.of-
iJWi
Is?-
..co o::;:;":a>i
c -g '^yQB
1.2m
NM^'2:;
1 »!f!
I;
3tJ
fi:li(
!l!
!
I
r^t?: •:••<•
g'i^iP
&f •*$$'?: '*•
ra1v.if.vi.4"1.
,
-------
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) ail 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 sources 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 transmit 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 Bill Richards
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Honorable Thomas S. Foley
Speaker of the House of
Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Speaker:
As required by Section 305(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, I am transmitting to the Congress the 1990 National
S^tt^^
rf fl,T?S,1i9i9' "°d '5 Pera°t °f "» toM «""•*» •£»" »"«• » «» US. ™ assesSTy
fte States. This represents a seven percent increase in the number of river miles assesMd over 1988 and a six percent increase in
the number of lake acres assessed. Because of the change to number of water, assessed, and variations .moSISte°to aTeZ,»t
meaodolo^s and water quality stmdards, direct comparison, should not be drawn between these £uTan! SS", "perldT
Of a.sessed waters, most are reported to be supporting the beneficial uses for which they have been designated bv tbe States
fold^ T^"^ •""• "T """' ^ " """'*« """ ""*• ™*°**>S. »»• tb, prepagattoTa^uaSe '
found to be supported m 70 percent of assessed river miles, 60 percent of asseaed lake acres, and 67
*"* ™d "" con"molion- Sedim
lily ?*' N*Sn'S g™™d "*" "i""™8 " smi- st««"«POrt «• increasing number of pollution
s, petroleum products, and volatile organic compounds " include nitrates, metals,
^rc^^^^
' l °«»»i=iP»li««' »Wi~i 10 *> » have not tuny unplemented S.?"r,S^f~m, All
Stio^Tl gr°UPSl K ^^ °ffiCeS- The StateS haVe ad°pted a varie(* o^ctivities to address gTold
^^^^
^T6 ^ ^ ^ SC°pe °f the Section 305(b) assessments. Problems with
Sincerely,
William K. Reilly
-------
Acknowledgments
This report is based primarily on water quality assessments submitted to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency by the States, Territories, and Interstate Commissions of the United States. The
EPAwishes to thankthe authors of these assessments forthetimeandeffortspentinpreparmgthese
reports andreviewingthe draft of this national assessment. Additional thanks go to the water quality
assessment coordinators from all ten EPA Regions who work with the States.
The project manager and editor of this document was Alice Mayio of the Assessment and
WatershedProtectionDivision, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. Key contributions were
also made by the following individuals in other EPA program offices: Richard McDermott, Ground
Water ProtectionDivision;Kathryn Smith, Permits Division; DoreenRobb, Wetlands Division; Mary
LouSdscia, Oceans and Coastal Protection Division; and Brett Snyder, Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation.
Data analysis and technical assistance were provided by Versar Incorporated under Contract No.
68-D9-0166. Technical assistance, editorial support, design, typesetting, andgraphics were provided
by Research Triangle Institute under Contract No. 68-C9-0013.
-------
Page
Highlights .' v
Figures vi
Tables viii
Part One: Introduction
Executive Summary xiii
What Do the States Report on the Quality of Their Rivers? xiv
What Do the States Report on the Quality of Their Lakes? xv
What Do the States Report on the Quality of Their Estuaries
and Coastal Waters? xvi
What Do the States Report on the Status of Their Wetlands? xvii
What Public Health/Aquatic Life Impacts Are Reported by the States? xvii
What Do the States Report on Ground-Water Quality? xviii
What Is the Status of Ground-Water Protection Programs? xviii
Are the Nation's Surface Water Pollution Control Programs Working? xix
Introduction xxi
Background ; xxi
Methodology xxii
Part Two: Surface Water Quality
1 Rivers and Streams ., 3
Support of Designated Uses 3
Causes of Impairment 5
Sources of Impairment 9
Attainment of the Clean Water Act Goals 10
2 Lakes and Reservoirs 17
Support of Designated Uses , 17
Causes of Impairment 19
Sources of Impairment 22
Attainment of the Clean Water Act Goals ; 23
Trophic Status of Lakes and Reservoirs 23
Water Quality Trends in Lakes 28
Lake Acidity 30
Controlling Acidification and Toxicant Impacts 31
The Section 314 Clean Lakes Program 32
Restoration and Control Methods 32
Background on Lake Management Methods 32
Contents
-------
Page
3 The Great Lakes ! 37
Support of Designated Uses 37
Causes and Sources of Impairment 38
Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals 39
Water Quality Management 42
The Great Lakes: A Narrative Assessment 42
Lake Superior 43
Lake Michigan , 43
Lake Huron 44
Lake Erie 44
Lake Ontario ••••• 45
Niagara River 45
Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channels 45
4 Estuaries and Coastal Waters 47
Estuaries 47
Support of Designated Uses 47
Causes of Impairment 50
Sources of Impairment 51
Attainment of the Clean Water Act Goals 52
Ocean Coastal Waters 53
Support of Designated Uses 53
Causes and Sources of Impairment 53
Attainment of the Clean Water Act Goals 56
New Initiatives in Estuarine and Coastal Waters 56
The National Estuary Program '. 56
The Near Coastal Waters Program 59
The EPA National Coastal and Marine Policy 59
Coastal America 60
5 Wetlands 61
Water Quality Standards for Wetlands , 61
Definition 64
Use Designation • 64
Criteria ••' 64
Antidegradation 64
Implementation 64
Support of Designated Uses , 66
Summary of State Information 66
Causes and Sources of Impairment 67
Attainment of the Clean Water Act Goals 68
Wetlands Resources 68
A National Perspective 68
Overview of State Reporting 72
-------
Page
Wetlands Protection Programs 78
Summary of Federal Programs '. 78
Summary of State Programs 78
State-Reported Information 81
New Initiatives 82
State Wetlands Program Development Grants 82
6 Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns 85
Total Size of Waters Affected by Toxics 86
Fish Consumption Advisories and Bans 87
Current Initiatives....... 94
Sediment Contamination '. : 95
New Initiatives 97
Fish Kills Caused by Pollution 97
Shellfish Harvesting Restrictions 100
Contact Recreation Restrictions 101
Closure of Surface Drinking Water Supplies 102
Part Three: Ground-Water Quality and Protection
7 Ground-Water Quality 111
Introduction 111
Current Ground-Water Use 113
Ground-Water Quality .' 114
Overview of Contamination Sources 115
Overview of Contaminants 115
Indicators of Ground-Water Protection Activities 116
8 State and Federal Ground-Water Protection Programs 121
State Programs.... 121
Ground-Water Protection Strategies 123
Ground-Water Protection Legislation 124
Ground-Water Protection Regulations 125
Ground-Water Protection Standards.. 125
Wellhead Protection Programs 126
Ground-Water Classification/Mapping Programs 126
Ground-Water Monitoring Programs 126
Special Controls on Specific Contamination Sources 127
Coordination of Protection Programs Among State Agencies 127
EPA Programs 128
Legislation 128
National Programs - 129
-------
Page
Part Four: Water Pollution Control Programs
9 Point Source Control Program 133
Treating Municipal Wastewater 133
Funding Needs for Wastewater Treatment 135
Treating Industrial Wastewater 136
Permitting, Compliance, and Enforcement 137
National Municipal Policy , 138
Controlling Toxicants 138
Identifying Waters Impaired by Toxicants 139
Status of 304(1) Implementation 139
Toxicity Testing 140
The National Pretreatment Program 141
Managing Sludge 143
New Initiatives in Point Source Control 144
Combined Sewer Overflow Control.'. 144
NPDES Stormwater Controls 145
Control of BiocOncentratable Contaminants 145
Pollution Prevention 146
10 Nonpoint Source Control Program 147
Background 147
The National Section 319 Program 148
The 1990 Report to Congress on Section 319 149
National N PS Agenda 149
Nonpoint Source Management Programs and Implementation 149
New Initiatives in NPS Control 153
The 1990 Farm Bill 153
The Coastal Zone Management Reauthorization
Amendments of 1990 153
11 Surface Water Monitoring 155
Introduction 155
What is Monitoring 155
Roles and Objectives , 156
An Evolving Program 156
12 Costs and Benefits of Pollution Control 161
Costs 162
Benefits 153
13 State Recommendations 171
Appendix: Excerpts from the 1990 State Reports A-1
iv
-------
Highlights
Page
Water Quality Assessment Data 8
Sources of Pollution Reported by the States 11
Understanding Wetlands 62
The EMAP Wetlands Program 74
Census of State Fish/Shellfish Consumption Advisory Programs 104
Economic Analysis of Marine Sportfishing 164
-------
No. Title Page
ES-1 Degree of Designated Use Support in the Nation's Waters xiv
1-1 Designated Use Support in Assessed Rivers and Streams 5
1-2 Percent of Impaired River Miles Affected by Causes of Pollution 9
1-3 Percent of Impaired River Miles Affected by Sources of Pollution 10
1-4 Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in Assessed Rivers and Streams 15
2-1 Designated Use Support in Assessed Lakes and Reservoirs 19
2-2 Percent of Impaired Lake Acres Affected by Causes of Pollution 22
2-3 Percent of Impaired Lake Acres Affected by Sources of Pollution 23
2-4 Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in Assessed Lakes and Reservoirs .... 27
2-5 States Reporting Acid Deposition Concerns 30
2-6 States Reporting Acid Mine Drainage Concerns 31
3-1 Designated Use Support in Assessed Great Lakes 38
3-2 Percent of Impaired Great Lakes Shore Miles Affected by
Causes of Pollution 40
3-3 Percent of Impaired Great Lakes Shore Miles Affected by
Sources of Pollution 40
3-4 Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in Assessed Great Lakes 41
4-1 Designated Use Support in Assessed Estuaries ; 49
4-2 Percent of Impaired Estuary Square Miles Affected by
Causes of Pollution 52
4-3 Percent of Impaired Estuary Square Miles Affected by Sources
' of Pollution 53
4-4 Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in Assessed Estuaries 54
4-5 Designated Use Support in Assessed Oceans 55
4-6 Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in Assessed Oceans 57
4-7 Estuaries Participating in the National Estuary Program 59
5-1 Original and Remaining Acreages of Wetlands in Lower 48 States 71
5-2 Current Sources of Direct Wetlands Losses 72
5-3 Water Quality Problems Affecting Wetlands 73
5-4 Sources of Water Quality Problems in Wetlands 76
Figures
vi
-------
No. Title Page
6-1 Number of Fish Consumption Restrictions Nationwide 91
6-2 Number of Fish Kills Nationwide 99
7-1 National Distribution of Ground-Water Withdrawals by State/Territory 112
7-2 National Withdrawals of Ground Water, 1950-1985 113
7-3 Ground Water as a Source for Domestic Supply 113
7-4 National Uses of Ground Water 114
7-5 Priority Ranking of Ground-Water Contamination Sources
by Number of States and Territories Reporting 115
7-6 Most Frequently Observed Ground-Water Contaminants
by Number of States and Territories Reporting 116
•
12-1 Classification of Economic Benefits Related to Water Quality Conditions 167
VII
-------
No. Title Page
ES-1 Leading Causes and Sources of Impairment xv
ES-2 Leading Sources and Contaminants in Ground Water xviii
1-1 Percentage of Waters Assessed for Rivers, Lakes, and Estuaries xxv
1-1 Designated Use Support in Rivers and Streams 4
1-2 Impaired River Miles Affected by Causes of Pollution 6
1-3 Impaired River Miles Affected by Sources of Pollution 12
1-4 Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in Rivers and Streams 14
2-1 Designated Use Support in Lakes and Reservoirs 18
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 26
2-5 General Characteristics of Traditional Lake Trophic Status Classifications.... 28
2-6 Trophic Status of the Nation's Lakes 29
2-7 Lake Rehabilitation Techniques by Restoration Objectives 33
3-1 Designated Use Support in Great Lakes 38
3-2 Impaired Great Lake Shore Miles Affected by Causes of Pollution 38
3-3 Impaired Great Lake Shore Miles Affected by Sources of Pollution 40
3-4 Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in the Great Lakes 40
4-1 Designated Use Support in Estuaries 48
4-2 Impaired Estuary Square Miles Affected by Causes of Pollution 48
4-3 Impaired Estuary Square Miles Affected by Sources of Pollution 50
4-4 Attainment of Clean Water Act Goais in Estuaries 54
4-5 Designated Use Support in Oceans 55
4-6 Impaired Ocean Coastal Miles Affected by Causes of Pollution 56
4-7 Impaired Ocean Coastal Miles Affected by Sources of Pollution 56
4-8 Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in Oceans 58
5-1 Designated Use Support in Wetlands 66
5-2 Impaired Wetlands Acres Affected by Causes of Pollution 68
5-3 Impaired Wetlands Acres Affected by Sources of Pollution 69
5-4 Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in the Wetlands 69
5-5 Wetlands Losses in the United States, 1780s to 1980s 70
5-6 Major Causes of Wetlands Loss and Degradation 71
5-7 Summary of Reported State Wetlands Protection Programs 80
Tables
viii
-------
No. Title Page
6-1 Size of Surface Waters Affected by Toxic Substances 88
6-2 Fishing Restrictions Reported by the States 90
6-3 Pollutants Associated with Fishing Restrictions 91
6-4 Sources Associated with Fishing Restrictions 91
6-5 Sediment Contamination Reported by States 96
6-6 Fish Kills Caused by Pollution 98
6-7 Pollutants Associated with Fish Kills •. 99
6-8 Sources Associated with Fish Kills 99
6-9 Shellfish Harvesting Restrictions Reported by States 101
6-10 Sources Associated with Shellfish Harvesting Restrictions 101
6-11 Contact Recreation Restrictions Reported by the States 103
6-12 Closure of Surface Drinking Water Supplies Reported by States 103
7-1 Summary of States and Territories Reporting Ground-Water Indicators 118
8-1 Ground-Water Programs 122
8-2 EPA Ground-Water Protection Programs and Statutes 128
9-1 Needs for Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities 135
9-2 Status of Permit Issuance 136
9-3 National Composite Rates of Facilities in Significant Noncompliance 137
12-1 Total Annualized Costs of Water Pollution Control in the United States 162
12-2 Total Annualized Costs of Environmental Protection in the United States 163
12-3 Costs of Water Pollution Control Activities in North Carolina..: 165
12-4 Wastewater Treatment Systems Expenditures and Ohio River
Water Quality Improvements ; 168
IX
-------
-------
Introduction
-------
-------
Executive Summary
This report summarizes
water quality assessment
information submitted by the
States to the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency
(EPA) in 1990 under Section
305(b) of the Clean Water
Act. The States based then-
water quality assessments
on data collected in 1988 and
1989 using physical, chemi-
cal, and "evaluative" ap-
proaches such as sending
questionnaires to fisheries
biologists and analyzing land
use data.
In their water quality
assessments, States reported
on a variety of water quality
measures. Leading mea-
sures include
• The extent to which as-
sessed rivers, lakes, estuar-
ies, and other waters meet
their intended (i.e., desig-
nated) uses;
• Pollutants and pollutant
sources responsible for
impairment in surface and
ground waters not meeting
uses;
• The extent to which "fish-
able and swimmable" water
quality has been attained in
the assessed surface waters;
• The extent of various
pollution impacts such as
fishing restrictions, fish kills,
and areas of sediment con-
tamination;
• Actions under way at the
State and Federal levels to
control water pollution; and
• State recommendations
for further or continued
action.
State reporting of water
quality assessments is more
comprehensive with each
Section 305(b) reporting
cycle. In part this is because
water resource managers are
recognizing the value of
xiii
-------
Executive Summary
assessment data in setting
priorities for control actions.
For example, as this and
previous national water
quality assessments note,
nontraditional sources of
pollution such as runoff from
agricultural fields and urban
areas are clearly the leading
reason for impairment in
surface waters. Increased
management attention is
therefore heing focused at
the Federal, State, and local
levels on identifying waters
with nontraditional source
impacts, implementing man-
agement plans to mitigate
those impacts, and develop-
ing monitoring programs to
study the effects of
nontraditional mitigation
measures.
The reader should note
that ahout one-third of the
Nation's river and stream
miles, one-half of its lake
acres, and two-thirds of its
estuarine square miles were
assessed by the States in
1990. This is an improve-
ment over previous reporting
cycles. However, many
' waters remain unassessed
because States are generally
constrained by diminishing
resources and competing
needs to monitor most often
in those waters with known
or suspected problems. This
report should therefore be
seen primarily as a "snap-
shot" of conditions in those
areas that have been
assessed by the States.
It is also important to note
that the data upon which
this document is based were
collected and reported by
States with differing moni-
toring capabilities, water
quality standards, and
assessment approaches. (See
the Introduction to this re-
port for further discussion of
, the limitations of these data.)
Progress is being made in
introducing consistency in
assessment approaches to
. the 305(b) reporting process.
Statistically valid informa-
tion on water quality status
and trends in the Nation's
waters will be collected in
coming years by scientifically
designed, broad-scale moni-
toring programs sponsored
by EPA and other Federal
agencies.
What Do the
States Report on
the Quality of
Their Rivers?
More than 647,000 river
miles were assessed by 51
States, Territories, and
Jurisdictions in 1990. This
reflects 36 percent of the
total river miles in the
United States, or 53 percent
of the total river miles in the
States that reported. This is
an increase of 127,000 miles
over the number of river
miles assessed in 1988.
States assessed their waters
with chemical and biological
monitoring data as well as
with other types of data such
as surveys of fisheries biolo-
gists, predictive water qual-
ity models, and information
from citizen volunteer moni-
tors.
The States designated
their waterbodies for specific
River Miles*
Not Supporting
(62,218)
Partially Supporting
(134,472)
Threatened
(43,214)\
FuHy
Supporting
(407,162)
Unassessed
(1,153,000)
Lake Acres*1
Not Supporting
(3,940,277)
Partially
Supporting
(3,471,633)
Threatened
(2,902,809)
Fully
Supporting
(8,173,917)
Unassessed
(20,911,364 million)
Estuary Square Miles*'
Not Supporting
(2,064)
Partially
Supporting
(6,573)
Fully Supporting
(15,004)
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
Figure ES-1. Degree of Designated Use Support in the Nation's Waters
xiv
-------
Executive Summary
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 sup-
port of these designated uses,
a combined total of 407,162
river miles were found to
support designated uses, or
63 percent of the river miles
assessed in these States (see
Figure ES-1). An additional
7 percent of assessed stream
miles (43,214 miles) cur-
rently support uses but are
threatened by pollution.
Including unassessed waters,
it might alternatively be
stated that 23 percent of the
Nation's total river miles are
known to support uses,
2 percent are threatened,
7 percent partially support
uses, 3 percent do not sup-
port uses, and the remaining
64 percent were not
assessed. These numbers
should be interpreted with
care and should not be com-
pared to those of previous
reporting cycles because
States may have revised
their assessment criteria
over time.
The most extensive causes
of impairment in the
Nation's rivers were siltation
(affecting 36 percent of im-
paired river miles), nutrients
(affecting 28 percent), or-
ganic enrichment/low dis-
solved oxygen (affecting
26 percent), and pathogens
(affecting 19 percent). Agri-
cultural runoff was by far the
most extensive source of
pollution, affecting 60 per-
cent of impaired river miles.
Other sources include mu-
nicipal discharges (affecting
16 percent of impaired
waters), hydrologic/habitat
modification, and resource
• extraction (each affecting
14 percent) (see Table ES-1).
What Do the
States Report on
the Quality of
Their Lakes?
About 18.5 million lake
acres (excluding the Great
Lakes) were assessed by 46
States, Territories,-and
Jurisdictions in 1990. This
reflects 47 percent of the
total lake acres in the U.S.,
or 69 percent of the total lake
acres in the States reporting.
This is an increase of about
2.2 million lake acres over
the number assessed in 1988.
Among the States that
reported on support of desig-
nated uses, a combined total
of more than 8 million lake
acres were found to support
those uses, or 44 percent of
the assessed lake acres in
those States (see Figure
ES-1). An additional 16 per-
cent (about 3 million acres)
currently support uses but
are threatened by pollution.
Nineteen percent (about 3.5
million acres) partially sup-
port uses, and the remaining
21 percent (about 4 million
acres) do not support desig-
nated uses. Including
unassessed waters, about 21
percent of the Nation's total
lake acres are known to
support uses, 7 percent are
threatened, 9 percent par-
tially support uses, 10 per-
cent do not support uses, and
the remaining 53 percent
were not assessed.
The most extensive causes
of use impairment in lakes
were metals (affecting 48
percent of impaired acres),
nutrients (affecting 32 per-
cent), organic enrichment/
low dissolved oxygen
(affecting 19 percent), and
Table ES-1. Leading Causes and Sources of Impairment
Type of
Waterbody Rivers
Leading Siltation
Causes of Nutrients
Impairment* Organic Enrichment/
Low Dissolved Oxygen
Pathogens
Leading Agriculture
Sources of Municipal Discharges
Impairment* Hydrologic/Habitat
Modification
Resource Extraction
Lakes
Metals
Nutrients
Organic Enrichment/
Low Dissolved Oxygen
Suspended Solids
Agriculture
Hydrologic/Habitat
Modification
Storm Sewers/Runoff
Land Disposal
Estuaries
Nutrients
Organic Enrichment/
Low Dissolved Oxygen
Pathogens
Priority Organics
Municipal Discharges
Storm Sewers/Runoff
Land Disposal
Agriculture
'Determined by size affected.
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
XV
-------
Executive Summary
suspended solids (affecting
13 percent) (see Table ES-1).
It should be noted that cause
data for lakes were skewed
by data from one State that
changed its assessment
approach in 1990 and re-
ported a large number of
lake acres affected by mer-
cury from atmospheric depo-
sition. When data from that
State are excluded, metals
rank sixth and nutrients are
by far the leading cause of
use impairment. Nutrients
are the main cause of cul-
tural eutrophication-a major
alteration of lake ecology
characterized by the exces-
sive growth of aquatic weeds
and algae. The States re-
ported that about half of all
lakes assessed for trophic
status were classified as
eutrophic. The most exten-
sive sources of pollution in
lakes were agriculture
(affecting 57 percent of
impaired lake acres),
hydrologic/habitat modifica-
tion (affecting 40 percent),
Hunlington Harbor, North Shore of Long Island, New York.
storm sewers/runoff (affect-
ing 28 percent), and land
disposal (affecting 24 per-
cent) (see Table ES-1).
About 4,800 Great Lakes
shoreline miles were as-
sessed by six of the eight
Great Lakes States in 1990.
This reflects 94 percent of
the total Great Lakes shore-
line miles in the U.S. and all
the shoreline miles in these
six States. A combined total
of about 85 Great Lakes
shoreline miles were found
to support designated uses,
only 1.4 percent of assessed
shoreline miles. This low
rate of use support is attrib-
uted largely to fish consump-
tion restrictions in place
throughout nearshore waters
of the Great Lakes. The
most extensive causes of
nonsupport were organic
chemicals, pesticides, and
metals. Significant sources
of impairment include land
disposal, contaminated sedi-
ments, and atmospheric
deposition.
What Do the
States Report on
the Quality of
Their Estuaries
and Coastal
Waters?
About 26,700 square miles
of estuaries were assessed by
22 States, Territories, and
Jurisdictions in 1990. This
reflects about 75 percent of
the total estuarine area in
these States.
Among the States that
reported on support of desig-
nated uses, a combined total
of about 15,000 square miles
were found to support uses,
or 56 percent of estuarine
square miles assessed in
those States (see Figure
ES-1). Including unassessed
waters, 42 percent of total
estuarine square miles in
these States were known to
support designated uses,
8 percent support uses but
are threatened by pollution,
18 percent partially support
uses, 6 percent do not sup-
port,uses, and the remaining
25 percent were not as-
sessed.
The most extensive causes
of use impairment in estuar-
ies were nutrients (affecting
55 percent of impaired
square miles), organic en-
richment (affecting 31 per-
cent of impaired square
miles), pathogens (affecting
30 percent), and priority
organics (affecting 15 per-
cent). The most extensive
sources of pollution in estu-
aries, as cited by the States,
were municipal discharges
(affecting 35 percent of im-
paired estuarine square
miles), storm sewers/runoff
(affecting 30 percent), land
disposal (affecting 19 per-
cent), and agriculture (affect-
ing 18 percent) (see Table
ES-1).
Coastal shoreline water
quality was reported sepa-.
rately from estuarine water
quality in the State reports.
Over 4,200 coastal shoreline
miles were assessed by 13
States and Territories in
1990. This reflects about
22 percent of the Nation's
19,200 miles of ocean coast-
line, and 33 percent of the
coastline miles in these
States. Among the States
that reported on support of
designated uses, a combined
total of 3,775 miles were
found to fully support uses,
or 89 percent of coastline
miles assessed in these
States.
xvi
-------
Executive Summary
What Do the
States Report on
the Status of Their
Wetlands?
State reporting on wet-
lands status increased in
1990, but remained uneven.
Most of the States and Terri-
tories provided information
on wetlands acreage, causes
of loss, wetlands legislation,
and State programs. How-
ever, few States reported on
wetlands quality (i.e., sup-
port of designated uses).
The States cited land de-
velopment for residential or
commercial purposes, agri-
cultural and resource extrac-
tion activities, impound-
ments, mining, and highway
construction as causes of
current wetlands losses.
Agriculture was reported as
a major historical cause of
wetlands loss but currently
appears to be less of a threat.
A variety of State wetlands
protection legislation and
programs were discussed by
the States.
What Public
Health/Aquatic
Life Impacts Are
Reported by the
States?
In general, the information
reported by the States shows
that toxic substances affect
less area than other types of
pollution problems 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 effects
studies. Nevertheless,
Drift from aerial application of pesticides can contribute to localized public health or aquatic life impacts
in adjacent surface waters.
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. In 1990, the number
of States providing data on
toxic substances in their
waters increased substan-
tially compared to previous
reporting cycles.
The States reported ele-
vated concentrations of toxics
in 15 percent of monitored
river miles, 39 percent of
monitored lake acres, 19
percent of monitored estua-
rine waters, and 7 percent of
monitored ocean shoreline
miles. Over 98 percent of
Great Lakes shoreline miles
were reported as having
elevated concentrations of
toxics.
Forty-seven States and
Territories reported 998
waterbodies with fishing
advisories and 50 water-
bodies with fishing bans in
place during the reporting
period. PCBs, pesticides,
dioxin, mercury, organics,
and other heavy metals were
the most commonly cited
causes; industrial discharges,
urban ninoflXstorm sewers,
and nonpoint sources such as
agricultural or resource
extraction activities were the
most common sources of
contamination leading to
fishing restrictions.
Sediment contamination
by toxics was discussed by 29
States. Five States reported
that sediment contamination
was not a problem, but 24
States identified 384 inci-
dents of sediment contami-
nation. Incidents were
caused primarily by heavy
metals, PCBs, pesticides, and
dioxin.
More than a thousand
XVII
-------
Executive Summary
pollution-caused fish kills
were reported by 42 States
during the 1988-90 reporting
period, with roughly 26 mil-
lion fish killed. Pesticides,
biochemical oxygen-demand-
ing substances/low levels of
dissolved oxygen, oil and gas,
chlorine, temperature
changes, and ammonia were
leading causes cited by the
States. Commonly cited
sources include industrial
discharges, agriculture, mu-
nicipal discharges, spills, and
resource extraction activities.
Shellfish harvesting re-
strictions, also resulting from
fecal coliform or viral con-
tamination of coastal and
estuarine waters, were re-
ported by 20 States. Twelve
States provided information
on a total of 340 incidents,
and 11 States provided infor-
mation on the geographic
extent of the shellfish clo-
sures for a total of 2,108
square miles of estuarine
waters. The most commonly
reported sources of the re-
strictions were municipal
wastewater treatment facili-
ties, urban runoff/storm
sewers, onsite wastewater
systems, marinas, and indus-
trial dischargers.
Information on contact
recreational restrictions due
to pollution was reported by
23 States. In 3 States, no
Table ES-2. Leading Sources and Contaminants
in Ground Water
Leading
Sources*
Leading
Contaminants*
Underground Storage Tanks
Septic Systems
Municipal Landfills
Agricultural Activities
Abandoned Hazardous
Waste Sites
Nitrates
Metals
Pesticides
Petroleum Products
Volatile Organic Compounds
'Determined by number of States reporting.
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
restrictions were reported; in
the remaining 20 States, 301
incidents were reported,
most of short-term duration
and attributed to pathogen
indicators such as fecal coli-
form bacteria from sewage
treatment plants, combined
sewer overflows, urban run-
off, and spills.
Eleven States provided
information on closure of
surface water drinking sup-
plies. Of these States, 10
reported 34 closure incidents.
Toxic pollutants entering
waterbodies (primarily riv-
ers) from accidental spills
and industrial discharges
were the primary reasons for
closure. Most closures were
of short duration.
What Do the
States Report on
Ground-Water
Quality?
Ground water is a vital
natural resource. In many
areas of the country, it is the
only reliable source of drink-
ing water or irrigation water;
it is also widely used for
industrial uses and livestock
watering.
Although generally the
quality of the Nation's
ground water is good to ex-
cellent, an increasing num-
ber of pollution incidents
affecting both public water
supplies and private wells
have been reported through-
out the country. The sources
of contamination most fre-
quently cited by the States in
1990 were underground
storage tanks, septic sys-
tems, municipal landfills,
agricultural activities, and
abandoned hazardous waste
sites (see Table ES-2).
The States also identified
the most prevalent contami-
nants in ground water.
Leading contaminants were
nitrates (identified by 37
States), metals (33 States),
pesticides (32 States), petro-
leum products (31 States),
and volatile organic com-
pounds (31 States).
EPA's Office of Ground
Water Protection has devel-
oped a set of indicators to
measure progress and set
priorities in ground-water
protection efforts. In 1990,
32 States provided some
quantitative information on
one or more of these indica-
tors. EPA plans to move
toward inclusion of these
indicators in future 305(b)
reports.
What Is the Status
of Ground-Water
Protection
Programs?
The States are currently
involved in a number of
activities to address ground-
water contamination and
sources of contaminants.
These activities include
• Adopting and implement-
ing State ground-water pro-
tection strategies (44 States);
• Establishing Wellhead
Protection Programs under
the Safe Drinking Water Act
of 1986 (17 States with ap-
proved programs, 29 States
with programs under devel-
opment);
• Enacting legislation
specifically aimed at develop-
ing comprehensive ground-
water protection programs
(37 States);
xviii
-------
Executive Summary
• Promulgating ground-
water protection regulations
(36 States);
• Developing protective
ground-water quality stan-
dards (41 States);
• Developing ground-water
monitoring programs
(35 States);
• Adopting ground-water
classification and mapping
programs (39 States);
• Developing special source
controls for contaminating
sources such as landfills and
septic systems (24 States);
and
• Developing plans to coor-
dinate ground-water protec-
tion programs among dif-
ferent State agencies
(23 States).
EPA carries out ground-
water protection activities
under the Safe Drinking
Water Act, the Clean Water
Act, the Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act, the
Comprehensive Environmen-
tal Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act ("Super-
fund"), and the Federal In-
secticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act. Programs
initiated by EPA under these
authorities include the Na-
tional Pesticide Survey, the
Pesticides in Ground-Water
Strategy, the Ground-Water
Protection Strategy, and the
Ground-Water Task Force.
Are the Nation's
Surface Water
Pollution Control
Programs
Working?
The Clean Water Act
(CWA) of 1972 (revised by
amendments in 1977,1981,
and 1987) provides the basic
framework for Federal and
Oil platform in Terrebonne Bay, Louisiana.
State programs to control
point and nonpoint sources of
pollution.
Point sources of pollution
(except discharges of dredged
or fill material regulated by
the Corps of Engineers) are
regulated through permits
issued by either EPA or the
States. These permits
specify limits on the amount
and types of pollutants that
may be discharged. As of
October 1990, most major
point sources were meeting
their permit limits: 15 per-
cent of major municipal
plants and 13 percent of
directly discharging indus-
trial facilities were in signifi-
cant noncompliance with
applicable permit conditions.
To help control pollution
from municipal dischargers,
the CWA authorized EPA to
provide grants and loans to
the States. Expenditures
under the construction
grants program have re-
sulted in significant expan-
sion of wastewater treat-
ment. Although the con-
struction grants program is
being phased out under the
provisions of the 1987 Clean
Water Act, a State revolving
loan fund has been estab-
lished to ensure continued
financing of wastewater
treatment and to provide a
new source of funding to
control nonpoint source pol- ,
lution and stormwater dis-
charges.
The Clean Water Act re-
quires EPA to establish uni-
form, nationally consistent
guidelines limiting pollut-
ants in industrial effluents.
At this time, EPA has estab-
lished guidelines for 28 ma-
jor categories of industries
and 15 additional secondary
industries. An additional 12
industry categories are
XIX
-------
Executive Summary
under study for future guide-
lines development.
States are making
progress in developing the
capability to assess and
regulate toxic discharges
using biological techniques.
As of June 1990,67 percent
of States were using whole
effluent toxicity testing in
their permitting process.
The National Pretreat-
ment Program is designed to
protect municipal waste-
water treatment plants and
the environment from the
impacts of toxic waste dis-
charges into sewers from
industrial sources. Thepre-
treatment program currently
regulates about 30,000 sig-
nificant industrial users.
About 14 to 17 percent of
these are in significant non-
compliance with pretreat-
ment requirements. In addi-
tion, about 39 percent of
sewage treatment facilities
are failing to implement at
least one component of their
approved pretreatment pro-
grams. EPA has developed a
report to Congress on the
A pulp and paper mill, Chesapeake Bay.
effectiveness of the pretreat-
ment program as required
under Section 519 of the
Clean Water Act.
New initiatives in point
source control include imple-
mentation of the National
Combined Sewer Overflow
Strategy and promulgation of
requirements for discharges
from municipal separate
storm sewer systems serving
populations of 100,000 or
more and for stormwater
discharges associated with
industrial activity.
Nonpoint sources of pollu-
tion are primarily addressed
through programs at the
State and local levels of gov-
ernment. Nonpoint source
(NFS) management activities
focus primarily on pollution
prevention, as opposed to
restoration. Approaches
range from land use manage-
ment to the implementation
of structural and cultural
practices designed to reduce
the environmental impacts of
human activities. Examples
of NPS management activi-
ties include preserving wet-
lands, managing nutrients
and pesticides on farms,
creating wet detention ba-
sins in urban areas, control-
ling stream acidification
caused by abandoned coal
mines, protecting salmonid
fisheries from sediment en-
tering streams from logging
areas, and protecting and
reestablishing riparian habi-
tats. These activities may be
imposed through regulatory
or voluntary programs and
are generally developed and
applied on a site-specific
basis.
In 1987, Congress enacted
Section 319 of the Clean
Water Act to establish a
comprehensive nonpoint
source pollution control
program. Section 319
reflects increased Congres-
sional and public awareness
of the scope and diversity of
nonpoint sources of pollution.
A three-stage national pro-
gram was created by Section
319, granting States primary
authority and responsibility
to develop nonpoint source
assessment reports, adopt
nonpoint source manage-
ment programs, and carry
out those management pro-
grams. Section 319 also es-
tablishes an EPA grant
program to assist States in
implementing their approved
management programs.
As of October 1990, all
States had EPA-approved
nonpoint source assess-
ments. EPA also fully ap-
proved 44 State nonpoint
source management pro-
grams and has approved
portions of all remaining
State management pro-
grams. EPA issued final
guidance on the award and
management of grants for
nonpoint source control in
February 1991.
New initiatives in non-
point source control include
the 1990 Farm Bill, which
contains strong water quality
provisions and offers new
opportunities to link EPA
and U.S. Department of
Agriculture water quality
programs in the States, and
the Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Keauthorization
Amendments of 1990, which
require coastal States to
develop coastal nonpoint
pollution control programs.
A variety of innovative
nonpoint source manage-
ment projects have been
initiated across the country
by States, localities, commu-
nity groups, and EPA Re-
gional offices.
XX
-------
Introduction
Background
Since 1972, Federal and
State regulatory efforts to
protect the Nation's surface
water resources have been
driven by the Clean Water
Act. The objective of the
Clean Water Act is to
"restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and bio-
logical integrity of the
Nation's waters." The Act
establishes an interim goal
to attain this objective: that,
"wherever attainable ...
water quality which provides
for the protection and propa-
gation offish, shellfish, and
wildlife and provides for
recreation in and on the
water be achieved by July 1,
1983."
Water pollution control
programs have since been
evolving in response to the
mandates of the Clean Water
Act and its amendments. In
the 1970s and early 1980s,
the focus of pollution control
activities was on the most
.blatant and easily controlled
sources of pollution: tradi-
tional point sources, such as
discharges from industrial
facilities and municipal sew-
age treatment plants. In-
creasingly stringent levels of
industrial and municipal
treatment were established
as part of the point source
permitting process, and a
construction grants program
was established to provide
financial assistance to mu-
nicipalities to upgrade exist-
ing sewage treatment plants
and build new facilities.
Important progress was
made in reducing the im-
pacts of conventional (i.e.,
nontoxic) pollutants from
traditional point sources as a
result of these efforts. As
this report will point out,
although these sources con-
tinue to cause localized wa-
ter quality problems in our
waters, they are no longer-
leading sources of pollution
in the Nation as a whole.
Instead, we are finding that
pollution from nontraditional
sources such as farmlands,
city streets, storm sewers,
construction sites, and mines
adversely affects more U.S.
waters. Toxic pollutants—
hard and expensive to detect
and control—also continue to
XXI
-------
Introduction
impair our water resources.
The 1987 amendments to
the Clean Water Act, which
will be referenced frequently
in this report, were designed
to address many of the
Nation's remaining water
quality problems. Key as-
pects of the amendments
include a strengthening of
the nonpoint source manage-
ment program; a phased
expansion of the permitting
program to address storm-
water discharges; require-
ments that waters impaired
by toxicants be identified and
control strategies be imple-
mented; and a strengthening
of the Nation's programs to
protect and restore estuarine
and coastal waters. Many of
the programs implemented
under the 1987 amendments
are discussed in this report.
The overall approach of
the Nation's pollution control
efforts has begun to evolve in
response to these new pro-
grams and to our increased
knowledge of how the envi-
ronment works. Increas-
ingly, new control activities
are being designed to ad-
dress entire ecosystems or
watersheds—the physical
and chemical quality of wa-
ters; the health, diversity,
and abundance of the ani-
mals and plants that live in
the waters; the integrity of
the habitats they occupy; and
the uses and abuses of the
land surrounding those wa-
ters. Many of these pro-
grams are just beginning,
and it may take years to fully
assess then* effectiveness.
Future reports in this series
will attempt to do just that
as our ability to monitor,
assess, and report on aquatic
conditions continues to
improve.
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, analyzes these
reports and transmits them
and this national report to
Congress. This report to
Congress summarizes the
States' 1990 reports, which
contain data collected in
1988 and 1989.
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 re-
porting water quality infor-
mation. For example, for
surface waters, these guide-
lines promote the use of a
water quality measure based
on the degree to which a
waterbody is in compliance
with the State water quality
standards established for
that waterbody. State water
quality standards consist of
the water quality objective,
expressed as the "designated
use," numeric and narrative
"criteria" designed to ensure
maintenance of the desig-
nated use, and an antidegra-
dation provision. EPA's
Section 305(b) reporting
guidelines require that
States report on water qual-
ity in terms of the degree
that designated 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.
Another method of defin-
ing surface water quality, as
mentioned above, is by deter-
mining 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 fishability 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 func-
tions. The identification of
specific problem areas and
pollutants increases the
usefulness 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 gen-
eral, it is the State summary
information that has been
extracted and analyzed for
this 1990 National Water
Quality Inventory. In future
305(b) reporting cycles, con-
siderably more emphasis will
be placed on waterbody-
specific information.
Some of the major surface
water data elements that
were used in this report
include the following:
• Total sizes of assessed
waterbodies (in river miles,
lake acres, estuarine square
miles, and coastal and Great
Lake shoreline miles) per
xxii
-------
Introduction
State that are fully,
partially, or not supporting
designated uses and those
that are threatened;
• Major causes of use im-
pairment (i.e., pollutants or
processes such as siltation
causing degradation);
• Sources of pollution in
those waters not fully sup-
porting their uses;
• Number of waters
adversely affected by toxic
pollutants.
Although most States have
provided most or all of the
summary data requested in
the guidelines, others have
not. For example, out of the
55 States, Territories, and
Jurisdictions that submitted
water quality assessments in
1990 in time for their inclu-
sion in this report:
• 51 States provided infor-
mation that could be used to
derive the overall degree of
designated use support for
647,066 stream miles, or 53
percent of the stream miles
in these States;
• 46 States provided infor-
mation on designated use
support for 18,488,636 acres
of lakes and reservoirs, 70
percent of lake acres in these
States;
• 22 out of 27 coastal States
provided information on
designated use support for
26,693 square miles of estu-
aries, 75 percent of the
estuarine area in the report-
ing States;
• 45 States provided infor-
mation on their existing
wetland acreage and State
•wetland programs, and five
States assessed designated
The number of waters assessed by the States has risen significantly.
use support in their wet-
lands;
• 47 States reported on
causes of nonsupport in
impaired rivers, 35 reported
on causes in impaired lakes,
and 16 reported on causes in
impaired estuarine waters;
• 42 States reported
usable information on
sources of pollution in im-
paired rivers, 35 reported on
sources in impaired lakes,
and 15 reported on sources
in impaired estuaries;
• 41 States provided data on
the total number of river
miles affected by toxics, 33
reported on the number of
lake acres affected by toxics,
and 16 reported on the num-
ber of estuarine square miles
affected by toxics.
However, despite incom-
plete reporting, the continu-
ing effort to improve and
better manage water quality
data is succeeding. In 1990,
the States provided more
data on many topics of con-
cern than in previous years.
The number of waters as-
sessed 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 sys-
tem to manage State infor-
mation 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.
XXIII
-------
Introduction
i i! "
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 ob-
. stacle arises because of in-
consistencies among States
in how these data were gen-
erated. These inconsisten-
cies are themselves the re-
sult of different approaches
to monitoring, different pol-
lution problems and program
needs, incomplete and vary-
ing water quality criteria,
and the lack of generally
accepted assessment meth-
odologies.
For example, as mentioned
previously, the standard
measure for evaluating wa-
ter quality is the degree to
which designated uses are
supported in a given water-
body. Determining the de-
gree of use support involves
a considerable amount of
best professional judgment.
'v'"' " !- ' ' ' !?$$ P3 S?5$$
V&g !i ; $ i
Biologists monitor the health of fish populations off the southern
California coast.
It also may involve going
beyond examination of the
specific chemical criteria
contained in State water
quality standards. Such
criteria are designed to sup-
port the use but are often
incomplete compared to the
range of potential pollutants
and phenomena that ad-
versely 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 I-1). Some States
provided rather low esti-
mates of their total number
of waters; therefore, their
percentages of total waters
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 mod-
eling to supplement actual
chemical, biological, and
physical monitoring data.
Other States assessed a
smaller percentage of then-
total stream miles because
they preferred to rely almost
exclusively on actual water
quality monitoring data such
as chemical and biological
information from fixed sta-
tions and special surveys and
may have excluded supple-
mental sources of informa-
tion.
Why do State monitoring
strategies vary? Clearly,
some States have more funds
than others for these activi-
ties, 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 ap-
proach 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 wa-
ters or those that are inten-
sively used for recreational
purposes—the remaining
unassessed waters may be of
better quality. EPA is en-
couraging increased water
quality assessment to verify
this and gain a more accu-
rate picture of the Nation's
waters as a whole. EPA has
also asked States to identify
which of their waterbodies
were assessed using biologi-
cal 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
XXIV
-------
Introduction
Table 1-1. Percentage of Waters Assessed for Rivers, Lakes, and Estuaries*
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
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
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Total
Miles
40,600
17,537
11,310
26,970
31,470
8,400
643
206
40
12,659
20,000
349
14,080
20,000
18,300
13,295
18,490
14,180
31,672
17,000
8,053
36,350
91 ,944
15,839
21,064
51,212
24,000
7,500
14,544
3,500
70,000
37,222
11,868
43,917
981
19,791
90,000
50,000
5,373
724
9,900
9,937
19,124
80,000
11,779
5,266
27,240
40,492
28,361
43,600
19,437
1,216,219
'Based on State estimates of total waters.
Percent
Assessed
30
30
42
45
97
11
100
100
95
62
100
100
93
25
39
91
52
92
100
100
20
100
6
100
100
100
30
19
9
89
100
94
77
17
100
22
31
48
100
86
35
40
54
20
75
100
40
12
62
31
100
53
— Not reported.
Total
Acres
504,721
127,372
355,063
1,417,540
265,982
82,900
4,499
376
2,085,120
417,730
305,847
106,203
80,670
173,602
228,385
866,646
994,560
32,583
151,173
840,960
3,411,200
500,000
287,543
740,086
145,800
425,400
152,788
132,690
750,000
305,367
619,088
1,041,884
610,808
149,000
11,146
16,683
525,000
1,598,285
538,504
3,065,600
481,638
229,146
161,290
613,582
23,460
957,288
427,219
26,962,427
NA = Not applicable.
Percent
Assessed
100
95
100
82
55
28
56
63
46
100
68
92 .
99
98
94
99
96
64
42
58
83
100
100
85
60
47
99
87
89
100
99
42
83
0
100
100
41
43
100
50
28
99
100
28
80
14
100
69
Source:
Total
Sq. Miles
625
NA
NA
1,598
NA
601
866
6
4,298
,594
134
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7,656
1,633
2,523
177
NA
NA
133
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,564
3,194
NA
NA
NA
NA
206
NA
193
2,155
NA
NA
1,990
NA
NA
6
2,529
2,943
NA
NA
NA
35,624
Percent
Assessed
16
NA
NA
50
NA
100
100
100
63
100
100
NA .
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
71
100
100
77
NA
NA
100
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
100
100
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
100
17
NA
NA
100
NA
NA
100
100
37-
NA
NA
NA
75
1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
XXV
-------
Introduction
have to be fully, partially, or
not supporting its uses and
even what those uses should
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. However, not
all States have biological
monitoring capabilities;
fixed-station chemical moni-
toring networks range widely
in geographic coverage and
scope; and State approaches
to the use of evaluative data
vary. Other factors contrib-
uting to inconsistencies in-
clude widely divergent natu-
ral conditions among States
and vast differences in the
States' monitoring capabili-
ties and resources.
To address these problems,
EPA is working with the
States'to develop improved
guidance on making use
support decisions. This guid-
ance distinguishes among
the various designated uses
States assess (such as fish
consumption and swimming)
and the different types of
waters assessed (rivers vs.
lakes); takes into account
new developments in specifi-
cations for the duration and
frequency of exceedances of
toxic chemical criteria; and
encourages the use of addi-
tional indicators such as
fishing restrictions and
drinking water supply clo-
sures in making use support
decisions. Efforts to further
improve this assessment
guidance will continue for
future 305(b) reporting
cycles. This guidance should
greatly increase the consis-
tency 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.
To further improve the
Section 305(b) reporting
process and to manage the
various new assessments
required by the Water Qual-
ity 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. In
1990, the WBS was widely
used by States for organizing
and analyzing their assess-
ment information, develop-
ing summary tables on key
water quality measures, and
preparing waterbody listings
required by the Water Qual-
ity Act.
Redreattonal fishing on Tar River Reservoir.
xxvi
-------
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 1990 State
Section 305(b) reports, 51
States, Territories, Jurisdic-
tions, and Interstate Com-
missions (hereafter referred
to as States) provided use
support information for riv-
ers and streams (see Table
1-1). These States assessed a
total of 647,066 river miles,
127,653 more miles than
were assessed in 1988. These
miles represent 53 percent of
the total stream miles esti-
mated for these States and
36 percent of the Nation's
estimated 1.8 million stream
miles.*
Of those assessed waters,
407,162 miles (63 percent)
were found to be fully sup-
porting their designated
uses. An additional 7 per-
cent (43,214 miles) were
identified as threatened
waters that currently sup-
port their designated uses
but could soon become im-
paired if pollution control
actions are not taken.
Twenty-one percent of as-
sessed waters, or 134,472
miles, were reported as par-
tially supporting uses, and
10 percent, or 62,218 stream
miles, were reported as not
supporting uses (see Figure
1-1). Forty-nine States speci-
fied the basis of their assess-
ment decisions. In these
States, 63 percent of
*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
Nevada
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
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total
River
Miles
40,600
17,537
11,310
26,970
31,470
8,400
643
206
40
12,659
20,000
349
14,080
20,000
18.300
13,295
18.490
14.180*
31,672
17,000
8,053
36,350
91,944
15,839
21,064
51,212
24,000
7,500
14,544
3,500
70,000
37,222
11,868
43,917
981
19,791
90,000*
50,000
5,373
724
9,900
9,937
19,124
80,000
11,779
5,266
27,240
40,492
28,361
43,600
19,437
Percent of Assessed Waters
Miles Assessed
Total
12,016
5,185
4,713
12,122
30,582
893
643
206
38
7,908
20,000
349
13,122
4,917
7,156
12,144
9,556
13,101
31,672
17,000
1,624
36,350
5,316
15,839
21,064
51,212
7,331
1,447
1,348
3,125
70,000
35,234
9,173
7,444
981
4,400
27,738
23,832
5,373
626
3,493
4,028
10,247
16,184
8,874
5,266
10,809
4,897
17,456
13,595
19,437
647,066
Percent
Evaluated
69
72
, 54
30
72
40
11
0
37
66
28
20
, 46
94
1
55
65
75
85
15
37
12
.87
65
95
8
4
36
20
95
67
54
21
55
87
53
80
10
0
. 17
62
3
0
91
46
13
62
80
67
63
Percent
Monitored
31
28
45
70
28
60
89
100
63
34
72
80
54
6
99
45
35
25
15
85
63
88
13
35
5
92
96
64
80
5
33
46
79
45
13
47
20
90
100
83
38
97
100
9
54
87
38
20
33
37
Miles
Fully
Supporting
8,783
206
1,636
4,612
27,662
420
132
0
0
4,890
19,395
265
5,522
2,570
0
345
6,429
3,290
31,107
15,657
475
34,989
1,425
7,663
11,220
34,808
4,025
405
20
0
63,771
12,766
180
2,231
0
269
12,546
19,137
2,078
201
2,758
673
4,652
13,548
1,544
3,140
8,862
1,548
7,160
6,878
15,269
407,162
62.9%
Miles
Threatened
159
1,120
974
190
15
199
0
258
0
179
416
90
0
130
5,420
0
0
94
480
3,194
45
839
8
1,439
10,928
6,709
437
0
2,305
567
287
0
551
1,872
0
238
1,194
562
0
1,504
811
43,214
6.7%
Miles
Partially
Supporting
2,003
2 142
539
5,920
1,221
229
Qd.
n
3
1,863
556
80
7,263
1,143
6,552
1,078
1,268
3,053
0
1,218
467
517
7366
9827
1 1 ,944
1,914
362
339
2,843
3,582
9,440
2,284
1,540
981
1 826
8,497
1,982
1 ,207
29
275
1 764
2,620
0
5,658
720
1,468
1,319
9,180
4,946
3,350
134,472
20.8%
Miloe
Not
Supporting
1,071
1 717
2538
1,590
725
54
Af\O
7
^ '
897
49
4
158
788
514
10 721
1 729
1,338
565
125
588
1 361
3,374
330
17
1 266
1,392
fi^R
150
274
1,208
2,100
o
3,236
0
o
6,695
2,713
1,521
109
460
1 040
1 103
2,636
1,434
212
479
1,468
1 116
267
7
62,218
9.6%
—Not reported.
*U.S. EPA Roach R!a Version 1 estimate (1982).
Source: 1990 Slata Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Rivers and Streams
assessed waters were evalu-
ated using mathematical
models, citizen complaints,
questionnaires, etc., and 37
percent were monitored
using ambient chemical and
biological data (see High-
light-Water Quality Assess-
ment Data for further discus-
sion).
Reporting consistency
improved during the 1990
reporting cycle. More States
provided use support infor-
mation than in any previous
reporting cycle; and all but
four States submitted use
support information in a
usable format. In addition,
individual States assessed a
higher percentage of their
river and stream miles in
1990.
Despite these improve-
ments, the Section 305(b)
assessment and reporting
process continues to have
limitations, and stream data
in this chapter should not be
compared between States or
within States over time. As
mentioned in the Introduc-
Not Supporting
(9.6%)
Partially
Supporting
(20.8%)
Threatened
(6.7%)
Fully
Supporting
(62.9%)
River Miles Assessed = 647,066
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
Figure 1-1. Designated Use Support in Assessed
Rivers and Streams
tion to this report, States
have adopted different water
quality criteria, water qual-
ity standards, and assess-
ment methodologies. State
capabilities to monitor water
quality, fish tissue, and bio-
logical integrity also vary.
These inconsistencies, rather
than dramatic differences in
water quality, probably ac-
count for the wide range in
percentage of waters sup-
porting uses among the
States. Furthermore, chang-
ing assessment methods
within a given State may
appear to indicate water
quality trends where none
actually exist. States may
assess different waterbodies
from year to year, improve
their monitoring capabilities,
or adopt new assessment
criteria and evaluation pro-
cedures.
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 pollutants (such
as pesticides or nutrients) or
pollution processes (such as
habitat destruction) that
impair waterbodies. In 1990,
47 States provided data on
the number of stream miles
affected by different causes
of nonsupport (see Table
1-2).
Because any given stream
mile can be affected by many
different causes, States were
asked to include each im-
paired stream mile under
every cause category contrib-
uting to its impairment.
Therefore, a single river mile
affected by multiple causes is
counted under several cause
categories. The values
reported are the total num-
ber of river miles affected by
a particular cause of impair-
ment, according to whether
the cause is a major or mod-
erate/minor contributor to
impairment. (Data from
States that did not specify
degree of impact are included
Tinder the "major" heading in
Table 1-2.) The relative
extent of each cause of
nonsupport can be deter-
mined by dividing the total
number of miles affected by
each cause category by the
total miles impaired (see
Figure 1-2).
Siltation, the smothering
of stream beds by sediments
(usually from accelerated soil
erosion), is the most com-
monly reported cause of
nonsupport in the Nation's
rivers and streams, affecting
36 percent of impaired river
miles. Nutrients, the second
most commonly reported
cause, affect 28 percent of
impaired river miles and
most often consist of phos-
phorus and nitrogen com-
pounds such as those used in
agricultural fertilizers. Both
siltation and nutrients are
predominantly from diffuse
nonpoint sources.
Nutrients can stimulate
the growth of algae, which
often deplete dissolved oxy-
gen concentrations. The next
most common cause of im-
pairment is organic enrich-
ment/low dissolved oxygen,
affecting 26 percent of im-
paired river miles. This
cause may be closely linked
to sewage treatment plants
and feedlots.
Fecal conform bacteria are
organisms commonly moni-
tored as indicators of possible
pathogen contamination of
waters. Pathogen contami-
nation (cited as the fourth
-------
Rivers and Streams
Table 1-2. Impaired River Miles Affected by Causes of Pollution
State
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Connecticut
Total
Impaired
Waters*
3,074
3,859
3,077
1,946
283
Siltation
Major
232
1,385
619
2
Mod/Mm
950
1,746
30
37
Delaware 496 — —
Delaware River Basin 7 — —
District of Columbia 38 — —
Florida 2,760 — —
Georgia 605 — —
Illinois
Iowa
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina"
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oregon"
Pennsylvania**
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
7,421
7,066
1,931
11,799
2,997
4,391
565
1,343
1,055
1,361
3,891
7,696
9,844
13,210
3,306
997
489
3,117
4,790
11,540
2,284
4,776
981
15,192
4,695
2,728
138
735
2,804
3,723
2,636
7,092
932
2,787
10,296
5,213
3,357
Totals 185,323
Combined Totals
Percent of Impaired Waters
170
6,553
3
406
210
50
239
268
4
285
921
126
691
634
1,260
110
1,674
393
542
1,034
2,627
20,438
6,420
510
15
18
1,386
952
34
6,360
7,128
6,032
204
1,040
59
1,129
1,130
981
275
1,028
328
352
4,576
1,278
2,623
46,621
67,059
36.2%
• Nutrients
Major
128
76
32
21
7
290
979
70
507
222
147
62
33
641
104
180
110
8
759
32
745
565
65
280
256
34
1,202
217
612
253
987
9,624
Mod/Mm
1,184
636
80
30
~*
618
6,206
6,981
195
32
2,667
724
324
94
1,478
6,720
5,497
201
1,406
150 .
1,118
63
447
27
94
232
1,170
1,545
246
384
927
647
42,123
51,747
27.9%
Organic
Enrichment
Major
141
26
39
21
61
' 38
10
573
28
156
52
180
7,894
500
614
100
64
118
88
111
86
2
42
365
72
44
35
69
902
10
2,619
603
302
33
17
280
16
432
60
1,135
104
376
410
388
19,216
Mod/Mm
1,259
569
283
71
11
14
807
36
1,337
71
130
3,344
23
2,752
73
76
276
1,494
5,813
52
805
236
126
27
248
121
219
754
156
18
94
179
1,413
54
1,613
301
543
2,267
664
28,329
47,545
25.7%
Pathogens
Major
14
44
1,963
176
114
436
7
21
96
11
147
394
1,424
442
58
20
415
132
326
9
158
21
150
100
15
670
402
885
148
295
53
450
424
534
1,502
378
52
1,310
47
72
13,915
Mod/Mm
363
805
368
505
48
30
3
359
370
237
28
3,148
84
625
465
1,849
2,294
1,609
1,109
339
211
144
608
430
20
86
1,103
862
' 71
1,245
240
587
189
529
273
21,236
35,151
19.0%
Metals
Major
24
589
527
73
23
5
6
23
432
71
64
249
16
7
92
148
220
87
18
446
101
566
11
596
1,931
12
87
101
57
353
10
285
759
88
7
8,084
Mod/Mm
385
1,482
1,294
22
17
17
125
100
1,036
14
93
146
258
20
77
62
1,521
514
3,326
1,472
88
348
734
877
61
13
575
618
1,555
47
756
2,330
220
20,203
28,287
15.3%
' The sum of partially and npnsupporting 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.
— Zero or not reported.
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
-------
Rivers and Streams
Salinity
Major
71
32
_
—
•—
—
5,314
164
36
3
330
10
5
394
163
16
9
176
33
—
—
50
8
587
110
3
—
7,514
Mod/Min
334
__
"~~
2
119
12
766
20
1,251
15
607
214
5,347
—
133
332
13
494
981
— •
—
~
988
11
542
1,223
58
127
811
14,400
21,914
11.8%
Habitat
Modification
Major
14
—
6
—
—
352
13
98
8
24
—
4,498
274
154
126
174
607
1,480
33
—
120
217
473
56
207
8,934
Mod/Min
120
—
94
—
~
—
1,230
4
—
—
55
200
15
—
—
—
4,547
67
—
1,569
914
—
—
5
—
202
__
230
153
302
876
741
11,324
20,258
10.9%
Pesticides
Major
—
— •
—
11
—
—
199
212
130
—
—
—
«—
—
87
206
30
—
_
5
—
53
490
52
164
14
6
33
—
—
132
68
—
1,892
Mod/Min
436
366
—
—
—
_
—
50
6,535
220
—
—
2,285
___.
20
—
—
6,668
i
175
—
204
47
65
36
491
—
102
—
205
218
—
4
139
277
136
130
18,809
20,701
11.2%
Suspended
Solids
Major
—
—
—
—
—
_
97
—
60
—
19
—
35
563
—
12
26
—
48
327
28
—
—
—
—
—
—
597
35
700
1,053
—
—
32
441
—
325
—
4,398
Mod/Min
—
—
—
32
—
,
244
—
489
—
155
—
—
3,323
36
29
—
995
436
6,646
130
344
—
—
—
—
—
—
229
_
1,817
784
—
—
21
218
—
493
—
16,421
20,819
11.2%
Flow
Alteration
Major
14
—
—
1
—
—
—
27
1
18
—
—
—
4
2
—
274
—
—
584
8
—
290
56
—
392
—
1,355
—
263
,
—
234
18
— .
174
234
106
259
—
4,314
Mod/Min
242
—
—
—
—
—
725
9
—
—
—
539
—
—
—
—
—
—
6,516
171
118
750
94
89
280
—
—
—
34
—
377
—
—
150
117
126
567
347
11,251
15,565
8.4%
•-
pH
Major
27
76
34
—
—
—
—
1
5
82
18
—
261
—
—
82
—
5
18
—
11
'40
—
126
46
60
—
291
—
455
307
1
135
144
—
142
9
242
725
—
—
3,343
Mod/Min
385
231
~
—
—
4
—
1
162
—
152
—
13
116
—
238
5
5
467
23
11
673
388
274
—
—
56
—
—
—
—
70
473
420
—
616
10
102
1,111
19
—
6,025
9,368
5.1%
*
Thermal
Modification
Major
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
12
—
—
—
2
—
125
75
103
—
—
—
1,320
37
- —
—
—
14
—
—
96
754
95
—
—
Mod/Min
—
15
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
43
1
25
—
—
—
—
2,401
132
308
10
36
—
—
—
—
—
—
1,576
39
—
—
337
905
217
293
8,970
4.8%
-------
Rivers and Streams
Water Quality Assessment Data
States collect a broad
range of information on con-
ditions in their rivers, lakes,
and estuaries. EPA requests
that States report conditions
based on two categories of
assessment data. Monitor-
ing data can be provided by
networks of chemical or
biological sampling stations
located near dischargers or
at other strategic points
along waterbodies. Monitor-
ing data also encompass
short-term or one-time inten-
sive or special surveys de-
signed to provide water qual-
ity "snapshots" for discrete
areas or to answer questions
about specific problem
sources or conditions. The
data collected may be chemi-
cal (e.g., the concentration of
a given pollutant in water,
sediment, or fish/shellfish
tissue) or biological (e.g.,
counts of the number of cer-
tain indicator species in a
given sample or tests of the
toxicity of river or waste-
States USQ a wide variety of chemical and biological methods to
monitor thefr waters.
water samples). Their
common elements are that
they are scientifically col-
lected by the State pollution
control agency, local govern-
ments, or Federal authorities
using quality control proce-
dures and involve actual
observations of the water,
sediments, fish tissue, or
aquatic organisms.
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
reports of pollution-caused
fish kills, predictive modeling
based on knowledge of
sources, land use types, etc.,
surveys of fisheries person-
nel, and certain kinds of
volunteer monitoring.
The degree to which States
use these different types of
data varies greatly. Some
States rely almost exclu-
sively on fixed-station chemi-
cal monitoring data or a
combination of fixed-station
and intensive survey data.
Other States may use rotat-
ing basin surveys in which a
limited number of basins are
studied intensively using
biological, chemical, and
toxicological approaches.
Others with limited monitor-
ing resources may find that
their evaluative data provide
a more realistic picture of
water quality conditions
than does a small network of
infrequently sampled sta-
tions. Most StatesTise a
combination of data types to
reach their assessment
decisions.
Designated use support
information for rivers shows
that in the 49 States that -
specified data types, :639,416
stream miles were assessed,
37 percent using monitoring
data and 63 percent using
evaluative approaches. Of
the 404,931 miles supporting
uses in these States, 67 per-
cent were evaluated and
33 percent were monitored.
However, nearly the reverse
of this applies in the 58,975
miles not supporting uses:
41 percent of waters were
evaluated and 59 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
States tend to find problems
where they monitor. Many
States have indicated that
the former argument is true.
Faced with diminishing
resources for monitoring,
States have traditionally
focused monitoring stations
and intensive surveys on
those areas most likely to
have problems. Neverthe-
less, perhaps a combination
of the two may apply, since
reliance on models, question-
naires, and citizen com-
plaints may fail, to reveal ,
certain types of water quality
problems. In any case, EPA
continues to support both
types of assessment activities
as the best available and
most practical way to expand
coverage of the Nation's
waters.
-------
Rivers and Streams
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 patho-
gen indicators were found to
affect 19 percent of impaired
waters.
The fifth and sixth most
commonly reported causes of
impairment are metals (such
as lead, copper, and mercury)
and salinity. Other signifi-
cant causes include habitat
modification, pesticides,
suspended solids, flow alter-
ation, pH, and thermal modi-
fication.
Forty-four States specified
the degree of impact (i.e.,
major or moderate/minor) of
the causes affecting their
rivers and streams. For all
categories of causes, there
were more waters in which
the cause was a moderate/
minor contributor to impair-
ment than a major contribu-
tor. Causes with a high per-
centage of major impact
include organic enrichment
(major impact in 37 percent
of affected waters), patho-
gens (major impact in 35
percent), and siltation (major
impact in 29 percent).
Sources Of
Impairment
In their 1990 State Section
305(b) reports, 42 States
provided information on the
various sources of pollution
contributing to use impair-
ment in rivers. Sources of
impairment, such as munici-
pal discharges and agricul-
tural runoff, contribute pol-
lutants or result in harmful
processes such as siltation
(.see Highlight-Sources of
Pollution Reported by the
States), Table 1-3 displays
POLLUTION CAUSES'
Siltation
Nutrients
Organic Enrichment
Pathogens
Metals
Salinity
Habitat Modification
Pesticides
Suspended Solids
Flow Alteration
Major
Moderate/Minor
Unspecified
15 20 25
Percent
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
Figure 1-2. Percent of Impaired River Miles Affected by Causes of Pollution
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
different sources. Therefore,
States were asked to include
each stream mile under each
source category contributing
to its impairment. As a re-
sult, a single river mile af-
fected by multiple sources is
counted under several cat-
egories. The values reported
are the total number of river
miles affected by a particular
source of impairment accord-
ing to whether the source is a
major or moderate/minor
contributor to impairment.
(Data from States that did
not specify degree of impact
are included under the "ma-
jor" column heading in
Table 1-3.) 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
total miles impaired (see
Figure 1-3).
Table 1-3 reveals that the
most extensive source of
pollution reported for the
Nation's rivers is agricul-
tural runoff, which affects
60 percent of impaired river
miles. Other extensive
sources include municipal
dischargers, affecting 16
percent; hydrologic/habitat
modification, affecting 15
percent; resource extraction,
affecting 14 percent; storm
sewers/runoff, affecting 11
percent; and industrial dis-
chargers and silviculture,
each affecting about 9 per-
cent of impaired river miles.
Thirty-eight States speci-
fied the degree of impact (i.e.,
major or moderate/minor)
of the pollution sources
-------
Rivers and Streams
affecting their rivers. Major
impacts outweigh moderate/
minor impacts for agricul-
ture, silviculture, and com-
bined sewers.
Attainment of the
Clean Water Act
Goals
The Clean Water Act
(CWA) states, "It is the na-
tional goal that, wherever
attainable, an interim goal of
water quality which provides
for the protection and propa-
gation offish, shellfish, and
wildlife and provides for
recreation in and on the
water be achieved..." Most
U.S. waters are classified to
reflect these benchmarks,
which are commonly referred
to as the fishable and swim-
mable goals of the Clean
Water Act. Support of CWA
goals is considered a sepa-
rate and independent crite-
rion from the degree of desig-
nated use support.
Pishing advisories, con-
sumption bans, and high
incidences offish abnormal-
ities indicate that waters are
not supporting healthy
. aquatic populations and do
not support the fishable goal.
Swimmable goals are most
often impaired by beach
closures due to elevated
bacteria levels but can be
affected by algal blooms or
elevated toxic concentra-
tions.
In some cases, physical
constraints, irrevocable
water qualify impacts, and
severe socioeconomic impacts
prevent the achievement of
the CWA goals. In these
cases, States may establish
water quality standards that
exclude the fishable or swim-
mable goal based on the
results of a special use at-
tainability study. Thus,
there are four possible out-
comes for any waterbody
when CWA goal support is
assessed:
POLLUTION SOURCES
Agriculture
Municipal
Hydrologic/Habitat Modification
Resource Extraction
Storm Sewers/Runoff
Industrial
Silviculture
Construction
Major
Moderate/Minor
L~H Unspecified
30 40
Percent
Source: 1990 Slate Section 305(5) reports.
Rgure 1-3. Percent of Impaired River Miles Affected by Sources of Pollution
• Fishable and/or swim-
mable goals are supported;
• Fishable and/or swim-
mable goals are partially
supported;
• Fishable and/or swim-
mable goals are not sup-
ported but are attainable;
and
• State water quality stan-
dards do not include fishable
and/or swimmable uses (i.e.,
the CWA goals are not
attainable).
In their 1990 water quality
assessments, 52 States pro-
vided data on the attainment
of the fishable and swim-
mable CWA goals in their
rivers and streams (see
Table 1-4). A total of 656,804
river miles were assessed for
the fishable goal; 80 percent
were found to be attaining
the goal, 14.5 percent were
partially attaining, 5 percent
were currently not attaining
but could in the future, and
less than 1 percent were
determined to be "not attain-
able" (see Figure 1-4).
Progress toward the CWA
swimmable goal was as-
sessed in 586,386 stream
miles. Seventy-five percent
were found to be attaining
the swimmable goal, 8 per-
cent were partially attaining,
7 percent were currently not
attaining the swimmable
goal but could in the future,
and 10 percent were catego-
rized as "not attainable" (see
Figure 1-4). Fewer waters
were assessed for the swim-
mable goal than for the fish-
able goal, at least in part
because some States do not
include swimming uses in
their standards.
10
-------
Rivers and Streams
Sources of Pollution Reported
by the States
Point and nonpoint source
categories of pollution are
not clearly defined in all
cases: many source catego-
ries have significant point
and nonpoint elements. For
example, storm sewers/run-
off and resource extraction
are sources that may be
addressed both via point
source control measures (i.e.,
permits) or nonpoint source
best management plans,
The following categories
were used in the analysis of
State data and are not in-
t,ended as legal definitions.
Point Sources
• Discharge into waterways
via a discrete "point" such as
a pipe or ditch
• Are subject to permits
issued by the State or EPA
that limit allowable amounts,
of pollutants
• Are also subject to enforce-
ment action if their permit
limits are violated
Nonpoint Sources
• Enter waterways gener-
ally as runoff from wide-
spread (i.e,, "nonpoint") areas
• Are addressed via volun-
tary controls, best manage-
ment practices, incentive
programs, demonstration
programs, and, to some
extent, by regulatory pro-
grams at; State or local level,
particularly in the Coastal
Zone
Runoff from storm sewers, city streets, and lawns can carry pollutants to surface waters.
Source Categories
Used in This
Report
Industrial (e.g., pulp and
paper mills, chemical manu-
facturers, steel plants, textile
manufacturers, food process-
ing plants)
Municipal (e.g., publicly
owned sewage treatment
plants, including plants that
may receive indirect dis-
' charges from factories or
businesses)
Combined Sewers^
(storm and sanitary sewers
combined, which may exceed
capacity and discharge
untreated wastes during
storms)
Storm Sewers/Runoff
(runoff from streets, paved
areas, lawns, etc., that enters
a sewer, pipe, or ditch before
discharge)
Agricultural (e.g., crop
production, pastures, range-
land, feedlots)
Silvicultural (e.g., forest
management, harvesting,
road construction)
Construction (e.g., high-
way building, land develop-
ment)
Resource Extraction
(e.g., mining, petroleum
drilling, runoff from mine
tailing sites)
Land Disposal (e.g.,
leachate or discharge from
septic tanks, landfills, haz-
ardous waste disposal sites)
Hydromodification (e.g.,
channelization, dam con-
struction, streambank modi-
fication)
11
-------
Rivers and Streams
Table 1-3. Impaired River Miles Affected by Sources of Pollution
Slate
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas"
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Iowa
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina" *
Ohio
Oregon"
Pennsylvania"
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming
Total
Impaired
Waters*
3,074
3,859
3,077
283
496
7
38
2,760
605
7,421
7,066
1,931
11,799
2,997
4,391
565
1,343
1,055
1,361
7,696
9,844
13,210
3,306
997
489
3,117
4,790
11,540
4,776
15,192
,4,695
2,728
138
735
2,804
3,723
2,636
7,092
932
2,787
10,296
3,357
Totals 171,008
Combined Totals
Percent of Impaired Waters
Agriculture
Major
554
2,597
78
188
2.065
6,825
1,338
7,725
1,046
1,182
72
22
11
203
723
7,137
502
2,423
441
2,403
33
5,502
635
7,605
624
172
36
282
1,275
1,590
5
1,306
227
576
390
2,192
59,985
Municipal
Mod/Mm Major
502
3,034
47
352
1,648
213
208
3,261
185
1,355
47
912
60
118
6,436
10,671
526
218
345
28
1,415
608
5
161
1,097
1,515
44
4,562
239
549
2,359
734
43,454
103,439
60.5%
388
182
133
13
7
1
35
41
405
170
646
949
1,151
212
8
138
459
128
10
46
605
140
55
160
172
1,945
1,062
432
60
21
194
11
511
1,360
65
39
152
323
6
12,435
Mod/Mm
192
670
113
61
642
54
406
1,030
298
25
2,624
63
229
134
916
36
1,077
831
131
288
156
80
732
60
31
46
43
1,028
110
509
135
1,250
1,446
110
15,559
27,994
16.4%
Hydrologic/
Habitat Mod
Major .
80
6
20
202
4
153
123
2
189
1
300
333
175
93
97
645
30
46
1,312
18
216
195
715
144
569
5,668
Mod/Mm
125
1,264
50
3
887
29
2,823
4
1
31
19
3,669
5,198
53
247
620
41
1,037
13
6
1,328
210
595
585
378
19,216
24,884
14.6%
Resource
Extraction
Major
513
200
20
2
29
118
833
111
87
6
15
239
101
145
1
594
2,280
2,548
, 350
293
51
83
1,019
54
9,692
Mod/Min
155
1,847
42
438
85
64
34
3,400
1
45
230
40
2,158
179
24
265
14
62
763
35
77
3,595
770
14,323
24,015
14.0%
Storm Sewers/
Runoff
Major
12
15
1
9
16
84
3
9
172
7
664
219
196
3
288
182
57
188
189
33
10
922
275
1,675
57
312
36
93
47
173
94
71
650
300
10
7,072
Mod/Min
261
396
136
163
22
1,779
385
1,082
24
42
1,472
12
538
262
208
106
528
139
4
113
885
119
83
110
215
822
95
216
558
282
11,057
18,129
10.6%
* The sum of partially and npnsupporting 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.
—Zero or not reported.
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
12
-------
Rivers and Streams
Industrial
Major
70
124
70
22
1
104
5
24
78
208
182
368
103
87-
80
136
4
186
29
28
102
745
368.
