as well as
spawning grounds and hold-
ing areas for the Pacific
herring and shellfish beds of
geoduck, clam, and oyster.
Dungeness crab can also be
found.
Water Quality
Problems
At two locations in Port
Townsend Bay in 1986 and
at one location in 1987,
commercial attempts to raise
Atlantic salmon in pens
failed because of a greater
than 90 percent mortality.
A'pathology study concluded
that the salmon mortality
was caused by severe liver
disease associated with
waterborne toxicants. The
bay is generally considered a
nonurban area with little or
no previous record of toxic
contamination. A prelim-
inary investigation at a
proposed pen site in Glen
Cove (on the western shore
of the bay) found further
evidence of an environmen-
tal problem: the diversity
and numbers of bottom-
dwelling and benthic organ-
isms were severely limited.
Pollutant Sources
The major point source
discharger to Port Townsend
Bay is an unbleached kraft
pulp mill that discharges 12
to 16 million gallons per day
into Glen Cove through an
outfall 1,800 feet offshore. In
addition, the Naval Undersea
Warfare Engineering Station
(NUWES), Indian Island
Annex, is permitted to dis-
charge up to 36,000 gallons
per day of treated domestic
wastewater to waters off
Crane Point on the eastern
shore of the bay.
Other possible pollutant
sources include the Navy
Munition Steam-out Facility
on Indian Island. Conven-
tional explosives have been
handled at this site since the
mid-1970s. Although a permit
exists to allow the discharge
of treated "red water" from
this facility, these wastes are
not discharged at this site. A
former ocean disposal area is
located just outside the bay
and two anchorages for ships
carrying explosives are
within the bay, one at the
70
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
mouth and one off Indian
Island. It is not known what
materials may have been
disposed of in the bay, either
intentionally or accidentally.
Nonpoint sources are also of
concern and include surface
runoff, septic leakage, and
boat traffic.
Continuing
Investigation
In October 1987, the
Washington Department of
Ecology (WDOE) began an
investigation of the Port
Tbwnsend salmon mortality
problem. Samples of salmon
tissues both within and
outside the bay, samples of
seawater at the salmon net
peris, and bottom sediments
of the bay have been col-
lected and analyzed for
priority pollutants, chlori-
nated dioxin/furans, selected
trace metals, resin acids,
and munitions chemicals. A
biomonitoring inspection of
the Port Tbwnsend Paper
Company pulp mill and an
inspection of the Navy
Indian Island facility were
also conducted in late 1987.
None of these investigations
revealed the source of the
waterborne toxicant.
In 1988, further studies
were conducted. Long-term
bioassay testing of the pulp
mill effluent, using Atlantic
salmon, resulted in no liver
lesions or significant mortal-
ity. Atlantic salmon, Chinook
salmon, Donaldson trout,
and shiner perch were also
raised in pens off the Port
Townsend marina and at
Crane Point. Atlantic salmon
suffered high mortality at
both sites; young Chinook
salmon suffered a significant,
but lower, mortality rate at
the marina site while no
significant mortality was
observed among larger
Chinook salmon; and
Donaldson trout displayed
liver lesions but did not
suffer mortality. The liver
lesions appeared to be similar
to those observed in previous
years' testing. Additional
water sampling conducted in
1988 by WDOE at the pen
site off the marina revealed
no problems.
The liver disease, first
observed in Atlantic salmon,
has now been observed in
other salmonid species in
Port Townsend Bay and does
not appear to be caused by
the pulp mill effluent. Other
water and sediment sampling
near the fish pens has not
revealed any likely sources of
the problem. Since Atlantic
salmon with similar liver
disease have been found in
four unpolluted sites in
British Columbia, EPA
Region X is now encouraging
further research to confirm
the hypothesis that a natural
algae-produced toxin may be
the cause of the problem.
71
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Table 4-7. Impaired Ocean Coastal Miles Affected by Causes of Pollution
State
Mississippi
New York
Puerto Rico
Totals
Combined Totals
Total
Impaired
Waters*
41
70
184
295
Pathogens
Major
12
10
22
Mod/Min
41
14
55
77
Priority
Organics
Major Mod/Min
— 70
0 70
70
Nutrients
Major
10
10
Mod/Min
27
27
37
Siltation
Major
12
12
Mod/Min
22
22
34
'The sum of partially and nonsupporting Ocean Coastal miles (Table 4-6).
— Zero or not reported.
NOTE: The State of Washington reports no impaired miles.
Source: 1988 State Section 305(b) reports.
Table 4-8. Impaired Ocean Coastal Miles Affected by Sources of Pollution
State
Mississippi
New York
Puerto Rico
Totals
Combined Totals
Total
Impaired
Waters*
41
70
184
295
Land Disposal
Major
2
2
Mod/Min
41
43
84
86
Storm
Sewers/Runoff
Major
5
5
Mod/Min
41
14
55
60
Municipal
Major
12
12
Mod/Min
12
10
22
34
Industrial
Major
16
16
Mod/Min
2
2
18
•The sum of partially and nonsupporting Ocean Coastal miles (Table 4-6).
— Zero or not reported.
NOTE: The State of Washington reports no impaired miles.
Source: 1988 State Section 305(b) reports.
Not Meeting
(3%)
Not Attainable
(7%)
Meeting
(97%)
Not Meeting
(1%)
Meeting
(92%)
Fishable Goal
(2,679 Assessed Coastal Miles)
Swimmable Goal
(2,679 Assessed Coastal Miles)
SOIKCO 1388 Slate Section 305(b) reports.
Figure 4-9. Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in Assessed Oceans
72
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Unknown
Toxicity
Major
7
7
Mod/Min
25
25
32
Other
Habitat Mod
Major
17
17
Mod/Min
11
11
28
Metals
Major Mod/Min
2 8
2 8
10
Oil & Grease
Major
6
6
Mod/Min
1
1
7
Organic
Enrichment
Major
3
3
Mod/Min
3
3
6
PH
Major
1
1
Mod/Min
2
2
3
Thermal Mod
Major Mod/Min
— 1
0 1
1
Combined Hydro/
Sewers Habitat Mod
Major
Mod/Min Major Mod/Min
Silviculture
Major Mod/Min
Construction
Major Mod/Min
Resource
Extract
Major
Mod/Min
12
12 —
12
0
6
6
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Table 4-9. Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in Oceans
Fishable Goal (coastal miles)
Swimmable Goal (coastal miles)
State
Alabama
Florida
Hawaii
Maryland
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New York
Puerto Rico
Virginia
Washington
Totals
— Not reported.
Assessed
50
835
824
32
81
18
130
434
112
163
2,679
Not
Not
Meeting Meeting Attainable
50
835
824
32
81
18
60
415
112
163
2,590
0
0
0
0
0
0
70
19
0
0
89
0
0
0
—
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Not Not
Assessed
50
835
824
32
81
18
130
434
112
163
2,679
Meeting Meeting Attainable
50
835
824
32
81
18
129
219
112
163
2,463
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
24
0
0
25
0
0
0
—
0
0
0
191
0
0
191
Source: 1988 State Section 305(b) reports.
73
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Wfete/s
Red Tide in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico
Description of
Geographic Area
The westcoast flf fjorida, ' '
from the Florida Keys to
Cedar Key, is characterized
by mangrove ari3 barrier
islands to the^squth and
extensive mangrove swamps
and spartina marshes to the
north. The nearshpre area is
characterized by extensive
shallows with seagrass beds
and hard bottom communi-
ties. In addition to numerous
smaller embayments and
estuaries, the west coast
Charlotte Harbor, the two
largest open water estuaries
in the State.
The southwest coast of
Florida is not as developed as
the, east coast. Population
centers include Fort Myers/
Cape Coral, Sarasota/Braden-
toti, and Tampa/St. Peters-
burg. The barrier islands and
coastal areas, from Naples to
Clearwater, have undergone
extensive residential and
commercial development in
the past 30 years, but inland
areas have, to a large extent,
remained in pastureland,
citrus production, and
pine/palmetto cover. Indus-
trial development has been
confined mostly to Tampa
Bay and Charlotte Harbor.
Water Quality
Problems
Eed tides are a natural
phenomenon in the eastern
Gulf of Mexico caused by
periodic blooms of the single-
celled algae, Ptychodiscus
brems. This algae, classified
as a dinoflageEate, produces
potent toxins that are
released to the water when
the cell membrane is rup-
tured. Release of toxins in
high concentrations causes
fish kills, contaminates
shellf ishing areas, and can
cause respiratory irritation in
humans when aerosols are
blown ashore. Eed tides can
result in severe economic
and public health problems
for coastal communities and
significantly affect the
marine and estuarine ecosys-
tems in which they occur.
Bed tide derives its name
from the red-brown water
color that occurs during an
intensive bloom of dinoflag-
ellates. Between 1975 and
1987, red tides in the eastern
Gulf of Mexico generally
occurred in the fall and
winter and were most preva-
lent in the area between
Tampa Bay and Charlotte
Harbor. Historic information
indicates that between 1916
and 1980 there were 24
occurrences of red tide on
this coast, although the
actual number of events was
probably larger due to
unobserved offshore occur-
rences.
Public Health
Impact
The red tide algae Ptycho-
discus brevis produces
several neurotoxins that
accumulate in filter feeding
shellfish, causing neurotoxic
shellfish poisoning (NSP)
when consumed. Symptoms
of NSP include central
nervous system effects such
as tingling of the face, throat,
and extremities (with tempo-
rary paralysis in extreme
cases), burning mucous
membranes, and reversal of
hot-cold temperature sensa-
tions, as well as somatic
motor nervous system effects
including loss of coordina-
74
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
tion, dizziness, headaches,
and convulsions. Human
intoxication has resulted
after ingestion of both raw
and cooked contaminated
shellfish, indicating that the_
toxins are not destroyed by
heat.
Unlike most toxic dino-
flagellates, which are
armored with a hard cell
wall, Ptychodiscus brevis
cells are unarmored and thus _
easily ruptured, releasing
their toxins into the sur-
rounding water. When incor-
porated into the surf, the
toxins become associated
with salt spray and aerosols,
causing severe respiratory
irritation, burning of the
nose and throat, coughing,
and choking. Although
respiratory irritations usually
subside when the victim is
removed from the affected
environment, the long-term
effects of exposure are not
known.
Ecological Impact
Red tides have been asso-
ciated with mortalities of
marine fish and inverte-
brates in the eastern Gulf of
Mexico. Most of these events
are caused by neurotoxins
that kill the animal directly
or indirectly via ingestion of
toxin-contaminated prey
organisms. In other cases,,:;..' /
oxygen depletion caused by
community respiration may
cause mortalities. Ducks and
shorebirds feeding on
contaminated mollusks or
fish are also at risk. In
addition, it has been
reported that manatees
feeding on seagrasses during
red tide events inadvertently
consume contaminated tuni-
cates.and benthic Inverte-
brates and are affected by
disorientation and other
symptoms of NSP.
Economic Impact
Fish kills and NSP in
Florida have caused economic
stress to local communities
and a number of industries.
The 1971 red tide caused an
estimated economic loss of
$20 million to the tourist
industry alone, and a 1973-
1974 red tide caused an V
estimated $15 million loss to
that industry. Sportfishing,
wholesale and retail seafood
sales, and real estate sales
were also affected. An
"economic halo" effect
occursjbecause public
concern can lead to buyer
resistance to all seafood
products, even if they are
safe to eat. This halo effect
can extend far beyond the
t: county or _State involved, so
that total economic impact is
very difficult to measure.
Dynamics and
Extent of the Red
Tide
Although early investiga-
tors thought that blooms
originated near shore and
were linked to nutrient
enrichment, further investi-
gation found that Ptycho-
discus brevis blooms begin in
an "initiation zone" 28 to 74
kilometers offshore. Within
this zone, it is speculated
that benthic cysts for Ptycho-
discus brevis exist in seed
beds. This dormant resting
stage can accumulate in
localized areas and reinocu-
late the overlying water
column. When Gulf Loop
current meanders and eddies
pass through these seed beds,
cysts can be carried up to
areas with favorable growth
conditions of more light,
warmth, and nutrient supply.
As the algal population
increases under these favor-
able conditions, the orga-
nisms can be concentrated
into blooms by currents and
winds.
Winds, currents, and tides
move Ptychodiscus brevis
blooms to coastal areas. In
the eastern Gulf of Mexico,
red tides usually move south-
ward after reaching near-
shore waters, and in some
cases are transported around
the Florida peninsula and
then northward by Gulf
Stream currents. The first
documented occurrence of
Ptychodiscus brevis red. tide
on the east coast of Florida
75
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
was in 1972, although it is
likely that there were occa-
sional events before that
time.
In the fall of 1987, an
extensive red tide (identified
as Ptychodiscus brevis}
occurred hi coastal and
inshore waters of North
Carolina. This bloom had a
serious impact on shell-
fisheries in the area due to
scallop mortalities and closed
oyster harvesting areas. This
was the first tune a red tide
had been documented in
North Carolina waters. It was
presumed that the Gulf
Stream had transported the
red tide north from south
Florida. Satellite imagery
from the NOAA weather
service supported this
hypothesis with evidence of
a warm mass of Gulf Stream
water moving into the North
Carolina coastal area at the
same time the red tide
occurred.
Monitoring and
Research
Activities
The Florida Department
of Natural Besources (DNR)
is responsible for monitoring
Ptychodiscus brevis concen-
trations in nearshore waters
to determine locale and
duration of shellfish bed
closures. Shellfish beds are
closed to commercial har-
vesting when Ptychodiscus
brevis concentrations in the
water column exceed 5,000
cells per liter. At this concen-
tration the bloom is not
detectable to the naked eye
and would be unlikely to
cause mass fish mortality.
However, shellfish can
concentrate the toxins in a
low-magnitude bloom and
present a risk of NSP to
consumers.
Research is being
conducted on environmental
conditions that lead to bloom
formation. The goal is to
predict red tides and possibly
control them at the source
rather than after they have
moved to coastal waters. If
benthic cyst accumulations
are indeed precursors of red
tides and can be located,
control methods may be
developed to prevent blooms
from developing in the
offshore initiation zone.
An inexpensive screening
technique is being developed
to detect toxins in fish and
shellfish meats and to
monitor during and after a
red tide event. Also under
study is the question of
whether or not human
activity, which has increased
the load of nutrients into .
coastal waters, contributes to
the intensity of red tides.
76
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
New Initiatives for
Estuarine and
Coastal Waters
National Estuary
Program
The National Estuary
Program, established
through the 1987 amend-
ments to the Clean Water
Act, confirmed the need to
focus greater attention on
the protection and improve-
ment of water quality and
the enhancement of living
resources in the Nation's
estuaries. Estuaries are to
achieve these goals through
collaborative efforts called
comprehensive conservation
and management plans
(CCMPs). Development of
CCMPs is carried out by
management conferences.
As of July 1988, manage-
ment conferences were
convened for 12 estuaries:
Albemarle/Pamlico Sound,
North Carolina; Buzzards
Bay, Massachusetts; Long
Island Sound, Connecticut
and New York; Narragansett
Bay, Rhode Island; Puget
Sound, Washington; San
Francisco Bay and Santa
Monica Bay, California; New
York-New Jersey Harbor,
New York and New Jersey;
Delaware Bay, Pennsylvania,
New Jersey, and Delaware;
Delaware Inland Bays,
Delaware; Sarasota Bay,
Florida; and Galveston Bay,
Texas.
Near Coastal Water
Pilot Projects
The Near Coastal Water
Pilot Projects are joint State-
EPA efforts to demonstrate
in selected near coastal
waters innovative manage-
ment actions. These manage-
ment actions can then be
applied in other areas of the
country. The following three
projects were initiated in
1988:
• Decision-making
information system for
Delaware's Inland Bays—
to develop a computerized
Advanced Information
System to help officials
quickly and accurately assess
impacts of proposed actions
on natural resources.
• Oregon Coastal Resource
Action Plan—to develop a
comprehensive action plan
for Oregon's coastal water-
sheds focusing on developing
interagency management
coordination to protect near
coastal waters from point
and nonpoint sources of
pollution.
• Perdido Bay Cooperative
Management Initiative—to
develop a framework for
management action strate-
gies to protect and enhance
Florida's and Alabama's
Perdido Bay.
-------
-------
5
Wetlands
Types of Wetlands
Wetlands are mostly semi-
aquatic lands that are either
inundated or saturated by
water for varying periods of
time during the growing
season. In all wetlands, the
presence of water creates
conditions that favor the
growth of specially adapted
plants (hydrophytes) and
promote the development of
characteristic hydric soil
properties. A Federal manual
for delineating wetland areas
has been developed with the
involvement of the EPA, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS), U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and Soil Conser-
vation Service (Federal
Manual for Identifying and
Delineating Jurisdictional
Wetlands, January 1989).
This manual defines wetlands
1 based upon plants, soils, and
, hydrology, and is used as the
basis for Federal regulatory
activities that affect
wetlands.
A wide variety of wetlands
have formed across the coun-
try as the result of regional
and local differences in vege-
tation, hydrology, water
chemistry, soils, topography,
climate, and other factors. In
general, two broad categories
of wetlands are recognized:
coastal wetlands and inland
wetlands. A national distri-
bution of wetland types is
shown in Figure 5-1.
Coastal wetlands, as their
name suggests, are found
along the Atlantic, Pacific,
Alaskan, and Gulf coasts.
They are closely linked to
estuaries, where seawater
mixes with fresh water to
form an environment of
varying salinities. Saltwater
and fluctuating water levels
(due to tidal action) combine
to create a rather difficult
environment for most plants.
Consequently, many shallow
79
-------
Wetlands
coastal areas are unvege-
tated mud flats or sand flats.
Some plants, however, have
successfully adapted to this
environment. Certain grasses
and grasslike salt-loving
(halophytic) plants form
extensive colonies called
"coastal marshes." These
marshes are particularly
abundant along the Atlantic
and Gulf coasts. Mangrove
swamps, dominated by halo-
phytic shrubs or trees, are
common in Hawaii and in
southern Florida.
Inland wetlands occur
throughout the Nation's
interior. They are most
common on floodplains along
rivers and streams, in iso-
lated depressions surrounded
by dry land, and along the
margins of lakes and ponds.
Some even form at the upper
edges of coastal marshes
where saltwater influence
ends. Inland wetlands
include marshes and wet
meadows dominated by
grasses and herbs, shrub
swamps, and wooded swamps
dominated by trees, such as
bottomland hardwood forests
along floodplains. Some
regional wetland types
include the pocosins of North
Carolina, bogs and fens of
the northeastern and north-
central States and Alaska,
inland saline and alkaline
marshes and riparian wet-
lands of the arid and semi-
arid West, prairie potholes of
Minnesota and the Dakotas,
vernal pools of California,
playa lakes of the Southwest,
cypress-gum swamps of the
South, wet tundra of Alaska,
and tropical rain forests of
Hawaii.
Wetland Values
In their natural condition,
wetlands provide many
benefits including food and
habitat for fish and wildlife,
water quality improvement,
flood protection, shoreline
erosion control, natural
products for human use, and
opportunities for recreation
and aesthetic appreciation.
Each wetland works in
combination with other
wetlands as part of a
complex, integrated system.
An assessment of any
specific wetland must take
this critical interrelationship
into account.
Wetland Types
Coastal Wetlands
Inland Marshes and Wet Meadows
Inland Shrub Swamps
Inland Forested Wetlands
Other Inland Wetlands
5.2
5.0
10.6
28.4
49.7
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
Millions of Acres
50.0
60.0
Source: OPA-87-016.
Figure 5-1. Extent of Wetlands in the Lower 48 States
80
-------
Wetlands
Fish and Wildlife
Habitat
Wetlands are critical to the
survival of a wide variety of
animals and plants. For many
species such as the wood
duck, muskrat, cattail, and
swamp rose, wetlands are
primary habitats—the only
places they can live. For
others, wetlands are not
primary residences but
provide important food,
water, or cover. Moreover,
a number of rare and endan-
gered species depend on
wetlands for survival.
Altogether, wetlands are
among the most productive
natural ecosystems in the
world. They can be thought
of as the "farmlands of the
aquatic environment" since
they produce great volumes
of food in the form of plant
material. The major food
value of wetland plants
comes when the plants' dead
leaves and stems break down
in the water to form small
particles of organic material
(detritus). This enriched
material is the principal food
for many small aquatic Inver-
tebrates, various shellfish,
and forage fish that are food
for larger predatory fish,
such as bluefish and striped
bass. These larger fish are,
in turn, consumed by people.
Thus, wetlands provide an
important source of food for
people as well as for aquatic
animals.
Flood Protection
Wetlands have often
been referred to as natural
sponges that absorb flooding
waters. They actually func-
tion more like natural tubs,
storing either floodwater
that overflows riverbanks or
surface water that collects
in isolated depressions. By
doing so, wetlands help
protect adjacent and down-
stream property from flood
damage. Trees and other
wetland vegetation help slow
the speed of floodwaters.
This action, combined with
water storage, can lower
flood heights and reduce the
water's erosive potential. In
agricultural areas, wetlands
can help reduce the likeli-
hood of flood damage to
crops. Wetlands within and
upstream of urban areas are
especially valuable for flood
protection, since urban
development increases the
rate and volume of surface
water runoff, thereby
increasing the risk of flood
damage.
Wetlands provide critical habi- |
tat to a wide variety of animals |
and plants. I
81
-------
Wetlands
Shoreline Erosion
Control
Wetlands are often located
between rivers and high
ground and are therefore
able to buffer shorelines
against erosion. Wetland
plants increase the durability
of the sediment by binding
soil with their roots, and
dampen wave action and
reduce current velocity
through friction. So signif-
icant is the erosion control
function of many wetlands
that some States are recom-
mending the planting of
wetland vegetation to
control shoreline erosion in
coastal areas.
NaturafProducts
A wealth of natural
products are produced by
wetlands. Those available for
human use include timber,
fish and shellfish, wildlife,
blueberries, cranberries, and
wild rice. Much of the
Nation's fishing and shell-
fishing industry harvests
wetland-dependent species.
For example, in the South-
east, 96 percent of the
commercial catch and over
50 percent of the recrea-
tional harvest are fish and
shellfish that depend on the
estuary-coastal wetland
system. Each year, the U.S.
commercial fisheries' harvest
is valued at more than $10
billion. Wetlands also
produce fur-bearers such as
muskrat, beavers, and mink.
The Nation's harvest of
muskrat pelts alone is worth
over $70 million annually.
Waterfowl hunters spend
over $300 million annually to
harvest wetland-dependent
birds.
Water Quality
Improvement
One value of wetlands is
their ability to help maintain
and improve the water quality
of our Nation's rivers and
other waterbodies. Wetlands
do this by removing and
retaining nutrients, process-
ing chemical and organic
wastes, and reducing sedi-
ment loads to receiving
waters. Wetlands are partic-
ularly good filters. Because
of their position between
upland and deep water,
wetlands can intercept
surface water runoff from
land before it reaches open
water. They can also help
filter nutrients, waste, and
sediment from floodwaters.
Recreation and
Aesthetics
Through the centuries,
painters and writers have
sought to capture the beauty
of wetlands on canvas and
paper. Today, such artists are
often joined by others with
cameras and video and sound
recorders. An estimated 50
million people spend nearly
$10 billion each year observ-
ing and photographing
wetland-dependent birds
alone. Wetlands also provide
endless opportunities for
other popular recreational
activities, such as hiking and
boating.
Information contained in the above sections was drawn from a brochure developed by the EPA Office of Wetlands
Protection, America's Wetlands: Our Vital Link Between Land and Water, February 1988, OPA-87-016. For copies or
further information, contact U.S. EPA, Office of Wetlands Protection (A-104F), Washington, DC 20460.
82
-------
Wetlands
Remained
in the mid-1970's
(46% or 99 Million Acres)
Overview of State
Reporting
The information submitted
by the States in their 1988
State Section 305(b) reports
focused exclusively on the
quantity of their wetland
resources and certain State
programs. The impact of
chemical contaminants and
other stresses on the quality
of existing wetlands has not
been addressed by the States
and is not discussed in this
report. Information on the
quality of existing wetlands
is generally not available
because of the lack of State
and Federal resources to
monitor wetland quality.
Inconsistent reporting of
wetland acreage and State
programs is the result of
several factors. First, there is
a general lack of appropriate
data bases and related tools
to track the quantity and
quality of wetland resources
on consistent statewide or
Lost
(54%)
Source: OPA-87-016.
national scales. The FWS
National Wetlands Inventory
is one such tool relied on by
some States for this purpose.
However, as of 1988, only 60
percent of the lower 48
States and 16 percent of
Alaska had been mapped.
Second, wetlands are a
complex, fragmented, and in
some areas widely distributed
water resource. The effort
required to identify and
assess all State wetlands on a
biennial basis is enormous.
Third, in the past EPA has
not issued specific guidance
on wetland reporting. Guid-
ance issued by EPA in 1988
marks a first-time shift
toward more consistent and
complete State reporting on
the quantity and quality of
wetlands nationwide.
To provide a more complete
assessment of State wetland
resources, this report draws
upon several sources of
information to augment the
information provided by the
States. The following infor-
mation is intended to provide
a national overview of the
Nation's wetland resources
and a more consistent basis
for State reporting for future
305(b) cycles.
Wetland
Resources
A National
Perspective
It is estimated that over
200 million acres of wetlands
existed in the lower 48 States
at the time of European set-
tlement. Since then, exten-
sive losses have taken place,
with many of the original
wetlands drained and con-
verted to farmland. Today,
less than half of our original
wetlands remain (see Figures
5-2 and 5-3). This amounts to
an area equal to the size of
Human Impacts
Drainage
Dredging and stream
channelization
Deposition of fill material
Diking and damming
Tilling for crop production
Grazing by domestic
animals
Discharge of pollutants
Mining
Alteration of hydrology
Natural Threats
Erosion
Subsidence
Sea level rise
Droughts
Hurricanes and other
storms
Overgrazing by wildlife
Figure 5-2. Original and Remaining Acreages of Wetlands
in the Lower 48 States
Figure 5-3. Major Causes of Wetland Loss and Degradation
83
-------
Wetlands
California. An additional 200
million acres of wetlands are
estimated to exist in Alaska-
covering slightly more than
half the State—while Hawaii
has approximately 100,000
acres. Next to Alaska, Louis-
iana and Florida have the
largest wetland acreage in
thettS.
Two basic types of data
collection efforts can be used
to track the quantity of
wetlands: (1) detailed maps
and (2) status and trends
reports. Detailed maps
provide site-specific infor-
mation on wetlands. Status
and trends information is
used to evaluate changes to
the resource over time. The
FWS has been extensively
involved in these two areas
over the last several years.
The only complete national
assessment of the changes in
the quantity of U.S. wetland
resources over time is
contained in a report entitled
Wetlands of the United
States: Current Status and
Recent Trends (U.S. FWS,
1984). This report assesses
the changes in the national
wetlands resource between
the mid-1950s to the mid-
1970s. Estimates of wetland
loss are based on the evalua-
tion of wetland acreage
within thousands of 4-square-
mile plots located across the
U.S. The number and loca-
tions of the plots were
chosen to provide a given
statistical precision when the
information was extrapolated
to the entire U.S.
Based on these data, the
FWS estimates that the
Nation's wetlands are being
lost at an alarming rate.
Between the mid-1950s and
mid-1970s alone, about 11
million acres of marshes and
swamps were destroyed, an
area three times the size of
New Jersey. The average
annual loss was 458,000
acres (440,000 acres of inland
wetlands and 18,000 acres of
coastal wetlands) during this
period.
Agricultural activities
affecting wetlands, including
drainage, filling, and road
construction, were respon-
sible for 87 percent of losses
between the mid-1950s and
mid-1970s. Agricultural
activities had the greatest
impact on forested wetlands,
inland marshes, and wet
meadows. Urban develop-
ment and other development
were responsible for 8
percent and 5 percent of
wetland losses, respectively.
Urban development was the
major cause of coastal
wetland losses outside of
Louisiana, while submer-
gence of Louisiana's coastal
marshes by Gulf waters was
the leading factor in that
State. In addition to the
direct physical destruction of
wetlands, these habitats are
Agricultural activities led to
87 percent of wetland loss
between the mid-1950s and
mid-1970s.
84
-------
Wetlands
also threatened indirectly by
chemical contamination and
other pollution.
In recent times, the most
extensive losses of wetlands
have occurred in Louisiana,
Mississippi, Arkansas, North
Dakota, South Dakota,
Nebraska, Florida, and Texas.
These and losses in other
States have greatly dimin-
ished our Nation's wetland
resources and the benefits
they once provided. For
example, increased flood
damages and declining water-
fowl populations are, in part,
the result of wetland
destruction.
The FWS is currently
updating its 1984 report on
wetlands status and trends
and has recently prepared a
similar report for the Mid-
Atlantic Region of the U.S.
(Mid-Atlantic Wetlands:
A Disappearing National
Treasure, June 1987). The
methodology used to develop
the national report was used
to prepare this regional
assessment.
State-Reported
Information
In their 1988 State Section
305(b) reports, 14 States
reported on the acreage and
causes of wetland loss. Many
State estimates of wetland
acreage are based on
National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI) information; others
are independent estimates.
The following is a summary
of State-reported informa-
tion on wetland acreage .and
current rates and causes of
loss. No attempt has been
made to compare the esti-
mates provided by the States
with the data from NWI.
NWI and State-generated
data can provide a basis for
consistent reporting of
wetland acreage in future
State Section 305(b) reports.
• California—Over 90
percent of California's
original 5 million acres has
been lost by conversion to
other land uses. Located in
the interior are 240,000
acres of modified wetlands;
170,000 acres of coastal
wetlands remain.
• Connecticut—Total inland
wetlands acreage is estimated
at 435,000 acres, or about
15 percent of the State's
land area. The Connecticut
Department of Environmen-
tal Protection (DEP) esti-
mates that 1,200 to 1,500
acres may be lost or altered
annually. The primary cause
of wetlands loss is land devel-
opment for residential or
commercial use. To further
improve wetland protection
efforts statewide, the DEP
has instituted a comprehen-
sive education and training
program for local commission
members.
85
-------
Wfel/ancfe
It has been estimated that
approximately half of the
original tidal wetlands in
Connecticut have been lost
because of urban encroach-
ment and other human activ-
ities such as dredging and
filling. Since the enactment
of the Tidal Wetlands Act in
1969, however, the DEP esti-
mates that less than 1/10 of
1 percent of the remaining
wetlands have been filled.
Current estimates are that
approximately 17,500 acres
of tidal wetlands remain in
the State. Additionally, State
and local initiatives have
resulted in the restoration
of between 400 and 600 acres
of previously degraded tidal
wetlands.
• niinois—The State was
once covered by more than
8 million acres of wetlands.
Currently less than 500,000
acres remain.
• Maryland—Prior to
passage of the State's Tidal
Wetlands Law, about 1,000
acres of wetlands were being
destroyed each year. For the
25-year period between 1942
and 1967, wetland losses in
Maryland exceeded 23,000
acres. Approximately
438,000 acres of wetlands
remain.
• Mississippi—Prior to
1973, Mississippi had lost
approximately 10,000 acres
of wetlands. Since 1973,
fewer than 20 acres of
coastal wetlands have been
altered. It has been estimated
that if this trend had been
allowed to continue, Missis-
sippi would have lost approx-
imately 42 percent of its
wetlands resources. With
strong State and Federal
legislation in place, the area
affected is estimated to be
less than 0.05 percent.
• New Hampshire—The
State has about 100,000 acres
of freshwater and tidal
wetlands. Although wetland
drainage is not generally
allowed, New Hampshire
continues to lose about 25-50
acres per year, mainly as the
result of residential and
commercial development and
road construction.
• New York—The State has
almost 2 million acres of
freshwater wetlands and
over 25,000 acres of tidal
wetlands. Based on land-use
trends and soil analyses,
estimates are that over half
of New York's wetlands have
been lost since colonial times
to draining, dredging, filling,
and pollution. Since the
1950s, New York has lost over
40 percent of its tidal wet-
lands. Some losses continue
to occur. Although all tidal
wetlands are protected by
State statute, only 60 percent
of freshwater wetlands
receive State statutory
protection.
Wild ponies in a wetland area
on Assateague Island,
Maryland. §
86
-------
Wetlands
There have been some gains
in wetlands in New York.
New wetlands are being
created or existing ones
enlarged as the result of
managed changes in beaver
populations. Other wetland
gains can be attributed to the
restoration of agricultural
land back to wetlands.
• North Carolina—State
wetland protection programs
are generally limited to the
20 coastal counties. Most of
the 3.4 million acres of
wetlands in the State are
tidal.
• North Dakota—By 1980,
nearly half of the original
wetland acreage in North
Dakota had been drained
(about 2 million acres
remain). Since 1980, the loss
of wetlands is estimated at
20,000 acres per year. The
annual loss of wetlands
appears to be lessening.
However, this may be attrib-
utable to the diminishing
wetland base as well as the
difficulty and cost associated
with draining.
• Oregon—By the 1970s,
wetland areas in most
estuaries in the State had
been reduced by 50-95
percent as a result of agricul-
ture and the siting of port/
industrial activities. Early
losses can be attributed to
diking for the purpose of
creating agricultural lands.
Most of these conversions
occurred prior to the 1930s
and account for about 90
percent of the habitat losses.
Since the 1930s, most losses
have been attributed primar-
ily to urban development.
• Pennsylvania—An
estimated 498,000 acres of
freshwater wetlands remain.
Strip mining in the western
counties, development in the
northeast, and the construc-
tion of impoundments on a
statewide basis were the
primary causes for the loss
of these wetlands.
The most significant wetland
loss in Pennsylvania is taking
place as a result of second
home development, coal
mining, and urbanization.
Second home development is
an immediate threat to a
large number of wetlands in
the Pocono area, which has
a greater concentration of
bogs, swamps, and marshes
than any other region in the
Commonwealth. While there
are approximately 45,000
year-round housing units in
the three-county area, there
are almost four times as
many subdivided lots for
second home development.
Coal mining affects wet-
lands through alteration of
hydrologic conditions, acid
mine drainage, erosion of
spoil material, and drainage
of water tables near mining
sites. The greater reliance on
coal to satisfy increasing
energy demands, combined
A North Carolina coastal
community.
87
-------
Wetlands
with the abundance of
reserves, poses a formidable
threat to wetland acreage in
the Commonwealth. Since
most floodplain development
occurs in metropolitan areas,
the relatively few remaining
wetlands in and near major
urban centers are in danger.
Much of the existing wetland
acreage in metropolitan
areas is located along major
waterways and is susceptible
to industrial expansion,
pollution, and floodwater
inundation.
• Rhode Island—Develop-
ment pressures remain a
major threat, as indicated by
a significant rise in applica-
tions to alter wetlands. In
1984, 60 percent of the activ-
ities that led to alterations in
the coastal zone were attrib-
utable to residential develop-
ment.
• Vermont—The State has
approximately 220,000 acres
of wetlands, representing
about 4 percent of its land
area. About 120,000 acres
are forested wetlands, about
64,000 acres are scrub-shrub
wetlands, and about 25,000
acres are emergent wetlands
(marshes and wet meadows).
A recent analysis of wetland
impacts in the State found
that 36 acres were lost
between January 1986 and
May 1987; the leading cause
of loss was development for
light industry. Road construc-
tion and residential develop-
ment were also cited as
causes of wetland loss.
• Wisconsin—The State
once had 7.5 to 10 million
acres of wetlands. Now, less
than half remain: the State
has completed a statewide
wetland mapping effort
and estimates that it has
5,331,392 acres of wetlands.
Since passage of the Federal
Emergency Wetlands
Resources Act of 1986,
Wisconsin has taken some
important steps to protect
wetlands. A comprehensive
wetlands inventory was
completed in 1985, Mapping
by county, township, and
range was completed for all
wetlands 5 acres or larger.
A draft Wetlands Priority
Plan has recently been
submitted for review to the
National Park Service. The
plan addresses wetland
preservation and protection,
resource assessment,
protection strategies, and
criteria for acquisition.
Road building, light industry,
and residential development
are leading causes of wetland
loss.
88
-------
Wetlands
Wetlands
Protection
Programs
Summary of Federal
Programs
Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act gives the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers
authority to issue permits for
"the discharge of dredged or
fill material into the navi-
gable waters [of the United
States] at specified disposal
sites." Section 404 also gives
EPA a number of responsibil-
ities to ensure that the envi-
ronment is sufficiently
protected from the adverse
impacts of these discharges.
Although States may be
granted the authority to
assume 404 permitting, to
date only Michigan has
assumed that responsibility.
Since 1972, the 404 program
has developed into the most
important Federal regulatory
program for the protection
of wetlands.
Inland freshwater wetlands
constitute 95 percent of the
remaining wetland resource
in the United States and
97 percent of the estimated
300,000 acres of wetlands
lost each year to develop-
ment. Many of the losses are
due to agricultural activities,
some of which are not regu-
lated under the 404 program.
The 1985 Farm BiU should
help mitigate this problem by
discontinuing subsidies to
farmers who drain and plant
in wetlands.
Approximately 13,000
project applications under
Section 404 and Section
'. 404/10 (Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act) are
processed each year by the
Corps of Engineers. EPA
reviews and evaluates them
using its 404(b)(l) guidelines,
which contain the environ-
mental criteria for 404
permit decisions. The FWS
and the National Marine
Fisheries Service also
influence the 404 permitting
process through their review
of applications. After receiv-
ing comments from these
agencies, the States, and
other interested parties, the
Corps of Engineers makes its
permit decisions.
Before permits are issued,
EPA has an opportunity
under Section 404(c) to exer-
cise its authority to prohibit,
condition, or restrict the use
of any site if such use is
found to "have an unaccept-
able adverse effect on
municipal water supplies,
shellfish beds and fishery
areas (including spawning
and breeding areas), wildlife,
or recreational areas."
However, this action occurs
in only a small fraction of
projects.
As a result of this process,
the Corps of Engineers
annually denies slightly more
The 1985 Farm Bill
discontinued subsidies to
farmers who drain and plant
in wetlands.
89
-------
Wetlands
than 3 percent of project
applications. About one-third
of the permits are signifi-
cantly modified from their
original application, and
about 14 percent of the
13,000 annual permit appli-
cations are withdrawn by
applicants. The Congres-
sional Office of Technology
Assessment has estimated
that these denials, modifica-
tions, and application with-
drawals save 50,000 acres of
wetlands each year.
Summary of State
Programs
The following is a summary
of State wetland protection
programs. Since State-
submitted information alone
does not provide a complete
and consistent database for
reporting, the information
presented below is drawn
from several sources, includ-
ing State Section 305(b)
reports. This is intended to
provide a national overview
and consistent basis for State
reporting for future 305(b)
cycles.
In addition to the Federal
Section 404 program, the
States have developed a
variety of programs to regu-
late activities affecting
wetlands or to encourage
wetlands preservation. These
programs include permitting,
coastal zone management,
wetland acquisition, and
heritage programs, to name
a few.
Many coastal States (the
term "coastal" here includes
the Great Lakes States) have
had permit programs for
several years that regulate
certain activities affecting
marine and estuarine wet-
lands. Out of a total of 30
coastal States and 5 coastal
Territories, 25 have their own
permit programs (see Table
5-1). A far lower percentage
of States have permit
programs that apply to activ-
ities affecting freshwater or
inland wetlands; only 16
States currently have inland
wetland permit programs.
Information on nonregu-
latory programs is more
difficult to summarize. In
general, most coastal States
have approved coastal zone
management programs; five
coastal States do not. Several
States have a combination of
acquisition programs, heritage
programs, and Section 401
certification programs. Section
401 certification gives the
States the authority to review
and approve, disapprove,
modify, or condition any
Federal permit or license
(e.g., Section 404 permits and
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission licenses). Water
quality standards provide the
basis for State involvement
in these Federal activities.
EPA's Office of Wetlands
Protection has developed a
document entitled Wetlands
and 401 Certification (April
1989) on the use of Section
401 certification to protect
wetlands. Future State
Section 305(b) reports should
provide a more complete
summary of State programs,
including both regulatory
and nonregulatory programs.
90
-------
Wetlands
Table 5-1. Summary of State Permit and Other Selected Nonpermit Programs
State
Comprehensive
Coastal Inland Statewide
Permit Permit Permit
Program Program* Program** 401 Program
Alabama • — _ «
Alaska — — »
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Connecticut
Colorado
NA — _ «
NA — —
NA — _
Delaware • • _
Florida • • •
Georgia • —
Guam • • • «
Hawaii
Idaho
NA — _
Illinois — . —
Indiana — — • _
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
NA — _
NA — _
NA — _
• D • •
•• A — •
Massachusetts • • • «
Michigan • • • A
Minnesota • «
Mississippi • —
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
NA — _
NA — —
NA — _ •
NA — —
New Hampshire • • •
New Jersey • • • »
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
NA — _
• T • •
NA — _
NA — _
Oregon • • • «
Pennsylvania • • • «
Rhode Island • • •
South Carolina • — «
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
NA — _
NA — - _ «
NA — _
NA • • «
, • * —
* • • Coastal program
NA — — •
NA — _ •
• Program in place.
• Convened a State task force to look into nontidal wetlands protection; study not yet completed. *'
D Program in place; 10-acre limitation.
A Program in place; legislation enacted but not yet implemented; regulations to be developed. '
T Program in place; can be delegated to local authorities; 12.4-acre limitation, some smaller wetlands of local importance (New York).
* Nontidal legislation failed to pass, 1988.
' Freshwater/nontidal.
Comprehensive programs cover
both coastal and inland wetlands.
91
-------
Wetlands
National Wetlands Policy Forum
: '.',' In the Spring of 1987,
'• EPA's Administrator asked
' the Conservation Fpundatipn
to convene" an iridependent
National Forum on wetlands.
I1" ' i, . Si iv.'i ,i i ^: N : is , it1:;,!* Si » / 1; 'ill i ™ '( "i; ", i™, ir 11 '» v,; ' iii,1'!1 ILHP!"; f , i; in1 1 ' ii i ' MI i r j ^i
Its 20 members included
three Governors;, leaders
from local government; devel-
opers; forestry, oil, and gas
iSprese'ntatives; environ-
mental conservation groups;
ing wetlands in a more
manner, consistent with
economic and social needs.
The Forum conducted public
!ii,i i 'i'!' r'iiwi iV nil ii;' ft' vihh 'i i!' f 11 ii;. a!, i !i' i» j ,i *' I. i :i i ni ir^ >. . <..", „
workshops in three States
and consulted widely, with
"'larmers';"
experts. Former EPA Admin-
istrator Lee Thomas and
^representafives'of four other
Federal agencies also partici-
pated as ex officio members,
s -.'/''The goal of the Forum was
to provide policy recommen-
dations to Federal, State, and
local officials and to wetland
owners and users oh protect-
policy and technical advisors,
individuals, and groups. On
November 15,1988, the
Forum issued its report,
'ProitectifiglAni&t':ic"a>s'Wet-
lands: An Action Agenda. '.
A subgroup of the Fbrum
contiriues to wprK onimple-
mentation of the recommen-
dations, and the full fbrum
will reassess progress after
1 year.
1*he Forum recommended
direct protection measures,
improving the management
processes, and specific imple-
mentation actions, EPA has
adopted a short-term "Wet-
lands Action Plan" that
begins to respond to many of
the proposals of the Forum.
The Plan includes highlights
but ist not intended to
describe all work ^oing on
in, the Office of Wetlands
Protection or in other EPA
offices to address wetlands
needs'.
Most importantly, in its
' Action Plan, E'PA has :. .'„."
adopted the Forum's goal of
"no overall net loss" in the
Nation's remaining wetland
oase and the restoration and'
creation of wetlands, where
feasible. EPA will participate
on the Domestic Policy Coun-
cil's interageney wetlands
task force which will
examine implementation of
the "no net loss" goal. One
major action of the task force
Is to revise and strengthen
the Executive Orders on
wetlands and floodplains.
The Agency will also
cooperate as Congress eval-
uates legislative changes to
improve wetlands protection
benefits of farm programs,
strengthen permitting
programs, and provide incen-
tives for States to assume
regulatory responsibility,
expand set-aside areas under
the Coastal Barrier fespurces
Act, and strengthen the
I^esource Conservation and
Eecovery Act to improve
wetlands protection. Specif-
ically, EPA has identified
92
-------
Wetlands
seven objectives in its Action
Plan to implement the
recommendations of the
Forum:
1. Provide technical support
and participate in the
application of planning
approaches, including the
preparation of State Wet-
lands Conservation plans.
2. Provide guidance, tech-
nical assistance, and support
to strengthen the protective
role of State and local
governments.
3, Work with the Corps of
Engineers to increase
enforcement under Section
404; work with the Corps
specifically on reducing
uncertainty and confusion -
in implementing this legisla-
tion; work toward consis-
tency in planning, permit-
ting, and enforcement.
4. Implement the policy that
unavoidable wetland impacts
should be fully offset by wet-
lands restoration or creation.
5. Increase public awareness
of wetlands' functions and
values and of regulatory and
nonregulatory programs.
6. Develop and test methods
for assessing the cumulative
effects of wetland loss and
degradation. Incorporate
these approaches into plan-
ning and permit decisions.
7. Identify opportunities and
initiate projects to restore
and create wetlands.
In addition, President
Bush has adopted the "no
net loss" recommendations
of the Forum in public state-
ments, speeches, and, most
recently, in his FY 90 budget
proposals to Congress.
Many of the EPA activities
are designed to assist the
States in meeting the "no
overall net loss" goal. The
information submitted in
future Section 305(b) reports
will help the Nation meet
this goal by providing an
improved accounting of
remaining wetlands, their
status, and the threats they
face. Copies of the Forum
Beport and the EPA Action
Plan can be obtained from
the U.S. EPA, Office of
Wetlands Protection
(A-104F), Washington,
DC 20460.
r i"r JT" / ~^ • ~v " ~ "i
.*' - •H**5 *tl? ^ * * «** «V&f v. * **» *>4ia
" .P* „*»»"<•%•»*> ».'***%»|>^^4^^J->*1|t ^^^V"?W* "V ,
-
*
-------
Wetlands
Water Quality
Standards for
Wetlands
Water quality standards are
used to regulate the many
activities that affect surface
waters, including wetlands.
These activities include
municipal and industrial
point source discharges,
nonpoint source discharges,
actions under RCRA and
CERCLA, and dredge and fill
activities under Section 404
of theCWA.
The provisions of the Clean
Water Act and the State
standards designed to imple-
ment the CWA's goals and
objectives apply to all
"navigable waters." Navi-
gable waters are defined in
Section 502(7) of the CWA
as "waters of the United
States," which are in turn
defined by regulation (40
CFR Part 230; 45 FR 85345,
dated December 24,1980) to
include wetlands adjacent to
other waters such as rivers,
lakes, estuaries, and the
ocean, and isolated wetlands
that are used for interstate
commerce. Congress and the
Courts have made it clear
that the jurisdiction over
wetlands is to be as extensive
as the Constitution permits.
Therefore, the general provi-
sions of the CWA that apply
to "navigable waters" also
apply to wetlands.
Water quality standards
laws for each State were
reviewed to identify whether
the laws specifically mention
wetlands in their definition
of "State waters." Standards
were also reviewed to identify
any use classifications,
criteria, or antidegradation
provisions specifically for
wetlands. Information was
taken from the Bureau of
National Affairs "Environ-
ment Reporter" (updated as
of March 1989). This informa-
tion is provided here to serve
as a baseline for future State
Section 305(b) reports. A
final report, dated August 17,
1989, is available from either
the Office of Water Regula-
tions and Standards or the
Office of Wetlands Protec-
tion, U.S. EPA.
Of the 56 States and Terri-
tories that were reviewed,
26 include wetlands in their
definition of "State waters."
States have generally not
established use classifica-
tions, criteria, or antidegra-
dation procedures specifically
for wetlands. However, some
States include certain wet-
lands in their waterbody-
specific classification
systems and some identify a
limited number of specific
wetlands for protection as
"outstanding resources"
under Tier III of antidegra-
dation.
The inclusion of wetlands
in the definition of "State
waters" is not necessarily an
indication of the strength of
a State's wetlands protection
program. However, water
quality standards for wet-
lands can play a pivotal role
in the development of State
regulatory and nonregula-
tory programs to protect
wetlands, and provide a
framework for reporting
under Section 305(b). The
inconsistency in State
Section 305(b) wetland
reporting may be the result,
in part, of the lack of fully
developed water quality
standards for wetlands.
