&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
(4503 F)
EPA 841-F-96-001
June f996
Reprint September 1996
Environmental Indicators
of Water Quality in the
United States
Fact Sheets
These fact sheets accompany the environmental indicators report.
They provide further details on the 18 environmental indicators that
measure progress toward national water goals and objectives.
The indicators were chosen through an intensive multi-year process involving
public and private partners including EPA's Office of Water in collaboration with the
Center for Marine Conservation; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;
EPA's Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation and Office of Research and Devel-
opment; the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality; Native
American Tribes; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; The Nature
Conservancy; the States; the U.S. Department of Agriculture; the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; and the U.S. Geological Survey.
-------
National Environmental Goals for Water
CLEAN WATERS: America's rivers, lakes, and coastal waters will support healthy communities offish, plants, and
other aquatic life, and will support uses such as fishing, swimming, and drinking water supply for people. Wetlands will
be protected and rehabilitated to provide wildlife habitat, reduce floods, and improve water quality. Ground waters will
be cleaner for drinking and other beneficial uses.
SAFE DRINKING WATER: Every American public water system will provide water that is consistently safe to drink.
Note: Goals taken from Environmental Goals for America With Milestones for 2005: A Proposal from the Environmental
Protection Agency. Government Review Draft. EPA 230-D-96-002. Washington, DC: USEPA. In press.
Water Objectives to Meet These Goals
Objectives are measured by indicators presented in this report
Conserve
& Enhance
Public Health
Conserve
& Enhance
Aquatic Ecosystems
Support Uses Designated by States & Tribes
in Their Water Quality Standards
Conserve and Improve
Ambient Conditions
Reduce or Prevent Pollutant Loadings
and Other Stressors
Water Management Programs and Human Activities Affect Our Waters
The objectives adopted by EPA's Office of Water and its partners are shown above. These objectives are like building blocks in a
pyramid, where success in reaching the goals at the top is dependent on successful attainment of those lower in the pyramid. For
example, by reducing pollutant loads to waters, the overall quality, or ambient condition, of the water and sediment is improved.
Consequently, the waters can support the uses designated for them by states and tribes in their water quality standards. Ultimately,
the health of both the general public and aquatic ecosystems is protected.
Indicator Data Completeness
f /
Indicators are used to show changes in environmental conditions and ar& only as good as the quality .of the measurements that
support them. The indicators presented in this report contain measurements of varying qualify. These measurement^might differ in'
precision, accuracy, statistical representativeness, and completeness. This comprehensive national report Uses data from many'
agencies. While these data sources have undergone data quality assessment by their respective agenciesJxthis first national report''
makes no attempt to describe data quality attributes other than completeness for the indicators. This repoitincludes dataoftarying
quality for two reasons: (1) the indicator describes art important, if as yet imperfect, way tg measure & national objective, and (2) /
efforts are under way to improve indicator measurements in future reports. Further details on the data used to support each indicator
are presented in individual fact sheets available from EPA in hard copy or on the Internet at the address at thf end of this report.
Each indicator graphic in this report shows the level of data completeness using the following symbols:/ „ >/ /
/ s «,
• Data consistent/safficient data collected s ,* •- 'if', ,,,
I Data somewhat consistent/additional data needed ' x
O Data need to be much more consistent/much additional data needed ' .- '
-------
Water Quality Objectives and Indicators
Objective I: Conserve and Enhance Public Health
1. Population served by community drinking water systems violating health-based requirements—Population
served by drinking water systems with one or more violations of health-based requirements.
2. Population served by unfiltered surface water systems at risk from microbiological pollution—Population
served by, and number of, systems that have not met the requirements to filter their water to remove microbio-
logical contaminants.
3. Population served by drinking water systems exceeding lead action levels—Population served by, and number
of, systems with lead levels in drinking water exceeding the regulatory threshold.
4. Source water protection—Number of community drinking water systems using ground water that have pro-
grams to protect them from pollution.
5. Fish consumption advisories—Percentage of rivers and lakes with fish that states have determined should not
be eaten, or should be eaten in only limited quantities.
6. Shellfish growing water classification—Percentage of estuarine and coastal shellfish growing waters approved
for harvest for human consumption.
Objective II: Conserve and Enhance Aquatic Ecosystems
7. Biological integrity—Percentage of rivers and estuaries with healthy aquatic communities.
8. Species at risk—Percentage of aquatic and wetland species currently at risk of extinction.
9. Wetland acreage—Rate of wetland acreage loss.
Objective III: Support Uses Designated by the States and Tribes in Their Water Quality Standards
10. Designated uses in state and tribal water quality standards
a. Drinking water supply designated use—Percentage of assessed waterbodies that can support safe drinking
water supply use, as designated by the states and tribes.
b. Fish and shellfish consumption designated use—Percentage of assessed waterbodies that can support fish and
shellfish consumption, as designated by the states and tribes.
c. Recreation designated use—Percentage of assessed waterbodies that can support safe recreation, as designated
by the states and tribes.
d. Aquatic life designated use—Percentage of assessed waterbodies that can support healthy aquatic life, as
designated by the states and tribes.
Objective IV: Conserve and Improve Ambient Conditions
11. Ground water pollutants—Population exposed to nitrate in drinking water. In the future, the indicator will
report the presence of other chemical pollutants in ground water.
12. Surface water pollutants—Trends of selected pollutants found in surface water.
13. Selected coastal surface water pollutants in shellfish—The concentration levels of selected pollutants in oysters
and mussels.
14. Estuarine eutrophication conditions—Trends in estuarine eutrophication conditions.
15. Contaminated sediments—Percentage of sites with sediment contamination that might pose a risk to humans
and aquatic life.
Objective V: Reduce or Prevent Pollutant Loadings and Other Stressors
16. Selected point source loadings to (a) surface water and (b) ground water—Trends for selected pollutants
discharged from point sources into surface water, and underground injection control wells that are sources of
point source loadings into ground water.
17. Nonpoint source loadings to surface water—Amount of soil eroded from cropland that could run into surface
waters. Future reports will include additional nonpoint source surface water pollutants as well as sources of
nonpoint source ground water pollution.
18. Marine debris—Trends and sources of debris monitored in the marine environment.
-------
Indicator 1: Population Served by Systems Violating Health-Based Requirements
POPULATION SERVED BY COMMUNITY DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS
VIOLATING HEALTH-BASED REQUIREMENTS
What does the indicator tell us?
T
his indicator displays the population provided
water in 1994 by community water systems that
violated one or more of the health-based
requirements during that year. By tracking drinking
water violations, the relative risk to humans of exposure
to harmful levels of contaminants in drinking water can
be illustrated. In 1994, more than 45 million people (19
percent of the population) were served by community
drinking water systems that violated health-based
requirements at least once during the year. This measure
is a "rough cut" indicator of potential exposure
to harmful levels of contaminants that have the
the 1986 Amendments, EPA sets national limits on
contaminant levels in drinking water to ensure that the
water is safe for human consumption. These limits are
known as Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). For
some regulations, EPA establishes treatment techniques
in lieu of an MCL to control unacceptable levels of
contaminants in water. In general, these standards or
limits are referred to as health-based requirements and
they address several areas including surface water
treatment, total coliform, lead and copper treatment, and
chemical/ radiological contamination.
potential to adversely affect public health. This
indicator does not illustrate the persistence of
contaminants in drinking water or their level
above the violation.
How will the indicator be used to
track progress?
EPA and the states regulate
approximately 200,000 public drinking
water systems that serve more than 240
million people. Public water systems are
defined as systems that provide piped water for
human consumption to at least 15 service
connections or serve an average of at least 25
people for at least 60 days each year.
Approximately 60,000 of these water systems
are known as community drinking water
systems—systems that provide water to the
same population year-round. The remaining
120,000 are noncommunity water systems that
provide drinking water for nonresidential use
(e.g., workplaces, schools, restaurants).
The concentration of contaminants in drinking
water provided by water systems to consumers
is strictly controlled by standards established to
minimize or eliminate risk to human health.
Under the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act and
INDICATOR 1: Population;Served by
Community Drinking Water Systems Violating
Health-Based Requirements
81%
Data
Completeness
Percent of Population Served by Systems with:
No reported violations 81%
Surface water treatment violations 9%
Total coliform violations 8%
Lead and copper treatment violations 1 %
Chemical/radiological contamination violations 1%
Note: As many as one-fourth of the water systems did not complete all required
monitoring. The compliance status of some of these could not be assessed from
reported data. 243 million people were served by community drinking water systems
in 1994
Source: State data in EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System, 1994
Proposed Milestone: By 2005, the population served by community water
systems in violation of health requirements will be reduced from 19 to 5 percent.
-------
Indicator 1: Population Served by Systems Violating Health-Based Requirements
When violations of health-based requirements occur,
water systems are compelled to remove the contaminants
or face penalties under EPA and state regulatory
programs. More than 80 percent of the population is
served by community water systems that reported no
violations of drinking water health-based requirements
during fiscal year 1994. EPA plans to use the newly
developed Safe Drinking Water Information System
(SDWIS) to report on the number and types of violations
reported from public water systems.
The Agency also regulates how often public water
systems monitor their water for contaminants and report
the monitoring results to the states or EPA. Generally,
the larger the population served by a water system, the
more frequent monitoring and reporting are required. In
addition, EPA requires PWSs to monitor for unregulated
contaminants to provide data on occurrences for future
regulatory development. EPA also requires PWSs to
notify the public when they have violated any of the
regulations.
What is being done to improve the
indicator?
Data quality and the process used to report on
drinking water system regulatory compliance are
critical factors in determining the quality of this
indicator. The current data quality can be improved for
many states. The Government Accounting Office and
EPA have concluded that the overall rate of
noncompliance is understated.
In an effort to improve the data used by this indicator,
EPA and the states are jointly pursuing a modernization
initiative to upgrade and improve their drinking water
information systems. EPA is replacing the Federal
Reporting Data System with SDWIS. States are now
testing the first components of SDWIS, which will
improve both data quality and reporting of violations.
With the cooperation of the states, EPA will be able to
use SDWIS to improve the oversight and management of
drinking water programs.
The objective of the SDWIS modernization is to improve
the accessibility and quality of the drinking water data
that EPA and states provide to the public. The data
available through SDWIS might allow better and more
targeted measures of the occurrence of contaminants in
drinking water by providing information on the type of
contaminant, the duration of occurrence, and the degree
to which the maximum contaminant level was exceeded.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the indicator?
EPA currently has drinking water standards in
place for 81 contaminants, and several major
new regulatory actions are in progress. EPA's
drinking water program has promulgated standards
designed to protect people from drinking water
contaminated by fecal coliform, organic and inorganic
chemicals, lead and copper, radionuclides, and by-
products from water treatment chemicals. As part of the
Safe Drinking Water Act reauthorization process, EPA
has identified activities to address the major issues
facing the drinking water program today:
• Building State Capacity to Implement Programs—
Eliminating the gap between needs and funding by
increasing federal grants while encouraging states to
seek alternative financing.
• Revising the Mandate to Add 25 New Standards
Every 3 Years—Reducing the number of regulated
contaminants to allow EPA to focus on those
contaminants which pose real, known public health
risks.
• Enacting a Source Water Protection Program—
Allowing states to ensure drinking water quality by
protecting the water at the source, thereby reducing
the amount of expensive treatment required.
• Addressing Problems Facing Small Systems—
Reducing the regulatory burden on small water
systems and providing support for building viable
water systems.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
Indicator 2: Population Served By Unfiltered Surface Water Systems
POPULATION SERVED BY UNFILTERED SURFACE WATER SYSTEMS
AT RISK FROM MICROBIOLOGICAL CONTAMINATION
What does the indicator tell us?
Drinking water systems supplied by surface
waters can sometimes withdraw water that
contains harmful levels of disease-causing
microbiological contaminants, such as Giardia
lamblia, Legionella, and viruses. Under the Surface
Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), EPA and the states
require all inadequately protected drinking water
systems using surface water sources to install
filtration and disinfection treatment to
remove these microbiological
contaminants from the drinking water.
Compliance with the rule will
dramatically reduce the probability of
human exposure to harmful levels of
microbiological contaminants from
surface water sources.