250
37
72
11
218
28
65
10
165
966
334
5,280
Mod/Mm
130
242
22
55
430
117
31
73
17
30
2,325
19,7
50
157
834
339
208
90
1,226
515
124
74
26
353
509
56
476
1,413
169
10,288
15,568
9.1%
Silviculture
Major
64
261
t
17
5
—
34
6
7,580
—
76
161
22
171
198
58
8,653
Mod/Min
132
166
142
1,322
8
405
1,690
40
130
38
12
—
66
66
136
2,388
65
6,806
15,459
9.0%
Construction
Major
15
15
21
2
7
21
78
—
25
564
7
1,420
17
15
1
153
137
414
209
362
3,483
Mod/Min
102
527
42
1
823
37
528
7
2
29
16
1,267
205
41
62
23
18
26
928
73
105
607
858
6,327
9,810
5.7%
Unknown
Major
22
119
6
204
197
334
59
66
94
232
110
19
216
18
26
135
650
2,507
Mod/Min
1,303
6
—
1,627
1
127
286
252
11
314
16
79
16
26
62
681
2
846
1,104
6,759
9,266
5.4%
Land
Disposal
Major
81
9
15
14
2
42
75
22
43
245
71
18
5
1
22
2
10
62
144
103
203
33
14
44
6
262
56
1,604
Mod/Min
35
617
91
6
1,027
117
50
855
13
74
90
3
58
340
6
99
141
526
527
39
26
187
132
357
168
5,584
7,188
4.2%
Combined
Sewers
Major
107
11
103
625
20
1
187
317
40
36
102
32
2
6
62
1
190
1,842
Mod/Min
23
11
16
1
83
169
21
51
62
• ^
17
78
60
6
70
4
39
283
994
2,836
1.7%
13
-------
Rivers and Streams
Table 1-4. Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in Rivers and Streams
Fishable Goal (miles)
Swimmable Goal (miles)
State
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Assessed
11.857
5,296
11,310
11,448
28,770
Connecticut 893
Delaware 643
Delaware River Basin 206
District of Columbia 39
Florida 7,950
Georgia
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
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
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
20,000
349
13,123
4,994
7,155
12,079
9,339
8,535
31,672
17,000
1.623
36,350
6,079
15,839
21,063
51,212
7,330
1.559
1.347
1,719
3,117
70,000
37,293
9,204
7,688
981
3,778
27,739
23,832
5,373
626
3,594
3,964
11,081
16,203
11,779
5,266
10.809
5,141
19,818
13.302
19,437
Totals 656,804
Percent of Assessed Waters
Meeting
8,703
662
9,426
9,069
28,105
664
498
206
10
6.750
19,395
349
11,476
2,986
90
8,838
6,914
6,510
31,282
15,618
1,061
35,632
2,292
8,023
11,216
38,474
5,131
793
1,294
1,315
2,851
69,300
23,820
8,548
2,524
434
2,161
26,197
19,137
2,757
512
3.230
3,085
10,857
16,044
1,303
4,468
8,862
2,873
17,969
8,272
19,430
527,416
80.3%
Partially
Meeting
1,669
2,312
1,535
1,492
170
71
0
3
268
556
1,101
1,143
6,620
2,265
1,702
1,553
0
1,281
208
681
7,350
9,830
11,565
1,773
583
3
307
12,551
656
1,482
547
1,258
1,982
2,048
0
54
10,476
608
1,468
1,084
506
4,334
95,095
14.5%
Not
Meeting
1,049
2,061
349
887
572
57
74
0
26
897
49
0
546
788
428
976
723
472
390
101
354
718
2,306
350
17
1,173
426
83
50
97
266
0
922
0
2,868
0
359
1,542
2,713
566
24
310
879
224
159
0
190
479
1,184
1,343
220
7
30,274
4.6%
Not
Attainable
436
260
93
2
0
0
0
35
0
0
0
77
17
0
0
0
0
0
800
116
0
0
0
100
0
0
700
814
0
0
2
90
0
0
0
0
0
476
0
4,018
0.6%
Assessed
11,857
5,296
11,310
10,463
31,377
893
643
206
38
7,950
0
349
4,525
2,304
7,155
11,942
3,595
8,535
31,672
17,000
1,624
36,350
5021
15,839
21,069
51,211
12,011
1,574
1,390
592
3,117
70,000
•37,293
9,204
0
981
3,633
27,739
23,832
5,373
626
3,438
802
11,081
16,203
4,320
5,265
10,809
4,928
19,812
13,192
947
586,386
Meeting
8,703
1,810
9,236
7,947
9,062
679
98
199
0
6,750
349
1,144
138
158
627
1,481
5,670
31,506
16,998
682
36,086
2,045
13,086
5,370
46,096
1,035
735
859.
91
3,117
69,200
23,820
8,489
579
2,148
26,773
19,137
2,738
512
2,010
396
10,420
14,435
120
4,854
8,862
3,441
18,415
8,235
947
437,288
74.6%
Partially
Meeting
1,669
566
0
1,620
94
56
0 t
3
268
2,003
153
1,456
1,546
576
2,055
0
0
620
548
2,126
4,536
606
560
339
48
12,551
715
64
412
1,982
1,737
0
388
4,164
13
1,468
311
0
4,269
0
49,522
8.4%
Not
Meeting
1,049
645
2,074
896
254
118
365
7
35
897
0
424
2,013
223
9,769
1,538
810
166
2
319
264
1,628
511
0
579
1,034
57
150
453
0
800
922
0
338
515
966
2,713
483
24
1,040
406
661
1,768
36
140
479
1,176
1,397
212
0
40,356
6.9%
Not
Attainable
436
2,275
22,061
2
124
0
0
35
0
954
0
5,318
0
0
0
3
0
800
116
15,699
0
9,336
222
42
0
0
0
558
415
90
0
0
0
258
0
476
0
59,220
10.1%
— Not reported.
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
14
-------
Rivers and Streams
Fifteen States reported
that the fishable goal was
not attainable in 4,018
stream miles, and 20 States
found the swimmable goal
not attainable in 59,220
miles. Reasons cited include
naturally occurring physical
limitations, such as intermit-
tent flow and salinity, and
extensive land uses such as
row crop agriculture that
would be prohibitively expen-
sive to control.
The percentage of waters
meeting CWA goals ranges
from zero to 100 percent
among the reporting States.
This variability occurs be-
cause the States use differ-
ent definitions of CWA goal
attainment. 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 con-
sumption considerations).
EPA is refining the defini-
tions of CWA goal attain-
ment for future reporting.
Agriculture is the largest single source of pollution affecting rivers
and streams.
Partially
Meeting
(14.5%)
Fishable
Not
Not Attainable
Meeting (Q.6%)
Swimmable
Not
Not Attainable
Meeting (10-1%)
(6.9%)
Partially
Meeting
(8.4%)
Meeting
(80.3%)
Meeting
(74.6%)
Miles Assessed = 656,804
Miles Assessed = 586,386
Source: 1990 Slate Section 305{b) reports.
Figure 1-4. Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in Assessed Rivers and Streams
15
-------
-------
2
!^-™*K"*": W*B#V-I* '^^.^"^f'P C- '"'"'^fe^T'l!!?'"™"
S^'^.^-^&'^^^£;-'~,f^^ ^ '~ ^•*;:*?*&*''•''
Lakes and
Reservoirs
Support of
Designated Uses
In their 1990 State Section
305(b) reports, 46 States,
Territories, and Jurisdictions
(hereafter referred to as
States) provided information
on support of designated
uses in their lakes and reser-
voirs (see Table 2-1). A total
of 18,488,636 acres were
assessed, about 2 million
more than were assessed in
1988. These assessed acres
represent 69 percent of the
lake acres estimated for
these States and 47 percent
of the Nation's total
39,400,000 lake acres. Great
Lakes are not included in
this assessment (see Chap-
ter 3 for information on the
Great Lakes).
Of those assessed lake
acres, 8,173,917 acres (44
percent) were found to be
fully supporting their desig-
nated uses. An additional
2,902,809 acres (16 percent)
are threatened (i.e.,may not
fully support uses in the
future if action is not taken
to control pollution sources).
Nineteen percent of assessed
lake acres, or 3,471,633
acres, partially support uses,
and 21 percent, or 3,940,277
acres, do not support uses
(see Figure 2-1).
All 46 States specified the
basis of their lake assess-
ment decisions. Seventy-four
percent of the assessed wa-
ters were monitored and the
remaining 26 percent were
evaluated. (See Water Qual-
ity Assessment Data.)
These data should be in-
terpreted with caution and
should not be compared to
those of previous 305(b)
reporting cycles. Changes in
assessment criteria and
evaluation procedures,
rather than actual changes
in water quality, often ac-
count for variation between
17
-------
Lakes and Reservoirs
Table 2-1. Designated Use Support in Lakes and Reservoirs
State
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Oregon
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Number
of Lakes
43
182
77
4,955
4,069
6,000
63
8
7,712
175
85.305
575
264
235
99
101
5,785
190
2,871
35,000
12,034
362
3.956
415
384
1,300
175
7,500
144
216
224,948
6,095
38
117
1,418
799
117
5,700
3,008
604
247
808
17,800
15,000
2,629
Totals 459,523
Percent of Assessed Waters
Acres
of Lakes
504,721
127,372
355,063
1.417,540
265,982
' 82,900
4,499
376
2,085,120
417,730
305,847
106,203
80,670
173,602
228,385
866,646
994,560
32,583
151,173
840,960
3,411,200
500,000
287,543
740,086
145,800
425,400
152,788
132,690
750,000
305,367
619,088
1,041,884
610,808
11,146
16,683
525,000
1,598,285
538,504
3,065,600
481,638
229,146
161,290
613,582
23,460
957,288
427,219
26,813,427
Acre
is Assessed
i%
Percent Percent
Total Evaluated Monitored
504,721
121,388
355,063
1,159,160
145,305
23,179
2,541
238
957,120
417,730
209,036
97,536
80,306
170,602
214,861
854,331
960,418
21,002
64,019
489,433
2,849,689
500,000
287,543
632,705
87,267
198,725
152,788
115,959
668,000
305,355
611,075
441,092
504,928
11,146
16,683
217,368
682,033
538,322
1,543,898
134,201
227,755
160,640
175,184
18,870
132,202
427,219
18,488,636
0
64
0
19
86
33
31
0
17
0
60
65
92
9
0
69
22
100
27
; 5
22
51
15
21
7
72
71
15
0
2
20
49
85
20
17
0
2
61
3
0
3
70
1
0
56
85
74
100
36
100
81
14
67
69
100
83
100
40
35
8
91
100
31
78
0
73
95
78
49
85
79
93
28
29
85
100
98
80
51
15
80
83
100
98
39
97
100
97
30
99
100
44
15
26
Acres
Fully
Supporting
296,284
1,195
355,063
170,652
132,057
1,858
1,263
0
302,336
404,704
595
97,372
7,075
0
100,910
548,841
714,028
11,463
4,281
50,168
687,064
280,389
282,905
31,313
60,764
129,642
133,943
0
377,892
195,562
13,127
33,653
374,303
3,433
1,860
133,180
0
375,808
1,351,278
0
19,403
143,856
20,112
8,171
9,182
306,932
8,173,917
44.2%
•Acres
Threatened
147,035
92,052
12,276
15,369
30
0
9,856
22,997
35,446
37,598
94,839
146,858
57,824
5,791
15,278
391,904
58,969
137,627
12,245
0
6,826
26,942
97,442
343,132
193,308
112
13,592
0
548,000
53,707
7,263
0
158,772
34,959
1,775
33,102
89,883
2,902,809
15.7%
Acres
Partially
Supporting
300
22,343
0
357,130
972
5,952
811
108
533,888
13,000
101,457
63
36,820
114,011
15,362
158,632
188,566
3,640
17,803
49,817
160,596
4,564
449,114
14,258
54,283
7,992
115,959
238,343
1,940
33,082
214,131
58,918
3,598
301
71,068
6,885
59,456
0
134,201
38,611
16,784
39,358
7,194
89,918
30,404
3,471,633
18.8%
Acres
Not
Supporting
61,102
5,798
0
631,378
0
0
437
130
111,040
26
83,987
101
965
18,993
3,750
0
0
108
26,657
47,361
2,112,808
46
74
14,651
0
14,800
4,027
0
24,823
10,411
221,734
0
71,707
4,003
930
13,120
127,148
49,351
185,357
0
10,969
0
80,755
1,730
0
0
3,940,277
21.3%
—Not reported.
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
18
-------
Lakes and Reservoirs
States and within States
over time.
Causes of
Impairment
In 1990, 35 States pro-
vided data on the causes of
nonsupport in their lakes
,(see Table 2-2). As described
in Chapter 1 for rivers, any
given acre of lake can be
affected by many different
causes (i.e., specific pollut-
ants or pollutant processes).
Therefore, States were asked
to include any given lake
acre under each of the cause
categories that contributes to
impairment. This allows a
single lake acre to be counted
more than once 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 contribu-
tor to impairment. (Data
from States that did not
specify this degree of impact
are included under the "ma-
jor" 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 cat-
egory by the total acres im-
paired (see Figure 2-2).
Metals and nutrients are
the most commonly reported
cause of use impairment in
lakes, affecting 48 percent
and 32 percent of impaired
lake acres, respectively.
Although these statistics
indicate that metals impair ,
more lake acres, nutrients
are listed by 32 of the 35
States reporting causes of
lake impairment. In con-
trast, 23 States report lake
acres impaired by metals,
and almost three-quarters
of the lake acres adversely
affected by metals are
concentrated in one State,
Minnesota.
Nutrients can lead to or-
ganic enrichment and low
levels of dissolved oxygen,
which were identified as
affecting 19 percent of im-
paired lake acres. Sus-
pended solids, noxious
aquatic plants, and siltation
affect 13 percent each, and
flow alteration affects 12
percent. Priority organics,
salinity, pH, pathogens, and
taste and odor affect less
than 5 percent of impaired
lake acres.
Table 2-2 reveals that
qertain States account for a
large proportion of the im-
pacts from individual causes
of impairment, which influ-
ences the relative signifi-
cance of the causes. For
example, as mentioned
•above, Minnesota alone
accounts for 73 percent of the
lake acres affected by metals.
Minnesota attributes this
Not
Supporting
(21.3%)
Partially
Supporting
(18.8%)
Fully
Supporting
(44.2%)
Threatened
(15.7%)
Acres Assessed =18,488,636
Source: 1990 Slate Section 305(b) reports.
Figure 2-1. Designated Use Support in Assessed Lakes
and Reservoirs
One of the leading causes of lake pollution is nutrients.
19
-------
Lakes and Reservoirs
Table 2-2. Impai
State
Arizona
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri"
Montana
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina**
North Dakota
Oregon"
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming
red Lake
Total
Impaire
Waters'
28,141
1,248
238
644,928
13,026
185,444
164
37,785
133,004
19,112
188,566
3,748
44,460
47,361
2,162,625
4,638
!463,765
69,083
12,019
115.959
263,166
12,351
254,816
130,625
7,601
1,231
84,188
134,033
108,807
185,357
49,580
16,784
120,113
8,924
30,404
Totals 5,583,294
Combined Totals
Percent of Impaired Waters
Acres Affected by Causes of Pollution
Organic Suspended
rt Metals Nutrients Enrichment Solids
* Major
4,055
4,300
9,040
5,314
25,448
20,367
1,908,762
14,800
15,000
326
9,263
1,139
4
99
1,695
Mod/Min Major Mod/Min Major
11,345
103
1,600
20,207
45
73,664
2,659
51,513
306,242
6,100
60,326
7,597
87
21,457
43
6,462
80,000
3,365
2,019,612 652,815
2,672,427
47.9%
2,368
26
45,452
122
8,521
523
8,748
2,463
2,406
4,208
2,957
215,951
1,153
21,200
3,728
25,243
106,353
618
7,374
106,774
340
293
63,713
112,742
35,308
19,604
4,897
35
803,120
150
282,176
13,000
122,701
12
28,357
10,261
42,156
397
3,092
29,738
319,316
938
22,261
27,762
6,294
902
192
6,885
35,642
1,595
15,536
2,790
17,749
989,902
1,793,022
32.1%
5
103
320
66,318
59
145
136,492
6
22
2,476
1,910
40,005
4,000
306
1,608
69,147
1,194
174
63,713
130
34,647
2,442
4,905
430,127
Mod/Min Major
503 —
82,816 25,408
99,047 73,058
63 —
4,682 —
— 4,517
36,783 —
40 503
257,022 —
950 —
2,361 —
61,103 —
29,032 —
646 145
28 359
43,861 383
11,882 —
10,483 —
72 —
630 —
53 —
642,057 104,373
1,072,184
19.2%
Noxious
Aquatic Plants
Mod/Min Major
196,608
102,303
230
310,845
—
593
17,041
—
627,620
731,993
13.1%
553
28,728
10,633
14,800
308
1,853
9,191
210
102,468
4,565
21,678
38
195,025
Mod/Min
699
96,040
226
8,287
306,019
38,800
4,562
1 1 ,763
93
17,941
23,859
8,009
516,298
711,323
12.7%
* 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.
—Zero or not reported. I
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
20
-------
Lakes and Reservoirs
Flow
Siltation Alteration
Major
4,424
67,552
18,680
410
104
28
59,001
247
1,970
15,594
88,102
21,074
3,588
2,301
338
283,413
Mod/Min Major
12,095 —
103 —
110,066 10
13,191 —
42,382 259
47,779 —
2,690 —
79,142 —
25,147 —
3,507 33,877
158 221,568
10,117 —
30,425 167
23 25
19,211 7,519
3,199 —
7,290 —
12,919 —
419,444 263,425
702,857
12.6%
Priority
Organics Salinity
Mod/Min Major
—
67
7,788
30
363,221
600
7,868
24,905
89
9,420
413,988
677,413
12.1%
356
158
2,041
12
12,462
2,960
—
102,060
370
210
18,508
—
139,137
Mod/Min Major
103 —
72,448 —
2,546 —
— 9,230
25,260 —
— 12,900
— 6,100
1,240 —
434 —
— 340
6,149 —
— 72,295
— 8
108,180 100,873
247,317
4.4%
Mod/Min Major
350
»
18,897
—
12,595
2,944
1,854
105,510
459
142,609
243,482
4.4%
48
30
1
219
292
5,600
474
16,569
81,365
141
—
114
1,791
106,644
PH
Mod/Min
1,483
136
—
952
7
950
3,242
2,252
—
55,645
11,924
6,766
2,152
85,509
192,153
3.4%
Pathogens
Major
1,098
103
1,808
45
10,738
9,550
3
18
3
74
1,399
3,189
13,248
381
523
20,475
7,206
794
49
70,704
Mod/Min
150
136
448
1,661
77
23
268
9,532
23,720
504
34
50
20,730
5
160
1,084
58,582
129,286
2.3%
Taste and Odor
Major Mod/Min
— 95
— 97,149
— 4,197
— 2,400
1,120 —
141 159
16 11
— —
1,277 104,011
105,288
1.9%
21
-------
Lakes and Reservoirs
problem to mercury in fish
tissues from atmospheric
deposition. Without the
Minnesota data, metals
would he the sixth most
significant cause of lake
impairment.
Thirty-two States specified
the degree of impact of the
various causes of nonsupport
in their lakes and reservoirs.
For most cause categories,
there are more lake acres in
which the cause is a moder-
ate/minor contributor to
impairment than a major
contributor. Of the leading
causes, only the metals cat-
egory shows more major
than minor impacts: in 75
percent of the lake acres
affected by metals, their
impact was considered ma-
jor. Among the other causes
of use impairment, those
with the greatest percentage
of major impacts are priority
organics (major impact in 56
percent of affected acres),
salinity (major impact in 41
percent), and nutrients (ma-
jor impact in 45 percent).
Sources of
Impairment
Information on the various
sources of pollution contrib-
uting to use impairment in
lakes and reservoirs was
provided by 35 States. Table
2-3 displays the categories of
sources and the size of wa-
ters affected by each.
Because 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 more than once
if it is affected by multiple
sources. The values reported
are the total number of lake
acres affected by a particular
source of impairment,
according to whether the
source is a major or moder-
ate/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).
Agricultural runoff is
reported as the most exten-
sive source of pollution, af-
fecting 57 percent of im-
paired lake acres. Other
leading sources in lakes
include hydrologic/habitat
modification (affecting 40
percent of impaired lake
acres), storm sewers/runoff
(affecting 28 percent), land
disposal (affecting 24 per-
cent), and municipal
dischargers (affecting 17
percent).
These numbers should also
be interpreted with care.
Certain States predominate
POLLUTION CAUSES
Metals
Nutrients
Organic Enrichment
Suspended Solids
Noxious Aquatic Plants
Siltation
Flow Alteration
Priority Organics
Salinity
Major
Moderate/Minor
Unspecified
20 30
Percent
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
Figure 2-2. Percent of Impaired Lake Acres Affected by Causes of Pollution
22
-------
Lakes and Reservoirs
in the number of lake acres
reported as affected by the
various sources of pollution,
which can skew the source
rankings. For example,
Florida alone accounts for 66
percent of the total number
of lake acres affected by
storm sewers/runoff and 70
percent of the lake acres
affected by land disposal.
Thirty-three States speci-
fied the degree of impact (i.e.,
major or moderate/minor) of
pollution sources in their
lakes. The number of acres
with major impacts exceeds
those with moderate/minor
impacts for industrial dis-
charges, combined sewers,
and "unknown" sources.
Attainment of the
Clean Water Act
Goals
In 1990,46 States
assessed the ability of their
lakes and reservoirs to sup-
port fishing and swimming
activities, the basic goals of
the Clean Water Act (see
Table 2-4). Of the 17,633,217
lake acres evaluated for
attainment of the fishable
goal, 70 percent fully meet,
11 percent partially meet,
and 19 percent do not meet
the fishable goal. Less than
1 percent (6,276 acres) were
determined to be "not attain-
able" (i.e., suffering from
irrevocable impacts and/or
not designated for fishable
use).
Eighty-two percent of the
assessed lake acres fully
meet the swimmable goal,
10 percent partially meet the
goal, and 7 percent do not
meet the goal. Less than 1
percent (69,020 acres) were
categorized as "not attain-
able" (see Figure 2-4). The
States report higher levels of
attainment of the CWA goals
than of designated uses.
This may be because the
CWA goals reflect attain-
ment of only two uses among
multiple uses designated to
an individual waterbody. A
waterbody may not be sup-
porting other uses such as
drinking water use and still
meet the swimmable and
fishable goals.
Trophic Status
of Lakes and
Reservoirs
Lakes evolve naturally
over time, filling with sedi-
ments and organic matter
that alter many basic charac-
teristics such as depth, bio-
logical productivity, oxygen
levels, and water transpar-
ency. This natural aging
process is known as eutro-
phication. Human activities
can accelerate eutrophication
by increasing the loadings
of nutrients and organic
POLLUTION SOURCES
Agriculture
Hydrologic/Habitat Modification
Storm Sewers/Runoff
Land Disposal
Municipal
Unknown
Industrial
Resource Extraction
Major
Moderate/Minor
D Unspecified
30 40
Percent
Source: 1990 Slate Section 305(b) reports.
Figure 2-3. Percent of Impaired Lake Acres Affected by Sources of Pollution
23
-------
Lakes and Reservoirs
Table 2-3. Impaired Lake Acres Affected by Sources of Pollution
State
Arizona
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Missouri
Montana
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina"
North Dakota
Oregon**
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming
Total
Impaired
Waters*
28,141
5,952
1,248
238
644,928
13,026
185,444
164
37,785
133,004
19,112
188,566
3,748
44,460
47,361
4,638
463,765
69,083
12,019
115,959
263,166
12,351
254,816
130,625
7,601
1,231
84,188
134,033
108,807
185,357
134,201
16,784
120,113
8,924
30,404
Agriculture
Major
109
162
2,304
132,647
12
20,881
607
8,182
• 1,794
272
28
3,778
14,299
14,800
20
99,037
33,462
445
4,354
98,145
826
47
4,570
118,455
15,500
3,624
15,128
48
28,513
Mod/Min
12,474
3,203
812
622,912
52,734
15,421
46,774
58,722
354
364,149
6,100
1,535
Hydrologic/
Habitat Mod
Major
88
32,018
220
—
1,730
40,005
25
93,991 33,877
12,830 221,568
1,825 —
7,016
50,213
6,518
7,291
2,184
7,665
1,339
4,789
98,234
Mod/Min
916
103
446,400
141,445
40
- 5,824
7,865
299,629
950
196
579
25
7,868
31,559
3,530
27,005
Storm Sewers/
Runoff
Major
186
103
576
6
3,621
16,535
8,042
31,613
1,332
1,270
74
5
1,347
10,866
'621
844
25
90
20
96,932
39
Mod/Min
805
321
27
638,841
1,690
49,984
6,890
2,334
67,476
104
1,022
906
546
34
3,720
22
167
19,081
4,935
25
Land
Disposal
Major
23
1,871
7
169
1,337
—
2,844
13,129
323
13,560
99,715
Mod/Min
390
638
591 ,488
33,006
1,999
3,008
9,708
98
50,086
828
109
9,272
7,800
35
5,428
21
Municipal
Major
3,203
1,216
20
4,925
59
12
6,041
1,031
5,279
65
6,400
3,490
15,302
815
485
20,450
14,600
6,640
97,584
Mod/Min
622
80
252,480
11,310
87,023
63
10,400
455
4,845
5,100
142
8,816
2,701
9,556
5
21
548
3,434
8,300
Totals 3,511,242 622,049 1,374,723 433,893 973,934 174,147 798,930 132,978 713,914 187,617 405,901
Combined Totals 1,996,772 1,407,827 973,077 " 846,892 ' . 593,518
Percent of Impaired Waters 56.9% 40.1% 27.7% 24.1% 16.9%
* Tha 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.
— Zero or not reported.
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
24
-------
Lakes and Reservoirs
Unknown
Major
158
—
73,007
11,460
34,236
Mod/Min
26,543
6,602
18,432
28,205
2,588
Industrial
Major
—
2,636
45
1,780
Mod/Min
350
1,900
64,320
8,891
4,288
Resource
Extraction
Major
23
1,088
30
190
4,862
Mod/Min
6,832
31 ,872
127,811
50
952
2,659
Construction
Major
• —
26
71
32
Mod/Min
152
975
42,176
5,515
1,344
Silviculture
Major
—
75
1
3,442
Mod/Min
1,084
229
45,831
Combined •
Sewers
Major Mod/Min
— —
— 25
22 23
1 —
83 4,562 3,490
— 19,250 —
— 20,900
1,600
— 15,122 — 36,292
— — — 6,136 244 2,475
101,094
5,138
59,143
500
— -
41
86
—
284,946
10,730
672
543
—
—
7
—
118,134
403,080
11.5%
2,618
895
—
96,900
80,000
1,200
—
189,564
7,800
291
40,391
21
630
—
—
—
128,882
318,446
9.1%
— —
1 924
2,815 684
— 80,000
2,71 1 4,875
— 9,520
34,543 266,855
301,398
8.6%
—
—
2,826
—
111
—
3,066
35
10,950
8,532
875
> —
14
1 1 ,506
103,332
106,398
3.0%
2,755
162
671
—
149
—
7,499
3,180 2,944
1,698 —
4,550 —
2,028 —
— - - —
1,636 —
— —
99,003 2,967
106,502
3.0%
—
—
—
—
—
—
48
3,015
0.1%
25
-------
Lakes and Reservoirs
Table 2-4. Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in Lakes and Reservoirs
Fishable Goal (acres)
Swimmable Goal (acres)
Stato
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Assessed
488,426
121,394
355,063
1,038,845
148,396
Connecticut 23,179
Delaware 2;542
District of Columbia 238
Florida 357,120
Georgia 417,730
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
209,036
97,536
80,306
173,602
214,861
592,869
960,583
21,002
64,018
489,433
2,190,320
500,000
287.543
632,705
308,125
153,516
115,598
750,000
305.345
611,073
26.015
448,776
504,928
11,146
16,683
260,902
682,034
540,030
1,543,898
133.754
225.740
160.640
182,848
18,870
139,330
427,219
Meeting
286,039
17,747
355,063
538.832
146,494
20,304
2,384
108
845,696
404,704
160,402
97.372
42,856
173,236
214,642
455,869
796,394
17,255
37,706
472,587
225,838
339,358
285,074
226,475
149.042
149,776
115,598
560,000
295,221
367,484
24,879
219,855
504,928
7,627
15,553
175,069
682,034
483,675
1,543,884
0
221,525
150,158
62,551
12,988
42,284
427,219
Totals 1 7,633,21 7 1 2,373,785
Percent of Assessed Waters 70.2%
Partially
Meeting
133,635
96,224
0
54,931
2,875
0
27
384
13,000
20,920
63
26,332
0
219
137,000
164,189
3,641
569
0
160,596
392,977
159,083
3,270
21,855
865
200,493
0
1,124
100
72,713
133,754
1,877
10,482
5,277
4,152
89,918
0
1,912,545
10.8%
Not
Meeting
63,548
7,398
0
445,082
1,862
0
158
103
111,040
26
27,714
101
11,115
366
0
0
0
106
25,663
16,846
1,964,482
46
2,469
13,253
0
470
0
190,000
10,124
221,734
271
28,428
0
2,395
487
13,120
0
56,355
14
0
1,957
0
115,020
1,730
7,128
0
3,340,611
18.9%
Not
Attainable
5,204
25
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
80
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
543
0
0
0
381
0
0
0
6,276
0.0%
Assessed
488,426
121,376
355,063
1,037,225
145,055
23,179
2,543
238
957,120
0
209,035
97,524
80,306
173,602
214,861
592,869
960,583
21,001
64,017
489,433
1,536,185
500,000
287,543
632,704
308,125
155,463
115,598
750,000
305,355
610,749
102,731
434,431
504,928
11,146
16,683
217,667
682,034
538,322
1,543,898
133,754
41,820
160,640
182,807
18,870
139,330
245,311
16,209,550
Meeting
286,039
113,179
355,063
619,089
112,539
23,179
1,294
0
845,696
136,436
97,372
42,787
173,199
214,642
434,237
911,493
20,999
44,893
489,433
1,290,496
492,453
260,376
288,934
43,075
146,442
115,598
678,000
303,134
376,767
20,953
285,197
504,928
6,791
15,553
197,142
682,034
521,473
1,536,346
2,329
40,636
160,640
180,512
18,870
42,284
245,311
13,377,843
82.5%
Partially
Meeting
133,635
6,742
0
70,519
0
• 969
0
384
59,765
63
29,706
0
219
137,960
49,090
0
17,952
68,088
7,501
332,619
264,100
5,293
12,248
75,722
• 123,310
0
1,960
100
20,525
131,425
331
660
0
89,918
0
1,640,804
10.1%
Not
Meeting
63,548
120
0
347,617
0
0
280
238
111,040
12,834
89
5,586
403
0
20,672
0
2
1,080
0
177,601
46
79
11,151
950
3,728
0
72,000
2,221
221,734
6,056
25,924
0
2,395
487
0
0
16,849
7,552
0
838
0
1,635
0
7,128
0
1,121,883
6.9%
Not
Attainable
5,204
1,335
32,516
0
0
0
0
0
2,227
0
0
0
0
92
0
0
0 '
27,088
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
543
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
69,020
0.4%
— Not reported.
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
26
-------
Lakes and Reservoirs
substances entering lakes
through runoff, sewage dis-
charges, septic tank leachate,
and similar sources. These
substances can overstimulate
algae and aquatic plant
growth, creating conditions
(e.g., low dissolved oxygen
concentrations and algal
scum on the lake surface)
that adversely affect swim-
ming, boating, and the
health and diversity of indig-
enous fish populations. Such
major, and generally unde-
sirable, changes in lake ecol-
ogy are known as cultural
eutrophication.
The eutrophication pro-
gression is commonly de-
scribed by a series of trophic
states:
• Oligotrophic—clear waters
with little organic matter or
sediment and minimal algal
and plant productivity;,.
• 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 wetlands
status.
Dystrophic is also a lake
classification but is not nec-
essarily a part of the eutro-
phication progression. Dys-
trophic systems are often low
in nutrients yet are highly
colored with dissolved humic
matter. tLakes found in
areas with peat bogs or other
types of wetlands are some-
times dystrophic systems. ,
Table 2-5 displays the gen-
eral characteristics of lakes
in the various trophic classi-
fications.
Trophic status concepts
can also be applied to reser-
voirs or to such natural
waterbodies as oxbow lakes
found along large alluvial
rivers. For these water-
bodies, the succession of
trophic states may take place
more quickly than for natu-
ral, glacially derived lakes.
The sequence may also begin
with conditions associated
with the mesotrophic or even
eutrophic states.' Especially
for newly impounded reser-
voirs, there may be an initial
highly productive period
called the "trophic upsurge."
This will be followed by a
less productive state and a
subsequent more lengthy
series of trophic changes
dependent on site-specific
watershed conditions. In
many cases, an impounded
reservoir will exhibit differ-
ent trophic states at the
same,time in different loca-
tions in the reservoir. For
example, oligotrophic condi-
tions may be present near
the dam while the riverine
portion of the same reservoir
could be eutrophic. Despite
these complexities, trophic
classifications can be useful
in characterizing general
water quality and in making
management decisions to
Fishable
Not
Meeting
(18.9%)
Partially
Meeting
(10.8%)
Partially
Meeting
(10.1%)
Swimmable
Not Not
Meeting Attainable
(6.9%) (0.4%)
Meeting
(70.2%)
Meeting
(82.5%)
Acres Assessed = 17,633,217
Acres Assessed = 16,209,550
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
Figure 2-4. Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in Assessed Lakes and Reservoirs
27
-------
Lakes and Reservoirs
control cultural eutrophica-
tion.
Although changes in lake
water quality may be tracked
by monitoring for trophic
state, the trophic state of a
lake does not always define
its use. For example, fishing
may be better in a eutrophic
lake than an oligotrophic
lake. User perceptions are
also important to consider in
assessing support of uses: .a
lake with chemical, physical,
and biological data indicat-
ing eutrophic conditions may
be typical for its region and
perceived by its users, as fully
supporting recreational ac-
tivities.
Section 314 of the Water
Quality Act of 1987 requires
States to identify their sig-
nificant publicly owned lakes
by trophic status in their
Section 305(b) reports. Table
2-6 displays the results of the
State evaluations of trophic
status. Thirty-eight States
reported that 50 percent of
the 8,347 lakes assessed for
trophic status were either
eutrophic or hypereutrophic,
39 percent were mesotrophic,
10 percent were oligotrophic,
and less than 1 percent were
dystrophic. Lakes classified
by States using categories
not consistent with the for-
mat of the table are listed
under "other."
As with other results
reported by the States, the
trophic status summary data
may be biased if the lakes
were assessed in response to
a problem or public com-
plaint or because of their
easy accessibility. It is likely
that more remote and/or
pristine lakes are under-
represented in some State
assessments.
Water Quality
Trends in Lakes
Because the trophic status
of a lake may change over
time—often due to purely
natural factors—it is useful
to establish long-term trend
monitoring procedures to
help detect these historical
changes, especially when
they are associated with
undesirable cultural eutro-
phication. Section 314 of the
Clean Water Act requires
States to report on trends in
their lakes. To help States
enhance trend detection
capabilities, special grant
and technical assistance
programs have been sup-
ported by EPA's Clean Lakes
Program since 1989. These
long-term lake monitoring
programs will also help as-
sess trends for other types of
pollutants, including toxic
substances and lake acidifi-
cation. A few States have
made trend estimates using
best professional judgment
based on limited observa-
tions. Currently, however,
35 States (77 percent of those
for which information is
available) indicate they have
inadequate databases to
make reliable trend assess-
ments.
In their 1990 305(b)
reports, several States ex-
pressed interest in determin-
ing land use trends that
could adversely affect lake
water quality. Two States
(Maine and Vermont) noted
that they were interested in
identifying watersheds
where rapid land use
changes (usually from resi-
dential or commercial devel-
opment) posed the threat of
impacts to lakes unless pro-
tection measures could be
instituted promptly. Maine
developed a special Lake
Vulnerability Index and is as
much concerned with "fu-
ture" trends as historic pat-
terns. Many States indicate
an interest in increasing
their attention to pollution
prevention as the most cost-
effective way to protect lakes:
lake management and pro-
tection, although costly, is
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.
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
28
-------
Lakes and Reservoirs
Table 2-6. Trophic Status of the Nation's Lakes
Total Number
of Lakes Oligo- Meso-
State Assessed trophic trophic
Alabama
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Jersey
New Mexico
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Total Number
of Lakes
35
65
204
30
3
104
278
114
217
99
101
1,882
62
414
684
1,563
33
103
48
45
21
55
120
149
125
67
202
53
18
56
40
129
109
62
184
219
76
578
8,347
(100%)
2
8
38
0
0
63
3
0
0
12
0
154 ;
2
28
99
202
0
8
6
0
0
5
27
0
0
8
59
1
4
5
0
0
19
10
28
23
18
16
848
(10.2%)
22
25
95
0
2
18
17
0
56
31
0
1,075
15
124
357
529
0
36
21
2
0
9
28
12
30
17
72
39
2
21
4
8
33
36
104
65
29
332
3,266
(39.1%)
Eutro-
phic
6
32
29
30
1
23
136
114
97
56
101
653
45
202
228
539
33
56
16
31
21
31
44
58
69
35
61
13
12
14
36
121
50
15
38
130
29
230
3,435
(41 .2%)
Hyper-
eutrophic
0
0
11
0
0
0
122
0
64
0
0
0
0
59
0
293
0
3
0
12
0
0
9
79
26
7
10
0
0
0
0
0
7
1
0
0
0
0
703
(8.4%)
Dys-
trophic
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
,0
0
0
0
0
0
1
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
1
0
0
29
Other
5
0
31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
5
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
66
29
-------
Lakes and Reservoirs
generally less expensive than
lake restoration. The ability
to predict where land use
will require prompt planning
and management attention
to avoid pollution problems is
a type of trend analysis that
will likely find increasing use
in State lake programs.'
Lake Acidity
With the 1987 reauthori-
zation of the Clean Water
Act, changes to Section 314
emphasize monitoring lakes
for a number of significant
features in addition to tradi-
tional trophic status param-
eters. Many States have
expanded their lake monitor-
ing efforts to detect potential
impacts of acid deposition,
acid mine drainage, and toxic
substances. Monitoring lake
acidify and monitoring toxic
substance impacts are often
closely coordinated because
pollution that can increase a
lake's acidity can also in-
crease the solubility of toxi-
cants or magnify their del-
eterious effects.
Acidic lakes are generally
found in areas where the
watershed soils have limited
buffering capacities. In these
lakes, acidic sources such as
acid rain from the combus-
tion of fossil fuels and acid
outflows from abandoned
mines can significantly de-
press a lake's pH level. An
increase in lake acidity can
radically alter the commu-
nity offish and plant species
residing in a lake. Fish, in
particular, are sensitive to
fluctuations in lake acidity.
Small increases in acidity
depress reproduction of
many sport fish species.
Large increases in acidity
can entirely eliminate fish
populations in a lake.
Many States arte building
monitoring databases to
identify acidified lakes and to
distinguish between lakes in
which acidification results
from natural conditions and
those in which it is influ-
enced by human activities.
States are also beginning to
identify lakes that are sensi-
tive to anthropogenic acidifi-
cation because of low natural
acid-neutralizing capacities.
State monitoring programs
have benefited from EPA-
sponsored initiatives such as
the National Acid Precipita-
tion Assessment Program
(NAPAP). NAPAP has sug-
gested important parameters
to include in a lake or water-
shed acidification monitoring
program. Several States
have adopted these monitor-
ing approaches as part of
work being carried out
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
Figure 2-5. States Reporting Acid Deposition Concerns
30
-------
Lakes and Reservoirs
through Section 314 Lake
Water Quality Assessment
grants.
Figures 2-5 and 2-6 sum-
marize information from the
1990 Section 305(b) reports
on States' concerns about
acid deposition and acid
mine drainage. In most
instances, the States feel
more monitoring is needed to
distinguish between vulner-
ability to impacts (e.g., from
low acid-neutralizing capaci-
ties) and actual adverse
impacts to aquatic life or
other designated uses.
Controlling
Acidification and
Toxicant Impacts
For conventional pollut-
ants (e.g., oxygen-demanding
substances, nutrients, or
sediment) and for toxics
problems associated with
active point source dis-
charges, States have devel-
oped a variety of control and
rehabilitation techniques for
lakes and their watersheds.
For acidification problems
and the toxic substance con-
cerns often related to acidifi-
cation effects, the manage-'
ment challenges can be
highly complex.
Often, effectively address-
ing the causes and sources
of increased acidity in lakes
requires a multimedia ap-
proach. For example, the
causes for acid deposition
impacts are often located
outside a lake's watershed
and involve air pollution
factors. The ultimate solu-
tions to such intermedia
issues will depend on con-
trols initiated through pro-
grams related to the Clean
Air Act. In the case of acid
mine drainage, ground-water
resources as well as surface
water may be impaired.
The addition of limestone
or other alkaline materials to
lake waters is the most com-
mon rehabilitation tech-
nique, even though this is
often only a temporary solu-
tion to acidification prob-
lems. A variant is to inject
alkaline materials into lake
sediments. These techniques
have been used in Europe for
some time and are being
applied on a limited basis in
such States as Massachu-
setts, New York, West Vir-
ginia, and Michigan. In
some cases, more lasting
benefits are possible from
liming the land surfaces in a
reservoir's watershed. Mary-
land is undertaking experi-
ments to evaluate the effec-
tiveness of watershed liming.
Especially for small lakes,
acidic runoff may be
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
Figure 2-6. States Reporting Acid Mine Drainage Concerns
31-
-------
Lakes and Reservoirs
associated with rainfall
events during specific times
of the year when meteoro-
logic conditions introduce
weather systems from areas
of high air pollution and,
hence, increased levels of
acidity. Several States in the
Midwest have documented
this pattern and are consid-
ering ways to divert runoff
from small lakes or reser-
voirs during these critical
seasons.
The Section 314
Clean Lakes
Program
From its inception in 1972,
the Clean Lakes Program
has encouraged coordination
with other Federal, State,
local, and "grass-roots" pro-
grams. Jurisdiction over a
lake and its watershed will
often involve several units of
government. Pollutants may
come from point sources,
Boaters
Stop the spread
of Eurasian Water
Milfoil.
Remove all lake *
weeds from boat
•; and trader before
entering and after
I leaving water. A
Introduced water plants have caused degradation of water quality
In some lakes and reservoirs.
requiring attention under
the National Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination System
(NPDES) program. Non-
point sources of pollution
may involve residential
developments, road construc-
tion, agriculture, or other
land use factors. Addressing
nonpoint source concerns
may require participation
from a variety of State agen-
cies, Federal agencies such
as the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), and,
of course, local property
owners.
Building the institutional
framework required to in-
volve all pertinent parties in
a lake's management needs
is a major objective of Section
314. States have been en-
couraged to develop their
own legislation to give focus
to their specific lake manage-
ment agendas, and several
grants offered through the
EPA Clean Lakes Program
are designed to assist these
State efforts. Through the
exchange of information on
lake management techniques
and using a variety of coop-
erative agreements with the
States, EPA has provided
support for integrated ap-
proaches to lake manage-
ment, involving assessment,
planning, restoration, and
protection.
The States may enter into
four types of cooperative
agreements with EPA under
the Section 314 Clean Lakes
Program:
• State Lake Water Quality
Assessments enable States to
gather information required
under Section 314(a)(l) of
the Clean Water Act and
establish lake programs
within State agencies.
• Phase I - Diagnostic/Feasi-
bility Studies are performed
on individual lakes to deter-
mine necessary protection
and restoration measures.
• Phase II - Restoration/
Implementation Projects
fund implementation of the
recommendations proposed
in the Phase I study.
• Phase III - Post-Restora-
tion Monitoring Studies
determine the longevity and
effectiveness of the restora-
tion measures implemented
under the Phase II projects.
The integrated approach
central to the Clean Lakes
Program stresses inter-
agency cooperation to build
strong local support for lake
projects. This approach
provides a solid platform
from which to pursue the
challenges that confront
efforts to protect and restore
the Nation's lake resources.
Over time, many States have
developed the institutional
foundations—in legislation,
in funding sources, and in
local support—for self-sus-
taining lake programs, often
modeled after EPA's Clean
Lakes initiatives.
Restoration and
Control Methods
Background on
Lake Management
Methods
Lake management for
water quality improvements
may include in-lake treat-
ment techniques to reduce
existing nutrient or toxic
contamination problems and
watershed management
32
-------
Lakes and Reservoirs
practices aimed at reducing
additional inputs of nutri-
ents and other contaminants.
Usually, a combination of
watershed improvement to
re'duce pollution that enters
a lake and application of
in-lake restoration tech-
niques is used to upgrade the
quality of a lake or reservoir.
The following discussion
highlights State restoration
and control methods. Subse-
quent sections provide more
detailed coverage for special
topics such as toxic sub-
stances and acidity.
States, often with assis-
tance from EPA's Clean
Lakes Program, have devel-
oped a wide variety of tech-
niques to address problems
affecting recreational and
other important lake uses.
Lake rehabilitation tech-
niques can be categorized
based on typical pollution
problems and restoration
objectives. Objectives in-
clude: (1) controlling nui-
sance algae; (2) alleviating
problems from excessive
shallowness and loss of lake
capacity; (3) controlling nui-
sance water plants; (4) im-
proving the condition of the
fish community; (5) mitigat-
ing the'impacts of acidity;
and (6) removing toxic sub-
stances. Commonly encoun-
tered rehabilitation
measures associated with
these management objectives
are summarized in Table 2-7.
Control measures are
directed at the actual sources
of pollution. Point sources
are usually controlled
through wastewater treat-
ment and permit programs.
Since the early 1970s, the
NPDES program has pro-
vided a mechanism for State
and Federal scrutiny of the
impacts of municipal or in-
dustrial discharges to lakes
and reservoirs. Nonpoint
sources, because they are
diffuse by nature, are best
controlled through water-
shed management. Espe-
cially with the addition of
Section 319 to the Clean
Water Act in 1987, a number
of initiatives have taken
place in State programs to
focus nonpoint source man-
agement efforts on improving
lake water quality.
All States use general
surface water standards to
guide management decisions
affecting lakes, especially
concerning NPDES permit-
ting issues. Many States
have also adopted special
turbidity standards for lakes.
The following examples
describe approaches already
in use in a variety of States
and provisions that will
likely be adopted in the near
future.
Table 2-7. Lake Rehabilitation Techniques by Restoration Objectives
Restoration Objectives
Technique
Control
Nuisance
Algae
Eliminate
Excessive
Shallowness
Remove
Rooted
Plants
Improve Acid Toxics
Fisheries Mitigation Removal
Phosphorus Precipitation Inactivation
Sediment Removal/Dredging
Dilution/Flushing
Biological Controls
Introduction of Non-Native Species
Aquatic Macrophyte Harvesting
Artificial Circulation
Hypolimnetic Aeration
Food Chain Manipulation
Chemical Controls
Diversion
Sediment Basin/Trap
Drawdown/Water Level Management
Shading/Sediment Cover
Sediment Oxidation
Hypolimnetic Withdrawal
Nutrient Addition
Source: CLP Report to Congress EPA-440/5-89-003.
33
-------
Lakes and Reservoirs
• Colorado has adopted
lake-specific phosphorus
standards for Dillon, Cherry'
Creek, and Chatford Reser-,
voirs. The State has then
encouraged a system of
tradeoffs between point and
nonpoint source loadings as
an efficient means of achiev-
ing site-specific controls to
meet the standards targets.
• Delaware plans to use a
trophic state index (Porcel-
la's Lake Evaluation Index)
to trigger management
attention on nutrient control
if a lake's trophic status rises
beyond the upper mesotro-
phic to lower eutrophic
range.
• Georgia plans to develop
lake-specific standards
(involving such parameters
as pH, fecal coliforms, chloro-
phyll a, total nitrogen, total
phosphorus, and surface
dissolved oxygen) for several
high-priority lakes. The
State will also consider
nutrient standards for
streams feeding these lakes.
• Illinois has standards to
keep phosphorus levels below
50 parts per billion on lakes
with surface areas of 20
acres or more. Point source
dischargers for communities
with more than 2,500 adults
may have stringent phospho-
rus limits added to discharge
permits if lake phosphorus
levels exceed the standards
criterion.
• Minnesota is exploring use
of ecoregion concepts to
define regional reference
conditions for use in applying
antidegradation policies to
lakes.
• Oklahoma has defined
special designations for lakes
deemed high-quality waters
or used as public drinking
water supplies. Such desig-
nations prevent additional
pollutant loading from per-
mitted point source
Excessive growth of nuisance algae and rooted aquatic vegetation are two symptoms of eutrophication.
discharges. If water quality,
problems are documented,
such lakes are also recom-
mended as high-priority
candidates for nonpoint
source management atten-
tion.
• Vermont has narrative
standards for phosphorus
loadings that lead to eutro-
phic conditions in small
lakes. Under such circum-
stances, nutrient permit
limits would be considered
for point source dischargers.
Vermont is also working on
numeric phosphorus criteria
for 12 segments of Lake
Champlaln.
• Virginia has provisions in
its standards for designating
a lake or watershed as a
"Nutrient Enriched Water."
Such an action would focus
management attention on
phosphorus control in point
source permit decisions.
For many categories of
pollution from diffuse
sources—especially agricul-
ture or silviculture—imple-
menting best management
practices (BMPs) in lake-
shore and watershed areas is
the primary control strategy.
Most States approach BMP
implementation using volun-
tary approaches and cost-
share incentives combined
with educational and techni-
cal assistance efforts. State
water quality agencies have
shown considerable flexibil-
ity in setting up cooperative
efforts with other State natu-
ral resource agencies, with
Federal agencies, and with
local government agencies to
target work on specific lakes
or watersheds and to use
available technical expertise
and funding resources
34
-------
Lakes and Reservoirs
efficiently. A number of
States have highlighted
specific BMPs they feel
should be given priority in
evaluating lake nonpoint
source management needs.
Other types of nonpoint
source controls lend them-
selves to land use ordinances
or regulations, especially *
urban nonpoint source runoff
and construction-related
concerns that involve land
development or road con-
struction. Many States have
set up active technical assis-
tance and education pro-
grams encouraging local
government to adopt ordi-
nances or permitting policies
that address urban nonpoint
and stormwater sources that
contribute to lake problems.
State water quality agencies
have also initiated a variety
of cooperative arrangements
with State departments of
transportation to promote
the use of sound manage-
ment practices on State and
Federal highway projects.
The 1987 reauthorization
of the Clean Water Act pro-
vided additional tools to
improve lake water quality.
Some States have taken
steps to integrate their lake
programs with activities
associated with their Section
319 nonpoint source manage-
ment programs. Many lakes
have become the focus of
targeted watershed demon-
stration projects supported
through EPA nonpoint
source grants or through
other innovative funding
mechanisms. For example,
Illinois' Lake Management
Act and Washington's Cen-
tennial Clean Water Fund
are programs with a strong
nonpoint source emphasis.
Additionally, the new permit
requirements for.stormwater
discharges under the NPDES
are also expected to play a
. significant role in controlling
pollutants from these sources
and improving lake water.
In recent years, attention
has focused on the need for
improved management at
dams to maintain recre-
ational and aquatic life des-
ignated uses. Especially in
older reservoirs built for
hydroelectric power, naviga-
tion, drinking water sup-
plies, irrigation water, or
flood control, sizable fluctua-
tions in lake water levels
may impede access to mari-
nas and boat launching areas
and may seriously affect the
reproductive success of fishes
that lay eggs in the littoral
areas. Lake level fluctua-
tions and water releases
from hydrostructures may
also adversely impact the
water quality of tailwater
fisheries below the dams.
State water quality agencies,
often in cooperation with
State wildlife conservation
departments, tourism agen-
cies, Federal agencies, and
power companies, have made
significant progress in work-
ing with the operators of
reservoir hydrostructures to
define operating rules to
improve water quality.
In addition to a technical
foundation of lake rehabilita-
tion and pollution control
methods, successful lake
programs usually require
strong local support and
cooperation from natural
resource agencies at the
local, State, and Federal
levels. Many States have
made great progress in es-
tablishing these types of
institutional frameworks,
which are essential ingre-
dients in managing the
nonpoint source pollutants.
The control of pollutants
from diffuse sources is
clearly the major unfinished
business facing our Nation's
lake managers.
35
-------
-------
3
The Great Lakes
Support of
Designated Uses
The Great Lakes, contain-
ing one-fifth of the world's
fresh water, are stressed by a
wide range of pollutant
sources. Traditional sources
of contamination include
municipal and industrial
discharges, combined sewer
overflows, urban runoff, and
hazardous waste sites associ-
ated with the urban centers
located on the shoreline.
These urban areas include
Chicago, Detroit, Gary,
Toledo, Toronto, and Buffalo.
Increasingly, atmospheric
deposition and in-place sedi-
ment contaminants are also
cited as sources of pollution
in the Great Lakes. The
diffuse origins of these
sources hinder control
efforts.
In their 1990 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.
their designated uses (see
Table 3-1). A total of 4,857
miles were assessed—all of
the shoreline miles in the
reporting States or 94 per-
cent of the total 5,169 Great
Lakes shoreline miles in the
United States. Of the as-
sessed shoreline, 2 percent
(85 miles) fully support uses.
Another 1 percent (69 miles)
fully support uses but are
threatened. Twenty-nine
percent of assessed miles
(1,415 miles) partially sup-
port uses, and 68 percent
(3,288 miles) do not support
uses (see Figure 3-1). All of
the waters not supporting
their designated uses are in
Michigan.
The use support figures
are difficult to interpret
because the States use a
variety of assessment and
reporting methodologies. For
37
-------
The Great Lakes
Table 3-1. Designated Use Support in Great Lakes
State
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
New York
Ohio
Wisconsin
Great Lake
Shore
Miles
43
3,288
fa//
236
650
Percent of Assessed Waters
Shore Miles Assessed
Total
43
3,288
577
236
650
Percent
Evaluated
0
0
0
100
100
Percent
Monitored
100
100
100
0
0
Miles
Fully
Supporting
0
0
85
0
0
85
1.8%
Miles
Threatened
54
15
0
69
1.4%
Miles
Partially
Supporting
g
43
477
236
650
1,415
29 1%
Miles
Not
0
3,288
0
0
3,288
67 7°/
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
example, most States classify
waters subject to fish con-
sumption advisories as par-
tially supporting designated
uses. But Michigan does not
have a partial support classi-
fication. As a result, Michi-
gan is the only Great Lakes
State reporting that its
shoreline does not support
designated uses, even though
it has the same fish con-
sumption restrictions as do
the other State shorelines.
It should also be noted
that it is the nearshore wa-
ters of the Great Lakes that
are most likely to be de-
graded; Table 3-1 does not
address water quality condi-
tions in the deeper, cleaner,
less stressed central waters
of the Great Lakes.
Causes and
Sources of
Impairment
Six States reported causes
of use impairment for 4,772
shoreline miles (see Table
3-2). Priority organics re-
main the most extensive
cause of use impairment on
the Great Lakes (see Figure
3-2). Priority organics,
Fully
Supporting Threatened
Not
Supporting
(67.7%)
Partially
Supporting
(29.1%)
Shore Miles Assessed = 4,857
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
Figure 3-1. Designated Use Support in Assessed Great Lakes
Table 3-2. Impaired Great Lake Shore Miles Affected by
State
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan**
New York
Ohio
Wisconsin
Total
Impaired
Waters*
63
43
3,288
492
236
650
Totals 1 ,484
Combined Totals 4,772
% of Impaired Waters
Priority
Organics
Major
63
3,288
463
4
650
1,180
Mod/Min
43'
29
186
258
4,726
99.0%
Pesticides
Major Mod/Min
— 43
29 —
— 650
0 693
693
14.5%
*The sum of partially and nonsupporting shore miles (Table 3-1);
threatened waters are included in this column for Illinois and New York.
"This State did not specify the degree of impact (i.e., Major or Moderate/
Minor); shoreline miles were placed in the "Major" column for national
reporting purposes.
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
38
-------
The Great Lakes'
primarily PCBs, affect 99
percent of the impaired
shoreline miles. Pesticides
impair 14 percent and metals
affect 5 percent. Metals are a
major cause of impairment in
Ohio, where elevated concen-
trations of copper and cad-
mium affect aquatic life uses.
Organic enrichment, nutri-
ents, pH, pathogens, and
siltation are also reported
causes of use impairment.
Only four States reported
shoreline miles impaired by
individual sources (see Table
3-3 and Figure 3-3). The
reported information sug-
gests that landfills and con-
taminated sediments are the
leading sources impairing
the Great Lakes. However,
this information is mislead-
ing because it pertains to less
than 21 percent of the im-
paired Great Lakes shore-
line. Significant sources are
not fully represented in the
summary information be-
cause Michigan, which
reported 69 percent of the
impaired shoreline miles,
failed to specify shoreline
mileages affected by source
categories. Michigan did
state that atmospheric trans-
port and deposition are a
major source of critical pol-
lutants in the Great Lakes.
Two other States, Illinois
and Indiana, also cited
atmospheric deposition as a
source of impairment on
their Great Lakes shorelines.
Attainment of
Clean Water Act
Goals
Five States provided infor-
mation 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
1,569 shoreline miles •were
assessed. Only 5 percent of
these waters (85 miles) are
reported to be fully support-
ing the fishable goal (see
Figure 3-4). Another 59
percent are partially sup-
porting the fishable goal, and
35 percent are not support-
ing the fishable goal. The
fishable goal is considered
attainable throughout the
Great Lakes shoreline.
The fishable goals are not
met because offish consump-
tion advisories issued to
protect the public from ele-
vated concentrations of prior-
ity organics and mercury in
fish tissues. A uniform fish
advisory jointly issued by the
Great Lakes States and the
Province of Ontario in 1987
remains in effect for all of the
Great Lakes. The advisory
pertains primarily to bottom-
dwelling fish with elevated
tissue residues of PCBs,
mercury, and chlordane.
More than half of the
assessed shoreline miles
(57 percent) are fully sup-
porting the swimmable goal,
Causes of Pollution
Metals
Organic
Enrichment
Nutrients
pH
Pathogens
Siltation
Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min
86
86
129 —
20 —
151 0
237
4.9%
15
46
61
61
1.3%
29
29
4
20 —
24 0
53
1.1%
— 1
35 —
35 1
35
0.7%
15 —
15 0
16
0.3%
14
14
14
0.3%
39
-------
The Great Lakes
Table 3-3. Impaired Great Lake Shore Miles Affected by Sources of Pollution
State
Illinois
Indiana
New York
Wisconsin
Totals
Combined Totals
% of Impaired Waters
Total
Impaired
Waters*
63
43
492
650
1,248
Land
Disposal
Major
15
15
Mod/Mm
492
492
507
40.6%
Contaminated
Sediments
Major
4
463
467
Mod/Min
29
29
496
39.7%
Atmospheric
Deposition
Major
63
63
Mod/Min
43
43
106
8.5%
Combined
Sewers
Major Mod/Min
— 16
— 43
— 14
— 20
0 93
93
7.4%
Municipal
Major
1
1
Mod/Min
43
40
83
84
6.7%
'The sum of partially and nonsupporting shore miles (Table 3-1); threatened waters are included in this column for Illinois and New York.
'' Zero or not reported.
'Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
Table 3-4. Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in the Great Lakes
Fishable Goal (shore miles)
Swimmable Goal (shore miles)
State
Illinois
Indiana
New York
Ohio
Wisconsin
Assessed
63
43
577
236
650
Totals 1,569
Percent of Assessed Waters
Meeting
0
85
0
0
85
5.4%
Partially
Meeting
0
43
236
650
929
59.2%
Not Not
Meeting Attainable
63
492
0
0
555
35.4%
0
0
0
0
Assessed
63
43
577
236
650
1,569
Meeting
' 63
43
563
231
0
900
57.4%
Partially
Meeting
0
5
650
655
41.7%
Not Not
Meeting Attainable
0
14
0
0
14
0.1%
0
0
0
0
— Not reported.
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
POLLUTION CAUSES
PitorityOrganics
Pesticides
Metals
Organic Enrichment
Nutrients
100
Source: 1990 Stata Section 305(b) reports.
Figure 3-2. Percent of Impaired Great Lakes Shore Miles
Affected by Causes of Pollution
POLLUTION SOURCES
Land Disposal
Contaminated Sediments
Atmospheric Deposition
Combined Sewers
Municipal
Storm Sewers/Runoff
Agriculture
10
20
Percent
30
40
Source: 1990 State Section 305{b) reports.
Figure 3-3. Percent of Impaired Great Lakes Shore Miles
Affected by Sources of Pollution
40
-------
The Great Lakes
Storm
Sewers/Runoff
Agriculture
Industrial
Construction
Major Mod/Mm Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Mm Major Mod/Mm
— 63
— 14
77
77
6.2%
14
43
15
43
14
58
72
5.8%
43
43
3.4%
14
14
14
1.1%
Not
Meeting
(35.4%)
Fishable
Meeting
(5.4%)
Partially
Meeting
(59.2%)
Shore Miles Assessed = 1,569
Partially
Meeting
(41.7%)
Swimmable
Not
Meeting
(0.1%)
Meeting
(57.4%)
Shore Miles Assessed = 1,569
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
Figure 3-4. Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in Assessed Great Lakes
41
-------
The Great Lakes
42 percent are partially
supporting, and less than
1 percent of the assessed ,
shoreline is not supporting
the swimmable goal. The
swimmable goal was consid-
ered attainable for all as-
sessed shoreline miles. The
States did not report reasons
for not attaining the swim-
mable goal.
Water Quality
Management
The Great Lakes are coop-
eratively managed by the
U.S. and Canada under the
Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement of 1978, as
amended in 1987. The 1978
Agreement outlined pro-
grams and practices neces-
sary to reduce pollutant
discharges into the Great
Lakes system. The 1987
amendments strengthened
toxic reduction features of
the Agreement. The Clean
Water Act, as amended in
Both chemical and bacterial contamination can result in closures of
recreational swimming areas.
1987, applies to the U.S.
waters of the Great Lakes,
incorporating the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agree-
ment by reference.
The International Joint
Commission (IJC), estab-
lished by the 1909 Boundary
Waters Treaty, is responsible
for identifying actions
needed to maintain the
integrity of the Great Lakes
ecosystems. The Commis-
sion's two boards, the Great
Lakes Water Quality Board
and the Science Advisory
Board, identify problem
areas, plan programs to
reduce pollution, and publish
reports on issues and find-
ings.
Since 1973, the IJC has
identified 42 Areas of Con-
cern in the Great Lakes
basin where environmental
quality is degraded and des-
ignated uses are impaired.
The Areas of Concern consist
primarily of harbors, bays,
and river mouths. In 1985,
the Great Lakes States and
Canadian provinces agreed
to develop and implement a
Kemedial Action Plan (RAP)
for each Area of Concern.
The RAP process includes
preparation of a Phase I
report that identifies im-
paired uses, and a Phase 2
report that examines restora-
tion options and determines
responsibility for implemen-
tation.
Several Areas of Concern
are discussed in the narra-
tive assessments for each
Great Lake: the St. Louis
River and Bay in Lake Supe-
rior; the Saginaw River in
Lake Huron; the Cuyahoga
River, the Ashtabula River,
and the Black River in Lake
Erie; and the Niagara River
and the Connecting Chan-
nels of the Upper Great
Lakes. Other Areas of Con-
cern are discussed in detail
in the 1990 State Section
305(b) reports.
The Great Lakes:
A Narrative
Assessment
Because of a lack of new
data, the States did not
change their Great Lakes
water quality assessments
substantially from 1988 to
1990. As a result, there is
little change in the general
conclusions drawn from the
1988 and 1990 Section 305(b)
reports.
• The Great Lakes' trophic
status is improving. The
Great Lakes States continue
to report declining phospho-
rus concentrations but in-
creasing nitrate concentra-
tions.
• Toxic contamination per-
sists in fish tissues and lake
sediments. Previously declin-
ing trends in fish tissue
concentrations of PCBs,
DDT, and mercury have
slowed and even reversed in
some fish species. Atmos-
pheric deposition and sedi-
ment contamination from
previous activities (e.g.,
industrial discharges) are
thought to be significant
sources of persistent toxic
contamination in fish.
• Sediment contamination
continues to be a major prob-
lem, particularly in near-
shore waters and harbors.
No improvement is noted for
contaminated sediments.
Remediation efforts have
been stalled pending ap-
proval of dredge disposal
plans.
42
-------
The Great Lakes
• The States have made
progress in designing Reme-
dial Action Plans for numer-
ous Areas of Concern, but
few have reached the imple-
mentation stage because of a
lack of funds.
All eight of the Great
Lakes States provide narra-
tive information on the Great
Lakes in the 1990 State
Section 305(b) reports. The
information is summarized
here for each of the Great
Lakes.
Lake Superior
_ Lake Superior, the largest
of the Great Lakes, lies in a
sparsely populated water-
shed and is classified as
oligotrophic. The water
quality of Lake Superior is
generally very good with only
a few problem areas asso-
ciated with urban centers
concentrated along the
shoreline. The lake's water
quality surpasses established
objectives, standards, and
criteria for all contaminants
except PCBs.
Atmospheric deposition,
however, may be a signifi-
cant source of pesticides,
nitrates, and PCBs. Lin-
dane, dieldrin, DDT, HCB,
chlordane, endrin, aldrin,
and PCBs continue to be
found in Lake Superior rain-
water. Lake Superior is
highly susceptible to atmos-
pheric inputs of contami-
nants because of its large
surface area, long water
retention time, low biological
productivity, and low sedi-
mentation rate.
Minnesota reports that all
fish species except coho
salmon contained detectable
amounts of PCBs in a survey
of five Lake Superior sites.
Wisconsin, Michigan, and
Minnesota maintain fish
consumption advisories for
PCBs along the entire Lake
Superior shoreline. •
Traditional sources of pollution in the Great Lakes include discharges from industrial and municipal
facilities.
• The St. Louis River and
Bay near Duluth, MN, have
been identified as an Area of
Concern by the IJC. Sedi-
ments in the river and bay
contain elevated concentra-
tions of mercury, PCBs, and
coal tars. Fish consumption
advisories have been issued
and dredge spoil disposal is
currently restricted. A
Remedial Action Plan is in
preparation. A citizens advi-
sory committee and several
technical committees have
investigated concerns about
toxics, water quality, sedi-
mentation, habitat, and
biota. The committees will
identify designated uses
impaired by pollution, pro-
pose goals and objectives to
restore the uses, and recom-
mend solutions.
Lake Michigan
The open waters of Lake
Michigan are classified as
oligotrophic. Data collected
in 1987 indicate that overall
phosphorus concentrations
continue to decline in Lake
Michigan. However, near-
shore waters in Green Bay
and along the southern por-
tion of the lake continue to
suffer from noxious algal
blooms during the summer.
To address the persistent
eutrophication problems, the
Green Bay Remedial Action
Plan calls for a 40 to 50 per-
cent reduction in phosphorus
loading. Significant sources
of phosphorus, sediments,
BOD, and bacteria include
animal wastes, municipal
dischargers, urban runoff,
construction sites, upstream
contamination in Lake
Winnebago, cropland and
stream bank erosion, and
industrial dischargers.
43
-------
The Great Lakes
Wisconsin reports that
aquatic plant communities
and fish populations have
improved owing to increased ,
clarity, tighter control of
commercial fishing and, to
some extent, water quality
improvements. However,
Wisconsin is concerned about
habitat modifications result-
ing from bulkhead construc-
tion, dredging, and filling for
marina development. Wis-
consin is investigating the
environmental effects associ-
ated with marina operations,
including sampling for tribu-
tyltin.
The status offish contami-
nation could not be updated
because of a lack of data.
Lake Huron
Lake Huron is classified as
oligotrophic, but contains one
eutrophic area—Saginaw
Bay. Water quality is gener-
ally better in the northern
half of the lake, but improve-
ments in Saginaw Bay's
Establishing a sampling station along a Lake Erie coastal wetland.
water quality have contrib-
uted to an overall improve-
ment in southern Lake
Huron's water quality.
Michigan reports that
water quality in open areas
of Lake Huron continues to
show an upward trend in
nitrate concentrations but no
significant trends for total
phosphorus, chloride, or
chlorophyll a concentrations.
Pesticides and PCBs have
been detected in open water
samples, but at low concen-
trations; detected pesticides
include dieldrin, endrin,
chlordane, DDE, and endo-
sulfan.
Michigan noted an in-
crease in PCB concentrations
in lake trout, reversing
former trends of declining
fish tissue PCB concentra-
tions. However, on a lake-
wide basis, PCBs have not
affected the Lake Huron
fishery to the extent that the
fisheries of Lake Michigan
and Lake Superior have been
affected. Lake trout DDT
residues continued to fluctu-
ate but remained below con-
centrations observed during
the 1970s. Selenium and
arsenic concentrations in top
predator species and rainbow
smelt continue to be higher
in Lake Huron than in other
Great Lakes fish species, but
natural sources are sus-
pected.
B The Lower Saginaw River,
an Area of Concern, is one
of five sites selected for the
Assessment and Reme-
diation of Contaminated
Sediments (ARCS) program
conducted by EPA and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers. ARCS is a 5-year
study and demonstration
project investigating control
and removal of toxic pollut-
ants in the Great Lakes.
Removal of toxic materials
from bottom sediments is a
program priority. Sediment
sampling of the Saginaw
River began in 1989, but the
results are not yet available.
Lake Erie
Michigan reports that
Lake Erie's water quality
has improved dramatically in
the last two decades. Once
declared "dead" because
excess nutrients overferti-
Hzed the lake and decaying
algae depleted large regions
of oxygen, Lake Erie now
supports the largest walleye
sport fishery on the Great
Lakes. However, Lake Erie
is still classified as eutrophic
and nearshore contamination
problems persist. Lake Erie
is more susceptible to nutri-
ent enrichment problems
because of its shallow depths
and warm water tempera-
tures.
The western basin of Lake
Erie exhibits the most seri-
ous symptoms of eutrophica-
tion as well as the highest
levels of toxic contamination.
Concentrations of many
compounds, particularly
PCBs, lindane, and 1,4-
dichlorobenzene, are highest
in the western basin. Of 17
pesticides, PCBs, and chloro-
benzenes detected in open
waters of Lake Erie, only
PCBs and a-BHC were found
at significant concentrations
throughout the lake.
Michigan reported no
change in contaminant resi-
dues in walleye fish tissues.
Mercury levels remain below
Food and Drug Administra-
tion (FDA) action levels and
concentrations of other con-
taminants are relatively low.
Concentrations of PCBs,
44
-------
The Great Lakes
DDT, and other organic
toxics do not exhibit any
trends and have not declined
significantly since monitor-
ing began in 1977.
A fish advisory for carp
and channel catfish remains
in effect along Pennsyl-
vania's Lake Erie shoreline
due to elevated concentra-
tions of PCBs and chlordane.
Pennsylvania notes that
trout and salmon collected in
Lake Erie do not exhibit
unsafe contaminant concen-
trations.
The status of Ohio's Lake
Erie shoreline has not
changed since the 1988 re-
port. Elevated cadmium and
copper concentrations persist
in the water column. A lake-
wide fish advisory for PCBs
in carp and channel catfish
remains in effect. Ohio re-
ports that point sources are
still responsible for the ma-
jority of impairments on its
Great Lakes' shoreline.
Ohio is developing cost-
effective alternatives to open
lake disposal of dredged
sediments. The State also
intends to develop biocriteria
for rivermouth areas enter-
ing Lake Erie and believes
the biocriteria approach
could be applied to nearshore
and open lake waters if ap-
propriate evaluations are
selected and calibration is
established.
• The RAP process for the
Cuyahoga River, initiated in
1987, has generated a 3-year
fish tissue monitoring pro-
gram and a fecal coliform
bacteria survey.
• The Ashtabula River RAP
process has accelerated
implementation of remedial
actions and enhanced local
citizen participation. Moni-
toring activities include a
biological survey of the river
performed in 1989. The
draft Phase 1 report was
reviewed during 1989 and is
currently under revision.
Phase 2 will select remedial
actions and funding mecha-
nisms. Much of the remedial
work on the Ashtabula River
involves expensive dredging
and disposal of highly con-
taminated sediments. Until
the sources and extent of
pollution are better defined,
responsibility for the cleanup
cannot be delegated.
• At the Black River, USX
Steel is dredging sediments
contaminated with polyaro-
matic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
and wastewater treatment
plant construction and
upgrades are underway to
eliminate bypasses at the
eastside Lorain plant.
Lake Ontario
New York reports that
bioaccumulation of toxic
chemicals in fish flesh is the
primary problem on Lake
Ontario. Toxics from the
entire upper Great Lakes
system drain into Lake
Ontario. Past discharges
from the chemical industry
concentrated on the New
York shoreline and Canada's
Hamilton Harbor industrial
complex have also contrib-
uted to the toxics problem.
The Lake Ontario Toxics
Management Plan, com-
pleted in 1989, requires the
NY Department of Environ-
mental Conservation, EPA,
the Ontario Ministry of the
Environment, and Environ-
ment Canada to explore
additional measures to re-
duce toxic contamination.
The goal of the Management
Plan is to reduce toxic con-
tamination to levels that
provide clean drinking water
and fish that are safe for
unlimited consumption. Lake
water quality should also
support reproduction of the
most sensitive native species.
The Management Plan com-
mits the agencies to imple-
menting specific controls and
monitoring activities and
improving the effectiveness
of existing programs.
Niagara River
Programs implemented
during the early 1980s re-
duced priority pollutant
loads into the Niagara River
from point sources by 80
percent. Load reductions
resulted from permit revi-
sions, remediation at hazard-
ous waste sites, criteria
development, and enhanced
monitoring. The current
Niagara River Management
Plan, initiated in 1987, tar-
gets both point and nonpoint
sources for an additional 50
percent reduction in toxics
over a 10-year period.
Upper Great Lakes
Connecting Channels
Lakes Superior, Michigan,
and Huron are referred to as
the upper Great Lakes. They
are connected by the St.
Mary's, St. Glair, and Detroit
Rivers and Lake St. Clair.
Heavy urban and industrial
development along the chan-
nels and their use as trans-
portation corridors have
produced long-term water
quality degradation.
Mercury contamination in
Lake St. Clair and phenol
contamination in the St.
Mary's River were first iden-
tified in the 1940s. Heavy
45
-------
The Great Lakes
metals, organochlorine pesti-
cides, and PCBs remain in
the fish, sediment, and wa-
ters of the connecting chan-
nels.
The St. Mary's Eiver deliv-
ers the outflow of Lake Supe-
rior over 68 miles to Lake
Huron. The St. Mary's River
exhibits good water quality
overall, but industrial and
municipal effluents have
degraded the area near Sault
St. Marie, Ontario. Contami-
nants of concern include
heavy metals, oil and grease,
phenols, ammonia, and bac-
teria.
The St. Glair River flows
39 miles from Lake Huron to
Lake St. Clair. Sediments
are contaminated with PCBs,
oil and grease, mercury, and
other metals. Fisheries are
impacted by PCBs and mer-
cury. Recent surveys indi-
cate that the benthic commu-
nity is impaired in the imme-
diate vicinity of a petro-
chemical complex at Sarnia,
Ontario. The sediments near
Sarnia are also contaminated
with pollutants characteris-
tic of the petrochemical in-
dustry, including hexachloro-
benzene, hexachlorobuta-
diene, carbon tetrachloride,
and hexachloroethane. How-
ever, the zone of impairment
has decreased from a dis-
tance of 27 miles in 1968 to
7.5 miles in 1985. The im-
provements reflect reduc-
tions of effluent contamina-
tion concentrations imple-
mented during the 1970s and
1980s.
Lake St. Clair receives
most of its inflow from the
St. Clair River. There are no
direct point source dis-
charges into Lake St. Clair
and the water quality is
good, especially in the north-
ern portion. Thermal stratifi-
cation does not occur and
oxygen concentrations re-
main near saturation concen-
trations throughout the lake.
Lake St. Clair is the only
connecting channel that is
not classified as an Area of
Concern. However, the lake
does receive contaminants
from upstream sources and
atmospheric deposition, and
mercury contamination of
fish is a primary concern.
The Detroit River connects
Lake St. Clair to Lake Erie.
The Detroit watershed is one
of the world's most heavily
industrialized areas, and it
suffers from the most severe
environmental problems of
the upper Great Lakes con-
necting channels. Improve-
ments have been made in
controlling point source dis-
charges of oil and grease,
phosphorus, ammonia, chlo-
ride, and phenols, but sedi-
ment contamination persists.
Remaining problems include
elevated concentrations of
PCBs, oil and grease, PAHs,
mercury, and other heavy
metals in sediments, bacte-
rial contamination, and fish
consumption advisories.
Contaminants originate from
numerous municipal and
industrial outfalls, urban
runoff, combined sewer over-
flows, atmospheric deposi-
tion, and contaminated
tributaries.
Remedial Action Plans for
the connecting channels are
in the initial stages of devel-
opment. Recent completion
of the IJC's Upper Great
Lakes Connecting Study
should expedite RAP prepa-
ration.
Mercury and PCS contamination in sport fish such as trout and salmon is a lingering problem in the
Great Lakes.
46
-------
4
""•
. "f'.wfc^ws,^ *•:««••*, •"••»: ";s>
Estuaries and
Coastal Waters
Estuaries
Support of
Designated Uses
Twenty-two States, Juris-
dictions, and Interstate Com-
missions- (hereafter referred
to as States) provided use
support information on their
estuarine waters in their
1990 State Section 305(b)
reports (see Table 4-1). A
total of 26,693 square miles
were assessed, 75 percent of
the estuarine waters in these
States.
Of these assessed waters,
15,004 square miles, or 56
percent, were found to fully
support designated uses. An
additional 11 percent (3,052
estuarine square miles) cur-
rently support uses but are
.threatened by pollution and
could become impaired if
control actions are not taken.
Twenty-five percent of
assessed estuarine waters
(6,573 square miles) partially
support uses, and 8 percent
(2,064 square miles) do not
support their designated
uses (see Figure 4-1).
Twenty-one States specified
the basis of their assessment
decisions for 25,827 square
miles. These States based 66
percent of their estuarine
assessments on monitoring
data and 34 percent on eval-
uative methods, such as
mathematical models or
fisheries surveys.