State-Reported
Information
In their 1988 State Section
305(b) reports, 13 States
provided information on
specific programs or legisla-
tion designed to protect their
wetland resources. The fol-
lowing information was
reported by the States in
their Section 305(b) reports:
• California—In November
1983, the California Depart-
ment of Fish and Game
published "A Plan for
Protecting, Enhancing, and
Increasing California's
Wetlands for Waterfowl,"
pursuant to State Senate
Concurrent Resolution No.
28. This resulted from
enactment of Chapter 7
of the California Public
Resources Code known as the
94
-------
Wetlands
California Wetlands Preser-
vation Act (Keene-Nejedly).
The areas identified in this
plan are to be acquired for
the public domain. Proposals
for State funding to acquire
new wetlands and recom-
mendations for increased
Federal support are included
in the plan.
• Connecticut—In 1969,
Connecticut enacted its Tidal
Wetlands Act. Since then,
the loss of tidal wetlands has
virtually stopped. This
success is attributable to the
implementation of the Act
and broad public support for
wetlands conservation in the
State.
The passage of the Inland
Wetlands and Watercourses
Act in 1972 placed consider-
able restrictions upon indis-
criminate alteration, and
subsequent loss, of the
State's freshwater wetlands
and watercourses. Connect-
icut's landmark inland
wetlands legislation is
considered to be among the
most stringent in the Nation.
The State law provides for
delegation of regulatory
authority to volunteer
municipal wetlands commis-
sions. These citizen boards
operate under the guidance
and oversight of the Depart-
ment of Environmental
Protection (DEP) Commis-
sioner and Wetlands Manage-
ment Section. The DEP has
adopted model municipal
wetlands regulations and
provides technical assistance
and training to town
wetlands commissions.
• Florida—The Warren B.
Henderson Wetlands Protec-
tion Act, passed in 1984,
recognizes the value of
wetlands in its mission to
protect, maintain, and
improve the quality of water
throughout the State. The
Act requires that a detailed
monitoring record be kept of
wetland acreage in order to
control dredge and fill activ-
ities, as well as to identify
the number of acres being
lost, disturbed, created,
improved, and preserved.
Several State land acquisition
programs help to protect
Florida wetlands. The "Save
Our Rivers" program has
purchased over 250,000 acres
of floodplain since its incep-
tion. The "Save Our Coasts"
program has bought 72,000
acres of land. About a half
million acres of land, much
of it wetlands, have been
purchased by the State since
1979.
• Illinois—In 1984, the
Illinois Department of
Conservation initiated a
comprehensive wetland
protection and management
program designed to identify
critical issues, examine
existing government
programs, and develop
needed technical informa-
tion and procedures. The
wetland program is governed
by the Wetlands Committee,
a subgroup of the Governor's
State Water Plan Task Force.
The Committee is responsible
for developing policy and
program recommendations
and is composed of policy-
makers from agencies
responsible for programs
that affect Illinois' water
resources.
• Maryland—The State has
had a tidal wetlands regula-
tory program since 1970. This
program is administered by
the Department of Natural
Resources and the State
Board of Public Works
through a public interest
review and permit process.
The law requires property
owners to obtain permission
from the State before alter-
ing tidal wetlands. If a permit
or license is necessary, the
State will issue a public
notice, if required, and hold
any requested public
hearings.
95
-------
Watiands
, The National Wetlands Inventory
""!'' !"'"' "!!l!l"!'"!" ''" '6" "'"n "'•"•!!! '' '• M! "• - 'J!^
V^V^^t'ifcir^.^.fl^i^^^.i^j!!;^-^.^. '• ^•r^^:^J^^--^-^^
i" ' i,j i'1"" , 'j,,',"1 ' i1,1 i.;., ."y "'..i'!' ,!j||' i1",,;!""!] ,!, i'i,;.!'" i"'1! ']'i.ii'ijii'','M .!'...!,|i'!'!''|.'" • x,ji,i(,I'Vi'V''^''^!''^!^ ^ ;^i-n_' •,.••,..'•.' i*-,•• „•.• .•,» V ,.i- iv1-1^!•'";'• ;5'''°-' , ^'-"'•i;' TJ f.
IlltlS
(NWI) is a long-
1 JIHilH'lliilil'iBK i"1*1 !li ii'3'ii"'""1!1111!.?!"! isiiii'ip*" in MI ' 'J!
erm program of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service to map
the Nation's coastal and
inland wetlands. Wetland
maps developed by the NWI
provide important informa-
tion on the extent of State
wetland resources and
provide a basis for a wide
variety of regulatory and
nonregulatory activities. The
NWI also provides a consist-
ent way of reporting the
extent of wetlands by State.
Wetlands are mapped
primarily by the use of good-
quality, high-altitude aerial
ptos,
"and'tHeirtiound'ailes are"
transferred to maps. Wetland
acreage is then estimated
from the completed maps.
To date, approximately 60
percent of the lower 48
States, 100 percent of
Hawaii, and 16 percent of
Alaska have been mapped.
Table 5-2 summarizes wet-
land acreage by State. Six
States have greater than
5 million acres of wetlands,
12 States have between 1 and
5 million acres, 8 States have
between 500,000 and 1 million
acres, and 13 States have less
,
able data are riot available
for 11 States.
As discussed earlier in
this report, several States
provided estimates of current
wetland acreage in their
305(b) reports. In order to
provide a consistent basis for
comparing wetland acreage
between States, Table 5-2
includes wetland acreage
estimates provided only by
NWI. No attempt has been
made to compare what the
States reported in 1988
against the findings of the
NWI.
Source: 1988 National Wetlands Inventory.
Figure 5-4. Wetlands Acreage Distribution Nationwide
Acres
| | 0 or NR
1-500K
500K-1 ,OOOK
1,OOOK-5,OOOK
>5,OOOK
96
-------
Wetlands
Table 5-2. Estimated Wetland Area by State
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware.
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana1
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
.Louisiana.
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi-
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New;Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Acres
(in thousands)
3,069
2,764
389
675
261
223
11,333
5,298
110
712
285
435
205
8,:674
1,731
438
542
5,583
7,540
4,067
836
1,906
190
916
482
1,184
5,690
2,868
1,270
498
84
4,659
1,548
787
3,957
584
1,045
748
102
4,410
Percent of Total
State Land Area
9
8
1
1
8
18
33
14
• —
2
1
1
1
30
9
7
11
15
15
13
2
4
3
19
1
4
18
7
3
2
13
24
3
3 ,
2
1
4
2
>1
13
- Reliable wetland area data not available.
Source: U S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, June 1988.
97
-------
Wfef/ancfe
• Mississippi—Prior to
1973, the State's shoreline,
including wetlands of the
Gulf Coast, was significantly
altered by man. Primary
impacts were associated with
residential development and
industrial expansion into
wetlands areas. In 1973,
the Mississippi Legislature
passed the Coastal Wetlands
Protection Law. This law
established a regulatory
program for wetlands protec-
tion and curtailed human
encroachment into wetlands.
Subsequent to the wetlands
law, the legislature enacted
the Mississippi Coastal
Program, which further
strengthened the State's
ability to protect the coastal
environment.
• New Hampshire—The
State's long-standing wet-
lands protection program is a
cooperative effort involving
the State, through the
Wetland Board, and local
governments through their
Conservation Commissions.
Generally meeting weekly,
the Board considers any
dredge or fill activity
occurring within a wetland
or surface water. The local
Conservation Commissions
review wetland alteration
applications for the Wetland
Board. Special emphasis has
been placed on the protec-
tion of coastal wetlands.
• New Jersey—On July 1,
1987, the Freshwater Wet-
lands Protection Act of 1987
was enacted. The Act author-
izes the New Jersey Depart-
ment of Environmental
Protection to issue permits
for regulated activities. The
permit program will not
affect tidal wetlands regu-
lated under the separate
Wetlands Act of 1970. In
addition, the new Act con-
tains several provisions
relating to wetland mitiga-
tion requirements and
establishes a Wetlands
Mitigation Council.
• New York—Special wet-
land categories and unique
wetland systems have been
identified under a Significant
Habitat program and the
State's Natural Heritage
program. These specifically
designated and protected
areas, along with active
acquisition programs, are
helping to curb further losses
of wetlands. New York is an
active participant in the
North American Waterfowl
Joint Ventures, which is
coordinating multiple oppor-
tunities to protect, create,
and restore large acreages of
wetlands in key areas of the
State. Recent educational
efforts—e.g., focusing on
local governments, school
children, tax assessors, and
land owners—will involve
other parties in wetland
protection.
98
-------
Wetlands
• North Carolina—In
coastal counties, the Coastal
Area Management Act
(CAMA) and Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act combine
to effectively protect salt
marshes. Section 404 applies
to wetlands statewide, but
there are no State laws that
protect wetlands outside of
the coastal zone. While the
404 program offers limited
protection for inland fresh-
water wetlands, it has not
been effective in limiting
wetland conversion because
of enforcement problems and
the limited scope of the
program.
Wetland acquisition
programs in North Carolina
have set aside some 85,000
acres of wetlands, both
privately and publicly
owned. Freshwater wetlands
receive the most attention in
these programs because of
the lack of regulatory
protection.
• North Dakota—The State
recently enacted a law
(Senate Bill 2035) initiating a
"No Net Loss" program. The
basic concept of the program
requires that for every
permitted acre of wetland
that is drained, an equal
acreage of wetlands must be
restored. The landowner
who drains must pay 10
percent of the costs for the
restored acres, with the
remainder coming from
other sources. Fifty percent
of the restored wetlands
should be located in the
county where the drainage
occurred.
• Rhode Island—The
Freshwater Wetlands Act
of 1971 (FWWA) recognizes
swamps, marshes, and other
freshwater wetlands as
buffer zones and absorption
areas for floodwaters,
recharge areas for ground
water, high-value wildlife
habitat, and recreation areas.
In 1971, the State created the
Coastal Resources Manage-
ment Council (CRMC), which
is Rhode Island's lead agency
under the Federal Coastal
Zone Management Act.
• Vermont—In 1986, the
State legislature passed a
wetlands act that provides
the basis for a broad measure
of protection to many of
Vermont's wetlands. The Act
restricts activities that could
potentially degrade the
function or value of signifi-
cant wetlands. In addition,
the State Development
Control Law (Act 250)
requires a permit for every
major land development and
subdivision in the State;
among the criteria for permit
issuance are several that
afford protection to wetlands.
However, most agricultural
and silvicultural activities
are not regulated under Act
250, nor are small-scale
industrial, commercial, and
residential projects.
Other statutes provide some
measure of wetland protec-
tion in Vermont. These
include the Management of
Lakes and Ponds statute and
the Stream Alteration Law.
The State is currently
compiling a master list of
wetlands to be acquired.
99
-------
-------
6
Public Health/Aquatic
Life Concerns
In 1988, States were asked
to report specifically on
pollution problems affecting
public health and aquatic
life. Among the topics they
were to address were fishing
advisories and bans, pollu-
tion-caused fish kills, prob-
lems with toxic contamina-
tion of sediments, and
closures of bathing areas or
surface drinking water
supplies due to pollution.
Many of these impacts are
the result of toxic contam-
inants.
Although any pollutant
may have toxic effects if it is
found in sufficient amounts,
a number of ppllutants
appear to have adverse and
long-term effects at
extremely low concentra-
tions. These toxic substances
may be either synthetic or
naturally occurring, may
persist in the environment
for long periods of time or
dissipate quickly, and may
have a variety of different
effects on public health and
aquatic life. Examples of
toxic pollutants include
heavy metals, pesticides, and
PCBs.
Our knowledge of the
health effects of many toxic
pollutants in water and fish
tissue is still limited. We
know that some are linked to
human health problems such
as cancer, kidney ailments,
and birth defects. Some
chronic health effects may
result only after long-term
exposure; others may develop
years after a short period of
exposure. Exposure routes
from the aquatic environ-
ment to humans may include
drinking water; contam-
inated fish, shellfish, and
waterfowl; and contact
recreation sites such as
swimming beaches.
In addition to public health
problems, toxic pollutants
can damage aquatic eco-
systems by eliminating sensi-
tive species or causing
disease in the species that
remain. Some toxins may
101
-------
Public Health/Aauatic Life Concerns
persist in the environment
for decades, posing a
continuing threat to humans,
aquatic organisms, birds, and
other wildlife. This is clearly
the case with pesticides such
as DDT and dieldrin, which
have been removed from use
for a number of years yet
continue to be found in the
environment.
To a large extent, our
understanding of the preva-
lence of toxic substances,
exposure routes, and levels of
concern is limited by the
difficulty and expense of
monitoring and conducting
long-term health effect
studies. The Federal govern-
ment has developed 62
numeric human health
criteria and 25 aquatic life
criteria for toxic pollutants
against which sampled
concentrations can be
measured. Many more toxic
substances affect the aquatic
environment, and State
adoption of existing criteria
is not universal. Therefore,
the following discussion of
toxic contamination is only in
terms of "elevated" levels
reported by the States. These
elevated levels are defined as
exceedances of State water
quality standards; criteria
developed by EPA under
Section 304(a) of the Clean
Water Act; Water Quality
Advisories developed by
EPA; or "levels of State
concern" where numeric
criteria do not exist.
Total Size of
Watere Affected
by Toxics
Reporting on the extent of
toxic contamination of
waters was more comprehen-
sive in the 1988 State Section
305(b) reports than in
previous years. Table 6-1
summarizes this reporting by
State, for all waterbody
types.
These numbers reflect
substantial increases
compared to data for
previous years on waters
affected by toxic pollutants.
This increase most likely
occurred because a greater
number of States provided
information in 1988.
Increased monitoring
activity may also have led to
the detection of more prob-
lems. Table 6-1 illustrates the
following:
• Rivers and streams:
28 States reported that
they monitored for toxic
substances in about 67,500
river miles and found
roughly one-third of these
waters to be affected. An
additional seven States did
not provide data on the
number of river miles they
monitored for toxic pollut-
ants, but reported that an
additional 17,085 stream
miles are affected by
elevated levels.
Some toxins are persistent in
the environment.
102
-------
Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns
• Lakes and reservoirs:
23 States reported that they
monitored for toxic pollut-
ants in about 4,981,600 acres
of lakes and found roughly
one-third to be affected. An
additional five States did not
report on the number of lake
acres they monitored for
these substances, but
reported that about 56,200
lake acres are affected by
elevated levels of toxic
pollutants.
• Estuaries: 13 States
reported that 5,980 square
miles of their estuaries were
monitored for toxic
substances, and about a
fourth were found to be
affected by elevated levels.
• Coastal waters: Four
States reported that they
monitored 560 coastal
shoreline miles and found
about a third to be affected
by elevated levels of toxic
substances.
• Great Lakes: Four States
reported that 955 of their
Great Lakes shoreline miles
were monitored for toxic
pollutants, and about 90
percent were found to be
affected. One additional
State did not report on
shoreline miles monitored for
toxic pollutants, but reported
that about 199 shoreline
miles are affected.
In some cases the
percentage of monitored
waters found to have
elevated levels of toxic
substances appears high.
However, because monitoring
for toxic substances is an
expensive, resource-inten-
sive process, States are most
likely to monitor primarily in
those waters suspected or
known to have toxic prob-
lems (e.g., waters with
multiple industrial
dischargers or waters with
known sediment contamina-
tion problems). EPA and the
States have gained consider-
able experience over the last
decade in monitoring for
toxic substances and in tar-
geting monitoring to areas
most likely to be contami-
nated. Because we cannot
always predict where
contamination is likely to
occur, monitoring for toxic
compounds must also be
conducted in previously
unmonitored waters. Never-
theless, based on the results
presented by the States, it
appears that we are making
progress in identifying these
sites.
Examining English sole for
evidence of tumors.
103
-------
Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns
Table 6-1. Size of Surface Waters Affected by Toxic Substances
Rivers (miles)
Lakes (acres)
State
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming
Totals
Total Monitored
Waters for Toxics
40,600
6,671
11,508
14,100
291*
36
12,659
20,000
349
16,146
14,080
90,000
18,300
19,791
18,465
14,180
31 ,672
10,704
91,944
15,623
19,630
20,532
70,000
37,378
11,284
43,917
19,791
50,000
5,373
724
9,900
9,937
27,240
40,492
28,361
19,437
861,115
619
1,451
2,873
4,600
155
26
2,695
1,119
—
5,425
2,306
2,624
2,697
—
865
999
1,855
1,075
3,650
3,400
6,829
4,997
1,710
80
2,518
3,080
3,535
1,189
4,574
544
67,490
Elevated
Toxics
110
906
74
1,294
45
26
510
10
1,468
1,834
922
2,097
556
1,084
116
435
264
1,599
271
458
890
345
382
560
1,637
4,608
1,508
1,505
59
180
163
296
846
3,795
7
30,860
Total
Waters
504,336
265,982
377
2,085,120
417,730
727,202
305,847
104,540
81 ,400
175,189
228,385
713,719
994,560
3,41 1 ,200
500,000
288,012
756,450
750,000
305,367
625,503
117,323
11,146
16,520
525,000
1,598,285
161,562
613,582
19,171
427,219
16,730,727
Monitored
for Toxics
202,680
10,093
136
546,560
39,878
54,686
20,700
92,098
38,106
1,367,131
45,578
—
668,000
282,909
399,381
91 ,226
—
2,982
4,968
354,114
548,000
57,992
134,834
13,465
6,098
4,981,615
Elevated
Toxics
86,080
0
136
50,560
0
32,000
13,381
1,106
0
0
1,170
400
1 ,245,929
0
561
9,100
130,946
9,688
0
29,729
—
981
0
8,560
0
0
134,822
4,655
0
1,759,804
'Includes 85 miles of Delaware estuary.
— Not reported.
Source: 1988 State Section 305(b) reports.
104
-------
Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns
Estuaries (sq. miles)
Oceans (coastal miles)
Great Lakes (shore miles)
Total Monitored
Waters for Toxics
625
35
Elevated Total Monitored Elevated Total Monitored Elevated
Toxics Waters for Toxics Toxics Waters for Toxics Toxics
0 —
_ _ _ _
—
.
782
6
4,298
594
134
—
6
1,648
44
34
—
6 —
938 8,460
0 —
0 —
— —
I I I.I
262 85 _ — —
— — — —
— — 63 63
— — 43 43
—
—
—
63
43
— — —
7,656 — — — — — — — _
1,633
171
133
10
39
7
10 —
16 —
0 81
— — — —
— — 272 272
40 0 — —
—
272
— — — — — — — — —
1,564
3,200
—
1,564
—
154 130
—
130 70 577 577
— — 236 —
492
199
— — — — — — — — —
192
2,155
2,382
2,943
100
319
1,800
370
— 434
17 —
2 —
18 —
214 —
127 35 — —
I
I
— — — — — — — — , —
28,468
5,976
1,375 9,105
559 190 1,191 955
1,069
105
-------
Public Health/Aauatic Life Concerns
Fish Consumption
Advisories and
Bans
Tbxic chemicals discharged
to rivers, lakes, and estuaries
may be absorbed or ingested
by aquatic organisms that
are, in turn, consumed by
larger predators such as fish.
Tbxic pollutants can collect
(bioaccumulate) in the
tissues and organs of these
fish, which poses a potential
health hazard to people who
eat them. Various methodol-
ogies (e.g., FDA "action
levels, "Water Quality
Criteria, or levels of State
concern) have been used by
the States or local authorities
to impose fish consumption
restrictions. lb determine
whether the levels of fish
tissue contamination could
be harmful to the public,
some States have considered
local factors such as
consumption rates for
general consumers, sports-
men, or subsistence fisher-
men; type of fish consumed;
and duration of exposure.
In 1988, 29 States reported
finding concentrations of
toxic contaminants in fish
tissue exceeding FDA action
levels or other levels of
concern in localized areas.
Many States respond to the
finding of elevated levels of
toxic substances by imposing
fishing bans or fish consump-
tion advisories. Advisories
typically recommend limiting
consumption of certain
species of fish from given
waterways to a few meals per
week or month and differen-
tiate between general
consumers and those who
are more sensitive (e.g.,
children and women of
childbearing age). Fishing
bans generally prohibit
consumption of one or more
species of fish and apply to
all potential consumers.
National statistics on
fishing restrictions are
incomplete. Many States rely
on local authorities to impose
these restrictions, and there-
fore do not keep statewide
tallies of their numbers,
locations, and the species of
fish affected. However, as
water quality reporting
improves, we are gathering
more information on this
topic.
In their 1988 State Section
305(b) reports, 47 States,
jurisdictions, and Interstate
Commissions (hereafter
referred to as States)
provided information on
fishing advisories and bans in
their waters. Of these, eight
States reported that no fish-
ing restrictions were in place
in their waters. Table 6-2
summarizes this information
by State. Figure 6-1 illus-
trates the national distribu-
tion of fishing advisories and
bans combined. Thirty-nine
Source: 1988 State Section 305(b) reports
Rgure 6-1. Fishing Restrictions Nationwide
106
-------
Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns
Table 6-2. Fishing Restrictions Reported by the States
No. of Restrictions
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Vermont
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
— Not reported.
Source: 1988 State Section 305(t
Advi-
sories
2
0
8
5
3
2
4 '
0
0
2
8
10
1
3
1
6
1
3
7
38
235
0
15
1
1
0
6
0
16
1
0
5
1
2
1
6
1
2
0
13
1
0
2
12
1
160
0
586
)) reports.
Bans
0
1
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
12
0
1
1
0
4
1
1
3
50
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
24
0
0
6
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
135
River
Miles
—
92
65
—
534
585
44
112
25
128
383
1,599
12
833
—
160
40
—
—
204
0
296
19
48
304
4
5,487
Area Affected
Lake
Acres
—
292,867
990,021
—
1,066
1,976
24,128
1 ,245,929
700
1,900
—
1,139
174,175
—
102,083
0
2,835,984
Estuary
Sq. Mi.
— _
3
225
—
—
—
—
—
72
—
—
—
—
—
34
—
334
Great Lakes
Shore Miles
—
43
. —
.
3,288
272
—
—
—
—
—
495
4,098
107
-------
Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns
States reported a. total of 586
advisories, and 21 States
reported 135 bans. The
pollutants most commonly
identified as causing adviso-
ries or bans include PCBs,
chlordane, mercury, dioxin,
and DDT. Table 6-3 indicates
how many States cited
particular pollutants as
causing fishing restrictions.
General categories of
sources contributing these
contaminants include indus-
trial discharges; land disposal
(hazardous waste sites and
landfills); nonpoint sources
such as spills, in-place
contaminants, and atmos-
pheric deposition; and
agricultural activities. Table
6-4 depicts the number of
States attributing fishing
restrictions to these sources.
In addition to reporting on
the number, causes, and
sources of restrictions, States
were asked to report on the
area affected by fishing
advisories and bans. Twenty-
one States reported that
4,487 stream miles were
affected, 4 States reported
that 334 estuarine square
miles were affected, and
12 States reported that
Table 6-3. Pollutants Associated with Fishing Restrictions
Number of States
Pollutant Reporting
PCBs
Chlordane
Mercury
Dioxin
Other Metals
DDT
Organics (unspecified)
Dieldrin
Pesticides (unspecified)
22
17
15
9
9
7
5
4
4
2,835,984 lake acres were
affected (including 976,640
acres of Lake Michigan,
reported by Illinois). Four
States reported that 4,098
Great Lakes shoreline miles
were affected by fishing
restrictions.
These numbers summar-
izing fishing advisories and
bans should be interpreted
with caution and should not
be compared with the find-
ings of previous State Section
305(b) reports until standard-
ized and complete reporting
is in effect. Bans and advi-
sories, once imposed, tend to
remain in place for a number
of years because of the
persistence of many of the
chemicals involved. Thus, a
large apparent change in the
number of bans and adviso-
ries reported by the States
over a 2-year period is more
probably the result of
increasingly comprehensive
reporting and monitoring
rather than actual water
Table 6-4. Sources Associated with Fishing Restrictions
Source
Number of States
Reporting
Industry
Land Disposal
Other Nonpoint Sources
Agriculture
Urban Runoff
Resource Extraction
Municipal Facilities
Natural Sources
14
8
8
7
6
5
3
3
Source: 1988 State Section 305(b) reports.
Source: 1988 State Section 305(b) reports.
108
-------
Public Health/Aauatic Life Concerns
quality changes. In addition,
for any given waterway a
combination of advisories
and bans may be imposed for
different fish species or may
apply differently to different
segments of the waterway or
to different people (e.g.,
children or women of child-
bearing age). Last, a great
deal of variability is evident
between States in the criteria
used to impose fishing
restrictions and the programs
in place to monitor, analyze,
and report fish tissue data.
Therefore, the high
numbers of restrictions
reported by some States are
more likely attributable to
the criteria and procedures
used in deciding on restric-
tions and to sophisticated,
well-established fish tissue
monitoring programs in those
States, rather than to
unusually degraded water
quality conditions. By the
same token, States with no
data or with only a few
fishing restrictions may not
have extensive monitoring
programs to detect fish tissue
contamination.
The following examples
cited by the States in 1988
help illustrate the variety
of pollutants and sources
responsible for fish tissue
contamination and subse-
quent fish consumption
restrictions.
• In Arizona in 1986-1987,
intensive pesticide analyses
of fish and other tissues were
conducted in the vicinity of
the Gila River below metro-
politan Phoenix. Findings of
toxaphene and metabolites
of DDT in fish tissue and
sediment samples at Painted
Rock Borrow Pit Lake and
the Gila River upstream have
resulted in a continuing
health advisory against
consuming fish caught there.
• As a result of a special
study of a number of urban
drainage areas in Maryland,
the State has issued adviso-
ries against consumption of
channel catfish, carp, black
crappie, and American eels
taken from Back River, Balti-
more Harbor, and Lake
Roland (Jones Falls water-
shed). The warning, issued in
1986, was imposed because
of chlordane contamination.
Other finfish, oysters, and
crabs were not found to be
affected, and no other toxic
compounds were identified
as problems.
• Maine reports that a
health advisory was issued in
May of 1985 recommending
that consumption of fish
caught from the Andro-
scoggin River be limited to
two or three times per
month. The advisory was
issued by the State after
dioxin contamination was
detected in a whole-fish
sample collected by the U.S.
EPA; dioxin levels in the
fillet were determined to be
below the FDA action level.
Kraft-process pulp manufac-
turing was determined to be
the source of the dioxin.
• Nevada reports that an
intensive study of mercury
contamination in the Carson
River, its sediments, and fish
tissue led to the imposition of
a health advisory in 1985.
Sediment contamination was
found throughout the lower
Carson River system, from
Dayton to the lower reaches,
and in the canal networks of
the Newlands irrigation
project, Indian Lakes
complex, and the Carson
sink. The fish consumption
advisory was revised in 1986
and remains in effect; the
source of the mercury is
believed to be mining opera-
tions conducted in the late
1800s.
109
-------
Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns
m In July 1986, South Caro-
lina issued a health advisory
cautioning people not to eat
fish taken from Langley Pond
in Aiken County. Levels of
mercury above the FDA
action levels were found in
fish tissue, and sediments
were found to contain high
levels of chromium, mercury,
and PCBs. The sediment
contamination is tied to
discharges of partially
treated or untreated waste-
water, primarily from textile
manufacturing facilities,
discharged in the area since
the late 1800s. Several
former dischargers are under
order to conduct a study to
determine the sources,
nature, and extent of
contamination in Langley
Pond.
• In Vermont and New York,
a fishing advisory for all of
Lake Champlain (174,175
acres) went into effect in
August 1987 because of
elevated levels of PCBs found
in lake trout. Individuals
over 15 years old were
advised to eat no more than
one meal or 1/2 pound of lake
trout per month. Children
under 15, pregnant women,
and women planning to bear
children were advised to
avoid consuming lake trout.
The sources of the contam-
ination may include a nearby
Superfund site, urban runoff/
combined sewer overflows in
Burlington and other
communities along the lake,
and atmospheric deposition.
Sediment
Contamination
Contamination of stream,
lake, and estuarine sedi-
ments by toxic substances
has been identified by some
States as a growing concern.
Although some contaminants
are broken down by microbes
in sediments, others can be
retained for many years after
a discharge has ceased, and
serve as a continuing source
of toxics to the water column
and to aquatic organisms.
Bottom-dwelling animals
such as aquatic insects, for
example, may take in sedi-
ment contaminants as part of
their feeding activities and
may themselves serve as food
for animals higher in the food
chain (including humans).
In addition to potential
impacts on the water column
and biota, sediment contam-
ination can pose obstacles to
the maintenance dredging of
harbors and navigation
channels. Disposal of dredge
spoil can become a difficult
issue if that spoil contains
unacceptable levels of PCBs,
mercury, dioxin, and similar
chemicals. Methods of
disposal such as open water
dumping, confinement in
diked containment areas, and
spreading in coastal areas,
wetlands, and "reclaimed
lands" could clearly create
new—and possibly more
severe—environmental
Contaminants in sediments
can be retained for many years
after a discharge has ceased.
110
-------
Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns
problems. Other impacts that
may occur in certain cases
when dredging takes place
include resuspension of
toxics into the water column,
habitat alteration, and the
smothering of bottom-
dwelling aquatic organisms.
Since it may be necessary to
dredge harbors simply to
keep them open for naviga-
tion purposes, the States face
difficult decisions where
sediment contamination is a
concern.
Methods of analyzing
sediments and interpreting
analytical results are still in
their infancy. EPA is in the
process of issuing criteria
for 12 contaminants in sedi-
ments and is beginning to
document methodologies for
assessing contamination.
Many States, therefore, do
not have the analytical tools
and resources for sediment
monitoring; others may not
have reported on available
data. Therefore, the follow-
ing discussion of State-
reported information on
sediment contamination is
limited and probably under-
states the extent of the
problem. As methodologies
develop and more emphasis
is placed on reporting, the
comprehensiveness of State
data will doubtless improve.
Thirty-five States provided
some information on sedi-
ment contamination in their
waters. Thirty-four of
these States indicated that
instances of sediment
contamination exist in their
waters; one State reported
no problems. A total of 533
separate instances of sedi-
ment contamination are
reported by 30 of the 35
States. Eight States specify
that about 2,700 stream
miles are affected, and six
States report that roughly a
thousand acres of lakes show
impacts from sediment
contamination. Leading
pollutants associated with
sediment contamination
include heavy metals (e.g.,
copper, mercury, lead,
cadmium, chromium, and
zinc); PCBs; pesticides such
as DDT, chlordane, and
dieldrin; and dioxin.
The following examples
from the 1988 State Section
305(b) reports serve to
illustrate the variety of
pollutants and sources
contributing to sediment
contamination problems.
• In Connecticut's urban
harbors (such as portions of
Stamford, Norwalk, Black-
rock, New Haven and New
London Harbors), historical
wastewater discharges,
runoff from urban areas, and
other sources have resulted
in the contamination of some
Sediment contamination
can pose obstacles to the
maintenance dredging of
harbor and navigation
channels.
111
-------
Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns
sediments with heavy
metals, oil and grease, and
other synthetic organics.
The State reports that
dredging is routinely
performed in coastal waters
to maintain navigation chan-
nels and access to marinas.
Dredge material disposal
involves the use of four open
water disposal sites in Long
Island Sound. A dredged
material management plan
entitled "Interim Plan for the
Disposal of Dredged Material
from Long Island Sound"
(1980), prepared by the
former New England River
Basins Commission, guides
State and Federal decision-
making on dredged-material
disposal. This plan estab-
lishes three tiers of sediment
quality and requires special
management practices for
the disposal of contaminated
sediments.
• In Illinois, sediment
chemistry samples are
collected through several
programs such as intensive
basin stream surveys and
fixed station networks.
Sediment chemistry results
are compared to a classi-
fication system developed by
the Illinois EPA. Among the
findings reported in 1988
were elevated levels of heavy
metals (such as arsenic, lead,
and copper) and organics
(such as chlordane and DDT)
in some sediments in the Des
Plaines river basin. The
sources of the heavy metals
are believed to be municipal
dischargers and surface
runoff; nonirrigated crop
production and surface
runoff were identified as the
most significant sources of
organics.
• Louisiana reports on
sediment contamination in
Devil's Swamp Lake, north-
west of Baton Rouge. In late
1985, PCBs were detected in
sediment from the lake and
an effluent channel flowing
into the lake from a nearby
active hazardous waste
disposal facility. Followup
sediment sampling in 1986
confirmed the presence of
PCBs, and fish tissue
analyses found elevated
concentrations of two toxic
hydrocarbons. A major
portion of Devil's Swamp
north of the lake had been
previously identified as
contaminated by an aban-
doned hazardous waste
disposal facility. A cleanup
plan has been established for
the site, and a swimming and
fish consumption advisory
was issued for Devil's Swamp
Lake.
• Michigan reports that
sediment contamination in
the Detroit River is wide-
spread, with higher concen-
trations on the U.S. side
downstream of the Rouge
River and in the Trenton
Channel. These sediments
may be a source of contam-
inants to Lake Erie through
translocation; they may be
ffi *•
112
-------
Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns
!»-•*•*•» ~
available to aquatic animals
for bioaccumulation or may
cause direct physiological
effects through resuspen-
sion. However, the signifi-
cance of these in-place
pollutants to human health,
to aquatic biological orga-
nisms, and as a source to
Lake Erie is still unknown. A
1982 study by the Michigan
Department of Natural
Resources found 43 priority
pollutants in the soft
sediments of the Detroit
River, including heavy
metals, polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons, and PCBs.
• In North Dakota, approxi-
mately 30 acres of sediments
in Nelson Lake have been
affected by arsenic, zinc, and
copper. The source of the
contaminants is a nearby
coal-fired power station.
• Virginia reports that sedi-
ments in the Elizabeth River,
a tidal tributary of the James
River estuary, contain rela-
tively high levels of over 300
toxic metals and organic
compounds. Biological
studies have shown that
communities of bottom-
dwelling organisms and fish
are affected.
In 1983, the Chesapeake Bay
Program identified the Eliza-
beth River system as one of
the most highly polluted
bodies of water in the entire
Bay watershed. State and
local officials recognized that
a comprehensive water
quality management plan
was needed, including
setting water quality goals
and standards, controlling
point and nonpoint sources
of pollution, addressing
toxics, and dredging.
Through the cooperative
efforts of State and local
officials, industry represen-
tatives, researchers, and
environmental organizations,
a Comprehensive Elizabeth
River Restoration Strategy
has been developed for
implementation during
1988-1990.
New Initiatives
Efforts are under way at
EPA to provide States with
better tools to assess and
control s'ediment contamina-
tion problems. EPA has
established steering and
technical Sediment Oversight
Committees to identify,
coordinate, and provide
guidance on activities
relating to the assessment
and management of contam-
inated sediments, and to
facilitate the decisionmaking
process. Among the activities
of these committees are to:
• Develop a Program
Summary Report identifying
EPA sediment-related activi-
ties among different offices
and under varying statutory
authorities;
• Develop a Sediment
Classification Methods
Compendium—an "encyclo-
pedia" of the methods used
to assess chemically contam-
inated sediments;
• Revise the Technical
Support Document for Water
Quality-Based Tbxics
Controls to account for the
effects of sediment on water
quality;
• Prepare Sediment
Chemical Fact Sheets
summarizing all known
toxicity and regulatory data
on 47 toxicants; and
• Coordinate EPA-wide
(and eventually interagency)
contaminated sediment-
related activities.
The Off ice of Water
Regulations and Standards/
Criteria and Standards
Division has developed
interim sediment quality
criteria for 12 nonionic
organic contaminants using
the Equilibrium Partitioning
Approach. The method for
generating interim sediment
criteria is being reviewed by
EPA's Science Advisory
Board, and the results of this
review are expected in
August of 1989. A major
effort is under way that
focuses on the development
of a method for generating
sediment criteria for metal
contaminants. Science Advis-
ory Board review of this
113
-------
Public Health/Aauatic Life Concerns
method will also be sought.
In addition to the develop-
ment of sediment criteria,
efforts are under way that
focus on developing standard
bioassays that can be used to
assess chronic and bioaccu-
mulation effects of contam-
inants in sediments.
Fish Kills Caused
by Pollution
One obvious and important
indicator of water quality
problems is the occurrence of
fish kills caused by pollution.
Information on fish kills is
not complete; the informa-
tion presented below,
reported by the States in
1988, most probably under-
estimates the extent of the
problem for several reasons.
In many cases it is the
public—fishermen, campers,
and hikers—who first notice
fish kills and report them to
fish and game wardens or
other State officials. Many
fish kills may go unnoticed or
unreported; others may be
difficult to investigate. (Dead
fish may be carried quickly
downstream, for example, or
may be difficult to count
because of turbid condi-
tions.) Reporting on pollu-
tion-caused fish kills is new
to the State Section 305(b)
process, and a number of
States either did not provide
data, did not present a
comprehensive tally of kills,
or did not specify the cause
and/or magnitude of kills.
Available data reported by
the States are presented in
Table 6-5.
Table 6-5 shows that 37
States provided some infor-
mation on the occurrence of
pollution-caused fish kills
during the 1986 to 1988
reporting period:
• Two of these States
indicated that no pollution-
caused kills occurred in their
waters.
• Thirty-five States
provided information on the
number of kills, for a total of
996 incidents (see Figure
6-2).
• In the 24 States that
indicated the number of fish
killed, over 36 million fish
were reported killed. Sixty-
four percent of that total was
in one State alone (Texas).
• Toxic substances such as
heavy metals and pesticides
appear to be a less common
cause of fish kills than
conventional pollutants such
as biochemical oxygen-
demanding substances. In
those States that specified
the distinction, nearly five
times more kills were attrib-
Soure: 1988 State Section 306(b) reports.
Figure 6-2. Fish Kills Distribution Nationwide
114
-------
Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns
Table 6-5. Fish Kills Caused by Pollution*
Kills Caused by
"During 1986-1988 reporting period only; excludes kills due to natural causes when a breakout was possible.
— Not reported.
Source: 1988 State Section 305(b) reports.
Kills Caused by
State
Alabama
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Maine
Maryland
Minnesota
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Puerto Rico
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Totals
No. of
Fish Kills
8
6
1
3
25
0
49
41
45
51
53
6
40
80
6
9
52
4
g
5
24
88
0
. 28
16
2
16
144
3
33
69
13
1
2
13
17
34
996
No. Fish
Killed
43,370
2,820
124,588
5,500,000
0
561,049
428,331
' 286,601
174,263
359,143
6,450
112,419
70,400
3,000
—
21,980
4,052,000
0
608,042
74,160
200
—
23,225,000
I
52,322
411,394
36,117,532
loxics n
No. Kills
6
2
0
~
—
10
11
6
8
11
4
9
—
1
2
13
4
4
1
1
2
14
6
7
1
6
6
135
Diiutants
No. Fish
33,370
1,710
—
—
—
119,324
133,708
19,155
5,663
69,500
3,000
—
—
12,530
1,200
30,720
2,000
20,382
I
—
—
24,739
43,365
520,366
Conventior
No. Kills
2
4
1
3
—
—
35
40
47
6
32
69
2
—
8
3
11
84
24
15
1
14
130
27
6
2
11
28
605
lal Pollutants
No. Fish
10,000
1,110
124,588
—
—
167,277
40,555
339,988
6,450
106,756
900
—
—
9,450
4,050,800
577,322
72,160
200
—
—
—
—
27,583
368,029
5,903,168
115
-------
Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns
uted to conventional pollut-
ants than to toxic substances.
• Leading causes of fish '
kills include biochemical
oxygen demand/low dissolved
oxygen, oil and gas, pesti-
cides, ammonia and chlorine,
temperature changes, and
herbicides (Table 6-6).
• The most commonly
reported sources of fish kills
are agriculture (in particular,
runoff from animal holding
areas and feed lots and appli-
cation of fertilizers and
nutrients), spills, municipal
sewage treatment plants, and
industrial dischargers (Table
6-7).
Table 6-6. Pollutants Associated with Fish Kills
Pollutant
Number of States
Reporting
BOD/DO
Oil and Gas
Pesticides
Ammonia
Chlorine
Temperature
Acidity
Inorganics
Nutrients
19
14
14
8
8
8
6
5
5
Source' 1988 Stata Section 305(b) reports.
Table 6-7. Sources Associated with Fish Kills
Source
Number of States
Reporting
Agriculture
Spills
Municipal Facilities
Industry
Land Disposal
Urban Runoff
24
17
16
13
6
4
Bathing Area
Closures
Information reported by
the States on the closure of
bathing areas such as
beaches and recreational
lakes is extremely limited. As
for other types of informa-
tion in this section, beach
closures are often the
responsibility of State health
agencies and local govern-
ments (i.e., cities and coun-
ties) that may not coordinate
reporting with pollution
control agencies preparing
the State Section 305(b)
reports. Thus, comprehensive
tallies of bathing area
closures are not yet available.
Thirty-one States provided
some information on the
closure of bathing areas. In
13 States, no closures were
reported to have occurred; in
the remaining 18 States, 224
beach closure incidents were
reported. Most of these clos-
ures were probably of short-
term duration and are attrib-
uted primarily to microbial
pathogen indicators such as
fecal coliform bacteria,
which may indicate the
presence of disease
organisms from municipal
sewage treatment plants,
combined sewer overflows,
urban runoff, and spills.
SORRY
Source: 1988 Stata Section 305(b) reports.
116
i WftfJtERIS A, HEALTH HAZARD
* . '
i* cdmanw harmful
vi-runes, Washwtth
tbfr t»ody, ar%ny
linal thai 1ms beeiijitt contact
£" M mtpomory County Deptirtm*'
t iHRK sr
-------
Ground-Water
Quality and
Protection
-------
-------
Introduction
Ground water is a vital
natural resource that is with-
drawn for drinking water,
irrigation, industrial use, and
livestock watering. In many
parts of the United States,
ground water is the only
reliable source of water.
Under certain geological
conditions, ground water can
also be quite vulnerable to
contamination. An increas-
ing number, of pollution inci-
dents affecting both public
water supplies and private
wells have been reported
throughout the country.
While in a majority of situa-
tions only low levels of
contamination have been
found, there are some local-
ities that have experienced
contamination above the
drinking water standards.
As a result of a growing
awareness of the important
nature of this resource and
its vulnerability, many States
and Territories are develop-
ing and expanding legisla-
tion, regulations, and
programs to address ground
water.
Ground-water protection is
especially important because
of the difficulty and expense
involved in cleaning up
contaminated aquifers,
providing alternative water
supplies, or adding treatment
to public water systems. The
States and Territories have
identified a broad range of
contaminants and contam-
ination sources, such as
underground storage tanks,
septic systems, and landfills.
Controlling these sources of
contamination has become a
central focus of State
ground-water protection
programs.
This section discusses
many of these State and
Territorial programs (e.g.,
ground-water protection
strategies, Wellhead
Protection Programs, and
aquifer classification and
mapping projects) and the
contaminants and sources of
contamination addressed by
119
-------
Ground-Water Quality and Protection
these activities. In addition,
Federal activities to protect
ground water are described
in this section. However, this
section is not intended to
provide a summary of all
State and Territorial ground
water-related activity.
Instead, it describes only
certain State and Territorial
programs in order to illus-
trate the scope of ongoing
activities. The absence of a
State description under one
or more of the section
headings does not indicate
that a particular State
program does not exist.
The Agency coEected the
information reported in this
section primarily from 1988
State Section 305(b) reports.
Under Section 106 of the
Clean Water Act, the Federal
government has provided
grant money to the States to
develop their water quality
programs. The States have,
in turn, been required to
submit data and information
describing their State
programs under the Section
305(b) reporting process.
EPA requested that each
State and Territory provide
information concerning its
ground-water protection
program, the sources of
ground-water contamination
identified in the State, and
the contaminants observed
in the State's ground water.
This chapter summarizes the
data provided by 52 States
and Territories and the
District of Columbia; infor-
mation was not available for
two States and one Territory.
In addition to the data
from the State Section 305(b)
reports, this section reports
supplemental ground-water
use data from the U.S.
Geological Survey's 1984 and
1986 National Water
Summaries and Open File
Report 88-112. Reports
prepared by the U.S. EPA
Office of Ground-Water
Protection were also used in
the development of this
section.
This section summarizes
the following information:
ground-water withdrawals
and use, ground-water
quality, State ground-water
legislation and programs,
and Federal statutes and
programs to protect ground
water.
120
-------
Ground-Water Quality
7
Ground-Water Quality
Current
Ground-Water Use
Just over 50 percent of the
Nation's population relies on
ground water as a source of
drinking water (U.S. Geologi-
cal Survey, 1986 National
Water Summary). Figure 7-1
depicts the distribution of
population served by ground
water for domestic supply in
the U.S. The importance of
good-quality ground water as
a drinking water source is
illustrated by the heavy
reliance on ground water in
all regions of the country. In
12 States and Territories
(hereafter referred to as
States), ground water
supplies drinking water for
greater than 75 percent of
the population. The vast
majority of the Nation's rural
population relies on potable
ground-water sources to
provide water for domestic
use. Only five States rely on
ground water to provide
domestic supply for less than
25 percent of their
population.
In many parts of the
country, ground water is also
relied upon as a water source
for uses other than domestic
supply: 68 percent of all
ground-water withdrawals in
the U.S. are used for irri-
gation; 13 percent are
consumed by industry; and a
small percentage (less than 2
percent) of withdrawals are
used for watering livestock.
In the East and South,
ground-water withdrawals
are largely used for industrial
and domestic purposes. In
the West, most ground water
is withdrawn for irrigation.
In 1985, ground-water
withdrawals in the U.S.
totaled approximately 76
billion gallons per day. As
shown in Figure 7-2, these
withdrawals are concen-
trated in a limited number of
States. California and Texas
both withdraw greater than
121
-------
Ground-Water Quality
10 billion gallons per day and
together account for approx-
imately one-third of the
Nation's total withdrawals.
Five other States—Arizona,
Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, and
Nebraska—each withdraw
more than 4 billion gallons of
ground water per day. These
seven States use ground
water primarily for irrigation
and are responsible for two-
thirds of the Nation's ground-
water withdrawals.
The national use of ground
water has grown signifi-
cantly over the last 40 years.
Figure 7-3 illustrates the
trend in ground-water with-
drawals from 33 billion
gallons per day in 1950, to a
high of 82 billion gallons per
day in 1980, and to approx-
imately 76 billion gallons per
day in 1985.
Ground-Water
Quality
The States are demon-
strating a growing awareness
and interest in ground-water
quality. Nine States reported
that their ground-water
quality is excellent, and
17 States reported generally
good quality. The remaining
States did not express a
judgment. The 1988 State
Section 305(b) reports
indicate that, overall, the
quality of the Nation's
ground water is quite good,
based on the testing that has
been done to date. Human
activity may occur in zones
where ground water is with-
drawn for public water
supply; under certain geolog-
ical conditions, these wells
can be vulnerable to
contamination. At issue is
keeping ground-water qual-
ity high so that costly
remedial actions are not
required.
In an effort to protect and
maintain their resources,
many States are engaging in
studies to better understand
the quality of their ground
water, identify potential
sources of contamination,
and determine the vulner-
ability of the resource to
pollution. This section
describes a number of these
State studies and concludes
with a discussion of the
contamination sources and
ground-water contaminants
reported by the States.
Legend
Percent of Population
Guam
Source: 1988 State 305(B) Water Quality Reports or 1986 USGS National Water Summary
Figure 7-1. Percentage of State and Territory Populations Served by Ground Water for
Domestic Supply
122
-------
, Ground-Water Quality
Guam
Legend
Million gallons per day
9,700-14,600
4,800-9,699
2,400-4,799
1,500-2,399
I I 0-1,499
Source: 1988 State 305(b) Water Quality Reports or 1986 USGS National Water Summary.
Figure 7-2. National Breakdown of Ground-Water Withdrawals
90
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
Year
Source: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 88-1.12.
Figure 7-3. National Use of Ground Water 1950-1985
. Ground-Water
Studies
Over 30 States reported
conducting broad-ranging
ground-water quality studies,
with an average of 1 to 3
studies by each State. A few
States have also begun
studying more innovative
approaches to ground-water
protection (e.g., aquifer
vulnerability and land use
studies).