This indicator displays the population
provided water by unfiltered surface
water systems that did not comply with
the SWTR requirements that went into
effect in 1993. Over 12 million people
were provided drinking water from more
than 1,000 unfiltered community water
systems not in compliance with the
SWTR in 1993. These numbers
decreased in 1995, with approximately
9.9 million people being provided
drinking water from 400 systems not in
compliance with the rule.
How will the indicator be
used to track progress?
E
PA's Office of Ground Water
and Drinking Water, in
coordination with the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA),
will use the Safe Drinking Water Information
System (SDWIS) to track both the number of
systems in non compliance with the SWTR and the
population served by these systems. States report
this information to EPA on a quarterly basis, in
accordance with regulations governing delegation
of the drinking water program to the states.
i INDICATOR 2: Population Served by
Unfiltered Surface Water Systems at Risk
from Microbiological iPojIlution
15
10 -
a
I
5 •
Data
Completeness
1993
1,000
Systems
1994
750
Systems
1995
400
Systems
Source: State data in EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System, 1994
Proposed Milestone: By 2005, every person served by a public water system
that draws from an unprotected river, lake, or reservoir will receive drinking
water that is adequately filtered.
-------
Indicator 2: Population Served By Unfilte'red Surface Water Systems
This indicator uses the SWTR compliance program
status as a surrogate measure of the risk to the
population from using drinking water from
inadequately protected water sources. This
program evaluation is being undertaken as a pilot
project for EPA under the Government
Performance and Results Act, which requires all
federal agencies to have a strategic planning
process including clearly stated goals and
indicators to measure them.
What is being done to improve the
indicator?
Data quality and the process used to report
on drinking water system regulatory
compliance are critical factors in
determining the quality of this indicator. The
current quality of the SWTR database is
questionable in some states.
In an effort to improve the data for this indicator,
EPA and the states are jointly pursuing a
modernization initiative to upgrade and improve
their drinking water information systems. EPA is
replacing the Federal Reporting Data System with
the Safe Drinking Water Information System.
States are now testing the first components of
SDWIS, which will improve both data quality and
reporting of violations. With the cooperation of the
states, EPA will be able to use SDWIS to improve
the oversight and management of drinking water
programs.
The objective of the SDWIS modernization is to
improve the accessibility and quality of the
drinking water data that EPA and states provide to
the public. The SWTR database is now being
integrated into SDWIS, which will make data
management more efficient and improve data
quality and analyses of program performance.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the
indicator?
Through aggressive action by EPA, the
states, and the water systems themselves,
the risk of human exposure to
microbiological contaminants is being reduced.
By the end of fiscal year 1995, the number of
surface water systems not complying with the
SWTR was reduced from 1,000 to 400.
However, because most of the progress has
been made in small and medium water systems,
the population at risk has not dropped as
dramatically—from 12 million to 9.9 million.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
Indicator 3: Drinking Water Systems Exceeding Lead Levels
POPULATION SERVED BY COMMUNITY DRINKING
WATER SYSTEMS EXCEEDING LEAD ACTION LEVELS
What does the indicator tell us?
This indicator measures the population
provided water by community water systems
that have exceeded lead action levels and are
required to take corrective action. It is not a precise
predictor of the risk of exposure to the general
population provided water by the targeted water
systems. The monitoring results reflect the
situation in only the worst portions of the
distribution system and represent only the relative
probability of risk for consumers of
those targeted water systems.
How will the indicator be used to
track progress?
EPA, under its Lead and Copper Rule,
requires that water systems follow a series
of steps to reduce the likelihood of lead
entering the drinking water from distribution
system materials. Water systems are required to
monitor for lead in their distribution systems and
Based on the results of lead monitoring
through fiscal year 1995, 69.1 million
people were provided drinking water by
water systems that exceeded the action
level of 15 parts per billion (ppb) at least
once. Of that number, 42.8 million
people were provided water by systems
where sampling results showed lead
levels between 15 and 30 ppb, and 26.3
million people received water from
systems where sampling results showed
lead levels over 30 ppb, which EPA
views as a significant exceedance.
About 2.1 million people received water
from water systems where sampling
results showed lead levels greater than
130 ppb. Higher exceedances increase
the probability that people consuming
water are at risk.
INDICATOR 3: Population Served by
Community Drinking Watef Systems
Exceeding Lead Action Levels
60 -i
50-
= 40-
30-
•a
CD
tD
CO
O
•5 20
Q.
O
o.
10-
0
Data
Completeness
4,167
Systems
2,162
Systems
390
Systems
723
Systems
15-30 31-80 81-130 >130
Lead Action Level Exceedance (ppb)
Source: State data in EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System, 1995
-------
Indicator 3: Drinking Water Systems Exceeding Lead Levels
to take action when lead in more than 10 percent of
the samples taken at the tap exceeds the regulatory
action level of 15 ppb. Depending on the size and
type of the system, actions range from establishing
a public education program to implementing
corrosion control treatment or replacing lead pipes..
EPA requires large systems to install lead controls
regardless of sampling results. The lead monitoring
data for water systems exceeding the lead action
level are contained in EPA's Safe Drinking Water
Information System (SDWIS).
What is being done to improve the
indicator?
Data quality and the process used to report
on drinking water system regulatory
compliance are critical factors in
determining the quality of this indicator. This
indicator measures the results of lead monitoring
required under the Lead and Copper Rule. It shows
exceedances of an action level defined in the rule to
trigger additional actions. It is not in itself an
indicator of a drinking water standard violation.
The quality and completeness of the data for this
indicator is questionable in some states.
In an effort to improve the indicator, EPA and the
states are jointly pursuing a modernization
initiative to upgrade and improve their drinking
water information systems. EPA is replacing the
Federal Reporting Data System with the Safe
Drinking Water Information System. States are
now testing the first components of SDWIS, which
will improve both data quality and reporting of
violations. With the cooperation of the states, EPA
will be able to use SDWIS to improve the oversight
and management of drinking water programs.
The objective of the SDWIS modernization is to
improve the accessibility and quality of the
drinking water data that EPA and states provide to
the public. The new system will make reporting of
lead monitoring results more efficient and data
validation more complete.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the
indicator?
EPA estimates that 20 percent of human
exposure to lead is attributable to lead in
drinking water. Lead enters the drinking
water through pipes in the distribution system, lead
service lines, and household plumbing, including
faucets and other fixtures. Lead in drinking water,
however, is controllable through actions taken by
water systems and their customers. Under the Lead
and Copper Rule, EPA has established a series of
steps that water systems must take to reduce the
likelihood of lead entering drinking water from
distribution system materials. These steps include
corrosion control treatment and lead service line
replacement.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
Indicator 4: Source Water Protection
SOURCE WATER PROTECTION
What does the indicator tell us?
To protect drinking water sources even before
water is withdrawn by a supplier, EPA has
instituted the Source Water Protection
Program. Currently, the program protects ground
water used for drinking water by requiring the
(1) delineation of the ground water area to be
protected, (2) identification of potential sources of
contamination, (3) development of contingency
plans in case of a threat to the drinking
water source, and (4) development of
source management plans to control
potential sources of contamination.
Source water protection will be
extended to surface waters.
This indicator focuses on state progress
in implementing the critical elements of
ground water protection programs
established to protect drinking water
sources. Approximately 3,800 of the
60,000 community drinking water
systems are covered by all four parts of
the ground water protection program.
How will the indicator be
used to track progress?
The Safe Drinking Water Act
established EPA's Wellhead
Protection (WHP) program. The
WHP program requires states to develop
systematic and comprehensive programs
to protect public ground water supplies.
To measure progress toward
implementing ground water protection
programs, EPA will track local-level
implementation through the WHP
program report. States are required to
produce these reports every 2 years in an
effort to update EPA and the public on the status of
their drinking water protection programs.
These reports will help in-determining the reduction
in the number of people potentially exposed to
harmful contaminants found in ground water used
as a community drinking water source. It also will
assess the adequacy of the pollution prevention
controls that are critical to the safety of ground
water used as drinking water supplies.
INDICATOR 4:
Source Water Protection
60,000 -]
in
•§ 50,000 -
to"
co §
5 S 40,000 -
o> 2
O
Data
Completeness
30,000 -
18
o
O
"o
w
CD
E
z
20,000 -
10,000 -
IDENTIFYING
Note: Source water protection
programs for 30,000 community
drinking water systems is the
2005 milestone
18,700
7,200
TAKING ACTION
4,289
3,840
Delineations
Source
Inventories
Contingency
Planning
Source
Management
Source: State Biennial Wellhead Reports to EPA, 1993
Proposed Milestone: By 2005, 60 percent of the population served by
community water systems will receive their water from systems with source
water protection programs in place.
-------
Indicator 4: Source Water Protection
What is being done to improve the
indicator?
The 1995 guidelines for the wellhead
protection report were expanded to include
state reporting of communities relying on
surface water. This tracking mechanism will
measure not only the number of community water
systems with ground water and surface water
protection, but also the population protected. As
more states begin to establish wellhead protection
areas and implement ambient and compliance
monitoring, the information might be used to
validate the effectiveness of the source water
protection program.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the
indicator?
The goal of reducing the number of people
potentially exposed to harmful contaminants
from community drinking water supplies is
consistent with the compliance policies and
programs of the current public water system
regulatory program. Implementing source water
protection programs around water systems reflects
a new direction toward preventing pollution at the
source.
Prevention is often more cost-effective than
cleanup. This indicator might forecast dramatic
changes in current EPA policies and programs and
might alter what is expected of public water
suppliers. The outline of the new approach is
included in EPA's reauthorization
recommendations, which would provide alternative
regulatory programs for water systems in
designated source water protection areas.
Well-implemented and enforced local prohibition
ordinances can be a primary means for managing
potential contamination sources. Also, data on
maximum contaminant level violations for nitrates,
volatile organic compounds, and pesticides can be
used to illustrate the value of source water program
implementation in preventing drinking water
contamination.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
Indicator 5: Fish Consumption Advisories
FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORIES
What does the indicator tell us?
This indicator identifies the percentage of
river miles and lake acres for which fish
consumption advisories have been issued. A
total of 46 states have issued fish consumption
advisories. Information obtained by EPA's Office of
Science and Technology from state reporting
efforts indicates that one or more fish consumption
advisories have been issued for 14 percent of the
Nation's lake acres and 4 percent of the Nation's
river miles.
States issue fish consumption advisories to warn
recreational and subsistence anglers and
other members of the public of the risks
associated with consuming contaminated
noncommercial fish. A fish consumption
advisory may involve one or more of the
following warnings: (1) do not eat any
fish caught in a certain area; (2) eat only
a specified limited amount offish,
particularly if you are in a high-risk
group (e.g., pregnant women or young
children); or (3) eat fish only after
special preparation.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration
is responsible for protecting consumers
from contaminants in fish sold through
interstate commerce.
How will the indicator be
used to track progress?
States provide EPA with
information on fish consumption
advisories. EPA collects and
stores this information in the National
Listing of Fish Consumption Advisories,
which is updated annually. The
database is used to map advisories by
pollutant on a national, regional, state,
and watershed basis. It helps identify the risks
posed by a particular chemical on a geographic
basis and could be used to target control,
remediation, and risk management programs to
high-risk areas.
What is being done to improve the
indicator?
EPA is increasing the scope of the fish
advisory program to include information
on advisories for turtles, frogs, and
waterfowl. The expanded database will be known
as the National Listing of Fish and Wildlife
INDICATOR 5:
Fish Consumption Advisories
25% n
20% -
^ to
._
-------
Indicator 5: Fi^h Consumption Advisories
Consumption Advisories. Other
improvements to the information
system include listing the total
river miles and lake acres under
advisory and automatically
calculating the percentage of
waters covered by state-issued
fish consumption advisories for
37 particular contaminants,
including mercury, dioxin,
chlordane, PCBs, and DDT. In
addition, the information system
will overlay county and major
city lines and index the advisories
with a code for the stream or river
segment to enable integration of
the National Listing with other
geographic information systems.
The 1995 update will be available
on CD-ROM, diskette, or the
Internet.
Number of Fish Advisories Issued by Each State in 1995 I
(Change in number from 1994)
51-(+5)
Note: This map depicts the number of waterbodies, by state, where fish consumption advisories were in
effect in 1995 based on information reported to EPA by the states. Because of the variability of the
infoimation reported, the numbers depicted here do not reflect the geographic extent of chemical contam-
ination of fish tissue in each state nor the extent of a state's monitoring efforts. An asterisk(') denotes a
state that has issued statewide advisories for particular pollutants or types of waterbodies.