Although estuarine report-
ing appears fairly compre-
hensive, eight estuarine
States failed to provide sum-
mary information on desig-
nated use support in their
estuarine waters. Thirteen
States claim that they as-
sessed all of their estuarine
waters in 1990, and, of these,
five report that their assess-
47
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Table 4-1. Designated Use Support in Estuaries
State
Alabama
California
Connecticut
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Estuary
Square
Miles
625
1,598
601
866
6
4,298
594
134
7,656
1.633
2,523
177
133
1,564
3,194
206
193
2,155
1,990
2.529
6
2,943
Totals 35.624
Percent of Assessed Waters
Square Miles Assessed
Total
103
799
601
866
6
2,712
594
134
5,445
1,633
2,523
136
133
1,564
3,194
61
193
364
1,990
2,529
6
1,106
26,692
Percent
Evaluated
12
26
4
0
27
83
0
86
88
15
18
90
0
0
0
26
0
0
25
0
7
66
Percent
Monitored
88
74
96
100
73
17
100
14
12
85
82
10
100
100
100
74
100
100
75
100
93
34
Sq. Miles
Fully
Supporting
65
267
363
0
0
1,639
584
40
1,862
1,473
109
18
120
1,140
2,894
4
142
244
1,505
2,158
4
373
15,004
56.2%
Sq. Miles
Threatened
35
4
855
0
25
0
1,953
0
« 10
0
6
11
8
17
0
0
1
127
3,052
11.4%
Sq. Miles
Partially
Supporting
3
39
229
0
0
861
8
94 .
1,630
36
2,312
17
7
150
290
57
18
2
0
368
1
451
6,573
24.6%
Sq. Miles
Not
Supporting
0.
493
5
11
6
187
2
0
0
124
92
101
0
263
2
0
16
118
485
3
1
155
2,064
8.0%
—No! reported.
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
Table 4-2. Impaired Estuary Square Miles Affected by Causes of Pollution
State
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina**
Oregon"
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virgin Islands
Washington
Total
Impaired
Waters*
6
1.048
10
94
160
2,404
118
143
413
292
57
34
120
485
2
605
Totals 5,991
Combined Totals
Percent of Impaired Waters
Nutrients
Major
216
1,033
1
70
—
24
2
1,346
Mod/Min
1
583
46
1,159
14
102
14
13
1
0
1,933
3,279
54.7%
Organic
Enrichment
Major
1
1
2
1
957
2
12
226
7
24
152
1,385
Mod/Min
40
4
283
16
101
13
1
33
491
1,876
31.3%
Pathogens
Major
1
38
87
95
142
244
35
57
28
112
329
209
1,377
Mod/Min
5
45
113
16
123
2
22
1
77
404
1,781
29.7%
Priority
Organics
Major
—
3
15
70
145
56
289
Mod/Min
44
18
268
298
628
917
15.3%
Suspended
Solids
Major Mod/Min
68 362
— 28
— —
-4
0 8
68 399
467
7.8%
* 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: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
48
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Black-necked stilt and chicks.
Partially
Supporting
(24.6%)
Not
Supporting
(8.0%)
Threatened
(11.4%)
Fully
Supporting
(56.2%)
Square Miles Assessed = 26,693
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
Figure 4-1. Designated Use Support in Assessed Estuaries
Metals
Siltation
Pesticides
Unknown
Ammonia
pH
Oil and Grease
Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Mm Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Mm
—
14
8
4
7
3
43
79
6
208
3
3
24
33
8
58
9
352
431
7.2%
1 —
— 46
— 19
140 —
— , —
— ' —
2 104
143 169
312
5.2%
— —
20 —
70 —
— —
— —
— —
11 4
101 4
105
1.8%
— 68
— ' —
— —
— —
— —
41 —
41 68
109
1.8%
— 2
32 10
— 1
— 1
— —
— —
— 12
32 26
58
1.0%
— 1
— 16
— —
— 14
— —
— 5
0 36
36
0.6%
— ' . —
— 6
— 27
— —
— • • —
1 2
1 35
36
0.6%
49
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
ments were based entirety on
monitoring data. As with
rivers and lakes, the area of
estuarine waters found to be
fully supporting uses varied
from zero to 98 percent of
assessed waters, with only
three States reporting that
over 90 percent of their as-
sessed estuarine waters fully
support designated uses.
Causes of
Impairment
For their estuarine waters,
16 States provided informa-
tion on the causes of non-
support (see Table 4-2).
States were asked to provide
the number of estuarine
square miles under each
cause category that contrib-
ute to impairment and to
assign a degree of impact of
major or moderate/minor.
Therefore, any given square
mile may be counted under
several categories 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, according to
whether the cause is a major
or moderate/minor contribu-
tor to impairment. The rela-
tive 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 are reported by
the States as the leading
cause of nonsupport in estu-
aries, affecting 55 percent of
total impaired square miles.
Organic enrichment/low
dissolved oxygen was found
to affect 31 percent of im-
paired waters. Pathogens
are the third leading cause of
impairment, affecting 30
percent of assessed estuarine
areas. These findings indi-
cate that eutrophication
(caused by excessive ,
amounts of nutrients) and
high concentrations of bac-
teria—which can lead to
restrictions in shellfishing
waters—are the leading
threats to the Nation's estu-
aries.
Other causes identified by
the States were priority
organics, affecting 15 percent
of impaired waters; sus-
pended solids affecting 8
percent; metals-, affecting 7
percent; and siltation, affect-
ing 5 percent.
These figures should be
interpreted with care
because almost half of the
States with estuarine waters
did not provide information
on causes of pollution. As a
result, regional problems
may be overlooked for areas
where States failed to report
Table 4-3. Impaired Estuary Square Miles Affected by Sources of Pollution
State
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina"
Oregon"
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virgin Islands
Washington
Total
Impaired
Waters*
6
1,048
10
160
2,404
118
143
413
292
57
34
120
485
2
605
Totals 5,897
Combined Totals
Percent of Impaired Waters
Municipal
Major
117
50
140
57
46
57
7
257
65
796
Mod/Min
1
767
6
28
200
25
22
193
1,242
2,038
34.6%
Storm Sewers/
Runoff
Major
1
3
65
20
140
102
28
27
15
50
40
491
Mod/Min
2
948
45
83
71
17 '
1
132
1,299
1,790
30.4%
Land
Disposal
Major
47
2
5
12
57
2
218
343
Mod/Min
589
19
20
68
7
91
794
1,137
19.3%
Agriculture
Major
1
* 22
70
130
53
5
166
447
Mod/Min
550
53
7
4
13
627
1,074
18.2%
Construction
Major Mod/Min
— 485
— 12
140 —
— 3
140 500
640
10.9%
•The sum of partially and npnsupporting 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: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
50
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
causes of impairment. Also,
the significance of causes
affecting large estuaries such
as the Chesapeake Bay may
be exaggerated and may
overshadow problems affect-
ing smaller estuarine sys-
tems. This is reflected by the
fact that Maryland alone
accounts for 67 percent of
those estuarine waters
affected by nutrients and for
66 percent of the estuarine
waters impacted by organic
enrichment.
Fourteen 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 or-
ganic enrichment, pathogens,
and pesticides. For example,
in 74 pejcent of waters im-
paired by organic enrich-
ment, the impact was consid-
ered major, as was the im-
pact of pathogens in 77 per-
cent of affected waters.
Sources of
Impairment
In their 1990 State Section
305(b) reports, 15 States
provided information on the
various sources of pollution
contributing to use impair-
ment in their estuarine
waters (see Table 4-3). States
provided the total number of
square miles under each of
the source categories that
contribute to impairment
and, in most cases, assigned
a degree of impact of major
or moderate/minor.
As discussed earlier, any
given square mile may be
counted under several cat-
egories if it is affected by a
number of sources. The val-
ues 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 a
somewhat different water
quality picture for estuaries
than for inland waters. The
most extensive source of
pollution cited by the States
in their estuarine waters is
municipal discharges (affect-
ing 35 percent of impaired
square miles), followed by
storm sewers/runoff (affect-
ing 30 percent), land disposal
(affecting 19 percent) agricul-
ture (affecting 18 percent),
construction (affecting 11
Industrial
Combined
Sewers
Hydro logic/
Habitat Mod
Unknown
Resource
Extraction
Silviculture
Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min
8
1 —
15
2
—
—
390
8
—
—
— —
— —
— 1
3
— 200
— . _ _
1
— . —
4
— i-
' .
— — 90
— — —
— — —
— — —
— 34
28
44
— 19 115 78 —
15 — — — —
18
1
59
118
30
22
497
615
10.4%
30 —
1 1
55 13
248 111
359
6.1%
— — 67
5
104 1 41
104 203 117
307
5.2%
54
18
72
189
3.2%
— —
— —
1 90
91
1.5%
14 —
41 —
55 34
89
1.5%
51
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
percent), and industrial
discharges (affecting 10
percent).
These figures may create
an inaccurate impression of
the leading sources of estua-
rine impairment because
Louisiana did not report the
sources of impairment for its
estuarine waters (a signifi-
cant portion of total impaired
estuarine waters). Maryland
also reported large areas of
impaired estuarine waters
(2,404 square miles) but
identified sources affecting
only 254 square miles of
impaired estuarine waters.
As a result, sources affecting
large estuarine tracts in
these States, such as re-
source extraction in Louisi-
ana, are not adequately
reflected in the ranking of
leading sources.
Thirteen states specified
the degree of impact of pollu-
tion sources in their estua-
rine waters. Moderate/minor
impacts outweigh major
impacts in waters affected by
all sources except combined
sewers, silviculture, and
"unknown" sources.
Attainment of the
Clean Water Act
Goals
The basic goals of the
Clean Water Act—that wa-
ters be clean enough to sup-
port fishing and swimming—
apply to the Nation's estuar-
ies as well as to its rivers and
lakes. Twenty-one States
provided information on
CWA goal attainment in
estuarine waters (see Table
4-4).
A total of 22,572, estuarine
square miles were assessed
for the fishable goal of the
CWA. Of these, 77 percent
attain, fishing uses, 16 per-
cent partially attain fishing
uses, 7 percent do not;, cur-
rently attain fishing uses but
might in the future, and less
than 1 percent (12 square
miles) are "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 swim-
mable goal of the CWA.
A higher percentage of
waters—88 percent of the
21,986 square miles as-
sessed—attain the swim-
mablegoal. Eight percent
partially meet the goal, 5
percent do not currently
attain the goal, and less than
1 percent (21 square miles)
are not attainable. Figure
4-4 illustrates progress
toward attainment of the
CWA goals in the Nation's
estuaries.
More waters meet the
swimmable goal than the
fishable goal for several
reasons. First, bacterial
standards are generally less
restrictive for contact recre-
ation than for shellfish har-
vesting; therefore, more
POLLUTION CAUSES
Nutrients
Organic Enrichment
Pathogens
Priority Organics
Suspended Solids
Metals
Siltation
Pesticides
Major
Moderate/Minor
Unspecified
Source: 1990 State Section 305{b) reports.
Figure 4-2. Percent of Impaired Estuary Square Miles Affected by Causes of Pollution
52
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
waters are likely to be im-
paired for fishing. Second,
more measures have been
developed to evaluate fish-
able use impairments, such
as fish consumption adviso-
ries and various habitat
modifications (e.g., loss of
submerged aquatic vegeta-
tion or deposition of sedi-
ments on cobbled spawning
areas). In contrast, bacterial
standards are the only quan-
titative measure frequently
used to determine attain-
ment of the swimmable goal.
Ocean Coastal
Waters
Support of
Designated Uses
Eleven States and two
Territories (hereafter re-
ferred to as States) reported
on the degree to which their
ocean coastal waters support
the uses for which they have
been designated (see Table
4-5). These States assessed
4,230 coastal miles, 33 per-
cent of their total miles and
only about 22 percent of the
Nation's estimated 19,200
miles of ocean coastline.*
Of the assessed coastal
miles, 3,775 miles (89 per-
cent) were found to fully
support their designated
uses. An additional 1 per-
cent (49 miles) support uses
but are threatened and likely
to become impaired if pollu-
tion control actions are not
taken. Seven percent of
assessed coastal miles (290
miles) partially support uses,
and 3 percent (116 miles) do
not support uses (see Figure
4-5). All }3 States specified
the basis of their assessment
decisions (i.e., whether moni-
tored data or evaluative
information was used). In
these States, 48 percent of
the miles were assessed
using evaluative information
and 52 percent using moni-
toring data.
Although these figures
may satisfactorily portray
coastal conditions in these
13 States, they are not neces-
sarily representative of the
Nation as a whole because
they apply to so few waters.
Inconsistent reporting and
assessment methodologies
also make it difficult to draw
conclusions on a national
scale.
Causes and Sources
of Impairment
Only five States provided
information on the causes
and sources of nonsupport in
ocean coastal waters not
*Estimate excludes figures for Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Alaska.
POLLUTION SOURCES
Municipal
Storm Sewers/Runoff
Land Disposal
Agriculture
Construction
Industrial
Combined Sewers
Hydrologic/Habitat Modification
0
Major
Moderate/Minor
Unspecified
10
20
30 40
Percent
50
60
70
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
Figure 4-3. Percent of Impaired Estuary Square Miles Affected by Sources of Pollution
53
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Fishable
Not
Meeting
(7.4%)
Partially
Meeting
(16.0%)
Partially
Meeting
(7.8%)
Swimmable
Not
Meeting
(4.6%)
Meeting
(76.6%)
Meeting
(87.5%)
Square Miles Assessed = 22,572
Square Miles Assessed = 21,986
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
Figure 4-4. Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in Assessed Estuaries
Table 4-4. Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in Estuaries
Fishable Goal (square miles)
Swimmable Goal (square miles)
State
Assessed Meeting
Partially Not Not
Meeting Meeting Attainable
Partially Not Not
Assessed Meeting Meeting Meeting Attainable
Alabama
California
Connecticut
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
Oregon
New York
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
103
799
600
866
6
2,730
594
40
4,684
1,633
2,522
137
133
61
1,569
193
364
1,991
2,529
6
1,012
Totals 22,572
Percent of Assessed Waters
100
306
366
802
0
2,410
584
40
4,432
1,475
107
78
126
4
1,229
182
338
1,933
2,158
4
605
17,279
76.6%
3
2
218
4
0
133
8
252
36
2,283
13
7
57
0
25
368
1
210
3,620
16.0%
0
491
16
60
6
187
2
' 0
0
122
132
46
0
0
335
4
1
58
3
1
197
1,661
7.4%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
7
0
0
12
0.0%
103
795
600
866
6
2,730
0
40
4,685
1,633
2,522
137
133
61
1,578
193
364
1,990
2,529
5
1,016
21,986
100
349
554
855
0
2,410
40
3,535
1,631
2,520
53
132
61
1,487
182
320
1,990
2,158
3
860
19,240
87.5%
3
0
16
0
0
133
1,078
0
0
46
1
0
0
18
368
1
49
1,713
7.8%
0
446
30
11
6
187
0
72
2
2
38
0
0
77
4
26
0
3
1
10,7
1,012
4.6%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
7
0
0
21
0.0%
— Not reported.
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
54
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Table 4-5. Designated Use Support in Oceans
State
Alabama
California
Delaware
Florida
Hawaii
Maryland
Mississippi
New York
Puerto Rico
Texas
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Ocean
Square
Miles
50
1,840
25
8,460
824
32
81
130
434
367
112
173
165
Totals 12,693
Percent of Assessed Waters
Coastal Miles Assessed
Total
50
1,118
25
880
824
32
81
130
434
367
112
14
163
4,230
Percent
Evaluated
100
48
' 100
37
62
0
0
0
72
0
100
0
100
48
Percent
Monitored
0
52
0
63
38
100
100
100
28
100
0
100
0
52
Miles
Fully
Supporting
50
1,046
25
832
824
32
0
60
252
367
112
12
163
3,775
89.2%
Miles
Threatened
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
38
0
1
0
49
1.2%
Miles
Partially
Supporting
0
49
0
36
0
0
60
70
75
0
0
0
0
290
6.9%
Miles
Not
Supporting
0
23
0
12
0
0
11
0
69
0
0
1
0
116
2.7%
— Not reported.
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
.„_- - - . i -T,^, - "fZL.- - ,~^** j**TST.rl ,££_*&, 1*. ^nKraj.fial'.*®*!" *
Partially
Supporting
(6.9%)
Not
Supporting
(2.7%)
Threatened
(1.2%)
Assessed Coastal Miles = 4,230
Fully
Supporting
(89.2%)
Recreational fishing at Topsail Beach, North Carolina.
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
Figure 4-5. Designated Use Support in Assessed Oceans
55
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Table 4-6. Impaired Ocean Coastal Miles Affected by Causes of Pollution
State
Florida
Mississippi
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
Impaired
Waters*
48
71
70
144
1
Totals 334
Combined Totals
Percent of Impaired Waters
Pathogens
Major
36
12
1
49
Mod/Min
35
32
67
116
34.7%
Priority
Organics
Major Mod/Min
— 70
— 3
0 73
73
21.9%
Nutrients
Major Mod/Min
17 12
— 26
17 38
55
16.5%
Unknown
Major Mod/Min
— 19
— 12
0 31
31
9.3%
Habitat
Modification
Major Mod/Min
3 21
— 1
3 22
25
7.5%
'The sum of partially and nonsupporting coastal miles (Table 4-5).
—Zero or not reported.
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
Table 4-7. Impaired Ocean Coastal Miles Affected by Sources of Pollution
State
Florida
Hawaii
Mississippi
New York
Puerto Rico
Total
Impaired
Waters*
48
0
71
70
144
Totals 333
Combined Totals
Percent of Impaired Waters
Storm Sewers/
Runoff
Major Mod/Min
— 28
— 71
4 16
4 115
119
35.7%
Land
Disposal
Major Mod/Min
— 28
— 61
1 32
1 121
122
36.6%
Agriculture
Major Mod/Min
— 47
— 41
— 0
0 88
88
26.4%
Contaminated
Sediments
Major Mod/Min
— 70
0 70
70
21.0%
Municipal
Major Mod/Min
— 3
— 10
— 12
7 17
7 42
49
14.7%
'The sum of partially and nonsupporting coastal miles (Table 4-5).
—Zero or not reported.
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
fully supporting uses (see
Tables 4-6 and 4-7). Because
these cause and. source data
include only a small propor-
tion (2 percent) of the Na-
tion's total ocean coastal
waters, they may not be
representative of coastal
pollution influences.
Attainment of the
Clean Water Act
Goals
Thirteen States provided
information on the extent to
which their ocean coastal
waters attain the fishable
and swimmable goals of the
Clean Water Act. Table 4-8
displays this information.
Figure 4-6 reveals that 92
percent of the 4,184 assessed
coastal miles attain the fish-
able goal, 5 percent partially
attain the goal, 3 percent do
not currently attain the goal
but might in the future, and
less than 1 percent (4 miles)
are not attainable—that is,
are irrevocably affected by
pollution or are not desig-
. nated for fishing.
Ninety-two percent of the
4,165 miles assessed attain
the swimmable goal, 4 per-
cent partially attain the goal,
2 percent of the miles do not
meet the goal, and 2 percent
cannot attain the swimmable
goal (see Figure 4-6). All of
the waters unable to attain.
the swimmable goal are
located in Puerto Rico, which
did not identify the reason
for nonattainability in its
coastal waters.
New Initiatives in
Estuarine and
Coastal Waters
The National Estuary
Program
Authorized by Congress in
1985 and formally estab-
lished in 1987 by amend-
ments to the Clean Water
56
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Unknown
Toxicity
Suspended
Solids
Organic
Enrichment Oil and Grease
Nonpriority
Organics
Metals
Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Mm Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min
10
8
— 18
5
18
23
6.9%
0
18
18
5.4%
1 16
17
5.1%
0
3
3
0.9%
0
3
3
0.9%
0 2
2
0.6%
Habitat Combined
Modification Industrial Construction Sewers Unknown
Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min
47 — —
— — 31
— — 10
— 17
— — 12
0 47
47
14.1%
8 41
49
14.7%
0 17
17
5.1%
12 0
12
3.6%
0 6
6
1.8%
Fishable
Not
Meeting
Partially (3.1%)
Meeting
(5.2%)
Swimmable
Not
Meeting Not
Partially (1 -5%) Attainable
Meeting
(3.6%)
Meeting
(91.6%)
Meeting
(92.6%)
Coastal Miles Assessed = 4,184
Coastal Miles Assessed = 4,165
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
Figure 4-6. ^Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in Assessed Oceans
57
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
Act, the National Estuary
Program (NEP) adopts a
geographic, basin-wide
approach to environmental
management. The EPA
Administrator selects estuar-
ies for NEP participation
from among candidate estu-
aries nominated by State
governors. There must be a
likelihood for success in
chosen estuaries, as well as
evidence of institutional,
financial, and political com-
mitment to ifinding solutions.
This national demonstra-
tion program also aims to
communicate its lessons to
the more than 150 estuaries
in the U.S. Among the envi-
ronmental problems ad-
dressed in the NEP estuaries
are: loss of aquatic habitat;
toxic contamination of estua-
rine sediments; increased
nutrient levels; bacterial
contamination; and hypoxia.
Seventeen estuaries are
currently part of the NEP
(see Figure 4-7).
For approved estuaries,
the Administrator convenes
Management Conferences
(groupings of interested
Federal, Regional, State, and
local governments; affected
industries; scientific and
academic institutions; and
citizen organizations) to
define program goals and
objectives, identify problems,
and design pollution preven-
tion/control and resource
management strategies.
Each Management Confer-
ence creates and begins
implementation of a Compre-
hensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP)
to protect and restore the
estuary.
To encourage and test
early management actions,
Action Plan Demonstration
Projects have been funded in
each of the NEP sites. These
projects allow the Manage-
ment Conference to test, on a
small scale, actions intended
for long-term protection of
the estuary; to take early
action rather than wait for
the completion of the CCMP;
to build support for control
actions; and to more specifi-
cally define the likely cost of
the actions. Thirty-eight
such demonstration protects
are currently underway in
NEP estuaries.
In addition, EPA's Office of
Wetlands, Oceans, and Wa-
tersheds is working with the
National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration
(NOAA) and State coastal
zone management agencies
to implement the provision of
the Federal Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972 and
its amendments. Under this
law, NOAA awards grants to
States to develop and admin-
ister management programs
for coastal zones. In Septem-
ber 1988, EPA and NOAA
signed an agreement inte-
grating the Coastal Zone
Management and National
Estuary Programs. Specific
areas of coordination are
identified, and mechanisms
are established at the na-
tional level to facilitate coor-
dination and oversight of
both programs.
Table 4-8. Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in Oceans
Fishable Goal (coastal miles)
Swimmable Goal (coastal miles)
State .
Alabama
California
Delaware
Florida
Hawaii
Maryland
Mississippi
New York
Puerto Rico
Texas
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
Assessed
50
1,061
25
892
824
32
81
130
434
367
13
112
163
Totals 4,184
Percent of Assessed Waters
Meeting
50
1,000
25
861
824
32
10
60
319
367
12
112
163
3,835
91.6%
Partially
Meeting
0
49
0
19
0
60
88
0
0
0
216
5.2%
Not
Meeting
0
12
0
12
0
0
11
70
23
0
1
0
0
129
3.1%
Not
Attainable
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
4
0.0%
Assessed
50
1,044
25
892
824
32
81
130
434
367
11
112
163
4,165
Meeting
50
1,034
25
861
824
32
10
130
238
367
10
112
163
3,856
92.6%
Partially
Meeting
0
0
0
19
0
71
60
0
0
0
150
3.6%
Not
Meeting
0
10
0
12
0
0
Q__
0
41
0
1
0
0
64
1.5%
Not
Attainable
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
95
0
0
95
2.2%
— Not reported.
Source: 1990 State Section 305{b) reports.
58
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
The Near Coastal
Waters Program
The Near Coastal Waters
(NOW) Program arose out of
EPA's first strategic plan-
ning process in. 1986.
Through this process, EPA,
with the assistance of the
States and other Federal
agencies, formulated a 10- to
15-year blueprint for improv-
ing the Agency's environ-
mental management of near
coastal waters and for rais-
ing the level of coordination
among Federal, State, and
local program managers.
The strategic plan recog-
nized that the multiple
threats to the Nation's near
coastal waters come from
varied sources and require
management from a water-
body perspective. Ever-
increasing coastal develop-
ment imposes increased
stresses on natural aquatic
systems. The NCW program
focuses on a geographically
targeted waterbody approach
that parallels the approach
adopted for the 17 estuaries
of the NEP but moves be-
yond that approach to pro-
tect all near coastal waters.
These may include bays,
lagoons, coves, 1,600-mile-
long freshwater Great Lakes
coasts, and other coastal
waterbodies. To date, the
program has focused on a
limited number of demon-
stration projects and, in 1990
and 1991, the development of
Regional strategies to protect
near coastal waters. The
NCW Program builds on
insights gained in the NEP,
Chesapeake Bay, Great
Lakes, and other programs;
develops new management
techniques; and offers flex-
ibility to apply this knowl-
edge as needed across the
Nation's vast coastline.
Casco Bay
'Massachusetts
Bay
.Buzzards Bay
Narragansett
Long Island
Tampa
Bay
Barataria-Terrebonne
Galveston Estuary
Sarasota Bay
NCW Regional strategies
are currently being devel-
oped and implemented by
the EPA Regions to target
geographic areas for special
protection. This targeting
will allow the focus and en-
hancement of existing water-
quality-based programs for
increased coastal protection.
Implementation projects
include wetlands restoration,
training for permit writers,
increased enforcement initia-
tives, and nonpoint source
best management practices.
As the strategies continue to
be developed and improved,
they will provide a frame-
work for increased.Federal
and State protection activi-
ties. These strategies will
form an important model for
the Agency's new Watershed
Initiative.
The EPA National
Coastal and Marine
Policy
In response to the critical •
threats to our coastal ecosys-
tems, in January 1989, Ad-
ministrator Lee Thomas
signed EPA's National
Coastal and Marine Policy
(NCMP)—a consolidated
statement of EPA goals and
objectives for protecting and
improving coastal and ma-
rine environments. The
general policy statement is
as follows:
The Environmental
Protection Agency will
protect, restore, and
maintain the Nation's
coastal and marine wa-
ters to protect human
health and sustain living
resources. We will take
action to further reduce
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
Figure 4-7. Estuaries Participating in the National Estuary Program
59
-------
Estuaries and Coastal Waters
pollution of these waters
and limit the effects of
increasing coastal popu-
lations.
The goals of EPA's Na-
tional Coastal and Marine
Policy include
• Recovery of full recrea-
tional use of shores, beaches,
and water by reducing
sources of bacterial and other
contamination, plastics,
floatables, and debris;
• Restoration of the Nation's
shellfisheries and saltwater
fisheries and protection of
marine mammals and living
resources by controlling
pollution and causes of habi-
tat destruction and loss;
• Minimization of the use of
coastal and marine waters
for waste disposal by strictly
limiting ocean dumping,
tightening controls on land-
based sources, and establish-
ing aggressive programs to
reduce the amount of waste
generated by our society;
• Greater understanding of
the effects of pollution on-
complex coastal and marine
ecosystems by expanding
scientific research and moni-
toring programs and develop-
ing new technology;
• Leadership by the U.S. in
protecting the world's oceans
by aggressively promoting
international efforts to stop
pollution and protect critical
marine habitats and living
resources.
An Agency-wide Standing
Committee consisting of
Assistant and Regional
Administrators was estab-
lished in August 1989 to
oversee EPA's implementa-
tion of its NCMP. Action
plans were developed that
commit the Agency to under-
take activities, within EPA's
regulatory and nonregula-
tory capabilities, that will
increase our ability to protect
coastal and marine areas.
Coastal America
EPA has joined in a part-
nership with the U.S. De-
partment of the Interior, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers, and the Department of
Commerce's NOAA to pro-
tect, restore, and maintain
the Nation's coastal living
resources. Coordinated by
the President's Council on
Environmental Quality,
Coastal America is intended
to lay the groundwork for
this effort, building on exist-
ing Federal capabilities and
authorities to
• Ensure comprehensive
coastal living resource pro-
tection and management;
• Provide a strong national
capability to respond quickly
and effectively to State and
regional needs;
• Serve as a catalyst to forge
similar governmental alli-
ances at the State and local
level;
• Empower States and local
governments through out-
reach and training programs
to educate the public on the
value of species and habitat,
and the effects of land use
practices and urban and
agricultural runoff and to
encourage the public to pro-
tect and restore coastal living
resources. '
Coastal America will sup-
port protective environmen-
tal projects in coastal areas
around the country. The
projects will focus on protec-
tion/prevention, restoration,
and remediation. Within
each Region, Federal, State,
and local partners will iden-
tify critical resource prob-
lems and set priorities for
action. Within each Region,
site-specific coastal resource
problems will be addressed
on a watershed basis
through cooperative efforts.
These actions include imple-
menting best management
practices, demonstrating and
evaluating watershed
management strategies,
testing alternative mitiga-
tion measures, and restoring
degraded habitats. Coastal
America projects provide an
excellent opportunity to
implement management
actions to protect living re-
sources.
Controlling pollution and habitat loss is a key goal of EPA's National
Coastal and Marine Policy.
60
-------
5
Wetlands
Wetlands are either inun-
dated 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 charac-
teristic hydric soil properties.
Wetlands are valuable water
resources (see Highlight-
Understanding Wetlands),
and States are making
progress in assessing their
wetlands problems and
threats and developing wet-
lands protections programs.
Water Quality
Standards for
Wetlands
In July of 1990, EPA
issued guidance to States for
the development of water
quah'ty standards for wet-
lands by the end of fiscal
year 1993. Water quality
standards for wetlands are
necessary to ensure that the
provisions of the Clean Wa-
ter Act applied to other sur-
face waters are also applied
to wetlands. Although Fed-
eral regulations implement-
ing the CWA include wet-
lands in the definition of
"waters of the U.S." and
therefore require water qual-
ity standards, a number of
States have not developed
standards for wetlands and
have not included wetlands
in their definitions of "State
waters." Applying water
quality standards to wet-
lands is part of an overall
effort to protect and enhance
the Nation's wetlands re-
sources and provides a regu-
latory basis for a variety of
programs to meet this goal.
Standards provide the foun-
dation for a broad range of
water quality management
activities including, but not
61
-------
Wetlands
Understanding Wetlands
A wide variety of wetlands
have formed across the cpun-
: try as the result of regional
and local differences in hy-
drology, vegetation, water
chemistry, soils, topography,
climate, and other factors.
.Wetlands type is primarily
determined by local hydrol-
ogy, the unique pattern of
water flow thrpugh an area.
In general, two broad catego-
ries of wetlands are recog-
nized: coastal wetlands and
inland wetlands.
: With the exception of the
Great Lakes coastal wet-
lands, coastal wetlands are
closely linked to estuaries,
where seawkter mixes witli
fresh water to form an envi-
;. torfnient of varying salinity
and fluctuating water levels
i1 i IN
'III I
(due to tidal action). Coastal
marshes dominated by
grasses and halophytic (salt
loving) plants are particu-
larly abundant along the
Atlantic and Gulf'coasts due
to the gradual slope of the
land. Mangrove swamps,
dominated by halophytic
shrubs or trees, are common
in Hawaii, Puerto Rico? and
in southern Florida.
Inland wetlands are most
common on floqdplains along
rivers and streams, in iso-
lated depressions surrounded
by dry land, and along the
margins of lakes and ponds.
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 flood-
plains. Some regional wet-
lands types include the poco-
sins of North (Carolina, bogs
and fens of the northeastern
and north.central States and
Alaska, inland saline and
alkaline marshes and ripar-
ian wetlands of the arid and
semiarid West, prairie pot-
tioles of Minnesota and tjie
r* pakotasj vernal pools of
11 California, "play'a lakes of the
Southwest, cypress-gum
swamps of the South, and
- wet tundra of Alaska.
Wetlands Values
In their natural condition,
wetlands may provide many
benefits including food and
habitat for fish and wildlife,
flood protection, shoreline
erosion control, natural prod-
ucts for human use, water
quality improvement, and
opportunities for recreation,
education, and research.
Each wetlands works as part
of a complex, integrated
system. An assessment of
any specific wetlands must
take this critical interrela- ,
tionship into account.
Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Wetlands are critical to the
survival of a wide variety of
animals and plants, includ-
ing numerous rare and en-
dangered species. For many
species such as the wood
duck, muskrat, cattail, and
swamp rose, wetlands are
primary habitats. For others,
wetlands provide important
seasonal habitats where
food, water, or cover are
plentiful.
Altogetlier, wetlands are
among the most productive
natural ecosystems in the
world. Wetlands produce
great volumes of food as
leaves and stems break down
in the water to form detritus.
This enriched material is the
principal food for many small
aquatic invertebrates, vari-
ous shellfish, and forage fish
that are food for larger com-
mercial and recreational fish
"'"species'sucE as BlueSsE and"'' •
striped bass.
Marina development in a coastal salt marsh in Huntington,
New York.
62
-------
Wetlands
Flood Protection
Wetlands function like
natural tubs, storing, either
floodwater that overflows
riverbanks or surface water
that collects in isolated de-,
pressions. By doing so, wet-
lands help protect adjacent
and downstream, property
from flood damage. Trees
and other wetlands vegeta-
tion help slow the speed of
floodwaters. This action,
combined with water stor-
" age, can lower flood heights
and reduce the water's ero-
sive potential. In agricul-
tural areas, wetlands can
help reduce the likelihood of
flood damage to crops. Wet-
lands 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-
Shoreline Erosion
Control
Wetlands are often located
between rivers and high
ground and are therefore
able to buffer shorelines
against erosion. Wetlands
bind soil, dampen wave ac-
tion, and reduce current
velocity through friction,
Natural Products
Wetlands produce a wealth
of natural products, includ-
ing timber, fish and shellfish,
wildlife, wild rice, and furs.
Much of the Nation's fishing
and shellfishing industry
harvests wetlands-dependent
species. For example, in the
Southeast, 96 percent of the
commercial catch and over
50 percent of the recreational
harvest are fish and shellfish
that depend on the estuary-
coastal wetlands system.
Waterfowl hunters spend
over $300 million annually to
harvest wetlands-dependent
birds.
Water Quality
Improvement
Wetlands help maintain
and improve water quality
by intercepting surface water
runoff before it reaches open
water, removing or retaining
nutrients, processing chemi-
cal and organic wastes, and
reducing sediment loads to
receiving waters.
Recreation and
Aesthetics
Wetlands provide endless
opportunities for popular
recreational activities such
as hiking, birdwatching,
fishing, and boating. An
estimated 50 million people
spend nearly $10 billion each
year observing and photo-
graphing wetlands-depen-
dent birds alone.
Information contained in
this highlight was drawn
from a brochure developed
by the EPA Office of Wet-
lands 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.
63
-------
Wetlands
limited to, monitoring tinder
Section 305(b), permitting
under Sections 402 and 404,
water quality certification
under Section 401, and the
control of nonpoint source
(NFS) pollution under Sec-
tion 319.
Definition
The first, and most impor-
tant, step in applying water
quality standards to wet-
lands, is to ensure that wet-
lands are legally included in
the scope of States' water
qualify standards programs.
States may accomplish this
by adopting a regulatory
definition of "State waters"
at least as inclusive as the
Federal definition of "waters
of the U.S." and adopting an
appropriate definition for
"wetlands." States may also
need to remove or modify
regulatory language that
explicitly or implicitly limits
the authority of water qual-
ity standards over wetlands.
Use Designation
At a niinimum, all wet-
lands must have uses desig-
nated that meet the goals of
Section 101(a)(2) of the CWA
by providing for the protec-
tion and propagation offish,
shellfish, and wildlife and for
recreation in and on the
water, unless the results of a
use-attainability analysis
show that' the CWA goals
cannot be achieved. When
designating uses for wet-
lands, States may choose to
use their existing general
and water-specific classifica-
tion system or they may set
up an entirely different sys-
tem for wetlands reflecting
their unique functions. Two
basic pieces of information
are useful in classifying
wetlands uses: (1) the struc-
tural types of wetlands and
(2) the functions and values
associated with such types of
wetlands. Generally, wet-
lands functions directly re-
late to the physical, chemi-
cal, and biological integrity of
wetlands. The protection of
these functions through
water quality standards also
may be needed to attain the
uses of waters adjacent to, or
downstream of, wetlands.
Criteria
The Water Quality Stan-
dards Regulation (40 CFR
131.11(a)(l)) requires States
to adopt criteria sufficient to
protect designated uses,
which may include general
statements (narrative) and
specific numerical values
(i.e., concentrations of con-
taminants and water quality
characteristics). Most State
water quality standards
already contain many crite-
ria'for various water types
and designated use classes
that may be applicable to
wetlands.
Narrative criteria are
particularly important in
wetlands because many
wetlands impacts cannot be
fully addressed by numeric
criteria. Such impacts may
result from the discharge of
chemicals for which there are
no numeric criteria in State
standards, nonpoint sources,
and activities that may affect
the physical and/or biologi-
cal, rather than the chemi-
cal, aspects of water quality
(e.g., discharge or dredged
and fill material). Narra-
tives should be written to
protect the most sensitive
designated use and to sup-
port existing uses under
State antidegradation poli-
cies. In addition to other
narrative criteria, narrative
biological criteria provide a
further basis for managing a
broad range of activities that
impact the biological integ-
rity of wetlands and other
surface waters, particularly
physical and hydrologic mod-
ifications. Narrative biolog-
ical criteria are general
statements of attainable or
attained conditions of biologi-
cal integrity and water qual-
ity for a given use designa-
tion. EPA has published
national guidance on devel-
oping biological criteria for
all surface waters.
Antidegradation
All State water quality
standards contain antidegra-
dation policies that protect
designated uses and prevent
lowering of water quality.
These policies provide a
powerful tool for the protec-
tion of wetlands and can be
used by States to regulate
point and nonpoint source
discharges to wetlands in the
same way as other surface
waters. In conjunction with
designated uses and narr%.-
tive criteria, antidegradation
can be used to address im-
pacts to wetlands that can-
not be fully addressed by
chemical criteria, such as
physical and hydrologic
modifications. With the
inclusion of wetlands as
"waters of the State," State
antidegradation policies and
their implementation meth-
ods will apply to wetlands.
Implementation
Implementing water qual-
ity standards for wetlands
will require a coordinated
64
-------
Wetlands
effort between related
Federal and State agencies
and programs. Many States
have begun to make more
use of CWA Section 401
certification to manage cer-
tain activities that impact
their wetlands resources on a
physical and/or biological
rather than just a chemical
basis. Section 401 gives the
States the authority to grant,
deny, or condition certifica-
tion of Federal permits or
licenses that may result in a
discharge to "waters of the
U.S." Such action is taken by
the State to ensure compli-
ance with various provisions
of the CWA, including the
State's water quality stan-
dards. Violation of water
quality standards is often the
basis for denials or condition-
ing through Section 401
certification.
Water quality standards
for wetlands can prevent the
misuse and overuse of natu-
ral wetlands for treatment
through adoption of proper
uses and criteria and appli-
cation of State antidegra-
dation policies. The Water
Quality Standards Regula-
tion (40 CFR 131.10(a))
states that, "in no case shall
a State adopt waste trans-
port or waste assimilation as
a designated use for any
'waters of the U.S.'" Certain
activities involving the dis-
charge of pollutants to wet-
lands may be permitted.
However, as with other sur-
face waters, the State must
ensure, through ambient
monitoring, that permitted
discharges to wetlands pre-
serve and protect wetlands
functions and values as
defined in State water qual-
ity standards. For municipal
discharges to natural wet-
lands, a minimum of second-
ary treatment is required
and applicable water quality
standards for the wetlands
and adjacent waters must be
met.
Expansion of urban development in the coastal zone threatens saltwater wetlands.
Many wetlands, through
their assimilative capacity
for nutrients and sediment,
also serve an important
water quality control func-
tion for nonpoint source
pollution effects on waters
adjacent to, or downstream
of, the wetlands. Section 319
of the CWA requires the
States to complete assess-
ments of NFS impacts to
State waters, including wet-
lands, and to prepare man-
agement programs to control
them. Water quality stan-
dards for wetlands can form
the basis for these assess-
ments and management
programs for wetlands.
In addition, States can
address physical and hydro-
logic impacts to wetlands
quality through the applica-
tion of narrative criteria to
protect existing uses and
through application of their
antidegradation policies.
The States should provide a
linkage in their water qual-
ity standards to the determi-
nation of "significant degra-
dation" as required under
EPA guidelines (40 CFR
230.10(c)) and other appli-
cable State laws affecting the
disposal of dredged or fill
materials in wetlands.
Finally, water quality
management activities, in-
cluding the permitting of
wastewater and storm water
discharges, the assessment
and control of NFS pollution,
and waste disposal activities
(sewage sludge, Comprehen-
sive Environmental Re-
sponse, Compensation and
Liability Act [CERCLA], and
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act [RCRA]) re-
quire sufficient monitoring to
ensure that the designated
and existing uses of "waters
of the U.S." are maintained
65
-------
Wetlands
and protected. The inclusion
of wetlands in water quality
standards provides the basis
for conducting both wet-
lands-specific and status and
trend monitoring of State
wetlands resources. Moni-
toring of activities impacting
specific wetlands may in-
clude several approaches,
including biological measure-
ments (i.e., plant, macro-
invertebrate, and fish) that
have shown promise for
monitoring stream quality.
The States are encouraged to
develop and test the use of
biological indicators.
Support of
Designated Uses
Summary of State
Information
Most States have not des-
ignated specific uses for their
wetlands. In their 1990
Section 305(b) reports, how-
ever, five States (California,
Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, and
Nevada) reported on use
support in some of their
wetlands (see Table 5-1).
The use support data sub-
mitted by these States are
not representative of na-
tional wetlands conditions
for several reasons. First,
the submitted information
applies to a small fraction of
the Nation's wetlands. The
reporting States assessed
only 218,076 acres of wet-
lands, or less than two-
tenths of 1 percent of the 103
million acres of wetlands in
the conterminous States
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice, 1991, unpublished
data). Second, the reporting
States are concentrated in
the western region of the
country, an area with
stresses and disturbances
not representative of those
found elsewhere. Despite
these limitations, the use
support information does
provide an initial indication
of problems stressing some of
the Nation's wetlands, pri-
marily in the western and
midwestern States. The
submitted use support infor-
mation is summarized briefly
as follows:
• California assessed 10,355
acres of inland wetlands,
representing a small fraction
of the State's total wetlands
acreage. California wetlands
are designated for fishable
use and both contact and
noncontact recreational use.
Four percent of the assessed
wetlands fully support desig-
nated uses, 4 percent par-
tially support uses, and 93
percent do not fully support
uses. Almost all impair-
ments were attributed to
toxic contaminants from
nonpoint sources. Use sup-
port of coastal wetlands
could not be determined
because California combined
use support information for
estuaries and coastal wet-
lands.
H Hawaii assessed all of its
reported 110,807 acres of
wetlands, which are desig-
nated for recreational use
and fish and wildlife habitat.
All but 1,000 acres support
designated uses. The causes
of impairment include nutri-
ents and salinity. Urban
runoff is the only identified
source.
H Iowa assessed 72 percent
(26,489 acres) of their 36,852
total wetlands acres. Four
percent of the assessed acres
fully support designated
uses, 31 percent support uses
but are threatened, 51 per-
cent partially support uses,
and 14 percent do not sup-
port uses. Siltation, nutri-
ents, and pesticides are the
most common causes of im-
pairment in Iowa's wetlands.
Major sources include agri-
culture, affecting 90 percent
of impaired wetlands, and
hydrologic modification (e.g.,
channelization and construc-
Table 5-1. Designated Use Support in Wetlands
StQtO
California
Hawaii
Iowa
Kansas
Nevada
Total
Wetland
Acres
90,172
110,807
36,852
34,256
136,650
Totals 408,737
Percent of Assessed Waters
Wetland Acres Assessed
Total
10,355
110,807
26,489
34,256
36,169
218,076
Percent
Evaluated
12
100
100
43
33
Percent
Monitored
88
0
0
57
67
Acres
Fully
Supporting
382
109,807
969
0
0
111,158
51.0%
Acres
Threatened
0
8,215
4,560
0
12,775
5.9%
Acres
Partially
Supporting
387
1,000
13,665
29,696
12,000
56,748
26.0%
Acres
Not
Supporting
9,586
0
3,640
0
24,169
37,395
17.1%
— Not reported.
Source: 1990 Slate Section 305(b) reports.
66
-------
Wetlands
tion of wing dams and
revetments), affecting 23
percent. Land disposal and
urban runoff reportedly
affect less than 6 percent of
the impaired wetlands.
• Kansas assessed all of its
34,256 acres of wetlands.
Kansas designates its wet-
lands for noncontact recre-
ation and aquatic habitat
uses. Thirteen percent of the
assessed wetlands support
uses but are threatened; the
remaining 87 percent par-
tially support designated
uses. Thirty-nine percent of
the use impairments are due
to dewatering, 33 percent to
sedimentation, and 28 per-
cent to chronic metal concen-
trations. Agriculture
accounts for 52 percent of
use impairments, hydrologic
regime alterations (often
linked to irrigation practices)
account for 28 percent, and
20 percent of wetlands im-
pairments are due to natural
mineral intrusion.
• Nevada classified and
assessed 36,169 acres, or
26 percent of its wetlands.
One-third of the assessed
wetlands, or 12,000 acres,
partially support designated
uses, and the remaining
24,169 acres do not support
designated uses. Metals are
the leading cause of impair-
ment, followed by salinity
and organic enrichment/low
dissolved oxygen concentra-
tions. The leading sources
are irrigated crops, flow
regulation, mill tailings, and
natural sources.
In summary, the reporting
States found that 51 percent
of their assessed acres sup-
port designated uses, 6 per-
cent support uses but are
threatened, 26 percent par-
tially support uses, and 17
percent do not support desig-
nated uses. However, it
should be emphasized that
conclusions cannot be drawn
from these figures, which, are
based on such a small per-
centage of the Nation's total
wetlands.
Causes and
Sources of
Impairment
Only four States (Hawaii,
Iowa, Kansas, and Nevada)
reported causes of nonsup-
port in wetlands. Causes of
nonsupport are the pollut-
ants (such as nutrients or
pesticides and processes
(such as habitat destruction)
that impair waterbodies. An
individual acre of wetlands
can be affected by many
causes of nonsupport. There-
fore, States were asked to
report each wetlands acre
under each cause category
contributing to its impair-
ment. As a result, a single
acre affected by multiple
causes is included under
several cause categories.
The values reported are the
total number of wetlands
acres affected by a particular
cause according to whether
the cause is a major or mod-
erate/minor contributor to
impairment (Table 5-2). The
leading causes of wetlands
impairment in the four re-
porting States are metals
(affecting 55 percent of im-
paired wetlands), siltation
(affecting 32 percent),
salinity (affecting 30 per-
cent), and flow alteration
(affecting 22 percent) (see
Table 5-2). These States also
reported that nutrients,
pesticides, organic enrich-
ment, and habitat modifica-
tion impair wetlands.
Four States also reported
sources of wetlands impair-
ments (Table 5-3). A single
Coastal salt marsh wetlands near Northport, Long Island, New York.
67
-------
Wetlands
Table 5-2. Impaired Wetlands Acres Affected by Causes of Pollution
Stato
Hawaii
Iowa
Kansas
Total
Impaired
Waters*
1,000
17,305
29,696
36,169
Totals 84,170
Combined Totals
Percent of Impaired Waters
Metals
Major
26,169
26,169
Mod/Mm
19,456
19,456
46,625
55.3%
Siltation
Major
10,112
10,112
Mod/Min
5,355
11,505
16,860
26,972
32.0%
Salinity
Major Mod/Min
— 1,000
— 24,169
0 25,169
25,169
29.9%
Flow
Alteration
Major
13,461
Mod/Min
4,700
18,161
21.6%
Nutrients
Major
5,773
Mod/Min
7,374
14,147
16.8%
•The sum of partially and nonsupporting wetland acres (Table 5-1).
— Zero or not reported.
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
acre of wetlands can be
affected by multiple sources
of pollution, such as mining
leachate and agricultural
runoff. The States were
asked to report any given
wetlands acre under each of
the course categories contrib-
uting to impairment. This
allows a single acre of wet-
lands to be counted, more
than once if it is affected by
multiple sources.
Tn Iowa, Kansas, and
Nevada, agriculture is the
predominant source of wet-
lands degradation followed
by habitat modification (see
Table 5-3). Resource extrac-
tion is a major source of
wetlands pollution in
Nevada, and storm sewers
and urban runoff impair
wetlands in Hawaii. These
figures do not represent
national trends, however,
because so few States re-
ported sources of impair-
ment.
Attainment of the
Clean Water Act
Goals
The CWA goals seek to
achieve water quality that
"provides for the protection
and propagation offish,
shellfish, and wildlife and
provides for recreation in
and on the water ..." These
goals, commonly referred to
as the fishable and swim-
mable goals, can be applied
to wetlands as well as to
rivers, lakes, and estuaries.
Although wetlands seldom
support swimming uses, they
often are utilized for boating,
fishing, and canoeing.
California, Hawaii, Iowa,
Kansas, and Nevada as-
sessed attainment of the
Clean Water Act fishable and
swimmable goals in some of
their wetlands (see Table
5-4). The States reported
dramatic differences in at-
tainment of the goals. Fish-
able goal attainment ranged
from 3 percent in California's
assessed wetlands to 100
percent attainment in Ha- ,
waii and Kansas. Hawaii
also reported full attainment
of the swimmable goal. In
contrast, none of the as-
sessed wetlands in Kansas or
Nevada attain the swim-
mable goal. Due to the vari-
ability in reported goal at-
tainment, national trends
cannot be drawn.
Wetlands
Resources
A National
Perspective
It is estimated that over
200 million acres of wetlands
existed in the lower 48
States at the time of Euro-
pean settlement. Since then,
extensive losses have taken
place, with many of the origi-
nal wetlands drained and
converted to farmland.
Today, less than half of our
original wetlands remain
(see Figure 5-1 and Table
5-5). This amounts to an
area equal to the size of
California. An additional
170 million acres of wetlands
are estimated to exist in
Alaska—covering slightly
more than half the State;
Hawaii has approximately
50,000 acres. Next to
Alaska, Louisiana and
Florida have the largest
wetlands acreage in the U.S.
Two basic types of data
collection efforts can be used
to track the quantity of wet-
lands: (1) detailed maps and
(2) status and trends reports.
Detailed maps provide site-
specific information on wet-
lands. Status and trends
68
-------
Wetlands
Pesticides
Organic
Enrichment
Habitat
Modification
Unknown
Toxicity
Ammonia
Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min Major Mod/Min
— 10,262 —
— — 10,000
— 4,006
— — 1,570
10,262
10,262
12.2%
10,000
0
10,000
11.9%
4,006
0
4,006
4.8%
1,570
1,570
1.9%
109
109
0
109
0.1%
Table 5-3. Impaired Wetlands Acres Affected by Sources of Pollution
Total
Impaired
State Waters*
Hawaii 1,000
Iowa 17,305
Kansas 29,696
Nevada 36,169
Totals 84,170
Combined Totals
Percent of Impaired Waters
Agriculture
Major
15,575
13,461
34,169
63;205
Mod/Min
16,205
16,205
79,410
94.3%
Habitat
Modification
Major
4,006
13,461
34,169
51,636
Mod/Min
4,700
4,700
56,336
66.9%
Other
Major Mod/Min
— 19,456
— 24,169
0 43,625
43,625
51.8%
Resource
Extraction
Major
26,169
26,169
Mod/Min
—
0
26,169
31.1%
Storm Sewers/
Runoff
Major Mod/Min
— 1,000
— 570
0 1,570
1,570
1.9%
Land
Disposal
Major Mod/Min
— 1,000
0 1,000
1,000
1.2%
*The sum of partially and nonsupporting wetland acres (Table 5-1).
— Zero or not reported.
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
Table 5-4. Attainment of Clean Water Act Goals in the Wetlands
Fishable Goal (acres)
Swimmable Goal (acres)
State
California
Hawaii
Iowa
Kansas
Nevada
Assessed
9,889
110,807
26,702
34,256
36,169
Totals 217,823
Percent of Assessed Waters
Meeting
316
110,807
9,184
34,256
10,000
164,563
75.5%
Partially
Meeting
0
13,665
0
2,000
15,665
7,2%
Not
Meeting
9,573
0
3,640
0
0
13,213
6.1%
Not
Attainable
0
213
0
24,169
24,382
11.2%
Assessed
8,566
110,807
26,702
34,256
36,169
216,500
Meeting
313
110,807
491
0
0
111,611
51.6%
Partially
Meeting
0
4,081
0
0
4,081
1.9%
Not
Meeting
8,253
0
1,693
0
2,000
11,946
5.5%
Not
Attainable
0
20,437
34,256
34,169
88,862
41.0%
— Not reported.
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
69
-------
Wetlands
Table 5-5. Wetlands Losses in the United States, 1780s to 1980s
Wetlands
State
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
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
Total
Surface Area
(acres)*
33,029,760
72,901,760
33,986,560
101,563,520
66,718,720
3,205,760
1,316,480
37,478,400
37,680,640
53,470,080
36,096.000
23,226.240
36,025,600
52,648,960
25,852,800
31,054,720
21,257,600
6,769,280
5,284,480
37,258,240
53,803,520
30,538,240
44,599,040
94.168,320
49,425,280
70,745,600
5,954,560
5,015,040
77,866,240
31,728,640
33,655,040
45,225,600
26,382,080
44,748,160
62,067.840
29,013.120
776,960
19,875,200
49,310,080
27,036,160
171,096,960
54,346,240
6,149,760
26.122,880
43,642.880
15,475,840
35,938,560
62,664,960
Subtotal 1,934,198,400
(Conterminous U.S.)
Alaska
Hawaii
Total U.S.
375,303.680
4.115,200
2,313,617,280
Estimates of
Original
Wetlands
circa 1780s
7,567,600
931,000
9,848,600
5,000,000
2,000,000
670,000
479,785
20,325,013
6,843,200
877,000
8,212,000
5,600,000
4,000,000
841,000
1,566,000
16,194,500
6,460,000
1,650,000
818,000
11,200,000
15,070,000
9,872,000
4,844,000
1,147,000
2,910,500
487,350
220,000
1,500,000
720,000
2,562,000
11,089,500
4,927,500
5,000,000
2,842,600
2,262,000
1,127,000
102,690
6,414,000
2,735,100
1,937,000
15,999,700
802,000
341, (300
1,849,000
1,350,000
134,000
9,800,000
2,000,000
221,129,638
170,200,000
58,800
391,388,438
Percent of
Surface
Area
22.9
1.3
29.0
4.9
3.0
20.9
36.4
54.2
18.2
1.6
22.8
24.1
11.1
1.6
6.1
52.1
30.4
24.4
15.5
30.1
28.0
32.3
10.9
1.2
5.9
0.7
3.7
29.9
0.9
8.1
33.0
10.9
19.0
6.4
3.6
3.9
13.2
32.3
5.5
7.2
9.4
1.5
5.5
7.1
3.1
0.9
27.3
3.2
11
45.3
1.4
Estimates of
Existing
Wetlands
circa 1980s
3,783,800
600,000
2,763,600
454,000
1,000,000
172,500
223,000
11,038,300
5,298,200
385,700
1,254,500
750,633
421,900
435,400
300,000
8,784,200
5,199,200
440,000
588,486
5,583,400
8,700,000
4,067,000
643,000
840,300
1,905,500
236,350
200,000
915,960
481,900
1,025,000
5,689,500
2,490,000
482,800
949,700
1,393,900
499,014
65,154
4,659,000
1,780,000
787,000
7,612,412
558,000
220,000
1,074,613
938,000
102,000
5,331,392
1,250,000
104,374,314
170,000,000
51 ,800
274,426,114
Percent of
Surface
Area
11.5
0.8
8.1
0.4
1.5
5.4
16.9
29.5
14.1
0.7
3.5
3.2
1.2
0.8
1.2
28.3
24.5
6.5
11.1
15.0
16.2
13.3
1.4
0.9
3.9
0.3
3.4
18.3
0.6
3.2
16.9
5.5
1.8
2.1
2.2
1.7
8.4
23.4
3.6
2.9
4.4
1.0
3.6
4.1
2.1
0.7
14.8
2.0
5
45.3
1.3
11.9
Percent of
Wetlands
Lost
50
36
72
91
50
74
54
46
23
56
85
87
89
48
81
46
20
73
28
50
42
59
87
27
35
52
9
39
33
60
49
49
90
67
38
56
37
27
35
59
52
30
35
42
31
24
46
38
53
0.1
12
30
'Note: Surface area includes both land and water surface area. There are some discrepancies between the total surface area of States. These differences are
probably due to shirting river channels forming State borders. The area given is that presented by the U.S. Geological Survey, National Atlas of the
United States, 1970.
Source: OaM, T. E., 1990. Wetlands Losses in the United States 1780's to 1980's. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. These estimates are
based on the latest Information available and may differ from estimates reported by the States in 1990.
70
-------
Wetlands
information is used to evalu-
ate changes to the resource
overtime. TheFWShas
been involved extensively in
these two areas over the last
several years.
The first complete national
assessment of the changes in
the quantity ofU.S. wetlands
resources over time is pro-
vided in Wetlands of the
~ United States: Current Sta-
tus and Recent Trends (U.S.
FWS, 1984). This report
assesses the changes in the
national wetlands resource
from the mid-1950s to the
mid-1970s. Estimates of
wetlands loss are based on
the evaluation of wetlands
acreage within thousands of
4-square-mile plots located
across the U.S. The number
and locations of the plots
were chosen to provide a
given statistical precision
when the information was
extrapolated to the entire
United States.
Based on these data, the
FWS estimates that the
Remaining
in the mid-1980s
(46% or 103 Million Acres)
Lost
(54% or 117 Million Acres)
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 (see Table 5-6).
Agricultural activities had
the greatest impact on for-
ested wetlands, inland
marshes, and wet meadows.
Urban development and
other development were
responsible for 8 percent and
5 percent of wetlands losses,
respectively. Urban develop-
ment was the major cause of
coastal wetlands losses
outside of Louisiana, while
submergence of Louisiana's
coastal marshes by Gulf
wa'ters was the leading factor
in that State. In addition to
the direct physical destruc-
tion of wetlands, these habi-
tats are also threatened
indirectly by chemical con-
tamination and other pollu-
tion.
The FWS has recently
updated the status and
trends report to cover the
time span between the mid-
1970s and the mid-1980s
(Report to Congress: Wet-
lands Status and Trends in
the Conterminous U.S.,
Mid-1970's to Mid-1980's,
September 1991). Although
the average annual loss has
decreased from 458,000
acres, wetlands are still
being lost at a significant
rate, totalling a net loss of
2.6 million acres over the
9-year study period. Fresh-
water wetlands accounted for
98 percent of the loss and, by
the mid-1980s, an estimated
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1991, unpublished data.
Figure 5-1. Original and Remaining Acreages of Wetlands
in Lower 48 States
Table 5-6. Major Causes of Wetlands
Loss and Degradation
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
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
71
-------
Wetlands
97.8 million acres of fresh-
water wetlands and 5.5 mil-
lion acres of coastal wetlands
remained. By far, the most
significant wetlands losses
occurred in the inland for-
ested wetlands category,
which lost approximately
3.4 million acres during the
study period. This loss oc-
curred primarily in the
southern U.S.
During the mid-1970s to
mid-1980s study period,
54 percent of the wetlands
loss was attributed to agri-
culture and 5 percent to
urban land uses; the remain-
ing 41 percent was attrib-
uted to "other" land uses.
These direct losses of physi-
cal wetlands habitat are
serious; however, this is only
one measure of wetlands
loss. We still do not have the
capability to measure loss
and degradation of wetlands
function. The Environmen-
tal Monitoring and Assess-
ment Program (EMAP) (see
Highlight-The EMAP Wet-
lands Program} is working
with the FWS to coordinate
efforts in mapping and as-
sessing wetlands extent as
well as wetlands function.
The FWS also has the
capability to produce re-
gional and State inventories.
The FWS prepared a report
for the Mid-Atlantic Region
of the U.S. (Mid-Atlantic
Wetlands: A Disappearing
National Treasure, June
1987), as well as a report for
California's Central Valley
(Wetlands of the California
Central Valley: Status and
Trends, 1939 to mid-1980s,
June 1989). The FWS is
moving toward more State-
specific wetlands inventories
such as the inventory pro-
duced for Oregon (Oregon
Wetlands: Wetlands Users
Guide, August 1990).
Overview of State
Reporting
The number of States
reporting on the status of
their wetlands increased
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
-
-
:"DE"
HI
IA
MA
I^G
OR
PA
PR
Rl
TN
IUT
VT
VA
* W|
'A !
MA
NE
OR '
' TN
TX
UT
Wt
NC;
PA ' ti'oil $i&
TX' m sit m W:, M
Urbanization Agriculture Impoundments Mining Highway Forestry Second Home Mosquito
Construction Development Control
Source
o>
c
0>
5
CO
Note: This figure includes only those States that clearly identified currenf sources of wetlands losses.
Sources of historic wetlands losses are not included.
Figure 5-2. Current Sources of Direct Wetlands Losses
72
-------
Wetlands
dramatically during the 1990
reporting cycle. Forty-five
States provided information
on their wetlands resources,
compared to 14 States in the
previous cycle. The increase
in State reporting reflects
improvements in EPA's
305(b) guidelines as well as
the growing awareness of
wetlands value across the
Nation.
The majority of informa-
tion submitted by the States
in their 1990 State Section
305(b) reports focused on the
quantity of their wetlands
resources and certain State
programs. For the first time,
several States addressed the
impact of chemical contami-
nants and other stresses on
the quality of existing wet-
lands. Despite these im-
provements, information on
the quality of existing wet-
lands is generally not avail-
able because of the lack of
State and Federal resources
to monitor wetlands quality.
Inconsistent reporting of
wetlands acreage and State
programs is the result of
several factors. First, there
is a general lack of appropri-
ate databases and related
tools to track the quantity
and quality of wetlands re-
sources on consistent state-
wide or national scales. The
FWS National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI) is one such
tool relied on by some States
for this purpose. However,
the NWI has not been
completed for all States.
Although many State esti-
mates of wetlands acreage
are based on NWI informa-
tion, others are independent
estimates.
Second, wetlands are a
complex, fragmented, and in
some areas widely distrib-
uted water resource. The
effort required to identify
and assess all State wetlands
biennially is enormous.
Third, in the past, EPA has
not issued specific guidance
on wetlands reporting. Guid-
ance issued by EPA in 1988
has enabled a shift toward
more consistent and com-
plete State reporting on the
quantity and quality of wet-
lands nationwide.
In 1990, many States
revised wetlands inventory
procedures by standardizing
their definition of wetlands
and consolidating wetlands
inventories previously main-
tained by numerous agen-
cies. Several States also
initiated new inventories or
were able to reference up-
dated NWI figures. At least
one State, Illinois, reports a
substantial increase in wet-
lands acreage since the 1988
Section 305(b) reporting
cycle. The reported growth
in wetlands estimates is
probably due to improved
inventory methods rather
than actual increases in
wetlands acreage.
Fifteen States and Puerto
Rico provided narrative de-
scriptions of activities cur-
rently causing wetlands
losses (Figure 5-2). Although
many historic wetlands
losses were due to agricul-
tural conversion, more of the
8 7
Q.
8. 5
^3 g
CO
o 2
a>
Sediment Salinity Metals Pesticides
Hydrologic Nutrients
Modification
(Water Diversions,
Ponding)
Water Quality Problem
DO Selenium pH Weeds
Figure 5-3. Water Quality Problems Affecting Wetlands
73
-------
Wetlands
The I-MAP Wetlands Program
The Environmental Moni-
toring and Assessment Pro-
gram (EMAP) is a new EPA
initiative aimed at assessing
and reporting the status and
trends of ecological condi-
tions in wetlands, near
coastal waters, forests, in-
land surface waters, Great
Lakes, agroecosystems, and
arid lands of the United
States. The goals of the
EMAP-Wetlands program
are to provide a quantitative
assessment of the current
status and long-term trends
in wetlands conditions on
regional and national scales.
The objectives of the
EMAP-Wetlands program
are to
• Quantify the regional
status of wetlands by mea-
suring both indicators of
ecological condition and the
threats to the resource;
• Monitor changes through
time, on a regional scale, in
the condition of wetlands and
in hydrology, pollution expo-
sure, and other factors that
influence or stress wetlands;
• Identify plausible causes
for degraded or improved
wetlands conditions;
• Assess the effectiveness
of drainage and pollution
control actions and other
environmental policies on
the condition of wetlands on
a regional and national scale;
and
• Provide annual statistical
summaries and periodic
interpretive assessments of
wetlands status and trends.
In the short term, the
EMAP-Wetlands program
will provide standardized
protocols for measuring and
describing wetlands condi-
tions, provide estimates
of wetlands conditions in
several regions, and develop
formats for reporting
program results.
The main thrusts of the
EMAP-Wetlands program
approach are to develop and
evaluate a sampling strategy
to derive regional and na-
tional estimates of wetlands
conditions and to evaluate
indicators of wetlands condi-
tions,;. The, EMAP-Wetlands
program has been working
closely with U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's National
Wetlands Inventory person-
nel to develop and evaluate
the appropriate sampling
strategy and classification
for EMAP-Wetlands. Ulti-
mately, the EMAP-Wetlands
program will field-sample
3,200 wetlands and report on
eight distinct wetlands types.
The selection of indicators
to evaluate wetlands condi-
tions is deemed an iterative
process. Initially, the follow-
ing indicators will be mea-
sured:
Weltands may be disturbed by dredging to keep waterways navigable.
74
-------
Wetlands
• Wetlands extent and type
diversity;
• Landscape indicators—
including patch size and
ratios of open water to
vegetation;
• Indicators of hydrology—
water level and flood dura-
tion and frequency;
• Sediment characteris-
tics—including sedimenta-
tion rates, bulk density, and
organic matter content;
• Vegetation species compo-
sition and abundance;
• • Vertebrate and macro-
invertebrate community
composition and abundance;
• Chemical contaminants
in sediments; and
• Nutrients in sediment or
vegetative tissues.
The first five indicators
will be field-tested in a pilot
project in Louisiana to deter-
mine whether they can be
used to clearly distinguish
salt marshes in good condi-
tion from salt marshes in
degraded condition. If these
indicators are successful in
the 1991 pilot project, they
will be used in the first
demonstration project in
1992. Regional demonstra-
tion projects are field studies
conducted on a statistically
large enough number of sites
to enable EPA to distinguish
the condition of one wetlands
class in one region. The 1992
demonstration project is
proposed for the salt
marshes in the southeast
United States,
The EMAP-Wetlands pro-
gram will report on the pro-
portion of the Nation's wet-
lands that are healthy and
sustainable and those that
are unhealthy. These data
will be a critical tool with
which EPA and Congress can
assess and influence current
wetlands management deci-
sions and policy. These data
can also be used to evaluate
the success of efforts to
achieve the "no net loss"
goals and proposed water
quality criteria for wetlands.
EMAP data could be used by
State and Federal managers
to both (1) establish "desig-
nated use" classes and re-
gional biocriteria for wet-
lands and (2) identify sensi-
tive wetlands classes that
need special regulatory con-
sideration to be preserved
with "no net loss."
Collecting water samples in Sandusky Bay wetlands, Ohio.
75
-------
Wetlands
reporting States now
attribute current wetlands
losses to commercial and
residential development.
Fourteen States reported
that expanding urbanization
threatens remaining wet-
lands, while only eight
States reported that agricul-
ture and irrigation projects
continue to destroy wetlands.
Three States listed impound-
ments as a source of wet-
lands loss. Mining and high-
way construction were cited
by two States each, and
forestry, second home devel-
opment, and mosquito con-
trol were each reported by
one State.
In addition to direct phys-
ical losses, wetlands are
threatened by water quality
degradation. Wetlands func-
tions can be altered by exces-
sive sediment and/or nutri-
ent inputs, which can accel-
erate filling and invasion by
exotic plant species. Organic
enrichment can deplete dis-
solved oxygen concentra-
tions, creating intolerable
conditions for aquatic organ-
isms including juvenile fish.
Hydrologic modifications in
wetlands, such as surface
ponding or drying out, can
result from upstream dams,
irrigation return flows, diver-
sions, ground-water deple-
tion, and diking. Changes in
the quantity and seasonally
of flow can also alter biotic
communities in wetlands.
Thirteen States, including
four States that assessed
designated use support,
discussed water quality
problems in their wetlands
(see Figure 5-3). Siltation is
the most frequently reported
problem, cited by seven
States. Six States reported
that salinity, from either
saltwater intrusion or soil
salts, threatens wetlands.
Three States reported that
metals degrade their wet-
lands, and two States cited
elevated selenium levels.
Pesticides, hydrologic modifi-
cations, nutrients, and low
dissolved oxygen concentra-
tions were listed by three
States; pH was reported by
two States; and aquatic
weeds were reported by one
State.
Twelve States and Puerto
Rico provided narrative dis-
cussions of sources of wet-
lands water quality problems
(see Figure 5-4). The leading
sources of wetlands contami-
nation in these States are
agriculture (reported by
eight States), urban and
industrial runoff (reported by
five States), and develop-
ment (reported by four
States). Irrigation, channel-
ization, forestry, and mining
were reported by three
States. Two western States
also reported that irrigation
return-flows elevate sele-
nium levels in receiving
wetlands, and Kansas re-
ported that irrigation with-
drawals dewater wetlands.
5 7
o
W 6
o 5
IB
rr A
in
to
75 3
CO
*o 2
k.
1 1
-
-
IA
ID
a
I KS
• MT
NV
I TO
TX
| UT
1 *
; HI
tA
11
ill
!"TN
; TX
ID
PR .-. ! KS : KY • k(IB;-|t ;v|^,W
'„:', ' * ^'^'^.^'i '*' «"> '"''Z
;:TN'; "MTJ ;TN . |g| g| |§;|
•TX ; • UTJ PTX. |^|J |||| !|g g|g gg
Agri- Urban and Develop- Irrigation Channel- Forestry Mining f Oil Road Municipal
culture Industrial ment : ization Extraction Construe- and
Runoff tion Industrial
Sewage
Sources
Figure 5-4. Sources of Water Quality Problems in Wetlands
7Q
-------
Wetlands
r
g,
I5
"to 3
o 2
t»
CD
"E
1
Oil extraction, road construc-
tion, sewage discharges,
landfills, and natural sources
were each listed by two
States. Other sources, re-
ported only by Idaho, include
onsite sewage systems and
recreational activities.
The following discussion
highlights the status of wet-
lands in several States. Ad-
ditional information on wet-
lands status within indi-
vidual States is included in
Appendix A, State Sum-
maries.
• Arizona—Riparian areas
were once common along the
State's drainageways, but
now are Arizona's most rare
and threatened natural com-
munity. River impound-
ments, channelization,
ground-water pumping,
surface water diversions, and
agricultural development
severely reduced wetlands
and riparian areas.
Land- Onsite Recreational
fills Natural Systems Activities
Sources
Figure 5-4. (continued)
• Hawaii—Construction of
the Hyatt Waikoloa Hotel on
the island of Hawaii resulted
in the destruction of approxi-
mately 20 percent of the total
number of anehialine ponds
in the State. Anehialine
ponds are a unique type of
low salinity wetlands fed by
ground water near the Ha-
waiian coast. The wetlands
losses prompted the State to
expand their Section 401
certification program to
prevent further disturbances
of anehialine ponds and
other wetlands. The State
also reports that hillside
runoff, sedimentation, and
sewage effluent generate
nutrient enrichment prob-
lems and excessive vegeta-
tive growth in marshes.
• Idaho—The State reports
a high incidence of impacts
from nonpoint sources in
wetlands, but only several
incidents where designated
uses are impaired. Agricul-
ture (especially range activi-
ties), forest practices, mining
(especially placer mining),
road or bridge construction,
and recreational activities
are the most frequently re-
ported sources of impair-
ment. These activities
generate sediment, nutri-
ents, pH fluctuations, or-
ganic enrichment, and hydro-
logic and other habitat alter-
ations that impair salmonid
spawning and recreational
uses of Idaho's wetlands.
• Kentucky—The Kentucky
State Nature Preserve Com-
mission estimates that 58
percent of the State's original
1,566,000 acres of wetlands
were drained by 1978. Only
20 percent of Kentucky's
wetlands remain forested,
which reflects a dramatic
decline, in bottomland hard-
wood forests. The Kentucky
Department of Fish and
Game estimates the annual
rate of wetlands loss at 3,600
acres. Nearly all remaining
wetlands are degraded by
pesticides, acid mine drain-
age, siltation, brine water, or
domestic and industrial
sewage. Coal mining, oil
extraction, logging, channel-
ization, and impoundments
have significantly altered
wetlands in the western
region of the State.
• Maine—The historic loss
of approximately 20 percent
of Maine's wetlands is attrib-
uted to commercial, residen-
tial, and urban development,
road construction, navigation
projects, hydropower and
water storage projects, peat
mining, timber harvesting,
and agricultural conversion.
Maine also reports that some
remaining wetlands are
adversely affected by land-
fills and hazardous waste
disposal practices. The State
is also concerned with the
secondary effects of develop-
ment adjacent to wetlands
(e.g., urban runoff).
• North Dakota—Most
recent estimates indicate
that North Dakota's wet-
lands loss rate has declined
from 20,000 to 10,000 acres
annually. The decline in loss
rate is attributed to State
and Federal legislation, the
diminishing wetlands base,
and the increasing cost of
draining wetlands.
• Oklahoma—The State has
lost 85 to 90 percent of its
historic wetlands acreage.
Currently, the FWS esti-
mates that 1 percent of bot-
tomland hardwoods and
77
-------
Wetlands
2 percent of floodplain wet-
lands'are lost annually.
Previous losses are due to'
reservoir construction, agri-
cultural clearing, ranching,
clear cutting, and conversion
of the hardwood forests to
pine plantations. Upstream
dams and flood control
structures have also altered
hydrologic regimes and
damaged wetlands.
• Utah—It is difficult to
assess wetlands'trends in
Utah because fluctuating
climatic effects on the Great
Salt Lake shoreline have a
dominant effect on losses and
gains. For example, high
precipitation during 1983-84
caused the Great Salt Lake
to rise and destroyed 300,000
acres of wetlands. During
the ensuing dry period, lake
levels receded and some of
the wetlands returned.
Approximately 700 acres
may be lost annually due to
residential and commercial
development, agricultural
activities, and livestock prac-
tices. Remaining wetlands
water quality is degraded by
irrigation return flows con-
taining elevated concentra-
tions of soil salts and sele-
nium.
• Wisconsin—As of 1985,
5.3 million acres of wetlands
remained in the State.
Records indicate that Section
404 permits were issued to
fill 9,247 wetlands acres
between 1982 and 1989.
Cranberry operations
accounted for 54 percent of
the wetlands losses. Other
agricultural operations,
development, and ditch exca-
vation each affected 10 per-
cent of the lost wetlands
acreage.
Wetlands
Protection
Programs
Summary of Federal
Programs
The Section 404
Permit Program
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 responsi-
bilities to ensure that the
environment 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 as-
sumed that responsibility.
Since 1972, the 404 program
has developed into the most
important Federal regulatory
program for the protection of
wetlands.
Project applications under
Section 404 and Section 10 of
the Rivers and Harbors Act
are processed by the Corps of
Engineers. EPA reviews and
evaluates applications using
its Section 404(b)(l) guide-
lines, which contain the
environmental criteria for
Section 404 permit decisions.
The FWS and the National
Marine Fisheries Service
also influence the Section
404 permitting process
through their review of appli-
cations. After receiving
comments from these agen-
cies, the States, and other
interested parties, the Corps
of Engineers makes its
permit decisions.
Section 319
Nonpoint Source
Program
Section 319 of the 1987
CWA created a comprehen-
sive program to integrate
Federal and State programs
aimed at controlling NPS
water pollution. The physi-
cal location of wetlands be-
tween water and land links
wetlands protection with
control of NPS contamina-
tion and water quality im-
provements in adjacent wa-
ters. In 1990, EPA published
guidance on the coordination
of State and Federal NPS
control programs and wet-
lands programs. The guid-
ance discusses the imple-
mentation of activities that
can benefit both NPS and
wetlands programs.