The most common types of
assessments reported by the
States were ground-water
quality studies. At least 10
States conducted both state-
wide studies and more local-
ized or regional studies;
another 10 States conducted
broad statewide sampling
studies alone, and the
remaining 10 States
conducted only localized
studies in response to
anticipated contamination
problems. The majority of
these studies involved moni-
toring programs aimed at
evaluating the impact of a
specific contaminant (e.g.,
nitrate) or a contaminant
source (e.g., septic tanks).
Statewide surveys are
becoming more common as
many States are seeking to
track their ambient ground-
water quality. The Texas
Water Development Board
maintains a 5,800-well
ground-water quality moni-
toring network and analyzes
water quality samples from
approximately 1,200 of those
wells annually. Data from
these surveys will be main-
tained in the Texas Natural
Resource Information
System. New Jersey will
sample 25 to 30 wells in 1988
in its ambient ground-water
123
-------
Ground-Water Quality
quality network. New Jersey
will also intensively study
40 to 45 additional wells in
the northern portion of the
State. Florida is tracking
ambient ground-water qual-
ity in a statewide monitoring
program.
A number of the States
conducting ground-water
quality studies have estab-
lished or are beginning to
establish data bases to
catalog ground-water data
and known or suspected
contamination incidents
throughout the State. For
example, Indiana has created
a data base to track known
incidents of ground-water
contamination. This data
base currently contains 228
case histories of ground-
water contamination. Of
the 228 cases, 16 percent
involved public water
systems. Florida is devel-
oping a data base to manip-
ulate the data from its State
ground-water quality moni-
toring program. New Mexico
has started work on a
ground-water/vadose zone
contamination inventory.
Presently, there are over 850
identified ground-water
contamination incidents in
New Mexico, involving over
1,000 documented wells. The
inventory will include a
narrative abstract of each
situation and will have many
variables available for cross-
referencing, including loca-
tion, depth to ground water,
aquifer, contaminants,
contaminant concentrations,
and monitoring dates.
Virginia also maintains a data
base to track ground-water
pollution complaint investi-
gations. The Virginia data
base incorporated 301 new
event reports during the
1988 reporting period.
In many States, the focus
of concern for ground-water
studies is on regional
problems. In 1987, Kentucky
undertook studies of domes-
tic well water quality in eight
counties. Well water was
analyzed for 81 constituents
including bacteria, pesti-
cides, primary and secondary
drinking water constituents,
and priority pollutants. The
studies indicated isolated
incidents of contamination,
specifically high fecal
coliform bacteria levels.
States have also reported
agricultural activities as a
regional source of concern,
and many studies have been
initiated to investigate this
problem. For example, during
1986 and 1987, Kansas
completed two phases of a
three-phase Farmstead Well
Contamination Study. The
study estimated the number
of farmstead wells in Kansas
contaminated by volatile
organic compounds (VOCs),
inorganic compounds, or
pesticides and helped iden-
tify the factors contributing
to such contamination. The
information gathered in
Phases I and II will be used in
the third phase to develop an
educational program. The
program will address ground-
water contamination and its
relationship to agricultural
practices, farmstead activi-
ties, well construction, and
well siting.
Minnesota recently
conducted a ground-water
survey designed to deter-
mine the extent of the
problems caused by "normal"
use of pesticides in pesticide-
sensitive areas (i.e., pesticide
use not associated with spills,
leaks, or mishandling). The
study was a cooperative
effort by the Departments of
Agriculture and Health. The
Department of Agriculture
sampled ground water by
using shallow observation
wells placed at the edge of
agricultural fields. The
Department of Health
focused on sampling public
and private drinking water
supplies in rural areas. Of the
500 water well and drinking
water samples collected, 38
percent had detectable levels
of one or more pesticides.
The State did not report the
number of these samples
that exceeded drinking water
standards.
Connecticut recently spon-
sored investigations of pesti-
cides in groundwater and
detected concentrations of
1,2-dichloroethylene,
atrazine, and metalochlor at
several sites above State
drinking water standards and
EPA advisory levels.
Salt-water intrusion has
also become a local ground-
water quality problem in
124
-------
Ground-Water Quality
many areas. The U.S. Geolog-
ical Survey has established a
sampling network of 240
wells in New Jersey specif-
ically to track saltwater
encroachment. Delaware and
Maryland are conducting a
joint study on the prevention
of saltwater intrusion in their
States. Virginia has also
begun a saltwater intrusion
study program.
Other States assessed
ground-water quality, either
regional or statewide, by
focusing on specific contam-
inants. During the past 2
years, North Dakota has
performed a nitrate screen
on over 4,000 private well
samples. Nitrate-nitrogen in
excess of 2 mg/1 was found in
23 percent of the samples,
and 11 percent of the
samples exceeded the drink-
ing water standard of
10 mg/1.
A few States combined
ground-water quality studies
with contamination source
investigations. As part of the
U.S. EPA-funded 205Q)
program, Arizona examined
the VOC content in ground
water surrounding the City
of Mesa. Water samples were
collected from 47 wells, and
4 VOCs (trichloroethylene,
perchloroethylene, dichloro-
ethene, and Freon-113) were
found to exceed Arizona
Department of Health
Services action levels. The
largest area of detectable
VOC in ground water was
near a municipal landfill.
In some instances, States
examined specific sources of
contamination. Rhode Island
and Colorado conducted
studies of the impact of
surface impoundments on
ground-water quality.
Washington investigated the
effect of 45 existing on-site
sewage systems on ground
water and completed a study
of agricultural chemicals in
ground water in 3 counties.
The agricultural chemicals
survey sampled 81 wells in
the 3 counties and found
detectable levels of sampled
pesticides in 23 of the wells
and nitrate levels above
health standards in 18 wells.
Washington did not report
whether the detected pesti-
cides exceeded health
standards.
A few States have devel-
oped studies to assist in
broadening the scope of
ground-water protection in
their States. Studies include
assessments of current regu-
latory programs and, in some
cases, development of new
approaches to ground-water
protection regulation. The
New Mexico Environmental
Improvement Division
conducted a study to deter-
mine the quantitative contri-
bution of major chemical and
biological contaminants from
domestic septic tanks to
ground water. The study
evaluated the adequacy of
the State liquid waste regula-
tions regarding lot size and
disposal-field clearance in
preventing both short- and
long-term degradation of
ground-water quality. Iowa is
also investigating the use of
protection standards in its
ground-water regulatory
program and the impact of
ground-water contamination
on human health in the
State.
Other unique activities
are being developed by the
States to support their
ground-water programs.
North Carolina developed a
computer-based Ground
Water Advisory system to
assist the permitting staff in
evaluating the potential
impact of waste disposal
activities on ground-water
quality. Minnesota has
initiated a project to assess
the relative susceptibility of
ground water to contamina-
tion in the State. Data from
digitized base maps is being
combined and ranked to
highlight those areas of the
State most vulnerable to
contamination from land
surface and near-surface
activities. This program will
assist in setting priorities
for Minnesota programs and
raising public awareness of
the vulnerability of ground
water in the State.
In addition to those studies
described above, the States
also require routine monitor-
ing of certain water wells to
assess ground-water quality
(e.g., monitoring public
water supplies, testing
individual domestic wells,
and monitoring at waste
disposal unit boundaries). All
of these State studies are
geared toward understanding
or controlling the contamina-
tion sources and contam-
inants described below.
125
-------
Ground-Water Quality
Overview of
Contamination
Sources
The States identified major
.sources of ground-water
contamination in their
Section 305(b) reports. The
number of States identifying
each of the sources as a
priority of concern is indi-
cated in Figure 7-4. Over half
classified underground stor-
age tanks, septic systems,
agricultural activities,
municipal landfills, surface
impoundments, and aban-
doned hazardous waste sites
as major threats to ground-
water quality. With very
minor differences, these are
the same sources of concern
reported in the 1986 State
Section 305(b) reports.
Many of the States
assigned a priority ranking to
these contamination sources
that reflects their level of
concern about each source.
Figure 7-5 illustrates
these rankings. The most
frequently noted top priority
concern was underground
storage tanks (ranked first
by 15 States). Abandoned
hazardous waste sites were
ranked as the top priority
concern by eight States,
while agricultural activity
and septic tanks were each
identified as the top priority
concern by five States.
Underground storage tanks
were most frequently identi-
fied among the top five
contamination sources of
concern (ranked by 34
States). Twenty-five States
characterized municipal
landfills among the top five
sources of concern, while 23
States ranked agricultural
activity among the top five.
Abandoned hazardous waste
sites (ranked by 21 States)
and septic tanks (ranked by
20 States) ranked fourth and
fifth, respectively, among the
top five sources of concern.
In addition to the sources
of contamination listed in
Figures 7-4 and 7-5, the
States identified other
contaminant sources of
concern, such as hazardous
material spills, mining waste,
abandoned and poorly con-
structed wells, and above-
ground tanks. The priority
rankings assigned to these
other contaminant sources
are indicated in Figure 7-6.
Mining wastes, sewer leaks,
cyanide heaps, construction,
and manufacturing were
each identified by one State
as its top priority source of
concern.
The broad range of activi-
ties identified by the States
as priority contaminant
sources indicate that ground-
water protection from
unacceptable contamination
requires controlling many
different processes and
waste management
practices.
Source
Other
Salt and Brine Pits
Salt Water
Road Salt
Land Application
Regulated Hazardous Waste Sites
Injection Wells
Other Landfills
Industrial Landfills
Abandoned Hazardous Waste Sites
Surface Impoundments
Municipal Landfills
Agricultural Activity
Septic Tanks
Underground Storage Tanks
^^^,^p;6fe^prf<,?.K
i~&f-*-t~'f "&*£'.'?'>">***." -. x..."T"*7
KL<^'4
t
szs
jiiiaki
i^^^—"'"^'^"'^-''^"^^^
^^1- ...V.J. ...-.^•T'-VifJJ ".•••.•]•.
r'i^Ce'.'.>•
^y.-^.inEa::A...A
........I............v/'J-v?
0
10
15 20 25 30 35
Number of States and Territories
Source: 1988 State Section 305(b) reports.
Figure 7-4. Frequency of Reported State and Territory Concern with Ground-Water
Contamination Source
126
-------
Ground-Water Quality
Sources
Road Salting
industrial Landfills
Salt Water Intrusion
Land Application
Regulated Hazardous Waste Sites
Other Landfills
Injection Wells
Oil and Gas Brine Pits
Municipal Landfills
Surface Impoundments
Septic Tanks
Agricultural Activity
Abandoned Hazardous Waste Sites
Underground Storage Tanks
1 st Priority
2nd Priority
3rd Priority
4th Priority
5th Priority
10 15 20 25
Number of States and Territories
30
35
Source: 1988 State Section 305(b) reports.
Figure 7-5. Priority Ranking of Ground-Water Contamination Sources
Sources
Municipal Wastewater
Tankyards
Agricultural Wells
Sink Holes
Fertilizer and Pesticides
Waste Piles
Salt Storage
Abandoned Wells
Urban Runoff
Spills
Feedlots
Manufacturing
Construction
Cyanide Heaps
Sewer Leaks
Mining Wastes
0
.;.A-..£ •« •> f
^^.f.££%Af. '
£S%£A&..-..&S..VJ
f f 'f " ''.,., ;
.=txS. .'
;::&-&ms;&a%
«888K8SSK8388d
j§ 1st
S 3rd
CJ 4th
Dsth
Priority
Priority
Priority
Priority
3riority
1 23456
Number of States and Territories'
Source: 1988 State Section 30S(b) reports.
Figure 7-6. Priority Ranking of "Other" Ground-Water Contamination Sources
127
-------
Ground-Water Quality
Overview of
Contaminants
In addition to identifying
sources of contamination,
the States identified the
contaminants they have
observed in their ground
water. Figure 7-7 presents
these ground-water contam-
inants of concern. As shown
in the figure, more than half
of the States identified
nitrates, pesticides, volatile
organic compounds, petro-
leum products, metals, and
brine as contaminants of
concern. Other contaminants
reported by the States
include bacteria, solvents,
acids, and tanning wastes.
In 1986, the States
reported sewage, nitrates,
synthetic organic chemicals,
volatile organics, brine/
salinity, and metals to be the
most common ground-water
contaminants. The current
reports generally parallel this
earlier finding; the only
exception is a reduction in
the number of States report-
ing sewage problems in 1988.
In another approach to
assessing ground-water
contamination and trends
across the United States, EPA
has used State data reported
to the Federal Reporting Data
System to analyze the degree
to which ground water-based
water supply systems are
meeting all applicable Maxi-
mum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs). EPA used this indi-
cator to provide: information
on the number and propor-
tion of ground water-based
public drinking water
systems meeting applicable
MCLs and some indication of
the degree of risk posed by
those systems not meeting
the standards; the geographic
distribution of that risk
across States; and an indica-
tion and identification of the
specific contaminants that
are responsible for that risk.
In 1986, 12.3 percent of the
ground water-based systems,
serving 6.8 percent of the
population using these
systems, violated MCLs; in
1987, 11.1 percent of these
systems, serving 6.4 percent
of the population, violated
MCLs.
Contaminant
Other Inorganics
Fluorides
Arsenic
Other Agricultural Contaminants
Radioactive Material
Coliform Bacteria
Synthetic Organic Chemicals
Brine
Metals
Petroleum Products
Volatile Organic Compounds
Pesticides
Nitrates
-r
isss::^
3
10 15 20 25 30 35
Number of States and Territories
40
45
Source: 1988 State Section 305(b) reports.
Figure 7-7. Number of States and Territories Reporting Ground-Water Contaminant as a
Concern
128
-------
8
Ground-Water
Protection Programs
State Programs
The States are currently
engaged in a number of
ground-water protection
activities to address con-
taminants and sources of
contamination. These activ-
ities include: adopting and
implementing ground-water
protection strategies; enact-
ing ground-water legislation
to create comprehensive
ground-water protection
programs and develop
protection regulations,
standards, and special
controls for specific contam-
inant sources; adopting
wellhead protection and
ground-water classification
and mapping programs; and
establishing procedures to
better coordinate the
ground-water management
activities of State agencies.
Ground-Water
Protection Strategies
At least 49 States and Terri-
tories (hereafter referred to
as States) have Ground-Water
Protection Strategies or are
in the process of developing
them. Many of the States
reported that they used
portions of their Section 106
grants under the Clean Water
Act to prepare their Strate-
gies. These Strategies typi-
cally outline goals and
objectives for addressing
ground-water problems;
contain information on the
nature and location of
ground water in the State;
and describe legislative and
regulatory programs to
protect groundwater and
develop public interest and
support for protection
activities. Many of these
State Strategies have also
been accompanied by
129
-------
Ground-Water Protection Programs
changes in State laws or
regulations to bolster
ground-water protection
activities. The following
section contains examples of
the comprehensive legisla-
tive and regulatory programs
that have been adopted by
many of the States to achieve
the goals of their Strategies.
In November 1987,
Kentucky published its
Ground-Water Protection
Strategy. Kentucky describes
its Strategy as a working
document that announces
major new ground-water
initiatives. The foremost
component of the Strategy is
the adoption of a ground-
water protection goal to
maintain and protect the
resource for its highest and
best use, and to minimize or
prevent ground-water degra-
dation. Program elements
announced in the Strategy
include: a proposed classifi-
cation system equivalent to
that proposed by U.S. EPA;
the development of ground-
water classification and
discharge regulations for
regulating all discharges to
ground water; a proposed
program to certify well pump
installers and all non-water
well drillers in Kentucky; a
proposal to reform oil and gas
laws; and various funding
proposals to protect aquifers,
cleanup non-Federal aban-
doned hazardous waste sites,
and expand ground-water
research and data manage-
ment.
The Florida Ground-Water
Protection Strategy focuses
on programs to control
ground-water contamination
and on plans to implement
ground-water monitoring
and data collection activities.
The Florida Strategy outlines
a number of activities to
protect ground water,
including the implementa-
tion of federally mandated
programs such as under-
ground injection control,
underground storage tank
monitoring and remediation,
and hazardous waste
management. The Florida
Strategy also outlines State
initiatives such as a ground-
water discharge permitting
program, septic system regu-
lations, and ground-water
classification to create
special aquifer protection
areas. Florida is developing
water supply well location
guidelines to control drilling
in known or suspected areas
of contamination. The
Florida Strategy describes an
extensive ambient ground-
water quality monitoring
network and a computerized
data base to track water
quality data. Florida even-
tually plans to use these data
to support the development
of a geographic information
system to track expected
sources and areas of ground-
water contamination.
Ground-water planning map for
Northborough, Massachusetts. 1
NNKTER
tOWN O? UOWHBORDVW5H
130
-------
Ground-Water Protection Programs
Virginia has prepared a
Ground-Water Protection
Strategy that is overseen and
implemented by an inter-
agency committee, the
Groundwater Protection
Steering Committee. The
components of the strategy
include a Virginia pollution
abatement permit program
to control animal waste
lagoons, industrial waste
lagoons, and land application
of sludge, as well as regula-
tions affecting underground
storage tanks, landfills, and
new well construction. The
Virginia strategy also calls for
ground-water data collection
and management and techni-
cal training and educational
programs.
The Ground-Water Protec-
tion Strategies described
above generally form the
basis for ground-water
quality control programs in
the States. 1b implement
these protection activities,
many States are adopting or
amending ground-water
legislation and regulations.
A sample of these legal and
regulatory activities are
described below.
Ground-Water
Protection
Legislation,
Regulations, and
Standards
Although most of the
States have authority to
develop ground-water
protection programs under
general clean water statutes,
over the past several years a
majority of the States have
either passed legislation
designed specifically to
protect ground water, or
have amended existing water
quality statutes to better
account for ground-water
problems. At least 31 States
have adopted specific
ground-water protection
legislation.
This legislation has led to
the promulgation of regula-
tions that, in many States,
stipulate controls for the
management of specific
sources of contamination and
standards for ground-water
quality protection. These
standards may be used to
apply limits on the allowable
discharges from contamina-
tion sources or to set contam-
inant targets or threshold
levels for ground-water
cleanup. Ground-water
protection standards can
involve either narrative
descriptions of nondegrada-
tion goals or numeric levels
that set allowable health-
based concentrations for
specific compounds in
ground water.
A water treatment facility
in Florida.
131
-------
Ground-Water Protection Programs
Portions of three State
programs are summarized
briefly to illustrate the broad
array of ground-water pro-
tection activities throughout
the United States.
Under the Arizona Envi-
ronmental Quality Act of
1987, the Arizona Depart-
ment of Environmental
Quality was given primary
responsibility to protect
aquifers supplying drinking
water to the State. The Act
stipulates statewide monitor-
ing of ground water and soils
to detect contamination.
Monitoring requirements are
also included in the public
drinking water supply
programs, hazardous waste
management programs, and
Federal and State "Super-
fund" programs. The Arizona
Department of Water
Resources and the U.S.
Geological Survey have
primary responsibility to
study and manage available
ground-water supply in the
State. To facilitate ground-
water protection planning,
Arizona has adopted a
ground-water basin scheme.
The basins are designed
primarily on the basis of local
physiography, surface drain-
age patterns, subsurface
geology, and aquifer charac-
teristics. Based on this
scheme, Arizona has identi-
fied four "Active Manage-
ment Areas" where ground-
water supplies are imperiled.
The State has developed
management plans to protect
both ground-water quality
and safe yields.
Illinois enacted a Ground-
Water Protection Act in 1987
that established a protection
policy to prevent degradation
and to preserve beneficial
uses of ground water. The
Act requires the State to
identify sources of ground-
water contamination and
establish technical require-
Display of a cross section of
monitoring well locations.
132
ments to control these
sources, especially within
public water supply recharge
areas. Three State agencies
have responsibilities under
the Act—the Department
of Energy and Natural
Resources, the Department
of Public Health, and the
Environmental Protection
Agency. These responsi-
bilities include a permit
program for noncommunity
wells, a ground-water
protection planning program,
a ground-water data collec-
tion and automation
program, ground-water
standards development, an
interagency coordinating
committee, a ground-water
protection needs assessment,
and community water well
surveys. Furthermore, the
State Department of Energy
and Natural Resources is
planning a considerable
research effort to implement
the goals of the Act. This
effort includes water supply
recharge area mapping,
evaluation of the impact of
pesticide use on ground-
water quality, a statewide
ground-water quality and
quantity assessment, and the
creation of an automated
system to track ground-water
data.
-------
Ground-Water Protection Programs
South Dakota recently
passed legislation mandating
the development of State
wellhead protection guide-
lines to be used by local
governments in their
program development
efforts. The program
elements described in the
Governor's Centennial Envi-
ronmental Protection Act
mirrors the elements in the
Federal Safe Drinking Water
Act. The State intends to
have these guidelines in
place by June 1989.
In addition to improved
planning, monitoring activ-
ities, and specific source
controls (such as those
mandated under under-
ground storage tank, under-
ground injection control, and
solid and hazardous waste
regulations), a number of
States are also protecting
their ground water through
the adoption of underground
discharge permitting
programs. New Jersey's
program is described below.
The New Jersey Depart-
ment of Ground-Water
Quality Management issues
ground-water discharge
permits under the general
authority of the New Jersey
Discharge Elimination
System. Ground-water
discharges that have been
or can be issued a permit
include surface impound-
ments, infiltration/percola-
tion lagoons, landfills,
injection wells, spray irriga-
tion, overland flow, and land
application of residuals for
hazardous and nonhazardous
wastes. Work involved in
permit issuance ranges from
pre-application conferences
and application reviews to
public notices and hearings.
All permitted facilities must
perform routine discharge
and aquifer (upgradient and
downgradient) monitoring.
Final permits are issued for
5 years. New Jersey also
conducts a review of other
permit requirements for
potential ground-water
discharges. These reviews
include industrial waste
management facilities, the
statewide sludge manage-
ment program, and best
management practices for
stormwater and emergency
cleanup from major indus-
trial facilities. New Jersey
is also revising its statute
addressing "Standards for
Individual Subsurface Sew-
age Disposal Systems." The
new standards will reflect
current scientific knowledge
and engineering practices to
protect ground-water quality
and to reduce the frequency
of septic system malfunc-
tions.
In addition to the controls
the States have established
on well-known sources of
ground-water contamination,
such as landfills and septic
systems, other States and
Territories have adopted
specific controls on other
minimally regulated sources
of contamination. For
example, Puerto Rico
established an animal waste
management system to help
control contamination from
animal runoff. Michigan
requires storage permits and
pollution prevention plans
for nonhazardous wastes.
Guam regularly monitors
urban runoff collection
surface impoundments for
pesticides and heavy metals.
Wellhead Protection
Programs
Since the reauthorization
and amendment of the Safe
Drinking Water Act in 1986,
many States and local
governments are actively
moving to develop and
implement Wellhead Protec-
tion (WHP) Programs.
Section 1428 of the Act
specifies that each State
must prepare a WHP
Program and submit it to
EPA by June 19, 1989. To
date there have been 30
submittals to EPA. EPA has
provided States and local
governments with extensive
assistance in this area,
including technical assist-
ance documents, workshops,
training sessions, and pilot
projects.
The State summaries listed
below are representative of
the types of WHP Programs
133
-------
Ground-Water Protection Programs
being developed by the
States and give a clear
indication that many States
and local governments are
actively conducting specific
WHP activities.
The Connecticut General
Assembly has recently
adopted the recommenda-
tions of a legislative task
force to begin an aquifer
protection program state-
wide. The State is requiring
water companies to delineate
zones of contribution to
public water supplies and is
also requiring towns to
create local boards to
consider ground-water
protection. A legislative task
force is developing recom-
mendations on which land-
use controls should be exer-
cised in the aquifer protec-
tion areas. Connecticut has
submitted a WHP Program to
EPA.
Maine's ground-water
protection program is coordi-
nated by the State Planning
Office with technical assist-
ance from the Department of
Environmental Protection.
Together they are finalizing
the statewide ground-water
protection strategy. The
WHP Program was drafted
for review by the State WHP
Program workgroup. The
program was published for
review in November 1988.
The resulting State WHP
Program underwent public
review and was submitted to
the legislative session
(Winter-Spring 1989) and
then to EPA.
The Missouri Department
of Natural Resources
submitted a coordinated
work plan for WHP activities
in late 1988. The State then
began implementing the
activities identified in the
WHP work plan, with the
goal of having a program in
place within 2 years. The
State has also put together a
proposal for a GIS pilot
project that would comple-
ment various elements of an
actual WHP Program. The
project includes mapping all
public water supply wells/
wellfields in the State,
locating contaminant sources
around those supplies, and
identifying alternate water
supply sources for those
communities using ground
water as their public water
supply source. Part of this
project also involves devel-
oping a ground-water flow/
transport model that can be
used by emergency response
personnel to track the
movement of a contaminant
spill from an identified
source within a WHP
Program, should such an
event occur.
Wellhead protection map for
Dade County, Florida. I
134
-------
Ground-Water Protection Programs
In New York, the responsi-
bilities for ground-water
management and public
water supply protection are
divided between the New
York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) and the New York
State Department of Health, :
respectively. The NYSDEC
has been designated as the
lead agency for developing
and implementing a state-
wide WHP Program. The
State has submitted a WHP
Program to EPA.
The Texas Water Commis-
sion has launched a program
for local education and tech-
nical assistance on WHP. The
Commission is conducting a
series of seminars for local
officials and public water
system operators on the
State's existing ground-water
protection programs and
what can be done on a local
level to protect ground water.
The Commission offers its
A free-flowing artesian well.
technical assistance to any
municipality that wants to
develop a WHP Program and,
to date, has completed two
such projects in the State.
The Commission also has
proposed a Class V injection
well regulatory strategy that
would include participation
by local governments and
would incorporate WHP. In
addition, Austin has enacted
local regulations to protect
several aquifer recharge
areas. The Del Rio area
has implemented a WHP
Program designed to prevent
contamination of an open
spring, which is the town's
only water source. Texas has
submitted a WHP Program to
EPA.
Vermont is conducting a
joint pilot study between the
Department of Health and
the Department of Environ-
mental Conservation to
demonstrate the coordina-
tion of inventories of Class V
underground injection wells
with implementation of WHP
plans in Vermont. A Source
Protection Plan has been
developed that will be incor-
porated into the WHP
project. The Source Protec-
tion Plan addresses the iden-
tification and assessment of
threats, along with the man-
agement of the existing risk.
Vermont has submitted a
WHP Program to EPA.
Ground-Water
Classification and
Statewide Mapping
Programs
Over 40 States report
active programs to classify
the ground waters of the
State or map vulnerable
sources of ground-water
supply. Many of the State
classification programs are
designed to support the
application of ground-water
quality standards. A few
examples are cited below.
Colorado's ground-water
classification program was
established under the State
Water Quality Control Act.
The State is planning to
classify its groundwater
according to water use or
potential use and water
quality, to the extent that the
quality affects the appro-
priate use of the water.
Based on the ground-water
classifications, the State will
apply numeric organic water
quality standards on a site-
specific basis. The State is
also planning to adopt an
aquifer-based classification
system because of the need
for a more resource-oriented
approach. The Colorado
Water Quality Control
Commission has promulgated
rules to implement basic
control regulations and
intends to promulgate
numerical standards in the
fall of 1989.
Hawaii is in the process
of mapping and classifying
ground water on all the
islands using a methodology
created by the Water
Resources Research Center at
the University of Hawaii.
This methodology was
derived using definitions for
Class I, II, and III ground
water contained in EPA
Draft Classification
Guidelines.
135
-------
Ground-Water Protection Programs
Coordination of
Protection Programs
Among State
Agencies
Sources of ground-water
contamination have histor-
ically been regulated by
many different agencies
within the States. Coordi-
nating the activities of these
agencies to ensure an effec-
tive ground-water protection
program is a priority in at
least 12 States.
The diffuse responsibilities
for ground-water regulation
typically found in the States
is clearly illustrated by the
situation in Louisiana. Seven-
teen different agencies have
a responsibility for various
aspects of ground-water
protection in Louisiana. Of
the 17, the Department of
Environmental Quality is the
lead agency for ground-water
quality. Tb date, coordination
between the agencies has
been primarily informal.
However, on certain issues,
memoranda of under-
standing (MOU) have been
developed. One major goal of
the State's Ground-Water
Protection Strategy will be
to develop a series of MOUs
between the agencies that
have specific responsibilities
for ground-water protection.
Federal Ground-
Water Protection
Programs
In recent years, the Federal
government has joined the
States in their efforts to
protect the Nation's ground
water. The following sections
briefly describe the Federal
programs and laws that deal
specifically with the control
and study of contaminant
sources.
Ground-Water
Protection Strategy
In 1984, EPA developed a
Ground-Water Protection
Strategy that provides an
approach to integrating
source-specific control and
cleanup programs into a
comprehensive policy and
institutional framework for
protecting the resource.
The Strategy recognizes
that the most effective way
to increase national institu-
tional capability to protect
ground water is to strengthen
State programs. Accomplish-
ments over the last 4 years
include addressing major
sources of contamination
more comprehensively
through stronger statutory
authorities and EPA initia-
tives, and building States'
capabilities through more
effective and coordinated
use of resources for State
grants, technical support,
and research and
development.
Ground-Water
Classification System
As a part of the EPA
Ground-Water Protection
Strategy, EPA developed a
ground-water classification
system, and EPA is now
developing additional guide-
lines for performing site-by-
site classification. Class I
ground waters are highly vul-
nerable, irreplaceable as
sources of drinking water,
or ecologically vital. These
receive the highest level of
activity necessary to protect
ground water. Current or
potential drinking water
136
-------
Ground-Water Protection Programs
sources not meeting Class I
requirements are designated
Class II ground waters. Class
III ground waters are those
ground waters that are not
potential drinking water
sources because of wide-
spread human or natural
contamination or insuffi-
cient yield.
National Survey for
Pesticides in Drinking
Water Wells
This Survey is jointly
sponsored by EPA's Offices of
Drinking Water and Pesticide
Programs. It is a national
statistical survey designed to
determine the presence of
pesticide residues in two
distinct populations of drink-
ing water wells: public water
system wells and private,
domestic drinking water
wells. Over 1,300 wells are
being analyzed for over 100
pesticides specifically
selected for their propensity
to leach and their degrada-
tion products. Each well will
also be analyzed for nitrate.
The Survey is scheduled for
completion in 1990.
Ground-Water Data
Management
To better support Federal
and State ground-water
protection efforts, EPA has
been working to improve
ground-water data manage-
ment requirements. As an
initial step in developing data
standardization, EPA has
developed a minimum set of
data elements for ground
water and has convened a
workgroup to develop defini-
tions and formats for these
terms. Ground-water data
accessibility will be addressed
by improving capabilities to
share information among
programs and organizations.
EPA has also begun initia-
tives, such as the study of
geographic information
systems and improvements
to the STORET system, to
enhance ground-water data
analysis capabilities.
In addition to these EPA
programs, Federal statutes
mandate certain ground-
water protection activities.
Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA)
The Safe Drinking Water
Act and its 1986 amendments
created three programs to
protect ground water.
• The Underground
Injection Control Program
establishes technical criteria
and standards for the
construction, operation,
monitoring, and testing of
wells to control the under-
ground injection of wastes.
Many States reported enforc-
ing their own underground
injection control programs.
• The Sole Source Aquifer
Program authorizes EPA to
undertake a special review
of possible ground-water
impacts from federally
funded projects in desig-
nated areas that receive
Federal financial assistance.
Large public water supply well.
137
-------
Ground-Water Protection Programs
m The Wellhead Protection
Program provides assistance
to States to develop programs
to protect the wellhead area
of all public water systems
from ground-water contam-
inants that may adversely
affect human health. EPA
has published guidelines to
assist the States in devel-
oping their Wellhead Protec-
tion Programs.
Clean Water Act
(CWA)
The Clean Water Act
authorizes two programs
directly relevant to ground-
water protection.
• The CWA Section 106
Grant Program supports
State programs to improve
institutional capabilities
through the development of
State ground-water protec-
tion strategies.
• The Nonpoint Source
Control Strategies are
required from the States by
the 1987 CWA Amendments.
Under CWA Section 319,
States must describe strate-
gies to coordinate and
implement best management
practices; measures to
control nonpoint sources;
and the nature of State and
local nonpoint source control
programs. In addition, under
Section 319(i), the EPA
Administrator may make
grants to States to conduct
ground-water quality protec-
tion activities that will
advance the State toward
implementing a comprehen-
sive nonpoint source pollu-
tion control program.
Resource
Conservation and
Recovery Act
(RCRA)
A number of programs
established under RCRA
provide for ground-water
protection and cleanup.
These programs emphasize
prevention of releases to
ground water and other
environmental media through
management standards and
cleanup requirements. Most
States are currently manag-
ing or developing new
programs derived from the
following major sections of
RCRA:
• Subtitle C—Hazardous
Waste—requires design,
operating, and closure stand-
ards for all hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities. It also
requires post-closure care
and ground-water monitor-
ing for land disposal facilities.
An irrigation canal in Arizona. |
138
-------
Ground-Water Protection Programs
m Subtitle D—Solid
Waste—requires minimum
national management stand-
ards for municipal solid
waste landfills to be adopted
and implemented by States.
• Subtitle I—Underground
Storage Tanks—requires
EPA to develop a compre-
hensive program for manag-
ing certain categories of
underground storage tanks
containing petroleum and
chemical substances.
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and Liability Act
(CERCLA)
CERCLA and the Super-
fund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA) created several
programs being operated by
EPA and States that act to
protect or clean up contami-
nated ground water. Using its
emergency response authority
under "Superfund," EPA
responds to releases of
hazardous substances into
the environment, thereby
removing those hazardous
substances before they have
the opportunity to contami-
nate ground water. In a
Superfund remedial action,
EPA undertakes long-term
efforts to provide a perma-
nent remedy to existing
releases of hazardous wastes
that pose a serious, but not
immediate, danger to public
health. Remedial actions
often involve cleaning up
contaminated ground water.
The "Title III" Emergency
Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (a free
standing act created as part
of SARA) requires industry
and Federal, State, and
local governments to work
together in developing emer-
gency plans, emergency
release notification proce-
dures, "community right-to-
know" reporting, and toxic
chemical release reporting.
Federal
Insecticide,
Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA)
FIFRA protects ground
water indirectly by control-
ling the use of pesticides
through registration and
certification procedures. EPA
may deny registration for a
pesticide if its normal use
will result in unreasonable
adverse effects on the envi-
ronment, including ground-
water contamination.
Installation of underground fuel tanks.
A Superfund site in Pennsylvania.
139
-------
-------
Water
Pollution
Control
Programs
-------
-------
Introduction
The Clean Water Act of
1972 determines the way the
Federal government and the
States regulate point and
nonpoint sources of pollu-
tion.
The Clean Water Act (CWA)
established two basic types
of approaches for controlling
pollution from point sources:
the technology-based
approach and the water
quality-based approach.
Technology-based controls
consist of uniform, EPA-
established standards of
treatment that apply to cer-
tain industries and municipal
sewage treatment facilities.
These effluent standards are
limits on the amounts of
pollutants that may be
discharged to waterways.
Limits for industries are
derived from the technol-
ogies that are available for
treating the effluent and
removing pollutants, and on
considerations of economic
achievability. These stand-
ards vary by industry,
depending on pollutants
typically discharged, treat-
ment technologies available,
etc., but are applied uni-
formly to every facility in a
regulated industrial category.
Technology-based limits for
publicly owned treatment
works provide for "second-
ary treatment," as specified
in the Act. Technology-based
limits for industries and
municipal sewage treatment
plants do not take into
consideration the condition
of the water to which the
effluent is dicharged.
Water quality-based
controls, on the other hand,
are based on the quality of
the receiving water. This
approach relies on the use of
water quality standards set
by the States and approved
by EPA. State water quality
standards consist of desig-
nated uses to be made of the
streams (e.g., fishing and
swimming) and the criteria
(or limits on pollutants)
necessary to protect those
143
-------
Water Pollution Control Programs
uses. Individual discharge
requirements are based on
the effluent quality that is
needed to ensure compliance
with the water quality stand-
ards. The water quality-
based approach is used to
develop stricter effluent
limits where technology-
based controls will not be
stringent enough to ensure
that waters can support their
uses. EPA's point source regu-
latory approach may there-
fore be characterized as one
in which technology-based
controls provide a baseline
level of surface water pollu-
tion requirements, and water
quality-based controls
provide regulatory supple-
ments to deal with environ-
mental "hot spots," critical
habitats, and otherwise
sensitive waters.
The CWA provides the
impetus for nonpoint source
controls but does not provide
direct authorities to regulate
these sources. Water quality
standards must be developed
for all waters of the U.S.,
and these standards are to
be attained regardless of
the sources of pollution.
However, nonpoint source
pollution is difficult to
control because of its diffuse,
episodic nature. To address
nonpoint sources, State and
local governments develop
control programs that are
sometimes regulatory but for
the most part encourage
voluntary actions, with
incentives and technical
support provided by a
number of State and Federal
agencies. Nonpoint pollution
controls are often applied on
a case-by-case basis and are
generally administered at the
local or State level.
Programs to control point
and nonpoint source pollu-
tion will be discussed in more
detail below, along with
obstacles to their implemen-
tation, successes achieved,
and new initiatives for the
future. Further information
on programs specific to lakes,
estuaries, coastal waters, and
wetlands, can be found in
Chapters 2, 3, 4, and 5.
Water-quality standards must
be developed for all waters of
the U.S.
144
-------
9
Point Source Control
Program
The Water Quality Act of
1987 (WQA) reinforced both
the water quality- and tech-
nology-based approaches to
point source control, requir-
ing EPA to develop and
update technology-based
standards and adding specific
direction as to how water
quality-based limits should
be used to achieve additional
improvements. One of the
Act's primary emphases lay
in strengthening the Nation's
toxics control program.
Toxics Control:
Section 304(1) of
the Clean Water
Act
Section 304(1) of the CWA
requires States to develop
lists of impaired waters,
identify point sources and
the amounts of pollutants
they discharge causing toxic
impacts, and develop indi-
vidual control strategies for
each such point source.
These individual control
strategies are National Pollut-
ant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits
with new or more stringent
limits on the priority pollut-
ants of concern and with
supporting documentation to
show that the permit limits
will meet water quality
standards within the satis-
factory timef rame. The
general effect of Section
304(1) is to immediately focus
national surface water
quality protection programs
on addressing known water
quality problems due entirely
or substantially to point
source discharges of Section
307(a) toxic pollutants.
Controls for these pollutants
must be established as soon
as possible but no later than
the statutory time frames set
forth in Section 304(1).
EPA has been implement-
ing control measures for all
toxic pollutants as part of
its ongoing surface water
145
-------
Point Source Control Program
program. Section 304(1)
emphasizes the importance
of the water quality-based
and technology-based
approaches in protecting
surface waters from the
priority toxic pollutants and
establishes a number of one-
time requirements. After the
Section 304(1) deadlines pass,
EPA will continue identi-
fying impaired waters and
controlling the discharge of
toxic and other pollutants
through existing reporting,
standards setting, and per-
mitting programs.
Identifying Impaired
Waters
In developing lists of
impaired waters, States used
a variety of available data
sources (including State
Section 305(b) reports). At a
minimum, dilution analyses
were conducted based on
existing or readily available
data. Where data could be
readily developed to complete
preliminary listing activities
or to refine preliminary lists,
States were asked to develop
needed data quickly. EPA
asked States to report
preliminary lists of waters,
point sources, and amounts
by April 1,1988, in their
Section 305(b) reports. These
lists were then refined and
expanded by the statutory
deadline of February 4, 1989.
The immediate emphasis
of Section 304(1) and the
national program for toxics
control is for States and EPA
to address problems identi-
fied through review of exist-
ing and readily available
data. However, States and
EPA Regions will continue to
collect new water quality
data as an ongoing obligation
under the national program
to ensure that changes in
water quality are identified
and any important gaps in
existing data are filled to
provide a reasonable basis for
identifying and addressing
impaired waterbodies.
Developing Control
Strategies
Section 304(1) requires that
individual control strategies
(ICSs) be developed by
February 4, 1989, to reduce
the discharge of toxic pollut-
ants from each point source
identified under Section
These ICSs are to consist of
effluent limitations under
402 of the CWA. This is the
provision establishing the
NPDES permit program.
Therefore, to ensure com-
pliance with the 1992 dead-
line, each ICS is to consist of
final enforceable NPDES
permits, to the extent pos-
sible, and accompanying
documentation (i.e., fact
sheets). Where a State
demonstrates that a final
permit cannot be issued by
February 4, 1989, a draft
permit and supporting docu-
mentation may be accepted
as an ICS. However, such a
A lumber mill in California.
146
-------
Point Source Control Program
draft permit must be accom-
panied by a schedule provid-
ing for final issuance by no
later than February 4, 1990,
and providing for compliance
with the limitations such
that water quality standards
will be achieved by June
1992.
Section 304(1)(2) requires
that EPA approve or dis-
approve the lists of waters
and each ICS within 120 days
after the February 4,1989,
deadline for the submittal of
lists of waters and ICSs.
Controls must achieve the
applicable water quality
standard within 3 years (no
later than June 4, 1992).
If the lists or ICSs are
disapproved, or if the State
fails to submit the required
lists or ICSs, EPA must, in
cooperation with the States,
develop these lists and ICSs
within 1 year (June 4, 1990)
and controls must ensure
that standards are met no
later than 3 years thereafter
(June 4, 1993).
Results of 304(1) (as
of June 1989)
As of June 9,1989, the
EPA Regions had made
approval or disapproval
decisions on Section 304(1)
submissions from 55 States
and Territories.
Nationwide, as of June 12,
1989, States had listed 495
waterbodies as impaired
primarily by point source
discharges of Section 307(a)
toxic pollutants. EPA added
100 waters to these lists for
a total of 595. In addition,
States indicated that 769
point source discharges were
primarily responsible for
impairing the quality of these
waters, and EPA added 110
point sources to this list for
a total of 879.
The States were also
required to submit "long"
lists of all waters impaired by
any pollutant from either
point or nonpoint sources.
States' long lists of waters
ranged from zero to as many
Setting a seine to trap and
evaluate a representative
sample of stream fauna.
as 1,745. States initially
listed a total of 16,719 waters
and EPA added a total of 646
for a national total of 17,365
on the long list as of June 12,
1989. The long list will be
used for long-term planning
and setting of priorities for
monitoring, total maximum
daily load (TMDL) develop-
ment, nonpoint source
controls, and permit
revisions.
Of the listed facilities con-
tributing to toxic contam-
ination, about 240 are
municipal (such as sewage
treatment plants and
combined sewer overflows)
and about 627 are industrial,
including 135 metal-finishing
and manufacturing facilities,
94 pulp and paper mills,
21 petroleum-refining
facilities, and 27 organic
chemical and plastics and
synthetics plants. All other
industrial categories
numbered 20 or fewer facil-
ities. In addition, there are
12 Federal facilities on the
lists.
EPA is providing public
notice and requesting
comment on the States' lists
and individual control strate-
gies that it disapproved. EPA
is also providing public
notice if a State did not
involve the public when it
was developing its lists and
individual control strategies.
EPA will consider public
comments and make its final
decisions no later than June
1990.
147
-------
Point Source Control Program
Treating Municipal
Wastewater
Municipal treatment facil-
ities receive wastewater from
residential sources, as well as
from industry, ground-water
infiltration, and stormwater
runoff. The array of pollut-
ants that may be associated
with these sources includes
suspended solids, organics,
heavy metals, nutrients,
acids, viruses, and bacteria.
Adequate treatment of
municipal wastewater is
important for the protection
of the Nation's water
resources and public health.
Without adequate treatment,
this pollution poses a poten-
tially serious threat to fish
and shellfish communities,
recreational opportunities,
surface water drinking
supplies, ground-water
drinking supplies, and the
general health and stability
of many of the Nation's
streams, rivers, lakes, and
estuarine ecosystems.
The Clean Water Act
requires municipalities to
achieve treatment levels
based on technology
performance. A July 1977
deadline, extended by the
1981 CWA amendments to
July 1,1988, for eligible
plants, was established for
the achievement of "second-
ary treatment," a level of
treatment that removes at
least 85 percent of several
key conventional pollutants.
If secondary treatment is
not enough to meet water
quality standards, the Clean
Water Act mandates addi-
tional treatment, as
necessary.
Under the Clean Water
Act, EPA is authorized to
help municipalities solve
their wastewater treatment
problems by providing grants
(and now loans) for construc-
tion. For this purpose, $18
billion was originally appro-
priated to the Construction
Grants program. Funding has
continued since the initial
appropriation, and the Fed-
eral investment in municipal
wastewater treatment is
approximately $50 billion to
date. Projects eligible for
grant assistance include
wastewater treatment facil-
ities that provide secondary
or advanced treatment,
interceptor sewers, and
correction of infiltration/
inflow problems in sewer
systems. The grants process
includes the ranking of each
Table 9-1. Levels of Municipal Wastewater Treatment (1984-1988)
Population Served
(millions)
Treatment Level 1984 1986 1988 1984 1986 1988 1984 1986 1988
Number of Facilities Design Capacity (MGD)
Raw
L J. Secondary
Secondary
G J. Secondary
No Discharge
Totals
202
2,617
8,070
2,965
1,726
15,580
149
2,112
8,403
3,115
1,762
15,541
118
1,789
8,536
3,412
1,854
15,709
6,510
14,603
13,874
938
35,925
5,529
15,714
14,373
973
36,589
5,030
16,087
15,488
1,034
37,639
1.3
33.7
70.7
59.5
5.5
170.7
1.6
28.8
72.2
54.9
5.7
163.2
1.5
26.5
78.0
65.7
6.1
177.8
Source: US. EPA. 1988 Needs Survey Report to Congress.
148
project using a State priority
system that is based on water
quality and public health
objectives; the development
of a detailed facilities plan
and project design; the distri-
bution of Construction Grant
funds to States (based on an
allotment formula specified
by the CWA); and, finally, the
issuance of grants to f undable
high-priority projects.
These expenditures, along
with funding from State and
local sources, have produced
significant gains in municipal
wastewater treatment. In
1972, 85 million people were
served by facilities providing
secondary treatment or
better. Today, 77 percent of
all facilities provide second-
ary or advanced levels of
treatment for approximately
144 million people. These
facilities process 84 percent
of the Nation's wastewater.
Fewer than 1 percent of all
facilities (serving about 1.5
million people) are currently
discharging raw sewage.
Table 9-1 displays the
improvements in treatment
capabilities (by number of
facilities, design capacity,
and population served) from
1984 to 1988.
The States, in their 1988
Section 305(b) reports,
provided some examples of
water quality improvements
due to municipal construc-
tion and upgrading. For
example:
• Alabama reports that
since the enactment of the
Clean Water Act, the State
has reduced the discharge of
primary-treated wastewater
from 65 million gallons per
day (MGD) to none and the
volume of raw discharge
-------
Point Source Control Program
from 2.5 MOD to none. A
total of 112 public waste-
water treatment facilities
have been constructed/
upgraded.
• The District of Columbia
reports on improvements
made to the Blue Plains
sewage treatment plant, a
large sewage treatment plant
that contributes about 70
percent of the municipally
treated water directly
entering the Potomac River.
Over the past 15 years,
with assistance from the
Construction Grant program,
Blue Plains has implemented
several advanced treatment
measures to reduce biochem-
ical oxygen demand (BOD),
suspended solids, phos-
phorus, and nitrogen loadings
to the estuary. Although
flows of wastewater have
increased since 1970,
loadings of nutrients, BOD,
and total suspended solids
have decreased dramatically.
• Idaho reports that more
than 30 State and EPA grant-
assisted projects have been
completed in Idaho during
the 2-year reporting period.
As a result, nearly 30,000
more people are now receiv-
ing full secondary treatment
services.
• Massachusetts reports
that significant segments of
the Assabet, Hoosic, Millers,
Charles, and Merrimack
Rivers have unproved
dramatically because of the
construction of municipal
facilities.
• In New Hampshire, the
Winnipesaukee River and
most of the upper Merrimack
River are now fishable/swim-
mable because of the
construction of the Winni-
pesaukee River collection
and treatment system as well
as the construction of facil-
ities on tributaries to the
Merrimack. Completion of
the Hall Street facilities in
Concord has led to a resur-
gence in recreational interest
in the Merrimack River. New
facilities in Bennington,
Hillsborough, and Hopkinton
have significantly improved
the quality of the Contoocook
River.