To improve the comparability and consistency of
state-issued fish consumption advisories and
accuracy in reporting, EPA has published guidance
for states to use in developing advisories and in
notifying recreational and subsistence anglers of
potential risk from contaminated fish. EPA
periodically sponsors conferences and technical
training sessions, and serves as a national clearing-
house for related information to assist states with
their fish advisory programs.
EPA also is working with the states to link
information from state agencies that issue fish
consumption advisories with the information other
state agencies provide on attainment of the fish and
shellfish consumption designated use, gathered in
compliance with section 305(b) of the Clean Water
Act. This approach should result in more
consistent information on fish consumption issues.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the
indicator?
Fish can become contaminated because of
proximity to (1) a hazardous waste site, (2) a
discharge outfall, (3) a chemical spill, (4) a
public recreation area, or (5) a nonpoint
source. Pollutants from these sources can also
collect and persist in sediment and bioaccumulate
through the food chain, becoming a potential
hazard to aquatic life and human health.
As a result, EPA is working with its partners to
place further restrictions on pollution from point
sources, clean up Superfund sites, improve
containment of accidental spills, and reduce
nonpoint source pollution. These efforts should
reduce the incidence of contaminated fish.
EPA is also developing a guidance document on
managing the risks associated with fish
consumption. The document will help states and
tribes reduce loadings of high-risk chemicals to
water and sediment. It will also provide guidance
on the types of actions that states and tribes can
take to reduce the risks to particularly susceptible
individuals.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
Indicator 6: Shellfish Growing Water Classification
SHELLFISH GROWING WATER
CLASSIFICATION
What does the indicator tell us?
This indicator shows the percentage of
classifed shellfish growing waters
nationwide where shellfish harvesting is (1)
approved (waters may be harvested for direct
marketing at all times); (2) conditionally approved
(waters do not meet the criteria for approved waters
if subjected to intermittent microbiological
pollution, but may be harvested when criteria are
met); (3) restricted (waters may be
harvested if shellfish are subjected to a
suitable purification process); and
(4) prohibited (no harvest for human
consumption at any time).
Harvest-limited classifications are
assigned to waters based on water
quality as well as management
decisions. Classifications based on
water quality are supported by sanitary
surveys that identify actual pollution
sources and water sampling data.
Management decisions include
mandatory buffer zones and wastewater
treatment plant outfalls, marinas, and
situations hi which regulations requiring
current and complete sanitary surveys
have not been met. Thus, in cases where
it is known that water quality problems
are the cause of shellfish bed closures,
this indicator could be used to determine
the area and extent of pollution.
Closures could also help determine
pollution sources with the most impact
and future problems that are likely to
occur if no action is taken.
In 1990, 17 million estuarine acres were classified,
with 63 percent approved for shellfish harvest—a 6
percent decline from 1985.'Of the other 37 percent,
termed harvest-limited acreage, 9 percent were
conditionally approved for harvest under certain
conditions, such as season, river stage, or amount
of rainfall.
INDICATORS:
Shellfish Growing Water Classification
63%
17,152,000 Acres of
Classified Shellfish Growing
Waters Nationwide
25%
9%
D Approved
H Conditionally Approved
n Restricted
• Prohibited
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1990
-------
Indicator 6: Shellfish Growing Water Classification
How will the indicator be used to
track progress?
All shellfish growing waters in the United.
States are classified using National
Shellfish Sanitation Program guidelines
developed by the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation
Commission (ISSC) to protect the health of people
who consume shellfish, such as oysters, clams, and
mussels. These guidelines are based primarily on
fecal coliform bacteria levels.
The ISSC includes representatives from states,
industry, and the federal government. Every 5
years, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), in cooperation with ISSC,
produces the National Register of Classified
Estuarine Waters, which catalogs the location,
current acreage, classifications, and the reasons for
the classifications.
What is being done to improve the
indicator?
A Ithough data on shellfish bed closures have
/\ been collected and published since 1966
JL X.for all 23 coastal states in the Register, it
was not until 1990 that the collection process
included information on the cause of harvest
restrictions. The 1995 Register, the most accurate
to date, will be released in late 1996 and will
contain data for each shellfish growing area on
(1) size, (2) location, (3) spatial extent, (4) harvest
classification, (5) reason for harvest restriction,
(6) relative abundance of the resources,
(7) contributing pollution sources, and (8) the
presence or absence of restoration activities, such
as pollutant input reduction measures.
To perform trend analyses using this indicator, a
base year must be established and data collected in
subsequent years must reflect the same parameters
and protocols used in the base year. Using 1995 as
the base year would provide the most accurate
baseline data on reasons for harvest-restricted
classifications.
This is important because harvest restricted
classifications might or might not be caused by
problems with water quality. Other reasons for
harvest restricted classifications include limited
administrative resources, areas closed or opened
for conservation purposes, or lack of a completed
sanitary survey. However, accurately collecting
data on the reasons for harvest restrictions ensures
using only those harvest restrictions resulting from
water quality problems.
In addition to the above improvements, changes
should be considered in the way that NOAA
collects Register information. Visiting all coastal
states is extremely time-consuming, labor-
ntensive, and expensive. If all states used the
same geographic information system to track all
elements of each shellfish growing water, data
gathering, processing, and analysis could occur
on a yearly basis.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the
indicator?
Shellfish are contaminated by several pollution
sources including sewage treatment plants,
industrial facilities, septic systems, and
nonpoint sources. The largest increases in
pollution of shellfish beds between 1985 and 1990
were attributed to urban runoff,, septic systems, and
boat pollution.
These increases reflect a common problem for
shellfish areas—the influence of increased tourism
and coastal development. As a result, EPA,
NOAA, and their partners will enhance the
protection of the Nation's shellfish areas by
focusing on and improving coastal zone
management efforts.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
Indicator 7: Biological Integrity of the Water
BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
What does the indicator tell us?
This indicator shows data from (1) 31 states
that currently have comprehensive
biological monitoring programs in streams
and wadeable rivers and (2) EPA's Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP),
which uses biological monitoring to evaluate
estuaries. Of those rivers and estuaries actually
assessed for biological integrity, 50 percent of
rivers and 74 percent of estuaries have
healthy aquatic communities.
Pronounced changes in these biological
communities indicate a disruption of
healthy environmental conditions and
can be useful in identifying cumulative
effects of pollutants, habitat alteration
that is difficult to see, effects from
bioaccumulative chemicals, and other
impacts that chemical monitoring does
not reveal.
•l^^H^^^^nH^HHHHHBBBI
What is being done to improve the
\nr\\natnre>
indicator?
How will the indicator be
used to track progress?
The data for rivers and streams are
based on state monitoring
programs that compare the
aquatic organisms monitored at many
locations to the expected composition,
abundance, and condition of aquatic
organisms typical of a minimally
impaired reference condition.
Information for estuaries is collected by
EMAP, which uses a sample survey
design to assess a wide area of waters.
Assessing a water for healthy biological
communities is a complex task, and the
science to do so is newer and used less
frequently than that used for chemical monitoring.
EPA and its partners are working together to
strengthen biological monitoring programs, assess
more waters, and gather better data for producing
INDICATOR 7:
Biological Integrity
100% -
o
Q.
Q.
75% -
1 8
— s
« c
.£ ="
O c
is o
5 -B 50%
> CB
T3 3
03 O^
CO ^
tf) ^^^
CO -^
•si
£
25% -
0%
O
Data
Completeness
74%
50%
Rivers
9% Assessed
Estuaries
55% Assessed
Source: EPA EMAP, 1994, and state biological monitoring data, 1992-1994
Proposed Milestone: By 2005, 80 percent of the Nation's surface waters will
support healthy aquatic communities.
-------
the indicator. Methods for biological monitoring in
lakes are not yet standardized, so there are not
enough data to confidently report the number of
lakes supporting healthy aquatic life.
This indicator could be improved by increasing the
number of estuaries and rivers assessed and by
beginning to perform lake biological assessments.
Greater consistency in monitoring techniques must
be ensured through the use of comparable methods
and assessments. This could be accomplished
through work done by the Intergovernmental Task
Force on Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM). ITFM
will also work to ensure consistency among federal
and state data needed for representative reference
conditions throughout a region.
EPA is working with states to develop methods and
guidance to quantitatively measure the biological
integrity of specific surface water types. Protocols
for wadeable rivers and streams are available, and
those for lakes are in draft form. Protocols for
monitoring estuaries, wetlands, and large rivers are
still needed.
To improve the amount and cross section of data
used to characterize biological integrity, EPA is
actively supporting states and tribes in the
comprehensive biological assessment of their
waters. EPA is also working with other federal
agencies such as the Tennessee Valley Authority
and the U.S. Geological Survey's National Water
Quality Assessment program to determine how
those data can be used to support this indicator.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the
indicator?
EPA and other federal and state agencies
recognize that while most point sources are
controlled with specific permit limits, less
visible stormwater runoff and nonpoint sources of
pollution also should be controlled. EPA and its
partners are now placing greater emphasis on
reducing the effects of habitat perturbation from
grazing, farming, stream channelization,
Indicator 7: Biological Integrity of the Water
stormwater runoff, introduction of nonnative
species, dam operations, and dredging. These
activities affect aquatic ecosystems by reducing
waterside vegetation, which provides both shade
and bank stabilization; by increasing siltation; by
scouring and removing important habitat
components; and by raising water temperatures.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
Indicator 8: Species at Risk
SPECIES AT RISK
What does the indicator tell us?
This indicator shows the percentage of
species dependent on freshwater aquatic or
wetland habitats that are at risk. Currently,
the groups of animals at greatest risk overall are
those dependent on aquatic systems. More than 60
percent of freshwater mussels and crayfish are at
risk, the highest imperilment ratio documented for
any group of plants and animals in the United
States.
How will the indicator be
used to track progress?
been assessed and ranked, and rankings are updated
as new information becomes available.
What is being done to improve the
indicator?
These conservation status ranks are not legal
categories, as are the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) listings of threatened and
endangered species. These status ranks focus on
I INDICATOR !8:
Aquatic and Wetland Species at Risk
An important part of assessing the
biological diversity and integrity
in a waterbody is determining
whether the aquatic species that should
naturally exist in the waters are actually
there and at the expected population size.
This indicator uses data from The Nature
Conservancy and the Network of State
Natural Heritage Data Centers, a public-
private network of biological inventory
and assessment programs. The biological
and conservation status of species are
assessed, and the species are ranked by
the state agency-based Heritage Network
as extinct, critically imperiled, imperiled,
vulnerable, apparently secure, or
demonstrably secure. Criteria for ranking
a given species include the number of
populations or occurrences known and
their health, the estimated number of
individuals, the distributional range and
extent of appropriate habitat, the
population and range trends, threats, and
fragility or susceptibility to these threats.
Approximately 30,000 U.S. species have
100% n
75% -
D; 50% ^
co
c
(I)
CD
Q.
25% -
0%
I
Data
Completeness
67%
65%
37%
35%
18% 18%
14%
9%
5%
tn
o
ff
jg
D_
a.
CD
o:
tn
CO
co
CD
Source: The Nature Conservancy and State Natural Heritage Data
Centers, 1996
-------
Indicator 8: Species at Risk
known biological factors, with any
individual status rank considered a
hypothesis based on the best
available information. Thus, ranks
are less precise for species with
less current inventory information.
To improve the confidence and
accuracy of the ranks, additional
inventory efforts are needed. The
indicator will also need to
distinguish between those species
that are naturally rare and those
that are imperiled because of
human induced threats. Improve-
ments to the National Wetlands
Inventory, which provides
information on wetland use by
plants, and to the Natural Heritage
Network, which covers habitat use
generally, will result in a more complete list of
wetland species and animal species habitat
information.
Although trend information, where available, is
incorporated into the assessment of these
conservation status ranks, the indicator cannot
currently show specific trends. The indicator does
not distinguish between those species that have
stable or increasing populations and those that have
declining populations. To allow the indicator to
better differentiate between cause of impediment
and population trends, additional research is needed
to carry out a trend monitoring strategy. EPA, The
Nature Conservancy, and USFWS are working
together to better integrate multiple data to support
development of a second part to this indicator that
will focus on trends.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the
indicator?