Summary of State
Programs
The States protect their
wetlands with a variety of
permitting programs, coastal
management programs, •
wetlands acquisition pro-
grams, and natural heritage
programs. In their 1990
Section 305(b) reports, 42
States reported on State
programs to protect their
wetlands, representing a
dramatic increase in State
reporting over previous years
. (see Table 5-4). Several
general conclusions can be
drawn from the information
provided:
• Freshwater wetlands
receive minimal protection;
• Most States rely upon the
Section 401 certification
process to protect inland
wetlands;
78
-------
Wetlands
• Most inland wetlands
programs (other than 401
programs) are delegated to
local or regional government
entities;
• Few States have estab-
lished specific water quality
standards or criteria for
wetlands; and
• More States are adopting
no net loss policies and re-
quiring replacement of filled
wetlands.
Section 401 of the CWA
gives broad statutory author-
ity to the States to grant,
condition, or deny certifica-
tion of federally permitted or
licensed activities that result
in a discharge to waters of
the U.S., including wetlands.
Although the 401 certifica-
tion can be a powerful tool, it
should be used to augment
other State programs be-
cause it applies only to
projects requiring Federal
permits (i.e., Sections 9 and
10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act, and Sections 402 and
404 of the CWA). Activities
exempt from Section 404,
such as certain draining
activities, are not reviewed
under Section 401.
Thirty-five States reported
that they use their Section
401 authority to protect
wetlands; of these, 17 States
report that the Section 401
process is their primary
mechanism for protecting
freshwater wetlands. Sev-
eral States also reported that
inadequate staffing and
funding restricted the effec-
tiveness of their Section 401
certification programs.
Only 14 States describe
inland wetlands protection
programs in addition to their
Section 401 programs. In
eight States these programs
are delegated to local or
regional governments. Many
of these freshwater programs
are limited because they
apply only to wetlands over a
specific size (e.g., 10 acres in
Maine) and exempt agricul-
tural and silviculture! activi-
ties, which can cause signifi-
cant wetlands losses.
Although many States
define wetlands as waters of
the State, few States have
developed water quality
standards for wetlands,
which are vital to an effective
Section 401 program. The
Section 401 certification
program can stop projects
that degrade wetlands only if
water quality standards
including antidegradation.
policies, will be violated (e.g.,
if existing uses will be elimi-
nated by the project now or
in the future). None of the
States reported criteria for
assessing use support in
wetlands.
In contrast, most coastal
States have permit programs
to regulate loss of estuarine
and marine wetlands.
Coastal permit programs
exist in 18 of the 26 coastal
States and Territories (the
term "coastal" includes the
Great Lakes States) report-
ing on wetlands protection
programs. These programs
have been encouraged and
supported with Federal fi-
nancial assistance since
enactment of the 1972
Coastal Zone Management
Act. The State permit pro-
grams have significantly
reduced the rate of coastal
wetlands conversions. For
example, in Delaware the
rate of coastal wetlands
losses declined from 444
acres to 20 acres per year
following enactment of its
coastal permit program.
Drainage and navigation channels degrade wetlands habitat.
79
-------
Wetlands
Table 5-7. Summary of Reported State Wetlands Protection Programs
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
Washington •
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Coastal
Permit
Program
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
•
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Formal Policy, Regulation,
Freshwater Comprehensive or Guidelines for Issuing
Nontidal Coastal and Inland 401 Certification
Program Program for Wetlands
= = 1
M • •
, — " A ~~
= = •
A — •
= = :
= = •
• • !
: E 7
• • :
• V -
• Program In place.
A Program In place; legislation enacted but not yet implemented; regulations to be developed.
• Program In place; can be delegated to local or regional authorities.
— No data.
80
-------
Wetlands
State-Reported
Information
More States reported on
wetlands protection pro-
grams in their 1990 Section
305(b) reports than ever
before. The following infor-
mation highlights several
State wetlands protection
programs. Additional infor-
mation on State wetlands
programs is provided in
Table 5-7 and in Appendix A,
State Summaries.
• Indiana—Wetlands are
waters of the State and the
discharge of dredge spoil or
fill into wetlands constitutes
water pollution. The State
determines if the discharge
would violate water quality
standards that include wet-
lands. Most wetlands fills
would violate one or more
sections of Indiana's State
laws and regulations, and
Section 401 certification is
usually denied for Section
404 projects unless extensive
mitigation is proposed.
Drainage of wetlands is not
regulated.
• Maine—The Natural Re-
sources Protection Act of
1988 requires a permit for
most alteration activities
adjacent to protected areas,
including wetlands. Pro-
posed activities must not
interfere unreasonably with
existing scenic, aesthetic, or
recreational uses; cause soil
erosion; harm wildlife or
aquatic habitat; lower water
quality; or increase flooding
unless alternatives with
fewer impacts do not exist.
Regulations to implement
the Act are under prepara-
tion.
Maine's Mandatory
Shoreland Zoning Act,
amended in 1989, requires
municipalities to establish
land use controls for all land
areas within 250 feet of
Highway runoff into a coastal salt marsh.
coastal wetlands, tidal
waters, and freshwater wet-
lands that are 10 acres or
larger. The State imposed a
model ordinance on commu-
nities not implementing their
own controls. The model
ordinance includes numerous
standards for shoreland
development (e.g., minimum
lot size and frontage require-
ments, clearing limitations,
and erosion and sedimenta-
tion control rules). All land
use activities, including
those not requiring a permit,
must comply with land use
standards in the local or
model ordinances.
• Oregon—Oregon's Senate
Bill 3, passed in 1989, is
primarily intended to pro-
mote wetlands protection. It
requires the Division of State
Lands (DSL) to compile a
wetlands inventory; defines
wetlands; establishes areas
and criteria for filling or
removing material in wet-
lands; authorizes the DSL
director to approve wetlands
conservation plans and estu-
ary management plans;
requires notice to DSL of
changes in wetlands status;
and requires DSL to develop
a public information program
about wetlands, analyze
voluntary wetlands protec-
tion incentives, and adopt
rules to implement the Act.
The bill also allows the cre-
ation, restoration, or en-
hancement of wetlands in
exclusive farm-use zones.
DSL is drafting administra-
tive rules to implement the
requirements of Senate
Bffl3.
Oregon's Removal-Fill Law
requires a permit for re-
moval, fill, or alteration
involving 50 cubic yards or
81
-------
Wetlands
more of material in any
waters of the State, including
wetlands. The law is more'
restrictive than the Section
404 program administered
by the Corps of Engineers.
Oregon's Division of Environ-
mental Qualify reviews Sec-
tion 404 permit applications
to determine if wetlands
functions will be altered.
• Pennsylvania—Local
wetlands protection efforts
were enhanced by the 1988
revisions of the Municipal
Planning Code. The revi-
sions specify that wetlands
preservation is a valid zoning
purpose. The Common-
wealth is distributing a
handbook to local govern-
ments that provides strate-
gies for protecting wetlands
through land use regula-
tions, easements, tax incen-
tives, and acquisition pro-
grams.
• Texas—In 1989, the Texas
Legislature passed Senate
Bill 1206 establishing a
single statewide definition of
wetlands. The State's Stra-
tegic Plan aims for no net
loss of existing wetlands.
The State will deny 401
certification to projects that'
adversely impact wetlands
until lost wetlands are re-
placed.
Texas wetlands are consid-
ered waters of the State and
are protected from deteriora-
tion by the Antidegradation
Policy. The State may im-
pose wastewater treatment
levels, facility operations, or
project requirements on
proposed activities that
might impair high-priority
wetlands. If wetlands de-
struction is unavoidable,
wetlands will be replaced
one-for-one with similar
habitat and hydrology. At
present, wetlands resources
are identified and protected
on a site-specific basis.
• Vermoni^-In 1990, the
Water Resources Board
adopted the Vermont Wet-
lands Rules to implement the
1986 Wetlands Act. The
rules establish standards
and restrict activities that
could potentially degrade the
function and value of signifi-
cant wetlands. In addition,
the State Development Con-
trol Law (Act 250) requires a
permit for every major land
development and subdivision
in the State. Several permit
criteria protect wetlands, but
most agricultural and silvi-
cultural activities are ex-
empt, as are small- scale
industrial, commercial, and
residential projects. The
State also reviews Section
404 permits through the
Section 401 certification
program.
New Initiatives
State Wetlands
Program
Development Grants
EPA has long recognized
the crucial role States can
play in protecting the
Nation's wetlands and has
worked with States to de-
velop their interest, author-
ity, and capability to protect
wetlands. This effort has
been hampered by the lack of
direct Federal funding to
support State wetlands pro-
tection programs. States
have been able to use Section
106 or 205 funds for wet-
lands programs, but this has
generally not been a realistic
option because of full alloca-
tion of those funds to other
State water quality pro-
grams.
The State grants awarded
in FY90 covered a wide
range of activities to support
development of new pro-
grams or refinement and
enhancement of existing
State wetlands protection
programs. The demand for
funding exceeded the $1
million appropriated for
FY90. EPA received approxi-
mately 50 applications for
funding—from 35 States,
4 Native American Indian
Tribes, 1 Territory, and 1
local community. The funds
requested by these applica-
tions totaled approximately
$3 million in Federal funding
for $5 million of total project
costs.
States that have active
programs for wetlands pro-
tection looked upon the wet-
lands program development
grants as an opportunity to
increase and build upon their
programs. However, other
States that currently are not
active in the wetlands protec-
tion arena saw the grants as
a chance to assess existing
authorities, to develop rec-
ommendations for new pro-
grams and legislation, to
consider how to fit wetlands
into existing programs, to
develop public support for
wetlands protection, and to
move toward additional
protection for the resource.
The agricultural commu-
nity has been particularly
concerned about wetlands
protection. The State of
Delaware used this grant
opportunity to demonstrate
the multiple use value of
wetlands to the agricultural
community. Wisconsin is
enhancing their wetlands
82
-------
Wetlands
protection program, by
streamlining and targeting
the delivery of essential
program information to spe-
cific audiences. Vermont is
using the grant program to
develop a pilot project to
demonstrate the potential of
coordinating State agencies,
regional planning commis-
sions, and municipal govern-
ments in planning for local
resources. The project will
serve as a guide to other
municipalities interested in
pursuing local wetlands
protection efforts.
Several States (Michigan,
South Carolina, and Oregon)
are using wetlands grants to
develop their wetlands water
quality standards and to
improve their Section 401
water quality certification
programs to include wet-
lands. New Hampshire and
Connecticut are acquiring
and implementing Geo-
graphic Information System
(GIS) capability to better
track permit applications to
monitor statewide trends in
wetlands development and
losses, to conduct long- and
short-term analysis of wet-
lands impacts on a statewide
basis as well as within a
particular geographic region
of the State, and to target
specific areas for increased
local assistance or basin
planning.
While each of these
projects will help the specific
State better protect wetlands
resources, each project will
also serve as a model that
can be used by other States.
The projects funded this first
year just begin to tap the
imagination and creativity of
the States in developing
ways to better protect their
valuable resources.
Wetlands, Jackson Lake, Wyoming.
Cypress swamp in coastal North Carolina.
83
-------
-------
6
Public Health/
Aquatic Life
Concerns
In 1990, States were asked
to report specifically on pol-
lution problems affecting
public health and aquatic
life. Among the topics they
were to address were fish
and shellfish consumption
advisories and bans, pollu-
tion-caused fish kills, prob-
lems related to toxic contam-
ination of sediments, contact
recreation restrictions, and
closures of surface drinking
water supplies due to pollu-
tion. Many of these impacts
result from toxic pollutants.
Examples of toxic pollutants
include heavy metals, pesti-
cides, dioxin, and PCBs.
Although any pollutant
may produce toxic effects if
found at a high enough con-
centration, a number of pol-
lutants appear to have ad-
verse and long-term effects
at extremely low concentra- •
tions. These toxic substances
may be synthetic or natu-
rally occurring, may persist
in the environment for long
periods of time or dissipate
quickly, and may have a
variety of different effects on
aquatic life and public
health.
Our knowledge of the
health effects of many toxic
pollutants in water and fish
and shellfish tissue is still
limited. We know that some
are linked to human health
problems such as cancer,
kidney ailments, neurologi-
cal disorders, and birth de-
fects. Some chronic health
effects result only after long-
term exposure; others devel-
op years after a short period
of exposure. Exposure routes
from the aquatic environ-
ment to humans include
consumption of contami-
nated drinking water; con-
sumption of contaminated
fish, shellfish, and waterfowl
tissue; and direct contact
85
-------
Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns
with contaminated water at
recreation sites such as
swimming beaches.
In addition to public
health problems, toxic pollut-
ants can damage aquatic
ecosystems by directly elimi-
nating sensitive species or
indirectly causing increased
incidence of disease in the
remaining species. Some
toxicants may persist in the
environment for decades,
posing a continuing threat to
humans, aquatic organisms,
birds, and other wildlife.
This is clearly the case with
organochlorine pesticides
such as DDT, aldrin, chlor-
dane, and mirex, which have
been removed from use for a
decade or more yet continue
to be found in water, soil,
sediment, and tissues offish,
birds, mammals, and hu-
mans.
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 effects
studies. The Federal govern-
ment has developed 62 nu-
meric human health criteria
and 25 numeric aquatic life
criteria for toxic pollutants
against which sampled water
concentrations can be mea-
sured. Many more toxic
substances affect the aquatic
environment, however, and
State adoption of existing
criteria is not universal.
Because of the lack of univer-
sal criteria, toxic contamina-
tion can be discussed only in
terms of the "elevated" levels
reported by the States.
These elevated levels are
defined as exceedances of
State water quality stan-
dards, 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.
Although no longer used, some toxicants such as DDT and chlordane may persist in water, sediments,
and fish tissue.
Total Size of
Waters Affected
by Toxics
Reporting on the extent of
toxic contamination of wa-
ters was more comprehen-
sive in the 1990 State Sec-
tion 305(b) reports than in
previous years. In general,
there appears to be a sub-
stantial increase in the total
waters affected by toxic pol- *
lutants over previous years.
One reason for this increase
is that more States provided
information in 1990. In
addition, increased monitor-
ing activity by the States
may have led to the detection
of more toxics problems.
Table 6-1 summarizes this
reporting by State for all
waterbody types. Highlights
of the table include the fol-
lowing:
• Rivers and streams—
41 States reported that they
monitored for toxic sub-
stances in 182,611 river
miles and found approxi-
mately 15 percent of these
waters to be affected. Louisi-
ana did not provide data on
the number of river miles
they monitored for toxic
pollutants, but reported that
an additional 37 stream
miles are affected by ele-
vated concentrations of toxic
pollutants.
• Lakes and reservoirs-
33 States reported that they
monitored for toxic pollut-
ants in 9,204,721 acres of
lakes and found roughly 39
percent of lakes to be
affected. Louisiana did not
report on the number of lake
acres they monitored for
these substances, but re-
ported that 9,118 lake acres
86
-------
Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns
are affected by elevated
concentrations of toxic pollut-
ants.
• Estuaries-17 States re-
ported that 10,159 square
miles of their estuaries were
monitored for toxic sub-
stances, and 19 percent were
found to be affected by ele-
vated toxics concentrations.
• Coastal waters-Six States
reported that they monitored
1,837 coastal shoreline miles
and found 7 percent to be
affected by elevated concen-
trations of toxic substances.
• Great Lakes-Six States
reported that 4,893 of their
Great Lakes shoreline miles
were monitored for toxic
pollutants, and over 98 per-
cent were found to be
affected.
In some States the per- .
centage of monitored waters
found to have elevated con-
centrations of toxic sub-
stances appears high. Moni-
toring for toxic substances is
an expensive, resource-inten-
sive process, and States are
most likely to direct monitor-
ing efforts toward those
waters suspected or known
to have toxics problems (e.g.,
waters with multiple indus-
trial dischargers or waters
with known sediment con-
tamination problems). EPA
and the States have gained
considerable experience over
the last decade in monitoring
for toxic substances and in
targeting 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 previ-
ously unmonitored waters.
States are making progress
in identifying these waters.
NOTICE
FISH IN THt ROANOKE RIVER MAY CONTAIN LOW
LEVELS OF DIOX1NS. CONSUMPTION OF FISH
SHOULD BE LIMITED TO TWO MEAL PER PERSON
PER MONTH. CHTffiREN AND PREGNANT OR
NURSING WOMEN SHOULD NOT CONSUME ANY
FISH FROM THE ROANPKE RIVER UNTIL FURTHER
NOTICE. SWIMMtNGrlpATING, AND OTHER
RECREATIONAL ACTIVfllls PRESENT NO HEALTH
RISK AND ARE NOT AFFECTED BY THIS ADVISORY.
HERRING, AND SHAD (INCLUDING
ROE) ARE NOT COVERED BY THIS HEALTH ADVISORY.
CONSUMPTION OF THESE TWO FISH SPECIES v
POSE NO HEALTH RISKS AT THIS TIME.
STATE HEALTH DIRECTOR
State fishing advisories are posted to warn recreational fishermen of potential risks of consuming
chemically contaminated fish.
Fish Consumption
Advisories and
Bans
Toxic 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.
Toxic pollutants can bioaccu-
mulate in the tissues offish
and shellfish, which poses a
potential health hazard to
people who eat them. Vari-
ous methodologies (e.g., FDA
"action levels," Water Qual-
ity Criteria, or levels of State
concern) have been used by
the States to impose fish and
shellfish consumption re-
strictions. To determine
whether the degree offish
tissue contamination could
be harmful to the public,
some States have considered
local factors such as con-
sumption rates for general
consumers, sportsmen, or
subsistence fishermen; spe-
cies offish consumed; and
size of the fish consumed.
In 1990, 31 States reported
finding concentrations of
toxic contaminants in fish
tissue exceeding FDA action
levels or other levels of con-
cern in localized areas.
Many States responded to
the finding of elevated con-
centrations of toxic sub-
stances by imposing fishing
bans or fish consumption
advisories. Advisories typi-
cally recommend limiting
consumption of certain fish
species from given water-
bodies to a few meals per
week or month and differen-
tiate between the general
population of consumers and
more sensitive subpopula-
tions of consumers (e.g.,
pregnant women, nursing
87
-------
Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns
Table 6-1. Size of Surface Waters Affected by Toxic Substances
Rivers (miles)
Lakes (acres)
State
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa i
Kansas
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Total
Waters
40,600
17,537
11,310
26,970
31,470
8,400
643
206
40
12,659
20,000
349
14,080
90,000
18,300
13,295
14,180
31,672
17,000
8,053
36,350
91,944
15,839
51,212
24,000
7,500
70,000
11,868
43,917
50,000
5,373
724
9,900
' 9,937
Susquehanna River Basin 21 , 1 00
Tennessee 19,124
Texas 80,000
Utah 11,779
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
40,492
28,361
43,600
19,437
1,069,221
Monitored
for Toxics
783
1,806
410
12,123
4,600
599
161
120 '
38
4,098
446
200
4,574
2,531
1,449
12,280
865
1,944
1,188
22,800
1,856
1,290
35,461
1,849
1,574
3,400
5,826
6,100
4,314
1,063
537
2,514
3,080
1,196
2,550
11,854
8,874
1,571
4,128
8,886
1,673
182,611
Elevated
Toxics
140
942
91
2,286
1,294
182
63
10
16
168
156
0
1,635
1,140
490
295
37
296
325
748
1,734
188
2,279
340
47
505
255
2,070
2,192
154
99
4
163
885
433
769
2,335
1,150
1,466
532
346
28,260
Total
Waters
507,421
127,372
355,063
1,417,540
265,982
82,900
4,499
376
2,085,120
417,730
1,125
305,847
'104,540
80,670
173,602
713,719
944,560
21,001
151,173
840,960
3,41 1 ,200
500,000
740,086
145,800
425,400
750,000
619,088
117,361
149,000
11,146
16,683
525,000
1 ,598,285
538,504
3,065,600
481,638
613,582
23,460
957,288
23,290,321
Monitored
for Toxics
230,379
61,899
1,159,961
10,355
8,754
253
238
812,864
52,663
80,598
23,500
32,015
166,667
38,106
3,036
29,771
110,255
2,190,320
43,093
459,580
1 1 1 ,466
69,925
668,000
.437,671
6,678
4,970
354,114
548,000
305,119
902,960
135,179
132,867
13,465
9,204,721
Elevated
Toxics
30,200
21 ,995
730,336
262
2,875
158
103
94,080
0
28,530
815
10,400
18,028
9,118
400
25,550
29,255
1 i964,482
46
302,247
300
3
141,572
0
210
99
0
0
43,421
532
0
112,684
2,302
3,570,003
— Not reported.
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
88
-------
Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns
Estuaries (sq. miles)
Total
Waters
625
1,598
600
866
6
4,298
594
134
—
—
7,656
1,633
2,522
177
—
—
133
1,564
—
—
193
2,155
1,990
2,943
29,687
Monitored
for Toxics
85
800
558
53
6
1,883
56
34
—
—
i
10
2,042
107
—
—
7
1,564
—
—
101
319
1,959
575
10,159
Elevated
Toxics
35
495
185
25
4
252
4
0
—
I ;
10
—
78
—
—
0
750
--•-- —
—
7
0
20
85
1,950
Oceans (coastal miles) Great Lakes (shore miles)
Total Monitored Elevated Total Monitored Elevated
Waters for Toxics Toxics Waters for Toxics Toxics
— — ,._...._ _ _
1,840 1,118 62 — — —
25 — — — — — •
— — — — — —
— — — — — —
8,460 63 0 — — , —
— — — — — —
— — — — . — —
— — — 63 63 63
— ..•—-,.— 43 43 43
• — — — — — • —
3,500 — — — — —
32 0 — — - • — —
1,519 — — — — —
— — — 3,288 3,288 3,288
— — • — 272 272 272
81 40 0 — — —
130 130 70 577 577 492
oo-i
^O 1 —
Af\
— tj.jj —
434 119 5 — — —
420 — -
•|gQ
367 367 0 — — —
165 — — — — —
— — — 650 650 650
17,163 1,837 137 5,164 4,893 4,808
89
-------
Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns
Table 6-2. Fishing Restrictions Reported by the States
Number of Waterbodies
with Restrictions
Areas Affected
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas >
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio River Valley
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Totals
Advisories
1
1
0
2
6
7
5
5
5
1
25
3
10
21
3
1
3
9
5
3
12
35
446
5
19
1
1
2
1
11
0
52
1
15
13
2
3
18
2
3
16
1
1
2
5
7
208
998
Bans
0
5
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
16
4
0
0
, 7
1
1
0
0
0
2
1
0
3
0
0
0
3
50
River
Miles
157
65
39
34
361
687
10
116
62
256
579
1,734
36
831
20
60
15
505
317
—
108
62
7
430
435
300
7,226
Lake
Acres
550
158
20,298
8,964
10,880
1,964,482
9,968
14,800
141,572
—
54,647
500
127,629
135,386
2,489,834
Estuary
Square Miles
—
22
6
—
—
—
—
750
—
58
—
836
Great Lake
Shore Miles
—
—
63
43
—
3,288
272
_
492
—
—
650
4,808
— Not reported.
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
90
-------
Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns
Table 6-3. Pollutants Associated with Fishing Restrictions
Pollutant
Number of States
Reporting
RGBs
Pesticides
Dioxin
30
23
16
Mercury
Organics
Metals
16
8
5
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
Table 6-4. Sources Associated with Fishing Restrictions
Source
Number of States
Reporting
Industrial
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Agriculture
Resource Extraction
12
8
4
4
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
I I 0 or Not Reported
1-10
Xv3 11-30
31-70
>70
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
Figure 6-1. Number of Fish Consumption Restrictions Nationwide
mothers, and children).
Fishing bans generally pro-
hibit any consumption of one
or more fish species and
apply to all potential con-
sumers.
National statistics on
fishing advisories and bans
are incomplete. Definitions
for advisories and bans are
not consistent nationwide,
making it difficult to track
the number of advisories and
bans accurately. EPA just
completed development of a
national database on State
fish and shellfish advisories
and bans based on informa-
tion provided by all 50
States. This database con-
tains information on the
pollutant that triggered the •
consumption restriction, the
status of the restriction (com-
mercial fish ban, advisory,
partial ban, or ban), the fish
91
-------
Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns
species named in the advi-
sory or ban, the waterbody
for which the restriction was
issued and the geographic
extent of the waters covered
by the restriction. By the
Pall of 1991, EPA will make
the database available to
States and the public on an
electronic bulletin board.
In their 1990 State Section
305(b) reports, 47 States,
Jurisdictions, and Interstate
Commissions (hereafter
referred to as States) pro-
vided information on fishing
advisories and bans in their
waters. All of these States
reported that some fishing
restrictions were in place in
their waters during the
1988-90 reporting period.
Table 6-2 summarizes this
information by State. Figure
6-1 illustrates the national
distribution of fishing adviso-
ries and bans combined.
Forty-five States reported a
total of 998 waterbodies with
fishing advisories, and 16
States reported 50 water-
bodies with fishing bans (The
definition of waterbody may
vary from State to State).
The pollutants most com-
monly identified as causing
advisories or bans are PCBs,
pesticides, dioxin, mercury,
organics, and other heavy
metals. Table 6-3 summa-
rizes the number of States
that cite fishing restrictions
for various pollutants.
General categories of
sources contributing these
contaminants include indus-
trial dischargers, urban
runoff/storm sewers, and
nonpoint sources such as
agricultural and resource
extraction activities. Table
6-4 indicates 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 advi-
sories and bans. Twenty-five
States reported that 7,226
stream miles were affected,
13 States reported that
2,489,834 lake acres were
Forty-seven States reported some fishing restrictions in effect.
affected, and 4 States re-
ported that 836 estuarine
square miles were affected.
Six States reported that
4,808 Great Lakes shoreline
miles were affected by fish-
ing restrictions.
These numbers summariz-
ing fishing advisories and
bans should be interpreted
with caution and should not
be compared with the
findings of previous State
Section 305(b) reports until
standardized and complete
reporting is in effect. Bans
and advisories, once im-
posed, tend to remain in
force for a number of years
because of the persistence of
many of the chemicals in-
volved. Thus, a large appar-
ent change in the number of
bans and advisories reported
by the States over a 2-year
period is more likely the
result of increasingly com-
prehensive monitoring and
reporting rather than actual
water quality changes. In
addition, for any given
waterbody, a combination of
advisories and bans may be
imposed for different fish
species or may apply differ-
ently to different segments of
the waterbody or to different
consuming populations (e.g.,
pregnant women, nursing
mothers, and children).
Last, a great deal of variabil-
ity is evident among States
in the criteria used to impose
fishing restrictions and the
programs in place to moni-
tor, analyze, assess, and
report fish tissue data.
Therefore, the high num-
bers of restrictions reported
by some States is more likely
attributable to the criteria
and procedures used to set
restrictions and to sophisti-
cated, well-established fish
tissue monitoring programs
92
-------
Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns
in those States rather than
to unusually degraded water
quality conditions. By the
same token, States with no
data or with only a few fish-
ing restrictions may not have
extensive monitoring pro-
grams to detect fish tissue
contamination.
The following examples
cited by the States in 1990
help illustrate the variety of
pollutants and sources re-
sponsible for fish tissue con-
tamination and subsequently
for the issuance offish con-
sumption restrictions.
• Florida issued its first fish
consumption advisory in
early 1989 in response to
elevated concentrations of
mercury found in largemouth
bass collected in the Ever-
glades Water Conservation
Areas. Subsequently, in-
creased monitoring resulted
in advisories being issued for
nine areas in Florida for a
total of 25 streams and lakes.
The Governor issued an
executive order forming a
task force to deal with the
issue of mercury in fish and
wildlife. At present, fish
tissue sampling is continuing
and plans are being made for
additional sampling of estua-
rine species and to address
specific questions pertaining
to the sources, movement,
and toxicity of mercury.
• Louisiana reported that in
February 1989 a revised
advisory was issued to ban
the sale and consumption of
speckled and white trout
from the Calcasieu Estuary.
The State believes that the
chlorinated hydrocarbons*
and PCBs found consistently
in these predator fish pre-
sent a risk to public health.
The State is continuing its
seafood sampling program
and will revise the existing
health advisory as needed.
• West Virginia has experi-
enced an increase in impacts
to public health and aquatic
life during this reporting
period. In addition to the
existing advisory for dioxin
on a portion of the Kanawha
River and several tributar-
ies, fish consumption adviso-
ries have been issued for the
Ohio River (chlordane and
PCBs), Shenandoah River
(PCBs), and portions of the
North Branch of the Potomac
River (dioxin) and Potomac
River main stem (dioxin).
Risk assessment information
and FDA action levels were
taken into consideration
when developing these advi-
sories.
• In September 1988 the
State of Utah issued a health
advisory recommending
. limited consumption offish
and waterfowl from Stewart
Lake. The advisory was
issued in response to high
concentrations of selenium
detected in fish and water-
fowl from the lake.
• In 1988, the Maine Legis-
lature established the Maine
Dioxin Monitoring Program
to collect more data to assess
the extent of the State's
dioxin problem. This pro-
gram required the State to
collect sludge and fish
samples below 12 industrial
or municipal wastewater
discharges, analyze them for
dioxin and furan, and report
the results to the State Leg-
islature by December 1990.
Subsequent analyses of bass
and trout fillets and whole
suckers from Maine rivers
showed dioxin concentrations
of up to 45.7 parts per trillion
(three times the amounts
reported previously). The
State toxicologist warned in
March 1990 that pregnant
women should avoid eating
fish from the Androscoggin
River, Kennebec River below
Skowhegan, Penobscot River
below Lincoln, Presumpscot
River below Westbrook, and
the West Branch of the
Sebasticook River below
Hartland. The general pub-
lic was advised to eat no
more than two meals offish
per year from the Androscog-
gin River and five meals
from the Kennebec River.
The State and EPA are cur-
rently drafting wastewater
discharge permits that will
control the discharge of di-
oxin and furan to acceptable
levels by June 1992.
• A fish consumption advi-
sory issued in August 1987
for PCB contamination in
lake trout from Lake Cham-
plain was revised by the
Vermont Department of
Health in 1989. Since 1987 '
the State has collected fish of
10 different species at sev-
eral locations in Lake Cham-
plain and analyzed them for
PCBs and other contami-
nants. Analysis of the addi-
tional lake trout data has
resulted in the current con-
sumption advisory being
limited to lake trout longer
than 25 inches. Contami-
nant concentrations in the
other fish species have been
found to be low, and no addi-
tional advisories have been
issued.
• During 1989, Virginia
conducted a special study of
PCBs in the Front Royal
area at 11 collection sites.
The State placed an advisory
93
-------
Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns
against the consumption of
fish caught between the
lower reaches of the North
and South Forks of the
Shenandoah River and the
State line. The source of
PCB contamination was
determined to be the Avtex
Fibers, Inc., plant located in
Front Royal, Virginia.
Avtex"s Virginia Pollution
Discharge Elimination Per-
mit was revoked in Novem-
ber 1989 and the plant was
subsequently shut down.
Current Initiatives
Efforts are under way at
EPA to improve consistency
among State fish advisory
programs. Current EPA
activities include the devel-
opment of a fish sampling
and analysis guidance docu-
ment, the establishment of
an electronic bulletin board
system for fish advisory
information, an evaluation of
fish consumption survey
methodologies, and the
development of a methodol-
ogy to predict population
exposure from the consump-
tion of contaminated fish.
Fish Sampling
and Analysis: A
Guidance Document
In an effort to improve and
promote consistency among
State and Federal fish moni-
toring programs, EPA estab-
lished a workgroup of repre-
sentatives from 14 States
and several Federal agencies
to develop guidance on how
to sample and analyze fish
tissue. The objective of the
guidance is to recommend a
cost-effective procedure to
collect data for the develop-
ment of protective fish con-
sumption advisories.
The guidance document
reviews existing sampling
and analytical procedures,
recommends a two-tiered
sampling strategy (general
screening to locate problem
areas, and intensive surveys
to determine extent and
Industrial facilities were cited by the States as the leading source of contaminants responsible for
fishing restrictions.
magnitude of contamina-
tion), recommends target fish
species and contaminants for
analysis, and recommends
specific analytical methods
and quality control proce-
dures. The document is
expected to be completed in
1992.
State Fish Advisory
Bulletin Board
In response to a clear need
for improved communication
about fishing advisories,
EPA is establishing an elec-
tronic mail bulletin board
system. The bulletin board
will include a listing of all
fish consumption advisories
in. the U.S. and a bibliogra-
phy of State and Federal risk
assessments offish consump-
tion. The bulletin board is
designed to promote the
exchange offish advisory
information among Federal
agencies, State health de-
partments, State fish and
game services, State water
pollution control agencies,
and the public. The bulletin
board is scheduled to be
operable by the Fall of 1991.
Analysis of Population
at Risk from the
Consumption of
Dioxin-Contaminated
Fish Caught Near
Bleached Pulp
and Paper Mills:
A Pilot Study
As a result of increasing
concern about the possible
human health impacts of
consuming fish caught near
industrial effluent dis-
charges, EPA is currently
developing a methodology for
estimating the number of
people at potential risk. The
methodology involves deter-
mining the size of the area
within reasonable traveling
distance of a contaminated
94
-------
Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns
waterbody and estimating
the environmental exposures
and associated health risks
for various age, sex, and
ethnic/race groups living
within this area. The meth-
odology is designed to use
readily available information
to estimate the potential for
cancer and noncancer risks
within specific subpopula-
tions.
A Review and
Analysis of Fish
Consumption
Survey Methods
and Approaches
Kecent studies have noted
the paucity of accurate data
on fish consumption among
subsistence and sport fisher-
men. In an effort to address
this need, EPA is planning to
conduct an evaluation of
survey methods best suited
for obtaining information on
fish consumption rates for
recreational and subsistence
fishermen. The evaluation
will discuss how surveys can
be used to identify the spe-
cies offish consumed and the
preparation procedures used
by subsistence and recre-
ational fishermen. In addi-
tion, methods will be identi-
fied for examining relation-
ships between socioeconomic
variables and fish consump-
tion rates. This report is
expected to be completed by
October 1991.
Sediment
Contamination
Contamination of stream,
lake, and estuarine sedi-
ments by toxic substances
has been identified as a
growing environmental con-
cern by an increasing num-
ber of States. Although some
contaminants are degraded
by bacteria in sediments,
others remain unaltered in
sediment for many years
even after the pollutant
source has been eliminated
or modified; these may serve
as a continuing source of
toxics to the water column
and to aquatic organisms.
Bottom-dwelling animals
such as estuarine worms,
may ingest sediment con-
taminants as part of their
feeding activities and may
themselves serve as food for
animals higher in the food
chain that, in turn, ulti-
mately serve as food for
humans.
In addition to potential
impacts on water column
and benthic biota, sediment
contamination can pose ob-
stacles to the maintenance'
dredging of harbors and
navigation channels. Dis-
posal of dredge spoil can
become a difficult issue if the
spoil contains unacceptable
concentrations of PCBs,
mercury, dioxhi, and similar
toxic chemicals. Methods of
disposal such as open water
dumping, confinement in
diked containment areas,
and spreading in coastal
areas, wetlands, and "re-
claimed lands" may create
new—and possibly more
severe—environmental prob-
lems. Resuspension of toxics
into the water column also
may occur when dredging
takes place. Because it may
be necessary to dredge har-
bors simply to keep them
open for navigation purposes,
the States face difficult deci-
sions where sediment con-
tamination is a concern.
Three approaches are
typically used to assess sedi-
ment quality: (1) conduct a
field survey of benthic com-
munities; (2) conduct bioas-
says using sediment samples
and test organisms; and
(3) determine the concentra-
tions of individual chemicals
in sediment samples and
compare these concentra-
tions to the levels of these
chemicals known to cause
adverse effects in aquatic
life.
Procedures for assessing
benthie communities, for
performing acute bioassays,
and for analyzing individual
chemicals in sediments are
relatively well developed.
However, there are currently
no national criteria for as-
sessing the effects of indi-
vidual chemicals in sedi-
ments. EPA plans to release
draft sediment criteria for
nonpolar organic pollutants
in late 1991 for public com-
ment; a method for deriving
sediment quality criteria for
metals is being developed.
Currently, many States do
not have the analytical tools
and resources for sediment
monitoring and analyses;
others may not have reported
on available chemical data as
there are no criteria against
which to screen sediment
data. Therefore, the follow-
ing discussion of State-
reported information on
sediment contamination is
limited and probably under-
states the extent of the prob-
lem. As methodologies and
criteria are developed and
more emphasis is placed on
reporting, the comprehen-
siveness of State data will
undoubtedly improve.
Thirty-three States pro-
vided some information on
sediment contamination in
their waters. Twenty-nine of
these States indicated that
instances of sediment con-
tamination exist in their
waters; five States reported
95
-------
Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns
Table 6-5. Sediment Contamination Reported by States
State
Alaska
Arizona
California
Connecticut
Delaware
DC
Florida
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Nevada
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Wisconsin
Number
of Sites
1
6
1
6
2
1
8
1
1
7
7
13
13
1
7
21
193
10
14
2
4
31
10
24
Contaminants Identified
Aromatic hydrocarbons
Pesticides, metals (boron, chromium, selenium),
radiochemicals
Mercury
Lead, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), organic
chemicals, and other metals
Metals
Lead, cadmium, zinc, chlordane, DDT
Arsenic
Heavy metals, DDT, PCBs, heptachlor epoxide
Metals, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
cyanide, other organics
PCBs
PCBs
Priority organics, creosote, metals, oil and grease, PCBs
Dimethyl formamide, toluene, trichloroethane,
chlorinated solvents, tris (2,3-dibromopropyl) phosphate,
PCBs, copper, cadmium
Nickel, zinc, PAHs, non-DDT chlorinated pesticides,
pesticides, DDT, PCBs and other metals
Metals, priority organics, oil and grease
Mercury, alkylated lead, PCBs, dioxin, benzo(a)pyrene,
hexachlorobenzene [HCB], DDT, dieldrin, toxaphene,
mirex
Mercury, PCBs, coal tars
Mercury and other metals
Priority organics, metals, pesticides
Arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, zinc
Mercury, lead, zinc, chlordane, hydrocarbons, PCBs
Arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel,
zinc, DDT, PAHs, PCBs, phthalates, cyanide, volatile
organic compounds, phenanthrene, pentachlorophenol
PCBs, chromium, mercury
Mercury
- Selenium, chromium, arsenic, iron, manganese, nickel,
cadmium, zinc, copper, mercury, lead
Mercury, copper, selenium, cadmium, nickel, zinc
PCBs, dioxin, mercury, pentachlorophenol, arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, zinc, oil and grease, pesticides,
PAHs
Total
384
— Not reported.
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
96
-------
Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns
no problems. A total of 384
separate instances of sedi-
ment contamination are
reported by 24 of the 29
States (Table 6-5). Leading
pollutants associated with
sediment contamination
include heavy metals (e.g.,
arsenic, cadmium, chro-
mium, copper, lead, mer-
cury, nickel, and zinc), PCBs,
pesticides (e.g., DDT, chlor-
dane, heptachlor, toxaphene,
mirex, and dieldrin), and
dioxin.
The following examples
from the 1990 State Section
305(b) reports serve to illus-
trate the variety of pollut-
ants and sources contribut-
ing to sediment contamina-
tion problems.
• Maine reported that, dur-
ing 1988-1989, sediments
contaminated by toxic pollut-
ants were identified in three
waterbodies. Approximately
400 acres of Annabessacook
Lake are contaminated with
dimethyl formamide, tolu-
ene, and trichloroethane
from a Superfund site. Sedi-
ments in a 6-mile stretch of
Quiggle Brook were contami-
nated by chlorinated solvents
from another Superfund site.
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)-
phosphate and other organic
compounds from a textile
mill were responsible for
contaminating 1.5 miles of
sediments in the Piscataquis
River. ;
• Iowa reported that sedi-
ments in the Mississippi
Eiver at Davenport contain
relatively high concentra-
tions of PCBs. Recent studies
show that concentrations are
significantly higher offshore
of local industrial discharg-
ers.
• Louisiana reported on
sediment contamination in
Sibley Lake, a large fresh-
water impoundment located
near Natchitoches that
serves as the source of public
drinking water and as a
recreational area. In August
of 1988, Tennessee Gas Pipe-
line Company (TGPC) noti-
fied the State that analysis
of wastewater from one of
their outfalls revealed the
presence of PCBs. The State
issued a compliance order
and imposed civil penalties
against TGPC for this excur-
sion. The compliance order
required TGPC to sample
lake sediments, fish tissue,
effluent, and lake water and
to take any and all measures
necessary to cease discharge
of wastewater containing
PCBs. TGPC has since
ceased direct discharge of
their wastewater and has
rerouted the wastewater
through an activated carbon
treatment system prior to
discharge into Sibley Lake.
During 1989, TGPC sam-
pling results indicated no
detectable amounts of PCBs
in lake water; however,
PCBs were found in lake
sediment and fish. In Febru-
ary 1990, TGPC agreed to
conduct an intensive study of
the sediment around their
outfall to help the State
determine what remediation
plan, if any, is necessary.
• South Dakota reported a
potential problem of toxic
pollutants in the sediment of
Whitewood Creek, the Belle
Fourche River, the Cheyenne
River, and Lake Oahe of the
Missouri River system.
Homestake Mining Company
in Lead had used mercury in
its gold recovery process for
many years. High concentra-
tions of mercury were dis-
charged into Whitewood
Creek and presumably were
transported downstream as
far as Lake Oahe.
• Alaska reported that the
1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill
in Prince William Sound
caused extensive contamina-
tion of intertidal sediments
by floating crude oil, result-
ing in mortality of intertidal
organisms. Sediments con-
taminated by aromatic
hydrocarbons have been
found in Port Valdez.
New Initiatives
Efforts are under way at
EPA to provide States with
better tools to assess and
control toxics problems.
• Development of EPA's
sediment management strat-
egy to focus the Agency's
resources on preventing,
remediating, and managing
the dredged disposal of con-
taminated sediments;
• Further development of
sediment criteria; and
• Development of acute and
chronic bioassays for sedi-
ments using sensitive spe-
cies.
Fish Kills Caused
by Pollution
One obvious and impor-
tant indicator of water
quality problems is the
occurrence offish kills
caused by pollution. Infor-
mation on fish kills is incom-
plete; the information
reported by the States in
1990 most probably under-
estimates the extent of the
problem for several reasons.
97
-------
Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns
Table 6-6. Fish Kills Caused by Pollution*
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virgin Islands
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Totals
Percent of Total Fish
No. of
Fish Kills
7
5'
2
9
13
6
5
2
—
8
51
75
21
49
35
7
322
2
25
106
23
3
42
4
1
4
58
93
135
80
6
4
2
10
2
17
56
28
7
5
27
8
1,365
Kills
No. of
Fish Killed
3,231
2,700
—
143,142
—
1,948
—
500
210,952
—
842,487
454,222
1,076,293
244,713
364,015
1,625
—
—
54,163
148,523
115,301
—
228,233
10,000
—
8,000
163,770
—
613,575
477,160
104,230
150
—
9,030
35,000
—
11,193,610
12,306
16,000
—
9,364,951
47,758
25,947,588
Kills Caused by
Toxic Pollutants
No.
Kills
3
1
2
0
11
3
0
0
—
8
—
—
11
5
7
0
13
2
6
0
7
3
—
2
1
1
17
3
17
4
2
0
—
7
2
—
12
6
3
—
4
2
165
12.0%
No.
Fish
3,060
2,700
—
0
—
743
—
0
70,640
—
—
—
1,069,914
4,047
55,862
0
• —
—
2,724
0
107,801
—
—
—
—
—
75,330
—
54,581
8,973
375
0
—
2,530
35,000
—
2,350,657
2,768
16,000
—
6,150
37,318
3,907,173
15.1%
Kills Caused by
Conventional
Pollutants
No.
Kills
3
4
0
0
2
1
1
. 0
—
—
—
—
3
28
17
3
213
—
13
35
7
0
—
1
—
0
20
63
81
34
4
1
1
2
0
—
26
16
1
5
15
5
605
44.3%
No.
Fish
100
—
—
0
—
225
—
0
140,312
—
—
—
2,024
181,297
229,926
600
—
—
51,439
11,519
2,600
—
—
10,000
—
0
60,640
—
528,978
14,126
103,855
—
—
4,500
0
—
5,260,998
9,421
—
—
9,316,919
3,700
15,933,179
61.4%
Kills Due to
Unknown/
Unspecified Causes
No.
Kills
1
—
0
9
—
2
4
2
—
—
51
75
7
16
11
4
96
0
6
71
9
0
42
1
—
3
21
27
37
42
0
3
1
1
0
17
18
6
3
—
8
1
595
43.6%
No.
Fish
71
—
—
143,142
—
980
—
500
—
—
842,487
454,222
. 4,355
59,369
78,227
1,025
—
—
—
137,004
4,900
—
228,233
—
—
8,000
27,800
—
30,016
454,061
0
150
—
2,000
0
—
3,581,955
117
>
—
41,882
6,740
6,107,236
23.5%
'During 1988*1990 reporting period only; excludes kills due to natural causes when a breakout was possible.
— Not reported.
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
98
-------
Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns
Table 6-7. Pollutants Associated with Fish Kills
Pollutant
Pesticides
BOD/DO
Oil and Gas
Chlorine
Temperature
Ammonia
Organics
Acidity
Number of States
Reporting
19
17
16
14
10
9
7
6
BOD/DO = Biological oxygen demand/dissolved oxygen.
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
Table 6-8. Sources Associated with Fish Kills
Source
Number of States
Reporting
Industrial
Agriculture
Municipal
Spills
21
19
18
15
Resource Extraction
Hydromodification
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
9
6
5
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
Pesticides were the leading cause of fish kills.
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
Figure 6-2. Number of Fish Kills Nationwide
In many cases it is the pub-
lic—fishermen, boaters, and
hikers—who first notice fish
kills and report them to fish
and game wardens or other
State officials. Many fish
kills may go undetected 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
conditions.) Eeporting on
pollution-caused fish kills is
new to the State Section
305(b) process, and a number
of States did not provide
data, did not present a com-
prehensive number of kills,
or did not specify the cause
and/or magnitude of the
, fish kills. Available data
reported by the States are
presented in Table 6-6.
99
-------
Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns
Table 6-6 shows that 42
States provided some infor-
mation on the occurrence of '
pollution-caused fish kills
during the 1988-1990 report-
ing period:
• All of these States indi-
cated that pollution-caused
kills occurred in their waters.
• Forty-one States provided
information on the number
of kills, for a total of 1,365
incidents (see Figure 6-2).
• In the 30 States that indi-
cated the number of fish
killed, almost 26 million fish
were reported killed. Almost
80 percent of that total was
contributed by two States:
Texas (43 percent) and West
Virginia (36 percent).
• About three and a half
times more fish kills were
attributed to conventional
pollutants (44 percent) than
to toxic substances (15 per-
cent) in those States that
specified the distinction.
Forty-four percent of the fish
kills (595) were attributed to
unknown causes.
• The States reported that
leading identified causes of
fish kills include pesticides,
biochemical oxygen demand/
low dissolved oxygen, oil and
gas, chlorine, temperature
changes, ammonia, organics,
and acidity (Table 6-7).
• The most commonly re-
ported sources offish kills
are industrial dischargers,
agriculture, municipal sew-
age treatment plants, spills,
resource extraction, hydro-
modification, and urban
runoff/storm sewers (Table
6-8).
Blue crabs are a highly prized fishing resource of the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays.
Shellfish
Harvesting
Restrictions
In addition to seafood
consumption restrictions
related to toxic pollutants,
many coastal States report
restrictions on shellfish har-
vesting related to pathogenic
bacterial or viral contamina-
tion of estuarine waters.
Shellfish, particularly oys-
ters, clams, and mussels, are
filter-feeders that extract
their food (plankton) as well
as waterborne bacteria and
viruses from the water col-
umn and accumulate them
on their gills and mantle and
in their digestive systems.
Contaminated shellfish are a
serious human health con-
cern particularly when shell-
fish are consumed raw;
proper cooking is the most
effective method for killing
many microorganisms.
States currently analyze
water samples from shellfish
harvesting areas to measure
the most probable number
(MPN) of total coliform and
fecal coliform bacteria. Fecal
coliform bacteria are found
in the digestive systems and
waste products of several
avian and mammalian
species. These bacteria,
although nonpathogenic,
serve as environmental indi-
cators for the presence of
potentially pathogenic sew-
age-associated microorgan-
isms (bacteria such as Sal-
monella, Vibrio, Shigella,
and viruses) that can cause
such diseases as gastro-
enteritis, dysentery, cholera,
and infectious hepatitis. The
States restrict shellfish har-
vesting to those areas that
maintain total and fecal
coliform levels below certain
100
-------
Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns
Table 6-9. Shellfish Harvesting Restrictions
Reported by States*
State
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
Florida
Georgia
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Maine
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Total
Number of
Restrictions
2
6
9
2
—
—
—
—
7
120
—
2
—
63
—
—
43
57
10
19
340
Estuarine
Sq. Miles
Affected
—
—
—
42
— •
178
—
92
78
158
—
3
126
294
—
—
52
274
721
— •
2,018
*AII States listed indicated shellfish harvesting restrictions were in effect
during reporting cycle but several did not provide quantitative data on the
restrictions.
— Not reported.
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
Table 6-10. Sources Associated with Shellfish
Harvesting Restrictions
Source
Number of States
Reporting
Municipal Wastewater Facilities
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Onsite Wastewater Systems (Septic)
Recreational Activities (Marinas)
Industry
8
4
3
2
2
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
statistical limits (e.g., the
fecal coliform [MPN] median
does not exceed 14/100 mL of
seawater and 10 percent of
the water samples do not
exceed 43/100 mL). Data
reported by the States are
presented in Table 6-9.
Table 6-9 shows that 20
States reported that shellfish'
harvesting restrictions were
in effect for their estuarine
and coastal waters during
the 1988-90 reporting period:
• Twelve States provided
information on the number of
restrictions for a total of 340
incidents, and over one-third
of the restrictions were re-
ported by the State of Maine.
• Eleven States provided
information on the geo-
graphic extent of the shell-
fish closures for a total of
2,018 square miles of
estuarine waters.
• The most commonly
reported sources of shellfish
closures are municipal
Wastewater treatment facili-
ties, urban runoff/storm
sewers, onsite wastewater
systems (septic systems),
marinas, and industrial
dischargers (Table 6-10).
Although these numbers
summarizing shellfish har-
vesting restrictions represent
80 percent of all States hav-
ing estuarine harvesting
areas, they should be inter-
preted with some caution. A
great deal of variability ex-
ists among States in the
bacteriological criteria used
to impose shellfishing re-
strictions; the various re-
striction categories for shell-
fish harvesting (e.g.,
approved, conditionally
approved/seasonal, condition-
ally approved, restricted and
prohibited); and the State
programs in place to moni-
tor, analyze, assess, and
report bacteriological con-
tamination data. As with
fish and shellfish consump-
tion restrictions, the high
number of shellfish closures
reported by some States is
more likely attributable to
the bacteriological criteria
and procedures used to set
the restrictions rather than
to unusually degraded water
quality conditions. Simi-
larly, States with little or no
data on shellfish closures
may not have extensive sur-
veillance programs to evalu-
ate bacterial contamination
of their shellfish harvesting
areas.
Contact
Recreation
Restrictions
Information reported by
the States on contact recre-
ation restrictions such as the
closure of bathing areas is
limited. The information is
reported in a variety offer-
mats, and different bacterial
criteria are used to restrict
contact recreation activities.
Most States' criteria are
based on fecal coliform bacte-
rial counts; however, some
States are currently using
Enterococcus, a form of fecal
streptococcus bacteria. As
for some other types of infor-
mation in this section, con-
tact recreation restrictions
are often the responsibility of
State health agencies and
local governments (i.e., cities
and counties) that may not
coordinate reporting with
pollution control agencies
preparing the State Section
101
-------
Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns
305(b) reports. Thus, com-
prehensive summaries of
contact recreation restric-
tions are not yet available
because many States do not
present quantitative summa-
ries of restrictions.
Twenty-three States pro-
vided some information on
contact recreation restric-
tions during the 1988-90
reporting period. In 3 States,
no closures were reported to
have occurred; in the remain-
ing 20 States, 301 incidents
of contact recreation restric-
tions were reported (Table
6-11). Most of these restric-
tions involved beach closures
that were of short duration
and were attributed prima-
rily to fecal coliform bacteria.
High concentrations of these
bacteria in the water column
may indicate the presence of
pathogenic microorganisms
from malfunctioning munici-
pal sewage treatment plants,
combined sewer overflows,
onsite wastewater systems
(septic systems), urban
runoff, marinas, and raw
sewage spills. Gastro-
enteritis, ear infections, and
skin infections (e.g., swim-
mer's itch) are some of the
common illnesses experi-
enced from contact recre-
ation in sewage-contami-
nated waters. Although the
primary reason for most
restrictions was the presence
of fecal coliform bacteria, the
presence of toxic pollutants
(e.g:, priority organics,
hydrocarbons, and heavy
metals from spills or indus-
trial discharges), medical
wastes, pathogenic micro-
organisms (Shigello), and the
avian parasite that causes
swimmer's itch (Schisto-
somo) was also cited.
Closure of
Surface Drinking
Water Supplies
The use of surface water
supplies for drinking water
varies greatly among the
States and Territories. As
with contact recreation and
Recreational use of many beaches can be severely restricted by fecal coliform contamination.
shellfish harvesting restric-
tions, State health agencies
and local governments (i.e.,
cities) are most often respon-
sible for issuing restrictions
and may not report this
information to the pollution
control agencies preparing
the State Section 305(b)
reports. A comprehensive
summary of surface drinking
Water restrictions issued
nationwide is not currently
available.
In this reporting period, 11
States provided information
on closures of surface water
drinking supplies. Of these
States, 10 reported closure
of surface drinking water
supplies in 34 closure inci-
dents (Table 6-12). Missis-
sippi reported that closures
have occurred but did not
specify the number of clo-
sures. It should be noted
that several States indicated
that no closures to surface
water drinking supplies had
occurred during the report-
ing cycle, yet they reported
that the public was told to
boil water before consump-
tion in some communities.
Toxic pollutants entering
waterbodies from accidental
chemical spills and indus-
trial dischargers were the
primary reasons for closure.
Conventional pollutants such
as fecal coliform bacteria,
siltation, and ash from a
large forest fire were other
reasons reported for closures.
Most States with closures
indicated that the closures
were of short duration and
pumping was resumed after
the pollutant had moved
downstream of the water
intakes. These States also
reported that storage capac-
ity was generally adequate
so that water supplies to
users were not disrupted.
102
-------
Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns
Table 6-11. Contact Recreation Restrictions Reported by the States
State
Number of Sites with
Contact Recreation
Restrictions*
Reason for Restriction
Alaska
Arizona
California
Connecticut
Delaware
DC**
Florida
Hawaii
Illinois
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Michigan
Mississippi
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Vermont
Virgin Islands
Wisconsin
Total
5
3
29
12
7
23
3
3
3
4
26
27
1
77
19
3
1
45
9
1
301
Fecal coliform, diesel fuel spill, swimmer's itch
Fecal coliform, dioxin, swimmer's itch
Toxic and conventional polllutants
Fecal coliform from sewage treatment plant failure
Fecal coliform
Fecal coliform
Fecal coliform
Oil spills, fecal coliform from sewage spills
Fecal coliform
Fecal coliform
Priority organics, metals, fecal coliform
Fecal coliform
Fecal coliform, medical wastes, Shigella
Fecal coliform from sewage overflow
Fecal coliform
Fecal coliform from sewage overflow,
medical wastes
Fecal coliform, high water
Fecal coliform, oil spill
Shigella
Fecal coliform, organic chemicals, mercury
Fecal coliform
Fecal coliform
Fecal coliform
*Sotne waterbodies/beaches were closed more than once during the reporting period;
however, each site was counted only once for consistency in reporting.
"All waters in the District of Columbia are closed to contact recreation.
— Not reported.
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
Table 6-12. Closure of Surface Drinking Water Supplies Reported by .States
State
Alaska
California
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
Michigan
Mississippi
Nebraska
Nevada
Ohio
West Virginia
Total
Number of
Closures
1
11
5
1
2
4
1
1
5
3
34
Reason for Closure
Diesel fuel spill
Toxic pollutants, conventional pollutants
Color and turbidity, siltation, oil spill
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate contamination
Oil spill, leaking storage tank
Chemical spills
Fecal coliform
Ash from forest fire clogged
Unspecified effluent
Chemical spill, sewage discharge
Fire retardant, diesel fuel gasoline
— Not reported.
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
103
-------
Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns
Census of State Fish/Shellfish
Consumption Advisory Programs
The primary mechanism
used by States to alert con-
sumers abqut the health
risks of eating contaminated
fish or shellfish is the con-
sumption advisory; however,
consumption advisory prac-
tices vary greatly from State
to State: At the request of
EPA, the American Fisheries
Society CAP'S) conducted a
census in November 1989 to
determine State fish con-
sumption advisory practices.
AFS sent questionnaires to
the chiefs of health depart-
ments, fisheries agencies,
and water quality/environ-
mental management depart-
ments in all 50 States and
the District of Columbi^.
Officials in all States and the
District responded to the
Sample collection, analysis, and data interpretation techniques in
ten advisory programs vary widely among States.
questionnaire that covered
advisories in both coastal
marine and inland fresh
waters. Results of the 1989
Census of State Fish / Shell-
fish Consumption Advisory
Programs (1989 Census) was
prepared for the Office of
Water Regulations and Stan-
dards in August 1990 and
provides a current descrip-
tion of State fish/Shellfish
consumption advisory re-
sponsibilities and practices
nationwide.
In their biennial 305(b)
reports, States generally
provide information on the
number of fishing restric-
tions, the waterbodies af-
fected, the contaminants of
concern, the size or geo-
graphic extent of the con-
t^mination and, in some
: c^ses, the specific fish/shell-
fish species for which the
restriction is issued. Lack-
ing, however, is information
on the procedures and pro-
cesses used by the States
that culminate in the issu-
ance of a fish consumption
advisory or ban. The pri-
mary focus of the census
report was to quantify the
use of various sample collec-
tion, sample analysis, and
data interpretation tech-
niques (including use of risk
assessment methodologies)
in State fish advisory pro-
grams. State agency respon-
sibility for each aspect of the
fish advisory process was
also identified.
The 1989 Census was a
first step by EPA to identify
differences and similarities
among State programs, to
evaluate the effectiveness of
the consumption advisories
process, to identify State
information needs, and to
design and develop appropri-
ate Federal assistance that
will promote consistency and
accuracy among State advi-
sories. ,-. :, '. - .'•-'. ;.."• :-
State Agency
Responsibilities
According to the 1989 '•''.":
Census, collection of fish, and
shellfish tissue data used in
advisory development in the
States is normally a multi-
agency effort and may in-
clude various combinations
of environmental, fisheries,
and health agencies.
In contrast, State health
departments are the sole
agencies responsible for
interpreting dataj assessing
human health risks, and
issuing consumption adviso-
ries in nearly half the States,
and they play a major role in
most other States. Further^
more, health departments
play a principal role in com-
municating advisories to the
public in 11 States and share
this responsibility primarily
with environmental and
fisheries agencies in 27
States. .'-"•' '; . '-'•"
Sample Collection
Procedures
Respondents to the 1989
Census reported on sample
collection procedures used to
assess fish and shellfish
contamination. They indi-
cated the types of monitoring
programs used to obtain data
for advisories, the types and
104
-------
Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns
numbers of waterbodies
sampled, and the collection
. criteria used, including fish
species sampled, size range
,of fish/shellfish collected, and
frequency of sampling.
• Intensive surveys or spe-
cial studies were reported by
37 States as a frequent or
principal source of tissue
v residue data used for devel-'
oping advisories. Routine
surface water monitoring
, programs and monitoring in
response to emergencies
' (e.g., fish kills, chemical
spills) were cited as the sec-
ond and third most frequent
sources Of data used by 29
s and 11 States, -respectively.
The number of water-
bodies surveyed annually for
tissue contamination varied
widely among the States. -
Eighteen States typically
Survey less than 10 water,-
bodies annually (Figure 1).
Only five States survey more
than 50 waterbodies annu-
ally and Wisconsin surveys
over 100 waterbodies annu-
ally.
Forty-one States identify
freshwater rivers and 35
States identify lakes as the
primary waterbodies sur-
veyed. Of 23 States with
estuarine and coastal waters,
20 States and 14 States, ,
respectively, report that fish/
shellfish are frequently col-
lected from these waters.
States were asked to iden-
tify the fish/shellfish species
most commonly used as a
basis for consumption advi-
sories. Approximately 60
fish/shellfish species were
identified and are catego-
rized by family in Figure 2.
The predominant .families
include Ictaluridae (catfish),
used by 32 States; the Cen-
trarchidae (sunfish), used by
30 States'; the Cyprinidae
(carp), used by 22 States; and
the Salmonidae (salmon and
trout), used by 20 States,
Approximately nine species
of shellfish, including mol-
luscs (clams, oysters, mus-
sels, and scallops) and crus-
- taceans (crab, shrimp, and
lobster), were identified.'
Sample Analysis
Procedures
The 1989 Census surveyed
States on procedures used in
chemical analysis of contam-
inated fish/shellfish tissues
including the portion of the
fish/shellfish analyzed, pol-
lutants analyzed, analytical
•methods commonly used,
types of laboratories conduct-
ing the analyses, and num-
ber of samples analyzed
annually by the State.
For fish, the edible portion
with skin on is used for resi-
due? analyses in 23J3tates; an
, equal number of States ana-
lyze the edible portion with
the skin removed. Sixteen
States report that the whole
fish is frequently analyzed.
For shellfish, 14 States re-
port that only the edible
portion is analyzed; 7 States
analyze the whole shellfish.
A majority of States (34)
indicate that metals and
PCBs/pesticides are the two
pollutant groups most fre-
quently analyzed for in fish/
shellfish tissue. The EPA
Interim Methods for
Sampling and Analyses of
" 'Priority Pollutants in Sedi-
ments and Fish Tissue
, (EPA-600/4-81-055) is the '
'standard analytical proce-
"dure most commonly used by
Source: P, A. Cunningham, J. M. McCarthy, Dr 2iefend, Results of the 1S89 Census of State Fish/Shellfish
Consumption Advisory Programs, Prepared tor Office of Water Regulations and Standards, 1990.
Figure 1. Number of Waterbodies Surveyed Annually for Fish/Shellfish Tissue Contamination
105
-------
I1 I'M!
Ill ..... hih I I
Public Health/Aquatic Li/e Concerns
ir1!,;11"! ',',,
j'ii!'
t?1", :..,:,;!'"!.',„
31 States; 15 States reported risk of consuming contami-
using the U,S. Food and nated fish/shellfish. Al-
Drug Administration Pesti- though the majority of States
cides Analyticol^Manual (34) reported frequently
/',' ".; /;;>'3^^1^(19.78); and 17 States re- " , using FDA action levels for .
„. •.; „,.,,;i.!.,,i, ',"/;:L:Rjflf^'pofijcd using a variety of deriving the levels pf'con-
;"'^
.•'.'. ';;; „-;';: ;«f '.''•"; | • |«K?AIniost all States (41) , , _ _ EPA's Cancer Potency Factor
i''i"; 3t ''$ ^..^^yf^ji^ate^S^^ja^peTa^d pr Reference Doses, were
.'o;'1":':11'1^ "
'":::,'.':!,"::,,,:,!'! :i::,:':'":''i:;:::' ™3R!,.'asiBid to^ analyze chemical , for deriving the level of eon-
:',".: I:" I I "" :"" :: residues in fish/shellfish cern were used depending on
tissue. Other types of labo- the contaminant and risk
ratories commonly used by assessment policy consider-
the States include contract, a,tions.
EPA, and other Federal Another area of disagree-
laboratories. ment among the States was .
; the issuance offish/shellfish
...... i :l D3t3 lntOrpr©t3tion advisories based on risk
'. •' • •" ' ' ..i»" «".' j i .;•.» pi]!' ;«* - '« .«. .'p."" •; assessment results. Eleven
i^,.ffl^|^eatest;iincpn^teacj'1 States re^aj^d tlmt all ^yi-
ii'^lfj^^J'S^ry^ipoess "'"" _'''_""''" | saries"are based on results of.
i:'ll||l're'pol|rted in the 1989 Census a risk assessment, 10 States
.with" 3ate use a risk assessment ap-,
tion grocediires prpach only when contami-
••use^HIilsiiS^^ ^t110^ PD'A action
... *:'••
r,"!''""1'!':!.
•^ mm i f m
levels are detected, and 9
States are considering use of
a risk assessment approach.
Ten States do not plan to use
a risk assessment approach,
and the State position on
using a risk assessment
approach was unclear for
11 States. :,
In calculating the human
health risk of eating con-
taminated fish/shellfish,
States varied widely in their
use of the following vari-
ables:
• Consumption rate
• Maximum risk considered
acceptable for carcinogens
• Average body weight
assumed.for atypical con-
sumer
• Meal size.
"i,,!,,";,,',
,,;.:i',; ni
"T !:'
"i,,,.'t i;,"'!!'! lii'iiiil'lii i:ii:, ."jjjijivj "iiil'ii; i!!l!
:,'';!ll!,;! Jii Jilt tf.sjKfl I!"'! ;,
.
>• i; a :,i; f i \w,
i mm
35
ra
35
Centrar- Cyprini- Salmonidae Percidae Catosto- Percich- Esocidae
chidaa dae (Salmon (Perch) midae thyldae (Pike)
(Sunfish) (Carp) & Trout) (Suckers) (Striped
Family
Si
Other
, - ,„: ,;„; ;;,• -;„" ;;„: ::,;:;:"„; ;;,;,;;,,„ Source: P. A. Cunningham, J. M. McCarthy, D. Zietland, Results of the 1989 Census of State Fish/Shellfish Consumption .
'• : Advisory Programs, Prepared for Office of Water Regulations and Standards, 1990. . ' ..
106
Figure 2. Major Fish Families Representing Species Used in Consumption Advisories
M^^'''^>T|;i''[|t^ij^^ ' ' '• • • "• "•'
''J!^
:'1 ..... .
..... ? i'^';i^
-------
Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns
Advisory
Development
* Jfetionally, 24 contami-
-,nants were identified by the
' 'States in the 1989 Census as
.' having been detected at
- concentrations requiring
': issuance offish/shellfish
^'consumption advisories
/"(Figure 3). PCBs, pesticides,
- metals, and dioxins are the
. ..'four polutant groups most
- often identified as triggering
,-jT advisories. The four eontami-
,„ , nants individually identified
4, by the most States as result-
,'', jug in the issuance of adviso-
'.'- ries are PCBs (33 States),
•>- mercury (21 States), chlor-"
~ ' dane (21 States), and dioxin/
, dibenzofurans (21 States).
';* Thirty-seven States re-
*">jpbrted having waterbodies
• under advisories that restrict
consumption offish/shellfish;
an equal number reported
having advisories that pro-
hibit consumption. Eight
States have more than 10
waterbodies under advisories
restricting consumption; 6
States have more than 10
waterbodies under advisories
prohibiting consumption.
The majority of States (36)
reported that advisories are
generally issued for an
indefinite period of time.
Thirteen States reported
issuing advisories for a
1-year period; no States
reported issuing advisories
for less than 1 year.
Major methods used by the
States to disseminate fish/
shellfish advisory informa-
tion include^ newspaper
notices, posting signs at the
affected waterbody, fishing
licenses, TV/other media,
and posting notices in public
buildings (Figure 4).
State Concerns
and
Recommendations
According to the 1989
Census, States were most
concerned about the lack
of agreement on safe
consumption levels, lack of
consistent risk assessment
methodology, the need for
increased monitoring of
toxics in fish and shellfish,
and the need for improved
information transfer on con-
sumption advisory issues.
States recommended that
the Federal government
provide additional training
or guidance on consumption
Metals Pesticides PAHs PCBs Dioxin/ Other
Dibenzo- Chlorinated
furans Organics
Other
4 ,§ource: P. A. Cunningham, J. M. McCarthy, D. Zietland, Heswte of the 1989 Census of State Fish/Shellfish Consumption
<$.,, ' * Advisory Programs, Prepared for Office of Water Regulations and Standards, 1990.
/ Figure 3. Major Groups of Contaminants Detected at Concentrations Requiring Issuance
of Consumption Advisories
107
-------
Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns
108
advisory development (43
:: ; States); data interpretation,
v::-I:"••;-";"'p"articularly risk assessments
' - (35 States); and methods of
communicating advisories to
,,.,.,,. the.gublic (32 States).
1 ''"';!'" ', '^response to "these rec-
ommendations, the EPA held
a federal-State forum on fish
advisories at the1990 AFS
meeting and sent representa-
tiy^inallSfates.aninfpr-
"''' ." '! ^mationpaclagemciudinga
summary of current EPA
- activities and a draft short-
'•" •- term Federal Action Plan for,
review; by the States. | Two oJ[
the short-term action items
addressed, rnj the plan in-
;'';;.'.,;,:''",, Volyed (l)jresplying differ-
ences between the EPA and
procedures. EPA is currently
trying to address these con-
cerns by preparing guidance
on fish sampling and analy-
sis procedures, establishing a
fish consumption advisory
database, and promoting use
by all States of a consistent
risk assessment procedure.
ods and (2) the need for an
exchange of information on
risk assessment methods and
.nl"1".'!"!,1"
•i ; ' „ f
40
35
30
X oc
aj 25
«2
o 20
<5
= 15
z
10
5
j
$3ffeKl*i**f*^ ^
LiJ ^ ! x * /*,
? ,
°
Newspaper
Notices
o (
* s ^ r^
'/""'- !
V1
yx- ^ ^
•* i * o
b * ^
Signs at
Waterbodies
/ '" s ; '
' .';'.'-/,
•v •*
'?° ^ V " o *
<*'"<• v* ' *
•c -s -* *
• v , , ' ' -j£''f?M'''!i\~
v ,fJKyv.'$£%y
TV/
Other
Media
Notices in
Public
Buildings
I «i |J*
4 ?
iSiJd
,^s<^
", V
* Jr I
I Source; R. A" Cunningham;' j'.' Mi Mebarthy,' 6" Zetland, "Results of'ttie 1d89 Census 'of "State fish/Shellfish Consumption
Advisory Programs, Prepared for Office of Water Regulations and Standards, 1990.
Figure 4. Major Means by Which the Public is Notified of Fish/Shellfish Consumption
Advisories
11 111
-------
Ground-Water
Quality and
Protection
-------
-------
7
Ground-Water
Quality
Introduction
Ground water is a vital
natural resource that is
withdrawn for domestic use,
irrigation, industrial use,
and livestock. In many parts
of the United States, ground
water is the only reliable
source of drinking water or
irrigation water. Ktowever,
this vital resource is quite
vulnerable to contamination.
An increasing number of
pollution incidents affecting
both public water supplies
and private wells have been
reported throughout the
country. As a result of a
growing awareness of the
importance of this resource
and its vulnerability, many
States and Territories (here-
after referred to as States)
are developing and expand-
ing upon legislation, regula-
tions, and programs to pro-
tect ground water.
Ground-water protection is
especially important because
of the difficulty and expense
involved in remediating
contaminated aquifers, pro-
viding alternative water
supplies, or adding treat-
ment to public water sys-
tems. The States have iden-
tified a broad range of con-
taminants and contamina-
tion sources, such as under-
ground storage tanks, septic
systems, and landfills. Con-
trolling these sources of
contamination has become a
primary focus of State
ground-water protection
programs.
EPA compiled the informa-
tion reported in this chapter
primarily from 1990 305(b)
State Water Quality Reports.
EPA requested that each
State provide information
concerning its ground-water
protection program, the
sources of ground-water
contamination identified in
the State, and the contami-
111
-------
Ground-Water Quality
nants observed in the State's
ground water in their 305(b)
reports.
The Agency remains com-
mitted to working with
States and others in the
ground-water community to
develop indicators that could
be used to measure trends in
ground-water quality. To
date, EPA has developed a
preliminary set of ground-
water quality protection
indicators, which includes
maximum, contaminant level
violations in water supplies,
extent of contamination from
hazardous waste sites, ambi-
ent volatile organic com-
pound and nitrate levels in
ground water, and the extent
of agricultural pesticide use.
Several States have ex-
pressed interest in using
indicators as part of Section
305(b) reporting in place of,
or in addition to, current
ground-water information
reporting. Because not all
States had data readily
available to provide indicator
information for the 1990
report, EPA proposed that
this information be voluntary
for 1990 and that the States
begin reporting of indicator
information for inclusion in
1992. In addition, EPA re-
quested that States voluntar-
ily report additional data
indicating ground-water
protection activities. This
chapter summarizes the data
provided by 46 States and 2
Territories and the District
of Columbia; data were not
available for 4 States and 2
Territories.
In addition to the data
from the State 305(b)
reports, this chapter reports
supplemental ground-water
use data from the U.S. Geo-
logical Survey 1986 National
Water Summary and 1988
Open File Report 88-112.
The Agency also consulted
reports prepared by the U.S.
EPA Office of Ground-Water
Protection, including The
1989 Urban Institute's State
Management of Ground
Water: Assessment of Prac-
tices and Progress and the
1990 Environmental Law
Institute's Survey and Analy-
sis of State Ground-Water
Classification Systems and
Program Operations.
This chapter consists of
three sections that summa-
rize the following informa-
tion: ground-water with-
drawals and use, ground-
water quality, and ground-
water protection indicators.
4.8-9.7 BGD
2.4-4.8 BGD
111 1.5-2.4 BGD
| | 0-1.5 BGD
* BGD=Billion gallons per day
PR I I
VII I
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports and 1986 USGS National Water Summary.
Figure 7-1. National Distribution of Ground-Water Withdrawals by State/Territory
112
-------
Ground-Water Quality
90
80
70
Q
1
Jj>
"co
O
to
I 60
in
_tn
CO
73
50
40
30
J_
_L
_L
J_
_L
J_
I
1950 1955
1960
1965 1970
Year
1975 1980 1985
Source: 1988 U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 88-112.
Figure 7-2. National Withdrawals of Ground Water, 1950-1985
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports and 1986 USGS National Water Summary.
Figure 7-3. Ground Water as a Source for Domestic Supply
(as a Percentage of State Population)
Current
Ground-Water
Use
In 1985, ground-water
withdrawals in the United
States totaled 80 billion
gallons per day. As can be
seen in Figure 7-1, the ma-
jority of these withdrawals
were concentrated in a small
number of States. California
and Texas both withdrew
more than 10 billion gallons
per day and account for
greater than one-quarter of
the Nation's total withdraw-
als. Pour other States—
Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas,
and Nebraska—each with-
drew more than 4-1/2 billion
gallons of ground water per
day.
The national use of ground
water has grown signifi-
cantly over the last 40 years.
Figure 7-2 shows that
ground-water withdrawals
increased steadily between
1950 and 1980 from 34 bil-
lion gallons per day to 83
billion gallons per day.
Then, withdrawals declined
somewhat between 1980 and
1985 from 83 to 73 billion
gallons per day.
Nationally, about 51 per-
cent of the U.S. population
relies to some extent on
ground water as a source of
drinking water. Figure 7-3
depicts the geographic distri-
bution of the Nation's reli-
ance on ground water for
domestic supply. This reli-
ance varies considerably
across States. Nine States—
Florida, Hawaii, Idaho,
Minnesota, Mississippi,
Nebraska, New Mexico,
South Dakota, and
113
-------
Ground-Water Quality
Virginia— depend on ground
water to supply drinking
water for 75 percent or more
of their populations. The
vast majority of the rural
population in nearly aU the
States relies on potable or
treatable ground-water
sources to provide economi-
cal supplies of water for
domestic use. Only Colo-
rado, the District of Colum-
bia, Rhode Island, and
Puerto Rico rely on ground
water as a drinking water
supply for less than 25 per-
cent of their populations.
Ground water is also used
for irrigation, industrial
purposes, and watering live-
stock. As shown in Figure
7-4, 67 percent of all ground-
water withdrawals in the
United States are used for
irrigation, 14 percent are
consumed by industry, and
less than 2 percent are used
for watering livestock. The
percentage of ground-water
withdrawals for uses other
than drinking water varies
considerably among the
States. In the East and
Urban Domestic Supply Rural Domestic Supply (4.4%)
(13.8%) ^^^^^^
Industry (13.5%)
Irrigation (66,9%)
Livestock (1.5%)
Source: 1986 USGS National Water Summary.
Figure 7-4. National Uses of Ground Water
South, withdrawals are used
primarily for industrial and
domestic purposes; in the
West, most ground water is
withdrawn for irrigation.