• In North Carolina, water
quality problems in the
upper Deep River have been
addressed by upgrading
treatment facilities at four
plants. A substantial reduc-
tion in the amount of oxygen-
demanding substances being
discharged to the River has
been noted, along with a
reduction in the toxicity of
these wastes. While some
A sewage treatment facility
with settling basins in
foreground.
149
-------
Point Source Control Program
water quality problems
remain in portions of the
river, a steady improvement
can be seen in most areas.
The greatest improvements
were observed below the old
Jamestown sewage treat-
ment plant (ceased discharge
in 1984) and below the Ashe-
boro plant (upgraded in
1986).
• Rhode Island, reporting
on the results of recent
sewage facility upgrades,
notes that the upgrading of a
facility in Westerly, Rhode
Island, coupled with sewer-
age works construction in
Stonington, Connecticut, has
resulted in the opening of
shellf ishing areas in Little
Narrangansett Bay. The
upgrading of the Woonsocket
plant has raised the Black-
stone River from a Class D to
a Class C stream, making it
consistent with water quality
goals. Improvements at the
Warren and Scarborough
plants have improved bath-
ing water quality at nearby
beaches, and shellfishing
areas were reopened in
Warren.
• Since 1972, Virginia has
completed 149 Construction
Grant projects at a total cost
of over $1 billion. These
projects have extended treat-
ment to populations not
previously served by treat-
ment facilities. As a result
of this construction activity,
Virginia reports a general
trend towards an increase in
treated flow from municipal
sewage treatment plants over
the past decade. Compared
with 1976, the average state-
wide aggregate flow of
municipal wastewater has
increased by about 46
percent. However, over the
same period, the amount of
BOD discharged from these
facilities decreased by 45
percent, and the amount of
TSS discharged dropped by
about 47 percent. These
changes are the result of
construction of new treat-
ment facilities. The new,
larger facilities have
increased flow because they
serve a larger percentage
of the population, and the
population is growing.
However, since the newer
plants provide a higher
degree of treatment, the
actual quantities of pollut-
ants discharged have
dropped.
Funding Needs for
Wastewater
Treatment
The Needs Survey, a
biennial Report to Congress,
is the primary mechanism for
assessing national waste-
water treatment needs.
Based on the latest survey,
$36.9 biUion is needed for
upgrading or constructing
secondary wastewater treat-
ment facilities, correcting
infiltration/inflow problems,
or building new interceptor
sewers. As shown in Table
9-2, three other categories of
projects are reported in the
Needs Survey—replacement
Table 9-2. Needs for Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment
Facilities (January 1988 Dollars, in Billions)
Needs Category
I Secondary Treatment
II Advanced Treatment
IIIA Infiltration/Inflow Correction
IIIB Replacement/Rehabilitation
IVA New Collector Sewers
IVB New Interceptor Sewers
V Combined Sewer Overflow
Categories I-V
Treatment Categories I and II
Categories I, II, IIIA, and IVB
Current
1988
Needs
$20.2
3.9
2.9
3.7
10.9
9.9
16.4
67.9
24.1
36.9
Design
Year 2008
Needs
$26.8
5.0
2.9
3.7
13.8
14.9
16.4
83.5
31.8
49.6
Source: US. EPA. 1988 Needs Survey Report to Congress.
150
-------
Point Source Control Program
and rehabilitation for sewers,
new collector sewers, and
combined sewer overflows.
These projects are typically
ineligible for Construction
Grants funding. However,
because the Clean Water Act
(CWA) allows a Governor to
use up to 20 percent of the
State's Construction Grants
allotment on these projects,
these needs are included.
Needs for these latter three
categories were $31 billion;
thus, the aggregate for
meeting current wastewater
treatment needs is $67.9
billion.
"Design year needs"
(current needs plus needs to
serve the population through
the year 2008) have also been
included in this table. Based
on Needs Survey data, $83.5
billion is required to meet all
needs for the population
through the year 2008. A
number of national benefits
could result if all needs were
met. For example:
• The population receiving
treatment or collection
would increase by approx-
imately 40 percent.
• National treatment
capacity would increase by
approximately 20 percent.
• The number of facilities
providing secondary treat-
ment or greater would
increase by 25 percent, while
the number of facilities
providing less than second-
ary treatment would
decrease by almost 100
percent.
• All facilities still
discharging raw sewage
would be eliminated or
replaced.
• The removal of biochem-
ical oxygen demand and total
suspended solids would
increase by approximately
75 percent and 60 percent,
respectively.
The 1987 Amendments to
the CWA will affect many
areas of wastewater treat-
ment. For example, in those
areas where waters are not
meeting designated uses
because of toxicity, States
are required to determine
the extent to which munici-
pal facilities are contributing
to the problem. If they are
contributing, municipal facil-
ities will be required to
develop control strategies to
reduce or eliminate toxicity
to the greatest degree
possible.
Sludge, the residual
material from the waste-
water treatment process, can
also be a source of environ-
mental pollution. Approxi-
mately 7.6 million dry metric
tons of sludge are generated
by the municipal wastewater
treatment process every year.
Pursuant to the 1987 Amend-
ments, EPA is required to
identify all toxic pollutants
of concern in sludge, set
-------
Point Source Control Program
numerical limits for each
pollutant, and establish
management practices.
Standards for sludge use and
disposal are to be imple-
mented through permits. The
1987 Amendments also
'direct EPA to impose condi-
tions in sewage treatment
plant permits or take other
appropriate measures to
protect public health and
the environment from the
adverse effects of pollutants
in sewage sludge prior to the
promulgation of the stand-
ards for sludge use and
disposal.
The amendments also
direct attention to storm-
water management. A time-
table was established for
EPA to develop regulations
for issuing permits for: (1)
municipal stormwater
sources serving more than
100,000 people and (2)
industrial stormwater
sources.
Perhaps the most signifi-
cant item in the Amend-
ments relating to municipal
treatment was the provision
creating a new financing
mechanism for municipal
wastewater treatment. In
order to transfer financial
responsibility for wastewater
treatment from the Federal
government to the States,
Congress provided for the
use of a State Revolving Fund
(SRF) program as an alterna-
tive to the Construction
Grant program. Federal seed
money will be appropriated
to the States to establish the
loan program while the
Construction Grant program
is gradually being phased
out.
Under the grant program,
strict requirements limited
how money could be spent.
Funding was directed
primarily toward upgrading
or constructing treatment
facilities, except for the
Governor's 20 percent discre-
tionary monies, which
allowed funding for other
types of projects. The SRF
loan program provides States
with much more discretion in
selecting projects for fund-
ing. States are now able to
finance projects they may
consider to be of higher
priority, such as nonpoint
source, estuarine, combined
sewer overflow, or storm-
water control projects.
Thirteen States had approved
SRF programs in place as of
January 1989.
Treating Industrial
Wastewater
The Clean Water Act
required EPA to establish
uniform, nationally consist-
ent effluent limitation
guidelines for industrial
discharges. At this time, EPA
has established Best Avail-
able Technology Econom-
ically Achievable (BAT) and
Best Conventional Pollutant
Control Technology (BCT)
guidelines for about 28
industrial categories. EPA
has also promulgated tech-
nology-based guidelines for
approximately 15 additional
secondary industries that
represent Best Practicable
Control Technology Cur-
rently Available (BPT) levels.
EPA is studying an additional
dozen industries for future
guideline development.
In addition to these
technology-based require-
ments, in 1984 EPA issued a
policy on the water quality-
based control of toxic pollut-
ants discharged by point
sources. In 1985, a technical
guidance document was
issued to support the national
policy. Both the policy and
guidance recommend using
overall toxicity as a measure
of adverse water quality
impact and as a regulatory
parameter. The use of toxic-
ity testing as a regulatory
tool is a relatively new
concept, but, coupled with
Stormwater runoff.
152
-------
Point Source Control Program
chemical testing for pollut-
ants that are hazards through
bioaccumulation, provides a
powerful means of detecting
and controlling toxic
problems.
States are making progress
in developing the capability
to assess and regulate toxic
discharges using biological
techniques. As of May 15,
1989, 20 delegated States
required effluent toxicity
monitoring by dischargers.
Four States either required
toxicity testing in over half of
their major NPDES permits
or had more than 50 permits
with testing requirements;
489 permits included permit
limitations on effluent
toxicity; at least 496 major
permits required effluent
toxicity monitoring; and
2,424 permits required
ambient field biological
assessment.
Pretreatment
The goal of the National
Pretreatment Program is to
protect municipal waste-
water treatment plants and
the environment from damage
that may occur when toxic or
hazardous wastes are
discharged by industries into
a sewer system. This protec-
tion is achieved by regulating
the wastewater discharged to
municipal facilities from
industrial or nondomestic
users. The principal responsi-
bility for administering the
program lies with the munici-
palities that, by virtue of the
size or environmental signif-
icance of their treatment
works, must develop and
receive approval to operate
local pretreatment programs.
EPA and the States have
begun evaluating municipal
programs and have contin-
ued to enforce requirements
for pretreatment among the
estimated 50,000 significant
industrial users (SIUs). Full
implementation will signifi-
cantly reduce loading of
metals and organic toxic
pollutants to municipal
facilities, thus providing
protection to publicly owned
treatment works and receiv-
ing streams.
As of September 30, 1988,
1,429 local programs had
been approved out of a total
of 1,481. Of those remaining,
43 municipalities were
recently identified and are
on compliance schedules to
develop local pretreatment
programs. Eight other sew-
age treatment facilities have
been sued to develop approv-
able programs and implemen-
tation.
Based on data reported by
the control authorities, about
13 percent of the SIUs are
significantly violating
pretreatment requirements.
This compares with a rate of
7 percent of the industrial
majors in the NPDES
program that discharge
directly to waterbodies. The
EPA has recently begun an
enforcement initiative
because 47 percent of the
sewage treatment facilities
are failing to implement the
pretreatment program.
There are three types of
pretreatment standards.
Categorical pretreatment
standards are developed for
specific industrial categories
and are based on an assess-
ment of available treatment
technologies and economic
impact on the industry. EPA's
1986 Report to Congress on
the Discharges of Hazardous
Wastes to Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (the
"Domestic Sewage Study")
projected a 94-percent
reduction in total metals
loadings to sewage treatment
facilities after full implemen-
tation of categorical pretreat-
ment standards for 30 indus-
trial categories.
National prohibited
discharge standards forbid
certain types of discharges
by any nondomestic sewage
system users, regardless of
whether or not these dis-
charges are covered by
categorical pretreatment
standards. Discharges that
are prohibited include those
that create a fire hazard,
have a pH less than 5.0, are
solid or viscous enough to
interfere with the operation
153
-------
Point Source Control Program
of the sewage treatment
facility, or are hotter than
104° Fahrenheit.
Local limits, the third type
of pretreatment standard,
are established by sewage
treatment facilities to address
site-specific conditions. Local
limits are numeric limitations
implementing the national
prohibited discharge stand-
ards. Where necessary to
achieve pretreatment objec-
tives, local limits are more
stringent than categorical
standards.
Pretreatment of toxic
wastes has produced signifi-
cant improvements in envi-
ronmental quality, increased
effectiveness of sewage
treatment systems, and
reduced contamination of
sewage sludge. Pretreatment
has also reduced the poten-
tial for sewage collection
system and treatment plant
corrosion, explosions, and
worker hazards. For example:
• In the early 1960s, fish
kills occurred regularly in
Michigan's Grand River as the
result of cyanide and heavy
metals in the wastewater
discharged by the Grand
Rapids sewage treatment
plant. Controls on industrial
discharges of cyanide and
metals were implemented
in 1969. Since that time,
concentrations of heavy
metals have been reduced
by over 90 percent in both
incoming and treated
wastewater.
• In the early 1970s, sewage
sludge from Virginia's Hamp-
ton Roads Sanitation District
showed high metals levels
because of industrial
discharges. The District
began its sanitation program
in 1972. By 1985, the quality
of the sludge from eight of
nine treatment plants had
improved enough to allow
land application.
• TheCityofRockford,
Illinois, decreased levels of
cadmium, chromium, and
zinc in treated wastewater by
more than 85 percent after
implementing local pretreat-
ment limits and national
categorical pretreatment
standards. Toxic metal
concentrations in the nearby
Rock River declined by
almost 50 percent.
The continued implemen-
tation of effective local
pretreatment programs will
achieve the environmental
benefits envisioned by
Congress. However, the task
of the pretreatment program
is far from complete. Such
items as revising and/or
implementing EPA regula-
tions in response to recom-
mendations of the Pretreat-
ment Implementation
Review Task Force (PIRT) and
the Domestic Sewage Study
(DSS), and following through
154
-------
Point Source Control Program
with the National Enforce-
ment Initiative still lie ahead.
The PIRT final rule was
promulgated on October 17,
1988. The purposes of the
PIRT revisions are to address
deficiencies in the existing
pretreatment regulations,
respond to the recommenda-
tions of the PIRT Task Force,
and make pretreatment regu-
lations compatible with
equivalent provisions of the
NPDES regulations. The next
task is to foster implementa-
tion of these new PIRT regu-
lations in sewage treatment
plant pretreatment programs.
On February 22, 1989, the
comment period closed on
the DSS regulatory revisions.
These revisions were
designed to implement the
recommendations of the
Domestic Sewage Study and
ensure adequate control of
hazardous waste discharges
to sewage treatment plants
through Clean Water Act
programs. EPA expects to
promulgate the final rule-
making in early 1990.
The National Enforcement Permitting
Initiative has begun against
sewage treatment facilities
that failed to adequately
implement their approved
pretreatment programs. A
schedule has been estab-
lished to identify noncomply-
ing facilities and to initiate
appropriate enforcement
action.
EPA is expected to promul-
gate sludge standards by late
1991 for the safe and bene-
ficial use of municipal sludge.
The application of increas-
ingly stringent discharge
standards governing toxic
pollutants to municipal treat-
ment plants is also expected.
Where industrial or other
nondomestic wastes are
limiting a municipal treat-
ment plant's sludge manage-
ment practices or compliance
with its discharge permit, the
plant's pretreatment program
will be the vehicle for achiev-
ing the necessary pollutant
reductions.
During the early 1980s, the
rate of permit issuance fell
behind the rate of permit
expiration, and large back-
logs of unissued permits
developed. Efforts to remedy
these backlogs have been
largely successful. As Table
9-3 illustrates, the backlog of
major unissued permits has
been brought down to about
13 percent and the backlog of
minors to about 32 percent.
Compliance and
Enforcement
Despite examples of water
quality improvements asso-
ciated with the construction
and upgrading of municipal
sewage treatment plants,
13 percent of major muni-
cipal facilities that have
completed construction do
not meet the requirements
of their National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination
System permits. Industrial
Table 9-3. Status of Permit Issuance
Major
Permits
Total Facilities*
6,986
Minor
Permits
51,089
EPA-lssued:
Total
Expired
Percent
State-Issued:
Total
Expired
Percent
2,405
452
19
4,581
430
9
11,768
6,163
52
39,321
10,267
26
'Note: Totals do not include 111 major and 4,308 minor "unknown" permits issued.
Source: Permit Compliance System, January 3,1989.
155
-------
Point Source Control Program
permittees have achieved a
higher rate of compliance
and as of December 31,1988,
only 7 percent of the
completed facilities are now
unable to meet their final
permit limits.
EPA and the States are
responsible for ensuring that
municipal and industrial
facilities comply with the
terms of their discharge
permits. Currently, 39 States
have approval to administer
their own NPDES programs.
EPA has the lead implemen-
tation responsibility in the
remaining States. Along with
the States, EPA monitors
discharger compliance with
permit limits. Facilities in
noncompliance are subject to
Federal as well as State
enforcement action.
Table 9-4. National Composite Rates of Facilities in
Significant Noncompliance (in percents)
Quarter Ending
Non-Municipals
Municipals
12/31/83
3/31/84
6/30/84
9/30/84
12/31/84
3/31/85
6/30/85
9/30/85
12/31/85*
3/31/86*
6/30/86*
9/30/86*
12/31/86*
3/31/87*
6/30/87*
9/30/87*
12/31/87*
3/31/88*
6/30/88*
9/30/88*
8
10
6
6
5
5
5
5
8
8
8
7
7
8
9
7
7
7
7
6
19
20
14
13
12
13
10
9
14
16
15
14
14
13
16
14
14
16
14
12
Table 9-4 illustrates rates
of significant noncompliance,
based on statistics main-
tained by EPA for the report-
ing period of June 1984
through September 1988. It
is important to note that at
the beginning of FY 1986, the
NPDES program modified its
definition of significant
noncompliance to promote
greater consistency and
clarify what quantifiable and
qualitative violations needed
to be reported by the States.
This redefinition included a
strict interpretation of the
resolution of significant
noncompliance and a stronger
emphasis on violations of
reporting requirements and
enforcement orders. As a
result, rates of significant
noncompliance increased
during FY 1986.
The National
Municipal Policy
Because of the generally
poor municipal compliance
record, and because of
Congressional concern over
the performance of treat-
ment plants built substan-
tially with Federal funds,
EPA and the States devel-
oped the National Municipal
Policy (NMP) to address the
entire spectrum of municipal
noncompliance. On January
23,1984, the EPA Adminis-
trator signed the NMP into
effect. The NMP clarifies and
emphasizes EPA's resolve to
ensure that municipalities
comply with the Clean Water
Act as quickly as possible,
regardless of whether Federal
grant assistance is available
for treatment facility
construction.
•Reltocts NPDES Rule Change.
156
-------
Point Source Control Program
The NMP required EPA
and the States to identify
affected municipal facilities
and their construction needs
and to prepare individual
facility action plans to bring
these facilities into full
statutory compliance by July
1, 1988. After the NMP took
effect, EPA and the States
identified about 1,500 major
and over 2,000 minor facili-
ties that needed some
construction to meet require-
ments. A major municipal
sewage treatment facility is
one that discharges one
million gallons per day or
greater, or serves an equiva-
lent population of 10,000.
In February 1986, EPA
issued a revised Clean Water
Act Penalty Policy for deter-
mining penalties that are
appropriate for settlements.
Minors2
(1 1 ,755)
Majors are facilities serving 100,000 or more people or treating
1 million gallons of wastewater per day.
Minors are facilities serving less than 10,000 people or treating
less than 1 million gallons of wastewater per day.
"In compliance" means that the facility does not meet criteria for
listing under the Significant Noncompliance Regulation.
The principles of the policy
have been adopted by States
and accepted in several court
decisions as equitable and
logical approaches to assess
penalties for violations of
NPDES permit conditions.
Results of NMP efforts
immediately following the
July 1, 1988, deadline are
displayed in Figure 9-1.
Eighty-seven percent of all
publicly owned sewage treat-
ment plants met the dead-
line. Eighty-nine percent
of all majors came into
compliance under the NMP,
and 86 percent of all minors
achieved compliance. This
represents increases in
overall compliance of 28 and
7 percent for majors and
minors, respectively. EPA is
committed to continuing the
drive for 100 percent
compliance for all facilities.
In the 1987 Water Quality
Act amendments to the
Clean Water Act, EPA was
given authority to seek
administrative penalties
from violators of the Clean
Water Act. EPA issued guid-
ance and delegated the
authority to the regional
level in August 1987. The
first Administrative Penalty
Order (APO) was issued in
September 1987. Through
January 1989, more than 175
APOs have been issued.
These orders have addressed
many individual violations,
such as spills or isolated
reporting violations, which
had not been penalized in
the past. The APO is filling
an important niche in the
overall enforcement scheme.
New initiatives in
Point Source
Control
Toxicity Testing
The States and EPA
Regional offices are incorpo-
rating toxicity limits and
toxicity testing requirements
into permits. When toxicity
testing shows a permittee's
discharge contains toxicity at
unacceptable levels, permit
limitations and conditions
require the permittee to
reduce toxicity so that no
unacceptable effects occur
instream.
Toxicity reduction evalua-
tions (TREs) are a way to
identify and implement
whatever actions are needed
to reduce effluent toxicity
to the levels specified in the
permit. TREs combine toxic-
ity testing, chemical analyses,
source investigations, and
treatability studies to
determine either the actual
causative agents of effluent
toxicity and/or the control
methods that will reduce
effluent toxicity. EPA is
currently documenting
successful TREs conducted
by permittees, States, and
EPA researchers. Methods
and procedures for conduct-
ing TREs are described in
several EPA guidance
documents.
In addition, 'EPA's Permit
Writer's Guide to Water
Quality-Based Permitting
for Toxic Pollutants urges the
use of an integrated toxics
control strategy with both
Figure 9-1. Status of Compliance for Municipal Facilities
(July 1,1988)
157
-------
Point Source Control Program
whole effluent toxicity-based
assessment procedures and
pollutant-specific assessment
procedures to uphold State
water quality standards.
Sludge Management
The need for effective
sludge management is
continuous and growing. In
the United States, the quan-
tity of municipal sludge
produced annually has
almost doubled since 1972.
Municipalities currently
generate approximately 7.6
million dry metric tons of
wastewater sludge per year,
or approximately 32 kilo-
grams per person per year.
Improper sludge manage-
ment could lead to signifi-
cant environmental degrada-
tion of water, land, and air.
Failure to properly dispose of
sludge could have impacts on
ground water and wetlands,
as well as human health.
Prior to the 1987 amend-
ments to the Clean Water
Act, the authorities and
regulations related to the use
and disposal of sewage
sludge were fragmented and
did not provide States and
municipalities with adequate
guidelines on which to base
sludge management deci-
sions. There was no single
legislative approach or
framework for integrating
the various Federal laws to
ensure that sludge would be
used or disposed of in a
consistent or environmen-
tally acceptable manner.
While the Clean Water Act,
the Clean Air Act, the
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, the Marine
Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA),
and the Toxic Substances
Control Act all regulate some
aspect of sludge manage-
ment, coverage is uneven,
and the requirements are
based on different methodol-
ogies and approaches.
Section 406 of the Water
Quality Act of 1987, which
amends Section 405 of the
Clean Water Act, for the first
time sets forth a comprehen-
sive program for reducing the
environmental risks and
maximizing the beneficial
uses of sludge. The program
is based on the development
of technical requirements for
sludge use and disposal, and
the implementation of such
requirements through
permits.
Pursuant to Section 405,
EPA is developing regula-
tions for each of the major
use and disposal options for
sewage sludge. These options
include land application,
incineration, landfilling,
distribution and marketing,
and surface disposal sites.
EPA will ensure that these
regulations also comply with
other relevant statutes such
The States and EPA are incor-
porating toxicity limits and
toxicity testing requirements
into permits.
158
-------
Point Source Control Program
as the Solid Waste Disposal
Act. The first set of regula-
tions, addressing 28 pollut-
ants in sewage sludge, was
proposed in February 1989.
Development of a compre-
hensive set of disposal option
regulations will give the
States and municipalities a
basis for making environ-
mentally appropriate and
cost-effective sludge man-
agement decisions.
In May 1989, EPA promul-
gated regulations for includ-
ing sludge management
conditions in NPDES permits
and to issue sludge-only
permits. These proposed
rules also outline the require-
ments for State sludge
management programs that
seek EPA approval to imple-
ment the new statutory
requirements. In addition,
regulations that address
sewage sludge disposal in
municipal solid waste land-
fills were proposed in August
1988 and are scheduled to be
promulgated in December
1989.
Combined Sewer
Overflow Control
Large projects to mitigate
the water quality impacts of
combined sewer overflow
(CSO) discharges have been
undertaken in a number of
municipalities. However,
most CSO discharges are
currently not addressed or
are inadequately addressed
in NPDES permits. In recog-
nition of this, EPA issued the
final National CSO Control
Strategy in August 1989. The
objectives of the strategy are
to ensure that if CSO dis-
charges occur, they are only
as a result of wet weather; to
bring all wet weather CSO
discharge points into compli-
ance with the technology-
based requirements of the
CWA and applicable State
water quality standards; and
to minimize water quality,
aquatic biota, and human
health impacts from wet
weather overflows. The
National CSO Control Strat-
egy calls upon States to
develop statewide permit-
ting strategies by January 15,
1990, for the development
and implementation of
measures to reduce pollutant
discharges from CSOs.
NPDES Stormwater
Controls
Since 1972, State and EPA
efforts under the NPDES
program have traditionally
focused on controlling
pollutant discharges from
publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs) and industrial
process wastewaters. As
these sources of pollution
came increasingly under
control, the need for control-
ling pollutants in Stormwater
point source discharges
became more critical to
efforts to achieve the goals of.
the CWA. As reflected in this
report, Stormwater discharges
from a variety of sources,
including storm sewers
discharging urban runoff,
feedlot runoff, construction
The need to control pollutants
in Stormwater is becoming
more critical as other sources
come under control.
159
-------
Point Source Control Program
site runoff, runoff from
resource extraction activi-
ties, and runoff from land
disposal sites are major
sources of use impairment.
In addition, man-made storm-
water drainage systems can
•directly or indirectly cause
hydromodification impacts.
Prior to enactment of the
Water Quality Act of 1987
(WQA), EPA had promul-
gated effluent guideline
limitations for stormwater
discharges from a number of
industrial categories, includ-
ing petroleum refineries,
certain mining activities, and
large feedlots. Section 405 of
the WQA established a time-
table and framework for EPA
to address other stormwater
discharges under the NPDES
program by adding Section
402(p)totheCWA. On
December?, 1988, EPA
proposed permit application
requirements for discharges
from municipal separate
storm sewer systems serving
populations of 100,000 or
more, and for stormwater
discharges associated with
industrial activity. In the
December 1988 notice, EPA
proposed to address storm-
water discharges from a
number of industrial sources,
including manufacturing
facilities, mining activities,
oil and gas facilities, certain
construction activities, and
land disposal sites that
received hazardous and/or
industrial wastes. EPA is also
developing two stormwater
reports to Congress. The first
will identify stormwater
discharges, and determine, to
the maximum extent practi-
cable, the nature and extent
of pollutants in such
discharges. The second study
is for the purpose of estab-
lishing procedures and
methods to control storm-
water discharges to the
extent necessary to mitigate
impacts on water quality.
Based on the two studies,
EPA is required to issue
regulations by no later than
October 1, 1992. These regu-
lations are to designate
additional stormwater
discharges to be regulated to
protect water quality and
establish a comprehensive
program to regulate such
designated sources, including
requirements for State
stormwater management
programs.
160
-------
10
Nonpoint Source
Control Program
Sections 208 and 303(d) of
the Clean Water Act of 1972
established the framework
for addressing nonpoint
sources of pollution. Funds
provided by EPA under
Section 208 were used by
States and local planning
agencies to analyze the
extent of nonpoint source
(NFS) pollution and develop
water quality management
programs to control it. Best
management practices were
evaluated, assessment
models and methods were
developed, and other types
of technical assistance were
made available to State and
local water quality managers.
In fact, under the Clean
Water Act, as amended,
States are granted primary
authority to prevent and
control nonpoint source
pollution. Because of their
very nature, nonpoint source
problems are diverse and
site-specific; States are
closest to the problems, have
the legal authority to regu-
late and control nonpoint
sources, and are in the best
position to weigh local needs
and conditions.
Traditionally, then, EPA's
role has been to provide
program guidance, technical
support, and limited funding
to the States in their efforts
to manage and control non-
point sources. Various nation-
wide programs begun in the
late 1970s with EPA sponsor-
ship or cooperation have had
significant results, including
the Model Implementation
Program, the Nationwide
Urban Runoff Program, and
the Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram (RCWP). These projects
were not comprehensive, but
did result in some successes.
(See "References and
Further Reading" for a list
of reports summarizing the
results of these projects.)
Either as part of these
nationwide projects or in
addition to them, a number
of States have made progress
in reducing the impacts of
161
-------
Nonpolnt Source Control Program
nonpoint sources in specific
waters. Some highlights of
these State nonpoint source
activities are described
below.
Urban NPS Control:
The City of Baltimore, with
assistance from EPA's Clean
Lakes Program, retrofitted
existing stormwater deten-
tion ponds for water quality
purposes. Initial analysis of
the quality of the water
entering and leaving the
modified basins indicates
that the retrofit design
removes over 90 percent of
all particulate material and
between 30 and 40 percent
of total phosphorus. The low
cost of the modifications and
the high degree of sediment
removal make this project a
model for urban NPS control
projects.
Other Clean Lakes projects,
such as Lake Jackson (Flor-
ida), Iroquois Lake (New
York), and Lake Hopatcong
(New Jersey), have docu-
mented the effectiveness of
retention and detention
areas for runoff and storm-
water control. In addition,
other urban NPS controls,
such as runoff and construc-
tion ordinances, have been
demonstrated as effective in
the South Fork Rivanna
Reservoir (Virginia), Lake
Ballinger (Washington), and
Devil's Lake (Oregon).
Agricultural NPS Control:
Through the Clean Lakes
Program, the Illinois Envi-
ronmental Protection
Agency, in cooperation with
various Federal and State
agencies, demonstrated the
effectiveness of watershed
management in improving
the water quality in Lake
Le Aqua-Na. After imple-
mentation of all watershed
management activities, sedi-
ment yields fell 57 percent
from prerestoration levels.
Continued monitoring of
dissolved oxygen and visual
examinations indicate that
in-lake water quality is
continuing to improve. Other
Clean Lakes Projects recently
completed (Green Valley
Lake, Iowa; Spiritwood Lake,
North Dakota; Panguitch
Lake, Utah; Swan Lake,
Iowa; and Broadway Lake,
South Carolina) show water
quality improvements as a
result of agricultural NPS
control activities.
Several RCWP projects
have documented water
quality improvements asso-
ciated with agricultural NPS
management. These projects
include: Rock Creek, Idaho
(irrigated agriculture); Taylor
Creek, Florida (dairy man-
agement); Tillamook Bay,
Oregon (dairy management);
Highland Silver Lake, Illinois
(soil erosion control); Prairie
Rose Lake, Iowa (soil erosion
control); and St. Albans Bay,
Vermont (manure manage-
ment).
162
-------
Nonpoint Source Control Program
In-place Pollutants: The
State of Vermont, with assist-
ance from the Clean Lakes
Program, successfully demon-
strated the treatment of
phosphorus-laden, hypolim-
netic sediment with alum
and sodium aluminate to
reduce internal phosphorus
loading in Lake Morey. Two
years of post-treatment
monitoring documented
a reduction in total
phosphorus concentration
ranging from 50 to 75
percent from pretreatment
concentrations. Dredging,
another technique that is
used to abate in-place
pollutant problems, was
successfully used in Clean
Lakes projects in Lake
Lansing, Michigan, and Ada
City Lake, Oklahoma.
State Program Activities:
In addition to those activities
described above, States have
initiated or continued many
activities for which water
quality improvements are
anticipated yet have not
been measured to date. For
example:
• The Massachusetts
transportation bond bill
authorizes $5 million for
stormwater runoff grants to
cities and towns.
• The new Chesapeake Bay
Agreement calls for a 40
percent reduction of
nitrogen and phosphorus
loads to the Bay by the year
2000.
• Pennsylvania is promoting
nutrient management tech-
niques in 14 watersheds in
the Susquehanna River
basin.
• North Carolina's Agricul-
ture Cost Share Program
provides $7 million per year
to share, with farmers, the
costs of implementing best
management practices.
• Illinois enacted a 5-year,
$20 million component of the
"Build Illinois" program for
cost-sharing to enhance
efforts to meet "T by 2000"
goals established in 1985.
• Indiana established a
"T by 2000" program that
included a lake enhancement
component. The program is
funded from a dedicated tax
on tobacco.
• Wisconsin adopted
legislation in 1988 that
created regulatory authority
for nonpoint source abate-
ment associated with severe
water quality problems.
• Wyoming initiated a
contract to test the effective-
ness of best management
practices in controlling
channel erosion from irri-
gated lands in the Ocean
Lake watershed.
163
-------
Nonpotnt Source Control Program
The Water Quality
Act of 1987
Based upon lessons learned
from past and ongoing Fed-
eral and State NFS programs,
Congress established a
.comprehensive framework
for accelerated efforts to
control NFS pollution. This
framework was established
as part of the Water Quality
Act (WQA) Section 319
amendments of 1987. Major
new requirements for States
are that each State prepare
and submit to EPA, by
August 4,1988, anonpoint
source Assessment Report
and Management Program.
The Assessment Report must
identify State waters that
will not attain or maintain
water quality standards
without additional nonpoint
source controls; the cate-
gories of nonpoint sources or
particular nonpoint sources
responsible; the process to
identify best management
practices (BMPs) for each
nonpoint source category or
particular nonpoint source;
and the State and local
programs that would imple-
ment controls. The Manage-
ment Program, covering a
4-year period, must identify
the following: actual BMPs to
address the problems docu-
mented in the Assessment
Report and programs to
implement the BMPs; sources
and proposed uses of all
nonpoint source control
funding; and Federal
programs and projects that
States wish to review for
consistency with their own
nonpoint source programs.
The WQA provided several
funding sources for imple-
menting Section 319 Manage-
ment Programs. Under
Section 319, the WQA
authorizes a total of $400
million from fiscal year 1988
to 1991 to be used for imple-
menting approved Manage-
ment Programs. However, no
Section 319 funds have been
appropriated to date. In
addition, the WQA reserves
under Section 205(j)(5) an
additional 1 percent of each
State's annual Construction
Grant allotment to be used
to prepare the Assessment
Report and Management
Program and to implement
the Management Program.
The WQA also makes imple-
mentation of approved
nonpoint source Manage-
ment Programs eligible for
funding under the Gover-
nor's 20 percent discretion-
ary set-aside of the State's
annual Construction Grant
allotment (Section 201(g)
(1)(B)) and under the State
Water Pollution Control
Revolving Fund (Section 603
(c)(2)). Both the 1 percent
reserve and 20 percent set-
aside depend upon Construc-
tion Grant funds that are not
authorized for appropriation
after fiscal year 1990.
In addition, as described in
Chapter 9, the Water Quality
Act of 1987 established new
deadlines for the develop-
ment of a permit program for
stormwater discharges asso-
ciated with industrial activ-
ities and municipal separate
storm sewers. This new pro-
gram will be used to address
runoff from urban areas. The
substantive requirements of
these programs are still being
evaluated.
Finally, EPA is required
to provide annual reports to
Congress on the States'
progress in controlling
nonpoint source pollution.
At the end of the 4-year
period provided by Congress
for the States' initial Manage-
ment Programs, EPA is
further required to recom-
mend programs (including
enforcement) that are
needed to control nonpoint
sources sufficiently to attain
and maintain water quality
standards and the goals of
the Act.
The State Section
319 Reports
The NPS Assessment
Reports and Management
Programs developed by the
States under Section 319 are
a critical element of EPA's
national NPS program. They
will be of great value in
providing direction for NPS
activities in the States,
among other Federal agen-
164
-------
Nonpoint Source Control Program
cies, and within EPA; identi-
fying NFS-related problems
in all media (air, surface
water, sediments, ground
water) and assisting in
setting priorities and
targeting funds for their
mitigation; identifying areas
requiring stormwater
discharge permits; develop-
ing management plans for
national priority areas such
as the Great Lakes, Puget
Sound, and the Chesapeake
Bay; and expanding NFS
pollution control efforts to
more fully address ground
water, wetlands, estuaries,
and coastal zones.
The NPS Agenda
Task Force
In 1988, EPA initiated an
NPS Agenda Task Force to
lay out plans for its NPS
activities for FY89-93. The
Task Force was created to
explore new, creative, pro-
active approaches to imple-
menting the NPS provisions
of the Water Quality Act
of 1987. The Task Force
established the following
national NPS agenda goal:
To protect and restore
designated uses of the
Nation's waters by provid-
ing strong leadership for
the national nonpoint
source program, and by
helping States and local
governments overcome
barriers to successful
implementation of NPS
measures.
Other Federal agencies,
private interest groups, and
environmental groups were
invited to comment on an
early draft of the NPS
agenda, and a widespread
public comment period was
held prior to deciding on the
final Agenda. The Agenda
focuses on the Section 319
State NPS Management
Programs as the cornerstone
of the national NPS program.
Approved by the EPA Admin-
istrator on January 18,1989,
the Agenda includes the
following general themes:
1. Public Awareness—Help
States and local govern-
ments raise the level of
public awareness about
how NPS pollution affects
water quality and their
daily lives.
2. Successful Solutions-
Provide States and local
governments with infor-
mation on practical, feas-
ible solutions to prevent
or control NPS pollution.
3. Financial Forces and
Incentives—Examine the
economic forces that
drive behavior causing
the NPS problem.
4. Regulatory Programs—
Help States and local
governments improve
their capability to develop
then- own regulatory
solutions.
5. Good Science—Develop
the tools States and local
governments need to
establish sound water
quality-based programs
for NPS, particularly
water quality criteria and
monitoring protocols that
are specifically designed
to evaluate NPS controls.
New Directions
As part of the new initia-
tives brought about by Sec-
tion 319, EPA's NPS program
will work with the Agency's
monitoring programs to
develop and refine NPS
assessment, analysis, and
quantification techniques.
EPA will also provide leader-
ship for State and local infor-
mation/education programs
and def ine NPS research
needs. EPA will work with
the States to develop ade-
quate water quality criteria
for assessing NPS impacts
and will work with various
Federal agencies to identify
where NPS concerns can be
addressed within their regu-
latory, financial assistance,
and technical support
programs.
165
-------
Nonpolnt Source Control Program
The President's
Water Quality
Initiative
President Bush recom-
mended a new initiative for
enhancing water quality in
his 1990 budget proposal to
the Congress, presented on
February 9,1989. The Presi-
dent's initiative defines a
vigorous effort to protect
ground and surface water
from potential contamina-
tion by agricultural chem-
icals and wastes, especially
pesticides and nutrients.
The primary goal of the
Water Quality Program is to
provide farmers, ranchers,
and foresters with the know-
ledge and technical means to
respond independently and
voluntarily in addressing
on-farm environmental con-
cerns and related State
water-quality requirements.
The Administration plans to
achieve this goal in a way
that reduces the need for
restrictive regulation and
sustains an economical and
safe supply of food and fiber.
The primary objectives
of the multi-agency, multi-
disciplinary plan for this
program are to: (1) determine
the precise nature of the
relationship between agricul-
tural activities and ground-
water quality, and (2) develop
and facilitate the adoption of
technically and economically
effective agrichemical man-
agement and agricultural
production strategies to
protect water quality.
The plan has three major
integrated and interdepend-
ent functional components:
(1) education and technical
assistance; (2) research and
development; and (3) data
base development and eval-
uation.
The Administration's Water
Quality Program supplements
existing programs. Its distinc-
tion arises from its particular
focus on agricultural chem-
icals and ground-water con-
tamination, and the exten-
sive degree of interagency
coordination, collaboration,
and program integration
required to successfully
achieve its goals.
A total of eight principal
USDA Agencies and their
cooperating State institu-
tions and Agencies are col-
laborating with EPA, the US
Geological Survey, and the
National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration in this
program.
166
-------
11
Surface Water
Monitoring
EPA works with the States
to monitor the quality of
surface waters in the U.S.
Under the Clean Water Act,
States receive Federal grants
to conduct water monitoring
activities and report the
results of their assess-
ments to EPA. EPA, in turn,
provides monitoring guid-
ance and technical support
to the States and sponsors
special studies addressing
issues of national concern.
There are two main
approaches to water quality
monitoring:
• Source monitoring
involves assessing the
composition of industrial
or municipal effluents
discharged into waterbodies,
and of the mixing zone
where effluents merge with
the receiving water. It may
be conducted through self-
monitoring by dischargers,
compliance sampling inspec-
tions that check on discharger
self-monitoring, or effluent
characterization studies used
by EPA to determine typical
constituents of specific types
of industrial dischargers.
• Ambient monitoring
involves all forms of monitor-
ing conducted beyond the
immediate influence of a
discharge pipe. It can include
water column, sediment, or
biological sampling, and
may be conducted through
networks of fixed stations,
special surveys, or statis-
tically designed special
studies.
States most often use a
combination of fixed station
networks and intensive
surveys to conduct their
ambient monitoring. At fixed
stations, samples are repeat-
edly collected over time to
provide an overview of water
quality conditions and trends
at specific sites. Intensive
surveys are more detailed
studies of water quality,
sediments, and/or aquatic life
167
-------
Surface Water Monitoring
at specific sites or in rela-
tively well-defined areas
such as river basins. Special
studies, such as EPA's Dioxin
Study, are most often one-
time surveys with a broad
geographic coverage and a
specific focus.
In addition, EPA encour-
ages States to supplement
their water monitoring
activities with evaluations
based on the best profes-
sional judgment of trained
personnel and data such as
mathematical models, citizen
complaints, results of citizen
monitoring, and surveys of
fisheries personnel.
Goals of the Water
Monitoring
Program
The primary objectives
of the surface water quality
monitoring program are to:
(1) characterize the quality of
the Nation's water resources
and identify problem waters;
(2) support the development
of water quality manage-
ment priorities, plans, and
programs; and (3) evaluate
the effectiveness of pollution
control actions.
Monitoring to characterize
water quality should identify
whether or not waterbodies
meet EPA-approved water
quality standards (criteria
and designated uses) and the
fishable/swimmable goals of
the Clean Water Act. Ideally,
monitoring to characterize
ambient water quality also
identifies specific pollutants,
the sources of pollution, and
any impacts such as fishing
restrictions or fish kills.
Results of ambient water
quality monitoring are
reported to EPA via Section
305(b) and other provisions
of the Clean Water Act
(e.g., Sections 303(d), 319,
and 314).
Monitoring conducted in
support of water quality
management programs is
used to establish or revise
designated use categories in
water quality standards,
•classify specific waterbodies
as to their assigned desig-
nated uses, develop site-
specific or State-specific
criteria to support desig-
nated uses, and provide site-
specific data to develop
wasteload allocations for
permit limits and nonpoint
source controls, or determine
compliance with pollution
control requirements. In
addition, ambient data and
discharger self-monitoring
data may be used in develop-
ing priorities for control,
regulation development, or
additional monitoring.
Monitoring to evaluate the
effectiveness of pollution
control actions, while not
traditionally an emphasis in
the water quality monitoring
program, is becoming
increasingly important. In
general, this type of moni-
168
-------
Surface Water Monitoring
toting consists of "before-
and-after " studies to docu-
ment the effects of municipal
construction or upgrades,
watershed monitoring to
assess the effects of nonpoint
source management prac-
tices, or assessments of water
quality problems at permitted
dischargers.
The Need for
Change
A number of concerns
have been raised about the
methods, capabilities, and
direction of the surface
water monitoring program.
For example, comparatively
little monitoring is currently
aimed at detecting problems
caused by diffuse sources of
pollution such as agricultural
runoff, in part because they
are so difficult to identify.
Similarly, monitoring for
toxic substances in water,
fish tissues, and sediment
may not be sufficiently
extensive in some States.
Finally, more effort must be
made to assess the ecological
health of our water resources
in order to adequately
address nonpoint source-
related problems and wet-
land preservation, as well as
more traditional concerns.
In part, these deficiencies
stem from the cost and
complexity of monitoring.
Nonpoint source loadings are
often episodic and unpredict-
able, and may vary from
long-term, low-level inputs
to high-level, concentrated
pulses. They may be asso-
ciated with toxic and
nontoxic pollutants, as well
as with stresses that States
have not traditionally
addressed, such as habitat
loss. Monitoring for toxic
substances is limited by the
high cost of laboratory
analysis. In addition, a
bewildering array of toxic
substances can make their
way into surface waters.
Difficult to analyze toxico-
logically, their effects may be
influenced by site-specific
factors and exposure condi-
tions, which in themselves
are difficult to assess. Eco-
logical monitoring is often
limited by a shortage of
skilled personnel in State
monitoring programs.
Another reason that the
monitoring program has not
adequately addressed these
issues is that monitoring has
been principally oriented
toward point source pollu-
tion problems. Historically,
States relied on periodic
sampling of water column
chemistry at fixed stations to
characterize water quality,
identify problem waters,
and determine trends. Fixed
station monitoring was
generally designed to
measure the impacts of local-
ized point sources of pollu-
tion and tended not to
support conclusions about
169
-------
Surface Water Monitoring
upper watershed problems,
assessment of habitat and
ecological conditions, or
detection of episodic
problems. Further, most
States are strongly oriented
toward measuring conven-
tional pollutants such
as oxygen-demanding
substances and nutrients,
and have only recently
begun to monitor for "prior-
ity pollutants" and use
ecological assessment
methods.
Surveys are also usually
conducted to support point
source control activities such
as construction of waste-
water treatment plants and
permitting of major indus-
trial and municipal
dischargers. To a certain
extent, more intensive
surveys are now being
conducted to aid hi defining
limits for toxic chemicals in
industrial discharges and to
support other point source
control decisions. However,
in order to conduct more
intensive surveys, many
States have had to reduce
their number of fixed
stations.
Despite these problems,
the need for monitoring data
has never been greater. The
Water Quality Act of 1987
included new requirements
for water quality informa-
tion, particularly on toxic
substances and nonpoint
sources. According to the
Act, States were to identify
waters affected by these
problems and develop
control strategies or manage-
ment plans to address them.
New emphasis was also
placed on increasing our
understanding of lakes and
estuarine/coastal waters.
At about the time of the
passage of the Water Quality
Act, EPA's Offices of Water
and Policy, Planning, and
Evaluation issued a major
study of the Agency's surface
water monitoring activities.
This study, Surface Water
Monitoring: A Framework
for Change, evaluated the
performance of the EPA and
State water quality monitor-
ing program.
The study identified
numerous deficiencies in the
monitoring program and
recommended that EPA and
the States:
• Develop guidance on
designing scientifically
sound, cost-effective assess-
ment programs that make
use of new and emerging
approaches such as eco-
regions, volunteer monitor-
ing, and biological moni-
toring methods to comple-
ment traditional water
chemistry techniques;
• Accelerate the develop-
ment and application of
promising biological moni-
toring techniques and
evaluate the role that
biological methods should
play in monitoring programs;
A recent EPA study recom-
mended accelerated develop-
ment of biological monitoring
methods.
170
-------
Surface Water Monitoring
• Analyze the feasibility
of requiring NPDES permit-
tees to conduct ambient
monitoring;
• Improve their ability to
document progress in water
pollution control;
• Centrally coordinate EPA
activities to integrate water-
related data; and
• Make existing monitoring
data more accessible and
useful to water quality
managers.
New Water
Monitoring
Initiatives
EPA recognizes that
implementing the recom-
mendations made in the
"framework for change"
study will enhance State/
EPA capabilities to charac-
terize problems, evaluate
the effectiveness of water
quality management actions,
and promote the use of water
data in decision-making.
Therefore, EPA has devel-
oped a number of initiatives
to implement the "frame-
work" recommendations.
• EPA is organizing regular
national symposia to discuss
technical and programmatic
surface water quality issues
and build consensus between
States and the Federal
government on ways to
address them.
• A Federal/State work-
group has been established
to develop revised program
guidance for monitoring
activities and develop a
5-year framework to provide
support to State programs.
• EPA is developing a
Nonpoint Source Monitoring
and Evaluation Guide that
outlines data needs,
recommends monitoring
approaches, and discusses
analytical methodologies
appropriate to the assess-
ment of nonpoint source
pollution.
• EPA is also preparing a
guidance document on devel-
oping volunteer monitoring
programs within State moni-
toring programs. A second
guidance document and a
videotape are being devel-
oped for volunteer lake
monitoring programs.
• EPA is developing
national policy statements
on the role of ambient water
quality information and on
the more specific topic of the
use of ecological assessments
and biocriteria.
• EPA is exploring ways to
use "indicators" of environ-
mental accomplishments to
judge the effectiveness of its
programs.
Indicators of environmental
accomplishments will help EPA
judge the effectiveness of
pollution control programs. i
171
-------
Surface Water Monitoring
• EPA has developed
rapid ecological assessment
methods for wadeable
streams. The methods manual
has been published, training
workshops are being held
throughout the U.S., and a
training videotape is being
developed.
• EPA has developed a
data system to manage water
quality assessment informa-
tion. This system, the Section
305Cb) Waterbody System,
makes assessment informa-
tion more accessible for
management decision-
making. The system also
helps integrate the various
assessments that are often
developed by different
agencies within the State.
• EPA has initiated studies
to examine methods used to
determine designated use
support and methods used to
estimate total waters in a
State. A Federal/State
workgroup will be estab-
lished to develop recommen-
dations for these two issues.
• EPA has established the
Water Quality Data Systems
Steering Committee to advise
senior EPA management on
direction for all data systems
handling water quality infor-
mation.