Degraded water quality and altered water
flow are considered two of the primary
threats affecting aquatic organisms and
leading to these dramatic levels of imperilment.
Any effort to prevent, control, or clean up water
pollution or maintain or restore natural flow
regimes should contribute to a decrease in species
Aquatic Species at Risk by State \
Source: The Nature Conservancy and
State Natural Heritage Data Centers, 1996
Percent Aquatic/Wetland
Species at Risk*
I > 15% E=g 10 -15%
1 5-9% I" "
* Includes species of mussels, crayfish, fishes,
amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds
at risk by providing those species with a clean and
safe habitat. More specifically, there are various
programs that target species at risk for protection.
Many of the species identified as at risk by The
Nature Conservancy and Natural Heritage Network
are also listed as threatened or endangered by
USFWS. Listing a species as threatened or
endangered guarantees that it will receive special
protection.
The Nature Conservancy itself works to protect
species at risk by determining which species are
truly vulnerable and where they exist, and by
working with partners to acquire or manage lands
and waters harboring these rarities, as well as
representative examples of ecological communities.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
Indicator 9: Wetland Acreage
WETLAND ACREAGE
What does the indicator tell us?
More than 200 million acres of wetlands
existed in the conterminous United States
during colonial times. Today, less than
half of those original wetlands remain. Many
wetlands have been converted to farmland or
dredged and filled to accommodate urban
development. Twenty-two states have lost at least
50 percent of their original wetlands; 7 of those
states have lost over 80 percent.
This indicator recognizes historical
wetland loss but focuses on wetland loss
trends. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the U.S Department of
Agriculture report that from the mid-
1970s to the mid-1980s approximately
290,000 acres of wetlands were lost
annually on non-federal lands in the
conterminous United States. During the
mid-1980s to the early 1990s this trend
slowed to about 70,000 to 90,000 acres
annually. These non-federal lands
represent about 75 percent of the
Nation's lands.
How will the indicator be
used to track progress?
This indicator uses information
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) on wetland
acreage on federal and non-federal
lands. In addition to USFWS, the
Natural Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS) reports on wetland acreage on
non-federal lands in its National
Resource Inventory. EPA will continue
to work with USFWS and NRCS to
monitor wetland loss and report improvements in
wetland acreage.
What is being done to improve the
indicator?
Although efforts to eliminate wetland loss
and realize a net gain in wetlands are under
way, wetland loss is still a problem.
Equally important, however, is the condition of
existing wetlands. Wetland monitoring programs to
INDICATOR 9:
Wetland Acreage;
600 n
400-
..
0-5
£-8
0 5
IS
|S 200
c
Data
Completeness
458
290
70-90
* mid 1950s -
mid 1970s
* mid 1970s-
mid 1980s
**mid 1980s-
early 1990s
Sources:* U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1990 (Data include federal lands)
** U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1992 (Data exclude federal lands)
Proposed Milestone: By 2005, there will be an annual net increase of at least
100,000 acres of wetlands, thereby supporting valuable aquatic life, improving
water quality, and preventing health- and property-damaging floods and drought.
-------
Indicator 9: Wetland Acreage
Historical Wetland Loss by State
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
determine whether
wetlands are healthy,
functioning systems are
still in their infancy.
Comprehensive studies of
the extent of wetland
degradation are just
beginning to assess the
condition of the
biological life that is
dependent on healthy
wetlands. To improve the
.indicator's ability to
assess wetland
conditions, efforts to
determine not only
wetland acreage but also
wetland quality will
increase.
What is being
done to improve conditions
measured by the indicator?
As awareness of the importance of wetlands
has increased, programs and initiatives to
protect them have become more prevalent.
In addition, several important trends have emerged
that have supported wetland protection programs.
Together, these programs, initiatives, and trends
have led to a decrease in wetland losses and an
increase in emphasis on wetland protection and
restoration.
The support and continuation of these efforts and
trends into the future will improve the health and
status of our nation's wetlands. Some of the efforts
and trends responsible for these improvements
include:
• Decline in the profitability of converting
wetlands for agricultural production.
• Passage of the Swampbuster provision in the
1985 and 1990 farm bills.
• Presence of Clean Water Act section 404
permit program and growth in state
management programs.
Less than 50% wetland loss in the past 200 years
50% to 79% wetland loss in the past 200 years
80% or greater wetland loss in the past 200 years
Greater public interest and support for wetland
protection and restoration.
Implementation of federal, state, and local
programs that protect and restore wetlands,
such as the Conservation Reserve Program,
Partners for Wildlife, and Reinvest in
Minnesota.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
Indicator 10a: Drinking Water Supply Designated Use
DRINKING WATER SUPPLY DESIGNATED USE
What does the indicator tell us?
This indicator shows the percentage of
assessed waterbodies that have attained the
drinking water supply use designated by
states and tribes as part of their water quality
standards. This designated use requires that water
obtained from the waterbody is safe to drink
following conventional treatment, such as
chlorination, by a water supplier.
States and tribes define their waterbodies,
monitor their quality, and report the results
to EPA, which publishes the individual and
aggregated results in the National Water
Quality Inventory. According to the 1994
Inventory, 83 percent of assessed rivers and
streams and 87 percent of assessed lakes
and reservoirs can be used safely as a
drinking water supply.
How will the indicator be
used to track progress?
The Clean Water Act requires states
and tribes (if authorized) to adopt
standards with designated uses for
waterbodies or waterbody segments. One
of these designated uses is drinking water
supply. Section 305(b) of the Clean Water
Act requires that states and tribes assess the
degree to which their surface waters
support the designated uses.
States and tribes report the results of the
assessments to EPA every 2 years through
the issuance of 305(b) Reports. Data from
the reports are then aggregated to form the
National Water Quality Inventory, which is
used to portray the status of the Nation's
waters. The results reported in the National
Water Quality Inventory will be used to track
changes in the indicator.
What is being done to improve the
indicator?
Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act
currently requires states and tribes to report
water quality monitoring results to EPA. It is
important to note that states, tribes, and other
I INDICATOR Ipaj
Drinking Water Supply Designated Use
ra
100% -,
75% -
•
.
"
I
IS
50%
25%
0%
Data
Completeness
87%
83%
Rivers
Lakes
Source: National Water Quality Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress,
1995; 17 percent of all river and stream miles (48 percent of constantly
flowing miles), 42 percent of lake and reservoir acres, and 78 percent of
estuarine square miles were assessed.
Proposed Milestone: By 2005,90 percent of the Nation's rivers, streams, lakes,
and reservoirs designated as drinking water supplies will provide water that is
safe to use after conventional treatment.
-------
Indicator 10a: Drinking Water Supply Designated Use
jurisdictions do not use identical survey methods or
criteria to assess waters, in spite of guidelines
issued by EPA and developed by the 305(b)
Consistency Workgroup, composed of 25 states, 3
tribes, and 7 federal agencies. In addition, most
states and tribes do not assess all of their
waterbodies during the 2-year 305(b) reporting
cycle, and they might even modify criteria or assess
different waterbodies every 2 years. In 1994, only
17 percent of the Nation's total river and stream
miles (48 percent of those which are constantly
flowing), 42 percent of its lake and reservoir acres,
and 78 percent of its estuaries were assessed for
overall water quality.
305(b) data used to support this indicator might not
represent general conditions in the Nation's waters
because states, tribes, and other jurisdictions often
focus on major perennial rivers, estuaries, and
public lakes with suspected pollution problems in
order to direct scarce resources to areas that could
pose the greatest risk. Many states, tribes, and
other jurisdictions lack the resources to collect
information for nonperennial streams, small
tributaries, and private ponds. This indicator does
not predict the health of these or other unassessed
waters. Because of these limitations, EPA must use
caution in comparing data between states, tribes,
and other jurisdictions, as well as between
reporting periods.
In an effort to improve future reporting, EPA is
pursuing several initiatives. First, EPA is working
with the states and tribes to better link the source
water assessment to the existing drinking water
standards and to tighten the criteria used to identify
actual or potentially impaired waters.
EPA is working with its partners to develop
monitoring and assessment approaches that will
improve state-to-state consistency in reporting.
This will provide a more accurate picture of the
Nation's waters when all of the data are aggregated
on a national basis.
EPA is working with states, tribes, and other
federal agencies to change the 305(b) reporting
cycle from 2 years to 5 years, with annual reporting
of key data for the waters assessed in each year.
This will enable comprehensive reporting of waters
meeting designated uses each 5-year period.
The 305(b) Consistency Workgroup and the
Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring
Water Quality (ITFM) are providing guidance and
assistance in an effort to improve monitoring,
assessment, and reporting.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the
indicator?
EPA's National Water Quality Inventory
shows that states identify agriculture, urban
runoff/ stormwater, and municipal point
sources as the largest pollutant sources for rivers,
lakes, and estuaries. These sources can adversely
affect drinking water supply. In addition to
continuing to control point sources, EPA and its
partners also need to control nonpoint source
pollution from both rural and urban areas.
EPA encourages states to use a place-based
watershed framework and source water protection
programs to identify the causes of water quality
degradation, to determine appropriate controls,
and to manage the control programs.
The watershed framework and source water
protection programs assist water resource
managers in reducing stresses on water quality,
such as toxic chemicals, siltation, and nutrients
from phosphate-based detergents and fertilizers,
all of which can increase the cost and reduce the
efficiency of treatment.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
Indicator 10b: Fish and Shellfish Consumption Designated Use
FISH AND SHELLRSH CONSUMPTION DESIGNATED USE
What does the indicator tell us?
This indicator shows the percentage of
assessed waterbodies that have attained the
fish and shellfish consumption use
designated by states and tribes as part of their water
qualify standards.
States and tribes define their waterbodies, monitor
their quality, and report the results to EPA, which
publishes the individual and aggregated results in
the National Water Qualify Inventory.
According to the 1994 Inventory, 95
percent of assessed rivers and streams,
82 percent of assessed lakes and
reservoirs, and 92 percent of assessed
estuaries provide fish safe for human
consumption. In addition, 74 percent of
assessed estuaries provide shellfish safe
for human consumption.
National Water Quality Inventory will be used to
track changes in the indicator.
What is being done to improve the
indicator?
S-
:
(ection 305(b) of the Clean Water Act
currently requires states and tribes to report
water quality monitoring results to EPA. It is
important to note that states, tribes, and other
How will the indicator be
used to track progress?
The Clean Water Act requires
states and tribes (if authorized) to
adopt standards with designated
uses for waterbodies orwaterbody
segments. One of these designated uses
is fish and shellfish consumption.
Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act
requires that states and tribes assess the
degree to which their surface waters
support the designated uses. The results
of the assessments are reported to EPA
every 2 years through the issuance of
305(b) Reports. Data from these reports
are then aggregated to form the National
Water Quality Inventory, which is used
to portray the status of the Nation's
waters. The results reported in the
INDICATOR 10b: Fish and Shellfish
Consumption Designated Use
100% i
CO
is
03 Z3
®-o
2 0)
«! 75% H
•£ D)
in '
-------
Indicator IQb: Fish and Shellfish Consumption Designated Use
The 305(b) Consistency Workgroup and the
Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring
Water Quality (ITFM) are providing guidance
and assistance in an effort to improve monitoring,
assessment, and reporting.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the
indicator?
EPA's National Water Quality Inventory
shows that states identify agriculture, urban
runoff/stormwater, and municipal point
sources as the largest pollutant sources for rivers,
lakes, and estuaries. These sources can contribute
to excessive levels of pollutants in fish and
shellfish. Pollutants can also collect and persist in
sediments and bioaccumulate through the food
chain, reaching excessive levels in fish and
shellfish. Hydrologic modification, resource
extraction, contaminated sediments, and natural
sources, such as atmospheric deposition, however,
also degrade water quality. In addition to
continuing to control point sources, EPA and its
partners also need to control nonpoint source
pollution from both rural and urban areas.
EPA encourages states to use a place-based
watershed framework to identify the causes of
water quality and habitat degradation, to determine
appropriate controls, and to manage the control
programs. The watershed framework assists water
resource managers in reducing stresses on water
quality, such as toxic chemicals, siltation, habitat
loss, nutrients from phosphate-based detergents
and fertilizers, and elevated water temperatures
resulting from loss of vegetative cover.
jurisdictions do not use identical survey methods or
criteria to assess waters, in spite of guidelines
issued by EPA and developed by the 305(b)
Consistency Workgroup, composed of 25 states, 3
tribes, and 7 federal agencies. In addition, most
states and tribes do not assess all of their
waterbodies during the 2-year 305(b) reporting
cycle, and they might even modify criteria or assess
different waterbodies every 2 years. In 1994, only
17 percent of the Nation's river and stream miles
(48 percent of those which are constantly flowing),
42 percent of its lake and reservoir acres, and 78
percent of its estuaries were assessed for overall
water quality.