«
Ground-Water
Quality
The 1990 Section 305(b)
State Water Quality Reports
indicate that, overall, the
Nation's ground-water qual-
ity is good to excellent.
Twenty-four States made
some judgment concerning
the quality of their ground
water: 9 States judged their
ground-water quality to be
excellent, 14 judged their
ground-water quality to be
good, and 1 reported that its
overall water quality was
poor. Generally, ground-
water degradation has
occurred only in local prob-
lem areas.
Many States are engaging
in studies to better under-
stand the quality of their
ground water, to identify
potential sources of contami-
nation, and to determine the
vulnerability of the resource
to pollution. Thirty-four
States reported that they
have conducted broad
ground-water quality stud-
ies, with an average of two to
five studies reported by each
State. Since 1988, the num-
ber of studies conducted has
generally increased by one or
two per State.
One type of study con-
ducted by the States involved
investigations of point source
impacts on ground water,
such as from underground
storage tanks, septic sys-
tems, or surface impound-
ments. In addition, nonpoint
source contamination by
pesticides or nitrates was an
area of particular concern to
the States—22 States report
having conducted at least
one study dealing with this
type of contamination.
An example of a nonpoint
source study is the Pesticide
Pilot Study initiated by
Washington State to deter-
mine whether pesticides
migrate into ground water
under conditions of normal
agricultural usage. Out of
the 81 wells sampled in the
study, pesticides were de-
tected in 23, with roughly a
third of those detections
exceeding recommended
criteria. Nitrates were de-
tected in 61 wells, with
roughly a third of these de-
tections also exceeding the
drinking water standard.
Other types of studies
include inventories of
ground-water contamination
incidents or potential con-
tamination sources, ground-
water sampling surveys,
land use studies, and studies
of regional contamination
problems. Rhode Island's
Private Well Survey was
initiated to investigate the
effects of eight land uses that
could potentially contami-
nate ground water. In this
survey, private wells were
sampled for volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and pes-
ticides. VOCs were detected
in 27 percent of the wells
sampled, and pesticides were
detected in 11 percent.
Some States conducted
aquifer studies, ground-
water quality characteriza-
tion and classification, or
studies that identified and
evaluated sources of data on
ground water. An example
of an aquifer study is Utah's
project to define and describe
in three dimensions the
aquifers in western Kane
County, to identify aquifer
114
-------
Ground-Water Quality
recharge areas, and to pro-
vide the maps necessary to
begin classification of the
ground water in these aqui-
fers.
Overview of
Contamination
Sources
EPA requested that the
States identify and rank the
severity of sources of ground-
water contamination in their
States. Of the 57 States, 42
ranked sources of contamina-
tion. The most frequently
cited sources of contamina-
tion were underground stor-
age tanks, septic systems,
municipal landfills, agricul-
tural activities, and aban-
doned hazardous waste sites.
Road salting and saltwater
intrusion were the sources
cited least often by the
States. In addition to the
sources listed in Figure 7-5,
the States noted contamina-
tion from urban and storm-
water runoff, hazardous
material spills, and mining
activities as potential
sources.
Figure 7-5 illustrates the
States' rankings of the sever-
ity of the threat to ground-
water quality from these
sources of contamination.
Underground storage tanks
were by far the most fre-
quently ranked contamina-
tion source (39 times) as well
as the source most frequently
ranked most important (21
times). Septic systems were
ranked second (24 times),
although they were ranked
as the most important source
by only four States. Munici-
pal landfills were ranked
third (23 times), and agricul-
tural activities were fourth
(19 times). Agricultural
activities and abandoned
hazardous waste sites were
each ranked as the most
important source of contami-
nation by eight States.
Since 1986, there have
been only minor differences
in the sources ranked as
priority concerns by the
States. Underground stor-
age tanks, septic systems,
municipal landfills, agricul-
tural activities, abandoned
hazardous waste sites, and
surface impoundments have
continued to be the sources of
ground-water contamination
most often noted as concerns
by the States.
Overview of
Contaminants
The States were also asked
to identify the most preva-
lent contaminants observed
in their ground •water (see
Underground Storage Tanks
Septic Tanks
Municipal Landfills
Agricultural Activity
Abandoned Hazardous Waste Sites
Surface Impoundments
Injection Wells
Other Landfills
Regulated Hazardous Waste Sites
Industrial Landfills
Land Applications
Road Salt
Salt Water
1st Priority
2nd Priority
3rd Priority
4th Priority
5th Priority
_J ^_
10 20 30
Number of States and Territories
(42 Reported)
40
Source: 1990 State Section 305(b) reports.
Figure 7-5. Priority Ranking of Ground-Water Contamination Sources by Number
of States and Territories Reporting
115
-------
Ground-Water Quality
Figure 7-6). Nitrates were
identified as a contaminant
by 37 States, metals by 33
States, pesticides by 32
States, and both petroleum
products and VOCs by 31
States. Brine, synthetic
organic chemicals, fluorides,
and radioactive contami-
nants were reported by 23,
21, 21, and 18 States, respec-
tively. Arsenic, other agri-
cultural chemicals, and other
contaminants (e.g., bacteria
and solvents) were the con-
taminants reported least
often (reported by 17,17, and
14 States, respectively).
Between 1986 and 1990
the number of States report-
ing sewage contamination
problems decreased while
detections of pesticides in-
creased to become one of the
most pressing sources of
concern. In 1988, the most
important sources of
contamination were nitrates,
pesticides, VOCs, petroleum
products, metals, and brine.
The same contaminants were
reported most often in 1990.
The only significant change
between 1988 and 1990 was
an increase in the number of
States reporting fluoride
detections, from 14 States to
21.
Indicators of
Ground-Water
Protection
Activities
Developing the ability to
measure trends in ground-
water quality was one of the
key recommendations of
EPA's 1986 Ground-Water
Strategy. In response to this
recommendation, the Office
of Ground-Water Protection
has developed a set of indica-
tors that the EPA and the
States can use to track
progress and set priorities in
ground-water protection
efforts. The set of ground-
water indicators includes
• Maximum contaminant
level (MCL) violations in
public drinking water sys-
tems supplied by ground
water, which provides an
indication of the risk to popu-
lations supplied by ground
water;
• Extent of onsite and offsite
contamination at hazardous
waste sites and the popula-
tions at risk from exposure to
contamination;
• Ambient VOC levels in
ground water;
• Ambient nitrate levels in
ground water; and
Contaminant
Nitrates
Metals
Pesticides
Petroleum
Volatile Organic Compounds
Brine
Synthetic Organic Compounds
Fluorides
Radioactive Material
Arsenic
Other Agricultural Chemicals
Other Contaminants
10 20 30
Number of States and Territories
(42 Reported)
Source: 1990 Slate Section 305(b) reports.
Figure 7-6. Most Frequently Observed Ground-Water Contaminants by Number
of States and Territories Reporting
116
-------
Ground-Water Quality
• Extent of agricultural
pesticide use.
These indicators are
assessed based on existing
data and/or data that can be
readily collected by the
States over time. The indica-
tors also lend themselves to
graphic display to convey
trends in ground-water qual-
ity and vulnerability.
In its guidelines for prepa-
ration of the 1990 State
305(b) reports, the EPA
encouraged the States to use
one or more of the indicators,
where data were available,
as part of their 1990 305(b)
reporting. However, not all
States had data readily
available to provide indicator
trends. Therefore, the use of
indicators as part of the 1990
reporting process was volun-
tary and not required for the
State 305(b) report. None-
theless, 32 States provided
some quantitative data char-
acterizing one or more indi-
cators, as summarized in
Table 7-1. Thirty-one of the
reporting States provided
nitrate or pesticide* data
collected from regional or
local studies and 23 of the
32 States and Territories
provided VOC data. How-
ever, few of the States were
able to provide data charac-
terizing statewide ground-
water quality conditions.
MCL data were provided by
15 States; these'reports
included both the'total num-
ber of MCL violations and
constituent-by-constituent
summaries. A few of these
States provided data describ-
ing the population at risk
from MCL violations or con-
taminated ground water.
Only 10 States reported
information characterizing
Most pesticide data were reported in terms of detections in ground water,
rather than usage levels.
Rural water supply for a farm family.
waste sites.
Several other indicator
parameters reported by a few
of the States were salinity
levels, bacteria concentra-
tions, radioactivity levels,
and heavy metal concentra-
tions.
The range of ground-water
indicator information re-
ported by the States is exem-
plified by the following ap-
proaches.
Arizona provided data
describing the number of
RCRA and CERCLA sites in
each of its ground-water
basins. Populations relying
on ground water in those
basins in 1985 and popula-
tion estimates for the year
2000 were also provided. In
addition, Arizona reported
the number of samples and
detections for major contami-
nant types within the basins
including MCL exceedances,
VOC concentrations, and
nitrate and pesticide data
between 1987 and 1989.
Arizona also conducted sev-
eral studies, such as ground-
water quality assessments
for Phoenix and Tucson, that
have supported hydrologic
and policy documents.
Vermont reported on a
Department of Agriculture
study assessing ground-
water sources in proximity
to, and downgradient from,
field corn plots as a means of
assessing ground-water
contamination in worst case
settings. The study found
that approximately half of
the wells sampled had ni-
trate levels above 0.5 mg/L,
but 34 of 355 (10.4 percent)
were above the 10-mg/L
drinking water limit for
nitrate, which is the nitrate
MCL.
Nebraska provided VOC
data for 96 public water
117
-------
Ground-Water Quality
Table 7-1. Summary of States and Territories Reporting Ground-Water Indicators
EPA Indicators
MCLS
State
MCL
Summary
MCLS by
Contaminant
Waste Sites
RCRA
CERCLA
VOCs
Nitrates
Pesticides
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Now Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Onto
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
15
23
28
23
118
-------
Ground-Water Quality
Other Indicators
Salinity
Bacteria
Radio-
activity
Metals
10
10
J! Monitoring ground-water quality from a community well.
119
-------
Ground-Water Quality
supply systems analyzed
between 1981 and 1989.
Five of those municipal sys-
tems that were known to be
in violation of MCLs for
VOCs served a population of
74,000 people. Nebraska
also identified portions of 24
counties where ground water
is reported to be impaired by
agricultural activities.
Ohio reported that annual
tests of community well
systems found that 156 of
1,300 wells (12 percent) had
detectable VOC levels and
slightly over 1 percent of the
wells tesfed exceeded one or
more MCLs. Over the past 4
years, more than 10,000
rural wells were tested for
nitrates. Nearly 3 percent of
the sampled wells exceeded
the MCL for nitrate. In a
1988 study, Ohio EPA
sampled 35 wells in residen-
tial areas for sludge effluent.
Elevated nitrate levels were
reported, although there was
little or no organic contami-
nation.
Kansas reported data from
its ground-water monitoring
network. The wells in the
network have been analyzed
for heavy metals, VOCs,
pesticides, nitrates, and
radionuclides. During 1988-
1989,113 ground-water
supply wells in Kansas were
sampled for 19 commonly
used pesticides. Fifteen
percent of the wells tested
had pesticides above detec-
tion levels. The most com-
monly detected pesticides
were atrazine, alachlor,
metolachlor, metribuzin, and
bromacil. These same pesti-
cides appeared in significant
amounts in. wells sampled
from 1986 to 1987. The
number of wells exceeding
EPA's Health Advisory Level
(HAL) rose threefold between
1986 and 1989, from 4 to 12.
As a result, the State re-
ported that, following the
1988-89 pesticide monitoring
activities, two wells exceed-
ing the HAL were removed
from use, one was plugged,
several are on standby sta-
tus, and four are still in use.
Wisconsin monitored
approximately 3,700 wells
Leaking underground storage tanks can cause ground-water contamination.
for nitrates in 1988 because
nitrates represent a state-
wide cause of contamination,
and the State perceives ni-
trate data as ideal to evalu-
ate long-term trends in
ground-water quality. Addi-
tionally, the Department of
Agriculture, Trade, and
Consumer Protection
(DATCP) sampled for ni- ,
trates at 534 randomly se-
lected wells on Wisconsin
Grade A dairy farms be-
tween 1988 and 1989. This
study found that 255 wells
(48 percent) had nitrate
concentrations above the
Preventive Action Limit
(PAL) of 2 mg/L, and 55
wells (10 percent) had
nitrate concentrations ex-
ceeding the Enforcement
Standard (ES) of 10 mg/L.
The DATCP study and other
statewide studies have led
Wisconsin to estimate that
10 percent of domestic wells,
or 70,000 of the 700,000
wells in the State, have ni-
trate concentrations above
the drinking water standard
of 10 mg/L.
Wisconsin also reported on
the population at risk from
contamination at Superfund
sites in the State. At Wis-
consin's 34 National Priori-
ties List (NPL) sites, the
total population at risk
within 1 mile of these sites
totals 104,294; within 2
miles of these sites, 261,129;
and within 3 miles, 648,223.
Although ground-water
indicator information was
optional for the 1990 reports,
EPA plans to move tftward
inclusion of ground-water
indicators as a major ele-
ment in the 1992 305(b)
report and will work with
State representatives to
select the indicators to be
used for this reporting.
120
-------
8
State and Federal
Ground-Water
Protection
Programs
State Programs
States are currently in-
volved in a number of activi-
ties to address ground-water
contamination and sources of
contaminants. These activi-
ties include: adopting and
implementing State Ground-
Water Protection Strategies;
enacting legislation aimed at
the development of compre-
hensive ground-water protec-
tion programs and promul-
gating protection regula-
tions; adopting ground-water
classification and mapping
programs; establishing Well-
head Protection Programs;
developing ground-water
quality standards and moni-
toring systems; developing
special source controls for
contaminating sources; and
establishing procedures to
enhance coordination of
ground-water protection
programs among State agen-
cies. This chapter summa-
rizes State activity in these
areas, describes components
of several States' programs,
and briefly outlines Federal
ground-water protection
activities.
The status of State
ground-water protection
programs is further summa-
rized in Table 8-1. The table
identifies
• Ground-Water Strategies
adopted by the State or
under development;
• Wellhead Protection
Programs that have been
submitted, approved, or
reviewed by EPA;
• Specific legislative
authority to develop and
implement ground-water
programs and/or regulations;
• Any regulation specifically
aimed at protecting ground
water;
121
-------
Ground-Water Protection Programs
Table 8-1. Ground-Water Programs
Ground- Ground-
Ground- Wellhead Ground- Ground- Water Water
Water Protection Water Water Protection Monitoring
State Strategy Program Legislation Regulations Standards System
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
Now 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
O — — — • .
O — • • —
A • • • •
e — — — —
v • — • • —
0 • — • —
O • • < • —
O — • • —
A • • • •
0 • • • •
O — • — •
0 • • • V
O • • • •
O • — • —
O •
A •
A — 1
O •
O •
0 —
O • -
O •
V •
A •
V • •
O •
O — - -
O — -
A •
O •
O •
O —
A —
O
- O -
O
O
0
A
A
0
0
A
9
O
A
O
Wyoming — V
American Samoa — V
Guam — V
- • Y
r • T
— •
• •
• •
• —
• •
. — •
• —
••• •
• •
• •
• —
• •
• :
\ I
i i
^ ^ ~
Northern Mariana
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Totals
44
V
9
17 Approved
37
36
41
35
—Not reported.
• Program in place.
O Program under development.
A Program in revision or review.
T No program.
122
-------
Ground-Water Protection Programs
Classification/
Mapping
Program
Special
Source
Controls
Interagency
Coordination
• Numeric or narrative
ground-water protection
standards;
• Ground-water monitoring
programs consisting of a
network of wells periodically
sampled and analyzed for
specific parameters;
• Classification or mapping
programs;
• Special controls that fea-
ture innovative methods to
control specific contamina-
tion sources; and
• A plan, committee, or
advisory group established to
coordinate interagency
ground-water protection
programs.
Ground-Water
Protection Strategies
Of a total of 56 States
and Territories (hereafter
referred to as States), 44
have adopted, or are in the
process.of developing,
ground-water protection
strategies. At least 30 of
these States directly refer-
enced their strategy in their
State 305(b) reports. The
general content of these
strategies includes: selection
of goals and objectives for the
ground-water problems in
the State; development of a
ground-water classification
system; program coordina-
tion mechanisms for local,
State, and Federal ground-
water protection activities;
public education and/or in-
volvement; development of
an interagency ground-water
data collection system; legis-
lative recommendations
pertaining to the regulation
of contaminating sources;
development of a ground-
water monitoring system;
establishment of a Wellhead
Protection Program; im-
provement of existing State
ground-water protection
programs; and development
of statewide standards for
39
24
23
An old hand pump provides drinking water when the electric pump
fails.
123
-------
Ground-Water Protection Programs
ground-water quality. Two
examples of State strategies
that employ the ground-
water protection mecha-
nisms identified above are
discussed here.
The Texas Ground-Water
Protection Strategy,,pub-
lished in 1988, is intended to
be a flexible outline of the
Texas Ground-Water Protec-
tion Committee's goals, with
recommendations for imple-
mentation. The Strategy
identifies opportunities to
improve existing programs
as they apply to ground wa-
ter and suggests where coor-
dination programs would
provide needed or added
protection. In addition, the
Strategy outlines goals,
needs, and recommendations
in six important areas:
interagency coordination,
hazardous and nonhazardous
materials management,
public water supply, rural
water supply, research, and
legislation. Also included is
the expansion of coordination
with local governments and
increased efforts to educate
the public on ground-water
issues.
Missouri published its
Ground-Water Protection
Strategy in 1987. New ini-
tiatives included in the strat-
egy are: initiation of a for-
mal interagency ground-
water data collection system;
development and use of a
computer-assisted data man-
agement system; develop-
ment of a classification sys-
tem; promotion of a bill al-
lowing the State to regulate
underground storage tanks
(USTs); and increasing edu-
cational activities related to
ground water.
To achieve the goals of
their Strategies, many States
have enacted comprehensive
ground-water protection
legislation and/or have devel-
oped regulatory programs
aimed at controlling contami-
nation sources. This section
describes State ground-water
protection legislation and
Exploratory soil boring operation for the placement of a ground-water monitoring well.
regulations and summarizes
State programs currently in
place.
Ground-Water
Protection
Legislation
Although most of the
States can claim authority to
develop ground-water protec-
tion programs under general
clean water statutes, at least
37 of the 56 States report
some form of current or
pending legislation geared
specifically to ground-water
protection. Generally, legis-
lation focuses on the need for
increased data collection,
public education activities,
and program development;
and many mandate strict
technical controls such as
discharge permits, UST
registration, and protection
standards. Additionally,
some States have enacted
legislation establishing a
State policy to restore and
maintain ground-water qual-
ity and remediate pollution
that has already occurred.
For example, Idaho en-
acted the Ground-Water
Protection Act in 1989, which
established a Ground-Water
Quality Council consisting of
agency, citizen, and industry
representatives. The Coun-
cil's task is to develop a
statewide comprehensive
plan for protection of ground-
water quality. In addition,
one priority topic for Council
consideration is development
of a ground-water monitoring
program.
South Dakota's Centennial
Environmental Protection
Act of 1989 includes statu-
tory authority for ground-
water protection activities
that include: development of
a voluntary Wellhead Protec-
124
-------
Ground-Water Protection Programs
tion Program; water quality
analysis for new domestic
wells; certification of small
onsite wastewater disposal
system installers; pesticide
and agricultural chemical
management plans to protect
water quality; establishment
of a ground-water protection
fund for the development
and implementation of
ground-water management
and protection programs
designated by the Legisla-
ture; regulation of all bulk
chemical storage with poten-
tial to contaminate public
water supplies; establish-
ment of a 5-year State
ground-water research and
• education program and fund
for specific projects; and
establishment of an advisory
group to direct the research
and education program.
Ground-Water
Protection
Regulations
Of the 56 States respond-
ing, 36 report that they have
established regulations spe-
cifically to protect ground
water. In general, the
State's ground-water protec-
tion regulations stipulate
controls for the management
of specific sources of contami-
nation and standards for
ground-water quality protec-
tion. These standards may
be used to apply limits on the
allowable discharges from
contamination sources or to
set contaminant concentra-
tion targets or threshold
levels for ground-water
cleanup.
In 1989, Oregon adopted
Statewide Ground-Water
Quality Protection Rules,
which provided the State
Department of Environmen-
tal Quality with an overall
strategy for protecting
ground-water quality. The
Electromagnetic surveying is used to delineate geometry of a ground-water contaminant plume.
Rules require prevention of
contamination of ground
water through the use of best
available technology. They
also establish mandatory
minimum ground-water
quality protection require-
ments for permitted sources
whose treatment and dis-
posal of wastes and waste-
water could affect ground
water.
New Mexico adopted a
comprehensive set of State
ground-water protection
regulations that are designed
to protect all ground waters
with total dissolved solids
(TDS) concentrations of
10,000 mg/L or less for
current and potential use as
domestic and agricultural
water supply. Also, the regu-
lations establish 47 numeric
ground-water quality stan-
dards and require discharge
plans applying to dischargers
to surface impoundments
and leach fields, application
of wastes to land, and well
injection.
Ground-Water
Protection Standards
Ground-water protection
standards can involve either
narrative standards describ-
ing nondegradation goals or
numeric standards that set
threshold health-based con-
centrations for specific com-
pounds in ground water.
Forty-one States report that
they have adopted either
narrative or numeric protec-
tion standards. Of those
States, at least 26 have indi-
cated that they have numeric
standards and some may
have both. Arizona's Depart-
ment of Health Services is
currently developing health-
based guidance levels for
223 chemicals including
125
-------
' Ground-Water Protection Programs
pesticides, organics, metals,
and other inorganics. The
new guidance levels are
intended to replace the exist-
ing standards.
Wisconsin has adopted
numerical standards for 74
substances including 24
VOCs, nitrates, certain pesti-
cides, and radium. Both
preventive action levels and
enforcement standards have
heen established. The pre-
ventive action levels are set
as a percentage of the
ground-water quality stan-
dard or background concen-
tration so that problems can
be recognized, addressed,
and corrected before the
standard is exceeded. Other
States have used Federal
primary and secondary
MCLs as a means for early
warning and differential
protection of ground water.
«
Wellhead Protection
Programs
Since the reauthorization
and amendments of the Safe
Drinking Water Act in 1986,
many States and local gov-
ernments are actively mov-
ing to develop and imple-
ment Wellhead Protection
(WHP) Programs. Section
. 1428 of the Act specifies that
each State must prepare a
WHP Program and submit it
to EPA. To date, EPA has
approved Wellhead Protec-
tion Programs in 14 States
and is working with 32
States to develop a program
or revise a previously sub-
mitted program. Ehode
Island's approved program
provides a mechanism for
increased protection of
ground water supplied by
public systems through ef-
forts at the State and local
level. The program sets a
high priority for source con-
trols and remediation efforts
in Wellhead Protection Areas
and provides technical infor-
mation and administrative
tools to local governments
and suppliers. Texas is cur-
rently implementing a coop-
erative WHP program de-
signed to address and miti-
gate contamination in spe-
cific geographic areas sur-
rounding public supply wells
or wellfields. The Texas
Water Commission, in coop-
eration with several other
State agencies, is working to
develop a statewide agricul-
tural chemicals and agricul-
tural agents management
plan. The plan will address
aquifer vulnerability, agri-
cultural chemical contamina-
tion potential, specific pesti-
cide management plans, and
interagency coordination.
In addition, EPA provides
State and local governments
with extensive assistance for
developing Wellhead Protec-
tion Programs, including
technical assistance docu-
ments, workshops, training
sessions, and pilot projects.
Ground-Water
Classification/
Mapping Programs
Thirty-eight States report
active programs to classify or
map vulnerable ground-
water supplies. Of these 38
States, 22 have a formal
system for designating
ground-water classes. The
States have incorporated
elements of the Federal
Ground-Water Classification
Guidelines, such as ground-
water use, ground-water
quality, and hydrogeology;
however, no State has relied
totally on the Federal guide-
lines. Instead, State classifi-
cation programs are tailored
to specific needs and prob-
lems of the individual State.
For example, Montana has
established a ground-water
classification system based
on specific conductance (100
|0,mho/cm to 15,000 ^mho/cm
at 25 °C) and suitability for
various beneficial uses. Con-
necticut designates four
classes of ground water in
terms of ground-water use or
quality and permissible
discharges. Minnesota has a
statewide ground-water
susceptibility mapping pro-
gram that delineates various
levels of ground-water con-
tamination susceptibility.
The project uses mapped
data from several sources on
soil, vadose zone and aquifer
material, and recharge po-
tential as input data. A
newly funded mapping
project will develop guide-
lines for mapping geologic
sensitivity at a county scale
in an effort to further de-
velop ground-water suscepti-
bility information.
Ground-Water
Monitoring Programs
Thirty-four States report
having active monitoring
programs of some kind to
assess ground-water quality.
Monitoring ranges from
limited sampling of existing
drinking water wells to peri-
odic analyses of wells in-
stalled for the purpose of
long-term monitoring. For
example, Ohio maintains a
statewide ambient ground-
water quality network con-
sisting of 130 stations, which
includes public water supply
wells and industrial/commer-
cial wells. The network char-
acterizes ambient ground-
water quality for each of
126
-------
Ground-Water Protection Programs
Ohio's major aquifer sys-
tems. The monitoring pro-
gram also measures the
quality of ground water used
for drinking water and iden-
tifies regional or local
ground-water impacts from
diffuse or nonpoint sources of
contamination.
Other States require all
community water systems to
be tested periodically for
contaminants, such as organ-
ics. Florida tests community
water systems for 118 or-
ganic contaminants includ-
ing most of the priority pol-
lutants as well as certain
pesticides known to be used
in the State and suspected to
be polluting ground water.
Special Controls
on Specific
Contamination
Sources
At least 23 States have
established some type of
special control on specific
contamination sources, such
as landfills, septic systems,
and underground injection
wells. In addition, States
have adopted specific con-
trols on other minimally
regulated sources of contami-
nation. For example, Idaho
has established a building
moratorium in an area of the
State where central sewers
are not available. In addi-
tion, the State adopted new
regulations that require that
hazardous waste facilities be
sited in locations where the
risk of ground-water con-
tamination is minimal.
In 1989, Arizona imple-
mented the Aquifer Protec-
tion Permit system, which
requires permits for most
discharge activities and
requires BMPs for agricul-
tural activities. Maine re-
quires that sand-salt mix-
tures be stored in watertight
storage buildings. Also,
Rhode Island has banned the
use of septic system cleaners
Measurement of ground-water levels in a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ground-water
monitoring well.
that use organic solvents and
acids, but this provision is
difficult to enforce.
Coordination of
Protection Programs
Among State
Agencies
Historically, ground-water
protection programs have
been overseen by many dif-
ferent agencies within the
States, making coordination
difficult for those programs.
Coordinating the activities of
these, agencies to ensure an
effective ground-water pro-
tection program has become
a top priority in many States.
Twenty-two States report
having developed a plan to
coordinate ground-water
protection programs among
the State agencies.
' In particular, Louisiana
established the Ground-
Water Advisory Group,
whose members represent
State and local governmental
agencies that have regula-
tory authority and technical
expertise applicable to
ground-water protection and
their cooperating agencies.
The Group's purpose is to
coordinate members' efforts,
review State agency plans of
action, and assist in coordi-
nating resources toward
implementation of the
State's Ground-Water Pro-
tection Strategy.
The Illinois State Environ-
mental Protection Agency,
Department of Energy and
Natural Resources, Depart-
ment of Public Health, and
Department of Agriculture
cooperated in the develop-
ment of a ground-water edu-
cation program. In Virginia,
the Ground-Water Data
Management Task Force will
implement an interagency-
127
-------
Ground-Water Protection Programs
shared data system in 1990.
Also, the Texas Ground-
Water Protection Committee
has responsibilities including
improving interagency coor-
dination and publishing an
interagency ground-water
report.
EPA Programs
The Federal Government
has instituted a number of
laws and programs to protect
the Nation's ground water.
As shown in Table 8-2, these
include both Federal statutes
that mandate certain other
ground-water protection
activities and EPA programs
that deal specifically with
the control and study of
contaminant sources activi-
ties conducted under the
authority of Federal statutes.
Legislation
The Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA) and its
1986 amendments created
three programs to protect
ground water—the Under-
ground Injection Control
Program, the Sole Source
Aquifer Program, and the
Wellhead Protection Pro-
gram. The Underground
Injection Control Program
establishes technical criteria
and standards for the con-
struction, operation, monitor-
ing, and testing of wells to
control the underground
injection of wastes. Many
States reported enforcing
their own underground injec-
tion control programs. The
Sole Source Aquifer Program
authorizes EPA to undertake
a special review of possible
ground-water impacts from
federally funded projects in
designated areas that receive
Federal financial assistance.
The Wellhead Protection
Program provides assistance
to States to develop pro-
grams to protect the well-
head area of all public water
systems from ground-water
contaminants that may
adversely affect human
health. EPA has published
guidelines to assist the
States in developing their
Wellhead Protection Pro-
grams.
The Clean Water Act
(CWA) authorizes two pro-
grams directly relevant to
ground-water protection—
the CWA Section 106 Grant
Program and the Nonpoint
Source Control Strategies.
The CWA Section 106 Grant
Program supports State
programs to improve institu-
tional capabilities through
the development of State
ground-water protection
strategies. The Nonpoint
Source Management Pro-
grams are required from the
States by the 1987 CWA
Amendments. Under CWA
Section 319, States must
describe strategies to identify
best management practices
and identify appropriate
State and local nonpoint
source control programs to
implement the best manage-
Table 8-2. EPA Ground-Water Protection Programs
and Statutes
Statutes
• Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
• Clean Water Act (CWA)
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA or "Superfund")
• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA)
Programs
• National Pesticide Survey
• Pesticides in Ground-Water Strategy
• Ground-Water Protection Strategy
• Ground-Water Task Force
Toxic agricultural chemicals are tank-mixed in preparation for
application by tractor-driven sprayer.
128
-------
Ground-Water Protection Programs
merit practices. In addition,
under Section 319(i), the
EPA Administrator may
make grants to States to
conduct ground-water qual-
ity protection activities that
will advance the State to-
ward implementing a com-
prehensive nonpoint source
pollution control program.
The Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act
(RCRA) established a num-
ber of programs that provide
for ground-water protection
and cleanup. These pro-
grams emphasize prevention
of releases to ground water
and other environmental
media through management
standards and cleanup re-
quirements. Most States are
currently managing or devel-
oping new programs derived
from the following major
sections of RCRA: Subtitle
C, Hazardous Waste; Sub-
title D, Solid Waste; and
Subtitle I, Underground
Storage Tanks. Subtitle C
requires design, operating,
and closure standards for all
hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal facili-
ties. It also requires post-
closure care and ground-
water monitoring for land
disposal facilities. Subtitle D
requires minimum national
management standards for
municipal solid waste land-
fills to be adopted and imple-
mented by States. Subtitle I
requires EPA to develop a
comprehensive program for
managing certain categories
of underground storage
tanks containing petroleum
and chemical substances.
The Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Lia-
bility Act (CERCLA) and
the Superfund Amend-
ments and Reauthoriza-
tion Act of 1986 (SARA)
created several programs
currently operated.by EPA
and States that act to protect
or clean up contaminated
ground water. Using its
emergency response author-
ity under "Super-fund," EPA
responds to releases of haz-
ardous substances into the
environment, thereby remov-
ing those hazardous sub-
stances before they have the
opportunity to contaminate
ground water. In a Super-
fund remedial action, EPA
undertakes long-term efforts
to provide a permanent rem-
edy to existing releases of
hazardous wastes that pose a
serious, but not immediate,
danger to public health.
Remedial actions often in-
volve cleaning up contami-
nated ground water. The
"Title III" Emergency Plan-
ning and Community Right-
to-Know Act (a free-standing
act created as part of SARA)
requires industry and Fed-
eral, State, and local govern-
ments to work together in
developing emergency plans,
emergency release notifica-
tion procedures, "community
right-to-know" reporting, and
toxic chemical release report-
ing.
The Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenti-
cideAct (FIFRA) protects
ground water indirectly by
controlling the use of pesti-
cides- through registration
and certification procedures.
EPA may deny registration
for a pesticide if its normal
use will result in unreason-
able adverse effects on the
environment, including
ground-water contamination.
National Programs
The National Pesticide
Survey is jointly sponsored
by EPA's Offices of Drinking
Water and Pesticide Pro-
grams. It is a national sta-
tistical 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 have
been analyzed for over 100
pesticides specifically se-
lected for their propensity to
leach and their degradation
products. Each well was also
analyzed for nitrate. Based
on the results of the survey,
EPA estimates that at least
half of the Nation's drinking
water wells contain detect-
able amounts of nitrate, with
only a small percentage at
concentrations higher than
EPA's regulatory and health-
based limits for drinking
water (1.2 percent of commu-
nity water system wells and
2.4 percent of rural domestic
wells). Based on the survey,
EPA estimates that about
10 percent of the 94,600
community water system
wells in the United States
contain one or more pesti-
cides. Of the 10.5 million
rural domestic wells, EPA
estimates that 4.2 percent
contain one or more pesti-
cides.
The Pesticides in
Ground-Water Strategy
was released by the EPA
Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances in October 1991.
The Strategy's goal is to
determine the current status
of pesticides in ground water
and to evaluate the agricul-
129
-------
Ground-Water Protection Programs
tural activities with potential
to affect ground water. The
key component of the Strat-
egy is the development of
State Management Plans
(SMPs) for controlling pesti-
cide leaching to ground wa-
ter. Each State will develop
an SMP to control pesticides
that pose an unreasonable
risk to health or the environ-
ment.
The Ground-Water Pro-
tection Strategy was devel-
oped in 1984 by EPA and
provides an approach to
integrating source-specific
control and cleanup pro-
grams into a comprehensive
policy and institutional
framework for protecting the
resource. The Strategy is
aimed at strengthening State
ground-water programs and
internal ground-water orga-
nizations and coping with
unaddressed ground-water
problems. The Strategy out-
lined a three-tiered classifi-
cation system for ground
water as a policy framework
for EPA programs.
A Ground-Water Task
Force was established in
1989 by EPA to expand upon
the 1984 Ground-Water
Protection Strategy. The
Task Force was given a man-
date to review the Agency's
ground-water protection
program and to develop
concrete principles and objec-
tives to ensure effective and
consistent decisionmaking in
all Agency activities that
affect ground water. This
was necessitated by a gen-
eral understanding among
EPA managers and the
States that, despite the
progress made since 1984,
gaps still remained in the
Nation's efforts to protect the
ground-water resource com-
prehensively.
The final Task Force re-
port addressed five aspects of
the Agency's ground-water
protection program:
• EPA's Ground-Water Pro-
tection Principles—prevents
adverse effects to human
health and the environment.
• The Federal /State Rela-
tionship in Ground-Water
Protection— encourages the
States to develop ground-
water protection programs.
• Agency Policy on EPA's
Use of Quality Standards in
Ground-Water Prevention
and Remediation Activities—
describes how EPA will use
maximum contaminant lev-
els under the Safe Drinking
Water Act and water quality
standards under the Clean
Water Act as "reference
points" in carrying out
ground-water programs and
describes how these refer-
ence points will be applied
differently in prevention and
remediation activities.
• Data Management Recom-
mendations—will result in
recommendations for im-
proved ground-water data
availability, accessibility,
and utilization.
• Office of Research and
Development's Ground-Water
Research Plan—examines
research activities to ensure
that they support the needs
of Agency programs.
Leaching of toxic chemicals from landfill sites is one of the many sources of ground-water
contamination.
130
-------
-------
-------
9
Point Source
Control Program
Treating Municipal
Wastewater
Municipal treatment facili-
ties receive wastewater from
residential sources, as well
as from industry, ground-
water infiltration, and storm-
water runoff. The array of
pollutants that may be asso-
ciated with these sources
includes suspended solids,
organics, heavy metals, nu-
trients, acids, viruses, and
bacteria.
'Adequate treatment of
municipal wastewater is
important for the protection
of the Nation's water re-
sources and public health.
Without adequate treatment,
this pollution poses a poten-
tially serious threat to fish,
shellfish, and macroinverte-
brate communities, recre-
ational opportunities, surface
water drinking supplies,
ground-water drinking sup-
plies, and the general health
and stability of many of the
Nation's stream, river, lake,
estuarine, and coastal
ecosystems.
The Clean Water Act
requires municipalities to
achieve treatment levels
based on technology perfor-
mance. The 1981 CWA
amendments extended the
deadline for eligible treat-
ment plants to achieve "sec-
ondary treatment" to July 1,
1988. Secondary treatment
removes at least 85 percent
of several key conventional
pollutants. If secondary
treatment is not enough to
meet water quality stan-
dards, the Clean Water Act
mandates additional treat-
ment, as necessary.
Historically, under the
Clean Water Act, EPA has
been authorized to help mu-
nicipalities solve their waste-
water treatment problems by
providing grants for con-
struction. For this purpose,
133
-------
Point Source Control Program
$18 billion was originally
appropriated to the construc-
tion grants program. Fund-
ing has continued since the
initial appropriation in 1972,
and the Federal investment
in municipal wastewater
treatment to date is $56
billion through FY92.
Through the 1987 amend-
ments to the Clean Water
Act, the State Revolving
Fund Program was estab-
lished to follow the phaseout
of the construction grants
program. Under this pro-
gram, the Agency provides
grants to States to capitalize
the establishment of State-
run loan programs. This is a
major step in restoring the
responsibility for financing
wastewater treatment to
States and municipalities.
Congress appropriated
$6.0 billion through fiscal
year 1991 for State Revolv-
ing Funds (SRFs). In addi-
tion, Congress has autho-
rized a total of $1.8 billion for
1993 and 1994. States must
provide a 20 percent match
as part of their commitment
toward establishing their
SRFs. In addition to provid-
ing loans for construction of
wastewater treatment facili-
ties, State Revolving Funds
allow funding for activities
not previously eligible under
the construction grants pro-
gram.
The amendments of 1987
expanded eligibilities and
also led to the promulgation
of new rules related to new
enforceable requirements.
The major categories of new
eligibilities are nonpoint
source control and programs
for the protection of ground
water and estuaries. The
primary programs with new
enforceable requirements are
those dealing with storm-
water, toxic discharges, and
sludge use and disposal.
The SRF loan program
provides States with more
discretion than ever before
in selecting projects for fund-
ing. States are now able to
finance projects they may
consider to be of higher prior-
ity, such as nonpoint source,
estuarine, combined sewer
overflow, or stormwater
control projects. All States
and Puerto Rico had ap-
proved SRF programs in
place as of September 1990.
The States, in their 1990
Section 305(b) reports, pro-
vided some examples of wa-
ter quality improvements
due to municipal construc-
tion and upgrading. For
example:
• Arkansas reported that
the new Fayetteville treat-
ment plant eliminated
chronic violations of dis-
solved oxygen standards and
reduced instream phospho-
rus concentrations by almost
50 percent in the White
River. Strict phosphorus
restrictions were included in
the plant's NPDES permit to
protect Beaver Reservoir
from further degradation.
The State also observed
significant improvements in
Bayou Meto following con-
struction of a new sewage
treatment plant in Jackson-
ville during 1988. Dissolved
oxygen concentrations in-
creased and downstream
BOD concentrations de-
creased after the new plant
began operating.
• In Kentucky, 21 municipal
wastewater projects were
completed in 1988-1989, and
an additional 20 projects
were in various stages of
construction. Discharge
monitoring reports indicated,
significant reductions in
pollutants discharged follow-
ing replacement of old facili-
ties with new plants.
Municipal sewage treatment plant.
134
-------
Point Source Control Program
• Minnesota reported that
$177 million was spent to
improve the State's munici-
pal wastewater treatment
facilities during the report-
ing period. As a result, new
facilities have been com-
pleted or are under construc-
tion for all but 100 communi-
ties with an identified need
for facility improvements.
Less than 1 percent of the
served population reside in
the 100 communities that
have not addressed upgrade
needs.
• Missouri reports a 50
percent reduction in the
number of stream miles
affected by point sources
since 1984. The improve-
ments in stream quality are
attributed to the replace-
ment of multiple old plants
with single regional facilities
and enhanced performance
at existing plants resulting
from compliance activities,
operator training, and minor
plant upgrades.
• In North Dakota, the
quality of municipal waste-
water discharges has
substantially improved since
1981. Data indicate that the
mean annual 5-day biological
oxygen demand (BOD)
concentration dropped from
22 mg/L in 1981 to 13 mg/L
in 1988. • Similarly, the mean
concentration of suspended
solids declined from 44 mg/L
to 24 mg/L in 1988.
• Virginia reports that the
construction of new treat-
ment plants decreased the
total quantity of pollutants
entering the State's waters
although the total discharge
volume increased during this
time. Average annual dis-
charge almost doubled be-
tween 1976 and 1989; how-
ever, the amount of BOD
material and suspended
solids discharged was cut
almost in half. The new
treatment plants provide a
higher degree of treatment to
a greater portion of the
State's population.
Funding Needs
for Wastewater
Treatment
The Needs Survey, a bien-
nial report to Congress, is
the primary mechanism for
assessing municipal waste-
water treatment needs
nationwide. The 1990 Needs
Survey presented cost esti-
mates for needs eligible
under the construction grant
and SRF programs. How-
ever, the scope of this latest
survey was scaled down from
previous efforts. EPA ad-
justed the documented 1988
cost estimates for Federal
grants and loans awarded,
and inflated the results to
1990 dollars, to report needs
traditionally eligible for
construction grants. States
reported needs eligible under
SRF that supplement and
reflect either an increase or
decrease in EPA's estimate of
needs for the traditional
eligibilities. As a result, the
cost estimates reported in
the 1990 Needs Survey and
summarized here are not
directly comparable to those
reported in prevous years.
Table 9-1. Needs for Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment
Facilities (January 1990 Dollars, in Billions)
Needs for Traditional
Eligibilities
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 Overflows
Current
18.5
3.6
2.8
3.6
10.9
9.1
16.5
Design Year
24.9
4.7
2.8
3.6
13.8
14.1
16.5
Supplemental
State
Estimates
, 12.4
6.6
0.8
0.7
3.2
3.3
3.2
Categories I-V
65.0*
80.4
30.2
'Current needs to meet construction needs of facilities in significant noncompliance is approximately $12.0 billion,
as reported in the State Revolving Funds Final Report to Congress.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1990 Needs Survey Report to Congress.
135
-------
Point Source Control Program
The capital investment
necessary to satisfy all
categories of need for the
traditional eligibilities and
supplemental State esti-
mates is presented in Table
9-1. This table indicates that
• An estimated $65 billion is
needed to satisfy the current
or existing population. Of
this amount, approximately
$12 billion is needed to meet
the construction needs of
municipal wastewater facili-
ties in significant noncompli-
ance with the CWA require-
ments, as reported in the
SRF Final Eeport to
Congress.
• An estimated $80.4 billion
is required to satisfy needs
for the traditional eligi-
bilities for an approximate
20-year design life for
municipal facilities.
• An estimated $30.2 billion
in design year needs is re-
quired to satisfy the States'
supplemental estimates of
SEF eligible needs. These
estimates are incremental to
the traditional eligibilities
and reflect newly identified
needs, revised cost estimates
due to changed plans, the
addition of reserve capacity,
and the satisfaction of pre-
viously identified needs
through State and local
financing that did not involve
Federal assistance.
The 1990 Needs Survey
invited the reporting of new
types of eligible needs under
SRF (e.g., nonpoint source
pollution control and ground-
water, estuarine, and wet-
lands protection), as well as
needs resulting from new
enforceable requirements
(e.g., control of toxicants,
sludge use and disposal, and
stormwater). States in-
cluded needs for the control
of toxics and sludge use and
disposal as part of their
supplemental estimates for
Categories I and II, and
these needs are reported.
Only a few States submitted
needs for the newer types of
eligibilities, including storm-
water, as States indicated
estimates are still being
developed. Therefore, EPA
did not report any of these
estimates to avoid misrepre-
sentation of these needs.
Table 9-2. Status of Permit Issuance
Total Facilities
EPA-lssued:
Total
Expired
Percent
State-Issued:
Total
Expired
Percent
Major
Permits
7,102
2,021
204
10%
5,081
1,046
21%
Minor
Permits
56,791
7,412
3,033
41%
49,379
'15,821
32%
Treating Industrial
Wastewater
The Clean Water Act re-
quired EPA to establish
uniform, nationally consis-
tent effluent limitation
guidelines for industrial
discharges. At this time,
EPA has established Best
Available Technology Eco-
nomically Achievable (BAT)
and Best Conventional Pol-
lutant Control Technology
(BCT) guidelines for about
28 industrial categories.
EPA has also promulgated
technology-based guidelines
for approximately 15 addi-
tional secondary industries
that represent Best
Practicable Control Technol-
ogy Currently Available
(BPT) levels. EPA is study-
ing an additional dozen in-
dustries for future guideline
development.
In addition to these tech-
nology-based requirements,
in 1984 EPA issued a policy
on the water-quality-based
control of toxic pollutants
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 param-
eter. The use of toxicity
testing as a regulatory tool is
a relatively new concept;
however, coupled with chem-
ical testing for pollutants
that are hazards through
bioaccumulation, it provides
a powerful means of detect-
ing and controlling toxic
problems.
Source: Permit Compliance System, October 1990.
136
-------
Point Source Control Program
Permitting,
Compliance,
and Enforcement
Establishing rigorous
permit conditions is the basis
on which point source control
is achieved for industrial and
municipal dischargers.
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. Table 9-2
illustrates the status of per-
mit issuance as of October
1990.
Once the permit is estab-
lished, compliance with these
conditions is essential for
achieving water quality
improvements. Despite ex-
amples of water quality
improvements associated
with upgrading municipal
facilities, 15 percent of major
municipal treatment plants
are in significant noncompli-
Table 9-3. National Composite Rates of Facilities in
Significant Noncompliance (percent)
Quarter
Ending
12/31/83
03/31/84
06/30/84
09/30/84
12/31/84
03/31/85
06/30/85
09/30/85
12/31/85*
03/31/86*
06/30/86*
09/30/86*
12/31/86*
03/31/87*
06/30/87*
09/30/87*
12/31/87*
03/31/88*
06/30/88*
09/30/88*
12/31/88
03/31/89
06/30/89
09/30/89
12/31/89
10/23/90
Nonmunicipals
. 8
10
6
6
5
5
5
5
8
8
8
7
7
8
9
7
7
7
7
6
6
7
7
5
6
13
Municipals
19
20
14
13
12
13
10
9
14
16
15
14
14
13
16
14
14
16
14
12
12
13
12
10
10
15
'Reflects NPDES Rule Change.
ance with applicable permit
conditions. Industrial per-
mittees have historically
achieved a higher rate of
compliance, but as of October
23,1990,13 percent of direct
discharging industrial facili-
ties were in significant non-
compliance with their permit
conditions.
EPA and States with
approved NPDES programs
are responsible for ensuring
that municipal and indus-
trial facilities comply with
the terms of their discharge
permits. Currently, 39
States have approval from
EPA to administer their own
NPDES programs. This
responsibility includes issu-
ing permits, conducting com-
pliance inspections and other
compliance monitoring ac-
tivities, and enforcing com-
pliance. EPA has the lead
implementation responsibil-
ity in the remaining States.
EPA and the States evaluate
compliance by screening self-
monitoring reports submit-
ted by the permitted facility.
Facilities that are deter-
mined to be in noncompli-
ance are subject to Federal
as well as State enforcement
action.
Table 9-3 illustrates rates
of significant noncompliance
based on statistics main-
tained by EPA from June
1984 through October 1990.
It should be noted that sig-
nificant noncompliance rates
for municipals and industrial
facilities jumped in FY90
primarily because, for the
first time, EPA calculated
noncompliance directly from
its automated database.
Therefore, if data are not
entered into the Permit Com-
pliance System in a timely
manner (e.g., failure to enter
the receipt of a required
137
-------
Point Source Control Program
report within 30 days), the
system will automatically
determine that the facility is
not in compliance. EPA is
continuing to refine its track-
ing of compliance with per-
mit conditions to better re-
flect instances of noncompli-
ance by the regulated com-
munity.
National Municipal
Policy
Due to the generally poor
municipal compliance record,
and because of Congressional
concern over the perfor-
mance of treatment works
built substantially with Fed-
eral funds, EPA developed
the National Municipal
Policy (NMP) to address the
failure of POTWs to meet
treatment levels required for
compliance with the CWA.
On January 23,1984, the
EPA Administrator signed
the NMP into effect. The
NMP clarified and empha-
sized EPA's resolve to ensure
that municipalities comply
with the Clean Water Act as
quickly as possible, regard-
less of whether Federal grant
assistance was available for
treatment plant construc-
tion. The deadline estab-
lished for full compliance
with the Clean Water Act
was July 1,1988. By this
date all municipal treatment
facilities were to be in com-
pliance with the secondary
treatment requirement of
Section 301(b)(l)(B) of the
CWA or with more stringent
limitations established to
meet State water quality
standards. Of the total uni-
verse of 3,731 major munici-
pal facilities, 1,478 facilities
were identified as requiring
construction to meet the
1988 deadline. By July 1,
1988, all but 423 municipal
facilities achieved compli-
ance with the requirements.
Since the 1988 deadline, 188
facilities have come into
compliance, and, of the re-
maining 235 facilities, all but
«r;iiy jws ; 'Jfffjisjif.S'txXit-Tff, lit;!:111',:; '! 3;,, "SJr
50 have been placed on en-
forceable compliance sched-
ules. EPA is continuing to
track the progress of these
facilities in meeting the
requirements of the CWA.
In the 1987 Water Quality
Act Amendments to the
CWA, EPA was given
authority to seek administra-
tive penalties from permit-
tees in noncompliance with
the Act's requirements. EPA
issued guidance and del-
egated the authority for
issuing these orders to the
regional level in August
1987. The first Administra-
tive Penalty Order (APO)
was issued in September
1987. Through October
1990, 396 APOs have been
issued assessing a total of
$7.5 million in penalties.
These orders have been an
effective tool in expeditiously
addressing violations of the
CWA and represent an inte-
gral component of EPA's
overall enforcement strategy.
Controlling
Toxicants
The 1987 amendments to
the Clean Water Act rein-
forced both the water-
quality-based and technol-
ogy-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 strengthen-
ing the Nation's toxics
control program.
Chemical manufacturing facility along the lower Delaware River.
4
138
-------
Point Source Control Program
Identifying Waters
Impaired by
Toxicants
Section 304(1) of the CWA
requires States to develop
lists of impaired waters,
identify point sources and
the amounts of pollutants
they discharge that cause
toxic impacts, and develop an
individual control strategy
for each such point source.
These individual control
strategies are National Pol-
lutant Discharge Elimination
System permits with new or
more stringent limits on the
priority pollutants of con-
cern. The individual control
strategies must be accompa-
nied by supporting documen-
tation to show that the per-
mit limits are sufficient to
meet water quality stan-
dards as soon as possible but
no later than 3 years after
establishment of the indi-
vidual control strategy. The
general effect of Section
304(1) is to immediately focus
national surface water qual-
ity protection programs on
addressing known water
quality problems due en-
tirely or substantially to
point source discharges of
Section 307(a) toxic pollut-
ants. Controls for these
pollutants must be estab-
lished as soon as possible but
no later than the statutory
deadlines set forth in Section
304(1).
EPA has been implement-
ing control measures for all
toxic pollutants as part of its
ongoing surface water pro-
gram. Section 304(1) empha-
sizes the importance of the
water-quality-based and
technology-based approaches
in protecting surface waters
from priority toxic pollutants
and establishes a number of
one-time requirements. Af-
ter the Section 304(1) dead-
lines pass, EPA will continue
identifying impaired waters
The Clean Water Act requires States to identify waters impaired by toxics, dischargers to those waters,
and the pollutant causing toxic impacts.
and controlling the discharge
of toxic and other pollutants
through existing reporting,
standards setting, and per-
mitting programs.
In developing lists of un-
paired waters, States used a
variety of available data
sources (including State
Section 305(b) reports). At a
irdnimum, dilution analyses
were conducted based on
existing or readily available
data. EPA asked States to
assemble data quickly to
report preliminary lists of
waters, point sources, and
amounts of discharged pol-
lutants by April 1,1988, in
their Section 305(b) reports.
These lists were then to be
refined and expanded by the
statutory deadline of Febru-
ary 4,1989.
Section 304(1) encourages
the States and EPA to
address problems identified
through review of existing
and readily available data.
The States and EPA Regions
will continue to collect new
water quality data to fill
existing data gaps and en-
sure that changes in water
quality are identified.
Status of 304(1)
Implementation
(as of March 1991)
EPA's notice of approval or
disapproval of States' lists
submitted in June 1989 was
followed by a 120-day public
comment period that allowed
interested persons to com-
ment on the listed waters
and identified sources and to
petition EPA to list addi-
tional waters. The public
comment period closed on
October 4,1989, after which
EPA provided responses to
all comments and petitions.
After close of the public
139
-------
Point Source Control Program
comment period, and by June
4,1990, EPA (in most cases)
provided its final decisions
on the listed waters and
sources. Upon taking into
consideration all the com-
ments and petitions received,
EPA prepared its final deci-
sions, including any addi-
tions or deletions to the June
1989 lists as submitted by
the States.
As of March 1991, 529
waterbodies had been identi-
fied as being impaired
primarily by point source
discharges of Section 307(a)
toxic pollutants. In addition,
686 point sources were listed
as being responsible for im-
pairing the quality of those
waters. There are also
18,770 waters on the "long"
list that include all waters
impaired by any pollutant
from either point sources or
nonpoint sources. The long
list will be used for long-term
planning and setting of pri-
orities for monitoring, total
maximum daily load (TMDL)
development, nonpoint
source controls, and permit
revisions.
EPA Regions and the
States continue to work on
implementing 304(1) require-
ments. As of October 1990,
final listing decisions had
been made in 50 of the 56
States and U.S. territories,
and approximately 76 per-
cent of the Individual Con-
trol Strategies (ICSs) re-
quired were in place as EPA-
approved draft or final
NPDES permits.
Toxicity Testing
EPA's Technical Support
Document for Water Quality-
based Toxics Control urges
the use of an integrated
toxics control strategy with
both whole effluent toxicity-
based assessment procedures
and chemical-specific and
biological assessment proce-
dures to uphold State water
Sewage treatment facility settling basin.
quality standards.
The States and EPA Re-
gional offices are incorporat-
ing toxicity limits and toxic-
ity testing requirements into
permits. When toxicity test-
ing shows a permittee's dis-
charge 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) identify and
implement whatever actions
are needed to reduce effluent
toxicity to the levels specified
in the permit. TREs combine
toxicity testing, chemical
analyses, source investiga-
tions, and treatability stud-
ies to determine either the
actual causative agents of
effluent toxicity or the con-
trol methods that will reduce
effluent toxicity. EPA is
currently documenting suc-
cessful TREs conducted by
permittees, States, and EPA
researchers. Methods and
procedures for conducting
TREs are described in sev-
eral EPA guidance docu-
ments.
States are making
progress in developing the
capability to assess and
regulate toxic discharges
using these biological tech-
niques. As of June 1990, 67
percent of the States are
using the whole effluent
approach in permitting as
part of their water-quality-
based toxics control program.
For industrial permits, 58
percent of the States require
acute whole effluent toxicity
testing and 33 percent re-
quire acute whole effluent
toxicity permit limitations.
Forty-two percent of the
States require chronic whole
140
-------
Point Source Control Program
effluent toxicity testing and
28 percent require chronic
whole effluent toxicity per-
mit limitations. For munici-
pal permits, 49 percent of the
States require acute whole
effluent toxicity testing and
18 percent require acute
whole effluent toxicity per-
mit limitations. Thirty-three
percent of the States require
chronic whole effluent toxic-
ity testing and 14 percent
require chronic whole efflu-
ent permit limitations. Also,
EPA estimates that 77 per-
cent of the States are cur-
rently incorporating ambient
biosurveys into their toxics
control programs.
The National
Pretreatment
Program
The primary goal of the
National Pretreatment Pro-
gram is to protect municipal
wastewater treatment plants
and the environment from
the adverse impact that may
occur when toxic, hazardous
and concentrated conven-
tional wastes are discharged
into sewer systems from
industrial sources. To
achieve this goal, the EPA
has promulgated National
Pretreatment Standards for
pollutants that: (1) interfere
with the operation of a pub-
licly owned treatment works
(POTW), including interfer-
ence with its use or disposal
of municipal sludge; or (2)
pass through the POTW and
contaminate the receiving
stream or are otherwise
incompatible with the opera-
tion of the treatment works.
In addition, the program is
intended to improve opportu-
nities to recycle and reclaim
municipal and industrial
wastewaters and sludges.
The prevention of interfer-
ence, the prevention of pass-
through, and the improve-
ment of opportunities to
recycle wastewater and
sludge are the three regula-
tory objectives of the Na-
tional Pretreatment Pro-
gram. These objectives are
accomplished through a
pollution control strategy
with three elements:
• National Categorical
Standards: National tech-
nology-based standards de-
veloped by EPA Headquar-
ters reflecting BAT in estab-
lishing effluent limits for the
126 "priority pollutants" as
well as for conventional and
nonconventional pollutants
for specific industrial catego-
ries.
• Prohibited Discharge
Standards:
General Prohibitions —
National regulatory prohibi-
tions established by EPA
against pollutant discharges
from any nondomestic user
that cause pass-through or
interference at the POTW.
Specific Prohibitions —
National regulatory prohibi-
tions established by EPA
against pollutant discharges
from any nondomestic user
that cause: (1) fire or
explosive hazard, (2) corro-
sive structural damage, (3)
interference due to obstruc-
tion, (4) interference due to
flow rate or concentration,
(5) interference due to heat,
(6) interference from petro-
leum-based oil, and (7) acute
worker health and safety
problems from toxic gases.
• Local Limits: Enforce-
able local effluent limitations
developed by POTWs on a
case-by-case basis to reflect
site-specific concerns and
implement the Federal gen-
eral and specific prohibited
discharge standards as well
as State and local regula-
tions.
To ensure the success of
the pretreatment program,
EPA also issues guidance
documents and has con-
ducted scores of training
seminars to assist POTWs in
developing, implementing,
and enforcing effective pre-
treatment programs.
The primary focus for
pretreatment implementa-
tion is at the local level, since
the POTW is in the best
position to regulate its indus-
trial users. States may be-
come involved in pretreat-
ment implementation
through a formal approval
process in which the Federal
Government transfers its
oversight responsibilities to
the State. The Federal Gov-
ernment, through the EPA,
is involved in pretreatment
through standard setting,
policy development, and
oversight of program imple-
mentation by approved
States and POTWs in States
without approved pretreat-
ment programs. At present,
27 States have received ap-
proval from EPA to adminis-
ter the pretreatment pro-
gram, including five States
that have chosen to directly
regulate the industrial com-
munity in their States in lieu
of local program approval
and implementation. In
addition, 1,442 local pro-
grams have been approved
by either EPA or approved
States, and another 100
141
-------
Point Source Control Program
programs are under develop-
ment. The pretreatment
program currently regulates
approximately 30,000 signifi-
cant industrial users (SIUs).
On July 24,1990, the EPA
promulgated the Domestic
Sewage Study (DSS) final
rule, which implements the
recommendations made in
the DSS. Specifically, the
rule is designed to improve
the control of hazardous
wastes discharged to POTWs
as well as strengthen the
enforcement of pretreatment
program requirements. In
addition, the rule requires
that POTWs conduct toxicity
testing of their effluents. A
continuing task will be to
integrate the implementa-
tion of these requirements
into the normal operations of
the POTWs pretreatment
program.
The environmental accom-
plishments of the National
Pretreatment Program have
been significant. Nation-
wide, EPA estimates that
toxic pollutant loadings to
POTWs have decreased by
up to 75 percent through
pretreatment. In many
cases, the effects on surface
water and sludge have been
dramatic. Between 1975 and
1985, for example, 15
POTWs discharging to San
Francisco Bay decreased
their overall metals loadings
by 80 percent, despite a 15
percent increase in POTW
flows. In Wisconsin, 14 of 24
POTWs reported marked
decreases in average total
metals concentrations in
their sludge after approval of
their local pretreatment
programs.
The compliance status of
industrial users and POTWs
is an indicator of the pro-
grammatic success of pre-
treatment implementation.
Based on data reported by
POTWs or States, approxi-
mately 14 to 17 percent of
significant industrial users
are in significant noncompli-
ance with pretreatment
EPA is developing regulations for each of the major uses and disposal options for sewage sludge.
requirements. This com-
pares with a rate of 13 per-
cent significant noncompli-
ance for the major industries
in the NPDES program,
which discharge directly to
waterbodies. According to
data in EPA's national data-
base, 39 percent of POTWs
are failing to implement at
least one significant compo-
nent of their approved pre-
treatment programs.
EPA has focused its over-
sight and enforcement
resources on ensuring that
local municipalities properly
implement their approved
programs. Toward that end,
on October 4,1989, EPA
announced the National
Pretreatment Enforcement
Initiative against cities for
failure to adequately imple-
ment their approved pre-
treatment programs. In this
action, EPA joined with
several States in bringing
civil judicial suits or admin-
istrative penalties against
61 cities. This effort was
designed to alert cities as to
their requirements under the
pretreatment program and to
ensure adequate implemen-
tation of the program. A
followup announcement was
made on May 1,1991, con-
taining 755 additional ac-
tions against both POTWs
and significant industrial
users.
EPA has developed a re-
port to Congress on the effec-
tiveness of the pretreatment
program as required under
Section 519 of the CWA. This
report analyzes the major
strengths and weaknesses of
the program and provides
direction for improving the
program.
EPA is expected to promul-
gate sludge standards in
1992 for the*safe disposal
142
-------
Point Source Control Program
and beneficial use of munici-
pal sludge. The application
of increasingly stringent
discharge standards govern-
ing toxic pollutants to mu-
nicipal treatment plants is
also expected. Where indus-
trial or other nondomestic
wastes are limiting a munici-
pal treatment plant's sludge
management practices or
compliance with its dis-
charge permit, the plant's
pretreatment program will
be the vehicle for achieving
the necessary pollutant
reductions.
Managing Sludge
The need for effective
sludge management is con-
tinuous and growing. In the
United States, the quantity
of municipal sludge produced
annually has almost doubled
since 1972. Municipalities
currently generate approxi-
mately 7.6 million dry metric
tons of wastewater sludge
per year, or approximately
32 kilograms per person per
year. Improper sludge man-
agement could lead to signifi-
cant environmental degrada-
tion of water, land, and air,
as well as adverse human
health conditions.
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 con-
sistent or environmentally
acceptable manner. Al-
though the Clean Water Act,
the Clean Air Act, the Re-
source Conservation and
Recovery Act, the Marine
Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act, and the
Toxic Substances Control Act
all regulate some aspect of
sludge management, cover-
age is uneven, and the re-
quirements are based on
different methodologies 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 per-
mits.
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
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 manage-
ment decisions. The final
regulations are scheduled to
be promulgated in early
1992.
Before the technical dis-
posal criteria in the compre-
hensive rules are promul-
gated, EPA is implementing
the Sewage Sludge Interim
Permitting Strategy. The
Interim Strategy sets forth
EPA's policy on fulfilling the
CWA mandate that EPA
place sludge conditions in
permits or take other mea-
sures necessary to protect
the public health and envi-
ronment from adverse effects
of sewage sludge. To comple-
ment the Interim Strategy,
EPA has also developed the
Guidance for Writing Case-
by-Case Permit Requirements
for Municipal Sewage
Sludge, which provides tech-
nical information and assis-
tance to permit writers in
developing interim sludge
requirements. In addition,
EPA has begun coordinating
EPA/State permitting activi-
ties, which EPA anticipates
will provide the foundation
for EPA-approved State
sludge programs. Fifteen
States currently have agree-
ments with EPA detailing
each State's permitting re-
sponsibilities under the In-
terim Program.
In May 1989, EPA promul-
gated regulations for includ-
ing sludge management
conditions in NPDES per-
mits and for issuing sludge-
only permits. These rules
also outline the requirements
for State sludge management
programs that seek EPA
approval to implement the
new statutory requirements.
In addition, regulations that
address sewage sludge dis-
posal in municipal solid
waste landfills were pro-
posed in August 1988 and
143
-------
Point Source Control Program
are scheduled to be promul-
gated in late 1992.
New Initiatives
in Point Source
Control
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
National CSO Control Strat-
egy in August 1989. The
objectives of the strategy are
to ensure that CSO dis-
charges occur only as a result
of wet weather; to bring all
wet weather CSO discharge
points into compliance 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 called upon States to
develop statewide permitting
strategies by January 15,
1990, for the development
and implementation of mea-
sures to reduce pollutant
discharges from CSOs.
Since EPA issued the Na-
tional CSO Control Strategy,
there has been significant
progress in its implementa-
tion. In response to the
national strategy, 30 States
submitted CSO Permitting
Strategies and 20 States
declared that they did not
require a strategy because
their communities did not
have combined sewer ,
systems or, if they did, there
were no overflows from the
H, ». " , , , s nt
"S: : i Si! it iliiiiit l"> i ^
systems. Of the 30 strategies
that were submitted, EPA
Regions have approved 19.
Three strategies were condi-
tionally approved; EPA is
currently working with these
States to resolve the out-
standing concerns and issues
as soon as possible. Twelve
strategies have not been
approved; EPA is still re-
viewing these plans and
continuing to discuss them
with the appropriate States.
As a result of these strate-
gies, EPA estimates that
there are approximately
1,049 communities with
combined sewer systems
having 10,764 CSO dis-
charge points.
As a result of working with
the States to implement the
national strategy and the
State permitting strategies,
EPA has identified a number
of significant issues that
have to be addressed. These
issues concern compliance
with both technology-based
and water-quality-based
NPDES permit requirements
as well as monitoring and
compliance considerations.
To address these issues, EPA
formed the CSO Task Force
in August 1990. The Task
Force had its initial meeting
on September 26, 1990.
Task Force members include
representatives from a num-
ber of EPA's Office of Water
program areas, from EPA
Regional Offices, and from
the States of New York,
Michigan, and Washington.
To assist EPA and State
NPDES permit writers in
drafting and issuing techni-
cally and legally defensible
permits for CSO discharges,
EPA is developing a guid-
ance manual for permit
writers. EPA expects that a
Most combined sewer overflow discharges are not currently addressed by the NPDES permit system.
144
-------
Point Source Control Program
draft of this manual will be
available in the fall of 1992.
NPDES Stormwater
Controls
Since 1972, State and EPA
efforts under the NPDES
program have traditionally
focused on controlling pollut-
ant discharges from POTWs
and industrial process waste-
waters. As these sources of
pollution came increasingly
under control, the need for
controlling 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, includ-
ing storm sewers discharging
urban runoff, feedlot runoff,
construction site runoff,
runoff from resource extrac-
tion activities, and runoff
from land disposal sites are
major sources of use impair-
ment. In addition, man-
made stormwater drainage
systems can directly or indi-
rectly cause hydromodifica-
tion impacts.
Prior to enactment of the
Clean Water Act amend-
ments of 1987, EPA had
promulgated effluent guide-
line limitations for storm-
water discharges from a
number of industrial catego-
ries, including petroleum
refineries, certain mining
activities, and large feedlots.
Section 405 of the CWA
amendments established a
timetable and framework for
EPA to address other
stormwater discharges under
the NPDES program by
adding Section 402(p) to the
CWA. On November 16,
1990, EPA promulgated
permit application require-
ments for discharges from
municipal separate storm
sewer systems serving popu-
lations of 100,000 or more
and for stormwater dis-
charges associated with
industrial activity? In the
November 1990 notice, EPA
initiated permitting activi-
ties for stormwater dis-
charges from a number of
industrial sources, including
manufacturing facilities,
mining activities, oil and gas
facilities, certain construc-
tion activities, and land
disposal sites that received
hazardous and/or industrial
wastes. EPA is required to
develop two stormwater
reports to Congress. The
first should identify storm-
water discharges and deter-
mine, to the maximum ex-
tent practicable, the nature
and extent of pollutants in
such discharges. The second
study should establish proce-
dures and methods to control
stormwater discharges to the
extent necessary to mitigate
impacts on water quality.
Based on the two studies,
EPA is required to issue
regulations no later than
October 1,1992. These regu-
lations are to designate addi-
tional stormwater discharges
to be regulated to protect
water quality and establish a
comprehensive program to
regulate such designated
sources, including require-
ments for State stormwater
management programs.
The November 16,1990,
regulations subject a wide
variety of stormwater dis-
charges to the NPDES pro-
gram. Sources addressed by
these regulations correlate
well with a number of major
pollution sources identified
in this report. Major classes
of diffuse sources that
include, in part, stormwater
point source discharges are:
urban runoff conveyances,
construction sites, resource
extraction sites, and land
disposal facilities. EPA is
evaluating additional storm-
water discharges in the con-
text of the two stormwater
studies, including additional
municipal separate storm
sewer systems (which con-
tribute to urban runoff) and
animal feedlots (which con-
tribute to agricultural run-
off). The ability of this new
program to address priority
sources will depend on a
number of factors, including
funding to EPA and autho-
rized NPDES States.
Control of
Bioconcentratable
Contaminants
Bioconcentratable con-
taminants can cause adverse
human health and aquatic
life impacts. In response,
EPA has developed draft
guidance to identify and,
where necessary, control
bioconcentratable organic
compounds that may be
present in effluents, non-
point source runoff, receiving
waters, sediments, dredged
material, and the tissues of
aquatic organisms.
The approach outlined in
EPA's draft guidance is
designed to assist regulatory
authorities in discovering the
presence, identity, and con-
centration of specific organic
compounds in complex mix- ,
tures and to make more
informed decisions with
regard to controlling these
substances. EPA's approach
provides: a comprehensive
screen for organic chemicals
that are likely to bioconcen-
trate, procedures for assess-
145
-------
Point Source Control Program
ing and controlling complex
mixtures, a standardized
assessment methodology,'
and triggers for regulatory
action and control develop-
ment. EPA's new draft guid-
ance focuses principally on
the development-and imple-
mentation of point source
limitations on bioconcentrat-
able organic compounds.
Pollution Prevention
EPA has established an
Office of Pollution Preven-
tion that works with other
program offices to improve
pollution prevention activi-
ties within the Agency. For
example, an Agency pollution
prevention policy is being
developed, and a strategy to
address pollution prevention
in manufacturing and chemi-
cal use has been drafted.
Future strategies will focus
on the municipal water and
wastewater, agricultural,
energy, and transportation
sectors. A subcommittee
comprising representatives
from EPA Headquarters and
Regions has been formed to
develop an Agency-wide
training strategy to ensure
that pollution prevention
concepts are integrated into
all Agency activities.
In terms of the point
source control program, the
Agency's draft pollution
prevention strategy recog-
nizes the importance of per-
mitting and enforcement
activities and will continue
support for a strong program
in these areas. Training is
being provided to familiarize
NPDES permit writers with
pollution prevention opportu-
nities, how their permit
decisions can affect other
media, and how to effectively
communicate the concept of
pollution prevention to
industrial managers.
VI
JfafrMftfrJI
Electric power plant on Lake Graham, Texas.
146
-------
10
Nonpoint Source
Control Program
Background
Nonpoint source pollution
generally results from land
runoff, atmospheric deposi-
tion, drainage, or seepage of
contaminants. Major sources
of nonpoint pollution include
agricultural runoff, runoff
from urban areas, and runoff
from silvicultural operations.
Siltation and nutrients are
the pollutants responsible for
most of the nonpoint source
impacts to the Nation's sur-
face waters. These diffuse
sources are often harder to
identify, isolate, and control
than traditional point
sources. As a result, from
1972 to 1987, EPA and the
States placed primary focus
on addressing the obvious
problems due to municipal
and industrial discharges:
permitting point source dis-
charges, then inspecting,
monitoring, and enforcing
those permits to ensure that
point sources met the Clean
Water Act's requirements.
Sections 208 and 303(e) of
the Clean Water Act of 1972
established the initial frame-
work for addressing nonpoint
sources of pollution. Funds
provided by EPA under Sec-
tion 208 were used by States
and local planning agencies
to analyze the extent of NFS
pollution and develop water
quality management pro-
grams to control it. Best
management practices were
evaluated, assessment mod-
els and methods were devel-
oped, and other types of
technical assistance were
made available to State
and local water quality
managers.
147
-------
Nonpoint Source Control Program
The National
Section 319
Program
In 1987, Congress enacted
Section 319 of the Clean
Water Act and in so doing
established a national pro-
gram to control nonpoint
sources of water pollution.
Section 319 created a three-
stage national program to be
implemented by the States
with Federal approval and
assistance. States are to
address nonpoint source
pollution by (1) developing
nonpoint source assessment
reports; (2) adopting non-
point source management
programs; and (3) carrying
out the management pro-
grams.
All States now have EPA-
approved nonpoint source
assessments. EPA has also
fully approved 44 State
nonpoint source manage-
ment programs and has
approved portions of all
remaining State manage-
ment programs. Section 319
also provides for the issuance
by EPA of grants to States to
assist them in implementing
the management of EPA-
approved programs. Con-
gress first appropriated $40
million in Section 319 grant
funds in FY90. This was
reduced to about $38 million
after budget reductions man-
dated by the Gramm-Rud-
man-Hollings Act. In De-
cember 1990, EPA issued
interim guidance on non-
point source management,
including an allocation for-
mula for awarding grant
funds to States. ForFY91,
Congress appropriated $51
million to carry out the
nonpoint source program.
This was an increase of one-
third over FY90.
EPA issued final guidance
on the award and manage-
ment of these funds in Feb-
ruary 1991. The guidance
encourages States to focus
Section 319 funds on high-
priority activities including
• Addressing nationally
significant, high-risk non-
point source problems and
focusing implementation
activities in priority water-
shed or ground-water areas;
• Comprehensively integrat-
ing existing programs to
control nonpoint source pol-
lution;
• Providing for monitoring
and evaluation of program
effectiveness including using
water quality monitoring
protocols;
• Emphasizing pollution
prevention mechanisms;
• Protecting particularly
sensitive and ecologically
significant waters (wetlands,
estuaries, wild and scenic
rivers);
M Promoting comprehensive ,
watershed management.
To improve technical
understanding of nonpoint
pollution and the effective-
ness of various nonpoint
source control technologies,
the final Section 319 grants
guidance establishes require-
ments for a standardized
water quality monitoring
program for representative
watersheds across the coun-
try. The guidance requires
each of EPA's 10 Regional
offices to award supplemen-
tary funds to support more
intensive water quality
monitoring of selected water-
shed projects.
Upper Big Thompson River watershed, Colorado.
148
-------
Nonpoint Source Control Program
The 1990 Report
to Congress on
Section 319
The Report to Congress
on Section 319 of the Clean
Water Act—Managing
Nonpoint Source Pollution—
provides the most current
and comprehensive informa-
tion, as of October 1,1990,
on nonpoint source programs
at the national, State, and
local levels. Included are
findings of State nonpoint
source assessments; related
activities of EPA, other Fed-
eral agencies, and other
entities; achievements to
date in controlling NFS pol-
lution; and EPA's recommen-.
dations for future directions
in controlling NPS pollution.
National
NPS Agenda
In January 1989, EPA
developed the Nonpoint
Preventing erosion is a major concern during construction activities.
Source Agenda for the
Future. This Agenda is de-
signed to assist EPA in defin-
ing the goals of the NPS
program and the means to
achieve those goals.
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
NPS measures. Among
these barriers are (1) inad-
equate public awareness of
the nonpoint source problem,
(2) inadequate knowledge or
inadequate transfer of
knowledge about successful
solutions to nonpoint source
problems, and (3) inadequate
incentives to correct non-
point source pollution,
EPA developed five ap-
proaches to pursue the goals
of the Agenda. These include
raising public awareness of
nonpoint source pollution,
providing States and local
governments with informa-
tion on nonpoint source solu-
tions and with incentives for
their implementation, help-
ing States and localities
improve their regulatory
capabilities (e.g., by develop-
ing water quality criteria
and monitoring protocols
specifically designed to
evaluate control activities),
and developing tools needed
by States and localities to
establish sound water-
quality-based nonpoint
source control programs.
EPA has made progress in
attaining the goals of the
Agenda. For example, EPA
has initiated the first phase
of its public awareness pro-
gram: a nonpoint source
brochure and poster were
printed in early 1990, and
EPA's Nonpoint Source
Newsnotes now serves as the
primary vehicle for sharing
State and local success sto-
ries on nonpoint control.