• EPA has integrated
several separate CWA assess-
ments pursuant to 303(d),
319(a), and 314(a) with the
State Section 305(b) report-
ing process. These assess-
ments are to be coordinated
with each other, and EPA has
proposed rules to combine
these assessments (especially
303(d)) through the biennial
State Section 305(b) process.
• EPA is encouraging States
to supplement water column
chemical criteria with criteria
for water column toxicity,
sediment quality, habitat
quality, and biological
quality.
• EPA has conducted a
feasibility study on requiring
NPDES permittees to conduct
ambient monitoring and the
feasibility of imposing permit
fees to fund monitoring.
EPA is encouraging use of
ambient monitoring in
NPDES permits through
program guidance.
Outlook for Water
Quality Monitoring
By developing and imple-
menting these new initiatives
and continuing various
successful current monitor-
ing efforts, the monitoring
program is moving from a
fragmented, reactive
approach to one with
forward-looking objectives
and the ability to meet the
growing demand for ambient
data. The ultimate goal is to
develop an integrated moni-
toring program that serves as
an early warning system in
detecting emerging problems;
effectively integrates data
172
-------
Surface Water Monitoring
from a variety of sources,
agencies, and monitoring
approaches; analyzes these
data and makes the data
accessible to water quality
managers at all levels of
government; evaluates the
effectiveness of control
programs and tells us where
we need to focus our pollu-
tion control resources; and
fosters a sense of public
ownership of our natural
resources by involving citi-
zens in identifying problems
and working toward solu-
tions.
We have already made
progress toward this goal. For
example, current monitoring
programs such as EPA's Bio-
accumulation Study are at
the vanguard of efforts to
characterize emerging toxic
contamination problems;
State and EPA activities
under Section 304(1) of the
Water Quality Act to identify
waters with toxic impacts
have shown that data from
many sources can be success-
fully integrated; and many'
States have already demon-
strated that citizens can
provide valuable contribu-
tions to the assessment and
decisionmaking processes.
EPA is committed to
continuing this progress by
implementing the new initia-
tives resulting from the
"framework for change"
study and helping States
meet the challenges of the
water quality management
issues they face. Forging a
strong working partnership
among Federal authorities,
State and local governments,
and citizens is key to the
success of this effort.
173
-------
' :'.„&(i .IT"' ii/'i'.
' illilllK
'/.I':,">';;' siitf'"?^
Surface Water Monitoring
™; *ra ..... IK. .......... fcs»» ...... iwcis
liV UJiii'i, !• , , i 'h '! W ..... !',.|! "'.1,1' | H i ,1,*. jl'illil1 '' ...... M,\l ''Sill
'i»'ft i ,,„!!! ^ ..... WHy ..... iiW,:,,!!,,!"'!!''!!!' '..i;
.
l'ii li'JIHII ,f il*'**!' I il t I'll ! i"1'! ( ! ..... •'( I, U i ,!' 1 I r1 HH I'iT'UltirijSr- !}",!:'„
ijfiiniititiiin'iiliiiMiiMi'^^^^ •'$:
Citizen-Based Surface Water Monitoring
The field of water pollution
'.*' Sfitrolhas become mcreas-"^^
iiigly complex. While the
1 regulatory focus of the I97tis
was on contrpping conven-
tional pollutants from point
SourceSj most current
controls address conven-
tional and toxic pollutants
from point sources as well as
from less defined nonpoint
sources. These water quality
problems are harder to iden-
tify and controls are more
difficult to design and
implement. Environmental
managers are faced with
increasing needs for moni-
toring information and
decreasing resources' "to
II I I I II ill In,II ilH'Hi 'I1 llillii'i'l'i 'I I "'II 111 i 1
spend on data collection and
analysis. In many areas of the
,._,—™_ ,..—.~
have been'mbbllized'tb""
collect some of this much-
needed environmental data.
In May 1988, EPA and
Rhode Island Sea Grant
sponsored a workshop on the
Role of Citizen Volunteers" in
Environmental Monitoring.
The participants iri this •"
workshop identified approxi-
mately 87 active citizen '.'•'
monitoring programs that
collect environmental data.
Of these, 22 are designed to
collect surface water data.
The geographical distribution
""of"''th'ese"p'rb'gra'ms'1is shown in'
I I No Program
l'--.-'.i State Managed
Not State
Managed
Existing citizen monitoring
programs cover a broad
spectrum of waterbody types
and use volunteers to collect
data on a wide variety of
water quality parameters.
The programs fulfill three
overall monitoring objec-
tives: identification of I6ng:
term water quality trends,
studies of specific water
quality problems, arid identi-
fication and resolution of
acute water quality impair-
ments. ." ".' '.' ... ."."'
1. Monitoring to identify
long-term water quality
trends: These programs
use volunteers to collect
water quality data at
J 's> _ Jpxed stations on a
iff •!• regular basis over an
"SS^'^^ftjjblesOT, this overall _ _ _ |
typfe of program are
volunteer lake monitor-
. : ing programs,
2, Monitoring to study
specific wdi&r quality
problems: These
tof.**t programs use volunteers
to collect water quality
data at selected sites
^^jriod.^
^aarFuseaTWSaress
specific water quality
issues such as acid
inputs'due to atmos-"*"
ion.
Rgure 11-1. States with Citizen Monitoring Programs (CMPs)
174
and resolve acute water
"qWUity impairments: ~'
These programs use
-------
Surface Water Monitoring
Volunteers measuring water;
clarity using a Secchi disk.
citizen volunteers to
evaluate water quality
conditions in their local
areas and report on
acute problems and
violations of water
pollution control laws
and regulations.
An Emerging Area
for Citizen
Involvement—
Nonppint Source
Pollution
Assessment
Nonpoint source pollution
is primarily caused by land
use and misuse. Since land
use is generally controlled
at the local level, public
awareness of NFS problems
and their solution is consid-
ered critical to effective NFS
management. Citizen moni-
toring and involvement
programs can greatly assist in
raising the level of public
awareness, identifying NFS
problems, and evaluating the
effectiveness of controls. The
contribution of citizens is
especially significant since
citizens often have a local
knowledge of water resources
and are familiar with stream
conditions before, during,
and after stream events; are
familiar with land uses in
their areas and can help
identify specific sources of
pollution; and have a vested
interest in evaluating best
management practices and
monitoring their progress.
Obstacles to
Citizen Monitoring
Efforts
Citizen monitoring efforts
have been very successful in
many areas of the country.
However, a number of obsta-
cles remain to be overcome,
including the following:
• Professional distrust
of volunteer data: Many
water quality professionals
are skeptical about using
citizen-collected data despite
evidence that volunteers can
collect scientifically credible
data.
• Mismatches between
information needs and the
capabilities of citizen volun-
teers: Managers of volunteer
programs need to carefully
select volunteers who can
provide the type of infor-
mation most likely to be
accepted and used.
• Insufficient funding:
Although citizen monitoring
is cost-effective, adequate
funding and management
support are needed.
• Insufficient data sharing
and coordination: Citizen
: monitoring programs must
share data and techniques
and coordinate their activ-
ities if they are to succeed.
EPA Support of
Citizen Monitoring
EPA is actively researching
existing citizen monitoring
programs. A guidance docu-
ment directed at State
managers is being developed
to provide information on
how to start and manage a
citizen monitoring program.
EPA will also be writing a
; methods manual for citizen-
based lake monitoring.
Citizen monitoring is a
central component of EPA's
National Estuary Program
and is also being incorpo-
rated into the noripoint
source program.
EPA has recognized the
usefulness of citizen moni-
toring programs and will be
working to further integrate
these programs into its water
pollution control efforts. As
citizen monitoring activities
grow in popularity through-
out the U.S., EPA can and
will help encourage and
coordinate these programs to
maximize their benefits to
State monitoring programs.
175
-------
-------
12
Costs and Benefits of
Pollution Control
Section 305(b) of the Clean
Water Act calls for States to
provide estimates of the
economic and social costs
necessary to achieve the
objectives of the Act. States
are also requested to report
on the economic and social
benefits of these achieve-
ments. This section draws
upon information submitted
by the States and additional
information collected by
other State and Federal
agencies that address the
costs and benefits of water
pollution control.
Costs
In those instances where
cost information is presented
by States, most report the
capital costs for wastewater
treatment systems funded
with State and Federal
grants. This information does
not include local and indus-
trial expenditures for water
pollution control or the costs
of administering environ-
mental programs at the local,
State, and Federal levels.
Therefore, more inclusive
data, prepared by the U.S.
Department of Commerce's
Bureau of Economic Analy-
sis, are shown in Table 12-1.
Government capital
expenditures for water
pollution control (primarily
wastewater collection and
treatment) peaked in the
. mid-1970s when the Federal
government was heavily
financing construction of
sewage treatment facilities.
Since 1982, government
capital expenditures have
begun to rise again as local
governments have sought
to meet the deadlines for
compliance with secondary
wastewater treatment guide-
lines. Estimated government
expenditures on new capital
rose to $7.7 billion in
1986—an increase of $0.8
billion since 1984. The cost
of maintaining the growing
177
-------
Cosfs and Benefits of Pollution Control
stock of wastewater treat-
ment capital has contributed
to the steady increase in
government operating and
maintenance expenditures
from $3.4 billion in 1972
to $6.6 billion in 1986.
Capital expenditures by
private industry peaked a
few years earlier than did
government capital spending
in the 1970s, have continued
to decline into the mid-1980s,
but have leveled off at about
$3.0 billion since 1983.
Private industry operation
and maintenance expend-
itures have risen at a rate
comparable to that of
government expenditures,
although at a slightly lower
aggregate level—from $2.7
billion in 1972 to $5.3 billion
in 1986.
Expenditures on pollution
control, defined here as the
costs of private and govern-
ment research and develop-
ment, and government regu-
lation and monitoring, have
remained relatively constant
since 1972. Private industry
expenses have accounted for
50 to 60 percent of the total
research and development
annual expenditures, the
remainder being primarily
Federal research. Govern-
ment expenditures for
regulation and monitoring
were split 50-50 between
Federal and State/local in
1983, but in 1986 State and
local governments were bear-
ing 55 percent of these costs.
The results of a survey of
State expenditures for envi-
ronmental and natural
resource programs in 1986
are presented in Table 12-2.
The results have been sum-
marized according to the per
capita expenditures for
water quality and quantity
programs managed by States,
and the percentage of total
State funds allocated to
these programs. The results
indicate that State expenses
for water quantity/quality
programs range from less
than $5 per capita to over
$15 per capita. The table
suggests that there is no
apparent relationship
between State expenditures
for water quantity/quality
programs and delegation of
NPDES authority to States.
States without NPDES
authority do not tend to
Table 12-1. Spending for Water Pollution Abatement and Control (billions of constant 1986 dollars)
Pollution Abatement Pollution Control
Operation & Maintenance
Govern- Indus-
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
Totals
3.4
3.8
3.9
4.0
4.3
4.8
5.2
5.4
5.5
5.8
6.1
6.1
6.0
6.0
6.6
76.9
2.7
3.1
3.1
3.3
3.7
4.1
4.3
4.6
4.5
4.6
4.4
4.7
4.9
5.0
5.3
62.3
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.6
6.9
Capital
Govern-
ment
8.1
8.5
9.5
10.6
11.0
11.0
11.9
11.5
10.5
8.1
7.2
6.2
6.9
7.1
7.7
135.8
Indus-
trial
3.7
4.1
3.8
4.8
5.2
5.0
4.9
4.5
4.2
3.7
3.5
3.0
3.0
2.9
2.9
59.2
Other
2.3
2.4
1.9
1.5
1.6
1.8
2.2
2.0
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.7
2.0
2.0
2.0
28.0
Nonpoint
Controls
2.1
2.4
1.9
1.6
1.7
1.1
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.2
23.6
Research
Total &
Abatement Development
22.6
24.5
24.6
26.2
28.1
28.3
30.7
30.5
28.3
25.3
24.3
23.5
24.6
25.0
26.3
392.8
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
5.4
Regulation
&
Monitoring
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
8.6
Total
Abatement
& Control
23.3
25.4
25.6
27.2
29.0
29.4
31.8
31.5
29.4
26.3
25.3
24.3
25.3
25.8
27.1
•Consists largely of spending for private connections to public sewer systems.
"Preliminary. . . ...
Note- Pollution abatement and control expenditures cover: direct pollution abatement expenditures by industry, household, and governmental units for reduction of point
™=™ce dtechargesfregulation and monitoring expenditures by government for activities that "stimulate and guide action to reduce pollutant em.ss.ons ,
and research and development expenditures to support abatement and increase the efficiency of regulation and monitoring.
Source: Kit Farber and Gary Rutledge. "Pollution Abatement and Control Expenditures, 1983-1986," Survey of Current Business, May 1988, p. 22.
178
-------
Costs and Benefits of Pollution Control
Table 12-2. Distribution of 1986 State Expenditures for Water Quantity/Quality Programs
Percent of State Budget Allocated for Water Programs*
Less than $5
expended
per capita
$5 to $10
expended
per capita
$10 to 15
expended
per capita
Greater than $15
expended
per capita
Less than 0.1% 0.1% to 0.2% 0.2% to 0.3%
Arkansas** Georgia Indiana
Hawaii Texas** Oklahoma**
Ohio Iowa
Kentucky Alabama
S. Carolina N. Carolina
Minnesota Kansas
W. Virginia Connecticut
New York Nevada
Louisiana**
Colorado
New Mexico**
Arizona**
Greater than 0.3%
Pennsylvania
Nebraska
Vermont
Illinois
Virginia
Maine**
Wyoming
Utah
Mississippi
Maryland
Tennessee
Florida**
Missouri
Washington
Michigan
N. Dakota
Oregon
Rhode Island
Massachusetts**
Idaho**
Delaware
New Hampshire**
New Jersey
Montana
California
Wisconsin
Alaska**
S. Dakota**
* Expenses expressed as a percentage of total State expenditures for all services in 1986 fiscal year. Expenditures for water
quality and quantity include drinking water, marine and coastal programs, watershed management districts, water quality, and
water resources. Other categories may serve to improve water quality, but they were not included (e.g., mining reclamation,
land management, soil conservation).
"States to which NPDES delegation had not been granted by 6/30/86.
Source: Resource Guide to State Environmental Management. Council of State Governments: Center for the Environment and
Natural Resources, 1988.
179
-------
Coste and Benefits of Pollution Control
spend less on water quantity/
quality programs than do
States with NPDES authority.
As States assume a greater
proportion of the regulation
and monitoring responsibility
and the many new require-
ments of the 1986 Amend-
ments to the Safe Drinking
. Water Act and the 1987
Amendments to the Clean
Water Act, the administra-
tive expense of their
expanded water pollution
control programs will
increase greatly. A report
prepared by EPA, using State
needs figures generated by
the Association of State and
Interstate Water Pollution
Control Administrators and
the Association of State
Drinking Water Administra-
tors, estimated the costs
of operating State water
programs in the wake of this
new legislation, lable 12-3
provides an estimate of 1988
State water quality program
expenditures for activities
managed by States. Total
current (1988) annual
expenditures are estimated
to be $429 million for
all State water programs.
Surface water quality
programs, which include
monitoring, permitting,
enforcement, and other
activities, cost $316 million.
The remaining $113 million
is spent to manage State
drinking water programs.
Ground-water resource
protection programs occur
in both areas.
The incremental State
expenses of meeting new
and expanded water program
requirements as a result of
recent legislative amend-
ments are projected to total
$559 million for the 3 years
between 1988 and 1990
combined. The largest incre-
mental costs are projected
for drinking water, ground
water, nonpoint sources,
pretreatment, and control
of toxic substances.
Benefits
Although economic costs
can be readily described,
calculating the economic
value of water quality
improvements presents a
greater challenge to local,
State, and Federal authori-
ties. Many States have
prepared descriptive infor-
mation on chemical and
biological improvements in
water quality or reductions
in physical pollutant loadings
from industrial, municipal,
and nonpoint sources. Few
have chosen to translate
these changes into economic
values. As a result, compari-
sons of the economic costs
and benefits of water pollu-
tion control programs cannot
yet be made at the national
level.
Selected local projects,
often involving a single or
homogeneous class of pollu-
tion sources (e.g., wastewater
treatment outflows, agricul-
tural runoff), constitute
the few instances where
economic benefit-cost
analyses have been
performed. While useful
as a tool for aiding local
decisionmakers on water
quality projects and demon-
strating methods of valuing
environmental improve-
ments, these studies can only
serve as anecdotal evidence
of the potential total
economic benefits that have
accrued as a result of past
efforts to achieve the fish-
able and swimmable water
quality goals of national and
State environmental legis-
lation.
In the few instances where
States reported on economic
benefit-cost studies performed
to support a water quality
program, benefits were
shown to exceed the costs of
the program. Several States
acknowledge that the grow-
ing sums of money spent on
pollution control have led to
a greater demand for benefit-
cost information. The incre-
mental costs of recent
programs aimed at reducing
even greater amounts of
water pollution loadings
carry a higher price tag than
did efforts undertaken in the
early 1970s. Furthermore,
the shift in the burden from
Federal funding sources to
State and local sources will
likely serve to promote the
180
-------
Coste and Benefits of Pollution Control
Table 12-3. Distribution of State Water Quality Program Expenditures
1988 and 1988-1990 Estimated Incremental Needs
(millions 1988 dollars)
Category
States' Base
Program: 1988
States' Incremental Needs:
Total for 1988-1990
Water Quality Management
Emergency Response
Enforcement
Indians
Monitoring/WLA
Nonpoint Sources
Permits
Pretreatment
Program Management
Sludge
Stormwater
Wetlands
Water Quality Planning
Water Quality Standard
Groundwater Strategy
ASIWPCA Additional*
Other**
Subtotal Water Quality Management
$10
43
0
54
5
46
10
30
0
0
0
17
10
8
70
13
316
NOTE: Breakdown
into program categories
not available.
289
Drinking Water
Public Water Systems
Underground Injection
Wellhead Protection
Subtotal Drinking Water
98
15
0
113
158
23
89
270
Total Surface Water
and Drinking Water
$429
$559
*The Water Quality Management needs numbers are from the original EPA needs estimates. The "ASIWPCA Additional"
number reflects ASIWPCA's estimate of the additional money States spent in the 1988 base program.
** "Other" includes various water pollution-related activities that do not fit into the above categories, such as shellfish protection
public participation, office automation, etc.
Source: "State Funding Study," EPA Office of Water, May 1989.
181
-------
Coste and Benefits of Pollution Control
development and implemen-
tation of economic benefit
valuation techniques.
In their 1988 State Section
305(b) reports, several States
cited water quality improve-
ments that have been asso-
ciated with economic bene-
fits. For example:
• In Connecticut, the
Connecticut River has
enjoyed a resurgence in
commercial and recreational
activities compared to condi-
tions that persisted in the
late 1960s. Hartford attracts
a larger number of tourists to
its waterfront festivals since
providing municipal sewage
treatment to sources
discharging to the river.
Excursion boats now operate
on the river, and commercial
and sport salmon and shad
fisheries are returning. The
quantity of shellfish harvested
in Long Island Sound has also
increased in comparison with
1970 harvests.
• hi New York, several of
Lake Erie's tributaries now
have large runs of coho and
Chinook salmon and steel-
head trout. Smallmouth bass
are now able to use these
waters as spawning grounds.
Improvements in these
streams are attributed to
reductions in municipal
sewage and food processing
wastes. Skaneateles Creek,
once so polluted that fish
could not survive in its
waters, is now one of the
prime trout streams in the
State. Similar success stories
have helped contribute to
the massive direct and
indirect impact of anglers
on the economy.
• In Vermont, visitors to
St. Albans Bay Park are now
using the park for swimming
after a 10-year hiatus due to
poor water quality. The city's
sewage treatment plant has
been upgraded, and agri-
cultural nonpoint source
management practices are in
use to control runoff. Result-
ant water quality improve-
ments have increased
bayfront property values,
enhanced recreational
opportunities, and reduced
maintenance costs to facil-
ities relying on water from
the lake. A study by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's
Agricultural Research
Service found that the
quantified benefits exceeded
the costs by a ratio of 1.3
to 1. Neither point nor
nonpoint control measures
individually would have had
a benefit-cost ratio greater
than 1.0, but together they
provided the necessary
improvements to water
quality conditions in St.
Albans Bay.
• In West Virginia, the sport
fishing industry is recovering
in the Ohio, Kanawha, and
Monongahela Rivers. This
improvement, in turn,
contributes to improvements
in other forms of water-
based recreation such as
boating, water-skiing, and
swimming. Mount Storm
Lake's pH and its fishery
have been enhanced at
minimal cost because of a
permit variance granted to
the Virginia Electric Power
Company.
These and other examples
in the State Section 305(b)
reports qualitatively docu-
ment water quality improve-
ments and enhanced uses of
the Nation's waters. In time,
States will be able to prepare
water quality assessments
that systematically address
the benefits and costs of
water quality improvements.
At that time, a more useful
national assessment of the
economic benefits of water
quality programs can be
conducted. Until then, we
must rely on case studies and
qualitative discussions of
water quality improvement
to evaluate the merits of the
dollars spent on water pollu-
tion control.
182
-------
' Costs and Benefits of Pollution Control
Washington's Centennial Clean
1 Water Program
Some States have devel-
oped innovative programs to
help finance the costs of
water pollution control activ-
ities. An example of such a
program is the State of Wash-
ington's Centennial Clean
• Wafer Program. In 1986, the
State legislature created the
Centennial Clean Water
Fund, a source of financial
assistance—raised through a
tax on tobacco products—for "
water pollution control
projects. The legislature has
authorized $45 million per
year through 2021 to support"
projects such as the construc-
tion of sewage treatment
facilities and the reduction
of combined sewer overflows
or stormwater discharges to
marine waters; prevention or
reduction of ground-water
pollution; lake protection
and restoration activities;
control of nonpoint sources
of pollution; public educa-
tion; and innovative projects.
The, Centennial Clean
Water Fund forges a partner-
ship between State and local
government. The State
provides financial assistance
and experienced guidance;
the recipient—usually a
county, city, conservation
district or other political
subdivision—administers the
project and provides the
"local match" (cash, labor,
and in-kind contributions).
The local share may be
financed through taxes, bond
sales, formation and assess-
ment of Local Improvement
Districts, fines and penalties,
or a variety of other methods.
Projects are rated based on
• such factors as the serious-
ness of the problem they are
to address, local support for
the project, and the nature of
the project (i.e., preventive,
corrective, or both).
Washington's Centennial
Clean Water Fund provides
an Innovative, effective
approach to the financing of
pollution control activities.
By helping local communities
meet water quality, health,
and safety requirements, the
State has taken a crucial step
in protecting its rivers, lakes,
marine waters, and ground
water for current and future
generations.
183
-------
-------
13
State Recommendations
In their 1988 reports,
26 States and Territories
discussed recommended
program actions needed to
make additional progress
toward the Clean Water Act's
goal of fishable and swim-
mable waters. These recom-
mendations are of ten
expressed in terms of State
objectives or continuing
needs and cover a range of
actions at the Congressional,
Federal, State, and local
levels. These recommenda-
tions are discussed below. It
should be emphasized that
this discussion is restricted
to the recommendations
reported by the States them-
selves in 1988 and does not
attempt to assess their
merits. However, many of the
State recommendations for
action also reflect EPA
program priorities.
A theme common to almost
all State recommendations is
insufficient funding to carry
out burgeoning State water
quality protection responsi-
bilities. For example, Louis-
iana writes:
"New program require-
ments for the State such as
the toxics program, Clean
Lakes, and the nonpoint
source program will require
a shift of limited resources
from already critically
short areas. While it is
agreed that such programs
are beneficial and needed,
the decisions of where to
concentrate manpower and
where to set priorities are
extremely difficult. There
have been increases in
grant conditions from the
Federal government and
increased expectations
from the people of the
State in the area of water
quality management as
public awareness has
increased. However, there
has been little or no
increase in funding and
no increase in manpower
resources. Increased
funding and expanded
185
-------
State Recommendations
staffing will be necessary
in order for the State to
meet the demands and
requirements being placed
upon it."
In general, State recom-
mendations fall into nine
major categories. Ranked by
the frequency with which
they are reported, these
categories are nonpoint
source abatement, water
quality monitoring, municipal
facilities, toxics identification
and control, water quality
criteria and standards,
ground-water protection,
lake protection, data man-
agement/coordination, and
wetlands protection. Other
topics less frequently cited
by the States include pre-
treatment, permitting and
enforcement, combined
sewer overflows, and sludge
management.
Nonpoint Source Abate-
ment: Recommendations
most often cited by the
States concern the identifica-
tion, prevention, and control
of nonpoint sources (NFS) of
pollution. Most commonly,
States cite the need for
additional funding for NFS
programs and the need for
better monitoring and assess-
ment methods to detect NFS,
assess their impacts, and
determine the effectiveness
of NFS controls. Several
States also indicated that
they are in the process of
developing and refining
NFS Management Plans and
recommend that additional
funds be made available to
carry out the goals of those
plans.
Water Quality Monitoring:
Beyond expressing a general
need to enhance water quality
monitoring activities and the
evaluation of them to be
certain they are providing
needed data, a common
theme of State monitoring
recommendations was to
increase the emphasis on
biological monitoring.
Specifically, States recom-
mended developing or adopt-
ing bioscreening techniques,
biotic indices, biosurvey
methodologies, bioassay
techniques, and in-stream
macroinvertebrate biomoni-
toring. Other monitoring
recommendations include
seeking EPA and State
support to expand toxics
monitoring programs,
increase long-term intensive
survey efforts, and study
cause/effect relationships in
the environment.
Municipal Facilities:
Continued funding for the
maintenance, upgrade, and
construction of municipal
sewage treatment facilities
remains a leading recommen-
dation of the States. Several
States cite problems with
proper operation and mainte-
nance of older sewage treat-
ment facilities. Several States
also recommend the use of
State Revolving Loan Funds
to finance the construction
of facilities as Federal/State
funding ends under the
Construction Grants program.
Another recommendation
concerns the untreated
direct discharge of household
sewage in areas that are too
economically depressed to
shoulder the cost-share
burdens of the Construction
Grants program. This can be
a significant water quality/
public health concern in
certain areas. EPA is urged to
provide assistance to help
'meet these sewage treatment
needs.
Identification and Control
of Toxic Substances: The
States strongly recommend
expanding efforts to gather
data on toxic pollutants and
to develop or implement
State toxic control programs.
Specific recommendations
include more monitoring for
toxics in fish tissue; improve-
ment of Federal data bases
on toxic substances; estab-
lishment of an EPA clearing-
house for literature reviews
such as risk assessments
conducted by the States; and
greater use of toxicity testing
results in establishing
effluent limitations.
Water Quality Criteria
and Standards: The States'
ability to assess water quality
conditions depends heavily
on criteria (limits) for specific
pollutants, established by the
States and approved by EPA.
When these criteria are
violated, beneficial uses may
not be met. Ibgether, the
criteria and the uses they
protect form the State's
186
-------
State Recommendations
water quality standards. A
number of States recommend
updating their standards by
taking such actions as
adopting numerical criteria
for toxics or developing more
specific use designations and
appropriate criteria. Federal
leadership was urged in
continuing to refine and
develop criteria for
substances causing risks to
human health. EPA was also
encouraged to continue its
research on better criteria
for contact recreation uses.
Ground-Water Protection:
Clear priorities many States
and Territories have expressed
are to gain a better under-
standing of the quality of
their ground water, to iden-
tify and map their ground-
water resources, to identify
potential sources of contam-
ination, and to determine
the vulnerability of their
resources to pollution. The
States recommend continued
collection and analysis of
ground-water data. Their
recommendations include
the establishment of a
national ground-water
research program; more
Federal funding to allow
States to expand ground-
water monitoring, manage-
ment, and standards devel-
opment; and action by EPA
to incorporate ground-water
quality data into existing
computerized data bases.
Lake Protection: The States
strongly recommend that
Congress appropriate funds
to support the Clean Lakes
Program. States cite the need
for additional data on lake
water quality conditions and
trends, expanded reporting
requirements under Section
314 of the Clean Water Act,
and vulnerability of lakes to
acid deposition.
Data Management/Coordi-
nation: EPA and the States
are actively engaged in
developing computerized
data management systems to
handle a wide range of water
quality and program informa-
tion. A common State recom-
mendation is to integrate and
enhance these various data
bases. States also urge more
effective coordination among
State, local, and Federal
agencies to better address
diverse environmental prob-
lems such as wetlands pro-
tection, hazardous waste
disposal, agricultural runoff,
and fish tissue contamina-
tion.
Wetlands Protection:
A number of States call for
increased effort in protecting
valuable wetland resources.
Specific recommendations
vary from the need for addi-
tional Federal appropriations
for wetland protection to
better enforcement by the
Corps of Engineers of
permitted and unpermitted
activities in wetland areas.
187
-------
-------
In addition to the 1988 State water quality assessments, the following documents were
cited in this report and are recommended for further reading.
Council of State Governments, Center for the Environment and Natural Resources. 1988.
Resource Guide to State Environmental Management.
Farber, Kit, and Gary L. Rutledge. 1988. Pollution abatement and control expenditures,
1983-1986. In: Survey of Current Business. May.
North Carolina State University, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S.
Department of Agriculture. 1988. Rural Clean Water Program: 1988 Workshop
Proceedings. National Water Quality Evaluation Project. December.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ground-Water Protection Strategy, 198*1. Office
of Ground-Water Protection.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Results of the National Urban Runoff
Program. Office of Water. December.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Permit Writer's Guide to Water Quality-
Based Permitting for Toxic Pollutants. Office of Water. Publication No. EPA-440/4-87-005.
July.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Surface Water Monitoring: A Framework
for Change. Office of Water and Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation. September.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. America's Wetlands: Our Vital Link Between
Land and Water. Office of Wetland Protection. Publication No. OPA-87-016. February.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Needs Survey Report to Congress, 1988.
Office of Municipal Pollution Control. Publication No. EPA 430/09-89-001. February.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Nonpoint Source Agenda for the Future.
Office of Water. January.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Report to Congress: Activities and Programs
Implemented under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, FY1988. Office of Water.
Publication No. EPA-506/9-89/003. August.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Report to Congress: Water Quality of the
Nation's Lakes. Office of Water. Publication No. EPA-440/5-89-003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. State Funding Study, Office of Water. May.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.
January.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Wetlands of the U.S.: Current Status and Trends.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Mid-Atlantic Wetlands: A Disappearing National
Treasure. June.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1988.1986 National Water Summary. Water Supply Paper 2325.
References and.
Further Reading
-------
-------
Appendix
-------
-------
Appendix
Alabama
To obtain a copy of the
Alabama 1988 305(b) report,
contact:
Alabama Department of
Environmental
Management
Planning and Projects
Branch
1751 Cong. W. L. Dickinson
Drive
Montgomery, AL 36130
Surface Water
Quality
During the reporting
period, Alabama assessed
11,174 miles of streams,
491,566 acres of lakes, 53
square miles of estuaries and
50 coastal miles. Approxi-
mately 91 percent of river
miles assessed were found to
be fully supporting their
designated uses, 82 percent
of lake acres were fully
supporting their designated
uses, 94 percent of estuary
square miles were fully
supporting uses, and all of
the ocean coastal miles were
fully supporting uses.
Alabama also conducted an
assessment of the extent to
which its waters support the
fishable/swimmable goal of
the Clean Water Act. Eighty-
nine percent of assessed
river miles, 82 percent of
assessed lake acres, 94
percent of estuary square
miles, and all of ocean
coastal miles were found
to be meeting the fishable/
swimmable goal.
The main causes of
nonsupport of designated
uses were determined to be
excessive levels of nutrients
and organic enrichment
leading to depleted levels
of dissolved oxygen.
Inadequately treated
effluents from municipal
discharges, industrial
discharges, and nonpoint
source runoff appear to be
leading sources of pollution
in the State.
A significant concern to
the State is lack of informa-
tion on lakes, estuaries, and
wetlands. Lack of National
Clean Lakes funding has
hampered the State's ability
to develop a reservoir moni-
toring program; a prelim-
inary assessment of lake
water quality was provided
in this 1988 report, and
Alabama has applied for
Clean Lakes funding to
improve future assessments.
The State is also planning to
increase its data-gathering
capabilities for estuarine and
wetland areas.
Ground-Water
Quality
Currently, Alabama does
not have a comprehensive
ground-water quality moni-
toring network. Available
information based on a
limited ground-water
monitoring network of 77
wells indicates that the
overall quality of ground
water in Alabama is good.
The only problems indicated
by the current monitoring
data are localized instances
of highly mineralized water
and one instance of saltwater
intrusion. Volatile organic
sampling of 113 public
ground-water supplies in
1985 found only six wells
with detectable concentra-
tions of organics; these
were well below recom-
mended safe levels of
exposure.
Presently, Alabama
responds to ground-water
concerns under general
statutory authority provided
by the Alabama Water Pollu-
tion Control Act. While
existing problems can be
addressed fairly effectively
in this manner, there is a
need for a more coordinated
approach to specific sources
of potential ground-water
contamination. Items
outlined by the State as
concerns or objectives to
be incorporated into their
ground-water management
program are: (1) response to
instances of ground-water
contamination; (2) develop-
ment of a State ground-water
strategy; (3) additional
statutory authorities, where
needed; (4) implementation
of a ground-water classifica-
tion system; and (5) addition
. of new, related regulations
under the Alabama Water
Pollution Control Act.
In addition to these
initiatives, vulnerability
assessments for major
aquifers in the State have
been completed. This
information will be incor-
porated into the classifi-
cation effort and implemen-
tation of the overall ground-
water management plan.
Arizona
To obtain a copy of the
Arizona 1988 305(b) report,
contact:
Office of Emergency
Response and
Environmental Analysis
2005 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Surface Water
Quality
During water years
1986-1987, 2,279 river miles
were assessed in Arizona,
34 percent of river miles with
water quality standards. Of
the river miles assessed,
69 percent fully supported
designated uses while 21
percent did not meet stand-
ards. The largest segment
(297 miles) not meeting
criteria was the Little
Colorado and Purco Rivers.
These rivers are contami-
nated with radiochemicals
and heavy metals. The lower
Salt and Gila Rivers (110
miles) do not meet uses
because of pesticide contam-
ination in addition to metals
and other inorganics.
Because of Arizona's
extreme aridity, its wetlands
are particularly valuable
aquatic resources. A substan-
tial proportion of the State's
wetlands were destroyed by
overgrazing, wood-cutting,
mining, water diversions,
and construction activities.
Arizona is beginning to
address wetlands issues
through the Statewide
Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Planning Process.
A-1
-------
Appendix
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground-water quality is
a major concern in Arizona
because it is the State's
principal source of public
water. The four most docu-
mented sources of ground-
water contamination are
leaking underground storage
tanks, septic tanks, agricul-
tural practices, and wastes
from high technology
industries.
Four Active Management
Areas (AMAs) were defined
in the 1980 Ground Water
Management Act to encom-
pass geographic areas where
ground-water supplies are
imperiled. These AMAs
comprise the populated areas
of Phoenix, Tucson, Final,
and Prescott. Common
sources of contaminants
within the AMAs include
leaking underground storage
tanks, septic tanks, agricul-
ture, mining, and high tech-
nology industry. Major causes
of pollution contributed by
these sources include
petroleum hydrocarbons,
nitrates, coliforms, pesti-
cides, sulfate, metals, and
volatile organic compounds
VOCs).
Arizona has completed a
preliminary ground-water
protection strategy that
contains background infor-
mation on the goals and
statutory framework for
ground-water protection,
ongoing and future ground-
water program activities,
and interagency coordina-
tion. The basis for the goals
is to protect public health;
preserve, enhance, and
protect water quality; provide
minimization, prevention,
mitigation and remedies of
past, present, and future
potential discharges to
aquifers; protect surface
waters which are fed by, or
discharge, to aquifers; and
prohibit discharge of toxic
pollutants to aquifers.
Arkansas
To obtain a copy of the 1988
Arkansas 305(b) report,
contact:
Arkansas Department of
Pollution Control and
Ecology
Water Division
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, AR 72209
Surface Water
Quality
For this reporting period,
Arkansas assessed 4,107
miles of streams, which
represents 36 percent of the
State's total river miles.
Approximately 42 percent
of assessed river miles fully
support their designated
uses.
In its 1988 305(b) report,
the State provided regional
assessments of water quality.
Water quality in the Delta
Region is significantly
influenced by agricultural
runoff. The vast majority of
waterways in this region
have been channelized for
agricultural development
and therefore have impaired
uses. The Gulf Coastal Region
exhibits site-specific impacts
due to resource timber
extraction. Silviculture is the
predominant land use in the
Ouachita Mountains Region;
the region is characterized by
exceptionally high water
quality although concerns
have been voiced about the
effects of harvesting prac-
tices. In the Arkansas River
Valley Region, zero flows
are common during summer
critical conditions. During
peak runoff events, contami-
nants enter the Region's
streams from agricultural
sources. The Boston Moun-
tains Region is highly used
for recreational purposes and
has extremely good water
quality. Potential water
quality degradation is of
concern because of conver-
sion of hardwoods to pasture-
lands, expansion of confined
animal operations, timber
management practices, and
localized natural gas produc-
tion. Lastly, in the Ozark
Highlands Region, water
quality problems are directly
related to the high rate of
animal management activ-
ities such as chicken, swine,
and cattle operations. The
waste from this animal
production is generally land-
applied and therefore has the
potential to contaminate
both surface and ground
waters.
Ground-Water
Quality
Use of ground water in the
1980s has varied between
four and five billion gallons
per day. About 93 percent
was for agricultural use,
2 percent for industrial use,
2 percent for municipal use,
2 percent for rural domestic
use, and 1 percent for thermo-
electric energy. Fifty-five
percent of the population
depends upon ground water
for drinking water and
domestic use.
Contamination of shallow
domestic wells and springs by
human and animal wastes is
the most prominent ground-
water problem in the State,
as evidenced by high nitrate
concentrations. Some surfi-
cial aquifers have been
contaminated by industrial
wastes which include both
heavy metals and organic
chemicals; some of these are
being monitored under the
Superfund and RCRA
programs.
Contamination of fresh
ground water by saline water
has occurred in several places
due to large-scale pumping.
Continued large-scale
pumping has the potential to
increase contamination. In
some areas, the occurrence
of saline water appears to be
of natural origin and not the
result of human activity.
Some saltwater contamina-
tion in south Arkansas is due
to oil and gas exploration,
production, and disposal
practices.
Ground-water levels are
declining in large areas of
the State where pumping
rates exceed recharge rates.
Ground-water levels in the
Sparta Sand aquifer have
declined as much as 320 feet
in the vicinity of El Dorado,
as much as 225 feet in the
vicinity of Magnolia, and as
much as 60 feet in the
vicinity of Stuttgart. The
greatest decline in the
alluvial aquiferhas been in
Poinsett County, where
water levels at one point are
A-2
-------
Appendix
almost 120 feet below land
surf ace—a decline of some
70 feet since the early 1900s
when it was first used as an
irrigation source.
Potential ground-water
problems are found state-
wide. Potential threats to
ground water include a large
number of waste impound-
ments, landfills, and open
dumps, especially those
located in moderate to high
aquifer recharge zones.
Contamination from waste
impoundments, storage
tanks, and dumps has
occurred. Hazardous
substances transported by
vehicles and trains have been
involved in accidents result-
ing in ground-water contami-
nation. The potential for
leaks and accidents is always
present.
California
To obtain a copy of the 1988
California 305(b) report,
contact:
California State Water
Resources Control Board
Division of Water Quality
901 P Street
Sacramento, CA 95801
Surface Water
Quality
Over three-fourths of
California's assessed stream
miles and half its lake acres
are classified as having water
quality that generally
supports designated uses.
Some of the largest water-
bodies not supporting uses
in the State include harbors,
bays, and lagoons in the San
Diego Region (15,300 acres);
Clear Lake in Lake County
(44,000 acres); and the
Salton Sea (220,000 acres).
Pollution sources in
streams not fully supporting
uses include agriculture,
abandoned and active mines,
and other nonpoint sources
such as urban runoff, erosion,
individual disposal systems,
and animal grazing. The
remaining stream pollution
sources consist of point
sources and natural or
unknown causes.
Lakes are mostly affected
by natural causes and agri-
cultural return flows.
Municipal and industrial
point sources are prohibited
from discharging directly
to lakes in California.
Point sources and nonpoint
sources are about equal
contributors of pollution in
harbors and bays. Urban
storm runoff and erosion are
major nonpoint pollution
sources in San Francisco, San
Diego, Newport, and Mission
Bays.
Trends in water quality
reflect the above concerns
and indicate that California
surface waters have
improved or been protected
from overall degradation due
to point sources. There do
not appear to be significant
changes in the overall quality
of marine and estuarine
waters, although major
improvements in bacterial
quality have been noted in
Eumboldt/Arcata Bay,
portions of San Francisco
Bay, and San Diego Bay.
However, a significant
increase is noted in the
detection of toxic pollution.
Major pollutants affecting
waters of the State include
bacteria, nutrients, dissolved
solids, pesticides, herbicides,
other toxic organics, and
metals. Ibxic substances are
now recognized as a
constantly expanding threat
to water quality. Toxic
substances have been, and
probably still are, dumped
illegally into community
sewer systems, municipal
landfills, vacant lands, and
surface waters. California is
moving aggressively to
address the toxic pollution
issue with new legislation,
more severe penalties, and
new programs.
The State identifies the
following as statewide issues
of concern: ground-water
pollution, hazardous waste
disposal sites, pollution of
harbors and bays, agricul-
tural impacts on -water
quality, and mine drainage.
Ground-Water
Quality
The water in California's
underground basins and the
storage space in these basins
are among the State's most
valuable resources. About 40
percent of California's annual
applied water needs is
obtained from ground-water
basins. Apart from the
Central Valley, the greatest
concentrations of ground-
water withdrawals are in
southern California and in
the Santa Clara and Salinas
Valleys. Most cities in the San
Joaquin Valley are supplied
entirely by ground water, and
ground water is a significant
part of the public supplies in
southern California and the
Santa Clara Valley.
Less than 2 percent of the
ground waters assessed have
water quality classified as
not supporting designated
uses; however, about half of
the State's ground-water
resource is of unknown
water quality. Areas with the
most numerous and wide-
spread ground-waterprob-
lems are the San Francisco
Bay Region, the Central
Valley Region, and the three
South Coastal Regions of Los
Angeles, Santa Ana, and San
Diego. Naturally occurring
poor quality ground water is
fairly common throughout
the Lahontan Basins and hi
the Colorado River Region.
Pollution of ground-water
supplies can occur from
many sources. These include
individual disposal systems,
solid and liquid waste
disposal sites, underground
chemical storage tanks,
surface spills of toxic
substances, applications of
agricultural chemicals, urban
runoff, deep injection well
disposal, and other as yet
unknown sources. About 12
percent of the identified
ground-water pollution is
from industry, including
military installations and
railroad centers. A high
incidence of contamination
from organic solvents is
noted. Agriculture and other
nonpoint sources contribute
pesticides, nitrogen, and
dissolved salts. Stormwater
runoff used for ground-
water recharge is also a toxic
pollution source.
A-3
-------
Appendix
Colorado
To obtain a copy of the
Colorado 1988 305(b) report,
contact:
Colorado Department
of Health
Water Quality Division
4210 East llth St.
Denver, CO 80220
Surface Water
Quality
Colorado has 14,100 miles
of streams, nearly all of
which are classified under
State water quality stand-
ards. A total of 4,600 stream
miles have been or are being
routinely monitored, and
5,400 have been evaluated
by special studies as to their
chemical and biological
quality. Of these assessed
streams, 86 percent fully
support uses, 7 percent are
partially impaired, and
7 percent are not supporting
uses.
There are roughly 149,000
acres of lakes in Colorado;
124,746 lake acres were
assessed and nearly all are
reported to be fully support-
ing designated uses.
Man's activities have
affected water quality in the
South Platte River more than
any other major river basin
in Colorado. Exceedances of
water quality standards for
dissolved oxygen, unionized
ammonia, fecal coliforms,
and metals have been iden-
tified within the basin.
Phosphorus, nitrates, and
dissolved solids concentra-
tions in parts of the basin are
generally among the highest
in the State. Tbtal suspended
solids concentrations, how-
ever, are comparatively low.
Water quality in the
Arkansas River basin reflects
early mining activity in the
Leadville area, burgeoning
population in the middle
basin, and agriculture in the
lower basin.
Overall, the quality of
water in the Colorado River
mainstem basin and its main
tributaries is probably the
best hi the State. This quality
has been maintained through
the investment of consider-
able manpower and fiscal
resources into the basin since
the early 1970s.
There are several stream
segments in this basin that
reflect Colorado's early
mining history. These
streams have high metal
loads and some do not
support aquatic life. The
most likely parameter to
exceed standards is copper
and much of this loading is
likely due to natural causes.
The other metals known to
be high on various segments
in the Colorado River main-
stem basin are lead, zinc, and
cadmium.
The San Juan basin has
high quality water except
for the Animas River hi its
headwaters near Silverton.
Because of previous mining
activities, high metals loads
in the mainstem and several
tributaries have significantly
affected their ability to
support aquatic life.
Metals impairment of
several stream segments in
the Rio Grande basin are that
basin's only identified water
quality problem. No water
quality problems have been
identified in the Republican ,
or Green River basins.
Connecticut
Tb obtain a copy of the
Connecticut 1988 305(b)
report, contact:
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection
Water Compliance Unit
122 Washington Street
Hartford, CT 06106
Surface Water
Quality
As of 1988, 582 of Connect-
icut's 880 miles of major
rivers and streams fully
support water-quality goals.
An additional 239 miles
partially support goals. The
remaining 59 miles do not
support most water uses,
other than perhaps limited
aquatic habitat use, naviga-
tion, and industrial activities.
Major sources of water-quality
impairment are municipal
sewage treatment plants,
toxic and conventional
pollutants from industrial
discharges, combined sewer
overflows, and nonpoint
sources.
The most heavily impacted
estuaries in the State are the
urbanized harbors and tidal
portions of major tributary
rivers. Approximately 234 of
the 601 square miles assessed
are suspected of having
water-quality problems. The
sources of pollution, in
descending order of relative
impact, are: municipal
sewage treatment plants;
combined sewer overflows;
toxic and conventional
pollutants from industrial
sources; and nonpoint
sources, such as failing septic
systems and urban runoff.
The Department of Environ-
mental Protection is an
active participant in the
Long Island Sound Water
Quality Study, which began
in 1985. The magnitude of
the Sound's problems are
being researched, pollution
sources identified, and a
management plan and
mathematical model of the
entire Sound are being
developed.
There are 69 major
recreational lakes having
public access in the State.
The most common water-
quality concern in these
lakes is growth of nuisance
weeds and algae caused by
nutrient enrichment.
Nutrient conditions in
impaired lakes are attributed
to natural sources and a
variety of nonpoint sources
such as household waste-
water systems, surface
runoff, land development,
and highway runoff. The
State's eutrophication
abatement program has
resulted in meaningful
water-quality improvements
for 37 percent (by area) of
the lakes assessed. These
efforts will soon be
supported by a new State
grant program for lake
restoration established by
recent legislation.
Less than 1/10 of 1 percent
of Connecticut's 17,500 acres
of tidal wetlands have been
filled since implementation
of the Connecticut Tidal
Wetland Act in 1969. A State
permit program regulates
activities in tidal wetlands,
with very little filling
authorized.
A-4
-------
Appendix
Ground-Water
Quality
Approximately 32 percent
of the population depends
on ground water for potable
water supply. Over 90 percent
of the State's ground-water
resources is presumed to be
suitable for drinking without
treatment. Impacts from
improper solvents handling
and disposal, leaking
underground petroleum
storage tanks, landfill
leachate, pesticides (EDB),
and improper road salt
storage have resulted in the
contamination of 1,332
public and private water
supply wells as of February
1988.
The State of Connecticut
has taken numerous steps to
increase protection of its
ground-water resources.
Among these are the publi-
cation of a Ground-Water
Management Strategy; an
inventory of the State's
largest aquifers and known
or suspected contamination
threats; and the formation of
an Aquifer Protection Task
Force. Ground-water moni-
toring activities include
programs administered by
the Department of Health
Services, Department of
Environmental Protection,
and U.S. Geological Survey.