305(b) data used to support this indicator might not
represent general conditions in the Nation's waters
because states, tribes, and other jurisdictions often
focus on major perennial rivers, estuaries, and
public lakes with suspected pollution problems in
order to direct scarce resources to areas that could
pose the greatest risk. Many states, tribes, and
other jurisdictions lack the resources to collect
information for nonperennial streams, small
tributaries, and private ponds. This indicator does
not predict the health of these or other unassessed
waters. Because of these limitations, EPA must use
caution in comparing data between states, tribes,
and other jurisdictions, as well as between
reporting periods.
In an effort to improve future reporting, EPA is
pursuing several initiatives. First, EPA is working
with the states and tribes to link the information
from state agencies that issue fish consumption
advisories with the information other state agencies
provide on use attainment.
EPA is working with its partners to develop
monitoring and assessment approaches that will
improve state-to-state consistency in reporting.
This will provide a more accurate picture of the
Nation's waters when all of the data are aggregated
on a national basis.
EPA is working with states, tribes, and other
federal agencies to change the 305(b) reporting
cycle from 2 years to 5 years, with annual reporting
of key data for the waters assessed in each year.
This will enable comprehensive reporting of waters
meeting designated uses each 5-year period.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
Indicator 10c: Recreation Designated Use
RECREATION DESIGNATED USE
What does the indicator tell us?
This indicator shows the percentage of assessed
waterbodies that have attained the swimming
and recreation use designated by states and
tribes as part of their water quality standards.
States and tribes define their waterbodies, monitor
their quality, and report the results to EPA, which
publishes the individual and aggregated results in
the National Water Quality Inventory. According
to the 1994 Inventory, 77 percent of
assessed rivers and streams, 81 percent
of assessed lakes and reservoirs, and 85
percent of assessed estuaries are safe for
swimming. In addition, 87 percent of
assessed rivers and streams, 86 percent
of assessed lakes and reservoirs, and 83
percent of assessed estuaries are safe for
other forms of recreation.
National Water Quality Inventory will be used to
track changes in the indicator.
What is being done to improve the
indicator?
S-
:
ection 305(b) of the Clean Water Act
currently requires states and tribes to report
' water quality monitoring results to EPA. It is
important to note that states, tribes, and other
INDICATOR 1Qc:
Recreation Designated Use
How will the indicator be
used to track progress?
The Clean Water Act requires
states and tribes (if authorized) to
adopt standards with designated
uses for waterbodies or waterbody
segments. One of these designated uses
is swimming and recreation. Section
305(b) of the Clean Water Act requires
that states and tribes assess the degree to
which their surface waters support the
designated uses. States and tribes report
the results of these assessments to EPA
every 2 years through the issuance of
305(b) Reports. Data from the reports
are then aggregated to form the National
Water Quality Inventory, which is used
to portray the status of the Nation's
waters. The results reported in the
100% n
\u r~
£ .2> 75%
03 £
i
So
21
O (0
•K TO
§.£
E
co
50% -
25%-
0%
Data
Completeness
87%
86%
77%
81°/c
85%
83%
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
0 Swimming D Other Recreation
Source: National Water Quality Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress,
1995; 17 percent of all river and stream miles (48 percent of constantly
flowing miles), 42 percent of lake and reservoir acres, and 78 percent of
estuarine square miles were assessed
Proposed Milestone: By 2005,95 percent of the Nation's surface waters will be
safe for recreation.
-------
Indicator 10c:j Recreation Designated Use
jurisdictions do not use identical survey methods or
criteria to assess waters, in spite of guidelines
issued by EPA and developed by the 305(b)
Consistency Workgroup, composed of 25 states, 3
tribes, and 7 federal agencies. In addition, most
states and tribes do not assess all of their waterbodies
during the 2-year 305(b) reporting cycle, and they
might even modify criteria or assess different
waterbodies every 2 years. In 1994, only 17 percent
of the Nation's river and stream miles (48 percent of
those which are constantly flowing), 42 percent of its
lake and reservoir acres, and 78 percent of its
estuaries were assessed for overall water quality.
305(b) data used to support this indicator might not
represent general conditions in the Nation's waters
because states, tribes, and other jurisdictions often
focus on major perennial rivers, estuaries, and public
lakes with suspected pollution problems in order to
direct scarce resources to areas that could pose the
greatest risk. Many states, tribes, and other
jurisdictions lack the resources to collect information
for nonperennial streams, small tributaries, and
private ponds. This indicator does not predict the
health of these or other unassessed waters. Because
of these limitations, EPA must use caution in
comparing data between states, tribes, and other
jurisdictions, as well as between reporting periods.
In an effort to improve future reporting, EPA is
pursuing several initiatives. First, EPA is working
with the states and tribes to more precisely define
their recreational uses to differentiate, at a minimum,
between contact recreation, such as swimming, and
noncontact recreation, such as boating and wading,
where immersion in the water is unlikely.
EPA is working with its partners to develop
monitoring and assessment approaches that will
improve state-to-state consistency in reporting. This
will provide a more accurate picture of the Nation's
waters when all of the data are aggregated on a
national basis.
EPA is working with states, tribes, and other federal
agencies to change the 305(b) reporting cycle from 2
years to 5 years, with annual reporting of key data
for the waters assessed in each year. This will
enable comprehensive reporting of waters meeting
designated uses each 5-year period.
The 305(b) Consistency Workgroup and the
Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water
Quality (ITFM) are providing guidance and
assistance in an effort to improve monitoring,
assessment, and reporting.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the
indicator?
EPA's National Water Quality Inventory
shows that states identify agriculture, urban
runoff/stormwater, and municipal point
sources as the largest pollutant sources for rivers,
lakes, and estuaries. The ability of a waterbody to
support recreation can be impacted by one or more
of these sources.
In addition to continuing to control point sources,
EPA and its partners also need to control nonpoint
source pollution from both rural and urban areas.
EPA encourages .states to use a place-based
watershed framework to identify the causes of
water quality degradation, to determine appropriate
controls, and to manage the control programs.
The watershed framework assists water resource
managers in reducing stresses on water quality,
such as toxic chemicals, nutrients from phosphate-
based detergents and fertilizers, and bacterial
contamination.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
indicator 10d: Aquatic Life Designated Use
AQUATIC LIFE DESIGNATED USE
What does the indicator tell us?
This indicator shows the percentage of
assessed waterbodies that have attained the
aquatic life use designated by states and tribes
as part of their water quality standards.
States and tribes define their waterbodies, monitor
their quality, and report the results to EPA, which
publishes the individual and aggregated results in the
National Water Quality Inventory. According to the
1994 Inventory, 69 percent of assessed rivers and
streams, 68 percent of assessed lakes and reservoirs,
and 70 percent of estuaries can support healthy
aquatic life.
How will the indicator be used
to track progress?
The Clean Water Act requires
states and tribes (if authorized) to
adopt standards with designated
uses for waterbodies or waterbody
segments. One of these designated uses
is aquatic life. Section 305(b) of the
Clean Water Act requires that states and
tribes assess the degree to which their
surface waters support the designated
uses. State and tribes report the results
of the assessments to EPA every 2 years
through the issuance of 305(b) Reports.
Data ftom the reports are then
aggregated to form the National Water
Quality Inventory, which is used to
portray the status of the Nation's waters.
The results reported in the National
Water Quality Inventory will be used to
track changes in the indicator.
What is being done to improve
the indicator?
Section 305(b) of the CWA
currently requires states and tribes
to report water quality monitoring
results to EPA. It is important to note
that states, tribes, and other jurisdictions do not use
identical survey methods or criteria to assess waters,
in spite of guidelines issued by EPA and developed
by the 305(b) Consistency Workgroup, composed of
25 states, 3 tribes, and 7 federal agencies. In
addition, most states and tribes do not assess all of
their waterbodies during the 2-year 305(b) reporting
cycle, and they might even modify criteria or assess
different waterbodies every 2 years. In 1994, only
17 percent of the Nation's river and stream miles (48
percent of those which are constantly flowing), 42
percent of its lake and reservoir acres, and 78 percent
of its estuaries were assessed for overall water
quality.
INDICATOR 10d:
Aquatic Life Designated Use
CO
£
-------
Indicator 10d: Aquatic Life Designated Use
305(b) data used to support this indicator might not
represent general conditions in the Nation's waters
because states, tribes, and other jurisdictions often
focus on major perennial rivers, estuaries, and
public lakes with suspected pollution problems in
order to direct scarce resources to areas that could
pose the greatest risk. Many states, tribes, and
other jurisdictions lack the resources to collect
information for nonperennial streams, small
tributaries, and private ponds. This indicator does
not predict the health of these or other unassessed
waters. Because of these limitations, EPA must use
caution in comparing data between states, tribes,
and other jurisdictions, as well as between
reporting periods.
In an effort to improve future reporting, EPA is
pursuing several initiatives. First, EPA is working
with the states and tribes to more precisely define
their aquatic life uses, such as salmon spawning in
rivers and lakes, cold freshwater habitat, warm
freshwater habitat, and marine habitat. EPA is also
working with states and tribes to better link
assessments to the particular aquatic life designated
use and to evaluate and reconcile potentially
conflicting chemical and biological data.
EPA is working with its partners to develop
monitoring and assessment approaches that will
improve state-to-state consistency in reporting.
This will provide a more accurate picture of the
Nation's waters when all of the data are aggregated
on a national basis.
EPA is working with states, tribes, and other
federal agencies to change the 305(b) reporting
cycle from 2 years to 5 years, with annual reporting
of key data for the waters assessed in each year.
This will enable comprehensive reporting of waters
meeting designated uses each 5-year period.
The 305(b) Consistency Workgroup and the
Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water
Quality (ITFM) are providing guidance and
assistance in an effort to improve monitoring,
assessment, and reporting.
In addition, EPA is working with states and tribes
to develop a guidance document to improve the
assessment of the aquatic life in our nation's waters.
The guidance will include ecological risk
assessment principles that will assist states and
tribes in identifying causes of impairment.
It will also include quantitatively based biological
criteria for different types of waterbodies and
ecological regions. The biological criteria will
assist states and tribes in determining impairment
of aquatic life. The criteria, in conjunction with
habitat assessment methods, will also provide a
more comprehensive and scientifically defensible
basis for assessing aquatic life impairment.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the indicator?
EPA's National Water Quality Inventory
shows that states identify agriculture, urban
runoff/ stormwater, and municipal point
sources as the largest pollutant sources for rivers,
lakes, and estuaries. Aquatic life may be impacted
by one or more of these sources.
Hydrologic modification, resource extraction,
contaminated sediments, and natural sources such
as atmospheric deposition, however, also impair
aquatic life uses. In addition to continuing to
control point sources, EPA and its partners also
need to control nonpoint source pollution from both
rural and urban areas.
EPA encourages states to use a place-based
watershed framework to identify the causes of
water quality degradation, to determine appropriate
controls, and to manage the control programs. The
watershed framework assists water resource
managers in reducing stresses on water quality,
such as toxic chemicals, siltation, habitat loss,
nutrients from phosphate-based detergents and
fertilizers, and elevated water temperatures
resulting from loss of vegetative cover.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
Indicator 11: Ground Water Pollutants: Nitrate
GROUND WATER POLLUTANTS: NITRATE
What does the indicator tell us?
Nitrate is the most widespread agricultural
contaminant and is a human health
concern since it can cause
methemoglobinemia, or "blue-baby syndrome."
Nitrate is also an environmental concern as a
potential source of nutrient enrichment of coastal
waters. High levels of nitrate in well water typically
indicate that pollution is seeping in from septic
tanks, animal wastes, fertilizers, municipal
landfills, or other nonpoint sources. The Safe
Drinking Water Act requires that EPA establish
federal safety standards that limit the allowable
levels of nitrate in water. This level is established at
10 milligrams per liter (mg/L).