EPA also began operation of
an electronic bulletin board
to support information trans-
fer on issues relating to
nonpoint pollution. In addi-
tion, in early 1991, EPA's
Office of Research and Devel-
opment established a re-
search agenda to support
nonpoint source control
efforts.
Nonpoint Source
Management
Programs and
Implementation
Many innovative projects
have been initiated across
the Nation by States, local
governments, community
groups, and EPA regions to
manage nonpoint source
pollution problems. The
following examples exemplify
the diversity of approaches
that have been applied to
NPS pollution control. In
some cases, control is only
beginning. In other situa-
tions, control measures have
been in place long enough to
show significant results.
• Buttermilk Bay,
Massachusetts
Urban runoff poses signifi-
cant water quality problems
for confined estuaries and
embayments because of the
concentration and variety of
pollutants discharging into
shellfishing and recreational
waters. Development of an
urban runoff program was
prompted by shellfish clos-
ings of Buttermilk Bay.
The overall watershed
management strategy was
149
-------
Nonpoint Source Control Program ,
built around the concept of
citizen education; that is,
information on septic system
maintenance, pet control,
and proper litter and house-
hold waste disposal was
distributed. EPA developed
a plan for treating storm
runoff from the watershed
that involved modifying
existing catch basin systems
and installing an exfiltration
system to remove bacteria
and other contaminants from
the stormwater. Observa-
tions suggest that these
systems have reduced runoff
to the Bay and are success-
fully removing bacteria from
the runoff.
• Mammoth Cave/
Karst Area, Kentucky
A long-range water quality
project was started to protect
the cave system in Mammoth
Cave National Park from
agricultural and other
sources of nonpoint source
pollution. The cave system is
threatened by both point and
nonpoint pollution that may
harm rare cave-dwelling
organisms including one
federally designated endan-
gered species.
The project was formed at
a meeting of State and Fed-
eral agency and university
representatives in Septem-
ber 1989. Local sponsors
subsequently formed a Pro-
ject Oversight Committee,
which in turn established a
Technical Advisory Commit-
tee. The latter committee
selected a target ground-
water drainage basin for
monitoring and BMP imple-
mentation. Near-term activi-
ties include establishing a
water quality monitoring
network, establishing two
demonstration farms, and
planning and conducting
educational activities in the
entire project area. The
project is partially funded by
a USDA grant to install
BMPs.
Cattle grazing at South Point, Hawaii.
• Clam River, Michigan
The Clam Kiver and its
tributaries receive significant
nonpoint source pollution
from nutrients in animal
waste, sediments from rural
soil erosion, and various
contaminants from urban
runoff.
The project provides cost-
sharing and technical assis-
tance for the implementation
of such BMPs as no-till
planting, strip cropping, and
filter strips. Landowner
participation in the cost
share program has been
excellent. An aggressive
information and education
program was also imple-
mented. The key to the
project's success has been
interagency cooperation.
The Michigan Clean Water
Incentives Program, the
Northwest Michigan Council
of Governments, and the
Northwest Michigan Ee-
source Conservation and
Development Council played
a significant role in estab-
lishing the project. The link
to local agencies is provided
by the project Steering Com-
mittee.
• Morrison Lake,
Michigan
The Morrison Lake Project
includes a watershed man-
agement plan to reduce phos-
phate loading in the lake by
25 percent over 3 years. The
project will identify pollution
sources, implement BMPs to
reduce sources, and measure
BMP efficiency. Conserva-
tion plans were prepared for
more than 60 percent of the
cropland in the district and
applied to 15 percent.
Project managers met
individually with farmers to
provide information and
assistance. Project
150
-------
Nonpoint Source Control Program
newsletters stressed the
importance of the project to
the community and the local
newspaper featured the story
in several articles.
• Minnesota River,
Minnesota
The project is a cooperative
local, State, and Federal
effort. It will identify those
streams that receive the
most nonpoint source load-
ing. That information will
enable planners to estimate
the load reductions neces-
sary to achieve water quality
goals and the money needed
to achieve these goals. The
Minnesota River Assessment
Project received a funding
commitment of $700,000 for
2 years from the Minnesota
Legislature.
• Big Springs Basin,
Iowa
The Big Springs Demon-
stration Project tracks the
fate of agricultural chemicals
and devises methods to pre-
vent or reduce their move-
ment to ground water and
surface water. A consortium
of Federal, State, and local
government agencies, univer-
sities, and agribusiness firms
developed the project pro-
posal, and a core group man-
ages and tracks the project
activities. ,
Several State and Federal
.agencies fund the project.
Funds are available under
the Iowa Groundwater Pro-
tection Act for the Big Spring
Basins Project. EPA has
funded the project since 1986
and provides support to
project areas not covered by
State funding.
Over the past 3 years, on-
fann demonstrations have
shown that the cost of farm
inputs can be reduced by
$3,000 to $4,000 per year. In
early 1989, 52 percent of the
farmers involved in the
project reported reductions
in the use of nitrogen,
Prairie Rose Lake, Iowa.
phosphorus, and potassium
fertilizer (39 percent) and a
23 percent reduction in pesti-
cide use. Significantly, these
reductions were accom-
plished with an increase in
crop yields.
• Oakwood Lakes,
South Dakota
The Poinsett Rural Clean
Water Project (RCWP) is the
first major national ground-
water nonpomt source study
to include soil and ground-
water monitoring. The 10-
year effort, begun in 1981,
will determine the effects of
agricultural BMPs on ground
water and surface water.
The emphasis on studying
ground-water effects makes
the project unique.
BMPs employed in the
106,000-acre watershed
consist mainly of conserva-
tion tillage, fertilizer man-
agement, and pesticide man-
agement. These practices
focus on the major water
quality problems in the wa-
tershed, including eutrophi-
cation of surface waters and
contamination of the aquifer
by nitrates and pesticides.
Although a comprehensive
report will be developed this
year, several earlier findings
of the study have resulted in
recommendations for action.
Three geological settings
were related to consistently
high concentrations of ni-
trate as N: (1) shallow sand
and gravel with thin topsoil,
(2) sand/silt alternating
layers, and (3) shallow
weathered till. Concentra-
tions of nitrates as N in wa-
ter samples were greater
under farmed sites than
under unfanned sites. Al-
though the fate of pesticides
has not been established,
there are signs of rapid
151
-------
Nonpoint Source Control Program
degradation or dilution below
detection levels. Almost 75
percent of the pesticides
were detected at the time of,
or shortly after, application.
As a result of these find-
ings, the project recom-
mended against combining
high fertilization and no-till
management in areas where
thin soils overlie shallow,
unconfined aquifers used for
domestic drinking water. To
reduce the contamination of
shallow aquifers, the project
recommends use of fertilizer
management systems in
areas where there are sand
and gravel aquifers overlain
by weathered till or thin
topsoil.
• Echo Creek
Watershed, Utah
A tributary of the Weber
River, which supports a cold
water fishery and supplies
water to over 500,000 people,
Echo Creek is the only un-
controlled stream in the
Weber basin. It contributes
70 percent of the sediment
entering the Weber River.
Extensive hydrologic modifi-
cation from road and rail
construction and poor range-
land condition has resulted
in significant erosion. This
sediment adversely affects
the fishery and drinking
water supplies. TheUSDA,
the Utah Department of
Transportation, and the
Union Pacific Railroad have
funded various studies and
corrective actions. These
have included streambank
stabilization, redesign of
highway segments, and
rangeland improvements.
• Newport Bay
Watershed
Management
Program, California
Newport Bay is the largest
of Southern California's
remaining coastal wetlands.
Urban and agricultural run-
off is threatening the Bay,
mm
~m
,*#: li
which is a designated State
ecological reserve.
The Santa Ana Regional
Water Quality Control Board
has worked closely with
other State and Federal
agencies to implement a
management program that
includes construction of
vessel pump-out facilities;
enactment of ordinances to
address marine sanitation in
Newport Harbor; dredging
controls; creation of an 85-
acre sedimentation basin
using State, local, and pri-
vate funding; agricultural
erosion controls; channel
stabilization; and enactment
of more effective erosion
control ordinances by the
three major local jurisdic-
tions.
• Truckee River
Strategy, Nevada
The Truckee River pro-
vides water for numerous
uses including: municipal
and industrial use in the
Reno-Sparks area, power
generation, irrigation, and
spawning habitat for the
endangered Cuiui and the
Lahontan cutthroat. The
river drains into Pyramid
Lake, a major sports fishery
and source of income to the
Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe.
The Truckee water quality
issues are many and complex
and involve a number of
Federal, State, and local
governments, private firms,
and individual water users.
The Truckee is listed as
water quality limited for
nitrogen, nitrite, phosphorus,
and fecal coliform on several
of its reaches. EPA has re-
quired the State to perform a
wasteload allocation and
determine total maximum
daily loads for these constit-
Deforestation from increasing urban construction can result in sediment runoff into surface waters.
152
-------
Nonpoint Source Control Program
uents. The sources of the
loadings are disputed and a
strategy has been devised to
document the sources and
allocate loading reductions
fairly among the affected
parties.
The strategy involves
calibration of the Truckee
River model, collection and
evaluation of data, evalua-
tion of sources and loads
using monitoring data, and
amendment of the Washoe
County 208 plan to include a
new nonpoint source assess-
ment in Truckee Meadows.
Other actions include up-
dating of the Sparks and
Washoe County land use
plans, evaluation of projected
urban stormwater loadings
and agricultural runoff
wasteloads, construction of a
pond system for flood control
and stormwater detention,
and channel improvements
at Brookside Golf Course to
reduce nonpoint source pollu-
New Initiatives
in NPS Control
The 1990 Farm Bill
The Food, Agriculture,
Conservation and Trade Act
of 1990 (1990 Farm BiU),
enacted by Congress on Octo-
ber 25,1990, contains strong
water quality provisions and
offers new opportunities to
link USDA and EPA water
quality programs in the
States. The bill, hailed by
many as the most environ-
mentally sound agricultural
legislation ever passed by
Congress, builds on existing
USDA and EPA efforts,
broadens the applicability of
the Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP) to environ-
mentally sensitive areas and
establishes a new Wetland
Reserve Program (WRP) and
Water Quality Incentives
Program (WQIP).
The CRP, created by the
1985 Farm Bill, has paid
producers to remove highly
erodible cropland from pro-
duction for a 10-year period
to protect and improve soil
and water resources. The
1990 Farm BiU expands the
land eligibility requirements
to include not only highly
erodible land, but also other
cropland areas that reduce
water quality impairments
or improve wellhead protec-
tion. Priority will also be
given in the bid evaluation
process to producers offering
filterstrips, sod waterways,
shelterbelts, and contour
grass strips, which increase
water quality benefits under
the CRP.
The Act also established a
Wetland Reserve Program
with an enrollment goal of
up to 1 million acres. Land
accepted into the WRP would
be removed from production
through easements.
The WQIP is another fea-
ture of the 1990 Farm Bill
that addresses nonpoint
source pollution and sup-
ports State ground-water
programs. The WQIP allows
the USDA to provide techni-
cal assistance and up to
$3,500 in incentive payments
to individual producers to
develop and implement farm-
level water quality plans. An
additional $1,500 in cost-
share payments is available
to individual farmers to
implement some practices.
Lands identified by States
under the Wellhead Protec-
tion provisions (Section 1428)
of the Safe Drinking Water
Act and Section 319 of the
Clean Water Act are explic-
itly targeted under the
WQIP. Other areas targeted
are endangered or threat-
ened species habitat areas
and areas of karst topogra-
phy, which are particularly
vulnerable to seepage of
contaminants.
In addition to the WQIP
and CRP, the Farm BiU
contains provisions for coor-
dinating USDA programs
with State water quality
programs, greater flexibility
to aUow crop rotations, an
environmental easement
provision, and sustainable
agriculture research and
education programs. Other
environmental features
include modifications to
swampbuster, pesticide
recordkeeping for certified
applicators, and an organic
food certification program.
The Coastal Zone
Management
Reauthorization
Amendments of 1990
Congress also enacted the
Coastal Zone Management
Reauthorization Amend-
ments (CZMARA) of 1990,
which contain a new Section
6217 entitled Protecting
Coastal Waters. Section 6217
requires each coastal State
(including the Great Lakes
States) with an approved
Coastal Zone Management
Program to develop a new
Coastal Nonpoint PoUution
Control Program.
These programs wUl be-
come amendments to both
the State's existing Coastal
Zone Management Program
(prepared pursuant to the
Coastal Zone Management
153
-------
Nonpoint Source Control Program
Act) and the Nonpoint
Source Management Pro-
gram (prepared under
Section 319 of the Clean
Water Act).
The CZMARA legislation
further provides that States'
Coastal Zone Management
Programs must contain en-
forceable policies and mecha-
nisms to implement the
applicable requirements of
the States' Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Programs.
A key provision of the
legislation is the require-
ment that State Coastal
Nonpoint Pollution Control
Programs "develop and
implement management
measures for nonpoint source
pollution to restore and
protect coastal waters work-
ing in close conjunction with
other state-and local authori-
ties." Guidance "for specify-
ing management measures"
will be prepared by EPA, in
consultation with the Na-
tional Oceanic and Atmo-
spheric Administration of the
Department of Commerce,
the Fish and Wildlife Service
of the Department of the
Interior, and other Federal
agencies. The proposed
guidance was issued in May
1991 (56 Federal Register
27618).
Proposed technical guid-
ance will form the basis for
management measures re-
quired by Section 6217 of
CZMARA. Based on
comments received on the
proposed guidance, EPA will
issue final management
guidance in May 1992.
EPA and NOAA will issue
joint guidance to assist the
States in developing coastal
nonpoint pollution control
programs that incorporate
management measures in
conformity with those speci-
fied in EPA's technical guid-
ance. Coastal nonpoint con-
trol programs must be sub-
mitted by the States to
NOAA and EPA for approval
by both agencies within 30
months of issuance of the
management measures
guidelines. Draft program
guidance was published in
October 1991.
Backyard poultry production in rural North Carolina.
154
-------
11
Surface Water
Monitoring
Introduction
Under various sections of
the Clean Water Act (primar-
ily Sections 106, 204(j), 314,
319, and 320), States receive
Federal grants to conduct
water monitoring and report
the results of their monitor-
ing activities to EPA. EPA,
in turn, establishes national
policy on monitoring, pro-
vides technical guidance and
support to the States, spon-
sors special studies on issues
of concern, and reports to
Congress on the findings of
the State monitoring efforts.
Other Federal agencies such
as the U.S. Geological Sur-
vey (USGS) and NOAA also
conduct surface water moni-
toring and maintain net-
works of sampling stations.
The roles and objectives of
the various agencies engaged
in water monitoring are
discussed here, along with
the challenges facing water
monitoring in the 1990s, and
new initiatives underway or
planned to meet those chal-
lenges.
What Is
Monitoring?
There are essentially two
major types of water moni-
toring: source monitoring
and ambient monitoring.
Source monitoring involves
assessing the composition of
effluents from industrial or
municipal dischargers and of
the mixing zones where
effluents merge with receiv-
ing water. Source monitor-
ing includes self-monitoring
by dischargers, compliance
sampling inspections that
check on discharger self-
monitoring, and character-
ization studies used by EPA
to determine typical constitu-
ents of specific types of
industrial dischargers.
Ambient monitoring
155
-------
Surface Water Monitoring
involves assessing the qual-
ity of the aquatic environ-
ment beyond the immediate
influence of the discharge. It
can include sampling of wa-
ter chemistry, biology, habi-
tat, sediment, or fish tissue
and may be conducted.
through networks of fixed
sampling stations, localized
intensive surveys, or statisti-
cally designed special stud-
ies. In their ambient moni-
toring programs, States most
often combine fixed-station
networks with intensive
surveys.
Roles and
Objectives
Surface water monitoring
serves different purposes,
depending on the needs of
the individual agencies that
conduct or sponsor it.
State monitoring activities
funded by EPA have tradi-
tionally focused on
• Characterizing the quality
of State water resources and
identifying problem waters
(such as waters that do not
meet standards or waters
threatened by nonpoint
source pollution);
• Supporting the develop-
ment of water quality man-
agement priorities, plans,
and programs (including
developing water quality
standards and providing
data for nonpoint source
management plans and
wasteload allocation model-
ing); and
• Evaluating the effective-
ness of control programs
(such as "before-and-after"
studies to document the
impacts of wastewater treat-
ment plant construction and
upgrade, or watershed moni-
toring to determine the
effects of nonpoint source
management practices).
State pollution control biologists seine a creek to evaluate a representative sample of the aquatic life.
4
156
State monitoring capabili-
ties vary, but most States
sample the water column
and fish tissue and conduct
biological surveys; fewer
States conduct sediment
monitoring.
USGS operates a national
network of fixed stations
concentrated at the mouths
of large rivers. The objec-
tives of this program, called
the National Stream Quality
Accounting Network, or
NASQAN, are to assess
water quality trends and
determine mass loadings of
selected constituents in the
water column. USGS has
also developed the National
Water Quality Assessment
Program (NAWQA) to con-
duct status and trends as-
sessments for 60 surface and
ground-water systems.
NOAA maintains a 10-
year status and trends net-
work for toxics in estuaries
and coastal waters. The
program monitors sediments,
fish tissue, and mollusks for
trace elements, organochlo-
rine compounds, and aro-
matic hydrocarbons.
The U.S. Fish and Wildife
Service conducts the Na-
tional Contaminant Bio-
monitoring Program aimed
at determining status and
trends in contaminant levels
for fish and wildlife. Fish
and bird tissue is monitored
for trace elements, pesti-
cides, and some industrial
compounds.
An Evolving
Program
Today's surface water
monitoring program is evolv-
ing in response to a variety of
new challenges and data
needs.
First, as this report notes,
-------
Surface Water Monitoring
the water pollution problems
in the U.S. have changed as
we have made progress in
cleaning up conventional
pollutants from sewage
treatment facilities and
industries. Pollution from
diffuse sources such as agri-
cultural runoff, construction
activities, and urban areas is
now the predominant con-
cern in waters across the
country, and today's monitor-
ing program must adapt and
develop new approaches to
address this concern.
Second, while demands for
information are up, monitor-
ing resources at the State
level are down. States must
juggle competing priorities
and increasingly limited
funds to carry out their
water pollution control
activities; in many cases,
monitoring programs are
being scaled back or directed
toward new, more cost-effec-
tive activities. It is clear
that improved, integrative
Chemical assessments of fish tissue are a key tool in identifying
pollution due to toxicants.
assessment methods and
data management ap-
proaches' such as biological
monitoring, habitat assess-
ments, and geographical
information systems are of
benefit to today's monitoring
programs.
Third, current monitoring
activities overseen by the
EPA are limited in their
ability to provide information
on national status and
trends and program effec-
tiveness. Monitoring data
reported by the States and
incorporated into this Na-
tional Water Quality Inven-
tory report are best seen as
providing a snapshot of
water quality conditions in
individual States. Valid
national conclusions are
difficult to make, and com-
parisons between States or
trend evaluations over time
are virtually impossible to
develop. This situation re-
sults in large part from the
design of State monitoring
programs—of necessity
biased toward identifying
problem areas, and reflecting
the capabilities and objec-
tives of individual States.
Although various monitoring
programs managed by other
Federal agencies collect data
that can be used for status
and trends, a lack of coordi-
nation between agencies at
all levels of government
creates difficulties in devel-
oping programs that will
support one another and
share data.
To meet these challenges,
EPA is working in coopera-
tion with States and other
Federal agencies to forge a
new direction for surface
water monitoring. Activities
underway can be grouped
into the following five cate-
gories.
1. Defining a mission and
establishing policy on
monitoring and the use
of monitoring data. State-
ments of policy provide focus
to the wide range of State
and Federal monitoring
activities, guide the develop-
ment of new methods, and
encourage their implementa-
tion. The following state-
ments of policy are currently
being developed by EPA's
Office of Water:
• Surface Monitoring Mis-
sion Statement: EPA is
developing a Monitoring
Mission Statement to provide
an overall framework or
vision for the surface water
monitoring program. Devel-
opment of the Mission State-
ment began in response to a
decline in monitoring re-
sources and a need for better
coordination of water moni-
toring activities. The Mission
Statement will describe the
three overall objectives of
monitoring, set out optimal
program designs for each
objective, describe the status
of current monitoring activi-
ties, and present potential
solutions.
• Policy on Biological
Assessments and Criteria: •
To help restore and maintain
the biological integrity of the
Nation's waters, EPA has
established a statement of
policy endorsing the use of
biological assessments and
urging their integration with
toxicity testing and chemical
assessment methods. This
policy recognizes that each
approach provides a unique
and valid assessment of
designated use impairment
and should be applied inde-
pendently in water quality
assessments. The value,
157
-------
Surface Water Monitoring
application, and conduct of
biological surveys are dis-
cussed. In addition, the
policy supports the develop-
ment and implementation of
biological criteria in State
water quality standards.
2. t Developing and imple-
menting technical moni-
toring methods (e.g., for
biological assessments)
and technical guidance
on monitoring program
design. In its role of provid-
ing technical assistance and
guidance on surface water
monitoring, EPA's Office of
Water has developed the
following documents:
• Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols: In 1989, EPA's
Office of Water issued proto-
cols providing States with
biological monitoring meth-
ods to supplement tradi-
tional, instream chemical
analyses. The key concept
underlying these protocols is
Rapid btoassessment protocols provide States with methods to
compare the structure of aquatic communities at a given stream
site with an ecological reference site.
the comparison of the struc-
ture and function of the
aquatic community at a
given stream study site to
that of an ecological refer-
ence site. On the basis of
this comparison, a water
quality assessment can be
made. The protocols also
include methods for assess-
ing the quality of the aquatic
habitat at the stream site.
EPA has provided techni-
cal support and training to
States to encourage the
implementation of the rapid
bioassessment protocols.
Supplemental guidance is
being developed to aid States
in adapting the river proto-
cols to fit the variety of eco-
logical regions in the U.S. In
addition, rapid bioassess-
ment methods are being
developed for estuarine wa-
ters.
• National Estuary Program
Monitoring Guidance: EPA
is developing guidance on the
design, implementation, and
evaluation of estuary moni-
toring programs required
under Section 320 of the
Clean Water.Act. The guid-
ance document identifies the
major steps involved in de-
veloping and implementing
estuary monitoring pro-
grams, documents existing
monitoring methods, and
describes their use in moni-
toring the effectiveness of
estuarine management ac-
tions. Case studies of exist-
ing programs are included.
• Section 305(b) Reporting
Guidelines: EPA has estab-
lished a State-EPA 305(b)
Consistency Workgroup to
evaluate problems of consis-
tency in water quality as-
sessment and reporting un-
der the Section 305(b)
process. In 1991, this work-
group recommended specific
improvements to the bienni-
ally issued reporting guide-
lines to States. Guidelines for
the 1992 305(b) reporting
cycle contain these recom-
mendations, including spe-
cific guidance on the inter-
pretation of chemical moni-
toring data and the use of
additional measures such as
fishing restrictions and tro-
phic status data for lakes.
• Guidance on Planning
and Implementing Volunteer
Monitoring Programs: In
recognition of the value of
volunteer water monitoring
and to encourage the devel-
opment of carefully planned
volunteer programs that
work in conjunction with
State water quality agencies,
EPA developed a volunteer
water monitoring guide for
State managers. This guide
provides specific steps for
planning, implementing, and
maintaining a volunteer
water monitoring program,
and includes sections on
quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC), data man-
agement and presentation,
and funding.
n Nonpoint Source National
Monitoring Program: EPA is
developing a national moni-
toring database designed to
provide information on the
success of nonpoint source
pollution control activities.
To be included in the data-
base, projects must have
ambient monitoring of
chemical, physical, and/or
biological/habitat conditions;
the monitoring must be part
of a rigorous nonpoint source
abatement program with
well-defined goals and objec-
tives. Each of the 10 EPA
158
-------
Surface Water Monitoring
Regions are to allocate a
portion of the Section 319
grant funds for these
projects. Data provided
through this program will
document the effects of well-
developed nonpoint source
pollution control efforts,
provide better understanding
of management programs
and results, and provide a
model for adjusting best
management practices,
where necessary, to achieve
better results.
'}
3. Coordinating and
developing programs to
determine status/trends
and program effective-
ness. New long-term moni-
toring programs and tools
are being developed by the
EPA and USGS to provide
improved water quality in-
formation of value to deci-
sionmakers. Coordination
among Federal agencies and
State water resource manag-
ers will help ensure that
these programs meet data
needs, are not duplicative,
and effectively reflect water
quality conditions.
• EPA's Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment
Program: EPA's Office of
Research and Development
has initiated a program
designed to monitor indica-
tors of the condition of spe-
cific ecological resources on a
regional basis nationwide.
It will describe the current
status, extent, and geo-
graphic distribution of
ecological resources; identify
trends in the quality of those
resources; identify the likely
causes of degradation; and
determine the impact of
pollution control programs.
EMAP is based on a statisti-
cal sampling design and
adopts a long-term, multiple
ecosystem approach. It is
also designed to respond to
monitoring issues and per-
spectives that might arise in
the future.
Cumberland Falls, Kentucky.
• USGS NAWQA Program:
The U.S. Geological Survey
has developed a multiyear
status and trend assessment
program. Its goals are to
provide nationally consistent
descriptions of water quality,
provide a baseline for evalu-
ating past and future trends,
promote understanding of
the factors influencing water
quality, and establish the
basis for forecasting water
quality change and effects of
remedial actions. It is con-
cerned with both ground-
and surface-water quality;
ultimately 60 watershed
areas will be monitored
intensively under this pro-
gram.
• Environmental Indicators:
EPA is researching and test-
ing a proposed set of environ-
mental indicators to be incor-
porated into water quality
monitoring and assessment
programs. The goal of this
project is to promote the use
of indicators that measure
environmental progress,
highlight remaining areas of
concern, and characterize the
range of impacts in the
Nation's waters.
4. Modernizing and im-
proving data manage-
ment capabilities of State
and Federal agencies. A
variety of water quality data
systems are available to
State and Federal agencies
for data storage, analysis,
management, and reporting.
A continuing effort is under-
way to ensure that these
data systems are modernized
and best meet the needs of
the user community.
• EPA Section 305(b)
Waterbody System: This
data management tool was
159
-------
Surface Water Monitoring
designed to track the results,
of State ambient water qual-
ity assessments and to assist
States in the reporting of
those assessments under
Section 305(b) of the Clean
Water Act. TheWaterbody
System (WBS) has been
enhanced twice since its
development for the 1988
reporting cycle. These en-
hancements reflect recom-
mendations made by a work-
group of State and EPA WBS
users. Over 40 States, Terri-
tories, and Interstate Com-
missions are currently using
the WBS in preparing their
biennial Section 305(b) re-
ports.
• Water Quality Data
Systems Steering Committee:
EPA's Office of Water has
organized a Steering Com-
mittee for Water Quality
Data Systems composed of
representatives from EPA's
Office of Water, Office of
Information Resources Man-
agement, Eegional offices,
and various Federal agen-
cies. The Steering Commit-
tee was called together in
response to recommenda-
tions of an internal EPA
1987 study of the surface
water monitoring program.
Its purpose is to guide man-
agement and development of
STOEET, EPA's storage and
retrieval database for water
quality data; oversee Office
of Water water quality data
management systems; and
ensure that EPA and State
data management needs are
met. The principal functions
of the Steering Committee
are to facilitate communica-
tion, cooperation, and coordi-
nation among the various
EPA offices, Regions, and
other agencies.
5. Increasing available
assessment information,
encouraging information
exchange, and involving
the public. EPA encour-
ages States to explore all
available sources of water
quality information, inte-
grate new sources into their
assessment reports where
feasible, exchange data and
report findings, and engage
the public in water quality
protection. Many strides
have already been made in
this area, primarily as part
of the nonpoint source and
estuarine management pro-
grams under Sections 319
and 320 of the Clean Water
Act.
• Volunteer Water Monitor-
ing: A 1988 survey of exist-
ing citizen volunteer moni-
toring programs provided
ample evidence that volun-
teer programs can deliver
reliable water quality data.
EPA supports the develop-
ment of volunteer monitoring
programs that cooperate or
work with State water qual-
ity agencies and that main-
tain stringent QA/QC proto-
cols. EPA sees particular
value in the use of volunteer-
collected data as a screening
tool to detect potential prob-
lems and as baseline infor-
mation in waters otherwise
unmonitored by States. Vol-
unteer monitoring also
serves to educate the public
and engage citizens in water
quality protection.
As mentioned, an EPA
guide for State managers has
been developed, and two
methods manuals for lake
and stream volunteer moni-
toring are in preparation.
EPA also sponsors a volun-
teer monitoring newsletter, a
biennial national sympo-
sium, and regional work-
shops. A number of EPA
Regions provide technical
assistance to States and
groups engaged in volunteer
monitoring.
• Information Clearing-
houses: Several clearing-
houses, electronic bulletin
boards, and information
updates on water quality
activities have been devel-
oped by EPA for use by State
and local governments, Fed-
eral agencies, and the public.
These include the Clean
Lakes Clearinghouse, a bib-
liographic database of lake
restoration, protection, and
management resources; the
Nonpoint Source Bulletin
Board, designed to provide
State and local agencies and
the public with timely,
relevant nonpoint source
information, a forum for
open discussion, and the
ability to exchange computer
text and program files; and a
fish advisory bulletin board
that will promote informa-
tion exchange among Federal
agencies, various State agen-
cies, and the public. Infor-
mation updates on State and
EPA nonpoint source control
activities and water quality
monitoring and assessment
activities are also available.
160
-------
12
£*s^>*^-*-yft>*J5s^i"i;^>1«Srf'{**"~*:"v''1 '"'.. .._••'.•
-
E*«ssEMs!i»»rewj^-tagr '?wi- 3
:ES^^^f^-%.''*^--'/?:j;l«'
%
**::.,;,-:^v-;:,;,v^-'^, -.^:..' ' ""
...,* ,. •./••-•••&' I j. "HT"
'"' " • •' 1- -•wBWr- • ' 1
Costs and Benefits
of Pollution Control
Section 305(b) of the Clean
Water Act calls for States to
prepare estimates of the
economic and social costs
necessary to achieve the
objectives of the Act. States
are also asked to report on
the economic and social ben-
efits of achieving these objec-
tives. This section draws
upon the information sub-
mitted by States and Federal
agencies concerning the
benefits and costs of water
pollution control.
This description of benefits
and costs is incomplete for a
variety of reasons. Informa-
tion is lacking on the
changes in water quality
attributable to State water
quality programs that might
contribute to economic ben-
efits, and information on
economic activity associated
with changes in water qual-
ity is inadequate or nonexist-
ent. Although significant
steps have been taken by
government and academic
institutions to fill these gaps,
more information is needed.
An economic framework
can prove useful in present-
ing information on the conse-
quences of actions taken to
protect water quality condi-
tions. Using this type of
framework, information from
disparate sources can be
organized and presented so
that it will be useful in devel-
oping new environmental
policies or evaluating the
economic efficiency of exist-
ing policies.
However, a well-designed
economic analysis can re-
quire a substantial amount
of effort and resources. For
example, an analysis for a
relatively small watershed, if
complete in its characteriza-
tion of the economic benefits
and costs of efforts under-
taken to achieve defined
water quality standards, can
be expensive to conduct and
161
-------
Costs and Benefits of Pollution Control
prepare. For this reason, the
EPA and the States have, to
date, relied upon existing
studies that describe the
benefits and costs of pollu-
tion control.
Costs
Estimates of the economic
costs of water quality pro-
grams include expenditures
for equipment and personnel
used to reduce and treat
discharges to waterbodies
and governmental expendi-
tures for developing and
enforcing water quality regu-
lations. National cost esti-
mates prepared by the EPA
are presented in Table 12-1.
Only a few States reported
their economic costs in their
Section 305(b) reports,.so
there is no breakdown of
costs by State or other geo-
political region.
As displayed in Table 12-1,
the costs for water pollution
control programs constitute
the largest portion of water
quality expenditures at
present (92 percent as of
1987). Surface water quality
program costs are those
associated with actions taken
to meet the Marine Protec-
tion, Sanctuaries and Re-
search Act of 1972 and the
Clean Water Act as amended
in 1987. Water quality pro-
grams address both point
sources and nonpoint sources
of pollution. Point source
expenditures are those in-
curred to control pollutant
discharges from industrial
and municipal facilities.
Nonpoint source expendi-
tures are those incurred to
control pollution from
sources such as precipitation,
land runoff, drainage, and
seepage, including agricul-
tural runoff, irrigation, re-
turn flows, and urban storm
drainage. The costs for
drinking water programs
shown in Table 12-1 are for
treating drinking water
supplies to improve their
quality for human consump-
tion as required under the
Safe Drinking Water Act as
amended in 1986. The costs
of transporting drinking
water to consumers is a
quantity issue, not a quality
issue, so these costs are not
included in the table.
Total annual water pollu-
tion control costs have in-
creased steadily over time,
from about $9.9 billion in
1972 to $37.5 billion in 1987
(in 1986 dollars). The major-
ity of historical point source
control costs are public ex-
penditures for sewage ser-
vices and wastewater treat-
ment and private expendi-
tures for control of industrial
effluents and the pretreat-
ment of wastewater dis-
charges to municipal treat-
ment facilities. Annual costs
are projected to reach $58
billion by the year 2000
given existing rates of
change. However, the value
shown in Table 12-1 shows
that, to achieve full imple-
mentation of the Acts, costs
will increase to $64 billion in
the year 2000. Most of the
increase in the expenditure
rate is attributable to addi-
tional drinking water regula-
tions and the need to con-
struct additional municipal
wastewater treatment facili-
ties.
Economic costs associated
with other environmental
protection programs can
Table 12-1. Total Annualized Costs of Water Pollution Control in the United States
(millions of 1986 dollars)
Year
Program
Water Quality
Total
Point Source
Nonpoint Source
Drinking Water
Total
1972
9,110
8,543
567
802
1980
22,763
22,116
647
1,982
1987
34,421
33,642
779
3,111
1995
48,193
47,300
893
5,350
2000
57,563
56,604
959
6,571
Total Water
9,912
24,745
37,532
53,543
64,134
Source: Table 3-3, page 3-3, in Environmental Investments: The Cost of a Clean Environment - A Summary,
USEPA, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, December 1990.
162
-------
Costs and Benefits of Pollution Control
contribute to changes in
water quality conditions. For
examplf, improvements in
air quality controls can re-
duce the effects of acidic
deposition on affected water-
bodies. Measures taken to
reduce runoff and leakage
from landfills and under-
ground storage facilities can
prevent the contamination of
surface and ground-water
supplies. The regulation of
toxic pesticides and herbi-
cides can prevent the deterio-
ration of natural ecosystems
and enhance recreational
and commercial fisheries.
Table 12-2 presents the total
annualized cost of environ-
mental protection in the
United States. The propor-
tion of these costs that can be
directly or otherwise related
to water quality improve-
ments has not been com-
puted.
Table 12-3 presents infor-
mation on water pollution
control costs for North
Carolina as an example of
costs incurred by an indi-
vidual State. North Carolina
was the only State that pro-
vided a reasonably broad
(though not comprehensive)
summary of the costs of its
water pollution control ac-
tivities. Several other
States, notably West Vir-
ginia and Nebraska, de-
scribed in some detail the
costs of State-administered
programs but did not include
information on private ex-
penditures. The expendi-
tures in North Carolina are
not necessarily representa-
tive of expenditures in other
States, but the presentation
can serve as a useful illustra-
tion of the variety of Federal,
State, local, and privately
funded and administered
activities aimed at protecting
water quality. An evaluation
of the costs listed in the table
suggests that the majority of
documented costs are mu-
nicipal and industrial treat-
ment costs (both primarily
point sources), whereas agri-
culture (nonpoint source) and
administrative costs are an
order of magnitude smaller.
Benefits
The States' 1990 submis-
sions to the EPA have not
fully described the economic
benefits associated with
water quality improvements.
States continue to focus their
presentations on measurable
physical, chemical, and bio- ,
logical changes in water
quality and estimated
changes in physical loadings
from point and nonpoint
sources of pollution. Few
States have used this infor-
mation as input into eco-
nomic models that translate
changes in water quality
conditions into economic
activities (see Highlight-
Economic Analysis of Marine
Sportfishing). Fewer States
go the next step and attach
Table 12-2. Total Annualized Costs of Environmental Protection in the United
(millions of 1986 dollars)
Year
Program
States
1972
1980
1987
1995
2000
Air and Radiation
Total
7,934
17,854
27,006
37,151
44,944
Water, Total
Land, Total
Chemicals, Total
Multimedia, Total3
Total Costs
Percent of GNPb
9,912
8,436
92
108
26,482
0.88%
24,745
13,612
889
868
57,968
1.58%
37,531
19,092
819
842
85,290
1.92%
53,543
37,158
2,472
2,102
132,426
2.56%
64,134
46,148
2,892
2,298
162,425
2.83%
Includes costs not attributable to individual media programs (e.g., EPA management and support, Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, and undesignated non-EPA Federal costs).
GNP = Gross National Product, using GNP implicit price index.
Source: Table 2-1, pp. 2-2, 2-3, in Environmental Investments: The Costofa Clean Environment - A Summary,
USEPA, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, December 1990.
163
-------
Costs and Benefits of Pollution Control
1"
Economic Analysis
Marine Sportf ishing
EPA is currently supporting
a study with the University
of Maryland to develop a
database and a methodology
II iU >Mi i^iiliiLi'il i ,! ji Ijlji, l|,r pis" »•
for! assessing the economic
value of access to marine
sportfishing and the eco-
nomic value of changes in
the catch rates of various
species and species groups.
The survey data cover the
region from New York south
along the coast to south
Florida (excluding the
Florida Keys)! This'area
encompasses nearly 80 per-
cent of East Coast marine
sportfishing participants. It
is also an area with active
pollution contrpi policies and
several management plans
involving recreational
fisheries. To analyze the
effects on recreational fishing
decisions of policies & control
water pollution, for example,
it must be,assumed that the ,
policies wiU first alter fish
catch rates (i.ew by improv-
ing fish stock size). Fisher-
men will then respond to the
I nl'IA'Alimiirhiil'ill'l I;! „.*
changes in. catch rates by
altering where tEey fish,
what species they fish for,
their fishing mode, and
perhaps how often they fish.
I These behavioral changes
can then be linked to dollar
measures of the benefits to
recreational fishermen of the
improved fishing conditions.
The preferred method of
analysis adopted in this
research is based on the
random utility model, which
was developed in earlier
work under a cooperative
agreement with the EPA.
In one paper,2 the model is
applied only to Florida fish-
ing sites. This model
assumes the decision to go
fishing at a site on Florida's
east coast and predicts
which site the fisherman will
select on the basis of the
relative attractiveness of the
alternatives. These sites are
pictured in the figure below.
Using data from the
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) survey on
species caught, aggregate
catch rates are constructed
for three fishing categories:
big game fish (e.g., billfish,
marlih, and tuna), small
game fish (e.g., bluefish,
mackerel, and sea trout),
and bottomfish (e.g., sheeps-
head, snapper, and grouper).
Catch rate is defined as the
mean number offish of a
species group caught per trip
at the site. The catch rates
vary by time of year and by
fishing mode (i.e., shore or
boat).
Dollar benefit estimates
were calculated for three
distinct scenarios. The first
involved an increase in the
small game fish catch rates
for both modes and all sites
by 20 percent. This would
increase the sample average
benefits associated with each
fishing occasion by $0.33, A
similar increase in catch
rates for bottomfish by boat
fishermen would be $1.27 per
choice occasion. Finally, the
average dollar benefit from a
20 percent increase in the
catch rates of big game fish
would be $1.56 per trip.
The more detailed report,
which is forthcoming from
the University of Maryland,
will include all of the regions
covered by the survey. Thus,
it will permit additional
regional analyses such as the
one discussed here, but the
more detailed model will also
demonstrate, for example,
how changes in the Florida
fishery affect fishing behav-
ior in the Chesapeake Bay
region.
N. E. Bocksfael. Wr Mr JHanemann,
and I. E. Strand, 1§89. Measuring
the Benefits of Water .Quality
Improvements Using Recreation
Demand Models, Vol. 2 oC Benefits
Analysis Using Indirect or Imputed
Market Mef?iods~EPA Report ............
#230-10-89-'p^9 and NT IS
2N. E. Bockstael, & i. McConnell,
and I. E. Strand, 1989. A Random
Utility Model for Sportfislung:
Some Preliminary Results for
Florida, Marine Resource Econom-
ics, 6:245-2fcO.
urn \
Indian Rlver/SI. Lucie/
Martin
Recreational Fishing Sites Modeled for Florida.
164
-------
Coste and Benefits of Pollution Control
Table 12-3. Costs of Water Pollution Control Activities in North Carolina3
Category of Expenditures/Source of Funds (where available)
Years Data Available
(thousands of dollars)
MUNICIPAL COSTS
- Capital Investment in Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities
- Total Federal funds (EPA and other Federal agencies)
- Total State funds (Water Bond Acts and Revolving Loan
and Grant Act sources)
- Total local funds (matching funds and other sources)
INDUSTRIAL COSTS
- Capital Expenditures for Manufacturing Firms of 20 or More Employees
- End-of-line treatment
- Change in production process
- Operating Costs for Manufacturing Firms of 20 or More Employees
- Water pollution abatement operating costs
- Payments to government units for sewerage services
AGRICULTURAL COSTS
- Best Management Practices
- State funds granted to farmers
- Estimated minimum matching funds invested by farmers
- Technical Assistance
— State funds granted to local governments
- Estimated minimum matching funds from local governments
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
- Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
— Division of Environmental Management
• Surface Water Quality Section
• Groundwater Section
• Construction Grants and Loans Section
• Laboratory Section (Surface and Groundwater)
- Division of Land Resources (includes Sedimentation and
Erosion Control budget and most of Mining Branch)
- Division of Soil and Water Conservation
• Agricultural Cost-Share Program Section
• Watershed Planning Section
• Wetlands Inventory Section
- Pollution Prevention Program
- Division of Environmental Health (onsite sewage collection,
treatment and disposal program) •
- Division of Water Resources
• Aquatic Weed Control Program
• Stream Watch- Program
• In-stream Flow Studies
FY1988
52,800
3,890
84,700
FY1988
6,060
2,000
483
1,712
FY1988
6,410
2,446
1,636
1,363
1,500
154
86
34
388
420
63
22
39
FY1986
13,900
1,700
90,000
35,800
FY1989
444,500
8,800
50,000
FY1989
6,456
2,132
970
3,057
FY1989
7,327
2,771
1,473
1,339
1,500
218
90
36
488
420
66
23
41
As noted by the authors, these figures do not represent a comprehensive list of all water pollution control expenditures in North Carolina. Some major
categories excluded include operation and maintenance expenditures for municipal wastewater and treatment; capital and operating expenditures for
drinking water treatment; other State environmental programs supporting water quality protection; and other Federal, State, local, and private initiatives.
Source: Adapted from tables on pp. 140-143 in Chapter Three, 1988 North Carolina State 305(b) Report, 1990.
165
-------
Costs and Benefits of Pollution Control
values to these economic
activities in a manner that
allows for a comparison
between the economic costs
and benefits.
States reporting on eco-
nomic benefits limited their
discussions to selected local
projects involving a single
pollutant source or class of
sources. This information
was typically prepared in
support of a local policy deci-
sion or as a case study for
some larger regional or na-
tional issue. As a result,
there were no comprehensive
economic benefit estimates
prepared by an individual
State for any category of
benefits.
Figure 12-1 attempts to
characterize the universe of
economic benefit categories
associated with water quality
conditions. Using this cat-
egorization scheme, benefits
are divided into two distinct
groups: (1) benefits that are
not related to current uses by
individuals, and (2) benefits
associated with current uses
by individuals. The first
category is designed to cap-
ture intrinsic economic val-
ues that may arise from
bequest or stewardship moti-
vations, for example. To
illustrate, individuals may
wish to secure a satisfactory
level of water quality in a
lake for their use in the fu-
ture. Thus, they may be
willing to pay to maintain
the water quality of the lake.
Similarly, individuals may
be willing to pay to secure
the lake's water quality for
persons other than them-
selves, which may extend
beyond the existing popula-
tion and include future gen-
erations.
The second category de-
scribes the benefits associ-
ated with current uses of
waterbodies and includes
both direct and indirect con-
tributions of water quality to
the individual's consumption
A diver enjoys the pristine beauty of the underwater world, Kona Coast, Hawaii.
patterns. Examples of direct
effects include the effect of
water quality on changes in
water-based recreational
activities, drinking water
supplies, and the supply of
commercial fishery stocks.
Indirect factors affected by
water quality conditions
include such items as agri-
cultural irrigation and indus-
trial processes using water
as an input to production. In
addition, naturally occurring
ecosystem processes provide
services that both directly
and indirectly influence the
economic behavior of indi-
viduals. Little information
has been cataloged on the
contribution of ecosystems to
the well-being of humans or
to productive outputs, but
this area of research is likely
to grow.
Ideally, State and Federal
water quality program ben-
efits should be analyzed and
displayed concisely and com-
prehensively (see Figure
12-1). In fact, few studies
succeed in cataloging the full
array of benefits-associated
with water quality programs.
Some benefit categories have
been the focus of significant
theoretical and empirical
research, notably recreation,
commercial, and municipal
drinking water services.
Consequently, policymakers'
efforts to evaluate the eco-
nomic benefits of these cat-
egories can yield tenable
results (although these pro-
cedures continue to have
their detractors and limita-
tions). Other benefit catego-
ries have only recently begun
to be explored in depth. As
the need to identify the envi-
ronmental results, of govern-
ment regulations becomes a
greater concern, more will be
done to extend the current
166
-------
Costs and Benefits of Pollution Control
I. INTRINSIC BENEFITS
A. No Current Use by the Individual.
1. Community Benefits - Biocentric satisfaction of knowing that an ecological community is sustained for
its own sake.
2. Existence Benefits - Vicarious enjoyment from the knowledge that other individuals are now using the resource.
Stewardship interest in providing a future opportunity for other individuals to use the resource.
B. Potential Future Use by the Individual
1. Option Benefits - Interest in securing option to participate in an activity or use a resource at some point in the
future (i.e., participate in any categories listed below under "CURRENT BENEFITS").
II. CURRENT BENEFITS
A. Indirect Use by the Individual (limited physical contact with water or recognition of contribution to
environmental conditions).
1. Aesthetic Benefits - Conditions enhance characteristics of current adjoining fixed amenities
(e.g., lakeside commercial and residential property).
2. Recreational Benefits - Conditions enhance characteristics of current adjoining transitory activities
(e.g., hiking, picnicking, birdwatching, and photography). . .
3. Structural Ecosystem Benefits - Conditions maintain functional ecosystem processes
(e.g., stable climate, purification of air, land, and water, storm protection).
B. Direct Use by the Individual (extensive contact with water, and consumption of goods where water
is an input to production of the good).
1. Recreational Benefits - Conditions enhance characteristics of current water-contact activities
(e.g., commercial and private boating, swimming, and fishing).
2. Commercial Benefits - Conditions enhance characteristics of current production processes and activities.
a. Extractive Commercial Uses - Production practices where water is a medium for other goods
(e.g., commercial fishing, chemical industries, medical industries).
b. Commercial Navigation - (e.g., darns, locks, canals, ports).
c. Agricultural Irrigation - Water used as input to production of agricultural crops.
d. Industrial Processes - Water itself is used as input to production (e.g., processing, cooling,
waste disposal, and steam generation).
e. Municipal Water - (e.g., water used for drinking, washing, and fire protection).
Source: Adapted from Figure 3-1, page 3-2, in Benefit-Cost Assessment Handbook for Water Programs, Volume 1, Research Triangle Institute
prepared for the USEPA, Economic Analysis Division, April 1983.
Figure 12-1. Classification of Economic Benefits Related to Water Quality Conditions
167
-------
Coste and Benefits of Pollution Control
state of knowledge on eco-
nomic theories and methods
useful for calculating
benefits.
In the 1990 State 305(b)
reports, several States
elected to report on water
quality improvements and
the economic benefits
achieved as a result of their
efforts. The following ex-
amples are intended to dem-
onstrate how States have
responded to requests for
information on the economic
benefits of their programs.
These examples are not
intended to be representative
of conditions within or across
individual States during the
period 1988-1990. The order
of presentation is designed to
show a spectrum of sophisti-
cation in the use of informa-
tion and economic theory in
the preparation of State
benefit analyses. The first
examples contain a limited
amount of economic informa-
tion on costs and benefits,
whereas the last example
makes use of state-of-the-art
applied economic techniques
to arrive at economic benefits
attributable to improvements
in water quality. It is hoped
that these examples will
assist States in preparing
future Section 305(b) reports.
• The Ohio River Commis-
sion examined long-term
trends in monitoring data for
total suspended solids (TSS)
and total Kjeldahl nitrogen
(TKN) and their relationship
with wastewater treatment
dollars spent through the
Construction Grants Pro-
gram. In Table 12-4, the
category of dollars spent
refers to monies allocated
from 1977 through 1989 for
publicly owned treatment
works discharging directly
into the Ohio River. The
dollar amount may include
additional State and local
funds as well as monies
spent for project planning,
Table 12-4. Wastewater Treatment Systems Expenditures and Ohio River Water
Quality Improvements
Dollars Spent on
Ohio River Improvement Along Segment Long-Term Trends
Mile Points ($ million) Concentrations
26.5 to 40.2
43.3 to 86.8
94.0 to 126.4
138.2 to 161.8
171.0 to 203.9
243.0 to 260.0
269.7 to 279.2
308.3 to 350.7
356.0 to 408.5
417.1 to 462.8
464.5 to 490.0
506.0 to 531 .5
605.2 to 625.2
724.0 to 791 .5
792.5 to 846.0
891.5 to 91 8.5
944.0 to 952.3
4.5
39.8
56.5
5.9
40.7
6.2
3.9
89.3
3.4
9.2
73.3
0.5
31.4
13.7
11.4
1.2
2.8
TSS = 0.04,
TSS = no trend,
TSS = no trend,
TSS = 0.04,
TSS = 0.06,
TSS = 0.08
TSS = 0.07,
TSS = 0.03,
TSS = no trend,
TSS = no trend,
TSS = 0.03,
TSS = no trend,
TSS = 0.07,
TSS = 0.07,
TSS = no trend,
TSS = no trend,
TSS = 0.06,
in Decreasing
(mg/L/yr)
TKN = 0.08
TKN = 0.06
TKN = 0.05
TKN = 0.07
TKN = 0.07
TKN = 0.08
TKN = 0.07
TKN = 0.05
TKN = NA
TKN = NA
TKN = NA
TKN = NA
TKN = 0.03
TKN = 0.02
TKN = NA
TKN = NA
TKN = 0.02
TSS = Total suspended solids.
TKN = Total Kjeldahl nitrogen.
NA = Not available due to insufficient data.
Source: Adapted from Table 30, pages 6-12 to 6-15,OWo 1988 Section 305(b) Report, Ohio EPA, 1990.
168
-------
Costs and Benefits of Pollution Control
collection system improve-
ments, and other areas not
directly resulting in im-
proved effluent quality. Fur-
ther, some monies allocated
during this period may not
have been spent, while mon-
ies allocated prior to 1977
are not reported but may
have been spent during the
report period. The trend
data refer to median
decreases in TSS and TKN
concentrations measured
using the Commission's
monitoring program. The
table suggests that there
may be a relationship be-
tween construction expendi-
tures for wastewater treat-
ment systems and Ohio
River water quality improve-
ments. However, additional
information is needed to
prepare a more conclusive
statement about the relation-
ship between these expendi-
tures and water quality
conditions in the Ohio River.
• Missouri prepared esti-
mates on the benefits and
costs of several different
wastewater treatment
projects. In this comparison,
they elected not to assign
dollar values to the environ-
mental benefits, but simply
to list them. In most cases,
the benefits were described
as protecting stream miles,
some of which are classified
by the State. For the 44
small watershed soil conser-
vation projects, substantial
soil conservation benefits
resulted. Included were a
reduction in sedimentation
rates in 11 small drinking
water reservoirs and a reduc-
tion in concentrations of
agricultural chemicals in
these same reservoirs. For
six coal mine reclamation
projects, 20 miles of classi-
fied streams were protected
and 1,000 acres of land were
returned to production.
• In the District of Colum-
bia, discernible water quality
improvements have led to
increased use of the Potomac
River by the local population.
In the 1960s, summer water
quality conditions in the
Potomac River were unable
to support recreational and
aesthetic uses. By contrast,
the number of boating and
water sports events (e.g.,
rowing, wind surfing) and
commercial development
along the Potomac today are
indicative of the value this
resource is capable of deliver-
ing. Surveys conducted by
the fisheries management
program have shown that
fishing activity and the num-
ber of anglers have increased
greatly. In 1988, the District
began to require that anglers
purchase a license to fish in
District waters. In 1989,
fishing license registration
doubled and is projected to'
increase an additional 25
percent in 1990.
• An attempt to analyze
the costs and benefits of
restoring lake water quality
and recreational value
through implementation of
in-lake restoration practices
(e.g., Clean Lakes Program)
was undertaken for three
project areas in Illinois.
Benefits were expected to
accrue as a result of better
recreational experiences and
an increase in the extent of
one or more uses. A proce- ,
dure for calculating in-
creased economic benefit,
based on potential "visitor
day" estimates, was recom-
mended for use by the U.S.
Water Resources Council.
The procedure called for
assigning points to five gen-
eral recreation criteria,
An alligator in the Florida Everglades.
169
-------
Costs and Benefits of Pollution Control [
comparing pre- and post-
implementation conditions.
Criteria included recre-
ational activities, availability
of other nearby lakes, carry-
ing capacity, accessibility,
and aesthetics. Assigned
points were then converted
into dollar values. Annual
benefits and cost-benefit
ratios were calculated. For
these three projects, using
current discounted, cash flow
estimates over a 10-year
period, the analyses sug-
gested that all three restora-
tion projects had strongly
positive benefit-cost ratios.
• A study was performed for
North Carolina's Albemarle ,
and Pamlico Sounds on the
economic benefits of recre-
ational fishing due to im-
provements in estuarine
water quality. The research-
ers employed a travel cost
method (a random-utility
maximization model) of
estimating demands for
fishing in the Pamlico Sound
and Outer Banks regions
separately. The travel cost
method uses information on.
the travel expenditures of
recreationists and the char-
acteristics of sites, including
water quality, for the
unpriced water quality im-
provements. The research
concluded that a 25 percent
increase in the fish catch
rate (a site characteristic
related to water quality)
would increase the value to a
fisherman of a typical fishing
trip by between $10 and $71
(in 1981 dollars). The au-
thors note that the site-
specific nature of the analy-
sis, and the nature of eco-
nomic benefit estimation,
warrant additional research
before such information can
be used in comparison with
costs of specific water pollu-
tion control programs by
State decisionmakers.
Boating and other water sports are important recreational benefits resulting from good water quality management.
170
-------
13
Recommendations
In their 1990 reports, 41
States and Territories dis-
cussed recommended pro-
gram actions needed to make
additional progress toward
the Clean Water Act's goal of
fishable and swimmable
waters. These recommenda-
tions encompass a range of
actions at the Congressional,
Federal, State, and local
levels and are often ex-
pressed in terms of State
objectives or continuing
needs. It should be empha-
sized that the recommenda-
tions discussed here were
reported by the States them-
selves in 1990; this discus-
sion does not attempt to
assess their merits. Nor
should this discussion be
construed as an EPA or
Administration endorsement
of any State recommenda-
tions. Many of the State
recommendations for action
do, however, reflect current
EPA program concerns and
priorities.
A recurring theme in
almost all State recommen-
dations is the need for con-
tinued, and in many cases
additional, funding to imple-
ment ever-expanding State
water quality protection
responsibilities. For ex-
ample, Mississippi's 305(b)
report includes the following:
To adequately assess the
quality of the State's
surface waters and
groundwaters requires a
significant commitment
of human and monetary
resources. The ambient
surface water monitor-
ing program has histori-
cally been focused on
conventional physical,
chemical, and biological
parameters. However,
the number of sampling
sites, sampling locations,
and sampling frequen-
cies are not adequate,
171
-------
Sfafe Recommendations
nor are toxic parameters
being adequately ad-
dressed. In addition, the
surface water monitor-
ing needs of programs
addressing agricultural
nonpoint source pollu-
tion, urban stormwater
runoff, water quality
and sediment contami-
nation below point dis-
charges, and lakes can
now only be minimally
met, if at all. The State
simply does not have the
resources to upgrade the
monitoring program at
present funding and
staffing levels.
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, toxics
identification and control,
water quality monitoring,
lake protection, water
quality criteria and stan-
dards, municipal facilities,
ground-water protection,
data management/coordina-
tion, and wetlands protec-
tion. Other toxics less fre-
quently cited by the States
include combined sewer
overflows and urban
stormwater runoff, permit-
ting and enforcement, and
estuaries.
Nonpoint Source Abate-
ment: Recommendations
most often cited by the
States concern the identifica-
tion, prevention, and control
of nonpoint sources of pollu-
tion. Most commonly, States
cite the need for additional
funding for development of
better monitoring and as-
sessment methods to detect
NFS, assess their impacts,
and determine the effective-
ness of NFS controls. Identi-
fication and regulation of
urban runoff was most often
cited by States as the NPS
Feedlots often drain animal waste into nearby streams.
area needing additional
financial support. (Note that
much of urban runoff is dis-
charged in a conveyance that
is legally considered a point
source and is subject to
NPDES stormwater require-
ments.) Several States also
indicate that funding is
needed to implement NPS
Management Plans and
establish action plans for
priority watersheds. A num-
ber of States cite increased
public education on the na-
ture of NPS pollution and
NPS controls as a mecha-
nism for encouraging BMP
implementation and NPS
program funding. Several
States suggest EPA should
take specific actions with
respect to NPS programs
ranging from issuing loading
limits for NPS pollutants
and recommending adoption
of more stringent nutrient
standards to developing
numeric criteria for NPS
pollutants.
Identification and Con-
trol of Toxic Substances:
The States strongly recom-
mend expanding efforts to
gather data on toxic pollut-
ants and to develop or imple-
ment State toxic control
programs. Specific recom-
mendations for data collec-
tion on toxics emphasize two
areas: bioaccumulation of
toxics in fish and shellfish
tissue and sediment contami-
nation. The States cite a
need for the Federal govern-
ment to provide national
guidance on bioaccumulation
of toxics in fish tissue includ-
ing standardizing analytical
methods, establishing na-
tional risk assessment meth-
odology, and developing
standardized procedures for
the issuance of consumption
172
-------
State Recommendations
advisories to the public.
Funding is requested by
several States to initiate or
expand their current fish
tissue monitoring programs.
With respect to sediment
contamination, almost half of
the States recommend that
EPA actively pursue develop-
ment of a nationwide in-
plaee pollutant program
designed to provide both
technical guidance and dedi-
cated Federal financial sup-
port for expansion of sedi-
ment monitoring programs
and remediation efforts. In
addition, States cite the need
for EPA to refine and/or
develop national sediment
criteria for toxics, particu-
larly heavy metals.
Water Quality Monitor-
ing: Beyond expressing a
general need to expand wa-
ter quality monitoring activi-
ties and evaluate them to be
certain they are providing
needed data, a prominent
Electrofishing is used to sample fisheries resources in small streams.
theme of State monitoring
recommendations is to
increase the emphasis on
instream biological monitor-
ing as an indicator of pollu-
tion and pollution abate-
ment. Specifically, States
recommend the expanded
use of rapid bioassessment
techniques and development
of biocriteria for making use
support determinations.
Other monitoring recommen-
dations include seeking in-
creased EPA and State sup-
port to expand fish tissue
and sediment toxics monitor-
ing programs as well as lake
and NFS monitoring efforts.
Lake Protection: The
States overwhehningly rec-
ommend that Congress ap-
propriate funds to support
the Clean Lakes Program.
While about half of the
States cite the need for fund-
ing to support ongoing lake
quality assessment programs
and restoration efforts, the
remainder cite the need for
funding simply to initiate a
viable lake water quality
monitoring program. Par-
ticularly for these latter
States, efforts to collect
monitoring data on lake
water quality, establish a
database for implementation
of Phase I and II Clean
Lakes Studies, and develop a
long-term lake water quality
management program have
been hampered by lack of
available State and/or Fed-
eral funding. Overall, the
States cite the need for addi-
tional data on lake water
quality conditions and trends
and the increasing vulner-
ability of lakes to intense
development pressures,
effects of nutrient enrich-
ment, toxics (particularly
heavy metals and pesticides),
pathogenic bacterial con-
tamination, and acid deposi-
tion as primary reasons for
needing strong lake protec-
tion programs.
Water Quality Criteria
and Standards: The States'
ability to assess water qual-
ity conditions depends heav-
ily on criteria for specific
pollutants established by the
States and approved by EPA.
When these criteria are vio-
lated, designated uses may
not be met. Together with an
antidegradation policy, the
criteria and the uses they
protect form the State's wa-
ter quality standards. A
number of States recommend
updating their standards by
taking such actions as
strengthening numerical
criteria for toxics (particu-
.larly priority organics and
heavy metals), adopting new
standards for NPS pollutants
and wetlands protection, or
developing more specific
classifications such as nutri-
ent-sensitive or high-quality
waters. Federal leadership
is urged in finalizing criteria
for sediment contamination
and continuing to refine and
develop criteria for sub-
stances causing risks to
human health with specific
emphasis on fish and shell-
fish consumption advisories.
EPA is also encouraged to
promote greater interstate
consistency in all water qual-
ity standards.
Municipal Facilities:
Continued funding for the
maintenance, upgrade, and
construction of municipal
sewage treatment facilities
remains a leading recom-
mendation of the States.
Several States express
concerns about the State
173
-------
State Recommendations
Revolving Fund Program,
which replaces the Construc-
tion Grants Program, termi-
nated in 1990. The State
Revolving Fund Program
transfers funding responsi-
bility for wastewater treat-
ment construction from the
Federal Government to the
States. Several States voice
concerns that adequate
money is not available to
provide a smooth transition
from the Construction
Grants Program to the State
Revolving Fund Program.,
Several States express con-
cerns about acquiring match-
ing funds required to initiate
State Revolving Fund Pro-
grams in their States. Two
other municipal concerns
that were cited by many
States involved pretreatment
. and CSO mitigation prob-
lems. States feel there
should be more emphasis by
EPA on municipalities to
implement and enforce their
approved pretreatment
Citizens Working Together For
A Clean, Coastal Environment.
Citizen action groups work to strengthen existing State protection
efforts.
programs. Federal funding
is urged to support inspec-
tions, audits of industrial
uses, enforcement, and more
research on the effectiveness
of pretreatment in reducing
toxics in effluent. Special
appropriations are also
needed for CSO mitigation
projects, and, because of
excessive costs, States rec-
ommend Federal assistance
be provided to implement the
projects in a timely manner.
Ground-Water Protec-
tion: Clear priorities many
States and Territories
express include gaining a
better understanding of the
quality of their ground-water
resources, identifying and
mapping these resources
using the Geographic Infor-
mation System, identifying
potential sources of contami-
nation, and determining the
vulnerability of their ground-
water resources to various
pollution sources. Several
States recommend continued
collection and analysis of
ground-water data. Their
recommendations include
more Federal funding to
expand ground-water moni-
toring and management
programs, development of a
national concept for ground-
water protection including
establishment of minimum
ground-water quality stan-
dards, and greater coordina-
tion of ground-water protec-
tion activities among various
Federal, State, and local
programs.
Data Management/
Coordination: EPA and
the States are actively en-
gaged in developing comput-
erized data management
systems to handle a wide
range of water quality and
program information. A
common State recommenda-
tion is to integrate and en-
hance these various data-
bases. Integration of State
surface and ground-water
quality data into the Geo-
graphic Information System
and expanded use of the
National Waterbody System
PC reach file capabilities are
cited. States also urge more
effective coordination among
State, local, and Federal
agencies to better address
diverse or cross-media envi-
ronmental problems such as
NFS pollution (including
hazardous waste disposal,
agricultural runoff, and acid
deposition) and wetlands and
ground-water protection.
Wetlands Protection:
Several States call for in-
creased Federal efforts in
protecting valuable wetlands
resources. Specific recom-
mendations include the need
for additional Federal appro-
priations to identify and
quantify wetlands acreage
and to strengthen existing
State protection efforts. In
addition, a number of States
cite the need for additional
Federal guidance to States in
developing water quality
standards and designated
use classification for wet-
lands or, in lieu of that, the
need for establishing na-
tional minimum water qual-
ity standards for wetlands to
be incorporated into State
regulations.
174
-------
Appendix
-------
-------
Appendix
Alabama
To obtain a copy of the
Alabama 1990 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
12,016 miles of streams,
504,721 acres of lakes, 103
square miles of estuaries and
50 coastal miles. Of these
assessed waters, approxi-
mately 74 percent fully sup-
port their designated uses,
16 percent fully support but
with a possibility of being
threatened without some
means of corrective action,
5 percent partially support
uses, and 5 percent do not *
support uses.
Alabama also assessed the
extent to which its waters
support the fishable/swim-
mable goal of the Clean
Water Act. Of the assessed
waters, 82 percent meet the
fishable/swimmable goals,
11 percent partially meet the
goals, 6 percent do not meet
the CWA goals, and less than
1 percent are not capable of
attaining the goals because
they are classified less strin-
gent than fishable/swim-
mable.
The main causes of
nonsupport of designated
uses are excessive levels of
nutrients and organic enrich-
ment leading to depleted
levels of dissolved oxygen.
Inadequately treated
effluents from municipal
discharges, industrial dis-
charges, and nonpoint source
runoff appear to be leading
sources of pollution in the
State.
Based on available data
and using Water Quality
Report guidance, 59 percent
of Alabama's total reservoir
surface acreage is deter-
mined to be supporting all
uses, 29 percent is use-
threatened, and 12 percent is
unable to fully support all
intended uses.
Funding available through
the Clean Lakes Program
has allowed the initial devel-
opment of a uniform data-
base for all Alabama reser-
voirs. Alabama says that
continued funding of the
Clean Lakes Program is
important to continue needed
monitoring activities in the
State.
Wetlands are included as
waters of the State in the
Alabama Water Pollution
Control Act (AWPCA) by
definition but, to date, are
not defined or protected for
their inherent value. ADEM
strives to achieve a "no net
loss" of wetlands and areas
deemed of greatest ecological
value. Particularly, wet-
lands and submerged aquatic
vegetation are protected, and
development is diverted
whenever possible. In
ADEM's regulations, wet-
lands and submerged
grassbeds are identified as
coastal resources on which
impacts from any regulated
use must be considered.
'Dredge and fill activities in
freshwater wetlands are
regulated solely by ADEM's
authority to issue 401 Water
Quality Certification under
the Clean Water Act (CWA).
During the 1988-1989
reporting period, 19 public
wastewater treatment facili-
ties were completed through
the construction grants pro-
gram at a cost exceeding
$120 million. Since the
enactment of the CWA,
Alabama has reduced the
discharge of primary treated
wastewater from 65 MGD to
0 MGD and the volume of
raw discharge from 2.5 MGD
to 0 MGD.
ADEM monitors the sur-
face waters of the State by
means of a fixed-station
ambient monitoring network,
water quality demonstration
studies, intensive surveys
and compliance monitoring
of effluent discharges.
Ground-Water
Quality
The State of Alabama has
a diverse and complex geo-
logic environment that pro-
vides for an abundant
ground-water resource. The
diversity of the geology
serves to protect many deep
aquifers from surficial point
source and nonpoint source
contamination. The same
geology provides for rela-
tively fast surficial recharge
to some shallow aquifers,
which are also highly suscep-
tible to contamination from
surface sources.
Overall ground-water
quality in Alabama public
water supply systems is good
due to the maintenance of
drinking water and well
construction standards. The
Alabama Geological Survey
monitoring well network
indicates relatively good
overall ground-water quality.
The number of known
sources, releases, and events
of ground-water contamina-
tion has. increased signifi-
cantly in the past year due to
better reporting under the
underground storage tank
(UST) program and in-
creased public knowledge of
ground-water issues.
Alaska
To obtain a copy of the
Alaska 1990 305(b) report,
contact:
Alaska Department of
Environmental
Conservation
Division of Environmental
Quality
Water Quality Management
.Section
P.O. Box O
Juneau, AK 99811-1800
Surface Water
Quality
Alaska's waters are vast.
There are an estimated
3,000,000 lakes, 365,000
miles of rivers and streams,
170,000,000 acres of wet-
lands, and 36,000 coastal
shoreline miles. Only a
fraction of 1 percent of the
total number of waterbodies
are assessed. Most waters
are remote from population
centers and are presumed to
be in pristine condition.
Water pollution problems are
centered in urban and indus-
trial areas.
Impaired rivers and
streams number 29, with 122
listed as suspected. Timber ,
harvest, placer mining, and
urban runoff are the major
sources of impaired rivers
and streams. Urban devel-
A-1
-------
Appendix
opment is the major source of
pollution, of lakes (fuel and
chemical leaks and spills,
septic systems, erosion, pes-
ticides, fertilizers, and ani-
mal wastes). Thirteen lakes
are identified as impaired,
and 34 as suspected.
Alaska's estuaries and
coastal waterbodies are
affected by urban and harbor
activities, oil and gas devel-
opment and transportation,
industrial sources, municipal
sewage treatment plants,
and timber harvest and
processing. Sixteen estuar-
ies are listed as impaired and
16 as suspected. No coastal
waterbodies are identified as
impaired or suspected.
The most significant event
affecting water quality in
Alaska in the past 2 years
clearly was the Nation's
largest oil spill, caused by
the grounding of the Exxon
Valdez on Bligh Eeef in
Prince William Sound on
March 24,1989. The 10.9-
million-gallon spill of crude
oil affected hundreds of
square miles of estuaries and
coastal waters. Over 100
miles of shoreline remain
moderately to heavily oiled,
with oil residues frequently
embedded in intertidal sub-
strates. The six coastal
waterbodies listed as im-
paired are Cook Inlet,
Katmai National Monument,
Kenai Peninsula, Prince
William Sound, Shelikof
Strait, and Western Gulf of
Alaska. A major effort to
assess natural resource dam-
ages from the Exxon Valdez
oil spill is continuing with
many State, Federal, indus-
try, and local cooperators.
Wetlands constitute an
estimated 150,000,000 to
223,000,000 acres, or 41 to
61 percent of the State's total
land area. Portions of
Alaska's wetlands are as-
sessed as unpaired as a re- •
suit of oil and gas develop-
ment on the North Slope and
Kenai Peninsula. One wet-
land area is listed as sus-
pected due to urban develop-
ment. It is estimated that
80,000 acres of wetlands
have been filled in Alaska
from all activities, or 0.05
percent of the State's total
wetland acreage. The extent
of hydrologic modification of
wetlands is thought to be
considerable but is not quan-
tified.
Ground-Water
Quality
The State is faced with an
increasing number of sites
with contaminated ground
water. The major source of
contamination is leaking
underground fuel tanks;
other sources are failing
septic systems, hazardous
substances, and landfill
leachate. Forty-six ground-
water sites are assessed as
impaired, and four as sus-
pected. Ground-water con-
tamination often is discov-
ered through periodic testing
of well water or citizen com-
plaints. Systematic and
routine efforts are needed to
screen for ground-water
contamination.
To address ground-water
issues, ADEC completed a
draft statewide Ground-
water Quality Protection
Strategy in September 1988
that identified 120 ground-
water sites contaminated by
various pollutants but not
necessarily in violation of
water quality standards.
ADEC also has prepared an
Oil and Hazardous Sub-
stance Site report identifying
approximately 277 sites
potentially contaminated
with hazardous materials
and maintains a drinking
water database for all public
water supplies statewide.
The great majority of
Alaska's waterbodies meet
high quality standards, yet
significant and widespread
water pollution problems
remain that interfere with
existing and attainable uses
of water under regulation.
Uses most often compro-
mised include drinking,
recreation, and growth and
propagation of fish, shellfish,
and wildlife.
The intensity of water
resource use is increasing as
population increases. The
1990 assessment of water
quality in Alaska is intended
to promote agency and citi-
zen action toward full attain-
ment of national and State
water quality goals.
Arizona
To obtain a copy of the
Arizona 1990 305(b) report,
contact:
Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality
2005 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Surface Water
Quality
During water years 1988-
1989, 5,185 river miles were
assessed in Arizona, 30 per-
cent of the estimated 17,537
stream miles. Of the river
miles assessed, 74 percent
have impaired support of
designated uses and 18
percent are impaired by
elevated levels of toxics.
An assessment was also
completed on 52 of the 182
lakes included in the new
Clean Lakes Program. Of
the 121,388 lake acres
assessed, 23 percent have
impaired support of desig-
nated uses and 18 percent
are impaired because of
elevated levels of toxics.
Monitoring data were avail-
able on 16 lakes; however,
only 7 of the lakes assessed
had sufficient samples to
provide a "monitored" assess-
ment.
Arizona identifies its prin-
cipal surface water quality
problems to be contamina-
tion of the lower Salt River
and middle Gila River by
toxic chemicals; contamina-
tion of the Puerco River by
radiochemicals; untreated
wastewater in Nogales
Wash; contamination of San
Pedro Creek with metals,
turbidity, and ammonia; and
acid mining contamination of
Boulder Creek, and head-
waters of Sonoita Creek.
Much of Arizona is a
fragile desert, very slow to
revegetate, and, once the
desert crust is disturbed,
quick to blow into dust
storms or wash away with a
rainstorm. This desert land-
scape is significantly im-
paired because of historically
poor rangeland management,
mining operations, and re-
cent explosive urban develop-
ment.
Concern about the protec-
tion and management of
Arizona's wetlands and ri-
parian areas has escalated in
the past few years resulting
in the formation of the Ripar-
ian Habitat Task Force es-
tablished by Executive Order
of the Governor in June
1989.
A-2
-------
Appendix
A total of 728 wastewater
treatment systems are regu-.
lated in Arizona. In 1988,
491 (67 percent) were in full
or substantial compliance
with regulatory require-
ments. Of the 158 facilities
in Arizona holding National
Pollution Discharge Elimina-
tion System (NPDES) per-
mits, 17 (11 percent) are not
in compliance with the condi-
tions of their permits due to
failure to adequately report
effluent discharges and 55
(35 percent) are not in com-
pliance due to the discharge
of effluent of substandard
quality or due to substan-
dard treatment efficiency.
Arizona is currently con-
ducting a triennial review of
its surface water quality
standards and proposing
significant changes.
Arizona's Nonpoint Source
Program integrates both
regulatory and nonregu-
latory components. Best
Available Demonstrated
Control Technology (BADCT)
guidance documents have
been prepared for mining,
landfills, municipal waste-
water, and septic tanks.
Best Management Practices
(BMPs) for agricultural ac-
tivities have been recom-
mended and are to undergo
field verification. Potentially
mobile and persistent pesti-
cides will be monitored and
regulated through the Pesti-
cide Contamination Preven-
tion Program. BMPs for
rangeland management are
being developed, and a BMP
handbook for stormwater has
been drafted. Nine demon-
stration projects have been
nominated for funding or
have preliminary approval
for funding.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground water throughout
the State generally meets
mandated drinking water
standards. Problems can be
found, however, at several
localities, particularly the
pollution by organic chemi-
cals in Phoenix and Tucson.
Most contamination is re-
lated to land use: leachates
from landfills, mining opera-
tions, and disposal of toxic
wastes; petroleum products
emanating from leaking
underground storage tanks;
and septic tanks. Irrigation
recirculates salts within the
aquifer and may introduce
pesticides, nitrates, and
other compounds associated
with fertilizers into the
ground water. Urban runoff
can increase the levels of
petroleum hydrocarbons and
metals in the ground water.
Because ground water is
slow moving, most such
problems tend to be localized
and are thus more amenable
to study and to eventual
remediation.
Arkansas
To obtain a copy of the 1990
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 4,713
miles of streams, or 42 per-
cent of the State's total river
miles. Approximately 35
percent of assessed river
miles fully support their
designated uses.
In its 1990 305(b) report,
the State provided regional
assessments of water qual-
ity. 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 Re-
gion exhibits site-specific
• impacts due to resource
extraction. Silviculture is
the predominant land use in
the Ouachita Mountains
Region; the region is charac-
terized by exceptionally high
water quality although con-
cerns have been voiced about
the effects of harvesting
practices. In the Arkansas
River Valley Region, zero
flows are common during
summer critical conditions.