Delaware
Tb obtain a copy of the
Delaware 1988 305(b) report,
contact:
Delaware Department of
Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
89 Kings Highway
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, DE 19903
Surface Water
Quality
Delaware's surface waters
are, for the most part, in
good condition. Most of the
State's designated uses and
the Clean Water Act fishable/
swimmable goals are
supported. Ninety-three
percent of assessed stream,
lakes, and estuarine waters
are of sufficient quality to
support (in whole or in part)
all uses designated in the
State's Water Quality
Standards for Streams.
Further, about 94 percent
of the State's waters are
determined to be fishable,
and 96 percent are
swimmable.
Excessive bacteria (fecal
coliform and/or enterococcus)
levels continue to be one of
the major water-quality
problems in some of the
State's surface waters. In
most cases, however, these
levels are not so excessive
as to suggest public health
hazards and impairment of
recreational uses.
Excessive nutrient levels
are a water-quality problem
inherent in many of Dela-
ware's waterways. Most of
Delaware's lakes and ponds
are eutrophic. In some cases,
the elevated nutrient levels
detected are natural condi-
tions and do not result from
anthropogenic activities.
Of major concern to the
State are contamination of
harvestable shellfish and
steep reductions in hard clam
landings throughout the
Inland Bays/Coastal Sussex
estuarine waters. These
phenomena are strong indi-
cations of environmental
problems. The landing of
hard clams by commercial
interests has declined
significantly since 1958 due
in part to the closure of
clamming areas because of
public health concerns and
decreased clam density.
Bacterial contamination,
sedimentation, and low
dissolved oxygen are cited as
primary reasons for reduced
harvests. Sources of pollution
contributing to the problem
include treated waste dis-
charges, nutrient enriched
ground water, surface runoff,
septic system overflows, and
natural conditions.
Ground-Water
Quality
More than 38 billion gallons
of high quality ground water
are withdrawn each year for
all uses in the State. The
domestic water needs of
approximately two-thirds of
the State's population are
met with ground water
provided through municipal
and private wells. All of the
fresh water for farm use and
most of the water used for
irrigation and self-supplied
industrial use is also derived
from ground water.
Delaware's ground water
is a relatively unprotected
resource due to generally
high soil permeability and
a shallow water table.
Common causes of ground-
water contamination include
nitrates, iron, pH, salinity,
trihalomethanes, and volatile
organic carbons. Such impur-
ities originate from many
sources, including domestic
on-site wastewater systems,
landfills containing munici-
pal and industrial wastes,
chemical spills and leaks
from tanks or lagoons, agri-
cultural activities, and
saltwater intrusion along the
coast. The limits of natural
treatment and standards of
purity in ground water
are now exceeded more
frequently and over larger
areas than in the past.
In 1985, Delaware imple-
mented new regulations
governing the design,
installation, and operation
of septic systems. These
regulations are designed to
protect ground-water quality.
In addition, Delaware's
Ground-Water Management
Plan identifies a series of
measures to protect ground
water by relying on land use
controls in critical ground-
water resource areas. A
ground-water monitoring
strategy for Delaware was
formulated in FY 1986;
implementation began in
FY 1987.
A-5
-------
Appendix
Delaware
River Basin
1b obtain a copy of the
Delaware River Basin
Commission's 1988 305(b)
report, contact:
Delaware River Basin
Commission
P.O. Box 7360
West Trenton, NJ 08628
Surface Water
Quality
Delaware River and Bay
comprise part of the bound-
ary of four states: Delaware,
New Jersey, New York, and
Pennsylvania. From Hancock
New York to the mouth of
the Delaware Bay, the Dela-
ware River flows 330 miles,
draining 0.4 percent of the
U.S. land area. Almost 10
pecent of the Nation's popu-
lation rely on the waters of
the Delaware River Basin for
potable and industrial water.
In 1987, approximately 94
percent of the assessed river
miles in the Delaware River
Basin were found to be fully
supporting their designated
uses. In the Delaware Bay
itself, approximately 99
percent of the assessed
square miles were fully
supporting their designated
uses.
The Delaware River Basin
Commission (DRBC) also
conducted an assessment of
its waters relative to their
support of the fishable/
swimmable goal of the Clean
Water Act. This assessment
revealed that 100 percent of
the assessed river miles and
98 percent of assessed
estuary square miles were
meeting the fishable goal.
Approximately 94 percent of
the assessed river miles and
99 percent of the assessed
estuary square miles were
meeting the swimmable goal.
Two issues of concern
to the DRBC are toxic
substances and increased
development along the upper
Delaware River. The Dela-
ware River flows through the
world's largest freshwater
port and the second largest
U.S. petrochemical center.
Small, pervasive, unnoticed
spills from this large urban,
industrialized area continue
to have an unknown impact
on the river system. The
cleanup of this river system
since 1972 has brought on a
dramatic increase in recrea-
tion along the Delaware
estuary. In the upper Dela-
ware, growth and develop-
ment threaten the water
quality of two components of
the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers System.
The protection of water
quality from growth-related
impacts (both point and
nonpoint) will be essential
to maintain high quality
reaches of the river and the
water quality improvements
achieved over the last 40
years. Recreational use of the
Delaware River is intense
and increasing in both the
nontidal river and the
estuary; this increased use
makes the maintenance of
water quality a key concern.
An unanswered concern is
the impact of the recrea-
tional use itself on the river's
quality.
Ground-Water
Quality
In December 1982, the
Delaware River Basin
Commission completed a
3-year study leading to the
development of a ground-
water management plan and
implementation program for
the Delaware River Basin.
The study set forth 27 recom-
mendations for improving
the management of ground-
water quality and quantity.
Work continues on the imple-
mentation of these recom-
mendations. One of the
specific recommendations
dealt with the implementa-
tion of a well registration
program. This program,
currently being imple-
mented, will provide data
essential for ground-water
management and protection.
District of
Columbia
To obtain a copy of the
District of Columbia 1988
305(b) report, contact:
Department of Consumer
& Regulatory Affairs
Water Hygiene Branch
5010 Overlook Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20032
Attn: HamidKarimi
Surface Water
Quality
For 1988, the District
of Columbia assessed 100
percent of its estuarine
waters, 72 percent of its
small streams, and 36
percent of its lakes and
impoundments.
Most of the District's
surface waters did not
support all of their desig-
nated uses. The exception
was the Potomac River
estuary, where 83 percent
of estuarine square miles
partially supported desig-
nated uses. Most of the
District's surface waters
designated for use as raw
water sources for industrial
and public water supplies
met these particular uses.
In the District, causes of
nonsupport are typical for
an urban area. Fecal coliform
contamination is a principal
cause of nonsupport of desig-
nated uses. In the Anacostia
River, low dissolved oxygen
levels is a leading cause of
nonsupport of uses. High
metal concentrations are also
a concern, particularly in
many of the District's smaller
streams. Other causes of
nonsupport include oil and
grease, high pH, and high
un-ionized ammonia levels.
Urban runoff, whether
from storm sewers, combined
sewer overflows (CSOs), or
surface runoff, is a principal
source of pollution to District
surface waters. Presently,
combined sewers serve 35
percent of Washington, D.C.
Discharges of untreated
sewage after a rainstorm
results in high fecal coliform,
high biological oxygen
demand, and low dissolved
oxygen. Storm sewers/runoff
add sediment, heavy metals,
road salts, oil, and other
toxics to receiving waters.
Wastewater treatment
plant effluent discharges are
a major source of nutrients to
A-6
-------
Appendix
the Potomac estuary. Imple-
mentation of advanced waste-
water treatment processes at
the Blue Plains Wastewater
Treatment Plant has signifi-
cantly reduced nutrient
loads to District waters. Still
of concern are nutrient
inputs from fall line points,
particularly the upper
Potomac watershed.
Other pollution sources
are more site specific. These
sources include leachate
from landfills, runoff from
industrial yards, leaks from
underground storage tanks,
and breaks in sanitary sewer
lines.
Ground-Water
Quality
Reliable information
regarding the quality of the
ground water in the District
of Columbia is essentially
nonexistent. This is because
virtually all of the City's
water supply needs have
been satisfied by the
Potomac River. To fill the
void in ground-water data
and management activities,
the District has begun a
program for the protection of
ground-water resources. In
1987, the District submitted
to EPA a draft ground-water
protection strategy outlining
plans for ground-water
protection. Additionally, the
District has funded a 3-year
study of its ground-water
resources.
Florida
To obtain a copy of the
Florida 1988 305(b) report,
contact:
Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation
Standards Monitoring
Section
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Surface Water
Quality
Most of Florida's waters are
of good quality; the distribu-
tion of problem areas closely
follows the distribution of
Florida's population. Water
quality problems in the State
are evident around the
densely populated, major
urban areas including Jack-
sonville, Orlando, Tampa, the
Cape Kennedy area, and the
southeastern Florida Coast.
The sparsely populated
northwest and west central
sections of the State have
very good water quality.
Florida has not historically
been highly industrialized.
Thus, difficult and persistent
industrial types of pollution
are not widespread. However,
Florida has undergone an
extensive population growth
in the last two decades which
has resulted in more pollu-
tion sources associated with
development.
Florida reports that it
assessed 90 percent of its
stream miles, and of these,
67 percent fully supported
designated uses. All but 1
percent of the State's lake
acres were assessed. Thirty-
three percent of assessed
lakes were found to be fully
supporting uses and 57
percent were partially
meeting uses. (This lower
degree of use support for
lakes is attributed to the fact
that two lakes—Lake Okee-
chobee and Lake George-
account for almost half of
the assessed lake area in the
State and are partially
meeting uses.)
Ninety-six percent of the
State's estuarine area was
reported as assessed, with 58
percent meeting uses. Of the
State's ocean coastal area,
67 percent was reported as
assessed and 91 percent of
ocean square miles were
found to meet uses.
In previous years, most
water quality problems in the
State were caused by point
sources. Recently, however,
nonpoint sources accounted
for the majority of the State's
water quality problems. This
is because point source treat-
ment processes have improved
and there has been an
increase in the acreage of
agricultural and urban devel-
oped land. Major water
quality problems in Florida
include agricultural runoff,
urban stormwater, domestic
wastewater, pulp and paper
mills, and hydrologic modi-
fication.
Ground-Water
Quality
Because ground water
supplies over 90 percent of
Florida's drinking water,
ground-water programs have
traditionally focused.on the
monitoring of wells for
contamination. Recently,
a program has begun to
monitor ground water as a
system of contiguous reser-
voirs with connection to
surface waters. Data from
over 1,500 wells are being
stored in a data base.
Preliminary analysis of the
data indicates generally
excellent ground-water
quality, particularly in the
Floridan aquifer which
underlies all but the
westernmost and southern-
most parts of Florida.
Major contamination
sources in the State are
underground storage tanks
(primarily for gasoline) and
agricultural activities. Other
pollution sources include
saltwater intrusion, septic
tanks, landfills, phosphate
mining, and hazardous waste
sites. All community water
systems are required to be
tested periodically for 118
organic contaminants. The
contaminants include most
of the priority pollutants as
well as certain pesticides
known to be used in the
State and suspected to be
polluting ground water.
Major ground-water
protection programs in
Florida include a ground-
water classification program;
a permitting program to
regulate underground injec-
tion of wastes; an under-
ground storage tank program
to monitor for leakage and
provide cleanup procedures;
a program to track pesticide
use; a program to regulate
hazardous waste storage,
disposal, and cleanup; and
septic tank and landfill
regulations.
A-7
-------
Appendix
Georgia
Tb obtain a copy of the
Georgia 1988 305(b) report,
contact:
Water Quality Management
Program
Georgia Environmental
Protection Division
270 Washington Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30334
Surface Water
Quality
Water quality in Georgia's
streams in 1986-1987 was
good. An assessment of the
State's 20,000 miles of
streams and rivers indicates
that the vast majority
support designated water
uses. In 1986-1987,97
percent of stream miles
assessed supported desig-
nated uses, 2 percent
partially supported uses, and
1 percent did not support
designated uses. This evalua-
tion is based on predictive
modeling, 20 years of trend
monitoring, intensive
surveys, and special studies,
as well as the judgment of
professional staff members.
Water quality in Georgia's
publicly owned lakes/reser-
voirs in 1986-1987 was good.
Of the 417,730 acres of lakes
assessed, 98.7 percent fully
supported uses, 1.3 percent
partially supported uses, and
0.01 percent did not support
designated uses. All publicly
owned lakes were sampled in
1980 and 1981 as part of the
Georgia Clean Lakes Program.
Monitoring of major lakes
and other selected lakes has
continued on approximately
an annual basis since 1982.
Water quality in Georgia's
estuaries in 1986-1987 was
also good. Of the 594 square
miles of estuaries, 98 percent
fully supported uses, 1 per-
cent partially supported
uses, and 1 percent did not
support designated uses.
Municipal and industrial
discharges, and storm sewers/
runoff are cited as the most
common sources of use
impairment in Georgia rivers,
lakes, and estuaries. Gener-
ally, the causes of most
concern are dissolved oxygen,
nutrients, toxic substances,
turbidity, and fecal coliform
bacteria.
Georgia continued its
strong permitting and
enforcement programs in
1986-1987. A total of 526
NPDES permits were reissued
and Georgia's record of no
permit issuance backlog was
maintained. Ninety percent
of major municipal discharges
and 98 percent of major
industrial discharges main-
tained consistent permit
compliance hi 1986-1987.
However, improperly treated
discharges, spills, and ero-
sion/sedimentation problems
resulted in monetary penal-
ties totaling $542,763 being
levied by the Georgia Envi-
ronmental Protection
Division.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground water is extremely
important to the life, health,
and economy of Georgia. For
example, in 1987, ground
water provided over 30
percent of the public water
supply, 93 percent of the
rural use, 65 percent of the
irrigation use, and almost
half of the industrial use of
water in the State. For prac-
tical purposes, outside the
larger cities of the Piedmont,
ground water is the domi-
nant source of water.
Except where they may
become saline at lower
depths, all of the aquifers can
be considered as potential
sources of drinking water.
For the most part, these
aquifers are underutilized
and generally free of contam-
ination. Water from most of
the aquifers may be safely
consumed without treat-
ment, and, except for
occasional curtailment of
lawn sprinkling, water has
not been rationed.
The most extensive
contamination of Georgia's
aquifers is from naturally
occurring mineral salts (i.e.,
high total dissolved solids).
Another natural source of
contamination is from radio-
active minerals that are
common rock constituents in
many Georgia aquifers. While
naturally occurring radio-
activity may occur anywhere
in Georgia, the most signifi-
cant problems have occurred
at sporadic locations in a
southwest-northeast trend-
ing zone extending from Tift
County to Montgomery
County. Manmade contam-
ination can come from a
number of sources, such as
business and industry,
agriculture, homes (e.g.,
septic systems), and hazard-
ous waste facilities. In 1986,
Georgia developed a compre-
hensive water management
plan that addresses both
surface water and ground-
water availability as well as
surface water and ground-
water quality.
Hawaii
To obtain a copy of the
Hawaii 1988 305(b) report,
contact:
Hawaii Department of Health
P.O. Box 3378
Honololu, HI 96801
Surface Water
Quality
Located some 5,000 miles
in the central and western
Pacific Ocean, Hawaii has a
coastal environment substan-
tially different from that of
the U.S. continental shelf.
Hawaii assessed all of its
river, estuarine, and coastal
waters for this reporting
period. Approximately 76
percent of river miles fully
supported their designated
uses, 30 percent of estuary
square miles fully supported
their designated uses, and
100 percent of ocean coastal
miles supported their
designated uses.
River and stream channel
alterations are considered to
be most damaging to aquatic
freshwater ecosystems,
causing modifications to
natural habitats and changes
in water quality due to flow
restrictions, dissolved oxygen
depletion, turbidity, and
temperature increases. Large
quantities of nonpoint source
pollutants have a significant
impact on stream ecosystems
and nearshore coastal waters.
A-8
-------
Appendix
During heavy flooding, urban
street contaminants and
other debris wash into
streams and drainage canal
systems in urban areas. The
silt-laden waters invariably
discolor nearshore waters
and cause elevated levels of
coliform bacteria, nutrients,
and turbidity.
Most estuaries in the State
are within embayments that
generally are not subject to
rapid and efficient flushing.
Therefore, embayments and
nearshore waters in general
may be significantly affected
by nonpoint source pollution.
Major nonpoint factors
contributing to use impair-
ment in estuarine waters
include stormwater runoff,
construction and agricultural
activities, and natural
erosion. Domestic and Indus-
rial sources of pollution
continually threaten fish and
wildlife sanctuaries. The
State also reports that
wetlands and marshes near
residential districts are
threatened by habitat
alterations due to urban
growth and development.
Ground-Water
Quality
Concerns about the quan-
ity and quality of ground
water and well water systems
continue to be a major issue
in both the public and
private sectors. The 1987
Legislative Session finalized
a State Water Code which
addresses the crucial issue of
ground-water quantity and
use appropriations. Protec-
tion of the Southern Oahu
Aquifer has been afforded by
its designation by EPA as a
sole source aquifer. The Pearl
Harbor ground-water basin,
which has been heavily used
over the past years due to
increased industrial and
urban development, is
included in this massive
area aquifer.
The public's awareness of
ground-water quality issues
has increased in recent years.
Two well surveys in 1987
included first-time analyses
for some unregulated
compounds that had been
believed to be bound strongly
to the soil and therefore not
considered potential contam-
inants. The finding of com-
pounds such as dieldrin and
lindane, albeit at extremely
low levels, has led the State
to reevaluate which com-
pounds should be classified
as leachable.
Because of limited State
funding and State laboratory
resources, the Ground Water
Protection Program has
contracted out analyses for
only 29 comprehensive
screens in 1988. In order to
ensure that the State's
overall ground-water quality
is assessed, the wells chosen
will be from all the Hawaiian
islands except Oahu, where
data are already available.
Idaho
To obtain a copy of the Idaho
1988 305(b) report, contact:
Idaho Department of
the Environment
450 W. State Street
Boise, ID 83720
Surface Water
Quality
The major focus of this
report is the identification
of waters that are not meet-
ing water quality standards
or are not supporting bene-
ficial uses due to pollution
from nonpoint sources.
Over 16,000 stream miles
were assessed for nonpoint
source pollution impacts; this
amounts to approximately
50 percent of the total
stream miles in the State.
Over 12,000 miles of streams
experience some type of non-
point source impact; in half
of these stream miles, at least
one beneficial use is not fully
supported.
The primary nonpoint
source activity impacting
beneficial uses in Idaho
streams is agriculture. The
second most significant
nonpoint source impact is
hydrologic or habitat modi-
fication. Other nonpoint
source activities affecting
Idaho waters are forest prac-
tices, construction, and
mining. The extent of impacts
from these activities varies
by region. Agricultural activ-
ities affect more streams in
the central and southern
regions, while forest prac-
tices are more significant in
the northern region.
Idaho has over 2,800
named freshwater lakes
covering a total of more than
500,000 surface acres. Lake
conditions vary from pristine
to over productive. Most of
the reservoirs in Idaho were
created to provide agricul-
ture irrigation water; many
are experiencing eutrophica-
tion problems due to exces-
sive nutrient and sediment
loading from irrigation
return flows and agricultural
runoff. High alpine lakes are
pristine and generally not
affected by human activities.
Signs of deteriorating water
quality are most notable in
lakes in the panhandle area.
Although few are classified
as eutrophic, there is a strong
public perception of deterior-
ating water quality. Sources
of impact are varied. Shore-
line development results in
impacts from construction,
urban runoff, and subsurface
sewage disposal. Watershed
sources of impact include
mining, agriculture, and
forest practices.
A total of 727,202 lake
acres were assessed for this
report. Of the total lake acres
assessed, 220,410 were classi-
fied as oligotrophic, 407,829
as mesotrophic, and 93,496
as eutrophic.
Ground-Water
Quality
Limited monitoring data
have indicated that most
ground water in Idaho is of
good quality. Where contam-
ination has been found, it
ranges from localized inci-
dents in a few acres to more
widespread nonpoint source
pollution such as elevated
nitrate levels.
A-9
-------
Appendix
Idaho's principal aquifers
have been evaluated for
potential contamination by
the U.S. Geological Survey
and the Department of Water
Resources. Both studies
assessed a wide variety of
potential contaminant
sources, intensity of land
use, and aquifer vulnerability
resulting from geological and
hydrologic factors.
Major land use practices in
Idaho were ranked according
to their contamination poten-
tial. Highest priority sources
were petroleum handling and
storage, feedlots and dairies,
landfills and hazardous
waste disposal sites, and land
application of wastewater.
Nonpoint sources of impact
to ground water are poorly
understood in Idaho, princi-
pally because monitoring
data are inadequate. Limited
monitoring does indicate
nonpoint source impacts
from septic systems and agri-
cultural activities. The rela-
tive importance of nonpoint
source versus point source
impacts, however, is not
known.
Illinois
1b obtain a copy of the
Illinois 1988 305(b) report,
contact:
Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
Division of Water Pollution
Control
2200 ChurchiE Road
Springfield, IL 62706
Surface Water
Quality
Rivers and streams in
Illinois total 14,960 river
miles (13,200 interior river
miles; 1,760 border river
miles). In this reporting
period, 12,970 river miles
were assessed for degree
of use support. Of these
assessed miles, 45 percent
were fully supporting their
designated uses. The major
causes of use impairment
include nutrients, siltation,
habitat/flow alteration,
organic enrichment/low '
dissolved oxygen, ammonia/
chlorine, and metals. The
major sources of use impair-
ment include agriculture,
point sources, hydrologic/
habitat modification,
construction/urban runoff,
and resource extraction.
Ninety-six percent of
assessed stream miles were
found to be meeting the fish-
able goal of the Clean Water
Act (CWA), and 24 percent
were meeting the swimmable
goal.
The State assessed 382
lakes covering 183,572 acres
and representing 74 percent
of the acreage of inland lakes
in Illinois. Twelve percent of
assessed lake acres were
found to support uses, 55
percent were partially
supporting uses, and the
remaining 33 percent were
not supporting uses. Addi-
tionally, 91 percent and
42 percent of these assessed
waters met the f ishable and
swimmable goals of the CWA,
respectively.
The primary causes of use
impairment for lakes are
suspended solids, siltation,
organic enrichment/dissolved
oxygen deficiencies, and
nutrients. Nuisance aquatic
plants and taste and odor are
the next most important
causes affecting impaired
lakes; toxics and other causes
are of relatively minor impor-
tance statewide. Sources
affecting the greatest
number and acreage of lakes
are agriculture (primarily
row crops), in-place contam-
inants (deposited sediment
with associated nutrients
and pollutants), and lake/
stream bank erosion.
Lake Michigan includes a
total of 63 shoreline miles,
forming the northeastern
portion of Illinois' border.
All 63 shoreline miles are
assessed to be partially
supporting designated uses
with minor impairment. The
causes for less than full
support include total phos-
phate concentrations in
water column samples and
priority organics based on
the lakewide sport fish
advisory. Major sources
include atmospheric depo-
sition, urban runoff, and
in-place contaminants. Due
to a sport fish health advis-
ory, Illinois' portion of Lake
Michigan is considered to not
be fully attaining the fishable
goal of the CWA. AU shore-
line miles meet the swim-
mable goals of the Act.
Ground-Water
Quality
' Ground-water monitoring
and assessment information
to date indicate that state-
wide ground-water quality
is generally good. However,
many activities, past and
present, contribute to
ground-water contamination
in Illinois. Major sources of
identified contamination in
the State include leaking
underground storage tanks,
abandoned hazardous waste
sites, and municipal and
industrial landfills. Sub-
stances identified as contam-
inants include organic and
inorganic chemicals, metals,
radioactive materials, pesti-
cides and other agricultural
chemicals, arsenic, brine, and
petroleum products.
The Illinois Ground-Water
Protection Act, signed into
law September 24, 1987,
will help direct new program
initiatives through numerous
agencies to protect the State's
ground-water resources from
future degradation and to
avoid difficult and expensive
remedial cleanup efforts.
A-10
-------
Appendix
Indiana
To obtain a copy of the
Indiana 1988 305(b) report,
contact:
Indiana Department
of Environmental
Management
105 South Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46225
Surface Water
Quality
During the reporting
period, Indiana assessed
5,181 miles of streams,
104,540 acres of lakes, and
43 Great Lake shoreline
miles. Of the waters assessed,
68 percent of the river and
stream miles and over 99
percent of the total inland
lake and reservoir acreage
fully supported their
designated uses. All of
Indiana's portion of Lake
Michigan was considered as
partially supporting desig-
nated uses due to the lake-
wide fish consumption
advisory for certain species.
Of the stream miles
assessed, it was estimated
that the swimmable goal
was supported in 82 percent
and the fishable goal was
supported in 79 percent.
Although both the fishable
and swimmable goals were
supported in over 99 percent
of the total lake and reser-
voir acreas assessed, many
are considered threatened
by point and/or nonpoint
sources of pollution. All of
Lake Michigan governed by
Indiana supported the
"swimmable" goal but was
not considered to support the
"fishable" goal due to the
lakewide fish consumption
advisory.
The major causes of
nonsupport of uses were
fecal coliform bacteria,
organic enrichment and
dissolved oxygen problems,
pesticides, priority organic
compounds, and ammonia.
There is also an indication
that chlorine was moderately
affecting uses. The sources
of substances most often
contributing to nonsupport
of uses were: industrial and
municipal/semi-public point
sources, combined sewer
overflows, and agricultural
nonpoint sources. Nonpoint
sources were most often
considered to have only -
minor to moderate impacts.
One area of special concern
for Indiana is toxics control
and monitoring. Increased
monitoring of fish tissue and
sediments for toxic and
bioconcentrating materials
has occurred in Indiana over
the last two years, and a
considerable amount of data
has been collected. However,
little guidance is currently
available to aid the State in
interpreting this fish tissue
and sediment data as to
health effects and potential
environmental impacts.
Ground-Water
Quality
Indiana's plentiful ground
water resource serves 60
percent of its population for
drinking water and fills many
of the water needs of busi-
nesses, industry, and agri-
culture. Although most of
Indiana's ground water has
not been shown to have been
adversely affected by man's
activities, over 200 sites of
ground-water contamination
have been documented.
These problems affect over
900 individual wells and
several hundred thousand
people.
The substances most
frequently detected as well
water contaminants in the
State are chlorinated volatile
organic chemicals, petroleum
products, and nitrate. Moni-
toring wells at waste disposal
sites most often indicate
ground-water pollution from
inorganic chemicals. About
10 percent of the private
wells and 2 percent of the
noncommunity wells tested
contain excessive nitrate
levels. These are thought to
be primarily of nonpoint
source origin. The sources of
ground-water contamination
most commonly reported in
the State are hazardous
material spills, leaking
underground storage tanks,
and waste disposal activities.
The Indiana Later-Agency
Ground Water Task Force
adopted a final version of the
State Ground Water Protec-
tion Strategy and Draft
Implementation Plan in
early 1987. This document
addresses 43 separate issues
involving wells, ground water
quality, and water quantity,
and makes 160 recommenda-
tions for improved safe-
guards and management
of the resource. The plan
calls for new and revised
laws and rules, new as well as
modified agency programs,
research and information
management, coordination
efforts within and among all.
levels of government, and
continued public partici-
pation.
Iowa
To obtain a copy of the Iowa
1988 305(b) report, contact:
Iowa Department of Natural
Resources
Wallace State Office Building
Des Moines, IA 50319
Surface Water
Quality
Of the 8,235 miles of
streams assessed during 1986
and 1987, about 20 percent
were described as not
supporting the uses for
which they were designated
in the State's water quality
standards. About 79 percent
were partially supporting
those uses. For lakes, 55
percent of the 48,549
assessed acres were found
to be supporting designated
uses, about 42 percent were
partially supporting, and
the remaining were not
supporting uses. Thirty-two
percent of 26,192 assessed
wetland acres were found to
be fully supporting desig-
nated uses, about 54 percent
were partially supporting,
and about 14 percent were
not supporting.
Iowa also assessed attain-
ment of the Clean Water Act
goals for streams, lakes, and
wetlands. Eighty-two
percent of assessed stream
miles, 99 percent of assessed
lakes acres, and 86 percent of
wetland acres were found to
A-11
-------
Appendix
be meeting the fishable goal.
Due to naturally occurring
physical limitations—primar-
ily size and depth of water—
the swimmable goal was not
attainable in 73 percent of
the stream miles and 76 per-
cent of the wetland acres
assessed. Of the waters in
which the swimmable goal is
attainable, 74 percent of the
stream miles, 99 percent of
the lake acres, and 73
percent of the wetland acres
were found to meet the goal.
The stream miles not meet-
ing the swimmable goal were
impaired by fecal coliform
bacteria. The wetland acres
not meeting the swimmable
goal were impaired by sedi-
ment and nutrients.
Nonpoint sources
contributing mainly sedi-
ment, nutrients, and pesti-
cides were the primary
reason for use impairment in
Iowa's streams. Other major
causes of pollution cited by
the State include metals and
pathogens. There are no
direct discharges of waste-
water to lakes in Iowa, so all
lake pollution problems were
attributed to nonpoint
sources. The leading causes
of nonsupport in lakes were
nutrients, siltation, and to a
lesser degree oil and grease.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground-water withdrawals
account for nearly 85 percent
of the total water uses in
Iowa, with approximately 80
percent of all Iowa's drinking
water coming from ground-
water aquifers. The quality
and quantity of Iowa aquifers
vary throughout the State.
Major ground-water
concerns in Iowa center
around human activities and
resultant ground-water con-
tamination. Agricultural
chemicals, landfills, under-
ground storage tanks, agri-
cultural drainage wells,
livestock wastes, and
improper management of
hazardous substances all
contribute to some degree to
ground-water degradation.
Several studies in north-
eastern Iowa have focused
primarily on contamination
involving nitrates, pesticides,
and other manmade organic
chemicals. High levels of
nitrates have been detected
in ground-water drinking
water supplies throughout
the State. Nitrogen fertilizer
usage, animal wastes, and
wastewater treatment all
contribute to elevated nitrate
levels in ground water.
Studies in northeast Iowa's
karst areas and statewide
sampling during 1985,1986,
and 1987 have detected low
levels of various pesticides in
Iowa ground water. Runoff
into agricultural drainage
wells and sinkholes, as well
as inf filtration through soils,
are believed to be the sources
of pesticide contamination.
Except for instances where
contamination has been
found in the vicinity of ag-
chemical dealerships, the
concentrations of pesticides
found are thought to pose no
immediate threat to public
health. However, little is
known about the effects of
long-term exposure to low
concentrations of many of
these chemicals or their
breakdown products.
Along with pesticides,
synthetic organic compounds
have also been detected in
Iowa ground water. In several
instances, concentrations
have been detected that are
high enough to be considered
a health concern for long-
term exposure.
In 1987, Iowa initiated
ground-water protection
legislation under the Ground-
Water Protection Act. This
Act combines regulatory and
nonregulatory approaches to
protect Iowa's ground-water
sources. This law includes
provisions relating to pesti-
cide and fertilizer sales and
use, as well as improved
management practices relat-
ing to specific environmental
concerns: solid waste
disposal, underground storage
tanks, agricultural drainage
wells, and sinkholes.
Kansas
lb obtain a copy of the
Kansas 1988 305(b) report,
contact:
Kansas Department of
Health and Environment
Water Quality Assessment
Section
Bureau of Water Protection
Forbes Field
Topeka, KS 66620
Surface Water
Quality
During Water Years 1986-
1987, Kansas assessed 6,888
miles of streams and 173,911
acres of lakes. Of the river
miles assessed, 58 percent
fully supported designated
uses, 11 percent partially
supported designated uses,
and 31 percent did not
support designated uses.
Of the lake acres assessed,
67 percent fully supported
designated uses, 28 percent
partially supported desig-
nated uses, and 5 percent did
not support designated uses.
Assessment of Kansas
waters relative to their
support of fishable/swim-
mable goal of the Clean
Water Act revealed that 100
percent of assessed lake
acres met both the fishable
and swimmable goal. Ninety-
five percent of the river
miles assessed met the
fishable goal and 79 percent
met the swimmable goal.
The main causes of use
impairment in rivers were
determined to be pathogens
and salinity. The leading
sources are agriculture and
municipal dischargers. For
lakes, the main causes of use
impairment appear to be
siltation, salinity, and metals.
Agriculture and hydrological/
habitat modifications were
the leading sources of use
impairment in the lakes.
Ground-Water
Quality
Kansans rely on ground-
water resources for public,
rural, industrial, and irriga-
tion water supplies. Approx-
imately 85 percent of all
water used in Kansas is
supplied from ground water.
Irrigation continues to be the
largest user of ground water.
In rural areas, ground water
supplies 85 percent of the
drinking water.
Ground-water quality
problems in Kansas are
generally localized. About
A-12
-------
Appendix
300 isolated ground-water
pollution problems are
known and are generally the
result of human activities.
Pesticide contamination of
ground water is a site-specific
problem; more analysis is
needed to determine the
extent of contamination. The
Kansas Department of Health
and Environment (KDHE)
has established a Bureau of
Environmental Remediation
to respond to State contam-
ination cleanup needs.
Some Kansas ground water
is not desirable for drinking
because of inorganic chem-
icals and mineralization.
Screening of Public Water
Supply wells for volatile
organic chemicals resulted in
the removal of over 30 wells
from service. Nitrate was
found to exceed public
Drinking Water Standards in
several studies, including the
Farmstead WeE Contamina-
tion Study. The KDHE and
the U.S. Geologic Survey
maintain a ground-water
monitoring network and
conduct special investiga-
tions as warranted.
Kentucky
To obtain a copy of the
Kentucky 1988 305(b) report,
contact:
Kentucky Division of Water
Water Quality Branch
18 Reilly Road
Frankfort Office Park
Frankfort, KY 40601
Surface Water
Quality
During the reporting
period, Kentucky assessed
8,653 miles of streams and
214,483 acres of lakes.
Approximately 71 percent
of assessed river miles fully
supported their designated
uses, as did 84 percent of
assessed lake acres.
The major causes of use
nonsupport in rivers were
fecal coliform contamina-
tion, affecting primary
contact recreation use, and
siltation, impairing warm-
water aquatic habitat use.
The major sources of the
fecal coliform contamination
were municipal wastewater
treatment plant discharges.
Nonpoint sources, primarily
surface mining and unspeci-
fied other sources such as
agriculture, were the major
sources of siltation.
Iron and manganese were
the greatest cause of use
nonsupport in lakes. This was
largely due to impacts on
domestic water supplies from
hypolimnetic water released
from large reservoirs.
Nutrients were the second
greatest cause of use non-
support and affected the
largest number of lakes.
Natural sources, surface
mining, and unspecified
nonpoint sources accounted
for the greatest impacts to
lakes.
The discharge of brines to
Kentucky waters remains a
serious problem, particularly
in portions of the Licking and
Kentucky River drainages.
Significant improvements in
water quality in parts of
the Blaine Creek drainage
resulted from the application
of newly promulgated Federal
chloride criteria to oil and
gas permitting actions.
Continuation of the permit-
ting activities should signif-
icantly improve water quality
in the other areas affected
by brine pollution.
The loss of wetland
resources and adverse
impacts to remaining wet-
land areas are of concern to
the State. It is estimated that
half of Kentucky's original
wetland acreage is gone.
Nearly all of the remaining
areas have been degraded by
pesticides, acid mine drain-
age, siltation, oil brine,
or domestic and industrial
waste. A major threat to
Kentucky wetlands is
destruction by competing
land use activities and poor
land management practices.
Ground-Water
Quality
With some exceptions, the
quality of Kentucky's ground
water is good. Special studies
were conducted in 1987 on
199 wells in the Gateway
Area Development District
and the Calvert City area.
Isolated occurrences of fecal
coliform contamination were
found and attributed to
faulty well construction. No
significant cases of organic
contamination were found.
While these studies point out
the good quality of the
ground water in these areas,
other statewide problems
remain to be solved. Impacts
from sanitary landfills and
domestic on-site sewage
treatment, inconsistencies
in Federal and State laws
regarding ground water, and
improperly abandoned wells
are of concern.
Louisiana
To obtain a copy of the
Louisiana 1988 305(b) report,
contact:
Department of
Environmental Quality
Standards Development
& Implementation Section
Water Pollution Control
Division <
P.O. Box 44091
Baton Rouge, LA 70804-4091
Surface Water
Quality
Louisiana contains a
plentiful supply of water
resources comprising an
estimated 290,000 river and
stream miles, 715,812
lake/reservoir acres, and
7,656 square miles of
estuaries. Of the 8,483 total
river miles assessed, 68
percent are fully supporting
designated uses, 25 percent
are partially supporting
designated uses, and 7
percent are not supporting
designated uses. Seventy-
A-13
-------
Appendix
three percent of the State's
715,812 assessed lake acres
are fully supporting their
designated uses, and 27
percent are partially
supporting their designated
uses. Of the 7,656 square
miles of estuaries which
were assessed, 55 percent
are fully supporting their
designated uses, 42 percent
are partially supporting
designated uses, and 2
percent are not supporting
designated uses.
The most frequently cited
pollutants identified as
causes of use are fecal
coliform bacteria, oxygen-
demanding substances,
nutrients, oil, and inorganic
impairment (specifically,
chlorides and brine). The
most commonly cited sources
of pollutants are runoff from
unsewered communities,
inadequately treated sewage
discharges from municipal-
ities, discharges and spills
from petroleum activities,
agricultural runoff, and
urban runoff. At this time,
nonpoint sources appear to
be the predominant sources
contributing to water quality
problems in the State.
Waterbodies that
experience frequent or
chronic depressed levels of
dissolved oxygen (DO) are of
special concern to the State.
Low DO levels can result
from a combination of
natural and man-induced
sources which are frequently
difficult to separate. Low DO
levels can be attributed to
partially or inadequately
treated sewage and to
natural conditions, especially
in waterbodies surrounded
by wetlands which contribute
nutrients, organic matter,
A-14
and other oxygen demanding
substances. The DO levels in
many of Louisiana's water-
bodies reflect the impact of
wetland drainage.
Ground-Water
Quality
The quality of water in the
State's major aquifer systems
remains excellent. The
deeper aquifers remain free
from contamination. Of
specific concern in Louis-
iana, however, are the
shallow aquifers and the
water bearing zones which
are not used as major sources
of water. These strata, which
have been shown to contrib-
ute significantly to the water
balance of the deeper aqui-
fers, are becoming increas-
ingly threatened. This threat
is two-fold. Site-specific
contamination of these
shallow strata presents a
direct threat to the major
aquifers by means of leakage
through well bores, strati-
graphic interconnections,
and fractures. In addition,
individual wells are located
in these shallow strata and
may become directly contam-
inated.
Tb address this growing
problem, the Department of
Environmental Quality now
has a Ground Water Protec-
tion Division within the
Office of Water Resources. In
addition to enforcing State
and Federal ground-water
protection programs, the new
Division is working on the
development of a State
ground-water protection
strategy. Although this
strategy is still under devel-
opment, the protection of all
potential sources of drinking
water will be a key goal.
Maine
To obtain a copy of the Maine
1988 305(b) report, contact:
Maine Department of
Environmental Protection
State House Station No. 17
Augusta, ME 04333
Surface Water
Quality
During Water Years 1986-
1987, 31,672 river miles,
994,560 lake acres, and 1,633
square miles of estuary were
assessed. This represents 100
percent of the total size of
waterbodies in the State. Of
the assessed waters, 99
percent of river miles, 96
percent of lake acres, and 98
percent of estuary square
miles fully supported their
designated uses.
In the more populated
areas of Maine, water quality
is affected by a combination
of point sources such as
industrial and municipal
effluents, and nonpoint
sources such as urban and
suburban stormwater runoff,
combined sewer overflows,
agriculture, construction-
related runoff, and waste
disposal practices. Most of
the larger municipal and
industrial effluents now
receive the equivalent of
best practicable treatment.
This has led to improved
. water quality in the State's
major rivers in the last 20
years. Given the difficulties
of controlling nonpoint
sources, the low number of
remaining untreated point
sources, and the emergence
of ground-water quality and
hydropower as major
concerns, it is doubtful that
future water quality improve-
ments will continue at the
same rate as in the past.
Ground-Water
Quality
During the past 10 years,
many wells in Maine have
been abandoned due to
contamination from
nonpoint source pollution.
Based on present knowledge
of pollution sources affecting
ground water, it is safe to
assume that there are thou-
sands of sites in Maine with
unpotable ground water. The
State is currently formu-
lating a Ground Water
Strategy to deal with the
alarming degradation of this
critical resource. Preventive
rather than reactive measures
will form the basis of this
strategy.
Major sources of ground-
water contamination in the
State include septic systems,
agricultural activities,
improper storage, and
disposal of hazardous sub-
stances, landfill leachate,
leaking underground storage
tanks, and salt storage/road
deicing. Present trends
indicate that more of Maine's
ground water is becoming
contaminated each year, and
almost none is being restored
to acceptable levels of qual-
ity. Migration and expansion
of existing contamination
plumes would be a contin-
uing concern even if current
pollution sources could be
addressed.
-------
Appendix
Maryland
Tb obtain a copy of the
Maryland 1988 305(b) report,
contact:
Maryland Department of
the Environment
Chesapeake Bay & Special
Projects Program
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
Surface Water
Quality
The State's surface waters
are of good quality and
exhibit stable trends even
though many problems still
exist and new ones have
been identified. The most
serious of these problems is
the continuing accumulation
of nutrients in estuaries and
impoundments. Suspended
sediments continue to be a
problem in both free-flowing
and tidal waters. Locally
elevated bacterial levels are
found throughout the State,
and have resulted in some
areas being closed to recrea-
tional bathing or shellfish
harvesting. Acid mine drain-
age from many abandoned
coal mines in Western Mary-
land remains a long standing,
difficult problem to solve.
The presence of the toxic
pesticide chlordane in some
sediments and fish tissues in
Baltimore Harbor, Back
River, and Lake Roland indi-
cates a long-term pollution
problem.
Of the 9,300 miles of rivers
and streams assessed in
Maryland, nearly 93 percent
fully supported their desig-
nated uses, 5 percent par-
tially supported uses, and
about 2 percent did not
support their designated
uses. Of the 17,448 acres of
large public lakes assessed in
the State, 85 percent fuUy
supported their intended
uses, 15 percent partially
supported uses, and less than
1 percent did not support
their intended uses. None of
the 1,981 square miles of the
mainstem Chesapeake Bay
estuary fully supported
designated uses. No water
quality impacts were noted
along 32 miles of the open
ocean coast.
Nutrients, sediments, and
bacteria are the three major
causes of use impairment in
the State. These problems
occur statewide and in most
waterbody types. Regional
causes of severe water
quality impacts include
organic enrichment in the
Chesapeake Bay estuary and
in the lower tidal rivers, and
acidity in the State's western
rivers and streams near
abandoned coal mines. Other
causes of severe water
quality impacts include pesti-
cide contamination (chlor-
dane) and flow alteration.
Leading sources of impair-
ment include agricultural
and urban runoff, mining,
rural conditions, municipal
discharge, land disposal
(failing septic systems and
raw sewage input), bottom
sediment releases, and
upstream sources.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground-water resources in
Maryland are an abundant
natural resource. Although it
comprises only 13 percent of
the total water used in the
State, ground water is of
substantial cultural and
economic importance. For
example, ground water
constitutes up to 97 percent
of the total water used in
some Eastern Shore counties.
Approximately 15 percent of
the State's population use
ground water as a drinking
water supply; other major
uses of ground water include
livestock water supply, irri-
gation, and industrial uses.
On the whole, the State's
ground waters are of accept-
able quality. However, a
number of localized instances
of ground-water contamina-
tion exist. Locally serious
impacts occur as a result of
excess nitrates, bacteria, salt,
toxic compounds, and petro-
leum products. In some cases,
water supply wells have been
closed.
Existing or potential
sources of ground-water
contamination in the State
include septic systems, land-
fills and dumps, underground
storage tanks, saltwater
intrusion, agricultural activ-
ities, surface impoundments
and injection wells, spills and
improper storage, and land
application of sewage sludge
and wastewater.
Massachusetts
To obtain a copy of the
Massachusetts 1988 305(b)
report, contact:
Massachusetts Division of
Water Pollution Control
Westview Building
Lyman School Grounds
Westborough, MA 01581
Surface Water
Quality
Water quality in Massa-
chusetts has not changed
significantly since 1986.
The State reports that water
quality impacts from point
sources appear to be declin-
ing as a result of the construc-
tion and upgrading of waste-
water treatment plants.
Nonpoint sources, however,
continue to degrade water
quality and are more appar-
ent now that control of point
sources has improved.
Data for this reporting
period indicate that 43
percent of the 1,646 river
miles assessed fully support
their designated uses, 36
percent partially support
uses, and 20 percent do not
support their uses. Of 171
estuarine square miles
assessed, 32 percent support
uses, 65 percent partially
support uses, and 4 percent
do not support uses.
In Massachusetts' rivers
and estuaries, coliform
bacteria are the leading
cause of the impairment of
designated uses.' Combined
sewer overflows and munic-
ipal sewage treatment plants
are the major point source of
fecal coliform bacteria, while
urban runoff and failing
A-15
-------
Appendix
septic systems are its leading
nonpoint source contrib-
utors. Nutrients, dissolved
oxygen, and biochemical
oxygen demanding substances
are also significant causes of
use impairment.
Monitoring data indicate
that 91 percent of the State's
river miles are f ishable and 9
percent are posted with a
fish consumption advisory.
Of the State's estuarine
waters, 68 percent are fish-
able, 31 percent have fish
consumption advisories, and
1 percent are under fishing
bans. FOB and heavy metal
contamination are the cause
offish consumption advis-
ories and bans in the State.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground-water supplies
serve approximately 33
percent of the population in
Massachusetts, with around
400,000 individuals relying
on private on-site wells.
Since 1960,41 municipalities
have been affected by chem-
ical or bacterial contamina-
tion of municipal water
supplies. This has resulted in
temporary or permanent
closures of 108 public wells,
well fields, or reservoirs
across the State. There are
few statistics on private well
closures.
Ground-water monitoring
is conducted through routine
testing, the State Purgeable
Organic Testing (SPOT) Pro-
gram, citizen requests, and
special studies. This moni-
toring has resulted in well
closures due to elevated
levels of organics, iron and
manganese, salt, petroleum
products, coliform, and the
pesticide EDB. Other
contaminants cited include
nitrates, MBAs, phenols,
trihalomethanes, and
calcium carbonate.
Contamination was traced
to industrial sources, includ-
ing leaking sewer lines and
storage areas, discharges, and
illegal dumping; leaking
underground tanks; landfills;
overdevelopment; septic
systems; road salts; a sewage
treatment plant; and natural
conditions or unknown
sources. Private water sup-
plies are also threatened by
pesticides from agricultural
activities.
Much has been accom-
plished in the past 5 years
to further ground-water
protection and cleanup in
Massachusetts. A1983
Ground Water Protection
Strategy set the organiza-
tional framework necessary
to identify and effectively
and efficiently address
matters affecting ground-
water quality and public
health. Within the context of
this strategy, new regulatory
programs and financial
and technical assistance
programs have been devel-
oped and implemented.
Closed and contaminated
water supplies have been
treated, local land use
controls have been strength-
ened, and grants for the
purchase of land to protect
wells have been distributed.
Because of these programs
and grants, 26 percent of the
closed municipal supplies
have been brought back on
line and an additional 17.6
percent are slated for
reactivation.
Michigan
To obtain a copy of the
Michigan 1988 305(b) report,
contact:
Michigan Department of
Natural Resources
Surface Water Quality
Division
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, MI 48909
Surface Water
Quality
Water quality in Michigan's
lakes and streams is gener-
ally quite good. The inland
waters of the upper penin-
sula and the northern half
of the lower peninsula are
of excellent quality and
generally contain diverse
aquatic communities. In the
southern part of the State,
lakes and streams have been
affected by surface water
runoff from agricultural land
and urban centers, and by
municipal and industrial
discharges.
During the reporting
period, Michigan assessed
36,350 miles of streams,
424,021 acres of lakes, and
3,288 Great Lake shoreline
miles. Designated uses were
supported in 98 percent of
the assessed river miles and
72 percent of assessed lake
acres. Since all Michigan
waters of the Great Lakes
have public health fish
consumption advisories in
place for at least one species
due to elevated levels of toxic
materials in their tissue, the
State's Great Lakes waters
are considered to be not fully
supporting their designated
uses.