This indicator uses information from the
1990 National Pesticides Survey to
demonstrate the number of people exposed to
nitrate concentrations above the EPA
maximum contaminant level. The survey
offers the first national look at pesticide and
nitrate contamination in rural domestic wells
and community drinking water systems. The
survey indicates that 4.5 million people were
potentially exposed to elevated levels of
nitrate from drinking water wells.
How will the indicator be used to
track progress?
Most ground water studies use
nitrate as an indicator because of
its stability and solubility in
water. Therefore, comparisons between
nitrate concentrations can be made across
many of these studies. It is also convenient
to use nitrate concentration to track changes
in ground water quality because it is a
primary health-based drinking water
standard. The lack of ambient ground water
monitoring networks, however, hampers the
tracking of any definitive trends on a national
basis.
EPA will continue to review and analyze the data
from public drinking water programs. It will also
investigate the many studies conducted by the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), other federal agencies,
states, and local authorities that apply to existing
conditions and threats to the quality of ground
water. Those studies on nitrate contamination, as
well as studies using other contaminants (e.g.,
pesticides and organic compounds) as indicators of
ground water quality, will be used to update this
indicator.
The modernization of the Safe Drinking Water
Information System (SDWIS) and water quality
monitoring data from EPA's Storage and Retrieval
(STORET) systems will provide additional data to
INDICATOR11 !
Ground Water Pollutants: Nitratel
of People Potentially Exposed to Nitrat
ound Water at Levels above 10 mg/L
to
0
co
ro
O
Data
Completeness
3.0
1.5
Rural
Domestic
Wells
Community
Water
System
Wells
Source: National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking Water Wells, 1990.
Proposed Milestone: By 2005, the number of Americans served by community
and rural water wells containing high concentrations of nitrate, which can cause
illness, will be reduced.
-------
Indicator 11: Ground Water Pollutants: Nitrate
track sources of ground water contamination. SDWIS
provides data on how well drinking water systems are
meeting safety standards.
What is being done to improve the
indicator?
Information on ground water quality is usually
obtained from the monitoring of known or
suspected contamination sites or from specific
studies that monitor for various contaminants in
limited areas. However, available data do not always
provide an accurate representation of ambient ground
water quality or an indication of the extent and
severity of ground water contamination problems. In
addition, there is considerable difficulty in using the
results of ground water studies to project both the
degree of contamination on a national level and
decreases in the population served by contaminated
systems. In the meantime, the best available source of
ground water data is studies of drinking water
supplies. Ultimately, however, this indicator should
measure ground water quality directly. Achieving this
will require the development and implementation of
monitoring strategies and programs at the local, state,
and regional levels.
EPA encourages states to conduct ground water
monitoring and to build comprehensive monitoring
programs through integration of existing efforts aimed
at characterizing the overall quality of ground water
resources. This will help develop a national picture of
the needs and progress of ground water protection
efforts. More research and development are also
needed on the natural and human-induced factors
affecting ground water quality and monitoring, as well
as the selection of the best indicators. Agencies at all
levels of government must address problems in their
monitoring efforts, collect the most useful data for
their own applications, and achieve the most
economical use of their monitoring investment.
EPA also strongly encourages states, through the
National Water Quality Inventory and the
Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water
Quality, to assess selected aquifers or hydrogeologic
settings to provide a more meaningful interpretation of
ground water within the states. It is anticipated that as
states develop and implement ground water
monitoring plans, programs, and collection
mechanisms, information will become more uniform
and trends in ground water quality in states, regions,
and the Nation can be evaluated more reliably.
In the future, to provide a more accurate picture of
overall ground water quality, this indicator might
include other contaminants as well as other uses of
the ground water resource.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the indicator?
To prevent the contamination of ground water,
both the Clean Water Act and the Safe
Drinking Water Act, along with other federal
laws, establish requirements for states and tribes to
actively protect their ground water. Unfortunately, our
knowledge of the extent and severity of ground water
contamination is incomplete. Other than drinking
water suppliers regulated by EPA, few keep detailed
monitoring records. However, with more states
recognizing the need to establish ambient ground
water monitoring programs, drinking water data using
samples from the distribution system or blended
samples from various wells will be relied on less to
obtain good-quality information.
The challenge for ground water includes protecting
ground water—particularly wells that supply public
water systems—from pollution and helping the public
better understand the ways in which it becomes
polluted. Much of this effort will be supported by
voluntary implementation of local or regional
management strategies by cooperating agencies.
Expanded ambient and site-specific monitoring can
target known or suspected pollution sources, yielding
valuable information on ground water quality.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
Indicator 12: Surface Water Pollutants
SURFACE WATER POLLUTANTS
What does the indicator tell us?
This indicator shows changes in
concentration levels for selected surface
water parameters. Using data from the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), currently the
indicator presents six parameters USGS
monitored in rivers and streams: dissolved
oxygen, dissolved solids, nitrate, total
phosphorus, fecal coliform, and suspended
sediments. For example, from 1980
to 1989 USGS monitoring data from
select National Stream Quality
Accounting Network stations showed
no change in nitrate concentration
levels in 86 percent of the stations, a
downward trend in 8 percent, and an
upward trend in 6 percent.
not include all of the parameters being
measured by the loading .indicator (Indicator
16a). EPA and its partners intend to track the
following list of parameters for both this
ambient indicator and for the loadings
indicator.
How will the indicator be
used to track progress?
This indicator is intended to
track, over time, the group of
parameters that we have
identified as significant pollutants in
our rivers, streams, lakes, estuaries,
and coastal waters. This is a measure
of ambient surface water quality,
ambient meaning the quality of waters
in general, as opposed to waters at a
specific point impacted by an
identified pollutant.
What is being done to
improve the indicator?
T
he information displayed by
this indicator covers only
rivers and streams and does
INDICATOR 12:
Surface Water Pollutants
Trends in River and
Stream Water Quality
1980 -1989
Data
Completeness [
11%
87%
2%
Suspended Sediment
Fecal coliform
Total phosphorus
Nitrate
Dissolved solids
Dissolved Oxygen
13%
84%
3%
22%
73%
5%
8%
86%
6%
14%
78%
8%
6%
85%
9%
324 Total
Stations
313 Total
Stations
410 Total
Stations
344 Total
Stations
340 Total
Stations
424 Total
Stations
50%
100%
% of Stations Showing Changes
in Concentration Levels
Downward trend
No trend
Upward trend
Note: The presence of an upward trend indicates an increase in the concentration
of a particular constituent while a downward trend indicates a decrease in the
concentration. Analyses were made on data from USGS National Stream Quality
Accounting Network stations. Trend data for phosphorus is from 1982-1989.
Source: U.S. Geological Survey, 1990
-------
Indicator 12: Surface Water Pollutants
Toxic Pollutants
• Cadmium
• Copper
• Lead
• Mercury
• Phenol
• Total residual
chloride
Conventional Pollutants
• Ammonia
• BOD
• Nitrogen (and nitrate)
• Pathogens
• Phosphorus
• Suspended solids
These parameters would provide the basis for the
national indicator providing general information on
changes in the measurements taken in surface
waters.
EPA will work with its partners, particularly states,
tribes, USGS, and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), to more
accurately and consistently assess and report the
data collected. Data sources that can be used for
reporting this indicator are the USGS databases
(particularly for rivers and streams); EPA's Storage
and Retrieval information system (STORET),
which contains state, USGS, and other data, for all
surface waters; and NOAA for coastal waters.
Partners will need to work together to determine the
best method for aggregating, interpreting, and
presenting the information for this indicator. Once
agreement is reached, guidance can be provided to
those collecting the data to ensure the data's quality
and accuracy.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the
indicator?
This indicator provides only the general
chemical information with which to assess
national water quality conditions. The
chemical information must be used along with
physical and biological information (Indicator 7) to
provide a holistic picture of water quality.
However, this indicator does provide general trends
for specific pollutants of concern and general water
quality conditions, and it can indicate where
additional action to control chemical impacts is
necessary. For example, EPA and its partners
might need to upgrade treatment at sewage
treatment plants or industrial facilities, or
recommend best management practices or policies
to control nonpoint sources and address ambient
water quality problems.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
Indicator 13: Selected Coastal Surface Water Pollutants
SELECTED COASTAL SURFACE WATER
POLLUTANTS IN SHELLRSH
What does the indicator tell us?
This indicator shows the percent change in
concentration levels from 1986/87 to
1992/93 of six pollutants in shellfish
(oysters and mussels) collected from about 140
locations along the Nation's coastline. The
pollutants shown are six of the toxic chemicals of
greatest concern in terms of their effects on the fish
and other organisms in U.S. estuaries.
Three metals and three groups of
organic chemicals are included. The
metals copper, mercury, and lead are
commonly used in our society for a
number of purposes. The use of two of
the organic chemicals included in this
indicator, the DDT pesticides and the
industrially important polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), was very common
until about 20 years ago, and although
these chemicals are now banned, they
can still be found in the environment.
The carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) are common
constituents of oil and are also produced
by the burning of coal and wood.
As shown in the graph, concentration
levels of DDT and PCBs decreased
substantially from 1986/87 to
1992/93. During the same time period,
concentration levels of lead and mercury
showed evidence of a moderate decrease
and increase, respectively, while copper
showed little change. From 1988 to
1989 levels of PAHs also showed little
change.
How will the indicator be used to
track progress?
Data on these pollutant levels have been
gathered by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
since 1986. A survey to continue to measure the
levels at the established study locations is being
carried out every 2 years to furnish additional
points for establishing trends in pollutant levels.
INDICATOR 13: Selected Coastal Surface
Water Pollutants in Shellfish I
70% -i
50% -
en 30% -
co en
S =? 10%-
CO CO
CD CO
T- en
as
£
u
Q.
-30%
-50%
-70%
O
Data
Completeness
4.6%
IH3
9.1%
-9.3%
-41.9%
3.6%
-53.8%
Copper Mercury Lead DDT PCB PAH
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1995
-------
Indicator 13: Selected Coastal Surface Water Pollutants
What is being done to improve the
indicator?
Additional results are being gathered as
explained above. As part of NOAA's
National Status and Trends monitoring
program, additional chemicals (e.g., dioxin) are
being added to the pollutants measured as concerns
regarding these chemicals are identified.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the
indicator?
A number of control measures, such as
eliminating the addition of lead to gasoline,
forbidding the use of DDT and PCBs, and
strengthening the requirements for removal of
pollutants from treatment plant effluents, have been
enacted over the past 25 years.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
Indicator 14: Estuarine Eutrophication Conditions
ESTUARINE EUTROPHICATION CONDITIONS
What does the indicator tell us?
This indicator shows changes in specific constituents
related to water quality that together can be used to
assess the extent of eutrophication within an estuary,
and thus assess its health and condition. Eutrophication is a
process by which a body of water begins to suffocate from
receiving more nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, than
it can handle. The excess nutrients fuel the heavy growth of
microscopic aquatic plants. As these plants die and decompose,
the supply of dissolved oxygen in the water is depleted and its
availability to other aquatic organisms, especially those which
live on the bottom, is reduced. Symptoms of eutrophication
include low levels of dissolved oxygen, extensive algal blooms,
fish kills and reduced populations offish and shellfish, high
turbidity in the water, and diebacks of seagrasses and corals.
Monitoring the changes in parameters such as chlorophyll a,
nitrogen, and other nutrient concentrations; concentrations of
dissolved oxygen; and the spatial coverage of seagrasses (or
submerged aquatic vegetation) helps assess whether estuarine
and coastal waters are receiving too many nutrients.
This indicator shows trends in eutrophication-related conditions
from the 1960s to 1995 in selected estuaries throughout the
country as measured by two different data sets. The nationwide
framework for the indicator of estuarine eutrophication is
NOAA's National Estuarine Inventory. The 129 estuaries
contained in the inventory represent a consistent and complete
framework for characterizing the Nation's estuarine resource
base. NOAA is collecting information on 16 eutrophication-
rclatcd water quality parameters for each estuary in the
inventory through a knowledge-based consensus process with
over 400 estuarine scientists. In 1990, NOAA estimated that
nearly half the Nation's estuaries were susceptible to
eutrophication. In 1992, NOAA initiated its National Estuarine
Eutrophication Survey to evaluate which estuaries had
problems in the following regions: North Atlantic (16
estuaries), Mid-Atlantic (22 estuaries South Atlantic (21
estuaries), Gulf of Mexico (36 estuaries), and the West Coast
(34 estuaries).