During peak runoff events,
contaminants enter the
Region's streams from agri-
cultural sources. The Boston
Mountains Region is highly
used for recreational pur-
poses and has extremely
good water quality. Potential
water quality degradation is
of concern because of conver-
sion of hardwoods to
pasturelands, expansion of
confined animal operations,
timber management prac-
tices, and localized natural
gas production. Last, in the
Ozark Highlands Region,
water quality problems are
directly related to the high
rate of animal management
activities 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.
During the past 2 years,
204 locations have been
evaluated for potential toxics
contamination. Investiga-
tions included fish flesh
analyses for heavy metals,'
pesticides, and other
bioaccumulative compounds;
sediment sampling for simi-
lar compounds; rapid
bioassessment for aquatic
life support; and acute and
chronic toxicity testing. Po-
tential toxics problems were
addressed through the
NPDES permitting process
including the Toxicity Identi-
fication/Reduction Evalua-
tion procedures.
During the summer of
1989, baseline data were
gathered from 77 significant
publicly owned lakes. No
substantial use impairment
was found on any of these
lakes although the water
quality variations among the
lakes were dramatic. The
wetlands program continues
to be driven by the Section
404 process and the require-
ment for Section 401 water
quality certification. Such
certification is determined on
the basis of protection of
designated uses, specifically
those associated with the
fishery uses.
Ground-Water
Quality
Use of ground water in the
1980s has varied between 4
and 5 billion gallons per day.
A-3
-------
Appendix
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 thermoelectric
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
surficial 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 pro-
grams.
Contamination of fresh
ground water by saline water
has occurred in several
places due to large-scale
pumping. In some areas, the
occurrence of saline water
appears to be of natural
origin and not the result of
human activity. Some salt-
water contamination in
south Arkansas is due to oil
and gas exploration, produc-
tion, and disposal practices.
Ground-water problems
continue to be centered
around areas of excessive
withdrawals that exceed
recharge rates and cause
significant declines in
ground-water levels. Addi-
tionally, salt water intrusion
is occurring in some of these
areas. Potential ground-
water problems are found
statewide. Potential threats
to ground water include a
large number of waste im-
poundments, landfills, and
open dumps, especially those
located in moderate to high
aquifer recharge zones. Con-
tamination from waste im-
poundments, storage tanks,
and dumps has occurred.
Hazardous, substances trans-
ported by vehicles and trains
have been involved in acci-
dents resulting in ground-
water contamination. How-
ever, Arkansas' public
ground-water supply compli-
ance with the Safe Drinking
Water Act standards is excel-
lent. Compliance with bacte-
rial limits in these waters
exceeds the national goal.
California
To obtain a copy of the 1990
California 305(b) report,
contact:
California State Water
Resources Control Board
Division of Water Quality
901P 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 wa-
ter quality that generally
supports designated uses.
Some of the largest
waterbodies 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, ero-
sion, individual disposal
systems, and animal grazing.
The remaining stream pollu-
tion sources consist of point
sources and natural or un-
known causes.
Lakes are mostly affected
by natural causes and agri-
cultural return flows. Mu-
nicipal and industrial point
sources are prohibited from
discharging directly to lakes
in California.
Major pollutants affecting
waters of the State include
bacteria, nutrients, dissolved
solids, pesticides, herbicides,
other toxic organics, and
metals. Toxic substances are
now recognized as a con-
stantly expanding threat to
water quality. Toxic sub-
stances have been, and prob-
ably still are, dumped ille-
gally 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 pro-
grams.
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 qual-
ity, and mine drainage.
Colorado
To obtain, a copy of the
Colorado 1990 305(b) report,
contact:
Colorado Department
ofHealth
Water Quality Division
4210 East llth Street
Denver, CO 80220
Surface Water
Quality
Colorado assessed 97 per-
cent of its 31,470 stream
miles during the 1990 report-
ing period. Of the assessed
miles, 90 percent fully
support designated uses,
3 percent support uses but
are threatened, and only 6
percent are impaired. The
major causes of use impair-
ment include metals, patho-
gens, effluent toxicity, am-
monia, and low dissolved
oxygen concentrations. Agri-
cultural activities, resource
extraction, and municipal
and industrial discharges are
major sources of water qual-
ity degradation in Colorado's
rivers and streams.
Lake assessments received
less attention than rivers
and streams because of a
lack of data. Only 82 lakes
over 25 acres in size were
assessed, primarily with
limited data. Of the 145,305
acres assessed, 91 percent
fully support designated
uses, 8 percent support uses
but are threatened, and only
1 percent are impaired. Ap-
proximately half of the as-
sessed lakes are classified as
eutrophic. Impairments are
caused by nutrients, organic
contaminants, and metals.
The major sources degrading
Colorado's lakes are agricul-
A-4
-------
Appendix
tural activities, construction
and urban runoff, municipal
and industrial discharges,
silvicultural activities, and
land disposal.
Colorado also identified
five lakes impacted by toxics,
three of which are located on
the Rocky Mountain Arsenal
and are impacted by organic
contaminants. Mercury
concentrations exceed stan-
dards in the other two lakes.
Fish consumption is banned
or restricted at all five lakes.
Colorado presented water
quality information for seven
basins in their 1990 305(b)
report. The Platte River
Basin has a larger popula-
tion and faces more critical
water quality problems than
any basin in Colorado. Im-
portant recreational reser-
voirs are threatened by accel-
erated eutrophication from
urbanization, nitrates exceed
drinking water standards in
municipal wells, and past
mining activities degrade
several tributaries with
metals and minerals.
Large-scale irrigated
agriculture and livestock
feeding operations also have
the potential to affect water
quality adversely. The Ar-
kansas River Basin contin-
ues to be affected by inactive
and current mining activi-
ties. Agricultural, municipal,
and industrial withdrawals
also concentrate total dis-
solved solids (salts), which
impair downstream water
quality. Elevated nitrate
concentrations affect drink-
ing water supplies for several
communities.
The Upper Colorado River
Basin has maintained good
water quality through the
investment of substantial
fiscal resources for advanced
wastewater treatment and
nonpoint source controls.
Additional funding will be .
needed to address persistent
problems from inactive
mines. For example, con--
struction of a treatment
plant for effluent from the
inactive Keystone mine has
reduced metal concentrations
and restored aquatic life in
receiving streams. Other
projects are underway to
reduce salt loading from
agricultural activities into
surface waters.
Metals from past mining
activities impair several
streams in the Rio Grande
River Basin and the San
Juan River Basin. No water
quality problems were iden-
tified in the Republican and
Green River Basins.
Connecticut
To obtain a copy of the Con-
necticut 1990 305(b) report,
contact:
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection
Water Compliance Unit
122 Washington Street
Hartford, CT 06106
Surface Water
Quality
As of 1990,420 of Connect-
icut's 893 assessed miles of
major rivers and streams
fully support water-quality
goals. Another 190 miles
fully support but are threat-
ened. An additional 229
miles partially support goals.
The remaining 54 miles do
not support most water uses,
other than perhaps limited
aquatic habitat use, naviga-
tion, and industrial activi-
ties.
The primary pollutants
impairing water quality are
bacteria, ammonia, metals,
PCBs, and organic enrich-
ment, which depletes oxygen
concentrations. The major
sources of contamination, in
descending order of relative
impact, are municipal and
industrial discharges, com-
bined sewer overflows, urban
runoff and storm sewers, and
in-place contaminants.
Of the 23,179 assessed
lake acres, 8 percent fully
support designated uses,
another 66 percent fully
support uses but are threat-
ened by pollution, and 26
percent are partially sup-
porting uses. Nutrients,
noxious aquatic plants, and
priority organics are the
most prevalent causes of
impairment. Numerous
sources contribute to lake
impairment, including mu-
nicipal and industrial dis-
charges, in-place contami-
nants, agricultural activities,
highway runoff, instream
impoundments, and natural
conditions.
Urbanized harbors and
tidal portions of major tribu-
tary rivers are the most
heavily impacted estuaries in
the State. Approximately
234 of the 601 square miles
assessed are suspected of
having water quality prob-
lems caused primarily by
nutrients, priority organics,
pathogens, and organic en-
richment/low dissolved oxy-
gen. The sources of pollution
are municipal sewage treat-
ment plants and industrial
discharges, combined sewer
overflows, and nonpoint
sources such as urban runoff
and in-place contamination.
Municipal regulatory pro-
grams appear to be achieving
considerable success in stem-
ming wetlands losses. The
State's Council on Environ-
mental Quality reported in
1988 that annual permitted
losses under the 1969 Tidal
Wetland Act average 0.5
acre.
Ground-Water
Quality
Approximately 32 percent
of the population depends on
ground water for potable
water supply. Over 90 per-
cent of the State's ground-
water resources is presumed
to be suitable for drinking
without treatment. Impacts
from improper solvents han-
dling and disposal, leaking
underground petroleum
storage tanks, landfill
leachate, pesticides (EDB),
and improper road salt stor-
age have resulted in the
contamination of 1,368 pub-
lic and private water supply
wells in the past decade.
Delaware
To obtain a copy of the
Delaware 1990 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
Twenty-one percent of
Delaware's river waters fully
support all designated uses,
A-5
-------
Appendix
60 percent of the lakes as-
sessed fully support all desig-
nated uses, and 100 percent
of the cozjstal waters fully
support all designated uses.
The percentage of waters
meeting the Clean Water Act
Fishable Goal are 77 percent
of river waters, 94 percent of
the lake waters, and 100
percent of coastal waters.
The percentage of waters
meeting the Swimmable
Goal are 15 percent of river
waters (where primary con-
tact recreation is a desig-
nated use), 50 percent of the
lake waters assessed, and
100 percent of coastal shore
waters. Nonattainment of
swimmable water quality to
support primary contact
recreation is the most wide-
spread problem in the inland
waters, and nonattainment
of fishable water quality is
the major problem in estua-
rine waters.
The most widespread wa-
ter quality problem contrib-
uting to nonattainment of
designated uses and goals is
the elevated contributions of
bacteria, which serve as
indicators of pathogenic
organisms. The State's wa-
ter quality standards for
primary contact recreation
are based on concentrations
ofEnterococcus bacteria.
Other indicators of patho-
gens, such as total coliform
bacteria, are used by the
Division of Public Health to
determine areas where shell-
fish harvesting is not permit-
ted. The presence of patho-
gen indicators is the most
widespread problem affecting
swimmable water qualify for
the inland waters and fish-
able water quality for the
cstuarine waters.
'Although pathogen indica-
tors may be the most wide-
spread contaminant in
Delaware's waters, the pres-
ence of toxics may represent
the most serious threat to
human health and aquatic
life. Approximately 10 per-
cent of all river waters, 6
percent of all lake waters
assessed, and 10 percent of
the estuary waters, including
portions of the Delaware
Eiver and Indian River Bay,
are anticipated to be im-
pacted by elevated levels of
toxics.
Other pollutants' of con-
cern include nutrients, am-
monia, and organic enrich-
ment leading to dissolved
oxygen problems. Approxi-
mately 15 percent of all river
waters are impacted by these
constituents. It is antici-
pated that studies conducted
through the Clean Lakes
Program and National Estu-
ary Programs will assess
nutrient impacts on lakes
and estuaries in greater
detail.
Determination of the
sources of these contami-
nants is very difficult.
Through the development of
the 304Q) lists as required by
the Clean Water Act, the
State identified waters that
were anticipated to be im-
pacted by point source dis-
charges of priority pollut-
ants. Runoff from agricul-
tural and urban areas is a
significant source of nutrient
and pathogenic indicator
contamination.
Ground-Water
Quality
Approximately two-thirds
of Delaware's population rely
on ground-water supplies for
domestic needs. 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. Approxi-
mately 38 billion gallons are
withdrawn each year for all
uses.
Delaware's ground water
is generally of good quality.
Dissolved iron is a common
constituent that may cause
aesthetic concern, and el-
evated nitrate contamination
is a concern in agricultural
areas in Kent and Sussex
County. Salt water intrusion
is a problem in the coastal
areas. Synthetic organic
compounds have also been
detected in some areas, pri-
marily in the industrialized
areas of New Castle County.
The major sources of con-
tamination are identified as
underground storage tanks,
agricultural activities, land-
fills, septic system disposal
areas, and abandoned haz-
ardous waste sites.
Delaware
River Basin
To obtain a copy of the
Delaware River Basin
Commission's 1990 305(b)
report, contact:
Delaware River Basin
Commission
P.O. Box 7360
West Trenton, NJ 08628
Surface Water
Quality
Delaware River and Bay
constitute part of the bound-
ary of four States: Delaware,
New Jersey, New York, and
Pennsylvania. From
Hancock, NY, to the mouth
of the Delaware Bay, the
Delaware River flows 330
miles, draining 0.4 percent of
the U.S. land area. Almost
10 percent of the Nation's
population rely on the waters
of the Delaware River Basin
for potable and industrial
water.
The Delaware River Basin
Commission (DRBC) reports
that 97 percent of the 206
assessed river miles in the
Delaware River Basin sup-
port designated uses. In the
Delaware Bay, uses are sup-
ported in 99 percent of the
866 square miles of estuarine
waters assessed. However, •
frequent spills and
discharges from combined
sewers threaten use support
in all basin waters.
Major river and estuarine
impairments are attributed
to pathogen indicators, or-
ganic enrichment, and low
dissolved oxygen concentra-
tions. Toxic substances (in-
cluding organics, metals, and
conventional contaminants)
also impair estuarine por-
tions of the basin, but to a
lesser extent. The primary
sources identified include
municipal and industrial
discharges, storm sewers,
combined sewer overflows,
and urban runoff.
The 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 93 percent of
assessed estuary square
miles meet the fishable goal,
and approximately 97 per-
cent of the assessed river
miles and 99 percent of the
assessed estuary square
miles meet the swimmable
goal.
A-6
-------
Appendix
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 estu-
ary; this increased use
makes the maintenance of
water quality a key concern.
An unanswered concern is
the impact of the recre-
ational use itself on the
river's quality.
Water quality in 1988-89,
however, reflects substantial
water quality improvements
as the result of water pollu-
tion control efforts extending
back 40 years.
District of
Columbia
To obtain a copy of the
District of Columbia 1990
305(b) report, contact:
Department of Consumer
& Regulatory Affairs
Water Hygiene Branch
Suite 203, 2100 Martin
Luther King, Jr. Ave., SE
Washington, DC 20020
Attn: Hamid Karimi
Surface Water
Quality
For 1990, the District of
Columbia assessed 100 per-
cent of its estuarine waters,
95 percent of its small
streams, and 63 percent of
its lakes and impoundments.
By using rapid bioassess-
ment data, the District in-
creased-significantly the
number of streams assessed.
Most of the District's sur-
face waters do not support
all of their designated uses.
Exceptions are the Washing-
ton Ship Channel, several
Rock Creek tributaries, and
the Tidal Basin. Most of the
District's surface waters
designated for use as raw
water sources for industrial
and public water supplies
meet 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 are a leading cause of
nonsupport of uses. High
metals 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
priority organics.
Urban runoff, whether
from storm sewers, combined
sewer overflows (CSOs), or
surface runoff, is a principal
source of pollution to District
surface waters. Currently,
combined sewers serve 35
percent of Washington, DC.
Discharges of untreated
sewage after a rainstorm
result in high fecal coliform,
high biological oxygen de-
mand, 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
the Potomac estuary. Imple-
mentation ofadvanced
wastewater treatment pro-
cesses at the Blue Plains
Wastewater Treatment Plant
has significantly reduced
nutrient loads to District
waters. Still of concern are
nutrient inputs from fall line
points, particularly the up-
per 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 on
the quality of the ground
water in the District of Co-
lumbia is essentially nonex-
istent. This is because virtu-
ally all of the City's water
supply needs have been
satisfied by the Potomac
River. To fill this informa-
tion void, the District estab-
lished a Ground Water Pro-
tection Program in January
1989. One of the first tasks
of this program has been to
conduct a ground-water
assessment. Upon comple-
tion, the District should
know the actual quality of its
ground water.
Florida
To obtain a copy of the
Florida 1990 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 dis-
tribution of problem areas
closely follows the distribu-
tion 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 popu-
lated northwest and west
central sections of the State
have very good water
quality.
Historically, Florida has
not been highly industrial-
ized. Thus, difficult and
persistent industrial types of
pollution are not widespread.
However, Florida has under-
gone an extensive population
growth in the past two de-
cades, which has resulted in
more pollution sources asso-
ciated with development.
Florida reports that it
assessed 62 percent of its
stream miles, and, of these,
62 percent fully support
'designated uses. Fifty per-
cent of the State's lake acres
were assessed. Thirty-one
percent of assessed lake
acres fully support uses, 56
percent partially meet uses,
and 12 percent do not sup-
port uses. (This lower degree
of use support for lakes is
attributed to the fact that
two lakes—Lake Okeechobee
and Lake George—account
for almost half of the as-,
sessed lake areas in the
State and are 'partially meet-
ing uses.)
Sixty-three percent of the
State's estuarine area was
reported as assessed, with 60
percent meeting uses. Of the
A-7
-------
Appendix
State's ocean coastal area,
10 percent was reported as
assessed and 95 percent of
assessed ocean square miles
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 treatment pro-
cesses have improved and
there has been an increase in
the acreage of agricultural
and urban developed land.
Major water quality prob-
lems in Florida include
urban stormwater, agricul-
tural runoff, domestic waste-
water, pulp and paper mills,
and hydrologic modification.
Georgia
To obtain a copy of the
Georgia 1990 305(b) report,
contact:
Water Quality Management
Program
Georgia Environmental
Protection Division
270 Washington Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30334
Surface Water
Quality
Georgia is rich in water
resources with good water
quality. An assessment of
the State's rivers, lakes, and
estuaries indicates that the
vast majority support desig-
nated water uses. Of the
20,000 stream miles as-
sessed, 97 percent support
designated uses, 3 percent
partially support uses, and
less than 1 percent do not
support designated uses.
This evaluation is based on
predictive modeling, 25 years
of trend monitoring, inten-
sive surveys, and special
studies, as well as the judg-
ment of professional staff
members. ,
Of the 417,730 acres of
lakes assessed, 97 percent
fully support uses, 3 percent
partially support uses, and
less than 1 percent do not
support designated uses. Of
the 594 square miles of estu-
aries, 98 percent fully sup-
port uses, 1 percent partially
support uses, and less than 1
percent do not support desig-
nated uses.
Municipal and industrial
discharges and urban runoff
are cited as the most com-
mon sources of use impair-
ment in Georgia rivers,
lakes, and estuaries. Gener-
ally, the causes of most con-
cern are dissolved oxygen,
nutrients, toxic substances,
turbidity, and fecal coliform
bacteria. Metals, particu-
larly zinc, copper, cadmium,
and lead, also impair
streams and rivers.
Georgia continued its
strong permitting and en-
forcement programs in 1988-
1989. Ninety-three percent
of major municipal discharg-
ers and 98 percent of major
industrial dischargers main-
tained consistent permit
compliance in 1988-1989.
However, improperly treated
discharger, spills, and ero-
sion/sedimentation problems
resulted in monetary penal-
ties totaling $819,215 being
levied by the Georgia Envi-
ronmental Protection Divi-
sion.
In 1989, Georgia adopted
numeric standards for toxic
substances to protect aquatic
life and human health. The
State also adopted more
stringent fecal coliform crite-
ria for contact recreational
uses. The new toxic sub-
stance standards are re-
flected in the 1990 water
quality assessments, but the
new fecal coliform standards
will not influence use sup-
port assessments until the
next reporting cycle (1992).
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground water is extremely
important to the life, health,
and economy of Georgia. In
1987, ground water provided
24 percent of the public wa-
ter supply, 95 percent of the
rural use, 69 percent of the
irrigation use, and almost
half of the industrial use of
water in the State. Outside
the larger cities of the Pied-
mont, ground water is the
dominant source of water.
Except where they may
become saline at lower
depths, all of the aquifers
can be considered as poten-
tial sources of drinking wa-
ter. For the most part, these
aquifers are underutilized
and generally free of con-
tamination. Water from
most of the aquifers may be
safely consumed without
treatment, and, except for
occasional curtailment of
lawn sprinkling, water has
not been rationed.
The most extensive con-
tamination of Georgia's aqui-
fers is from naturally occur-
ring mineral salts (i.e., high
total dissolved solids). An-
other natural source of con-
tamination is from radioac-
tive minerals that are com-
mon rock constituents in
many Georgia aquifers.
Although naturally occurring
radioactivity may occur any-
where in Georgia, the most
significant problems have
occurred at sporadic loca-
tions near the Gulf Trough in
the Coastal Plains.
Radon, a radioactive gas
produced by the radioactive
minerals mentioned above,
also occurs in variable
amounts in wells, particu-
larly in the Piedmont region.
In addition to natural
sources, business and indus-
try, agriculture, and homes
(e.g., septic systems) may
also contaminate ground
water.
Widespread testing of 818
public water supply wells for
volatile organic chemicals
(VOCs, which include sol-
vents and hydrocarbons)
identified only eight contami-
nated wells. The most com-
mon sources of the VOCs
were improper disposal of
solvents by nearby busi-
nesses, leaking underground
fuel-storage tanks located
near wells, and inactive
nonpermitted abandoned
landfills.
Ground-water protection
from leaking underground
storage tanks was enhanced
with enactment of the Geor-
gia Underground Storage Act
of 1988. Under this Act, the
Department of Natural Re-
sources promulgated rules to
establish a financial assur-
ance trust fund and insti-
tuted corrective action re-
quirements to clean up leak-
ing underground tanks. In
its first year of operation,
investigation and corrective
procedures were initiated at
125 sites.
Additional ground-water
protection is provided by
regulations to implement a
ground-water recharge area
A-8
-------
Appendix
protection program approved
by the Georgia General As-
sembly in 1990. One of these
rules requires that any land-
fill constructed within 2
miles of a significant re-
charge area have a synthetic
liner and a leachate collec-
tion system. The rules also
give significant recharge
areas highest priority for
cleanup of existing pollution.
Hawaii
To obtain a copy of the
Hawaii 1990 305(b) report,
contact:
Hawaii Department of
Health
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, HI 96801
Surface Water
Quality
The overall quality of wa-
ters in Hawaii is excellent.
Surface water quality prob-
lems with toxics are practi-
cally nonexistent. The ma-
jority of the State's
nearshore waters are pris-
tine and meet water quality
standards that are the most
stringent in the Nation.
All ocean waters, bays,
estuaries, lakes, and rivers
in the State fully support
beneficial uses. Channelized
streams and drainage struc-
tures within urban areas
may not be swimmable due
to elevated levels of patho-
genic indicators.
Embayments and near-
shore waters are primarily
impacted by nonpoint source
pollution. The major contrib-
uting factors include storm-
water runoff, construction
and agricultural activities,
and natural erosion. Point
source contributions are
minor.
The aquatic ecosystems of
streams and rivers in the
State are subject to greater
human impacts than the
marine environment.
Streams in urban areas have
been concrete-lined and
straightened for flood con-
trol. Man-made drainage
structures, such as the Ala
Wai Canal are the only
waterbodies in the State that
are not swimmable due to
the levels of pathogenic or-
ganisms contained in urban
runoff. These waters do,
however, support aquatic life
and are fishable. One im-
pounded stream system,
creating Wahiawa Reservoir
on Oahu, is eutrophied due
to the discharge of treated
municipal wastewater. This
discharge is scheduled to be
eliminated.
Wetlands in the State
provide important refuges
and habitats for many native
Hawaiian birds, including
rare and endangered species
of birds and native plants.
Wetlands and marshes near
residential districts are
.threatened by habitat alter-
ations due to urban growth
and development. A growing
concern is the possibility of
runoff from golf courses,
which may contain pesticides
and fertilizers. Conversely,
the last municipal wastewa-
ter discharge to a wetland
(and only point source) will
be eliminated in 1990.
The State water manage-
ment program has been
successful in maintaining
the high quality of Hawaii's
waters through careful regu-
lation of point source
discharges to prevent degra-
dation and by strict enforce-
ment of environmental laws.
In 1989, the State estab-
lished procedures and began
including limitations for
preventing toxicity in
NPDES discharges.
In addition, the State more
than doubled its budget for
water quality monitoring in
1989. Also in 1989, the State
proposed the Nation's most
stringent standards for pro-
tecting marine recreational
waters from pathogenic
contamination and proposed
new standards for 97 toxic
pollutants. These standards
were adopted by the Gover-
nor on January 18,1990. In
January 1990, the U.S. EPA,
Region IX, approved
Hawaii's Nonpoint Source
Assessment Report and
Management Plan. Controls
on urban runoff will be en-
hanced through the permit-
ting of industrial and large
municipal storm sewer sys-
tems.
Ground-Water
Quality
The State's ground-water
sources of drinking water
meet drinking water stan-
dards although there are
instances of contamination
below action levels. Ground-
water concerns have focused
attention on certain domestic
water supplies contaminated
at low levels by man-made
organic pollutants. Probably
the application of agricul-
tural pesticides over decades
has ultimately percolated to
ground-water aquifers.
In areas impacted by nu-
trients, phosphorus levels
are declining. Areas im-
pacted by nonpoint sources of
sediment have remained
unchanged. Discharges of
municipal wastewaters to
inland waters are minor and
are being eliminated. The
Governor of Hawaii adopted
an antidegradation Ground-
water Protection Strategy on
March 12,1990.
Idaho
To obtain a copy of the Idaho
1990 305(b) report, contact:
Idaho Department of
the Environment
450 W. State Street
Boise, ID 83720
Surface Water
Quality
Over 16,000 stream miles
were assessed for nonpoint
source pollution impacts, or
approximately 50 percent of
the total stream miles in the
State. Over 12,000 miles of
streams experience some
type of nonpoint source im-
pact; in half of these stream
miles, at least one desig-
nated use is not fully sup-
ported.
Agriculture is the primary
nonpoint source activity
impacting designated uses in
Idaho streams. The second
most significant nonpoint
source is hydrologic or habi-
tat modification. Other
nonpoint source activities
affecting Idaho waters are
forest practices, construction,
and mining. The extent of
impacts from these activities
varies by region. Agricul-
tural activities affect more
streams in the central and
southern regions, while for-
est practices are more signifi-
cant in the northern region.
A-9
-------
Appendix
Idaho has over 2,800
named freshwater lakes
covering more than 700,000
surface acres. Lake condi-
tions range from pristine in
high alpine lakes to
overproductive in developed.
reservoirs. Signs of deterio-
rating water quality are
most notable in the devel-
oped recreational lakes in
the panhandle region.
Although few are classified
as eutrophic, there is a
strong public perception of
declining water quality in
these lakes. Statewide, a.
total of 727,202 acres were
assessed for trophic status.
Thirty-one percent of the
assessed lake acres were
classified as oh'gotrophic, 58
percent as mesotrophic, 10
percent as eutrophic, and.l
percent could not be classi-
fied.
Agriculture is the primary
nonpoint source activity
reported to be impacting lake
water quality, especially in
the southern and central
regions of the State. Ironi-
cally, most of Idaho's reser-
voirs were constructed to
provide irrigation water for
agricultural activities, which,
in turn, generate excessive
nutrient and sediment load-
ings from irrigation return
flows and agricultural run-
off. As a result, many reser-
voirs are experiencing eu-
trophication problems. Res-
ervoir drawdowns, primarily
for irrigational use, also
adversely impact lake water
quality.
Othoc nonpoint sources are
more prevalent in the north-
ern regions of the State,
where shoreline development
and silvicultural activities
are more extensive. These
sources include construction,
urban runoff, subsurface
sewage disposal, mining, and
forest practices.
Of 149 priority wetland
areas in Idaho, 66 have
nonpoint source impacts.
Statewide, these impacts are
primarily the result of agri-.
cultural activities, especially
rangeland. In the northern
region of the State, however,
forestry activities are the
primary impact on wetlands.
Ground-Water
Quality
Idaho ranks in the top five
states in the United States
for volume of ground-water
used. The major use is for
irrigation, although over 90
percent of Idaho's drinking
water comes from its aqui-
fers. The quality of most
ground water in Idaho is
good. Most is suitable for
drinking, agricultural, and
industrial uses, although
naturally occurring contami-
nants such as dissolved sol-
ids, fluoride, and hardness
restrict water use in some
areas. Contamination from
both point and nonpoint
sources is localized, ranging
from a few acres up to sev-
eral square miles. Where
water supply wells have been
impacted, the contamination
is generally limited to a
small number of wells.
The most common point
sources of ground-water
contamination are above-
and below-ground petroleum
storage, leaks and accidental
spills of industrial chemicals,
and land application of
wastewater. The relative
importance of nonpoint
sources versus point source
impacts is not known.
Septic systems can impact
ground water when the wa-
ter table is shallow, soil
conditions are inappropriate
for the system design, or
system density is excessive.
Impacts on ground water
from infiltration or injection
of urban runoff water are
poorly investigated in Idaho.
However, in the Spokane
Valley in neighboring Wash-
ington, 30 percent, of the
total dissolved solids deliv-
ered to the aquifer and 60
percent of the toxic metal
loading to the aquifer are
estimated to be derived from
urban runoff. Improved
storm drainage practices are
particularly important where
population .centers are situ-
ated over vulnerable aquifers
such as the Rathdrum Prai-
rie and the Boise Valley.
Illinois
To obtain a copy of the
Illinois 1990 305(b) report,
contact:
Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
Division of Water Pollution
Control
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62706
Surface Water
Quality
Rivers and streams in
Illinois total 14,080 river
miles (13,200 interior river
miles; 880 border river
miles). Of the 13,122 river
miles assessed in this report-
ing period, 42 percent fully
support their designated
uses. The major causes of
use impairment are siltation,
nutrients, habitat/flow alter-
ation, organic enrichment/
low dissolved oxygen, ammo-
nia, and suspended solids.
The major sources of use
impairment are agriculture,
point sources, hydrologic/
habitat modification, urban
runoff, and resource extrac-
tion. Eighty-seven percent of
assessed stream miles meet
the fishable goal of the Clean
Water Act (CWA). Almost
25 percent of the 4,525 miles
assessed meet the swim-
mable goal.
The State assessed 442
lakes covering 209,036 acres
and representing 68 percent
of the acreage of inland lakes
in Illinois. Eleven percent of
assessed lake acres support
uses, 49 percent partially
support uses, and the re-
maining 40 percent do not
support uses. Additionally,
77 percent and 65 percent of
these assessed waters meet
the fishable and swimmable
goals of the CWA, respec-
tively.
The primary causes of use
impairment for lakes are
suspended solids, siltation,
organic enrichment/dissolved
oxygen deficiencies, and
nutrients. Six inland lakes
covering 20,298 acres have
sport fish consumption advi-
sories and are impaired as a
result of above-average chlor-
dane or dieldrin concentra-
tions in the sediment.
Sources affecting the great-
est number and acreage of
lakes are agriculture (prima-
rily row crops), in-place con-
taminants (deposited sedi-
ment with associated nutri-
ents and pollutants), lake/
stream bank erosion, re-
source extraction, and mu-
nicipal point sources.
Sixty-three miles of the
Lake Michigan shoreline "
form the northeastern por-
tion of Illinois'border. Nine
A-10
-------
Appendix
shoreline miles partially
support designated uses with
minor impairment; the re-
maining shoreline miles are
fully supporting uses but
threatened. The causes for
less than foil support in-
clude phenols and arsenic in
water column samples and
priority organics based on
the lakewide sport fish advi-
sory. Major sources are
atmospheric deposition and
in-place contaminants. Due
to a sport fish health advi-
sory, Illinois' portion of Lake
Michigan is considered to not
be fully attaining the fish-
able goal of the CWA. All
shoreline miles meet the
swimmable 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, agricultural chemical
operations, and municipal
and industrial landfills.
Contaminants include or-
ganic and inorganic chemi-
cals, metals, pesticides 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 re-
sources from future degrada-
tion and to avoid difficult
and expensive remedial
cleanup efforts.
Indiana
To obtain a copy of the
Indiana 1990 305(b) report,
contact:
Indiana Department
of Environmental
Management
105 South Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46225
Surface Water
Quality
During the reporting pe-
riod, Indiana assessed 4,917
miles of streams, 97,536
acres of lakes, and 43 Great
Lake shoreline miles. Of the
waters assessed, 60 percent
of the river and stream miles
and over 99 percent of the
total inland lake and reser-
voir acreage fully support
their designated uses. All of
Indiana's portion of Lake
Michigan is considered as
partially supporting desig-r
nated uses due to the lake-
wide fish consumption advi-
sory for certain species.
Of the stream miles as-
sessed, it was estimated that
the swimmable goal is sup-
ported in 6 percent and the
fishable goal is supported in
60 percent. Although both
the fishable and swimmable
goals are supported in over
99 percent of the total lake
and reservoir acres assessed,
many are considered threat-
ened by point and/or
nonpoint sources of pollution.
All of Lake Michigan gov-
erned by Indiana supports
the "swimmable" goal but is
not considered to support the
"fishable" goal due to the
lakewide fish consumption
advisory.
The major causes of
nonsupport of uses are fecal
coliform bacteria, organic
enrichment, pesticides, prior-
ity organic compounds, and
ammonia. The sources of
substances most often con-
tributing to nonsupport of
uses are: industrial and
municipal/semipublic point
sources, combined sewer
overflows, and agricultural
nonpoint sources. Nonpoint
sources were most often
considered to have major .
impacts.
Although much of
Indiana's wetland resource
has been lost, there are an
estimated 750,000 acres of
wetlands remaining, mostly
in the northern part of the
State. No formal water qual-
ity assessment has been
made of these areas; how-
ever, the State is unaware of
any wetland problems re-
lated to point source dis-
charges. The main concern
regarding wetlands is pre-
venting the future loss of
these areas through draining
and filling.
One area of special con-
cern for Indiana is toxics
control and monitoring. In-
creased monitoring offish
tissue and sediments for
toxics and bioconcentrating
materials has occurred in
Indiana over the past 2
years.
Over 2,500 stream miles
and approximately 23,500
inland lake and reservoir
acres were monitored in
some way for toxics. Of the
river and stream miles moni-
tored, about 45 percent were
considered to have elevated
levels of toxic substances
because of the occurrence of
fish consumption advisories
or the presence of sediment
contamination at medium to
high levels of concern. Pesti-
cides, PCBs, and metals were
the substances most often
causing these problems. Only
about 3 percent of the inland
lake and reservoir acres
monitored were found to
have toxic substances (pri-
marily metals) in sediments
at levels of medium to high
concern. No fish tissue
samples from lakes or reser-
voirs have been found to
contain toxic substances at
levels above Food and Drug
Administration Action Lev-
els. All of Indiana's portion of
Lake Michigan is considered
to be affected by toxics due to
the lakewide fish consump-
tion advisory.
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
businesses, industry, and
agriculture. Although most
of Indiana's ground water
has not been shown to have
been adversely affected by
man's activities, over 590
sites of ground-water con-
tamination have been docu-
mented. These problems
affect over 1,720 individual
wells and several hundred
thousand people.
The substances most fre-
quently detected as well
water contaminants in the
State are chlorinated volatile
organic chemicals, petroleum
products, heavy metals, and
nitrate. Monitoring wells at
waste disposal sites most
A-11
-------
Appendix
often indicate ground-water
pollution from inorganic
chemicals. The sources of
ground-water contamination
most commonly reported in
the State are hazardous
material spills, leaking
underground storage tanks,
and waste disposal activities.
Some geographic areas of
concern in the State for pre-
vention, detection and correc-
tion of ground-water quality
impacts are areas geologi-
cally vulnerable to contami-
nation, priority public supply
well fields, and potential sole
source aquifers.
In 1987, Indiana com-
pleted a comprehensive
Ground Water Protection
Strategy that addresses
information needs and solu-
tions. Implementation of the
160 recommendations in this
plan is an important goal for
increased effort to safeguard
the resource. The Indiana
Ground Water Protection Act
of 1989 formalizes an Inter-
Agency Ground Water Task
Force to coordinate the ac-
tions of five State agencies in
this regard. The Act also
authorizes a number of
ground-water protection
activities and mandates the
accomplishment of several
key initiatives from the
Ground Water Strategy.
Iowa
To obtain a copy of the Iowa
1990 305(b) report, contact:
Iowa Department of Natural
Resources
Wallace State Office
Building
DCS Moines, IA 50319
Surface Water
Quality
Of the 7,156 miles of
streams assessed during
1988 and 1989, about 8
percent are not supporting
the uses for which they were
designated in the State's
water quality standards and
about 92 percent are par-
tially supporting those uses.
For lakes, 53 percent of the
80,306 assessed acres sup-
port designated uses, about
46 percent partially support,
and the remaining do not
support uses. Thirty-five
percent of 26,489 assessed
wetlands acres fully support
designated uses, about 51
percent partially support,
and about 14 percent do not
support.
Of the four flood control
reservoirs assessed, approxi-
mately 52 percent are fully
supporting/threatened and
48 percent are partially sup-
porting designated uses.
The failure of the assessed
waterbodies of all types to
fully support their desig-
nated uses is attributed
primarily to nonpoint
sources of pollution (mainly
agriculture and urban run-
off). Point sources, however,
are identified as water qual-
ity impacts on approximately
10 percent of impaired
stream miles. Although di-
rect discharge of wastewater
to lakes in Iowa is prohib-
ited, one lake of 12 acres is
impacted by a municipal
point source. Impacts to
water quality of all wetlands
and flood control acres are
attributed to nonpoint
sources.
Most of Iowa's lake water
quality problems can be
attributed to agricultural
nonpoint source pollution.
Siltation from soil erosion is
the primary concern. Since
1979, projects to control
watershed soil erosion and
improve lake water quality
have been initiated for at
least 19 Iowa lakes. Urban
runoff, construction site
runoff, land disposal of
wastes, and hydrologic or
habitat modification also
pose threats to lake water
quality in Iowa, though to a
lesser degree.
Thirty-five fish kills were
reported from October 1988
through September 1989.
Most fish kills resulted from
naturally occurring condi-
tions, such as low dissolved
oxygen, high levels of ammo-
nia, or high water tempera-
tures.
Sources of ammonia and
oxygen-demanding sub-
stances include urban runoff,
farm feedlots, and other
nonpoint sources. One fish
kill was attributed to ammo-
nia from a possible spill.
Fish consumption adviso-
ries were issued for two
waterbodies in 1989 due to
high levels of chlordane or
polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) in bottom- feeding
fish. An existing advisory for
a privately owned urban
impoundment remained in
effect.
Special studies conducted
in 1988 and 1989 found that
sediments in a portion of the
Mississippi River near Dav-
enport were contaminated
with PCBs.
No surface drinking water
supplies, bathing areas, or
incidence of waterborne
disease were reported.
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 aqui-
fers vary throughout the
State.
Major ground-water con-
cerns in Iowa center around
human activities and result-
ant ground-water contamina-
tion. Agricultural chemicals,
landfills, underground stor-
age tanks, agricultural
drainage wells, livestock
wastes, and improper man-
agement of hazardous sub- •
stances all contribute to
some degree to ground-water
degradation. Several studies
in northeastern Iowa have
focused primarily on con-
tamination involving ni-
trates, pesticides, and other
manmade organic chemicals.
High levels of nitrates have
been detected in ground-
water drinking water sup-
plies throughout the State.
Nitrogen fertilizer usage,
animal wastes, and lagoons
all contribute to elevated
nitrate levels in ground wa-
ter. Studies in several re-
gions of Iowa have detected
low levels of various pesti-
cides in ground water. Run-
off into agricultural drainage
wells and sinkholes, as well
as infiltration through soils,
are believed to be the sources
of pesticide contamination.
The concentrations of pesti-
cides 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
A-12
-------
Appendix
many of these chemicals or
their breakdown products.
Synthetic organic com-
pounds have also been de-
tected in Iowa ground water.
In several instances, concen-
trations have been detected
that are high enough to be
considered a health concern
for long-term exposure.
Kansas
To obtain a copy of the
Kansas 1990 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 1988-
1989, Kansas assessed
12,144 miles of streams and
170,602 acres of lakes. Of
the river miles assessed, 3
percent fully support desig-
nated uses. The primary
cause (57 percent) of non-
support is organic enrich-
ment and the predominant
source (54 percent) is runoff
from nonirrigated crop land.
Mineral intrusion from natu-
ral sources also impairs uses
extensively.
Assessment of Kansas '
waters relative to their sup-
port of fishable/ swimmable
goals of the Clean Water Act
revealed that nearly 100
percent of assessed lake
acres meet both the fishable
and swimmable goals. Sev-
enty-three percent of the
river miles assessed meet the
fishable goal, 19 percent
partially meet the fishable
goal, and 8 percent do not
attain the fishable goal be-
cause of exceedances of FDA
action levels for chlordane.
Only 5 percent meet the
swimmable goal, 13 percent
partially meet the goal, and
. 82 percent of the assessed
miles do not attain the swim-
mable goal based on exceed-
ances of State standards for
fecal conform bacteria.
For lakes, the main causes
of use impairment appear to
be metals and nutrients.
Agriculture and storm sew-
ers/runoff are the leading
sources of use impairment in
the lakes.
Designated uses for wet-
lands in Kansas are limited
to noncontact recreation and
aquatic life support. Out of
the 34,256 acres of wetlands
assessed, 73 percent fully
support and 27 percent par-
tially support nonedntact
recreation use. Aquatic life
is fully supported in 13 per-
cent of this total acreage and
is partially supported in 87
percent. The primary causes
of impairment are dewater-
ing, sedimentation, and
metals. Agricultural activi-
ties are the leading source of
wetlands impairment.
Ground-Water
Quality
Kansans rely on ground-
water resources for public,
rural, industrial, and irriga-
tion water supplies. Ap-
proximately 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. More
than 300 isolated ground-
water pollution problems are
known and are generally the
result of human activities.
Pesticide contamination of
ground water is a site-spe-
cific problem; more analysis
is needed to'determine the
extent of contamination. The
Kansas Groundwater Qual-
ity Monitoring Network,
established in 1976, is the
principal statewide monitor-
ing effort. The Kansas De-
partment of Health and
Environment has established
a Bureau of Environmental
Remediation to respond to
State contamination cleanup
needs. In 1988-89, 272 pub-
lic water supply wells were
screened. Fifteen percent of
the wells sampled had levels
of atrazine, alachlor,
bromacil, metolachlor, or
metribuzin above detection
limits.
Kentucky
To obtain a copy of the
Kentucky 1990 305(b)
report, contact:
Kentucky Division of Water
Water Quality Branch
ISReillyRoad
Frankfort Office Park
Frankfort, KY 40601
Surface Water
Quality
During the reporting pe-
riod, Kentucky assessed
9,556 miles of streams and
214,861 acres of lakes.
Approximately 69 percent of
assessed river miles fully
support their designated
uses, as do 90 percent of
assessed lake acres.
The major causes of use
nonsupport in rivers are
fecal coliform contamination,
affecting primary contact
recreation use, and organic
enrichment and siltation,
impairing warm-water
aquatic habitat use. The
major sources of the fecal
coliform contamination are
municipal wastewater treat-
ment plant discharges and
agricultural nonpoint
sources. Municipal point
sources are responsible for
organic enrichment, and
surface mining and agricul-
tural nonpoint sources are
the major sources of silt-
ation.
Nutrients are the greatest
cause of use nonsupport and
affected the largest number
of lakes. Municipal dis-
charges and nonpoint
sources, including agricul-
ture, are the principal
sources of nutrients. Iron
and manganese are the sec-
ond greatest cause of use
nonsupport in lakes. Natu-
ral sources, surface mining,
and unspecified nonpoint
sources account for the great-
est impacts to lakes.
A statistical trend analysis
showed improvements in
water quality, particularly
an increase in dissolved
oxygen in South Fork
Elkhorn Creek, which was
attributed to increased treat-
ment of wastewater at the
City of Lexington's Town
Branch wastewater treat-
ment plant. A trend in the
Nolin River showed a dete-
rioration in water quality
that may be the result of the
City of Elizabethtown's
A-13
-------
Appendix
municipal discharges into
Valley Creek, which flows
into the Nolin River.
Several trends were de-
tected statewide, although
specific causes were not
readily apparent. Chloride
increased at 14 of the 47
sites tested. The pH is in-
creasing at many sites and
decreasing at none. Total
recoverable lead is decreas-
ing at 16 sites and increasing
at three sites. Degradation
due to priority pollutants has
occurred in some of the
State's streams.
Forty-two fish kOls total-
ing over 541,000 fish were
reported in the past 2 years,
affecting over 153 miles of
streams. The number of fish
kills reported and the num-
ber of waterbodies affected
were lower than those re-
ported over the past 10
years, but the number of
miles affected and the num-
ber offish killed were higher.
Fish kills were most com-
monly attributed to sewage
discharges. Bacteriological
surveys were conducted on
seven stream drainages.
Municipal sewage treatment
plant discharges were found
to be a major source of recre-
ational use impairment.
Ground-Water
Quality
Underground storage
tanks, septic tanks, aban-
doned hazardous waste sites,
improper well construction,
and oil and gas brine pits are
estimated to be the top five
sources of ground-water
contamination in Kentucky.
Lack of basic monitoring
data prevents an assessment
of the magnitude of the prob-
lem caused by these sources.
Pilot wellhead protection
studies have been initiated to
gain experience in methods
to detect and evaluate con-
tamination of ground water.
Major concerns are protec-
tion of ground water for
public water supplies, lack of
consistent data gathering in
a usable format by agencies
involved in ground-water
monitoring, and contamina-
tion from oil and gas explora-
tion.
Louisiana
To obtain a copy of the
Louisiana 1990 305(b)
report, contact:
Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Management
Division
Planning and Assessment
Section
P.O. Box 82215
Baton Rouge, IA 70884-
2215
Surface Water
Quality
Louisiana contains a plen-
tiful supply of water re-
sources comprising an esti-
mated 290,000 river and
stream miles, 866,646 lake/
reservoir acres, and 7,656
square miles of estuaries.
Of the 13,101 total river
miles assessed, 66 percent
are fully supporting desig-
nated uses, 23 percent are
partially supporting desig-
nated uses, and 11 percent
are not supporting desig-
nated uses. Eighty-one per-
cent of the State's 854,331
assessed lake acres are fully
supporting their designated
uses, and 19 percent are
partially supporting their
designated uses. Of the
5,445 square miles of estuar-
ies assessed, 70 percent are
fully supporting their desig-
nated uses, and 30 percent
are partially supporting
designated uses.
The most frequently cited
pollutants identified as
causes of use impairment are
oxygen-demanding sub-
stances, fecal conform bacte-
ria, nutrients, suspended
solids, and oil and grease.
The most commonly cited
sources of pollutants are
inadequately treated sewage
discharges from municipali-
ties, discharges and spills
from petroleum activities,
hydrologic modification, and
agricultural runoff. At this
time, nonpoint sources
appear to be the predomi-
nant sources contributing to
water quality problems in
the State.'
Ground-Water
Quality
The quality of water in the
State's major aquifer sys-
tems remains excellent. The .
deeper aquifers remain free
from contamination. Of
specific concern in Louisiana,
however, are the shallow
aquifers and the water-shear-
ing zones that are not used
as major sources of water.
These strata, which have
been shown to contribute
significantly to the water
balance of the deeper aqui-
fers, are becoming increas-
ingly threatened. This
threat is two-fold. Site-spe-
cific 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 con-
taminated.
To 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 has developed a
State ground-water protec-
tion strategy concerning the
safeguarding of all potential
sources of drinking water
from contamination. Pro-
posed studies include contin-
ued baseline monitoring of
industries in the New
Orleans-Baton Rouge indus-
trial corridor and the Calca-
sieu area, the determination
of the effect of nonpoint
source pollution on shallow
and deep aquifer systems,
and the Wellhead Protection
Program (WHPP) focused on
the inventory of potential
contamination sources
around drinking water wells.
Maine
To obtain a copy of the Maine
1990 305(b) report, contact:
Maine Department of
Environmental Protection
State House Station No. 17
Augusta, ME 04333
A-14
-------
Appendix
Surface Water
Quality
During Water Years 1988-
1989, 31,672 river miles,
960,418 lake acres, and 1,633
square miles of estuary were
assessed. This represents
close to 100 percent of the
total waterbodies in the
State. Of the assessed wa-
ters, 98 percent of river
miles, 80 percent of lake
acres, and 90 percent of
estuary square miles fully
support 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 past 20 years.
Given the difficulties of con-
trolling nonpoint sources, the
low number of remaining
untreated point sources, and
the emergence of ground-
water quality and hydro-
power as major concerns, it
is doubtful that water qual-
ity improvements will con-
tinue at the same rate as in
the past.
Ground-Water
Quality
More than 60 percent of
Maine households draw their
drinking water from ground
water supplied from private
wells, public wells, or
springs; In addition, ap-
proximately 60 percent of the
water needs of Maine live-
stock are derived from
ground water. Industrial
ground-water use is slightly
less.
Ground water in signifi-
cant areas of the 11 percent
of Maine that is not forested
may be threatened by con-
tamination. During the past
decade, numerous wells in
Maine have been made
unpotable by nonpoint source
pollution. Because of slow
ground-water flow rates and
low biological activity,
ground-water contaminants
are extremely persistent.
Centuries may be required
for natural processes to re-
store contaminated ground
water to potable standards.
Major sources of ground-
water contamination in the
State are leaking under-
ground storage tanks, agri-
cultural activities, municipal
landfills, salt storage/road
deicing, and septic systems.
In 1989, the State adopted
the Maine Groundwater
Management Strategy and,
in 1990, formulated its
Nonpoint Source Pollution
Management Plan, which
identifies the major sources
of nonpoint source pollution
to Maine ground water and
surface water and proposes
to implement pollution pre-
vention programs during the
next 4 years of the program.
Public misconceptions
about ground water are prob^
ably the major factor contrib-
uting to degradation of this
resource. Other impedi-
ments to effective ground-
water protection in Maine
are lack of an accurate
ground-water quality data-
base, lack of data to quantify
nonpoint pollution source
impacts, and inadequate
State and Federal funding.
Maryland
To obtain a copy of the
Maryland 1990 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 ex-
hibit 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 recre-
ational bathing or shellfish
harvesting. Acid mine drain-
age from many abandoned
coal mines in western Mary-
land remains a long-stand-
ing, difficult problem to
solve. Toxic metal and or-
ganic compounds, due to
agricultural and urban run-
off and industrial and mu-
nicipal discharges, accumu-
late in sediments and in
tissues of aquatic organisms
and have led to a selective
fish consumption advisory in
the urban Baltimore area.
Of the 17,000 miles of
rivers and streams assessed
in Maryland, 92 percent fully
support their designated
uses, 7 percent partially
support uses, and about 1
percent do not support their
designated uses. Of the
21,002 acres of large public
lakes assessed in the State,
55 percent fully support then-
intended uses, 27 percent •
fully support but are threat-
ened, 17 percent partially
support uses, and less than 1
percent do not support their
intended uses. Of the 2,523
square miles of estuarine
waters in the State, only
118.6 square miles (4.7 per-
cent) fully supported their
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 all
waterbody types. Organic
enrichment and low dis-
solved oxygen levels are also
a major problem, particularly
in the Chesapeake Bay.
Other causes of water qual-
ity impacts include high
acidity, thermal modifica-
tion, and salinity. Leading
sources of impairment in-
clude agricultural and urban
runoff, mining, construction,
municipal discharges, and
land disposal (failing septic
systems and raw sewage
input).
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground-water resources in
Maryland are an abundant
natural resource. Although it
A-15
-------
Appendix
constitutes only 13 percent of
the total water used in the
State, ground water is of
substantial cultural and
economic importance. For
example, ground water con-
stitutes up to 97 percent of
the total water used in some
Eastern Shore counties.
Approximately 15 percent of
the State's population uses
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
petroleum 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, under-
ground storage tanks, salt-
water intrusion, agricultural
activities, surface impound-
ments, injection wells, spills
and improper storage, and
land application of sewage
sludge and wastewater.
Massachusetts
To obtain a copy of the
Massachusetts 1990 305(b)
report, contact:
Massachusetts Division of
Water Pollution Control
1 Winter Street, 8th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
Surface Water
Quality
Water quality in Massa-
chusetts has not changed
significantly since 1988. The
State reports that water
quality impacts from point
sources appear to be declin-
ing as a result of the con-
struction and upgrading of
wastewater treatment
plants. Nonpoint sources,
however, continue to degrade
water quality and are more
apparent now that control of
point sources has improved.
Data for this reporting
period indicate that 35 per-
cent of the 1,624 river miles
assessed fully support their
designated uses, 29 percent
partially support uses, and
36 percent do not support
their uses. The most com-
mon cause of nonattaimnent
is pathogen indicators and
the most prominent source is
urban runoff.
Over 40 percent of the
State's lake and pond acres
were assessed. Of the acres
assessed, 31 percent fully
support, 28 percent partially
support, and 41 percent do
not support designated uses.
Major causes of nonattain-
ment include nutrients and
excessive aquatic plant
growths. The major sources
of these problems are un-
known but are believed to be
various nonpoint sources.
Of the State's marine
waters assessed, 13 percent
fully support, 13 percent
partially support, and 74
percent do not support desig-
nated uses. The leading
sources of the impairment of
designated uses are com-
bined sewer overflows and
municipal sewage treatment
plants.
Monitoring data indicate
that 65 percent of the State's
river miles meet the fishable
goal of the Clean Water Act,
13 percent partially meet the
fishable goal, and 22 percent
do not meet the goal. Of the
State's lake waters, 59 per-
cent are fishable, 1 percent
have fish consumption advi-
sories, and 39 percent are
under fishing bans. Of ma-
rine waters, 57 percent meet
CWA fishable goals, 10 per-
cent partially meet the goals,
and 33 percent do not meet
the goals. Priority organics
and heavy metal contamina-
tion are the cause offish
consumption advisories and
bans in the State.
Ground-Water
Quality
In addition to municipal
and privately owned waste-
water treatment facilities,
over 650,000 individual sub-
surface sewage disposal
systems (septic systems)
operate in the Common-
wealth serving approxi-
mately 30 percent of the
population, mostly in rural
areas. Wastewater treat-
ment, even on the level of the
individual home system,
must be designed and regu-
lated to protect ground-water
resources.
Currently, the protection
of ground water from point •
sources of pollution is accom-
plished through the Depart-
ment of Environmental
Protection's Ground Water
Discharge Permit Program
administered by the Division
of Water Pollution Control.
All dischargers of pollutants
into the ground waters re-
quire a wastewater discharge
permit. Since adoption of the
1983 regulations, the De-
partment has received 502
permit applications and has
taken final action on approxi-
mately 360.
An integral part of the
ground-water discharge
permit program is the permit
review process, which encom-
passes all the divisions
within the Department. The
review process ensures that
the environmental concerns
particular to each division
within the Department are
considered and addressed.
The majority of ground-
water discharge permits
issued to date are for sani-
tary sewage discharged to
the ground by small pri-
vately owned sewage treat-
ment facilities. The total
discharge flow rate is ap-
proximately 13.5 million
gallons per day. Industrial
discharges account for 28
ground-water discharge
permits with permitted flows
in excess of 200,000 gallons
per day.
Michigan
To obtain a copy of the
Michigan 1990 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 generally quite
good. The inland waters of
the upper peninsula and the
A-16
-------
Appendix
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 agricul-
tural land and urban centers
and by municipal and indus-
trial discharges.
During the reporting pe-
riod, Michigan assessed
36,350 miles of streams,
489,433 acres of lakes, and
3,288 Great Lake shoreline
miles. Designated uses were
supported in 96 percent of
the assessed river miles and
90 percent of assessed lake
acres. Since all Michigan
waters of the Great Lakes
have public health fish con-
sumption advisories in place
for at least one species due to
elevated levels of toxic mate-
rials 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—Supe-
rior, Michigan, and Huron—
are considered to be oligotro-
phic and of good quality.
Water quality in Saginaw
Bay of Lake Huron has un-
proved considerably in recent
years and has contributed to
improved water quality con- -
ditions in Lake Huron. Con-
ditions in Lake Erie have
also improved. Lake Erie is
still considered to be eutro-
phic, but biological communi-
ties are becoming more bal-
anced and there are fewer
problems with low dissolved
oxygen levels. Michigan is
currently preparing or imple-
menting 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
problems in particular have
been substantially reduced
due to major point source
reductions in phosphorus
and organic material loads.
The State is now increasing
its efforts at determining the
magnitude of nonpoint
source nutrient loads and
implementing nonpoint
source control programs.
Toxic contaminants con-
tinue to have a major impact
on water resources in several
areas of the State. Michigan
implemented an industrial
pretreatment program, pro-
mulgated new rules on the
discharge of toxic materials,
and regulated hazardous
waste disposal facilities to
control the discharge of these
substances. However, many
problems are due to in-place
pollutants that have accumu-
lated in bottom sediments
from historical discharges.
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 south-
em 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
Michigan'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 eon-
sumption 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 facili-
ties. Actual or potential
ground-water contamination
has been identified at 1,689
sites in Michigan. At this
time, 65 of these sites are
also on the Federal
Superfund list and another
15 are proposed for inclusion.
At least 35 Michigan mu-
nicipal well systems are
known to have been affected
by toxic contaminants and
over 950 private residential
wells are known to be con-
taminated. Even greater
numbers of public and pri-
vate wells are potentially
affected by known contami-
nation sites.
Various steps are being
taken to protect the State's
ground water including the
cleanup of hazardous waste
sites and contaminated aqui-
fers, the regulation of activi-
ties that could potentially
impact ground-water sup-
plies, and monitoring
ground-water quality. An
interagency ground-water
management and protection
program is being imple-
mented.
Minnesota
To obtain a copy of the
Minnesota 1990 305(b)
report, contact:
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
Water Monitoring and Data
Management Unit
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155
Surface Water
Quality
Of 91,944 total river miles
in the State, 5,316 miles
(approximately 6 percent)
were assessed. Twenty-seven
percent of the assessed river
miles support designated
uses, 10 percent partially
support uses, and 63 percent
do not support uses. Thirty-
seven percent of the assessed
miles fully meet the fishable
goal of the Clean Water Act,
and 41 percent fully meet the
swimmable goal. Where
these goals are not met,
nonpoint source pollution
has caused three times as
many river miles to be out of
compliance with the Clean
Water Act as point source
pollution. The most frequent
pollutants encountered in
streams were high levels of
nutrients and fecal conforms,
low levels of dissolved oxy-
gen, and mercury and PCBs
in fish tissue.
Of the 12,034 lakes in
Minnesota, 1,573 have been
assessed for swimmable use.
These assessments show
1,135 lakes (or 72 percent)
support swimming. Assess-
ment of fishable use in lakes
is based on fish consumption
advisories issued because of
contaminants found in fish
tissue. Over half of the
A-17
-------
Appendix
State's large lakes (34 of 62)
have been sampled for con-
taminants in fish. Of these,
four lakes have no fish con-
sumption advisory, 29 lakes
have advisories recommend-
ing no more than one meal
per week or one meal per
month for some sizes and
species offish, and one lake
has an advisory recommend-
ing no consumption of some
sizes or species offish.
Nonsupport in large lakes is
primarily due to mercury
contamination. Of the State's
11,972 smaller lakes, 233
have been sampled for con-
taminants in fish. Of these
lakes, 13 have no fish con-
sumption advisories, 218
have advisories recommend-
ing no more than one meal
per week or one meal per
month for some sizes and
species offish, and two lakes
have advisories recommend-
ing no consumption of some
sizes and species offish.
Generally, lakes in Minne-
sota are most often affected
by nonpoint source pollution.
In south and central regions
of the State where agricul-
ture is the predominant land
use, nutrient loading from
runoff is the major factor.
Increased nutrient loadings
to lakes cause algal blooms
that interfere with swim-
ming and aesthetic enjoy-
ment of the lakes. In the
northeastern part of the
state, a recently completed
study determined conclu-
sively that mercury found in
lakes and streams is pre-
dominantly due to atmo-
spheric disposition. Mercury,
as well as FCBs and dioxin,
accumulates in fish, making
them unsafe to eat.
While the rate of wetlands
destruction in Minnesota
appears to be slowing, the
controlling factors are un-
clear. Wetlands have been
incorporated into the assess-
ment and management plans'
required by Section 319 of
the Clean Water Act and into
the local water management
plans being developed by
Minnesota's counties._The
antidegradation policy that
governs discharges to the
State's waters includes dis-
charges to wetlands.
Ground-Water
Quality
At least 75 percent of all
Minnesotans rely on ground
water for their drinking
water supply. Water use
within the State is divided
into five major categories:
public water supply, irriga-
tion, thermoelectric power
generation, self-supplied
industrial use, and heating
and cooling. Data for rural
domestic and livestock use, a
significant part of ground-
water use, were unavailable.
Public water supply accounts
for 40 percent of the ground
water withdrawn, which was
more than 267 billion gallons
in 1988.
The MPCA's Ambient
Ground Water Monitoring
Program, established in
1979, has evaluated 1,100
samples, representing 487
monitoring points in the 14
principal aquifers. Samples
included analyses for volatile
organic carbons (VOCs) and
pesticides in geologically
sensitive areas. VOCs were
detected in one-fourth of the
30 wells tested and one or
more pesticides were de-
tected in 39 percent of 725
wells. Elevated nitrate con-
centrations were commonly
found in surficial aquifers
and in areas of intense agri-
cultural use. The MPCA is
working with other State
agencies to conduct a study
of nitrate concentrations in
Minnesota's ground water.
Through the efforts of the
MPCA and the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency in
attaining the goals of the
Clean Water Act, control of
point source pollution has
vastly improved. As land use
increases and intensifies, the
adverse impact of nonpoint
source pollution and toxic
contamination presents an
increasing challenge to the
State to protect the quality of
Minnesota's water. Coopera-
tion among Federal, State
and local levels of govern-
ment, as well as citizen in-
volvement, will be required
to cope with the challenges of
the future.
Mississippi
To obtain a copy of the
Mississippi 1990 305(b)
report, contact:
The Mississippi Department
of Environmental Quality
Office of Pollution Control
P. O. Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39289-0385
Surface Water
Quality
Of the State's 15,839 miles
of rivers, approximately 48
percent fully support desig-
nated uses, 3 percent fully
support uses but are threat-
ened, 46 percent partially
support uses, and 2 percent
do not support uses. Ap-
proximately 50.5 percent of
the stream miles meet the
fishable goal of the Clean
Water Act, 46.5 percent
partially meet the goal, and
2 percent do not meet the
goal. Approximately 83
percent of the State's rivers
meet the swimmable goal of
the Act. This assessment is
significantly different from
that reported in the 1988
Water Quality Report. Many
more miles of rivers are
shown as partially support-
ing designated uses and
partially attaining the fish-
able goal of the Clean Water
Act. Water quality in the
State has not declined during
the past 2 years. However,
knowledge of the water qual-
ity of the State's rivers has
expanded.
The most significant im-
pacts on the State's streams
were due primarily to nutri-
ents and siltation and to a
lesser degree to pesticides,
priority organics, metals,
chlorine, organic enrichment,
low dissolved oxygen, sus-
pended solids, and salinity.
The major source of these
pollutants is agricultural
nonpoint sources. It is an-
ticipated that with imple-
mentation of Best Manage-
ment Practices, all streams
classified for Fish and Wild-
life or higher uses could
potentially attain support of
the fishable/swimmable goal.
Approximately 56 percent
of the State's 500,000 acres
of lakes folly support desig-
nated uses, 12 percent fully
support designated uses but
are threatened, while 32
percent are partially sup-
porting of designated uses.
Approximately 68 percent of
the State's lakes meet the
fishable goal of the Clean
Water Act and 32 percent
partially meet the fishable
goal of the Act. Approxi-
A-18
-------
Appendix
mately 98 percent of the
State's lakes meet the swim-
mablegoaloftheAct. Lakes
rated as partially supporting
their use classification are
impacted by nonpoint
sources primarily from agri-
cultural activities.
Of the 133 square miles of
estuaries assessed, 119.75
square miles fully support
designated uses, 6.5 square
miles fully support use but
are threatened, and 6.75
square miles partially sup-
port uses. Approximately 95
percent of the estuaries meet
the fishable/swimmable goal
of the Clean Water Act.
Of the 81 coastal miles, 10
miles fully support desig-
nated uses but are threat-
ened, 60 miles are partially
supporting, and 11 miles are
not supporting uses. Tidal
streams were assessed inde-
pendently of rivers. Of the
215.8 miles assessed, 71.2
miles fully support uses, 67.1
miles fully support uses but
are threatened, 72.5 miles
partially support uses, and
5 miles do not support uses.
Municipal and industrial
discharges along with runoff
from nonpoint sources and
septic tanks account for the
impacts on coastal waters
and tidal streams.
Of the 1,290 miles of rivers
monitored for toxics, 188
miles were found to have
elevated levels of pesticides,
PCBs and/or dioxin in fish.
In the past, toxics of concern
had been identified at 25 of
the 36 fish tissue sampling
stations. However, only
three of these stations were
considered elevated. An
apparent increase in DDT
levels seen during this period
is attributed to improved
sampling, preparation, ex-
traction, and analytical tech-
niques. Historically, no
elevated levels of toxics have
been found in completed
analyses for estuaries,
coastal waters, or tidal
streams, with the exception
of dioxin in the Escatawpa
River near Moss Point. How-
ever, recent data indicate
significant declines in dioxin
levels at this site. At
present, four fish consump-
tion advisories and three
commercial fishing bans are
in effect in Mississippi. The
advisories and bans are due
to PCBs, dioxin, or both.
Water quality improve-
ments continue to result
from implementation of
regional wastewater treat-
ment plants. Plant construc-
tion and expansion elimi-
nated poorly treated dis-
charges into several
waterbodies. During 1988
and 1989, 45 municipalities,
with a total of 57 facilities,
upgraded their existing
wastewater treatment to
meet final effluent limits.
Numerous private systems
were also eliminated as a
result of construction of
regional systems, especially
along the Mississippi Gulf
Coast.
Ground-Water
Quality
The ground-water quality
in Mississippi is good;
however, minor ground-
water quality problems exist
in some areas such as low
pH, excessive iron, excessive
dissolved solids, and exces-
sive color. These natural
ground-water quality prob-
lems reflect geochemical
reactions with minerals and
organic matter within the
aquifers. Localized problems
have been found near RCRA-
regulated sites, industrial
sites, and oil exploration
areas. The Mississippi State
Department of Health ad-
ministers the Federal Safe
Drinking Water Act for the
State. New legislation in
1987 authorizes the Depart-
ment of Environmental
Quality, Ground-Water Divi-
sion, and the Department of
Agriculture to monitor im-
pacts on ground water due to
agricultural chemicals and
establish standards for
ground-water quality. Mis-
sissippi is currently working
on a Ground-Water Classifi-
cation and Quality Stan-
dards document based on •
• recommendations made in
the Ground-Water Protection
Strategy.
Missouri
To obtain a copy of the
Missouri 1990 305(b) report,
contact:
Missouri Department of
Natural Resources
Division of Environmental
Quality
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson, MO 65102
Surface Water
Quality
During 1988-1989, Mis-
souri assessed 21,064 miles
of rivers and 287,543 acres of
lakes. Of the State's rivers
and streams, 53 percent are
fully supporting uses and 47
percent are partially sup-
porting their uses. Most
impaired waters are affected
by extensive land uses, espe-
cially row crop agriculture.
Of the State's lakes and
reservoirs, 98 percent are
fully supporting their desig-
nated uses.
The number of stream
miles affected by point
sources in Missouri has been
dropping since 1984 as the
result of sewage treatment
plant construction and a
statewide assessment pro-
gram that has targeted
projects of greatest need.
Nonpoint source control
efforts, however, have lagged
behind. The most successful
program to date has been the
reclamation of abandoned
coal mine lands. State-
funded programs to address
soil erosion are very small
compared to the size of the
problem and the area af-
fected. Impacts from aban-
doned lead-zinc mining areas
are highly amenable to treat-
ment but are not being
addressed because of lack of
funds.
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
are chronic water shortages
in the northern and western
part of the State and heavy
residential development
around Lake of the Ozarks.
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, pesticides,
heavy metals, and nitrates.
A-19
-------
Appendix
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 contami-
nants are a problem state-
wide.
Ground-water protection
activities include assumption
of regulatory activities for a
new State underground
storage tank law as well as
continuing programs in well-
head protection, sealing
abandoned wells, closing
hazardous waste sites, and
large increases in ground-
water and unsaturated soils
monitoring. Educational
programs for those involved
with application of farm
chemicals, transporters of
hazardous material, and the
general public will also be
needed.
Montana
To obtain a copy of the
Montana 1990 305(b) report,
contact:
Montana Water Quality
Bureau
Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences
Cogswell Building
Helena, MT 59620
Surface Water
Quality
Montana used the EPA
Waterbody System (WBS)
and the EPA Keach File for
the first time to prepare then:
1990 Section 305(b) water
quality assessments. With
these tools, the State im-
proved the accuracy of
stream mile estimates and
conducted more systematic
assessments of designated
use support.
Montana assessed all
51,212 of its stream miles in
the EPA Reach File (version
2). Of these, 68 percent fully
support designated uses, 6
percent fully support uses
but are threatened, 23 per-
cent partially support desig-
nated uses, and 3 percent do
not support designated uses.
Flow alteration, much of
which results from dam
releases 'and withdrawals for
irrigation, is the leading
cause of impairment in
Montana's streams. Sus-
pended solids, silt, dissolved
solids (salinity), nutrients,
habitat alteration, metals,
thermal modification, and
bacteria are other significant
causes of impairment.
Point sources of pollution,
primarily municipal and
industrial discharges, con-
tribute to less than full sup-
port in 11 percent of the
State's impaired stream
miles. The majority of
stream impairments are
attributed to nonpoint
sources including agricul-
ture, natural conditions,
habitat/hydrologic modifica-
tion, resource extraction,
forest practices, and con-
struction.
Of the 632,705 lake acres
assessed, 5 percent fully
support designated uses, 22
percent fully support uses
but are threatened, 71 per-
cent partially support desig-
nated uses, and 2 percent do
not support designated uses.
Lake level alteration in
water storage reservoirs is
the leading cause of use
impairment in Montana's
lakes. Other significant
causes include nutrients,
suspended solids, metals,
noxious aquatic plants, and
organic enrichment. Each of
these causes affects at least
half of the assessed lake
acres. The leading sources of
lake impairment are agricul-
ture, natural sources, habi-
tat/hydrologic modification,
and forest practices.
Only about 2 percent of
Montana's lake acres and
stream miles do not meet the
fishable goal of the Federal
Clean Water Act. An even
smaller percentage of lake
acres and stream miles do
not meet the swimmable
goal. According to Depart-
ment water quality special-
ists, fishing and swimming
are attainable in all waters
that currently do not support
these uses.
Elevated concentrations of
toxic pollutants have been
measured in approximately
•40 percent of Montana's lake
acres and 5 percent of stream
miles. The principal causes
of toxic contamination in
surface waters are heavy
metals from mill tailings and
natural geothermal sources
in Yellowstone National
Park. In recent years, three
Montana streams have expe-
rienced fish kills due to met-
als and pesticides, and one
fishing advisory has been
issued for 20 miles of Silver
Creek.
Ground-Water
Quality
The principal sources of
ground-water contamination
in Montana are underground
storage tanks, injection
wells, septic tanks, spills,
abandoned hazardous waste
sites, road salting, and agri-
cultural activities. Principal
substances contaminating
ground water are metals,
cyanide, volatile organic
chemicals, nitrates, pesti-
cides, and petroleum prod-
ucts.
Nebraska
To obtain a copy of the
Nebraska 1990 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 7,331
assessed stream miles, 55
percent fully support desig-
nated uses, 26 percent par-
tially support uses, and 19
percent do not support desig-
nated uses.
Agricultural runoff is the
principal source of use im-
pairment in Nebraska.
Other sources of use impair-
ment are domestic point
sources, habitat/hydrologic
modifications, industrial
discharges, and natural
conditions. All of these
sources impact the biotic
integrity of affected streams.
About 60 percent of all
publicly owned lake surface
acres in Nebraska were as-
sessed for support of desig-
nated uses. Of those lake
acres assessed, 84 percent
fully support all assigned
uses. Aquatic life uses are
impaired in those lakes not
fully supporting their uses.
A-20
-------
Appendix
Agricultural runoff and the
inherent characteristics of
the lakes appear to be re-
sponsible for the high pro-
ductivity and low dissolved
oxygen levels in these lakes.
Data from 1979 through
1989 were available to deter-
mine water quality trends for
13 lakes representing 37,665
surface acres. Water quality
showed no significant
changes in four lakes cover-
ing 1,770 acres. These
trends indicate that 95 per-
cent improved, almost 5
percent maintained their
water quality, and less than
1 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 on toxic pollutants,
the need to redirect monitor-
ing and data gathering ac-
tivities, unlicensed landfills',
and hazardous waste.
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 ex-
tremely 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 natu-
ral ground-water quality is
good, many areas have expe-
rienced degradation from
human activities. Hundreds
of cases of ground-water
contamination have been
documented, with numbers
increasing each year. Major
sources are agricultural
activities, industrial facili-
ties, leaking underground
storage tanks, oil or hazard-
ous substance spills, solid
waste landfills, wastewater
lagoons, brine disposal pits,
and septic systems. The
most commonly detected
contaminants in Nebraska's
ground water are nitrates
and pesticides.
The Nebraska Ground-
Water Quality Protection
Strategy was recently up-
dated. It puts forward a plan
for ground-water quality
protection that emphasizes
the prevention of contamina-
tion. Many of the elements
of this plan have been imple-
mented.
Nevada
To obtain a copy of the
Nevada 1990 305(b) report,
contact:
Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection
Capitol Complex, Room 221
Carson City, NV 89710
Surface Water
Quality
Of the 7,500 miles of riv-
ers, streams, and creeks
identified in Nevada, 3,359
miles have been classified by
the State. Of the total, 3,354
miles are designated under
the Clean Water Act (CWA)
Goal as fishable and 2,915
miles are designated swim-
mable. The remaining wa-
ters, 4,141 miles, are unclas-
sified.
Designated uses are
assigned to classified waters
in Nevada but not all waters
have the same uses applied
to them. These designated
uses include aquatic life,
wildlife propagation, recre-
ation involving water con-
tact, recreation not involving
water contact, municipal
drinking supply, stock water-
ing, irrigation, and industrial
supply.
Of the 1,447 river miles
assessed, 31 percent fully
support uses, 25 percent
partially support uses, and
44 percent do not support
uses. The fishable goal is
attained in 51 percent of
assessed river miles, and the
swimmable goal is attained
in 47 percent.
Sixty-five percent of the
198,725 assessed lake acres
fully support designated
uses, 27 percent partially
support uses, and 7 percent
do not support uses.
Of the lake acres assessed,
183,925 acres (93 percent)
are fully or partially support-
ing their uses. For wetlands,
24,169 acres are not support-
ing the beneficial uses.
Since Nevada is a water-
poor State, the water that is
available is under great
demand and is heavily used.
The major users are agricul-
ture and municipal and in-
dustrial sources. The im-
pacts on water quality from
the municipal and industrial
sources have been reduced
greatly over the last few
years with most point source
polluters eliminated from
direct discharges or strin-
gently controlled.
Nonpoint source pollution
directly related to irrigation,
grazing, and flow regulation
practices has the greatest
impact on the waters of Ne-
vada. Temperature, pH,
nutrients, dissolved solids,
and dissolved oxygen are the
main pollutants of concern
and are being targeted in the
Nonpoint Source Program.
Water quality has im-
proved over the past 2 years
because of the removal of
point sources and the imple-
mentation of more stringent
standards on the remaining
point sources. Most
exceedances are seasonal
and natural, for example, pH
and temperature. The
Nonpoint Source Program
will help to further improve
water quality by promoting
better grazing and irrigation
practices.
The water quality stan-
dards adopted for Las Vegas
Bay/Lake Mead for chloro-
phyll a and un-ionized am-
monia are not being achieved
because the City of Las
Vegas Wastewater Treat-
ment Plant and Clark
County Sanitation District
discharge into the Las Vegas
Wash, which flows 11 miles
to Las Vegas Bay. Ammonia
and phosphorus are the
pollutants of concern enter-
ing the bay.
The Truckee River contin-
ues to show improvement
due to phosphate and nitro-
gen removal from the Reno/
Sparks Wastewater Treat-
ment Plant. In 1988 total
nitrogen was exceeded in 100
percent of the samples col-
lected; in 1989 there was
only a 9 percent exceedance
rate.