Four of the five Great
Lakes border Michigan.
Three of these lakes-
Superior, Michigan, and
Huron—are considered to be
oligotrophic and of excellent
quality. Water quality in
Saginaw Bay of Lake Huron
has improved considerably in
recent years and has contrib-
uted to improved water qual-
ity conditions in Lake Huron.
Conditions in Lake Erie have
also improved. Lake Erie is
still considered to be eutro-
phic, but biological communi-
ties are becoming more
balanced and there are fewer
problems with low dissolved
oxygen levels. Michigan is
currently preparing or
implementing Remedial
Action Plans for several
Great Lakes nearshore Areas
of Concern to improve water
quality conditions in these
historically degraded areas.
Over the past 20 years,
pollution abatement efforts
have reduced water quality
problems in many Michigan
waters. Eutrophication prob-
lems in particular have been
substantially reduced due to
major point source reduc-
tions in phosphorus and
organic material loads. The
State is now increasing its
efforts at determining the
magnitude of nonpoint
source nutrient loads and
formulating nonpoint source
control programs.
Ibxic contaminants
continue to have a major
impact on water resources in
several areas of the State.
Michigan has recently imple-
mented an industrial pre-
treatment program, promul-
gated new rules on the
discharge of toxic materials,
and regulated hazardous
A-16
-------
Appendix
waste disposal facilities to
control the discharge of
these substances. However,
many problems are due to
in-place pollutants that have
accumulated in bottom sedi-
ments from historical dis-
charges. At present, little is
known about the interaction
of these materials with the
aquatic environment, the
extent of contamination in
problem areas, the specific
chemical compounds
involved, or toxic material
resuspension and transport
rates.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground water is readily
available at most locations in
Michigan, although there are
some places in the western
upper peninsula and southern
Michigan where yields are
low. Most of the State's
ground water is of excep-
tional quality and is used for
a variety of purposes includ-
ing domestic consumption,
crop irrigation, food process-
ing, and industrial processes.
Approximately half of Michi-
gan's residents, or about 4.6
million people, depend on
ground water as their sole
source of drinking water. The
withdrawal of ground water
for public consumption is the
largest use of this resource
in Michigan.
Certain aquifers have
become contaminated by
toxic materials leaking from
waste disposal sites, busi-
nesses, or government facil-
ities. Actual or potential
ground-water contamination
has been identified at 1,778
sites in Michigan. At this
time, 69 of these sites are
also on the Federal Super-
fund list.
As of January 1988, 35
Michigan municipal well
systems were known to have
been affected by toxic
contaminants and over 950
private residential wells were
known to be contaminated.
Even greater numbers of
public and private wells are
potentially affected by
known contamination sites.
Various steps are being
taken to protect the State's
ground water including the
cleanup of hazardous waste
sites and contaminated
aquifers, the regulation of
activities that could poten-
tially impact ground-water
supplies, and monitoring
ground-water quality. An
interagency ground-water
management and protection
program is being imple-
mented.
Minnesota
1b obtain a copy of the
Minnesota 1988 305(b)
report, contact:
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
Water Monitoring and Data
Management Unit
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155
Surface Water
Quality
Control of point source
discharges has been vastly
improved in Minnesota. How-
ever, as land use increases
and intensifies, the adverse
impact of nonpoint source
pollution and toxic contam-
ination presents an increas-
ing challenge to the State's
efforts to protect water
quality.
During the reporting
period, Minnesota assessed
4,443 miles of streams,
1,435,554 acres of lakes, and
272 Great Lake shoreline
miles. Of the assessed waters,
35 percent of river miles,
84 percent of lake acres, and
100 percent of Great Lake
shoreline miles were fully
supporting their designated
uses.
The major causes of use
impairment in rivers were
siltation, nutrients, patho-
gens, and organic enrich-
ment. Seventy-three percent
of impaired river miles were
affected by nonpoint sources
of pollution. The only cause
of use impairment cited for
lakes was nutrients, primarily
from nonpoint sources.
Fish tissue analyses were
used to identify waters con-
taminated with bioaccumu-
lative toxics and to monitor
heavily used water for
potential problems. Mercury
and PCBs were determined
to be the leading causes of
nonsupport of fish consump-
tion uses in lakes; in rivers,
PCBs were the leading cause,
although mercury was also
a factor. In rivers, toxic
contamination of fish tissue
generally occurred below
major municipalities.
Ground-Water
Quality
At least 75 percent of all
Minnesotans rely on ground
water for their drinking
water supply. Water use
within the State was divided
into five major categories:
public water supply; rural
domestic and livestock water
supply; irrigation; thermo-
electric power generation;
and self-supplied industrial
use. Public and domestic
water supply account for
55.7 percent of the ground
water withdrawn, which was
more than 140 billion gallons
in 1985.
The Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA) has
conducted a Ground Water
Quality Monitoring Program
since 1978. The monitoring
network consists of approx-
imately 400 wells and springs
statewide, which are sampled
in a 4-year rotation and
analyzed for basic constit-
uents and volatile organic
compounds. Pesticides are
also analyzed for a very
limited basis.
The natural quality of
Minnesota's ground water is
generally quite good, with
concentrations usually
falling far below the primary
drinking water standards.
However, there is growing
concern over increased
nitrate and pesticide contam-
ination. The influence of
land use activities on ground-
water quality can be seen in
the chronic exceedances of
the nitrate standard in the
southwestern counties,
where animal feedlots are
concentrated. Nitrates are
also frequently elevated in
the karst areas of south-
eastern Minnesota, as well
as in the shallow surficial
unconsolidated sandplain
aquifers which supply water
in the central areas along the
Mississippi River Basin.
Other recent ground-water
monitoring programs of
interest are the cooperative
pesticide surveys conducted
A-17
-------
Appendix
by the Minnesota Depart-
ments of Agriculture and
Health. The wells tested in
the surveys were generally
located in places where local
hydrogeology indicates
susceptibility to pesticide
contamination. Approx-
imately 500 samples were
collected; about 38 percent
of all samples had detectable
levels of one or more
pesticides.
The State is working to
control and abate ground-
water pollution through its
ground-water protection
strategy and development
of municipal ground-water
standards.
Mississippi
To obtain a copy of the
Mississippi 1988 305(b)
report, contact:
Mississippi Department of
Natural Resources
Bureau of Pollution Control
Water Quality Management
Section
P.O. Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39209
Surface Water
Quality
Of Mississippi's 15,600
miles of rivers, about 89
percent fully support
designated uses. Over 97
percent of these miles were
rated as meeting the f ishable
goal of the Clean Water Act
and 95 percent were rated as
meeting the swimmable goal.
The most significant impacts
on impaired streams arose
primarily from nutrients,
siltation, and to a lesser
extent pesticides, priority
organics, metals, chlorine,
organic enrichment/dissolved
oxygen, and salinity. The
major source of these pollut-
ants is agricultural runoff.
With implementation of Best
Management Practices, all
streams classified for Fish
and Wildlife or higher uses
could potentially attain
support of the f ishable/
swimmable goal.
Over 96 percent of the
State's 500,000 acres of lakes
fully support designated
uses, with the remainder
partially supporting uses. All
lakes were determined to be
supporting the f ishable/
swimmable goal of the Clean
Water Act. Lakes rated as
partially supporting their use
classification are affected by
nonpoint sources, primarily
agricultural runoff.
As in rivers and lakes,
nonpoint sources are the
primary reason for use
impairment in Mississippi's
estuaries and coastal waters.
Approximately 133 square
miles of estuaries were
assessed for this report. Of
these, 126 square miles fully
support designated uses,
6 square miles partially sup-
port uses, and only 1 square
mile does not support desig-
nated uses. Of 81 coastal
miles, 40 miles fully support
designated uses but are
threatened. Another 30 miles
are partially supporting and
11 miles are nonsupporting.
Except for periodic excur-
sions of the bacteria standard
for recreation, all of these
coastal waters were found to
support the fishable/swim-
mable goal of the Clean
Water Act.
High fecal coliform levels
along the Mississippi Gulf
Coast are a serious concern
in the State. This problem
has been caused by rapid
development on the Gulf
Coast and the inability of
existing sewage collection
and treatment systems to
keep up with population
growth. Significant improve-
ment is anticipated with the
implementation of regional
sewage treatment plants for
the three-county area.
Another area of concern
is the Mississippi Delta. This
fertile farmland has been
subjected to intense tillage
and use of agricultural
chemicals over many years;
lakes and streams in the area
have been affected. Although
serious problems with DDT,
its derivatives, and toxa-
phene have declined signif-
icantly since 1976, use of
toxaphene as a herbicide is
increasing. Improvements in
the Delta should be gradually
noted as less persistent
chemicals are used at
optimum spraying times. In
addition, educational efforts
through the 208 Program and
other agricultural programs
are resulting in use of Best
Management Practices such
as minimum tillage, filter
strips, crop residue use, and
safe pesticide container
disposal.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground water in Missis-
sippi is of good quality;
however, in some areas
natural problems such as low
pH, excessive iron, excessive
dissolved solids, and
excessive color are noted.
Localized ground-water
contamination problems
have been found near a
number of RCRA-regulated
surface impoundments.
Ground-water contamination
has also been found near
several wood preserving
facilities and chemical
companies. All of these
contamination incidences
involve shallow aquifers. The
U.S. Geological Survey, in
cooperation with the Missis-
sippi Department of Natural
Resources, has completed a
study of ground-water and
surface-water contamination
in five areas of southern
Mississippi. The study
indicated that brine contam-
ination in shallow aquifers
has occurred in parts of the
Pickens, Tinsley, Brook-
haven, Little Creek, and
Ryan oil fields. A number of
areas in southwestern Missis-
sippi were also found to be
contaminated by brine. The
study also indicates that
parts of deeper aquifers may
be contaminated in Tinsley
and Brookhaven oil fields.
The Mississippi State
Department of Health is
responsible for administering
the Federal Safe Drinking
Water Act for the State.
Approximately 96 wells
serving 32 water supplies
have been sampled for
volatile organic chemicals
(VOCs) in addition to primary
drinking water parameters.
Four of these public water
supplies sampled contained
VOCs. Two of these contam-
ination instances were
directly related to leaking
underground storge tanks
and the other two are
unresolved. When contam-
A-18
-------
Appendix
ination of an underground
source of drinking water
occurs, the Department of
Natural Resources works
with the Department of
Health to define a potential
contaminant source.
Missouri
1b obtain a copy of the
Missouri 1988 305(b) report,
contact:
Missouri Department of
Natural Resources
Division of Environmental
Quality
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson, MO 65102
Surface Water
Quality
During 1986-1987, Missouri
assessed 19,630 miles of
rivers and 288,012 acres of
lakes. Of the State's rivers
and streams, 52 percent were
fully supporting uses and all
but 0.2 percent of the
remainder were partially
supporting their uses. Most
impaired waters are affected
by extensive land uses, espe-
cially row crop agriculture.
Of the State's lakes and
reservoirs, 99 percent were
fully supporting their desig-
nated uses.
The number of stream
miles affected by point
sources in Missouri has been
dropping since 1982 as the
result of sewage treatment
plant construction and a
statewide assessment
program that has targeted
projects of greatest need.
Nonpoint source control
efforts, however, have lagged
behind. A State-funded
program to address soil
erosion is under way on a
watershed basis, and some
improvements are expected
from the reclamation of
abandoned coal mines.
Impacts from abandoned
lead-zinc mining areas are
not being addressed, and
programs to abate agricul-
tural erosion are of small
scope compared to the size
of the problem.
Another leading concern
in the State is the continuing
channelization (e.g., realign-
ment, straightening) of
streams, which reduces the
quantity and quality of
aquatic habitat, increases
water temperature, and
increases erosion and sedi-
mentation. Also of concern is
the presence of chlordane in
fish tissue, which has resulted
in fish consumption adviso-
ries in 683 stream miles and
700 lake acres. Chlordane
was used hi termite control
and is believed to enter
waterways as a result of
storm sewers/runoff.
Ground-Water
Quality
The State has identified 17
areas of known ground-water
contamination. These areas
have been contaminated by a
variety of compounds such
as organic chemicals, pesti-
cides, heavy metals, and
nitrates. Public and private
wells are at risk or have been
affected at a number of these
sites. In addition, nitrates
and bacteria from septic
tanks and local surface con-
taminants are a problem
statewide.
Missouri discusses its
ground-water contamination
sources as follows:
• Public supplies at Repub-
lic and Liberty, Missouri,
have been contaminated and
long-term water use may be a
health risk from abandoned
hazardous waste sites.
Although unconfirmed, this
source is probably also
responsible for contamina-
tion and potential health risk
with long-term water use for
public supplies at Kirkwood
and Valley Park, Missouri.
• Present documentation
of Federal and State incident
files established under-
ground storage tanks as the
most common sources of
contamination requiring
remediation. Industry aware-
ness and new regulations
should have a very strong
input within 5 years.
• Septic tanks are respon-
sible for bacterial, viral, and
nitrate contamination of
many improperly cased or
uncased private wells
through the State.
• Fertilizer and pesticides
are causing localized ground-
water contamination in
agricultural areas. The extent
and degree of the problem
are still being assessed. Of
greatest concern are areas
where bulk quantities of
these chemicals are routinely
stored or mixed and areas
where spills have occurred.
• Although no public water
supplies have been contam-
inated or are believed to be
seriously threatened by
surface impoundments used
to store liquid waste, these
have probably been the
largest source of hazardous
waste in ground waters by
volume.
Montana
To obtain a copy of the
Montana 1988 305(b) reportj
contact:
Montana Water Quality
Bureau
Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences
Cogswell Building
Helena, MT 59620
Surface Water
Quality
Natural waters in Montana
range in quality from the
almost distilled waters of
some headwater lakes and
streams in the west, to
waters exceeding the salinity
of seawater in parts of
eastern Montana.
About 80 percent of
Montana's stream miles have
been evaluated for water
quality conditions and about
15 percent are monitored on
a regular basis. Of the stream
miles that have been eval-
uated and monitored, 63
percent fully support desig-
nated uses, 34 percent par-
tially support designated
uses, and 3 percent do not
support designated uses.
The major causes of use
impairment in Montana's
streams are siltation,
nutrients, salinity, flow
alteration, thermal modifica-
A-19
-------
Appendix
tion, habitat alteration, and
metals. Major sources include
agriculture, resource extrac-
tion, hydromodification,
natural and unknown
sources, forest practices,
and construction.
About 70 percent of
MontanaTs lake acres have
been evaluated for water
quality conditions and about
17 percent are monitored on
a regular basis. Of the lake
acres that have been eval-
uated and monitored, 52
percent fully support desig-
nated uses, 46 percent
partially support designated
uses, and 2 percent do not
support designated uses.
The major causes of use
impairment in Montana lakes
are habitat alteration, salin-
ity, siltation, and nutrients.
Major sources in lakes
include hydromodification
and agriculture.
Ground-water
Quality
The principal sources of
ground-water contamination
in Montana are underground
storage tanks, spills, mineral
processing, abandoned haz-
ardous waste sites, septic
tanks, and agricultural activ-
ities. Principal substances
contaminating ground water
are petroleum products,
metals, cyanide, organic
chemicals, nitrates, and
pesticides.
Montana has a number of
industry-specific ground-
water pollution control
programs as well as the
umbrella Montana Ground-
Water Pollution Control
System (MGWPCS) adminis-
tered by the Department of
Health and Environmental
A-20
Sciences. Potential sources
of ground-water pollution,
including those regulated by
industry-specific programs,
must satisfy the MGWPCS
nondegradation policy and
meet ground-water quality
standards. The Department
has agreements with several
State agencies to assist in the
review of permit applications
and to ensure that water
quality concerns are thor-
oughly addressed. Pollution
sources that are not per-
mitted by other federally
mandated or State permit-
ting systems are required to
obtain a MGWPCS permit.
Nebraska
To obtain a copy of the
Nebraska 1988 305(b) report,
contact:
Nebraska Department of
Environmental Control
Box 94877
State House Station
Lincoln, NE 68509
Surface Water
Quality -
Very few significant water
quality trends have been
detected in Nebraska's
streams over the past 10
years. Of Nebraska's 5,690
assessed stream miles, 57
percent fully supported
designated uses, 21 percent
partially supported uses, and
22 percent did not support
designated uses.
Agricultural runoff is
the principal source of use
impairment in Nebraska.
Other sources of use impair-
ment include domestic point
sources, industrial discharges,
habitat modification and
hydrologic modifications, and
natural conditions. All of
these sources have impacts
on the biotic integrity of
affected streams.
About 59 percent of all
publicly owned lake surface
acres in Nebraska were
assessed for support of
designated uses. Of those
lake acres assessed, 96
percent fully supported all
assigned uses. Aquatic life
uses were impaired in those
lakes not fully supporting
their uses. Agricultural
runoff and the inherent
characteristics of the lakes
appear to be responsible for
the high producitivty and
low dissolved oxygen levels
in these lakes.
Data from 1978 through
1987 were available to
determine water quality
trends for 15 lakes repre-
senting 69,884 surface acres.
Water quality showed no
significaint changes in seven
lakes covering 66,839 acres.
These trends indicate that
less than 1 percent improved,
almost 96 percent main-
tained their water quality,
and 4 percent showed
degrading trends.
Nebraska notes a number
of water quality related
issues that are of concern.
These include recreational
use support, nonpoint source
pollution, the lack of infor-
mation regarding toxic pol-
lutants, the need to fund and
implement pollution control
programs, the impact of
agricultural chemicals on
ground water, unlicensed
landfills, and hazardous
waste sites.
Ground-Water
Quality
It is estimated that about
1,875,000,000 acre-feet of
ground water lie in storage
under Nebraska's surface.
Ground water is an extremely
important resource to
Nebraska, supplying about
67 percent of the water used
for irrigation and about 77
percent of the public water
supplies.
Although Nebraska's
natural ground-water quality
is good, many areas have
experienced degradation
from human activities.
Hundreds of cases of ground-
water contamination have
been documented, with
numbers increasing each
year. Major sources include
agricultural activities;
industrial facilities; leaking
underground storage tanks;
oil or hazardous substance
spills; solid waste landfills;
wastewater lagoons; brine
disposal pits; septic systems;
and other sources. Most
commonly detected contam-
inants in Nebraska's ground
water include nitrates;
pesticides such as atrazine,
alachlor, and dieldrin; and
chlorides.
The Nebraska Ground-
Water Quality Protection
Strategy was recently
updated. It puts forward
a plan for ground-water
quality protection that
emhasizes the prevention of
, contamination. Many of the
elements of this plan have
been implemented.
-------
Appendix
Nevada
lb obtain a copy of the
Nevada 1988 305(b) report,
contact:
Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection
Capitol Complex, Room 221
Carson City, NV 89710
Surface Water
Quality
For its 1988 Section 305(b)
report, Nevada assessed the
quality of the Colorado,
Truckee, Carson, Walker, and
Humboldt River Systems, as
well as Lake Tahoe. Agricul-
tural and rangeland runoff
were found to contribute
large sediment and nutrient
loads to waters of the State.
Urban drainage systems
contribute nutrients, heavy
metals, and organic loads.
Las Vegas Bay/Lake Mead
continues to experience
water quality problems. Both
the City of Las Vegas Waste-
water Treatment Plant and
Clark County Sanitation
District discharge into
effluent dominated Las
Vegas Wash about 11 miles
upstream from Las Vegas
Bay. A large blue-green alga
bloom occurred in Las Vegas
Bay in the summer of 1986.
Ammonia now enters Las
Vegas Bay untreated and
threatens this important fish
nursery area.
The Truckee River cont-
inues to show improvement
in aquatic life below Reno/
Sparks Wastewater Treat-
ment Plant. However,
temperature values at
control points downstream"
of Wadsworth approach the
maximum tolerable tempera-
ture of cold water fishery.
Previous problems with
turbidity and siltation appear
to have been resolved. These
problems, along with the
temperature problem, are
traceable to gravel opera-
tions, channelization, urban
projects within the river,
watershed erosion, low flows
and streambank vegetation
removal.
Historically, the Carson
River water quality stand-
ards for nutrients were
frequently exceeded for most
reaches. The greatest viola-
tions of standards occurred
during the summer months
at low flow in the lower
reaches of the river. Carson
City Sewage Treatment Plant
ceased discharging to the
Carson River in September
1987. Although it is too soon
to observe the effects of
removing this significant
point source from the river,
it is anticipated to aid in
reversing the trend of dete-
rioration which has been
occurring over the past 17
years. However, as point
sources have been removed,
nonpoint sources in Carson
Valley have now become a
significant nutrient source.
As a result of a special
mercury study completed by
Division of Environmental
Protection staff in 1985, a
fish consumption health
advisory was issued. Selen-
ium pollution has recently
been shown to be a potential
problem in the Stillwater
Marsh area.
Elevated phosphates and
nitrates have been consistent
problems in the lower reaches
of the East Fork and main-
stem of the Walker River.
However, 1986/1987 monitor-
ing records show significant
reduction in both total
phosphorus and total nitro-
gen. Lower stream flows in
1986 and 1987 have led to a
trend of increasing salinity.
The Humboldt River
continues to have problems
with violations of phos-
phorus, nitrate, turbidity,
and total dissolved solids
standards.
Lake Tahoe's pristine water
quality continues to degrade.
Primary productivity at the
Tahoe Index Station has
increased more than 140
percent since 1968. Annual
algal productivity in 1986
was the highest on record.
Recent data indicate a
continuation of this increas-
ing trend. Clarity also
continues to degrade, with
annual mean Secchi depths
decreasing at a rate of 0.40
meter per year since 1967.
While these parameters
indicate decreasing water
quality, they have not
interfered with the lake's
ability to support fish and
wildlife and recreational
uses.
Ground-Water
Quality
Approximately 50 percent
of Nevada's total population
relies on ground water. Since
surface waters are either
fully allocated or over-allo-
cated, Nevada's future
growth must rely heavily on
untapped ground-water
aquifers. Thus, protecting
present and potential (i.e.,
presently untapped) ground-
water aquifers is a high
priority of the State.
Nevada initiated this
protection effort by complet-
ing the "Ground Water
Protection Strategy for
Nevada" in August of 1987.
The Strategy delineated
Nevada's short- and long-
term goals, recognizing both
the priorities and limited
resources available.
Major sources of ground-
water contamination in the
State include mining, under-
ground storage tanks, injec-
tion wells, septic tanks, and
landfills. Substances contam-
inating ground water include
volatile organic chemicals,
nitrates, petroleum products,
radioactive material, fluo-
rides, arsenic, and brine/
salinity.
New Hampshire
To obtain a copy of the New
Hampshire 1988 305(b)
report, contact:
Water Supply and Pollution
Control Division/DES
Water Quality Section
6 Hazen Drive
P.O. Box 95
Concord, NH 03301
Surface Water
Quality
The water quality of New
Hampshire's rivers and
streams remains excellent
overall. During 1986 and
1987, designated uses were
fully supported in 71 percent
of the 1,330 assessed miles.
Sixteen percent partially
supported designated uses
and 13 percent did not
support uses.
Point sources remain the
major factor affecting uses in
A-21
-------
Appendix
New Hampshire's mainstem
waterbodies. Predominant
problems include inade-
quately treated municipal
wastes from primary waste-
water treatment facilities
and existing untreated
sources. However, nonpoint
sources including bacterial
contamination from indi-
vidual septic system failures
in rural areas are becoming
more evident: as wastewater
treatment facility upgrading
and construction in the last 2
years have removed organic
loadings to receiving waters,
previously masked nonpoint
source impacts have been
found.
Of the nearly 150,000 acres
of lakes assessed, approxi-
mately 87 percent fully
support their designated
uses. However, due to non-
point pollution, about 13
percent of these waters only
partially support designated
uses and 0.5 percent do not
support uses. Acidification
and nutrient impacts are
cited as the primary causes
of nonattainment.
With only 18 miles of
coastline, New Hampshire
places high recreation value
on every frontage foot. Only
a small portion of the coast-
line does not fully support
designated uses.
The protection of New
Hampshire's valuable shell-
fish populations (clams,
oysters, and mussels) in Great
Bay/Little Bay, Hampton
Harbor, and Rye Harbor
remains a priority. Given the
tremendous investment in
wastewater treatment facil-
ities in the seacoast region,
the lack of a significant
reduction in coliform bacte-
ria levels in certain areas is of
major concern. As a result of
A-22
these concerns, a special
Shellfish Committee was
formed in March of 1988.
Ground-Water
Quality
Approximately 60 percent
of New Hampshire's popula-
tion depends in whole or in
part on ground water for
water supply. The growing
number of incidents of
ground-water contamination,
as well as competing demands
for this renewable but finite
resource, have made ground-
water protection a priority
issue in the 1980s and into
the 1990s.
In general, the quality of
New Hampshire's ground
water is excellent. Because it
is such a valuable resource,
the State has designated all
ground water as potentially
drinkable. A comprehensive
permit process was devel-
oped for any proposed
discharge to ground water.
An extensive inventory of
potential point and nonpoint
source pollution sources has
been completed. Local com-
munities are being encour-
aged to further protect
fragile ground-water supplies
through zoning, land use
control and other aquifer
protection strategies. The
development of a statewide
ground-water protection
strategy will be completed
during FY1989.
The main issue that has
concerned State and local
officials is ground-water
contamination from hazard-
ous waste sites, leaking
underground storage tanks,
unregulated releases of
hazardous wastes to septic
tanks, and municipal land-
fills. Areas of significant
contamination from these ,
sources exist throughout the
State.
In the long term, the key to
protecting the State's ground-
water resources is to prevent
contamination by focusing
limited State and local
resources on the most sensi-
tive or valuable geographic
areas. This focus is difficult
because of a lack of funding
for the Wellhead Protection
Program.
New Jersey
To obtain a copy of the New
Jersey 1988 305(b) report,
contact:
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
Bureau of Water Resources
Management Planning
P.O. BoxCN-029
Trenton, NJ 08625
Surface Water
Quality
Approximately 31 percent
of New Jersey's monitored
river and stream miles meet
both the fishable and swim-
mable goals of the Clean
Water Act.
In New Jersey's estuaries,
77 percent were fully sup-
porting uses, 20 percent were
partially supporting uses, and
3 percent were not support-
ing uses. The State identifies
ocean water quality and
ocean litter as a special
concern.
Pollutants commonly
found in State waters include
fecal coliform bacteria,
nutrients, reduced dissolved
oxygen levels, siltation, road
salts, and oil and grease.
Point sources affect every
major waterway in the State.
Nonpoint sources are also a
major contributor to water-
quality degradation, but very
little monitoring data exist
to quantify their extent.
Impacts are suspected from
stormwater outfalls, con-
struction, urban and agricul-
tural runoff, land disposal
practices, and hydrologic/
habitat modification.
Ground-Water
Quality
Currently, about half of the
State's population relies on
ground water for drinking
water. Of the 622 community
public water systems in the
State, 558 obtain all or part
of their supplies from ground-
water sources. There are also
approximately 16,000 non-
community wells and
400,000 private potable wells
in the State.
Ambient ground-water
quality is considered
naturally good in the State
although in many areas, iron
removal is necessary for
potability. There are ground-
water problems, however:
during the past 3 years,
218 wells were sealed due to
ground-water pollution prob-
lems and the New Jersey
Department of Environ-
mental Protection (NJDEP)
responded to 960 ground-
water pollution cases.
From May 24, 1985 to
December 1,1987, well
samples throughout the State
were analyzed for volatile
organic chemicals. The
sampling results indicated
-------
Appendix
that 76 public wells and 139
private wells had unaccept-
able levels of volatile organic
chemicals. It should be noted
that the sampling did not
focus on private wells, and
the number of contaminated
private wells only represent
those that were brought to
the NJDEP's attention.
Common sources of
ground-water pollution in
New Jersey include land
disposal sites, accidental
spills and leaks, underground
storage tanks, and unknown
sources. To protect regional
ground-water supplies, the
NJDEP has established two
water supply critical areas.
New Mexico
1b obtain a copy of the New
Mexico 1988 305(b) report,
contact:
New Mexico Environmental
Information
Division Water Quality
Planning Section
.P.O. Box968
Santa Fe, NM 87504-0968
Surface Water
Quality
During the reporting
period, New Mexico assessed
1,151 miles of rivers. Forty-
eight percent of assessed
rivers were determined to be
partially supporting their
uses, and 2 percent were not
supporting uses.
A total of 119,666 acres
of lakes were assessed. Of
these, 40 percent are not
fully supporting fishery uses.
Water quality impairment of
this acreage is the result of
nonpoint sources.
Available data indicate that
New Mexico has been largely
successful in reducing point
source impacts on the State's
rivers. Nonpoint sources now
predominate. Habitat altera-
tion, siltation, toxic metals,
and flow alteration are the
predominant causes of use
impairment in New Mexico's
rivers and streams.
In the State's lakes, dis-
solved oxygen deficiencies,
plant nutrients, siltation and
habitat alterations are major
causes of use impairment.
Agriculture and recreation
are the major sources of
these impacts, silviculture,
construction activities and
miscellaneous activities have
lesser impacts.
New Mexico notes three
issues of special concern:
nonpoint source pollution,
toxic substances, and
protection of mountain
streams. As mentioned
above, nonpoint sources of
pollution are quantitatively
the largest known cause of
surface water quality impair-
ment in New Mexico. In addi-
tion a need exists for further
investigation of surface
water quality impacts of
toxic substances.
In mountain streams, home
and recreational develop-
ment, mining and milling,
overgrazing, and community
wastewater discharges have
resulted in standards viola-
tions and in fishery and
habitat degradation. Known
and potential water quality
impairment has been docu-
mented on 37 mountain
stream reaches. The Environ-
mental Improvement Divi-
sion is exploring manage-
ment approaches to better
protect mountain streams;
both regulatory and
nonregulatory approaches
are being considered.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground-water contamina-
tion most frequently occurs
in vulnerable aquifer areas
. where the water table is
shallow. Since the mid-1970s
the State has been inventory-
ing incidents, causes, and
sources of ground-water
contamination around the
State. At least 883 incidents
of ground-water contamina-
tion have been documented.
Slightly more than half of all
cases have been caused by
nonpoint source pollution,
principally household septic
tanks and cesspools.
Other sources of contam-
ination include oil field
sources such as pipelines,
leaking well-casings and
waste disposal pits, leaking
underground storage tanks,
ore-refining mills and mill
tailings disposal sites, sewage
treatment plants, dairies,
slaughterhouses, industrial
facilities, and public landfills.
Many population centers
and mineral resource devel-
opment areas have been
established in vulnerable
aquifer areas, with resultant
ground-water quality prob-
lems. For example, two
common types of ground-
water contamination in the
Albuquerque metropolitan
area are (1) anoxic conditions
or elevated salinity and
hardness and (2) localized
contamination cases involv-
ing constituents of health
concern such as nitrate,
gasoline, chlorinated
solvents, and pesticides.
Similarly, nitrate contam-
ination, anoxic conditions
and cases of contamination
from leaking underground
storage tanks have occurred
in the rapidly developing
Espanola area.
The Ogallala Formation, in
Lea County, is the principal
freshwater aquifer in the
region. Numerous instances
of contamination by oil-field
activities have been identi-
fied since the early 1950s.
Nitrate contamination from
septic tanks has also
occurred in several areas
of the county.
The Grants Mineral Belt in
Cibola and McKinley Coun-
ties has been a major
uranium-producing region of
the United States. Seepage
from active and inactive mill
tailings ponds, plus the long-
term impacts of previously
unregulated discharges and
potential contamination
from abandoned spoils piles,
constitute a continuing
ground-water quality
problem.
The San Juan Basin is
second only to southeastern
New Mexico as a petroleum
producing region and
produces most of the State's
natural gas. Ground-water
quality in the Basin has been
impacted by oil and gas
production activities and by
landfills.
In Dona Ana County, two
sources—ponds used for the
disposal of dairy wastes
and septage disposal—are of
concern. The septage
disposal problem has become
especially complex due to
the closing of landfills to
septage dumping. At present,
there are no acceptable
permanent septage disposal
A-23
-------
Appendix
sites in Dona Ana County.
Federal, State, and local
officials are working to find
a solution.
New York
To obtain a copy of the New
York 1988 305(b) report,
contact:
New York State Department
of Environmental
Conservation
Bureau of Monitoring
& Assessment
Division of Water
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233-3503
impairment; together with
nonpoint sources, they
constitute the major sources
of water use impairment in
the State. Industrial and
municipal point sources are
relatively minor contributors
to use impairment.
New York lists eight special
concerns: hazardous sub-
stance control; toxic sedi-
ments; PCB cleanup of the
Hudson River; ground-water
management; emergence of
nonpoint source problems;
effects of acid rain; Great
Lakes water purity; and
marine water purity, partic-
ularly in the Long Island
Sound.
Surface Water
Quality
During Water Years 1986-
1987, New York assessed
70,000 miles of streams,
750,000 acres of lakes, 1,564
square miles of estuaries, 577
Great Lake shore and 130
ocean coastal miles. Approx-
imately 76 percent of its
rivers and streams were
found to fully support their
designated use, along with 61
percent of lake, pond, and
reservoir acres, 74 percent of
estuary square miles, 17
percent of Great Lake shore-
line miles, and 46 percent of
ocean coastal miles.
Approximately 345 river
miles, 131,000 lake acres, and
154 square miles of estuary
are affected by toxic pollut-
ants. An estimated 70 miles
of ocean coastline and 492
miles of Great Lakes shore-
line are affected by toxics
as well. Contaminated sedi-
ments are responsible for
virtually all of this use
A-24
Ground-Water
Quality
Approximately six million
people in New York State use
ground water as a source of
water. Half of these people
are on Long Island and the
remainder are in upstate
New York. The Department
of Health has reported 130 :
public water supplies
affected by toxic organic
contamination of ground
water. Of these, 33 water
supplies on Long Island and
20 in upstate New York
remain closed or abandoned.
Contamination by syn-
thetic organic chemicals
is the most significant threat
to ground-water quality
statewide. The three major
categories of organic contam-
inants that are detected most
frequently in ground water
are:
• industrial/commercial
synthetic organic solvents
and degreasers, primarily
trichloroethane, trichloro-
ethylene, and tetrachloro-
ethylene;
• gasoline and other
petroleum products that
contain the compounds ben-
zene, toluene, and xylene;
and
a agricultural pesticides and
herbicides, primarily aldicarb
and carbofuran.
The primary sources of
ground-water contamination
by organic chemicals are
spills, leaks and improper
handling at industrial and
commercial facilities.
Pesticide contamination,
primarily by aldicarb, is a
particular problem on Long
Island, where it is used on
potato fields. It has also been
detected in ground water in
upstate New York. A sam-
pling survey of 330 wells in
eastern Long Island detected
aldicarb in concentrations
exceeding the Department
of Health's recommended
guideline in 23 percent of
the wells.
Nitrate contamination has
been noted in two upstate
public water supply wells. It
is a more serious problem on
Long Island, where nitrate
concentrations are increasing
in the major public water
supply aquifers for most of
the developed and agricul-
tural areas. Primary sources
of nitrate are agricultural
and domestic use of fertilizer,
subsurface disposal of sew-
age, and leaking sewer lines.
North Carolina
To obtain a copy of the North
Carolina 1988 305(b) report,
contact:
North Carolina Department
of Natural Resources
& Community Development
Special Projects Group
Division of Environmental
Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Surface Water
Quality
Of North Carolina's 33,275
assessed miles of freshwater
streams and rivers, 67 per-
cent support their uses, 28
percent partially support
uses, and 5 percent do not
support designated uses.
River basins located in the
mountains tend to have the
highest percentage of high
quality streams, while more
heavily developed Piedmont
or Coastal Plain basins have
more stream mileage with
use impairment.
Nonpoint sources account
for use impairment in 92
percent of degraded streams.
Major sources include agri-
culture, unknown nonpoint
sources, municipal waste-
water treatment plants
(WWTPs), and urban runoff.
Sediments are the leading
causes of stream impact.
In the past the State has
emphasized control of point
sources; while this emphasis
has had great positive bene-
fit, effective nonpoint source
control is more difficult
to implement and continued
progress in pollution control
will probably be slower.
-------
Appendix
Overall, 96 percent of the
surface area of lakes and
reservoirs in North Carolina
support their designated
uses, 3 percent partially
support uses, and 1 percent
do not support their uses.
The largest cause of use
nonsupport has been coal-
fired power plant discharges
to two lakes (Hyco and
Belews), which have resulted
in excessive selenium levels
in these lakes. Belews Lake
no longer receives coal ash
basin effluent, and Hyco
Lake will no longer be receiv-
ing effluent in the near
future. These actions should
restore biota in both lakes. In
addition, extensive efforts
are underway to control
eutrophication in two rela-
tively new lakes, Palls and
Jordan. The major source of
use impairment in lakes is
in-place contaminants, indus-
trial WWTP, and agriculture.
Major causes of lake prob-
lems are metals (primarily
selenium) and aquatic macro-
phytes.
Of the State's acreage of
estuaries and sounds, 93
percent fully support their
designated use while 7
percent partially support
uses (because of closed
shellfish areas or areas of
excessive algae growth) and
0.1 percent do not support
their designated uses. Major
sources of impairment in
estuarine waters are agri-
culture, municipal WWTPs,
septic tanks, and urban
runoff. Major causes of
impacts in estuaries are
chlorophyll a and nutrients,
multiple causes, and bac-
teria. Several new or
expanded efforts are under-
way to protect estuarine
waters including expanded
control of stormwater runoff
to shellfish areas, nutrient
control measures in several
coastal watersheds, and
protection of primary
nursery areas.
Ground-Water
Quality
About half of the people in
North Carolina use ground
water as their primary water
supply. Ground-water quality
is generally good statewide.
The major source of ground-
water contamination is leak-
ing underground storage
tanks; spills, lagoons, and
septic tanks are also impor-
tant sources. Comprehensive
programs are underway to
(1) assess potential contam-
ination sites and (2) develop a
comprehensive ground-water
protection strategy for the
State.
To prevent ground-water
pollution, the State has
classified ground waters,
established ground-water
quality standards, and imple-
mented a permit system. All
relevant State environmental
permit applications are
reviewed by the lead State
ground-water agency to assure
compliance with ground-
water standards. Work was
begun during 1987 to review
ground-water standards to
incorporate State ground-
water quality permitting
experience gained from the
past several years.
The State responds to
ground-water pollution
incidents via an inter-
agency emergency response
program. This ground-water
incident management
program provides the mech-
anism for standardized
pollution response proce-
dures and a consolidated
inventory of contaminated
sites.
As a part of its ground-
water planning effort, the
Ground-Water Section is
preparing an updated draft
of its State Ground-Water
Protection Strategy. Within
the continuing ground-water
management effort, the
resource is monitored, trends
documented, resource pro-
tection plans developed, and,
where necessary, regulations
imposed upon ground-water
use. Ground-water data man-
agement is also an important
element in the State's overall
resource management
program.
North Dakota
To obtain a copy of the North
Dakota 1988 305(b) report,
contact:
North Dakota Department of
Health and Consolidated
Laboratories
Division of Water Supply
and Pollution Control
1200 Missouri Avenue
P.O. Box 5520
Bismarck, ND 58502-5520
Surface Water
Quality
Of the 9,850 miles of
assessed rivers and streams
in North Dakota, 1,35.0 miles
were moderately to slightly
impaired by point source
pollution and all assessed
miles were impacted to some
degree by nonpoint source
pollution. Of the assessed
river miles, 69 percent were
fully supporting their desig-
nated uses, and 31 percent
were partially supporting
uses. The major source of use
impairment is nutrient and
sediment transport from dry
crop farmland. Runoff from
range/pasture land and
feedlots are moderate to
minor sources of nonpoint
pollution. These sources
cause high nutrient, fecal
coliform, and suspended
solid concentrations and
increase siltation. Discharges
from municipal waste treat-
ment facilities are considered
a moderate to minor source
of use impairment and
periodically cause increased
ammonia and fecal coliform
concentrations.
Of the 619,333 lake acres
assessed, 571,208 acres were
fully supporting uses, and
48,125 acres were partially
supporting designated uses.
Partial support was largely
manifested as fish kills and
nuisance occurrences of
blue-green algae impairing
recreational activities such
as swimming. Nutrients,
siltation, and organic enrich-
ment—mainly due to erosion
and runoff from dry crop
farmland—are the primary
causes of lake use
impairment.
The most critical water
quality issue in North Dakota
is nonpoint source pollution
and, in particular, agricultural
runoff. Wetland protection is
another issue of growing
concern to the State.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground water is one of
North Dakota's most precious
A-25
-------
Appendix
resources. Nearly the entire
rural population and most
municipalities obtain their
water from ground-water
supplies. Sixty percent of the
State's population relies on
ground water for its drinking
water source.
North Dakota is primarily
an agricultural State with
limited industrial develop-
ment. As a result, it has
experienced relatively minor
ground-water contamination
problems in comparison to
heavily industrialized States.
Leading sources of ground-
water contamination include
agricultural chemicals (e.g.,
pesticides and fertilizers),
storage tanks and pipelines,
wastewater impoundments,
solid waste disposal sites, oil
and gas exploration activity,
and septic systems.
North Dakota's ground-
water protection stragety is
the core of its ground-water
program. The strategy
reviews current State and
Federal ground-water protec-
tion programs and addresses
issues such as standards,
ground-water classification,
monitoring, and data
management.
Other programs that
provide ground-water protec-
tion include the point and
nonpoint source pollution
control programs, the public
water supply program, the
underground injection
control program, the con-
struction grants program,
the solid waste management
program, and the hazardous
waste management program.
Ohio
To obtain a copy of the Ohio
1988 305(b) report, contact:
Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency
Division of Water Quality
Monitoring and Assessment
P.O. Box 1049
Columbus, OH 43266-1049
Surface Water
Quality
Of the total 7,045 assessed
stream miles in Ohio, 32
percent are attaining their
aquatic life use designations,
21 percent are partially
attaining those uses, and
47 percent are not attaining
aquatic like uses. Since the
State's sampling program is
necessarily biased toward
stream segments in problem
areas, the actual percentage
of total stream miles attain-
ing their aquatic life uses
in Ohio is probably higher.
Because of extensive cover-
age of larger streams and
rivers, however, this assess-
ment is probably a fair reflec-
tion of conditions in these
waterbodies.
The proportion of stream
and river miles not fully
supporting aquatic life uses
is less than reported in
1986, but not because of
reductions in water quality.
In fact, continued reductions
are evident in point source
loadings. Changes in use
support are largely the result
of the adoption of ecoregional
biological criteria in Ohio,
and a reassessment of all
stream segments for which
biological data were avail-
able. Two new indices and
the use of reference sites to
set biocriteria have resulted
in more sensitive aquatic life
criteria for Ohio's waters.
Municipal (including
combined sewers) and indus-
trial point source discharges
accounted for impacts in 56
percent of stream miles.
Nonpoint sources were con-
tributors in 20 percent,
habitat/flow modification in
17 percent, natural condi-
tions in 2 percent, in-place
pollutants in 2 percent, and
other or unknown in the
remainder. Most waterbody
segments were affected by
multiple sources. Leading
causes of nonattainment
include low dissolved
oxygen/organic enrichment,
toxics, and habitat modifica-
tion/flow alteration.
Trend analyses of data
from 11 Ohio rivers indicate
a sharp improvement where
the biota had been affected
by municipal discharges and
less improvement where
toxic discharges or urban
runoff have been affecting
the biological community.
Overall, Ohio has made
dramatic improvements in
rivers that were grossly
polluted by municipal sewage
plants 20 to 30 years ago.
Many miles are still not fully
attaining aquatic life uses,
but it is estimated that their
impairment is not nearly as
severe as in the past. This
progress should not be over-
rated in light of the high
percentage of monitored
miles with impaired aquatic
life uses.
In Ohio's inland lakes and
reservoirs, 6 percent of
assessed acres fully sup-
ported uses, 56 percent
partially supported uses, and
10 percent did not support
uses. The remaining 28 per-
cent was considered to be
attaining, but threatened.
Nonpoint sources, point
sources, and habitat modi-
fication were major sources
of use impairment in lakes.
Leading causes were iden-
tified as algal/nutrients,
organic enrichment/low
dissolved oxygen, metals/
inorganics, and pathogens.
All 23 of Ohio's Lake Erie
shoreline miles were eval-
uated for aquatic life support
and were considered partially
supporting due to a lakewide
fishing advisory for carp and
channel catfish, and to cri-
teria exceedances for copper
and cadmium.
Ground-Water
Quality
Protecting ground water is
essential in safeguarding the
health of Ohioans. More than
four million people depend
on ground water as their
primary source of drinking
water in the State. Ground
water supplies some 1,200
of Ohio's 1,600 community
water systems, including
systems serving three of its
ten largest cities.
Ohio's large population and
diverse economy generate a
wide range of potential
ground-water contaminants,
ranging from bacteria to
toxic chemicals. The most
serious sources or potential
sources of contamination
include hazardous waste
generation, solid waste land-
fills, leaks and spills, agri-
culture, septic tanks, mineral
extraction, and improperly
constructed or maintained
wells.
A-26
-------
Appendix
To manage its ground
water properly, Ohio
developed a Ground-Water
Protection and Management
Strategy in 1986. An impor-
tant initiative of this strategy
was the creation of an Inter-
Agency Ground-Water Advi-
sory Council to monitor State
ground-water related
programs and to comment in
all rulemaking processes.
This group was established
during 1987 and will be
important in assisting the
State with the implementa-
tion of its Ground-Water
Strategy.
The State's ground-water
strategy implementation
plan addresses priorities for
identifying and remediating
sources of ground-water
contamination. Sources of
contamination from hazard-
ous waste and material,
treatment, storage and
disposal activities pose the
greatest potential threat to
human health, although
other sources may be more
numerous. The strategy is
directed at controlling all
sources of ground-water
contamination using a
variety of Federal, State,
and local authorities.
Ohio River
To obtain a copy of the Ohio
River 1988 305(b) report,
contact:
Ohio River Valley Water
Sanitation Commission
49 East Fourth Street
Suite 815
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Surface Water
Quality
The Ohio River Valley
Water Sanitation Commission
(ORSANCO) coordinates
water pollution control
efforts for the 981 river miles
of the Ohio River. All river
miles were assessed, and all
were partially supporting
their designated uses.
The f ishable goal of the
Federal Clean Water Act was
met in 941 miles and not met
in 40; the swimmable goal
was met in 819 miles and not
met in 162. Compared to the
previous reporting period,
.exceedances of stream cri-
teria increased for heavy
metals, especially lead and
mercury. This is primarily
due to the adoption of more
stringent water quality
criteria in 1982.
Major causes of designated
use impairment include
major municipal discharges,
industrial discharges, non-
point sources, and tributary
contributions. Municipal
discharges, privately owned
sewage treatment facilities,
and combined sewers con-
tributed impairment of
recreational uses.
The water quality prob-
lems cited above will provide
the major emphasis for water
pollution control efforts of
the Commission and its
member States on the Ohio
River in the coming years.
In addition, the following
special concerns must be
addressed:
• In establishing permit
levels for dischargers, the
limits that must be met by
downstream water supply
utilities must be considered.
• Spills and accidental
discharges will continue to
be a potential problem given
the number of facilities treat-
ing, storing, and handling
various chemicals along the
Ohio River.
• Wastewater treatment
facility operation must con-
tinue to receive attention to
assure that facilities achieve
the degree of water quality
improvement for which they
were designed.
• Hydroelectric power
development at Ohio River
navigation dams could reduce
the degree of aeration at the
dams, thereby lowering dis-
solved oxygen levels.
Ground-Water
Quality
The Commission's major
concern is protecting and
improving surface waters in
the Ohio River Basin. As part
of this effort, the Commis-
sion will be assessing the
impact of ground-water
contamination as a nonpoint
source of pollution to the
Ohio River. The alluvial
aquifer associated with the
main stem of the Ohio River
is vulnerable to contamina-
tion due to extensive indus-
trial development along the
Ohio River. This issue will be
addressed as part of the
Commission's Ibxic Substance
Control Program.
Oklahoma
Ib obtain a copy of the
Oklahoma 1988 305(b)
report, contact:
Oklahoma Department of
Pollution Control
P.O. Box 53504
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
Surface Water
Quality
The overall quality of Okla-
homa's waters remains good;
designated uses and the
Clean Water Act are being
met in a majority of waters.