This indicator also uses data from EPA's National Estuary
Program (NEP). Currently, there are 28 estuaries around the
country in the NEP. In many of these estuaries, state and local
managers have identified eutrophication and excess nutrients as
critical problems. NEPs are collecting historical and baseline
monitoring information to assess the effectiveness of corrective
actions being undertaken. Taken together, the NOAA and EPA
efforts will provide the most comprehensive and complete
information base possible for the foreseeable future.
How will the indicator be used to track
progress?
Based on data collected from mailed survey responses,
individual interviews, and regional workshops in
January 1995 and February 1996, NOAA compiled
information on eutrophication trends from 1974 to 1995 and
existing eutrophication conditions in estuaries in the Mid-
Atlantic and South Atlantic regions. NOAA will be releasing a
summary report of this information in mid-1996. The
remaining regions will be completed later in 1996. Data will be
collected and an indicator estimation made every 5 years.
For the NEP data, those NEPs which have identified
eutrophication or its parameters as priority problems will
develop monitoring plans to (1) evaluate trends in key
variables, (2) link the observed patterns to specific management
actions, and (3) provide information to redirect and refocus
actions based on monitoring results. Because it is difficult to
establish immediate causal relationships between specific
actions and environmental change, NEP monitoring plans try to
reinforce the understanding that tracking progress depends on a
INDICATOR 14: !
Estuarine Eutrophication Conditions
NOAA DATA
Submerged
Aquatic
Chlorophylla Nitrogen Anoxia vegetation
Hudson River
Delaware Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Neuse River
St. Johns River
Biscayne Bay
Trends observed from 1974 to 1995
• I353 | i
worse fHHfl better no
re»M | I
Note: EPA and NOAA data should not be compared.
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1996
-------
INDICATOR 14:
Estuarine Eutrophication Conditions
Indicator 14- Estuarine Eutrophication Conditions
EPA DATA
Submerged
Aquatic
Chlorophyll a Nitrogen Anoxia Vegetation
Massachusetts Bays
Long Island Sound
Delaware Inland Bays
Albemarle-Pamlico
Sounds
Tampa Bay
Barataria-Terrebonne
m
1960s to 1995
better
no trend
Inot known
Note: EPA and NOAA data are not comparable. For EPA's NEP data, collection periods
varied from IS to 30 years, seasonal or short-term trends are not reflected, and individual
NEPs are not comparable.
Source: Data from EPA's National Estuary Program, 1996
commitment to long-term data collection. At the national
level, EPA has published examples of NEPs that have
developed a "Bay Quality Index," which offers a suite of
parameters and conditions, including eutrophication, that can be
used to capture a composite picture of an estuary's overall
quality and major components. -Tracking the extent and
changes in eutrophic conditions helps to highlight the water
quality impacts of activities in a watershed and gauge the
effectiveness of pollution controls and other management
actions.
What is being done to improve the
indicator?
Despite a variety of monitoring efforts by many different
organizations and agencies, including EPA and
NOAA, data on eutrophication parameters for most
estuaries in the NEP are either incomplete or not comparable.
Differences in monitoring parameters, methods, and sampling
stations and periods make it difficult to establish trends even
within a single estuary. Factors such as seasonality, spatial
relationships, and level of monitoring effort also affect the
interpretation and value of data. These difficulties are
compounded when comparisons are made between different
estuaries because each estuary responds to the stress of excess
nutrients based on its own physical and biological
circumstances.
NOAA has attempted to address this problem by applying a
consistent survey technique to characterize the scale and scope
of past and present eutrophication levels. NOAA has also
initiated a process for improving the indicator that involves
interviews and workshops at the local and regional levels.
NOAA is planning a national eutrophication workshop later in
1996. The workshop will determine the best way to aggregate
parameters estimated for each estuary into an overall indicator.
For the NEP data, EPA will participate with NOAA in its
national workshop and facilitate the inclusion of data collected
by individual estuary programs. By working together, NOAA,
individual NEPs, and EPA hope to improve the availability of
nationwide information on eutrophication and other indicators
in the NEP. The integration of NOAA and EPA data into a
single, unified indicator marks the beginning of these efforts.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the indicator?
Control of nutrients is a critical factor in preventing
eutrophication. Approaches for controlling nutrients
range from expensive engineering to simple prevention
and maintenance, hi Long Island Sound, for example, effluent
from wastewater treatment plants is the primary nutrient source,
and many facilities have begun retrofitting their processes to
remove nitrogen. In contrast, in other areas controlling fertilizer
runoff from farms, residences, and managed greenways such as
golf courses is the most effective solution. Yet other
communities are establishing more stringent zoning or
encouraging the use of denitrifying septic systems to reduce
nitrogen loadings to ground water. What these approaches have
in common is a process that reflects local conditions by
carefully identifying the sources of nutrients, calculating their
contributions to specific water-quality problems, and working
with a variety of tools to reduce their impacts.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
Indicator 15: Contaminated Sediments
CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS
What does the indicator tell us?
This indicator shows the chemicals or
chemical groups that are measured most
frequently at concentrations that might cause
adverse ecological or human health effects at a
particular site. EPA and others determine
concentration levels potentially causing risk by
examining the results of field surveys, laboratory
toxicity tests, and studies of the chemical's
behavior in the environment and in
living tissue.
Certain types of chemicals in water tend
to settle and collect in sediment.
Chemicals in sediment often persist
longer than those in water, in part
because they tend to resist natural
degradation and in part because
conditions might not favor natural
degradation. Also, these contaminants
accumulate at distinct locations in
sediment but will disperse in water.
When present at elevated concentrations
in sediment, pollutants can be released
back to water or accumulate in fish and
shellfish and move up the food chain. In
both cases, excessive levels of chemicals
in sediment might become hazardous to
aquatic life and humans.
EPA collects and analyzes sediment and
fish tissue data from state, EPA regional,
and other monitoring programs as part
of the National Sediment Inventory
(NSI). The goals of the NSI are to
survey data regarding sediment quality
nationwide, identify locations that are
potentially contaminated, and describe
the sources of contaminants responsible for
contamination.
Environmental managers can use NSI data and
assessments to determine the potential extent and
severity of contamination and to identify areas that
require closer inspection. In time, NSI data and
assessments will reveal trends and help measure
progress in minimizing risk.
INDICATOR 1.5:
Contaminated Sediments
PCBs
22%
Data
Completeness
Detected
37%
Not
Deteote
63%
Percentage of
measurements
of sediment
(including fish
tissue)
contaminant
levels that
indicate
potential risk
to ecological
and human
health by
chemical or
chemical
group.
Source: National Sediment Inventory from
EPA's Office of Science and Technology, 1993
Proposed Milestone: By 2005, point sources of contamination will be controlled
in 10 percent of the watersheds where sediment contamination has been
determined to be widespread.
-------
How will the indicator be used to
track progress?
EPA will report to Congress every 2 years on
the condition of the Nation's sediments. As
the NSI grows to include information on more
locations and future measurements, EPA and other
stewards of environmental quality will gain a better
idea of the full extent of contaminated sites and
whether conditions have improved or worsened on the
whole and at single sites.
EPA's current assessment of sediment quality in the
Nation is based largely on chemical concentrations in
sediment and in the edible portion of fish that do not
migrate and tend to live near sediment. These
measures allow EPA assessors to determine the
probability that contaminants at the site might cause
adverse effects on aquatic life or human health. EPA
classifies sites as having a higher probability of
adverse effects, an intermediate probability of adverse
effects, or no indication of potential adverse effects
based on available data.
EPA's assessments can provide a national perspective
and indicate the potential contamination problems at
specific locations. However, site classification based
on NSI data cannot substitute for additional study or
application of knowledge at the regional, state, and
local levels.
What is being done to improve the
indicator?
Future assessments based on NSI data will
benefit from the collection of a greater quantity
of information addressing conditions at more
locations. Although the NSI currently has data
representing over 20,000 locations, this coverage
represents only 11 percent of the Nation's rivers,
lakes, and coastlines. EPA will continue to coordinate
with the regional offices, states, tribes, and others to
identify and compile additional data.
EPA is committed to using state-of-the-art assessment
methods to determine whether sediment at a site poses
a risk to ecological or human health. EPA has
consulted extensively with experts within the Agency
and has commissioned outside scientific review panels
Indicator 15:' Contaminated Sediments
to examine its methods. EPA will continue to
promote research and improve assessment methods
as scientific knowledge in this relatively new field
expands.
EPA will also make NSI data and assessments
available to all interested individuals and
organizations by placing data and summary reports
on the Internet at EPA's World Wide Web site.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the
indicator?
EPA assessors can use the NSI to demonstrate
the scope of contaminated sediments
nationwide and to identify watersheds where
further efforts are needed to address potentially
serious contamination problems. Further assessment
might indicate the need for pollution prevention or
remediation. Environmental managers can use
pollution prevention and control approaches to reduce
point and nonpoint source discharges containing
those types of contaminants which accumulate in
sediment. This will enable some contaminated
systems to recover naturally.
Where short-term risks and effects can be tolerated,
the preferred treatment of a contaminated site is to
implement prevention measures and source controls
and to allow natural processes, such as natural
degradation and the deposition of clean sediment, to
diminish risk associated with the site. At sites where
these measures will not reduce risk in an acceptable
time frame, EPA might seek remediation under the
appropriate statutory authority.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
Indicator 16a: Selected Point Source Loadings to Surface Water
SELECTED POINT SOURCE LOADINGS TO SURFACE WATER
What does the indicator tell us?
This indicator presents the change in point
source loadings from 1990 to 1995 for two key
pollutants—biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD) and lead. The indicator shows whether the
amount of contaminant being discharged increased,
decreased, or remained stable for each state. The
results show that the majority of states are showing a
decrease in these point source loads.
How will the indicator be used to
track progress?
Information about these pollutants is
contained in EPA's Permit Compliance
System (PCS). The states report to
EPA loadings numbers for those facilities
permitted through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
The NPDES permitting process sets limits
on the amount of discharge or the amount
of contaminant contained in a discharge
from facilities that discharge wastewater
directly to a waterbody through a point
source like a pipe.
What is being done to
improve the indicator?
While the information displayed
under this indicator covers only
lead and BOD, many point sources
contaminate our surface waters, many
contaminants have been identified as a priority
of particular concern, and PCS has
information on many more. EPA and its
partners have chosen several toxic and
conventional pollutants to track as indicators
of progress toward reducing point source
pollution. In the future, this indicator should
include all the pollutants in the following list:
Toxic Pollutants
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Phenol
Total residual
chloride
Conventional Pollutants
Ammonia
BOD
Nitrogen (and nitrate)
Pathogens
Phosphorus
Suspended solids
INDICATOR 16a: Selected Point Source
| Loadings to Surface Water ;
100%
80% -
60% -
40% -
S.
20% -
Data
Completeness
• Significantly increasing loads (<100%)
B Increasing loads
ffl Stable loads
n Decreasing loads
42%
44%
Biochemical
Oxygen
Demand
Source: Permit Compliance System, 1995
Lead
Proposed Milestone: By 2005, annual pollutant discharges from key point
sources that threaten public health and aquatic ecosystems will be reduced by
3 billion pounds, or 28 percent.
-------
Indicator 16a: Selected Point Source Loadings to Surface Water
In addition to including more
contaminants in the future, other
issues need to be addressed to
improve the indicator. Although
the number of NPDES permitted
facilities remains fairly
consistent, the contaminants
covered by these permits can
change. For example, the number
of permits limiting lead in 1990
was 2,630, but this number
increased to 4,134 in 1995.
Therefore, comparison between
1990 and 1995 lead loadings can
be misleading.
In addition, some facilities,
especially smaller facilities, do
not consistently report the results
of point source monitoring to
PCS, while other facilities discharging
contaminants of concern are not required to relay
discharge information to PCS. EPA is working
with its partners to more accurately and
consistently report this indicator so that it presents
a true picture of the amount and severity of point
source loads nationally. EPA will take actions that
address (1) changes in permitting requirements
from year to year, (2) inconsistent reporting from
facilities required to submit discharge data,
(3) facilities not required to report discharge data
but still responsible for releasing contaminants to
receiving waters, and (4) differing chemical
composition among contaminants in the same
general category.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration has developed the Typical Pollutant
Concentration (TPC) matrix, which will estimate
point source loadings from dischargers based on the
type of activity that occurs at the facility. USGS
and EPA are working closely with NOAA to
determine how best to use the TPC methodology
with an improved PCS system to help ensure
accurate, consistent reporting of this indicator.