The Carson River water
quality standard for total
phosphates was exceeded for
about two-thirds of its
reaches. Total phosphates
and pH and temperature
exceedances occur during the
summer months at low flows
and can be attributed to
nonpoint sources in Carson
Valley, a major agricultural
A-21
-------
Appendix
area. A fish consumption
health advisory has been
issued for portions of the
Carson River and Lahontan
Reservoir since 1985 because
of high levels of mercury.
The area is now under con-
sideration by EPA as a
Superfund Site.
The Walker River has seen
marked improvement in
nitrates and phosphates with
no violations reported during
1988 and 1989. However,
pH and solids continue to be
a problem mainly because of
the low flows that occurred
during this time.
The Humboldt River
continues to have water
quality problems because of
very low flows during this
time, which resulted in high
TDS and turbidity levels.
The river normally has a
highly variable flow with a
major irrigation/recreation
reservoir on the lower end of
the system (Rye Patch Reser-
voir) and a terminal sink.
Major point sources have all
but been eliminated.
Agricultural and range-
land nonpoint sources are
contributing the large sedi-
ment and nutrient loads to
the waters of the State. Ur- •
ban drainage systems con-
tribute nutrients, heavy
metals and organic loads to
the nonpoint source load.
The Nonpoint Source Pro-
gram should achieve reduc-
tions of these nonpoint
source loads in the 1990s.
Point sources are being
eliminated where possible
and their effects on water
quality have been greatly
reduced. These point sources
have a major impact in only
a very few river miles of the
State.
Ground-Water
Quality
Approximately 50 percent
of Nevada's total population
relies on ground water.
Since surface waters are
either fully allocated or over-
allocated, Nevada's future
growth must rely heavily on
untapped ground-water
aquifers. Thus, protecting
present and potential (i.e.,
untapped) ground-water
aquifers is a high priority of
the State.
Nevada initiated this pro-
tection effort bytcompleting
the "Ground Water Protec-
tion Strategy for Nevada" in
June of 1989. The Strategy
delineated Nevada's short-
and long-term goals, recog-
nizing both the priorities and
limited respurces available.
Major sources of ground-
water contamination in the
State include mining, under-
ground storage tanks, injec-
tion wells, septic tanks, and
landfills. Substances con-
taminating ground water
include volatile organic
chemicals, nitrates, petro-
leum products, radioactive
material, fluorides, arsenic,
and brine/salinity.
New
Hampshire
To obtain a copy of the New
Hampshire 1990 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
During 1988 and 1989,
New Hampshire assessed
1,348 miles of its estimated
14,544 total river miles. Of
the assessed river miles, 1
percent fully support desig-
nated uses, 63 percent cur-
rently support uses but are
threatened, 25 percent par-
tially support uses, and 11
percent do not support desig-
nated uses. Pathogen indica-
tors, organic enrichment, low
dissolved oxygen concentra-
tions, and priority organics
cause most of the impair-
ments. Municipal and indus-
trial point sources, as well as
combined sewer overflows
continue to be the major
sources of impairment in
New Hampshire's mainstem
waterbodies. Onsite sewage
disposal and other nonpoint
sources contribute to use
impairment to a lesser ex-
tent.
Of the 152,788 acres of
lakes assessed, 88 percent
fully support their desig-
nated uses and 4 percent
frilly support but are threat-
ened. However, about 5
percent of the assessed wa-
ters only partially support
designated uses and 3 per-
cent do not support uses.
Acidification and nutrient
impacts are cited as the
primary causes of
nonattainment.
Industrial and municipal
discharges are the major
source of lake impairments.
Moderate and minor effects
from acid rain and natural
acidity are also widespread.
A recent survey found that
85 percent of New
Hampshire's lakes and ponds
are sensitive to acid rain,
and only 50 percent of the
State's lakes have satisfac-
tory pH values during win-
ter.
In March of 1989, New
Hampshire issued the only
fish advisory in effect. Cur-
rently, fishing is restricted
on 15 miles of the Andro-
scoggin River below Berlin
due to dioxin discharges from
the James River Corpora-
tion. Shellfish harvesting
continues to be restricted in
Great Bay and Hampton
Harbor because of elevated
bacteria concentrations gen-
erated by municipal treat-
ment plants and nonpoint
sources.
New Jersey
To obtain a copy of the New
Jersey 1990 305(b) report,
contact:
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
Bureau of Water Resources
Management Planning
P.O. Box CN-029
Trenton, NJ 08625
Surface Water
Quality
Approximately 76 percent
of New Jersey's 1,719 as-
sessed river and stream
miles meet the fishable goal
of the Clean Water Act. The
swimmable goal is attained
in only 15 percent Of the 592
river miles assessed. All of
New Jersey's public lakes are
classified as threatened for
attainment of clean water
goals. The most frequent
pollution problems are nutri-
ents, siltation, depressed
dissolved oxygen, arid excess
primary productivity.
A-22
-------
Appendix
Nonpoint source pollution is
cited as the principal source
of contaminants.
Pollutants commonly
found in State waters include
fecal coliform bacteria, nutri-
ents, reduced dissolved oxy-
gen levels, siltation, road
salts, and oil and grease.
Toxic substances in water,
sediments, shellfish, and fish
tissue are generally found in
low amounts in the State.
Other types of known or
suspected water quality
problems are thermal modifi-
cation/elevated stream tem-
peratures, habitat alter-
ations, pH fluctuations, and
chlorine levels. 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. Im-
pacts 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. Ground-water quality .
is considered naturally good
in the State; however, treat-
ment for some undesirable
constituents of natural ori-
gins is warranted in some
areas owing to the physicaV
chemical nature of the geo-
logic materials housing the
aquifer. The most common
of these naturally occurring
contaminants are iron, dis-
solved solids, sulfate, and
hardness. Other less com-
mon yet significant contami-
nants are radium, lead, and
barium.
As of December 1989,
3,086 ground-water pollution
investigations had been
performed. The most com-
mon pollutants found were
volatile organic compounds,
metals, base neutrals, acid
extractables, and PCBs/
pesticides. Other contami-
nants included miscellaneous
landfill contaminants,
undifferentiated petroleum
hydrocarbons, gasoline, and
fuel oil.
Underground storage
tanks account for the largest
percentage of ground- water
pollution sources. Other
common sources are land
disposal sites, accidental
spills and leaks, and un-
known sources. TheNJ
Department of Environmen-
tal Protection recently for-
mulated a strategy to coordi-
nate the many ground-water
management programs to
upgrade overall effectiveness
of resource management.
New Mexico
To obtain a copy of the New
Mexico 1990 305(b) report,
contact:
New Mexico Water Quality
Control Comission
Division Water Quality
Planning Section
1190 St. Francis Drive
Santa Fe,NM 87503
Surface Water
Quality
Attainable or designated
uses are not fully supported
in 3,117 assessed river miles
and 115,959 assessed lake
acres. Fifty-four of the river
miles are impaired largely
due to discharges from 10
wastewater treatment
plants. The remainder of the
impaired river miles and all
of the impaired lake acreage
are solely or primarily im-
pacted by a variety of
nonpoint sources. The level
of pollution is such that sev-
eral of the State's designated
uses (all subcategories of
fishery uses, secondary con-
tact recreation, irrigation,
livestock and wildlife water-
ing and domestic water
supply uses) are not attained
in almost 274 river miles; the
CWA fishable goal is not
attained in 266 of these
miles. Pollution in these
rivers and streams is so
severe that the uses are
seasonally or permanently
precluded. None of the as-
sessed lakes are impacted to
the extent that the CWA
fishable/swimmable goals or
the State's designated uses
are precluded.
The 3,117 river miles and
115,599 lake acres impaired
represent a dramatic in-
crease from the 576 miles of
rivers and 47,308 lake acres
reported as impaired in
1988. The primary reason
for this difference is the
result of the interagency
nonpoint source assessment
required under Section 319
of the Federal Clean Water
Act. The additional river
miles largely reflect ongoing,
long-term nonpoint source
problems and are only sec-
ondarily the result of new
pollutant sources. Where
point sources have been
identified as causes of water
quality impairments, actions
have already been taken or
are under way to solve the
identified problems.
Available data indicate
that New Mexico has been
largely successful in reducing
point source impacts on the
State's rivers. Nonpoint
sources now predominate.
Heavy metal contamination,
siltation, habitat alteration,
and hydrologic modification
are the predominant causes
of use impairment in New
Mexico's rivers and streams.
In the State's lakes, heavy
metals, siltation, nutrients,
and habitat destruction are
major causes of use impair-
ment. Agriculture and recre-
ation are the major sources
of these impacts. Point
sources are not known to
significantly affect attain-
ment of designated uses in
lakes.
New Mexico notes two
issues of special concern:
nonpoint source pollution
and toxic substances.
Ninety-eight percent of all
water quality impairment of
surface waters is due to
nonpoint source water pollu-
tion. In addition, further
investigation is needed of
surface water quality im-
pacts of toxic substances.
Ground-Water
Quality
Approximately 88 percent
of the total population of
New Mexico depends on
ground water for drinking
water. Of those whose water
comes from public water
systems, 86 percent are sup-
plied from ground-water
sources. Overall, the quality
of these waters is good, al-
though there are significant
pollution problems known to
affect limited areas through-
out the State.
Since the mid-1970s the
State has been inventorying
A-23
-------
Appendix
incidents, causes, and
sources of ground-water
contamination around the
State. At least 1,493 inci-
dents of ground-water con-
tamination have been docu-
mented. Ground-water con-
tamination most frequently
occurs in vulnerable aquifer
areas where the water table
is shallow. Slightly more
than half of all cases have
been caused by nonpoint
source pollution, principally
household septic tanks and
cesspools.
The principal point sources
of ground-water pollution
have been leaking under-
ground storage tanks, oil and
gas production activities,
mining and milling, sewage
(including septage) disposal,
dairies, and miscellaneous
industrial sources.
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, the Albu-
querque South Valley, lo-
cated in the shallow water
table zone along the Eio
Grande, has problems with
ground-water contamination
from a variety of sources
including septic tanks and
industrial sources. The
Espanola area is also located
in the Rio Grande Valley and
has ground-water contami-
nation from septic tanks and
leaking underground storage
tanks.
The Ogallala Formation,
in Lea County, is the princi-
pal .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
Counties 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 con-
stitute a continuing ground-
water .quality problem.
The San Juan Basin is
second only to southeastern
New Mexico as a petroleum
producing region and pro-
duces most of the State's
natural gas. Ground-water
quality in the Basin has been
impacted by oil and gas pro-
duction activities and by
landfills.
In Dona Ana County,
ground-water contamination
problems have been caused
by disposal of dairy wastes.
New York
To obtain a copy of the New
York 1990 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
Surface Water
Quality
During Water Years 1988-
1989, New York assessed
70,000 miles of streams,
668,000 acres of lakes, 1,564
square miles of estuaries,
577 Great Lake shoreline
miles, and 130 ocean coastal
miles. Approximately 91
percent of its rivers and
streams were found to fully
support their designated
uses, along with 57 percent
of lake, pond, and reservoir
acres, 73 percent of estuary
square miles, 15 percent of
Great Lake shoreline miles,
and 46 percent of ocean
coastal miles.
For approximately 237
river miles, 128,000 lake
acres, and 145 square miles
of estuary, toxic pollutants
are a major impact. An
estimated 70 miles of ocean
coastline and 463 miles of
Great Lakes shoreline are
affected by toxics as well.
Contaminated sediments are
responsible for virtually all
of this use impairment;
together with other 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.
Other areas of concern are:
acid precipitation; PCB con-
tamination of lakes; estua-
rine water quality, particu-
larly in Long Island Sound
and the New York City area
of the Lower Hudson estu-
ary; and contaminated runoff
from urban storm sewers.
Ground-Water
Quality
Approximately 6 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 275 public water
supplies affected by toxic
organic contamination of
ground water. Of these, 126
water supplies on Long Is-
land and 37 in upstate New
York remain closed or aban-
doned.
Contamination by syn-
thetic organic chemicals is
* the most significant threat to
ground-water quality state-
wide. The three major cat-
egories of organic contami-
nants that are detected most
frequently in ground water
are
• Industrial/commercial
synthetic organic solvents
and degreasers, primarily
1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichlo-
roethylene, and tetrachloro-
ethylene;
• Gasoline and other
petroleum products that
contain the compounds ben-
zene, toluene, and xylene;
and
• 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.
Petroleum contamination
is also a significant ground-
• water quality problem. Sixty-
five percent of the reported
private well contamination
in upstate New York is
petroleum-related, and over
75 percent of spills recently
reported in Nassau and Suf-
folk counties were due to
inland spills or leaks of un-
derground storage tanks.
Ground-water cleanup opera-
tions are often marginally
effective and are particularly
difficult and expensive in the
sandy soils encountered on
Long Island.
A-24
-------
Appendix
Pesticide contamination,
primarily by aldicarb, is a
particular problem on Long
Island, where it was used on
potato fields. It has also
been detected in ground
water in upstate New York.
A sampling survey of 330
wells in eastern Long Island
detected aldicarb in concen-
trations exceeding the De-
partment of Health's recom-
mended guideline in 23 per-
cent 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 1990 305(b) report,
contact:
NC Division of Environ-
mental Management
Water Quality Planning
Branch
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Surface Water
Quality
Of North Carolina's 37,222
miles of freshwater streams
and rivers, 64 percent sup-
port their uses, 25 percent
partially support uses, 6
percent do not support desig-
nated uses, and 5 percent
were not evaluated. River
basins located in the moun-
tains tend to have the high-
est percentage of high qual-
ity streams, while more
heavily developed piedmont
or coastal plain basins have
more stream mileage with
use impairment.
Nonpoint sources account
for use impairment in 85
percent of degraded streams.
Major sources include agri-
culture, unspecified nonpoint
sources, municipal waste-
water treatment plants
(WWTPs), and urban runoff.
Sediments are the most
widespread cause of stream
impact. In the past the State
has emphasized control of
point sources; while this
emphasis has had great
positive benefit, effective
nonpoint source control is
more difficult to implement
and continued progress in
pollution control will prob-
ably be slower.
Overall, 96 percent of the
surface area of lakes and
reservoirs in North Carolina
support their designated
uses, 1 percent partially
support uses, and 3 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 fu-
ture. These actions should
restore biota in both lakes.
In addition, extensive efforts
are underway to control
eutrophication in two rela-
tively new lakes, Falls and
Jordan. The major sources of
use impairment in lakes are
in-place contaminants, in-
dustrial WWTPs, and agri-
culture. Major causes of lake
problems are metals (primar-
ily selenium) and aquatic
macrophytes.
Of the State's 3,194 square
miles of estuaries and
sounds, 90 percent fully
support their designated
uses while 9 percent par-
tially support uses (because
of closed shellfish areas or
areas of excessive algal
growth) and less than I
percent do not support their
designated uses. Major
sources of impairment in
estuarine waters are agricul-
ture, municipal WWTPs,
septic tanks, and urban
runoff. Major causes of im-
pacts in estuaries are chloro-
phyll a and nutrients, and
bacteria. Several new or
expanded efforts are under-
way to protect estuarine
waters including expanded
control of stormwater runoff
to surface waters, nutrient
control measures in several
coastal watersheds, and
protection of primary nurs-
ery areas.
Ground-Water
Quality
About half of the people in
North Carolina use ground
water as their primary water
supply. Ground-water qual-
ity is generally good state-
wide. The major source of
ground-water contamination
is leaking underground stor-
age tanks; spills, lagoons,
and septic tanks are also
important sources. Compre-
hensive programs are under-
way to (1) assess potential
contamination sites and
(2) develop a comprehensive
ground-water protection
strategy for the State.
Over the past few years
the following issues have
emerged as critical to the
long-term protection of
ground water in North
Carolina:
• Identification of leaking
underground storage tanks
• Remediation of ground-
water contamination sites
• Assessment of pesticide
impacts on ground water
• Management of, and
access to, information
• Setting permit condi-
tions to protect ground water
• Improved understand-
ing of basic hydrogeologic
processes.
Finding solutions to these
problems has shaped the
development of North Caro-
lina's Groundwater Protec-
tion Program over the past
2 years.
The State has three funda-
mental strategies for manag-
ing ground-water resources.
First, the State establishes
and enforces construction,
monitoring, and reporting
guidelines for facilities that
generate or treat waste that
can pollute ground water.
Second, where ground water
has been contaminated or is
threatened, action is re-
quired to control the pollu-
tion and restore the ground
water to the extent feasible.
Third, the resource must be
prudently managed to en-
sure adequate ground-water
quality and availability to
support present and future
growth and development.
These fundamental strate-
gies form the foundation of
the State ground-water pro-
gram and have been incorpo-
rated into the following pro-
gram goals:
• Prevent pollution of
A-25
-------
Appendix
ground-water resources
• Respond to contamina-
tion incidents and restore the
resource
• Wisely manage the
ground-water resource.
Over the past 2 years,
incident response capabili-
ties have been significantly
increased with the addition
of 52 staff to implement
Federal and State leaking
underground storage tank
(LUST) trust funds. Other
major initiatives include the
following:
1. A State-funded, inter-
agency, comprehensive study
to determine whether
pesticides are impacting
ground water in the State.
2. DRASTIC mapping of
the State on a county-by-
county basis. Several Federal
and State programs will
support this effort.
3. An Ambient Ground-
water Monitoring Strategy to
establish environmental
indicators of ground-water
quality and improve under-
standing of natural pro-
cesses.
4. A long-term project for
the mapping of recharge and
discharge areas across the
State.
North Carolina is cur-
rently in the process of
implementing a basinwide
management program. This
effort will involve the coordi-
nation of many aspects of
North Carolina's water qual-
ity management program,
including wasteload alloca-
tions, monitoring, permit-
ting, compliance, planning,
and other activities. The
objective of this program is to
develop consistent and effec-
tive water quality manage-
ment strategies, including
the equitable distribution of
assimilative capacity. Basin
plans will be prepared at the
end of each cycle and, it is
hoped, will serve to meet
many of EPA's reporting
requirements, including
those for Sections 305(b),
303(d), 314, and 319 of the
Clean Water Act.
North
Dakota
To obtain a copy of the North
Dakota 1990 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 9,173 miles of as-
sessed rivers and streams in
North Dakota, 1,350 miles
are moderately to slightly
impaired by point source
pollution and all assessed
miles are impacted to some
degree by nonpoint source
pollution. Of the assessed
river miles, 75 percent are
fully supporting their desig-
nated uses and 25 percent
are partially supporting
uses. No river or stream
segment is identified as not
supporting designated uses.
The major pollutants causing
some impairment to streams
in the State are nutrients
and siltation. The primary
source of these pollutants is
nonpoint source pollution,
primarily in the form of
runoff of nonirrigated crop-
land, pasture land, and feed-
lots. Other nonpoint sources
of pollution are loss of ripar-
ian vegetation and wetland
drainage.
Of the 611,075 lake acres
assessed, 221,734 acres do
not support designated use.
This nonsupport is caused by
the severe drought of 1988
and 1989, compounded by a
policy of reservoir drawdown
for downstream river uses at
the expense of the beneficial
uses of the reservoirs. An
additional 33,082 lake acres
partially meet designated
uses. The major cause of
partial use support is peri-
odic fish kills caused by low
dissolved oxygen concentra-
tions resulting from the
decomposition of accumu-
lated organic matter. Major
sources of pollutants are
nutrients from agricultural •
runoff and internal nutrient
cycling from the sediments.
Sedimentation or siltation is
the major pollutant threaten-
ing lakes and reservoirs.
Toxic pollutants of concern
are trace metals, primarily
chromium, copper, lead, and
arsenic. The source of these
metals is believed to be a
result of the highly erosive
soils in that area com-
pounded by nonpoint source
pollution activities such as
overgrazing and oil explora-
tion and extraction activities.
North Dakota has ap-
proximately 2 million wet-
lands acres. The loss of
wetlands in the State is
estimated at 20,000 acres per
year since 1986. With the
advent of legislation de-
signed to eliminate Federal
subsidy payments to produc-
ers who drain wetlands, the
, annual loss of wetlands ap-
pears to have been reduced
to approximately 10,000
acres per year. Drainage
continues to be the greatest
threat to wetlands; however,
nonpoint source pollution
problems such as siltation
and pesticide contamination
are gaining recognition as
significant threats.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground water is one of
North Dakota's most pre- .
cious resources. Nearly the
entire rural population and
many municipalities obtain
their water from ground-
water supplies. Sixty per-
cent 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.
The majority of ground-
water contamination inci-
dences reported to date are
associated with hydrocarbon
spills or leaks. Other sources
of ground-water contamina-
tion are agricultural chemi-
cals (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 strategy is
the core of its ground-water
program. The strategy re-
views current State and
Federal ground-water protec-
tion programs and addresses
issues such as standards,
classification, monitoring,
and data management.
A-26
-------
Appendix
Other programs that pro-
vide ground-water protection
are the point and nonpoint
source pollution control pro-
grams, the public water
supply program, the under-
ground injection control
program, the construction
grants program, the solid
waste management program,
and the hazardous waste
management program.
Ohio
To obtain a copy of the Ohio
1990 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 7,444 assessed
stream miles in Ohio, 30
percent are attaining their
aquatic life use designations,
6 percent are currently sup-
porting uses but are threat-
ened, 21 percent are partially
attaining those uses, and 43
percent are not attaining
aquatic life 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.
The proportion of stream
and river miles fully support-
ing aquatic life uses is less
than reported in 1988, but
not because of reductions in
water quality. In fact,
continued reductions are
evident in point source load-
ings. Changes in use support
are largely the result of the
adoption of ecoregional bio-
logical criteria in Ohio, and a
reassessment of all stream
segments for which biological
data were available. 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 com-
bined sewers) and industrial
point source discharges ac-
counted for impacts in 41
percent of stream miles.
Nonpoint sources were con-
tributors in 32 percent; habi-
tat/flow modification in 17
percent; and natural condi-
tions, in-place pollutants,
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, silt-
ation, habitat degradation,
metals, and ammonia.
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
industrial discharges, resid-
ual toxic impacts, and exten-
sive habitat degradation
have been affecting the bio-
logical community. Overall,
Ohio has made dramatic
improvements in rivers that
were grossly polluted 20 to
30 years ago. Many miles
are still impaired, but it is
estimated that their impair-
ment is not nearly as severe
as in the past. However, fish
tissue data are conspicuously
lacking for many areas of the
State. Results that are avail-
able for PCB content in fish
tissue show a substantial
number of areas with concen-
trations at levels of concern.
In Ohio's inland lakes and
reservoirs, on average, 8
percent of assessed acres
fully support uses and Clean
Water Act goals, 65 percent
partially support uses, and
2 percent do not support
uses. The remaining 25
percent is considered to be
attaining'but threatened.
Agricultural nonpoint
sources, point sources, and
urban runoff and septic
tanks were major sources of
use impairment in lakes.
Leading causes were identi-
fied as sedimentation and
corresponding loss of volume,
• nuisance macrophite
growths, nutrient enrich-
ment, and general aesthetics.
The Lake Erie assessment
has not been updated since
1988 because no new data
were available. Thus, use
statistics have not changed.
All 236 of Ohio's Lake Erie
shoreline miles are consid-
ered partially supporting due
to a lakewide fishing advi-
sory for carp and channel
catfish and to criteria exceed-
ances for copper and cad-
mium.
Assessment of the Ohio
River resource focused on the
level of support of its desig-
nated uses and the level of
achievement of the Clean
Water Act fishable and
swimmable goals. An overall
evaluation of beneficial uses
indicated full use and goal
support for about 30 percent
of the river's 981 miles, par-
tial use and goal support for
about 60 percent, and non-
support of uses and goals
for about 10 percent. Major
sources of partial support
and nonsupport are com-
bined sewer overflows, urban
runoff, and municipal dis-
charges. Causes of partial
and nonsupport are elevated
levels of volatile organic
compounds, violations of the
fecal coliform criterion, and
elevated levels of PCBs and
chlordane in the tissue of
certain fish species.
Ground-Water
Quality
NOTE: Information for
this section is contained in
Volume IV of Ohio's 305(b)
report, which was unavail-
able.
Ohio River
To obtain a copy of the Ohio
River 1990 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 Commis-
sion (ORSANCO) coordinates
water pollution control ef-
forts for the 981 river miles
of the Ohio River. All river
miles were assessed, and all
are partially supporting their
designated uses.
The fishable goal of the
Federal Clean Water Act is
met in 434 miles and par-
tially met in 547; the swim-
mable goal is met in 579
miles, partially met in 64
miles, and not met in 338.
The issuance offish
A-27
-------
Appendix
consumption advisories by
Pennsylvania, West Virginia,
Ohio, and Kentucky in 1989
led to the large increase of
river miles not fully attain-
ing the fishable goal as com-
pared to water years 1986
and 1987. The fish consump-
tion advisories were issued
due to levels of PCBs and
chlordane in fish tissue of
certain species (primarily
catfish and carp) above ac-
tion levels established by the
U.S. Food and Drug Admin-
istration. The causes of
nonattainment of the swim-
mable goal are combined
sewer overflows, urban run-
off, and municipal dis-
charges.
The primary causes of use
impairment are concentra-
tions of copper and lead,
which frequently exceed
stream criteria developed for
the protection of aquatic life.
The major sources of these
metals are nonpoint sources
(mine drainage, urban runoff
and agriculture), industrial
point sources, and combined
sower overflows.
The multiple uses of the
Ohio River are at times in
conflict and create special
challenges to water pollution
control efforts. Concerns
have arisen over maintaining
water quality for all uses as
required by the Ohio Eiver
Valley Water Sanitation
Compact. The following
specific areas require atten-
tion:
• Spills and Accidental
Discharges. During water
years 1988 and 1989, there
were several large spills to
the Ohio River that caused
the closure of public water
supply intakes and the num-
ber of spills reported to the
Commission increased mark-
edly. The Commission is
addressing this concern with
increased communication
and coordination of spill
prevention and response
personnel in the Ohio River
basin.
. • 1988 Drought Condi-
tions. Low-flow conditions
experienced during 1988
impacted water utilities
using the Ohio River.
Increased sodium concentra-
tion in the water led to the
issuance of health advisories.
The low-flow/high-tempera-
ture conditions also caused
severe taste and odor prob-
lems for most of the water
utilities.
• Biological Resources
Characterization. A charac-
terization of the biological
resources in the Ohio River
would provide more concrete
information for water quality
assessments, which are cur-
rently based primarily upon
chemical monitoring data.
• Hydropower Develop-
ment. The proposal to oper-
ate hydroelectric power gen-
eration facilities at all dams
on the Ohio River and at
many dams on tributaries
raises the concern of the
potential loss of aeration at
the dams. The Commission
will be actively involved with
State and Federal agencies
and project developers in
monitoring water quality and
identification of impacts due
to hydropower development.
• Combined Sewer Over-
flows. During periods of
rainfall, the combined sewer
systems of communities
along the Ohio River over-
flow and discharge untreated
sewage directly to the Ohio
River. * This problem was
pronounced during the un-
usually wet spring and sum-
mer of 1989. There are two
major concerns: (1) any
discharge of untreated sew-
age represents a violation of
the Commission Pollution
Control Standards and (2)
these discharges are a threat
to recreational use of the
Oliio River.
Ground-Water
Quality
Over 130 communities
along the Ohio River rely on
the aquifer as their public
water supply. These commu-
nities deliver potable water
to almost one million people.
Because of this use and the
potential for much greater
use there is a need for ag-
gressive protection efforts for
this resource.
The Commission's major
concern is monitoring, as-
sessing, and protecting sur-
face waters in the Ohio River
Basin. As part of this effort,
the Commission will be as-
sessing the impact of ground-
water contamination as a
nonpoint source of pollution
to the Ohio River. The allu- '
vial aquifer associated with
the main stem of the Ohio
River is vulnerable to con-
tamination due to extensive
industrial development along
the Ohio River. Major
sources of ground-water
contamination are surface
impoundments, industrial
spills and leaks, and regu-
lated hazardous waste sites.
Contaminants include vola-
tile and synthetic organic
chemicals, metals, and petro-
leum products.
Oklahoma
To obtain a copy of the Okla-
homa 1990 305(b) report,
contact:
Oklahoma Department
of Pollution Control
P.O. Box 53504
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
Surface Water
Quality
During the 1988-1990 '
reporting period, Oklahoma
constructed a waterbody-
specific computer database
for tracking assessment
information. As a result of
implementing the new pro-
gram, the State assessed
fewer stream miles (4,400
miles) for the 1990 Section
305(b) report than in previ-
ous years. Of the assessed
stream miles, 6 percent fully
support designated uses, an
additional 52 percent cur-
rently support uses but are
threatened, and 42 percent
partially support their desig-
nated uses. None of the
States' waters were found
not to be supporting desig-
nated uses.
A total of 441,092 lake
acres were also assessed. Of
these, 8 percent fully support
designated uses, 44 percent
fully support uses but are
threatened unless pollution
control actions are taken,
and 48 percent partially
support designated uses. The
State did not report any lake
acres as not supporting their
designated uses. Nutrients,
suspended solids, and turbid-
ity are the most commonly
reported problems in Okla-
homa's lakes. Agriculture,
urban runoff, and resource
extraction are the primary
sources of concern.
A-28
-------
Appendix
The State also rated the
trophic status of 67 "major"
lakes with a surface area
exceeding 100 acres and/or a
high degree of public use.
Eight lakes were classified as
hypereutrophic, 35 as eutro-
phic, 17 as mesotrophic, and
7 were classified as oligo-
trophic.
In 1990, Oklahoma
initiated an ambient toxicity
testing program in conjunc-
tion with EPA Region 6.
Biotoxicity tests are per-
formed quarterly on sedi-
ment and/or water samples
collected from waterbodies
with suspected toxics con-
cerns. Currently, 11 sites are
included in the toxicity test-
ing program.
The toxicity program and
waterbody tracking system
are examples of Oklahoma's
efforts to improve problem
detection and source identifi-
cation. The State intends to
develop and implement solu-
tions to their water, quality
problems as additional
assessment information is
incorporated into the water-
body system and sources are
identified.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground water is an impor-
tant natural resource in
Oklahoma, particularly in
the western half of the State.
Twenty-two major aquifers
are used as sources of com-
munity drinking water and
countless more minor aqui-
fers are used as drinking
water sources by individuals.
Relatively speaking, little
ground-water contamination
has been documented and
the pollution that is known is
localized and being reme- •
diated. The Oklahoma State
Department of Agriculture
(OSDA) surveyed community
drinking water wells to iden-
tify those wells potentially at
risk from the use of agricul-
tural chemicals. No problems
were detected and those
wells that were felt to have
some potential for problems
have been advised on best
management practices that
should be followed to ensure
a continued safe drinking
water supply.
The Oklahoma Water
Resources Board (OWRB)
maintains a ground-water
quality network in 21 major
ground-water basins in Okla-
homa. The network, estab-
lished in 1983 and reorga-
nized in 1986, consists of
approximately 184 domestic,
irrigation, stock, and munici-
pal water wells. Wells are
sampled each year during
July and August and
samples are analyzed for
approximately 19 inorganic
constituents.
The Oklahoma State
Department of Health
(OSDH) routinely monitors
community drinking water
wells for nitrates, coliform
bacteria, and other basic
drinking water quality pa-
rameters. OSDH is also
sampling all community
drinking water wells for
volatile organic compounds.
There are several sites of
ground-water contamination
directly attributable to
anthropogenic sources. The
Town of Cyril must abandon
its ground-water-based
drinking water supplies
because of saltwater con-
tamination. The contamina-
tion is believed to be caused
by improper disposal of brine
during past oil and gas pro-
duction activities. In the
communities of Miami, Vici,
and Frederick, leaking ''
underground storage tanks
have contaminated shallow
ground-water-containing
formations but pose no seri-
ous threat to drinking water
supplies. It is expected that
more localized sites of
ground-water contamination
will be discovered as more
intensive surveys are
conducted. Leaking under-
ground storage tanks and
improperly operated septic
tanks are examples of the
types of sources of localized
ground-water contamination
that may be distributed
across the State.
Oregon
To obtain a copy of the Or-
egon 1990 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
percent fully support desig-
nated beneficial uses, 31
percent partially support
uses, and 24 percent do not
support their designated
uses. Of the assessed lake
acres, 74 percent fully sup-
port uses, 12 percent par-
tially support uses, and 14
percent do not support their
designated uses.
Major causes of non-
support in rivers include
dissolved oxygen, bacteria,
nuisance aquatic growth and
nutrients, solids, habitat
alterations, flow alterations,
and thermal modifications.
Major sources of impairment
in rivers include point
sources, agriculture, range,
silviculture, urbanization,
and recreational activities. In
lakes, major causes of non-
support include nutrients,
pH, and organic enrichment
(low oxygen). Major sources
of impairment for lakes in-
clude agriculture, land dis-
posal, and storm sewers/
runoff.
1 The State is in the process
of establishing Total Maxi-
mum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
for 11 "water quality limited"
stream segments where
water quality standards are
not being met. This process
reflects a major program
change from technology-
based permitting with a
greater emphasis on the
receiving waterbody.
Oregon has 21 major estu-
aries, with a total of 131,844
acres of intertidal and sub-
tidal estuarine habitat. The
total of Oregon's nearshore
submerged and submersible
lands is over 800,000 acres.
Knowledge of the water
quality in Oregon estuaries
is very limited. The monitor-
ing in estuaries is predomi-
nantly related to fecal colif-
orm monitoring in commer-
cial shellfish growing areas.
Monitoring for other conven-
tional pollutants such as
nutrients or priority pollut-
ants such as heavy metals
and pesticides is not being
conducted.
Although the extent of
wetlands remaining in
Oregon has not been fully
evaluated, intensive
A-29
-------
Appendix
wetlands-inventory projects
are now in progress at sev-
eral Federal and State agen-
cies. Preliminary estimates
for existing wetlands sire
131,844 acres of estuarine
wetlands and 30,000 acres of
inland freshwater marsh.
Historically, there has been a
steady decline in wetlands
throughout the State and,
despite some relatively re-
cent efforts at mitigation,
there continues to be a net
loss of wetlands.
Major point source issues
of concern in Oregon are
• Discharges of dioxin
from pulp mills that use
chlorine for bleaching their
pulp
• Potential water quality
degradation from cyanide
heap leaching processes used
in mining
• The need for improved
waste handling facilities at
confined animal feeding
operations
• Discharge of irrigation
runoff from container nurser-
ies
• Potential ground-water
problems resulting from the
use of disposal wells.
Ground-Water
Quality
In Oregon an estimated
1.6 million persons (about 60
percent of Oregon's popula-
tion) depend on ground
water for all or part of the
daily water needs. An aver-
age 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 in-
creased to over 200, and is
rising steadily, in part due to
increased assessment activi-
ties. 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 pollution 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, dis-
solved metals, nitrates, cya-
nide, and total dissolved
solids. Other sources of
ground-water contamination
in Oregon include landfills,
onsite sewage disposal, mu-
nicipal sewage treatment
facilities, and agricultural
activities.
The State Groundwater
Protection Act was passed in
1989 to address nonpoint
source ground-water con-
tamination problems such as
those resulting from agricul-
tural practices. The Act re-
quires an interagency strat-
egy for resolving existing
inconsistencies or conflicts
between programs dealing
with nonpoint sources of
ground-water pollution. It
focuses on management and
protection of ground water
through assessment activi-
ties, research, education, and
demonstration projects. The
Act also requires a statewide
ambient monitoring pro-
gram, the establishment of a
data repository, hydrologic
characterizations, research,
and establishment of Best
Management Practices, and
criteria for setting ground-
water standards. DEQ, as
the lead agency in imple-
menting the Groundwater
Act, is working with the
Agriculture Department,
Oregon State University, the
Agriculture Extension Ser-
vice, the Water Resources
Department, and the State
Health Division in establish-
ing a ground-water program
in Oregon.
Pennsylvania
To obtain a copy of the
Pennsylvania 1990 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 23,832 miles out
of approximately 50,000 total
miles of rivers and streams
were assessed for this report.
This represents an increase
of 10,590 miles assessed over
the 1988 report. Approxi-
mately 80 percent of the
miles assessed fully support
designated stream uses, 8
percent partially support,
and 11 percent do.not sup-
port uses.
The most extensive causes
of water quality degradation
in Pennsylvania streams are
low pH, heavy metals, and
turbidity/suspended solids
from abandoned coal mine
drainage. Although some
funding is available for
abatement of abandoned
mine drainage, the immen-
sity of the problem and diffi-
culties associated with con-
trol have severely hampered
abatement and treatment
projects. These difficulties
are expected to continue.
Other major causes of use
impairment are reduced
oxygen concentrations due to
oxygen-consuming materials
and nutrients; increased
nutrient loads and turbidity/
suspended solids associated
with cropland, pasture land
runoff, and livestock in
streams; and organics,
metals, and dissolved solids.
In addition to abandoned
mine drainage, major sources
of reported degradation are
agriculture, municipal point
sources, other nonpoint
sources, industrial point
sources, natural conditions,
undetermined sources, and
onsite wastewater systems.
Each of these sources affects
more than 100 stream miles.
Pennsylvania assessed
trophic status in 53 signifi-
cant publicly owned lakes. Of
these, 13 are eutrophic. Des-
ignated uses are classified as
threatened in 29 and im-
paired in portions of 4 pub-
licly owned lakes. Toxic pol-
lutants have become a source
of concern and action in
'recent years. Assessment
records indicate that, exclud-
ing impacts due to heavy
metals from abandoned mine
drainage, approximately 375
stream miles are reported as
impacted by toxics.
A-30
-------
Appendix
Pennsylvania is receiving
the most acidic precipitation
in the Nation. It is a long-
term problem that is ad-
versely affecting water qual-
ity. Limited available data
indicate that precipitation
pH values are relatively
uniform across the State,
with lower values in western
Pennsylvania and slightly
higher values in the east.
Recent studies have indi-
cated that the water quality
impacts are occurring in
small headwater streams on
poorly buffered watersheds
and in vulnerable Pocono
Mountain lakes.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground water is one of
Pennsylvania's most valu-
able natural resources. It
supplies the drinking water
needs of approximately 50
percent of the State's popula-
tion through public and
domestic water supplies. In
many rural areas, it is the
only available source of
water supply. It also provides
sustaining baseflow to the
State's 50,000 miles of sur-
face water during dry
weather.
Ground-water quality is
believed to be generally
acceptable for drinking with
only minor treatment. How-
ever, in some areas of the
State, some form of water
treatment may be required
due to natural or man-
induced conditions. Coal
mining has contributed high
concentrations of iron, poten-
tial acidity, sulfate, dissolved
solids, npncarbonate hard-
ness, and manganese in
portions of western Pennsyl-
vania and in the hard coal
areas in the eastern part of
the State. High chloride,
dissolved solids, strontium,
barium, iron, and magne-
sium concentrations may be
encountered in oil- and gas-
producing areas of western
and northern Pennsylvania.
Carbonate hardness and
nitrate problems are gener-
ally limited to the carbonate
aquifers in the central and
southeastern part of the
State.
The major source of
ground-water contamination
in Pennsylvania is leaking
underground storage tanks.
Other sources include coal
mining (abandoned and
active sites), surface im-
poundments, land applica-
tion of animal waste, munici-
pal waste landfills, and
chemical plants. The major
pollutant cause statewide is
petroleum and/or its
byproducts. Other causes
include organic and inor-
ganic chemicals, radionu-
clides, pesticides, and fertil-
izer.
Ground-water protection
has become a priority issue
in Pennsylvania in recent
years. A draft Ground Water
Protection Strategy, com-
pleted in December 1989,
protects ground-water qual-
ity through the application
of best demonstrated control
technologies for permitted
activities, the use of BMPs in
other activities, and the
application of antidegra-
dation strategies and pro-
gram measures to protect
unique ground-water re-
sources. In addition, ground-
water monitoring and data
assessment programs are
being implemented by the
Bureau of Water Quality
Management.
Pennsylvania's Storage
Tank and Spill Prevention
Act, effective August 5,1989,
addresses ground-water
contamination from storage
tanks. The law provides for
permitting of all regulated
tanks and cleanup of release/
spill sites.
Puerto Rico
To obtain a copy of the
Puerto Rico 1990 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 approxi-
mately 5,373 stream miles.
Of these, 39 percent fully
support designated uses and
11 percent fully support but
are threatened. Twenty-two
percent partially support
uses and 28 percent do not
support uses. Pathogens,
nutrients, and flow alter-
ation are the leading causes
of use impairment in
streams; leading sources
include agricultural activi-
ties (feedlots and crops), land
disposal (landfills and waste-
waters from communities),
and urban runoff.
•• ZThirty-one percent of
Puerto Rico's 11,146 acres of
lakes and lagoons support
designated uses and 1 per-
cent support but are threat-
ened. Principal causes of
nonsupport in lakes include
organic enrichment/reduced
dissolved oxygen levels,
nutrients, and pathogens,
primarily from nonpoint
sources.
Of 434 coastal shoreline
miles, 58 percent fully sup-
port designated uses and 9
percent support but are
threatened. Major causes of
impairment include patho-
gens, nutrients, and sus-
pended solids. Sources of
impairment in coastal waters
include urban runoff and
municipal and industrial
discharges.
Lakes, lagoons, estuaries,
and wetlands were identified
as special concerns because
of their value as critical
habitats. In order to more
accurately assess their prob-
lems and water quality sta-
tus, a need for better moni-
toring 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 used exten-
sively 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.
Because of the importance
of ground-water as a major
source of public water sup-
ply, EQB has developed the
Groundwater Protection
Strategy, which was ap-
proved by EPA in October of
1988, to protect ground-
water quality and ensure its
availability for current and
future uses.
Within the scope of this
strategy, wells in the north-
A-31
-------
Appendix
east of Puerto Rico were
sampled to determine water
quality. Results indicate that
10 wells were contaminated
with volatile organic com-
pounds. As a result, EQB
initiated a second round of
monitoring of these wells and
wells in adjacent areas.
Major sources of ground-
water contamination include
abandoned hazardous waste
sites, municipal landfills,
underground storage tanks,
injection wells, and septic
tanks.
Rhode
Island
To obtain a copy of the Rhode
Island 1990 305(b) report,
contact:
Rhode Island Department
of Environmental
Management
Division of Water Resources
291 Promenade Street
Providence, RI 02908-5767
Surface Water
Quality
An assessment of overall
surface water quality in
Rhode Island indicates that
78 percent of the State's
rivers and streams, 93 per-
cent of lakes, and 82 percent
of estuaries/oceans support
designated uses. Changes
from the 1988 assessment
are a result of the increased
water quality monitoring
data available for this report.
Of those waters assessed
for support of Clean Water
Act goals, 82 percent of river
and stream miles are fish-
able/swimmable, as are 93
percent of lakes, and 95
percent of estuaries/oceans.
The most significant
causes of nonsupport in riv-
ers and streams are heavy
metals, priority organics,
coliforms, low dissolved oxy-
gen, and nutrients. In lakes
and ponds, the major causes
of nonsupport are coliforms,
nutrients, heavy metals, and
low dissolved oxygen. In
estuaries and coastal waters,
the major causes of non-
support are coliforms, heavy
metals, nutrients, and low
dissolved oxygen. In rivers
and estuaries, major sources
include industrial and mu-
nicipal point sources and
nonpoint sources such as
urban runoff and failed sep-
tic systems, while lakes/
ponds are affected by non-
point sources, primarily
septic systems.
State concerns include:
funding constraints on mu-
nicipal wastewater treat-
ment facility construction,
municipal facilities operation
and maintenance, combined
sewer overflows, septage
management, increasing
water quality monitoring
coverage for surface waters,
nonpoint source pollution
management, reorganization
' of RIDEM, and the State
Clean Water Strategy outlin-
ing surface water problems
and solutions.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground water is a locally
abundant and widely used
resource in Rhode Island.
Twenty-four percent of the
State's population depends
on ground water for its water
supply.
Rhode Island's principal
aquifers are extremely
vulnerable to contamination
from a wide variety of pollu-
tion sources. Over 90 con-
taminants have been de-
tected in Rhode Island's
ground water, the most com-
mon being organic solvents,
the pesticide aldicarb
(Temik), and petroleum
products. Most ground-water
contamination problems are
localized. Significant pollu-
tion sources include landfills,
hazardous and industrial
waste disposal sites, road
salt storage sites, surface
impoundments, leaking
underground fuel storage
tanks, and chemical and oil
spills.
In addition, roughly 2,600
underground storage tank
facilities with about 6,400
tanks have been registered
with the DEM. Nonpoint
sources have also been recog-
nized as contributing to
ground-water quality degra-
dation, particularly septic
systems, fertilizer and pesti-
cide applications, and road
salt applications. Approxi-
mately 90 percent of the
State's ground-water re-
sources are considered im-
pacted or threatened due to
nonpoint pollution.
In order to protect the
State's ground-water re-
sources from the many po-
tential sources of contamina-
tion, the DEM is continuing
to develop and implement a
comprehensive ground-water
protection program. The
Rhode Island Groundwater
Protection Strategy, which
identifies existing and
needed State initiatives, will
guide the ground-water pro-
tection efforts in Rhode
Island.
South
Carolina
To obtain a copy of the South
Carolina 1990 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 ap-
proximately 9,900 miles of
rivers, 525,000 acres of lakes,
and 2,155 square miles of
estuaries. Physical, chemical,
and biological data were
available for 3,493 miles of
rivers, 217,368 acres of lakes,
and 364 square miles of
estuaries. Of the assessed
river miles, 79 percent fully
support their designated
uses, 8 percent partially
support uses, and 13 percent
do not support their desig-
nated uses. Of the assessed
lake acres, 6.1 percent fully
support their designated
uses, 33 percent partially
support uses, and 6 percent
do not support designated
uses. Of the assessed estuary
square miles, 67 percent
fully support uses, less than
1 percent partially support
uses, and 32 percent do not
support their designated
uses.
Nonpoint sources were the
leading contributors to use
impairment in South Caro-
lina's rivers and estuaries
(fecal coliform contamination
was the most frequent cause
of use impairment). In lakes,
A-32
-------
Appendix
sources of pollution were
largely unknown, but the
leading causes of impairment
were organic enrichment,
nutrients, and low dissolved
oxygen concentrations. Of
the State's coastal waters
classified for shellfish grow-
ing, about 85 percent are
unconditionally approved for
harvesting.
The State notes that in-
dustrial waste pretreatment
programs have improved
water quality by reducing
toxic discharges. Most point
source agricultural waste
discharges have been elimi-
nated through the issuance
of State construction permits
that require alternate non-
discharging treatment sys-
tems.
Ground-Water
Quality
The overall quality of
ground water in South Caro-
lina is excellent. The Depart-
ment has made an effort to
educate the public about
ground water and provide
protection to prevent future
contamination through its
permitting process and by
requiring the licensing of
well drillers, establishing
well construction standards,
and regulating underground
storage tanks.
Nevertheless, the State
cites approximately 590
instances of localized ground-
water contamination. Sub-
stances contaminating
ground water include organic
chemicals, inorganic chemi-
cals, metals, radioactive
material, pesticides and
other agricultural chemicals,
and petroleum products.
Sources of contamination
are diverse and include leak-
ing underground petroleum
storage tanks, surface im-
poundments, above-ground
storage tanks, chronic spills
and leaks, onsite industrial
landfills, and unpermitted
waste disposal.
These sources are not
restricted to any particular
areas of the State, but are
more concentrated in the
three major urban/industrial
centers: Greenville/Spartan-
burg, Columbia, and Char-
leston. An additional concen-
tration of ground-water con-
tamination problems has
been associated with high
water-table areas in Horry,
Beaufort, and Florence
Counties.
South
Dakota
To obtain a copy of the South
Dakota 1990 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, 4,028
miles have been assessed for
water quality. Currently, 30
percent of these assessed
waters are fully supporting
their assigned beneficial
uses, 44 percent are partially
supporting their uses, and
26 percent are not support-
ing their uses. Nonsupport of
designated uses is primarily
caused by agricultural non-
point sources introducing
suspended solids and patho-
gens (fecal conforms). Other
pollutant sources include
inadequate municipal waste-
water treatment, industrial
discharges, and natural
causes. Water quality trends
in rivers were generally
maintained.
South Dakota has 799
lakes and reservoirs (includ-
ing Missouri River mainstem
reservoirs) totalling
1,598,285 acres. Roughly 80
percent of the 682,033 lake
acres assessed are consid-
ered to support their desig-
nated uses; however, all of
these acres are threatened.
Only 1 percent of total lakes
partially support uses, and
19 percent do not support
uses. Approximately 98 per-
cent of use nonsupport for
lakes can be attributed to
nonpoint sources.
Most lakes in the State are
characterized as eutrophic to
hypereutrophic. Runoff car-
rying sediments and nutri-
ents 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 suit-
able for domestic, industrial,
and agricultural uses. How-
ever, numerous localized
incidents of ground-water
degradation have occurred.
Documented or suspected
sources of ground-water
contamination include leak-
ing artesian wells; waste-
water treatment lagoons;
landfills; septic systems;
inadequate well design,
construction, and placement;
feedlots; and petroleum and
other chemical spills or
leaks. These pollution prob-
lems have remained consis-
tent through the years,
although reported spills or
leaks of petroleum and other
chemicals have increased.
Many of these contamination
problems result from improp-
erly locating or constructing
wells, septic systems, treat-
ment lagoons, and other
sources.
Generally, over the past
10 years there has been an
increase in reported inci-
dents of potential ground-
water contamination. And in
the past 2 years, reported
spills of oil and hazardous
substances increased signifi-
cantly. This is primarily the
result of increased public
awareness and new report-
ing requirements under the
underground storage tank
(UST) regulation.
South Dakota is aggres-
sively addressing ground-
water pollution. Ongoing
State ground-water projects
include the Oakwood/
Poinsett Rural Clean Water
Project, assumption of the
Underground Injection Con-
trol, RCRA, and AST pro-
grams; cleanup activities
from hazardous materials
spills; wellhead protection
program activities; and a
ground-water discharge
permit program.
A-33
-------
Appendix
Tennessee
To obtain a copy of the
Tennessee 1990 305(b)
report, contact:
Tennessee Department
ofEnvironment
and Conservation
Division of Water Pollution
Control
T.E.R.RA. Building
150 Ninth Avenue, North
Nashville, TN 37243-1534
Surface Water
Quality
Of the 19,124 stream miles
in Tennessee, 10,247 were
assessed for this report.
Forty-five percent of the
assessed miles fully support
designated uses, 18 percent
fully support uses but are
threatened, 26 percent par-
tially support designated
uses, and 11 percent do not
support designated uses.
Of the 538,504 publicly
owned lake acres in the
State, 80 percent fully sup-
port designated uses, 11
percent partially support
designated uses, and 9 per-
cent do not support desig-
nated uses.
During the reporting
period, Tennessee assessed
11,081 river miles, and
540,030 lake acres for the
fishable/swimmable goals of
the Clean Water Act. Of the
assessed river miles, 98
percent meet the fishable
goal and 94 percent meet the
swimmable goal. Of the
assessed lake acres, 90 per-
cent meet the fishable goal
and 97 percent meet 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, hydrologic modi-
fication (channelization),
municipal discharges, min-
ing activities, upstream
impoundment, industrial
discharges, urban runoff,
and construction activities.
In lakes, the largest causes
of nonsupport are nutrients,
low dissolved oxygen, silt-
ation and priority organics.
Major sources are agricul-
tural activities, municipal
discharges, upstream im-
poundments, hydromodi-
fication, and mining activity.
Ground-Water
Quality
More than half the popula-
tion of Tennessee relies on
ground water for drinking
water supplies. Ground-
water constitutes 21 percent
of the water withdrawn in
the State (exclusive of water
withdrawn for thermoelectric
use). In West Tennessee,
nearly all public supplies,
industries, and rural resi-
dents use ground water;
Memphis, the largest city, is
completely supplied by
ground water.
Many pollutants are
known or thought to be con-
taminating ground water.
These pollutants include
metals, petroleum products,
pesticides and other agricul-
tural chemicals, and radioac-
tive materials. In addition,
volatile 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 Tennessee.
Department ofEnvironment
and Conservation 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
the establishment of the
Ground Water Management
Council.
Texas
To obtain a copy of the Texas
1990 305(b) report, contact:
Texas 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 16,203
assessed stream miles, less
than 1 percent are not meet-
ing fishable uses and approx-
imately 11 percent are not
swimmable. Eighty-four
percent of the stream miles
assessed support their desig-
nated water uses. The major-
ity of impaired 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.
Only 14 of the State's
1,543,898 acres of reservoirs
currently do not meet the
fishable goals. Less than 1
percent of lake acres do not
meet the swimmable goal.
The cause of nonsupport is
exceedance of chloride, sul-
fate, and total dissolved
solids; the sources of this
pollution include tributaries
transporting treated domes-
tic wastewater and urban
runoff. Approximately 87.5
percent of reservoirs support
uses, approximately 0.5
percent support but are
threatened, and approxi-
mately 12 percent do not
support designated uses.
Estuary assessment indi-
cates 76 percent of estuary
waters fully support their
uses while 24 percent do not
support shellfish harvesting
use due to elevated fecal
conform bacteria contamina-
tion. Offshore coastal waters
are meeting their uses. All
1,933 square miles of estua-
rine and 3,879 square miles
of ocean waters within the
State's jurisdiction meet the
Clean Water Act fishable/
swimmable goals.
Eutrophication in reser-
voirs and estuaries may
cause problems not specifi-
cally addressed by the desig-
A-34
-------
Appendix
nated uses and numerical
criteria of the State's surface
water quality standards.
Rita Blanca Lake receives
treated domestic wastewater
from the City of Dalhart and
is the State's most eutrophic
lake. Estuaries exhibiting
the highest degree of eutro-
phication are the Neches
River Tidal, Armand Bayou
Tidal, and the Arroyo Colo-
rado Tidal.
Ground-Water
Quality
Approximately 61 percent
of the total water used by
Texans for domestic, munici-
pal, 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 proce-
dures 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 contin-
ues to be a major concern,
ground-water overdraft and
quality degradation are par-
ticularly troublesome
because of expanding eco-
nomic 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 estab-
lished in 1985 to improve
coordination of ground-water
protection activities and
develop a comprehensive
ground-water protection
strategy. A ground-water
protection strategy was de-
veloped in 1987 and imple-
mentation 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
1990 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
Of the 8,874 miles of rivers
and streams assessed in
1988-89,20 percent support
their designated uses, 64
percent partially support
their uses, and 16 percent do
not support their designated
uses. Of the 63 (134,201
acres) lakes, reservoirs, and
ponds assessed, 100 percent
partially support their desig-
nated uses. These 63 water-
bodies represent only 30
percent of the total number
of lake surface acres in Utah.
The most frequently cited
pollutants are metals and
dissolved solids (salinity).
Total dissolved solids and
iron cause a large portion of
the exceedances of the
State's water quality criteria.
Nutrients, including total
phosphorus, are the most
frequently cited causes for
partial support in lakes and
reservoirs.
Surface water quality is
affected by both natural and
man-made point and non-
point sources of pollution.
Most of the water quality
problems in Utah's surface
waters result from nonpoint
sources rather than point
sources. Nonpoint sources in
the State include natural
geologic formations, agricul-
ture, failing individual
wastewater disposal sys-
tems, urban stormwater
systems, recreation, silvicul-
ture, and resource extraction
activities. The majority of the
water allocated in Utah is for
agricultural use. Conse-
quently, agriculture is one of
the primary sources of non-
point source pollution. Irriga-
tion return flows to rivers
and lakes from croplands
and pastures add nutrients,
sediments, and salts to these
waterbodies. Runoff from
overgrazed noncropland
areas also contributes high
concentrations of these pol-
lutants.
During the reporting
period, new national water
quality criteria were adopted
in the State of Utah. The
Water Quality Management
Section in the Bureau also
implemented a Lake Water
Quality Assessment Program
to monitor the lakes and
reservoirs in the State to
determine water quality
trends for those waterbodies.
The Section has also contin-
ued to effectively implement
a nonpoint source program in
cooperation with the Utah
Department of Agriculture to
address this statewide pollu-
tion problem.
Water quality concerns
facing the State of Utah
include effective control of
widespread nonpoint source
pollution, the reduction in
the ability to fund waste-
water projects in the State,
the continued oversight of
wastewater dischargers, lack
of a State policy to protect
valuable wetlands, and con-
tinued assessment of lakes
and reservoirs.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground water is a criti-
cally important source of
fresh water for domestic use,
industry and agriculture in
Utah. Because of the com-
bined effects of low popula-
tion, climate, limited heavy
industry and effective regu-
lation, the ground water
quality has been maintained
at a high level over most of
the State. However, in-
creased reliance on ground-
water sources by industry,
agriculture and a growing
population and the near
complete utilization of sur-
face sources suggest that
effective regulation will be
more important in the future
to the maintenance of a high-
quality ground-water
resource.
Although ground water in
Utah is generally good in
quality, degradation has
occurred in several areas
because of the effects of irri-
gation, urbanization, infiltra-
tion of leachate from land-
fills, and mine and mill
A-35
-------
Appendix
tailings. Contaminants
include metals, petroleum
products, organic chemicals,
radioactive materials, and
pesticides and other agricul-
tural chemicals.
During the 305(b) report-
ing period, the Bureau of
Water Pollution Control
developed and implemented
a comprehensive ground-
water quality protection
regulation and created a
management group, the
Groundwater Section, within
the Bureau to oversee this
important program.
Vermont
To obtain a copy of the
Vermont 1990 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. Contin-
ued progress is noted in the
cleanup or elimination of
point source discharges,
particularly from wastewater
treatment plants. Of the
5,266 miles of rivers and
streams in Vermont, 60
percent fully support the
uses for which they are des-
ignated; 23 percent fully
support use but are threat-
ened. Of the 227,755 as-
sessed acres of lakes and
ponds in Vermont, 78 per-
cent fully support designated
uses; 69 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 one fish spe-
cies.
Vermont reports that
nonpoint sources are the
most widespread contribu-
tors to use impairment. The
four most common water
quality impairments due to
nonpoint sources in rivers
are siltation/turbidity, habi-
tat alterations, nutrient
enrichment, and flow alter-
ations. Other common prob-
lems include thermal modifi-
cations and pathogens. The
highest ranked sources of
these impairments are agri-
cultural runoff, hydromodi-
fications below hydropower
dams, and erosion from con-
struction sites.
Point source discharges
were responsible for repeated
beach closures on Lake
Champlain. Public beaches
in the Burlington area were
closed frequently during the
summers of 1988 and 1989,
primarily as the result of
combined sewer overflows
which are now being cor-
rected.
On other lakes, most of the
water quality impairments
are caused by nonpoint
sources and excessive plant
growth. Only two lakes re-
ceive 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 offish tissue
by toxic substances.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground-water quality
appears to remain good to
excellent throughout Ver-
mont, except for vicinities of
a few contaminating activi-
ties. All of the State's ground
water is presently classified
as Class III, suitable for
individual drinking water
supply. In most cases, ran-
domly located domestic wells
produce enough drinkable
ground water to meet house-
hold needs.
The major sources of
ground-water contamination
in Vermont include petro-
leum pollution from leaking
underground storage tanks
and accidental spills; leach-
ate from landfills; leachate
from onsite sewage systems;
and application and storage
of salt and salted sand.
Vermont is making good
progress with its program to
replace older, unprotected
steel underground storage
tanks (USTs). Since Septem-
ber 1987, all new Category
One USTs require secondary
containment provisions.
Tanks within water well
(wellhead) protection areas
or Class II ground-water
areas have more stringent
monitoring requirements.
The UST regulations, when
fully implemented, should
prevent most ground con-
tamination by petro-
chemicals. Leachate from
landfills will be virtually
eliminated by the State's
program to close out existing,
unlined landfills and replace
them with fewer regional,
lined landfills with leachate
collection and treatment. The
process of selecting sites for
these new regional facilities
is underway in most solid
waste management districts.
The most obvious problems
with ground-water manage-
ment are the lack of data
about the resource and the
absence of a statewide, inter-
agency ground-water data
management system. The
first problem is a reflection of
the low level of concern due
to the generally high quality
and abundance of the re-
source. The second problem
is being addressed as data
and computer resources
become available.
Virginia
To obtain a copy of the
Virginia 1990 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 gener-
ally of good quality except in
relatively few areas. During
the reporting period, Virginia
assessed 10,809 miles of
streams, 160,640 lake acres,
2,529 estuary square miles,
and 112 ocean coastal miles.
Of the assessed river miles,
82 percent fully support
CWA goals and designated
uses, 14 percent partially
support goals, and 4 percent
do not support CWA goals.
A-36
-------
Appendix
Of the State's assessed lake
acres, 90 percent fully sup-
port designated uses and
10 percent partially support
goals and uses. Of the
assessed estuary square
miles, 85 percent fully sup-
port designated uses, 15
percent partially support
uses, and 0.1 percent do not
support their designated
uses. All of the State's
assessed ocean coastal miles
fully support their desig-
nated uses.
The major causes of
nonsupport in Virginia's
rivers include fecal coliform
bacteria; the major source of
these pollutants is agricul-
tural runoff.
Of the minor problems
noted in lakes, the most
commonly cited problem was
eutrophication, as indicated
by nutrient levels and dis-
solved oxygen concentra-
tions.
The dominant cause of
impairment in Virginia's
estuaries is eutrophication as
indicated by nutrient, dis-
solved oxygen, and ammonia
concentrations.
Ground-Water
Quality
Ground water accounts for
approximately 22 percent of
the water used in Virginia
for purposes other than
hydroelectric and thermo-
electric uses. Eighty percent
of Virginians use 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 inci-
dents contaminate finite
areas near the spill or acci-
dent. During this reporting
period, 559 new cases of
contamination have been
documented; 79 percent of
the complaints are due to
leaking underground tanks
and associated piping. The
State lists underground stor-
age tanks, landfills
(municipal, onsite industrial,
and others), surface im-
poundments, septic tanks,
and agricultural activities as
the major sources of ground-
water contamination. Vola-
tile and synthetic organic
chemicals, pesticides, ni-
trates, fluorides, brine/salin-
ity, metals, and petroleum
products are the contami-
nants of concern.
Specific ground-water
program activities in Virginia
include formation of an
interagency Ground-Water
Protection Steering Commit-
tee, implementation of an
underground storage tank
program, ground-water qual-
ity monitoring, long-range
study of saltwater intrusion,
and investigations of pollu-
tion complaints and proposed
landfill sites.
Virgin
Islands
To obtain a copy of the Virgin
Islands 1990 305(b) report,
contact:
Virgin Islands Department of
Conservation and Cultural
Affairs
Division of Natural Resource
Management
P.O. Box 4340
Charlotte Amalie,
St. Thomas
Virgin Islands 00801
Surface Water
Quality
Water quality in the Vir-
gin Islands is generally good
but is declining due to an
increase in nonpoint sources
such as vessel wastes and
uncontrolled runoff. Of the
approximately 6 square
miles of assessed bays, har-
bors, and estuaries, 65 per-
cent fully support designated
uses, 14 percent partially
support designated uses, 8
percent do not support uses,
and 13 percent are threat-
ened. Major sources of use
impairment are municipal/
domestic point sources and
nonpoint sources. Nonpoint
source pollution has in-
creased with the rapid rate of
construction along the coast-
lines, increasing boat activi-
ties, and Hurricane Hugo. Of
the 14 ocean coastal miles
assessed, 85 percent support
designated uses, 7 percent do
not support designated uses,
and 7 percent are threat-
ened.
Ground-Water
Quality
" The major ground-water
contaminant in the Virgin
Islands is high salinity due
to rainfall containing high
salt concentrations from sea-
spray-laden air. This is fur-
ther increased by locally high
evapotranspiration rates.
Excessive withdrawals and
to a much lesser extent leak-
ing saltwater mains, cause
saltwater intrusion prob-
lems. During past periods of
low rainfall several wells
required reductions in with-
drawal rates, others have
had water level declines, and
some have gone dry.
The volcanic rock aquifer
has the lowest concentration
of dissolved solids, but ni-
trate levels exceed the
USEPA National Interim
Drinking-Water Regulations
maximum concentration of
10 mg/L. Sewage effluent
discharged to intermittent
streams, leaking municipal
sewer pipes, and septic tanks
have caused nitrate and
bacterial contamination in
several areas.
Volatile organic com-
pounds have been detected
recently in the Turpentine
Run aquifer near the Tutu
well field on St. Thomas. As
a result, several leaking
underground storage tanks
were identified and replaced
and a ground-water cleanup
program is in effect.
As a result of an assess-
ment report documenting
hydrocarbon releases to soils
and ground water from a
solid waste management
unit at the Hess Oil refinery,
three areas of ground-water
contamination within the
refinery were identified.
Hess Oil is conducting a
hydrocarbon recovery and
ground-water monitoring
program and is lining under-
-ground pipes suspected of
leaks. The Hess Oil ground-
water monitoring program
has not detected any hydro-
carbon contamination out-
side the refinery complex.
A cooperative ground-
water control program
between EPA, USGS, and
DPNR is needed to institute
ground-water monitoring
and permitting. USGS is
currently compiling an in-
ventory of existing wells
documenting their current
use status, water levels, and
water quality. Periodic water
level measurements and
water quality sampling data
A-37
-------
Appendix
are needed for selected aqui-
fers for control of withdrawal
rates to prevent saltwater
intrusion.
DPNR and the Depart-
ment of Health need to bet-
ter regulate discharges of
sewage effluent and septic
tank construction and main-
tenance. DPNR currently
has an underground storage
tank program in place re-
quiring permitting and test-
ing of all tanks in use now as
well as new contraction.
Washington
To obtain a copy of the
Washington 1990 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
4,897 river miles, 175,184
lake acres, 1,106 estuary
square miles, and 163 ocean
coastal miles. Of the as-
sessed river miles, 32 percent
fully support designated
uses, 11 percent fully sup-
port but are threatened, 27
percent partially support
uses, and 30 percent do not
support their designated
uses. Of the assessed lake
acres, 11 percent fully sup-
port designated uses, 20
percent support but are
threatened, 23 percent par-
tially support uses, and 46
percent do not support their
designated uses. Of the
, State's assessed estuary
square miles, 34 percent
fully support designated
uses, 11 percent support but
are threatened, 41 percent
partially support uses, and
14 percent do not support
their designated uses. All of
the assessed ocean coastal
miles fully support their
designated uses.
The primary causes of
impaired surface waters in
the State are fecal coliform
bacteria, temperature prob-
lems, organic enrichment
and dissolved oxygen prob-
lems, nutrients, and habitat/
flow alterations. Contamina-
tion by metals, priority
organics, and pesticides are
serious problems in certain
waterbodies. The primary
sources of water quality
impairment in Washington
are municipal and industrial
point sources, storm sewers,
runoff from pasture land and
irrigated agricultural lands,
onsite wastewater disposal,
urban runoff, flow regula-
tion, vegetation removal, and
natural causes. Natural
causes include such things as
glacial runoff, poor circula-
tion in estuaries, and IQW
streamflow 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 a concern because
more than 70 percent of the
State's population relies on
ground water for drinking
water; among rural resi-
dents, that figure is over 90
percent. In some counties,
virtually all of the population
relies on ground water for
domestic use.
Of the major sources of
ground-water contamination,
the greatest threat to
ground-water quality is agri-
cultural activities. Activities
include pesticide application
and concentrated animal
feeding operations, which
generate nutrient and fecal
coliform contamination.
Misuse, poor storage prac-
tices, and improper mixing or
container disposal account
for a portion of the contami-
nation of ground water from
pesticides. In some cases,
application of leachable pes-
ticides to field crops in accor-
dance with recommended
procedures has resulted in
ground-water contamination.
Nutrients, particularly ni-
trates, from commercial
fertilizers and animal ma-
nures have contaminated
ground water.
The second greatest threat
to ground water is land
application and land treat-
ment of wastes. This in-
cludes land application of
municipal sludges, municipal
wastewate^1, and wastes from
food processing.
The third most serious
threat, municipal landfills, is
regulated under the State's
Minimum Functional Stan-
dards for Solid Waste Han-
dling, yet many landfills
have not come into compli-
ance with the liner design
requirements and the cur-
rent standards are now
believed to be inadequate.
Many of the landfills are
producing uncontrolled
leachate (metals, volatile and
synthetic organic com-
pounds) that is contaminat-
ing ground water. Wood
waste landfills also contrib-
ute tanins; lignins, and
tropolons to the ground
water. A number of landfills
are nominated to the Na-
tional Priorities List under
CERCLA/SARA or are on the
State's contaminated sites
list. Remedial action has
been or will be taken at these
sites, which have localized
impacts to the ground water.
Domestic septic systems
(private and community)
rank fourth as a contributor
to ground-water contamina-
tion. The contaminants of
concern range from nitrates
and pathogenic bacteria and
viruses to metals and syn-
thetic organic compounds
(e.g., solvents) used in house-
holds.
Underground storage
tanks rank as the fifth great-
est threat to ground water.
West
Virginia
To obtain a copy of the West
Virginia 1990 305(b) report,
contact:
West Virginia Department
of Water and Natural
Resources
Water Resources Division
694 Winfield Road
St. Albans.WV 25177
Surface Water
Quality
Of the approximately'
28,000 stream miles in West
Virginia, 19,818 miles were
assessed for fishable/swim-
mable goals using informa-
A-38
-------
Appendix
tion and data from various
sources. The Clean Water
Act fishable/swimmable goal
was attained by approxi-
mately 93 percent of the total
miles assessed. Of the 17,456
miles assessed for use sup-
port, only 6 percent do not
support their designated
uses, 53 percent partially
support their uses and 41
percent fully support their
uses.
Of the 18,870 lake acres
assessed, 9 percent do not
support designated uses, 38
percent partially support,
and 53 percent fully support
or fully support but are
threatened. The major
causes of nonsupport in
streams and lakes are silt-
ation, mine drainage, and
nutrients. There has been
very little change in water
quality during the reporting
period. An increase in fully
supporting waters is a result
of the increase in waters
assessed.
Elevated levels of toxics
were noted in 1,466 miles of
total assessed streams. Mine
drainage contributed toxics
to an additional 2,427 stream
miles. Elevated levels of
toxics were also noted in
2,302 lake acres. Many of
these reported elevated toxic
levels are due to exceedances
of the State water quality
standard for iron.
West Virginia's wetlands
(102,000 acres) constitute
less than 1 percent of the
State's total acreage. The
State's management of these
areas is geared toward pro-
tection of wetlands either by
regulatory proceedings or
acquisition.
Specific State water qual-
ity concerns are as follows:
• Abandoned mine drain-
age is the most serious water
quality problem facing the
State, affecting at least 477
streams totaling 2,427 miles.
• Some rural areas of the
State, particularly those with
extremely depressed econo-
mies, remain unsewered.
The result is the improper
disposal of domestic sewage
into the surface and ground
water.
• The Division's labora-
tory is inadequately funded
and unable to meet the ana-
lytical needs of the numerous
water-quality-related pro-
grams.
• Development in small
watersheds must be carefully
controlled to ensure that
receiving waters are capable
of assimilating any resulting
wastewater.
• Unpermitted wood
treatment plants are using
highly toxic chemicals that
may impact both surface and
ground water.
• Approximately 65 facil-
ities have sludge disposal
needs that are not currently
approved under the Divi-
sion's sludge management
program.
The Federal Energy Regu-
latory Commission has is-
sued licenses for 16 hydro-
electric projects on the upper
Ohio basin. The potential
consequences of the develop-
ment and operation of the
hydropower projects could
cause a decline in water
quality and a reduction in
the wasteload assimilation
capabilities of the river.
Ground-Water
Quality
Approximately half of
West Virginia's citizens (53
percent) depend directly
upon the State's ground
water as a sole source of
water. The remainder
depend upon it indirectly as
it supplies stream flow dur-
ing dry weather and is also
the primary source of over
1,600 noncommunity public
water supplies (schools,
hospital, restaurants, camp-
grounds, etc.).
There have been no sub-
stantial changes in the qual-
ity of West Virginia's ground
water during the reporting
period; however, available
information from a limited
portion of the State has been
reevaluated, resulting in the
acknowledgment that West
Virginia's vital ground-water
resource has been degraded
in many areas of the State
and may not be character-
ized as of "adequate quality."
Such a conclusion is not
based on a dramatic increase
in contamination during the
current reporting period.
It is possible that 15 to 20
percent of the supplies of the
State's nearly 1 million
ground-water consumers
have been impacted in qual-
ity and/or quantity by coal
mining. And over 40 percent
of Preston County's ground-
water-dependent residents
are drinking water contain-
ing some level of bacteria.
These data may or may not
be applicable to the rest of
the State.
Wisconsin
To obtain a copy of the Wis-
consin 1990 305(b) report,
contact:
Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources
Water Quality Evaluation
Section
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
Surface Water
Quality
Wisconsin is rich in sur-
face water resources with
over 43,000 miles of rivers
and streams, nearly 15,000
inland lakes, 650 miles of
Great Lakes shoreline, and
approximately 5.3 million
acres of wetlands. During
1988-1989, overall water
quality was reported for
streams from 183 of the 331
(55 percent) delineated
watersheds and 14 major
river mainstems, 578 lakes
(132,202 acres), and 650
miles of Great Lakes shore-
line.
Of the 13,595 assessed
stream miles, approximately
62 percent fully meet the
CWA goals and 36 percent
partially meet CWA goals.
Almost 2 percent are not
meeting the goals and about
4 percent are not capable of
attaining CWA goals. All 650
miles of Wisconsin's Great
Lakes shoreline are partially
meeting CWA fishable/swim-
mable goals.
The primary water quality
problems in impaired water-
bodies are from pollution due
to agricultural practices.
There are major agricultural
source impacts on 28 percent
of the assessed stream miles;
whereas industrial and
municipal point sources are
A-39
-------
Appendix
currently responsible for
major impacts on only 2
percent of the assessed
stream miles. In Wisconsin,
there are generally very few
improvements yet to be made
to control point source water-
quality-related problems,
and those improvements are
necessary to control toxic
substances. On the other
hand, although there has
been some progress in con-
trolling nonpoint source
pollution, there is still a long
way to go before water qual-
ity improvements are evident
throughout the State.
Elevated concentrations of
toxicants are evident in 6
percent of the assessed
stream miles, primarily in
the form offish tissue and
sediment contamination.
Based on current informa-
tion, 10 stream reaches in
the State still exceed accept-
able toxicant levels due to
point source discharges.
The entire 650 miles of
Great Lakes shoreline is
affected by elevated concen-
trations of toxic substances
found primarily in fish tissue
samples. Additional toxic
substances may be intro-
duced by migrating fish that
were exposed to FOB con-
tamination in other areas of
the Great Lakes outside of
Wisconsin's jurisdiction.
Fishing and swimming are
designated uses for all Wis-
consin Lakes. Ninety-five
percent of the assessed lake
acres partially or fully sup-
port those uses and meet the
CWA goals. Metals, nutri-
ents, organic enrichment/
dissolved oxygen, and nox-
ious aquatic plants are the
major causes of nonsupport
of designated uses and CWA
goals within the selected
lakes. The most significant
toxics problem in lakes is the
presence of elevated mercury
in predator fish.
Of the 35 million acres of
land in Wisconsin, approxi-
mately 10 million acres were
originally wetlands. As of
1985, 5.3 million acres of
wetlands remained in the
State. Eecent assessments
show that 9,247 wetland
acres were lost or adversely
impacted from 1982 through
August 1989. Wetlands
water quality standards are
being drafted to provide
criteria and consistency in'
review of projects affecting
wetlands.
Ground-Water
Quality
Sixty-seven percent of
Wisconsin's residents use
ground water for drinking
water supplies. Many of the
State's industrial and agri-
cultural activities also de-
pend on ground-water
sources.
The five leading sources of
ground-water contamination
in Wisconsin are agricultural
activities, municipal land-
fills, underground storage
tanks, abandoned hazardous
waste sites, and spills. The
application, storage, and
handling of nitrogen-based
chemical fertilizers and ani-
mal wastes have resulted in
extensive nitrate contamina-
tion. Nitrate is the contami-
nant most often found to
exceed ground-water quality
standards.
Volatile organic com-
pounds (VOCs) are the most
significant contaminating
substances associated with
municipal landfills, under-
ground storage tanks, aban-
doned hazardous waste dis-
posal sites, and spills.
In addition to VOCs,
improper handling and stor-
age of pesticides are sources
of ground-water contamina-
tion. The pesticide sampling
program has identified atra-
zine and alachlor as the two
most extensively used and
commonly found pesticides.
A-40
AU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1992-617-003/67012
-------
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
401 M Street, S.W.; (WH-553)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
------- |