Oklahoma assessed 9,248
miles of streams. Of these, 36
percent fully supported their
designated uses, 38 percent
partially supported uses, and
26 percent did not support
their designated uses. Major
causes contributing to non-
support include; siltation,
nutrients, pesticides, sus-
pended solids, pathogens,
and salinity. Major sources of
nonsupport include agricul-
ture, resource extraction,
and hydrological/habitat
modifications.
Currently, Oklahoma is
concerned about the extent
of animal waste contribu-
tions to streams hi northeast
Oklahoma. In combination
with inadequately treated
municipal wastewater,
A-27
-------
Appendix
animal wastes have caused
serious degradation of the
Illinois River Basin in
Oklahoma and Arkansas.
This problem does not
appear to be correctable
without improved coordina-
tion of point and nonpoint
source management actions. •
Further, this management
must be interstate in nature
to ensure that effective
controls will result. In other
words, an integrated manage-
ment approach involving
both States appears to be the
only course of action that is
likely to succeed. This
problem and water quality
issues raised by a proposed
reservoir on Lee Creek, high-
light inconsistencies on the
part of EPA in the arbitration
of quality standards issues
between States.
Ground-Water
Quality
In December of 1983, the
Oklahoma agencies with
ground-water responsibilities
joined in a cooperative effort
to establish a program devel-
opment strategy for ground-
water protection. From this
effort a framework agree-
ment was developed. Under
the provisions of this agree-
ment, the Corporation Com-
mission, the Department of
Agriculture, the Department
of Health, and the Water
Resources Board adopted
goals and principles for
program development.
Oklahoma has also adopted
statewide ground-water
standards that identify
beneficial uses for 21 aqui-
fers. Under its ground-water
sampling program, 506 wells
A-28
are monitored for 22 param-
eters. The results of the
initial monitoring are being
evaluated and summarized
into an assessment report.
Oregon
To obtain a copy of the
Oregon 1988 305(b) report,
contact:
Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
811 Southwest Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
Surface Water
Quality
• During the reporting
period, Oregon assessed
27,738 miles of streams, and
504,928 acres of lakes. Of the
assessed river miles, 45 per-
cent fully supported desig-
nated beneficial uses, 31
percent partially supported
uses, and 24 percent did not
support their designated
uses. Of the assessed lake
acres, 74 percent f ully
supported uses, 12 percent
partially supported uses, and
14 percent did not support
their designated uses.
Major causes of nonsupport
in rivers include habitat
modifications, flow altera-
tions, thermal modifications,
and siltation. Major sources
of impairment in rivers
include agriculture, silvicul-
ture, resource extraction,
combined sewers, construc-
tion, municipal discharges,
bacteria and excessive
nutrients. In lakes, major
causes of nonsupport include
nutrients, pH, and organic
enrichment (low oxygen).
Major sources of impairment
for lakes include agriculture,
land disposal, and storm
sewers/runoff.
The State is in the process
of establishing Total Maxi-
mum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
for eleven "water quality
limited" stream segments
where water quality stand-
ards are not being met. This
process reflects a major
program change from tech-
nology-based to water qual-
ity-based permitting with a
greater emphasis on the
receiving waterbody.
The cultivation of nursery
stock in containers is a grow-
ing industry in Oregon.
Certain container industry
practices can create water
quality problems. These
include application of
fertilizers and pesticides;
construction of dams to
capture and reuse irrigation
return water; poor construc-
tion of irrigation ponds; and
the setting of containers on
gravel over packed earth or
plastic with drainage to
surface waters. The State is
currently reviewing these
practices to develop best
management practices and to
determine if permits should
be used to regulate runoff.
Ground-Water
Quality
In Oregon an estimated
1.6 million persons (about
60 percent of Oregon's
population) depend on
ground water for all or part
of their daily water needs.
An average of 1.1 billion
gallons per day of ground
water were withdrawn in
Oregon during 1980. Of this
amount, 75 percent was for
irrigation use, 12 percent for
rural domestic and livestock
use, 7 percent for industrial
use, and 6 percent for public
water use. Ground-water use
is expected to increase in the
future because the State's
population is growing and
because summertime flow in
many streams is inadequate
to meet present and future
demand.
The number of known
ground-water contamination
sites in the State has increased
to over 200, and is rising
steadily, in part due to
increased assessment activ-
ities. To date, ground-water
contamination resulting from
industrial activities has been
discovered at approximately
75 sites in Oregon. The types
of industries that have been
found to be causing ground-
water poEution include
chemical manufacturing,
metals plating, wood treat-
ment, oil/gas storage and
refueling areas, electronics,
food processing, aluminum
plants, and pulp and paper
mills. Among the contami-
nants from these industries
are organic chemicals,
dissolved metals, nitrates,
cyanide, and total dissolved
solids. Other sources of
ground-water contamination
in Oregon include landfills,
on-site sewage disposal,
municipal sewage treatment
facilities, and agricultural
activities.
The Oregon Environmental
Quality Commission adopted
a statewide Ground-Water
Quality Protection Policy in
August 1981. Since that time,
the State has worked with a
citizen's advisory committee
to assist in the development
-------
Appendix
of proposed amendments to
the policy including point
source control rules, non-
point source control proce-
dures, a classification system,
and ground-water quality
standards. Three new
programs were approved by
the Oregon Legislature in
1987 to clean up hazardous
waste sites; establish permit-
ting, monitoring, and cleanup
requirements for under-
ground storage tanks; and
prepare interagency manage-
ment plans for the Ontario
and Boring aquifers. The
Department of Environ-
mental Quality is working
with other State agencies to
develop a comprehensive
statewide plan for ground-
water management.
Pennsylvania
To obtain a copy of the
Pennsylvania 1988 305(b)
report, contact:
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources
Bureau of Water Quality
Management
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Surface Water
Quality
A total of about 13,242
miles out of approximately
50,000 total miles of rivers
and streams were assessed
for this report, based on
monitoring or evaluations
conducted between July
' 1970 and December 1987.
This represents an increase
of about 7,016 miles assessed
over the 1986 report. Approx-
imately 73 percent of the
miles assessed fully sup-
ported designated stream
uses, 13 percent were partially
supporting, and 14 percent
were not supporting uses.
The most extensive causes
of water quality degradation
in Pennsylvania streams are
acidity and metals from
abandoned coal mine drain-
age. While some funding is
available for abatement of
abandoned mine drainage,
the immensity of the prob-
lem and difficulties asso-
ciated with control have
severely hampered abate-
ment and treatment projects.
These difficulties are
expected to continue. Other
major causes of use impair-
ment are siltation, nutrients,
organic enrichment, path-
ogens, and pesticides. These
pollutants are primarily the
result of agricultural runoff,
municipal and industrial
discharges, individual septic
discharges, and oil and gas
extraction activities. Oil and
gas production is takes place
in over 30 counties in
Pennsylvania.
The environmental impacts
of this industry have been
significant, particularly in
western Pennsylvania: about
2,000 unpermitted discharges
of brine and produced fluids
have been inventoried by
EPA in the State's western
counties. These discharges
are to be permitted or
eliminated as required by
Federal law.
Pennsylvania assessed
trophic status in 37 signif-
icant publicly owned lakes.
Of these, 29 were classified
as mesotrophic, 7 as eutro-
phic, and 1 as oligotrophic.
Out of the State's total 340
significant lakes, 28 were
considered to have impaired
uses, and 11 were classified
as threatened.
Ground-Water
Quality
On a statewide basis,
ground water contributes
approximately 70 percent
of all stream flow under
average conditions and up
to 100 percent during low
flow periods. More than two-
thirds of public water
supplies and almost all
private supplies in the State
come from ground water.
Shallow ground-water condi-
tions normally prevail
throughout Pennsylvania;
consequently, the entire
State is vulnerable to man's
activities.
Ground-water quality is
believed to be generally
acceptable for drinking with
only minor treatment. How-
ever, in portions of western
Pennsylvania, excessively
high iron, sulfate, hardness,
total dissolved solids, and
manganese concentrations
limit ground-water use in
varying degrees. Extensive
mining and oil and gas
production activities are
contributing to major
ground-water quality prob-
lems in western counties,
and nitrate-nitrogen prob-
lems are present in south-
central and southeastern,
counties. Leaking under-
ground storage tanks and less
extensive mining have
contributed to local ground-
water problems statewide.
Major sources of ground-
water contamination include
underground storage tanks,
surface impoundments,
industrial landfills, septic
tanks, and abandoned haz-
ardous waste sites. The major
pollutant cause statewide is
petroleum and/or its by-
products. Other causes
include organic and inor-
ganic chemicals, metals, and
pesticides.
Since 1963, Pennsylvania's
Ground-Water Quality Man-
agement Program has
included review of permit
applications, pollution inves-
tigations, enforcement
actions, and advisory activ-
ities which affect ground-
water quality. New initiatives
being implemented include a
ground-water quality protec-
tion strategy, a ground-water
quality monitoring strategy,
an underground storage
tanks program, and imple-
mentation of soil-dependent
treatment systems for on-lot
disposal of sewage.
Puerto Rico
To obtain a copy of the
Puerto Rico 1988 305(b)
report, contact:
Puerto Rico Environmental
Quality Board
Water Quality Area
P.O. Box 11488
Santurce, PR 00910-1488
Surface Water
Quality
Puerto Rico has approx-
imately 5,373 stream miles.
Of these, 46 percent were
fully supporting designated
uses during the reporting
period. Pathogens, nutrients,
and suspended solids were
the leading causes of use
A-29
-------
Appendix
impairment in streams; lead-
ing sources included agricul-
tural activities (feedlots and
crops), land disposal (land-
fills and wastewaters from
communities), and urban
runoff.
Thirty-four percent of
Puerto Rico;s 11,146 acres of
lakes and lagoons were found
to support designated uses.
Principal causes of nonsup-
port in lakes included organic
enrichment/reduced dis-
solved oxygen levels, sus-
pended solids, and patho-
gens, primarily from
nonpoint sources.
Of 434 coastal shoreline
miles, 58 percent fully
supported designated uses.
Major causes of impairment
included nutrients, sus-
pended solids, and unknown
toxicity. Sources of impair-
ment in coastal waters
included land disposal and
municipal and industrial
dischargers.
Only 17 percent of 173
estuarine miles were
reported to be fully support-
ing designated uses. Habitat
alterations from natural
sources, such as mangrove
areas, were cited as the
principal cause of use
impairment. Urban runoff
and municipal point source
dischargers were also cited.
Lakes, lagoons, estuaries,
and wetlands were identified
as special concerns because
of their value as critical
habitats. In order to more
accurately assess their
problems and water quality
status, a need for better
monitoring strategies for
these waters was noted.
Ground-Water
Quality
The principal uses of
ground water in Puerto Rico
include potable water supply,
industrial processing, and
agricultural activities.
Ground water is extensively
used and provides about 24
percent of the total water
used islandwide. However,
dependence on ground water
varies throughout the island;
a number of municipalities
draw 50 percent or more of
their public water supply
from ground-water sources.
During 1986-1987, ground-
water quality was assessed at
75 wells in the northeastern
region of Puerto Rico. Vola-
tile organic compounds such
as methylene chloride and
chloroform have been identi-
fied in at least five wells,
based upon preliminary
evaluations. This study is
as yet incomplete. Major
sources of ground-water
contamination included
injection wells, abandoned
hazardous waste sites, and
underground storage tanks.
Rhode Island
Tb obtain a copy of the Rhode
Island 1988 305(b) report,
contact:
Rhode Island Department
of Environmental
Management
Division of Water Resources
291 Promenade Street
Providence, RI 02908-5767
Surface Water
Quality
During the reporting
period, Rhode Island assessed
581 river miles, 16,089 lake
acres, and 192 estuary square
miles. An assessment of
overall surface water quality
in Rhode Island indicates
that 84 percent of the State's
rivers and streams, 91 per-
cent of lakes, and 80 percent
of estuaries/oceans support
designated uses.
Of those waters assessed
for support of Clean Water
Act goals, 80 percent of river
and stream miles are fishable/
swimmable, as are 90 percent
of lakes and 93 percent of
estuaries/oceans.
The most significant causes
of nonsupport in rivers and
streams are heavy metals,
coliforms, low dissolved
oxygen, and nutrients. In
lakes and ponds, the major
causes of nonsupport are
coliforms, nutrients, and
siltation. In estuaries and
coastal waters, the major
causes of nonsupport are
coliforms, heavy metals,
nutrients, and low dissolved
oxygen. In rivers and estu-
aries, major sources include
industrial and municipal
point sources and nonpoint
sources such as urban runoff,
failed septic systems, while
lakes/ponds are affected by
nonpoint sources, primarily
septic systems.
Ground water is clearly an
important source of drinking
water in Rhode Island.
Twenty-four percent of the
State's population is depend-
ent on ground water for its
water supply. This includes
151,620 people served by
public water systems. In
addition, private wells
provide water for another
84,000 people, or 8.7 percent
of the total population.
Rhode Island's principal
aquifers are extremely vul-
nerable to contamination
from a wide variety of pollu-
tion sources. Over 75 con-
taminants have been detected
in Rhode Island's ground
water, the most common
being organic solvents, the
pesticide aldicarb (Temik),
and petroleum products.
Most ground-water
contamination problems
occur on a localized basis.
Significant pollution sources
include landfills, hazardous
and industrial waste disposal
sites, leaking underground
fuel storage tanks, chemical
and oil spills, septic systems,
road salt storage and applica-
tion practices, fertilizer and
pesticide applications, and
surface impoundments.
Resulting ground-water
pollution has caused closure
of at least 15 public wells and
an estimated 300 private
wells.
In 1985, the Rhode Island
General Assembly passed the
Ground-Water Protection Act
of 1985, which established
broad protection policies for
the ground waters of the
State. In turn, the Depart-
A-30
-------
Appendix
ment of Environmental Man-
agement created a Ground-
Water Section in FY 1985 to
coordinate departmental
activities related to ground-
water protection and to
develop and implement a
comprehensive program to
protect the ground-water
resources of the State. The
Ground Water Section's
responsibilities include Oil
Spill Emergency Response
activities, the Underground
Storage lank (UST) and
Leaking UST programs, and
the Underground Injection
Control (UIC) program, as
well as the development of a
ground-water classification
system and ground-water
standards in accordance with
the Ground-Water Protection
Act.
South Carolina
To obtain a copy of the South
Carolina 1988 305(b) report,
contact:
South Carolina Department
of Health and Environ-
mental Control
Bureau of Water Pollution
Control
Division of Water Quality
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Surface Water
Quality
South Carolina has approx-
imately 9,900 miles of rivers,
525,000 acres of lakes, and
2,155 square miles of tidal
saltwaters. Physical, chem-
ical, and biological data were
available for 3,825 miles of
rivers, 397,231 acres of lakes,
and 663 square miles of tidal
saltwaters. Of the assessed
river miles, 75 percent fully
supported their designated
uses, 10 percent partially
supported uses, and 15
percent did not support their
designated uses. Of the
assessed lake acres, almost all
fully supported their desig-
nated uses. Of the assessed
estuary square miles, 89 per-
cent fully supported uses,
2 percent partially supported
uses, and 9 percent did not
support their designated
uses.
Nonpoint sources were the
leading contributors to use
impairment in South Caro-
lina's rivers and tidal salt-
waters. In lakes, sources
of pollution were largely
unknown. Fecal coliform
contamination was the most
frequent cause of use impair-
ment. Of the State's coastal
waters classified for shellfish
growing, about 86 percent
are unconditionally approved
for harvesting.
The State notes that indus-
trial waste pretreatment
programs have improved
water quality by reducing
toxic discharges. Most point
source agricultural waste
discharges have been elim-
inated through the issuance
of State construction permits
that require alternate non-
discharging treatment
systems.
Ground-Water
Quality
The overall quality of
ground water in South Caro-
lina is excellent. Portions of
a statewide network of mon-
itoring wells for ambient
ground-water quality have
been recently established.
Other available data sources
are being used such as
testing at public water
supply systems, monitoring
wells at sites where ground-
water contamination has
been confirmed or is sus-
pected, and private wells.
Data reported from these
sources confirm the general
high quality of ground water
throughout the State.
Nevertheless, the State
cites approximately 390
instances of localized
ground-water contamination.
Sources of contamination are
diverse and include leaking
underground petroleum stor-
age tanks, industrial waste-
water disposal, municipal
and industrial landfills, and
accidental spills and leaks.
These lagoons (including
industrial pits and ponds),
landfills (industrial and
municipal), and underground
storage tanks that are limited
to ground-water contamina-
tion are not restricted to any
particular areas of the State,
but are more concentrated in
the three major urban/indus-
trial centers: Greenville/
Spartanburg, Columbia, and
Charleston. An additional
concentration of ground-
water contamination prob-
lems has been associated
with high water-table
recharge areas in Beaufort
County.
South Dakota
To obtain a copy of the South
Dakota 1988 305(b) report,
contact:
South Dakota Department
of Water and Natural
Resources
Joe Foss Building
523 East Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501
Surface Water
Quality
South Dakota has a total of
9,937 miles of rivers and
streams. Of these, 3,750 miles
have been assessed for water
quality. Currently, 37 percent
of these assessed waters are
fully supporting their assigned
beneficial uses, 34 percent
are partially supporting their
uses, and 29 percent are not
supporting their uses. Non-
support of designated uses is
primarily caused by agricul-
tural nonpoint sources intro-
ducing suspended solids and
pathogens (fecal coliforms).
Other pollutant sources
include inadequate munici-
pal wastewater treatment,
industrial discharges, and
natural causes. Water quality
trends in rivers were gener-
ally maintained.
South Dakota has 799 lakes
and reservoirs (including
Missouri River mainstem
reservoirs) totalling
1,598,285 acres. Approx-
imately 98 percent of use
nonsupport for lakes can
be attributed to nonpoint
sources. Roughly 86 percent
of the total lake acres
assessed are considered to
support their designated
uses; almost all of these acres
A-31
-------
Appendix
are threatened. Only 3 per-
cent of total lakes partially
support uses, and 12 percent
do not support uses.
Most lakes in the State are
characterized as eutrophic to
hypereutrophic. Runoff carry-
ing sediments and nutrients
from agricultural land is the
major nonpoint pollution
source. Smaller lakes are
more severely affected by
nonpoint sources than are
larger lakes.
Ground-Water
Quality
Approximately 453 million
gallons of water are used
daily by South Dakotans; of
this, nearly 50 percent is
from ground-water sources.
Ground-water quality is
highly variable in South
Dakota but is generally
suitable for domestic, indus-
trial, and agricultural uses.
However, numerous localized
incidents of ground-water
degradation have occurred.
Documented or suspected
sources of ground-water
contamination include leak-
ing artesian wells; fertilizers
and pesticides; wastewater
treatment lagoons; landfills;
septic systems; inadequate
well design, construction,
and placement; feedlots; and
petroleum and other chem-
ical spills or leaks. These
pollution problems have
remained consistent through
the years, although reported
spills or leaks of petroleum
and other chemicals have
increased. Many of these
contamination problems
result from improperly locat-
ing or constructing wells,
septic systems, treatment
lagoons, and other sources.
A-32
Generally, over the past
ten years there has been an
increase in reported inci-
dents of potential ground-
water contamination. This is
primarily the result of
increased public awareness
and new reporting require-
ments under the under-
ground storage tank (UST)
regulation.
South Dakota is aggres-
sively addressing ground-
water pollution. Ongoing
State ground-water projects
include the Oakwood/Poin-
sett Rural Clean Water
Project; assumption of the
Underground Injection
Control, RCRA, and UST
programs; and cleanup activ-
ities from hazardous mate-
rials spills.
Tennessee
To obtain a copy of the
Tennessee 1988 305(b)
report, contact:
Tennessee Department of
Health and Environment
Office of Water Management
T.E.R.R.A. Building
150 Ninth Avenue, North
Nashville, TN 37219-5404
Surface Water
Quality
Of the 11,081 stream miles
in Tennessee, 9,408 were
assessed for this report.
Sixty-three percent of the
assessed miles were fully
supporting designated uses,
10 percent were not support-
ing designated uses, and 26
percent were partially sup-
porting designated uses.
Of the 538,657 publicly
owned lake acres in the
State, 84 percent are fully
supporting designated uses,
7 percent are not supporting
designated uses, and 9 per-
cent are partially supporting
designated uses.
During the reporting
period, Tennessee assessed
11,081 river miles, and
538,657 lake acres for the
fishable/swimmable goal of
the Clean Water Act. Of the
assessed river miles, 98
percent met the fishable goal
and 94 percent met the swim-
mable goal. Of the assessed
lake acres, 92 percent met
the fishable goal and 97 per-
cent met the swimmable
goal.
The largest causes of
nonsupport in streams are
siltation and suspended
solids, fecal coliforms, low
dissolved oxygen, nutrients,
and flow alteration. Major
sources of these causes are
agriculture, upstream
impoundment, hydrologic
modification (channeliza-
tion), municipal discharges,
mining activities, urban
runoff, industrial discharges,
and construction activities.
In lakes, the largest causes
of nonsupport are nutrients,
low dissolved oxygen, silta-
tion and priority organics.
Major sources of these causes
of use impairment are agri-
cultural activities, upstream
impoundments, municipal
discharges, hydromodifica-
tion, and mining activity. ,
Ground-Water
Quality
More than one-half of the
population of Tennessee
relies on ground water for
drinking water supplies.
Ground-water comprises 21
percent of the water with-
drawn in the State (exclusive
of water withdrawn for
thermoelectric use). In West
Tennessee, nearly all public
supplies, industries, and rural
residents use ground water;
Memphis, the largest city in
Tennessee, is completely
supplied by ground water.
Many pollutants are known
or thought to be contam-
inating ground water. These
poEutants include metals,
petroleum products, pesti-
cides and other agricultural
chemicals, and radioactive
materials. In addition, vola-
tile or synthetic organic
materials, plus inorganic
chemicals such as nitrates,
have been detected in some
samples.
Leading sources of ground-
water contamination include
septic/sewage and water
treatment plant sludge,
illegal dumps, septic tanks,
wastewater pits, ponds and
lagoons, sanitary landfills,
underground storage tanks
and pipelines, and aban-
doned hazardous waste sites.
Ground-water protection in
Tennessee has become a
major concern. In an effort
to define and protect this
finite resource, the Tennes-
see Department of Health
and Environment has devel-
oped a Ground-Water Man-
agement Strategy that would
assemble the many pieces of
relevant information into a
comprehensive whole. Some
of the recommendations
contained in this Strategy
will require legislative action
by the General Assembly,
while others can be accom-
plished by coordination of
existing programs through
-------
Appendix
the establishment of the
Ground Water Management
Council.
Texas
lb obtain a copy of the Texas
1988 305(b) report, contact:
lexas Water Commission
Water Quality Standards
and Evaluation Section
P.O. Box 13087
Capitol Station
Austin, TX 78711-3087
Surface-Water
Quality
Of the State's 13,998
assessed stream miles, 155
are not currently meeting
fishable uses and 1,382 miles
are presently not swimmable.
Approximately 1,829 stream
miles are currently not
achieving individual desig-
nated water uses. The major-
ity of unpaired stream miles
are affected by dissolved
oxygen depletion and ele-
vated fecal coliform levels
caused by discharges of
treated domestic wastewater.
Approximately 65 percent of
the 1,537 stream miles not
suitable for fishing and
swimming are affected by
major metropolitan areas:
Fort Worth-Dallas, San
Antonio, Houston, and cities
in the Lower Rio Grande
Valley.
All of the State's 1,410,240
acres of reservoirs currently
meet the fishable goal. In less
than 1 percent of lake
acres, the swimmable goal is
not supported. The cause of
nonsupport is elevated fecal
cob'form counts; the sources
of this pollution include trib-
utaries transporting treated
domestic wastewater and
urban runoff. All lake acres
support their designated
aquatic life habitat use.
Of Texas' 1,990 square
miles of bays and estuaries,
458 are closed to shellfish
harvesting due to fecal coli-
form bacteria contamination.
Contact recreation and
aquatic habitat uses are met
throughout the State's estua-
rine area.
Eutrophication in reser-
voirs and estuaries may
cause problems not specif-
ically addressed by the desig-
nated uses and numerical
criteria of the State's surface
water quality standards.
Estuaries exhibiting the
highest degree of eutrophica-
tion are Clear Creek Tidal,
Armand Bayou Tidal, and the
Arroyo Colorado Tidal. The
majority of bay segments
experiencing eutrophication
are located in the Galveston
Bay system.
Ground-Water
Quality
Approximately 61 percent
of the total water used by
Texans for domestic, munic-
ipal, industrial, and agricul-
tural purposes is supplied by
ground-water sources. A
major form of ground-water
contamination is saltwater
intrusion from natural
sources. Saline conditions are
sometimes aggravated by
ground-water withdrawals.
In the past, oil and natural
gas extraction activities were
suspected of causing saline
contamination in some areas.
Improvements in brine dis-
posal, well-plugging, and
underground injection
procedures have reduced
these problems in recent
petroleum operations.
Nevertheless, expanded
development of the State's
water resources and pres-
sures to meet supply needs
have created local, regional,
and statewide problems of
varying intensity. While
surface water quality
continues to be a major
concern, ground-water over-
draft and quality degradation
are particularly troublesome
because of expanding
economic activities that are
ground-water dependent.
Several State agencies are
involved in the protection of
ground-water resources. An
interagency committee,
funded by the EPA Ground-
Water Grant, was established
in 1985 to improve coordina-
tion of ground-water protec-
tion activities and develop a
comprehensive ground-water
protection strategy. A ground-
water protection strategy
was developed in 1987 and
implementation began in
1988. The strategy addresses
interagency coordination,
improvement of existing
programs, development of
new program areas, and
needs for funding and new
legislation.
Utah
To obtain a copy of the Utah
1988 305(b) report, contact:
Bureau of Water Pollution
Control Division of
Environmental Health
P.O. Box 16700
Salt Lake City, UT 84145
Surface Water
Quality
Data analyzed from October
1985 through September
1987 generally indicate that
total phosphate levels are
moderately exceeding the
criteria for assigned bene-
ficial uses statewide. Ibtal
phosphates come from
natural, agricultural, con-
struction, recreation, mining,
and municipal sources.
Point sources of pollution
can present water quality
problems anywhere they are
located, but are usually more
significant in highly popu-
lated areas. Wastewater
treatment facilities are often
concentrated in certain
drainages to meet the needs
of increasing populations,
and can seriously affect
receiving streams. An exam-
ple in Utah is the Jordan
River in Salt Lake Valley.
Regionalization of waste-
water treatment facilities
will provide high levels of
treatment to maintain and
improve downstream water
quality in the Jordan River.
Many of the remaining
water quality problems in
Utah result from nonpoint
sources rather than point
source discharges. Nonpoint
sources of pollutants include
A-33
-------
Appendix
natural geologic formations,
failing individual wastewater
disposal systems, urban
sources, hydrologic modifica-
tions, agriculture, mining,
recreation, construction, and
silviculture.
Most of the water allocated
in Utah is for agricultural
use. Diversion of waters for
irrigation tends to concen-
trate salts and solids in
original stream channels.
Return flow discharges add
salts, nutrients, and sedi-
ments from croplands into
stream channels. Overland
runoff contributes salts,
sediments, and nutrients
from nonirrigated croplands
and coliform bacteria from
pasture land. Minimum-till
and no-till conservation
measures, implemented and
supported by Utah agricul-
tural agencies, reduce runoff
and runoff-associated chem-
icals. Major nonpoint source
control efforts are currently
under way as Utah develops
its nonpoint source assess-
ment and management plan.
General ambient water
quality conditions on Utah's
lakes and reservoirs vary
greatly. Nutrient concentra-
tions and trophic states range
from the oligotrophic condi-
tions of many high mountain
lakes to highly eutrophic
downstream lakes and
impoundments such as Utah
Lake, Cutler Reservoir,
Gunnison Bend Reservoir,
and Minersville Reservoir.
Other water chemistry char-
acteristics vary from
extremely soft water condi-
tions of the high Uinta lakes
to high total dissolved solids
levels in reservoirs on the
lower Sevier drainage.
Many lakes/reservoirs
experience problems with
A-34
thermal stratifications and
subsequent dissolved oxygen
(DO) depletion in the hypo-
limnion. Several lakes
experience partial or com-
plete fish kills each year due
to DO depletion as a result of
excessive algal production.
Many lakes/reservoirs also
have aesthetics and recrea-
tional use impairment
because of severe annual
drawdown which leaves
expanses of exposed mud
flats and insufficient waters
to overwinter fish
populations.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground water is one of the
State's most valuable and
necessary resources. It fur-
nishes drinking water for
two-thirds of the State's
residents and comprises
about 20 percent of the total
water used in Utah. In rural
areas of the State, it is com-
monly the only source of
water for man and livestock.
Because of this depend-
ence, a more diligent effort
is required to protect Utah's
ground-water resources.
The Ground-Water Quality
Protection Strategy for the
State of Utah reviews facts
about ground water, des-
cribes government programs
that affect ground water, and
discusses potential sources of
ground-water pollution. The
strategy also provides
management proposals for
public consideration and
comment. The purpose of
these proposals is to generate
discussion and provide a
framework for a carefully
derived protection program.
The public's comments will
be used in the development
of this ground-water
protection effort.
Vermont
To obtain a copy of the
Vermont 1988 305(b) report,
contact:
Vermont Department
of Environmental
Conservation
Water Resources Planning
103 S. Main Street
Waterbury, VT 05676
Surface Water
Quality
The water quality of Ver-
mont's rivers and lakes is
generally excellent. Con-
tinued progress is noted in
the cleanup or elimination
of point source discharges,
particularly from wastewater
treatment plants. Of the
5,162 miles of rivers and
streams in Vermont 88 per-
cent fully supported the uses
for which they are desig-
nated; uses are threatened in
20 percent of these river
miles. Of the 229,146 acres of
lakes and ponds in Vermont,
78 percent fully supported
designated uses; 86 percent
of these lake acres are
threatened. The largest
portion of this threat to lake
use is associated with Lake
Champlain, where toxic
substances have been found
in the tissue of a species of
fish.
Vermont reports that
nonpoint sources are the
most widespread contrib-
utors to use impairment. The
four most common water
quality impairments due to
nonpoint sources in rivers
are siltation/turbidity,
habitat alterations, nutrient
enrichment, and flow altera-
tions. Other common prob-
lems include thermal
modifications and pathogens.
The highest ranked sources
of these impairments are
agricultural runoff, hydro-
modifications below hydro-
power dams, and erosion
from construction sites.
Point source discharges
were responsible for
repeated beach closures on
Lake Champlain. Public
beaches in the Burlington
area were closed frequently
during the summer of 1987,
primarily as the result of
combined sewer overflows
which are now being
corrected.
On other lakes, most of the
water quality impairments
are caused by nonpoint
sources and excessive plant
growth. Very few lakes
receive point source dis-
charges. The major impair-
ments are nuisance aquatic
plants such as Eurasion
milfoil and algae; nutrient
enrichment from nonpoint
sources; pathogens; and
siltation/turbidity. Threats to
lake water quality include
erosion from development,
acid precipitation, and, in
the case of Lake Champlain,
a preliminary indication of
the contamination of fish
tissue by toxic substances.
-------
Appendix
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground-water
contamination in Vermont is
a comparatively minor
problem. However, from time
to time, well interference
problems do occur in more
developed areas, although
there is no evidence that
ground-water withdrawals
are exceeding recharge. The
State relies on ground water
to supply more than half of
its drinking water needs; this
is expected to continue, as
there is no evidence of
widespread water degrada-
tion or depletion.
The major sources of
ground-water contamination
in Vermont include petroleum
pollution from leaking under-
ground storage tanks and
accidental spills; leachate
from landfills; leachate from
on-site sewage systems; road
application and storage of
salt and salted sand; and
agricultural practices.
The ground-water protec-
tion program has made many
significant accomplishments
over the past 2 years.
Current efforts to manage
ground-water quality include
coordinating various State
agencies that participate in
ground-water management
programs, and completing
the State's Ground-Water
Protection Rule and Strategy.
Other activities include a
study of nitrate contamina-
tion, well driller licensing,
and reviews, under the
State's Act 250, of the
impacts of proposed develop-
ment on ground-water
resources.
Virginia
To obtain a copy of the
Virginia 1988 305(b) report,
contact:
Virginia State Water Control
Board Office of Water
Resources Management
2111 North Hamilton Street
Richmond, VA 23230
Surface Water
Quality
Water in Virginia is
generally of good quality
except in relatively few
areas. During the reporting
period, Virginia assessed
3,532 miles of streams,
161,089 lake acres, 1,800
estuary square miles, and 112
ocean coastal miles. Of the
assessed river miles, 34
percent fully supported uses,
40 percent partially sup-
ported uses, and 26 percent
did not support their desig-
nated uses. Of the State's
assessed lake acres, 91 per-
cent fully supported desig-
nated uses, and 9 percent
partially supported uses. Of
the assessed estuary square
miles, 89 percent fully
supported designated uses,
6 percent partially supported
uses, and 5 percent did not
support their designated
uses. Lastly, all of the State's
assessed ocean coastal miles
fully supported their desig-
nated uses.
The major causes of
nonsupport in Virginia's
rivers include fecal coliform
bacteria; major sources of
these pollutants include
agriculture and municipal
point source discharges. Most
of the mileage affected by
domestic sewage is located
in southwestern Virginia,
where it is suspected that
many individual homes
discharge directly to streams.
In lakes, the major causes
of nonsupport were nutrients,
organic enrichment, pH,
siltation, and metals. Major
sources of use impairment in
lakes include agriculture and
storm sewers/runoff.
In estuaries, pathogens,
organic enrichment, and pH
are leading causes of use
impairment; sources include
municipal discharges, agri-
culture, and storm
sewers/runoff.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground water accounts for
approximately 22 percent of
the water used in Virginia for
purposes other than hydro-
electric and thermoelectric
uses. Eighty percent of Vir-
ginians used ground water
either as their only water
supply or as part of their
supply.
Contamination of major
aquifers in Virginia is not
a serious problem. Most
ground-water pollution
incidents contaminate finite
areas near the spill or acci-
dent. More than 800 cases of
contamination have been
documented; approximately
12 new cases are added per
month. Most of these are due
to leaking underground
tanks and associated piping.
The State lists underground
storage tanks, landfills
(municipal, on-site indus-
trial, and others), surface
impoundments, septic tanks,
and agricultural activities as
the major sources of ground-
water contamination. Vola-
tile and synthetic organic
chemicals, pesticides,
nitrates, fluorides, brine/
salinity, and metals are the
contaminants of concern.
Specific ground-water
program activities in Virginia
include formation of an
interagency Ground-Water
Protection Steering Commit-
tee, a Data Management Task
Force, and an Antidegrada-
tion Advisory Group; imple-
mentation of an under-
ground storage tank program;
ground-water monitoring;
and investigations of
pollution complaints and
proposed landfill sites.
Virgin Islands
To obtain a copy of the Virgin
Islands 1988 305(b) report,
contact:
Virgin Islands Department of
Conservation and Cultural
Affairs
Division of Natural Resource
Management
P.O. Box4340
Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas
Virgin Islands 00801
Surface Water
Quality
Water quality in the Virgin
Islands is generally good but
is worsening due to an
increase in nonpoint source
runoff such as vessel washes
and uncontrolled runoff.
During the reporting
period, the Virgin Islands
assessed 29 square miles of
estuary and 7 ocean coastal
miles. Of the assessed
A-35
-------
Appendix
estuary square miles, 86
percent fully supported
designated uses, 3 percent
partially supported uses, and
20 percent did not support
their designated uses. Of the
assessed ocean coastal miles,
71 percent fully supported
designated uses, 14 percent
partially supported uses, and
14 percent did not support
uses. Major sources of use
impairment include munic-
ipal/domestic discharges,
construction, and boating
activities.
Lack of enforcement
of permitting laws and
unplanned development and
growth are special State
concerns. Without an effec-
tive management program,
water pollution problems are
sure to become worse.
There-are little data avail-
able on toxic pollutants in
the Virgin Islands marine
environment. A survey com-
pleted in!986 examined
water, sediments, and biota
and concluded that there
were few or no toxic organics
in water or sediments in the
Territory, although some
trace metals were found at
elevated levels.
Violations of water quality
standards for fecal coliform
bacteria have occurred in
harbor areas where there are
large numbers of boats and
low natural flushing rates.
Several Federal and Terri-
torial laws prohibit sewage
and waste discharge from
vessels, but enforcement is
limited. Land-based storm
runoff and sewage leakage/
infiltration have also been
identified as sources of
bacterial contamination.
The Virgin Islands is
currently experiencing a
building boom. This has
A-36
brought about stress to the
Territory's natural resources.
Without the concomitant
increase in environmental
programs and planning, some
of the Virgin Island's most
valuable resources will be
irreversibly damaged.
Ground-Water
Quality
Some ground-water
contamination occurs in the
Virgin Islands, primarily in
the form of elevated chloride
concentrations caused by
saltwater intrusion. Nitrate
contaminants are also present
in some areas as a result of
sewage treatment plant
malfunctions.
Other areas have been
identified as being impacted
by sewage pollution. There is
also evidence of a new kind
of contamination which
previously was unknown in
the Territory—organic pollu-
tion. Chlorinated solvents
and petroleum products
appear to be the main
elements of this new contam-
ination. At present, the
extent and severity of the
problem is not known, but
efforts are being made to
investigate the areas which
have been identified.
The Government of the
U.S. Virgin Islands has
requested technical and legal
assistance from the U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency to investigate the
matter, including a survey of
water quality in island wells.
The government is also
exploring the possibility of
the U.S. Geological Survey
participation in a joint
investigation of ground-
water supply and quality as
part of the implementation
of the 1983 ground-water
management plan. These
actions are geared toward
short- and long-term
management for more
efficient use and protection
of this precious resource.
Washington
To obtain a copy of the
Washington 1988 305(b)
report, contact:
Washington Department
of Ecology
Water Quality Program
PV-11
Olympia, WA 98504
Surface Water
Quality
During the reporting
period, Washington assessed
4,621 river miles, 156,518
lake acres, 2,114 estuary
square miles, and 163 ocean
coastal miles. Of the assessed
river miles, 50 percent fully
supported designated uses,
35 percent partially sup-
ported uses, and 15 percent
did not support their desig-
nated uses. Of the assessed
lake acres, 78 percent fully
supported designated uses,
21 percent partially sup-
ported uses, and less than
1 percent did not support
their designated uses. Of the
State's assessed estuary
square miles, 92 percent fully
supported designated uses,
4 percent partially supported
uses, and 4 percent did not
support their designated
uses. All of the ocean
assessed coastal miles fully
supported their designated
uses.
The primary causes of
impaired surface waters in
the State are fecal coliform
bacteria, temperature prob-
lems, suspended solids,
organic enrichment and dis-
solved oxygen problems,
nutrients, and habitat/flow
alterations. Contamination
by metals, priority organics,
and pesticides are serious
problems in certain water-
bodies. The primary sources
of water quality impairment
in Washington are runoff
from pasture land and irri-
gated agricultural lands,
municipal and industrial
point sources, storm sewers,
on-site wastewater disposal,
urban runoff, and natural
causes. Natural causes
include such things as glacial
runoff, poor circulation in
estuaries, and low stream-
flow during summer months.
Ground-Water
Quality
Washington lacks a com-
prehensive ground-water
monitoring program, so it is
difficult to assess the extent
'of existing contamination.
Available data, however,
suggest that contamination
may be more widespread
than previously believed.
This is of concern because
more than half of the State's
population relies on ground
water for drinking water;
among rural residents, that
figure is over 90 percent. In
some counties, virtually all
of the population relies on
ground water for domestic
use.
-------
Appendix
While existing data are
limited, they do indicate the
kinds of contamination prob-
lems the State faces. Con-
cerns based on available data
include: an increasing
incidence of nitrates in
ground water, especially in
the irrigated regions of the
Columbia Basin and in areas
with high densities of resi-
dential on-site sewage
systems; a potential for the
presence of leachable pesti-
cides in ground water, partic-
ularly in areas with irrigated
agriculture; the possibility
of transport of radioactivity
from materials stored at
Hanford Nuclear Reservation
into ground water within and
outside the reservation;
leachate from landfills and
other sites containing munic-
ipal and hazardous waste;
leaks from underground stor-
age tanks, both industrial
and domestic; contamination
from chemical spills; contam-
ination by industrial waste
through land disposal or
discharge to ground water;
saltwater intrusion in some
coastal areas; arsenic
contamination from appar-
ently natural sources along
the western foothills of the
Cascade Mountains; and
transport of pollutants by
stormwater discharges to
ground water via dry wells
and other recharge devices.
West Virginia
lb obtain a copy of the West
Virginia 1988 305(b) report,
contact:
West Virginia Department
of Natural Resources
Water Resources Division
694 Winfield Road
St. Albans, WV 25177
Surface-Water
Quality
Well over half of West Vir-
ginia's population is rural.
Because of the State's steeply
dissected topography, a large
portion of this rural popula-
tion resides in small localized
concentrations in narrow
valleys. Along with localized
unfavorable economic condi-
tions and a limited amount of
land available for residential
development, this too often
results in direct discharge of
sewage and/or improperly
installed and maintained on-
lot sewage disposal systems.
Mining, oil and gas explora-
tion, and timbering opera-
tions are also of major
concern in the State due to
nonpoint contributions to
many streams. These prob-
lems are particularly acute
in the Big Sandy/Tug Fork,
Guyandotte, Coal, Kanawha,
Elk, Pocatalico, and Little
Kanawha watersheds.
Agriculture waste handling
and runoff are of concern
mainly in the Potomac water-
shed (in particular, the
extreme eastern portion) due
primarily to the area's large
amount of agricultural opera-
tions and its limestone
geology.
Concern over industrial
discharges is confined, for
the most part, to parts of the
Ohio, Kanawha, and Monon-
gahela watersheds where
industry has tended to
concentrate.
West Virginia reports that
only 9 percent of its 14,301
assessed stream miles did not
support their designated uses
during the reporting period.
Seventy-one percent partially
supported their uses and 20
percent fully supported their
uses. About 14,060 stream
miles were not assessed.
Of the 19,171 lake acres
assessed, only 9 percent did
not support designated uses.
The remaining 91 percent of
assessed lakes were partially
supporting beneficial uses.
Comparison of current data
with that in earlier reports
showed very little overall
change in water quality
during the reporting period.
Elevated levels of toxics
were noted in 3,710 miles of
total assessed streams. Mine
drainage contributed to the
problem in 2,427 of these
stream miles. Elevated levels
of toxics were also noted in
4,655 lake acres. Many of
these reported elevated toxic
levels are due to exceedances
of the State water quality
standard for iron.
Acid mine drainage from
abandoned sources continues
to present a major problem in
the State's waters. Metals
from mining activities were
found to affect 2,852 of the
assessed stream miles, while
1,897 miles were affected by
a pH (acid) problem. Siltation
from various nonpoint
sources impaired 5,251 miles
of stream, while organic
enrichment and dissolved
oxygen problems (mainly
from sewage) were noted in
3,575 stream miles. Siltation
and mine drainage (metals
and pH) were the major
causes of impact on lakes.
Ground-Water
Quality
Although ground water in
West Virginia is generally of
good quality, in most parts of
the State it was found to be
naturally hard and to contain
elevated levels of iron and
manganese. Major contam-
ination problems in the
central and western parts of
the State include acid mine
drainage and saltwater intru-
sion caused by oil and gas
well drilling operations. In
the karst areas of the east,
contamination from petro-
leum products and nonpoint.
sources such as animal
feedlots, domestic septic
tanks, pesticides, etc., are
the principal concerns.
A ground-water protection
strategy has recently been
initiated and is currently in
the development stage. The
top priorities of this strategy
are to establish legislation
and regulation needed to
protect and improve the
State's ground water.
A-37
-------
Appendix
Wisconsin
Tb obtain a copy of the
Wisconsin 1988 305(b)
report, contact:
Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources
Water Quality Evaluation
Section
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
Surface Water
Quality
While significant point
source impacts to Wisconsin's
surface waters have been
minimized, other water
pollution problems remain.
Tbxlc contamination of
sediments and fish, ground-
water contamination, and
nonpoint source runoff into
surface waters are contin-
uing water pollution
concerns.
Nonpoint sources are the
predominant cause of water
quality degradation in lakes
and streams in Wisconsin.
Of point source impacts in
streams, less than half are
due to industrial discharges,
and slightly over half are due
to municipal discharges.
Approximately 9 percent of
water quality degradation in
lakes is due to natural causes.
About 1 percent of the use
impairment in lakes is due to
point sources, primarily
municipal wastewater treat-
ment facility discharges.
Nutrients, biochemical
oxygen demand, and sedi-
ments primarily from non-
point sources continue to
adversely affect the State's
surface waters.
Many surface water quality
problems are localized, so
nonsupport of designated
uses may vary from region to
region. The southwest corner
of the State appears to have
problems due to nonpoint
source impacts, while the Fox
Valley has both point and
nonpoint source problems.
Milwaukee and other Great
Lakes harbor areas have
large areas of contaminated
sediments.
Ground-Water
Quality
Sixty-seven percent of
Wisconsin's residents use
ground water for drinking
water supplies. Many of the
State's industrial and agricul-
tural activities also depend
on ground-water sources.
The five leading sources of
ground-water contamination
in Wisconsin are agricultural
activities, solid waste land-
fills, abandoned waste sites,
underground storage tanks,
and spills. The application,
storage, and handling of
nitrogen-based chemical
fertilizers and animal wastes
has resulted in extensive
nitrate contamination.
Nitrate is the contaminant
most often found to exceed
ground-water quality
standards.
Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) are the most signif-
icant contaminating sub-
stances associated with
municipal landfills, under-
ground storage tanks, aban-
doned hazardous waste
disposal sites, and spills.
Trichloroethylene is the VOC
most often detected at levels
exceeding ground-water
quality enforcement
standards.
In addition to VOCs,
improper handling and
storage of pesticides are
sources of ground-water
contamination. To date, 22
sites have been identified in
the State where the improper
storage or handling of pesti-
cides has caused ground-
water contamination.
Wyoming
To obtain a copy of the
Wyoming 1988 305(b) report,
contact:
Department of Environ-
mental Quality
Water Quality Division
Herschler Building, 4th Floor
122 West 25th
Cheyenne, WY 82002
Surface Water
Quality
Generally, Wyoming's
water is of good to excellent
quality. Significant improve-
ments have been made in
reducing impacts from
municipal sources and most
industries. Nonpoint sources,
however, continue to have
major impacts on water
quality in the State. During
the reporting period,
Wyoming assessed all river
miles and lake acres with the
exception of those on the
Wind River Indian Reserva-
tion. A total of 83 percent of
river miles fully supported
designated uses, and 17
percent partially supported
uses. Of the State's lake acres,
93 percent fully supported
designated uses and 7
percent partially supported
uses.
The major causes of use
impairment in Wyoming's
rivers include suspended
sediments, salinity, and
habitat modifications. Major
sources of these pollutants
include agriculture (range-
land, riparian grazing, and
irrigated agriculture),
construction, hydrological/
habitat modifications, and
resource extraction.
The major causes of use
impairment in lakes include
nutrients, suspended sedi-
ments, and flow alterations.
Sources of these pollutants
include agriculture, hydro-
logical/habitat modifications,
construction, resource
extraction, phosphate soils,
and municipal discharges.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground water has been,
and will continue to be, very
important in Wyoming.
Ground-water use in the
State is estimated to be
around 500,000 acre-feet per
year. Domestic uses account
for about 15 percent of the
water withdrawn; agricul-
tural uses account for about
51 percent; and the petro-
leum industry accounts for
most of the remaining
ground-water use.
Extensive ground-water
contamination has been
identified at refinery sites,
mines, and leaking under-
ground storage tanks. Many
cleanup and restoration
activities are currently
A-38
-------
Appendix
under way. The regulation of
underground injection, the
underground storage tanks
program, and State permit-
ting of facilities that have the
potential to impact ground
waters are under way to
protect existing and potential
uses of ground water. Despite
these efforts, new problems
continue to appear. At
present, there are over 500
sites in Wyoming where
ground-water monitoring,
investigation, or remediation
efforts are under way. The
most common contaminants
in ground water are petro-
leum products.
U.S.GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1990 - 270-871
A-39
-------
------- |