EPA also plans to provide guidance to regional and
state permit writers on how to enter data more
accurately and consistently into PCS to help
facilitate improved reporting of this indicator.
Point Source Loading Trends in the United States j
LEAD
I I Amount of pollutant load is decreasing
BJJS3 Amount of pollutant load Is remaining stable
Amount of pollutant load Is increasing
^H Amount of pollutant load Is increasing significantly
E2 Insufficient data
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Point source discharges of lead and BOD from
permitted facilities between the years 1990 and
1995 were compared to determine if the overall
discharges in a state were increasing or decreasing.
Source: State data in EPA's Permit Compliance System
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the
indicator?
For surface waters, the major point sources of
pollution are sewage treatment plants,
industrial facilities, and "wet-weather"
sources like combined sewer overflows (CSOs),
sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), and stormwater.
Sewage treatment plants treat and discharge
wastewater from homes, public buildings,
commercial establishments, stormwater sewers, and
some industries. Many industrial facilities treat and
discharge their own wastewater. Combined sewers
combine stormwater and sewage in the same
system and can overflow directly to waterbodies
without treatment during periods of intense rainfall.
EPA will continue to permit and regulate these
facilities to continue to reduce pollution from point
sources.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
Indicator 16b: Sources of Point Sdurce Loadings to Ground Water
SOURCES OF POINT SOURCE LOADINGS THROUGH CLASS V
WELLS TO GROUND WATER
What does the indicator tell us?
This indicator characterizes industrial
wastewater discharges to freshwater aquifers
through shallow disposal wells, particularly
septic systems. EPA considers septic systems to be
Class V injection wells, subject to regulatory
control, unless they are small and receive only
sanitary wastes. Recent studies suggest that
probably 10 percent of septic systems in
the United States release as much as 4
million pounds of industrial waste each
year—enough to contaminate trillions of
gallons of drinking water. By 2005,
EPA plans to reduce the number of
pounds of ethylene glycol and other
industrial wastes discharged through
septic systems to zero.
How will the indicator be
used to track progress?
What is being done to improve the
indicator?
Septic systems are designed to treat solely
sanitary wastes. However, some
manufacturing and commercial businesses
place their industrial wastes directly into the
ground through a dry hole or cesspool or direct
them into their septic tanks. Either way, the
INDICATOR 16b: Sources of'Point SoUrce
; Loadings Through Class V Wells;
to Ground Water
This indicator serves as a
barometer of the effectiveness of
a comprehensive Class V strategy
initiated by EPA in 1995. EPA will
determine the reduction in pollutant
loadings from the number of septic
systems that are "closed," that is, no
longer injecting any industrial fluids to
the subsurface. EPA will use Class V
data from annual reports provided by
EPA-approved state Underground
Injection Control (UIC) programs. EPA
will also conduct a special study to
verify the number of systems reported
closed, particularly in community
wellhead protection areas.
O
Data
Completeness
5 8
M O
2,500 -i
2,000 -
1,500 •
=• 1,000 -
500 -
2,400
Note: As well closures
increase, loadings or
discharges to ground
water decrease.
500
1989-1991
1992-1995
Source: EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, 1995
Proposed Milestone: By 2005, wellhead protection areas and vulnerable ground
water resources will no longer receive industrial wastewater discharges from
septic systems.
-------
Indicator 16b: Sources of Point Source Loadings to Ground Water
untreated waste might eventually find its way to a
water-table aquifer. Contamination of freshwater
aquifers can result in serious and costly
consequences to public health and the environment,
including onset of waterborne disease, expensive
ground water remediation, loss of private and
public domestic drinking water supplies, and
degradation of aquatic ecosystems, wetlands,
watersheds, and coastal zones.
Although the misuse of septic systems is a
nationwide concern, the threat is not immediately
obvious because it occurs, unseen, in the
subsurface. The biggest problem is that Class V
data on the actual volume of industrial waste
released to ground water is currently speculative.
For example, no one knows how many septic tanks
are being misused. The results presented by the
Class V indicator should be interpreted with
caution until the data quality can be improved.
Future EPA toxic release reports will distinguish
between classes of injection wells. Currently,
Class V waste release data are extrapolated from
random sampling of typical high-risk wells. Class
V data should improve as EPA's strategy for the
comprehensive management of Class V wells
proceeds and public awareness develops.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the
indicator?
EPA has documented Class V contamination
of drinking water supplies across the United
States (e.g., Colorado, Florida, Montana,
New Hampshire; New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, and Washington). The EPA UIC program
works with other federal agencies and state, tribal,
and local governments to adequately manage this
major source of pollution as part of source water
protection programs, which will be developed for
30,000 community water supplies by the year 2005.
This strategy recognizes that to reduce new high-
risk injection practices, EPA will have to (1) raise
public awareness through education and outreach;
(2) provide technical assistance; (3) forge federal,
state, and local government partnerships; (4) enlist
the involvement of industry; and (5) support
voluntary compliance initiatives. EPA will rely
less on regulation, penalties, and other traditional
approaches to permitting and enforcement, which
are inadequate to deal with large numbers of
shallow wastewater disposal wells with a potential
to contaminate underground sources of drinking
water.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
Indicator 17: Nonpoint Source Sediment Loadings from Cropland
NONPOINT SOURCE SEDIMENT
LOADINGS FROM CROPLAND
What does the indicator tell us?
Nonpoint source pollution is derived from a wide
range of sources, including agriculture,
forestry, hydromodification, onsite wastewater
disposal, and construction sites. No single indicator can
fiilly capture the extent of nonpoint sources and their
impacts on the aquatic environment, but sediment
delivery from cropland is a reasonably good indicator of
the degree to which nonpoint source pollution is
prevented on agricultural lands.
The NRI is a multi-resource inventory based on soils
and other resource data collected at scientifically
selected random sampling sites. The NRI covers the
48 coterminous states, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the
U.S. Virgin Islands, but excludes Alaska. Data for the
1992 NRI were collected at more than 800,000
locations by USDA field personnel and resource
inventory specialists.
This indicator presents rates of erosion
from agricultural cropland. From 1977 to
1992, the amount of sediment eroded from
cropland decreased by about 750 million
tons. Rates of erosion from cropland are an
indirect indicator of the delivery of
sediment to surface waters. Many given
watershed, however, the reliability of
erosion rates as predictors of sediment
loads is dependent on the extent to which
sediment is contributed by other sources,
such as gully or streambank erosion.
How will the indicator be
used to track progress?
In the absence of direct measures of
nonpoint source pollution, it is
necessary to estimate national
nonpoint source loadings. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
estimates soil erosion with field
measurements and statistical models, such
as the universal soil loss equation. USDA
tracks and reports progress in reducing
erosion rates on the Nation's agricultural
lands through the National
Resourceslnventory (NRT), which is
conducted every 5 years.
INDICATOR 17: Nonpoint Source Sedirrjent
Loadings from Cropland j
2,000 -
I 1,500
1
LLJ
§5 "5"
Eg
1.1 1,000
to ;=.
DC
500-
1,926
O
Data
Completeness
1,725
1,505
1,185
1977 1982 1987
Source: USDA, National Resource Inventory, 1992
1992
Proposed Milestone: By 2005, the annual rate of soil erosion from agricultural
croplands will be reduced 20 percent from 1992 levels to a total of 948 million
tons per year.
-------
Indicator 17: Nonpoint Source Sediment Loadings from Cropland
Change In Average Annual Soil Erosion by Wind and Water on Cropland
and Conservation Reserve Program Land, 1982 -1992
Note: The 1992 NRI combines inform-
ation on the status, .condition, and trends
of the Nation's soil, water, and related re-
sources. Information is available for 3
years: 1982,1987, and 1992.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Inventory, 1993
In addition, USDA will provide
ecosystem-based assistance to
landowners in the future. This
effort will include a focus on
reducing the offsite delivery of
sediment and associated
pollutants.
What is being done to improve the
indicator?
Other national measures of nonpoint source
pollution are under consideration and might
be developed as more national data are
made available. Another possible approach for
examining nonpoint source loading focuses on
selected watersheds. A combined approach, using
both national and selected .watershed studies, will
be considered as improvements to the current
indicator are pursued.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the
indicator?
The control of erosion and sedimentation
from cropland is achieved by landowners
and managers, often with the assistance of
local, state, and federal technical experts. EPA will
continue to work with representatives from USDA,
state agencies, and local soil and water
conservation districts to encourage the adoption of
erosion and sediment control practices, such as con-
servation tillage, on agricultural cropland.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
indicator 18: Marine Debris
MARINE DEBRIS
What does the indicator tell us?
The marine debris indicator includes trash left
behind by visitors to the beach, discarded
from boats, carried by inland waterways to
the coast, or conveyed by overflowing sewer or
storm systems. As an indicator, marine debris can
be useful in ascertaining (1) early warning signs of
possible human health risk associated with
pollution, (2) biological health risk such as
entanglement or ingestion by wildlife,
(3) limits on coastal recreation and
fishing, (4) the effectiveness of
programs to control or prevent marine
debris, (5) the aesthetic value of a
coastal area and the economy it
supports, (6) ambient conditions, and
(7) human health risks through
entanglement, injury, or exposure to
medical waste.
How will the indicator be
used to track progress?
To measure this indicator a total of
20 survey sites in each of nine
regions of the United States will
be sampled. Volunteers will sample each
site monthly for a period of 5 years,
measuring the status and trends of 30
specific debris items. The program has
been designed to answer two specific
questions:
1. Is the amount of debris on our
coastlines decreasing?
2. What are the major sources of the
debris?
§
LU
3-
=
8
42
2-
1 -
Even though this is a national survey, trend analysis
will be computed for each region. Regional
analyses can be combined to get a national picture
of marine debris.
The National Marine Debris Monitoring Program is
currently being coordinated by the Center for
Marine Conservation (CMC) and is supported by
EPA, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the
National Park Service, and the U.S. Coast Guard.
INDICATOR 18:
Marine Debris
Data
Completeness
3.2
2.9
2.8
2.8
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Note: Data in this graph are variable by number of'beaches cleaned,
number of volunteers participating, and weather conditions on the day of
cleanup.
Source: Center for Marine Conservation, 1995.
-------
Indicator 18: Marine Debris
What is being done to improve the
indicator?
EPA chairs an inter-agency workgroup that
includes representatives from NOAA, the
U.S. Park Service, the U.S. Coast Guard,
and other federal organizations. The workgroup
has developed a statistically valid methodology for
monitoring the trends and sources of marine debris.
Monitoring efforts using this methodology began in
1996, and currently are being coordinated by CMC
with support from EPA and other federal agencies.
Data obtained from these efforts will be used as a
baseline for this indicator.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the
indicator?
Marine debris causes harm to marine life,
damages boats, endangers human health,
and can cripple coastal economies. More
than 255 species of animals are known to ingest or
become entangled in marine debris. Marine debris
disables fishing and recreational boats by engaging
propellers or clogging cooling water intakes.
The economic impacts of marine debris on coastal
communities has been demonstrated by beach
closures in New York and New Jersey in 1987 and
1988 due to medical wastes washing up on the
beaches. As more is learned about the sources of
marine debris, regulatory efforts (e.g., the
International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships (MARPOL Annex V) and
stormwater permits) can be implemented to reduce
the flow of debris into the marine environment. In
addition, public education can be used to improve
the environment. EPA and CMC have both
developed a marine debris curricula for teachers
and fact sheets for the public and industry.
Marine debris clean-up efforts can also help to
reduce the risk of marine entanglement through
removal of debris. CMC conducts annual beach
clean-up events that engage tens of thousands of
volunteers. In addition, CMC's Million Points of
Blight program is a storm drain stenciling project
that reminds people that what they dump into the
streets or down drains ends up in the connected
waterway. Prevention is the best solution.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
-------
-------
-------
Comments on the indicator fact sheets and
requests for copies of the report should be
sent to the address below:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
Mail Code 4503F
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
ial
lty
6»
S-CD
2 <=
^ to
-o =
=. CD
I"
g
ed States
ronmental P
3F)
hin
I
o'
3
------- |